За добродетелите и щастието

1. The Euboean Discourse, or the Hunter (7)

The seventh Discourse belongs to the later period of Dio's life, as the reference to himself as an old man and the style show. It seems to have been delivered in Rome.
This Discourse falls naturally into two parts: first, the story of the simple hunters in the wilds of Euboea — a very popular one that at an early period was separated from the rest of the Discourse — second, a description of the life Dio would have the poor lead in the cities and the difficulties they have to contend with, and, finally, of the social evils that should be remedied.
The portrayal of the conditions in the country and in the cities of his time is very instructive for the historian who would become acquainted with that period of history and gain some insight into the causes that led to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

2. ΠΕΡΙ ΛΥΠΗΣ - За страданието (16)
Τὸ μὲν ὑφ᾽ Ἡδονῆς κρατεῖσθαι τοὺς πολλοὺς αἰτίαν ἴσως ἔχει· κηλούμενοι γὰρ καὶ γοητευόμενοι παρὰ ταύτῃ μένουσι·τὸ δὲ Λύπῃ δεδουλῶσθαι παντελῶς ἄλογον καὶ θαυμαστόν...
This Discourse, given in the form of an address (διάλεξις), would seem also to belong to the period of Dio's exile, because it was then that he needed the comfort which this discourse gives. He teaches the Stoic doctrine that since there are so many things in life to hurt us, we should fortify our spirits so as to be insensible to them.
Von Arnim draws attention to the fact that this Discourse, just like Discourses... begins by mentioning a common fault of ordinary men in order to combat it.

3. On Covetousness (17)
After saying by way of preface that men often know what is right, but still fail to do it and need to be admonished again and again, Dio proceeds to point out the evils that come in the train of covetousness, and the blessings that follow from contentment. In these strictures on covetousness he makes considerable use of that passage in Euripides' Phoenician Women where the poet speaks of the evils of ambition, thus apparently showing that he considered the two vices to be fundamentally one and the same.

4. ΠΕΡΙ ΑΝΑΧΩΡΗΣΕΩΣ - За оттеглянето от активен живот (20)
Τί γάρ ποτε τὸ τῆς ἀναχωρήσεώς ἐστι καὶ τίνας χρὴ τιθέναι τοὺς ἀναχωροῦντας; ἆρά γε τοὺς ἀπὸ τῶν προσηκόντων ἔργων αὐτοῖς καὶ πράξεων ἀφισταμένους, τούτους χρὴ φάσκειν...
Here Dio discusses the real meaning of 'retirement.' It does not consist in going away somewhere to avoid a duty or a danger, or even to get freedom from distraction. To retire in the true sense is to fix one's mind upon the things that truly matter and to disregard trivial things and distractions from without. Retirement from the haunts of men merely affords foolish and wicked men an opportunity to give themselves up to their foolish and wicked thoughts and to plan how they may make their imaginings come true. Nothing is said of the good use to which the good may put such retirement. The similarities between this Discourse and Seneca's fifty-sixth Letter led E. Weber to the conclusion that Dio and Seneca drew from a common Stoic or Cynic source.
Von Arnim, who maintains that Dio, with the disappearance of his anti-monarchical feelings, dropped the use of the word μόναρχοι, would place this Discourse in the reign of Domitian. We may be sure at any rate that it was not written in Dio's youth, when he was a sophist.

5. ΟΤΙ ΕΥΔΑΙΜΩΝ Ο ΣΟΦΟΣ - За това,че мъдрият е щастлив (23)
Δ. Πότερον δοκεῖ σοι εἶναι ἄνθρωπος εὐδαίμων, εἰ δὲ μή, γεγονέναι ἢ ἔσεσθαι, ἢ ἀδύνατον ἡγῇ τὸ τοιοῦτον περὶ ἀνθρώπου, ὥσπερ εἴ τις ἀθάνατον ἄνθρωπον λέγοι εἶναι;...
This is one of the twelve discourses that are in the form of a dialogue between Dio, the teacher, and one of his pupils, reported directly. It would appear to reproduce an actual experience of Dio's in which he sets forth the Stoic doctrine that only the wise man is happy.
The line of thought is as follows: Homer and Euripides have said that man is unfortunate and unhappy; but just the opposite is true, or rather, partially true. For each man has a fortune or guiding spirit; and if this fortune or guiding spirit is good, then the man is good-fortuned and happy. But if the man has a bad fortune or guiding spirit, then the man is bad-fortuned and unhappy. But if the guiding spirit is good in the sense that it gives good fortune, it is also good as meaning 'just and useful and sensible' — which is a non sequitur — and since it apparently gives its own qualities to the man who has it, this man is at the same time also just and useful and sensible, in other words, wise. The good δαίμων, to use the Greek word, being good in both senses, gives both happiness and wisdom. The two are inseparable.
Then the pupil raises the question as to whether any guiding spirit can be bad, since all are divine; and Dio admits that he has merely been accepting the popular belief, not following his own, in assuming that some guiding spirits are good and others bad. He really believes with the philosophers that all guiding spirits are good. If a man listens to his good and wise guiding spirit, he gets at one and the same time both happiness and wisdom; if he does not, he is both unhappy and a fool. Therefore, only the wise man is happy.

6. ΠΕΡΙ ΕΥΔΑΙΜΟΝΙΑΣ - За щастието (24)
Οἱ πολλοὶ ἄνθρωποι καθόλου μὲν οὐδὲν πεφροντίκασιν ὁποίους χρὴ εἶναι οὐδὲ ὅ τι βέλτιστον ἀνθρώπῳ ἐστίν, οὗ ἕνεκα χρὴ πάντα τἄλλα πράττειν...
This Discourse begins by saying that the majority of men act wrongly in respect to something and then proceeds to set them right. This same admonishing attitude is found also in Discourse 13, where Dio tells of the beginning of his 'preaching' activity during his exile. For this reason von Arnim believes that all these Discourses, except the last of course, belong to the period of Dio's exile.
The great majority of men, says Dio, select their occupation in life without first considering the important question of what the life of man should be, and what is the highest good for him, the ideal toward which he should strive. Only the man who knows what this highest good is and subordinates everything else to it can gain true success and happiness.

7. Melancomas II. The good die young (28)
Dio, accompanied by at least one friend, comes up from the harbour — of Naples presumably — to witness the athletic contests then being held, and has his attention drawn especially to a tall handsome boxer who is training, surrounded by a great crowd of admirers. On asking one of the bystanders who the man is, he learns that it is the boxer Iatrocles, so often the antagonist of Melancomas, who has recently died. This bystander speaks in the highest terms of Melancomas both as a boxer and as a man, and is evidently greatly distressed by his death. Thereupon Dio offers various reflections to comfort him.
Von Arnim comes to the conclusion that the occasion of it was the Games in honour of Augustus (Ludi Augustales) as held at Naples in the year A.D. 74, when Titus, soon to be emperor and now thirty-three years old — Dio himself would be of about the same age — was either Director of Games (γυμνασίαρχος) there or Exhibitor of Games (ἀγωνοθέτης).
On the other hand, Lemarchand gives various reasons for thinking that Melancomas is a purely imaginary character. He considers it rather remarkable that, apart from one passage in Themistius, who got his information from Dio, there is no other reference in ancient literature to this incomparable athlete and boxer, no inscription that has come to light commemorating any victory of his. He also shows in detail that this Melancomas is the embodiment of all the youthful qualities and virtues for which Dio shows admiration in other Discourses, and that Dio at times, as in the Euboean Discourse, describes what is ideal rather than actual. And in Dio's time, he adds, the Romans began to take an interest in athletics, so that outstanding athletes came from Greece and Asia Minor to give exhibitions — note that Melancomas' father is represented as coming from Caria in Asia Minor. Their contests served to recall the glorious past of Greece. Therefore, may not Dio, who was an ardent Hellenist and who looked with disapproval on the cruel gladiatorial exhibitions, have wished to increase the interest in athletics by creating and describing this ideal athlete, this gentle boxer, who would not think of injuring his opponent by striking him with his fist armed with the terrible caestus? But this gentleness would make little appeal to most men of Dio's time.
As a literary effort the twenty-eighth Discourse is superior to the twenty-ninth, and toward the end the hortatory and preaching element, which is regarded as typical of what Dio wrote during his exile, is somewhat in evidence. It is possible, then, that this Discourse was written considerably later than the following one.

8. Melancomas I. It's great to be a hunk, but better to be a decent person (29)
If we follow von Arnim and others in believing that there really was such a Melancomas and that this funeral oration really was delivered, then arises the question of who delivered it. Apparently it was not Dio himself, because the speaker had been a close friend of the deceased and was deeply moved by his death; while Dio, on the other hand, had known Melancomas only by name. Then too, the speaker represents himself as quite youthful and not a fluent speaker. But if Dio merely wrote the oration for some one else to deliver, who was that person? One thinks first of Titus, who according to a Neapolitan inscription was the agonothete at the Games in Naples three times and gymnasiarch once before A.D. 81 and was reputed to have been a lover of Melancomas. But it seems unlikely that a man of Titus' disposition, high place, and maturity — he was possibly thirty-three years old at the time when this oration is supposed to have been delivered — and fresh from the capture of Jerusalem, would have represented himself as youthful and immature; or have ranked athletics higher than warfare. It is more likely that this oration was delivered by a Greek who was a high official at the Games.
The thought content of this Discourse and the information given about Melancomas are practically the same as in the preceding Discourse; but a good deal more is said in praise of the deceased; and athletics, as already said, are put on a higher plane than warfare.

9. ΧΑΡΙΔΗΜΟΣ - Харидем (30)
(D.) Ἀκηκόειν μὲν καὶ πρότερον πρὶν ὑμᾶς ἰδεῖν πρὸ ἱκανοῦ περὶ τῆς Χαριδήμου τελευτῆς. εὐθὺς γὰρ ἐπυνθανόμην, ὡς παρέβαλον δευρί, περί τε ἄλλων τινῶν...
At the beginning Dio is speaking with a certain Timarchus and the younger of his two sons, also named Timarchus, about the death of the older son, Charidemus, who had had a great love and admiration for Dio. From the father Dio learns that Charidemus shortly before his death had dictated an address for the consolation of his father, brother, and friends. On learning this Dio at once urges the father to read the address to him and the father complies.
In this address three possible explanations of the life of man are offered. According to the first one, this world is a prison in which men are punished by the gods, who hate them because they are of the blood of the Titans. When any man's punishment is completed, or he has left a son to suffer punishment in his stead, he is allowed to escape by death. According to the second explanation, this world is a colony founded by the gods for men, their descendants, whom at first they kept under their protection, but afterwards allowed to shift for themselves. The third explanation represents this world as a beautiful palace where men are entertained at a banquet from which God summons to himself those who have comported themselves best.
After hearing this address Dio commends it highly and attempts to console the bereaved father and the younger son.
In form this Discourse is a dialogue, reported directly, which contains a verbatim report of Charidemus' address, which, in its turn, is made up almost entirely of indirect reports of what certain men, not definitely indicated, have said in explanation of man's life in this world. The important part of the Discourse is, of course, Charidemus's address, which gives these three explanations, while the conversation between Dio and the two bereaved ones is merely a framework to hold it. In Plato's Phaedo also, which according to Philostratus was Dio's favourite book on philosophy, the important part consists of the last words of Socrates as reported by Phaedo to his friend Echecrates. Corresponding to these last words of Socrates we have here the deathbed message of Charidemus. And further, Charidemus shows in the face of death the same fortitude and resignation that Socrates did.
But did such a person as Charidemus, Dio's ideal of a young religious philosopher, ever have an existence, as Socrates did; or have we merely a product of the imagination? von Arnim feels sure that he is a real character, while others are not so certain.
In the next place, can we identify the man who, Charidemus says, offered him the explanation that this world is a prison? Now is Charidemus crediting this 'morose man' with the first explanation as a whole, or only with the part beginning with § 20? If the latter is the case, and the 'wandering philosopher' is identical with the 'morose man,' then Dio himself answers fairly well to this description.
Once more, who is the 'peasant,' also mentioned in § 25, 'who spoke with a very rustic drawl and accent,' the one from whom Charidemus says he heard the second and third explanations?
But no matter how we identify the 'morose man' and the 'peasant,' it seems reasonable to suppose that the three explanations of life represent three stages in Dio's own belief. After returning from exile he naturally acquired a more cheerful outlook on life and came to think of the gods as merely having become indifferent to men, and then later the prison has become a beautiful palace in which the king of the gods gives royal entertainment to men and rewards the best. Yet some parts of Dio's belief did not change. He believed throughout that the gods exist, that they have something to do with man, and that man may overcome evil and receive his reward.
And finally, there is the question as to the immediate and the ultimate sources of these three explanations of life and this world. Of course, if we believe that Antisthenes, the founder of the Cynic sect, offered the first and Cleanthes the second and third, for us a good deal of the question is settled. If we do not, then there is a great uncertainty. However, it has been shown that the idea of the world as a prison is Pythagorean and Orphic in origin,1 while Friedrich Wilhelm has offered a good many reasons for believing that Dio drew upon Posidonius for parts of all three explanations, although he with others thinks that there is a large Cynic element in the third. And since there are some thoughts that can be paralleled in Xenophon and Plato, it is reasonable to suppose that Dio drew to some extent also from these, his favourite authors.

