21

a difference in the hypotheses, and one cannot even say how great, whether you were to test the argument from ancient stories or from life now. Therefore let us also accept that according to the common declaration about men, which the Holy Spirit declared through the prophet, that "Every man is a liar," the man of God was also involved in falsehood, having named a country bordering on another according to what occurred, through ignorance or contempt for the name of the place. But Eunomius also lied, and what is the lie? 1.1.110 a falsification of the truth itself. He says that the one who always is, at one time was not; he contrives that the true Son has a false name; he determines that the creator of all things is himself a creature and a thing made; he calls the one who is lord of all a slave; he ranks the one who has rule by nature with a servile nature. Is the difference in the lie small and of such a kind that one might think it is of no account whether one seems to have lied in this way or that? 1.1.111 But also, while reproaching others for 20sophistical argument,20 observe what care he takes for the proof of the truth. Our teacher said in his speech against him that at the time of the collapse of affairs, 1.1.112 this man "1carried off Cyzicus as a prize for his impiety."2 What then does he who refutes the sophists do? He immediately seizes upon the word 'prize' and says that it is conceded by us that he both made his defense and was victorious through his defense and received the prize of victory from the contests, and he constructs a syllogism, concluding his argument, as he thinks, with irrefutable points. What was written by him will be said verbatim. 20"For if the prize," he says, "is a sign and end of victory, and victory indicates a trial, and a trial always brings with it an accusation, he who gives the prize will say that the defense 1.1.113 is also necessary."20 What then do we say? We do not deny that he contended very vehemently and vigorously in this wicked contest of impiety and that he surpassed his peers by no small measure and excelled in his toils against the truth; but not that he won the victory over his opponents, but that by comparison with those who ran with him through impiety to error, he was first of all in the abundance of his falsehood, and so received Cyzicus as a prize for his excess in evil, as having the advantage over all who entered the lists for similar causes against the truth, and that for his victory in blasphemy he was proclaimed with a bright and conspicuous announcement when Cyzicus was set aside for him as a reward for his absurdity by those who so 1.1.114 presided over the contests. And our argument shows that these things were conceded by us in the aforementioned sense, that we say Cyzicus became for him a prize for impiety, not an achievement of a defense. What then does what was said by us have in common with this childish weaving of sophisms, so that on account of this both the trial and the defense are constructed for him? For such a thing is like someone at a symposium pouring himself more unmixed wine than the others and for this reason being deemed worthy of some prize by his fellow drinkers, who would make his victory at the symposium proof that he had also been tried in court 1.1.115 and had prevailed in his trial. For it will be possible for that man also to imitate the weaving of this syllogism: "if the prize is a sign and end of victory, and victory indicates a trial, and a trial always brings with it an accusation, I won the trial, since I was crowned for drinking in the contest of 1.1.116 much drinking." But someone will surely say to the one so priding himself that contests in a court of law are different, and the manner of competing in symposia is another; and he who is victorious by the cup has no advantage from such a victory over those arrayed against him in the courts, even if he glories in his floral crowns. Therefore, neither does he who has been placed before his peers in the argument of impiety thereby offer testimony of having been victorious in the judgment through the prize of impiety 1.1.117. What then argues in favor of the defense that was not spoken

