39. To this he with a certain youthful rashness adds, that in a pyramid consisting of triangles, the sides inclining to the juncture are unequal, and yet do not exceed one another in that they are greater. Thus does he keep the common notions. For if there is any thing greater and not exceeding, there will be also something less and not deficient, and so also something unequal which neither exceeds nor is deficient; that is, there will be an unequal thing equal, a greater not greater, and a less not less. See it yet farther, in what manner he answered Democritus, enquiring philosophically and properly, if a cone is divided by a plane parallel with its base, what is to be thought of the superficies of its segments, whether they are equal or unequal; for if they are unequal, they will render the cone uneven, receiving many step-like incisions and roughnesses; but if they are equal, the sections will be equal, and the cone will seem to have the same qualities as the cylinder, to wit, to be composed not of unequal but of equal circles; which is most absurd. Here, that he may convince Democritus of ignorance, he says, that the superficies are neither equal or unequal, but that the bodies are unequal, because the superficies are neither equal nor unequal. Indeed to assert this for a law, that bodies are unequal while the superficies are not unequal, is the part of a man who takes to himself a wonderful liberty of writing whatever comes into his head. For reason and manifest evidence, on the contrary, give us to understand, that the superficies of unequal bodies are unequal, and that the bigger the body is, the greater also is the superficies, unless the excess, by which it is the greater, is void of a superficies. For if the superficies of the greater bodies do not exceed those of the less, but sooner fail, a part of that body which has an end will be without an end and infinite. For if he says that he is compelled to this, … For those rabbeted incisions, which he suspects in a cone, are made by the inequality of the body, and not of the superficies. It is ridiculous therefore to take the superficies out of the account, and after all to leave the inequality in the bodies themselves. But to persist still in this matter, what is more repugnant to sense than the imagining of such things? For if we admit that one superficies is neither equal nor unequal to another, we may say also of magnitude and of number, that one is neither equal nor unequal to another; and this, not having any thing that we can call or think to be a neuter or medium between equal and unequal. Besides, if there are superficies neither equal nor unequal, what hinders but there may be also circles neither equal nor unequal? For indeed these superficies of conic sections are circles. And if circles, why may not also their diameters be neither equal nor unequal? And if so, why not also angles, triangles, parallelograms, parallelepipeds, and bodies? For if the longitudes are neither equal nor unequal to one another, so will the weight, percussion, and bodies be neither equal nor unequal. How then dare these men inveigh against those who introduce vacuities, and suppose that there are some indivisible atoms, and who say that motion and rest are not inconsistent with each other, when themselves affirm such axioms as these to be false: If any things are not equal to one another, they are unequal to one another; and the same things are not equal and unequal to one another? But when he says that there is something greater and yet not exceeding, it were worth the while to ask, whether these things quadrate with one another. For if they quadrate, how is either the greater? And if they do not quadrate, how can it be but the one must exceed and the other fall short? For if neither of these be, the other both will and will not quadrate with the greater. For those who keep not the common conceptions must of necessity fall into such perplexities.
39. ἐπὶ δὲ τούτοις ἐπινεανιευόμενός φησι τῆς πυραμίδος ἐκ τριγώνων συνισταμένης τὰς πλευρὰς κατὰ τὴν συναφὴν ἐγκεκλιμένας ἀνίσους μὲν εἶναι, μὴ ὑπερέχον δʼ ᾗ μείζονές εἰσιν οὕτως ἐτήρει τὰς ἐννοίας. εἰ γὰρ ἔστι τι μεῖζον καὶ μὴ ὑπερέχον, ἔσται τι μικρότερον καὶ μὴ ἐλλεῖπον· ὥστε καὶ ἄνισον μήθʼ ὑπερέχον μήτʼ ἐλλεῖπον, τουτέστιν ἴσον τὸ ἄνισον καὶ οὐ μεῖζον τὸ μεῖζον οὐδὲ μικρότερον τὸ μικρότερον. ἔτι τοίνυν ὅρα τίνα τρόπον ἀπήντησε Δημοκρίτῳ, διαποροῦντι φυσικῶς καὶ ἐπιτυχῶς, εἰ κῶνος τέμνοιτο παρὰ τὴν βάσιν ἐπιπέδῳ, τί χρὴ διανοεῖσθαι τὰς τῶν τμημάτων ἐπιφανείας, ἴσας ἢ ἀνίσους γιγνομένας. ἄνισοι μὲν γὰρ οὖσαι τὸν κῶνον ἀνώμαλον παρέξουσι, πολλὰς ἀποχαράξεις λαμβάνοντα βαθμοειδεῖς; καὶ τραχύτητας· ἴσων δʼ οὐσῶν, ἴσα τμήματα ἔσται καὶ φανεῖται τὸ τοῦ κυλίνδρου πεπονθὼς ὁ κῶνος, ἐξ ἴσων συγκείμενος καὶ οὐκ ἀνίσων κύκλων, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ἀτοπώτατον. ἐνταῦθα δὴ τὸν Δημόκριτον ἀποφαίνων ἀγνοοῦντα τὰς μὲν ἐπιφανείας φησὶ μήτʼ ἴσας εἶναι μήτʼ ἀνίσους, ἄνισα δὲ τὰ σώματα τῷ μήτʼ ἴσας εἶναι μήτʼ ἀνίσους τὰς ἐπιφανείας. τὸ μὲν δὴ νομοθετεῖν τῶν ἐπιφανειῶν μήτʼ ἴσων μήτʼ ἀνίσων οὐσῶν τὰ σώματα συμβαίνειν ἄνισα εἶναι θαυμαστὴν ἐξουσίαν αὑτῷ τοῦ γράφειν ὅ τι ἂν ἐπίῃ διδόντος ἐστί. τοὐναντίον γὰρ ὁ λόγος μετὰ τῆς ἐναργείας νοεῖν δίδωσι τῶν ἀνίσων σωμάτων ἀνίσους εἶναι τὰς ἐπιφανείας, καὶ μείζονα τὴν τοῦ μείζονα· εἴ γε μὴ μέλλει τὴν ὑπεροχήν, μεῖζόν ἐστιν, ἐστερημένην ἐπιφανείας ἕξειν. εἰ γὰρ οὐχ ὑπερβάλλουσι τὰς τῶν ἐλαττόνων ἐπιφανείας αἱ τῶν μειζόνων ἀλλὰ προαπολείπουσιν, ἔσται σώματος; πέρας ἔχοντος μέρος ἄνευ πέρατος καὶ ἀπεράτωτον. εἰ γὰρ λέγει, ὅτι βιαζόμενος οὕτω … ἃς γὰρ ὑφορᾶται περὶ τὸν κῶνον ἀναχαράξεις, ἡ τῶν σωμάτων ἀνισότης δήπουθεν οὐχ ἡ τῶν ἐπιφανειῶν ἀπεργάζεται. γελοῖον οὖν τὸ τὰς ἐπιφανείας ὑπεξαιρούμενον ἐν τοῖς σώμασιν ἐλεγχομένην ἀπολιπεῖν ἀνωμαλίαν. ἀλλʼ ἂν μένωμεν ἐπὶ τῆς ὑποθέσεως, τί μᾶλλόν ἐστι παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἢ τὰ τοιαῦτα πλάττειν; εἰ γὰρ ἐπιφάνειαν ἐπιφανείᾳ θήσομεν μήτʼ ἴσην εἶναι μήτʼ ἄνισον, καὶ τὸ μέγεθος ἔσται μεγέθει φάναι καὶ ἀριθμὸν ἀριθμῷμήτʼ ἴσον εἶναι μήτʼ ἄνισον καὶ ταῦτʼ ἴσου καὶ ἀνίσου καὶ ἀνίσου μέσον, ὃ μηδέτερόν ἐστιν, οὐκ ἔχοντας εἰπεῖν οὐδὲ νοῆσαι δυναμένους. ἔτι δʼ οὐσῶν ἐπιφανειῶν μήτʼ ἴσων μήτʼ ἀνίσων, τί κωλύει καὶ κύκλους νοεῖσθαι μήτʼ ἴσους μήτʼ ἀνίσους; αὐταὶ γὰρ δήπουθεν αἱ τῶν κωνικῶν τμημάτων ἐπιφάνειαι κύκλοι εἰσίν· εἰ δὲ κύκλους, καὶ διαμέτρους κύκλων θετέον μήτʼ ἴσους μήτʼ ἀνίσους εἰ δὲ τοῦτο, καὶ γωνίας καὶ τρίγωνα καὶ παραλληλόγραμμα καὶ παραλληλεπίπεδα καὶ σώματα. καὶ γὰρ εἰ μήκη ἐστὶ μήτʼ ἴσα μήτʼ ἄνισα ἀλλήλοις, καὶ βάρος ἔσται καὶ πληγὴ καὶ σώματα. εἶτα πῶς τολμῶσιν ἐπιτιμᾶν τοῖς τὰς κενότητας εἰσάγουσι καὶ ἀμερῆ τινα καὶ μαχόμενον μήτε κινεῖσθαι μήτε μένειν ὑποτιθεμένοις, αὐτοὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ἀξιώματα ψευδῆ λέγοντες εἶναι; εἴ τινα μή ἐστιν ἴσα ἀλλήλοις, ἐκεῖνα ἄνισὰ ἐστιν ἀλλήλοις· καὶ οὐκ ἔστι μὲν ἴσα ταῦτʼ ἀλλήλοις, οὐκ ἄνισα δʼ ἐστὶ ταῦτʼ ἀλλήλοις. ἐπεὶ δέ φησιν εἶναί τι μεῖζον οὐ μὴν ὑπερέχον ἄξιον ἀπορῆσαι πότερον ταῦτʼ ἐφαρμόσει ἀλλήλοις. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐφαρμόσει, πῶς μεῖζόν ἐστι θάτερον; εἰ δʼ οὐκ ἐφαρμόσει, πῶς οὐκ ἀνάγκη τὸ μὲν ὑπερέχειν τὸ δʼ ἐλλείπειν; τῷ δὲ μηδέτερον ὑπάρχειν καὶ οὐκ ἐφαρμόσει τῷ μεῖζον εἶναι καὶ ἐφαρμόσει τῷ μὴ μεῖζον εἶναι θάτερον. ἀνάγκη γὰρ ἐν· τοιαύταις ἀπορίαις γίγνεσθαι τοὺς τὰς κοινὰς ἐννοίας μὴ φυλάττοντας.
