Fr. 17. Vulg. χρή: Simpl. ζῷον, Aristokl. ζῶν (twice): Aristokl. εἶναι ἐχρῆν, καὶ τὸ ἐὸν τοιοῦτον, οἷον πρῶτον ἔδοξεν ἡμῖν εἶναι, Simpl. omits πάντα and ἀληθῆ: Aristokl. ἕτερον, ἀλλ’ εἶναι ὅμοιον, οἷόν περ ἐστὶ ἕκαστον, Simpl. omits ἔστιν: Bergk ὁμουρέων, digito conterminus, aptatus, MSS. τὸ μέσον, corr. Brandis, _Gesch. d. Phil._ i. 403: Vulg. εἴη. SIMPLICIUS’S ACCOUNT OF MELISSOS, INCLUDING THE TRANSLATION OF THE FRAGMENTS. 22; 103, 13. Now let us glance at Melissos’ argument, which we ran across a few lines back. Melissos, making use of the axioms of the physicists, in regard to generation and destruction, begins his book as follows: (Fr. 1) If nothing is, how could this be spoken of as though something is? And if anything is, either it has come into being, or else it always has been. If it came into being, it sprung either from being or from not-being; but it is impossible that any such thing should have sprung from not-being (for nothing else that is could have sprung from it, much less pure being); nor could it have sprung from being, for in that case it <would simply be, and> would not have come into existence. So then being is not generated; being always is, nor will it be destroyed. For being could not be changed into not-being (this also is conceded by the physicists), nor into being; for then it would abide as it is, and would not be destroyed. Accordingly being was not generated, nor will it be destroyed; so it always was and always will be. (Fr. 2) But while that which comes into existence has a beginning, that which does not come into existence does not have a beginning, and being which did not come into existence would not have a beginning. Farther, that which is destroyed has an end; but if anything is not subject to destruction, it does not have an end; and that which has neither beginning nor end is of course infinite; so being is infinite. (Fr. 3) And if it is infinite, it is one; for if being were two, both parts could not be infinite, but each would be limited by the other. But being is infinite; there could not be several beings; accordingly being is one. (Fr. 4) Farther, if being is one it does not move; for the one is always homogeneous [_lit._ like itself]; and that which is homogeneous could not perish or become greater or change its arrangement or suffer pain or annoyance. If it experienced any of these things it would not be one; for that which is moved with any sort of motion changes something from one thing into something different; but there is nothing else except being, so this will not be moved. (Fr. 5) To follow another line of argument: there is no place void of being, for the void is nothing; but that which is nothing could not exist; so then being is not moved: it is impossible for it to go anywhere, if there is no void. Nor is it possible for it to contract into itself, for in that case different degrees of density would arise, and this is