13

Testifying that Euphrates was wise and good to Vespasian, but in narrating these things about him to his son, he would clearly be both praising and blaming the same man. So then did he who had received foreknowledge of future things not know what Euphrates was and would be in character? For not now for the first time, but also in the time of Vespasian himself, he wishes to slander him as being most wicked in character. How then did he introduce such a man to the emperor, so that even unlocked for him, through his introductions, the gates of the palace were thrown open? But indeed it is clear, they say, even to a blind man, that as for foreknowledge, the man is slandered by the writer, but he would otherwise be noble, long ago before experience generously to his companions, and indeed also to Euphrates, sharing access to the palace, but later, on account of their disagreement, saying such things about him. My argument does not yet wish to slander the man, as one slandering Euphrates, who became the most renowned of the philo 398 sophers of his time, so that even to this day, he is celebrated by those who have a share in philosophy, which one might take, if he wished, as the greatest example of the slander against Apollonius. For if, then, Euphrates were acknowledged among them to have excelled in all philosophy, it is time to accuse that man of hatred of wickedness, as he prosecuted the outrageous things done by this one, and for this man, being accused by that one, to be clothed in a mean reputation, because, forsooth, he did not pursue the life that pleased the philosopher. Again in the sixth book, relating paradoxes, the mythologer leads him along with his companions, riding on a camel, to those whom he calls the naked philosophers of the Egyptians, where indeed, when the naked man commanded, an elm tree, he says, the tree addresses Apollonius in an articulate and female voice, and Philalethes thinks we should believe these things. Then he relates of Pygmy men in the country beyond these, and Man-eaters and Shadow-feet, and a satyr being made drunk by Apollonius. And from there he returns again to Greece, and again conversations and foreknowledge are shared by him with Titus, and a youth bitten by a rabid dog, whose soul he also divined who it might be, that it was once the king of Egypt, Amasis, he frees from the misfortune, extending his benevolence even to the dog. These, then, are the things done by him before the accusation, but it is worthwhile to observe throughout the whole treatise, that even if the writer is granted to be speaking the truth about the marvels, it is clearly shown that each of these things was accomplished by him by the cooperation of a demon. For to have foreseen the plague