1. They say, my dear Philo, that in the reign of King Lysimachus the people of Abdera were smitten by an epidemic. These were its symptoms: at first every one of them fell ill of a fever, violent and obstinate right from the start; about the seventh day it was broken, in some cases by a copious flow of blood from the nostrils, in others by heavy sweating; but their minds were left in a ridiculous state; they all went mad with tragedy, shouting iambics and creating a din; and they mostly sang solos from Euripides’ “Andromeda,” rendering Perseus’ speech in song; the city was full of these seventh-day tragedians, all pale and thin, roaring,“Love, you tyrant of gods and men”and the rest in a loud voice, hour after hour, day after day, until winter and a severe cold spell stopped their noise. Archelaus the actor seems to me to blame for such goings on. He was popular then, and in the middle of summer in the blazing heat had played the “Andromeda” for them, so that most of them brought their fever away from the theatre with them, and later when they left their beds relapsed into tragedy; the “Andromeda” kept haunting their memory, and his Perseus with Medusa’s head still flitted round everyone’s brain.
1. Αβδηρίταις φασὶ Λυσιμάχου ἤδη βασιλεύοντος ἐμπεσεῖν τι νόσημα, ὦ καλὲ Φίλων, τοιοῦτο· πυρέττειν μὲν γὰρ τὰ πρῶτα πανδημεὶ ἅπαντας ἀπὸ τῆς πρώτης εὐθὺς ἐρρωμένως καὶ λιπαρεῖ τῷ πυρετῷ, περὶ δὲ τὴν ἑβδόμην τοῖς μὲν αἷμα πολὺ ἐκ ῥινῶν ῥυέν, τοῖς δ’ ἱδρὼς ἐπιγενόμενος, πολὺς καὶ οὗτος, ἔλυσεν τὸν πυρετόν. ἐς γελοῖον δέ τι πάθος περιίστα τὰς γνώμας αὐτῶν· ἅπαντες γὰρ ἐς τραγῳδίαν παρεκίνουν καὶ ἰαμβεῖα ἐφθέγγοντο καὶ μέγα ἐβόων· μάλιστα δὲ τὴν Εὐριπίδου Ἀνδρομέδαν ἐμονῴδουν καὶ τὴν τοῦ Περσέως ῥῆσιν ἐν μέλει διεξῄεσαν, καὶ μεστὴ ἦν ἡ πόλις ὠχρῶν ἁπάντων καὶ λεπτῶν τῶν ἑβδομαίων ἐκείνων τραγῳδῶν,σὺ δ’ ὦ θεῶν τύραννε κἀνθρώπων Ἔρως,καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μεγάλῃ τῇ φωνῇ ἀναβοώντων καὶ τοῦτο ἐπὶ πολύ, ἄχρι δὴ χειμὼν καὶ κρύος δὲ μέγα γενόμενον ἔπαυσε ληροῦντας αὐτούς. αἰτίαν δέ μοι δοκεῖ τοῦ τοιούτου παρασχεῖν Ἀρχέλαος ὁ τραγῳδός, εὐδοκιμῶν τότε, μεσοῦντος θέρους ἐν πολλῷ τῷ φλογμῷ τραγῳδήσας αὐτοῖς τὴν Ἀνδρομέδαν, ὡς πυρέξαι τε ἀπὸ τοῦ θεάτρου τοὺς πολλοὺς καὶ ἀναστάντας ὕστερον ἐς τὴν τραγῳδίαν παρολισθαίνειν, ἐπὶ πολὺ ἐμφιλοχωρούσης τῆς Ἀνδρομέδας τῇ μνήμῃ αὐτῶν καὶ τοῦ Περσέως ἔτι σὺν τῇ Μεδούσῃ τὴν ἑκάστου γνώμην περιπετομένου.
2. To make as they say a comparison, that Abderite complaint has now taken hold of most of the literary world. They don’t act tragedy—they would be less out of their wits if they were in the grip of other men’s verses, not shoddy ones at that. No, ever since the present situation arose—the war against the barbarians, the disaster in Armenia and the run of victories—every single person is writing history; nay more, they are all Thucydideses, Herodotuses and Xenophons to us, and very true, it seems, is the saying that “War is the father of all things” since at one stroke it has begotten so many historians.
2. Ὡς οὖν ἕν, φασίν, ἑνὶ παραβαλεῖν, τὸ Ἀβδηριτικὸν ἐκεῖνο πάθος καὶ νῦν τοὺς πολλοὺς τῶν πεπαιδευμένων περιελήλυθεν, οὐχ ὥστε τραγῳδεῖν—ἔλαττον γὰρ ἂν τοῦτο παρέπαιον ἀλλοτρίοις ἰαμβείοις, οὐ φαύλοις κατεσχημένοι. ἀλλ’ ἀφ' οὗ δὴ τὰ ἐν ποσὶ ταῦτα κεκίνηται—ὁ πόλεμος ὁ πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους καὶ τὸ ἐν Ἀρμενίᾳ τραῦμα καὶ αἱ συνεχεῖς νῖκαι—οὐδεὶς ὅστις οὐχ ἱστορίαν συγγράφει· μᾶλλον δὲ Θουκυδίδαι καὶ Ἡρόδοτοι καὶ Ξενοφῶντες ἡμῖν ἅπαντες, καί, ὡς ἔοικεν, ἀληθὲς ἄρ' ἦν ἐκεῖνο τό “Πόλεμος ἁπάντων πατήρ”, εἴ γε καὶ συγγραφέας τοσούτους ἀνέφυσεν ὑπὸ μιᾷ τῇ ὁρμῇ.
3. As I saw and heard all this, friend, I was reminded of the story of the man of Sinope. When Philip was said to be already on the march, all the Corinthians were astir and busy, preparing weapons, bringing up stones, underpinning the wall, shoring up a battlement and doing various other useful jobs. Diogenes saw this, and as he had nothing to do—nobody made any use of him—he belted up his philosopher’s cloak and very busily by himself rolled the crock in which, as it happens, he was living up and down Cornel Hill. When one of his friends asked: “Why are you doing that, Diogenes?” he replied: “I’m rolling the crock so as not to be thought the one idle man in the midst of all these workers.”
3. Ταῦτα τοίνυν, ὦ φιλότης, ὁρῶντα καὶ ἀκούοντά με τὸ τοῦ Σινωπέως ἐκεῖνο εἰσῆλθεν· ὁπότε γὰρ ὁ Φίλιππος ἐλέγετο ἤδη ἐπελαύνειν, οἱ Κορίνθιοι πάντες ἐταράττοντο καὶ ἐν ἔργῳ ἦσαν, ὁ μὲν ὅπλα ἐπισκευάζων, ὁ δὲ λίθους παραφέρων, ὁ δὲ ὑποικοδομῶν τοῦ τείχους, ὁ δὲ ἔπαλξιν ὑποστηρίζων, ὁ δὲ ἄλλος ἄλλο τι τῶν χρησίμων ὑπουργῶν. ὁ δὴ Διογένης ὁρῶν ταῦτα, ἐπεὶ μηδὲν εἶχεν ὅ τι καὶ πράττοι—οὐδεὶς γὰρ αὐτῷ ἐς οὐδὲν ἐχρῆτο—διαζωσάμενος τὸ τριβώνιον σπουδῇ μάλα καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκύλιε τὸν πίθον, ἐν ᾧ ἐτύγχανεν οἰκῶν, ἄνω καὶ κάτω τοῦ Κρανείου. καί τινος τῶν συνήθων ἐρομένου, Τί ταῦτα ποιεῖς, ὦ Διόγενες; Κυλίω, ἔφη, κἀγὼ τὸν πίθον, ὡς μὴ μόνος ἀργεῖν δοκοίην ἐν τοσούτοις ἐργαζομένοις.
4. So in my own case, Philo, to avoid being the only mute in such a polyphonic time, pushed about open-mouthed without a word like an extra in a comedy, I thought it a good idea to roll my barrel as best I could; not to produce a history or even merely chronicle the events—I’m not so bold as that: don’t be afraid that I should go that far. I know the danger of rolling it over rocks, particularly a poorly baked little barrel like mine. Just as soon as it hits against a tiny piece of stone we shall have to pick up the pieces. I shall tell you then what I have decided to do and how I shall take part in the war in safety, keeping well out of range myself. “From your spray and surge’’ and all the cares that attend the writer of history I shall keep myself aloof and rightly so. In fact, I shall offer a little advice and these few precepts to historians, so that I may share in the erection of their building, if not the inscription on it, by putting at any rate my finger-tip on the mortar.
4. Καὐτὸς οὖν, ὦ Φίλων, ὡς μὴ μόνος ἄφωνος εἴην ἐν οὕτω πολυφώνῳ τῷ καιρῷ μηδ’ ὥσπερ κωμικὸν δορυφόρημα κεχηνὼς σιωπῇ παραφεροίμην, καλῶς ἔχειν ὑπέλαβον ὡς δυνατόν μοι κυλῖσαι τὸν πίθον, οὐχ ὥστε ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν οὐδὲ πράξεις αὐτὰς διεξιέναι—οὐχ οὕτως μεγαλότολμος ἐγώ, μηδὲ τοῦτο δείσῃς περὶ ἐμοῦ. οἶδα γάρ, ἡλίκος ὁ κίνδυνος, εἰ κατὰ τῶν πετρῶν κυλίοι τις, καὶ μάλιστα οἷον τοὐμὸν τοῦτο πιθάκνιον οὐδὲ πάνυ καρτερῶς κεκεραμευμένον. δεήσει γὰρ αὐτίκα μάλα πρὸς μικρόν τι λιθίδιον προσπταίσαντα συλλέγειν τὰ ὄστρακα. Τί οὖν ἔγνωσταί μοι καὶ πῶς ἀσφαλῶς μεθέξω τοῦ πολέμου, αὐτὸς ἔξω βέλους ἑστώς, ἐγώ σοι φράσω. “τούτου μὲν καπνοῦ καὶ κύματος” καὶ φροντίδων, ὅσαι τῷ συγγραφεῖ ἔνεισιν, ἀνέξω ἐμαυτὸν εὖ ποιῶν. παραίνεσιν δέ τινα μικρὰν καὶ ὑποθήκας ταύτας ὀλίγας ὑποθήσομαι τοῖς συγγράφουσιν, ὡς κοινωνήσαιμι αὐτοῖς τῆς οἰκοδομίας, εἰ καὶ μὴ τῆς ἐπιγραφῆς, ἄκρῳ γε τῷ δακτύλῳ τοῦ πηλοῦ προσαψάμενος.
