Delphi Complete Works of Dio Chrysostom

by Dio Chrysostom

  [15] ὅταν δὲ περὶ τοῦ Πανδάρου, ὡς συνέχεε τὰς σπονδάς, ἐλπίσας δῶρα παρὰ Ἀλεξάνδρου τοῦ Πριάμου, καὶ οὔτε ἀπέκτεινε τὸν Μενέλεων βαλών, καίτοι τοξότης ἱκανὸς εἶναι δοκῶν, καὶ παραβὰς τὰ ὅρκια τοὺς Τρῶας ἀθυμοτέρους ἐποίησε πρὸς τὸν πόλεμον μεμνημένους ἀεὶ τῆς ἐπιορκίας: νῦν δ̓ ὅρκια πιστὰ ψευσάμενοι μαχόμεσθα: τῷ οὔ νύ τι κάλλιόν ἐστι:

  [15] And again, when he tells about Pandarus, how he violated the truce in the hope of rewards from Alexander son of Priam, and how he not only failed to slay Menelaüs by his shot, although reputed but an able bowman, but also by violating the truce made the Trojans more discouraged as to the war through their constant recollection of their broken oaths — as witness these lines:

  But now we fight as traitors to our oaths;

  On that account ’tis not so well for us —

  [16] καὶ ὃν τρόπον ἀπέθανεν οὐ μετὰ πολὺ τὴν γλῶτταν ἀποτμηθείς, πρὶν ἢ καὶ λόγῳ φῆσαι τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον αὐτῷ χάριν εἰδέναι: ταῦτα διεξιὼν οὕτως ἐπιμελῶς ὑπὲρ ἄλλου του δοκεῖ λέγειν ἢ δωροδοκίας καὶ ἀσεβείας καὶ τὸ ξύμπαν ἀφροσύνης; ὃς καὶ τοῖς βέλεσι κατηρᾶτο καὶ ἠπείλει διακλάσειν αὐτὰ καὶ κατακαύσειν, ὡς φοβουμένων αὐτὸν τῶν

  [16] and how not much later his tongue was cut off and he died before ever Alexander could even put into words his gratitude to him — in recounting these things with such scrupulous attention to detail, does Homer appear to you to be talking of anything else than of bribe-taking and impiety and in general of folly? Why, Pandarus even cursed his arrows and threatened to smash and burn them, as if the arrows were in fear of him!

  [17] βελῶν. ὅταν δὲ περὶ Ἀσίου τοῦ Ὑρτάκου, ὅτι τοῦ στρατηγοῦ κελεύσαντος ἔξω τῆς τάφρου καταλιπεῖν τοὺς ἵππους μόνος οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν, ἀλλὰ σὺν αὐτοῖσιν πέλασεν νήεσσι θοῇσι νήπιος: οὐδ̓ ἄῤ ἔμελλε, κακὰς ὑπὸ κῆρας ἀλύξας, [p. 119] ἵπποισιν καὶ ὄχεσφιν ἀγαλλόμενος παρὰ νηῶν ἂψ ἀπονοστήσειν προτὶ Ἴλιον ἠνεμόεσσαν:

  [17] Take another example. When Homer says of Asius son of Hyrtacus that, after his commander had given orders to leave the horses outside the trench, he alone did not obey,

  But with them neared the speedy ships, the fool!

  Nor was he fated, dodging the spirits dire,

  To come again, exulting in team and car,

  Back from the ships to wind-swept Ilium,

  [18] εἰς τοσαύτην δυσχωρίαν τάφρου τε καὶ τείχους καὶ νεῶν εἰσελαύνων, ὅπου γε μηδὲ τοῖς πεζοῖς συνήνεγκε καταληφθεῖσιν ὑπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων, ἀλλὰ ὀλίγης ἐκβοηθείας γενομένης διεφθάρησαν οἱ πλείους: ὁ δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἵππων ἐπαιρόμενος καὶ τῷ κάλλει τοῦ δίφρου ᾤετο μὲν ὑπὲρ τὸ τεῖχος ἐλάσειν, ἕτοιμος δὲ ἦν ἐμβαλὼν εἰς τὴν θάλατταν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἅρματος μάχεσθαι: ἆῤ οὖν οὐ περὶ ἀπειθείας καὶ

