Chion of Heraclea : a novel in letters

Text in Greek, with an English translation on the opposite page. " ... this collection of letters was composed by a

956 77 6MB

English Pages 0 [127] Year 1951

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Chion of Heraclea : a novel in letters

Citation preview

A C T A UNIVERSITATIS G O TO B U RG E N SI S G O T E B O R G S H O G S K O L A S A R S S K R I F T LVII 1951:5

CHION OF HERACLEA A NOVEL IN LETTERS E D IT E D W ITH IN TRO DU CTIO N AND COM M ENTARY

INGEMAR DURING

g

Ot

e b o r g

WETTERCR EN & KERBE R S FOKLAG

Prls Kr. 15: —

>

A C T A UNIVERSITATIS GOTOBURGENSIS G O T E B O R G S H O G S K O L A S A R S S K R I F T LVI I 1951:5

L & A. iu

CHION OF HERACLEA A NOVEL IN LETTERS E D IT E D W IT H IN T R O D U C T IO N A N D CO M M EN TAR Y

INGEMAR DURING

GflTEBORG W E T T E R C R E N & K E R B E R S FORLAC

1951

. I ·/

T his book is printed with a grant-in-aid from H umanistiska F onden

G0 TEBORG ELANDERS

BOKTRYCKERI

1951

AKTIEBOLAG

BIBLIOGRAPHY Editio

Aldina.

Epistolae Basilii magni, Libanii rhetoris, Cilionis Platonici, Aeschinis et Isocratis oratorum, Phalaridis tyranni, Bruti Romani, Apollonii Tyanensis, Iuliani Apostatae. Accedit Epistolarum congregatio virorum doctorum. Venice 1499. The edition was edited by Marcus Musurus. Editio

Caseliana.

Xenophontis Cyri Paediae liber IV. Ioamie Caselio interprete. Chionis Platonici epistolae ab eodem latine redditae. Rostochii Stephanus Myliander excudebat. 1584. According to Fabricius-Harles I 677 »separatim- quoque edidit epistolas Chionis Ioamies Caselius graece, Rostochii 1583.» Probably a reprint of the Aldina. I have not seen this edition. Editio

Cuiaciana

(J. Cujas).

ET11Z T O A A I EAAH N IKAI AMOIBAIAL Hoc est epistolae Graecani­ cae mutuae antiquorum rhetorum, oratorum, philosophorum, medicorum, theologorum, regum ac imperatorum aliorumque praestantissimorum viro­ rum. A Iacobo Cuiacio clarissimo J. C. magnam partem Latinitate donatae. Aureliae Allobrogum 1606. In Chion a faithful reprint of the Aldina. Editio

Coberiana.

Chionis epistolae. Graece ad codd. Mediceos recensuit, castigavit, notas et indicem adiecit J .T . Coberus, A. M. gymnasii Budissensis conrector. Dresdae et Lipsiae 1785. Prolegomena ad Chionis epistolarum graecarum futuram editionem, conscripta ab A . G . Hoffmanmts. Commentarii Societatis philologicae Lipsiensis 3 (1803), p. 234-273. Memnonis Historiarum Heracleae Ponti excerpta servata a Photio. Accedunt . . . Chionis Heracleotae quae feruntur epistolae. Jo. Conradus Orellius. Lipsiae 1816. p. p. p. p. p.

129-162 163-183 184-190 258-264 265-301

A. G. Hoffmanni prolegomena, Chionis Heracleotae qu. f. epistolae graece. Chionis ep. 3, 15, 17 latine. Theophili Coberi praefatio ad Chionis ep. Theophili Coberi, A. Hoffmanni aliorumque et editoris annota­ tiones et emendationes in Chionis epistolas, p. 302-322 Epistolarum Chionis Platonici interpretatio Caseliana. Epistolographi Graeci. Recensuit recognovit, adnotatione critica et indicibus instruxit Rudolphus Hercher. Paris, Didot, 1871. For the edition of Chion Hercher used A. Westermann’s collation of cod. Mazarineus 611.

4

INGEMAR d CRIXG

L IT E R A T U R E

ON C H IO N 'S L E T T E R S .

C . Bxirk, De Chionis epistulis. Diss. Giessen 1912. J . Goertz, De Chionis quae feruntur epistulis. Diss. Strassburg, Leipzig 1912. H . 71/. Howe, T he authenticity of the letters of Chio. In: Trans, and Proceedings of the Am. Phil. Ass. 73(1942), p. X X I X . This is a short abstract of a typewritten thesis. Mr. Howe kindly sent 111c a copy of his paper. J . F . Marchs, Sym bola critica ad epistolographos Graecos. Diss. Bonn 1883. A . Sabatucci, Alcune note suile epistole di Chione. In: Studi it. di fil. class. 14(1906), p. 374-414· 5 . J . Warren, Chion, Coberus et Cobetus. In: Sertum Nabericum 1908, p. 457-460. Nonsensical. O T H E R L I T E R A T U R E ON T H E E P I S T O L O G R A P H E R S , Q U O T E D I N T H E I N T R O D U C T I O N OR IN T H E C O M M E N T A R Y . J . Bernays, Die Heraklitischen Briefe. Berlin 1869. W. Capelle, De cynicorum epistulis. Diss. Gottingen 1896. R, Drcrup, Aeschinis quae feruntur epistolae. Leipzig 1904. K . v. Fritz, Quellenuntersuchungen zu Leben u. Philosophic des Diogenes v. Sinope. Philol. Suppi. B. 18(1926), p. 63 ff. A . Gudeman, Literary Frauds among the Greeks. In: Classical studies in honour of H. Drisler. New Y o rk 1894, p. 52-74. K . Miinscher, Xenophon in der griech.-rom. Literatur. Philol. Suppl. B. 13: 2 (1920), p. 154. W. Niessing, De Themistoclis epistulis. Diss. Freiburg 1929. W. Obens, Qua aetate Socratis et Socraticorum epistulae quae dicuntur scriptae sint. Diss. Miinster 1912. R. PJiilippsson, Verfasser und Abfassungszeit der sogen. Hippokratesbriefe. In: Rhein. Mus. 77(1928), 293-328. H. Schafstaedt, De Diogenis epistulis. Diss. Gottingen 1892. / . Sykutris, Epistolographie. In: R E Suppi. V (1931), 185-220. L . O. Tk. Tudeer, The Epistles of Phalaris. Preliminary investigation of the manuscripts. Helsinki 1931. V. Weichert, Demetrii et Libanii qui feruntur τύποι επιστολικοί et έπιστολιμαϊοι χαρακτήρες. Leipzig 1910. A . Westermann, De epistolarum scriptoribus Graecis commentationes I — V III. Progr. Leipzig 1851— 1858.