5. Yet most of them think they don’t even need advice for the job any more than they need a set of rules for walking or seeing or eating; no, they think it is perfectly simple and easy to write history and that anyone can do it if only he can put what comes to him into words. As to that, I’m sure you know as well as I do, my dear friend, that history is not one of those things that can be put in hand without effort and can be put together lazily, but is something which needs, if anything does in literature, a great deal of thought if it is to be what Thucydides calls “a possession for evermore.” Now I know that I shall not convert very many: some indeed will think me a great nuisance, particularly anyone whose history is already finished and has already been displayed in public. And if in addition he was applauded by his audience it would be madness to expect his sort to remodel or rewrite any part of what has once been ratified and lodged, as it were, in the royal palace. Nevertheless it is as well to address my remarks to them also so that if ever another war comes along, whether Celts against Getans or Indians against Bactrians (no one would dare to fight us—we’ve beaten everybody already), they may write better by applying this yard-stick if they think it accurate; if they don’t, then they must use the same rule to do their measuring as now. The doctor will not be greatly annoyed if every man of Abdera plays the “Andromeda” and is happy to do it.
5. Καίτοι οὐδὲ παραινέσεως οἱ πολλοὶ δεῖν οἴονται σφίσιν ἐπὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα, οὐ μᾶλλον ἢ τέχνης τινὸς ἐπὶ τὸ βαδίζειν ἢ βλέπειν ἢ ἐσθίειν, ἀλλὰ πάνυ ῥᾷστον καὶ πρόχειρον καὶ ἅπαντος εἶναι ἱστορίαν συγγράψαι, ἤν τις ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὸ ἐπελθὸν δύνηται. τὸ δὲ οἶσθά που καὶ αὐτός, ὦ ἑταῖρε, ὡς οὐ τῶν εὐμεταχειρίστων οὐδὲ ῥᾳθύμως συντεθῆναι δυναμένων τοῦτ' ἐστίν, ἀλλ’, εἴ τι ἐν λόγοις καὶ ἄλλο, πολλῆς τῆς φροντίδος δεόμενον, ἤν τις, ὡς ὁ Θουκυδίδης φησίν, ἐς ἀεὶ κτῆμα συντιθείη. οἶδα μὲν οὖν οὐ πάνυ πολλοὺς αὐτῶν ἐπιστρέψων, ἐνίοις δὲ καὶ πάνυ ἐπαχθὴς δόξων, καὶ μάλιστα ὁπόσοις ἀποτετέλεσται ἤδη καὶ ἐν τῷ κοινῷ δέδεικται ἡ ἱστορία. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐπῄνηται ὑπὸ τῶν τότε ἀκροασαμένων, μανία ἂν εἴη ἡ ἐλπίς, ὡς οἱ τοιοῦτοι μεταποιήσουσιν ἢ μετεγγράψουσί τι τῶν ἅπαξ κεκυρωμένων καὶ ὥσπερ ἐς τὰς βασιλείους αὐλὰς ἀποκειμένων. ὅμως δὲ οὐ χεῖρον καὶ πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐκείνους εἰρῆσθαι, ἵν', εἴ ποτε πόλεμος ἄλλος συσταίη, ἢ Κελτοῖς πρὸς Γέτας ἢ Ἰνδοῖς πρὸς Βακτρίους (οὐ γὰρ πρὸς ἡμᾶς γε τολμήσειεν ἄν τις, ἁπάντων ἤδη κεχειρωμένων) ἔχωσιν ἄμεινον συντιθέναι τὸν κανόνα τοῦτον προσάγοντες, ἤνπερ γε δόξῃ αὐτοῖς ὀρθὸς εἶναι· εἰ δὲ μή, αὐτοὶ μὲν καὶ τότε τῷ αὐτῷ πήχει ὥσπερ καὶ νῦν μετρούντων τὸ πρᾶγμα. ὁ ἰατρὸς δὲ οὐ πάνυ ἀνιάσεται, ἢν πάντες Ἀβδηρῖται ἑκόντες Ἀνδρομέδαν τραγῳδῶσι.
6. Advice works in two ways: it teaches us to choose this and avoid that. So first let us say what the writer of history has to avoid, from what contaminations he must in particular be free; then what means he must use in order not to lose the right road that carries him straight ahead—I mean how to begin, how to arrange his material, the proper proportions for each part, what to leave out, what to develop, what it is better to handle cursorily, and how to put the facts into words and fit them together. These and kindred matters will come later. But now let us mention the vices which follow on the heels of shoddy historians. To recount the faults of diction in single and combined words, of meaning and other marks of bad workmanship which are common to all literary genres would take a long time and not be peculiar to our present enquiry.
6. Διττοῦ δὲ ὄντος τοῦ τῆς συμβουλῆς ἔργου, τὰ μὲν γὰρ αἱρεῖσθαι, τὰ δὲ φεύγειν διδάσκει, φέρε πρῶτα εἴπωμεν ἅτινα φευκτέον τῷ ἱστορίαν συγγράφοντι καὶ ὧν μάλιστα καθαρευτέον, ἔπειτα οἷς χρώμενος οὐκ ἂν ἁμάρτοι τῆς ὀρθῆς καὶ ἐπ' εὐθὺ ἀγούσης—ἀρχήν τε οἵαν αὐτῷ ἀρκτέον καὶ τάξιν ἥντινα τοῖς ἔργοις ἐφαρμοστέον καὶ μέτρον ἑκάστου καὶ ἃ σιωπητέον καὶ οἷς ἐνδιατριπτέον καὶ ὅσα παραδραμεῖν ἄμεινον καὶ ὅπως ἑρμηνεῦσαι αὐτὰ καὶ συναρμόσαι. Ταῦτα μὲν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ὕστερον. νῦν δὲ τὰς κακίας ἤδη εἴπωμεν, ὁπόσαι τοῖς φαύλως συγγράφουσιν παρακολουθοῦσιν. ἃ μὲν οὖν κοινὰ πάντων λόγων ἐστὶν ἁμαρτήματα ἔν τε φωνῇ καὶ ἁρμονίᾳ καὶ διανοίᾳ καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ ἀτεχνίᾳ, μακρόν τε ἂν εἴη ἐπελθεῖν καὶ τῆς παρούσης ὑποθέσεως οὐκ ἴδιον.
7. But as to faults in historical writing, you will probably find by observation that they are of the same sort as I have noticed in many attendances at readings, especially if you open your ears to everyone. But it will not be out of place in the meantime to recall by way of example some of the histories already written in this faulty manner. To begin with, let us look at this for a serious fault: most of them neglect to record the events and spend their time lauding rulers and generals, extolling their own to the skies and slandering the enemy’s beyond all reserve; they do not realise that the dividing line and frontier between history and panegyric is not a narrow isthmus but rather a mighty wall; as musicians say, they are two diapasons apart, since the encomiast’s sole concern is to praise and please in any way he can the one he praises, and if he can achieve his aim by lying, little will he care; but history cannot admit a lie, even a tiny one, any more than the windpipe, as sons of doctors say, can tolerate anything entering it in swallowing.
7. ἃ δ’ ἐν ἱστορίᾳ διαμαρτάνουσι, τὰ τοιαῦτα ἂν εὕροις ἐπιτηρῶν, οἷα κἀμοὶ πολλάκις ἀκροωμένῳ ἔδοξεν, καὶ μάλιστα ἢν ἅπασιν αὐτοῖς ἀναπετάσῃς τὰ ὦτα. οὐκ ἄκαιρον δὲ μεταξὺ καὶ ἀπομνημονεῦσαι ἔνια παραδείγματος ἕνεκα τῶν ἤδη οὕτως συγγεγραμμένων. Καὶ πρῶτόν γε ἐκεῖνο ἡλίκον ἁμαρτάνουσιν ἐπισκοπήσωμεν· ἀμελήσαντες γὰρ οἱ πολλοὶ αὐτῶν τοῦ ἱστορεῖν τὰ γεγενημένα τοῖς ἐπαίνοις ἀρχόντων καὶ στρατηγῶν ἐνδιατρίβουσιν τοὺς μὲν οἰκείους ἐς ὕψος αἴροντες τοὺς πολεμίους δὲ πέρα τοῦ μετρίου καταρρίπτοντες ἀγνοοῦντες ὡς οὐ στενῷ τῷ ἰσθμῷ διώρισται καὶ διατετείχισται ἡ ἱστορία πρὸς τὸ ἐγκώμιον, ἀλλά τι μέγα τεῖχος ἐν μέσῳ ἐστὶν αὐτῶν καὶ τὸ τῶν μουσικῶν δὴ τοῦτο, δὶς διὰ πασῶν ἐστι πρὸς ἄλληλα—εἴ γε τῷ μὲν ἐγκωμιάζοντι μόνου ἑνὸς μέλει, ὁπωσοῦν ἐπαινέσαι καὶ εὐφρᾶναι τὸν ἐπαινούμενον, καὶ εἰ ψευσαμένῳ ὑπάρχει τυχεῖν τοῦ τέλους, ὀλίγον ἂν φροντίσειεν. ἡ δὲ οὐκ ἄν τι ψεῦδος ἐμπεσὸν ἡ ἱστορία, οὐδὲ ἀκαριαῖον ἀνάσχοιτο, οὐ μᾶλλον ἢ τὴν ἀρτηρίαν ἰατρῶν παῖδές φασι τὴν τραχεῖαν παραδέξασθαι ἄν τι ἐς αὐτὴν καταποθέν.
