The Works of the Emperor Julian, Vol. 2

by Emperor of Rome Julian

Oration VI

Introduction to Oration VI

The Sixth Oration is a sermon or rather a scolding addressed to the New Cynics, and especially to one of their number who had ventured to defame the memory of Diogenes. In the fourth Christian century the Cynic mode of life was adopted by many, but the vast majority were illiterate men who imitated the Cynic shamelessness of manners but not the genuine discipline, the self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια) which had ennobled the lives of Antisthenes, Diogenes and Crates. To the virtues of these great men Julian endeavours to recall the worthless Cynics of his day. In the two centuries that had elapsed since Lucian wrote, for the edification of degenerate Cynics,[1] the Life of the Cynic Demonax, the dignified and witty friend of Epictetus, the followers of that sect had still further deteriorated. The New Cynics may be compared with the worst type of mendicant friar of the Middle Ages; and Julian saw in their assumption of the outward signs of Cynicism, the coarse cloak, the staff and wallet, and long hair, the same hypocrisy and greed that characterised certain of the Christian monks of his day.[2] The resemblances [pg 003] between the Christians and the Cynics had already been pointed out by Aristides,[3] and while in Julian's eyes they were equally impious, he has an additional grievance against the Cynics in that they brought discredit on philosophy. Like the Christians they were unlettered, they were disrespectful to the gods whom Julian was trying to restore, they had flattered and fawned on Constantius, and far from practising the austerities of Diogenes they were no better than parasites on society.

In this as in the Seventh Oration Julian's aim is to reform the New Cynics, but still more to demonstrate the essential unity of philosophy. He sympathised profoundly with the tenets of Cynicism, and ranked Diogenes with Socrates as a moral teacher. He reminds the Cynics whom he satirises that the famous admonition of Diogenes to “countermark”[4] or “forge” a new coinage is not to be taken as an excuse for license and impudence, but like the Delphic precept “Know Thyself” warns all philosophers to accept no traditional authority, no convention that has not been examined and approved by the reason of the individual. His conviction that all philosophical tenets are in harmony if rightly understood, gives a peculiar earnestness to his Apologia for Diogenes. The reference in the first paragraph to the summer solstice seems to indicate that the Oration was written before Julian left Constantinople in order to prepare for the Persian campaign.

[Transcriber's Note: The original book had pages with Greek on the left page and the corresponding English translation on the facing right page. In this e-book, each Greek paragraph will be immediately followed by the English translation paragraph, surrounded in parentheses. The Greek text contains markings such as [3] and [B]; they are section and sub-section markings that in the original book were in the right margin. These are different from numbers within parentheses such as (10), which are used as footnote references in some e-book formats.]

ΙΟΥΛΙΑΝΟΥ ΑΥΤΟΚΡΑΤΟΡΟΣ

(Julian, Emperor)

ΕΙΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΑΠΑΙΔΕΥΤΟΥΣ ΚΥΝΑΣ

(To the Uneducated Cynics)

Ἄνω ποταμῶν, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ τῆς παροιμίας. ἀνὴρ Κυνικὸς Διογένη φησί κενόδοξον, καὶ ψυχρολουτεῖν οὐ βούλεται, σφόδρα ἐρρωμένος τὸ σῶμα καὶ σφριγῶν [181] καὶ τὴν ἡλικίαν ἀκμάζων, ὡς ἂν μή τι κακὸν λάβῃ, καὶ ταῦτα τοῦ θεοῦ ταῖς θεριναῖς τροπαῖς ἤδη προσιόντος. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν ἐδωδὴν τοῦ πολύποδος κωμῳδεῖ καί φησι τὸν Διογένη τῆς ἀνοίας καὶ κενοδοξίας ἐκτετικέναι ἱκανὰς[5] δίκας ὥσπερ ὑπὸ κωνείου τῆς τροφῆς διαφθαρέντα. οὕτω πόρρω που σοφίας ἐλαύνει, ὥστε ἐπίσταται σαφῶς ὅτι κακὸν ὁ θάνατος. τοῦτο δὲ ἀγνοεῖν ὑπελάμβανεν ὁ σοφὸς Σωκράτης, ἀλλὰ καὶ μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνον Διογένης. ἀρρωστοῦντι γοῦν, φασίν, ἀντισθένει μακρὰν καὶ δυσανάληπτον ἀρρωστίαν ξιφίδιον ἐπέδωκεν ὁ Διογένης εἰπών· [B] εἰ φίλου χρῄζεις ὑπουργίας. οὕτως οὐδὲν ᾤετο δεινὸν [pg 006] ἐκεῖνος οὐδὲ ἀλγεινὸν τὸν θάνατον. ἀλλ᾽ ἡμεῖς οἱ τὸ σκῆπτρον ἐκεῖθεν παραλαβόντες ὑπὸ μείζονος σοφίας ἴσμεν ὅτι χαλεπὸν ὁ θάνατος, καὶ τὸ νοσεῖν δεινότερον αὐτοῦ φαμεν[6] τοῦ θανάτου, τὸ ῥιγοῦν δὲ χαλεπώτερον τοῦ νοσεῖν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ νοσῶν μαλακῶς ἔσθ᾽ ὅτε θεραπεύεται, ὥστε γίνεσθαι τρυφὴν αὐτόχρημα τὴν ἀρρωστίαν, ἄλλως τε κἂν ᾖ πλούσιος. [C] ἐθεασάμην τοι καὶ αὐτὸς νὴ Δία τρυφώντάς τινας ἐν ταῖς νόσοις μᾶλλον ἢ τούτους αὐτοὺς ὑγιαίνοντας· καίτοι γε καὶ τότε λαμπρῶς ἐτρύφων. ὅθεν μοι καὶ παρέστη πρός τινας τῶν ἑταίρων εἰπεῖν, ὡς τούτοις ἄμεινον ἦν οἰκέταις γενέσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ δεσπόταις, καὶ πένεσθαι τοῦ κρίνου γυμνοτέροις οὖσιν ἢ πλουτεῖν ὥσπερ νῦν. ἦ γὰρ ἂν ἐπαύσαντο νοσοῦντες ἅμα καὶ τρυφῶντες. [D] τὸ μὲν δὴ νοσοτυφεῖν καὶ νοσηλεύεσθαι τρυφηλῶς οὑτωσί τινες ἐν καλῷ ποιοῦνται· ἀνὴρ δὲ τοῦ κρύους ἀνεχόμενος καὶ θάλπος καρτερῶν οὐχὶ καὶ τῶν νοσούντων ἀθλιώτερον πράττει; ἀλγεῖ γοῦν ἀπαραμύθητα.

(Behold the rivers are flowing backwards,[7] as the proverb says! Here is a Cynic who says that Diogenes[8] was conceited, and who refuses to take cold baths for fear they may injure him, though he has a very strong constitution and is lusty and in the prime of life, and this too though the Sun-god is now nearing the summer solstice. Moreover he even ridicules the eating of octopus and says that Diogenes paid a sufficient penalty for his folly and vanity in that he perished of this diet[9] as though by a draught of hemlock. So far indeed is he advanced in wisdom that he knows for certain that death is an evil. Yet this even the wise Socrates thought he did not know, yes and after him Diogenes as well. At any rate when Antisthenes[10] was suffering from a long and incurable illness Diogenes handed him a dagger with these words, “In case you need the aid of a friend.” So convinced was he that there is nothing terrible or grievous in death. But we who have inherited his staff know out of our greater wisdom that death is a calamity. And we say that sickness is even more terrible than death, and cold harder to bear than sickness. For the man who is sick is often tenderly nursed, so that his ill-health is straightway converted into a luxury, especially if he be rich. Indeed I myself, by Zeus, have observed that certain persons are more luxurious in sickness than in health, though even in health they were conspicuous for luxury. And so it once occurred to me to say to certain of my friends that it were better for those men to be servants than masters, and to be poor and more naked than the lily of the field[11] than to be rich as they now are. For they would have ceased being at once sick and luxurious. The fact is that some people think it a fine thing to make a display of their ailments and to play the part of luxurious invalids. But, says someone, is not a man who has to endure cold and to support heat really more miserable than the sick? Well, at any rate he has no comforts to mitigate his sufferings.)

Δεῦρο οὖν ἡμεῖς ὑπὲρ τῶν Κυνικῶν ὁπόσα διδασκάλων ἠκούσαμεν ἐν κοινῷ καταθῶμεν σκοπεῖν τοῖς ἐπὶ τὸν βίον ἰοῦσι τοῦτον· οἷς εἰ μὲν πεισθεῖεν, εὖ οἶδα, [182] οὐδὲν οἵ γε νῦν ἐπιχειροῦντες κυνίζειν ἔσονται χείρους· ἀπειθοῦντες δὲ εἰ μέν τι λαμπρὸν καὶ σεμνὸν ἐπιτηδεύσειαν, ὑπερφωνοῦντες τὸν λόγον τὸν ἡμέτερον, οὔτι τοῖς [pg 008] ῥήμασιν ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἔργοις, οὐδὲν ἐμπόδιον ὃ γε ἡμέτερος οἴσει λόγος· εἰ δὲ ὑπὸ λιχνείας ἢ μαλακίας ἤ, τὸ κεφάλαιον ἵν᾽ εἴπω ξυνελὲν ἐν βραχεῖ, τῆς σωματικῆς ἡδονῆς δεδουλωμένοι τῶν λόγων ὀλιγωρήσειαν προσκαταγελάσαντες, [B] ὥσπερ ἐνίοτε τῶν παιδευτηρίων καὶ τῶν δικαστηρίων οἱ κύνες τοῖς προπυλαίοις προσουροῦσιν, οὐ φροντὶς Ἰπποκλείδῃ· καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ τῶν κυνιδίων ἡμῖν μέλει τὰ τοιαῦτα πλημμελούντων. δεῦρο οὖν ἄνωθεν ἐν κεφαλαίοις διεξέλθωμεν ἐφεξῆς τὸν λόγον, ἵνα ὑπὲρ ἑκάστου τὸ προσῆκον ἀποδιδόντες αὐτοί τε εὐκολώτερον ἀπεργασώμεθα τοῦθ᾽ ὅπερ διενοήθημεν καὶ σοὶ ποιήσωμεν εὐπαρακολούθητον. οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ [C] τὸν κυνισμὸν εἶδός τι φιλοσοφίας εἶναι συμβέβηκεν, οὔτι φαυλότατον οὐδὲ ἀτιμότατον, ἀλλὰ τοῖς κρατίστοις ἀνάμιλλον, ὀλίγα πρότερον ὑπὲρ αὐτῆς ῥητέον ἡμῖν ἐστι τῆς φιλοσοφίας.

(Come now, let me set down for the benefit of the public what I learned from my teachers about the Cynics, so that all who are entering on this mode of life may consider it. And if they are convinced by what I say, those who are now aiming to be Cynics will, I am sure, be none the worse for it: and if they are unconvinced but cherish aims that are brilliant and noble, and set themselves above my argument not in words only but in deeds, then my discourse will at any rate put no hindrance in their way. But if there are others already enslaved by greed or self-indulgence, or to sum it up briefly in a single phrase, by the pleasures of the body, and they therefore neglect my words or even laugh them down—just as dogs sometimes defile the front porticoes of schools and law-courts,—“'Tis all one to Hippocleides,”[12] for indeed we take no notice of puppies who behave in this fashion. Come then let me pursue my argument under headings from the beginning in due order, so that by giving every question its proper treatment I may myself more conveniently achieve what I have in mind and may make it more easy for you also to follow. And since it is a fact that Cynicism is a branch of philosophy, and by no means the most insignificant or least honourable, but rivalling the noblest, I must first say a few words about philosophy itself.)

Ἡ τῶν θεῶν εἰς ἀνθρώπους δόσις ἅμα φανοτάτῳ πυρὶ διὰ Προμηθέως καταπεμφθεῖσα[13] ἐξ ἡλίου μετὰ τῆς Ἑρμοῦ μερίδος οὐχ ἕτερον ἐστι παρὰ τὴν τοῦ λόγου καὶ νοῦ διανομήν· ὁ γάρ τοι Προμηθεύς, ἡ πάντα ἐπιτροπεύουσα τὰ θνητὰ πρόνοια, [D] πνεῦμα ἔνθερμον ὥσπερ ὄργανον ὑποβάλλουσα τῇ φύσει, ἅπασι μετέδωκεν ἀσωμάτου λόγου· μετέσχε δὲ ἕκαστον οὗπερ ἠδύνατο, τὰ μὲν ἄψυχα σώματα τῆς ἕξεως μόνον, τὰ φυτὰ δὲ ἤδη καὶ τῆς ζωῆς[14] τὰ ζῷα δὲ ψυχῆς, ὁ δὲ [pg 010] ἄνθρωπος καὶ λογικῆς ψυχῆς. εἰσὶ μὲν οὖν οἳ μίαν οὄονται διὰ τούτων πάντων ἥκειν φύσιν, εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ καὶ κατ᾽ εἶδος ταῦτα διαφέρειν. ἀλλὰ μήπω τοῦτο, μᾶλλον δὲ μηδὲ ἐν τῷ νῦν λόγῳ τοῦτο ἐξεταζέσθω, πλὴν ἐκείνου χάριν, [183] ὅτι, τὴν φιλοσοφίαν εἴθ᾽, ὥσπερ τινὲς ὑπολαμβάνουσι, τέχνην τεχνῶν καὶ ἐπιστήμην ἐπιστημῶν, εἴτε ὁμοίωσιν θεῷ[15] κατὰ τὸ δυνατόν, εἴθ᾽, ὅπερ ὁ Πύθιος ἔφη, τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν ὑπολάβοι τις, οὐδὲν διοίσει πρὸς τὸν λόγον· ἅπαντα γὰρ ταῦτα φαίνεται πρὸς ἄλληλα καὶ μάλα οἰκείως ἔχοντα.

(The gift of the gods sent down to mankind with the glowing flame of fire[16] from the sun through the agency of Prometheus along with the blessings that we owe to Hermes[17] is no other than the bestowal of reason and mind. For Prometheus, the Forethought that guides all things mortal by infusing into nature a fiery breath to serve as an operative cause, gave to all things a share in incorporeal reason. And each thing took what share it could; lifeless bodies only a state of existence; plants received life besides, and animals soul, and man a reasoning soul. Now some think that a single substance is the basis of all these, and others that they differ essentially according to their species. But this question we must not discuss as yet, or rather not at all in the present discourse, and we need only say that whether one regards philosophy, as some people do, as the art of arts and the science of sciences or as an effort to become like God, as far as one may, or whether, as the Pythian oracle said, it means “Know thyself,” will make no difference to my argument. For all these definitions are evidently very closely related to one another.)

