# The Battle of the Books; with selections from the literature of the Phalaris controversy/Appendix 3

PHALARIDIS
AGRIGENTINORUM TYRANNI EPISTOLAE.
[Translation of Boyle's Latin preface]
He who takes up these Epistles will derive less benefit from an enquiry into their authorship than satisfaction from the discovery that they are worthy his perusal. For their authorship he must consult the conflicting opinions of the learned, perhaps without result; for their value he may with greater profit consult his own. Yet, not to disappoint the curious, even though the importance of the controversy is not such as to justify an eager partisanship, I will set forth in a few words what seem to me to be the probabilities on both sides of the question.
​That the Epistles were written by Phalaris is the opinion of the Learned Thomas Fazellus, Jacques Cappel, and Sir William Temple, the ornament of our time and nation. With the latter, while I marvel at the freedom of thought shown by the writer of the Epistles, the boldness of expression, the vehemence and diversity of passions upon such variety of occasions, his bounty to his friends, his bitter hatred for his enemies, his regard for learned men, his esteem of the good; when I observe his philosophy of life, his contempt of death, his high spirit, his subtlety in revenge; I am struck by a kind of royal magnificence—I can hardly believe that I do not hear the tyrant speaking. What rhetorician could have painted such greatness of mind? by what art could it be imitated? What writer has ever so completely disguised himself in the character of a tyrant without at the same time showing his own, without letting the sophist appear under the robes of the king?
Poliziano, on the other hand, Lilio Giraldi, and Bourdelot assign the letters to Lucian, but as they have not thought fit to give any reasons for their opinion, I do not know why they held it; unless ​indeed it is on account of the two speeches of Lucian which are named after Phalaris: but these seem to me to have nothing in common with the Epistles—the defence put forward by Phalaris is different, the style is dissimilar, and the story is diverse. Both in the Epistles and the Speeches Phalaris complains (as might be expected) that fame is unjust to him and pleads, for his crimes, the excuse of necessity. In the Speeches we have timid confession of guilt, cautious dissimulation, a bid for favour; in the Epistles a bold and spirited avowal, complaints of fame, combined with contempt of it, a justification to himself, not to others. The Speeches are colourless, gentle, clear, even; the Epistles vivid, headstrong, obscure, rugged. Moreover, if the same author wrote both, why in the Speeches should the embassy of Taurus to Delphi be of such particular importance, while in the Epistles there is no mention of it at all? Why in the Speeches should it be said that no one except Perilaus was shut up in the brazen bull, and that he was taken out alive and still breathing, while in the Epistles it is said that both he and thirty-seven other persons were put to death in that contrivance? Why, finally, in the Speeches, are ​both Phalaris and Perilaus said to be natives of Agrigentum, while in the Epistles, Phalaris is said to come from Crete, and the other from Athens? These are the reasons why I do not attribute these Epistles to Lucian. There are other reasons which make me doubt whether they are really the work of Phalaris.
It was hardly possible that letters so perfect in their kind, and written by so renowned a man, should have remained unknown for more than a thousand years: and since the Sicilians always preferred the Doric dialect, the tyrant of Agrigentum, a Doric colony, ought not to have used any other. The style of the Epistles is in no way unworthy of a king except that it is too antithetical and sometimes rather frigid. I have noticed also (albeit this is possibly an accident) that, occasionally, the names which the Epistles bear, seem to have been invented to suit their contents. As to history, the ravages of time have rendered uncertain what was the condition of Sicily and the commonwealths in it, at the time of Phalaris, what wars were waged, and what alliances were formed; and the men to whom the Epistles are written are mostly obscure, except Stesichorus, Pythagoras, and Abaris, who are of the same ​time as Phalaris, so that we cannot find any reason for doubting the genuineness of the Epistles from the mention of them. But if Diodorus Siculus truly reports that Tauromenium (to the citizens of which town our author writes) was both founded and named after the destruction of Naxos by the younger Dionysius, then the claim of Phalaris to the letters is ended, and the whole conjectural ascription of the Epistles to him falls to the ground. This is what I have to say about the authorship of the letters though I have treated the matter rather too briefly: if more learned men take exception to any thing I have said I will gladly hear them. And now, before taking leave of my reader 1 will explain briefly what I have attempted in this edition.
I have used four printed editions of the Epistles which are all plainly derived from one text. Among these editions are two translations, one by Thomas Kirchmeier of Strasburg, published in 1557; and another, apparently by a Jesuit, for the use of the Jesuit schools (1614). There exists also a translation by Francesco Accolti, among the Miscellaneous Epistles collected by Gilbert Cousin, with a Greek ​text, which as far as we know has never been printed. The Jesuit version is well written but too diffuse, so that it is always alien from the style of the original letters and often different in sense, with the result that the writer seems to be writing letters of his own, rather than translating those of Phalaris: the version of Kirchmeier is more concise and accurate, but not very elegant while the version of Accolti is more felicitous than either. But since in each version there were things which I did not like, I have made a translation conforming as closely to the original as a Latin version could. Where (as often it is) I have found the text obscure and faulty, I have endeavoured to give a sense which if not the original is still sense, and this I have found wanting in the other versions.
