§11. The sophistry which he employs to prove our acknowledgment that he had been tried, and that the confession of his faith had not been unimpeached, is feeble.

He objects to sophistries in others; see the sort of care he takes himself that his proofs shall be real ones. Our Master said, in the book which he addressed to him, that at the time when our cause was ruined, Eunomius won Cyzicus as the prize of his blasphemy. What then does this detector of sophistry do? He fastens at once on that word prize, and declares that we on our side confess that he made an apology, that he won thereby, that he gained the prize of victory by these efforts; and he frames his argument into a syllogism consisting as he thinks of unanswerable propositions. But we will quote word for word what he has written. ‘If a prize is the recognition and the crown of victory, and a trial implies a victory, and, as also inseparable from itself, an accusation, then that man who grants (in argument) the prize must necessarily allow that there was a defence.’ What then is our answer to that? We do not deny that he fought this wretched battle of impiety with a most vigorous energy, and that he went a very long distance beyond his fellows in these perspiring efforts against the truth; but we will not allow that he obtained the victory over his opponents; but only that as compared with those who were running the same as himself through heresy into error he was foremost in the number of his lies and so gained the prize of Cyzicus in return for high attainments in evil, beating all who for the same prize combated the Truth; and that for this victory of blasphemy his name was blazoned loud and clear when Cyzicus was selected for him by the umpires of his party as the reward of his extravagance. This is the statement of our opinion, and this we allowed; our contention now that Cyzicus was the prize of a heresy, not the successful result of a defence, shews it. Is this anything like his own mess of childish sophistries, so that he can thereby hope to have grounds for proving the fact of his trial and his defence? His method is like that of a man in a drinking bout, who has made away with more strong liquor than the rest, and having then claimed the pool from his fellow-drunkards should attempt to make this victory a proof of having won some case in the law courts. That man might chop the same sort of logic. ‘If a prize is the recognition and the crown of victory, and a law-trial implies a victory and, as also inseparable from itself, an accusation, then I have won my suit, since I have been crowned for my powers of drinking in this bout.’

One would certainly answer to such a boaster that a trial in court is a very different thing from a wine-contest, and that one who wins with the glass has thereby no advantage over his legal adversaries, though he get a beautiful chaplet of flowers. No more, therefore, has the man who has beaten his equals in the advocacy of profanity anything to show in having won the prize for that, that he has won a verdict too. The testimony on our side that he is first in profanity is no plea for his imaginary ‘apology.’ If he did speak it before the court, and, having so prevailed over his adversaries, was honoured with Cyzicus for that, then he might have some occasion for using our own words against ourselves; but as he is continually protesting in his book that he yielded to the animus of the voters, and accepted in silence the penalty which they inflicted, not even waiting for this hostile decision, why does he impose upon himself and make this word prize into the proof of a successful apology? Our excellent friend fails to understand the force of this word prize; Cyzicus was given up to him as the reward of merit for his extravagant impiety; and as it was his will to receive such a prize, and he views it in the light of a victor’s guerdon, let him receive as well what that victory implies, viz. the lion’s share in the guilt of profanity. If he insists on our own words against ourselves, he must accept both these consequences, or neither.

Ἀλλὰ καὶ « τὸν σοφιστικὸν λόγον » 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 οὗτος „ἆθλον τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν Κύζικον ἀπηνέγκατο”. 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. « εἰ γὰρ τὸ ἆθλον, φησί, νίκης ἐστὶ γνώρισμα καὶ τέλος, μηνύει δὲ τὴν δίκην ἡ νίκη, συνεισάγει δὲ πάντως ἑαυτῇ τὴν κατηγορίαν ἡ δίκη, ὁ τὸ ἆθλον διδοὺς ἀναγκαίαν εἶναι φήσει καὶ τὴν ἀπολογίαν ». 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 Κύζικον, 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 κηρύγματι ἐν τῷ μισθὸν τῆς ἀτοπίας αὐτῷ παρὰ τῶν οὕτως ἀγωνοθετούντων ἐξαιρεθῆναι τὴν Κύζικον. καὶ ὅτι ταῦτα κατὰ τὴν ῥηθεῖσαν διάνοιαν παρ' ἡμῶν ὡμολόγηται, δείκνυσιν ὁ ἡμέτερος λόγος, ὅτι ἀσεβείας ἆθλον, οὐχὶ ἀπολογίας κατόρθωμά φαμεν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι τὴν Κύζικον. τί οὖν κοινὸν ἔχει τὰ παρ' ἡμῶν εἰρημένα πρὸς τὴν παιδιώδη 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 καὶ ὑπερέχειν δικασάμενος. ἐξέσται γὰρ κἀκείνῳ τὴν πλοκὴν 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, ἐνίκησα τὴν δίκην ἐγώ, ἐπειδὴ πίνων ἐστέφθην ἐν τῷ τῆς 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 ἀσεβείας τῶν ὁμοίων προτεταγμένος ἤδη καὶ τοῦ ἐν τῇ κρίσει νενικηκέναι διὰ τοῦ ἄθλου τῆς ἀσεβείας τὴν μαρτυρίαν παρέχεται. τί οὖν συνηγορεῖ τῇ μὴ ῥηθείσῃ ἀπολογίᾳ ἡ τοῦ προέχειν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀσεβείᾳ παρ' ἡμῶν μαρτυρία; εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἀπολογησάμενος πρὸς τοὺς δικαστὰς καὶ τῶν ἀντιτεταγμένων κρατήσας οὕτως ἐδέξατο τὴν ἐπὶ Κυζίκῳ τιμήν, καιρὸν ἂν εἶχε τὰ ἡμέτερα καθ' ἡμῶν προχειρίζεσθαι: εἰ δὲ συνεχῶς ἐπὶ τοῦ λόγου μαρτύρεται, ὅτι φεύγων τὸ δυσμενὲς τῶν κυρίων τῆς ψήφου σιωπῇ δέχεται τὴν ἐπαχθεῖσαν αὐτῷ τιμωρίαν, ἐν ἐχθροῖς διαθέσθαι τοὺς ἀγῶνας οὐκ ἀνασχόμενος, τί ἑαυτὸν φενακίζει καὶ τῇ φωνῇ τοῦ ἄθλου εἰς μαρτυρίαν τοῦ ἀπολελογῆσθαι συγκέχρηται μὴ συνιεὶς ὁ θαυμάσιος τοῦ ἄθλου τὴν ἔμφασιν, ὅτι καθάπερ τι γέρας καὶ ἀριστεῖον αὐτῷ τῆς κατὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ὑπεροχῆς ”ἡ Κύζικος προεπόθη„. ἀλλ' ἐπειδὴ πρὸς τὸ δοκοῦν δέχεται τὸ ἆθλον καὶ ὡς δωρεὰν ἐπινίκιον, δεξάσθω καὶ τὸ συνημμένον τῷ λόγῳ, ὅτι ἐν ἀσεβείᾳ τὸ πλέον διὰ τῆς νίκης ἔσχεν. ἐπειδὴ γὰρ τοῖς ἡμετέροις καθ' ἡμῶν ἰσχυρίζεται, ἢ ἀμφοτέροις ἢ οὐθετέροις κεχρῆσθαι δίκαιος.