Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom

by Dio Chrysostom

  [15] As for Sophocles, he seems to stand midway between the two others, since he has neither the ruggedness and simplicity of Aeschylus nor the precision and shrewdness and urbanity of Euripides, yet he produces a poetry that is august and majestic, highly tragic and euphonious in its phrasing, so that there is the fullest pleasure coupled with sublimity and stateliness. In his management of the action he is most excellent and convincing; for instance, he causes Odysseus to arrive in company with Neoptolemus — since it was ordained that Troy should be taken by Neoptolemus and Philoctetes together, Philoctetes wielding the bow of Heracles — and he makes Odysseus conceal himself but send Neoptolemus to Philoctetes, suggesting to him what he must do. Furthermore, he has composed his chorus not of the natives of Lemnos, as Aeschylus and Euripides do, but of those who sailed in the ship along with Odysseus and Neoptolemus.

  [16] τῷ Ὀδυσσεῖ καὶ τῷ Νεοπτολέμῳ. τά τε ἤθη θαυμαστῶς σεμνὰ [p. 109] καὶ ἐλευθέρια, τό τε τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως πολὺ πρᾳότερον καὶ ἁπλούστερον ἢ πεποίηκεν ὁ Εὐριπίδης, τό τε τοῦ Νεοπτολέμου ὑπερβάλλον ἁπλότητι καὶ εὐγενείᾳ, πρῶτον μὲν μὴ βουλομένου δόλῳ καὶ ἀπάτῃ περιγενέσθαι τοῦ Φιλοκτήτου, ἀλλὰ ἰσχύϊ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ φανεροῦ: ἔπειτα πεισθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως καὶ ἐξαπατήσας αὐτὸν καὶ τῶν τόξων ἐγκρατὴς γενόμενος, αἰσθομένου ἐκείνου καὶ ὡς ἐξηπατημένου σχετλιάζοντος καὶ ἀπαιτοῦντος τὰ ὅπλα, οὐ κατέχει, ἀλλ̓ οἷός τέ ἐστιν ἀποδιδόναι αὐτά, καίτοι τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως ἐπιφανέντος καὶ διακωλύοντος, καὶ τέλος δίδωσιν αὐτά: δοὺς δὲ τῷ λόγῳ πειρᾶται πείθειν ἑκόντα ἀκολουθῆσαι εἰς τὴν Τροίαν.

  [16] Again, as Sophocles portrays them, the characters in the drama are wonderfully dignified and noble, his Odysseus being much more gentle and frank than Euripides has depicted him, and his Neoptolemus surpassing all in artlessness and good breeding — at first he aims to get the better of Philoctetes, not by craft and deception, but by strength and without disguise; then, after he has been prevailed upon by Odysseus and has tricked Philoctetes and gained possession of the bow, when Philoctetes becomes aware of what had happened, is indignant at the deception which has been practised upon him, and demands the return of his weapons, Neoptolemus does not try to retain possession of them but is prepared to return them — though Odysseus appears on the scene and tries to prevent this — and he finally does return them; yet after he has handed them over he tries by argument to persuade Philoctetes to accompany him voluntarily to Troy.

  [17] τοῦ δὲ Φιλοκτήτου μηδένα τρόπον εἴκοντος μηδὲ πειθομένου, ἀλλὰ δεομένου τοῦ Νεοπτολέμου, ὥσπερ ὑπέσχετο, ἀπαγαγεῖν αὐτὸν εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα, ὑπισχνεῖται καὶ ἕτοιμός ἐστι ποιεῖν τοῦτο, μέχρι ἐπιφανεὶς Ἡρακλῆς πείθει τὸν Φιλοκτήτην ἑκόντα εἰς τὴν Τροίαν πλεῦσαι. τά τε μέλη οὐκ ἔχει πολὺ τὸ γνωμικὸν οὐδὲ πρὸς ἀρετὴν παράκλησιν, ὥσπερ τὰ τοῦ Εὐριπίδου, ἡδονὴν δὲ θαυμαστὴν καὶ μεγαλοπρέπειαν, ὥστε μὴ εἰκῇ τοιαῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ τὸν Ἀριστοφάνην εἰρηκέναι:

  ὁ δ̓ αὖ Σοφοκλέους τοῦ μέλιτι κεχρισμένου

  ὥσπερ καδίσκου περιέλειχε τὸ στόμα.

