11.77. This the dogmatists answer by saying that they do [not merely] not deny the statement, but even plainly assert it. So they were merely using the words as servants, as it was not possible not to refute one statement by another; just as we are accustomed to say there is no such thing as space, and yet we have no alternative but to speak of space for the purpose of argument, though not of positive doctrine, and just as we say nothing comes about by necessity and yet have to speak of necessity. This was the sort of interpretation they used to give; though things appear to be such and such, they are not such in reality but only appear such. And they would say that they sought, not thoughts, since thoughts are evidently thought, but the things in which sensation plays a part.
11.77. Πρὸς ὅ φασιν οἱ δογματικοὶ * * μὴ αἴρειν τὸν λόγον, ἀλλὰ προσεπισχυρίζειν. μόνον οὖν διακόνοις ἐχρῶντο τοῖς λόγοις· οὐ γὰρ οἷόν τε ἦν μὴ λόγῳ λόγον ἀνελεῖν· καθʼ ὃν τρόπον εἰώθαμεν λέγειν τόπον μὴ εἶναι καὶ δεῖ πάντως τὸν τόπον εἰπεῖν, ἀλλʼ οὐ δογματικῶς, ἀποδεικτικῶς δέ· καὶ μηδὲν γίνεσθαι κατʼ ἀνάγκην καὶ δεῖ τὴν ἀνάγκην εἰπεῖν. τοιούτῳ τινὶ τρόπῳ τῆς ἑρμηνείας ἐχρῶντο· οἷα γὰρ φαίνεται τὰ πράγματα, μὴ τοιαῦτα εἶναι τῇ φύσει, ἀλλὰ μόνον φαίνεσθαι· ζητεῖν τʼ ἔλεγον οὐχ ἅπερ νοοῦσιν, ὅ τι γὰρ νοεῖται δῆλον, ἀλλʼ ὧν ταῖς αἰσθήσεσι μετίσχουσιν.
11.78. Thus the Pyrrhonean principle, as Aenesidemus says in the introduction to his Pyrrhonics, is but a report on phenomena or on any kind of judgement, a report in which all things are brought to bear on one another, and in the comparison are found to present much anomaly and confusion. As to the contradictions in their doubts, they would first show the ways in which things gain credence, and then by the same methods they would destroy belief in them; for they say those things gain credence which either the senses are agreed upon or which never or at least rarely change, as well as things which become habitual or are determined by law and those which please or excite wonder.
11.78. Ἔστιν οὖν ὁ Πυρρώνειος λόγος μήνυσίς τις τῶν φαινομένων ἢ τῶν ὁπωσοῦν νοουμένων, καθʼ ἣν πάντα πᾶσι συμβάλλεται καὶ συγκρινόμενα πολλὴν ἀνωμαλίαν καὶ ταραχὴν ἔχοντα εὑρίσκεται, καθά φησιν Αἰνεσίδημος ἐν τῇ εἰς τὰ Πυρρώνεια ὑποτυπώσει. πρὸς δὲ τὰς ἐν ταῖς σκέψεσιν ἀντιθέσεις προαποδεικνύντες καθʼ οὓς τρόπους πείθει τὰ πράγματα, κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ἀνῄρουν τὴν περὶ αὐτῶν πίστιν· πείθειν γὰρ τά τε κατʼ αἴσθησιν συμφώνως ἔχοντα καὶ τὰ μηδέποτε ἢ σπανίως γοῦν μεταπίπτοντα τά τε συνήθη καὶ τὰ νόμοις διεσταλμένα καὶ τὰ τέρποντα καὶ τὰ θαυμαζόμενα.
11.79. They showed, then, on the basis of that which is contrary to what induces belief, that the probabilities on both sides are equal. Perplexities arise from the agreements between appearances or judgements, and these perplexities they distinguished under ten different modes in which the subjects in question appeared to vary. The following are the ten modes laid down. The first mode relates to the differences between living creatures in respect of those things which give them pleasure or pain, or are useful or harmful to them. By this it is inferred that they do not receive the same impressions from the same things, with the result that such a conflict necessarily leads to suspension of judgement. For some creatures multiply without intercourse, for example, creatures that live in fire, the Arabian phoenix and worms; others by union, such as man and the rest.
11.79. ἐδείκνυσαν οὖν ἀπὸ τῶν ἐναντίων τοῖς πείθουσιν ἴσας τὰς πιθανότητας. Αἱ δʼ ἀπορίαι κατὰ τὰς συμφωνίας τῶν φαινομένων ἢ νοουμένων, ἃς ἀπεδίδοσαν, ἦσαν κατὰ δέκα τρόπους, καθʼ οὓς τὰ ὑποκείμενα παραλλάττοντα ἐφαίνετο. τούτους δὲ τοὺς δέκα τρόπους τίθησιν. [Εἷς] πρῶτος ὁ παρὰ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ζῴων πρὸς ἡδονὴν καὶ ἀλγηδόνα καὶ βλάβην καὶ ὠφέλειαν. συνάγεται δὲ διʼ αὐτοῦ τὸ μὴ τὰς αὐτὰς ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν προσπίπτειν φαντασίας καὶ τὸ διότι τῇ τοιαύτῃ μάχῃ ἀκολουθεῖ τὸ ἐπέχειν· τῶν γὰρ ζῴων τὰ μὲν χωρὶς μίξεως γίνεσθαι, ὡς τὰ πυρίβια καὶ ὁ Ἀράβιος φοῖνιξ καὶ εὐλαί· τὰ δʼ ἐξ ἐπιπλοκῆς, ὡς ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὰ ἄλλα·
11.80. Some are distinguished in one way, some in another, and for this reason they differ in their senses also, hawks for instance being most keen-sighted, and dogs having a most acute sense of smell. It is natural that if the senses, e.g. eyes, of animals differ, so also will the impressions produced upon them; so to the goat vine-shoots are good to eat, to man they are bitter; the quail thrives on hemlock, which is fatal to man; the pig will eat ordure, the horse will not. The second mode has reference to the natures and idiosyncrasies of men; for instance, Demophon, Alexander’s butler, used to get warm in the shade and shiver in the sun.
11.80. καὶ τὰ μὲν οὕτως, τὰ δʼ οὕτως συγκέκριται· διὸ καὶ τῇ αἰσθήσει διαφέρει, ὡς κίρκοι μὲν ὀξύτατοι, κύνες δʼ ὀσφρητικώτατοι. εὔλογον οὖν τοῖς διαφόροις τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς διάφορα καὶ τὰ φαντάσματα προσπίπτειν· καὶ τῇ μὲν αἰγὶ τὸν θαλλὸν εἶναι ἐδώδιμον, ἀνθρώπῳ δὲ πικρόν, καὶ τὸ κώνειον ὄρτυγι μὲν τρόφιμον, ἀνθρώπῳ δὲ θανάσιμον, καὶ ὁ ἀπόπατος ὑῒ μὲν ἐδώδιμος, ἵππῳ δʼ οὔ. Δεύτερος ὁ παρὰ τὰς τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσεις καὶ τὰς ἰδιοσυγκρισίας· Δημοφῶν γοῦν ὁ Ἀλεξάνδρου τραπεζοκόμος ἐν σκιᾷ ἐθάλπετο, ἐν ἡλίῳ δʼ ἐρρίγου.
11.81. Andron of Argos is reported by Aristotle to have travelled across the waterless deserts of Libya without drinking. Moreover, one man fancies the profession of medicine, another farming, and another commerce; and the same ways of life are injurious to one man but beneficial to another; from which it follows that judgement must be suspended. The third mode depends on the differences between the sense-channels in different cases, for an apple gives the impression of being pale yellow in colour to the sight, sweet in taste and fragrant in smell. An object of the same shape is made to appear different by differences in the mirrors reflecting it. Thus it follows that what appears is no more such and such a thing than something different.
11.81. Ἄνδρων δʼ ὁ Ἀργεῖος, ὥς φησιν Ἀριστοτέλης, διὰ τῆς ἀνύδρου Λιβύης ὥδευεν ἄποτος. καὶ ὁ μὲν ἰατρικῆς, ὁ δὲ γεωργίας, ἄλλος δʼ ἐμπορίας ὀρέγεται· καὶ ταὐτὰ οὓς μὲν βλάπτει, οὓς δὲ ὠφελεῖ· ὅθεν ἐφεκτέον. Τρίτος ὁ παρὰ τὰς τῶν αἰσθητικῶν πόρων διαφοράς. τὸ γοῦν μῆλον ὁράσει μὲν ὠχρόν, γεύσει δὲ γλυκύ, ὀσφρήσει δʼ εὑῶδες ὑποπίπτει. καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ δὲ μορφὴ παρὰ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν κατόπτρων ἀλλοία θεωρεῖται. ἀκολουθεῖ οὖν μὴ μᾶλλον εἶναι τοῖον τὸ φαινόμενον ἢ ἀλλοῖον.
11.82. The fourth mode is that due to differences of condition and to changes in general; for instance, health, illness, sleep, waking, joy, sorrow, youth, old age, courage, fear, want, fullness, hate, love, heat, cold, to say nothing of breathing freely and having the passages obstructed. The impressions received thus appear to vary according to the nature of the conditions. Nay, even the state of madmen is not contrary to nature; for why should their state be so more than ours? Even to our view the sun has the appearance of standing still. And Theon of Tithorea used to go to bed and walk in his sleep, while Pericles’ slave did the same on the housetop.
