UC-NRLF 
 
 *^1 
 
 Mysel 
 
 SB 13 77D 
 
 M 
 
 9m 
 
 W 
 
 , 
 
 m 
 
 .&& 
 
 : 
 
LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 University of California. 
 
 GIFT OF 
 
 ^ C/ass l^^x- 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2007 with funding from 
 
 Microsoft Corporation 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/diochrysostomashOOmontrich 
 
DIO CHRYSOSTOM 
 
 AS 
 
 A HOMERIC CRITIC. 
 
 A DISSERTATION 
 
 PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES 
 
 OF THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
 
 DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY, 
 
 FEBRUARY, 1899. 
 
 BY 
 
 WALTER ALEXANDER MONTGOMERY. 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
 BALTIMORE 
 
 JOHN MURPHY COMPANY 
 
 1901 
 
INDEX. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Introduction 7-8 
 
 I. Dio's Sophistic Criticism of Homer 8-23 
 
 II. Dio's Aesthetic Criticism of Homer 23-27 
 
 III. Dio's Ethical Criticism of Homer 28-33 
 
 A. Homer's Personality 28 
 
 B. Homer as the Conscious Ethical Teacher 28 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 
 
 Editions of Dio Chrysostomos. 
 
 1. Emperius, A. — Dionis Chrysostomi Opera. Brunsvigae, 1844. (2 vols.) 
 
 2. Dindorf, L. — Dionis Chrysostomi Orationes. Leipzig, 1857. (2 vols.) 
 
 3. Von Arnim, J. — Dionis Prusaensis, quem vocant Chrysostomum, omnia. 
 
 Berlin, 1896. (2 vols.) 
 
 Scholia. 
 
 1. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Iliadem. Oxon., 1875 (Dindorf, G. ). 
 
 2. Scholia Graeca in Homeri Odysseam (Oxon., 1855). 
 
 3. Porphyrii Quaestionum Homericarum ad Iliadem pertinentium Beliquae. 
 
 Leipzig, 1880 (Schroder, H.). 
 
 4. ad Odysseam ( 1 890 ) . 
 
 Dissertations. 
 
 1. Sengebusch, M. — Homerica Dissertatio Prior. Leipzig, 1870. 
 
 2. Hagen, P. — Quaestiones Dioneae. Kiel, 1887. 
 
 3. Schmid, W.— Atticismus. Stuttgart, 1887 (vol. I, pp. 72-191). 
 
 4. Mahn, A. — De Dionis Chrysostomi Codicibus. Halle, 1889. 
 
 5. Clausen, W.— De Dionis Chrysostomi Bithynicis quae vocantur orationibus 
 
 quaestiones. Kiel, 1895. 
 
 6. Bruns, I. — De Dione Chrysostomo et Aristotele Critica et Exegetica (Or. 
 
 xxxvi). Kiel Progr., 1895. 
 
 7. Hahn, C. — De Dionis Chrysostomi Orationibus quae inscribuntur Diogenis 
 
 (vi, vin, ix, x). Hamburg, 1896. 
 
 8. Wegehaupt, J. — De Dione Chrysostomo Xenophontis Sectatore. Gotha, 
 
 1896. 
 
 9. Von Arnim, J. — Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa. Berlin, 1898. 
 
 Journals. 
 
 1. Emperius, A. — Review of Geel's Edition of Dio's Oration 12. Zeitschrift 
 
 f. Alterthumswissenschaft, 1841, pp. 337-354. 
 
 2. Weber, E. — De Dione Chrysostomo Cynicorum Sectatore. Leipzige Studien, 
 
 Vol. 10 (1886), pp. 79-262. 
 
 5 
 
6 Bibliography. 
 
 3. Weber, R. — De Dioscuridis Trepi t&v nap 'On-fipy v6/xwv libello. Leipz. Stud., 
 
 Vol. 11 (1888), pp. 89-192. 
 
 4. Von Arnim, J. — Entstehung und Anordnung der Schriften-sammlung Dios 
 
 von Prusa. Hermes, Vol. 26 (1891), pp. 366-407. 
 
 5. Norden, E. — Beitrage zur Geschichte der Griechischen Philosophie. Jahrb. 
 
 f. Class. Phil. Supplem. Band 19 (1893), pp. 368-460. 
 
 Miscellaneous Literature. 
 
 1. Plutarch— 
 
 (a) ira>s Se? rbv veov iron^ixdrwv a/couetj/. 
 
 (6) wepl tov a,Kov€iv. 
 
 (c) irepl rrjs 'A\e£dv8pov rvxys r) aperrjs \6yoi, A, B. 
 
 (d) irepl rrjs $vyr)s. 
 
 (e) trepl rrjs 'HpoS6rov Ka,Kol)8eias. 
 (g) vep\ ^TWLKckv ivavTtw/j.drwv. 
 
 (h) (pseudo-Plut. ) nepl tov @iov Kal rrjs ttoitjctcus 'Ojxi)pov. 
 
 2. Lucian — 
 
 (a) ir&s Set itTTOpiav Gvyy pd<peiv. 
 
 (6) 4>iA.<nJ/ei/5ijs. 
 
 (c) a\7)6ovs tcrropias \6yoi, A, B. 
 
 (d) vepl opxho'^fs. 
 
 3. Philostratos — 'HpwiicSs. 
 
 4. Lessing, — . — The Laocoon, translated by Phillemore. London, 1874. 
 
 5. Zeller, E. — Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics (English Translation). 
 
 London, 1880. 
 
 6. Constant-Martha, B. — Les Moralistes sous 1' Empire Romain. Paris, 1881. 
 
 7. Egger, Emile. — Essai sur PHistoire de la Critique chez les Grecs. Paris, 
 
 1887. 
 
 8. Mahaffy, J. P. — The Greek World under Roman Sway, from Polybius to 
 
 Plutarch. London, 1890. 
 
 9. Bosanquet, B. — A History of Aesthetic. London and New York, 1892. 
 
 10. Carroll, A. Mitchell. — Aristotle's Poetics, ch. xxv, in the light of the 
 
 Homeric Scholia. Baltimore, Md., U. S. A., 
 1895 (J. H. U. Diss.). 
 
 11. Butcher, S. H. — Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art. London, 
 
 1898. 
 
DIO CHRYSOSTOM AS A HOMERIC CRITIC^ 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 No reader of the extant works of Dio of Prusa can fail to 
 be struck with his extensive use of Homer, as well as with the 
 diversity of purposes to which he puts Homeric quotation, allu- 
 sion, and exegesis. Because of the additional fact that Dio is 
 our earliest representative of the so-called Greek Renascence, the 
 following investigation of his Homeric studies has been under- 
 taken in order to determine, if possible, to what extent he is 
 under Platonic, and to what extent under Aristotelian influence, 
 in transmitting the Homeric criticism of an earlier day. A 
 three-fold division of the subject has been adopted, and Dio's 
 criticisms upon Homer have been developed upon Sophistic, 
 Aesthetic, and Ethical grounds. Though these are at times only 
 slightly differentiated from each other, yet this order has the 
 advantage of conforming to Dio's traditional change from purely 
 rhetorical to philosophic studies, as well as that of leading up to 
 the department of his work most completely representative of his 
 real spirit. The centre of the sophistic studies lies in the famous 
 Oration 11, Tpcoitcbs rj irepl rov "Wlov /jlt) aXwvai, that of the 
 aesthetic in the no less famous Oration 12, 'OXv^ttlko^ rj irepl 
 Try? rov <&€ov ivvoias, while for Dio's conception of Homer as the 
 conscious ethical teacher, no single oration can be taken as its 
 expression. It inspires the larger part of the quotations from 
 Homer, and of the commentaries based upon them. 
 
 The extraordinary importance of the last division is due to 
 Dio's intense zeal for the promulgation of ethical teaching. It 
 was this trait that differentiated him from his contemporary 
 Plutarch, who, though often drawing from the same sources as 
 Dio, and frequently touching him in spirit, yet rejected the r6le 
 
 7 
 
8 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 of popular teacher, and clung to the retirement of the library. 
 Furthermore, the same trait differentiated him from his successor 
 Lucian, the mocker both of things human and of things divine. 
 
 Dio's main purpose, therefore, the quickening of the moral life 
 in the Roman provinces, necessitated the abandonment of the 
 speculative side of philosophy. He was both Cynic and Stoic : 
 Cynic, in his daring popularization of formal philosophy ; Stoic, 
 in his acquaintance with the best Hellenic models, 1 and, above all, 
 in his uniform emphasis of the individual's duties to the family, 
 to the State, and to society. 2 
 
 Dio believed that the moral reforms he so much desired must 
 come through a revival of the ancient Hellenic feeling, 3 and this, 
 in its turn, through the reversion to classic models. With Homer, 
 the chief of these, he found a widespread acquaintance ; and there 
 was thus offered a ready medium for his efforts. 
 
 I. SOPHISTIC CRITICISM OF HOMER. 
 
 Dio's treatise Tpcoi/cbs r) irepl rov "Wiov fir) aXwvcu, acquires a 
 value hardly to be overestimated when it is remembered that it 
 preserves, in more organic sequence than is elsewhere to be found, 
 traces of the adverse Homeric criticism from Aristotle down. 
 The fact that scholars have differed so widely concerning its 
 nature and date of composition must not be allowed to obscure 
 its undeniably sophistic character ; though to assign it outright to 
 Dio's pre-exilian, that is, purely rhetorical period, is unnecessary. 
 Indeed, from all the internal evidence, it is a more probable 
 supposition that Dio wrote it in the midst of his sober efforts. 
 If any set purpose may be ascribed to it, it is the purpose of 
 burlesquing the professional truth-teachers through the treatment 
 of a theme so preposterous as to excel them on their own 
 ground. 
 
 The treatise is based upon data furnished by Aristotelian and 
 post-Aristotelian criticism, and is essentially a study of the et/eo?, 
 
 1 Cf. the orations irepl \6yov do-K^trews (18) and ircpl AtVx^Aou ical So^o/cAeoux 
 
 Kal EvplTTlSoV ^ lT€pl TU)V ^t\OKT^TOV r6^U}V (57). 
 