  [18] driving into such difficult terrain amid trench and wall and ships, where even the men on foot found it not to their advantage when caught by the foe, but most of them were slaughtered when a small rescue party issued from within the gate; yet Asius, elated as he was by his horses and the beauty of his chariot, though thinking to drive past the wall, was prepared to plunge into the sea and to fight from his chariot — think you not that Homer then is speaking of disobedience and boastfulness?

  [19] ἀλαζονείας τότε λέγειν φαίνεται; πάλιν δὲ τούτοις παρατιθεὶς Πολυδάμαντα κελεύοντα εὐλαβηθῆναι καὶ μὴ διαβαίνειν τὴν τάφρον, ἅμα μὲν τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐπιδεικνύντα ὡς ἐπικίνδυνον, ἅμα δὲ τὸν οἰωνὸν τὸν γενόμενον αὐτοῖς: ἄλλως μὲν γὰρ οὐδένα ᾤετο ἀνέξεσθαι αὐτοῦ λέγοντος, σὺν δὲ τῷ οἰωνῷ τάχ̓ ἂν πεῖσαι τὸν Ἕκτορα: ἢ τὸν Νέστορα τοὺς περὶ τὸν Ἀγαμέμνονα καὶ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα λοιδορουμένους παύοντα τῆς ὀργῆς καὶ προλέγοντα φανερῶς τὰ συμβησόμενα αὐτοῖς ἀπὸ τῆς στάσεως, ὕστερον δὲ ἐπιπλήττοντα τῷ Ἀγαμέμνονι ὡς ἁμαρτόντι καὶ ἀναγκάζοντα δεῖσθαι τοῦ Ἀχιλλέως: ἢ τὸν Ὀδυσσέα ἐπανορθούμενον τὸ ἁμάρτημα τοῦ Ἀγαμέμνονος, δἰ οὗ πεῖραν βουλόμενος λαβεῖν τοῦ στρατοῦ, πῶς φέροιεν τὴν τοῦ πολέμου τριβήν, ὀλίγου φυγεῖν αὐτοὺς ἐποίησεν: οὐ περὶ φρονήσεως καὶ στρατηγίας καὶ μαντικῆς, πρὸς δὲ τούτοις καιροῦ καὶ ἀκαιρίας

  [19] On the other hand, when he contrasts with these Polydamas giving orders to be cautious and not to cross the trench, pointing now to the enterprise as a risky venture and now to the omen they had had — for he felt that, while no one would listen to his words in any other way, perhaps by the omen he might persuade Hector; or, to take another illustration, when, as Agamemnon and Achilles are reviling one another, Homer depicts Nestor as trying to make them cease their rage, and foretelling plainly what will befall them in consequence of their strife, and later upbraiding Agamemnon as being in the wrong and forcing him to entreat Achilles; or again, Odysseus setting right the blunder of Agamemnon through which, while wishing to test the army to see how it stood the war’s delay, he almost brought about its flight — is it not likely that by scenes like these Homer is trying to give advice regarding prudence and generalship and prophecy, and more than this, regarding tact and tactlessness?

  [20] ἔοικεν ὑποτίθεσθαι; ἐν δὲ τῇ Ὀδυσσείᾳ τὰ μὲν ἄλλ̓ ἐῶ, ἑνὸς δὲ μόνου μνησθήσομαι, τοῦ Ἀντινόου. τοῦτον γὰρ ἀλαζονίστατον πεποίηκε τῶν μνηστήρων καὶ ἀκολαστότατον: ὃς πρῶτον μὲν κατεφρόνει τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως, ὅτι ἐκεῖνος μὲν ἐν ῥάκεσιν ἦν, αὐτὸς δὲ ἐν πολυτελεῖ ἐσθῆτι καὶ ἔπινεν ἐκ χρυσῶν ποτηρίων καὶ τούτων οὐχ αὑτοῦ καὶ ἐδείπνει πολυτελῶς οὐκ ἐκ τῶν πατρῴων, ἀλλὰ παρασιτῶν ἐπ̓ οἰκίας ἀδεσπότου: καὶ ἔφη μὲν τῆς Πηνελόπης ἐρᾶν, [p. 120] ἐμίγνυτο δὲ ταῖς δούλαις ταῖς τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως καὶ τἄλλα ἦν ἀκόλαστος,