11.82. Τέταρτος ὁ παρὰ τὰς διαθέσεις καὶ κοινῶς παραλλαγάς, οἷον ὑγίειαν, νόσον, ὕπνον, ἐγρήγορσιν, χαράν, λύπην, νεότητα, γῆρας, θάρσος, φόβον, ἔνδειαν, πλήρωσιν, μῖσος, φιλίαν, θερμασίαν, ψύξιν· παρὰ τὸ πνεῖν, παρὰ τὸ πιεσθῆναι τοὺς πόρους. ἀλλοῖα οὖν φαίνεται τὰ προσπίπτοντα παρὰ τὰς ποιὰς διαθέσεις. οὐδὲ γὰρ οἱ μαινόμενοι παρὰ φύσιν ἔχουσι· τί γὰρ μᾶλλον ἐκεῖνοι ἢ ἡμεῖς; καὶ γὰρ ἡμεῖς τὸν ἥλιον ὡς ἑστῶτα βλέπομεν. Θέων δʼ ὁ Τιθοραιεὺς ὁ στωικὸς κοιμώμενος περιεπάτει ἐν τῷ ὕπνῳ καὶ Περικλέους δοῦλος ἐπʼ ἄκρου τοῦ τέγους.
11.83. The fifth mode is derived from customs, laws, belief in myths, compacts between nations and dogmatic assumptions. This class includes considerations with regard to things beautiful and ugly, true and false, good and bad, with regard to the gods, and with regard to the coming into being and the passing away of the world of phenomena. Obviously the same thing is regarded by some as just and by others as unjust, or as good by some and bad by others. Persians think it not unnatural for a man to marry his daughter; to Greeks it is unlawful. The Massagetae, acording to Eudoxus in the first book of his Voyage round the World, have their wives in common; the Greeks have not. The Cilicians used to delight in piracy; not so the Greeks.
11.83. Πέμπτος ὁ παρὰ τὰς ἀγωγὰς καὶ τοὺς νόμους καὶ τὰς μυθικὰς πίστεις καὶ τὰς ἐθνικὰς συνθήκας καὶ δογματικὰς ὑπολήψεις. ἐν τούτῳ περιέχεται τὰ περὶ καλῶν καὶ αἰσχρῶν, περὶ ἀληθῶν καὶ ψευδῶν, περὶ ἀγαθῶν καὶ κακῶν, περὶ θεῶν καὶ γενέσεως καὶ φθορᾶς τῶν φαινομένων πάντων. τὸ γοῦν αὐτὸ παρʼ οἷς μὲν δίκαιον, παρʼ οἷς δὲ ἄδικον· καὶ ἄλλοις μὲν ἀγαθόν, ἄλλοις δὲ κακόν. Πέρσαι μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἄτοπον ἡγοῦνται θυγατρὶ μίγνυσθαι, Ἕλληνες δʼ ἔκθεσμον. καὶ Μασσαγέται μέν, ὥς φησι καὶ Εὔδοξος ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῆς Περιόδου, κοινὰς ἔχουσι τὰς γυναῖκας, Ἕλληνες δʼ οὔ· Κίλικές τε λῃστείαις ἔχαιρον, ἀλλʼ οὐχ Ἕλληνες.
11.84. Different people believe in different gods; some in providence, others not. In burying their dead, the Egyptians embalm them; the Romans burn them; the Paeonians throw them into lakes. As to what is true, then, let suspension of judgement be our practice. The sixth mode relates to mixtures and participations, by virtue of which nothing appears pure in and by itself, but only in combination with air, light, moisture, solidity, heat, cold, movement, exhalations and other forces. For purple shows different tints in sunlight, moonlight, and lamplight; and our own complexion does not appear the same at noon and when the sun is low.
11.84. θεούς τʼ ἄλλοι ἄλλους ἡγοῦνται· καὶ οἱ μὲν προνοεῖσθαι, οἱ δʼ οὔ. θάπτουσι δʼ Αἰγύπτιοι μὲν ταριχεύοντες, Ῥωμαῖοι δὲ καίοντες, Παίονες δʼ εἰς λίμνας ῥιπτοῦντες· ὅθεν περὶ τἀληθοῦς ἡ ἐποχή. Ἕκτος ὁ παρὰ τὰς μίξεις καὶ κοινωνίας, καθʼ ὃν εἰλικρινῶς οὐδὲν καθʼ αὑτὸ φαίνεται, ἀλλὰ σὺν ἀέρι, σὺν φωτί, σὺν ὑγρῷ, σὺν στερεῷ, θερμότητι, ψυχρότητι, κινήσει, ἀναθυμιάσεσιν, ἄλλαις δυνάμεσιν. ἡ γοῦν πορφύρα διάφορον ὑποφαίνει χρῶμα ἐν ἡλίῳ καὶ σελήνῃ καὶ λύχνῳ. καὶ τὸ ἡμέτερον χρῶμα ἀλλοῖον ὑπὸ τὴν μεσημβρίαν φαίνεται καὶ· ὑπὸ δύσιν· καὶ ὁ ἐν ἀέρι ὑπὸ δυοῖν κουφιζόμενος λίθος ἐν ὕδατι ῥᾳδίως μετατίθεται, ἤτοι βαρὺς ὢν καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος κουφιζόμενος ἢ ἐλαφρὸς [ὢν] καὶ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀέρος βαρυνόμενος.
11.85. Again, a rock which in air takes two men to lift is easily moved about in water, either because, being in reality heavy, it is lifted by the water or because, being light, it is made heavy by the air. Of its own inherent property we know nothing, any more than of the constituent oils in an ointment. The seventh mode has reference to distances, positions, places and the occupants of the places. In this mode things which are thought to be large appear small, square things round; flat things appear to have projections, straight things to be bent, and colourless coloured. So the sun, on account of its distance, appears small, mountains when far away appear misty and smooth, but when near at hand rugged.
11.85. ἀγνοοῦμεν οὖν τὸ κατʼ ἰδίαν, ὡς ἔλαιον ἐν μύρῳ. Ἕβδομος ὁ παρὰ τὰς ἀποστάσεις καὶ ποιὰς θέσεις καὶ τοὺς τόπους καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς τόποις. κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον τὰ δοκοῦντʼ εἶναι μεγάλα μικρὰ φαίνεται, τὰ τετράγωνα στρογγύλα, τὰ ὁμαλὰ ἐξοχὰς ἔχοντα, τὰ ὀρθὰ κεκλασμένα, τὰ ὠχρὰ ἑτερόχροα. ὁ γοῦν ἥλιος παρὰ τὸ διάστημα μικρὸς φαίνεται· καὶ τὰ ὄρη πόρρωθεν ἀεροειδῆ καὶ λεῖα, ἐγγύθεν δὲ τραχέα.
11.86. Furthermore, the sun at its rising has a certain appearance, but has a dissimilar appearance when in mid-heaven, and the same body one appearance in a wood and another in open country. The image again varies according to the position of the object, and a dove’s neck according to the way it is turned. Since, then, it is not possible to observe these things apart from places and positions, their real nature is unknowable. The eighth mode is concerned with quantities and qualities of things, say heat or cold, swiftness or slowness, colourlessness or variety of colours. Thus wine taken in moderation strengthens the body, but too much of it is weakening; and so with food and other things.
11.86. ἔτι ὁ ἥλιος ἀνίσχων μὲν ἀλλοῖος, μεσουρανῶν δʼ οὐχ ὅμοιος. καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ σῶμα ἐν μὲν ἄλσει ἀλλοῖον, ἐν δὲ ψιλῇ γῇ ἕτερον· καὶ ἡ εἰκὼν παρὰ τὴν ποιὰν θέσιν, ὅ τε τῆς περιστερᾶς τράχηλος παρὰ τὴν στροφήν. ἐπεὶ οὖν οὐκ ἔνι ἔξω τόπων καὶ θέσεων ταῦτα κατανοῆσαι, ἀγνοεῖται ἡ φύσις αὐτῶν. Ὄγδοος ὁ παρὰ τὰς ποσότητας καὶ ποιότητας αὐτῶν ἢ θερμότητας ἢ ψυχρότητας ἢ ταχύτητας ἢ βραδύτητας ἢ ὠχρότητας ἢ ἑτεροχροιότητας. ὁ γοῦν οἶνος μέτριος μὲν ληφθεὶς ῥώννυσι, πλείων δὲ παρίησιν· ὁμοίως καὶ ἡ τροφὴ καὶ τὰ ὅμοια.
11.87. The ninth mode has to do with perpetuity, strangeness, or rarity. Thus earthquakes are no surprise to those among whom they constantly take place; nor is the sun, for it is seen every day. This ninth mode is put eighth by Favorinus and tenth by Sextus and Aenesidemus; moreover the tenth is put eighth by Sextus and ninth by Favorinus. The tenth mode rests on inter-relation, e.g. between light and heavy, strong and weak, greater and less, up and down. Thus that which is on the right is not so by nature, but is so understood in virtue of its position with respect to something else; for, if that change its position, the thing is no longer on the right.