perhaps might not even seem magical, if [as he himself] 399 it was perceived from a very light and pure diet, as he himself said, but perhaps also it had been revealed to him beforehand from conversation with a demon. For indeed the rest also, as many things as he is introduced having perceived and foretold by foreknowledge, even if it is possible to correct them with ten thousand refutations from Philostratus's own writing, nevertheless, so that this too might be conceded to be true, I would say that by a magical contrivance, some of the future things, for not all, had been perceived by him from a familiar demon. And this makes it clear: that he did not maintain foreknowledge throughout and about all things, but was at a loss in many cases and inquired out of ignorance, which he would not have experienced, if he had a share in divine virtue. And the very act of stopping the plague, what sort of drama it was, that it was a phantom and nothing more, has been shown before. But also the soul of Achilles, why would it linger at his own tomb, leaving behind its pastimes in the isles of the blessed, as one might say, unless this too were the presence of a demon's epiphany? And the licentious youth clearly had an indwelling demon, and again, the one he said was an empusa and lamia who had bewitched Menippus, he has driven out perhaps with a greater demon, and in like manner again also the young man driven out of his wits by the rabid dog and the demon-possessed dog itself he changed by the same method. See then, as I said, all his wonder-working, as by means of

13

Οὐεσπασιανὸν σοφὸν καὶ ἀγαθὸν τὸν Εὐφράτην μαρτυρόμενος, πρὸς δὲ τὸν υἱὸν ταῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ διεξιὼν δῆλος ἂν εἴη τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπαινῶν τε καὶ ψέγων. ἆρ' οὖν ὁ τὴν τῶν μελλόντων προειληφὼς γνῶσιν ἠγνόει, ὃς ἦν τε καὶ ἔσται τὸν τρόπον ὁ Εὐφράτης; καὶ γὰρ οὐ νῦν πρῶτον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπ' αὐτοῦ Οὐεσπασιανοῦ διαβάλλειν αὐτὸν ὡς δὴ τὸ ἦθος μοχθηρότατον βούλεται. πῶς δὴ οὖν τὸν τοιόνδε συνίστη βασιλεῖ, ὡς καὶ ἀκλείτους αὐτῷ διὰ τὰς παρ' αὐτοῦ συστάσεις τῶν βασιλείων ἀναπεπετάσθαι τὰς πύλας; ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τυφλῷ, φασί, δῆλον, ὡς ἄρα πρόγνωσιν μὲν συκοφαντεῖται πρὸς τοῦ συγγραφέως ὁ ἄνθρωπος, εἴη δ' ἂν ἄλλως γενναῖος, πάλαι μὲν πρὸ πείρας ἀφθόνως ἑταίροις, ἀτὰρ καὶ τῷ Εὐφράτῃ τῆς εἰς τὰ βασίλεια παρόδου κοινωνῶν, ὕστερον δὲ τῆς διαφορᾶς ἕνεκα τοιαῦτα περὶ αὐτοῦ λέγων. οὔπω μοι διαβάλλειν ὁ λόγος βούλεται τὸν ἄνδρα, ὡς ἂν τὸν Εὐφράτην συκοφαντοῦντα φιλο 398 σόφων γενόμενον τῶν καθ' ἑαυτὸν ἐπιδοξότατον, ὡς καὶ ἐς δεῦρ', οἷς μέτεστι φιλοσοφίας, ᾄδεσθαι, ὃ καὶ μέγιστον λάβοι ἄν τις, εἰ βούλοιτο, παράδειγμα τῆς κατὰ τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου διαβολῆς. εἰ γὰρ οὖν ὁ Εὐφράτης παρ' αὐτοῖς πάσῃ φιλοσοφίᾳ διαπρέψαι ὁμολογηθείη, ὥρα μισοπονηρίαν μὲν ἐκείνου κατηγορεῖν ἐπεξιόντος τοῖς ἀτόπως ὑπὸ τοῦδε δρωμένοις, τουτονὶ δὲ πρὸς ἐκείνου κατηγορούμενον φαύλην περιβάλλεσθαι δόξαν, ὅτι δὴ μὴ τὸν ἀρέσκοντα τῷ φιλοσόφῳ μετῄει βίον. Πάλιν ἐν τῷ ἕκτῳ παραδοξολογῶν ὁ μυθολόγος ἄγει μὲν αὐτὸν ἅμα τοῖς ἑταίροις καμήλῳ ὀχούμενον ἐφ' οὕς φησιν Αἰγυπτίων γυμνοὺς φιλοσόφους, ἔνθα δὴ προστάξαντος τοῦ γυμνοῦ πτελέα, φησί, τὸ δένδρον προσαγορεύει τὸν Ἀπολλώνιον ἐνάρθρῳ καὶ θήλει τῇ φωνῇ, καὶ τούτοις γε ἡμᾶς ὁ Φιλαλήθης πιστεύειν ἀξιοῖ. εἶτα Πυγμαίους ἄνδρας ὑπὲρ τὴν τούτων ἱστορεῖ χώραν καὶ Ἀνθρωποφάγους καὶ Σκιάποδας σάτυρόν τε πρὸς τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου μεθυσκόμενον. ἐξ ἐκείνων δ' αὖθις ἐπάνεισιν ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα, ὁμιλίαι τε πάλιν αὐτῷ καὶ προγνώσεις ἀνακοινοῦνται πρὸς Τίτον, καὶ δηχθέντα ἔφηβον ὑπὸ λυττῶντος κυνός, ὃν δὴ καὶ ἐμαντεύσατο, ὅς τις εἴη τὴν ψυχήν, ὅτι ὁ τῆς Αἰγύπτου ποτὲ βασιλεὺς Ἄμασις, τῆς συμφορᾶς ἀπαλλάττει, μέχρι καὶ τοῦ κυνὸς ἐπιτείνας τὸ φιλάνθρωπον. ταυτὶ μὲν οὖν τὰ πρὸ τῆς κατηγορίας αὐτῷ πεπραγμένα, ἐπιστῆσαι δ' ἄξιον δι' ὅλης τῆς πραγματείας, ὡς ὅτι κἂν ἀληθεύειν δοθῇ τῷ συγγραφεῖ τὰ παράδοξα, συνεργείᾳ δαίμονος ἕκαστον αὐτῷ διαπεπρᾶχθαι τούτων σαφῶς δείκνυται. τό τε γὰρ τοῦ λοιμοῦ προαισθέσθαι ἴσως μὲν οὐδὲ περίεργον ἂν δόξειεν, εἰ [καθὼς αὐτὸς] 399 ἀπὸ λεπτοτάτης καὶ καθαρᾶς διαίτης κατείληπτο, ὡς αὐτὸς ἔφησεν, ἴσως δὲ καὶ αὐτὸ ἐξ ὁμιλίας δαίμονος αὐτῷ προμεμήνυτο. καὶ γὰρ δὴ καὶ τὰ λοιπά, ὅσα κατὰ πρόγνωσιν διειληφώς τε καὶ προειρηκὼς εἰσῆκται, εἰ καὶ μυρίοις ἐλέγχοις ἐξ αὐτῆς πάρεστι τῆς τοῦ Φιλοστράτου γραφῆς εὐθύνειν, ὅμως ἵνα συγχωρηθείη καὶ τοῦτ' εἶναι ἀληθές, κατὰ περίεργον μηχανὴν εἴποιμ' ἂν πρὸς δαίμονος αὐτῷ παρέδρου τινὰ τῶν μελλόντων, οὐδὲ γὰρ πάντα, κατειλῆφθαι. τοῦτο δὲ παρίστησι σαφὲς τὸ μὴ δι' ὅλου καὶ περὶ πάντων τὴν πρόγνωσιν αὐτὸν ἀποσώζειν, ἀπορεῖν δὲ ἐν πλείστοις καὶ πυνθάνεσθαι δι' ἄγνοιαν, ὅπερ οὐκ ἄν, εἰ θείας ἀρετῆς μετῆν αὐτῷ, πεπόνθει. καὶ αὐτὸ δὲ τὸ παῦσαι τὸν λοιμόν, ὁποῖον εἴληχε τὸ δρᾶμα, ὅτι φάσμα καὶ οὐδέν τι πλέον ἦν, προδεδήλωται. ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ Ἀχιλλέως παρὰ τῷ αὐτοῦ μνήματι τί ἂν διατρίβοι τὰς ἐν μακάρων νήσοις, ὡς ἂν φήσειέ τις, ἀπολείπουσα διαγωγάς, εἰ μὴ καὶ τοῦτο δαίμονος ἦν ἐπιφανείας παρουσία; καὶ τοῦ ἀσελγοῦς δὲ μειρακίου σαφῶς ἔνοικον δαίμονα, καὶ πάλιν, ἣν ἔφησεν ἔμπουσάν τε καὶ λάμιαν ἐμπεπαρωνηκέναι τῷ Μενίππῳ, μείζονι τάχ' ἴσως ἐξελήλακε δαίμονι, ὁμοίως τε αὖ καὶ τὸν τὰς φρένας παρατραπέντα νεανίαν ὑπὸ τοῦ λυττῶντος κυνὸς αὐτόν τε τὸν δαιμονῶντα κύνα τῇ αὐτῇ μετήλλαξε μεθόδῳ. ὅρα δὴ οὖν, ὡς ἔφην, τὴν πᾶσαν αὐτῷ παραδοξοποιίαν, ὡς διὰ