9. What, have you seen with your eyes, and handled217    Lit., “with ocular inspection, and held touched.”    The ms., followed by Hild., reads habet et animum—“has it a mind to, and does it,” etc.; for which Gelenius, followed by later edd., reads, as above, avet animus. with your hands, those things which you write yourselves, which you read from time to time on subjects placed beyond human knowledge? Does not each one trust this author or that? That which any one has persuaded himself is said with truth by another, does he not defend with a kind of assent, as it were, like that of faith? Does not he who says that fire218    “Fire” is wanting in the ms.    Cererem ab Iaccho, either as above, or “loved by Iacchus.” Cf. Lucret. iv. 1160: At tumida et mammosa Ceres est ipsa ab Iaccho. or water is the origin of all things, pin his faith to Thales or Heraclitus? he who places the cause of all in numbers, to Pythagoras of Samos, and to Archytas? he who divides the soul, and sets up bodiless forms, to Plato, the disciple of Socrates? he who adds a fifth element219    Arnobius here allows himself to be misled by Cicero (Tusc., i. 10), who explains ἐντελέχεια as a kind of perpetual motion, evidently confusing it with ἐνδελέχεια (cf. Donaldson, New Crat., § 339 sqq.), and represents Aristotle as making it a fifth primary cause. The word has no such meaning, and Aristotle invariably enumerates only four primary causes: the material from which, the form in which, the power by which, and the end for which anything exists (Physics, ii. 3; Metaph., iv. 2, etc.).    Sensu obscæno. to the primary causes, to Aristotle, the father of the Peripatetics? he who threatens the world with destruction by fire, and says that when the time comes it will be set on fire, to Panætius, Chrysippus, Zeno? he who is always fashioning worlds from atoms,220    Lit., “with indivisible bodies.”    The first five edd. read hortari—“exhorted,” for which LB, followed by later edd., received tortari; as above,—a conjecture of Canterus. and destroying them, to Epicurus, Democritus, Metrodorus? he who says that nothing is comprehended by man, and that all things are wrapt in dark obscurity,221    Pl. to Archesilas,222    So the ms., LB., and Hildebrand, reading Archesilæ, while the others read Archesilao, forgetting that Arcesilas is the regular Latin form, although Archesilaus is found. to Carneades?—to some teacher, in fine, of the old and later Academy?

IX. Quid illa de rebus ab humana cognitione sepositis, quae conscribitis ipsi, quae lectitatis, oculata 0824A vidistis inspectione, et manibus tractata tenuistis? Nonne vestrum quicumque est, huic, vel illi credit auctori ? non quod sibi persuaserit quis verum dici ab altero, velut quadam fidei astipulatione tutatur? Qui cunctorum originem esse dicit ignem aut aquam, non Thaleti aut Heraclito credit? qui causam in numeris ponit, non Pythagorae Samio, non Archytae? qui animam dividit, et incorporales constituit formas, non Platoni Socratico? qui quintum elementum principalibus applicat causis, non Aristoteli Peripateticorum patri? qui ignem minatur mundo , et venerit cum tempus, arsurum, non Panaetio, Chrysippo, Zenoni? qui individuis corporibus mundos semper fabricatur et destruit, non Epicuro, Democrito, Metrodoro? qui nihil ab homine comprehendi, atque omnia 0824B caecis obscuritatibus involuta, non Archesilao, Carneadi? non alicui denique Academiae veteris, recentiorisque cultori?