(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.