(J.W. Cohoon)

Митология и литература. Омир и трагиците

1. ΛΙΒΥΚΟΣ ΜΥΘΟΣ - Либийски мит (5)
Μῦθον Λιβυκὸν ἐκπονεῖν καὶ περὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα κατατρίβειν τὴν περὶ λόγους φιλοπονίαν οὐκ εὐτυχὲς μέν...
It has been suggested by some that the Libyan myth told in the fifth Discourse was one of a collection of myths ascribed to a certain Cybissus, a Libyan. Others discredit this view and hold that we have here one of the many stories told about Lamia, a fabulous she-monster, the daughter of Scylla, who devoured the flesh of children and young men. The same myth seems to be referred to in the seventy-third section of the fourth Discourse. A similar story is told by Lucian in Vera Historia.

2. ΤΡΩΙΚΟΣ ΥΠΕΡ ΤΟΥ ΙΛΙΟΝ ΜΗ ΑΛΩΝΑΙ - Троянска реч (за това, че Троя не е била превзета) (11)
Οἶδα μὲν ἔγωγε σχεδὸν ὅτι διδάσκειν μὲν ἀνθρώπους ἅπαντας χαλεπόν ἐστιν, ἐξαπατᾶν δὲ ῥᾴδιον. καὶ μανθάνουσι μὲν μόγις, ἐάν τι καὶ μάθωσι, παρ´ ὀλίγων τῶν εἰδότων...
The eleventh Discourse is interesting to us because it contains a great deal of the criticism of Homer from Plato's time down; and because it seems to be so evidently just a "stunt" to show what could be done to disprove what everyone believed to be a fact, some would assign it to the period before Dio's exile when he was a sophist. If this view is accepted, then the hostility Dio shows to the sophists is simply a pretence to make his auditors forget that he is a sophist himself, though he is at that very time performing one of the sophists' most characteristic acts. Others feel that in view of the self-assurance of the speaker and the skill with which he presents his arguments, the speech belongs to Dio's riper years and that he had some serious purpose in delivering it.

3. За Есхил, Софокъл и Еврипид, или "Лъкът на Филоктет" (52)
This Discourse is not merely an interesting bit of ancient literary criticism but also our chief source of information as to two of the three plays with which it deals, the Philoctetes of Aeschylus and that of Euripides, both known to‑day only in scanty fragments. The Euripidean play clearly appealed to Dio's rhetorical instincts; yet we are reminded of the situation in the Frogs of Aristophanes, the god of the drama yielding the palm to Aeschylus, though unmistakably prejudiced in favour of Euripides.
There was little occasion for Homer to refer to Philoctetes, whom he names in only three passages. Fuller details were obtainable from three epics belonging to what is known as the Cycle — the Cypria, the Little Iliad, and the Iliupersis. The high points in the epic version are as follows. Heracles, out of gratitude for services rendered, had given Philoctetes his bow and arrows, once the property of Apollo. When the Greeks sailed for Troy, Philoctetes guided them to the island of Chrysê, where they were to offer sacrifice. There a venomous serpent bit Philoctetes on the foot. His cries of anguish and the stench of his wound caused the Greeks to abandon him on the shores of Lemnos. Ten years later, when the Greek fortunes were at a low ebb, upon the advice of the seer Calchas and by the stratagem of Odysseus the Trojan seer Helenus was taken captive. He revealed that Troy could be taken only with the aid of Philoctetes and his bow, and that Neoptolemus, the son of Achilles, must come from Scyros. Accordingly Diomedes is sent for Philoctetes and Odysseus for Neoptolemus. Philoctetes is healed of his wound, slays Paris, and in company with Neoptolemus causes the downfall of Troy.
The occasion on which our Discourse was delivered is unknown. Dio's reference to the chill of the morning might suggest his home in Prusa as the setting for his adventure in dramatic criticism. His allusion to ill health and his manifest sympathy for the lonely Philoctetes, victim of misfortune, suggest the period subsequent to Dio's exile as the time of composition.

4. За Омир (53)
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.

5. ΝΕΣΤΩΡ - Нестор (57)
Διὰ τί ποτε δοκεῖ ὑμῖν Νέστορος Ὅμηρος ποιῆσαι τάδε τὰ ἔπη πρὸς Ἀγαμέμνονα καὶ Ἀχιλλέα: ἤδη γάρ ποτ´ ἐγὼ καὶ ἀρείοσιν ἠέπερ ὑμῖν ἀνδράσιν ὡμίλησα...
This little Discourse has as its immediate aim a defence of Nestor's behaviour in the famous passage in the first book of the Iliad, in which he seems to boast of his former prowess and importance. Dio maintains with some skill, not only that Homer intended the old man to speak as he did, but also that he did not mean to depict him as a braggart — the self-praise of Nestor was to serve the useful purpose of checking the quarrel between Agamemnon and Achilles.
Having made his point, Dio lets his audience into the secret that his sermon on Nestor was really designed to forestall possible criticism of himself when he should presently deliver an address which he had previously delivered before the Emperor. The emperor in question was doubtless Trajan, and the speech to which our Discourse was to serve as prelude may well have been one of Dio's four discourses On Kingship.

6. ΑΧΙΛΛΕΥΣ - Ахил (58)
Ὁ Ἀχιλλεὺς τὸν Χείρωνα ἤρετο, Τί μ᾽, ἔφη, τοξεύειν διδάσκεις; Ὅτι, ἔφη, καὶ τοῦτο τῶν πολεμικῶν ἐστιν. Δειλῶν, ἔφη, τὸ ἔργον ἐπὶ δειλούς. Πῶς; ἔφη...
This lively little sketch, whose spirit resembles strongly that of many of the dialogues of Lucian, is regarded by Arnim as a paraphrase of some dramatic composition, either a satyr play or some Cynic tragedy. The space devoted to a discussion of the relative merits of hoplite and archer reminds him of a similar discussion in the Heracles of Euripides, a play supposed to have been composed about the year 420 B.C., and he therefore suspects Dio's original to have come from about that period. Sophocles wrote a satyr play called Achilles' Lovers, which might have been the play here used by Dio.
The tradition according to which Cheiron the Centaur was tutor to Achilles is as old as Homer. According to Apollodorus, Thetis, detected by Peleus in the act of making Achilles immortal by passing him through the fire, abandoned her baby and her home and rejoined the Nereids. Thereupon Peleus entrusted the babe to Cheiron. But when Achilles was nine years of age, Thetis, having heard of the prophecy of Calchas, that Troy could not be taken without the aid of Achilles, and knowing that if he took part in the expedition he would meet his death, took him and dressed him as a girl and placed him in the care of Lycomedes on the island of Scyros. We must, therefore, suppose the lad to be not older than nine at the time of our Discourse.

7. ΦΙΛΟΚΤΗΤΗΣ - Филоктет (59)
ΟΔ. Φοβοῦμαι μήποτε μάτην κατ᾽ ἐμοῦ φανῶσι ταύτην οἱ σύμμαχοι τὴν δόξαν εἰληφότες ὡς ἀρίστου δὴ καὶ σοφωτάτου τῶν Ἑλλήνων...
This Discourse, as possibly also the one preceding, paraphrases a drama, the prologue of Euripides' Philoctetes. Dio has furnished a synopsis of practically the same material in Or. 52. The synopsis, however, contains two details not found in the paraphrase, namely, that Diomedes arrived in company with Odysseus and the nature of the chorus and its behaviour toward Philoctetes.
As Lemarchand observes, Dio himself, when recommending that the student of oratory should memorize for recitation speeches from Xenophon, prescribes that he should not make a slavish copy of the original but that he should rather select such passages as seemed most pertinent. Whether our Discourse be viewed as a school exercise or as intended for Dio's own delivery, it has undeniable unity as it stands. The rôle of Diomedes was undoubtedly minor. As handled by Euripides, after his initial entry with Odysseus Diomedes may well have temporarily withdrawn, leaving his companion to deliver the soliloquy with which our paraphrase begins. Furthermore the dialogue between Odysseus and Philoctetes took place prior to the entry of the chorus, as is obviously true of the entry of the Trojan envoys. Indeed, the concluding words of Philoctetes give the impression that at this point in the play both he and Odysseus went indoors, thus paving the way for the entry of the chorus.

8. ΝΕΣΣΟΣ Η ΔΗΙΑΝΕΙΡΑ - Нес, или Деянира (60)
Ἔχεις μοι λῦσαι ταύτην τὴν ἀπορίαν, πότερον δικαίως ἐγκαλοῦσιν οἱ μὲν τῷ Ἀρχιλόχῳ, οἱ δὲ τῷ Σοφοκλεῖ περὶ τῶν κατὰ τὸν Νέσσον καὶ τὴν Δηιάνειραν ἢ οὔ...
Dio's purpose in this little dialogue is apparently to display his dexterity in reconstructing Greek myth rather than to impart ethical instruction. A somewhat similar tour de force presents itself in the Trojan Discourse (Or. 11). Such exercises constituted a well-known feature of sophistic training and are not to be confused with the effort to rid ancient mythology of its grosser elements, an effort at least as old as Pindar.
In the present instance the myth in question seems not to have been popular. Though it may have figured in the cyclic epic, The Taking of Oechalia, there is no proof that it did. The only ancient Greek writers known to have dealt with the tale of Nessus and Deïaneira are the two named in the opening paragraph of our dialogue — Archilochus and Sophocles. All that is known of the version of Archilochus is contained in this brief reference and in two meagre scholia on Apollonius Rhodius and the Iliad respectively. The Sophoclean version is contained in his Trachiniae. There the murdered Nessus wreaks a posthumous vengeance upon his murderer in the manner here outlined by Dio. The dramatist puts into the mouth of Deïaneira herself the account of the attempt upon her honour (Trachiniae 555‑577).
The anonymous interlocutor in Dio's dialogue is a colourless individual, whose function seems to be, first of all, to afford Dio an opportunity to display his dexterity, and finally to pay "certain philosophers" the doubtful compliment of comparison with coroplasts. The natural inference from that comparison is that Dio himself has attained the standing of a philosopher; but the interlocutor does not say so in plain terms and there is little in the Discourse that smacks of philosophy. In general it seems more suited to Dio's sophistic period.

