---
title: "Against the Stoics on Common Conceptions · De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos"
author: "Plutarch"
translator: "Samuel White, rev. William W. Goodwin"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Philosophy"
section: 3 of 4
url: https://scriptura.si/works/plutarch-against-the-stoics/3/
cite: "Plutarch, tr. Samuel White, rev. William W. Goodwin, Against the Stoics on Common Conceptions · De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos, section 3. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/plutarch-against-the-stoics/3/"
---

# Against the Stoics on Common Conceptions · De communibus notitiis adversus Stoicos

*Plutarch, tr. Samuel White, rev. William W. Goodwin*

The Stoics claim to follow common sense; Plutarch shows how far they fall from it.

> Greek: ed. Grēgorios N. Vernardakēs, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0007.tlg138, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Samuel White, rev. William W. Goodwin, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0007.tlg138.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (chapters and sections), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 3. Sections 28–38

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/plutarch-against-the-stoics/3/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/plutarch-against-the-stoics/3/#p-N

[¶0] 28. DIADUMENUS. But as for those things that are against the common conceptions taught in the Stoa concerning love, they are all of them concerned in the absurdity. They say, that those youths are deformed who are vicious and foolish, and that the wise are fair; and yet that none of these beautiful ones is either beloved or worthy of being beloved. Nor yet is this the worst; but they add, that those who love the deformed ones cease to do so when they are become fair. Now whoever knew such a love as is kindled and has its being at the sight of the body’s deformity joined with that of the soul, and is quenched and decays at the accession of beauty joined with prudence, justice, and temperance? These men are not unlike to those gnats which love to settle on the dregs of wine, or on vinegar, but shun and fly away from potable and pleasant wine. As for that which they call and term an appearance of beauty, saying that it is the inducement of love, —first, it has no probability, for in those who are very foul and highly wicked there cannot be an appearance of beauty, if indeed (as is said) the wickedness of the disposition fills the face with deformity. And secondly, it is absolutely against all common conceptions that the deformed should be worthy of love because he one day will be fair and expects to have beauty, but that when he has obtained it and is become fair and good, he should be beloved of none. LAMPRIAS. Love, they say, is a certain hunting after a young person who is as yet indeed imperfect, but naturally well-disposed towards virtue. DIADUMENUS. And what do we now else, O my best friend, but demonstrate that their sect perverts and destroys all our common conceptions with improbable things and unusual expressions? For none would hinder the solicitude of these wise men towards young persons, if it were free from all passionate affection, from being called hunting or love of instruction; but they ought to call love that which all men and women understand and call by this name, like that which Penelope’s suitors in Homer seem to acknowledge, “Who all desired to lie with her;” or as Jupiter in another place says to Juno,
For neither Goddess yet nor mortal dame
E’er kindled in my heart so great a flame.

> Greek: 28. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. τῶν δὲ περὶ ἔρωτος φιλοσοφουμένων ἐν τῇ Στοᾷ παρὰ τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας τῆς ἀτοπίας πᾶσιν αὐτοῖς μέτεστιν. αἰσχροὺς μὲν γὰρ εἶναι τοὺς νέους, φαύλους γʼ ὄντας καὶ ἀνοήτους, καλοὺς δὲ τοὺς σοφούς ἐκείνων δὲ τῶν καλῶν μηδένα μήτʼ ἐρᾶσθαι μήτʼ ἀξιέραστον εἶναι. καὶ οὐ τοῦτό πω δεινόν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐρασθέντας αἰσχρῶν παύεσθαι λέγουσι καλῶν γενομένων καὶ τίς ἔρωτα γιγνώσκει τοιοῦτον, ὃς ἅμα σώματος μοχθηρίᾳ ψυχῆς βλαπτομένου συνέχεται καὶ γίγνεται, κάλλους; δʼ ἅμα φρονήσει μετὰ δικαιοσύνης καὶ σωφροσύνης ἐγγιγνομένου, κατασβέννυται καὶ ἀπομαραίνεται; οὓς μηδὲν οἴομαι τῶν κωνώπων διαφέρειν χαίρουσι γὰρ λάμπῃ καὶ ὄξει, τὸν δὲ πότιμον καὶ χρηστὸν οἶνον ἀποπετόμενοι φεύγουσιν. ἣν δὲ λέγοντες καὶ ὀνομάζοντες ἔμφασιν κάλλους ἐπαγωγὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἔρωτος λέγουσι, πρῶτον μὲν οὐκ ἔχει τὸ πιθανόν· ἐν γὰρ αἰσχίστοις καὶ κακίστοις οὐκ ἂν ἔμφασις γένοιτο κάλλους· εἴπερ, ὡς λέγουσιν, ἡ μοχθηρία τοῦ ἤθους ἀναπίμπλησι τὸ εἶδος. ἔπειτα κομιδῇ παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστιν ἀξιέραστον εἶναι τὸν αἰσχρόν, ὅτι μέλλει ποτὲ καὶ προσδοκᾶται κάλλος ἕξειν· κτησάμενον δὲ τοῦτο,καὶ γενόμενον καλὸν κἁγαθὸν ὑπὸ μηδενὸς ἐρᾶσθαι. ΛΑΜΠΡ. Θήρα γάρ τις, φασίν, ἐστὶν ὁ ἔρως ἀτελοῦς μὲν εὐφυοῦς δὲ μειρακίου πρὸς ἀρετήν. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. Εἶθʼ ὦ βέλτιστε, πράττομεν ἄλλο νῦν ἢ τὴν αἵρεσιν αὐτῶν ἐλέγχομεν, οὔτε πιθανοῖς πράγμασιν οὔθʼ ὡμιλημένοις ὀνόμασι τὰς κοινὰς; ἐκστρέφουσαν ἡμῶν καὶ παραβιαζομένην ἐννοίας; οὐδεὶς; γὰρ ἦν ὁ κωλύων τὴν περὶ τοὺς νέους τῶν σοφῶν σπουδήν, εἰ πάθος αὐτῇ μὴ πρόσεστι, θήραν ἢ φιλοπαιδείαν προσαγορευομένην· ἔρωτα δʼ ἔδει καλεῖν ὃν πάντες ἄνθρωποι καὶ πᾶσαι νοοῦσι καὶ ὀνομάζουσι, οἶον τό πάντες δʼ ἠρήσαντο παραὶ λεχέεσσι κλιθῆναι καί
οὐ γὰρ πώποτὲ μʼ ὧδε θεᾶς ἔρος οὐδὲ γυναικὸς
θυμὸν ἐνὶ στήθεσσι περιπροχυθεὶς ἐδάμασσεν.

[¶1] 29. DIADUMENUS. Thus casting moral philosophy into these matters, in which all is “A mazy whirl, with nothing sound, and all perplexed,” they contemn and deride all about them, as if themselves were the only men who regulated nature and custom as it ought to be, and who at the same time adapted reason to each man’s peculiar state by means of aversions, desires, appetites, pursuits, and impulses. But custom has received no good from their logic, but, like the ear diseased by vain sounds, is filled with difficulty and obscurity,—of which, if you think good, we will elsewhere begin a new discourse. But now we will run through the chief and principal heads of their natural philosophy, which no less confounds the common conceptions than that other concerning ends.

> Greek: 29. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. εἰς τοιαῦτα μέντοι πράγματα τὸν ἠθικὸν λόγον ἐκβάλλοντες ἑλικτὰ κοὐδὲν ὑγιὲς ἀλλὰ πᾶν πέριξ εὐτελίζουσι καὶ διασύρουσιν, ὡς δὴ μόνοι τὴν φύσιν καὶ συνήθειαν ὀρθοῦντες ᾗ χρὴ καὶ καθιστάντες τὸν λόγον, ὃς ἅμʼ ἀποστρέφει καὶ ἐπάγει ταῖς ἐφέσεσι καὶ διώξεσι καὶ ὁρμαῖς πρὸς τὸ οἰκεῖον ἕκαστον. ἡ δὲ συνήθεια τῆς διαλεκτικῆς διέραμα γενομένη χρηστὸν μὲν οὐδὲν οὐδʼ ὑγιὲς ἀπολέλαυκεν, ἀλλʼ ὥσπερ ἀκοὴ νοσώδης ὑπὸ κενῶν ἤχων δυσηκοΐας καὶ ἀσαφείας ἐμπέπλησται περὶ ἧς αὖθις ἑτέραν ἀρχὴν λαβόντες, εἰ βούλει, διαλεξόμεθα. νυνὶ δὲ τὸν φυσικὸν αὐτῶν λόγον, οὐχ ἧττον τοῦ περὶ τελῶν διαταράττοντα τὰς κοινὰς προλήψεις, ἐν τοῖς κυριωτάτοις καὶ πρώτοις ἐπιδράμωμεν.

