Aquane an ignis sit utilior

There seems to be no reason to discuss this little work in detail, since F. H. Sandbach[*](Class. Quart. xxxiii (1939), pp. 198-202. G. Kowolski, De Plut. scriptorum iuvenilium colore rhetorico, Cracow, 1918, pp. 258 ff., also denied the authenticity.) has shown conclusively that it cannot be genuine. Still more might be added to his proofs, sound and thorough as they are; but this is not the place to slay the slain. It is the more to be regretted that Ziegler, in the article on Plutarch in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie, has not had access to Sandbach’s work,[*](This is very puzzling since Ziegler later (936) cites the same article as authoritative on rhythmical matters.) though he does refer to Xylander’s athetesis, only to reject it, and might have mentioned Meziriacus’ as well.

Sandbach well observes: To write an exercise on the comparative utility of fire and water may seem so difficult to us moderns who do not have such tasks as part of our education, that we do not recognize how badly the topic is here handled --- While it is possible that Plutarch wrote this work as a parody, or when a schoolboy, or under some strange circumstances, yet --- the most probable view is that a miserable sophistical exercise on the subject Whether fire or water is more useful was fathered on the author of a diversion entitled Whether land- or water-animals are more intelligent, just as the Consolatio ad Apollonium

The text is extremely bad, as may be seen by examining Wegehaupt’s topheavy[*](Wegehaupt collated some 34 mss. for his edition, all of which he cites separately.) apparatus in Χάριτεςfür Friedrich Leo (Berlin, Weidmann, 1911)? pp. 158-169- It is possible, to be sure, that part at least of the difficulty of the text is due to the author. Less emendation than that admitted here might not seriously damage what is irreparable nonsense in any case. Some attempt has been made to reproduce the childish style of the original.

The work is no. 206 in the catalogue of Lamprias.[*](The new Teubner edition of this and the following essays appeared while this volume was in proof, so that only the most necessary changes and corrections could be made. In this essay (since Wegehaupt’s edition was already available) they have not been so plentiful as in the subsequent ones, for which Hubert has now provided the first truly critical edition that these works have ever had.)

Water is best, but gold is a flaming fire,

And first of all came Chaos into being;

Is not that element the more useful of which most of all, everywhere, invariably, we stand in need as a household tool and, I swear, a friend, ready to help us at any time, in any emergency? Yet fire is

And why do I split hairs by discussing merely human nature? For though there are many, or rather countless, sorts of creatures, man is practically the only one that knows the use of fire, while all the others live and feed without it: they subsist, whether they range abroad or fly or crawl, upon roots or produce or flesh, all without fire; but without water no creature of the sea or land or air ever existed. For even flesh-eating animals, some of which Aristotle[*](Historia Animal. viii. 3 (601 b).) says do not drink, nevertheless keep alive by using the fluids in the flesh. That element, therefore, without which no living nature can subsist or endure is the more useful.

Let us pass from the people who use fire to the things that we use, namely plants and produce,[*](This must be one of the most remarkable transitions in literature (Sandbach, op. cit. p. 200).) of which some are completely devoid of heat, while others have an infinitesimal and uncertain amount. Moisture, however, is the element in nature that makes them all burgeon, growing and bearing fruit. And why should I enumerate honey and wine and oil and all the rest that come to us from the vintage, the milking of herds, or taking off of honey - and it is obvious where they belong[*](That is, they must be classed as liquids.) - when even wheat itself, though it is classed as a dry food, moves into the category of liquids by alteration, fermentation, and deliquescence?[*](Cf. 968 a infra; here, however, the author seems to be talking about beer.)

Moreover, what is never detrimental is more

Then too, that which by multiplication destroys its own contribution is the less useful. Such a thing is fire which, like an all-devouring beast, consumes everything near, so that it is useful rather by skilful handling and craft and moderation in use than by its own nature; but water is never dangerous. Further, of two things the one which may be joined with its fellow is more useful. Now fire does not admit moisture and is of no use when in conjunction with it; but water is of service when combined with fire, for hot water is healing and well adapted to medicinal purposes. A watery fire you will never see; but water is as useful to mankind when hot as when cold.

