§329ὅμως τούτους τοὺς ἑτέρωθι γελοίους ἐνταῦθα ἐν εὐφημίᾳ τέθειται, οὐχ ἵνα τούτους ἐπαινέσειεν, ἀλλʼ ἵνα Ὁμήρῳ, ἀηδὲς μὲν εἰπεῖν, τὸ δὲ ἀληθὲς ἀποκρύψασθαι μὴ ἀνεχόμενος, ἐπηρεάσειε, λέγω.
Nevertheless, he has placed these people, who are ridiculous elsewhere, here in favorable terms, not in order to praise them, but in order to insult Homer—though it is unpleasant to say, yet I speak because I cannot bear to conceal the truth.
τίς γάρ ἐστιν ὁ λέγων
καὶ μὴν Τάνταλον εἰσεῖδον
καὶ
τὸν δὲ μέτʼ εἰσενόησα; οὐκοῦν ἐκείνους μὲν διὰ τῶν Ὁμήρου κωμῳδεῖ, Ὅμηρον δʼ αὖ διʼ ἐκείνων.
For who is it that says:\n'And indeed I saw Tantalus'\nand,\n'And after him I perceived'?\nTherefore, he lampoons them through the words of Homer, and in turn lampoons Homer through them.
παρενθήκη δὲ καὶ Ἡσίοδος αὐτῷ γέγονεν.
And Hesiod too has become a mere parenthesis for him.
ὥστʼ ἐγὼ θαυμάζω τίνας ἂν τὰς βλασφημίας εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐποιήσατο, εἰ τὴν πόλιν αὐτὴν διέβαλλον, ἢ τὴν πολιτείαν ἀφῃροῦντο, ὁπότʼ οὐδὲν ἔχων ἕτερον προφέρειν ἢ ὅτι πλείους ἴσως τοῦ δέοντος ἐπαινοῦσιν, αὐτὸς οὕτως ἀνομοίως αὐτοῖς προσενήνεκται.
So I wonder what kind of slanders he would have made against them if they were defaming the city itself or taking away the constitution, since he himself has behaved so disproportionately toward them when he has nothing else to bring against them except that they perhaps praise more than is necessary.
ἀτὰρ, ὦ ἄριστε Καπίτων, ἐνεθυμήθην καὶ τοῦτο μεταξὺ τῶν λόγων ὅτι πάντα εἴδωλά ἐστι τῷ ἀνδρὶ, καὶ τοῦτο μὲν οἱ ποιηταὶ μιμηταὶ εἰδώλων ἀρετῆς, τοῦτο δὲ ἡ ῥητορικὴ πολιτικῆς μορίου εἴδωλον. εἰδώλων δὲ πλέον πρόθυρον
φαίη ἂν εἰς αὐτὸν Ὅμηρος.
But, my excellent Capito, I also reflected in the midst of these arguments that everything is an image to this man: on the one hand, the poets are imitators of images of virtue, and on the other hand, rhetoric is an image of a part of politics.\n'But the porch is full of images,'\nHomer would say to him.
πότερον ταῦτα θρασύτερα καὶ προπετέστερα, ἢ τἀμὰ, ἐν οἷς φημι Πλάτωνα ἀποδημῆσαι ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν, καί φημι ταῦτα λέγειν οὐ τὴν ἀποδημίαν κακίζων, ἀλλὰ τῇ ἀποδημίᾳ τὸν λόγον πιστούμενος.
Are these things more daring and rash, or are my words, in which I say that Plato traveled abroad for their sake? And I say this not to disparage his travel, but to confirm my argument by his travel.
ναὶ, ἀλλʼ ἀπεστερήκαμεν αὐτὸν δόξης φιλοσοφίας, ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνος τοὺς μὲν τῆς τραγῳδίας ποιητὰς οὐδʼ ἐν λόγῳ τίθησιν, Ὅμηρον δὲ τραγῳδιοποιὸν προσείρηκεν, οὐ τοῦτον τούτῳ κοσμῶν, ἀλλὰ τούτους μὲν διὰ τούτων κολούων, τοῦτον δὲ ᾧ τιμᾷ καθαιρῶν.
Yes, but have we deprived him of his reputation for philosophy, just as he does not even take the tragic poets into account, yet has called Homer a tragic poet, not to adorn Homer with this title, but to humble them through him, and to pull him down by the very honor he bestows?
πλέον γὰρ οἶμαι τὴν τραγῳδίαν Ὁμήρῳ συνῄδεσαν οἱ Ἕλληνες.
For I think the Greeks knew that tragedy was more closely connected to Homer.
ἀλλʼ Ἐπίχαρμος δῆτα δικαίως αὐτῷ κωμῳδίας ἄκρος, ᾧ ταῦτʼ ἄριστα φαίην ἂν ἔγωγε ἔχειν ὅσα τῆς φωνῆς τῆς Ἀττικῆς ἐστιν ἐγγυτάτω.