Ἀρξώμεθα δὲ πρῶτον ἀπὸ τοῦ Γνῶθι σαυτόν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ θεῖόν ἐστι τοῦτο τὸ παρακέλευσμα. οὐκοῦν ὁ γιγνώσκων [B] αὑτὸν εἴσεται μὲν περὶ ψυχῆς, εἴσεται δὲ καὶ περὶ σώματος. καὶ τοῦτο οὐκ ἀρκέσει μόνον, ὡς ἔστιν ἄνθρωπος ψυχὴ χρωμένη σώματι, μαθεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ψυχῆς ἐπελεύσεται τὴν οὐσίαν, ἔπειτα ἀνιχνεύσει τὰς δυνάμεις. καὶ οὐδὲ τοῦτο μόνον ἀρκέσει αὐτῷ, ἀλλὰ καί, εἴ τι τῆς ψυχῆς ἐν ἡμῖν ἐστι κρεῖττον καὶ θειότερον, ὅπερ δὴ πάντες ἀδιδάκτως πειθόμενοι θεῖόν τι εἶναι νομίζομεν, [C] καὶ τοῦτο ἐνιδρῦσθαι πάντες οὐρανῷ κοινῶς ὑπολαμβάνομεν. ἐπιὼν δὲ αὖθις τὰς ἀρχὰς τοῦ σώματος σκέψεται, εἴτε σύνθετον εἴτε ἁπλοῦν ἐστιν· εἶτα ὁδῷ προβαίνων ὑπέρ τε ἁρμονίας αὐτοῦ καὶ πάθους καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ πάντων ἁπλῶς ὧν δεῖται πρὸς διαμονήν. ἐπιβλέψει δὲ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀρχαῖς τεχνῶν [pg 012] ἐνίων, ὑφ᾽ ὧν βοηθεῖται πρὸς διαμονὴν τὸ σῶμα, οἷον ἰατρικῆς, [D] γεωργίας, ἑτέρων τοιούτων. οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ τῶν ἀχρήστων καὶ περιττῶν τι παντάπασιν ἀγνοήσει, ἐπεὶ καὶ ταῦτα[18] πρὸς κολακείαν τοῦ παθητικοῦ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν ἐπινενόηται. προσλιπαρῆσαι μὲν γὰρ τούτοις ἀποκνήσει αἰσχρὸν οἰόμενος τὸ τοιοῦτον, τὸ δοκοῦν ἐργῶδες ἐν αὐτοῖς φεύγων· τὸ δ᾽ ὅλον ὁποῖα ἄττα δοκεῖ καὶ οἷστισιν ἁρμόττει τῆς ψυχῆς μέρεσιν, οὐκ ἀγνοήσει. σκόπει δή, εἰ μὴ τὸ ἑαυτὸν γνῶναι πάσης μὲν ἐπιστήμης, πάσης δὲ τέχνης ἡγεῖταί τε ἅμα καὶ τοὺς καθόλου λόγους συνείληφε. [184] τά τε γὰρ θεῖα διὰ τῆς ἐνούσης ἡμῖν θείας μερίδος τά τε θνητὰ διὰ τῆς θνητοειδοῦς μοίρας πρὸς τούτοις †προσήκειν ἔφη τὸ μεταξὺ τούτων ζῷον εἰδέναι, τὸν ἄνθρωπον†,[19] τῷ μὲν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον θνητόν, τῷ παντὶ δὲ ἀθάνατον, καὶ μέντοι καὶ τὸν ἕνα καὶ τὸν καθ᾽ ἕκαστον συγκεῖσθαι ἐκ θνητῆς καὶ ἀθανάτου μερίδος.

(However, let us begin with “Know thyself,” since this precept is divinely inspired.[20] It follows that he who knows himself will know not only about his soul but his body also. And it will not be enough to know that a man is a soul employing a body, but he will also investigate the essential nature of the soul, and then trace out its faculties. And not even this alone will be enough for him, but in addition he will investigate whatever exists in us nobler and more divine than the soul, that something which we all believe in without being taught and regard as divine, and all in common suppose to be established in the heavens. Then again, as he investigates the first principles of the body he will observe whether it is composite or simple; then proceeding systematically he will observe its harmony and the influences that affect it and its capacity and, in a word, all that it needs to ensure its permanence. And in the next place he will also observe the first principles of certain arts by which the body is assisted to that permanence, for instance, medicine, husbandry and the like. And of such arts as are useless and superfluous he will not be wholly ignorant, since these too have been devised to humour the emotional part of our souls. For though he will avoid the persistent study of these last, because he thinks such persistent study disgraceful, and will avoid what seems to involve hard work in those subjects; nevertheless he will not, generally speaking, remain in ignorance of their apparent nature and what parts of the soul they suit. Reflect therefore, whether self-knowledge does not control every science and every art, and moreover whether it does not include the knowledge of universals. For to know things divine through the divine part in us, and mortal things too through the part of us that is mortal—this the oracle declared to be the duty of the living organism that is midway between these, namely man; because individually he is mortal, but regarded as a whole he is immortal, and moreover, singly and individually, is compounded of a mortal and an immortal part.)

Ὅτι μέντοι καὶ τὸ τῷ θεῲ κατὰ δύναμιν ὁμοιοῦσθαι οὐκ ἄλλο τί ἐστιν ἢ τὸ τὴν ἐφικτὴν ἀνθρώποις γνῶσιν τῶν ὄντων περιποιήσασθαι, πρόδηλον ἐντεῦθεν. [B] οὐ γὰρ ἐπὶ πλούτῳ χρημάτων τὸ θεῖον μακαρίζομεν οὐδὲ ἐπ᾽ ἄλλῳ τινὶ τῶν νομιζομένων ἀγαθῶν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅπερ Ὅμηρός φησι

(Further, that to make oneself like God as far as possible is nothing else than to acquire such knowledge of the essential nature of things as is attainable by mankind, is evident from the following. It is not on the score of abundance of possessions that we count the divine nature happy, nor on the score of any other of those things that are commonly believed to be advantages, but it is because, as Homer says,)

θεοὶ δέ τε πάντα ἴσασι,

(“The gods know all things”;[21])

καὶ μέντοι καὶ περὶ Διὸς

(and indeed he says also of Zeus,)

ἀλλὰ Ζεὺς πρότερος γεγόνει καὶ πλείονα ᾔδει·

(“But Zeus was older and wiser.”[22])

[C] ἐπιστήμῃ γὰρ ἡμῶν οἱ θεοὶ διαφέρουσιν. ἡγεῖται γὰρ ἴσως καὶ αὐτοῖς τῶν καλῶν τὸ αὑτοὺς γινώσκειν· ὄσῳ δὴ κρείττονες ἡμῶν εἰσι τὴν οὐσίαν, τοσούτῳ γνόντες ἑαυτοὺς ἴσχουσι βελτιόνων γνώσιν. μηδεὶς οὖν ἡμῖν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν εἰς πολλὰ διαιρείτω μηδὲ εἰς πολλὰ τεμνέτω, μᾶλλον δὲ μὴ πολλὰς ἐκ μιᾶς ποιείτω. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀλήθεια μία, οὕτω δὲ καὶ φιλοσοφία μία· θαυμαστὸν δὲ οὐδέν, εἰ κατ᾽ ἄλλας καὶ ἄλλας ὁδοὺς ἐπ᾽ αὐτὴν πορευόμεθα. ἐπεὶ κἄν, [D] εἴ τις θέλοι τὼν ξένων ἢ ναὶ μὰ Δία τῶν πάλαι πολιτῶν ἐπανελθεῖν εἰς Ἀθήνας, δύναιτο μὲν καὶ πλεῖν καὶ βαδίζειν, ὁδεύων δὲ οἶμαι διὰ γῆς ἢ ταῖς πλατείαις χρῆσθαι λεωφόροις ἢ ταῖς ἀτραποῖς καὶ συντόμοις ὁδοῖς· καὶ πλεῖν μέντοι δυνατὸν παρὰ τοὺς αἰγιαλούς, καὶ δὴ καὶ κατὰ τὸν Πύλιον γέροντα τέμνοντα πέλαγος μέσον. μὴ δὲ τοῦτό τις ἡμῖν προφερέτω, εἴ τινες τῶν κατ᾽ αὐτὰς ἰόντων τὰς ὁδοὺς ἀπεπλανήθησαν καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ που γενόμενοι, [185] καθάπερ ὑπὸ τῆς Κίρκης ἢ τῶν Λωτοφάγων ἡδονῆς ἢ δόξης ᾿ἤ τινος ἄλλου δελεασθέντες, ἀπελείφθησαν τοῦ πρόσω βαδίζειν καὶ ἐφικνεῖσθαι τοῦ τέλους, τοὺς πρωτεύσαντας δὲ ἐν ἑκάστῃ τῶν αἱρέσεων σκοπείτω, καὶ πάντα εὑρήσει σύμφωνα.

(For it is in knowledge that the gods surpass ourselves. And it may well be that with them also what ranks as noblest is self-knowledge. In proportion then as they are nobler than we in their essential nature, that self-knowledge of theirs is a knowledge of higher things. Therefore, I say, let no one divide philosophy into many kinds or cut it up into many parts, or rather let no one make it out to be plural instead of one. For even as truth is one, so too philosophy is one. But it is not surprising that we travel to it now by one road, now by another. For if any stranger, or, by Zeus, any one of her oldest inhabitants wished to go up to Athens, he could either sail or go by road, and if he travelled by land he could, I suppose, take either the broad highways or the paths and roads that are short cuts. And moreover he could either sail along the coasts or, like the old man of Pylos,[23] “cleave the open sea.” And let no one try to refute me by pointing out that some philosophers in travelling by those very roads have been known to lose their way, and arriving in some other place have been captivated, as though by Circe or the Lotus-Eaters, that is to say by pleasure or opinion or some other bait, and so have failed to go straight forward and attain their goal. Rather he must consider those who in every one of the philosophic sects did attain the highest rank, and he will find that all their doctrines agree.)

Οὐκοῦν ὁ μὲν ἐν Δελφοῖς θεὸς τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν προαγορεύει, Ἡράκλειτος δὲ “ἐδιζησάμην ἐμεωυτόν,” ἀλλὰ καὶ Πυθαγόρας οἵ τε ἀπ᾽ ἐκείνου μέχρι Θεοφράστου τὸ κατὰ δύναμιν ὁμοιοῦσθαι θεῷ φασι, καὶ γὰρ καὶ Ἀριστοτέλης. ὃ γὰρ ἡμεῖς [pg 016] ποτέ, τοῦτο ὁ θεὸς ἀεί. γελοῖον οὖν ἂν εἴη τὸν θεὸν ἑαυτὸν μὴ εἰδέναι· κομιδῇ γὰρ οὐδὲν εἴσεται τῶν ἄλλων, εἴπερ ἑαυτὸν ἀγνοοίη· πάντα γὰρ αὐτός ἐστιν, εἴπερ καὶ ἐν ἑαυτῷ καὶ παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ ἔχει τῶν ὁπωσοῦν ὄντων τὰς αἰτίας, εἴτε ἀθανάτων ἀθανάτους, εἴτε ἐπικήρων οὐ θνητὰς οὐδὲ ἐπικήρους, ἀιδίους δὲ καὶ μενούσας ἀεὶ καὶ αἳ τούτοις εἰσὶν αἰτίαι τῆς ἀειγενεσίας. [C] ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν ὁ λόγος ἐστὶ μείζων.

(Therefore the god at Delphi proclaims, “Know Thyself,” and Heracleitus says, “I searched myself”;[24] and Pythagoras also and his school and his followers down to Theophrastus, bid us become like God as far as possible, yes and Aristotle too. For what we are sometimes, God is always.[25] It would therefore be absurd that God should not know himself. For he will know nothing at all about other things if he be ignorant of himself. For he is himself everything, seeing that in himself and near himself he keeps the causes of all things that in any way whatever have existence, whether they be immortal causes of things immortal, or causes of perishable things, though themselves not mortal or perishable; for imperishable and ever-abiding are the causes of perpetual generation for the perishable world. But this line of argument is too lofty for the occasion.)

Ὅτι δὲ μία τέ ἐστιν ἀλήθεια καὶ φιλοσοφία μία καὶ ταύτης εἰσὶν ἐρασταὶ ξύμπαντες ὧν τε ὑπεμνήσθην μικρῷ πρότερον ὧν τε ἐν δίκῃ νῦν εἴποιμι ἂν τοὔνομα, τοὺς τοῦ Κιτιέως ὁμιλητὰς λέγω, οἳ τὰς πόλεις ἰδόντες ἀποδιδρασκούσας τὸ λίαν ἀκραιφνὲς καὶ καθαρὸν τῆς ἐλευθερίας τοῦ κυνὸς ἐσκέπασαν αὐτὸν [D] ὥσπερ οἶμαι παραπετάσμασιν οἰκονομίᾳ καὶ τῇ χρηματιστικῇ καὶ τῇ πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα συνόδῳ καὶ παιδοτροφίᾳ, ἴν᾽ οἶμαι ταῖς πόλεσιν αὐτὸν ἐγγύθεν ἐπιστήσωσι φύλακα· ὅτι δὲ τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν κεφάλαιον τίθενται φιλοσοφίας, οὐ μόνον ἐξ ὧν κατεβάλλοντο ξυγγραμμάτων ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τοῦτου πεισθείης ἄν, εἴπερ ἐθέλοις, [pg 018] ἀλλὰ πολὺ πλέον ἀπὸ τοῦ τῆς φιλοσοφίας τέλους· τὸ γὰρ ὁμολογουμένως [186] ζῆν τῇ φύσει τέλος ἐποιήσαντο, οὗπερ οὐχ οἷόv τε τυχεῖν τὸν ἀγνοοῦντα, τίς καὶ ὁποῖος πέφυκεν· ὁ γὰρ ἀγνοῶν ὅστις ἐστίν, οὐκ εἴσεται δήπουθεν ὅ, τι πράττειν ἑαυτῷ προσήκει, ὥσπερ οὐδ᾽ ὁ[26] τὸν σίδηρον ἀγνοῶν εἴσεται, εἴτε αὐτῷ τέμνειν εἴτε μὴ προσήκει, καὶ ὅτου δεῖ τῷ σιδήρῳ πρὸς τὸ δύνασθαι τὸ ἑαυτοῦ πράττειν· ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν ἡ φιλοσοφία μία τέ ἐστι καὶ πάντες ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἑνός τινος ἐφιέμενοι ὁδοῖς ἐπὶ τοῦτο διαφόροις ἦλθον, [B] ἀπόχρη τοσαῦτα νῦν εἰπεῖν. ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ Κυνισμοῦ σκεπτέον ἔτι.[27]

(Now truth is one and philosophy is one, and they whom I just now spoke of are its lovers one and all; and also they whom I ought in fairness to mention now by name, I mean the disciples of the man of Citium.[28] For when they saw that the cities of Greece were averse to the excessive plainness and simplicity of the Cynic's freedom of manners, they hedged him about with screens as it were, I mean with maxims on the management of the household and business and intercourse with one's wife and the rearing of children, to the end, I believe, that they might make him the intimate guardian of the public welfare.[29] And that they too held the maxim “Know Thyself” to be the first principle of their philosophy you may believe, if you will, not only from the works that they composed on this very subject, but even more from what they made the end and aim of their philosophic teaching. For this end of theirs was life in harmony with nature, and this it is impossible for any man to attain who does not know who and of what nature he is. For a man who does not know himself will certainly not know what it is becoming for him to do; just as he who does not know the nature of iron will not know whether it is suitable to cut with or not, and how iron must be treated so that it may be put to its proper use. For the moment however I have said enough to show that philosophy is one, and that, to speak generally, all philosophers have a single aim though they arrive at that aim by different roads. And now let us consider the Cynic philosophy.)

Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐπεποίητο τοῖς ἀνδράσι μετά τινος σπουδῆς, ἀλλὰ μὴ μετὰ παιδιᾶς τὰ συγγράμματα, τούτοις ἐχρῆν ἑπόμενον ἐπιχειρεῖν ἕκαστα ὧν διανοούμεθα περὶ τοῦ πράγματος ἐξετάζειν τὸν ἐναντίον καὶ, εἰ μὲν ἐφαίνετο τοῖς παλαιοῖς ὁμολογοῦντα, μήτοι ψευδομαρτυριῶν ἡμῖν ἐπισκήπτειν, εἰ δὲ μή, τότε ἐξορίζειν αὐτὰ τῆς ἀκοῆς ὥσπερ Ἀθηναῖοι τὰ ψευδῆ γράμματα τοῦ Μητρῴου. ἐπεὶ δὲ οὐδὲν ἐστιν, [C] ὡς ἔφην, τοιοῦτον· αἵ τε γὰρ θρυλούμεναι Διογένους τραγῳδίαι Φιλίσκου τινὸς Αἰγινήτου λέγονται εἶναι, καί, εἰ Διογένους δὴ[30] εἶεν, οὐδὲν ἄτοπόν ἐστι τὸν σοφὸν παίζειν, ἐπεί καὶ τοῦτο πολλοὶ φαίνονται τῶν φιλοσόφων [pg 020] ποιήσαντες· ἐγέλα τοι, φασί, καὶ Δημόκριτος ὁρῶν σπουδάζοντας τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· μὴ δὴ πρὸς τὰς παιδιὰς αὐτῶν ἀποβλέπωμεν, ὥσπερ οἱ μανθάνειν τι [D] σπουδαῖον ἥκιστα ἐρῶντες, πόλει παραβάλλοντες εὐδαίμονι, πολλῶν μὲν ἱερῶν, πολλῶν δὲ ἀπορρήτων τελετῶν πλήρει, καὶ μυρίων ἔνδον ἱερέων ἁγνῶν ἐν ἁγνοῖς μενόντων χωρίοις· αὐτοῦ δὲ ἕνεκα πολλάκις τούτου, λέγω δὲ τοῦ καθαρεύειν τὰ εἴσω πάντα, τὰ περιττὰ καὶ βδελυρὰ καὶ φαῦλα τῆς πόλεως ἀπεληλακόσι,[31] λουτρὰ δημόσια καὶ χαμαιτυπεῖα καὶ καπηλεῖα καὶ πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα· εἶτα ἄχρι τούτου γενόμενοι εἴσω μὴ παρίασιν.[32] ὁ μὲν γὰρ τοῖς τοιούτοις ἐντυχών, [187] εἶτα τοῦτο οἰηθεὶς εἶναι τὴν πόλιν ἄθλιος μὲν ἀποφυγών, ἀθλιώτερος δὲ κάτω μείνας, ἐξὸν ὑπερβάντα μικρὸν ἰδεῖν τὸν Σωκράτη· χρήσομαι γὰρ ἐκείνοις ἐγὼ τοῖς ῥήμασιν, οἷς Ἀλκιβιάδης ἐπαινῶν Σωκράτη. φημὶ γὰρ δὴ τὴν Κυνικὴν φιλοσοφίαν ὁμοιοτάτην εἶναι τοῖς Σειληνοῖς τούτοις τοῖς ἐν τοῖς ἑρμογλυφείοις καθημένοις, οὕστινας ἐργάζονται οἱ δημιουργοὶ σύριγγας ἢ αὐλοὺς ἔχοντας· οἳ διχάδε[33] [B] διοιχθέντες ἔνδον φαίνονται ἀγάλματα ἔχοντες θεῶν. ὡς ἂν οὖν μὴ τοιοῦτόν τι πάθωμεν, ὅσα ἔπαιξε ταῦτα αὐτὸν ἐσπουδακέναι νομίσαντες· ἔστι μὲν γάρ τι καὶ ἐν ἐκείνοις οὐκ ἄχρηστον, ὁ Κυνισμὸς δέ ἐστιν [pg 022] ἕτερον, ὡς αὐτίκα μάλα δεῖξαι πειράσομαι· δεῦρο ἴδωμεν ἐφεξῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων, ὥσπερ αἱ ἐξιχνεύουσαι κύνες μεταθέουσι τὰ θηρία.

(If the Cynics had composed treatises with any serious purpose and not merely with a frivolous aim, it would have been proper for my opponent to be guided by these and to try in each case to refute the opinions that I hold on the subject; and then, if they proved to be in harmony with those original doctrines, he could not attack me for bearing false witness; but if they proved not to be in harmony, then he could have barred my opinions from a hearing, as the Athenians barred spurious documents from the Metroum.[34] But, as I said, nothing of that sort exists. For the much-talked-of tragedies of Diogenes are now said to be the work of a certain Philiscus[35] of Aegina; though even if they were by Diogenes there would be nothing out of the way in a wise man's jesting, since many philosophers have been known to do so. For Democritus also, we are told, used to laugh when he saw men taking things seriously. Well then I say we must not pay any attention to their frivolous writings, like men who have no desire at all to learn anything of serious interest. Such men when they arrive at a prosperous city abounding in sacrifices and secret rites of many kinds, and containing within it countless holy priests who dwell in the sacred enclosures, priests who for this very purpose, I mean in order to purify everything that is within their gates, have expelled all that is sordid and superfluous and vicious from the city, public baths and brothels, and retail shops, and everything of the sort without exception: such men, I say, having come as far as the quarter where all such things are, do not enter the city itself. Surely a man who, when he comes upon the things that have been expelled, thinks that this is the city, is despicable indeed if he depart on the instant, but still more despicable if he stay in that lower region, when he might by taking but a step across the threshold behold Socrates himself. For I will borrow those famous phrases of Alcibiades in his praise of Socrates,[36] and I assert that the Cynic philosophy is very like those images of Silenus that sit in the shops of the statuaries, which the craftsmen make with pipes or flutes in their hands, but when you open them you see that inside they contain statues of the gods. Accordingly, that we may not make that sort of mistake and think that his jesting was sober earnest (for though there is a certain use even in those jests, yet Cynicism itself is something very different, as I shall presently try to prove), let us consider it in due course from its actual practice and pursue it like hounds that track down wild beasts in the chase.)

Ἡγεμόνα μὲν οὖν οὐ ῥᾴδιον εὑρεῖν, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἀνενέγκαι χρὴ πρῶτον αὐτό, [C] εἰ καί τινες ὑπολαμβάνουσιν ἀντισθένει τοῦτο καὶ Διογένει προσήκειν. τοῦτο γοῦν ἔοικεν Οἰνόμαος οὐκ ἀτόπως λέγειν· ὁ Κυνισμὸς οὔτε Ἀντισθενισμός ἐστιν οὔτε Διογενισμός. λέγουσι μὲν γὰρ οἱ γενναιότεροι τῶν κυνῶν, ὅτι καὶ ὁ μέγας Ἡρακλῆς, ὥσπερ οὖν τῶν ἄλλων ἀγαθῶν ἡμῖν[37] αἴτιος κατέστη, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τούτου τοῦ βίου παράδειγμα τὸ μέγιστον[38] κατέλιπεν ἀνθρώποις. ἐγὼ δὲ ὑπὲρ τῶν θεῶν καὶ τῶν εἰς θείαν λῆξιν πορευθέντων εὐφημεῖν ἐθέλων [D] πείθομαι μὲν καὶ πρὸ τούτου τινὰς οὐκ ἐν Ἕλλησι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ βαρβάροις οὕτω φιλοσοφῆσαι·[39] αὕτη γὰρ ἡ φιλοσοφία κοινή πως ἔοικεν εἶναι καὶ φυσικωτάτη καὶ δεῖσθαι οὐδ᾽ ἡστινοσοῦν πραγματείας· ἀλλὰ ἀπόχρη μόνον ἑλέσθαι τὰ σπουδαῖα ἀρετῆς ἐπιθυμίᾳ καὶ φυγῇ κακίας, καὶ οὔτε βίβλους ἀνελίξαι δεῖ μυρίας· πολυμαθία γάρ, φασί, νόον οὐ διδάσκει· οὔτε ἄλλο τι τῶν τοιούτων παθεῖν, ὅσα καὶ οἷα πάσχουσιν οἱ διὰ τῶν ἄλλων αἱρέσεων ἰόντες, [188] ἀλλὰ ἀπόχρη μόνον δύο ταῦτα τοῦ Πυθίου [pg 024] παραινοῦντος ἀκοῦσαι, τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν καὶ Παραχάραξον τὸ νόμισμα· πέφηνεν οὖν ἡμῖν ἀρχηγὸς τῆς φιλοσοφίας ὅσπερ οἶμαι τοῖς Ἕλλησι κατέστη τῶν καλῶν ἁπάντων αἴτιος, ὁ τῆς Ἑλλάδος κοινὸς ἡγεμὼν καὶ νομοθέτης καὶ βασιλεύς, ὁ ἐν Δελφοῖς θεός, ὃν ἐπειδὴ μὴ θέμις ἦν τι διαλαθεῖν, οὐδὲ ἡ Διογένους ἐπιτηδειότης ἔλαθε. προύτρεψε δὲ αὐτὸν οὐχ ὥσπερ τοὺς ἄλλους ἔπεσιν ἐντείνων τὴν παραίνεσιν, [B] ἀλλ᾽ ἔργῳ διδάσκων ὅ,τι βούλεται συμβολικῶς διὰ δυοῖν ὀνομάτοιν, Παραχάραξον εἰπὼν τὸ νόμισμα· τὸ γάρ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν οὐκ ἐκείνῳ μόνον,[40] ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἔφη καὶ λέγει, πρόκειται γὰρ οἶμαι τοῦ τεμένους. ηὑρήκαμεν δὴ τὸν ἀρχηγέτην τῆς φιλοσοφίας, ὥς που καὶ ὁ δαιμόνιός φησιν Ἰάμβλιχος, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς κορυφαίους ἐν αὐτῇ, Ἀντισθένη καὶ Διογένη καὶ Κράτητα, οἷς τοῦ βίου σκοπὸς ἦν καὶ τέλος αὑτοὺς οἶμαι γνῶναι καὶ τῶν κενῶν ὑπεριδεῖν δοξῶν, ἀληθείας δέ, ἣ πάντων μὲν ἀγαθῶν θεοῖς, πάντων δὲ ἀνθρώποις ἡγεῖται, ὅλῃ, [C] φασίν, ἐπιδράξασθαι τῇ διανοίᾳ, ἧς οἶμαι καὶ Πλάτων καὶ Πυθαγόρας καὶ Σωκράτης οἵ τε ἐκ τοῦ Περιπάτου καὶ Ζήνων ἕνεκα πάντα ὑπέμειναν πόνον, αὑτούς τε ἐθέλοντες γνῶναι καὶ μὴ κεναῖς ἕπεσθαι δόξαις, ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἀλήθειαν ἀνιχνεῦσαι.

(Now the founder of this philosophy to whom we are to attribute it, in the first instance, is not easy to discover, even though some think that the title belongs to Antisthenes and Diogenes. At least the saying of Oenomaus[41] seems to be not without good grounds: “The Cynic philosophy is neither Antisthenism nor Diogenism.” Moreover the better sort of Cynics assert that in addition to the other blessings bestowed on us by mighty Heracles, it was he who bequeathed to mankind the noblest example of this mode of life.[42] But for my part, while I desire to speak with due reverence of the gods and of those who have attained to their functions, I still believe that even before Heracles, not only among the Greeks but among the barbarians also, there were men who practised this philosophy. For it seems to be in some ways a universal philosophy, and the most natural, and to demand no special study whatsoever. But it is enough simply to choose the honourable by desiring virtue and avoiding evil; and so there is no need to turn over countless books. For as the saying goes, “Much learning does not teach men to have understanding.”[43] Nor is it necessary to subject oneself to any part of such a discipline as they must undergo who enter other philosophic sects. Nay it is enough merely to hearken to the Pythian god when he enjoins these two precepts, “Know Thyself,” and “Falsify the common currency.”[44] Hence it becomes evident to us that the founder of this philosophy is he who, I believe, is the cause of all the blessings that the Greeks enjoy, the universal leader, law-giver and king of Hellas, I mean the god of Delphi.[45] And since it was not permitted that he should be in ignorance of aught, the peculiar fitness of Diogenes did not escape his notice. And he made him incline to that philosophy, not by urging his commands in words alone, as he does for other men, but in very deed he instructed him symbolically as to what he willed, in two words, when he said, “Falsify the common currency.” For “Know Thyself” he addressed not only to Diogenes, but to other men also and still does: for it stands there engraved in front of his shrine. And so we have at last discovered the founder of this philosophy, even as the divine Iamblichus also declares, yes, and we have discovered its leading men as well, namely Antisthenes and Diogenes and Crates;[46] the aim and end of whose lives was, I think, to know themselves, to despise vain opinions, and to lay hold of truth with their whole understanding; for truth, alike for gods and men, is the beginning of every good thing;[47] and it was, I think, for her sake that Plato and Pythagoras and Socrates and the Peripatetic philosophers and Zeno spared no pains, because they wished to know themselves, and not to follow vain opinions but to track down truth among all things that are.)