[¶2] 30. DIADUMENUS. First, this is altogether absurd and against sense, to say that is which is not, and things which are not are. But above all, that is most absurd which they say of the universe. For, putting round about the circumference of the world an infinite vacuum, they say that the universe is neither a body nor bodiless. It follows then from this that the universe has no being, since with them body only has a being. Since therefore it is the part of that which has a being both to do and suffer, and the universe has no being, it follows that the universe will neither do nor suffer. Neither will it be in a place; for that which takes up place is a body, and the universe is not a body, therefore the universe is nowhere. And since that only rests which continues in one and the same place, the universe rests not, because it takes not up place. Neither yet is it moved, for what is moved must have a place and space to move in. Moreover, what is moved either moves itself, or suffers motion from another. Now, that which is moved by itself has some bents and inclinations proceeding from its gravity or levity; and gravity and levity are either certain habits or faculties or differences of bodies. But the universe is not a body. It follows then of necessity, that the universe is neither heavy nor light, and consequently, that it has not in itself any principle of motion. Nor yet will the universe be moved by any other; for there is nothing else besides the universe. Thus are they necessitated to say as they do, that the universe neither rests nor is moved. Lastly, since according to their opinion it must not be said that the universe is a body, and yet the heaven, the earth, animals, plants, men, and stones are bodies, it follows that that which is no body will have bodies for its parts, and things which have existence will be parts of that which has no existence, and that which is not heavy will have parts that are heavy, and what is not light will have parts that are light;—than which there cannot be any dreams imagined more repugnant to the common conceptions. DIADUMENUS. Moreover, there is nothing so evident or so agreeing to common sense as this, that what is not animate is inanimate, and what is not inanimate is animate. And yet they overthrow also this evidence, confessing the universe to be neither animate nor inanimate. Besides this, none thinks the universe, of which there is no part wanting, to be imperfect; but they deny the universe to be perfect, saying that what is perfect may be defined, but the universe because of its infiniteness cannot be defined. Therefore, according to them, there is something which is neither perfect nor imperfect. Moreover, the universe is neither a part, since there is nothing greater than it; nor the whole, for the whole (they say) is predicated only of that which is digested into order; but the universe is, through its infiniteness, undetermined and unordered. Moreover, there is no other thing which can be the cause of the universe, there being nothing besides the universe; nor is the universe the cause of other things or even of itself; for its nature suffers it not to act, and a cause is understood by its acting. Suppose now, one should ask all men what they imagine nothing to be, and what notion they have of it. Would they not answer, that it neither is a cause nor has a cause, that it is neither the whole nor a part, that it is neither perfect nor imperfect, that it is neither animate nor inanimate, that it neither is moved nor rests nor subsists, that it is neither corporeal nor incorporeal; and that this and no other thing is meant by nothing? Since then they alone predicate that of the universe which all others do of nothing, it seems plain that they make the universe and nothing to be the same. Time must then be said to be nothing; the same also must be said of predicate, axiom, connection, combination, which terms they use more than any of the other philosophers, yet they say that they have no being. But farther, to say that what is true has no being or subsistence but is comprehended, and that that is comprehensible and credible which no way partakes of the essence of being,—does not this exceed all absurdity?

> Greek: 30. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. καθόλου μὲν ἄτοπον καὶ παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιὰν ἐστιν εἶναι μέν τι μὴ ὂν δʼ εἶναι, καὶ εἶναι μὲν οὐκ ὄντα δʼ εἶναι, λεγόντων ἀτοπώτατόν ἐστι τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ παντὸς λεγόμενον. κενὸν γὰρ ἄπειρον ἔξωθεν τῷ κόσμῳ περιθέντες οὔτε σῶμα τὸ πᾶν οὔτʼ ἀσώματον εἶναι λέγουσιν. ἕπεται δὲ τούτῳ τὸ μὴ ὂν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν ὄντα γὰρ μόνα τὰ σώματα καλοῦσιν, ἐπειδὴ ὄντος τὸ ποιεῖν τι καὶ πάσχειν, τὸ δὲ πᾶν οὐκ ὄν ἐστιν· ὥστε οὔτε τι ποιήσει οὔτε τι πείσεται τὸ πᾶν. ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ ἐν τόπῳ ἔσται· σῶμα γὰρ δήπου τὸ ἐπέχον τόπον, οὐ σῶμα δὲ τὸ πᾶν, ὥστʼ οὐδαμοῦ τὸ πᾶν. καὶ μὴν ᾧ τὸν αὐτὸν ἐπέχειν τόπον συμβέβηκε, τοῦτο τὸ μένον· ὥστʼ οὐ μένει τὸ πᾶν οὐ γὰρ ἐπέχει τόπον. ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ κινεῖται πρῶτον ὅτι καὶ τῷ κινουμένῳ τόπου δεῖ καὶ χώρας ὑποκειμένης, ἔπειθʼ ὅτι τὸ κινούμενον ἢ αὑτὸ κινεῖν ἢ ὑφʼ ἑτέρου πάσχειν πέφυκε· τὸ μὲν οὖν ὑφʼ ἑαυτοῦ κινούμενον ἔχει τινὰς νεύσεις ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ῥοπὰς κατὰ βάρος ἢ κουφότητα κουφότης δὲ καὶ βάρος ἤτοι σχέσεις τινὲς ἢ δυνάμεις εἰσὶν ἢ διαφοραὶ πάντως σώματος τὸ δὲ πᾶν οὐ σῶμά ἐστιν· ὥστʼ ἀνάγκη μήτε βαρὺ μήτε κοῦφον εἶναι τὸ πᾶν μηδʼ ἔχειν ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ κινήσεως ἀρχήν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ὑφʼ ἑτέρου κινήσεται τὸ πᾶν· ἕτερον γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστι τοῦ παντός· ὥστʼ ἀνάγκη λέγειν αὐτοῖς ὅπερ λέγουσι μήτε μένον εἶναι τὸ πᾶν μήτε κινούμενον. ὅλως δέ, ἐπεὶ τὸ λέγειν σῶμα τὸ πᾶν μηδʼ δέον ἐστὶ κατʼ αὐτούς, σῶμα δʼ οὐρανὸς καὶ γῆ καὶ ζῷα καὶ φυτὰ καὶ ἄνθρωποι καὶ λίθοι τὸ μὴ ὂν σῶμα σώματα μέρη ἕξει καὶ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος μέρη ὄντα ἔσται καὶ τὸ μὴ βαρὺ χρήσεται βαρέσι μορίοις καὶ κούφοις τὸ μὴ κοῦφον ὧν οὐδʼ ὀνείρατα λαβεῖν μᾶλλον ἔστι παρὰ τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας. καὶ μὴν οὕτως οὐδὲν ἐναργές ἐστι καὶ τῶν κοινῶν ἐχόμενον ἐννοιῶν ὡς τό, εἴ τι μὴ ἔμψυχόν ἐστιν, ἐκεῖνο ἄψυχον εἶναι· καὶ πάλιν, εἴ τι μὴ ἄψυχον, ἐκεῖνο ἔμψυχον εἶναι· καὶ ταύτην οὖν ἀνατρέπουσι τὴν ἐνάργειαν, οὕτω τὸ πᾶν ὁμολογοῦντες μήτʼ ἔμψυχον εἶναι μήτʼ ἄψυχον. ἄνευ δὲ τούτων, ἀτελὲς μὲν οὐδεὶς νοεῖ τὸ πᾶν, οὗ γε δὴ μηδὲν μέρος ἄπεστιν οὗτοι δὲ τέλειον οὔ φασιν εἶναι τὸ πᾶν· ὡρισμένον γάρ τι τὸ τέλειον, τὸ δὲ πᾶν ὑπʼ ἀπειρίας ἀόριστον· οὐκοῦν ἔστι τι κατʼ αὐτούς, ὃ μήτʼ ἀτελὲς; μήτε τέλειόν ἐστιν. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὔτε μέρος ἐστὶ τὸ πᾶν· οὐδὲν γὰρ αὐτοῦ μεῖζον· οὔτʼ ὅλον, ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι· τεταγμένου γὰρ τὸ ὅλον κατηγορεῖσθαι, τὸ δὲ πᾶν διʼ ἀπειρίαν καὶ ἀόριστον εἶναι καὶ ἄτακτον. αἴτιον τοίνυν οὔτε τοῦ παντὸς ἕτερόν ἐστι τῷ μηδὲν εἶναι παρὰ τὸ πᾶν ἕτερον, οὔτʼ ἄλλου τὸ πᾶν ἀλλʼ οὐδʼ ἑαυτοῦ ποιεῖν γὰρ οὐ πέφυκε, τῷ δὲ ποιεῖν τὸ αἴτιον νοεῖται. φέρε τοίνυν πάντας ἀνθρώπους ἐρωτᾶσθαι, τί νοοῦσι τὸ μηδὲν καί τίνα τοῦ ἐπίνοιαν λαμβάνουσιν ἆρʼ, οὐκ ἂν εἴποιεν, ὡς τὸ μήτʼ, αἴτιον ὑπάρχον μήτʼ, αἴτιον ἔχον μήθʼ ὅλον μήτε μέρος μήτε τέλειον μήτʼ ἀτελὲς μήτʼ ἔμψυχον μήτʼ ἄψυχον μήτε κινούμενον μήτε μένον που μήθʼ ὑπάρχον μήτε σῶμα μήτʼ ἀσώματον; τοῦτο καὶ οὐκ ἄλλο τι τὸ οὐδέν ἐστιν. ὅταν οὖν ὅσα πάντες οἱ λοιποὶ τοῦ μηδενός, οὗτοι μόνοι τοῦ παντὸς κατηγοροῦσι, ταὐτὸν ὡς ἔοικε φαίνονται τῷ μηδενὶ τὸ πᾶν ποιοῦντες. οὐδὲν οὖν ἔτι δεῖ λέγειν τὸν χρόνον, τὸ κατηγόρημα, τὸ ἀξίωμα, τὸ συνημμένον, τὸ συμπεπλεγμένον οἷς χρῶνται μὲν μάλιστα τῶν φιλοσόφων, ὄντα δʼ οὐ λέγουσιν εἶναι. καίτοι τὸ γʼ ἀληθὲς; ὂν μὴ εἶναι μηδʼ ὑπάρχειν, ἀλλὰ καταλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ καταληπτὸν εἶναι καὶ πιστὸν ᾧ τῆς οὐσίας; τοῦ ὄντος μὴ μέτεστι, πῶς οὖν οὐ πᾶσαν ἀτοπίαν ὑπερβέβληκεν;