  [17] But when Philoctetes will by no means yield or be persuaded, but entreats Neoptolemus to take him back to Greece, as he had promised to do, Neoptolemus once more gives his promise, and he is prepared to keep his word, until Heracles comes upon the scene and persuades Philoctetes to sail to Troy of his own free will.

  The lyrics of Sophocles do not contain the didactic element to any great extent, nor any incentive to virtue such as we find in the lyrics of Euripides, but a marvellous sweetness and magnificence, such that Aristophanes could say of him not without reason words like these:

  But he in turn the lips of Sophocles,

  With honey smeared, did lick as if as a jar.

  THE FIFTY-THIRD DISCOURSE: ON HOMER

  Click on a word to bring up parses, dictionary entries, and frequency statistics

  ΠΕΡΙ ΟΜΗΡΟΥ.

  THE FIFTY-THIRD DISCOURSE: ON HOMER

  This Discourse, like the one preceding, lies mainly in the field of literary criticism. However, it contains less suggestion of independent judgement, being in the main a cursory survey of what various philosophers have thought and said about Homer. The fundamental importance of Homer in the scheme of Greek education is too well known to require documentation. If we may trust the words of the Greeks of the classic period, they gave little thought to the beauty of his language, prizing him rather than as a teacher par excellence. Dio, on the other hand, shows a consciousness of the beauty of his work. That he should have stressed in his appraisal of the poet the views of the philosophers, and above all Plato, was only to be expected. His familiarity with those views points to a relatively late period in his career as the time of composition of our Discourse.

  The occasion to which we owe the speech is unknown. In style and theme it would be appropriate as an introduction to some public recitation from Homer. Though we hardly need additional testimony to the enduring fame of Homer, Dio’s tribute affords striking testimony to the surprising range of the influence exerted by the poet (§§ 6-8). Somewhat similar testimony is afforded by Or. .-.

  [1] Ὁ μὲν Δημόκριτος περὶ Ὁμήρου φησὶν οὕτως: Ὅμηρος φύσεως λαχὼν θεαζούσης ἐπέων κόσμον ἐτεκτήνατο παντοίων: ὡς οὐκ ἐνὸν ἄνευ θείας καὶ δαιμονίας φύσεως οὕτως καλὰ καὶ σοφὰ ἔπη ἐργάσασθαι. πολλοὶ δὲ καὶ ἄλλοι γεγράφασιν οἱ μὲν ἄντικρυς ἐγκωμιάζοντες τὸν ποιητὴν ἅμα καὶ δηλοῦντες ἔνια τῶν ὑπ̓ αὐτοῦ [p. 110] λεγομένων, οἱ δὲ αὐτὸ τοῦτο τὴν διάνοιαν ἐξηγούμενοι, οὐ μόνον Ἀρίσταρχος καὶ Κράτης καὶ ἕτεροι πλείους τῶν ὕστερον γραμματικῶν κληθέντων, πρότερον δὲ κριτικῶν. καὶ δὴ καὶ αὐτὸς Ἀριστοτέλης, ἀφ̓ οὗ φασι τὴν κριτικήν τε καὶ γραμματικὴν ἀρχὴν λαβεῖν, ἐν πολλοῖς διαλόγοις περὶ τοῦ ποιητοῦ διέξεισι, θαυμάζων αὐτὸν ὡς τὸ πολὺ καὶ τιμῶν, ἔτι δὲ Ἡρακλείδης ὁ Ποντικός.

  The Fifty-third Discourse: On Homer

  Democritus expresses his opinion of Homer in these words: “Homer, having been blessed with a divinely inspired genius, fashioned an ‘ornament of verses’ of every kind,” thus indicating his belief that without a divine and superhuman nature it is impossible to produce verses of such beauty and wisdom. Many others too have written on this subject, some expressly lauding the poet and at the same time pointing out some of his wise sayings, while others have busied themselves with interpreting the thought itself, this group including not merely Aristarchus and Crates and several others of those who later were called grammarians but formerly critics. In fact Aristotle himself, with whom they say that literary interpretation and criticism began, treats of the poet in many dialogues, admiring him in general and paying him honour, as does also Heracleides of Pontus.

  [2] τούτων δὲ πρότερος Πλάτων παντ�
�χοῦ μέμνηται, τὴν μὲν ἡδονὴν καὶ χάριν τὴν τῶν ἐπῶν ἐκπληττόμενος, πολλάκις γε μὴν ἐπιμεμφόμενος ἐν τοῖς περὶ θεῶν μύθοις τε καὶ λόγοις, ὡς οὐ συμφέροντα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις οὐδαμῶς αὐτὸν εἰρηκότα, πλεονεξίας καὶ ἐπιβουλὰς κατ̓ ἀλλήλων καὶ μοιχείας καὶ ἔριδας καὶ φιλονικίας περὶ θεῶν ἐπεξιόντα: μετὰ ταῦτα δὲ οὐ μεταδιδοὺς αὐτῷ τῆς αὑτοῦ πόλεώς τε καὶ πολιτείας σοφῆς ὡς αὐτὸς ἐνόμιζεν ἐσομένης, ἵνα μήτε ταῦτα ἀκούωσι περὶ θεῶν νέοι ὄντες οὓς ἐκεῖνος ἀποφαίνει φύλακάς τε καὶ ἡγεμόνας τῆς πόλεως, μηδ̓ αὖ περὶ τῶν ἐν ᾄδου μηδὲν σκυθρωπὸν λεγόμενον μαλακωτέρους αὐτοὺς πρός τε τὸ μάχεσθαι καὶ τὸ ἀποθνῄσκειν ποιῇ μηδὲ ὥσπερ πώλους

  [2] Prior to these, however, Plato mentions Homer at every opportunity, marvelling at the charm and grace of his poesy, though often censuring him in respect of his myths and tales about the gods, holding that he has told what was not at all beneficial to mankind when he narrates in detail about the gods instances of greed, of scheming against one another, and of adultery and wrangling and contentiousness. And finally he reaches the point of refusing to admit Homer to partnership in his own state and constitution, which, as he himself believed, was to be founded upon wisdom, his purpose being, not only that those whom he appoints as guardians and leaders of the state should not as boys hear such tales about gods, but also that no melancholy account of conditions in the lower world should cause them to be more faint-hearted in the face of battle and death or, like colts which have been badly broken in, suspicious from the start about things which are not really terrifying.

  [3] κακῶς πωλευθέντας ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑπόπτους πρὸς τὰ μὴ φοβερά. περὶ μὲν δὴ τούτων ἕτερος λόγος πλείων καὶ μακρότερος καὶ οὐ ῥᾴδιος, πότερον Ὅμηρος ἥμαρτε περὶ ταῦτα ἢ φυσικούς τινας ἐνόντας ἐν τοῖς μύθοις λόγους κατὰ τὴν τότε συνήθειαν παρεδίδου τοῖς ἀνθρώποις. οὐ γὰρ ῥᾴδιον διαιτῆσαι τὸ τοιοῦτον, καθάπερ οἶμαι δύο φίλων ἀνδρῶν, ἀμφοτέρων σεμνῶν, τοῦ ἑτέρου τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἐγκαλοῦντος,

  [3] Regarding these matters there is indeed another theory, which is fuller, longer, and not easy to expound, dealing with the question whether Homer erred in these particulars, or whether he was merely transmitting to mankind certain doctrines about natural phenomena embodied in the myths after the fashion then in vogue. Indeed it is not easy to arbitrate a question like that, just as, in my opinion, it is not easy to decide against one of two men who are your friends, both being worthy of respect, when each makes charges against the other.

  [4] ἑνὸς αὐτῶν καταγνῶναι. γέγραφε δὲ καὶ Ζήνων ὁ φιλόσοφος εἴς τε τὴν Ἰλιάδα καὶ τὴν Ὀδύσσειαν, καὶ περὶ τοῦ Μαργίτου δέ: δοκεῖ γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ποίημα ὑπὸ Ὁμήρου γεγονέναι νεωτέρου καὶ ἀποπειρωμένου τῆς αὑτοῦ φύσεως πρὸς ποίησιν. ὁ δὲ Ζήνων οὐδὲν τῶν τοῦ Ὁμήρου ψέγει, ἅμα διηγούμενος καὶ διδάσκων ὅτι τὰ μὲν κατὰ δόξαν, τὰ δὲ κατὰ ἀλήθειαν γέγραφεν, ὅπως μὴ φαίνηται αὐτὸς αὑτῷ μαχόμενος ἔν τισι δοκοῦσιν ἐναντίως

  [4] But to continue, Zeno the philosopher also has written on both the Iliad and the Odyssey, and, in fact, on the Margites too; he believes that this poem also was composed by Homer at the time when he was rather young and was testing his poetic genius.

  [5] εἰρῆσθαι. ὁ δὲ λόγος οὗτος Ἀντισθένους ἐστὶ πρότερον, ὅτι τὰ [p. 111] μὲν δόξῃ, τὰ δὲ ἀληθείᾳ εἴρηται τῷ ποιητῇ: ἀλλ̓ ὁ μὲν οὐκ ἐξειργάσατο αὐτόν, ὁ δὲ καθ̓ ἕκαστον τῶν ἐπὶ μέρους ἐδήλωσεν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ Περσαῖος ὁ τοῦ Ζήνωνος κατὰ τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπόθεσιν γέγραφε καὶ ἄλλοι πλείους. ὁ δὲ Πλάτων ἅμα αἰτιώμενος αὐτόν, ὡς εἶπον, καὶ τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ θαυμαστήν τινα ἀποφαίνει τῆς ποιήσεως, ὡς εἰκόνα ὄντα παντὸς χρήματος καὶ πάσας ἀτεχνῶς ἀφιέντα φωνάς, ποταμῶν τε καὶ ἀνέμων καὶ κυμάτων: καὶ κελεύει μάλα εἰρωνικῶς στέψαντας αὐτὸν ἐρίῳ καὶ μύρον καταχέαντας ἀφιέναι παῤ ἄλλους.

  [5] However, Zeno finds fault with none of the work of Homer, undertaking to interpret it and at the same time to show that the poet has written some things in accord with fancy and some things in accord with reality, Zeno’s purpose being to save Homer from appearing to be at war with himself in certain matters which are held to be inconsistent with each other as narrated by Homer. But Antisthenes anticipated Zeno in this theory, namely, that some things have been spoken by the poet in accord with fancy and some in accord with reality; however, Antisthenes did not elaborate the theory, whereas Zeno made it plain in each of its details. Moreover, Persaeus, the pupil of Zeno, also has followed the same plan in his writings, as have several others as well.

  But to return to Plato, while finding fault with Homer, as I have said, he at the same time declares his poetic power to be something amazing, his idea being that Homer is capable of everything and reproduces literally every voice, even of rivers, winds, and waves; moreover, he very jestingly gives instructions to bind the poet’s brows with a fillet of wool, pour perfume on him, and — send him somewhere else.

  [6] τοῦτο δὲ αἱ γυναῖκες ἐπὶ τῶν χελιδόνων ποιοῦσιν. ἔτι δὲ καὶ αὐτὸς τῆς χάριτος ἐπιὼν τὴν ποίησιν σφόδρα ἄγασθαι τὸν ἄνδρα. ἀτεχνῶς γὰρ οὐκ ἄνευ θείας τύχης οὐδ̓ ἄνευ Μουσῶν τε καὶ Ἀπόλλωνος ἐπιπνοίας δυνατὸν οὕτως ὑψηλὴν καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῆ καὶ προσέτι ἡδεῖαν γενέσθαι ποίησιν, ὥστε μὴ μόνον τοὺς ὁμογλώττους καὶ ὁμοφώνους τοσοῦτον ἤδη κατέχειν χρόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων πολλούς: καὶ τοὺς μὲν διγλώττους καὶ μιγάδας σφόδρα ἐμπείρους εἶναι τῶν ἐπῶν αὐτοῦ, πολλὰ τῶν ἄλλων ἀγνοοῦντας τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν, ἐνίους δὲ καὶ τῶν σφόδρα μακρὰν διῳκισμένων: ὁπότε καὶ παῤ Ἰνδοῖς φασιν ᾄδεσθαι τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν, μεταλαβόντων

  [6] Furthermore, Plato himself in praising Homer’s poesy for its charm admires the man exceedingly. Indeed, without divine favour, without inspiration of the Muses and Apollo, it is simply impossible for poetry to be created which is so lofty and magnificent, and withal so sweet, as to enthral for so many years, not merely men who have the same tongue and language as the poet, but even many of alien race, yes, so that not only men who speak two languages and are of mixed stock, though unacquainted with much else that is Greek, are very familiar with Homer’s verses, but even some who live very far away. For example, it is said that Homer’s poetry is sung even in India, where they have translated it into their own speech and tongue.
/>
  [7] αὐτὴν εἰς τὴν σφετέραν διάλεκτόν τε καὶ φωνήν. ὥστε καὶ Ἰνδοὶ τῶν μὲν ἄστρων τῶν παῤ ἡμῖν πολλῶν εἰσιν ἀθέατοι: τὰς γὰρ ἄρκτους οὔ φασι φαίνεσθαι παῤ αὐτοῖς: τῶν δὲ Πριάμου παθημάτων καὶ τῶν Ἀνδρομάχης καὶ Ἑκάβης θρήνων καὶ ὀδυρμῶν καὶ τῆς Ἀχιλλέως τε καὶ Ἕκτορος ἀνδρείας οὐκ ἀπείρως ἔχουσιν. τοσοῦτον ἴσχυσεν ἑνὸς ἀνδρός μουσική: καὶ δοκεῖ ἔμοιγε τῇ δυνάμει

  [7] The result is that, while the people of India have no chance to behold many of the stars in our part of the world — for example, it is said that the Bears are not visible in their country — still they are not unacquainted with the sufferings of Priam, the laments and wailings of Andromachê and Hecuba, and the valour of both Achilles and Hector: so remarkable has been the spell of one man’s poetry! It even seems to me that by this power of his he has surpassed both the Sirens and Orpheus.

  [8] ταύτῃ τάς τε Σειρῆνας ὑπερβαλέσθαι καὶ τὸν Ὀρφέα. τὸ γὰρ λίθους τε καὶ φυτὰ καὶ θηρία κηλεῖν καὶ ἄγειν τί ἔστιν ἕτερον ἢ τὸ βαρβάρους ἀνθρώπους ἀσυνέτους τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς φωνῆς οὕτως ἄγαν χειρώσασθαι, μήτε τῆς γλώττης μήτε τῶν πραγμάτων ἐμπείρους [p. 112] ὄντας, ὑπὲρ ὧν ὁ λόγος, ἀλλὰ ἀτεχνῶς καθάπερ οἶμαι πρὸς κιθάραν κηλουμένους; ἡγοῦμαι δὲ ἔγωγε πολλοὺς καὶ τῶν ἀμαθεστέρων ἔτι βαρβάρων τό γε ὄνομα ἀκηκοέναι τὸ Ὁμήρου, ὅ, τι δὲ δηλοῖ, τοῦτο μὴ εἰδέναι σαφῶς, εἴτε ζῷον εἴτε φυτὸν εἴτε πρᾶγμα ἕτερον.