Plutarch Bruta animalia ratione uti 10

1. For Haupt’s fine correction ( Hermes, vi, p. 4 = Opuscula, iii, p. 552) cf. Leutsch and Schneidewin, Paroemiographi Graeci, i. 101 (Zenobius, iv. 58); Lucian, Philopseudis, 3. Coroebus was proverbially so stupid that he tried to count the waves of the sea.

2. Odyssey, xix. 394 ff.: Autolycus surpassed all men in thefts and perjury, a gift of Hermes.

3. Most critics (and very emphatically Ziegler) believe that the end, perhaps quite a long continuation, is lost; but Reiske ingeniously supposes Gryllus’ final answer to mean: If those who do not know God cannot possess reason, then you, wise Odysseus, can scarcely be descended from such a notorious atheist as Sisyphus. (For Sisyphus’ famous assertion that the gods are only a utilitarian invention see Critias, Sisyphus, frag. 1: Nauck, Trag. Graec. Frag. pp. 771 f.). There would, then, be no further point in prolonging the discussion; and no doubt by this time Odysseus has changed his mind about the desirability of any further metamorphosis of his interlocutor, since the last argument touches him nearly. Sisyphus was said by some to be his real father ( Mor. 301 d). Others, however, believe that some discussion of further virtues, such as natural piety, must have followed; and perhaps the account closed with a consideration of justice. But would Odysseus have been convinced ( cf. 986 b)? Or is this as good a place as any to end? Plutarch used no stage directions, so that, as in the classical Platonic dialogues, when the characters stop speaking, the discussion is over and we are left to draw our own conclusions. The undoubted fact, however, that the work is mutilated in several other places allows us to leave the question open.