  [20] As for the Odyssey, while I shall omit all else, I shall recall just one character, Antinoüs. For Homer has portrayed him as the most braggart of the suitors and the most dissolute. For example, in the first place he scorned Odysseus because he was in rags, while Antinoüs himself in costly raiment was drinking from golden goblets — and those not his own — and was dining sumptuously, not on his father’s viands, but rather playing the parasite in a house that lacked a master; moreover, while he professed to be enamoured of Penelopê, he was seducing the maidservants of Odysseus and behaving licentiously in general;

  [21] οὐχ ὡς ἔνιοι τῶν νῦν:
τελευτῶν δὲ ἐπεχείρει τοξεύειν, ἄπειρος ὢν τοξικῆς καὶ τὰς χεῖρας οὕτως ὑπὸ τρυφῆς διεφθαρμένος, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι ἅπτεσθαι τῆς νευρᾶς, εἰ μή τις ἐπιχρίσειε στέαρ, καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως ὁρῶντος καὶ τῆς ἐρωμένης παρούσης, ἐν ἀνθρώποις τοσούτοις, μηδ̓ ἐπιτεῖναι δυνάμενος τὸ τόξον μηδὲ ὅπως στήσει τοὺς πελέκεις ὁ Τηλέμαχος ξυνιείς. ὅμως δὲ τοῦτον καὶ ἀποθανόντα ἐποίησεν οὐκ εἰκῇ πληγέντα διὰ τοῦ λαιμοῦ, οὐχ ὅπου ἔτυχεν, ὥσπερ ἀμέλει τὸν Πάνδαρον διὰ τῆς γλώττης. καὶ γὰρ εἰ τύχῃ τινὶ συμβαίνει τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὅμως ἐπὶ πολλῶν ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅτι τοῦτον μὲν τὸν ἄνθρωπον διὰ τῆς γαστρὸς δεῖ πληγέντα ἀποθανεῖν, τοῦτον δὲ διὰ τῶν αἰδοίων, τοῦτον δὲ

  [21] and he ended by attempting to draw the bow, though he was unacquainted with archery and his hands were so spoiled by dainty living as not to be able to grasp the bow-string unless some smeared it with tallow; and what is more, he did this in the sight of Odysseus and in the presence of the object of his wooing, in the midst of such a crowd of men, not even being able to bend the bow, nor understanding how Telemachus was going to set up the axes. But for all that, Homer caused this man also to meet his death by a telling blow through the throat, instead of in some chance spot, just as, you remember, he caused Pandarus to be smitten through the tongue. For indeed if such things do take place by some chance, still in many instances it is possible to say that this man ought to die from a blow through the belly and that man through the genitals and another man through the mouth.

  [22] διὰ τοῦ στόματος. μὴ οὖν ὑμῖν εἰκῇ δοκεῖ Ὅμηρος ὁτιοῦν λέγειν; οὐ τοίνυν οὐδὲ Σωκράτης ἄλλως ἐχρῆτο τοῖς λόγοις οὐδὲ τοῖς παραδείγμασιν, ἀλλ̓ Ἀνύτῳ μὲν διαλεγόμενος βυρσέων ἐμέμνητο καὶ σκυτοτόμων. εἰ δὲ Λυσικλεῖ διαλέγοιτο, ἀμνίων καὶ κωδίων: Λύκωνι δὲ δικῶν καὶ συκοφαντημάτων, Μένωνι δὲ τῷ Θετταλῷ περὶ ἐραστῶν καὶ ἐρωμένων. οὐ μέντοι ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλων ἐνίοτε παραδειγμάτων εὐπόρει, φίλους μὲν ὀνομάζων καὶ φιλίαν, ὅτε πρὸς Λῦσιν διαλέγοιτο, περὶ σωφροσύνης δὲ Χαρμίδῃ διαλεγόμενος. [p. 121]