11.87. Ἔνατος ὁ παρὰ τὸ ἐνδελεχὲς ἢ ξένον ἢ σπάνιον. οἱ γοῦν σεισμοὶ παρʼ οἷς συνεχῶς ἀποτελοῦνται οὐ θαυμάζονται, οὐδʼ ὁ ἥλιος, ὅτι καθʼ ἡμέραν ὁρᾶται. τὸν ἔνατον Φαβωρῖνος ὄγδοον, Σέξτος δὲ καὶ Αἰνεσίδημος δέκατον· ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν δέκατον Σέξτος ὄγδοόν φησι, Φαβωρῖνος δὲ ἔνατον. Δέκατος ὁ κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἄλλα σύμβλησιν, καθάπερ τὸ κοῦφον παρὰ τὸ βαρύ, τὸ ἰσχυρὸν παρὰ τὸ ἀσθενές, τὸ μεῖζον παρὰ τὸ ἔλαττον, τὸ ἄνω παρὰ τὸ κάτω. τὸ γοῦν δεξιὸν φύσει μὲν οὐκ ἔστι δεξιόν, κατὰ δὲ τὴν ὡς πρὸς τὸ ἕτερον σχέσιν νοεῖται· μετατεθέντος γοῦν ἐκείνου, οὐκέτʼ ἐστὶ δεξιόν.
11.88. Similarly father and brother are relative terms, day is relative to the sun, and all things relative to our mind. Thus relative terms are in and by themselves unknowable. These, then, are the ten modes of perplexity. But Agrippa and his school add to them five other modes, resulting respectively from disagreement, extension ad infinitum, relativity, hypothesis and reciprocal inference. The mode arising from disagreement proves, with regard to any inquiry whether in philosophy or in everyday life, that it is full of the utmost contentiousness and confusion. The mode which involves extension ad infinitum refuses to admit that what is sought to be proved is firmly established, because one thing furnishes the ground for belief in another, and so on ad infinitum.
11.88. ὁμοίως καὶ πατὴρ καὶ ἀδελφὸς ὡς πρός τι καὶ ἡμέρα ὡς πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον καὶ πάντα ὡς πρὸς τὴν διάνοιαν. ἄγνωστα οὖν τὰ πρός τι [ὡς] καθʼ ἑαυτά. καὶ οὗτοι μὲν οἱ δέκα τρόποι. Οἱ δὲ περὶ Ἀγρίππαν τούτοις ἄλλους πέντε προσεισάγουσι, τόν τʼ ἀπὸ τῆς διαφωνίας καὶ τὸν εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκβάλλοντα καὶ τὸν πρός τι καὶ τὸν ἐξ ὑποθέσεως καὶ τὸν διʼ ἀλλήλων. ὁ μὲν οὖν ἀπὸ τῆς διαφωνίας ὃ ἂν προτεθῇ ζήτημα παρὰ τοῖς φιλοσόφοις ἢ τῇ συνηθείᾳ, πλείστης μάχης καὶ ταραχῆς πλῆρες ἀποδεικνύει· ὁ δʼ εἰς ἄπειρον ἐκβάλλων οὐκ ἐᾷ βεβαιοῦσθαι τὸ ζητούμενον, διὰ τὸ ἄλλο ἀπʼ ἄλλου τὴν πίστιν λαμβάνειν καὶ οὕτως εἰς ἄπειρον.
11.89. The mode derived from relativity declares that a thing can never be apprehended in and by itself, but only in connexion with something else. Hence all things are unknowable. The mode resulting from hypothesis arises when people suppose that you must take the most elementary of things as of themselves entitled to credence, instead of postulating them: which is useless, because some one else will adopt the contrary hypothesis. The mode arising from reciprocal inference is found whenever that which should be confirmatory of the thing requiring to be proved itself has to borrow credit from the latter, as, for example, if anyone seeking to establish the existence of pores on the ground that emanations take place should take this (the existence of pores) as proof that there are emanations.
11.89. ὁ δὲ πρός τι οὐδέν φησι καθʼ ἑαυτὸ λαμβάνεσθαι, ἀλλὰ μεθʼ ἑτέρου. ὅθεν ἄγνωστα εἶναι. ὁ δʼ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως τρόπος συνίσταται, οἰομένων τινῶν τὰ πρῶτα τῶν πραγμάτων αὐτόθεν δεῖν λαμβάνειν ὡς πιστὰ καὶ μὴ αἰτεῖσθαι· ὅ ἐστι μάταιον· τὸ ἐναντίον γάρ τις ὑποθήσεται. ὁ δὲ διʼ ἀλλήλων τρόπος συνίσταται ὅταν τὸ ὀφεῖλον τοῦ ζητουμένου πράγματος εἶναι βεβαιωτικὸν χρείαν ἔχῃ τῆς ἐκ τοῦ ζητουμένου πίστεως, οἷον εἰ τὸ εἶναι πόρους τις βεβαιῶν διὰ τὸ ἀπορροίας γίνεσθαι, αὐτὸ τοῦτο παραλαμβάνοι πρὸς βεβαίωσιν το〈ῦ〉 ἀπορροίας γίνεσθαι.
11.90. They would deny all demonstration, criterion, sign, cause, motion, the process of learning, coming into being, or that there is anything good or bad by nature. For all demonstration, say they, is constructed out of things either already proved or indemonstrable. If out of things already proved, those things too will require some demonstration, and so on ad infinitum; if out of things indemonstrable, then, whether all or some or only a single one of the steps are the subject of doubt, the whole is indemonstrable. If you think, they add, that there are some things which need no demonstration, yours must be a rare intellect, not to see that you must first have demonstration of the very fact that the things you refer to carry conviction in themselves.
11.90. Ἀνῄρουν δʼ οὗτοι καὶ πᾶσαν ἀπόδειξιν καὶ κριτήριον καὶ σημεῖον καὶ αἴτιον καὶ κίνησιν καὶ μάθησιν καὶ γένεσιν καὶ τὸ φύσει τι εἶναι ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακόν. πᾶσα γὰρ ἀπόδειξις, φασίν, ἢ ἐξ ἀποδεδειγμένων σύγκειται χρημάτων ἢ ἐξ ἀναποδείκτων. εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐξ ἀποδεδειγμένων, κἀκεῖνα δεήσεταί τινος ἀποδείξεως κἀντεῦθεν εἰς ἄπειρον· εἰ δʼ ἐξ ἀναποδείκτων, ἤτοι πάντων ἢ τινῶν ἢ καὶ ἑνὸς μόνου δισταζομένου, καὶ τὸ ὅλον εἶναι ἀναπόδεικτον. εἰ δὲ δοκεῖ, φασίν, ὑπάρχειν τινὰ μηδεμιᾶς ἀποδείξεως δεόμενα, θαυμαστοὶ τῆς γνώμης, εἰ μὴ συνιᾶσιν ὅτι εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο πρῶτον, ὡς ἄρʼ ἐξ αὑτῶν ἔχει τὴν πίστιν, ἀποδείξεως χρή.
11.91. Nor must we prove that the elements are four from the fact that the elements are four. Besides, if we discredit particular demonstrations, we cannot accept the generalization from them. And in order that we may know that an argument constitutes a demonstration, we require a criterion; but again, in order that we may know that it is a criterion we require a demonstration; hence both the one and the other are incomprehensible, since each is referred to the other. How then are we to grasp the things which are uncertain, seeing that we know no demonstration? For what we wish to ascertain is not whether things appear to be such and such, but whether they are so in their essence. They declared the dogmatic philosophers to be fools, observing that what is concluded ex hypothesi is properly described not as inquiry but assumption, and by reasoning of this kind one may even argue for impossibilities.
11.91. οὐδὲ γὰρ τὸ τέτταρα εἶναι τὰ στοιχεῖα ἐκ τοῦ τέτταρα εἶναι τὰ στοιχεῖα βεβαιωτέον. πρὸς τῷ καὶ τῶν κατὰ μέρος ἀποδείξεων ἀπιστουμένων ἄπιστον εἶναι καὶ τὴν γενικὴν ἀπόδειξιν. ἵνα τε γνῶμεν ὅτι ἔστιν ἀπόδειξις, κριτηρίου δεῖ· καὶ ὅτι ἔστι κριτήριον, ἀποδείξεως δεῖ· ὅθεν ἑκάτερα ἀκατάληπτα ἀναπεμπόμενα ἐπʼ ἄλληλα. πῶς ἂν οὖν καταλαμβάνοιτο τὰ ἄδηλα, τῆς ἀποδείξεως ἀγνοουμένης; ζητεῖται δʼ οὐκ εἰ φαίνεται τοιαῦτα, ἀλλʼ εἰ καθʼ ὑπόστασιν οὕτως ἔχει. Εὐήθεις δὲ τοὺς δογματικοὺς ἀπέφαινον. τὸ γὰρ ἐξ ὑποθέσεως περαινόμενον οὐ σκέψεως ἀλλὰ θέσεως ἔχει λόγον. τοιούτῳ δὲ λόγῳ καὶ ὑπὲρ ἀδυνάτων ἔστιν ἐπιχειρεῖν.
11.92. As for those who think that we should not judge of truth from surrounding circumstances or legislate on the basis of what is found in nature, these men, they used to say, made themselves the measure of all things, and did not see that every phenomenon appears in a certain disposition and in a certain reciprocal relation to surrounding circumstances. Therefore we must affirm either that all things are true or that all things are false. For if certain things only are true [and others are false], how are we to distinguish them? Not by the senses, where things in the field of sense are in question, since all these things appear to sense to be on an equal footing; nor by the mind, for the same reason. Yet apart from these faculties there is no other, so far as we can see, to help us to a judgement. Whoever therefore, they say, would be firmly assured about anything sensible or intelligible must first establish the received opinions about it; for some have refuted one doctrine, others another. But things must be judged either by the sensible or by the intelligible, and both are disputed.