But indeed, Epicharmus is rightly called by him the chief of comedy, whose works, I would say, are best in so far as they are closest to the Attic dialect.
οὐκοῦν δεινὸν, εἰ οὗτος μὲν καὶ τραγῳδιοποιοὺς καὶ κωμῳδιοποιοὺς καὶ πόλιν καὶ πολιτείαν καὶ νόμους αὑτῷ καθίστησιν, ἡμῖν δὲ μηδὲ λόγου τινὸς ἐξέσται πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀμφισβητῆσαι, καὶ ταῦτα οὐ μύρῳ §330ἐπαλείφουσιν αὐτὸν, ἀλλὰ λόγοις τοῖς εὐφημοτάτοις καὶ ὧν οὐδʼ ἂν αὐτὸς μείζους ἠξίωσεν ἀκούειν ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ.
Is it not then strange if he himself establishes tragic poets, comic poets, city, constitution, and laws for himself, but we are not to be allowed even to dispute with him in any argument, and that too not by anointing him with myrrh, but with the most laudatory words, and such as he himself would not have thought himself worthy of hearing greater?
εἰ γὰρ ἓν μόνον εἴπομεν ἀρχόμενοι τῶν λόγων τῶν πρὸς αὐτὸν, καλῶ δὲ ἐπὶ τῷ τολμήματι καὶ Ἑρμῆν λόγιον καὶ Ἀπόλλω μουσηγέτην καὶ Μούσας ἁπάσας, εἰ τοῦτο μόνον τὸ πάσας ἐπεθήκαμεν, τίς εἰς τοσοῦτον ἂν ἠρκὼς ἦν Πλάτωνα;
For if we said only one thing in beginning our arguments against him—and I call upon Hermes the eloquent, Apollo the leader of the Muses, and all the Muses to aid this bold attempt—if we added only this word 'all', who would have been sufficient to exalt Plato to such an extent?
μὴ γάρ τοι νομίσῃς ῥῆμα ἄλλως ἐφόλκιον εἶναι τοῦτο, ὥσπερ Ὁμήρῳ ἐστὶ
Μοῦσαι δʼ ἐννέα πᾶσαι,
ἀλλʼ εἰ περὶ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ λέγειν ἔξεστιν, ἀμήχανον ὅσον ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς προσθήκης.
Do not think indeed that this word is a mere useless appendage, as in Homer:\n'And all the nine Muses,'\nbut if it is permitted to speak of one's own affairs, the effect of this addition is immense.
νὴ Δίʼ, εἴποι τις ἄν. ἀλλʼ ἐν τούτοις μόνοις ἡμῶν πλείω περιεργάζεται, τὰ δʼ ἄλλα μεστὸς εὐλαβείας ἁνήρ; οὐκ Ἀριστοφάνει μὲν λύγγα προσάπτει, οὐδὲν πρὸς λόγον, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ παντελῶς πρᾶγμα ἄχαρι καὶ ἀπᾷδον τῶν περὶ ἔρωτος λόγων, τοσοῦτον δὲ ἀπέχει τοῦ τἀναγκαῖα ἢ τοῦ ἀληθῆ λέγειν ὥστε ὅλην δή που τὴν συνουσίαν ἔψευσται καὶ τοὺς τεθνεῶτας ὡς ζῶντας συμπλάττει.
'Indeed,' someone might say, 'but is it only in these things that he busies himself more than us, while in other things the man is full of caution?' Does he not attach a hiccup to Aristophanes, for no reason connected with the argument, or rather, a thing altogether ungraceful and out of harmony with the speeches on love? And he is so far from speaking what is necessary or true that he has surely lied about the whole gathering and fabricates the dead as living.
γνοίης δʼ ἂν ἐξ αὐτῶν τῶν λεγομένων.
You may know this from the very things said.
Μαντινεῖς μὲν γὰρ, ὧν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ μέμνηται λέγων ὡς ἐπὶ Ἀρκάδων διῳκίσθησαν ἐπὶ τοῦ δεῖνος ἄρχοντος, Σωκράτης δὲ ἐτεθνήκει πρὸ τόσου καὶ τόσου, ὁ δὲ Ἀριστοφάνης αὐτῷ λύζει τε καὶ λέγει ταῦτα πρὸς τοῦ Σωκράτους.
For the Mantineans, whom he mentions in his speech, saying that they were dispersed under Arcadians in the time of a certain archon, but Socrates had died so many years before, yet Aristophanes hiccups in his work and says these things to Socrates.
εἶτʼ ἐκείνῳ μὲν ἔνια καὶ μηδαμῆ συμβαίνοντα ἔξεστι συμπλάττειν, κἂν ἔξω φανερῶς ᾖ τοῦ λόγου, ἡμῖν δὲ ἄρα τίς μνησικακήσει εἴ τι τῶν ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ πραχθέντων ἠνέγκαμεν εἰς μέσον;
If, then, he is permitted to fabricate some things that do not agree at all with facts, even if they are clearly outside the argument, who then will bear a grudge against us if we have brought into the open some of the things done by him?