Φέρε οὖν, ἐπειδὴ πέφηνεν οὐκ ἄλλο μὲν ἐπιτηδεύσας Πλάτων, ἕτερον δὲ Διογένης, ἓν δέ τι καὶ ταὐτόν· εἰ γοῦν ἔροιτό τις τὸν σοφὸν Πλάτωνα “τὸ Γνῶθι σαυτὸν πόσου νενόμικας ἄξιον;” εὖ οἶδα ὅτι τοῦ παντὸς ἂν φήσειε, [D] καὶ λέγει δὲ ἐν Ἀλκιβιάδῃ· δεῦρο δὴ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο φράσον ἡμῖν, ὦ δαιμόνιε Πλάτων καὶ θεῶν ἔκγονε “Τίνα τρόπον χρὴ πρὸς τὰς τῶν πολλῶν διακεῖσθαι δόξας,” ταὐτά τε ἐρεῖ καὶ ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις ὅλον ἡμῖν ἐπιτάξει διαρρήδην ἀναγνῶναι τὸν Κρίτωνα διάλογον, οὗ φαίνεται παραινῶν Σωκράτης μηδὲν φροντίζειν ἡμᾶς τῶν τοιούτων· φησὶ γοῦν· “Ἀλλὰ τί ἡμῖν, ὦ μακάριε Κρίτων, [189] οὕτω τῆς τῶν πολλῶν δόξης μέλει;” εἶτα ἡμεῖς τούτων ὑπεριδόντες ἀποτειχίζειν ἁπλῶς οὑτωσὶ καὶ ἀποσπᾶν ἄνδρας ἀλλήλων ἐθέλομεν, οὗς ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας συνήγαγεν ἔρως ἥ τε τῆς δόξης ὑπεροψία καὶ ἡ πρὸς τὸν ζῆλον τῆς ἀρετῆς ξύμπνοια; εἰ δὲ Πλάτωνι μὲν ἔδοξε καὶ διὰ τῶν λόγων αὐτὰ ἐργάζεσθαι, Διογένει δὲ ἀπέχρη τὰ ἔργα, διὰ τοῦτο ἄξιός ἐστιν ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀκούειν κακῶς; ὅρα δὲ μὴ καὶ τοῦτο αὐτὸ τῷ παντὶ κρεῖττόν ἐστιν, ἐπεὶ καὶ Πλάτων ἐξομνύμενος φαίνεται τὰ ξυγγράμματα. [B] “Οὐ γάρ ἐστι Πλάτωνος,” φησί, “ζύγγραμμα οὐδὲν οὐδ᾽ ἔσται, τὰ δὲ νῦν φερόμενα ἐστι Σωκράτους, ἀνδρὸς [pg 028] καλοῦ καὶ νέου.” τί οὖν ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων τοῦ Διογένους σκοποῦμεν αὐτὸν τὸν Κυνισμόν, ὅστις ἐστιν;

(And now, since it has become evident that Plato was not pursuing one aim and Diogenes another, but their end was one and the same: suppose one should inquire of the wise Plato: What value do you set on the precept “Know Thyself”? I am very sure that he would answer that it is worth everything, and indeed he says so in the Alcibiades.[48] Come then tell us next, divine Plato, scion of the gods, how one ought to be disposed towards the opinions of the many? He will give the same answer, and moreover he will expressly enjoin on us to read his dialogue the Crito,[49] where Socrates is shown warning us not to take heed of such things. At any rate what he says is: “But why, my dear good Crito, are we so concerned about the opinion of the multitude?” And now are we to ignore all this evidence, and without further question fence off from one another and force apart men whom the passion for truth, the scorn of opinion, and unanimity in zeal for virtue have joined together? And if Plato chose to achieve his aim through words, whereas for Diogenes deeds sufficed, does the latter on that account deserve to be criticised by you? Nay, consider whether that same method of his be not in every respect superior; since we see that Plato for himself forswore written compositions. “For” he says,[50] “there are no writings by Plato nor ever will be, and what now pass current as his are the work of Socrates, the ever fair and ever young.” Why then should we not from the practice of Diogenes study the character of the Cynic philosophy?)

Οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ σώματος μέρη μέν ἐστιν, οἷον ὀφθαλμοί, πόδες, χεῖρες, ἄλλα δὲ ἐπισυμβαίνει, τρίχες, ὄνυχες, ῥύπος, τοιούτων περιττωμάτων γένος, ὧν ὔνευ σῶμα ἀνθρώπινον ἀμήχανον εἶναι, [C] πότερον οὐ γελοῖός ἐστιν ὁ μέρη νομίσας ὄνυχας ἢ τρίχας ἢ ῥύπον καὶ τὰ δυσώδη τῶν περιττωμάτων, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τὰ τιμιώτατα καὶ σπουδαῖα, πρῶτον μὲν τὰ αἰσθητήρια καὶ τούτων αὐτῶν ἅττα συνέσεως ἡμῖν ἐστι μᾶλλον αἴτια, οἷον ὀφθαλμούς, ἀκοάς; ὑπουργεῖ γὰρ ταῦτα πρὸς φρόνησιν εἴτε ἐγκατορωρυγμένῃ τῇ ψυχῇ, ὡς ἂν θᾶττον καθαρθεῖσα δύναιτο τῇ καθαρᾷ χρῆσθαι[51] καὶ ἀκινήτῳ τοῦ φρονεῖν δυνάμει, εἴτε ὥσπερ τινὲς οἴονται, καθάπερ δι᾽ ὀχετῶν τοιούτων εἰσφερούσης τῆς ψυχῆς. [D] συλλέγουσα γάρ, φασί, τὰ κατὰ μέρος αἰσθήματα καὶ συνέχουσα τῇ μνήμῃ γεννᾷ τὰς ἐπιστήμας. ἐγὼ δέ, εἰ μή τι τοιοῦτον ἦν ἐνθέον ἢ τέλειον ἐμποδιζόμενον δὲ[52] ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων πολλῶν καὶ ποικίλων, ὃ τῶν ἐκτὸς ποιεῖται τὴν ἀντίληψιν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν δυνατὸν οἶμαι γενέσθαι τῶν αἰσθητῶν τὴν[53] ἀντίληψιν. ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν ὁ λόγος οὐ τοῖς νῦν προσήκει.

(Now the body consists of certain parts such as eyes, feet and hands, but there are besides other parts, hair, nails, ordure, a whole class of accessories of that sort without which the human body cannot exist. Then is it not absurd for a man to take into account such parts, I mean hair or nails or ordure or such unpleasant accessories, rather than those parts that are most precious and important, in the first place, for instance, the organs of perception, and among these more especially the instruments whereby we apprehend, namely the eyes and ears? For these aid the soul to think intelligently, whether it be buried deep in the body and they enable it to purify itself more readily and to use its pure and steadfast faculty of thought, or whether, as some think, it is through them that the soul enters in as though by channels.[54] For, as we are told, by collecting individual perceptions and linking them through the memory she brings forth the sciences. And for my own part, I think that if there were not something of this sort, either incomplete in itself or perfect but hindered by other things many and various, which brings about our apprehension of externals, it would not even be possible for us to apprehend the objects of sense-perception. But this line of argument has little to do with the present question.)

[190] Διόπερ ἐπανακτέον ἐπὶ τὰ μέρη τῆς φιλοσοφίας τῆς κυνικῆς. φαίνονται μὲν δὴ καὶ οὗτοι διμερῆ [pg 030] τὴν φιλοσοφίαν νομίσαντες ὥσπερ ὁ Ἀριστοτέλης καὶ Πλάτων, θεωρηματικήν τε καὶ πρακτικὴν, αὐτὸ τοῦτο[55] συνέντες δηλονότι καὶ νοήσαντες, ὡς οἰκεῖόν ἐστιν ἔνθρωπος φύσει πράξει καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ. εἰ δὲ τῆς φυσικῆς τὴν θεωρίαν[56] ἐξέκλιναν, οὐδὲν τοῦτο πρὸς τὸν λόγον. ἐπεὶ καὶ Σωκράτης καὶ πλείονες ἄλλοι θεωρίᾳ μὲν φαίνονται χρησάμενοι πολλῇ, ταύτῃ δὲ οὐκ ἄλλου χάριν, ἀλλὰ τῆς πράξεως· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ἑαυτὸν γνῶναι τοῦτο ἐνόμισαν, [B] τὸ μαθεῖν ἀκριβῶς, τί μὲν ἐποδοτέον ψυχῇ, τί δὲ σώματι· ἀπέδοσαν δὲ[57] εἰκότως ἡγεμονίαν μὲν τῇ ψυχῇ, ὑπηρεσίαν δὲ τῷ σώματι. φαίνονται δὴ οὖν ἀρετὴν ἐπιτηδεύσαντες, ἐγκράτειαν, ἀτυφίαν, ἐλευθερίαν, ἔξω γενόμενοι παντὸς φθόνου, δειλίας, δεισιδαιμονίας. ἀλλ᾽ οὐχ ἡμεῖς ταῦτα ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν διανοούμεθα, παίζειν δὲ αὐτοὺς καὶ κυβεύειν περὶ τοῖς φιλτάτοις ὑπολαμβάνομεν, οὕτως ὑπεριδόντας [C] τοῦ σώματος, ὡς ὁ Σωκράτης ἔφη λέγων ὀρθῶς μελέτην εἶναι θανάτου τὴν φιλοσοφίαν. τοῦτο ἐκεῖνοι καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν ἐπιτηδεύοντες οὐ ζηλωτοὶ μᾶλλον ἡμῖν, ἄθλιοι δέ τινες καὶ παντελῶς ἀνόητοι δοκοῦσιν·[58] ἀνθ᾽ ὅτου δὲ[59] τοὺς πόνους ὑπέμειναν τούτους;[60] οὐχ ὡς αὐτὸς εἶπας, κενοδοξίας ἕνεκα. καὶ γὰρ[61] πῶς ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἐπῃνοῦντο ὠμὰ [pg 032] προσφερόμενοι σαρκία; καίτοι οὐδὲ αὐτὸς ἐπαινέτης εἶ. [D] τοῦ γοῦν τοιούτου τρίβωνα καὶ τὴν κόμην, ὥσπερ αἱ γραφαὶ τῶν ἀνδρῶν, ἀπομιμούμενος εἶθ᾽ ὃ μηδὲ αὐτὸς ἀξιάγαστον ὑπολαμβάνεις, τοῦτο εὐδοκιμεῖν οἴει παρὰ τῷ πλήθει; καὶ εἳς μὲν ἢ δεύτερος ἐπῄνει τότε, πλεῖν δ᾽ οὖν ἢ δέκα μυριάδες ὑπὸ τῆς ναυτίας καὶ βδελυρίας διεστράφησαν τὸν στόμαχον καὶ ἀπόσιτοι γεγόνασιν, ἄχρις αὐτοὺς οἱ θεράποντες ἀνέλαβον ὀσμαῖς καὶ μύροις καὶ πέμμασιν. [191] οὕτως ὁ κλεινὸς ἥρως ἔργῳ κατεπλήξατο γελοίῳ μὲν ἀνθρώποις τοιούτοις,

(Accordingly we must go back to the divisions of the Cynic philosophy. For the Cynics also seem to have thought that there were two branches of philosophy, as did Aristotle and Plato, namely speculative and practical, evidently because they had observed and understood that man is by nature suited both to action and to the pursuit of knowledge. And though they avoided the study of natural philosophy, that does not affect the argument. For Socrates and many others also, as we know, devoted themselves to speculation, but it was solely for practical ends. For they thought that even self-knowledge meant learning precisely what must be assigned to the soul, and what to the body. And to the soul they naturally assigned supremacy, and to the body subjection. This seems to be the reason why they practised virtue, self-control, modesty and freedom, and why they shunned all forms of envy, cowardice and superstition. But this, you will say, is not the view that we hold about them, for we are to think that they were not in earnest, and that they hazarded what is most precious[62] in thus despising the body; as Socrates did when he declared, and rightly, that philosophy is a preparation for death.[63] And since this was the aim that the Cynics pursued daily, we need not emulate them any more than the others, but we are to think them miserable beings and altogether foolish. But why was it that they endured those hardships? Surely not from ostentation, as you declared. For how could they win applause from other men by eating raw meat? Certainly you yourself do not applaud them for this. At any rate, when you imitate one of those Cynics by carrying a staff and wearing your hair long, as it is shown in their pictures, do you think that you thereby gain a reputation with the crowd, though you do not yourself think those habits worthy of admiration? One or two, indeed, used to applaud him in his own day, but more than ten times ten thousand had their stomachs turned by nausea and loathing, and went fasting until their attendants revived them with perfumes and myrrh and cakes. So greatly did that renowned hero shock them by an act which seems absurd to men)

Οἷοι νῦν βροτοί εἰσιν,

(“of such sort as mortals now are,”[64])

οὐκ ἀγεννεῖ δέ, μὰ τοὺς θεούς, εἴ τις αὐτὸ κατὰ τὴν Διογένους ἐξηγήσαιτο σύνεσιν. ὅπερ γὰρ ὁ Σωκράτης ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ φησιν, ὅτι τῷ θεῷ νομίζων λατρείαν ἐκτελεῖν ἐν τῷ τὸν δοθέντα χρησμὸν ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ κατὰ πάντα σκοπῶν ἐξετάζειν τὸν ἐλεγκτικὸν ἠσπάσατο βίον, τοῦτο καὶ Διογένης οἶμαι συνειδὼς ἑαυτῷ, πυθόχρηστον οὖσαν τὴν φιλοσοφίαν, ἔργοις ᾤετο δεῖν ἐξελέγχειν πάντα καὶ μὴ δόξαις ἄλλων, τυχὸν μὲν ἀληθέσι, τυχὸν δὲ ψευδέσι προσπεπονθέναι. οὔκουν οὐδὲ εἴ τι Πυθαγόρας ἔφη, οὐδὲ εἴ τις ἄλλος τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ παραπλήσιος, ἀξιόπιστος ἐδόκει τῷ Διογένει. τὸν γὰρ θεόν, ἀνθρώπων δὲ[65] οὐδένα τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἀρχηγὸν ἐπεποίητο. [C] τί δῆτα τοῦτο, ἐρεῖς, πρὸς τὴν τοῦ πολύποδος ἐδωδήν; ἐγώ σοι φράσω.

(though, by the gods, it was not ignoble, if one should explain it according to the intention of Diogenes. For just as Socrates said of himself that he embraced the life of cross-examining because he believed that he could perform his service to the god only by examining in all its bearings the meaning of the oracle that had been uttered concerning him, so I think Diogenes also, because he was convinced that philosophy was ordained by the Pythian oracle, believed that he ought to test everything by facts and not be influenced by the opinions of others, which may be true and may be false. Accordingly Diogenes did not think that every statement of Pythagoras, or any man like Pythagoras, was necessarily true. For he held that God and no human being is the founder of philosophy. And pray what, you will say, has this to do with the eating of octopus? I will tell you.)

Τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν οἱ μὲν ἀνθρώποις ὑπολαμβάνουσι κατὰ φύσιν, οἱ δὲ ἥκιστα τοῦτο ἐργάζεσθαι [pg 034] προσήκειν ἀνθρώπῳ διανοοῦνται, καὶ πολὺς ὁ περὶ τούτου ἀνάλωται[66] λόγος. ἐθέλοντι οὖν σοι μὴ ῥᾳθυμεῖν ἑσμοὶ περὶ τοῦ τοιούτου βίβλων φανήσονται. τούτους Διογένης ἐξελέγχειν ᾤετο δεῖν. διενοήθη γοῦν οὕτως· εἰ μὲν ἀπραγματεύτως ἐσθίων τις σάρκας, ὥσπερ οἶμαι τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον θηρίων, [D] οἷς τοῦτο ἔνειμεν ἡ φύσις, ἀβλαβῶς αὐτὸ καὶ ἀνεπαχθῶς, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ μετὰ τῆς τοῦ σώματος ὠφελείας ἐργάζοιτο, κατὰ φύσιν εἶναι πάντως τὴν σαρκοφαγίαν ὑπέλαβεν· εἰ δέ τις ἐντεῦθεν γένοιτο βλάβη, οὐχὶ τοῦτο ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἔργον ἴσως ἐνόμισεν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀφεκτέον εἶναι κατὰ κράτος αὐτοῦ. εἷς μὲν οὖν ἂν εἴη τοιοῦτος ὑπὲρ τοῦ πράγματος ἴσως βιαιότερος λόγος, ἕτερος δὲ οἰκειότερος τῷ Κυνισμῷ, εἰ περὶ τοῦ τέλους αὐτοῦ πρότερον ἔτι σαφέστερον διέλθοιμι.

