Letter 135: 1. I have read the books sent me by your excellency. With the second I was delighted, not only with its brevity, as was likely to be the case with a reader out of health and inclined to indolence, but, because it is at once full of thought, and so arranged that the objections of opponents, and the answers to them, stand out distinctly.

To Diodorus [a presbyter in Antioch who later became bishop of Tarsus, and an important anti-Arian theologian], I've read the two books you sent me. I much preferred the second one — partly because I'm unwell and lazy, so brevity appeals to me, but mainly because it's packed with ideas and well-organized. You lay out your opponents' objections clearly, then answer them just as clearly. The style is simple and natural, which suits a Christian writer whose goal is to help others rather than show off. The first book makes essentially the same arguments but is far more elaborately written — rich language, rhetorical figures, dramatic dialogue. Honestly, it takes a lot of effort to read, and even more to absorb and remember. The jabs at our opponents and the cheerleading for our side, while adding some rhetorical flair, keep breaking the flow of your argument and weakening its force. You know perfectly well that among the pagan philosophers who wrote dialogues, Aristotle and Theophrastus [Aristotle's successor as head of the Lyceum] went straight to the point — they knew they didn't have Plato's literary gifts. Plato, with his extraordinary writing talent, could attack ideas *and* make fun of his characters at the same time — mocking the brashness of Thrasymachus, the shallowness of Hippias, the pomposity of Protagoras. But when Plato uses unnamed or less distinctive characters, he keeps them strictly functional — they exist to clarify the argument, nothing more. His *Laws* is a good example of this. The same principle applies to us. We're not writing out of vanity but to leave sound teaching for our fellow Christians. If we introduce a well-known character, sure, we can weave in details that fit their personality. But if the topic is broad and general, personal attacks just interrupt the argument and serve no purpose. I'm telling you all this to prove that you didn't send your work to a flatterer — you sent it to a real brother who gives honest feedback. And I'm not criticizing what's already finished; I'm offering this for your future writing. Someone as prolific and dedicated as you will certainly keep writing, especially since there's no shortage of people giving you topics. As for me — reading your books is all I can manage. I'm about as far from being able to write anything as I am from being healthy or having any free time. I'm sending back the longer, earlier volume now, having read through it as best I could. The second one I'm keeping because I'd like to have it copied, but I haven't been able to find a single competent scribe. That's how far the famous prosperity of us Cappadocians [Cappadocia: Basil's home province in central Turkey, often mocked for its poverty and backwardness] has fallen!

ST. BASIL OF CAESAREA To Diodorus, presbyter of Antioch. 1. I have read the books sent me by your excellency. With the second I was delighted, not only with its brevity, as was likely to be the case with a reader out of health and inclined to indolence, but, because it is at once full of thought, and so arranged that the objections of opponents, and the answers to them, stand out distinctly. Its simple and natural style seems to me to befit the profession of a Christian who writes less for self-advertisement than for the general good. The former work, which has practically the same force, but is much more elaborately adorned with rich diction, many figures, and niceties of dialogue, seems to me to require considerable time to read, and much mental labour, both to gather its meaning and retain it in the memory. The abuse of our opponents and the support of our own side, which are thrown in, although they may seem to add some charms of dialectic to the treatise, do yet break the continuity of the thought and weaken the strength of the argument, by causing interruption and delay. I know that your intelligence is perfectly well aware that the heathen philosophers who wrote dialogues, Aristotle and Theophrastus, went straight to the point, because they were aware of their not being gifted with the graces of Plato. Plato, on the other hand, with his great power of writing, at the same time attacks opinions and incidentally makes fun of his characters, assailing now the rashness and recklessness of a Thrasymachus, the levity and frivolity of a Hippias, and the arrogance and pomposity of a Protagoras. When, however, he introduces unmarked characters into his dialogues, he uses the interlocutors for making the point clear, but does not admit anything more belonging to the characters into his argument. An instance of this is in the Laws. 2. It is well for us too, who betake ourselves to writing, not from any vain ambition, but from the design of bequeathing counsels of sound doctrine to the brethren, if we introduce some character well known to all the world for presumption of manners, to interweave into the argument some points in accordance with the quality of the character, unless indeed we have no right at all to leave our work and to accuse men. But if the subject of the dialogue be wide and general, digressions against persons interrupt its continuity and tend to no good end. So much I have written to prove that you did not send your work to a flatterer, but have shared your toil with a real brother. And I have spoken not for the correction of what is finished, but as a precaution for the future; for assuredly one who is so accustomed to write, and so diligent in writing, will not hesitate to do so; and the more so that there is no falling off in the number of those who give him subjects. Enough for me to read your books. I am as far from being able to write anything as, I had very nearly said, I am from being well, or from having the least leisure from my work. I have however now sent back the larger and earlier of the two volumes, after perusing it as far as I have been able. The second I have retained, with the wish to transcribe it, but, hitherto, without finding any quick writer. To such a pitch of poverty has come the enviable condition of the Cappadocians!