11.92. τοὺς δʼ οἰομένους μὴ δεῖν ἐκ τῶν κατὰ περίστασιν κρίνειν τἀληθὲς μηδʼ ἐκ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν νομοθετεῖν, ἔλεγον αὐτοὺς μέτρα τῶν πάντων ὁρίζειν, οὐχ ὁρῶντας ὅτι πᾶν τὸ φαινόμενον κατʼ ἀντιπερίστασιν καὶ διάθεσιν φαίνεται. ἤτοι γοῦν πάντʼ ἀληθῆ ῥητέον ἢ πάντα ψευδῆ. εἰ δʼ ἔνιά ἐστιν ἀληθῆ, τίνι διακριτέον; οὔτε γὰρ αἰσθήσει τὰ κατʼ αἴσθησιν, πάντων ἴσων αὐτῇ φαινομένων, οὔτε νοήσει διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν αἰτίαν. ἄλλη δὲ παρὰ ταύτας εἰς ἐπίκρισιν δύναμις οὐχ ὁρᾶται. ὁ οὖν, φασί, περί τινος διαβεβαιούμενος αἰσθητοῦ ἢ νοητοῦ πρότερον ὀφείλει τὰς περὶ τούτου δόξας καταστῆσαι· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ταῦτα, οἱ δὲ ταῦτα ἀνῃρήκασι. δεῖ δʼ ἢ διʼ αἰσθητοῦ ἢ νοητοῦ κριθῆναι. ἑκάτερα δὲ ἀμφισβητεῖται.
11.93. Therefore it is impossible to pronounce judgement on opinions about sensibles or intelligibles; and if the conflict in our thoughts compels us to disbelieve every one, the standard or measure, by which it is held that all things are exactly determined, will be destroyed, and we must deem every statement of equal value. Further, say they, our partner in an inquiry into a phenomenon is either to be trusted or not. If he is, he will have nothing to reply to the man to whom it appears to be the opposite; for just as our friend who describes what appears to him is to be trusted, so is his opponent. If he is not to be trusted, he will actually be disbelieved when he describes what appears to him.
11.93. οὐδὲ τοίνυν δυνατὸν τὰς περὶ αἰσθητῶν ἢ νοητῶν ἐπικρῖναι δόξας· εἴ τε διὰ τὴν ἐν ταῖς νοήσεσι μάχην ἀπιστητέον πᾶσιν, ἀναιρεθήσεται τὸ μέτρον ᾧ δοκεῖ τὰ πάντα διακριβοῦσθαι· πᾶν οὖν ἴσον ἡγήσονται. ἔτι, φασίν, ὁ συζητῶν ἡμῖν τὸ φαινόμενον πιστός ἐστιν ἢ οὔ. εἰ μὲν οὖν πιστός ἐστιν, οὐδὲν ἕξει λέγειν πρὸς τὸν ᾧ φαίνεται τοὐναντίον· ὡς γὰρ αὐτὸς πιστός ἐστι τὸ φαινόμενον λέγων, οὕτω καὶ ὁ ἐναντίος· εἰ δʼ ἄπιστος, καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπιστηθήσεται τὸ φαινόμενον λέγων.
11.94. We must not assume that what convinces us is actually true. For the same thing does not convince every one, nor even the same people always. Persuasiveness sometimes depends on external circumstances, on the reputation of the speaker, on his ability as a thinker or his artfulness, on the familiarity or the pleasantness of the topic. Again, they would destroy the criterion by reasoning of this kind. Even the criterion has either been critically determined or not. If it has not, it is definitely untrustworthy, and in its purpose of distinguishing is no more true than false. If it has, it will belong to the class of particular judgements, so that one and the same thing determines and is determined, and the criterion which has determined will have to be determined by another, that other by another, and so on ad infinitum.
11.94. Τό τε πεῖθον οὐχ ὑποληπτέον ἀληθὲς ὑπάρχειν. οὐ γὰρ πάντας τὸ αὐτὸ πείθει οὐδὲ τοὺς αὐτοὺς συνεχές. γίνεται δὲ καὶ παρὰ τὰ ἐκτὸς ἡ πιθανότης, παρὰ τὸ ἔνδοξον τοῦ λέγοντος ἢ παρὰ τὸ φροντιστικὸν ἢ παρὰ τὸ αἱμύλον ἢ παρὰ τὸ σύνηθες ἢ παρὰ τὸ κεχαρισμένον. Ἀνῄρουν δὲ καὶ τὸ κριτήριον λόγῳ τοιῷδε. ἤτοι κέκριται καὶ τὸ κριτήριον ἢ ἄκριτόν ἐστιν. ἀλλʼ εἰ μὲν ἄκριτόν ἐστιν, ἄπιστον καθέστηκε καὶ διημάρτηκε τἀληθοῦς καὶ τοῦ ψεύδους· εἰ δὲ κέκριται, ἓν τῶν κατὰ μέρος γενήσεται κρινομένων, ὥστʼ ἂν τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ κρίνειν καὶ κρίνεσθαι καὶ τὸ κεκρικὸς τὸ κριτήριον ὑφʼ ἑτέρου κριθήσεται κἀκεῖνο ὑπʼ ἄλλου καὶ οὕτως εἰς ἄπειρον.
11.95. In addition to this there is disagreement as to the criterion, some holding that man is the criterion, while for some it is the senses, for others reason, for others the apprehensive presentation. Now man disagrees with man and with himself, as is shown by differences of laws and customs. The senses deceive, and reason says different things. Finally, the apprehensive presentation is judged by the mind, and the mind itself changes in various ways. Hence the criterion is unknowable, and consequently truth also.
11.95. πρὸς τῷ καὶ διαφωνεῖσθαι τὸ κριτήριον, τῶν μὲν τὸν ἄνθρωπον κριτήριον εἶναι λεγόντων, τῶν δὲ τὰς αἰσθήσεις, ἄλλων τὸν λόγον, ἐνίων τὴν καταληπτικὴν φαντασίαν. καὶ ὁ μὲν ἄνθρωπος καὶ πρὸς αὑτὸν διαφωνεῖ καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους, ὡς δῆλον ἐκ τῶν διαφόρων νόμων καὶ ἐθῶν. αἱ δʼ αἰσθήσεις ψεύδονται, ὁ δὲ λόγος διάφωνος. ἡ δὲ καταληπτικὴ φαντασία ὑπὸ νοῦ κρίνεται καὶ ὁ νοῦς ποικίλως τρέπεται. ἄγνωστον οὖν ἐστι τὸ κριτήριον καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἡ ἀλήθεια.
11.96. They deny, too, that there is such a thing as a sign. If there is, they say, it must either be sensible or intelligible. Now it is not sensible, because what is sensible is a common attribute, whereas a sign is a particular thing. Again, the sensible is one of the things which exist by way of difference, while the sign belongs to the category of relative. Nor is a sign an object of thought, for objects of thought are of four kinds, apparent judgements on things apparent, non-apparent judgements on things nonapparent, non-apparent on apparent, or apparent on non-apparent; and a sign is none of these, so that there is no such thing as a sign. A sign is not “apparent on apparent,” for what is apparent needs no sign; nor is it non-apparent on non-apparent, for what is revealed by something must needs appear; nor is it non-apparent on apparent, for that which is to afford the means of apprehending something else must itself be apparent;
11.96. Σημεῖόν τʼ οὐκ εἶναι· εἰ γάρ ἐστι, φασί, σημεῖον, ἤτοι αἰσθητόν ἐστιν ἢ νοητόν· αἰσθητὸν μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐπεὶ τὸ αἰσθητὸν κοινόν ἐστι, τὸ δὲ σημεῖον ἴδιον. καὶ τὸ μὲν αἰσθητὸν τῶν κατὰ διαφοράν, τὸ δὲ σημεῖον τῶν πρός τι. νοητὸν δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐπεὶ τὸ νοητὸν ἤτοι φαινόμενόν ἐστι φαινομένου ἢ ἀφανὲς ἀφανοῦς ἢ ἀφανὲς φαινομένου ἢ φαινόμενον ἀφανοῦς· οὐδὲν δὲ τούτων ἐστίν· οὐκ ἄρʼ ἐστὶ σημεῖον. φαινόμενον μὲν οὖν φαινομένου οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐπεὶ τὸ φαινόμενον οὐ δεῖται σημείου· ἀφανὲς δʼ ἀφανοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν, ἐπεὶ δεῖ φαίνεσθαι τὸ ἐκκαλυπτόμενον ὑπό τινος·
11.97. nor, lastly, is it apparent on non-apparent, because the sign, being relative, must be apprehended along with that of which it is the sign, which is not here the case. It follows that nothing uncertain can be apprehended; for it is through signs that uncertain things are said to be apprehended.. Causes, too, they destroy in this way. A cause is something relative; for it is relative to what can be caused, namely, the effect. But things which are relative are merely objects of thought and have no substantial existence.