9. ΧΡΥΣΗΙΣ - Хризеида (61)
D. Ἐπεὶ τυγχάνεις οὐ φαύλως ἐπαινοῦσα Ὅμηρον οὐδὲ ὥσπερ οἱ πολλοὶ πιστεύουσα τῇ δόξῃ προσποιῇ θαυμάζειν· ὃ δὲ δεινότατός ἐστιν τὴν περὶ τὰ πάθη τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐμπειρίαν...
In this little dialogue it would seem that Dio had chosen for discussion the most unpromising of topics. Little as is known about Briseïs, Homer at least tells us that when Agamemnon's messengers came to fetch her she followed them unwillingly, but Chryseïs, the involuntary cause of the quarrel out of which grew the Iliad, is restored to the arms of her father without giving the slightest clue to her emotions or desires. Apart from the epithet "fair-cheeked" which she shares with Briseïs, our only testimony regarding her personality is the tribute paid her by Agamemnon when he compares her with Clytemnestra to the disadvantage of the latter, a tribute, it may be, inspired as much by arrogant pride as by passion.
So far as is known, none of the Greek playwrights found in her story material suitable for dramatic treatment; yet Dio here undertakes the task of endowing this lay figure with life. His partner in the discussion is not a colourless individual, as is often the case, merely providing the cues for further argumentation and meekly assenting to the conclusions reached, but a woman with a mind of her own, repeatedly raising logical objections and asking pertinent questions. Her final utterance shows that, despite the dexterity of Dio, she has some lingering doubts about the true character of Chryseïs. It is of course peculiarly fitting that in treating such a topic as Chryseïs the interlocutor should be a woman, but that Dio should have cast a woman for such a rôle is of itself noteworthy, and there is such an atmosphere of verisimilitude surrounding the dialogue as to suggest that it may actually have taken place.

(J.W. Cohoon)

Единадесета Олимпийска ода. Агезидам от Епизефирските Локри

І. Превод

Понякога хората имат най-голяма нужда от ветрове; а понякога от небесни води, дъждовни деца на облака. Ако пък някой успява с труд, меденозвучни химни стават начало на по-късни слова и истинно свидетелство за големи добродетели (1-6).

Тази реч, недосегаема за завист, се поднася на олимпийските победители. Тези слова нашият глас иска да поведе като стадо на паша; но пък човек цъфти и с помощта на мъдри съвети от бога. Знай сега, Агесидаме, Архестратов сине, че заради твоята победа в бокса (7-12)

ще вплета сладкопесенна украса във венеца от златна маслина като гледам към рода на зефирските Локри. Там елате на празненството, Музи; обещавам, че няма да се появи войска, която гони гостите, неопитна в красивото но храбра и твърде умна. Защото вродения нрав не ще изменят нито червената лисица, ни лъвовете гръмогласни (13-20).


ІІ. Други преводи

Sometimes have men most need of winds, sometimes of showered waters of
the firmament, the children of the cloud.
But when through his labour one fareth well, then are due honey-voiced
songs, be they even a prelude to words that shall come after, a pledge
confirmed by oath in honour of high excellence (1-6).

Ample is the glory stored for Olympian winners: thereof my shepherd
tongue is fain to keep some part in fold. But only by the help of God
is wisdom kept ever blooming in the soul.
Son of Archestratos, Agesidamos, know certainly that for thy boxing (7-12) I

will lay a glory of sweet strains upon thy crown of golden olive,
and will have in remembrance the race of the Lokrians' colony in the West.
There do ye, O Muses, join in the song of triumph: I pledge my word
that to no stranger-banishing folk shall ye come, nor unacquainted
with things noble, but of the highest in arts and valiant with the
spear. For neither tawny fox nor roaring lion may change his native
temper (13-20).

(E. Myers)


There is a time when men's need for winds is the greatest, and a time for waters from the sky, the rainy offspring of clouds. But when anyone is victorious through his toil, then honey-voiced odes become the foundation for future fame, and a faithful pledge for great deeds of excellence (1-6).

This praise is dedicated to Olympian victors, without stint. My tongue wants to foster such themes; but it is by the gift of a god that a man flourishes with a skillful mind, as with anything else. For the present rest assured, Hagesidamus son of Archestratus: for the sake of your boxing victory (7-12),

I shall loudly sing a sweet song, an adornment for your garland of golden olive, while I honor the race of the Western Locrians. There, Muses, join in the victory-song; I shall pledge my word to you that we will find there a race that does not repel the stranger, or is inexperienced in fine deeds, but one that is wise and warlike too. For neither the fiery fox nor loud-roaring lions change their nature (13-20).

(B. L. Gildersleeve)

Олимпийски оди III-VI

I. Терон от Акрагант (за празника Теоксения)

1. Съдържание

Искам да прославя славния Акрагант с химн за олимпийската победа на Терон; и се обръщам към Тиндаридите и хубавокосата Елена. Нека ме подкрепя и Музата. Венците по конските гриви ме подтикват да изпълня определения от боговете дълг към сина на Енесидам. И Пиза ме подтиква да говоря, защото от нея идват божествените песни: откакто един мъж - етолиец - постави на нечия глава за пръв път маслиновата украса, която синът на Амфитрион донесе от сенчестия извор на Истър, след като убеди с реч хиперборейския народ - служителя на Аполон.
Той освети олтарите на баща си (Зевс) и определи съдийството и петгодишния период на игрите при бреговете на Алфей. Но не цъфтяха хубави дървета в земята на Кронидовия Пелопс (1-24).
И тогава духът му го подтикна да върви към Истрийската земя, където го посрещна дъщерята на Латона - него, идващия от Аркадия, където по известие на Евристей и принуден от баща си преследваше златорогата сърна. И, следвайки я, видя земята зад диханията на Борей, и се смая, като видя дърветата. И бе обзет от сладка жажда да ги посади при края на пътя, където конете се обръщат дванайсет пъти. И сега на този празник той идва заедно с близнаците на дълбокопрепасаната Леда: защото, когато тръгна за Олимп, на тях остави да уреждат състезанието между мъжете (25-38).
А мен духът ми ме подтиква да кажа на Еменидите и Терон, че славата им е дадена от хубавоконните Тиндариди, защото от всички смъртни те им посвещават най-многото трапези: и с благопристойна мисъл пазят ритуала на безсмъртните.
И ако водата превъзхожда, а сред придобивките най-уважавано е златото, то сега Терон стигна до върха - и от дома си се докосва до стълбовете на Херакъл. Нататък вече няма път нито за мъдреците, нито за немъдрите. И няма да вървя натам, защото би било напразно (39-45).


2. Коментари

This ode celebrates the same victory as the preceeding one. It was
sung at the feast of the Theoxenia, given by Theron in the name of
the Dioskouroi (Kastor and Polydeukes) to the other gods. Hence the
epithet "hospitable" (philoxeinois) applied to the Dioskouroi
in the first line. The clan of the Emmenidai to which Theron belonged
was especially devoted to the worship of the Twins.

(E. Myers)


The third Olympian celebrates the same victory as the preceding ode. In what order the two were sung does not appear. Ol. 2 was probably performed in the palace of Theron; Ol. 3 in the Dioskureion of Akragas. The superscription and the Scholia indicate that this ode was prepared for the festival of the Theoxenia, at which Kastor and Polydeukes entertained the gods. It is natural to assume the existence of a special house-cult of the Dioskuroi in the family of the Emmenidai...
The third Olympian, then, combines the epinikian ode with the theoxenian hymn. The Tyndaridai are in the foreground... It is the Tyndaridai, the twin sons of Leda, that are the ruling spirits of the Olympian contests. It is the Tyndaridai that are the givers of fame to Theron. The victory is the same as that celebrated in the previous ode, but there Theron is always present to our minds. We are always thinking of the third member of the triad - god, hero, man. Here Theron is kept back... Before it was merit, here it is grace.
The poem is a solemn banquet-hymn. The victory calls for the fulfilment of a divine service, a theodmaton chreos. Pisa is the source of theomoroi aoidai. The myth has the same drift. It is the story of the Finding of the Olive, the token of victory. This is no native growth. It was brought by Herakles from the sources of the Istros, a memorial of Olympic contests. It was not won by force, but obtained by entreaty from the Hyperborean servants of Apollo, and the hero craved it as shade for the sacred enclosure of his sire, and as a wreath for human prowess. Already had the games been established, but the ground was bare to the keen scourgings of the sun. Sent to Istria on another errand by Zeus, he had beheld and wondered. Thither returning at the impulse of his heart, he asked and received, and planted the olive at Olympia, which he still visits with the sons of Leda.

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


II. Псаумий от Камарина, надбягване с колесници (мулета)


1. Съдържание


2. Коментари

Psaumis won this race in the year 452; therefore this ode and its
companion, the next following, are the latest work of Pindar possessed
by us to which we can assign a date. The mule-chariot-race was introduced at Olympia B.C. 500 and abolished B.C. 444, according to Pausanias.
This ode seems to have been written immediately on Psaumis' victory,
to be sung the same night beneath the moon by the company of friends
who escorted the winner to return thanks at the altar of Zeus.

(E. Myers)

Kamarina was founded by the Syracusans, 599 BC, one hundred and thirty-five years after Syracuse itself. Destroyed by Syracuse in consequence of a revolt, it was some time afterwards restored by Hippokrates. Again stripped of its inhabitants by Gelon, it was rebuilt once more by men of Gela (461 BC). The proverb mê kinei Kamarinan: akinêtos gar ameinôn is supposed to refer to the unhealthy situation of the city...
Of Psaumis we know absolutely nothing, except what Pindar is pleased to tell us in this ode and the next. Both odes are supposed to refer to the same victory, apênêi, that is, with a mule chariot... This gives us a terminus. The mule-race was done away with, Ol. 84 (444 BC). Böckh puts Psaumis's victory Ol. 82 (452 BC), and maintains that the victor had failed in the four-horse chariot race, and in the race with the single horse (kelêti). The apênêi victory then was a consolation, and there seems to be a note of disappointment in the rhythm.
According to Böckh the ode was sung in Olympia; according to Leopold Schmidt in Kamarina. The latter view seems to be the more probable. The fourth ode was sung in the festal procession, the fifth, the genuineness of which has been disputed, at the banquet.
The key of this brief poem is given, v. 16: diapeira toi brotôn elenchos. The final test is the true test. Success may be slow in coming, but when it comes it reveals the man. The thunderchariot of Zeus is an unwearied chariot. What though his Horai revolve and revolve ere they bring the witness of the lofty contest? Good fortune dawns, and then comes gratulation forthwith. The light comes late, but it is a light that shines from the chariot of a man who hastens to bring glory to Kamarina. Well may we pray, “God speed his other wishes.” Well may we praise the man - liberal, hospitable, pure-souled, lover of peace, lover of his state. No falsehood shall stain this record of a noble life. The final trial is the test of mortals.
So, by trial, Erginos, the Argonaut, was saved from the reproach of the Lemnian women. Unsuccessful before, he won the race in armor, and said to Hypsipyle as he went after the crown: “This is what I am in swiftness. My hands and heart fully match my feet. The race is for the young, but I am younger than my seeming. Gray hairs grow often on young men before the time. The final trial is the test of mortals.”
Psaumis had every virtue but success; now this is added. So Erginos was a man of might, of courage; now he has shown his speed.

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


III. Псаумий от Камарина (за изпълнение в Камарина)

1. Съдържание


2. Коментари

This ode is for the same victory as the foregoing one, but was to be
sung after Psaumis' return home, at Kamarina, and probably at, or in
procession to, a temple of either Pallas, Zeus, or the tutelary nymph
Kamarina, all of whom are invoked. The city is called "new-peopled"
(neoikos) because it had been destroyed by Gelo, and was only
restored B.C. 461, nine years before this victory, the first which had
been won by any citizen since its restoration.

(E. Myers)

The victory celebrated here is the same as that of the preceding ode.
The verse about which the poem revolves is v. 15: aiei d' amph' aretaisi ponos dapana te marnatai pros ergon | kindunôi kekalummenon. The preceding poem dwells on the importance of the final trial; this gives the conditions of success, ponos dapana te. The wain must be untiring, the sacrifices great and various. To gain an Olympian victory, to found a new city, costs toil and money. The flower of victory is sweet (aôtos glukus), the abode of Pelops lovely (euêratoi stathmoi), now that the work is over, the price paid. So the daughter of Okeanos, Kamarina, who is to greet the victor with laughing heart, was builded with much toil, much cost. The stately canals, the grove of houses - these, like apênê, like bouthusiai, were not made for naught. May blessings rest on city and on Olympian victor! May the one have the adornment of the noble deeds of her sons, the other a happy old age, with his sons clustering about him! ponos dapana te have brought their reward. Wealth sufficient remains. Add fame. What more? Let him not seek to become a god.
There is no myth. The founding of Kamarina is fairy-tale, is magic achievement, enough.