 9 Cf. the Bithynic Orations, in especial (38-41 ; 43-45; 47-50). 
 3 Cf. the social study outlined in Oration 36, Bopv<t6witik6s. 
 
£*I- [Pi 
 
 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 9 
 
 as outlined in the Rhetoric, Bk. I, ch. 2, §§ 14, 15. Taking as 
 his point of departure the dicta laid down in the Poetics concern- 
 ing the el/co? and the avay/caiov, as applied to literary productions, 1 
 Dio rejects the fundamental Aristotelian demand that a distinction 
 be drawn in art between the aesthetic and the ethical. He insists 
 that the strict rules of the etVo? be applied not merely to the 
 events of actual life, but to those of an artistic creation such as 
 Homer's Epic concerning Ilios. 
 
 Oration 11 is, therefore, a sophistic tour de force, in which 
 fragments of Peripatetic criticism upon Homer (the work not 
 only of Aristotle's immediate school, but also of the succeeding 
 evaraTiKoi and \vtikoL) are combined and elaborated from the 
 Platonic point of view that all art must subserve sound ethical 
 teaching. 
 
 These fragments of Aristotelian work upon Homer are, as is 
 'well known, contained in the scholia, and especially in that body 
 of scholia that bear the name of Porphyry. Hence the large use 
 made of this body of documents in the present treatment. This 
 has been, in every instance, with recognition of the fact that Dio's 
 sources were not the scholia themselves, but the original works 
 from which the scholia were afterward drawn as excerpts. Only 
 upon this understanding can a system of parallelisms between Dio 
 and the scholia be valid. 2 
 
 In order that Dio's debt to preceding Homeric criticism may 
 more clearly be shown, a synopsis of the salient points of Oration 
 11 is necessary. In sections 11-14, inclusive, the plan to be 
 followed in the oration is outlined. 3 With no intention of flatter- 
 ing Homer, or of perversely differing from him, and in no spirit 
 
 1 Ch. IX, \ 1 (1451a, 38), ov rb to yevSfxeva \eyeiu, rovro tronjrov epyov eVriV, 
 aK\' 61a av yeuoiro Kai ra Svuara. Kara, rb et/cbs $) rb OLvayKatov. So, also, ch. XV, 
 I 6 (1454a, 3o). Ch. XXIV, 10 (1460a, 30-34), irpoaipe7<rdai re Set aSvuard elKora 
 /xciWov *) Swara airidava. Cf. also ch. XXV, \ 17 (1461b, 10-13). 
 
 2 Hagen (pp. 55-63) contends that the scholia themselves were the direct source 
 for certain of Dio's passages. This view has been combated by R. Weber, Leipzige 
 Siudien, vol. 11, p. 163. 
 
 5 Close adherence to Dio's order of treatment has been avoided. This would 
 have resulted in the same tangle of retracing and amplification by which Dio 
 deliberately obscures the clearness of thought. It has been deemed preferable 
 to group around each topic the particular details pertaining to it. 
 
10 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 of envy for his fame, Dio announces that he will strive to show in 
 what points Homer has misrepresented the story of Ilios ; and he 
 shall be refuted, not from other sources, but from his poetry itself. 1 
 The truth is to be established, especially for the sake of the 
 reputation of the three goddesses, Athene, Hera, and Aphrodite. 
 Nor is Helen's defence to be overlooked. 
 
 The first task that Dio set himself, §§ 15-36, is to overthrow 
 Homer's credibility on general grounds. Men say that Homer, 
 through stress of poverty, wandered as a beggar through Hellas. 
 It is thought impossible that he should have told falsehoods to 
 win the favor of those able to reward him. Yet beggars of the 
 present day, it is universally agreed, say nothing that is reliable ; 
 nor would any one think of taking them as witnesses on any 
 point. Furthermore, Homer's contemporaries charged him with 
 madness, and that when he told the truth. Not that Dio censures 
 Homer on either of these scores ; it is only the inconsistency of 
 men's prevalent opinion concerning these facts of Homer's life 
 that he wishes to emphasize. Nor is it claimed even by Homer's 
 champions that he does not admit falsehood. 2 He often represents 
 Odysseus as lying, and yet it is Odysseus that he praises most of 
 all his heroes. He even says that the chief of liars, Autolykos, 
 grandfather of Odysseus, was taught by Hermes. Concerning the 
 gods, it is admitted that all he says is false, and his defenders 
 devise such excuses as that he is not to be taken seriously here, 
 but as speaking in riddles and metaphors. 3 What then was to 
 hinder him from so speaking of men also ? 
 
 l A manifest perversion of the well-known maxim of Aristarchus/O/iT/poi/ e| 
 'O/xripov <ra<pT)vi£eiv. The material for the following attack upon Homer's credi- 
 bility is based directly upon Herodotus, Bk. II, chapters 112-120, inclusive. Cf. 
 Hagen, pp. 42-47. The spirit of the argument, furthermore, shows traces of 
 Thukydides, Bk. I, chapters ix-xi, where the purpose is to prove that Homer 
 had caused the importance of the Trojan war to be much overrated. 
 
 2 The point is Aristotelian, as well as Platonic. Cf. the Poetics, ch. xxiv, 
 U 8, 9; and the Republic, i, 334 ab. 
 
 s This is a genuine cynic fling at the methods of explanation so much in vogue 
 among the early Stoics. The locus classicus is the Qeo/xaxia of Iliad, Bk. 20. Cf. 
 Pseudo-Plutarch, irepl rov &lov nal ttjs irot-fio-toos 'O/uLTjpov, 1137 bc, 1138 ab, and 
 Porphyry's elaborate scholium to Bk. 20, 67 fig. 
 
Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 11 
 
 Dio dismisses as commonplaces Homer's more flagrant false- 
 hoods concerning the gods/ but takes for examination his more 
 moderate representations of them. Homer did not scruple to 
 report their conversations, not only those which took place in 
 public, but also those in private. That such incidents as the 
 quarrels of Zeus and Hera should become known of a mortal 
 couple, is improbable : how much more so, 2 when the gods are 
 cencerned? Such conversations Homer makes Odysseus say he 
 learned through Kalypso, who, in turn, had them from some one 
 or other ; but that he himself had them from any god directly, 3 
 Odysseus nowhere says. Homer even claims to understand the 
 language of the gods. 4 
 
 Moreover, the falsity of Homer's narrative is the more conclu- 
 sively proved by the fact that he did not take, as his starting 
 point, the logical beginning of what he was to tell. He began 
 absolutely at random, an unfailing characteristic of those who are 
 bent upon deception. In pursuance of this purpose, therefore, he 
 has not narrated in logical sequence the story of Helen's abduc- 
 tion, or of the capture of the city, the traditional beginning and 
 
 1 For almost the exact language, compare Oration 53, \ 2, Trepi 'Ofi-fjpov, where 
 the sentiment is taken as the representative of Plato's Homeric criticism on the 
 ethical side. The allusion is manifestly to such passages as the Republic, II, 
 378 d ; in, 386 ad. On the other hand, myths of a similar character serve Dio 
 to point ethical lessons. Of. Or. 14, \ 21, and Or. 80, \\ 7-8. 
 
 J The same a fortiori argument is used, \ 13, where Dio rejects the tradition 
 that Hera was inimical to Paris because of his decision against her. The other 
 side of the argument is seen in Porphyry, who, in the Schol. to II. 4, 51, 
 defends Hera on this very charge. 
 
 3 Cf., also, \ 34, where emphasis is laid upon the fact that the mythical portions 
 of the Odyssey are narrated, not by Homer himself, but by Odysseus. Similarly, 
 \ 81, the vilification of Alexandros (Paris) is Hektor's, not Homer's. Such is 
 the sophistic perversion of the Aristotelian kv<ns £k tov npoa-dirov ; cf. Porphyry, 
 Schol. to 11 23, 71, and to 6, 265. Aristotle, Poetics, ch. xxiv, \ 7, praises 
 Homer for the very quality which Dio here so severely censures. 
 
 * The name examples of dialectical divergences are adduced in Oration 10, 
 \\ 23, 24, as differentiating the language of the gods from that of mortals. 
 There, also, the sophistic tone is dominant, and the cynic Diogenes is the 
 speaker. The sentiment and language are direct imitations of the well-known 
 passage in the Cratylus, 391 d. Diimmler, however, Antisthenica, p. 39, main- 
 tains that Megakleides, of the Aristotelian school, is Dio's direct source. His 
 argument is not conclusive. 
 
