[79] But the case would be different if you had given exemption from taxes, money, land, or some other such thing and were now taking it away — then perhaps those who would have received such an exemption afterwards would indeed suffer a greater wrong; for the man who has held such things for any length of time has received benefit and advantage therefrom already. But in the case of an honour conferred there is nothing like this. For whereas the former are better off for the future as well, since what they acquired then is the source of wealth which they enjoy now; the others, on the contrary, find that they have suffered an actual diminution of their honours. For in the one case the loss is less because the men have enjoyed the usufruct for a long time, but in the other case the dishonour is greater, since the victims are being deprived of a very ancient honour.
[80] ὅτι τοίνυν οὐδὲ ἀσεβείας ἀπήλλακται τὸ γιγνόμενον μάλιστα, ὃν οὗτοί φασι τρόπον, κἂν ὑπερβολῆς ἕνεκα δόξω τισὶ λέγειν, οὐχ, ὡς πρότερον εἶπον, ὅτι πάντα ἁπλῶς ἀσεβήματά ἐστι τὰ περὶ τοὺς τεθνεῶτας γιγνόμενα, ἀλλὰ ὅτι καὶ πάντες ἥρωας νομίζουσι τοὺς σφόδρα παλαιοὺς ἄνδρας, κἂν μηδὲν ἐξαίρετον ἔχωσι, δι᾽ αὐτὸν οἶμαι τὸν χρόνον. τοὺς δὲ δὴ σεμνοὺς οὕτως καὶ τῶν μεγίστων ἠξιωμένους, ὧν ἔνιοι καὶ τὰς τελετὰς ἐσχήκασιν ἡρώων, τοὺς τοσαῦτα ἔτη κειμένους, ὥστε καὶ τὴν μνήμην ἐπιλελοιπέναι, πῶς ἔνι τῆς αὐτῆς τυγχάνειν προσηγορίας ἧς οἱ τεθνηκότες ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν ἢ μικρὸν ἔμπροσθεν, ἄλλως δὲ μηδενὸς ἄξιοι φανέντες;
[80] And that the present practice is not free from impiety either, especially in view of the way these men describe it, I shall now prove, even if some will think that I speak with intent to exaggerate — not, as I said before, because offences committed with reference to the dead are all without exception acts of impiety, but also because it is generally believed that the men of very ancient times were semi-divine, even if they have no exceptional attribute, simply, I presume, on account of their remoteness in time. And those who are so highly revered and have been held worthy of the highest honours, some of whom actually enjoy the mystic rites given to heroes, men who have lain buried so many years that even the memory of them has disappeared — how can they possibly be designated in the same way as those who have died in our own time or only a little earlier, especially when these latter have not shown themselves worthy of any honour?
[81] καὶ μὴν τά γε εἰς τοὺς ἥρωας ἀσεβήματα οὐδ᾽ ἂν ἀμφισβητήσειεν οὐδεὶς ὡς οὐχὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει τάξιν ἣν τὰ περὶ τοὺς θεούς. τί οὖν; οὐκ ἀδίκημά ἐστι τὸ τὴν μνήμην ἀναιρεῖν; τὸ τὴν τιμὴν ἀφαιρεῖσθαι; τὸ ἐκκόπτειν τὸ ὄνομα; δεινόν γε καὶ σχέτλιον, ὦ Ζεῦ. ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὲν στέφανόν τις ἀφέλῃ τὸν μίαν ἴσως ἢ δευτέραν μενοῦντα ἡμέραν, ἢ κηλῖδά τινα τῷ χαλκῷ προσβάλῃ, τοῦτον ἡγήσεσθε ἀσεβεῖν: τὸν δὲ ὅλως ἀφανίζοντα καὶ μετατιθέντα καὶ καταλύοντα τὴν δόξαν οὐδὲν ποιεῖν ἄτοπον;
[81] And assuredly, acts of impiety toward the heroes everyone would agree without demur should be put in the same class as impiety toward the gods. Well then, is it not a wrongful act to blot out their memory? To take away their honour? To chisel out their names? Yes, it is a shame and an outrage, by Zeus.