8. Again, such writers seem unaware that history has aims and rules different from poetry and poems. In the case of the latter, liberty is absolute and there is one law—the will of the poet. Inspired and possessed by the Muses as he is, even if he wants to harness winged horses to a chariot, even if he sets others to run over water or the top of the corn, nobody gets annoyed; not even when their Zeus swings land and sea together suspended from a single cord are they afraid it will break and everything fall and smash. If they want to praise Agamemnon there is no one to prevent his having a head and eyes like Zeus, a chest like Zeus’ brother Poseidon, and a belt like Ares, and in general the son of Atreus and Aerope must be a compound of all the gods for not Zeus nor Poseidon nor Ares alone is adequate to give the fullness of his beauty. But if history introduces flattery of that sort, what else does it become but a sort of prose-poetry, lacking indeed the high style of poetry, but showing the rest of poetry’s sorcery without metre, and for that reason in a more conspicuous way? So it is a great deal—all too great a fault—not to know how to keep the attributes of history and poetry separate, and to bring poetry’s embellishments into history—myth and eulogy and the exaggeration of both: it is as if you were to dress one of our tough, rugged athletes in a purple dress and the rest of the paraphernalia of a pretty light-o’-love and daub and paint his face. Heavens! how ridiculous you would make him look, shaming him with all that decoration.
8. Ἔτι ἀγνοεῖν ἐοίκασιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι ὡς ποιητικῆς μὲν καὶ ποιημάτων ἄλλαι ὑποσχέσεις καὶ κανόνες ἴδιοι, ἱστορίας δὲ ἄλλοι. ἐκεῖ μὲν γὰρ ἄκρατος ἡ ἐλευθερία καὶ νόμος εἷς—τὸ δόξαν τῷ ποιητῇ. ἔνθεος γὰρ καὶ κάτοχος ἐκ Μουσῶν, κἂν ἵππων ὑποπτέρων ἅρμα ζεύξασθαι ἐθέλῃ, κἂν ἐφ' ὕδατος ἄλλους ἢ ἐπ' ἀνθερίκων ἄκρων θευσομένους ἀναβιβάσηται, φθόνος οὐδείς· οὐδὲ ὁπόταν ὁ Ζεὺς αὐτῶν ἀπὸ μιᾶς σειρᾶς ἀνασπάσας αἰωρῇ ὁμοῦ γῆν καὶ θάλατταν, δεδίασι μὴ ἀπορραγείσης ἐκείνης συντριβῇ τὰ πάντα κατενεχθέντα. ἀλλὰ κἂν Ἀγαμέμνονα ἐπαινέσαι θέλωσιν, οὐδεὶς ὁ κωλύσων Διὶ μὲν αὐτὸν ὅμοιον εἶναι τὴν κεφαλὴν καὶ τὰ ὄμματα, τὸ στέρνον δὲ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ τῷ Ποσειδῶνι, τὴν δὲ ζώνην τῷ Ἄρει, καὶ ὅλως σύνθετον ἐκ πάντων θεῶν γενέσθαι δεῖ τὸν Ἀτρέως καὶ Ἀερόπης· οὐ γὰρ ἱκανὸς ὁ Ζεὺς οὐδὲ ὁ Ποσειδῶν οὐδὲ ὁ Ἄρης μόνος ἕκαστος ἀναπληρῶσαι τὸ κάλλος αὐτοῦ. ἡ ἰστορία δὲ ἤν τινα κολακείαν τοιαύτην προσλάβῃ, τί ἄλλο ἢ πεζή τις ποιητικὴ γίγνεται, τῆς μεγαλοφωνίας μὲν ἐκείνης ἐστερημένη, τὴν λοιπὴν δὲ τερατείαν γυμνὴν τῶν μέτρων καὶ δι’ αὐτὸ ἐπισημοτέραν ἐκφαίνουσα; μέγα τοίνυν—μᾶλλον δὲ ὑπέρμεγα τοῦτο κακόν—εἰ μὴ εἰδείη τις χωρίζειν τὰ ἱστορίας καὶ τὰ ποιητικῆς, ἀλλ’ ἐπεισάγοι τῇ ἱστορίᾳ τὰ τῆς ἑτέρας κομμώματα—τὸν μῦθον καὶ τὸ ἐγκώμιον καὶ τὰς ἐν τούτοις ὑπερβολάς—ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις ἀθλητὴν τῶν καρτερῶν τούτων καὶ κομιδῇ πρινίνων ἁλουργίσι περιβάλοι καὶ τῷ ἄλλῳ κόσμῳ τῷ ἑταιρικῷ καὶ φυκίον ἐντρίβοι καὶ ψιμύθιον τῷ προσώπῳ. Ἡράκλεις ὡς καταγέλαστον αὐτὸν ἀπεργάσαιτ' αἰσχύνας τῷ κόσμῳ ἐκείνῳ.
9. I do not say that there is no room for occasional praise in history. But it must be given at the proper time and kept within reasonable limits to avoid displeasing future readers. In general such matters should be controlled with a view to what posterity demands; I shall treat of them a little later. Now some think they can make a satisfactory distinction in history between what gives pleasure and what is useful, and for this reason work eulogy into it as giving pleasure and enjoyment to its readers; but do you see how far they are from the truth? In the first place, the distinction they draw is false: history has one task and one end—what is useful—, and that comes from truth alone. As for what gives pleasure, it is certainly better if it is there incidentally—like good looks in an athlete; but if it isn’t there, there is still nothing to prevent Nicostratus, the son of Isidotus, a true blue and a stouter fellow than either of his rivals, from becoming “a successor of Heracles though he be ugly to look at, while his opponent is Alcaeus of Miletus, the handsome fellow who, they say, was loved by Nicostratus. So it is with history—if she were to make the mistake of dealing in pleasure as well she would attract a host of lovers, but as long as she keeps only what is hers alone in all its fullness—I mean the publication of the truth—she will give little thought to beauty.
9. Καὶ οὐ τοῦτό φημι, ὡς οὐχὶ καὶ ἐπαινετέον ἐν ἱστορίᾳ ἐνίοτε. ἀλλ’ ἐν καιρῷ τῷ προσήκοντι ἐπαινετέον καὶ μέτρον ἐπακτέον τῷ πράγματι, τὸ μὴ ἐπαχθὲς τοῖς ὕστερον ἀναγνωσομένοις αὐτά, καὶ ὅλως πρὸς τὰ ἔπειτα κανονιστέον τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἅπερ μικρὸν ὕστερον ἐπιδείξομεν. Ὅσοι δὲ οἴονται καλῶς διαιρεῖν εἰς δύο τὴν ἱστορίαν, εἰς τὸ τερπνὸν καὶ χρήσιμον, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο εἰσποιοῦσι καὶ τὸ ἐγκώμιον ἐς αὐτὴν ὡς τερπνὸν καὶ εὐφραῖνον τοὺς ἐντυγχάνοντας, ὁρᾷς ὅσον τἀληθοῦς ἡμαρτήκασι; πρῶτον μὲν κιβδήλῳ τῇ διαιρέσει χρώμενοι· ἓν γὰρ ἔργον ἱστορίας καὶ τέλος, τὸ χρήσιμον, ὅπερ ἐκ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς μόνου συνάγεται. τὸ τερπνὸν δὲ ἄμεινον μὲν εἰ καὶ αὐτὸ παρακολουθήσειεν—ὥσπερ καὶ κάλλος ἀθλητῇ· εἰ δὲ μή, οὐδὲν κωλύσει ἀφ' Ἡρακλέους γενέσθαι Νικόστρατον τὸν Ἰσιδότου, γεννάδαν ὄντα καὶ τῶν ἀνταγωνιστῶν ἑκατέρων ἀλκιμώτερον, εἰ αὐτὸς μὲν αἴσχιστος ὀφθῆναι εἴη τὴν ὄψιν, Ἀλκαῖος δὲ ὁ καλὸς ὁ Μιλήσιος ἀνταγωνίζοιτο αὐτῷ, καὶ ἐρώμενος, ὥς φασι, τοῦ Νικοστράτου ὤν. καὶ τοίνυν ἡ ἱστορία, εἰ μὲν ἄλλως τὸ τερπνὸν παρεμπορεύσαιτο, πολλοὺς ἂν τοὺς ἐραστὰς ἐπισπάσαιτο, ἄχρι δ’ ἂν καὶ μόνον ἔχῃ τὸ ἴδιον ἐντελές—λέγω δὲ τὴν τῆς ἀληθείας δήλωσιν—, ὀλίγον τοῦ κάλλους φροντιεῖ.
10. Moreover, this too is worth saying: in history complete fiction and praise that is heavily biased on one side does not even give pleasure to an audience, if you leave out the common rabble and take note of those who will listen in the spirit of judges and indeed of fault-finders as well. Nothing will get past their scrutiny: their eyes are keener than Argus’s and all over their body; they test each expression like a money-changer, rejecting at once what is false but accepting current coin that is legal tender and correctly minted. These are the people to keep in mind when you write history; do not give the slightest thought to the rest even if they burst themselves with applauding. But if you neglect them and sweeten your history beyond reason with stories and eulogies and the other kinds of flattery, you will make it like Heracles in Lydia. You have probably seen pictures of him as slave to Omphale, dressed in a most outlandish way: Omphale is wearing his lion’s skin and carrying his club in her hand, as if she were Heracles for certain, while he has on a saffron and purple gown and is carding wool and getting rapped with Omphale’s sandal. It’s a shocking spectacle: the clothing hangs off his body and is ill–fitting, and his divine masculinity is disgracefully feminised.