40. DIADUMENUS. It is moreover against sense to say that nothing touches another; nor is this less absurd, that bodies touch one another, but touch by nothing. For they are necessitated to admit these things, who allow not the least parts of a body, but assume something which is before that which seems to touch, and never cease to proceed still farther. What, therefore, these men principally object to the patrons of those indivisible bodies called atoms is this, that there is neither a touching of the whole by the whole, nor of the parts by the parts; for that the one makes not a touching but a mixture, and that the other is not possible, these individuals having no parts. How then do not they themselves fall into the same inconvenience, leaving no first or last part, whilst they say, that whole bodies mutually touch one another by a term or extremity and not by a part? But this term is not a body; therefore one body shall touch one another by that which is incorporeal, and again shall not touch, that which is incorporeal coming between them. And if it shall touch, the body shall both do and suffer something by that which is incorporeal. For it is the nature of bodies mutually to do and suffer, and to touch. But if the body has a touching by that which is incorporeal, it will have also a contact, and a mixture, and a coalition. Again, in these contacts and mixtures the extremities of the bodies must either remain, or not remain but be corrupted. Now both of these are against sense. For neither do they themselves admit corruptions and generations of incorporeal things; nor can there be a mixture and coalition of bodies retaining their own extremities. For the extremity determines and constitutes the nature of the body; and mixtions, unless the mutual laying of parts by parts are thereby understood, wholly confound all those that are mixed. And, as these men say, we must admit the corruption of extremities in mixtures, and their generation again in the separation of them. But this none can easily understand. Now by what bodies mutually touch each other, by the same they press, thrust, and crush each other. Now that this should be done or suffered by things that are incorporeal, is impossible and not so much as to be imagined. But yet this they would constrain us to conceive. For if a sphere touch a plane by a point, it is manifest that it may be also drawn over the plane upon a point; and if the superficies of it is painted with vermilion, it will imprint a red line on the plane; and if it is fiery hot, it will burn the plane. Now for an incorporeal thing to color, or a body to be burned by that which is incorporeal, is against sense. But if we should imagine an earthen or glassy sphere to fall from on high upon a plane of stone, it were against reason to think it would not be broken, being struck against that which is hard and solid; but it would be more absurd that it should be broken, falling upon an extremity or point that is incorporeal. So that the presumptions concerning things incorporeal and corporeal are wholly disturbed, or rather taken away, by their joining to them many impossibilities.
40. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. καὶ μὴν τὸ μηδενὸς ἅπτεσθαι μηδὲν παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστιν· οὐχ ἧττον δὲ τοῦτο, ἅπτεσθαι μὲν ἀλλήλων τὰ σώματα μηδενὶ δʼ ἅπτεσθαι τοῦτο δʼ ἀνάγκη προσδέχεσθαι τοῖς μὴ ἀπολείπουσιν ἐλάχιστα μέρη σώματος, ἀλλʼ ἀεί τι τοῦ δοκοῦντος ἅπτεσθαι πρότερον λαμβάνουσι καὶ μηδέποτε τοῦ προάγειν ἐπέκεινα παυομένοις. ὃ γοῦν αὐτοὶ μάλιστα προφέρουσι τοῖς τῶν ἀμερῶν προϊσταμένοις, τοῦτʼ ἐστὶ τὸ μήθʼ ὅλοις ὅλων ἁφὴν εἶναι μήτε μέρεσι μερῶν τὸ μὲν γὰρ οὐχ ἁφὴν ἀλλὰ κρᾶσιν ποιεῖν, τὸ δʼ οὐκ εἶναι δυνατόν, μέρη τῶν ἀμερῶν οὐκ ἐχόντων πῶς οὖν οὐκ αὐτοὶ τούτῳ περιπίπτουσι, μηδὲν μέρος ἔσχατον μηδὲ πρῶτον ἀπολείποντες; ὅτι νὴ Δία ψαύειν κατὰ πέρας τὰ σώματα οὐχ ὅλα ὅλων οὐδὲ κατὰ μέρος λέγουσι· τὸ δὲ πέρας σῶμα οὔκ ἐστιν. ἅψεται τοίνυν σῶμα σώματος ἀσωμάτῳ· καὶ οὐχ ἅψεται πάλιν, ἀσωμάτου μεταξὺ ὄντος. εἰ δʼ ἅψεται, καὶ ποιήσει τι καὶ πείσεται τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ τὸ σῶμα· ποιεῖν γάρ τι καὶ πάσχειν ὑπʼ ἀλλήλων καὶ ἅπτεσθαι τὰ σώματα πέφυκεν. εἰ δʼ ἁφὴν ἴσχει τῷ ἀσωμάτῳ τὸ σῶμα, καὶ συναφὴν ἕξει καὶ κρᾶσιν καὶ συμφυΐαν. ἔτι γὰρ ἐν ταῖς συναφαῖς; καὶ κράσεσιν ἢ μένειν ἀναγκαῖον ἢ μὴ μένειν, ἀλλʼ ἐφθάρθαι τὰ πέρατα τῶν σωμάτων. ἑκάτερον δὲ παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστι· φθορὰς μὲν γὰρ ἀσωμάτων καὶ γενέσεις οὐδʼ αὐτοὶ καταλείπουσι κρᾶσις δὲ καὶ συναφὴ σωμάτων ἰδίοις χρωμένων πέρασιν οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο τὸ γὰρ πέρας ὁρίζει καὶ ἵστησι τὴν τοῦ σώματος φύσιν· αἱ δὲ κράσεις, εἰ μὴ μερῶν παρὰ μέρη παραθέσεις εἰσὶν ἀλλʼ ὅλοις ὅλα τὰ κιρνάμενα συγχέουσιν, ὥσπερ οὗτοι λέγουσι, φθορὰς ἀπολειπτέον περάτων ἐν ταῖς μίξεσιν, εἶτα γενέσεις ἐν ταῖς διαστάσεσι ταῦτα δʼ οὐδεὶς ἂν ῥᾳδίως νοήσειεν. ἀλλὰ μὴν καθʼ ὃ γʼ ἅπτεται τὰ σώματα ἀλλήλων, κατὰ τοῦτο καὶ πιέζεται καὶ θλίβεται καὶ συντρίβεται ὑπʼ ἀλλήλων ἀσώματον δὲ ταῦτα πάσχειν ἢ ποιεῖν οὐ δυνατόν, ἀλλʼ οὐδὲ διανοητόν ἐστι· τοῦτο δὲ βιάζονται νοεῖν ἡμᾶς. εἰ γὰρ ἡ σφαῖρα τοῦ ἐπιπέδου κατὰ σημεῖον ἅπτεται, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ σύρεται κατὰ σημεῖον διὰ τοῦ ἐπιπέδου· κἂν μίλτῳ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν ἀληλιμμένη, μιλτίνην ἐνομόρξεται τῷ ἐπιπέδῳ γραμμήν· κἂν πεπυρρωμένη, πυρρώσει τὸ ἐπίπεδον ἀσωμάτῳ δὲ χρώζεσθαι καὶ ἀσωμάτῳ πυροῦσθαι σῶμα παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστιν. ἂν δὲ δὴ κεραμεᾶν ἢ κρυσταλλίνην σφαῖραν εἰς ἐπίπεδον φερομένην λίθινον ἀφʼ ὕψους νοήσωμεν, ἄλογον εἰ μὴ συντριβήσεται, πληγῆς πρὸς ἀντίτυπον γενομένης ἀτοπώτερον δὲ τὸ συντριβῆναι κατὰ πέρας καὶ σημεῖον ἀσώματον προσπεσοῦσαν. ὥστε πάντῃ τὰς περὶ τῶν ἀσωμάτων καὶ σωμάτων αὐτοῖς ταράττεσθαι προλήψεις, μᾶλλον δʼ ἀναιρεῖσθαι, πολλὰ τῶν ἀδυνάτων παρατιθεμένοις ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ.