  [22] Well, then, Homer does not seem to you to say anything without a purpose, does he? No more, then, did Socrates employ his words or illustrations at random; on the contrary, when conversing with Anytus he would refer to tanners and cobblers; but if he conversed with Lysicles, it would be lambs and fleeces; if with Lycon, law-suits and blackmail; if with Meno the Thessalian, lovers and boy friends.

  THE FIFTY-SIXTH DISCOURSE: AGAMEMNON OR ON KINGSHIP

  ΑΓΑΜΕΜΝΩΝ Η ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ.

  THE FIFTY-SIXTH DISCOURSE: AGAMEMNON OR ON KINGSHIP

  This document, like the one preceding, appears to be a transcript of a conversation between Dio and an unnamed pupil. In his opening sentence Dio proposes Agamemnon as a topic likely to improve the mind. Having secured the pupil’s acceptance of that theme, he proceeds, in true Platonic fashion, to elicit a definition of the word king; “he who exercises general supervision of human beings and gives them orders without being accountable to them.” That definition having been obtained, he demolishes it by calling attention, first to the restraint imposed upon the kings at Sparta by the ephors, and then to Agamemnon’s dependence upon Nestor and his council of elders. Having seemingly induced the pupil to concede the point, Dio suddenly suggests that they drop the question, as having been dealt with adequately the day before, and turn to something else. The pupil protests that he is just beginning to understand what Dio has in mind and is eager for a full discussion, but our document goes no farther. Either the reporter decided for some unknown reason to stop at that point or Dio’s literary executor felt that this much was sufficient to illustrate this particular theme. The various aspects of kingship are considered by Dio not only in the first four orations in our collection — assigned by Arnim to the opening years of Trajan’s reign — but, at least incidentally, in several others.

  [1] Δ. Πότερα βούλει περὶ Ἀγαμέμνονος ἀκούειν φρονίμους λόγους, ἀφ̓ ὧν ἔστιν ὠφεληθῆναι τὴν διάνοιαν, ἢ λυπεῖ σε Ἀγαμέμνων ὁ Ἀτρέως ὀνομαζόμενος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις; — Οὐδ̓ εἰ περὶ Ἀδράστου τοῦ Ταλαοῦ λέγοις ἢ Ταντάλου ἢ Πέλοπος, ἀχθοίμην ἄν, εἰ μέλλω βελτίων ἔσεσθαι. — Δ. Καὶ μὴν ἀνεμνήσθην ἔναγχος λόγων τινῶν,

  The Fifty-sixth Discourse: Agamemnon or On Kingship

  [1] Dio. Do you wish to hear words of practical wisdom on the subject of Agamemnon, words by which the mind can be improved, or does it annoy you to have Agamemnon son of Atreus named in my discussions?

  Interlocutor. Not even if you should speak of Adrastus son of Talaüs or of Tantalus or of Pelops, should I be annoyed, provided I am likely to be improved.

  Dio. Very well, I have just called to mind certain words which I might speak, if you would consent to answer when I question you.

  Proceed, for I will answer.

  [2] οἷς λέγοιμ̓ ἄν, εἴ μοι ἐρωτῶντι ἐθέλοις ἀποκρίνασθαι. — Λέγε ὡς ἀποκρινουμένου. — Δ. Εἰσί τινες ἀνθρώπων ἄρχοντες; ὥσπερ ἕτεροι μὲν αἰγῶν, ἕτεροι δὲ ὑῶν, οἱ δέ τινες ἵππων, οἱ δὲ καὶ βοῶν, ξύμπαντες οὗτοι οἱ καλούμενοι κοινῇ ποιμένες: ἢ οὐκ ἀνέγνωκας τοῦτο τὸ ἔπος Κρατίνου: ποιμὴν καθέστηκ̓, αἰπολῶ καὶ βουκολῶ; — Οὐκ ἂν ἔχοιμί σοι εἰπεῖν, εἰ ποιμένας ἄμεινον ὀνομάζειν σύμπαντας τοὺς τῶν ζῴων νομέας. — Δ. Οὐ μόνον γε τῶν ἀλόγων, ὦ ἄριστε, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀνθρώπων, εἴ τι χρὴ Ὁμήρῳ πείθεσθαι περὶ τούτων. ἀλλὰ τί οὐκ ἀπεκρίνω τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐρώτημα; — Τὸ ποῖον;