[¶3] 31. DIADUMENUS. But lest these things should seem to have too much of logical difficulty, let us proceed to such as pertain more to natural philosophy. Since then, as themselves say, “Jove is of all beginning, midst, and end,” they ought chiefly to have applied themselves to remedy, redress, and reduce to the best order the conceptions concerning the Gods, if there were in them any thing confused or erroneous; or if not, to have left every one in those sentiments which they had from the laws and custom concerning the Divinity:
For neither now nor yesterday
These deep conceits of God began;
Time out of mind they have been aye,
But no man knows where, how, or when.
But these men, having begun (as it were) “from Vesta” to disturb the opinions settled and received in every country concerning the Gods, have not (to speak sincerely) left any thing entire and uncorrupted. For what man is there or ever was, except these, who does not believe the Divinity to be immortal and eternal? Or what in the common anticipations is more unanimously chanted forth concerning the Gods than such things as these:
There the blest Gods eternally enjoy
Their sweet delights;
and again, “Both Gods immortal, and earth-dwelling men;” and again,
Exempt from sickness and old age are they,
And free from toil, and have escaped the flood
Of roaring Acheron?
One may perhaps light upon some nations so barbarous and savage as not to think there is a God; but there was never found any man who, believing a God, did not at the same time believe him immortal and eternal. Certainly, those who were called Atheists, like Theodorus, Diagoras, and Hippo, durst not say that the Divinity is corruptible, but they did not believe that there is any thing incorruptible; not indeed admitting the subsistence of an incorruptibility, but keeping the idea of a God. But Chrysippus and Cleanthes, having filled (as one may say) heaven, earth, air, and sea with Gods, have not yet made any one of all these Gods immortal or eternal, except Jupiter alone, in whom they consume all the rest; so that it is no more proper for him to consume others than to be consumed himself. For it is alike an infirmity to perish by being resolved into another, and to be saved by being nourished by the resolution of others into himself. Now these are not like other of their absurdities, gathered by argument from their suppositions or drawn by consequence from their doctrines; but they themselves proclaim it aloud in their writings concerning the Gods, Providence, Fate, and Nature, expressly saying that all the other Gods were born, and shall die by the fire, melting away, in their opinion, as if they were of wax or tin. It is indeed as much against common sense that God should be mortal as that man should be immortal; nay, indeed, I do not see what the difference between God and man will be, if God also is a reasonable and corruptible animal. For if they oppose us with this subtle distinction, that man is mortal, and God not mortal but corruptible, see what they get by it. For they will say either that God is at the same time both immortal and corruptible, or else that he neither is mortal nor immortal; the absurdity of which even those cannot exceed who set themselves industriously to devise positions repugnant to common sense. I speak of others; for these men have left no one of the absurdest things unspoken or unattempted. DIADUMENUS. To these things Cleanthes, contending for the conflagration of the world, says, that the sun will make the moon and all the other stars like to himself, and will change them into himself. Indeed, if the stars, being Gods, should contribute any thing to the sun towards their own destruction by contributing to its conflagration, it would be very ridiculous for us to make prayers to them for our salvation, and to think them the saviors of men, whose nature it is to accelerate their own corruption and dissolution.

