[4] καινὴν ἔχειν. οὐκοῦν ἐχορήγουν ἐμαυτῷ πάνυ λαμπρῶς καὶ προσέχειν ἐπειρώμην, ὥσπερ δικαστὴς τῶν πρώτων τραγικῶν χορῶν. πλὴν ὀμόσας γε οὐκ ἂν ἐδυνάμην ἀποφήνασθαι οὐδέν, οὐδ̓ ἐμ οῦ γε ἕνεκεν οὐδεὶς ἂν ἡττήθη τῶν ἀνδρῶν ἐκείνων. ἥ τε γὰρ τοῦ Αἰσχύλου μεγαλοφροσύνη καὶ τὸ ἀρχαῖον, ἔτι δὲ τὸ αὔθαδες τῆς διανοίας καὶ φράσεως, πρέποντα ἐφαίνετο τραγῳδίᾳ καὶ τοῖς παλαιοῖς ἤθεσι τῶν ἡρώων, οὐδὲν ἐπιβεβουλευμένον οὐδὲ στωμύλον
[4] Accordingly, I played choregus for myself in very brilliant style and tried to pay close attention, as if I were a judge passing judgement on the premier tragic choruses.
Yet I could not on oath have produced a single reason why any one of those great poets could have been defeated. For both the nobility of character and the antique flavour of Aeschylus, as well as the ruggedness of his thought and diction, seemed suited to tragedy and to the old-time manners of the heroes, nor was there aught of premeditation or prating or humility in their bearing.
[5] οὐδὲ ταπεινόν: ἐπεί τοι καὶ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα εἰσῆγε δριμὺν καὶ δόλιον, ὡς ἐν τοῖς τότε, πολὺ δὲ ἀπέχοντα τῆς νῦν κακοηθείας, ὥστε τῷ ὄντι ἀρχαῖον ἂν δόξαι παρὰ τοὺς νῦν ἁπλοῦς εἶναι βουλομένους καὶ μεγαλόφρονας. καὶ οὐδέν γε ἀλλαττούσης τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς προσεδεήθη πρὸς τὸ μὴ γνωσθῆναι ὅστις ἐστὶν ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλοκτήτου, καθάπερ Ὅμηρος κἀκείνῳ δὴ ἑπόμενος Εὐριπίδης ἐποίησεν: ὥστε τυχὸν ἄν τις ἐγκαλέσαι τῶν οὐ φιλούντων τὸν ἄνδρα, ὅτι οὐδὲν αὐτῷ ἐμέλησεν ὃπως πιθανὸς ἔσται ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς οὐ γιγνωσκόμενος [p. 106]
[5] For example, even his Odysseus he brought upon the scene as a shrewd and crafty person, as men were in those days, yet far removed from the rascality of to-day, in consequence of which he might seem truly ancient as compared with those who to-day lay claim to simplicity and nobility of character. And again, Aeschylus had no need to add Athena for the purpose of transforming Odysseus so as not to be recognized by Philoctetes for the man he was, as Homer has handled the problem, and also Euripides in imitation of Homer. So possibly one of those who do not like Aeschylus might complain that he was not at all concerned to make his Odysseus convincing in the scene where he is not recognized by Philoctetes.
[6] ὑπὸ τοῦ Φιλοκτήτου. ἔχοι δ̓ ἂν ἀπολογίαν, ὡς ἐγᾦμαι, πρὸς τὸ τοιοῦτον: ὁ μὲν γὰρ χρόνος τυχὸν οὐκ ἦν τοσοῦτος, ὥστε μὴ ἀνενεγκεῖν τὸν χαρακτῆρα, δέκα ἐτῶν διαγεγονότων, ἡ δὲ νόσος ἡ τοῦ Φιλοκτήτου καὶ κάκωσις καὶ τὸ ἐν ἐρημίᾳ βεβιωκέναι τὸν μεταξὺ χρόνον οὐκ ἀδύνατον τοῦτο ἐποίει. πολλοὶ γὰρ ἤδη, οἱ μὲν ὑπὸ ἀσθενείας, οἱ δὲ ὑπὸ δυστυχίας, ἔπαθον αὐτό. καὶ μὴν ὁ χορὸς αὐτῷ παραιτήσεως, ὥσπερ ὁ τοῦ Εὐριπίδου, οὐδὲν ἐδεήθη.
