Chapter III: Part 3

(But the Homer of myths, or their Thucydides, or Plato, or whatever we must call him, was Aesop of Samos, who was a slave by the accident of birth rather than by temperament, and he proved his sagacity by this very use of fable. For since the law did not allow him freedom of speech, he had no resource but to shadow forth his wise counsels and trick them out with charms and graces and so serve them up to his hearers. Just so, I think, physicians who are free‐born men prescribe what is necessary, but when a man happens to be a slave by birth and a physician by profession, he is forced to take pains to flatter and cure his master at the same time. Now if our Cynic also is subject to this sort of slavery, let him recite myths, let him write them, and let everyone else under the sun leave to him the _rôle_ of mythologist. But since he asserts that he alone is free, I do not know what need he has of myths. Does he need to temper the harshness and severity of his advice with sweetness and charm, so that he may at once benefit mankind and avoid being harmed by one whom he has benefited? Nay, that is too much like a slave. Moreover, would any man be better taught by not hearing facts as they really are, or called by their real names, like the comic poet who calls a spade a spade?(139) What need to speak of Phaethon instead of So‐and‐so? What need sacrilegiously to profane the title of King Helios? Who among men that walk here below(140) is worthy to be called Pan or Zeus, as though we should ascribe to those gods our human understanding? And yet if indeed this were possible it would have been better to give the men their own names. Would it not have been better to speak of them thus and to bestow on them human names, or rather not bestow, for those that our parents gave us were enough? Well then if it is neither easier to learn by means of fiction, nor appropriate for the Cynic to invent that sort of thing at all, why did we not spare that wasteful expense,(141) and moreover why did we waste our time in inventing and composing trivial myths and then making stories of them and learning them by heart?)

Ἀλλ᾽ ἴσως ὁ μὲν λόγος οὔ φησι δεῖν ἀντὶ τῶν ἀληθῶν [D] καὶ μὴ πεπλασμένων τὰ ψευδῆ καὶ πεπλασμένα παρὰ τοῦ κυνός, ᾧ μόνῳ τῆς ἐλευθερίας μέτεστιν, ἐν τοῖς κοινοῖς ᾄδεσθαι συλλόγοις, ἡ συνήθεια δὲ οὕτω(142) γέγονεν ἀπὸ Διογένους ἀρξαμένη καὶ Κράτητος ἄχρι τῶν ἐφεξῆς. οὐδὲν οὐδαμοῦ παράδειγμα τοιοῦτον εὑρήσεις· ἐκεῖνο γὰρ ἀφίημι τέως, ὅτι τῷ Κυνικῷ τὸ νόμισμα παραχαράττοντι τῇ συνηθείᾳ προσέχειν οὐδαμῶς προσήκει, τῷ λόγῳ δὲ αὐτῷ μόνῳ, [209] καὶ τὸ ποιητέον εὑρίσκειν οἴκοθεν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ μανθάνειν ἔξωθεν. εἰ δ᾽ Ἀντισθένης ὁ Σωκρατικὸς ὥσπερ ὁ Ξενοφῶν ἔνια διὰ τῶν μύθων ἀπήγελλε, μήτι(143) τοῦτό σε ἐξαπατάτω· καὶ γὰρ μικρὸν ὕστερον ὑπὲρ τούτου σοι διαλέξομαι·(144) νῦν δὲ ἐκεῖνό μοι πρὸς τῶν Μουσῶν φράσον ὑπὲρ τοῦ Κυνισμοῦ, πότερον ἀπόνοια τίς ἐστι καὶ βίος οὐκ ἀνθρώπινος, ἀλλὰ θηριώδης ψυχῆς διάθεσις οὐδὲν καλόν, οὐδὲν σπουδαῖον οὐδὲ ἀγαθὸν νομιζούσης; [B] δοίη γὰρ ἂν ὑπολαβεῖν πολλοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ ταῦτα Οἰνόμαος. εἴ τί σοι τοῦ ταῦτα γοῦν ἐπελθεῖν ἐμέλησεν, ἐπέγνως ἂν σαφῶς ἐν τῇ τοῦ κυνὸς αὐτοφωνίᾳ καὶ τῷ κατὰ τῶν χρηστηρίων καὶ πᾶσιν ἁπλῶς οἷς ἔγραψεν ὁ ἀνήρ. τοιούτου δὲ ὄντος τοῦ πράγματος, ὥστε ἐνῃρῆσθαι μὲν ἅπασαν τὴν πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς εὐλάβειαν, ἠτιμάσθαι δὲ πᾶσαν ἀνθρωπίνην φρόνησιν, νόμον δὲ μὴ τὸν ὁμώνυμον τῷ καλῷ καὶ δικαίῳ πεπατῆσθαι μόνον, [C] ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐκ τῶν θεῶν ἡμῖν ὥσπερ ἐγγραφέντας ταῖς ψυχαῖς, ὑφ᾽ ὧν πάντες ἀδιδάκτως εἶναι θεῖόν τι πεπείσμεθα καὶ πρὸς τοῦτο ἀφορᾶν ἐπ᾽ αὐτό τε οἶμαι σπεύδειν οὕτω διατιθέμενοι τὰς ψυχὰς πρὸς αὐτὸ ὥσπερ, οἶμαι πρὸς τὸ φῶς τὰ βλέποντα, πρὸς τούτῳ δὲ εἰ καὶ ὁ δεύτερος ἐξελαύνοιτο νόμος ἱερὸς ὢν φύσει καὶ θεῖος, ὁ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων πάντη καὶ πάντως ἀπέχεσθαι κελεύων καὶ μήτε ἐν λόγῳ μήτε ἐν ἔργῳ μήτε [D] ἐν αὐταῖς ταῖς λανθανούσαις τῆς ψυχῆς ἐνεργείαις ταῦτα ἐπιτρέπων συγχεῖν, ὅσπερ ἡμῖν καὶ τῆς τελειοτάτης ἐστὶν ἡγεμὼν δικαιοσύνης· ἆρ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι βαράθρου τὸ πρᾶγμα ἄξιον; ἆρ᾽ οὐ τοὺς ταῦτα ἐπαινοῦντας ὥσπερ τοὺς φαρμακοὺς ἐχρῆν οὐ θύσθλοις παιομένους(145) ἐλαύνεσθαι· κουφοτέρα γάρ ἐστι τῶν ἀδικημάτων ἡ ζημία· λίθοις δὲ βαλλομένους ἀπολωλέναι; διαφέρουσι γὰρ οὗτοι τί, [210] πρὸς τῶν θεῶν εἰπέ μοι, τῶν ἐπ᾽ ἐρημίας λῃστευόντων καὶ κατειληφότων τὰς ἀκτὰς ἐπὶ τῷ λυμαίνεσθαι τοῖς καταπλέουσι; καταφρονοῦντες θανάτου, φασίν· ὥσπερ οὐ κἀκείνοις συνομαρτούσης ταυτησὶ τῆς ἀπονοίας. φησὶ γοῦν ὁ καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς μὲν ποιητὴς καὶ μυθολόγος, ὡς δὲ ὁ Πύθιος λῃσταῖς χρωμένοις ἀνεῖλεν, ἥρως καὶ δαίμων, ὑπὲρ τῶν λῃζομένων τὴν θάλατταν

(But perhaps you will say that though reason asserts that the Cynic, who alone of men can claim to be free, ought not to invent and compose lying fictions instead of the unvarnished truth and then recite these in public assemblies, nevertheless the custom began with Diogenes and Crates, and has been maintained from that time by all Cynics. My answer is that nowhere will you find a single example of such a custom. For the moment I do not insist on the fact that it in no wise becomes a Cynic who must “give a new stamp to the common currency”(146) to pay any attention to custom, but only to pure reason, and he ought to discover within himself what is right for him to do and not learn it from without. And do not be misled by the fact that Antisthenes the disciple of Socrates, and Xenophon too, sometimes expressed themselves by means of myths; for I shall have something to say to you on this point in a moment. But now in the Muses’ name answer me this question about the Cynic philosophy. Are we to think it a sort of madness, a method of life not suitable for a human being, but rather a brutal attitude of mind which recks naught of the beautiful, the honourable, or the good? For Oenomaus(147) would make many people hold this view of it. If you had taken any trouble to study the subject, you would have learned this from that Cynic’s “Direct Inspiration of Oracles” and his work “Against the Oracles,” in short from everything that he wrote. This then is his aim, to do away with all reverence for the gods, to bring dishonour on all human wisdom, to trample on all law that can be identified with honour and justice, and more than this, to trample on those laws which have been as it were engraved on our souls by the gods, and have impelled us all to believe without teaching that the divine exists, and to direct our eyes to it and to yearn towards it: for our souls are disposed towards it as eyes towards the light. Furthermore, suppose that one should discard also that second law which is sanctified both by nature and by God, I mean the law that bids us keep our hands altogether and utterly from the property of others and permits us neither by word or deed or in the inmost and secret activities of our souls to confound such distinctions, since the law is our guide to the most perfect justice—is not this conduct worthy of pit?(148) And ought not those who applauded such views to have been driven forth, not by blows with wands, like scapegoats,(149) for that penalty is too light for such crimes, but put to death by stoning? For tell me, in Heaven’s name, how are such men less criminal than bandits who infest lonely places and haunt the coasts in order to despoil navigators? Because, as people say, they despise death; as though bandits were not inspired by the same frenzied courage! So says at any rate he(150) who with you counts as a poet and mythologist, though, as a Pythian god proclaimed to certain bandits who sought his oracle, he was a hero and divinity—I mean where, speaking of pirates of the sea, he says:)

Οἷά τε ληιστῆρες, ὑπεὶρ ἅλα τοί τ᾽ ἀλόωνται
[B] Ψυχὰς παρθέμενοι.

