(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 [pg 112] 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 [pg 114] 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, [pg 116] 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 [pg 118] 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.