41. DIADUMENUS. It is also against common sense, that there should be a time future and past, but no time present; and that erewhile and lately subsist, but now is nothing at all. Yet this often befalls the Stoics, who admit not the least time between, nor will allow the present to be indivisible; but whatsoever any one thinks to take and understand as present, one part of that they say to be future, and the other part past; so that there is no part remaining or left of the present time: but of that which is said to be present, one part is distributed to the future, the other to the past. Therefore one of these two things follows: either that; holding there was a time and there will be a time, we must deny there is a time; or we must hold that there is a time present, part of which has already been and part will be, and say that of that which now is, one part is future and the other past; and that of now, one part is before and the other behind; and that now is that which is neither yet now nor any longer now; for that which is past is no longer now, and that which is to come is not yet now. And dividing thus the present, they must needs say of the year and of the day, that part of it was of the year or day past, and part will be of the year or day to come; and that of what is together, there is a part before and a part after. For no less are they perplexed, confounding together these terms, not yet and already and no longer and now and not now. But all other men suppose, esteem, and think erewhile and awhile hence to be different parts of time from now, which is followed by the one and preceded by the other. But Archedemus, saying that now is the beginning and juncture of that which is past and that which is near at hand, has (as it seems) without perceiving it thereby taken away all time. For if now is no time, but only a term or extremity of time, and if every part of time is such as now, all time seems to have no parts, but to be wholly dissolved into terms, joints, and beginnings. But Chrysippus, desiring to show more artifice in his division, in his book of Vacuity and some others, says, that the past and future time are not, but have subsisted (or will subsist), and that the present only is; but in his third, fourth, and fifth books concerning Parts, he asserts, that of the present time one part is past, the other to come. Thus it comes to pass, that he divides subsisting time into non-subsisting parts of a subsisting total, or rather leaves nothing at all of time subsisting, if the present has no part but what is either future or past.
41. παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστι χρόνον εἶναι μέλλοντα καὶ παρῳχημένον, ἐνεστῶτα δὲ μὴ εἶναι χρόνον, ἀλλὰ τὸ μὲν ἄρτι καὶ τὸ πρῴην ὑφεστάναι, τὸ δὲ νῦν ὅλως μηδὲν εἶναι. καὶ μὴν τοῦτο συμβαίνει τοῖς Στωικοῖς ἐλάχιστον χρόνον μὴ ἀπολείπουσι μηδὲ τὸ νῦν ἀμερὲς εἶναι βουλομένοις, ἀλλʼ ὅ τι ἄν τις ὡς ἐνεστὼς οἴηται λαβὼν διανοεῖσθαι, τούτου τὸ μὲν μέλλον τὸ δὲ παρῳχημένον εἶναι φάσκουσιν ὥστε μηδὲν κατὰ τὸ νῦν ὑπομένειν μηδὲ λείπεσθαι μόριον χρόνου παρόντος, ἄν, ὃς λέγεται παρεῖναι, τούτου τὰ μὲν εἰς τὰ μέλλοντα τὰ δʼ εἰς τὰ παρῳχημένα διανέμηται. δυεῖν οὖν συμβαίνει θάτερον, ἢ τὸ ἦν χρόνος καὶ ἔσται χρόνος τιθέντας ἀναιρεῖν τὸ ἔστι χρόνος· ἢ ἔστι χρόνος ἐνεστηκώς, οὗ τὸ μὲν ἐνειστήκει τὸ δʼ ἐνστήσεται καὶ λέγειν ὅτι τοῦ ὑπάρχοντος τὸ μὲν μέλλον ἐστὶ τὸ δὲ παρῳχημένον, καὶ τοῦ νῦν τὸ μὲν πρότερον τὸ δʼ ὕστερον ὥστε νῦν εἶναι τὸ μηδέπω νῦν καὶ τὸ μηκέτι νῦν· οὐκέτι γὰρ νῦν τὸ παρῳχημένον καὶ οὐδέπω νῦν τὸ μέλλον. ἀνάγκη δʼ οὕτω διαιροῦσι λέγειν αὐτοῖς, ὅτι καὶ τοῦ σήμερον τὸ μὲν ἐχθὲς τὸ δʼ αὔριον καὶ τοῦ τῆτες τὸ μὲν πέρυσι τὸ δʼ εἰς νέωτα, καὶ τοῦ ἅμα τὸ μὲν πρότερον τὸ δʼ ὕστερον. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐπιεικέστερα τούτων κυκῶσι, ταὐτὰ ποιοῦντες τὸ μηδέπω καὶ τὸ ἤδη καὶ τὸ μηκέτι καὶ τὸ νῦν καὶ τὸ μὴ νῦν· οἱ δʼ ἄλλοι πάντες ἄνθρωποι καὶ τὸ ἄρτι καὶ τὸ μετὰ μικρόν, ὡς ἕτερα τοῦ νῦν μόρια, καὶ τὸ μὲν μετὰ τὸ νῦν τὸ δὲ πρὸ τοῦ νῦν τίθενται καὶ νοοῦσι καὶ νομίζουσι. τούτων Ἀρχέδημος μὲν ἀρχήν τινα καὶ συμβολὴν εἶναι λέγων τοῦ παρῳχημένου καὶ τοῦ ἐπιφερομένου τὸ νῦν λέληθεν αὑτὸν ὡς ἔοικε τὸν πάντα χρόνον ἀναιρῶν. εἰ γὰρ τὸ νῦν οὐ χρόνος ἐστὶν ἀλλὰ πέρας χρόνου πᾶν δὲ μόριον χρόνου τοιοῦτον οἷον τὸ νῦν ἐστιν, οὐδὲν φαίνεται μέρος ἔχων ὁ σύμπας χρόνος ἀλλʼ εἰς πέρατα διόλου καὶ συμβολὰς καὶ ὁρμὰς ἀναλυόμενος. Χρύσιππος δὲ βουλόμενος φιλοτεχνεῖν περὶ τὴν διαίρεσιν ἐν μὲν τῷ περὶ τοῦ Κενοῦ καὶ ἄλλοις τισὶ ʼτὸ μὲν παρῳχημένον τοῦ χρόνου καὶ τὸ μέλλον οὐχ ὑπάρχειν ἀλλʼ ὑφεστηκέναι φησί, μόνον δʼ ὑπάρχειν τὸ ἐνεστηκός ἐν δὲ τῷ τρίτῳ καὶ τετάρτῳ καὶ πέμπτῳ περὶ τῶν Μερῶν τίθησι τοῦ ἐνεστηκότος χρόνου τὸ μὲν μέλλον εἶναι τὸ δὲ παρεληλυθός. ὥστε συμβαίνει τὸ ὑπάρχον αὐτῷ τοῦ χρόνου διαιρεῖν εἰς τὰ μὴ ὑπάρχοντα τοῦ ὑπάρχοντος, μᾶλλον δʼ ὅλως τοῦ χρόνου μηδὲν ἀπολείπειν ὑπάρχον, εἰ τὸ ἐνεστηκὸς οὐδὲν ἔχει μέρος, ὃ μὴ μέλλον ἐστὶν ἢ παρῳχημένον.
