Dio Chrysostom’s Chryseis: The Limits of Ancient Literary Criticism

Dio Chrysostom’s Chryseis: The Limits of Ancient Literary Criticism

Dio Chrysostom’s Chryseis (Oration 61) is a remarkable example of ancient Homeric criticism extended beyond its conceptual and practical limits. In this short dialogue, Dio purports to recover the voice of a silent woman—Chryses’ daughter, the captive woman who spurs the action of the Iliad but about whom Homer says precious little. More specifically, Dio attempts to reveal in detail Chryseis’ prudent, noble character (τρόπος) based only on (con)textual hints in the words of the Poet. He does so in dialogue with an unnamed, female interlocutor about whom we know only that she is uncommonly intelligent, much like Chryseis herself (Blomqvist 1995). Building on previous scholarship (particularly Kim 2008), I propose a new interpretation of the dialogue and its stance toward practices of Homeric interpretation. I demonstrate that (1) Dio’s argument is constructed so as to undermine itself and incite the reader to careful inquiry, and (2) this self-conscious strategy of paradoxical undermining is intended to push Homeric exegesis beyond its breaking point—that is, to criticize criticism.

The first part of this paper interrogates Dio’s argumentative strategy and responses to his interlocutor’s skepticism. I show how, as the dialogue unfolds, his reasoning grows increasingly circular, paradoxical, and open to refutation. Its hermeneutical holes are conspicuous, intended to raise exegetical eyebrows. Dio adduces several textual hints to support his claim that Chryseis prudently changed her attitude toward Agamemnon once she perceived his arrogant character and, in an “off-stage” scene, instructed her father to approach the Achaeans and ransom her. The central proof around which Dio’s interpretation rests is Agamemnon’s brash, public statement comparing her favorably to Clytemnestra. When declaring that he prefers her even to his own wife (Il. 1.113-15), Agamemnon praises Chryseis for her “mind” (φρένας)—Dio’s most important token of Chryseis’ character.

This is a striking logical absurdity. Agamemnon makes these statements only after Chryses has left, failing in his attempt to ransom his daughter. At precisely this point the argument begins to falter and Dio reveals his hand. As the dialogue continues, concessions and inconcinnities mount until we approach a reductio ad absurdum. Just as he encourages the interlocutor to read Homer cautiously and skeptically, Dio leads his readers to critically interrogate his own interpretation.

The second part of this paper asks who may be the intended target(s) of Dio’s critique. Previous scholars have rightly pointed to the widespread exegetical principle of “tacit narration” as an important context for the dialogue (Kamesar 1994; Kim 2008). Alexandrian scholars, above all Aristarchus, routinely commented on Homer’s tendency to leave minor details un-narrated, small narrative gaps to be supplied by the reader. However, more pressing in Dio’s own interpretive milieu were later, post-Aristarchean critics (reflected in the exegetical scholia to the Iliad) who “filled” narrative gaps in more creative ways. Like Dio, these critics looked especially for omissions that reveal the character or emotional state of Homeric figures. Dio’s parody of criticism is most potent when read within this context of ingenious over-readings of Homeric silence.