Furthermore, though there are but four elements,[*](Cf.Mor. 948 d above; in 729 b the sea is called the naturally hostile element. ) water provides from itself a fifth, so to say, the sea, one no less beneficial than the others, especially for commerce among other things. This element, therefore, when our life was savage and unsociable, linked it together and made it complete, redressing defects by mutual assistance and exchange and so

What could anyone find to say on the other side from this point on? This, that God, the master workman, had as material four elements from which to construct the universe. Among these, again, there is a simple mutual distinction, namely, that earth and water are a foundation at the bottom of the universe, being, like raw material, the substance of which things are constructed and moulded, having just so much form and organization, and indeed of capacity for growth and procreation, as is imparted to them by the other elements, air and fire, which are makers and artisans and rouse them, lying lifeless as they were until then, to the act of creation. Between these two, again, fire and air, there is the distinction that fire assumes the rule and leadership. This is clear by induction[*](Possibly; but the argument hardly demonstrates this. The text is corrupt and a different solution than that adopted here is proposed by M. Adler (Wien. Stud. xxxi. 308).): earth without warmth

And, in general, water is so far from being selfsufficient for the preservation or generation of other things that the want of fire is water’s destruction. For heat maintains everything in its proper being and keeps it in its proper substance, water itself as well as everything else. When fire withdraws and fails, water putrefies: the dearth of heat is the death and destruction of water. It is, of course, marsh waters and such as are stagnant, some too that have drained into depressions with no outlet, that are bad[*](That is, salt, as, for example, the Dead Sea.) and finally putrefy[*](Cf.Mor. 1129 d, 725 d; Athenaeus, 46 b-c.) because they have very little motion, which preserves everything by stirring up its heat. This is the reason why we commonly say that those waters are living which have most motion and the strongest current; the heat is maintained by their motion. How, then, should that not be the more useful of two things which has provided what is necessary for the other’s existence, as fire does for water? And surely that is the more useful, the lack of which, if it be entirely taken away, causes the living creature to die. For it is obvious that anything without which a creature cannot live must have been a necessary cause of its existence, while it did exist. Now even corpses have moisture which does not entirely vanish; otherwise dead bodies would not

To begin again: for the use of fire as fire we do not need water; on the contrary, it would be in our way since it extinguishes and destroys it. But in most circumstances it is impossible to use water without fire. When water is heated, it is more useful; otherwise it is harmful. And it is heat which has made the sea more beneficial, its waters being warmer, since it differs from other waters in no other respect.[*](This sentence was transferred here from the following chapter by Wegehaupt.) So that of two things, that is better which of itself lends us its use without need of the other. Besides,

[*](The order of the sentences in this chapter, in addition to its many other corruptions, has been badly disturbed.) For to say that man ever exists without fire is absurd, nor can he exist at all without it; but there are differences in kind as in other things. As for men who have no need of fire from without, they have this experience not because they do not need it, but because their own heat more than suffices. This must be predicated also of other animals which do not need fire.[*](This clause was transferred here by the editor from 958 c infra at the end of the paragraph.) So that in this respect, too, the use of fire is probably superior. Water is never in such a condition as to need no external support, but fire is self-sufficient because of its great excellence. As, then, a general is better who manages the affairs of his city so that it needs no allies from without, so also an element is superior which does not often need external assistance.

Yet, to take the opposite point of view, that is more useful which we alone make great use of, since by the powers of our reason we are able to choose what is better. For what is more useful and more profitable to man than reason? But brute beasts do not have it. What then? Is what has been discovered by the foresight of our better part for this reason less useful?

And since we have arrived at this point in our argument: What is more profitable to life than Art? And it was fire that discovered and still preserves all the arts. That is why they make Hephaestus the first of artificers. Man has been granted but a little time to live and, as Ariston[*](Von Arnim, S.V.F. i. p. 90, frag. 403; cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, i. 13. 12 (1102 b 7).) says, sleep, like a taxcollector, takes away half of that. But I would rather say that it is a question of darkness; for although a man might stay awake all night, yet no good would come of his wakefulness if fire did not give him the benefits of day and remove the difference between day and night.[*](A very corrupt passage. Adler’s reconstruction (Wien. Stud. xxxi. 308), with additions by Post, has been followed.) If, then, there is nothing more advantageous to man than life and life is many times increased by fire, how should fire not be the most useful of all things?

And, to be sure, will not that be the most advantageous of which each of the senses has the greatest proportion? Do you not perceive, then, that there is no one of the senses which uses moisture by itself without an admixture of air or fire; and that every sense partakes of fire inasmuch as it supplies the vital energy; and especially that sight, the keenest of the physical senses,[*](Cf. Plato, Phaedrus, 250 d; cf. Mor. 654 d-e, 681 e.) is an ignited mass of fire[*](Cf. von Arnim, S.V.F. ii, pp. 196, 199; but Post believes the words may mean a chain of fire linking the eye with its object.) and is that which has made us believe[*](It is the visible heavens and their fire that make us believe by declaring the glory of the celestial gods. See A. S. Pease, Caeli Enarrant, Harvard Theological Review, xxxiv (1941), pp. 163-200.) in the gods? And further, through sight, as Plato[*](Timaeus, 47 a-b.) says, we are able to conform our souls to the movements of the celestial bodies.