42. DIADUMENUS. These men’s conception therefore of time is not unlike the grasping of water, which, the harder it is held, all the more slides and runs away. As to actions and motions, all evidence is utterly confounded. For if now is divided into past and future, it is of necessity that what is now moved partly has been moved and partly shall be moved, that the end and beginning of motion have been taken away, that nothing of any work has been done first, nor shall any thing be last, the actions being distributed with time. For as they say that of present time, part is past and part to come; so of that which is doing, it will be said that part is done and part shall be done. When therefore had to dine, to write, to walk, a beginning, and when shall they have an end, if every one who is dining has dined and shall dine, and every one who is walking has walked and shall walk? But this is, as it is said, of all absurdities the most absurd, that if he who now lives has already lived and shall live, then to live neither had beginning nor shall have end; but every one of us, as it seems, was born without beginning to live, and shall die without ceasing to live. For if there is no last part, but he who lives has something of the present still remaining for the future, to say “Socrates shall live” will never be false so long as it shall be true to say “Socrates lives;” and so long also will be false to say “Socrates is dead.” So that, if “Socrates shall live” is true in infinite parts of time, it will in no part of time be true to say “Socrates is dead.” And verily what end will there be of a work, and where will you terminate an action, if, as often as it is true to say “This is doing,” it is likewise true to say “This shall be doing”? For he will lie who shall say, there will be an end of Plato’s writing and disputing; since Plato will never give over writing and disputing, if it is never false to say of him who disputes that he shall dispute, and of him who writes that he shall write. Moreover, there will be no part of that which now is, but either has been or is to be, and is either past or future; but of what has been and is to be, of past and future, there is no sense; wherefore there is absolutely no sense of any thing. For we neither see what is past and future, nor do we hear or have any other sense of what has been or is to be. Nothing then, even what is present, is to be perceived by sense, if of the present, part is always future and part past,—if part has been and part is to be.
42. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ χρόνου νόησις αὐτοῖς οἷον ὕδατος περίδραξις, ὅσῳ μᾶλλον πιέζεται, διαρρέοντος καὶ διολισθάνοντος· τὰ δὲ τῶν πράξεων καὶ κινήσεων τὴν πᾶσαν ἔχει σύγχυσιν τῆς ἐναργείας ἀνάγκη γάρ, εἰ τοῦ νῦν τὸ μὲν εἰς τὸ παρῳχημένον τὸ δʼ εἰς τὸ μέλλον διαιρεῖται, καὶ τοῦ κινουμένου κατὰ τὸ νῦν τὸ μὲν κεκινῆσθαι τὸ δὲ κινήσεσθαι πέρας δὲ κινήσεως ἀνῃρῆσθαι καὶ ἀρχὴν μηδενὸς δʼ ἔργου πρῶτον γεγονέναι μηδʼ ἔσχατον ἔσεσθαι μηδέν, τῷ χρόνῳ τῶν πράξεων συνδιανεμομένων. ὡς γὰρ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος χρόνου τὸ μὲν παρῳχῆσθαι τὸ δὲ μέλλειν λέγουσιν, οὕτω τοῦ πραττομένου τὸ μὲν πεπρᾶχθαι τὸ δὲ πραχθήσεσθαι. πότε τοίνυν ἔσχεν ἀρχὴν πότε δʼ ἕξει τελευτὴν τὸ ἀριστᾶν τὸ γράφειν τὸ βαδίζειν, εἰ πᾶς μὲν ὁ ἀριστῶν ἠρίστησε καὶ ἀριστήσει πᾶς δʼ ὁ βαδίζων ἐβάδιζε καὶ βαδιεῖται; τὸ δὲ δεινῶν, φασί, δεινότατον, εἰ τῷ ζῶντι τὸ ἐζηκέναι καὶ ζήσεσθαι συμβέβηκεν, οὔτʼ ἀρχὴν ἔσχε τὸ ζῆν οὔθʼ ἕξει πέρας· ἀλλʼ ἕκαστος ἡμῶν ὡς ἔοικε γέγονε μὴ ἀρξάμενος τοῦ ζῆν καὶ τεθνήξεται μὴ παυσάμενος. εἰ γὰρ οὐδέν ἐστιν ἔσχατον μέρος ἀλλʼ ἀεί τι τῷ ζῶντι τοῦ παρόντος εἰς τὸ μέλλον περίεστιν, οὐδέποτε γίγνεται ψεῦδος τὸ ζήσεσθαι Σωκράτη· ἀλλʼ ὁσάκις ἀληθὲς ἔσται τὸ ζῇ Σωκράτης, ἐπὶ τοσοῦτον ψεῦδος τὸ τέθνηκε Σωκράτης ὥστʼ, εἰ τὸ ζήσεται Σωκράτης ἀληθές ἐστιν ἐν ἀπείροις χρόνου μέρεσιν, ἐν οὐδενὶ χρόνου μέρει τὸ τέθνηκε Σωκράτης ἀληθὲς ἔσται. καίτοι τί πέρας ἂν ἔργου γένοιτο; ποῦ δʼ ἂν λήξειε τὸ πραττόμενον, ἄν, ὁσάκις ἀληθές ἐστι τὸ πράττεται, τοσαυτάκις ἀληθὲς καὶ τὸ πραχθήσεται; ψεύσεται γὰρ ὁ λέγων περὶ τοῦ γράφοντος καὶ διαλεγομένου Πλάτωνος, ὅτι παύσεταί ποτε Πλάτων διαλεγόμενος, εἰ μηδέποτε ψεῦδός ἐστι τὸ διαλεχθήσεται περὶ τοῦ διαλεγομένου καὶ τὸ γράψει περὶ τοῦ γράφοντος. ἔτι τοίνυν τοῦ γιγνομένου μέρος οὐδὲν ἐστιν, ὅπερ οὐκ ἤτοι γεγονός ἐστιν ἢ γενησόμενον καὶ παρεληλυθὸς ἢ μέλλον· γεγονότος δὲ καὶ γεγενημένου καὶ παρῳχημένου καὶ μέλλοντος αἴσθησις οὐκ ἔστιν· οὐδενὸς οὖν ἁπλῶς αἴσθησίς ἐστιν. οὔτε γὰρ ὁρῶμεν τὸ παρῳχημένον ἢ τὸ μέλλον οὔτʼ ἀκούομεν οὔτʼ ἄλλην τινὰ λαμβάνομεν αἴσθησιν τῶν γεγονότων ἢ γενησομένων· οὐδὲν οὖν, οὐδʼ ἂν παρῇ τι, αἰσθητόν ἐστιν, εἰ τοῦ παρόντος ἀεὶ τὸ μὲν μέλλει τὸ δὲ παρῴχηκε καὶ τὸ μὲν γεγονός ἐστι τὸ δὲ γενησόμενον.
43. DIADUMENUS. Now they indeed say, that Epicurus does intolerable things and violates the conceptions, in moving all bodies with equal celerity, and admitting none of them to be swifter than another. And yet it is much more intolerable and farther remote from sense, that nothing can be overtaken by another:Not though Adrastus’s swift-footed steedShould chase the tortoise slow,as the proverb has it. Now this must of necessity fall out, if things move according to prius and posterius, and the intervals through which they pass are (as these men’s tenet is) divisible in infinitum; for if the tortoise is but a furlong before the horse, they who divide this furlong in infinitum, and move them both according to prius and posterius, will never bring the swiftest to the slowest; the slower always adding some interval divisible into infinite spaces. Now to affirm that, water being poured from a bowl or cup, it will never be all poured out, is it not both against common sense, and a consequence of what these men say? For no man can understand the motion according to prius of things infinitely divisible to be consummated; but leaving always somewhat divisible, it will make all the effusion, all the running and flux of a liquid, motion of a solid, and fall of an heavy thing imperfect.
43. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. καὶ μὴν αὐτοί γε σχέτλια ποιεῖν τὸν Ἐπίκουρον λέγουσι καὶ βιάζεσθαι τὰς ἐννοίας, ἰσοταχῶς τὰ σώματα κινοῦντα καὶ μηδὲν ἀπολείποντα μηδενὸς ταχύτερον. πολλῷ δὲ τούτου σχετλιώτερόν ἐστι καὶ μᾶλλον ἀπήρτηται τῶν ἐννοιῶν τὸ μηδὲν ὑπὸ μηδενὸς περικαταλαμβάνεσθαι, μηδʼ εἰ χελώνην τὸ τοῦ λόγου φασὶ μετόπισθε διώκοι Ἀδρήστου ταχὺς ἵππος. ἀνάγκη δὲ τοῦτο συμβαίνειν, τῶν μὲν κινουμένων κατὰ τὸ πρότερον καὶ τὸ ὕστερον, τῶν δὲ διαστημάτων, ἃ διεξίασιν, εἰς ἄπειρον ὄντων μεριστῶν, ὥσπερ ἀξιοῦσιν οὗτοι. εἰ γὰρ φθαίη πλέθρῳ μόνον ἡ χελώνη τὸν ἵππον, οἱ τοῦτο μὲν εἰς ἄπειρον τέμνοντες ἑκάτερα δὲ κινοῦντες κατὰ τὸ πρότερον καὶ τὸ ὕστερον, οὐδέποτε τῷ βραδυτάτῳ προσάξουσι τὸ τάχιστον, ἀεί τι διάστημα τοῦ βραδυτέρου προλαμβάνοντος εἰς ἄπειρα διαστήματα μεριζόμενον. τὸ δʼ ἔκ τινος φιάλης ἢ κύλικος ὕδατος ἐκχεομένου μηδέποτε πᾶν ἐκχυθήσεσθαι πῶς οὐ παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιάν ἐστιν, ἢ πῶς οὐχ ἑπόμενον οἷς οὗτοι λέγουσι; τὴν γὰρ κατὰ τὸ πρότερον τῶν εἰς ἄπειρον μεριστῶν κίνησιν οὐκ ἄν τις νοήσειε τὸ πᾶν διανύουσαν, ἀλλʼ ἀεί τι μεριστὸν ὑπολείπουσα ποιήσει πᾶσαν μὲν ἔκχυσιν πᾶσαν δʼ ὀλίσθησιν καὶ ῥύσιν ὑγροῦ καὶ φορὰν στερεοῦ καὶ βάρους μεθειμένου πτῶσιν ἀσυντέλεστον.
44. DIADUMENUS. I pass by many absurdities of theirs, touching only such as are against sense. The dispute concerning increase is indeed ancient; for the question, as Chrysippus says, was put by Epicharmus. Now, whereas those of the Academy think that the doubt is not very easy and ready all of a sudden to be cleared, these men have mightily exclaimed against them, and accused them of taking away the presumptions, and yet themselves are so far from preserving the common notions, that they pervert even sense itself. For the discourse is simple, and these men grant the suppositions,—that all particular substances flow and are carried, some of them emitting forth somewhat from themselves, and others receiving things coming from elsewhere; and that the things to which there is made an accession or from which there is a decession by numbers and multitudes, do not remain the same, but become others by the said accessions, the substance receiving a change; and that these changes are not rightly called by custom increasings or diminutions, but it is fitter they should be styled generations and corruptions, because they drive by force from one state to another, whereas to increase and be diminished are passions of a body that is subject and permanent. These things being thus in a manner said and delivered, what would these defenders of evidence and canonical regulators of common conceptions have? Every one of us (they say) is double, twin-like, and composed of a double nature; not as the poets feigned of the Molionidae, that they in some parts grow together and in some parts are separated,—but every one of us has two bodies, having the same color, the same figure, the same weight and place … These things were never before seen by any man; but these men alone have discerned this composition, doubleness, and ambiguity, how every one of us is two subjects, the one substance, the other quality; and the one is in perpetual flux and motion, neither increasing nor being diminished nor remaining altogether; the other remains and increases and is diminished, and suffers all things contrary to the former, with which it is so concorporated, conjoined, and confounded, that it exhibits not any difference to be perceived by sense. Indeed, Lynceus is said to have penetrated stones and oaks with his sight; and a certain man sitting on a watch-tower in Sicily beheld the ships of the Carthaginians setting forth from their harbor, which was a day and a night’s sail from thence. Callicrates and Myrmecides are said to have made chariots that might be covered with the wings of a fly, and to have engraved verses of Homer on a sesame seed. But none ever discerned or discovered this diversity in us; nor have we perceived ourselves to be double, in one part always flowing, and in the other remaining the same from our birth even to our death. But I make the discourse more simple, since they make four subjects in every one, or rather every one of us to be four. But two are sufficient to show their absurdity. For if, when we hear Pentheus in the tragedy affirm that he sees two suns and two cities of Thebes, we say that he does not see, but that his sight is dazzled, he being transported and troubled in his mind; why do we not bid those farewell, who assert not one city alone, but all men and animals, and all trees, vessels, instruments, and clothes, to be double and composed of two, as men who constrain us to dote rather than to understand? But this feigning other natures of subjects must perhaps be pardoned them; for there appears no other invention by which they can maintain and uphold the augmentations of which they are so fond.
44. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. παρίημι δὲ πολλὰς ἀτοπίας αὐτῶν τῶν παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἐφαπτόμενος. ὁ τοίνυν περὶ αὐξήσεως λόγος; ἐστὶ μὲν ἀρχαῖος· ἠρώτηται γάρ, ὥς φησι Χρύσιππος, ὑπʼ Ἐπιχάρμου· τῶν δʼ ἐν Ἀκαδημείᾳ οἰομένων μὴ πάνυ ῥᾴδιον μηδʼ αὐτόθεν ἕτοιμον εἶναι τὴν ἀπορίαν, πολλὰ κατῃτιᾶσθαι κατεβόησαν, ὡς τὰς προλήψεις ἀναιρούντων καὶ παρὰ τὰς ἐννοίας … φυλάττουσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν αἴσθησιν προσδιαστρέφουσιν. ὁ μὲν γὰρ λόγος ἁπλοῦς ἐστι καὶ τὰ λήμματα συγχωροῦσιν οὗτοι, τὰς μὲν ἐν μέρει πάσας οὐσίας ῥεῖν καὶ φέρεσθαι, τὰ μὲν ἐξ αὑτῶν μεθιείσας τὰ δέ ποθεν ἐπιόντα προσδεχομένας· οἷς δὲ πρόσεισι καὶ ἄπεισιν ἀριθμοῖς ἢ πλήθεσι ταὐτὰ, μὴ διαμένειν, ἀλλʼ ἕτερα γίγνεσθαι ταῖς εἰρημέναις προσόδοις, ἐξαλλαγὴν τῆς οὐσίας λαμβανούσης αὐξήσεις δὲ καὶ φθίσεις οὐ κατὰ δίκην ὑπὸ συνηθείας ἐκνενικῆσθαι τὰς μεταβολὰς ταύτας λέγεσθαι, γενέσεις καὶ φθορὰς μᾶλλον αὐτὰς ὀνομάζεσθαι προσῆκον, ὅτι τοῦ καθεστῶτος εἰς ἕτερον ἐκβιβάζουσι τὸ δʼ αὔξεσθαι καὶ τὸ μειοῦσθαι πάθη σώματός ἐστιν ὑποκειμένου καὶ διαμένοντος. οὕτω δέ πως τούτων λεγομένων καὶ τιθεμένων, τί ἀξιοῦσιν οἱ πρόδικοι τῆς ἐναργείας οὗτοι καὶ κανόνες τῶν ἐννοιῶν; ἕκαστον ἡμῶν δίδυμον εἶναι καὶ διφυᾶ καὶ διττόν· οὐχ ὥσπερ οἱ ποιηταὶ τοὺς Μολιονίδας τοῖς μὲν ἡνωμένους μέρεσι τοῖς δʼ ἀποκρινομένους, ἀλλὰ δύο σώματα ταὐτὸν ἔχοντα χρῶμα, ταὐτὸν δὲ σχῆμα, ταὐτὸν δὲ βάρος καὶ τόπον … ὑπὸ μηδενὸς ἀνθρώπων ὁρώμενα πρότερον· ἀλλʼ οὗτοι μόνον εἶδον τὴν σύνθεσιν ταύτην καὶ διπλόην καὶ ἀμφιβολίαν, ὡς δύο ἡμῶν ἕκαστός ἐστιν ὑποκείμενα, τὸ μὲν οὐσία τὸ δὲ ποιότης· καὶ τὸ μὲν ἀεὶ ῥεῖ καὶ φέρεται, μήτʼ αὐξόμενον μήτε μειούμενον μήθʼ ὅλως οἷόν ἐστι διαμένον, τὸ δὲ διαμένει καὶ αὐξάνεται καὶ μειοῦται, καὶ πάντα πάσχει τἀναντία θατέρῳ, συμπεφυκὸς καὶ συνηρμοσμένον καὶ συγκεχυμένον καὶ τῆς διαφορᾶς τῇ αἰσθήσει μηδαμοῦ παρέχον ἅψασθαι. καίτοι λέγεται μὲν ὁ Λυγκεὺς ἐκεῖνος διὰ πέτρας καὶ διὰ δρυὸς ὁρᾶν· ἑώρα δέ τις ἀπὸ σκοπῆς ἐν Σικελίᾳ καθεζόμενος τὰς Καρχηδονίων ἐκ τοῦ λιμένος ναῦς ἐκπλεούσας, ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτὸς ἀπεχούσας δρόμον· οἱ δὲ περὶ Καλλικράτη καὶ Μυρμηκίδην λέγονται δημιουργεῖν ἅρματα μυίας πτεροῖς καλυπτόμενα καὶ διατορεύειν ἐν σησάμῳ γράμμασιν ἔπη τῶν Ὁμήρου· ταύτην δὲ τὴν ἐν ἡμῖν ἑτερότητα καὶ διαφορὰν οὐδεὶς διεῖλεν οὐδὲ διέστησεν· οὐδʼ ἡμεῖς ᾐσθόμεθα διττοὶ γεγονότες καὶ τῷ μὲν ἀεὶ ῥέοντες μέρει τῷ δʼ ἀπὸ γενέσεως ἄχρι τελευτῆς οἱ αὐτοὶ διαμένοντες. ἁπλούστερον δὲ ποιοῦμαι τὸν λόγον ἐπεὶ τέσσαρά γε ποιοῦσιν ὑποκείμενα· περὶ ἕκαστον, μᾶλλον δὲ τέσσαρʼ ἕκαστον ἡμῶν· ἀρκεῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ δύο πρὸς τὴν ἀτοπίαν, εἴ γε τοῦ μὲν Πενθέως ἀκούοντες ἐν τῇ τραγῳδίᾳ λέγοντος ὡς δύο μὲν ἡλίους ὁρᾷ, διττὰς δὲ Θήβας οὐχ ὁρᾶν αὐτὸν ἀλλὰ παρορᾶν λέγομεν, ἐκτρεπόμενον καὶ παρακινοῦντα τοῖς λογισμοῖς· τούτους δʼ οὐ μίαν πόλιν, ἀλλὰ πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ ζῷα καὶ δένδρα πάντα καὶ σκεύη καὶ ὄργανα καὶ ἱμάτια διττὰ καὶ διφυᾶ τιθεμένους οὐ χαίρειν ἐῶμεν, ὡς παρανοεῖν ἡμᾶς μᾶλλον ἢ νοεῖν ἀναγκάζοντας; ἐνταῦθα μὲν οὖν ἴσως αὐτοῖς συγγνωστέον πλάττουσιν ἑτέρας φύσεις ὑποκειμένων· ἄλλη γὰρ οὐδεμία φαίνεται μηχανὴ φιλοτιμουμένοις σῶσαι καὶ διαφυλάξαι τὰς αὐξήσεις.
45. DIADUMENUS. But by what cause moved, or for the adorning of what other suppositions, they frame in a manner innumerable differences and forms of bodies in the soul, there is none can say, unless it be that they remove, or rather wholly abdicate and destroy, the common and usual notions, to introduce other foreign and strange ones. For it is very absurd that, making all virtues and vices—and with them all arts, memories, fancies, passions, impulses, and assents—to be bodies, they should affirm that they neither lie nor subsist in any subject, leaving them for a place one only hole, like a prick in the heart, where they crowd the principal part of the soul, enclosed with so many bodies, that a very great number of them lie hid even from those who think they can spare and distinguish them one from another. Nay, that they should not only make them bodies, but also rational creatures, and even a swarm of such creatures, not friendly or gentle, but a multitude maliciously rebellious and revengeful, and should so make of each one of us a park or menagerie or Trojan horse, or whatever else we may call their fancies,—this is the very height of contempt and rebellion against evidence and custom. But they say, that not only the virtues and vices, not only the passions, as anger, envy, grief, and maliciousness, not only comprehensions, fancies, and ignorances, not only arts, as shoemaking and working in brass, are animals; but besides these, also they make even the operations bodies and animals, saying that walking is an animal, as also dancing, supposing, saluting, and railing. The consequence of this is that laughing and weeping are also animals; and if so, then also are coughing, sneezing, groaning, spitting, blowing the nose, and other such like things sufficiently known. Neither have they any cause to take it ill that they are by reason, proceeding leisurely, reduced to this, if they shall call to mind how Chrysippus, in his First Book of Natural Questions, argues thus: “Is not night a body? And are not then the evening, dawning, and midnight bodies? Or is not a day a body? Is not then the first day of the month a body? And the tenth, the fifteenth, and the thirtieth, are they not bodies? Is not a month a body? Summer, autumn, and the year, are they not bodies?”
45. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. ἐν δὲ τῇ ψυχῇ τί παθόντες ἤ τίνας πάλιν ἄλλας ὑποθέσεις κοσμοῦντες ἐνδημιουργοῦσι σωμάτων διαφορὰς καὶ ἰδέας ὀλίγου δέω εἰπεῖν ἀπείρους τὸ πλῆθος, οὐκ ἂν ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν· ἀλλʼ ὅτι τὰς κοινὰς καὶ συνήθεις ἐξοικίζοντες ἐννοίας, μᾶλλον δʼ ὅλως ἀναιροῦντες καὶ διαφθείροντες, ἑτέρας ἐπεισάγουσιν ἀλλοκότους καὶ ξένας. ἄτοπον γὰρ εὖ μάλα τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰς κακίας, πρὸς δὲ ταύταις τὰς τέχνας καὶ τὰς μνήμας πάσας, ἔτι δὲ φαντασίας καὶ πάθη καὶ ὁρμὰς καὶ συγκαταθέσεις σώματα ποιουμένους ἐν μηδενὶ φάναι κεῖσθαι μηδʼ ὑπάρχειν τόπον τούτοις, ἕνα δὲ τὸν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ πόρον στιγμιαῖον ἀπολιπεῖν, ὅπου τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν συστέλλουσι τῆς ψυχῆς, ὑπὸ τοσούτων σωμάτων κατεχόμενον, ὅσων τοὺς πάνυ δοκοῦντας ἀφορίζειν καὶ ἀποκρίνειν ἕτερον ἑτέρου πολὺ πλῆθος διαπέφευγε. τὸ δὲ μὴ μόνον σώματα ταῦτα ποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ζῷα λογικὰ καὶ ζῴων τοσούτων σμῆνος οὐ φίλιον οὐδʼ ἥμερον, ἀλλʼ ὄχλον ἀντιστάτην κακίαις καὶ πολέμιον νοῦν ἔχοντας, ἀποφαίνειν ἕκαστον ἡμῶν παράδεισον ἢ μάνδραν ἢ δούρειον ἵππον τί ἄν τις ἃ πλάττουσιν οὗτοι διανοηθείη καὶ προσαγορεύσειεν;ʼ ὑπερβολὴ τίς ἐστιν ὀλιγωρίας καὶ παρανομίας εἰς τὴν ἐνάργειαν καὶ τὴν συνήθειαν. οἱ δʼ οὐ μόνον τὰς ἀρετὰς καὶ τὰς κακίας ζῷα εἶναι λέγουσιν οὐδὲ τὰ πάθη μόνον ὀργὰς καὶ φθόνους καὶ λύπας καὶ ἐπιχαιρεκακίας, οὐδὲ καταλήψεις καὶ φαντασίας καὶ ἀγνοίας οὐδὲ τὰς τέχνας ζῷα, τὴν σκυτοτομικὴν τὴν χαλκοτυπικήν· ἀλλὰ πρὸς τούτοις ἔτι καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας σώματα καὶ ζῷα ποιοῦσι, τὸν περίπατον ζῷον τὴν ὄρχησιν τὴν ὑπόδεσιν τὴν προσαγόρευσιν τὴν λοιδορίαν ἕπεται δὲ τούτοις καὶ γέλωτα ζῷον εἶναι καὶ κλαυθμόν· εἰ δὲ ταῦτα, καὶ βῆχα καὶ πταρμὸν καὶ στεναγμὸν πτύσιν τε πάντως καὶ ἀπόμυξιν καὶ τὰ λοιπά· ἔνδηλα γάρ ἐστι. καὶ μὴ δυσχεραινέτωσαν ἐπὶ ταῦτʼ ἀγόμενοι τῷ κατὰ μικρὸν λόγῳ, Χρυσίππου μνημονεύοντες ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῶν Φυσικῶν Ζητημάτων οὕτω προσάγοντος οὐχ ἡ μὲν νὺξ σῶμʼ ἐστίν, ἡ δʼ ἑσπέρα καὶ ὁ ὄρθρος καὶ τὸ μέσον τῆς νυκτὸς σώματʼ οὔκ ἐστιν· οὐδʼ ἡ μὲν ἡμέρα σῶμʼ ἐστὶν οὐχὶ δὲ καὶ ἡ νουμηνία σῶμα καὶ ἡ δεκάτη καὶ πεντεκαιδεκάτη καὶ ἡ τριακὰς καὶ ὁ μὴν σῶμʼ ἐστὶ καὶ τὸ θέρος καὶ τὸ φθινόπωρον καὶ ὁ ἐνιαυτός ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ.