> Greek: 31. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. ἀλλὰ, μὴ δοκῇ ταῦτα λογικωτέραν ἔχειν τὴν ἀπορίαν, ἁψώμεθα τῶν φυσικωτέρων. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν Ζεὺς ἀρχὴ Ζεὺς μέσσα Διὸς δʼ ἐκ πάντα τέτυκται ὡς αὐτοὶ λέγουσι, μάλιστα μὲν ἔδει τὰς περὶ θεῶν ἐννοίας, εἴ τι ταραχῶδες ἢ πλανητὸν ἐγγέγονεν αὐταῖς, ἰωμένους ἀπευθύνειν καὶ κατορθοῦν ἐπὶ τὸ βέλτιστον· εἰ δὲ μή, μεθέντας γʼ ἐᾶν ὡς ἔχουσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου ἕκαστοι καὶ τῆς συνηθείας πρὸς τὸ θεῖον.
οὐ γάρ τι νῦν γε κἀχθὲς ἀλλʼ ἀεί ποτε
ζῇ ταῦτα, κοὐδεὶς οἶδεν ἐξ ὅτου φάνη.
οἱ δʼ ὥσπερ ἀφʼ ἑστίας ἀρξάμενοι τὰ καθεστῶτα κινεῖν καὶ πάτρια τῆς περὶ θεῶν δόξης οὐδεμίαν, ὡς ἁπλῶς εἰπεῖν, ἔννοιαν ὑγιᾶ καὶ ἀκέραιον ἀπολελοίπασι. τίς γάρ ἐστιν ἄλλος ἀνθρώπων ἢ γέγονεν, ὃς οὐκ ἄφθαρτον νοεῖ καὶ ἀίδιον τὸ θεῖον; ἢ τί ἐν ταῖς κοιναῖς προλήψεσι περὶ θεῶν ὁμολογουμένως ἀναπεφώνηται μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ τοιαῦτα τῷ ἔνι τέρπονται μάκαρες θεοὶ ἤματα πάντα καί ἀθανάτων τε θεῶν χαμαὶ ἐρχομένων τʼ ἀν̔θρὡπων καὶ τὸ
κεῖνοι γάρ τʼ ἄνοσοι καὶ ἀγήραοι
πόνων τʼ ἄπειροι, βαρυβόαν
πορθμὸν πεφευγότες Ἀχέροντος;
καὶ ἴσως ἐντύχοι τις ἂν ἔθνεσι βαρβάροις καὶ ἀγρίοις θεὸν μὴ νοοῦσι, θεὸν δὲ νοῶν μὴ νοῶν δʼ ἄφθαρτον μηδʼ ἀίδιον, ἄνθρωπος; οὐδὲ εἷς γέγονεν. οἱ γοῦν ἄθεοι προσαγορευθέντες οὗτοι, Θεόδωροι καὶ Διαγόραι καὶ Ἵππωνες, οὐκ ἐτόλμησαν εἰπεῖν τὸ θεῖον ὅτι φθαρτόν ἐστιν, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐπίστευσαν ὡς ἔστι τι ἄφθαρτον τοῦ μὲν ἀφθάρτου τὴν ὕπαρξιν μὴ ἀπολείποντες τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ τὴν πρόληψιν φυλάττοντες. ἀλλὰ Χρύσιππος καὶ Κλεάνθης, ἐμπεπληκότες, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν, τῷ λόγῳ θεῶν τὸν οὐρανὸν τὴν γῆν τὸν ἀέρα τὴν θάλατταν, οὐδένα τῶν τοσούτων ἄφθαρτον οὐδʼ ἀίδιον ἀπολελοίπασι, πλὴν μόνου τοῦ Διός, εἰς ὃν πάντας καταναλίσκουσι τοὺς ἄλλους· ὥστε καὶ τούτῳ τὸ φθείρειν προσεῖναι τοῦ φθείρεσθαι μὴ ἐπιεικέστερον ἀσθενείᾳ γάρ τινι καὶ τὸ μεταβάλλον εἰς ἕτερον φθείρεται καὶ τὸ τοῖς ἄλλοις εἰς ἑαυτὸ φθειρομένοις τρεφόμενον σῴζεται. ταῦτα δʼ οὐχ ὡς ἄλλα πολλὰ τῶν ἀτόπων συλλογιζόμεθα ἔχειν τὰς ὑποθέσεις αὐτῶν καὶ τοῖς δόγμασιν ἕπεσθαι, ἀλλʼ αὐτοὶ μέγα βοῶντες ἐν τοῖς περὶ Θεῶν καὶ Προνοίας Εἱμαρμένης τε καὶ Φύσεως γράμμασι διαρρήδην λέγουσι τοὺς ἄλλους θεοὺς ἅπαντας εἶναι γεγονότας καὶ φθαρησομένους ὑπὸ πυρός, τηκτοὺς κατʼ αὐτοὺς ὥσπερ κηρίνους ἢ καττιτερίνους ὄντας. ἔστιν οὖν παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν, ὡς τὸ ἄνθρωπον ἀθάνατον εἶναι, καὶ τὸ θεὸν θνητὸν εἶναι μᾶλλον δʼ οὐχ ὁρῶ, τίς ἔσται θεοῦ πρὸς ἄνθρωπον διαφορά, εἰ καὶ ὁ θεὸς ζῷον λογικὸν καὶ φθαρτόν ἐστιν. ἢ γὰρ αὖ τὸ σοφὸν τοῦτο καὶ καλὸν ἀντιθῶσι, θνητὸν εἶναι τὸν ἄνθρωπον, οὐ θνητὸν δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἀλλὰ φθαρτόν, ὅρα τὸ συμβαῖνον αὐτοῖς· ἢ γὰρ ἀθάνατον εἶναι φήσουσιν ἅμα τὸν θεὸν καὶ φθαρτόν, ἢ μήτε θνητὸν εἶναι μήτε ἀθάνατον. ὧν οὐκ ἔστιν οὐδὲ πλάττοντας ἐξεπίτηδες ἕτερα παρὰ τὴν κοινὴν ἔννοιαν ὑπερβάλλειν τὴν ἀτοπίαν· λέγω δὲ τοὺς ἄλλους· ἐπεὶ τούτοις γε τῶν ἀτοπωτάτων οὐδὲν ἄρρητον οὐδʼ ἀνεπιχείρητόν ἐστι παρειμένον. ἔτι τοίνυν ἐπαγωνιζόμενος ὁ Κλεάνθης τῇ ἐκπυρώσει, λέγει τὴν σελήνην καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ ἄστρα τὸν ἥλιον ἐξομοιῶσαι πάντα ἑαυτῷ καὶ μεταβαλεῖν εἰς ἑαυτὸν ἀλλʼ ὅτι … οἱ ἀστέρες θεοὶ ὄντες πρὸς τὴν ἑαυτῶν φθορὰν συνεργοῦσι τῷ ἡλίῳ, συνεργοῦντὲς τι πρὸς τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν, πολὺς ἂν εἴη γέλως ἡμᾶς περὶ σωτηρίας αὐτοῖς προσεύχεσθαι καὶ σωτῆρας ἀνθρώπων νομίζειν, οἷς κατὰ φύσιν ἔστι τὸ σπεύδειν ἐπὶ τὴν αὑτῶν φθορὰν καὶ ἀναίρεσιν.

[¶4] 32. DIADUMENUS. And yet these men leave nothing unsaid against Epicurus, crying out, Fie, fie upon him, as confounding their presumption concerning God by taking away Providence; for God (they say) is presumed and understood to be not only immortal and happy, but also a lover of men and careful of them and beneficial to them; and herein they say true. Now if they who abolish Providence take away the pre-conception concerning God, what do they who say that the Gods indeed have care of us, but deny them to be helpful to us, and make them not bestowers of good things but of indifferent ones, giving, to wit, not virtue, but wealth, health, children, and such like things, none of which is helpful, profitable, desirable, or available? Or shall we not rather think, that the Epicureans do not take away the conceptions concerning the Gods; but that these Stoics scoff at the Gods and deride them, saying one is a God of fruits, another of marriage, another a physician, and another a diviner, while yet health, issue, and plenty of fruits are not good things, but indifferent things and unprofitable to those who have them?

> Greek: 32. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. καὶ μὴν αὐτοί γε πρὸς τὸν Ἐπίκουρον οὐδὲν ἀπολείπουσι τῶν πραγμάτων ἰοὺ, ἰού, φεῦ, φεῦ βοῶντες, ὡς συγχέοντα τὴν τῶν θεῶν πρόληψιν, ἀναιρουμένης τῆς προνοίας· οὐ γὰρ ἀθάνατον καὶ μακάριον μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ φιλάνθρωπον καὶ κηδεμονικὸν καὶ ὠφέλιμον προλαμβάνεσθαι καὶ νοεῖσθαι τὸν θεόν· ὅπερ ἀληθές ἐστιν. εἰ δʼ ἀναιροῦσι τὴν περὶ θεοῦ πρόληψιν οἱ μὴ ἀπολείποντες πρόνοιαν, τί ποιοῦσιν οἱ προνοεῖν μὲν ἡμῶν τοὺς θεοὺς λέγοντες μὴ ὠφελεῖν δʼ ἡμᾶς μηδʼ ἀγαθῶν εἶναι δωτῆρας ἀλλʼ ἀδιαφόρων, ἀρετὴν μὲν μὴ διδόντας πλοῦτον δὲ καὶ ὑγίειαν καὶ τέκνων γενέσεις καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα διδόντας, ὧν οὐδὲν ὠφέλιμον οὐδὲ λυσιτελὲς οὐδʼ αἱρετὸν οὐδὲ συμφέρον ἐστίν; ἢ ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὐκ ἀναιροῦσι τὰς περὶ θεῶν ἐννοίας, οὗτοι δὲ καὶ περιυβρίζουσι καὶ χλευάζουσιν, Ἐπικάρπιόν τινα θεὸν εἶναι λέγοντες καὶ Γενέθλιον καὶ Παιᾶνα καὶ Μαντικόν, οὐκ ὄντος ἀγαθοῦ τῆς ὑγιείας καὶ τῆς γενέσεως οὐδὲ τῆς πολυκαρπίας ἀλλʼ ἀδιαφόρων καὶ ἀνωφελῶν τοῖς λαμβάνουσι;

[¶5] 33. DIADUMENUS. The third point of the conception concerning the Gods is, that the Gods do in nothing so much differ from men as in happiness and virtue. But according to Chrysippus, they have not so much as this difference. For he says that Jupiter does not exceed Dion in virtue, but that Jupiter and Dion, being both wise, are equally aided by one another, when one falls into the motion of the other. For this and none else is the good which the Gods do to men, and likewise men to the Gods when they are wise. For they say, that a man who falls not short in virtue comes not behind them in felicity, and that he who, being tormented with diseases and being maimed in the body, makes himself away, is equally happy with Jupiter the Savior, provided he be but wise. But this man neither is nor ever was upon the earth; but there are infinite millions of men unhappy to the highest degree in the state and government of Jupiter, which is most excellently administered. Now what can be more against sense than that, when Jupiter governs exceedingly well, we should be exceedingly miserable? But if (which it is unlawful even to say) he would wish no longer to be a savior, nor a deliverer, nor a protector, but the contrary to all these glorious appellations, there can no goodness be added to the things that are, either as to their multitude or magnitude, since, as these men say, all men live to the height miserably and wickedly, neither vice receiving addition, nor unhappiness increase.