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


IV. Агезий от Сиракуза, надбягване с колесници (мулета, за изпълнение в Стимфал)

1. Съдържание


2. Коментари

One of the Iamid clan, to which belonged hereditary priestly functions
in Arcadia and at Olympia, had come with the first colonists to Syracuse,
and from him the present victor Agesias was descended. Thus
the ode is chiefly concerned with the story of his ancestor Iamos.
Agesias was a citizen of Stymphalos in Arcadia, as well as of Syracuse,
where he lived, and the ode was sung by a chorus in Stymphalos,
B.C. 468.

(E. Myers)

Agesias, son of Sostratos, was a Syracusan of the noble family of the Iamidai, descendants of Iamos, son of Apollo. The Iamidai were hereditary prophets among the Dorians, hereditary diviners at the great altar of Zeus in Olympia. Early settlers of Italy and Sicily, they retained their connection with Arkadia. Our Agesias, a citizen of Syracuse, was also a citizen of Stymphalos. As a Syracusan he was an active partisan of Hieron, and after the fall of the tyrannis was put to death by the Syracusans.
The composition of the ode cannot be earlier than 476 BC, nor later than 468 BC, the earliest and the latest Olympian celebrations that fall within the reign of Hieron. Ol. 77 (472 BC) is excluded, because Pindar was at that time in Sicily, and the poem was composed in Greece. Zeus Aitnaios would seem more appropriate after the founding of Aitna (Ol. 76).
The ode was probably sung at Stymphalos and repeated at Syracuse. One Aineas brought the poem from Thebes to Stymphalos, and directed the performance. We do not know whether he was an assistant of Pindar's or a local poet of the Iamid stock.
The verses to which one always comes back in thinking over this poem are these (100, 101): agathai de pelont' en cheimeriai | nukti thoas ek naos apeskimphthai du' ankurai. Agesias, the hero of the poem, unites in his person Syracusan and Stymphalian. At Olympia he is victor in the games and steward of an oracle. At Syracuse he is sunoikistês of the city and beloved of the citizens. He is prince and prophet, as Amphiaraos was warrior and prophet, and his victory must be celebrated at Pitana, as it must be celebrated at Syracuse. His charioteer, Phintis, must speed to the banks of the Eurotas, and Pindar's leader, Aineas, must conduct the festal song. Agesias's maternal stock was Arkadian; from thence came his prophetic blood - from Euadne, daughter of Poseidon, a prophetic god; from Iamos, whom Euadne bore to Apollo, a prophetic god.
The myth of Iamos shows the value of this double help - the result, a double treasure of prophecy. Prosperity and fame attend the Iamidai. Herakles helped Iamos at Olympia; Hermes the Iamidai in Arkadia. Thebes and Stymphalos are akin, as Herakles, Boeotian hero, and Hermes, Arkadian god, unite to bless the Iamidai. So the song must praise Hera, for Arkadia was the home of her virginity, and vindicate Boeotia, home of Herakles; must remember Syracuse, and wish the victor a happy reception in one home as he comes from another home -- as he comes from Arkadia to Syracuse. He has two homes in joy - two anchors in storm. God bless this and that (tônde keinôn te klutan aisan parechoi phileôn). Nor is the mention of the two anchors idle. May Amphitrite's lord speed Agesias's ship, and prosper the poet's song.
This is one of the most magnificent of Pindar's poems, full of color, if not so dazzling as the seventh Olympian. The myth of Iamos, the mantis ancestor of a mantis, is beautifully told. Profound moral there is none to me discernible. “He that hath gods on either side of his ancestry shall have the gods to right and left, of him for aye,” shows an aristocratic belief in blood (oude pot' ekleipsein genean).
There is such a ganglion of personal and tribal relations involved in this piece that one is tempted to long historical and antiquarian disquisitions; but if we accept Pindar's statement as to the connection between Thebes and Arkadia, nothing more is necessary to the enjoyment of the ode.

(B. L. Gildersleeve)

Към жителите на Пруса. Автобиографични

1. ΕΝ ΑΘΗΝΑΙΣ ΠΕΡΙ ΦΥΓΗΣ - в Атина, за изгнанието си (13)
Ὅτε φεύγειν συνέβη με φιλίας ἕνεκεν λεγομένης ἀνδρὸς οὐ πονηροῦ, τῶν δὲ τότε εὐδαιμόνων τε καὶ ἀρχόντων ἐγγύτατα ὄντος, διὰ ταῦτα δὲ καὶ ἀποθανόντος...
In the year A.D. 82, probably, Dio was banished by the Emperor Domitian, not only from Rome and Italy but also from his native Bithynia, on the charge of being in some way implicated in the conspiracy of one of the Emperor's relatives, Junius Rusticus, as some including Mommsen maintain, Flavius Sabinus as von Arnim with better reason believes. Each of these men was related to the Emperor, Flavius Sabinus being the husband of Julia, the daughter of Domitian's elder brother Titus, who had been Emperor before him; and each of them was executed on the charge of having conspired against him. If it is Flavius Sabinus to whom Dio refers, then since this man was executed in the year A.D. 82, we may infer that Dio's banishment began in this year, and it was intended to last his lifetime. However, with the accession of Nerva in A.D. 96 he was permitted to return.
In the Thirteenth Discourse Dio gives us an interesting glimpse into his thoughts and feelings at that time. Adopting the attitude of a Stoic, he resolved to endure his banishment manfully and found that it was quite endurable. Then he tells how at the urgent request of others he began to deliver moral addresses to groups of people gathered to hear him.

2. En te patridi peri tes pros apameis homonoias - (Произнесена) в родината си, относно споразумението с апамейците (40)
Enomizon men, o andres politai, nyn goun, ei kai me proteron axein ten hapasan hesychian...
As indicated by the title, the background of this Discourse is a quarrel between Prusa, the home of the speaker, and its near neighbour, Apameia. The precise nature of the quarrel remains in doubt, but it seems to have involved business relations, and possibly also property rights. The relations between the two cities were extremely intimate. Prusa used the port of Apameia, and Apameia looked to Prusa for its timber. There was constant intercourse of many kinds between the two, and citizens of the one not infrequently were citizens also of the other, sometimes even receiving a seat and vote in the Council of the second city. Dio's own connexion with Apameia was especially close. As we learn from Or. 41, not only had he himself been honoured with citizenship there, but also his father before him; his mother and her father too had been awarded citizenship in Apameia along with the grant of Roman citizenship; and, finally, it would appear that Dio's household had found a refuge in that city during his exile.
Whatever the nature of the quarrel, it had lasted for some time prior to the date of our Discourse (A.D. 101), and it had been so bitter that Dio had feared to accept the invitation of Apameia to pay a visit joint upon his return from exile, lest by doing so he might offend the city of his birth, and for the same reason he had resisted a request to intervene in behalf of Apameia in its quarrel. He had, to be sure, urged upon his fellow citizens, as occasion offered, the desirability of reconciliation with Apameia, and negotiations to that end were actually in progress when Dio, responding with some reluctance to the summons of his fellow townsmen, appeared in town-meeting and pleaded afresh the cause of concord. It would appear that his words received a favourable hearing, for in the next Discourse in our collection, delivered at Apameia shortly afterwards, he speaks as a member of an official delegation to arrange terms of agreement.
This Discourse, as well as several to follow, is valuable both as shedding light upon doings in Bithynia, doings about which we get supplementary information from the correspondence of Pliny the Younger written during his term as proconsul of that province, and also as supplying biographical data regarding the speaker.

3. Pros apameis peri homonoias - към апамейците относно споразумението (41)
Hoti men hymeis, o boule kai ton allon hoi parontes hoi metriotatoi, praos pros eme kai philikos echete...
This short address constitutes the sequel to Or. 40, which it must have followed closely in point of time. Dio is speaking before the Council of Apameia as a member of the official delegation from Prusa sent to conclude the reconciliation which forms the theme of both speeches. That the question was of widespread interest is shown by the presence in the audience of others than members of the Council.
The first half of the address is aimed at dispelling the distrust and hostility toward Dio occasioned by his seeming indifference to the Apameians in the past. This he attempts to bring about by recalling the ties which bound him and his family to that city and by explaining the delicacy of his situation as a member of both communities. The remainder of the speech is devoted to praising the blessings of concord and stressing the peculiarly intimate nature of the ties existing between the two cities.
The abruptness of the close might suggest that the speech is incomplete. However, such a supposition is not unavoidable. Dio has presumably achieved his immediate purpose — to restore himself to good favour at Apameia and, as a delegate from Prusa, to make his voice heard in support of concord. It is not as if he were the only delegate to be heard.

(J.W. Cohoon)

За Диоген, Сократ и киническата философия

1. Diogenes e peri tyrannidos - Диоген, или за тиранията (6)
Diogenes ho Sinopeus, hotan ephygen ek Synopes aphikomenos eis ten Hellada diege pote men en Koryntho...
Von Arnim has proved quite conclusively that the 6, 8, 9, and 10 Discourses belong to the period when Dio was a wanderer in exile. For example, many things that Dio speaks of Diogenes doing, such as going through armies safely without a herald's staff, fit better the experience of Dio himself, and many of the references to the Persian king would apply just as well to Domitian, who banished Dio. No doubt the speaker's audiences would understand his veiled allusions quite easily.
In these Discourses Dio sets forth certain tenets of the Cynical philosophy, using Diogenes as his mouthpiece. His subject is Contentment.

***



2. Diogenes e peri aretes - Диоген, или за доброделта (8)
Diogenes ho Sinopeus ekpeson ek tes patridos, oudenos diapheron ton panu phaulon, Athenaze aphiketo...
The subject of the eighth Discourse is "The Real Athlete," and the speech was evidently delivered during Dio's period of exile. The reference to Diogenes' exile at the beginning is no accident. When the latter was represented as telling how he endured hunger, thirst, and poverty, and narrating the labours of Heracles, Dio's audience naturally thought of the speaker himself; and when Eurystheus, who tyrannized over Heracles, they thought of Domitian, who banished Dio.

3. Diogenes e Isthmikos - Диоген, или Истмийска реч (9)
Isthmion onton katebe Diogenes eis ton Isthmon, os eoiken, en Korintho diatribon, paretunchane de tais panegyresin...
In the ninth Discourse, as in the eighth, we find Diogenes attending the Isthmian games, and in both Discourses there is the same reference to the importance of the great public gatherings for Diogenes' purpose, the same references to physicians and to dogs. These similarities have led to the inference that the two Discourses were prepared at about the same time; but while in the preceding Discourse we are given the subject-matter of Diogenes' teaching, in this one it is rather his method of teaching that is shown.

4. ΔΙΟΓΕΝΗΣ Η ΠΕΡΙ ΟΙΚΕΤΩΝ - Diogen, ili za robite
Ἀπιών ποτε Διογένης ἐκ Κορίνθου Ἀθήναζε συνέβαλε κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἑνὶ τῶν γνωρίμων, καὶ ἤρετο ποῖ ἄπεισιν, οὐχ ὥσπερ οἱ πολλοὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπερωτῶσιν...
The tenth Discourse contains Cynic doctrine and belongs like the two preceding Discourses to Dio's period of exile. He could not consistently have praised the condition of being without property except when he was in exile and without property himself...
This Discourse has two parts. In the first it is shown to be better to be without a slave or any other piece of property if you do not know how to use it, and then the stronger statement is made that it is better to have no property at all. In the second part it is shown to be very dangerous and indeed harmful to consult a god when you do not know how to do so; while if you do know, it is unnecessary. To sum up: it is better to own no property and to consult no god.


5. ΠΕΡΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ - За Сократ (54)
Ἱππίας ὁ Ἠλεῖος καὶ Γοργίας ὁ Λεοντῖνος καὶ Πῶλος καὶ Πρόδικος οἱ σοφισταὶ χρόνον τινὰ ἤνθησαν ἐν τῇ Ἑλλάδι καὶ θαυμαστῆς ἐτύγχανον φήμης...
This little tribute to Socrates is presumably the prelude to some longer discussion. It affords no clue as to either the occasion or the place where the speech was delivered, but the speaker's rather scornful treatment of the sophists, who occupy fully one-third of the piece, and his affectionate regard for Socrates point clearly to some date subsequent to Dio's exile.
Hippias of Elis, Gorgias of Leontini, Polus, and Prodicus are all familiar figures among the sophists who made such a stir in Greece toward the close of the fifth century B.C. All make their appearance in the pages of Plato, Hippias and Gorgias having provided the titles for three of his dialogues. One might wonder why Dio refrains from naming "the man from Abdera" (§ 2). Abdera's fame may be said to rest upon that of two of her native sons, Democritus, the famous philosopher, and Protagoras, no less famous as a sophist.