[82] ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὲν δοράτιον ἐξέλῃ τις ἐκ τῆς χειρὸς ἢ κράνους ἀπορρήξῃ τὸν λόφον ἢ τὴν ἀσπίδα τοῦ βραχίονος ἢ χαλινὸν ἵππου, τῷ δημοσίῳ τοῦτον εὐθὺς παραδώσετε, καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπομενεῖ τιμωρίαν τοῖς ἱεροσύλοις, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει καὶ πολλοὶ τεθνήκασι διὰ τοιαύτας αἰτίας, καὶ πλέον οὐδὲν λέγουσιν αὐτοῖς ὅτι τῶν ἀνωνύμων τινὰ καὶ σφόδρα παλαιῶν ἐλωβήσαντο εἰκόνων: δημοσίᾳ δὲ ἡ πόλις τῷ παντὶ χείρων καὶ φαυλοτέρα φανεῖται περὶ τοὺς ἥρωας;
[82] But if anyone removes a crown that will last perhaps one or two days, or if one puts a stain on the bronze, you will regard this man guilty of impiety; and yet will you think that the man who utterly blots out and changes and destroys another’s glory is doing nothing out of the way? Why, if anyone takes a spear out of a statue’s hand, or breaks the crest off his helmet, or the shield off his arm or a bridle off his horse, you will straightway hand this man over to the executioner, and he will suffer the same punishment as temple-robbers — just as many undoubtedly have already been put to death for such reasons — and they give them no more consideration because it is one of the nameless and very old statues they have mutilated. Then shall the city in its official capacity prove altogether worse and more contemptible in the treatment of its heroes?
[83] καὶ τοίνυν ἐὰν εἴπῃ τις εἰσελθὼν ὅτι πεφώραταί τις ξένος ἢ καὶ πολίτης ἢ χεῖρα ἢ δάκτυλον ἀφαιρῶν ἀνδριάντος, βοήσεσθε καὶ παραχρῆμα ἐπιθεῖναι κελεύσετε ἐπὶ τὸν τροχόν. καίτοι χειρὸς μὲν ἀφαιρεθείσης ἢ δόρατος ἢ φιάλης, ἐὰν τύχῃ κρατῶν, ἡ τιμὴ μένει καὶ τὸ σύμβολον ἔχει τῆς ἀρετῆς ὁ τιμηθείς, ὁ δὲ χαλκὸς μόνος ἐλάττων γέγονεν: τῆς δὲ ἐπιγραφῆς ἀνῃρημένης [p. 244] ἀνῄρηται δήπουθεν ἡ μαρτυρία καὶ τὸ δοκεῖν ἄξιον ἐπαίνου γεγονέναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον.
[83] Again, if a person comes in and says that some stranger or even citizen has stolen either a hand or a finger that he has taken from a statue, you will raise an outcry and bid him be put to the torture forthwith. Yet, even though the statue has been deprived of a hand or a spear, or a goblet if it happens to be holding one, the honour remains and the man who received the honour retains the symbol of his merits; it is the bronze alone that has suffered a loss. But when the inscription is destroyed, obviously its testimony has also been destroyed that the person in question is “considered to have shown himself worthy of approbation.”
[84] βούλομαι τοίνυν, ὅπερ Ἀθήνησι μὲν οἶδα γιγνόμενον, οἶμαι δὲ κἀνταῦθα γίγνεσθαι κατὰ νόμον πάνυ καλῶς ἔχοντα, εἰπεῖν πρὸς ὑμᾶς. ἐκεῖ γὰρ ὅταν δημοσίᾳ τινὰ δέῃ τῶν πολιτῶν ἀποθανεῖν ἐπ᾽ ἀδικήματι, πρότερον αὐτοῦ τὸ ὄνομαἐξαλείφεται. τίνος ἕνεκα; ἑνὸς μέν, ὅπως μηκέτι δοκῶν πολίτης εἶναι πάσχῃ τι τοιοῦτον, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς δυνατὸν ἀλλότριος γεγονώς:
[84] And so I now wish to tell you of a practice which I know is followed at Athens, and here too, I imagine, in accordance with a most excellent law. In Athens, for instance, whenever any citizen has to suffer death at the hands of the state for a crime, his name is erased first. Why is this done? One reason is that he may no longer be considered a citizen when he undergoes such a punishment but, so far as that is possible, as having become an alien.