10. Ἔτι κἀκεῖνο εἰπεῖν ἄξιον ὅτι οὐδὲ τερπνὸν ἐν αὐτῇ τὸ κομιδῇ μυθῶδες καὶ τὸ τῶν ἐπαίνων μάλιστα πρόσαντες παρ' ἑκάτερον τοῖς ἀκούουσιν, ἢν μὴ τὸν συρφετὸν καὶ τὸν πολὺν δῆμον ἐπινοῇς, ἀλλὰ τοὺς δικαστικῶς καὶ νὴ Δία συκοφαντικῶς προσέτι γε ἀκροασομένους, οὓς οὐκ ἄν τι λάθοι παραδραμόν, ὀξύτερον μὲν τοῦ Ἄργου ὁρῶντας καὶ πανταχόθεν τοῦ σώματος, ἀργυραμοιβικῶς δὲ τῶν λεγομένων ἕκαστα ἐξετάζοντας, ὡς τὰ μὲν παρακεκομμένα εὐθὺς ἀπορρίπτειν, παραδέχεσθαι δὲ τὰ δόκιμα καὶ ἔννομα καὶ ἀκριβῆ τὸν τύπον, πρὸς οὓς ἀποβλέποντα χρὴ συγγράφειν, τῶν δὲ ἄλλων ὀλίγον φροντίζειν, κἂν διαρραγῶσιν ἐπαινοῦντες. ἢν δὲ ἀμελήσας ἐκείνων ἡδύνῃς πέρα τοῦ μετρίου τὴν ἱστορίαν μύθοις καὶ ἐπαίνοις καὶ τῇ ἄλλῃ θωπείᾳ, τάχιστ' ἂν ὁμοίαν αὐτὴν ἐξεργάσαιο τῷ ἐν Λυδίᾳ Ἡρακλεῖ. ἑωρακέναι γάρ σέ που εἰκὸς γεγραμμένον, τῇ Ὀμφάλῃ δουλεύοντα, πάνυ ἀλλόκοτον σκευὴν ἐσκευασμένον, ἐκείνην μὲν τὸν λέοντα αὐτοῦ περιβεβλημένην καὶ τὸ ξύλον ἐν τῇ χειρὶ ἔχουσαν, ὡς Ἡρακλέα δῆθεν οὖσαν, αὐτὸν δὲ ἐν κροκωτῷ καὶ πορφυρίδι ἔρια ξαίνοντα καὶ παιόμενον ὑπὸ τῆς Ὀμφάλης τῷ σανδαλίῳ. καὶ τὸ θέαμα αἴσχιστον, ἀφεστῶσα ἡ ἐσθὴς τοῦ σώματος καὶ μὴ προσιζάνουσα καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ἀνδρῶδες ἀσχημόνως καταθηλυνόμενον.
11. The majority will possibly applaud you for this, but those few whom you despise will laugh delightedly till they are sated when they see the incongruity, lack of proportion, and loose structure of the work, for each part has its own peculiar beauty and if you alter that you make it ugly and futile. I need not say that eulogies may be pleasing to one man, him who is praised, and annoying to others, especially if they contain monstrous overstatements, the kind that most people make when they seek favour from those who are praised, persisting until they have made their flattery obvious to everyone. They do not know how to do it with any skill nor do they cover up their obsequiousness; no, they rush at it laying it all on thick, so implausible and so naïve. So they do not get what they want most: those they praise hate them the more and turn their backs on them as toadies, and rightly so, especially if they are manly in spirit.
11. Καὶ οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ ἴσως καὶ ταῦτά σου ἐπαινέσονται, οἱ ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκεῖνοι ὧν σὺ καταφρονεῖς μάλα ἡδὺ καὶ ἐς κόρον γελάσονται, ὁρῶντες τὸ ἀσύμφυλον καὶ ἀνάρμοστον καὶ δυσκόλλητον τοῦ πράγματος. ἑκάστου γὰρ δὴ ἴδιόν τι καλόν ἐστιν· εἰ δὲ τοῦτο ἐναλλάξειας, ἀκαλλὲς τὸ αὐτὸ παρὰ τὴν χρῆσιν γίγνεται. ἐῶ λέγειν ὅτι οἱ ἔπαινοι ἑνὶ μὲν ἴσως τερπνοί, τῷ ἐπαινουμένῳ, τοῖς δὲ ἄλλοις ἐπαχθεῖς, καὶ μάλιστα ἢν ὑπερφυεῖς τὰς ὑπερβολὰς ἔχωσιν, οἵους αὐτοὺς οἱ πολλοὶ ἀπεργάζονται, τὴν εὔνοιαν τὴν παρὰ τῶν ἐπαινουμένων θηρώμενοι καὶ ἐνδιατρίβοντες ἄχρι τοῦ πᾶσι προφανῆ τὴν κολακείαν ἐξεργάσασθαι. οὐδὲ γὰρ κατὰ τέχνην αὐτὸ δρᾶν ἴσασιν οὐδ’ ἐπισκάζουσι τὴν θωπείαν, ἀλλ’ ἐμπεσόντες ἀθρόα πάντα καὶ ἀπίθανα καὶ γυμνὰ διεξίασιν.
12. That is what happened to Aristobulus when he wrote of the single combat between Alexander and Porus; he read this particular passage in his work to Alexander thinking to give great pleasure to the King by ascribing falsely to him certain deeds of valour and inventing achievements too great to be true. They happened to be sailing on the River Hydaspes at the time, and Alexander took the book and threw it straight into the water with the remark: “You deserve the same treatment, Aristobulus, for fighting single-handed duels for my sake like that and killing elephants with one throw of the javelin.” Indeed it was certain that Alexander would be angry at such a thing—he had not put up with the effrontery of the engineer who had promised to fashion Athos into his portrait and shape the mountain to the King’s likeness. Alexander at once realised that the man was a flatterer and had no longer employed him.
12. Ὥστ' οὐδὲ τυγχάνουσιν οὗ μάλιστα ἐφίενται· οἱ γὰρ ἐπαινούμενοι πρὸς αὐτῶν μισοῦσι μᾶλλον καὶ ἀποστρέφονται ὡς κόλακας, εὖ ποιοῦντες, καὶ μάλιστα ἢν ἀνδρώδεις τὰς γνώμας ὦσιν. Ὥσπερ Ἀλέξανδρος Ἀριστόβουλου μονομαχίαν γράψαντος Ἀλεξάνδρου καὶ Πώρου, καὶ ἀναγνόντος αὐτῷ τοῦτο μάλιστα τὸ χωρίον τῆς γραφῆς—ᾤετο γὰρ χαριεῖσθαι τὰ μέγιστα τῷ βασιλεῖ ἐπιψευδόμενος ἀριστείας τινὰς αὐτῷ καὶ ἀναπλάττων ἔργα μείζω τῆς ἀληθείας—λαβὼν τὸ βιβλίον—πλέοντες δὲ ἐτύγχανον ἐν τῷ ποταμῷ τῷ Ὑδάσπῃ—ἔρριψεν ἐπὶ κεφαλὴν ἐς τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπειπών, Καὶ σὲ δὲ οὕτως ἐχρῆν, ὦ Ἀριστόβουλε, τοιαῦτα ὑπὲρ ἐμοῦ μονομαχοῦντα καὶ ἐλέφαντας ἑνὶ ἀκοντίῳ φονεύοντα. καὶ ἔμελλέ γε οὕτως ἀγανακτήσειν ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος, ὅς γε οὐδὲ τὴν τοῦ ἀρχιτέκτονος τόλμαν ἠνέσχετο, ὑποσχομένου τὸν Ἄθων εἰκόνα ποιήσειν αὐτοῦ καὶ μετακοσμήσειν τὸ ὄρος ἐς ὁμοιότητα τοῦ βασιλέως, ἀλλὰ κόλακα εὐθὺς ἐπιγνοὺς τὸν ἄνθρωπον οὐκέτ' οὐδ’ ἐς τὰ ἄλλα ὁμοίως ἐχρῆτο.
13. Where then is the pleasure in this, unless a man is so utterly stupid as to enjoy praise that can be proved groundless there and then? Take the case of the ugly men and women, particularly women, who ask the painter to make them as beautiful as possible, thinking they will be better looking if the painter bedecks them with a richer red and mixes plenty of white into his pigment. Most of our historians today are like that, courting private whim and the profit they expect from their history. One might well loathe them as blatant flatterers of no ability in their own time, while to posterity they make the whole business of written history suspect by their exaggerations. If anyone supposes that giving pleasure has to be mixed into all historical writing, there are other refinements of style that combine pleasure with truth. The run of historians neglect these and pile up tasteless incongruities one upon the other.
