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!)