6. ΠΕΡΙ ΟΜΗΡΟΥ ΚΑΙ ΣΩΚΡΑΤΟΥΣ - За Омир и Сократ (55)
Ἐπεὶ φαίνῃ καὶ τἄλλα Σωκράτους ὢν ἐπαινέτης καὶ τὸν ἄνδρα ἐκπληττόμενος ἐν τοῖς λόγοις, ἔχεις μοι εἰπεῖν ὅτου μαθητὴς γέγονε τῶν σοφῶν...
Just as in some dialogues of Plato, there is at first a lively debate between teacher and pupil, after which the teacher takes possession of the field and expounds his doctrine with little or no interruption from the pupil. The text of Dio, however, does not reveal the identity of speakers other than the master himself.
The theme of the present Discourse is that Socrates acquired his art as a teacher from Homer. The anonymous interlocutor is sceptical on that point, objecting that Socrates never met Homer, and also calling attention to the wide difference between the function of the poet and that of the philosopher. After successfully demolishing these objections, Dio proceeds to note certain points of resemblance between Homer and Socrates — their modesty, their scorn of wealth, their interest in ethical problems, their use of parables or similes as vehicles of instruction, and their method of employing specific human beings to illustrate virtues and vices. To this last-named point Dio devotes fully a third of his dialogue. His arguments seem to have silenced his pupil, for there is no rejoinder.

(J.W. Cohoon)

Царство-тирания и свобода-робство

1. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ І - За царското управление I (1)
Φασί ποτε Ἀλεξάνδρῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ τὸν αὐλητὴν Τιμόθεον τὸ πρῶτον ἐπιδεικνύμενον αὐλῆσαι...
The first Discourse as well as the following three has for its subject Kingship, and from internal evidence is thought to have been first delivered before Trajan in Rome immediately after he became emperor...
Dio's conception of the true king is influenced greatly by Homer and Plato. The true king fears the gods and watches over his subjects even as Zeus, the supreme god, watches over all mankind. At the end is a description of the choice made by Heracles, who is the great model of the Cynics.


2. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ІІ - За царското управление ІІ (2)
Λέγεταί ποτε Ἀλέξανδρον τῷ πατρὶ Φιλίππῳ μειράκιον ὄντα διαλεχθῆναι περὶ Ὁμήρου...
The second Discourse on Kingship is put dramatically in the form of a dialogue between Philip of Macedon and his son Alexander, and in it the son is Dio's mouthpiece, in marked contrast to the situation in the fourth Discourse, where Diogenes — and therefore Dio — is opposed to Alexander. We are shown here the way in which the true king acts in the practical affairs of life, and the Stoic ideal, drawn largely from Homer, is set forth. Toward the end the true king is contrasted with the tyrant.


3. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ІІІ - За царското управление ІІІ (3)
Σωκράτης Ἀθήνησι, πρεσβύτης ἀνὴρ καὶ πένης...πυθομένου τινὸς εἰ εὐδαίμονα νομίζοι τὸν Περσῶν βασιλέα...
Dio's protest in this Discourse that he is not flattering would seem to indicate clearly that he is addressing Trajan — otherwise his words would be meaningless — and many of the things said point to the existence of very cordial relations between the orator and that emperor...
Stoic and Cynic doctrine as to the nature of the true king is set forth. The reference to the sun is of Stoic origin. Then Trajan, the type of the true king, is contrasted with the Persian king to the latter's disadvantage.


4. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ІV - За царското управление ІV (4)
Φασί ποτε Ἀλέξανδρον Διογένει συμβαλεῖν οὐ πάνυ τι σχολάζοντα πολλὴν ἄγοντι σχολήν...
In the fourth Discourse Alexander the Great is represented as conversing with Diogenes, who tells him that the real king is a son of Zeus even as Homer says. Then he goes on to give the Cynic doctrine that this sonship is evidenced by qualities of mind and character, not by military power and wide dominion. He concludes by picturing graphically the spirit of avarice, the spirit of the love of pleasure, and the spirit of ambition, which rule the lives of ordinary men.

5. Peri douleias kai eleutherias I - За робството и свободата І (14)
Hoi anthropoi epithymousi men eleutheroi einai malista panton...
Dio begins this Discourse by saying that the majority of men do not know the real difference between slavery and freedom, and after examining the question for some time, finally states his own view that freedom is the knowledge of what is allowable and what is forbidden, while slavery is the opposite. Then, identifying the free man with the king, he proceeds to prove the paradox that the king, or free man, may be such although he is kept in prison or suffers other seeming indignities.
This Discourse along with the Fifteenth is our chief source for knowledge of the Stoic doctrine that the wise man alone is free.

6. Peri douleias kai eleutherias II - За робството и свободата IІ (15)
Alla men enanchos paregenomen tisi diamphesbetousi peri douleias kai eleutherias...
This Discourse, just like the preceding one, deals with the distinction between freedom and slavery, and for the same reasons may be assigned to the period of Dio's exile or later. Dio begins by reporting an informal debate on this question between two men, who we may suppose were Athenians. At the end of their debate Dio gives the reasoned opinion of the audience that when one human being gets lawful possession of another with the right to use him as he likes, then the second man is the slave of the first. After this the question is raised as to what constitutes valid possession.
The first speaker is just such another man as the slave Syriscus in the Epitrepontes of Menander. Both are voluble aggressive debaters with a wealth of illustrations drawn from mythology and tragedy to enforce their points.

7. ΑΓΑΜΕΜΝΩΝ Η ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ - Агамемнон, или за царското управление (56)
Πότερα βούλει περὶ Ἀγαμέμνονος ἀκούειν φρονίμους λόγους, ἀφ´ ὧν ἔστιν ὠφεληθῆναι τὴν διάνοιαν...
This document 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... 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.

8. ΠΕΡΙ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΤΥΡΑΝΝΙΔΟΣ - За царското управление и тиранията (62)
Καὶ μὴν εἴ τις ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς οὐχ οἷός τε ἄρχειν ἐστί, καὶ τούτου σφόδρα ἐγγὺς ὄντος, ᾧ δὴ ξύνεστιν...
The complimentary address contained in our Discourse could hardly have been intended for any one but Trajan. Yet the document is so abrupt in both beginning and ending and so brief when compared with the four treatises on kingship supposed to have been addressed to Trajan that it is difficult to imagine that it ever was delivered as a distinct entity in the form in which we have it. It is of course conceivable that we are dealing with a fragment of a fifth speech on kingship addressed to the much-enduring Trajan, but it is more likely that we have before us a variant version of a portion of one of the addresses just mentioned. Dio himself makes it plain that on occasion he took the liberty of repeating to other hearers speeches previously delivered before "the Emperor." On such an occasion he doubtless felt free to modify the original wording, and such a procedure would explain the existence of certain doublets in his text. We may conjecture that his editor, finding the substance of Or. 62 imbedded in such a variant version of one of the four speeches to which we have referred and not wishing to discard it, gave it independent existence here.

9. ΠΕΡΙ ΝΟΜΟΥ - За закона (75)
Ἔστι δὲ ὁ νόμος τοῦ βίου μὲν ἡγεμών, τῶν πόλεων δὲ ἐπιστάτης κοινός, τῶν δὲ πραγμάτων κανὼν δίκαιος...
On stylistic grounds this Discourse has been assigned to the sophistic period of Dio's career. It is an encomium such as is familiar in sophistic literature, and it exhibits both the merits and the defects of that form of composition. Careful attention is paid to matters of detail connected with rhetorical effect, but one misses the note of sincere conviction to be found in many other writings of our author.
The topic chosen for eulogy is νόμος. As is well known, that word covers a wide range, meaning at one time usage sanctified by long tradition, at another divine ordinance, and at another statutory law. Dio treats all three varieties impartially, passing lightly from one to another and back again.

10. ΤΩΝ ΕΝ ΚΙΛΙΚΙΑΙ ΠΕΡΙ ΕΛΕΥΘΕΡΙΑΣ - За свободата (80)
Ὑμεῖς μὲν ἴσως θαυμάζετε καὶ παράδοξον ἡγεῖσθε καὶ οὐδαμῶς σωφρονοῦντος ἀνδρός, ὅστις ἁπάντων ἀποστάς, περὶ ἃ οἱ πολλοὶ σπουδάζουσι...
The freedom which the speaker has chosen as his theme is the freedom which characterizes himself, the philosopher — freedom to come and go as suits his fancy, freedom from the anxieties and inconveniencies that harass mankind at large, freedom from the temptations which assail seekers after riches or fame or self-indulgence. Such freedom belongs to him who leads the simple life, obedient to the ordinances of Zeus rather than to those of some imperfect, earthly law-giver. This creed is abundantly fortified with illustrations drawn from Greek myth and history.

(J.W. Cohoon)

Дион Хризостом. "Олимпийска реч"

І. За работата през семестъра

Четене и коментар на избрани места от речите на Дион от Пруса (Хризостом). Задачата на коментара е да обърне внимание на литературния и исторически контекст на написаното от Дион.


II. Превод на части от речта

Смятаме, че първи извор на човешкото мнение и понятие (hypolepsis) за божественото е вродената на всички хора мислена представа (epinoia), която възниква от самата действителност и от истината (ex auton ton ergon kai tou alethous); тя не е възникнала по някакво заблуждение, нито как да е, но е силна и вечна, започнала e и e устойчиво пребиваваща (diamenousa) от началото на времето и при всички народи. Тя е по някакъв начин обща и е достояние на [целия] род на разумните същества (demosian tou logikou genous)(39).


ІІI. Бележки и коментари

Dio Cocceianus Chrysostomus, ca. 40–ca. 120 CE, of Prusa in Bithynia, Asia Minor, inherited with his brothers large properties and debts from his generous father Pasicrates. He became a skilled rhetorician hostile to philosophers. But in the course of his travels he went to Rome in Vespasian's reign (69–79) and was converted to Stoicism. Strongly critical of the emperor Domitian (81–96) he was about 82 banned by him from Italy and Bithynia and wandered in poverty, especially in lands north of the Aegean, as far as the Danube and the primitive Getae. In 97 he spoke publicly to Greeks assembled at Olympia, was welcomed at Rome by emperor Nerva (96–98), and returned to Prusa. Arriving again at Rome on an embassy of thanks about 98–99 he became a firm friend of emperor Trajan. In 102 he travelled to Alexandria and elsewhere. Involved in a lawsuit about plans to beautify Prusa at his own expense, he stated his case before the governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger, 111–112. The rest of his life is unknown.
Nearly all of Dio's extant Discourses (or Orations) reflect political concerns (the most important of them dealing with affairs in Bithynia and affording valuable details about conditions in Asia Minor) or moral questions (mostly written in later life; they contain much of his best writing). Some philosophical and historical works, including one on the Getae, are lost. What survives of his achievement as a whole makes him prominent in the revival of Greek literature in the last part of the first century and the first part of the second.

***

The Olympic Discourse was delivered by Dio at Olympia in the year A.D.В 97 before a large audience of Greeks which had come to the city to witness the games, and in sight of the famous statue of Zeus which had been made by Pheidias, the greatest of Greek sculptors, more than five centuries before.
After his introductory remarks, in which he tells us that he has just returned from the Danube, where the Roman army under Trajan was about to begin the Second Dacian War, he raises the question as to whether he shall tell his hearers about the land of the Dacians and the impending war, or take a subject suggested by the god in whose presence they stood. He chooses the latter and, after explaining that a conception of the nature of the gods, and especially of the highest one, is innate in all mankind, and that this innate conception and belief is strengthened by men's experiences and observations in the world about them, Dio gives a classification of the way in which a conception of and a belief in their existence are implanted in the minds of men. In section 39 he makes a classification into notions innate and notions acquired. Then in section 44 and following he subdivides the acquired notions into (1) the voluntary and hortatory, given by the poets, (2) the compulsory and prescriptive, given by the lawgivers, (3)В those given by the painters and sculptors, and (4) the notions and concepts as set forth and expounded by the philosophers. He is careful, however, to point out that the poets, lawgivers, and sculptors and others would have no influence whatever if it were not for that primary and innate notion.
After this the speaker proceeds to what is the most important part of his address, in which he offers a great wealth of apparently original ideas as to what is the field and function of the plastic arts and what are their limitations. He puts his thoughts on this subject into the mouth of Pheidias, who takes the specific case of his own great statue of Zeus and attempts to show that he has used all the resources of the sculptor's art in producing a worthy statue of the greatest of the gods. Pheidias in the course of his exposition says among other things that he took his conception of Zeus from Homer, and he makes a detailed comparison between the respective capacities of poetry and sculpture to portray and represent, to the decided advantage of poetry.

