135 (167). To Diodorus, Presbyter of Antioch
SAINT BASIL
135. To Diodorus, Presbyter of Antioch l I have read the books sent by your Honor. And I have really enjoyed the second one very much, not only because of its brevity, as would one who is lazily disposed toward everything and at present without health, but because it is at one and the same time close-packed with ideas and explicit as to the objections of opponents and answers to them.
Moreover, the simplicity of the style and the absence of elaboration seemed to me to be proper to the purpose of a Christian, who writes more for the general good than for show. But the first one, which has the same importance of subject matter but 'which is polished off with more extravagant style, varied figures of speech, and charming dialogue, seemed to me to require not only a long time for the reading but also much mental labor for gathering the ideas and keeping them in memory. Indeed, although the charges of our opponents and also the convincing evidence of our side inserted in the work s~em to introduce some dialectic charms in the treatise, nevertheless, by causing a pause and a waste of time, they break up the continuity of the thought and weaken the force of the argumentative speech.
For, assuredly, your Intelligence is aware of this-that those of the heathen philosophers who wrote dialogues, Aristotle and Theophrastus, for instance, immediately attacked the Diodorus was a pupil of Silvanus, Bishop of Tarsus. Cf. Theodoret,
Hist. Eccl. 4.24. In Letter 16, Theodoret speaks of his obligations to him as a teacher. Diodorus became Bishop of Tarsus in 378. Only a few fragments of his works are extant; the greater part is said to have been destroyed by the Arians. Cf., also, SI. Bas.il's Letter 160. This letter contains SI. Basil's ideas on the rhetoric of his day. 'They are similar to what a person of good taste would hold today, although they ~robably did not correspond with those of his contempo.raries. Certa~nly.' SI.
Basil's own works show that his practice was consistent with hiS views.
This letter was written in 373.
LETTERS
arguments themselves, because they realized their lack of the literary graces of Plato. But, Plato with his power of eloquence both assails the opinions and at the same time satirizes incidentally the persons, attacking the rashness and recklessness of Thrasymachus, the levity of mind and frivolity of Hippias, and the boastfulness and pompousness of Protagoras. 2 But, when he introduces indefinite characters into his dialogues, he uses the speakers in order to clarify his points, and he brings nothing else from the characters into the arguments. This is particularly what he did in the Laws.
Therefore, since we set out to write, not for love of honor, but because we wish to leave behind for the brethren some counsels on useful subjects, if we bring in any person who is well known by all for his surly disposition, we also must weave into our speech some of the natural qualities of the person, if it actually is our duty to censure men who neglect their obligations. But, if the matter of the dialogue is indefinite, the digressions against persons disrupt the unity and tend to no useful end.
I have said all this in order that it may be shown that you have not sent your works to the hands of a flatterer, but have shared your toils with a most sincere brother. And I have not spoken for the correction of what has already been written, but for a precaution in regard to what shall be written. For, certainly, he who employs such skill and zeal in writing will not hesitate to write, since those who supply the subject matter do not cease doing so. Moreover, for us it will suffice to read your works, but we fall as far short of being able to write anything as, I may almost say, of being healthy, or even of enjoying some reasonable leisure from our occupations.
I have at present sent back the first and larger book by ~ I.e., in the Republic, the Hippias, and the Protagoras, respectively.