(To eat meat some regard as natural to man, while others think that to follow this practice is not at all appropriate for man, and this question has been much debated. And if you are willing to make the effort, you can see with your own eyes swarms of books on the subject. These Diogenes thought it his duty to refute. At any rate his own view was as follows. If one can eat meat without taking too much trouble to prepare it, as can all other animals to whom nature has assigned this diet, and can do it without harm or discomfort, or rather with actual benefit to the body, then he thought that eating meat is entirely in accordance with nature. But if harm came of it, then he apparently thought that the practice is not appropriate for man, and that he must abstain from it by all means. Here then you have a theory on this question, though perhaps it is too far-fetched: but here is another more akin to Cynicism, only I must first describe more clearly the end and aim of that philosophy.)

[192] Ἀπάθειαν γὰρ ποιοῦνται τὸ τέλος· τοῦτο δὲ ἴσον ἐστὶ τῷ θεὸν γενέσθαι. αἰσθανόμενος οὖν ἴσως αὑτοῦ Διογένης ἐν μὲν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἀπαθοῦς, ὑπὸ δὲ τῆς τοιαύτης ἐδωδῆς μόνον θραττομένου καὶ ναυτιῶντος καὶ δόξῃ κενῇ μᾶλλον[67] ἢ λόγῳ δεδουλωμένου· σάρκες γάρ εἴσιν οὐδὲν ἧττον, κἂν μυριάκις αὐτὰς ἑψήσῃ, κἂν ὑποτρίμμασι μυρίοις τις αὐτὰς καρυκεύσῃ· καὶ ταύτης αὑτὸν ἀφελέσθαι καὶ καταστῆσαι παντάπασιν ἐξάντη τῆς δειλίας ᾠήθη χρῆναι. [B] δειλία γάρ ἐστιν, εὖ ἴσθι, τὸ γοῦν τοιοῦτον. ἐπεὶ πρὸς τῆς Θεσμοφόρου εἰ σαρκῶν ἡψημένων ἁπτόμεθα, τοῦ χάριν [pg 036] οὐχὶ καὶ ἁπλῶς αὐτὰς προσφερόμεθα, φράσον ἡμῖν. οὐ γὰρ ἔχεις ἕτερον εἰπεῖν ἢ ὅτι οὕτω νενόμισται καὶ οὕτω συνειθίσμεθα. οὐ γὰρ δὴ πρὶν μὲν ἑψηθῆναι βδελυρὰ πέφυκεν, ἑψηθέντα δὲ γέγονεν αὑτῶν ἁγνότερα. [C] τί δῆτα ἐχρῆν πράττειν τόν γε παρὰ θεοῦ ταχθέντα καθάπερ στρατηγοῦ πᾶν μὲν ἐξελεῖν τὸ νόμισμα, λόγῳ δὲ καὶ ἀληθείᾳ κρῖναι τὰ πράγματα; περιιδεῖν αὑτὸν ὑπὸ ταύτης τῆς δόξης ἐνοχλούμενον, ὡς νομίζειν ὅτι κρέας μέν ἐστιν ἑψηθὲν ἁγνὸν καὶ ἐδώδιμον, μὴ κατεργασθὲν δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς μυσαρόν πως[68] καὶ βδελυρόν; οὕτως εἶ μνήμων; οὕτως εἶ σπουδαῖος; ὃς τοσοῦτον ὀνειδίζων τῷ κενοδόξῳ, κατὰ σὲ φάναι, [D] Διογένει, κατ᾽ ἐμὲ δὲ τῷ σπουδαιοτάτῳ θεράποντι καὶ ὑπηρέτῃ τοῦ Πυθίου, τὴν τοῦ πολύποδος ἐδωδὴν κατεδήδοκας μυρίους ταρίχους.

(Freedom from emotion they regard as the end and aim; and this is equivalent to becoming a god. Now perhaps Diogenes observed that in the case of all other foods he himself had no particular sensations, and that only raw meat gave him indigestion and nausea, and took this for a proof that he was enslaved to vain opinion rather than reason; for flesh is none the less flesh, even though you cook it any number of times or season it with any number of sauces. This, I say, was why he thought he ought to rid and free himself altogether of this cowardice; for you may be sure that this sort of thing is cowardice. And in the name of the Law-Giving goddess,[69] tell me why if we used cooked meats we do not eat them in their natural state also? You can give me no other answer than that this has become a custom and a habit with us. For surely we cannot say that before meat is cooked it is disgusting and that by being cooked it becomes purer than it was by nature. What then was it right for him to do who had been appointed by God like a general in command to do away with the common currency and to judge all questions by the criterion of reason and truth? Ought he to have shut his eyes and been so far fettered by this general opinion as to believe that flesh by being cooked becomes pure and fit for food, but that when it has not been acted upon by fire it is somehow abominable and loathsome? Is this the sort of memory you have? Is this your zeal for truth? For though you so severely criticised Diogenes the vain-glorious, as you call him—though I call him the most zealous servant and vassal of the Pythian god—for eating octopus, you yourself have devoured endless pickled food,)

Ἰχθῦς ὄρνιθάς τε φίλας θ᾽ ὅτι χεῖρας ἵκοιτο,

(“Fish and birds and whatever else might come to hand.”[70])

Αἰγύπτιός γε ὤν, οὐ τῶν ἱερέων, ἀλλὰ τῶν παμφάγων, οἷς πάντα ἐσθίειν νόμος ὡς λάχανα χόρτου· γνωρίζεις οἶμαι [193] τῶν Γαλιλαίων τὰ ῥήματα. μικροῦ με παρῆλθεν εἰπεῖν, ὅτι καὶ πάντες ἄνθρωποι πλησίον οἰκοῦντες θαλάττης, ἤδη δέ τινες καὶ τῶν πόρρω, οὐδὲ θερμήναντες καταρροφοῦσιν ἐχίνους, ὄστρεα καὶ πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα· εἶτα ἐκείνους μὲν ὑπολαμβάνεις ζηλωτούς, ἄθλιον δὲ καὶ βδελυρὸν ἡλῇ Διογένη, καὶ οὐκ ἐννοεῖς, ὡς οὐδὲν μᾶλλον ταῦτα ἐκείνων ἐστὶ σαρκία· πλὴν [pg 038] ἴσως ταῦτα ἐκείνων διαφέρει τῷ τὰ μὲν εἶναι μαλθακά, τὰ δὲ σκληρότερα. ἄναιμος γοῦν ἐστι καὶ πολύπους [B] ὥσπερ ἐκεῖνα, ἔμψυχα δέ ἐστι καὶ τὰ ὀστρακόδερμα καθάπερ καὶ οὗτος· ἥδεται γοῦν καὶ λυπεῖται, ὃ τῶν ἐμψύχων μάλιστά ἐστιν ἴδιον. ἐνοχλείτω δὲ μηδὲν ἡμᾶς ἡ Πλατωνικὴ τανῦν δόξα ἔμψυχα ὑπολαμβάνουσα καὶ τὰ φυτά. ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι μὲν οὔτι ἄλογον[71] οὐδὲ παράνομον οὐδὲ ἀσύνηθες ὑμῖν ὁ γενναῖος εἰργάσατο Διογένης, εἰ μὴ τῷ σκληροτέρῳ καὶ μαλακωτέρῳ, ἡδονῇ τε λαιμοῦ καὶ ἀηδίᾳ τὰ τοιαῦτά τις ἐξετάζοι, πρόδηλον οἶμαι τοῖς ὁπωσοῦν ἕπεσθαι λόγῳ δυναμένοις. οὐκ ἄρα τὴν ὠμοφαγίαν βδελύττεσθε οἱ τὰ παραπλήσια δρῶντες, [C] οὐκ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀναίμων μόνον ζῴων, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν αἷμα ἐχόντων. καὶ τούτῳ δὲ ἴσως διαφέρεσθε πρὸς ἐκεῖνον, ὅτι ὁ μὲν ἁπλῶς ταῦτα καὶ κατὰ φύσιν ᾠήθη χρῆναι προσφέρεσθαι, ἁλσὶ δὲ ὑμεῖς καὶ πολλοῖς ἄλλοις ἀρτύσαντες ἡδονῆς ἕνεκα, τὴν φύσιν ὅπως βιάσησθε. καὶ δὴ τοῦτο μὲν ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ἀπόχρη.

(For you are an Egyptian, though not of the priestly caste, but of the omnivorous type whose habit it is to eat everything “even as the green herb.”[72] You recognise, I suppose, the words of the Galilaeans. I almost omitted to say that all men who live near the sea, and even some who live at a distance from it, swallow down sea-urchins, oysters and in general everything of the kind without even heating them. And then you think they are enviable, whereas you regard Diogenes as contemptible and disgusting, and you do not perceive that those shell-fish are flesh just as much as what he ate? Except perhaps that differ in so far as the octopus is soft and shell-fish are harder. At any rate the octopus is bloodless, like hard-shelled fish, but the latter too are animate things like the octopus. At least they feel pleasure and pain, which is the peculiar characteristic of animate things. And here we must not be put out by Plato's theory[73] that plants also are animated by soul. But it is now, I think, evident to those who are in any way able to follow an argument, that what the excellent Diogenes did was not out of the way or irregular or contrary to our habits, that is if we do not in such cases apply the criterion of hardness and softness, but judge rather by the pleasure or distaste of the palate. And so it is not after all the eating of raw food that disgusts you, since you do the like, not only in the case of bloodless animals but also of those that have blood. But perhaps there is also this difference between you and Diogenes, that he thought he ought to eat such food just as it was and in the natural state, whereas you think you must first prepare it with salt and many other things to make it agreeable and so do violence to nature. I have now said enough on this subject.)

[D] Τῆς Κυνικῆς δὲ φιλοσοφίας σκοπὸς μέν ἐστι καὶ τέλος, ὥσπερ δὴ καὶ πάσης φιλοσοφίας, τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν, τὸ δὲ εὐδαιμονεῖν ἐν τῷ ζῆν κατὰ φύσιν, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας. ἐπεὶ καὶ τοῖς φυτοῖς εὖ πράττειν συμβαίνει καὶ μέντοι καὶ ζῴοις πᾶσιν, ὅταν τοῦ κατὰ φύσιν ἕκαστον ἀνεμποδίστως τυγχάνῃ τέλους· ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς θεοῖς τοῦτό ἐστιν εὐδαιμονίας ὅρος, τὸ ἔχειν αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ πεφύκασι καὶ ἑαυτῶν εἶναι. [194] οὐκοῦν [pg 040] καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις οὐχ ἑτέρωθί που τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ἀποκεκρυμμένην προσήκει πολυπραγμονεῖν· οὐδὲ ἀετὸς οὐδὲ πλάτανος οὐδὲ ἄλλο τι τῶν ὄντων ζῴων ἢ φυτῶν χρυσᾶ περιεργάζεται πτερὰ καὶ φύλλα, οὐδὲ ὅπως ἀργυροῦς ἕξει τοὺς βλαστοὺς ἢ τὰ πλῆκτρα καὶ κέντρα σιδηρᾶ, μᾶλλον δὲ ἀδαμάντινα, ἀλλ᾽ οἷς αὐτὰ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἡ φύσις ἐκόσμησε, ταῦτα εἰ ῥωμαλέα καὶ πρὸς τάχος αὐτοῖς ἢ πρὸς ἀλκὴν ὑπουργοῦντα προσγένοιτο, μάλιστα ἂν εὖ πράττειν [B] νομίζοι καὶ εὐθηνεῖσθαι. πῶς οὖν οὐ γελοῖον, εἴ τις ἄνθρωπος γεγονὼς ἔξω που τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν περιεργάσαιτο, πλοῦτον καὶ γένος καὶ φίλων δύναμιν καὶ πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα τοῦ παντὸς ἄξια νομίζων; εἰ μὲν οὖν ἡμῖν ἡ φύσις ὥσπερ τοῖς ζῴοις αὐτὸ τοῦτο ἀπέδωκε μόνον, τὸ σώματα καὶ ψυχὰς ἔχειν ἐκείνοις παραπλησίας, ὥστε μηδὲν πλέον πολυπραγμονεῖν, ἤρκει λοιπόν, [C] ὥσπερ τὰ λοιπὰ ζῷα, τοῖς σωματικοῖς ἀρκεῖσθαι πλεονεκτήμασιν, ἐνταῦθά που τὸ εὐδαιμονεῖν πολυπραγμονοῦσιν. ἐπεὶ δὲ ἡμῖν οὐδέν τι παραπλησία ψυχὴ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐνέσπαρται ζῴοις, ἀλλ᾽ εἴτε κατ᾽ οὐσίαν διαφέρουσα εἴτε οὐσίᾳ μὲν ἀδιάφορος, ἐνεργείᾳ δὲ μόνῃ κρείττων, ὥσπερ οἶμαι τὸ καθαρὸν ἤδη χρυσίον τοῦ συμπεφυρμένου τῇ ψάμμῳ· λέγεται γὰρ καὶ οὗτος ὁ λόγος περὶ τῆς ψυχῆς ὡς ἀληθὴς ὑπό τινων· [D] ἡμεῖς δὴ οὖν ἐπειδὴ σύνισμεν αὑτοῖς οὖσι τῶν ζῴων ξυνετωτέροις· κατὰ γὰρ τὸν Πρωταγόρου μῦθον ἐκείνοις μὲν ἡ φύσις ὥσπερ μήτηρ [pg 042] ἄγαν φιλοτίμως καὶ μεγαλοδώρως προσηνέχθη, ἡμῖν δὲ ἀντὶ πάντων ἐκ Διὸς ὁ νοῦς ἐδόθη· τὴν εὐδαιμονίαν ἐνταῦθα θετέον, ἐν τῷ κρατίστῳ καὶ σπουδαιοτάτῳ τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν.