13. Ποῦ τοίνυν τὸ τερπνὸν ἐν τούτοις, ἐκτὸς εἰ μή τις κομιδῇ ἀνόητος εἴη ὡς χαίρειν τὰ τοιαῦτα ἐπαινούμενος ὧν παρὰ πόδας οἱ ἔλεγχοι; ὥσπερ οἱ ἄμορφοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων, καὶ μάλιστά γε τὰ γύναια τοῖς γραφεῦσι παρακελευόμενα ὡς καλλίστας αὐτὰς γράφειν. οἴονται γὰρ ἄμεινον ἕξειν τὴν ὄψιν, ἢν ὁ γραφεὺς αὐταῖς ἐρύθημά τε πλεῖον ἐπανθίσῃ καὶ τὸ λευκὸν ἐγκαταμίξῃ πολὺ τῷ φαρμάκῳ. Τοιοῦτοι τῶν συγγραφόντων οἱ πολλοί εἰσι τὸ τήμερον καὶ τὸ ἴδιον καὶ τὸ χρειῶδες ὅ τι ἂν ἐκ τῆς ἱστορίας ἐλπίσωσι θεραπεύοντες, οὓς μισεῖσθαι καλῶς εἶχεν, ἐς μὲν τὸ παρὸν κόλακας προδήλους καὶ ἀτέχνους ὄντας, ἐς τοὐπιὸν δὲ ὕποπτον ταῖς ὑπερβολαῖς τὴν ὅλην πραγματείαν ἀποφαίνοντας. εἰ δέ τις πάντως τὸ τερπνὸν ἡγεῖται καταμεμῖχθαι δεῖν τῇ ἱστορίᾳ πάσῃ, ἄλλα ἃ σὺν ἀληθείᾳ τερπνά ἐστιν ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις κάλλεσι τοῦ λόγου, ὧν ἀμελήσαντες οἱ πολλοὶ τὰ μηδὲν προσήκοντα ἐπεισκυκλοῦσιν.
14. Well then, I’ll tell you what I remember hearing some historians say recently in Ionia, and indeed only the other day in Achaïa, when they were describing this very war. And in the name of the Graces let no one disbelieve what I am going to say. I would swear to its veracity—if it were in good taste to attach an affidavit to an essay. One of them began straightway with the Muses, summoning the goddesses to help him with his work. You see how appropriate this opening was, how apt for historical writing, how suited to this type of book! Then a little further on he compared our general to Achilles, and the Persian King to Thersites, not understanding that Achilles would have been a better name for him if he was killing a Hector rather than a Thersites and if a hero fled before,“and one far greater pursued him.”Then he brought in a bit of praise on his own account, telling how worthy he was to record such outstanding deeds. Now he was on his way home and praising his native Miletus, adding that this was an improvement on Homer, who had not mentioned his native land at all. Then at the end of this introduction he made a clear and explicit promise to glorify the achievements of our side and beat down the barbarians on his own with all his might. Then he began his narrative by relating the causes of the war in this way: “That cursed scoundrel Vologesus began the war for the following reason.”
14. Ἐγὼ δ’ οὖν καὶ διηγήσομαι ὁπόσα μέμνημαι ἔναγχος ἐν Ἰωνίᾳ συγγραφέων τινῶν, καὶ νὴ Δία ἐν Ἀχαΐᾳ πρῴην ἀκούσας τὸν αὐτὸν τοῦτον πόλεμον διηγουμένων. καὶ πρὸς Χαρίτων μηδεὶς ἀπιστήσῃ τοῖς λεχθησομένοις· ὅτι γὰρ ἀληθῆ ἐστιν κἂν ἐπωμοσάμην, εἰ ἀστεῖον ἦν ὅρκον ἐντιθέναι συγγράμματι. εἷς μέν τις αὐτῶν ἀπὸ Μουσῶν εὐθὺς ἤρξατο παρακαλῶν τὰς θεὰς συνεφάψασθαι τοῦ συγγράμματος. ὁρᾷς ὡς ἐμμελὴς ἡ ἀρχὴ καὶ περὶ πόδα τῇ ἱστορίᾳ καὶ τῷ τοιούτῳ εἴδει τῶν λόγων πρέπουσα; εἶτα μικρὸν ὑποβὰς Ἀχιλλεῖ μὲν τὸν ἡμέτερον ἄρχοντα εἴκαζε, Θερσίτῃ δὲ τὸν τῶν Περσῶν βασιλέα, οὐκ εἰδὼς ὅτι ὁ Ἀχιλλεὺς ἀμείνων ἦν αὐτῷ, εἰ Ἕκτορα μᾶλλον ἢ Θερσίτην καθῄρει, καὶ εἰ πρόσθε μὲν ἔφευγεν ἐσθλός τις,ἐδίωκε δέ μιν μέγ' ἀμείνων.εἶτ' ἐπῆγεν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ τι ἐγκώμιον, καὶ ὡς ἄξιος εἴη συγγράψαι τὰς πράξεις οὕτω λαμπρὰς οὔσας. ἤδη δὲ κατιὼν ἐπῄνει καὶ τὴν πατρίδα τὴν Μίλητον, προστιθεὶς ὡς ἄμεινον ποιοῖ τοῦτο τοῦ Ὁμήρου μηδὲν μνησθέντος τῆς πατρίδος. εἶτ' ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ φροιμίου ὑπισχνεῖτο διαρρήδην καὶ σαφῶς, ἐπὶ μεῖζον μὲν αἴρειν τὰ ἡμέτερα, τοὺς βαρβάρους δὲ καταπολεμήσειν καὶ αὐτός, ὡς ἂν δύνηται. καὶ ἤρξατό γε τῆς ἱστορίας οὕτως, αἴτια ἅμα τῆς τοῦ πολέμου ἀρχῆς διεξιών· “Ὁ γὰρ μιαρώτατος καὶ κάκιστα ἀπολούμενος Οὐολόγεσσος ἤρξατο πολεμεῖν δι’ αἰτίαν τοιάνδε.”
15. So much for him. Another, a keen emulator of Thucydides, modelling himself closely on his original, like him began with his own name—the most graceful of all beginnings, redolent of Attic thyme. Listen: “Crepereius Calpurnianus of Pompeiopolis wrote the history of the war between the Parthians and the Romans beginning at its very outset.” After a beginning like that why should I tell you the rest—the sort of speech he made in Armenia (he brought in the Corcyrean orator in person for that) or what sort of plague he brought down on the people of Nisibis who declined to take the Roman side (he lifted that from Thucydides in its entirety except just for the Pelasgicum and the Long Walls where those who had at that time caught the plague had settled. )? Then again it even “began in Ethiopia,” as in Thucydides, then “descended into Egypt” and “the vast territory of the great King,” where it stayed—and a good thing too! For my part I left him still burying his wretched Athenians at Nisibis and went away knowing just what he was going to say after I had gone. But this is quite a fashion just now, to suppose that you’re following Thucydides’ style if you reproduce, with some small alterations, his own expressions. Oh, here is a point I almost left out: this same historian has called many arms and war-engines by their Latin names, as well as the words for ditch, bridge and so on. Imagine please the high quality of his history and how it suits Thucydides to have these Italic words mixed up with the Attic, adding a distinctive touch of colour like purple dye—a perfect match!
15. Οὗτος μὲν τοιαῦτα. ἕτερος δὲ Θουκυδίδου ζηλωτὴς ἄκρος, οἷος εὖ μάλα τῷ ἀρχετύπῳ εἰκασμένος, καὶ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὡς ἐκεῖνος σὺν τῷ ἑαυτοῦ ὀνόματι ἤρξατο, χαριεστάτην ἀρχῶν ἁπασῶν καὶ θύμου τοῦ Ἀττικοῦ ἀποπνέουσαν. ὅρα γάρ· “Κρεπέρῃος Καλπουρνιανὸς Πομπηϊουπολίτης συνέγραψε τὸν πόλεμον τῶν Παρθυαίων καὶ Ῥωμαίων, ὡς ἐπολέμησαν πρὸς ἀλλήλους, ἀρξάμενος εὐθὺς συνισταμένου.” ὥστε μετά γε τοιαύτην ἀρχὴν τί ἄν σοι τὰ λοιπὰ λέγοιμι—ὁποῖα ἐν Ἀρμενίᾳ ἐδημηγόρησεν τὸν Κερκυραῖον αὐτὸν ῥήτορα παραστησάμενος, ἢ οἷον Νισιβηνοῖς λοιμὸν τοῖς μὴ τὰ Ῥωμαίων αἱρουμένοις ἐπήγαγεν παρὰ Θουκυδίδου χρησάμενος ὅλον ἄρδην πλὴν μόνου τοῦ Πελασγικοῦ καὶ τῶν τειχῶν τῶν μακρῶν, ἐν οἷς οἱ τότε λοιμώξαντες ᾤκησαν; τὰ δ’ ἄλλα καὶ ἀπὸ Αἰθιοπίας ἤρξατο, ὡς τότε, καὶ ἐς Αἴγυπτον κατέβη καὶ ἐς τὴν βασιλέως γῆν τὴν πολλήν, καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῃ γε ἔμεινεν εὖ ποιῶν. ἐγὼ γοῦν θάπτοντα ἔτι αὐτὸν καταλιπὼν τοὺς ἀθλίους Ἀθηναίους ἐν Νισίβι ἀπῆλθον ἀκριβῶς εἰδὼς καὶ ὅσα ἀπελθόντος ἐρεῖν ἔμελλεν. καὶ γὰρ αὖ καὶ τοῦτο ἐπιεικῶς πολὺ νῦν ἐστι, τὸ οἴεσθαι τοῦτ' εἶναι τοῖς Θουκυδίδου ἐοικότα λέγειν, εἰ ὀλίγον ἐντρέψας τὰ αὐτοῦ ἐκείνου λέγοι τις. νὴ Δία κἀκεῖνο ὀλίγου δεῖν παρέλιπον· ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς οὗτος συγγραφεὺς πολλὰ καὶ τῶν ὅπλων καὶ τῶν μηχανημάτων ὡς Ῥωμαῖοι αὐτὰ ὀνομάζουσιν οὕτως ἀνέγραψεν, καὶ τάφρον ὡς ἐκεῖνοι καὶ γέφυραν καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα. καί μοι ἐννόησον ἡλίκον τὸ ἀξίωμα τῆς ἱστορίας καὶ ὡς Θουκυδίδῃ πρέπον, μεταξὺ τῶν Ἀττικῶν ὀνομάτων τὰ Ἰταλιωτικὰ ταῦτα ἐγκεῖσθαι, ὥσπερ τὴν πορφύραν ἐπικοσμοῦντα καὶ ἐμπρέποντα καὶ πάντως συνᾴδοντα.