12 Bio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 end of the story of Ilios. Concerning the former theme, what 
 could have been a more appropriate starting point than the 
 insolence and wrong-doing of Alexandros ? Premising these, he 
 would have predisposed the hearer in favor of his narrative, 1 and 
 all would have joined in his hatred of the Trojans, and acquiesced 
 in the justice of their downfall. And not only does the narrative 
 begin at an illogical point, but the poet proceeds to introduce 
 marvellous and incredible incidents, which not even he himself 
 originally intended. It was Homer's increasing contempt for 
 mankind, as being so easily deceived, and his desire to flatter 
 the Achaeans, and the Atreidae, that led him to confuse, and even 
 to reverse, the whole story. He announces his intention to tell 
 of the wrath of Achilles, and of the consequent woes of the 
 Achaeans, as though these were the most important of all the 
 events. As Homer says, in all this the will of Zeus was fulfilled, 
 and it most probably occurred as Homer narrates ; but as for 
 the succeeding changes, such as the death of Hektor, and the 
 capture of the city, he did not then have these in mind. Though 
 engaging to tell the cause of the woes of the Achaeans, he leaves 
 Alexandros and Helen, and wanders away from his subject to 
 babble of Chryses and his daughter. So, also, as regards the con- 
 clusion, if he wished to tell the most important events, what more 
 fitting than the final capture of the city, if it really occurred, with 
 its -innumerable attendant horrors? Instead of this, however, he 
 has instituted a combat between Achilles and a river, and has 
 portrayed the unseemly picture of the gods fighting among them- 
 selves. In view of these facts, it must be conceded either that 
 Homer was a poor judge of the relative importance of different 
 
 • l It is this very characteristic, according to Zenodotos, — cf. Porphyry to Iliad, 
 1, 1, which gives strength to the introduction to the poem. Porphyry, Scholium 
 to II. 12, 127, quotes Hephaestion, also, in explanation of the introduction. It 
 is there suggested by the seeming rapax^i ™v &*&* of the Asios episode. It is 
 Aristotle, however, who is the ultimate source for Dio's objections to Homer on 
 this point : Poetics, ch. VII, 3 : Set &pa robs o-vveo-rccaras ei /xvdovs fi-ffO' 6ir66ev 
 <etvx*v &pxeo*Qai yA\ff faou ervx* rekevrav k. t. A. Further on, however, ch. XXIII, 
 3, Homer's treatment is taken as the model: koI ravrr/ 0e<r7reVtos &u <pav*i-n"Ofx'opos 
 iraph. robs bWovs, ry jxrjSe rbv w^Ae/xov xaiirep ^x 0VTa apx^v Kal reAos £irixeipv°~ ai 
 irote'iv '6hov .... vvv 5' '4v fiepos airoKa&iw iircto'ob'iois KexPV rai o-brwv ttoWoIs . . 
 ols 8iaAa.fj.Ba.vei r^v iroir)0~iv. 
 
( c: 
 
 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 13 
 
 subjects, or that he found it impossible to continue in the course 
 of deception into which he had fallen. 
 
 Sections 37-53, inclusive, are devoted to what Dio maintains to 
 be the real history of Helen's coming to Ilios. By a dramatic 
 device borrowed from Herodotus (Bk. II, ch. 118), an aged 
 Egyptian priest is represented as the speaker. He claims extra- 
 Homeric sources of knowledge, such as priestly records contem- 
 porary with the Trojan war, and based upon the testimony of 
 Menelaos himself, who, after the failure of the expedition, had 
 taken up his abode in Egypt. According to the old priest, Helen, 
 daughter of Tyndareos, King of Sparta, and Leda his wife, 
 became early renowned for her beauty. She was abducted by 
 Theseus, King of Athens, but was speedily recovered by her 
 brothers, who inflicted heavy penalties upon him. 1 After Aga- 
 memnon had married Helen's sister, Klytaemnestra, he sought 
 Helen's hand for Menelaos an account of political reasons. But 
 Helen was sought by many suitors, who came from far and near, 
 among them Alexandras, son of Priam, surpassing all the others 
 in birth, wealth and comeliness. By manifold representations of 
 his superiority, 2 he won the favor of Tyndareos and his sons, and 
 became Helen's accepted suitor. Thus he won her fairly and took 
 her away to Ilios, with the full consent of her natural protectors, 
 and was received in Ilios with universal good-feeling.' 
 
 Dio now suspends the narrative of the old priest in order to 
 show the absurdity of the traditional account. It is of all things 
 improbable that Alexandras should have become enamored of a 
 womau whom he had never seen j and still more improbable that 
 she could have been persuaded to leave her husband, and kins- 
 people, and, though the mother of an only daughter, follow 
 a man of alien race to a distant land. It was because of this 
 inconsistency (aXoyia) that men fashioned the myth about Aphro- 
 
 1 The emphasis put by Dio upon Theseus is a direct reminiscence of Isokrates, 
 Helen, U 18, 19- 
 
 9 Cf. also Dio's Oration 20, Trepl avaxwpfatos, \ 20. The language and thought 
 of both passages shows strong indications of debt to Isokrates' Helen, \\ 39-48, 
 inclusive. Oration 20, while using Isokratean language, is not sophistic, and 
 follows the traditional Homeric account. 
 
14 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 dite, a myth even more silly, if possible, than the inconsistency 
 itself. 1 
 
 Even if Alexandros had wished to pursue such a course, how is 
 it possible that his father, 2 a man by no means without intelligence, 
 and his mother, could have allowed him to do so? How is it 
 probable, too, that Hektor should at first acquiesce, and then 
 reproach and revile Alexandros for the abduction, as Homer 
 unmistakably makes him do ? 3 How was it that neither Helenos 
 nor Kassandra, both of whom had the gift of prophecy, nor 
 Antenor, foretold the result of such an action ? 
 
 In what way, furthermore, is it probable that Alexandros had 
 opportunities of persuading Helen to adopt such a course, whether 
 Menelaos were at home or absent on military service? How 
 could he have managed the abduction in so leisurely a manner 
 as not to be satisfied with carrying off the wife 4 of Menelaos with 
 much of his household goods, but also to dare to carry along her 
 maid Aithra, the old and feeble mother of Theseus? 5 All these 
 details, if true, so far from being proofs (o-rj/jLeia) of Helen's 
 abduction, are really such of her lawful marriage 6 to Alexandros. 
 
 Furthermore, no pursuit of the fugitives was made, though 
 there must have been ships in Laconia, and though the fugitives 
 
 1 Dio is here using a purposely confused version of the argument represented 
 in Porphyry, Scholium to 11. 4, 51 : evirpeirr) fSov\6/*evos ireptdrivai avrrj ("Hpa) 
 r^v airiav rrjs opyrjs 6 ttoitit^s Kal o\>x & jxvQos avairXdrret, k. t. A. The question 
 here raised as affecting Hera is transferred to Aphrodite. Cf. \ 53, where Dio 
 defends Hera, Athene, and Aphrodite in common on the score of the judgment 
 of Alexandros. 
 
 *Dio has closely followed the argument in Herodotus, Bk. II, ch. 120, ad init. 
 
 3 In sections 65 and 119, Dio emphasizes Hektor's unwillingness to make peace 
 with the Achaeans, chiefly because of his anger at what he deemed the injustice 
 done to Alexandros. In \ 113, Dio explains Hektor's reproaches by the \i<ris e« 
 rod itaipov, assigning them to a time, not covered by Homer, when Alexandros 
 was left in command of the Trojans watching the discomfited Achaeans, and 
 allowed them to escape. Cf. Porphyry's Scholium to II. 3, 16-49 : vvy Se Sta rl 
 ravra irpocpepei; ov yap 8^ &o~Tr£p"Oinipos Trpurr^y fidxyv ravri]v v<pio~rarai ev iroiijcrei, 
 Kal reus a\rideiais ^v, Iva \6yov eAp 6 rov "Enropos 6vetSi<Tfx6s, el ^ apa Koihopov 
 €Tri8e?£cu fiovkercu Kal bpyihov &\Kws rbv"EKropa. 
 
 *For almost the exact language, compare Herodotus, Bk: II, ch. 115, ad fin. 
 
 5 Porphyry's Scholium to 11. 3, 144, shows that the ivaraais to Aithra's having 
 been Helen's handmaid at all was a commonplace. 
 
 6 For the same sophistic tone, cf. Isokrates' Helen, \ 23. 
 
Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 15 
 
 had to go on foot from Sparta down to the sea. Nor, indeed, 
 according to Homer, did Helen's brothers and father, those most 
 injured of all, take part in the Trojan expedition, though all the 
 rest of the Achaeans did. In his endeavor to hide this incon- 
 sistency (aXoyla), Homer represents Helen as wondering where 
 her brothers are : and he explains that they had died since she had 
 seen them. 1 Then it is clear that they were alive when Helen 
 was abducted. 
 
 Furthermore, even if they were present during the first years 
 of the war, Homer makes them wait ten years for Agamemnon to 
 gather an army. Why did they not give pursuit immediately? 
 Had they not, in their unaided strength, proceeded at once against 
 Theseus, a Hellen, the bravest of all men, the ruler of many, the 
 friend of Herakles and Peirithoos? Would they not have done 
 the same against Alexandras, had they deemed themselves injured? 
 
 So, also, as regards Tyndareos himself, it is of all things 
 probable that he would have taken part in the expedition. By 
 Homer's own showing, he was no older than Nestor or Phoenix j 
 and surely these should not have felt more aggrieved at Helen's 
 abduction than her own father. Nor, remarks Dio in passing, can it 
 be true that Menelaos commanded the Lacedaemonians while Tynda- 
 reos was still alive. Nestor did not abdicate even in favor of his 
 sons : strange (hecvov) that Tyndareos should have done so in favor 
 of Menelaos. ^alverat .... ical ravra jroWrjv cnropiav e^ovra. 
 
 In section 61, the narrative of the old priest is resumed. 
 Agamemnon, 2 instigated by Menelaos' reproaches, called together 
 Helen's former suitors, and encouraging them by the recital of the 
 fertility and wealth of Asia, and of the great number of his kins- 
 men 3 there who would be glad to cooperate with them against 
 
 'Helen's ignorance of her brothers' fate was a favorite battleground for 
 ivarariKol and \vtikoI. Compare Porphyry's long Scholium to II. 3, 236, in 
 which he gives the \v<reis both of Aristotle and of Herakleides. They are partly 
 iK tov Kcupov, partly e/c rod edovs. 
 
 a See Thukydides, Bk. I, ch. 9, \\ 3, 4. 5, for the source of later scepticism as 
 to why Agamemnon obtained the command of the Achaean forces. 
 
 3 This point of Agamemnon's Asiatic origin as the explanation of the faults 
 of his character is the theme of Dio's dialogue, Oration 61, Aya/n4/xvwv fj wepl 
 &ao~iAcias. This dialogue is exactly parallel to the Oration under consideration, 
 being a sophistic study of the elic6s from Homer's representations of Chryseis. 
 
