Tapeinoterois

“Χαλεπὸν δ’ ἐρῶ σοι καὶ ἄλλο πάθημα, ὦ Σιμωνίδη, τῶν τυράννων. γιγνώσκουσι μὲν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἧττον τῶν ἰδιωτῶν τοὺς ἀλκίμους τε καὶ σοφοὺς καὶ δικαίους. τούτους δ’ ἀντὶ τοῦ ἄγασθαι φοβοῦνται, τοὺς μὲν ἀνδρείους, μή τι τολμήσωσι τῆς ἐλευθερίας ἕνεκεν, τοὺς δὲ σοφούς, μή τι μηχανήσωνται, τοὺς δὲ δικαίους, μὴ ἐπιθυμήσῃ τὸ πλῆθος ὑπ’ αὐτῶν προστατεῖσθαι. ὅταν δὲ τοὺς τοιούτους διὰ τὸν φόβον ὑπεξαιρῶνται, τίνες ἄλλοι αὐτοῖς καταλείπονται χρῆσθαι ἀλλ’ ἢ οἱ ἄδικοί τε καὶ ἀκρατεῖς καὶ ἀνδραποδώδεις; οἱ μὲν ἄδικοι πιστευόμενοι, διότι φοβοῦνται ὥσπερ οἱ τύραννοι τὰς πόλεις μήποτε ἐλεύθεραι γενόμεναι ἐγκρατεῖς αὐτῶν γένωνται, οἱ δ’ ἀκρατεῖς τῆς εἰς τὸ παρὸν ἐξουσίας ἕνεκα, οἱ δ’ ἀνδραποδώδεις, διότι οὐδ’ αὐτοὶ ἀξιοῦσιν ἐλεύθεροι εἶναι. χαλεπὸν οὖν καὶ τοῦτο τὸ πάθημα ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ εἶναι, τὸ ἄλλους μὲν ἡγεῖσθαι ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας, ἄλλοις δὲ χρῆσθαι ἀναγκάζεσθαι. ἔτι δὲ φιλόπολιν μὲν ἀνάγκη καὶ τὸν τύραννον εἶναι· ἄνευ γὰρ τῆς πόλεως οὔτ’ ἂν σῴζεσθαι δύναιτο οὔτ’ εὐδαιμονεῖν· ἡ δὲ τυραννὶς ἀναγκάζει καὶ ταῖς ἑαυτῶν πατρίσιν ἐνοχλεῖν. οὔτε γὰρ ἀλκίμους οὔτ’ εὐόπλους χαίρουσι τοὺς πολίτας παρασκευάζοντες, ἀλλὰ τοὺς ξένους δεινοτέρους τῶν πολιτῶν ποιοῦντες ἥδονται μᾶλλον καὶ τούτοις χρῶνται δορυφόροις. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδ’ ἂν εὐετηριῶν γενομένων ἀφθονία τῶν ἀγαθῶν γίγνηται, οὐδὲ τότε συγχαίρει ὁ τύραννος. ἐνδεεστέροις γὰρ οὖσι ταπεινοτέροις αὐτοῖς οἴονται χρῆσθαι.”
(Xenophon, Hiero 5)

“I will tell you of another harsh affliction, Simonides, which the tyrants have. For although they are acquainted with the decent, the wise, and the just, no less than private men [the tyrants] fea rather than admire them. They fear the brave because they might dare something for the sake of freedom; the wise, because they might contrive something; and the just, because the multitude might desire to be ruled by them. When, because of their fear, they do away secretly with such men, who is left for them to use save the unjust, the incontinent, and the slavish? The unjust are trusted because they are afraid, just as the tyrants are, that some day the cities, becoming free, will become their masters. The incontinent are trusted because they are at liberty for the present, and the slavish because not even they deem themselves worthy to be free. This affliction, then, seems harsh to me: to think some men are good, and yet to be compelled to make use of the others. Moreover, the tyrant also is compelled to be a lover of the city; for without the city he would not be able either to preserve himself or to be happy. Yet tyranny compels to give trouble to even their own fatherlands. For they do not rejoice in making the citizens either brave or well-armed. Rather they take pleasure in making strangers more formidable than the citizens, and these strangers they use as bodyguards. Furthermore, when good seasons come and there is an abundance of good things, not even then does the tyrant rejoice with them. For [tyrants] think that as men are more in want, they are more submissive for being used.” (tr. Marvin Kendrick & Seth Bernardete)