INTRODUCTION

n epistolary literature the letters of Chion of Heraclea hold a unique position as the only extant example of a novel in letters. The seventeen letters of this collection form together a coherent whole, well thought-out and carefully elaborated. The story is composed not unskilfully like a drama, with exposition, retardation, peripeteia and a moving exodus, and it is well told. The tendency is quite clear: the author presents a young nobleman who, inspired by the study of | Plato’s philosophy, becomes an ardent defender of political freedom and sacrifices his life in the fight against tyranny. Considering the limited compass there is an abundance of attractive features and pleasant narratives. The philosophic motivation of the hero’s conduct has a personal touch and does not lack merits. Although the thoughtcontent is by no means original, the presentation is excellent. Language and style are unusually good for a late work of this kind. These letters will never be reckoned among the great works of literature, but they are not unworthy of attention. Ever since Bentley published his famous Dissertations upon the Epistles of Phalaris and other epistolographers, epistolary literature has enjoyed a constantly bad reputation. All these letters were considered spurious and that was the end of it. Only slowly scholars began to work in the field. One after another of the half-forgotten epistolographers was subjected to renewed study. It is nowadays generally admitted that these collections of letters of various dates, mostly labelled with famous names, cannot be treated indiscriminately. There are widely different types of letters, and behind the various collections lurk motives of quite different character. Each collection must be treated as a separate problem, though of course its connection with the epistolary literature as a whole must not be set aside. In a brilliant survey of the whole field, published in 1931, J. Sykutris1) gave an account of what had been achieved up to that date and stated lucidly some of the main problems still open to discussion. It is to be deeply regretted that death prevented him from carrying out

I

J) See the bibliography p. 3.

s

INGEMAR DÜRING

his ambitious plan to write a comprehensive history of epistolary literature. The first serious study of Chion’s letters is Hoffmann's prolegomena (1803). Like Coberus he praised »linguae facilitatem ac venustatem virtutumque Chioni tributarum mirificam expositionem». He came to the conclusion that the author was a Neoplatonic philosopher of the 4th century who wrote the letters »ut scholae suae décréta defenderet». In the middle of the century Westermann published his useful com­ ments on the epistolographers. He accepted Hoffmann’s opinion concerning Chion’s letters. His collation of cod. Mazarineus 4454 gave Hercher a better foundation for his text. A completely new theory was advanced by J. F. Marcks in his Symbola critica (1883), a brief but very able study of essential problems concerning the epistolary literature. Marcks devoted three pages to Chion. He found that the philosophy expounded, particularly in the 16th letter, was Stoic and concluded that the author of the collection was a Stoic philosopher of the first century A. D. In the big histories of Greek literature by Christ, Croiset and Susemihl, published in the 90’s, the epistolographers were hardly more than mentioned. After this the wind veered. It is symptomatic of the awakening of new interest in this literature at the beginning of our century that three scholars published studies on Chion’s letters at about the same time and without knowledge of each other's work: the Italian Sabatucci and the Germans Burk and Goertz. Sabatucci’s paper is a very solid contribution. He compiled a list of the MSS. and described and collated five MSS. in the Vatican library. His collation is generally though not always reliable, and he saw the difference between the two lines of MS.-tradition represented by Vaticanus 1461 (A) and 1309 (B). His stemma is in principle confirmed by the present study of the entire MS.-tradition. His chapters on language are excellent and far superior to the surveys independently compiled by Burk and Goertz. There are also some useful notes on sources and parentage. Really surprising is however his final conclu­ sion, probably because he was more concerned with the formal aspects of transmission and language than with the contents of the letters. Apparently he did not know Marcks’ Symbola, and he therefore accepted Hoffmann’s and Westermann’s opinion that the letters were a 4th century product of the Neoplatonic school. The two dissertations by Burk and Goertz, published in 1912, are

CHION OI ?va with the subjunctive instead of ώστε with the infinitive ep. 7.2, 16.3; the type "Αγαθών ό χρηστός, Φίλων 6 θρασύς. An interesting phrase is Οεοϋ σφζοντος, which occurs twice, ep. 11 and 12. For further details I refer to the synopsis of the author's language p. 108 and to the commentary. i) Good examples are given by A. Roemer in Abh. Akad. München, 22 (1901) p. 25— 27.

CHION OF HERACLEA

15

A very important detail is an expression used by the author in ep. 13.1 περί εκτην ώραν. The earliest examples of literary use of this type of time-reckoning in Greek literature are found in the Gospels, and Plutarch is the first pagan Greek author who is quite familiar with this expression. The reader who peruses the notes on vocabulary and syntax in the commentary will no doubt arrive at the same conclusion as I: many new words or new meanings of words that occur in classical texts in quite another sense, many phrases or syntactical or stylistic features, instances of which are found in Chion’ letters, are also found in Plutarch but not earlier. A reservation is however necessary": we must always remember how piteously little is left of Greek pagan literature of the first century A. D. The language of Chion’s letters gives us the early Augustan period as terminus post quem. c) There are very few concrete details in the description of Chion’s adventures or his stay in Athens. The description of his adventure in Byzantium and what he says about Xenophon and the Thracian prince Seuthes in ep. 3 is a mixture of details taken from the Anabasis and the author’s own imagination. Sabatucci called attention to the fact that imaginary addresses delivered by Xenophon in equally imaginary situations were popular themes for rhetorical exercises. The war between the Thracians and Perinthians, mentioned ep. 4.2, is only a vague reminiscence of the war for which Seuthes engaged Xenophon. During his voyage to Athens Chion passed Selymbria and Perinthos, well-known from the Anabasis. Of other possible points of call only Chios is mentioned at the end of ep. 4. From his stay in Athens only one concrete detail is recorded: his stroll in the Periclean Odeum ep. 13.1. The reference to the στρατηγοί is too general to allow any reliable conclusions. What he says about Plato is either unimportant or can be traced to literary sources. The proper names deserve some attention (see the Index nominum). In ep. 16.3 Chion says that he went abroad »with eight servants and two friends». This agrees exactly with the names mentioned in the course of the correspondence. The servants were Baetylus, Bianor, Crobylus, Lysis, Podarces, Pylades, Philocalus and Philo. There is a faint attempt at ηθοποιία. Lysis is obviously the favourite, Pylades and Philocalus are characterized as πιστότατοι, whereas Philo d θρασύς is ridiculed as a coward. The two friends who accompanied him to

ι6

IXGEMAR DÜRING

Athens were Agatlion and Heraclides. W e do not know the reason why our author abstained from using the names mentioned in the historical accounts as Chion's fellow-conspirators. Chion further mentions a friend of the family and kinsman of Clearchus called Nymphis. From his schooldays in the Heraeum he remembers his teacher Callisthenes. It has of course been observed that two famous citizens of Heraclea were the historian Nymphis and the philosopher Heraclides, called Ponticus. Even Silenus, according to Chion one of Clearchus' opponents, is the name of a Heraclean general during the Second Mithridatic war mentioned by Memnon 232b 33 Bekker (FHG III 545). It must at once be added that this name cannot be used in order to ascertain a terminus post quem for Chion's letters. It is also useless to try to identify Archedemus, the astronomer, with some known bearer of this name, and the same is true of Archepolis and Thrason. The proper names give its no reliable chronological criteria. It pleased the author to spice his narrative with an admixture of well-known Heraclean names from different times.3 3. Let us now take as an established fact that this collection of letters was composed by an anonymous author not earlier than in the beginning of the first century A. D. and that the story which underlies it is true, although the author felt free to deck it out with as much imaginative power as he could summon. We shall now turn to con­ sider some other questions. a) Firstly, with what purpose did the author write these letters? Are they to be regarded purely as school-exercises? Did he write them in order to entertain with a pleasant and moving story, or can we trace a certain tendency? I have already drawn attention to the words »qui virtutem, ad qttam cotidie praeceptis magistri erudiebantur, patriae exhibere cupientes)> in Trogus X V I 5.13. In Aelian we read that Chion was εταίρος Πλάτωνος και το μισοτνραννον εκ της έκείνον εστίας σπασάμενος ηλευΟέρωσε την πατρίδα. Memnon characterized Chion as μεγαλόφρων avrjq. These or similar words inspired the anonymous author, and he saw that the story about Chion's heroic deed would constitute a very apt setting for a demonstration of certain truths which he had drawn from his philosophic education and found essential. Political conditions of his time may have acted as an incentive. Apart from the hostile attitude

