What Apollo’s choices reveal
But as it is, the Pythian god admired among the Greeks judged no wise man, and indeed no man at all, worthy of what the Greeks suppose to be divine possession. Nor, even among the female sex, did he choose a virgin, or a wise woman who had profited from philosophy, but some ordinary woman. Perhaps the better sort among human beings were too good for his work of possession.
Again, if he were a god, he ought to have used his foreknowledge as a bait, so to speak, for the conversion, the healing, and the moral reform of men. But as it is, history hands down nothing of the kind about him. For even if he said that Socrates was the wisest of all men, he blunted that praise by what he said about Euripides and Sophocles, in the line: “Sophocles is wise, Euripides wiser.” So Socrates was judged better than tragic poets whom the god had called wise, men who compete on the stage and in the orchestra for some trifling prize, and who sometimes stir grief and pity in the audience and sometimes unseemly laughter (for that is what satyr plays aim at). Ranked above such men, Socrates is hardly shown to have the dignity that comes from philosophy and truth, a dignity worthy of praise.
And perhaps he called him the wisest of all men not so much for his philosophy as for the sacrifices and the smoke of burnt fat that he offered to him and to the other demons. And it is for these things, it seems, rather than for works of virtue, that the demons do what is asked by those who bring them offerings. That is why Homer, the best of the poets, describing what happens and teaching what chiefly persuades the demons to do what those who sacrifice want, brought in Chryses: for the sake of a few garlands and the thighs of bulls and goats, he obtained what he asked against the Greeks on account of his daughter, that they should be struck with plague and give Chryseis back to him (Homer, Iliad 1.37–42). I remember reading in one of the Pythagoreans, who wrote about what the poet said in a hidden sense, that Chryses’ words to Apollo, and the plague sent by Apollo upon the Greeks, teach that Homer knew that certain evil demons, who delight in the smoke of fat and in sacrifices, pay those who sacrifice with the ruin of others, if that is what the sacrificers pray for.
And “the lord of wintry Dodona,” at whose shrine are the prophets “with unwashed feet, who sleep on the ground” (Homer, Iliad 16.234–235), rejected the male sex for prophecy and uses the women of Dodona, as Celsus too has pointed out. Granted that there is someone much like these at Claros, another at Branchidae, another at Ammon’s shrine, or wherever on earth they give oracles: how then will it be shown that they are gods, and not some demons?
Greek