11.97. ἀφανὲς δὲ φαινομένου οὐ δύναται, καθότι δεῖ φαίνεσθαι τὸ ἑτέρῳ παρέξον ἀφορμὴν καταλήψεως· φαινόμενον δʼ ἀφανοῦς οὐκ ἔστιν, ὅτι τὸ σημεῖον τῶν πρός τι ὂν συγκαταλαμβάνεσθαι ὀφείλει τῷ οὗ ἐστι σημεῖον, τὸ δὲ μὴ ἔστιν. οὐδὲν ἄρα τῶν ἀδήλων ἂν καταλαμβάνοιτο· διὰ γὰρ τῶν σημείων λέγεται τὰ ἄδηλα καταλαμβάνεσθαι. Ἀναιροῦσι δὲ τὸ αἴτιον ὧδε· τὸ αἴτιον τῶν πρός τι ἔστι· πρὸς γὰρ τὸ αἰτιατόν ἐστι· τὰ δὲ πρός τι ἐπινοεῖται μόνον, ὑπάρχει δʼ οὔ·
11.98. Therefore a cause can only be an object of thought; inasmuch as, if it be a cause, it must bring with it that of which it is said to be the cause, otherwise it will not be a cause. Just as a father, in the absence of that in relation to which he is called father, will not be a father, so too with a cause. But that in relation to which the cause is thought of, namely the effect, is not present; for there is no coming into being or passing away or any other process: therefore there is no such thing as cause. Furthermore, if there is a cause, either bodies are the cause of bodies, or things incorporeal of things incorporeal; but neither is the case; therefore there is no such thing as cause. Body in fact could not be the cause of body, inasmuch as both have the same nature. And if either is called a cause in so far as it is a body, the other, being a body, will become a cause.
11.98. καὶ τὸ αἴτιον οὖν ἐπινοοῖτʼ ἂν μόνον, ἐπεὶ εἴπερ ἐστὶν αἴτιον, ὀφείλει ἔχειν τὸ οὗ λέγεται αἴτιον, ἐπεὶ οὐκ ἔσται αἴτιον. καὶ ὥσπερ ὁ πατήρ, μὴ παρόντος τοῦ πρὸς ὃ λέγεται πατήρ, οὐκ ἂν εἴη πατήρ, οὑτωσὶ καὶ τὸ αἴτιον· οὐ πάρεστι δὲ πρὸς ὃ νοεῖται τὸ αἴτιον· οὔτε γὰρ γένεσις οὔτε φθορὰ οὔτʼ ἄλλο τι· οὐκ ἄρʼ ἐστὶν αἴτιον. καὶ μὴν εἰ ἔστιν αἴτιον, ἤτοι σῶμα σώματός ἐστιν αἴτιον ἢ ἀσώματον ἀσωμάτου· οὐδὲν δὲ τούτων· οὐκ ἄρʼ ἐστὶν αἴτιον. σῶμα μὲν οὖν σώματος οὐκ ἂν εἴη αἴτιον, ἐπείπερ ἀμφότερα τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχει φύσιν. καὶ εἰ τὸ ἕτερον αἴτιον λέγεται παρʼ ὅσον ἐστὶ σῶμα, καὶ τὸ λοιπόν, σῶμα ὄν, αἴτιον γενήσεται.
11.99. But if both be alike causes, there will be nothing to be acted upon Nor can an incorporeal thing be the cause of an incorporeal thing, for the same reason. And a thing incorporeal cannot be the cause of a body, since nothing incorporeal creates anything corporeal. And, lastly, a body cannot be the cause of anything incorporeal, because what is produced must be of the material operated upon; but if it is not operated upon because it is incorporeal, it cannot be produced by anything whatever. Therefore there is no such thing as a cause. A corollary to this is their statement that the first principles of the universe have no real existence; for in that case something must have been there to create and act. Furthermore there is no motion; for that which moves moves either in the place where it is or in a place where it is not. But it cannot move in the place where it is, still less in any place where it is not. Therefore there is no such thing as motion.
11.99. κοινῶς δʼ ἀμφοτέρων αἰτίων ὄντων, οὐδὲν ἔσται τὸ πάσχον. ἀσώματον δʼ ἀσωμάτου οὐκ ἂν εἴη αἴτιον διὰ τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον· ἀσώματον δὲ σώματος οὐκ ἔστιν αἴτιον, ἐπεὶ οὐδὲν ἀσώματον ποιεῖ σῶμα. σῶμα δʼ ἀσωμάτου οὐκ ἂν εἴη αἴτιον, ὅτι τὸ γενόμενον τῆς πασχούσης ὕλης ὀφείλει εἶναι· μηδὲν δὲ πάσχον διὰ τὸ ἀσώματον εἶναι οὐδʼ ἂν ὑπό τινος γένοιτο· οὐκ ἔστι τοίνυν αἴτιον. ᾧ συνεισάγεται τὸ ἀνυποστάτους εἶναι τὰς τῶν ὅλων ἀρχάς· δεῖ γὰρ εἶναί τι τὸ ποιοῦν καὶ δρῶν. Ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ κίνησίς ἐστι· τὸ γὰρ κινούμενον ἤτοι ἐν ᾧ ἐστι τόπῳ κινεῖται ἢ ἐν ᾧ μὴ ἔστιν· καὶ ἐν ᾧ μέν ἐστι τόπῳ οὐ κινεῖται, ἐν ᾧ δʼ οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲ κινεῖται· οὐκ ἔστιν οὖν κίνησις.
11.100. They used also to deny the possibility of learning. If anything is taught, they say, either the existent is taught through its existence or the non-existent through its non-existence. But the existent is not taught through its existence, for the nature of existing things is apparent to and recognized by all; nor is the non-existent taught through the nonexistent, for with the non-existent nothing is ever done, so that it cannot be taught to anyone. Nor, say they, is there any coming into being. For that which is does not come into being, since it is; nor yet that which is not, for it has no substantial existence, and that which is neither substantial nor existent cannot have had the chance of coming into being either.
11.100. Ἀνῄρουν δὲ καὶ μάθησιν. εἴπερ, φασί, διδάσκεταί τι, ἤτοι τὸ ὂν τῷ εἶναι διδάσκεται ἢ τὸ μὴ ὂν τῷ μὴ εἶναι. οὔτε δὲ τὸ ὂν τῷ εἶναι διδάσκεται —ἡ γὰρ τῶν ὄντων φύσις πᾶσι φαίνεται καὶ γινώσκεται—οὔτε τὸ μὴ ὂν τῷ μὴ ὄντι· τῷ γὰρ μὴ ὄντι οὐδὲν συμβέβηκεν, ὥστʼ οὐδὲ τὸ διδάσκεσθαι. Οὐδὲ μὴν γένεσίς ἐστι, φασίν. οὔτε γὰρ τὸ ὂν γίνεται, ἔστι γάρ, οὔτε τὸ μὴ ὄν, οὐδὲ γὰρ ὑφέστηκε· τὸ δὲ μὴ ὑφεστὼς μηδʼ ὂν οὐδὲ τὸ γίνεσθαι εὐτύχηκε.
11.101. There is nothing good or bad by nature, for if there is anything good or bad by nature, it must be good or bad for all persons alike, just as snow is cold to all. But there is no good or bad which is such to all persons in common; therefore there is no such thing as good or bad by nature. For either all that is thought good by anyone whatever must be called good, or not all. Certainly all cannot be so called; since one and the same thing is thought good by one person and bad by another; for instance, Epicurus thought pleasure good and Antisthenes thought it bad; thus on our supposition it will follow that the same thing is both good and bad. But if we say that not all that anyone thinks good is good, we shall have to judge the different opinions; and this is impossible because of the equal validity of opposing arguments. Therefore the good by nature is unknowable.
11.101. Φύσει τε μὴ εἶναι ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακόν· εἰ γάρ τί ἐστι φύσει ἀγαθὸν καὶ κακόν, πᾶσιν ὀφείλει ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακὸν ὑπάρχειν, ὥσπερ ἡ χιὼν πᾶσι ψυχρόν· κοινὸν δʼ οὐδὲν πάντων ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακόν ἐστιν· οὐκ ἄρα ἐστὶ φύσει ἀγαθὸν ἢ κακόν. ἤτοι γὰρ πᾶν τὸ ὑπό τινος δοξαζόμενον ῥητέον ἀγαθὸν ἢ οὐ πᾶν· καὶ πᾶν μὲν οὐ ῥητέον, ἐπεὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ὑφʼ οὗ μὲν δοξάζεται ἀγαθόν, ὡς ἡ ἡδονὴ ὑπὸ Ἐπικούρου· ὑφʼ οὗ δὲ κακόν, ὑπʼ Ἀντισθένους. συμβήσεται τοίνυν τὸ αὐτὸ ἀγαθόν τʼ εἶναι καὶ κακόν. εἰ δʼ οὐ πᾶν λέγομεν τὸ ὑπό τινος δοξαζόμενον ἀγαθόν, δεήσει ἡμᾶς διακρίνειν τὰς δόξας· ὅπερ οὐκ ἐνδεχόμενόν ἐστι διὰ τὴν ἰσοσθένειαν τῶν λόγων. ἄγνωστον οὖν τὸ φύσει ἀγαθόν.