No ancient writer up to Dio's time, whose works are extant, has given us such a full treatment of the subject. The others, such as Plutarch, make just a passing reference to the plastic arts. Certainly no one of them has made such a detailed comparison between them and poetry. Not until we come to Flavius Josephus do we find such a treatment of the subject, and Dio by many centuries anticipated the most important principles upon which the theory of Lessing's Laokoоn is based...

(J.W. Cohoon)


Библиография:

Dio Chrysostom. The Loeb Classical Library edition in five volumes. Translator J. W. Cohoon. HUP, Heinemann, 1939-1961.

Осма Питийска ода. Аристомен от Егина

І. Съдържание

Благосклонно Спокойствие (hesychia), дъще на Дике, която държиш ключове на съвети и войни, приеми питийска почит за Аристомен. Защото ти знаеш да дадеш благо да причиниш вреда в уместно време. И когато някой внесе сурова злоба в сърцето си, го посрещаш и побеждаваш, а дързостта му е хвърлена в бездната. Така стана и с бунтовния Порфирион (1-14).
Насилието на надменния унищожава с времето и самия него. Това не избегна нито стоглавият киликийски Тифон, нито царят на Гигантите. И Тифон бе повален с мълния и със стрелите на Аполон; а той самият прие сина на Ксенарх, дошъл от Кира и увенчан с парнаска зеленина и съпроводен от дорийска свита. Не е далеч от Грациите и справедливият остров, украсен със славните добродетели на Еакидите. От самото начало той има съвършена слава, защото е прославена с много победни подвизи и е отгледала най-велики герои (15-27).
Не бих желал да дотежавам с многословие на лирата и песента. Нека литне сега, момче, твоята най-нова награда с помощта на моето изкуство.
Ти следваш борбите на вуйчовците си Теогнет и Клитомах, които победиха в Олимпия и Истъм. Възвеличаваш рода на Мейдилидите и напомняш думите, изречени от Ойклеевия син, когато видя синовете пред седмовратната Тива - Епигоните, когато дойдоха за втори път от Аргос. Той каза "По природа благородната воля преминава от бащи към синове. Виждам многоцветна змия на щита на Алкмеон да върви най-отпред през вратите на Кадъм" (28-47).


ІІ. Коментари

The precise date of this ode is uncertain, but there is strong
internal evidence of its having been written soon after the battle of
Salamis, after which, as is well known, the aristeia, or first
honours for valour, were awarded to Aigina. The insolence of the
barbarian despot seems to be symbolized by that of the giants Typhon
and Porphyrion.
The ode was apparently to be sung on the winner's return to Aigina. No
less than eleven of the extant odes were written for winners from that
island.

(E. Myers)

Aristomenes of Aigina, the son of Xenarkes, belonged to the clan of the Midylidai, and had good examples to follow in his own family. One of his uncles, Theognetos, was victorious at Olympia, another, Kleitomachos, at the Isthmian games, both in wrestling, for which Aristomenes was to be distinguished. His victories at Megara, at Marathon, in Aigina, were crowned by success at the Pythian games. It is tolerably evident that at the time of this ode he was passing from the ranks of the boywrestlers. No mention is made of the trainer, a character who occupies so much space in O. 8.
P. was, in all likelihood, present at the games. The poem seems to have been composed for the celebration in Aigina -- compare tothi (v. 64), which points to distant Delphi...
What is the date?... If we accept the late date, the poem becomes of special importance as Pindar's last, just as P. 10 is of special importance as Pindar's earliest ode...
Hesychia is to Aigina what the lyre is to Syracuse; and the eighth Pythian, which begins with the invocation philophron Hêsuchia, is not unrelated to the first Pythian, which begins with the invocation chrusea phorminx. In the one, the lyre is the symbol of the harmony produced by the splendid sway of a central power, Hieron; in the other, the goddess Hesychia diffuses her influence through all the members of the commonwealth. In the one case, the balance is maintained by a strong hand; in the other, it depends on the nice adjustment of forces within the state. Typhõeus figures here (v. 16) as he figures in the first Pythian; but there the monster stretches from Cumae to Sicily, and represents the shock of foreign warfare as well as the volcanic powers of revolt... Here, too, Typhõeus is quelled by Zeus, and Porphyrion, king of the giants, by Apollo.
The opening, then, is a tribute to Hesychia, the goddess of domestic tranquillity...
Then begins the praise of Aigina for her exploits in the games, and the praise of Aristomenes for keeping up the glory of his house and for exalting the clan of the Midylidai and earning the word that Amphiaraos spoke (vv. 21-40).
The short myth follows, the scene in which the soul of Amphiaraos, beholding the valor of his son and his son's comrades among the Epigonoi, uttered the words: Phuai to gennaion epiprepei | ek paterôn paisin lêma. The young heroes have the spirit of their sires. Adrastos, leader of the first adventure, is compassed by better omens now; true, he alone will lose his son, but he will bring back his people safe by the blessing of the gods...
Such, then, were the words of Amphiaraos, whose praise of his son Alkmaion is echoed by Pindar -- for Alkmaion is not only the prototype of Aristomenes, but he is also the neighbour of the poet, guardian of his treasures, and spoke to him in oracles.
P. now turns with thanksgiving and prayer to Apollo... Success is not the test of merit. It is due to the will of Fortune, who makes men her playthings. “Therefore keep thee within bounds.”
Then follows the recital of the victories, with a vivid picture of the defeated contestants as they slink homeward...

To sum up: The first triad is occupied with the praise of Hesychia, ending in praise of the victor. The second triad begins with the praise of Aigina, and ends with the Midylidai, to whom the victor belongs. The third triad gives the story of Alkmaion, as an illustration of the persistency of noble blood. The fourth acknowledges the goodness of Apollo, and entreats his further guidance; for God is the sole source of these victories, which are now recounted. The fifth presents a striking contrast between vanquished and victor, and closes with an equally striking contrast between the nothingness of man and the power of God, which can make even the shadow of a dream to be full of light and glory. At the end is heard a fervent prayer for Aigina's welfare.

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


The traditional date for this poem is fairly sure at 446 BC. It was written
for one Aristomenes who won the Pythian wrestling contest, and is interesting
as the sole poem of Pindar on a man from Aegina, which had lost her
independence after the Athenian victory in 457. Aegina had been suspected
of a pro-Persian attitude before the Persian Wars, and since Pindar was
Theban and Thebes was suspected of Persian sympathy before the wars, he
may have found himself at one time between the interests of Thebes,
Aegina and a hostile Athens. But his reputation as a poet permitted access to
Athens, where he studied the poetic art in his youth and was valued for his
poetry.
At the time this Ode was written Pindar was near eighty and this is so far as
we know his last victory Ode, and the only one which celebrates Aegina,
which had opposed the imperialist policies of Athens and was repopulated
later around 430 after its defeat, as an Athenian colony. In this poem Pindar
is aware of the difficult position of the island and hopes she will remember
her old glory from the days of the pious and just founder-hero Aeacus, and
still find a place in the new pan-Hellenic world. Aegina in fact never recovered
its former standing as a great naval power rivaling Athens earlier in the
century, and praise of this state in this poem must be seen as a sad hope
which was not borne out by history.
References in the poem to Dike as the personification of justice may have
had more meaning for the Aeginetans than one would at first assume, and
the name of Aeacus in the poem calls up a reputation of piety from a time
when Aegina was infested by plague. Zeus rewarded him for his concern
and aid to the people, and gave him as many people as there were ants on
the island, henceforth named Myrmidons from the word for ant.
The name Aegina also has a special history, as a nymph loved by Zeus who
bore Aeacus and brought her name to this island. The names of Aeacus and
his son Telamon who fathered the greater Ajax and Peleus father of
Achilles are all brought together at the end of the poem, in a resounding
prayer for peace with Zeus and Aegina presiding, thus confirming the
mention of Hesychia or "Quietude" with which the poems starts.
There are other famous names in the poem which must have touched deep
resonances in the politico-religious mythology of the people of that age. For
us many of the names are just items to look up in a book of classical reference,
since the Greek mythic tradition has a mainly literary value in the new
world of the West. And how do we respond to the names of Indra and Vishnu, still alive in Hindu society? Mythic and religious names depend on their social setting for
meaning and impact.
The constant in-weaving of mythic names and actions in Pindar's poetic
fabric is not decorative. It is critical to the poems, but at the same time it is
impossible for us to conjure up their effect in the vivid way he employed it.

(William Harris)
http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/pindar.pdf

Олимпийски оди I-II

I. Хиерон от Сиракуза, конно надбягване

1. Съдържание

Няма по-добро за възпяване състезание от Олимпийското. Нека с химн да прославим сина на Кронос и щастливия дом на Хиерон, царя на Сиракуза. С дорийската лира ще споменем и за коня Ференик, който, без да бъде пришпорван, спечели надбягването при река Алфей (1-23).
Славата на Хиерон блести в колoнията на лидиеца Пелопс, в когото се влюби земетръсецът Посейдон. Разказвано е, че Тантал е убил сина си Пелопс и сварил тялото му, но това е лъжа - а и човек трябва да говори за боговете само добро (защото се разказва, как те разделили и яли от тялото на Пелопс). Но Пелопс не е бил убит, а е бил отнесен в дома на боговете, също като Ганимед. Тантал пък е наказан, защото е откраднал от безсмъртните нектар и амброзия и ги дал на своите сътрапезници. Греши човекът, който се надява да извърши нещо, тайно от бог (34-65).
Пелопс бил върнат, и когато станал мъж, пожелал да се ожени за Хиподамия; призовал Посейдон и го помолил да му помогне в състезанието с баща й Еномай. Дотогава Еномай, за да отлага брака на дъщеря си, вече бил убил тринадесет кандидати. И така, Пелопс получил от Посейдон златна колесница и крилати коне; спечелил състезанието, взел Хиподамия и тя му родила шестима сина. Сега гробът му е край река Алфей, близо до олтар, посещаван от множество чужденци (xenoi) (66-96).
А победителят в тези състезания е блажен през останалия си живот. Аз пък увенчавам героя с еолийска песен и съм сигурен, че не бих могъл да прославя с химн никого сред живите гърци (xenoi), който да има качествата на Хиерон.
Хората са велики в различни неща. Нека ти, Хиероне, да бъдеш на върха като цар, а аз - да общувам с победители и да съм пръв завинаги по мъдрост (или изкуство - sofia) сред гърците (97-117).

2. Коментари

This ode seems to owe its position at the head of Pindar's extant
works to Aristophanes the grammarian, who placed it there on account
of its being specially occupied with the glorification of the Olympic
games in comparison with others, and with the story of Pelops, who was
their founder.
Hieron won this race B.C. 472, while at the height of his power at
Syracuse. Probably the ode was sung at Syracuse, perhaps, as has been
suggested, at a banquet.