Dōrodokias

Gold-bars-1620999

Οἱ δ’ Ἀθηναῖοι τὴν αὔξησιν ὑφορώμενοι τοῦ Φιλίππου τοῖς ἀεὶ πολεμουμένοις ὑπὸ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐβοήθουν, πρέσβεις ἀποστέλλοντες ἐπὶ τὰς πόλεις καὶ παρακαλοῦντες τηρεῖν τὴν αὐτονομίαν καὶ τοὺς ἐπὶ τὴν προδοσίαν ὁρμῶντας τῶν πολιτῶν θανάτῳ κολάζειν· ἐπηγγέλλοντο δὲ πᾶσι συμμαχήσειν καὶ φανερῶς ἑαυτοὺς πολεμίους ἀποδείξαντες τῷ βασιλεῖ διεπολέμουν πρὸς Φίλιππον. μάλιστα δ᾽ αὐτοὺς παρώξυνε προστῆναι τῆς Ἑλλάδος Δημοσθένης ὁ ῥήτωρ, δεινότατος ὢν τῶν κατ᾽ ἐκείνους τοὺς χρόνους Ἑλλήνων. οὐ μὴν ἡ πόλις γε ἀναστεῖλαι τῆς ἐπὶ τὴν προδοσίαν ὁρμῆς ἠδυνήθη τοὺς πολίτας· τοιαύτη γὰρ φορά τις προδοτῶν ὑπῆρξε τότε κατὰ τὴν Ἑλλάδα. διὸ καί φασι τὸν Φίλιππον βουλόμενον ἑλεῖν τινα πόλιν ὀχυρότητι διαφέρουσαν, εἰπόντος τινὸς αὐτῷ τῶν ἐγχωρίων ἀνάλωτον αὐτὴν ἐκ βίας ὑπάρχειν, ἐπερωτῆσαι εἰ οὐδ’ ὁ χρυσὸς τὸ τεῖχος ὑπερβῆναι δυνατός ἐστιν. ἦν γὰρ πεῖραν εἰληφὼς ὅτι τὰ τοῖς ὅπλοις ἀδύνατα χειρωθῆναι τῷ χρυσῷ ῥᾴδιόν ἐστι καταπολεμῆσαι. ἐγκατασκευάζων οὖν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι προδότας διὰ τῆς δωροδοκίας καὶ τοὺς δεχομένους τὸ χρυσίον ξένους καὶ φίλους ὀνομάζων ταῖς πονηραῖς ὁμιλίαις διέφθειρε τὰ ἤθη τῶν ἀνθρώπων.
(Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 16.54)

Since the Athenians viewed with alarm the rising power of Philip, they came to the assistance of any people who were attacked by the king, by sending envoys to the cities and urging them to watch over their independence and punish with death those citizens who were bent on treason, and they promised them all that they would fight as their allies, and, after publicly declaring themselves the king’s enemies, engaged in an out-and-out war against Philip. The man who more than any other spurred them on to take up the cause of Hellas was the orator Demosthenes, the most eloquent of the Greeks of those times. Even his city was, however, unable to restrain its citizens from their urge toward treason, such was the crop, as it were, of traitors that had sprung up at that time throughout Hellas. Hence the anecdote that when Philip wished to take a certain city with unusually strong fortifications and one of the inhabitants remarked that it was impregnable, he asked if even gold could not scale its walls. For he had learned from experience that what could not be subdued by force of arms could easily be vanquished by gold. So, organizing bands of traitors in the several cities by means of bribes and calling those who accepted his gold “guests” and “friends,” by his evil communications he corrupted the morals of the people. (tr. Charles L. Sherman)