16. Another of them has compiled a bare record of the events and set it down on paper, completely prosaic and ordinary, such as a soldier or artisan or pedlar following the army might have put together as a diary of daily events. However, this amateur was not so bad—it was quite obvious at the beginning what he was, and his work has cleared the ground for some future historian of taste and ability. The only fault I found was this: his headings were too pompous for the place his books can hold—“Callimorphus, surgeon of the Sixth Lancers, History of the Parthian War, Book so-and-so”—there followed the number of each book. Another thing, his preface was very frigid: he put it like this: it was proper for a surgeon to write history, since Asclepius was the son of Apollo and Apollo was leader of the Muses and lord of all culture; also because, after beginning in Ionic, for some reason I can’t fathom he suddenly changed to the vernacular, using indeed the Ionic forms of “medicine,” “attempt,” “how many,” “diseases,” but taking the rest from the language of everyday, most of it street-corner talk.
16. Ἄλλος δέ τις αὐτῶν ὑπόμνημα τῶν γεγονότων γυμνὸν συναγαγὼν ἐν γραφῇ κομιδῇ πεζὸν καὶ χαμαιπετές, οἷον καὶ στρατιώτης ἄν τις τὰ καθ' ἡμέραν ὑπογραφόμενος συνέθηκεν ἢ τέκτων ἢ κάπηλός τις συμπερινοστῶν τῇ στρατιᾷ. πλὴν ἀλλὰ μετριώτερός γε ὁ ἰδιώτης οὗτος ἦν, αὐτὸς μὲν αὐτίκα δῆλος ὢν οἷος ἦν, ἄλλῳ δέ τινι χαρίεντι καὶ δυνησομένῳ ἱστορίαν μεταχειρίσασθαι προπεπονηκώς. τοῦτο μόνον ᾐτιασάμην αὐτοῦ, ὅτι οὕτως ἐπέγραψε τὰ βιβλία τραγικώτερον ἢ κατὰ τὴν τῶν συγγραμμάτων τύχην—“Καλλιμόρφου ἰατροῦ τῆς τῶν κοντοφόρων ἕκτης ἱστοριῶν Παρθικῶν,” καὶ ὑπεγέγραπτο ἑκάστῃ ὁ ἀριθμός. καὶ νὴ Δία καὶ τὸ προοίμιον ὑπέρψυχρον ἐποίησεν οὕτως συναγαγών· οἰκεῖον εἶναι ἰατρῷ ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν, εἴ γε ὁ Ἀσκληπιὸς μὲν Ἀπόλλωνος υἱός, Ἀπόλλων δὲ Μουσηγέτης καὶ πάσης παιδείας ἄρχων· καὶ ὅτι ἀρξάμενος ἐν τῇ Ἰάδι γράφειν οὐκ οἶδα ὅ τι δόξαν αὐτίκα μάλα ἐπὶ τὴν κοινὴν μετῆλθεν, ἰητρικὴν μὲν λέγων καὶ πείρην καὶ ὁκόσα καὶ νοῦσοι, τὰ δ’ ἄλλα ὁμοδίαιτα τοῖς πολλοῖς καὶ τὰ πλεῖστα οἷα ἐκ τριόδου.
17. If I have to mention a philosopher let his name remain unknown. I shall speak only of his general views and his recent writings in Corinth. They went beyond all expectation. Right at the beginning in the first sentence of his introduction he used dialectic on his readers in his eagerness to show off a very clever argument. This was to the effect that only the philosopher was fit to write history. Then a little later came one syllogism, then another. In short his introduction was sheer dialectic in every figure of the syllogism. His flattery was nauseating: his eulogies were vulgar and downright low; even they were syllogistic and dialectical in form. I certainly thought it in poor taste and not at all becoming a philosopher and a long, grey beard to say, as he did in his introduction, that it will be a special distinction of our commander that even philosophers think fit to recount his deeds. Such a comment he should have left for us, if anybody, to think of and not made it himself.
17. Εἰ δέ με δεῖ καὶ σοφοῦ ἀνδρὸς μνησθῆναι, τὸ μὲν ὄνομα ἐν ἀφανεῖ κείσθω, τὴν γνώμην δὲ ἐρῶ καὶ τὰ πρῴην ἐν Κορίνθῳ συγγράμματα, κρείττω πάσης ἐλπίδος. ἐν ἀρχῇ μὲν γὰρ εὐθὺς ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τοῦ προοιμίου περιόδῳ συνηρώτησε τοὺς ἀναγινώσκοντας λόγον πάνσοφον δεῖξαι σπεύδων, ὡς μόνῳ ἂν τῷ σοφῷ πρέποι ἱστορίαν συγγράφειν. εἶτα μετὰ μικρὸν ἄλλος συλλογισμός, εἶτα ἄλλος· καὶ ὅλως ἐν ἅπαντι σχήματι συνηρώτητο αὐτῷ τὸ προοίμιον. τὸ τῆς κολακείας ἐς κόρον, καὶ τὰ ἐγκώμια φορτικὰ καὶ κομιδῇ βωμολοχικά, οὐκ ἀσυλλόγιστα μέντοι, ἀλλὰ συνηρωτημένα κἀκεῖνα. καὶ μὴν κἀκεῖνο φορτικὸν ἔδοξέν μοι καὶ ἥκιστα σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ καὶ πώγωνι πολιῷ καὶ βαθεῖ πρέπον, τὸ ἐν τῷ προοιμίῳ εἰπεῖν, ὡς ἐξαίρετον τοῦτο ἕξει ὁ ἡμέτερος ἄρχων, οὗ γε τὰς πράξεις καὶ φιλόσοφοι ἤδη συγγράφειν ἀξιοῦσιν. τὸ γὰρ τοιοῦτον, εἴπερ ἄρα, ἡμῖν ἔδει καταλιπεῖν λογίζεσθαι ἢ αὐτὸν εἰπεῖν.
18. Again it would not be right to omit the one who began as follows: “I come to speak of Romans and Persians,” and a little later said: “The Persians were foredoomed to come to grief,” and again: “It was Osroes, whom the Greeks call Oxyrhoes” and many more things of this sort, all in Ionic. Do you see? He was like Crepereius, only Crepereius was a wonderful copy of Thucydides, this man of Herodotus.
18. Καὶ μὴν οὐδ’ ἐκείνου ὅσιον ἀμνημονῆσαι, ὃς τοιάνδε ἀρχὴν ἤρξατο· “Ἔρχομαι ἐρέων περὶ Ῥωμαίων καὶ Περσέων,” καὶ μικρὸν ὕστερον· “ἔδεε γὰρ Πέρσῃσι γενέσθαι κακῶς,” καὶ πάλιν· “ἦν Ὀσρόης, τὸν οἱ Ἕλληνες Ὀξυρόην ὀνυμέουσιν,” καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ τοιαῦτα. ὁρᾷς; ὅμοιος αὐτὸς ἐκείνῳ παρ' ὅσον ὁ μὲν Θουκυδίδῃ, οὗτος δὲ Ἡροδότῳ εὖ μάλα ἐῴκει.
19. Another, renowned for his powerful eloquence, was also like Thucydides or a little better. He described all cities, mountains, plains, and rivers in the most detailed and striking way, as he thought. May the Averter of Evil turn his detail and vigour against the enemy, so much frigidity was there in it, worse than Caspian snow and Celtic ice! For example, he only just got through his description of the emperor’s shield in a whole book, with its Gorgon on the boss, her eyes of blue, white, and black, her girdle like the rainbow, the ringlets and curls of her serpents. The trousers of Vologesus and the bit of his horse—Heavens! how many thousands of words on each, and his descriptions of Osroes’ hair as he swam across the Tigris, and the cave where he fled for safety, with its jungle of ivy, myrrh, and laurel making it completely dark. Think how essential this is to history: without it we should not have known what happened there!
19. Ἄλλος τις ἀοίδιμος ἐπὶ λόγων δυνάμει Θουκυδίδῃ καὶ αὐτὸς ὅμοιος ἢ ὀλίγῳ ἀμείνων αὐτοῦ, πάσας πόλεις καὶ πάντα ὄρη καὶ πεδία καὶ ποταμοὺς ἑρμηνεύσας πρὸς τὸ σαφέστατον καὶ ἰσχυρότατον, ὡς ᾤετο. τὸ δὲ ἐς ἐχθρῶν κεφαλὰς ὁ ἀλεξίκακος τρέψειε· τοσαύτη ψυχρότης ἐνῆν ὑπὲρ τὴν Κασπιακὴν χιόνα καὶ τὸν κρύσταλλον τὸν Κελτικόν. ἡ γοῦν ἀσπὶς ἡ τοῦ αὐτοκράτορος ὅλῳ βιβλίῳ μόγις ἐξηρμηνεύθη αὐτῷ, καὶ Γοργὼν ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀμφαλοῦ καὶ οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῆς ἐκ κυανοῦ καὶ λευκοῦ καὶ μέλανος καὶ ζώνη ἰριοειδὴς καὶ δράκοντες ἑλικηδὸν καὶ βοστρυχηδόν. ἡ μὲν γὰρ Οὐολογέσσου ἀναξυρὶς ἢ ὁ χαλινὸς τοῦ ἵππου, Ἡράκλεις, ὅσαι μυριάδες ἐπῶν ἕκαστον τούτων, καὶ οἵα ἦν ἡ Ὀσρόου κόμη, διανέοντος τὸν Τίγρητα, καὶ ἐς οἷον ἄντρον κατέφυγε, κιττοῦ καὶ μυρρίνης καὶ δάφνης ἐς ταὐτὸ συμπεφυκότων καὶ σύσκιον ἀκριβῶς ποιούντων αὐτό. σκόπει ὡς ἀναγκαῖα τῇ ἱστορίᾳ ταῦτα, καὶ ὧν ἄνευ οὐκ ἂν ᾔδειμέν τι τῶν ἐκεῖ πραχθέντων.
