[27] And so liars do not speak aloud when they come to this part. Some of them falter and speak indistinctly, others as if they themselves did not know but spoke from hearsay. He, however, who speaks the truth, does so without fear or reserve. Now Homer was not straightforward or frank when telling of the abduction of Helen or the fall of Troy. Nay, with all that boldness which I have said he had, he nevertheless flinched and weakened because he knew he was telling the reverse of the truth and falsifying the essential part of his subject.
[28] αὐτὸ τοῦ πράγματος ψευδόμενος. ἢ πόθεν μᾶλλον ἄρξασθαι ἔπρεπεν ἢ ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἀδικήματος καὶ τῆς ὕβρεως τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου, [p. 123] δἰ ἣν συνέστη ὁ πόλεμος, ἐπειδὴ συνωργίζοντο ἂν πάντες οἱ τῇ ποιήσει ἐντυγχάνοντες καὶ συνεφιλονίκουν ὑπὲρ τοῦ τέλους καὶ μηδεὶς ἠλέει τοὺς Τρῶας ἐφ᾽ οἷς ἔπασχον: οὕτω γὰρ εὐνούστερον καὶ προθυμότερον ἕξειν ἔμελλε τὸν ἀκροατήν.
[28] Or at what point of the story might Homer have more properly begun than with Paris’ wanton crime itself, which caused the war, since all the readers of his poem would then have joined in indignation and would have been eager for the outcome, and no one would have pitied the sufferings of the Trojans? For by so doing Homer would have been assured of a more sympathetic and interested audience.
[29] εἰ δ᾽ αὖ ἐβούλετο τὰ μέγιστα καὶ φοβερώτατα εἰπεῖν καὶ πάθη παντοδαπὰ καὶ συμφοράς, ἔτι δὲ ὃ πάντων μάλιστα ἕκαστος ἐπόθει ἀκοῦσαι, τί μεῖζον ἢ δεινότερον εἶχεν εἰπεῖν τῆς ἁλώσεως; οὔτε ἀνθρώπους πλείους ἀποθνήσκοντας οὐδὲ οἰκτρότερον τοὺς μὲν ἐπὶ τοὺς βωμοὺς τῶν θεῶν καταφεύγοντας, τοὺς δὲ ἀμυνομένους ὑπὲρ τῶν τέκνων καὶ τῶν γυναικῶν, οὔτε γυναῖκας ἢ παρθένους ἄλλοτε ἀγομένας βασιλίδας ἐπὶ δουλείᾳ τε καὶ αἰσχύνῃ, τὰς μὲν ἀνδρῶν, τὰς δὲ πατέρων, τὰς δὲ ἀδελφῶν ἀποσπωμένας, τὰς δέ τινας αὐτῶν τῶν ἀγαλμάτων, ὁρώσας μὲν τοὺς φιλτάτους ἄνδρας ἐν φόνῳ κειμένους καὶ μὴ δυναμένας ἀσπάσασθαι μηδὲ καθελεῖν τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, ὁρώσας δὲ τὰ νήπια βρέφη πρὸς τῇ γῇ παιόμενα ὠμῶς,
[29] If, on the other hand, he wished to describe the greatest and most terrible things, all forms of suffering and calamity, and, further, to tell what everybody was yearning above all things to hear, what greater or more awe-inspiring subject could he have chosen than the capture of the city? He could not have found an event in which a greater number of people met their death or where with greater pathos men fled to the altars of their gods or fought to save their children and wives, where royal matrons and maidens were dragged away to slavery and disgrace in foreign parts, some torn from their husbands, some from their fathers, others from their brothers, and some even from the holy images, while they beheld their beloved husbands weltering in their blood and yet were unable to embrace them or to close their eyes, and beheld their helpless babes dashed cruelly to earth.