(E. Myers)

Syracuse was founded by a colony of Dorians from Corinth, under the Herakleid Archias, in Ol. 11, 3 (734 B.C.).
The constitution of Syracuse, originally aristocratic, was changed into a tyrannis by Gelon, prince of Gela, who reconciled the factions of the city, Ol. 73, 4 (485 B.C.). After Gelon became lord of Syracuse, he made it his residence, enlarged it, built up Achradina, added Tyche, and what was afterwards called Neapolis. All this was not accomplished without high-handed measures, such as the transplanting of the populations of other cities. Gela lost half its inhabitants. Kamarina was razed to the ground, and the Kamarinaians transferred in a body to Syracuse (see O. 4). Under Gelon's rule Syracuse became the chief city of Sicily, the tyrant of Syracuse one of the most important personages on Grecian soil.
The great battle of Himera, popularly put on the same day as the battle of Salamis -- really fought somewhat earlier -- ended in the signal defeat of the Carthaginians, who lost one hundred and fifty thousand men dead on the field.
The consequence of the victory at Himera was a vast accession of power and influence for Gelon. Anaxilas of Rhegion, and a number of Sicilian cities, recognized his supremacy. But in the midst of his plans and projects Gelon died of dropsy, Ol. 75, 3 (478 B.C.). To his brother, Polyzelos, he left the command of the army, the guardianship of his minor son, and the hand of his widow, daughter of Theron. Hieron, the elder of the surviving brothers, who had been prince of Gela, succeeded to the government. Owing to the machinations of Hieron, Polyzelos was forced to take refuge with Theron of Akragas, who was at once his father-in-law and his son-in-law; and a war between Hieron and Theron was imminent, had not a reconciliation been effected by Simonides, the poet. Polyzelos was allowed to return to Syracuse, but Hieron was thenceforward sole ruler.
In 474 the inhabitants of Kyme (Cumae) were hard pressed by the Etruscans. Hieron immediately granted the desired aid, and defeated the Etruscans in a naval engagement off Cumae. The year after -- Ol. 76, 4 (473 B.C.) -- Hieron defeated Thrasydaios, son of Theron, and Akragas and Himera both acknowledged his sway; but he granted them their independence and a democratic constitution.
To his success in war Hieron wished to add the heroic honors paid to the founder of a new city. This new city, Aitna, was founded, Ol. 76, 1 (476 B.C.), in the territory of Katana, the old inhabitants having been removed to Leontini. Ten thousand citizens were imported, half from Syracuse and Gela, the other half Peloponnesian immigrants. The constitution was Doric; and Hieron's son, Deinomenes, and his brother-in-law, Chromios, were put in charge. Hieron often called himself Aitnaios (P. 1); Chromios followed his example (N. 1), and the founding of the city was celebrated by the “Aitnaian women” of Aischylos, and by Pindar's first Pythian.
The court of Hieron was a centre of literature and art. Epicharmos was a frequent guest. Aischylos, Simonides, Bakchylides, Pindar were among the visitors. No Doric prince ever reached such a height of glory. He was brilliantly successful at the great games: Ol. 73 and 77, with the single horse; Ol. 78, with the chariot; Pyth. 26 and 27, with the single horse; Pyth. 29, with the chariot, and again with mules.
As a Doric prince, Hieron has found as little favor with posterity as he did with his Athenian contemporary Themistokles. A tyrant, he helped the moralists to make the uneasiness of crowned heads still more uneasy. He became the type of splendid success and of splendid misery; for he was tortured by bodily suffering, he was surrounded by sycophants and informers, and lived in an atmosphere of treachery and meanness. Those who see in Pindar's Hieronic odes sermons levelled at the unfortunate prince will be inclined to despise the greatest ruler of his day. A more humane judgment will recognize high qualities impaired by the faults that were engendered and exaggerated by the tyrannis.
Hieron died Ol. 78, 2 (467 B.C.), at Aitna, and upon his death received heroic honors.

The first Olympian celebrates the victory gained by Hieron, Ol. 77 (472 B.C.), with his race-horse Pherenikos. He was then at the height of his power and glory. Some put the ode four years earlier, Ol. 76 (476 B.C.).

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


II. Терон от Акрагант, надбягване с колесници (коне)

1. Съдържание

Лири и химни, кой бог, герой или мъж ще възпеем? Пиза е Зевсова, Херакъл установи игрите, но ние ще пеем за Терон. Той е защитник на Акрагант, неговите предци станаха око на Сицилия. Съдбовното време им носеше богатство и красота. Крониде, сине на Рея, послушай песента ми и остави на рода им бащината нива (1-15).
Дори и Хронос, бащата на всичко, не може да отмени никое от направените неща. Но щастливата съдба може да донесе забрава. Болезнената беда умира, победена от радостите, когато божията Мойра изпрати велико щастие.
Това се отнася и за добропрестолните дъщери на Кадъм. Загиналата от мълния Семела живее на Олимп, където вечно я обичат Палада, бащата Зевс и собственият й син. Неугасим живот завинаги в морето е отреден и на Ино, наред с дъщерите на Нерей (16-30).
На нас, смъртните не е отредено да имаме опит за смъртта, нито да знаем деня, в който ще умрем. Всеки път различни потоци от радости и мъки вървят към хората.
Така и фаталният син срещна Лай и го уби - и така изпълни древното пророчество, изказано в Пито. Като видя това, Еринията започна да гаси мъжете от рода му с взаимните им убийства. Но след Полиник остана Терсандър, почетен в нови подвизи и битки - и той бе цвят в помощ на дома на Адрастидите. Оттам взе корена на семето си синът на Енесидам - и е достоен да получи похвални песни под съпровод на лира (31-48).
В Олимпия получи наградата си сам, а при Пито и на Истъм - заедно с брат си, за дванадесетте пробега на конната четворка.
Победата обезсилва състезателното безумство. Ако някой знаеше бъдещето - че душите на умрелите тук веднага получават наказания и че в онова подземно владение на Зевс някой съди, произнасяйки думи с враждебна принуда. Но достойните мъже получават безболезнен живот сред зачетените от боговете (49-68).
А онези, които са били три пъти от всяка страна (на земята) и са запазили душата си от несправедливости, те отиват по пътя на Зевс в крепостта на Кронос - там, където полъхът на Океана подухва край Острова на блажените. Там те се увенчават според справедливите решения на Радамант, когото великият баща, съпругът на Рея, е поставил да седи край него. Там са Пелей и Кадъм; там е и Ахил, когото отнесе майка му, след като убеди с молби сърцето на Зевс - и който повали Хектор, непобедимия стълб на Троя (69-83).
Много са бързите стрели в колчана под лакътя ми - и те звучат за умните. Който знае много, расте като мъдрец; а онези, които само учат, със всеезичие надигат крясък като врани срещу божествената птица на Зевс.
Към Акрагант ще заговоря с клетвено слово и истинен ум: сто години градът не е раждал мъж, по-благодетелен и изобилен към приятелите си от Терон. Някои искат да укрият добрите дела на достойните мъже. Но след като пясъкът убягва на числото, то кой може да изкаже радостите, които онзи мъж даде на останалите хора? (84-100)

2. Коментари

Theron's ancestors the Emmenidai migrated from Rhodes to Sicily and
first colonized Gela and then Akragas (the Latin Agrigentum). His chariot won this victory B.C. 476.

(E. Myers)

Akragas (Agrigentum) was a daughter of Gela. Gela was founded, Ol. 22, 4 (689 B.C.), by a Rhodian colony; Akragas more than a hundred years afterwards, Ol. 49, 4 (581 B.C.). In Ol. 52, 3 (570 B.C.) the notorious Phalaris made himself tyrant of the city, and, after a rule of sixteen years, was dethroned by Telemachos, the grandfather of Emmenes or Emmenides, who gave his name to the line, and became the father of Ainesidamos. Under the sons of Ainesidamos, Theron and Xenokrates, the name of the Emmenidai was brought to the height of its glory, and an alliance formed with the ruling house of Syracuse. Damareta, the daughter of Theron, married first Gelon, and, upon his death, Polyzelos, his brother. Theron married a daughter of Polyzelos, and, finally, Hieron married a daughter of Xenokrates.
The Emmenidai belonged to the ancient race of the Aigeidai, to which Pindar traced his origin, and claimed descent from Kadmos, through Polyneikes, who was the father of Thersandros by Argeia, daughter of Adrastos. Evidently a roving, and doubtless a quarrelsome, race, the descendants of Thersandros went successively to Sparta, to Thera, to Rhodes, and finally to Akragas. Such was the ancestry of Theron, who made himself master of Akragas by a trick, which he is said to have redeemed by a just, mild, and beneficent reign. Under his rule Akragas reached its highest eminence, and Theron's sway extended to the neighborhood of Himera and the Tyrrhenian sea. When he drove out Terillos, tyrant of Himera, and seized his throne, Terillos applied to his son-in-law, Anaxilas of Rhegion, for help, who, in his turn, invoked the aid of the Carthaginians. Thereupon Theron summoned to his assistance his son-in-law, Gelon, of Syracuse, and in the famous battle of Himera the Sicilian princes gained a brilliant victory. The enormous booty was spent on the adornment of Syracuse and Akragas. Akragas became one of the most beautiful cities of the world, and the ruins of Girgenti are still among the most imposing remains of antiquity. A few years after the battle of Himera, Gelon died, Ol. 75, 3 (478 B.C.), and was succeeded by his brother Hieron in the rule of Syracuse. To the other brother, Polyzelos, were assigned the command of the army and the hand of Damareta, daughter of Theron, widow of Gelon, with the guardianship of Gelon's son; but the two brothers had not been on the best terms before, and Hieron took measures to get rid of Polyzelos, who was a popular prince. Polyzelos took refuge with Theron, who had married his daughter, and who in consequence of this double tie refused to give him up to Hieron...
Theron sat firmly on his throne again, and, after putting to death all his enemies, had the great satisfaction of gaining an Olympian victory, Ol. 76 (476 B.C.), which Pindar celebrates in this ode and the following.
Theron died Ol. 76, 4; Xenokrates, his brother, who won two of the victories celebrated by Pindar (P. 6 and I. 2), died either before him or soon after.

(B. L. Gildersleeve)

Списък на одите

І. Олимпийски оди

1. Хиерон от Сиракуза, конно надбягване
2. Терон от Акрагант, надбягване с колесници (коне)
3. Терон от Акрагант, за празника Теоксения
4. Псаумий от Камарина, надбягване с колесници (мулета), за изпълнение в Олимпия
5. Псаумий от Камарина, за изпълнение в Камарина
6. Агезий от Сиракуза, надбягване с колесници (мулета), за изпълнение в Стимфал
7. Диагор от Родос, юмручен бой
8. Алкимедонт от Егина, борба за момчета
9. Ефармост от Опунт, борба, за изпълнение в Опунт на празника на Аякс Локрийски
10. Агезидам от Епизефирските Локри, юмручен бой за момчета, за изпълнение в Епизефирските Локри
11. Агезидам от Епизефирските Локри, юмручен бой за момчета, за изпълнение в Олимпия
12. Ерготел от Химера, бягане на дълго разстояние
13. Ксенофонт от Коринт, бягане на един стадий и петобой
14. Азопих от Орхомен, бягане на един стадий за момчета


ІІ. Питийски оди

1. Хиерон от Етна, надбягване с колесници (коне )
2. Хиерон от Сиракуза, надбягване с колесници (коне)
3. Хиерон от Сиракуза, надбягване с колесници (мулета)
4. Аркезилай от Кирена, надбягване с колесници (коне)
5. Аркезилай от Кирена, надбягване с колесници (коне) за Карнейския празник
6. Ксенократ от Акрагант, надбягване с колесници (коне)
7. Мегакъл от Атина, надбягване с колесници (тетрипос)
8. Аристомен от Егина, борба
9. Телезикрат от Кирена, бягане с оръжие
10. Хипокъл от Тесалия, бягане на два стадия за момчета
11. Тразидей от Тива, бягане на един стадий за момчета, за изпълнение в Тива
12. Мидас от Акрагант, свирене на флейта


ІІІ. Немейски оди

1. Хромий от Етна, надбягване с коне (хипойс)
2. Тимодем Ахарнянина, панкратион
3. Аристоклид от Егина, панкратион, за изпълнение в Егина
4. Тимасарх от Егина, борба за момчета
5. Питей от Егина, панкратион,
6. Алкимид от Егина, борба за момчета
7. Соген от Егина, петобой за момчета
8. Диний от Егина, бягане на два стадия
9. Хромий от Етна, надбягване с колесници (коне), за изпълнение в Сикион
10. Теей от Аргос, борба, за изпълнение в Аргос на празника на Хера
11. Аристагор от Тенедос, за избирането му за притан