17

CHION OF HERACLEA

towards tyranny and despotism which pervades the whole work, he is particularly anxious to stress two tilings: Plato’s philosophy makes men not only good citizens, hut also men of action (e. g. ep. 3.6 and ep. 5 την φιλοοοφίαν ονκ άπολίτεντον έργω τοις γνωρίμοις ποιεί), and »a tyrant can inflict all kinds of evils on my body, but he can never subdue m y soul», ep. 14.4 toOt οϋν τοιοϋτόν με υπό φιλοοοφίας γενόμενον, όποιον καν δήση Κλέαρχος, καν δτιοΰν δράση των χαλε­ πών, ουδέποτε ποιήσει δονλ,ον ουδέποτε γάρ μου την ψυχήν χειρώσεται, εν ή τό δονλον ή τό ελεύθερον, επει οώμά γε αεί συντυχίας ήττον, καν ύπ5 άνδρι μή τάττηται δεσπότη. In my opinion this sentence sum­ marizes what the anonymous author had in his mind when he composed these letters. He presents Cliion as a young nobleman who through his education in Plato’s Academy becomes an ardent adherent of these maxims, prepared to sacrifice his life to prove their truth (ep. 17.x ουδέ καταισχυνοϋμεν τήν σήν φιλοσοφίαν). b) Secondly, the letters are closely knit together into a coherent whole b y means of what the ancient rhetors called προπαρασκενή. i- 2 He has spent a few days in Byzantium, waiting for favourable winds. 3. He is grateful to the winds which delayed him (τοΓς έπισχοϋσιν ημάς) so that he could meet Xenophon. 3.5 Xenophon’s example and words made him understand that philosophy could help him to become a brave and active man, άριστεύς εί δέοι. This is the first foreshadow* ing of his final decision. 3.7 The winds are now αϊσιώτεροι. 4. The voyage to Athens. 5. His first experience of Plato is that he encourages his disciples to prepare themselves for a life of action. 6. Phaedimus arrives with gifts from his father which enable him to be generous towards Plato, ep. 10. 7-9 are intentional digressions. 10. Refers back to ep. 6. 11-12 . Cliion is unwilling to return home, for he wishes to become ωφελιμότερος οΐς συμπαθώ. In ep. 12 he has received information about Clearchus, and now he wishes to return, because he does not want to be εν άσφαλεστέρω τών πολιτών. 13- Unfavourable winds. The episode in the Odeum proves Chion’s bravery. The attempted assassination proves that Clearchus deserves the name of tyrant, Chion intends to sail ετησίων παυσαμένων. Goteb. Iiogsk. Arsskr. L V I I . 5

2

ι8

INGEMAR DORING

14. And this he does and arrives in Byzantium ταχεΐ τιλώ. Both in ep. 13 and 14 there are expressions which prepare ep. 17, viz. 13.3 αγαθός . . . και άηοΟνηακων εοομαι, 14.4 ην & εμέ άποκτείνη, την τελείαν έλενθερίαν χαριεϊταί μοι. 15- γράψω . . . άπάγων αυτόν is repeated in the beginning and the end of the letter in order to forewarn the reader that ep. 16 has a special purpose and that it is διΟυραμβίκωτέρα. The digression in ep. 7-8 affords the author an opportunity to describe a person whose qualities are such as to make Chion's noble character stand out in high relief. He can give a practical application to Plato's saying »to return good for evil». The object of ep. 9 is to exhibit Chion's faithfulness towards his friends at home. Chion is a real speculum virtutis, an exemplary young nobleman {άνηρ μεγαλόφρων Memnon): his gratefulness and love towards his parents ep. 1, 3, 6, and 11; towards his teachers, ep. 5, 10, 16 and 17 (Plato), ep. 9 (Callisthenes); loyalty to friends, ep. 2, 8, and 9; he is brave and staunch in perils, ep. 4 and 13; he loves his native city and is a zealous guardian of its freedom. He hates Clearchus not so much in person but as an incarnation of despotism, the most hateful thing of all. He is a true μισοτυραννος, inspired by his personal faith in the ideals he had imbibed in Plato's school. In the epistolary literature Chion's letters stand out as the only example of a novel in letters. Letters interconnected in various ways are not uncommon in other collections. In the collections which bear the names of Hippocrates and Tliemistocles we can observe apparent efforts to create a kind of coherent story, but we are very far from anything in the nature of a novel. Niessen summons a host of argu­ ments to prove that the letters of Tliemistocles were originally composed as a historic novel of the same type as Cliion's letters, but his comparisons between the two works are unconvincing and the result meagre. The letters of Hippocrates, at least the original collection, are of much higher quality' than those of Themistocles. It is however a manifest overstatement to call these letters »einen biograpliischen Roman in Briefform», Christ-Schmid6, II 484. c) Chion's letters were written by a person who was familiar with epistolary literature and the rules and technique of this kind of literary work. The first attem pt at a theory of the art of letter-writing w'as compiled by Artemon as an introduction to his edition of Aristotle's

CHIOX OF HERACEEA

19

letters. Fragments of his theory are found in Demetrius’ On Style. Not much later is a guide to letter-writing published by another Demetrius in the 1st c. B. C., edited by Weichert together with a similar treatise of Libanius. Collections of fictitious letters, intended as a new literary genre, can be traced as early as in the middle of the first century B. C., but there were probably earlier attempts unknown to us. R. Philippson dated the Hippocratean collection to c. 40 B. C., Marcks and K . v. Fritz dated the letters of Diogenes and Crates to late Augustan period, Marcks showed that Pollio, the author of the letters of Euripides, flourished under Augustus and Tiberius, the letters of Aeschines can safely be dated to about the same period. In Seneca’s famous Epistulae morales the epistolary form is already a literary convention. A striking feature in literary letters is that the author abstains from all such petty details as are necessary and usually dominating elements in private letters.1) As in other literary γένη the author follows certain given patterns, which, in later times, he knows from the progymnasmata, the kind of preparatory exercises in composition which Quin­ tilian and Theon describe in detail. The guide of Demetrius enumerates and exemplifies twentyone various types of letters, and in Eibanius the number is increased to more than one hundred. The author of Chion’s letters gives examples of the following types: παραμυθητική ep. i, συστατική 2 and 8, άπαγγελτική 3, 4, 5, 13, ενγαριστική 6, ψεκτική η, φιλική g, αίτιολογική ι ι , άναθετική or διδαακαλική 14 and 16, απολογητική 15. (These designations should not be taken too seriously or pressed too hard.) The 17th letter is a typical epistula valedictoria, a type not mentioned in the Greek guides. The author also follows the general rule that letters should not be tediously long, Iva μή λέγω τά μεταξύ ep. 4 2. Another rule, κύκλον αποτορνενειν έν ταϊς βραγυτέραις των επιστολών, to begin and finish a letter with the same phrase, is well applied in ep. 1, 2 and 4. Old and new guides stress that language and style should be simple and straight­ forward: περί άπλον πράγματος εκΟεσις και έν όνόμαοιν άπλοϊς. The style should be a mixture of two qualities, του τε χαρίεντος και τον ισχνόν.*) *) Sykutris, RE Suppl. V col. 218: Die konkreten Einzelheiten werden im Briefe als banausisch vermieden beziehungsweisc der uiiindlichen Mitteilung des Boten iiberlassen; der Brief strotzt von edlen Gefiihlen, Freundschaftserklarungen, geistvollen Bemerkungen etc.

