<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text xml:lang="eng"><body><div type="translation" xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0007.tlg128.perseus-eng3"><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="5"><p rend="indent">Moreover, what is never detrimental is more <pb xml:id="v.12.p.297"/> useful. Now fire, when it forms a stream, is most destructive; but the nature of water is never harmful. Then again, of two elements that is more beneficial which is cheaper and provides its help without any preparation. Now the use of fire requires a supply of fuel, for which reason rich people have more of it than poor, and kings than private persons; but water has another merit in service to man, that of equality, with no discrimination. For it needs no tools or implements, being a self-sufficient, self-fulfilling good. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="6"><p rend="indent">Then too, that which by multiplication destroys its own contribution is the less useful. Such a thing is fire which, like an all-devouring beast, consumes everything near, so that it is useful rather by skilful handling and craft and moderation in use than by its own nature; but water is never dangerous. Further, of two things the one which may be joined with its fellow is more useful. Now fire does not admit moisture and is of no use when in conjunction with it; but water is of service when combined with fire, for hot water is healing and well adapted to medicinal purposes. A watery fire you will never see; but water is as useful to mankind when hot as when cold. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="7"><p rend="indent">Furthermore, though there are but four elements,<note resp="editor" place="unspecified" anchored="true"><foreign xml:lang="lat">Cf.</foreign><title rend="italic" xml:lang="lat">Mor.</title> 948 d above; in 729 b the sea is called the <q>naturally hostile element.</q> </note> water provides from itself a fifth, so to say, the sea, one no less beneficial than the others, especially for commerce among other things. This element, therefore, when our life was savage and unsociable, linked it together and made it complete, redressing defects by mutual assistance and exchange and so <pb xml:id="v.12.p.299"/> bringing about co-operation and friendship. Now Heraclitus<note resp="editor" place="unspecified" anchored="true">Diels-Kranz, <title rend="italic" xml:lang="deu">Frag. der Vorsok.</title> i. 173, frag. B 99. In <title rend="italic" xml:lang="lat">Mor.</title> 98 c a fuller and more appropriate version is given; but see now H. Fränkel, <title rend="italic" xml:lang="deu">Wege und Formen</title>, p. 270 and n. 1.</note> declares, <q>If there were no sun, it would be perpetual night</q>; in the same way we may say that if there were no sea, man would be the most savage and destitute of all creatures. But as it is, the sea brought the Greeks the vine from India, from Greece transmitted the use of grain across the sea, from Phoenicia imported letters as a memorial against forgetfulness,<note resp="editor" place="unspecified" anchored="true"><foreign xml:lang="lat">Cf.</foreign> Euripides, frag. 578 (p. 542 Nauck).</note> thus preventing the greater part of mankind from being wineless, grainless, and unlettered. How, then, should water not be more useful when it has the advantage over fire of one more element?<note resp="editor" place="unspecified" anchored="true">For this delightful absurdity see Sandbach, <foreign xml:lang="lat">op. cit.</foreign> p. 199, n. 4.</note> </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="8"><p rend="indent">What could anyone find to say on the other side from this point on? This, that God, the master workman, had as material four elements from which to construct the universe. Among these, again, there is a simple mutual distinction, namely, that earth and water are a foundation at the bottom of the universe, being, like raw material, the substance of which things are constructed and moulded, having just so much form and organization, and indeed of capacity for growth and procreation, as is imparted to them by the other elements, air and fire, which are makers and artisans and rouse them, lying lifeless as they were until then, to the act of creation. Between these two, again, fire and air, there is the distinction that fire assumes the rule and leadership. This is clear by induction<note resp="editor" place="unspecified" anchored="true">Possibly; but the argument hardly demonstrates this. The text is corrupt and a different solution than that adopted here is proposed by M. Adler (<title rend="italic" xml:lang="deu">Wien. Stud.</title> xxxi. 308).</note>: earth without warmth <pb xml:id="v.12.p.301"/> is barren and unfruitful, but fire, when it takes possession and inflames, causes it to swell to the point of generation; and it is impossible to find anyother reason why rocks and the bare bones of mountains are barren except that they have either no part at all, or very little share, in fire. </p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="section" n="9"><p rend="indent">And, in general, water is so far from being selfsufficient for the preservation or generation of other things that the want of fire is water’s destruction. For heat maintains everything in its proper being and keeps it in its proper substance, water itself as well as everything else. When fire withdraws and fails, water putrefies: the dearth of heat is the death and destruction of water. It is, of course, marsh waters and such as are stagnant, some too that have drained into depressions with no outlet, that are bad<note resp="editor" place="unspecified" anchored="true">That is, <q>salt,</q> as, for example, the Dead Sea.</note> and finally putrefy<note resp="editor" place="unspecified" anchored="true"><foreign xml:lang="lat">Cf.</foreign><title rend="italic" xml:lang="lat">Mor.</title> 1129 d, 725 d; Athenaeus, 46 b-c.</note> because they have very little motion, which preserves everything by stirring up its heat. This is the reason why we commonly say that those waters are <q>living</q> which have most motion and the strongest current; the heat is maintained by their motion. How, then, should that not be the more useful of two things which has provided what is necessary for the other’s existence, as fire does for water? And surely that is the more useful, the lack of which, if it be entirely taken away, causes the living creature to die. For it is obvious that anything without which a creature cannot live must have been a necessary cause of its existence, while it did exist. Now even corpses have moisture which does not entirely vanish; otherwise dead bodies would not <pb xml:id="v.12.p.303"/> putrefy, since putrefaction is not a change from dry to moist, but rather a corruption of the moisture in flesh. Death, then, is nothing but the total disappearance of heat and so dead men are extremely cold; if you attack them with a razor-blade, you will blunt the edge of it through excess of cold. In the living creature itself, too, the parts that have the least heat are the least sensitive, like bones and hair and the parts that are a long way from the heart. And, in general, the presence of fire makes a greater difference<note resp="editor" place="unspecified" anchored="true">Or adopting Schultz’s (<title rend="italic">Hermes</title>, xlvi. 632) emendation: <q>the difference between living and non-living comes from the presence of fire</q>; but the text is hopelessly corrupt.</note> than that of moisture; for it is not mere moisture that produces plants and fruits, but warm moisture; cold water, of course, is either less productive or not productive at all. Yet if by its own nature water were fruitful, it would always bear fruit by itself b; but on the contrary it is even harmful. </p></div></div></body></text></TEI>