[30] οὔτε ἱερὰ πορθούμενα θεῶν οὔτε χρημάτων πλῆθος ἁρπαζόμενον οὔτε κατ᾽ ἄκρας ὅλην ἐμπιμπρα μένην τὴν πόλιν οὔτε μείζονα βοὴν ἢ κτύπον χαλκοῦ τε καὶ πυρὸς τῶν μὲν φθειρομένων, τῶν δὲ ῥιπτουμένων: ἃ τὸν Πρίαμον πεποίηκε λέγοντα ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον ὡς ἐσόμενα, ἃ τυχὸν αὐτῷ ὡς γιγνόμενα διελθεῖν, ὅπως ἐβούλετο καὶ μεθ᾽ ὅσου τἄλλα εἰώθει δείματος,
[30] Think, too, of the desecration of the sanctuaries of the gods, the plundering of stores of wealth, the whole city burnt to the very ground by the flames, the mighty cries of men, the clash of bronze, the roar of the flames as some were perishing in them and others were being hurled upon them. These things Homer makes Priam speak of as soon to come to pass, though he could perhaps have related them as actual events in any way that pleased him and with all that horror with which he was accustomed to describe other slaughters, thrilling the listener and magnifying the smallest details.
[31] ἐκπλήττων τε καὶ αὔξων τὰ μικρότατα. εἰ δέ γε ἤθελεν ἀνδρῶν ἐπισήμων εἰπεῖν θάνατον, πῶς ἀπέλιπε τὸν τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως καὶ τὸν τοῦ Μέμνονος καὶ Ἀντιλόχου καὶ Αἴαντος καὶ αὐτοῦ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου; πῶς δὲ τὴν Ἀμαζόνων στρατείαν καὶ τὴν μάχην ἐκείνην τὴν λεγομένην τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως καὶ τῆς Ἀμαζόνος γενέσθαι καλὴν οὕτως καὶ παράδοξον;
[31] If it was his wish to tell of the death of illustrious men, how is it that he omitted the slaying of Achilles, Memnon, Antilochus, Ajax, and of Paris himself? Why did he not mention the expedition of the Amazons and that battle between Achilles and the Amazon, which is said to have been so splendid and so strange?
[32] ὁπότε τὸν ποταμὸν αὐτῷ πεποίηκε μαχόμενον ὑπὲρ τοῦ λέγειν τι θαυμαστόν, ἔτι δὲ τοῦ Ἡφαίστου καὶ τοῦ Σκαμάνδρου μάχην καὶ τῶν ἄλλων θεῶν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, τροπάς τε καὶ ἥττας καὶ τραύματα ἐπιθυμῶν ὅ, τι εἴποι μέγα καὶ θαυμαστόν, ὑπὸ ἀπορίας πραγμάτων τοσούτων ἔτι καὶ τηλικούτων [p. 124]
[32] Yet he represented the river as fighting with Achilles just for the sake of telling a marvellous tale, and also the battle between Hephaestus and the Scamander, and the mutual discomfitures, defeats, and woundings of the other gods, desiring something great and wonderful to say because he was at a loss for facts, though so many important facts were still left untouched.
[33] ἀπολειπομένων. ἀνάγκη οὖν ἐκ τούτων ὁμολογεῖν ἢ ἀγνώμονα Ὅμηρον καὶ φαῦλον κριτὴν τῶν πραγμάτων, ὥστε τὰ ἐλάττω καὶ ταπεινότερα αἱρεῖσθαι, καταλιπόντα ἄλλοις τὰ μέγιστά τε καὶ σπουδαιότατα, ἢ μὴ δύνασθαι αὐτόν, ὅπερ εἶπον, ἰσχυρίζεσθαι τὰ ψευδῆ, μηδ᾽ ἐν τούτοις ἐπιδεικνύναι τὴν ποίησιν ἃ ἐβούλετο κρύψαι
[33] So from what has been said it must be acknowledged that Homer was either unintelligent and a bad judge of the facts, so that he selected the more unimportant and trivial things and left to others the greatest and most impressive, or else that he was unable, as I have said, to bolster up his falsehoods and show his poetic genius in handling those incidents whose actual nature it was his purpose to conceal.
[34] ὅπως γέγονεν. οὕτως γὰρ καὶ ἐν Ὀδυσσείᾳ τὰ μὲν περὶ τὴν Ἰθάκην καὶ τὸν θάνατον τῶν μνηστήρων αὐτὸς λέγει, τὰ δὲ μέγιστα τῶν ψευσμάτων οὐχ ὑπέμεινεν εἰπεῖν, τὰ περὶ τὴν Σκύλλαν καὶ τὸν Κύκλωπα καὶ τὰ φάρμακα τῆς Κίρκης, ἔτι δὲ τὴν εἰς ᾄδου κατάβασιν τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως, ἀλλὰ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἐποίησε διηγούμενον τοῖσπερὶ τὸν Ἀλκίνοον: ἐκεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ περὶ τὸν ἵππον καὶ τὴν ἅλωσιν
τῆς Τροίας διεξιόντα τὸν Δημόδοκον ἐν ᾠδῇ δι᾽ ὀλίγων ἐπῶν.
[34] We find this in the Odyssey also. For he tells of events in Ithaca and of the death of the suitors in his own person, but has not ventured to mention the greatest of his falsehoods — the story of Scylla, of the Cyclops, the magic charms of Circe, and further, the descent of Odysseus into the lower world. These he makes Odysseus narrate to Alcinous and his court, and there too he had Demodocus recount the story of the horse and the capture of Troy in a song of only a few lines.
[35] δοκεῖ δέ μοι μηδὲ προθέσθαι ταῦτα τὴν ἀρχήν, ἅτε οὐ γενόμενα, προϊούσης δὲ τῆς ποιήσεως, ἐπεὶ ἑώρα τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ῥᾳδίως πάντα πειθομένους, καταφρονήσας αὐτῶν καὶ ἅμα χαριζόμενοστοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖς Ἀτρείδαις πάντα συγχέαι καὶ μεταστῆσαι τὰ πράγματα εἰς τοὐναντίον. λέγει δὲ ἀρχόμενος,
μῆνιν ἄειδε, θεά, Πηληιάδεω Ἀχιλῆος
οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγἐ ἔθηκε,
πολλὰς δ᾽ ἰφθίμους ψυχὰς ἄϊδι προΐαψεν
ἡρώων: αὐτοὺς δὲ ἑλώρια τεῦχε κύνεσσιν
οἰωνοῖσί τε πᾶσι: Διὸς δ᾽ ἐτελείετο βουλή.
[35] As it seems to me, he had made no provision for these incidents at all inasmuch as they never occurred; but as his poem grew, and he saw that men would readily believe anything, he showed his contempt for them and his desire withal to humour the Greeks and the Atreidae, by throwing everything into confusion and reversing the outcome. At the beginning he says,
“O Goddess! sing the wrath of Peleus’ son,
Achilles; sing the deadly wrath that brought
Woes numberless upon the Greeks, and swept
To Hades many a valiant soul, and gave
Their limbs a prey to dogs and birds of air,
For so had Jove appointed.”
[36] ἐνταῦθά φησι περὶ μόνης ἐρεῖν τῆς τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως μήνιδος καὶ τὰς συμφορὰς καὶ τὸν ὄλεθρον τῶν Ἀχαιῶν, ὅτι πολλὰ καὶ δεινὰ ἔπαθον [p. 125] καὶ πολλοὶ ἀπώλοντο καὶ ἄταφοι ἔμειναν, ὡς ταῦτα μέγιστα τῶν γενομένων καὶ ἄξια τῆς ποιήσεως, καὶ τὴν τοῦ Διὸς βουλὴν ἐν τούτοις φησὶ τελεσθῆναι, ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ συνέβη: τὴν δὲ ὕστερον μεταβολὴν τῶν πραγμάτων καὶ τὸν τοῦ Ἕκτορος θάνατον, ἃ ἔμελλε χαριεῖσθαι, οὐ φαίνεται ὑποθέμενος, οὐδὲ ὅτι ὕστερον ἑάλω τὸ Ἴλιον: ἴσως γὰρ οὐκ ἦν πω βεβουλευμένος ἀναστρέφειν ἅπαντα.
