Part 7

(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.

(To go back then to what led me to say all this. Whenever myths on sacred subjects are incongruous in thought, by that very fact they cry aloud, as it were, and summon us not to believe them literally but to study and track down their hidden meaning. And in such myths the incongruous element is even more valuable than the serious and straightforward, the more so that when the latter is used there is risk of our regarding the gods as exceedingly great and noble and good certainly, but still as human beings, whereas when the meaning is expressed incongruous there is some hope that men will neglect the more obvious sense of the words, and that pure intelligence may rise to the comprehension of the distinctive nature of the gods that transcends all existing things.)

[223] Αἴτιαι μὲν οὖν αὗται τοῦ τὴν τελεστικὴν καὶ μυσταγωγὸν φιλοσοφίαν τὰ μὲν ῥήματα παντὸς μᾶλλον εὐαγῆ καὶ σεμνὰ προφέρεσθαι, κατὰ δὲ τὴν διάνοιαν ἀλλοιοτέραν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐξήγησιν τῶν τοιούτων. ὁ δὲ τῆς τῶν ἠθῶν ἐπανορθώσεως ἕνεκα τοὺς λόγους πλάττων καὶ μύθους παράγων δράτω(210) τοῦτο μὴ πρὸς ἄνδρας, ἀλλὰ πρὸς παῖδας ἤτοι καθ᾽ ἡλικίαν ἢ τῷ φρονεῖν, πάντως δὲ τῶν λόγων τούτων δεομένους. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡμεῖς σοι παῖδες ἐφάνημεν εἴτε [B] ἐγὼ εἴτε Ἀνατόλιος οὑτοσί, συγκαταρίθμει δὲ τούτῳ καὶ τὸν Μεμμόριον καὶ τὸν Σαλούστιον, πρὸς τούτοις δέ, εἰ βούλει, καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους ἑξῆς, Ἀντικύρας σοι δεῖ· τί γὰρ ἂν ἀκκίζοιτί τις; ἐπεὶ πρὸς τῶν θεῶν καὶ πρὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μύθου, μᾶλλον δὲ τοῦ κοινῇ πάντων βασιλέως Ἡλίου, τί σοι μέγα ἢ μικρὸν πεποίηται ἔργον; τίνι παρέστης ἀγωνιζομένῳ μετὰ τοὺ δικαίου; τίνα ἐθεράπευσας πενθοῦντα, [C] τῷ λόγῳ διδάξας, ὅτι μὴ κακὸν ὁ θάνατος μήτε τῷ παθόντι μήτε τοῖς οἰκείοις αὐτοῦ; τίς δ᾽ αἰτιάσεταί σε τῆς ἑαυτοῦ μειρακίσκος σωφροσύνης, ὅτι πεποίηκας αὐτὸν ἐξ ἀσώτου σώφρονα καὶ καλὸν οὐ τὸ σῶμα μόνον, ἀλλὰ πολὺ μᾶλλον τὴν ψυχὴν φαίνεσθαι; τίνα δὲ ἄσκησιν ἐποιήσω τοῦ βίου; τί δέ σοι ἄξιον τῆς Διογένους βακτηρίας ἢ ναὶ μὰ Δία τῆς παρρησίας πεποίηται; ἔργον οἴει μέγα βακτηρίαν λαβεῖν ἢ τρίχας ἀνεῖναι, [D] καὶ περινοστεῖν τὰς πόλεις καὶ τὰ στρατόπεδα, καὶ τοῖς μὲν βελτίστοις λοιδορεῖσθαι, τοὺς δὲ χειρίστους θεραπεύειν; εἰπὲ πρὸς τοῦ Διὸς καὶ πρὸς τουτωνὶ τῶν ἀκροωμένων, οἷ δι᾽ ὑμᾶς τὴν φιλοσοφίαν ἐκτρέπονται, ἀνθ᾽ ὅτου πρὸς μὲν τὸν μακαρίτην Κωνστάντιον εἰς Ἰταλίαν ἦλθες, οὐκέτι μέντοι καὶ μέχρι τῶν Γαλλιῶν; καίτοι πορευθεὶς πρὸς ἡμᾶς, εἰ μηδὲν ἄλλο, ξυνεῖναι γοῦν σου τῆς φωνῆς μᾶλλον δυναμένῳ πλησιάζειν ἔμελλες ἀνθρώπῳ. [224] τί δὲ καὶ τὸ περιθοιτᾶν πανταχοῦ καὶ παρέχειν πράγματα ταῖς ἡμιόνοις; ἀκούω δὲ ἔγωγε καὶ τοῖς τὰς ἡμιόνους ἐλαύνουσιν, οἳ μᾶλλον ὑμᾶς ἢ τοὺς στρατιώτας πεφρίκασι· χρῆσθαι γὰρ αὐτοῖς τοῖς ξύλοις(211) ἀκούω τινὰς ὑμῶν χαλεπώτερον ἢ τοῖς ξίφεσιν ἐκεῖνοι. γίγνεσθε οὖν αὐτοῖς εἰκότως φοβερώτεροι. πάλαι μὲν οὖν ὑμῖν ἐθέρμην ἐγὼ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα, [B] νυνὶ δὲ αὐτὸ ἔοικα καὶ γράψειν. ἀποτακτιστάς τινας ὀνομάζουσιν οἱ δυσσεβεῖς Γαλιλαῖοι· τούτων οἱ πλείους μικρὰ προέμενοι πολλὰ πάνυ, μᾶλλον δὲ τὰ πάντα πανταχόθεν ξυγκομίζουσι, καὶ προσκτῶνται(212) τὸ τιμᾶσθαι καὶ δορυφορεῖσθαι καὶ θεραπεύεσθαι. τοιοῦτόν τι καὶ τὸ ὑμέτερον ἔργον ἐστί, πλὴν ἴσως τοῦ χρηματίζεσθαι. τοῦτο δὲ οὐ παρ᾽ ὑμᾶς γίγνεται, παρ᾽ ἡμᾶς δέ· συνετώτεροι γάρ ἐσμεν τῶν ἀνοήτων ἐκείνων· ἴσως δὲ καὶ διὰ τὸ μηδὲν ὑμῖν εἶναι πρόσχημα τοῦ φορολογεῖν εὐπροσώπως, [C] ὁποῖον ἐκείνοις, ἣν λέγουσιν οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως ἐλεημοσύνην, τὰ δ᾽ ἄλλα γε πάντα ἐστὶν ὑμῖν τε κἀκείνοις παραπλήσια. καταλελοίπατε τὴν πατρίδα ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνοι, περιφοιτᾶτε πάντη καὶ τὸ στρατόπεδον διωχλήσατε μᾶλλον ἐκείνων καὶ ἰταμώτερον· οἱ μὲν γὰρ καλούμενοι, ὑμεῖς δὲ καὶ ἀπελαυνόμενοι. καὶ τί χρηστὸν ἐκ τούτων ὑμῖν ἐγένετο, [D] μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ ἡμῖν τοῖς ἄλλοις; ἀνῆλθεν ὁ Ἀσκληπιάδης, εἶτα ὁ Σερηνιανός, εἶτα ὁ Χύτρων, εἶτα οὐκ οἶδα παιδάριον ὅ, τι ξανθὸν καὶ εὔμηκες, εἶτα σύ, καὶ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἄλλοι δὶς τοσοῦτοι. τί οὖν ἐκ τῆς ὑμετέρας ἀνόδου γέγονεν ἀγαθόν, ὦ λῷστοι; τίς ᾔσθετο πόλις ἢ τίς ἰδιώτης τῆς ὑμετέρας παρρησίας; οὐκ ἀφρόνως μὲν τὸ ἐξ ἀρχῆς εἵλεσθε τὴν ἐπὶ τὸν οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν ὑμᾶς θέλοντα βασιλέα πορείαν, ἀνελθόντες δὲ ἀφρονέστερον αὐτῇ καὶ ἀμαθέστερον καὶ μανιωδέστερον ἐχρήσασθε, κολακεύσαντες ἅμα καὶ ὑλακτήσαντες καὶ βιβλία δόντες [225] καὶ ταῦτα προσαχθῆναι(213) προσλιπαρήσαντες; οὐδένα ὑμῶν οἶμαι ἐγὼ τοσαυτάκις εἰς φιλοόοφου φοιτῆσαι, ὁσάκις εἰς ἀντιγραφέως, ὥστε ὑμῖν Ἀκαδήμεια καὶ Λύκειον ἀντὶ τῆς Ποικίλης τε ἦν τῶν βασιλείων τὰ πρόθυρα.