[6] But in my opinion the poet would have a defence against such a criticism; for while the lapse of time was perhaps not sufficient to explain his not recalling the lineaments of Odysseus since only ten years had passed, yet the affliction and distress of Philoctetes and the lonely life he had led in the interval made this lapse of memory not impossible. For many in the past, either from illness or from misfortune, have had that experience.
Furthermore, the chorus of Aeschylus had no need for special pleading, as did that of Euripides.
[7] ἄμφω γὰρ ἐκ τῶν Λημνίων ἐποίησαν τὸν χορόν. ἀλλ̓ ὁ μὲν Εὐριπίδης εὐθὺς ἀπολογουμένους πεποίηκε περὶ τῆς πρότερον ἀμελείας, ὅτι δὴ τοσούτων ἐτῶν οὔτε προσέλθοιεν πρὸς τὸν Φιλοκτήτην οὔτε βοηθήσειαν οὐδὲν αὐτῷ. ὁ δ̓ Αἰσχύλος ἁπλῶς εἰσήγαγε τὸν χορόν, ὃ τῷ παντὶ τραγικώτερον καὶ ἁπλούστερον: τὸ δ̓ ἕτερον πολιτικώτερον καὶ ἀκριβέστερον. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μὲν ἐδύναντο πάσας διαφεύγειν τὰς ἀλογίας ἐν ταῖς τραγῳδίαις, ἴσως ἂν εἶχε λόγον μηδὲ τοῦτο παραπέμψαι: νῦν δὲ πολλάκις ἐν μιᾷ ἡμέρᾳ παραγιγνομένους ποιοῦσι τοὺς κήρυκας πλειόνων ἡμερῶν ὁδόν.
[7] For both poets made their choruses to consist of Lemnians; yet, while Euripides has represented them as immediately apologizing for their former neglect, admitting that during so many years they had neither come near Philoctetes nor rendered him any aid, Aeschylus simply brought his chorus on the scene, a course which is altogether more in keeping with a tragedy and more natural, whereas the other course is more courteous and more strictly correct. Of course, if poets, were able to avoid all violations of logic in their tragedies, perhaps there might be reason for refusing to gloss over even this instance; but as the truth is, the poets often cause their heralds to complete in a single day a journey which calls for several days.
[8] ἔπειτα οὐδὲ ἐξ ἅπαντος ἦν μήτε προσελθεῖν αὐτῷ μηδένα Λημνίων μήτε ἐπιμεληθῆναι μηδέν: δοκεῖ γάρ μοι οὐδ̓ ἂν διεγένετο τὰ δέκα ἔτη μηδεμιᾶς τυγχάνων βοηθείας: ἀλλ̓ εἰκὸς μὲν τυγχάνειν αὐτόν, σπανίως δὲ καὶ οὐδενὸς μεγάλου, καὶ μηδένα αἱρεῖσθαι οἰκίᾳ ὑποδέξασθαι καὶ νοσηλεύειν διὰ τὴν δυσχέρειαν τῆς νόσου. αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Εὐριπίδης τὸν Ἄκτορα εἰσάγει, ἕνα Λημνίων, ὡς γνώριμον τῷ Φιλοκτήτῃ προσιόντα καὶ πολλάκις συμβεβληκότα.
[8] Again, it was quite impossible to conceive that not a single Lemnian had come near Philoctetes or given him any attention at all, for in my opinion he could not even have survived those ten years without receiving some aid; no, it is reasonable to suppose that he did get some aid, though but rarely and of no great importance, and, furthermore, that no one chose to take him into his house and give him medical attention because of the disgusting nature of his ailment. At any rate Euripides himself does bring upon the scene one Lemnian, Actor, who approaches Philoctetes as being already known to him and as having often met him.
