I don’t know what to call Dio of Prusa,65 given his all-around excellence. He was what they call a Horn of Amaltheia,66 filled with the best of the best; resonant of Demosthenes and Plato,67 but like an octave played on an organ, he produced his own sound with a vigorous simplicity. Also distinctive in his speeches was his compound character. When he rebuked insolent cities he expressed neither abuse nor disgust, but was like one who restrains a horse with a bridle rather than a whip. And when he praised cities68 that were well ordered, he seemed not to exalt them but to lead them to the view that they would be ruined if they changed their ways. The tone of his presentation was neither vulgar nor ironic, and although he was fierce in critique, he tempered his remarks, sweetening them with gentleness. That he was capable of composing history is evident from his Getica. He even travelled among the Getae69 while he was in exile. The Euboean Tale and Praise of a Parrot,70 over which he laboured despite the lightness of the subject matter, shouldn’t be dismissed as trivialities, but are sophistic compositions. For it is typical of a sophist to devote serious attention to topics of this sort.
He lived during the time when Apollonius of Tyana71 and Euphrates the Tyrian72 were practising philosophy and was on friendly terms with both of them, although in their quarrelling with one another the two men went beyond what is appropriate for philosophers. It’s not right to call his journey among the Getae an ‘exile’, since he hadn’t received an actual order of exile;73 but it wasn’t tourism either, since he vanished from sight, stealing away from the eyes and ears of men, busying himself variously in various lands out of fear of the tyrants in the capital city, who were suppressing all philosophy. Planting, digging, drawing water for baths and orchards, and performing other such tasks to earn his keep, he did not neglect his studies, but occupied himself with two books, namely Plato’s Phaedo and Demosthenes’ Against the Embassy.
Haunting the soldiers’ camps in his customary rags, and observing the soldiers eager for revolution upon the death of Domitian, he could not contain himself at the sight of their disorder, but naked, leaping on to a high altar, he began to speak as follows:
Then much-scheming Odysseus stripped off his rags.74
And speaking these things and revealing that he was not a beggar, nor what they thought him to be, but Dio the wise, he energetically denounced the tyrant and convinced the soldiers that it would be better for them to do as the Roman people decided. His persuasive power was enchanting, even to those who knew little of Greek literature. Why, the emperor Trajan,75 having set him at Rome upon a golden chariot from which rulers were accustomed to lead the triumphal parade, said, turning to Dio, ‘I don’t understand what you are saying, but I love you as myself.’
The images employed by Dio in his speeches are highly sophistic, and although he used plenty of them, they were always clear and suited to the matter at hand.
[…]
The eloquence of Favorinus76 the philosopher also declared him to be one of the sophists. He was of the western Gauls, from the city of Arles, located on the Rhône river. He was born a hermaphrodite, that is, of both sexes, as was clear from his appearance, for even when old he was beardless, and also from his voice, which was thin, shrill and high-pitched, as nature allots also to eunuchs. Yet he was so hot-blooded when it came to sex that he was prosecuted for adultery by a man of high rank. Despite his differences with the emperor Hadrian,77 he suffered no harm. Thus he used to intone that his life held three paradoxes: though a Gaul, he lived as a Greek, though a eunuch, he was tried for adultery, though he quarrelled with an emperor, he remained alive. But this is more a credit to Hadrian, who as emperor differed on terms of equality with one he had the power to kill. For a king really is greater if, ‘when he is angry with a lesser man’,78 he controls his wrath and ‘powerful is the anger of Zeus-nourished kings’, provided it is regulated by reason. Those who seek to form the character of rulers would do well to add these sayings to recommendations of the poets.
Appointed high priest, Favorinus argued that, in accordance with local customs regarding such matters, as a philosopher he was exempt from public financial obligations. Seeing that the emperor was intending to vote against him on the grounds that he was not a philosopher, he cut him off by speaking as follows: ‘Your majesty, I had a dream which I must report to you. My teacher Dio79 appeared to me and advised me concerning this case saying that we are born not for ourselves alone but also for our country. I accept this obligation and remain obedient to my teacher.’ Now the emperor was acting thus purely for his own amusement, as he would relieve the anxieties of governing by turning his thoughts to sophists and philosophers. But the Athenians took the affair seriously, and their leaders rushed to overturn the bronze statue of Favorinus as if he were a mortal enemy of the emperor. Upon hearing this, Favorinus wasn’t angry or resentful at their insolence, saying, ‘Socrates would have been better off having his bronze statue overturned by the Athenians than being forced to drink hemlock.’80
He was on especially close terms with the sophist Herodes,81 who regarded him as both teacher and father and wrote ‘When will I see you and lick your face?’82 On his death he bequeathed to Herodes his library, his house in Rome and one Autolecythus. This person was an Indian slave, dark in colour, a jester of sorts for Herodes and Favorinus. At their drinking parties he would entertain them by mixing Attic words into his Indic speech and speaking Greek badly with a stammering tongue.
Favorinus’ dispute with Polemo83 began in Ionia when the Ephesians favoured him, but Smyrna was abuzz over Polemo. It grew more intense in Rome, where the divided support among the leading men and their sons initiated the kind of rivalry that sparks hostility even between men who are wise. But such eagerness for glory is to be forgiven, since by human nature it never grows old. Not to be forgiven are the speeches they directed against each other, for personal abuse is shameful, and even if true, doesn’t exempt from disgrace even the person who speaks about such things. As for those who call Favorinus a sophist, his quarrel with a sophist supports their case, for the sort of rivalry just described occurs between those practising the same art.
His style was a little loose, but learned and appealing. It is said that he was fluent when improvising. It’s our judgement that he neither planned nor composed the speeches against Proxenus.84 They were dreamed up by some drunken young man who vomited them out. But the speeches On One Who Died Too Soon and For the Gladiators and For the Baths seem authentic and well composed; even more so his philosophical speeches, of which the one on the Pyrrhonians85 is the best. For he does not deny their ability to pass judgement in court despite their professed scepticism.
Whenever he spoke in Rome the reception was enthusiastic and even those in the audience whose knowledge of Greek was limited shared in the enjoyment, for he charmed them with the sound of his voice, the communicativeness of his facial expression and the rhythm of his language. He charmed them, too, with his epilogues, which they called an ode but I call showing off, since it was added on to what had already been proven. It is said that he was a student of Dio, but he differed from him as much as did those who were never his students.
[…]
I will speak about the sophist Scopelian,86 but first I must address those who would belittle him, saying he doesn’t belong among the circle of sophists, calling him a dithyrambist,87 unruly and thick-witted. People who speak this way are nit-picking slackers, unimpressed with spontaneous eloquence. For man is by nature given to envy. The short slander the tall, the ugly disparage the good-looking, the slow and clumsy attack the swift, cowards the brave, the unmusical go after the lyric poets, the unathletic attack those who wrestle: is it any wonder if those who are poor speakers and have the proverbial ox of silence on their tongues,88 who never conceive of anything grand or approve of others’ grand conceptions, tremble in terror at and revile a man whose style was the readiest, boldest and grandest of the Greeks of his time? But as they have not understood him, I will show what sort of man he was and the character of his household.
He was the chief priest of Asia, as were his ancestors, with the position passed from father to son – which is a greater mark of glory than is wealth. He was born a twin, and while both were still in swaddling-clothes, being but five days old, the one was struck by lightning but the other was not maimed in any of his senses although he was lying right next to the one who was struck. The fire of the lightning-bolt was so intense and sulphurous that it killed some of those nearby, while others suffered injury to ears and eyes, still others were shocked in their minds. But Scopelian was not hurt in any way and lived into old age healthy and sound.
I want to explain why I find this so amazing. For once in Lemnos, in the part of the island called The Horn, where the land forms a harbour in the shape of horns, there were eight reapers eating under a large oak tree. A cloud covered the tree, and a bolt flashed out. The tree was struck, and all the reapers died from the shock, losing their lives in the course of their various activities, whether lifting a cup, drinking, kneading bread, eating or whatever each happened to be doing. Their bodies were surrounded with smoke and turned black, like bronze statues that have been darkened by the hot fumes from nearby springs. But Scopelian was protected by the gods, escaping a death that not even the strongest of the farmworkers could avoid. He remained undamaged in his senses and ready of wit and stronger than sleep, not experiencing any sluggishness.
He regularly visited the rhetoric schools in the company of Nicetes of Smyrna, who was himself an outstanding declaimer but even more impressive in the courts of law. When the city of Clazomenae requested that Scopelian come and declaim, thinking it would boost their reputation if so great a man would offer instruction there, he courteously declined, saying that a nightingale does not sing in a cage. Smyrna, on the other hand, he regarded as a grove suited for his lovely voice, and he thought it best to let it echo there. For while all of Ionia is home to the Muses, Smyrna provides the most perfect setting, like the bridge on a musical instrument.
Many different and disturbing explanations are given as to why his father, who had treated him gently, instead became harsh towards him, but I shall give the one most likely to be true. For after the death of Scopelian’s mother, his father was about to bring home a concubine, in violation of the laws. When Scopelian saw this he warned him and tried to stop him, which is never welcome to older men. The woman, for her part, falsely accused him, saying he was in love with her and could not deal with his complete lack of success. As a partner in this slander she had the old man’s household cook, named Cytherus, who made up a story, as in a play, speaking to his master as follows: ‘O master, your son wants you dead already, and won’t even accept a natural death, which surely isn’t far off for one your age. Instead he is fashioning a plot, and has tried to hire me to carry it out. He has deadly poisons ready for you and he orders me to put the most effective of them in your food, promising me freedom, land, houses, money and anything I want of your possessions. All of this he promises if I obey, but if I don’t, then whips, torture, strong fetters and the yoke of punishment.’
He besieged the master with falsehoods of this sort, and when the latter was dying, not long afterwards, and made his will, the cook was named heir and called ‘my son’, ‘my eyes’, ‘my entire soul’. We shouldn’t be surprised by this, since he deceived an old man in love and perhaps even out of his mind from age and lust – for even young men, when in love, do not keep their wits about them. What is surprising is that despite Scopelian’s remarkable talent and success in trials, the cook got the better of him when they went to trial over the will, using Scopelian’s money against Scopelian’s talent. Drawing on the estate and bribing with extravagant sums the tongues of everyone, not to mention the votes of the jurors, he was victorious on every issue. This was the basis for Scopelian’s remark that while the property of Anaxagoras89 had become a sheep-pasture, his own became a slave-pasture.
Cytherus went on to achieve prominence in public affairs, but as an old man saw his property dwindle. He was so thoroughly despised that he was struck by a man from whom he sought to recover money. He became a suppliant of Scopelian, asking him to set aside his anger and memory of wrongdoing and to take back his father’s property, leaving him only a small part of the house (so that he could live in a manner befitting a free man) and two of the fields near the sea. And even to the present a part of the house is called the ‘estate of Cytherus’. I have recounted all of these things so that they not remain unknown and to help us understand that human beings are the playthings not only of God, but of one another.
While Scopelian was busy in Smyrna, Ionians, Lydians, Carians, Maeonians, Aeolians and Greeks from Mysia and Phrygia all came there, which is not surprising, since Smyrna is convenient to these peoples, being easy to approach by land or sea. But he also attracted Cappadocians and Assyrians, Egyptians and Phoenicians, the most famous of the Achaeans and all the young men of Athens. To the crowd he seemed easy-going, even careless, since he generally spent the time leading up to his performance conducting public business among the leading Smyrnaeans. In fact, he relied on his brilliant and lofty natural abilities; in addition, he generally didn’t do much work during the day, but, being a man who didn’t sleep much, he would say, ‘O night, you have a greater share of wisdom than the gods!’ and treated her as collaborator in his intellectual endeavours. It is said that he would work continuously from dusk until dawn.
He was interested in all kinds of poetry, especially tragedy, seeking to surpass the grandeur of his teacher – for in this aspect of speaking Nicetes was much admired – but he stretched his grandiloquence to such an extent that he composed a Gigantea and furnished the Homerids90 with material for their recitations. Of the sophists he was especially familiar with Gorgias of Leontini,91 of the orators those who resounded brilliantly.
His charm was natural rather than studied, for sophisticated speech comes naturally to the Ionians. His speeches were full of humour, for he considered excessive seriousness inappropriate and unpleasant. At public meetings he had a relaxed and cheerful countenance, even more so when the debate became acrimonious, relaxing and calming the others with his good-natured appearance. In the courts as well, his character was neither greedy nor abusive. He offered his services for free to those charged with capital crimes, and when speakers became abusive and saw fit to make a display of anger he called them drunk and quarrelsome old crones. He did charge for instruction in declamation, but his fee was in accordance which each person’s ability to pay. He presented himself before audiences as neither disdainful nor pompous, not like those who are anxious, but as befits a man competing for glory and confident that he will not be defeated. He would speak in a graceful manner if he was seated, but when he stood up his style became bolder and more vehement. He made preparations neither in private nor in public, but, withdrawing for a brief time, would go through all his points. He had a lovely voice and a pleasant way of speaking and he would strike his thigh to stir up himself and his audience. He was excellent at allusion and ambiguity and especially wonderful on the most elevated themes, in particular those pertaining to the Medes and involving Darius or Xerxes.92 It seems to me that on these topics he was the best of the sophists in inventing arguments and making them available to his successors. He would display through his delivery the arrogance and fickleness of the barbarians. It was said that on these occasions he would sway more than usual, almost like the Bacchic dancers, and when one of the entourage of Polemo said that he was beating a drum, Scopelian took up the insult and said, ‘Indeed I do beat on a drum – it’s the shield of Ajax.’93
He was often among the ambassadors to the emperor, and while good luck accompanied him always, his most successful mission had to do with grape-vines. This embassy was not on behalf of the Smyrnaeans alone, as was usually the case, but was sent by all of Asia. Here was the aim of the mission. The emperor had decided that there would be no vines in Asia, since the people there, when under the influence of wine, engaged in civil strife. They were to rip out those that had been planted, and plant no more henceforth. There was need of an embassy to act in the common interest, and of a speaker who, like Orpheus or Thamyris,94 could charm his listener. They unanimously chose Scopelian, whose embassy was so extraordinarily successful that he returned bringing not just permission to continue planting, but also censure of those who did not do so. How great a reputation he earned from his struggle on behalf of the vines is clear from his own remarks, for the speech is among his most amazing. It is also clear from the aftermath, for gifts were showered on him, such as are considered fit for a king, and he received numerous compliments and speeches of congratulation. Brilliant youths followed him to Ionia, longing to share in his wisdom.
While he was at Athens he was the guest of the father of the sophist Herodes Atticus. His host admired his eloquence even more than the Thessalians admired that of Gorgias. He even ordered that all of the busts of sophists to be found in the corridors of his home be pelted with stones for having corrupted his son. Herodes was a mere youth at the time and still under his father’s control. He cared only for extemporaneous speaking, but wasn’t confident enough to pursue it, since he hadn’t yet made the acquaintance of Scopelian and lacked the energy for that type of performance. Thus he was delighted when Scopelian took up residence in his household. When he heard him speak and handle an issue extemporaneously, he grew wings, as it were, and readied himself by following Scopelian’s example. And thinking to please his father he invited him to a practice speech in the style of their visitor. His father was so delighted at the imitation that he gave him fifty talents and Scopelian fifteen. But Herodes, drawing on his own reward, gave Scopelian as much as his father had, addressing him as his teacher. Hearing this title from Herodes was sweeter to Scopelian than the springs of the river Pactolus.95
The good fortune he enjoyed on his embassies can be inferred from the following as well. The Smyrnaeans were in need of an ambassador on their behalf on an issue of the utmost importance. But Scopelian had grown old, and was past the age of travelling, so Polemo was chosen, although he had never gone on an embassy before. Praying for good luck, Polemo begged that he be granted the persuasive power of Scopelian, and embraced him in the presence of the assembly, speaking to him, most astutely, the following taken from the exploits of Patroclus:
Give me your armour to buckle around my chest.
Perhaps they will take me for you.96
And Apollonius of Tyana, who far surpasses human nature in his wisdom, ranks Scopelian among the marvels of humankind.