20

INGE MAR Dt-RING

4. W e recall that Hofftnann and Sabatucci believed that the anon­ ymous author was a Neoplatonist and that Marcks advanced the theory that he was a Stoic. Burk and especially Goertz supported the latter theory with fresh arguments. Hoffm ann’s opinion can be entirely left aside, since no serious argu­ ments can be adduced in its favour. The main arguments of the second theory* are four: a) The anonymous author lays some stress on συγ­ γένεια Οεόη\ ep. 16.6 and 16.8. It is maintained that this is a typically Stoic doctrine. Y e t it is remarkable that the word συγγένεια does not occur in the list of Stoic terminology in the Stoicorum veterum fragmenta. If we look at the testimonia collected vol. IV p. 18 s. v. άνθρωπος, we shall find that the word used is κοινωνία. Too much importance should not be attached to this kind of terminological com­ parison and one should be suspicious of conclusions drawn from the ocurrence of one word or another, imitations and quotations. In later syncretistic philosophy the notion of an inborn kinship between gods and men is common property, and it is as old as Greek philosophic thought, b) Cliion’s letter to Clearchus with its half-truths and flagrant lies is by the writer considered entirely justified as a pia fraus against the tyrant. It is well known that Stoic philosophy defended this type of lie.1) c) The uncompromising attitude towards tyrants is considered to be particularly characteristic of the Stoics. It is undoubtedly true that in the first century A. D. Stoicism gave a philosophical foundation for the aristocratic opposition to those of the emperors who tried to rule without the Senate (K. v. Fritz in the Oxford Class. Dictionary). Finally d) the tenet μόνος d σοφός ελεύθερος Diog. Daert. V II 121, sapieniem solum liberum esse Cicero parad. V I, so energetically defended b y Chion ep. 14, 3-4, is definitely Stoic. It is appropriate to insert a general remark here. When we discuss the philosophy of an author belonging to the first century B. C. or A . D., w'e must bear in mind that to a great extent the differences between the philosophic schools were levelled down and th at syn­ cretism and eclecticism were the rule. This is a trivial truism, but I*) *) Quintil. inst. or. X II 1.38 Stoicorum quoque asperrimi conjitentur facturum aliquando virum bonum ut mendacium dicat. Sextus adv. math. V II 44 ώδε καί ύ σοφός, τουτέστιν ό τ?ρ> τοϋ άλτβοϋς έπιστήμην έχων, έοεϊ μέν ποτέ ψευδός. Stob. eel. II 7 τφ μέντοι ψενδει ποτέ σνγχρήσεσθαι νομίζονσιν (τον σοφόν) κατά πολλούς τρόπους δνευ σνγκαταΟέσεως· καί γάρ κατά στρατηγίαν (κατά) τών άντιπάλων καί κατά την τον συμφέροντος τιροόρασιν καί κατ’ &?.λας οικονομίας τον βίου πολλάς.

CHION OF HERACLEA

21

am afraid sometimes forgotten by those who are not specialists in this field. After Antiochus of Ascalon the philosophy generally accepted as Platonism was a mixture of Academic, Peripatetic and Stoic doctrines. Panaetius revised the whole Stoic system of philosophy and amal­ gamated with Stoicism doctrines of Platonic and Aristotelian origin. It is customary to designate the philosophic commonplaces in the popular treatises of Cicero, Seneca or Plutarch as Platonic or Stoic, but we forget that much of this was common property of the average cultivated man, widely diffused by means of doxographic surveys and popular etoaycoyai. The anonymous author of Chion's letter was certainly not a philo­ sopher, nor was he an original thinker with a philosophy of his own. We cannot even say that he was a personality of marked eminence. His work is what we can expect from a talented rhetor who had read some good books and attended a good school. In the commentary (see especially ep. 16) I have endeavoured to make clear that in these letters practically every idea of any philosophic importance can be explained as a reminiscence of his browsing in Plato's writings, and that there are not a few verbal echoes of Plato's letters and dialogues. I think that the anonymous author really knew Plato first-hand, and not only from contemporary compilations. The belief in contemplation of the universe, the notion of the godlike nature of man, the praise of the cardinal virtues (ep. 16.6), all this is Platonic in origin but became Hellenistic and finally Hermetic commonplaces. The attitude of juiooTvgavvoç can undoubtedly have its origin in his study of Plato, although we cannot reject the possibility that the author's violent assault on tyrants had some connection with the political conditions under Domitian. But this does not make him a Stoic. A pia fraus like that in the 16th letter is in itself not Stoic; it is'th e philosophic motivation for actions of that kind that is Stoic, and there is nothing of that kind in Chion's letters. The idea of the freedom of the soul, finally, is not presented in the form typical in Stoic philosophy, but emerges as a consequence of Chion's archaizing and definitely Platonic conception of the freeman, âvfjg ê?.evdeQoç, as elevated high above banausic men like merchants and other knavish characters. There is not a hint of the most typical of all Stoic doctrines, that of the super­ iority of the Wise Man. In summing up I would say that the philosophy of these letters is

22

INGEMAR DtlRING

essentially Platonism, and a rather old-fashioned and dilettantish Platonism-too, if we admit that the letters were written in the second half of the first century A. D., when the works of men like Eudorus of Alexandria and Philo, and the pseudo-Aristotelian De Mundo must have been well known to a cultivated rhetor. The author m ay well have been influenced by the syncretistic Stoicism of his age, but we cannot find any typically Stoic doctrines in his work. 5. I have previously adduced some peculiarities in the author’s language in order to show that the letters cannot possibly have been written earlier than the Augustan period. W e shall now discuss the possibility of establishing a terminus ante quem. a) K . Miinscher in his extensive survey of Xenophon in Greco-Roman literature, maintained that the glorification of Xenophon not only as a model writer but also as a perfect combination of philosopher and soldier is rather late. According to him it is first found in Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch and Arrian. Consequently the picture of Xeno­ phon as the ideal man in Chion's third letter is best understood, if we assume that the letters were written in the 2nd century A. D. Too much importance cannot be attached to this argument, for the revival of Xenophon and the glorification of his virtues began in fact much earlier. There is plenty of evidence from Cicero, Philodemus, Dionysius, Philo and the author of Περί νψονς, and it is difficult to determine exactly when the admiration of his style developed into a glorification of his personality. It is true, however, that this fashion culminated with Quintilian, Dio and Plutarch. Even if we accept Miinscher’s argumentation, we need not on this account assign Chion’s letters to a period later than the Flavian emperors, when Dio and Plutarch began publishing their works. b) Burk and Goertz stamped our author as an A tticist, and this would im ply that on purely linguistic grounds we could as well assign him to the second or third century. B ut our author is not an A tticist, in the sense in which I understand this designation. He pretends that his letters were written b y the historic Chion. This is reason enough for him to try to write an A ttic which comes as near as possible to what he knew from his reading of Xenophon and Plato. In the commentary it will be seen th at he adopts not a few phrases from Xenophon. B ut the curious m ixture of Hellenistic Greek,