[9] οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο δοκεῖ μοι δικαίως ἄν τις αἰτιάσασθαι, τὸ διηγεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸν χορὸν ὡς ἀγνοοῦντα τὰ περὶ τὴν ἀπόλειψιν τὴν τῶν Ἀχαιῶν καὶ τὰ καθόλου συμβαίνοντα αὐτῷ. οἱ γὰρ δυστυχοῦντες ἄνθρωποι πολλάκις εἰώθασι μεμνῆσθαι τῶν συμφορῶν καὶ τοῖς εἰδόσιν ἀκριβῶς καὶ μηδὲν δεομένοις ἀκούειν ἐνοχλοῦσιν ἀεὶ διηγούμενοι. καὶ μὴν ἡ ἀπάτη ἡ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως πρὸς τὸν [p. 107] Φιλοκτήτην καὶ οἱ λόγοι, δἰ ὧν προσηγάγετο αὐτόν, οὐ μόνον εὐσχημονέστεροι, καὶ ἥρωι πρέποντες, ἀλλ̓ οὐκ Εὐρυβάτου ἢ Παταικίωνος,
[9] Furthermor
e, I do not feel that one could justly find fault with Aeschylus for this either — that his hero narrates to the chorus, as if they were in ignorance, the details concerning his desertion by the Achaeans and his experiences in general. The reason is that the victims of misfortune are wont to recall their trials repeatedly, and by their constant rehearsing of details they bore those who know every detail already and have no need to be told. Then again, the deception which Odysseus practised upon Philoctetes and the arguments by which he won him over are not merely more becoming and suited to a hero — though not the words of a Eurybates or a Pataecion — but in my opinion they are even more plausible.
[10] ἀλλ̓, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκοῦσι, καὶ πιθανώτεροι. τί γὰρ ἔδει ποικίλης τέχνης καὶ ἐπιβουλῆς πρὸς ἄνδρα νοσοῦντα, καὶ ταῦτα τοξότην, ᾧ εἴ τις μόνον ἐγγὺς παρέστη, ἀχρεῖος ἡ ἀλκὴ αὐτοῦ ἐγεγόνει; καὶ τὸ ἀπαγγέλλειν δὲ τὰς τῶν Ἀχαιῶν συμφορὰς καὶ τὸν Ἀγαμέμνονα τεθνηκότα καὶ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἐπ̓ αἰτίᾳ ὡς οἷόν τε αἰσχίστῃ καὶ καθόλου τὸ στράτευμα διεφθαρμένον οὐ μόνον χρήσιμον, ὥστε εὐφρᾶναι τὸν Φιλοκτήτην καὶ προσδέξασθαι μᾶλλον τὴν τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως ὁμιλίαν, ἀλλ̓ οὐδ̓ ἀπίθανα τρόπον τινὰ διὰ τὸ μῆκος τῆς στρατείας καὶ διὰ τὰ συμβεβηκότα οὐ πάλαι κατὰ τὴν ὀργὴν τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως, ὅθ̓ Ἕκτωρ παρὰ σμικρὸν ἦλθεν ἐμπρῆσαι τὸν ναύσταθμον.
[10] For what need was there for subtle craft and scheming in dealing with a sick man and, what is more, an archer, whose means of defence had lost its power the moment you merely got close to him? Besides, the device of having Odysseus report that the Achaeans had met with disaster, that Agamemnon had died, that Odysseus had been charged with an act that was utterly disgraceful, and that in general the expedition had gone to rack and ruin, was not merely serviceable toward cheering Philoctetes and making the discourse of Odysseus more acceptable; no, in a way it was not without plausibility even, because of the length of the campaign and because of what had happened not so long before in consequence of the wrath of Achilles, at the time when Hector barely missed burning the naval station.