(Now the end and aim of the Cynic philosophy, as indeed of every philosophy, is happiness, but happiness that consists in living according to nature and not according to the opinions of the multitude. For plants too are considered to do well, and indeed all animals also, when without hindrance each attains the end designed for it by nature. Nay, even among the gods this is the definition of happiness, that their state should be according to their nature, and that they should be independent. And so too in the case of human beings we must not be busy about happiness as if it were hidden away outside ourselves. Neither the eagle nor the plane tree nor anything else that has life, whether plant or animal, vainly troubles itself about wings or leaves of gold or that its shoots may be of silver or its stings and spurs of iron, or rather of adamant; but where nature in the beginning has adorned them with such things, they consider that, if only they are strong and serviceable for speed or defence, they themselves are fortunate and well provided. Then is it not absurd when a human being tries to find happiness somewhere outside himself, and thinks that wealth and birth and the influence of friends, and generally speaking everything of that sort is of the utmost importance? If however nature had bestowed on us only what she has bestowed on other animals, I mean the possession of bodies and souls like theirs, so that we need concern ourselves with nothing beyond, then it would suffice for us, as for all other animals, to content ourselves with physical advantages, and to pursue happiness within this field. But in us has been implanted a soul that in no way resembles other animals; and whether it be different in essence, or not different in essence but superior in its activity only, just as, I suppose, pure gold is superior to gold alloyed with sand,—for some people hold this theory to be true of the soul,—at any rate we surely know that we are more intelligent than other animals. For according to the myth in the Protagoras,[74] nature dealt with them very generously and bountifully, like a mother, but to compensate for all this, mind was bestowed on us by Zeus. Therefore in our minds, in the best and noblest part of us, we must say that happiness resides.)

Σκόπει δή, ταύτης εἰ μὴ μάλιστα τῆς προαιρέσεως ἦν Διογένης, ὃς τὸ μὲν σῶμα τοῖς πόνοις ἀνέδην παρεῖχεν, ἵνα αὐτὸ τῆς φύσεως ῥωμαλεώτερον καταστήσῃ πράττειν [195] δὲ ἠξίου μόνον ὁπόσα ἂν φανῇ τῷ λόγῳ πρακτέα, τοὺς δὲ ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ἐμπίπτοντας τῇ ψυχῇ θορύβους, οἷα πολλάκις ἡμᾶς ἀναγκάζει τουτὶ τὸ περικείμενον αὐτοῦ χάριν πολυπραγμονεῖν, οὐδὲ ἐν μέρει προσίετο. ὑπὸ δὲ ταύτης τῆς ἀσκήσεως ὁ ἀνὴρ οὕτω μὲν ἔσχεν ἀνδρεῖον τὸ σῶμα ὡς οὐδεὶς οἶμαι τῶν τοὺς [B] στεφανίτας ἀγωνισαμένων, οὕτω δὲ διετέθη τὴν ψυχήν, ὥστε εὐδαιμονεῖν, ὥστε βασιλεύειν οὐδὲν ἔλαττον, εἰ μὴ καὶ πλέον, ὡς οἱ τότε εἰώθεσαν λέγειν Ἕλληνες, τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως, τὸν Πέρσην λέγοντες. ἆρά σοι μικρὰ φαίνεται ἀνὴρ

(Now consider whether Diogenes did not above all other men profess this belief, since he freely exposed his body to hardships so that he might make it stronger than it was by nature. He allowed himself to act only as the light of reason shows us that we ought to act; and the perturbations that attack the soul and are derived from the body, to which this envelope of ours often constrains us for its sake to pay too much attention, he did not take into account at all. Thus by means of this discipline the man made his body more vigorous, I believe, than that of any who have contended for the prize of a crown in the games: and his soul was so disposed that he was happy and a king no less if not even more than the Great King, as the Greeks used to call him in those days, by which they meant the king of Persia. Then does he seem to you of no importance, this man who was)

Ἄπολις, ἄοικος, πατρίδος ἐστερημένος,

οὐκ ὀβολόν, οὐ δραχμήν, ἔχων[75] οὐδ᾽ οἰκέτην,

(“cityless, homeless, a man without a country, owning not an obol, not a drachma, not a single slave,”[76])

ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ μᾶζαν, ἧς Ἐπίκουρος εὐπορῶν οὐδὲ τῶν θεῶν φησιν εἰς εὐδαιμονίας λόγον ἐλαττοῦσθαι, πρὸς μὲν τοὺς θεοὺς οὐκ ἐρίζων, [C] τοῦ δοκοῦντος δὲ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εὐδαιμονεστάτου εὐδαιμονέστερον ζῶν καὶ ἔλεγε ζῆν εὐδαιμονέστερον. εἰ δὲ ἀπιστεῖς, [pg 044] ἔργῳ πειραθεὶς ἐκείνου τοῦ βίου καὶ οὐ τῷ λόγῳ αἰσθήσῃ.

(nay, not even a loaf of bread—and Epicurus says that if he have bread enough and to spare he is not inferior to the gods on the score of happiness. Not that Diogenes tried to rival the gods, but he lived more happily than one who is counted the happiest of men, and he used actually to assert that he lived more happily than such a man. And if you do not believe me, try his mode of life in deed and not in word, and you will perceive the truth.)

Φέρε δὴ πρῶτον αὐτὸν διὰ τῶν λόγων ἐλέγξωμεν. ἆρά σοι δοκεῖ τῶν πάντων ἀγαθῶν ἀνθρώποις ἡγεῖσθαι, τούτων δὴ τῶν πολυθρυλήτων, ἐλευθερίαν· [D] πῶς γὰρ οὐ φήσεις· ἐπεὶ καὶ τὰ χρήματα καὶ πλοῦτος καὶ γένος καὶ σώματος ἰσχὺς καὶ κάλλος καὶ πάντα ἁπλῶς τὰ τοιαῦτα δίχα τῆς ἐλευθερίας οὐ τοῦ δοκοῦντος ηὐτυχηκέναι, τοῦ κτησαμένου δὲ αὐτόν ἐστιν ἀγαθά; τίνα οὖν ὑπολαμβάνομεν τὸν δοῦλον; ἇρα μή ποτε ἐκεῖνον, ὃν ἂν πριώμεθα δραχμῶν ἀργυρίου τόσων ἢ μναῖν δυοῖν ἢ χρυσίου στατήρων δέκα; ἐρεῖς δήπουθεν τοῦτον εἶναι ἀληθῶς δοῦλον. ἆρα δι᾽ αὐτὸ τοῦτο, ὅτι τὸ ἀργύριον ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ τῷ πωλοῦντι καταβεβλήκαμεν; οὕτω μεντἂν [196] εἶεν οἰκέται καὶ ὁπέσους τῶν αἰχμαλώτων λυτρούμεθα. καίτοι καὶ οἱ νόμοι τούτοις ἀποδεδώκασι τὴν ἐλευθερίαν σωθεῖσιν οἴκαδε, καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὺς ἀπολυτρούμεθα, οὐχ ἵνα δουλεύσωσιν, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ὦσιν ἐλεύθεροι. ὁρᾷς ὡς οὐχ ἱκανόν ἐστιν ἀργύριον καταβαλεῖν ἐς τὸ ἀποφῆναι τὸν λυτρωθέντα δοῦλον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν ὡς ἀληθῶς δοῦλος, οὗ κύριός ἐστιν ἕτερος προσαναγκάσαι πράττειν ὅ,τι ἂν κελεύῃ, καὶ μὴ βουλόμενον κόλασαι καί, τὸ λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ ποιητοῦ,

(Come, let us first test it by reasoning. You think, do you not, that for mankind freedom is the beginning of all good things,[77] I mean of course what people are always calling good? How can you deny it? For property, money, birth, physical strength, beauty and in a word everything of the sort when divorced from freedom are surely blessings that belong, not to him who merely seems to enjoy them, but to him who is that man's master? Whom then are we to regard as a slave? Shall it be him whom we buy for so many silver drachmas, for two minae or for ten staters[78] of gold? Probably you will say that such a man is truly a slave. And why? Is it because we have paid down money for him to the seller? But in that case the prisoners of war whom we ransom would be slaves. And yet the law on the one hand grants these their freedom when they have come safe home, and we on the other hand ransom them not that they may become slaves, but that they may be free. Do you see then that in order to make a ransomed man a slave it is not enough to pay down a sum of money, but that man is truly a slave over whom another man has power to compel him to do whatever he orders, and if he refuse, to punish him and in the words of the poet)

κακαῖς ὀδύνῃσι πελάζειν;

(“to inflict grievous pains upon him”?[79])

ὅρα δὴ τὸ μετὰ τοῦτο, [B] εἰ μὴ κύριοι πάντες ἡμῶν εἰσιν, οὓς ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν θεραπεύειν, ἵνα μηδὲν ἀλγῶμεν μηδὲ λυπώμεθα κολαζόμενοι παρ᾽ αὐτῶν. [pg 046] ἢ τοῦτο οἴει κόλασιν μόνον, εἴ τις ἐπανατεινόμενος τὴν βακτηρίαν καθίκοιτο τοῦ οἰκέτου; καίτοι γε τοιοῦτον οὐδὲ οἱ τραχύτατοι τῶν δεσποτῶν ἐπὶ πάντων ποιοῦσι τῶν οἰκετῶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ λόγος ἀρκεῖ πολλάκις καὶ ἀπειλή. [C] μήποτε οὖν, ὦ φίλε, νομίσῃς εἶναι ἐλεύθερος, ἄχρις οὗ γαστὴρ ἄρχει σου καὶ τὰ ἔνερθεν γαστρὸς οἵ τε τοῦ παρασχεῖν τὰ πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ ταῦτὰ[80] ἀποκωλῦσαι κύριοι, καὶ εἰ τούυτων δὲ γένοιο κρείττων, ἕως ἂν δουλεύῃς ταῖς τῶν πολλῶν δόξαις, οὔπω τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἔθιγες οὐδὲ ἐγεύσω τοῦ νέκταρος,

(Then consider next whether we have not as many masters as there are persons whom we are obliged to conciliate in order not to suffer pain or annoyance from being punished by them? Or do you think that the only sort of punishment is when a man lifts up his stick against a slave and strikes him? Yet not even the harshest masters do this in the case of all their slaves, but a word or a threat is often enough. Then never think, my friend, that you are free while your belly rules you and the part below the belly, since you will then have masters who can either furnish you the means of pleasure or deprive you of them; and even though you should prove yourself superior to these, so long as you are a slave to the opinions of the many you have not yet approached freedom or tasted its nectar,)

Οὐ μὰ τὸν ἐν στέρνοισιν ἐμοῖς παραδόντα τετρακτύν.

(“I swear by him who set in my breast the mystery of the Four!”[81])

καὶ οὐ τοῦτό φημι, [D] ὡς ἀπερυθριᾶσαι χρὴ πρὸς πάντας καὶ πράττειν. τὰ μὴ πρακτέα· ἀλλ᾽ ὧν ἀπεχόμεθα καὶ ὅσα πράττομεν, μὴ διὰ τὸ τοῖς πολλοῖς δοκεῖν σπουδαῖα πως[82] ἢ φαῦλα, διὰ τοῦτο πράττωμεν καὶ ἀπεχώμεθα, ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ τῷ ἐν ἡμῖν θεῷ, τοῦτ᾽ ἐστὶ τῷ νῷ, ταῦτά ἐστιν ἀπόρρητα. τοὺς μὲν οὖν πολλοὺς οὐδὲν κωλύει ταῖς κοιναῖς ἕπεσθαι δόξαις· ἄμεινον γὰρ τοῦτο τοῦ παντάπασιν ἀπερυθριᾶν· [197] ἔχουσι γὰρ ἅνθρωποι φύσει πρὸς ἀλήθειαν οἰκείως· ἀνδρὶ δὲ ἤδη κατὰ νοῦν ζῶντι καὶ τοὺς ὀρθοὺς εὑρεῖν τε δυναμένῳ καὶ κρῖναι λόγους προσήκει τὸ παράπαν οὐδὲν ἕπεσθαι τοῖς νομιζομένοις ὑπὸ τῶν πολλῶν εὗ τε καὶ χεῖρον πράττεσθαι.

(But I do not mean by this that we ought to be shameless before all men and to do what we ought not; but all that we refrain from and all that we do let us not do or refrain from, merely because it seems to the multitude somehow honourable or base, but because it is forbidden by reason and the god within us, that is, the mind.[83] As for the multitude there is no reason why they should not follow common opinions, for that is better than that they should be altogether shameless, and indeed mankind is predisposed to the truth by nature. But a man who has attained to a life in accordance with intelligence and is able to discover and estimate right reasons, ought on no account whatever to follow the views held by the many about good and bad conduct.)

Οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ τὸ μέν ἐστι τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν θειότερον, ὃ δὴ νοῦν καὶ φρόνησίν φαμεν καὶ λόγον τὸν σιγώμενον, οὗ κήρυξ ἐστὶν ὁ διὰ τῆς φωνῆς οὑτοσὶ λόγος προïὼν ἐξ ὀνομάτων καὶ ῥημάτων, ἕτερον δέ τι τούτῳ συνέζευκται ποικίλον καὶ παντοδαπόν, [B] ὀργῇ καὶ ἐπιθυμίᾳ ξυμμιγές τι καὶ πολυκέφαλον θηρίον, οὐ πρότερον χρὴ πρὸς τὰς δόξας τῶν πολλῶν ἀτενῶς ὁρᾶν καὶ ἀδιατρέπτως, πρὶν ἂν τοῦτο δαμάσωμεν τὸ θηρίον καὶ πείσωμεν ὑπακοῦσαι τῷ παρ᾽ ἡμῖν θεῷ, μᾶλλον δὲ θείῳ. τοῦτο γὰρ πολλοὶ τοῦ Διογένους ζηλωταὶ ἐάσαντες[84] ἐγένοντο παντορέκται καὶ μιαροὶ καὶ τῶν θηρίων οὐδὲ ἑνὸς κρείττους, ὅτι δὲ οὐκ ἐμὸς ὁ λόγος ἐστί, [C] πρῶτον ἔργον ἐρῶ σοι Διογένους, ἐφ᾽ ᾧ γελάσονται μὲν οἱ πολλοί, ἐμοὶ δὲ εἶναι δοκεῖ σεμνότατον. ἐπειδὴ γάρ τις τῶν νέων ἐν ὄχλῳ, παρόντος καὶ τοῦ Διογόνους, ἀπέπαρδεν, ἐπάταξεν ἐκεῖνος τῇ βακτηρίᾳ φάς· εἶτα, ὦ κάθαρμα, μηδὲν ἄξιον τοῦ δημοσίᾳ τὰ τοιταῦτα θαρσεῖν πράξας ἐντεῦθεν ἡμῖν ἄρχῃ δόξης καταφρονεῖν; οὕτως ᾤετο χρῆναι πρότερον ἡδονῆς καὶ θυμοῦ κρείττονα γενέσθαι, πρὶν[85] ἐπὶ τὸ τελειότατον ἐλθεῖν τῶν παλαισμάτων, [D] ἀποδυσάμενον πρὸς τὰς τῶν πολλῶν δόξας αἳ μυρίων κακῶν αἴτιαι γίνονται τοῖς πολλοῖς.