(“Like pirates who wander over the sea, staking their
lives.”(151))

τί οὖν ἔτι ἕτερον ζητεῖς ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀπονοίας τῶν λῃστῶν μάρτυρα; πλὴν εἰ μὴ καὶ ἀνδρειοτέρους ἂν εἴποι τις τῶν τοιούτων κυνῶν ἐκείνους τοὺς λῃστάς, ἰταμωτέρους δὲ τῶν λῃστῶν ἐκείνων τοὺς κύνας τουτουσί. οἱ μὲν γὰρ συνειδότες αὑτοῖς οὕτω μοχθηρὸν τὸν βίον οὐ μᾶλλον διὰ τὸ τοῦ θανάτου δέος ἢ τὴν αἰσχύνην τὰς ἐρημίας προβάλλονται, οἱ δ᾽ ἄρα περιπατοῦσιν(152) [C] ἐν τῷ μέσῳ τὰ κοινὰ νόμιμα συγχέοντες, οὐχὶ τῷ κρείττονα καὶ καθαρωτέραν, ἀλλὰ τῷ χείρονα καὶ βδελυρωτέραν ἐπεισάγειν πολιτείαν.

(What better witness can you require for the desperate courage of bandits? Except indeed that one might say that bandits are more courageous than Cynics of this sort, while the Cynics are more reckless than they. For pirates, well aware as they are how worthless is the life they lead, take cover in desert places as much from shame as from the fear of death: whereas the Cynics go up and down in our midst subverting the institutions of society, and that not by introducing a better and purer state of things but a worse and more corrupt state.)

Τὰς ἀνανφερομένας δὲ εἰς τὸν Διογένη τραγῳδίας, οὔσας μὲν καὶ ὁμολογουμένως(153) Κυνικοῦ τινος συγγράμματα, ἀμφισβητουμένας δὲ κατὰ τοῦτο μόνον, [D] εἴτε τοῦ διδασκάλου, τοῦ Διογένους, εἰσίν, εἴτε τοῦ μαθητοῦ Φιλίσκου, τίς οὐκ ἂν ἐπελθὼν βδελύξαιτο καὶ νομίσειεν ὑπερβολὴν ἀρρητουργίας οὐδὲ ταῖς ἑταίραις ἀπολελεῖφθαι; ταῖς Οἰνομάου δὲ ἐντυχών· ἔγραψε γὰρ καὶ τραγῳδίας τοῖς λόγοις τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ παραπλησίας, ἀρρήτων ἀρρητότερα καὶ κακῶν πέρα, καὶ οὐκέθ᾽ ὅ,τι φῶ περὶ αὐτῶν ἀξίως ἔχω, κἂν τὰ Μαγνήτων κακὰ, κἂν τὸ Τερμέριον, κἂν πᾶσαν ἁπλῶς αὐτοῖς ἐπιφθέγξωμαι [211] τὴν τραγῳδίαν μετὰ τοῦ σατύρου καὶ τῆς κωμῳδίας καὶ τοῦ μίμου, οὕτω πᾶσα μὲν αἰσχρότης, πᾶσα δὲ ἀπόνοια πρὸς ὑπερβολὴν ἐν ἐκείναις τῷ ἀνδρὶ πεφιλοτέχνηται· καὶ εἰ μὲν ἐκ τούτων τις ἀξιοῖ τὸν Κυνισμὸν ὁποῖός τις ἐστιν ἡμῖν ἐπιδεῖξαι, βλασφημῶν τοὺς θεούς, ὑλακτῶν πρὸς ἅπαντας, ὅπερ ἔφην ἀρχόμενος, ἴτω, χωρείτω,(154) γῆν πρὸ γῆς, ὅποι βούλοιτο· εἰ δ᾽, ὅπερ ὁ θεὸς ἔφη Διογένει, τὸ νόμισμα παραχαράξας ἐπὶ τὴν πρὸ ταύτης εἰρημένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ συμβουλὴν τρέποιτο, τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτόν, ὅπερ ζηλώσαντες ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων Διογένης καὶ Κράτης φαίνονται, τοῦτο ἤδη τοῦ παντὸς ἄξιον ἔγωγε φαίην ἂν ἀνδρὶ καιὶ στρατηγεῖν καὶ φιλοσοφεῖν ἐθέλοντι. τί δὲ εἶπεν ὁ θεός, ἆρ᾽ ἴσμεν; ὅτι τῆς τῶν πολλῶν αὐτῷ δόξης ἐπέταξεν [C] ὑπερορᾶν καὶ παραχαράττειν οὐ τὴν ἀλήθειαν, ἀλλὰ τὸ νόμισμα. τὸ δὲ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν ἐν ποτέρᾳ θησόμεθα μοίρᾳ; πότερον ἐν τῇ τοῦ νομίσματος; ἢ τοῦτό γε αὐτὸ τῆς ἀληθείας εἶναι κεφάλαιον θήσομεν καὶ τρόπον εἰρῆσθαι τοῦ Παραχάραξον τὸ νόμισμα διὰ τῆς(155) Γνῶθι σαυτὸν ἀποφάσεως; ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ τὰ νομιζόμενα παντάπασιν ἀτιμάσας, ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν δὲ ἥκων τὴν ἀλήθειαν οὐδ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ τοῖς νομιζομένοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ὄντως οὖσι θήσεται, [D] οὕτως οἶμαι καὶ ὁ γνοὺς ἑαυτὸν ὅπερ ἔστιν ἀκριβῶς εἴσεται καὶ οὐχ ὅπερ νομίζεται. πότερον οὖν οὐχ ὁ Πύθιος ἀληθής τέ ἐστι θεός, καὶ Διογένης τοῦτο ἐπέπειστο σαφῶς, ὅς γε αὐτῷ πεισθεὶς ἀντὶ φυγάδος ἀπεδείχθη οὐ τοῦ Περσῶν βασιλέως μείζων, ἀλλ᾽, ὡς ἡ φήμη παρέδωκεν, αὐτῷ τῷ καταλύσαντι τὸ Περσῶν κράτος καὶ ταῖς Ἡρακλέους ἁμιλλωμένῳ πράξεσιν, ὑπερβάλλεσθαι δὲ τὸν Ἀχιλλέα φιλοτιμουμένῳ ζηλωτός; οὗτος οὖν ὁ Διογένης ὁποῖός τις ἦν τά τε πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς [212] καὶ τὰ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους μὴ διὰ τῶν Οἰνομάου λόγων μηδὲ τῶν Φιλίσκου τραγῳδιῶν, αἷς ἐπιγράψας τὸ Διογένους ὄνομα τῆς θείας πολλά ποτε κατεψεύσατο κεφαλῆς, ἀλλὰ δι᾽ ὧν ἔδρασεν ἔργων ὁποῖός τις ἦν γνωριζέσθω.

(Now as for the tragedies ascribed to Diogenes, which are and are admitted to be, the composition of some Cynic—the only point in dispute being whether they are by the master himself, Diogenes, or by his disciple Philiscus,—what reader of these would not abhor them, and find in them an excess of infamy not to be surpassed even by courtesans? However, let him go on to read the tragedies of Oenomaus—for he too wrote tragedies to match his discourses—and he will find that they are more inconceivably infamous, that they transgress the very limits of evil; in fact I have no words to describe them adequately, and in vain should I cite in comparison the horrors of Magnesia,(156) the wickedness of Termerus(157) or the whole of tragedy put together, along with satiric drama, comedy and the mime: with such art has their author displayed in those works every conceivable vileness and folly in their most extreme form. Now if from such works any man chooses to demonstrate to us the character of the Cynic philosophy, and to blaspheme the gods and bark at all men, as I said when I began, let him go, let him depart to the uttermost parts of the earth whithersoever he pleases. But if he do as the god enjoined on Diogenes, and first “give a new stamp to the common currency,” then devote himself to the advice uttered earlier by the god, the precept “Know Thyself,” which Diogenes and Crates evidently followed in their actual practice, then I say that this is wholly worthy of one who desires to be a leader and a philosopher. For surely we know what the god meant? He enjoined on Diogenes to despise the opinion of the crowd and to give a new stamp, not to truth, but to the common currency. Now to which of these categories shall we assign self‐ knowledge? Can we call it common currency? Shall we not rather say that it is the very summary of truth, and by the injunction “Know Thyself” we are told the way in which we must “give a new stamp to the common currency”? For just as one who pays no regard whatever to conventional opinions but goes straight for the truth will not decide his own conduct by those opinions but by actual facts, so I think he who knows himself will know accurately, not the opinion of others about him, but what he is in reality. It follows then, does it not? that the Pythian god speaks the truth, and moreover that Diogenes was clearly convinced of this since he obeyed the god and so became, instead of an exile, I will not say greater than the King of Persia, but according to the tradition handed down actually an object of envy to the man(158) who had broken the power of Persia and was rivalling the exploits of Heracles and ambitious to surpass Achilles. Then let us judge of the attitude of Diogenes towards gods and men, not from the discourses of Oenomaus or the tragedies of Philiscus—who by ascribing their authorship to Diogenes grossly slandered that sacred personage—but let us, I say, judge him by his deeds.)