> Greek: 33. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. τὸ τρίτον τοίνυν τῆς περὶ θεῶν ἐννοίας ἐστὶ μηδενὶ τοσοῦτον τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων διαφέρειν, ὅσον εὐδαιμονίᾳ καὶ ἀρετῇ διαφέρουσιν. ἀλλὰ κατὰ Χρύσιππον οὐδὲ τοῦτο περίεστιν αὐτοῖς ἀρετῇ τε γὰρ οὐχ ὑπερέχειν τὸν Δία τοῦ Δίωνος ὠφελεῖσθαὶ θʼ ὁμοίως ὑπʼ ἀλλήλων τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν Δίωνα, σοφοὺς ὄντας, ὅταν ἕτερος θατέρου τυγχάνῃ κινουμένου τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν ὃ καὶ παρὰ θεῶν ἀνθρώποις ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχει καὶ θεοῖς παρʼ ἀνθρώπων, σοφῶν κινουμένου, ἄλλο δʼ οὔκ. ἀρετῇ δὲ μὴ ἀπολειπόμενον ἄνθρωπον οὐδὲν ἀποδεῖν εὐδαιμονίας λέγουσιν, ἀλλʼ ἐπίσης εἶναι μακάριον τῷ Διὶ τῷ σωτῆρι τὸν ἀτυχῆ, διὰ νόσους καὶ πηρώσεις σώματος ἐξάγοντα τοῦ ζῆν ἑαυτόν, εἴπερ εἴη σοφός. ἔστι δʼ οὗτος οὐδαμοῦ γῆς οὐδὲ γέγονεν· ἄπλετοι δὲ μυριάδες ἀνθρώπων κακοδαιμονοῦντες ἐπʼ ἄκρον ἐν τῇ τοῦ Διὸς πολιτείᾳ καὶ ἀρχῇ τὴν ἀρίστην ἐχούσῃ διοίκησιν. καίτοι τί μᾶλλον ἂν γένοιτο παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἤ, τοῦ Διὸς ὡς ἔνι ἄριστα διοικοῦντος, ἡμᾶς ὡς ἔνι χείριστα πράσσειν; εἰ γοῦν, ὃ μηδὲ θέμις ἐστὶν εἰπεῖν, ἐθελήσειε μὴ Σωτὴρ μηδὲ Μειλίχιος εἶναι μηδʼ Ἀλεξίκακος, ἀλλὰ τἀναντία τῶν καλῶν τούτων προσηγοριῶν, οὐδὲν ἔστι προσθεῖναι τοῖς οὖσι κακὸν οὔτʼ εἰς πλῆθος οὔτʼ εἰς μέγεθος ὡς οὗτοι λέγουσι, πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐπʼ ἄκρον ἀθλίως καὶ μοχθηρῶς βιούντων καὶ μηδὲ τῆς κακίας ἐπίδοσιν μηδʼ ὑπερβολὴν τῆς κακοδαιμονίας δεχομένης.

[¶6] 34. DIADUMENUS. Nor is this the worst; but they are angry with Menander for saying upon the stage,
The chief beginning of men’s miseries
Are things exceeding good;
for that this is against sense. And yet they make God, who is good, the beginning of evils. “For matter,” they say, “produced not any evil of itself; for it is without quality, and whatever differences it has, it has received them all from that which moves and forms it.” But that which moves and forms it is the reason dwelling in it, since it is not made to move and form itself. So that of necessity evil, if it come by nothing, must have been produced from that which has no being; but if by some moving principle, from God. But if they think that Jupiter has not the command of his parts nor uses every one of them according to his reason, they speak against common sense, and imagine an animal, many of whose parts are not subservient to his will but use their own operations and actions, to which the whole gives no incitation nor begins their motion. For there is nothing which has life so ill compacted as that, against its will, its feet shall go, its tongue speak, its horns push, or its teeth bite. The most of which things God must of necessity suffer, if the wicked, being parts of him, do against his will lie, cheat, rob, and murder one another. But if, as Chrysippus says, the very least part cannot possibly behave itself otherwise than according to Jupiter’s pleasure, and if every living thing is so framed by Nature as to rest and move according as he inclines it and as he turns, stays, and disposes it, “This saying is more impious than the first.” For it were more tolerable to say that many parts of Jupiter are, through his weakness and want of power, hurried on to do many absurd things against his nature and will, than that there is not any intemperance or wickedness of which Jupiter is not the cause. Moreover, since they affirm the world to be a city and the stars citizens, if this be so, there must be also tribes-men and magistrates, the sun must be some consul, and the evening star a praetor or mayor of a city. Now I know not whether any one that shall go about to confute such things will not show himself more absurd than those who assert and affirm them.

> Greek: 34. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. οὐ μὴν ἐνταῦθα τὸ δεινότατόν ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ Μενάνδρῳ μὲν εἰπόντι θεατρικῶς
ἀρχὴ μεγίστη τῶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις κακῶν
τὰ λίαν ἀγαθὰ
δυσκολαίνουσι. τοῦτο γὰρ εἶναι παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν αὐτοὶ δὲ τῶν κακῶν ἀρχὴν ἀγαθὸν ὄντα τὸν θεὸν ποιοῦσιν. οὐ γὰρ ἥ γʼ ὕλη τὸ κακὸν ἐξ ἑαυτῆς παρέσχηκεν ἄποιος γάρ ἐστι καὶ πάσας ὅσας δέχεται διαφορὰς ὑπὸ τοῦ κινοῦντος αὐτὴν καὶ σχηματίζοντος ἔσχε. κινεῖ δʼ αὐτὴν ὁ λόγος ἐνυπάρχων καὶ σχηματίζει, μήτε κινεῖν ἑαυτὴν μήτε σχηματίζειν πεφυκυῖαν. ὥστʼ ἀνάγκη τὸ κακόν, εἰ μὲν διʼ οὐδέν, ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος· εἰ δὲ διὰ τὴν κινοῦσαν ἀρχήν, ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ γεγονὸς ὑπάρχειν. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μὲν οἴονται τὸν Δία μὴ κρατεῖν τῶν ἑαυτοῦ μερῶν μηδὲ χρῆσθαι κατὰ τὸν αὑτοῦ λόγον ἑκάστῳ; παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν λέγουσι καὶ πλάττουσι ζῷον, οὗ πολλὰ τῶν μορίων ἐκφεύγει τὴν βούλησιν, ἰδίαις ἐνεργείαις χρώμενα καὶ πράξεσιν, αἷς τὸ ὅλον ὁρμὴν οὐ δίδωσιν οὐδὲ κατάρχει κινήσεως. οὕτω γὰρ κακῶς οὐδὲν συντέτακται τῶν ψυχὴν ἐχόντων, ὥστʼ ἀβουλοῦντος αὐτοῦ προϊέναι πόδας ἢ φθέγγεσθαι γλῶτταν ἢ κέρα κυρίττειν ἢ δάκνειν ὀδόντας· ὧν ἀνάγκη τὰ πλεῖστα πάσχειν τὸν θεόν, εἰ παρὰ τὴν βούλησιν αὐτοῦ μέρη ὄντες οἱ φαῦλοι ψεύδονται καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦσι καὶ τοιχωρυχοῦσι καὶ ἀποκτιννύουσιν ἀλλήλους. εἰ δέ, ὥς φησι Χρύσιππος, οὐδὲ τοὐλάχιστον ἔστι τῶν μερῶν ἔχειν ἄλλως ἀλλʼ ἢ κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Διὸς βούλησιν, ἀλλὰ πᾶν μὲν ἔμψυχον οὕτως ἴσχεσθαι καὶ οὕτω κινεῖσθαι πέφυκεν, ὡς ἐκεῖνος ἄγει κἀκεῖνος ἐπιστρέφει καὶ ἴσχει καὶ διατίθησιν ὅδʼ αὖτʼ ἐκείνου φθόγγος ἐξωλέστερος. ἑ μυριάκις γὰρ ἦν ἐπιεικέστερον ἀσθενείᾳ καὶ ἀδυναμίᾳ τοῦ Διὸς ἐκβιαζόμενα τὰ μέρη πολλὰ δρᾶν ἄτοπα παρὰ τὴν ἐκείνου φύσιν καὶ βούλησιν, ἢ μήτʼ ἀκρασίαν εἶναι μήτε κακουργίαν, ἧς οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ Ζεὺς αἴτιος. ἀλλὰ μὴν τόν γε κόσμον εἶναι πόλιν καὶ πολίτας τοὺς ἀστέρας, εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ φυλέτας καὶ ἄρχοντας δηλονότι καὶ βουλευτὴν τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὸν ἕσπερον πρύτανιν ἢ ἀστυνόμον, οὐκ οἶδα μὴ τοὺς ἐλέγχοντας τὰ τοιαῦτα τῶν λεγόντων καὶ ἀποφαινομένων ἀποδείκνυσιν ἀτοπωτέρους.

