§18.1Διὰ τί τοὺς μέν, ἐὰν ἄρξωνται ἀναγινώσκειν, ὕπνος λαμβάνει καὶ μὴ βουλομένους, τοὺς δὲ βουλομένους προεγρηγορέναι, ὅταν λάβωσι τὸ βιβλίον. . . ;
Why is it that some people, if they begin to read, are seized by sleep even against their will, while others, though wishing to stay awake, when they take up the book...?
ἢ ὅσοις μέν εἰσι πνευματικαὶ κινήσεις διὰ ψυχρότητα φύσεως ἢ μελαγχολικῶν χυμῶν, δι’ οὓς περίττωμα γίνεται πνευματικὸν ἄπεπτον διὰ ψυχρότητα, τούτοις ὅταν μὲν κινῆται ἡ διάνοια καὶ μὴ νοήσῃ ἐπιστήσασά τι, ἐκκρούεται τῇ ἑτέρᾳ κινήσει οὔσᾳ καταψυκτικῇ, διὸ μᾶλλον καθεύθουσιν.
Or is it because for those who have psychic movements due to the coldness of their nature or to melancholic humors, by which a cold, undigested psychic residue is produced, when their intellect is in motion but does not comprehend after directing itself to something, it is knocked out by the other movement which is cooling, wherefore they fall asleep instead?
ὅταν δὲ ἐρείσωσι πρός τι ἐν τῇ διανοίᾳ, ὅπερ ἡ ἀνάγνωσις ποιεῖ, κινοῦνται ὑπὸ τῆς θερμαντικῆς κινήσεως οὐκ ἐκκρουομένης ὑπ’ οὐδενός, ὥστε οὐ δύνανται καθεύδειν.
But when they anchor themselves to something in their intellect, which is what reading does, they are moved by the warming movement which is knocked out by nothing, so that they cannot sleep.
τῶν δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἐχόντων ὅταν στῇ πρὸς ἓν ἡ διάνοια καὶ μὴ μεταβάλλῃ πολλαχῇ ἰσχυροτάτη οὖσα, ἴσχεται καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ὅσα ἐστὶ περὶ τὸν τόπον τοῦτον, ὧν ἠρέμησις ὁ ὕπνος ἐστίν.
But in those who are in a natural state, when the intellect, being very strong, stops at one thing and does not shift in many directions, all the other things around this region are also held in check, the rest of which is sleep.
ὅταν δὲ στῇ καὶ οἷον κοπιάσῃ ὁ νοῦς, βαρύνει τὴν κεφαλὴν ὢν ἐν αὐτῇ καὶ ποιεῖ τὸν ὕπνον.
But when the mind stops and, as it were, grows weary, being in the head it makes it heavy and causes sleep.
κινουμένης δὲ τῆς ψυχῆς κατὰ φύσιν οὐ καθεύδει· ζῇ γὰρ τότε μάλιστα.
But when the soul is in motion according to nature, it does not sleep; for then it lives most of all.
τὸ δ’ ἐγρηγορέναι τοῦ ζῆν αἴτιόν ἐστιν ἢ τὸ καθεύδειν.
And staying awake is the cause of living, rather than sleeping.
§18.2Διὰ τί οἱ ἐριστικοὶ λόγοι γυμναστικοί εἰσιν;
Why are contentious arguments gymnastic?
ἢ ὅτι ἔχουσι τὸ νικᾶν ἢ ἡττᾶσθαι πυκνόν.
Or is it because they have frequent winning or losing?
φιλονείκους οὖν εὐθὺς ποιοῦσιν· καὶ γὰρ νικῶντες διὰ τὸ χαίρειν προάγονται μᾶλλον ἐρίζειν καὶ ἡττώμενοι ὡς ἀναμαχούμενοι.
Therefore they immediately make people love victory; for those who win are led on to contend more because of their pleasure, and those who lose because they want to fight back.
καὶ οἱ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις ἀγῶσι ταὐτό· διὸ καὶ μαχόμενοι καὶ ἥττους ὄντες πολλάκις οὐ βούλονται διαλύεσθαι.
And it is the same with those in other contests; wherefore even when they are losing and being defeated, they often do not wish to break off the fight.
§18.3Διὰ τί τοῖς παραδείγμασι χαίρουσιν οἱ ἄνθρωποι ἐν ταῖς ῥητορείαις καὶ τοῖς λόγοις μᾶλλον τῶν ἐνθυμημάτων;
Why do people enjoy examples in rhetorics and speeches more than enthymemes?
ἢ ὅτι τῷ τε μανθάνειν χαίρουσι καὶ τῷ ταχύ· ῥᾷον δὲ διὰ τῶν παραδειγμάτων καὶ τῶν λόγων μανθάνουσιν· ἃ γὰρ ἴσασιν, ἔστι ταῦτα καὶ ἐπὶ μέρους, τὰ δὲ ἐνθυμήματα ἀπόδειξίς ἐστιν ἐκ τῶν καθόλου, ἃ ἧττον ἴσμεν ἢ τὰ μέρη.
Or is it because they enjoy learning, and doing so quickly; and they learn more easily through examples and stories; for what they know is these things, which are also particular, whereas enthymemes are proofs from universals, which we know less than the particulars.
ἔτι οἷς ἂν μαρτυρῶσι πλείους, μᾶλλον πιστεύομεν, τὰ δὲ παραδείγματα καὶ οἱ λόγοι μαρτυρίαις ἐοίκασιν· αἱ δὲ διὰ τῶν μαρτύρων ῥᾴδιοι πίστεις.
Further, we believe more in those things for which more people bear witness, and examples and stories are like testimonies; and proofs through witnesses are easy.
ἔτι τὸ ὅμοιον μανθάνουσιν ἡδέως, τὸ δὲ παράδειγμα καὶ οἱ μῦθοι τὸ ὅμοιον δεικνύουσιν.
Further, they gladly learn what is similar, and the example and fables show what is similar.
§18.4Διὰ τί ῥήτορα μὲν καὶ στρατηγὸν καὶ χρηματιστὴν λέγομεν δεινόν, αὐλητὴν δὲ καὶ ὑποκριτὴν οὐ λέγομεν;
Why do we call a rhetorician, a general, and a businessman "clever", but we do not call a flute-player and an actor so?
ἢ ὅτι τῶν μὲν ἡ δύναμις ἄνευ πλεονεξίας (ἡδονῆς γὰρ στοχαστική ἐστι), τῶν δὲ πρὸς τὸ πλεονεκτεῖν·
Or is it because the capacity of the latter is without self-seeking (for it aims at pleasure), while that of the former is toward getting more?
ῥήτωρ γὰρ καὶ στρατηγὸς καὶ χρηματιστὴς ἀγαθός ἐστιν ὁ δυνάμενος πλέον ἔχειν, ἡ δὲ δεινότης μάλιστα ἐν τῷ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐστίν.
For a good rhetorician, a general and a businessman is one who is able to get more, and cleverness is especially in getting more.
§18.5Διὰ τί τὸν φιλόσοφον τοῦ ῥήτορος οἴονται διαφέρειν;
Why do they think that the philosopher differs from the rhetorician?
ἢ ὅτι ὁ μὲν τί ἐστιν ἀδικία, ὁ δὲ ὡς ἄδικος ὁ δεῖνα, καὶ ὁ μὲν ὅτι τύραννος, ὁ δὲ οἷον ἡ τυραννίς.
Or is it because the philosopher asks what injustice is, while the rhetorician says that such-and-such a person is unjust, and the rhetorician says that someone is a tyrant, while the philosopher asks what kind of thing tyranny is?