16 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 Ilios, induced them to join the expedition. A formal demand 
 was made upon Priam for the restitution of Helen, which the 
 Trojans, conscious of their own innocence, as well as that of 
 Alexandros, indignantly refused. Had they not been innocent, 
 who among them would have submitted to such woes as they did, 
 when they had it in their power to end them by surrendering 
 Helen ? * So far, however, from being willing to do this, even the 
 traditional account has it that they kept her in the city after 
 the death of Alexandros, and gave her in marriage to Deiphobos, 
 another son of Priam. But how could she have been willing to 
 remain in Uios, unless indeed Homer's champions are prepared 
 to say that she had become infatuated with Deiphobos also ? Had 
 her abduction been the real cause of the war, it is most probable 
 that after the death of Alexandros, she would have persuaded the 
 Trojans to surrender her, and that they would have been eager to 
 do so ; or that, at all events, she would have striven to reconcile 
 the contending parties. 
 
 The Achaeans were repulsed in their first attempt to land. 
 One of their chiefs, Protesilaos, was slain, and they were forced to 
 seek safety in the Chersonesus. They returned, landed under 
 cover of night, and constructed a camp immediately at the ships, 
 and protected by rampart and ditch. Avoiding a decisive battle, 
 they confined their operations to forays into the surrounding 
 territory. Dio offers two proofs (reK/xripta) that they occupied no 
 other territory than their own camp : first, that Troilos, 2 a mere 
 stripling, should have run for exercise so far beyond the city's 
 walls as to be captured by Achilles in ambush ; and second, that 
 the Achaeans cultivated the Chersonese, and brought wine from 
 Lemnos. 3 
 
 The Achaeans began to be in dire straits. Hunger and pesti- 
 lence bore heavily upon them, and strife arose between their two 
 
 l This is precisely the argument in Herodotus, Bk. II, ch. 119, and Isokrates, 
 Helen, $ 50. 
 
 3 Troilos is mentioned but once in the entire Iliad, 24, 257. Dio's account of 
 his death is taken not from Homer, but from some other epic of the cycle, as is 
 his conception of him as being very young. Cf. Aristonikos' note, Schol. (Dind.) 
 to II. 24, 257. 
 
 3 This is the exact language of Thukydides, Bk. I, ch. 11, 2. 
 
Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 17 
 
 greatest chiefs, — all circumstances essentially characteristic of a 
 defeated, not a victorious array. All this, and more, Homer him- 
 self admits. In Agamemnon's calling the council of the entire 
 host, as though to give up the expedition ; in the frenzied rush of 
 the mob for the ships; in the great difficulty with which Nestor 
 and Odysseus restrained them, and that only by pleading to them 
 the prophecy of a seer whom Agamemnon had only a short time 
 before accused of uttering no word of truth — in all this Homer 
 fairly presents the truth. So, too, is the defeat of the Achaeans ; 
 the dejection in their. camp on the night following this; Agamem- 
 non's panic, and his calling the assembly of the elders to deliberate 
 upon flight ; the appeals to Achilles for aid ; and the irresistible 
 prowess of Hektor, who forced his way even to the ships despite 
 the apiarelai unavailingly accorded to Agamemnon, Diomede, and 
 Odysseus. All this Homer has narrated, not because he wished 
 to set it forth as the truth, but because he had unwittingly become 
 involved in it. It is, however, when he comes to magnify the 
 Achaeans 1 that he is full of perplexity, and is plainly falsifying. 
 Aias twice vanquished Hektor, but without result. Such, too, was 
 Diomede's victory over Aeneas, by which nothing was achieved 
 save the capture of Aeneas' horses, a circumstance admitting of no 
 refutation. Not knowing in w 7 hat point to flatter the Achaeans, 
 he makes Ares and Aphrodite wounded by Diomede. Thus, in 
 his embarrassment, he hits upon impossible and even impious 
 inventions. In the case of Hektor, however, he is at no such loss, 
 
 1 Sections 82, 86. Cf. also 83, 92. This recognition of Homer's partiality is 
 founded upon the adverse criticism of sophists and 'O/jirjpo-uda-Tiycs of all periods. 
 Porphyry is full of it. Cf. the Scholium to II. 1, 1, where it serves to explain 
 Homer's choice of the firjvis as a starting point; to 3, 365 fig., where the illogical 
 details of the combat of Menelaos and Alexandros are subjected to rigorous 
 handling ; to 3, 379, 380 ; to 4, 457, where general objection to the apio-rela of 
 Diomede are urged; to 4, 505; to 5 (Diomede's api<rre?a), 1, 7, 20, where Zoilos 
 is quoted, certain details being criticised as Kiav ye\o7a; to 5, 290, 291, 336, 341, 
 430, 451 ; to 6, 129, 235, where Diomede's unseemly threats and boasts are rigor- 
 ously handled ; to 8, 5 ; to 11, 53, 54, 624 ; to 12, 500; to 15, 56-77 (and Scholium 
 Dind. to 8, 2), where the authenticity of the passage is made to depend upon 
 Homer's supposed partiality for the Achaeans; to 19, 407, and 21, 407, where 
 hostile criticism upon certain details common to the apiarelai of the Achaean 
 chiefs is urged. 
 
18 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 which shows that he is narrating real occurrences. Here we have 
 no Aeneas carried off by Aphrodite, nor Ares wounded by a 
 mortal, nor any such incredible circumstance. 
 
 It was thenceforward impossible that men so badly discomfited 
 as the Achaeans should turn the tide of fortune. The strength 
 of the Myrmidons, compared with that of the whole Achaean 
 host, was surely not adequate to this j much less the single indi- 
 vidual Achilles. Tt could not be that he was then, for the first 
 time, to fight in open battle. On the contrary, he must often 
 before that have been engaged, but nothing remarkable is recorded 
 of him, unless his capture of Troilos is to be counted such. From 
 Achilles' reeutrance into the fight, Dio maintains that Homer 
 flung away all regard for the truth. 
 
 The actual events connected with the combat of Achilles and 
 Hektor are now set forth by Dio. Achilles, aroused by his own 
 danger, lent his aid at the critical point when the Trojans 
 threatened the very ships of the Achaeans. He checked the 
 enemy, and finally drove them back, performing many feats of 
 valor, and slaying many illustrious Trojans. Hektor meanwhile 
 carefully husbanded his own strength, and allowed Achilles to 
 weary himself out, fighting with the general throng, and, above 
 all, struggling at the crossing of the river. 1 Hektor led him on 
 in eager pursuit, until, seeing his opportunity, he faced him 
 boldly, slew him, and got possession of his armor, with which 
 he continued the slaughter of the Achaeans as far as the ships. 
 The capture of the armor even Homer admits. Achilles' body 
 itself was, with the greatest difficulty, saved by Aias Teiamonios 
 and Aias Oi'leos. 
 
 1 vnb rod Trora/xov KOirtadeura fiei&vos ippur^Kdros cbreipcos Sia^atvovra k. t. A. 
 Such is Dio's rationalistic version of Homer's elaborate portrayal of Achilles' 
 fight with the river Skamandros. Achilles' weariness is similarly emphasized by 
 Porphyry, Schol. to II. 22, 165: <pa<rlv oi jxkv eVii^es avrbv virb rov -rroirjTov 
 KaTaireirovrj(r6ai iroA\(jj ir6vq) Trp6repov, 'lv uxrirep ev Oedrpcp vvv fiei^oua Kivi\(Tr\ TrdOt], 
 k. t. A. Aristotelian influence is manifest here, it is interesting, as throwing 
 light on Dio's explanation, to note that recent topographical research indicates 
 that the ancient volume of the Skamandros was much larger than the present, 
 and that, even now, it becomes dangerous when swollen by rains. Cf. Schliemann, 
 Ilios, pp. 85, 178, 322. 
 
Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 19 
 
 There was no way to conceal the truth of all this, save by 
 representing Patroklos as the warrior who had taken Achilles' 
 place, and who fell in the fight. And yet, how is it possible that 
 Achilles could, at so critical a juncture, have sent Patroklos to the 
 fight? 1 He knew him to be Hektor's inferior, and yet he himself, 
 surpassing all in prowess, remained behind sulking in his quarters. 
 Furthermore, how could he have bidden Patroklos avoid Hektor, 2 
 but accept any other Trojan warrior as his adversary ? This no 
 man could do, when once he had gone forth to battle. Neverthe- 
 less, it was to so inferior a warrior that Achilles entrusted his 
 armor and steeds. Indeed, as regards the armor itself, Homer 
 is inconsistent : though Achilles saw that Patroklos could not 
 wield the spear, he yet gave him the rest of the armor, 3 which 
 must surely have been of size and weight proportionate to it. 
 Moreover v Achilles, prays to Zeus to return his friend in safety, 
 though he knew him to be likely to meet a warrior of whom 
 Agamemnon had directly accused Achilles himself of being afraid. 
 And, indeed, this charge must have been true ; for anger alone 
 would never have caused him to remain away from battle. But, 
 says Homer, he was unwilling to release the Achaeans from their 
 peril until he had secured the gifts he expected, nor had he yet 
 
 1 Cf. Porphyry, Schol. to II. 11, 611 : irpoyKovSjxiqo-e rovro (i. e., the sending of 
 Patroklos by Achilles to made inquiries concerning the fight) 6 iroiyr^s oSrces, 'Iva 
 . . . . 'A^tAAe'ci §et£p fxer' ev\6yov irpo<pdae<as els rbv ir6\efxov e^dyovra rbv TldrpoK\ov. 
 Cf. also &chol. to 11. 11, 76 fig. : cttf£ei 5e vvv rbv TVdrpoKXov oos SeSfievos avrov k. t. A. ,• 
 and to 15, 56-77, which passage \_the prophecy of Zeus) was athetized by Aristo- 
 phanes and Aristarchus, entirely omitted by Zenodotus, and is condemned by 
 modern criticism. Porphyry debates it on various grounds: p-qreov olv '6ri rb 
 crenel iffri Trpoava,Ke<pa\aia)cris k. t. A. . . . v60ev Se drjKov el jxera. Odvarov^Ax^Wecas 
 (sic) yey6vao~i rpoirai ; .... irpbs 5e rovrois irapafx.vBel.rai rbv aKpodryv, r^v 'aKooaiv 
 Tpoias (TKiaypa<pu>v avr$, k. t. A. . . . <pa<rl Se (ol etyiy^rai) Ka\ on 5' 6 (MaWwrys) 
 Zrjv6Soros ra etc rov TldrpoicKov (1. 65) ews rov 'A^'AAea (1. 77) Evpnri§eiq> \eyei 
 eoifcevcu irpoK6y<p f k- t. A. 
 
