Against the Epistle of Manichæus, Called Fundamental 22
22 The Form of the Region of Light the Worse of the Two PL 42, 187
Well, then, if this is so, the region of darkness is clearly touched on two sides by the region of light. And if it is touched on two sides, it must touch on two. So much for its being on one side, as we were told before.
24. And what an unseemly appearance is this of the region of light!—like a cloven arch, with a black wedge inserted below, bounded only in the direction of the cleft, and having a void space interposed where the boundless emptiness stretches above the region of darkness. Indeed, the form of the region of darkness is better than that of the region of light: for the former cleaves, the latter is cloven; the former fills the gap which is made in the latter; the former has no void in it, while the latter is undefined in all directions, except that where it is filled up by the wedge of darkness. In an ignorant and greedy notion of giving more honor to a number of pans than to a single one, so that the region of light should have six, three upwards and three downwards, they have made this region be split up, instead of sundering the other. For, according to this figure, though there may be no commixture of darkness with light, there is certainly penetration.
Deliramentum de duplici terra refellitur. Verumtamen cum carnalibus animis fortasse non sic agendum est, sed descendendum est potius ad eorum cogitationes, qui naturam incorpoream et spiritualem cogitando potius sequi, vel non audent, vel nondum valent; ita ut nec ipsam cogitationem suam eadem cogitatione considerent, et inveniant eam nullo locorum spatio de ipsis locorum spatiis judicantem. Descendamus ergo ad eorum sensus, et quaeramus ab eis, juxta quam partem et juxta quod latus, sicut Manichaeus dicit, illustris illius ac sanctae terrae erat tenebrarum terra. Dicit enim, juxta unam partem ac latus; nec dicit quam partem, vel quod latus, dextrum an sinistrum. Sed quodlibet eligant, illud certe manifestum est, non dici unum latus, nisi ubi est et alterum latus. Ubi autem vel tria vel plura sunt latera, aut figurae ambitus intelligitur undique terminatus, aut si ex aliqua parte in immensum patet, ex iis tamen quae latera dicuntur, necesse est finiatur. Dicant ergo, ex alio latere, vel ex aliis lateribus, quid adjungebatur terrae lucis, si ex uno latere erat gens tenebrarum? Non dicunt: sed cum premuntur ut dicant, infinita dicunt esse alia latera terrae illius quam lucis vocant, id est, per infinita spatia distendi, et nullo fine cohiberi. Nec intelligunt jam non esse latera, quod quibusvis tardis ingeniis apertissimum est. Tunc enim essent latera, si finibus suis terminarentur. Quid ad me, inquit, si non sint latera? Sed cum diceres, juxta unam partem ac latus, aliam quoque partem sive partes, et aliud latus sive latera cogebas intelligi. Nam si unum tantum latus erat, tantum juxta latus dici debuit, non juxta unum latus. Sicut in corpore nostro recte dicimus esse aliquid juxta unum oculum, quia est alter oculus; aut juxta unam mamillam, quia est altera. Si autem dicamus juxta unum nasum, aut juxta unum umbilicum, cum alius non sit, a doctis et ab indoctis ridebimur. Sed non te verbis premo: fortasse enim unum quasi unicum appellare voluisti.