Ἦλθεν εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν ἐπὶ τί πρὸς Διός; ἵνα τοὺς ἀγωνιστὰς θεάσηται; τί δέ; οὐχὶ καὶ Ἰσθμίοις τοὺς αὐτοὺς καὶ Παναθηναίοις θεάσασθαι δίχα πραγμάτων οἷόν τε ἦν; ἀλλὰ ἐθέλων ἐκεῖ τοῖς κρατίστοις συγγενέσθαι τῶν Ἑλλήνων; [B] οὐ γὰρ Ἰσθμόνδε ἐφοίτων; οὐκ ἂν οὖν εὕροις ἄλλην αἰτίαν ἢ τὴν εἰς τὸν θεὸν θεραπείαν. εἰ δ᾽ οὐκ ἐξεπλάγη τὸν κεραυνὸν· οὐδὲ ἐγὼ μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς πολλῶν πολλάκις πειραθεὶς διοσημιῶν ἐξεπλάγην. ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως οὕτω δή τι τοὺς θεοὺς πέφρικα καὶ φιλῶ καὶ σέβω καὶ ἅζομαι καὶ πάνθ᾽ ἁπλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα πρὸς αὐτοὺς πάσχω, ὅσαπερ ἄν τις καὶ οἷα πρὸς ἀγαθοὺς δεσπότας, πρὸς διδασκάλους, πρὸς πατέρας, πρὸς κηδεμόνας, πρὸς πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα, [C] ὥστε ὀλίγου δεῖν ὑπὸ τῶν σῶν ῥημάτων πρῴην ἐξανέστην. τοῦτο μὲν οὖν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅντινα τρόπον ἐπελθὸν ἴσως σιωπᾶσθαι δέον ἐρρέθη.

(Why in the name of Zeus did he go to Olympia? To see the athletes compete? Nay, could he not have seen those very athletes without trouble both at the Isthmian games and the Panathenaic festival? Then was it because he wished to meet there the most distinguished Greeks? But did they not go to the Isthmus too? So you cannot discover any other motive than that of doing honour to the god. He was not, you say, awestruck by a thunderstorm. Ye gods, I too have witnessed such signs from Zeus over and over again, without being awestruck! Yet for all that I feel awe of the gods, I love, I revere, I venerate them, and in short have precisely the same feelings towards them as one would have towards kind masters(159) or teachers or fathers or guardians or any beings of that sort. That is the very reason why I could hardly sit still the other day and listen to your speech. However, I have spoken thus as I was somehow or other impelled to speak, though perhaps it would have been better to say nothing at all.)

Διογένης δὲ καὶ πένης ὢν καὶ χρημάτων ἐνδεὴς εἰς Ὀλυμπίαν ἐβάδιζεν, Ἀλέξανδρον δὲ ἥκειν ἐκέλευε παρ᾽ ἑαυτόν, εἴ τῳ πιστὸς ὁ Δίων. οὕτω πρέπειν ἐνόμιζεν ἑαυτῷ [D] μὲν φοιτᾶν ἐπὶ τὰ ἱερὰ τῶν θεῶν, τῷ βασιλικωτάτῳ δὲ τῶν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἐπὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ συνουσίαν. ἃ δὲ πρὸς Ἀρχίδαμον γέγραφεν, οὐ βασιλικαὶ παραινέσεις εἰσίν; οὐ μόνον δὲ ἐν τοῖς λόγοις ἦν ὁ Διογένης θεοσεβής, ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις. ἑλόμενον γὰρ αὐτὸν οἰκεῖν τὰς Ἀθήνας ἐπειδὴ τὸ δαιμόνιον εἰς τὴν Κόρινθον ἀπήγαγεν, ἀφεθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ πριαμένου τὴν πόλιν οὐκέτ᾽ ῴήθη δεῖν ἐκλιπεῖν· [213] ἐπέπειστο γὰρ αὑτοῦ τοῖς θεοῖς μέλειν εἴς τε τὴν Κόρινθον οὐ μάτην οὐδὲ κατά τινα συντυχίαν, τρόπον δέ τινα ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν εἰσπεπέμφθαι ὁρῶν τὴν πόλιν τρυφῶσαν τῶν Ἀθηναίων μᾶλλον καὶ δεομένην μείζονος καὶ γενναιοτέρου σωφρονιστοῦ.

(To return to Diogenes: he was poor and lacked means, yet he travelled to Olympia, though he bade Alexander come to him, if we are to believe Dio.(160) So convinced was he that it was his duty to visit the temples of the gods, but that it was the duty of the most royal monarch of that day to come to him for an interview. And was not that royal advice which he wrote to Archidamus? Nay, not only in words but in deeds also did Diogenes show his reverence for the gods. For he preferred to live in Athens, but when the divine command had sent him away to Corinth, even after he had been set free by the man who had bought him, he did not think he ought to leave that city. For he believed that the gods took care of him, and that he had been sent to Corinth, not at random or by some accident, but by the gods themselves for some purpose. He saw that Corinth was more luxurious than Athens, and stood in need of a more severe and courageous reformer.)

Τί δέ; οὐχὶ καὶ τοῦ Κράτητος μουσικὰ καὶ χαρίεντα φέρεται πολλὰ δείγματα τῆς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς ὁσιότητός τε καὶ εὐλαβείας; ἄκουε γοῦν αὐτὰ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν, [B] εἴ σοι μὴ σχολὴ γέγονε μαθεῖν ἐξ ἐκείνων αὐτά.

To give you another instance: Are there not extant many charming poems by Crates also which are proofs of his piety and veneration for the gods? I will repeat them to you if you have not had time to learn this from the poems themselves:

Μνημοσύνης καὶ Ζηνὸς Ὀλυμπίου ἀγλαὰ τέκνα,
Μοῦσαι Πιερέδες, κλῦτέ μοι εὐχομένῳ·
Χόρτον ἐμῇ συνεχῆ δότε γαστέρι, καὶ δότε χωρίς
Δουλοσύνης, ἣ δὴ λιτὸν ἔθηκε βίον.

(“Ye Muses of Pieria, glorious children of Memory and Olympian
Zeus, grant me this prayer! Give me food for my belly from day to
day, but give it without slavery which makes life miserable
indeed....)

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Ὠφέλιμον δὲ φίλοις, μὴ γλυκερὸν τίθετε.
[C] Χρήματα δ᾽ οὐκ ἐθέλω συνάγειν κλυτά, κανθάρου ὄλβον
Μύρμηκός τ᾽ ἄφενος χρήματα μαιόμενος,
Ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνης μετέχειν καὶ πλοῦτον ἀγείρειν(161)
Εὔφορον, εὔκτητον, τίμιον εἰς ἀρετήν.
Τῶν δὲ τυχὼν Ἑρμῆν καὶ Μούσας ἱλάσομ᾽ ἁγνάς.
Οὐ δαπάναις τρυφεραῖς, [D] ἀλλ᾽ ἀρεταῖς ὁσίαις.

(“Make me useful rather than agreeable to my friends. Treasure and
the fame thereof I desire not to amass; nor do I crave the wealth
of the beetle and the substance of the ant. But justice I desire
to attain, and to collect riches that are easily carried, easily
acquired, precious for virtue. If I attain these things I will
worship Hermes and the holy Muses, not with costly and luxurious
offerings, but with pious and virtuous actions.”(162))

ὁρᾷς ὅτι τοὺς θεοὺς εὐφημῶν, οὐχὶ δὲ ὡς σὺ βλασφημῶν κατ᾽ αὐτῶν ηὔχετο; πόσαι γὰρ ἑκατόμβαι τῆς ὁσίας εἰσὶν ἀντάξιαι, ἣν καὶ ὁ δαιμόνιος Εὐριπίδης ὀρθῶς ἥμνησεν εἰπὼν

(You see that, far from blaspheming the gods as you do, he adored and prayed to them? For what number of hecatombs are worth as much as Piety, whom the inspired Euripides celebrated appropriately in the verses)

Ὁσία πότνα θεῶν, ὁσία;

(“Piety, queen of the gods, Piety”?(163))

