Upload
jesus-vila
View
57
Download
38
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Aristotle on coming to be and passing away (joachim)
Citation preview
API2TOTEAOT2IIEPI FENE2EQ2 KAI <&0OPA2
A RISTOTLEON COMING-TO-BE & PASSING-AWAY
(DE GENERATIONE ET CORRUPTIONE)
*A REVISED TEXT
WITH INTRODUCTION AND COMMENTARY
BY
HAROLD H. JOACHIMFellow of New College
Honorary Fellow of Merton College
And Wykeham Professor of Logic in the University
of Oxford
OXFORDAT THE CLARENDON PRESS
1922
Oxford University Press
I,ondon Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen
New Tork Toronto Melbourne Cape Town
Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai
Humphrey Milford Publisher to the UNIVERSITY
2254
TO
THE MEMORYOF
INGRAM BYWATER
PREFACE
IN dedicating this book to the memory ofthe late Professor
Ingram Bywater, I am trying to express, however in-
adequately, my sense of an overwhelming obligation.
Bywater was the founder and first president of the Oxford
Aristotelian Society, and when, about thirty years ago, it
was my good fortune to be elected a member, the subject
of our study was Aristotle's ncpl yez/eo-eooy KOL </>Oopa$. Wediscussed it line by line, every Monday evening during
many successive terms, in our founder's rooms and under
the inspiring guidance of his wonderful scholarship.
Beyond doubt I have incorporated in this edition manyinterpretations and suggestions which I owe either to
Bywater himself or to my fellow-members of the Aristotelian
Society, though I cannot now recall my borrowings in
detail. But I am profoundly sensible of a far deeper and
more general indebtedness. For Bywater's genius his
quiet but unmistakable mastery of the subject, his contemptfor everything careless and unscholarly, his shrewd criticism
and dry humour, his ready encouragement of every genuine
endeavour made of those weekly discussions an experience
unique and unforgettable. The study of Aristotle (we could
not but feel) demanded our utmost efforts : no labour could
be spared, no detail neglected, no difficulty slurred. Wewere engaged upon an enterprise arduous indeed and
infinitely laborious, but emphatically and supremely worth
while. It was as if we were privileged to spend those
Monday evenings in close and intimate communion with
the very spirit of original work.
Amongst the many distinguished scholars who were at
that time members of the Aristotelian Society, three have
laid me under special obligations in connexion with this
book the late Mr. Charles Cannan, Professor John Burnet,
and Professor John Alexander Smith. On its completion
8f/f
vi PREFACE
in 1915 my manuscript was entrusted to Mr. Cannan for
submission to the Delegates of the Clarendon Press, and
the lively personal interest he took in it was a source of
constant encouragement to me in the long years of uncer-
tainty that followed when it was difficult to believe that
anybody would ever care to publish a book on Aristotle or
that I myself should ever be free to return to philosophyfrom propaganda. I owe to Mr. Cannan, in addition,
a number of most valuable suggestions and criticisms
chiefly on my Introduction and Text which he contributed
a few months before his death. Frequent references in myCommentary bear witness to the help which, in commonwith all students of Greek philosophy, I have derived from
the works of my friend, Professor Burnet. It is more
difficult to define, even approximately, the extent of mydebt to Professor J. A. Smith. Almost every week, duringa friendship of nearly thirty years, we have discussed philo-
sophy in general and Greek philosophy in particular. Hewas the originator, I believe, of most of our problems : I amcertain that he contributed whatever of value emerged in
our discussions. It is quite beyond my power to deter-
mine how much in this book is his, or mine, or the joint
result of the efforts of us both.
When I returned to the study of Aristotle's Trepl ye^eorea)?
KCLL <j>6opa$ in the summer of 1910, my object was to preparea translation for the series now being published by the
Clarendon Press under the editorship of Mr. W. D. Ross.
It was no part of my intention to write a commentary ;
and it would have seemed to me grotesque, had I been told
that I should venture upon a revision of the text. But it
soon became evident that a mere translation would be of
little or no value, since the intrinsic philosophical interest
of the original depends, to a large extent, upon what it
implies and presupposes. In short, Aristotle's fascinatingand masterly little treatise calls for a commentary in almost
every sentence. It is full of allusions to the speculationsof his predecessors and contemporaries, and inextricably
PREFACE vii
interwoven with the theories elaborated in his other works
particularly in the Physics, de Caelo, and Meteorologica,of which no modern English editions exist. It is, more-
over, often difficult to interpret, and the obscurity (as I soon
discovered) is due, in no small measure, to various defects
in the traditional text.
Thus I was led on, step by step, first to write a detailed
commentary and then to undertake the revision of the
text. I collated photographs of six manuscripts, EFHJLand Db
,and took into consideration the commentary of
Philoponos and also the Latin translation published byAndreas Asulanus in 1483 (see below, p. ix).
1 A few notes
on these sources, and on the use I have made of them, mayhere be added.
(i) J = Vindobonensis, phil. Grace. 100.
This manuscript is described by Mr. F. H. Fobes in the
Classical Review, Dec. 19 13 ('A preliminary study of certain
manuscripts of Aristotle's Meteorology'). According to
Mr. T. W. Allen, it is earlier than E and belongs to the
first half of the tenth century. There are a great manycorrections, written above the line, most of which agree
with L. I have noted (under the sign J2) only those which
differ from L. It has not proved possible to follow J in all
passagesj but I have treated it as, on the whole, equal in
authority to E. In the following passages I have adopted J's
1 I am greatly indebted to many friends for assistance in preparing the text.
The late Professor Bywater gave me much valuable advice and presented mewith his collation of a chapter (Book II, ch. i) in a fifteenth-century manuscriptin his possession ;
he also sent me notes on the readings in the first three
chapters of Book II which he had inferred from the Latin translation in an old
edition of the commentary of Aquinas. Mr. T. W. Allen (Fellow of Queen's
College, and at that time University Reader in Greek) gave me his expert
opinion on the dates of EFHJL and Db. Mr. W. D. Ross, Fellow of Oriel,
first drew my attention to J and also to T (see below, p. ix). Mr. J. L. Stocks
(Fellow of St. John's College, Oxford) lent me his photograph and collation
of J. Finally, I have to thank Dr. A. E. Cowley (Fellow of Magdalenand Bodley's Librarian), Mr. W. Ashburner (Honorary Fellow of Merton),
Mr. A. B. Poynton (Fellow of University College), and Signer Ratti (Librarian
of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana) for helping me to obtain photographs of some of
the manuscripts in question.
Vlll PREFACE
reading against EFHL: I5b
a,1 22b
28, 23a
30, 24* 15
(J2
: cf. $CP), 28b 28 (J
1: cf. Db
), 33b 10 (cf. however EHL$C
),
36* 12 (cf.however E2
H), 37* n. In i;a
1 1 and 33b15 I have
adopted conjectures based on J's reading. Further J has
an interesting addition (which is reproduced in P and in the
translation by Vatablus) at 22* 29 : and it adds a diagram
in the text at 32bi7. Finally, at 38
b4, J reads OVTOS for
otfro)?, thus confirming the conjecture of Bonitz (OVTOS OVTO>$).
(2) E = Parisiensis Regius 1853.
This manuscript, which belongs to the tenth century, has
been very much doctored, and the corrections are at least
as late as the fifteenth century. (There would seem to be
more than one corrector at work. I have marked the
corrections with the sign E2.)
It is also somewhat carelessly
written. Nevertheless it is of great importance. In the
following passages I have followed it against FHJL : i6a
12, i6b1 6, 22 a
29 (E1
: corr. E2), 24* 35, 25* 27, 26a
7, 26b 16,
29a24, 3*
a3 T 32b25 (<* F), 34
a28, 35*15 (cf. J), 36*18,
37b 20.
(3) F = Laurentianus 87. 7.
A twelfth-century manuscript, of considerable value.
I have followed it against EHJL in i6b 2, 2jb5 (cf. P),
26a 12 (cf.< C
P), 27b30, 32
b1 8, 35
b24.
I have used the sign F2 in a few places where the
corrections in this manuscript seemed worth quoting.
(4) H = Vaticanus 1027.
This is certainly a twelfth-century manuscript, if not of
earlier date: it is probably older than F and is of con-
siderable value. I have adopted its readings against EFJLat 22a 10
(cf. $c), 26
a19 (cf. however FP), 27
a 20 (cf. howeverE 2
FJ), 32b2(cf. $c
P), 33b 24 .
(5) L = Vaticanus 253.An inferior manuscript, of far less value than EFH or J,
belonging to the fourteenth or fifteenth century. I have
followed it against EFHJ in three passages : but in all of
them its reading appears to be a mere conjecture of the1 In all references to the text I omit the first figure. Thus, e.g., 31 5
b2
becomes 15*2.
PREFACE ix
scribe and not an original variant. The passages are
23*22, 37b33 (cf. $c
), 38*6 (an obvious combination of the
reading of H with that of FJ).
(6) Db = Ambrosianus F. 113 sup.
This manuscript belongs to the fifteenth century andcontains the commentary of Philoponos (cf. Vitelli's prefaceto his edition of Philoponos, p. vi). Bekker used it to someextent for his text of the Metaphysics. It is of very little
value, and I have quoted it in five passages only (15*27,20* 19, 28a
4, 28b28, 34
b7), where its readings seemed of
some interest.
(7) The commentary of Philoponos (^I&dvvov ypa/z/zari/cou
(T\o\LKal dTToa-rjfjitiaxTeis CK T&V (rvvovcri&v
TOV 'Eppeiov perd TIVQDV I8ia>v eTno-Taerecw KT\.) is
very valuable as an aid to the interpretation of Aristotle's
treatise, and I have used it freely in my notes. Its value for
the constitution of the text is perhaps not so great, but I
have quoted those readings which might conceivably prove
important. My references are to Vitelli's edition (Berlin,
1897). $l = readings in the lemmata. $ = readings given
in, or inferred from, the paraphrase. $ = readings supportedboth by the lemmata and the paraphrase. Where the
manuscripts of Philoponos differ, I have added the signs of
those to which my quotation refers.
(8) P = readings (either in Latin or, by inference, in Greek)from the ' nova translatio
'
which Andreas Asulanus prints
in his edition (3 vols., 1483) of Averroes' commentary on
Aristotle. The treatise irepl yej>e<rea>y/caf (f>0opd$ endswith the
following note :
' Nove translation! librorum de generationeet corruptione ab Averoi Cordubensi commentate : Summi
philosophi Aristotelis ex Stragyra grecie oppido Nicomachi
Medicine artis professoris filii : deo optimo maximoquefavente finis impositus est : Impensa atque diligentia
Andree de asula Venetiis impresse : Anno salutis christiane.
MCCCCLXXXin septimo calendas octobris '.
This translation, in spite of certain minor differences, is
substantially the same as the old Graeco-Latin version to
x PREFACE
which Jourdain refers so far, at least, as I am able to judgefrom the specimen page given in his Recherches sur les
anciennes traductions latines d?Aristote (new edition, Paris,
1843, Specimen XIII, pp. 412-13). I have quoted its read-
ings only where they seemed of interest or of possible value.
Two other Latin translations which I have compared seem
to be based on Jourdain's version. They differ from one
another and from the translation I quote : but the differences
are in the main superficial. The first is contained in an old
copy (Paris, 1514) of the commentary of Paulus Venetus
which the Librarian of Wadham College kindly placed at
my disposal. The second was brought to my notice bythe late Mr. E. W. Webster, Fellow of Wadham College.
It is a fragmentary translation of Book I, which originally
formed part of a translation of Aristotle's physical works
printed at Venice and said to belong to the year 1482.
The copy I examined consists of leaves taken from the
bindings of old books and is preserved in the Library of
Corpus Christi College, Oxford. I have also- consulted the
translation by Franciscus Vatablus (cf. 22a28, 29, 30) which
is printed in the Berlin Aristotle.
Bekker's text is based on EFHL, but his apparatuscriticus is not very reliable. I have corrected usually
without remark about two erroneous statements concerningthe reading of each manuscript on every page of the Berlin
edition. Many of these errors are doubtless unimportant,but some at least are serious. The Teubner text byC. Prantl (Leipzig, 1881) professes to follow the authority
of E wherever possible. This promise, however, is not
fulfilled : and I regret that I have been unable to form
a high opinion of Prantl's work.
It remains for me to express my hearty thanks to the
Delegates of the Clarendon Press for their generosity in
publishing a book which is most unlikely to proveremunerative.
H. H. J.
ABBREVIATIONS, ETC.
IN citing my own notes, I write (e.g.)*
cf.*14*3-6' for 'cf. note on
3i4a3-6'.
Adamson = The Development of Greek Philosophy by Robert Adamson,
edited by W. R. Sorley and R. P. Hardie (Edinburgh and London,William Blackwood & Sons, 1908).
Alexander, a. K. X. = Alexander's anopiai <a\ \vveis in Alexandri Aphro-disiensis Scripta Minora edited by Ivo Bruns (Berlin, 1892).
Apelt = Beitrdge zur Geschichte der griechischen Philosophic by Otto
Apelt (Leipzig, 1891).
Baumker = Das Problem der Materie in der griechischen Philosophic
by Clemens Baumker (Minister, 1890).
Beare = Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition from Alcmaeon to
Aristotle by John I. Beare (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1906).
Bonitz = Aristotelische Studien by Hermann Bonitz (Vienna, 1862,
1863, and 1866).
Bonitz, Ind. = Index Aristotelicus by Hermann Bonitz (vol. v of the
Berlin Aristotle).
Burnet = Early Greek Philosophy by John Burnet, third edition
(London, A. C. Black, Ltd., 1920).
Burnet, Ethics the same author's edition of Aristotle's Nicomachean
Ethics (Methuen & Co., 1900).
Burnet, Greek Philosophy = the same author's Greek Philosophy,
Part /, Thales to Plato (London, Macmillan Co., 1914).
Burnet, Phaedo = the same author's edition of Plato's Phaedo (Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1911).
Diels = Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, &*c. by Hermann Diels,
second edition (Berlin, 1906).
Diels, Elementum = the same author's Elementum, eine Vorarbeit, &>c.
(Leipzig, 1899).
Gilbert = Die meteorologischen Theorien des griechischen Altertums
by Otto Gilbert (Leipzig, 1907).
Heath = Aristarchus of Samos by Sir Thomas Heath (Oxford,
Clarendon Press, 1913).
Jaeger = Studien zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Metaphysik des
Aristoteles by Dr. Werner Wilhelm Jaeger (Berlin, 1912).
xii ABBREVIATIONS, ETC.
Martin = Etudes sur le Timee de Platon by Th. Henri Martin (Paris,
1841).
Pacius = Aristotelis De Coelo lib. 1III. De Ortu et Interitu //, &c.
by lulius Pacius (Francofurti, Typis Wechelianis . . . MDCI).Zabarella = lacobi Zabarellae Patavini Commentarii in magni Ari-
stotelis libros Physicorum; Item : in libros de Generatione et
Corruptione. Item : in Meteora ... Anno MDCII Francofurti^
Typis Wolffgangi Richteri, Sumptibus loannis Theobaldi Schon-
vvetteri?-
Zeller * = Die Philosophic der Griechen, &c. by Dr. Eduard Zeller,
fourth edition (Leipzig, 1889).
1 My friend, Mr. R. P. Hardie, lent me his copy of this rare work. There
is a copy, as I have recently discovered, in the Library at New College.
INTRODUCTION
Aristotle s conception of a '
science', and the place of the
treatise nepl yereo-ecoy KCU <j>Qopa$ in his writings mi
naturalphilosophy.
i. THE intelligence, which, according to Aristotle, dis-
tinguishes man from the other living things, displays itself in
all the spheres of his activity and characterizes his action
and production as well as his speculation.1 Thus man is
an '
agent'
(the responsible subject of praise and blame), andhis behaviour is
' conduct'
(morally good and bad), in so far
as what he does is the effect of deliberate decision (Trpoaipccriy),
i. e. issues from intelligent desire and not from unreflective
impulse, appetite, or passion.2 And he is a craftsman and an
artist, a ' maker '
of things useful and beautiful, in so far as he
works under the guidance of clearly conceived ideals and with
1Cf. e. g. Metaph. IO25
b25 &oV ei ira<ra dtdvoia q
0fG>prjTiKT) .... I use the term '
intelligence'
in a wide sense, so as to
include what Aristotle calls (in different connexions) vovs, didvota, \oyi-
oyiof, TO VOYJTIKOV, TO \6yov exov ) KT^ I cannot here discuss the precise
significance of these different terms, nor whether any of the psychical
functions, which they denote, are attributed by Aristotle to animals
other than man. It is enough for our present purpose to recognize that
man, according to the broad outlines of Aristotle's doctrine, is distin-
guished from the two lower grades of e^vxa (from the animals and
plants), because the human ^VXTJ is essentially intelligent, thoughtful,
reasoning. Man is &ov \oyi*6v : and his*
intelligence'
permeates and
characterizes all the activities of which the human soul is the origina-
tive source, even those which he seems to share with the other fy^^a .
Like the plants and animals, we assimilate food, grow, and reproduce
our kind ; and, like the animals, we feel, sensate, desire, and move.
But in us these processes and activities are profoundly affected by the
dominant character of the soul from which they issue by its*intelli-
gence'
(cf. e. g. De Anima B. 1-3).2
Cf. e. g. Metaph. io25b22-25. On Trpoaipearis, see especially Eth.
Nic. r. 1-5.
xiv INTRODUCTION
a technique developed into skill by intelligent practice. His
buildings, for instance, unlike the spider's web or the swallow's
nest, result from the deliberate execution of a purpose. This
purpose is not immersed in the blind striving of instinct.
There is nothing latent or metaphorical about it, nor is it onlyour misnomer for the unthinking play of natural forces. It is
the architect's ideal, the object of his explicit thought. It lies
open to his reflective analysis and becomes the plan by which
he consciously works. 1
But the intelligence which is displayed in the activities of
the craftsman and the artist, or of the statesman and the
moral agent, is subordinated to an ' end '
not its own. For
the proper' end
'
or work of intelligence is truth : and thoughthe thought embodied in good action and production must be
true, the object of the agent and the maker is not simply the
attainment of truth. They wish to think truly in order that
they may act or make well, and they pursue their investigation
of the truth only so far as is required to make their conduct
good, or their works useful or beautiful. The ' end'
of the
maker is the good product or work;and the ' end
'
of the
agent is the good conduct itself, i. e. the particular piece of'
good living'
in question.
It is only in his speculative activities that man pursues an
'end' which is the proper 'end' of intelligence. In the
pursuit of knowledge simply for the sake of understandingin what Aristotle calls 0ea>/>7;7v/c?) eirioTJjpri or faXoo-ofaa the
intelligence moves freely towards the attainment, and in the
vision and enjoyment, of the truth.3
2. Aristotle distinguishes, within the whole of speculation,three '
philosophies'
or ' bodies of speculative knowledge '.
The whole system of what we should call'
knowledge'
or ' science'
is thus articulated into'first philosophy
'
or
'philosophy of God' (OeoXoyiicrj),' second philosophy' or
'philosophy of nature' ((pva-iKrj), and 'mathematical philo-
sophy'
(fj.a07]fjLaTiK7J).s
1 Cf. e.g. Metaph. io32a32ff., Phys. I99
al7ff.
2 Cf. e.g. Eth. Nic. 1095*5, H39a 2i- b4, 1 179*358".; Metaph.
980* 21 ff., 993b20-23 de Caelo 306* 16-17.
3Cf. e.g. Metaph. IO26a l8 axne rpels av flev <f)i\ocro<piai
INTRODUCTION xv
It is true that Aristotle speaks of TrpaKTiKr) CTT^O-T^/*?; and
TroirjTiKrj tTTHTTrj/jir),and co-ordinates them with '
speculative
knowledge'
(OcooprjTtK^ eTria-Trj/irj) : but it is clear that neither
TrpaKTiKr] nor TroirfTiKri Tri(TTrj/jLr) is a 'science
'
in any sense
in which we should naturally use that term. The first is not
a theory of * action',nor is the second a theory of
'
production *.
The man who embodies TrpaKTiKr) tiricrTrj/jiri is the </>p6vifio$
the statesman or wise agent whose conduct is alive with his
own intelligent insight. His eirurrijpri is Qpovrja-is, the
thought which informs and spiritualizes emotion and impulse,
passion and appetite. It is the thought at work in goodconduct, the living reasonableness in '
action', not a reflective
theory about ' action '. And the man who embodies TroirjTiKri
7ri<rTrjfjLT]is the skilled craftsman or the artist, whose
'making* is alive with his own intelligent purpose. His
eTTia-Trjfirj is reyvr], a confirmed thoughtful mastery of his
materials a thought inseparably incarnated in the 'making*which it illumines and controls.
This is not the place to discuss Aristotle's conception of
TrpaKTiKr) and 77-0*7777*77 77*0-777^77, nor to criticize his articula-
tion of speculative philosophy. It will, however, be noticed
that, if we take his statements strictly, neither aesthetics, nor
moral philosophy, nor even logic, exists as a 'science' or
purely speculative investigation. Aristotle's own Poetics, his
Ethics and Politics, and his Organon however paradoxical it
may seem are not, in his own view, results of the free
movement of the intelligence in its endeavour to attain to
truth. They are not, or at least they are not primarily,
contributions to' science '.
3.' First philosophy
'
or metaphysics*
is the 'science
<f)v(riKt), 6co\oyiKrj. The treatise TTfpt yevefffus KOI (frdopas
belongs, as we shall see, to (jtvartKr), i.e. it investigates a part of the
subject-matter of the philosophy of nature.
1 '
Metaphysics ', though a post-Aristotelian term, is a convenient
title for the science which Aristotle himself calls*first philosophy' or
'
theology '. Aristotle's writings on <first philosophy
'
appear to have
been collected after his death either by Andronikos (as is commonly
supposed) or by some earlier editor (cf. Jaeger, pp. 178-80) under
the title of TO. /ucra ra (frvviKa,l the problems subsequent to those of
natural philosophy '.
xvi INTRODUCTION
which investigates what is, in so far as it is, and the
properties which essentially attach thereto'.1 The meta-
physician, therefore, studies reality as a whole, and the
various kinds and forms of the 'real',with a view to determine
what is implied in the '
being*
of anything which in any sense
'is', and to distinguish the kinds and degrees of reality
possessed by the various departments and forms of the 'real
J
.
He is thus led to distinguish between 'substantial* and'
adjectival' being: between that which 'is' in its own right
and self-dependently, and that whose '
being'
is inherence in
something else or is in various senses derivative and depen-dent. Even within ' substantial being
'
there are degrees of
reality. For there is substance which is through and through
'simple'; and there is substance which is 'composite',a union of different elements. The former is sheer actuality,
without any unrealized basis of being, without any latent
background, as it were, from which new activities may emergeor into which the present activities may subside. The latter
is concrete of form and matter; it contains a duality of
elements;
it is in part actual and active, but in part always
potential a basis capable of emerging into activity, but as yetunrealized.
The substance which is sheer actuality is alone absolutely
real. It is the primary 'real', the standard and measure of
reality. All other things, which in any sense ' are ', derive
their '
being'
in the end from it ; they are ranked, in respectto their degree and kind of reality, according to their
dependence upon, and their approximation to, this primary'real <!>
4. Hence it is the metaphysician who has e. g. to discuss
the Laws of Contradiction and Excluded Middle. 3 He has to
establish their unquestionable validity, by showing that theyare presupposed in all knowledge and in all
'
being'. They are
in fact the most fundamental laws of '
being '. They define
in the most general terms 'what is, in so far as it is',
expressing the conditions to which anything whatever must
1Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1003*21 ff.
2Cf. e.g. below,
*36* 14-18 with the passages there cited,
8Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1005* 19 ff.
INTRODUCTION xvii
conform, if it is to ' be'
in any sense and at all, and thus
delimiting' what is
'
from 'what is not '. For if anything, A,is to
' be ', at least it cannot also be not-A; and at least it
must accept as its predicate either x or not-x.
Again, it is the metaphysician who examines and developsthe conception ofthe primary
'
real', the absolutely substantial
or self-subsistent. This, as he shows, is a substance which
is through and through actual a substance which is
actuality or life, not a substance which has life or manifests
activity. In it there is no distinction between ' nature* and
'expression'; its nature is single and is wholly actual or
self-fulfilling. It is timeless or eternal life, a life which is
activity without change and rest without stagnation.1 And
this eternal life Aristotle identifies with God. For God is
mind, and mind which is wholly and singly expressed in
self-contained and self-determining spiritual activity, in think-
ing turned upon itself, or thinking with thinking for its
object.55 God the eternal life of mind, the pure spiritual
actuality in which mind is self-expressed is thus the
primary'real ', and the central object of the metaphysician's
speculation.
And metaphysics, since it is concentrated on the primary'
real', is itselftheirs/ of speculative sciences;3 and since that
'real' is God, metaphysics is the 'philosophy of God* or
'theology'. God is for the metaphysician the absolutely'real ', and the standard and clue by which he explains the
reality of everything else. And in his investigation of the less
perfect and more derivative forms of being, he is completing
his knowledge of God. For the eternal life, which God is,
1Cf. e.g. Eth. Nic. ii54
b24-28.
2Cf. e.g. Metaph. IO74
b33 aurbvapa vo, eiirtp e'ori TO Kparioroi>, KCU
fornvfj vorjo-is vor)<T<os vorja-is. It is clear from Aristotle's statements
(e.g. in the Metaph. A. 6, 7, and 9) that he conceives God as '
subject'
rather than as 'substance', if I may use Hegel's distinction. He
speaks of God as ou<na, but an owia which is eWpyem &JKV dwa/ifw or
ctios avfv v\r)f. God is' substance
'
qua self-subsistent and self-
determining.3
It is Trpwrq (piAoo-o^i'a on the principle that the rank of a science
depends upon the rank the degree of reality of its subject-matter.
.Cf. e. g. Metaph. io26a 18-32.
2254 b
xviii INTRODUCTION
radiates through the whole of '
being ', communicating itself
(immediately or mediately, and in intenser or weaker degrees)
to all that is. Or, God is the dpx'n, from which originates,
and on which depends, the entire universe in all its parts ;
and the Ideal which inspires and animates all things.1
Hence, finally, the metaphysician traces out the divinity in
things, i. e. exhibits the degree and kind of reality which
belongs to the various departments of '
being'. It is, therefore,
a part of his task to determine in what precise sense the'
composite substances'
the perceptible bodies, animate and
inanimate, which constitute the world of ' nature'
are real ;
2
and, again, to show what kind of '
being'
is to be attributed
to the mathematical things, e. g. to the solids and plane figures
of the geometer, and to the numbers of the arithmetician. 3
Thus the metaphysician discusses and explains what the
natural philosopher and the mathematician take for granted,4
viz. the 'being' or reality of their subject-matters.
5. Whereas metaphysics investigates reality as a whole,
or ' what is, simply in respect to its being ', natural and
mathematical philosophy select, each of them, a determinate
'part* or 'kind' of the real.5 The <f>v<riK6s selects percep-
tible and changeable substance, and studies it in respect to
the movement, or to the other forms of change, to which it is
liable. And the fjLaOrjfiaTiKo? studies the perceptible sub-
stances neither qua real, nor qua changeable, but only qua
quanta (discrete and continuous), i. e. qua numerable and
measurable.
Natural philosophy is thus doubly contrasted with meta-
physics. For the (ftvcriKos studies a part only of the real, and
1Cf. below, *36a 14-18, *36b 30-32. Aristotle's God is a self-
subsisting and self-fulfilling spiritual activity, 'apart from' or transcend-
ing the perceptible world: and yet God is also the divine life,
pervading all the parts of '
being' as the perfect Order which gives to
them their unity and intelligibility. Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1075* 12-19.Plato's i&'a TOV ayaOov is, in the same way, both transcendent and
immanent : cf. Republic 508 eff., and 526 d,e.2 Cf. e. g. Metaph. Z and H.3 Cf. e. g. Metaph. M and N.4 Cf. e.g. Metaph. io25
b10-18, Post. Anal. 76* 31 ff., and often.
5 Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1003*22-26, io25b3~i3.
INTRODUCTION xix
investigates that part not qua real, but qua changeable. Themetaphysician, on the other hand, investigates all forms of
the real in respect to their reality. And natural philosophyis subordinate to metaphysics, being the ' second
'
of the
speculative philosophies on the same principle on which
metaphysics is the 'first'.1 For the central object of the
metaphysician's study is the primary'real
'
the timeless, im-
perceptible and changeless substance, which is'
simple'
(air\fj),
i. e. through and through one sheer actuality. But the partof the real which the 0v<nK6y studies is 'composite sub-
stance'
(crvvOeTos ovo-ia), i. e. a union of two elements,concrete of form and matter, and thus secondary and deriva-
tive in its being.2
Mathematics, alone of the speculative philosophies, has for
its subject-matter not substance at all, but adjectival characters
abstracted from the substance which they qualify.3 The per-
ceptible substances are quanta, i. e. quantified things. Theyhave shape and size
; they have unity, and multiplicity of
parts. And certain further properties attach to the percep-
tible things in virtue of, or mediately through, their quantitative
characters. These quantitative characters are thus the logical
subjects of certain Trddrj, which in fact inhere not in them, but
(mediately through them) in the perceptible things. It is
1 See above, p. xvii, note 3, and cf. e. g. Metaph. 1026* 27 ff.,
io37a13-17.
2 The scope of the province of (frvo-iKrj is explained below, 10. The'
composite substance ' which it studies is perceptible, and subject at
least to movement, if not also to the other forms of change. Cf. e. g.
Metaph. 1069* 30 ff.
3 In this sense, the mathematical sciences are said to be ncpl ci8r]
(cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 79*7-10). Aristotle in one passage excepts
astronomy. He says that 'it investigates perceptible (but eternal)
substance, and is thus, of all the mathematical sciences, most akin to
first philosophy'
(Metaph. lO73b3-8). But this view of astronomy
seems to be due to the fact that Aristotle substantiated (i. e. materialized)
the spheres of Eudoxos and Kallippos, thus transforming an abstract
mathematical system into a mechanical system of homocentric
spherical shells (see below,* 36** 14- b
io, with the passage there quoted
from Sir Thomas Heath's Aristarchus of Samos}. Astronomy, as we
shall see in 6, like optics and acoustics, is both a mathematical
science and a part of (^winr). Cf. also below, 10.
b2
xx INTRODUCTION
these quantitative characters, these 'adjectivals', which the
mathematician severs by definition from their substances. In
his science they become the subjects, ofwhich he demonstrates
TrdOr) ;i. e. they are treated as if they were substances, really
subsistent things, the owners of the properties which theymediate. The mathematical things, therefore, of which the
mathematician demonstrates certain properties, are mere
adjectives abstracted from the perceptible substances. The
solids, planes, lines, points, and units, whose '
being' the
geometer and the arithmetician take for granted, are in fact so
many specific determinations of the quantitative character
of the perceptible things. Their 'being' is adjectival, not
substantial.1
6. Although Aristotle speaks of mathematics as a single'
speculative philosophy ',he also speaks of ' the mathematical
sciences ',
2 and attributes to each of them a distinct' kind ',
or sphere, of '
being' as its subject-matter. Geometry and
arithmetic e. g. have reciprocally-exclusive yevrj {moKci/ieva.
Continuous magnitude on the one hand, and number on the
other, are self-contained wholes or 'kinds' of 'being', so that
it is illegitimate to attempt to prove an arithmetical conclusion
through a geometrical middle term, or vice versa. In everydemonstration in the science of arithmetic, all three terms
(major, minor, and middle) must belong to the sphere of
number: and in every demonstration in the science of
geometry, all three terms must belong to the sphere of
continuous magnitude.3
Aristotle's conception of the unity of a science is puzzlingand perhaps not altogether consistent. A science is one,
when its subject-matter is a single 'kind'.4 But what con-
stitutes a single' kind
'
is far from clear. Thus, although
1Cf. e. g. Phys. I93
b 22 ff., Metaph. K. io6ia 28 - b33, A. io;3
b3-8,
M. io77b 12 1078* 31. The passages cited from K and M undoubtedly
express Aristotle's doctrine, even if these books were not written byAristotle himself.
8Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1003*25 (at /Ma&j/zariKai ran/ fin<TTr]p.5)v) ,
IO26a
25-27.3
Cf. Post. Anal. 75* 38- b 20.
4Cf. e. g. Metaph. ioo3
b19, Post. Anal. 87* 38 - b
4.
INTRODUCTION xxi
quanta fall apart into at least two reciprocally-exclusive'kinds' (into number, the system developed out of anindefinite plurality of 'units', and into spatial magnitude,the system developed out of 'points and lines'), nature is
a single' kind
'
of '
being V Hence</*v<rtKJj is a single science,
although it includes in its survey a great variety of perceptible
substances, some of which are eternal, whilst others come-to-
be and pass-away. Mathematical philosophy, on the other
hand, is rather a series of connected sciences than a singlescience. There are '
parts'
of fjLaOrjpaTiKrj, ajid it includes
within itself a 'first
'
and a ' second'
science, and others con-
tinuing the series.2 The order of these successive mathe-
matical sciences appears to be determined by the increasing
complexity of the mathematical things whose'
being'
is taken
for granted. Arithmetic e.g. is prior to geometry in the
series, because the arithmetician assumes the '
being'
of the'
unit'
(ovcria #0eroy) only, whereas the geometer assumes
the 'being' of the 'point', i.e. unit plus position (ova-ia fleroy).3
The mathematical sciences come into close connexion
with certain provinces of(/>vo-iKrj. Thus e.g. acoustical,
optical, and astronomical phenomena are investigated, in
different ways, both by the philosophy of nature and bymathematics. The ^wen/coy establishes empirical generaliza-
tions as to what combinations of notes, or what musical
intervals, produce consonances and dissonances. But the
scientific explanation of these (and other) acoustical pheno-mena is arithmetical, derived from the theory of ratios.
Again, the faariKos observes the phenomena of light and
establishes empirical generalizations with regard e. g. to the
deflexion of the visible line (the ray) in various media and its
reflection from various surfaces. But the scientific explana-
tion is geometrical, a corollary of the abstract theory of lines
and angles. Lastly, the fyva-iKos studies the 'heavenlybodies'. He observes the apparent sizes, shapes, and
distances of the stars and planets, and formulates empirical
generalizations with regard e.g. to eclipses, risings, and
1 Cf. Metaph. 1005* 34 (\v yap TI yevos TOV OVTOS f) (frvo-is), IO25b
1 8-21.2
Metaph. ioo4a6-9, and cf. io26a 23-27.
3Ci. Post. Anal. 87*31-37.
xxii INTRODUCTION
settings, and so forth. But here again the scientific explana-tion is mathematical, a corollary of the geometry of solids,
and presumably also of an abstract theory of motion, i. e. of
dynamics.1
7. Each of these sciences the mathematical sciences and
the philosophy of nature has a determinate '
part'
or ' kind'
of '
being'
as its province. And the character of such a ' kind'
determines the procedure of the science in its endeavour after
truth. The procedure is what Aristotle calls' demonstration
'
(aTToSetgis, aTToSeiKTiKos orvXXoyKT/toy), and each of these
sciences is a 'demonstrative science'
(anodeIKTIKTJ cTnonJ/H/).2
The aim of a ' demonstrative science'
is (we may say shortly)
so to analyse and resynthesize its' kind
',that the mediated
necessaryjudgements, which are the conclusions ofthe science,
precisely reflect the mediated necessary connexions between
substances and properties which are the inner articulation of
the ' kind '. The ' truthJ
here to be attained is a replica of
the 'rear.
Each 'kind' is a relatively self-contained whole, a world
of ' substances' 3 with their essential properties. The sub-
stances, however, which are the inhabitants of this world,
though individual, are nevertheless universal or typical.
They are the infimae species (the aro/za tiSrj) of the ' kindJ
(the yei/os) in question.' Man '
e. g. is an individual, or
unique, species of ' animal ', which itself is a specification of
a-Sifia fyvvLKov, the 'kind* studied by (f>v(riKrj. Similarly'
the circle'
is an individual, or unique, type of plane figure.
1Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 78
b34 79
a16, Physics I93
b 22 194*12.
Unfortunately Aristotle's theory of the relation of astronomy,
acoustics, and optics as parts of (^uo-ucj; (the'subalternate '
sciences)to the mathematical sciences (the
'
subalternant'
sciences) is nowhere
fully worked out. I have tried to interpret his slight indications
correctly : but particularly with regard to astronomy (cf. above, p. xix,
note 3, and below, 10) the whole subject is very obscure.2 The doctrine of the Post. Anal, as to the aim, nature, and method
of aTj-o&i/cTiKi? fTTio-T/j/uj; undoubtedly applies to the mathematical sciences
and to(f)vo-ii(f). It is doubtful whether and, if so, under what
qualifications it applies to metaphysics.3 For the purposes of the Post. Anal., the mathematical things, qua
logical subjects, are treated as if they were substances : cf. above, 5.
INTRODUCTION xxiii
And both ' man '
and ' the circle'
are universal;
a 'such-
everywhere-and-always ', not a '
this-here-and-now VEach of these 'substances' each dro^ov clSos can be
analysed, though not divided. The analysis, that is to say, is
into'
constitutive moments '
of its individual being, not into
separable parts. And these constitutive moments reduce to
two viz. 'the proximate generic nature', of which the
substance is a specification, and 'the last differentia', i.e.
the differentia which converts that generic nature into the
substance, or species, in question.2 The constitutive moments
are '
essential'
predicates* of the substance. For they are
necessary to its being, elements in its essential nature (TO, kv
TtoTika-Ti KarrjyopovfjLeva), and the formula which enumerates
them is its definition. Thus the definition of 'man* (<Sov-
Siirovv Xo-yLKov), or of ' the circle'
(eTnVeoW TO e/c TOV ptcrov
i(rov)t
4
resynthesizes the individual substance out of its
1 ' Sokrates' and '
Kallias ', or'this circle
'
and 'that circle
', are
distinguishable only for aMrjats, not for cVtorryfu?. They do not differ
in their knowable or definable being, in their 'form'. Hence their
difference is irrelevant for science;
it is an affair merely of the
coincident and variable properties, or merely of '
the matter '
in which' the form '
is embodied. For further explanations, and some qualifica-
tion, of this doctrine, see below, 8. Aristotle, it may be thought,
comes perilously near to the theory which he imputes to Plato and
condemns : for the aropov el86g (' man-as-such ',
' the circle ', &c.)
shows unmistakable affinity to the Platonic Idea as Aristotle interprets
the latter. Yet at times he is fully conscious of the difficulty : and
perhaps the distinction between eVifrrry/ii} as a e|is, and eirurr^firj in its
fulfilment as 6ea>pia, is in part an attempt to meet it (cf. e. g. Metaph.A. io7i
a24-29, M. 1087* 10-25, de Anima 417*22-29).
2
Any remoter genus>and any differentia specifying such remoter
genus, may be stated in the 'set of terms ' or formula (the \6yos)
defining the substance. But in principle, and for ultimate analysis, the
constitutive moments reduce to the proximate genus and the last
differentia (ei&wroios or TeXetrcua dmQopa), the latter being related to
the former as evepyeia to dvvapts : cf. Metaph. io37b 8 1038*35.
3Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 73*34-37 *#' avra 6' ocra wapx" re ev r<a ri
taTiV) OLOV Tpiya)V(o ypap.fjL>]KCU ypnfjip.fl crriyp.f) (f) yap ovaia avrwv e< TOVTWV
eort, KOI ev rw Xo-yw TO? \cyovri rl eanv eVvTrap^6 ') '?.;
4 This is given as the definition of 'circle' in Rhet. 1407^27 : cf.
also Post. Anal. 92b 20.
xxiv INTRODUCTION
proximate genus and its ultimate differentia, i. e. out of1 moments '
resulting from its analysis.
Now every science takes for granted the being and the
meaning of its' kind ',
and of the ' substances'
into which it
is articulated, or which are its dropa eiSr). Plane geometrye. g. assumes that there is such a thing as plane figure, and
that plane figure is so-and-so, or must be thus defined. It also
assumes that the arojjia eiBrj of the yeroy viz. points and
lines, and the more complex plane figures (triangle, square,
circle) which develop out of them in some sense ' are realJ
,
and mean so-and-so, i. e. must be thus defined. Natural
philosophy similarly takes for granted the meaning and the
being of <J>VCTLKOV a-c^fia as a ye^oy, and the meaning and
being of the subordinate genera and of the ' substances'
or
&TOfjt.a eiSr) into which it is articulated. This assumptionof the '
being'
of the kind and of its articulations is the
vTToOeoris of the science.1 And either the 'kind* itself,
or its subordinate genera, or (in the majority of cases)
its drofjia eidrj figure as the minor terms of the demon-strative syllogisms which constitute the science ; they are
the subjects, of which the science demonstrates certain
properties.
8. But the articulated' kind
'
which is the world of
a science a world, whose inhabitants are individual, and yet
universal, substances exists in fact and actually in, and as,
an indefinite multiplicity of singular perceptible embodiments,each of which is a ' this-here-now ', not a '
such-everywhere-
and-always '. From this point of view, the province of the'real
', upon which a science reflects and which it has to
explain, is a world of singular substances 2 a world of
aia-OrjTa, rich with an inexhaustible detail of perceptible
properties. It is a world manifest to concrete experience,i. e. to sense combined with intelligence ;
not a world manifest
1Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. ;6
a31-36,
b3~6, 11-13 : and for the meaning
of vn60c<ris, vTroriBtaBai in this connexion, cf. e. g. 72* 18-24, 76b16-19,
35-39, 93b24-25, &c. The 'kind', as that which the science biro-
rlGfrai, is called the yevos viroKfi^fvov.
'Substances', in the sense in which Kallias and Sokrates are'
substances'
: cf. Categ. 2* 11-14.
INTRODUCTION xxv
in toto to thought.1 And out of this far richer (but only partly
intelligible) world, science has to select the terms of its
demonstrations isolating by definition its substances, its
properties, and its connecting causes. 2
Some amongst the characters, which are predicable of the
singular representatives of an drofiov ei6\>y, are essential to
their being, as the * constitutive moments *
of their essential
nature. These, as we have seen, are formulated by the manof science as the definition of the drofjLov eZiJoy of that
individual, but yet universal,' substance
'
(the minor term of
the scientific demonstration) whose 'being' and 'meaning* he
takes for granted.3 The remaining characters may be grouped
1 Under 'sense' I here include vo^o-is, so far as concerns the
mathematical things : cf. Metaph. 1036*2-12.2 Science starts from a province of the '
real '
presented to perception.
The ' world of science'
in this sense (viz. as that upon which the
science reflects, which it endeavours to explain) is a world of singular
substances, of ato-^rd. But the'real
' which is made manifest byscience (the
' world of science'
as the adequate correlate of scientific
explanation) is an intelligible articulated' kind
',an ordered sphere of
* commensurate ' connexions between universal substances (types) and
universal properties. The difficulty in Aristotle's position is that (i) he
sometimes insists that the singulars (this man, this horse, &c.) alone
are ' substances '
in the proper and primary sense of the term (cf. e. g.
Categ. and Metaph. 11. cc.) : and yet (ii) he emphasizes the sub-
stantiality of the objects of ^UO-IKT) in contrast to the adjectival
character of the mathematical things (cf. above, 5). We should have
expected him either (i) to deny the self-subsistence of the perceptible
singulars, i. e. to show that the aiVdqrd are only imperfectly*real
'
as
indeed he sometimes does : or (ii) to insist that the intelligible
world of (/wen*/?, like the intelligible worlds of the mathematical sciences,
is a world of adjectivals isolated by definition from the perceptible
singular substances which they qualify ;and that, therefore, the aro/i
ei'S?? of (frvaiKr) (e. g.' man ') are no more ' substantial
'
than 'the circle
'
or * the number two '. Cf. Metaph. io35b27-31 ;
and above, p. xxiii,
note I.
3Cf. above, 7, and Post. Anal. 96* 22
- b14. In some of the
demonstrations of a science the minor term may be the 'kind' itself,
or some subaltern genus, i. e. some specification of the' kind
'
short of
(wider than) an aro/uoj/ ei&os-. This, however, does not affect the
general principle of the doctrine. For the ' kind ', or any subordinate
specification of it, is predicable as a 'constitutive moment' in the
xxvi INTRODUCTION
together as irdBr] or a-v/JL^c^rjKOTa ;and from amongst them
the science selects its major terms, i. e. the properties whose
'meaning' it assumes, but whose 'being' it has to demonstrate. 1
In the ideally-perfect scientific demonstration 2 the irdOos,
which is the major term, must be ' commensurate'
with the
minor term. In other words, if e. g. the minor term is an
aropov tiSos, the major term must be a property which
(a) belongs to every singular representative of the el^oy, and
(b) belongs to the singulars as the necessary consequence of
their 'essential nature'. Such a property is called a KaO'
avrb <rvfji/3/3r]K6$ (a proprium) of its subject. It attaches to
that subject (viz., in the case supposed, to the drofjiov e!8o$) as
a whole, and can neither ' be'
nor ' be defined'
without the
latter. It is found qualifying every singular representative
of the tlSos, and it qualifies (strictly-speaking)3 no other
singular substance. The judgement which affirms the
inherence of a proprium in its subject asserts a precise,
reciprocal, nexus between universals. Such a nexus is
'universal' (Ka66\ov) or 'commensurate' : and it is the object
of every ideally-perfect scientific demonstration to establish
a mediated universal nexus of this kind. 4
essential nature of all the singular representatives of an aro^ov ddos :
cf. above, p. xxiii, note 2.
1Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 76*32-36,
b6-i6, &c. The 'meaning', which
the man of science assumes, is (when explicitly formulated by him)
a * nominal definition'
of the THINGS-, a \6yos TOV ri o-^mWi TO oVo/ia
(cf. e. g. Post. Anal. 93'' 29-32). The '
being'
of a nddos is its inherence
in its proper subject.2
i. e. in the <n;XXoyi(r/z6s rov Sio'n (in demonstratio potissim<.i). The
proofs actually occurring in any science may fall short of this ideal in
various ways and degrees. Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 74* 32- b
4, 78- 22
79a 16.
3 * White-black-or-coloured'
is a proprium of surface (fTrt^dveia).
Hence, though Sokrates e. g. is white,' white '
really attaches not to
Sokrates, but to the surface limiting the solid (cr&>/ia) which is isolable
by definition as a quantitative character of Sokrates (cf. above, 5).
In relation to Sokrates 'white' is a mere coincident nddos, a mere
(Tvp.^^K6s. It has no direct essential or necessary connexion with him
qua <aov Xo-yiico>.4 Thus e. g. geometry demonstrates that
'the triangle
'
(i. e. anytriad of internal angles resulting from the enclosure of a surface by
INTRODUCTION xxvii
It is true that Aristotle sometimes speaks as if, in certain
regions of the province of <pv<riKtf, strict 'universal' con-
nexions did not obtain;and as if, therefore, the '
ideal'
of
scientific demonstration must at times be set lower. Thusin astronomy the Qva-iKos demonstrates '
deprivation of light'
of the moon;
in meteorology he proves the occurrence of
'thunder' in the clouds; and, in what we should call
'physiology', he demonstrates becoming 'grey-haired'
of man.But neither moon, nor clouds, nor man exhibit these TrdOrj
invariably or commensurately. Man grows grey only as
a general rule; the moon is frequently, but not always,
eclipsed ;and thunder occurs only occasionally in the clouds.
Hence (Aristotle seems at times to maintain) the aim of the
(/)VO-IKO$ is sometimes to establish connexions which are not
timeless and not commensurate, but hold only as a generalrule or for the most part.
But such apparent exceptions disappear on closer inspection.For the cause, which links such wdOrj to their subjects,
further determines and purifies either the TrdOrj or the
subjects in such a way that the connexion when demonstrated
(i.e. the mediated nexus which is the 'conclusion' of the
aTToSeigis) is commensurate and reciprocal. Thus (not moonin general, but) moon in such a position that the earth
screens it from the sun is deprived of light. And this
deprivation of light viz. one caused by the avTtypa^is 7779
three straight lines)*is equal to two right angles '. The application to
the isosceles is a mere corollary, and forms no part of the essential
logical structure of the science (cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 73*26 74*3).
Propria are '
essential'
predicates (naff avra) of their subjects in the
second sense of K.aB' avrd recognized by Aristotle (ib. 73a37
- b3). For
a predicate is essential (i) if it is a 'constitutive moment '
in the being
of its subject (cf. above, p. xxiii, note 3), or (ii) if it is a necessary con-
sequence of its subject's being. In this second case, the \6yos which
defines the predicate must contain the name (or the definition) of the
subject as an element. Thus *
straight-or-curved'
is a proprium of
line and ' odd-or-even'
of number. Every line must be either
straight or curved, every number either odd or even, and nothing else
can as such possess these properties. Moreover, it is impossible to
define oddness or evenness (or straightness or curvedness) without
specifying number (or line) in the definitory formula.
xxviii INTRODUCTION
is lunar eclipse, a proprtum of moon. Moon-#-screened-
by-the-earth is deprived of light commensurately and time-
lessly. And the noise, which is thunder, occurs inevitably
and invariably in the clouds in so far as fire is quenched in
them : that noise viz. the noise caused by the quenching of
fire is a proprtum of clouds. 1
Finally, growing grey is one
amongst the alternatives of a '
disjunctive'
proprium of man.
For man, in so far as increasing age destroys the hair-sacs or
follicles, must either grow grey or grow bald, as inevitably as
number must be either odd or even, and line straight or
curved. 2
9. In the ideally-perfect demonstration the middle term
expresses the proximate (i.e. the precisely-adequate) cause
of the inherence of the proprtum in its commensurate subject.3
Thus, given extinction of fire in the clouds, the noise which
is thunder precisely and inevitably results : and, given the
interposition of the earth screening the moon from the sun,
that deprivation of light, which is a lunar eclipse, is the
immediate and inevitable effect.4 Aristotle identifies this
cause, which appears as the middle term, with a definition
of the major term.5 And in fact, as we saw,6 the middle
1 This definition of thunder (\lso<pos tmoo-(B(i>vvfjLfvov nvpos ev i>f(peo-iv),
which Aristotle constantly quotes in illustration, appears to be derived
from the views of Anaxagoras. Aristotle's own theory of thunder is
different : cf. Meteor. 369* 10 370* 33.2
I have no doubt that this is the true doctrine, and the only one
which is consistent with Aristotle's general conception of aTroSeumKi)
cmor^T) : cf. e. g. Post. Anal. 75* 33-36, 98* 35- b
38. Aristotle, how-
ever, hesitates : and the reason of his hesitation is his anxiety to
maintain man's freedom as an agent, which appeared to him to demanda real indeterminateness in certain parts of nature (cf. de Interpr.18*28 19*22, Pr. Anal. 32
b13-22, Post. Anal. 87
b19-27). Hence
he sometimes treats imperfect stages in the development of a scientific
demonstration as if they were distinct, though inferior, types of a7rodeiis.3 TO 7rp5)Tov atriov (cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 78*24-26).4 Another example is the demonstration that
' broad-leaved shrubs
must lose their leaves'
through the middle irrjgis TOV uypov, or 8ia TO
7rf)yvv(T0ai TOV ev TJJ vvvatyfi TOV ancpnaTos onov : cf. Post. Anal. 98* 35 fif.,
b32-38, 99* 2 1-29-8\6yos TOV Trpwrou aKpou, Post. Anal. 99*21-29 : cf. also 93
b3-14.
6Above, p. xxvii.
INTRODUCTION xxix
helps to define the major (and sometimes also the minor)and thus purifies the connexion, rendering it 'commen-surate '.
In so far, therefore, as a man of science achieves the
knowledge which is his aim, and succeeds in expressing it in
the ideally appropriate form, his science will appear as an
ordered system of apodeictic syllogisms. In these syllogisms
every term will be universal;and in the basal syllogisms, on
which the system depends, every premiss will be an im-
mediate ' commensurate '
judgement, reflecting an immediate
reciprocally-necessary nexus between substance and pro-
prium, or substance and 'constitutive moment
', or proximatecause and proximate effect. The conclusion of every syllogism
will include the middle term and will be a mediate ' com-
mensurate'
judgement, reflecting a reciprocally-necessary
nexus between substance and proprium mediated through the
proximate cause of the inherence of the latter in the former.
The three terms of every such apodeictic syllogism can be
rearranged and concentrated so as to constitute the adequatescientific definition of the proprium in question. Thus
Anaxagoras's definition of 'thunder' 1is the concentration of
the three terms of a scientific demonstration, and includes
(a) the clouds as the subject in which, (b) owing to the
extinction of fire, (c) that determinate noise, which ' thunder'
means, must occur. And the adequate definition of 'lunar
eclipse'
is a Aoyoy including all three terms of a 0-i/AAoy*(r/*6y
TOV BLOTL. For it states (a) the moon (the minor term) in
which, (b) owing to yfjs dvrfypagis (the middle term), (c) that
deprivation of light (the major term), which '
eclipse'
means,must occur. 2
1Cf. above, p. xxviii, note I.
2Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. ;i
b19-25, 84*19 85*1, 94
al-l4. The
scientific definition of HILS (see below,* 28b 22) is a good example of
a concentrated apodeictic syllogism.
None of Aristotle's examples completely fulfils the conditions of
a perfect apodeictic syllogism, adapted to form the basis of a system of
scientific demonstrations. The instances quoted above ('thunder','
eclipse ', 'shedding of leaves ') are derivative syllogisms : their minor
premisses are not immediate, and their middle terms are neither'
constitutive moments ' nor propria of their minor terms. Yet the
xxx INTRODUCTION
It is to be observed that, if we take the major and minor
terms of an apodeictic syllogism without the middle, we get
a formula (Xoyoy) which is the 'nominal definition' 1 of a
TrdOos. Thus ' noise in the clouds',
'
deprivation of light in
the moon','unification of the combinable bodies' (TQ>V IJLIKT&V
ei/oxn?) are the nominal definitions of ppovTrj, e/cAei-v/ay,and
pigis respectively. And if we expand these formulae into
judgements (' In the clouds there is noise',
' In the moonthere is deprivation of light ',
' The combinable bodies exhibit
unification '), we get in each instance that unmediated
suggestion of a demonstrable connexion which Aristotle calls
a 7rp6/3XrjfjLa.2 The man of science starts with a suggested
connexion of this kind with a proposed conclusion. His
aim is to mediate it, to find a middle or middles which will
convert it into a demonstrated truth. Hence Aristotle
sometimes represents him as filling up the interval between
subject and predicate of the 7rp6/3Xr]/j.a, by interpolating the
middle or middles which are required to 'pack' the whole
interval with 'elementary', immediate, or self-evident 'con-
nexions. 3
schema of the ideally-perfect basal demonstrative syllogism, according
e.g. to Post. Anal. 7ib19-25, is :
B precisely and reciprocally carries with it A, for B is A's proximatecause
;C immediately and inevitably involves B (either because
B is a 'constitutive moment '
of C's being, or because B is a
proprium immediately flowing from C's essential nature) ;
Therefore C is commensurately linked with A through B.
The favourite example of the old commentators is :
Rationality (i. e. reason embodied in an animal organism) carries
with it, precisely and reciprocally, the power to laugh (i. e. the
power to express the intelligent appreciation of the ludicrous bya determinate modification of breathing) ;
Man immediately and inevitably involves rationality, as the specific
differentia constituting his being ;
Therefore Man qua \oyi*6v and only Man must be yeXacmKov.1
Cf. above, p. xxvi, note i.
-Cf. e. g. Post. Anal. 98
b32.
8 Cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 84b19 85*1. Aristotle's conception of
a7ro5etir, looked at from this point of view, is in principle identical
with Descartes' conception of ' deductio '
: see my Essay on the Nature
of Truth, pp. 69-72.
INTRODUCTION xxxi
10. The composite perceptible substance, which the
(frvo-tKosstudies in so far as it is changeable,
1
is displayed in
our experience as a multiplicity of ' natural bodies'
(Qvo-iKa
o-co/zara). A ' natural'
body is one which contains, innatelyinherent in it,
' an originative source of motion and rest'
G* o-raoreooj) or ' an impulse to change'
(OP/JLTJ
fj.(/)VTOs).This dp^rj is the ^ucny of the body, as
the ' form'
which constitutes it, distinguishing a natural from
a mathematical body (a 'solid ') and from a product of rex^.2
The ' kind',
which is the world of natural philosophy, maybe most simply and adequately called crcofMa fywiKov. It is
the business of the 0y<n/c6? to demonstrate of the 'kind*
itself, and of the subordinate genera and aro^a tiSrj into
which it is articulated, the propria which commensuratelyattach to them. 3
The ' kind'
itself QVO-LKOV (rcopa in general is the subject
of Aristotle's Physics, the first4 in the series of his works on
natural philosophy. In it he discusses (i) Tr/oom; vXrj and' the contraries
'
(eI5oy, orep^ovy),. as the fundamental ' con-
stitutive moments '
of all fyva-iKa, ow/iara which are ys.vvr\Ta,
KOL (pOaprd : (ii) Averts, i. e. the originative source of motion
and rest which constitutes all (f>v(riKa crco/zara, whether eternal
or perishable : (iii) motion, the proprium of all fyva-iKa ora/jLara:
(iv) place, time, and continuity, which are predicable of
natural body and are necessarily implied in motion : (v) the
infinite and the void, which are erroneously supposed to be
implied by moving bodies : and so forth.5
Next in the systematic order is the de Caelo, in which
Aristotle studies the '
simple'
or elementary natural bodies,
in so far as they form so many strata composing the physical
1Cf. above, p. xviii.
2Cf. e.g. Phys. B. i.
3 In what follows I have drawn freely upon Zabarella's Denaturalis
scientiae constitutione (pp. 2-134 in his De rebus naturalibus, Franco-
furti, MDCXVJl). In that admirable work the reader will find an
excellent account of the subject-matter of (/WO-IKJ? and a most thorough
discussion of the systematic connexion of Aristotle's 'physical'
writings.4 First in the systematic or logical order, not necessarily first in the
order of writing.5 Cf. Zabarella, 1. c., pp. 16-39.
xxxii INTRODUCTION
universe. For the natural bodies comprised within the
physical universe are either (i)'
simple V or (ii) complex,
resulting from the combination or composition of pieces of
the simple bodies. Now the 'nature' of a 'simple* natural
body is expressed in a '
simple'motion. A simple motion is
either rectilinear (' up'
or ' down',
i. e. from the centre towards
the periphery of the universe, or vice versa) or circular. AndAristotle recognizes five simple natural bodies as composingthe physical universe
;viz. the Aether, whose ' nature
'
it is to
move eternally in a circle, and Earth, Air, Fire, and Water
whose ' natures'
are expressed in rectilinear motion. 2
Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water are concrete of form and matter (for
they are informations of 7rp<x>TT) V\TJ), and they together com-
pose the ' Lower Cosmos '
or the '
sublunary sphere*
i. e.
that part of the physical universe which extends from the
earth to the region immediately below the moon. Earth
inherently gravitates towards the centre of the universe, and
at the centre it is'
by nature'
at rest. It is thus the nature of
Earth to' underlie
'
all other bodies;
and it is therefore
absolutely heavy, and forms the lowest stratum. Water
inherently moves towards a region (or constitutes a stratum)
immediately encircling the Earth;and is therefore light
relatively to Earth, and heavy relatively to Air and Fire.
Air 'by nature' moves up towards a region (or constitutes
a stratum) immediately encircling the Water;and is therefore
heavy relatively to Fire, but light relatively to Water and
Earth. And Fire is absolutely light : for it is its' nature
'
to
rise above the other three, to 'float on their surface', and thus
to constitute the uppermost stratum of the Lower Cosmos. 3
1They are air\a a-w/iara, though they are owdcrot ovo-t'at, i. e. concrete
of form and matter : cf. e. g. below,* 22b 1-2.
8 Cf. de Caelo 268b 14 269a9. Since there are three 'simple'
motions (from the centre, to the centre, and round the centre),
Aristotle sometimes speaks of three simple bodies : viz. (i) the Aether,
which is eternally revolving and constitutes the outermost shell of the
physical universe, (ii) Earth, which gravitates towards, and rests at,
the centre, and (iii) the 'intermediate body', which moves from the
centre towards the periphery and includes the three strata. Water, Air,
and Fire. Cf. de Caelo 270*26-31, 277b12-17, 298
b 6-8.8
Cf. de Caelo 269b
20-29, 308* 14-33, 3 11 * l S ff- Thus rough
INTRODUCTION xxxiii
The remainder of the physical universe consists of the
fifth simple body, the Aether. It constitutes the whole of
the Upper Cosmos i. e. the outermost shell of the heavens
(the Trpcoroy ovpavos) and the stars which are set in it, andthe planetary spheres together with the planets which they
carry. Since its motion is circular, and neither '
up'
nor
'down*, it is neither light nor heavy. It is unchangeable,
ungenerated and imperishable, and in general contrasted in
all its properties with the other four simple bodies. 1
Manypassages in the de Caelo are devoted to the study of this elusive
substance, which is in its own way as full of contradictions as
the 'Ether* of modern physical science. We are, in fact,
confronted here with one of the most obscure features in
Aristotle's natural philosophy.2 The Aether, the stars, and
the planets, although' divine
'
or '
heavenly'
bodies, are yetincluded in the province of
(ftvcriKri : and Aristotle undoubtedly
regards them as in some sense (fivo-iKa (roo/zaroL The stars
and planets are perceptible substances, and 'all perceptiblesubstances have matter'.8
They must, indeed, qua percep-tible be concrete of form and matter : for perception is the
presence, in the soul of the percipient, of the form abstracted
from the matter of the perceptible thing.4 Are we then to
regard the Aether as the ' matter'
of the stars and planets,
and the Intelligences, which initiate and control the motions
of the spheres,5 as the souls informing their aetherial bodies ?
But the Aether itself is a '
simple'
natural body : hence it
must be concrete of form and matter, and ought to be
perceptible. And if it is the ' matter'
of the stars and planets,
it is their proximate matter, itself the information of a more
primary matter; just as Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, thoughthe proximate materials of the compound bodies, are them-
selves informations of Trpcorrj v\rj.
sketch of the constitution of the Lower Cosmos is filled in, and to some
extent modified, below: cf., in the meantime,*22*2-3,
*23*6-8.
1Cf. e.g. de Caelo 269*29 27o
a35.
2Cf. also above, p. xix, note 3, and p. xxii, note I.
3Metaph. 1042*25.
4 Cf. de Anima 424* 17-24, 43 ib 20432* 3.
5 Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1073* 14- b
3, de Caelo 292* i8ff.
2254 C
xxxiv INTRODUCTION
It is equally clear, from another consideration, that the
Aether, the stars, and the planets must all involve ' matter'
of
some kind. For though they are eternal and unchangeable,
they all are in ceaseless motion : and motion involves matter
in the moving thing. For the moving thing occupies succes-
sively, and not simultaneously, the different points on its
path. It is now actually here and only potentially there : and
now actually there, no longer actually here, and only poten-
tially at a third point. Accordingly Aristotle ascribes to the
heavenly bodies and his argument applies to the Aether as
well as to the stars and planetsl a vXrj iroQtv irol (or a vXrj
TOTriKrj), though he denies of them tiXrj in any other sense.
Clearly they cannot contain the matter which is involved in
the perishable and changing things, the vXrj yevvrjr^ Kal
(pOaprrj or the matter of atigrjcris or of dXXoiaxri? : for, if they
did, they would themselves be subject to yez/ecrjy and <f>6opd,
to atigrjo-is and QOfois, and to dXXofartf*It is tempting to connect the vXrj TroOev TTOL with the vXrj
voir]Tr\ which is the ' matter'of the mathematical planes and
solids, i. e. with the empty extensity which may be informed
e.g. by circularity to constitute this or that geometrical circle.3
If so, then the Aether is a (rvvQeros ovo-ia (and thus a proper
object of<j>v(riKfi) qua concrete of 1/01777) vXrj and mathematical
form : and it is'
perceptible'
only in the sense in which this
or that geometrical circle or sphere is 'perceptible', viz.
intuitable, imaginable, 'perceptible' to the mind's eye, an
object of vor](ri$ and not of aicrOr)(ri$*
The stars and planets, it would seem, are analdgous to the
1It is primarily the aetherial spheres which 'move
, carryingthe stars and planets round in their revolutions: cf. e.g. de Caelo
289b30 ff.
2 Cf. Metaph. 1042* 25- b
7, io5ob16-28, io69
b24-26.
3 We cannot identify v\r] 7r66ei> Trot with the iX^ of the geometrical
planes and solids. For the latter are devoid of motion, whilst the vX?/
7r60cv TTOI is primarily intended to account for the motion which
characterizes the Aether and the heavenly bodies. Still we mayperhaps suppose that the 'stuff', which is informed as these moving
spheres, is (if we disregard its potentiality for motion) the same as
the vor)Tr} v\rj involved in this or that circle or sphere.4
Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1036*2-12, !O36b32 1037* 5.
INTRODUCTION XXXV
living things of the sublunary sphere. They are pieces ofaetherial stuff besouled by an Intelligence which initiates
and controls the motions of their spheres. The Aether is thustheir 'matter* in a sense remotely analogous to that in which
pieces of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the 'matter* of the
perishable living things. The Aether itself is an informationof vXrj 7ro0ez/ TTOI, a substance concrete of form and matter,and thus a fyvcriKov (Tafia. Its <pv<TL$ is an inherent tendencyto revolve
; and, in obeying the initiation of the Intelligence,its revolution is both divinely inspired and '
natural *. We donot ' see
*
the Aether, except in the sense in which we ' see*
i. e. imaginatively visualize the geometrical planes and solids.
We suppose ourselves to see the stars and planets ; but wedo- not see them as they really are, i.e. we do not see
aetherial stuff alive with besouling Intelligence. We see
moving solids, solids with such and such shapes and orbits;
and we also see (and ascribe to the moving solids) the flames,which the revolving aetherial spheres cause by friction in the
immediately subjacent stratum. 1
If this is Aristotle's doctrine, it is difficult to see why the
aetherial spheres, and the bodies they contain, should fall
within the province of (f>vo-iKrj at all. For apart from the
Intelligences besouling them they are ' concrete of form andmatter' and 'perceptible* only in the sense in which the
mathematical things are so. Yet Aristotle insists that the
aetherial spheres,the stars,and the planets are not '
adjectivals',
but substances,2 and substances in a very special sense. For
each of them is the unique singular representative of a species,
i. e. is both an drofjiov e23oy and an actually-existent singular.
Hence they are 'eternal substances* and yet 'perceptible*,
timelessly-actual species, sole individuals in which the type is
precisely and completely fulfilled. Here and here alone
the subjects of demonstrative science are 'substances* both
1Cf. de Caelo 289* 19-35, where Aristotle ascribes the apparent light
and heat of the stars and planets to this cause. There is a more exact
statement of this curious^theory
in Meteor. A. 3, where, however,
Aristotle is referring only to the heat, and primarily to the heat of the
sun. Cf. also* 22b 2-3.
2Cf. also above, p. xix, note 3.
xxxvi INTRODUCTION
universal and sheerly singular. The subject, e. g., of which'
eclipse'
is demonstrated, is the moon : and the moon is
identically also this moon. 1
ii. Next to the de Caelo in the systematic order, if not
also in the order of writing,2 comes the present treatise. The
TrdOr) here primarily in question are yeyeovy and <f>0opd.
Aristotle distinguishes them from the other forms of change
(dXXoitocris, atigrjo-ts and $0ny) which occur in the natural
bodies of the Lower Cosmos, and demonstrates their1 inherence* in their '
proper subject'. But what is this
proper subject ? What is the minor term of which yei/ecny
and <f)0opd are demonstrated ?
At/the natural bodies of the Lower Cosmos are y^vv^ra. KOL
(/>OapTd, and yej/ecny and </>0opd are therefore propna (or a
proprium) of them all. The proper or commensurate subject,
of which these TrdOrj are demonstrated, must accordingly be
taken to include all the natural bodies in the sublunary
sphere. And Aristotle does in fact treat in full of the ytvtvis
and </>Oopd of the '
simple'
natural bodies (Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water), and refers, though only incidentally, to the
yeve<TL$ and (f>6opd of the most complex of% the natural
bodies, i. e. to the birth and death of the living things.3
Nevertheless, if we look more closely at the contents of the
treatise, we shall find that Aristotle is primarily concerned
with the yej/eovy and (f>0opd of the opoio/jLepfj. These are the
first, or most rudimentary, compound natural bodies, resul-
tants of the combination (pigis) of pieces of Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water. 4 And Aristotle explains the y/eovy and <p6opdof the '
simple' bodies because they are the proximatematerial constituents of the opoiofjiepfj, and because their
combination (which produces the oftoiopepfj) necessarily
implies their y>e(ny and </)Oopd. Aristotle's references to the
1Ci. Post. Anal. 74*7-8,
*16-17,
a33~34- Aristotle's illustrations
are fictitious ones, drawn from plane geometry ;but his doctrine
applies, without any fiction, to astronomical demonstrations, if myaccount of his astronomical views is correct.
There is an interesting discussion of the Aether in Zabarella's DeNatura Caeli.
2Cf. below,
*i 4
a i.s cf beloWj G g>
*28*32-33.
4Cf. below, e.g.
*14* 19.
INTRODUCTION xxxvii
and (pdopd of the living things are quite general and
vague. There is no discussion of these ndOrj qua distinctive
of the e/^rt/xa, no treatment of the birth and death which are
the 'coming-to-be* and the '
passing-away*
of an organic-body-
vitalized-by-soul. The living things, however, in their birth
and death share in the ytveovy and fyQopd of the dpoio^pf) :
for the o-a>jjLa e/n^t/xoy is aO-W/JLO, opyaviKov, and every opyavov
is a o-vvOeo-is of opotofjiepf).1
Hence, to this limited extent,
Aristotle's treatment, though primarily directed to elucidate
the yi>(ri9 and </>6opd of the opoioficprj, applies also to the
coming-to-be and passing-away of the c/n/ruxa,2
12. The following brief outline may be of service to the
reader :
(i) A. 1-5 (314* i 322a 33). The Trddrj which are to be
demonstrated viz. coming-to-be and passing-away, growthand diminution, alteration are distinguished from one another
by precise definitions ofthe meaning of the terms. Incidentally
(a) the discussion establishes (against the views of some of the
early Greek philosophers) the occurrence of coming-to-be and
passing-away as changes distinct from alteration and again from
the composition and dissolution of an aggregative whole : and
(b) 7rpa>Trj v\rj is shown to be presupposed as the ground of
yei/eovj and (j)0opd, and of their never-failing alternation in the
Lower Cosmos.
Growth and diminution are fully discussed in chapter 5.
Aristotle restricts the meaning of the terms to growth and
diminution proper, i. e. in the efi^rv^a.
(ii) A. 6-10 (322b i 328b
22). The second part of Aristotle's
task is to discover and define the causes of coming-to-be and
passing-away, in order that we may be in a position to demon-
strate the 'inherence'
of these TrdOr) in their proper subject
1Cf. below, e. g.
* 2ib 17-19,* b
19-22.2
Cf. Zabarella, De nat, sc. constitutione, pp. 56-61. His view is
summarized thus (p. 61 C, D) :
' In libris . . . de generatione dicimus
agi et de caduco corpore generaliter, et de misto generaliter, quia
nullus est alius liber naturalis, in quo vel de hoc vel de illo agatur ;
sed hoc eo modo, quern declaravimus, intelligendum est, ut generatio
ita in rebus inesse cognoscatur, ut revera inest, misto ut subiecto
praecipuo, elementis ut principiis, corpori autem caduco ut subiecto
adaequato,' etc.
xxxviii INTRODUCTION
and thus to formulate their adequate scientific definitions. 1
Now Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the proximate matter
(the material constituents) ofthe Sfioiofieprj, and thus mediatelythe matter of all the complex natural bodies which come-to-
be : and they constitute the 6/jLoiofj.pfj by combination
Combination implies Action and Passion (wotttv KCU
and Action and Passion imply Contact(a(f>ij). Hence
Aristotle discusses, explains, and definesa(/)rj (A. 6), TTOL^LV-
Trdcr^LV (A. 7-9), and fiigis (A. 10).
(iii) B. 1-8 (328b 26 335 1
23). These chapters contain a
thorough and . exhaustive investigation of the so-called
'elements' (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) as the material
constituents of the compound natural bodies, and of those
reciprocal transformations of the 'elements' which are
necessarily implied in their combination to form the 6jj,oio-
peprj.
(iv) B. 9-11 (335a 24 338b i9). These chapters contain
(a) a brief discussion of the material and formal causes ot
coming-to-be (B. 9) ; (b) a short account of the final cause, and
an elaborate account of the efficient cause, together with an
explanation of the '
continuity'
of coming-to-be (J3. 10) ; (c)
a proof that any continuous coming-to-be which is cyclical
(i. e. any sequence of events which is unbroken and returns
upon itself) exhibits genuine, as well as conditional, necessity.
1Cf. above, 9.
API2TOTEAOY2
IIEPI TENE2EO2 KAI
SIGLA
E = cod. Parisiensis Regius 1853
E2 = quae in eodem codice, manu tamen recentiore addita vel correcta,
leguntur
J= cod. Vindobonensis, phil. Grace. loo
Ja = quae in eodem codice manu recentiore addita a lectionibus libri
L differunt (vide praefationem)
F = cod. Laurentianus 87. 7
F2 = quae in eodem codice manu recentiore addita vel correcta com-
memoratione digna videbantur
H = cod. Vaticanus 1027
L = cod. Vaticanus 253
Quinque tantum locis citatur etiam
D b = cod. Ambrosianus F. 113 sup.
r = versio Latina commentariis ab Averroe in Aristotelis opera con-
scriptis inclusa et impressa Venetiis anno 1483 ab Andrea
Asulano
,.*1
,* Philoponi commentaria, Hieronymi Vitelli studio Berolini
anno 1897 edita, respiciunt. Scilicet $ = lectio quae eadem
et in lemmate exhibetur et in commentario tractatur: 3>l
= lectio quae non nisi in lemmate continetur : $c = lectio quae,
quamvis in lemmate non reperiatur, in commentario tamen
citatur vel e commentario colligenda videtur. Denique dissidentia
librorum, quibus Vitelli in constituendo Philoponi textu usus est,
siglis post <E>,O1
,et 3>c adiectis interdum notatur. Itaque, exempli
gratia, lectionem Philoponi codicum R et Z auctoritate, invitis
ceteris, in lemmate receptam siglo fc1 (codd. RZ) significavi.
API2TOTEAOT2IIEPI FENE2EQ2 KAI $9OPA2 A
Flept 8e yezJeVeo)? Kat <f)0opa$ r&v $wet ytz;ojueV<oz> Kat 314*
$0etpo/uieVcoz>, 6/xouo? Kara Trdvrwv, rd*j re atria? 8tatpe-
TZOV Kat TOVS Xoyovs ovT&v, TL 8e TTept avfrjo-ecos Kat dA-
Aota><rea>?, rt eKarepoz>, Kat Trortpov rr\v avrrjv inroXyTTTeov
etvat (f)V(Tiv aAAotwo-eco? Kat yereVecoy, 17 x^pis, coo-Trep 5
5tco/oto-rat Kat rot? oVo'/xao-ty. rwr fxe^ oSz; apyaiuv ot /az; r^y
Ka\ovfjLvr]v airXrjv ytvtaiv aXXoluxjiv flvaC (JHKTLV, ot 6' ere-
poz; aAXotcoo'ti' Kat yeve&LV. ocrot jjiv "yap v rt ro irav ttvai
Aeyovat Kat TrdVra ef lz;o? yevrcoa-t, rovrot? fjitv avdyKrj
ri]v yevecTLv aXXoibxriv (pdvai, Kat ro Kvptcos yiyvo^vov aX- 10
Kat 'Avafayo'pay Kat AevKtTTTro?, ro^rot? 8e cre-
poz;. Katrot 'Az/afayo'pay ye rr)zj otKetaz^ (jx^vrjv Yj-yvor^arfv Ae'-
yet yow a>y ro yiyvecrdai Kat airoXXva-Qai TCLVTOV Ka^eVrr^Ke
roi dAAotovo-0at, TroAAa 8e Ae'yet ra orotxeta, Ka0d,TTp Kat 15
erepot. 'EjU7re8oKA^s juer yap ra juez; o-oojuartKa reVrapa,
ra 8e Traz^ra jnera rwz^ KIVOVVTO>V e^ roz^ aptfyioV, 'Ai'a-
ayopa? 8e aTretpa Kat AevKtTnros Kat AryjuoKptro? (6 /xev
yap ra o/xoto/xep^ o-rot)(ta TiOrjonv, olov OVTOVV crdpKa
bv Kat rwz; aAAcoi' w^ eKc(rr(i) (rvvtovvfjiov ro /utepo? ecrrtr, 20
8e Kat AeuKfTTTro? eK o-co/xdYcoz; d^tatpeVioz; raA-
a I 5e om. E 3 OVTMV dtopiarreov en F 5 $u<7if efvai L :
at (friHTiv eivai E 1 6 &ia>pi(TTm] fcai atpiffrai E 1/-lev T^V] fiev
o5v Tiji/ E 8-9 Ae-yowii/ fii/ai EL 9 yei/i/wcn] ytyovevai H, et
fecit E /*> om. H : /*e*/ 817 F IO dAXoi'a>o-> r^ yevfviv Hyi-yj^o/iei/oi/ KCU dXXotova-^at F 12 5e om. F JHL 13 y om.
FH 14 of)j/ . . . tiTroXXvo-^at in litura add. J, prima tamenmanu KO.\ TO F rauro FJL 16 p.cv priusom. HL 19 euo>
om. H Kat post OVTOVV add. HL /cat post o-a'pKa add. FHL2O fjiVfXov Kal gvXov KOI H /cat TWV] TWV 8e E exaoTou
FHL4>C<TVV(i)Vvfj,a)5 FL : O-VVCDW/JLOV post /izepoy H ecrnV]
Kar^yopeiTai L 21 raXXa] ravra EF : haec et alia T
2254 B
2 I1EPI FENE2E&2 KAt cj>0OPA2 A
Aa crvyK^ldOai <pa(ri, TCLVTOL 8' cbretpa Kat TO 7rX.fj0os elvai
Kat ras poppas, CLVTOL 8e -Trpos avra 8ia<epetzJ TOVTOIS e
&v flat, Kat #eVei Kat rafet rovrcoy)' eVayricos yap fya'wov-
25 rat Aeyovres ot Trept'
Avaayopav TOLS Trept'
6 /mei> yap c^rjo-t Ttvp Kat #8a>p Kat de'pa Kat yfjv
re'rrapa xat aTrXa e?rat jotaXXoz^ ^ <rapKa KOL CKTTOVV KOL
ra rotaOra raw ojaoto/xepd)^' ot 8e raiira //,ey a-TrXa Kat
orotxeta, y^y 8e Kat irvp Kat v8cop Kat depa (rvvOera TTCLV-
314^ o-Trepjuta^ yap etrat rovrcoi'. rot? fj,ev ovv e ero? iravra Kara-
avayKcfiov Aeyetr rr)r yeVeo-ti; Kat r^r tyOopav
, at yap [j.Viv TO vTTOKLfJivov TCLVTO Kat eV (ro
o"e rotoiJroz; d\Aotoi;a-^at ^ajuter)* rots 6e ra yeVr; TrAetco Trotoi;-
5 <7i dta^epeti' rr)z/ aXXoiuxriv TTJS yereVeco? O-VVLOVTMV yapKat bLa\vofJiV(jDV rf- yeVeo-ts a-v^aivei Kat
17 cfrOopa. 6to
Aeyet rouroz; roi/ rpoirov Kat 'E//7re8oKA^9, ort "^>wt? oii8e^oj
ccrrtz; . . . aAAa \LQVQV /xtft? re 8tciAAafts re jutyeVrcov ". ort jutez>
ow otKeto? o.Aoyos CLVT&V rr) VTro^eVet ovra) <{)<ivai, brj\ov,
10 Kat ort Ae'yovcrt rou Tponov TOVTOV avayKalov 8e Kat rovrots
r^z; dAAotcocrti; etyat /zeV rt (fravcu irapa TJ]V yeVeo-ir, d8v-
vaTov fjitVToi Kara ra VTT* eKetVcor Aeyo'/xera. roro 8' ort
\yofjiv 6p0>s, pqbiov owt8etz>. wo"7rep yap opw/xez^ T^pe/zov-
0-779 rrjs ovo-tas er avrr) /uera/3oAr/y Kara juteye^oj, rr)^ Ka-
15 XovfJitvrjv avgrjcrw Kat fyQtoriv, oflrco Kat dAAotaxrtv ov jm^z;
dAA' ef a>z^ Xtyovviv ot TrAetovs dpxa? -Trotowre? -/mtaj d8v-
VOLTOV aXkoiovvQai. ra yap irdOr], Ka0' a ^>a//ez^ ro(5ro
(3aiViv, biatyopal T&V (TTOL\L(DV tlariv, Ae'yco 8' otor
\lfv\pov, \evKov juteAar, fypbv vypov, /uaAaKor (TK\r]pbv Kat
20 rwy aAAoor J-KCLO-TOV, axrirep Kat (frrjvlv 'E/x7re8oKA?js"
r/e'Atoz^
/otez; XVKOV opav Kat 0pfj.bv aTrarrr/, ofji/Bpov 8' ei>
Q, 22 (f)Tj(riL eimi post [wpfyds F 23 Trpo? aura FH
dia(f)fpfi F 24 yap] 8e FHL*125 Trepi TOI/ 'Ava^ayopav F
_ 26 6] of FF 0ao*t F orot^eta ii/ai F 27 reTrapa om. sedA supra lin. add. J ftaXXop eiVat F 28 6fioio/ifpcoi/] pepwv F
'
similium partium r 29 yijv . . . {J8cop] ?rvp Se jcat uSwp E1 Kat
post 7rp om. F b 3 /ievei J (sed post /'i> erasum aliquid) et O1,
Bonitz 4 5e prius om. E 5 T^ yeveaiv r^s aXXoioocreoos fecit E7 Xeyct KOI TOL>TOJ/ L 8 Tf Kat SidXXa^ts re L 9 et 1 1 <f)avai J
IO Kat 6Yi] ort Kat E II rt] TOI F 12 vir eKeivav fecit El6 7roioi)in-at L 19 XeuKoi>] Kai H (TK\r)pov paXaKoi/ EL 2O Kat
^atv] (frrjfflteal F 21 opav] opa EL
I. 3I4a 22.-- 315*22 3
bvotyotvTa re ptyaAeW re" (6/xotW 8e 8ioptet ^at em r<Sz>
aW et JUT/ bvvarbv eK -Trvpos ytVeo-0at v8cop jxr/8' ef
y?jz>, ov8' eK AevKov /xe'Aaz> ecrrat ov8ez> ov8' eK /uaAaKov
a-K\f]pov (6 8' avros Ao'yos Kat-rrept ra>z> aAAa>z>), rovro 8' jjv 25
dAAota>o-t9. ^ Kat (fravcpbv on fjiiav dei rots eVaz>rt'ot? VTTO-
Otreov vXrjv, av re |uera/3aAA?7 Kara roVoy, ay re Kar'
avr](nv Kat (frOicnv, av re Kar* dAAotcoo-ti'. ert 8' 6juoi'a>s
dz^ayKatoz^ etrat rovro Kat dAAotcoo-tv etre yap dAAotcoo-ty
eVn, Kat ro vTroKetjuez^oy ey o-roixetozJ Kat /xta irdvTtov v\r] 3i5a
rwr exoVrcor ets d\\rjXa /xera/3oArJr, Kar et ro VTroKet/xeror
eV, eo-rtz; dAAotcoo-t?. 'EjU7re8oKA?js /uer ovz> eotKer evavria Ae-
yetz/ Kat Trpo? ra Qaivofjitva Kat Trpoj avror avroy. a/xa /uter
yap 01;<f>f)<Tiv erepor ef erepov ytreo-^at r<Sz/ a-rotxetwr ov8ez;, 5
dAAa raAAa Trdrra eK TOVTMV, a/ota 8* orar ets z> o-ura-
yayr/ r^r aTrao-ar (frvviv TT\T]V rov retKov?, eK roi; eros yt-
rto-t xo)pi(oiJLV(t)v Kat TrdOecriv eyeVero ro /uter #8a>p ro 8e
7ri5p, Kadairep Aeyet ror juer r/Ator AeuKor Kat dcpjjiov, rrjv 10
8e yr^r fiapv Kat (TK\r)p6v. atyaipovfjifvtov ovv TOVTMV T>V 8ta-
<f)op>v (eto-t yap d^atperat yero/uerat ye) 8?/Aoz> a>s dvdyKr]
yiyvecrOai Kat yryzJ e^ v8aros Kat v8a)p eK y^s, o/uotcos 8e
Kat rwy aAAcor CKacrrov, ov Tore IJLOVOV dAAa Kat ri5r, /xera-
/3aAAoz>ra ye rots TrdOtcriv. eo-rt 8' ef o5v etpr/Ke Surcijuera 15
irpoa-yiveordai Kat yjtipi&a-Qai irdXtv, aAAcos re Kat payo-
[j.V(t)v dAArjAot? ert roi; VCIKOVS Kat rrjs ^)tA^as, StoVep Kat
ro're e ez/os yvvri6rj(rav ov yap 8r) Trvp ye Kal yr/ Kat
v8cop orra erTJZJ
ro Traz/. dbrj\ov 8e Kat 7roYepoz> dp-
X^r avrw 0ere'oz> ro ez^ r)ra -rroAAa, Ae'ya) 8e Trvp Kat yf/z> 20
Kat ra crvo-rotxct TOVTOIV. rj -/xer yap ws i/Ar; vTroVetrat, ef
ov /xera/3dAAoz'ra 8td rr)r Kiv^aiv yivovrai yfj Kat Trvp, ro
b 22 8vo(j)6fvrd FJ et, ut videtur, E 1: ^oft^a HL :
E 2
^
eVt E 1(ut videtur) et L : Trepi E2FHJ 23 yw0u E JL
26 a\Xoia)crij/ E, sed COrrexit 17] *jEHL^1 aet . . . VTro^reof
vrroQeTfOV flvni rols evavr'uus H : oft cvriois \mo6fTeov E 27-28 ap re
/car' av^rjcriv KOI <p&i(riv om. E a I /xm 17Tra^rwv FL 4 eavrbv F
avTos Om. E 12 yiyvofjifvai E &)ff om. E arayKatov H1 6 npcxryfVfa-Bai J 1 8 ye om. F*1
19 v6a>p e'n oyra Bekker : ert Om.codd. omnes, * ] et r. Infra lin. (sub v8a>p) incerta quaedam habet H20 ai'T&v HL : avra fecit F TO TroXXa 77
TO ev F /cat om. F22 ytvfTai F ^vp /cat
-y?)FL : y^ Kfll ro u5a>p E : ignis et terra et aqua r
B 2
FIEPI FENE2E&2 KAI <J>0OPA2 A
fi8e TOVTO }JLV
KLV(DV, KIVCL 8* K 8taAvO-eC09, 0-rOt)(eta)8eVrepa KLVCL KCU
25 TTpoYepa TTJV (j)V(TLV.
"OAco? re 8?) Trept yereVecos Kat (frOopas rfjs aTrXrjs 2
AeKreW, TTOrepOU loTll> T] OVK eOTt KCll TTCOJ tCTTLV, KOi f Wfpl TO.S
aAAa? Kti/TJo-etsf* ^oz; ^^^ avfrj<rea> xat aAAotcucrea)?.
nXarcor /xez^ ot5i> JJLOVOV Trept ycreVea)? eo-xex/raro Kat
30 <t>6opas, OTTO)? inrdpxet rot? Trpayjaacrt, Kal -Trepl yez^eo-ecas
ov Trao-T]? dAAa TTJJ rwr OTOtXcfoVj 7rwy 5e o-apxe? ?)oara ^
rt rail' roiovrcoy, ovbtv Irt oi6e Tre/u
vf?io-a)s, rtW rpoirov vTrdp-^ova-i fot9
oAcos 8e Trapa ra eTTiTroA^? Trepl ovbevbs ovbtls 7reWr]o-er
35 Ar/juoK/n'roir oiiro? 8' eotKe /utez; nept
31 5b 8e er rw TTWS biatyepeiv. ovre yap Trepl
Siwpicre^, a>(77rp Aeyo/mei', o rt /HT) K^V 6
ort irpooriovTOS av^dvovrai r<S o/xoiw (TTWJ oe roOro,
5 roi; iroitlv rf TOV TiavyjEiv, riva rponov TO fJLV Trotet ro
ras (frwiKas TTOirjcreis. AryjuioKptros 8e /cat
TTOS TrotTyo-a^rey ra a-^rujLara TJ]V dAAotcoo-tj; Kat rr\v ytvtaiv
K TOVTtoV TTOLOV<TL, 8taKpt(Tet /X^ Kttt CTVyKpL(TL yV(TLV KO.I
<j)0opdv, rafet 8e Kat 0eVet dAAotcoo-tr. 7ret 8* (ooz^ro rd-
10 Ar/^e? V rai </miWcr0at, tvavria 8e Kat airetpa ra </>atro-
jotera, ra (rx^p-cira a-rretpa 7roi7](rav, coo-re rats /xera)8o-
Aat? roO o-vyKet/ieVou ro avro evavriov 8oKetz^ aAAa> Kat aAAw,
Kttt fJ,TaKLVL(T0aL fJLLKpOV [JLfJLLyVVfJLVOV KOL oAo)? TpOVo3atVeo-^at eros /xeraKtz^^^eWos eK rcoi; CLVT&V yap rpay&)8ta
15 Kat K0)/x(i>8ta ytrerat ypa/x/txarcoy. e-Tret 8e 8oKet
a 23 yiyvovrai E 24 (rroi^ta)SeVT6pa ra rerrapa cKflva F 27-28 rasXas (cti/iyo-fiy HJL* : post aXAas add. dTrXay E et (supra lin.) F:
TO>I> aXXcov Kivyafw Db: de aliis simpltcibus motibus r : TV aXAo>>
Bekker : r^y aXXj/s Kivrjaews fort, legendum 28
supra lin. add. J : ofov KCU E 29 p>6vov om. FH yevecreas K.CU
ois HJ(ftdopas c<rKC\lsa.TO L 30 Trois HJ 3! Ta>i/ Trai/Ta)!/ oTot^eta)!/ F32 ovdev] ouSa/imff H ovSe om. E : ovre 8e F : ovre L TTfpl
avgrjtreais ovre aXXoiaxreas E, sed OUT CX ovde fecit 33 oi/re FLvirdpt-ov<ri E 1
35 fi'ot*ce] 8c doKi H b I dia<f>epi FHL
ovdev] ovSe H *2 5tci)pt/ci/ E 6/117 rv^cby E :
^117 supra lin. add. JfiTroiev EFHL 5 f}]
KOI E roO om. F 12 doicel E KOI
aXXo) om. L 13 eyyivofievov F 14 Ka>/i&)fii'a xai rpayo)5i'a F15 yivcrai Kal Kupwdia HJ eVet 5e] ert E Tracrt
23 2 -
erepov clvcu yeWo-ts /cat dAAotWu, /cat yiWo-0at /uei;
/cat <0epo-0at <rvyK.pw6iJ.tva /cat biaKpivofJitva, dAAotoCa-flat
be /xera/3aAAoVr<oz; T&V 7ra0r/jutdra>i>, Trept TOVTODV
00)pr]Ttov. dTroptaj yap \L ravra Kal TroAAas Kal
yovs. t /uezJ yap eon <rvyKpt<rts ^ yeWo-ts, TroAAa d8wara 20
trvppabxi' etVt 8' av Ao'yot erepot dmy/caori/cot /cat ov/c i;-
Tropot ia\viv wy o^/c vb^TaL aAAco? H^w etre /irj eart
(TvyKpuris r) ycWo-tj, ^ oAws ov/c eort yeVeo-ts ^ aAAotcocrtj,
r) /cat roi)ro 8taAi;(rat \a\irov ov 7ripaTtov. apxn $*
rovTtov TTavTwv, TTOTtpov ovTO) yCvtraL Kal aAAotourat Kat av- 25'
fdz/erat ra oWa /cat ravavrla TOVTOLS Trtio-^et, rwu TT/OWTCOZ;
VTrap\6vT(ov [jieyeOtoV dStatpera)^, r) o^^eV eort /xeye^oj d8tat-
ptrov 8ta^>pet yap rouro TrActo-ror. /cat TrdAtr et ^eycdr],
v, &)? Ary/uto/cptros /cat Aev/ctTTTroy, o-w/xara rar'
V T<5 TljUatO) TTLTTba; TOVTO JJLV OVV OVTO, 30
Ka0aTTp Kal tv aAAot? etp^Ka/ne^, aAoyoz^ M 'X
8taAi)o-af 8 to /otaAAoz; ei/Aoyoz; (rco/xara etyat
dAAa Kat ravra TroAAr/z; e^et aXoyiav. GJUCO? 8e rovrot?
dAAotcoa-ti^ /cat yivtvw eV8e')(erat Trotetr, KaQdirep tp?]rat,
TpoirfiKal 8ta0tyr) jutera/ctrowra ro awo /cat rats ra>i> 0-^77- 35
/udrcoi; 8ia<|)opat9, OTrep Trotet Ar^/xoKptro? (8td /cat \poiav 316*ov (frrjcnv tlvai rpo-Trr) yap \p(DfjiaTLf(rOaL)t rot9 8' ts eirt-
7re8a 8tatpoi;o-t^ ov/cert* ov8ez> yap ytVerat irA^ o-repea OTVVTL-
^ejixercor, W^o? yap ov5' ey)(tpoi;(rt yevvav ovbev cf avr&v.
alnov be rov tit eAarroz; bvvao-0at ra 6/uoAoyovjuera (ruvopav 5
^ aTretpta- 8to oo*ot erwKTJ/cao-t /xaAAo^ er rot?
paXXov bvvavrai VTroridecrOaL Toiavras ap\as at embvvavraL crvvtipew, ol 8' e/c raw iroXX&v \6ya)V d^ecopr^rot
b 1 6 yevf&iv Kal aXXoiao'iv F /cai yiveaOai ftfv] yivftrdai p.v yapFHJ 1 8 eVto-r^o-ai J 19 yap om. J 21 8' au] 5' o^i/ J
(repot \6yoi HJ Kat OUK eunopoi 8ia\vciv post 22 ?X II/ ^ 23 fOTt]
earat J
'
^ see.] Kat E 24 ^] ^ FLr ov om. EF : o H25 aTrai/TO)!' FL OVTG)] apa H 29 Trorfpov] Trportpov E raf)r'
eo-TiV om. H 30 avro om. L 31 KOI om. F Aoyov] aroirov F33 6/ia)ff] 6/iotW EJ Totrcoi/ F : et ex his T 34 Kaddnep fi^rai
om. EL 35 diadrjyf} EJL$C. Cf. etiam infra 327* 18 /A. TO auro]
transmutante idolum r a I xpoi^ HJ, sed vide Diels, Vor-
sokratiker, p. 715 2 <pa<nv F 3 0-WTi0f/ie'va>v <ITO TrXaTos L, et
in marg. F 4 e'y^co/joto-i L 6 o-vvwKrjicao-i L 7 TQ? roiavras Fni om. E 1
: afs E 2F : utramque lectionem agnovit * rt om. F8 ftvvarai J Xdycoj/ TroXXccj' J TroXXwi/ om. $1
: aXXcoj/ H
nEPl rENESEilS KAI <I>0OPA2 A
TU>V vnapxdvTtov oVrej, Trpos dAtya /3Ae'\/fazures,
10 rat paov. t5ot 6' aV rts Kat eK TOVTMV ovov o"ta$e'powtz> ol
(frvo-iK&s Kal AoytKcoy o-KOTrowres* Trept yap row aro/xa eiz>at
/xeye'0rj ol jxeV (fravLV ort avrd r6 rpiyavov TroAAa eo-rat,
ATJ/UOK/HTOS 6' ay fyavtvt] otKetots Kal (frva-LKots Ao'yot? Tre-
7reto-0at. 8T/Aoz> 6' eorat 6 Ae'yo/xez; 7rpoiov(riv. \i yap CLTTO-
15 piaz>, et Tts ^tr; craifia rt e!Wt Kat /xeye^os Travrr} 6tat/oe-
roV, xat rovro SvraroV. rt yap eorat OTrep r?)i; 8tatpe(rtz; 6ta-
0t5yet; t yap TraVrr/ StatperoV, Kat roi)ro Svraroz;, Kay
a)aa etr] rouro birjprj^vov, Kat ci />t^ a/xa 8tr/pr;raf
Kar et roi)ro yez^otro, OL8ez; &i> 6try a8waror. OVKOVV Kat Kara
20 ro pecrov axravra)?, Kat oAcos 8e, et irdvrri Trt<f)VK 8tatperoV,
&j; 8tatp^^, o^8ez; eorat d8vraroz^ yeyoroj, eTret oi8' &v et?
/xupta /uvpt^Kt? 8tr/pr?jueVa (8tatpe^)r), ov5er ddvraroz^ Katrot
t<ra)9 ov8ets az^ SteAot. e?ret roivvv navrj] TOLOVTOV etrrt ro o"(ojaa,
8t?7p7Jo'^co. rt oSi' ecrrat \oLTrov; //.eyeflo?; ov yap otoi^ re* eVrat
25 yap rt ov bLrjprj^evov, rjv 8e iravrr] 8tatperoV. aAAa /m^ et
eo-rat oxSjua /ur;8e jueye^oy, 5tatpeo-tj 8' etrrat, r) eK
ecrrat, Kata/uteye'tfrj ef wz/ o-vyKetrat, r;
too-re KCIZ> ytz^otro eK pr]bvbs KCLV etr;
Kat ro Traz^ o"r) ov8er dAA' ^ ^aivo^vov. o/uotca? 8e K&r ^
30 eK o-rty/xwz^, OVK eo-rat TTOO-OV. oTroVe yap IJTTTOVTO Kat ey ^Kat a/xa ?fo-az>, oio"ezJ (TTOLOVV (JLtifov TO irav Statpe-
yap et? 8^0 Kat TrAetco, oi>8ez' eAarror oi8e [JLtlfov ro
rou TrpoVepoz^- aWe Kar Trao-at (TWTeQ&a-iv, ovbtv Trotrjom'o-t
aAAa jm?)y Kat et rt StatpovjueVou otor eK7rpto-/xa
3l6b ytVerai row o-w/utaros, Kat ovrws eK roi; juteye^ous o-a>/xa rt
a 9 7ro0aiVoi/rai] nirfKplvavro L IO O(TG>I> K : otrci) L II
ra fjLyfdr) K 12 ^atrtv] ou <f>a(rl J on] Stori FHJL^PTO rp.J TO auTO Tp. J : TO avTorpiycovov FHL^> 13 oiKfiws L : 6K\o vel
fVXo-y H 14 yap] 8f HJ 15 ^ei'r;] (/)^(76t E : ^o-t *! l6 Kat
TOVTO 5uj/aTov om. E OTrep] Trapa E Siafavyftv E 17 *ai>]
Kfii E 1 8 TOUTO Om. ^>l rovro TravTy dir)pr)p*vov F a/na TOUTO
fttrjprjrai F 19 om. H yfvtjrat FH 2O ro om. E, et *(exceptis codd. GT) 2 1 ai^ prius] e'ai/ < c
: *av FL ftiaiptfatT) FtV om. EF1
: t J 22 /uvp/a om. EJ, et erasit F 2suprascr. 6tt
8iT)pr)p.va (jb.atjHffffi scripsi : otyprffstvn fj EHJL : fir; Sirjprjpfva fir) F(priore tamen IT; eraso, et secundo tirf re. manu addito) 29 fj
om. HJ iy]ft HL 30 eo-Ti L ^ tv peyfdos ] I ev p.cyt6ei
(omisso TIV) H 32 r;Ka\ & l 7T\tiovs EF 33 nporepov F
F b I TOV post (K om. F
2.
6 CLVTOS Ao'yos- eKetyo ydp TTWJ dtatpero'y; et 8e/utr)
o-w/xa dAA' etBo's rt xa}P La"rov % irddos airrjhdev, Kat eart
rd /xeyetfos o~rty/xat -77 dc^at rodt 7ra0o{;<rat, CLTOTTOV eK /XT)
/xe'yeflo? etyat. ert 8e TTOTJ eVoyrat, Kal CLKLVT^TOL TJ 5
at o-riy/xat; d^)?j re det /xta Svotr TIV&V, a>s
rtros Trapd rr)2^ d^r)^ Kat rT/y 8tatpe(rtv Kat r^ crriy-
et 8rj rt? ^rjo-erat ortour r) OT:J]\LKOVOVV o-<S/xa et^at TrdvTrj
8taiperoV, raura o-u/x^Sat^et. ert edz^ dteAaw awOu TO
v\ov rj rt aAAo, TraAty to-oz; re Kat eV. OVKOVV OVTCDS exet 10
S^Aovort Kay re'jutco ro QuKov KaO* OTIOVV crr]}j,lov' iravTrj dpa
ifipj]Tai bwdfjieL. rt ovy eort Trapd rr)y 8tatpeo-ty; et yap Kat
eort rt Trd^oj, dAAd TTWS et? ravra StaAverat Kat ytrerat
e a(f>S>v TI oTiy/xwy etrat rd /ueye^ry, dvdyKr] eTyat o~co/xara 15
d8tatpera Kat /xeye^ry. ov /xr/y dAAd Kat raOra
OLX ^Tror (TV[Ji(3aiVL abvvaTa' eVKeTrrat 5e Trept CIVT&V
erepot?. dAAd rairra Tretpareoy Avety, 8to TrdAty
rr)y airopiav AeKreoy. ro /xey ovy ctTray o-w/xa ai<rOr]Tov elrat
Statperor Ka^' ortoCr CTT^^'IOV Kat do'tatperoy ovSey dro- 20
Trozr ro /xey yap bvvd[JLL, TO 8' eyreAexeta vitdp^ei. TO'
etyat d/xa Trdyrr; 8tatperoy bvvd}jiL abvvaTov 8dfetey dy
etyat. et yap SuyaroV, Kay yer
yotro (oi>x wcrre d/xa etyat I
eAexfta, d^tatperoy Kat Str/pr^/xeyoy, dAAd 8tr/pr;- I
ortoCy o-r]/xetoy)' (ov8ey dpa eorat AotTro'y, Kat ets 25
e<0ap/xe'yoy ro o-<S/xa, Kat ytyyotro 6' dy TrdAty
?/rot eK o-rty/xaiy ?} oAcos e^ ovdeyos. Kat roSro TTWS ouyaro'y;
dAAd jixr)y ort ye tatpetrat et? x60/010
"7^ Ka ' ae ' e ^s eAarra)
Kat et'j djre'xoyra Kat Kex^pttr/xeVa, ^ayepoy. oure
Kara /xepos StatpoCyrt et?] dy aTretpos 77 Opvijsis, oure djtxa 30
b 2 yap om. EHJL 3 oi xajpiarbv et ^copiaroj/ agn. 4 : ou supralin. add. J
2post 7ra(9os add. 6 H et in marg. FJ
24 any/ial 6v ^ J
post aroTrof add. /tev TO H J fie /ij)] /i) K H 6 Ttj/otJ/ F : Tti/oi/,
suprascr. on/, J 8 ortovy drja-frai FL, % om. EL oirrfKiKov E9 Trai/ra raOTfi L eav] ai/ E at^w fecit
E^IO
J;]ct J
*ai/ Te/iw om. E 13 eo-rcu H 15 d^toi/ ^ om. F l6 ouII *a
FL 19 \fKTeov rr)v dnopiav H 21 post Swti/Liei add diatpfTov EL22 8vi/d/z6 1 fort, eiiciendum 23 dvai apa F 24 tWfXe^ec'a
a/i$a> FL 25 Swdpti Ka6' F1 26 ytyioiro EFJL: ytVoiro H :
ye'j/oiro Bekker 27 e' T&>V (TTiyiL&v E 28 5iaiptrai atl
ft'y H
8 IIEPI FENE2E&2 KAI 3>0OPA2 A
olov re biaipe0rjvai Kara itav cr^elov (ov yap bvvarov),
dAAo. /xe'xpt row dvdyKrj apa aro/oia evwnapyjtiv
do'para, aAAcos re /cat etTrep eorat yeVe<rts Kat (f)0opa
fj.ev 8taKptVet 77be crvyKpicrei. 6 /uei> ovv dvayKaeiv
317* Ao'yos eti>at y^eyeOr] aro/xa ovros eVrtv on 8e Xav0dvet irapa-
Aoyto/uei>oj, Kat y \av0dvei, Ae'ywjuey. eTret yap OVK eVrt
o-rty/otr) (rrty/oi^? e^o/ueVr/, ro Trarrr/ eTz^at biaiperov etrrt /utey
cos vTTdpxfL rot? jjiy0(riv, (TTL 6* o>9 ot5. 8oKi 8', orai; rovro
5 re0r), Kat OTrt/oi'i' Kat Trdvrr] cmyfJirjv elvai, a>crrJ
avayKatov
tlvai, Siaipetfr/rat ro /ue'ye^o? ets /xry8e^ TrdVrrj yap eti^at
v, (ocrre^7 e^ a(f)G>v rj eK (rrty/uci)^ eti'at. ro 8' f-crriv a>s
rdvrri, OTL /uia OTryovv (TTL xat Tiaaai a>s eKao~rr]*
8e /uias OIK etcrti; (e^e^s yap O{/K elcriv), a)(rr' ov TrdvTy.
10 ei yap Kara /xecroz^ Statperor, Kat Kar' ^ojjifvr]v cmy^v ecrrat
o"tatperoi>' (OVK eorrt 8e,) ov yap eVrtiJ fyofAtvov vriiJitiov a"rnj,LOV i]
crrty/xr) o"rty/x^?, roCro 6* ecrrt Statpecris */crvv00'L$. a>(rr' eVrt
Kat (TvyKpLcris Kat 8tciKpio-ts, dAA' ovr' et? arojuta Kat e
dro/xo)^ (TroAAa yap ra dwara) ovre ovrco? we're
15 biaLptcrLv yV<T0a.L (et yap 771; exo/xeVrj cmy^j]ro{5r' ai> ^), dAA* ets jaiKpa Kat eAarrco eo~rt, Kat crvyK.pi-
o"ts e^ eAarro^coy. aAA* ov^ 77 ofTrA?^ Kat reAeta yevfcrts
oryKpuret Kat 8taKpt(ret wpttrrat, a>? rives fyacriv, rrjv 8' er
rai o*i;re)(e? jj.eraf3oX.riv dAAottocrtv, dAAa rouV ecrrtv ei^ a>
20 o^d'AAerat Trdi'ra' ecrrt yap ye^eo~t9 ciTrA?/ Kat (f>0opa ov
(rvyKptVet Kat 8taKpt(ret, dAA' orar /Ltera/3dAAr/ eK roC8e
ets rode oAor. ot 8e otovrai a\\oiu>criv elvai. Tracrav ri]v
rotavrr/r jJLera(3o\rjv ro be biatyepei. ev yap ra>
/u,eVa> ro /xeV eo-rt Kara roz; Aoyor, ro 8e Kara rr)u
b 3^ oioi/ re] oio^TiU J ov yap] OI>K a/>a E 3^ tvvir.
p.eye8r) inrap^fiv 4>CF 33 ara ... 34 truy in litura re.
manu E 34 ai/ayKa^o)!/ F SOKCOI> om. F, post Adyor ponitH*1 a 3 /iei> om. EJ 5 /cat wair?/ ... 8 OTrrjovv om. L5 o-Tiypr) J, et (ut videtur) F 6 wu prius om. F 8 vndpxr) E
IO fj.(T(i)v H *car' f%op.(vr)v fecit E II Biaipernv' OVK <TTI Se,ov yap e coni. T. W. Allen scrips! : Siaiperov* ov^J fit* ov yap ] : nonautem possibile r (unde dXX' oSvi/aToi/ conieceris) : Siaiperov' ov -yapEFHL4>
i) <TTiy/j.f) o-Tiy/M^som. $c 12 TOVTO] TO E ^] <al H13 8iaKperis cai (rvyKpurts EL 14 aSvi/nra] aro?ra H wore fecit E
15 yfivco-dai E : yiyve&dai L 16 ai/ om. E 17 *'] Kal e HJ 21 nTaf3d\r) CK rotoCSe EL 22 rd8e] rov ToioVSf E
elvai EL 24 TO /neV H eVn rode KHTCI E
2. 3*6b3i 3- 3i7
b 18 9
orav /xh> ow tv TOVTOIS r] rj /xeTa/3oArj, yeVeo-ts earat17 25
(f>0opd, orav 8' ei> TOIS miflea-i Kat /cara <n;/x/3e/3r7Ko'j,
dAAofoxrty. 8taKptz;o'/xei>a 8e Kat (rvyKpivo^va
yivtrai ear /xez> yap eiy eAd*TTO) u8dYta 8tatpe0Tj,
d?)p yiWrat, eaz> 8e o-vyKpiOfj, fipabvTtpov. /xaAAoi> 5' carat
SrjAoy eV Toty wrepor* z;w 8e roo-ovroz; 8ia>pto-0a>, ort d8vra- 30
ror etuai rr)r yeVea-tr (rvyKpia-LV, oiav 81} rtWs ^acriv^
3 At(opt(r/xera)r 8e TOVTGW, irp&TOV OzaiprjTtov Trortpov eori
ri ywopcvov aTrAws Kat (frOeipofjitvov, rj Kvptcoj /aer ovbev,
ai 8' IK rti^os Kat rt, Aeyto 8' oto^ eK KapvovTos vyicu-
vov Kat KCLJJLVOV ef vyiaivovros, TJ fjLLKpbv K jueyaAou Kat 35
/aeya eK fJLLKpov, Kat raAAa Traz^ra rouroz; roz; Tpovov. t
yap aTrAws earat yeVeo-ty, aTrAw? ai> rt ytVotro eK /ut^ o^ro?,
aW dAr^^es ay etr? Aeyetr ort virap^i rtcrt ro /xr) ozr rts
/xe^ yap yereo-ts eK /x,^ orros rtros, otor eK/utr)
AeuKOi) 77
/XT) KaAoC, 17 8e aTrAr] e^ aTrAws /xr) oi^ros. TO 8' aTrAws 5
?/rot ro Trpcoro^ o-rj/ixaiVet Ka^' KCLcrrr]V Karrjyopiav TOV OVTOS,
T) rb KaOohov Kat ro Trarra TTpL\ov. et /xer ow ro
roi^, ova-Las eorat yeVea-ts eK /xr) oixrias' co 8e fxr) VTra
ova-ia ju?]8e ro ro'8e, brjXov ws ov8e r<Si^ aAAcov ov8e/xta Karr;-
yopi&v, olov OVTC TTOLOV OVT 7roaw oi;re ro -Troi; (xfopto-ra yap 10
az^ etr; ra Trafli? rcoi' ov<riu>v)' et 8e ro /xr) oy oAcos, aTro'-
eo-rat KaQoXov iravrav, wa-re eK fjiribtvbs avdyKT] yi-
TO yivo^vov. Trept /xer ow TOVTMV tv aAAots Te 8tr]-
Tro'prjTat Kat 8ta>pto-Tat TOIJ Aoyots em TrAetor, O-VVTO^S be
Kat rw AeKreoy, ort rpoirov /xeV Tti>a eK /x?) OJ;TOS aTrAais 15
ytVeTat, Tponov 8e a\\ov e OZ;TOS det' TO yap 8wd/xet
6V ei'TeAexeta 8ejtx?)
6V avdyKr] TtpovirapyjEW Aeyo'/xevoy d/x-
o 8e Kat TOVTMV 8tcopto-/xeVco^ ext Oav^a(rTr]v airo-
a 25 /zeV om. L ouv om. F rouroif] rot? E eo-Tat] e
EL 27 0-vynp. 8f KOI 8iaKp. *! 28 /MeV om. EJ ya^om. F
v&mz L, et fort. E 1
29 e'ai> Se] Kai cav E 30 rols els vo-repov F
StopiV&o F 31 T^I/ yevco-iv flvai E*15*) om. HJ 33 rt] TO L
34 olov om. E vytmVoi/Tor E 35 *ai wi/ii/oi/] >} Ka/i^oy^FH]b 2 n Om. HJ 3 rto-i om. HJ 4 /ui)
6K XCVKOV E^ ^]
^ '* FJ6 o-T?/xatVei] 0-vp.paivd L J TO post Kat om. F 8 vrrapx7
?1
(se^
?i in litura) J 9 ro om. EFL;sed cf. v. 21 Karroopi&v]
Karrjyopia F lo ro TroC] TOTTOS J : locus T : rwoi supra lin. adno-
tavit F 13 cuv om. L 17 wropxeii' F1 18
Xepciw, super-
posito diu>picrfj.6v^v )F 6avp.ao-n}v fxet T
*lv anopiav &*
io OEPI FENE2E112 KAI <J>0OPA2 A
ptav, ird\Lv eiravairobLo-Teov, vrcos HCTTIV aTrA?) yeVeo-ts, etr*
20 K bvvdfjifL OVTOS ovva etre /ecu' TTCOJ aAAcos. aTropTJo-ete yapav rts ap' eorty ova-Las yeVeo-tj Kat row ro8e, dAAa
jutr)ro
rotouSe Kat roo-oi>8e Kat TTOU (roi> auror 8e Tponov Kat Trept
(j>0opas). et yap rt ytrerat, brj\ov a>s e<rrat Swdjuet rt?
ova-La, VT\\La 8' ov, ef ^s 17 yeVetrts earat Kat et? ^z;
25 avayKr] /otera/3(iAAetz; ro fyOeLpopevov nortpov ovv VTrdp^tL TL
rovTto rS>v aAAcor e^rfAex^ta; Aeyco 8J
otov ap' eorat novov
ri iroibv rj TTOV TO bwd^L ^ovov roSe Kat ov, aTrAcos 8e/utr/
ro8e /xr]5' or; ei yap jur]8ev dAAa Traira 8wa/xei, XMP L ~
(TTOV T O-VpfiaLVfL TOfJirj Ol/TCOJ OI/ Kttt TL, O /UtaAtOTa ^)0-
30 /3ov/xeroi StereAeo-az; ol irp&TOL <|)tAoo-o(^rio-az;res, ro IK/utr;-
^ez^oy "/LVfaOaL TrpovTrdpxovTOS' t 8e ro /uti> eti>ai ro5e ri
i) ova-Lav ov\ virdp^L, T&V 8' aAA(oz^ r6 r<Sr ctpry/uteVa)^,
eo-rat, KaOdirtp ciTTOjuer, )(copta-ra ra Tra^r; raiz; OVO-L&V. 77ept
re TOVTMV ovv oaov ez^Se'xerat Trpay/xarevreoz;, Kat rts atrta
35 roi; ytv(TLV det etrat, Kal r^z; aTT\fjv Kat rr)z> Kara /^epos.
3l8a
ova-rjs 8' atrtas jutas fxei^ o^ei^ rr)z; cLp\rjv etvai tyafjitv rrjs
, jutaj 8e r^s vAr^s, rT)z> TOLavTrjv atrtW
yap fKtivrjS etp?;rat -TrpoVepoi^ ez> rots Trept
Ao'yoty, ort eo-rt ro /uti' aKLvrfTov TOV airavTa \povov, TO be
5 KLVovfjitvov deL' TOVTcov be Trept fxev r^j aKt^rov dpx^s Tr}?
crepas Kat Trporepas SteAetz^ eort <^>tAoo'o^)tas epyor, Trept 8e
ro> 8ta ro o'ui'exws KLvtla-OaL raAAa Ktz^owros va~Tpov airo-
boTtov, TL TOLOVTOV T&v Ka^' KaorTa Aeyo/tzeVcoz; atrtw &TLV.
vvv be TTJV ws er i;Ar;s et8et Tidf^mjv ahiav etTrco/xer, 8t' ^io det (frdopa Kat yeVecrt? o{ix VTroAetTret r^ QVO-LV ajua yap
b 2O ou(ra] ov(ria H I ov<rias L 21 TOU post /LI)om. L 22 TOIOV-
6e] TotoirouSe E *a! TOU TO(rov8f F /cat TOU TroG FJ Se] S<)
FHL 23 ft om. E n] fort, legendum ToSc TI 24 ouo-i'a]
oua-a J e^ . . . eo-rat om. E eorar om. J T)I/ om. E 25 ro]rov E 26 rourw] rovro F Ae'-yco om. E olov om. H notov
rj noa-oi' ] 27 ro] r H povov] ov FL 8e] re E 29 re]n E pt) OVTWS EL*C
: ovra) HTJ H : ovrws pr) FJ : quod sit (/. sic)nonensT ert om. E 31 yiveaBai om. E rt ?)] r^v ] 32 ovo-t'a
EF, sed <>vo-iav fecit E inrdpxet FL 33 xopiora J 34 Trpay-
Hareov L 35 eZt/at post aTrA^i/ EL a I r^ff KUf^tnut fivai
(jbfi/iei/F 4 ort 8e f'o-rlv E1
Trai^ra E Se om. E, add. supralin. J 5 rrjs dicivfjTov om. (ut videtur), et apx?is post ere'pas ponitE1
TTJS ante fTfpas om. FJ 6 eVepa? /cat om. L 8 TOtoirrooi' Lrif om. J
av t(ra>9 TOVTO yeVotTo bfjkov, Kal Trepl row vvv
TT&S Trore 8et Ae'yety Kal Trept TTJS aTrAr/y (frdopas Kal ye-
z;eVea>s. ex^i 8' airopiav IKO.VTIV Kal TI TO alnov TOV <rvvei-
ptiv Tyv yevecTiv, etTrep TO (0etpo'/xei>oz> eis TO /UTJ 6V d-Tre'p-
X^Tat, TO 8e fxr/ ov jurjSeV ecrnv (ovYe yap Tt ovYe TTOIOZ; OVTC 15
TTOOW oi/Te TTOT; TO jar) ov)' etTrep oSz; det Tt TCOI> OVTOIV aTrep-
X^Tat, 8ta Tt TTOT' OVK a^r/AcoTat miAat Kal (frpovbov TO
irav, L ye 7re7repao-/xero^ ^r ef of ytVeTat TW^ yti^o/aercoz;
HKCLO-TOV; ov yap 5r) 5ta TO aTTtipov etrat ef ov ytVeTat, o^xTOVTO yap dSwaToz;, KCIT' ez^epyetaz; /uer yap ov8eV 20
vvdfJiL 8' eTTt Tr)z/ 8tatpe(rty, O>O-T' I8et Tavryv
flvai jjLovrjv TJ]V fjiifVTroXeLTrovcrav TW yweo'daC TL del eAaT-
TOV vSi; 8e TO{)TO oix op<S/xer. ap' oSz; 8ta TO T^V To{;8e ^>^o-
paz; aAAov et/^at y4vcru> Kal TJ]V Tovbt yevto-LV aAAov etvat
v airavo-TOV avaynalov etrat T^I; ju,eTa/3oA7Ji;; Trept jae^ 25
TOI) yeVeo-tv etz^at Kal QQopav 6/uouos Trepl t-navTov T&V
, TavTqv oiyTtov et^at irao-iv \K.avj]v alriav, 8ta Tt 8er
Ta y&v d-TrAa)? ytVeo-^at Ae'yerat Kal (frOftpdrfal TCL
8' otx aTrAwj, TraAti' O-KTTTOV, etTrep TO avro eo-Tt yeVeo-ts
juey Tov8l (f)0opa 8e Tov8t, Kal $0opa /otez/Tov8l yeVetrts 8e 30
Tot>8r C7? 7"
6 ' y^P rtz;a TOVTO Aoyoz\ Ae'yojotez; yap oTt </>^et-
peTat rvz; aTrAw?, Kal ov JJLOVOV TobC' Kal avTr; /x,e^ yeVe-
o-ts d-TrAw?, avVr; 8e (frOopd. Tobl 8e ytVeTat /uteV TI, ytVe-
Tat 8' aTrAwj ov* <^a/ucer yap TOI; fjiavOdvovTa yivtcrQai fj.ev
, yivecrOat, 8' aTrAais ov. KaOdirep ovv TroAAaKts 35
z^Tes 6Vt Ta /xez> To8e Tt a-ry/uat^et Ta 8* ov, 3i8b
8td TOVTO o-vju/3aiVet TO ^Tov/aeror. 8ta^e'pet yap tfts a /ie-
Ta/3aAAet TO /ueTa/3d'AAoy, otoi; ta-cos ?y /mei^ ets -Trvp 6809
rXij, (frOopa 8e' Tiros eo-Ttz^, otoz> y?js, ?;8e
yeVecrt? TV
IS yeVeo-ty, yeVea-t? 8' oi>x aTrAw?, <f>0opa 8' 5
a II yci'Oiro TOVTO F 12 Set om. E lent post Xeyftv pm. J
14 TJ)I/]aei r/)i> "f1 15 /i/;8eV] oi'Se*'
/LIJ;E : ouSeV L 17 a^aX^
HJ ?raXat in marg. add. F 18 ^v] -7E ^ ytWrai TI/ om. E
ytro/if i/ov E 22/UOI/T;!'
6?i/at J 26 6/zoiW aet Trepi F 27 olrjreov
iKavrjV iraa-LV mTitiv F 28 Aeyerai yiyvfcrdai F *cal]ra 5c /cat E :
rn dt * l
29 aTrXwi/ E e'cm om. L 30 0^opa . . . yei/ftrtf
8e rouSi om. L 32 vvv] vvv fJLv *! 35 ou. Ka^aTre/)] oil -yap
Kaddnfp E Siopi'Co/zei/ TroXXaKis- FHL b 3 17om. E
^4 f<mv
om. L^15 riy . . . <f)9opa] Tis yevfo-is 5e (frtiopn E1
: T\S yV<Tis,
(p^opa L : ytvtvis TIS, (f>6opa $i
12 nEPI rENE2E&2 KAI <J>0OPA2 A
, olov irvpos o5<T7rep riap/xevt8T?s Ae'yet bvo, TO ov
Kat TO /XT) ov etvat <do-Ka>v irvp Kal yrjv. TO brj TCLVTO.
T) TOLavO* erepa viroTL0<T0aL 8ta(/>e'pet ovbtv TOV yap rpoVov
(flTOVfJitV, dAA* OV TO V1TOKLfJ.VOV. f] /XeV OVV LS TO /XT)
10 ov a7rAa>s 686s <j)6opa air\rj, T/8' eis TO d-TrA^s ov ye've-
(rts aTrAf/. ots ouv StwptoTat, etre Trvpt Kat yr) etre aAAots
rt(7t, rovra)^ earat rd /xei^ 01; ro 8e /XT/ or. eVa jmer ovz; Tpo-
irov TOVTut StotVet ro aTr^&s yLV(rdai Kal <})0ip(r6aL TOV
/XT) a-TrAws, aAAoi; 8e TT) vkrj oTrota rts az; 17- rjs /xez/ yap
15 /xaAAor at bia^opal ro8e rt o-^/xatVovo-i, /xaAAoz; owia,
/XT) ov otov t ro /xez> 0pfjibv KaTrjyopia
r; 8e \l/v\p6Tr]s oreprya-t?,- Sia^e'poim 8e yr]
Kat Trvp ravrats rais 8ta0opats. SOKCI 8e /xaAAoz^ rots
TroAAots rw al<rOr]T& KCLL /XT) ala-OrjTut bia(j)piv OTCLV /xev
20 yap ets alcrOrjTriv /xerajSaAAT/ {;A?7r, yivea-Qai, fyaviv, OTOLV
8' ets a(f>avrj, (f)0tip(T0ai. TO yap ov Kal TO /XT) ov rw
alo-0dv(T0aL Kal r5 /XT) alor0dv<r0ai dtoptfoixrtv, uxrircp TO
/xev 7no-TrjTOV ov, TO 8' ayvcoorov /XT) ov (T; yap at<r07?o-is
eTrto-rTJ/xr/s e^et 8vva/xtv)* Ka0a7rep ovv avrot rai al(r0dv(T0ai
25 T) ro> 8vvacr^at Kat r/v Kat etvat vo/xt^ouo-tv, ovrco /cat ra
Trpdy/xara, rpoVov rtva 8tw/covres rdAT/^es, avro 8e Ae-
yovres OVK a\r]0es. (rv/x^Satvet ST) Kara 8dfav Kat Kar'
aAAcos ro yivcatiat re aTrAais Kat ro (f)0Lp(r0ai'
yap Kat dr)p Kara /xev rT)v at(T0T?<riv TJTTOV ecrrtv (8 to
30 Kat ra <^>^ipo/xva aTrAois rf) ets raura /xera^oAr) (f>0Lp-
(T0ai Aeyovcrtv, ytveo-^at 8' orav ets CLTTTOV Kat ets yT/v /xera-
/3aAAT/), Kara 8' dAT/^etav /xaAAov ro8e rt Kat et8os raSra
rT/s y^s. rov /xev ovv etvat rf)v /xev a7rAf]v ye'veo-tv <f)0opav ov-
b 6 oTrXcoy] dTrXi; ^>1 7 <f)d<TKO)V flvat F ro 8^] Set 817 J2
: ei
8)7 vel ftSq 4*1 8 erepa v7TOT406(T0ai om. *! yap post 8ta0fp6tadd. E, et supra lin. J
2
9 TO dTrAws /m) oi> J 1 1 717 re] yi;
^ <cat H 13 TOUTO) SiotVfi] SioiVei eV TOWTO) F, sed cV supra lin.
addito tbrAoir rt yivfo-0ai EL 14 TJ? vAiy] 17vA?; FHJ TTOIO L
1 6 ^s] Tfjr H om. EL 17 KOI ro tidos E 8e yf}] yap yfj F18 Kal ravrais HL 2O pfrapaXr) EL 21 TO post *fai om. FJ*1
22 /cat T<Bfjif]
ma-0dvo-0at om. E TO) om. FL* 1 al(T0dv(j0ai
secundum om. L 25 TO>] TO J *at ante r)v om. E 27 8*7] 8^Kai HJ
2 28 post a\\a>s add. /cat HJ8 TO ante $0cipea0m om. EL
29 TTvevp-ara yap xarjp E /ieJ> om. J 3^ ra om. F 3^ /*fra-
/3aA7 L 32 KQT' dA^etai/ 8e FHL To8t Tt fia\\ov F To8f
om< J 33 TJJV d7rX^/ L, spatio post T/)f relicto
3. 3i8b 6-- 319*25 13
ff&v TWOS, TJ]V 8e <f>0opav ri]v airXrjv yeVetrtz; ovvav TWOS, et-
/OTJTCU TO CUTLOV (oLCL yap TO TT]V V\Tf]V bia(f)plV % TO) oiHTLCLV 35
eizmt r)TO> pj, rj
rw TTJZJ ptv jxaAAoz; Tr)z> 6"eJUITJ, rj TO> TT/Z> 319^
/uezj /uaAAoz> al<rQr]Tr]v etvai rr)z> tfArjzJ ef ijs Kat eis r/v, rr)z;
8e i77Toz> etWt)- row be ra /xez/ aTrAcos yiv(T0ai. A<-'ye0-0at, ra
6e rt novov, /mr) TT) e dAA?jAa)z^ yez^eVet /ca0* 6v ^liro^v
vvv Tpfaov (vvv fJLfv yap TOO-OVTOV Stwpto-rat, T( 8rj TTOTC Tra- 5
0779 ycz^eo-ecos ovo-rys (f)0opas aAAou, /cat Trdcrrjs tyOopas OVOTJS
tTtpov TWOS yez/eVecos, ovx 6/xo^cos a7ro6t8o/xei; ro y(v(rOai KOL
TO <J)0ip(T0aL rots et? aAAr^Aa juera/SaAAovo-tv ro 8* v<TTpov
flprjfjifvov ov TOVTO bid-nopel, aAAa rt irore ro pavOavov i&v ov
Aeyerat aTrAaij ytrea-tfat aAAa yiVeo-^at 7rt(rr^/xo^, ro 8e 10
<frwp,VOV yivecrOai), rai5ra 8e 8twpt(rrat rats Karr;yoptats.
ra jaey yap ro'8e rt o-r]/xatVet, ra 8e rotoVSe, ra 8e iroa-ov
ocra ovvfjirj
overLav o-ry/xatVet, ov Aeyerat airAws, aAAa rt yt-
V(r9ai. ov p.r]V dAA' 6/xotcos ey Trao-t yeVea-ts /xer Kara ra ev
rr) erepa crucrrotxta Aeyerat, otoz^ cz^ /uei; owt'a eaz; Triip dAA* 15
OVK eaz; y^, ei; 8e rw Trotai ear fTna-TTjfjiov dAA' ov)( orar
aveina-TfJiJLOv. Trept /uez^ ow ro{) ra /xe^ aTrAois ytVea-flat ra 8e
/x?{, Kat oAcos Kat ei^ rats ova-tats avrats, etpr^rat, Kat 5toVt
rov yeW<rti> eTrat o-v^e^ws atrta a>s vAr; ro inroKfifjicvov, OTL
jmera/3Ar;rtKo^ ets TavavTia Kat eo-rtz; ^ flare'pou yeVecrts act 20
em r<2i> ovaiu>v aAAou <j)6opa Kat77dAAou <f)0opa aAAou yeVe-
o*ts. aAAa //r/i' ov6' airoprjorai 6"et 8ta rt ytVerat det aTroA-
\vfjLv<av ticnrtp yap Kat ro (f)0ipo*0ai 6nrAws Qaa-iv, orar
ets avaC(r0^Tov eA^?/ Kat ro JUT; oz>, o/xotcos Kat ro yivecrQai eK
/x^ oz^ros <f>ao-LV, oTav ef drato-^?jrov. etr* ovi; oWos ni^os roi; 25
b 34 T^I> . . . rtvw in marg. ponit F oJ raj/ ycvea-iv ] a I>)
r<3 HTJ . . . defif)
om. E TO) ^uj] TO/LIT) J TJ^I; ^iey . . . rjyi/ /neV in marg.
add. F T^I/ /ACI/ utrumque om. J, sec. om. EH 3\f-yeo-0ai
om. L ra sec.] TO supra lin. corr. J2, TO etiam 4*
1
(codd.
GT) 4 /idi/oi/ om. fc1
5 vvi/ prius omittend. notat Ja 6 ouo-,y
(f)6opas ... 7 yevevfws om. L 8 ets oAXqAn om. E 9 TI S^ TTOT? F10 a\Xa TI yiyvea6ai in marg. F, r 12 TO primum] TO Lr
TO sec. et tertium] TO FLr 13 0-rjp.aivrjiin litura J 14 ajraai F
I 5 eVepa o-uo-TOi^etnt J : fVe'pa TOU Kpeirrovos (rvoToi^la F l6 O^K
prius] ovxi E eVto-Tij/ia)!/ et mox avcnio-TTjfjLwv fort. E, sed correxit
18 /nr^] TT^ FHJT /cat ante / om. EF avrats om. EL 19 TOU
codd. omnes et T: Tovfie Bekker perperam tribuit codd. FHL20 ((TTiv ante ds habet E 21 aAAou post 17
om. E 22 aet]
atft JL : ft E : TI aci F 23 ^)a/Aei' E 24 TO ante yivea-Bai om.EL K TOU Zl) F
14 TIEPI TENE2EH2 KAI 4>0OPAS A
V7TOKLfJiVOV etre fJL7], yiVTOLl K fJJ) OVTOS' toOTe OjUOlO)? KCU
yivtTdi eK JUT) OVTOS Kat <^>0etperat ei? ro /UT) ov. etKorco? ovv
ov^ VTroAeiTrer fj yap yv<TLS (f)0opa TOV /UT) OVTOS, f) be
<f>6opa yevf&is TOV JUT) OVTOS. dAAa TOVTO TO /UT) ov aTrAws
30 [d7ropT7(rete rts] iroTepov TO erepou T>V evavTioiv eVrtV, olov yij
Kat TO (Bapv fjirj ov, irvp 8e KOL TO Kov<f)ov ov, rj ov, aAA*
eort Kat yrj TO ov, TO 8ejj/rj
ov v\t] rj TTJS yfjs KOL irvpbs
a)cravTa)9; Kat apa ye erepa eKarepou 77 ijXrj, r) OVK av yi-
VOITO * a\\Ti\(i)v ovtf fvavTiaiv (TOVTOLS yap VTrdp\L
TavavTia, TTVpC, yr), #6art, dept); rj etrrt jotev a>j. rj CLVTTJ,
(TTL 5' wy erepa; o /uter yc{p Trore 01; VTroKetrat, ro avTo,
TO 6' etrat ov ro avro. Trept jtxez^ ovr rovra)i^ eTrt rocrovroi^
5 flprja'Oa)*
Trept 8e yez^eVecoy Kat dAAotw'crea)? Ae'yco/xe^ rt 6ta^>e- 4
pov<TLV (f>ajj.V yap ere'pa? eTrat ravra? ras /uteraj3oAa? dA-
ArjAcoz;. e7ret8^ ow ecrrt rt ro VTroKetjoieroi; Kat e'repoz; ro irdOos
b Kara row VTTOKCLJJL^VOV Ae'yea-^at Tre^DKer, Kat eVrt /u,era/3oAr)
10 eKarepov TOVTGOV, dAAotcoo-t? /xeV ZCTTIV, oTav virofjievovTos TOV
VTTOKL}JLVOV, ol(r6r]Tov OVTOS, jotera/3aAAr/ ei; rots eaurov Tra-
0o~LV, rj h'avTLOis ovcriv r) /merafv (otoz^ ro o-w/xa vytatz/et
Kat 7rd*Aizj Kapvti VTiopevov ye ravro', Kat 6 ^aAKOj arpoy-
yvAos ore 8e ycortoetdr)? 6 avro's ye a>^)' oraz; 8' oAoy juera-
15 /SdAAr; JUT) vTro/ueVorros ala-OrjTOv TLVOS a>? VTTOKCL^VOV TOV
avTov, dAA* otoi; eK rfjs yovijs at/xa Trdo-rys 7^ ef -08aros dr)p
^ ef de'pos TTUVTOS vbap, yV(ns Tjbrj TO TOLOVTOV, TOV be
(frQopd, /xdAtara 6e', arr; ^era/SoAr) ytVrjrat ef avaivdriTov
ets ala-drjTov r) a(f)r] r] navais rats ato-077<re(riz> otoz^ orar
a 26 yiverai e/c /i^ OVTOS om. L coorf ... 27 oi/roy om. E Kmom. L, add. supra lin. J 27 eV /*) ot-roff om. FJ, add. supra yiverai H
29 ToCro add. supra lin. J 30 aTropjJoW ns- seclusi : om.;sy TOVTO etuu. supra 1111. j ju anopr)&fif TIS scciusi : uin. v*
(codd. GT), et m marg. add. J : dnoprjo-fiev av TIS 4> L(codd. RZ),
Bekker : dnopijo-fie TIS a-rrXais E eVrtV om. EL 31 post Kovfyovadd. ro EL 32 KOI
fj yr/ J, sed17 addito 17
om. FJ b 2 fiey
om. ETfj add. J, prima tamen (ut videtur) manu 3 o>s] 17
(fort. 17 ?), ut videtur, F 4 ovv om. E To<rouro>v clpdo-dat ]6 \eyofifv H TI] rtVi ^ 8 fVei H 9 7T((f)VKf \fyfa6at FL10
/u<?V ouj/ eVrtv FL et H, qui tamen re. m. ovv erasit II /ufra-
/3aX; E eavTov EL$ : auroC J : avTov FH 12 ^ prius om. HJ,et supra lin. add. F ovviv om. FL 13 ye om. E rairo]a^To F 14 ywvoeio'rjs E ye om. J ficrn/SaXiy E 15 TLVOS
alaOrjTov F <y] roC E 1 8 Se, */] 6' eav J 17om. F
3. 3*9*26 --5- 3 2oa 12 is
vb<*)p yeVrjrat r/ <j)0apfiei? de'pa, 6 yap d?/p eTrteiKws avai- 20
V 5e rovrot? aV rt vTTOjueVr/ Tra^o? ro avro VCLVTLU>-
ro> yez>ojoieVa> Kat ra> <$apeVrt (olov orav e depos
#6" cop, et aju</>a) biatyavfj r) \ffvxpd), ov 8et TOVTOV Oarcpov
irdOos ivai els o /zera/3dAAer et 6"e JXTJ, eorat dAAouoo-is1
.
otoz^ 6 fjiovo-iKos avOpwiros <f)0apr], az/^pcoTroy 5' a/uouo-os eye- 25
rero, 6 5' avOpanros V7ro//eVei ro avro. et fxev ovv TOVTOV pyiraOos rjv Ka0
y
CLVTO77 {JLOVCTLKTI KOL
rj a/iouorta, TOV }j.V ye^e-
<rt9 172; ar, rov 8e (f)0opd' vvv 8e irdOos TOVTO TOV VTTOIMZVOVTOS,
bib avOpatiTOV fjitv TavTa irdOr], dvOpunrov 6e (JLOVCTLKOV KOL
avOputTTov apovo-ov yerea-ts KCU (frOopd 6to dAAotcoo-t? ra 30
TOLavra. OTOLV fjiv ovv Kara ro TTOO-QV r) ^ ju,era/3oA.r) r^s evav-
rta>o-ea)9, avfr; xat (j>0i(ris, OTCLV 8e Kara TOTTOU, ^>opa, oray
8e Kara ro Trti^os Kal ro TTOLOV, dAAouoo-t?, oraz; 5e /xr/-
5e^ VTrojueV?? ou 0aTpov nddos r) (TVfjiptfirjKbs oAco?, yeVecrty, 320"-
ro 6e (f)0opd. eo~rt 8e ^ {/Arj /^taAta-ra /uez; Kvptcoy ro VTTO-
Kifj,evov yV(r(DS Kat (frOopas 6"eKrtKoV, Tpoirov 6e' rti^a Kat
ro rats aAAaty jotera/3oAat?, ort TrdVra SeKrtKa ra VTTO-
KL{JLva vavTiuHT<av TLvo)v. TTtpl jjitv ovv yez/eVecos, etre 5
etre/u,?},
Kat TTWS e<rrt, Kat Trept dAAotwo-ecos StcoptV^a)
roz; Tponov
Trept 8e av^TJa-ecoj \onrbv etTretv, rt re 8ta<^>e'pet yeue'-
Kat dAAotwo-ecoj, Kat TTW? avfaverat rwz; avavo]j,c-
KCIO~TOV Kat (j)0lVl OTLOVV T&V <f)6lVOVT(i)V. (TK7TTOV 5?/ 10
TTOTfpOV fJ.OV(t)S V ra) TTept O (TTLV OVT&Vf) TTpOS aA-
Ar^Aa 8ta(/>opd (oW ort ^ /uer eK roi;5e ets ro'8e /xerajSoArj
b 2O yivr]Tai F 21 Se] 8^ L e'dv FHJ vTro/xei'v?; E22 TOO post KCU om. EL 23 vSa>p KOI et EH ^] jj $c ^XP"]humida F ov del] ou S' et J 25 o om. F aj/^p. S*
/x.] aftoucros-
6 avdpomros E 27 auTo] OVTOV E 17ante d^.ovcria om. $c TOU
fecit ex aurou vel TOVTOV F 28 ai> ^v FHL vui/ . . . vTro/jievovTOS)
quae post 30 (^^opa codd. habent, hue e Philoponi coni. transtuli
29 Kat ai-^p.] 77 dv0pa>7TOv E 30 Ta rotaCTa] TaOra *c31 ro
om. EF^132 av^rjo-ts FHL <f)opd, orav 5e *ara om. E
33 TO prius om. EL a I vnoncvti J 17]KOI F 2 ^e
17]
de om. J : ^ om. L *m post /Liei/add. L 5 eVai/r. nywy] TCOV
fvavrioMTf&v L ou// om. FL post -yeveo-ecoy add. Bekker KOI
(j>0opa?, quae perperam tribuit codici E 6 xat n-coy . . . aXXoia>o-ea>?
om. F 8 TI] rivi L^> 9 av^dveTai TWV om. F, sed ni>a add.
in marg. 10 e/moroi/ ante 9 ro)!/ ponit J II Trpwrov om. Lom. F JH eV r< om. E 17 post aXXrjAa ponit E
16 DEPI rENESE^S KAI <J>0OPA2 A
olov K bvvdfjifi ova-Cas eis VT\\iq ov<riav y^v&rts e0rti>,
TIbf Trept /ze'yeflos avfr/o-ty, 77
6e Trept Traces dAAouoa-ty,
15 dju</>oYepa 6e eK 6"wd/utet OVTMV eis eVTeAe'^et
T<Si> etprjjueWy eorfo) r) Kal 6 rpoiros 5ta$e'pet TT/?
(3o\rjs (fraiveTai yap TO /uev dAAo lovfJLtvov OVK ef dudy-
KTJ? fj,Ta(3a\\ov Kara TOTTOV, ov8e TO yivoptvov, TO 8' avfa-
v6fjivov Kal TO (frOlvov, a\Xov 8e Tpoirov TOV ^po^vov. TO
20 JAW yap <f)p6ij.vov o\ov dAAtirret TOTTOV, TO 8* avav6}jL-
vov wo-Trep TO tXavvoptvov. TOVTOV yap ptvovTos TO, popia
/utTa/3dAAet xaTa ToVor, ov^ uxnrp TCL Trjs a-tyaipas- TCL
fjiv yap cv TO) to-(i) TOTTO) /xTa/3aAAet TOV oAov ptvovTos,
TCL be TOV avavofjivov det eTrt TrAe^co TOTTOV, fir* eAaTTco 8e
35 TOL ToC (frOivovTos. OTL juer ow 17 /zeTa/SoAr; bia(f)pL ov JJLOVOV
7Tpl o dAAa Kat ^9 TOU Te yivopevov Kal aXXotov^vov Kal
v, brjXov. irepl 5e 677 jUTa^3oA?j (TTLV
TJ Trjs av-
Kal7] Trjs (j)0{cr(i)s (Trepl /zeye$os 8e boKel etz/at TO
Kal <pdiVtv), TTOTepCOS VTTO\r]TTTOV,
30 bvvdfjizi }j,V fJifytOovs Kal crco/zaToy, erT6Aex.eta
TOV Kai ajjityeOovs yivtvOai (raijua Kat /xeye^oj; Kat TOVTOV
o"tx<S? evbexoptvov Aeyeiy, TroTepcoj ^ av^ryo-u yiyveTai, TTO-
Tpov K K.\<MpKr^vt]s avTrjs KaO* a\)Tr]V Trjs v'Ar;?, 17 erv-
Trapxovo-rjs v aAAa> o-wjuaTt; ^ ddtWrov d/>t(^OTepa)9; xa>-
32Ob
pto-T?) /xei; yap ovVa ^ ov8eVa Ka^efet TOTTOV ([T/] otoz;
Tts), 17 Kei>oz> eo-Tat Kat (rwjua OVK ala-OrjTov TOVTMV 8e TO
OVK eySe'xeTat, TO 6e avayKatov tv TIVI tlvaL. det yap TTOV
TO yiyvQ^vov e^ avTov, wo-Te KaKelvo, r) KaO* avTor]
KOTO,
5 o-v/x^e^rjKo's. dAAa JUT)Z> et y' er Ttzn VTrdp^et, et juey Ke-
X^pto-jLieVoz; OVTCOJ wo-Te ^ eKetrov Ka0' avTo ^ KaTa a-v/x-
/3e/3r/Ko'9 Tt etrat, o-v/m/STJo-eTat TroAAa Kat dSvVaTa. Ae'yco
a 13 olov ^ H fVrfXc^ftaj/ E1
/ eWtf in marg. add. E14 Trep! TO neyedos E post avt-T](Ti$ in marg. add. KOI (f)6i<ris EF
15 dp.<f)OTp(i)V F 6K TO)*' dvvdpd FHJ 1 6l)
OHl. J 1 9 TO
prius add. supra lin. J 20 tVaAAdrm TOJ/ TOTTOA/ F av^ofievav H21 TOI/TOU fj.ev yap F
1
24 et 27 av^O/MPOV H 24 5e postfAarro) om. J 25 TO om. EH), in marg. add. F duxpepei rj
HTaj3o\r) J 27 8e 6] 6 ^e H eorti/17 /ieTa/3oX^ FHL 17 ante
T^y om. L 2817om. J de om. J b I /utV om. E tj olov]
% seclusi : olov yap (yp.)< c
: olov r 2 Ttf om. E, et ^ (codd. RZ)Kai] )
<ai F2: 77 L 3 J>ayKaiW S^Xoi/oTi eV F 6 vov . . . o~vp.-
ftfprjKos om. E, et a^ . . . o-v^e^Kos om. 3> Ka^'] ^ Ka^' L 7 TI
post 6 exdvov J
5- 3 2 a13
8' olov et yt'y^erat dr)p e v'8aroj, ov TOV vbaros earat /xera-
(3d\\ovTo$, dAAa 8ta ro ooo-Trep V dyyeia> rw v8art eVet-
yat rr)z> v^rjv avrov. aireipovs yap ovbtv KooAvet vAay etvat, 10
wore *at yiyvtcrOai eVreAexeur 2rt 5' ov8' ovra> (atz>erat
yLyvofJitvos dr)p ef vSaros, otoz> eta>z> V7ro/xeVoz>ro?. /3e'Artoi>
Toivvv TrotetV Trao-tz; ayjupivTOV TTJV v\rjv a>? ovo-ai; r^i; avrTji;
Kat /ottW ra) apidiAto, r<S Aoyw Se ^ /uttaz;. dAAa fj/qv ov-
8e cmyjjias Otreov ovbe ypa/u/uas r^z; rov o-w/uaro? vA?]z; 8ta 15
ras avras atrtas* e/cetro 8e ov ravra lo-xara 17 vAr], ^i;
ov8e7ror' az/ei; iraOovs olov re ea>cu o?;8' az/ev fjiopcpfjs. ytyverat
fjitv ovv aTrAws facpov e^ trepov, coo-Trep Kat ez/ aAAotj 6"ia>/n-
o-rat, Kat VTTO rtros 5e evreAexfta ovros ^ 6/zoyro{5s r;
6/xoet6o{;s (otoz> TTV/) UTTO irvpbs rj avOpawos v-n avOptoirov) 20
r) VTT' erreAe^etas [o-KA^poz; yap 07;^ ^7ro (TK\r]pov ytVerat]*
eTret 8' eort xal OVfftas {/Arj (rco/aartK?)?, o-co/xaro? 8' r/8r; rotou-
8t ((rcSjota yap Kotz^oy ov8eV), 17 avrr) xat fj,yf0ovs Kat Tra-
^ous eart, rai/utcz; Aoya) x^pLo-Trj, TOTTO) 8' ov )(a)pto-r?7, et /x^
Kal ra Tra^r; x00/310
"7"^- (fravtpbv 8e e/c ra>z/ bi7]TTOpr]fj,fV(tiv ort 25
OVK lorti; ^ av&cris )uera/3oAr) e/c bvvd^i /meye^ovj, ez^reAe-
)(eta 8e jur/8ey fyovros ptyeOos' yjupivrov yap av etr/ ro xe-
z/oV, rovro 8' ort d8waroz^, etp^rat ey ere'potj irporepov. ert
8' ?J ye TOiavTT] juerajSoAr) OVK av^TJo-ecos t8tos dAAa yeve'-
oAco?. 17 yap avr)(ris eort rov VTrdpxovTOS //eye'^ovj eTri- 30
J8e fyQicris jxetcoo-ts (8to 8r) e^etz^ rt Set
avav6fjLVov), ajtrr' OVK ef d/xeye^ov? vArys 8et etz^at
a-tz^ etsr ez>reAe'xetaz> fxeye'^ovs* yeVeo"ts yap ^r etrj
, OVK avfr;o-ts. XrjiTTeov brj /xaAAof otoz;
b 9 eWt/ai] eiyat EL 1 1 5' om. FJ
J oi'8'] pu^ HJ*, et
fecerunt EF 1 3 7roiu> post dxcbpto-Toi/ ponit F iWu r^v uXi/i; FHJ
a)? om. L 14 TW prius om. J, et $cexcepto libro Z M p.iav]
Wde fxiav F : /i;8e/uia^ J : nfj om. E l6 f/i>] rfv f)i> FHJ^
17 olov
re] oiovrai J l8 cnrXusJ) o/xo-ycyoO? erfpov F
1
a\\ois] frepots^
I
oiy E 19 UTTO] OTTO F 8t aci f'vT\exfia E o/^oetSoCs ^
6/Lioyei/oO? EL 2Oi) av^ptOTros] navdpaiTros E 21 <TK\r)pbv . . .
yiVerm aut eiicienda, aut post 19 o/oto-yevofs legenda^
yap om. E22 o-co/iaroff ... 23 ovfcv post 25 ^wptora ponit L
'
v^ 7/] ^^^ :
8'ff T, et post r suprascr. o<, E 23 KOIVOV yap F 24 Vn
om. L 25 ra om. E Se] in litura J : &? L 27 /cevdj/ EKOIVOV HJLF et (yp.) F2
: utrumque agnovit *c 28 roCro] TOV LeV erepois- om. HL, in marg. add. F 29 8' om. L 30 o\o>?
om. F eWdpxoi/ros' F'HL ^ 31 6^7] 8el FJ Sfl] E
J 33 (Tcb/zaro? /uaXXor] /zaXXoj/ va>p.a.TOS F54 C
i8 OEFI FENE2EH2 KAI <f>0OPA2 A
32 1 a TTJS ftrTJo-eeos ef d.pX*i$> ^oiov TWOS OVTOS TOV av^dvecrOai. f;
TOV QOiveiv TCL curia ^Tov^ev. fyaivtrai brj TOV avgavopevov
OTLOVV jJiepos rjvfr/o-flai, ojaotcos 8e KOI ev rw QOiveiv lAarror
yeyovevai, IYt be irpocriovTos TIVOS avdve<rQai Kal CLTTIOVTOS
5 (frdiveiv. avayKOiov 8r) 77 d(rco/xdra> avdve<r0ai r/ (rw/^tart.
i /uter ovy cicrcojutcira),lorat yjupia-rov KCVOV abvvarov 6e
pcytQovs v\j]v tlvai yjapivrriv, coo-jre/o etprjrat irpoTepov et 5e
(Tco/utart, 8r;o er rw avrw (rco/otara TOTTO) earai, TO re av-
^avofjifvov KOL TO avov, ea-rt 8e Kat rouro dSwaroz;. ciAAa /j,^i;
io ov5' ovrco? vbexeT(U Xtytiv yivta-Qai Tr]v av^a-iv rj T^V <pOi-
viv, (Sa-Trep OTO.V ef vSaro? ar}p- rore yap /utetfa)z; 6 07*09
yeyovev ov yap av^crtj rouro dAXa yez^ecrtj juev roC eiy o
fjiTa(Ba\\i lo-rat, fyOopa be TOV ZVCLVTLOV, avrj(ns be
dXA.' ^ ovbevbs rj el TL KOLVOV afjufrolv V7rdp\i, r<j)
15 Kat rw (f)OaptvTL, olov 6t o-w/aa. ro 6' D'Scop OVK
6 drjp, dXXa ro /uez; a7ro'A.a>Ae ro 8e ytyovev TO (rw/uta 8e,
t7rep, rjv^rjTaL. dAXa /cat rovr' dc>waro^. t yap (rwfetu
rai Ao'yw rd virdpxovTa r<5 avavofj,vu> KOL (frOtvovTi. TCLV-
ra 8e rpta (TTLV, &v ev \iiv ecrrt ro orcow juepo? /utet^or etz^at
20 rou avavojjivov fjicyeOovs, olov t o-dp^" rrjs vapKos, KOL
TWOS, KOL Tp'lTOV O-(ofofJLeVOV TOV aV^aVOfJLfVOV KOL
tv fj,v yap TW yiyveo-Oai TL aTrAwy r) </>0epe-
oi>x vTrofjitvti, tv be r<S dAAotouo-^at Kai av^avecrQai 17
VTrofj.evL TO avTO TO av^avo'pevov T] aXXoiovpevov,
25 dAA' evOa yJev ro Trd^o? evOa be TO ^eyeOos TO avTO ov }j.e-
Vi. el brj ecrrai rj elprjjJLevr] avrj(ris, evbexoiT* av fJLTjbevos ye
TrpoviovTOs fjirjbe virofjievovTO^ avavea-0ai Kat ^bevbs aitiov-
ros <f)0iveiv Kal{JLTJ vno^eveiv TO av^avo^evov. dAAd bel
TOVTO (Tto^ew VTro/cetrat yap rj avfycris TOLOVTOV.
a 2 8fj ovv TOV L 4 de om. E 5 ovayKalov\ dvdyKr) EL 8ff\
8e E 6 TO ante MVOV add. FL : r Ktvov] KOII/OV F 2r et (yp.) *8 a-dtfiara ante <FJ> L, post TOTTO) ponunt $ et (supra lin. additum)
E avt-ofjifvov HL 9 TOVTO] avTo L IO ^] Kal L 13 /ifre-
/SaXXfv EL <0opa] ^>opa J 14 a/u<po/] a/x(/)a) EL I4~I5 T^0$. /cat ra> y. L T TW y. Knt 0^. F I ro> <^)^. fcnt TO yevop.ffa> & : r&) (faQa-
pcvri E 17 ftTrfp] et E 18 >fat TI (suprascr. <) ^.6'ivovTi E19 tv om. E uti^ov /iepov E eti/at] yiyvecrdai L 2O pfyedovsom. E 6t om. E, addito sec. manu ^ : supra lin. add. F : fj L
23 /cat] ^ FHL avgfo-dm F 24 TO vro supra lin. add. FTO secundum om. L 26 yf] Te FHJ 27melius abessent
5. 32ia
i - - 32i24 19
5' av rt? KOL rt eo-rt ro avav6fjivov, TTo'repov <o TrpooTiflerai 30
TL, olov d rr/v KVTJ/XJJV aufavet, afar] pcCfav, a> 8e ava-vet, rj rpo(/>?j, oij. bia rt
O"T) ovv OVK a"ju$a> rjv&rcu; /xetfov
yap Kat 6 Kat w, a>o-7rep orav /utfrj? otvov #8arr o/uiouos
yap TrAetov eKarepov. 77 ort ro /zev /xe'vet 17 oiWa, rot 8' ov,
olov rrjs rpo(}>rjs; circl /cat fVTavOa TO kirnaparovv Aeyerat ev 35
rr) ^t^6t, otoz; ort ou>oj* Trotet yap ro TOV olvov epyov d\A' ov 32 lb
ro roi; i;8aros r6 <rvvo\ov /xty/xa. ojuotcos 8e Kat CTT' aA-
et /neVet (rapf ova-a Kat ro rt eort, Tra^oj 6 rt
raw Ka^' avro', 6 nportpov oi>x virijpxfv, ^AAotaj-
rat rouro- w 6' T^AAotcorat, ore /uez; ov6"ei> TrtirovOtv, ore 8e 5
dAAa ro dAAotovv Kat ^ dp)(^ r^s Kt^^(reco? ev r<S
Kat ra> dAAoioujueVw (ez> rovrot? yap ro
e?ret Kat ro L(T\Oov yeVotr* az> Trore /uetfov Kat ro
Aauo-av avrow o-5jua, otor et et(reA^ov ye^otro Trveu/xa aAA*
(f)0apTai ye rouro traOov, Kat ro Ktz^ow OVK ev roura>. eTret 8e 10
Str^TTop^rat ?rept avrS>v tKavw?, 8et Kat r?j? airopias Tretpa-
cr^at Aua"tv evpetv, o'co^bvras' ro VITO^VOVTOS re roC avavo-
/ueVov Kat TTpocnovros rtvoj av^avtcrQai, UTTLOVTOS 8e (frOivtiv,
ert 8e ro ortoSv (rrujLelov ala-OrjTov rj //etfov ^ eAarrov yeyo-
vevai, Kal IJL^T KVOV etvat ro o-wjota /x?}re 8vo ev r5 av- 15
rw roVa> /xeye^r; /x^re do-co//ara) avgdvwOai. Ar/TrreW 8e
ro atrtov 8topt(ra/otevois irp&rov ev juev ort ra dvo/zoto/xep?;
av^averat roi ra 6/xoto/xep^ av^avtcrOai (rrvyKetrat yap eK
rovrcov eKaorov), eTret^' on o-apf Kat do-rouv Kat eKacrrov rwv
roiovrcov //.optcov ecrrt 8trrov, wrrTrep Kat r<Sv ^AAcov ra>v ev 20
i/'Ar/ et6os e^oVrcov Kat yap ^ vAry Ae'yerat Kat ro etSos
<rap^ Kat do-rovv. ro ovv ortouv jute'po? av^aveo-^at Kat Trpoo-tovro?
rtvos Kara juev ro et8o's eo-rtv ev8exo/Lti^ov, Kara 5e rr/v vAryv
OVK ea-rtv. 8et yap vor/o-at wa-Trep et rty juterpotr; rw avrw/ne'-
a 31 <] 6 F 32 off om. HJLr, et erasit E 2S/;] 5ft J ojJ/ om.
E1 OUK om. Bekker errore typogr. 33 /cat prius om. F 6 /cat
G> om. E &(nrp Kal orav F2 b 5 TOUTO om. E : T)T H w6'
^XXoi'corai om. E post rr7rov0ev add. ouS' ^XXoicarai 17ov;ria 4>F
ore Se] ouS' ore F 9 om. EF IO -ye]rf E iraOoav J
cn-et e] crretdf) 8s FL : eVfiS/) vel fVetS/) 5e *J13 av^ecrBai FL
15 TO om. L 1 6 M^rf] /n^Sf EJ 0co-(9<u J Se] 7 FL*1
17 ra otrioi/ om. H ^iwpKTn^voif ] fv om. L o/zoio/ifpq E19 eKacTTOv prius om. E (KCUTTOV T<OV roiourcaf] rotrcoi/ eKaar^v ro>v L2O diTTfov E 22 /cat prius] f)
FLc a
20 riEPl FENE2E&2 KAI <f>0OPA2 A
25 rpo) {/8o)p* det yap $XXo KOL aXXo ro yivo^vov. o{rra> 8'
avdvTa.L77 vXrj riJ9 o-apK09, Kat o)( 6ra>ow mwrt irpoo-yi-
rerat, dXXa ro /mer vireKpet ro 8e Trpoo-e'pxerat, rot) 8e o'X 7?"
fxaro9 Kat rou et8ou9 orwow //opia>. em r<Sy dyojuotojuepcozj 8e
roi;ro /utaXXou 8r/Xoy, otou xetpo'9, 6Yt dmXoyoz; f]v^Y]rai ?y
30 yap vXi] erepa oi!(ra 8?jAr; jutaXXoz; rou et6ov? evravOa rj tmKOL T&V o^oLo^fpStv, 6to Kat re#i>e<3ros /xaXXo^ &z^
elvai ert o-apf Kat oo-rovz^ 17 ytlp KOL (3pa^ta>v. a)(rre
eort fjitv W9 ortow r^? (rapKos ^vfrjraL, eo-rt 8' a>s ov- Kara
/uer yap ro etBos OTMOVV Trpocr\ri\v0v, Kara 8e rrjv v\rjv ov.
35 MtCoz; p&vrot TO 6\ov ytyove Trpoo-eX^oVro? (j,fv TWOS, o Ka-
Xetrat rpo^>^ Kat ZVCLVTLOV, /utera/3aXXorros 8e ety ro avro
T8o9, otoi' et f^pw Ttpoarioi vypov, irpocreXObv 8e /uera^aXXot
Kat yerotro ?7poV lart jute^ yap &>s ro OJJLOIOV 6//ot(p avfaz^erat,
eort 8' a)? avofjioito. a7rop?Jo-ete 8' w rt9 TrotoV rt 8et etz^at ro
5 <o avdvTai. (fravepbv 8rj ort 8vz^a)uet eK^o, otor t crapf
bvvdfJiL <rapKGL' VT\\iq apa aXXo. (f)OapV br) TOVTO
o*apf ytyovtv OVKOVV ov TOVTO avTo KaO* CLVTO (yeVeo-t9 yap az>
?/r, OVK av^orL^) dXXa ro av^avo^vov rovrw. rt oui; TraObv virb
TOVTOV [t]v^riOr]]; ^ fja^Ofv, coo-Trep owa) et rt9 e7rt)(eot v8a)p, 6
10 8e 8watro otvov Troie'iv ro fju)(0ev; Kat too-Trep ro TrSp a\l/d-
fj,vov TOV KCLVOTTOV, ovT(Ds Zv rw avfauo/zeW Kat orrt erreXe-
Xeta 0-apKt ro ez^o^ av^rjTLKOV 7rpoo-eX^oVro9 8wajmet o-ap-
K09 7Toir](rV ei'reXe^eta crdpKa. OVKOVV a/xa OVTOS' et yap
)(a)pt9, yereo-t9. eo-rt juter yap o#ra> Trup TrotTJo-at eTrt ro VTT-
15 ap\ov eut^eWa fyXa- dXX' ovrco /aei^ av^?]o-t9, oraz; 8e
avra ra fvXa a</>0r), yeVea-t9. 7TO<rbv 8e ro jmez
ov ytVerat, roo-Trep ov8e fwor 6/utrjr' av0p(t>Tros /^rjre
b 25 S'] S)) F I /<at L 26 oi^] oi^i FHJ OTWOUI/] ou
E 28 orooCi/'p^o^ E1 Sc ante TWI; ponunt FHL 31 aj/ om. F32 en eti/nt J fBpaxfiav ] 34 /ufV] /ucVroi F 35 ye'yorc
TO oA of EL a I fvavriov EJ 2 Trpotrt'oi] TTpnarfBfj E : Trpoa-
/; L ^erajSaXoi EL 3 ws supra lin. add. J 4 airoprjvai ETO om. E 5 av(T(ii F 7 TOVTO om. L Kad' avr6 om. E
av om. F 9 rjvgrfln aut eiiciendum, aut post 8 TOUTW legendum,aut TjvgrjfTcv cum *c
(p. 117. 12) scribendum &>crirep vypti TIoii/&>
(TI tamen sec. manu addito) E : axmep av o'tva> H om. E : *l nsante ot*/o) ponit L eVt^eai HJ : eVixcft fecit E2 10 8vi>aro E :
diivarat F xai HI>C : om. EFJLF 13 o-apKa om. E 14 eon. . . 1 6 ytvccris om. L 15 fninOfvra F : adiungentes F 17
,fort, recte
2i b25 6. 322 b 6 21
Kd#' eicctora (dAA* a>s cvravda TO KaOoXov, KCLKZL TO TTOCTOV),
o-apf 8e 77 do-rowr) xe*P (*? ftpo.\t^v) KC" TOVTVV TO. o/xoto/uepTj*
TTpoo-eA0oVros fj.V o"7J TWOS TTOCTOV, aAA* ov o-apKo? 7700-779. 77 20
/uer ow bvvdfJLfi TO avva^OTfpov, olov TTOOTJ o-apf, ravrr/ /utev
avfet (Kat yap 770077^ Set ytWo-0at Kat o-apKa), 77 5e y^ovov
(rdp, rpe'c^er ravrr/ yap Stacpe'pet rpo^r) Kat avfryo-iy rai
Ao'ya). 8to rpe^erat /xe^ ecoj &i; o-wftrat *at <f>6lvov, ai/fe-
rat 8e o^/c aet, Kat77 rpo^)7) rr) av^TJo-et ro avro /xeV, r6 25
6' etrat aAAo*rj /uev yap eort ro Trpoa-Lov bvvdfjiti TTOO-I)
,V avr]TLKbv o-ap/coy, r| 8e povov
TOVTO 8e ro et8os [az^ev vArys], oto
rts v v\rj (TTLV. ear 877 rts Trpo<riri v\rj, ovaa
, l^ovo-a Kal ro TTO<TOV bwdjAti, OVTOL eo-oi^rat 30
avAot. ear 8e prjKn Ttoiflv bvvrjTai, dAA' otoz; v5cop oti^w
ael TrAetoi^ ^lyvv^vov reAo? vbaprj Trotet Kat {/Stop, rore
(j)0i(riV TTOLTj(TL TOV TTOO-QV* r6 8' elSoj }JLVl.
6 'ETret 8e np&Tov 8et Trept r^j iA779 /cat raw Kakov^iv^v
arTOL\LO)V etTretr, etr' eo-rir etre JUT}, xat iroTepov d'tbiov exa-
o-roi;r) yiyvTai Trcoy, xal et ytVerat, Trorepor e aAATJAcor
ytVerat Traura roz/ avroz^ Tpdnov 77 rt irpGtTov %v CLVT&V (TTLV
dvdyKT] br] irpoTpov etTretr Trept <5u dStopto-rcos Aeyerat ^vr. 5
yap ot re ra crrotx^ta ye^i^wrres Kat ot ra eK
a 19 5e] 6 yovv L2
^ ^f)p TJo(TTovi> J^
1^ veOpa post \ 1P
add. Db:
?} fipaxiuv e coni. addidi, coll. 32 ib32 20 /ui> 817 om. L :
par Qm. 9* 21 aptyorepov E1 22 Set] net E ytvc(rdai ] iiovr)
& 23 ravrr) yap] ravrr] KOI yap ravrrj E, et F qui ravrrj secundum
supra lin. add. : ravrrj' /cat yop ^ 24 <p&ivov] $>6ivr) (correcto 17)
E : <f)0ivr] H : <f>6lvfi F av|ai/T(it EL 25 oi'^r/o-et] avr) H :
a^?7 J /LtJ/
>TO] f1^? T F 26 S* om. E 27 0-ap
E 28"a/fv V\TJS seclusi, vide infra ad v. 29 dvva^is ns] TIS dv
* l 28 et 30 &v\os, 31 aiJAot codd. omnes, * et Bekker:et avXot scripsi, coll. $c
(pp. 109. 26-1 10. 7) :ftibia
'et
'tibiae
'vertit
Vatablus 29 post eVnV add. prima manu 6/ioiW 8e *cat aAXo novi' opyavov J, inter aXXo et n suprascr. o. Habent etiam eademverba r et Vatablus, sed una cum avev v\rjs (v. 28) eieci : suspicorenim haec omnia, ad explicandum av\6s vel aij\os in margine
ascripta, inde in textum irrepsisse 8^] 8c FHJL, et fecit ETTpoo-t'oi F 31 dvvarai EF otvat v8a>p EL*1
32 Trotet]
TToifj fecit E 33 7rot/?(m] om. E: Trotet et in spatio trium
litterarum incerta quaedam F : TrotetTat L b i tml] eVetSi) F3 yiyverat] ylyvovrai E : yivovrai 4> TTCOS . . . yivcrai om. E 1
4 yiyrovrai E f}]e t J Trpcoroi/] Trporcpov FHJ, sed yp. Trp&rov
supra lin. add. F 5 817 om. E* TrpoTepoj/J nparov L 6 re
om. L
22 nEPI TENE2E&2 KAI 4>0OPA2 A
8taKpt(ret \p&VTai Kat (rvyKptVet Kat ra> Troteu>
eVrt 6"'17 (TVyKpLCTLS /X-tftS' 770) 9 8e JLUyiW(T0at
ta)pi(rrat <ra(<Sj. dAAa JUT)ZJ ov8' dAAotovcrflat
10 waro, ove 8taKpu>eo'#at Kal crvyKpiv(rdai, fj.r]bvbs iroiovv-
TOS /urjSe Trdcr^ovTos. Kal yap ot TrAeuo ra orotxeta Trotow-
res yevv&cri r<S Troitlv KCU 7rda")^iv vif dAX?yA(or, Kat rots e
^o? avdyKr] Aeyeti' rr)r iroirjviv' Kat roCr* opO&s Aeyet Ato-
ytvrjs, STL fl /m^ r;z>e ^ros airavra, OVK av r\v TO Troteti^ Kat
1 5 ro 7rdo-Xtr VTT* a\Xri\(t)v, .olov TO
rovro 0pfJLaiv(rdaL TraXw ou yap 17
Kat ^ \jfvxpoTr]s els aAArjAa, dAAa 8^Aoz; ort ro
a>(rr e^ ots ro Trotetz^ (rrt Kat ro Trd(T\LV, dvdyKT]
[jiiav eti/at TTJV viroKtLiJLevrjv (pvcnv. TO p.V ovv TrdvTa
20 ToiavTa iWt (f)dcrKLV OVK dAr^^ey, dAA' V OOTOLS TO vii dA-
\r)\(dv (TTLV. dAAa [j.r]V 6t Trept ro iroielv Kat Trd(T\LV Kat
Trept jutfecos 0<Dpr)Tov, dvdyKr] Kat Trept d<r/s' ovre yap
TCLVTCL Kal Trd(T\Lv bvvcLTat Kvptcos a /x^ otoV re
35 Vat TTp&TOV &(TT 7Tpt Tpl&V TOVTtoV blOpl(TTOV, TL d^)l) Kttl
rt /xtfu Kat rt TTOLTJO-LS. dpxV ^ Aa^8a)/Ltev r?jr8. dvdyKr]
yap T>V OVTCDV OCTOLS 6(rrt jottft?, etyat ravr' dAArjAcov aTrrt-
Kci, Kaz> et rt Trotet, ro 6"e 7rdo-)(t Kuptcoy, Kat rovrots
aWavrooy 8to irpS>Tov \fiar4ov Trept dc^rjj. (T)(bbv p,V ovv
3o a>o-Trep Kat rwz; aAAcov ovopaTtov eKaaTOV Aeyerat TroAAa-
Xwj, Kat ra /xey o/xcovv/xcos ra 6e 0arepa aTro rwr erepcor
Kat ra>i> Trporepa>v, ovrco? cxet Ka ' 7re/^ atyrjs. o/xco? 8e ro
Ktyna)? Aeyo/xevor virdp^fL rots exof^rt OeffLV, 0o~t,s 8' olcnrcp
323* Kat roTros' Kat yap ro?s //,a^r//utartKor? 6/xotcos diroboTtov
Ka TOTTOV, etr eo~rt Kex^pt^c^o^ KO(TTOV avT&v etr'
rpoTTOv. et ow ecrrtv, a)0"7rep bLc^pia'Or] Trporepov, ro aTrre-
b 8 Kfit TO> 7rdfr^ii' FH IO ov5e -yap 8iaKpii>((rOai H 12 ra>]
TO E /cai Tea Tracr^ftv HJ VTT' aXXj^Acoj/ om. EJ Km roty]
KatVot (addito supra lin. y) J : yp. KaiYot add. supra lin. F 14 <r
eV6ff ^v EL*115 ro prius om. L* 1 16 TO^TO] TO ufiwp E
1 8 ear* Om. FH TO ante Tra^eii/ om. E 2O etvat TOiavTa EL23 oidi' TC] oiovrai ] 24 aXXjjAcoy a^raaBat F a^a/ieya aXA^-
Xa>i/ rrcoy F 25 Tpinv TOUTCOJ/] TO>V TOIOVTWV H 27 rwi' ovrw post
/z/irponitF oo-ois] ots EH*1 28 7rotet]7roi^ EFHL Trdo-^et]
Trdo'X'7 H 31 6/ioi/ujua)? J Taif om. F a 2 eWi] eo-Tat L3 rpoirov oXXoi/ E* 1
t)(LV ^a' ravra civ aVrotro dAArj-
Acoz; ova 8tT?pr7/u,eW jueye'flrj Kat Qivw fyovTa a/uta e^ei ra 5
eVxara. TTL 8e fleVtS1
JJLV 6VotS Kat TOTTOJ VTTap^L, TOTTOV
8e 8ta</>opa Trpforr] TO CLVOJ Kat TO Karco Kat ra rotairra r<5v
, airavTa ra dAA^Acoz; aiTTo^va /3dpoy civ \ot
r) a/x^co rj OaTpov ra 8e rotaOra
Kat Trotr^rua' cocrre fyavepov OTL rawra aTrrea-^at
dAArjAa)z>, wr Str/pr/joteVcoz; /xeye^aiz; afxa ra ecr^ara (rrw;,
oz^rcoz; KLvrjTiK&v KOL KLVT]TU>V v-n dAArjAcoz;. eTret 5e ro K.IVOVV
ofy 6//ot6os Kiyet ro Kivovjjievov, dAAa ro /xei> avayKT) KLVOV/JL*-
vov xat avro KLVCIV, TO 8' aKivrjTov ov, brjXov OTL Kat CTTI rov
n-otowroj kpovy^ev axravrcos- Kat yap ro KLVOVV Troitlv rt ^acrt 15
Kat ro Trotow KLVtlv. ov fjir]v a\Xa 8ta^>epet ye Kat 8et 8to-
pCfeur ov yap oloV re TTCLV TO KLVOVV Trotetz;, etTrep ro Trotouz;
avTi0r)(roiJ.V rw Tfda-^ovTi, TOVTO 6' ots ^ Kt^o-ts 7ra0os,
8e Ka^' oVoz; dAAotovrat povov, olov TO \WKOV Kat ro
, aAAa ro Kivtiv eirl irXeov TOV Troitiv eoriz> eKetz^o 8' oSi' 20
OTL (TTL {JiV O)J ra KLVrjTLKCL TU>V KLVTJT&V aTTTOLT* &V,
eo-rt 8' a>s ov. dAA* 6 Stopto-fios roi; aTrreorflat Ka06\ov jucer 6
rail' d&ru; exovrcoy Kat rou /xez; KLVT^TLKOV TOV 5e KLvqTOv,
aAAr/Aa 8e, KLVTJTLKOV Kal KLVTJTOV tv ots virdp^L ro
Kat ro Traorxetv. eo-rt /xe^ ow a>9 eTrt ro TroAv ro a^To^vov 25
aTrro/xeVof CLTTTO^VOV Kat yap Kiuei KLVOvfJLtva irdvTa a~^-
bbv ra [j.TTob<t)Vy oVois avdyKT] Kat (/)ati^erat ro CLTTTO^VOV
CLTTT0-OaL CLTTTOfJitVOV. (TTL 8', 0)S VLOT C^afJifV, TO KLVOVV CLTTT-
a-Qai fjiovov TOV KWOV^ZVOV, TO 8' CLTTTO^VOV JJ/TJaTrreo-^at aTrro-
//eVou dAAa 8ta ro Ktretr Kivov^fva TCL o/xoyerrj, duayKTj 8oKet 30
a 4 an-Toivro F 5 8ir)pr]fjLfva scrips!, cf. 323* II :
codd. et 4>c e^ei] e\tv L 7 Trpcorq post /carw ponit Fante Kareo om. EL 8 TO om. E e^ot] e^1
/F 12
Kal KivrjTtKwv FHL eVet] enl E 14 ov add. supra lin. J
15 /cu/oOv] Kivclv L l6 Trotoi i/]Troielv L diafapti. Kal Set E, sed
ft Kal del fecit in loco plurium capace 17 TO KIVOVV iravFH]TTOIOVV] Troiclv FHJ 1 9 TO utrumque om. J TO Btpp-ov Kal TO
XfVKOV F 20 KlV^v} KIVOVV E 7T\flOV H 21 KlVrjTlKa]
aKivrjTa F i incertum E 1: KIVOVVTO. L$, et fecit E 2
: motiva immobilia
tangunt F KivrjT&v] Ktvovpivtov $ 22 as om. E 6 post pev
om. &l(codd. RZ) 24 8e om. E KIVTJTOV /cm KivrjTiKov
vTrapxftv E 25 TO post Kal om. L TO post eVt om. E 27
ols O Kal om. J 28 eWi ... 29 OTTTO/ieVou om. F 29
P.OVOV F 30 ti/ioio-ycy?} EHJ2
6oK6t] 8oti' EFHL
*4 IlEPI FENE2E&2 KAT 4>0OPA2 A
tlvai aTjro/xe'yov aWea-flat, aWe et n KLVCL CLKLVIJTOV ov, Ktlvo
fJLV aV aTJTOtTO TOV KLVTjTOV, KLVOV be OvbtV-- (f)ajJLV yap eWore
TOV XvTTOvvTa aTTTevOai fjn&v, dAA' OVK avTol (KeCvov. Trept fjiev
ovv a(f>TJs TTJS fv TOLS (^ixrtKotj 6"ta)pt(T0a> TOVTOV TOV rpoTiw
323^ Trept be TOV TTOLLV Kal Ttavyeiv Ae/creW e<ef?7?. Trapet- 7
Xri^a^ev 8e irapa T&V irpoTepov virevavTiovs aAArjAot? \6yovs.
ol pew yap TrAeurroi TOVTO ye o/xoyor^rtKol)? \tyovcriv, a>s ro
fjitv ofJLOLov virb TOV 6//,oioi> TTCLV a7ra^S eart bt,a TO nqbev
5 juaAA.oz^ TTOL^TLKOV rj TraOrjTiKov elvai 6aTpov OaTtpov (iravTa
yap 6juoto)j virdp^LV TavTa Tols ojutotots), ra 8'
Kat ra biafyopa iroitiv K.CLI Tta(ry^iv aAA?]Aa Tt
yap oTav TO e'AarrorTTI)/)
VTTO TOV TrAeio^os (j)dipr]Tai,
bia TTJV fvavTioxrtv TOVTO (fracrL Trdcr^et^, evavTiov yap clvat
10 TO TTO\V rw dAtya). Ai]/utoK/)iroj 8e Trapa TOVS aAAow t8ta>9
eAefe (Jiovoy fyr\(rl yap TO avTO Kal OJJLOLOV tivai TO re TTOL-
ovv Kal TO Travyov ov yap eyx^petz; ra erepa Kat
povTa Trda-^LV vii dAA?jAa)r, dAAa Kav erepa oz>ra
rt aAAr;Aa, oix 17 erepa dAA* ^ TUVTOV TL VTtap\i, ravrr/
15 rovro crvfjifBaLveLV avTols. ra /uez^ ow Aeyo//ez^a raiJr' eo-rtV,
eo^ao-t 8e ot roi;roz; rw Tpoirov Aeyoz^re? virevavTia </>at-
V(r0aL Xtyeiv aiTiov be Trjs evavTioXoyias OTL beov o\ov TL
00)prj(Tai /xe/ooj rt rvyxdz^ovo-t Aeyoz^res eKarepot. ro re yap
ofjioiov Kal TO TrdvTrj iravTMS abid(f)opov evXoyov /u^ Trd-
20 a^ety -UTTO ro{5 ofjLoiov [JirjOev (rt yap paXXov ea-rat 0arepoi>
TTOLTf]TLKOV rj 6aTpOV; 1 T VTTO TOV OfJLOLOV T7a(T\lV TL bwaTOV,KOL avTO
v(f)' eavTov Katrot TOVTCDV OVT<DS fyovTav ovbev av etr;
a(f)0apTov OVTC aKLvrjTOV, e^Trep ro OJJLOLOV 77 ofJLOLov -Trotry-
, avro yap eavro KLvrjvtL irav), TO re Traz^reAwj erepor
a 31 Kflvo E 32 aj/ om. HJ icfiVou E b 2 Trpore'pcoi/ FHinrfvavrioisL. 5 darepov Qarepov ] 6 wap^eiFH 7 ra om. F
Tracr^fij/ fty aXXi^Xa FL n(f)vKvcii EHJ 9 TTO-J^ ante TOVTO
ponit E e/nt post 10 TO TTO\V ponit L 1 1 E, sed-y
erasit 0aa)j/E /cat om. E 1 2 eyxwpei E 14 rt prius om. Lels aXA?;Aa FL 15 avroi?] aXX^Xoty H TOVT'] ToiavTa H
1 6 (fraiveo-Qai om. T, et (ut videtur) 4>c,Vitelli p. 141. 1 5 18 eVarepoi]
anfyorepoi F 19 KOI TO] TO Kal TO, duabus litteris post KOI
deletis, E 2O yap om. E tfdYepoj/ eo-Tai FH : co-rai daTfpov21
77om. E el re Bonitz : elre Bekker TI nda-xftv
EL 22 awToO EHL TOUTWV] T>V E OVTCOP f^oi/Tcoy] OVTG>V
ovTGas FHJF: ouTtoy OVTCOS E 23 OUT* prius] ovde E 24avTO EL v
6. 323a3 I - -
7- 3 24a 18 25
Kat ro /xryfla/xr) ravrov a>cra?mo9. ou8ey yap j&j; 7rd0ot Aeu- 25
Korr/s VTTO ypa/u/xrjs 17 ypa/ut/zr) VTTO AevKorrjroj, TrATjv et
/xry TTOV Kara oi;/ut/36^877KOJ, olor ei o-Vjot/Se'/SijKe AevKT/z; rj /ute-
\aivav elvai TJ]V ypa/xfi?/V OVK efto-rrjo-t yap eavra rrjs
(frvo-tios ova /UTJT' tvavria jutrjr' ef tvavrfav eo-riy. dAA' eirel
ov ro rvxoz> TrtyvKt Trd(T^LV KOI 7rottr, dAA.' o(ra ^ ^az;- 30
TLUHTLV \l TJ fVCLVTLCL COTtV, avayKt] KOL TO TTOIOVV KOI. TO
TO) ytvi fjiev OJAOLOV ivai Kat ravro, roi 5'
Kat CVCLVTIOV (TretyvKf yap (rw/ixa /utei' VTTO
TOS, x^M^^ ^' ^^^ x^M ^* XP^Ma ^' ^7r^ xP^tJLaT0^ 7r(*-
o"Xtr, oAcos 8e ro 6/xoyez^es VTTO roi; ojnoyeroSs' TOVTOV 8' 324*atrtor ort TavavTia tv ra> a^rw yez^et Trdi^ra, Trotet 5e Kat Trd-
TCLVTO, TO re Trotow Kat ro Trdtrxo^, TTO)? 8' erepa Kat dro-
jutota dAA.?/A.ots. eiret 8e ro Trdo'xoi' Kat ro TTOLOVV ra> 5
fjiV yevei, TavTa Kat OJJLOICL rw 8' etSet dvo/xota, rotavra
8e TavavTia, (fravepov ort 7ra6r]TiKa Kat TrotrjrtKa
etrrt rd r' tvavTia Kat rd /mera^v Kat yap o'Xcoj
Kat yeVccris er rovrot?. 8to Kat evAoyoz; ^8r] ro re mpfjLaivi,v Kat ro ^rv^pdv ^rvyjEiv, Kat oAcos ro TTOirjTiKov 6/xot- ro
ovi^ eavrw ro Trdo-xoz^. ro re yap TTOIOW Kat ro 7rd(rxo^
rta e<rrt, Kat^7 yerecrts et? TOVVCLVTIOV &CTT* avayxr] ro
ets ro TTOtoGz^ jjLTaj3d\\iv, OVTM yap eo-rat ety TovvavTiov fj
yeVeo-tj. Kat Kara Ao'yoz; 8?) rd /u?) ravrd Ae'yorras djut<|>o-
repots o/oicos avrrea'^at r?/s <^>wrecos. Aeyojutei^ yap Trdcrxfti' 15
ore /xezj ro VTroKet/ute^ov (otoz; vytdfeo-flat ror avdp^irov Kat
QtpHaivevQai Kat \j/v)(t(rOai Kat raAAa roz^ avroz> Tpoirov),
ore 8e 0pfjLaiv(TOai fjiev TO ^fvyjpov, vyid&a'daL 8e ro Ka-
b 25 /x^Saft?) J : fj.rj8ajj.StsF Aev/c. v. y.] XevKor^ro? VTTO ypafip.r]
E 1
27 /MJ; TTOU om. EJ pehevav E 1: p.e\ava . 28 favra] n\\rj\a EL
29 eVfiSi) F 30 TT<:'<I;K] yp. eotKfi/ in marg. add. E ^om. J
7 evavricca-iv e^ti post 31 77cvavria ttrriv ponunt FH, et post 77
evavria
L, qui e'<rriV om. 31 ai prius om. EL 33 n<f>vK pev yap E ^a I opoioyeves H 6/xotoyevoOy EH 2 ro> OVTW] TOUTW E TroteTy
5e KM! irda-)(fiv H 5 eVei] eVi E 5e <ai TO Trao-^oi/ FH 6 Kmra o/uota E 7 ort ra 7Td6r]TiKa E IO oXcos ro] oXcos rt EII avra) E 12 17 om. E els om. J 13 eoTai post
14 yevea-is ponit F 14 8^] 8e E 15 opus J24>cr :
o^ioiWEFHJ 1L fareo-dai in litura J 16 ore] roYe E
^ ^
oioi/ TO
vyideo-6ai L Kai] % Kai L : Ka\ TO Qfpfjibv /cat E 17 KOI \l/i>
TOV \i6ov
26 nEPI TENE2E122 KAI 3>0OPA2 A
fjivov. afJityoTtpa & e<rrti> d^.r]dfj (TOV avTov 8e rpoirov Kal
2O irl TOV TTOLOVVTOS, OT fJL^V yap TOV CLvOptoTTOV <a//,ei> 0pfJLai'
veiv, ore 8e TO 0ep/moV), eort JJL^V yap ooj fj v\rj Tracr^ei, ecrrt
8' a>s rd kvavTiov. ol jueu ovv ets e/cet^o fihtyavTts ramov rt
8etz; u>rjdr](rav TO TTOLOVV HX LV Ka* "ndvyov, ol 8' ts ^a-
repa TovvavTiov. TOV avTov 8e Aoyor v7ro\r]'jrTOV elvai 7Tpl
25 rov TTOtflv Kal Trda-^LV ovircp Kal ntpl rot Kn>et<r#at Kal
)(a)s ya/o Aeyerat Kal ro K.IVOVV tv a> re yap 77
TTJS Kti'TJo'ea)?, SoKe? rovro KWlv(fj yap ap\r] Trpu>Trj
atrtcof) Kal iraXiv TO ecr^aroi^ irpbs TO KivovfjLVov Kal
TJ\V yev<Tiv 6/uiotajj 8e /cat Trept TOV TTOLOVVTOS' Kal yap TOV
30 laTpov (frafjitv vyia&iv Kal TOV olvov. TO fjiev ovv irp&Tov KIVOVV
OVOV KO)\VL V fJLV KLVT^(TL CLKLVrjTOV tlvai (eTT* VL(DV 5e Kttt
avayKalov), TO 8' eor^aroz; aet Kivtiv KLVOV^VOV em 8e TTOLrj-
ro fj,V Trp&Tov aTradts, TO 8' eo-^aror /cat avro Tra-
6Va yap /ut^ e^ft r^ avTTjv v\r]v, Trotet airaOrj
35 oi;ra (otoi^ 17 tarpt/crj, avr^ yap Trotouo-a vyUiav ovbw 7ra-
(r)(et VTTO rou vytafo/xeVov), ro 8e O-ITLOV TTOLOVV Kal avTo
Travel rt ^ yap tfepjuatVerat ^ ^/v^Tai rj aAAo rt -Trao-^et
a/xa 7roioi3r. eon 8erj fjifv tarpt/cr) a>9 apx^j, ro 8e VLTLOV TO
a>s (T\aTov Kal aTTTOfjitvov. 6Vajutei^ oSz; JUT) ei^ tfAr/ e\et r^
5 fJLOptyrjV, TavTa n\v airaOfj TU>V Trotr^rt/cwi/, 6Va 8' V v\rj,
TraOrjTLKa rrfv fjitv yap vkr]V Ae'yo/uey 6/xot(oj a>s etTreti^ r^z;
avn\v lvai T&V d^rt/cet/xeVa)f OTrorepovow, uxnrep yeVos oz;, ro
8e bvvdjjifvov Qeppov'_ivai irapovTos TOV OepfjiavTiKov Kal 7r\rj-
(rid&VTos avdyKT] 0ep/uatVeo-0at. 8to, /ca^airep etpr/rat, ra
10 /xey rair TTOL^TLK&V dira6rj ra 8e TraOrjTiKa, Kal c2o-7rep eVt
roz; avror e^et Tpoirov Kal e?rt rcoi'
a 2O TOJ> om. F 21 f) om. E 22 rovvavriov E rt om.FHJ 2
23 Blrepa] O.irepov F 24 8e Aoyov] rporrov F 25-26 Kii/eti/
*cm Kiv(l<r6ai EL 2677om. E 27 17 -yap om. E 28 TO
f<r\aTov ... 29 yffffip] ultimum aliquid id quod movetur ad genera-tionem F 30 KIVOVV om. E 31 /-uV] /^eV ouv E : \t,\v rfj F32 TO] TCO E1
: TOI/ F eVi] cTrcJ E 34 fx] 7rtio-^f i E I e^ J
HJ35 OUTJ)] nvT7 FHJL bi TOTToioOi/ FHJ 2 TI prius om. FTI . . . QfpfjiaivfTai in litura J i) ^-u^eTai om. E 3 airiov TO as
fffX'iTOv] eo-^aroi/ TO airiov F (sed post airiov erasum habet o>s eaxarov) :
airiov TO fcr^mov E 5 P-*v vv nrraOr) E 6 o^iot'cos delendumnotat J T^V avTrjV tos flrrflv F 7 OTroTe^ovoCi' E :
HJ8
01- delendum notat J 8 tfep/znvTtKoii] 6fpp.ov H IT
7. 324a19 8. 325*3 27
<EKtt re yap ro Trp&rov KIVOVV aKLvrjTOV, Kat evrl raw Trotrjrt-
K<Sl> TO Ttp&TQV TTOLOVV CLT^aOfS. eCTTt 8e TO TTOLT^TLKOV CUTLOV 0)9
oOfv 77 apxn r*? s Kivrj(T(i)s. TO 8' o eVeKa ov TrotTjrtKoV (bid
77 vyt'eta ov TrotrjrtKoV, et JUTJ Kara /uerac^opdz;)* Kal yap roi) 15
/x,Z> Trotowroj oraz; virapx?!} yiyvtTai rt ro Trdcrxoy, raw 8'
efeooy irapov(ru>v ovxert ytVerat, dAA' etrrtv r/6r/, ra 8' 1817
Kat ra reAr; efets rise's. 178' vAr; 77 v\rj TraOrjTiKov.l TO ^v
ovv Ttvp exet *v vAiy ro Oeppov t 8e rt etrj OcpfJiov xaipHTTov,
TOVTO ov6tv av Trda-^ot. TOVTO p\v ovv to-coj d8vi>aroz> tlvai 20
ov t 8' eo-rtz; Irta rotavra, eV KtVco^ az;tr]
ro
Arj^ej. rt /otez; ow ro Trotetv Kat 7rdo-)(eii; eo-rt
/cat rtVtu virdp\i Kat 8ta rt Kat TTW?, 8tcoptV^a> roOroj' roz>
TpOTTOV
8 TTWS 8e ei>8e'xerat rovro a-i;/x/3atrtr, TraAti/ Aeycojixei^. rots 25
jtxi; oSz^ 8oKet 7rdo-)(ety IJGBOTOJ? 8td rtrwz; Tropav et(rtoVros
roi) 7roioi;i;ros etr^drov Kat Kuptcorarou, Kat roOroi/ roz; Tponov
Kat 6pai> Kat aKoveiv ry/xas </>ao-i Kat rds dAAas ato-^rjo-ets
al(rddv(r6ai -Trdo-as- ert 8e QpacrQai 8td re der
pos Kat i;8a-
ros Kat rair OLCKfrav&v, 8ta ro iropovs *\tw aopaTovs fxev 30
8ta jatKpo'rrjra, TTVKVOVS 8e Kat Kara o-rot)(or, Kat /aaAAoi;
extz> ra biatyavrj /xaAAov. ot jmei> oSi; eTrt rtva)i; ovra) 8ta>pt-
o-ar, coo-Trep Kat 'E/xTreSoKA^s, ov povov M T&V TTOIOVVTUV
Kat Ttao-yovTuv, dAAa Kat fjiCywo-Oai (j)ao~iv oVcov ot Trdpot
Trpos dAArjAovs etcrtV* 68a> 8e /xdAto-ra Kat Trept 35
ert Ao'yw 8tcoptKao-t Ae^KiTTTros Kat Arjjuo'Kptros, dp- 325*
)(?^v Trotrjcrdjute^ot Kara (frvcriv r}Vep O~TW. eviois yap T>V
ap\aL(t)v e8ofe ro 6V e^ dmyKrjs ei^ etrat Kat aKtznjrozr ro
b 12 TrptoTcos FL 13 TO ... airaQes delenda notat J irpa>To>s
FL TO /Llfl/ TTOlTJTiKOV L 15 ^ OHl. F l6 OTttV yap VTTcipXT) Eri delendum notat J 17 #fy] ei8? EF 1 18 ra om. F .^
v\r) om. *c ro iva6r}TiK.6v F 19 ^oapto-Toi/ Bcppbv fir) F : ei;
^wpiaroi/ Qfppov HJ 2O aj/ om. F 21 early Om. H 22 K<IJ
TO Trda-^eiv H* 1
23 \mapx.flv ^ 2 5 Ae'yo/xfi/ HJ 26 fKaorov
post TTO'PCOV ponit L 27 fort. TOU eV^aTou legendum 28 al
primum om. EFL 29 Sc om. F 30 Kal] re KOI 8ia F p*vOm. E 31 O-plKpOTTjTO. FHL 0-TOt^Of] OTOt^flOV P^J Km TO,
/xaAAov J 32 fX lv om - J TIVCOI/] TIVOS F ovras hd>prj(rav J
34 <po->] (/)f;ort^ JL oorcoi'] a>v FL : om. E 35 0-vp.p.fTpoi postflffiv ponit F daiv om. L a I evl Xdyo) om. E^1
,et delenda
notat J 2 fort, legendum yirfp eanv, cf. Parmenides fr. 8, vv. I
et 2 (Diels, p. 118) 3 | aydyKrjs delenda notat J
28 nEPI TENE2E&2 KAI <I>0OPA2 A
fjiv yap Kfvbv OVK ov, KLvrjOrjvai b OVK av bvvaorOai, /XT) OVTOS
5 KVOV K\ti)pL(TlJ,VOVf OV& CLV TToAAd IVOLL /XT) OVTOS TOV o"teip-
yOVTOS-TOVTO 8' OvbV bta(f)pLV, 1 rtS OLTCLL /XT/ (TVV\S L-
vai TO Tiav dAA' $7rrecr#at o"tTTpTT/xeVoy, TOV (fravcu TroAAd
Kat/LIT)
v elvcu Kal Kvov. ei /xeu yap iravTrj 8iaipero'v, ovQtv
tivai eV, a>(TT ovbe TToAAa, dAAa KZVOV TO o\ov et 8c rr)
10 fj,v rrj 8e/ut?7, 7T67rAacrjui^a) TIV\ rour' eotKerat. ^XP t Trotrov
yap, Kal 8ia rt ro /uez; ol/ra)? )(t row oAoi> KOL TrAr^pes eort,
ro 8e birfprjiJLevov; ert 8' o/xotcos avayitalov JUTJ etrat Kt-
VV\GIV. K {JiV OVV TOVT(f)V T&V AoyCDZ^ VTTp(3aVTS TT]V al(Tdrj(TLV
Kal irapibovTts avTrjv a>? rw Aoy<o 8eoz^ aKoXovOtiv %v Kat
15 aKivrjTov TO nav dvai (fravi Kal aTrtipov (-VIOL- TO yap
TTpaiVLV CIV TTpOS TO KVOV. ol [JLCV OVV OVT(DS KOL OLCL
TCLS atrtas aTreffrrivavTO irepl TTJS a\r)0ias * * * . ert 8e CTTI ^vT&V Xoytov boKtl TavTa (rvjjil3aLViv, eTrt be TU>V 7rpay/mara)z;
fjiavLq TTapaTrXrjO'Lov ftvaL TO bo^dfeiv ovrcos* ovbtva yap
20 fjiaivoiMevtov eearcu>ai TOCTOVTOV ware ro irvp %v etvai
Kal TOV Kpva~Ta\\ov, dAAa JJLOVOV TOL xaAa Kat ra (fraivo-
fj.va bia arvv^dfiav, TavTJ
tviois bia Trjv pavLav ovOev boKi
biacfrfpdv. AevKtTTTros 8* *X LV ^r?^77 ^oyovs, oirtz^e? irpbs
Tr\v alo-drja-LV ofjioXoyov^va Aeyo^res OVK avaiprivovcnv OVTC ye-
25 V(TLV OVT (f)00paV OVT KLVrjCTLV Kttl TO TtXrjOoS T&V OVT(t)V. OfJLO'
Aoyr/o-as 8e rai;ra juer rot? ^aivofJifvoLS, roiy be TO %v Kara-
(TKvaovcrLV ws OVK av KLvrjcnv ovcrav avev Kevov, TO re Kfvbv
P.TI ov Kal TOV OVTOS ovOtv JUT) ov<f>rj(riv
ttvaL' ro yap KV-
picas ov Tra/xTrATJpes ov. dAA' elvau TO TOLOVTOV ov\ eV, dAA'
30 a-Tretpa ro 7rATJ0os Kat do'para 8ta o-jutKpoVr/ra T&V
Tavra 8' ev r<5 Kez^ai c^epeo-^at (KWOV yap et^ai), Kat
Z/ yeW<rtz> iroLiv, biaXvofjieva be (f>0opdv.
a 6 Vovdev] 8e/^SevEL^ ] ^ 6? F 1
!, : ut si r 8 ly om. Eyap] ?rapa J IO ToCr' av eoiKfvai F : roDro av eoiK L 125' posten om. E 6/zot6)f (ptii'ai avayKalov FHL 13 vTrfpffaivovres EL14 i/7repi5oj/Tes HJ : despicientes r 16 ai/ om. L olv om. E
17 post aXrjdeias excidisse quaedam suspicor m] eVm L ^i/post 1 8 Adyo>j> ponunt E^*1
19 fivat] fVrt FHJ 20 li> om. E21 Kpu'o-raXovJ 22 6ia rfjv (Tvvrjdfiav F a
23 tor)6r] \fiv F 2J OVK]ovrf FHJL TO re] iroiflv E : Troteti/ ro 8e F 2
(Trotetf addito, et TO 6V exTO Tf facto) 28 yap om. EJ 29 oi> prius] !/ EJ TravirXfjpes
J : Trnj/ 7r\fip(s H : Tra/iTrX^ey (ut videtur) L oi/ secundum om. JTO om. H 30 KUI . . . oyKo>v in litura addit E re. manu : /cat
adpaTa post oyKa>v ponit L fjUKpoTTjra ] 32 8f om. E
8. 29
f rvy\avovcriv airTo^va (ravrr] yap ov%V etWt), Kat (rvvTiOtfjieva 8e Kat TreptTrAeKo'/utem ytvvav. K
be TOV Kar' aXriOtiav evo? OVK av ytvevQai irXrjdos ovb* CK 35
rutv aAry^co? TTO\\>V eV, dAA' slvai TOVT' abvvarov aAAJ
,
c5(77rep 'E/xTreSo/cAr/j Kat rG>v aAAajy rt^es (a<rt Trafr^eti; 325^
Trepan, ovrco Tracrav dAAotcoo'ti' Kat mi^ ro Tracr^fw
yivt(T0aL TOV rponov, bta TOV KCVOV yivofjitvrjs r^j 8ta-
avayKaov 5
axnrtp Kat AevKtTTTros (^YJO'LV ttvaL yap arra ore-
pea, aStatpera 8e, et )ut^ TraVrr/ Tropot (rD^e)(ers flcnv. TOVTO
5' a8w>aroi>, ovOev yap eorat erepor crrepcdy irapa rois Tropou?,
dAAa Trai^ Kvov. avayKif] apa ra jLte^ aTrro/xeva e^at d8t-
atpera, ra 8e /xera^i) avT&v Ktvd, ovj e/ce^os Aeyet Tropouj* 10
ovrcos 8e Kat AevKtTTTro? Aeyet Trept rou Troitlv Kat
ot /xev oSv rpoTrot Ka0' ot)? ra juei' Trote? ra 8e Trdcr^et
8oi> ovrot Aeyovrat. Kat Trept juei^ TOVTMV, Kat TTCOS Ae'yovcri,
8?/Ao^, Kat Trpos ras avT&v Secrets ats ^pwi^rat (r^edoi^ OJLIO-
^>atrerai avfjifiatvov rots 8' aAAots TJTTOV, olov 15
rtVa rpoTiw etrrat fyQopa Kat dAAotaxrts
ov 8?)Ao^. rots jaei^ yap e0rti> dStatpera ra Trpaira
avyKetrat Kat ets a etr^ara 8taAuerat* 'E/x7re8oKAet 8e
ra /xez^ aAAa fyavepov on ^\pi T&V CTTOL^LMV e)(et rr^v 20
Kat r^y (f)0opdv, avT&v oe TOVTMV Trws ytVerat Kat
ro (Ttoptvoptvov /xeye^o
fjirj Ae'yovrt Kat roi5
6/xotcoy 8e Kat r<3y aAAcoz^ d7rd^ra)z/, coo'Trep eV ra> Tt/uaiw
yeypa</>e FTAarco^. roo-ouro^ yap Sta^e'pet roO /ut^ roz> avroz/ 25
a 33 Tu-y^avet F 34 K^it prius om. L b 2 Twf om. EL4 $0opar] <f)opas J eiV&uo/ze'vcoj/ EJ : v-nodvofifvasv F 5 fr
1
*P*fip'
Fr I erepav EHJL 6 <p<i(nv F arra] aura J 7 Kat post
(TTfped add. E Tropoiy L 8 eorai om. F erfpov om. EL15 oioj/ ... 17 -yap om. F, sed in margine addit oioi/ 'E/uTreSoKAft nVa
Tponov carat (f)6opa KOI ytvcats ov dqXov. rols p.iv yap, et inter pluraincerta habere videtur etiam dAXoiWi? 16 nVa] ^
TtVa Hf (rrai 0^opa EHJL : ecrrai ywcvis /cat 0^opa Bekker, qui haec verba
libris FH perperam attribuit 17 eorrti/] c(rrat J2 ra om. E
1 8 Trpoortov] TrpSroi/ F 19 fiiaAiWrai EJ 22 owe secundum]OVK L
30 T1EPI TENESEflS KAI 4>0OPAS A
Tpoirov AevKtTTTTO) Ae'yetu, on 6 juez> orepea 6 8' C
yet ra dStatpera, xat 6 /uey aTreipots1
coptV0at
[ra>i> abiaiptTMV o-repea>z> eVao-roy] 6 8e ttp&ft&ois, e-Tret d8tat-
pera ye djOK^o'repot Ae'yovert Kat coptoT^eVa (ryjnj,a<nv. eK
30 5r) TOVTMV at yezJeVets Kat at biaKpicrcLS AevKtTTTra) i&v [bvo
rpoVot av etey,] 6ta re roC /cei>oi> Kat 6ta r?js a^s (ravr?/
yap biaiptrov <?KacrTOv), nXarco^t 8e Kara r^ a(^>r)i; povov
bv yap o^/c etrat (f)T](TLV./cat Trept juter rwi; adtatpeVco^ eTrt-
etpTJKa/uer ev rots Trpo'repoy Ao'yots* Trept 8e rwz; d8t-
35 atpe'rcor o-repewi^ ro /xei> e-TTt irXtov ^ecopTJa-at ro (TVfJL(3aivov
a<f)io-0(i) TO vvv, a)? 8e jJLiKpbv -TrapeK^ao-tv etTreti^, avay-
326* /catoz^ aTra^es re exao-roz; A.e'yeu' rwi^ d8tatpercor (ov yap otoV
re Trdcr^et^ dAA'17
8ta rot) Kez^ou) Kat jJirjOfvos TTOirjriKdv TTCL-
Oovs ovre yap aK\rjpbv OVT \jsvxpbv olov r' elrat. Katrot rouro'
ye O.TOTTOV, ro JAOVOV aTrobovvai rw Trept^epe? o~)(i/jutartro
5 0pn6v avdyKr] yap Kat TOVVOLVTIOV ro "fyvy^pov aAAa> rwt
T&V o-^ju-arcor. CLTOTTOV 8e Kaz; et ravra /utey
e'ya) 8e flepjoio'rrjs Kat ^u^poV?]?, (3apVTr]s 8e
Kat Kov^o'r?]? Kat o-KAr^po'rr;? Kat jmaAaKoYrjs /xr)
Katrot /3apvrepoV ye Kara rr/z> virepoyjiv (frrjviv elvai
10 Kptro? (Kacrrov T&V Sbuupfrw, coo-re 8^Aoi; on Kat 0epju,o're-
por. rotaura 8' oura /UT) 7rdo-)(ety VTT' aAA?iAcoi.' a8
otoz; VTTO roi; TroAv VTrep/3aAAoz>ros Qep^ov ro ?5pe'fia
dAAa /zr)v et (TK\f]p6vy Kat juaAaKoV.' ro 8e jutaAaKW ^8r]
ra> 7rao-)(etz/ rt Aeyeraf ro yap VTT^LKTLKOV /utaAaKoV. dAAa
15 /LW)i; CLTOTTOV KOL L fJLT]0V V7rdp\i d\A' 17 fJLOVOV (TXrjfJLa,
Kat et V7rdpxt, ez^ 8e (JLOVOV, olov ro jue^ ^v\pov ro 8e
v8e yap az> /xta rtj etr^ ?/ (frvais avr&v. 6/zo^cos 8e
Kat et TrAetco rco evt* abiaiptTov yap ov (V rco
b 28 TOOI/ . . . 6/caoroi/ seclusi 30 at ante 8iaKpiats Om. F post
Sm/cpumr distinxit J fifi/] quidem enim r Siio rpo/roi aj/ eui/
Seclusi 31 rpoTTOts J fffi/ ai/ F 32 afttalpfTov7rXara>i' H 34~35 Tfpi Se TCOJ/ crrepfcoj/ roil' aSiaipeVcov J 35
HJ 0a>p(l<T6ai F 36 a<jjo-0a> J ro] ra H etTreu/] tTrei Ea 2 *?] .^ J 3 o'KX^pov] calidum F tyvxpov ovre oK\r]pbv EL
ofo'v T'] Set F KniVot ye roOro F 7 vndpxn FHL: vndpxnt- JSe secundum om. J 8 rr/cXr/priT^? KHI KOU^O'T/;? F VTrap^i J :
virdpr) L 12 fapfjiov F< cr : ^fvxpov EHJL 13 ^17 om. EL14 yap] 8' F VTTCKTIKOV ] 15 j}
om. E*1 16
EHL*117 ^ om. EFL 18 et om. FJ
8. 325b 26 --
326b 10 31
avTij> eet ra TrdOr], wore Kat ear Trdcr^r] yiTep \j/v\Tai,
rairrr/ rt Kat aAAo Trotrjo-et r) 7rei<rerat. rou aroz> 8e 20
TpOTTOV Kttt 7TL T&V aAAa>l> TTaflrjjOldrCOZr TOVTO yap KOL TOIS
OTepea KOL TOtS eTTlTTeSa \tyOV(TLV abiatpfTCL (TUfJifiaiVCl TOV
avTov Tpoirov, OVT yap fjLCLVOTtpa OVTC TTVKvoTtpa olov T( yt-
V(r0ai Ktvovfjir]
OVTOS v rot? dStatperotj. ert 8' CLTOTTOV KOL
TO [JLtKpa fjiV ddtaipera etuai, /oieyaAa 8e /xrj. z;{)^jutei; 25
yap evAoyco? ra /utetfco Opavtrai juaAAoy rwi; JJ.IKP&V ra
/ut^ yap 8taAverat paStcos, otoz^ ra jueyciAa,
yap TToAAoty, ro 6 abiaiptrov oAco? 8ia r^ juaAAoy V
\L T&V fJLy&\d)V TOIS fJLLKpols ',TL 8f TTOTtpOV
IV(*)V T&V (TTtpt&V, T] bia<f)pL OciTpa T&V Tp(t)V, 30
t ra/u,ez> etr] irvpiva, ra 6e y?jiVa roz; oynov; t
ftez; yap /xta <f)v<ns co-rlv aTtavraov, TL TO ytopivav; 178ta
rt ov ytyz^erat a^ra^va kv, axnrep vba>p vbaTos orav OCyrj;
ovbtv yap bia(f>pi ro vVrepor ro Trporepov. et 8' erepa, Trota
/cat S^Aoz^ a>? ravra OZTCOV ap^as Kat atrta? r<Si> 35
ert 8e 8ta^>epoi;ra 326b
r^z; (f)V(riv KCLV TTOIOI KCO> 7rao-)(ot ^tyyarorra dAATJAcor. ert
8e rt ro KIVOVV; et /ueu yap erepoz^, Tra^rtKa* et 8' avro
avro tKaoTTOV, 17 8iatperoz> ecrrat, Kar' aAAoftei-' KIVOVV Kar'
aAAo 8e KLVOV^VOV, rjKara ravro TavavTia vTrdpfet, Kat 5
^ vAry ov fjiovov dpt^/xw eo-rat /utta aAAa Kat
fxer ow 8ta r?J5 rwr Tro'pcor Kt^?J(rea)s <a<rt ra
(3atvLV, et /uey Kat TreTrAr/pcojoieVa)^ raiz; iropaiv, irepfepyov ol
iropoL" et yap ravrr/ Trao-^et rt ro Trar, Ka^ //^ iropovs
\ov dAA' avro o-vyexfJ oz; Trdo-xot roz> avror Tponov. ert 10
a 19 rjTrep ^rv^rai H: 17 irepi^vxerai F: ciTTtp \^u^rat EJL :
secundum quod infrigidatur r 20 TC^T?; ri J : raiiri; TI EL :
rauTj; rot F : rayro Tt H : hoc aliquid r : TOVTO) TOI Bekker, quirawrai codd. omnibus perperam tribuit post a\\o add. Tt L22 orepea] ertpa (ut videtur) E 1
23 /uafavrepa F ytveaBai F26 /ifi'C40] fifyaXa E p,a\\ov om. F 27 pafii'ojs TWI/ p.iKpS>v
olov F TrpoKOTTTft FJ 28 ra 5e ddiaipera L 29 /LtfyaXwi/]
dXwi/ E 30 77om. E^ rail/ (rrfpecof fKeivav L 3^ (ffT\i>
Om. EL 34 TrpoTtpouJ TTpdrepov EJ1!, 35 ravra prius] rotavra
F Tfivra secundum] rayras EJ, fort, recte b 2 TTOIJ /cni/ nda-xnFL 3 5e ri om. E 1
TtaflrjTiKov F 5 Kora rairo] ACOT'
at>ro E 7 /ar/;crfa>y] rpi^crfws- coni. Prantl, sed nihil mutandum8 KOI om. L 9 TI Trao-^ft E : n om. L ro om. L 10
FL
32 IIEPI TENE2EH2 KAI 4>0OPA2 A
8e 7TC09 eV8e')(erai 7Tpl TOV
(riv; OVT -yap Kara ras a<as eV8e'xerai 8tteWt 8ta T&V
biacfravStv, ovre 8ta T&V iropav, et ir\Tipr]$ eKaoros* rt yap
8tot<ret rov /zr) iropovs fX. LV > v 7^P 6/xotcos e(rrai TrX^pes.
15 aAAa/i/,r)i>
et Kat Kei>a /uiez; ravra, avayKT] be (rw/aara ^
avrols <i\iv, TCLVTO (rv/ut/Srjo-erai TraAti'. et 6e rr/AtKavra TO
joteye^os wore /u^ 8e'xeo-^at o-aijota /ur]8eV, yeXotoz; ro piKpov
l^v oieo-^at Kcro^ eti^at, /xeya 8e /xr) ^778' oirrjXiKOVovv, rj
TO Kvbv a\Xo TI olfcrdai Ae'yeizJ 7rA.^z; ^u>pav o-w/xaros,
20 wore bij\ov OTL Ttavri (rw/ixart roy O-/KOV "KTOV eorrat Kevov.
oAcos 8e ro iropovs Tioitiv TttpUpyov. et /xey yap /x?]5ev Troie?
Kara r^y a(f)^v, oi8e 5ta rw^ iropav 7rot?j(ret 8ttoV' et 8e
TO) ctTrreo-^at, Kat /xr) Ttopav OVTMV ra /xei^ TretVerat ra 8e
TTOtryo'et rcSr Trpo? aAAryAa rouroi; roi^ rpoirov Tre^DKorco^. ort
25 fxer oSr ovrco? Aeyeti' rovs nopovs ws rtuej VTroXafAfidvovcrLV,
TI \jftvbos 7] ^araioVy (fravepbv ex TOVTMV tcrTiv. 6"tatper<3i> 8'
OVTMV Travrr} T&v (Tco/xaTcor iTopovs TTOielv ytXolov r) yap
dtatpera, 8warat yjup'i&crOai.
Tiva 8e TpoTtov V7rap\L rots ovo-t yev^ai' Kat Trotetz; Kat 9
30 Trao-xew, Ae'ywjue^ Aa/3oVres ap\rjv rr\v TroAAaKts ipr]fjLvrjv.
et yap eort ro/utei' bvvd[JLi ro 8' ez^reAex^ta rotoSroi^, irtyv-
KV ov rr) /uey rr) 8' ov Trao")(iv, dAAa iravrrj Ka0' oVoz; ecrrt
rotovror, ^rroz; 8e Kat JJLCL\\OV y TOIOVTOV juuiAAoV eo-rt Kat
?^rror- Kat ravrij iropovs ay rts Aeyot /xaAAor, KaOdirp
35 V roty //.eraAAeuo/uteWts 8taretVovo-t rou TraOrjTiKov <^)Aej3es
327** o-urexetj. (rujut^ves /xev oSi; ZKCLO-TOV Kat ez; oy airades" 6//,otW
8e Kat JUT) Oiyyavovra /xrjre am&v /xrjr' aAAcoz^, a Troielv
Tre^VKe Kat Trao'xeti' (Aeya) 8' otbi; ov \LOVQV a7TTo[jLi>ov
0ep/xau'et ro Trvp, aAAa Kay airoOev TJ roy /ne^ yap depa
5 ro TrOp, 6 8* ar/p ro o"(S/uta 0ep/xati>et, Trec^fKcas Kat Trotety Kat
b II Trepi ... 12 eVSe'^eToi in marg. add. F 12 ti/m E14 f^ftv Tropovs EL TTOV] TraXtv J eorai] earii' E 15 KCU
om. EF*1 16 (Jirots FHJL^r 18 /zeya ante Kei>6j/ ponit F2O eorat Kej/oJ> i(ro/ H 21 TTotei ... 22 iropotv Om. E1 22 8e
Kat ra> E 26 eWi ante (fravfpbv ponit F 27 ovrmv posto"o)/iaT<oi' ponit F 29 Tots ovaiv vnap^ei J ytvvav THIS overt F
at ante iroitlv delendum notat J 30 ipi]fjLfvt)v noXXaKis F31 Totnvrov] TOVTO J TTc'^uKfj/ in marg. add. F 32 7raVro>s H
34 aj/] ft E Xe'-yot] \tyrj L : om. E paXXov ) Kaddnep EFJa 2 avTwv J*
1
4 Ocppaivfiv EJ2
aTTOidev EJ 5 017/3 /cat TOE KfcfrvKos J *cai ante irotelv om. EL
8. 326b ii 10. 327*32 33
ro 8e rr) /xez> ote<r0at i:a<T\eiv rr) 8e /XT} * * * 8topt-
tv dpxf) rovro \CKTCOV. e /xez> yap /xrj TTOLVT^ 8iat-
pTov TO /xe'yeflos, dAA* eVrt (rcS/xa d8taiperoz> 17 TrAdros,
OVK az> etrj Trd^rr/ Tra0rjTLKovt dAA' o8e (rvyexes ovbtv el 8e
rovro \lfvbo$ Kat Trar crw/xa 8tatperoV, ov8ey 8ta^>epet 8t?/- 10
prj(T0aL fj.V aTTT(T0aL 8e, r/ 8tatper6^ eZ^at. et yap 8taKpt-
V(T0ai bvvaTaL Kara ra? a^d?, coo-Trep ^>ap-t rtve?, Kay
/jtr/TTco r] birjpr)fjivov, eo-rat biiiprjfjitvov bvvaTov yap 8tatpe0rj-
rat, ytrerat yap o#ei> abvvaTov. oAcos 8e rd roroz> ytyecr^at
ror TpoiTov i^ovov (T^L^o^v^v T&v (Tco/uidrcoi; droTTor.
yap ovros 6 Ao'yo? dAAotaxrty, opw/zer 8e ro avro
o-vrex^y oy ore /xez> vypbv ore 8e TreTrrjyo'y, ov 8tatpeVet Kat
(rvv0(TL TOVTO 7ra06v, ovbtrpoTTTj Kat 8ta0tyr), Ka^aTrep Ae
r-
yet Ar//xo'Kptros ot/re yap /xerarax^ey ovre /xerarefleu rr^y
TT7rriybs ef vypov yeyovcv, oi>8' ei;v7rdpxet ra 20
>a Kat 7re7T7]yoVa d8tatpera rovs' oyKOvs, dAA' o/xo^cos
vypov, ore 8e o-KAr/poy Kat TreTrr^yo's eo-rtr. ert 8* ov8'
avr](Tiv olov r' etyat Kat (ftSfcaf ov yap OTIOVV e<rrat yeyoroj
/xetfor, etTrep earat Trpoo-^ea-t?, Kat/UIT^
Tray /xera/3e/3A7]-
KO? T) fj,ix0VTos TWOS r{ Ka0J
avTO /uera^aAAoyroj. ort 25
jixey ow etrrt ro yeryar Kat ro Trotety Kat ro yiyv(r0aC re
Kat 7ra<rxeti> VTT' dAAr/Acoy, Kat rtVa Tpoirov ez;8exerai,
10 AotTror 8e ^ecop^o-at Trept /xt^ecos Kara roi> avrov rpo- 30
TTOy rT/S fJL06boV, TOVTO yap r\V TplTOV T&V TTpOT0VT(*)V f
(TKTTTov 8e Tt r' ea-rty77 fxtfts Kat rt rd juitKroV,
a 6 post /xi7 excidisse quaedam suspicor 7 TO
videtur) r Tra^T?/] Trai/ri E 8 o-aifia /uei> d8taip6TOv H 9 ov-
fieV ante ove ponit F 13 eortu diT)pT)p.evov om. F, et delenda
notat H yap om. F 14 TO om. E, et delendum notat J
. FLr 16 6 Xdos OUTOJ H : OVTOS 6 ronos F l815 /btoj/oi/ om. FLr 16 6 Xdyos OUTOJ H : OVTOS 6 rponos F l8 KOI
diadiyfj om. E : ical 8ia0r)yq L (cf. supra, 3i5b35) \eyei] fao-l F
19 oi/re yap . . . 2O <uo-iv] neque enim transductum neque transposi-tum secundum naturam neque transmissum T 19 ^eTaraxdfv ovre
/jLerarcOfv] fjKTdTeBev oure pCTafiaXov L : p-eraredev E : p.tTaT0V rfjv
(f)v(Tiv ovTf /iera/3aA6v F Tr/v ^>uo-ti/] T^ </>uo-H 2O oi>8*
fvvnapxfi] ovde vvv vTrap^et EJLF : OUT' fvvrrdpxfi E2FJ T Om. EL
23 ycyoj/cbf E 24 eorai] eorrl EL 2$ pfTaftaXovTOS EL26 Tf] TI J 27 ai rtVa TpoTTOv cp&xcrat om. E1 28 5e om. E1
30 8e] 6t vel 817 fc1 OeoaprjTfov FHL2254 D
34 nEPl FENESEilS KAI <I>0OPA2 A
Kat TL(TLV VTtapyei T&V OVTtoV KOL 770)9, CTt b* TTOTCpOV loTt
/xtfts 17TOVTO \frfvbos. abvvaTOV yap etrrt ^i\$ijvat rt eYe-
35 pov eTe'pa>, KaOairtp Ae'youo-t rivS' OVTMV jutei> yap eYt
/cat /AT) r7AAota>/u,eVa)z> ovSey |uaAA
vvv J] TTpoTpov, dAA' ojuoteos exety QaTfpov 8e fyQapev-
TOS ov /xe/itx0ai, dXAa TO /uer eirat ro 8' OVK etz^at, r^z;
8e /A^t^ 6/xoa>s tyovrav elvai.' TOV avrov 8e rpoirov Kal
5 eJ d/m^)ore/3a)^ (rv^eA^orra)^ e^^aprat rwi' luywfifVWV Ka-
, ov yap ivat jue/uuy/xj>a ra ye oAcos OVK ovra. OVTOS
ovv 6 Aoyos lotKe (flrclv biopicrai, rt Stac^epet /xt^ts ye-
Kat (frOopas, Kal rt ro (JLIKTOV TOV ycvvrjrov Kat (f)0ap-
bfjhov yap a>s Se? biatyepeiv, et7re/o ecmv UHTTC TOVTU>V
(fravtp&v ra biairopriOevTa X.VOIVT* av. dAAa jur)v ov8e
i/A^z; rw Trvpt /ute/bttx^at ^a/xe^ ov8e ^iyvvcrOai Kato-'
a\)rr]v avrrjs ro?9 juoptots ovre ra> Trupt, dAAa
p yiv(r0at, T^V be ^^etpeo-^af roz> avroy 8e rpo'-
ra> o*co/xart rr)r rpo(f)i]v ovbe TOo~)(r)juta
roi Krypai
15 \Liyirv[LVQV (T-^rjfjiaTiffLV TOV oyttov ovbf TO o-cojuta Kat ro
Aei/Koz> oi5' oAcos ra Tradrj Kal ray e'eis oloz^ re /ze/x,t)(0at
ro?j 7rpdy/xao*tr (rco^ojuera yap oparai. dAAa /xr)^ ov8e ro
AevKov ye Kat ri)^ eTrto-rr//^ e^8exerat fjuxdTJvai, ovb* aAAo
r<3z; /xr) xa)P L(rT^v ovbev. dAAa roirro \cyov<TLv ov KaAws
30 ot 7T(irra Trore 6/>ioi; <j)ao-KOVT$ etrat Kat */uejutx^at* ov
yap aTrar auai^rt /xtKroV, dAA' vTrdp^Lv Setx.
(0PL(TTOV
KaTepov T&V fjii\6VTa>v, T&V be 7ra0&v ovOcv ^a)pLaTov . eVet
8' eo~rt ra /ote^ o'wa/xet ra 8' ez^epyeta rwr OVT&V, vb\^e-
rat ra jutx^eVra etrat -TTCOS Kat ftr) etrat, evepyeta /mez;
25 erepov wroj ro yeyovoVos ef avT&v, bvvd^L 8* ert eKare-
pov ^Trep 7]o-az> Trptz; /xtx^^at, Kat OVK aTroAcoAoVa rouro
yap 6 Aoyos o'trjTropet TrpoVepov, ^atVerat 8e ra
a 34 fux^fivai TI post 35 erepw ponit F b I *ai ri/ /U7 H12 VVJ/ fif/Mt^^ai (fxuriv EL 4 e'^oi/Ta)*/ o/zoi'tos J KGU] Ka/ EL6 yap om. L 7 S/opiVai om. FL TI] rtw EL*1 8 re
KCU <f)6opas L yey;Tov FJ IO Xiiotr' aj; FJ*1 o#re
II rw Trvpt Tjyy vA^i/ L p.ffMX0ai TO> Trupi' J 12 av
H : aurolf FF 14 ovSe prius] oure FHJ l6
HiyvvcrQai EL 19 aXXa ... 22 ^wpiaToj/ post 31 aurcoj/ ponit 3>c
2O 6fioO Kat (frao-KOVTfs EL 21 aTrav om. E anavn om. F24 /uei/] fieV ^17 6^01 H 25 OJ/TOS erfpov F 5e n e^ni tKartpovH : #e' rt fKtirepov L 26 wptv p.ix0fjvai in marg. add. F
io. 3 2733 32a 19 35
Trpo'repoV re ex KeyjupKr^vtov o-vviovra Kat bvva^va )((o-
ple<T0at 7TCL\LV. OVT ^la^VOVCTLV OVV eVepyettt a>(TTTp TO (T<3jUia
Kat rd AeuKoV, oure fyOtipovrai, ovre Odrcpov ovr' a^i^co, o-w- 30
ferat yap 77 bvvajjiis avr&v. bib ravra y&v d(/>eto-0ar ro
0*6 (TVVX*S TOVTOIS aTTOprjfJia 8tatpereW, TToYepOZ; T] /WlftS
irpds rrjv at(rOr](riv TL eorty. orav yap ovrco? ets piKpa 6tat-
pe^r) ra i^iyvv^va Kat re^^ Trap' aAXryAa rourou roz^ rpo-
TTOZ^ wore JUT) SrjAoz; tKacrrov elvai rr) ato-0rj(m, rore /xe/^itKrat; 35
17 ov, aAA' (ore) lorti^ wore ortow Trap' ortow etz^at /xoptoz; r<3z> 328*V ; Aeyerat /uei; ow CKetVoos, .oto^ KpiOas
, OTCLV fjTHTOVV TTttp' OVTIVOVV T0fl' L 6' OTl TTa
8tatperoV, etTrep earl (rw/aa o-w/xart (JLIKTOV 6/uoto/xepey, o
az> 8eot juepos yivcaOai, Trap9
OTLOVV. Tret 5' OVK eortz^ ets 5
ra eAci)(to-ra 8tatpe^r]rat, oi8e vvvOtcns ravro Kat /utfts
aAA' erepor, brj\ov a>? ovre Kara jutKpa a-^o^va btl ra
fjLiyvvfJitva (f>avaL ptiuyQai (a-vvOto-LS yap eorat Kat ov Kpa-
crt? ovde /xtfty, ov' efet ror avror Aoyoz; rw oAw ro /mo-
ptoi^- (f>afjiV be beiv, etTrep /xe'/uttKrat, ro niyQtv 6/xoto-io
/xepes et^at, Kat uxnrp TOV vbaros ro jizepo? vScop, ovra>
Kat row KpaOtvros' av 6' $ Kara /xtKpa o-w^eort? r; /xtfts,
o-v/XjSr/o-erat rourcor, dAAa fj.6vov jue/xtyjoteVa Trpoy rr)z;
-iv, Kat ro avro rai /mey /ue/otty/xeVoi', eav /xr) /SAeVr/
dv, ra> AvyKet 6s
ov^e^ /uejuiyjueVo^) ovre r^ StatpeVet 15
wore ortoi;^ Trap' ortovz; juiepos, adwaroz; yap ovrco 8tatpe-
Orjvai. r) ov^ O^K eo-rt /ixt^t?, r) AeKreo^ roro Tra>9 e^Se^erat
ytyi>eo-0at TraAty. ecrrt 8r/, ws $ajuiei>, rooz; OVTMV ra juei;
Trotr/rtKa ra 8' VTTO TOVTMV Tra0r;rtKa. ra juez; ovi; d
b 28 TrpoTtpoj/ re in marg. add. F 30 fyBfiperai ELKarepov EJL : <a^' eKarepov H 32 (Twc^es 8e EL*1
rourois]roi;rou E 33 TI om. FHJ a I orf e coni. addidi wore]ore H 3 orny] ore H oiTtvaoi)!' H : rjvTivaovv L 4 ewrep
eVri EFHJL: eiTrtp eWl Km <l> : feat eorep eort D^ : ewrcp *cat eart
Bekker, qui /cat libra H perperam attribuit o-o>pm] rt, supra-SCr. 0-eop.a, F 5 fie'ot] Se, suprascr. ;,
F yevc<T0ai F6 rdXaxio-ra L ouSe e coni. W. D. Ross scripsi : oft-e
EFHJL$ 8 (pa^ai J p.ep.ix0<H in litura fecit E^ ^ ov]
ovfie H IO 8e Sell/] S' EL p-e'/^UKrai] fj.ffux^al E ^ * /if/it^ai
TI L : p,cp,iKTai TL (TI tamen in marg. addito) F 12j^om.
E1:
17F 17] $ F 13 ov8V ai/ (rvp.pr)<rfTai H 15 rt o^u EFL
y\vKfl E : Xuyyet H : lynceo r ovtiev] non r 16 ware] ourc
coni. Bekker, sed nihil mutandum 17 eo-rt] eo-rai F 18 nd\iv
F 6*7] 8e F 1e<#)a^ev F
2LD 2,
36 FIEPI FENE2E&2 KAI (i>0OPA2 A
2000-coi'77 avrrj v\rj eort, Kat TrotrjTiKa dAArjAa)^ Kat iraOr]TiKa
VTT dAATJAcozr ra 8e Trotet airaOfj OVTCL, OCTCDV /ar) f) avrrj
V\TfJ. TOVTtoV {JLV OVV OVK <TTL /AtflS' bib Ov8* 7] laTplKTf] TTOtet
vyUiav ovb1
fj vyitia fjnyvv^vr] roty crtopatnv. T&V 8e Trotrjrt-
K>V Kat TraOriTiK&v 6Va u8tatpera, TroAAa /xeu oAtyots Kat /ze-
25 yaAa /utt/cpot? (rvvriO^^va ov Trotet ju.tw, dAA' avrj(TLV TOV
KpdTOVVTOS' jUra/3aAAei yap Oarepov ei? ro Kparovv (bib
oraAay/uo? oti/ov fJLVpiots yoevcriv vbaros ov piyvvTai, Averat
yap TO et8os Kat /xerajSaAAet et? ro -rrar u8cop)' oraz^ 8
rats bvvdfJifa-LV to-dfr; TTCOS, roVe /uera/3aAAet /xez^ eKarepov
30 t? TO KpCLTOVV K T7JS CLVTOV (f)V(T<t)S, OV yiVtTCLL 8e OciTpOV
dAAa juera^T) xat KOLVOV. (pavepbv ovv ort ecrrt ravra /xt/cra
ocra (vavTitocriv \i TU>V ITOIOVVTMV (ravra ydp
Tra0r)TiKa)- KOL fjuKpa be fJUKpois
/utaAAoy, paoi; yap Kat OCLTTOV aAAr^Aa
35 ro 8e TToAv Kat UTTO ^oAAoi; y^povias TOVTO bpq. bib' ra evo'-
328bptcrra r&v Statperwi^ Kai TraOriTLK&v /uttKrd diatpetrat yapct? juttKpa ravra pa8ta)?, rouro yap 77^ ro evoptarci) ewat -
ra vypa /xtKra jmdAto'ra rwi' a'cojudrcoi'* tvopKTTOv yaptrra ro vypbv r&v Statperwi', eai^ jar) y\icr)(pov 17
5 (ravra yap o"r/ TrAeta) Kat /xet^co JJLOVOV Trote? roz^ oyxov).
OTCLV b* r] darepov povov TraOrjriKOV, rj o-<j)6bpa ro 8e 7rd/x-
Tra^ r/pe/ua, r^ ou^ez; TrAetoi' ro piydzv ef aptyoiv 17 fj,iKpov,
o-rrep (rv[jLfiaivL Trept rov Karrtrepor Kat roz/
yap \^6AAt^rat Trpoj aAA^Aa rcoz; OVTMV Kat
10 fet <atVerat yap TTCOS Kat /xtKra T^pe'/za Kat a>s Odrepov
l*tv btKTiKov 6drpov 8' etBos 07Tp Kat em r
6 yap Karrtrepo? ws Trd^os rt aw ai;ev vAry? roi;
a 22 GUI/ om. E 23 niyvvpeva JL 24 6Va eVrty
F Kai /*eyaXa] /xfyciXa Sc F 1
25 od] ou ye vel o0re E1 26 616]otoi/ L 27 XoC(ru> E 28 /ifra/SaXAcTai EL Trap ro H30 auroO] avrov EFJ 31 Krt * om. F eVrt Taura] eVrt supra lin.
add. F I TavT* eort EL 3^ ^^ om. F TTOIOVVTCOV] TOIOUTO>V J32-33 yap 8f} un-' aXA^Xwi/ eVri EL 34 /af^KTTao-i] pediarrja-tv FLb 2 rai/Ta om. EL roO eiiopiVrcas E 5 KOI add. supra lineam
ante ravrn F povov om. HJ TOV SyKov ?roifi F 6 oraf]
OT'^J ,v om. F lacunam inter /Moyoi/etTra^Tifcoi/habetJ f)] rj F7 ^ qpfpa EHL ?J prius om. E otSe/ ro fj.i^6ev eg (sed adiecto
TrXeio) supra TO, correcto ro, et spatio ante relicto) F 8 Trtpi]
rapa H 9 ^eXi'^frat J II *ai om. EL 12 &v]'ov EH
328a 2O--B. i. 329a 6 37
KCLL
ravro be TOVTO <rv/x/3aiz;ei Kate(/>' ere'pa>i>. tyavepbv roivvv eK
T&V etprj/ZeVaW Kat Ort eVrt /UttS Kat Tt OTl Kal Sta Tt, Kttt 15
7ro?a /utKra TOW OVT&V, eTreurep eortz; ezna Totairra ota Tra-
Or]TLK& re VTT* dAA?{Aa)z> Kat evoptora Kat evbiaipera. raOra
yap OI/T' tyOdpOai avayKr] jue/aty)mera oi5r' ert TCLVTCL aTrAais
eti^at, ovre (rvvQecriv clvai rrjv /mt^tz; avrwr, ovre Trpos rr)r
aicrOj](Tiv dAA' eort /xtKror juer 6 ar vopi(rTov ov TTaOrjTiKov r\ 20
Kat TroiYjTiKov, Kal roto^rci) /xtKroy (irpbs 6fjL(avvjJLOV yap TO
77 8e /^tft? rwr JJLIKT&V dAAotcofleWcoj; e
B
Ilept /xer ow jutfecos Kat d05,J Ka t ro 'Troietz; Kat ird- a6
etpr^rat TTWS V7rdpx l ro^s /uera/ScfcAAoixrt Kara (frvo-Lv,
ert 8e ire/at yereVcco? Kat (pdopas rfjs CUTX.TJS, TTWS Kat rtvos
eo-Tt Kat 8ta rtV alriav 6/xotco? 8e Kat Trept dAAotw-
crecos etprjrat, r^ TO dAAotoi;o-^at Kat rtV e^et biatyopav av- 3
ra>z>* \OL7rbv be ^ecop?jo-at Trept ra KaAovjuteva o-rot)(ta TWV
yeVeo-ts juez^ yap Kat (f)0opa Trdo-ats rats </>vo-et
oixriais OVK avv rutv ala-QrjT&v O-M^CLT^V. TOVTWV
be rrjv v'TroKet/xeVr/z; {/Ar/i; ot /uteV fyaviv elvai piav, olov depa
TiOevres TJ T7vp ?yrt /xerafv TOVTWV, (rapa re 6V Kat XMP L~ 35
oroV ot 8e TrAetco rov apiOpov evos ot /zei^ irup Kat y^r, ot 329*
be Tavrd re Kat de'pa rpt'ror, ot 8e Kat v8a)p TOVTMV re'rap-
roi>, axnrep 'E/x7re6oKA?J9 ef 2; (Tvynpivo^ev^v Kat biaKpwo-
fjievtov ^ dAAotovjuercor avfJifiaLvew TT)I> yeveviv Kat r^ 0^o-
pdz> rots irpayiJia<TLV. ort /utez^ovy ra Trpwra dp^as Kat orot- 5
ta KaAais e^et Ae'yetr, eo-roo crvvo^oXoyov^evov, ef wi^
b 13 *al om. E^L, et in marg. add. F aTreio-i] arras EXL : 6
?rac J /cat xpa>/mTi<rar L 14 roivvv KOI CK 16 oia ra
TradrjTiKa. H 17 TaOra] TO E 1 8 ravra] ravra E : ra avra
FJ 2O 6 av] orai/ L : orav pev E 21 ante TTOITJTIKOV lituram
habet J 22 cvwaris. rrepl p,(v ovv /ui'f 0)$- /cat a<^)^y /cat Trept roO
rrotetv Kat ira(rxfiv ciprjrai HJ, et (omisso fiev) F1 26 KOI wept TOT) F
28 ert &] en KOI E, 6e in marg. addito TTJS a7r\f)s, ira>s KOI
rivos ]lDv: r?
ts aTr\rjs, TIVOS KOI n>s EJ
2: T^S arrA^f Kal rivos /cat
rra>y HL: T^S TIVOS Kat dTrXais Kat TTOJ? (K/M ante Trots supra lineam
addito) Fr : TIJS re drrX^s KOI rfjs TIVOS, rrS>s coni. Bonitz 30 avT&v
om. F 35 Tt6evT(s om. L n /u-au TI (secundo tamen neraso) F a 3 Kai] ^ FHJ 4 rj]
Kal J, et fecit E
38 IIEP1 TENESE&S KAI 4>@OPA2 B
juera/3dAAoz;ra>z> TJKara o-vyKpunv Kat 8taKpto-tz> 77
Kar'
/mera/SoAr/z; o-u/x/3atVet yfvcirw elrat Kat (frdopav. dAA* ot /zez;
irotoOVres fjiiav v\r]v iiapa ra etprjjueVa, ravrrji; be crco/xart-
10 Kj)v Kat x&>ptor?jy, a^apTavov(nv. abvvaTov yap avev cvav-
rtcoo-ecos etz>at TO <ra>/xa TOVTO cdffOrjrijs rj yap KOV^OV r]
fiapv rf \l/v\pbv rj OcpfJibv avdyKr] tivai TO aTTipov TOVTO, o
\eyovcri TLV$ zlvai Tr\v OLp\r\v. a>s 6' tv rw Tt/xata) yiypa-
Trrat, ovbeva fy i 8topto-/xoV. ov yap flpr]K (ra^wj ro
15 8exS, fl XMpt&Tai T&V aroi)(iW, ov8e \prJTai. ovbev,
<raj etz^at v7roKifJLv6v rt rot? KaAov/xeroty o-rot)(etot9
olov \pv<rbv TOIS epyot? rots XP1"
"
^9 (*afrot Kal roCro ov
KaAws Aeyerat roi)ror ror Tpoirov \y6[j.vov, aAX' <Sr /jiey
aAAotaxrty, eo-rtv ovrcos, <5y 8e yero-6S Kat (frQopd, abvvaTov
20 eKetro 7rpo(rayopV(T0ai, ef ov yeyovev Katrot ye $77 ai ^ta-
a\r)0(TTaTov etrat ^pvcrbv Aeyeiy IKOCPTOV eti^ai), dAAa
(TToi\Caw OVT&V crTp&v /xexpt e7ri7re/
8coz> Trotetrat rr)z;
avakva-iv, abvvaTov 5e rr)r TLdrjvrjv Kal TTJV v\i]v TTJV Trp<a-
rr\v ra emTreda ewat. ^/x,ets 8e (f>a^V pev ctvat Tiva vXrjv
25 raiz; o-ca/utaroiz; rail' ala-OrjT&v, dAAa ravrrjz; ov yjtipi<TTJ]V dAA'
det /uer* erarrtcoo-ecos, ef ^s ytz^erai ra KaAov/ute^a (rrotx^*
8ta>pio-rat 5e 7rept avT&v V erepots aKpifitvTepov. ov ^v dAA'
77618^ Kat roz> TpoTrov TOVTOV (TTiv K Trjs v\r)S TO. (ra>/xara
ra TjyxSra, Stoptorreor Kat -Trept TOVTMV, apxyv y&v Kat irpco-
30 r?]z; olofjitvois flvai TTJV vXrjv TT]V ay&purTov fjie
ftryz; 6"e rots (vavTiois (OVTC yap ro Oeppbv vXrj ra>
OVTC TOVTO roi Ofp^, dAAa ro VTioK.tLiJ.evov a^olv), coo-re
Trp&Tov /mez> ro bvvd^L o-co/xa alcrOijTov apxrj, btVTtpov 8'
at ei'a^rtwo-ets, Ae'yco 8' otoi^ OcpnoTrjs Kat \l/v\poTr]s, Tpfcov
35 8' ^8r] Trvp Kat v8a>p Kat ra rotavra. rairra jmev yap
a 7 ^Taj3a\ovTO)j/ L xat] 17E aXAjjv Tiva -F II
aladrjTov E : ro aiffBrjTov F : alcrdrjTov ov L 14 dia>pi(rp.6v ]15 ouSeV] ov^6/i EH 17 /cat om. L 1 8 aXA' S>v]
oXX^Aaw E 2O enelvo irpocrayopeveffBai] Kfivo irpos cKelvo
dyopeveadai E1
e'] a0' F 24 /iev om. FHJL*125 rail/
O-CO^UTCOV om. 3*1 27 erepots] aXXotf *1 28 fVeifij;] eVet E29 /*V om. FJ
J TrpwToj/ FJ
HJ 30 olo^vovs EJ : oiopcvos 4> ]
31 o0T] ov (addito re supra lin.) J TO om. H 32 ovre] ovde
E : o0re 8e H 34 ai om. E : at Trpwrat P evavrioxrts EKai om. E rpiVws EJ 35 8*
fjdr)] df a^ia fecit E: 8e as
fjdr H
i. 329a7 2. 329
b29 39
/uerajSdAAet et? dAArjAa, Kat ovx a>s 'E/utTreo'oKATJs Kat 329**
erepot \yowrut (ov yap av yv dAAotaxrts), at 5"' tvavTua-
o-ets ov [j.Ta(3d\Xov(rLV. dAA' ovSe^ rjrrov Kat cos, crco/zaros
Trotas Kat Tro'cra? AeKreW ap\ds ; ol /zei> yap dAAot VTTO-
fle'juerot \pG>vrai, Kal ovbev Ae'yovcrt 8td rt avrat r) ro- 5
o-arai.
2 'E-Tret ovr ff]rov^v aiV0r/roi> a-w/xaros dpx^s, rovro 8'
tz; aTrroi), aTrroi' 8' ovrj aicrBr](TL's afyriy <f>avpbv on ov
at ei'avrtwa'ets (rcojuaros et^ry Kat ap^as TTOLOVCTLV,
dAAa fjiovov at Kara r^y a^v K.O.T tvoiVTiuKriv re yap 10
8ta^>epovo"t, Kat Kara aTrrr)^ kvovrluMTiv. 8to oi/re
Kat jueAarta ovre yXvKvrrjs Kat TUKporrjs, 6/xotcus 5'
rwi^ dAAtoz/ r<3^ alaOrfT^v tvavTitocrttov ovbtv Trotet
Katrot TTporepov o\[fis atyrjs, coo-re Kat ro VTroKet/xeroi; Trpo'-
Tpov aAA' OVK eo-rt o-co/xaros aTrroi; 770*00$ ?f aTrroV, dAAa 15
Ka0' Tpov Kat et erv)(e rf) (f)vcrL irpoTpov. OLVT&V brj
r&v aTTTtov Statpereoi' Trolat Trpairat 8ta<opat Kat evav-
rtcuo-ets. eta-t 8' euazrricoo-ets Kara r^i; d^z; at8e, 0ep-
or \j/vxpov, r)pbv vypov, fiapv KOV^OV, <rK\ripbv /xaAaKoV,
Kpavpov, rpayv Aetor, 7raxv AeTrroV. rovrcoz; 8e 20
u Kat KOV^OV ov TTOL^TLKCL ovbe ira^rtKa1 ov yap ra>
w rt <-Tpov TJ TiavyjEiv v(f)
y
erepov Ae'yoz^rat, Set 8e TTOWJ-
rtKa Kat 7ra07]rtKa etz^at dAATJAa>i> rd o*rotxeta, y^iyvvrai
yap Kat /xera/3aAAet et? a\\r]\a. Otpfjibv 8e Kat \l/v\pbv
Kat rjpbv Kat vypov rd /uJ rco TrotrjriKa etz^at rd 8e rw 25
Tta0r]TiKa Aeyeraf Oeppov yap eo-rt rd <rvyK.pwov rd 6/xo-
yeurj (rd yap StaKptVetr, oTrep <ao-t Trotetz; rd TriJp, o-vy-
Kpivtiv eo-rt rd 6/xo'^vAa o-iyx/3atWt yap efatpetz; rd dA-
AoVpta), \j/vxpov be TO crvvayov Kat vvyKpivov 6fxota>j rd
b I a>s] wo-TTfp $] 2 ov] aei F I ovfie HL at 6'] m at' fecit E3 <cat a>s FHJL : at fecit E 5 ou&/| ovSc F rt] rt ^ JL 8
17om. F
9 o-w/zaros etSjy] a-cap-aros delendum notat et ctfi?; ex $877 (ut videtur)fecit J IO /uoWi FHJ II Kara rfjv airrrjv F 12 yXvKorrjs ]
13 roil/ post a\\o)v om. FHJ l6 617] 8e FL 17 TO>J/] TTpnrovE I TrpcoToi/ rail/ F 2L I 7rp<TOf /cat roii' F1
Trotai 8^ Trpwrat HJ1 8 ttat 8' fvavTtdxreis in iliarg. add. F 19 vypov 7poV F 21 TO>]
ro J 22 cWpov] TTporcpov E ^] oufie TO) F Xeyerat FL23 Kat . . . dXX^Xwy] aXX^Xcov Kat na6r)TiKa flvai F : elvai dXXijXa)!' icat
rjTiKa L piyvvTcu yap] yiyvfrat yap Kat piyvvrai FHJ 25 vypo
|i;poi/ EL r< prius om. E 29 opoias ante xat ponit L
40 nEPI FENE2E&2 KAI 4>0OPA2 B
30 T crvyyevfj Kal ra /XT) 6juo<vAa, vypbv Se TO aopicrTov
otKetto OpO) eVOpHTTOV OV, t)pOV 8e T& eVOpHTTOV fJLV OtK&i>
opa>, bvo-opivTov be. TO be XeirTov Kal 7ra\v Kal yXfoyjpov
Kat Kpavpov KOL a-KXrjpbv Kal paXaKov Kat at aAAat 8ia-
</>opat K TOVTo>v. eVei yap TO dvaTrXrjcrTLKov (cm TOV vypov
35 8ta TO /XT) wpicrdai y&v fvopLVTOv 8* tlvai K.OL a.KO\ov0iv TO>
33a
aTTTO/xeVo), TO 8e AeTTToz; avaTrXrjcrTiKov (AeTrro/xepe? ycip, Kat
TO fjLLKpo{JipS dzxiTrArjaTiKoV oAor yap oAou ^TTTeTat, TO
8e \TTTdv /xciAiora TOIOVTOZ;), Qavcpbv on TO /xer ACTTTO^
corral TOI; vypov TO 8e Trax^ TOU r]pov. ndXiv be TO /x^ yA(-
5 o-%j)ov TOV vypov (TO yap yAiVxpor vypbv TrenovOos TL <TTLV,
olov TO eKaiov) rb 6e Kpavpov TOV frypoO' Kpavpov yap TO
TeAeo)? v)p6v, COO-TC Kat TreTrryyerat oY eXXet^iv vypoTrjTos.
ITI TO juez> fj.a\aKov TOV vypov (/maAaKov yap TO vneiKov
ety eavTo Kat /ur) ^eBi(TTayi.evovt OTrep -Trotet TO" vypov 8to
10 Kat OLK eo-Tt TO vypov /maAaKoV, dAAa TO /uaAaKor TOV vypov)
TO 8e o-K\T]pbv TOV ripov' <rK\rjpbv yap eo-Tt Td Tre-myyo's, TO
fr/poV. AeycTat 8e frypoi' Kai vypov TrXeovax&s'
yap TW frypoi Kat TO vypbv Kat TO StepoV, Kat
vypai Kat TO f^pw Kal TO TTfTnjyos, airavTa be
15 Taur* tort TOV fr/poi; Kat TOI) vypov T&V TrpdtTtoV XeyOevTuv.eirel yap avTiKeiTai TW Stepai TO rjpov, Kal biepbv pev eoTt
TO IXGV aXXoTpiav vypoTrjTa eTrt-TroA^?, /3e/3pey/zeVoi> 8e TO
ets fidOos, r]pbv be TO eo-TeprjiJievov TavTr]s, (fravepbv OTL TO
fj,ev biepbv eWat TOV vypov, Td 8' avTiKeipevov r]pbv TOV 7rpa>-
20 TO)? r)pov. irdXiv be T& vypbv Kal TO TreTrryyos wo-avTtos*
vypbv fj.ev yap eo-Tt TO %yov oiKeiav vypOTrjTa ev TO> fidOet.
(fiefipeyiJievov be TO eyov aXXoTpiav vypoVr/Ta), TreTrrjybs be
b 31 oi/] 8e aXXorpitos H ro e^picrroi/] TO aopurrov E 32iraxvTCpov E 33 KCU
(ricXrjpbv om. J : /cat TO (TK\r]pov L aXAaiai E a I Afrrro/uepes] (UKpop^pes L, et (ut videtur) *c
4 eorat]<ort L 7 frpov J
1, supra lineam tamen scripsit o-KXrjpov J
2
oiKtias vyp6rrjTos P 8 roO v-ypov paXaKov om. E post vypoCadd. TO 5e (TK\rjpov TOV rjpov Y g pr) om. EJ ftio . . . 10 vypbvom. E IO OVK. eo-rt] OVKCTI L II o-KXrjpbv yap] ^pov yap E
14 8e] 817 EF 17 aXXorpiW fXov J !9 wpcoTWr] TrpwTouFHL 2O 5e] 81) F 21 yap om. F f\ov rfjv oiKeiav FeV TW /3a0fi Om. F
^
22 ftffipeyufvov . . . vyporrjTa om. HL : fieppry-fJLfvov 8f TO e^oi/ aAXoTpiai/ vypoTTjra fv TW /3a^fi in marg. (primatamen manu) ponit J 22 post vypor^Ta add. eV TW pdQe t EF (cf.etiam J)
2. 3293 3- 330 J 6 41
TO a-Tpr)fJLtVOV TaVTTTJS, &CTT KCU TOVTCtiV COTt TO fJLV
TO be vypov. bfjkov TOLVVV on Tracrat at #AAat biatyopal
avayovTai ei? raj Trpcoras Terrapa?, avrat be OVK^TL els 25
\CLTTOVS' OVT yap TO BfpjJLOV OTtep VypOV r) 6Vep &}pOV, OVT
TO" vypov oVep Oeppov r) oVep -fyvy^pov, OVTC TO \l/vxpbv /cat
TO ^ripbv ovO* VTT* aAAr^X' ov^' ^TTO TO Oep^ov Kat TO vypov
etcrtzr COCTT* avdyKrj TeTTapa? tz;at Ta^Tas.
3 'E-Tret 6e TeTTapa Ta o-Totxeta, TWZ; 8e TtTT&pMV f 30
at o-i)fev^ty, Ta 6' evavTia ov ir(j)VK (rvvbva&a-Oai (Oep-
fjibv yap Kat tyvxpov etrat TO awo Kat TraAti^ vypov Kat
r)pbv abvvcLTOv), (fravepbv on TeTTape? tcrovTai at TO>I; O-TOI-
, deploy Kat rjpov, Kat vypov Kat Qeppov, Kat
v Kat r)pov, Kat \f/vxfiov Kat vypov. KatrJK -
330^aTa Ao'yoz; Tots aTrAoty ^>at^o/xeVots o-Q)//a(rt, 7rv/ot
Kat ae'/ot Kat {;6aTt Kat yr). TO /xei' yap 7n;p Otppov Kat
rjpov, 6 6' dr/p OtpfJibv Kat vypov (olov CLT^US yap 6 a?jp),
TO 8' #S"op tyvxpbv Kat vypov, rj8e y^ -tyvxpbv Kat rjpov, 5
*
evAo'yco? biavefjifo-Oai TCLS 8ta(/>opas TOI? TrpwTOts o-a>-
Kat TO -TrArj^o? avT&v eiWt KaTa Aor
yo^. aTra^TC?
yap ot Ta a-rrAa orco/xaTa o-TOtx^a irotowTe? ot /uev ez^, ot
8e 8^0, ot 8e Tpta, ot 8e TeTTapa TrotoOo-ti^. oo-ot jzezj owei^ fjiovov Xtyovviv, etra TTVK^cuo-et Kat ^avuxreL TaAAa yez>-
10
rcSo-t, TOVTot? (rvjJifBatvti bvo Ttoitiv TCLS dpxa?, TO Te pavov
Kat TO TTVKVOV rjTO Otpfjibv Kat TO \jfv\p6v ^ravTa yap Ta
, TO 8' ez^ vTroVetTat Ka0a7rep vAr;. ot 8' ev^v?
&(TTTp YlapfJLVLor]s Ttvp Kat yrju, Ta /ueTafv
-rrotouo-t TOVTGW, olov depa Kat v8cop, wo-avTcos 8e 15
Kat ot Tpta Aeyo^T6S (KaOairep FIAaTco^ z^ Tats
a 23 eWt] eorai FHL >?pov] vypov J 24 vypov] j-qpov J26 TO supra lin. add. F vypov] ^fvxpbv (suprascr. t-rjpbv) F %><??]
vypov F 28 ov' . . . ovtf E TO post Kat om. F 29 ftvat Tau-
TOS] aiTa? tlvai H 30 eVftSi) 5e FHL TO om. L 32 vypov
^poj/] t-rjpbv Kat vypov EL 34 Kat ^pov . . . Bcpfiov om. F, quinen Kat ^po{) Geppov Kat vypoi) in marg. add. Kat vypov Kat 0ep/xov]tamen Kat
t vypos L 5 Kat . . . -^vxpbv om. E 6 vefieo-dai E : 8ia<f>peo-dat
F 1
8 yap]' L 10 \eyovo-i povov F 12 TO (ter) om. L
TO om. EF 1
!!] 15 ante piypaTa scripsit pe E1 16 rpels L
42 OEPI TENE2E&2 KAI 4>0OPA2 B
TO -yap fj.(rov fuy^a Trotet)' Kat cr-^bov ravra Xeyov&iv ot
T bVQ Kat Ot Tpta TTOtOWTtS, TrXrjV Ot }J.V TfJ,VOV(TLV tj 8^0
ro fteVoz;, ot 6' %v \LQVQV TTOiova-w. eznot 8' evQvs rerrapa Ae-
20 yovo-tr, otoz> 'E/XTreSoKA?;?' crvvayei 8e Kat oSros ets ra bvo,
T& yap Trvpl raAAa TrdVra avTiriQr](Tiv. OVK eort 8e TO nvp
Kat 6a7)/o Kat e?Kaaroz> ra>^ e^/xez/cor aTrAow, dAAa /atKra.
ra 8' aTrAa rotavra jutez; ea-rtr, ov /ueVrot ravra, otoi^ ro
rw 7rv/)t oyioiov 7rv/30t8ey, ov 7ri}p,Kat ro ra> de/ot depoei-
25 8eV Ojuotcoj 8e KaTrt TWV aAAooy. ro 8e TTU/) ecrrtr VTrep/SoAr)
axnrcp Kat Kpva-raXXos ^vxporrjTos' rj yap
Kat ^ feVts VTTp(3oXai rtre? t(rt^, 77 /utez^ -^vxpoTrj-
TOS, fj 8e dp{JLOTr]Tos' et ovr 6 K/swraAAo's (rrt Tr^ft? vypov Kat
\l/vxpov, Kal TO TTVp l(Trat C6'
"
1? fr/poC Kat BepfJiov (8 to Kat o8ey
30 oi;r' eK KpWTaXXov yiyvtTai ovr' CK irvpos). OVTMV 8e rerra/ocoz;
rwi' air\)V <ra)//arcor, eKarepa rotr 8votv eKarepov rair ro-
TTCOZ; Q-rtV (7ri;p /xeu yap Kat d^p roi; Trpos roy opov <^epojueVov,
y^ 8e Kat {;8cop rot; Trpds ro /uteVov), Kat aKpa /xer Kat tAt-
Kptz/eVrara 7ri;p Kat y?}, /xeo-a 8e Kat jae/uty/me
i v8a)p Kat d?}p* Kat eKarepa 8e eKarepot? evavTia -rrvpt
yap tvavTiov vba)p, dcpt 8e y^, rai;ra yap K rw
TraOr]fjiaT(i)v <rvve<TTr]KV. ovfjLrjv dAA' aTrAwy ye rerrapa ovra
Iz^os Kaa-Tov eari, y^ /oier frpov [jiaXXov r) \ffv\pov, {/Scop 8e
5 \frv)(pov /utaAAov ^ vypov, dr)p 8' vypov /utaAAoy ?) depfjiov, nvp8e 6epfjiov juaAAoy ^ frjpov.
8e Stwpttrrat Trporepoz; ort ro?? aTrAor? o~co/>tacrtr 4
^ yez^e(rt9, ^/xa 8e Kat Kara r7)f at(rdr](rLv
yivo/jieva (ov yap av v\v dAAotaxrts* Kara yap ra
10 r<z> CLTTT&V TrdOrj f) ctAAo&oo'tS' ecrrty), XZKTCOV TLS o rpoTros
r^s ts aXXrjXa /uera^SoA?)?, Kat iroTpov aTtav ef
b 18 of prius om. EF "19 8c Kal cvdvr FHL 20 ofov]
cSffTrep L : caff (ut videtur) E1fie] -yap fecit E 21 TraVra raXXa
HJL OVK eon] OVKCTI F 22 6 om. E fiwcrd] ^IKTOV L23 raurd] roiaCra E TO] etn E : quod quidem igitur (= TO yowl)r 24 ov . . . depoeiSes in marg. add. F 26 /cat om. J*1
28 vypov faxpov E 29 {-ijpov Qeppov E : deppov KOI r)pov FHL30 CK utrumque om. E 31 e/caTfpaEJ
2*: eKarepov FHJXL
dvclv L rairuv] TTpwTcav Ejr 32 yap om. E x
jr 33 et'Xi-
Kpt^ F 34 yr) Kai nvp J*1 a I de om. EL 3 ye om. F,post 4 ci/os ponit ^ 4 /zci/ yop /;poD FHJ \lrvxpov fecit E
5 ^vxpbv J r) prius om. E 9 Ta om. E1 10rj om. EF
3- 330" 17 -^4- 33i 7 43
yiyveo-Qai bvvaTbv rj ra /xei> SWCLTOV ra 6* abvvaTov. ori
fj.V ovv airavTa TT<j)VKV eis aAA^Aa /xera/3aAAety, (fravt-
pov. fj yap yeVeo-ts ets evavTia Kat e vavTL<avyra 6e orot-
Xeta TrdWa e^t erajrruocrtz; Trpos aAArjAa 8ta ro ras 8ta- 15
(f)opas tvavrias eti>at. rots /xez> yap d/A</>o'repat euavrtat,
otoz> Trvpt Kat #6art (ro ftey yap fr^por Kat ^epjuoV, ro 5'
vypov nal ^vyjpov), rots 6* ^ Irepa povov, olov dept Kat
{;8art (ro /uev yap vypov /cat 0ep/x,oV, ro 6"e vypov Kat \/^v-
a>ore KadoXov juer Qavcpbv ort miy eK Trarros yt- 20
r yap e^ cnrdvTtov eo"rat, 8toto*et 6e rai 6arrov
Kat fipabvTfpov Kat rw paov Kat -^a\7r(aTpov. oa-a /xei;
yap e;(et crvfjifBoXa TTpos aAAr/Aa, ra)(ta rovrcoy 17 /utcrd-
PCLO-LS, ova 8e jur) ^xet* /3pa8eta, 6"ia r6 paoz; eti'at ro ez> 25
?y ra TroAAa juiera/SdAAeiz' otoz; CK ^rupos /xeu eo-rat d^p
Qartpov /xera/3dAAovros (ro /xez^ yap ^z; Qeppov Kat frjpoV,
ro 8e Oepubv Kat vypov, a>o~re av KpaTrjdr} ro fypov VTTO TOV
vypov drjp eo-rat), iraXw 5e ef depos ii/8cop, eai; Kpa-
rry^r] ro Oep^ov VTIO TOV \jsv\pov (ro" /xey yap ^ depfj-bv 30
Kat vypov, TO 6e ^rv\pbv Kat vypov, wo-re /xera^SaAAoz;-
ros rou OfpfjLov {/5a>p eo-rat). roz> avrw 8e Tponov Kat ef
vSaros y^ Kat eK y^s 7ri5p. ^Xet 7^P ajut<^a) Trpos &/x-
^>a> o-vjut/3oAa* ro /uez/ yap vScap vypov Kat \l/v\pdv, rj
be yrj \jrvxpbv Kat fapov, wo-re Kparjj^eWos rou vypov yrj 35
eo-rat, Kat TtaXw eTret ro /xei^ TrSp f^pou Kat ^ep/xoV, ^ 8e
yr) -fyvyjpbv Kat rjp6v, av <0apr) ro -fyv\pov> nvp eo-rat eK 33 i
y^s. coo-re Qavepbv ort KVK\<A re eo-rat^7 yeWo-ts rots aTrAots
t, Kat pacrros ouros 6 rpo'iros r^s /xera/SoAr/s Sta ro
VV7rap\Lv rots e</>efrjs. eK irvpbs 5e #8a>p Kat
de'pos y^ Kat TraAiy ef v8aros Kat y?js de'pa Kat 7n5p 5
rat juez^ ytVea-^at, x.a\TT<aTpov be bia ro
r)i^ /utera/3oA?}i>. avdyKr] yap, et ^o-rat ef {;8aros
a 14 ^/ievyapFHJ 15 e^f t Travra J tvavriaHTis E 1 6 a/x-
farepois L 17 deppbv KCU ^pov EL 1 8 17] ^ F 19 faxpovKOI vypov H 22 yap om. F 23 T<] TO J 24 vv/jfioXov F
25 ^X 7?1
(sed ?*in Htura) J 27 tfare'pov] ^arroi/ L 29 Se om.
EL v8a>p corat e'aj/ F av J 30 ^ vypov *a! ^ep/idv HJ32 Se om. F 34 yap om. F b I ai/ FHJ 2 re om. L
eo-rat om. EJ 4 orvpfioXov F 5 e' prius om. F
44 nEPI rENE2E&2 KAI 4>0OPA2 B
Kal TO \jfv\pbv Kal TO vypov, KOI TtaXw et K
yijs arip, QOapfjvai Kal TO \jruxpbv Kal TO frjpoV Gxravrcos
10 8e KCU et e/c Trvpds Kal depoj #8cop Kal yr}, avdyKrj yap a/x-
(froTfpa /xera/3dAAe>. avnj [JiV ovv \povLa>Tpa fj yevecns"
av 8' KaTpov OaTpov </>0apTj, pqoov [Jitv, ovK eij aAAr/Aa
8e rj /xerd/3ao-t9, dAA' ex vvpbs fjifv Kal vbaTos ecrrat y^Kal arjp, e depoj 8e KGU yijs irvp Kal voap. orav juev yap
15 roi; vbaTos<l>0apf)
TO \f/vxpbv TOV 6e TTU/OOS ro t]pov, ar]p
lorai (AetTrerat ya/o roi) ftei^ TO Oepyiov TOV be TO vypov),
oTav 8e rov ptv irvpbs TO dcp^bv TOV 8* #8aros ro vypov, yij
bia TO XciireorOaL TOV JJLCV TO r]pbv TOV 8e ro \jfv\pov. axrav-
rcos be Kal e depos Kal y^s TrOp Kat vbcap* OTav }&v yap20 roi; depo? (f)6aprj ro Oep^ov rr/s 8e y^s ro &]pov, vbwp ecrrai
(AetVerat yap ro{5/x,ei> ro vypov rrjs 8e ro ^rv\p6v)t OTav
b TOV fjiV depo? r6 vypov Trjs o"e y^s ro \ffvxpov, irvp ia
ro AetTreo-^at roC juev. ro OcpfJibv TTJS be TO rjp6v, aTrep ^r
Trvpos. o/aoAoyov/uteVr] 8e Kal rr) ala-0r)<rL f)TOV Trvpbs y*V-
25 (ris* /jiaAiara /xei' yap Trup ^ $Aof, avrry 8* ecrrl KaTT^os
6 8e KaTrvo? ef depos Kal yfjs. cv 8e roty e^>e-
OVK erSex^Tat QOapevros ev eKarepa) 0aTpov T&V o-rot-
ycvtarQai fjLTafia(Tiv ets ov8h> rfir o-co/xdrcor Sia ro
Aet7re<r0ai ev a^olv rj ravrd T) TavavTia ef ovbTpcv be
30 ey^copet y[yv(rdai o-aijuta otoz> et /mei; roi; Trvpos <f)0apLr] TO
rjpov, TOV 8* depos ro vypov (AetTrerat yap ci> a^olv TO
deploy), av 8' ef eKarepou ro Oeppov, AeiVcrat TavavTia,
rjpbv Kal vypov. 6/xouos 8e Kal ev rois dAAoty ez; aTraa-t
yap rots e(/>ef?js evvTrdp^cL ro /aei; ravro ro 8J
ZvavTiov,
35 wo-0' a/uta 8?jAo^ ort ra /xez; ef evos ets tr /uera/3a;oz>ra
eros (frOaptvTos ytVerat, ra 8' CK 8uoti; ets ey 7rAeioV<oi>. ort
332* /xi^ ovz; .aTrazrra K Trai'ros yiyvtTai, Kal Tiva Tpoirov cts
dAAr/Aa /urd/3ao-ts ytyi/erat,
b 10 Trupof . . . yr^] y^?Kal vdaros nvp Kal afo H : eadem habet J,
qui tamen (prima ut videtur manu) Trvpbs Kal dtpos v8a>p suprascr.
dvdyKrj om. E : a^ayKaloi/ H yp] ^a E : om. L 1 2 Sv F<f)0apfj Oarfpov E paov L*1
13 /itra^aaty] /ifra/SoAij (sed o cor-
recto) E : rourwi/ ^(rd^atris HJ*115 roO prius] ToOro vel TOV re E
17 777 om. E 1 8 ^v\pbv TOV dc ro rjp6v L 21 vypov]E T^y] TOI) EJ ^y^poi/] vypov E oral/ 3 om. E
23 vTroXaVeo-^ai H T^jroOEHJ 24 TI post Trupos ponit J2
25 ^
</)X6^ irvp H 26 Kaopcvos J 28 oi6i>] li/ F 29 ovdcTfpov F30 TOI; pcV L 34 6$ej}f] f|^ff FHJ TavTov FL 36 Sveii/ L
8-- 5. 332*29 4 5
5 ov fxryv dAA* ert Kat <58e flecopryo-cojuiey Trept avr&v.
t yap e<TTt TOW </>v<rtK<3y o-a>/zara)i> vAry, axnrcp Kat SoKet
eWots, v8a>p Kat dryp Kat ra Totavra, drdyKiy ryTOt %v 7) 5
8vo e^at TavTa ry 7rAeta>. ei> //ez> 8ry TrdWa ov^ otoV re,
otou depa iravra r) v8eop rj irvp ry yr\v, etirep 7; /ucra-
/3oAr) et? ravavrLa. et yap cfy drjp, t /xei; VTrojjitvci, a\-
Aotaxrt? eorat aAA' ov yeVecrcs (^/xa 8' oi>8' ovra) Soxet, wore
{/Stop ew^at a/xa Kat depa ?; aAX* enow)* Icrrat 877 rty Zvav- to
rtcocrts Kat biatyopa rjs 'et rt ddrepov juoptoz;, ro Trup otov
0pfjLOTrjTa. aAAa |xr)v OVK eorat TO ye 7ri5p dr)p ^ep/xosg
dAAota)(Tts re yap TO Totoi;Tor, Kat ov (^aweTat. a/aa 8e
et e<7Tat eK Tot; Trvpos a?]p, Toi; Otp^ov etj TOVVOLVTIOV
eo"Tat* V7rapet apa rw dept TOIJTO, Kat eVTai 15
6 d^p \jsv\pov Tt, <wo"Te dSwaTOi^ TO Trup depa depfjibv eT-
vat, a/uta yap TO avro dcppbv Kat \jfvxpbv eorat. aAAo Tt
ap' dju^oVepa TO avTo eo-Tat, Kat aAArj Tts vAry Kotr?). 6
8' avrbs Aoyos Trept dmii>Ta)i>, OTI OVK (TTIV tv TOVTMV e
ov Ta -Trdi'Ta. ov/XT)!' ov8
s
aAAo Tt ye Trapa TavTa, otoi; 20
Tt depos Kat v8aTos r) depoj Kat irvpos, depos juez>
Kat Trvpoj, ToSz^ 8e AeTTTOTepoz^1 eo*Tat yap dr/p
Kat Trvp eKetro ju,eT
J
era^TtoVryToj. dAAa o-Te'pryo-t? TO eTepoz;
eVa^TtW, WO-T' OVK ei;8exTat fjLovova-Qcu eKetyo ovSeVoTe,
^>ao-t Ttves TO aTretpor Kat TO -Treptexor* 6/xotcos ^pa 25
w TOVTO)^ r) ov8eV. et ovz^ jotrySei^ ato-#rjroV ye irportpov
TOVTCOP, TavTa az> etry Trdz^Ta* avayKr] roivvv ry det /uteVo^Ta
Kat d/xeTa/3AryTa ets aAAryAa ry jueTaj3<{AAoz;Ta, Kat ry
airavra, rjTCL fjitv ra 8' ov, uxnrcp ev TW Tt/xatw DAd-
a 3 6ea>pr)(rop.cv E 4 eVri rt TO>I> ^ icai om. F, et delendumnotat J 5-6 ci/ 6ii/at )
Suo raura F 6i) 7rXcia>] TrXct'co )
E 1
7 Travra in marg. add. F ewr*p om. E 9 ov] ;i/ E : ^v Jwore ouS' uStop J IO ae'pn] a)p EFL II 5ta<popa] <f)dopa ]
TI om. J TO Trup olov] oloi> TO 7ri)p fort, legendum 12 ye om. E,ante TO ponit L 13 8e KCU <n-d\iv H 14 ToO prius om. EL
15 TOUTO ante apa ponit F, ante TW ponunt HJ*1 16 ^fp/zoi/
aepa EL 1 8 ap'] apa Trap' F^JLF 19 on om. E 2O ri
om. E ye om. L*1Trapa TauTa] Trap' aira J 22 ical] f)
EFH S^ a\Xa)/ H 1
; dfjp yap E 23 eKfivoante^22 a^p
ponit F eVai^riOT^Tos] eVajma>o-ea>s 4> 24 ckcaw fj.ovov<r6ai F26
77 om. EL oi<oVi>] oyfiev apx? F (cf. $c) I ovSV /naX-Xot/ a^p
7} Trup L ye om. L 27 aVayK?;] ai/ay/caloi/ H rjom. E
29 Trai/Ta FHJ eV] al eV H
46 OEPI TENE2E&2 KAI 4>0OPA2 B
30 T(t>v <-ypa\lsV. OTL fJLtv TOLVVV /mera/3dXXeiv avdyKr) ei? aX-
Xr/Xa 8e8etKrat Trporepoz;, Kat OTL 8s
ov^ ojuotcos ra)(ecos $XXo
ef aXXoi; [eifprjrat TrpoYepov], OTL ra /ixey fyovTa o*v/x/3oXov
OaTTov ytverat ef dXX?yXa>i>, ra 8' OVK e^G^ra (3pabvTpov.
ei fJiV TOLVVV f] VaVTLOTY)S fJ,LCL (TT\ KdO* r)V fJLTaj3d\koV(TLV,
35 avdyKY) bvo eti>ar f] yap v\r] TO fjitcrov avai(r6r]TOS OIKTOL
332b Kat dx^ptcrroj. eTret 8e TrXetco oparat o^ra, 8^0 &i; eTez> at
Xd)(to-Tat. 8vo 8' ovo~&v ov^ olov re rpi'a clvaL, dXXa r^r-
rapa, coa-jrep ^atVerat- roo-avrat yap at o-D^vytat, If
yap ovaru>v ras 8vo d8waro^ yereV^at 8ta TO tvavTLas et-
5 vat dXX?JXatj. Trept /utei' oSv rourcoz; 6tp7]rat Trporepov ort ',
jutera/3dXXoi;o-tr et? aXXrjXa, d8waroz; apxtfv Tiva
ai)T&v rj em rw aKpa> r) /uteVa), ex rai^8e bijXov. em
/xey oi!z; rot? axpot? OLK eorat, ort Trvp eorat 17 y^KOL 6 CLVTOS Xoyo? rw (frdvaL eK Trvpo? ^ y^j e?vat
10 ort 8' oi8e /xecror (oo"7rep 8oKe? TL&LV dr/p jutev Kat et?
ju,era/3dXXeti; Kat et? v8cop, v8a)p 8e /cat ety depa Kat etj y?jr,
ra 8' eo-^ara ov/ceVt et? aXXr^Xa * * * . 8et juev yap orTrjvai
KCUjjLrj ets aTretpov rouro teVat e^r' ev^etas e</>' e/cdrepa*
aTretpot yap vavTLOTr]Ts irl TOV tvbs eo-orrat. y^ e^)' a>
15 T, v8cop e^)' ai T, dr)p e<^' w A, -rap e<#>'w n. et 8^ ro
A /^eraj3dXXet ets ro H Kat T, vavTLOTr]s eo-rat rooi; A H.
eoro) raOra XevKoVr;? Kat /LieXavta. miXtz> et etj ro T ro
A, eo-rat aXXr^* ov yap ravro rd T Kat IT. eVra> 8^ fr/po-
rrys Kai vypoTrjs, rd /xev 3 f^po'rrjs, ro 8e T
a 30 et 35 dvdyKr)] dvayKaiov H 30 avdyKr) post roLvvv ponit 'fc1,
post aXXrjXa F 31 dedfiKrai] etpjjrai 3>l /cat om. FHJL 32 ftprj-rat nporepov seclusi 35 dvai(rdr)TOs ov<rd\ dvai(T0r)Tov<Ta J b I at
om. F 1 2 ov<rS>v Hr (cf.< c
,Vitelli 244. 3) : oWeoi/ EFJL rpt'a]
EJ2
3 (patWrat EL 6 aXXj/Xa] aXXa E 7 ro aKpov r)
vF 8^Travra]
ra navra 4> l9 rw] ro FHJ <pai/ai J T)
?ivat H J I fivat Kat yr}s F I} e aepos eti/at $c IO Qxnrfp] olov HJ$l
II /ifra/SaXXfi Kat v8a>p J 12 post aXX^Xa excidisse 8r}\ov vel e*K
rcoi/Sf Si;Xoi/ SUSpicor -yap om. F 13 prj] OVK HJ 14 -yap at
FHJ ty w] e0' ,^ corr. supra lin. J2
15 <u Y] ov v H tj
fVet L 1 6 TO om. EL Kat eVai/rtdrqy L 17 post /ueXavta
^ TT a u FTT a v F
I I A I I
I I I I ,et in marg. (prima tamen m.) Xeu ME vF, add. J
*T
ft] eVei FHJ 1 8 KOI] raj fecit E di)] de EHJL
5. 332a 30--333a
*3 47
OVKOVV et }J,V fJLVL TO XeVKOV, V7Tap^L TO vb(tip VypOV KCU 2O
XeuKoV, ei 8e /u?7, /zeXau eVrat ro {/8oop* ets TavavTia yap
77 juera/3oX7J' avaywr] apa rj \VKOVr) /ze'Xau etvat TO #8cop.
eVra) 8r/ ro irp&Tov Ojutota)? TOIVVV Kat ra> II ro E VTrap-
fet 77 frpoTris. eo-rat #pa Kat ra> IT r&> Trvpt /uera/3oXr)
ei? ro vScop* evavTia -yap V7rap)(et, ro /xez; yap 7n5p ro 25
/ueAau ^z;, eretra 8e (qpdv, rd 8' v8(op vypov,
8e AevKor. Qavepbv 8r) ort irao-iv e^ aXA?}Xa)r lo-rat
77 ftra/3oX?i, Kat eirt ye TOVTOJV ort KCU ei> rai F rr) yr)
virap&i ra XOLTTOL Kal bvo orv/x/3oXa, ro ptXav Kat ro
vypov TavTa yap ov crvvbebvacrTai TTCO. ort 8' et? aneipov 30
o^x oto'z) rs
tevat, o?rep fie/\A?{o-a^rey beL^eiv eTTt rovro l/m-
TTpoo-dcv r/X^ojuei^, 77X01; eK r<3^8e. et yap TraXtz; ro TrOp,
6^)' w II, ets ^XXo /uera^SaXet Kal /ur) dvaKci/x\^et, otor
ets ro ^, vavTLOTT]s rts rw Trupt Kat ra> ^ ^XXr; wapfetr<Sz> flpr]fjLV(DV ovbevl yap ro a-uro wo^etrat rwv F T A IT 35
ro *. eo-rco 8r) rw juez; FT ro K, ra> 8e * ro 4>. ro 8r) K 333*
Traa-t^ TjTrapfet rots F T A FT, /uiera/3ciXXoi>(ri yap ets aX-
Xr;Xa dXXa yap rouro juez> ecrra) /m?J7ra) btbtiyntvov, dXX*
Kivo b.rj\ov, ort t TraXw ro ^ ets aXXo, aXXr] tvavTLOTrjs
Kat rw ^ VTrapfet Kat r<S Trvpt ra> II. ofto^cos 8s
act juera 5
TOV itpovTiOt^tvov vavTioTr]s TLS virdpfti rot? e/z7rpoo-0ei>, wcrr'
t aTreipa, Kat vavTLOTrjTS aiTtLpoL rw li't vTrapov(riv. et 8e
roi)ro, OVK eorat ovre optcrao-^at O7j8e^ o(;re yez>eV0af Serjcret
yap, et eo-rat aXXo ef aXXof, roo-a^ras 8te^eX^eti^ ewurtoYryra?,
Kat ert TrXetovs, wo-r' ets ez^tajutei'
ovSeVor' ecrrat /zera/SoX?}, 10
oloi; et aTreipa ra /xera^v (avdyKrj b\ etTrep a-rretpa ra
o-rotxeta), ert 8J
ov8' ef de'po? et? Trvp, et a-Tretpot at ei
rto'rryres. yt^erai 8e Kat Trai^ra eV* avayKri yap
b 22 apa fj.eXav r)XevKov EL 23 /)]
5 L ro
F : ro a jrpwTov J et fort. E124 rw Trvpi T TT F 1
25E /uV om. EFL Trvp ro Trpoiroi/] TrCp Trpcorov vel TT ro Trpurov F :
TrOp ro /McV npcoTov HJL 26 e om. L 27 & om. L17]
8e L 28 eV om. EL 30 7ro>] TTCOS E2HL anfipa F31 /xeXjJo-ai/reff EF rouro] rov L 33 /Ltera/SaXXft EFL 34 TIS
om. F r<5 TTvpl TT E a\X; om. E &i 8f)K]de Sf)K F:de K L 2 perapdXXd F 1
yap incertum E 3 yap om. H^TTO)] /i^SeVca FHJ 4 aAXq tarai evaVTiorrjs F 5 Kai P^om. E 8 6p/crao-#at] opitrdat, suprascr. a, E : ebp/o-tfai F9 aXXo fo-rai E di\0elv F 12 5' om. L ov& om. E els] ft J
at om. L 13 yap Trao-as] yap H : Trapmravas J1
: yap OTTOO-OS FJ2
48 DEPI TENE2EHS KAI 4>0OPA2 B
rots i&v Kara) rov FT raj rcor avaQev, rovrots 8e
15 ras TU>V KCLT(t>0V, coo-re iravra eV earat.
&avfJid(rL 8' av rts rcoy AeyoVrcoy 7rAeta> eros ra 6
orot)(eta rcou crco/utdrcoi> cocrrejut?) juera/3dAAety ets aAA^Aa,
KaOaircp 'EjUTreSoKArjs c/>?7cri, mos &5^(crai Ae'yety aurots
etrat o-uju/SArjra ra o-rot)(era Katrot Ae'yet otfrco,"raura yap
20 Ta-a re Tra^ra ". et juer oi; Kara ro 7roo-oV, a^dyKr/ ravro rt
vTrdpxov aitacri rots o-vjui/3Ar;rots a> /xerpowrat, oror et
#8aros Kor^Ary? etei; ae'po? deVa- ro avro' rt ^ apa.
et joterpet^rat rw avrw. et 5e /x^ ovrco Kara ro TTO-
(ror a~ufjif3\rjTa cos iroabv K TTO&OV, dAA' ocroz^ 8warat, oloy
25 et KorvXif] vbaTos taw bvvarai ^vyjtiv Kat 8eKa depos,
Kat ovrcos Karci ro TTOCTW ov)( 77 TTOCTOV orv/z/SA^rd, dAA' fbvvaraC rt. etr^ 8' ay Kat
jw-r)rco rou TTOO-OI) /xeVpco crvfji(3a\-
Aecr^at rds 8vz/djmet?, dAAa Kar' avaXoyiav, olov cos ro7)e
Oepjjibv ro8e AeuKoV ro 8' cos ro'8e crr/juaiVet er juer TTOICO ro
30 ofjioiov, v 8e rco TTOCTCO ro to~or. droTroz; 8r) c/>atz>erat, et ra
o-co/xara d/Merd^3Ar^ra oWa /x^ avaXoyiq (rvfjifiXrjTd ZVTLV,
dAAa/me'rpcp rcoi; 8u^d/utecov Kat rco etWt tcror Ofpfjibv rj
6//otcos Trvpos rocror8t Kat depos TroAAaTrAdVtozr .70 yapa^ro TrAetoz; rco 6/xoyeres et^at rotouroy efet rou Ao'yoy.
35 dAAa /x^i; ov8* avfr^crts ay etr; Kar' 'Ejoi7re8oKAea, dAA' ^
333^ Kara 7rpoV0eo-tzr Trupt yap avfet ro m>p,"avfet 8e x^^^
/xey o-<f)Tpov 8e'/utas, alOepa 8' at0?jp ", TCLVTCL 8e Trpocrrt^e-
rar 8oKet 8' ov^ oiJrcos a#ecr0at ra av^avo^va. TTO\V 8e
XaAeTrcorepoz; a7ro8oi;yat Trept yerecrecos rrjs Kara (frvcriv. ra
5 yap ywofjitva c/>vcret Trdyra ytyyerat ^ det co8t ^ cos ert ro
ra 8e irapa ro det Kat cos eTrt ro TroAv aTro rav-
a 14 rouTotv] Totff F 1
15 ev om. L 18 c/);o-i] Aeyei ELcu] eo-rai F 19 ffi/ai om. F 2O re om. F !HJL iravra
el E : etvai add. etiam F in margine ro om. EF 1 21 *v
F 22 (lev KOTvXai depos F TO] TOUTO E 23 supra et
prius -yp.T* scripsit H ro om. EF npoa-ov E1
24 cp.@\r)Ta L<I)f om. E : ov J dvvavrat E 26 xal om. EL ro om. F 1
27 &vvavrai L 28 ras] KOI ras F 29 Xeu^oj/ rode QcppovEL fV /itv TTOKU om. E, ante m^fiaivei ponit L 30 rw om. F32 ro>] ro JLO1
33 6/zwW EJ^> : o/zoioi/ FHL 34 TrXetoi'] TrAeioi/
oi/ coni. H. W. B. Joseph 6/uoioyei/ J 35 eiq aXXi; /car* EaXX' om. E I] 9 J* ^ 9 L l>2 Se/>iaff] yc'"0ff EFL 3 av6-
fieva H 5 wSt . . . 6 Afai om. F10)81 om. EFL
77 a>p] a) J,corr. tamen supra lin. ro om. E 6 ro o>s errl rroXv E
5- 333a14 6. 333
l)
3i 49
rojuarov Kat airb TV^S. rt ovv TO atriov TOV ef a
avOpaiTrov rj det r) o>s e;rt TO TroAv, KOL CK TOV irvpov Ttvpbv
dAAa JUT) \aiav; 77 Kat, tav o>8t (TWTfdfi, OO-TOVV; ov yapOTTCO? ervxe crvv\06vT(t)v ovbev yiyvtTai, KaO* & exet^os 10
(f)ri(nv, aAAa Ao'yw rtiu. rt ovv TOVTOV OLTLOV; ov yap 8rj irvp
ye 17 yr]' dAAa jm^v ov6'17
<iAta /cat ro vet/cos, crvyKpi-
o-ews ya/3 IJLOVOV, TO be 8taKptVecos curiou. rovro 8' eorir ^
overiaTI eKCLOTTOV, aXA' OL> IJLOVOV
"IJLILS re 8taAAaft? re /xt-
yeVrcoz; ", a>o~TTp e/ceiW? (frrjcrLV. TV^T]"
8' eTrt rots ovo^a- 15
^erat ", aAA' ov Aoyos* eo^rt yap fj.i^0TJvaL ws erv^ev. ra>^
877 (f>vcrL OVTMV afoiov TO ovrcoj e^etr, Kat77 eKao~rov <pv<ris
avTT], TTpl rjs ,ovbv Aeyet- oio~ez; apa ?rept ^vo-eco? Ae'yet.
aAAa/X,T)U xat ro ev rovro Kat ro ayaOov 6 8e r^v JJLILV fj.6-
vov eTratz/e?. Katrot ra ye (rrot)(era 8taxptVet ov ro retKos, 20
dAA'77 <f)i\ia ra <^wet Trporepa rot ^eoi; ^eot 5e Kat
ravra. ert 8e Trept Kt^rjcrecos aTrAws Ae'yet. ov yap tKaroi'
etTretr StoVtr; ^>tAta Kat ro i^etKOs Ktret, et JUT) rour' rjv <jf)t-
Ata etz^at ro Kt^TJcret rota8t, reucet 8e ro rota8t' e8et ovu ^
opicrao-Oai rj viroOta-Oai 17 aTroSetfat, r^ a,Kpt/3&)? 17 jxaAa- 25
KOOS 97 aAAwj ye' TTCOJ. ert 8' eTret ^atrerat Kat ^3ta Kat
TTapa <frv(nv Kivov^va ra a-w/xara Kat Kara <f)V(Tiv (olov TO
TTvp av<t> fjitv ov PLCL, Kara) 8e /3ta), ra> 8e ^8ta ro Kara
(f)V(nv ZvavTiov, <-(TTL TO ftio.' tvTiv apa Kat ro Kara (frv-
criv KiVio~0ai. TavTf]v ovvfj ^>tAta Ktret; r^ ov; TovvavTiov yap 30
Trjv yrjv Kara), Kat StaKptVet eotKei^, Kat /xaAAoy ro
b 7 a;r6 om. F ro supra lin. add. ] 8fjsecundum om. L
9 ou yap] aAX' ov^ FHJ$C IO Ka^' a] n^a EHL*C: Kadairep F
II ouv] oyi/ TO L TOVTOV EJ2$C
: TOVTWV FHJ'LF 13 yap . . .
8iaKpi(rf<as om. E 1
8'] 8e y ] 15 Tvxn] <j>v<ris E 8'] yap
J2r TO'IS scripsi, cf. Empedokles fr. 8 (Diels, p. 175) : TO la-ov JT :
TOUTOIS FHL et fort. E 1: TOVTWV fecit E 2
(suprascr. ois) 16 eTvx^v]
TVX*) L 17 dfj] 3e F 1 8 ouSfv ante apa incertum E19 Kal prius om. E, spatio duarum litterarum relicto *cai secundumom. E TO secundum habent FJ
24>, om. EHJ 1L \iovr\v L
20 KaiToi ... 22 Tavra fort, supra post 13 aiTtoy legenda 20 yf]
Tf EFL diaicpivcl ] 22 Se Kat Trept L 23 (ptXt'a] (/xXt'ai/
EL 24 TO secundum om. EFJL eda] del H : incertum Er) om. H 25 dirodfigat] drrodovvai E 26 a\Xa>s] d/ia>s coni.
Bekker TTS yt F . (jxiivovTai EL*127 TO om. EL 28 ov
om. E TO 8e /3ia T< KOTO FH 31 KOTO)] aj/co FL, Bonitz
m Ktvdv com. Bonitz. Nihil tamen mutandum : scilicet
i/ Kivrjvis (cf. V. 32) Tr)V yfjv KOTCO Kiret, Kat 8iaKpi<rci
E
50 flEPI FENESEftS KAI 4>0OPA2 B
airiov rrjy Kara (frvo-LV Kii^o-eco? 17 rj c^tAta, wore Kat oAcos
Trapa <f)V(riv 77 <iAta av fir] /uaAAor. airX&s 8e, ei JUT) 77
c^iAta rj TO retKOS jairci, avr&v T&V <ra>ju,drcoz; oi;8e/xia Ktznj-
35 crts earir ov8e /otourj' dAA' &TOTTOV. ert 8e Kat <atVerat KLVOV-
334a/meya bUttputc jjifv yap TO z>etKO9, r\vtyOr] 8' aVw 6 at^p
ov^ VTTO rot) retKovs, dAA' ore fAtv (frrjaiv axnrtp airo ru^s(" ovra) yap crvveKvpcre 00)V rore, TroAAaKt 8' aAAtoj ") ore
8e <f>r]<TL 7T(f)VKvaL TO 7Tvp av(ti (f)p(T0at, 6 8* aWrjp,
5 <f)r]cri,
"fjLaKp^cTL
Kara \06va 8i5ero pt^ats ". a/ua 8e Kat
rOZ/ KOCTjJLOV OjUO&OJ *X. LV <$>l}<TiV TTL T TOV VflKOVS VVV Kttt
7rpoTpov fin, Trjs <^)tAta?' rt ovz^ eort ro Ktz^oi;^ irp&Tov KOL
CUTLOV Trjs Kivrjcrftos; ov yap 8?/ rj ^>tAta Kat ro I^KCS* aAAa
TWOS Ktz^TJo-ea)? raGra atrta, et (y') ecrrti; eKetro apxrj. aro-
10 TTOZ; 8e Kat et f) ^rvx'n *K T&v crToi^i^v TI tv rt avT&v at
yap dAAoi&>(rets at TTJS X/AV^? TrcSs etroz^rat, otoz^ ro /aouo"t-
KOI^ etz^at Kat Trd'Aty apovvov, rj /ut^/xr; ^ ArJ^; 8^Aoi; yaport et /mei* -7ri5p ?J tyvyri* ra 'tf^7
? vTrap^et aiirr) 6Va Trvpt
r" irvp, et 8e fJiiKTOV, ra crcojotartKa' rovrcoz^ 8' ovSei' o"a)/ota-
15 TLKOV. aAAa Trept jmeu rovrwz; ere'pas epyoi; ecrrt 0e<opta?, Trept 7
8e rair o~rot^eta)r e 5v ra crco/xara oweo-rrjKez;, ocrots /uter
8oKet rt etvat Kotroi^ ^ /utera^3aAAetz^ ets aAAr/Aa, avdyKrj
et 0a.Tpov TOVTGW, Kat 6a.Tpov (rvjJL^aLVLV' 6(roL 8e/ur) Trot-
20 TOLXOV nXivdovs, CLTOTtov TTco? ef Ktvcw tvovTai crapes Kat
oo-ra Kat ra>z> a\\a>v OTLOVV. ex^t 8e ro \y6fj,vov airopCav
Kat rot? ef dAArjAcor yer^wo-tv, rtra Tpoirov ytyrerat ef av-
rwr erepw rt Trap* avra. Aeyco 8* otor eK Trvpo? (TTLV v
Kat eK rovrou yiyvftrOai Trvp (eWt yap rt Kotrdi; ro
25 ror), aAAa 8^ Kat o-apf e avT&v ytVerat Kat
b 33 17 secundum om. EFL 34 j}]Kai E Kivct] Kti/ot HJ :
VOI'I; L a 2 Trep a?r6 ru^^y supra lin. add. F 3 6f3>v vovsTore E TToXXaxty F 4 <i;(ri] (frrjo-ei F 5 dverai pifrs (ut
videtur) E pi'ffs J 6 re om. EL g eiy early scripsi :
et o-Tij/ EHJ : cariv (el 6e in marg. additis) F : et SJ
ea-nv L : si
utique est r 12 ^ A.] rat X. HJ : ^ KOI X. F 14 o-a>/iacoi/]
o-w/LiaTtKO) L 15 aXXa yap Trept J /xeV om. FH eWtf epyovHJ
^Trept secundum] e'*c J : Trept fecerunt EF 17 rt e?mt]
etj/at TI FJ : elvai rt}H : etvat TO $1
19 a>y secundum om. E23 Trap' avra] Trapa rat-Ta FHJ e(rrii/ e'*c rrvpbs EL 24rou J rrvp om. E
6. 333b32 7- 334
b 16 51
TCLVTCL 8r) ytWrat 7ro>s; eKeiVot? re yap roty Ae'yoimy &>s
rfe eo-rat rpoVos; avayKr] yap vvvQtcriv etrat
eK irXivOtoV Koi XiOtoV rot)(os* Kat ro fuyjjLa 8e
rouro eK o-cofo/jteVcor p^v eorat raw oroi)(eia>y, Kara /xiKpa 8e
Trap* &\\rj\a o-vyKet/ueVcoy ovrco 8r) crap Kat T&V aAAaw 30
CKCLOTOV. (TviJ,(3aivL brj JUT) ef orovow jutepov? crapKos yiyvtorOaL
nvp Kat vdcop, axnrcp CK K7]poi5 yeVotr' ay eK /mez; rovSt rou
/ue'povs a-0aipa, Trvpafus 8' ^ aAAov rtz^o?, dAA* Vbe\T6ye e eKarepov eKarepor ytvecrOaL. TOVTO /mer 8r) rovroi^ yt^erat
ror rpOTror, (ro) eK r% o-apKos e orovow a/ut0co* rot? 8' eKetVcos 35
Xeyovo-LV OVK vb^TaL, a\)C ws IK rotxof At^o? Kat itXivdos, 334b
KaTpov e aAAot; TOTTOV Kat /xepov?. o/utotco? 8e Kat ro?s TTOI-
ouo-t /xtar avr&v vXrjv e^t rtm airopiav, TTWS eo-rat rt ef
afj.(f)OTp())v, olov tyvyjpov Kat ^ep/uot T) Trvpo? Kat y^?. et
yap (TTIVf) o~ap e
afj.ffro'iv Kat /X7)8erepoy KLV<*>v, ju.Ty8' 5
av o"uv0(TLS (Tto&iJ.evtoV, rt AetVerat TrAr)!' r^z; vArjy etrat ro ef
KiV(t>v; fj yap Qarcpov (frOopa r/ Qdrepov Trotet r; rr)v i;Ar;y.
ap' ov^' eTreio"?} Icrrt Kat /LtaAAor Kat ^rrou 0pfjibv Kat \/AU-
oV, oray /xey aTrAwy ^ Qartpov eyreAe^eta, Sura/xet ^a-
en-rat* oray 8e /x^ TrarreAw?, aAA' a>s /mey 0pfJibv 10
\jsvxpov, ws 8e \fsv\pbv Oeppov (8ta ro //tyw/xera
ray V7Tpo\as dAArjAcor), rore ov^'77 vAr; eo-rat ovre
rwy tvavTitov eKarepoy eyreAex^ta aTrAw?, dAAa
Kara 8e ro 8wa/uet /xaAAoy etuat ^ep/xoy ^ ^v\pov, TJ rov-
vavriov, Kara TOVTOV TOV \6yov StTrAao-tco? Oeppov Swa/xet 17 15
\lfv\p6v, r) rptTrAao-ta)?, ^ Kar' aAAoy rpoirov TOIOVTOV; ea-rat
a 26 17]5e H : 8) fecit F TO!? -yap E <W] &<nr(p F
28 irXivBav Ka\ K \l6a>v H : Xi'daw Kai ir\iv6a>v F 5e] 81) FHJL29 TOUTO] TO 6i> HJ /zev om. H 31 Ka<TTov. (Tvufiaivd. yovv
OVTO> Aeyoua't ^117 C'K navrbs pepovs trapxof yiveaOai dcpa v8a>p KOI TO.
erfpa, aXXa e^ fKarepov cKarepov, TOVTCOTIV e< -navrav TrapaTcfcipfvaivKOI cvvrrapxovTOiv evtpyfiq anavra 8iaKpiv<r6ai, o-rrcp oi>x OVTO> (paiverai.
avupaivd L 817] 8e H 32 axTTTfp t eic in marg. add. F34 ye] Km L yei/eo-0ai] yiyvr6ai F 3 5 TO e coni. addidi :
cf. $c(Vitelli 274. 5) e| OTOvoCi/] e'^WTov oyi/ J b 4 oioi> fK
Kat ^v^poi) E T)] Kat E 6 o-w&o-is] avvQeviv E :
-ft L T^I/ EFHJL*C: om. Bekker TO om.
E^ 7 yap
pov HJ : yap cKaTfpov Db ciroid FHJ )secundum
om. E 8 Kat ^.] j) \|r.F II Sta$&iptu> H 1 5 KOTO]
fKarepop Kara F : Kat Kara L TOUTOJ/ TOI/] TOV TOVTIDV HJL StTrXa-
o-tcos] Kat TO> Xd-yw 8i7rXao-t'(os F rHJ I Kat SiTrXaa-t'o)? L 16 Totot'TOi'
TpOTTOV FE 2
52 OEPI rENE2E&2 KAI 4>0OPA2 B
brj |ut)(0ei>rcoi> raAA' K T&V evavTid&v r)rcoV crrotxetcor, Kat
ra crroi)(e?a ef Kiv(i)V 8wdjutet TTCOS OVTG&V, ov^ ovrco 8e a>y
77 {>A?7, dAAd rov lpr]jJLVov rpoVoi> Kat cortv ovrco jueu fxt-
20 ft?, eKetVco? 8e vAr; rd yivoptvov. e-Tret 8e Kat Trdcrxet rd-
vavTia Kara rov eV roty Trpwroty biopia-fjiov (TTL yap TO V-
epyeta Oeppov bvvdfJLi \jfv\pov KOL ro erepyeia \ffv\pov bv-
vd}jLi Bepjjiov, coo-re eav /xr) tVafr; /xera/3dAAet ts dA-
ArjAa, o/oioicoj 6e /cat 7rt r<Si> dAAcoi' ZVCLVTIW Kal Trp&rov
25 ovrto rd o-rot^eta /Ltra^3dAAet, e/c 8e TOVTMV (rapKts Kal oora
Kal rd rotavra, roC ftez> Oepfjiov yiyvoptvov ^v\povt rov 8e
v Oepfjiov, orav Trpos rd /xeVov eA^r/ (erraD^a yap ov-
),TO be jjifcrov TroAv Kat OVK aStatperov. o/xotcos 5e
Kat ro rjpbv Kal vypov Kal rd rotavra /card /utecroVryra
30 7rotouo"t crdpKa Kal OCTTOVV Kal raAAa.
'ATrarra 8e rd IJLIKTCL o*co/uara, oo*a Trepl TOV rov /ne- 8
a'ov TOTTOV CTT(V, ef d7rdvra)v o"?;yKtrat ru>i> aTrAcov. y^ /xev
yap fWTrdp\i TTCLCTL bia TO Kao~Tov ivaL /utdAto-ra Kat
TrAeto-roy V r<S otKeta) ro7ra>* v8cop 8e 5td rd btlv i&v opt-
35 Ceo-flat rd (rvvOtTov, fj.6vov b* etvat T&V a-nX&v evopia-Tov TO
335a
vb(*>p, Irt 8e Kat rr/v y^v d^f ro{5 vypov fj,r)bvvao-dai <rvfji-
fjLtViv, dAAd roOr' ctvat rd ow\ov et yap efatpe^eu; rc-
Ae'coj e avr?j? rd vypov , SiaTrtVrot dr. y^ /uev ovv Kat v8cop
8td ravras ewTrdpxet ray atrta?, d^p 6e Kat Trup, ort
5 tvavTia earl yrj Kat vSart (y?j ptv yap aept, i;8cop 5e Trupt
tvavTLov (O-TIV, co? 6^8exerat ovoriav ovcrta tvavTLav e?rat)* 7Tt
ow at yevecrei? ex rcov ivcorriwv dviv, tvvndpyjti 8e 6aTpa
aKpa T&V evavTitov, avayKif] Kat 0aTpa tvvirdpxfi-v, cocrr' cv
cLTravTi, rw trwO^T(f irdvTa TO, airXa eWcrrat. /utaprvpetv 8'
10 eotKe Kat ^ Tpo^rj eKacrTov' airavTa per yap rpec/>rat rots
b 17 8*7] n) E, et suprascr. J2
raXA'] d\A' E 19 oiWJroCro HJ, y
1(codd. RZ) *c
/it'^y] /zet'^if E 2O de17 vX; FL
eVet Se] eVei 8i) E : eVetfi^ ^ 23 e'av] av H t? om. EL24 post irp>Tov add. -ye 3*
1 et (supra lin.) J2 26 ytvopfvov F
27 eAtfij] eXQaxriv HJ 29 TO om. HJL post rd add. a\\a rdin marg. F : cf. etiam * et r 30 OO-TOVV] oo-ra (quod libris FHperperam attribuit) Bekker rSXXa rd rotoCra F1
!!] 31 airavra]iravra J*
132 yfj] yrjs H 33 yap om. F 34 &] 8f) L
35 roi/ avvBfTov J dTrXoii'] aXXwi/ * a 4 wvrrdpxovat F5 yap om. F 6 eVai/riai/] evavriov H 7 tfu'repa] tidrcpovL 8 a*pa om. H, supra lin. add. J : nupov L flempa] tidrepovHL IO eKaoToi/E^H : Kaara>v E 2
FJL
7- 334b 179- 335b4 53
avrots ef &VTTp eo-rtz/, aTravTCL 8e TrAetWt rpe'<erai. Kat
yap aVep av BtfffliP ezn jjLovat rpe'</>eo-0at, ra> #8art rd </>u-
rd, TrAetoo-t rpe'<|>erar /xe'jutKrat yap ra> #8art yi}' 8td
Kai 01 yeoopyot Tretpawrat /xtfarres dp8eti>. eTret 5* eariy?/
/xeu rpo<y) rrjs #A??s, rd 8e rpec^o'fxeyozJ o-wetAri/x/xeVrj rrj 15
{/Ar; ?/ /xop$r) Kat ro eT8os, evAoyou 7/8r^ ro povov T&V
rpe<^(r^at ro TTU/) airdvTtov e dAAi^Aa)^
feat ot Trporepot Aeyov(rty [JLOVOV yap eon
t /xdAtcrra rou etSovs ro TriJp 8ta ro 7re(/>VKeVai <^)pecr^at
ror opov. KCL<JTOV 6e irf(f)VKV ets rr/i' eairroi; (fiepecrOat, 20
77 8e [Aoptyrj /cat ro eZ6o? aTravrcov V rots opou.
ort juez> ovi; aTravra ra a^co/utara c o-'navr^v a~vv(TTr)K rwr
'E7Tt 8' eo'rti' ez>ta y^r/ra Kai (jiOaprd, KCU?/
t oiio-a er rw Trept ro /neVov roTrw, \KT{OV ircpl 25
yV(T(DS ojuouos TroVat re Kat rtVe? avrrjs
paoz; yap ovra) ra Ka^' exao-ra ^ecoprjo-o/xer, orar Trept
Ka66\ov Ad/3a)jute^ Trp&rov. fl(rlv ovv KOL rbv apiQ^ov to-at Kat
rw yeVct at avrat atVep ez^ rots dt'8tot? re Kat Trpcoroty 77
/xer yap eor> a>5 uAr;, r/8' a>y //op^)?}. 8et 8e Kat rr/z> rpt- 30
rr]^ ert TTpo(rvTrdp\Lv ov yap [naval npbs rd ytvvrjo-ai at
8vo, KaOdirep 0^8* ei^ rots Trpwrots. ws jmer oSz; uAr; ro?s ye-
z^rjrots eo-rti' alnov ro bvvarbv eti^at Kai /xr) tz^ai ra /xei'
yap ef d^dyKrys eo-rti^, otov rd dt8ta, ra 8' ef drdyKr;s OVK
(rovrcoz; 8e rd /xez> a8waroy /xr) etrat, rd 8e dbvvarov 35
8td rd /XT) tvbiyevOai irapa rd drayKatoi; dAAcos 335l)
), erta 8e Kat etrat Kat /xr) etz^at 8wara OTrep eo-rt rd
ytvyrbv Kat fyOaprov Trore /xer ydp eo-rt rovro, Trore 8' OVK
&CTT* dvdyKrj ytvzviv tlvai Kat (frdopav Trept rd
a II ea-Tiv] ela-iv FH TrXeiWi J 12 ydp eVr> (superposito
o<ra) arrfp F /zaXtara post So^tfi/ add. JL (delendum tamen notat
J2), post rpe'(/)(r^at add. H 14 *at post yfwpyoi ponit E, omisso ot
supra apdeiv add. Koirpa E 15 Tpfffrofifvov de Fapiv . oirpa T
17 a-wt\T]fjiHvr] J : a-wfi\r]fjLfjLvov FL et (ut videtur) H : ro <rvv(i\Tjn-
ptvov * 16 vXqt pop^i J 17 e|] >ap e| H, qui 1 8 yap om.
1 8 Trporepoi] Trporepoy L : Trotiyrai (ut videtur) 3>c 2O lairrov]
avTou HJ 20-21 x*>Pav fopfvQfu EL 24 yfvvr)ra L, et ubique26 rf om. F*c
air^y] avrwi/ F$cop^at EFHJL : at ap^ai
4>c et Bekker 27 cxaorTa] CKCHTTOV EL 6eo>pr)<ra>iJLev J 3! yapa> f/cai/al EL at om. EL 32 o?/ om. F ytmvpotf HL
^
33 amov post ft/)eti'ai ponit F bvvarov om, L 34 ^K *orlv *
dvdyKTjs F b 4 dvdyKrj] dvayKaiov F
54 nEPI FENESEliS KAl <i>0OPA2 B
5 tlvai Kat jar) etrat. 810 Kat a>s /zez> uAry ro9r' eartz> CLLTIOV rots
ywriTots, a>s 8e TO ov eVeKa 77 jutop^r) Kat ro et8os roro
8' eortzJ 6 Ao'yos 6 r?js eKaoTou owtas. Set 8e irpocrflvaL Kat
TTJV Tpirrjv, rjv cbra^res /u,ezj 6Vetpa>rroi>o-t, Ae'yet 5' ov8ets.
dAA' ot /xei> tKazn)z; w^0T](Tav alriav etrat irpoy ro yivea-Oai
10 rr;^ raw t6a>j; <J>V<TW (axnrp 6 tv rw <I>at8(o^t 2(OK/3cirr]j /cat
yap exetros, eTrtrt/utrjo-as rots aAAots a>s ovbtv
VTroTiOtrai, OTL (TTl T&v ovTMV TO. jj.ev ibr] TO. 8
T&V db&v, Kat ort eti;at /uter tKCLcrTov Aeyerat Kara ro et8os,
yivecrOaL 8e Kara rr)z^ /zeraArjx/azJ Kat (f)6ip<T6aL Kara r^r
15 a7ro/3oA?jz>, too-r' et ravra a\r]0rj f ra t8r; oterat ef drayKrjs
atria eti/at Kat yeWo-etos Kat </>0opcis), ot 8' avrrjv rr]v v\rjv,
anb raurrys yap tz>at TTJV KLvrj(nv. ovbtrepot. 8e Ae'youo-i Ka-
Aws. t /xez^ yap eoTiz> atrta ra et8ry, 8ia rt O^K det ycvvq
a-vv\&s, dAAa Trore /utz; -Trore 8' ov, OVT&V KCLL T&V et8<3z;
20 det Kat rwi; /otefleKrtKaw; ert 8' 77* e^tW Oetopovfjitv aAAo ro
atrtoz; ov vyitiav yap 6 tarpos e/xTrotet Kat t f
ni<JT'i}\M}V 6
;, ov(rr)s Kat vytetas avrrjs Kat eTTta-r^/xr/s Kat raw
8e Kat em r<Sz^ aAAa>z; raiv Kara 8v-
et 8e r^v {;Ar]r rts ^)r/a-ete yeiwav 8ta
25 rr)i; KtVryo-tz', ^)Vo-tKd>repor /utei^az^ Ae'yot raiz^ o#ra) Aeyoz;ra)i;
(ro yap dAAotoCr Kat ro /txerao-^/xariYoz; atrtwrepoV re rov
yewar, Kat e^ CLTtaviv eta>#a/xez; roi;ro Aeyetz^ ro TTOLOVV, 6/W-cos ez; re rots c/wo-et Kat ez; rots aTro re'^r^s, b av
fl Kivr]-
rtKoV), ov//,r)z^ dAAa Kat ovrot OVK op0a>s Aeyoucrtr. r^s juer yap
30 vArjs ro 7rao~)(et^ eo~rt Kat ro KivtivOai, ro 8e Kireu' Kat ro
ere'pas 8i>i>a/utea)s 8r)Aoy 8e Kat eirl ra>z^ Teyyri KCLL
t ra>z> ^)uo~et yivofjLtvw ov yap avro Trote? ro v8a>p ^woz^
avroi), ov8e ro vXov K\ivr]V, dAA'r/ rtyvr] ware Kat ovrot
b 5 rots] lv rois H 6 fvfKa] evfKev E 76 secundum om.EL rijs efcaorov] eKuaroi; rijs HJ
1: T^S f/caoriys J
25e om. E
/cat TI)I> om. E 9 aXA' ot /j.v om. E ri)i/ alriav F IO rai
om. E 14 /ieraX^w, litteris X;\^t in litura scriptis, E 16 avrfjv]av H 17 i/ai om. F 19 Kat TOW i8a>i/ aft om. E1 2O 6' om.HJ 21
pvom. F 1
H] yap] om. J : yap Kat E 24 ^o-fie]0jjo-;e E : ^o-ft H*xr : 0^fftv J : <z>7o-i L 25 /ueV om. F Xt-
ydvrcov] Xeyo/ieVwi/ EL 28 </>wm] <f)v<riKois L ev secundumom. F aTro rexvrjs a?r6
Te'x^s8e F !H J, et (in margine) E
2$] eti;
fecit E : post KIVIJTIKOV ponit F 30 TO quartum om. EL32 fVi TWI/ om. F ou] ouTf HJ 32-33 (<uov e| eauToi) H : f^
F 33 ovSe] OVTC FHJ
9- 335b5 10. 336*27 55
8ta roCro A.eyoi>o~tzJ OVK dpO&$, Kal ort TrapaAetTroucrt rr/y KTJ/HOJ-
Tfpav aiTLav eatpowt yap TO ri qv eti>at Kal rr)p /uiopc^rjr. 35
ert 8e Kat ray Sura^tets a7ro8t8o'a(rt rot? o-w/zao-t, 81* as 336**
yevv&cri, \(av opyaviK&s, d</>atpo{;z;res rr)z> Kara ro et8os
alriav. TTibrj yap TrtyvKtv, &s (ao-t, ro /aev 0ep/u6i>
biaKpLVZLV TO b \ffVXpOV (TVVUTTCLVai, Kat T&V a\\(t)V Ka-
(TTOV TO fJ.V TTOltLV TO 5e TTa(T\LVt K TOVTtoV \tyOVCTL Kal 5
8ta TOVTtoV aTTavTa raAAa yLyv&rQai Kal <f>0{p(r0ai. fyai-
VTai be Kal TO irvp avTo Kivov[j,vov Kal 7rd(T^ov. ert be
irapairX^cnov TTOLOV<TLV &(nrp et rts ra> irpiovi /catexao-rcj)
T&V opyavtov aTrore/xot rr)z; atrtaz/ r<3z> yivofjLtvw avayKrj
yap iTpiovTOS 8taipeta-0at /cat feovros AeatVeo-^at, /cat 7rt 10
a\Xa>y 6/xotcos1 WOT' et ort //aXt(rra Trotet /cat /ctz/t ro
dAAa 7roi)9 /cti;t ov TrpovOetopovariv, ort yjeipov r\ra opyava.
8e Ka^o'Xov re TtpOTtpov etpr/rat Trept r<S^ atrtw^, /cat
10 znw 8tco/3to-rat Trept re rr)s vAr]? /cat r% juop^)?}?. ert 8e
eTrel 17 /cara r^ <f>opav KtVryo-t? Se^etKrat ort dt8to?, 15
avayKr] TOVTMV ovrt^v Kat yV(nv .ewat crwexw?' ^ yap
$opa TTOt^o-et rr)i^ yeVeo-tv ez;6eAe)(0)S 8ta rd Tipocraytiv
Kat aTTciyetz^ ro yzvvrjTtKOV. ajota 8e 8rjAo^ ort Kat ro Trpo-
Tepov KaAcos etpryrat, ro irptoTyv T&V |uera/3oA.a>z> r^y <^)0-
paz^ dXAa JUT) rr)u ytvtcnv etTreti'. TroXu yap evAoywrepor 20
ro oz; ra>/x,r)
orrt yei'eo'ecos atrtoy etrat r)ro /m^ ov r<S
wrt roi) eivai* ro y&v ovv ^epo/xeroz; eo-rt, ro 6e yivoptvov OVK
Za-Tiv 8to Katfj $opa Trporepa rrj? yereVeco?. e?ret 8' VTTO-
Ketrat Kat 8e8etKrat (ri;z/ex>)s oS(ra rots Trpdy/xaa-t ye-
reo-ts Kat (j)0opa, ^>a/x,e^ 8* alriav tlvaL rr)z> (popav TOV yt- 25
Var0ai, (fravepbv a>s juttas /iez/ owrys r?js (/>opas OVK e^8exe-
rat yu>eo-0at ajoi^co 8ta rd eVarrta etz^at (ro yap avro
a i Sc om. H a7ro8i&Wi, suprascr. o, J ap] a E2 opyai/iKa? EH L< I opyaviK&s FJF 3 eV8/)] eVet FHJ 0ao~i]
(f)T]o-i.v E 7 Kai secundum om. F 9 drrovtfJLr) F IO Trp/ozroy]
Trpiovos OVTOS L aiovTos F II Kim /cat Trotet L 12 ov
7rpo(T$ea>pouni/ fecit E : ou npoOeapovo-iv H : ov^ opouni/ E1: ou^
opaxriv FLr 13 re om. H : ro *x15 TT/I/ om. F 17 fV-
rfXe^ws E : actualiter F 1 8 Kal dirdyeiv om. F yevrjriKov E/cat TO] /cat ra FHJL Trporepov] Trpcora F 19 rfjv om. E
21 tlvai ainov L ^ om. E ^ . . . 23 810 in marg. add. F 24 ante
yfveais add. /cat EL 25 r^v (fropav om. E 26 a>s] ort Hrrjs (ut videtur) om. E 1
56 TIEPI FENE2E&2 KAI 4>0OPA2 B
Kat axravrcos Z\ov det rd avrb Tre'^VKe Trotetu, ooirre
yeVetrts carat det r) </>0opa), 8et 8e TrAefovs etrat ras Kti>?j-
30 o-ets Kat tvavTias TJ rfj 0opa r) rrj di>a>juaAia r<Sz> yap
fvavTLiav atria ravavria. 816 Kat o^x 17 Trpcorrj </>opa atrta
eort yeyeVecos Kat </>0opas, dAA*77
Kara r6"i> \obv KVK\OV
Iv ravrrj yap Kal TO <rvv\$ $V(TTI Kal TO KivtiorOai bvo
*ciz^}(rW avdyKT] yap, et ye det eWat crvvf^ yeVetrts /cat
336^ <f)0opa, det /xeV rt Kireto-#at, tra ft^ eTrtAetTraxrtr avrat at
jnerajQoAa^ 8vo 8', omos /m^ OaTepov (ryu/SaLvy JJLOVOV. TTJS
(j,V ovv (rvv\ias r}Tov oAov (f)opa atrta, ro{) 8e Trpotrte^at
Kat dirteVat ^ eyxAtcrt?. (rv/x/3atVet yap ore juez^ Troppo) yt-
5 vtcrOai ore 8' eyyvs, avfoov 8e roi; 8iaor?j/xaros o^rro? dyco-
/uaAo? eo-rat ^ KtVrya-tj, coo-r' et rai Trpoo-teVat Kat eyyus e?rat
yevvq, r<S aTTteVat TOVTOV TOVTO Kat iroppCD yivtvOai tyOtipei,
Kat eE r<S TroAAaKt? Trpoo-eA^etz; yevvq, Kal ra> TroAAaKtj
aTreA^et^ <^>^etpet rcoy yap ivavrfav TavavTia atrta, Kat ez>
10 to-(o Xpovto Kat17 <f)0opa Kal
fj yeVeo-ts ^ Kara(frvoriv.
bib
Kal ol \povoL Kal ol /3tot eKao-rcov ap^Q^ov f^owi Kal rovrw
8topt(bz;rat. TravTwv yap eo-rt rdfty, Kat Tra? \p6vos Kal flios
/xerpetrat Trepto'Sw, TrA^ ov rr) avrr) -TTaz^re?, dAA' ot /xei>
eAdrrort ot 8e TrAetort* rots juev yap ez^tavros, rots 8e
T 5 f^Cf^Pt rots 8e eAarrcor ^ Trep^oSo's eo-rt, ro jue'rpoy.
rat 8e Kat Kara rrjz; al(rOrj<nv 6/xoAoyov/uei'a rots Trap* rj
Aoyots* 6pG>[j,v yap ort Trpoo-toWos jue^ rou ^Atov yeVeo-ts
aTrtoWos 8e ^^tVts, Kat eV to-a> \povu> KaTpov Icros yap
a 29 aet eorai EL ^)opa E 1
) 30 <0opa E 31 atria
TO fvavria F I evavria otria E : ravavria tuna L 32 ri/ff yevf&twseoTi Kal TTJS <f)9opas F 33 fi/eori] e'ori EL KtveicrQai dvo om. E1
34 yt del] re det E : om. FH, et J qui tamen supra lin. (nescio an
prima m.) add. b I del] 8d J /xV om. F TI] TOI LE : VTroXinaxriv L 2 (rvp.^aiv(i J 4
supra T] ascripto t, J 6 irpoicvat E 7 rw] *cat T< H : at f
TO) FL ravrbv TOUTO] TO auro TOVTO post yiWcr&u ponunt H et
(supra lineam add.) F : roOro avro post yiveo-Qm ponit J 8 Trpoo--
tX^eii'] irpoo-ievai FHJ ical secundum om. F TroXXdw? dn-eX^w]TToXXoxt? a7riei/ai F : dnicvat no\\aKts fecit E 2
9 Ta evavTia J (ra
supra lin. prima manu addito) 10 KOI prius om. HJ^ 1
17 anteKara om. E II fKavrav ovv apiBfibv F
1 12 ftios KOI xpwo?EL 13 /ierparai H 7T(ii/Tey om. E Travres ... 14 irXfiovi
om. L 14 5e prius om. E1rots ^icV] aXXois p.fv L 15 rot?]
aXXot? F eXarroi/ J TO om. E 17 Xdyots] \fyop.cvois F1 8 to-os] to-wf E
337a
r 3 57
6 xpovo<5 rrjs (frOopas KOI rrjs yeueVeo)? rfjs Kara <}>v<nv.
dAAa cru/x/3atz>et TroAAaKtj fv eAdrrort (frdftpccrQai "|"8ta rqv 20
Trpo? aAArjAa (rvyKpao-iv f* drcofxdAov yap owrjs rrjs vArjs
Kat ov Travrayov TTJS avrrjs avdyKr) Kat ras yeveVets dz/a>-
e>at Kat ras /uez> Narrows ray 8e /3pa8i>repas- wtrre
, 8td (ro) rr)V TOVTMV yV<riv aAAot? ylvtcrOai QOopdv.
del 8', a>(nTp etpr^rat, o-wex*)? Icrratr} yereo-ts Kat 77 <f)0opd 25
(Kat ov8e7rore VTroAettyei 8t' T;Z; etTTOjue^ atrtW), roCro 8'
evAo'ycoy o-v/oi^e/3r/Ker. e?ret yap ev airacriv del roi; /3eArtoro?
dpe'yeo-^at <pa/oier rr)v <t>v<ri.v, /3e'Artoz> 8e ro etrat r) ro /xr)
ewat (ro 8' eti^at Trocraxw? Aeyo/xer, ev dAAot? etpryrat),
roCro 8' ev diracrLV abvvarov VTrdp^w 8ta ro iroppa) rr^j 30
oAoi> 6 ^eoj, eVSeAex7! Trotr/aas rr)^ ye^ertv ovrco yap &v
/otdAto-ra crvvtipoiTo ro etvat 8ta ro eyyvrara eT^at rr]s OTJ-
o-tas ro ywecrOai, del Kat rr)z; yivtviv. TOVTOV 8' atrtoz;, wa-rrep
etp^rat -rroAAaKis, r;KVKAw <j)opd' fjiovrj yap <rvve\ris. 8to 337
a
Kal raAAa oo-a /utera^SdAAet ets aAAryAa Kara ra Trd^ry
Kat raj 8wd/xeis, otoi' ra aTrAa o-wjaara, /xt/utetrat rr)y
KVKAo) (fropdv OTCLV yap ef i;8aro? dr)p yeVryrat Kat ef
der
pos 7T?jp Kal -naXiv eK roi; irupbs vbu>p, KVK\(D ^)a/xey Trept- 5
xt r?)zj yV(nv 8ta ro 7rd\w dvaKdfJL7TTLV UXTT Kal
(f)opa fj,LfjLOVfJLvr] rr\v KTJKA&) o^wex^s etrrtz^. a/xa 8e
; eK rovTtov 6 rtz/es aTropovcriv, 8ta rt eKao^rov r<3z> (rto/xd-
ets rr)z; otKetai^ ^epojueVov xPav *v T$ dTretpw XPOV(?ov 8te(rra(rt ra <rw/xara* atrtoz> yap rovrov etrrlz^ 77 ets aAA?7Aa io
/xerd/Sacrts. et yap tKacrrov e/xez^er ev
/XT) /xere'/3aAAei> TJTTO rou TrXrjo-iov, 7/877 a;
ra/3dAAet /xez^ ovz^ 8ta r7)i> (fropav biTrXfjv ov&av, 8ta 8e ro
b 19 <opar E 2O dta . . . 21 vvyKpaffiv suspecta 21
^ o~vyKpov(riv' yeypairrai yap 8iTTa>s 4"c 23 6arrov EL /3paSv-
repa? avat war* EL 24 (rvuftaivetv ] ro e coni. addidi
26 cure rroTf L 27 del post 28 <pt>o-ti/ ponit F 28 <afiei/
ante 27 rov ponit F TO secundum om. H 30 ddvvarov
TO fv &KCKTIV E : ddvvarov cv anacriv L 32 fVT\f\ri E 33 e'yyv-
raTto F 34 del om. H TOJ/TOU] roGro F ainov om. FHa I f}] atria
fjH 4 yap delendum notat J
25 TOV om. EL
7 evdcla TOVTfov (fropa L IO ra (rvvGera o-eo/iara J is] eV EII cfjicivfv FH avrovEFHL 12 nfrepaXw HH 13 <p#opai/ E fie supra lin. add. J
58 OEPI FENE2E&S KAI 4>0OPA2 B
OVK eV8e'xerat /xeVetz> ovbcv avr5>v kv ov8e/xta
15 x<pa reray/xeVTj.
b tort /xh> ovv eWi yeVeo-ty Kat (pOopa Kat 8ta r6/
airiaz>, fcal T TO yevrjTov Kal (fyQaprov, Qavepbv eK T&V
etpT7/xeVa>z>. eTret 8' avayKr] etzW rt ro Ktz^ow ei Kivr](ri$
carat, a>o-7rep efprjrat irporcpov cv ere'pots, Kat et act, ort det
Set rt etz>at, /cat et trvfex7?^ ^ T^ a^r^ Ka ' aKwrjrov /cat
20 aytvrjTov Kat draAAotWor, Kat et TrXetou? at ez; KVK\a) Kt-
i/7}o-ety, vXetovs /uteV, Tr^o-as 8e7
TTCO? etrat ravras avayKr]
VTIO fjiiav apxf\w (TW)(pvs 8' orro? rou \povov avayKr] Trjv
x^ Lvai, et?rep abvvarov \povov yapls Ktr^o-ea)?
crvvcxovs apa TWOS apidfjibs 6 ^povos, rrjs KVKXw apat
roty er apxf) Aoyots 8tcopto-^r/. crvrex^s ^' ^ K-
I'r/crts iroTcpov ra> ro KLVOV^VOV cruvcxjes clvai YJro ez> <o
Ktretrat, otov ror TOTTOV Aeyco ^ ro TT^^OS; 8?)A.oz> 8r) on rai
rd Kivovfjivov (TT&S yap ro Tra^o? owexe? dAA.1
^ rai ro
Trpay/xa w (rv/x/Se^^Ke a-v^exes etrat; et 6e Kat ra> ez; w,
30 /xo'i'w roi;ro rw ro7ra> vTrap^L, /uteye^os y^p rt lxet)'
8e ro KVKAw /utoVov o-vi^exes wo-re avro avrai aet
roOro apa eo-rti^ 6 Trotet vvvtyri KLvrjcnv, rd Kwc
) 8e KtVr/o-i? roz; \povov.
er rots o-urex^s KIVOV^VOLS Kara yevccnv rj n35 a\kot(D(riv r) oAcos /xera/3oA^ 6pG>fj,V ro e<e?js oz; Kat yt-
voptvov ro'5e /utera ro8e wcrre /XT) 8taAet7retr, o-KCirTtov :roVe-
poz; eon rt 6 e drdyKrys eorrat, r; ovbev, dAXa Traz^ra ez>8e'-
Xerat /XT) yez^eV^at. ort /xez> yap ez'ta, 8T/A.or, Kat e0vs ro
eo-rat Kat ro /xe'AAet erepoz; 8ta rouro- 6 /xey yap
a 15 Sidri] on H l6 alriav etpi^rai *at EL 17, 21, 22,et infra 33;
b13, 14, 16, 17, 19,^20, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34, 35,
338* 2, 3, 4, 5 dvay/cq, d^ayKJ/y] di/nyKaToi/, dvajKaiov H 17 ro om.EFJ* 1
KIVOVV] om. E, supra lin. add. J 18 fV] a) cv Hom. E 18-19 del 8fl TL] 8et rt del F : act TI Set H19 (rvvfX*S E 2O dyej/^r/TOv FL at eV] ftev at HL 21 di/ayKi;
om. EL 23 x<o/><s] oi/fv FHJ : yp. avcv E : cf. Phys. 2i8b 33,
219* I 24 6 xpovos dptdnos F rrjs] rots J 25 Xoyots-Om. F Stcoptorat H 17
om. HJ 26;}]
/cat F77
rc5 TO L28 TO post yap supra lin. add. J dXA'
77 fecit E 29 w priussupra lin. (prima tamen, ut videtur, manu) add. E r&>] Vo FH
30 ewrrapxci L 31 TO OUTO F del om. EL*
32 apa]yap F b 2 TI 6] o TI EF : 6 om. J
1
eVrai] eanv J 3-4 TO 6
eo-Tui coni. Bywater 4 /xeXXet e coni. scripsi : cf. $c(Vitelli
302. 25 et 306. 12) : /ieAXoi/ codd. omnes et fc1
io. 337a H ii. 337
b3! 59
etTrety ort eorat, 8et rovro eti>at Trore dArjtfej ort ZaTiv, o 8e 5
vvv d\r]0S efatlv ort /xeAAet, ovbev Ka)Avet /urj yez>eo-0at
wi> yap <!ii> fiabi&LV rts OVK az> (3abi(Tiv. oAco? 8',
eV8e')(erat ema rail' OVTMV KatJIXTJ etz^ai, 8?)Aoz> ort Kat
ovra>s efet, Kat OVK e drdyK^s rovr' eo-rat. TTO'-
repoz> oviJ aitavTO. rotavra; r; ov, dAA' ezna dvayKalov aTrAaiy io
yV(T0ai, Kat eony coo-Trep ejrt roi; etrat ra juer d8wara /x^
etrat, ra 8e bvvaTa, ovrco? Kat Trept TJ]V ytv(nv, olov rpo-
Trds apa dvdyKr] yeueVflat Kat ov^ otoV re /xr) e^8e'xeo-^at;
ei 8r) ro irpoTepov dvdyKr] yV<r0ai et ro wrepoz; eo-rat, otov
et otKta, 0fji\iov, et 8e rovro, 7rr]\6v ap' ovi> Kat et ^e/ixe- 15
Atos ytyovev, dvdyKr] oiKiav ytvevOai; r) ovKeVt, et /x^ Ka-
dvdyKr] ytvto-0aL a7rA<Sj; et 8e rovro, dvdyKr] Kat 0e-
w yvofjivov yVcr0ai oiKiav ovrco yap ^z; ro
Trpos ro v(TTpov, &<TT et Kivo ZcrTai, dvdyKrj
TTpoTpov et TOIVVV dvdyKr] yV(T0ai TO v(TTpov, Kat ro Trpo- 20
repoy dvdyKr], Kat et ro irpoTtpov, Kat ro wrepoz; TOLVVV
dvdyKr] dAA' ov 8t' eKetro, dAA' ort vWKetro ef drdyKr/s
(r6[jLVov. fv ot? apa ro wrepoy dvdyKr] etz^at, ez; rovrots
dirto-rpe'o/)et Kat det roi5 Trpore'pov yezJO/xeVov dvdyKr] ytvtvQai.
TO v(TTpov. et /xev ovr ets aTretpor eTo-ty eTrt ro Kara), OVK eorrat 25
dvdyKr] T&V vo~Tpov Tobl yevco-0aL aTrAaiy, dAA' ef VTTO-
det yap erepoz; fjLTrpo<r0V dvdyKr] eo-rat 8t' 6
yereV^at, WOT' et /x?j<TTLV dp^r) rov aTretpov,
ov8e irp&TOv eo-rat ov8ez> 81' 6 drayKator eorrat yereVflat. dAAa
ei^ rot? ?repas e^ovo-t rovr' eo-rat etTretz^ dAr/^ws, ort 30
dvdyKr] yV<r0ai, olov oiKLav, oTav ^e/xe'Ato?
b 5 eWai] 6o-Tij/ E 7 yap aVa/3aSi'eii/ E ^aSiVeie^] fiadia-r) F8'] Tf * ! 8 7Tfi] eVetS;) FJ*1
9 ra yivopeva HJL IO ouf]
8c F roiaOra] TaOra F II yiveadai EL 12 8vj/aroi/ Fr^y om. J 13 apa] apa Bonitz, fort, recte 14 8^] 8e H
15 oiKiav L l6 otKi'ai'] otKi'a E : /col oiKiav FHJ o^/cert] OVK eVrti/
F 11 8 otKet'av E yap av ^v F 19 woV] o>? H eVrtj/
FJ 2O ante add. yevco-dat FHJL 21 /cat ... irporfpov
in marg. add. EFJ 25 . . . 338* 9 yej/o/zevcoi'] de hoc loco,
v. Alexandri a. K. \. ii. 22 (Bruns, pp. 71, 72) 25 TO> /carco E 1
26 rai!/ E J
JL et Alex. 1. c. : TO E 2FH To8l scripsi, cf. fc1(codd.
RZ) : To8t codd. omnes, *! (codd. GT), et Alex. 1. c. a\X' <'
EJ, et Alex. I.e. : aXX' ov8'e| HL*C: ovS' supra lin. add. etiam F
27 8V 6] 816 Kal FJ 29 81' 6] 816 FJ 30 eo-Tti/ F 31 6Vai>
6ep.e\ios yevrjTai om. E1
60 FIEPI TENE2EI12 KA1 4>PA2 B
TOLL' OTCLV yap ye'znjTat, et /mi) del TOVTO dvdyKrj y(vf(T0cu,
<ru/ui/3?jo-eTat del elvai TO fvbf-^o^fvov /XT) del dvai. dAAa
Set r?j yereVei del eivat, t ef dmyKTjs- eorlz> avToC 77 yeVe-
35 (rty. TO yap e dvdyKrjs Kal del a/xa (6 yap et^ai dvdyKr]
oo8a ovx ^0/I; re M7) etuat), COOT' et loTtr ef avdyKrjs, dibiov eo-rt,
Kal t aibiov, * dvdyKrjs' Kal ft?/ ye^(rts TOIVVV f av-
dyKTjs, dibt.os f) yeVetrts rovrov, Kat et dtdtos, ef avdyKrjs.
et apa Tiros ^ avdyK.r]s cnrXGis 7; yeVca-iy, avdyKrj avaKV-
5 KA.6ty Kat draKa/utTTTetr. avdynr] yap rJToi Trepas ^xtr T^Z;
yeVeo-u> ^ /u?j, fcai et pj, 17 ets eu^u 17 KV/cAa>. TO^TCOJ; 5*,
etTrep lo-Tat dtStos, OVK ets ev^v otoV Te 5ta TO /xrySa/mws t-
vai apyriv (/xr/T* a^ KCZTCO a>? eTit Tcaf eo-o/xercor Xajjifiavo-
fjLtvtov, /xrjr' ww ws 7rt Ta>y ye^o/xeVcoi;)' dvdyKrj 6* eti^at dp-
10 x^ t M7/^^ 7T7Tpacrfjivrjs ovffrjs f dtSto^ etrat* 6"to avdyKrj
etrat. avTicrTptfaw apa dudy/oj eo-Tat, otoz^ et To8t ef
, Kat TO TrpoVepor dpa dAAd /x^r et TOVTO, Kat TO
v<TTpov dvdyKr) yei>eV0at. Kat TO{)TO det 6^ (rvvc\&s ovbtv
yap TOVTO 8ta<^)e'pet Ae'yetr 8ta 8uo ^ TroAAwr. er TT) K^KAo)
1 5 apa Ktrrjo-et Kat yereVet eort TO ef drdyKr]? aTrAais* Kat
etTe KVKAa), dvdyKrj Ka<rTov yivta-Qai Kat yeyoyeVat, Kat et
dvdyKr], r) TOVT<DV yeVeo-ts K^KAw. Tairra /xez^ ST) evAo'ya)?,
eiret d'tdto? Kat dAAto? f(f>dvrj r)K^KAw KLvrjcns Kat
77TOU
ovpavov, OTL TavTa ef drdyKr;? ytreTat Kat la-Tat, 6Vat Tav-
Tr/9 KaTJ(reiy Kal oo-at 6ta TavTrjv et yap TO KUKAw KLVOV-
b 32 aj/ay/Kq dft yivrQai TOVTO F 33 TO L^>c (Vitelli 305. 5 et
3IO. 30) : om. EFHJ /i) ai] del pf) F dXXa ... 34 flvai om. E 1
34 aiToO ca-Tiv EL a 2 *cnl et17 yevc&is TOIVVV om. E, spatio tamen
relicto 3 f)]/cm
17H et om. E 4 di/a/cucXeii/] Trept/cuKXeif
HJ : Trept dvaKVK\tlv F 6 et/zij, ?)] J) fecit E (in loco plurium
capace) :fjH : ^17 FJ 8 et 9 ws om. E et Alex. 1. c. 8 Xap.-
et Alex. 1. c. : Xa^Sdyofwi' L 9 ai/ a/a) Alex. 1. c.
E : yivopevw H et Alex. 1. c. "PXn E 1 lo postexcidisse quaedam suspicor ^r/r . . . ofays corrupta
p.t] L 7TfTT(pa(TfJ.Vr)S OVO~T)s] TfTTpO.(T OVO~rjS E. Foit. fVl ITepdSvel 7rt Trenfpaa-ufvrjs fvdcias (cf. *c
, Vitelli 312. i), scribenda
post ova-rjs add. *cat FHL II ditTio-Tpefat ] To8t] ro EJ2
12 e'l/ai Kat TO nporfpov FH J apa supra lin. (prima tamen, ut videtur,manu) add. J TO secundum om. E 13 drj] fjSij FHJ ovdev]ov8e E 14 yap TOVTO om. E : TOUTO om. 3>L (codd. RZ), *c
7ro\\)v\ TrXftdvwi/ 4> 1 6 CKUOTTOV om. F -ytWo-^at] yevco-tiai HJl8
e'^ai/r;Kat aXXwy F lg ravra] TCIVTCIS H b I TO] Tt HJ,
et F qui TO ante Ku/cXo> in marg. add.
ii- 337b32 --338b
19 6l
dei TL Ktuet, avdyKt] Kat TOVTMV KVK\<*> eTvat rrjv Kt-
VK](TIV olov rfjs ava> <f>opas overt]? 6 rjAto? KVKAa> vbC, eTret
8* ovTcas, at <5pat 8ta rouro KVK\(*> yivovrai Kat di>aKa/x-
TTTOV(TIV, TOVTWV 6' OVTO) "YLVOfJLV(AV TtoXlV TO, VTTO TOVTtoV. 5
rt ovv brj Trore ra /xf^ ovrco (^ai^crat, otoi^ v8ara Kat arjp
KV/cAa) ywojjLtva, KOL t /utr re^>o? earat, 8et vo-at, Kat et
wet ye, t Kat V(f>o$ elrat, avOpwiroi 8e Kat <Sa OVK dra-
KdfJLTTTov<riv t? avroi/s ware iraAti; yivtuQai rov avrov (ov
yap avdyKT], t 6 irar^p eyerero, <re yezJeV0ar dAA' et (ru, 10
ety eu^v 5e lotKev et^at avrr; ^ yeVeo-t?; dpx.7) $
o-Ke^ecoy TrdiAt^ avr?], iroTepov o/utotcoj airavra dva-
r) ov, dAAa ra /xei^ dptfyxa) ra 8e etSet JJLOVOV.
/oter ovr &(f)6apTOs f)owta ^ KUfOVfJ&H], (fravepbv ort Kat
a) ravra eo-rat (77 yap KtVrja-ts aKoAov^et rw Ktrov/xeVa>), 15
dAAa <^^apr?i, di^dyKr; rw et8et, dpt^/xai 8e
8to {/8a>p ef depos Kat dr/p ef #8aros et-
8et 6 CLVTOS, OVK dpt^/xw' et 8e Kat raura dpt^/utw, dAA* o^x
wr ^ ovrrta ytVerat, ova-a rotavrr; ota. erSe'^ecr^at JUT) etz^at.
b 3 KUK\O> 6 17X10? F, BonitZ a)8i om. E eVei ... 4nrovaiv in marg. add. F 4 OUTCOS] ouroy J : oros OUTWS Bonitz
at om. E 5 5' om. E Trd\tvTa]ndvff F : -ndvraL, 6 (fxiivovrai
J vSara] v8a)p L^17 7tVo/x6i/09 FJ
2Set xai ^crai FHJ*1
8 Kat prius om. HJ 9 aw-ous codd. omnes : eavrovs <E>J 10 6
om. E II de prius] 817 L et (in litura) J Se secundum] Sf/
HJ 15 raOra ev ((TTai HJ : ravra tv etrrat F 1 6 ov<i>v\
oa-ov E 1 8 TMvra] TCIVTCI J 19 17om. F1
FJ
COMMENTARYA. i
I4a 1-6. nepl . . . oi/ojAaaif. A rough sketch of the subject-matter
of the work. Cf. Introd. 7-11 ;and below,
* 2ob 34 2i a 29,* 2ib 16-17,
*2 7
a3 2~34
* 28b 22.
I4a i. 8e. On the systematic connexion of this work with
the^.
de Caelo, see Introd. n. The 8e is supposed to answer the
/xev ow in the last sentence of the de Caelo (^\f> 21), cf. Philoponos
and Zabarella.
4>uo-et, to exclude the products of -rsyyv an^ tne results of
Trpocupco-is (Philoponos).
I4a 2. OJAOIWS Kara it&vrw. Aristotle proposes to treat of yeVco-ts
and (f>6opd in general, as -raOy predicable uniformly of (i.e. as pro-
cesses exhibited uniformly by) all the yevi/^ra K<U <f>6aprd in nature.
The scope of his present inquiry does not include an investigation
of these processes in the special forms which they assume in the
different kinds of perishable natural bodies, e. g. in the plants and
animals : see Introd. n. For o/xotw?, cf.* i8a 25-27, 35
a 26.
I4a 23. xds . . . auTuii'. avTaii/, SC. yevra>s /cat <0opas. We
shall find Aristotle distinguishing and explaining the formal,
material, efficient, and final causes of these processes: hence
Siaipereov. In Book I he gives their nominal definitions, i. e.
defines the meaning of the terms (cf. Introd. p. xxvi, note i;
p. xxx) : their adequate scientific definitions (TOVS Adyovs) are to be
gathered from the discussions in Book II, from which we can
obtain an exact conception of their cause (cf. Introd. 9).
I4a3~6. en . . . oi/ojjiao-if. The scope of the work includes
a similar treatment of av^o-ts and dAAotWts. Aristotle, as weshall see, restricts the term av^o-ts, as he here investigates it, to
the growth of TO. e^v^a. We must therefore not press o/Wws Kara
Travrwv (a2) as regards av^o-is. The meaning of dAAoiWis will
appear later. The problem whether yeve<ns and dAXotWt? are
two distinct processes, or one only, is expressly mentioned,because many of Aristotle's predecessors identified them, i. e.
denied that there was any'
coming-to-be'
proper : cf. next note.
I4a 6 i7
a31. rS>v . . . (jxxaii'. Zabarella's account of the general
A. i. 314* 1-9 63
purport of this passage is right. The review of the theories of
the early philosophers in Chapter i shows that it is a matter of
dispute whether yeWns and <f>0opd are, i. e. occur as facts distinct
from dAAoiWis ;and it is therefore necessary explicitly to discuss
ei eo-rt ye'veo-is,and to prove 6Vi tfo-Tt (cf. 15** 26-27). But even
those philosophers, who did distinguish yeVeo-is from aAAotWi?,
misunderstood yeVeo-ts. For yeveo-ts is the emergence of a new
substance (cf. iya20-22), and not as they supposed the
4 association'
e. g. of *indivisible bodies
'
(or'
indivisible surfaces')
to form an aggregative whole. Hence the long discussion in
Chapter 2 of the theories of Leukippos and Demokritos (and
incidentally of the cognate theory of Plato) is primarily directed
to show that o-vyK/ato-ts and Stafcpurt? cannot be identified with
yeVeo-ts and <f>6opd, although they may facilitate the latter processes.
The proof 6Vi to-/ fj yeVeo-ts (i. e. that the emergence of a new
substance occurs in fact) begins with Chapter 3.
14a 5 _ b g. roii' . . . jjuy^irwy. Outline : The ancient philosophers
may be grouped as (i) those who recognized only one elementary
substance, and (ii) those who recognized more than one. Themonists are logically bound to identify, and the pluralists to
distinguish, yeVe<m and dAAoiWis (a6-i3^ It is only because
Anaxagoras failed to understand the logical implications of his
own statements, that he appears to be an exception to this rule.
He says that yeVeo-ts and <J>6opd are identical with dAAotWis, and
yet he is a pluralist no less than Empedokles, Leukippos, and
Demokritos. These philosophers are all pluralists, though their
theories differ, and though the theory of Empedokles is actually'
contrary'
to that of Anaxagoras (a13
- b I).
The monists must
identify yeVeo-ts and dAAoiWis, because all change must, on their
view, be the modification of a single persistent substratum. The
pluralists must distinguish ycVeo-ts and dAAoiWis, because yeVeo-ts
and <f>0opd result, on their view, from the 'consilience
' and' dissolution
'of the Many as in fact Empedokles says (
b1-8).
I4a6-7. tV . . . ytvevw,
' the so-called"unqualified coming-
to-be".' Cf. ra Ka\ovfjLva o-Totxeta, *22b 1-2, 28b 31. Accordingto the monists the so-called airXfj yevco-is is really oAAotWi?.
Similarly, according to Aristotle, the so-called' elements '
(Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water) are really derivative.
I4a9. Kal . . . yewoMri. Explanatory of 00-01 . . . Ae'yovo-t. Thales,
e. g., said that ' the universe was one something ',in the sense that
all things were made out of Water.
64 COMMENTARY
I4a13-15. KaiToi . . . dXXoioGor6ai. Anaxagoras accused the
Hellenes of miscalling the facts : ovSev yap xPnP- - ywtra.i o8'
dTrdXXvrat, dXX* O.TTO eovrwi/ ^pr;/xaTwi/ (TVft/iwryera/ re /cat Sta/c/otVcTat.
/cat OVTCDS ai/ o/o&os /caXotev TO re yivc&Oai o-u/x,/Atb-ycr0at /cat TO
a7roXXvo-0ai 8ta/cptW0at (fr. 17 ; Diels, pp. 320-1). At first sight,
this dictum, since it identifies yeVco-ts and <f>0opd with o-u//-/x,its and
Std/cpio-is, distinguishes yeVeo-ts from dXXotWts : for Anaxagoras's
view looks like the views of Empedokles and Leukippos. But
Aristotle's interpretation is justified by the peculiar character of
TO, eoi/Ta xpW"* in Anaxagoras's system, which gives a special
meaning to (rv/t/u&s and Std/cpto-t?. . Cf. e.g. fr. i, 4, 10, 12
(Diels, pp. 313-18) and Arist. Phys. iSy8-
26-30.
It is difficult to reproduce the force of ye (a13) : perhaps
1
Anaxagoras himself failed to understand his own utterance'
viz.
statements like that in fr. 17. ijyvoyo-ev i. q. non intellexit (Bonitz,
Ind. s. v.). It is Anaxagoras who misuses language. If he had
understood his own utterance, he could not also have said that
the elements were many.
14*15. icaOdirep Kai Irepoi, 'in common with others', e.g.
those whom Aristotle has quoted as typical pluralists.
I4a17. Td . . . dpi6jioi>. Ta KIVOVVTOL are Love and Strife
(<iXoT>7s and Net/cos). Empedokles conceived them as corporeal
elements (cf.*33* 19-20 ; Burnet,p. 232) as Aristotle is well aware.
Still it is natural enough to call Earth, Air, Fire, and Water Ta
o-w/xaTi/ca in his system par excellence.
14* 19. rd ojioiojmcpT]. In Aristotle's system the ofjioiopeprj are the
first, or most rudimentary, compound natural bodies (Introd. n).Every 6/xoto/xepes is a chemical compound of the same four'
simple'
bodies (Earth, Air, Fire, Water) or more preciselyof the same four '
elementary qualities'
(Hot, Cold, Dry, Moist).The four constituents enter into combination in a determinate
quantitative proportion, which differs in the different 6/xoto/>tep^ ;
so that each 6fioio//,eps is characterized by its distinctive*
combining-formula'
(Xoyos T^S /u^ews). Under the head of
ofjiOLOfj-epr) are included the metals, wood and bark in plants,
bone, flesh, marrow, blood, &c., in animals. Such compoundsare called 6/xoto/>tep^, because (however far they may be subdivided)each portion retains the character of the whole : bone, e. g., will
not cease to be bone by subdivision, but only by chemical
analysis. In Aristotle's system the o/xoto/xep^ are intermediate
between the '
simple'
bodies and the di/o/>ioto/>te^ or opyava, each of
A. r. 3i4a 13-24 65
which is a complex of different 6/xoio/xep^. An eye, e. g., or
a hand, is a crw0e<ris of many different o/xoio/xep^. (Cf.*
2 ib19-22,
A. 10, B. 1-3, 7, 8 with the notes : and my paper on*
Aristotle's con-
ception of chemical combination 'in \^\^JournalofPhilology, No. 57.)Aristotle employs his own technical terms in his accounts of
the views of his predecessors. Thus the terms v\y and O-TOIX^OVwere not used by Empedokles, Leukippos, Demokritos, or
Anaxagoras, though Aristotle's statements here and elsewhere
might lead us to suppose that they were (cf. Burnet, 14, 130).
Similarly 'there is no evidence that Anaxagoras used the term
o/xoio/xepr}. He may have used the term o/x-oio/xcpeiat, but even
that is doubtfui. We know, however, that Aristotle applies
the term 6/xoto/xep^ to what Anaxagoras called o-Trep/Aara (cf. de
Caelo 302a31
- b3), but we do not know how far the characteristics
of the Aristotelian 6/xoto/zcp^ attach to Apaxagoras's*seeds '.
Were the o-Trep/xara Travrwv xpv)fw.T<ov (cf. e. g. fr. 4 ; Diels, p. 315)
ofjioiofjicprj merely in the sense that each ' seed'
retained its
distinctive character however minutely it was subdivided, and is
this all that Aristotle meant to imply ? Or were the'
seeds'
either in Anaxagoras's own intention, or at least in Aristotle's
interpretation quantitatively different combinations of the same
contrary*
qualities'
?
It is impossible to answer this question with any certainty.
The reader should consult Burnet( 127-31) and Carlo
Giussani's edition of Lucretius (1896, vol. ii, pp. 147-50). These
are, so far as I know, the best attempts to reconstruct
Anaxagoras's theory of matter : but neither of them is completely
successful, since each leaves some of the fragments inexplicable.
I4a 20. TUP . . . cortf :
'
everything else which is such that
part and whole are the same in name and nature.' For truvwwpa.
Xcyercu wv TO re oVo/xa KOLVOV /cat 6 Kara rowo/xa Aoyos TT)S ovcrias
6 auras, Cat. i a 6.
I4a21-24. AyjjxoKpiTos . . . TOUTWI'. According to Leukippos
and Demokritos the'
indivisible bodies ',or
' atoms',are infinite
in number and infinitely various in shape. Everything else in the
universe is put together out of these atoms : and the compounds
(avra,a23) differ from one another because of (i) a difference in the
shape, or(ii)
a different position or'
turning ',or (iii) a different
ordering or 'grouping', of the component atoms. (Cf. Metaph. <fi*p
15-19 ;also below, 15^ 6-15, i5
b33 i6a 2,
*25
b36 26" 24.)
avra TTpos avra (EJL) is clearly right, and is accepted by Diels
2254 F
66 COMMENTARY
(p. 345). The compounds differ' one as compared with another ',
not * as compared with themselves '. For the idiom, cf. perhaps
aXXo Trpos aXXo.
For Oca-ei (i. q. rpoirrf) and raei (i. q. Sia0ty#), c^ *r 5
b33 *6a 2 -
I4a24. ydp. There is no sufficient reason to desert EJ and
read 8e for yap. The logical connexion is rather complicated,
but it is not made clearer by Se. The comparison of Anaxagoraswith the Atomists (
a18-24) is parenthetical, and at a 24 Aristotle
returns to justify the original statement (a16-18) that Empedokles
postulates six elements, whilst Anaxagoras postulates an infinite
number. The statement is correct,'
for the views of the school
of Anaxagoras seem diametrically opposed to those of the followers
of Empedokles', &c. (a24-^1). It is assumed throughout that
the ofjioiofjifprjare infinite in number, as indeed Anaxagoras says
with regard to his cnre/tyurra (fr. 4; Diels, p. 315).
I4a 24~ b l. emrriws . . . rovruv. Cf. de Caelo 3O2
a 28- b5.
Aristotle there says that Anaxagoras (i) regarded Air and Fire as
fu'y/uiTa of all the 6/xoto/xcp^, i. e. of all the ' seeds', (ii)
used the
term ' Aether'for Fire, and (iii) held therefore that all things come-
to-be out of Air and Fire (cf. fr. i; Diels, pp. 313-14).
Nothing in the fragments justifies Aristotle's assertion here that
Earth and Water (as well as Air and Fire) are each a7rai/o-7rep/*ta.
On the contrary, Aristotle's statement appears to conflict with
fr. 4 (Diels, p. 315), where Earth seems to be on the same level of
simplicity as the'
contraries' and the ' seeds '.
I4a27-28. o-dpKci . . . ofxoiojxepojc, 'flesh, bone, and bodies
which, like these, are " homoeomeries " '
: cf. i4a19 20, and
de CaelO) 1. C., TO, yap o^ioto/jicp?/ O-T,ct^ela (Xeyw &' otoi/ <rap/Ka /cat
OCTTOW Kttl TWV TOIOVTCOVCACttCTTOv).
14" 29. n-ai'cnrcpjAiai'. This appears to be a technical term of
Demokritos : cf. de Anima 404a 1-5, Phys. 203a18-23. But it
is probable enough that Anaxagoras used it, since he used the
term o-Trep/xara (Burnet, p. 265,2). The same meaning is expressedin the de Caelo, 1. C., by the words depa 8e KOL irvp ^tyyuara TOVTWI/ Kat
rail/ aAAa)i/ <T7rep/>taTwv Travrwi/.
I4b
3. fj^cii/, sc.'for they must affirm that the underlying
something always remains . . .' It is not necessary to read /xeVet
(cf J $l
)with Bonitz.
I4b3~4. TO 8e TOIOUTOK, SC. TO /x,Ta)8aXXetv TOV avrov /cat /os
/X6VOVT05, TOV VTTOKfLjJLeVOV SrjXoVOTl (PhilOpOnOS).
I4b7~8. X^yet . . . fuylirui'. Kat 'E/x7re8oKX^s, i.e. Empe-
A. i. 3i4a24 b 22 67
dokles as well as Anaxagoras (cf. i4a
14). Aristotle is abbreviat-
ing Empedokles, fr. 8 (Diels, p. 175). The words //,iis . . . /xiyeV
T<i>v are quoted again below, cf. *33b15-16. In spite of Burnet's
ingenious interpretation of fr. 8 (cf. Burnet, p. 205 4 ),I think that
by <f>vo-i<s Empedokles there means '
coming-to-be ',or at least that
Aristotle so understands him. For </>iW= yeVeo-ts, cf. Phys. 193^ 1 2.
I4b 8-12. on . . . Keyo^-em. Aristotle recapitulates, and prepares
to criticize, the pluralist position.'
It is clear (i) that to describe
coming-to-be and passing-away in these terms is in accordance
with their fundamental assumption, and (ii) that they do in fact
so describe them.'
6 Adyos, sc. the description'
of yeVeo-is and <f>0opd as
a consilience and dissociation of the many elements, rjj vTrofle'em,
viz. their assumption that there are more elements than one. KOL
TOVTOIS, i. e.* the pluralists as well as ordinary people ',
e. g. as
well as Aristotle himself. Aristotle appeals in confirmation to
ordinary experience : opw/xei/,b
13.
I4b12-13. TOUTO . . . owiSeti'. TOVTO, sc. that the pluralists
(i)must recognize dAAoiWis as a distinct fact from yeVecris, and
(ii)cannot do so consistently with their statements. The first
point is established (b13-15) by an appeal to the obvious facts of
perception : and the second point is arguedb15-26.
I4b15-26. ou
fiTji/. . . dXXouoais. This argument is intended to
apply to all the pluralists, since Aristotle has set out to prove that
their statements are incompatible with the recognition of dAAoiWis.
Yet, at b20, he quotes Empedokles, and thenceforward proceeds
as if Empedokles alone were in question. Thus, though he
Speaks as if all'
those who posit more "original reals
"(dp^a?,
b 1 6) than one '
regarded the -n-dOrj involved in dAAoiWis as
constitutive of their' elements ',
he offers no evidence of this
assertion except so far as it applies to Empedokles.
14^17. rd .. . crufAJ3cuVeiy. Aristotle here assumes his own
theory of dAAotWt?, viz. that it is a process in which a perceptible
substratum passes from one -n-dOos to another contrasted -ratios.
The TrdOr) in question are the TraOrjTiKal TTOIOT^/TCS of the
Categories (ga 28
if.). Cf.*i7
a23-27,
*iQ
b 6 2o !l
7,*i9
b8-10,
*3ia 8-io.
I4b 20.
5
Efxir8oK\TJs. Cf. fr. 2 1, vv. 3 and 5 (Aristotle omits
v. 4) ; Diels, p. 180.
14'' 22. TWI> Xoiirwy, sc. oToixaW, or possibly (as Philoponos
interprets) iraQw.
F 2
68 COMMENTARY
i4b23-24. war' . . . yfjj'. fjirj Swarov, sc. according to Em-
pedokles : cf.*i$
a4-8.
I4b24. <TT<U, sc. SVVOLTOV ywfotioi*
I4b25-26. TOUTO . . . dXXoi'wais.
* Yet this is what Alteration
essentially is.' Forrjv,
cf.* 28b 2, 3i
h23.
I4b 26 I5
a3. tj
. . . dXXoiWis. Two corollaries, (i) Every
change (viz. Alteration, Growth and Diminution, and Motion)takes place between contrary poles (cf. *i9b 6 20*7); these
contrary poles must be informations of a single matter,(ii)
If
A alters into B, A and B must be modifications of a single sub-
stratum : and, conversely, if A and B are modifications of a single
substratum, change of A into B (or vice versa] is Alteration.
The second corollary (i4b 28 ert. . . 15*3 dAAoiWis) is not very
clearly expressed. Aristotle appears to mean that so far as any
changing things have a single substratum, their change is
Alteration : and vice versa. The position of the monists
(i4b1-4) is an extreme case, where all things are modifications of
a single substratum, and (correspondingly) all change is Alteration.
i5a3-25. 'EfnreSoicXfjs . . . <|>uW. Not only does Empedokles
so conceive his elements that dAA-otWts becomes impossible
(i4b17-26); his whole position is in conflict with the facts and
full of inconsistency.
I5a4-8. apx . . . KaoToi>. According to Empedokles, the four
(
roots'
(Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) were eternal and unchange-able : cf.
*25
b19-25, 2Q
bi, 33
a 16-18; Burnet, p. 230. There is
no coming-to-be or passing away : cf. fr. 8; 12; 17, v. 34; 2 1, v. 13
(Diels, pp. 175, 176, 179, 181).' Love ', when it has obtained the
mastery, brings all things together into one, viz. into the '
Sphere'
;
but it does not make a unity of them, but only a '
together '.
Aristotle substitutes for the '
all-togetherness'
of Empedokles an'
all-oneness',
i. e. he interprets the statement about Love
bringing all things into one as if it meant that Love reduces all
things to the One. But even when all things are together in the'
Sphere ', the four roots remain ' what they were' and unreduced
(cf. Burnet, p. 235^. Hence Aristotle's charge of inconsistency
depends upon a misinterpretation. No doubt, he thought that
the irreducibility of Empedokles' elements was in conflict with
the plain facts : for he regarded the transmutation of Earth, Air,
Fire, and Water into one another as given in experience. Butthat is another matter.
I5a 8-n. WOT' . . . oxXrjpoy. Assuming that in the '
Sphere'
all
A. I. 314^23 315*22 69
things are fused into a unity, Aristotle urges that, when Love
begins to go out and Strife to come in, the elements come into
being as distinct things. For an ' addition' and ' subtraction
'
of
the ird6i) which distinctively characterize the elements then
occur : so that, whereas e. g. Moist and Hot were originally
distributed uniformly over the'
Sphere ',Hot is now added here
and subtracted there, Moist subtracted here and added there.
Hence this portion becomes separated from that, this being
distinctively Moist(i.
e. Water) and that distinctively Hot
(i. e. Fire).
I5a9. xwP l F 6
'
l'a)l/ : genitive absolute, the implied subject
being various portions of the *
Sphere ',two of which are specified
(TO plv ... TO 8e) as the subjects of the main sentence. For the
construction, cf. i5b3J Bonitz, 2nd. i49
b37-45 and commentary
on Metaph. 9gob 14. Just below(a16) x^P^o-tfat is applied to
the TrdOrj.
I5ai4. ou . . . vuv. TOTC, sc. at the period when Empedokles
seems to recognize that the elements come-to-be, viz. when Love
first begins to go out of the '
Sphere' and Strife to come in.
vvv, sc. at the period in which we are living, i. e. when Strife is
gaining the mastery (cf. 34" 6-7 ; Burnet, pp. 234-5).I5a I5~I9- <TI T&K. tori 6Wa/x.eva, SC. TOL irdOr].
According to Empedokles, it was the conflict between Strife
and Love which caused the separation of the qualities when the
disintegration of the '
Sphere'
first began. Hence we have a right
to infer that the qualities can be ' added ' and ' subtracted'
in the
present state of the world too, since that conflict is still going on.
I5a17-19. 8i6irp . . . ira.v.
*It was owing to this conflict of
Love and Strife that they'
(i. e. the elements)' were generated
from a One at the former period also. I say"generated ", for
presumably Fire, Earth, and Water had no distinctive existence
at all while merged in one.'
It is necessary for Aristotle to justify his use of the term
eyevi/^o-ai/, since Empedokles asserts that the elements are
eternal. Bekker reads vSwp In oWa in a19, which he wrongly
attributes to HL. H has some illegible characters under
otherwise there is no trace of anything between vS<op and oVra.
I5a 22. fierapdXXoi'Ta . . . KiVrjaii/. The * Motion '
is the
initiated by Strife: but Empedokles is severely criticized below
(33b 22 34
a9) for the vagueness and inadequacy of his account
Of
70 COMMENTARY
A. 2
15*26-28. "OXws . . . dXXoiwaews. Cf.*I4a 6 I7
a3i. The
real problem is : How many distinct forms of change are there,
and how precisely are they distinguished from one another ? Are
there three forms of change Coming-to-be, Growth, Alteration-
differing from one another in principle ? And, if so, what is the
distinctive manner of their occurrence ?
I5a27-28. ircpl . . . Kii^acis. It is difficult, if not impossible,
to defend the accusative here, since the examples are in the
genitive. Perhaps Aristotle wrote Trepl rys a\\rjs /avijo-cws. The
reading of Db(ircpl TWV aXXwv Kivrjo-ewv) is an obvious attempt to
emend the text. E adds cbrXas after oftXas (cf. also F and T) :
but this has probably arisen from a mere dittography of aXXas.
For the distinction between aTrXat and pun-al K/>j<ms (cf. de Caelo
302b6, 303
b5, and also Metaph. 1053* 9) is between '
simple' and
'composite' movements (cf. Introd. 10) and is totally irrelevant
here. There is no manuscript authority for Trept TWV oXXwv dbrXwi/
Kiv?;o-ea>v the reading of Bekker and Prantl.
15*29-33. nXdrwi/ . . . irpdYfxaaii'. Cf. Plato, Timaeus 52 dff.,
where the yeVeo-ts of the physical universe in its present orderly
constitution is described. God shapes and orders the chaotic
material, controlling it with figures and numbers, and bringing it
into conformity with the Intelligible Pattern. In particular, God
develops Earth, Air, Fire, and Water into their present distinctive
characters out of their pre-existing chaotic rudiments. Each of
these bodies, as the work of God has fashioned them, consists of
particles \*hose shape is that of one of the '
regular'
solids : and
these solids are constructed out of planes whose ultimate com-
ponents belong to one or the other of two types of triangle (cf.* i6a
2-4, *25b19-25,
*29* 13-24).
Later on in the Timaeus (73 bff.) Plato describes the yeVeo-ts of1
flesh, bone, and the like '. He regards them as developed out
of /AveXo?, which is itself formed by God out of selected elementary
triangles by a process of />uts. He does not, however, explain
wherein precisely God's 'mixing' of the triangles consists; and
his account of the formation of bone and flesh from the /xveXos
(73eff.) is fanciful, and anything but precise. At the same time,
it might fairly be said that Aristotle's own account of the yeVeo-is
of the ofjioiofjiep^ is equally vague. The difference between e. g.
flesh and bone is a difference of the combining-formulae : but
A. 2. 3i5a 26 b io 71
we are never told what exactly the Aoyos rfc /ugews of <rdp or of
OCTTOVV IS.
I5a32 - TWK TOIOUTWI>, SC. TWJ/ 6/AOio/xcpwv, cf.
*1 4
a 2 7-28.I5
11
34-35- irpi ou&eyos . . . irepl birdyrw. It is clear both from
the neuter, and from the examples (i5bi-6), that Aristotle is
accusing his predecessors of neglecting to explain*
every one of
the problems which the subject involves'
(e. g. /x,iis, TTOUU/ KOL
Tracr^etv, d^>7J) and not merely of neglecting to explain the different
forms of change.
15* 35 - b i. OUTOS . . . 8ia<|>peii>.'
Demokritos, however, does
seem not only to have thought carefully about all the problems,but also to be distinguished from the outset by his method.'
The superiority of his method is explained below, i6a 6 ff.
i5b i-6. cure . . . TToujo-eis. These lines expand and enforce
T 5a34 (oAws . . . cTrc'cmyo-ci/). Aristotle himself discusses the
manner of the accession of new material in Growth (A. 5), TTOICIV
KOLTracr^eij/ (A. 7-9), and /uts (A. 10). For the construction of
Tr/cwxrioi/Tos, cf.*15*9.
15^6-9. AirjjjioKpiTos . . . d\Xoia><n,i>. Cf.*14* 21-24. Aristotle's
statement here must not be taken as meaning that the Atomists
made no use of differences of figure in explaining the different'
secondary'
qualities : see *i5
b33 i6 a 2.
The Atomists appear to have called their*
indivisible bodies'
cr^TJ/xara or iSeat : cf. Burnet, p. 336.
I5b9-10. eirel . . . (JxayeaOai. Cf. 25
a23-24, de Aninia 404* 25-
31, Metaph. 1009^1 1-17. In the last passage Demokritos is
represented first as arguing from the conflicting appearances of
sense 'that there is either nothing true, or what is true is not
clear to us'
: and next as supposing that'
to know '
is to perceive
and '
to perceive'
is to be changed in bodily state, and so con-
cluding that' what appears on the evidence of the senses must be
true '. In the de Anima(1. c.) he is said to have identified i/or^
(i.e. the source of movement and sensation) and vovs, 'for TO
dX^^es is identical with TO <aii/o/-ievov '.
It does not seem possible to extract from the fragments of
Demokritos a consistent view as to (i)the 'reality' of the
'
secondary'
qualities, and (ii) the capacity of aio-flryo-ts and thought
to attain to truth. We are told that flavours, colours, and perhaps
temperature, are only by 'convention' (vo/xw) : whilst in reality
(fay) there are' atoms ' and the
' void '. Yet the'
secondary'
qualities are explained as due to differences in the figure, 'grouping'
72 COMMENTARY
and 'turning' of the atoms: and differences of flavours*, anyrate are treated as being really differences of figure (cf.
*I5
b33
i6a 2, *25b36 26a 24). And although Demokritos condemns
the * bastard'
(ovcc?) knowledge oif sense and contrasts It with
the ' true-born'
(yi/r/o-fy) knowledge of the understanding, he also
denies that we can know anything as it really is and criticizes the
understanding on the ground that it depends on the senses :
cf. fr. 6-1 1, 117, 125 (Diels, pp. 388-9, 407-8).
I5b ii. aimpa, infinite both in number and in variety :
Cf. I4a 22.
I5b11-15. &OT* YPaH-J
A( Twi'.' Hence owing to the changes
of the compound the same thing seems different and conflicting
to different people : it is transposed by a small additional
ingredient, and appears utterly other by the transposition of
a single constituent. For Tragedy and Comedy are both com-
posed of the same letters.'
Tragedy and Comedy, though utterly contrasted in their effects
on us, are really* the same thing ',
i. e. composed of the same
letters. The constituents are the same : the change is a changeof the 'compound'. Similarly the same atoms, as constituting
different perceptible things (different compounds), present con-
flicting appearances. The addition of a small ingredient (e. g. of
a single new atom) may cause the original constituents to shift
their places : and the transposition of even a single atom involves
a 'change of the compound', and is thus enough to make the
whole appear entirely different.
The illustration from Tragedy and Comedy is probably
quoted from the Atomists (cf. Diels, Elementum, p. 13). Philo-
ponos gives other examples, which seem to be drawn from
Demokritos : but his interpretation of o-vy/cei/xeVov as TOV <ruv-
TtOfvros TO (TvvOcrov is impossible. Apart from the grammatical
difficulty, Demokritos would never have admitted that the Atomitself changes.
I5bl5~24- ^fr" ircipciTe'oi'. Leukippos, Demokritos, Anaxa-
goras, and Empedokles (according to Aristotle) maintain both
that yevco-is is distinct from dAAotWis, and that ycvco-is and <j>6opd
are respectively an '
associating' and a '
dissociating'
of elementary
constituents, whilst dAAotWis is a change of the thing's qualities.
If we develop the logical implications of these theses, we shall
find ourselves entangled in aaropiai dilemmas, antinomies. An
caropta is a pair of incompatible conclusions, both of which seem
A. 2. 3I5b11-31 73
to follow from logically convincing arguments. It is therefore
like a tangle, or a knot, by which our intelligence is bound and
enmeshed. We can neither accept nor reject it : and we cannot
advance until we have ' unravelled' one or more of the arguments
which form the knot (cf. e.g. Metaph. 995** 30-33, E. N. i i46a 24-
27 : Bonitz, Ind. s.v. SiaA.vetv, i84a43ff. ; Burner, Ethics^ Introd.
^5).
I5b20-24. ei -n-eipareW : a somewhat hasty outline of the
main aTro/nai to which the two theses lead. Thus (a) we cannot
identify yeVe<m and 'crvyKpLo-is, for many impossible consequencesresult from the identification. And yet we must identify them,for convincing arguments compel us to do so. (b) We must
identify yeVeo-is and o-vyKpicris : for if we do not, we shall have to
choose between denying yeVeo-is altogether, and identifying it with
The second airopta (b) is an indirect proof that yeVeo-is must be
crv'yKpio-is by a reductio ad absurdum. '
If yeVe<m is not o-vyKpwm,a dilemma results, both limbs of which conflict with the pluralists'
first thesis : for either there is no yeVeo-is at all, or it is identical
with dXXoiWis.' Hence, if we still wish to maintain that coming-
to-be is not f
association^ 'we must endeavour to unravel this
dilemma too'
(i.e. as well as the Xoyoi erepoi dvayfcaorucot referred
to at i5b21), 'and a stubborn one we shall find it'.
The proposed interpretation involves the omission of et (with
EHJ) in b24, as a dittograph of
77.A possible alternative is to
retain e?, and omit ov (with EF, cf. H) as a reduplication of the'last
syllable of xaXeTrov : 'Or, however difficult it may be to unravel
this dilemma too, we must make the attempt '.
I5b 26-27. TO" dSiaipe'rwc,
' because the primary reals
are indivisible magnitudes': cf. b 28 et/xeyeflr?,
'if the primaryreals are indivisible magnitudes . . .
'
I5b 28. Si<x<f>epei . . . TrXeio-TOk. If the primary reals are indivisible
magnitudes, ycVeo-ts must take place by o-vyKpto-is.If there are no
indivisible magnitudes, yeVeo-is need not (though it still may) take
place by o-^yKpto-ts (Philoponos).
i5b3O. lv TW
Ttjiauj). Timaeus 53cff. : cf.*i5
a29-33, a d
below.
I5b31. ef aXXois. Cf. de Caelo F. L, 7, A. 2, where Plato's theory
is criticized. The paradox (cf. de Caelo F. i, 299a 6-n) consists
in stopping at planes (p*xpl eViTreSwv) : for the same principles,
which induce Plato to resolve bodies into planes, ought
74 COMMENTARY
to have led him to resolve planes into lines and lines into
points, antl thus to have constructed bodies out of points or
monads.
I5b33 Ifia 2 - fyws xpwf""^6^*"- Cf. 14* 2 1-24, i5
b6-15,
2 5a 23~ b
5. We have sufficient evidence to justify Aristotle's
statement that the Atomists explained yeWo-is and <t>6opd by
cnfyfcpio-is and Station?. They admitted as real an infinite plurality
of 'indivisible bodies' (atoms), imperceptible owing to their
minuteness, differing from one another in figure and size, and
moving in the ' void'
(which is also*
real'
in a sense : cf.*25
a 26-
32) in all directions and with different velocities. The perceptible
things of ordinary experience' come-to-be ', because many atoms
of congruous figures are brought together by their movements.
Being brought together, they 'hold together' in so far as they
get entangled or mechanically attached (e.g. hooked together).
And when their cohesion is overcome e. g. by a more powerful
movement of the surrounding atoms the perceptible thing1
passes-away '. (Cf. Diels, pp. 343 ^ 346 14-15, 359 37 ;
Burnet, Greek Philosophy, 77-83.)On the other hand, there is considerable obscurity in the
Atomists' theory of the {
secondary'
qualities of the perceptible
things (colour, sound, flavour, temperature, &c.) and consequentlyin their conception of the change of such qualities, i. e. in their
account of dAAotWts (cf.*15^9-10,
*25^34 26b 6). The
*
secondary'
qualities, though' conventional
' and not 'real ', have
a real basis in the figures, the sizes, the 'grouping' and the1
turning'
of the constituent atoms; and some of them at least
(e.g. flavours) appear to be explained as 'really differences of
figure (cf. Arist. de Sensu 442 b 10-12, below *25^36 26a 24;
Theophr. de Sensu, 60-82, quoted by Diels, pp. 375-9). Now,if different flavours are really different figures, how can there be
a change of flavour, i. e. dAAoiWis in the qualities of taste ? Theatoms do not change their figure. Are we to suppose that
a change in the'
grouping'
or'
turning'
of the atoms makes their
figures appear different ? But there is no indication that Demo-kritos distinguished between real and apparent figure, or that he
ascribed flavour to apparent figure. Perhaps Demokritos wouldhave appealed to the principle enunciated above (15^11-15).When milk, e.g., 'alters' from sweet to sour, what has really
happened is that a few atoms of one figure have gone out of the
compound and been replaced by atoms of a different figure.
75
But if so, is there any difference in principle between
andyci/ecris or <f>@opd?
At b33, EJ read 6/xoi'tus; but o/uas is clearly required. The
Atomists' technical terms for o-^/xa, 0e'o-i9, and rais were /W/AO?,
rpoTTTJ, and SiaOiyrj (Metaph. 985* 15-19). Diels (p. 710, note on
p. 344, 1. 4) interprets Sia&y?/ as 'inter-contact'. Beare (p. 37 2 )
suggests it may be 8ia0ZyiJ, i.e. a dialectic form of Sia&j/o? (sc.
EJL<J>C read SiaOrjyf) here (
b35) : but, in view of 2y
a 18
r} FHJ, om. E, SiaOyyT) L), we should hardly be justified in
introducing StaOrjyf) or $LaOrji<r]. For //.era/ai/owTa, cf. i5b13, 14.
i6a i-2. 816 . . . xpwpmea6ai. A parenthetical corollary.
Demokritos is entitled to deny the *
reality' of colour, since
(according to his theory) things get coloured owing to the
'turning' of their constituent atoms. Demokritos appears to
have recognized black, white, green, and red as primary colours,
out of which all other colours were formed by mixture (Beare, pp.
30-7). He also seems to have identified( white' with 'smooth'
and 'black' with 'rough' (Arist. de Sensu 442b 11-12): and the
present passage suggests that the 'smoothness' or 'roughness'
depends upon the way in which the atoms are turned. The
things which get coloured or which appear coloured, owing to
the '
turning'
of their atoms are the objects of vision, i. e. the
'images' (SetKeAa or eiSwAa) thrown off from bodies (Burnet,Greek Philosophy, p. 196).
Theophrastos, however, represents Demokritos as ascribing
the differences of texture (e. g. smoothness and roughness) in
the objects of vision to differences of figure in the atoms, and not
merely to differences of their'
turning'
: cf. Theophr. de Sensu,
73-82 (Diels, pp. 377-9). In i6a i HJ read x/>ot?ji/,which Diels
(p. 715) rejects as probably not a genuine survival of the dialect.
i6a 2-4. T is cufrwy. The Platonists cannot, with their
assumptions, construct dAAotWts as well as yeVe<ris. Nothing but
solids results from '
putting together'
planes : but dAA.oiWis
means change of qualities, and therefore presupposes qualities in
the things which alter. And it is impossible to generate a quality
by'
putting together'
planes the Platonists do not even attempt
it. The last clause (wOos yap . . . avrw) supports the clause before
it (ovfev yap . . . o-vvTi0e/xeVon'), which itself justifies Aristotle's asser-
tion that the Platonists cannot construct dXXoiWis as well as
ye'veons.
L and F (in the margin) read o-wTt^e/xeVwv Kara TrXaro?, which
76 COMMENTARY
would mean 'by being superimposed' (cf. de Caelo 299^23-31).But the elementary triangles of the Timaeus are not superimposed
to form the* elements '. They are
'
put together'
so as to
constitute the planes containing a solid, i. e. they are '
put
together' Kara y/oa/A/^v. We must reject Kara TrXaros as the
addition of a scribe, who misunderstood Aristotle's criticisms
both here and in the de Caelo, 1. c.
i6a 8. aumpcif : intransitive, cf. 18*13, Phys. 262*16.
i6a 8-10. ot ... paov :
'. . . those whom devotion to abstract
discussions has rendered unobservant of the facts are too readyto dogmatize on the basis of a few observations.'
Adyoi, sc. dialectical discussions : cf. 1 6a 1 1 (AoytKws), Metaph.
987^31, 1050^35.ra virdpxovTa, sc.
'
the facts'
as contrasted with a priori theories :
cf. Bonitz, Ind. s.v., who rightly quotes de Caelo 29 7b22, Post.
Anal. 8i b23 in illustration of the present passage.
i6a 12. ot . . . IOTCII. The Platonists argue that there must be
atomic magnitudes, 'because otherwise "The Triangle" will be
more than one'. For their argument, cf. de Lin. Insec. 968*9-14with my notes.
In a 1 2, on avro TO rptywi/ov (E) is on the whole the most
probable reading. J's ov <f>a<ri is an obvious correction due to
misunderstanding of Sm.i6a 13-14. ATjjxoKpiTos . . . irpol'ouau'. The 'arguments appro-
priate to the subject, i.e. drawn from the science of nature',
which convinced Demokritos, are reproduced and answered in
the discussion which follows.
i6a14 I7
a17. Ixci . . . e\aTT6Vwi>.
(i) The thesis that a bodyis divisible through and through (i.
e. the denial of indivisible
magnitudes) leads to impossible results. Hence we seem to be
forced to maintain that there are indivisible magnitudes (16*14-b16). But (ii) the latter thesis also leads to impossible results,
as Aristotle claims to have shown elsewhere. Hence we seem
forced to deny that there are indivisible magnitudes (i6b16-18).
We are thus entangled in an airopia (cf.*i5
b15-24), and this
is solved by showing that the arguments, which apparently compelus to accept indivisible magnitudes, involve a faulty inference
(i6b i8 17" 17).
i6a 14. diropuxK. The term is used rather loosely here :
' a diffi-
culty '. But an aTropLa in the full and strict sense is developedin the following passage : cf. i6b 19, and the preceding note.
A. 2. 3i6a 8-i9 77
i6a 15-16. i TIS . . . SumToy. The denial of indivisible magni-tudes is equivalent to the thesis that
' a body (i.e. a magnitude)
is divisible through and through '. But this thesis, // interpretedwithout careful qualification, leads (as we shall see) to the absurditythat the constituents of a body are either
'
points'
or*
nothings'
:
or that there is nothing in the body which escapes the division,i. e. that the whole body is consumed in the dividings.
i6a17-18. K&I> . . . SiT)'pT)T<u. It is 'tempting to omit TOVTO in
a1 8 (with <>'), since it must mean TO <rw/x,a, whereas in a 16 and
a17 it means TO Trarn/ 8iCLLpcOfjvcu. F reads . . . TOVTO Trdvrr)
8Lr)pr)fjicvov, Kal eiJJLTJ ajua TOVTO 8iTJpr)raL. The addition of Travn/,
though it gives the right sense, is unnecessary, and is probablydue to the Trdvrr) in a
i7. And the second TOVTO only tends to
throw suspicion on the first.
Translate :
' then it might be at one and the same momentdivided through and through, even though the dividings had
not been effected simultaneously '.
16*19. icfty . . . aSui/aTOf. Cf. 27a7-i4, where Aristotle refers
to the present passage. His argument presupposes the definition
,of TO 6WaTov which is given in the Metaphysics (1047** 24-26) :
' A thing is Swarov so far as, if it actually does (or is) that which
it has the power to do (or be), nothing dSvvarov results '. BydSvvarov we must understand ' inconceivable ',
'
self-contradictory'
(cf. e.g. Metaph. 104 7b3-14). Hence x is 8warov elvat y,
provided that, if x actually is (or becomes) y, the '
being'
of xis not eo ipso destroyed ; i. e. provided that y is not incompatiblewith some feature constitutive of the essential nature of x.
So, a body is iravry 8ia.iper6v (i. q. Bvvarov Trdvrr) Siaipe&fjvai),
provided that, if in fact this*
through and through'
division takes
place, nothing incompatible with the essential nature of'
body'
results. But, as we shall see, the body's dissolution into points
would result : i. e. it would follow that a body'
consists of points ',
which is incompatible with the essential nature of '
body '. Hence
a body is not 8warov Trdvry &iaipe6f}va.L in the proper sense of
It must, however, be added that Aristotle here interprets the
thesis (that a body is Trdvrr) SuupeToV) as meaning that a bodycan be so divided through and through, that the results of the
dividing are simultaneous. It would not follow that a body' consists of points ', if the thesis meant only
*it is always possible
to divide a given body anywhere, though not everywhere at once '.
7 8 COMMENTARY
The thesis thus interpreted is, in fact, maintained by Aristotle
himself.
Aristotle developed his conception of Swa/xts and Swarov in
the Metaph. (1. c.) as the result of a controversy with the
Megarians : see, on the whole subject, Maier's article in the
Archiv f. Geschichte d. Philosophic, xiii, pp. 30 ff.
i6a 19-21. OUKOUI/ . . . yeyovos.' Hence the same principle will
apply, whenever a body is by nature divisible through and through
whether by progressive bisection, or generally by any method
whatever : nothing impossible will have resulted, if it has actually
been divided . . .
'
The construction is a little harsh, but not impossible. Aristotle
is urging that if a body is Swarov Trdvry Statpe^i/at, whether the
Siatpeo-ts is by bisection (/cara TOJJLCO-OV,
i. e. by progressive bisection
ad infinitum-. cf. a i8 /cat t ^ a/xa St^rat), or by any other
method (KOL oA.ws Se), in all cases alike nothing aBvvarov will result
if the body has actually been divided. Bekker and Prantl make
nonsense of the passage by placing a full stop after wo-aimos.
For this use of OVKOW, see Bonitz, Ind. 540* 28-30, and cf.
below, i6b 10.
i6a 22. 8tt]pi(](jL^a (8taip6)jj. An alternative emendation would
be 8ir)pr)}JLva (Siflp^/xeVov) #.
i6a25. f\v . . . 8icupToi>,
' whereas ex hypothesi the body was
divisible through and through'. Aristotle is reproducing the
original formulation of the thesis (16*15): otherwise we should
have expected ^prj^vov instead of Stat/ocro^.
i6a 25-26. dXXd ... 8' 2<mu. * But if it be admitted that
neither a body nor a magnitude will remain, and yet"through and
through"division is to take place . . .
'
Et fjiySev eo-rat (sc. A.OITTOV) trw/xa /x^Se /xeye^os resumes the result
of the preceding argument as an admission which the advocates
of the original thesis are forced to make. Sicupecris 8' la-rat
reaffirms the original thesis in spite of this admission. If the
original thesis is to be maintained in spite of this admission, the
body, which is TrdVn; Statpcrov, will have to consist of points or of
nothings, as Aristotle proceeds to state.
i6a 26-34. *\ fJ^Y6^05 - The constituents of the body must
be either (i) points, or(ii) nothings. If (i) they are points, they
are without magnitude; and therefore the body, which they
constitute, can have no magnitude, i. e. cannot be TTOO-OV (a29-34).
If (ii) they are nothings, the body can come-to-be out of nothings,
A. 2. 3i6a 19b 2 79
and can exist as a composite of nothings : i. e. the body is simplyan illusory appearance (
a28-29).
The explanatory clause /cat d/xeye^ c <Li/ o-vy/cemu has disturbed
the natural statement of the alternatives. Aristotle began with
the intention of writing 'it will either consist of points or of
nothings '. But he added to the first alternative the explanatoryclause '
i. e. its constituents will be apeycOr]'
; and then, treating
this clause as if it were the main statement of the first alternative,
stated the second alternative in a corresponding grammaticalform. Thus the effect is the same as if he had written
17 ony/mletrovrat /cat apeyeOr) (TO,)
e wi/ (ruy/ceiTat, 17ouSej/ TravTa.7ra.a-w.
i6a29-34. OJAOIWS . . . ny os : this disposes of the first
alternative (see preceding note). The argument (a 30-34) is :
(i) Before the division, when the points were in contact and
together, they did not increase the quantity of the whole (a30-31,
oTrore ... TO Trav). We can see this(ii)
from the fact that, whenthe body was divided into two or more parts, the whole
(i.e. the
sum of the now separated parts) was not a bit smaller or bigger
than it was before the division(a31-33 Siaipe0e'i/T05 . . . Tr/ooVepov).
Hence (iii) even if all the points (into which the body has been
dissolved by the '
through and through'
division) be put together,
they will not make any magnitude.i6a 34- b 8. dXXci . . . oriyftV)!'. We have seen that, if a body
has been divided through and through, we are left with points or
nothings : i. e. the body has been dissolved into'
constituents'
which never could constitute it. But it might be urged that,
though nothing is left when the'
through and through'
division is
over, yet in the process of the dividing something evades the
division : and that this*
something'
sufficed to constitute the
original body. It is suggested first (a34~ ^2) that the 'something'
which evades the division is itself a *
body ', like sawdust : and
when that suggestion is disposed of, it is suggested next (b2-8)
that the original body was 'formed' or 'qualified' points, and
that the' form '
or the '
quality'
goes out in the dividing. This
suggestion also is shown to be impossible.
16^ 2. direpxerat . . . Siaipcroi' j aTre/o^erat (and similarly aTr^X^er,b3) i. q. rrjv 8tat/3(riv 8ta</>vyei, i6a 16.
o awos Ao'yos : the same argument as above,a24-25.
Kti/o . . . StaipcToi/ /' For in what sense is that section divisible ?
It must be divisible in some sense, since the body is
So COMMENTARY
EHJL omit yap, but the asyndeton is rather harsh.
i6 b4. oriypal . . . iraOouaai. The 'points' or 'contacts' stand
to the 7ra0os in the relation of matter to form. The /xe'yeflos is
a To'Sc eV TwSe, or <I>8! raSt CXOJ/TO. (cf. Metaph. io36b23). The
suggestion, then, is that the division separates the points or
contacts (the matter) from their Traces (the form), and that in
the division an eTSos yupunQv 17 -ratios goes out.
Before proceeding, it will be as well to explain certain technical
terms (viz. c</^s, aTTTo/xevov, exo/^vov, <rwxs)j whose mean-
ing Aristotle assumes throughout this passage and in what
follows. They are denned in the Physics (226^ 18 227b 2 :
cf. also 23iai8ff., and de Lin. Insec. 97i
ni7 972
a 6 with mynotes).
(i) The widest term is e<^e^?. It applies whenever there is
a series with a first member (an dpx>j) and an order of ' succession',
provided that there is nothing of the same kind (o-vyyeves) as the
members of the series intervening between any two of them.
In every such series each succeeding member is consecutive
(c^e^Js) to the preceding member. Thus, e.g., a line (or lines)
may be consecutive to a line, a unit (or units) to a unit, a house
(or houses) to a house, provided that no other magnitude, no
other number, or no other building intervenes.
The members constituting the series may be selected on various
principles ;e. g. because they belong to the same species as the
first member ('a row of houses
'),because they have a determinate
spatial relation to it ('a series of lines parallel to a given line
'),
and so forth. And, in relation to the selected ap^rj, the 'suc-
cession'
may be temporal (e. g. the 2nd of the month is con-
secutive to the ist), or '
logical' (the number 2 is consecutive
to i, for i is Trporepoi/ rw Xdyw to 2), or spatial (the second
house in the row is consecutive to thefirst),
&c.
(ii) If, in a consecutive series, any member is in contact with the
member to which it is consecutive, it is said to be '
immediatelynext
'
(exo/Aevoi/) to its predecessor.
'Now, according to Aristotle's definition of TO own-co-flai (Phys.226b 21-23, and cf.
* 22b 29), only spatial quanta (lines, surfaces,
or solids) can strictly be in contact. Any two lines, surfaces, or
solids are in contact when their 'extremes' (i.e. their containing
points, lines, or surfaces) are'
together'
(a/xa), viz. are in one and
the same '
immediately-continent'
place. The '
immediately-
continent'
place of anything (TOTTOS iStos or Trpwros) is that which
A. 2. 3i6b 4-6 .81
contains that thing and nothing more (Phys. 209a3i- b
i).
Hence the term immediately-next (f^o^vov) applies only to a series
of consecutive spatial quanta. In such a series any memberwhich is in contact with the preceding member (to which it is
consecutive] is immediately-next to it. Thus, though the number 2
is consecutive to i, 2 is not immediately-next to i : for numbers
cannot be in contact with one another. And though point maybe said, in a less strict sense of airrco-dat, to be in contact with
point ; yet, since in a magnitude point is not consecutive to point,
point cannot be said to be immediately-next to point (cf.* i6b 6-8,
*1 7*2-17).
Lastly (iii)TO o-wcxc's is a special case of cxopevov. If the
* extremes' of two quanta (one of which is immediately-next, to
the other), instead of being merely 'together' (a/m), coalesce
and become one, the quanta are ' held together'
or ' continued'
(o-tWxeTcu) and are continuous or form a continuum (owc^cs).In order to prevent misunderstanding, it must be remembered
that Aristotle regards continuity as primarily spatial, i.e. as
characterizing a pcyeOos. The 'continuity' of motion, or of
change generally, is derivative, dependent upon the continuity
of the moving or changing o-w/xa. And the '
continuity'
of time
is dependent upon the 'continuity' of the /aV/yo-is which, qua
measured, is time. Similarly*
succession'
(TO irportpov KOL
vo-Tepov), according to Aristotle, is primarily spatial, depending
upon position (rfj 0co-ei). Cf. Phys. 2i9a 10 ff., 22ob 24 ff.
; below,*37*22-25.We can now explain 16^4 a little further. The advocates of
the'
through and through'
divisibility of a /xe'yetfos may'
urge
(Aristotle suggests) that a/xe'yetfos
is 'points or contacts thus
qualified'
: i. e. a continuous magnitude, they may say, results
from the coalescence of two points, which are a/xa, into one
point. Each couple of ' coincident'
points is a ' contact'
(o^rj) :
and a ' contact ',or many
'
contacts ', whose' coincident
'
points
fuse and become one, is a <rwe\es.
i6b 5-6. Tt . . . oriYfuu ; Each of the' elements
'
(Earth, Air,
Fire, Water) has its own proper place in the Cosmos and its own
natural movement towards its proper place : and all'
places'
are
filled by elementary or composite bodies (cf. Introd. 10).
Since points are not bodies, they cannot have any'
place' and
they cannot have any natural movement. Yet, if they are not'in any place ',
i. e. if they are nowhere, how can they be the
2254 G
82. COMMENTARY
constituents of a body? And if they have no movement, how
can they coalesce to form a o-uvex** ?
i6b 6-8. d<|>rj re . . . oriypji'.' Contact
'
means, strictly speak-
ing, the * coincidence'
(i.e.
'
togetherness in the same immediately-
continent place ')of the ' extremes
'
or 'limits
'
of two /icycdi?
(*i6b4). Hence it implies two obrTo/xeva whose 'limits' are
(
together '. But points are themselves 'limits
',and nothing but
'limits
'
: hence point cannot (strictly speaking) be in contact with
point. Two lines can be in contact, i. e. their'limits
*
(from which
they, as ' the limited ',are distinguished) can be '
together '. But
a point cannot be distinguished into a 'limit' and a 'limited'.
If, therefore, we speak of a contact of points, we are using the
term in a different (and a looser) sense : it is a '
contact',into
which the whole of both aarroficva is absorbed (oXov oAov a7rreo-0ai).
And it is clear that from such? contacts' no o-vi/e^es could result (cf.
Phys. 231* 26-29,b 2-6 : dt Lin. Insec. 97 i a 26 ff., with my notes).
i6b 7-8. irapd . . . (rTiypr\v. On the supposition that a magnitudeis
'
points or contacts thus qualified ', d<?7, Sicupe<ns, and o-ny^rj
are equivalent terms : see de Lin. Insec. 972* 28-30, with my note.
i6b 9-14. In . . . TauTa;
Prantl brackets this passage as
spurious. But, although it is difficult to see exactly how it
connects with what has gone before, it is undoubtedly genuine ;
and it contains a new and important objection (b13-14) to the
view that a/x,e'ye#os is
'
points or contacts thus qualified '.
If I divide a piece of wood into two, and then put the parts
together again, the result is a single piece of wood of the same
magnitude as before. The same principle applies, at whatever
point I divide the wood. Let us suppose, then, that I have
divided it at all points at once(i.
e. through and through) and
put it together again. It is now a magnitude, and one : and yet,
since it has been through and through divided, it is still potentially
through and through divided (b H-I2 rravrfl apa SirjprjTaL Svva/m).
What distinguishes its present potential'
through and throughdividedness' from the preceding actual 'through and throughdividedness ' when it had vanished into points ? If we say
'the
distinction depends on the presence or absence of a Traces', wemust explain how the wood can be dissolved into quality + points
(eis ravra,b13) and how it can come-to-be out of quality +
points : in other words, we must explain how Tratfo? and that
which it qualifies (viz. points) can be separated from one another
so as to exist apart.
A. 2. 3i6b6-25 83
i6b 12. TI . . . Snapeo-ip ;
'
What, then, is there in the woodbesides the division (i.e. besides the points : cf.
* i6b 7-8)?'i6b 17-18. IO-KCTTTCH . . . eWpois. avroii/, i. e. the dSwara resulting
from the postulate of Indivisibles.
!/ ere'pois, cf. Phys. 23ia 21 ff., <& CVz/0 303
a3 If. (cf. also de Lin.
Insec. 969^29 ff.).
i6b 18-19. AXXA . . . XeKTloK.' But we must try to disentangle
these perplexities, and must therefore formulate the whole problemover again.'
x, i. e. both sets of difficulties which together constitute the
: cf.* i6a 14 i7
a17. The argument which seems to force
us to accept Indivisibles is restated (b19-34) : the fallacy under-
lying it is exposed, and the true theory set forth, thus solving the
dTropia (i7a1-17).
i6b 19-25. TO ... <TTj|Xioi'.' On the one hand, then, it is in
no way paradoxical that every perceptible body should be in-
divisible as well as divisible at any and every point. For the
second predicate will attach to it potentially, but the first actually.
On the other hand, it would seem to be impossible for a body to
be, even potentially, divisible at all points simultaneously. For
if it were possible, then it might actually occur, with the result,
not that the body would simultaneously be actually both (indivisible
and divided), but that it would be simultaneously divided at
any and every point.'
Suuperov (which Bekker, following EL, inserts after Swa/m in
b 2 1) is probably due to accidental reduplication of Suupcrov in b 22
or it may have been a marginal note intended to explain TO p\v
yap . . . VTrdp^fL (b2l).
Swa/m (b22) may have arisen by accidental reduplication
of oWa/xei in b 21. If we retain it, it must be taken closely with
c7vat. It is not required with SiaipeToV, since that means Swarov
. Aristotle may have been induced to qualify e?i/ai with
t, owing to the antithesis between vTrdp&i Swa/m and virdp&i
ei/TeA.e;(aa in b 21.
I suspect that the sentence ov^ wore . . . cny/xetov ^23-25) was
originally a marginal note, intended (like SiaipcTdV in b2i) to
explain TO /xcv yap . . . virapa. This suspicion is confirmed bythe fact that F1 reads Suyprj/AeW Swafici /ca0' in b
24-25. Whenthe marginal note got displaced and inserted in the text, Swa/mbecame unintelligible. Accordingly it was dropped, F 1 alone
retaining it.
G 2
84 COMMENTARY
i6b 28-34. ti&b - o-uyKpiaei. This reproduces the experiential
basis of the Atomists' theory. A body cannot be divisible through
and through : for that would mean that it consists of points
or nothings. On the other hand, we see that a body'is in fact
divided into separable magnitudes which are smaller at each
division into magnitudes which fall apart from one another
and are actually separated' (cf. Phys. 23ib4~6). We have
only to suppose this process of '
breaking-up'
carried a little
further, and we shall reach bodies too small to be visible (dopara,b33 : cf. 25* 30). These invisible, minute bodies (separated
from one another by* the void ',
and indivisible because not
comprising any 'void' within themselves) are the Atoms of
Leukippos and Demokritos.
aAAa /xe'xpi TOV(b32), SC. etrj av
f} Opviffis.
l6b 33-34. aXXws . . . auyicpurei. Assuming that yivevus and
<f>6opd occur, and assuming that yeVeo-ts is due to o-vyKpuris and
<f>6opd to Sia/cpto-ts, we seem to be forced to admit that the ultimate
constituents of the perceptible bodies are'invisible atoms '. For
(a) an ' association'
of points or nothings cannot produce a body,nor can a body be 'dissociated* into them; i.e. 'association'
and ' dissociation'
imply a limit to the body's divisibility : and
(b) unless the ' associated' and '
dissociated' atoms were invisible^
there would not be even an apparent emergence of what was not
already there, or an apparent vanishing of what was there. But
nobody would speak of yeVeo-is and <j>6opd unless there were, at
'least in appearance^ a '
creation' and an ' annihilation '.
i7a i-2. TrapaXoyi6jjiei'os. The Atomists argue, according to
Aristotle, that there must be atoms ; because, if not, a body is
divisible through and through, and this leads to an absurdity. For,' What is Trdvrr) Sicu/oerdv can be resolved into points or nothings :
' A body (ex hyp.} is Travrr? Siatperov :
' Therefore a body can be resolved into points or nothings '.
But this syllogism is a 7rapaA.oyioyi,ds (faulty in form), for its
middle term (jrdvTy Statpcrov) is ambiguous. The major premissis true, only if Trdvry Statperov means
'
divisible everywhere simul-
taneously '. But the minor premiss is true, only if irdvrg Siaiperov
means '
divisible everywhere successively, i. e. anywhere you
please '.
I7a2-17. fire! . . . cXaTTOfwy. A can only be immediately-next
(e^d/Acvov) to B, if A is(i) consecutive to (c<^c^s) and (ii) in contact
with (a7rrd/x.voi/) B (cf. *i6b 4).
A. 2. 3i6b 28 3i7
a9 85
Now point cannot be consecutive to point ; for, between anytwo points, something o-vyyo/e's (viz. a line) always intervenes (cf.
e. g: Phys. 23ib6-io). Nor can point be in contact with point,
except in the loose sense of ' contact whole with whole' (cf.
*i6b6-8). Hence point is not immediately-next to point in a
magnitude.From this it follows that, though any given magnitude can be
divided 'everywhere' in one sense (viz. anywhere, at any point),
it cannot be divided '
everywhere'
in another sense (viz. at all
points simultaneously}. For though there is a point'
everywhere'
in the magnitude, in the sense that a point can be taken '
any-
where '
within it, these points (i.e.
'all
'
the points of the magnitude)are not immediately-next to one another : i. e. they are not '
every-
where '
in the sense that at all places of the magnitude simul-
taneously there are points. If, e. g., the given magnitude has been
divided at its centre, it cannot also be divided at a point
immediately-next to its centre : for there is no such point. Onthe other hand, the magnitude might have been divided at a
point immediately-next to its centre, instead of at its centre : for
a point might have been taken there, instead of at the centre.
Hence every magnitude is iravrr) StcupeToV, and yet no magni-tude can be Trwr-fl a/m oiypr}/j.vov. And it is possible to take
a point*
everywhere'
i. e. at any place, or successively at all
places in a magnitude : but not to take points'
everywhere'
in
a magnitude, i. e. simultaneously at all places within it.
TOVTO (l7a4), SC. TO TTO.VTYI eu/ttt SldlpCTOV.
KOL OTTTJOVV . . . civai (a5),
' that there is a point not only any-
where, but also everywhere, in the magnitude '.
i7a7-9. TO 8
s
... irdfTT).' But it is only in one sense that the
magnitude is divisible through and through, viz. in so far as
there is one point anywhere within it and all its points are
everywhere within it if you take them singly one by one. But
there are not more points than one anywhere within it, for the
points are not consecutive : hence it is not simultaneously
divisible through and through.'
TO 8' (a
7), SC. TO SicupcTov eTrat.
WO-T* ov TTOLVTy (a9), SC. 8(,aipeTOV orTai TO //,ey$o5.
Grammatically it would be possible to interpret TO 8' (a7) as
TO Se o-Tiy/x^v civou, and oW ov Travry (a9) as oW ov Trdvrr) o-Tty/xi)
corat : but this would not enable us to connect the passage with
the next sentence (et -yap Kara
86 COMMENTARY
I7a 10-12. et . . . oruyOeats.
' For if it were divisible through and
through, then, if it be divisible at its centre, it will be divisible
also at a point immediately-next to its centre. But it is not so
divisible : for position is not immediately-next to position, nor
point to point in other words, division is not immediately-next to
division, nor composition to composition.'
In a 1 1, EFHL3*5 read Siai/oeroV ov yap KT\. Philoponosremarks that Aristotle meant to say TOVTO S' dSwarov, and F reads4 non autem possibile '. J alone reads SiatpcToV o^ '
ov yapKT\. Mr. T. W. Allen pointed out to me that ov^L Se (sc. OVK
t 8e) might represent OVK ecrrt 81 (sc. KO.T e^o/xcv^v OTiy/AT/v SwuperoV) :
and I have adopted this conjecture, though dXA' dSwarov (cf. Fand < c
)would be more in accordance with Aristotle's usage.
I7a H-I2. <nr)(Aeioi> . . . oTiYfATjs. If any difference of meaning
between o-^/xetov and o-ny/x^ is here intended, o-ry/x-eioi/is probably
employed as the wider term, to include an 'instant
'
(TO vvv) as
well as a spatial point. Aristotle uses o-rj^lov of a *
point'
of time
(e.g. Phys. 262*2, 25 de Caelo 283* u, 13), and the doctrine
that point is not consecutive to point is expressly applied to TO vvv
as well as too-TiyytxiJ,
e. g. Phys. 23ib 6-io.
17* 12. TOUTO . . . ow0<ris. For the interpretation given above,cf.
* i6b 7-8. Possibly, however, these words have got displaced,and should be read after SiaKpwns in a
13.
I7a 16. els jjuKpd Kal ^Xdrro),
' into small(i.
e. relatively-small)
parts.''
Dissociation' need not result in small constituents, but
it must result in constituents which are relatively-small, i. e.
smaller than that which is* dissociated '.
I7ai7-3i. AXX* oux . . . ^ao-ir. Aristotle here lays down the
meaning which he is going to attach to yeVeo-ts, <0opa, and dAAoiWisi.e. their nominal definitions : cf. Introd. 8 and *
I4a 6 I7
a3i.
i7a18-19, TTJI> . . . dXXoia><riy : the accusative depends upon
</>ao~tv.
I7a22-23. ot 8c . . . Scalpel, ot 8e, the philosophers whom we
are criticizing, i. e. primarily the Atomists.
ToiavTrjv, sc. rrjv tv TW o-uvcx" fteTa^oX^i/, 'the change which
takes place in what is continuous '
;in contrast to the change by
which a thing is 'dissociated' into discrete parts or a discrete
plurality'
associated'
to form a thing.
TO Se Stcu^e'pei,' whereas in fact there is a difference '. For there
are two kinds of change, both of which may be called'
change in
what is continuous'. Of these, (i) change in the constitutive
A. 2. 317*10-30 87
factors of the thing (a change of its'
substance')
is yeWis or
<f>6opd : whilst (ii) a change in the thing's properties, where the
substance of the thing is unaffected, is dAAotWts.
I7a23-27. iv yap . . . dXXoiWis. ' For in that which underlies
the change there is a factor corresponding to the definition,
a formal factor, and there is a material factor. When, then,
the change is in these constitutive factors, there will be coming-to-be or passing-away : but when it is in the thing's qualities, i.e.
a change of the \h\ngper accidens, there will be Alteration.'
The phrase TO /xcv . . . vXyv (a24) is hardly more than a peri-
phrasis for TO fjLfv Ao'yos (or t8os), TO 8e v\rj (cf. e. g. Metaph. io33b
*3 IO35a J
)' The 1805 of a thing is strictly correlative to its
Aoyos, for a thing's 'form' is that of which the definition or
formula (Ao'yos) states the constitutive moments (cf. Introd. 7).
The v7To/ci/xvov that which underlies the change is a formed-
matter or embodied-form, i. e. a o-w#eTos ovo-ia (cf. Introd.
5). A change'in
'
the form and matter a change of the
o-w#Tos ovo-ia as a whole is ycVeo-is or <f>6opd. But a change'in
'
the thing's properties, which leaves it, qua this composite of form
and matter, unchanged, is dAAoiWis : and this change is predicable
of the thing only KCITO, o-v/x/fe/fyKos (a26), not K.O.& avTo. For,
strictly-speaking, it is not the thing, qua thing, which changes :
the thing changes only in respect to some one of the properties
which '
go along with'
it, which may or may not attach to it.
The full significance of Aristotle's present account of the
distinction between yeveo-is and dAAoiWis will emerge gradually
in the course of Chapters 3 and 4.
I7a27-28. oiaicpii'ojuiei/a . . . yiKcrai. As the illustration shows,
this is a brachylogy for v<f>0apra KOL a^Oapra (8va-<f>0apra) yiVerat.* Association
' and ' dissociation'
are not yeVco-is and <0o/oa, but*
dissociation'
may facilitate or hasten, and '
association'
mayretard, yo/co-is and <J>@opa.
17*28-29. ec^ . . . ppaSurepoK. As we shall learn presently
(cf.*18*23-25), the yeVeous of one thing is always eo ipso the
<j>6opd of another. Here, therefore, Oarrov drjp yCverai necessarily
implies that 6arrov vSup c[>OeipeTcu.
eav 8e <rvyKpL6fj, i.e. if small drops of water have first been' associated
'
together (so as to form a big sheet of water).
17*30. iv rots uorepoy. Cf. 28a 23- b22, where it becomes
clearer how 'association' and 'dissociation' affect a thing's
susceptibility to (f>6opd.
88 COMMENTARY
I7a31. oia.v . . . <f>aoni', i. e. (as Philoponos rightly explains)
cannot be identified with
A. 3
I7a 32 igb 5. Aiupiaft^uk . . . cipV]a0u. Having defined the
meaning of the terms ye'vecns and <f>0opd (having given their' nominal definitions
'),Aristotle proceeds to prove on ecrri, i. e.
that corresponding processes do in fact occur in Nature (cf.*i4
a
6 i7a31). According to their
' nominal definitions', yeVeo-is and
<j>6opd must be distinguished from dAAoiWi?, crvy/c/oKns, and Sia/cpio-is.
The terms mean processes in which a composite of form and
matter changes as a whole, so that a new composite (a new* substance
') emerges, or so thatpa given composite vanishes
(cf. *i7 a23-27).
The terms are commonly applied, in the sense defined, to
many processes in Nature : e. g. to the reciprocal'
transforma-
tions'
of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, and to the coming-to-be of
plants (cf. i9a 1
1). Aristotle shows (a) that such an interpretationof these and similar processes is possible, since it does not
necessarily conflict with the admitted postulates that 'Nothingcan come-to-be out of Nothing
' and that * No property can exist
per se, apart from a substance'; and (b) that such an inter-
pretation follows logically from his own theory of the physicalCosmos. For the conceptions of Trpwrrj vXrj and of '
the efficient
cause of motion', which are established in the Physics, are
adequate to account for the actual occurrence of yeVeo-t? and
<f>0opd (in the sense defined), and indeed for their occurrence with
unbroken continuity in Nature.
I7a32. irp&Tov. The second main topic of investigation is
formulated at 17^ 34-35.
I7a32~34- "rrt TI . . . Kal TI. Since yeVcons is a 7ra#os, its
*
being'
is its*
inhering in' a substance (cf. Introd. p. xxvi
x).
Strictly, therefore, the question et eo-rt yeVeo-is should be formulatedas Aristotle here formulates it :
'Is there anything which comes-
to-be in the unqualified sense ? Is there anything of which corA?}
yeVeo-is can be predicated ?'
The 'proper' sense (/cvptw?,a33) is the 'unqualified' sense
(dTrAws). If there is substantial change, i. e. if a new '
substance '
emerges or an existing 'substance' vanishes, we say, without
qualification, ytyi/crat or ^0ct/Dcrat. If, on the other hand, a thingremains substantially unaltered, but changes its quality, its size,
A. 2. 3i;a3i 3. 3i;
b13 8 9
or its position, we add a qualification to the verb. We say 'it
comes-to-be-///','
comes-to-be-ze/^*V<? ',
'
comes-to-be-/^ ', &c. This
is TIS yeVeo-is or TIS <f>6opd. Since, when that is so, we also qualify
the thing (e. g.'
the black thing comes-to-be white ',
' the small thing
comes-to-be big '),the processes are sometimes called yeveo-ts nvos
or <f>0opd TM/OS. Or, as Aristotle expresses it, in the qualified
processes 'a thing always comes-to-be-something out of being-
something'
(ttt 8' K Ttl/OS Kttt Tl,a34).
Thus the antithesis between ycVecris (or <f>6opd) aTrXfj and TIS
is between substantial change and change of Traces, i. e. changein Categories other than that of Substance. We shall see pre-
sently that Aristotle also uses the antithesis in a different sense :
for(i) amongst substantial changes, some are regarded as cbrAar
in contrast to others, and (ii) amongst changes of -n-dOrj, some are
regarded as relatively a-n-XoL. Cf.* i8a 27 19* 22, 19* 14-17.
Zabarella rightly compares Post. Anal. 89^ 36 9oa5. For
just as yiyv<r#ai aTrAais means 'to COme-tO-be', whilst yiyve<T#ai
with a qualification means 'to come-to-be-so-and-so
'
; similarly
tTrai dTrAws means 'to be '
('to exist'),
whilst etvat with a quali-
fication functions as the copula and means '
to be-so-and-so '.
Hence Aristotle(1. c.) distinguishes the question d eo-rtv cbrXais
(e. g.' Does the moon exist ? Is there a moon ?
')from the
question t lo-rt rt (e. g.'
Is the moon eclipsed ?').
The former
(existential) question is an inquiry into the being of the thing as
a viroKtipwov a ' substance ',or whole of form and matter :
the latter (which Aristotle also calls the question t tcmv cTrt"
/xepov?, or an inquiry into TO ore) is an inquiry into a part of the
thing's being, its being in a certain respect, i. e. its possession of
a property.
I7b1-13. ei ... yiv6n*vov. An argument to show that unqualified
yeVecris is impossible, because it would involve either that some-
thing can come-to-be out of sheer nothing, or that -n-dOrj can exist
apart from substances : and both of these alternatives are
admittedly absurd.
The argument runs thus : If a thing is to'
come-to-be-healthy ',
it must start from a state in which it is ill, i. e.'
is-not-healthy '.
Similarly, if it is to' come-to-be ',
it must start from '
not-being '.
As qualified yeVeo-is presupposes qualified not-being, so unqualified
yeVe<ris presupposes unqualified not-being. Now '
unqualified
not-being' means either
(i) the absence of all'
being'
belongingto the Category in question, or
(ii)the absence of all
'
being'
in any
90 COMMENTARY
and every sense of the term. Whichever interpretation we adopt,'
unqualified yeVeo-is'
(we shall be forced to admit) presupposesa 'not-being' which is sheer nothing. This follows at once if
we adopt the second interpretation. But it follows no less if we
adopt the first. For the Category here in question is the
Category of Substance. Hence '
unqualified yeVeo-is'
presupposes
'what is not in any sense a substance'. But what is not a
substance cannot be qualified or quantified or in any waydetermined : for all TrdOrj are -n-dOrj of a substance, and their
'
being'
is to characterize a substance. Hence ' what is not in anysense a substance
'
is not in any sense at all : i. e. is sheer nothing.
I7b 2. dirXws fa . . . OI/TOS. aTrXws grammatically qualifies the
whole clause : but the point is that such yeVeo-is presupposes a ^6V which is dirAw? /xr/ 6V.
TI is of course the subject of the clause.
i?b3- on uirapxci Tier! TO pj ov. Probably this is intended as
a reminiscence of Plato, Sophist. 237 ff. It is self-contradictory
to say that unqualified not-being'
belongs to'
(is a predicate
of) certain subjects: for a subject, if it is to be conceived or
mentioned at all, must ' be '
in some sense, rl means ov TI.
i7b5-7. TO ... irepi^xo"' The two senses of TO a-rrAws
/x/J)6V
correspond to two senses of TO d^Aws 6V. For TO cbrAws 6V maymean either (i) that which 'is' in the most general and indeterminate
sense a sense which includes any and all of the Categories,
without specifying which : or(ii)
that which *is
'
in the sense of
one of the Categories a sense which is determined e.g. as'
substantial'
or as'
quantitative'
being, without further specifica-
tion of the type of substantial or quantitative being affirmed.
Thus you would affirm <m la-nv cbrAws of a man in sense (i)if
you said simply 'he is'
; and in sense (ii)if you said
' he is
a substance '. Similarly, if e. g.* white
'
came-to-be out of what
was not a quality at all, or ' man '
out of what was in no sense
a substance, there would be yeVeo-is out of TO d?rAws // 6V in the
sense specified by Aristotle first (i7b6): whilst, if 'white' or
* man '
came-to-be out of what could not be said to ' be '
in anysense whatever, there would be yeVeo-is out of TO ob-Aws ^ 6V in
\hz.second sense specified by Aristotle (i7b
7).
I7b 6. TO irpwToi> . . . tWos. On Aristotle's theory of the
Categories, see Apelt, Essay III.' That which is first in each several mode of predicating
"being
" '
is (as Philoponos rightly explains) TO yenKtoTaTov, or
A. 3. 3i7b 2-i4 91
TO di/<oTaT<o yVos. The ' mode of predicating'
in question (i.e.
the Category) is named after this*
first (most general) predication
of "being
" '
within it, and is indeed generally identified with it.
Thus, in the first Category, TO Trpurov would be ovo-ta in general,
in the second iroiov in general, in the third TTOO-OI/ in general, and so
forth. The first Category is ovo-ia : for,* in this mode of pre-
dicating"being
"', the oV which is predicated is always substantial
being viz. either ova-fa in general or some specified type of ovcria.
I7b7~i3. el ... yivopevov. 'If then unqualified not-being means
the negation of "being
"in the sense of the primary term of
the Category in question, we shall have, in unqualified coming-
to-be^ a coming-to-be of a substance out of not- substance. ... If,
on the other hand, unqualified not-being means " what is not in
any sense at all ", it will be a universal negation of all forms of
being . . .'
The two alternatives correspond to the alternative senses of
txTrAois (cf.b5-7), and both lead to the conclusion that aTrXrj yeVeo-ts
involves that '
something can come-to-be out of sheer nothing'
:
this absurd consequence follows at once on the second alternative,
and could only be avoided on the first alternative by the (equally
absurd) supposition that'
properties can exist apart from
substances'
(cf.*i7
b1-13).
With ci /xev ow TO irpuTov (sc. /XT) oV) in b7, and with et 8e TO A<T)
ov oAws in b n, we must, I think, supply o-iy/xatVet TO obrAws /XT)oV.
In b11, Bekker and Prantl place a comma after Se, which makes
nonsense of the passage.
In the first sense of TO cra-Aws /XT) oV,' white' e. g. would come-
to-be OUt of TO cbrAois /XT) oV if it came-tO-be OUt of /AT) TTOIOV,
rpLTrrjxv if it came-to-be out of/AT) TTOO-OI/, and so forth. Since,
however, a-rrXri ycVeo-ts is the coming-to-be of a substance^ the
Category of Substance is here in question : and the ob-Aw? /XT)oV
presupposed by C^-AT/ yo/co-is is/XT) ovo-ta (
b8).
I7b 10. TO TTOU. This is the reading of EF^L. J has TO'TTOS
(cf. T), and F writes ToVot above the line. Grammatically of
course irotoV, TTOO-OV and TTOV are the subjects to v-rrapx^
I7b ii. oXws, i. q. KatfoAov (
b7).
I7b
13. lv aXXots. Phys. A. 6-9.
I7b14. Siwpto-Tai TOIS X6y<HS. Adyot probably means '
definrtions '.
Aristotle is referring to his definitions of the various senses in which
a thing comes-to-be out of TO /XT)oV and out of TO oV : and again to
his definitions of the parts which o-rcprjo-Ls and v\rj respectively
92 COMMENTARY
play as the presuppositions of yeVeo-is (cf. Phys., e.g. i9ib9~io,
b13-16, 192*31-32, &c.).
iyb14-18. OWTOJXWS . . . djuufxn-e'pws.
This ' concise restatement'
of the doctrine of the Physics leaves it as yet uncertain what
exactly the presupposed basis of substantial yeVco-ts is, and indeed
whether there can be yeVeo-tsof a substance at all as Aristotle
himself points out immediately (17^ 1 8ff.).
All that we have learnt so far is : yeVeo-is presupposes
something which can be truly called both ov and /XT) ov (b17-18
Aeyo/xei/ov d/x<jf>oTe'po>s : so Zabarella and Pacius interpret these
words, undoubtedly correctly). For yeVeo-is presupposes that
which is-potentially but is-not-actually. Hence, in one sense,
things come-to-be out of/XT)
ov aTrXws : and yet, in another sense,
they always come-to-be out of ov.
This description of the presupposed basis of yeVeo-is (as' that
which is-potentially but is-not-actually ') would apply either to
the proximate vX.rj of TO yiyvo^tvov (i.e. a formed-matter, a concrete
substance) or to Trpwrry vAr/, the vTroKei/xcvoi/ conceived in abstrac-
tion from all the forms which it acquires in its transformations.
Both interpretations are so far possible : and both interpretations
are required in supplementation of one another, if the description
is to be an adequate summary of the doctrine in the Physics.
Consider, e. g., the yevco-is of Air. This presupposes as its
basis a proximate vXy which is itself a concrete substance, viz.
Water. ' Air comes-to-be out of Water '
(i)in so far as the
substratum^ which is-actually Water, is-potentially Air : i. e. in so
far as the conditions for the development of Air are present in
this actual formation of the substratum : and (ii) in so far as the
substratum, which is Water, is-not-actually Air. For, though
capable of receiving the form of Air, it is actually' without
'
it, or
'deprived of it. Thus (i) Air comes-to-be 'out of somethingwhich is-potentially Air, and which may therefore be called ov. Andyet (ii) Air also comes-to-be ' out of the oW^o-is of Air; or rather
(since a oW/^o-is is *a#' avro/XT) oV, cf. Phys. i9i
b13-16)
* out of
something which (in so far as it is-not-actually Air) may be called
/XT) ov. The proximate vXy, in short, is the basis presupposed by
yeVeo-is both(i) in respect to its positive
'
potential-being'
(whichbecomes actual as the result of the yeVeo-is), and (ii)
in respect to
its'actual not-being ',
i. e. in respect to its* want '
of a form
which it is capable of acquiring a ' want '
which is removed as
the result of the
A. 3. 3i;b14-28 93
At the same time, the yeVeo-is of Air (if we carry our analysis
further back) presupposes as its basis Trpdm; vXrj. For, in the
yeVecris of Air, the substratum, which was informed as Water, casts
off that form and takes on a new one i. e. is' transformed '. The
substratum, indeed, never exists except qua determined by some
form. But we can in thought abstract it from all its forms, and
conceive it as matter undetermined, though determinable.
Aristotle's description would apply to this logical abstraction
n-pwrrj vX?; as well as to the proximate matter. For Trpwrrj vXrj
is'that which is-not-actually (Water or Air or any concrete
substance), but is-potentially (Water and Air and every concrete
substance) '. Cf.* i8a 23-25.
i7b
15. cicJIT] oVros dir\<3s. The basis of yeVeo-is only is with
a qualification, i. e. it ir-Swa/m. TO a-n-Xfas /AT)oV means '
that which
is, without qualification, devoid of being'
: but TO /AT)ov ob-Aws
means ' that which is devoid of being, unless you qualify the term
"being"' (cf.*19*29-^4).
I7b18-19. o . . . eiramTToSio-Teoi'. The problem, which Aristotle
is about to discuss, emerges (on re-examination of the question as
to the presuppositions of (77X77 yeVecm) precisely because of the
vagueness of the 'concise restatement' in b 14-18.
How are we to interpret*that which is-potentially',
but is-not-
actually'
? (i)If as the proximate vX^ then it looks as if yeVeo-is is
after all not the coming-to-be of a substance : for the proximate
v\rj is itself already formed-matter, i. e. a substance, (ii) If, on the
other hand, as Trpwry vXrj, we are confronted with serious difficulties.
7rava7ro8io-Toi/ apparently occurs only here. But dva7ro8t'e>
means 'to recall for further examination' : cf. Herodot. v. 92, 6,
with Stein's note.
!7b 19-20. irws . . . aXXws : this whole clause is the appositional
antecedent of o (b18).
I7b23. ci . . . yipcrai, 'for if a substantial thing comes-to-
be . . .' The manuscripts and Bekker read et yap TI yiveTai : but
the meaning is determined by 1. 21 (ap . . TovSe), and I suspect
that Aristotle wrote et yap ToSe TL ytvcrai.
I7b27-28. TO ... oV
;/cat oV is explanatory of ToSe, and
/xr/8* oV
is explanatory of/AT/
To8e. The basis of yeVco-is, qua only
potentially'this
'
(or' substance '), only potentially
'is
'
: and, qua
not actually 'this', it has no actual 'being'. All further
determinations of 'being' quality, quantity, position, &c. are
dependent upon substantial'
being '.
94 COMMENTARY
I7b29. TO
/AT) OUTWS oV. The reading of FHJ (cf. F), TO
(or ovrws) /AT? oV, is an attempt at correction. Bonitz (Ind. 539*
36-37) treats TO /AT) ovrws oV as a mere idiomatic transposition of
the negative, and as equivalent to TO OVTWS /AT) 6V. But the words
mean, I think,' a #' which is no determined-being
'
(cf. also
Baumker, p. 2345).
Aristotle is ^repeating in different words what he had already
said above(b23-25). The completely indeterminate, though
determinable, basis of substantial ye'veo-is,which is really only
isolable by definition, threatens to become a really-existent
antecedent of yeveo-ts. According to his own theory, the ultimate
logical presupposition of yeVco-t? is a substratum conceived in
abstraction from all forms, i. e. Tr/oom; vXrj. But irp^r^ v\rj does
not exist. It is not a real antecedent of any yeVcons, in the wayin which the proximate v\rj (e. g. Water) is the real antecedent
of a given yeVeo-is (e. g. of Air) : cf.* i8a 23-25,
*29* 24 - b
3.
I7b31-32. el . . . uirdpei,
' but if it is not a this-somewhat or
a substance . . .' In Aristotle's usage roSc (cf. e.g. ryb
9, 21, 27 ;
Metaph. io38b24) means ' a this ',
i. e.'this or that or any design-
able' : To'Se TI (cf. e. g. i8b i, 15, 32 ; i9a 12
; Metaph. io38b25)
means ' a designable somewhat '
i. e. any that with a what, pro-
vided the what belongs to the first Category. (For the substance
of this note I am indebted to my friend, Professor J. A. Smith, whohas convinced me that Burnet is mistaken in what he says about
TI in his Ethics, p. 667
: cf. Classical Review',vol. 35, p. 19).
I7b34~35- *a! jJ^pos. The solution of this second main
problem (cf.*17*32) carries with it the solution of \htfirst: cf.
* i8a 10-13. The meaning of det is explained more fully below,cf.
*37
b29 38
a3. The '
fact',
for which Aristotle is to seek the
cause, is an unbroken succession of ycWo-eis and <f>0opai, and
generally of all forms of change, in the sublunary sphere. Under
yeVeo-is Aristotle here includes (i) substantial coming-to-be and
passing-away (cbrAT/ yeVeo-i9 and d^Ar/ <f>Qopd), and(ii) the three
forms of process in which a perceptible substance changes its
quality, quantity, or place (dAAotWis, av^o-is KCU <0ib-is, <f>opd).
These last three forms of process are here called yeVris rj Kara
/nepos, because in them the thing comes-to-be not as a whole (oras regards its
'
substance'),
but in respect to a part of its4
being'
(or as regards its o-v/Ajge/fyKoVa) : cf. *i7a32-34, and i7
b3~5.
Aristotle's usual practice is to draw a sharp distinction between the
A. 3. 317^29 318*13 95
three 1877 Kii/TJo-ews (aAAot'uKri?, avr)(ri<s /cat <f>@i<n<s, <f>opd) andand <f>6opd, and to use the term fiera/JoA.?} to cover all forms of
change (i.e. yeWo-is and <0opa as well as the three species of
/aVr;o-is) :
cf.*i9
b 6 2oa 7. But this practice is by no means invariable.
The distinction between airXf) yeveais and yeveo-i? 17 Kara /x,epos
(b35) has nothing to do with the distinction within substantial
changes between a-n-Xf) yeVeo-is and rl<s ye'vco-is (cf. *i 7*32-34)which is drawn for the first time at i8a 27 ff.
l8a 1-2. OUOYJS . . . uXrjs. am'as, SC. rov ycvc(rw act etvat. The
explanation of the perpetuity of yeVco-i? depends primarily on the
material and efficient causes : but Aristotle's account of the
efficient cause (B. 10) includes a consideration of the Endtowards which its activity is directed, i. e. of the final cause of
yeVeo-is, viz. the eternal conservation of the species or* form '
of the
ycwrjrd (cf. 36** 25 37* i).
i8a3-4. eiptjTcu . . . Xoyots. Phys. . 3 ff., especially 258
b 10 ff.
l8a 4-5. TO fier . . . dei. The first is the TT/XOTOV KIVOW, i. e. God.
The second is TO irpurov VTTO rovrov Kivovptvov (Phys. 259** 33), i. e.
the TrpwTo? ovpavos, the outermost shell of the Cosmos the spherein which the fixed sta.rs are set which is eternally and uniformly
revolving (cf. Introd. 10). Philoponos calls it TO KVK\o^opyjriKov
o-wfjLa: cf. also *36* 14- b
10,*36
a14-18,
*37
a30-31.
i8a 5-6. TOUTWI/ . . . epyoy.* The other, or prior, philosophy
'
is Trpwrrj <f>i\oaro<f>ia or OeoXoyiKrj : cf. Introd. 3, 4.
The reading and interpretation of -this passage are confirmed
by de Caelo 298^19-20. The variants in E1 and L are to be
rejected as blunders.
l8a 7. ucrrepoy : B. 10.
i8a 8. TI . . . OTII>,' which amongst the so-called
"specific
"
or "concrete
"causes exhibits this character
',i. e. ToAAa Kii/et
3ta TO o-we^w? KivdvOai. Perhaps we ought to read amW instead
of OLTIOV. For TO, Ka^' fKacTTa Xeyo/xei/a atTia, as opposed to causes
in the universal sense, cf. Phys. i95a27 ff. on the T/OOTTOI TWI/ amW.
i8a 9. TTJI/ . . . Ti0jxeVT]i>. For this use of eTSo?, cf. Bonitz, Ind.
2i8b l3ff., and Metaph. 984a 17 alriav . . . TTJV ev vXrjs etSci
Aeyo/xeV^i/. Cause is not a yeVos, of which the four types of cause
are eufy (species), as Philoponos and Zabarella remind us.
i8a 10-13. a/Ad . . . ytvlveus. When we have learnt the
material cause, we shall understand both why yeVeo-is and (f>6opd
never fail to occur in Nature, and what is that 'potential
substance' which unqualified yeVeo-ts and <t>0opd presuppose.
96 COMMENTARY
The /cat after Aeyeiv (a 1 2) is explanatory :
'it will simultaneously
become clear what account we ought to give of that which
perplexed us just now, i.e. of unqualified passing-away and
coming-to-be '.
18*13. oweipeiy: cf.* i6a 8.
i8a 20-21. TOUTO . . . Sicupeau'. Aristotle had shown in the
Physics (P. 5ff.) that there is no actual Infinite.*
Infinite'
is
always a predicate (e. g. of body, of number, of time). It expresses
the possibility e. g. of dividing a given finite body, or of adding to
a given finite number, ad infinitum. But this possibility can
never be completely realized : there will never actually be an
infinite plurality of parts or of units.
Swd/JitL 8' CTTI rrjv Siaipeo-iv, SC. eo-rii/ aTret/ooj/. Cf. Physics^ 1. C.,
2o6a 9- b
33. Aristotle there recognizes a '
potential infinite'
in
two complementary senses, in both of which the same principle is
involved;
viz. an aireipov Kara Sicupeo-iv (or a^atpeVet) and an
aTreipov Kara irpovOeviv. You can go on dividing a given finite
magnitude ad infinitum, since there are no indivisible magnitudes.And if, e. g., having divided a given magnitude by progressive
bisections, you take the successive ' halves', you get an endlessly
diminishing series of fractions (^, J, . ..) which will never
exhaust the original magnitude. Nor, conversely, can youreconstruct the whole, if you start with one of these fractions andadd to it the succeeding terms of the series. For i = i + i+ J+ . . .
ad infinitum ;i. e. such a series could only be summed in an
4infinite
'
time, viz. never.
i8a 21-23. &<** - opwjjiei'. Assuming that the material of
yeVco-is, although actually finite, is infinite Swa/uet CTTI rrjv Stat/oeo-ti/,
the succession of yeveWis might continue for ever, provided that
what came-to-be dwindled progressively in the same ratio in which
the material was diminishing. The race of mankind, e. g., wouldhave to dwindle so that the sizes of the succeeding generations of
men would correspond to an infinitely diminishing series of
fractions. Unfortunately, however, this ingenious suggestion for
solving the difficulty is negatived by the facts.
Translate :
* so that we should have to suppose that there is
only one kind of coming-to-be in the world : viz. one whichnever fails, because it is such that on each successive occasion
what comes-to-be is always smaller than before '.
i8a 23-25. 5p' . . . jjtT<x|3oXT]i> ; This sentence contains
Aristotle's solution of the difficulty as to how perpetual ye've<m is
A, 3. 3 i8a13-27 97
possible, and also (implicitly) his answer to the former question,
viz. in what sense a-n-Xij yeVeo-ts presupposes'
potential substance '.
The difficulty as to the perpetuity of yeVeo-is depended on the
assumption that TO ^ci/oo'/xevov passes-away into TO /M/ 6v, and that TO
/xr) ov is nothing (cf.a14-15). ^But Aristotle maintains that what
occurs is always a two-sided process, one concrete substance beingconverted into another (e. g. Water into Air) so that the passing-
away of the one is the coming-to-be of the other, or vice versa. This
two-sided process is, in ultimate analysis, the transformation of
a permanent substratum (TT/DWTI; vX-rj) whereby it drops one form
and takes on another. Since the substratum never exists as bare
matter, but always is formed, there always is a positive actual
substance. Hence <f>6opd is not annihilation. There is no
passing-away into nothing and therefore no gradual exhaustion
of TO ov. Matter is eternal, but it exists always, and only, as
formed-matter : and the succession of yci/cVeis is perpetual, for
matter is always being transformed, though never annihilated.
The two-sided process, which is the yeVeo-is of one concrete
substance and the <f>6opd of another, is thus (in respect to upum;
v\rj) the substitution of one positive form for another positive
form. But each of these positive'
poles' of the process has also
a negative side : and, strictly speaking^ it is the negative side
which constitutes the terminus a quo of yeVecris and the terminus
ad quern of <f>@opd. If e. g. Air comes-to-be out of Water, what is
relevant in the antecedent is not the positive form which the
substratum in fact possesses (not its being Water), but its o-Te/nyo-is
of Air i. e. the fact that the substratum is* without
',and yet is
by nature capable of acquiring, the form of Air. Air, in fact,
comes-to-be-out-of Water-qua-not-Air : and this same change is
(f>6opd, in so far as in it Water passes-away-into Air-qua-not- Water.
The antecedent of the yeVeo-is must be a positive concrete
substance, but need not be this one (viz. Water) : and the <f>0opd
must terminate in some positive concrete substance, but not
necessarily in Air. Hence the yeVeo-is of Air is per se CK T^S
o-Tepijo-ews and only per acddens ' out of Water.
Thus the '
potential substance'
presupposed by yeVeo-is is some
indeterminate one out of a number of alternative actualformations
of TrpuTr) v\r], Cf. also *29a 24- b3.
i8a 25-27. irepl . . . airier.' The cause just suggested
'
(ravrrjv)
is the 'material cause
'
in the sense of TT/MOT^ vXrj : cf. the
recapitulation (iQa18-22) and the preceding note. We should
2254 H
98 COMMENTARY
perhaps have expected TOV yevfo-iv eTi/ai (a-we^us) in a 26 (cf. i9a
19).
But Aristotle claims to have stated the material cause which is
adequate (i/cai^v,a2y) to account for the 'being' (as well as the
perpetuity) of yeVccri? and <f>0opd. And in fact, since substantial
yeVco-ts and <f>0opd are not creation and annihilation, but trans-
formation, given TT/xorr/ v\rj a transformable v7ro/ca'/x,ei/ov, which
is able to accept every form and always exists under some form
these processes can take place and can perpetually continue : and
they can do so under no other condition. Hence Trpom? v\rj is
the conditio sine qua non of their 'being' and their perpetuity : i. e.
it is their adequate' material cause '.
o/xotiw? (a26) must be taken closely with Trepi t/cacn-ov TWI/ OI/TW
(cf.*i4
a2, 35
a26). Aristotle professes, in accordance with his
original programme, to have stated the material cause of yeVeo-is
and <f>0opd'
in their general character, as they occur in all existing
things alike'. In the next sentence, TO, /xev ... TO, 8' (a28) are
contrasted with 6/xoiws . . . OJ/TOM/ and -rrao-w (a27). For the next
problem arises precisely because linguistic usage distinguishesbetween the ycVeo-ts of some things and that of others, although
(as Aristotle has maintained) these processes exhibit the same
general character uniformly in all things.
i8a 27 iQa 22. Sid TI . . . Y&ns. If Aristotle's theory of sub-
stantial ycVeo-is is true, we ought never to speak of cbrA^ yeVeo-is or
ofa.7rX.fj <f>6opd, but always and uniformly of a two-sided process
which is both the yeVco-is of something and eo ipso also the (f>6opd
of something else. But linguistic usage appears to conflict with
the theory. For (i) of changes within the Category of Substance
some are called yeVeo-ts without qualification, or <f>@opd without
qualification, whilst others are qualified. The birth of a man,e. g., is called ycVeo-i? cbrAo)?, and not cf>0opd at all : his death is
called <f>6opa aTrXw?, and not yeVco-ts at all. Or, if we speak of
<f>6opd when a man is born, we qualify it as 'the passing-awayof the seed
'
: and if we speak of yo/eo-is when a man dies, we
qualify it as 'the coming-to-be of a corpse'. And(ii), using
yeVeo-ts and <j>0opd in the broad sense which includes changes in
the Categories other than Substance, some things (e. g.< the growing
thing ')are said yiVo-0ai d7rXw9, whilst others (e. g.
' the learning
thing ')are said to come-to-be only with a qualification (e. g.
' to
come-to-be-learned ').
In the present passage Aristotle endeavours to account for this
apparent conflict of linguistic usage with his theory. He begins
A. 3. 3l8a27
b 12 99
by formulating both applications of the distinction of appellation
the// at 1 8a 31-33, and the seconds i8a 33-35. Next (i8a35
19* 3) he suggests three different grounds on which the distinction
of appellation is based within substantial changes: and of these
three, the second alone is endorsed by him as sound. Then
(19*3-11) he restates the second use of the distinction (viz. its
application to all changes], and marks it off carefully from
which he has already discussed (cf. i9a5~8 vvv
/xci/. .
Xova-Lv). He shows that this second application of the distinction
is based upon the difference of the Categories, so that substantial
change is called unqualified, and change of accidents is called
qualified, yeVecm or <f>0opd (i 9* 11-14). But he adds a note to
explain that nevertheless, in all the Categories, some changes are
called yei/eWs (only) and others ^Oopai (only) by an analogous
application of the same principle which justified the distinction
between unqualified and qualified yeVeo-is and <f>6opd within sub-
stantial changes alone (i9a14-17). Finally (i9
a17-22) he re-
capitulates the purport of the whole passage from i7a32.
i8a 29. irdXik,* once more '
: for it was from this same pecu-
liarity of linguistic usage that Aristotle started (i7a32ff.) to
establish the being of aTrA.^ yeVea-is.
i8a 31-33. Xfyoficy . . . 4>6opd. The first peculiarity of linguistic
usage: cf. *i8a 27 I9a 22. When e.g. a man dies, we say
simply <j>0cipTai, instead of ^OfiperaL (/xev) roSi, (yiVerai 8e roSi) :
and we call the change ^Oopa. simply, instead of </>0o/>a (/*/ TOV&I,
yevccris Sc rovSi).
i8a 33-35. To8l . . . ou. The second peculiarity of linguistic
usage : cf.* i8a 27 i9
a22, and i9
a 8-n. On Aristotle's theory,
the coming-to-be of a plant is the passing-away of a seed : and the
coming-to-be of a scholar is the passing-away of a dunce. But,
in fact, we call the first change 'coming-to-be' simply, and the
second'
coming-to-be-learned '.
i8a 35- b i2. icaOairep . . . pj oi>. All three defences of the
distinction of appellation (as applied to changes within the
Category of Substance) are grounded on a difference real or
supposed in the'
proximate matter'
of the change : viz. in the
v\rj c rjs /cat ets T?I/ /xcra/JaXAet (cf. i8b 33 19&3), or in 'that
into which the changing thing changes'
(i8b2-3).
The first defence is grounded on the supposed fact, that the
proximate matter'
of all substantial changes is in the end a
modification of one of two fundamental materials, viz. a material
H 2
ioo COMMENTARY
which has 'positive being' (TO 6V) and a material which has
'negative being' (TO py 6V). It is suggested, then, that a sub-
stantial change into TO 6V is called airXri yeVeo-ts (or <j>0opd TU/OS),
whilst a substantial change into TO firj 6V is called aTrXrj <f>0opd (or
TIS yeveo-is).
i8a 35 - b i. ica0<irep . . . TCI 8' ou. The distinction (as is clear
from the context) is not between Substance and the remaining
Categories, but between terms signifying 'positive reals' and
terms with a *
negative'
signification. As here employed, the
distinction is Pythagorean (see next note). But(cf.
* i8b 14-18)Aristotle himself adopts a modified form of it to justify the
distinction of appellation : and perhaps this is why he says
TroAAaKis 8Lop%ofjLv. Apparently KaOaTrcp is answered by 6\a TOVTO.
The construction is irregular, to say the least, and I have not
been able to find any parallel.
i8b 6-7. waircp . . . yr\v. According to Burnet's punctuation,which I have adopted as on the whole most probable, Parmenides'
says that the things into which change takes place are two '
(Ae'yet
Svo, sc. TCI ek a /ATa/?aAAei TO /*Ta/?aAAoi/) :
' and he asserts that
these two, viz. what is and what is not, are Fire and Earth'.
Aristotle ascribes this view to Parmenides in many other placesalso : cf. Metaph. 986
b27 ff., and see below,
*3o
b13-19,
*35
b 16-
17,*36
a 1-12. But it is put forward by Parmenides himself in
the second part of his poem (i.e. in
'
the Way of Opinion ')as the
prevalent, but erroneous, theory: cf. Parmenides, fr. 8, 11. 5 iff.
(Diels, pp. 121-2). Burnet( 90, 91) is almost certainly right (i)
in maintaining that the Way of Opinion'
is' a sketch of contem-
porary Pythagorean cosmology', and (ii) in suggesting that Aristotle
never intends to ascribe the theory to Parmenides himself, but
merely to cite' Parmenides
', i. e. the poem of Parmenides, as
a work in which the theory is expounded.i8b 8-9. rov . . . vTroKt-ipevov :
'for we are trying to discover
not what undergoes these changes, but what is their characteristic
manner!
i8b 9-10. TO ^ 8> dirXws : cf.*i7
b15.
l8b II. 8ifc>prrcu, SC. TOL ets a /xeTay&OAet TO /xeTa^aXXoi/, or Ta
i8b 14-18. a.\\ov . . . 8ia<f>opais. This is the second defence ofthe distinction of appellation, and it is grounded on a differencein the degree of reality possessed by the '
proximate matter ' ofthe various substantial changes. The yeWis or the <f>6opd of
A. 3- 3i8a 35 27 lor
a relatively more real substance are yeVeo-is or <f>0opa dTrAw? : whilst
the yeVeo-is or <f>Qopd of a relatively less real substance areycVco-t's
TIS (or rivog), or <j>6opd rts (or TIVOS).
This defence of the distinction of appellation is accepted byAristotle himself as sound. According to his own theory, the
things in the universe are graded in their reality so as to form
a kind of hierarchy. Their degree of reality is determined bytheir approximation to the absolutely real, i.e. to Substance
which is evc/oyeia avev Swa/xews or pure Form (cf. Introd. 3 and
4). Every composite substance, or formed-matter, is the v\tj or
StW/us of a substance higher in the scale of being, and the
actualization (or more perfect development) of a less-real substance.
Thus, e. g., Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the vXrj or &W/us of
the 6/xotoftc/o^, which are themselves further developed and formed
to constitute the *
organs'
of the living thing's body : and the
latter is the Swa/xts, of which \jroxn or 'life' is the cvepycta. And
I/^XTJ itself is manifested in three main grades of reality, of which
the first is related to the second, and the second to the third, as
8wa//,is to evepyeta.
We gather from Aristotle's statements that the predicates under
any Category fall into two contrasted Columns or O-UVTOIX^
(cf.*i9
a14-15). One Column consists oi positive determinations
(l8b 1 6 Karrj-yopia rts /cat elSos : for this use of Kcm/yo/ota, cf. e.g.
Pr. Anal. 52* 15), the other ofprivative terms (b17 o-rcpryo-ts).
In the Category of Substance, with which we are here concerned,
Fire, e.g., and Earth are differentiations of the same material,
according as it is informed by' the Hot '
or * the Cold '. But
Fire is more real (more*substantial
')than Earth, because the
Sia<opa or 'constitutive quality' (cf. e.g.*15*8-11,
*2Q
b7
3oa29,
*29
b24-26) of Fire viz. the Hot is a 'positive character'
or a ' form',whilst the '
constitutive quality'
of Earth belongs to
the privative Column. ' Cold ', in fact, indicates the o-re'pr/o-isof
heat, i. e. its absence from a material by nature fitted to receive it.
i8b 18-27. So* t AXrjO^s. This is the third (and most
commonly accepted) defence of the distinction of appellation.
Most people identify the real with the *
perceptible ',and the
'
imperceptible'
with the unreal. Hence they call those changes,
in which a perceptible material emerges or disappears, yeVeeris and
<f>0opd without qualification : but those in which an imperceptible
something takes the place of, or gives place to, a perceptible
substance, qualified yeVco-is or <f>6opd.
102 COMMENTARY
l8b 19. Sicujje'peiy, SC. TO otTrXws yivcarOcu /cat (frOttpecrOai TOVfj,r)
i8b 21-27. TO Y^P . . . d\T]6&. Aristotle explains why 'most
people identify the real with the perceptible^ and the imperceptible
with the unreal '. They treat tuo-Ovja-is as equivalent to cTricm//^,
and then proceed on the principle (which Aristotle himself accepts)that 'what is knowable is real, and what is unknowable is not
real '. Hence, just as they identify their own *
being'
or *life
'
with actual perceiving or with the power to perceive (rightly
enough: cf. Eth. Nic. ii7oa13
- b19), so they suppose that the
'
being'
of the things the objects of their perception is'
to be
perceived or perceivable '. From the true principle that the esse*
of animals and men is percipere^ they draw the false corollary that
the esse of things is percipi.
i8b 27-33. orujipaiVei . . . yyjs. Aristotle contrasts the third
defence with the second. The latter is in accordance with his
own view, and is based on the true conception of degrees of
reality and of the significance of a-n-Xfj yeVeo-is and faXy <f>0opd
(cf.b28, 32 KOLT dA.?j0eiav) : the former is the popular view, and
is based on an erroneous conception of what is more or less real
and of the significance of a-n-XTj yeVecns and a-n-Xyj <f*6opd (cf. ^27KaTa S6av,
b29 /caTa TT)V atcr^o-iv).
According to the common opinion, e.g., Earth is more real
than Wind or Air, since it is more perceptible : but, in truth, Windand Air are more real than Ear,th, since they have a more '
positive
being'
than it. Hence, e. g., the transformation of Air into Earth
is really <f>0opd, but is commonly and erroneously called ycVeo-ts.
In b30, dTrXws must be taken with <j>6tipt<r6<u.
i8b 33~35- TOU . . . amoK. ' We have now explained why there
is unqualified coming-to-be (though it is a passing-away-of-some-
thing), and why there is unqualified passing-away (though it is
a coming-to-be-of-something).'Bonitz's excision of rrjv before a?rX^v in b
34 is wrong.
I9a 3~14- T0" Y^ ^at - Having explained the first apparent
anomaly of linguistic usage, Aristotle now turns to the second
(cf.*18*27 19*22,
* i8 33-35)-The distinction of appellation here depends on the Category
to which the change (the thing qua changing) belongs. Substantial
change is and is rightly called yeWts or <f>6opa dTrXws: but
change in any other Category is and is rightly called ycVco-ts or
T19.
A. 3. 3i8bi9 103
TOV 8e(a3) answers TOV par ovV (i8
b33). Aristotle was going
to say TO alnov eo-Tti/ OTI KT\. : but the parenthesis (a5-1 1
)has
disturbed the construction, and the sentence finishes irregularly
(a II Tttvra .... KaryyopiaLs : 8e is resumptive).
iga 12. rdjuiek . . . TToo-oV.
' For some of the things which are
said to come-to-be signify a this-somewhat, others a such, andothers a so-much?
Thus by TO <f>v6[jLcvov we mean a certain kind of thing or1
substance',the growing substance or plant. But by TO pavQavov
we mean a * substance'
qua in a certain state or condition, and byTO rpLTrrjxv a ' substance
'
qua of a certain length. When, there-
fore, TO i^avOdvov (or TO TpLTrr)xv}is that which yii/Tcu, the process
is really a change of state or quality (or a change of length or
quantity). The 'substance' does not, qua substance, enter into
the process, but only in respect to its quality or quantity. But
when TO <f>v6(jicvov is that which ytverai, the change is the emergenceof a new ' substance
'
(the transformation of the seed into the
plant). The 'substance' qua substance enters into the change,and the change is aTrA^ yeveo-is.
iga14-17. ou . . . dj/cmorfjfAoi' : on the significance of these lines,
see Alexander (quoted by Philoponos) and * i8a 27 19* 22.
iga 14-15. Kara . . . auoroixta. Cf.* l8b 14-18. On <nKrroi;(ia,
see Bonitz, Ind. s.v., and Comment, in Arist. Metaph., pp. 81
and 497.
fj ercpa o-vo-Toixia means { the one Column of the two '
: the
context determines which of the two Columns is intended. Thus,in Phys. 201^25 and Metaph. 1004^27 17 ere'pa o-vo-Tot^ta is the
Column of privative terms: but in Metaph. io72a3i and here
the phrase clearly means the Column of positives. Hence F's
reading (eTepa TOV Kpeirrovos (TVOTTOLX^) is unnecessary, though it
gives the right sense.
iga 18. Kal o\ws . . . aurcus,
' both in general'
(i9a 1 1-14), 'and
in the special case when the changing things are substances and
nothing else' (i8a35 I9
a3).
iga 22-29. AM* O^TOS. The perpetuity of yeVeo-is, as
Aristotle has explained, is really a perpetual transformation, the
possibility of which depends upon the nature of Trporny v\rj.
He now shows that the argument formulated above (i8a13-23),
to prove that perpetual yeVeo-ts is impossible, involves a fallacy
and does not constitute a genuine difficulty at all. For it depended
upon the assumption that TO <0ipo/Aevov passes-away into TO /AT) ov,
io4 COMMENTARY
and that TO yiyi/d/xci/ovcomes-to-be out of 'what is'. But (i) if
TO fir]ov means '
nothing\ it is false that <f>0opd is a passing into
TO /XT)ov : whilst (ii)
if TO /XT)ov means '
the imperceptible ', then,
though it is true that <f>6opd is a passing into TO /XT) oV, it is equally
true that yeVco-is is' out of
'
TO /XT)oV.
The whole appearance of a difficulty rests on a confusion
between two senses of TO/XT)
ov. In the popular sense TO /XT) ov
is simply TO dvcu'cr^Tov : and the material 'out of which a thing
comes-to-be, and 'into which' it passes-away, may be 'im-
perceptible' and therefore /XT) ov and yet it is not nothing, but
OV Tl.
IQa25-26. eir' . . . orros. A thing ytVeTat e*
/XT) oWo? (i.e. e
dvaio-^T/Tov), whether 'that out of which it comes-to-be' is, or
is not, something : i. e. the imperceptibility of the material is
irrelevant to the question of its'
being'
or '
not-being '.
iga 28 and 29. TOU p) OKTOS, SC. TOV avaua-O^TOv.
I9a 2g- b4. d\X& . . . auT<5. The 'matter' of substantial
change is/XT)
ov in the pop'ular sense of 'imperceptible'. But,
according to Aristotle's own theory, it is also/XT) ov aTrXws : for it
is Swa/xei TIS ouo-ia, erreA.ex tV &* ^> l - e - ^ *'s n t}unless you
qualify 'is' and say it'
is-potentially'
(cf.*i;
b14-18,
*I7
bi5).
This ' matter'
is TT/XOTTJ v\rj, and the substantial changes primarilyin question are the reciprocal transformations of Ta obrAa o-w/xaTa,
viz. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water (cf. Introd. 10). Aristotle
speaks of them here as TOL IvavTia (a30). They are, as we shall
learn (cf. B. 1-3, with the notes), the first concrete substances
resulting from the information of Trpom; v\rj by the coupled' con-
trary qualities' (Cold-Dry, Hot-Moist, Hot-Dry, Cold-Moist).Two questions concerning this
' matter'
are here discussed.
First Question (a29-33) : In the transformation of one ele-
mentary body into another, are we to identify one of the twowith TO
/XT) ov (XTrXtos, i. e. with TT/HOTT; vXrj ? The answer is in the
negative. The 'matter' in this sense is the matter equally of
both. They are formations of it in each formation one of twocontrasted qualities determines it so that it is something oV, anactual substance.
Second Question (n33 - b
4) : Is the matter of each of the ele-
mentary bodies different ? The answer is that it is in one sense
the same for them all, but in another sense different in each of
them.
- *oi> . . . KOU<|>OI> oV. Earth is contrasted with Fire as
A. 3- 3 J 9a25 4- 3 2oa 7 I05
the heavy with the light (cf. Introd. 10) : but (cf. 29** 20-24) this
Contrariety plays no part in the transformation of the 'simple
bodies '. It is a pity that Aristotle did not here illustrate from
the Contrarieties of Hot-Cold and Dry-Moist, on which the trans-
formation depends. Perhaps the reason is that Fire, though it is
hot-dry, is primarily hot : and Earth, though it is dry- cold, is
primarily dry (cf. 3ia3~6). Hence Earth and Fire are not
obviously evavrta to one another in respect to these Contrarieties.
iQa 31-33. t]. . . waaurws; 'Or, on the contrary, does "what
is"
include Earth as well as Fire, whereas " what is not"
is
matter the matter of Earth and Fire alike ?'
J9a 33 - b i. KC" eyamW ' And again, is the matter of each
different? Or is it the same, since otherwise they would not
come-to-be reciprocally out of one another, i. e. contraries out of
contraries ?'
I9b 3~4- o ... TO auro. 'For that which underlies them,
whatever its nature may be qua underlying them, is the same : but
its actual being is not the same.'
The matter of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, conceived simply as
that which undergoes transformation (i.e. Tr/aum/ vAi?), is 'the
same '. But it exists only in its various informations : and the
informed-matter, which is e.g. Air, is different from the informed-
matter which is Water.
The familiar Aristotelian formula e<rri //./ TO avTo, TO 8' ctvat ov TO
avTo is used to express that A and B are'
materially'
(potentially,
or abstractly considered) identical, but 'formally' (actually, or
concretely considered) different: cf. e.g.* 22a 25-26.
A. 4
igb 5 2Oa7. rap! . . . Tpoiroy. In this chapter the distinction
between dAAoiWis and ycVco-ts /cat <f>0opd (formulated above,
1 7a 20-2 7) is restated a little more precisely: and dAAoiWis is
marked off from cu^o-is KOL <0io-is and from <f>opd, which
together with it constitute the three fy Kivrja-ew in -contrast to*
'
substantial change'
(cf.*17^ 34-35).
The account of dAAoiWis in this chapter is, however, still too
wide, and it has to be corrected and supplemented by the Physics
and by subsequent statements in the present work.
The doctrine of the Physics (224*21 226b T7) is as follows.
Change (^Ta/SoXrj) is either (a) from a vTro/cct/xci/oi/ to a /-u)
,Or conversely from a ^7] VTroKet/xevov to a
106 COMMENTARY
The first of these changes is ^Oopa. and the second yeVco-ts : and
their 'poles' (viz. vTro/ca'/xo/oi/ and ^'VTTOK^L^VOV) are contradictorily
opposed to one another. Or (b) change is from a vTroKct/xcvov
in one state to that vTro/cet/zei/ov in a contrary state. All changeof this kind is
/cu/ryo-ts, and it is subdivided into three species.
For the 'poles' of the /ciV/jo-is may be (i) contrary 'states'
in the Category of Quantity ;i. e. the Substance may change
in size, and the KU/^O-IS is then Growth or Diminution : or (ii)
contrary'states
'
in the Category of Place ;i. e. the Substance
may "change its position, and the /avr/o-is is then Motion
(<f>opd) : or(iii) contrary
'
states*
in the Category of Quality ;
i. e. the Substance may change its TrdOrj (its perceptible qualities),
and the /aV/yo-ts is then Alteration (dAAotWts). The '
poles ',
between which every /aVr/o-ts takes place, are 'contraries
'
:
but Aristotle includes under this head TO, /xerav, because they
function, in relation to one another or in relation to either
extreme (or 'contrary' proper), as contraries. Thus, e.g., an
dAAotWt? may be the passage from hot to cold, from white to
black, from sweet to bitter, &c. : these qualities are eVavrta to one
another and constitute evavriworetg. But an dAAoiWis may also
be from hot to warm or from warm to cold, from white to greyor to any other intermediate shade of colour, &c. : i. e. between
intermediates on the scales of temperature, colour, taste, &c.
igbS-io. eireiSrj . . . TOUTWI>. Cf.*17*23-27. Change in the
TrdO-rj (provided certain conditions are fulfilled, which Aristotle
specifies immediately) is Alteration. But it is not here explainedwhat TrdQrj are the '
poles'
of dAAotWts, and we have to supple-
ment Aristotle's account from other passages.
Aristotle here (e.g. i9b33) and elsewhere describes dAAotWis
as Kivrja-is Kara TO TrotoV. Now in the Categories (8b 25 ioa 26)four main types of TTOIOT^S are distinguished, viz. (i) fis /cat
Sta#ecri9, (ii) Swa/xets /cat dSwa/xt'ai covert/cat, (iii) TraOrjTiKal TTOIOT^TCS
/cat TrdOr), and (iv) (r^rjfia /cat /zop<?j. The examples of dXXotWts
given just below (i9bi2-i4) are (a) 'change from illness to
health' and vice versa^ i. e. change of <?ts or Sid#eo-ts ( Categ. 8
b35 ff.),
and (b)'
change from spherical to angular' and vice versa, i. e.
change of OXWKI or /xo/3c/j (Categ. ioa n-i6). Nevertheless
Aristotle expressly denies (cf. Phys. 245** 3 ff.)that change of
figure or shape, and change of 19 (i. e. acquisition or loss
of a ts) are dAAotwo-et?. He insists (cf. e. g. Phys., 2nd version,
244a 27~ b
25; Metaph. io22b 15-18) that the term dXXoiWts
A. 4. 3i9b 8-21 107
properly applies only to change of those qualities which are the
objects of the five special senses, i. e. the qualities which constitute
the *contrarieties
'
of Touch, Vision, Hearing, Taste, and Smell
(cf. also *3i
a8-io). Such qualities are classed in the Categories
(9a28ff.) as TraOrjTLKal TTOIO'T^TCS /cat TrdOrj, because all of them
(with the exception of black, white, and the colours, which are
called TraOrjTiKal TrotoT^Tes for another reason)'
produce a irdOos in
our senses '.
igbjo-12. dXXoiwais . . . jArau. Change in the TrdOrj is
dAAotWts, provided (a) that the Substance, which is changing its
TrdOrj, is perceptible and persists unaltered through the change, and
(b) that the 'contrary' or 'intermediate'TTO.O-Y]
in question (the
'poles' of the change) are predicable directly of the persisting
perceptible Substance as its own (bn ev rots cavrov TrdOfo-w).
The first proviso is necessary, because even in yeVeo-t? and <0o/>a
some inroKLfjivov (viz. Trpdm; vXrj) persists through the change.But in dAAotWts the persistent viroKtiptvov must be c
perceptible ',
i. e. a o-wfleros ovo-ta (cf. Introd. p. xxxiii4).
The second proviso (I owe the following interpretation to
Zabarella) is also necessary to distinguish dAAotWis from yeVeo-ts
and <{>0opd. Thus, e. g., in the transformation of Air into Water
(which is a yeVeo-ts and <f>0opd) the Hot-Moist is transformed into
the Moist-Cold. The passage is a change from the TrdOos Hot to
the W0os Cold-, but it is not dAAotWts, because there is no
persistent perceptible vTro/cet/xevov of which hot and cold are
directly predicable. There is, indeed, a persistent perceptible
v-n-oKCLfjifvov i for both Air and Water are o-w/xa Sta<ai/es. But
hot and cold are not properties directly predicable of 'trans-
parent'
or '
transparent body'
: it does not possess them as 'its
own '
TrdOrj. Air, which is transparent, is also hot : and Water,
which is transparent, is also cold. But hot and transparent (or
again, cold and transparent) are TrdOrj coexisting in the same
subject ; just as e. g. ACVKO'S and /xovo-t/cos coexist in Sokrates,
without being directly and properly predicable one of the other
(cf. also *19^26-27).
igb 12-14.*01/ *" Though these examples are not instances
of dAAotWis strictly-speaking (cf.*i9
b8-io), they illustrate the
persisting identity of the vTro/cet/xevov in dAAotWis. On xaA.K09, see
*28b 12-13.
19^ 14-21. OTCLV . . . dfcuCT0T]Toi>. oAoi/ (b
14), as Zabarella points
out, does not mean that, in yeVeo-tgor <f>0opd, the whole substance
io8 COMMENTARY
changes : for irp^r-ij v\.rj persists unchanged. The substance
changes as a whole^ i. e. as this specific information of matter.
The change affects the combination of form and matter, which
makes the thing what it specifically is.
ws vTTOKfifAcvov (bi5), i.e. something perceptible may persist,
but not a something, of which the new form is predicable in the
way in which a irdOos is predicable of its Substance : cf.*iQ
b 10-
12,*ig
b21-24.
Wcnys, Travros (bi6, 17) must not be interpreted merely in
a quantitative sense. Aristotle's point is that the seed or air as
a whole (in its' substance ', its specific character) has been trans-
formed.
fj&r] (b 1 7), i. e. a change of this kind is no longer merely
dAAoiWis : we are already in presence of yeve<m and <f>0opd.
igb 16. olov . . . irdo-Tjs. It was objected, Zabarella says, that
' the seed comes-to-be out of the blood, not the blood out of the
seed'. He suggests that Aristotle is referring to the common
(though erroneous) belief * semen in utero transmutari in san-
guinem, i.e. in embryonem qui sanguineus esse videtur'.
igb 18-21. jjuxXiora . . . di>aio-0ir]Toi>. Since the popular identifica-
tion of yeVeo-is and cf>0opd with the change from *
imperceptible'
to 'perceptible' and vice versa has already been repudiated
(cf. i8b 18-33), we must interpret Aristotle's words here as mean-
ing that such changes are the most obvious and generally-
recognized instances of yeVeo-is and <j>0opd.
igb 21-24. Iv . . . dXXoioxri?.' But if, in such cases, any property
belonging to a "contrariety
"persists in the thing that has come-
to-be, the same as it was in the thing which has passed-away if,
e.g., when water comes-to-be out of air, both are transparent or
cold the second thing, into which the first changes, must not bea property of this persistent identical something. Otherwise
the change will be Alteration.'
The point of this passage is to enforce and explain the qualifica-
tion ws i)7roKei/Ai/oi> (b15) in the definition of yeVeo-ts : in a change,
which is yeVco-ts, nothing perceptible can persist as the subject ofwhich the new form is predicable. Otherwise the change wouldbe dAXoiWis : for we should have a persistent perceptible substance
changing in 'its own' TrdOrj (cf.*iQ
b10-12).
In h23-24 Odrcpov ets o /xera/JaXXct is the subject, and 7ra0os
the predicate. The antecedent of TOVTOV (^23) is the irdOos
i/ai>Ti(o<rews of b 21.
A. 4. 3i9b 16-27 I09
In b23 there is no reason to alter the manuscripts' readingAristotle is not saying that water and air are in fact
'
cold ',
but only quoting a common view in illustration. Air, according to
Aristotle, is Hot-Moist (cf. e. g. 3ob4) : but Philoponos (p. 2 24,
11. 13-16) tells us that it was thought to be Cold-Moist.
I9b25-31. olov . . . Toiaura. I follow Philoponos in transposing
vvv . . . vTro/xevovTo?, which the manuscripts read after <f>0opd in 1. 30.
Translate :
*
Suppose, e. g., that the musical man passed-awayand an unmusical man came-to-be, and that the man persists as
something identical. Now, if" musicalness and unmusicalness
"
had not been a property essentially inhering in man, these changeswould have been a coming-to-be of unmusicalness and a passing-
away of musicalness : but in fact"musicalness and unmusicalness
"
are a property of the persistent identity, viz. man. (Hence, as
regards man, these changes are"modifications "; though, as regards
musical man and unmusical man, they are a passing-away and
a coming-to-be.) Consequently such changes are Alteration.'
Aristotle's doctrine is :(i)
If' musicalness and unmusicalness
'
were not a property of man, the change in which ' a musical manbecomes unmusical ' would be a <j>6opd of musicalness and a yeVco-ts
of unmusicalness. But (ii) since' musicalness and unmusicalness
'
are a property of man, the change is in fact an Alteration of manfrom a state of musicalness to a state of unmusicalness. At the
same time, (iii)the change is a <f>0opd of musical man and a yeVeo-ts
of unmusical man.
In b29 TrdOr) apparently means dAAotwo-as a sense of the term
expressly recognized in Metaph. 1022^18. This interpretation,
though difficult, is helped by the antithesis, avOpu-rrov ptv . . . irdOr),
av6p(t)irov 8e JAOWLKOV . . .yei/etrts KOL <f>6opd.
igb 26-27. i ... djxouo-ia. The singular (Wtfos) is used, because
the whole cVavnWts is predicable of Man, as ' odd-or-even'
is
predicable of Number and '
straight-or-curved'
of Line.* Musical-
or-unmusical 'is a disjunctive proprium of Man, and is a KO.& avrb
vra'flos of Man in that sense (cf. Introd. 8).
But (iAAoiWis is not confined to change in TrdOrj which are
propria^ and f musical-or-unmusical'
is a Kaff avrb TrdOos of Man in
a wider sense also.
Man can 'alter' from musical to unmusical, because Man is
the ' owner '
of this Traces the substratum^ in which it inheres,
and not merely a subject of which it can grammatically be
predicated. On the other hand, TO Aeu/coV could not *
alter' from
no COMMENTARY
musical to unmusical, because * musical or unmusical '
is a
of TO XevKoV only Kara crv/A/Je/fy/cos, not KaO' avro. It is indeed
grammatically possible to say TO AevKoV cort /xovo-t/coV, but the state-
ment only means that an unexpressed substratum (e. g. Sokrates),
w o-v/A/?/fy/ci/ emu AevKO), is also musical. Cf. 2i b 3-4,*i9
b10-12,
Post. Anal 83a i-2i.
I9b31 aoa 2. Stay . . . <f>6opd. A summary statement of the
distinction of the three 187; /avijo-cw? (a) from one another, and
(b) from substantial change.. . . TroioV (
b33), i. e. 7ra0os is to be interpreted as TraOrjriKi]
: cf.*i9
b 8-10.
7ra'0os . . . oX(os (a
i), i. e. W0os is to be interpreted in the widest
sense, so as to include all forms of ' Accident '.
2Oa 25. IO-TI . . . rikwy. Matter in the primary and strict sense
is identical with the substratum of substantial change (vXy ytvvyTyKai <t>OapTrj). But the other forms of change also presupposea substratum which is-potentially, but is-not-actually, that which
results from the change. Hence 'we must recognize a vXrj TroOfv
Trot (or v\rj TOTUKT;), a v\.rj of avr/o-is KCU </>0ris, and a vX.r) of
dAAoiWis. Cfi Introd. p. xxxiv, Metaph. io42 a 32- b7.
2Oa5-7. irepl . . . Tpoirok. The first part of this epilogue refers
back to i5a26-27.
After yeveo-cws (a5) Bekker adds KCU <{>0opa<>, which he wrongly
attributes to E. The addition is not wanted : cf. I9b 6.
A. 5
2Oa 8. irep! . . . elireic. XOITTOV : the reference is to the plan of
the work, cf. i4a1-6, i5
a 26-28.
The processes hitherto considered (ycVeo-ts and <j>6opd, dAXoi'wo-ts)
occur in all sublunary natural bodies. But growth and diminution,
as here defined (cf.* 2ob 34 2i a 29), are the two complementary
forms of a process which is confined to the c/x^vxa. We should
therefore expect to find them discussed in Aristotle's treatises on
living things. And he does in fact treat (a) of food, and the
bodily organs involved in assimilation, nutrition, and growth in
the de Part. Anim., (b) of the organs of reproduction in the de
Gen. Anim., and (c) of the soul (as the efficient cause of nutrition,
growth, and reproduction) in the de Anima. Moreover, there are
grounds for thinking that he wrote or at least planned a special
treatise irepl rpo(f>fj<s or -n-epl avrjo-o>s fat T/WH^S : see Bonitz, 2nd.
io4b 16-28. Nevertheless it is natural enough that the present
A. 4. 3i9b3i
- -5. 320
a io in
work should include a treatise on av^ats KOL <0io-is. For (i) the
four kinds of change are distinguished in the Physics, and <opa is
discussed there and in the de Caelo. And since Aristotle has just
discussed ycVeo-ts and dAAoiWts, the investigation of growth and
diminution the remaining kind of change is appropriate here.
Moreover (ii) cu^o-is (as we shall discover) is most intimately
connected with yeVeo-i? and dAAotoxn?, and cannot be explained
without them. Hence it is convenient to treat of the general
character of av^o-ts in close association with the treatment of
yeVeo-is and dAAoiWis.
The passage in the de Anima (B. 4, especially 4i6a19-^31)
supplements Aristotle's present account. We learn from it that
the primary or basal soul(fj TT/OWTI? faxy, i. e. the soul whose
functions distinctively characterize the lowest grade of e/xi/o^a, viz.
the plants) is the 'efficient cause
'
of all those vital acts which
operate with food. For(i),
as converting food into the substance
of the tissues of the l/xi/a^ov, this soul is tfpcTrri/o}, i. e. originates
the processes of nutrition ; (ii), as employing the assimilated food
to increase the living body up to the size which it possesses in
maturity, it is av^n/oj, i. e. originates and controls the process
of growth ; and(iii),
as winning from the food that secretion (viz.
the seed) from which a new specimen of the living body can
develop, it is yei/i/^*?/, i. e. originates and controls the repro-
ductive process. Since the aim and end of this soul is to
reproduce the living body of which it is the * form '
(TO yen^o-cu
otov cdVo), and since it is best to call things after their* end ', the
basal soul may be called yew^TtK^ otov avro. It is the 'repro-
ductive'
soul par excellence^ since its other functions are subservient
and instrumental to reproduction.
Aristotle's terminology in the de Anima should also be noted
in connexion with the present passage. The soul is TO
that which nourishes : the living body qua living (TO
$ e/xt/^xov) is TO Tp<f>6fjivov that which is nourished : the food is
thatuj T/oe'</>eTcu, the 'stimulus' (cf.
*2i b5~6), i.e. that which
stimulates the 0pe7rri/o/ SiW/us to exercise its power : and the
natural heat of the living body (TO Ocppov : cf.*2Q
b24-26) is
that, <o rpc^erat, i. e. that which the soul employs as the instru-
ment of nutrition, to digest and assimilate the food.
2Oa9-10. KOI irws . . . QQwovTw, i. e. we have to explain the
general character of the processes of growth and diminution
wherever they occur : cf.*i4
a2,
* i8a 25-27.
ii2 COMMENTARY
20^ 10 22a 33. oxcirT&K . . . jxeVei. The chapter discusses two
topics (2oa8-io), viz. (i)
how growth is distinguished from
coming-to-be and from alteration, and (ii)how growth takes
place. It may be divided into two parts. The first part (2oa 10-
b34) contains a preliminary and somewhat confused treatment
of both topics. Thus, the difference of avgrja-is from yeVeo-cs and
dXXotWis is considered, but not adequately stated (2oa10-27) ;
and there is an obscure and unsatisfactory discussion whether
(and, if so, in what sense) the matter, out of which things grow,
is potentially jue'yetfos (* 2oa 27- b
34). The second part (2ob 34
22 a33) distinguishes growth from yeVeo-is and dXXoiWis by a
precise definition of the term : and elucidates the way in which
growth takes, place, by an account of the nature of the growing
thing, of the part played by food in growth and the relation of
nutrition to growth. Cf. also * 2i b 10-16.
2Oa I2. on, SC. ccrrlvfj TT/OOS aXXr/Xa Stcw^opa on KrX.,
' Do they
differ from one another, because . . .
'
aoai3. olov, videlicet. Cf. e.g. 2i a
^5,26a 27.
2Oa i5- dfA<f>orepa, i.e. the last two forms of change, a u^r/o-is
and dXXoitoo"is.
2Oa l6. roil' clpTjfA^wi'. TO, tlprjjJLCva are /xeyc^os and TrdOos.
2Oa 16-25. r\. . . ^Oifon-os. Growth and diminution are necessarily
accompanied respectively by the expansion and contraction of the
growing and the diminishing thing in all three dimensions of space.
This phenomenon may accompany yeVco-ts and dXXotWis, but it
need not do so. From this peculiar necessary concomitant
Aristotle infers that the change, which is growth (or diminution),
must be distinguished 'in manner' from the changes which are
yeVco-ts and dXXoiWis : but we are not here told what this
'distinctive manner' is.
2Oa19-25. aXXoy . . . WWOVTOS. The change of place, which
necessarily accompanies growth and diminution, (a) is not
a movement of translation. For the growing or diminishing
thing as a whole retains its position, although its parts changetheir places as it expands or contracts : whereas the moving body,
in a movement of translation, changes its position as a whole.
Nor (b) is it a movement of rotation, like that of a revolving sphere.
For the sphere as a whole continues to occupy an equal space,
within which its parts change their places : but the parts of the
growing thing expand, and those of the diminishing thing contract.
Aristotle here (a20-21) compares the expansion of the growing
A. 5. 32Oa 10-29 113
thing to that of a metal when beaten. Even this comparison,
however, is inaccurate (as Philoponos points out) because the
growing thing expands in all three dimensions of space at once.
TOVTOV (a2l), SC. ToD avavofjievov.
In the Physics (2iia12-17, 2I3
b5) 4>P<*- is quoted as one type
of Kwrjcris rjKara TOTTOV, and av^ats KOL <$i'cris as the Other.
2Oa27 - b
34. irepl . . . aur]<ns. It has been suggested that the
sphere in which growth operates (its Trepl o) is /xeyetfos, i. e. that
growth is a change from '
potential'
to*
actual'
//,cye0o9 (2oa 1 2-16).
Starting from this suggestion, Aristotle discusses in what sense the
terminus a quo of growth is Swa/x,ei /xeye0o9. He is thus inquiring' What is the matter out of which things grow ?
' And this inquiryis at the same time a preliminary investigation of the problem,' How does growth take place?' (cf.
* 2oa 10 22 a 33).
But the discussion is obscure in many of its details. This
obscurity is largely due to the fact that Aristotle has not yet
pointed out that there is a twofold matter of growth : viz. (i)the
materia in qua, i. e. TO av^avo/xevov, the growing thing itself, and
(ii) the materia ex qua, i. e. TO <S avaveTcu, the food (cf.* 2ob 34
2i a 29). Hence '
the matter of growth ',of which he here speaks,
includes both '
the growing thing' and ' the food
'
: and the
emphasis falls sometimes on one, and sometimes on the other, of
these two aspects of '
the matter '.
The general conclusion is that the Trept o of growth isyu,e'ye0o9,
in the sense that growth is a change of, and within, actual
/xeyeflos. Thus ' the growing thing' must be an actual body which
already possesses some actual magnitude (cf. e. g. 2ob 31-33) : and
the same is true, as we learn later, of ' the food '. Nevertheless
the matter of growth is also in a certain sense (cf.* 2oa 29,
* 2ob
12-14) only potentially a body and a magnitude, which it will
become actually. This is clearly explained in respect to' the
food' (cf. 2ib 35 22 a33): but it is also true of 'the growing
thing', as we can infer from 2ob 12-25.2Oa 29. iroTepws uTro\Y]iTTO^. That the 7T/ot o of avr](ri<s KCU <#iVi9
is /xeyetfos, is generally believed : but a special interpretation of
the relation of a change to itsTTC/OI o has been suggested (2O
a12-16),
according to which growth would be ' a process from what is
potentially, to what is actually, a magnitude '. Now this description
is ambiguous, and the ambiguity lies in the phrase CK Swa/Ati
/xeye'tfous. Aristotle expresses only one of its two possible meaningshere : viz. that growth is a process, in which
2254 I
u 4 COMMENTARY
result from a matter actually incorporeal and devoid of magnitude,
though potentially magnitude and body. And the main object
of the ensuing discussion is to negative this description of
growth.
According to the other possible meaning of e/c Swa/^et /x,eye'0ovs
(which is not here directly stated, though it is implied below : see
* 2ob 12-14), the matter of growth would be actually corporeal
and actually possessed of magnitude, though only potentially'
corporeal and possessed of magnitude'
in the same sense in
which the result of growth is actually so. The main result of the
later discussion (from 2ob 34 onwards) is to explain and justify
this conception of the matter of growth.
2Oa 29-31. irorepoK . . . fie'veOos ; Growth, as we shall learn
later, presupposes nutrition, i. e. the transformation of food into
(e. g.) flesh, or the yei/eortsof a <rw//,a. Now, since yeVeo-ts is
transformation, nutrition qua the ycVecrts of ao-<3/x,a presupposes
an already formed matter(i.
e. an actual o-w/xa), and not an
incorporeal matter.
Hence the view here suggested that in growth o-w/xa /cat
/xe'yetfoscome-to-be out of a matter which is actually incorporeal
and sizeless is clearly false, at least in so far as 'the matter'
means or includes thefood (cf.* 2Oa 27
- b34), which the phraseo-
logy implies.
2Oa31-34. Kal TOUTOU . . . djj.<J>oTepu>s ; The matter of growth
(we are supposing at present) is actually incorporeal and actually
devoid of magnitude. It is no mere feature of actual body,which we can isolate by definition. It is an incorporeal andsizeless something, having an independent existence, really
'separate' from what is corporeal and possessed of magnitude
(a33 Kexwpto-/xei/^s,
a 34 X^pKyrr)).
But an incorporeal and sizeless matter, which is thus real
independently of body, may be supposed either (a) to exist alone,
per se ; or (b) to exist within (to'inexist in
')an actual botfy,
without being in any sense a part of the body which contains
it (a33-34 : the matter is supposed to be KCX^P^^TJ in both
alternatives). Is growth a process in which o-w/m /cat /-teyeflos
result from (a), or from (b)? Aristotle is going to show that
growth cannot take place in either of these two ways (a34
TOV a/A</>oT/xos ; SC. TVJV avr)<rw ytyvecr^at, cf. a32).
TOVTOV (&3 T
)>SC - T V *K &W/Al //,!/ /Aye$OVS KO.I
8* atrco/zarov /cat d/Aeye^ovs yiW<r$at <rw/xa /cat
A. 5. 320*29 b5 115
2Oa 34 - b 2. r\ . . . aurOYjToV. Both alternatives are impossible,
because both assume an incorporeal and sizeless matter which
is'
separate'
: and if it is*
separate ',it must be conceived either
(a) as occupying no place, or (b) as a 'void'. But (2ob2-i2) it
cannot be conceived in either of these two ways.
By the excision off)
before oTov (b
i), we get two alternative
ways of conceiving the 'separate' matter, and TO fieV (b2) and
TO Se (b3) become intelligible. The first alternative way (a) is
that the matter '
occupies no place ',and Aristotle suggests
'
the
point' as an illustration. For though the point 'possesses
position'
(0eW Ixei), it cannot be said to'
occupy place'
(TOTTOV
KaTt^etv), since nothing can '
occupy place'
except KIWJTOV o-w/xa,
i. e. a body subject either to <f>opd or to ai^o-is : cf. Aristotle's
discussion of TOTTOS, Physics A. 1-5, e.g. 212*5-7,b7-8, 28-29.
The second alternative way (b) is that the matter is' a void '.
Now Aristotle explains, in the passage of the Physics (A. 6-9)where he argues that there is no ' void ', what TO Kei/6V is commonly
supposed to mean. By TO KGVOV is meant a Stcurr^/xa ev u> //,r?Sev
CCTTI o-w/xa aurOvfrov : i. e. there is supposed to be a place filled (or
capable of being filled) by tangible body, and then, within this
filled place, a gap devoid of tangible body (cf. Physics, 1. c., 213*
27-31, 2i3b3i 2i4a n). Hence the words KCU o-w/xa OVK
ai<rOr)Tov (b2) are rightly added here, as explanatory of KCVOV. If
the matter is 'a void ',it is the empty place of a perceptible (i.
e.
tangible) body. It is the spatial content of a body, a body without
the perceptible qualities of a body.2Ob 3. TO ... cimi. TO Se, SC. Ktvov KOL <ru>/Aa OVK aur6vfrov.
ei/ TLVL eTvcu, i.q. Ivvirdp^iv ev aXAa> aco/xaTt (20* 34).
To identify the'
incorporeal separate matter'
with ' a void'
is
to suppose that it exists independently within another body; and
we are therefore maintaining the second alternative formulatedabove (20* 34 : cf.
* 2oa 31-34). Aristotle shows that this alterna-
tive is untenable, 2ob 5-12.aob 3-5. del . . . o-ujxJ3e|3Y]Kos. (a) The matter of growth can-
not be conceived as occupying no place.
Aristotle's argument may be put thus : What results from the
matter of growth (viz. a body possessed of magnitude) is KO.& avro
(per se, intrinsically) somewhere (TTOV). Hence the matter must
be somewhere, either'
intrinsically'
(per se), or at least'
indirectly'
(Kara o-v/A/3e/?7?Kos, per aliud\ But ' that which does not occupy
place'
e. g. a point is not somewhere, either per se or per aliud.
I 2
n6 COMMENTARY
The argument turns on the meaning of '
being somewhere '
(elvat TTOV), which is explained in the Physics.' To be TTOV
'
is*to
be ei/ T.OTTO)'
: and this means to be contained by an including
body, in such a way that the*
limits'
or mathematical outlines
(TO. lo-xara, TO. Trepara) of the contained and its continent are '
in
contact '. When that is so, the outline of the contained body is
its /xop<>7 or eTSos : and the outline of the continent is' the primary
place'
(TOTTOS ev u> 7rpu>Tu> eoriV, or TOTTOS iStos : cf.*
1 6b 4) of the
contained body. Hence Aristotle defines TOTTOS as *
the limit
of the containing body'
;and explains that only a crw/xa KU/^TOV
?)Kara <opav 17
/car' avgrjcrw can be per se' in place
'
or ' some-
where '. Other things, however, e. g. the soul, can be TTOV or
lv Toirwfler aliud: i.e. indirectly, in virtue of a KLVTJTOV o-w/xa of
which they are, e. g., constituents or adjectives. (Cf. Phys. e. g.
2ii b 10-14, 212*5-7, 31-32, 2i2 b 7-i2, 27-29.)
Now it is clear that a point is not 'in place
'
Ka.0' avro, since it
is not a KLWJTOV crw/xa. But is it not *in place
'
Kara (rvfjL/3efir)K6s,
e.g. as a part or an adjective of some other KLV^TOV o-w/xa ? A point
is'
in' a line, a line is 'jn
' a surface, a surface'in
'
a solid : and
is not a solid 'in' a Kivrjrov o-w/xa? The answer, according to
Aristotle's doctrine, is* No '. For the
* mathematical things'
are
not ' contained in'
the actual bodies : they are adjectival characters
abstracted from the latter (cf. Introd. 5). Hence none of the' mathematical things
'
are 'in place' : cf. e.g. Phys. 2o8b 22-25,
de Caelo 305a24-31.
2Ob 5-12. dXXoi . . . uiroptvovros. (b) The matter of growthcannot be conceived as ' contained in
' an actual body^ ivhilst retaining
a 'separate'
being of its own.
If the '
incorporeal and sizeless'
matter were thus in an actual
body, without being in any sense 0/4t i.e. neither a part of its
substantial being (KO.& avro,b4) nor an adjective of it (Kara
c/A/?e/277Kos) it would be enclosed within it, as within a vessel.
It would be a KCVOV : and the actual body would include it, muchas an dyyetov comprises its contents.
Such a conception of the matter of growth is impossible, as we
can see from the impossibility of an analogous conception of the
matter of yeVeo-is. Suppose, e. g., that, when Air comes-to-be out
of Water, the matter of its yeVeo-is, whilst in no sense a part or an
adjective of the Water, is 'contained within' it, as in a vessel.
Then (i) the yeVeo-is of the Air would be simply its withdrawal
from the Water, the latter being left unaltered;but this is not
A. 5. 32ob 5-i6 117
what in fact occurs (b11-12): and
(ii), since there would be
nothing to limit the quantity of the matter * contained in'
the
Water, there would be nothing to limit the volume of the resulting
Air(bio-n). But in fact a given volume of Water generates
only a determinate volume of Air.
I have followed Zabarella in my interpretation of b ro-n
2Ob12-14. {ScX-rioi/ . . .
JJLTJ juai/.'
It is therefore better to
suppose that in all instances of coming-to-be the matter is
inseparable'
(sc. from the actual body in which it is contained)'
being numerically identical and one with the containing body,
though isolable from it by definition.'
This suggestion is the opposite of the supposition just negatived.
Hence we may regard it as the affirmation of the unexpressedalternative implied in the formulation of that supposition : cf. 2ob
5 ff. et/Jiei> Kexw/Ho-yacW OUTWS KT\. Aristotle is suggesting the right
interpretation of e* Swa/xet /xeycflovs, i. e. the true sense in which
the matter of growth is Swa/zci piytOos : cf.* 2oa 29.
When Air comes-to-be out of Water, the matter of this ye'veo-is
is really d^w/aio-ros from the Water. It is numerically identical
with it. But it is distinct and isolable by definition (TW Aoyw) from
it. The same principle applies in all cases of yeVecrts (b 1 3 TTOLO-IV).
When, e.g., o-w/xa *at /zeyetfos' come-to-be
'
(i.e. in growth, cf.
* 2oa 29-31), the matter of this process is really inseparable
from an actual body possessing magnitude. Hence the matter of
growth is not an '
incorporeal and sizeless something' with an
independent being of its own (cf.* 2oa 31-34). But from an actual
body, actually possessed of magnitude, we can abstract by definition
the matter of growth. The matter of growth this abstracted
feature of the actual body is only potentially (not yet actually)
that actual body of a determinate size, which will result from the
process of growth : hence in this sense, and in this sense only, the
matter of growth is Svva/m /zcyetfos /cat o-w/xa.
2Ob 13-14. -n]v auTTji' . . . dpiOfiw, i. e. numerically identical with
the actual body'in which '
it is (or rather, from which we can
isolate it by definition).
The inseparability of the vXrj ofye'veo-is
from that of av^o-is and
of dAAoiWis is a different, though a closely-connected, point
which Aristotle develops below,b22-25.
2Ob14-16. dXXa . . . atrias. We saw that body and magnitude
cannot come-to-be out of an incorporeal and sizeless something,
n8 COMMENTARY
existing in its own right, but occupying no place :
'
the matter ',
in short, cannot be a kind of 'point'
(cf.* 20* 34 - b
2,* 2ob 3-5).
Aristotle now urges that none of the geometrical things viz.
neither points, lines, planes, nor solids can be ' the matter'
out
of which body comes-to-be. He is referring to a type of theory
which he criticizes more fully elsewhere (cf. e. g. de Caelo
298b33 ff., Metaph. iooi b 26 ff., io36
b7 ff.).
The type of theoryin question regards the products of mathematical analysis as the
real primary constituents of things. From the point of view of
mathematical analysis, the perceptible physical bodies '
pre-
suppose'
(are resoluble into) geometrical solids : solid presupposesthe planes which define and contain it : plane similarly pre-
supposes lines, line points, and points are arithmetical units plus
position. Hence (it was argued) the physical bodies, with all
their sensible qualities, can be generated by a gradual synthesis
of the elementary mathematical entities. Units or at least
points, lines, and the geometrical figures are * the matter '
of
body.The theories of the Atomists (cf. e.g. *J5 b
33 16*2)and of Plato in the Timaeus (cf.
*15*29-33, *i5
b3i) are
examples (more or less imperfect) of the type which Aristotle
here condemns. The fundamental error of all such theories lies
in the assumption that TO, /xa^/xart/ca are independently real ;
whereas in fact they are adjectival features of the perceptible
bodies, isolable only by definition (cf.* 2ob 3-5).
ouSe o-Tty/xas . . . ovSe y/oa/x/xas (b14-15) is, I think, equivalent
to the denial that ra yew/xerptKa i. e. the entities whose '
being'
the geometer vrorifercu, and whose essential properties he
proves can be 'the matter 'of body: cf. e. g. Post. Anal. y6b
3-5, Introd. 6.
Sta ras avras amas (b15-16) is not very clear. The reference
appears to be to the whole preceding argument (2oa 29~ b
i2)which proves that the matter, out of which a body (with
magnitude) comes-to-be, cannot be something actually incorporeal
(and sizeless).
2ob 16-17. .Ktro . . . p>p<f>TJs. Aristotle here begins the state-
ment of his own conception of the matter out of which body(and magnitude) comes-to-be. The statement is completed in the
next sentence,b17-25.
The matter, out of which body comes-to-be, is that of which
'points and lines' are the limits: but it can never exist apart
A. 5. 320b16-25 IJ 9
from a definite physical shape (pop^rj) and perceptible qualities
(7rd@o<s).In other words,
' the matter'
is always an actual body.
having a certain shape and magnitude, and certain sensible
qualities. As we shall see in a moment, however, we can isolate
by definition different features of its being : and these isolable
features are respectively (a) the v\r} ova-las o-co/xaTt/oJs (i.e. Trpomy
v\rj, the fundamental logical presupposition of yeVeo-ts), (b) the
vXrj of growth and diminution, and (c) the vX.rj of '
alteration '.
2Ob 17-25. yiyKeTat . . . xupivrd. Aristotle has just stated that
the matter, out of which a body comes-to-be, is itself another
actual perceptible body. But though this is true, and has been
established elsewhere as well as in the present argument (b17-19
ytyveTcu /xev ovv . . . Siwpto-rat), 'nevertheless' (b22-25 *7r"
Xw/H<rra)* since there is- also a matter out of which corporeal
substance itself comes-to-be (corporeal substance, however,
already characterized as such-and-such a determinate body, for
there is no such thing as body in general), this same matter is
also the matter of magnitude and quality being separable
from these matters by definition, but not separable in place
unless Qualities' and Attributes generally
'
are, in their turn?
separable from Substance '.
Aristotle's doctrine may be summarized thus : Any actual
perceptible body is corporeal substance of a certain size and with
certain alo-OrjTa -rdfy. Its /x,eye0os and its -n-dOrj are inseparable
from its'
corporeal substantiality ',which they qualify, and
inseparable from one another : i. e. neither corporeal substance,
nor size, nor any 7ra#os exists per se and in the abstract. What
exists is this determinate body of such-and-such a size, and of
such-and such a temperature, colour, smell, &c. One and the
same actual body (this individual corporeal substance) is the
subject, of which a certain /^c'ye^os and certain irdOr) are predicable :
and its*
place'
is the '
place'
in which these adjectives (whose
'being' is their inherence in the body) inseparably coexist.
On the other hand, scientific analysis may and indeed must
distinguish the body (a) qua Trpurr) v\r} //fo^-formed, but capable
of accepting a different form, (b) qua so-big, but capable of
becoming bigger or smaller, and (c) qua .w-hot or ^-coloured, but
capable of a different temperature or a different colour. Hence
scientific analysis distinguishes within the actual body (a) a vXrj
o-w/xariKr/s ov<ri'as, (b) a v\r) //,eye'0ovs (i.e. a matter of growth and
diminution), and (c) a v\r] trdOovs (i.e. a matter of alteration).
120 COMMENTARY
Thus the matter of growth is a certain /xe'yeflos,thepatter of
alteration a certain irdOos, and the matter of ycVecns the '
corporeal
substantiality'
of an actual body. These three vAcu, though not
really separable, are separable by definition (isolable by scientific
analysis) both from the actual body and from one another.
To suppose that the matter of growth and the matter of
alteration are really separate from the actual body or from the
matter of ye'vecns,would be equivalent to maintaining the separate
existence of iraQy i. e. that an actual ^e'yetfos and an actual
sensible quality can ' be ', without inhering in a substance. Cf.
b 24-25 ifir)
KO.I TO. TrdOr] -^picrrd. The term TrdOrj here includes all
*
adjectivals ',i. e. determinations under any Category other than
that of Substance : cf.*27^ 17-22. On the other hand, the word
is used in ^17 and b23 in the restricted sense of miApnjnf
or alcrOrjTov Traces : cf.*19^ 8-10.
21. wairep . . . yiverai. /cat ev aXXots : Aristotle is
probably referring to Metaph. io32a
i2ff., rather than to Phys.
A. 7. For in the former passage he establishes two universal
laws ofyei/ecrts,
viz. (i) 'One actual thing comes-to-be out of
another actual thing' and (ii)
' The efficient cause of every yeVeo-ts
is something actual '. Hence he is reminded of the second law
here, and repeats it although it is not strictly relevant to his
present argument. We must, then, regardb19-21 (KCU v-n-6
TWOS . . . yiVerat) as a digression, suggested to Aristotle byassociation. The words arKX.rjpov yap ov% VTTO a-K\r)pov ytVcrat
(b21), if they are genuine, must be read after o/toyevov? (
b19) as
an explanatory parenthesis.
The doctrine may be stated thus : The efficient cause of
ycvcoris is always* actual
',either (i) an actual thing, form embodied
in matter, or(ii)
an actuality, i. e. a * form '
(b 21
rjVTT a/TeAc^e/as).
(i) If it is an actual thing, it is identical (with the thing produced
by the process) either (a) in species or (b) in genus. Thus (a) the
father is the efficient cause of the coming-to-be of the child : andfather and child are identical specifically. On the other hand, (b)a hard thing (e. g. ice or terra-cotta) is not produced by a hard
thing, but by something cold or hot (a freezing wind or a baking
fire); cf. Meteor. 382a 22 ff. But though what is cold or hot is
different in species from what is hard,' cold ',
* hot',and ' hard
'
are generically identical : for all three belong to the class of
TO. airrd.(ii) At other times (viz. in those ycveVcis which are
properly calledTronyo-ei?) the efficient cause is not an actual thing,
A. 5. 32ob 18 32ia29 121
but an actuality or' form '. When a work of r^yy
1
*} comes-to-be,
the process is initiated by the ' form '
qua present as an ideal in
the soul of the TCXVIT^S. Thus the efficient cause of the
coming-to-be of a house is the oi/coSo/xiK?) r^vy in the architect's
soul : and the oiVoSo/uK^ rex^n ts tne '
f rrn'
f House, or is the
Aoyos in which that ' form '
is precisely analysed and resynthesized.
Cf.*35
b34-35> Metaph. 1032* 25 ff.
20b 25. ic TWI> SujTTopTjfA&'a^. The reference is to 20a 27- b 12.
2Ob 27-28. xwPia 1' n-porepof. If we suppose that the
matter of growth is devoid of actual/xe'yetfos,
we shall be postulating
within it e. g. within the growing thing, or again within the food
(cf. *2i a5~9) real
'
gaps' or 'voids', having an independentexistence of their own. The growing thing (or the food) will
then be conceived as a body with '
pores'
with '
places'
for
tangible body, but devoid of it (cf.* 2oa 34- b
2). But a really-
existent, independent' void
'
has been shown to be impossibleelsewhere (Phys. A. 6-9).
Zabarella prefers the variant TO KOLVOV, which he interprets as
o-tu/xa OVK alo-OrjTov, i. e.*
corpus indifferens, potentiale, et nulli
certae naturae alligatum'
or, in other words, as Trpom? v\rj.
But (i) (roi/xa KOLVOV in b23 does not mean o-oi/za OVK aio-OrjTOv. It
means perceptible body in general, i. e. the indeterminate universal
of the definite perceptible bodies. And (ii) o-w/xa OVK alo-Orjrov in
b 2 is identified with TO KVOV, not with TO KOLVOV.
The false reading, TO KOLVOV, probably led to the omission of ei>
in b 28. For (so far as I am aware) there is no proofthat TO KOLVOV cannot exist in separation.
20b 3O. oXws, i. q. aTrXois : cf. 26a 28.
20b 33-34. yevevis . . . auY)<ns. As Zabarella rightly observes,
Aristotle does not mean that the vXrj of yeVeo-is is devoid of actual
magnitude, i. e. only potentially a body. All that he says is that' a process from an d/xeye^s vXy ', if it could occur at //,
* would not
be growth, but rather (/xaXAov) a body's coming-to-be '.
2Ob 34 21*29. XY)TTT'OI> Toiouroi'. Aristotle here begins
a more thorough treatment of the two topics, formulated at
2oa 8-io: cf. *2oa io 22*33. We are 'to come to closer
quarters with the subject of our investigation ',
' to grapple with it
(as it were) from its beginning', 'to get to the root of it'
(b34 2i a i. Since aTTTeo-^at literally applies only to something
corporeal, Aristotle says olov aTrro/xeVovs. Probably /xaXXoi/ goes
with aTTTo/xeVovs : cf. Rhet. i358a8).
122 COMMENTARY
With a view to this more thorough treatment,' we must
determine the precise character of the Growing and Diminishing
whose causes we are investigating'
(21 1-2 : TTOLOV, as Zabarella
rightly says,' non significat qualitatem, sed essentiam, augmenta-
tionis').
In other words : we must formulate the precise nominal
definitions of avfyo-is and <j>0uri?. If we then discover the causes
of growth, we shall be able to convert its nominal into its
adequate scientific definition : cf. Introd. 7-9,*14* 2-3,
* 2i b16-17.
It will be convenient to anticipate Aristotle's discussion and to
give a summary statement (i) of the meaning here attributed to
av^cri?, and(ii)
of the causes of av^crts. The reader should
consult de Anima B. 4 (cf.* 20* 8), Alexander's wepi /cpao-ea>s KOL
adhered)? (ed. Bruns, pp. 233 ff.), and above all Zabarella's
excellent treatise de Augmentation.
(i) The term av^o-i? is here restricted to the growth of living
things, though it is used more widely elsewhere. Thus it is
applied (e.g. Phys. 2i4a32ff.) to the increase of volume when
'air' (e.g. steam) is generated from water a case expressly
excluded here (21*9-17). A process, which is to be av^o-ts in
the sense here recognized, must fulfil three conditions : (a) the
substance of the growing thing must persist, retaining its identity
through the process, (b) the growing thing, as a whole and in
every particle, must get bigger, i. e. must expand so as to
become larger in all three dimensions, and (c) it must get bigger
by taking into itself, and assimilating, food.
Growth, thus conceived, involves yeVeo-i? KOL ^Oopa, dAAoiWts,
and <f>opd. For the food must pass-away, i. e. be transformed into
the tissue of the growing thing. There must, e. g., be a </>0opa of
the bread, which is a yeVeo-ts of the blood. Again, in the process
of digestion which growth presupposes, food and stomach
reciprocally'
act'
and '
react'
on one another, i. e. reciprocally'alter' one another: cf. the notes on A. 7. Or, as Aristotle
also expresses it, the food is at first' unlike
'
the tissues which
it is to increase. It has to be ' made like'
them, and this
assimilation is a change from contrary to contrary qualities, i. e.
ttAAoiWts (cf. Phys. 26oa 29ff. ; below, 2i b 35 22a 4). Finally
(cf.*2oa 16-25), growth is necessarily accompanied by a peculiar
kind of <opa.
(ii) There is a twofold matter(i.
e. material cause) of growth
(cf. *2oa27
- l)
34), viz. (a) the growing thing whose size increases :
A. 5. 32Ob34 32i
a9 123
this is a body animated by the basal or '
reproductive'
soul :
and (b) the food which ' accedes to',and increases, the growing
thing. There is also a twofold efficient cause of growth, viz.
(a) the basal soul, and (b) the'
natural heat'
of the living body
(cf.* 20* 8).
Aristotle refers to the soul as the efficient cause of growth at
2i b 6-io, 22*12, 22 a28-33 : DUt ms references are very brief,
and the last passage is . obscure. There does not appear to be
any reference in this chapter to the'
natural heat '. The '
final
cause'
of growth (to which there is no reference here) is the
attainment by the living thing of its* normal '
size i. e. the size
which it ought to have in maturity, if it is to fulfil its vital
functions adequately.
The question as to what cause (or causes) must be specified
in the scientific definition of growth, is discussed below : cf.
* 2i b 16-17.
ai 2-29. <f><Hi>Tai . . . ToiouTot/. The c nominal definitions'
of
otj&prtt and </>0io-ts (in the sense here given to these terms) emergefrom this passage. The growing and diminishing thing exhibits
three characteristics : growth and diminution must conform to
three conditions (cf. preceding note). The first two conditions
are stated at once (a2-5), whilst the third is formulated in the
course of the discussion from a9-2Q.
2ia 5~9' &va,yK.aiov . . . dSui/aToy. An apparent dilemma con-
cerning the food. The datives (do-w/xaro), crw/Aart) show that
Aristotle is referring to the materia ex qua of growth (TO <J avgdverai,
or TO avov): cf.* 2oa 8,
* 20* 27-^34, and the terminology
throughout the rest of the chapter.The food must be either dcrw/xaTov or o-w/xa : and yet it cannot
be either. For (a) if the food be do-w/xarov, 'there will exist
separate a void'
(a 6 co-rat ^copto-rov KCVOV) : i. e. the food will be
the empty place of a body, existing independently of a body
(cf.* 2oa 34-b 2), and thus there will be a vXrj /xeye'flovs existing
in separation from actual body. But this was shown to be
impossible: cf. e.g.* 2ob 17-25. But (b) if the food be an
actual body, there will be two bodies the growing thing and
the food in the same place. Yet such reciprocal interpenetration
of two bodies is also impossible.It will be observed that Aristotle here assumes that the
growing thing is a o-w/x,a, i. e. through and through tangible body.
In the Physics (2i3b18-20) he says that growth was universally
i2 4 COMMENTARY
supposed to imply the real existence of a * void ', i. e. of actual
gaps or *
pores'
in the growing thing : for it was assumed that
the food was a body, and that two bodies could not bea/*.a, i. e.
could not interpenetrate.
The apparent dilemma, which is here developed with regard to
the food, does in fact also apply to the materia in qua of growth,
viz. TO avai/o//<vov. That too must be either da-w/mToi/ (i.e.
a body with real'
voids'
or *
pores ')or o-w/xa (i.
e. through and
through tangible body) : and yet it cannot be either. WhenAristotle reformulates the problem of growth, with a view to its
solution, he recognizes that this apparent dilemma applies to the
growing thing : cf. 2i h 15, where TO o-w/xa is clearly TO av&vopevov.On Aristotle's own theory, both the food and the growing
thing are actual bodies. Yet there are no '
pores'
(no real*
voids')
: and reciprocal interpenetration of bodies is impossible.
The solution lies in his conception of matter as a Swa/us TOH>
cvavTiw (cf. Phys. 2 1 7a 2 1 - b 28 : and see below,
* 26b 34 27* i).
One and the same vX-rj (an actual body of a certain size and, e. g.,
a certain density) is capable of becoming actually bigger or
smaller, denser or rarer, &c. But we must not think of a ' dense'
body as one in which there are few or small '
pores ',and of
a 'rare' body as one with large or many gaps interspacing its
corporeal particles. We must rather conceive of vXrj as a material
capable of filling space with all possible degrees of intensity, or
capable of expanding and contracting without a break in its
continuity. In this respect Aristotle's vXy resembles ' das Reale',
as Kant conceives it : cf. Kritik d. r. Vernunft^'
Anticipationen d.
Wahrnehmung '.
2ia 9-29. dXXoi . . . TOIOUTOK. We cannot evade the apparentdilemma as regards the matter of growth, by quoting the
generation of air (e. g. steam) out of water. It is true that there
is an increase of volume ; that the matter viz. the water is not
incorporeal ; and that yet there is no reciprocal interpenetrationof two bodies. But the change is not a&r^o-ts in the sense here
defined, for two of the three characteristic conditions are
unfulfilled : (i) there is no accession of fresh material, and (ii)
there is no perceptible substance persisting through the change(cf.
* 2ob 34 2i a 29,*218-2-29). The change is a <f>0opd of
water and a yeVco-is of air(cf. i9
b16-18) : it is not a growth of
either, since neither persists. It might, indeed, be suggested
(2ia14-17) that something common to water and air e.g.
A. 5. 32ia9 bio 125
1
body'
persists, and that the increase of volume is a growth of
this persisting'
body '. But no actual body no perceptiblesubstratum common to water and air does persist : for Trpom;
vAr/, which '
persists'
and is transformed in the change, is not anactual body and has no '
separate'
existence. Hence the changeis not a /aV^o-is at all (and therefore not a /anycris Kara TTOOW, not
av^T/o-ts), but ycvetns *at <j>0opa : cf.*17^ 34-35,
*19^ 6 2Oa 7.
2ia 18. TW \<5yw. As Zabarella points out, it comes to the same
thing whether we translate* we must preserve by our account
'
or'
by our definition'
: for our account is to be the nominal definition
Of av^Tf](TL<S.
21*22-26. Iv . . . fxeVei: cf. I9b 6 20a 2.
2ia 27. fujSe uirojA^oyTos. These words rather disturb the logic.
Still it would be rash to excise them, for Aristotle is not as a rule
pedantically accurate.
2Ia 29. TOUTO, sc. TO vTro/xeveiv TO avavo//,vov, the third
characteristic condition of growth. We should rather have
expected TavTa : but Aristotle is thinking of the attempt to view
the generation of air from water as au^o-ts. The primary
ground of the failure of this attempt is the violation of the third
condition of growth : cf.* 2i a 9~29. It is also true that 'there
is no accession of fresh material'
: but that is an inevitable
consequence of the absence of a persisting substratum^ since there
is nothing to which fresh material could accede.
2ia 29 - b 10. dirop^aeie . . . TOU'TW. The matter of growth, as
we have seen, includes the food as well as the living body.Which of these is it that grows ? We speak of a man *
growing in
his shin'
: i. e. we regard the shin (the materia in qua] as * that which
grows '. Is this because the shin is that to which the new material
(the food) is added, and therefore that which has increased in
size ? But if B is added to A, both B and A have increased : so
that, from that point of view, both the shin and the food have
increased in size, and both have '
grown '. We should expect TO
avav6fj,cvov to include both : just as, when wine is mixed with
water, the volume of the mixture as a whole i. e. the volume of
both and of either of the ingredients is greater. The real
reason why the shin only (and not the food, nor both shin and
food together) is said to have '
grown ',is that the substance of
the shin persists, whilst that of the food is transformed : and that
the efficient cause of the process (i.e. the av^Ti/cr) ifrvxy) is in the
shin, but not in the food.
126 COMMENTARY
2ia 30. irpooTi06Tai. It is' not really 7rp6V0eo-is, but more like
fjit&s (cf.a33, 22a 9) : though, as we shall see, it is not (strictly
speaking) pcgis either. Cf. *27
b13-17.
2ia 31-32. otof . . . ou,*e. g. if a man grows in his shin, is it
the shin which is greater' and thus has *
grown ',
'whilst that
"whereby
''he grows, viz. the food, is not greater, and has not
"grown
"?
'
No mark of interrogation is required after ov, because the
question is indirect, depending on airoprja-eie 8' dv rts. In a3 1
av^cti/et is intransitive both times (cf. e.g. Post. Anal. 78^6, Hist.
Anim. 629a21), the implied subject is 6 di>0po>7ros or TO <Sov, ryv
K.vr\iM]v is an *
internal'
accusative, and the dative o> (for which F
wrongly gives o) is undoubtedly right : cf. e. g. <S 8' ^AXoicmxi
(2ib
5), and *2i a 5-9.
2Ia 33-34. ofjioiws . . . CKCiTepoy. TrXetoi/ (not /xei^oi/) shows that
this clause refers to the ingredients of the /xcy/xa. 6/Wws, i. e. if the
wine has increased in volume, so on the same principle has
the water.
2ia 35 - b 2; c-n-et . . . pYfxa. Even the example, which seemed to
show that TO avayd//,ei/ov includes both the shin and the food,
really confirms the true view, viz. that only the shin 'grows'.For it is the '
prevailing'
ingredient only which is said to have
increased in volume (a35 Xeyerai, sc. TrXetbi/ :
b i OTI oii/os, sc. TrXetW).If the mixture as a whole acts as wine, then wine is the *
prevailing'
ingredient and its volume is said to have increased. So, in growth,the substance of the shin persists and prevails over the food, which
is transformed. Hence the shin alone is said to have grown.2ib 2-io. ofxotws . . . TOUTW. Alteration is here adduced as
a parallel to growth : for TO dAAotov/xcvoi/ and TO <S -^AAotWai
correspond respectively to TO av^avo/xevov and TO o> avai>ei, and TO
dAAoiow (the efficient cause of dAAoiWis) corresponds to TO
avgTJTlKOV (cf. 22a 12).
Aristotle illustrates by an alteration offlesh (b
3), because he is
thinking primarily of dAAoiWis qua contributory to avgr)<ris :
cf.* 2ob 34 2ia 29.
2i b4. TWI/ Ka6' auTo*. For TO, KaO' avro TrdOr) in this sense, cf.
*i9
b10-12,
*i9
b26-27.
2ib 5-6. w . . . icdiceii/o. TO<J ^XAotwTat is the external stimulus
(cf.* 2oa 8) of alteration, corresponding to the materia ex qua of
growth (the food). The fire, e.g., is 'that, whereby' our
temperature is altered.
A. 5. 32ia 30 b
i; 127
On the distinction here implied between(i) an *
altering agent'
which is itself affected by the reaction of the patient, and(ii)
an*
altering agent' which is d7ra0e's, see *
24a 24 - b 22.
2ib 6-10. dXXa . . . TOUTW. The dAAoiWis is not predicated of
the ' stimulus', even though (in some alterations) the latter is
itself affected. The flesh or the stomach, e. g., (not the food) is TO
aXXoLovfjicvov, the proper subject of the process. For the '
altering
agent'
proper (TO dXXotow in the sense of the dp^ rf* Kunfrrcats or
TO Ktvow) is'
in'
the flesh or the stomach, not '
in'
the food.
Similarly the food is not TO avgavopwov, even if it gets larger
in some instances of growth. For (a) the food's substance does
not persist, and (b)' the agent
'
of the growth its efficient cause
is not *in
'
the food, but *in
'
the living body. For * the agent'
proper (TO /avow) is the soul: cf.* 2oa 8, and 22*12 (TO
2ib 9. cloy . . . Tn/eCfAct. Aristotle may be thinking of the
conversion of a flatulent food into wind, as Zabarella suggests.
But more probably he has in mind the maintenance and growthof the /X<VTOI/ (or O-V^VTOV) Tn/efym : cf. de Spiritu 48 i a i ff.
2ib 10-16. eirel . . . audve<r6<u. In order '
to find a solution of
the problem'
(l) 1 1 Tr/s dTropfas, sc. the entire problem of growth),
Aristotle reformulates the results of his discussion of the process
and the matter of growth. In b 1 1 avrfov refers to the two
questions, viz. (i) what is Growing or Diminishing (2iai-2), and
(ii) what is TO a^^avo/xei/oi/ (2 i a 29-32)? These two questions are
themselves only restatements of the two topics put forward at
20*8-10, viz. (i)how growth is distinctively defined, and (ii)
how growth takes place : cf.* 2oa 10 22a 33.
aib 14. OTIOUK (nrjjxeioy aia6ir]T6V.'
Every perceptible particle'
:
for a body does not consist of points.
2ib 15-16. Kat . . . au<p6o6ai. Aristotfe here assumes (i) that
the food is a '
body ', and (ii)that the growing body (
b15 TO <ro>/*a,
i. q. TO avav6fjivov) has no real' voids
'
or '
pores'
in it : cf,
*2 1*5-9.2ib 16-17. XrjTTT&>i> . . . an-iop. We have formulated the
' nominal
definition'
of growth : for (i) we have stated the kind of process
which growth is, and (ii)we have indicated what TO auavo//,ei/ov
is, i. e. the substance in which growth* inheres
'
or of which it is
a 7ra0os. If we can discover the adequate cause connecting
growth with the substance which grows, .we shall be able to
construct a scientific definition, specifying (a) the substance in
128 COMMENTARY
which, (b) owing to a determinate cause, (c) that determinate
process, which '
growth'
means, must occur. Cf. Introd. 8, 9 :
*14* 2-3,
*20^34 2i a
29,* 28^ 22.
What is this'
adequate cause '
of growth ? What corresponds in
the scientific definition of growth to*extinction of fire
*
and'
interposition of the earth'
in the definitions of thunder and
eclipse (cf. Introd., 1. c.) ?
On the whole, I think that Zabarella has given the right answer
to this question : see, besides his note on the present passage,
his Commentary on Post. Anal. 94* 20-35, and his treatise
De medio demonstrations, ii, especially Chapters 4-7.
The gist of the matter is as follows. Thunder and eclipse are
n-dOrj linked to their subjects by causes '
external to'
(i.e. separated
in space from) those subjects. The nature of the clouds or of the
moon is not per se (does not contain in itself) an adequate groundfor the occurrence of thunder or eclipse :
'
external'
causes (in
these instances, external'
efficient causes')
are required to deter-
mine their inherence in their subjects.
But growth is linked with its subject by an * immanent^ cause,
viz. by the nature or' form '
of the growing thing itself. The
growing thing is an e/x^v^ov o-eo/xa a body, whose ' form'
is the
basal soul (the ^v^ y^vv^riKri or avfyructj, cf.* 2o 8) and, as
such, it is (i) necessarily receptive of growth, i. e. of a process
fulfilling the three characteristic conditions (cf.* 2ob 34 2i a
29).
Such a process can occur in a o-w/m qua informed by the basal
soul ; and it can occur nowhere else. The { form '
of the growing
thing is thus the adequate ground of the possibility of growth.
From this point of view, the growing thing, in virtue of the basal
soul which is its* form
', may be called the material cause of
growth in the sense which Aristotle gives to 'material cause' in
Post. Anal. 94* 20-35. But (n )tne same basal soul is also the
(immanent) efficient cause of growth, though Aristotle says very
little about it here from that point of view. Apparently, how-
ever, the occurrence and continuance of growth, and also its
cessation and reversal(i.
e.' diminution
'),are to be ascribed
to the basal soul qua efficient cause : cf. 22 a 28-33. ^ tnat i 3>then the ' form '
of the growing thing is the adequate cause, not
only of the possibility, but also of the actual occurrence, of growthand diminution.
If the proposed interpretation be right, the unsatisfactoriness of
Aristotle's doctrine is obvious enough. He isc
explaining'
growth
A. 5. 32lb17-22 129
by referring it to the basal soul i.e. to TO OV^TIKOV as its cause.
Incidentally, however, as we shall see, there are details of con-
siderable interest in his account.
2Ib 17 22a 33. Siopiaapkois . . .
fjieVei. The plan of this
passage, in which Aristotle expounds his own theory of growth,is as follows :
(i)2i*> 17-22. The cause of growth is the ' form '
of the growing
thing (see preceding note). Hence, if we are to grasp the cause,
we must determine precisely what the growing thing is : and for
that purpose our attention is drawn to two preliminary dis-
tinctions.
(ii) 2ib 22 22a4. The growing thing, whether '
tissue'
(O/AOIO-
/xcpes) or '
organ'
(dvo/xoto/xepes), grows i. e. gets larger as a
whole (as form-in-matter), and does so by the accession of food.
But this does not mean that food accedes to every part of the
matter of the tissue or organ. The matter is in constant flux,
always flowing in and out, and no material particle endures. Wecan only say that food accedes to every part of the tissue or organ
quaform : i. e. the growth of the whole is a uniform proportional
expansion of its*
figure'
or '
structural plan '. The food is at
first' unlike
'
the growing thing : but in the process it is trans-
formed and thus ' assimilated '.
(iii)22a
4-16. An attempt is made to explain more precisely
how the food is related to the growing thing, what its'assimilation
'
is and how it is effected.
(iv) 22a 16-28. Growth is distinguished from nutrition : and it
is explained more definitely in what sense (in growth) a determinate
amount e. g. of flesh comes-to-be out of a food which is only
potentially so-much-flesh.
(v) 22a 28-33. The ' form'
of the growing thing i. e. the basal
soul, which shows itself as the 'structural plan' of the matter
wherein it is immersed (cf.* 2 1^ 24-25) is the efficient cause of
growth and diminution.
2ib 17-19. IP . . . IKCUTTOI'. First preliminary distinction. The
growing thing is either*. 6/xoio/x-epe's, or&n dvo/xoio/xepe's (cf.*i4
a19):
but the latter grows only by the growth of its constituent 6/Aoto/xe/o^.
The 6/xoio/xepr/ here in question are the '
tissues' of plants and
animals, though Aristotle illustrates only from animals.
2ib 19-22. iri65
. . . ooTouy. Second preliminary distinction.
Flesh, or bone, or any tissue, is double in its nature : a fact
which is indicated by linguistic usage. For these terms are
2254 K
1 3o COMMENTARY
applied ambiguously, so that they mean sometimes the tissue qua
matter, and at other times the tissue qua form.
A tissue (e. g. flesh), considered in abstraction from the living
body to which it belongs, is simply a jjuxOw a mere chemical
compound. Its matter is the four'
simple bodies'
(or rather the
four*
elementary qualities ')and its form is adequately expressed
in their'
combining-formula'
(Xoyos T^S /xt^cws). Similarly an
organ (e.g. the hand), considered in abstraction from the living
body to which it is organic, is simply an aggregate of tissues.
Its matter is the tissues, of which it is composed, and its formtheir 'synthesis' (cf.
*i4
a19). It is in this sense that
Alexander (Trepi Kpcurews /cat av}o-ew5, ed. Bruns, p. 235, 11. 17 ff.)
interprets the distinction between matter and form of tissues and
organs in the present passage.
But it is clear from what follows that Aristotle is thinking of
tissues and organs as constituents of the living organism^ i. e. as
themselves * besouled'
or alive. The matter of the living tissue
is the chemical compound, i. e. the tissue itself qua piyQiv : and
its form is the soul or '
life '. And the matter of the animate organ
(the living hand, e.g.) is the synthesized tissues. Its form is the
soul, which manifests itself in the organ's function (Ipyoi/),
originating the movements and vital processes whereby the organcontributes to the maintenance of the life of the whole fyil/vxov
(cf. e.g.*
21^28-32, Metaph. io36b28~32, 1025^' 32 io26a
6,
Meteor. 389** 23 39ob14).
2ib 24-25. Set ... yivoptvov. The primary object of this simile
is to illustrate the flux of the flesh qua matter, and its persistence
qua form. The form is the soul : but it is manifested in the
matter as a l
figure ',a '
structural plan'
or a ' scheme of pro-
portions ', which limits or measures the matter. The use of the
term /ACT/OOV suggests the application of the illustration to growth.If we suppose the 'measure' of the flowing water to be, e.g.,
a bag of skin, open at both ends, inherently capable of expansionand contraction, the simile will illustrate the growth and diminution
of a tissue. For a tissue e. g. a bone or a muscle (a piece of
<ra/o) may be compared to a * duct'
(an avXos : cf.* 22 a
28-33 '>
Philoponos, pp. 109, no; Alexander, I.e., p. 237, 11. 25 ff.),
capable of expansion and contraction according as the matter,which flows through it and fills it, increases and diminishes in
amount. The duct, as that which limits and measures the tissue,
may be regarded as ;ts'
figure'
or ' form '. But the duct is the
A. 5. 32 i<> 24-34 131
embodied vitality the embodied power of expanding and con-
tracting, growing and diminishing which is the basal soul : for
that soul is Swa/xts TIS eV v\rj (22a29).
The words ad . . . yii/o/xei/ov (b25) refer, I think, to the matter
of the tissue, not to the water :
'
for particle after particle comes-
to-be, and each successive particle is different.'
2ib 25-28. OUTW . . jAopiu). Growth is a uniform proportional
expansion of the figure or structural plan of the tissue, an increase
in which every part of the * form '
gets larger.
The form of the living tissue, as we know (* 2i b 19-22), is the
soul : but the soul is essentially an elSos tWW, a Swa/us iv v\y,
and it is manifested in the figure or ' scheme of proportions'
which limits or ' measures '
the tissue. Hence Aristotle can
speak of ' an accession to each part of the form '
(cf., however*2 i b 33-3 4), i. e. to each part of the embodied soul or materialized
power. It is essential to the soul to animate a corporeal material,
i. e. a quantum : and, in so far as the whole tissue is larger or
smaller, its* form '
(i.e. its soul or vitality) is expanded or con-
tracted, informing a greater or smaller quantum.2ib 28-32. em . . . jSpaxiuf. Though what grows is the
animated matter as a whole (as a o-vvoXoi/ of form and matter),
its growth is a uniform expansion of structural plan an expansionof the scheme of proportions measuring the matter, not an
addition to persisting material constituents. This fact viz. ort
avaXoyov rjvgrjraL,b29 is more manifest in the growth of the
1
organs'
than in that of the '
tissues ', because the distinction of
the form (the life embodied in the proportional structure, and
expressed in the vital function, or epyov) from the matter is more
obvious in the former than in the latter (cf. Meteor. 389b29
39ob
2). For the same reason (b31-32), conversely, there is
more tendency to attribute'
flesh' and ' bone
'
to the corpse than' hand ' and * arm '. In fact, what really persists for a time in the
corpse is neither ' hand ' and ' arm',nor *
flesh' and ' bone
',but
lifeless /ux&Vra (which we may mistake forctissues
')and
o-w#eWs-of-/ux#eVTa bereft of the life which made them '
organs'
:
cf.* 2i b 19-22.2ib 33-34. Kara . . . ou. For there has been an accession to
every part of the flesh qua form, but not qua matter' a more
accurate statement of the doctrine than that given above,b27-28
(TOV Se o-^/x,aTos /cat TOV iSous OTWOW /xoptw, SC. TrpoaytVerat). But
the fundamental difficulties of the doctrine, it need hardly be
K 2
i 3 2 COMMENTARY
said, remain unsolved. How can the * form '
the soul, or the
embodied soul expand ? And what is meant by'
accession to
every part ',whether of the flesh qua form, or of the form itself ?
Aristotle attempts, in the following passage, to explain in what
sense the food ' accedes '.
2ib 35 22*4. fxeiok . . . dfopoiw. The acceding body (the
'food') is at first 'unlike' the growing tissue, and is called'
contrary'
to it. But in the process it is' transformed '
so as to
be '
assimilated',
i. e. made '
like'
the tissue. Expressing this in
the current contemporary phraseology (cf. e. g. 23b1-15), we can
say* In one sense Like groivs by Like, but in another sense
Unlike grows by Unlike '.
In 22 a i EJ read ci/airtov, perhaps rightly. If we adopt this
reading, we must take o KaAeirai rpo^-ff as a parenthesis. ei/ai/riW,
i. q. dvdfwiov : cf. de Anima 416* 29-34.22a
4-16. diropiqo-eie . . . y^ecris. Aristotle restates in his
own terminology, and more fully his doctrine concerning the
food.
The food is at first only potentially the tissue, actually a
different body : actually e. g. bread, only potentially flesh. 'As-
similation'
is transformation, the passing-away of the bread andthe coming-to-be of flesh. But it is a '
transformation '
with two
peculiar features: for (i) it presupposes that the food and the
tissue have been ' mixed together ', so as to be contained within
one and the same immediately-continent place, and(ii) the agent
of the transformation is not in the food (the food is not of itself
transformed into flesh), but in the tissue. The avfyriKov, im-
manent in the tissue, converts the food into flesh.
22a 6-10. 4>9apw . . . jux6^ 5
' Tm's actual other, then, viz. the
food, has passed-away and come-to-be flesh. But it has not
been transformed into flesh alone by itself (for that would havebeen a coming-to-be, not a growth] : on the contrary, it is the
growing thing which has come-to-be flesh [and grown] by the
food. In what way, then, has the food been modified by the
growing thing so as to be transformed into flesh? Perhaps weshould say that it has been mixed with the growing thing, as if
one were to pour water into wine, and the wine were able to
convert the new ingredient into wine.'
The subject of -n-aOov in a 8 is not TO av^avo^vov, but TO u>
avai/eT<u, i. e. the food : for (i) it is more natural to suggest that
the food is' mixed '
with the tissue, than vice versa, (ii) the whole
A. 5- 32ib35 322*13 133
problem concerns the food (cf.a4~5 aVoprjcreie . . . avavcrat),
and(iii) VTTO TOVTOV (
a8-9) ought to mean *
by the agency of this,
i. e. the growing thing ',and not simply
'
by this', i. e.
'
by the food'
as TO o> av&u'crcu. But if so, then 7jv$rjOr) (a9) is impossible. We
may either (i) reject rjvgrjOrj as a misplaced and mistaken marginal
gloss on a'AAa TO av^avd/xej/oi/ TOV'TO> (a8), or
(ii) accept it as
genuine, and read it after TOVTW (a8), or
(iii) correct it into
rjvgrjo-fv (cf. <I>C). (i) The excision of yvfyOr) is the simplest
remedy. We should then have to supply in thought <rapg
yeyovtv (a7) as the verb, of which TOVTO (
a7), TO av^avo^vov (
a8),
and the substantive implied by TraOov (a8) are the subjects,
(ii) If we read yvfyOr) after TOVTO>(a8), we must regard it as an
equivalent, but more natural, expression for o-ap yeyovev. If
flesh grows, more flesh comes-to-be : but it is more natural to
say'
the growing-thing i. e. the flesh has grown ',than to say,
' the growing-thing has come-to-be flesh '. We must still supply
o-ap yeyovei/ as the verb for TOVTO in a7, and for iraOov in
a 8.(iii) The chief objection to rjv&io-cv is that it is so obvious
a correction.
22a 9. pixO^. It is not, strictly speaking, a case of /u : cf.
*27b13-17.
22a 9-10. 6 ... fux0V ; 6 S<r, sc. 6 Se oTvos. TO fuxOev according
to Aristotle's usual terminology means the compound which results
from combining two or more ingredients. But, in view of a9
(17 />"x^ /l/)>^ should probably be interpreted here as the new
ingredient, i. e. the water.
22a 10-13. Kal . . . o-dpKd. Fire lays hold of the inflammable
material and converts it into fire. Similarly the OV^TIKOV,
immanent in the flesh, lays hold of the food (which is potentially
flesh) and converts it into actual flesh. It consumes the food, as
the fire consumes the wood. The comparison is specially appro-
priate, owing to the part played by TO crv^vrov Ocpfj.6v in digesting,
and thus assimilating, the food : cf.* 2oa 8,
* 20b 34 2i a29,
*29
b
24-26.
The unexpressed main verb, of which TO Trvp (a10) is thje sub-
ject, is tTroirjo-ev ci/TcXe^et'o, Trvp : and irpocre\66vTO<s oWofKt crap/cos
(a12-13) is the object of an unexpressed di/^a/x,evov.
It would be
easier, no doubt, if Aristotle had written (TOV) Trpoo-cX^oi/Tos (/cat)
<rapKo<s.
22a 13. Duteous ap,a orros, SC. auf/dfjievov TO av^rjriKov
o-a/oKa. For the meaning of a/xa, cf.* i6b 4-
i 34 COMMENTARY
22a 15. au^Tjo-is. This is not avfya-is in the sense given to the
term in the present chapter : cf.* 2ob 34 2i a
29. It is, however,
analogous to growth, because as Zabarella expresses it'
ignis ex
propria et insita virtute convertit combustibilia in se ipsum '.
22a 16-20. irovov . . . Troofjs. The food is an actual body of a cer-
tain size, e. g. a piece of bread of such and such cubic content.
This actual body is potentially another actual body (the bread is
potentially flesh), and its actual size is potentially a different size.
Hence what comes-to-be in growth is not quantum-in-general out
of the mere potentiality of quantum, but a tissue or an organ of
a determinate size out of (by the accession of) e.g. a piece of bread
of a (different) determinate size.
A similar principle holds in yeVco-19. What comes-to-be is not
animal-in-general, but such-and-such a specifically determinate
animal (ina 1 7 we should probably read /xr/rc n TWI/ with H^F).
Philoponos points out that the parallel, as Aristotle here states
it, breaks down if pressed. For man, e. g., comes-to-be out of
a matter which is not an 'animal', whereas a piece of flesh of
such-and-such a size does not come-to-be in growth out of a matter
devoid of magnitude. But Aristotle is thinking primarily of the
resultant, and not of the matter : otherwise he could have madethe parallel exact. For just as the food, out of which the new
quantum comes-to-be, is itself an actual quantum ;so the matter,
out of which the new body comes-to-be, is itself an actual body
(cf.* 2ob 16-17).
22a 19. <rap . . . 6juuuofj,prj.' But what does come-to-be in
growth is a something-quantified so-much flesh or bone;or a hand or arm of such-and-such a size, i.e. the quantified
tissues of these organic parts.'
I have addedr\ ftpaxtw after x'p by conjecture: cf. 2i b 32.
Db reads17 x*W V v^vpa. But vev/oov is a 6/xotoyw.epes (cf. e. g.
Meteor. 385* 8), and we want a second di/o/xoio/xpes to justify
the plural TOV'TWV.
22a 20-28.iff
. . . Tpo<j>tj. Cf. de Anima 4i6a i9~ b3i.
22a 20-22.t] ... adpica.
' In so far as this acceding food is
potentially the double result e. g. is potentially so-much flesh
it produces growth : for it is bound to become actually both
so-much and flesh'
(cf. 22a 26-28). TO crvva/x<oTe/>ov is the predi-
cate. It means 'that which combines both the new substance
and the new quantity '.
22a 24. (cat <f>0iW. Nutrition continues through life : whether
A. 5. 322*15-33 135
there is growth (or diminution) as well, depends upon whether the
living thing is able to assimilate more (or only less) food than is
required to repair the waste of its tissues.
22*25-26. Kal . . . SXXo. Cf.*19* 3-4. The same difference
is expressed above(a23-24) in the words Tcurn? . . . TW Aoyo> : for
the definitions of nutrition and growth state what TO rpo^fj eu/cu
and TO avgrjo-ei tlva.i respectively are.
22a 28. Tpo<j>ii, i. e.' nourishment
',
* food qua nutritive'
: not
(as e. g. at a25)
' nutrition '.
22a 28-33. TOUTO . . . p^ei.' As to this form '
(the' form
'
which grows in every part of itself, cf. 2i b22-34), 'it is a kind of
power immersed in matter a duct, as it were. If, then, a matter
accedes a matter, which is potentially a duct and also potentially
possesses determinate quantity the ducts to which such matter
accedes will become bigger. But if this form or power is
no longer able to act if it has been weakened by the continued in-
flux of matter, just as water, continually mixed in greater and
greater quantity with wine, in the end makes the wine watery andconverts it into water then it will cause a diminution of the
quantum of the tiss.ue in which it is ; though still the form persists.'
All the manuscripts, Bekker, and Prantl read av\o<s, o&Aoi. But
avAo? does not occur elsewhere in Aristotle, makes nonsense of the
passage, and leaves OVTOL(a30) without an antecedent. After
mv(a29) J has, in the first hand, O/MUCD? Se KCU aAAo n ovv
opyavov, and the same words are implied in F and Vatablus.
Moreover, Vatablus renders av'Aos, av'Aot by 'tibia', 'tibiae'.
Clearly, then, there was a reading avAo's, avAot.
I have excised ai/ev vA-^s (a28) as a marginal note intended to
explain or correct the un- Aristotelian au'Aos : and I regard the
additional clause in J, F, and Vatablus as a marginal note intended
to explain the variant <u>Aos the annotator having misinterpreted
avAos as lflute
', i. e. the stock Aristotelian example of an opyavov
(cf. e.g. Meteor. 389b3i 390* 2).
Aristotle uses avAos for various kinds of 'ducts' or 'channels'
in an animal's body: cf. Bonitz, Ind. i22a 26ff. My conviction
that Aristotle wrote avAos, avAot here (in the sense of * duct')
is
confirmed by 21^24-28(566*2 1^24-25). It is noticeable also
that Philoponos, although he reads auAos, avAot here, in a previousnote (pp. 109, 1. 26 iio^ 1. 7) illustrates growth by avAoeio% K^po'?,
uses avAo's in the sense of a ' duct'
or' channel
',and speaks of
136 COMMENTARY
22a 31-33. e&c . . . JJL&CI. The * form'
is the embodied
av>7Ti/o7, the &W/us av^Ti/ciy which is essentially immersed in
matter: cf.*
2 ^25-28. As the animal grows old, this 'power'
the efficient cause of nutrition and growth becomes weaker,
i. e. unable to assimilate sufficient food to balance the waste of the
tissues (cf. *22a24). Aristotle compares this enfeeblement of
the avfyriKov to the weakening of wine, when more and more
water is mixed with it. But the parallel is not exact : for the' form '
of the tissue remains (a33), whereas the wine is ultimately
converted into water (a32).
Aristotle's meaning is clear : but the illustration(a31-32 <!AA' . . .
/cat vStop) is rather loosely attached to the main sentence. What
has to be illustrated is the decay of the power embodied in the
tissue : but what is expressed in the illustration is the action of the
water in weakening the wine.
A. 6
22b 1-26. 'Eire! . . . iroiT)oris. Aristotle has completed the first
part of his task. He has given the ' nominal definitions'
of yeVco-is
and (f>0opdyof dAAoiWis and of cu^o-i?, thus distinguishing these
changes from one another : and he has shown that yeVecm and
<f>6opd actually occur. He now prepares to attack the second part
of his task, viz. the discovery of the causes of yeVco-ts and <(>0opd
(cf. e.g.*14*2-3,
*I7
a3 2 I 9
b5,
* 2ob 34 2^29).He selects as first for treatment ' the matter ', the material con-
stituents out of which the composite natural bodies corne-to-be
and into which they pass-away. These material constituents are,
as we shall learn later,' the simple natural bodies
'
Earth, Air,
Fire, and Water. For in the last resort every yeVco-is of a com-
posite natural body is the coming-to-be of one or more new
bjj.oiofjLfrij> and every <j>0opd of a composite body is the dis-
appearance of one or more existing opoiopcpf). And every o/xoio/xepes
is a chemical compound whose constituents are Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water (cf.*14* 19).
The first eight chapters of the second book a section of the
work to which Aristotle refers (de Anima 423b29; de Sensu 44ib
12) as TCI Trept <rroixW are devoted to the consideration of these
material constituents of the 6/xoto/xep^. But these material con-
stituents 'the so-called elements' constitute the O/AOIO/AC/^ bychemical combination (/uts\: 'combination' implies action and
passion (TTOICIV KCU 7racr;(eiv, Troirjo-is) : and both />uis and
A. 5. 322a3i 6. 322^3 137
imply physical contact (a.^\ 17 iv rots <VO-IKOIS). Hence Aristotle
explains d^>7J (22b 26 23
a34), Troieu/ KCII Tracrxeii' (23
b I 2ya29),
and /uis (27*30 28b 22), as a necessary preliminary to his
treatment of the material constituents of the O/AOIO/AC^ (cf. also
Introd. 12).
22b 1-2. 'Eire! . . . iirii>. In discussing the causes of coming-to-be ' we must first investigate the matter, i. e. the so-called
elements '
. . . Zabarella is, I think, right in taking 7rpom>v to
refer to the order in which Aristotle proposes to investigate the
causes of yeVecns and <f>6opd. We are to begin with the material
cause, i. e.' the matter
'
in the sense of those material constituents
of the ofjiOLOfieprj which are generally called' the elements '.
The words KCU TWV KoAov/xevoov oroi;(iW are explanatory of T^?
vArys. Aristotle has already treated of the v\rj of yeVeo-is and <f>6opd
in the sense of 717x0777 vXrj (cf. A. 3, and e.g.*17* 32 19^ 5) : he
is now to treat of the vXrj in a different sense. He is not nowconcerned with that conditio sine qua non of unqualified yeVeo-is and
<t>0opd which ultimate analysis forces us to*isolate by definition
'
(cf.* 2ob 17-25), but with the actually-existent antecedents of
yeVeo-is the proximate materials out of which the 6/x,oto/x,ep^
come-to-be and into which they pass-away. These are them-
selves ' bodies', perceptible things, viz. Earth, Air, Fire, and
Water. According to Aristotle's own doctrine, they are'
simple'
or elementary bodies (TO. aTrXa o-w/xara), i. e. they cannot be dissolved
into any more primitive corporeal constituents. But they pre-
suppose (logically, though not temporally) more primitive 'con-
stitutive moments '
: for they are informations of TT/XOTT? v\rj,
explicable in terms of Trpom? vXrj and ' the contrary qualities'
(Hot, Cold, Dry, Moist). Aristotle prefers to reserve the term
oTotxetafor the absolutely underivative and unanalysable immanent
apxai of '
body ', viz. TT/OWT^ vkt) and the eis and o-rep^o-ts which
are its primary 'constitutive moments': cf. e.g. Metaph. io7ob
22-30,*29*5. Hence here and elsewhere (cf. Bonitz, Ind. 7o2
b
2-7) he refers to the simple bodies as TO, KoAov/xeva o-roi^ta, the
commonly so-called 'elements' (cf. e.g. 28b 31, *29a 24~ b3;
and see Diels, Elementum, p. 25 5 ).
22b 2-3. eiTs
. . . yiyverai irws. This is the first of two questions
(to be discussed in the second book) concerning the material con-
stituents of the opoLOfjicpTJ.f Are they really o-rotxeta (as they are
commonly called) or not ? In other words, are they eternal, or
is there a sense in which thev come-to-be ?'
138 COMMENTARY
The words KOL . . . ytyvtrai Trws are explanatory of en-' la-rlv ctre
nrf. The question is not whether Earth, Air, Fire, and Water exist,
but whether they are o-rotxcta, i.e. primary and underivative con-
stituents of things. If they are o-Toixeia, they must be diSia, as
e.g. Empedokles maintained (cf.*I5
a4~8).
It will be convenient at this point to restate Aristotle's doctrine
of the simple bodies as constituting the physical universe. In rough
outline, as the reader will remember (cf. Introd. 10), that doctrine
is as follows : The physical universe is divided into the UpperCosmos or heavens, and the Lower Cosmos or sublunary world.
The Upper Cosmos consists entirely of the Aether. The Lower
Cosmos is a series of concentric spherical strata. The lowest of
these strata the central region both of the sublunary world and
of the whole universe is Earth. The next stratum, imme-
diately surrounding Earth, is Water. Air immediately envelops
Water: and the uppermost stratum, immediately surrounding Air,
is Fire.
This rough outline must now be supplemented and corrected.
For though it is an accurate summary of Aristotle's doctrine as that
is stated in many passages, it totally neglects another most impor-tant side of his teaching: and, -by that omission, it suggests the
erroneous view that the physical universe, as he conceives it, is
a static arrangement of quiescent strata.
(i)Not much need at present be said with regard to the Upper
Cosmos (see, for a fuller account, e.g. *36a i4- bio). The
Aether, which constitutes it, is anything but quiescent : on the
contrary, it is eternally-revolving. But there is no interchange
between the Aether and the simple bodies of the Lower Cosmos.
The Aether is in no sense identical with, or kin to, Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water. Hence there can be no TTOICH/ K<X! TrcLvyiiv, and there-
fore no reciprocal contact, between the two worlds. Yet Aristotle
maintains that there is a one-sided connexion. For the lowest
sphere of the heavens is conterminous with the uppermost stratum
of the sublunary world. Hence the Upper Cosmos ' touches'
and 'moves' and 'steers' (cf. Meteor. 339*21-24) the Lower,without itself being
' touched '
or moved or in any way affected bythe latter (cf.
* 22b 32 23** 34,*23
a12-22,
*23
a25-33).
But(ii) as regards the Lower Cosmos, we must recognize not
only that each stratum is far from quiescent, but also that all four
simple bodies are in constant process of reciprocal transformation.
It is thus somewhat dangerous to speak of strata at all. It is
A. 6. 322b3 139
true, no doubt, that each of the four bodies tends to move towards,and to stay in, its own proper region : but there is a continuous
interchange of matter from region to region. The sublunary world,we must remember, is the proper sphere of yeVeo-is and <}>6opd.
The four simple bodies are for ever coming-to-be out of, and
passing-away into, one another : and it is primarily in virtue of
this unbroken cycle of reciprocal transformations that they con-
stitute and maintain the structure of the sublunary world.
A full account of Aristotle's theory would involve a close ex-
amination of his statements concerning'
the twofold exhalation'
(Si7rA?7 a-vaOvfjiicuris), which plays a central part in the interchangesof the simple bodies constituting the Lower Cosmos (cf. Meteor.
e.g. 34ib5ff., with Alexander's commentary: Gilbert, e.g.
pp. 460 ff.). But, for our present purpose, the following brief
indications must suffice. The earth, owing to the heat of the sun,
gives off a twofold exhalation, which is partly hot-moist and partly
hot-dry. The hot-moist exhalation (dr/us, dr/uSwoV dvatfu/uao-is) is
drawn from the water on the surface of the earth. It is
Aristotle says in one passage (Meteor. 36oa2i-27) 'in its own
nature cold, like water before it has been heated '
: and it retains
a watery character throughout (it is Swa//,a otov vBwp). We must
conceive it as a kind of mist or aqueous vapour : water in processof transition to air, or air still capable of reverting to water.
The simple body, which Aristotle usually calls 'air', is a hot-
moist body, formed in part from the moisture in the dr/xi's and in
part from the heat in the other exhalation (cf. *3ia
24). This
other exhalation (Trvev/xaTwS^? or /conn/wS^s dva#v/ziao-is, or some-
times par excellence dva0v/Aiao-is simply) is a hot-dry vapour drawn
by the sun ' from the earth itself, and not from the water on the
earth's surface. (On this puzzling exhalation, see Gilbert,
pp. 465 fT.) Aristotle speaks of it as Swa/xci otov Trvp, and con-
ceives it as rising above the dr/xi's owing to its greater lightness.
Hence above the 'air
'
i. e. above the region where the or/us
predominates, and where clouds are formed there comes-to-be
a simple body, which Aristotle usually calls'
fire '. In reality it is
a hot-dry body, constituted by the Trvev/xaTwS^s dvatfu/uao-ts. It is
a highly-inflammable stuff (otov vTre/c/cav/^a), of which fire properis an intensification: cf. Meteor. 34ob 21-23,
*3o
b25-30,
*3 ib
24-26. Aristotle explains 'shooting stars' and 'meteors' (andeven the light and heat of the stars and planets, cf. Introd. p. xxxvj),
as the bursting into flame of parts of this combustible stuff, owing
MO COMMENTARY
to the friction produced in it by the movement of the conterminous
sphere of the aetherial Cosmos (cf. Meteor. 34 ib iff.).
22b 3-4. Kttl . . . Ivriv. This is the second of the questions
(to be discussed in the second book) concerning Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water. Aristotle's own view is that *
they all come-to-be in
the same manner, reciprocally out of one another'
; though he
thinks that there is a certain cyclical order in which their trans-
formation is most easily and naturally effected. But various
philosophers had selected one or other of these four bodies as
primary and eternal, i. e. as the original stuff out of which every-
thing else came-to-be and into which everything else passed-away.
Thus, e.g., Thales had selected 'Water',Anaximenes and Diogenes
of Apollonia' Air
', and Herakleitos ' Fire '.
22b 6-9. irdi/Tcs . . . <ra(f>tos. All the pluralist philosophersviz. (a) those who (like Anaxagoras, Leukippos, Demokritos, and
Plato) regard Earth, Air, Fire, and Water as derivative, and trace
them (as well as the composite bodies) to prior'reals
'
as their
constituents, and (b) those who (like Empedokles) regard Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water as genuine' elements
', i. e. as underivative,
and derive the composite bodies from them employ, in their'
derivations ', association and dissociation, and action and passion.
And by'
association'
they mean combination.
(Cf. 298- 1-5. For Empedokles, cf. i4b7-8, 15*23-25; for
Anaxagoras,*i4
a13-15, I4a 24~ b
i; for Leukippos and Demo-
kritos,*i4
a21-24, I5
b6-i5, *i5b
33 16*2; for Plato,
*i5a29-33, I5
b 28 i6a 4.)
22b 9-11. d\X& . . . iraoxoi'Tos.'
But, again, there cannot be
Altering, any more than there can be Dissociating and Associating,
without an Agent and a Patient.'
Aristotle has just shown that all pluralist philosophies must
employ combination and action-passion. He had also argued
(cf.*i4
a 6- b8) that all monistic theories must identify ycVccrts
with dXAotWts. He now maintains that a'AAotWis necessarily
involves action-passion, so that the monists (as well as the
pluralists) must employ action-passion.
22b 12. Kal TOIS, sc. yevi/w<riv. The emphasis is on this clause :
for Aristotle's point is that the monists, no less than the pluralists,
are forced to employ Trofyo-is, i. e. irotctv KOL Trao-xeiv. The variant
KCUTOI is a stupid correction due to misunderstanding.22b 13-21. Kal . . . loriV. Diogenes of Apollonia (cf. fr. 2
;
Diels, p. 334) argued that'
all things are derived from one, because
A. 6. 322b3-32 141
otherwise reciprocal action-passion could not have occurred '.
In this he was so far right, that all things between which reciprocal
action-passion occurs must be derived from one : but he was
wrong in supposing that all things are transformations of a single
substratum (b 20 roiavra). Between the ovpavos and the things
of the Lower Cosmos, e. g., there is no reciprocal action-
passion.
22b 18-19. dkdyKT) . . . <J>uaiv :
'
that which underlies themmust be a single something.' For this use of <von?, cf. Phys.
191* 8, Bonitz, Ind. 83 8a 8 ff.
22b 25. TTpwiw. PhiloponOS takes Trpwrov with d^a/xem, but the
aorist alone is sufficient. Perhaps the meaning is'
things can-
not combine at all combination is utterly impossible unless they
have come into, a certain kind of contact '.
22 ''28. TOUTOIS, SC.OLVOLyKr) elrai aXXiyXtov OLTTTLKOLS.
22b 29. 816 . . . d4>fjs. According to the definition of contact
in the Physics (cf. 2 26 b23, 23i
a i8ff.;*i6b 4), which is pre-
supposed throughout the present passage, there is contact whenthe ' extremes
'
of any two things are '
together ',viz. are in the
same immediately-continent place.
But contact thus denned is manifested by TO, /xa^^/xariKa as well
as by TO. <f>va-LKa : the things, whose extremes are together, need
not be '
perceptible bodies',
but might equally well be
mathematical solids, surfaces, or lines.
Hence, since Aristotle's object here is to determine the con-
ditions of contact between <uo-i/ca oxo/Aara (cf. 23a34 a<^jj$ r^s h
TOIS <voriKois), the definition of the Physics requires further
specification : see* 22 b 32 23
a34.
22b 29-32. oxcBoK . . . d<|>T]s.' Now every term which possesses
a variety of meanings includes those various meanings either
owing to a mere coincidence of language, or owing to a real
order of derivation in the different things to which it is
applied. This may be taken to hold of Contact as of all such
terms.'
Aristotle assumes thata.<f>-ij
is a term with many meanings, and
urges that therefore (like all such terms) it includes its many
meanings either (i) by a mere linguistic accident or (2) because
of a real affiliation, viz. because the different things meant all
derive from, or all contribute to, one and the same primary thing
meant.
The stress is on WO-TTC/J (b30), which is answered by OVTWS . . .
i 4 2 COMMENTARY
a<j>rj<s (b32) : and the precise meaning of wo-Trep is explained in the
clause Kat . . . TTporepwv (b3 1-32). In other words, the corre-
spondence between a<f>r)and every other term with many
meanings lies in the manner in which the term possesses its
variety of significance, viz. that the variety must be connected in
one of two different ways.
For the well-known Aristotelian distinction between (i) TO, KaO*
w Xeyo/xeva (i.6. TO, a~uv(*)vvfj,(i)
and (ii) TO. TroXXa^ws Xcyoyaei/a,
including (a) TO, O/AWI/V/XWS Xeyo/x,eva and (b) TO, Trpos ei/ /cat fuav rwa
<f>v<TLv Xeyo/xeva (or TO, a'<' evos Xeyd/Aeva), cf. e.g. Metaph.
ioo3a33
- b19, ioo4a 21-31, Eth. Nic. 1096^ 26-29.
As a rule it is not the terms, but the different things denoted
by the terms, which are said Xe'yco-flat crwtovv/^ws, or Xe'yeo-0at
TToXXa^ws (o/AtoW/Ato?, or Trpos i/ Kat<!</>' evds). But, if the text of
the present passage is right, TO, ^iv and TO. Se (b31) must mean
' some of the ovo/iara ',
' others of the oVd/xara '. . And, if so, it is
strange that Aristotle should not have expressly stated that some
of these ovo/iara with many meanings fall under both headings.
That is the case, e. g., witha<j>rj.
For (i) it is a mere accident of
language that aWeo-flat is applied to ' the man who grieves us'
(cf. 2 3a32-33) as well as to
* two bodies, the extremes of which
are together'. On the other 'hand(ii)
the different meanings of
aVre<r0ai as applied (a) to rayeco//,eiy>t/ca, (b) to the physical bodies
in the sublunary world, and (c) to the oupavos in its relation to
the uppermost stratum of the Lower Cosmos, have a genuine
logical affiliation.
For the idiomatic use of crxeSoV in b29 ('modeste affirmantis,
cf. to-oos '),see Bonitz, Ind. s. v. The concessive /xev ovv is answered
by O/AWS 8e (b32).
22b 32 23a 34. OJJLWS . . . Tpouw. Contact in the strict sense,
from which all its other senses (except those due to a mere
linguistic coincidence) derive, applies only to'
things which have
position '. But in order to' have position
'
a thing must be *in
place ',i. e. must be a body with magnitude. And a body which
is'in place
' must be heavy or light. Finally, bodies, which are
heavy or light, are iraOrjTiKa KOL TTOL^TLKO.. Hence the full
definition of contact, in the strict and primary sense, restricts the
term to reciprocal contact of </>vo-i/ca o-w/xara : things which * touch',
in the strictest sense, must be such that'
they are able to move,and be moved by, one another so that there is action-passion
between them '
(cf.*23
a22-25).
A. 6. 322 29 323a
3 143
But (i) there is contact, in a wider and less strict sense, which
is not reciprocal. Thus the ov/oai/os moves the Lower Cosmos,and the latter is moved by it. But this moving and being-movedare not reciprocal action-passion : i. e. the ofy>ai/os is not moved
by the Lower Cosmos, nor does the latter move it (cf.*23* 12-22).
Hence, though the ov/aai/os' touches
'
the Lower Cosmos (since
the remaining conditions of contact are fulfilled), thea.<f>rj
is not
reciprocal. And (ii) we apply the term ' contact'
in a still looser
and more derivative sense to TO. /xa^/xariKa (geometrical solids,
surfaces, and lines). It is not really ra /xa^/xariKa as such not
the mathematical abstracta which ' touch '
: for they are not *in
place '. They are only'
in place'
qua inseparable characters of
the (WIKO, o-oywiTa. : and it is only so far only in virtue of the
bodies to which they are adjectival that they ^can be said to
' touch '
(cf.* 2oa 34
- b2,
* 2ob 3-5,* 2ob 14-16).
22b 33 23a 3. 6eais . . . rpoiroK. Aristotle here (and below,
2 3a6) restricts fleVis to the things which are
'
in place ',i. e. to
KLvyra c-w/xara. Yet tfeVt? is attributed to the /x-a^/xari/ca (e. g. to
the point, cf.* 20* 34
- b2), and they are said to
f touch '. Hence
Aristotle finds it necessary to dispose of this apparent exception
to his doctrine that only things, which are '
in place ',can * have
position' and ' touch '. Now Aristotle believed that there were
in the physical Cosmos a real, or absolute,* Above
'
and ' Below '
:
and that e.g. each of the four simple bodies had its 'proper
place' and its .absolute position in the sublunary world (cf. Introd.
10, *22 b2~3,
*238-6-8). The 0eW, of which he is here
speaking, is absolute position i. e. position relative to the real
'Above' and 'Below' (cf. 23a6-8). And, in this sense, only
things which are 'in place
'
only the <f>v(riKa o-w/xara can have'
position '.
In what sense, then, can the mathematical things be said to
' have position'
and to' touch '
?(i)
As we saw in the preceding
note, the quantitative determinations of things exist as adjectives
of </>vo-t/ca o-w/xara which are*in place ',
' have position ', and' touch
'
: and they may be regarded as sharing in the 0eW and
a<?j, which primarily belong to the <VO-IKO, o-w/xara, in so far as
they share also in their TOTTO?. But (ii)the isolated quantitative
determinations the abstracta which are TO, /xa^/xartKa proper,
the objects of mathematical science have a position relative to us
who conceive them, so that we distinguish e. g. the '
right' and
'left' of a figure (cf. Phys.-2o&> 22-25). They are located by
144 COMMENTARY
the mathematician's conception in an imaginary place : and in
that place they are assigned'
positions'
relative to one another,
and are capable of' contact '. Thus, when &W is attributed to
the abstract mathematical entities,'
place'
is also attributed to
them not indeed the real place which contains the <VO-IKO,
o-w/xara, but an imaginary extension. For even the abstract
geometrical figures involve an ideal or imaginary extension
(TO o-wexes) as their matter (vo^rJ) v\rj). This geometrical circle,
e. g., which cuts that, is a o-woXov : it is the form of circle
(circularity) informing this, as distinguished from that, area or
piece of TO o-wex^s. Cf. e.g. Metaph. 1056*2-12, io36b 32
-3. ctr' . . . TpoTTov. The mathematical things can be said
to touch only in the sense in which they can be said to be in place.
This applies, whether they have an independent existence (as e. g.
Plato wrongly supposed), or whether they' are
'
in some other
fashion (e. g. as inseparable adjectives of the ^VO-LKO. o-wju,ctTa, or as
abstracted objects of thought).
For KexwpioyxeW (here equivalent to'
separate from perceptible
body'), cf. e. g.*20*31-34. Zabarella, however, perhaps rightly
supposes Aristotle to mean ' whether by TO, ^aflr/pxTiKa we
understand the abstractedforms of which the mathematician treats,
or the quantitative characters of the perceptible things '.
23a 3. irpoTcpoK. The reference is to the Physics : cf.* 22b 29.
23a5- oiT)pY]^a. The manuscripts and Philoponos all read
It is true that TTOO-OV 8ia>pio-/xei/ov is contrasted with
owx'
s (Cat. 4b20-25) : but it is clear from the context that
the antithesis there is between Discrete Quanta (e. g. Number) and
Continuous Quanta (e. g. Figure). The term Siupia-pwov does not
appear to be used in the sense here required, viz. to mark the
distinction between two separate, but contiguous, /j.eyedi? and
a single continuous /*eye0os. It would no doubt be possible to
defend 8o/3to-/xeVa by passages like de Caelo 275^0 (8iwpio-/xeVa
TW /cevw) and Phys. 2i^ 24 (TO KevoV, o Siopi^ei Tas^vo-ets) : but in
view of 23* ii I have ventured to read Siyp^^va here.
23a 6-8. TOTTOU . . . dKTtKcifx^wK. The primary differentiation
of place (n-p^rr] 8ta<^opa TOTTOV) distinguishes it into (a) the Above
(the periphery of the Lower Cosmos) the region of the absolutely
light body,'
Fire'
: (b) the Below (the centre) the region of the
absolutely heavy body, Earth : (c) the relatively Upper and Lower
(TOL Totavra TWV aimKei/x,eV<oi/) the regions of the relatively light
A. 6. 323* 2-8 145
and relatively heavy bodies, Air and Water. Cf. de Caelo 308*r 4~33> 3 II& *5 ff- : Introd. 10,
* 22^ 2-3.
But in some passages (cf. de Caelo 284b 6 286* 2;
de Anim.
Incessu yo4b 12-22, 7o5a26ff.) Aristotle develops a more elabo-
rate doctrine with regard to the dimensions of'
place' and
the distinctions of place within the Cosmos :
(i) In any body regarded as filling a place, or in the place
containing any body, we must distinguish three dimensions,
Length, Breadth, and Depth. Each dimension is the interval
between a pair of opposites, viz. Above and Below (Top and
Bottom), Before and Behind (Front and Back), Right and Left.
One opposite in each pair is the *
origin'
(apxrj) of the dimension
in question, and is therefore'
prior'
to the other : thus Aboveis prior to Below, Before prior to Behind, and Right prior to
Left. And since length is the most fundamental of the three
dimensions (for line can be conceived in abstraction from surface
and solid, but not vice versa), the differentiation of place into
Above and Below is the Trpwrrj Sicu^opa TO'TTOV.
(ii) We may call this the schematic significance of the
differentiation of place. But Aristotle thinks that the ground of
these differences in place lies in the KUOJO-CIS of living bodies : i. e.
he maintains that their primary significance is functional. In all
living things, the Above is that part of the body whence the food
is distributed, i. e. whence au^o-is originates. In animals, therefore,' the top
'
is the head or mouth : in plants, it is the roots. In
animals, the Before is the region upon which their ato-Orja-is is
directed (that which is in front of them), or that part of the
animal's body whence its aur^o-ts proceeds (the front of the
animal). And in animals which move from place to place, the
Right (as Aristotle labours not very successfully to prove) is that
part of the animal's body from which its locomotion originates.
Since all living things exhibit cu^o-is, whilst only some perceive
and move, the distinction of Above and Below, in \ti\sfunctional
as well as in the schematic sense, is the primary differentiation of
the three.
(iii) Now the ovpavos the physical universe is 2/u/rvxo? /ecu
X L Kivijorews apxnv (dg Caelo 2858- 29-30). Hence we must ascribe
to it an Above and Below, and a Right and Left, in \^\^functional
sense as indeed Aristotle attempts to do. He identifies the
South Pole with the Above, the North Pole with the Below, the
East with the Right, and the West with the Left (cf. Heath,
146 COMMENTARY
pp. 231-2). It is clear, however, that the intended analogy with the
animals breaks down. For (a) the differentiation into Above and
Below is, in the ovpavos, connected with its circular movement,whereas in the animals it was connected with av^o-ts : and (b)
the differentiation into Front and Back disappears altogether, for
an obvious reason. For if we attributed cucr&yo-is to the ov/xxvos,
we should have to say of it, as Xenophanes said of his 6e6<s, ovXos
6pa, ovAo? 8e voet, ovXos Se r dfcovet.
23* 9. $ ajx<J>a> TI Odrcpoj'. If A and B are in reciprocal contact,
either A must be heavy and B light, or A light and B heavy (^
a/x<o>); or A and B must both be heavy, or both be light
($] Qdrtpov).
Or perhaps we should interpret this as applying to the different
dXXr/Xwi/ ob-To/Aera severally. For of these Earth is absolutely
heavy and Fire absolutely light : whilst Air and Water are, each
of them, both relatively light and relatively heavy.
23a9-10. T& . . . TroiT)TtKa. This is not inconsistent with
29b20-22, where Aristotle denies that heaviness and lightness
are the source of action-passion (cf. and contrast Baumker,
p. 242 6). Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are necessarily heavyand light, and essentially TTOL^TLKOL KOL TraOrjTLKa. : but their
action and passion are not the effects of their heaviness and
lightness.
23a 12- 22. iri . . . ou. Aristotle has substituted KLV^TLK^V for
TTOO/TIKWV and KivrjTw for TraOvjTLKw (23ai2): but there is an
ambiguity in both pairs of terms, to which he here calls attention.
For (i) A may' move ' B without itself being moved by the latter :
or(ii)
A may' move ' B
; and, in doing so, be itself moved
by B(a13-14 dAXa . . . oV. That this is the distinction here
intended, is rightly emphasized by Zabarella and is manifest from
Aristotle's treatment below, 24a 24ff.). Thus (i) the Trpwros
ovpavos (to take the chief instance which Aristotle here seems
to have in mind), being itself moved by the TT/OWTOI/ KIVOW,
imparts movement to the Lower Cosmos, and is relatively to the
latter d/aV^ros : for the Lower Cosmos does not react upon the
ovpavo'?. We may speak of the ovpavos as'
acting upon'
the
Lower Cosmos, and of the latter as '
being acted upon'
by it.
But though there is action and passion, and moving and being-
moved, there is no reaction and re-passion in this relation and no
reciprocal being-moved and moving. And though we may speak of
d<i7, it is not '
physical contact'
proper. What ' touches'
viz.
A. 6. 3 2 3a9~33 X 47
the ovpavos is not heavy or light : hence there can be no
reciprocal action-passion between it and the Lower Cosmos, and
therefore the latter cannot * touch'
it. But '
physical contact'
proper is reciprocal.
On the other hand (ii) the term TTOIOW in the strict sense applies
only to a body which causes a change of 7ra0os in another body.The process here is dAAoiWi?, and the patient reacts upon the
agent so that the latter is in turn itself patient. This kind of
Kti/7/o-ts can occur only between bodies which are heavy and light,
or both heavy, or both light (cf.*23* 9) i. e. between bodies of
the sublunary world. Thus, e. g., the hot body warms the cold
body and, in doing so, is itself cooled by Ihe latter. And this
reciprocal KiV^o-is (i.e. dAAoiWis) presupposes reciprocal contact, or
'
physical contact'
proper.
23a17-20. curep . . . Oepjj.oi' : if we are to speak of agent in
a sense contrasted with patient, and if this'
(TOVTO, viz. the term
Trcurxov)'is to be applied only to those moved things whose
motion is a qualitative affection i. e. a quality, such as White or
Hot, in respect to which they are moved only in the sense that
they are altered'
23* 22-25. dXV . . . iraaxeiK. The conditions which must be
satisfied by two bodies, if they are to' touch
'
in the widest and
most general sense of the term (KaOoXov /*eV), are (a) that they
should have 0e'<m, and (b) that the one should be KLvrjriKov and
the other KIVTJTOV. These conditions are satisfied e.g. by the
oupavos and the Lower Cosmos in their relation to one another.
But if two bodies are to 'touch one another 'i.e. if there
is to be reciprocal contact (contact in the strictest sense) between
them (777)69 a\Xrj\a Se, SC. 6 Sioptcr/zos TOV Trpos aAXryXa aTrrecr&xi)
they must (a) have 0e<ns, and (b) alter and be altered by one another.
(The words ev ots vTrap^et TO TToietv KOL TO xao-^etv define the kind
of KivrjTLKov KOL KivrjTw which reciprocal contact demands.) These
conditions are satisfied only by the bodies of the Lower Cosmos ;
for they alone are capable of an action-passion which is simul-
taneously a re-passion and reaction. For Stopwr/xos, cf. *34b20-30.
23a25-33. eo-Tt . . . eiceiKou. In almost all the processes which
we observe in the sublunary world that which moves or acts is in
turn moved or acted upon by that which it moves or on which it
acts. Hence we find it difficult to conceive a contact which is
not reciprocal. Nevertheless we do sometimes speak of a ' mover '
communicating motion by'
just touching'
(a29 /xoVov) the moved :
L 2
148 COMMENTARY
as, indeed, we speak (metaphorically) of the man who grieves us
as *
touching'
us, without suggesting that we ' touch '
him.
If a ' mover ' communicates motion without being moved bythat which it moves (
a3i aKivrjrov ov, cf.
*23*1 2-2 2), we must
admit a ' contact' which is not reciprocal.
23* 26. o-xeSoy. There are exceptions : e. g. (as Philoponos
points out) the e/aw/xcvos Ku/et without necessarily being* moved '
in turn by the lover.
23*30. ojxoycio]. For the form, see Bonitz, Ind. 510^10-11.The meaning of ra o/x-oyci/r}
here is explained below, 23b29 24* 5.
23a34- T*]S *v T0^s <t>ucriKols, i. e. as contrasted with (a) a^rj
between the mathematical things, and (b) the one-sideda<f>rj
of
the ovpai/os and the Lower Cosmos : cf.* 22 b
29.
A. 7
23b I 24b 24. irep! . . . rpoirov. In this chapter, which together
with the next two chapters explains 7roieu/-7rao-;(eii> (cf.* 22b 1-26),
Aristotle discusses and answers the question' What kind of things
can act and suffer action reciprocally ?'
He begins (23b1-15) by quoting two apparently conflicting
views, together with the arguments of their advocates. The first
view that Like cannot be affected by Like, i. e. that only Unlikes
or Differents can act and suffer action reciprocally he attributes
to the majority of his predecessors. The second view that what
acts and suffers action must be Like, i. e. Identical he ascribes
to Demokritos. Next (23b15 24*9) he develops his own view
by a criticism of his predecessors. The true doctrine is :
* Whatacts and suffers action reciprocally must be contrasted species
within the same genus, or contrary forms of the same matter'.
The views of his predecessors (he urges) each mistook a part
of the truth for the whole. Each expressed an essential' moment '
of the truth;but since each claimed to express the whole, each
became false and conflicted with the other. He then (24* 9-24)confirms his own theory (a) by showing that it explains the fact
that the agent assimilates the patient to itself, and (b) by tracing
the origin of the rival and mistaken theories. Whereas what
acts and suffers action must be contrary determinations of the same
substratum, linguistic usage attributes action and passion now to
the substratum and now to the contraries; and the false theories
arose from exclusive attention to the one or the other of these
subjects, of which action and passion are commonly predicated.
A. 6. 323a 26 --
7. 323b7 149
Finally (24*24-^22) Aristotle (a) contrasts primary and
proximate agents, and explains that the primary agent is un-
affected in its action as the first' mover ' moves without being
moved : and (b) distinguishes agent from final cause.
23b 2. uTTcccu'Tious. This word is repeated below(b
16), but at
b17 the apparent contrariety is called frovrioAoyta. Aristotle uses
virtvavriov and Ivavriov indifferently, except that virevavriov is
sometimes somewhat wider and vaguer in meaning. Thus,
e.g., in Post. Anal. 76^32 TO VTrtvavrLOV rov (jLavOdvovros rfj 8o]y
covers the two cases specified in the preceding sentence, viz.
(i) that in which the pupil has no opinion on the subject, and
(ii)that in which the pupil's opinion is contrary to the thesis
assumed by the teacher.
Thfc two views here in question are in contrary opposition : for
in substance they assert (a) No agents and patients are identical,
and (b) All agents and patients are identical.
The opposition between two particular propositions conflicting
in quality (* Some A is B ' ' Some A is not B'),
which formal
logicians call sub-contrary opposition (cf. e. g. Sanderson, Logicae
Artis Compendium, 8th ed., p. 95), is not here in point. More-
over, Aristotle does not call the opposition of particular
affirmative to particular negative an opposition of vTrtvavria : he
denies that it is anything more than a verbal opposition (cf.
Prior Anal. 63^ 27 TO yap rivl TO> ov TLVL Kara T>)V A.eii> avruccirai
23l)
5~6. iran-a . . . OJAOUHS. Aristotle is quoting the authors of
the theory. By*
like'
they mean '
absolutely identical '. If Ais
'like
' B (they argue) A and B have all the same properties and
in the same degree (6/xoiW). Hence there can be no Ti-oieu/-
Trcurxeiv between A and B. For although in action-passion the
agent dvTiTrao-xei and the patient dimiroict, one of the two things
concerned in the transaction (viz. the *
agent ')must be
TroirjTiKov, and the other (viz. the'
patient ')must be
TTdOrjTLKOV.
The qualification 6/uuu>s is important : for if A and B were both
hot, but A were hotter than B, A might act on B. A's action,
however, according to the theory, would be due not to its'
like-
ness',but to its 'unlikeness
'
: cf. b 8-10.
23b 6-7. TCI ... TT&j>uKei>. ret 8' dvo'/xoia answers TO /xei/ o/AOtov(b3-4),
and TTt<f>vKv (after w?,b3) is necessary, though 7re<u/c'v<u is the
better-attested reading. In b7 and b 14 FL add eis after
1 50 COMMENTARY
but the accusative alone is more idiomatic, irotciv KOL Tracrxeiv is
treated as a single verb with the same construction as if TTOLCW
stood alone : cf. also*24
b25.
23b7-10. K.O.I . . . dXiyw. Cf. Parva Naturalia 469
b 2 1 470* 7 ;
Theophr. fr. 3 (TTC/H TTV/OOS)I TO Se TrOp yf.vvav KOL <f>6cipuv Trtyvw
ttvrd, yevvav fjikvTO eXarrov TO TrXtov, </>$ei/>av Sc TO TrXeov TO eA.aTTOV.
Aristotle's theory of the cause of Death seems to depend in part
on an application of this principle (that' the greater fire destroys
the less'): cf.*29
b 24-26.
23b 10-11. ArjfxoKpiTos . . . fxoi/os. It is strange that Aristotle
should attribute this view to Demokritos alone : for in discussing
the theory of Empedokles that' Like perceives Like
',he treats
it as an application to the relation of Percipient and Perceived of
the general principle that'
Agent antf patient are like '. Cf. de
Anima, e.g. 4O9b23ff., 4i6b 33 ff., where there is a reference to
the present discussion of action-passion.
Both views are attributed to groups of thinkers, below, 24a
22-24.
23b 16-17. eoiicaai . . . Xeyciy.* The two views seem to be (but
are not really) in manifest conflict.' There is, however, no trace
of <aiVeo-#ai in T or < c.
23b 17-18. atTioi/ . . . eKciTepoi. The conflict is only apparent.
For both views express a part of the truth;and they can be
reconciled by being merged in a third view which adequately
expresses the fact as a whole. The '
fact as a whole'
is contrasted
forms of the same matter acting and suffering action reciprocally,
One view insists upon the identity of the matter, and the other
view upon the contrariety of the forms, as the sole and sufficient
condition of action-passion : cf.*23
bi 24
b24, 24* 14-24.
23b 18-24. TO ... irai/. It is false that' Like is affected by
Like ',if this means that the identity of A and B is the sole and
sufficient cause of their action-passion. For (i) if A and B are
absolutely identical, neither will have any prerogative in anytransaction between them (cf.
*23
b5-6) : and
(ii)if Like acts on
Like qua like(i.
e. identical), everything will be able to'
act on '
(change, move, destroy) itself, and therefore there will be nothing
affrOaprov or a.Kivi]Tov. But the change and movement in the physical
universe necessarily imply some things which are a^Oapra, ouSia, and
aKLvrjTa : cf. Phys. . 3 ff., Metaph. ic>7ib3 ff.
In b 2 1 it is necessary to read ct TC (cf. Bonitz, Ind. 2 1 7b9),
instead of tre with Bekker.
A - 7- 3 237 3 24a9
In b 2 2 I have accepted OVTWS exovrwi/ on the authority of L,
though with great hesitation.
23b24-29. TO ... icr-rlv. The opposite view is also false, if it
means that the absolute otherness of A and B is the sole andsufficient cause of their action-passion. For to
'act on ' a thing
is to make it change its nature. But if two things are absolutelyother (e. g. Line and Whiteness), neither can get any grip of the
other, neither can affect the other's nature. Only Contraries or
Intermediates i.e. only contrasted forms of the same can 'act
on ' one another.
23b 26-29. tr\T]v . . . corif. A white thing may 'act on' a line
which happens to be also black i. e. it*acts on '
the black. It
does not really' act on '
the line, for it does not alter the line's
nature. The line remains a line, even when its coincident
property, black, has been altered into another coincident propertye. g. white or grey.
In b 28 the better-attested reading is eavra(i. q. aAA^Aa).
Philoponos rightly interprets oo-a e evai/rtW cVrtV (b29) as TO.
: cf. 24a 8. The general principle is that TO,
yevet Travra /cat /xera^v ej/ai'TtW KOL cruyKcmu CK Ttov
(Metaph. 105 7b32-34). Thus the different species of the
genus Colour form a scale. The extremes of the scale are White
and Black : and these are ivavria to one another, for white is XP^ -
SiaKpiriKov o^ea>5, and black is ^pw/xa o-vyKprn/coi/ ctyews (cf. Topics
119* 30, Metaph. io57b8-9). The other colours are e/c XCVKOV /cat
/xe'Aavos (cf. e. g. Phys. i88b 24), i. e.' blends
'
of white and black,
and fall on the scale between its extremes. Each intermediate colour
is relatively cvavriov, i. e. functions as an evavriov relatively to anyother intermediate and to either extrenre. The intermediates are
therefore said eVcumWiv tx*lv (c^- e - S- 2 3
b 3~3 1)-
Since Aristotle
conceives ato-^a-ts as essentially a Swa/xis K/KTIJOJ, i. e. a power of
discriminating between evavria, or between the intermediates which
are * blends'
of the cvairta, the general principle ought to apply to
the field of each of the five senses. Taste, we are told, discriminates
between sweet and bitter; hearing between treble and bass
;
touch between hot and cold, and hard and soft. But it does
not seem possible to work out the conception of a scale in all the
fields with the same precision as in those of colour and sound.
23b 29 24*9. dXX' . . . TOUTOIS. The true doctrine is that
action-passion takes place between things which are contrary
forms of the same matter, differentiations of an identical sub-
1 52 COMMENTARY
stratum^ contrasted species within the same genus. Agent and
patient, therefore, are both '
like' and '
unlike '. The result of
action-passion is to assimilate the patient to the agent.
The doctrine is summarized in the de Anima (4171*20) in the
formula Tracr^ct ... TO di/d/Aotov, ireTrovOos 8' OJJLOLOV CCTTLV, and it is
applied to Nutrition, Growth, Sensation, and (with modifications)
to Thought. There is a reference to the present passage in the
de Anima 417* 1-2.
Philoponos is right in calling the argument here StaAAr/Aos. All
that Aristotle does is to bring out the reciprocal implication of
contrariety and action-passion. From the fact that contraries
are such as to act and suffer action, he infers that agent and
patient must be different forms of the same (23^ 29 24a 5) : and
from the fact that agent and patient are different forms of the
same, he infers that (only) contraries are such as to act and
suffer action (24** 5-9).
For the form 6/xoyeves (24* i), see *23** 30.
23 b 3324* 3- TntyuKc . . . dXX^Xwi/. This parenthesis is
intended to justify the assertion just made and the inference
drawn from it. It is a law of nature (irfyvKf) that TO 6//,oyeves VTTO
TOV 6/Aoyevov? Tracr^i : and the law holds good in all instances of
action-passion precisely because 'contraries are in every case
within a single identical kind, and it is contraries which re-
ciprocally act and suffer action '.
24a8-9. Kal yap . . . TOUTOIS. The argument apparently is :
Action-Passion necessarily involves dAAotWts (cf.*23
a12-22)
which is a form of ycVecris /cat <f>6opd (it is ycVeo-ts /cat (f>6opd TIS).
Now there can be no yeVeo-ts /cat <f>6opd in any sense whatever
except between evaim'a : hence 7rotetv-7rao-xe' is necessarily
between evavrca.
24a 9-14. 810 . . . yeVeo-is. Aristotle's doctrine, combined with
the general principle that yeVeo-ts is a change into the contrary,
explains the fact that the agent assimilates to itself the patient.
24a14-15. Kal . . . 4>u'o-ews.
'
And, again, it is intelligible that
the advocates of both views, although their theories are not the
same, are yet in contact with the nature of the facts.'
Kara Adyov, i. q. evAoyov.
In spite of the overwhelming manuscript authority for o/Wcos, o/xws
is clearly required. For </nW ('the essence of the matter'), cf.
Bonitz, 2nd. 839** 43 - b 2.
24a15-24- X^yofiek . . - Toukarrioi'. Cf.
*23
b17-18.
A. 7- 32333 324) 22 153
In a17 the reading of H (cf.
< c) is to some extent confirmed
by TaAAa : but '
the stone'
is not a very likely subject of *
beingheated '.
In a 22 eKeu/o is of course TO vTro/cet/xevoi/, and in a23 Odrepa are
TO. fvavTia. rovvavTiov (a24),
' the opposite ',i.e. that agent and
patient must be absolutely.'
other '.
24a 24 - b 22. rov . . . d\t]6s. At least in expression, if not also
in substance, the doctrine of this passage is (i) ambiguous, and
(ii) divergent from Aristotle's doctrine elsewhere.
(i) Aristotle's object is to establish a' certain parallelism
between irotiprts (i. q. aAAoioxm, cf.*23
a12-22), 7rotti/-7racr^if,
TO 7TOLOVV, andKIPiyQrCf) /ai//-K6I/eMr0ai, TO KIVOW.
The term TO /avow is applied (a) to that which contains ' the
originative source'
(i.e. the first in the series of causes, 24* 27-28)
of a movement : and also (b) toithat which is last
'
(in the series
of causes), i. e. to the cause ' next to the body which is beingmoved and to that which is coming-to-be' (24
a29 TT/V yci/eo-iv
if the text is sound must mean TO yiyvo'/xei/ov).
Similarly TO TTOLOVV is applied (a) to that which contains' the
originative source'
of a Trofyo-is e. g. to the doctor, qua containingin his soul the Te^ny taT/ai/o; which is the first in the series of
causes of the alteration called '
healing'
: and also (b) to' that
which is last', e.g. to the wine or the food prescribed bythe doctor, which are the proximate causes of the patient's
recovery.
Now TO KIVOVV in sense (a) need not itself be moved by the
body which it is moving. It is therefore or it may ^relatively
aKLvyTov. The absolutely first moving cause must be * unmoved '
(cf. 24^31 eV eviW Se KCU avayKalov) and indeed absolutely' unmoved '
: but even the upo/ros ofy>avds, although it is itself
moved by the absolutely first mover, is relatively dxtV^Tos, since it
is unmoved by the bodies which it sets moving (cf.* i8a 4-5,
*23
a 1 2-22). On the other hand, TO KIVOVV in sense (b} is, in moving,
always moved by that which it moves.
Similarly TO TTOIOW in sense (a) is relatively a-iraQes. The doctor,
e. g., or the rixvrl ""T^ in his soul,'
acts upon'
(*alters
')the
patient, without suffering reaction from (being' altered
'
by) the
latter. But TO TTOIOVV in sense(t>) must, in acting, itself be 'altered'
by that on which it acts. The food or the wine, e. g., can only4
alter'
(i.e. heal) the patient in so far as they are
* altered'
bythe latter 's digestion.
154 COMMENTARY
Here, then, we have a relatively first, and therefore a relatively
agent corresponding to a relatively first, and a relatively
'mover' or efficient cause. And Aristotle explains
(24* 34-35) that laTpiKrj, e. g., is a-n-aOes in its action, because
it is not (like e. g. the food) a form embodied in the same matter
which TO vyia^optvov involves.
But Aristotle proceeds to introduce, without further explanation,
a new division of TTOI^TIKCI (agents or'
active things ')into (a)
those whose forms are not in matter at all, and (b) those whose
forms are in matter (24b4-i3, cf. b
18-22). The first kind of
Trotryrt/ca pure forms, i.e. evcpyeiai without any SWO./AIS are
clearly absolutely auraOri and absolutely first agents : and they
correspond to the absolutely first, and absolutely unmoved,' mover
'
or * movers '. The second kind of TTOL^TLKOL would include not only'
the food',
but also * the doctor' and perhaps even the re^v??
larpiK-f) (cf. *24a 34- bi). Such Troir/rtKa, because they involve
matter, are always 7ra0i?ruca, though some of them (e. g. the doctor)
are relatively a-TraOrj since they are not subject to reaction from
the things on which they act.
(ii) Elsewhere, when Aristotle is analysing Ktvtjo-i? and irolija-i?,
the final cause is regarded as the apxy rfjs Ku/rjo-ews as the first
in the series of moving or acting causes. Thus God is the irp&Tov
KLVOVV as the ultimate object. of love (cf. e.g. Metaph. 107 2b 3).
And though what moves the animal is the soul qua containing
i/ovs or o/>ets (TO opeKTiKov), yet vov<s and o/oets are themselves
moved by TO vo^rov and TO opcm-ov : i. e. the primary cause of the
animal's movement is that which it conceives or imagines as TO
7jy>aKToi/ ayaOov, and which, as thus conceived or imagined, inspires
desire (cf. de Anima 433* 9-30,b 1 1-12
;de Motu Anim. 7<x>
b 4 ff/$
Metaph. io72a19
- bn). Similarly^ vytcia the End at which the
doctor aims is prior to tar/urn? as the cause of healing (cf. Metaph.
I032a32ff., *20b l8-2l).
Here, however, Aristotle refuses to reckon the final cause
as iroirjTiKov, except in a metaphorical sense, for a reason explained
below, 24b i4~i8.
24* 27. dpxV) : cf.*29* 5.
24* 30-33. TO ... diraSt's. Since fv fjitv KLvrjo-fi (a3i) corre-
sponds to eTTt 8c ?rot>Ja-(o9 (&32), the passage would be simplified
grammatically by E's omission of KLVOVV (a30). But the better-
attested text is probably right.
24* 31. Iviw. The reference here and below(b 2 1
A. 7. 324a27
b 18 155
is no doubt to' the heavenly Intelligences ', God and the Spirits
of the Stars : cf. e.g. Metaph. ioy3a23 ff.
24a 34 - b i. ocra . . . uyia^ofAeVou. We should have expectedAristotle to cite the doctor, rather than tar/oiK^, as an instance of
a 7roo7Ti/>i/ whose matter is not the same as that of its patient :
larpLKrj, we might suppose, is a TTOL^TLKOV whose 'form is not in
matter at all* (cf.b4-5). It must, however, be remembered that
Health the 'form',of which tarpuoj is the analysis and resynthesis
(cf.* 2ob 18-21) is an etSo? ei/vAoi/, and cannot be defined with-
out including in its definition those material constituents of which
it is the proportionate adjustment.
24^4. dirrofici'oi' : cf.*23
a 12-22.
24b 6-9. TTji' . . . OcpfiaiyeaOai.' For we maintain that one and
the same matter is equally, so to say, the basis of either of the
two opposed things being as it were a kind of which they are
contrasted species; and that that which can be hot must be
made hot, provided the heating agent is there, i. e. comes near.'
Thus the food (or wine), which cools (or heats) the patient's
body, must be itself heated (or cooled) in acting, because it and
the patient's body are contrasted forms of the same V7ro/cei/x,i/ov.
w? etTreti/ (b6) qualifies 6/Ww?. The food and the patient's body
can be said to have the same matter equally or alike only in a loose
sense : just as it is only loosely that e. g. dog and bird are O
24b 13-18. ori . . . iraO^TiKoj'. Aristotle briefly justifies the
separation of efficient cause and final cause (cf.*24
a 24- b22),
and indicates the part played in TTOI^O-IS by formal and material
causes.
The final cause of a W^o-is is an 'established state' of TO
Trao-xoi/, in which it is completely itself. The final cause of
healing,- e. g., is health, which is the normal state or' form
'
of the
living body. So far as health is there, the body is already com-
pletely itself there is no further goal for it to attain (b 1 7 ov/ceVt
yiVercu, dAA* eo"Tti/77817).
We can speak of a cause as TTOL^TLKOV, only when it is such
that its presence starts its correlative Trao-xov on a process of
development, or coming-to-be. Thus, when the doctor is there
i. e. comes into active relation with his correlative Trao-^ov, a
diseased body a yeVco-ts is at once set up in the patient's body,
in which it moves towards the attainment of its normal state,
health.
i 56 COMMENTARY
24b 15-16. TOU . . . uirdpxrj- The object of this irregular con-
struction is to avoid the awkwardness of TOV /xev TTOIOWTOS
24b 18. TJ. . . iraOriTtKOk. It is matter, qua matter, which is
i. e. matter (or the material cause) contributes to
in so far as every TTOIOW implies a correlative TTCUTXOV.
It follows from this as Aristotle has already maintained that
if any TTOITJTLKOV is itself absolutely without matter, it must be
absolutely airaOk (24^ 18-22).
A. 8
24!) 25 26b 28. irws . . . xupileaQcu. Two typical theories of
the mechanism of Trotctv-TraVxciv are examined in this chapter : viz.
(i) the theory that the agent acts by penetration, since the patient
has *
pores ',and (ii)
the theory of Leukippos and Demokritos,
which explains action-passion, as it explains all other physical
phenomena (e. g. growth, coming-to-be, passing-away), by the
assumption of Indivisible Solids and a Void.
Of the advocates of'
pores ',Aristotle mentions only
Empedokles : but one other representative of the doctrine, who
was probably its originator, can be named with certainty, viz.
Alkmaion of Kroton. (On Alkmaion see Diels, pp. 100-104;
Burnet, 96; Beare, pp. n ff., 93 ff., 131 ff., 160.)
In thefirst part of the chapter (24b25 25
b u) Aristotle shows
that the theory of pores is equivalent to that of the Atomists, so
far as an explanation of Troutv-Trao-^eiv is concerned. He also
traces the affiliation of Atomism to Eleatic Monism, and points
out the superiority of the former. Next (25b 12 26b 6) he begins
to criticize Empedokles, contrasting his theory unfavourably with
that of the Atomists. The latter explain the yevco-ts and <0opaof all physical bodies as a composition out of, and a dissolution
into, the Indivisible Solids. But Empedokles treats Air, Earth,
Fire, and Water as elementary : and hence neither explains nor
could explain the yeVto-is or <f>0opd of the big masses of these' elements
' which we see in nature. This leads Aristotle to refer
to Plato's theory in the Timaeus, which postulates Indivisible
Planes as the ultimate constituents of Air, Earth, Fire, and
Water, and therefore of all physical bodies. Having distinguished
this theory from that of Leukippos (for Leukippos postulates
a Void, which Plato denies;and his Indivisibles are solids, whereas
those of Plato are planes), he proceeds to criticize the view of
A. 7- 324b i5-- 8 - 324b 32 157
Leukippos and Demokritos. Finally (26b6-28) he returns to the
doctrine of pores, which he subjects to an annihilating criticism.
24b 25. irws . . . Xfyup.ei'. In the last chapter Aristotle has
explainedc what action and passion are, what things exhibit them,
why they do so, and in what manner' (24^ 2224).The 'next step' in the inquiry (TraAiv : cf. e. g. Phys. 214^ 13 ;
Bonitz, Ind. 559b13 ff.)
is to explain how it is possible for action-
passion, thus understood, to occur : i. e. what must be the structure
of bodies, if action-passion is to take place.
TOVTO, sc. TO Troietv Kat Tratr^tiv, which is treated as a single
verb, cf.* 23b6~7.
24b27. TOU . . . KupiwrciTou. t
In the strictest sense of the term
Troietv occurs only in dAAotWis, i. e. action-passion involves
re-passion-reaction. Since it is only the last (or proximate)
agent whose action is re-passion, the last agent is 'the agentin the strictest sense' (/cvptomn-ov). Cf.
*23
a12-22,
*24a 24-
b 22.
Perhaps we ought to insert (TOV) before eo-xarov.
241*27-32. Kal TOUTW . . . jAaXXof. The chief evidence for
Alkmaion's theory of perception is Theophrastos, de Sensu, 25, 26
(quoted by Diels, p. 101 : cf. Beare, 11. cc.). All that we are there
told about '
pores'
is that (according to Alkmaion)'all our per-
ceptions are in some way closely connected with the brain. That
is why, if the brain is disturbed or displaced, the perceptions are
mutilated and arresteH (TrrjpovcrOai) : for the brain then blocks the
pores through which the perceptions come '
(eTriAa/x/SdVetv yap TOVS
Tropovs, oY a>i> at atcr^o-ets).
The theory of Empedokles is reported at length, and criticized
in detail, by Theophrastos, de Sensu, 7-24 (Diels, pp. 168-171).See also two fragments of Empedokles, fr. 84 on Vision (Diels,
pp. 196-7: cf. Beare, pp. 14 ff.),and fr. 99 on Hearing (Diels,
p. 200 : cf. Beare, pp. 95 ff.).
Theophrastos, 1. c., 7 (cf. Beare, pp. 204-5) reports that *
Empe-dokles explains the perception of all the special senses on the
same principle. He says that we perceive, because the objects
of each sense fit into the pores of the sense in question. That
is why one sense cannot discern the objects of another : for its
pores are too wide or too narrow, so that, of the objects of the
other senses, some go right through the pores without touching,
whilst others cannot enter at all '. The objects, which fit (or fail
tofit)
the pores, are clearly the' effluences
'
(airoppoai) which all
158 COMMENTARY
things give off: cf. Empedokles, fr. 89 (Diels, p. 197), Theophrastos,
1. C., <f>cptcrOai 8e TO, ^pw/xara Trpos rr;v oif/ivSia rrjv aTropporjv.
The first part of Aristotle's statement here (b 27-29 KCU rovrov
. . . Trao-as) refers to a theory of this kind. But the second part
(b 29-32 tn . . . /xaAXov) refers to a theory which explains the
greater or less transparency of different bodies by theit possession
of a greater or smaller number of pores and by the way in which
their pores are disposed. We can see things through air and water,
and in general through transparent bodies, because such bodies
have a multitude of close-set pores, which are arranged serially
so as to form straight channels or passages right through them.
Does this mean that the'
effluences.' from the visible objects can
travel more easily through bodies with such a structure ? Or does
it mean as Philoponos (p. 153) interprets that theo^is (i.e. the
'visual flames' or 'rays' proceeding from the eyes) can pass
through such media and thus'
lay hold'
of the visible objects ?
On the whole, it would seem most probable that Philoponos is
right ;and that Aristotle is referring to a feature in Empedokles'
theory of Vision which nobody has yet succeeded in reconciling
with the doctrine of ' effluences '. For, as is well known, nothingis said in Empedokles' fragment on Vision (fr. 84 : cf. also Plato,
Ttmaeus, 45 bff.) about 'effluences' fitting into the pores of the
sense of vision. Vision is conceived as an activity proceedingfrom the eye. The fire inside the eye flows through the poresof the membranes which contain it, much as the light inside a
lantern'
leaps through'
its transparent sides (cf. Burnet, pp. 248-
249; Beare, pp. 15-16).
Aristotle himself complains (de Sensu 437^23 438*5) that
Empedokles' sometimes appears to think that we see owing to
the light going forth from the eyes', whilst at other times he
explains vision '
by the effluences from the things seen '.
24b 32 25a 2. ot ... ia-riv. The advocates of pores are con-
trasted unfavourably with the Atomists. For the theory of poresis a theory of the structure of some <J>V<TIKO. o-w/xara only (
b32
7rt rtvcDv), viz. only of TO, TTOIOWTO, /cat Trac^orTa and of ra /xtyvv/xeva.
Hence it attempts to explain only Troiw-ira.^ and />uis.
But Atomism is based upon principles which go to the root of
things : for the Atomists postulate that all the perceptible bodies
in nature are composed of Indivisible Solids interspaced by Voids.
Hence their theory applies to the structure of all <f>v<riKa o-wpara
(b35
~ ax Tt/w Trai/Twv), and enables them to give a systematic and
A. 8. 324b32 325
a 6 159
consistent explanation of yeVeo-is and <f>0opd, of dAAotWi? and
avr}(Ti<s, as well as of 7roiu/-7rao-xeiv and /u'is: cf. I5a34-35j
1 6* 6-8.
In b34 Prantl and Diels adopt <r/oTi/ (JL). But there is no
reason to suppose that Empedokles was the only advocate of
pores who applied the theory to explain ///<.? : and though the
construction with <a<riv is a little harsh, it is not impossible.
25a 1-2. dpxrj*' . . Ivriv. Apparently this means that the
Atomists ' took as their starting-point what naturally comes first',
i. e. based their theory on postulates expressing fundamental facts.
They began at the beginning, and not in the middle. But,
in view of the immediately following passage (25* 2 o/iois ybp . . .
b5 <rr*/oeo)v),
in which Aristotle traces the affiliation of Atomism to
the theory of the Eleatics, it is tempting to read Kara <vcriv, rprep
ZOTTLV. The words would then refer directly to Parmenides (cf. e. g.
fr. 8, 1. I, Diels, p. 1 18, /xowos 8' ert /AV#OS 68010 ACHTCTCU o>s eo-Tti/) and
would mean that the Atomists' theory is not based upon mere
Sou /3/30Ttcu, but upon a principle drawn from the Parmenidean*
Way of Truth '. They took as their starting-point the funda-
mental truth that the Real is.
25a 2-16. ei/iois . . . K.CVOV. Aristotle here sketches certain
arguments which led the Eleatics (evicts : the reference, as we
shall see, is probably to Zeno, and certainly to Melissos, as well
as to Parmenides) to maintain that* what is
' must be eV KOL
The general form of the arguments is'
dialectical',
i. e. the
Eleatics show that their pluralist opponents cannot, on their own
premisses, render intelligible the plurality and the motion which
they advocate.
The pluralist views in question are two, viz.(i)
that the real is
Many and in no sense One, the Many being separated from one
another by the Void : and (ii) that the real is'
discretes-in-
contact ',i.e. a Many not interspaced by a Void, but con-
tiguous.
The advocates of the first view were, in all probability, the
Pythagoreans (cf.*25* 4-6) : and the Eleatics claim to dispose
of it, because as they maintain there can be no such thing as
a Void. The second view is that of P^mpedokles : and the Eleatics
urge against it, that it is no more able than the Pythagorean
theory to render plurality and motion intelligible (cf.*258- 6-13).
25a4-6. Kii/TjOrji/ai . . . fcieipyorros. These theses as to the
160 COMMENTARY
implications of motion and plurality, which the Eleatics accept,
are at the same time maintained by their opponents : and the
opponents' theory, which rests upon them, is summarized below
(a7-8) in the words TroXXa KOL ^ ev etvat /cat KCVOJ/. The op-
ponents in question cannot be the Atomists : for Atomism (cf.
25* 23 ff.)was developed under the influence of, and subsequently to,
the Eleatic criticism of this particular theory of a Many and
a Void. On the whole, there is very little doubt that the
pluralists in question here, and in the second part of Parmenides'
poem (cf. Burnet, pp. 182 ff., 314^), are the Pythagoreans.
The admitted theses are : (i) if a body is to move, there must
be an empty place for it to move into. Motion implies an
independently existent empty place or 'void'(a5 /cexw/awr/Aevov).
If there is to be motion, it is not enough that we can in thoughtabstract the place, which a body fills, from the body which fills
it (cf. Aristotle's discussion of TO /cevoV, Phys. 213* 12 ff.) : and
(ii) a plurality of reals implies something other than the reals
(a not-real) to separate them from one another. Thus, e. g., the
Pythagoreans postulated a /cevoV, o Sio/)iet ra? </>t'o-eis (Phys. 2i3b
22-27 : cf- Burnet, p. io84).
25a6-13. TOUTO . . . Kinrjaii'.
' And in this respect'
(i.e. for
rendering intelligible the being of a Many),'
they insist, the view
that the universe is not continuous, but discretes-in-contact,
is no better than the view that there are Many (and not One) and
a Void. For suppose that the universe is discretes-in-contact.
Then, if it is through-and-through divisible, there is no One, and
therefore no Many either, but the Whole is void;whilst to main-
tain that it is divisible at some points, but not at others, looks like
an arbitrary fiction. For up to what limit is it divisible ? Andfor what reason is part of the Whole indivisible, i. e. a plenum,and part divided ? Further, they maintain, it is equally necessary
to deny the existence of motion/
Aristotle is here reproducing the gist of an Eleatic argument
against a pluralist theory which dispenses with a Void. The
Pythagoreans, as we saw, were obliged to postulate an existent
Void in order to account for motion and plurality : and such
a postulate (Parmenides and Zeno contend) is a contradiction
in terms, for it is equivalent to the assumption that ' what is not'
is. But another form of pluralism (viz. that of Empedokles,cf. 25
b5-10,
* 26 b 8-10) attempts to conceive the real as a Many,without introducing a Void. The Universe is not One, since
A. 8. 325*6-23 161
it is not continuous : it is divided into many constituents, which,
however, are contiguous and therefore do not imply a Void.
Empedokles himself expressed his theory differently. He said
that no part of the Universe was 'empty' (cf. fr. 13, 14; Diels,
pp. 176, 177) : and he denied that the Whole(i. e.
*
the Sphere')was homogeneous, as Parmenides had maintained. It was full of
diverse matters i. e., in the end, full of the four'
elements '
: andthese ' ran through one another' (cf. e. g. fr. 17 ; Diels, pp. 177-9).
Moreover, he had demonstrated that atmospheric air is not emptyspace (not a Ktv6v\ but a thing or body (cf. Burnet, pp. 228, 229) :
hence, although he insists that bodies are porous, the pores are not1 voids ', but
'
full'
e. g. full of air, which is itself a body.There is some evidence (Burnet, p. 312^ that Zeno wrote an
attack on Empedokles, and it is possible that the present argu-ment (
a6-13) reproduces the substance of one of his criticisms.
25* 6. oii&eV. EL have //.^SeV, but ovSeV is what we should expect
consistently with the other negatives in the context.
25a 7. carreo-Sou SiTjpirjjieVoi' : cf. perhaps*
i 6b 4.
25*1 12-13. TI . . . KI^O-IC. The addition of <aVat (FHL) is
probably due to a misinterpretation of a 6-8. The argument is :;
The view of Empedokles is no better than the Pythagorean view
as regards the explanation of plurality (a6-8), and motion is as
impossible on the former view as it is on the latter (a12-13).
25a 15-16. aircipof . . . Ktvov. Parmenides and Zeno maintained
that the one Real was finite : but Melissos held that it was infinite
both temporally and spatially. Aristotle is no doubt quoting, or
summarizing, an actual argument of Melissos. irepaivav should
be taken intransitively, as in Melissos, fr. 5 (Diels, p. 144) ei wei>
etr/, Trcpavet Trpos aAXo.
Translate :
' Some of them add that it is infinite, since the limit
(if it had one) would be a limit against the Void.'
25a 17. rapl TTJS d\T)0ias : cf. Parmenides, e.g. fr. 8, 1. 51
(Diels, p. 121).*
25a 17-23. In . . . 8ia(|>pii'. Though the Eleatic theory
appears to be logically impregnable, it is in violent conflict with
the facts. Even a lunatic does not go so far as the theory
demands in identifying objects which his senses present to him as
different : though some people are mad enough to confuse what
they have been accustomed to regard as honourable with what
really is honourable.
I have marked a lacuna after a'A.i?0etas in a 1 7, as I think we must
2254 M
162 COMMENTARY
assume that one or more arguments against the Eleatic theory
have dropped out. L reads cTrei for In an obvious, but in-
effective, attempt to restore the logic of the passage.
25a 23 - b
5- AeuKi-inros . . . arepewp. Leukippos recognized that
coming-to-be and passing-away, motion and multiplicity, must be
accepted as real on the evidence of sense-perception : but he also
recognized the force of the Eleatic arguments. He was convinced
by the latter that the Real 'that which is
'
is a plenum ;but
he saw no difficulty in postulating empty space (TO /cei/6V), provided*
it is not regarded as'
real'
in the proper sense, i. e. in the same
sense as body. Hence he supposed an infinite number of minute
(and therefore invisible) bodies, each '
real'
in the sense of the
Eleatic' One ',
i. e. each a plenum. And he further supposed
these minute bodies the atoms to be moving in empty space.'
Coming-to-be'
he explained as the aggregation of several atoms
to form a perceptible body : and '
passing-away'
as the dissolution
of such an aggregate into its constituent atoms. Cf. above, 15^ 6-
15 with the notes.
25*23-24. oiTifes . . . Xeyoi/Tes. Perhaps this explains i5b9~io
7Tct 8' WOVTO TaXrjOts ev TO> <cuVecr$ai . . .
25a 26. raura, SC. yei/ecrtv, <f>6opdv, KLVYJ<TLV^ TrA^os rtuv ovrwv.
25a 26-32. TOIS Se . . . QQopdv. For the punctuation, cf. Diels, p.
344. Leukippos conceded to the Eleatics that motion required
a Void : and he says (in agreement with them) that the Void is
pr] 6V and that no part of TO 6V is a///>) 6V, for TO 6V in the strict
sense of the term is absolutely full, a plenum without any gaps.
But he thinks (in contrast to the Eleatics) that there is an infinite
plurality of such ' Reals',and that they move in the Void
; for the
Void exists, though it is not a ' Real '.
25*33. TJ Tuyxaj'ouaii' dirrofjLci'a. This is the point where
Atomism becomes indistinguishable from the theory of Empedoklesas Aristotle expresses it, viz. that the Real is
*
discretes-in-contact'
:
cf.*25* 6-13.
25*34. **" vuvriB^va . . . yem!?. Philoponos interprets this"
as a reference to the Atomists' explanation of dAA.oiWis. Hesupplies TO. TraOrj as the object of yewai/, and says that we are to
understand the o-w#eo-is and the 7re/H7rAo/c?j of the atoms as their
0cW and TO&S respectively : cf. I5b
9, i5b33 i6a 2. But, as the
text stands, yevvav can hardly mean anything but yeVeo-iv Trotetv, and
the sentence simply repeats 1. 32 with a slight variation. For the
doctrine, cf.*i5
b33 i6a 2.
A. 8. 325*23 b25 163
25a34-36. CK . . . dSuixxroi'. TO KCLT d\tj6fiav cv, SC. an atom,
i. e. that which is & plenum without interspaces. TO. d\r)0w<s TroAAa,
sc. the many aggregated atoms, which, though associated to
form a perceptible body, never constitute a real One without
interspaces.
For the principle here ascribed to Leukippos, cf. Metaph.IO39
a7- ir >
where it is attributed to Demokritos.
25a 36 - b
5. d\X' . . . oTcpcwi/. The theory of Alkmaion and
Empedokles, which explained Trao-^eti/ by the hypothesis of pores,is extended by the Atomists to explain dAAoiWis, <f>6opd, cu^o-is,
KT\. : only, instead of *
pores ', they speak of the Void, i. e.
empty interspaces between the atoms. A perceptible body for
Empedokles is a porous whole : for the Atomists, it is a groupingof atoms separated by interspaces.
v7Ti(T$vofjLcv<av (TTpeG)v (^ 4 5) looks like a quotation from
Leukippos.25
b 5~10 - ox^o" iropous. We must not suppose that
Empedokles would agree. As we know (cf. *25a6-i3; and
below,* 261*
8-10), he did not admit a Void, but insisted that the
pores were 'full '.
25b7- T UTO, SC. TO TravTy TTo/oovs (TVve^fLS en/at.
25b 10. ous . . . iropous. The word TTO/OOI does not occur in this
sense in the surviving fragments of Empedokles. We have instead
e.g. xoavdt (fr. 84, 1. 9 ; Diels, p. 197), aAo/ces (fr. 100, 1. 3; Diels,
p. 200), the meaning being fixed by periphrases.
25b I3~I5- K " ir P^t o'u^Paii'OK. The Atomists' explanation
(cf. 25* 31-34) is clear in itself, and it is a fairly consistent conse-
quence of the basal assumptions that there are indivisible solids
and a * void'
on which their whole philosophy depends.TOVTOOV (
b13), SC. TCUV 7T6/H AeuKlTTTTOJ/ Kdl ArjfJLOKpLTOV (Philo-
ponos).25bl5- T0^5 f\TTWf SC. TOtS 7T/3
irpos TO.S avrwv ^eo-ets ^atVeTat (rv^EfATreSoKXet . . . nXdrwy. Empedokles regards the
'
four roots'
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water as eternal and un-
changeable : cf. *i5 a4-8. But this view, as Burnet (p. 2303)
justly remarks, had been rendered 'almost unintelligible' to
Aristotle owing to'
the criticism of the Pythagoreans and Plato'
(cf. especially Timaeus 48 b). Hence Aristotle, here and above
(i5a3rT.), assumes that Empedokles must have known that the
origin and transformation of his' elements
'
required explanation ;
M 1
164 COMMENTARY
and regards it as an inconsistency and a failure of his theory that
no explanation was offered.
TO o-copevo/zevov /zeycflos (b22 : cf.
*2 6a 30-31) is the actual mass
of the ' elements'
as we see them. Empedokles'' elements
'
are
present in masses which are clearly aggregates of smaller pieces :
i. e. they are clearly composite bodies, divisible into simple con-
stituents not, like the 'primary bodies' of the Atomists (cf.
The reference to the Timaeus is to 530 ff., where the particles,
of which Earth, Air, Fire, and Water consist, are viewed as solids
reducible to planes whose components belong to one of two types
of triangle (cf.*15* 29-33). These triangles are the right-angled
isosceles/and the right-angled scalene which is such that its hypo-
tenuse is twice the length of its shorter side: cf. Martin, ii,
pp. 234ff.
25b 27. 6 jAey . . . crxTJH-ao-t : cf.*
r 4a21-24.
25b 28. T&V . . . ficao-roy. I have ventured to excise these
words, since they would mean that each indivisible solid was
defined by an infinity of figures and each indivisible plane bya finite number of figures which is absurd.
wpur/xeVois, i.e. the two typical triangular figures : see *25^ 19-25.
25b29-32. CK . . . fx<W. The best remedy in this passage is,
I think, the excision of Bvo rpo-n-oi av elcv. An alternative would
be to read a colon after StaKpiVets (cf. J) and to insert yap after /x,eV
(cf. r).
25b3l~32 - & t(* Te . . . KaaTOK. Both the Void and Contact are
required by the Atomists to explain either yeVeo-is or SiaK/>m
(<j>6opd): cf. 25* 31-34-
25b 34. lv rots Trporepoi/ \6yois. The reference is to the
de Caelo (cf. Introd. n, *i4a
i) T. i, especially 298b33 ff.,
T. 7,
and A. 2.
25b 34 26b 6. irepl . . . Suodjxei. Aristotle's deliberate com-
pression of his present criticism of the Atomic theory within the
limits of 'a short digression' (25b36) has somewhat obscured the
logical connexion of his arguments. It is, however, possible
to t$aee a single line of thought through the argumentation from
26a 1-24 ;and thus to exhibit it as a reasoned exposure of the
central weakness of Atomism, i. e. its failure to explain the
relation of the indivisible solids to the qualities which are the
objects of the special senses (cf.*I5
b33 16*2: and, for
the meaning of TrdOrj, cf.*i9
b8-10). The criticisms in the re-
A. 8. 325b27 326
a24 165
mainder of the passage (26* 24 - b6) are disconnected, but not
obscure.
25 l) 36 26*24. dmyKaiof . . . dSiatperois. The argument maybe thus expanded :
According to the Atomists, the indivisible solids are
characterized by figure alone (cf.*i4
a 21- 24). And since,
according to their theory, one body can be * acted upon'
byanother only because it consists of Indivisibles interspaced byVoid
(i.e. only because the Indivisibles which compose it can
move, shift their relative positions, come into contact with one
another, &c.), the Indivisibles themselves cannot be ' acted upon '.
They are a-iraQy, i. e. they cannot receive any ala-OrjTov TrdOos.
They are also necessarily unable to'
act',
i. e. they cannot
produce any 7ra0o?, or any change of TrdOos, in anything else.
For(cf. e. g. 23^ 29 ff.)
if A is to make B hot, or to change B from
cold to hot, A must itself be hot (26a1-3).
Demokritos, it is true, attributes heat to the sphericalIndivisibles. But if heat is the property of the spherical figure,
it is a paradox not to assign cold to some other figure as its
property (26* 3-6). Are we then to suppose that the Atomists
do attribute heat and cold to the Indivisibles, as properties
respectively characterizing the spherical and some other figure?If so, on what principle are the other qualities excluded ? It is
a paradox to deny that the Indivisibles are heavy and light, hard
and soft (26* 6-8).
Indeed, Demokritos attributes not only neaviness to them, but
different degrees of heaviness. 'The larger the mass of the
Indivisible, the heavier it is',he says. But if so, he must admit
that the larger the mass of a spherical Indivisible, the hotter it is
(26a9-11). And this admission is fatal to the thesis which, as we
saw (26* 1-3), the Atomists must maintain. For if the Indivisibles
differ from one another in degree of heat, they cannot be a-rraOri
(26a11-12). But neither can they be dn-a^, if hardness be
attributed to them. For if hardness be attributed to any
Indivisibles, its contrary, softness, must be attributed to other
Indivisibles. It is as paradoxical to attribute hardness but not
softness, as it is to attribute heat but not cold. But softness
means '
tendency to yield to pressure'
: i. e. nothing which is soft
can be d-n-aO^ (26* 13-14).
It is paradoxical, as we have seen, to deny to the Indivisibles
all qualities except figure. But it is also paradoxical to attribute
1 66 COMMENTARY
to each Indivisible one quality, and one only, in addition to its
figure. For these qualities necessarily go in pairs ; i. e. if one
Indivisible is cold + figured, another Indivisible must be hot +figured. What then becomes of the supposed
'
uniformity of
substance'
in all the Indivisibles ? And, finally, it is no less
impossible to attribute to each Indivisible more than one quality
in addition to its figure. For, being indivisible, it is without
internal distinctions : all its qualities will belong to it in its
single undifferentiated identity. Suppose, then, an Indivisible is
e. g. hot, and therefore'
suffers action',
is(
affected',
in so far as
it is chilled. Besides being hot, it will, on the hypothesis, also
possess some other quality : e. g. it will be soft. And its softness
will qualify its indivisible identity, which is also qualified by its
heat. Hence qua itself qua hot it will'
yield to pressure'
as
well as'
grow cold ', and will perhaps also produce heat, or some
other sensible quality, in another Indivisible. The Law of
Contradiction will thus be violated : for the same single
Indivisible will in the same respect suffer diverse actions, or both'
act' and '
suffer action'
(26* 14-20).The same argument applies in principle whatever qualities are
attributed to the Indivisibles. For it is their indivisibility which
makes it impossible to ascribe a plurality of qualities to them :
and any theory, for which the ultimate Reals are Indivisibles
(whether solids or planes), is open to this criticism. For that
which is indivisible cannot contain any empty interspaces, and
cannot have a plurality of constituents. Hence there can be^no
differences of density within an Indivisible, nor can one Indivisible
be, or become,'
rarer'
or ' denser' than another. Now a composite
body may have many different qualities, the qualities of one
composite body may differ from those of another, and a composite
body may change its qualities. For one and the same com-
posite body may have within it different degrees of density, or
may change its density: and one composite body may be, or
become, denser than another. But, ex hypothesi, there are no
inner differences in the Indivisible, and no differences of stuff or
texture to distinguish one Indivisible from another. Hence to
suppose that an Indivisible has, or acquires, a plurality of
qualities, is necessarily to violate the Law of Contradiction
(26* 20-24).26a 3. oure . . . efrai. 'For none of them can be, e.g., either
hard or cold.'' Aristotle apparently selects' hardness
' and ' cold'
A. 8. 326a 3-24 167
as examples of the 7rd6rj which the Atomists cannot consistentlyascribe to their Indivisibles, because (a) we should naturally have
supposed that the Indivisibles are ' hard '
; and (b) since
Demokritos expressly attributes heat to the spherical Indivisibles,
it seems peculiarly paradoxical that he cannot attribute cold to
any Indivisible. For heat and cold are the contrasted extremes
of a single quality (temperature), and what is susceptible of the
one is eo ipso susceptible also of the other.
26a 3~6. KCUTOI . . . axTjfxdTwy. Cf. de Anima 403^31 404*16,
405a8-13 ; de Caelo 303
a14, 3o6
b29 3o7b 18.
cr^7//xa, i. q. crto/xa aSiai/otToy : cf.*I5
b 69, 26b I.
26a9-IO. jSapUTepoy y ... d8icupeT(ov. Cf. de Caelo 3o8
b35
309a 2 : Theopbrastos, de Sensu 6r (Diels, p. 375) ftapv /xev ow KCU
Kov<f>ov raj /xeye^et Statpet A^/xoKptros. On the vexed question as to
whether, and in what sense, Leukippos and Demokritos attributed
weight to their indivisible solids, see Burnet, pp. 341 ff.
26a 10. wore . . . SepjjLorepoK, i. e., as Philoponos explains,
<S<TT, 1 TO, /X,lo> OLTOfLO. fiapVTtpa., S^Xoi/ OTl Kttt TO, /*,l(0 (T^>at/3l/Ca
Oepp.OTf.pa.
26a 12. 0p|xoi'. j/ru^/ooi/ EHJL : but 0ep/xm/ is clearly required
by the argument.26a 14. TO ... piXaicdV : cf.
*30* 8-12.
26a 16. \|/uxpoc. <TK\vip6v EHL3? 1: but \j/vxpov is required by
the argument. For, on the hypothesis here made (viz. that each
Indivisible possesses one '
sensible quality'
in addition to its
figure), the Atomists would not be bound to admit that some
Indivisibles were hard + figured, and others hot + figured. Onthe other hand, if they attributed heat (or cold) to any Indivisible,
they were bound also to attribute cold (or heat) to some other
Indivisible or, at least, so Aristotle supposes, cf.*26*3.
26*17. ouSe . . . aurwi/. Cf. Phys. 203a 34~ b
2, de Caelo 27$*
31-32 ; Burnet, p. 3363.
26a 20-24. K dSiaip^rots. For the most probable inter-
pretation of this difficult passage, see *25
b36 26a 24.
We must remember that the ' sensible qualities'
(the*
secondary'
qualities) of the composite bodies are, according to the Atomists,
due to the number, grouping, and turning of their constituent atoms
(cf.*i5
b33 i6a 2). One and the same composite body possesses
diverse qualities, because e.g. its atoms are concentrated in
different degrees, or disposed differently, in different parts of it :
i. e. because it is' denser
'
or'
rarer' in different parts of its stuff.
168 COMMENTARY
Similarly differences of 'density', and change in degree of
'
density ',will serve to explain why the qualities of one compo-
site body are different from those of another, and how composite
bodies can change their qualities. But such an explanation is
clearly worthless, when the supposed owner of the many qualities
is an Indivisible.
TOVTO (a21), sc. the impossible consequence the violation of
the Law of Contradiction which was shown to follow from the
supposition that e. g. a hot Indivisible possessed some other
quality besides its heat (cf.a18-20).
26a 24-29. en . . . jxiKpois ;
*It is a further paradox that there
should be small Indivisibles, but not large ones. For it is natural
enough, from the ordinary point of view' (vvv,a25), 'that the
larger bodies should be more liable to fracture than the small
ones, since the large bodies are easily broken up because they
collide with many other bodies. But why should Indivisibility
as such' (oAws,a28, i. q. ob-Aws : cf. 2ob 30) 'be the property of
small, rather than of large, bodies ?'
The atoms of Leukippos and Demokritos are indivisible,
because they are '
absolutely full ',i. e. without interspaces.
They are physically, not mathematically, indivisible (cf. Burnet,
174). Hence 'theoretically there is no reason why an atom
should not be as large as a world'
(Burnet, Greek Philosophy,
79), as Demokritos appears to have said : see Aetios, quoted by
Diels, p. 361 1. 9. (The statement of Dionysios, quoted by Diels,
p. 360 1. 35, that 'Demokritos postulated very large atoms' is
probably a misunderstanding of the remark correctly reported by
Aetios.) But, in fact, the Indivisibles were all minute their
minuteness being probably postulated by the Atomists in order
to account for their invisibility (cf. 25** 30).
26a 29-30. fua . . . orcpeui/, as the Atomists in fact main-
tained : cf. the passages quoted above,* 26a
17.
26a30-31. TI
. . . oyKov ;The alternative here suggested is that
the Indivisibles form qualitatively-distinct groups, e. g. a groupof fiery (i.
e. spherical and therefore hot), and a group of earthy,
Indivisibles. Cf. the expression TO crwpevo/xei/ov /xeyetfos applied
above (25b22) to each of Empedokles' 'elements'.
26a34. ouSey . . . Trporepou, i. e. if the substance of the Indivisibles
is really uniform, the running together of drops of water is
precisely parallel to the coming into contact of two or moreIndivisibles.
A. 8. 326a24 326
b 10 169
26a35 - b
I. Kal SfjXoc . . . ox^M-ara.*
It is clear, too, that these '-
i. e. these qualitatively-distinct sets of atoms *
ought to be postu-
lated as "original reals ", i. e. causes from which the phenomena
result, rather than the "figures 'V For crx^ara, cf.
* 26a 3-6.
26b 2. K&k . . . -iraaxoi- According to 2 5a32-34, this is
precisely what Leukippos maintained. But Aristotle has shown
(25b36 26a 3) that it follows from the conception of the
Indivisible (as that which is without Void), combined with the
Atomists' theory that'
irdcrxw is impossible except through the
Void',
that every Indivisible must be cnra^e's and /XT^CI/O?
TTOLTfJTLKOV
26 b a-6. en . . . oiWxei. The Atomists maintain that there is
an infinite multiplicity of indivisible solids moving in the Void.
But this movement is inexplicable. For what sets them moving ?
(i) If that which moves them is other than themselves, they are'
TraOrjTLKa: but(ii).
if each Indivisible sets itself moving, either
(a) it is in fact divisible (into that which moves and that which is
moved), or (b) it will unite in itself, and in the same respect^
action and passion (moving and being moved), i.e. contraries.
Hence the ' matter'
of contrary properties the VTTOK^L^VOV in
which contraries inhere will be identical-in-potentiality, as well as
numerically-identical. But that is impossible : for if the v\rj be
identical-in-potentiality, the realization of its potentiality must be' one '
i. e. the properties, in which the potentiality becomes
actual, cannot be contraries, but must be identical.
For the general doctrine implied in b 6(-9 vXy . . . SiW//,ei) i. e.
that the vX-rj is one *
numerically ', but not one *in potentiality
'-
cf. Phys. i9ob24, i92
a i ff.
26b 6-28. oo-oi .-. . xwpilevQai : criticism of the theory which
explained action-passion by pores, cf.*24^ 27-32.
26b 7. Sid . . . Kinrjo-cws,'
by means of the movement facilitated
by the pores '. The construction of the genitive (rwv Trepan/)
is harsh : but the meaning is clear, and there is no need to alter
the text.
26b 8-10. el . . . Tpoiroi/. If the pores be not vacua, but full
of some other body, the postulate of pores is superfluous. For
if the agent can penetrate (and therefore act upon) a body under
these conditions, it would be able to penetrate it equally well,
if it were 'just its own continuous self, i.e. of one texture
throughout. The conception of a porous body, whose pores are
full of another body, is the same in principle as the theory
i7o COMMENTARY
eTvcu TO Trav dAA' aTTTco-Oai &iypr)fjivov : i. e. Aristotle is here criti-
cizing Empedokles, cf.*25
a6-i3.
26b IO-I2. en . . . XeYouaif; Cf.*
24*' 27-32.
26- 12-13. oure . . . Sia^aiwi'. The subject of SucVat, as Philo-
ponos rightly explains, is the visual ray or rays (the ctyeis) : and
the a<f>ai are the points of juncture of the two bodies, i. e. the'
transparent'
body itself and the body filling its pores.
26 b15-16. dXXa . . . irdXi^ Since, according to Empedokles,
the pores are always full of some other body, Aristotle has main-
tained that the porous body is solid throughout and as impene-trable as if it were non-porous. The whole body pores and all
is 6/Aoiws irXfjpcs (b14). This criticism will still hold, even if it be
objected that the pores though they must contain a body, and
thus are always full are themselves, qua pores, empty channels.
For even if we thus distinguish in thought between the pores and
the body which fills them (even if, in this sense, the body is not
as a whole 6jj.oiws TrA-J/pes), still the body will be impenetrable,
since its pores will always in fact be full.
26b 16-18. el ... o-mrjXiKoi'oui'. Empedokles denied that any
part of the Universe was empty (cf.*25
a6-13) : and the advocates
of pores are here supposed to accept in principle the denial of
a * void ', but to plead that the pores are infact empty owing to their
infinitesimal size.
26b 18. jxe'ya . . . oTrrjXticoi'oui', i. e. it is absurd to admit an in-
finitesimal ' void',and to deny that there is a big
' void ', of what-
ever size (viz. however small} the 't>ig'
may be.'
Big'
is a relative
term, and may include a * void'
in any degree bigger than the
infinitesimal.
26b 18-20. T]. . . KM>C. The term /ccvoV means xwP, trw/xaros :
i. e. when men dispute whether a *
kvoid
'
exists, they are^disputingwhether there is a place capable of receiving a body, but deprived
of it (cf.* 2oa 34- b
2). If that is the^ only possible meaningof the term, it is clearly absurd to suggest that the pores are /ccva
if, and because, they are too small to admit a body.
26b 21-24. oXs . . . ir<f>uicoTa>i>. Action-Passion cannot be ex-
plained by pores : for even if there are pores, they can only serve
to bring the agent into contact with the internal parts of the
patient. If contact on the surface is not adequate to produce
action-passion, neither will it be produced by contact internally :
whilst if internal contact produces action-passion, why should not
contact at the surface produce it ?
A. 8. 326b io--9. 326
b3o 171
In b24 roil/ . . . Tr<f>VKOTtt)V means rwr 7T/30S a\\r)\a TroietV /cat
TTOLcrxew TTC^VKOTOOV : cf. Philoponos, whose whole note on this
passage is excellent.
26b 25. OUTWS. Aristotle does not deny that there are' channels
'
in bodies e. g. the Tropot in the animals, such as the mouth, the
bowels, the veins, &c. but he does deny that bodies are per-
forated by infinitesimal and invisible channels, as the advocates of
pores maintained.
26b 26-28. 8iaipTwi> . . . xupij^aOai. The sense in which every
jue'yeflos (and therefore also every o-w/xa) is through and throughdivisible was discussed at length above, i6a 14 17* 17.
Aristotle's point here is that it is not necessary, in order to
account for action-passion, to suppose that bodies are perforated
with pre-existing infinitesimal channels. The agent can makea channel for itself in the patient, since the patient is iravrri Suuperov :
and, being SicuperoV, it can be actually divided so that its parts fall
asunder i. e. so that a channel is opened in it(b 28
A. 9
26b 2g 27a2g. Tii>a . . . Tpoiiw. In this chapter Aristotle
briefly indicates his own theory of the mechanism of Troieu/-
Trcurxeiv, emphasizing its superiority both to the theory of '
pores'
and to the theory of * Indivisibles and Vacua '. Incidentally (2 7a9-
14) he criticizes the theory that a body is*
discretes-in-contact',
and that action-passion takes place at the contacts.
26b 29-30. Tim . . . irdoxeu'. The phraseology, both here and
in the epilogue (27*25-29), reminds us of the original formula-
tion of the problem (cf.22b 6-i3) and of the connexion of
the discussion of Troietv-Trao-xeu/ with the plan of the whole work :
Cf.* 22 b 1-26.
rots ovo-t is wide enough to include all possible subjects of
Troieu/ Trcurxetv, i. e. TO. arroL^CLa as well as TO, e/c- TO>F
On the other hand, ra 6vra could not strictly be said
hence the active aspect ofyeVm (yevi/av) alone is mentioned here,
whereas in the epilogue (27*26) the passive aspect (ytyveo-0ai) is
mentioned too.
26^30. dpxV . . . elpiqjj.eVrn'.The principle in question is,
as appears from the next sentence, that if any property y is
predicated of any subject xy
oc mayl
be-y' either potentially or
actually.
172 COMMENTARY
26b 3i. ToiouToy : 'such-and-such', i.e. qualified by any quality,
whatever the quality in question may be.
TTt^VKCV, SC. TO Swct^U-Ct TOiOVTOV.
a6b33. TJTTOC 8e Kal jjiaXXoi'. T has '
magis autem et minus',
which is more logical. But the reversed order is. characteristic.
26b34 27
a i. KCH rauTT) . . . owexeis. According to Aristotle's
theory, the cold body, e. g., qua potentially-hot, is liable to'
suffer
action'
from a hot body i. e. liable to be warmed. This sus-
ceptibility pervades the cold body throughout (because it is
a consequence of its character qua potentially-hot) and is not
restricted to parts of it or to channels within it. But though the
cold body is potentially-hot throughout, its potential heat mayvary in degree in different parts of it. There may be, as it were,
lines or ' veins'
of intense potential heat (and therefore of intenser
susceptibility) in it, just as there are ' veins'
in the metals, along
which they are specially susceptible to action. If we are to talk
of '
pores'
at all, we should use the term to denote such lines of
greater intensity and greater susceptibility : we must not suggest
that the body is susceptible only along certain lines, and quite
insusceptible in the rest of itself. Cf,, for the general doctrine,* 2ia 5-9.
The reading of EFJ in b 34 (/mXXoj/ v\ KaOd-n-ep) is due to a
misunderstanding of the illustration. The 'veins' in the metal
are not '
pores'
in the sense repudiated by Aristotle. Their sub-
stance is the same as that of the rest of the metal : it is only a
difference of degree.
27a 1-6. aupf>us . . . ndffx61 *'- Passion implies (i)
two distinct
bodies : the patient must not be grown together with the agent,
so as to form with it a single naturally-coherent body : (ii) con-
tact, either immediate or mediated, between patient and agent.
If the contact is mediate, the medium must itself be a body
by nature such as to suffer action (from the agent) and to act
(upon the patient).
27a 6. TO ...
jjuq.Aristotle's own view (cf.
* 26b 34 27ai) is
that a body, if TraO^riKov at all, is TraOrjriKov as a whole, through
and through. This follows necessarily from his explanation of
'susceptibility' as due to the body's possessing a property
potentially. Hence any explanation of wa<rxv, which implies that
the patient is susceptible only in parts of itself, must be rejected
as erroneous. Now all the attempts to explain Wo-xeiv, which
Aristotle has been criticizing, do in fact imply the view rrj p\v
A. 9. 326b 31 3273-14 173
rfj &ffji-ij
: for they ascribe the patient's susceptibility to
peculiarities within its structure, i.e. to feature's belonging to parts
of it, and not to a property characterizing it as a whole.
Thus(i)
the Atomists explained Trao-^etv by the vacua inter-
spacing the Indivisibles :
(ii) Empedokles explained it by the*
porosity'
of the patient, i.e. by the hypothesis that the apparently
continuous body was really'
discretes-in-contact',or was traversed
by 'veins' filled with a different material (cf.*25*6-13) : and
(iii) Plato viewed the body as'
planes-in-contact ',and explained
tfoxr^w by penetration and division at the contacts (cf. 25b24-
33).
27a 6_7. SiopiaayTas . . . XCKT^OJ'. As the text stands, we must
suppose that the reference (eV apxo) is to 24b 26 ff., where Aristotle
distinguished various forms of the supposition of 'partial sus-
ceptibility'. The whole sentence (2 7a6-7) would mean: 'We
distinguished above the various theories of partial susceptibility,
and have now to make the following remarks '.
On the whole, however, it seems more probable from the next
sentence (27* 7-14) that eV apxy refers to the elaborate discussion
(i6a14 17* 17) of the sense in which every magnitude is divisible
through and through. I have accordingly ventured to mark a
lacuna before StoptVavras, and to interpret the passage as follows :
'The supposition of partial susceptibility (is possible only for
those who hold an erroneous view concerning the divisibility of
magnitudes. For us) the following account results from the
distinctions established at the beginning of our treatise '.
27* 7-14. i ... d&uKdToi'. The results established in Chapter 2
may be summarized as follows, (i) Every magnitude is divisible.
There are no Indivisibles, (ii) No magnitude is Travrrj SiaiperoV,
i.e. no magnitude is such that 'through and through' division of it
could ever actually have taken place : but(iii) every magnitude is
Travrff SICU/OCTOV, i.e. it is always possible, given a 'magnitude,to divide it anywhere, though not everywhere at once. Cf.
* i6a 19,*17*2-17.Aristotle here presupposes and refers to these results, but his
reference is brief and obscure. He makes no mention of (iii),
though it expresses the truth as to the divisibility of magnitudes,
presumably because this thesis would lend no support to the
supposition of '
partial susceptibility '.
He argues : (a) If there is a limit to the divisibility of the
magnitude, i. e. if there are indivisible solids (as the Atomists
174 COMMENTARY
maintained) or indivisible planes (as Plato thought), then no
composite body will be susceptible through and through : for the
Indivisibles are a-raOy (cf. 25^6 26a 3). But then no body or
magnitude will be continuous : for irav <ruve;(s SicupeTov ets del
Siaipera (Phys. 231^ 1 6).
(b) But if as is in truth the case the hypothesis of Indivisibles
is false, and every body is divisible, there is no ground for sup-
posing that a patient is susceptible only in parts of itself. For,
when once we have recognized that there are no Indivisibles, it is
clear that the opponents' description of a composite body as cdis-
cretes-in-contact' means neither more nor less than that the body
is divisible through and through.
There is no difficulty in the first part (27* 7-9) of this argument :
but the second part (a9-14) is most obscure. Aristotle's opponents
regarded a body as discretes-in-contact, and explained -n-da-^iv bythe theory that a body so constituted ' could be separated (i.
e. bythe agent) at the contacts' (
a11-12). Now Aristotle urges
since there are no Indivisibles, nothing is gained by describing
the body as *
discretes-in-contact'
: all that the opponents can really
mean is that the body is'divisible
'
(i.e. divisible through and
through). And if it is'divisible
'
(or if, as they express it,'
it can
be separated at the contacts'),
then even though it has not yet
in fact been divided it will 'be Sn/p^eW ',i.e. it will 'be in a
state of dividedness' so far as is required for Wo^ti/ as they
conceive it.
In 27a ii y SiaipcTov eu/cu must be interpreted as equivalent to
?} Trdvrr) Siatperov eTvat. For, since there are no Indivisibles, the
parts, which are in contact, will themselves contain smaller parts
in contact and so on ad infinitum.
We must, I think, supply for the whole argument the suppressed
corollary that, qua Trdvrrj SiatpcToV, the body will be iravrg Tra^riKoV,
since its susceptibility is supposed to be due to its divisibility
(cf. 27*14-15).
27a 8. -nrXdros. We should rather have expected ^TTLTT^OV (cf.
e.g. 25b26, 29* 22). The reference is no doubt to Plato.
27a 12. waTrcp <f>acn Tiyes, e.g. Plato, cf. 25
b32.
27a13-14. SumTOf . . . dSuVaroi/ :
*for since it can be divided
nothing inconceivable results if this potentiality be supposedrealized.'
The argument in a 11-14 depends upon Aristotle's conceptionof TO Swarov, for which see * i6a 19.
A. 9. 32;a 8 - - 10. 328b 22 175
27a14-25. oXo>s . . . fXTaJ3dXXorros. All the explanations of
Troifiv Travail', which Aristotle has been criticizing, imply that
the patient is susceptible only in parts of itself: and this, as wehave just seen, presupposes erroneous views as to the
*
divisibility'
of magnitudes. But, in addition to this special difficulty, the
theories in question are open to a general criticism (a14 oAws St
/crA.) : for they assume that A can only act on B by'
splitting'
it,
i. e. by dividing its particles from one another. This narrow con-
ception of 7roieu/-7rao-;(e/ is absurd, for it makes it impossible
for them to recognize either Alteration or Growth and Diminu-
tion.
27a14. yipeaOai, SC. TO Trao-^cii/.
27a17. uypbv . . . Treirrjyos. For this antithesis, cf.
*3o
a 12-24.
27a i8. ou8e . . . Sia0iyfj: cf.
*I5
b33 i6a 2.
27a19-21. cure ycip . . . oyKous. Since the indivisible solids are
invisible owing to their minuteness (cf. 25** 30), it is difficult to see
what right Aristotle has to make these assertions. His appeal to
perception (a 16 6/aw/xev) is irrelevant.
27* 21. CTKXtjpd. For the meaning of cr/<Ar/poi/, cf.*30"- 8-12.
27a23-25. ou . . . jxeTapdXXorros.
' For if there is to be apposi-
tion (instead of the growing thing having changed as a whole,
either by the admixture of something or by its own transformation),
increase of size will not have resulted in any and every part.'
Cf.* 2ob 34 2i a
29.
In 27a25 the genitive (/xeraySaAAovTos) is at first sight perplex-
ing. We should perhaps have expected )K.O.& avrb
rj /ux&VrosTU/OS : but since the order of the alternatives is reversed, it becomes
desirable to add a participle to *ca0' auro, and the added participle
is naturally assimilated in case to
A. 10
27a 30 28b 22. XOITTOI/ . . . Ikwais. By the account of /uts
(or' chemical combination
')in the present chapter, Aristotle
completes the programme which he had sketched for himself at
the beginning of Chapter 6 : cf.* 22 b 1-26.
First, he explains the precise significance of /uts, distinguishing
it carefully from yeVeo-is KCU cfrOopd, avfyo-is, dAAotWts, and mere
trvvOtarLs ('mechanical mixture'). If there is to be futs in the
proper sense of the term, two or more distinct and separate bodies
must come together so as to form a single resultant in which they
are merged. The properties of the resultant must be different
1 76 COMMENTARY
from those of the constituents : and it must be uniform in its pro-
perties throughout (not merely appear uniform to perception) so
that every part of it, however small, possesses the same properties
as the whole. Nevertheless it must be possible to recover the
original constituent bodies from it by a process of '
separation'
or
' chemical analysis'
(27* 30 28* 17).
Next, Aristotle explains the conditions under which //,iis can
occur. Such a process is possible (a) because there are bodies
which are naturally active and reactive, passive and re-passive,
in relation to one another, and (b) because everything can be what
it is either potentially or actually. This distinction between the
potential and actual grades of a thing's being accounts for the
temporary submergence of the properties of the constituents, and
again for their re-emergence under chemical analysis of the
compound (28* 18-31).
Finally (having stated certain conditions which are specially
favourable for the occurrence of the process, and having briefly
considered certain exceptional instances of /uis and explained
them in terms of his general theory), Aristotle summarizes the
results of the whole discussion in the form of a *
scientific'
defini-
tion of ' the combinable' and * combination
'
(28a31
- b22).
The doctrine of the present chapter is briefly restated (and
slightly supplemented) below : cf.*34^ 8-30. The reader who
is interested in Aristotle's conception of fu&s should consult
Alexander's Trepi K/OCUTCWS KCU a^ijo-cws : Zabarella's De Mistione,
De Misti Generatione et Intertill, De Qualitatibut Elementaribus :
and Zabarella's commentary on the present chapter, and on
Meteorologica, A. i. By utilizing these materials, I endeavoured
some years ago to give a short and accessible account of
Aristotle's theory in fatJournal ofPhilology^No. 57.
27*30-31. Kara . . . jj,e068ou. Aristotle's treatment of /u't?
follows the same general lines as his discussion ofa<f>rj (Chapter 6)
and of TToteti/ rraa-xeiv (Chapters 7-9).
27a 31-32. T&V. . , dpxrjs. The reference is to 22b 1-26, which is the
dpxrj of the present investigation. Chapters 6-10, with the addition
perhaps of B. 1-8, appear to constitute one of the minor treatises
of which the Trepi yeveVews K<U </>0opas is composed. On the relation
of such subordinate constituent Xoyot or //,e'0o8oito an Aristotelian
*
work', cf. Jaeger, pp. 148 ff.
27*32-34. o-KciTTeW . . . \J/u8os. From the point of view of
Aristotle's general logical theory, /MIS falls under the head of
A. 10. 327a3o
b 6 177
Attribute (TTCI^OS). It is an '
adjectival ',whose ' existence
'
is its
inherence in something other than itself as the subject of which
it is predicable or the substance of which it is a property. Its
esse is inesse, its cTi/at is virapxew. Hence the complete explanation
of JLUIS must be such as to furnish the materials from which its
'scientific definition
' can be elicited. Its'scientific definition
'
must specify (a) the substance or substances in which, (b) owingto a determinate proximate cause, (c) that determinate process,
which the term /u'i$ properly means, must occur (cf. Introd.
7~9>*
I 4a2~3, *2ob 34 2i a 29, *2i b 16-17). Accordingly
we shall find Aristotle claiming in the epilogue (28b14-22) that
he has shown (i) ore eo-ri /AIIS, i. e. that it occurs in, or is
predicable of, certain determinate substances, (ii) rt m, i.e. what
the term properly means, and(iii)
Sta ', i. e. to what precise cause
its occurrence is due. And we shall find him concentrating the
results of his discussion in a *
scientific definition'
(cf.* 28^ 22).
In 27* 32-34 Aristotle enumerates five questions for discussion.
The enumeration is tentative and preliminary : and we need not
attach too much importance either to the precise significance of
the different questions or to the order of their enumeration. Thewhole matter is exhaustively discussed by Zabarella, whose inter-
pretation I accept with one slight modification. We are to ask :
What is the meaning (i) of combination, and (2) of the com-
binable (TL la-nv, i. q. ri (hpuuWt) ? (3) Of what existent things is
combination the attribute (i.e. what is its primary and adequate
subject) ? (4) What are the conditions under which combination
is predicable of these things (irws virdpx^ sc. quomodo fit a
question including the inquiry as to the proximate cause of the
occurrence of fuis) ? (5) Does combination exist in fact, i. e. is
there a distinctive subject of which combination is the distinctive
and commensurate attribute ?
27a 33 - b 6. ert . . . orra. Aristotle appears to begin with the
question enumerated last : but in fact (as he points out, 27^-9)his discussion concerns the meaning of the terms /uis and TO
/uKToV. The doubt as to the existence of combination arises, as
he shows, only from misinterpretation of the term. Hence he is
really opening the discussion of questions (i) and (2).
According to Aristotle's own theory, as we shall see (cf. below,
B. 8), all combination in the sublunary region involves all
four'
simple bodies ',and results in one or other of the 6/Aoio/xep^ :
i. e. the resultant of /u'is is always a quaternary compound, and
2254 N
178 COMMENTARY
the combining constituents are always Earth, Air, Fire, and Water
(cf.*14*19, *2i b
19-22). At present, however, Aristotle is
considering the subject quite generally and assumes that every
piyQiv implies (at least) two /u/cra or/uyi/u'/x-eva.
Now certain thinkers argued that /u'ts is impossible. For we
must suppose either (a) that both constituents are preserved in
the compound, or (b) that both are destroyed, or (c) that one is
destroyed, whilst the other is preserved. But the characteristic
conditions of /is cannot be satisfied under any of these sup-
positions, although no other alternative seems possible, (a) If both
constituents survive unaltered, there is no /AI'IS : for //,tts implies
that the constituents have merged in a new resultant (cf.*2y
a30
28b 22). (b) If both are destroyed, 'they' are not at all and
a fortiori are not combined : whilst (c) if one is destroyed and
the other is preserved, the two do not contribute to constitute
a joint resultant. They have not ' combined',but one is and the
other is not.
27b 2. OJAOUOS CXCIP, i. e. the constituents in the supposed
'compound' are in the same condition as they were before the
supposed' combination ' took place. But in b
4 6/Weos e^oi/i-cov
refers to the condition of the constituents relatively to one another :
i. e.' combination demands uniformity of condition in the con-
stituents ', for both must contribute to the being of the resultant.
27b 6-io. OUTOS . . . XUOII/T' av. The preceding argumentrests on a misconception of the exact meaning of /ui and TO
IMKTOV, and a consequent confusion of these terms with yeVeo-is-
<f>0opa and TO ytwrfrbv KOI <j>6apr6v. The difficulties it raises
against the occurrence of /u'is will all disappear when this
confusion has been cleared up. Accordingly Aristotle proceedsto discuss the precise significance of the term jugi?, and begins
(2 7b 10-2 2) by eliminating certain processes which are liable to
be confused with combination.
27b10-13. dXXd . . . 4>0eip6<r6<u. When fire bums wood, there
is </>0opa of the wood and yeVeo-is of the fire. There is no /u'ts
either(i)
of fire and wood, or(ii)
of the pieces of the woodwith one another. This instance illustrates the second and third
alternatives (cf.*27* 33
- b6) : constituents, of which both or one
are destroyed, cannot be said to' be combined '. At the same
time, it prepares the way for the exclusion of av^o-is as not ju'&s
proper : for the *
consumption'
of food by the avfynKov was
compared to the '
consumption'
of inflamma'ble material by fire,
A. 10. 32;b2-3i 179
and Aristotle had suggested that the food was ' mixed '
with the
growing tissue (cf. 22 a 8-16).27 b I3~I7- T^K . . . opdrai. Combination is distinguished from
(i) Growth and(ii) Alteration. Growth is an illustration of the
third alternative (the destruction of one constituent), and Altera-
tion illustrates the first alternative, viz. the preservation of both
constituents : cf.*2j
&33
- b 6.
(i) It was only by a loose use of the term that Aristotle spoke
(22a9) of the food being 'mixed' with the growing tissue. For
the tissue qua animated with the indwelling OLV^TLKOV 'con-
sumes '
the food and converts it into its own substance : it does
not co-operate with the food to produce a new resultant different
in character from both.
(ii)No change of quality on the part of a body is 'combina-
tion'
: for both '
constituents'
viz. the body and the qualitycoexist unaltered in the result. Thus, e.g.. 'the shaped lumpof wax ',
' the whitened body ',
' the learned man', are resultants
of dAAoiWts and not of /xits : for the substance which is qualified,
and the quality (o^/m, irdOos, or e&s) which qualifies it, manifestlyboth survive.
27^17-22. dXXa . . . \upKTTov. If the same substance 'com-
bines'
in itself two qualities (if e. g. a man is both CTTIO-T^WI/ and
AevKos), this coincidence of TrdOrj (or of eis and TrdOos) is not' combination
'
of them : for only self-subsistents (only bodies, not
their attributes) can ' combine '. Combination implies com-
binables which exist per se before the combination : but no W^oscan exist per se. Every W^os is an '
adjectival ',its esse is inesse :
cf.* 2ob 17-25.
Incidentally Aristotle criticizes those philosophers who postu-
lated a primordial'
togetherness'
of all things and described this
as afjuyjjia
: for'
all things' would include TrdOrj, and these cannot
' combine '. Philoponos supposes the plural (01 . . . <f>do-KovT<s) to
mean ot Trepl 'Avaayo/oav : but Aristotle is perhaps thinking of the'
Sphere' of Empedokles, as well as of Anaxagoras (cf.*34
a 26-b
2, Phys. 1 8 7a 2 0-2 3).
27^ 22-31. eirel . . . CXUTWI/. The argument (professing to show
that IJLL&S does not in fact occur) assumed that only three
alternatives are possible and urged that, whichever of these
three we accept, the process is not /uis (cf.*27
a 33~ b6). In
other words, the conception of /xi|is is self-contradictory : for it
demands both that the constituents shall be merged (i.e. destroyed)
N 2
i8o COMMENTARY
in the resultant, and that they shall survive (i.e. not be merged),
since they are to be recoverable by analysis. Aristotle here
points out that there is a fourth possibility, which this argument
has neglected. The argument assumes that a thing must either
be or not-be x : but in fact we must recognize a distinction in the
grade of a thing's being (cf.*26b
3o). For a thing, which is x,
may be-potentially x or may be-actually x ;and a thing, which is-
not x actually, may nevertheless be-potentially x. If this distinction
be applied, the conception of jufe ceases to be self-contradictory :
i. e. the different characteristics of ' combination '
(or of the
'
compound ')are compatible with one another. Each of the
constituents has, to begin with, its own distinctive character :
they are, e. g., respectively actually-.* and actually-jy. In the
process they merge in a resultant with a new character z. Yet
they have not been destroyed, but have simply sunk to a lower
grade ofbeing ;i. e. they have become potentially-x and potentially-
y. The character of the compound is neither x norjy, nor x+y;but an intermediate something, z, which participates in the
characters of both constituents or results from the co-operation
of both in a tempered and moderated form. And, under suitable
conditions, the compound can be dissolved so that the con-
stituents will re-emerge in their original state as actually-x and
actually-y.
There are two difficulties in this passage, (i) The first is
a question of fact. To what phenomena is Aristotle referring
when he speaks of ra /xiyvv/^eva as Swa/xcva xeopi^co-00.1 TraAir ? It
seems certain from the sequel that he is thinking of the analysis
of a genuine chemical compound : and therefore Philoponos is
beside the mark, when he refers to the recovery of wine (froma mechanical mixture of wine and water) by filtering (cf. p. 191,
<f>aai yovv Sia ran/ KaXor/xevcov ev rrj crvvrjOtia O-TPCLTIWT&V irora/xov
SirjOovfjievov rov KKpafj.fvov otvov SiaKptvew rov vSaros rov otvov).
Yet what facts of chemical analysis were known to Aristotle ?
Or is he relying upon some of the phenomena of putrefaction ?
(ii)The second difficulty is one of interpretation. In what
precise sense are the constituents preserved potentially in the
compound? What is meant by the statement(b25-26) that 'each
of them may still be-potentially what it was before they were
combined', and again by the phrase (
b30-31) o-w^erai yap -fj Swa/us
?
Readers of Aristotle are familiar with two senses in which
A. 10. 327b 22 328
a i8 181
a. thing is said to 'be-potentially x\ Thus (i) a student of
geometry is Swa/xet ytw/xeVp^s when he is acquiring, but has not
yet mastered, the ets of geometrical demonstration : and (ii) the
geometer is Swa/xei yeco/xeVpr/swhen he is not actually solving
a geometrical problem. In sense (i), the Swa/xis is contrasted
with the ets into which it may develop : in sense(ii),
the e&s
is contrasted with the cvepycta (the &a>p<a) in which it is
actualized (cf. e.g. de Anima 417*22 ff., and often). But as
Philoponos and Zabarella rightly observe the constituents are
not preserved 8iW//,t in the compound in either of these senses.
Not in the first sense : for, ex hypothesi, before they combine,
they are already actually-.* and actually-jy, whereas the student is
not actually a geometer, but only on the road to become one.
Nor in the second sense : for, ex hypothesi, the constituents have
lost their distinctive natures in the compound and have co-
operated to produce a resultant with fresh properties of its own.
But the geometer does not lose his cis when he is not 0ew/otoi/.
Philoponos (p. 188) compares the state of the constituents in
the compound to that of the geometer who is trying to solve
a problem when drunk- evcpyei //.ev Kara rrjv eti/, ou/c eiAiKpivais
Se. The constituents, he thinks, retain their distinctive'
powersof action
'
in a diminished and tempered degree
yap 17avrwv etXi/cpiv^s evepyeia, /cat OVK eoriv ota/Trep -rjv
This interpretation is endorsed by Zabarella (the constituents are
'non penitus corrupta, sed solum refracta et labefactata') and
it is confirmed and further explained below, 28a 28-31 (cf.*28*29)
and 34b8-3o. Cf. also Journal of Philology, No. 57, pp. 81-6 :
and below, 33a 28 and 32.
27^ 26. KCU OUK diroXwXoTa, SC. ei/Se^erai TO. /ux$e'i/Ta eTj/at.
Ought we perhaps to read ttTroXwXorwv ?
27b3i 28a i8. 810 . . . -naXiv. The first problem with its
difficulties has now been solved. The meaning of /xtis has been
explained, and the explanation has dispelled all doubts as to its
occurrence. The constituents survive in the compound, for theii
'
merging'
is simply a lowering of their grade of being : and they
can 're-emerge', for they can recover their original fullness or
actuality of being. It is not a passage from being to nonentity,
and a return from nothing to something. It is merely a changefrom more to less, and from less to more, a lowering and
a heightening of the degree of being.
We proceed therefore to the discussion of the problem im-
182 COMMENTARY
mediately connected with these difficulties as to the mode of
survival of the constituents (b3 1 TO . . a-we^es TOVTOIS aTroprjfjia).
This is formulated in a way which assumes that /u'is (combination)is only a special case of <rw0eo-is (mechanical mixing).
'
Is com-
bination', Aristotle asks (
b32-33),
*
something relative to percep-
tion',
i. e. is it distinguished from orVfoo-ts merely by the limitations
of our vision ? The question is developed by bringing out the
alternatives which it implies (b32 Statpereov, cf.
*i4a 2-3),
thus :
(i) Is there /xiis when the constituents have been divided
into parts no longer distinguishable by our vision and when every
such part of one constituent is juxtaposed to a corresponding part
of the other constituent ? Or (ii) does /u'ts require division of the
constituents into ultimate least parts, and must every minimal part
of one constituent be juxtaposed to a minimal part of the other ?
Both these alternatives are then rejected by Aristotle (28a5-17),
and the complete otherness of /xiis and <rw#ecris is emphasized.He is consequently obliged to discuss 'once more' (28
a 18 TraXtv)
TTO>S evSe^erai yiyi/eo-0ai f) ///is. In other words the problemraised at 2 7
b32-33 is really the question TTW? vTrdpx^ (or TTWS
evSe'^erai yi'yj/ecr0ai) 17 /uis : and the solution (28* 1 8ff.)
involves
the determination of the precise character of the combinables,
i. e. (inter alia) the exhibition of those features in the combiningbodies which are the proximate cause of their combination (cf.
*27 a32-34)-
27b 33 28a
i7. o-rav . . . 8iaip0T)mi. This passage is un-
fortunately obscure, partly owing to difficulties of reading and
partly owing to its compression. Aristotle's treatment of a similar
problem (the fugis of colours) in the de Sensu (439*' 19 44ob23) is,
if anything, more obscure than the present passage (to which he
refers at 44ob 3, 13), and it throws very little light on the discussion
here.
The two views of /u'is (see preceding note\ which Aristotle here
puts forward for criticism, agree in recognizing no difference of
principle between /u'is and <rvv0e<ns. According to both of them,
/u is a mechanical mixing or a shuffle, and not an interpenetra-
tion or a fusion, of the constituents. According to both, therefore,
/u'is is Trpos Tt\v cuo-Orjo-iv TL (27b
33), though Aristotle speaks as
if this were true only of the first view; for, according to both, the
resultant is not really, but only appears to be, a homogeneous
compound. An ideally acute vision would discern the different
constituents in the whole, and would see that they are juxtaposed,
A. jo. 327b33 328*2 183
not fused. The difference between the two views is one of
degree. According to the first, the constituents have been divided
into units, which our vision does not discriminate, but which are
not supposed to be ultimate atomic parts. Thus we should speakof a /xiis of wheat and barley, if each grain of wheat were juxta-
posed to a grain of barley (28* 2-3). But, according to the second,
the constituents have been divided into ultimate parts i. e. into
atoms; and each atom of one constituent has been juxtaposed to
an atom of the other. Aristotle urges against both views that the
resultant is not o/xoio/^epe's, i. e. that the constituents are not
merged in a new product, but simply shuffled to form an aggregate.
And he urges against the second view that it assumes (what he Jias
proved to be untenable) that a body can be divided into atomic
parts.
His main contention is that /xits proper is in principle distinct
from arvvOea-is. For TO ^L^O^v must be 6/xoio/^epe's, whereas TO
a-vvOfTov differs in quality in different parts of itself, since its
components are not fused, but merely aggregated. The reader
will observe that /u'&s, as Aristotle conceives it, demands a more
thorough union of the constituents than that assigned to the
constituents of a chemical compound by modern chemical theory.
In so far at least as modern chemistry regards a compound as
a mere re-arrangement or shuffle of the atoms of the combining
constituents, Aristotle would accuse it of confusing /uis with
o-wtfeo-is. Any such theory falls under the second of the two views
which Aristotle here attacks.
27b 33~35- v - alaOrjaei. OVTCDS (b33) and TOVTOV TOV
TpoTrov (b34) are both antecedents of oWe (
b35). The parts must
be smaller than the minima visibilia, and they must be so juxta-
posed as to be individually indiscernible.
28a 1-2.r\
. . . juxfleVTwi/; 'Or ought we to say "No: but
they have been combined when the result is such that any and
every part of one constituent is juxtaposed to a part of the
other"?'
I have ventured to read dXX' (ore) ta-riv wore . . .
For the two views here in question, see *2yb33 28*17.
According to the first> the supposed /ux&V is really a a-vvOcrov in
which small pieces of one constituent alternate with small pieces
of the other : and the small pieces though we cannot discern
them retain the characters of the whole constituents (cf.28a 7
o-a>o'/Aeva). According to the second view, the supposed
184 COMMENTARY
is really a o-vvOerov in which the atoms of one constituent alternate
with the atoms of the other the atoms being indiscernible even
to an ideally-acute vision.
The first view to judge by Aristotle's illustration (28a2~3)
is merely a popular view implied in the common use of the term
/u'is in everyday life. Alexander (n-epl /c/oao-ews /cat av^o-cw?, ed.
Bruns, p. 214) is mistaken in attributing it to Demokritos. Thesecond view, as Philoponos rightly says, is that of Demokritos. If
Alexander (1.c )
is right in attributing a view of this kind to
Epikouros, we must suppose that here as in other respects
Epikouros made no real advance on Demokritos.
28a 2-3. Xeyerai ... redfj. Zabarella insists that we must
suppose the wheat and barley to have been ground to powder, as
otherwise the particles would not be indiscernible to sense : and
Philoponos (p. 192, 1. 2 6) paraphrases wo-Trep ei TIS o-/x,t8aXiv ACTTT^V
*K Trvpuv /u'ei aXcvpu KpiOrjs. But the only natural interpretation
of fjTLo-ovv Trap OVTLVOW is to suppose that the single grains are
shuffled, and this is confirmed by de Sensu 44ob 4-6. In such
a shuffle the single grains would not be '
discernible to vision',
unless they were separated from the mass : and this is all that
Aristotle means.
28a3-5. el ... irap' oTiour * But every body is divisible and
therefore, since body combined with body is uniform in texture
throughout, any and every part of each constituent ought to be
juxtaposed to a part of the other.'
The compound resulting from /uis is uniform in texture, i. e.
each of its minutest parts must exhibit the same character as the
whole. If, then, /xts is a shuffle, it is illogical to stop the
division of the constituents at e. g. the single grains of wheat and
barley. For the compound is divisible ad infinitum (since every
body is divisible) : and yet each of its minutest parts must contain
a part (or parts) of both constituents. The only logical view,
therefore, is the second one : viz. that the compound is a mosaic
of the atoms of its constituents. This, of course (as Aristotle will
point out immediately), is in the end impossible : for, since every
body is divisible, there are no atoms.
For fjiLKTov (a4), i. q. /u;(0cv, cf. e. g. 34^ 31.
28*5-17. tire! . . . SicupeOfji'cu. Aristotle lays down two theses :
(i) Composition is quite other than combination, and(ii)
No bodycan be divided into least, i. e. not further divisible, parts. It
follows (a) that combination is not the juxtaposition of little x's
A. 10. 328a2-31 185
and little jy's, small pieces of the constituents x and y (the first
view must therefore be rejected] ;and (b) that the juxtaposition
of atoms of x and y is impossible (i.e. the second view is un-
tenable].
The whole is one sentence, including a long parenthesis (a8-15
<V0eo-ts . . .//e/xty/xeVov). The ovre of a
15 corresponds to the
oure of a7.
28a 8. Kpdo-is. Strictly speaking, /cpao-is is that species of /xii9
in which the constituents are liquids: cf. Topics 122*25-31;
Journal of Philology, No. 57, p. 73. But Aristotle does not
consistently employ Kpao-ts in this restricted sense : in a12, e. g.,
TOV K/3a0eWos is equivalent to rov /ux^eVro?. Moreover, in the end
only liquids, or things qua liquefied, can combine : cf.* 28* 24.
28a 9-10. ouS' I|i . . . jxopioi'. The character of the compound
depends upon the proportion in which its constituents are com-
bined (*i4ai9): and since the compound is 6/xoto/xepe's,
the
constituents must be present in the same proportion in every part
of it as in the whole.
The amounts of Earth, Air, Fire, and Water must be propor-
tionally identical (e. g.) in a lump of flesh and in the minutest
particle of the lump. But this condition would not be satisfied
if /xits were what the advocates of the first view suppose.28a 14-15. Kal . . . ouOec jmcfuyfA^oi'. Aristotle was going to say
' the same thing will be combined to the short-sighted percipient,
and not combined to the man with acute vision'
: but he substi-
tutes TW AuyKei S' ovOtv /^/xiy/xeW (' to the eye of Lynkeus nothingwill be combined
')for the second clause, thus producing a slight
anacoluthon.
H reads Xvyyel (i. q. AvyKft, the dative of Xvy) : but I can find
no evidence that Aristotle credited the lynx with sharp sight.
28a i8. TraXii/. Cf.*27
b3i 28a i8. Bonitz (Ind. 559^18)
is, I think, mistaken in quoting this passage as an example of the
use of Trd\Lv to mark the next step in the argument (cf.*24
b25).
28a18-31. can . . . K.OIVOV. Aristotle's own account, which
is here given, involves answering the questions : (i)What is the
primary commensurate subject of which /xits is predicable ? (ii)
What is the proximate cause of the occurrence of /AIS ? (cf.
'27032-34).
(i) The things of which /xtis is commensurately predicable
the ' combinables ' must be (a) reciprocally active and re-
ciprocally passive bodies, which (b) are easily-divisible, and (c)
1 86 COMMENTARY
are present in such amounts that their'
powers of action'
are
more or less balanced. If these conditions are satisfied, the com-
binables will produce, reciprocally in one another, (ii) that kind
of dAAotWts which is the proximate cause of the'
unification'
called /xtts. The dAAotWts in question is a reciprocal tempering
of the distinctive qualities of the combinables such that a new
substance emerges, whose qualities are a compromise between the
qualities of the constituents (cf.*
27** 22-31).28a
18-23. "S <j>dfAl' . . . 0-WfAaO-U>. Cf. 6. g. *24a 24~ b22,
*24
a34
- bi,
*24b 13-18. Since larpiKri and vyi'eta do not share
in the vXrj of bodies, they cannot 'act upon' and reciprocally*
suffer action from'
the latter : hence they do not heal the patient
by combining with his body.28a 24. u8iaipTa. Since, as we shall see (28^ 1-2), Taevopio-ra
are most easily divided, and since TO, evo/oio-ra are equivalent to ra
vypd, it follows that TO. vypd are the' most combinable
'
of bodies.
In the end, it is liquids that combine;or at lea^t the presence
of moisture is a conditioMne qua non of combination. The metals,
e. g., have first to be liquefied (molten), in order to combine :
cf. Alexander, Trept /c/odo-ews /cat av7(reco9, p. 230, 11. 34 ff.
28* 24-25. iroXXa . . . owriOe'fieka :
*if a great quantity, or
a large bulk, of one of these is brought together with a little,
or with a small piece, of another . . /
But Aristotle's usage does not consistently support any clear
distinction between the antitheses iro\\>-o\iyov and ptya-piKpov :
cf. my note on de Lin. Insec. 968a4.
28a 26. fACTapdXXci . . . KparoGv. Cf. Alexander, I.e., p. 230,11.5-12.
28a2Q. rats Sui/dfieaii'. Cf. *27
b22~3i, 33
a 28 and 32; Alexander,
I.e., p. 230, 11. 2930 810. TT\V Tan> Swa/xeva)!/ [/. SwajtzetovJ ttror^Ta
K.aff as TTOict /cat 7rd(r^t . . .
28a 29-31. Tore . . . KOIVOV. Each of the constituents, qua
active, is' dominant '
relatively to the other qua passive. Neither
of them is absolutely dominant. Hence each of them is drawn
out of its own nature towards the nature of the other : but neither
of them becomes the other. Each meets the other half-way, and
the resultant is a compromise between them.
28a 31-33. <J>cu'ep6i' . . . Tia0T)TiKd. Cf. Alexander, I.e., p. 229,
11. 8- 1 1. Aristotle is assuming the results of his discussion of
action-passion in A. 7.
28" 34. paov . . . ji0iora<u. Contact is required for action-
passion (cf.*23
a12-22). Hence, since division of the con-
A. 10. 328a 18 b13 187
stituents facilitates their thorough contact, it facilitates their
action-passion and therefore their combination.
28a 35 - b i. 816 . . . JJUKTCI.'
Hence, amongst the divisible
susceptible materials, those whose shape is readily adaptable have
a tendency to combine.'
Siai/acTwv, i. q. evSiai/oeVan/ (soalso below,b4).
28b 2. r\v. Bonitz (Ind. 98^17) interprets ty as a reference
to de Caelo 3i3 b 8. But the imperfect is idiomatic: 'that is
precisely what TO evo/oio-Tu> e/ai means '. Cf. e. g.*i4
b25-26,
3ib
23, and Bonitz, Ind. 22oa 45.
28b 3-4. otoi/ . . . 8iaipeTui>. TO vypov is defined as ' that which,
being readily adaptable in shape, is not determinable by any limit
of its own '
: cf.*2Q
b30-32.
28 b4. yXicrxpoj'. On the contrariety yXto-xpov-Kpavpov, see
*3oa 4-7. Instances of vypd, which are yXfcxpa, are oil (3o
a5-6,
Meteor. 382b 16), pitch (Meteor. , ib.) and bird-lime (ios, Meteor.
3^5b5)- On the whole,
' viscous'
fairly represents the meaning.A substance, whether soft-solid or liquid, is yXwr^pov, when it is
extensible (eX/cToV), instead of falling readily asunder into drops or
small particles (cf. Meteor. 387* 11-15).28b 5~i4* TauTa . . . erepc^. Aristotle calls attention to two
typical cases of imperfect combination, of which the first is not
properly-speaking* combination
'
at all.
(i) If one constituent is a viscous liquid, it increases the volume
and bulk, but otherwise produces no change. Thus, oil and
water do not * combine '
: the result is a mere admixture which
is*
thicker'
or ' coarser'
than both the constituents (Meteor.
383* 20-28).
(ii) If one only of the constituents is TraOrjriKov or is super-
latively TraOrjTLKov relatively to the Other (17 a-<f>6Spa TO Se Tra^-n-av
ypefjia) the insusceptible constituent 'takes it up' with little or
no increase of its own bulk. The susceptible constituent disappears,
i. e. is entirely absorbed by the other. The only trace of its
presence is a change of colour in the insusceptible constituent.
Thus bronze ' takes up'
tin, the only apparent effect being
a whitening of the bronze. This is to be regarded as a somewhat
equivocal case of combination. The bronze and the tin behave
towards one another partly as' combinables
' and partly as' matter
' and * form '
: they falter and hesitate, as it were, which
attitude to adopt.28b 12-13. 6 yap . . . pW. According to Kopp (Geschichte
1 88 COMMENTARY
der Chemie, iv, p. 113) xa^K(k is usec^ to denote both copper and
brass(i.
e. an alloy containing two-thirds copper and one-third
zinc). Kopp (1. c., iv, pp. 125 ff.)is uncertain what is meant by
Kao-o-iTc/oos in Homer and Herodotos, but suggests that the
KeAri/cos jcaoWrepos (referred to in de Mir. Auscult. 834** 6) is an
alloy containing tin.
I have translated X^KOS' bronze
'
(which contains ten parts of
tin to ninety parts of copper), and /carn'repos'tin
',because this
seems to suit the phenomenon here described: cf. Roscoe,
Lessons in Elementary Chemistry, ed. 1882, p. 155.
Aristotle recognizes two main classes of o/xoio^ep?}, viz. (i)those
which belong to animate nature, to plants and animals (e. g. v'A.ov,
<Aoids, <rdp, OO-TOW, vtvpov, Sc/o/m), and (ii) those which belong
to inanimate nature. The latter are usually grouped together as
TO, /AeraAAcvo/Aeva, but they include (a) the metals proper (e. g. gold,
iron, silver), and (b) TO, opvKrd, e. g.'
the insoluble kinds of
stones' and a-avSapaKrj, w^pa, /uAros, 0eiov (?
= red sulphate of
arsenic, ochre, ruddle, sulphur). The reader will remember that
the heat of the sun draws from the earth and the waters on the
earth a ' twofold exhalation'
(cf.* 22 b 2-3), which is partly
' hot-
dry' and partly
' hot-moist '. This plays a part in the formation
of the 6/xoio/xep^ of inanimate nature. For it gets imprisoned in
particles of the earth : and thus, qua predominantly'
hot-dry ',
contributes to the formation of ra opv/cra, and qua predominantly'hot-moist' (particularly when imprisoned in stones, whose
dryness compresses and solidifiesit) gives rise to the metals.
When metals liquefy with heat, this is the setting free of the
moisture belonging to the exhalation which contributed to their
formation..Cf. Meteor. 378
a 12 - b4, 384^ 30-34.
28b 12. <>s . . . xa^i<ou. ai/eu vXrys is used adjectivally, and is
equivalent to the un- Aristotelian av'Aov : cf.*
2 2 a 2 8-33.28b 20. d\V. The adversative is used, because the definitions
of the combinable and combination, which follow, show that the
combinable need neither be destroyed nor preserved unaltered,
and that combination is neither composition nor relative to
perception.
28b 21.ojuuScujj.oi'. We should have expected o-wdW/xov : for the
combinable is combinable with a contrasted species of the same
genus, i. e. a contrary information of the same vX-rj. Cf.*i4
a20,
* 22b 29-32. But Aristotle does not always use b^w^ov in the
technical sense in which it is contrasted with a-w^wov. He
A. 10. 328b i2 B. i. 335
a23 189
sometimes uses it in its ordinary significance to mean merely that' A has the same name as B ', without implying that the nature
expressed by the name differs in A and B : cf. Bonitz, Ind. s. v.
The meaning here is that TO /UKTOI/ is relative to something else
which in that relation must also be called /UKTOI/.
28b 22. TJ . . . eVwcrts. Combination is that kind of unification
of '
combinable'
substances(i.
e. substances fulfilling the con-
ditions specified in the definition of the' combinable
')which
must occur in so far as they have reciprocally 'altered' one
another's qualities in the manner explained.In this 'scientific definition' of /u'&s (cf.
*2 7
a3 2-34), ev<oo-ts
is the genus of which />uis is a species. The generic Traces
(ei/wo-is) is specified, or rendered determinate, by the proximatecause (dAXotw^eWwi/) which necessitates its inherence in its com-
mensurate subject (rwi/ /UKTWV).
B. i
28b 26 35a 23. fkpl . . . eiptjTai. On the connexion of this
section (B. 1-8) with the plan of the work as a whole, see* 22b 1-26.
It will be remembered that Aristotle propounded two main
questions concerning' the so-called elements
'
: viz.(i) Are
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water really' elements
'
? And, if not, (ii)Do
they all come-to-be in the same manner, reciprocally out of one
another : or is one amongst them relatively primary, the others
being derivative forms of it? (cf.* 22 b 2-3,
* 22b 3-4). Aristotle
answers fotfrst of these questions in B. 1-3, where he maintains
that Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are not really 'elements',
i.e. not
eternal and unchangeable. They are changing informations of
TTpom; vAr;, distinctively characterized by qualities which belongto certain primary contrarieties. Strictly speaking, Tr/oom? v\rj .and
the ewuTictxret? are the real' elements ', i. e. the eternal elementary
conditions of yc'veo-i? and <j>6opd. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are{
primary' and '
simple'
bodies (for a qualification of this
statement, see*3ob 1-7,
*3o
b22) : but, as bodies
> they presuppose
TrptoT?? v\rj and the evafTKocreis as their oroi^eta.
The second question is answered in B. 4. None of the 'simple
bodies'
is prior to the others. They all come-to^be out of one
another. They are phases in a cycle of transformations through
which Tr/owrr? v\y passes.
In B. 5-7 Aristotle's doctrine of the '
simple bodies'
is con-
1 9o COMMENTARY
firmed and further explained. Thus, in B. 5 it is restated, and
Aristotle proves that no '
simple body' can be an apxr) of the
others : in B. 6 Empedokles' general theory of the ' elements '
is
criticized : and in B. 7 Aristotle explains how the o^oLo^eprj come-
to-be out of the 'simple bodies' by combination a point left
quite inexplicable by Empedokles.
Finally, in B. 8 Aristotle establishes that every 6/>toto/x,e/>esand
therefore (in the end) every composite natural substance in the
sublunary world consists of all four 'simple bodies' as its
material constituents.
28^27. TTWS . . . ^uo-ik. We must identify TO, /xcraySaXXovra
Kara <f>v<rLv with the <txn/ca erw/xara of the Lower Cosmos, i. e.
with TO. yevvrjTa.KOL <0apra. For though contact is predicable of
aij Aristotle restricted his discussion to d</>^ 17 ev rots
And though the heavenly bodies, qua possessing an
immanent source of movement, are <f>v<riKa o-wyuara, Aristotle's
discussion in A. 6 was primarily concerned with reciprocal contact,
whereas the contact of the ovpavos and the Lower Cosmos is
one-sided (cf.* 22b 2-3, *22b 32 23
a34). Contact therefore,
as denned in A. 6, is a 7ra#os of the changing natural bodies
within the sublunary world, i. e. of TO. yci/v^ra /cat <0a/oTa : and the
same restriction applies to action-passion and combination.
a8b 28-29. en . . . curias Aristotle is referring to A. 1-3,
and particularly to A. 3. Unqualified yeVeo-ts and <j>0opd are
substantial coming-to-be and passing-away, as distinguished from
change of 7ra0o9, i. e. change in any Category other than that of
Substance (cf.*178-3 2-34): and the 'cause', which Aristotle
claims to have explained, is Trpdxn? vXrj (cf.*
1 88-25-2 7).
28b 29-31. ojioiws . . . auTwi': cf. i9b 6 2oa 7, with the notes.
O.VTWV, SC. yevecrcws /au <f>6opa<s T^S aTrAr/s. It is noticeable, as
Zabarella points out, that Aristotle makes no mention of his
discussion of a^o-ts in the present summary of the first book.
As we saw (* 2oa 8), CU^OHS is a TrdOos of the e/xi/o^a only : and
though the discussion of it is germane to the subject-matter of the
present work, its inclusion is not absolutely necessary.
28b 31-32. Xonroy . . . awfAarwi'. Xonrov,'
reliquum est, i. e.
sequitur'
(Zabarella). The discussion of ' the so-called elements '
does not complete Aristotle's task, for he has still to treat of the
causes (especially the efficient and final causes) of yeVeo-is and
<0opa. If we are to press the meaning of XOITTOV, we must supposethat the ensuing discussion of the ' elements
'
is' what remains
'
B. i. 328b27-33 191
in order to fulfil the plan which was sketched at 22 b 1-5. Cf.*2y
a31 : and, for a similar use of A.OITTOI/, cf.
* 2oa 8.
The construction of Ofupfjcrai with Trepi and the accusative is
unusual. Bonitz (Ind. 328b33) professes to quote two
instances,but the first (Metaph. io27
b28) is not an instance at
all, since Otiopfja-ai has an object, and the second (Polit. i325b34)
is hardly parallel to the present passage. Philoponos feels the
difficulty, but neither of the solutions, which he suggests, will do.
We must, I suppose, account for the accusative as due to the
desire of avoiding the ugliness and obscurity which the genitive
would here entail.
TO, KaXovfjLeva oroide to, r&v aw/xaTwv might mean '
ilia ex
corporibus quae vocantur elementa '. But Zabarella seems to be
right in interpreting the phrase as 'quae vocantur elementa
aliorum corporum'. For TO, KaXovpeva o-Toixcta, see * 22 b 1-2.
28 b 32 2gb 6. Y^eais Toaauroi. Aristotle proceeds to
summarize and to criticize the erroneous views of his predecessors
concerning'
the four simple bodies'
(28^ 32 2Qa24). He then
states his own theory in outline (29a 24~ b
6). All perceptible
bodies presuppose Earth, Air, Fire, and Water : but these
themselves presuppose, as their elementary'
constitutive moments',
vA.77 and certain o/aimwo-eis (cf.*29
a 24 - b3). What these
are, is explained in the next chapter.
28b 32-33. Y^cais . . . TOUTWC. Zabarella (who professes to
follow Aquinas and Averroes) interprets at </>vcrei o-wecrrcocrai ova-Lai
as '
corpora mista'
(i.e. ra o/xoto/xe/o?}), TO, alarOrjra. crto/xara as
' elementa',and TOUTWJ/ as TWV <j>va-i o-uveo-Twcrwv ovo-iwv.
But the antecedent of TOVTWV must surely be ' the perceptible
bodies'
: there is no reason to restrict the latter to' the so-called
elements '
: and the phrase at ^o-et (rwco-Two-at ova-Lai includes
much more than the o/xoto/xepr}.
Thus e.g. in the Metaph. (io42a 6-n) Aristotle enumerates
certain things' which everybody admits to be substances '.
These are at <^u<rt/cat ovo-tat, and they fall into three groups :
(i)'
Fire, Earth, Water, Air and any other simple bodies'
(raAAa ra
dvrXa o-w/xara). With this group we are not concerned, since the
ova-Lai here in question are not '
simple ',but the products of
natural processes which have brought, and hold, together
a plurality of constituents (<vcret crweorwo-ai) : (ii)' the ovpavos
and its /^o'/ota', i.e. the heavens, their component spheres and
the heavenly bodies which are set in these (cf.e. g. Alexander
i 9 2 COMMENTARY
on the Meteorologies ed. Hayduck, p. 4, 1. 24). With these again
we are not concerned ;for they are dyeVr/ra and a^Oapra, whereas
Aristotle is here speaking only of those substances of which
ycVeo-ts and cf>0opd are predicable : finally, (iii) 'the plants and the
animals, and the /xdpta of both '. It is these the organic things
in nature and their /xo>a to which Aristotle is referring primarily,
if not exclusively. The /xdpta include (a) the aa-vvOera ftopm, i. e.
the ofWLOfjieprj : and (b) the a-vvOcra. /xdpta, or the dVo/xoio/xe/oi}, each
of which is composed of two or more different o/jLOLo^eprj.Thus
the /xd/>ta of animals include (i)'
the tissues'
flesh, blood, bone,
&c.(ii)
c the organic parts'
e. g. hand, leg, heart, eye and
(iii) 'parts' like the head, the face, &c. (cf. e.g. Hist. Anim.
486* 5-14, de Part. Anim. 64ob 17-22).
Although the 6/xoio/x.ep^ are aavvOcra(i.
e. not composed of two
or more aggregated different constituents), they are not '
simple ',
but chemical compounds. The four c
simple bodies' have fused
and coalesced to form them. Hence they are <vo-a o-wco-rwra,
and are included in the ovcrtat of which Aristotle is here speaking.
(For the application of oWcrrao-0cu to the opoLopepfj, cf. e. g.
Meteor. 384** 30 ff., 389** 25.) It is possible though on the
whole perhaps improbable that Aristotle intends the phrase
(at <j>v(Ti (rweoTtocrai overeat) to cover also the ojjLOLOjJieprjof
inanimate nature, cf.* 28b 12-13.
Now the organisms and their'
parts'
are through and throughcharacterized by the soul or life which is their
* form '
(cf.* 2i b 19-
22). What comes-to-be, in the yeVeo-tsof a plant or an animal or of
any of their /xdpta, is a /iving-body, a /wing-tissue, or a tiving-
organ : and the essential and distinctive feature in this phenomenonis the emergence of a new soul or life, or the emergence of
a new tissue or organ qua contributory to a.new life. Nevertheless
this yeVeo-ts is not the coming-to-be of soul bare, but the coming-to-be of an /x,i/o>xov crw/x,a. Its indispensable condition is alwaysthe coming-to-be of a new '
perceptible body'
i. e. the
development of certain perceptible bodily materials to that grade of
complexity at which they are the appropriate matter to be informed
by this soul. Hence Aristotle says here that theyej/eo-is (or the
<0opa) of every one of the <vo-et crweo-Towrai ova-iai implies, as its
conditio sine qua non, the ala-Gyra o-w/xara. The foundation of all
the birth and death in the organic world is the yeVeo-ts and <f>9opd
Of the aio-OrjTa o-w/xara (cf. e.g. de Caelo 2Q8b3 Trao-at yap at
<j>v<TLKal overtoilrj o-w^u-ara iy /XCTCX o-a>//,aTeoi/ ytyvovrat KO.I //,eye0a>v).
B. I. 3 28b32 329*5 193
The birth and the death of the organic substances and their
constituent parts (so perhaps we may paraphrase Aristotle's
doctrine) are not the emergence and the disappearance of
immaterial ' forms '. These substances are embodied-souls or
forms-in-matter;and we cannot understand their yeVeo-is or their
(f>0opd, unless we study the yeVeo-ts and the <j>@opd of their matter.
For their matter is' the perceptible bodies
',i. e. a matter itself
* informed',
itself the product of development, presupposing more
elementary conditions for its emergence. What we have to do,
therefore, is to trace the lower stages of that development whichculminates in the emergence of the organic substances. We.must discover what are the d/o^ai of the ala-Orjra crw/xara, i.e.
from what primary material and formal conditions they result.
Aristotle, as we shall see, reduces all alo-Orjra erw/xara in the
sublunary world to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, or to compoundsand composites of these
; and regards Earth, Air, Fire, andWater themselves as resultants of Tr/oom? v\.y and the two primary
28 l)
33 29*5. TOUTUM/ . . . TrpdyjAaoii/. For a similar brief
classification, cf.*30^7-21.
The common and erroneous assumption of all the theories here
quoted is that the underlying material, of which the perceptiblebodies are made, is itself a body (or bodies] having separate existence.
Thus, e. g., Anaximenes and Diogenes assumed Air as the under-
lying matter, Herakleitos and Hippasos Fire, Anaximander a body
(28b35) intermediate between Fire and Air : Parmenides (cf.
* i8b
6-7,*3o
b13-19) assumed Fire and Earth, Ion Fire, Earth, and
Air, and Empedokles Fire, Earth, Air, and Water. The percep-tible bodies ought (cf.
*i4
a 6- b8) to be derived by 'alteration
'
from the'
underlying matter'
if it is a single body, by'
associa-
tion and dissociation'
if it is two or more bodies. But in fact the
pluralists employ both methods of derivation (29* 3-5 ; cf. A. i and
the notes).
28h 35. r\TI p,eTau TOU'TWK. Aristotle is thinking of Anaxi-
mander : cf.*32
a20-25.
2ga 1-2. ot & . . . Tpiroc. Philoponos attributes this view to
the poet 'Ion of Chios (cf. Diels, pp. 220-222).' Aristotle refers to
it again below : see *3o
b15-17.
29a5. dpx&s Kttl oroi-xcia :
'
originative sources, i. e. elements '.
The term CTTOLX^O- is restricted to immanent d/o^ai (the immanent
originative sources of a thing's being), i.e. to vX>;, e!8os, and2254 O
i 94 COMMENTARY
The term apxq includes also external originative
sources, e.g. the primary efficient cause (cf. 24*27). Cf. Diels,
Elementum,^. 24: Metaph. ioi3a7-10, io7o
b22-30.
Aristotle has no quarrel with his predecessors for calling the
primary materials, out of which the perceptible things come-to-
be,'
originative sources'
(or'
original reals')
in the sense of' elements '. But they were wrong, he thinks, in supposing that
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water (all,or any, of them), or indeed any
perceptible body, were such primary materials.
29a 6. c| &v : the antecedent is of course TO. Trpwra (a
5).
29a8-i4. dXX' . . . SiopicrjAOK. Anaximander and Plato are
selected for special criticism. The other thinkers are sufficiently
refuted by the subsequent exposition of Aristotle's own theory
which shows that Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are all equally
derivative, since they are all transformations of a prior substratum.
Aristotle's objection to Anaximander's a-n-cipov is not that it was
other than Earth, Air, Fire, and Water for that is true also of
Aristotle's own Trpom; v\r) : but that, being other than these, it
was nevertheless supposed to be a '
body ',i. e. possessed of actual
existence independent of, and separate from, Earth, Air, Fire, and
Water.
29a10-13. dSuVaTOf . . . ApxV- Since Anaximander's ' Bound-
less'
is an actual body, it must be characterized by one or the other
of the contrasted qualities forming a '
perceptible contrariety'
(cf.
e. g.* 2ob 16-17). It must e-g- De light or heavy, cold or hot.
In other words(cf.
Introd. 10, and *29^ 7- 3o
a29), it must be
Earth, Air, Fire, or Water.
In 29a n ator^T^s (HJ) is clearly right. Aristotle could not
have written ala-OrjTov (E), TO aio-dyrov (F), or ala-OrjTov 6V (L), since
that would imply that Anaximander himself spoke of his aareipov
as'
perceptible '.
2Qa13-24. ws . . . emireSa elkou. Aristotle has already referred
more than once to Plato's attempt in the Timaeus to construct the
perceptible bodies out of planes, i. e. out of two types of right-
angled triangles : cf.*i5
a29-33,
*i5
b31,
* i6a 2-4,*25^ 19-25.
He now attacks Plato's statements about the vTroSoxy 7rdorrj<s ycve
crews, and its relation to the elementary triangles and to the four
simple bodies, on the ground that'
they are not based on any pre-
cisely-articulated conception' (ouSeVa lx t Siopio-/xoV, cf. 23a 22
and 34b2i).
The perceptible things, Plato had said, are mere '
imitations'
or '
images'
of the real things the intelligible Forms. And it is
B. i. 329a6-24 195
the very nature of an '
image'
to require a something in which it
' comes-to-be' and thus obtains apparent subsistence (cf. Timaeus
520). This something, in which the 'images' come-to-be, is
accordingly postulated as a necessary pre-condition of the yeVeo-is of
the physical Cosmos (ib. e. g. 52 d) : and Plato describes its nature
in various ways mostly metaphorical, and partly (it would seem)irreconcilable with one another. Thus he speaks of it as
'the
Place'
the empty Space or Extensity'
in which '
the perceptible
things appear (cf. 52 a, 52 d) : as' the receptacle of all coming-to-
be, as it were its Nurse' (49 a, 52 d), or 'its Mother' (51 a) : as
' a something which receives all bodies'
(50 b-n-epl T^S TO. -n-avTa
Sexopcvrjs o-w/xara ^vVew?) :
' a thing invisible and without shape,
omnirecipient'
(5 1 a avoparov eTSos TL KOI a/xo/3</>ov, TravSe^es).
Such statements naturally suggest that ' the Omnirecipient'
Xuy>i'eTai roV <rroi;(etW, i. e. that it is an entity having a being of
its own, separate from, and in independence of, Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water and the perceptible bodies generally (29** 15 TWV
o-Tot^eiW, i.q. TCUV KoAovjueVcoi/ o-roi^eiwi/, cf. a16). We think of
it as a Mirror in which the reflections appear, or a Frame in
which the copies of the 1877 are held. But Plato says other
things about TO Trou/Se^es which imply a quite different view of its
relation to the perceptible bodies. For he speaks of this
omnirecipient formless something as an eK/x,ayetoi/a modifiable
lump or mass which is changed and transfigured by the incoming
images of the real intelligible things, and thus itself appears with
different shapes and qualities (50 c : for the meaning of eV/xayetov,
cf. Theaetetus 191 c with Campbell's note). And he compares it,
in its relation to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, with a lump of goldin its relation to the golden things of various shapes which maybe fashioned out of it. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, he insists,
are mere passing transformations of this something, which always
retains its receptivity unchanged just as this and that figured
work of the goldsmith are such and such evanescent modifications
of gold, which always remains *
gold ',however its shape may vary
(49a-5ob).If we are to press this analogy, the Trou/Sc^e's is, it would seem,
not only the receptacle in which all the perceptible bodies appear,
but also the stuff of which they are fashioned or out of which they
are made. And it is now no longer clear whether we are to
attribute to it a '
being'
separate from the o-rotxeia which are its
transformations.
O 2
196 COMMENTARY
29a I5~24- "&* emireSa clvai. Plato, Aristotle has just
complained (ai3-is), does not explain whether the Omni-
recipient is a continent subsisting in independence of the Earth.
.Air, Fire, and Water which '
appear'
in it;or whether it is a stuff,
logically distinguishable from, but existing only in, and as, those
changing figurations which are called the * elements '. He now
complains that Plato makes no use of the Omnirecipient in his
theory of the yeVeo-is of the * elements '. He compared it to the
gold, out of which the goldsmith's works are fashioned : and this
comparison implies that the TravSe^es is a stuff underlying, and prior
to, the' elements '. Nevertheless
(a 2 1 dAAa, i. e. in spite of his
comparison of the 7rav8exes with the gold), when he comes to treat
of the yeVeo-i? of the' elements
',he resolves them into triangular
planes, without any hint as to how the latter are derived from
the vTroBox^- Yet it is impossible to identify the viroSoxrj or the
TiO-^vfj with the Dlanes.
In this passagea17-21 (KCU'TOI . . . c/cao-rov eu/ai) is a parenthesis,
in which Aristotle criticizes Plato's use of the analogy of the
gold: the rest forms a single argument, in which a 2 1-24 (dAAa. . . eTTiVeSa etvat) justifies the opening assertion that Plato ' makes
no use'
of the TravSe^e?.
The term vTroKei/xevov (2Qa16) is not used by Plato in the
passage in question : Aristotle infers that this is in effect his
meaning from the analogy of the gold and from the languagein the context (Ttmaeus, 49a~5o b).
The words OVTWV . . . dvdAvo-ii/ (a22-23) suggest a double
reproach : for Aristotle has already urged (a) that it is impossibleto construct
'solids
',i. e. ^VCTLKO. o-cu/uxra, out of planes, and
(b) that it is unreasonable, if you analyse solids into their contain-
ing planes, not to complete' the mathematical analysis by
resolving the planes into lines and the lines into their terminal
points (cf.*i5
b31, with the references to the de Caelo there given).
In a23 Aristotle adds KOL rrjv vXrjv rrjv TrpwTrjr, because Plato's
TiOrjvr] or vTToSo^TJ fulfils in the Timaeus a function analogous to
that of TTpwrrf vXrj in Aristotle's theory of the yeVeo-is of the per-
ceptible things.
29a i6. TrpoTcpoi/ : cf. preceding note. Plato would presumably
say that the metaphor of the gold must not be pressed, and that
his Omnirecipient is'
prior'
to the ' elements'
only in the sense
in which Aristotle's Trpom/ v\rj is 'prior' to its informations i. e.
logically prior. There is no trace of Trporepov in Philoponos.
B. i. 329a15-21 197
29* 17-21. KaiToi .... eKaaroi' ciy.ai. Plato's analogy is not
precise. For you can call a product by the name of that ' out of
which '
it has developed, only if it has resulted by the '
alteration'
of a persistent perceptible substratum. If, e. g., the cold thing has
become hot, the thing persists and has merely' altered
'
from one
ala-Orfrov Trdtfos to its contrary : hence the product (the hot thing)
is still called a '
thing '. Similarly, if the gold persists through the
goldsmith's manipulations as a perceptible substratum, which*alters
'
e. g. from triangular to square or circular, you can call
the products'
gold '. But Earth, Air, Fire, and Water come-to-be
and pass-away, and are not merely the 'alterations' of a persistent
perceptible substratum. Hence, if they come-to-be out of the
7ravSexk, they cannot be called by its name, as the golden figures
can be called, each of them,'
gold '. Yet Plato insists (cf.
Timaeus 49 d~5o c) that if we are shown a work of the goldsmith,
and asked what it is, far the safest answer (/nax/aw Trpos dX^eiav
do-^aAeWaTov) is to say'
It is gold'
: and that similarly, if we see
what is commonly called*
fire V and are asked what it is, we
ought to answer *
It is the Omnirecipient '.
Aristotle calls attention to this distinction of linguistic usagemore than once: cf. Phys. 245** 3 ff., Metaph. 1033* 5 ff.
} 1049*i8ff.
When a thing has come-to-be ' out of'
jc, it is never called x,
though in certain cases it may be called by an adjective derived
from x (tKeivivov, though not e/ceti/o). Thus, e. g., a man or a plant
is not called that' out of which '
it has come-to-be, nor byan adjective derived from its name : and a house or a statue is
not called trXivOoi or v\ov, though they are called irXivOivr] and
v';Wos respectively.
If, however, there is dAAoiWis (and not yeVco-is), the result
is called by the name of the substratum which has ' altered '. Thus,
e. g., if a sick man has recovered his health, we speak of him as' a man '
or ' a healthy man '.
The term aAAoiWis, according to Aristotle's strict usage, is
limited to the change of vaJ&rfnxal TTOIOT^TCS /cat irdOrjy and does
not include change of o-x^a KOL/AO/O</>^ (cf.
*i9
b8-io). Hence
the epya fashioned out of gold are not strictly products of 'altera-
tion',and cannot rightly be called
'
gold ', but only'
golden '. If,
then, dAAoiWis (29* 19) is to be taken strictly, Plato is being
criticized (a) for confusing the yeWm (i.e. the Trofyo-is) of the
golden things with an '
alteration'
of gold : and consequently (b)
i 98 COMMENTARY
for supposing that the correct account e. g. of a golden statue is to
say 'It is gold': and finally (c) for extending this confusion,
and the consequent error of terminology, to the 'elements',
which even on Plato's own theory are the results of a yeVco-is.
But Aristotle may possibly be using a'AAoiWis more loosely, to
cover any change in the' Category of Quality. If so, a'AAotWis
would include change of shape (cf.*i9
b12-14), and the works
fashioned by the goldsmith would be results of a'AAoiWts. Plato
would then be criticized for extending a terminological usage,
which is correct in the example of the gold and the works
fashioned out of it, to an instance of yeVe<ris, where it is no longer
applicable.
29a 24 - b3. Tjfxeis . . . fjieTa|3<iXXou<ni>. Aristotle now outlines
his own view. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are the primary
perceptible bodies. But, as perceptible bodies, they are yevvrjTa /cat
<f>6apTa, and their yeVeo-is presupposes the same fundamental
conditions the same apxat as are presupposed by the yc'veais of
any and every perceptible body.The whole subject has been thoroughly discussed in the Physics
(A. 6-9), and the dp^ou have there been accurately defined and
distinguished from one another (29* 27 Siwpio-Tai . . . d/cpi/Seo-repoi/).
The results of the discussion in the Physics were used above,
I7bi3ff. : cf.
*i7
b14-18,
*i7
b29,
* i8a 23-25.The ultimate presuppositions of the yeVeo-is of any and every
perceptible body are (i) Trpomy vXrj and (ii) a contrariety of
qualities for which the v\fj is the substratum. This second
presupposition is often expressed by Aristotle in a different
manner, so as to bring out the negative* moment '
implied in
yeVeo-is. If a body comes-to-be, the substratum passes from
a formed-state to a contrarily-formed-state : but the initial formed-
state is at the same time the o-Tep^cris of the form of the new
(emerging) body. And the distinctive feature of a yeVco-cs is
the coming-to-be of a positive something, where previously it was
not. Hence the second presupposition of yeVeo-is is an e?Sos with
its contrasted o-rep^o-is.
These dp^ai of yeVco-is (it is all-important to remember) are not
in any sense actually existent things. They are not rudimentary
stages of a temporal development of the Cosmos, antecedent
in time to the emergence of perceptible bodies. No doubt
Aristotle's language is at times ambiguous and misleading. Butin the main he is clear (at least in the present work) that these
B. i. 329a24-32 199
apxaL are the logical, not the temporal, presuppositions. They are
the indispensable ultimate ' moments ' which abstracting analysisforces us to recognize as logically presupposed in the yeVeo-is of
any and every perceptible body.Hence Aristotle is careful to insist that his TT/OWT^ vXrj is not
Xtopicmj, like e. g. Anaximander's aTreipov (cf.*29* 8-14). What
exists is never vAry bare, but always formed v\.r) : i. e. always vXrj
along with certain qualities which render it a determinate per-
ceptible body. What exists is a substratum which, being e.g.
actually-hot, is therefore also potentially-cold. In other words,
Aristotle's vA^is ov xwPto"T1
i><*M-' <* /*' iKwftAram (29
a25-26),
Or d^(OptCTTO5 />tV V7TOKLfJieV7J 8e TOt? ftwTtbiS (i29&3O~3l).
And the same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the other ap^rj of
yeVeo-is. The opposition of eTSos and orcpiprt?, which marks the
terminus ad quern and the terminus a quo of the two-sided process
(the ycveo-is of one thing and the <0opa of another), is clearly the
result of a logical analysis. And even the cvavTouo-ets i. e.
the pairs of contrasted perceptible qualities have no * existence ',
except as qualifying the substratum.' The Hot and the Cold
',
' The Dry and the Moist ',conceived
in abstraction from the substratum which is hot- dry, hot-moist,
cold-dry or cold-moist, are simply one of the two indispensable' moments '
in the constitution of the actual things the other
indispensable' moment '
being the substratum conceived in dis-
tinction from them. What actually exists is the qualified sub-
stratum : i. e. (if we take it in its most rudimentary form) one
or other of the four '
primary'
or '
simple,' bodies.
29a 26. e T)S. The antecedent of ^s is vA.r/v (a24), not eVav-
rtwcrews (a26).
2Qa 27. auTwy, SC. TT}S vAr/s /cat rJ/s evcu/Tiwo-eoos.
29* 27-29. ouJITJC . . . Tourwi'.
*
Nevertheless we must give
a detailed explanation of the primary bodies as well, since they
too are similarly derived from the matter.'
The account in the Physics was general, applying to the ye'veo-i?
of any and every perceptible body. Aristotle now proposes to
apply it in particular to the yeVeo-ts of the primary perceptible
bodies.
2ga29-32. dpxV a^oif. The parenthetical clause (
a 3i-
32 OVT . . . d/^cm/) justifies the assumption of a third something
in addition to the two contraries as their substratum. We must
reckon Trpomy v\r) as an originative source and as primary,
200 COMMENTARY
because the contraries alone cannot serve as and/a^ry, since they
presuppose V\.TJ as their substratum if they are to act or suffer
action. Cf. Physics, e.g. 1 898- 21 - b3, 191*4-5, &c.
29* 32-35. ware . . . roiaura. Aristotle's language here is
misleading, because it suggests three successive stages in the
development of the perceptible bodies. But in fact (cf.*
29** 24-b3) neither 717x0-07 v\rj nor the evavTioxreis
'exist '. They do not
precede the '
primary'
bodies in time, but are abstract' moments '
logically presupposed in their being.
2ga 35- b i. raura . . . aXXrjXa. This clause justifiesa34-35
(rpirov 8'fjSrj). Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, since they change
into one another, are composite of matter and form : i. e. they
presuppose vXr) and evavriWis, and are therefore reckoned as an
apxn f tne perceptible bodies only in the third place.
29b 1-2. oux o>5 ... dXXoiwais : cf. I4b15-26.
29b 2-3. ai 8s
... (jLCTapciXXouaiK. The contrarieties, as con-
trasted with 'the primary bodies ', do not change (cf. e.g. 22b 16-
18), and are therefore rightly reckoned as dpxat/ and placed before' the primary bodies
'
in Aristotle's list.
29b3~4- a^' fyx^s >
' Nevertheless even so the questionremains : What sorts of contrarieties, and how many of them, are to
be accounted "originative sources
"of body ?
' The use of <Ss for
otmos is rare in Aristotle : but cf. de Caelo 3O2b24. I can make
nothing of Bekker's reading (KOL o>s o-w/xaros). It seems best to
read the sentence as a question, to supply evai/riwa-ets as the noun
to which Trot'as KOI TroVa? refer, and to take dpx^s as predicate.
B. 2
29b7 3Oa
2g. 'Eire! . . . rain-as. In this chapter Aristotle
establishes that the erarnwo-eis, which the '
simple bodies'
pre-
suppose as one of their'
constitutive moments',are Ocppov-if/vxpov
and ^poV-vypoV. As we shall see in Chapter 3, each of the simplebodies (Earth, Air, Fire, and Water) is distinctively-characterized
by Ofpfjiov or i/^x/xn/ coupled with grjpov or vypov.
The reader will remember that neither TT/JWT^ vXrj nor the
cj/avTicoo-ei? are anything but 'moments' abstracted by logical
analysis (cf.*29* 24 - b
3). The evav-rioxreis therefore are couplesof contrasted qualities, not of contrasted qualia : i. e. properly-
speaking they are ^c/o/xdr^s-i^vxpor^?, vy/Hmys-^T/po-rr/s (cf. e. g
29* 34>b
11-12), and not' Ocppov-if/vxpov, vypov-^pov (cf
B. i, 329a32 2. 32Q
b13 201
e.g. 29b18-20). The neuter adjectives, especially when the
article is prefixed, suggest the concretely qualified matter, which
alone has actual existence : they suggest'
the hot-stuff','
the cold-
stuff', &c., i.e. the qualia instead of the abstract qualities. But
though Aristotle is no doubt thinking of actual constituents, he
defines them in respect to their qualities. He is speaking of
quaha of qualified stuffs ;but he is attending to the qualities
and trying to determine these in abstraction from the stuff which
they qualify. On the whole, therefore, I have thought it best to
speak throughout of *
elementary qualities ', and to render e. g. TO
Ocp/jiov by' the hot
'
rather than by' the hot stuff '.
From another point of view, the term '
quality'
is somewhat
misleading. For it is clear from Aristotle's definitions that the hot,
the cold, the^ dry, and the moist are in fact certain characteristic
powers of acting and susceptibilities to action. Aristotle himself
constantly refers to them as Swa/xas (cf. e. g. Meteor. 378^ 29 and
34, 3791 ' n, &c.). We might therefore be tempted to call them
'
elementary forces', instead of '
elementary qualities'
(cf. Dr.
William Ogle's note in his translation of the de Part. Anim.
646ai6). But 'force' would not naturally include 'suscepti-
bilities to action'
(the (Wa/xcis 7ra0r?TtKcu). After much hesitation
I have decided to use the term '
quality ',which has at least one
merit viz. that it emphasizes the important fact that these cvavrta
qualify Trpwrr; vXr) and thus constitute the distinctive characteristics
of the primary bodies.
The meaning of flep^oV, tyvxpov, vypov, frjpov and of the other
tangible qualities discussed in the present chapter must of course
be gathered from Aristotle's definitions. It is not possible to find
any English terms which are precisely equivalent. I use the
terms 'hot', 'cold', 'moist', 'dry', as mere conventional symbols.'
Moist-dry ',as we shall see, is a most inadequate rendering of
vypov &]p6v : and so also is'fluid-solid ', which Dr. Ogle (1. c.)
prefers. And ' hot-cold'
is defective as a rendering of 6epfji6v-
\l/v\p6v, in that it conveys no hint of the feature on which Aristotle
lays stress. Cf.*29^ 26-30,
*29
b30-32.
29^ 7-13. 'Eim . . . oroixeioK. We are to determine what '
quali-
tative differences'
constitute the distinctive forms of perceptible
body as such, i. e. differentiate perceptible body in general into its
primary irreducible species. We must therefore look amongstthe qualities which characterize all perceptible bodies. These
are the '
tangible'
qualities those discriminated by the sense of
202 COMMENTARY
touch. For all perceptible bodies possess at least some of the
'
tangible'
qualities, whilst not all exhibit the further qualities
which are the objects of vision, hearing,. taste, and smell. Cf.
de Anima^ e. g. 423* 27-29 which refers to the present chapter.
29b 9. eiSr] . . . iroiouaii' :
' constitute" forms
" and "originative
sources"of body '.
The qualities which belong to certain evamwo-eis constitute
the * forms '
of perceptible bodies, qua informing irpumri vXr].
Aristotle adds KOI apxas, because we are looking for contrary
qualities which are the forms of the primary perceptible bodies,
and which are therefore'
originative sources'
of perceptible bodyin general : cf. 298- 33-34, 29
b3-4.
2gb 10 n. Kay* . . . Ivwriwcriv :
'for the primary bodies are
differentiated by a contrariety, and a contrariety of tangible
qualities '.
The subject of Sicw^'powi has to be supplied from the context.
It is as Philoponos rightly explains ra o-w/xara ra Tr/owra, wv ras
The primary bodies, as Zabarella reminds us, must be charac-
terized by contrary qualities, since they must be capable of com-
bining : and combinables must be reciprocally Troi^Tt/ca and
TraOrjTiKd, and therefore also ivavria (cf. e. g.* 22 b 1-26,
*23
b i
24b 24,* 28a 18-31). And they must be differentiatedby tangible
qualities, because as perceptible bodies they must possess tangible
qualities, even if as the simplest of bodies they possess no others
(cf. *29b 7-i3).
2gb 13. iroieT oToixcioy. Aristotle sometimes calls the elemen-
tary qualities o-rot^eta (cf. e. g. 3oa30) : but CTTOI^CIOV here means
'
primary body ', i.e. one of the 'so-called elements
'
(cf.* 22b 1-2).
None of th contrary qualities, except those belonging to the
primary contrarieties of touch,' makes ' a '
primary body ',i. e.
constitutes it as its form (for this sense of Trout, cf. 2Qb 9
TTOtOVCTtv).
29b 14-16. KCUTOI . . . irportpov. Aristotle here anticipates and
answers a possible objection. Vision is'
purer' than touch (cf.
Eth. Nic. ii76ai): it is the 'clearest' of all the senses (Probl.
886 b35) : and if touch is the most indispensable sense, in that
life is impossible without it, vision contributes to the comforts
and refinements of life, and in particular helps us towards
the attainment of knowledge (cf. e.g. de Anima 435b19-25, de
B. 2. 329b9~i8 203
Sensu 436b 12 437* 18, Metaph. 980** 24-27). Vision therefore,
it may be said, is prior to touch, in the sense in which the more
perfect, and the more valuable and desirable, is prior to the less
(cf. e. g. Metaph. io5oa3ff., 107 7
a19-20, Categ. I4
b4~8). But
if so, the contrarieties which are the subject-matter or '
objects'
of vision are, similarly, prior to those which are the 'objects'
of touch (cf., for this sense of vTro/cei/xtvov, e.g. de Anima
425b
14, 426b 8-u, Rhet. i355b28-32: Bonitz, Ind. 798
b 60
799a27)-
Aristotle does not discuss the question of fact. He is ready to
admit that the qualities which make a body visible may very likely
be '
naturally prior'
to those which render it tangible. But this
fact, if it be a fact, is (he urges) irrelevant. For we are lookingfor qualities which constitute the forms of perceptible, i. e. tangible,
bodies as such qualities, therefore, which belong to tangiblebodies per se. Now the qualities, which are the objects of vision,
do not belong to tangible bodies per se, but Koff erepoi/.
Aristotle discusses in the de Anima (418* 26ff.)
what TO oparoV
(the vTroKei^vov of vision) is. As the discussion proceeds, it
appears that the *
object of vision'
includes (a) colours^ which
are seen in light, and (b) a nameless quality, which is presentin certain things and causes them to be seen in the dark, though
they are not thus seen in the light. It is clear from Aristotle's
instances (yav/o;?, Kepas, Ke<aAat ixOvoiV Kal Ae-ruSes /cat o<#aA/W, de
Anima 4i9a5) that he is thinking partly of what we should call
'
phosphorescent'
objects. I do not know any passage where he
explains exactly what this* nameless quality
'
is, which causes
these various things to gleam in the dark : but colour (that sub-
division of TO opaToV which is seen in light) is discussed in the
de Sensu (439a 18
ff.) and denned (439b11-12) as TO TOV Sia</>avos
v o-w/xaTi wpioTxeVa) Tre'pas. Colour, then, it is clear, belongs to the
tangible body, in so far as that contains TO Starves in itself : and
TO Starves (cf. de Anima 4i8b 4ff.) is neither O.TTTQV nor inherent
in the body qua OLTTTOV.
29b 16-18. aurwi' . . . eyamwaeis. The qualities which dif-
ferentiate the primary bodies are, as we have seen, those which
belong to the contrarieties of touch. But some of the latter
are derivative : our next task therefore is'
to distinguish which
amongst the tangible differences and contrarieties are primary '.
I have followed HJ and F in omitting TrpwTov in b1 7 : the
passage is certainly better without it.
204 COMMENTARY
2gl) 18-20. elal . . . Xeinw. All the qualities defined in this
chapter (the reader will observe) are defined by reference to
perception. Thus, e.g., hard and soft are the incompressible
and compressible estimated by our sense of touch, not the
absolutely impenetrable and its contrary. Cf. e. g. Meteor. 3828-
17-21.
The omission of TrvKvoV-juai/oV from this list of the contrarieties
of touch is to be explained by the fact that Aristotle denied the
existence of dense and rare in the popular sense : i. e. he denied
the existence of atoms and interspaces, and rejected all cognate
conceptions of the constitution of matter (cf.* 2i a
5-9). Hence,
though he still employs the terms TrvKvov-pavov, he treats
the contrariety as a form of iray\i-\eTnw (cf. de Caelo 303b
22-25), or again as a form of fiapv-Kov<f>ov (cf. Phys. 2iyb
11-12).
-24. TOUTC^ . . . aXXrjXa. The primary bodies combine
to form the 6/Aoto/Acp^, and as we shall see in Chapter
4 they are transformed into one another (jueraySaAAei eis aXXrjXa).
Hence (cf.*
29** 10-11) they must be reciprocally 71-007x1*0, /cat
TraOrfTLKd : and the qualities which constitute them must express
powers of acting and susceptibilities to action.
Now, although Earth, Air, Fire, and Water are all'
light'
or*
heavy'
(cf. Introd. 10), and although all bodies which possess'
weight'
or *
lightness'
are in fact TTOL^TLKO. /cat Tra^ryriKa, it is not
qua light or qua heavy that they act upon, and are acted upon
by, one another (cf.*23* 9-10). Hence the contrariety 'light-
heavy'
is not constitutive of the primary bodies.
According to Philoponos (p. 214, 11. 31 ff.), 'rough-smooth',which is not expressly eliminated in what follows, is to be rejected
for the same reason.
29b 22. Timeli' TI iTcpoy. For the construction, cf. e. g. Meteor.
385* 24 Acv/cov yap KOI . . . OepjjLov /cat ij/v^pov TO> TTOICIV TI fivvacrOai
rrjv al<r6if](riv eort.
29^24-26. OepjAoy . . . Xeycrai. (i) Hot-cold and dry-moist are
reciprocally active and passive in the sense that the substratum,
which is hot, is eo ipso both alterative of, and liable to be altered
by, that which is cold;whilst the substratum, which is moist,
is eo ipso both alterative of the dry, and subject to its action.
Each of these four qualities, within its own contrariety, is both
active and passive in relation to its contrary. The hot and the
cold, qua contraries informing the same matter, act and react on
B. 2. 329b 18-26 205
one another, and are each in turn both agent and patient. Eachtends to assimilate its contrary to itself, and to be assimilated
by it: and the result of this reciprocal action-passion is the
tempering of both qualities and their fusion in an intermediate
quality, which is less-cold-and-more-hot than the original cold and
less-hot-and-more-cold than the original hot (cf. e.g.*27^22-31,
* 28* 29-3 1,*34*8-1 6).
By a similar reciprocal action-passion, the moist and the drytend towards an intermediate or tempered state, in which the dryis more pliable and more cohesive by admixture of the moist. But
this tempering of the dry by the moist requires for its completion
the *active operation
'
of the hot-cold (or of the tempered-hot) in
a sense which we have now to consider.
(ii)For although the reciprocal action-passion of the qualities
within each contrariety is an essential condition of the emergenceof a new 6/*oio//,pe's, another kind of action-passion, in ivhich the
hot-cold is agent and the dry-moist is patient, is also involved : and
it is to this second kind of action-passion, where one contrariety
is active and the other contrariety passive, that Aristotle is
referring in the present passage (cf. Journal of Philology, No. 57,
pp. 83-86). The whole subject is worked out in Meteor. A with
great elaboration : I must content myself here with a brief outline,
which will be sufficient for the understanding of the present
sentence.
Aristotle maintains that everywhere, if we look at the physical
phenomena, we shall see heat and cold functioning as active
and controlling forces. They reduce the materials whether
these be the same in kind, or of different kinds to definite
shape, they cause them to grow together into a unity, and they
introduce change into them. Moistening and drying, hardeningand softening, are the work of heat and cold. On the other
hand, the materials, which submit to these operations, are every-
where the dry or the moist or the things compounded of dry and
moist (Meteor. 378b 10-20). Hence all birth and all death the
coming-to-be and passing-away of every o/xoto/xe/aes in a plant or
animal, and thus indirectly of every plant or animal itself are to
be ascribed to the operation of the hot-cold on the dry-moist.
.Birth the coming-to-be of any 6/xoto/xe/oe? in animate things is,
from this point of view, a change produced in the passive Swa//,s
(i. e. a development of the dry-moist, which is the material) bythe agency of the hot-cold, i.e. the tempered-hot (cf. e.g.
206 COMMENTARY
Zabarella, de Misti Gen. et Inter, i, ch. 5). When the hot and
cold are present in due proportion, they control the matter (the
dry-moist) and bring the 6/xoio/Ae/oe'sinto being {Meteor. 378
b 28
379a
i).
Death and the processes which lead to it withering in plants,
senile decay in animals are to be ascribed to the failure of this
control. For just as the hot-cold gave definite shape and con-
sistency to the dry by tempering it with the moist, and thus
brought the 6/xoto/xc/oes into being, so, as the inner heat grows
less, dissolution sets in. The inner cold predominates over the
inner heat : and the heat of the environment (i.e. in the
environing 'element' of the living thing) overcomes the now
enfeebled inner heat (cf.*2^ 7- 10). It is drawn out, and with
it the inner moisture also evaporates. Moreover, when the inner
heat is gone or enfeebled, the living thing has lost the power of
drawing in fresh moisture from the environment, and of digesting
its food (cf., on the inner heat, *2oa8,
* 2ob 34 2i n29,
* 22 a
10-13,*36
b 8-1 o). Hence the animate thing (e. g. the o/xoto/tepes)
passes to its natural end. It putrefies, becoming first moist, and
finally as the moisture evaporates with the vanishing inner
heat dry. This putrefaction (o-rji/as) is the natural end of all
animate 6/x,oio/xep^ and of the organisms to which they belong.
They all collapse in the end into yrj KOU KoVpos (Meteor.
379a3-26).
Thus in the coming-to-be and passing-away of an animate
o/Aoio/Acpe's, two of the four elementary qualities (viz. the dry and
the moist) are par excellence' matter '
: for their role is purely'
passive *". The other two (viz. the hot and the cold) are'
active',
either to form and mould, or to dissolve and destroy. Thefunction of the cold is apparently subsidiary to that of the hot. It
is'
active'
either qua tempering the hot, or in the process of
dissolution qua assisting the heat of the environment to overcome
the inner heat, and thus to wrest the dry-moist from its control
(cf. Zabarella, I.e.: Meteor. 382^6-10). In order to preventa possible misunderstanding, the reader may be reminded that
the material constituents of every 6/xoio/xe/oes are the four '
primarybodies' (cf. 34
b3i 35
a9), which are distinctively characterized
each by a different couple of the four elementary qualities (cf.*29 24 - b
3,*3o
a30 3i
a6). It is these four primary bodies
which qua hot and cold are par excellence'
active' and qua moist
and dry are*
passive ',and therefore par excellence
' matter',in the
B. . 2. 329b24-30 207
generation and dissolution of the o/xoio/xcp?}. Although, therefore,
Aristotle attributes efficient operations to the hot-cold in the
Meteorologies their action is not external like that of an *
efficient
cause'
proper. It is an * immanent '
action an action exerted
by the material constituents of the 6/xoto/xep^.
Not only birth and death, not only the coming-to-be and the
passing-away of the animate fytoio/xep?}, but all kinds of natural
processes within the already subsistent compound natural things
are ascribed by Aristotle to the active operations of the hot-cold
on the dry-moist. Thus (cf. Meteor. 379** 10 38ib22) he
attributes to heat Wj/as and all its sub-forms, viz. TreVavo-is
(ripening) and the nameless natural processes corresponding to,
and imitated by, ei/^o-is (boiling) and OTTTT/O-I? (baking). Similarlyhe attributes to cold aTrei/aa and its sub-forms (W/AOTT??, /x,a>Av<ris,
o-raVevo-is), i. e. failures in natural development corresponding, each
to each, to the successes effected by heat in 'digesting','
ripening ', and in the natural operations analogous to*
boiling'
and '
baking '.
29^ 26-30. OepjAor . . .JAY) 6jAo<f>u\a. The characteristic function
of the hot and the cold, by which Aristotle here defines them, is
that of bringing together and uniting, (i) The hot 'associates'
things of the same kind, and if it also'dissociates
',that is
a secondary function : for in bringing together the homogeneous,it incidentally eliminates the heterogeneous (cf.
also de Caelo
30 7a31
- b5). If e. g. wine be heated in a closed vessel, the heat
will collect all the earthy particles at the bottom and all the
vaporous particles at the top. (ii)The cold 'associates
'
homogeneous and heterogeneous things alike. If e.g. water
freezes right through, the cold will bring, and hold, together
everything which was contained in it bits of wood, straws,
animalculae, &c. (cf. Zabarella and Philoponos, ad loc.}.
One of the functions ascribed to heat and cold in the
Meteor, is the causing homogeneous and heterogeneous things
'to grow together' (378b15 a-u^vova-ai : see preceding note).
In other passages (384^ 24-26, 388* 23-25, 390^ 4) the work
of the hot and the cold in the constitution of the 6/xoto/xe/)^ is
summarized as a 'thickening and solidifying' (TTOLX^VOVTO. KOL
irrjyvvvTOi Troiemu rrjv cpyturtav avrtoj/). But, consistently with
Aristotle's general view of the effect of contraries, T$IS as well as
TT^IS is ascribed to these forces. For the hot dissolves what has
been solidified by cold (we may think e. g. of fire melting ice and
208 COMMENTARY
wax), and the cold dissolves what has been solidified by heat (e. g.
water, qua cold, dissolves soda and salt) : cf. Meteor. 382b30
383b
17, and below,*30* 4-7.
2Qb27. <f>a<7i. Cf. 36* 3-4. The people in question were
probably Pythagoreans : cf.*36
a 1-12.
2Qb30-32. uypoy . . . Suaopioroy 8e. The *
passive'
qualities
are defined as (a) that which is readily adaptable to the shape of'
its continent, since it is not determinable by any characteristic
outline of its own ro vypov (cf. 28* 35- b
4) : and (b) that which
is readily determinable by its own characteristic outline, and is
therefore not easily adaptable in shape ro fypov.
The same definitions are assumed below (cf.*34
b34 35
a3)
and in the Meteor, (cf. e. g. 36oa23, 378
b23-25). The vypov and
the fypov are in fact complementary to one another, each serving
the other as a kind of glue : for though the grjpov is CVO/HOTOV
oi/ceiu) opw, the cause of its getting and keeping its own shape is
the vypov which is admixed with it (Meteor. 38 i b 29 ff.).
It is clear that ' moist' and '
dry'
are quite inadequate
renderings of vypov and fypdv. I have retained them, partly
because of the tradition, but mainly because there are no alterna-
tives more satisfactory. Dr. Ogle prefers*fluid
' and 'solid
'
(cf.*2Q
b7 30*29). But though 'fluid' applies, like vypov, to
Air as well as to Water, 'solid' is clearly inapplicable to Fire,
which (according to Aristotle's doctrine) is Oepubv KO.I ^pov.
Moreover,'solid
'
is a useful term to translate TO TreTn/yos, which
(as we shall see) is a subordinate form of TO fypov proper.
2Qb32-34. TO ... TOUTUK. For the omission ofTpaxv-Xetov, see
*29
b20-24. The words KOL at aAAai Sia<opcu probably refer not
to Tpa^v-Xetov, but to the varieties of fypov-vypov : cf.*30*
12-24.
Since Aristotle claims (30* 24-25) to have reduced all the other
tangible differences to the first four, TOVTWV (2gb34) perhaps
includes hot and cold as well as dry and moist. It is true that
in what follows nothing is said of hot and cold : Aristotle derives
fine and coarse, viscous and brittle, and hard and *soft from the
moist and dry. But Zabarella seems to be right in suggesting that
they are in fact modifications of the moist and the dry, producedin them by the action of the hot and the cold : cf. the follow-
ing notes.
2Qb 34 3oa4. e-n-el . . . r]pou. TO ACTTTO'V is pervasive (cf.
Meteor. 365*' 33-35) and expansive (cf. e. g. de Caelo 33 b22-29,
B. 2. 329^27 33Oa7 209
304a30-31: as we saw,
*29** 18-20, Aristotle connects /xai/oV-
TTVKVOV with XcTTTovn-axy). Hence it tends to'
fill up'
anyvessel which may contain it, i. e. it is avaTrXrjo-TLKov, and this shows
that it is closely connected with TO vypov. Since the hot is said
to be the cause of rarefaction, and the cold of condensation (de
Gen. Anim. 783a 37- b
2; and cf. below, 30^11-13), we mayperhaps infer that ATTTOV irayy are derivative forms of vypov-fypov
produced by the agency of the hot and the cold respectively.
3Oa i-3. XciTTojuiepes . . TOIOUTOI>. If the text is sound, the
argument seems to be that just as TO vypov is avaTrXrjo-TiKov
because it follows the outline of the vessel containing it, so TO
AeTTToV is avaTrXrjo-TiKov, because, owing to the fineness(i. e. the
smallness) of its parts, it leaves no cranny of the containing
receptacle unfilled.
Aristotle identifies TO XCTTTOV with TO AeTrro/xe/oe's (cf. Bonitz, Ind.
427b6-io), and the latter with TO /xt/cpo/xcpcs.
In a3 TOIOVTOV, i. q. TOLOVTOV wore oAov oAov a7rreo-0ai :
' such as
to be in contact with its continent, whole with whole'. This
is only another way of saying that it is TOIOVTOV oWe aKoXovOclv TO>
d7TTo//,eVo) (cf. 29b35~
ai), i.e.
' such as to follow the outline of
the continent which is in contact with it '.
3Oa 4~7. TrdXiv . . . UYPOTT]TOS. On TO yAtVxpov, cf. *28b 4.
The following further information may be gathered from the
Meteor, (i) Viscous liquids, though they may contain solid
matter, refuse to precipitate it, owing to their viscosity (38 2 b
13-16). (ii)Some viscous substances e.g. bird-lime (i6<s)
refuse to solidify (are cbr^/cra) owing to their" viscosity. Oil's
refusal to solidify, whether by heat or cold, is however attributed
to the air, of which it is full, rather than to its viscosity (383b 20 if.,
3&5bi~5 : it appears from de Part. Anim. 648b 30-33, that oil
does 'become cool and solidify' i.e. freeze though more
slowly than blood and than boiling water), (iii)Since TO
yXio-xpov is 'extensible' or cohesive (cf. *28b4), it is sometimes
contrasted with TO if/aOvpov, the ' non-cohesive'
or'friable
'
(cf.
e.g. Meteor. 385ai7, 387
a11-15). Thus, e.g., water is tyaQvpov
in contrast to oil. It falls apart into isolated drops : and there-
fore is more difficult to hold in one's hand than oil. Oil can be
'drawn out' owing to its yXio~xpoTr)<s (de Sensu 44i a23-26).
Aristotle says here (3oa4-6) that TO yXicr^pov is a modification
of TO vypov, but does not explain what the modification is, nor
how it is produced. According to Zabarella, it is a vypov' which
210 COMMENTARY
has been very efficaciously combined with a little ^pov '. Can
we perhaps infer from Aristotle's instance (oil) that it is a vypoV
which has become 'full of air' for that is the peculiarity of oil?
We are not told what fills the vypo'v with air whether e. g. this
is an effect of the hot or the cold.
Since Aristotle says that TO Kpavpov is 'that which is so
completely dry, that failure of moisture has actually caused it to
solidify' (3oa6-7, cf.
a2 2-23), we may hope to gain some light
on the subject from Meteor. s82b3i ff. and 385*22-33. For
we are there told to distinguish, amongst the bodies 'which
solidify and harden', (a) those which are forms of Water and
(b) those which are forms of Earth, (a) Theforms of Water are
solidified by the cold, which crushes out the hot (eK0Ai/?ovTos TO
Oepfjiov) the moist evaporating along with the vanishing hot.
They solidify, therefore, owing to the absence of the hot : and they
liquefy again by heat (cf.*
29** 26-30). Ice, lead, and bronze are
given as instances, (b) Theforms of Earth are solidified by the
hot, which dries up the moist in them. They solidify, therefore,
owing to the absence of the moist. The instances given are Kepa/xos
(terra-cotta ?),soda (vtTpov), salt, yrj rj
IK TrrjXov. Most of these
liquefy again by the moist : Kepa/xos is an exception, and its
refusal to liquefy is explained by Aristotle on other grounds.
From the present passage we should naturally infer that TO
Kpavpov is a form of Earth, which has solidified owing to the
complete elimination of its moisture by the hot. If so, ice is
not strictly speaking Kpavpov. For though it shares one charac-
teristic property with TO Kpavpov, viz. that it is Opavo-rov (cf.
Meteor. 386*10 and de Part. Anim. 655*3132), it is a form
of Water, and its solidification is due primarily to the absence
of the hot, not to the absence of the moist. Aristotle, however,
says of the egg-shell that, when completely developed, it becomes
o-KXr/pov Kal Kpavpov, and he ascribes its solidification to the cold.
It' comes out
'
soft, but is immediately cooled and thus solidified
the little moisture in it quickly evaporating, and only the earthy
element of its consistency remaining (de Gen. Anim. 752* 30 ft).
3Oa 8-12. 6-ri . . . ir)p6i>.The matter of every composite body
is an attemperament of dry and moist (cf.*2Q
b30-32); and
according to the proportion of dry and moist in this attempera-
ment which depends upon TTT^IS the body is either /mAaKoV or
o-K\r)p6v. Since TT^IS is effected by the hot or the cold or by both
together, /xaAaKov and o-K\r}p6v are modifications in the moist and
B. 2. 33oa 4-24 211
the dry produced by the agency of the hot and the cold (cf.*29*
26-30, Meteor. 382a 8-n, a 22
ff.).
The hard or rigid (o-KX^pdv) does not yield to pressure by with-
drawing into itself, whereas the surface of a soft or plastic
(/AaXaKoV) body retires under pressure upon the body itself (cf.
de Caelo 299^ 13-14). Water on the other hand or any vypwyields to pressure by total displacement (cf. Meteor. 382** 11-14,
386a24-25. Water avTiircpturraTai or ai/Ti/Ae&VraTai).
3Oag. jmediordjiei'oi', i. q. avn^Oicrra^vov : see preceding note.
30a 11-12. TO 8e . . . CrjpoV. This is not very clear : for (a) the
paXaLKov as well as the o-K\rjp6v involves TTT^I?, and (b) the Kpavpovas well as the (T/cXr/poV is 7re7n?yds (30* 6-7).
Perhaps Aristotle means, as Zabarella suggests, that a bodybecomes ' hard
',if the 7n/ts has been carried so far as to eliminate
the moist. The result is then reXcws fypov, and it is (i) Kpavpov,
qua deprived of its moisture and therefore easily Opavo-Tov, and (ii)
o-KXrjpov, qua not yielding to pressure.
3Oa12-24. X^ycrai . . . uYpou. Aristotle here distinguishes three
subordinate senses of vypoV and >;p6V, and shows that they all de-
rive from the moist and dry which were first mentioned, i. e. from
vypov and fypov in the sense defined above (29^ 30-32).The term vypdv is applied (i)
to that which has foreign moisture
on its surface the' moistened
'
or'
damp'
(StepoV), and (ii) to
that which has foreign moisture penetrating to its core the' sodden
',
' drenched',
or '
sopping'
(/3e/?pey//,eVoi/: the term is
used e.g. of wool and of earth, Meteor. 385^ 14, &c., and ofa sponge,
ib. 386*5)-
Correspondingly, the term fypov is applied (i) to the contrary
of the StepoV, i- e. to that which (though it was, or might have been,
damp) is 'dried' (a18-19); and (n) though Aristotle does not
expressly mention this use of the term to the contrary of the
/3e/?pey/xeW, i. e. to that which (though it was, or might have been,
sodden) is' dried through and through '.
Finally (iii)TO vypoV may mean that which contains moisture of
its own ;and may thus be contrasted with that form of the grjpov
which is called Tre-m/yoVor 'solidified' (3oa20-24).
The antithesis vypdv-TrcTrryyo'swas used above, 270 17-22.
Philoponos rightly explains that vypoV in this sense applies to'
TO.
Tr/KTct, e.g. wax, lead, and the like '. These '
liquefiable'
substances
differ from vypa proper : for whereas the latter are nothing but
vypa (are vypd through and through), the former ev TW fidOet,
P 2
212 COMMENTARY
?x t r*?v ^Kt/ai/ vypdrr/ra. They also differ from TO.
/?e/?pey/xeVa (e. g. mud, or the sopping sponge), because the v
in them is their own^ and not imported from without : it is
not dXXorpta, or o-i^vris not eVaKTos (cf. Meteor. 382^11).
It is clear that these three subordinate senses of vypov and
qp6v derive from the primary vypov and fypov, because the latter
are employed in defining them. Thus, e. g., the damp is that which
has on its surface a foreign vypoY^s, i. e. a vypov in the primary
sense. The solidified is that which has been deprived of a vypoVrjs
(i. e. a vypov in the primary sense) originally belonging to it,, and
is thus fypov in the primary sense, viz. SVO-O/OICTTOI/ not easily
adaptable in shape.
3Oa13-15. dmKCiToi . . . Xex^eVrwi'. /?e/?pey//,ei/oj/ and its un-
named contrary are not here referred to, and we have therefore
two (not three) subordinate senses of vypov-grjpov : viz. (i) damp-dried and (ii) liquefiable-solidified.
a-n-avra Sc TO.VT (a
14), i. e. Sifpov and its contrary fypov, TreTr^yos
and its contrary vypov.
roil/ Trpwrwv Aex^errwv (a
15),'
those which were first mentioned '
:
cf.fj irpwrr) \^OfUra. aaropta (Polit. 1282^1), ^ Trpwrrj \t)^UTa
aarof/ui (Meteor. 381* 13).
Bonitz, however (Ind. 653a50-51), interprets 'in their primary
sense',and suggests Trpomos as an emendation ofTrpwrwv : cf. 3o
a19.
3Oa21-23. vypov . . . Taurus. Aristotle here contrasts the sodden
with the liquefiabk-. previously (n16-18) the sodden was distin-
guished from the damp.
B. 3
3Oa 30 3ia 6. 'Eire! . . . itjpou. The doctrine of this chapter
may be summarized thus : It is mathematically possible to com-
bine any four terms in six different couples. But, of the four
elementary qualities, hot cannot be coupled with cold, nor dry with
moist, since they are contraries. Hence the possible couples of
these four qualities are really only four (3Oa 30 - b
i).
Conformably to this result, each of the 'so-called elements',
which appear to be simple bodies, is in fact characterized by
(a different) one of the four possible couples of qualities : and
there are four of these ' elements', corresponding in number to
the four elementary qualities. This correspondence (of the'
simplebodies
'
to the qualities) is to some extent confirmed by reflection
upon the views of previous thinkers (3Ob1-21).
B. 2. 330aI3 3. 33<D
b 21 213
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, however, are not really simplebodies. The real 'simple bodies' are like them, but more
pure (30b21-30).
The simple bodies fall into two pairs, according as they tend to
move '
up'
to the periphery or ' down '
to the centre of the Cosmos.
From this point of view, Fire and Air are contrasted with Earth
and Water. From another point of view, Fire and Earth as
extremes are contrasted with Air and Water as intermediates.
But though they thus fall into pairs, they zxefour: and, qua four,
each of them is primarily and distinctively characterized by
(a different) one of the four qualities (30^30 3ia6).
3Oa30. oToixeia : cf.
* 28b 26 35a23,
*2Q
a5,
*29
b2-3,
*29b i3. The word here and at a33 means the elementary
qualities, which are genuine (not merely*
so-called ') a-roi^la..
3Ob 1-7. TJKoXouOirjKe . . . Xrfyop. Aristotle has proved that there
must be precisely four elementary qualities (hot, cold, dry, moist),
capable of forming precisely four couples. It is in consonance
with these results of theory (KO.TCL Xoyov,b
2, 7 : cvAoyw?,b6) that
common opinion, resting on the evidence of perception, recognizes
four'
simple'
bodies, and attributes to them respectively, as their
characteristic qualities, precisely these four couples.
aKoXovOeiv, i. q. VTrap^etr, KaTrjyopcLaOai (cf. Bonitz^Titf^. 26 b I ff.),
but the term is used here with /cara Xoyov to suggest that
the attribution of these couples to Earth, Air, Fire, and Water
is a logical consequence of the theory which Aristotle has
developed.
There is a double antithesis implied in <aii/o//,eWs (3ob
2), viz.
(a) that between appearance and reality^ and (b) that between
what seems on the evidence of the senses^ and what is on the
evidence of reasoning. Earth, Air, Fire, and Water appear to
perception to be '
simple'
bodies : but they are not really so, as
reflection will show (cf. 3ob21-30).
3Ob 4. otoi> . . . &r\p. It is evident to perception that'
air'
is
hot and moist, if'
air'
is understood in Aristotle's sense as * a sort
of drfuV: cf.* 22b 2~3, *3i
a24. This is what
a-tjp must mean,if it is distinguished from 'fire' (i.e. the 'fiery' simple body,which is oiov uTreKKaiyx-a).
30b 7-21. airan-cs . . . drrm0T)<ni/ : cf.* 28b 33 29
a5. The chief
object of this brief review is to confirm Aristotle's theory by show-
ing (a) that in all previous theories the number of the *
simple
bodies' depended upon the number of elementary qualities re-
2i 4 COMMENTARY
cognized, and (b) that no previous theory recognized more than
four'
simple bodies '.
3Ob ii. rds dpx^s :
'
originative sources',
i. e. in effect here
'elementary qualities' (cf. e.g. 29*% b9), for the underlying
matter is separately reckoned (3ob12-13).
3Ob 12.r\
:
' or rather',
for rarefaction is due to heat and con-
densation to cold (cf.*29
b34 3o
a4).
3Ob 13. BrjjuoupYoGn-a. Aristotle himself applies this term to the
hot and the cold as forces manipulating the dry-moist and thus
producing a consistent and definitely-shaped compound : cf. e. g.
Meteor. 384*) 26, 388*27, 389a 28.
3Ob 13-19. ot . . . iroiouo-iK. Aristotle here contrasts with the1 monists
',and compares with one another, (i) those who postu-
lated from the outset(b13 cvOvs : for even the monists in effect
assume two dp^ou, cf. b n) two *
simple bodies' and(ii)
those
who postulated three '
simple bodies'
as o-Toixcta.
(i) The *dualists
'
select, as their orotxeta, two simple bodies,
characterized respectively by the opposite qualities of a contrariety.
As thus characterized, these two simple bodies are * extremes'
:
and the other supposed'
simple' bodies the * intermediates ' or
' means '
(b14 TO. /Aerau,
b19 TO /teow) are explained as
' blends '
(b
1 5 piyfuvra TTOIOVCTI TOVTWV), i. e. as characterized by qualities
intermediate between the contraries which were assumed to
characterize the' extremes '.
' Parmenides '
i. e. the Pythagorean theory criticized in the
second part of his poem (cf.* i8b 6-7,
*35
b16-17,
*36
a1-12)
is quoted as a typical instance. In this*dualistic
'
theory, Fire
and Earth, characterized respectively by the hot and the cold,
were selected as o-rotxeta : and Air and Water were regarded as' blends '
of these two ' extremes '.
(ii) The second group of thinkers postulated three '
simplebodies
'
as cnroix*"*. They regarded two of these as'
extremes ',
and the third the intermediate or middle one as a * blend ' of
these. Hence, as Aristotle says, they only differ from the ' dualists'
in that the latter*
split the intermediate into two',
whilst they
do not.
3Ob 15-17. wo-auTws . . . iroicT.' The same course is followed
by those who advocate three. (We may compare what Plato does
in " the Divisions"
: for he makes the middle of his three kinds
of substance a blend.)'
Aristotle mentioned a theory which postulated a triad of '
simple
B. 3. 330b n-i7 215
bodies' (Fire, Earth, Air) in B. i, without naming the author.
Philoponos, as we saw (* 29* 1-2),, ascribes this theory to Ion of
Chios.
(i) If we accept the usual interpretation of the present passage,Plato is accused of postulating three '
simple bodies'
as oroi^eta,
and of regarding two of them as extremes, the third being an
intermediate produced by blending the extremes. He is said to
have done this kv rats SiaipeVeerii/ an addition which increases
the obscurity of the passage.
According to Philoponos (p. 226, 11. lyff.), Alexander said
that ' the reputed SiaipeWis of Plato is a spurious work, but
Aristotle is probably referring to the Sophist, SiaipeVcis KaAwv ra eV
KiVa> '. On this, Philoponos remarks (a) that in his day there was
no work called Siai/ae'cms attributed to Plato, and (b) that there is
nothing in the Sophist connected with the theory of a triad of'
simple bodies '. Accordingly he prefers another suggestion of
Alexander's, viz. that the reference is to certain aypa<aof Plato, which Aristotle himself had written downunder the title of SitupeVeis (cf. also the exhaustive note in Zeller 4
,
ii. 2, p. 4373)-
But if we identify the StaipeVeis with a collection of Plato's
'unwritten opinions' (whether made by Aristotle or by some
anonymous writer), we are still confronted with an insuperable
difficulty. For how could Aristotle have credited Plato with
a theory so utterly irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Timaeus,without a single word of explanation ? And, on the other hand,
if Plato had maintained a ' triad'
of this kind (or if Aristotle
thought that he had done so), is it not incredible that Aristotle
should have omitted to emphasize its inconsistency with the
Timaeus? The doctrine of the 'elements' in the Timaeus was
criticized above (cf.*29* 13-24) : yet there is not a word there, or
anywhere else in Aristotle, to suggest that Plato ever put forward
a different, and an incompatible, theory.
For the theory is beyond question incompatible with the
Timaeus. It is true, no doubt, that Plato(1. c., 31 b~32 c) treats
Fire and Earth as * extremes'
requiring a ' mean '
to unite them.
But (as he immediately proceeds to say) 'extremes' which are
solids require two ' means '
to unite them, and accordingly there
must be two intermediate bodies (Air and Water) between Fire
and Earth.
Thus the doctrine of the Timaeus resembles the view attributed
216 COMMENTARY
by Aristotle to the'
dualists'
: cf.*3o
b13-19. Again, it is true
that Plato (Timaeus 55 dff.) groups Fire, Air, and Water together,
as all three ultimately derived from the right-angled scalene, and
contrasts them with Earth, which is derived from the isosceles
(cf.*25^ 19-25). And he places Air midway between Fire and
Water in respect to mobility, size of corpuscles and sharpness
of their edge. But there is nothing in the Timaeus to suggest
that* the so-called elements
'
are really oroi^eta, or that they are
three and not four, or that Air is a /xty/xa, e. g. of Fire and Earth
(cf. 29a
2).
(ii)I am therefore convinced that the usual interpretation
of the present passage is wrong. Aristotle is not here attributing
to Plato the doctrine of a triad of'
simple bodies'
at all. All that
he is saying is that the advocates of such a triad (e. g. Ion) madeone of the three a blend of the other two,
'
just as Plato eV rats
Siatpeo-eo-ti/ makes the middle a blend '.
What, then, are the SiaipeVas in question, and to what Platonic
triad is Aristotle referring ?
Philoponos, supposing the StatpeVets to be a collection of Plato's
aypcu^a Soy/xara, suggests that Aristotle is referring to the Great
and the Small and to a third apx7^ playing the part of vAry,' which
Plato said was a /xty/xa of the Great and the Small '. But thoughAristotle constantly refers to Plato's doctrine of *
the Great and
the Small'
(i.e. TO oVetpov of the Philebus) and '
the One'
(i.e. TO
rre'/oas),he always recognizes that
* the Great and the Small'
play
the part of v\rj, and 'the One' corresponds to' form '
(cf. e.g. Phys.
187*17-18, 189^1 iff., Metaph. 987^20 -ft). Even Philoponosis obliged to admit that the third apxn (which he identifies
with v\rj, i.e. with the vTroSo^) was not, according to Plato,
a tuy/xa of the Great and the Small, but that in which these
were mixed.
- Since we need not suppose that Aristotle is here imputing to
Plato a doctrine so inconsistent with the dialogues as that of
a triad of '
simple bodies',we are no longer forced to interpret lv
Tats Statpeo-ecriv as a reference to an unknown work. Nor is there
any reason whatever to identify the Siaipe'o-cts here mentioned with
at yeypa/x/xeVai SiatpeVets referred to in the de Part. Anim. (642^ 1 2).
In spite of Zeller's denial(1. c.), I agree with Dr. Ogle that these
'
published dichotomies '
are probably the divisions in the Sophistand Politicus : but Aristotle does not attribute them to Plato byname, and in any case they need not have anything to do
B - 3- 330b 15-30 217
with the StcupeVeis in the present passage. The latter, I venture
to suggest, are simply Aristotle's name for a famous passage in
the Timaeus (35 aff.),
where Plato describes the formation of the
Soul. Plato there works with a triad, the third member of which
is produced by blending the other two. God takes (a) the Indi-
visible and always Self-Identical Substance (Identity) and, blend-
ing it with (b) the Substance77 ircpl TO. aw/xara ytyi/o/x,evr; /xepicrT?/
(Otherness), produces (c) a third kind of Substance. Next, Godmixes together all three, viz. Identity, Otherness, and their
Blend; and having done so, divides the whole resultant Sub-
stance into parts. The division or rather the divisions, for Plato
distinguishes in the whole process two successive operations is
introduced with the words r/px TO &* 8upv <oSe (35 b), and is
elaborately described (cf. Martin, i, pp. 383 ff.). It seems likely
enough that this section of the Timaeus should have been quoted
by Aristotle as at 8iaipc<rcis.
3Ob 2O-2l. orukdyet . . . ai>TiTi'0T)(ni>. Cf. Metaph. 985^* 31- b
3 :
Burnet, p. 231.
3Ob 22. jjuKTa. None of ' the so-called elements'
is a pure
example of Trpwrry vAry informed by a couple of elementary quali-
ties : they are all more or less* blends '. The terms
/x,ty/>ta, /AIKTO'I/
in this chapter are not used in the strict . sense of ' chemical
compounds'
(cf. A. i o), but simply in contrast to TO
3Ob 23-25. ra . . . aXXou'. To each of ' the so-called elements'
there corresponds a really-simple body, which resembles it in
character, but is not identical with it. Thus, e. g., Trpam; vXyinformed by hot-dry is not the same as fire : but it is
(
fiery'
in
character, and is the pure simple body, of which our fire is an
impure or modified form (cf.* 22 b 2-3).
3Ob 25-30. TO ... irupos. Fire is to the really-simple body,which resembles it, as ice is to water : i. e. it is an exaggeration
of it, in which its characteristic quality (the hot] is intensified (cf.
Meteor. 34ob23 : below,
*3i
b24-26), just as ice is an intensifica-
tion of the cold which distinctively characterizes water.
That is why, as Aristotle adds, neither ice nor fire play any part,
as constituent materials, in the coming-to-be of living things :
though the hot-dry and the cold-moist simple bodies (the first
of which Aristotle calls'
fire')do enter into the constitution of
every 6/xoio/zepes (cf. 34b3i-32).
3Ob 30-33. OVTWV . . . jAeaoy. This passage presupposes the
218 COMMENTARY
doctrine developed in the de Caelo : cf. Introd. 10,* 22b 2~3,
*23*6-8.The two roTTot (so
b3i-32) are the ai/w (the periphery) and the
KOTO) (the centre) of the sublunary sphere. Corresponding to
these two regions there are two extreme simple bodies, viz. (i) the
absolutely heavy (Earth), and (ii)the absolutely light (Fire).
These two 'extremes' imply an 'intermediate' body, which
Aristotle divides into two, Air and Water. Both of these are
re/ativefyboth light and heavy; for Air TrA^v Trupos Tratrtv c7ri7roAaei,
and Water TrAr/i/ y^s Trao-tv v^iWarat (cf. de Caelo 312* 25-27).
Accordingly Fire and Air are here reckoned as forms of the
body which moves towards the ' limit',
i. e. towards the periphery
(b3 2 rov Trpos rov opov ^>po/x,vov, sc. or<o/x,aTos) \ and are contrasted
with Water and Earth as forms of the body which tends towards
the centre.
In b3 1 the best reading is eKoVcpa.
' The simple bodies, since
they are four, fall into two pairs which belong to the two regions,
each to each.' Bonitz seems to be right in taking TOW SvotV as
dependent on cKarepov. The reading Trpwrwv (instead of TOTTWV) in
EJ<l (cod. Z) is implied also by F's' duorum utique primorum
esse unumquodque '. Perhaps it was originally a gloss to explain
what ToVot Aristotle meant.
3Ob 33 3ia
i. Kal aicpa . . . &r\p. Fire and Earth (i.e. the really-
simple bodies which resemble these) exhibit their respective
tendencies to movement, up and down, in the extreme or purest
form. Hence they are grouped together as ' extremes',and con-
trasted with Air and Water.
3ia1-3. Kal exciTepa . . . oweoTTjiccj'. Aristotle reverts to the
previous grouping (3ob3i~33) of Fire and Air on the one hand,
and Water and Earth on the other.
Philoponos rightly regards 3ia2-3 (ravra yap . . . <rW<m7Kev) as
an explanation of how the simple bodies, although they are ovo-icu,
can be said to be '
contrary'
to one another (cf. e. g. Categ. 3b 24-
25). The contrariety depends on the elementary qualities which
constitute them. Cf. also 35a 6.
For 7raOr)fia.T<i>v (&3), cf. e.g. 29
b15 Tratfo?.
3ia3-6. ou nV ilpoC. In the Meteor, (cf. e. g. 382a 3-4)
Water is treated as, of all the simple bodies, most typically exem-
plifying TO vypoV : and Aristotle builds his classification of the
6/xoio/xcpi} upon this assumption. He classifies them in three
groups, according as their matter which must be a temperament
30 4- 33 2a 2 219
of vypov and r/poV (cf. *29b3o-32) is predominantly Water,
predominantly Earth, or equally Earth and Water.
Yet here (3ia4~5 vSwp . . . Oeppov) he appears to view Air as
more vypov than Water. Now, so far as the definition of TO vypovis concerned, Air might well be regarded as more vypov i. e. as
less determinate in its outlines than Water : and so Philoponos
(p. 230, 11. 29-30) explains this passage. But this interpretation
is inconsistent with the doctrine of the Meteorologica : cf. also
below, *34b34 35
a3-
It may perhaps be suggested that Aristotle does not say here
his words do not even necessarily imply that Air is more vypoVthan Water. He is not comparing the simple bodies with one
another. His immediate purpose is to insist that, within the
couple of qualities characterizing each ' element ', one quality is
more distinctive of the *
elejnent' than the other. Thus, though
Water is \f/vxpov-vyp6v, it is par excellence characterized bycold rather than by moist : and though Air is vypoV-flep/xoV,
it is par excellence characterized by moist rather than by hot.
B. 4
3ia7 32a 2. 'Eire! . . . eipYjrai. All the simple bodies are by
nature such as to be transformed into one another (3ia7~2i).
This transformation occurs in various ways. The quickest and
easiest method is for an ' element '
to pass into the c element'
next
to it in the natural series i. e. Earth into Water, Water into Air,
Air into Fire, and Fire into Earth. The transformation is then
effected by the conversion of a single elementary quality into its
contrary (3ia 21 - b
4). The slowest and most difficult transformation
is that by which a single( element
'
passes into another ' element'
characterized by qualities the contrary of its own i. e. Earth
into Air, Air into Earth, Fire into Water, Water into Fire. For
two elementary qualities have here to be converted into their
contraries (3ib4-n). There is a third method, by which two
1 elements' taken together, provided they are not '
consecutive', pass
(by the elimination of a single quality in each) into either one of
the remaining* elements '. Thus Fire + Water are transformed into
Earth or into Air, according as either the hot and the moist or the
dry and the cold are eliminated : and Air + Earth are transformed
into Fire or Water by the elimination either of the moist and the
cold or of the hot and the dry (3ib12-26). But this method of
transformation does not apply if the two ' elements',which are
220 COMMENTARY
taken together, are next to one another in the natural series.
No third' element
' can be thus generated from Fire + Air, Air +Water, Water + Earth, or Earth -j- Fire. For the elimination of
one elementary quality in each member of these pairs will leave
either two identical or two contrary qualities i.e. qualities
incapable of constituting a simple body (3ib26-36).
31*7. SiupicTTcu Trp<5Tepoi>. The reference is probably neither
to i4b15-26, nor to 29
a35, but rather to de Caelo 30^23 ff.
Aristotle had there maintained (a) against Empedokles, who said
that the 'elements' were <u&a (cf. *i5a4~8), and (b) against
Plato, who denied that Earth comes-to-be out of the other three
(cf. Timaeus 54 b-d), that all four simple bodies come-to-be out
of, and pass-away into, one another. He had also criticized the
accounts given by Demokritos and the Platonists of the manner
in which the ' elements '
are transformed.
3ia 8-10. ajjia . . . earn'. Apparently the argument is :
1
Perception attests the yeVeo-i? of the " elements ". For dAAoiWis
is an undeniable fact of perception (cf. i4b13-15) : and dAAoiWis
is the change of a tangible (cf.*
29** 7-13) body in respect to its
alcrOrjTa TrdBrj (cf. e. g.*i9
b8-io). Hence the observed fact of
dAAoiWts implies change in the rrdOTj of the arrTa.'
If this be the argument (cf. also i4b 15-26), it is clearly very
weak. The TrdOrj of the a-n-rd include not only the derivative as
well as the basal contrarieties of touch, but also the qualities
of colour, sound, flavour, and scent. And even if Philoponos
(p. 232, 11. 6-12) is right in suggesting that all these TrdOrj are
effects of the various blendings of the hot and the cold, and the dryand the moist, still the fact of dAAoiWts does not prove that the
'elements' come-to-be. For dXAotWts does not imply, in every
instance, a change from cold to hot, or dry to moist, or vice versa.
At most dXAotWts implies some modification in these basal
contrarieties of touch, and shows therefore that the yeVeo-t? of the* elements '
is possible.
3ia24. au'fi|3oXa. According to Liddell and Scott, a-vpj3oXa
' were strictly the two pieces of a bone or coin, which two eVot,
or any two contracting parties, broke between them and preserved,
tallies, Latin tesserae hospitales '. In Aristophanes' speech (Plato,
Symp. 191 d) each of us is said to be dvOpu-n-ov a-vpfioXov, are
TCT/AI^VOS wo-Tre/o at J/^TT<H, e ei/os 8vo. We are, each of us,
a half severed from the original whole human being a half
demanding its complementary half to constitute a complete
B. 4- 33 ia 7"~-33ib 24 221
aV0/oa>7ro9, much as a flat-fish, to judge by its appearance, requires
to be joined to another flat-fish, blank underside to blank under-
side, to form a complete individual.
Aristotle uses the term here and elsewhere to mean a part of
one whole, which is capable of fitting in with a complementary
part so as to constitute another whole. Thus, e. g., the hot in Air
can fit in with the dry, and thus constitute Fire : and the hot in
Fire can fit in with the moist, and thus constitute Air. Hence the
hot in Air and Fire is an interchangeable 'complementary factor'.
(Cf. Bonitz, Ind. 7 i5b 1-8. He renders orv//,/?oAov by
'
pars ',which
is hardly adequate.) Perhaps the most instructive passage is in the
Meteorologica, where Aristotle is explaining the formation of Air.
Air in the strict sense not in the more popular sense in which
Aristotle sometimes (e. g. de Caelo 289*29, Meteor. 34ob 2i-32 :
cf. Gilbert, p. iSij, p. 4763, &c.) uses 'air' to include the 'fiery'
body is a hot-moist body, filling the lower atmosphere, the region
where dr/us predominantly collects and clouds form. It is' a sort
of or/us* (* 3ob4) ; yet, as Aristotle maintains {Meteor. 360** 21-27),
Kcwn/os i. e. the 7n/cv/>taT(o8r;s di/a^u/xtcuns as well as aiyu's (the
dVa#v/Aia<ns) contributes to its formation. The oV/uSwSr/s
which, since it is drawn from the water, is really' in
its own nature'
cold and moist (cf.* 22 h
2-3,*3i
b24-26), supplies
the moist, and the KO/TTVOS contributes the hot, wore KaOcnrcp IK
crvfjift6\o)vowwrraiTo av 6 arjp vy/oo? /cat OepjjLOS.
3ib2-4. ware . . . e<|>eT]s. Aristotle has shown that, by the
conversion of a single elementary quality in each case, Fire is
transformed into Air, Air into Water, Water into Earth, and Earth
into Fire (31- 26 - b2). This is a cycle of transformations. At the
same time, the 'elements' have been taken 'consecutively',
i.e. in their natural order : for working' downwards ' from the
'
uppermost' stratum Air comes next to Fire, Water to Air, and
Earth to Water (cf. Introd. 10,* 22b 2-3). Hence Aristotle says
that the * elements' taken in their natural consecution contain
<ru/x,/?oA.a,and therefore cyclical transformation of the simple bodies
is the easiest. For c^e^s, cf. *i6b 4.
3Ib5. e uSaros . . . irop. aepa /cat Trvp by chiasmus for irvp
Koi aepa.
31^ 11-24. a"TTl pos- The transformation of Fire into
Water or of Air into Earth, and vice versa, involves the '
passing-
away' of both elementary qualities in each case, i. e. their
conversion into their contraries (3ib4-n). Hence it takes a
222 COMMENTARY
longer time than the transformation of the
natural series, which involves only the conversion of one
elementary quality into its contrary (3ia23
- b4). There is, how-
ever, a third method of transformation though not of reciprocal
transformation (3ib 12-13 ^K k aAAr/Aa Se
17 fiera/foo-is)
whereby hvo ' elements'
together generate a third. This involves
the '
passing-away'
(but not the conversion) of one elementary
quality in each of the generating' elements
',the new ' element '
being formed out of the remaining two elementary qualities.
3ib23. ?\v : cf.
*i4
b25-26,
* 28b 2.
3ib 24-26. ojioXoyoufj^nr] . . . yfjs. Air (cf.
*318-24) is formed
out of dr/xts and KCLTTVOS : but this is not inconsistent with Aristotle's
statement here that KCITH/OS is derived from Air and Earth. For
KctTn/ds is a hot-dry exhalation or smoke, and it may draw its hot
from Air and its dry from Earth. Cf. e.g. Meteor. 37ia 33- b i
OTL fj.V yap o re Ka7ri>6s TTVfVfjia /cat /ccterai 6 KaTTi/os, <j>avpov, Kal
ipr)T<u ev ercpois TrpoTepov. (Since irvevfjia is defined Meteor.
38 7a29 as piW o-Wexfc 7T6 /X^KOS de'pos, Bonitz is probably right
in interpreting etprjTai ev ere'pois Trporepov as a reference to the
present passage.) The same doctrine is implied in Meteor. 34 ib
21-22 (ecm yap fj <J>\bg Trvev/xaros rjpov ^eVts), 366a2-3, 38 7
b31 ff. :
cf. also de Sensu 443*27-28; and above, 3ob29. At the same
time, it must be remarked in general that it is extremely difficult
to reconcile Aristotle's various statements about the 8nr\f) avaOv-
/Aia<ris (cf.*22b 2 3) and about dr/us and /caTrvos which are
typical of its two forms. We must always remember that the two
forms of dvaflu/AtWi? never exist entirely apart from one another.
The distinction between them is one of degree, and depends uponthe relative predominance of the dry over the moist^ or vice versa
(cf. Meteor. 359b28-34). The drofa/u'oo-t?, in so far as it is
derived from water, is relatively moist, and more like mist or
aqueous vapour (dr/AiSw&ys, dr/uSwSeo-Tepa). It is' hot
', indeed,
since it has been drawn from the water by the sun's heat : yet,
as derived from water, it is (cf.*311*24) 'in its own nature'
cold. On the other hand, the avaOvpuuris, in so far as it is
drawn up from earth, is relatively dry and more like wind or
Smoke (Trveu/AaTtoSecrre'pa, KaTrvw&ys : cf. e.g. Meteor. 341b 6-1 8).
