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)

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.