ἢ τοῦτό σε λέληθεν, ὅτι πάντα, καὶ τὰ μεγάλα καὶ τὰ σμικρά, μετὰ τῆς ὁσίας τοῖς θεοῖς προσαγόμενα τὴν ἴσην ἔχει δύναμιν, ἐστερημένη δὲ τῆς ὁσίας οὐχ ἑκατόμβη μὰ θεούς, ἀλλὰ ἡ τῆς Ὀλυμπιάδος χιλιόμβη ἀνάλωμα μόνον ἐστίν, [214] ἄλλο δὲ οὐδέν; ὅπερ οἶμαι γιγνώσκων ὁ Κράτης αὐτός τε διὰ μόνης ἧς εἶχεν ὁσίας τοὺς θεοὺς ἐτίμα σὺν εὐφημίᾳ καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἐδίδασκε μὴ τὰ δαπανήματα τῆς ὁσίας, ἀλλὰ τὴν ὁσίαν ἐκείνων προτιμᾶν ἐν ταῖς ἁγιστείαις. τοιούτω δὲ τὼ ἄνδρε τώδε γενομένω τὰ πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς οὐκ ἀκροατήρια συνεκροτείτην(164) οὐδ᾽ ὥσπερ οἱ σοφοὶ δι᾽ εἰκόνων καὶ μύθων τοῖς φίλοις συνεγιγνέσθην·(165) λέγεται γὰρ [B] ὑπ᾽ Εὐριπίδου καλῶς

(Or are you not aware that all offerings whether great or small that are brought to the gods with piety have equal value, whereas without piety, I will not say hecatombs, but, by the gods, even the Olympian sacrifice(166) of a thousand oxen is merely empty expenditure and nothing else?(167) This I believe Crates recognized, and so with that piety which was his only possession he himself used to honour the gods with praises, and moreover taught others not to honour expensive offerings more than piety in the sacred ceremonies. This then was the attitude of both those Cynics towards the gods but they did not crowd audiences together to hear them, nor did they entertain their friends with similes and myths, like the wise men of to‐day. For as Euripides well says,(168))

Ἁπλοῦς ὁ μῦθος τῆς ἀληθείας ἔφυ·

(“Simple and unadorned is the language of truth.”)

σκιαγραφίας γάρ φησι τὸν ψευδῆ καὶ ἄδικον δεῖσθαι. τίς οὖν ὁ τρόπος αὐτοῖς τῆς συνουσίας ἐγίνετο; τῶν λόγων ἡγεῖτο τὰ ἔργα, καὶ οἱ τὴν πενίαν τιμῶντες αὐτοὶ πρῶτοι φαίνονται(169) καὶ τῶν πατρῴων χρημάτων ὑπεριδόντες, οἱ τὴν ἀτυφίαν ἀσπασάμενοι πρῶτοι [C] τὴν εὐτέλειαν ἤσκουν διὰ πάντων, οἱ τὸ τραγικὸν καὶ σοβαρὸν ἐκ τῶν ἀλλοτρίων ἐξαιροῦντες βίων ᾤκουν αὐτοὶ πρῶτοι τὰς ἀγορὰς ἢ τὰ τῶν θεῶν τεμένη, τῇ τρυφῇ δὲ καὶ πρὸ τῶν ῥημάτων διὰ τῶν ἔργων ἐπολέμουν, ἔργοις ἐλέγχοντες, οὐ λόγῳ βοῶντες, ὅτι τῷ Διὶ συμβασιλεύειν ἔξεστιν οὐδενὸς ἢ σμικρῶν πάνυ δεόμενον οὐδὲ παρενοχλούμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ σώματος, ἐπετίμων δὲ τοῖς ἁμαρτάνουσιν, ἡνίκα ἔζων οἱ πταίσαντες, [D] οὐκ ἀποθανόντας ἐβλασφήμουν, ἡνίκα καὶ τῶν ἐχθρῶν οἱ μετριώτεροι σπένδονται τοῖς ἀπελθοῦσιν. ἔχει δὲ ὅ γε ἀληθινὸς κύων ἐχθρὸν οὐδένα, κἂν τὸ σωμάτιον αὐτοῦ τις πατάξῃ, κἂν τοὔνομα περιέλκῃ, κἂν λοιδορῆται καὶ βλασφημῇ, διότι τὸ μὲν τῆς ἔχθρας γίνεται πρὸς ἀντίπαλον, τὸ δὲ ὑπερβαῖνον τὴν πρὸς ἕτερον ἅμιλλαν εὐνοίᾳ τιμᾶσθαι φιλεῖ· [215] κἄν τις ἑτέρως ἔχῃ πρὸς αὐτὸν, καθάπερ οἶμαι πολλοὶ πρὸς τοὺς θεούς, ἐκείνῳ μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν ἐχθρός, οὐδὲ γὰρ βλαβερός, αὐτὸς δὲ αὑτῷ βαρύτατον ἐπιτιθεὶς(170) τίμημα τὴν τοῦ κρείττονος ἄγνοιαν ἔρημος λείπεται τῆς ἐκείνου προστασίας.

(Only the liar and the dishonest man, he says, have any use for a mysterious and allusive style. Now what was the manner of their intercourse with men? Deeds with them came before words, and if they honoured poverty they themselves seem first to have scorned inherited wealth; if they cultivated modesty, they themselves first practised plain living in every respect; if they tried to expel from the lives of other men the element of theatrical display and arrogance, they themselves first set the example by living in the open market places and the temple precincts, and they opposed luxury by their own practice before they did so in words; nor did they shout aloud but proved by their actions that a man may rule as the equal of Zeus if he needs nothing or very little and so is not hampered by his body; and they reproved sinners during the lifetime of those who had offended but did not speak ill of the dead; for when men are dead even their enemies, at least the more moderate, make peace with the departed. But the genuine Cynic has no enemy, even though men strike his feeble body or drag his name in the mire, or slander and speak ill of him, because enmity is felt only towards an opponent, but that which is above personal rivalry is usually loved and respected. But if anyone is hostile to a Cynic, as indeed many are even to the gods, he is not that Cynic’s enemy, since he cannot injure him; rather he inflicts on himself the most terrible punishment of all, namely ignorance of one who is nobler than himself; and so he is deserted and bereft of the other’s protection.)

Ἀλλ᾽ εἰ μὲν νῦν μοι προύκειτο περὶ Κυνισμοῦ γράφειν, [B] εἶπον ἂν ὑπὲρ τούτων ἔτι τὰ παριστάμενά μοι τῶν εἰρημένων ἴσως οὐκ ἐλάττω· νῦν δὲ ἀποδιδόντες τὸ συνεχὲς τῇ προαιρέσει περὶ τοῦ ποταποὺς εἶναι χρὴ τοὺς πλαττομένους τῶν μύθων ἐφεξῆς σκοπῶμεν. ἴσως δὲ ἡγεῖται καὶ ταύτης τῆς ἐγχειρήσεως ἐκείνη, ὁποίᾳ τινὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ προσῆκον ἡ μυθογραφία. φαίνονται γὰρ πολλοὶ καὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων αὐτὸ καὶ τῶν θεολόγων ποιήσαντες, ὥσπερ Ὀρφεὺς μὲν ὁ παλαιότατος ἐνθέως φιλοσοφήσας, οὐκ ὀλίγοι δὲ καὶ τῶν μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ [C] καὶ Ξενοφῶν φαίνεται καὶ Ἀντισθένης καὶ Πλάτων προσχρησάμενοι πολλαχοῦ τοῖς μύθοις, ὥσθ᾽ ἡμῖν πέφηνεν, εἰ καὶ μὴ τῷ Κυνικῷ, φιλοσόφῳ γοῦν τινι προσήκειν ἡ μυθογραφία.

(Now if my present task were to write about the Cynic philosophy, I could add many details about the Cynics, not less important than what I have said already. But not to interrupt my main theme, I will now consider in due course the question what kind of myths ought to be invented. But perhaps another inquiry should precede this attempt, I mean to what branch of philosophy the composition of myths is appropriate. For we see that many philosophers and theologians too have employed it, Orpheus for instance, the most ancient of all the inspired philosophers, and many besides of those that came after him. Nay what is more, Xenophon as we know and Antisthenes and Plato often introduced myths, so that it is obvious that even if the use of myth be not appropriate for the Cynic, still it may be so for some other type of philosopher.)