11.102. The whole of their mode of inference can be gathered from their extant treatises. Pyrrho himself, indeed, left no writings, but his associates Timon, Aenesidemus, Numenius and Nausiphanes did; and others as well. The dogmatists answer them by declaring that the Sceptics themselves do apprehend and dogmatize; for when they are thought to be refuting their hardest they do apprehend, for at the very same time they are asseverating and dogmatizing. Thus even when they declare that they determine nothing, and that to every argument there is an opposite argument, they are actually determining these very points and dogmatizing.
11.102. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τὸν ὅλον τῆς συναγωγῆς αὐτῶν τρόπον συνιδεῖν ἐκ τῶν ἀπολειφθεισῶν συντάξεων. αὐτὸς μὲν γὰρ ὁ Πύρρων οὐδὲν ἀπέλιπεν, οἱ μέντοι συνήθεις αὐτοῦ Τίμων καὶ Αἰνεσίδημος καὶ Νουμήνιος καὶ Ναυσιφάνης καὶ ἄλλοι τοιοῦτοι. Οἷς ἀντιλέγοντες οἱ δογματικοί φασιν αὐτοὺς καταλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ δογματίζειν· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ δοκοῦσι διελέγχειν καταλαμβάνονται· καὶ γὰρ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ κρατύνουσι καὶ δογματίζουσι. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε φασὶ μηδὲν ὁρίζειν καὶ παντὶ λόγῳ λόγον ἀντικεῖσθαι, αὐτὰ ταῦτα καὶ ὁρίζονται καὶ δογματίζουσι.
11.103. The others reply, “We confess to human weaknesses; for we recognize that it is day and that we are alive, and many other apparent facts in life; but with regard to the things about which our opponents argue so positively, claiming to have definitely apprehended them, we suspend our judgement because they are not certain, and confine knowledge to our impressions. For we admit that we see, and we recognize that we think this or that, but how we see or how we think we know not. And we say in conversation that a certain thing appears white, but we are not positive that it really is white. As to our ‘We determine nothing’ and the like, we use the expressions in an undogmatic sense,” “for they are not like the assertion that the world is spherical.
11.103. πρὸς οὓς ἀποκρίνονται, Περὶ μὲν ὧν ὡς ἄνθρωποι πάσχομεν, ὁμολογοῦμεν· καὶ γὰρ ὅτι ἡμέρα ἐστὶ καὶ ὅτι ζῶμεν καὶ ἄλλα πολλὰ τῶν ἐν τῷ βίῳ φαινομένων διαγινώσκομεν· περὶ δʼ ὧν οἱ δογματικοὶ διαβεβαιοῦνται τῷ λόγῳ, φάμενοι κατειλῆφθαι, περὶ τούτων ἐπέχομεν ὡς ἀδήλων, μόνα δὲ τὰ πάθη γινώσκομεν. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι ὁρῶμεν ὁμολογοῦμεν καὶ τὸ ὅτι τόδε νοοῦμεν γινώσκομεν, πῶς δʼ ὁρῶμεν ἢ πῶς νοοῦμεν ἀγνοοῦμεν· καὶ ὅτι τόδε λευκὸν φαίνεται διηγηματικῶς λέγομεν, οὐ διαβεβαιούμενοι ὅτι καὶ ὄντως ἐστί. περὶ δὲ τῆς Οὐδὲν ὁρίζω φωνῆς καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων λέγομεν ὡς οὐ δογμάτων·
11.104. Indeed the latter statement is not certain, but the others are mere admissions. Thus in saying ‘We determine nothing,’ we are not determining even that.” Again, the dogmatic philosophers maintain that the Sceptics do away with life itself, in that they reject all that life consists in. The others say this is false, for they do not deny that we see; they only say that they do not know how we see. “We admit the apparent fact,” say they, “without admitting that it really is what it appears to be.” We also perceive that fire burns; as to whether it is its nature to burn, we suspend our judgement.
11.104. οὐ γάρ εἰσιν ὅμοια τῷ λέγειν ὅτι σφαιροειδής ἐστιν ὁ κόσμος. ἀλλὰ γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἄδηλον, αἱ δʼ ἐξομολογήσεις εἰσί. ἐν ᾧ οὖν λέγομεν μηδὲν ὁρίζειν, οὐδʼ αὐτὸ τοῦτο ὁρίζομεν. Πάλιν οἱ δογματικοί φασιν καὶ τὸν βίον αὐτοὺς ἀναιρεῖν, ἐν ᾧ πάντʼ ἐκβάλλουσιν ἐξ ὧν ὁ βίος συνέστηκεν. οἱ δὲ ψεύδεσθαί φασιν αὐτούς· οὐ γὰρ τὸ ὁρᾶν ἀναιρεῖν, ἀλλὰ τὸ πῶς ὁρᾶν ἀγνοεῖν. καὶ γὰρ τὸ φαινόμενον τιθέμεθα, οὐχ ὡς καὶ τοιοῦτον ὄν. καὶ ὅτι τὸ πῦρ καίει αἰσθανόμεθα· εἰ δὲ φύσιν ἔχει καυστικὴν ἐπέχομεν.
11.105. We see that a man moves, and that he perishes; how it happens we do not know. We merely object to accepting the unknown substance behind phenomena. When we say a picture has projections, we are describing what is apparent; but if we say that it has no projections, we are then speaking, not of what is apparent, but of something else. This is what makes Timon say in his Python that he has not gone outside what is customary. And again in the Conceits he says: “But the apparent is omnipotent wherever it goes;” and in his work On the Senses, “I do not lay it down that honey is sweet, but I admit that it appears to be so.”
11.105. καὶ ὅτι κινεῖταί τις βλέπομεν, καὶ ὅτι φθείρεται πῶς δὲ ταῦτα γίνεται οὐκ ἴσμεν. μόνον οὖν, φασίν, ἀνθιστάμεθα πρὸς τὰ παρυφιστάμενα τοῖς φαινομένοις ἄδηλα. καὶ γὰρ ὅτε τὴν εἰκόνα ἐξοχὰς λέγομεν ἔχειν, τὸ φαινόμενον διασαφοῦμεν· ὅταν δʼ εἴπωμεν μὴ ἔχειν αὐτὴν ἐξοχάς, οὐκέτι ὃ φαίνεται, ἕτερον δὲ λέγομεν· ὅθεν καὶ ὁ Τίμων ἐν τῷ Πύθωνί φησι μὴ ἐκβεβηκέναι τὴν συνήθειαν. καὶ ἐν τοῖς Ἰνδαλμοῖς οὕτω λέγει, ἀλλὰ τὸ φαινόμενον πάντη σθένει οὗπερ ἂν ἔλθῃ. καὶ ἐν τοῖς Περὶ αἰσθήσεών φησι, τὸ μέλι ὅτι ἐστὶ γλυκὺ οὐ τίθημι, τὸ δʼ ὅτι φαίνεται ὁμολογῶ.
11.106. Aenesidemus too in the first book of his Pyrrhonean Discourses says that Pyrrho determines nothing dogmatically, because of the possibility of contradiction, but guides himself by apparent facts. Aenesidemus says the same in his works Against Wisdom and On Inquiry. Furthermore Zeuxis, the friend of Aenesidemus, in his work On Two-sided Arguments, Antiochus of Laodicea, and Apellas in his Agrippa all hold to phenomena alone. Therefore the apparent is the Sceptic’s criterion, as indeed Aenesidemus says; and so does Epicurus. Democritus, however, denied that any apparent fact could be a criterion, indeed he denied the very existence of the apparent.
11.106. Καὶ Αἰνεσίδημος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Πυρρωνείων λόγων οὐδέν φησιν ὁρίζειν τὸν Πύρρωνα δογματικῶς διὰ τὴν ἀντιλογίαν, τοῖς δὲ φαινομένοις ἀκολουθεῖν. ταὐτὰ δὲ λέγει κἀν τῷ Κατὰ σοφίας κἀν τῷ Περὶ ζητήσεως. ἀλλὰ καὶ Ζεῦξις ὁ Αἰνεσιδήμου γνώριμος ἐν τῷ Περὶ διττῶν λόγων καὶ Ἀντίοχος ὁ Λαοδικεὺς καὶ Ἀπελλᾶς ἐν τῷ Ἀγρίππᾳ τιθέασι τὰ φαινόμενα μόνα. ἔστιν οὖν κριτήριον κατὰ τοὺς σκεπτικοὺς τὸ φαινόμενον, ὡς καὶ Αἰνεσίδημός φησιν· οὕτω δὲ καὶ Ἐπίκουρος. Δημόκριτος δὲ μηδὲν εἶναι τῶν φαινομένων, τὰ δὲ μὴ εἶναι.
11.107. Against this criterion of appearances the dogmatic philosophers urge that, when the same appearances produce in us different impressions, e.g. a round or square tower, the Sceptic, unless he gives the preference to one or other, will be unable to take any course; if on the other hand, say they, he follows either view, he is then no longer allowing equal value to all apparent facts. The Sceptics reply that, when different impressions are produced, they must both be said to appear; for things which are apparent are so called because they appear. The end to be realized they hold to be suspension of judgement, which brings with it tranquillity like its shadow: so Timon and Aenesidemus declare.