Andriantas

baby-jesus1

Ἆρα ἀγνοεῖτε τὴν προσοῦσαν αἰσχύνην τῷ πράγματι καὶ πόσον γέλωτα ὄφλετε δημοσίᾳ ψευδόμενοι, καὶ ταῦτα φανερῶς οὕτως; ἐν γοῦν τοῖς ψηφίσμασι γράφετε, στῆσαι δὲ εἰκόνα τοῦ δεῖνος. πῶς, εἴποι τις ἂν ὑμῖν, ἄνδρες Ῥόδιοι, στῆσαι γράφετε τὴν ἑστῶσαν, ἐὰν οὕτω τύχῃ, πρὸ πεντακοσίων ἐτῶν; εἶτα τῶν μὲν γυναικῶν τὰς ὑποβαλλομένας παιδία πονηρὰς κρίνετε καὶ δεινόν τι ποιεῖν ἡγεῖσθε καταψευδομένας· αὐτοὶ δὲ οὐκ αἰσχύνεσθε ταὐτὸ ποιοῦντες ἐπὶ τῶν εἰκόνων, καὶ τοὺς ἀνδριάντας, ὧν οὐκ εἰσί, τούτων εἶναι λέγοντες, καὶ ταῦτα οὐκ ὄντες ἀνήκοοι τῶν κατὰ τῆς πόλεως σκωμμάτων; φασὶ γοῦν πολλοὶ τοὺς Ῥοδίων ἀνδριάντας ὁμοίους εἶναι τοῖς ὑποκριταῖς. ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐκείνων ἕκαστον ἄλλοτε ἄλλον εἰσιέναι, καὶ τοὺς ἀνδριάντας ὑμῖν ἄλλοτε ἄλλα λαμβάνειν πρόσωπα καὶ μικροῦ δεῖν ὑποκρινομένους ἑστάναι. τὸν γὰρ αὐτὸν νῦν μὲν εἶναι Ἕλληνα, νῦν δὲ Ῥωμαῖον, πάλιν δ’, ἂν οὕτω τύχῃ, Μακεδόνα ἢ Πέρσην· καὶ ταῦτ’ ἐπ’ ἐνίων οὕτως ὥστε τὸν ἰδόντα εὐθὺς εἰδέναι. καὶ γὰρ ἐσθὴς καὶ ὑπόδεσις καὶ τοιαῦθ’ ἕτερα τὸ ψεῦσμα ἐλέγχει.
(Dio Chrysostom, Or. 31.153-155)

Can it be that you are unaware of the shame which attaches to this practice, and how ridiculous you make yourselves by this deception practised by your state, and that too so openly? For instance, in your decrees you propose ‘to erect a statue of So-and so.’ “But just how,” someone might ask you, “do you propose, men of Rhodes, to ‘erect’ the statue that has been erected possibly for the last five hundred years?” After doing that, can you adjudge those women who palm off other women’s children as their own to be wicked and regard their deception as a horrible thing, while you yourselves are not ashamed of doing the same thing with your images by saying that the statues belong to those to whom they do not belong, and that too when you cannot help hearing of the jests with which your city is reviled? For instance, many people assert that the statues of the Rhodians are like actors. For just as every actor makes his entrance as one character at one time and at another as another, so likewise your statues assume different rôles at different times and stand almost as if they were acting a part. For instance, one and the same statue, they say, is at one time a Greek, at another time a Roman, and later on, if it so happens, a Macedonian or a Persian; and what is more, with some statues the deception is so obvious that the beholder at once is aware of the deceit. For in fact, clothing, foot-gear, and everything else of that kind expose the fraud. (tr. James Wilfred Cohoon)

Collectio

mouse cheese

‘Mus syllaba est;
mus autem caseum rodit;
syllaba ergo caseum rodit.’
puta nunc me istuc non posse solvere: quod mihi ex ista inscientia periculum imminet? quod incommodum? sine dubio verendum est ne quando in muscipulo syllabas capiam, aut ne quando, si neglegentior fuero, caseum liber comedat. nisi forte illa acutior est collectio:
‘mus syllaba est;
syllaba autem caseum non rodit;
mus ergo caseum non rodit.’
o pueriles ineptias! in hoc supercilia subduximus? in hoc barbam demisimus? hoc est quod tristes docemus et pallidi?
(Seneca Minor, Ep. ad Luc. 48.6-7)

“Mouse” is a syllable.
But a mouse eats cheese.
Therefore a syllable eats cheese.
Suppose I can’t solve that one: what risk do I incur by not knowing how? What inconvenience even? Sure, I’d have to watch out—someday I might find myself catching syllables in mousetraps! Better be careful—my cheese might be eaten by a book! But wait, maybe this is a smarter syllogism:
Mouse is a syllable.
But a syllable doesn’t eat cheese.
Therefore a mouse doesn’t eat cheese.
What childish pranks! Is this what makes us knit our brows? Is this why we let our beards grow long? Are we pale and earnest in our teaching of this? (tr. Margaret Graver & Anthony A. Long)

Phōs

the-souls-light

This is part 2 of 2. Part 1 is here.