Μικρὰ οὖν ὑπὲρ τῶν τῆς φιλοσοφίας εἴτε μορίων εἴτε ἐργάνων προρρητέον.(171) ἔστι γὰρ οὐ μέγα τὸ διαφέρον ὁποτέρως ἄν τις τῷ πρακτικῷ(172) [D] καὶ τῷ φυσικῷ τὸ λογικὸν προσαριθμῇ· ἀναγκαῖον γὰρ ὁμοίως φαίνεται κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα. τριῶν δὴ τούτων αὖθις ἕκαστον εἰς τρία τέμνεται, τὸ μὲν φυσικὸν εἰς τὸ θεολογικὸν καὶ τὸ περὶ τὰ μαθήματα καὶ τρίτον τὸ περὶ τὴν τῶν γινομένων καὶ ἀπολλυμένων καὶ τῶν ἀιδίων μέν, σωμάτων δὲ ὅμως θεωρίαν, τί τὸ εἶναι αὐτοῖς καὶ τίς ἡ οὐσία ἑκάστου· τοῦ πρακτικοῦ δὲ τὸ μὲν πρὸς ἕνα ἄνδρα, ἠθικόν, οἰκονομικὸν δὲ τὸ περὶ μίαν οἰκίαν, πολιτικὸν δὲ τὸ περὶ πόλιν· ἔτι μέντοι τοῦ λογικοῦ τὸ μὲν ἀποδεικτικὸν διὰ τῶν ἀληθῶν, τὸ δὲ διὰ τῶν ἐνδόξων βιαστικόν, [216] τὸ δὲ διὰ τῶν φαινομένων ἐνδόξων παραλογιστικόν. ὄντων δὴ τοσούτων τῶν τῆς φιλοσοφίας μερῶν, εἰ μή τί με λέληθε· καὶ οὐδὲν θαυμαστὸν ἄνδρα στρατιώτην μὴ λίαν ἐξακριβοῦν μηδ᾽ ἐξονυχίζειν τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἅτε οὐκ ἐκ βιβλίων ἀσκήσεως, ἀπὸ δὲ τῆς προστυχούσης αὐτὰ ἕξεως ἀποφθεγγόμενον· ἔσεσθε γοῦν μοι καὶ ὑμεῖς μάρτυρες, εἰ τὰς ἡμέρας λογίσαισθε,(173) πόσαι τινές εἰσιν αἱ μεταξὺ ταύτης τε καὶ τῆς ἔναγχος ἡμῖν γενομένης ἀκροάσεως ὅσων τε ἡμῖν ἀσχολιῶν πλήρεις· [B] ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ ἔφην, εἰ καί τι παραλέλειπται παρ᾽ ἐμοῦ· καίτοι νομίζω γε μηδὲν ἐνδεῖν· πλὴν ὁ προστιθεὶς οὐκ ἐχθρός, ἀλλὰ φίλος ἔσται.

(I must first then say a few words about the subdivisions or instruments of philosophy. It does not make much difference in which of two ways one reckons logic, whether with practical or natural philosophy, since it is equally necessary to both these branches. But I will consider these as three separate branches and assign to each one three subdivisions. Natural philosophy consists of theology, mathematics, and thirdly the study of this world of generation and decay and things that though imperishable are nevertheless matter, and deals with their essential nature and their substance in each case. Practical philosophy again consists of ethics in so far as it deals with the individual man, economics when it deals with the household as a unit, politics when it deals with the state. Logic, again, is demonstrative in so far as it deals with the truth of principles; polemic when it deals with general opinions; eristic when it deals with opinions that only seem probabilities. These then are the divisions of philosophy, if I mistake not. Though indeed it would not be surprising that a mere soldier should be none too exact in these matters or not have them at his fingers’ ends, seeing that I speak less from book‐ knowledge than from observation and experience. For that matter you can yourselves bear me witness thereto, if you count up how few days have elapsed between the lecture that we lately heard and to‐day, and moreover the number of affairs with which they have been filled for me. But as I said if I have omitted anything—though I do not think I have—still if anyone can make my classification more complete he will be “no enemy but my friend.”(174))

Τούτων δὴ τῶν μερῶν οὔτε τῷ λογικῷ προσήκει τῆς μυθογραφίας οὔτε τοῦ φυσικοῦ(175) τῷ μαθηματικῷ, μόνον δέ, εἴπερ ἄρα, τοῦ πρακτικοῦ τῷ πρὸς ἕνα γινομένῳ καὶ τοῦ θεολογικοῦ τῷ τελεστικῷ καὶ μυστικῷ· [C] φιλεῖ γὰρ ἡ φύσις κρύπτεσθαι, καὶ τὸ ἀποκεκρυμμένον τῆς τῶν θεῶν οὐσίας οὐκ ἀνέχεται γυμνοῖς εἰς ἀκαθάρτους ἀκοὰς ῥίπτεσθαι ῥήμασιν. ὅπερ δὲ δὴ τῶν χαρακτήρων ἡ ἀπόρρητος φύσις ὠφελεῖν πέφυκε καὶ ἀγνοουμένη· θεραπεύει γοῦν οὐ ψυχὰς μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ σώματα, καὶ θεῶν ποιεῖ παρουσίας· τοῦτ᾽ οἶμαι πολλάκις γίγνεσθαι καὶ διὰ τῶν μύθων, [D] ὅταν εἰς τὰς τῶν πολλῶν ἀκοὰς οὐ δυναμένας τὰ θεῖα καθαρῶς δέξασθαι δι᾽ αἰνιγμάτων αὐτοῖς μετὰ τῆς μύθων σκηνοποιίας ἐγχέηται.

(Now of these branches of philosophy, logic has no concern with the composition of myths; nor has mathematics, the sub‐division of natural philosophy; but they may be employed, if at all, by that department of practical philosophy which deals with the individual man, and by that department of theology which has to do with initiation and the Mysteries. For nature loves to hide her secrets,(176) and she does not suffer the hidden truth about the essential nature of the gods to be flung in naked words to the ears of the profane. Now there are certain characteristics of ours that derive benefit from that occult and unknown nature, which nourishes not our souls alone but our bodies also, and brings us into the presence of the gods, and this I think often comes about by means of myths; when through riddles and the dramatic setting of myths that knowledge is insinuated into the ears of the multitude who cannot receive divine truths in their purest form.)

Φανεροῦ δὲ ἤδη γενομένου τίνι καὶ ποίῳ φιλοσοφίας εἴδει καὶ μυθογραφεῖν ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε προσήκει· πρὸς γὰρ τῷ λόγῳ μαρτυρεῖ τούτοις ἡ τῶν προλαβόντων ἀνδρῶν προαίρεσις. ἐπεὶ καὶ Πλάτωνι πολλὰ μεμυθολόγηται περὶ τῶν ἐν ᾅδου πραγμάτων θεολογοῦντι καὶ πρό γε τούτου τῷ τῆς Καλλιόπης, [217] Ἀντισθένει δὲ καὶ Ξενοφῶντι καὶ αὐτῷ Πλάτωνι πραγματευομένοις ἠθικάς τινας ὑποθέσεις οὐ παρέργως, ἀλλὰ μετά τινος ἐμμελείας ἡ τῶν μύθων ἐγκαταμέμικται γραφή, οὓς σ᾽(177) ἐχρῆν, εἴπερ ἐβούλου, μιμούμενον ἀντὶ μὲν Ἡρακλέους μεταλαμβάνειν Περσέως ἢ Θησέως τινὸς ὄνομα καὶ τὸν Ἀντισθένειον τύπον ἐγχαράττειν, ἁντὶ δὲ τῆς Προδίκου σκηνοποιιας ἀμφὶ τοῖν ἀμφοῖν [B] τούτοιν θεοῖν ἑτέραν ὁμοίαν εἰσάγειν εἰς τὸ θέατρον.

(It is now evident what branch and what sort of philosophy may properly on occasion employ myths. And to support my argument I call to witness the authority of those philosophers who were the first to use myths. Plato for instance in his theological descriptions of life in Hades often uses myths, and the son(178) of Calliope before him. And when Antisthenes and Xenophon and Plato himself discuss certain ethical theories they use myths as one of the ingredients, and not casually but of set purpose. Now if you too wished to use myths you ought to have imitated these philosophers, and instead of Heracles you should have introduced the name of Perseus or Theseus, let us say, and have written in the style of Antisthenes; and in place of the dramatic setting used by Prodicus,(179) in treating of those two gods(180) you should have introduced into your theatre another setting of the same sort.)

Ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ τῶν τελεστικῶν μύθων ἐπεμνήσθην, φέρε νῦν ὁποίους εἶναι χρὴ τοὺς ἑκατέρῳ τῶν μερῶν ἁρμόττοντας αὐτοὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς ἰδεῖν πειραθῶμεν, οὐκέτι μαρτύρων παλαιῶν ἐν πᾶσι προσδεόμενοι, ἑπόμενοι δὲ νέοις ἴχνεσιν ἀνδρός, ὃν ἐγὼ μετὰ τοὺς θεοὺς ἐξ ἴσης Ἀριστοτέλει καὶ Πλάτωνι ἄγαμαί τε τέθηπά τε. [C] φησὶ δὲ οὐχ ὑπὲρ πάντων οὗτος, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν τελεστικῶν, οὓς παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν Ὀρφεὺς ὁ τὰς ἁγιωτάτας τελετὰς καταστησάμενος. τὸ γὰρ ἐν τοῖς μύθοις ἀπεμφαῖνον αὐτῷ τούτῳ προοδοποιεῖ πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν. ὅσῳ γὰρ μᾶλλον παράδοξόν ἐστι καὶ τερατῶδες τὸ αἴνιγμα, τοσούτῳ μᾶλλον ἔοικε διαμαρτύρεσθαι, μὴ τοῖς αὐτόθεν λεγομένοις πιστεύειν, ἀλλὰ τὰ λεληθότα περιεργάζεσθαι καὶ μὴ πρότερον ἀφίστασθαι, [D] πρὶν ἂν ὑπὸ θεοῖς ἡγεμόσιν ἐκφανῆ γενόμενα τὸν ἐν ἡμῖν τελέσῃ, μᾶλλον δὲ τελειώσῃ νοῦν καὶ εἰ δή τι κρεῖττον ἡμῖν ὑπάρχει τοῦ νοῦ, αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἑνὸς καὶ τἀγαθοῦ μοῖρά τις ὀλίγη τὸ πᾶν ἀμερίστως ἔχουσα, τῆς ψυχῆς πλήρωμα καὶ ἐν τῷ ἑνὶ καὶ ἀγαθῷ συνέχουσα πᾶσαν αὐτὴν διὰ τῆς ὑπερεχούσης καὶ χωριστῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξῃρημένης παρουσίας. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ἀμφὶ τὸν μέγαν Διόνυσον οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως ἐπῆλθέ μοι βακχεύοντι μανῆναι· [218] τὸν βοῦν δὲ ἐπιτίθημι τῇ γλώττῃ· περὶ τῶν ἀρρήτων γὰρ οὐδὲν χρὴ λέγειν. ἀλλά μοι θεοὶ μὲν ἐκείνων καὶ ὑμῶν δὲ τοῖς πολλοῖς, ὅσοι τέως ἐστὲ τούτων ἀμύητοι, τὴν ὄνησιν δοῖεν.