 8 Cf. Porphyry to II. 18, 22, upon the violence of Achilles' grief for Patroklos : 
 ZauAos Se <pi\aiv droirov vvv elSevai rbv 'AxiAAf'cr npoeiSevai re yap expyv Sri koivoI oi 
 
 TTOhepUKol KlvbvVOl K. T. A. 
 
 3 Cf. Porphyry, Schol. to II. 16, 140: Sia r( olv fiSvov rb U-qKioiriKbv avrf 
 avapfxocrre'i d6pv, ru>v &\\o)v ap/u-ocravrcov SirXuiv ; MeyaK^eiSrjs eV Sevrepcp irepl 'OjUL^pov 
 irpooiKovo/u.e7(rdai <pr)<riv rrjv dirAoirouav, k. r. A. Cf, also the Scholiast in Bf 216 a 
 upon eyxos- .... icaretcpvipe /xevroi rb ir\d(r/xa rrj rov 'AxiAAews vwepoxj), Si 
 ao~deveiav ov SvvrjOrjvai <pi\o~as rbv TldrponXov ical r§ S6pari XP*? ^"'- 
 
20 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 ceased from his wrath. But what was there to hinder him from 
 going forth to battle, and, then, on his return, nursing his wrath 
 as much as he pleased? Homer recognizes the inconsistency in all 
 this, when he hints darkly of a certain prophecy which reached 
 Achilles through his mother. This was that he would surely fall, 
 if he should ever go forth to battle. That this prophecy should 
 have impressed him so deeply, is but a direct accusation of 
 cowardice. 1 
 
 The very prophecy, also, was defective, in that it gave Achilles 
 no hint of the fate which awaited Patroklos, though, says Homer, 
 Achilles loved him as himself, and upon his death no longer cared 
 to live. 2 In short, it must be already apparent that Patroklos was 
 an entirely supposititious personage — v7t6/3\t]t6s rt? — substituted 
 by Homer for Achilles. 3 Indeed, Homer's representing him as 
 buried in the same tomb with Achilles was for the express purpose 
 of forestalling any search for his tomb, which might be made in 
 view of the fact that the tombs of all the other heroes who fell at 
 
 1 Cf. also %$ 77, 91, 100, 101, for Dio's further attacks upon Achilles' courage. 
 It was a commonplace of the oblrectalores : cf. Dindorf, Schol. A to II. 22, 188, 
 and Porphyry to 11. 1,1. For the same complication of the wrath of Achilles 
 with suspicions as to his courage, cf. Porphyry to II. 7, 22: . . . . Xva /xr} 
 ("Ektu>p) ofyrai rbv 'A^AAe'ci airoScSeiAiaKevai .... €Ik6tcos \ckt4ov (Alavri) a 
 irciroudev 5 Ax'AA.euy. 
 
 2 For the violence of his grief, Achilles came to be regarded as the type of 
 avufiaXos. Cf. Plato, Rep. in, 391, and Porphyry, to 11. 18, 98. 
 
 3 This startling induction cannot, in the light of the extant scholia, be ascribed 
 to any special Homeric critic as a source. It is rather the net result of the 
 immense mass of sophistic criticism directed against the last books of the Iliad, 
 especially Books 18 and 22. It seems to be adumbrated in such scholia as that 
 of Porphyry to II. 3, 154: '6ri di etc ru>v otKwv zvr\v ir\avT)Qr\vai robs airb ruv '6it\wv 
 (T7}/j.atuo/uLevovs eKaarov, Sr]\o7 to. iirl rov TIarp6Khov, os ivSvaaaOat ra 'A^tAAe'c^s '6irha 
 48c-fi9ri, k. t. A. o8tu>s ovk i\v rbv airb rwv '6ir\(tiv riva 8o£d£ovra ^§77 Kal ovrws yivciffKeiv 
 abr6v. Cf. also Porphyry to II. 5, 85, and Scholiast B (Dindorf) to 16, 244. Cf. 
 also Porphyry to II. 18, 192: rjvioxov elvai rbv YldrpoKKov Xtyovres rives, cpacrt jx^ 
 *X eiu avrbv Sirha .... KpdrrfS, '6ri ra Uarp6Kkov AvrofieScav elxev, 'dirais Icr&Ori rb 
 e?5os Kal S6^u(riv elvai, 6 fx\v 'AxiAAeus, 6 5e UarpoKkos. Much, of course, must be 
 ascribed to Dio's own sophistic perversion. For example, there was an uncer- 
 tainty, early seized upon by the ivarartKoi, as to the meaning of Mvp/j.t86vcov rbv 
 &pi<rrov, in the speech of Achilles, Bk. 18, 6-14. Cf. Schol. A (Dindorf) to Bk. 
 18, 10 and 11, which Aristophanes omitted : taas «rel ovk ^v Mvp/uiiSwv 6 TldrpoKkos, 
 AoKpbs yap ^v e| "Oirovvros. This is exactly Dio's contention. He deduces not 
 only Achilles' cowardice, but his identity with Patroklos. 
 
v 
 
 
 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 21 
 
 Ilios are plainly to be seen. Homer wished to conceal entirely 
 the fact that Achilles had perished at Ilios; seeing, however, that 
 this was impossible, he completely reversed the truth, making 
 Hektor slain by Achilles, and his corpse to be dragged as far as 
 the walls, and further treated with shocking indignities. 
 
 As Hektor's tomb, however, was known and honored by 
 posterity, Homer had to resort to the further deception of main- 
 taining that his body was restored for a ransom, by the command 
 of Zeus. Apollo and Aphrodite also had to be introduced as 
 keeping it untouched by corruption for a period of several days. 
 
 The Homeric account of the combat of Achilles and Hektor is 
 now examined, sections 106-110. In the first place, it is laugh- 
 able that Achilles should have been represented as fighting at 
 all after the death of Patroklos, that is, as Dio claims to have 
 proved, after his own death ; and that Thetis should have brought 
 from heaven armor fashioned by Hephaistos to replace that 
 captured by Hektor. 
 
 In the second place, equally improbable is Homer's representa- 
 tion of Achilles as checking the Trojans single handed, while all 
 the rest of the Achaeans, foolishly enough, looked on as though at 
 a theatrical spectacle, and lent Achilles no aid whatsoever, though 
 they had suffered so much at Hektor's hands as, in their hatred 
 and rage, to join in maltreating his lifeless body. Indeed, Homer 
 entirely ignores their existence. 1 • 
 
 In the third place, the narrative of Achilles' apua-Teia, in which, 
 at one time, he fights with the river, at another time threatens and 
 pursues Apollo, 2 is very weak and unconvincing. Especially so 
 is the representation of Hektor as, at first, manfully awaiting 
 Achilles outside the wall, and heeding neither his father's nor his 
 mother's prayers, but afterwards unaccountably losing his courage, 
 and fleeing in a circle round the city : and this, though he was at 
 liberty to enter the gates, and finally to escape Achilles. Above 
 all, it is absurd that Achilles, though called the swiftest of mortals, 
 
 1 For a close similarity of language as well as thought, cf. Porphyry's elaborate 
 Scholium to II. 22, 36 : &^iov ^r^creajs, ira>s, airSvros 'AxtAAews, /j.ri$els iroKefie? 
 "EKTopi .... MeyaKAeiSrjs Se (pr)(ri ravra iravTa irXacrixara efoai. Cf, also Scholium 
 to 22, 205. Cf. also Sengebusch, Horn. Diss., I, p. 188. 
 
 2 This is a plain reminiscence of Plato, Rep. in, 381 A. 
 
22 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric, Critic. 
 
 should have failed to overtake Hektor in this well-nigh ludicrous 
 pursuit ; and that Athene should have come forth from the wall 
 in the likeness of Deiphobos, deceived Hektor, and stolen away 
 his spear. All these details of the combat, says Dio, are like 
 absurd dreams. 1 
 
 In sections 111-124 are summed up the closing events of the 
 Trojan expedition, as Dio maintains these to have occurred. This 
 is based partly upon Homeric details, separated from their artistic 
 setting, and palpably distorted ; and partly upon events drawn 
 from the other Epics of the Trojan Cycle. Having slain Achilles, 
 Hektor departed for the city to visit his parents and wife, and left 
 Paris in command of the Trojans. These were encamped around 
 the Achaeans, prepared to capture them as soon as the day should 
 dawn. At this juncture, Agamemnon, with Nestor, Odysseus, and 
 Diomede, held a council, 2 and silently escaped to the Chersonese in 
 the few ships left them, 3 and with the small portion of the host 
 they could transport. Here they supported themselves by piracy, 
 afraid to leave the Trojans still unreconciled to them. They 
 returned to the neighborhood of Ilios, and, constructing fortifi- 
 cations smaller, and higher up from the sea, than the former ones, 
 waged war with varying fortune. The Trojans, becoming dis- 
 couraged, took under consideration their repeated offers of peace, 
 and, despite Hektor's strenuous opposition, finally concluded with 
 
 1 The foregoing air opt par a, with their sophistic ring, are merely outgrowths 
 of Aristotle's well known distinction between the canons of artistic construction 
 for Epic and those for Dramatic poetry, as set forth in the Poetics, ch. 24, 1460a, 
 14 fig., and ch. 25, 1460b, 26. Here, as elsewhere, Dio accepts the data, but 
 rejects the conclusions, of Aristotle. 
 