Ἐρᾷ οὖν κατὰ φύσιν ἔχουσα ψυχὴ θεοῦ ἑνωθῆναι θέλουσα͵ ὥσπερ παρθένος καλοῦ πατρὸς καλὸν ἔρωτα. ὅταν δὲ εἰς γένεσιν ἐλθοῦσα οἷον μνηστείαις ἀπατηθῇ, ἄλλον ἀλλαξαμένη θνητὸν ἔρωτα ἐρημίᾳ πατρὸς ὑβρίζεται· μισήσασα δὲ πάλιν τὰς ἐνταῦθα ὕβρεις ἁγνεύσασα τῶν τῇδε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα αὖθις στελλομένη εὐπαθεῖ. καὶ οἷς μὲν ἄγνωστόν ἐστι τὸ πάθημα τοῦτο͵ ἐντεῦθεν ἐνθυμείσθω ἀπὸ τῶν ἐνταῦθα ἐρώτων, οἷόν ἐστι τυχεῖν ὧν τις μάλιστα ἐρᾷ͵ καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα μὲν τὰ ἐρώμενα θνητὰ καὶ βλαβερὰ καὶ εἰδώλων ἔρωτες καὶ μεταπίπτει͵ ὅτι οὐκ ἦν τὸ ὄντως ἐρώμενον οὐδὲ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἡμῶν οὐδ’ ὃ ζητοῦμεν. ἐκεῖ δὲ τὸ ἀληθινὸν ἐρώμενον, ᾧ ἔστι καὶ συνεῖναι μεταλαβόντα αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄντως ἔχοντα͵ οὐ περιπτυσσόμενον σαρξὶν ἔξωθεν. ὅστις δὲ εἶδεν, οἶδεν ὃ λέγω, ὡς ἡ ψυχὴ ζωὴν ἄλλην ἴσχει τότε καὶ προσιοῦσα καὶ ἤδη προσελθοῦσα καὶ μετασχοῦσα αὐτοῦ͵ ὥστε γνῶναι διατεθεῖσαν, ὅτι πάρεστιν ὁ χορηγὸς ἀληθινῆς ζωῆς, καὶ δεῖ οὐδενὸς ἔτι. τοὐναντίον δὲ ἀποθέσθαι τὰ ἄλλα δεῖ, καὶ ἐν μόνῳ στῆναι τούτῳ, καὶ τοῦτο γενέσθαι μόνον περικόψαντα τὰ λοιπὰ ὅσα περικείμεθα· ὥστε ἐξελθεῖν σπεύδειν ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἀγανακτεῖν ἐπὶ θάτερα δεδεμένους, ἵνα τῷ ὅλῳ αὐτῶν περιπτυξώμεθα καὶ μηδὲν μέρος ἔχοιμεν, ᾧ μὴ ἐφαπτόμεθα θεοῦ. ὁρᾶν δὴ ἔστιν ἐνταῦθα κἀκεῖνον καὶ ἑαυτὸν ὡς ὁρᾶν θέμις· ἑαυτὸν μὲν ἠγλαϊσμένον, φωτὸς πλήρη νοητοῦ, μᾶλλον δὲ φῶς αὐτὸ καθαρόν, ἀβαρῆ, κοῦφον, θεὸν γενόμενον, μᾶλλον δὲ ὄντα, ἀναφθέντα μὲν τότε, εἰ δὲ πάλιν βαρύνοιτο, ὥσπερ μαραινόμενον. πῶς οὖν οὐ μένει ἐκεῖ; ἢ ὅτι μήπω ἐξελήλυθεν ὅλος. ἔσται δὲ ὅτε καὶ τὸ συνεχὲς ἔσται τῆς θέας οὐκέτι ἐνοχλουμένῳ οὐδεμίαν ἐνόχλησιν τοῦ σώματος. ἔστι δὲ τὸ ἑωρακὸς οὐ τὸ ἐνοχλούμενον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἄλλο, ὅτε τὸ ἑωρακὸς ἀργεῖ τὴν θέαν οὐκ ἀργοῦν τὴν ἐπιστήμην τὴν ἐν ἀποδείξεσι καὶ πίστεσι καὶ τῷ τῆς ψυχῆς διαλογισμῷ· τὸ δὲ ἰδεῖν καὶ τὸ ἑωρακός ἐστιν οὐκέτι λόγος, ἀλλὰ μεῖζον λόγου καὶ πρὸ λόγου καὶ ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸ ὁρώμενον.
(Plotinus, Enn. 6.9.9-10)

The soul then in her natural state is in love with God and wants to be united with him; it is like the noble love of a girl for her noble father. But when the soul has come into the world of becoming and is deceived, so to say, by the blandishments of her suitors, she changes, bereft of her father, to a mortal love and is shamed; but again she comes to hate her shames here below, and purifies herself of the things of this world and sets herself on the way to her father and fares well. And if anyone does not know this experience, let him think of it terms of our loves here below, and what it is like to attain what one is most in love with, and that these earthly loves are mortal and harmful and loves only of images, and that they change because it was not what is really and truly loved nor our good nor what we seek. But there is our true love, with whom also we can be united, having a part in him and truly possessing him, not embracing him in the flesh from outside. But “whoever has seen, knows what I am saying”, that the soul then has another life and draws near, and has already come near and has a part in him, and so is in a state to know that the giver of true life is present and we need nothing more. But quite otherwise, we must put away other things and take our stand only in this, and become this alone, cutting away all the other things in which we are encased; so we must be eager to go out from here and be impatient at being bound to the other things, that we may embrace him with the whole of ourselves and have no part with which we do not touch God. There one can see both him and oneself as it is right to see: the self glorified, full of intelligible light—but rather itself pure light—weightless, floating free, having become—but rather, being a god; set on fire then, but the fire seems to go out if one is weighed down again. How is it, then, that one does not remain there? It is because one has not yet totally come out of this world. But there will be a time when the vision will be continuous, since there will no longer be any hindrance by the body. But it is not which has seen which is hindered, but the other part which, when that which has seen rests from vision, does not rest from the knowledge which lies in demonstrations and evidence and the discourse of the soul; but seeing and that which has seen are not reason, but greater than reason and before reason and above reason, as is that which is seen. (tr. Arthur Hilary Armstrong)

Pterorruēsis

aj9lEbt

This is part 1 of 2. Part 2 is here.

Ἐν δὲ ταύτῃ τῇ χορείᾳ καθορᾷ πηγὴν μὲν ζωῆς͵ πηγὴν δὲ νοῦ, ἀρχὴν ὄντος, ἀγαθοῦ αἰτίαν, ῥίζαν ψυχῆς· οὐκ ἐκχεομένων ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ, εἶτ’ ἐκεῖνον ἐλαττούντων· οὐ γὰρ ὄγκος· ἢ φθαρτὰ ἂν ἦν τὰ γεννώμενα. νῦν δ’ ἐστὶν ἀΐδια, ὅτι ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτῶν ὡσαύτως μένει οὐ μεμερισμένη εἰς αὐτά, ἀλλ’ ὅλη μένουσα. διὸ κἀκεῖνα μένει· οἷον εἰ μένοντος ἡλίου καὶ τὸ φῶς μένοι. οὐ γὰρ ἀποτετμήμεθα οὐδὲ χωρίς ἐσμεν, εἰ καὶ παρεμπεσοῦσα ἡ σώματος φύσις πρὸς αὑτὴν ἡμᾶς εἵλκυσεν, ἀλλ’ ἐμπνέομεν καὶ σῳζόμεθα οὐ δόντος͵ εἶτ’ ἀποστάντος ἐκείνου, ἀλλ’ ἀεὶ χορηγοῦντος ἕως ἂν ᾖ ὅπερ ἐστί. μᾶλλον μέντοι ἐσμὲν νεύσαντες πρὸς αὐτὸ καὶ τὸ εὖ ἐνταῦθα, τὸ δὲ πόρρω εἶναι μόνον καὶ ἧττον εἶναι. ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἀναπαύεται ψυχὴ καὶ κακῶν ἔξω εἰς τὸν τῶν κακῶν καθαρὸν τόπον ἀναδραμοῦσα· καὶ νοεῖ ἐνταῦθα͵ καὶ ἀπαθὴς ἐνταῦθα. καὶ τὸ ἀληθῶς ζῆν ἐνταῦθα· τὸ γὰρ νῦν καὶ τὸ ἄνευ θεοῦ ἴχνος ζωῆς ἐκείνην μιμούμενον, τὸ δὲ ἐκεῖ ζῆν ἐνέργεια μὲν νοῦ· ἐνέργεια δὲ καὶ γεννᾷ θεοὺς ἐν ἡσύχῳ τῇ πρὸς ἐκεῖνο ἐπαφῇ, γεννᾷ δὲ κάλλος, γεννᾷ δικαιοσύνην, ἀρετὴν γεννᾷ. ταῦτα γὰρ κύει ψυχὴ πληρωθεῖσα θεοῦ, καὶ τοῦτο αὐτῇ ἀρχὴ καὶ τέλος· ἀρχὴ μέν, ὅτι ἐκεῖθεν, τέλος δέ, ὅτι τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐκεῖ. καὶ ἐκεῖ γενομένη γίγνεται αὐτὴ καὶ ὅπερ ἦν· τὸ γὰρ ἐνταῦθα καὶ ἐν τούτοις ἔκπτωσις καὶ φυγὴ καὶ πτερορρύησις. δηλοῖ δὲ ὅτι τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐκεῖ καὶ ὁ ἔρως ὁ τῆς ψυχῆς ὁ σύμφυτος͵ καθὸ καὶ συνέζευκται Ἔρως ταῖς Ψυχαῖς καὶ ἐν γραφαῖς καὶ ἐν μύθοις. ἐπεὶ γὰρ ἕτερον θεοῦ ἐκείνου, ἐξ ἐκείνου δέ, ἐρᾷ αὐτοῦ ἐξ ἀνάγκης. καὶ οὖσα ἐκεῖ τὸν οὐράνιον Ἔρωτα ἔχει, ἐνταῦθα δὲ πάνδημος γίγνεται· καὶ γάρ ἐστιν ἐκεῖ Ἀφροδίτη οὐρανία, ἐνταῦθα δὲ γίγνεται πάνδημος οἷον ἑταιρισθεῖσα. καὶ ἔστι πᾶσα ψυχὴ Ἀφροδίτη· καὶ τοῦτο αἰνίττεται καὶ τὰ τῆς Ἀφροδίτης γενέθλια καὶ ὁ Ἔρως ὁ μετ’ αὐτῆς γενόμενος.
(Plotinus, Enn. 6.9.9)