11.107. πρὸς τοῦτο τὸ κριτήριον τῶν φαινομένων οἱ δογματικοί φασιν ὅτι ὅτʼ ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν διάφοροι προσπίπτουσι φαντασίαι, ὡς ἀπὸ τοῦ πύργου ἢ στρογγύλου ἢ τετραγώνου, ὁ σκεπτικὸς εἰ μὲν οὐδετέραν προκρινεῖ, ἀπρακτήσει· εἰ δὲ τῇ ἑτέρᾳ κατακολουθήσει, οὐκέτι τὸ ἰσοσθενές, φασί, τοῖς φαινομένοις ἀποδώσει. πρὸς οὓς οἱ σκεπτικοί φασιν ὅτι ὅτε προσπίπτουσιν ἀλλοῖαι φαντασίαι, ἑκατέρας ἐροῦμεν φαίνεσθαι· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὰ φαινόμενα τιθέναι ὅτι φαίνεται. τέλος δὲ οἱ σκεπτικοί φασι τὴν ἐποχήν, ᾗ σκιᾶς τρόπον ἐπακολουθεῖ ἡ ἀταραξία, ὥς φασιν οἵ τε περὶ τὸν Τίμωνα καὶ Αἰνεσίδημον·
11.108. For in matters which are for us to decide we shall neither choose this nor shrink from that; and things which are not for us to decide but happen of necessity, such as hunger, thirst and pain, we cannot escape, for they are not to be removed by force of reason. And when the dogmatists argue that he may thus live in such a frame of mind that he would not shrink from killing and eating his own father if ordered to do so, the Sceptic replies that he will be able so to live as to suspend his judgement in cases where it is a question of arriving at the truth, but not in matters of life and the taking of precautions. Accordingly we may choose a thing or shrink from a thing by habit and may observe rules and customs. According to some authorities the end proposed by the Sceptics is insensibility; according to others, gentleness.
11.108. οὔτε γὰρ τάδʼ ἑλούμεθα ἢ ταῦτα φευξόμεθα ὅσα περὶ ἡμᾶς ἐστι· τὰ δʼ ὅσα περὶ ἡμᾶς οὐκ ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ κατʼ ἀνάγκην, οὐ δυνάμεθα φεύγειν, ὡς τὸ πεινῆν καὶ διψῆν καὶ ἀλγεῖν· οὐκ ἔστι γὰρ λόγῳ περιελεῖν ταῦτα. λεγόντων δὲ τῶν δογματικῶν ὡς δυνήσεται βιοῦν ὁ σκεπτικὸς μὴ φεύγων τό, εἰ κελευσθείη, κρεουργεῖν τὸν πατέρα, φασὶν οἱ σκεπτικοὶ ὡς δυνήσεται βιοῦν 〈ὥστε〉 * * περὶ τῶν δογματικῶν ζητήσεων ἐπέχειν, οὐ περὶ τῶν βιωτικῶν καὶ τηρητικῶν. ὥστε καὶ αἱρούμεθά τι κατὰ τὴν συνήθειαν καὶ φεύγομεν καὶ νόμοις χρώμεθα. τινὲς δὲ καὶ τὴν ἀπάθειαν, ἄλλοι δὲ τὴν πρᾳότητα τέλος εἰπεῖν φασι τοὺς σκεπτικούς.
12.109. Timon, says our Apollonides of Nicaea in the first book of his commentaries On the Silli, which he dedicated to Tiberius Caesar, was the son of Timarchus and a native of Phlius. Losing his parents when young, he became a stage-dancer, but later took a dislike to that pursuit and went abroad to Megara to stay with Stilpo; then after some time he returned home and married. After that he went to Pyrrho at Elis with his wife, and lived there until his children were born; the elder of these he called Xanthus, taught him medicine, and made him his heir.
12.109. Ἀπολλωνίδης ὁ Νικαεὺς ὁ παρʼ ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Εἰς τοὺς Σίλλους ὑπομνήματι, ἃ προσφωνεῖ Τιβερίῳ Καίσαρι, φησὶ τὸν Τίμωνα εἶναι πατρὸς μὲν Τιμάρχου, Φλιάσιον δὲ τὸ γένος· νέον δὲ καταλειφθέντα χορεύειν, ἔπειτα καταγνόντα ἀποδημῆσαι εἰς Μέγαρα πρὸς Στίλπωνα· κἀκείνῳ συνδιατρίψαντα αὖθις ἐπανελθεῖν οἴκαδε καὶ γῆμαι. εἶτα πρὸς Πύρρωνα εἰς Ἦλιν ἀποδημῆσαι μετὰ τῆς γυναικὸς κἀκεῖ διατρίβειν ἕως αὐτῷ παῖδες ἐγένοντο, ὧν τὸν μὲν πρεσβύτερον Ξάνθον ἐκάλεσε καὶ ἰατρικὴν ἐδίδαξε καὶ διάδοχον τοῦ βίου κατέλιπε.
12.110. This son was a man of high repute, as we learn from Sotion in his eleventh book. Timon, however, found himself without means of support and sailed to the Hellespont and Propontis. Living now at Chalcedon as a sophist, he increased his reputation still further and, having made his fortune, went to Athens, where he lived until his death, except for a short period which he spent at Thebes. He was known to King Antigonus and to Ptolemy Philadelphus, as his own iambics testify. He was, according to Antigonus, fond of wine, and in the time that he could spare from philosophy he used to write poems. These included epics, tragedies, satyric dramas, thirty comedies and sixty tragedies, besides silli (lampoons) and obscene poems.
12.110. ὁ δʼ ἐλλόγιμος ἦν, ὡς καὶ Σωτίων ἐν τῷ ἑνδεκάτῳ φησίν. ἀπορῶν μέντοι τροφῶν ἀπῆρεν εἰς τὸν Ἑλλήσποντον καὶ τὴν Προποντίδα· ἐν Χαλκηδόνι τε σοφιστεύων ἐπὶ πλέον ἀποδοχῆς ἠξιώθη· ἐντεῦθέν τε πορισάμενος ἀπῆρεν εἰς Ἀθήνας, κἀκεῖ διέτριβε μέχρι καὶ τελευτῆς, ὀλίγον χρόνον εἰς Θήβας διαδραμών. ἐγνώσθη δὲ καὶ Ἀντιγόνῳ τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ Φιλαδέλφῳ, ὡς αὐτὸς ἐν τοῖς ἰάμβοις αὑτῷ μαρτυρεῖ. Ἦν δέ, φησὶν ὁ Ἀντίγονος, καὶ φιλοπότης καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν φιλοσόφων εἰ σχολάζοι ποιήματα συνέγραφε καὶ ἔπη καὶ τραγῳδίας καὶ σατύρους καὶ δράματα κωμικὰ τριάκοντα, τὰ δὲ τραγικὰ ἑξήκοντα, σίλλους τε καὶ κιναίδους.
12.111. There are also reputed works of his extending to twenty thousand verses which are mentioned by Antigonus of Carystus, who also wrote his life. There are three silli in which, from his point of view as a Sceptic, he abuses every one and lampoons the dogmatic philosophers, using the form of parody. In the first he speaks in the first person throughout, the second and third are in the form of dialogues; for he represents himself as questioning Xenophanes of Colophon about each philosopher in turn, while Xenophanes answers him; in the second he speaks of the more ancient philosophers, in the third of the later, which is why some have entitled it the Epilogue.
12.111. φέρεται δʼ αὐτοῦ καὶ καταλογάδην βιβλία εἰς ἐπῶν τείνοντα μυριάδας δύο, ὧν καὶ Ἀντίγονος ὁ Καρύστιος μέμνηται, ἀναγεγραφὼς αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς τὸν βίον. τῶν δὲ σίλλων τρία ἐστίν, ἐν οἷς ὡς ἂν σκεπτικὸς ὢν πάντας λοιδορεῖ καὶ σιλλαίνει τοὺς δογματικοὺς ἐν παρῳδίας εἴδει. ὧν τὸ μὲν πρῶτον αὐτοδιήγητον ἔχει τὴν ἑρμηνείαν, τὸ δὲ δεύτερον καὶ τρίτον ἐν διαλόγου σχήματι. φαίνεται γοῦν ἀνακρίνων Ξενοφάνην τὸν Κολοφώνιον περὶ ἑκάστων, ὁ δʼ αὐτῷ διηγούμενός ἐστι· καὶ ἐν μὲν τῷ δευτέρῳ περὶ τῶν ἀρχαιοτέρων, ἐν δὲ τῷ τρίτῳ περὶ τῶν ὑστέρων· ὅθεν δὴ αὐτῷ τινες καὶ Ἐπί- λογον ἐπέγραψαν.
12.112. The first deals with the same subjects, except that the poem is a monologue. It begins as follows: “Ye sophists, ye inquisitives, come! follow!” He died at the age of nearly ninety, so we learn from Antigonus and from Sotion in his eleventh book. I have heard that he had only one eye; indeed he used to call himself a Cyclops. There was another Timon, the misanthrope. Now this philosopher, according to Antigonus, was very fond of gardens and preferred to mind his own affairs. At all events there is a story that Hieronymus the Peripatetic said of him, “Just as with the Scythians those who are in flight shoot as well as those who pursue, so, among philosophers, some catch their disciples by pursuing them, some by fleeing from them, as for instance Timon.”
