(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 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.)