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 ἱκανὰς5 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 φαμεν6 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 Diogenes8 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 diet9 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 Antisthenes10 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 field11 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 καταπεμφθεῖσα13 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 ζωῆς14 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 θεῷ15 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 fire16 from the sun through the agency of Prometheus along with the blessings that we owe to Hermes17 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 ταῦτα18 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,)

καὶ μέντοι καὶ περὶ Διὸς

(and indeed he says also of Zeus,)

[pg 014]

[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᾽ ὁ26 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 δὴ30 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 διχάδε33 [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 Philiscus35 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 ἡμῖν37 αἴτιος κατέστη, οὕτω δὲ καὶ τούτου τοῦ βίου παράδειγμα τὸ μέγιστον38 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 Oenomaus41 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.)

[pg 026]

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 χρῆσθαι51 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 δὲ52 ὑπ᾽ ἄλλων πολλῶν καὶ ποικίλων, ὃ τῶν ἐκτὸς ποιεῖται τὴν ἀντίληψιν, οὐδ᾽ ἂν δυνατὸν οἶμαι γενέσθαι τῶν αἰσθητῶν τὴν53 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 τοῦτο55 συνέντες δηλονότι καὶ νοήσαντες, ὡς οἰκεῖόν ἐστιν ἔνθρωπος φύσει πράξει καὶ ἐπιστήμῃ. εἰ δὲ τῆς φυσικῆς τὴν θεωρίαν56 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 δὲ57 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 δὲ59 τοὺς πόνους ὑπέμειναν τούτους;60 οὐχ ὡς αὐτὸς εἶπας, κενοδοξίας ἕνεκα. καὶ γὰρ61 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 precious62 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)