[¶7] 35. DIADUMENUS. Is it not therefore against sense to say that the seed is more and greater than that which is produced of it? For we see that Nature in all animals and plants, even those that are wild, has taken small, slender, and scarce visible things for principles of generation to the greatest. For it does not only from a grain of wheat produce an ear-bearing stalk, or a vine from the stone of a grape; but from a small berry or acorn which has escaped being eaten by the bird, kindling and setting generation on fire (as it were) from a little spark, it sends forth the stock of a bush, or the tall body of an oak, palm, or pine tree. Whence also they say that seed is in Greek called σπέρμα, as it were, the σπείρασις or the coiling up of a great mass in a little compass; and that Nature has the name of φύσις, as if it were the inflation (ἐμφύσησις) and diffusion of reason and numbers opened and loosened by it. But now, in opposition to this, they maintain that fire is the seed of the world, which shall after the conflagration change into seed the world, which will then have a copious nature from a smaller body and bulk, and possess an infinite space of vacuum filled by its increase; and the world being made, the size again recedes and settles, the matter being after the generation gathered and contracted into itself.

> Greek: 35. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. ἀλλὰ τῶν φυσικωτέρων λεγομένων ἆρʼ οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστι σπέρμα πλέον εἶναι καὶ μεῖζον ἢ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐξ αὐτοῦ; τὴν γοῦν φύσιν ὁρῶμεν πᾶσι καὶ ζῴοις καὶ φυτοῖς καὶ ἡμέροις καὶ ἀγρίοις ἀρχὰς τὰ μικρὰ καὶ γλίσχρα καὶ μόλις ὁρατὰ τῆς τῶν μεγίστων γενέσεως λαμβάνουσαν. οὐ γὰρ ἐκ πυροῦ στάχυν οὐδʼ ἄμπελον ἐκ γιγάρτου μόνον, ἀλλʼ ἐκ πυρῆνος βαλάνου τινὸς ὄρνεον διαφυγούσης ὥσπερ ἐκ μικροῦ τινος σπινθῆρος ἐξάψασα καὶ ῥιπίσασα τὴν γένεσιν, ἔρνος ἢ βάτου ἢ δρυὸς ἢ φοίνικος ἢ πεύκης περιμήκιστον ἀναδίδωσιν, καί φασιν
τὸ μὲν σπέρμα τὴν ἐπὶ μικρὸν ὄγκον ἐκ πολλοῦ σπείρασιν ὠνομάσθαι, τὴν δὲ φύσιν ἐμφύσησιν οὖσαν καὶ διάχυσιν τῶν ὑπʼ αὐτῆς ἀνοιγομένων καὶ λυομένων λόγων ἢ ἀριθμῶν. ἀλλὰ τοῦ τε κόσμου πάλιν τὸ πῦρ ὃ σπέρμα λέγουσιν εἶναι καὶ μετὰ τὴν ἐκπύρωσιν εἰς σπέρμα μετέβαλε τὸν κόσμον ἐκ βραχυτέρου σώματος καὶ ὄγκου, φύσιν ἔχοντα πολλὴν καὶ τοῦ κενοῦ προσεπιλαμβάνοντα χώραν ἄπλετον ἐπινεμομένην τῇ αὐξήσει, γεννωμένου δʼ αὖθις ὑποχωρεῖν τὸ μέγεθος καὶ συνολισθάνειν, δυομένης καὶ συναγομένης περὶ τὴν γένεσιν εἰς ἑαυτὴν τῆς ὕλης.

[¶8] 36. DIADUMENUS. You may hear them and read many of their writings, in which they jangle with the Academics, and cry out against them as confounding all things with their doctrine of indistinguishable identity, and as vehemently contending that there is but one quality in two substances. And yet there is no man who understands not this, and would not on the contrary think it wonderful and extremely strange if there should not in all time be found a dove exactly and in all respects like to another dove, a bee to a bee, a grain of wheat to a grain of wheat, or (as the proverb has it) one fig to another. But these things are plainly against common sense which the Stoics say and feign,—that there are in one substance two particular qualities, and that the same substance, which has particularly one quality, when another quality is added, receives and equally conserves them both. For if there may be two, there may be also three, four, and five, and even more than you can name, in one and the same substance; I say not in its different parts, but all alike in the whole, though ever infinite in number. For Chrysippus says, that Jupiter and the world are like to man, as is also Providence to the soul; when therefore the conflagration shall be, Jupiter, who alone of all the Gods is incorruptible, will retire into Providence, and they being together, will both perpetually remain in the one substance of the ether.

> Greek: 36. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. ἀκοῦσαι τοίνυν ἔστιν αὐτῶν καὶ γράμμασιν ἐντυχεῖν πολλοῖς πρὸς τοὺς Ἀκαδημαϊκοὺς διαφερομένων καὶ βοώντων, ὡς πάντα πράγματα συγχέουσι ταῖς ἀπαραλλαξίαις, ἐπὶ δυεῖν οὐσιῶν ἕνα ποιὸν εἶναι βιαζόμενοι καίτοι τοῦτο μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν ὅστις ἀνθρώπων οὐ διανοεῖται, καὶ τοὐναντίον οἴεται θαυμαστὸν εἶναι καὶ παράδοξον, εἰ μήτε φάττα φάττῃ μήτε μελίττῃ μέλιττα μήτε πυρῷ πυρὸς ἢ σύκῳ τὸ τοῦ λόγου σῦκον ἐν τῷ παντὶ χρόνῳ γέγονεν ἀπαράλλακτον. ἐκεῖνα δʼ ὄντως; παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστιν, ἃ λέγουσιν οὗτοι καὶ πλάττουσιν, ἐπὶ μιᾶς οὐσίας δύʼ ἰδίως; γενέσθαι ποιοὺς καὶ τὴν αὐτὴν οὐσίαν ἕνα ποιὸν ἰδίως ἔχουσαν ἐπιόντος ἑτέρου δέχεσθαι καὶ διαφυλάττειν ὁμοίως ἀμφοτέρους. εἰ γὰρ δύο, καὶ τρεῖς καὶ τέτταρες ἔσονται καὶ πέντε καὶ ὅσους οὐκ ἄν τις εἴποι περὶ μίαν οὐσίαν· λέγω δʼ οὐκ ἐν μέρεσι διαφόροις, ἀλλὰ πάντας ὁμοίως περὶ ὅλην τοὺς ἀπείρους. λέγει γοῦν Χρύσιππος ἐοικέναι τῷ μὲν ἀνθρώπῳ τὸν Δία καὶ τὸν κόσμον τῇ δὲ ψυχῇ τὴν πρόνοιαν· ὅταν οὖν ἐκπύρωσις γένηται, μόνον ἄφθαρτον ὄντα τὸν Δία τῶν θεῶν ἀναχωρεῖν ἐπὶ τὴν πρόνοιαν, εἶθʼ ὁμοῦ γενομένους ἐπὶ μιᾶς τῆς τοῦ αἰθέρος οὐσίας διατελεῖν ἀμφοτέρους ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ.