[11] ἥ τε τοῦ Εὐριπίδου σύνεσις καὶ περὶ πάντα ἐπιμέλεια, ὥστε μήτε ἀπίθανόν τι καὶ παρημελημένον ἐᾶσαι μήτε ἁπλῶς τοῖς πράγμασι χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ μετὰ πάσης ἐν τῷ εἰπεῖν δυνάμεως, ὥσπερ ἀντίστροφός ἐστι τῇ τοῦ Αἰσχύλου , πολιτικωτάτη καὶ ῥητορικωτάτη οὖσα καὶ τοῖς ἐντυγχάνουσι πλείστην ὠφέλειαν παρασχεῖν δυναμένη. εὐθὺς γοῦν πεποίηται προλογίζων αὐτῷ ὁ Ὀδυσσεὺς καὶ ἄλλα τε ἐνθυμήματα πολιτικὰ στρέφων ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ πρῶτόν γε διαπορῶν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ, μὴ ἄρα δοκῇ μὲν τοῖς πολλοῖς σοφός
[11] Again, the sagacity of Euripides and his careful attention to every detail, as a result of which not only does he not tolerate anything which lacks plausibility or is marred by carelessness, but also he handles the action, not in artless style, but with entire mastery in the telling — all this forms, as it were, an antithesis to the nature of Aeschylus, being to a high degree characteristic of the citizen and the orator and capable of proving most useful to those who read him. At the very outset of Euripides’ play, for instance, Odysseus is introduced as speaker of the prologue and as not only inwardly debating questions of civic nature in general, but first and foremost expressing embarrassment on his own account, lest, while generally reputed to be wise and distinguished for sagacity, he may really be the opposite.
[12] τις εἶναι καὶ διαφέρων τὴν σύνεσιν, ᾖ δὲ τοὐναντίον. ἐξὸν γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀλύπως καὶ ἀπραγμόνως ζῆν, ὁ δὲ ἑκὼν ἀεὶ ἐν πράγμασι καὶ κινδύνοις γίγνεται. τούτου δέ φησιν αἴτιον εἶναι τὴν τῶν εὐφυῶν καὶ γενναίων ἀνδρῶν φιλοτιμίαν. δόξης γὰρ ἀγαθῆς ἐφιέμενοι καὶ τοῦ εὐκλεεῖς παρὰ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις εἶναι μεγίστους καὶ χαλεπωτάτους ἑκόντες πόνους ὑφίστανται: οὐδὲν γὰρ οὕτω γαῦρον ὡς ἀνὴρ ἔφυ. ἔπειτα σαφῶς καὶ ἀκριβῶς δηλοῖ τὴν τοῦ δράματος ὑπόθεσιν καὶ [p. 108]
[12] For, though he might live free from care and trouble, he is ever being involved in troubles and perils of his own volition. But the cause of this, he claims, is the ambition which actuates gifted men of noble birth. For, in aiming at a fine reputation and general acclaim, they voluntarily undertake very great and difficult labours.
For nothing quite so proud as man exists.
Odysseus then reveals clearly and precisely the plot of the drama and why he has come to Lemnos.