 2 Dio is here plainly using Bks. 6, 8, and 9, of the Iliad. This distortion of 
 the sequence of events is an important element of sophistic argument. It is an 
 illegitimate expansion of the Avo-ts e/c rod tccupov, well known in Homeric criti- 
 cism through Aristotelian and Peripatetic use. Among other instances of its 
 employment by Dio is his change of the period during which the Achaeans had 
 to resort to piracy. Cf., for the same thought, Porphyry's Scholium to Odyssey 
 3, 72, where he explains away the charge that piracy was airpeir-fis. The thought 
 may have been drawn originally from Thucydides, Bk. I, ch. v, \\ 1, 2. 
 
 3 Dio maintains that many more ships were burned than merely that of 
 Protesilaus. Cf. the intimation in Porphyry, Scholium to II. 15, 701 ffg. : 5m 
 ri ov ras trpwras vavs ZUirp7}<rav ol Tpwes ; .... ££-f)T7),Tcu 5m iro'iav alriav fxovriv 
 r^v TlpccTeaikdov irapsSooKe vavv Kaio/j.4vr]v ; pr\riov oi>v tin jjdetrdr} 6"0/j.r]pos e'nre'iv 
 4/j.irpricr6ai riva tuv £(H>vtu>v, /j.^nus avapZpiav avrov tis dd^rj KaraytyudlxTKeii/. . . . 
 
Dio Chrysostom as o, Homeric Critic. 23 
 
 them a treaty of peace. This, declares Dio, is the treaty that 
 Homer falsely, and knowingly, makes the Trojans to have broken. 
 By its terms, a wooden horse was constructed by the Achaeans as 
 a votive offering for the temple of Athene of Ilios. The gates 
 of the city were found too small to admit it, and part of the wall 
 was torn down. This is the origin of the ridiculous story that the 
 city was taken by means of a wooden horse. 
 
 Dio now continues his argument into the extra-Homeric field ; 
 but though this, as an argument, is decidedly the most skilful 
 portion of the oration, it is not pertinent to our task, and we shall 
 not follow it further. 
 
 II. AESTHETIC CRITICISM OF HOMER. 
 
 Dio has no criticism upon Homer which can properly be termed 
 scientific. He is an entire stranger to any such system of cate- 
 gories as that to which Homer's language, figures, and metre are 
 reduced in the Stoic treatise ascribed to Plutarch, irepl rov /3lov 
 teal tt;? 7roir)(T€m ( Ofxr}pov. In no single oration, with one excep- 
 tion, is there a passage which distinguishes the purely artistic 
 side from that which concerns the purpose and value of the 
 Homeric poems. True, in Oration 53, irepl 'Ofirjpov, §§ 5-7, a 
 distinction is drawn between Homer's poetic skill and his moral 
 viciousness ; 1 but its purpose is merely to show the reasons for 
 the world-wide fame of the Homeric poems. Nor is such a 
 passage as Oration 55, irepl 'Ofirjpov ical ^coicpaTovs, §§ 9-11, 
 to be cited as an instance of aesthetic criticism. It enumerates 
 at length those objects of nature, animate and inanimate, which 
 supplied Homer with his wealth of similes and comparisons ; but 
 its sole purpose is to prove that Homer, no less than Socrates, 
 drew his similes largely from humble spheres, and not alone from 
 the elevated, as the foolish think. 2 
 
 1 Plato is mentioned as the source, and the passage is manifestly based upon 
 the Republic, in, 398 A, ffg. 
 
 2 The passage is strongly Cynic in tone. It is manifestly a reminiscence of 
 the Phaedrus, 229 D. For a similar recapitulation of the spheres of Homer's 
 similes, cf. pseudo Plutarch, irepl rov &iov k. t. a., 1124 A-1128 C. 
 
24 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 Oration 12, ^OXviattlkos t) irepl rrj? 7rp(orr)<; rov deov evvoias, 
 must, to some extent, be considered an exception to the principle 
 just laid down. Even in this, however, as the title shows, there 
 is distinct ethical connotation, and the frame-work is highly 
 sophistic, there being a speech within a speech. 
 
 A brief review .of the salient features of the oration is necessary. 
 Pheidias is defending himself upon the charge of impiety, brought 
 by the Athenians for his anthropomorphic representation of the 
 Deity. With the exclusively moral side of the defence, §§ 55-61, 
 inclusive, we are not here concerned ; though Pheidias' claim to 
 have followed merely popular belief and poetic representation, is 
 of extreme value as throwing light upon the source for the 
 fundamental conception of the oration. It is distinctively Aris- 
 totelian (compare the Poetics, ch. 24, 1460b, 35 %.). 
 
 But, continues Dio, as Homer is the traditional source for the 
 popular beliefs concerning the gods, he is, at the same time, chief 
 of all poets. Thus, on both scores, Pheidias throws upon him 
 the blame, if blame there be. The assertion, however, that he 
 had imitated Homer, must be modified : \eyco Se 7rpo? to hvvarov 
 •W79 ifjLovrov Tkyyy)<$. Thus the transition is made to the aesthetic 
 ground. 
 
 Of speech in general, §§ 64, 65, in all its diverse kinds, and 
 expressive of all shades of thought, man has no lack. Especially 
 is this true in the realm of poetry ; and most especially is it true 
 of Homer, who used all dialects, and all styles, and borrowed 
 from every phase of nature and human activity. Such freedom is 
 utterly beyond the sculptor's art — to yeipovaKTiicbv /cat BrjfjbLovpyt,- 
 kov. This demands, first of all, solid and enduring material upon 
 which to work ; and it is limited to the definite, fixed, and 
 unchanging presentation of the original concept. On the con- 
 trary, all forms and manifestations, all motion and rest, are the 
 poet's to use as he pleases. He may pour forth his verse with a 
 mighty rush, as from some overflowing fountain-head, while his 
 idea is still hot within him ; the sculptor must labor slowly and 
 painfully, his most difficult task of all being to keep unchanged 
 the concept with which he began. Thus it logically follows that 
 sculpture must appeal to the sight, the most exacting and least 
 easily beguiled of the senses; and must hence be at a grave 
 
Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 25 
 
 disadvantage as compared with poetry, which appealing to the 
 ear, has the more abundant opportunity to deceive the hearer. 
 
 Furthermore, sculpture has its measurements of size and pro- 
 portion, clearly defined, and to be closely adhered to ; but Homer 
 could say of the magnitude of Eris (II. 4, 443) : 
 
 ovpavS e(TTr)pit~€ Kaprj teal eVl %6ovl ftaivei. 
 
 Such freedom of the poet's art finds its most complete applica- 
 tion in Homer's delineation of Zeus, who is pictured, now as 
 gentle and mild, again as terrible and warlike, encouraging to 
 strife and war. Such two-fold power of representation is entirely 
 absent from sculpture : it can represent only the dignity of repose, 
 such as is shown in the spirit of the benignant epithets applied 
 by men to Zeus. 1 It was this phase of Zeus that he portrayed, 
 says Pheidias, so far as he could. As for the Homeric Zeus of 
 the warlike characteristics, this was not to be imitated though 
 his art. The external effects of Zeus' anger, as pictured by 
 Homer, were easy to tell; but, on many scores, impossible for 
 Pheidias to represent, though he had portrayed the deity as the 
 central figure, calm in his power amid all this convulsion of 
 the elements. 
 
 The entire speech of Pheidias, §§ 49-83, Hagen, pp. 70-72, 
 considers to be of Pergamene origin, and to set forth Pergamene 
 doctrines of criticism, From the high position which Pheidias 
 held in the esteem of that school, from the existence of certain 
 passages in Quintilian which show a kinship in thought to Dio, 
 and from Quintilian's acknowledged debt to the Pergamenes, 
 Hagen deduces Dio's employment of Pergamene sources. With 
 this contention, I must take issue. 
 
 In the first place, the passage cited by Hagen from Quintilian — 
 Inst. Or. xu, 10, 7-9 — is fundamentally different from Oration 
 12. Quintilian is here treating of the relative merits of the 
 
 1 Then follows a list of ovd/j-ara irrieera. For identically the same, cf. Or. 1, 
 \\ 39-41. They are probably to be referred to the Peripatetic treatise, irspl kJ<t/aou, 
 ch. 7. This, and not Pliny, N. H. 35, 96 (as suggested by Hagen, p. 71) is Dio's 
 source. It is more than probable that it served Pliny as source, also. Dio's debt 
 to Latin sources is very small . ' 
 
26 Dio Chrysostom as a Hom,erie Critic. 
 
 sculptors. It is true that the central thought of Pergamene 
 criticism was the illustration of literary art from the formative, 
 as is seen from Dionysius of. Halicarnassus, and from Quintilian; 
 but this criticism invariably sought parallels and resemblances 
 between the arts, and did not accentuate the differences. It is in 
 this respect that Dio's criticism in Oration 12 differs fundamentally 
 from all that we know of Pergamene criticism. Dio's avowed 
 purpose is to outline the limitations of the glyptic art, as compared 
 with the universal freedom of the poetic. Still another modifica- 
 tion of Pergamene criticism must be added : not only did that school 
 seek to trace resemblances, and not differences, between literature 
 and art, but such comparison set more and more toward one 
 department, and that of prose, viz., oratory. This was the logical 
 result of the cultivation of Asianic oratory at Pergamos ; and 
 while the drama, from its element of action, might have claimed a 
 share of attention, yet comparisons with poetry in general, and 
 Epic poetry in especial, were not representative of the school. 
 Thus, in the two most essential points, we see that Dio did not 
 follow Pergamene lines. 
 
 It is when we come to consider Aristotle's theory of the arts, 
 with his admission of differences on the one hand and resemblances 
 on the other, that we find the suggestion which formed Dio's 
 working basis for Oration 12. Chapter I of the Poetics, while 
 outlining /At^crt? as the common principle of all arts, distin- 
 guishes clearly between them in the means, the objects, and the 
 manner (§ 3). Of these three, we are concerned only with the 
 first : (§ 4) cbcTTrep yap teal xpwfxaai koX a^tj/juaat, 7ro\\a fiifiovv- 
 rai rives airuKa^ovTe^ (ol /j,ev Blcl re^vr)? ol 8e Sea o-vvrjOela?) 
 erepou Se Sia rf}<; <fxovr}<;, ovray k. t. \. And the conclusion of the 
 chapter (§ 10) can be closely paralleled from Dio : ravras /juev ovv 
 \eya> ra<; Siafyopas rwv reyywv, iv oh irotovvrai rrjv /jll/jltjo-lv. 
 