20. Because of weakness in matters of importance or ignorance of what to say, they turn to this sort of description of scenery and caves; when they chance on a host of great doings they are like a newly-rich servant who has just inherited his master’s fortune: he knows neither how to dress nor how to take his meal in the proper way: no, he plunges in, when for instance birds and pork and hares are put before him, stuffing himself with a soup or kippers until he bursts from eating. Well, this man I mentioned described incredible wounds and monstrous deaths, how one man was wounded in the big toe and died on the spot, and how Priscus the general just gave a shout and twenty-seven of the enemy fell dead. And in the number slain he even contradicted the officers’ despatches with his false figures: at Europus, he said, the enemy lost 70,236 killed, while the Romans lost just two and had nine wounded. I do not think anyone in his senses would accept that.
20. Ὑπὸ γὰρ ἀσθενείας τῆς ἐν τοῖς χρησίμοις ἢ ἀγνοίας τῶν λεκτέων ἐπὶ τὰς τοιαύτας τῶν χωρίων καὶ ἄντρων ἐκφράσεις τρέπονται, καὶ ὁπόταν ἐς πολλὰ καὶ μεγάλα πράγματα ἐμπέσωσιν ἐοίκασιν οἰκέτῃ νεοπλούτῳ ἄρτι κληρονομήσαντι τοῦ δεσπότου, ὃς οὔτε τὴν ἐσθῆτα οἶδεν ὡς χρὴ περιβαλέσθαι οὔτε δειπνῆσαι κατὰ νόμον, ἀλλ’ ἐμπηδήσας, πολλάκις ὀρνίθων καὶ συείων καὶ λαγῴων προκειμένων, ὑπερεμπίπλαται ἔτνους τινὸς ἢ ταρίχους ἔστ' ἂν διαρραγῇ ἐσθίων. οὗτος δ’ οὖν ὃν προεῖπον καὶ τραύματα συνέγραψεν πάνυ ἀπίθανα καὶ θανάτους ἀλλοκότους, ὡς εἰς δάκτυλον τοῦ ποδὸς τὸν μέγαν τρωθείς τις αὐτίκα ἐτελεύτησε, καὶ ὡς ἐμβοήσαντος μόνον Πρίσκου τοῦ στρατηγοῦ ἑπτὰ καὶ εἴκοσι τῶν πολεμίων ἐξέθανον. ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ τῶν νεκρῶν ἀριθμῷ τοῦτο μὲν καὶ παρὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἀρχόντων ἐπιστολαῖς ἐψεύσατο· ἐπὶ γὰρ Εὐρώπῳ τῶν μὲν πολεμίων ἀποθανεῖν μυριάδας ἑπτὰ καὶ τριάκοντα καὶ ἓξ πρὸς τοῖς διακοσίοις, Ῥωμαίων δὲ μόνους δύο καὶ τραυματίας γενέσθαι ἐννέα. ταῦτα οὐκ οἶδα εἴ τις ἂν εὖ φρονῶν ἀνάσχοιτο.
21. There is another not unimportant matter: because he is an out-and-out Atticist and has purified his speech down to the last syllable, he thought fit to change the Latin names and use Greek forms—Kronios for Saturninus, Phrontis for Fronto, Titanios for Titianus, and others much more ridiculous. Again, concerning the death of Severianus, this same man wrote that all the others had been deceived in supposing he perished by the sword—he died by fasting because he thought this the most painless way of dying. He was unaware that the whole business only took, say, three days while those who keep away from food generally last a week—unless one assumes that Osroes was standing about waiting for Severianus to die from hunger and for that reason did not attack during the week.
21. Καὶ μὴν κἀκεῖνο λεκτέον οὐ μικρὸν ὄν· ὑπὸ γὰρ τοῦ κομιδῇ Ἀττικὸς εἶναι καὶ ἀποκεκαθάρθαι τὴν φωνὴν ἐς τὸ ἀκριβέστατον ἠξίωσεν οὗτος καὶ τὰ ὀνόματα μεταποιῆσαι τὰ Ῥωμαίων καὶ μεταγράψαι ἐς τὸ Ἑλληνικόν, ὡς Κρόνιον μὲν Σατουρνῖνον λέγειν, Φρόντιν δὲ τὸν Φρόντωνα, Τιτάνιον δὲ τὸν Τιτιανὸν καὶ ἄλλα πολλῷ γελοιότερα. ἔτι ὁ αὐτὸς οὗτος περὶ τῆς Σευηριανοῦ τελευτῆς ἔγραψεν ὡς οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι ἅπαντες ἐξηπάτηνται οἰόμενοι ξίφει τεθνάναι αὐτόν, ἀποθάνοι δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ σιτίων ἀποσχόμενος· τοῦτον γὰρ αὐτῷ ἀλυπότατον δόξαι τὸν θάνατον, οὐκ εἰδὼς ὅτι τὸ μὲν πάθος ἐκεῖνο πᾶν τριῶν οἶμαι ἡμερῶν ἐγένετο, ἀπόσιτοι δὲ καὶ ἐς ἑβδόμην διαρκοῦσιν οἱ πολλοί—ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ τοῦθ' ὑπολάβοι τις, ὡς Ὀσρόης εἱστήκει περιμένων, ἔστ' ἂν Σευηριανὸς λιμῷ ἀπόληται, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο οὐκ ἐπῆγε διὰ τῆς ἑβδόμης.
22. And where, my dear Philo, are we to put those who use poetic words in their history, who say “The siege-engine whirled, the wall fell with a big thud,” and again in another part of this fine work, “Edessa thus was girt with the crash of arms and all was clangour and alarum,” and “the general mused how best to attack the wall.” Then in the middle of this sort of thing he stuffed a lot of words that were cheap, vulgar, and mean—“the prefect sent His Majesty a despatch” and “the soldiers got themselves the necessaries” and “by now they’d had their baths and were hanging about” and so on. It’s as if a tragic actor had mounted a high buskin on one foot and had a sandal tied under the other.
22. Τοὺς δὲ καὶ ποιητικοῖς ὀνόμασιν, ὦ καλὲ Φίλων, ἐν ἱστορίᾳ χρωμένους, ποῦ δ’ ἄν τις θείη, τοὺς λέγοντας, “ἐλέλιξε μὲν ἡ μηχανή, τὸ τεῖχος δὲ πεσὸν μεγάλως ἐδούπησε,” καὶ πάλιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ μέρει τῆς καλῆς ἱστορίας, “Ἔδεσσα μὲν δὴ οὕτω τοῖς ὅπλοις περιεσμαραγεῖτο καὶ ὄτοβος ἦν καὶ κόναβος ἅπαντα ἐκεῖνα” καὶ “ὁ στρατηγὸς ἐμερμήριζεν ᾧ τρόπῳ μάλιστα προσαγάγοι πρὸς τὸ τεῖχος.” εἶτα μεταξὺ οὕτως εὐτελῆ ὀνόματα καὶ δημοτικὰ καὶ πτωχικὰ πολλὰ παρενεβέβυστο—τό “ἐπέστειλεν ὁ στρατοπεδάρχης τῷ κυρίῳ,” καί “οἱ στρατιῶται ἠγόραζον τὰ ἐγχρῄζοντα” καί “ἤδη λελουμένοι περὶ αὐτοὺς ἐγίγνοντο” καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα· ὥστε τὸ πρᾶγμα ἐοικὸς εἶναι τραγῳδῷ τὸν ἕτερον μὲν πόδα ἐπ' ἐμβάτου ὑψηλοῦ ἐπιβεβηκότι, θάτερον δὲ σανδάλῳ ὑποδεδεμένῳ.
23. Again, you may see others writing introductions that are brilliant, dramatic, and excessively long, so that you expect what follows to be marvellous to hear, but for the body of their history they bring on something so tiny and so undistinguished that it resembles a child, some Cupid —you may have seen one playing and putting on a huge mask of Heracles or a Titan. The audience there and then are calling out to them “a mountain was in labour.” In my opinion the right way to do it is not like this: there must be a general uniformity, a unity of colour, and the body must be in proportion with the head, so that when you get a golden helmet the breastplate is not a silly patchwork of rags or rotten hides with a wicker-work shield and pigskin greaves. You can see plenty of writers like that, who put the head of the Colossus of Rhodes on the body of a dwarf. Then again others produce bodies without any heads—works lacking an introduction that begin at once with the narrative; in support they quote Xenophon, where he begins “Darius and Parysatis had two sons,” and other old writers, not knowing that there are such things as virtual prefaces unrecognised by most people; we shall demonstrate this elsewhere.