CHION OF HERACLEA

23

archaizing A ttic and poetical words and phrases in this collection of letters makes it evident that he had not been educated in a school where strict A ttic was taught. It was from such schools that the pure Atticists emerged. I shall not repeat here from the commentary the results of the minute examination of his language. This analysis leads inevitably to the conclusion that our author was a man who took pains to write a language similar to that which he knew from Plato and Xenophon, but who only seldom succeeded. In vocabulary, syntax and style his language is hybrid, a mixture of incongruous elements. For such a short prose-work the number of words and phrases not found in other authors is remarkable, but most of them, I am sure, originate in the author’s unsuccessful efforts to atticize his language. In his pleasant essay On listening to lectures (ch. 9, 42 D) Plutarch derides those who insist that the style shall be »pure Attic and severely plain», comparing them to persons who are »unwilling to put on an overcoat in winter unless the wool be from Attic sheep but must needs sit still and inactive, with a delicate thin jacket of Lysias’ language cast over them» (Babbit). The anonymous author of Chion's letters was definitely not an Atticist of this kind. If as a young man he had attended schools of the kind that Plutarch derides, his Greek would have resembled that of Lucian or Phalaris. Since this is not the case, I conclude that he can hardly be younger than Plutarch. This is the terminus ante qucm. 6. In his survey of epistolary literature Sykutris has a chapter on the Romance in Letters (Der Briefroman), which might induce the reader to believe that we possess a whole literature of this kind. Strictly speaking, Chion’s letters are the only example worthy of being called a novel in letters. The letters of Themistocles and Hippocrates are at the most attempts in this direction. It is generally maintained that although Chion’s letters are written and composed as a novel, they are nevertheless nothing but rhetorical school exercises. This would imply that the author’s aspirations were limited to the attainment of formal perfection and to the entertain­ ment of the reader. It is quite possible that this is true, but I think we must at least consider another possibility too. We possess quite a number of school exercises of various types, including letters, a tedious reading even for a philologer. Chion’s letters convey so much

24

INGEMAR BORING

genuine concern and have sometimes such a personal tone th at it seems unjust to class them simply as progyinnasmata. The in­ vestigation of their form and matter has proved that the letters must have been written some time in the second half of the first century A. D. The evidence can be summed up in three points: a) A number of similar collections of letters (Hippocrates, Diogenes, Crates, Euripides, Aeschines) date from the time between 40 B. C. and c. 50 A. D. After this time epistolary literature is acknowledged as a literary genre with its own traditions and rules. Chion's letters belong to the most accomplished of this species of literature. b) The linguistic evidence (note περί £κτην ώραν) points towards the middle of the first century A. D. but not later than Plutarch. c) There is a noteworthy agreement between the external evidence concerning Chion and the letters, even in minor details, which makes probable the conclusion that the author drew his theme as well as his material from these sources. Memnon was a contemporary of Plutarch. So much can be said with the support of comparatively objective evidence. To go a step further means to embark upon entirely subjective assumptions. L et us however assume that the author was one of the numerous doctores sapientiae1) in Rome. It would then be possible to explain his choice of theme and mode of treatment by reference to the political conditions in the reign of Domitian. In ep. 14.1-2 the author describes how, under Clearchus, the city of Heraclea suffered bloodshed and banishment. If, in ch. 14-15, we substitute the name of Domitian for that of Clearchus, the arguments would fit well the situation in Rome in the eighties, as judged by a cultivated Greek observer. To the amazement of the citizens of Heraclea Clearchus presented himself as a son of the Olympian Zeus. Domitian was the first emperor who in his edicts presented himself as dominus et deus. Although Quintilian speaks condescendingly of the inertia of the philo­ sophers,2) they must have been partaking very actively in the political*) 2) Tacitus, Ann. X IV 59. *) X I 1.35 at vir civilis vereque sapiens qui se non otiosis disputationibus sed administrationi rei publicae dediderit, a qua longissime isti qui philisophi vocantur recesserunt. X II 2.7 quis (philosophorum) denique in ipsa quam maxime plerique praecipiunt rei publicae administratione versatus est: Chion protests energetically against such a disdainful opinion of philosophers, although he admits that it is a common view.

CHION OF HERACLEA

25

struggle for freedom as they had done already under Nero, for Domitian twice banished them from Italy on account of their audacious opposition to despotism. It was dangerous to criticize the tyrant even in covert terms (Suet. Dom. 10). In spite of this, pamphlets of various kinds were published, the most well-known of which was Paris and Oenone by the younger Helvidius Priscus. Is it possible to regard Chion’s letters as a kind of λόγος προτρεπτικός and a weapon in the political struggle under Domitian? I think the answer must be nega­ tive. The evidence is far too fragile, and it does not seem worth while to elaborate this hypothesis, even if the question must be raised. There is indeed not a single phrase in these letters that can be taken as a direct allusion. What is said about Clearchus in ch. 14-15 is true of tyrants in general. The theme is common in the literature of the late Hellenistic and Imperial periods.1) It is however an indisputable fact that in this case the subject is treated in an original way and with very good taste. It is not inconceivable that the anonymous author, who must have been a cultivated rhetor, was inspired by contemporary political conditions to write a tendentious novel in the form of letters, a literary" genre then a la mode. He was happy in finding an attractive and interesting historical setting, and he created something very rare in late Greek literature: an example of good prose fiction.*)

*) See Christ-Sckmid, Gesch. d. griech. Lit. II6 717 f., Anm. 8, G. Heintzeler, Das Bild des Tyrannen bei Platon, Tiibinger Beitr. z. Altertumswiss. 3, 1927, H. Friedel, Der Tyrannenmord in Gesetzgebung und Volksmeinung der Griechen, Wiirzburger Studien z. Altertumswiss. 11, 1937, Th. Lenschau in RE 2: 7 (1943) coi. 1842, s. v. Tyrannos.

The Manuscripts. W ith a few exceptions I refrain from giving detailed descriptions of the MSS., since nearly all MSS. mentioned here are described in the respective catalogues, listed by M. Richard, Repertoire des bibliothèques et des catalogues de manuscrits grecs, Paris 1948, and b y Drerup, Sabatucci, Schafstaedt and Tudeer in the works listed in m y biblio­ graphy. I have carefully reconsidered the dating of each MS. with the result recorded in my list below. Bern.

Stadt- und Hochschulbibliothek.

Bernensis 579, chart., saec. X V — X V I. f. 6$r- 6 j v èjiioxoXai %ía>voç, Ep. 3 only. Bologna.

Biblioteca universitária.

Bononiensis 3563, chart., saec. X V I. f. Ó3r-83v èmoxoXal xícovoç 1 -1 7 . Firenze.

Biblioteca Laurentiana.

Laurentianus Pint. 57.12, chart., saec. X I V - X V . f. 4 ir~49v èm oxolai xíojvoç 1 - 1 7. Laurentianus Plut. 57.45, chart, saec. X V . f. 304v-309r %io)v fiáxqiôi xaiqew, ep. 9-16. f. 3 i2 v (last page of the MS.) %i> older than Vat. 1309. According to the unanimous opinion of three celebrated specialists, Monsignore R. Devreessc, Dr. C. Giannelli (co-editors of the Codices Vaticani Graeci) and Professor G. Batelli, the MS. should be dated to the XVth century.

CH10X o r HERACLEA

Wien.

31

Nationalbibliothek.

Vindobottcnsis, inter philos. gr. 59, chart., saec. XV. f. 9 iv~92r xuov jtldxton xafQf.tr, ep. 17 only, copied from Laurentianus 57.45, f. 3i2v. As is seen from this list, all the MSS. are recent, and of the 33 MSS. which I have collated only one can with certainty be ascribed to the X IV th century, namely, B 1). A few obvious errors are common to all MSS. not influenced by the Aldina: fj/teQaiq xaQixov Qodidv to ovveyajq 9 fjQfWoxat 10 14 (end) difjxetr olq 17-3

4.2 6

for for for for for for

rj/iiioag xaotxov (XVTQtdiov?) tip ovvextbq ijotiooag or ijojitooat avtfxetv (conjectured in e) (or

In many MSS. we can further observe the following traces of errors in the common archetype: ep.

