τῷ θείῳ καὶ καθαρωτάτῳ σώματι, τῶν λεγομένων τούτων στοιχείων δουλευόντων αὐτοῦ τῇ δημιουργικῇ [220] καὶ τελεσιουργῷ τοῦ ἀχράντου καὶ καθαροῦ νοῦ δυνάμει; ὃν ὁ μέγας Ζεὺς διὰ τῆς Προνοίας Ἀθηνᾶς, ἐπιστήσας αὐτῷ φύλακα τὴν θεὸν ταύτην, ὅλην ἐξ ὅλου προέμενος αὑτοῦ,(188) τῷ κόσμῳ σωτῆρα ἐφύτευσεν, εἶτ᾽ ἐπανήγαγε διὰ τοῦ κεραυνίου πυρὸς πρὸς ἑαυτόν, ὑπὸ τῷ θείῳ συνθήματι τῆς αἰθερίας αὐγῆς ἥκειν παρ᾽ ἑαυτὸν τῷ παιδὶ κελεύσας. ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ μὲν τούτων ἐμοί τε καὶ ὑμῖν ἵλεως Ἡρακλῆς εἴη. (And now to confine myself to what is lawful for us, both for me to say and for you to hear. Every discourse that is uttered consists of language and the thought to be expressed. Now a myth is a sort of discourse and so it will consist of these two. Let us consider them separately. In every discourse the thought is of two kinds, either simple or expressed in figures of speech; and there are many examples of both kinds. The one is simple and admits of no variety, but that which is embellished with figures has in itself many possibilities of variation with all of which you are yourself familiar if you have ever studied rhetoric; and most of these figures of thought are suited to myth. However I need not now discuss all or indeed many of them, but only two, that in which the thought is dignified and that in which it is paradoxical. The same rules apply also to diction. For this is given a certain shape and form by those who do not express themselves carelessly or sweep in the refuse of language from the highways like a winter torrent. And now to consider these two types. When we invent myths about sacred things our language must be wholly dignified and the diction must be as far as possible sober, beautiful, and entirely appropriate to the gods; there must be nothing in it base or slanderous or impious, for fear we should lead the common people into this sort of sacrilegious rashness; or rather for fear we should ourselves anticipate the common people in displaying impiety towards the gods. Therefore there must be no incongruous element in diction thus employed, but all must be dignified, beautiful, splendid, divine, pure, and as far as possible in conformity with the essential nature of the gods. But as regards the thought, the incongruous may be admitted, so that under the guidance of the gods men may be inspired to search out and study the hidden meaning, though they must not ask for any hint of the truth from others, but must acquire their knowledge from what is said in the myth itself.(189) For instance I have heard many people say that Dionysus was a mortal man because he was born of Semele, and that he became a god through his knowledge of theurgy and the Mysteries, and like our lord Heracles for his royal virtue was translated to Olympus by his father Zeus. “Nay, my good sir,” said I, “do you not perceive that the myth is obviously an allegory?” For in what sense do we regard the “birth” of Heracles, yes, and of Dionysus as well, since in their case birth has