[¶9] 37. DIADUMENUS. But leaving now the Gods, and beseeching them to give these Stoics common sense and a common understanding, let us look into their doctrines concerning the elements. It is against the common conceptions that one body should be the place of another, or that a body should penetrate through a body, neither of them containing any vacuity, but the full passing into the full, and that which has no vacuity—but is full and has no place by reason of its continuity—receiving the mixture. But these men, not thrusting one thing into one, nor yet two or three or ten together, but jumbling all the parts of the world, being cut piecemeal, into any one thing which they shall first light on, and saying that the very least which is perceived by sense will contain the greatest that shall come unto it, boldly frame a new doctrine, convicting themselves here, as in many other things, of taking for their suppositions things repugnant to common sense. And presently upon this they are forced to admit into their discourse many monstrous and strange positions, mixing whole bodies with whole; of which this also is one, that three are four. For this others put as an example of those things which cannot be conceived even in thought. But to the Stoics it is a matter of truth, that when one cup of wine is mixed with two of water, if it is not to be lost but the mixture is to be equalized, it must be extended through the whole and be confounded therewith, so as to make that which was one two by the equalization of the mixture. For the one remains, but is extended as much as two, and thus is equal to the double of itself. Now if it happens in the mixture with two to take the measure of two in the diffusion, this is together the measure both of three and four,—of three because one is mixed with two, and of four because, being mixed with two, it has an equal quantity with those with which it is mixed. Now this fine subtilty is a consequence of their putting bodies into a body, and so likewise is the unintelligibleness of the manner how one is contained in the other. For it is of necessity that, of bodies passing one into another by mixture, the one should not contain and the other be contained, nor the one receive and the other be received within; for this would not be a mixture, but a contiguity and touching of the superficies, the one entering in, and the other enclosing it without, and the rest of the parts remaining unmixed and pure, and so it would be merely many different things. But there being a necessity, according to their axiom of mixture, that the things which are mixed should be mingled one within the other, and that the same things should together be contained by being within, and by receiving contain the other, and that neither of them could possibly exist again as it was before, it comes to pass that both the subjects of the mixture mutually penetrate each other, and that there is not any part of either remaining separate, but that they are necessarily all filled with each other. DIADUMENUS. Here now that famous leg of Arcesilaus comes in, with much laughter insulting over their absurdities; for if these mixtures are through the whole, what should hinder but that, a leg being cut off and putrefied and cast into the sea and diffused, not only Antigonus’s fleet (as Arcesilaus said) might sail through it, but also Xerxes’s twelve hundred ships, together with the Grecians’ three hundred galleys, might fight in it? For the progress will not henceforth fail, nor the lesser cease to be in the greater; or else the mixture will be at an end, and the extremity of it, touching where it shall end, will not pass through the whole, but will give over being mingled. But if the mixture is through the whole, the leg will not indeed of itself afford the Greeks room for the sea-fight, for to this there is need of putrefaction and change; but if one glass or but one drop of wine shall fall from hence into the Aegean or Cretan Sea, it will pass into the Ocean or main Atlantic Sea, not lightly touching its superficies, but being spread quite through it in depth, breadth, and length. And this Chrysippus admits, saying immediately in his First Book of Natural Questions, that there is nothing to hinder one drop of wine from being mixed with the whole sea. And that we may not wonder at this, he says that this one drop will by mixtion extend through the whole world; than which I know not any thing that can appear more absurd.

> Greek: 37. ἀφέντες οὖν ἤδη τοὺς θεοὺς καὶ προσευξάμενοι κοινὰς φρένας διδόναι καὶ κοινὸν νοῦν, τὰ περὶ στοιχείων πῶς ἔχει αὐτοῖς ἴδωμεν. παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστι. σῶμα σώματος εἶναι τόπον καὶ σῶμα χωρεῖν διὰ σώματος, κενὸν μηδετέρου περιέχοντος, ἀλλὰ τοῦ πλήρους εἰς τὸ πλῆρες ἐνδυομένου καὶ δεχομένου τὸ ἐπιμιγνύμενον τοῦ διάστασιν οὐκ ἔχοντος οὐδὲ χώραν ἐν αὑτῷ διὰ τὴν συνέχειαν. οἱ δʼ οὐχ ἓν εἰς ἓν οὐδὲ δύο οὐδὲ τρία καὶ δέκα συνωθοῦντες, ἀλλὰ πάντα μέρη τοῦ κόσμου κατακερματισθέντος ἐμβάλλοντες εἰς ἓν ὅ τι ἂν τύχωσι, καὶ τοὐλάχιστον αἰσθητὸν ἐπιφάσκοντες ἐπιλείψειν ἐπιόντι τῷ μεγίστῳ νεανιεύονται, δόγμα ποιούμενοι τὸν ἔλεγχον, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις πολλοῖς, ἅτε δὴ μαχομένας ὑποθέσεις ταῖς ἐννοίαις λαμβάνοντες. αὐτίκα γοῦν τῷ λόγῳ τούτῳ πολλὰ τερατώδη καὶ ἀλλόκοτα προσδέχεσθαι τοὺς τὰ σώματα τοῖς σώμασιν ὅλοις ὅλα κεραννύντας. ὧν ἐστι καὶ τὸ τὰ τρία τέσσαρα εἶναι· τουτὶ γὰρ οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι λέγουσιν ἐν ὑπερβολῇ παράδειγμα τῶν ἀδιανοήτων τούτοις δὲ συμβαίνει τὸν ἕνα κύαθον τοῦ οἴνου πρὸς δύο κεραννύμενον ὕδατος, εἰ μέλλει μὴ ἀπολείπειν ἀλλʼ ἐξισοῦσθαι, παράγοντας ἐπὶ πᾶν καὶ διασυγχέοντας ἕνʼ ὄντα δύο ποιεῖν τῇ πρὸς τὰ δύο τῆς κράσεως ἐξισώσει τὸ γὰρ μένειν ἕνα καὶ δυεῖν παρεκτείνειν καὶ ποιεῖν ἴσον τῷ διπλασίῳ· ἔτι δʼ, ὅπως ἐξίκηται τῇ κράσει πρὸς τοὺς δύο, δυεῖν λαμβάνειν μέτρον ἐν τῇ διαχύσει, τοῦτο μέτρον ἅμα καὶ τριῶν ἐστι καὶ τεσσάρων· τριῶν μέν, ὅτι τοῖς δύο εἷς μέμικται· τεσσάρων δέ, ὅτι δυσὶ μεμιγμένος ἴσον ἔσχηκε πλῆθος οἷς μίγνυται. τοῦτό δὴ συμβαίνει τὸ καλὸν αὐτοῖς, ἐμβάλλουσιν εἰς; σῶμα σώματα, καὶ τὸ τῆς περιοχῆς ἀδιανόητον. ἀνάγκη γάρ, εἰς ἄλληλα χωρούντων τῷ κεράννυσθαι, μὴ θάτερον μὲν περιέχειν περιέχεσθαι δὲ θάτερον, καὶ τὸ μὲν δέχεσθαι τὸ δʼ ἐνυπάρχειν οὕτω γὰρ οὐ κρᾶσις ἁφὴ δὲ καὶ ψαῦσις ἔσται τῶν ἐπιφανειῶν, τῆς μὲν ἐντὸς ὑποδυομένης τῆς δʼ ἐκτὸς περιεχούσης, τῶν δʼ ἄλλων μερῶν ἀμίκτων καὶ καθαρῶν ἐνδιαφερομένων· ἀλλʼ ἀνάγκη, γιγνομένης ὥσπερ ἀξιοῦσι τῆς ἀνακράσεως, ἐν ἀλλήλοις ιὰ μιγνύμενα γίγνεσθαι καὶ ταὐτὸν ὁμοῦ τῷ ἐνυπάρχειν περιέχεσθαι καὶ τῷ δέχεσθαι περιέχειν θάτερον καὶ μηδʼ ἕτερον αὐτῶν αὖ πάλιν δυνατὸν εἶναι, συμβαίνειν δʼ ἀμφότερα, τῆς κράσεως διʼ ἀλλήλων διιέναι καὶ μηδὲν ἐπιλείπεσθαι μηδενὸς μόριον ἀλλὰ πᾶν παντὸς ἀναπίμπλασθαι βιαζομένης. ἐνταῦθα δήπου καὶ τὸ θρυλούμενον ἐν ταῖς διατριβαῖς Ἀρκεσιλάου σκέλος; ἥκει ταῖς ἀτοπίαις ἐπεμβαῖνον αὐτῶν μετὰ γέλωτος. εἰ γάρ εἰσιν αἱ κράσεις διʼ ὅλων, τί κωλύει, τοῦ σκέλους ἀποκοπέντος καὶ κατασαπέντος καὶ ῥιφέντος εἰς τὴν θάλατταν καὶ διαχυθέντος, οὐ τὸν Ἀντιγόνου μόνον στόλον διεκπλεῖν, ὡς ἔλεγεν Ἀρκεσίλαος, ἀλλὰ τὰς Ξέρξου χιλίας καὶ διακοσίας καὶ τὰς Ἑλληνικὰς ὁμοῦ τριακοσίας τριήρεις ἐν τῷ σκέλει ναυμαχούσας; οὐ γὰρ ἐπιλείψει δήπουθεν προϊὸν οὐδὲ παύσεται ἐν τῷ μείζονι τοὔλαττον ἢ πέρας ἡ κρᾶσις ἕξει καὶ τὸ τελευταῖον αὐτῆς ἁφὴν ὅπου λήγει ποιησάμενον εἰς ὅλον οὐ δίεισιν ἀλλʼ ἀπαγορεύει μιγνύμενον. εἰ δὲ μεμίξεται διʼ ὅλων, οὐ μὰ Δία τὸ σκέλος ἐνναυμαχῆσαι παρέξει τοῖς Ἕλλησιν· ἀλλὰ τοῦτο μὲν δεῖται σήψεως καὶ μεταβολῆς· εἷς δέ τις κύαθος; ἢ μία σταγὼν αὐτόθεν εἰς τὸ Αἰγαῖον ἐμπεσοῦσα πέλαγος ἢ τὸ Κρητικὸν ἐφίξεται τοῦ Ὠκεανοῦ καὶ τῆς Ἀτλαντικῆς θαλάσσης, οὐκ ἐπιπολῆς ψαύουσα τῆς ἐπιφανείας ἀλλὰ πάντῃ διὰ βάθους εἰς πλάτος ὁμοῦ καὶ μῆκος ἀναχεομένη. καὶ ταῦτα προσδέχεται Χρύσιππος εὐθὺς ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν Ζητημάτων οὐδὲν ἀπέχειν φάμενος οἴνου σταλαγμὸν ἕνα κεράσαι τὴν θάλατταν· καὶ ἵνα δὴ μὴ τοῦτο θαυμάζωμεν, εἰς ὅλον φησὶ τὸν κόσμον διατενεῖν τῇ κράσει τὸν σταλαγμόν ὧν οὐκ οἶδα τί ἂν ἀτοπώτερον φανείη.