I have collated the Epistles themselves with two Bodleian MSS. from the Cantuar and Selden collection: and I have also had them collated, as far as the 40th Epistle, with a MS. in the Royal Library: the Librarian with the courtesy for which he is remarkable [pro singulari sua humanitate] refused me the further use of it.
I have not noted every variation of the MSS. from ​the printed texts—which would have been a long and useless task—but the reader will find my authority in the notes wherever I have departed from the usual reading. This little book owes to the printer more than usual elegance: I hope my labour may gain for it equal acceptance.
EPISTLES OF PHALARIS
[Translated from Boyle's Greek text]
EPISTLE 51
To Eteonicus
I could follow your advice, and forget the enmity of all who have injured me, except Pytho; for undying anger, we are told, is out of place in one who must die; but his hostility to me I shall never forget as long as I live, nor even after my death, though the end of life brings forgetfulness to all. It is he who did me the greatest of all injuries,—in poisoning my wife Erythia because she desired to follow me into exile and refused to marry him.
EPISTLE 54
To the Citizens of Himera
There is nothing I am not ready to do on behalf of Stesichorus; even though it were to take arms against ​fate itself and fight to the death I would not shrink, if only I could preserve for you and for mankind the inspired and celebrated singer of sweet songs, whom the chaste muses preferred before all minstrels, by whose mouth they uttered songs and choral odes. But reflect that wherever Stesichorus be buried he is a citizen of Himera; and, while for his excellence he shall be called a citizen of the world, he shall yet always belong to you. Moreover count not Stesichorus as but one among the dead, but that he lives in the poems which he has made, a common possession for all mankind. Be content, men of Himera, since your hero was born and bred, was reared and lived his life among you, growing old in hymns and songs, that Catana should have had the will or the power to possess him when nature worked her changes on him and he passed away. Let Stesichorus have a temple at Himera, the deathless memorial of his excellence; at Catana the tomb they so eagerly desire. Take therefore such measures as seem good to you in this matter, and count on me not to fail you in the provision of money, arms, and men. Be warned of one thing; — to subdue a city in Sicily is unseemly for Siceliotae like ​you; to attempt It and fail is unsafe. As for him, do not mourn or lament him, nor seek to alter what fate has ordained for him. The body of Stesichorus is dead; but his name, glorious in life and blessed in memory, shall be received and consecrated by endless time. As for his songs and epics and poems of all kinds I recommend you to inscribe them publicly in all the temples and privately each in his own house. Stesichorus will be lost to our sight only when aught of his works is not remembered. Make it your care also to transmit those works to the rest of mankind, knowing that the admiration of all shall accrue even more to the city which produced him than to their author.
EPISTLE 69
To Erythia
If your fear of the life which a prince leads makes you afraid to send Paurolas to Agrigentum I sympathise with you, as a woman and a mother, in your anxiety for a loved son. If, however, you claim to keep him to yourself as though you had brought him into the world ​by yourself, and without me, you are taking an unreasonable view of parental rights. According to the harshest theory indeed, a son belongs to the father rather than to the mother; a more reasonable theory is that he belongs equally to both. If you regard it as a deprivation to you that you should sometimes share your son with his father, how do you think a father feels who is allowed no share in him at all? Be more generous and send him to me for a short stay: he shall soon return to you, and bring what befits the son of Phalaris and Erythia, that you and he—though I am not with you—may live together in abundance. Who are bound to a man by a closer tie, that he should pray to have enough and to spare for their sake, if he neglects wife or child? My care as a husband and a father is for you; on you, my dearest ones, I wish to bestow no small share of my wealth, and to do so soon, for several reasons, but chiefly because of old age, which is coming upon me, and because of the grievous disease which has lately befallen me; for it warns me to regard each day as it comes as if it were the last day of my life, when the debt of mortality falls due. As for the voyage from Crete to Agrigentum, or back again, the ​pledge of his safety shall come from his father's good-will rather than from his mother's fear.
EPISTLE 74
To Orsilochus
If the refusal of Pythagoras the philosopher to come to me in spite of my repeated invitation was a reproach to me, as you affirmed when you panegyrised him for avoiding my society, the fact that he has arrived, and has now been living with me happily for more than four months must be all to my credit. Clearly, he would not have remained even part of a single day if he had not found my character conformable to his own.