 As regards the distinction drawn between the senses to which 
 the formative art, and those to which the poetic, appeals, it is 
 probable that Dio was here elaborating a Peripatetic doctrine. 
 Traces of this appear not only in the Poetics, ch. I, § 4 (already 
 quoted), but more completely in the Problemata, IO, 27, where 
 the distinction between the senses of sight and hearing is drawn in 
 the matter of the Kivqcris produced by each, and the question is 
 
< 
 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 27 
 
 asked, 8id rt to clkovcttov fiovov r)dos €%€i tcov aladrjrcbv. So, 
 too, in Pol. v, 5, 1340a, 28, the question is discussed as to how 
 far moral qualities may be said to belong to rd dirrd kol rd 
 yevcrrd, as compared with rd opard, the latter being regarded 
 as inferior in this respect. Again, Problemata, I®, 29, glances at 
 the question Scd tl ol pvOfjuol kol rd /j,i\r) (fxovr) ovaa rjOeaiv 
 eoiKev. 
 
 Dio's point respecting the definite limitation imposed upon 
 sculpture rests clearly upon Aristotelian basis. Cf. the Poetics, 
 ch. vir, § 4, where Aristotle discusses the analogy between the 
 length of a plot and the size of an artistic production. 
 
 Aristotelian influence is especially evident in the passage (Or. 
 12, §§ 64, 65) concerning Homer's poetic power. The underlying 
 thought is precisely that of the Poetics, that poetry is a form of 
 imitation. 1 Homer's imitation of all the sounds of nature, animate 
 and inanimate, as well as of the products of human art, is, accord- 
 ing to Dio, only one phase of his great power of onomatopoeia. 2 
 
 Besides this power, Dio emphasizes Homer's use and combina- 
 tion of words and dialects already existent, and his adaptation 
 of words to his rhythm. Dio's ascription of these three forms of 
 activity to Homer is merely the elaboration of the well-known 
 passage of the Poetics, ch. xxi, § 2 : dirav Be ovofxa iariv rj 
 tcvptov rj yXcorra rj [xeTafyopd rj k6(T/ao<; i) 7r67roir}fjuivov rj eVe/CTe- 
 ra/jbivov rj v^>rjpr]fjbevov rj i^rjWayfjLevov. 
 
 ^h. i, § 2; ch. IV, § 2; ch. vm, \ 4; ch. xv, § 8; ch. xxin, \ 1 : ch. xxiv, 
 \ 7 ; ch. xxv, I 2 ; ch. xxvi, g 6. 
 
 8 Here, as well as in Or. 53, § 5 {ir*p\ 'O/m-fipov koI ^ooKpdrovs) Dio gives the 
 subject a Platonic coloring. Both passages are, undoubtedly, reminiscences of 
 the Republic, 398 A. Dio's similes in the passage under consideration are also 
 of marked Platonic flavor, being borrowed from the practical handicrafts, rather 
 than from the fine arts. Cf. 66, and 68. These show a strong non-Pergamene 
 influence at work upon the passage. As against the first simile cited, on the 
 contrary, may be given an example of the purely Pergamene simile, Dion. Hal. 
 Iudicium de Demosthene, ch. 41, oSrus Kipvavrau Kaddirep iv rfj twypa<pla. ra 
 fiiy^ata. 
 
28 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 III. ETHICAL CRITICISM OF HOMER. 
 A. Homer's Personality. 
 
 The presentation of Homer's personal side by an author of 
 Dio's unoriginal character can hardly be more than a repetition 
 of the traditions which had found current acceptance in his day. 
 It is interesting, however, to see Dio's thorough-going conception 
 of the poet's life as a means to ethical teaching. Given Homer 
 the man, — and Dio never once betrays the least doubt upon this 
 point, — the next step was to ascribe to him the deliberate choice 
 of a certain fixed course of life; and the moral lessons drawn 
 from this shade imperceptibly, in the Orations upon Homer (53 
 and 55) into the moral lessons to be drawn from his poems. 
 These lessons, it is hardly necessary to say, are little more than 
 Cynic and Stoic commonplaces. 
 
 In Oration 53, Homer's life of self-denial, poverty, and wander- 
 ing is extravagantly praised. These traits are touched upon in 
 Oration 55, and in Oration 47, where the course of philosophers 
 like Zeno, Chrysippus, Cleanthes, Pythagoras, and of heroes like 
 Heracles, is defended by the example and teaching of Homer. 
 So far as was possible from the difference of the times in which 
 they lived, the traits and lives of Homer and Socrates were, 
 according to Dio, closely parallel, the main point of similarity 
 being the entire subordination of personality by these two men. 
 Indeed, in this point, Dio thinks Socrates surpassed even Homer, 
 for he left not a word written. 
 
 B. Homer as the Conscious Ethical Teacher. 
 
 The transition from the lives of Homer and Socrates to their 
 activity as teachers of morality, is thus made easy. In Homer's 
 ethical teaching, Dio assigns the most important place of all to 
 the principle of the icaipbs ical aicaipla, in the light of which all 
 individual actions are to be judged. The characters of Nestor 
 and Odysseus (Or. 55) are to teach not merely ^povrfat^ ical 
 o-Tparrjyia ical fjuavTLKrj, but also, in addition to these, icaipbs ical 
 
Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 29 
 
 atcaipia. Oration 71, irepl (j)i\oa6(f>ov, emphasizes this as the 
 basis of all ethical, even of all artistic, considerations. There is, 
 according to Dio, a yet higher stage than the Jack-at-all-trades 
 character of Hippias of Elis 1 and of Odysseus, 2 to which the real- 
 philosopher must attain. He must be guided by " the eternal 
 fitness of things.' 1 The lesson is Homer's, conveyed through the 
 fate of many a luckless wight who met untimely end by attempt- 
 ing things to which he was unequal. In one special instance, 
 Dio emphasizes Homer's discrimination between the artistic and 
 the ethical. It is contained in the famous lines concerning the 
 ship-builder (II. 5, 59),— 
 
 o<? fcal 'A\ei;dv8p(0 refcrr/varo vrja? itaas, 
 ap^eKCLKOV^. 
 
 With the preeminence thus given to Homer's ethical side, it is 
 not surprising that Dio represents Homer as everywhere moraliz- 
 ing his song. In Oration 55, §§ 11-21, inclusive, occurs the 
 passage in which he sets forth most directly this conception of 
 Homer. The principle is further illustrated by a rapid review 
 of some of Homer's personages, which had for centuries served 
 both Stoics and Cynics as lay figures upon which to hang certain 
 moral lessons. Dolon, with his cupidity, his abject terror when 
 captured, his eagerness in volunteering information to his captors, 3 
 is nothing more than a picture of SeiXeua kcl\ <j>iXo8o^la, Pandaros, 
 violating the truce in hopes of reward, childishly cursing and 
 
 1 This is a reminiscence of the pseudo-Platonic Hippias Maior, 368 bc. 
 
 2 Dio's exposition (£$ 5-9) of Odysseus' versatility in handicrafts is ascribed 
 by E. Weber, Leipz.Stud., vol. 10, pp. 227, 8, to Antisthenes as source, inasmuch 
 as he deems it to satisfy completely all the demands of Antisthenes' favorite 
 epithet for Odysseus, iroKvrpoiros. Cf. Porphyry, Schol. to Od. 1, 2. R. Weber, 
 on the contrary, Leipz. Stud., vol. 11, pp. 141-3, sees in the passage decided remi- 
 niscences of what Chrysippus the Stoic called the avro5taKot/\a or avrovpyia of 
 Odysseus. Odysseus was a patron saint of both schools of philosophy, and there 
 can be no inconsistency in allowing both contentions. It is remarkable that Dio 
 should here place Odysseus on any plane of philosophy lower than the very 
 highest. Everywhere else he accords him a place as the embodiment of all true 
 philosophy. 
 
 3 For precisely the same tone, cf. Porphyry, Schol. to II. 10, 413, 437; 
 Dindorf, Schol. A to II. 10, 409.— E. Norden, Fleck. Jarhb., vol. 19 (1893), 
 pp. 373-385, ascribes the passage to a treatise of Antisthenes, irepl Karaa-KStrov. 
 
30 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 
 
 threatening his shafts, and dying a shameful death, singularly 
 appropriate in view of his wanton perjury, 1 is the complete type 
 of ScopoSoKia Kol acrifteia icaX to ^vpnrav dcjypoavvrj. Asios, the 
 son of Hyrtakos, disobeying the strict command of Polydamas, 
 crossing the moat with his chariot, and meeting his end through 
 this very act, is but a picture of aireiOeia koi a\a%6v€ia. 2 
 
 On the other hand, when Homer tells of Nestor's endeavor 
 to reconcile Agamemnon and Achilles, and of the heavy penal- 
 ties 3 which he afterward inflicted upon Agamemnon; when he 
 tells of Odysseus' rectifying Agamemnon's well-nigh fatal mis- 
 take in testing the spirit of the host, he is teaching (ppovrjcn? 
 teal GTpaT7)<yLa ical /xavriKr), and, underlying all, /catpbs koX 
 GLKaipia. 
 
