difficult a task。 Remembering what I said at first about
probability； I will do my best to give as probable an explanation as
any other…or rather； more probable； and I will first go back to the
beginning and try to speak of each thing and of all。 Once more；
then； at the commencement of my discourse； I call upon God； and beg
him to be our saviour out of a strange and unwonted enquiry； and to
bring us to the haven of probability。 So now let us begin again。
This new beginning of our discussion of the universe requires a
fuller division than the former； for then we made two classes； now a
third must be revealed。 The two sufficed for the former discussion：
one； which we assumed； was a pattern intelligible and always the same；
and the second was only the imitation of the pattern； generated and
visible。 There is also a third kind which we did not distinguish at
the time； conceiving that the two would be enough。 But now the
argument seems to require that we should set forth in words another
kind； which is difficult of explanation and dimly seen。 What nature
are we to attribute to this new kind of being？ We reply； that it is
the receptacle； and in a manner the nurse； of all generation。 I have
spoken the truth； but I must express myself in clearer language； and
this will be an arduous task for many reasons； and in particular
because I must first raise questions concerning fire and the other
elements； and determine what each of them is； for to say； with any
probability or certitude； which of them should be called water
rather than fire； and which should be called any of them rather than
all or some one of them； is a difficult matter。 How； then； shall we
settle this point； and what questions about the elements may be fairly
raised？
In the first place； we see that what we just now called water； by
condensation； I suppose； becomes stone and earth； and this same
element； when melted and dispersed； passes into vapour and air。 Air；
again； when inflamed； becomes fire； and again fire； when condensed and
extinguished； passes once more into the form of air； and once more；
air； when collected and condensed； produces cloud and mist； and from
these； when still more compressed； comes flowing water； and from water
comes earth and stones once more； and thus generation appears to be
transmitted from one to the other in a circle。 Thus； then； as the
several elements never present themselves in the same form； how can
any one have the assurance to assert positively that any of them；
whatever it may be； is one thing rather than another？ No one can。
But much the safest plan is to speak of them as follows：…Anything
which we see to be continually changing； as； for example； fire； we
must not call 〃this〃 or 〃that；〃 but rather say that it is 〃of such a
nature〃； nor let us speak of water as 〃this〃； but always as 〃such〃；
nor must we imply that there is any stability in any of those things
which we indicate by the use of the words 〃this〃 and 〃that；〃 supposing
ourselves to signify something thereby； for they are too volatile to
be detained in any such expressions as 〃this；〃 or 〃that；〃 or 〃relative
to this；〃 or any other mode of speaking which represents them as
permanent。 We ought not to apply 〃this〃 to any of them； but rather the
word 〃such〃； which expresses the similar principle circulating in each
and all of them； for example； that should be called 〃fire〃 which is of
such a nature always； and so of everything that has generation。 That
in which the elements severally grow up； and appear； and decay； is
alone to be called by the name 〃this〃 or 〃that〃； but that which is
of a certain nature； hot or white； or anything which admits of
opposite equalities； and all things that are compounded of them； ought
not to be so denominated。 Let me make another attempt to explain my
meaning more clearly。 Suppose a person to make all kinds of figures of
gold and to be always transmuting one form into all the
rest…somebody points to one of them and asks what it is。 By far the
safest and truest answer is； That is gold； and not to call the
triangle or any other figures which are formed in the gold 〃these；〃 as
though they had existence； since they are in process of change while
he is making the assertion； but if the questioner be willing to take
the safe and indefinite expression； 〃such；〃 we should be satisfied。
And the same argument applies to the universal nature which receives
all bodies…that must be always called the same； for； while receiving
all things； she never departs at all from her own nature； and never in
any way； or at any time； assumes a form like that of any of the things
which enter into her； she is the natural recipient of all impressions；
and is stirred and informed by them； and appears different from time
to time by reason of them。 But the forms which enter into and go out
of her are the likenesses of real existences modelled after their
patterns in wonderful and inexplicable manner； which we will hereafter
investigate。 For the present we have only to conceive of three
