First, let us inquire what we mean by saying that fire is hot, and about this we may reason from the dividing or cutting power which it exercises on our bodies. We all of us feel that fire is sharp, and we may further consider the fineness of the sides, and the sharpness of the e angles, and the smallness of the particles, and the swiftness of the motion – all this makes the action of fire violent and sharp, so that it cuts [62] whatever it meets. And we must not forget that the original figure of fire [that is, the pyramid], more than any other form, has a dividing power which cuts our bodies into small pieces (kermatizei), and thus naturally produces that affection which we call heat, and hence the origin of the name (thermos, kerma). Now, the opposite of this is sufficiently manifest; nevertheless we will not fail to describe it. For the larger particles of moisture which surround the body, entering in and driving out the lesser, but not being able to take their places, compress b the moist principle in us. and this, from being unequal and disturbed, is forced by them into a state of rest which is due to equability and compression. But things which are contracted contrary to nature are by nature at war and force themselves apart, and to this war and convulsion the name of shivering and trembling is given, and the whole affection and the cause of the affection are both termed cold. That is called hard to which our flesh yields, and soft which yields to our flesh, and things are also termed hard and soft relatively to one another. That which yields has a small base, but that which rests on quadrangular bases is firmly posed and belongs to the class which c offers the greatest resistance; so, too, does that which is the most compact and therefore most repellent. The nature of the light and the heavy will be best understood when examined in connection with our notions of above and below, for it is quite a mistake to suppose that the universe is parted into two regions, separate from and opposite to each other – the one a lower to which all things tend which have any bulk, and an upper to which things only ascend against their will. For as the universe is in the form of a sphere, all the extremities, being d equidistant from the center, are equally extremities, and the center, which is equidistant from them, is equally to be regarded as the opposite of them all. Such being the nature of the world, when a person says that any of these points is above or below, may he not be justly charged with using an improper expression? For the center of the world cannot be rightly called either above or below, but is the center and nothing else, and the circumference is not the center, and has in no one part of itself a different relation to the center from what it has in any of the opposite parts. Indeed, when it is in every direction c similar, how can one rightly give to it names which imply opposition? For if there were any solid body in equipoise at the center of the universe, [63] there would be nothing to draw it to this extreme rather than to that, for they are all perfectly similar, and if a person were to go round the world in a circle, he would often, when standing at the antipodes of his former position, speak of the same point as above and below. For as I was saying just now, to speak of the whole which is in the form of a globe as having one part above and another below is not like a sensible man. The reason why these names are used, and the circumstances under which they are ordinarily applied by us to the division of the heavens, may be elucidated by the following supposition. If a b person were to stand in that part of the universe which is the appointed place of fire, and where there is the great mass of fire to which fiery bodies gather – if, I say, he were to ascend thither, and, having the power to do this, were to abstract particles of fire and put them in scales and weigh them, and then, raising the balance, were to draw the fire by force toward the uncongenial element of the air. it c would be very evident that he could compel the smaller mass more readily than the larger, for when two things are simultaneously raised by one and the same power, the smaller body must necessarily yield to the superior power with less reluctance than the larger, and the larger body is called heavy and said to tend downward, and the smaller body is called light and said to tend upward. And w’e may detect ourselves who are upon the earth doing precisely the same thing. For we often separate earthy natures, and sometimes earth itself, and draw them into the uncongenial element of air by force and contrary to nature, both clinging to their kindred elements. But that which is d smaller yields to the impulse given by us toward the dissimilar element more easily than the larger, and so we call the former light, and the place toward w’hich it is impelled we call above, and the contrary state and place we call heavy and below, respectively. Now the relations of these must necessarily vary because the principal masses of the different elements hold opposite positions, for that which is light, heavy, below, or above in one place will be found to be and become e contrary and transverse and every way diverse in relation to that which is light, heavy, below, or above in an opposite place. And about all of them this has to be considered – that in some cases the tendency of each toward its kindred element makes the body which is moved heavy, and the place toward which the motion tends below, but things which have an opposite tendency we call by an opposite name. Such are the causes which we assign to these phenomena. As to the smooth and the rough, anyone who sees them can explain the reason of them [64] to another. For roughness is hardness mingled with irregularity, and smoothness is produced by the joint effect of uniformity and density.