For, when you wished to praise Busiris, you chose to say that he forced the Nile to break into branches and surround the landCf. Hdt. 2.16, where the same verb (PERIRRH/GNUMI) is used in connexion with the branches of the Nile in the Delta., and that he sacrificed and ate strangers who came to his country; but you gave no proof that he did these things. And yet is it not ridiculous to demand that others follow a procedure which you yourself have not used in the slightest degree?

Nay, your account is far less credible than mine, since I attribute to him no impossible deed, but only laws and political organization, which are the accomplishments of honorable men, whereas you represent him as the author of two astounding acts which no human being would commit, one requiring the cruelty of wild beasts, the other the power of the gods.

Further, even if both of us, perchance, are wrong, I, at any rate, have used only such arguments as authors of eulogies must use; you, on the contrary, have employed those which are appropriate to revilers. Consequently, it is obvious that you have gone astray, not only from the truth, but also from the entire pattern which must be employed in eulogy.

Apart from these considerations, if your discourse should be put aside and mine carefully examined, no one would justly find fault with it. For if it were manifest that another had done the deeds which I assert were done by him, I acknowledge that I am exceedingly audacious in trying to change men's views about matters of which all the world has knowledge.

But as it is, since the question is open to the judgement of all and one must resort to conjecture, who, reasoning from what is probable, would be considered to have a better claim to the authorship of the institutions of Egypt rather than a son of Poseidon, a descendant of Zeus on his mother's side, the most powerful personage of his time and the most renowned among all other peoples? For surely it is not fitting that any who were in all these respects inferior should, in preference to Busiris, have the credit of being the authors of those great benefactions.

Furthermore, it could be easily proved on chronological grounds also that the statements of the detractors of Busiris are false. For the same writers who accuse Busiris of slaying strangers also assert that he died at the hands of Heracles;

but all chroniclers agree that Heracles was later by four generations than Perseus, son of Zeus and Danae, and that Busiris lived more than two hundred years earlier than Perseus. And yet what can be more absurd than that one who was desirous of clearing Busiris of the calumny has failed to mention that evidence, so manifest and so conclusive?

But the fact is that you had no regard for the truth; on the contrary, you followed the calumnies of the poets, who declare that the offspring of the immortals have perpetrated as well as suffered things more atrocious than any perpetrated or suffered by the offspring of the most impious of mortals; aye, the poets have related about the gods themselves tales more outrageous than anyone would dare tell concerning their enemies. For not only have they imputed to them thefts and adulteries, and vassalage among men, but they have fabricated tales of the eating of children, the castrations of fathers, the fetterings of mothers, and many other crimese.g., Hermes steals Apollo's oxen (HH Herm.); the illicit love of Ares and Aphrodite (Hom. Od. 8); Apollo, servant of Admetus (Eur. Alc.); Cronus devours his children and mutilates his father Uranus; and Hephaestus fetters Hera.

For these blasphemies the poets, it is true, did not pay the penalty they deserved, but assuredly they did not escape punishment altogether; some became vagabonds begging for their daily bread; others became blind; another spent all his life in exile from his fatherland and in warring with his kinsmen; and Orpheus, who made a point of rehearsing these tales, died by being torn asunderFor example, Homer was represented as a blind wanderer; Stesichorus was smitten with blindness for abuse of Helen in his verses; and Orpheus was torn to pieces by the women of Thrace. Perhaps Archilochus is the poet in exile.

Therefore if we are wise we shall not imitate their tales, nor while passing laws for the punishment of libels against each other, shall we disregard loose-tongued vilification of the gods; on the contrary, we shall be on our guard and consider equally guilty of impiety those who recite and those who believe such liesThe poet Xenophanes, and later Plato, had strongly protested against the attribution of immoralities to the gods.