EPISTLE 78
To Stesichorus
Nicocles of Syracuse—probably you know whom I mean; his family is too distinguished to make it possible for him to be unknown to Stesichorus—has lost his wife quite recently and is very deeply distressed, ​and with reason, for she was not only his wife but also his niece. This Nicocles, knowing apparently how great is our mutual affection, sent his brother Cleonicus to me to ask me to beg of you to provide a poetical eulogy of the departed. The Syracusans, I hear, testify to her possession of every virtue, and in particular of chastity in the highest degree; so that she is not unworthy to be celebrated by your voice. I know that you have taken care not to write of your contemporaries, in order to avoid all suspicion of interested motives; but this woman, my faithful friend, has passed away in her appointed time, and is of us no more. Do not then make your deliberate practice an excuse to refuse ray request. It is not fitting that Phalaris should ask of Stesichorus in vain; not that you are under any obligation to me, but that I would have you confirm my confident opinion of you. Grant me this grace openly, ungrudgingly, as your own nature will prompt you; I ask your gift for myself, but shall receive it for my friend. For the rest—if you think of gratifying me—her name is Clearista, and she is of Syracusan origin, daughter of Echecratides, niece and ​wife of the man whom I mentioned; lived with him sixteen years; and had reached the age of thirty; she was the mother of two children, and died of a decline. These are the heads of your subject. May the gods by whom you are possessed inspire you in the several parts of your work; and may the sisterhood of the muses add this song for Clearista which I enjoin upon you to the crown of song which adorns your sacred and poetic head.
EPISTLE 79
To the Same
Great and lasting is my gratitude to you for the poem on Clearista. You have spent yourself freely on the task to which I invited you, and have been extremely successful in the disposition of the parts. The general effect too has won remarkable applause, not only from me—I feel equal admiration for all the works of Stesichorus—but also from the many Agrigentines who were present at the reading of it; and it will be commended not only by those who have already heard it nor even by those only who now ​exist, but by all who shall live after our day. I owe therefore, as I said, a debt of gratitude to you for the poem; and in writing this composition at my desire you have gratified the present and future generations. But as for me and mine—your letter revealed some such intention—I beg you by the God of friendship and by the social hearth to make no mention of me at all in your poetry for evil—if such I was—or for good. My fate has given to my name a discordant sound. Let Phalaris be written in the heart of Stesichorus, whether your idea of him be better than the report which prevails among men, or the reverse.
EPISTLE 144
To Nicocles
I wrote, as you asked, to Stesichorus about the elegy, and suggested the proper style; and he gladly granted me at the prompting of his own nature more than I asked, thinking that his art would be a consolation to you in your sorrow. Your loss, indeed, admits of little consolation; it is too heavy to be lightened by words—a twofold bereavement and under ​either name a most intimate grief. You have lost at once a niece, the daughter of your mother's son, and a good wife, of pre-eminent beauty, and of such chastity as left no room for any other woman even to follow her. Naturally you are stunned, and have quite lost heart, and you give yourself up to lamentation without regard even for your health. But you must not overtax the endurance of the soul in your heavy grief. It is not the part of virtue to abandon yourself to sorrow and to treat your trouble as incurable. Nay, Nicocles, turn your thoughts a little from your own suffering and consider how man's wretched life is ordered. Each of us is born to countless ills; when a man has won through them, his troublesome sojourn is over and he is at rest; yet we deem such a life as this pleasant, inasmuch as we look forward to death as the worst ill that can come upon us. We pity the dead that goes first, though we follow him at no great distance and know not that our tears are shed for ourselves. This is the way of men, Nicocles; for this end are we all reared; there is no living man whom it does not await, there is no power more uncontrolled; it is the lot of every man, and ​none can outwit it. You see that I, a sovereign, I whose violence the testimony of all men proves, can not overcome it—not though the men of this time proclaimed me more formidable still; no severity that I can inflict will set it aside; when the hour of my destined end is upon me, I shall go. Would that fate gave me sovereignty upon such terms, not that I might thrust death away from myself, (men may say perhaps that I at any rate deserve to die before my time, and even I myself do not controvert this judgement) but that I might keep back the end of the good who deserve the longest life. Since, however, experience shows that fate is lord over us, and not we over fate, we must be resigned, not only because there is no purpose in lamentations, but also because it is natural that it should vex her spirit to see you thus pining, natural that she who gave her husband so much happiness, and found her pleasure in his joys, should be troubled even in death; not indeed only because you have been bereaved of such a wife, but because she too has lost such a husband. You are not the first, you are not the only man who has suffered such a calamity; let reflection then help you to bear ​man's lot with resignation, if not because my various misfortunes make me ready for death, yet because of the evenness of your own disposition. Death is common to all men, though some men fear it overmuch; those get the greatest good out of life, who are not unduly troubled by the thought of death.