[85] εἶτ᾽ οἶμαι καὶ τῆς τιμωρίας αὐτῆς τοῦτο μέρος οὐκ ἐλάχιστον δοκεῖ, τὸ μηδ
ὲ τὴν προσηγορίαν ἔτι φαίνεσθαι τοῦ προελθόντος εἰς τοῦτο κακίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἠφανίσθαι παντελῶς, καθάπερ οἶμαι τὸ μὴ θάπτεσθαιτοὺς προδότας, ὅπως μηδὲν ᾖ σημεῖον εἰς αὖθις ἀνδρὸς πονηροῦ. φέρε οὖν, ἐὰν εἴπῃ τις ἐπὶ τοῖς εὐεργέταις τοῦτο γίγνεσθαι παρ᾽ ὑμῖν, ὃ παρὰ πολλοῖς ἔθος ἐστὶν ἐπὶ τοῖς κακούργοις, ἆρ᾽ οὐ σφόδρα ἀλγήσετε; μὴ τοίνυν ἀχθεσθῆτε τῷ νῦν αὐτὸ δοκοῦντι εἰρηκέναι: τοῦ γὰρ μηκέτι μηδ᾽ ἀεὶ λέγεσθαι γένοιτ᾽ ἂν ὑμῖν
[85] Then, too, I presume that it is looked upon as not the least part of the punishment itself, that even the appellation should no longer be seen of the man who had gone so far in wickedness, but should be utterly blotted out, just as, I believe, traitors are denied burial, so that in the future there may be no trace whatever of a wicked man. Come, therefore, if anyone says that in the case of benefactors the same course is followed in your city as is customary among many peoples in the case of evil-doers, will you not be exceedingly offended? Then do not be vexed at the man who seems to have given expression to this criticism on the present occasion, for you may find that he is to be thanked for its not being said again in the future or even always.
[86] αἴτιος. καὶ μὴν ἐάν τις ἓν μόνον ἐκχαράξῃ ῥῆμα ἀπὸ στήλης τινός, ἀποκτενεῖτε αὐτόν, οὐκέτι ἐξετάσαντες ὅ, τι ἦν ἢ περὶ τίνος, καὶ εἰ δή τις ἐλθὼν οὗ τὰ δημόσια ὑμῖν γράμματά ἐστι κεραίαν νόμου τινὸς ἢ ψηφίσματος μίαν μόνην συλλαβὴν ἐξαλείψειεν, οὕτως ἕξετε ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἀπὸ τοῦ ἅρματός τι καθέλοι. οὐκοῦν ὁ τὴνἐπιγραφὴν ἀναιρῶν εἰκόνος τινὸς ἧττόν τι ποιεῖ τοῦ τὴν στήλην ἀποχαράττοντος; καὶ μὴν ὅλον γε ἐξαλείφει τὸ ψήφισμα, καθ᾽ ὃ τὴν τιμὴν ἐκεῖνος ἔλαβε, μᾶλλον δὲ ἄκυρον ποιεῖ γεγραμμένον. ἀλλ᾽ εἴ τις καταδικασθεὶς ὑπὲρ ὅτου δήποτε καὶ ζημίαν τινὰ ὀφλών, λαθὼν ἢ διαπραξάμενος ἐξαλείψειεν ἑαυτόν, καταλύειν δόξει τὴνπολιτείαν: ὥστε δεινότερον ὑμῖν δοκεῖ τὸ ζημίας τινὰ ἀπαλλάττειν αὑτὸν τοῦ τιμῆς ἀποστερεῖν ἄλλον.