23. Καὶ μὴν καὶ ἄλλους ἴδοις ἂν τὰ μὲν προοίμια λαμπρὰ καὶ τραγικὰ καὶ εἰς ὑπερβολὴν μακρὰ συγγράφοντας, ὡς ἐλπίσαι θαυμαστὰ ἡλίκα τὰ μετὰ ταῦτα πάντως ἀκούσεσθαι, τὸ σῶμα δὲ αὐτὸ τὸ τῆς ἱστορίας μικρόν τι καὶ ἀγεννὲς ἐπαγαγόντας ὡς καὶ τοῦτο ἐοικέναι παιδίῳ, εἴ που Ἔρωτα εἶδες παίζοντα, προσωπεῖον Ἡρακλέους πάμμεγα ἢ Τιτᾶνος περικείμενον. εὐθὺς γοῦν οἱ ἀκούσαντες ἐπιφθέγγονται αὐτοῖς τό Ὤδινεν ὄρος. Χρὴ δὲ οἶμαι μὴ οὕτως, ἀλλ’ ὅμοια τὰ πάντα καὶ ὀμόχροα εἶναι καὶ συνᾷδον τῇ κεφαλῇ τὸ ἄλλο σῶμα, ὡς μὴ χρυσοῦν μὲν τὸ κράνος εἴη, θώραξ δὲ πάνυ γελοῖος ἐκ ῥακῶν ποθεν ἢ ἐκ δερμάτων σαπρῶν συγκεκαττυμένος καὶ ἡ ἀσπὶς οἰσυΐνη καὶ χοιρίνη περὶ ταῖς κνήμαις. ἴδοις γὰρ ἂν ἀφθόνους τοιούτους συγγραφέας, τοῦ Ῥοδίων κολοσσοῦ τὴν κεφαλὴν νανώδει σώματι ἐπιτιθέντας· ἄλλους αὖ ἔμπαλιν ἀκέφαλα τὰ σώματα εἰσάγοντας—ἀπροοιμίαστα καὶ εὐθὺς ἐπὶ τῶν πραγμάτων· οἳ καὶ προσεταιρίζονται τὸν Ξενοφῶντα οὕτως ἀρξάμενον, “Δαρείου καὶ Παρυσάτιδος παῖδες γίγνονται δύο,” καὶ ἄλλους τῶν παλαιῶν, οὐκ εἰδότες ὡς δυνάμει τινὰ προοίμιά ἐστι λεληθότα τοὺς πολλούς, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις δείξομεν.
24. Yet we can put up with all these things as far as they are faults of expression and arrangement of material; but to misplace localities even, not just by parasangs but by whole days’ marches, what fineness of style does that resemble? One man, for example, who had never met a Syrian nor even heard as they say “barber-shop gossip” about such things, assembled his facts so carelessly that when speaking of Europus he said: “Europus is situated in Mesopotamia, two days’ journey from the Euphrates; it was colonised by men of Edessa.” Even this was not enough for him: my own birthplace, Samosata, this fine writer in the same book lifted, acropolis, walls and all, and transplanted to Mesopotamia, so as to surround it by both rivers, which passed close to it on either side and almost touched the walls. How ridiculous, Philo, if I were now to argue a proof with you that I am not a Parthian or from Mesopotamia, where this wonderful historian has taken and transplanted me!
24. Καίτοι ταῦτα πάντα φορητὰ ἔτι, ὅσα ἢ ἑρμηνείας ἢ τῆς ἄλλης διατάξεως ἁμαρτήματά ἐστιν· τὸ δὲ καὶ παρὰ τοὺς τόπους αὐτοὺς ψεύδεσθαι οὐ παρασάγγας μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ σταθμοὺς ὅλους, τίνι τῶν καλῶν ἔοικεν; εἷς γοῦν οὕτω ῥᾳθύμως συνήγαγε τὰ πράγματα, οὔτε Σύρῳ τινὶ ἐντυχὼν οὔτε τὸ λεγόμενον δὴ τοῦτο τῶν ἐπὶ κουρείῳ τὰ τοιαῦτα μυθολογούντων ἀκούσας, ὥστε περὶ Εὐρώπου λέγων οὕτως ἔφη, “Ἡ δὲ Εὔρωπος κεῖται μὲν ἐν τῇ Μεσοποταμίᾳ σταθμοὺς δύο τοῦ Εὐφράτου ἀπέχουσα, ἀπῴκισαν δὲ αὐτὴν Ἐδεσσαῖοι.” καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο ἀπέχρησεν αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἐμὴν πατρίδα τὰ Σαμόσατα ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ βιβλίῳ ἀράμενος ὁ γενναῖος αὐτῇ ἀκροπόλει καὶ τείχεσι μετέθηκεν ἐς τὴν Μεσοποταμίαν, ὡς περιρρεῖσθαι αὐτὴν ὑπ' ἀμφοτέρων τῶν ποταμῶν, ἑκατέρωθεν ἐν χρῷ παραμειβομένων καὶ μονονουχὶ τοῦ τείχους ψαυόντων. τὸ δὲ καὶ γελοῖον εἴ σοι νῦν, ὦ Φίλων, ἀπολογοίμην ὡς οὐ Παρθυαίων οὐδὲ Μεσοποταμίτης σοι ἐγὼ, οἷ με φέρων ὁ θαυμαστὸς συγγραφεὺς ἀπῴκισε.
25. By Zeus, that, too, is a highly plausible story the same fellow told about Severianus, taking his oath that he heard it from a man who had survived this very action: he said that Severianus did not want to die by the sword nor take poison nor hang himself, but thought of a dramatic death, strange and novel in its boldness: he happened to have huge drinking-glasses of the finest crystal, and when he had decided to die at all costs he broke the largest of the bowls and used one of the pieces to kill himself by cutting his throat with the glass. As if there were no dagger, no javelin to be found to bring him a manly and heroic death!.
25. Νὴ Δία κἀκεῖνο κομιδῇ πιθανὸν περὶ τοῦ Σευηριανοῦ ὁ αὐτὸς οὗτος εἶπεν ἐπομοσάμενος, ἦ μὴν ἀκοῦσαί τινος τῶν ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἔργου διαφυγόντων· οὔτε γὰρ ξίφει ἐθελῆσαι αὐτὸν ἀποθανεῖν οὔτε φαρμάκου πιεῖν οὔτε βρόχον ἅψασθαι ἀλλά τινα θάνατον ἐπινοῆσαι τραγικὸν καὶ τῇ τόλμῃ ξενίζοντα· τυχεῖν μὲν γὰρ αὐτὸν ἔχοντα παμμεγέθη ἐκπώματα ὑάλινα τῆς καλλίστης ὑάλου, ἐπεὶ δὲ πάντως ἀποθανεῖν ἔγνωστο, κατάξαντα τὸν μέγιστον τῶν σκύφων ἑνὶ τῶν θραυσμάτων χρήσασθαι εἰς τὴν σφαγὴν ἐντεμόντα τῇ ὑάλῳ τὸν λαιμόν. οὕτως οὐ ξιφίδιον, οὐ λογχάριον εὗρεν ὡς ἀνδρεῖός γε αὐτῷ καὶ ἡρωϊκὸς ὁ θάνατος γένοιτο.
26. Then since Thucydides made a funeral speech over the first to die in that famous war he thought he too ought to make a speech over Severianus. For all of them vie with Thucydides, who was in no way responsible for our troubles in Armenia. So after burying Severianus in magnificent style he makes a centurion, an Afranius Silo, mount the tomb as a rival to Pericles; his rhetoric was so strange and so exaggerated that by the Graces I just cried and cried with laughing, especially when this orator Afranius at the end of his speech wept and with doleful lamentation reminded us of those expensive dinners and pledges! His last flourish was after Ajax: he drew his sword and with true nobility, as was proper for an Afranius, slew himself on the tomb in the sight of all—by the God of Havoc he deserved to die long before for making such a speech. All the onlookers, he said, when they saw this were amazed and praised Afranius to the skies. For my part I voted against him on every count for just stopping short of recalling the soups and shell-fish and weeping over the memory of the pancakes, but I blamed him most for dying without first cutting the throat of the historian who staged the show.
26. Εἶτ' ἐπειδὴ Θουκυδίδης ἐπιτάφιόν τινα εἶπε τοῖς πρώτοις τοῦ πολέμου ἐκείνου νεκροῖς καὶ αὐτὸς ἡγήσατο χρῆναι ἐπειπεῖν τῷ Σευηριανῷ. ἅπασι γὰρ αὐτοῖς πρὸς τὸν οὐδὲν αἴτιον τῶν ἐν Ἀρμενίᾳ κακῶν τὸν Θουκυδίδην ἡ ἅμιλλα. θάψας οὖν τὸν Σευηριανὸν μεγαλοπρεπῶς ἀναβιβάζεται ἐπὶ τὸν τάφον Ἀφράνιόν τινα Σίλωνα ἑκατόνταρχον ἀνταγωνιστὴν Περικλέους ὃς τοιαῦτα καὶ τοσαῦτα ἐπερρητόρευσεν αὐτῷ ὥστε με νὴ τὰς Χάριτας πολλὰ πάνυ δακρῦσαι ὑπὸ τοῦ γέλωτος καὶ μάλιστα ὁπότε ὁ ῥήτωρ ὁ Ἀφράνιος ἐπὶ τέλει τοῦ λόγου δακρύων ἅμα σὺν οἰμωγῇ περιπαθεῖ ἐμέμνητο τῶν πολυτελῶν ἐκείνων δείπνων καὶ προπόσεων, εἶτα ἐπέθηκεν Αἰάντειόν τινα τὴν κορωνίδα· σπασάμενος γὰρ τὸ ξίφος, εὐγενῶς πάνυ καὶ ὡς Ἀφράνιον εἰκὸς ἦν, πάντων ὁρώντων ἀπέσφαξεν ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ τῷ τάφῳ—οὐκ ἀνάξιος ὢν μὰ τὸν Ἐνυάλιον πρὸ πολλοῦ ἀποθανεῖν εἰ τοιαῦτα ἐρρητόρευεν. καὶ τοῦτο ἔφη ἰδόντας τοὺς παρόντας ἅπαντας θαυμάσαι καὶ ὑπερεπαινέσαι τὸν Ἀφράνιον. ἐγὼ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἄλλα μὲν αὐτοῦ κατεγίγνωσκον μονονουχὶ ζωμῶν καὶ λοπάδων μεμνημένου καὶ ἐπιδακρύοντος τῇ τῶν πλακούντων μνήμῃ, τοῦτο δὲ μάλιστα ᾐτιασάμην, ὅτι μὴ τὸν συγγραφέα καὶ διδάσκαλον τοῦ δράματος προαποσφάξας ἀπέθανε.