(These then are the reasons why that branch of philosophy which is connected with initiation and the doctrines of the Mysteries ought by all means to be expressed in devout and serious language, while as regards the thought the narrative may be expounded in a style that has stranger qualities. But one who is inventing tales for the purpose of reforming morals and inserts myths therein, does so not for men but for those who are children whether in years or intelligence, and who on all accounts stand in need of such tales. If, however, you took us for children, me, for instance, or Anatolius here, and you may reckon with us Memmorius also and Sallust and add if you please all the others in due order, then you need a voyage to Anticyra.(214) For why should one pretend to be polite? Tell me, I ask, in the name of the gods, and of myth itself, or rather in the name of Helios the King of all the universe, what have you ever accomplished, great or small? When did you ever champion one who was resisting oppression and had right on his side? When did you ever comfort the mourner and teach him by your arguments that death is not an evil either for him who has suffered it or for his friends? What youth will ever give you the credit for his temperance, and say that you have made him show himself sober instead of dissolute, and beautiful not merely in body but far more in soul? What strenuous discipline have you ever embraced? What have you ever done to make you worthy of the staff of Diogenes or still more, by Zeus, of his freedom of speech? Do you really think it so great an achievement to carry a staff and let your hair grow, and haunt cities and camps uttering calumnies against the noblest men, and flattering the vilest? Tell me in the name of Zeus and of this audience now present, who are disgusted with philosophy because of men of your sort, why was it that you visited the late Emperor Constantius in Italy but could not travel as far as Gaul? And yet if you had come to me you would at any rate have associated with one who was better able to comprehend your language. What do you gain by travelling about in all directions and wearing out the very mules you ride? Yes, and I hear that you wear out the mule drivers as well, and that they dread the sight of you Cynics even more than of soldiers. For I am told that some of you belabour them more cruelly with your staffs than do the soldiers with their swords, so that they are naturally more afraid of you. Long ago I gave you a nickname and now I think I will write it down. It is “monks,”(215) a name applied to certain persons by the impious Galilaeans. They are for the most part men who by making small sacrifices gain much or rather everything from all sources, and in addition secure honour, crowds of attendants and flattery. Something like that is your method, except perhaps for uttering divine revelations: but this is not your custom, though it is ours; for we are wiser than those insensate men. And perhaps too there is this difference that you have no excuse for levying tribute on specious pretexts as they do; which they call “alms,” whatever that may mean. But in all other respects your habits and theirs are very much alike. Like them you have abandoned your country, you wander about all over the world, and you gave more trouble than they did at my headquarters, and were more insolent. For they were at any rate invited to come, but you we tried to drive away. And what good have you, or rather, what have the rest of us derived from all this? First arrived Asclepiades, then Serenianus, then Chytron, then a tall boy with yellow hair—I don’t know his name—then you, and with you all twice as many more. And now, my good sirs, what good has come from your journey? What city or individual has had any experience of your alleged freedom of speech? Was it not foolish of you to choose in the first place to make this journey to an Emperor who did not even wish to set eyes on you? And when you had arrived, did you not behave even more foolishly and ignorantly and insanely in flattering and barking at me in the same breath, and offering me your books, and moreover imploring that they should be taken to me? I do not believe that any one of you ever visited a philosopher’s school as diligently as you did my secretary: in fact the entrance to the Palace stood for you in place of the Academy and the Lyceum and the Portico.)