3.1 exdoxoiq 5 dfptjxr] 14.2 a badly corrupt passage 14-5 7tav xy\ (or something else) 16.7 a corrupt passage oixekov

for ixdoxrjq for dfuftjxt] ftvtjftt] — TtXtfiovq for ndvxi) — ereQa

There are no really typical uncial corruptions, although some of the errors listed above might be explained in that way. Somewhat more common are errors due to misunderstanding of iota adscriptum.**) But, after all, very little can be said about the archetype. O11 general grounds it seems probable that a collection of epistolographers was made very early, since this kind of literature already enjoyed wide-spread popularity in the fourth century A. D. We cannot, however, trace any such collection further back than the time of the Palaeologi, towards the end of the X H Ith century. It is found in cod. Harleianus 5610, which is described by Drerup in his edition of Aeschines and seems to be written c. 1300. The present MS. is only a portion of the 9 See the Conspectus siglorum, p, 42.

*) Sabatucci p. 399.

INGEMAR DÜRING

32

original MS., the first half of which is preserved in a somewhat later copy, Vaticanus 1309, probably w ritten towards the middle of the X I V th century. Drerup’s as well as m y own collations further make it extrem ely probable that Laurentianus 57.12 was copied directly from Harleianus 5610, while this MS. was still undivided. From the table given on the opposite page it is easy to see, how closely related the three MSS. now mentioned are. W e can also observe th at the MSS. of the d-fam ily agree in the arrangement and order of the various authors. When we come to the MSS. of the c-fam ily, we can see that the first part of the corpus represented in these MSS. was copied from a MS. belonging to the (3-tradition. The ancestor of all the MSS. of the (3-tradition was a corpus epistolographorum, parts of which were perhaps arranged in alphabetical order (Anacharsis, Brutus, Chion, Euripides, Hippocrates, Heraclitus). I t is a curious fact, at present quite inexplicable to me, that the letters of Chion were placed accord­ ing to the order of the Batin alphabet, and this in a B yzan tin e collection of the X H Ith century. Or is this alphabetical order m erely an accid­ ental occurrence? When we look at cod. 1461, the oldest MS. of the a-tradition, written at the beginning of the X V th century, we find an entirely different arrangement and an important addition, a portion of the letters of Alciphron. Chion is placed immediately after Plato. The editor of this rearranged corpus seems to have aimed a t attaining a chronological order. The MSS. can be roughly divided into two main lines of tradition, which I call a and (3. The following survey gives a good bird’s-eye-view of the superiority of the (3-tradition. a-tradition A = Vat. 1461 ep. i

Xvnov/uévovç TtQoaOsïvai ep. 3.1 éxâoxrjç 3.3 âvâyexe avx â> 3.5 noXv fxe elvai

(3-tradition B = V at. 1309, Eaur. 57.12 Xvnovjusvot nQoOeïvai èxâoxoïç âvdysxai avxcüv noXv / vvv l ie

W hich is best? equally good B A A B B

33

CHION OF HERACLEA

co 3.»

CO y

U

03 O H

,fl

§> 0) cd a

&o

Ph m


»

H

fl -O 2 3 p. y “ O

H« d ■9 g S d g>49 J - I s s ^cd a 3 .2 « a l & «'! 3 4 2 δττι μ έπανσας Άλης και όιζνος αίνής, ζά λης aid ανάγεται 8 ν μ ϊν Hercher αυτό : αύτφ aid άπιθεϊν aid 9 καταναστάς Οp i 1 0 αυτών b αντώ α C € ss m alt ό A jr in ras 563s αντοΐς ss ών S αντοϋ aid 1 2 έκαστος i g 3 1 aid 1 3 άρπακτικοϋ Sabatucci 1 7 είς om e 1 8 σωκράτονς € σωκράτη aid 2 5 νϋν β είναι ot aid δή C ήν e φιλασοφήσαντα α 134 2°5 305 2 8 πνθόμενον aid χα ι πάνν om d 3

διεξιόντα μέν aid

Β Cp i €

5

ενα οντες

7 βονλομένονς

C

Β om D

6

CHION OF HERACLEA

49

plenty of room at my disposition, or at least that I would postpone my death. 3 While this was going on and the Greeks were in disorder, I saw a man wearing long hair, a person of beautiful and mild aspect, striding in their midst and stilling their passions. That was Xenophon. When, on the contrary, the soldiers exhorted him to yield to numbers, since he was alone, and finally let them make an end of their wearisome and hard roaming, he shouted: *Come to order and take counsel! There is no risk that the matter in our charge shall pass from our hands while we are deliberating.* Since they were ashamed of disobeying him, at least in this appeal, Xenophon came forward in their midst and addressed them in an admirable way, as appeared from the result of his speech. For it was not possible for me to hear it clearly. The soldiers who a while ago had decided to plunder the city we could now see in peace and quietness buying provisions in the market like the other Byzantines, and no longer breathing mischief and warlike spirit. 4 What I witnessed was a display of Xenophon’s personality, his sound judgment and eloquence. I did not quietly wait until he had disappeared, particularly since, like the Byzantines, I had come off well thanks to him. For owing to the winds I too was one of those who would certainly have been robbed. I introduced myself to him, and he remembered your friendship with Socrates and encouraged me to study philosophy and, for the rest, did not talk at all like a soldier but like a very educated man. He is now leading the army to Thrace. Seuthes, the king of Thrace, who is at war with some of his neighbours, has sent for him, promising the soldiers full pay, and they have declared themselves willing. For they do not wish to disperse without money, on the contrary, they wish to get something after all their toil, while they are still an army. 5 It will interest you to hear that I am now much more eager to sail to Athens and study philosophy. You will certainly recall that often when you exhorted me to philosophic studies, telling me in an admirable way about the men who had devoted themselves to each branch of philosophy, you found that I agreed with you in most respects, but that on one point I was full of fear. For it seemed to me that philosophy made men more serious in other matters upon Goteb.