 Not only does Dio ascribe to Homer a system of teaching 
 through object lessons, but he also draws upon the poet for the 
 refutation of certain erroneous popular beliefs concerning poverty 
 and wealth. Of these beliefs Dio regards Euripides as the chief 
 exponent. They are primarily two : first, that poverty incapaci- 
 tates men for the practice of hospitality, and, second, that the 
 possession of wealth is the means to the highest good, viz., to 
 hovvcu gevois. In Oration 7 (Eu/SoiVco?), §§ 98-102, is Dio's most 
 elaborate homily upon the virtues of the poor and humble. He 
 maintains that the poor are more generous and hospitable than 
 the wealthy, and finds his position completely substantiated by 
 Homeric teaching. Eumaeos, the swineherd, exhibits toward 
 the disguised Odysseus ali those virtues of generosity and hos- 
 pitality in which Penelope and even Telemachos were so sadly 
 deficient. 
 
 1 Cf. also Dio, Or. 55, \ 21. For the character of Pandaros, see Porphyry, 
 Schol. to II. 4, 88, where Aristotle is named as source. Cf. also Porphyry to II. 
 5, 290, 1, and Dindorf, Schol. B to 5, 291. 
 
 2 The language, as well as subject matter, of Porphyry, Schol. to II. 12, 110, 
 shows striking similarity to Dio's. It is more than probable that both drew 
 from some Stoic treatise. 
 
 3 These two lines of Nestor's activity are elaborated by Dio in Or. 57, NeVrwp, 
 and Or. 56, 'Ay ape fivwu % wepl &a<ri\e(as, respectively. The latter takes as its 
 text the limitation of the king's absolute power. — In contrast with the moral 
 side here brought out, Oration 2, \\ 20-23, ascribes the success of Odysseus 
 and Nestor to their skill in public speaking. Cf. Porphyry, Schol. to II. 2, 
 370 ffg. 
 
Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 31 
 
 Nor can the treatment Odysseus received at the hands of the 
 Phaeacions be regarded as generous, or at all in accordance with 
 their great wealth and abundant means of aiding him. 1 
 
 The falsity of the second popular contention is proved by a 
 consideration of the character of the guests who claim hospitality 
 from the wealthy. Dio illustrates this from Homer by the dis- 
 astrous results brought upon Menelaos by the fact that he alone 
 of the Lacedaemonians was able to entertain Alexandros (Paris) 
 as a guest. 
 
 Dio finds that Homer emphasizes the lesson of proper conduct, 
 not only for the individual, but for the nation. The fate of Troy, 
 the rich and populous, at the hands of a citizen of the insignificant 
 Ithaca, serves as a warning to the men of Tarsos (Or. 53). 
 Homer (§§ 19-23) has, like Archilochos (§§ 17, 18), for the 
 truly great city, a standard independent of material wealth and 
 advantages. These in nowise availed Troy. 
 
 So much for the subject matter of Homer's teachings. Dio 
 also finds a twofold method of teaching employed by Homer, Bid 
 re fjuvdwv teal iaTop[a<;. We have seen his treatment of the latter 
 in the concrete personages and events, which, even if they did not 
 exist, might yet have done so by all the laws of probability. The 
 former, however, Dio neglects to consider, except in the most 
 general fashion, — a neglect which is significant as showing his 
 use of the Aristotelian Xvcrcs i/c rod irpoadyirov in the ethical 
 sphere. The few lessons Dio finds in the fivOoc of Homer are 
 dreary commonplaces and are confined to Cynic and Sophistic 
 citations from the 'AXklvov airoXoyoc. 
 
 The conscious ethical lessons thus far ascribed by Dio to 
 Homer apply merely to the ordinary run of humanity. We come 
 now to Dio's conception of Homer as the teacher of the nature 
 
 1 This intermixture of the Sophistic and the Cynic is noteworthy. The 
 personages are all drawn from the Odyssey, the Karoirrpov of human life, accord- 
 ing to Antisthenes. Cf. Porphyry to Od. 1.1. To the Cynic, Eumaeos was the 
 type of admirable man. Cf. Dio, Or. 15, \ 13. Penelope and Telemachos, on 
 the contrary, were the immaculates who had served as fair marks for generations 
 of Sophists. Cf. Porphyry, Schol. to Od. 1, o32 ; and 16, 188. It is probable that 
 Dio's source for the passage under consideration was Antisthenes' nepl UrjueXS-n-ns 
 ical 'EAcvrjS, and irepl '08v<t<t4cds iced Tf)Xe ixax ov • Cf. Diog. Laert. 1, 6. 
 
32 Dio Chrysostom as a Homeric, Critic. 
 
 of Zeus, and, closely related to this, of the true king. Dio 
 regards these (Or. 53, §§ 11, 12) as but phases of the same theme, 
 for he who would be the real king must imitate the kindly and 
 beneficent Zeus. Homer's ever-recurring epithets for the true 
 king are merely plays upon this idea : Au \xt\tlv araXavros, 
 BwTp€(j)7]q, Sticpikos, and for Minos, 1 especially, Ato? fieyaXov 
 oapiarrj^ and ofjLtXrjrr)?. Cf. also Or. 4 (Trepl (SaaCkeLas), §§ 38- 
 42; Or. 1, § 37. So in Or. 1, §§ 11-15, Dio identifies the real 
 king with Homer's king, who derives from Zeus his title to rule. 2 
 Zeus' most significant trait is that he does not disdain to be called 
 the father of men as well as gods ; the real king must consider 
 himself in a like, paternal relation to his subjects. All the 
 reciprocal duties of this relation are sharply contrasted with 
 the vices and punishment of the tyrant in a lengthy exegesis, 
 Or. 2, §§ 66-78, inclusive, the text taken being Homer's famous 
 likening of Agamemnon to the bull, II. 2, 480-483. 3 
 
 Thus far we have seen the general characteristics of the real 
 king ; we now turn to Dio's demands for their application to the 
 practical affairs of life. This is the central theme of Oration 2, 
 irepl j3a<Ti\eia<;. It is cast in the form of a dialogue between 
 Philip of Macedon and his stripling son, Alexander. The dra- 
 matic effect is heightened by Alexander's bearing the chief part. 
 Hence, as befits the ethos of the speaker, a warlike and aristocratic 
 tone pervades the whole oration. 4 It is, therefore, distinctively 
 Stoic, 5 and not Cynic; for at no stage did Cynicism lay stress 
 
 Pseudo-Plutarch, trepl rod fiiov k. t. A. (a Stoic treatise) is much similar in 
 tone to this point of Dio, though without the 6thos of the Cynic speaker, 
 Diogenes. The exegesis of the epithets for Minos given above is undoubtedly 
 based upon pseudo-Plato, Minos, 319 de. 
 
 «Cf. 11. 2, 205, 206, and Porphyry, Schol. to II. 1, 279. 
 
 3 R. Weber, Leipz. Stud., vol. 11, p. 166, thinks Dio's source here to have been 
 the same which served the compiler of the Stoic Corpus Allegoriarum. This 
 corpus, in its turn, was drawn upon by Porphyry, Schol. to 11. 2, 482; and by 
 pseudo-Plutarch, ircpl rod &lov k. t. a., 1254 ab. 
 
 4 Von Arnim, Leben u. s. w. des Dio von Prusa, thinks the oration was delivered 
 by Dio before Trajan in 104 a. d., on the eve of the Second Dacian War. His 
 argument is strong and convincing. 
 
 5 Cf. R. Weber, Leipz. Stud., vol. 11, pp. 157-168, 177, 179. He maintains 
 that Dio drew fxhaustively upon Dioscurides, who also served as source for 
 Athenaeus, and the author of the pseudo-Plutarchean, irepi rov plov, k. t. a. 
 
Bio Chrysostom as a Homeric Critic. 33 
 
 upon the warlike virtues, or admit war at all, in its strenuous 
 advocacy of a return to nature as the solution of man's evils. 
 Alexander of Macedon is, therefore, of all personages, a non- 
 Cynic expounder of Homer. Indeed, in later philosophy, it_had 
 become a favorite rhetorical device to pit him against Diogenes. 
 
 Oration 2 is little more than a compilation of Stoic common- 
 places. Homeric poetry is peculiarly fitted for the king, in 
 marked contrast to that of Hesiod, the poet of artisans and 
 laborers. Homer contains all directions for the king's mode of 
 life. According to him, the king must possess the power of public 
 speaking ; he must hear only such music as will be an incentive 
 to martial ardor ; he must see and take part only in the war- 
 dance ; he must not tolerate any such invocations to the gods as 
 the Attic skolia ; his abode must show no wanton nor effeminate 
 luxury in its appointments ; his arms must be at hand for instant 
 use ; his food must be plain and simple, even meagre ; his dress 
 must be merely serviceable, and distinguished from that of the 
 subject only in so far as to denote the king's rank. In short, 
 Homer emphasizes the two fundamental virtues for the king, 
 dvhpeia koX hiKcuoavvT], as shown in his well known description 
 of Agamemnon (II. 3, 179), 
 
 a/jL<f>OT€pov, ftao-tXevs T ayaObs /cparepos T al%fjLr)T7]$. 
 
LIFE. 
 
 Walter Alexander Montgomery was born in Warrenton, North 
 Carolina, August 3, 1872. His early training was received in the 
 schools of his native town. In 1888, he entered Wake Forest College, 
 North Carolina, where he remained until 1890. In October of that 
 year, he entered the Johns Hopkins University, and received the 
 degree of Bachelor of Arts in June, 1892. In 1892-3, he pursued 
 graduate studies in Greek, Latin, and Sanskrit, at the same institu- 
 tion. From 1893 to 1895, he taught in the High Schools of Asheville, 
 N. C, and Eufaula, Ala. From October, 1895, he attended the 
 Seminaries in Greek and Latin at the Johns Hopkins University 
 until February, 1899, when he received the degree of Doctor of 
 Philosophy. He held Hopkins Scholarships during 1890-1, 1891-2, 
 1896-7 ; and Honorary Hopkins Scholarships during 1892-3, 1895-6, 
 1897-8. 
 
 His subjects for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy were Greek, 
 Latin, and the History of Philosophy. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINE OP 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.00 ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
 MM! && ifrf 
 
 
 MAY 23 1944 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 LD 21-10m-5, '43 (6061s) 
 
YC 00283 
 
* 
 
 W 
 
 
 m