Οὐκ ἀπάξετε ταῦτα; οὐ καταβαλεῖτε νῦν γοῦν, εἰ καὶ μὴ πρότερον, ὅτε ὑμῖν οὐδέν ἐστι πλέον ἀπὸ τῆς κόμης καὶ τῆς βακτηρίας; πῶς δὲ καὶ γέγονεν ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν εὐκαταφρόνητος ἡ φιλοσοφία; τῶν ῥητορικῶν [B] οἱ δυσμαθέστατοι καὶ οὐδ᾽ ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ βασιλέως Ἑρμοῦ τὴν γλῶτταν ἐκκαθαρθῆναι δυνάμενοι, φρενωθῆναι δὲ οὐδὲ πρὸς αὐτῆς τῆς Ἀθηνᾶς σὺν τῷ Ἑρμῇ, τοῦτο ἐκ τῆς ἀγοραίου καὶ περιτρεχούσης ἁρπάσαντες ἐντρεχείας· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐν παροιμίᾳ περιφερόμενον αὐτὸ γιγνώσκουσι τὸ ὅτι βότρυς πρὸς βότρυν πεπαίνεται· ὁρμῶσιν ἐπὶ τὸν Κυνισμόν· βακτηρία, τρίβων, [C] κόμη, τὸ ἐντεῦθεν ἀμαθία, θράσος, ἰταμότης καὶ πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα. τὴν σύντομον, φασίν, ὁδὸν καὶ σύντονον ἐπὶ τὴν ἀρετὴν ἰέναι(216) ὄφελον καὶ ὑμεῖς τὴν μακρὰν ἐπορεύεσθε· ῥᾷον ἂν δι᾽ ἐκείνης ἢ διὰ ταύτης ἤλθετε. οὐκ ἴστε, ὅτι μεγάλας ἔχουσιν αἱ σύντομοι τὰς χαλεπότητας; καὶ ὥσπερ ἐν ταῖς λεωφόροις ὁ μὲν τὴν σύντομον ἐλθεῖν δυνηθεὶς ῥᾷον ἐκπερίεισι τὴν κύκλῳ, οὐκέτι μέντοι τὸ ἀνάπαλιν ὁ κύκλῳ πορευθεὶς ἔλθοι ἂν πάντως [D] καὶ τὴν ἐπίτομον, οὕτω δὴ(217) καὶ ἐν τῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ τέλος τέ ἑστι καὶ ἀρχὴ μία γνῶναί τε ἑαυτὸν καὶ ἀφομοιωθῆναι τοῖς θεοῖς· ἀρχὴ μὲν οὖν ἑαυτὸν γνῶναι, τέλος δὲ ἡ πρὸς τοὺς κρείττονας ὁμοιότης.