46. DIADUMENUS. These things they hold against the common conceptions; but those which follow they hold also against their own, engendering that which is most hot by refrigeration, and that which is most subtile by condensation. For the soul, to wit, is a substance most hot and most subtile. But this they make by the refrigeration and condensation of the body, changing, as it were, by induration the spirit, which of vegetative is made animal. Moreover, they say that the sun became animated, his moisture changing into intellectual fire. Behold how the sun is imagined to be engendered by refrigeration! Xenophanes indeed, when one told him that he had seen eels living in hot water, answered, We will boil them then in cold. But if these men engender heat by refrigeration and lightness by condensation, it follows, they must also generate cold things by heat, thick things by dissolution, and heavy things by rarefaction, that so they may keep some proportion in their absurdity.
46. ἀλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν παρὰ τὰς κοινὰς βιάζονται προλήψεις· ἐκεῖνα δʼ ἤδη καὶ παρὰ τὰς ἰδίας, τὸ θερμότατον περιψύξει καὶ πυκνώσει τὸ λεπτομερέστατον γεννῶντες. ἡ γὰρ ψυχὴ θερμότατόν ἐστι δήπου καὶ λεπτομερέστατον· ποιοῦσι δʼ αὐτὴν τῇ περιψύξει καὶ πυκνώσει τοῦ σώματος, οἷον στομώσει τὸ πνεῦμα μεταβάλλοντος, ἐκ φυτικοῦ ψυχικὸν γενόμενον. γεγονέναι δὲ καὶ τὸν ἥλιον ἔμψυχον λέγουσι, τοῦ ὑγροῦ μεταβάλλοντος εἰς πῦρ νοερόν. ὥρα καὶ τὸν ἥλιον διανοεῖσθαι περιψύξει γεννώμενον. ὁ μὲν οὖν,Ξενοφάνης, διηγουμένου τινὸς ἐγχέλεις ἑωρακέναι ἐν ὕδατι θερμῷ ζώσας, οὐκοῦν εἶπεν ἐν ψυχρῷ αὐτὰς ἑψήσομεν τούτοις δʼ· ἑποιτ̓ἄν, εἰ περιψύξει τὰ θερμότατα γεννῶσι καὶ πυκνώσει τὰ κουφότατα, θερμότητι πάλιν αὖ τὰ ψυχρὰ καὶ διαχύσει τὰ πυκνὰ καὶ διακρίσει τὰ βαρέα γεννᾶν, ἀλογίας τινὸς φυλάττουσιν ἀναλογίαν.
47. DIADUMENUS. And do they not also determine the substance and generation of conception itself, even against the common conceptions? For conception is a certain imagination, and imagination an impression in the soul. Now the nature of the soul is an exhalation, in which it is difficult for an impression to be made because of its tenuity, and for which it is impossible to keep an impression it may have received. For its nutriment and generation, consisting of moist things, have continual accession and consumption. And the mixture of respiration with the air always makes some new exhalation, which is altered and changed by the flux of the air coming from abroad and again going out. For one may more easily imagine that a stream of running water can retain figures, impressions, and images, than that a spirit can be carried in vapors and humors, and continually mingled with another idle and strange breath from without. But these men so far forget themselves, that, having defined the conceptions to be certain stored-up intelligences, and memoirs to be constant and habitual impressions, and having wholly fixed the sciences, as having stability and firmness, they presently place under them a basis and seat of a slippery substance, easy to be dissipated and in perpetual flux and motion.
47. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. καὶ … ἑννοίας δʼ οὐσίαν αὐτῆς καὶ γένεσιν οὐ παρὰ τὰς ἐννοίας ὑποτίθενται; φαντασία γάρ τις ἡ ἔννοιά ἐστι, φαντασία δὲ τύπωσις ἐν ψυχῇ· ψυχῇ δὲ φύσις ἀναθυμίασις, ἣν τυπωθῆναι μὲν ἐργῶδες διὰ μανότητα, δεξαμένην δὲ τηρῆσαι τύπωσιν ἀδύνατον ἥ τε γὰρ τροφὴ καὶ ἡ γένεσις αὐτῆς ἐξ ὑγρῶν οὖσα συνεχῆ τὴν ἐπιφορὰν ἔχει καὶ τὴν ἀνάλωσιν· ἥ τε πρὸς τὸν ἀέρα τῆς ἀναπνοῆς ἐπιμιξία καινὴν ἀεὶ ποιεῖ τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν, ἐξισταμένην καὶ τρεπομένην ὑπὸ τοῦ θύραθεν ἐμβάλλοντος ὀχετοῦ καὶ πάλιν ἐξιόντος. ῥεῦμα γὰρ ἄν τις ὕδατος φερομένου μᾶλλον διανοηθείη σχήματα καὶ τύπους καὶ εἴδη διαφυλάττον, ἢ πνεῦμα φερόμενον ἑν τοῖς ἀτμοῖς καὶ ὑγρότησιν, ἑτέρῳ δʼ ἔξωθεν ἐνδελεχῶς οἷον ἀργῷ καὶ ἀλλοτρίῳ πνεύματι κιρνάμενον. ἀλλʼ οὕτω παρακούοντες ἑαυτῶν, ὥστε τὰς ἐννοίας ἐννοίας ἀποκειμένας τινὰς ὁριζόμενοι νοήσεις, μνήμας δὲ μονίμους καὶ σχετικὰς τυπώσεις, τὰς δʼ ἐπιστήμας καὶ παντάπασι πηγνύντες ὡς τὸ ἀμετάπτωτον καὶ βέβαιον ἐχούσας, εἶτα τούτοις ὑποτίθεσθαι βάσιν καὶ ἕδραν οὐσίας ὀλισθηρᾶς καὶ σκεδαστῆς καὶ φερομένης ἀεὶ καὶ ῥεούσης.
48. DIADUMENUS. Now the common conception of an element and principle, naturally imprinted in almost all men, is this, that it is simple, unmixed, and uncompounded. For that is not an element or principle which is mixed; but those things are so of which it is mixed. But these men, making God, who is the principle of all things, to be an intellectual body and a mind seated in matter, pronounce him to be neither simple nor uncompounded, but to be composed of and by another; matter being of itself indeed without reason and void of quality, and yet having simplicity and the property of a principle. If then God is not incorporeal and immaterial, he participates of matter as a principle. For if matter and reason are one and the same thing, they have not rightly defined matter to be reasonless; but if they are different things, then is God constituted of them both, and is not a simple, but compound thing, having to the intellectual taken the corporeal from matter.
48. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. στοιχείου γε μὴν καὶ ἀρχῆς ἔννοια κοινὴ πᾶσιν ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ἀνθρώποις ἐμπέφυκεν, ὡς ἁπλοῦν καὶ ἄκρατον εἶναι καὶ ἀσύνθετον· οὐ γὰρ στοιχεῖον οὐδʼ ἀρχὴ τὸ μεμιγμένον ἀλλʼ ἐξ ὧν μέμικται. καὶ μὴν οὗτοι τὸν θεὸν ἀρχὴν ὄντα σῶμα νοερὸν καὶ νοῦν ἐν ὕλῃ ποιοῦντες οὐ καθαρὸν οὐδʼ ἁπλοῦν οὐδʼ ἀσύνθετον ἀλλʼ ἐξ ἑτέρου καὶ διʼ ἑτέρον ἀποφαίνουσιν ἡ δʼ ὕλη καθʼ αὑτὴν ἄλογος οὖσα καὶ ἄποιος τὸ ἁπλοῦν ἔχει καὶ τὸ ἀρχοειδὲς ὁ θεὸς δέ, εἴπερ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀσώματος οὐδʼ ἄυλος, ὡς ἀρχῆς μετέσχηκε τῆς ὕλης. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἓν καὶ ταὐτὸν ἡ ὕλη καὶ ὁ λόγος, οὐκ εὖ τὴν ὕλην ἄλογον ἀποδεδώκασιν εἰ δʼ ἕτερα, καὶ ἀμφοτέρων ταμίας ἄν τις ὁ θεὸς εἴη καὶ οὐχ ἁπλοῦν ἀλλὰ σύνθετον πρᾶγμα τῷ νοερῷ τὸ σωματικὸν ἐκ τῆς ὕλης προσειληφώς.