12.112. τὸ δὲ πρῶτον ταὐτὰ περιέχει πράγματα, πλὴν ὅτι μονοπρόσωπός ἐστιν ἡ ποίησις· ἀρχὴ δὲ αὐτῷ ἥδε, ἕσπετε νῦν μοι ὅσοι πολυπράγμονές ἐστε σοφισταί. Ἐτελεύτησε δʼ ἐγγὺς ἐτῶν ἐνενήκοντα, ὥς φησιν ὁ Ἀντίγονος καὶ Σωτίων ἐν τῷ ἑνδεκάτῳ. τοῦτον ἐγὼ καὶ ἑτερόφθαλμον ἤκουσα, ἐπεὶ καὶ αὐτὸς αὑτὸν Κύκλωπα ἐκάλει. γέγονε καὶ ἕτερος Τίμων ὁ μισάνθρωπος. Ὁ δʼ οὖν φιλόσοφος καὶ φιλόκηπος ἦν σφόδρα καὶ ἰδιοπράγμων, ὡς καὶ Ἀντίγονός φησι. λόγος γοῦν εἰπεῖν Ἱερώνυμον τὸν περιπατητικὸν ἐπʼ αὐτοῦ, Ὡς παρὰ τοῖς Σκύθαις καὶ οἱ φεύγοντες τοξεύουσι καὶ οἱ διώκοντες, οὕτω τῶν φιλοσόφων οἱ μὲν διώκοντες θηρῶσι τοὺς μαθητάς, οἱ δὲ φεύγοντες, καθάπερ καὶ ὁ Τίμων.
12.113. He was quick to perceive anything and to turn up his nose in scorn; he was fond of writing and at all times good at sketching plots for poets and collaborating in dramas. He used to give the dramatists Alexander and Homer materials for their tragedies. When disturbed by maidservants and dogs, he would stop writing, his earnest desire being to maintain tranquillity. Aratus is said to have asked him how he could obtain a trustworthy text of Homer, to which he replied, “You can, if you get hold of the ancient copies, and not the corrected copies of our day.” He used to let his own poems lie about, sometimes half eaten away.
12.113. Ἦν δὲ καὶ ὀξὺς νοῆσαι καὶ διαμυκτηρίσαι· φιλογράμματός τε καὶ τοῖς ποιηταῖς μύθους γράψαι ἱκανὸς καὶ δράματα συνδιατιθέναι. μετεδίδου δὲ τῶν τραγῳδιῶν Ἀλεξάνδρῳ καὶ Ὁμήρῳ. θορυβούμενός θʼ ὑπὸ τῶν θεραπαινῶν καὶ κυνῶν ἐποίει μηδέν, σπουδάζων περὶ τὸ ἠρεμάζειν. φασὶ δὲ καὶ Ἄρατον πυθέσθαι αὐτοῦ πῶς τὴν Ὁμήρου ποίησιν ἀσφαλῆ κτήσαιτο, τὸν δὲ εἰπεῖν, εἰ τοῖς ἀρχαίοις ἀντιγράφοις ἐντυγχάνοι καὶ μὴ τοῖς ἤδη διωρθωμένοις. εἰκῆ τε αὐτῷ ἔκειτο τὰ ποιήματα, ἐνίοτε ἡμίβρωτα·
12.114. Hence, when he came to read parts of them to Zopyrus the orator, he would turn over the pages and recite whatever came handy; then, when he was half through, he would discover the piece which he had been looking for in vain, so careless was he. Furthermore, he was so easy-going that he would readily go without his dinner. They say that once, when he saw Arcesilaus passing through the “knaves-market,” he said, “What business have you to come here, where we are all free men?” He was constantly in the habit of quoting, to those who would admit the evidence of the senses when confirmed by the judgement of the mind, the line— “Birds of a feather flock together.” Jesting in this fashion was habitual with him. When a man marvelled at everything, he said, “Why do you not marvel that we three have but four eyes between us?” for in fact he himself had only one eye, as also had his disciple Dioscurides, while the man whom he addressed was normal.
12.114. ὥστε καὶ Ζωπύρῳ τῷ ῥήτορι ἀναγινώσκοντά τι ἐπιτυλίττειν καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐπελθὸν διεξιέναι· ἐλθόντα τʼ ἐφʼ ἡμισείας, οὕτως εὑρεῖν τὸ ἀπόσπασμα τέως ἀγνοοῦντα. τοσοῦτον ἦν ἀδιάφορος. ἀλλὰ καὶ εὔρους· ὡς μηδʼ ἀριστᾶν συγχωρεῖν. φασὶ δʼ αὐτὸν Ἀρκεσίλαον θεασάμενον διὰ τῶν Κερκώπων ἰόντα, εἰπεῖν, τί σὺ δεῦρο, ἔνθαπερ ἡμεῖς οἱ ἐλεύθεροι; συνεχές τε ἐπιλέγειν εἰώθει πρὸς τοὺς τὰς αἰσθήσεις μετʼ ἐπιμαρτυροῦντος τοῦ νοῦ ἐγκρίνοντας, συνῆλθεν Ἀτταγᾶς τε καὶ Νουμήνιος. εἰώθει δὲ καὶ παίζειν τοιαῦτα. πρὸς οὖν τὸν θαυμάζοντα πάντα ἔφη, τί δʼ οὐ θαυμάζεις ὅτι τρεῖς ὄντες τέτταρας ἔχομεν ὀφθαλμούς; ἦν δʼ αὐτός τε ἑτερόφθαλμος καὶ ὁ Διοσκουρίδης μαθητὴς αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ πρὸς ὃν ἔλεγεν ὑγιής.
12.115. Asked once by Arcesilaus why he had come there from Thebes, he replied, “Why, to laugh when I have you all in full view!” Yet, while attacking Arcesilaus in his Silli, he has praised him in his work entitled the Funeral Banquet of Arcesilaus. According to Menodotus he left no successor, but his school lapsed until Ptolemy of Cyrene re-established it. Hippobotus and Sotion, however, say that he had as pupils Dioscurides of Cyprus, Nicolochus of Rhodes, Euphranor of Seleucia, and Praÿlus of the Troad. The latter, as we learn from the history of Phylarchus, was a man of such unflinching courage that, although unjustly accused, he patiently suffered a traitor’s death, without so much as deigning to speak one word to his fellow-citizens.
12.115. ἐρωτηθεὶς δέ ποθʼ ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἀρκεσιλάου διὰ τί παρείη ἐκ Θηβῶν, ἔφη, ἵνʼ ὑμᾶς ἀναπεπταμένους ὁρῶν γελῶ. ὅμως δὲ καθαπτόμενος Ἀρκεσιλάου ἐν τοῖς σίλλοις ἐπῄνεκεν αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ Ἀρκεσιλάου περιδείπνῳ. Τούτου διάδοχος, ὡς μὲν Μηνόδοτός φησι, γέγονεν οὐδείς, ἀλλὰ διέλιπεν ἡ ἀγωγὴ ἕως αὐτὴν Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Κυρηναῖος ἀνεκτήσατο. ὡς δʼ Ἱππόβοτός φησι καὶ Σωτίων, διήκουσαν αὐτοῦ Διοσκουρίδης Κύπριος καὶ Νικόλοχος Ῥόδιος καὶ Εὐφράνωρ Σελευκεὺς Πραΰλους τʼ ἀπὸ Τρωάδος, ὃς οὕτω καρτερικὸς ἐγένετο, καθά φησι Φύλαρχος ἱστορῶν, ὥστʼ ἀδίκως ὑπομεῖναι ὡς ἐπὶ προδοσίᾳ κολασθῆναι, μηδὲ λόγου τοὺς πολίτας καταξιώσας.
12.116. Euphranor had as pupil Eubulus of Alexandria; Eubulus taught Ptolemy, and he again Sarpedon and Heraclides; Heraclides again taught Aenesidemus of Cnossus, the compiler of eight books of Pyrrhonean discourses; the latter was the instructor of Zeuxippus his fellow-citizen, he of Zeuxis of the angular foot (γωνιόπους, Cruickshank), he again of Antiochus of Laodicea on the Lycus, who had as pupils Menodotus of Nicomedia, an empiric physician, and Theiodas of Laodicea; Menodotus was the instructor of Herodotus of Tarsus, son of Arieus, and Herodotus taught Sextus Empiricus, who wrote ten books on Scepticism, and other fine works. Sextus taught Saturninus called Cythenas, another empiricist.
12.116. Εὐφράνορος δὲ διήκουσεν Εὔβουλος Ἀλεξανδρεύς, οὗ Πτολεμαῖος, οὗ Σαρπηδὼν καὶ Ἡρακλείδης, Ἡρακλείδου δʼ Αἰνεσίδημος Κνώσιος, ὃς καὶ Πυρρωνείων λόγων ὀκτὼ συνέγραψε βιβλία· οὗ Ζεύξιππος ὁ πολίτης, οὗ Ζεῦξις ὁ Γωνιόπους, οὗ Ἀντίοχος Λαοδικεὺς ἀπὸ Λύκου· τούτου δὲ Μηνόδοτος ὁ Νικομηδεύς, ἰατρὸς ἐμπειρικός, καὶ Θειωδᾶς Λαοδικεύς· Μηνοδότου δὲ Ἡρόδοτος Ἀριέως Ταρσεύς· Ἡροδότου δὲ διήκουσε Σέξτος ὁ ἐμπειρικός, οὗ καὶ τὰ δέκα τῶν Σκεπτικῶν καὶ ἄλλα κάλλιστα· Σέξτου δὲ διήκουσε Σατορνῖνος ὁ Κυθηνᾶς, ἐμπειρικὸς καὶ αὐτός.