Busiris (31-35)

For, when you wished to praise Busiris, you chose to say that he forced the Nile to break into branches and surround the land[*], 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.