49. DIADUMENUS. Moreover, calling these four bodies, earth, water, air, and fire, the first elements, they do (I know not how) make some of them simple and pure, and others compound and mixed. For they hold that earth and water keep together neither themselves nor other things, but preserve their unity by the participation of air and force of fire; but that air and fire do both fortify themselves by their own strength, or being mixed with the other two, give them force, permanence, and subsistence. How then is either earth or water an element, if neither of them is either simple, or first, or self-sufficient, but if each wants somewhat from without to contain and keep it in its being? For they have not left so much as a thought of their substance; but this discourse concerning the earth has much confusion and uncertainty, when they say that it subsists of itself; for if the earth is of itself, how has it need of the air to fix and contain it? But neither the earth nor water can any more be said to be of itself; but the air, drawing together and thickening the matter, has made the earth, and again dissolving and mollifying it, has produced the water. Neither of these then is an element, since something else has contributed being and generation to them both.
49. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. τά γε μὴν τέσσαρα σώματα, γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ ἀέρα τε καὶ πῦρ, πρῶτα στοιχεῖα προσαγορεύοντες, οὐκ οἶδʼ ὅπως τὰ μὲν ἁπλᾶ καὶ καθαρὰ τὰ δὲ σύνθετα καὶ μεμιγμένα ποιοῦσι. γῆν μὲν γὰρ εἰς ἀεὶ καὶ ὕδωρ οὔθʼ ἑαυτὰ συνέχειν οὔθʼ ἕτερα, πνευματικῆς δὲ μετοχῇ καὶ πυρώδους δυνάμεως τὴν ἑνότητα διαφυλάττειν ἀέρα δὲ καὶ πῦρ αὑτῶν τʼ εἶναι διʼ εὐτονίαν ἐκτατικά, καὶ τοῖς δυσὶν ἐκείνοις ἐγκεκραμένα τόνον παρέχειν καὶ τὸ μόνιμον καὶ οὐσιῶδες. πῶς οὖν ἔτι γῆ στοιχεῖον ἢ ὕδωρ, εἰ μήθʼ ἁπλοῦν μήτε πρῶτον μήθʼ αὑτῷ διαρκές, ἀλλʼ ἐνδεὲς ἔξωθεν εἰς ἀεὶ τοῦ συνέχοντος ἐν τῷ εἶναι καὶ σῴζοντος; οὐδὲ γὰρ οὐσίας αὐτῶν ἐπίνοιαν ἀπολελοίπασιν, ἀλλὰ πολλὴν ἔχει ταραχὴν καὶ ἀσάφειαν οὕτως ὁ λόγος λεγόμενος τῆς γῆς τινὸς καθʼ ἑαυτήν. εἶτα πῶς οὖσα γῆ καθʼ ἑαυτὴν ἀέρος δεῖται συνιστάντος αὐτὴν καὶ συνέχοντος; ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔστι γῆ καθʼ ἑαυτὴν οὐδʼ ὕδωρ· ἀλλὰ τὴν ὕλην ὁ ἀὴρ ὧδε μὲν συναγαγὼν καὶ πυκνώσας γῆν ἐποίησεν, ὧδε δὲ πάλιν διαλυθεῖσαν καὶ μαλαχθεῖσαν ὕδωρ. οὐδέτερον οὖν τούτων στοιχεῖον, οἷς ἕτερον ἀμφοτέροις οὐσίαν καὶ γένεσιν παρέσχηκεν.
50. DIADUMENUS. Moreover, they say that subsistence and matter are subject to qualities, and do so in a manner define them; and again, they make the qualities to be also bodies. But these things have much perplexity. For if qualities have a peculiar substance, for which they both are and are called bodies, they need no other substance; for they have one of their own. But if they have under them in common only that which the Stoics call essence and matter, it is manifest they do but participate of the body; for they are not bodies. But the subject and recipient must of necessity differ from those things which it receives and to which it is subject. But these men see by halves; for they say indeed that matter is void of quality, but they will not call qualities immaterial. Now how can they make a body without quality, who understand no quality without a body? For the reason which joins a body to all quality suffers not the understanding to comprehend any body without some quality. Either, therefore, he who oppugns incorporeal quality seems also to oppugn unqualified matter; or separating the one from the other, he mutually parts them both. As for the reason which some pretend, that matter is called unqualified not because it is void of all quality, but because it has all qualities, it is most of all against sense. For no man calls that unqualified which is capable of every quality, nor that impassible which is by nature always apt to suffer all things, nor that immovable which is moved every way. And this doubt is not solved, that, however matter is always understood with quality, yet it is understood to be another thing and differing from quality.
50. ΔΙΑΔΟΥΜ. ἔτι τὴν μὲν οὐσίαν καὶ τὴν ὕλην ὑφεστάναι ταῖς ποιότησι λέγουσι, ὡς σχεδὸν οὕτω τὸν ὅρον ἀποδιδόναι τὰς δὲ ποιότητας αὖ πάλιν οὐσίας καὶ σώματα ποιοῦσι. ταῦτα δὲ πολλὴν ἔχει ταραχήν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἰδίαν οὐσίαν αἱ ποιότητας ἔχουσι καθʼ ἣν σώματα λέγονται καὶ εἰσιν, οὐχ ἑτέρας οὐσίας δέονται· τὴν γὰρ αὑτῶν ἔχουσιν. εἰ δὲ τοῦτο μόνον αὐταῖς ὑφέστηκε τὸ κοινόν, ὅπερ οὐσίαν οὗτοι καὶ ὕλην καλοῦσι, δῆλον ὅτι σώματος μετέχουσι σώματα γὰρ οὔκ εἰσι· τὸ δ’ ὑφεστὼς καὶ δεχόμενον διαφέρειν ἀνάγκη τῶν ἃ δέχεται καὶ οἷς ὑφέστηκεν. οἱ δὲ τὸ ἣμισυ βλέπουσι· τὴν γὰρ ὕλην ἄποιον ὀνομάζουσι, τὰς δὲ ποιότητας οὐκέτι βούλονται καλεῖν ἀύλους. καίτοι πῶς οἷόν τε σῶμα ποιότητος ἄνευ ποιῆσαι, ποιότητα σώματος ἄνευ μὴ νοοῦντας; ὁ γὰρ συμπλέκων σῶμα πάσῃ ποιότητι λόγος οὐδενὸς ἐᾷ μὴ σύν τινι ποιότητι σώματος ἅψασθαι τὴν διάνοιαν. ἢ τοίνυν πρὸς τὸ ἀσώματον τῆς ποιότητος μαχόμενος μάχεσθαι καὶ πρὸς τὸ ἄποιον τῆς ὕλης; ἔοικεν, ἢ θατέρου θάτερον ἀποκρίνων καὶ ἀμφότερα χωρίζειν ἀλλήλων. ὃν δέ τινες αὐτῶν προβάλλονται λόγον, ὡς ἄποιον τὴν οὐσίαν ὀνομάζοντες, οὐχ ὅτι πάσης ἐστέρηται ποιότητος ἀλλʼ ὅτι πάσας ἔχει τὰς ποιότητας, μάλιστα παρὰ τὴν ἔννοιὰν ἐστιν. οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἄποιον νοεῖ τὸ μηδεμιᾶς ποιότητος ἄμοιρον οὐδʼ ἀπαθὲς τὸ πάντα πάσχειν ἀεὶ πεφυκὸς οὐδʼ ἀκίνητον τὸ πάντῃ κινητόν. ἐκεῖνο δʼ οὐ λέλυται, κἂν ἀεὶ μετὰ ποιότητος ἡ ὕλη νοῆται, τὸ ἑτέραν αὐτὴν νοεῖσθαι καὶ διαφέρουσαν τῆς ποιότητος.