[Πρός: Διοδώρῳ, πρεσβυτέρῳ Ἀντιοχείας] Ἐνέτυχον τοῖς ἀποσταλεῖσι βιβλίοις παρὰ τῆς τιμιότητός σου. καὶ τῷ μὲν δευτέρῳ ὑπερήσθην, οὐ διὰ τὴν βραχύτητα μόνον, ὡς εἰκὸς ἦν τὸν ἀργῶς πρὸς πάντα καὶ ἀσθενῶς λοιπὸν διακείμενον, ἀλλʼ ὅτι πυκνόν τε ἅμα ἐστὶ ταῖς ἐννοίαις, καὶ εὐκρινῶς ἐν αὐτῷ ἔχουσιν αἵ τε ἀντιθέσεις τῶν ὑπεναντίων καὶ αἱ πρὸς αὐτὰς ἀπαντήσεις· καὶ τὸ τῆς λέξεως ἁπλοῦν τε καὶ ἀκατάσκευον πρέπον ἔδοξέ μοι εἶναι προθέσει Χριστιανοῦ, οὐ πρὸς ἐπίδειξιν μᾶλλον ἢ κοινὴν ὠφέλειαν συγγράφοντος. τὸ δὲ πρότερον, τὴν μὲν δύναμιν ἔχον τὴν αὐτὴν ἐν τοῖς πράγμασι, λέξει δὲ πολυτελεστέρᾳ καὶ σχήμασι ποικίλοις καὶ διαλογικαῖς χάρισι κεκομψευμένον, πολλοῦ μοι ἐφάνη καὶ χρόνου πρὸς τὸ ἐπελθεῖν καὶ πόνου διανοίας πρὸς τὸ καὶ συλλέξαι τὰς ἐννοίας καὶ παρακατασχεῖν αὐτὰς τῇ μνήμῃ δεόμενον. αἱ γὰρ ἐν τῷ μεταξὺ παρεμβαλλόμεναι διαβολαὶ τῶν ὑπεναντίων καὶ συστάσεις τῶν ἡμετέρων, εἰ καὶ γλυκύτητάς τινας ἐπεισάγειν δοκοῦσι διαλεκτικὰς τῷ συγγράμματι, ἀλλʼ οὖν τῷ σχολὴν καὶ διατριβὴν ἐμποιεῖν διασπῶσι μὲν τὸ συνεχὲς τῆς ἐννοίας καὶ τοῦ ἐναγωνίου λόγου τὸν τόνον ὑποχαυνοῦσιν. Ἐκεῖνο γὰρ πάντως συνεῖδέ σου ἡ ἀγχίνοια, ὅτι καὶ τῶν ἔξωθεν φιλοσόφων οἱ τοὺς διαλόγους συγγράψαντες, Ἀριστοτέλης μὲν καὶ Θεόφραστος, εὐθὺς αὐτῶν ἥψαντο τῶν πραγμάτων, διὰ τὸ συνειδέναι ἑαυτοῖς τῶν Πλατωνικῶν χαρίτων τὴν ἔνδειαν. Πλάτων δὲ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ λόγου ὁμοῦ μὲν τοῖς δόγμασι μάχεται, ὁμοῦ δὲ καὶ παρακωμῳδεῖ τὰ πρόσωπα, Θρασυμάχου μὲν τὸ θρασὺ καὶ ἰταμὸν διαβάλλων, Ἱππίου δὲ τὸ κοῦφον τῆς διανοίας καὶ χαῦνον, καὶ Πρωταγόρου τὸ ἀλαζονικὸν καὶ ὑπέρογκον. ὅπου δὲ ἀόριστα πρόσωπα ἐπεισάγει τοῖς διαλόγοις, τῆς μὲν εὐκρινείας ἕνεκεν τῶν πραγμάτων κέχρηται τοῖς προσδιαλεγομένοις, οὐδὲν δὲ ἕτερον ἐκ τῶν προσώπων ἐπεισκυκλεῖ ταῖς ὑποθέσεσιν· ὅπερ ἐποίησεν ἐν τοῖς Νόμοις. Δεῖ οὖν καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς οὐ κατὰ φιλοτιμίαν ἐρχομένους ἐπὶ τὸ γράφειν, ἀλλʼ ὑποθήκας καταλιμπάνειν ὠφελίμων λόγων τῇ ἀδελφότητι προελομένους, ἐὰν μέν τι πᾶσι προκεκηρυγμένον ἐπὶ αὐθαδείᾳ τρόπου πρόσωπον ὑποβαλλώμεθα, τινὰ καὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου ποιότητος παραπλέκειν τῷ λόγῳ, εἴπερ ὅλως ἐπιβάλλει ἡμῖν διαβάλλειν ἀνθρώπους, τῶν πραγμάτων ἀφεμένους. ἐὰν δὲ ἀόριστον ᾖ τὸ διαλεγόμενον, αἱ πρὸς τὰ πρόσωπα διαστάσεις τὴν μὲν συνάφειαν διακόπτουσι, πρὸς οὐδὲν δὲ πέρας χρήσιμον ἀπαντῶσι. Ταῦτα εἶπον ἵνα δειχθῇ, ὅτι οὐκ εἰς κόλακος χεῖρας ἀπέστειλάς σου τοὺς πόνους, ἀλλὰ ἀδελφῷ τῷ γνησιωτάτῳ ἐκοινώνησας τῶν καμάτων. εἶπον δὲ οὐ πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν τῶν γεγραμμένων, ἀλλὰ πρὸς φυλακὴν τῶν μελλόντων. πάντως γὰρ ὁ τοσαύτῃ περὶ τὸ γράφειν ἕξει καὶ σπουδῇ κεχρημένος οὐκ ἀποκνήσει γράφων· ἐπειδὴ οὐδὲ οἱ τὰς ὑποθέσεις παρέχοντες ἀπολήγουσιν. ἡμῖν δὲ ἀρκέσει μὲν ἀναγινώσκειν τὰ ὑμέτερα· τοῦ δὲ δύνασθαι γράφειν τι τοσοῦτον ἀποδέομεν, ὅσον μικροῦ δέω λέγειν, καὶ τοῦ ὑγιαίνειν, ἢ καὶ τοῦ μετρίαν σχολὴν ἄγειν ἀπὸ τῶν πραγμάτων. Ἀπέστειλα δὲ νῦν διὰ τοῦ ἀναγνώστου τὸ μεῖζον καὶ πρότερον, ἐπελθὼν αὐτὸ ὡς ἐμοὶ δυνατόν. τὸ δὲ δεύτερον παρακατέσχον, βουλόμενος αὐτὸ μεταγράψαι, καὶ μὴ εὐπορῶν τέως τινὸς τῶν εἰς τάχος γραφόντων. μέχρι γὰρ τοσαύτης ἦλθε πενίας τὰ ἐπίφθονα Καππαδοκῶν.