Hogsk. Arsskr. L V I I :$

4

INGEMAR DÜRING

50

έφάψαιτο (καί γάρ τό σώφρον και τό δίκαιον ονκ άλλοθεν άρύεσθαι τους ανθρώπους ή φιλοσοφίας ωμήν), τό δε πρακτικόν και σφόδρα λύειν τής ψυχής και μαλθάοσειν επί τό ήσνχον. άπραγμοσύνη γάρ ήν και ηρεμία τα θαυμαστά, ως μοι έλεγες, εγκώμια φιλοσόφων. 6 δεινόν ούν μοι κατεφαίνετο, εί φιλοσοφήσας τάλλα μεν άμείνων εσομαι, θαρ­ ραλέος 0’ ονκέτι ούτε στρατιώτης είναι δυνήσομαι ου τ άριστενς, εί δέοι, άλλα μεθήσω ταϋτα πάντα ώσπερ έπιλήσμονί τινι επωδή παντός έργου λα/,ιπροτέρου κηληθε'ις τή φιλοσοφία, ήγνόουν , δτι 3 Έρίφων εσπερία δύοις ον κατά Οάλατταν μόνον οημαίνει χαλεπούς χειμώνας, άλλα και κατά γην χαλεποπέρους· έχεις γάρ έκ τής ήμετέρας συντυχίας παΐξαι προς αυτόν. 6 ε . Ιο)t αντο). 1 ΆφίγμεΟα ές Αθήνας και Πλάτωνι τώ Σο>κράτονς γνωρίμο) διαλεγό· μέθα. τάλλα τε γάρ πάντα σοφός àvy)o έστι και την φιλοσοφίαν ονκ 9 απολίτευτον έργω τοϊς γνωρίμοις ποιεί, αλλά και πάνν άμφήχη πρός τε το πρακτικόν τον βίου και προς ησυχίαν άπράγμονα. έγραφες δέ μοι και περί τής προς αυτόν φιλίας, δτι ου μικρόν π)χονέκτημα την προς 12 Σωκράτην σου συνήθειαν εις αυτόν έχοιμι. ϊσθι οϋν, δτι πάντων μεν ποιείται λόγον και των μίαν ημέραν όμιλησάντων Σωκράτει, ουδενϊ ό’ ο ύ τ ω ς αυτόν οικείοι, ώ ς τω μάλιστα άπολανειν αυτόν δυναμένω. καί 1 5 κατά τούτο γοϋν έσπουδάκαμεν μή μειονεκτεϊν τής Πλάτο)νος φιλίας, αλΧ έν τοντοις τετάχθαι ύφ* ών εϋ πάσχειν φησίν, δτι αυτούς εϋ ποιεϊν δνναται. ον γάρ ήττονα ευδαιμονίαν είναι λέγει το αγαθούς ποιεϊν τον 18 αγαθόν γίνεσθαι. το μέν οϋν ώφε?>εϊσθαι τοϊς δνναμένοις τ ω ν φίλων αυτός παρέχει, το 0’ ώφελεϊν ονχ ήττον λαμβάνει παρά των ώφελεϊσθαι δνναμένων. 21 ς'.

Τω αύτώ.

Έ κόμισέ μοι Φαίδιμος ταρίχου f χυτρίδιον γ καί μέλιτος αμφορέας 2 3 P la t . ep . X I I I , a: Π έμπ ω Ôè καί οίνον γλυκέος δώδεκα στάμνια το ϊς π αισι καί μέλιτος δύο . Ισχάδων Ôè ύστερον ήλθομεν τής άποθέσεως, τ α Ôè μ υ ρ τ α άποτεΟέντα κατεσάπι] . . . άργνριον είς ταντα . . . ε?.αβον παρά Λεπτίνου .

0 *ούν ήμεϊς aid

1

3 π^ρί

πάντων 59*47 *134

E p . 5 8 ές codd pi είς Β aid άνήρ codd 10 ά(μ)φίκη μ u id e tu r

9 γάρ

φίκη 134 άμφίκη 20 β 3050 3054 5*>35 άφήκη π ρ ό ς α υ τ ό ν β C€ τής είς πρός α υ τό ν Α τής είς πρός

α υτόν

jx

aid

12

1 34 20 5 3 ° 5 ° 16

πάνν

ο ιη

a d d p o s te a

-^αρα H e r c h e r

α 6 e r a s u m 5^35 Α αμ a d d p o s t e a

Β άμφνκη 51 εί

πρός

15

μεϊον έκ τήν τής πλάτωνος σοφι φιλίας 14^7 Ep. 6

($οόιαν

23

a C€

τα ρσ ο ύ ^όόιαν

Coberu s

βρ/

(5όόιαν

59*47 ss π ρ ό ς

a d d p o s t μ ικ ρ ό ν x j j

1 4 τ ω ν κ α ι μ /α ν H e r c h e r

τ α ρ ικ ο ΰ

codd

57*12 ePoôlov

d . . . 12

5^35

τής σ^ς

13 σ ω κ ρ α το υς

τφ 17

Cpl 13 4 ο τ ι : ε ϊ τ ι j x aid : τό

χυτρίδιον C o beru s

jr

h a e s it a n s κα ι om

e

s c r ip s i

CHION OF HERACLEA

55

ship, unmoored and put to sea. A t present we are in Chios, after having enjoyed fair winds all the way. Tell Archedemus that the Kids setting in the evening sky foretell not only heavy gales at sea, but still heavier ashore. Thus you can use my adventure to have a joke with him. 5.

To

th e

same.

We have arrived in Athens and talked with Plato, the disciple of Socrates. He is a wise man in all respects and endeavours to make philosophy appear to his disciples as not incompatible with an active life, in fact as something with its face turned towards practical life as well as towards quiet contemplation. You wrote to me that in making friend with him too, your intimacy with Socrates might be of no small advantage to me. So it will interest you to learn that he pays considerable heed to all those who have been together with Socrates even for one day only, and he makes particularly those persons his friends who are most capable of drawing benefit from him. Knowing this, I am anxious not to fall short of Plato’s friendship but be reckoned among those from whom he professes to draw benefit because he can do them good. For he says that there is not less happiness in making men good than in becoming good oneself. He offers the advantage of being benefitted to those of his friends who are susceptible, and in the same degree he draws benefit from those who are susceptible of being benefitted.

6.

To

th e

same.

Phaedimus arrived with pickled fish, five jars of honey and twenty

INGEMAR DtiRING

56

πέντε καί τοϋ μνρσινίτου οίνον κεράμια εϊκοοι καί προς τοντοις τρία αργυρίου τάλαντα, καί τής μέν πίοτεως εκείνον έπαινώ, τής δ* έπιμελείας οε έπιγινώσκω. ήδη μέντοι των επιχωρίων γεννημάτων ώσπερ άπαρχάς 3 τινας βονλοίμην άν οε άποστέλλειν, εϊγε έπιτρέποι δ καιρός· τοντοις )>άρ καί τους άλλους φίλους τέρπειν ένεοτι καί Π λάτωνα σοφίζεσθαι άδωροδόκητον οντα. χρημάτων δ’ ούδ* εϊς Ιμοιγε πόθος καί μάλιστα 6 εν Ά θήναις τε δντι καί Πλάτωνι διαλεγομένω, έπεί καί ατοπον Ισως πεπλευκέναι μέν ημάς εις την ΓΕλλάδα, ϊνα ήττον φιλοχρήματοι γενώμέθα, μηδέν δ* ήττον καί εκ Πόντου πλεΐν προς ημάς την φ ιλοχρημο- 9 σννην. χαριέοτερον οϋν ποιήσεις ταϋτα πέμπουν, δσα τής πατρίδος ημάς, ονχ δοα πλούτου άναμνήοει.

ζ'.

Τώ αντώ.

12

5Αρχέπολις Αήμνιος μέν έοτιν ώς λέγει το γένος, φαύλος δέ καί άτέκμαρτος άνθρωπος καί στασιαστής προς πάντας, μάλιστα δέ πάντ ojv προς -εαυτόν, συν δέ τοντοις καί λελνμένος την αποπληξίαν καί πάν δ 1 5 αν οίηθείη λέγω ν νοεί δ* αεί τα μωρότατα. οντος το μέν πρώτον, ώς πννθάνομαι, ταμίας τε εν Λήμνω γενόμενος καί τάς όμοιας μετιών αργίας ονκ ενπρεπώς άνεστρεφετο, ώς δ* έδοξεν αντω καταφρονήσαι καί φ ι- 13 λοσοφίας, εις Α θήνα ς κατέπλενσε, κάκεϊ πολλά μέν Πλάτωνι δνσηρέστησε, πολλά δ5 ημάς έβλασφήμησεν. ονδέν γάρ αντω χρήσιμοι έφαινόμεθα, περί άρετής άλλ’ ον περί χρηματισμον τάς διαλέξεις ποιούμενοι. 21 2 νυν δ’ εις τον Πόντον έμπορενεσθαί φησιν, ονκ άφρόνως, εί δη τούτο « μόνον έαυτω προσήκειν λελόγισται* άλλα το άστάθμητον αντοϋ καί πετάμενον ουδέ ταντην επιδέχεται την φρόνησιν, ϊνα δς τε έοτιν είδή 2 4 καί εις δ χρήσιμος· προς ^άρ τδ άεί φανταζόμενον μετεωρίζεται, οντος έπιλαθόμενος των βλασφημιών προσήλθέ μοι καί έδεήθη σοι γράψαι 23

1 om 11

A r is t o p h . Α ν .