  [2] Dio. Are there certain persons who are rulers of men, just as there are some who are rulers of goats, others of swine, others of horses, others of cattle, these one and all having in common the title herders; or have you not read this verse of Cratinus?

  My post is herder; goats and kine I tend.

  Int. I could not tell you whether it is better to call all who tend animals herders or not.

  Dio. Not merely those who tend brute beasts, my good fellow, but human beings too, if one should put any faith in Homer regarding these matters. But why did you not answer the original question?

  Int. What question?

  Dio. Whether there are indeed certain rulers of men.

  Int. Why, of course there are.

  [3] — Δ. Εἰπέ, εἰσί τινες ἀνθρώπων ἄρχοντες; — Πῶς γὰρ οὐκ εἰσί; — Δ. Τίνες οὗτοι; τίνας αὐτοὺς ἐπονομάζεις; λέγω δὲ οὐ τοὺς ἐν πολέμῳ στρατιωτῶν ἄρχοντας, ῾στρατηγοὺς γὰρ ὀνομάζειν εἰώθαμεν τοὺς ἁπάσης τῆς στρατιᾶς ἡγεμόνας: ὥσπερ γε καὶ κατὰ μέρος ὁ μὲν λόχου ἄρχων καλεῖται λοχαγός, ὁ δὲ τάξεως τα�
�ίαρχος, ὁ δὲ τοῦ ναυτικοῦ ναύαρχος, ὁ δὲ μιᾶς τριήρους τριήραρχος: καὶ ἄλλοι εἰσὶν οὕτως καλούμενοι πλείους ἐν τοῖς πολέμοις ἄρχοντες κατ̓ ὀλίγους, ὅτι πλείστης προνοίας τότε καὶ ἡγεμονίας οἱ ἄνθρωποι [p. 122]

  [3] Dio. Who are these? What do you call them? I am not speaking of those who rule soldiers in war, for those who are leaders of the army as a whole we are wont to call generals; just as also, considered unit by unit, the ruler of a company is called captain; of a regiment, colonel; of the fleet, admiral; and of a single trireme, trierarch; moreover, there are several others similarly named who in warfare exercise rule over small units, because at that time men need fullest care and leadership.

  [4] δέονταἰ οὐδέ γε τῶν χορῶν τοὺς κορυφαίους τυγχάνω πυνθανόμενος, οἵτινες καλοῦνται, τοὺς σημαίνοντας τοῖς ᾄδουσι καὶ μέλος ἐνδιδόντας, οὐδὲ τοὺς τῶν συμποσίων ἡγεμόνας, οὐδ̓ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι μέρους ἀνθρώπων πρὸς μίαν πρᾶξιν ἢ χρόνον ῥητὸν ἐπιμέλειάν τινα ἢ ἀρχὴν λαμβάνουσιν: ἀλλὰ τοὺς αὐτό γε τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἄρχοντας πολιτευομένων καὶ γεωργούντων, ἂν οὕτως τύχωσι, καὶ βιούντων ἁπλῶς, ὡς Κῦρός τε Περσῶν ἦρχε καὶ Μήδων Δηιόκης καὶ Ἕλλην τῶν δἰ αὐτὸν ὀνομασθέντων καὶ Αἰόλος Αἰολέων καὶ Δῶρος Δωριέων καὶ Νόμας Ῥωμαίων καὶ Δάρδανος Φρυγῶν.