[36] In these verses he says that he will sing of the wrath of Achilles alone, and the hardships and destruction of the Achaeans, that their sufferings were many and terrible, that many perished and remained unburied, as though these were the chief incidents and worthy of poetic treatment, and that therein the purpose of Zeus was accomplished; all of which did indeed come to pass. But the subsequent shift of events, including the death of Hector, which was likely to please his hearers, he did not have in his original plan, nor the final capture of Ilium. For perhaps he had not yet planned to turn everything upside down,
[37] ἔπειτα βουλόμενος τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπεῖν τῶν κακῶν, ἀφεὶς τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον καὶ τὴν Ἑλένην περὶ Χρύσου φλυαρεῖ καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θυγατρός. ἐγὼ οὖν ὡς ἐπυθόμην παρὰ τῶν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ ἱερέων ἑνὸς εὖ μάλα γέροντος ἐν τῇ Ὀνούφι, ἄλλα τε πολλὰ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καταγελῶντος ὡς οὐθὲν εἰδότων ἀληθὲς περὶ τῶν πλείστων, καὶ μάλιστα δὴ τεκμηρίῳ τούτῳ χρωμένου ὅτι Τροίαν τέ εἰσι πεπεισμένοι ὡς ἀλοῦσαν ὑπὸ Ἀγαμέμνονος καὶ ὅτι Ἑλένη συνοικοῦσα Μενελάῳ ἠράσθη Ἀλεξάνδρου: καὶ ταῦτα οὕτως ἄγαν πεπεισμένοι εἰσὶν ὑφ᾽
[37] but later, when he wishes to state the cause of the sufferings, he drops Paris and Helen, and babbles about Chryses and that man’s daughter.
I, therefore, shall give the account as I learned it from a certain very aged priest in Onuphis, who often made merry over the Greeks as a people, claiming that they really knew nothing about most things, and using as his chief illustration of this, the fact that they believed that Troy was taken by Agamemnon and that Helen fell in love with Paris while she was living with Menelaus; and they were so thoroughly convinced of this, he said, being completely deceived by one man, that everybody actually swore to its truth.
[38] ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς ἐξαπατηθέντες ὥστε καὶ ὀμόσαι ἕκαστος. ἔφη δὲ πᾶσαν τὴν πρότερον ἱστορίαν γεγράφθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοῖς, τὴν μὲν ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς, τὴν δ᾽ ἐν στήλαις τισί, τὰ δὲ μνημονεύεσθαι μόνον ὑπ᾽ ὀλίγων, τῶν στηλῶν διαφθαρεισῶν, πολλὰ δὲ καὶ ἀγνοεῖσθαι τῶν ἐν ταῖς στήλαις γεγραμμένων διὰ τὴν ἀμαθίαν τε καὶ ἀμέλειαν τῶν ἐπιγιγνομένων: εἶναι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα ἐν τοῖς νεωτάτοις τὰ περὶ τὴν Τροίαν: τὸν γὰρ Μενέλαον ἀφικέσθαι παρ᾽ αὐτοὺς καὶ διηγήσασθαι ἅπαντα ὡς ἐγένετο.
[38] My informant told me that all the history of earlier times was recorded in Egypt, in part in the temples, in part upon certain columns, and that some things were remembered by a few only as the columns had been destroyed, while much that had been inscribed on the columns was disbelieved on account of the ignorance and indifference of later generations. He added that these stories about Troy were included in their more recent records, since Menelaus had come to visit them and described everything just as it had occurred.
[39] δεομένου δέ μου διηγήσασθαι, τὸ μὲν πρῶτον οὐκ ἐβούλετο, λέγων ὅτι ἀλαζόνες εἰσὶν οἱ Ἕλληνες καὶ ἀμαθέστατοι ὄντες πολυμαθεστάτους ἑαυτοὺς νομίζουσι: τούτου δὲ μηθὲν εἶναι νόσημα χαλεπώτερον μήτε ἑνὶ μήτε πολλοῖς ἢ ὅταν τις ἀμαθὴς ὢν σοφώτατον ἑαυτὸν νομίζῃ. τοὺς γὰρ τοιούτους τῶν ἀνθρώπων μηδέποτε δύνασθαι τῆς ἀγνοίας ἀπολυθῆναι.