μνρσινίτου aid έρρωσω d α β

i 6g

s c r ip s i

άνθρωπος δρνις άστάθμιγτος » πετόμενος9 άτεκμαρτός, ονδέν ονδέποτ έν ταντώ μένων.

μερσίτον codd aid έπιτρέπει Θ

E p . 7 1 5 r ji άποπληξίρ H e r c h e r πώς C άνεστρέφετο α β C άπωθεϊτο 2 2 εί δή : έπει e 2 5 τόν άεί C οντος aid

3 γενημάτων β φιλοπραγμοαύνην

9

οϊηθη aid

16 €

Β

C α €

4 τ ιν α ς

aid

H erch er 20

/ ιε τ ε υ ρ ι'ί ε τ α ι

e

1 8 απρε-

ε ις a d d a n t e

ημάς aid

/ά ρ add p o st

CHION OF HERACLEA

57

jars of wine flavoured with myrtle and in addition three silver talents. I praise his faithfulness and I recognize your kind consideration. As I told you, I expected you to send me what you might call the firstfruits of what is produced at home, if conditions allow, for such gifts will enable me to entertain my friends and also play a trick on Plato who otherwise refuses to accept gifts. I do not want money at all, particularly since I have now arrived in Athens and attend Plato's school. For it would be quite out of place if now, when I have sailed to Greece in order to become less fond of money, love of money should none the less sail to me from Pontus. Please do send me such things as remind me of my country, not of wealth.

7.

To

th e

same.

Archepolis who professes to be of Lemnian origin, is an untrustworthy and obscure fellow, at variance with everybody and especially with himself, besides being completely reckless and saying anything that comes into his head, and he always has the stupidest ideas. As far as 1 know he was earlier steward in Lemnos and tried various professions but did not behave well. He then decided to extend his contempt even to philosophy and sailed to Athens. There he was a nuisance to Plato in many ways and defamed me. He regarded me as being of no use to him, since our discussions dealt with virtue, not with money. 2 Now he says that he is going as a merchant to Pontus, and in doing so he is right, for that is the only profession that is generally considered to suit him. But his unsteady and fickle nature does not even allow him such an amount of judgment as would enable him to know himself and what he is capable of. He is always buoyed up by false hopes. Unmindful of his outrageous behaviour he came to me and asked me

INGEMAR DURING

58

περί αντου, £)'ώ < 5’ έκείνω μέν, ϊνα μη άναξίω δντι Βελλεροφόντον όχημα περιθώ, έτ^ραν έπιοτολήν εδωκα, ούό’ έκεϊ τι ομοίως ψευσάμενος, ταύτην δέ προαναγομένω Λύοιδι ένεχείρισα. 3 ο?//αι δή πάση φιλάνΟρωπ/ςι δέ£ασθα/ σε όεϊν τον άνθρωπον καί εϊπεϊν έπί τέλει δτι 'Ο ϋτω ς αμείβεται Χίων τους βλασφημήοαντας* τοϋτο ράρ £ν έοτι των μαθη­ μάτων αυτόν, ά συ *?χλευα£ες, τό μηδένα κακόν άμννεσθαι μέχρι τοϋ μή αυτόν άγαθόν είναι . τοϋτο ό5 έσται, έάν εύποιίαις αυτούς άμννώμεθα. οΖόα μεν οΰν δτι ουδέν πείθεται άτρωτος ων τήν ψυχήν υπό μωρίας 9 δμως δ* οϋν ήμών αυτών χάριν γενέοθο) τοϋτο το πολίτευμα. τά δε περί αυτόν λελνμένως και άπροκαλύπτως έδήλωοα, προς άλλον μεν ουδέν ποτέ βλαοφημήοας των δντων ονδένα) προς σέ δέ τον έμόν νουν υπό μηδενός παραμπεχόμενον λόγον άπλοΰν και σαφή δίκαιων

3

6

9

12

είναι.

η Τ ώ

αύτώ.

άποδιδονς σοι τό γράμμα Ά ρχέπολις ό Λήμνιος εμπορευόμενος 15 εις τον Πόντον έδεήθη μου όπως αυτόν σνστήοαιμί σοι, έγώ ό5 άομενος έδεξάμην. και γάρ ουδέ φίλος μοι ων έτύγχανε* κέρδος οϋν μέγα ωήθην αφορμήν λαβεΐν τοϋ ποιήοαί τινα φίλον μή δντα πρότερον εις δ κέρδος 18 σύλληψη μοι και συ φιλανθρώπως αυτόν είσδεξάμενος. πείθομαι δέ καί μέτριον αυτόν έμπορον είναι- καί γάρ φιλοσοφήσας πρότερον είτ εμπορεύεται 21 *0

θ'. Χίων Βίωνι χαίρειν. sΟλιγωρίαν μέν σου τοσαύτην περί εμέ ούκ άν ήλπισα έσεσθαι οντ έβουλόμην προσδέξασθαι, θαυμάζω δέ τήν συντυχίαν, δι ήν ουδέν τέως 2412* 1 in marg codd. A et 51 hoc scholium: Ισ τέο ν ή σθενέβοια γυνή ήν π ρ ο ίτ ο ν έρασθεΐσα δή βε 7.λεροφόντον έπειδή ούχ νπήκονσεν αυτή, κατεψενσατο αυτόν προς τον Ιδιον άνδρα ώς βιαζομένη, και 8ς επεμψε τούτον είς τον πενθερόν αντοϋ ΐν* νπ εκείνον άναιρεθείη . έλθόντος ούν εκεϊσε βελλεροφόντον καί καθαρόν φανέντος> μ ή φέρονσα τήν αίσχύνην σθενέβοια κωνείω εχρήσατο. 2 ούό5 : σύ δέ e

όμοίως οιη c

12 παραπεμπόμενον e

E p . 8 15 τά γράμματα aid 19 πείθομαι 19 καί ante μέτρων om d



είναι ora C sed add in pr in

marg 5635

E p . 9 χίων βίω νι χαίρειν βμ/ χίωνι βίω νι χαίρειν 153 35*>3 βίωνι α Crell € aid 23 περί έμοϋ 134 ενθέροις. τί οϋν; αν τις μή φοβήται μέλλον κακόν μηδ9 επί τώ γινομένω άχθηται, δουλεύσει; καί πώ ς, ο γε μή εχων τά δονλείας κακά; 4 ϊσΟι οϋν τοιοΰτο'ν με υπό φιλοοοφίας γενόμενον, όποιον 6 κάν δήση Κλέαρχος, καν ότιοΰν δράση των χαλεπών, ουδέποτε ποιήοει δοϋλον· ουδέποτε γάρ μον την ψυχήν χειρώσεται, εν ή τό δοϋλον ή τό έ?.ενθερον, έπεί σώμά γε άεί συντυχίας ήττον, κάν νπ* άνδρί μή τάττηται 9 δεσπότη. τ/ν