21

πρὸς τὰς ὑποθέσεις διαφορά, καὶ οὐδὲ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν ὅση, εἴτε ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαίων διηγημάτων εἴτε ἐκ τοῦ νῦν βίου δοκιμάζοις τὸν λόγον. οὐκοῦν καὶ ἡμεῖς δεξώμεθα, ὅτι κατὰ τὴν κοινὴν περὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἀπό φασιν, ἣν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἀπεφήνατο ὅτι Πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ψεύστης, καὶ ὁ τοῦ θεοῦ ἄνθρωπος συνηνέχθη τῷ ψεύδει, τὴν ὅμορόν τινι χώραν ἀγνοίᾳ ἢ ὑπεροψίᾳ τῆς τοῦ τόπου προσηγορίας κατὰ τὸ συμβὰν ἐπι φημίσας. ἀλλ' ἐψεύσατο καὶ Εὐνόμιος, καὶ τί τὸ ψεῦδος; 1.1.110 αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας παραγραφή. τὸν ἀεὶ ὄντα ποτὲ μὴ εἶναι λέγει, τὸν ἀληθῶς υἱὸν ψευδώνυμον ἔχειν τὴν προση γορίαν κατασκευάζει, τὸν κτίστην πάντων αὐτὸν κτίσμα εἶναι καὶ ποίημα διορίζεται, τὸν κυριεύοντα τῶν ὅλων δοῦ λον προσαγορεύει, τὸν ἐκ φύσεως τὸ ἄρχειν ἔχοντα τῇ δουλευούσῃ φύσει συγκατατάσσει. ἆρα μικρὰ τοῦ ψεύδους ἡ διαφορὰ καὶ τοσαύτη, ὡς ἀντ' οὐδενὸς οἴεσθαί τινα τὸ οὕτως ἢ ἑτέρως ἐψεῦσθαι δοκεῖν; 1.1.111 Ἀλλὰ καὶ 20τὸν σοφιστικὸν λόγον20 ἐπονειδίζων ἑτέροις, θεωρεῖτε οἵαν τῆς τἀληθοῦς ἀποδείξεως ποιεῖται τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. εἶπεν ἐν τῷ λόγῳ τῷ πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ διδάσκαλος ἡμῶν, ὅτι ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς τῶν πραγμάτων καταστροφῆς 1.1.112 οὗτος "1ἆθλον τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν Κύζικον ἀπηνέγκατο"2. τί οὖν ὁ τοὺς σοφιστὰς διελέγχων ποιεῖ; εὐθὺς ἐπιφύεται τῷ τοῦ ἄθλου ὀνόματι καὶ συνομολογεῖσθαι παρ' ἡμῶν φησι τὸ καὶ ἀπολελογῆσθαι καὶ νικῆσαι διὰ τῆς ἀπολογίας καὶ τὸ ἐκ τῆς νίκης ἆθλον διὰ τῶν ἀγώνων κομίσασθαι καὶ συντίθησι συλλογισμόν, διὰ τῶν ἀναντιρρήτων, ὡς οἴεται, συμπεραίνων τὸν λόγον. εἰρήσεται δὲ αὐτὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα παρ' αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ λέξεως. 20εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἆθλον, φησί, νίκης ἐστὶ γνώρισμα καὶ τέλος, μηνύει δὲ τὴν δίκην ἡ νίκη, συνεισάγει δὲ πάντως ἑαυτῇ τὴν κατη γορίαν ἡ δίκη, ὁ τὸ ἆθλον διδοὺς ἀναγκαίαν 1.1.113 εἶναι φήσει καὶ τὴν ἀπολογίαν20. τί οὖν ἡμεῖς; ἠγωνίσθαι μὲν αὐτὸν καὶ πάνυ σφοδρῶς τε καὶ ἐρρωμένως τὸν πονηρὸν τοῦτον ἀγῶνα τῆς ἀσεβείας οὐκ ἀντιλέγομεν καὶ οὐ μικρῷ τῷ μέτρῳ τοὺς ὁμοίους ὑπερβεβληκέναι καὶ ὑπερέχειν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἱδρῶσιν, ἀλλ' οὐχὶ κατὰ τῶν ἀντιτεταγμένων ἐσχηκέναι τὰ νικητήρια, συγκρίσει δὲ τῶν συνδραμόντων αὐτῷ δι' ἀσεβείας ἐπὶ τὴν πλάνην προτερεύειν πάντων ἐν τῇ περιουσίᾳ τοῦ ψεύδους καὶ οὕτω λαβεῖν ἀντὶ τῆς εἰς τὸ κακὸν ὑπερβολῆς ἆθλον τὴν Κύ ζικον, ὡς πάντων τῶν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὁμοίοις κατὰ τῆς ἀληθείας κονισαμένων τὸ πλέον ἔχοντα, καὶ ἐπὶ τῇ νίκῃ τῇ κατὰ τὴν βλασφημίαν ἀναρρηθῆναι λαμπρῷ καὶ περιφανεῖ τῷ κηρύγ ματι ἐν τῷ μισθὸν τῆς ἀτοπίας αὐτῷ παρὰ τῶν οὕτως 1.1.114 ἀγωνοθετούντων ἐξαιρεθῆναι τὴν Κύζικον. καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα κατὰ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν διάνοιαν παρ' ἡμῶν ὡμολόγηται, δεί κνυσιν ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, ὅτι ἀσεβείας ἆθλον, οὐχὶ ἀπολογίας κατόρθωμά φαμεν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὴν Κύζικον. τί οὖν κοινὸν ἔχει τὰ παρ' ἡμῶν εἰρημένα πρὸς τὴν παι διώδη ταύτην τῶν σοφισμάτων πλοκήν, ὡς διὰ τοῦτο συστῆναι αὐτῷ καὶ τὴν δίκην καὶ τὴν ἀπολογίαν κατασκευάζεσθαι; ὅμοιον γὰρ τὸ τοιοῦτον ὥσπερ ἄν τις ἐν συμποσίῳ πλείω τῶν ἄλλων τὸν ἄκρατον ἐγχεάμενος καὶ διὰ τοῦτο γέρως τινὸς παρὰ τῶν συμμεθυόντων ἀξιωθεὶς τὴν ἐν τῷ συμποσίῳ νίκην τεκμήριον ποιοῖτο τοῦ καὶ ἐν δικαστηρίοις δεδικάσθαι 1.1.115 καὶ ὑπερέχειν δικασάμενος. ἐξέσται γὰρ κἀκείνῳ τὴν πλο κὴν τοῦ συλλογισμοῦ τούτου μιμήσασθαι· εἰ τὸ ἆθλον νίκης ἐστὶ γνώρισμα καὶ τέλος, μηνύει δὲ τὴν δίκην ἡ νίκη, συνεισάγει δὲ πάντως ἑαυτῇ τὴν κατηγορίαν ἡ δίκη, ἐνί κησα τὴν δίκην ἐγώ, ἐπειδὴ πίνων ἐστέφθην ἐν τῷ τῆς 1.1.116 πολυποσίας ἀγῶνι. ἀλλ' ἐρεῖ τις πάντως πρὸς τὸν οὕτω καλλωπιζόμενον, ὅτι ἄλλοι ἀγῶνες ἐν δικαστηρίῳ καὶ ἄλλος τρόπος τῆς ἐν συμποσίοις ἀθλήσεως· καὶ ὁ νικήσας διὰ τῆς κύλικος οὐδὲν ἔχει πλέον ἐκ τῆς τοιαύτης νίκης τῶν ἐν δικαστηρίοις ἀντιτεταγμένων αὐτῷ, κἂν τοῖς ἀνθίνοις στεφάνοις ἐπαγλαΐσηται. οὐκοῦν οὐδὲ ὁ τῷ λόγῳ τῆς ἀσε βείας τῶν ὁμοίων προτεταγμένος ἤδη καὶ τοῦ ἐν τῇ κρίσει νενικηκέναι διὰ τοῦ ἄθλου τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν μαρτυρίαν 1.1.117 παρέχεται. τί οὖν συνηγορεῖ τῇ μὴ ῥηθείσῃ ἀπολογίᾳ