(But since I have mentioned also the myths that are suited to initiation, let us ourselves independently try to see what sort of myths they must be that suit one or the other of those two branches of philosophy;(181) and no longer need we call in the aid of witnesses from the remote past for all points, but we will follow in the fresh footprints of one(182) whom next to the gods I revere and admire, yes, equally with Aristotle and Plato. He does not treat of all kinds of myths but only those connected with initiation into the Mysteries, such as Orpheus, the founder of the most sacred of all the Mysteries, handed down to us. For it is the incongruous element in myths that guides us to the truth.(183) I mean that the more paradoxical and prodigious the riddle is the more it seems to warn us not to believe simply the bare words but rather to study diligently the hidden truth, and not to relax our efforts until under the guidance of the gods those hidden things become plain, and so initiate or rather perfect our intelligence or whatever we possess that is more sublime than the intelligence, I mean that small particle of the One and the Good which contains the whole indivisibly, the complement of the soul, and in the One and the Good comprehends the whole of soul itself through the prevailing and separate and distinct presence of the One. But I was impelled I know not how to rave with his own sacred frenzy when I spoke like this of the attributes of great Dionysus(184); and now I set an ox on my tongue:(185) for I may not reveal what is too sacred for speech. However, may the gods grant to me and to many of you who have not as yet been initiated into these Mysteries to enjoy the blessings thereof!)

Ὑπὲρ δὲ ὧν εἰπεῖν τε καὶ ἀκοῦσαι θέμις καὶ ἀνεμέσητον ἀμφοτέροις ἐστὶ, πᾶς λόγος ὁ προφερόμενος ἔκ τε λέξεως καὶ διανοίας σύγκειται. οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ καὶ ὁ μῦθος λόγος τίς ἐστιν, [B] ἐκ δυοῖν τούτοιν συγκείσεται. σκοπῶμεν δὲ ἑκάτερον αὐτῶν. ἔστιν ἁπλῆ τις ἐν λόγῳ παντὶ διάνοια, καὶ μέντοι καὶ κατὰ σχῆμα προάγεται, τὰ παραδείγματα δὲ ἀμφοῖν ἐστι πολλά. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἓν ἁπλοῦν ἐστι καὶ οὐδὲν δεῖται ποικιλίας, τὸ δ᾽ ἐσχηματισμένον ἔχει διαφορὰς ἐν ἑαυτῷ πολλάς, ὧν, εἴ τί σοι τῆς ῥητορικῆς ἐμέλησεν, οὐκ ἀξύνετος εἶ. τούτων δὴ τῶν κατὰ διάνοιαν σχημάτων ἁρμόττει τῷ μύθῳ τὰ πλεῖστα· πλὴν ἔμοιγε οὔθ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν πολλῶν οὔθ᾽ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁπάντων ἐστὶ τά γε νῦν ῥητέον, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ δυοῖν, τοῦ τε σεμνοῦ κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ τοῦ ἀπεμφαίνοντος. [C] τὰ δὲ αὐτὰ ταῦτα καὶ περὶ τὴν λέξιν γίνεται. μορφοῦται γάρ πως καὶ σχηματίζεται παρὰ τῶν μὴ προφερομένων εἰκῇ μηδ᾽ ὥσπερ χειμάρρους ἑλκόντων συρφετοὺς ῥημάτων ἐκ τῆς τριόδου· ἀλλὰ τοῖν δυοῖν τούτοιν, ὅταν μὲν ὑπὲρ τῶν θείων πλάττωμεν, σεμνὰ χρὴ πάνυ τὰ ῥήματα εἶναι καὶ τὴν λέξιν ὡς ἔνι μάλιστα σώφρονα καὶ καλὴν καὶ τοῖς θεοῖς πρεπωδεστάτην, τῶν αἰσχρῶν [D] δὲ μηδὲν καὶ βλασφήμων ἢ δυσσεβῶν, ὅπως μὴ τῷ πλήθει τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρχηγοὶ θρασύτητος γενώμεθα, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ πλήθους αὐτοὶ τὸ περὶ τοὺς θεοὺς ἠσεβηκέναι προλάβωμεν. οὐδὲν οὖν ἀπεμφαῖνον εἶναι χρὴ περὶ τὰς τοιαύτας λέξεις, ἀλλὰ σεμνὰ πάντα καὶ καλὰ καὶ μεγαλοπρεπῆ καὶ θεῖα καὶ καθαρὰ καὶ τῆς τῶν θεῶν οὐσίας εἰς δύναμιν ἐστοχασμένα· [219] τὸ δὲ κατὰ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀπεμφαῖνον τοῦ χρησίμου γιγνόμενον χάριν ἐγκριτέον, ὡς ἂν μή τινος ὑπομνήσεως ἔξωθεν οἱ ἄνθρωποι δεόμενοι, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ λεγομένων τῷ μύθῳ διδασκόμενοι τὸ λανθάνον μῶσθαι καὶ πολυπραγμονεῖν ὑφ᾽ ἡγεμόσι τοῖς θεοῖς προθυμηθεῖεν. ἰδοῦ γὰρ ἔγωγε πολλῶν ἤκουσα λεγόντων ἄνθρωπον μὲν τὸν Διόνυσον, ἐπείπερ ἐκ Σεμέλης ἐγένετο, θεὸν δὲ διὰ θεουργίας [B] καὶ τελεστικῆς, ὥσπερ τὸν δεσπότην Ἡρακλέα διὰ τῆς βασιλικῆς ἀρετῆς εἰς τὸν Ὄλυμπον ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀνῆχθαι τοῦ Διός. ἀλλ᾽, ὦ τάν, εἶπον, οὐ ξυνίετε τοῦ μύθου φανερῶς αἰνιττομένου. ποῦ γὰρ ἡ γένεσίς ἐστιν ὥσπερ Ἡρακλέους, οὕτω δὴ(186) καὶ Διονύσου, ἔχουσα μὲν τὸ κρεῖττον καὶ ὑπερέχον καὶ ἐξῃρημένον, ἐν τῷ μετρίῳ δὲ ὅμως ἔτι τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης φύσεως μένουσα καί [C] πως ἀφομοιουμένη πρὸς ἡμᾶς; Ἡρακλὴς δὲ λέγεται παιδίον γενέσθαι καὶ κατὰ μικρὸν αὐτῷ τὸ σῶμα τὸ θεῖον ἐπιδοῦναι, καὶ φοιτῆσαι διδασκάλοις ἱστόρηται, καὶ στρατεύσασθαι λέγεται καὶ κρατῆσαι πάντων, καμεῖν δὲ ὅμως κατὰ(187) τὸ σῶμα. καίτοι αὐτῷ ταῦτα μὲν ὑπῆρξε, μειζόνως δὲ ἢ κατ᾽ ἄνθρωπον. ὅτε γὰρ ἐν τοῖς σπαργάνοις ἀποπνίγων τοὺς δράκοντας καὶ πρὸς αὐτὰ παραταττόμενος τὰ τῆς φύσεως στοιχεῖα, θάλπη καὶ κρυμούς, [D] εἶτα τοῖς ἀπορωτάτοις καὶ ἀμαχωτάτοις, ἐνδείᾳ λέγω τροφῆς καὶ ἐρημίᾳ, καὶ τὴν δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πορείαν οἶμαι τοῦ πελάγους ἐπὶ τῆς χρυσῆς κύλικος, ἣν ἐγὲ νομίζω μὰ τοὺς θεοὺς οὐ κύλικα εἶναι, βαδίσαι δὲ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐπὶ ξηρᾶς τῆς θαλάττης νενόμικα. τὶ γὰρ ἄπορον ἦν Ἡρακλεῖ; τί δ᾽ οὐχ ὑπήκουσεν αὐτοῦ τῷ θείῳ καὶ καθαρωτάτῳ σώματι, τῶν λεγομένων τούτων στοιχείων δουλευόντων αὐτοῦ τῇ δημιουργικῇ [220] καὶ τελεσιουργῷ τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶ καθαροῦ νοῦ δυνάμει; ὃν ὁ μέγας Ζεὺς διὰ τῆς Προνοίας Ἀθηνᾶς, ἐπιστήσας αὐτῷ φύλακα τὴν θεὸν ταύτην, ὅλην ἐξ ὅλου προέμενος αὑτοῦ,(188) τῷ κόσμῳ σωτῆρα ἐφύτευσεν, εἶτ᾽ ἐπανήγαγε διὰ τοῦ κεραυνίου πυρὸς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, ὑπὸ τῷ θείῳ συνθήματι τῆς αἰθερίας αὐγῆς ἥκειν παρ᾽ ἑαυτὸν τῷ παιδὶ κελεύσας. ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ μὲν τούτων ἐμοί τε καὶ ὑμῖν ἵλεως Ἡρακλῆς εἴη.

