(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.