(Since therefore one part of our souls is more divine, which we call mind and intelligence and silent reason, whose herald is this speech of ours made up of words and phrases and uttered through the voice; and since there is yoked therewith another part of the soul which is changeful and multiform, something composite of anger and appetite, a many-headed monster, we ought not to look steadily and unswervingly at the opinions of the multitude until we have tamed this wild beast and persuaded it to obey the god within us, or rather the divine part. For this it is that many disciples of Diogenes have ignored, and hence have become rapacious and depraved and no better than any one of the brute beasts. And to prove that this is not my own theory,[86] first I will relate to you something that Diogenes did, which the many will ridicule but to me it seems most dignified. Once when, in a crowd of people among whom was Diogenes, a certain youth made an unseemly noise, Diogenes struck him with his staff and said “And so, vile wretch, though you have done nothing that would give you the right to take such liberties in public, you are beginning here and before us to show your scorn of opinion?” So convinced was he that a man ought to subdue pleasure and passion before he proceeds to the final encounter of all[87] and strips to wrestle with those opinions which to the multitude are the cause of evils innumerable.)

Οὐκ οἶσθα ὅπως τοὺς μὲν νέους τῆς φιλοσοφίας ἀπάγουσιν, ἄλλα ἐπ᾽ ἄλλοις τῶν [pg 050] φιλοσόφων θρυλοῦντες; οἱ Πυθαγόρου καὶ Πλάτωνος καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους χορευταὶ γνήσιοι γόητες εἶναι λέγονται καὶ σοφισταὶ καὶ τετυφωμένοι καὶ φαρμακεῖς. [198] τῶν Κυνικῶν εἴ που τις γέγονε σπουδαῖος, ἐλεεινὸς δοκεῖ· μέμνημαι γοῦν ἐγώ ποτε τροφέως εἰπόντος πρός με, ἐπειδὴ τὸν ἑταῖρον εἶδεν Ἰφικλέα αὐχμηρὰν ἔχοντα τὴν κόμην καὶ κατερρωγότα τὰ στέρνα ἱμάτιόν τε παντάπασι φαῦλον ἐν δεινῷ χειμῶνι· τίς ἄρα δαίμων τοῦτον εἰς ταύτην περιέτρεψε τὴν συμφοράν, ὑφ᾽ ἧς αὐτὸς μὲν ἐλεεινός, ἐλεεινότεροι δὲ οἱ πατέρες αὐτοῦ, θρέψαντες σὺν ἐπιμελείᾳ καὶ παιδεύσαντες ὡς ἐνεδέχετο σπουδαίως, [B] ὁ δὲ οὕτω νῦν περιέρχεται, πάντα ἀφείς, οὐδὲν τῶν προσαιτούντων κρείττων; ἐκείνου μὲν οὖν ἐγὼ οὐκ οἶδ᾽ ὅπως τότε κατειρωνευσάμην· εὖ μέντοι γε ἴσθι ταῦτα καὶ[88] ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀληθῶς κυνῶν τοὺς πολλοὺς διανοουμένους. καὶ οὐ τοῦτο δεινόν ἐστιν, ἀλλ᾽ ὁρᾷς ὅτι καὶ πλοῦτον ἀγαπᾶν πείθουσι καὶ πενίαν μισεῖν καὶ τὴν γαστέρα θεραπεύειν καὶ τοῦ σώματος ἕνεκα πάντα ὑπομένειν πόνον καὶ πιαίνειν τὸν τῆς ψυχῆς δεσμὸν καὶ τράπεζαν παρατίθεσθαι πολυτελῆ [C] καὶ μηδέποτε νύκτωρ καθεύδειν μόνον, ἀλλὰ τὰ τοιαῦτα πάντα δρᾶν ἐν τῷ σκότῳ λανθάνοντα; τοῦτο οὐκ ἔστι τοῦ Ταρτάρου χεῖρον; οὐ βέλτιόν ἐστιν ὑπὸ τὴν Χάρυβδιν καὶ τὸν Κωκυτὸν καὶ μυρίας ὀργυιὰς κατὰ γῆς δῦναι, ἢ πεσεῖν εἰς τοιοῦτον βίον αἰδοίοις καὶ γαστρὶ δουλεύοντα, καὶ οὐδὲ τούτοις ἁπλῶς ὥσπερ τὰ θηρία, πράγματα δὲ ἔχειν, ὡς ἂν καὶ [pg 052] λάθοιμεν ὑπὸ τῷ σκότῳ ταῦτα ἐξεργαζόμενοι; καίτοι πόσῳ [D] κρεῖττον ἀπέχεσθαι παντάπασιν αὐτῶν; εἰ δὲ μὴ ῥᾴδιον, οἱ Διογένους νόμοι καὶ Κράτητος ὑπὲρ τούτων οὐκ ἀτιμαστέοι· ἔρωτα λύει λιμός, ἂν δὲ τούτῳ χρῆσθαι μὴ δύνῃ,[89] βρόχος. οὐκ οἶσθα, ὅτι ταῦτα ἔπραξαν ἐκεῖνοι τῷ βίῳ διδόντες ὁδὸν εὐτελείας; οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τῶν μαζοφάγων, φησὶν ὁ Διογένης, [199] οἱ τύραννοι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ τῶν δειπνούντων πολυτελῶς. καὶ ὁ Κράτης μέντοι πεποίηκεν ὕμνον εἰς τὴν Εὐτέλειαν·

(Do you not know how people lure away the young from philosophy by continually uttering now one slander and then another against all the philosophers in turn? The genuine disciples of Pythagoras and Plato and Aristotle are called sorcerers and sophists and conceited and quacks. If here and there among the Cynics one is really virtuous he is regarded with pity. For instance I remember that once my tutor said to me when he saw my fellow-pupil Iphicles with his hair unkempt and his clothes in tatters on his chest and wearing a wretched cloak in severe winter weather: “What evil genius can have plunged him into this sad state which makes not only him pitiable but even more so his parents who reared him with care and gave him the best education they could! And now he goes about in this condition, neglecting everything and no better than a beggar!” At the time I answered him with some pleasantry or other. But I assure you that the multitude hold these views about genuine Cynics also. And that is not so dreadful, but do you see that they persuade them to love wealth, to hate poverty, to minister to the belly, to endure any toil for the body's sake, to fatten that prison of the soul, to keep up an expensive table, never to sleep alone at night,[90] provided only that they do all this in the dark and are not found out? Is not this worse than Tartarus? Is it not better to sink beneath Charybdis and Cocytus or ten thousand fathoms deep in the earth[91] than to fall into a life like this, enslaved to lust and appetite, and not even to these simply and openly, like the beasts, but to take pains so that when we act thus we may be hidden under cover of darkness? And yet much better is it to refrain altogether from all this! And if that be difficult the rules of Diogenes and Crates on these matters are not to be despised: “Fasting quenches desire, and if you cannot fast, hang yourself.”[92] Do you not know that those great men lived as they did in order to introduce among men the way of plain living? "For," says Diogenes, “it is not among men who live on bread that you will find tyrants, but among those who eat costly dinners.” Moreover Crates wrote a hymn to Plain Living:)

Χαῖρε, θεὰ δέσποινα, σοφῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀγάπημα,

Εὐτελίη, κλεινῆς ἔγγονε Σωφροσύνης.

(“Hail, goddess and Queen, darling of wise men, Plain Living, child of glorious Temperance.”[93])

ἔστω δὴ μὴ κατὰ τὸν Οἰνόμαον ὁ κύων ἀναιδὴς μηδὲ ἀναίσχυντος μηδὲ ὑπερόπτης πάντων ὁμοῦ θείων τε καὶ ἀνθρωπίνων, ἀλλὰ εὐλαβὴς μὲν τὰ πρὸς τὸ θεῖον, ὥσπερ Διογένης· [B] ἐπείσθη γοῦν ἐκεῖνος τῷ Πυθίῳ, καὶ οὐ μετεμέλησεν αὐτῷ πεισθέντι· εἰ δὲ, ὅτι μὴ προσῄει μηδὲ ἐθεράπευε τοὺς νεὼς μηδὲ τὰ ἀγάλματα μηδὲ τοὺς βωμούς, οἴεταί τις ἀθεότητος εἶναι σημεῖον, οὐκ ὀρθῶς νομίζει· ἦν γὰρ οὐδὲν αὐτῷ τῶν τοιούτων, οὐ λιβανωτός, οὐ σπονδή, οὐκ ἀργύριον, ὅθεν αὐτὰ πρίαιτο. εἰ δὲ ἐνόει περὶ θεῶν ὀρθῶς, ἤρκει τοῦτο μόνον· αὐτῇ γὰρ αὐτοὺς ἐθεράπευε[94] τῇ ψυχῇ, διδοὺς οἶμαι τὰ τιμιώτατα τῶν ἑαυτοῦ, τὸ καθοσιῶσαι τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ψυχὴν διὰ τῶν ἐννοιῶν. [C] ἀπερυθριάτω δὲ μηδαμῶς, ἀλλ᾽ ἑπόμενος τῷ λόγῳ πρότερον μὲν αὑτῷ χειρόηθες καταστησάτω τὸ παθηματικὸν [pg 054] τῆς ψυχῆς μόριον, ὥστε παντάπασιν ἐξελεῖν αὐτὸ καὶ μηδὲ ὅτι κρατεῖ τῶν ἡδονῶν εἰδέναι. εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἄμεινον ἐλθεῖν, εἰς τὸ καί, εἰ πάσχει τις τὰ τοιαῦτα, ὅλως ἀγνοῆσαι· τοῦτο δὲ ἡμῖν οὐκ ἄλλως ἢ διὰ τῶν γυμνασιῶν προσγένεται. ἵνα δὲ μή τις ὑπολάβῃ με ταῦτα ἄλλως λέγειν, ἐκ τῶν [D] παιγνίων Κράτητος ὀλίγα σοι παραγράψω·

(Then let not the Cynic be like Oenomaus shameless or impudent, or a scorner of everything human and divine, but reverent towards sacred things, like Diogenes. For he obeyed the Pythian oracle nor did he repent of his obedience. But if anyone supposes that because he did not visit the temples or worship statues or altars this is a sign of impiety, he does not think rightly. For Diogenes possessed nothing that is usually offered, incense or libations or money to buy them with. But if he held right opinions about the gods, that in itself was enough. For he worshipped them with his whole soul, thus offering them as I think the most precious of his possessions, the dedication of his soul through his thoughts. Let not the Cynic be shameless, but led by reason let him first make subservient to himself the emotional part of his soul so that he may entirely do away with it and not even be aware that he is superior to pleasures. For it is nobler to attain to this, I mean to complete ignorance whether one has any such emotions. And this comes to us only through training. And that none may think I say this at random I will add for your benefit a few lines from the lighter verse of Crates:[95])

Μνημοσύνης καὶ Ζηνὸς Ὀλυμπίου ἀγλαὰ τέκνα,

Μοῦσαι Πιερίδες, κλῦτέ μοι εὐχομένῳ·

Χόρτον ἀεὶ συνεχῶς δότε γαστέρι, ἥτε μοι αἰεὶ

Χωρὶς δουλοσύνης λιτὸν ἔθηκε βίον.

(“Glorious children of Memory and Olympian Zeus, ye Muses of Pieria, hearken to my prayer! Give me without ceasing victuals for my belly which has always made my life frugal and free from slavery....”)

---

Ὠφέλιμον δὲ φίλοις, μὴ γλυκερὸν τίθετε.

Χρήματα δ᾽ οὐκ ἐθέλω συνάγειν κλυτά, κανθάρου ὄλβον[96]

[200] Μύρμηκός τ᾽ ἄφενος χρήματα μαιόμενος,

Ἀλλὰ δικαιοσύνης μετέχειν καὶ πλοῦτον ἀγείρειν[97]

Εὔφορον, εὔκτητον, τίμιον εἰς ἀρετήν.

Τῶν δὲ τυχὼν Ἑρμῆν καὶ Μούσας ἱλάσομ᾽ ἁγνάς.

Οὐ δαπάναις τρυφεραῖς, ἀλλ᾽ ἀρεταῖς ὁσίαις.

(“To my friends make me useful rather than agreeable. As for money I desire not to amass conspicuous wealth, seeking after the wealth of the beetle or the substance of the ant; nay, I desire to possess justice and to collect riches that are easily carried, easily acquired, of great avail for virtue. If I may but win these I will propitiate Hermes and the holy Muses not with costly dainties but with pious virtues.”)

εἰ χρή σοι περὶ [B] τούτων γράφειν, ἔχω πλείονα τοῦ ἀνδρός. ἐντυχὼν δὲ τῷ Χαιρωνεῖ Πλουτάρχῳ τὸν Κράτητος ἀναγράψαντι βίον οὐδὲν ἐκ παρέργου μανθάνειν δεήσει τὸν ἄνδρα.

(If it be of any use to write for you about such things I could recite still more maxims by this same Crates. But if you will read Plutarch of Chaeronea, who wrote his Life, there will be no need for you to learn his character superficially from me.)

Ἀλλ᾽ ἐπανίωμεν ἐπ᾽ ἐκεῖνο πάλιν, ὅτι χρὴ τὸν ἀρχόμενον κυνίζειν [C] αὑτῷ πρότερον ἐπιτιμᾶν [pg 056] πικρῶς καὶ ἐξελέγχειν καὶ μὴ κολακεύειν, ἀλλὰ ἐξετάζειν ὅ,τι μάλιστα αὑτὸν ἀκριβῶς, εἰ τῇ πολυτελείᾳ τῶν σιτίων χαίρει, εἰ στρωμνῆς δεῖται μαλακῆς, εἰ τιμῆς ἢ δόξης ἐστὶν ἥττων, εἰ τοῦτο ζηλοῖ τὸ περιβλέπεσθαι καί, εἰ καὶ κενὸν εἴη, τίμιον ὅμως νομίζει. μηδὲ εἰς συμπεριφορὰν ὄχλων [D] καθυφείσθω,[98] γενέσθω δὲ τρυφῆς μηδὲ ἄκρῳ, φασί, τῷ δακτύλωι, ἕως ἂν αὐτὴν παντελῶς πατήσῃ. τότε ἤδη καὶ τῶν τοιούτων, ἂν προσπίπτῃ, θιγεῖν οὐδὲν κωλύει. ἐπεὶ καὶ τῶν ταύρων ἀκούω τοὺς ἀσθενεστέρους ἐξίστασθαι τῆς ἀγέλης καὶ καθ᾽ ἑαυτοὺς νεμομένους ἀγείρειν τὴν ἰσχὺν ἐν μέρει καὶ κατ᾽ ὀλίγον, εἶθ᾽ οὕτως ἐπιέναι καὶ προκαλεῖσθαι καὶ τῆς ἀγέλης ἀμφισβητεῖν τοῖς προκατέχουσιν, ὡς μᾶλλον ἀξιωτέρους προΐστασθαι. ὅστις οὖν κυνίζειν ἐθέλει μήτε τὸν τρίβωνα [201] μήτε τὴν πήραν μήτε τὴν βακτηρίαν καὶ τὴν κόμην ἀγαπάτω μόνον, ἵν᾽ ὥσπερ ἐν κώμῃ βαδίζῃ κουρείων καὶ διδασκαλείων ἐνδεεῖ ἄκαρτος καὶ ἀγράμματος, ἀλλὰ τὸν λόγον ἀντὶ τοῦ σκήπτρον καὶ τὴν ἔνστασιν ἀντὶ τῆς πήρας τῆς κυνικῆς ὑπολαμβανέτω φιλοσοφίας γνωρίσματα. παρρησίᾳ δὲ χρηστέον αὐτῷ πρῶτον ὁπόσου πέφυκεν ἄξιος ἐπιδειξαμένῳ, ὥσπερ οἶμαι Κράτης καὶ Διογένης, οἵ πᾶσαν μὲν ἀπειλὴν τύχης καὶ [B] εἴτε παιδιὰν εἴτε παροινίαν χρὴ φάναι [pg 058] τοσοῦτον ἀπέσχον τοῦ δυσκόλως ἐνεγκεῖν, ὥστε ἁλοὺς μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν καταποντιστῶν ὁ Διογένης ἔπαιζεν, ὁ Κράτης δὲ ἐδημοσίευε τὴν οὐσίαν, εἶτα τὸ σῶμα βλαβεὶς ἔσκωπτεν ἑαυτὸν εἰς τὴν χωλότητα τοῦ σκέλους καὶ τὸ κυρτὸν τῶν ὤμων, ἐπορεύετο δὲ ἐπὶ τὰς τῶν φίλων ἑστίας ἄκλητος καὶ[99] κεκλημένος, διαλλάσσων τοὺς οἰκειοτάτους ἀλλήλοις, εἴποτε στασιάζοντας αἴσθοιτο, ἐπετίμα δὲ οὐ μετὰ πικρίας, [C] ἀλλὰ μετὰ χάριτος, οὐχ ἵνα συκοφαντεῖν δοκῇ τοὺς σωφρονισθέντας, ὠφελεῖν δὲ ἐθέλων αὐτούς τε ἐκείνους καὶ τοὺς ἀκούοντας.