(And now to confine myself to what is lawful for us, both for me to say and for you to hear. Every discourse that is uttered consists of language and the thought to be expressed. Now a myth is a sort of discourse and so it will consist of these two. Let us consider them separately. In every discourse the thought is of two kinds, either simple or expressed in figures of speech; and there are many examples of both kinds. The one is simple and admits of no variety, but that which is embellished with figures has in itself many possibilities of variation with all of which you are yourself familiar if you have ever studied rhetoric; and most of these figures of thought are suited to myth. However I need not now discuss all or indeed many of them, but only two, that in which the thought is dignified and that in which it is paradoxical. The same rules apply also to diction. For this is given a certain shape and form by those who do not express themselves carelessly or sweep in the refuse of language from the highways like a winter torrent. And now to consider these two types. When we invent myths about sacred things our language must be wholly dignified and the diction must be as far as possible sober, beautiful, and entirely appropriate to the gods; there must be nothing in it base or slanderous or impious, for fear we should lead the common people into this sort of sacrilegious rashness; or rather for fear we should ourselves anticipate the common people in displaying impiety towards the gods. Therefore there must be no incongruous element in diction thus employed, but all must be dignified, beautiful, splendid, divine, pure, and as far as possible in conformity with the essential nature of the gods. But as regards the thought, the incongruous may be admitted, so that under the guidance of the gods men may be inspired to search out and study the hidden meaning, though they must not ask for any hint of the truth from others, but must acquire their knowledge from what is said in the myth itself.(189) For instance I have heard many people say that Dionysus was a mortal man because he was born of Semele, and that he became a god through his knowledge of theurgy and the Mysteries, and like our lord Heracles for his royal virtue was translated to Olympus by his father Zeus. “Nay, my good sir,” said I, “do you not perceive that the myth is obviously an allegory?” For in what sense do we regard the “birth” of Heracles, yes, and of Dionysus as well, since in their case birth has superior and surpassing and distinctive elements, even though it still falls within the limits of human nature, and up to a certain point resembles our own? Heracles for instance is said to have been a child, even as we are; his divine body grew gradually; we are informed that he was instructed by teachers;(190) they say that he carried on wars and defeated all his opponents, but for all that his body had to endure weariness. And in fact all this did in his case occur, but on a scale greater than human. For instance, while still in swaddling clothes he strangled the serpents and then opposed himself to the very elements of nature, the extremes of heat and cold and things the most difficult and hardest to contend with, I mean lack of food and loneliness;(191) and then there is his journey over the sea itself in a golden cup,(192) though, by the gods, I do not think it was really a cup, but my belief is that he himself walked on the sea as though it were dry land.(193) For what was impossible to Heracles? Which was there of the so‐called elements that did not obey his divine and most pure body since they were subdued to the creative and perfecting force of his stainless and pure intelligence? For him did mighty Zeus, with the aid of Athene goddess of Forethought, beget to be the saviour of the world, and appointed as his guardian this goddess whom he had brought forth whole from the whole of himself; and later on he called him to his side through the flame of a thunderbolt, thus bidding his son to come to him by the divine signal of the ethereal rays of light. Now when we meditate on this, may Heracles be gracious to you and to me!)

Τὰ δὲ τῆς Διονύσου θρυλουμένης μὲν γενέσεως, οὔσης δὲ οὐ γενέσεως, [B] ἀλλὰ δαιμονίας ἐκφάνσεως κατὰ τί τοῖς ἀνθρωπικοῖς προσέοικεν; ἡ μήτηρ αὐτὸν κύουσα, φασίν, ὑπὸ τῆς Ἥρας ζηλοτυπούσης ἐξαπατηθεῖσα τὸν ἐραστὴν ἐξελιπάρησεν ἥκειν, ὡς παρὰ τὴν γαμετὴν εἴωθε φοιτᾶν, πρὸς ἑαυτήν· εἶτα οὐκ ἀνασχόμενον τὸ σωμάτιον τῶν κτυπημάτων(194) τοῦ Διὸς ὑπὸ τοῦ κεραυνοῦ κατεφλέγετο. πάντων δ᾽ ὁμοῦ πυρουμένων, Ἑρμῇ κελεύσας ὁ Ζεὺς ἁρπάσαι τὸν Διόνυσον καὶ τεμὼν τὸν αὑτοῦ μηρὸν ἐρράπτει· εἶτα ἐκεῖθεν, ἡνίκα ἐτελεσφορήθη τὸ βρέφος, [C] ὠδίνων ὁ Ζεὺς ἐπὶ τὰς νύμφας ἔρχεται· τὸ Λῦθι ῥάμμα δὲ αὗται τῷ μηρῷ προσεπᾴδουσαι τὸν διθύραμβον ἡμῖν εῖς φῶς προήγαγον· εἶτα ἐμάνη, φασίν, ὁ θεὸς ὑπὸ τῆς Ἥρας, ἔπαυσε δ᾽ αὐτῷ τὴν νόσον ἡ Μήτηρ τῶν θεῶν, ὁ δὲ ἦν αὐτίκα θεός. εἵποντο γοῦν οὐ Λίχας αὐτῷ καθάπερ Ἡρακλεῖ οὐδὲ Ἰόλεως οὐδὲ Τελαμὼν οὐδ᾽ Ὕλας οὐδ᾽ Ἄβδηρος, ἀλλὰ Σάτυροι καὶ Βακχαὶ [D] καὶ Πᾶνες καὶ δαιμόνων στρατιά. ὁρᾷς ὅπως ἀνθρωπικὴ μὲν ἡ σπορὰ διὰ τῶν κεραυνίων, ἡ δ᾽ ἀποκύησις ἀνθρωπικωτέρα, ἀμφοῖν δὲ τοῖν εἰρημένοιν προσομοιότερα τοῖς ἀνθρωπίνοις τὰ ἔργα; τί οὖν οὐ καταβάλλοντες τὸν λῆρον ἐκεῖνο πρῶτον ὑπὲρ τούτων ἴσμεν, ὡς Σεμέλη σοφὴ τὰ θεῖα; παῖς γὰρ ἦν Κάδμου τοῦ Φοίνικος, τούτοις δὲ καὶ ὁ θεὸς σοφίαν μαρτυρεῖ

(As for the commonly received legend about the birth of Dionysus, which was in fact no birth but a divine manifestation, in what respect was it like the birth of men? While he was still in his mother’s womb she, as the story goes, was beguiled by jealous Hera to entreat her lover to visit her as he was wont to visit his spouse. And then her frail body could not endure the thunders of Zeus and began to be consumed by the lightning. But when everything there was being devoured by flames, Zeus bade Hermes snatch Dionysus forth, and he cut open his own thigh and sewed the babe therein.(195) Then in due course when the time was ripe for the child’s birth, Zeus in the pangs of travail came to the nymphs, and they by their song over the thigh “Undo the stitching”(196) brought to light for us the dithyramb. Whereupon the god was driven mad by Hera, but the Mother of the Gods healed him of his sickness and he straightway became a god. And he had for followers not, like Heracles, Lichas for instance or Iolaus or Telamon or Hylas or Abderos, but Satyrs, Bacchanals, Pans and a whole host of lesser divinities. Do you perceive how much of human there is in this generation through the fire of a thunderbolt, that his delivery is even more human, and that his deeds, even more than these two that we have mentioned, resemble those of human beings? Now why do we not set aside all this nonsense and recognise herein first the fact that Semele was wise in sacred things? For she was the daughter of Phoenician Cadmus, and the god himself bears witness to the wisdom of the Phoenicians(197) when he says)

Πολλὰς καὶ Φοίνικες ὁδοὺς μακάρων ἐδάησαν

(“The Phoenicians too have learned many of the roads travelled by
the blessed gods.”(198))

λέγων. [221] αἰσθέσθαι οὖν μοι δοκεῖ τοῦ θεοῦ τούτου πρώτη παρ᾽ Ἕλλησι καὶ τὴν ἐσομένην ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοῦ οὐκ εἰς μακρὰν προαγορεύσασα κινῆσαι μὲν θᾶττον ἢ προσῆκον ἦν τινὰ τῶν περὶ αὐτὸν ὀργίων, οὐκ ἀνασχομένη τὸν εἱμαρμένον περιμεῖναι χρόνον, εἶτα ἀναλωθῆναι πρὸς τοῦ πυρὸς τοῦ ῥυέντος ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐδέδοκτο τῷ Διὶ κοινῇ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐνδοῦναι ἀρχὴν καταστάσεως ἑτέρας καὶ μεταβαλεῖν(199) αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ νομαδικοῦ βίου πρὸς [B] τὸν ἡμερώτερον, ἐξ Ἰνδῶν ὁ Διόνυσος αὔτοπτος ἐφαίνετο δαίμων, ἐπιφοιτῶν τὰς πόλεις, ἄγων μεθ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ στρατιὰν πολλὴν δαιμονίων τινῶν(200) καὶ διδοὺς ἀνθρώποις κοινῇ μὲν ἅπασι σύμβολον τῆς ἐπιφανείας αὐτοῦ τὸ τῆς ἡμερίδος φυτόν, ὑφ᾽ οὗ μοι δοκοῦσιν, ἐξημερωθέντων αὐτοῖς τῶν περὶ τὸν βίον, Ἕλληνες τῆς ἐπωνυμίας αὐτὸ ταύτης ἀξιῶσαι, μητέρα δ᾽ αὐτοῦ προσειπεῖν τὴν Σεμέλην διὰ τὴν πρόρρησιν, ἄλλως τε καὶ τοῦ θεοῦ τιμῶντος αὐτήν, [C] ἅτε πρώτην ἱερόφαντιν τῆς ἔτι μελλούσης ἐπιφοιτήσεως.