[86] Again, if any one chisels out only one word from any official tablet, you will put him to death without stopping to investigate what the word was or to what it referred; and if anyone should go to the building where your public records are kept and erase one jot of any law, or one single syllable of a decree of the people, you will treat this man just as you would any person who should remove a part of the Chariot. Well then, does the man who erases the inscription on a statue commit a less serious offence than the man who chisels something off the official tablet? Indeed the fact is that he erases the entire decree by virtue of which that man received his honour, or rather he annuls the record of it. But if anyone who for any offence whatever is condemned to some punishment erases his own name secretly or by intrigue, he will be thought to be destroying the constitution. Accordingly, you think it a more serious matter for a person to free himself from punishment than to deprive another man of his honour!
[87] οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνό ἐστιν ἀφετέον, ἐπείπερ τοὺς λόγους ὡς ἐπ᾽ ἀσεβήματι ἐποιησάμην. ἐπίστασθε γὰρ σαφῶς ὅτι ἅπασα μὲν ἡ πόλις ἐστὶν ἱερά, τῶν δὲ ἀνδριάντων πολλοὺς ἂν εὕροιτε τῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς τοῖς ἱεροῖς ἑστηκότωντοῦτο πεπονθότας. καὶ γὰρ ἀρχαιοτάτους συμβέβηκε τούτους [p. 245] εἶναι καὶ τῶν στρατηγῶν ὃν ἂν ἕκαστος ἐθέλῃ θεραπεύειν, ὡς ὑμῶν τιμώντων, φιλοτιμεῖται τοῦτον ὡς κάλλιστα ἑστάναι. καὶ τί δεῖ λόγων; οἶμαι γὰρ μηθένα ἂν ἀντειπεῖν ὅτι καὶ τῶν οὕτως κειμένων, εἰ καὶ μὴ καθάπερ ἐγὼ νῦν ἔλεγον, οἱ πλείους εἰσὶ μετωνομασμένοι, τινὲς δ᾽ οἶμαι καὶ σφόδρα ἐγγὺς παρεστῶτες τοῖς θεοῖς.
[87] Neither can I, furthermore, pass over another thing, inasmuch as I have based my argument on the assumption of an act of impiety. For you Rhodians are perfectly aware that, while the whole city is sacred, yet you will find that many of the statues which stand within your very sanctuaries have been subjected to this indignity. For it so happened that these are very ancient; and whenever one of your chief magistrates wants to flatter any person, he is always eager, carrying out the idea that you are giving the honour, to have him set up in bronze in the finest possible place. What need is there of words? For I suppose that no one would deny that even of the statues so placed, even though the facts do not exactly accord with the statement I made a moment ago, the greater number have had the names on them changed, and some, I believe, that stand very close indeed to the statues of the gods.
[88] εἶθ᾽ ὅποι μηδὲ τοὺς κακὸν δράσαντας ἐάνπερ καταφύγωσιν ἔθος ἐστὶν ἀδικεῖν, τοὺς εὐεργέτας οὐ δεινὸν ἐὰν φαινώμεθα ἀδικοῦντες; καὶ τὴν ἀσυλίαν, ἣν παρέχουσι τοῖς φαύλοις οἱ τοιοῦτοι τόποι, μόνοις, ὡς ἔοικε, τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς οὐ δυνήσονται παρέχειν; ἀλλ᾽ ἐὰν μὲν θυμιατήριόν τις ἀλλάξῃ τῶν ἔνδον κειμένων ἢ φιάλην, ἱερόσυλος οὐχ ἧττον νομισθήσεται τῶν ὑφαιρουμένων: ἐὰν δὲ εἰκόνα ἀλλάξῃ καὶ τιμήν, οὐθὲν ἄτοπον ποιεῖ;
[88] What then? Is it not outrageous if we shall be found to be wronging our benefactors in the very place where it is not the custom to wrong even those who have committed some evil deed, if they flee there for refuge? And are such places to be unable, as seems to be the case, to afford to good men alone the sanctuary they afford to worthless men? Nay, if anyone merely shifts from its position a censer or a goblet belonging to the treasures dedicated inside a temple, he will be regarded as guilty of sacrilege just as much as those who filch those sacred things;
[89] καίτοι καὶ τοὺς ἀνδριάντας οὐχ ἧττον ἀναθήματα εἴποι τις ἂν εἶναι τῶν θεῶν τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ἱεροῖς: καὶ πολλοὺς ἰδεῖν ἔστιν οὕτως ἐπιγεγραμμένους, οἷον, ὁ δεῖνα ἑαυτὸν ἀνέθηκεν ἢ τὸν πατέρα ἢ τὸν υἱὸν ὅτῳ δήποτε τῶν θεῶν. ἐὰν οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἀναθημάτων ἀφελών τις τοῦ θέντος τὸ ὄνομα ἄλλον ἐπιγράψῃ, μόνον τοῦτον οὐκ ἀσεβεῖν φήσομεν; ὁ δέ τοι Ἀπόλλων οὐκ εἴα δήπουθεν ἐκ τοῦ περιβόλου τοὺς νεοττοὺς ἀναιρεῖσθαι τὸν Κυμαῖον, ἱκέτας ἑαυτοῦ λέγων.
[89] but if it is a statue and an honour that he shifts, does he do nothing out of the way? And yet any of us could say that the statues too are just as much votive offerings belonging to the gods, that is, the statues which stand in gods’ sanctuaries; and one may see many of them inscribed to that effect; for instance, “So-and-so set up a statue of himself (or of his father, or of his son) as dedicate to a god” (whatever god it might be). He
nce, if one removes the name of the person so honoured from any of the other dedications and inscribes the name of a different person, are we to say that the person now in question is alone not guilty of impiety? Apollo would not allow, as you know, the man of Cymê to remove the nestlings from his precinct, saying that they were his suppliants.
[90] δἰ ὧν τοίνυν πειράσονταί τινες τὸ πρᾶγμα ἀποφαίνειν ἐπιεικέστερον, τῷ παντὶ χεῖρον ἀποδείξουσιν. οἷον ὅταν λέγωσι τοῖς σφόδρα ἀρχαίοις καταχρῆσθαι καί τινας εἶναι καὶ ἀνεπιγράφους. εἰ γὰρ δοίη τις αὐτοῖς οὕτως τοῦτο ἔχειν, οὐκ ἂν εἴποιμι τὸ πρόχειρον ὡς ἄρα ἐγὼ νῦν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπιγεγραμμένων ποιοῦμαι τὸν λόγον, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐκείνων φημὶ δεῖν ἅπτεσθαι. σκοπεῖτε γάρ, ἄνδρες Ῥόδιοι, τὴν αἰτίαν, δι᾽ ἣν εἰκὸς τεθῆναί τινας οὕτως. οὐ γὰρ ἐκλαθέσθαι γε οὐδὲ ὀκνῆσαι τὸν ἱστάντα εἰκὸς οὐδὲ φείσασθαι τῆς εἰς τοῦτο δαπάνης: οὐ γὰρ ἦν οὐδεμία.
[90] Moreover, the arguments by which some persons will attempt to make the practice appear more consistent with honour will prove it to be in every way less creditable: for instance, when they say that itº is the very old statues that they misuse and that some of them also bear no inscriptions. Well, if one were inclined to concede to them that this is the case, I should not make the obvious retort, that, after all, I am at present speaking about those which do bear inscriptions; on the contrary, I maintain that they have no right to touch those others either. As for my reasons, just consider, men of Rhodes, what the motive was which in all probability led to the statues being set up uninscribed. For it is not reasonable to suppose that the man who set them up merely overlooked this matter, or hesitated to inscribe the names, or wanted to save the expense of an inscription; for there was no expense.
Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom Page 268