(But let me go back to what I said before, that he who is entering on the career of a Cynic ought first censure severely and cross-examine himself, and without any self-flattery ask himself the following questions in precise terms: whether he enjoys expensive food; whether he cannot do without a soft bed; whether he is the slave of rewards and the opinion of men; whether it is his ambition to attract public notice and even though that be an empty honour[100] he still thinks it worth while. Nevertheless he must not let himself drift with the current of the mob or touch vulgar pleasure even with the tip of his finger, as the saying is, until he has succeeded in trampling on it; then and not before he may permit himself to dip into that sort of thing if it come his way. For instance I am told that bulls which are weaker than the rest separate themselves from the herd and pasture alone while they store up their strength in every part of their bodies by degrees, until they rejoin the herd in good condition, and then they challenge its leaders to contend with them, in confidence that they are more fit to take the lead. Therefore let him who wishes to be a Cynic philosopher not adopt merely their long cloak or wallet or staff or their way of wearing the hair, as though he were like a man walking unshaved and illiterate in a village that lacked barbers' shops and schools, but let him consider that reason rather than a staff and a certain plan of life rather than a wallet are the mintmarks of the Cynic philosophy. And freedom of speech he must not employ until he have first proved how much he is worth, as I believe was the case with Crates and Diogenes. For they were so far from bearing with a bad grace any threat of fortune, whether one call such threats caprice or wanton insult, that once when he had been captured by pirates Diogenes joked with them; as for Crates he gave his property to the state, and being physically deformed he made fun of his own lame leg and hunched shoulders. But when his friends gave an entertainment he used to go, whether invited or not,[101] and would reconcile his nearest friends if he learned that they had quarrelled. He used to reprove them not harshly but with a charming manner and not so as to seem to persecute those whom he wished to reform, but as though he wished to be of use both to them and to the bystanders.)

Καὶ οὐ τοῦτο ῆν τὸ προηγούμενον αὐτοῖς τέλος· ἀλλ᾽, ὅπερ ἔφην, ἐσκόπουν ὅπως αὐτοὶ μὲν εὐδαιμονήσουσιν,[102] ἔμελε δὲ αὐτοῖς τῶν ἄλλων τοσοῦτον ὅσον ξυνίεσαν οἶμαι φύσει κοινωνικὸν καὶ πολιτικὸν ζῷον τὸν ἄνθρωπον εἶναι, καὶ τοὺς συμπολιτευομένους ὠφέλησαν οὐ τοῖς παραδείγμασι μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῖς λόγοις. [D] ὅστις οὖν ἂν ἐθέλῃ Κυνικὸς εἶναι καὶ σπουδαῖος ἀνήρ, αὑτοῦ πρότερον ἐπιμεληθείς, ὥσπερ Διογένης καὶ Κράτης ἐξελαυνέτω μὲν τῆς ψυχῆς ἅπαντα ἐκ πάσης τὰ πάθη, ὀρθῷ δὲ ἐπιτρέψας τὰ καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν λόγῳ καὶ νῷ κυβερνάσθω. κεφάλαιον γὰρ ἦν, ὡς ἐγὼ οἶμαι, τοῦτο τῆς Διογένους φιλοσοφίας.

(Yet this was not the chief end and aim of those Cynics, but as I said their main concern was how they might themselves attain to happiness and, as I think, they occupied themselves with other men only in so far as they comprehended that man is by nature a social and political animal; and so they aided their fellow-citizens, not only by practising but by preaching as well. Then let him who wishes to be a Cynic, earnest and sincere, first take himself in hand like Diogenes and Crates, and expel from his own soul and from every part of it all passions and desires, and entrust all his affairs to reason and intelligence and steer his course by them. For this in my opinion was the sum and substance of the philosophy of Diogenes.)

Εἰ δὲ ἑταίρᾳ ποτὲ προσῆλθεν ὁ ἀνήρ· καίτοι καὶ τοῦτο τυχὸν ἅπαξ ἢ οὐδὲ ἅπαξ ἐγένετο· ὅταν ἡμῖν [202] τὰ ἄλλα κατὰ τὸν Διογένη γένηται [pg 060] σπουδαῖος, ἂν αὐτῷ[103] φανῇ καὶ τοιοῦτόν τι δρᾶν[104] φανερῶς ἐν ὀφθαλμοὶς πάντων, οὐ μεμψόμεθα οὐδὲ αἰτιασόμεθα. πρότερον μέντοι τὴν Διογένους ἡμῖν ἐπιδειξάμενος εὐμάθειαν καὶ τὴν ἀγχίνοιαν καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἅπασιν ἐλευθερίαν, αὐτάρκειαν, δικαιοσύνην, σωφροσύνην, εὐλάβειαν, χάριν, προσοχήν, ὡς μηδὲν εἰκῇ μηδὲ μάτην μηδὲ ἀλόγως ποιεῖν· [B] ἐπεὶ καὶ ταῦτα τῆς Διογένους ἐστὶ φιλοσοφίας οἰκεῖα· πατείτω τῦφον, καταπαιζέτω τῶν τὰ μὲν ἀναγκαῖα τῆς φύσεως ἔργα κρυπτόντων ἐν σκότῳ· φημὶ δὲ τῶν περιττωμάτων τὰς ἐκκρίσεις· ἐν μέσαις δὲ ταῖς ἀγοραῖς καὶ ταῖς πόλεσιν ἐπιτηδευόντων τὰ βιαιότατα καὶ μηδὲν ἡμῶν οἰκεῖα τῇ φύσει, χρημάτων ἁρπαγάς, συκοφαντίας, γραφὰς ἀδίκους, διώξεις ἄλλων τοιούτων συρφετωδῶν πραγμάτων. ἐπεὶ καὶ Διογένης εἴτε [C] ἀπέπαρδεν εἴτε ἀπεπάτησεν εἴτε ἄλλο τι τοιοῦτον ἔπραξεν, ὥσπερ οὖν λέγουσιν, ἐν ἀγορᾷ, τὸν ἐκείνων πατῶν τῦφον ἐποίει, διδάσκων αὐτούς, ὅτι πολλῷ φαυλότερα καὶ χαλεπώτερα τούτων ἐπιτηδεύουσι. τὰ μὲν γάρ ἐστιν ἡμῖν πᾶσι κατὰ φύσιν, τὰ δὲ ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν οὐδενί, πάντα δὲ ἐκ διαστροφῆς ἐπιτηδεύεται.

(And if Diogenes did sometimes visit a courtesan—though even this happened only once perhaps or not even once—let him who would be a Cynic first satisfy us that he is, like Diogenes, a man of solid worth, and then if he see fit to do that sort of thing openly and in the sight of all men, we shall not reproach him with it or accuse him. First however we must see him display the ability to learn and the quick wit of Diogenes, and in all other relations he must show the same independence, self-sufficiency, justice, moderation, piety, gratitude, and the same extreme carefulness not to act at random or without a purpose or irrationally. For these too are characteristic of the philosophy of Diogenes. Then let him trample on vaingloriousness, let him ridicule those who though they conceal in darkness the necessary functions of our nature—for instance the secretion of what is superfluous—yet in the centre of the market-place and of our cities carry on practices that are most brutal and by no means akin to our nature, for instance robbery of money, false accusations, unjust indictments, and the pursuit of other rascally business of the same sort. On the other hand when Diogenes made unseemly noises or obeyed the call of nature or did anything else of that sort in the market-place, as they say he did, he did so because he was trying to trample on the conceit of the men I have just mentioned, and to teach them that their practices were far more sordid and insupportable than his own. For what he did was in accordance with the nature of all of us, but theirs accorded with no man's real nature, one may say, but were all due to moral depravity.)

Ἀλλ᾽ οἱ νῦν τοῦ Διογένους ζηλωταὶ τὸ ῥᾷστον καὶ κουφότατον ἑλόμενοι τὸ κρεῖττον οὐκ εἶδον· σύ τε ἐκείνων [D] εἶναι σεμνότερος ἐθέλων ἀπεπλανήθης [pg 062] τοσοῦτον τῆς Διογένους προαιρέσεως, ὥστε αὐτὸν ἐλεεινὸν ἐνόμισας. εἰ δὲ τούτοις μὲν ἠπίστεις ὑπὲρ ἀνδρὸς λεγομένοις, ὃν οἱ πάντες Ἕλληνες τότε ἐθαύμασαν μετὰ Σωκράτη καὶ Πυθαγόραν ἐπὶ Πλάτωνος καὶ Ἀριστοτέλους, οὗ γέγονεν ἀκροατῆς ὁ τοῦ σωφρονεστάτου καὶ συνετωτάτου Ζήνωνος καθηγεμών, οὓς οὐκ εἰκὸς ἦν ἅπαντας ἀπατηθῆναι περὶ ἀνδρὸς οὕτω φαύλου, ὁποῖον σὺ διακωμῳδεῖς, [203] ὦ βέλτιστε, ἴσως ἄν τι πλέον ἐσκόπησας περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ πορρωτέρω προῆλθες τῆς ἐμπειρίας τἀνδρός. τίνα γὰρ οὐκ ἐξέπληξε τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἡ Διογένους καρτερία, βασιλικῆς οὐκ ἔξω μεγαλοψυχίας οὖσα, καὶ φιλοπονία; ἐκάθευδεν ἁνὴρ ἐπὶ στιβάδος ἐν τῷ πίθῳ βέλτιον ἢ μέγας βασιλεὺς ὑπὸ τοῖς ἐπιχρύσοις ὀρόφοις ἐν τῇ μαλθακῇ κλίνῃ, ἤσθιε τὴν μᾶζαν ἥδιον ἢ σὺ νῦν τὰς Σικελικὰς [B] ἐσθίεις τραπέζας, ἐλούετο ψυχρῇ[105] τὸ σῶμα πρὸς ἀέρα ξηραίνων ἀντὶ τῶν ὀθονίων, οἷς σὺ ἀπομάττῃ, φιλοσοφώτατε. πάνυ σοι προσήκει κωμῳδεῖν ἐκεῖνον, ὅτι κατειργάσω τὸν Ξέρξην, ὡς ὁ Θεμιστοκλῆς, ἢ τὸν Δαρεῖον, ὡς ὁ Μακεδὼν Ἀλέξανδρος. εἰ σμικρὰ τὰς βίβλους ἀνελίττων ἐμελέτας ὥσπερ ἡμεῖς οἱ πολιτικοὶ καὶ πολυπράγμονες, ἔγνως ἄν, ὅπως Ἀλέξανδρος ἀγασθῆναι λέγεται τὴν Διογένους μεγαλοψυχίαν. ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἔστι σοι τούτων οὐδέν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, [pg 064] σπουδαῖον· πόθεν; πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ· γυναικῶν ἀθλίων τεθαύμακας φιλονεικῶν[106] βίον.

(In our own day, however, the imitators of Diogenes have chosen only what is easiest and least burdensome and have failed to see his nobler side. And as for you, in your desire to be more dignified than those early Cynics you have strayed so far from Diogenes' plan of life that you thought him an object of pity. But if you did not believe all this that I say about a man whom all the Greeks in the generation of Plato and Aristotle admired next to Socrates and Pythagoras, a man whose pupil was the teacher of the most modest and most wise Zeno,—and it is not likely that they were all deceived about a man as contemptible as you make him out to be in your travesty,—well, in that case, my dear sir, perhaps you might have studied his character more carefully and you would have progressed further in your knowledge of the man. Was there, I ask, a single Greek who was not amazed by the endurance of Diogenes and by his perseverance, which had in it a truly royal greatness of soul? The man used to sleep in his jar on a bed of leaves more soundly than the Great King on his soft couch under a gilded roof; he used to eat his crust[107] with a better appetite than you now eat your Sicilian courses[108]; he used to bathe his body in cold water and dry himself in the open air instead of with the linen towels with which you rub yourself down, my most philosophic friend! It becomes you well to ridicule him because, I suppose, like Themistocles you conquered Xerxes, or Darius like Alexander of Macedon. But if you had the least habit of reading books as I do, though I am a statesman and engrossed in public affairs, you would know how much Alexander is said to have admired Diogenes' greatness of soul. But you care little, I suppose, for any of these things. How should you care? Far from it![109] You admire and emulate the life of wretched women.)

Εἰ μὲν οὖν ὁ λόγος τι πλέον ἐποίησεν, οὐκ ἐμὸν μᾶλλον ἢ σόν ἐστι κέρδος· εἰ δὲ οὐδὲν περαίνομεν ἐκ τοῦ παραχρῆμα περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἀπνευστὶ τὸ δὴ λεγόμενον συνείραντες· ἔστι γὰρ πάρεργον ἡμέραιν δυοῖν, ὡς ἴσασιν αἱ Μοῦσαι, μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ σὺ[110] αὐτός· παραμενέτω μέν σοι ὁπόσα πρόσθεν ἐγνώκεις, ἡμῖν δὲ οὐ μεταμελήσει τῆς εἰς τὸν ἄνδρα εὐφημίας.

(However, if my discourse has improved you at all you will have gained more than I. But even if I accomplish nothing at the moment by writing on such a great subject thus hastily, and, as the saying is, without taking breath[111]—for I gave to it only the leisure of two days, as the Muses or rather you yourself will bear me witness—then do you abide by your former opinions, but I at any rate shall never regret having spoken of that great man with due reverence.)

[pg 069]

---