Dio Chrysostom Research Articles

Aspects of the Social Thought of Dio Chrysostom and of the Stoics

On re-reading Dio of Prusa's Euboicus, I formed the impression that his ideas on manual labour and on the respectability of occupations open to the poor are somewhat different from those conventionally adopted by Greeks and Romans of the upper class, to which Dio belonged. Part 1 of this paper discusses these ideas in the Euboicus and in some related works of Dio. It will inter alia afford some conjectural support to von Arnim's hypothesis that the Euboicus was delivered at Rome. Probably Dio's attitude was influenced by his experience in exile, when he had known what it was to be poor and had even propounded Cynic opinions. But the Euboicus is a work of his old age (VII. 1), and his conduct after his restoration to his home in A.D. 96 was conspicuously non-Cynic. If then we find some indication that he was also indebted to some previous theorizing on appropriate occupations for the free poor, we need not think of a Cynic model; indeed we should not, for the Cynics were little given to the kind of casuistry involved. In Part I some evidence will be found that Dio was also influenced by Stoic teaching, and in Part II it will be argued that his discussion of the way in which the poor could decently earn their living goes back to Stoic works on practical morality of the kind illustrated by Panaetius' treatise On Appropriate Action; however, Dio's ideas are not those of the Middle Stoa and more probably derive from Cleanthes or Chrysippus. In this connection I take Cicero, de officiis 1. 150 f., to represent the views of Panaetius, and as I have found that this interpretation can be contested, I have tried to justify it in the Appendix.

Dio Chrysostom on the Mob at Alexandria

Dio Chrysostom on the Mob at Alexandria

Law and the Moral Paradox in Plato's Apology

Law and the Moral Paradox in Plato's Apology* RONALD F. HATHAWAY 1. ASSUMPTIONS LET US SUPPOSE, in agreement with the oldest tradition, that the dialogues of Plato are Socratic? Let us suppose that every philosophic question presented in the dialogues as fundamental can be made intelligibleonly in terms of the Socratic standpoint. Let us further suggest that the heart of the Socratic standpoint is the view that although nature and law (nomos) axe not in harmony with one another them exists a philosophic preservation of right through reason which if scrupulously followed will bring about a kind of harmony .between nature and law or a natural justice.2 Then it is argued that Plato's Apology is the firstplace in which one can see the principal problem posed by the Socratic standpoint, the puzzling nexus of law and the Socratic moral paradox. The first part of Socrates' questioning (erotesis)of Meletus is based on a paradox which in this carefully chosen context places the maximum possible claim upon law for its sonse of mercy and justice,a claim which ifallowed to stand would seemingly undermine the entire meaning and role of punishment in law? Contrary to the bias of modern commentary, there is nothing "'accidental" or merely occasional about the moves of Socrates here; his questioning of Meletus is intended to be an archetype and a paradigm. In order to show this point clearly, it will be necessary firstto correct three mi.~leading assumptions about the Apology currently in vogue and next to propose a working definition of a paradox. To begin with, the titleof the Apology is wrong; it is not an "apology." Socrates does not excuse himself. The right rendering of its titleis,as many scholars have * I would like to express my gratitude to Professor Thomas Schrock for reading earlier versions of this paper. Plat. Epist., II, 314c3-4; Aristot[e, De arte poet., I, 7-9, 1447b lI; Aristotle, De part. anon., I, 1, 642a28-31; Cicero, De oratore. [[I, 15, 60, 67, 72; Academica, I, 16-17; II (Lucullus), 74; De fin., V, 84; D. L. Socrates. II, 47; D.G. 567, 1-4. Cf. Rep., VI, 501b 1-7 with Laws, IX, 874e7-875d 5; Laws, X, 889e-890a with the sequel; Crat., 390c2-11. Cf. Xenophon, Mere., I, vi 15; Dio Chrysostom, IH De regnoo 29-41. s George Anastaplo, "Human Being and Citizen, A Beginning to the Study of Plato's Apology of Socrates," Ancients and Moderns: Essays on the Tradition of Political Philosophy in Honor of Leo Strauss, ed. J. Cropsey (New York, 1964), p. 18: "Socrates' argument . . . denies the possibilities . . . perhaps even of any legRimate criminal law." Cf. Arthur W. H. Adklns, Merit and Responsibility (Oxford, 1960), pp. 304-308, for a brief sketch of Plato's treatment of punishment. [127] 128 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY noted, 4 Defense of Socrates, and I shall hereafter refer to it as the Defense. Defenses and excuses are different things. Second, the Defense, invariably called one of the dialogues of Plato, is obviously not a dialogue but a work of forensic or protrcptic rhetoric, s The ancient view that the Defense is a "declaration" of what it means to be a philosopher e captures the surface ambiguity of the work, which is deeper than rhetoric, regarded as persuading to believe with words, and shallower than philosophy, regarded as pursuing truth with valid arguments. The dialogues of Plato differ from the Defense in one cardinal point. The dialogues are investigations of things, not of men. The unknown, the quae~tio of the Defense can be answered with a yes or no, guilty or not guilty, but the unknowns or quaestiones of the dialogues cannot be answered with a simple yes or no. It may be objected that further consideration would show that the Defense raises philosophic questions. Yet as a point of departure it would be a mistake to treat a speech in defense as something other than it is, a philosophic investigation. The third false assumption is that the style of the Defense or other adduced historical evidence is sufficient proof that Plato, at the time of writing, was naive as a philosopher...

Juvenal and the Reign of Trajan

The literary evidence for the Trajanic period presents a remarkably difficult problem; for though a fair number of writers whose work is extant today lived and sometimes wrote during the period, they provide information which is disproportionately and disappointingly little in quantity, and in the main highly tendentious. We also lack a biography of Trajan, since Suetonius ended his series not so much at a round dozen as at the end of a dynasty, while the egregious compiler of the Augustan History elected to begin with Hadrian. The reason in the former case is clear and compelling; whatever the motive in the latter, the value of what we have missed as a result is to say the least dubious. Frontinus has no observations on matters outside the scope of his technical discourses; Pliny’s letters, the most extensive of the Latin prose sources, throw valuable light on certain aspects of imperial administration, and offer a rather gingerbread portrait of his own circle of career civil servants and literary dilettanti. In Greek literature, Plutarch is almost devoid of contemporary references, while the orations of Dio Chrysostom have been milked dry, without providing us with any real factual material.

The Olympian Oration of Dio Chrysostom

Journal of Religious HistoryVolume 2, Issue 2 p. 85-97 The Olympian Oration of Dio Chrysostom B. F. Harris, B. F. HarrisSearch for more papers by this author B. F. Harris, B. F. HarrisSearch for more papers by this author First published: December 1962 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9809.1962.tb00787.xCitations: 1Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Citing Literature Volume2, Issue2December 1962Pages 85-97 RelatedInformation

Lucian as Social Satirist

This paper owes its inspiration to a remark made by Professor M. Rostovtzeff; in a note in his Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire on the widespread social unrest of the first two centuries A.D., having cited other literary authorities such as Dio Chrysostom, Aelius Aristides, etc., he writes: ‘The social problem as such, the cleavage between the poor and the rich, occupies a prominent place in the dialogues of Lucian; he was fully aware of the importance of the problem.’ No one, as far as I know, has attempted to collect and discuss the main passages in Lucian on this topic, and the latest writer on this aspect of Lucian reaches a conclusion quite opposed to Rostovtzeff and one which I believe to be wholly misleading. The aim of this paper is to collect and discuss the main references in Lucian to the social problem interpreting them in the light of Lucian's life and background, and the social and economic conditions of his age. In particular I shall stress the importance of the Cynic tradition as it bears on Lucian's attitude, but shall endeavour to show that this tradition is firmly rooted in practical politics and actual participation in social revolutionary movements and goes far beyond the repetition of mere ethical cliches generally ascribed to it.

Dio Chrysostom's "Tyrant of Syria"

Dio Chrysostom's "Tyrant of Syria"

Expanded Uses of the Greek Gymnasium

NE of the most characteristic landmarks of the Greek city was the gymnasium.' We find it heading a list of the urban glories on which cities such as those that Aelius Aristides knew in Asia under the Empire prided themselves: gymnasia, fountains, propylaea, temples, craftsmen's shops, and schools.2 Another list of the typical features of the Greek city comes from Dio Chrysostom and includes agora, theater, gymnasium, and stoa.3 When the observant barbarian traveler, Anacharsis, visited Greece, he watched the athletic practices of the Greeks with astonishment and is reported to have said: In every city of the Greeks there is a designated place where they go mad daily. I mean the gymnasium.4 Despite Anacharsis' incredulity, the Greeks had no doubt that their persistent habit of erecting civic gymnasia was a wise step in the pursuit of happiness. Diodorus, in a legendary account5 of the colonization of Sardinia by a mixed group of Greeks and barbarians under the leadership of Iolaus, the

The Loeb Edition of Dio Chrysostom - Dio Chrysostom. With an English translation by J. W. Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby. Vol. III. Pp.vii+482. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: Heinemann, 1940. Cloth, 10s. (leather, 12s.6d.) net.

The Loeb Edition of Dio Chrysostom - Dio Chrysostom. With an English translation by J. W. Cohoon and H. Lamar Crosby. Vol. III. Pp.vii+482. (Loeb Classical Library.) London: Heinemann, 1940. Cloth, 10s. (leather, 12s.6d.) net. - Volume 56 Issue 2

A Tarsian Peculiarity (Dio Prus. Or. 33) with an Unnoticed Fragment of Porphyry

The appearance of a new volume of Dio Chrysostom in the Loeb Classical Library seems to be an appropriate occasion to discuss a curious problem in the first oration addressed to the people of Tarsus. It has puzzled the translator, Professor H. Lamar Crosby, and there was little to help him in the work done by earlier students of Dio. The passages that bear most directly upon the point are not to be found in the books and articles that deal with the orator, and it is only because the demands of other studies have led me to explore a number of patristic texts that I am able to go somewhat beyond previous writers in explaining an odd and unrefreshing phenomenon of ancient manners.