Νυνὶ δὲ ὁ θαυμαζόμενος παρ᾿ Ἕλλησι Πύθιος οὐδένα μὲν σοφὸν ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ὅλως ἄνδρα ἄξιον ἔκρινε τῆς, ὡς Ἕλληνες ὑπολαμβάνουσι, θείας κατακωχῆς. ἀλλ᾿ οὐδ᾿ ἐν τῷ θήλει γένει παρθένον τινὰ ἢ σοφὴν καὶ ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας ὠφελημένην ἀλλά τινα γυναῖκα ἰδιῶτιν· τάχα γὰρ οἱ ἐν ἀνθρώποις κρείττονες βελτίους ἦσαν τῆς εἰς τὴν κατακωχὴν ἐνεργείας αὐτοῦ. ἔδει δὲ καὶ. εἴπερ θεὸς ἦν, τῇ προγνώσει αὐτὸν χρήσασθαι δελέατι, ἵν᾿ οὕτως ὀνομάσω, πρὸς τὴν ἐπιστροφὴν καὶ θεραπείαν καὶ ἠθικὴν κατόρθωσιν τῶν ἀνθρώπων· νυνὶ δὲ οὐδὲν ἡ ἱστορία τοιοῦτον παραδίδωσι περὶ αὐτοῦ. εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἀνδρῶν ἁπάντων Σωκράτην εἶπε σοφώτατον εἶναι, ἤμβλυνε τὸν ἔπαινον αὐτοῦ τὸ πρὸς τούτου λεγόμενον περὶ Εὐριπίδου καὶ Σοφοκλέους ἐν τῷ· σοφὸς Σοφοκλῆς, σοφώτερος δ᾿ Εὐριπίδης. τραγῳδιοποιῶν ουν σοφῶν ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ λελεγμένων κρείττων εἶναι νομισθεὶς ὁ Σωκράτης, τῶν ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς καὶ τῆς ὀρχήστρας τοῦ τυχόντος ἄθλου ἕνεκεν ἀγωνιζομένων καὶ ὅπου μὲν λύπας καὶ οἴκτους τοῖς θεαταῖς ἐμποιούντων ὅπου δὲ ἀσέμνους γέλωτας (τοιοῦτον γάρ τι βούλεται τὰ σατυρικὰ δράματα), οὐ πάνυ τι τὸ διὰ φιλοσοφίαν καὶ ἀλήθειαν ἐμφαίνει σεμνὸν καὶ διὰ σεμνότητα ἐπαινετόν. καὶ τάχα οὐ τοσοῦτον διὰ φιλοσοφίαν ἀνδρῶν εἶπεν αὐτὸν ἁπάντων σοφώτατον ὅσον διὰ τὰς θυσίας καὶ ἃς προσήνεγκε κνίσσας αὐτῷ τε καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς δαίμοσι. καὶ διὰ ταῦτα ἐοίκασι μᾶλλον ποιεῖν οἱ δαίμονες τὰ ἀξιούμενα ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτοῖς προσαγόντων ἢ διὰ τὰ ἔργα τῆς ἀρετῆς. διόπερ διαγράφων τὰ γινόμενα ὁ τῶν ποιητῶν ἄριστος Ὅμηρος καὶ διδάσκων, τίνα μάλιστά ἐστι τὰ πείθοντα τοὺς δαίμονας ποιεῖν ἃ βούλονται οἱ θύοντες, εἰσήγαγε τὸν Χρύσην, ἕνεκεν ὀλίγων στεφάνων καὶ μηρίων ταύρων καὶ αἰγῶν τυγχάνοντα ὧν ᾔτησε καθ᾿ Ἑλλήνων διὰ τὴν θυγατέρα, ἵνα λοιμώξαντες ἀποδώσειαν αὐτῷ τὴν Χρυσηΐδα. μέμνημαι δὲ παρά τινι τῶν Πυθαγορείων, ἀναγράψαντι περὶ τῶν ἐν ὑπονοίᾳ παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ λελεγμένων, ἀναγνοὺς ὅτι τὰ τοῦ Χρύσου πρὸς τὸν Ἀπόλλωνα ἔπη καὶ ὁ ἐξ Ἀπόλλωνος ἐπιπεμφθεὶς τοῖς Ἕλλησι λοιμὸς διδάσκει ὅτι ἠπίστατο Ὅμηρος πονηρούς τινας δαίμονας, χαίροντας ταῖς κνίσσαις καὶ ταῖς θυσίαις, μισθοὺς ἀποδιδόναι τοῖς θύσασι τὴν ἑτέρων φθορὰν, εἰ τοιοῦτο οἱ θύοντες εὔχοιντο. καὶ ὁ „Δωδώνης“ δὲ „μεδέων δυσχειμέρου,“ παρ᾿ ᾧ εἰσιν οἱ προφῆται „ἀνιπτόποδες χαμαιεῦναι,“ ἀποδοκιμάσας τὸ τῶν ἀνδρῶν εἰς προφητείαν γένος ταῖς Δωδωνίσι χρῆται, ὡς καὶ ὁ Κέλσος παρέστησεν. ἔστω δέ τις τούτοις παραπλήσιος Κλάριος καὶ ἕτερος ἐν Βραγχίδαις καὶ ἄλλος ἐν Ἄμμωνος ἢ ὅποι ποτὲ γῆς μαντευόμενοι, πόθεν οὖν δειχθήσεται εἰ καὶ θεοὶ μέν εἰσιν οὐ δαιμόνια δέ τινα;