natures： first； that which is in process of generation； secondly； that
in which the generation takes place； and thirdly； that of which the
thing generated is a resemblance。 And we may liken the receiving
principle to a mother； and the source or spring to a father； and the
intermediate nature to a child； and may remark further； that if the
model is to take every variety of form； then the matter in which the
model is fashioned will not be duly prepared； unless it is formless；
and free from the impress of any of these shapes which it is hereafter
to receive from without。 For if the matter were like any of the
supervening forms； then whenever any opposite or entirely different
nature was stamped upon its surface； it would take the impression
badly； because it would intrude its own shape。 Wherefore； that which
is to receive all forms should have no form； as in making perfumes
they first contrive that the liquid substance which is to receive
the scent shall be as inodorous as possible； or as those who wish to
impress figures on soft substances do not allow any previous
impression to remain； but begin by making the surface as even and
smooth as possible。 In the same way that which is to receive
perpetually and through its whole extent the resemblances of all
eternal beings ought to be devoid of any particular form。 Wherefore；
the mother and receptacle of all created and visible and in any way
sensible things； is not to be termed earth； or air； or fire； or water；
or any of their compounds or any of the elements from which these
are derived； but is an invisible and formless being which receives all
things and in some mysterious way partakes of the intelligible； and is
most incomprehensible。 In saying this we shall not be far wrong； as
far； however； as we can attain to a knowledge of her from the previous
considerations； we may truly say that fire is that part of her
nature which from time to time is inflamed； and water that which is
moistened； and that the mother substance becomes earth and air； in
so far as she receives the impressions of them。
Let us consider this question more precisely。 Is there any
self…existent fire？ and do all those things which we call
self…existent exist？ or are only those things which we see； or in some
way perceive through the bodily organs； truly existent； and nothing
whatever besides them？ And is all that which； we call an
intelligible essence nothing at all； and only a name？ Here is a
question which we must not leave unexamined or undetermined； nor
must we affirm too confidently that there can be no decision；
neither must we interpolate in our present long discourse a digression
equally long； but if it is possible to set forth a great principle
in a few words； that is just what we want。
Thus I state my view：…If mind and true opinion are two distinct
classes； then I say that there certainly are these self…existent ideas
unperceived by sense； and apprehended only by the mind； if； however；
as some say； true opinion differs in no respect from mind； then
everything that we perceive through the body is to be regarded as most
real and certain。 But we must affirm that to be distinct； for they
have a distinct origin and are of a different nature； the one is
implanted in us by instruction； the other by persuasion； the one is
always accompanied by true reason； the other is without reason； the
one cannot be overcome by persuasion； but the other can： and lastly；
every man may be said to share in true opinion； but mind is the
attribute of the gods and of very few men。 Wherefore also we must
acknowledge that there is one kind of being which is always the
same； uncreated and indestructible； never receiving anything into
itself from without； nor itself going out to any other； but
invisible and imperceptible by any sense； and of which the
contemplation is granted to intelligence only。 And there is another
nature of the same name with it； and like to it； perceived by sense；
created； always in motion； becoming in place and again vanishing out
of place； which is apprehended by opinion and sense。 And there is a
third nature； which is space； and is eternal； and admits not of
destruction and provides a home for all created things； and is
apprehended without the help of sense； by a kind of spurious reason；
and is hardly real； which we beholding as in a dream； say of all
existence that it must of necessity be in some place and occupy a
space； but that what is neither in heaven nor in earth has no
existence。 Of these and other things of the same kind； relating to the
true and waking reality of nature； we have only this dreamlike
sense； and we are unable to cast off sleep and determine the truth
about them。 For an image； since the reality； after which it is
modelled； does not belong to it； and it exists ever as the fleeting
shadow of some other； must be inferred to be in another ＇i。e。 in space
＇； grasping existence in some way or other； or it could not be at all。
But true and exact reason； vindicating the nature of true being