[13] οὗ ἕνεκεν ἐλήλυθεν εἰς τὴν Λῆμνον φησί τε ὑπὸ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς ἠλλοιῶσθαι, ὥστε ἐντυχόντα τῷ Φιλοκτήτῃ μὴ γνωσθῆναι ὑπ̓ αὐτοῦ, μιμησάμενος κατὰ τοῦτο Ὅμηρον — καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος τοῖς τε ἄλλοις καὶ τῷ Εὐμαίῳ καὶ τῇ Πηνελόπῃ πεποίηκεν ἐντυγχάνοντα τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἠλλοιωμένον ὑπὸ τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς — φησί τε πρεσβείαν μέλλειν παρὰ τῶν Τρώων ἀφικνεῖσθαι πρὸς τὸν Φιλοκτήτην, δεησομένην αὑτόν τε καὶ τὰ ὅπλα ἐκείνοις παρασχεῖν ἐπὶ τῇ τῆς Τροίας βασιλείᾳ, ποικιλώτερον τὸ δρᾶμα κατασκευάζων καὶ ἀνευρίσκων λόγων ἀφορμάς, καθ̓ ἃς εἰς τὰ ἐναντία ἐπιχειρῶν εὐπορώτατος καὶ παῤ
[13] And he says he has been disguised by Athena, so that when he meets Philoctetes he may not be recognized by him, Euripides having imitated Homer in this detail. For Homer has represented Odysseus, in his sundry encounters with Eumaeus and Penelopê and the others, as having been disguised by Athena. Odysseus goes on to say that an embassy from the Trojans will soon visit Philoctetes for the purpose of entreating him to place at their disposal both himself and their weapons, offering the throne of Troy as his reward; thus he complicates the plot and invents occasions for debate, in the course of which he shows himself most resourceful and most proficient in combating the opposing arguments, no matter with whom he is compared.
[14] ὁντινοῦν ἱκανώτατος φαίνεται. οὐ μόνον δὲ πεποίηκε τὸν Ὀδυσσέα παραγιγνόμενον, ἀλλὰ μετὰ τοῦ Διομήδους, ὁμηρικῶς καὶ τοῦτο, καὶ τὸ ὅλον, ὡς ἔφην, δἰ ὅλου τοῦ δράματος πλείστην μὲν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι σύνεσιν καὶ πιθανότητα ἐπιδείκνυται, ἀμήχανον δὲ καὶ θαυμαστὴν ἐν τοῖς λόγοις δύναμιν, καὶ τά τε ἰαμβεῖα σαφῶς καὶ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ πολιτικῶς ἔχοντα, καὶ τὰ μέλη οὐ μόνον ἡδονήν, ἀλλὰ καὶ πολλὴν πρὸς ἀρετὴν παράκλησιν.
[14] Again, Euripides causes Odysseus to arrive not unattended but in company with Diomedes, another Homeric touch. Thus all in all, as I was saying, throughout the whole play he displays the greatest dexterity and plausibility in the action; an irresistible, yes, amazi
ng, power of language; a dialogue that is clear and natural and urbane; and lyrics that not only are delightful but also contain a strong incentive toward virtue.
[15] ὅ τε Σοφοκλῆς μέσος ἔοικεν ἀμφοῖν εἶναι, οὔτε τὸ αὔθαδες καὶ ἁπλοῦν τὸ τοῦ Αἰσχύλου ἔχων οὔτε τὸ ἀκριβὲς καὶ δριμὺ καὶ πολιτικὸν τὸ τοῦ Εὐριπίδου, σεμνὴν δέ τινα καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῆ ποίησιν τραγικώτατα καὶ εὐεπέστατα ἔχουσαν, ὥστε πλείστην εἶναι ἡδονὴν μετὰ ὕψους καὶ σεμνότητος, τῇ τε διασκευῇ τῶν πραγμάτων ἀρίστῃ καὶ πιθανωτάτῃ κέχρηται, ποιήσας τὸν Ὀδυσσέα μετὰ Νεοπτολέμου παραγιγνόμενον, ἐπειδὴ εἵμαρτο ἁλῶναι τὴν Τροίαν ὑπό τε τοῦ Νεοπτολέμου καὶ τοῦ Φιλοκτήτου χρωμένου τοῖς Ἡρακλείοις τόξοις, καὶ αὐτὸν μὲν ἀποκρυπτόμενον, τὸν δὲ Νεοπτόλεμον πέμποντα πρὸς τὸν Φιλοκτήτην, ὑποτιθέμενον αὐτῷ ἃ δεῖ ποιεῖν, καὶ τὸν χορὸν οὐχ ὥσπερ ὁ Αἰσχύλος καὶ Εὐριπίδης ἐκ τῶν ἐπιχωρίων πεποίηκεν, ἀλλὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ νηὶ συμπλεόντων
Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom Page 332