[39] When I asked him to give this account, he hesitated at first, remarking that the Greeks are vainglorious, and that in spite of their dense ignorance they think they know everything. He maintained that no affliction more serious could befall either individual or community than when an ignoramus held himself to be most wise, since such men could never be freed from their ignorance.
[40] οὕτως δέ, ἔφη, γελοίως ἀπὸ τούτων διάκεισθε ὑμεῖς ὥστε ποιητὴν ἕτερον Ὁμήρῳ πεισθέντα καὶ ταὐτὰ πάντα ποιήσαντα περὶ Ἑλένης, Στησίχορον, ὡς οἶμαι, τυφλωθῆναί φατε ὑπὸ τῆς Ἑλένης, ὡς ψευσάμενον, αὖθις δὲ ἀναβλέψαι τἀναντία ποιήσαντα. καὶ ταῦτα λέγοντες [p. 126]
[40] “And so ludicrous an effect have these men had upon you,” he continued, “that you say of another poet — Stesich
orus, I believe it is — who followed Homer’s account and repeated these same stories about Helen, that he was struck blind by her as a liar and recovered his sight upon recanting. And though you tell this tale, you none the less believe that Homer’s account is true.
[41] οὐδὲν ἧττον ἀληθῆ φασιν εἶναι τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν καὶ ἀκούοντες τὸν μὲν Στησίχορον ἐν τῇ ὕστερον ᾠδῇ λέγειν ὅτι τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲ πλεύσειεν ἡ Ἑλένη οὐδαμόσε, ἄλλους δέ τινας ὡς ἁρπασθείη μὲν Ἑλένη ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου, δεῦρο δὲ παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἀφίκοιτο καὶ τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἀμφισβητουμένουκαὶ πολλὴν ἄγνοιαν ἔχοντος, οὐδὲ οὕτως ὑποπτεῦσαι δύνανται τὴν ἀπάτην.
[41] You say, too, that Stesichorus in his palinode declared that Helen never sailed off to any place whatsoever, while certain others say that Helen was carried off by Paris but came to us here in Egypt. Yet with all this uncertainty and ignorance surrounding the matter you cannot even thus see through the deception.”
[42] τούτου δὲ αἴτιον ἔφη εἶναι ὅτι φιλήκοοί εἰσιν οἱ Ἕλληνες: ἃ δ᾽ ἂν ἀκούσωσιν ἡδέως τινὸς λέγοντος, ταῦτα καὶ ἀληθῆ νομίζουσι, καὶ τοῖς μὲν ποιηταῖς ἐπιτρέπουσιν ὅ,τι ἂν θέλωσι ψεύδεσθαι καί φασιν ἐξεῖναι αὐτοῖς, ὅμως δὲ πιστεύουσινοἷς ἂν ἐκεῖνοι λέγωσι, καὶ μάρτυρας αὐτοὺς ἐπάγονται ἐνίοτε περὶ ὧν ἀμφισβητοῦσι: παρὰ δὲ Αἰγυπτίοις μὴ ἐξεῖναι μηδὲν ἐμμέτρως λέγεσθαι μηδὲ εἶναι ποίησιν τὸ παράπαν: ἐπίστασθαι γὰρ ὅτι φάρμακον τοῦτο ἡδονῆς ἐστι πρὸς τὴν ἀκοήν. ὥσπερ οὖν οἱ διψῶντες οὐδὲν δέονται οἴνου, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπόχρη αὐτοῖς ὕδατος πιεῖν,οὕτως οἱ τἀληθῆ εἰδέναι θέλοντες οὐδὲν δέονται μέτρων, ἀλλ᾽
Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom Page 214