[¶10] 38. DIADUMENUS. And this also is against sense, that there is not in the nature of bodies any thing either supreme or first or last, in which the magnitude of the body may terminate; but that there is always some phenomenon beyond the assumed body, and that this still going on carries the subject to infinity and undeterminateness. For one body cannot be imagined greater or less than another, if both of them may by their parts proceed in infinitum; but the nature of inequality is taken away. For of things that are esteemed unequal, the one falls short in its last parts, and the other goes on and exceeds. Now if there is no inequality, it follows that there is no unevenness nor roughness of bodies; for unevenness is the inequality of the same superficies with itself, and roughness is an unevenness joined with hardness; neither of which is left us by those who terminate no body in its last part, but extend them all by the multitude of their parts unto an infinity. And yet is it not evident that a man consists of more parts than a finger, and the world of more than a man? This indeed all men know and understand, unless they become Stoics; but if they are once Stoics, they on the contrary say and think that a man has no more parts than a finger, nor the world than a man. For division reduces bodies to an infinity; and of infinites neither is more or less or exceeds in multitude, or the parts of the remainder will cease to be divided and to afford a multitude of themselves. LAMPRIAS. How then do they extricate themselves out of these difficulties? DIADUMENUS. Surely with very great cunning and courage. For Chrysippus says: “If we are asked, if we have any parts, and how many, and of what and how many parts they consist, we are to use a distinction, making it a position that the whole body is compacted of the head, trunk, and legs, as if that were all which is enquired and doubted of. But if they extend their interrogation to the last parts, no such thing is to be undertaken, but we are to say that they consist not of any certain parts, nor yet of so many, nor of infinite, nor of finite.” And I seem to myself to have used his very words, that you may perceive how he maintains the common notions, forbidding us to think of what or how many parts every body is compacted, and whether of infinite or finite. For if there were any medium between finite and infinite, as the indifferent is between good and evil, he should, by telling us what that is, have solved the difficulty. But if—as that which is not equal is presently understood to be unequal, and that which is not mortal to be immortal—we also understand that which is not finite to be immediately infinite, to say that a body consists of parts neither finite nor infinite is, in my opinion, the same thing as to affirm that an argument is compacted of positions neither true nor false … DIADUMENUS.

> Greek: 38. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. καὶ μὴν παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν μήτʼ ἄκρον ἐν τῇ φύσει τῶν σωμάτων μήτε πρῶτον μήτʼ ἔσχατον μηδέν, εἰς ὃ λήγει τὸ μέγεθος τοῦ σώματος, ἀλλʼ ἀεί τι τοῦ ληφθέντος ἐπέκεινα φαινόμενον εἰς ἄπειρον καὶ ἀόριστον ἐμβάλλειν τὸ ὑποκείμενον. οὔτε γὰρ μεῖζον οὔτε ἔλαττον ἔσται νοεῖν ἕτερον ἑτέρου μέγεθος, εἰ τὸ προϊέναι τοῖς μέρεσιν ἐπʼ ἄπειρον ἀμφοτέροις συμβέβηκεν, ἀλλʼ ἀνισότητος αἴρεται φύσις ἀνίσων γὰρ νοουμένων, τὸ μὲν προαπολείπεται τοῖς ἐσχάτοις μέρεσι τὸ δὲ παραλλάττει καὶ περίεστι· μὴ οὔσης δʼ ἀνισότητος, ἕπεται μὴ ἀνωμαλίαν εἶναι μηδὲ τραχύτητα σώματος· ἀνωμαλία μὲν γάρ ἐστι μιᾶς ἐπιφανείας ἀνισότης πρὸς ἑαυτήν, τραχύτης δʼ ἀνωμαλία μετὰ σκληρότητος· ὧν οὐδὲν ἀπολείπουσιν οἱ σῶμα εἰς ἔσχατον μέρος περαίνοντες ἀλλὰ πάντα πλήθει μερῶν ἐπʼ ἄπειρον ἐξάγοντες καίτοι πῶς οὐκ ἐναργές ἐστι τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐκ πλειόνων συνεστηκέναι μορίων ἢ τὸν δάκτυλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ πάλιν τὸν κόσμον ἢ τὸν ἄνθρωπον; ταῦτα γὰρ ἐπίστανται καὶ διανοοῦνται πάντες, ἂν μὴ Στωικοὶ γένωνται γενόμενοι δὲ Στωικοὶ τἀναντία λέγουσι καὶ δοξάζουσιν, ὡς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ πλειόνων μορίων ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἢ ὁ δάκτυλος οὐδʼ ὁ κόσμος ἢ ὁ ἄνθρωπος· ἐπʼ ἄπειρον γὰρ ἡ τομὴ προάγει τὰ σώματα· τῶν δʼ ἀπείρων οὐδέν ἐστι πλέον οὐδʼ ἔλαττον οὐδʼ ὅλως ὑπερβάλλει πλῆθος, ἢ παύσεται τὰ μέρη τοῦ ὑπολειπομένου μεριζόμενα καὶ παρέχοντα πλῆθος ἐξ αὑτῶν ὁτισοῦν. ΛΑΜΠΡ. Πῶς οὖν ἀμύνονται ταύτας; τὰς ἀπορίας; ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ.. εὐμηχάνως κομιδῇ καὶ ἀνδρείως λέγει γὰρ ὁ Χρύσιππος ἐρωτωμένους ἡμᾶς, εἴ τινα ἔχομεν μέρη καὶ πόσα καὶ ἐκ τίνων συγκείμενα μερῶν καὶ πόσων, διαστολῇ χρήσεσθαι, τὸ μὲν ὁλοσχερὲς τιθέντας, ὡς ἐκ κεφαλῆς καὶ θώρακος καὶ σκελῶν συγκείμεθα τοῦτο γὰρ ἦν πᾶν τὸ ζητούμενον καὶ ἀπορούμενον ἐὰν δʼ ἐπὶ τὰ ἔσχατα μέρη τὸ ἐρωτᾶν προάγωσιν, οὐδέν φησὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἐστὶν ὑποληπτέον, ἀλλὰ ῥητέον οὔτʼ ἔκ τινων συνεστάναι καὶ ὁμοίως οὔτʼ ἐξ ὁποσωνοῦν οὔτʼ ἐξ ἀπείρων οὔτʼ ἐκ πεπερασμένων. καί μοι δοκῶ ταῖς ἐκείνου κεχρῆσθαι λέξεσιν αὐταῖς, ὅπως συνίδῃς ὃν τρόπον διεφύλαττε τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας, κελεύων ἡμᾶς νοεῖν τῶν σωμάτων ἕκαστον οὔτʼ ἔκ τινων οὔτʼ ἐξ ὁποσωνοῦν μερῶν οὔτʼ ἐξ ἀπείρων οὔτʼ ἐκ πεπερασμένων συγκείμενον. εἰ μὲν γάρ, ὡς ἀγαθοῦ καὶ κακοῦ τὸ ἀδιάφορον, οὕτω πεπερασμένου τι καὶ ἀπείρου μέσον ἐστίν, εἰπόντα τί τοῦτʼ ἐστὶν ἔδει λῦσαι τὴν ἀπορίαν· εἰ δέ, ὡς τὸ μὴ ἴσον εὐθὺς ἄνισον καὶ τὸ μὴ φθαρτὸν ἄφθαρτον, οὕτω τὸ μὴ πεπερασμένον ἄπειρον νοοῦμεν, ὅμοιόν ἐστιν, οἶμαι, τῷ τὸ σῶμα εἶναι μήτʼ ἐκ πεπερασμένων μήτʼ ἐξ ἀπείρων καὶ λόγον εἶναι μήτʼ ἐξ ἀληθῶν λημμάτων μήτʼ ἐκ ψευδῶν μήτʼ ἐξ … ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ.