Prodicus’ “Choice of Heracles” in Dio Chrysostom: Adaptation, Ideology and Imitation

Abstract

Dio Chrysostom needed a symbolic character and a myth to educate Trajan morally and make him a perfect ruler. He referred an old story, the” Choice of Heracles”, which was writ originally by the sophist Prodicus of Ceos. We have not the actual text of Prodicus, but the story comes to us in Xenophon’s account of Socrates retelling it he heard from Prodicus (Xen. mem. 2.1.21–34). Dio adapted the “Choice of Heracles” in his First Kingship Oration (or. 1.49–84). This study focuses on two points: Dio’s adaptation of the “Choice of Heracles” is examined in the context of Dio’s Trajanic ideology by comparing it with Prodicus’ narrative thematically. Then, the issue of how Dio imitated Prodicus and Xenophon in his Heracles myth and kingship orations is discussed. It is seen that while Dio’s Heracles myth serves Trajan to become a perfect ruler, on the one hand reveals Dio’s Trajanic ideology, on the other hand presents the values of Classical Greek thought as the principles of the perfect government.

Keywords

• Dio Chrysostom
• Choice of Heracles
• Trajan
• Ideology
• Imitation
• Prodicus

DION KHRYSOSTOMOS’TA PRODIKOS’UN “HERAKLES’İN SEÇİMİ”: YENİDEN KURGULAMA, İDEOLOJİ VE ÖYKÜNME

Abstract

Dion Khrysostomos, Traianus’u kusursuz bir yönetici olma yolunda ahlaki açıdan eğitmek amacıyla sembolik bir karaktere ve bir mythos’a ihtiyaç duymuş ve M.Ö. V. yüzyılda Keoslu sofist Prodikos’un oluşturduğu “Herakles’in Seçimi” adlı eski bir hikâyeye başvurmuştur. Bu anlatının kendisi günümüze ulaşmamış olmakla birlikte, Ksenophon’un Sokrates’inin ağzından aktarıldığı hâliyle bilinmektedir (Xen. mem. 2.1.21–34). Dion, Prodikos’un “Herakles’in Seçimi”ni yeniden kurgulamış ve birinci krallık söylevinin yarısına yakın kısmını bu yeniden kurguladığı Herakles mythos’una ayırmıştır (or. 1.49–84). Bu çalışma iki noktaya odaklanmaktadır: Herakles mythos’u, önce tematik açıdan Prodikos’un anlatısıyla da mukayese edilerek, Dion’un Traianus’un yönetici kimliğine ilişkin ideolojisi bağlamında irdelenmektedir. Ardından Dion’un, mythos’unda ve bununla ilişkili olarak diğer krallık söylevlerinde Prodikos’a ve Prodikos’un anlatısını aktarması sebebiyle Ksenophon’a düşünsel bağlamda nasıl öykündüğü konusu ele alınmaktadır. Böylece, Dion’un Herakles mythos’unun bir yandan Traianus ideolojisini ortaya çıkardığı; bir yandan da, - diğer krallık söylevleriyle de paralel bir şekilde - Klasik Hellen zihniyetine ilişkin değerleri kusursuz yönetimin mutlak unsurları olarak sunduğu anlaşılmaktadır.

Keywords

• Dion Khrysostomos
• Herakles’in Seçimi
• Traianus
• İdeoloji
• Öykünme
• Prodikos

References

1. Anderson, Graham. “Some Use of Storytelling in Dio.” In Dio Chrysostom: Politics, Letters and Philosophy, edited by Simon Swain, 143–60. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
2. Athen. deip. (Athenaios, deipnosophistae) = Athenaeus. The Deipnosophists. Translated by Charles Burton Gulick. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press/ London: William Heinemann, 1927.
3. Diels/Kranz = Diels, Hermann – Kranz, Walther, eds. Fragmente der Vorsokratiker 1960.
4. Dion Chrys. or. (Dion Khrysostomos, Orationes; 1: Περὶ βασιλείας α ́; 2: Περὶ βασιλείας β ́; 3: Περὶ βασιλείας γ ́; 4: Περὶ βασιλείας δ ́; 5: Λιβυκὸς μῦθος; 8: Περὶ ἀρετῆς) = Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 1–11. Translated by James Wilfred Cohoon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932 (The Loeb Classical Library).
5. ------------------- (Dion Khrysostomos, Orationes; 32: Πρὸς Ἀλεξανδρεῖς) = Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 31–36. Translated by James Wilfred Cohoon and Henry Lamar Crosby. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1940 (The Loeb Classical Library).
6. ------------------- (Dion Khrysostomos, Orationes; 62: Περὶ βασιλείας καὶ τυραννίδος; 72: Περὶ τοῦ σχήματος) = Dio Chrysostom: Discourses 61–80. Translated by H Henry Lamar Crosby. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951 (The Loeb Classical Library).
7. Dorion, Louis-André. “Héraklès entre Prodicos et Xénophon.” Philosophie antique 8 (2008):85–114.
8. Dorion, Louis-André. “Xenophon’s Socrates.” In A Companion to Socrates, edited by Sara Ahbel – Rappe and Rachana Kamtekar, 93–109. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.

9. Epich. fr. (Epikharmos, Fragmenta) = Kaibel, Georg, ed. Comicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, Vol. 1, Fasc. 1 (Doriensium Comoedia Mimi Phlyaces). Berlin: Weidmann, 1958.
10. Erbse, Hartmut. “Aristipp und Sokrates bei Xenophon (Bemerkungen zu Mem. 2,1).” Würzburger Jahrbücher für die Altertumswissenschaft 6 (1980): 7–19.
11. Fox, Matthew. “The Constrained Man.” In Thinking Men: Masculinity and its Self-Representation in the Classical Tradition, edited by Lin Foxhall and John Salmon, 6–22. London/New York: Routledge, 1998.
12. Galinsky, G. Karl. The Herakles Theme: The Adaptations of the Hero in Literature from Homer to Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell, 1972.
13. Gray, Vivienne. The Framing of Socrates: The Literary Interpretation of Xenophon's Memorabilia. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998.
14. Hdt. (Herodotos, Historiae) = Herodotus, The Persian Wars. Vol. I. Translated by Alfred Denis Godley. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1920 (The Loeb Classical Library).
15. Johnson, David M. “Aristippus at the Crossroads: The Politics of Pleasure in Xenophon’s Memorabilia.” Polis 26 (2009): 204–22.
16. Jones, Christopher P. The Roman World of Dio Chrysostom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978.
17. Konstan, David. “Friendship and Monarchy: Dio of Prusa's Third Oration on Kingship.” Symbolae Osloenses 72 (1997): 124–43.
18. Kuntz, Mary. “The Prodikean ‘Choice of Herakles’ A Reshaping of Myth.” The Classical Journal 89, no. 2 (1994): 163–81.
19. Kurke, Leslie. Aesopic Conversations: Popular Tradition, Cultural Dialogue and The Invention of Greek Prose. Princeton/Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2011.
20. Moles, John L. “The Date and Purpose of the Fourth Kingship Oration of Dio Chrysostom.” Classical Antiquity 2 (1983): 251–78.
21. Moles, John L. “The Kingship Orations of Dio Chrysostom.” Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 6 (1990): 297–375.
22. Nicolaidou–Kyrianidou, Vana. “Prodicos et Xenophon, ou la Choix d’Heracles entre la Tyrannie et la Loyaute.” In Kea-Kythnos: History and Archaeology: Proceedings of an International Symposium (Kea-Kythnos, 22-25 June 1994), edited by Lina G. Mendoni – Alexander Mazarakis Ainian, 81–98. Athens, 1998.
23. Philostr. soph. (Philostratos, Vitae Sophistarum) = Kayser, Carl Ludwig, ed. Flavii Philostrati Opera. Vol. II. Leipzig: Teubner, 1871.
24. Sansone, David. “Heracles at the Y.” The Journal of Hellenic Studies 124 (2004): 125–42.
25. Sansone, David. “Xenophon and Prodicus’ Choice of Heracles.” The Classical Quarterly 65, no. 1 (2015): 371–77.
26. Snell, Bruno. The Discovery of the Mind. Translated by Thomas G. Rosenmeyer. New York: Harper & Row, 1960.
27. Stafford, Emma. “Vice or Virtue? Heracles and The Art of Allegory.” In Herakles and Hercules: Exploring A Graeco-Roman Divinity, edited by Louis Rawlings and Hugh Bowden, 71–96. Swansea: The Classical Press of Wales, 2005.
28. Trapp, Michael. “Meeting Different Needs The Implied Readers of the ‘Pythagorean’ Kingship Treatises.” Ktèma: civilisations de l'Orient, de la Grèce et de Rome antiques 45 (2020): 143–60.
29. Whitmarsh, Tim. Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.
30. Xen. mem. (Ksenophon, memorabilia) = Marchant, Edgar Cardew, ed. Xenophontis opera omnia. Vol. 2. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1921; Ksenophon. Sokrates’ten Anılar. Çeviren: Candan Şentuna. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu, 1994.
31. Xen. symp. (Ksenophon, symposium) = Xenophon: Memorabilia. Oeconomicus. Symposium. Apology. Translated by Edgar Cardew Marchant and Otis Johnson Todd. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013 (The Loeb Classical Library).