And in this dance the soul sees the spring of life, the spring of intellect, the principle of being, the cause of good, the root of the soul; these are not poured out from him with the result that they diminish him; for there is no bulk; otherwise the things generated from him would be perishable. But as it is they are eternal, because their principle remains the same, not divided up into them but abiding as a whole. So they also abide; just as the light abides if the sun abides. For we are not cut off from him or separate, even if the nature of body has intruded and drawn us to itself, but we breathe and are preserved because that Good has not given its gifts and then gone away but is always bestowing them as long as it is what it is. But we exist more when we turn to him and our well-being is there, but being far from him is nothing else but existing less. There the soul takes its rest and is outside evils because it has run up into the place which is clear of evils; and it thinks there, and is not passive, and its true life is here; for our present life, the life without God, is a trace of life imitating that life. But life in that realm is the active actuality of Intellect, and the active actuality generates gods in quiet contact with that Good, and generates beauty, and generates righteousness, and generates virtue. It is these the soul conceives when filled with God, and this is its beginning and end; its beginning because it comes from thence, and its end because its good is there. And when it comes to be there it becomes itself and what it was; for what it is here and among the things of this world is a falling away and an exile and a “shedding of wings”. And the soul’s innate love makes clear that the Good is there, and this is why Eros is coupled with the Psyches in pictures and stories. For since the soul is other than God but comes from him it is necessarily in love with him, and when it is there it has the heavenly love, but here love becomes vulgar; for the soul there is the heavenly Aphrodite, but here becomes the vulgar Aphrodite, a kind of whore. And every soul is Aphrodite; and this is symbolised in the story of the birthday of Aphrodite and Eros who is born with her. (tr. Arthur Hilary Armstrong)

Gēmai

ben-rosett-10613-unsplash

Ἀκούετε λεῴ· Σουσαρίων λέγει τάδε,
υἱὸς Φιλίνου Μεγαρόθεν Τριποδίσκιος.
κακὸν γυναῖκες· ἀλλ’ ὅμως, ὦ δημόται,
οὐκ ἔστιν οἰκεῖν οἰκίαν ἄνευ κακοῦ.
καὶ γὰρ τὸ γῆμαι καὶ τὸ μὴ γῆμαι κακόν.
(Sousarion, fr. 1)

Listen, people, Susarion has this to say, the son of Philinus, from Tripodisce in Megara: women are a bad thing, but nevertheless, my townsfolk, you cannot have a home without a bad thing. Both to marry and not to marry is a bad thing. (tr. Ian C. Storey)