ІV. Истмийски оди

1. Херодот от Тива, надбягване с колесници (коне)
2. Ксенократ от Акрагант, надбягване с колесници (коне)
3. Мелис от Тива, надбягване с коне (хипойс)
4. Мелис от Тива, надбягване с коне (хипойс) - продължение
5. Филакид от Егина, панкратион за момчета
6. Филакид от Егина, панкратион за момчета ІІ
7. Стрепсиад от Тива, панкратион
8. Клеандър от Егина, панкратион за момчета

Първа Питийска ода. Хиерон от Етна

Въведение - 4 март, вторник

І. За работата през семестъра

1. Произведения за обсъждане

а. Оди в превод на български

- Първа Питийска
- Осма Питийска
- Единадесета Олимпийска; Дванадесета Питийска

б. На старогръцки


2. Начин на обсъждане

Да се прочете и коментира одата. При това:

а. Да се раздели на части според смисъла на текста
б. Да се отделят типовите (характерни за жанра и специално за Пиндар) теми (род на победителя; митове, разказани по определен повод; размисли - за поезията, за нравите; други)
в. Да се обсъдят трудностите за разбирането - както когато се чете в превод, така и при четене на гръцкия текст


ІІ. Първа Питийска Ода

1. Съдържание

Певците в хора се подчиняват на музиката, идваща от лирата (phorminx) - тя самата принадлежи на Аполон и Музите. Лирата угасява Зевсовата светкавица и дори приспива орела му. Под нейните звуци заспива и Арес, оставил копието си. Тя очарова умовете на боговете (daimonon phrenas) с мъдростта на дълбокоскутните (bathykolpoi) Музи (1-15).
Но неприятелите на Зевс се боят от гласа на Музите. Сред тях е и противникът на боговете (theon polemios), отгледаният в киликийска пещера Тифон, чиито гърди сега са притиснати под скалите на Куме и под цяла Сицилия. Задържа го и Етна, от която излизат пушеци, пламъци и скали, отлитащи с трясък чак в морето. Реки от огън излизат от гърлото на това влечуго (herpeton) - чудно да бъде видяно, чудно дори да се чуе за него (16-28).
Зевс, на чиято обич се надяваме, владее планината и плодородната земя около нея. Името на съседния на планината град е прославено от основателя му, прочутия Хиерон, който беше обявен за победител на Питийските игри в състезанието с колесници. Както попътният вятър помага на моряците и им предвещава щастливо завръщане, така и този успех в състезанието ще прослави града. Нека и ликийският Аполон, царуващ над Делос и обичащ касталийския извор до Парнас, да внимава за това (nooi tithemen) и да обогатява земята с прекрасни мъже (29-40). Боговете идва всичко, с което хората са добродетелни, мъдри, сръчни и красноречиви. Аз се надявам да възхваля този мъж така, сякаш хвърлям копие - и ще го направя по-добре от съперниците си. Дано времето да носи щастие и блага на Хиерон и да облекчи болките му. Водил е много битки и с помощта на боговете е постигнал чест, каквато не е имал никой сред гърците. Подобен е на Филоктет, който, макар и болен, беше доведен пред Троя, за да участва в разрушаването й и да прекрати мъките на данайците. Боледуваше, но съдбата му беше добра. Нека така да помага на Хиерон и богът, който поправя бедите (orthoter), та да случи с времето, каквото мечтае (41-57).

2. Коментари

The date of this victory is B.C. 474. In the year 480, the year of Salamis, the Syracusans under Hieron had defeated the Carthaginians in the great battle of Himera.
In 479 a great eruption of Etna began. In 476 Hieron founded,
near the mountain but we may suppose at a safe distance, the new city
of Aitna, in honour of which he had himself proclaimed as an Aitnaian
after this and other victories in the games.
And in this same year, 474, he had defeated the Etruscans, or Tuscans,
or Tyrrhenians in a great sea-fight before Cumae.
Pindar might well delight to honour those who had been waging so well
against the barbarians of the South and West the same war which the
Hellenes of the mother-country waged against the barbarians of the
East.

(E. Myers)

The victory commemorated in this poem was gained Pyth. 29, or Ol. 76, 3 (474 B.C.). Hieron had himself proclaimed as a citizen of Aitna in order to please the city founded by him, Ol. 76, 1 (476 B.C.), to take the place of Katana. In the same year he had gained a victory over the Etruscans, thus crowning the glory of the battle of Himera. The great eruption of Aitna, which began Ol. 75, 2 (479 B.C.), and continued several years, figures largely in this poem, which has been much admired and often imitated...

(B. L. Gildersleeve)


ІІІ. За Пиндар
Kynoskephalai in Boeotia 522 - Argos after 446

Pindar's life attracted considerable attention in ancient times, but recent scholarship has shown that much biographical material consists of questionable deductions from his poetry. We can still, however, say something about Pindar's life.
A biography of Pindar attached to a manuscript of his poems (Vita Ambrosiana, fr. 193) quotes a poem, unnamed and otherwise lost, in which Pindar says of himself: “it was the fourth-yearly festival, the one with a procession of oxen, in which I, well-loved, was first put to bed in my swaddling clothes: pentaetêris heorta boupompos, en hai prôton eunasthên agapatos hupo sparganois).” This festival was the one sacred to Pythian Apollo and celebrated at Delphi (which began with a procession of oxen). Since this is quoted as Pindar's own statement, it is one of the best pieces of evidence that we have about his life and far more reliable than those details reported in the Vitae or other late sources. Ancient sources place his “floruit,” the peak of his career, generally reckoned to be the age of 40, at the time of Xerxes’ invasion, 480. This would place his birth at the festival of 522 or 518, with little to choose between the two.
We do not know when Pindar died, but his latest surviving poem (Pind. P. 8) dates from 446, when he was in his seventies, and scholars have traditionally assumed that he died shortly thereafter.

The ancient biographical sketches of Pindar present conflicting views of his parentage and the details of his family. More important, though controversial, is a single remark which Pindar makes in one of his poems. The text of a poem to Arkesilaus, the ruler of the Greek colony Kyrene, refers to a famous and ancient Greek clan, the Aigeidai, as “my fathers” (Pind., Pyth. 5.76). Elsewhere, Herodotus (Hdt. 4.149) mentions the original Aigeus, who founded a “great clan” (phulê megalê) in Sparta. Pindar's reference indicates that this clan first played a major role in the founding of the island colony Thera, one of Sparta's few colonies, and then in the subsequent foundation of Kyrene by Thera. If we are to understand the speaker in this poem to be Pindar, then he is claiming to be part of an ancient and now international clan with connections to Sparta, Thera and Kyrene. Some scholars feel that the “I” in this case is conventional and does not describe Pindar himself. In any case, the Aigeidai are a typical extended kinship group such as those we see elsewhere in Pindar.
The extended family of a victor or any individual is a major concern in Pindaric poetry. Pindar's poems do not simply celebrate the particular victories which his patrons may have won in recent games. He uses his poems to emphasize, where possible, two aspects of the victor's family: its antiquity and its wide connections throughout the Greek world.

Surviving Poems:
First - P. 10 498, Last - P. 8 446

Pindar's own poetry provides us with our best evidence of his career, but scholars have argued at length as to how much these poems tell us. Nevertheless, it is certainly clear that Pindar associated with many of the wealthiest and most prominent members of Greek society, that he had a long term relationship with several tyrants in Sicily and that he worked frequently with citizens from the small but prosperous island of Aigina, a rival and eventual victim of Athens.
His own Boeotian background surely had some effect on the way he interacted with others in Greece. He seems to reject a tradition that Boeotians were crass and uneducated, when he challenges someone to see “whether we truly escape that ancient reproach, ‘Boeotian pig’ (Pind. O. 6.89-90).” His Boeotian citizenship would tend to place him at odds with Athens, and Athenians play a distinctly minor role in Pindar's work. Nevertheless, it is not clear to what extent local rivalries would have affected such a man as Pindar, who clearly belonged to the cosmopolitan elite of archaic Greece. Among the elite, ties of family and friendship often crossed the narrow boundaries of the polis. When Athens and Sparta first began to quarrel in the mid fifth-century, for instance, the Athenian statesman Cimon, who had named his son Lakedaimonios (“The Spartan”), reportedly felt that he had to prove his loyalty to Athens over Sparta in dramatic fashion at the battle of Tanagra (Plut. Cim. 17.3-5).
Pindar himself, it should be stressed, was a celebrated personality, and an association with this poet brought to wealthy tyrants a prestige which money did in fact buy. Poets like Pindar (and his contemporaries Simonides and Bacchylides) used their literary skills and reputation to inscribe their patrons in the poetic tradition of Greece. These poets played a major role in creating a respectable and even venerable image of their patrons in the Greek world at large. A poet such as Pindar had much to offer to the most powerful men of his time, and should not be seen as a mere dependent hanger-on at the courts of the great.

Of all Pindar's writings, only the four books of “Epinicians” (poems written to commemorate athletic victories at the greatest contests in the Greek world) have survived intact. Our perception of Pindar as a poet thus necessarily overemphasizes this category of poetry, distorting in some measure our view of his work. Nevertheless, epinician poetry seems to have been immensely popular at the time, and the victories celebrated in these poems should not be seen as objects of ephemeral interest. When Aristophanes portrays a “standard” conservative middle-aged Athenian man in the 420s, he has this man ask his son to sing him an epinician poem composed by Pindar's contemporary, Simonides. Simonides died in 468. Aristophanes’ typical Athenian thus asks to hear a poem about a victory that took place more than forty years earlier.
In another play, the Birds, Aristophanes parodies the events which followed the foundation of a city. At one point, a poet enters and promises-in exchange for various gifts-to praise the new city in his poetry. This poet imitates two passages of Pindar (Aristoph. Birds 926-7 and Aristoph. Birds 945 echo Pind. fr. 105a, while Aristoph. Birds 941-5 recalls Pind. fr. 105b). Aristophanes is clearly parodying the way in which Pindar helped Hieron, the tyrant of Syracuse, celebrate the foundation of the city Aitna in 476/5, an event which took place on the other end of the Greek world and more than sixty years before the Birds was produced (414). Lyric poets such as Pindar and his older contemporary Simonides (who is also mentioned in this section of the Birds, Aristoph. Birds 919) were enormously famous and their words were recited throughout the Greek world.
Pindar and his colleagues differ markedly from the tragic playwrights in more than subject matter or format. Pindar's poetry was designed to be performed throughout the Greek world. It did a tyrant in Sicily or an athlete in Rhodes relatively little good if Pindar's poetry were performed once and then remembered only in the patron's native city state. Pindar's poetry had to appeal to the same international audience that patronized the great Panhellenic festivals at Olympia, Delphi, Nemea and the Isthmus. Greek tragedy was, by contrast, performed at Athens, and the citizens of Athens met each year to pass judgment on the tragedies which they had seen. If a playwright expected to find someone to bear the production costs of his work, he needed to succeed with this local audience. What people thought of Aeschylus, Sophocles or Euripides in Sicily or Macedonia was of interest, but of little importance compared to local Athenian opinion. It is ironic that tragedy, the most parochial of all Greek poetic forms, ultimately gripped the imagination of the Greek world, while the lyric poetry of Pindar, which had always been aimed at a cosmopolitan audience, declined in importance with the poet's death.
Yet the relative growth of tragedy over lyric has at least one driving cause. Pindar's poetry was aimed at an international audience, but this audience consisted of a small elite. Pindar's work is openly complex and difficult to appreciate. He challenges his listeners to follow his meaning, for the ability to appreciate Pindar was itself a sign that one belonged to the Greek elite. Tragedy's audience, though Athenian, drew from all segments of the Athenian citizenry. It needed to appeal to a vertically layered mass of viewers ranging from the most well-educated down to the overworked farmer or tradesman. Pindar assumed that his audience either knew or felt that they should know what he was talking about. The tragic playwrights had to engage their audience if they wished to be successful, and their work, designed to appeal to many kinds of listener, have always been more accessible. Hence, Pindar's work, challenging as it is to the reader, offers an excellent view into the way in which elites of the late archaic period viewed themselves and their world.

(Gregory Crane)
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0004%3Aid%3Dpindar