(I think then that she was the first among the Greeks to perceive that there was to be before long a visible manifestation of this god, and that she foretold it, and then that, sooner than was fitting, she gave the signal for certain of the mystic rites connected with his worship, because she had not the patience to wait for the appointed time, and thus she was consumed by the fire that fell upon her. But when it was the will of Zeus to bestow on all mankind in common a new order of things, and to make them pass from the nomadic to a more civilised mode of life, Dionysus came from India and revealed himself as very god made visible, visiting the cities of men and leading with him a great host of beings in some sort divine; and everywhere he bestowed on all men in common as the symbol of his manifestation the plant of “the gentle vine”; and since their lives were made more gentle by it the Greeks as I think gave it that name;(201) and they called Semele the mother of Dionysus because of the prediction that she had made, but also because the god honoured her as having been the first prophetess of his advent while it was yet to be.)

Οὔσης δέ, ὡς ἄν τις ἀκριβῶς σκοπῶν ἐξετάσειε, τῆς ἱστορίας τοιαύτης, οἱ τὸν Διόνυσον ὅστις ποτ᾽ ἐστὶ θεῶν ζητοῦντες τἀληθὲς ἔχον ὡς ἔφην εἰς μῦθον διεσκεύασαν, αἰνιττόμενοι τήν τε οὐσίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς νοητοῖς παρὰ τῷ πατρὶ κύησιν καὶ τὸν ἀγέννητον αὐτοῦ τόκον ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ(202) ..... ἐν τῷ παντί, καὶ τἆλλα ἐφεξῆς ὅσα τοῦ ζητεῖν ἦν ἄξια,(203) φράζειν δέ γ᾽ οὐ ῥᾴδια ἐμοί, τυχὸν μὲν [D] καὶ διὰ τὸ ἀγνοεῖν ἔτι περὶ αὐτῶν τὸ ἀκριβές, τυχὸν δὲ καὶ οὐκ ἐθέλοντι τὸν κρύφιον ἅμα καὶ φανερὸν θεὸν ὥσπερ ἐν θεάτρῳ προβάλλειν ἀκοαῖς ἀνεξετάστοις καὶ διανοίαις ἐπὶ πάντα μάλλον ἢ τὸ φιλοσοφεῖν τετραμμέναις.

(Now since this is the historical truth of these events if they are accurately considered and examined, those who sought to discover what sort of god Dionysus is worked into a myth the truth which is as I said, and expressed in an allegory both the essential nature of the god and his conception in his father Zeus among the intelligible gods, and further his birth independently of generation in this our world.(204) ... in the whole universe, and in their proper order all those other facts which are well worth studying but too difficult for me at any rate to describe; partly perhaps because I am still ignorant of the precise truth about them,(205) but perhaps also because I am unwilling to exhibit as in a theatre this god who is at once hidden and manifest, and that, too, to ears that have not sought after truth and to minds disposed to anything rather than the study of philosophy.)

Ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ μὲν τούτων ἴστω Διόνυσος αὐτός, ᾧ καὶ προσεύχομαι τάς τε ἐμὰς καὶ τὰς ὑμετέρας ἐκβακχεῦσαι φρένας ἐπὶ τὴν ἀληθῆ τῶν θεῶν γνῶσιν, ὡς ἂν μὴ πολὺν ἀβάκχευτοι χρόνον τῷ θεῷ μένοντες [222] ὁπόσα ὁ Πενθεὺς(206) πάθωμεν, ἴσως μὲν καὶ ζῶντες, πάντως δὲ ἀπαλλαγέντες τοῦ σώματος. ὅτῳ γὰρ ἂν(207) μὴ τὸ πεπληθυσμένον τῆς ζωῆς ὑπὸ τῆς ἑνοειδοῦς καὶ ἐν τῷ μεριστῷ παντελῶς ἀδιαιρέτου ὅλης τε ἐν πᾶσιν ἀμιγοῦς προüπαρχούσης οὐσίας τοῦ Διονύσου τελεσιουργηθῇ(208) διὰ τῆς περὶ τὸν θεὸν ἐνθέου βακχείας, τούτῳ κίνδυνος ἐπὶ πολλὰ ῥυῆναι τὴν ζωήν, ῥυεῖσαν δὲ διεσπάσθαι καὶ διασπασθεῖσαν οἴχεσθαι· [B] τὸ δὲ ῥυεῖσαν καὶ διασπασθεῖσαν μὴ προσέχων τις τοῖς ῥήμασιν ὑδάτιον μηδὲ λίνου μήρινθον ἀκροάσθω, ξυνιέτω δὲ τὰ λεγόμενα τρόπον ἄλλον, ὃν Πλάτων, ὃν Πλωτίνος, ὃν Πορφύριος, ὃν ὁ δαιμόνιος Ἰάμβλιχος. ὃς δ᾽ ἂν μὴ ταύτῃ ποιῇ, γελάσεται μέν, ἴστω μέντοι Σαρδώνιον γελῶν ἔρημος ὢν ἀεὶ τῆς τῶν θεῶν γνώσεως, ἧς ἀντάξιον οὐδὲ τὸ πᾶσαν ὁμοῦ μετὰ τῆς τῶν Ῥωμαίων [C] ἐπιτροπεῦσαι τὴν βαρβάρων ἔγωγε θείμην ἄν, οὐ μὰ τὸν ἐμὸν δεσπότην Ἥλιον. ἀλλά με πάλιν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅστις θεῶν ἐπὶ ταῦτ᾽ ἐβάκχευσεν οὐ προελόμενον.

(However let Dionysus himself decide about these things, though I do indeed implore him to inspire my mind and yours with his own sacred frenzy for the true knowledge of the gods, so that we may not by remaining too long uninspired by him have to suffer the fate of Pentheus, perhaps even while we are alive, but most certainly after death has freed us from the body. For he in whom the abundance of life has not been perfected by the essential nature of Dionysus, uniform and wholly indivisible as it is in the divisible world and pre‐existing whole and unmixed in all things, he I say who has not been perfected by means of the Bacchic and divine frenzy for the god, runs the risk that his life may flow into too many channels, and as it flows be torn to shreds, and hence come to naught. But when I say “flow” or “torn to shreds” no one must consider the bare meaning of the words and suppose that I mean a mere trickle of water or a thread of linen, but he must understand these words in another sense, that used by Plato, Plotinus, Porphyry and the inspired Iamblichus. One who does not interpret them thus will laugh at them no doubt, but let me assure him that it will be a Sardonic laugh,(209) since he will be forever deprived of that knowledge of the gods which I hold to be more precious than to rule over the whole world, Roman and barbarian put together, yea, I swear it by my lord Helios. But again some god or other and no choice of my own has made me rave with this Bacchic frenzy.)

οὗ δὲ ἕνεκεν ἔφην αὐτά· κατὰ μὲν τὴν διάνοιαν ἀπεμφαίνοντες ὅταν οἱ μῦθοι γίγνωνται περὶ τῶν θείων, αὐτόθεν ἡμῖν ὥσπερ βοῶσι καὶ διαμαρτύρονται μὴ πιστεύειν ἁπλῶς, ἀλλὰ τὸ λεληθὸς σκοπεῖν καὶ διερευνᾶσθαι. τοσούτῳ δ᾽ ἐστὶ κρεῖττον ἐν τούτοις τοῦ σεμνοῦ τὸ ἀπεμφαῖνον, ὅσῳ διὰ μὲν ἐκείνου καλοὺς λίαν καὶ μεγάλους καὶ ἀγαθούς, [D] ἀνθρώπους δὲ ὅμως τοὺς θεοὺς κίνδυνος νομίσαι, διὰ δὲ τῶν ἀπεμφαινόντων ὑπεριδόντας τῶν ἐν τῷ φανερῷ λεγομένων ἐπὶ τὴν ἐξῃρημένην αὐτῶν οὐσίαν καὶ ὑπερέχουσαν πάντα τὰ ὄντα καθαρὰν νόησιν ἐλπὶς ἀναδραμεῖν.