3ib27-28. <j>0ap>Tos . . . aroixciuk. Probably orotxctW is to
be taken with Oarcpov, not with c/carcpo). It will then meanc
elementary qualities'
: cf.*3o
a30.
3Ib 28. TWI> aujidTUf, i. q. TWI/
B. 4. 33ib23 --5. 332
a 10 223
B. 5
32a3 33a i5. ou . . . 6<rrai. On the connexion of B. 5-7 with
B. 1-4, see * 28^ 26 35* 23. B. 5 falls into two parts, (i) Thedoctrine already established viz. that there must be four '
simplebodies ', informations of a single incorporeal matter, constituted
each by a couple of qualities drawn from two contrarieties, and all
able to be transformed into one another is shown to follow from
a somewhat different starting-point (32a 4 - b
5).
(ii) It is proved that none of the 'simple bodies' can be an
unchangeable origin (dpxn) f the others. None of them is
a genuine element, none of them is in that sense the vXy of the' natural bodies '. All of them are on the same level of beingderivative and changeable.
Incidentally it is proved that the transformations of the1 elements
' cannot proceed ad infinitum in a straight line : and
thus Aristotle's own doctrine, that their transformations are
cyclical, is confirmed (32b5 33*15).
32*4-5. ci ... TOiaura. Cf. 28^32 29a
5. TO, <f>v(riKa o-wftara
(a4) are, I think, equivalent here to at <vo-ei o-wearoxrai ovo-tai,
on which see * 28b 32-33.
326a-7. If ... yr\v. Aristotle is arguing against the theory
that some one or other of the so-called' elements '
is the vTroKei^rj
v\rj, of which the remaining' elements
'
(and therefore ultimately
all <f>v<riKa o-w/xara) are derivative forms, iravra (a6,
a7), i. q.
TraVra TO, a.7rA.a <ra>ju,aTa.
32a 7~8. cnrep . . . T&iwria. Here, as elsewhere (cf. e. g. 3ia
14, 32b21-22), Aristotle assumes this principle, which he had
established in the Physics (cf.*i9
b 6 2oa 7), as a fundamental
law of nature.
32a 8-9. el\i.ev
. . . yeVeoxs. It will be aAAotWts, because ex
hypothesi the persisting vTroKei/xevov (viz. Air) is a perceptible body :
cf. e.g.*i9
b 10-12. The alternative viz. d ^ vTro/xeVci is not
stated, because, unless Air is supposed to'
persist ',it clearly
could not be the v\rj of the others as the theory maintains.
32a9-10. ajjia . . . oTtoGy.
'
Moreover, nobody supposes a
single" element "
to persist as the basis of all in such a way that,
besides being Air, it is simultaneously Water or any other
"element".'
Air(a8-9) is supposed to
'
persist ',and the other * elements
'
to be derived from it. This means that Air alters e.g. into
224 COMMENTARY
Water, not that Water comes-to-be.* Alteration
', however, implies
that the Air, which has altered e. g. into Water, exhibits some
difference from simple Air : and this leads to difficulties which
Aristotle will develop immediately (a10-17). In the meantime,
in the parenthesis a/xa . . . ortow, he confirms his statement that
the theory is bound to recognize an alteration of its supposedfundamental ' element '.
32a 10-12. torai . . . OepjuLOT^Ta. Since some change is neces-
sarily implied, and since all change is from contrary to contrary,
the persisting' element ' must possess a quality contrary to a quality
possessed by the ' element '
into which it'
alters '. Thus e. g., if
Air is to alter into Fire, we must assume a contrariety hot-cold,
and assign one contrary (e. g. hot] to Fire. The Air, which has
altered into Fire, will then be distinguished from the Air, which
is the v7roKei/AeV>7 v\rj, by being hot Air.
The antecedent of ^s (a n) is evaimWis, /cat Sta^opa being
parenthetical and explanatory. The contrariety differentiates the
v7roKL/jivov into its specific forms, each contrary characterizinga different form. It is tempting to
transpose otov and TO -rrvp, but
in any case we must construe as the subject of 2.32a 12-17. A^A . . . coral. Fire cannot be ' hot Air
'
for three
reasons. For (i) the process thus implied is'alteration
'
of Air,
not transformation :(ii)
Air is not observed to become Fire by
being heated (a13 ov <<uWai) :
(iii)if Fire is
' hot Air',
Air
itself must be cold (for if we suppose Fire to revert again into its
vTTOKeLfjitvr) v\r], Air, this will involve the conversion of the hot into
its contrary) ;in other words, Fire will be both hot and cold, hot
qua Fire and cold qua Air.
TO avro (a17), sc. TO Trvpi but Aristotle's argument also proves
that Air must be simultaneously both cold and hot.
32a 17-18. aXXo . . . KOII/TJ.* Both Fire and Air, therefore, will
be something else which is the same;
i. e. there will be some
master, other than either, common to both.' This ' other matter'
is of course Aristotle's Trpom; v\rj.
32a20-25. ou pji> . . . irept^x ''' Anaximander and his followers
(a25, Tives) thought that all things were made out of a single
'
deathless' and *
indestructible'
stuff, which they called ' the
Boundless' and 'the Environing': cf. e.g. de Caelo 303b12-13,
Phys. 203b10-15. As the origin of all things, and as itself not
characterized by any of the contraries, it is clearly* other
' than
the * elements '. And since, as Aristotle rightly interprets the
B. 5. 332^ 10-25 225
theory,' the Boundless '
is a body, it is natural that he should
describe it as an ' intermediate' between two of the ' elements '.
In several passages (cf. e.g. 28b 35) Aristotle speaks of it as inter-
mediate between Fire and Air: in others (e. g. Phys. 203* 1 8,
205a27) as intermediate between Water and Air: and in one (Phys.
189^3) as intermediate between Water and Fire. Burnet (p. 55 4)
rightly remarks that this variation shows we are dealing with
an inference drawn by Aristotle, not with Anaximander's ownstatement.
32a 20-22. olov . . . XeirTOTcpoi/, i. e. the a-n-tLpov, if intermediate
between Air and Water, is coarser than Air and finer than Water;
if between Fire and Air, coarser than Fire and finer than Air (cf.
Phys. i87a14-15).
32a22-25. coral . . . TTpie'xoi>. The a7rtpov is supposed to be
a body existing apart from(i.
e. unqualified by) the contraries
which characterize the ' elements '. Hence the moment any of
these contraries is added to it, it becomes one or other of the1 elements '. Now Aristotle maintains that it must always be
qualified by one or the other of the contraries constituting each
contrariety in question. For in the contrarieties which charac-
terize the ( elements'
(hot-cold, dry-moist) one contrary is related
to the other as privative to positive, as oWp^o-ts to ets or to
Karrjyopia TI<S /cat etSos (cf.* i8b 14-18). And though a middle
is possible between two contrary judgements (for x may be neither
hot nor cold, but insusceptible of temperature), under certain
conditions the contrary is invested with the character of the
contradictory, and the Law of Excluded Middle applies. Thus,
if x is a subject which can accept the predicate' odd
',i. e. if
x is a number, it must be either odd or even : for a number,
which is not-odd, is eo ipso' even '. Within the sphere of number
the negation of ' odd '
is eo ipso the affirmation of ' even '
(cf.
Post. Anal. 73*' 18-24).
So the airtipov, which ex hypothesi can accept* hot
',must be
either hot or cold. For it must be either hot or not-hot : and
a subject which is by nature recipient of heat, in so far as it is
not-hot, is eo ipso cold. For * cold'
is simply the crrepr/o-is of heat
in a subject by nature SCKTIKOV of heat. The principle of Aristotle's
argument applies to' coarse-fine
',the contrariety here supposed
to differentiate* the Boundless
'
into Air and Water or into Air
and Fire (cf. 32a21-23). For coarse and fine are equivalent to
dense and rare (cf.*29^ 34 3o
a4), a contrariety which Anaxi-
2254 Q
226 COMMENTARY
mander regarded as primary (cf. de Caelo 303** 10-19) : and rare
is, relatively to denseta (rreprjo-is (cf. de Caelo 299
b8~9 lore, &
TTVKVOV fJLavov Sicu^e/oov TO) ev t<T<t> oyKw TrAeiov evvTrapxeiv). If, there-
fore, 'the Boundless' can be dense (coarse), it must be either
dense or rare (fine) : for the Se/mKoV of the dense, in so far as it
is not-dense, is eo ipso rare.
32a 25-27. ofioi'ws . . . irdvra..' The Boundless
'
cannot exist
apart from all contraries : and, possessing a contrary, it will be
one or other of the' elements '. Hence it is either nothing at all
or any one of the ' elements'
indifferently, according to the
particular contrary which is at any time qualifying it. We have
thus disposed of the theory that something perceptible i. e. some
body exists, which is other than, and prior to, the four ' elements '.
Hence the four' elements
'
are all the simple bodies there are
always excepting the Aether, which is not here in question, since
we are considering only the matter of the ycw^ra KOL <f>0aprd.
32a 29-30. t\. . . eypatyev : cf.
*25
b 19-25 and Timaeus 54 b-d.
Fire, Air, and Water all come-to-be out of one another, since theyare all derived from the right-angled scalene. But Earth is
derived from the isosceles and therefore does not come-to-be out
of the other three nor pass into them.
32*31. $e'8eiKTai Trporepov: cf. 31*12-20.
32a31-33. KOI . . . ppa&u'repoi/ : cf. 31* 20 - b
36.
In *3i I have followed E (cf. also T 'et quoniam') in readingKat ort B\ and have therefore ventured to bracket et/a^rat TrpoVe/oov
in *32 as clumsy and unnecessary. In a
32 on means ' because'.
32* 34 - bi. el ... dx<5piorros. One contrariety produces two
' elements'
only : for matter (Trpom? vXy) is the* mean ' between
the contraries, and matter has no separate subsistence. (Or
perhaps :
'
for the " intermediate"
is nothing but matter, and that
is imperceptible'
&c.)
32b 5. irporepoy: above, B. 2 and 3. Cf. also Phys. i89b r6ff.
32b 5-7. on . . . SrjXoi'. Aristotle is going to show that none of
the ' elements'
is an unchangeable originative source (apx7?)
f tne
others : i. e. that all four are on the same derivative level of being.
Assuming the natural series of the 'elements' (cf.*3i
b2~4),
there are two '
at the end '
(CTTI T< a*po>, or l-rn rot? a/c/oois), i. e. two'
end-elements ', viz. Fire at the top and Earth at the bottom :
and two in the middle, viz. Air and Water. Hence we have
to prove that there can be no apxrj either*
at the ends '
or 'in the
middle '.
B. 5. 332*25 *>14 227
32b 7-9. emfjiek
. . . irdrra.. If there is an ap-^i at one of the
ends of the series, all the ' elements'
(b 8 and b
9 Travra) will be
Fire or Earth. This is tantamount to saying that they all arise
by alteration of Fire or Earth a theory which has already been
refuted (cf. 32a6-2o).
It is not clear why Aristotle confines this argument to the
'end-elements'. It would apply equally if it applies at all
whatever c element '
is selected as the dpx7?
f the rest.
The argument remains equally obscure if we interpret iravra
(b 8 and b
9) as '
all things ', with Philoponos.
32b 10-12. on . . . aXXtjXa. We are to prove that no ' middle-
element ' can be an apx^ either, (on 8' ov8t /ACO-O^, sc. ap^rj TL<S carat
avrwv.) It is not true, as some thinkers suppose, that Air is
transformed '
upwards'
into Fire and ' downwards '
into Water,and Water '
upwards'
into Air and ' downwards '
into Earth,
whilst Earth and Fire are not further transformed into one
another. In other words, we cannot maintain that the process
of transformation starts from the ' middle-elements '
and, pro-
ceeding upwards and downwards in a straight line, is terminated
by the top and bottom { elements'
respectively.
We do not know to what thinkers Aristotle is referring. Theydenied the transformation of Fire into Earth and vice versa : i. e.
they denied the cyclical transformation of the ' elements '. Theymust also have denied the transformation of Fire into Air, and
of Earth into Water : otherwise (a) they could not have regarded
the' middle-elements
'
as d/a^at', and (b) they would have admitted
an indirect transformation of Fire and Earth into one another.
I have marked a lacuna after a\\r)Xa in b 1 2. The sense requires
SfjXov or e* Ton/Sc &7)\ov which can hardly be borrowed in thoughtfrom b
7.
32b 12-14. Set ... laoirai. Aristotle's own theory is that the
transformation of the ' elements'
is cyclical. He has therefore
to prove (a) that none of the ' elements'
can be the apx^ of the
rest, (b) that transformation cannot stop at any of them, and
(c) that transformation cannot start from any one and proceedad infinitum in a straight line upwards or downwards.
He sets out to prove the last thesis (c) first: cf. 32b30-32.
But the actual proof is postponed to a refutation of the theory
that the ' middle-elements'
are dpxat and that transformation,
starting from them, stops at the extremes. Aristotle argues
(3 2b 1 4-30) that the transformations which this theory accepts
Q2
22 8 COMMENTARY
(e.g. from Air to Fire and Water) imply the possibility of the
reverse transformations also, e. g. of Fire into Water (cf.b24-25),
and thus ultimately of all the' elements
'
into one another.
32b14-15. YY) . . . n. We need not attempt to reconstruct
Aristotle's diagram, traces of which seem to be preserved in J.
The argument is clear without the letters.
32b 15-16. cl ... A n. The words /cat Y (b16) are not strictly
relevant ;for the consequence (viz. that there must be a contrariety
belonging to obj/o and -rrvp)follows from the transformation of Air
into Fire alone. Air's transformation into Water (Y) is dealt with
below (b17-19).
32b 20-24. ouKoui' . . . STJPOTTJS. Air, we have supposed, qua
white changes into Fire qua black : and Air qua dry changes
into Water qua moist. Now, in this second transformation, what
happens to Air's whiteness"* It must either persist or change;
and if it changes, it must be converted into its contrary, black.
Hence Water, besides being moist, must also be either white or
black. It does not matter which alternative we .adopt : for
Aristotle's conclusions would follow equally, mutatis mutandis^
from either. For the sake of argument, he supposes (b23) that
Air's whiteness persists when it is transformed into Water.
Water, therefore, will be moist and white. On the same principle
(b 23-24) we must suppose that Fire, besides being black,
is also dry, Air's dryness persisting when it is transformed
into Fire.
32b 24-27. lorat . . . XeuKoV. We saw first that Fire was black
(b16-17) and Water moist (
b17-19). Next we saw that Water
was also white (b20-23) a d Fire also dry ^23-24). Hence
Fire is black-dry, and Water is moist-white. Therefore, since
Fire and Water possess contrary qualities, Fire can be transformed
into Water.
32h 28-30. Kal em ye ... irw. In Aristotle's diagram, A (Air)
has been taken as white-dry, II (Fire) as black-dry, and Y (Water)as white-moist. Hence it is clear
'
that, in the instances we have
taken, T (Earth) also will contain the remaining two "complemen-
tary factors ", viz. the black and the moist : for these have not yet
been coupled '.
32b 30-32. on . . . rwi/oe : cf.*32
b 12-14.
32b 32 33 lli. ei ... TO M>. We must bear in mind, as Philo-
ponos rightly observes, that Aristotle throughout assumes the
transformations to proceed in a straight line. Only on this
B. 5. 332^14 333a 10 229
assumption is it true that each new transformation implies a new
contrariety, and that the preceding* elements
' must possess
contrary qualities corresponding to all the contrarieties. OnAristotle's own theory, the contrariety dry-moist (e. g.) is the basis
of two transformations, viz. of Fire into Air (or vice versa] and of
Water into Earth (or vice versa}. But, according to the theory
which Aristotle has in mind in his present criticism, a ' middle-
element '
e. g. Air is transformed *
upwards'
in virtue of one
contrariety into Fire and in virtue of another contrarietyl down-
wards '
into Water. Fire, again, is supposed to be transformed'
upwards'
into a totally new * element '
(b33 eis . . . dvaKa/x^ct,
i. e. the new * element' cannot be reached either by cyclical trans-
formation or by reversion in a straight line) : the basis of this
transformation, therefore, must be a totally new contrariety. Andsince we cannot suppose that Fire suddenly develops the contrary
in question out of nothing, we must assume that this contrary
has been passed on to Fire from Air and from all preceding'elements' (if there are any) in the straight line of 'upward'transformation.
33a 1-7. TO STJ K . . . uirdpou<ni>. If II (Fire) is transformed
into a new ' element', \I>, this implies a new contrariety, e. g. K3>,
of which one contrary (e. g. K) belongs to Fire and the other (<)
to ^. Since K cannot have emerged from nowhere (see preceding
note), it must have been passed on to Fire from the' element '
out of which Fire itself came-to-be, i. e. K must belong to Air and
to the preceding members of the series (if any there be). Thesame argument applies, if * be further transformed into another
new ( element': hence if the transformation continues adinfinitum,
there must be an infinity of contrarieties(i.
e. an infinity of
contrary qualities) in each single' element '.
In 33a1-3 (TO 817 K . . . aAA^Aa) Aristotle begins a different
argument, which is dropped because it assumes that all the' elements '
(Earth, Water, Air, Fire) are transformed into one
another. This assumption admits cyclical transformation and
is therefore incompatible with the theory which he is criticizing.
Hence, though Aristotle has infact proved that his. opponents are
bound to admit cyclical transformation (* 32b 12-14, 32
b15-30),
he is ready, for the sake of argument, to suppose (33* 3) that the
transformation of all the ' elements'
into one another has not yet
been proved.
33a9-10. Too-auras . . . rrXcious.
'
It will have to pass through
2 30 COMMENTARY
such a vast number of contrarieties and indeed even more than
any determinate number.' So Philoponos interprets, apparently
rightly.
33a 10-13. WOT' . . . Iva.vri6rt\r^. (i) Some 'elements' will
never come-to-be at all, viz. those which are separated from the
* element ',with which the process of transformation starts, by an
infinite number of intervening* elements '.
(ii)Even the transformation of e. g. Air into its next neighbour,
Fire, will be impossible. For (cf. 33** 3-7) Air and Fire will each
contain an infinite number of qualities, corresponding to the infinite
number of contrarieties demanded by the infinitely-extended
line of transformations. But it is impossible for a thing with an
infinite number of qualities to come-to-be or (we might add) to
pass-away. Hence Air will never pass-away and Fire will never
come-to-be.
33a 13-15. Y^ TOU &mu. Aristotle's argument here appears
to be unsound. He has proved (cf.*33
a1-7) that each new
' element'
above Fire in the '
upward'
line of transformation
implies a new contrariety : and from this it follows that a contrary
from each new contrariety must belong to all the ' elements'
below
Fire. Similarly, if we suppose the line of transformation to be
reversed, each new ' element ' below Fire in the ' downward '
transformation implies a new contrariety, a contrary from which
must belong to all the * elements 'above Fire.
But it does not follow from this that the elements above and
below Fire are identical, since they will not all have the same
contraries(i.
e. qualities). If e. g. Fire qua K changes into ^ qua
<3>, all the* elements '
below Fire will possess the contrary K :
whilst *, and all the 'elements' above it, will possess the con-
trary 3>.
What Aristotle says is that 'all the contrarieties of the "ele-
ments " above Fire must belong to the " elements " below Fire,
and vice versa'
: but we cannot infer from this that the ' elements'
are identical. The contrarieties hot-cold and dry-moist belong to
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water on Aristotle's own theory : but these' elements '
are not on that account 'all of them one '.
B. 6-7
33a 16 34b 30. Gaufxcxcreie . . . rSXXa. On the connexion of
these two chapters with B. 1-4, see * 28b 26 35* 23. They may
B. 5- 333a io 6. 333*23 2 3*
be summarized as follows, (i) If the 'elements' are incapableof transformation i. e. ultimately-distinct kinds of matter, 'eternal*
(as e. g. Empedokles maintained) they cannot be quantitatively
compared. Hence Empedokles had no right to say they were
all equal (33a16-34). (
n)There follows a general attack on the
theory of Empedokles. (a) He cannot recognize growth, but
only increase by addition or apposition (33a35 - b
3). (b) Hecannot explain the yeVeo-is and the perpetuation of the various
types of compound natural bodies. He recognizes, indeed, that
if the consilience of the ' elements'
is to form a definite compound(e. g. bone), it cannot be '
fortuitous ',but must be governed by
a certain '
proportion '. But he does not explain what causes this
'proportional consilience' (33b3-18). (c) Nor does he see that
the '
excellence' and the '
good'
of each compound natural bodyare not due to the '
mingling ',but to the cause determining the
proportion in which the' elements
'
are'
mingled'
(33b19-20).
(d) His account of motion is abstract, inadequate, and incon-
sistent (33b 22 34a 9). (e) His theory leaves psychical pheno-
mena and psychical changes inexplicable (34a9-15).
(iii) The formation of compounds (the 6/xoio/i,ep^) out of the' elements
'
presents a serious difficulty not only for theories like
that of Empedokles, but even for theories which (like Aristotle's)
admit transformation of the ' elements' and recognize the genuine
emergence of a new product out of two or more constituents.
For (a) how are we to distinguish the coming-to-be of a com-
pound out of two or more ' elements'
from the coming-to-be of
one ' element'
out of another ? And (b) what is combination ?
How can x and y combine to form a z, which is neither x nor y, nor
the indeterminate substratum of both, but a compound in which
x and y are modified and fused ? (34a15
- b7).
In solving these problems, Aristotle explains how he conceives
the action-passion of contrary on contrary in the process
of combination which issues in the formation of a 6/xoto/xepcs
(34b8-3o).
33a 19-20. TaGra . . . Train-a: Empedokles, fr. 17, 1. 27 (Diels,
p. 179). In the same fragment Strife is said to be ardXavrov
aTravTy, and Love for) pfJKOs re TrXaros re (11. 19, 20).
33a20-23. i ... auTw. If the ' elements
'
are comparable in
amount or in bulk (a 20 Kara TO TTOCTOV, sc. crv/xySX^ra), there must
be something common to them an identical something which,
e. g. as Air, has ten times the bulk that it has as Water. But if so,
232 COMMENTARY
the way is at once open for the transformation of Air into Water
and vice versa.
33a23-27. el 8e . . . SuWrai TI. Empedokles' 'elements',
since they are incapable of transformation (cf.*
1 5a4-8), are not
'
quantitatively comparable'
in the sense e. g. that ten /coruAou
of Air result from one KorvXr) of Water. But can we comparethem quantitatively in respect to their powers-of-action ? Can we
measure e. g. the cooling power of Air and Water, and equate one
KOTvXrj of the latter with ten of the former in this respect?
Aristotle answers this question in the negative ; see the next
note. For the meaning of SiWrat (and Swa/ms,a28, 32), cf.
*27
b22-31.
33a 27-34. eiT] . . . \6yov. When A : B : : C : D, A and C, even
if they belong to entirely different' kinds ', are ' one '
or * the same '
/car' dvaAoyiav (or di/aAoyta). Thus, if the spring is to the river
as the heart is to the animal, the spring is avaXoyia' one '
with the
heart. They are comparable in so far as they fulfil corresponding
functions in their respective spheres (cf. Alexander's com-
mentary on Metaph. ioi6b 34-35). So (Eth. Nic. io96b28-29)
if vision is in the body what intelligence is in the soul, vision and
intelligence are avaAoyca' the same ' and may both be called
'
good'
in' the same
',i. e. in a corresponding, sense.
Now suppose that the heat of one ' element '
corresponds to the
whiteness of another, so that 'the first is hot as the second is
white',the two 8wd/x,ets (heat and whiteness) will be comparable
KCLT dvoAoyiai/, though they, and the ' elements', may remain
irreducibly different. For the comparison is not quantitative and
does not imply the presence of anything identical (any commonunit of measurement) in the comparables. Empedokles, there-
fore, might consistently have said that the * elements' were
comparable as qualia in respect to their*
powers '. This would
mean that the qualities of the ' elements'
corresponded to one
another; e. g., that as it is the function of Fire to burn, so it is the
function of Water to cool. And Empedokles would be entitled
to say that the ' elements ' were all o/Aota,'
analogous'
or'
similar '.
The four terms in such an di/aAoyia are treated simply as qualia,
not as quanta : and the identity of the Adyos between each pair
signifies therefore mere 'similarity', not 'equality' (cf.a29-30
TO 8' ... urov).
But Empedokles said that the ' elements' were all equal. Now
it is only when the terms in an cU/oAoyt'a are quanta that the
B. 6. 333a2 3b3 2 33
'correspondence' signifies, equality. If 2 : 4 : : 8 : 16, then we
may speak of the identity of the Aoyot as an '
equality'
(for J=^)or again of 2 and 8 being
'
equally'
related to their respective
partners, for the relation is in each case a half. Empedokles,
therefore, must be contending that the * elements ', although
irreducibly different, are quantitatively comparable in respect to
their powers-of-action (see preceding note : and cf. Meteor. 340*
13-1 7> where the unnamed thinker is rightly identified with
Empedokles by Alexander).But quantitative comparison in this sense
(i.e.
'
equating ')is
incompatible with the *
unchangeableness'
of the ' elements '. For
we cannot thus compare disparate Swa/xeis, or irreducibly different
qualities (e. g. hot with white, or hot with cold). The terms in
the dj/aXoyiia, if they are to be thus compared, must be different
amounts of the same. We shall be dealing simply with one KorvXr}
and ten KOTV\O.I of cooling substance (cf. 33** 25), or with so-much
and many-times-as-much hot substance (cf. 33*32-33). The
qualitative differences of Air and Water, or of Fire and Air,
cannot come into the avaXoyia at all. What we really have is :
' one pint exhibits x degrees of heat or cold : how many degreeswill ten pints exhibit ?
' And the only possible answer is'ten
times x '
: i. e. the Aoyos will not be equal, but greater (33" 34
TOIOVTOV, SC. TrXciO) Or /Al'o)).
33a30-34. aroTTov . . . \6yov. 'Thus it is manifestly absurd
that the simple bodies, though not transformable, are comparablenot merely as
"corresponding ", but by a measure of their
powers ;i. e. that so-much Fire is comparable with many-times-
that-amount of Air, as being"equally
"or
"similarly
''
hot. For
the same thing, if it be greater in amount, will, since it belongs to
the same kind as the thing of less amount with which it is being
compared, have its ratio correspondingly increased.'
33a32-33. tow . . . ojjkoioft. I have followed the reading of EJ
(cf. <) : but I suspect that Aristotle wrote either wrws 0e/o/xoi/
17 6/x.otW or tcrov17 o/xoioi/.
33a 35~ b3- AXXd . . . au^ai/ofxem. On Aristotle's conception
of 'growth '/see A. 5 and *20^34 2i a
29. Aristotle himself
applies the term metaphorically to the spreading of fire, cf.
* 22* 15. The quotation from Empedokles is given as fr. 37 byDiels (p. 1 86: cf. p. 686) who quotes Lucretius, ii. ni4ff., in
support of Se/xas (HJ) against yeVos (EFL).In Empedokles aWrjp means ' Air
',not *
Fire'
(cf. Burnet,
2 34 COMMENTARY
pp. 228-229), as Aristotle is well aware : cf.*34* 3. That *
Fire
increases by Fire', therefore, must be derived from a lost verse
of Empedokles, unless it is merely an inference of Aristotle's own.
The first av&i (33b
i) is probably intransitive, although the
second is transitive. Aristotle would hardly have said *
Empe-dokles increases Fire by Fire '.
33b 4~9- T& . . . eXcuat'; The yeVeo-is of things which come-to-
be by a natural process is uniform : and the uniformity is either
absolute or highly regular. Breaches of the uniformity, when
they occur, are not attributed to <j>vo-i<sas their cause, but to
chance. The problem therefore, which Empedokles ought to
solve, is :
' What determines this uniformity in the yeVeo-i?
of natural products ?'
In b5 wSi (which EFL omit) is necessary : cf. the corresponding
formula (Phys. 196^ lO-Il) opw/xcv T<X /zev del axravTws yivo/xeva
TO. 8' d)S eVl 7TOA.V.
The meaning of TO avro/xarov and TUX^> and the distinction
between them, are discussed in the Physics (i95b3i i97
b37)
The distinction is irrelevant here, and Aristotle mentions both
only in order to cover all possible cases. Thus at 34a 2 he
employs the term TIT^, though (according to the distinction as
drawn in the Physics) he ought to have spoken of TO avTo/xorov.
With 33b3~i8, and again with 34
a9-i5, the reader should
compare de Anima 4o8a18-23 an^ 49b 23410* 22.
33b 9-n. tj. . . rm. The distinction between fortuitous and
proportionally determinate l consilience of the elements ',and the
explanation of the formation of bone by a mingling of the* elements '
in a certain proportion, are ascribed to Empedokles
elsewhere; cf. Metaph. 993* 17, and de Anima 410*1-6 where
Aristotle quotes the first three lines of fr. 96 (Diels, p. 199).
We must therefore refer to Empedokles the suggestion that
bone results eav w8t avvrcOj (b9) : and we must regard Ka0'
a ciceii/d? ^viv as covering the whole sentence ov . . . nvi
33b II. TOUTOU, sc. TOV Aoyw Tivl <rvv\66vT<av ytyvca-Oai.The
singular is required by the sense of the passage.
33b 12-13. AXXd . . . amok. According to Empedokles, Love'
associates' and thus causes the union of all things in the
'
Sphere'
; whilst Strife'
dissociates' and thus breaks up the
*
Sphere '. But Aristotle (cf. Metaph. 985a 2 1-29, ioooa 24 - b 1 2,
&c.) points out that Love, in bringing all things together, destroys
B- 6 - 333b 4-i7 2 35
the individuality of each : and that Strife, in'
dissociating ', brings
into distinctive being the various constituents of the universe
(cf.*I5
a 8-n : Burnet, pp. 232-233).The same criticism is clearly in Aristotle's mind at 33
b 20-22
(KO.LTOI . . . ravra) : perhaps, therefore, we ought to read that
sentence immediately after alnov (b
13).
33b 13- TOUTO, sc. the cause of the c
proportional consilience'
to which Empedokles attributes the yeVeo-ts e. g. of bone.
33b 14-15. dXV . . . <J>Y]<nc. Empedokles, fr. 8 (Diels, p. 175) :
cf. next note, and *i4b 7-8,
33b 15-16. TU'XY) . . . cruxes. According to Empedokles, fr. 8
(cf. the paraphrase in MXG. 957a 36- b
16), what is supposed to
be coming-to-be or death is really 'only a mingling and a divorce of
what has been mingled : but it is called coming-to-be amongst men '.
Aristotle is here parodying the last line of this fragment, </>v<ris 8'
7rt rots oVo/*aeTai dv0pu>7roio-iv. He reminds us of the original by
the mere sound of the phrase (lirl rots 6i/o/AaeTcu), of which he
has entirely altered the construction and the meaning.
'And chance, not proportion, is the name given to these
occurrences',
viz. to /x.t'is and 8iaAAais piyevriav.
For the idiom, 6i/o/xae<r0at ITTL rtvt, see Stallbaum's note on
Plato, Rpc. 470 b and the passages there quoted.
33b i5. em TOIS 6i>ofi,(iT(u. I have restored rots from J's TO
to-ov (cf.T 'ad equale nominatur
'),which arose from the re-
duplication of the first syllable of oi/o/xa^erat. Instead of rots, FHLhave TOVTOIS and DbE TOVTWV. But in E wv is corrected out of an
earlier reading and ots is written above it.
33b 16-20. TWC . . . firaipci. Cf. 35b6-7, where Aristotle says
that the final cause of the things that come-to-be is17 fwp<j>ri
/cat TO
eI8oS' TOVTO 8' O~TtV 6 AoyOS 6 T^S KOL(TTOV OVOTtttS.
' The formula expressing the essential nature'
of a o/xoio/xcpes
(like bone) is the Xoyos rrjs /x-t^ews of its constituents (cf.*i4
a19),
i. e. the scheme of proportions constituting the plan of the com-
bination. This '
combining-formula'
(a) adequately expresses the' form
'
(and is therefore the scientific definition) of the o/xoto/tepes ;
and (b) states the normal or perfect development of the 6/xoio/xcpe'?,
its <v<rts in the sense of TO Te'Aos TT)S yci/eo-ews (cf. e. g. Metaph.
1015* 10-11), i. e. its 'good '.
The basis of the doctrine is Plato's Philebus^ e. g. 25 d-26 d,
64 c-65 a.
33b 17. TO OUTWS exeu', sc. being a compound such that the
236 COMMENTARY
consilience of its constituents has been governed by a certain
proportion and not by chance.
33b 18. ouSei/ . . . Xe'yet : an allusion to the title of Empedokles'
poem. His work lie/at <v<re<os tells us nothing about Nature.
33 b 19-20. 6 ... lirai^cu Cf. Metaph. 984** 32 9%$* 10, where
Aristotle says that*
Empedokles, though he expressed himself
imperfectly, really regarded Love as the cause of all the goodsin the universe, and Strife as the cause of all the evils '.
Since Love brings things together, the /uts, to which alone
Empedokles ascribed the formation of the *
perfect'
or * normal '
compound, is no doubt the work of Love.
33b 20-22. KCUTOI . . . raura : cf. *33b i2-i3. According to
Empedokles, Love formed the Deity (i.e. the Sphere, cf. fr. 27,
28, 29 ; Diels, pp. 183-184) out of the * elements'
: and then Strife
*
dissociates'
it and separates out the * elements'
again (cf.*15* 4-
8,*i5
a15-19). The * elements
', therefore, sxzprior to the Sphere
(cf. 158-25): and Empedokles (fr. 6; Diels, p. 175) gives them
the names of Gods, viz. Zeus, Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis (cf.
Burnet, p. 229). He also speaks of Love and Strife as &u//,oi/es
(fr. 59; Diels, p. 190).
What then is the cause of the original separate being of the* elements
',before Love had '
associated' them to form the Sphere ?
They must, Aristotle argues (de Caelo 3oia15-20), have been
'
separated out'
of some prior unity, since Love formed the
Cosmos fK Sta/ccKpi/xevcoi/ TWV oTot^etW i yet this original SiaK/nons
cannot be the work of Strife, for Strife can ' dissociate'
only the
already-formed Sphere.
33b 22-26. In . . . irws. Aristotle proceeds (33^ 22 34a9) to
criticize Empedokles' account of motion. He finds fault with
it firstly because it is vague, devoid of scientific precision (b 22
ch-Aws, i. q. dStopio-Toos : cf. Bonitz, Ind. 76b30 ff., 77
b5 ff.).
Thus, e.g., Empedokles (cf. fr. 20; Diels, p. 180) attributes
the formation of organisms (plants, fish, sea-birds, beasts, man)to Love, and their dissolution to Strife. The separate limbs
or organic parts come together because Love sets them moving :
and the organism is disintegrated because Strife divides it.
But this is no explanation, unless indeed Empedokles means,
by' Love ' and '
Strife ', forces whose very nature it is to initiate
respectively movements of integration and disintegration. Andif that was his meaning, he ought to have adopted the recognizedscientific procedure. For the man of science explicitly assumes
B. 6. 333b18-33 237
the < that' and the
' what '
(the'
being' and the ' nature
')of the
substances which he proves to contain certain essential properties:
and he explicitly assumes the ' what '
(i.e. the meaning) of the
properties whose inherence he demonstrates. In other words,
the man of science either defines or posits or demonstrates the
constituents of his subject-matter. (For the doctrine of the
Posterior Analytics, which Aristotle is here assuming, and for
the functions assigned to 6pto-/>tos and V7ro0eo-is in the logical
structure of a 'science', see Introd. 7-9.) If, therefore,
Empedokles' account of motion had been precise, he would not
have been content to say that ' Love and Strife set things moving'
(b23 Sum, i. q. on: cf. 37
a15 ; Bonitz, Ind. 2oob 39 ff.).
Hewould either
(i)have stated explicitly
*
I assume that there is
a force viz. Love whose nature it is to initiate such-and-such
a movement, and another force viz. Strife whose nature it
is to initiate such-and-such a movement '
;or (ii)
he would have
demonstrated that 'to bring together
' and 'to force asunder '
are'
properties' which must characterize Love and Strife respectively.
33b 25-26. r\ dKpipws . . . TTWS. These alternatives qualify
a7roSet<u. Perhaps we have no right to demand an exact demon-
stration, like that of the mathematician, in the sphere of ^vo-i/oj.
But Empedokles ought to have attempted some kind of proof:
an inference from consequent to ground, or (e.g.) a dialectical proof.
Bekker's conjecture (b 26 d/xws for aAAws) is tempting at first
sight : but it does not really solve the difficulty. For presumablywe must identify (i) the exact demonstration with cbroSet^is TOV
OIOTI, and (ii) the laxer demonstration with o,7roSeii5 TOV on (cf.
Post. Anal. 78* 22ff.).
Besides these two ways of demonstrating
no other way is left : for the probable reasoning of the dialectician,
to which Aristotle appears to be referring, is not aTroSet&s at all.
Hence Aristotle's language remains inaccurate, whether we read
aAAws ye' TTWS ('in some other way ')
or a/xws ye' TTWS ('in some wayor other
').
33b 26-33. TI . . . fjiaXXoi/. I(b26-30). There is natural, as
opposed to compulsory or unnatural, movement. For (a) the'
simple'
bodies appear to move in two different ways, viz.'
by
compulsion'
and '
naturally'
: (b) these two kinds of movement
are contrary to one another, and (c) 'compulsory' movement
actually occurs(i.
e. according to Empedokles himself, as Aristotle
infers from his statements: cf. Bonitz). Hence its contrary,' natural
'
movement, must also occur in fact.
238 COMMENTARY
II (b30-33). Is Love the cause of the natural movement
(b30 ravrrjv, sc. ryv Kara <iW) of the '
simple'
bodies ? From
what Empedokles says (when e. g. he ascribes the formation of
organisms to Love, fr. 20) we should expect an affirmative answer
to this question. Yet in fact, it would seem, the answer must be1 No '
(b30 rj ov;). For Love brings all the ' elements
'
together,'
associating' them to form the Sphere : whilst Strife
'dissociates
'
the Sphere, moving all the ' elements'
apart. Now the natural
movement of Earth (e. g.) moves it downwards, i. e. away from the
other' elements ',
and thus resembles a movement of dissociation
(b3 1 TTJV yfjv Kara), SC. /ai/et ^ Kara <f>v(rw KtVr/cris).
Hence Strife
rather than Love seems to cause the natural movements : and
Love rather than Strife is contrary to nature. Empedokles
ought to have given to Love the epithets he applies to Strife
e. g. 'destructive'(fr. 17, 1. 19 ; Diels, p. 178),
*
evil'
(fr. 20, 1. 4 ;
Diels, p. 1 80).
Philoponos, to judge from his paraphrase, seems to have read
b 2 6-33 very differently : but it is not possible to infer with cer-
tainty what he had before him.
33b 27. ret crwptTd, i. q. TO. airXa o-w/xara : SO also b 34 (avruv
TCUV o-eo/ActTwv), 36a
i, 37a 8 and 10.
33b 33 34a 5- AirXws . . . picus. Since, according to Empe-
dokles, Love and Strife are the sole causes of motion, the' elements
' have absolutely no inherent motion or rest (b33 ob-Aws
goes with ovSe/xia mv). Yet this is not only a paradox, but
incompatible with his own statements. For though Strife initiated
the disintegration of the Sphere, the' elements
' were borne
asunder by movements of their own. Thus Empedokles himself
attributes to Fire a natural tendency to move upwards ; and to
Air a downward movement, which he contrasts with its occasional
fortuitous motion upwards and therefore clearly regards as natural.
In b34 I follow EF and read Ku>t,
' unless Love or Strife are
actually setting the simple bodies in motion '.
In b35 Aristotle adds ovSe /XOI/T}
: for, according to his own
theory, the 'rest
'
of each ' element '
at its proper place is the
effect of that inherent' tendency to movement which constitutes
its'
nature' (cf. e.g. Introd. 10).
34a3. OUTW . . . SXXws. Empedokles, fr. 53 (Diels, p. 189).
The same verse is quoted in the Physics (i96a22-23), where
Aristotle substitutes arjp for aiOrjp in his explanatory paraphrase :
cf. *33a 35- b3-
B. 6. 333b27 7. 334> 7 239
34a4~5. ire<|>uK^ai . . . pi<us. Empedokles, fr. 51 and 54
(Diels, p. 189). The present passage is the only source of fr. 54.
34a5~9- fya fyX1
!- According to Empedokles, the Order
of the World is the same now, in the reign of Strife, as it was
formerly in the reign of Love (cf.*15* 14). Hence neither
Strife nor Love can be the force which first set the ' elements '
moving and thus initiated the persistent Order. Strife and Love
are reduced to secondary causes causes of this and that
particular kind of motion, which presuppose an originative source
of motion in general. But Empedokles does not tell us what
this unknown first cause of motion is.
In a9 I have ventured to read d y eo-rtv e/ceiVo dpx*7>
' ^ at least
we assume that "first mover "
to be an originative source of
motion in general '.
34a 15. cWpas . . . Oewpi'as. Cf. de Anima, A. 4 and 5, especially
4o8a 18-23, 409^ 23 ff., where Empedokles' failure to account for
the soul is exposed very forcibly and in more detail.
34a i5- b7. -irepl 8e . . . u\t)i'. Aristotle is about to discuss the
formation of the opoiofjicpfj out of the simple bodies. As a pre-
liminary, he divides all theories into (i) those which admit, and
(ii) those which deny, that the' elements
'
are transformed into
one another. The theories of the Pythagoreans (cf.*34
b4) and
of Aristotle himself belong to the first group : whilst the theory of
Empedokles is typical of the second.
(i) Theories which admit transformation of the 'elements'
into one another necessarily also regard the 'elements' as
differentiations of a common substratum;and vice versa (34
a16-18).
And(ii)
the denial of the reciprocal transformation of the' elements
'
is equivalent to the denial that any* element ' can
come-to-be out of any' element
'
taken singly, except in the sense
in which bricks can come-to-be out of a wall. Fire, e. g., taken
singly, is not transformed into any other ' element '
: all that
Empedokles could admit, is that some other ' element '
might be
extracted out of Fire by a mechanical analysis (34a 18-20 : the
words iwfi . . . 7rAiV0ovs are an explanatory amplification of pyTTOIOVQTIV e dXX-ijXwv yeveo-tv). Such a theory will find it difficult
to explain how anything e. g. any 6/xoio/xepes can come-to-be
out of aplurality of ' elements'
(34a 20-21 : c e/ceiVon/ is contrasted
with u>s e eKacrrov). The only explanation available for
Empedokles is that flesh (e. g.) comes-to-be by a mechanical
synthesis ; i. e. that Earth, Air, Fire, and Water '
compose'
the
2 40 COMMENTARY
oyuoio/xepT} much as bricks and stones '
compose'
a wall. But this
is clearly inadequate (34a 26 - b
2).
Even for the theories of the first group there is here a serious
difficulty. Water comes-to-be out of Fire, and Fire out of
Water, because Fire and Water are differentiations of a commonsubstratum. But how are we to account for the yeVecris of the
opoioiJicpfj e.g. of flesh and marrow out of Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water ? (34a21-26). How can there be a resultant which is
neither one of its constituents, nor a mosaic of them all, nor yetthe common substratum of which they are the differentiations ?
(34^ 2-7).
34a23-24. CK . . . irup.
' Water ' and '
Fire'
are selected merelyfor illustration (cf. also 34
a32). According to Aristotle's own
doctrine all four' elements
'
are combined in every 6/xoio/xe/aes :
cf. e.g. B. 8, *i4a i9>*27*33-* 6.
34a 26- b 2. Ixefrois . . . fie'pous : cf.*2y
b33 28a 17. The
conception of a compound, which is 6/Aoio//,pes, is that of a whole
formed by chemical combination and capable of chemical analysis.
But theories like that of Empedokles can only offer us the
conception of an aggregate, or mosaic, formed by mechanical
synthesis and capable of mechanical analysis. The so-called
fuyfia or-
Sphere'
of Empedokles is in fact a mere shuffle of the* elements
',in which they persist unchanged in quality, though
divided into minute particles : and the same will apply to every
compound, and therefore to every 6/xoto/xcpcs, within the '
Sphere'.But this is not only contrary to the true conception of the
ofjAiofjuprj : it collides with the facts. Flesh, e. g., can in fact
yield Fire and Water (and also, as Aristotle might have added,Earth and Air) from any and every part of itself. Any part of
flesh can indifferently be converted into flame, into liquid, into
the dry dust of putrefaction, and into 'air' or gas (cf. e.g.*29'' 24-26). But this would be impossible if flesh were
a mere shuffle or mosaic. It would, indeed, be possible to
extract e. g. Fire from one part of flesh and Water from another,as one can extract a stone here and a brick there from a wall : but
we could not extract both Fire and Water indifferently from
every part.
34a 32-34. wo-irep . . . yey&rdai. The purpose of this illustration
is to explain the precise meaning of the chemical analysis which
every o/Aoto/xepe's can undergo.
34" 34-35. TOUTO . . . ajjufxo. I insert TO in -
35 before IKrrj<s . . .
B. 7. 334*23 b i6 241
,and take the clause as epexegetic of TOVTO. Cf. Philoponos
(p. 274) Kara rbv avrbv rpoirov, fao-i, TOVTO 8rj TO e orovow //.opt'ou
34b 4. otoi/ . . . ytjs. Aristotle selects'
the cold and hot, or Fire
and Earth'
as examples and is probably thinking of ' Parmenides ',
i. e. the Pythagoreans (cf.*30** 13-19) : but the criticism applies,
as he is well aware, to his own theory too.
34b 8-30. 5p' . . . rdXXa. Aristotle now solves the problemand explains how the yci/co-ts
of the 6/xoto/xcp^ out of the ' elements '
differs from the transformation of one ' element '
into another.
In the main this passage is a mere restatement of the doctrine
already enunciated in A. 10 (cf.*
27** 22-31,* 28* 29-31,
*29
b24-26), but two new features are briefly indicated. Thus,
(i)b 14-16 give us a hint of the sense in which the * elements ',
qua constituting a 6/ioio/Aepe's, are <rvp/3X.irra : and (ii)b 27-28
indicate how Aristotle would have explained the emergence of
different 6/xoto/xcp^ from the combination of the same con-
stituents.
Aristotle bases his solution (i) on the distinction between
(a) the absolutely or'
completely' and (b) the relatively or * more
or less'
hot, cold, dry, moist(b8-16) : and (ii)
on the reciprocal
action-passion of contraries (b20-24).
34b 8-16. ap' . . . TOIOUTOC; (a) The
*
completely-hot'
is not in
any sense actually cold : but it is 8uva/m cold, because its
substratum is the substratum also of the cold. Hence that which
is completely-hot may become cold, and there is always a tendency
for the substratum to pass from one extreme to the contrary.
(b) The'
relatively-hot ', on the other hand, is an * intermediate'
which is actually both hot and cold, though neither completely-hot
nor completely-cold. It is the compromise, resulting from the
reciprocal action-passion of a completely-hot and a completely-cold
which were present in amounts approximately balanced or equal.
It actually possesses the '
powers of action' which characterize
both the completely-hot and the completely-cold, but in a reduced
degree. It is in fact a '
tempered-hot ', which relatively to the
completely-hot is cold and relatively to the completely-cold is
hot. Thus it is Swa/xet both hot and cold, in the sense that the
heat and cold, which it actually possesses, are present in it in
a reduced degree (cf., for this sense of Swa/xer,*2y
b22-31).
But the tempered-hot must not be confused with the vX-rj.
The vA?; is neither hot nor cold, but capable of becoming either.
242 COMMENTARY
The * intermediate ',or the tempered-hot, is both hot and cold.
It is a compromise, in which the completely-hot has reduced its
contrary to a relatively-cold and been itself reduced to a relatively-
hot. In this reciprocal attemperament of the contraries to
a compromise participating in the characteristics of both, we
already have in principle the process which Aristotle calls /xits
(cf.b II 12 8ia . . . aAA?jAa)v). But the ye'veo-is
of aofJLOiOfJLpe<s Out
of the elementary qualities requires in addition a temperament of
the dry and the moist, which is in part effected by the ' immanent '
action of the tempered-hot : cf.*2g
b 24-26.
In 34b 9-10 Oarepov is the subject : $, rrai are to be taken in
the existential sense.
34b 14-16. Kard . . . ToiouToy ; An ' intermediate' can result
only if the active-passive extremes were present in approximately
equal amounts (cf.b23, 28a 28-31). But the 'intermediate'
itself may exhibit its powers-of-heating-and-cooling in different
proportions. Thus, e. g., in one ' intermediate'
the power-of-
heating will be twice as great as its power-of-cooling : in another,
three times as great : in others, perhaps, one-half or one-third as
great.
In other words, there is a sense in which the ' elements'
qua
constituting the o/^oio/xepr; are a-v^Xr/rd (cf. the criticism of
Empedokles, 33* 16-34). The constituents of the opoLopepfj are
the '
simple'
bodies qua hot, cold, dry, and moist : and these
elementary qualities form, by reciprocal action-passion, a tempered-hot and a tempered-dry. These '
intermediates'
differ in the
different o/xoto/xepi} : but, though different, they are nevertheless
o~ufjL/3\v)Td, because they are definable in terms of the ratio
(positive or negative) of their power-of-heating to their power-of-
cooling, or of their power-of-maintaining to their power-of-adaptingtheir outlines.
In b 14 17 \j/vxp6v means 'than cold'
: similarly,b15-16 StTrXa-
o-iws . . . ifoxpov means '
potentially-hot twice as much as it is
potentially-cold '. But17
rovvavriov (b14) means ' or contrari-
wise',
i. e.17 /AaAAov etvai \fruxpov 17 Oeppov. This possibility viz.
that the ' intermediate'
may exhibit an excess of cooling-powerover heating-power is provided for at b 16
(17 KO.T . . . TOLOVTOV).
The ratio of the heating-power to the cooling-power in an 'inter-
mediate' may be e. g. 2 : i, or 3 : i, or again i : 2 or i : 3.
34b 16-20. corai . . . yiv6p&vov. Aristotle here summarizes his
view of the way in which the 6/xoto/xep^ (b 1 7 raAA', i. e. all bodies
B. 7. 334*> 14-30 243
other than the '
simple'
bodies, viz. all owtfcra : but Aristotle is
thinking primarily of the 6/xoio/Ap^) result from the*
elements'
or
the elementary qualities. At the same time, he emphasizes the
distinction between (a) the combination of contraries, which
results in the o/xoio/xepr}, and (b) the lapsing of both contraries
into the undifferentiated matter which is the mere potentiality of
both : and thus solves the problem formulated at 34b2-7.
The contraries, or rather the e elements'
(b 1 7 17 TO>I> o-rot^ettov),
constitute the o/xoio/^pr; in so far as they have been ' combined '.
They are* combined
',when both contraries in each contrariety are
preserved at a lower degree in a resultant' intermediate '. Hence
the' elements ',
in so far as they are the constituents of a 6/xoto-
/xepes, result from (and contain) all the contraries, these being
preserved in them '
potentially '. But we must understand this
'
potential being'
of the contraries in a special sense (b 18 Swa/xet
7ra>9 OI/TCOV), viz. in the sense which has been explained (cf.*27
b22-31, *34b 8-i6). We must not suppose that the
* elements', qua constituting the 6//,oio//,pe's, are only
*
potentially'
hot, cold, dry, and moist in the sense in which the matter of these
contraries is only'
potentially'
-i. e. not actually any of them.
This interpretation, which alone gives a satisfactory sense to
the passage, forces us to take eKciVwi/ (b18) as equivalent to TWI/
eraimW, and to understand ra a-Toi^eta in the same line as Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water, in so far as they are co-operating to form a
34b 19-20. Kal . . . yiydpcror. OVTCD, sc. in the manner described
at b 10-12. cjcctVci>9, sc. in the manner which alone was con-
templated as possible in the formulation of the problem (b6-7),
viz. so that one contrary is destroyed by the other. For if the
completely-hot'
passes-away ',the only possible result unless the
completely-cold takes its place is v\rj.
34b 20-30. lire! . . . rdXXa. Aristotle completes his account by
appealing to the 'disjunctively-articulated definition'
(SiopioyAo's :
cf. 23*22, 29*14) or 'law' of the reciprocal action-passion of
contraries, which was formulated in A. 7.
One consequence of this law is that a contrary is converted
into its contrary, if the latter is present in an overwhelming or
'dominant' amount (b23 eav /AT) la-diy, cf. e.g. *28a
29-31,*34
b14-16) : and it is owing to a conversion of this kind that
the reciprocal transformations of the 'elements' take place
(cf.*3 ia 7 32
a 2).
R 2
244 COMMENTARY
But the formation of the bpoLopcpf) is another consequence of
the same law. For if any two contraries are present in approxi-
mately equal amounts, their reciprocal action-passion reduces both
in degree towards a ' mean ',and the contraries are thus * com-
promised'
to form an * intermediate'
(cf.*2Q
b24-26,
*
34^ 8-16).
34b 20-28. eircl . . . ou8repoi'. The protasis extends to b24
evavriW. By that time Aristotle has forgotten that he began
the sentence with r', and the apodosis (/ecu TiyxoTov KT\.) is
introduced as an independent sentence.
34b 24-26. KCU Trpwroy . . . ToiaGra. There is no expressed etra,
but it is implied. Aristotle is of course referring to two different
consequences of the action-passion of contraries (cf.*34
b20-30),
not to two temporally successive stages in the ycWrts of the
34b 27-28. eyrauSa . . . ouS^rcpoy. evravOa, SC. at the
The tempered-hot is neither completely-hot nor completely-cold
(cf. *34b 8-i6).
34b 28. TO ... dSiatpcTCH'. The diversity in the ' intermediates'
(cf.*34
b14-16), on which the difference of the various O/AOIO/AC/OT;
depends, is due to the fact that ' the mean '
is a '
stretch'
or
a *
scale',
not *
punctual'
or a '
point '. The contraries can be'
compromised ',so as to form an c intermediate
',at various degrees
along a scale, or anywhere along a certain stretch.
f For this familiar Aristotelian conception of a /xeVov which is
capable of fluctuation within certain defined limits, cf. Eth. Nic.
e.g. iio6a26~32, no6b
36 1107*2, 1173*23-28.
34b 29. Kal TO, ToiaGra. Since no contraries except the hot and
the cold, and the dry and the moist, contribute to the formation
of the opoiofjLcpfj, we must refer TO. roiavra to the hot and the cold :
*
as well as the contraries we have used as examples '.
B. 8
34b 31 35a23. "Airaira . . . eipTjrai. All the 6/xoto/xe/)^ must
contain all four* elements
'
as their constituents (34b31 35
a9).
This is confirmed by the fact that all living things even plants
require at least two ' elements'
as their food (35* 9-14). A note
is added to expla-in why Fire, alone of the '
simple bodies',
is
said to' be fed
'
;and the part played by Fire in the make-up of
the bfjioiopcpfj is indicated (35* 14-21).
34b 31-32. "Airaira . . . lirriv. Since there are no /XIKTO, (i. q.
cf. 28a4) o-w/wtTa except in the sublunary sphere, we
B. 7. 334*>20 8. 335a14 245
must translate :
' All the compound bodies all of which exist in
the region belonging to the central body are composed of &c.
The central body (TO //.e'o-oi/)is the earth, and its place (6 TOV
/xeo-oi) TOTTOS) is the centre of the universe. Perhaps, however, the
phrase means simply'
in the region about the centre'
(i. e. of
the universe) : cf. 35* 25.
34 l)
32-34. yfj . . . TOTTW. The compounds must all contain
earth because there is more earth than anything else in the
region where they exist, that being Earth's '
proper place '.
34b 34 35a3. u'Swp . . . SiamirToi S.v. What defines the shape
of the compound is Fire (cf.*35
a14-21) : but Water is essential
to every compound, if it is to possess a definite shape, for two
reasons. For (i) Water, of all the four* elements ', is most
characteristically vypov (cf.*3i
a3-6), and TO vypov is par excellence
readily adaptable in shape : and (ii) Water, qua vypov, gives
cohesion to the Earth in the compound. Cf.*29^ 24-26,
*29**
30-32-
35a 3~9- Y*l - e^o-Tai. Every compound must contain Earfh
and Water, as we have seen. But Earth (cold-dry) and Water
(cold-moist) are contrary respectively to Air (hot-moist) and Fire
(hot-dry), so far as one ovo-ia can be contrary to another (cf.*31*
1-3). Now (cf. e.g.*29
b10-11) the constituents, out of which
a compound comes-to-be, must be contrary to one another.
Hence the compound, since it contains cold-dry, must also contain
the contrasted extremes 'hot-moist' (Air): and since it contains
cold-moist, it must also contain the contrasted extremes '
hot-dry'
(Fire).
35a 9-J4- papTupeiV . . . ap8eii>. We can infer the constituents
of the 6/xoio/xepeY from the constituents of its food, because the
food, in so far as it is food(i.
e. actually nourishes) must have
been '
assimilated'
: cf.* 2ob 34 21* 29,
*2 i
b35 22* 4. Now
the food of all living things consists of moist and dry (cf. e. g. de
Part. Anim. 650* 3-4). It must therefore contain at least two of
the '
simple bodies'
: for moist and dry cannot be coupled
together to constitute a single' element
'
(cf. 30" 31-33). And in
fact all living things plants as well as animals require in their
food Earth (cold-dry) and Water (cold-moist) : cf. e. g. de Gen.
Anim. y62b12-13. Hence the 6/xoto/xcp^ in plants and animals
are said to consist of Water and Earth (Meteor. 384b30-3 1 : cf.
above,*3^3-6).
Even plants (Aristotle here points out, 35* 11-14) do not live
246 COMMENTARY
by Water alone, as careless observers might suppose. They are
nourished naturally by Water impregnated with Earth and
artificially by Water mixed with manure, which is a kind of Earth.
In a14 E reads Ko-n-pa over ap&eiv. This is no doubt a mere
note, but it gives the right sense. Philoponos says the yetapyoL
mix with the Water ryv KOTrpwSrj (sc. yfjv) *JTI<; KOL Trvpw&ovs /cat
depwSovs /xere^ct oiWas : but Aristotle is not here concerned with
Fire and Air.
35a 14-21. lire! . . . Spots. The meaning of this obscure passageseems to be as follows :
(a) The food, i.e. the dry and the moist, is par excellence the
v\rj of the 6/xoioftcpes. It is the inner heat (the hot-cold or
tempered-hot) which, by digesting the food, converts it into the
substance of the o/Aoio/xepes, or' forms '
it (cf.*29^ 24-26).
(b) What 'is fed',and what '
grows ',is (cf.
* 2ib 17 22a 33,* 2i b 24-25,
* 2ib 25-28) the 'form' or 'figure' taken along with
the matter. Now this' form '
or '
figure'
is constituted by the Fire
in the make-up of the o/xeuofiepe's. Fire alone of the four '
simplebodies
'
or most of them all is of the nature of ' form '. For
the ' form '
of anything lies in its continent limits or outline.
And (i) Fire by nature moves towards the outermost sphere of
the Lower Cosmos, thus circumscribing Air, Water, and Earth, as
their containing outline (cf. *22 b2~3): and
(ii)within each
6/Aoiofiepes, Fire may be said to constitute its outline. For Fire's
movement towards 'the limit' will take it to the limit of the
6/xoio/x.epes.
35a i6. r\ fAop^-q. In A. 5 (2i
b27-28) o-x^ux is used instead of
35a 17-18. rp^eaOat . . . \tyov<rw. Cf. de Vita et Morte
21 ff., Meteor. 354b 33 ff. ; Theophrastos, fr. iii. i, 4 (Wimmer,iii, p. 51); Gilbert, pp. 443,, 445^
B. 9-10
35*24 37a33. "Eire! . . . xpovw. In these chapters Aristotle
(i) treats of the four causes of the yci/^ra /cat <0apTa, thus fulfilling
his original plan (cf. i4ar-6), and (ii) adds a note (37
a17-33) m
confirmation of his theory of the efficient cause.
The account here given of the material cause (35" 32- b
5) is
a restatement in somewhat modified terms of the doctrine impliedin A. 3. As regards the formal cause Aristotle briefly repeatsthe doctrine assumed in his criticism of Empedokles (cf.
*33
b
8. 335a H-- 9-
16-20). He defines it as the 'formula expressing the essential
nature', and thus identifies it with the final cause, i. e. the normal
(perfect) development of the type of thing in question (35b6-7).
Nothing more is said of these three causes. But it is incidentally
shown (36b26-34) that the continuity of coming-to-be contributes
to the perfection of the scheme of things an indication of the
line which a teleological explanation ofye'i/ecris
would ultimately
take for Aristotle. The rest of the treatise on the causes is
devoted to the efficient cause. Aristotle shows (i) that a complete
explanation of yeVeo-is is impossible without the recognition of its
efficient cause (35b7 36*12); (ii) what the efficient cause of
yeVco-is and </>0o/x is (36a i4~ b
io); and (iii)how his theory
accords with observed facts and explains a well-known problem
(36b io 37
a15).
35a24-28. 'Eire! . . . irpSt-rov. We have now established that
there are ycvrjra /cat <j>0aprd that yeveors cwrA.?? and <f)0opd actually
occur in the region about the centre (cf. *34b 3i-32), i.e. in
the Lower Cosmos. It remains for us to determine the number
and the nature of the *
originative sources of all coming-to-be alike
',i. e. of yeVeo-ts considered as the universal of which the
of the various types of yevr/ra are specific forms (a 26
yeveVews 6/x,otcos : cf.*14* 2,
* i8a 25-27). This is the
right procedure : for it is a principle of method that ' a grasp of
the true theory of any universal facilitates the understanding of its
specific forms '
(a 2 7-28. OVTO> is merely the antecedent of orav . . .
TT/OWTOV. The reading of FHJ, TO. naff CKOOTO, is supported by
Philoponos, p. 281, 11. 9-10).
35a 24. yeio)Td. According to the manuscripts Aristotle uses both
yev^rds and yewr/ros (cf. Bonitz, Ind. i$o&37 ff. and i55
bi2ff.),
though I confess to a suspicion that we ought always to read
yevvijro?, even where ycv^ros is better attested. Above (27b8)
I read yevj/^rov with EHL : but throughout the present passage
I have retained the form with one v, which is given by EFJ and
sometimes also by H. The evidence for dycV^ros (cf. 37*20)and yei/vrjTiKo? (cf. 36
a18) is overwhelming: cf. Bonitz, Ind.
5b4i and 149* 37-
35 a 28-29. curly . . . irpwrois. Though the bodies of the
Upper Cosmos the 'celestial bodies' are eternal, they are
perceptible and in movement. Hence they too require material,
formal, efficient, and final causes : i. e. dpxa6/ tne same mnumber, and generically the same, as the dpxat/ f tne yev^ra KCU
248 COMMENTARY
For TO. Trp&Ta. (i. q. ra ovpdvia crw/xara) cf. e. g. de Caelo
288b18-19. As contrasted with the ywrjra. /cat <f>0aprd, they are
sheerly actual substances, primary*reals
',the sources of the life
and change in the sublunary sphere: cf. e.g. Introd. 3, 10,*36*14-18.
35a 31-32. ou . . . irpcjTois. The 'celestial bodies' require an
efficient cause for their movement, though not TT/OOS TO yvn}<rai,
since they are dyevrjra /cat a^Oapra (cf.* 28^ 32-33).
35a 32 - b
5. ws ...fir)
elwu. The celestial bodies (a) qua per-
ceptible, involve matter as well as ' form '
\but their matter is the
Aether and is itself eternal : and (b) qua moving, they involve
v\rj iroOcv Trot (y\rj TOTTIKT;), i. e. a something SwaroV, viz. a V7ro/cei-
/zei/ov capable of occupying successively the different points on its
orbit (cf. Introd. 10).
But the bodies of the Lower Cosmos, inasmuch as they are
continuously undergoing ycVeo-ts and <j>6opd, involve a matter
which is the subject of this dual process (35^ 23 TO yev^rov-Kal-
<t>0apr6v). Their matter is something 8wa/Aet oV, i. e. a some-
thing which at one time exists, but at another time does not
exist. We may therefore define it as TO Swarbv cTvat /cat ^ea/ai (35
a33,
b4~5). It is something which per se is not
actual, though capable of being actualized, i. e. formed. Whenit is formed, a <rvr0cros ovcrt'a has * come-to-be
',and exists. And
when that substance '
passes-away ',the matter has been trans-
formed, i. e. has passed from one of its actualizations to another.
The antecedent of oVep (k 2) is TO Sword? etvat Kat py clvat
(a33)> tne intervening sentences forming a parenthesis. In a
35TOVTW includes (i)
' the things which are of necessity' and (ii)
1 the things which of necessity are not '. The antecedent of TOVTO
(b 3) is TO yevrjTov-Kal-ffrOapTov.
35b 6-7- ws . . . ouorias : cf.*33
b 16-20.
35 h7 36a 12. Set . . . opyam. In order to establish the need
for an investigation of the efficient cause, Aristotle divides all
preceding theories into(i) those which (like the theory of ' Sokrates
in the Phaedo')
tried to explain yeVeo-ts and <#o/>a by the formal
cause, i. e. as effects of the ' forms '
: and (ii) those which (like
the theories of the Atomists, the Pythagoreans, and Empedokles)tried to explain yeveo-ts and <f>0opd by the material cause, i. e.
as effects of the movement originating in the matter. The
inadequacy of both types of theory is to be ascribed, Aristotle
urges, to the absence of a clear recognition of the efficient cause.
B - 9- 335a3 I 336aj2
35b 9- ol fi^. There does not seem to be any evidence to
determine to what theories (if to any), besides that of ' Sokrates
in the Phaedo',Aristotle is here referring.
35b ii. eTUTipjaas . . . elpTjKoaii' : cf. Phaedo 96 a-Q9 c.
35b 12-15. uTTOTiSerat . . . dTro{3oXi^ : a rough paraphrase of
Phaedo loob-ioi c.
35b15-16. WOT' . . . <|>0opas. Aristotle is still paraphrasing the
Phaedo. Sokrates (cf. Qge-ioob, loid-e) thinks that 'providedhis u7ro0eWs are sound'
(b15 ravra, sc. the doctrines which
Aristotle has just summarized from the Phaedo] it'
necessarily
follows that the Forms are causes of yeWo-is and <j>6opd '.
35b 16-17. ol 8' ... KinrjoiK. Philoponos (p. 282, 11. 3 and 4;
p. 286, 11. 19, 28, and 29) interprets the 'movement' here in
question as the T/OOTT>J in the matter, by which he appears to mean
the 'turning' of the atoms in the theory of Leukippos and
Demokritos (cf. *i5b 33 i6a 2;* i6a 1-2). But there is no
reason to suppose that Aristotle is thinking exclusively of the
Atomists. His description is wide enough to include e. g.
Empedokles (cf.*is
a22) and possibly Archelaos (cf. Phaedo 96 b,
with Burnet's note ad loci). Moreover, part of Aristotle's criticism
(cf.*36* 1-12) is directed against a doctrine which we have good
reason to attribute to the Pythagoreans (cf. *i8b 6~7,*3o
b
'3-19)-
35b18-24. cl ... TTpaTTojxeVwi' : criticism of the theory of
'Sokrates in the Phaedo''.(i)
The Forms and the Participants
always are e. g. there always is a body which can come-to-be
healthy, and there always is Health but ycrco-ts is intermittent;
and(ii)
at any rate in the products of riyyvi (b23 Swa/uv, i. q.
Te'xnjv : cf. Burnet, Ethics, Introd. 12) we actually see a cause
other than the Forms at work. For patients or pupils do not
come-to-be healthy or learned without the action of the doctor or
the teaching of the man of science.
35b 24 36*12. el . . . opyaya. Aristotle's criticism of the
theories, which tried to explain yeVeo-ts by the material cause, is
based upon his own doctrine (cf. also*35
b34-35). As the
reader will remember, av^o-ts requires (a) an efficient cause,
viz. the av&jTLKrj ijrvxflor TO ei/ov at^n/coV, which (b) employs TO
Oeppov as an auxiliary active force for the digestion and assimila-
tion of the food, in order that (c) the living thing may grow to
its normal stature, i. e. to its pop<f>y or eTSos which is its' end '
(cf.* 2oa 8,
* 2ob 34 2i a29,
* 22 a10-13). Similarly yeVeo-i? requires
250 COMMENTARY
(a) an efficient cause, viz. the ' basal'
soul, the soul qua
riKiJ, which (b) employs certain secondary or auxiliary forces, in
order that (c) TO yew^^vov may come-to-be. The auxiliary forces
here in question are certain Swa/ms inherent in, and constitutive
of, the matter i.e. the elementary qualities, and specially the1active
'
couple, viz. the hot and the cold (cf.*2g
b24-26).
Aristotle begins (35b24-29) by praising the materialists. Their
theory is more scientific (fao-iKwrfpov) than that of Sokrates, for
at least they recognize that movement is required to account for
yeVeo-is. But(b29-31) they were wrong in supposing that this
movement originates in the matter. Matter is passive: it is
a &W/us only in a passive sense. What initiates movement is
a SvVa/Ais in a different sense, an active force. This objection is
confirmed (b31-33) by an appeal to the facts. Neither in natural
yeVe<m, nor in artificial production, does the matter of itself
make the result. Hence they are wrong (b33-35) not only in
ascribing the movement to the matter, but also in omitting the1 more controlling cause', viz. the 'form'. Moreover (36
a1-12),
by eliminating the formal cause, they deprive themselves of the
right to regard the '
material forces'
(e. g. the hot and the cold)as causes of yeVeo-is in any sense, even as
'
instrumental'
or auxiliaryforces.
35b 26-29. TO Y*P KimrjTiK^K.* For what "
alters" and
transfigures plays a greater part'
(sc. than the Forms)'in bringing
things into being; and we are everywhere accustomed, in the
products of nature and of art alike, to look upon that which can
initiate movement as the producing cause.'
Cf.* 2I b 6-IO,
*24
a24 - b
22,*24b I3-l8. TOVTO (
b2j) IS the
antecedent of o av $ KWTJTLKOV. Failure to recognize this perhaps
gave rise to the erroneous variant (b28) a-n-o rexvr/s, a-n-b
35b 29-31 - TTJS . . . Supdpeos. We speak of ' matter'
(a) in so
far as there is a SiW/u$ TOV 7ra<rxv, or (b) in so far as there is
a dwa/us in contrast to an evcpyeia a mere *
potentiality ',or
something*
potentially existent ',in contrast to something realized
and actual. But matter is not an ap^rj /Aera/JoA^s ev aAAa>
not a Swa/us in the sense of an active or operative force. Cf. e. g.
Metaph. io46a 9-29, io48a 25- b
9.
35b34~35- K<H . fAop^TJy. According to Aristotle's own
doctrine, the form (not the matter, as the materialists supposed,c f- 35
b T 7) initiates and controls the processes, by which a work
B. 9- 335b 26 336
a i2 251
of Tfx^n is made or a living thing in Nature brought into being.
The architect, e. g., conceives the' form
' which the completed
house is to exhibit its structural plan, the scheme of synthesis
which is to be realized in the materials (the bricks and beams).
It is this' form '
the ' form '
as*
in the soul'
of the architect, or as
the TX^ oiKoSo/u/o} (cf.* 2ob 18-21) which initiates and controls
the processes of building. Similarly in the yeVeo-is of a living
thing e. g. of an animal or a child the ' form'
is the'
controlling'
cause. For the ' form', implanted by the efficient
cause(i.
e. by the generating parent) in the matter, initiates
therein a determinate movement or change (/aV^cris),which in
turn causes other succeeding changes until the matter has been
developed into the offspring which is to come to birth (cf.de
Gen. Anim. 733b23 ff., with Professor Platt's notes in his
translation; Metaph. ic>33b29 ic>34
a8, io34
a33
- b4, &c.).
Formal, final, and efficient causes, it will be observed, come
very close together in Aristotle's explanation of irotrjo-is and yeVecris.
For the ' form '
of the house is the ideal to be realized and the
originative source of the processes which the architect (the
so-called 'efficient cause') sets going. And the male parent is
the efficient cause only qua communicating the ' form'
(i.e. the
soul, cf. *2oa8, *2i b
i6-i7) to the embryonic matter: whilst
the final cause of the ye'vecns is the completed embodiment of
that ' form',
i. e. the new representative of the species. As we
shall see (cf.*36* 14-18), the ultimate formal, final, and
efficient causes are one and the same, viz. God.
36a 1-12. en . . . opYom. The special form of the materialist
theory, which Aristotle 'here criticizes, is ascribed to Parmenides
by Diels (p. 1 10) : and Philoponos says that Alexander attributed
it to'
the followers of Parmenides '. It appears in fact to be the
doctrine only more fully stated which Aristotle elsewhere
ascribes to * Parmenides',
i. e. to the Pythagoreans criticized in
the 'Way of Opinion'
: cf.* i8b 6-7,
*2Q
b27,
*3o
b13-19.
The Pythagorean materialists regard yeVeo-is and <f>0opd as the
effects of certain forces e. g. the hot and the cold inherent in,
and constitutive of, the matter of which bodies consist. It is the
nature of each of these *
elementary qualities'
or*
material forces'
to act or to suffer action in certain definite ways. Hence the
hot and the cold, and the like, are both the materials out of
which (or into which), and the forces by means of which, all the
other things come-to-be (or pass-away).
252 COMMENTARY
Now, according to Aristotle's own doctrine (cf. *35b 24 36* 12),
the hot and the cold are forces inherent in, and constitutive of, the
matter of <f>vo-LKa o-w/xara : and they are employed by the efficient
cause as instrumental to its purpose of bringing TO yei/i/wfiei/ov
into being. Hence (a) they are not genuine efficient causes of
yeVco-is and <t>6opd, but only secondary causes. The hot, e. g., does
not originate the KiV^o-is which results in the coming-to-be of
a new individual of the species : but it acts as a mediating link,
communicating to the matter the Kivrjo-is originated by TO
yevvrjriKov. For the hot can be itself moved in a certain way and,
being thus moved, it can set something else moving in the same
way. And (b) they become instrumental to yeVeo-t?, only so far as
they are ' used '
by the efficient cause in the service o*f the
final cause.
The Pythagorean materialists, therefore, are open to the
following criticisms : (i) Since they abstract the formal cause,
the hot and the cold can no longer be regarded as' instrumental '.
They assign too high a rank to such material forces in speakingof them as the
*
instruments'
of yeVco-is and <f>0opd (cf. 36a 6 Sia
Tovfwv . . .
<f>0cipco-6ai) ;for apart from the formal
(i.e. the
efficient and the final) cause they are not o/oyavuou. (ii) Theyforget that these material forces are passive as well as active.
Thus even Fire (the hot par excellence, cf.*30** 2530) obviously
'
is moved',
i. e. suffers action. Hence these material forces
cannot originate KU^O-IS : for TO TT/OWTOV /avow is d/an/Tov, and TO
TT/awTov TTOIOVV is aTra^cs (cf. 2^ 1 2-13). (iii) The part, which
these material forces in fact play in yeVeo-is, is that of ' instruments '
or '
tools'
of the final (efficient and formal) cause. It is
therefore as absurd to regard them as the causes of ycVeo-ts as it
would be to view the saw and plane as the causes of the thingsmade by the carpenter. Finally (iv) even if we admit that
(e. g.) Fire unlike the carpenter's tools does act or set things
moving of itself, the movement, which it thus 'originates', is not
instrumental to yeVco-i^: on the contrary, it is destructive. Fire
therefore, if we consider it apart from the controlling cause, is
actually less conducive to yeWis, than are the tools to TroiVis.
36a 2. \io.v opyai/iKds, i. e. they make the material forces
too instrumental in character. They treat mere natural forces
as auxiliary to a purpose, though they have eliminated all
notion of a formal cause, and therefore also all notion of
a final cause.
B. 9. 336* i - - 10. 336b 10 253
36* 12. dXXci . . . opyai/a. This criticism is somewhat obscure
owing to its brevity : I have followed Philoponos in my interpreta-
tion (cf.*36
a1-12).
36* 13-14. rjfui' . . . fxop<j>T|s. Aristotle's*
general account of
the causes'
is given in the Physics (B. 3-9), and his special
account of the material and formal causes of yeVecris and <f>6opd
is contained in the present chapter (35a32
b7).
36a14 - b 10. en . . . <f>uW. Aristotle's theory of the efficient
cause of yeVco-is and <f>0opd presupposes his astronomical system,
which is based upon the system of Eudoxos as modified by
Kallippos. The reader should consult Metaph. io73b 18 1074-
17, and the excellent exposition in Heath, pp. iQoff., from which
I make the following extracts.' Eudoxus adopted the view
which prevailed from the earliest times to the time of Kepler,that circular motion was sufficient to account for the movements
of all the heavenly bodies. With Eudoxus this circular motion
took the form of the revolution of different spheres, each of
which moves about a diameter as axis. All the spheres were
concentric, the common centre being the centre of the earth ;
hence the name of " homocentric spheres" used in later times
to describe the system. The spheres were of different sizes, one
inside the other. Each planet was fixed at a point in the equatorof the sphere which carried it, the sphere revolving at uniform
speed about the diameter joining the corresponding poles ;that
is, the planet revolved uniformly in a great circle of the sphere
perpendicular to the axis of rotation. But one such circular
motion was not enough ; in order to explain the changes in the
speed of the planets' motion, their stations and retrogradations,
as well as their deviations in latitude, Eudoxus had to assume
a number of such circular motions working on each planet and
producing by their combination that single apparently irregular
motion which can be deduced from mere observation. Heaccordingly held that the poles of the sphere which carries the
planet are not fixed, but themselves move on a greater sphereconcentric with the carrying sphere and moving about two
different poles with a speed of its own. As even this was not
sufficient to explain the phenomena, Eudoxus placed the poles of
the second sphere on a third, which again was concentric with
and larger than the first and second and moved about separate
poles of its own, and with a speed peculiar to itself. For the
planets yet a fourth sphere was required similarly related to the
254 COMMENTARY
three others;
for the sun and moon he found that, by a suitable
choice of the positions of the poles and of speeds of rotation, he
could make three spheres suffice. . . . The spheres which moveeach planet Eudoxus made quite separate from those which movethe others. One sphere sufficed of course to produce the daily
rotation of the heavens. Thus, with three spheres for the sun,
three for the moon, four for each of the planets, and one for the
daily rotation, there were 27 spheres in all. ... It would appearthat he did not give his spheres any substance or mechanical
connexion ; the whole system was a purely geometrical hypothesis,
or a set of theoretical constructions calculated to represent the
apparent paths of the planets and enable them to be computed.'
Kallippos (cf. Arist. Metaph. io73b32-38)
'
thought it necessaryto add two more spheres ... to the sun and moon respectively, if
one wishes to account for the phenomena, and one more to each
of the other planets '. Aristotle (cf. Metaph. io73b38 io74
a14)
' transformed the purely abstract and geometrical theory into
a mechanical system of spheres, i. e. spherical shells, in actual
contact with one another;
this made it almost necessary, instead
of assuming separate sets of spheres, one set for each planet, to
make all the sets part of one continuous system of spheres. For
this purpose yet other spheres had to be added which Aristotle
calls"unrolling
"or "
back-rolling"
(di/eXm-ovo-cu), by which is
meant "reacting" in the sense of counteracting the motion of
certain of Eudoxus's and Callippus's spheres which, for the sake
of distinction, we may with Schiaparelli call" deferent
"'. Hence
(Heath, p. 219), according to Aristotle, nine spheres (five' deferent
' and four'
back-rolling ') combine their revolutions to
produce the apparent motion of the sun.
In the present passage Aristotle begins by recalling two theses
which he had established in the Physics (36* 15 SeSeiKrcu,a18-19
TO TrpoYe/oov KaXws cLpyrai : the reference is to Phys. . 7-9), viz.
that motion (a) is eternal and (b) is the primary form of change,of which all other forms, including yeVeo-is, are derivatives.
Motion, therefore, causes coming-to-be (36*25), and the eternity
of motion causes the continuity of coming-to-be (36*15-18).But we have still to determine precisely what motion is the
efficient cause of yeVeo-i? and <f>0opd. Since yeVeo-ts and <f>0opd
(i) occur continuously or uninterruptedly in the Lower Cosmosand (ii) are contrary to one another ; the motion, which is their
efficient cause, must be(i) eternal and continuous, and (ii)
in
B. 10. 336a 14-18 255
some sense dual or internally diverse, since it has to cause a pair
of contrary effects (36* 23-31).These two conditions, Aristotle maintains, are satisfied by
'
the
motion along the inclined circle'
(36* 32), i.e. by the sun's annual
movement in the ecliptic or zodiac circle. For that movement is
continuous (cf.*36** 2-3) : and it brings TO
yei/j/r/Ti/cdV,i. e. the sun,
alternately nearer to, and further away from, any given point on
the earth's surface (cf.*36
b3-6).
The alternation of yeVeons and <f>6opd is ascribed to the sun's
movement in the zodiac circle in Meteor. 346b 16 ff. (cf.*36
b6-7) :
and the doctrine is implied e.g. in Metaph. loyi8-
15-16, io72a
10-18, Phys. i94b13.
36a14-18. en . . . ywqriKov. Aristotle is only beginning the
statement of his doctrine, and his language is not quite precise.
The continuity of yeVeo-is is due to the eternity of motion. But
the whole effect to be explained is the continuous alternation of
yeVeo-ts and <f>0opd. Possibly Aristotle uses the plural (a 16 TOVTWI/
OVTWI/) because he is thinking not only of the eternity of motion
(a15-16), but also of the 'inclination of the circle' which he
will specify (36b3~ro) as the cause of the sun's alternate approach
and retreat.
There is a similar want of precision in 36a 16-18
(17...
yvj7TiK6V), which is not remedied by F's omission of KOL a-jrdyeiv
(a 1 8), But we have no right to expect pedantic accuracy in the
first rough statement of a theory.
Aristotle's doctrine of the efficient cause of yeVeo-is and <f>6opd
has a certain'
metaphysical'
or '
theological'
background, which it
will be convenient to sketch briefly here. Eternal circular
motion, which the Physics (. 7 and 8) had shown to be possible,
is actually exhibited in the first instance by the revolution of the
TT/OCOTOS ovpavos, i. e. the outermost of the concentric spheres, the
sphere in which are set the fixed stars. Its revolution is eternal
and uniform because it is the irpGrrov KH/OV/ACVOV, i. e. because it is
immediately moved by the Trpomn/ KWOVV which is ai8u>v as well as
aKwrjrov, i. e. by God (cf. e. g. Phys. 2*$ 12 26oa 10). But the
motion, which the outermost sphere derives immediately from
God, is imparted to the whole system of concentric spheres, since
they are in contact one with another. Hence, through the
mediation of the irpwrov KU/OV/ACVOV, the l revolution of the whole
heavens '
(cf. 36b3 fj rov oXov <opa) is eternal too.
Now God is conceived by Aristotle as absolute* form '
or sheer
256 COMMENTARY
actuality, and as therefore also the ultimate final cause and the
ultimate (or primary) efficient cause. For(i) God, as sheer
actuality, is the fulfilment in which all effort must recognize its
end i. e . God is'
the Best',
the supreme object of all desire.
And Aristotle represents all things in the Cosmos as inspired by
love of God, as striving, so far as in them lies, to attain to God ;
i. e. to imitate in their activities that perfect and eternal life, that
self-dependent and self-fulfilling spiritual activity, which is God.
But (ii) God, as sheer actuality, is the underived origin of all
motion, i. e. the primary efficient cause. The eternal life, which
is God, radiates through the whole system. It communicates
itself immediately (as we have seen) to the Trpwroi/ KIVOV^VOV in
the form of eternal uniform revolution. In the subordinate
spheres (in the lower regions of the heavens) the movements,
though still continuous and eternal,, are no longer uniform, since
they are transmitted through more than one intermediary i. e.
the movements of the planets are irregular, since they are the
resultants of many revolutions. And in' the region about the
centre'
i. e. in the sublunary sphere there is no revolution at
all. The divine life is manifested here, in this region furthest
removed from the TT/OWTOV /avow, in the enfeebled and imperfect
processes of the perishable things, viz. in the movements and
transformations of the four '
simple'
bodies, in the movements of
the animals and men, in yeVeo-is and <f>6opd, in dAAoiWis, and in
av^r/cris and </>0io-t9. (Cf. Introd. 3 and 4,*
36** 26-34,*36^
30-32; Philoponos, p. 288, 11. 24-26; Metaph. io72a19 1073* 13,
Phys. 25ob11-15, d* Caelo 279* 16-30, 288a 13-17, 292** i8-
b25.)
36* 18. TO YecmrjTiKoV. All movement is the movement of a body.The outermost sphere, e. g., is a spherical shell, i. e. a spherical
body, whose substance is the Aether (cf. Introd. 10) : and it is
this'
body' which revolves uniformly and eternally. Similarly
the movement along the ecliptic, which is the efficient cause of
yeVeors and <f>6opd, is the movement of a body, viz. of the sun
(cf. 36b I del pv TL Kivcl<T0ai,
b7 ravrov TOVTO,
b 1 7 rov ryXtov).
Aristotle calls the sun * the generator'
: but, strictly speaking, it is
the alternately approaching and receding sun which causes,
alternately, yeVeo-is and <p@opd. The sun, qua near, yewa : and the
sun, qua remote, <0etpei (cf.*36
b6-7,
*36b 8-10).
36a19-20. TO ... elircif. This clause is in apposition to, and
epexegetic of, TO -n-porepov (a
18). The thesis is established in
Phys. 260* 26 26 i a 26.
B. 10. 336* 14-30 257
36a 23-25. ^jre! . . . <|>0opd : cf. above, i7b33 ff.
36* 26-31. <j>avp6f . . . TdraiTia. The grammatical construction
has become slightly deflected : but in effect Aristotle is saying'
It
is clear that, in order to account for the occurrence of both yeVeo-is
and <f>0opdtnot one motion only (
a26-29 /*" <#opa), but more
motions than one are required (a29-31 Set ... rdvavrta) '. At first
sight Aristotle's words (Set 8c 7rXe6ov9 ctvai ras Kiv>j<ms) suggest
that separate contrasted movements are required : but he makes it
clear immediately (36a32
- b2) that the two contrasted movements
are constituents of the single' motion along the inclined circle '.
36*30. cycm-ias . . . dcwpiXia : 'contrasted with one another
either by the sense of their motion or by its irregularity.'
(i) One movement is'
contrary'
to another, only if the terminal
points of the former are spatially contrary to those of the latter.
If ^. g. A is above and B below, or A right and B left, or A frontand B back, then a movement from A to B is contrary to a move-
ment from B to A. The two movements, from A to B and
from B to A, are then ei/avriai <popai or crairtai T$ <o/m. Fromthis it follows that there is no movement contrary to circular
motion. If a body is carried round in a circle, from whatever
point in the circumference its motion starts, it must equally,
in each revolution, reach all the contrasted positions in its circle :
and its movement round its circle, whatever its sense, is (if weconsider each complete revolution)
' from the same to the same',
and not from contrary to contrary terminus. (Cf. de Caelo 270^
32 27^33.)From this conception of *
contrariety of motion '
it follows that
if the movements, which cause ycVeo-is and <f>6opd, are eVaimat T-Q
<opa they cannot be (either or both of them) complete revolutions.
And in fact (see preceding note) they are contrasted portions of
the sun's completed circle along the ecliptic.
(ii) Every form of process*alteration
', growth and diminu-
tion, motion may be uniform (6/xaA.rjs) or irregular (dvw/xaXos) :
and the term dvw/xaXos is applied below to the matter of the
yevT^ra Kat <pOaprd (in so far as its temperament and texture are
not everywhere the same) and also to certain yeveVeis and ^Oopai
(cf.*36
b20-24). It appears, however, that the terms, when
applied to motion, express the contrast between a motion with
unchanging, and a motion with changing, velocity. The charac-
teristic of an irregular motion is that its velocity increases
towards, and diminishes from, a maximum. Hence it contains
2254 S
258 COMMENTARY
a plurality of different, and possibly contrary, part-motions : and
is' one
'
only by'
continuity ',i. e. only because the end of one
of its part-motions is the beginning of another. In a uniform
motion, on the other hand, there is the same velocity throughout.
It is absolutely' one '
;for all its constituent motions are similar,
i. e. any one of them could be substituted for any other. Hence
a body which moves uniformly and the path of its motion must
themselves be uniform i.e. must be such that any part could
coincide with (could be substituted for) any other. From this
it follows that the path of a uniform motion must be either
a straight line or a circle. But a straight line (since Aristotle
does not admit an Infinite) contains an apxrj and a reAos. Bodies,
therefore, which move along a straight line, cannot move uniformly.
For, if their motion is* natural
',its velocity will increase as they
get further from the point of rest (the apxf) towards the re'Xos
of their path : whilst if their motion is Trapa <vW, its velocity
will diminish as they get further from the apx*} of their path, since
that means further from the force which impelled them to move*
against their nature '. A circle alone contains in itself neither apx^nor Te'Aos nor /teo-ov : i. e. a circular path has no natural terminus.
Hence revolution the revolution of a body which is itself
uniform, viz. of a sphere is the only motion which is absolutely
'uniform'. (Cf. e.g. de Caelo 288a 13-27 ; Phys. 228b15
229*6, 265b11-16.)
36* 34 - b i. dfdyicT] . . . <|>6opd. crwex^s is probably to be taken
as predicate: cf. 36b25.
36b i. TI : cf.*36* 1 8.
36b 2. 8uo, SC. Kivrjo-as KivcurOai, cf. 36* 33.
36b 2-3. TTJS . . . alria. The 'first motion' (cf. 368-31 ^ Tr/oomy
<f>opd) is that of the Trpwros ovpavos, which revolves once in every
twenty-four hours from East to West. Since it carries round with
it the whole system of concentric spheres, Aristotle here speaksof it as
fjTOV oXov (sc. ovpavov) <j>opa. : cf.
*36
a14
bio, *36a 14
1 8; Phys. 267b 8-9. It is absolutely single and uniform, for what
is revolving is a sphere (cf.*36** 30) : and its velocity is greater
than that of the proper revolution of any of the other celestial
spheres. Owing to its singleness, uniformity, and supreme velocity,
the astronomers use it as the unit or standard of all the celestial
motions: cf. de Caelo 2871*23-26, Metaph. 1053*8-12.
Philoponos quotes this interpretation offj
TOV oAou <f>opd from
Alexander, but perversely rejects it.
B. 10. 336a3
b7 2 59
36b 3-6. TOU Be . . . Kiktjais. Aristotle, with a natural economy of
his full astronomical theory (cf.*36
a 14- b10), speaks as if two
spheres only were required to produce the sun's movements, viz.
(i)the sphere of the fixed stars, and
(ii)a sphere moving
' about
an axis perpendicular to the plane of the zodiac' (Heath, p. 198 :
cf. also de Caelo 285^8, where Aristotle refers to 'the second
revolution, viz. that of the planets ').The sun is carried in its annual
movement by this second sphere along the ecliptic or zodiac circle :
and the latter is inclined at an angle to the equator of the first sphere,
which is the equator of the universe and is in the same plane as the
terrestrial equator. Owing to this inclination, the sun, at different
points of its annual path,'will cross the celestial equator, be north
of it, cross it again and be south of it'
(cf. N. Lockyer, Elemen-
tary Lessons in Astronomy', 363). Hence the sun in its annual
movement will alternately'
approach' and ' recede from '
any
given point on the earth's surface (e. g. Athens). Aristotle adds
(36b 5~6)'
since the sun's distance'
(viz. from any given point on
the earth's surface)'
is thus unequal, its movement will be
irregular '. This ought to mean (cf.*36* 30) that the sun's
annual movement will alternately accelerate towards, and diminish
from, a maximum velocity; and perhaps Aristotle is referring
to the apparent arrest of the sun's motion at the solstices. For
the sun appears to stand still at its extreme north and south
declinations, i. e. at those points on the Aoos KVK\O$ which are
furthest removed from the equator of the outermost sphere.
After each solstice the direction of the sun's movement is changedand it moves 'back' towards the points of intersection of the
ecliptic and equator, which it reaches at the vernal and autumnal
equinoxes. If the sun's movement is dvw/xaXo? in the strict sense
of that term, we must suppose that it accelerates fromrfpcjjLia
at each solstice till it reaches its OK/M; at the next equinox ; and
diminishes in velocity from each equinox till it reaches ^/>c/u'a
at the next solstice.
36b 6-7. WOT' . . . 4>0etpei. The sun's annual movement includes,
as we have seen, part-motions which are contrary to one another
in' sense
' and perhaps also contrasted in velocity. The whole
movement, therefore, is the efficient cause of the alternation
of yeVeo-is and <0opa, one part-motion causing yeVeons and the
other </>0o/>a. Aristotle maintains that certain'facts of observa-
tion'
(36b15-19) confirm his view that ycVeo-t? is the effect of the
sun's approach and cf>0opd of its retreat. What are these *facts
'
?
S 1
260 COMMENTARY
Aristotle is thinking (i)of the growth of vegetation, &c,, in spring
and summer, and its decay in autumn and winter :(ii) of the birth
and death of those insects (e. g.) which do not survive the winter :
(iii)of the development and decay of the other animals and plants
(cf.*36
b 8-1 o) : and (iv) probably also of the annual cycle of the
seasons, i. e. the annual alternation of drought and heat with cold
and rain. For the increased heat, produced by the sun's annual1
approach ', vaporizes and draws up the Water on and near the
earth, so that it is converted into Air : whilst, when the sun'
retreats',
the original heat in the vaporized Water is partly'
quenched'
by the cold of its environment, and partly 'dissipated'
by rising into still higher regions, so that the Air condenses into
cloud, and descends again to earth in the form of Water. This
seasonal cycle Water streaming up as dr/u? and becoming Air,
Air condensed into cloud and streaming down as rain is the
result, Aristotle thinks, of an ' imitation'
of the sun's circular
movement in the ecliptic. (Cf. Meteor. ^6 b 16 347a
12, and
Alexander's commentary ad loc. Cf. also above,* 22 b 2-3,
*30^4,
*31*24.)The reader will have observed an obvious difficulty, which
is noticed by Alexander and Philoponos. For (cf.*i8a 23-25)
theye'veo-is
of one thing is eo ipso the <f>0opd of something else and
vice versa. How, then, can the sun's approach be the cause
of yeVeo-is only and its retreat be the cause of <j>6opd only ? If the
plant or the animal comes-to-be, the seed passes-away : and whenthe former pass-away, there is a yeVe<m of certain simple (or re-
latively-simple) constituents. So, in the seasonal cycle, theycVeo-is
of Air is the <f>6opd of Water, the (f>6opd of Air the ycVco-is of Water.
The solution of this difficulty depends, we must suppose, upona difference of rank, or degree of reality, in the yev^ra (cf.
* i8b 14-18
; Philoponos, p. 289, 11. 27/f. ; Alexander, aaropicu. /cat Avo-eis,
iii. 4). The plant and the animal are 'more real' than the
seed : Air is' more real
'
than Water, for it is nearer to
the dpx^, i- e. the -n-pwrov KWOVV. Hence the '
approach'
of the
sun brings into being the ' more real'
yfvrjrd : and the <f>6opd
of the'
less real'
things, which this yeVeo-is involves, is onlya subordinate concomitant effect of the sun's action. Similarly the'
retreat'
of the sun destroys the ' more real'
things, and this cf>0opd
is only incidentally accompanied by the yeVeo-ts of things'
less real '.
36^8-10. Kal cl . . . <J>uW. Aristotle endeavours to bringwithin the scope of his theory the ripening to maturity and the
B. 10. 336b 6-i5 261
decay to extinction of the longer-lived organisms. He supposesthat the sun '
generates'
such organisms i. e. brings them to their
aKfrni or full development by a succession of its'
approaches ',
and causes their <f>@opd by a succession of its'retreats '. And he
enunciates it as a general law that the period of their natural
development to theirOI/C/ATJ
is equal in length to the period of their
natural decay towards their <f>0opd. It is obvious, as Philoponos
observes, that the phenomena here in question are avfya-is and
<0io-is rather than ycVecm and <f)6opd in the proper sense : and the
substitution of <0to-ts for <j>0opd (36b 1 8) is perhaps significant as
an indication of what was in Aristotle's mind.
Aristotle does not explain why, if a succession of the sun's'
approaches'
(e. g. twenty successive summers) causes the full
development of an oak or a man, the successive'retreats
'
duringthe same period (i.
e. the corresponding winters) do not counteract
this effect : nor conversely, why the successive summers, duringthe period of the organism's decline, do not neutralize the de-
structive power of the winters. We must suppose that he would
have met this difficulty by his theory of the O-V^VTOV Ocppov,
though there is no evidence to show the precise form which his
answer would have taken. The development of a living thing, as
we know from other works, is due to the co-operation of (a) the
heat in the environment(i.
e. in the Air or Water in which the
thing lives), which is derived principally from the sun, and (b)
the ' connate vital heat',
which is contained in the heart of
sanguineous animals and in the analogous organ of bloodless
animals. This *vital heat' (O-V//,<VTOS tfep/xor^s </>vo-t*oj, fle/o/xor^s
ij/vxiKrj, (07-1/07 OcpfjLorrjs, <J>VCTIKOV Oeppov, KT\.) plays a very important
part in Aristotle's physiological and biological theories : cf. e. g.*29
b 24-26 ;de Gen. Antm. 736
b33 ff., 762
a 18-21, 784* 34 ff. ;
Parva Naturalia 469b 6 ff., 473* 9-12 ;
Meteor. 379a3 ff.
36b 10-15. 816 . . . jAe'rpoi'. The Order controlling all things in
the Cosmos assigns a determinate period of life to each species of
living thing. Within this period, so many years, e. g., are required
for the process of development to maturity and an equal number
of years for the decline to extinction. The individual members
of the species conform, as a general rule, to their specific period.
And th^;
perio,d of each species is distinctive, i.e. the various' ''> ' b /
species''
'$$>, d^tirrg.iiiis'n^d from one another (b i2 SIO/>IOI/TCU) by
the varicf^jfom'j.bevs which express the differing lengths of their
periods! Tbeft^'^.ic'^stant references in Aristotle's works to
262 COMMENTARY
the Order controlling the system of things : cf. Bonitz, Ind. 747**
30 ff. It is referred to below, 37a15 (rcray/xeVry).
In 36b15 the grammatical subject is
rj TrepioSo?, with which TO
/xeVpov is in apposition.
36b 20-24. *M* tfopfo* The vital period of the species,
assigned by the Order, demands equal duration for the process
of development and for the process of decline : but to this, as to
every general rule, there are exceptions. It often happens that
individuals of a given species die prematurely : i. e. that their
decline occupies a shorter time than their development, or
a shorter time than the Order prescribes (b 20 ev eXarrovt <f>0ft-
pco-OaLi either interpretation is possible, and both come to the
same thing). This, like all exceptions to the general rules in
nature, is due to the matter. For the matter, of which the
living things are composed, is'
irregular ',i. e. not the same in
texture throughout (cf.*36
a30). Hence the yeveWs of some
individuals in a species will be '
irregular ', i. e. will exhibit
a velocity varying from the normal or specific rate ; so that some
of them will develop too quickly and others too slowly. Now,since the yci/con? of one thing is eo ipso the <f>6opd of another, each
abnormally rapid yepeons will eo ipso involve an abnormally rapid
<f>6opd. Premature death-, therefore, or abnormally rapid decline
in some individuals is only the inevitable obverse of premature or
abnormally rapid development on the part of other living things,
whether of the same or of a different species.
This interpretation, by which alone a tolerable meaningcan be extracted from the passage, involves the placing of
a comma after avppalvci and the insertion of TO after 8ia in b24.
(Tv/i/fatvet, SC. TToAAcuas ci/ eAarrovt <0eipeo-0ai (cf.b20). In the
same line TOVTCDV refers to the things whose ye'veo-i?is dvw/xaXo?,
i. e. in this case l too rapid '.
36b 20-21. t&iA . . . oruyKpaairf-. All the manuscripts read o-vy-
Kpao-tv. Philoponos quotes o-vyKpovcrtv as a variant. Neither word,
so far as I can discover, occurs elsewhere in Aristotle, though both
are to be found once in the spurious de Plantis.
It is difficult to extract a satisfactory meaning from these words
whether we read o-v'y/cpao-iv or <rvyi<pov<TLv. Pacius, who reads
o-vy/cpao-u/, interprets' ob mutuam invicem conspirationem '. By
this he appears to mean 'because oftthe way in which the
yevTjTa Kal <j>0aprd are implicated with one another',
i. e. (cf.
b21-44) because every ycVeo-is is intertwined with a <j>0opd and
B. 10. 336b20-34 263
vice versa. But (a) crvyKpacris is a very inappropriate word, and
(b) the phrase would then only anticipate obscurely what the
following lines state clearly.
Philoponos wishes to interpret TTJV trpbs a\\r)Xa o-vy/cpao-iv as*
the reciprocal attemperament of the OTOIX*"*'
This would give
an excellent sense, since the matter of living things is a blend or
attemperament of the four elementary qualities. But there is
nothing in the context to justify us in supposing that the things
which are'
reciprocally attempered'
are the trroixcia.
If we read o-vyfcpownv, we might suppose Aristotle to meanthat premature death is due to
'collision
'
i. e. to life beingcrushed out /?ia, instead of vanishing by the process of natural
decline. But this interpretation is impossible, since it would
leave the next sentence (di/w/x,aAov yap . . . <f>6opdv) disconnected
and pointless. Philoponos himself suggests two very uncon-
vincing interpretations of o-vyKpovo-iv, viz.(i)
* the reciprocal
consilience of the causes, i. e. the material cause and the
proximate and primary efficient causes'
; but not to mention
other objections there is nothing in the context to suggest that
the crvy/cpovcris is a crvyKpovcris TOJV amcov I and(ii)
* the cruv8po/x^| TWV
o-x^/xaVwv of the sun, the other planets, and the stars'
(i. e. their1
conjunction'
in an astrological sense), to which he ascribes
a certain influence in determining the span of life. Here again
it is a sufficient objection that nothing in the context justifies
us in identifying aAXr/Xa with TO, ovpavia or with their o-xij/xara.
On the whole I have thought it best to obelize the words as
probably spurious.
36b 25-26. del . . . aiTiW. Aristotle has explained (i)how the
material cause renders it possible for yevcons and <j>0opd to occur
continuously, without ever failing in nature (b 26 rjv siiropev airiav,
sc. the material cause, cf. i8a 9-10,* i8a 23-25), and (ii)
how the
sun's annual movement in the ecliptic acts as the efficient cause
of the continuous alternation of these processes.
36b26-34. T GTO Y^" ai"' Aristotle briefly indicates the
final cause of the continuity of ycVeo-t?, i.e. shows how it con-
tributes to fulfil the perfection of the universe. The continuity of
yeVeo-is is a logical consequence of the fundamental teleological
principle for the explanation of natural phenomena, viz. that' Nature in all things always strives after the better '.
Since *
being'
is better than '
not-being ', every thing, if nature's
purpose could be fully attained, would always 'be', i.e. would be
264 COMMENTARY
individually eternal. But the eternity of the individual is im-
possible in the Lower Cosmos : for the things in that sphere are
too remote from the apxrj (i.e. from God) to share in the ' eternal
life', except in a very feeble degree and in a very imperfect form
(cf.*36* 14-18). They are o-wtfera, and their matter (unlike that
of the stars and planets) is TO SwaTov-cTvat-Kat-^-eti/at (cf.*35
a
32 - b5). It is in constant process of transformation: hence
individually they cannot ' be '
except for a limited time, and in
a sense which presupposes 'not-being' and necessarily involves
a future <f>0opd or cessation of 'being'. But nature secures'
eternity'
for them in another sense. For although each individual
comes-to-be and passes-away, each species always'
is'
owing to the
continuity of yeVeo-t? i.e. each species is always actual, embodied
in an unbroken succession of individual representatives. Hence
every individual thing in the Lower Cosmos shares in eternity in
virtue of its' form '. For its
' form '
is the species, the specific
character of all the individual embodiments;and this neither
comes-to-be nor passes-away, but exists for ever i.e. there is no
gap between, and no end to, its'
recurrences'
in its representatives.
Thus the continuity of yeVeo-is contributes to the perfection of
the universe. For by it, and by it alone, the sublunary sphere is
linked up with the celestial spheres, since even the yev^ra /ecu
(f>6apTd, in virtue of this continuity, contribute to, and share in,
the divine life which is'
the best'
or the re'Aos of the whole
system.
Aristotle touches below (cf.*38^6-1 9) on the distinction
between the individual eternity of e. g. the stars and planets and
the specific eternity of the yev^Ta KOL <j>QapTa, and explains it bythe difference in their matter.
The reader may be reminded in this connexion that Aristotle,
as well as Plato, regarded the impulse of the individual living
thing to'
propagate its kind '
as the expression of its striving after
eternity. The perishable things attain to immortality and eternal
life, so far as in them lies, in the perpetuation of their species
(cf. e. g. Plato, Symp. 207 d ff.; Arist. de Anima 415* 25
- b7).
36b 29. TO ... eipTjrai. The different meanings of elmi and TO
oV are constantly set forth in Aristotle's works, and specially in
the Metaph.(^. e.g. ioi7a
7ff., io26a 33ff, io28a ioff., io45b
32ff., io5ia34ff. : and above, Introd. 3). It is 'being' in
the primary and superlative sense the substance which is pure' form '
or sheer actuality that Aristotle here seems to have in
B. 10. 336b 26 33 7a
i 255
mind. But the principle that 'being is better than not-being'no doubt involves also the superiority of TO bv ws aXyOes to TO ^bv ws ij/v8o<s, and again of the adjectival
'reals
'
to Ta ^ 6Wa, andeven of the '
potentially-real'
to that which is aTrXw? /AT)6V.
36b 30-32. TOUTO . . . y^caik. All things in the universe are
animated by desire or love for' the best ',
i. e. for God ;and God
is eternal life (cf.*36* 14-18). But the divine life is reflected
in the actions and activities of the derivative things with decreas-
ing intensity and diminishing adequacy in proportion to their
increasing distance from God. Thus even the heavenly bodies,
though they are free from yeveo-is and cf>0opd and though they are
individually eternal, only approximate in their activities to the
divine actuality. Their life is not 'the good'. They live in'
actions'
or '
series of actions'
(7rpaeis) by which they approximateto ' the good
' more or less closely, and by less or more indirect
paths (cf. de Caelo 292a i8- b
25). The things of the Lower
Cosmos, as we have seen (* 36b26-34), are incapable of
individual eternity. They cannot * be',but only
' come-to-be '.
Yet, by the continuity of their coming-to-be, they share in the
eternity of their species.
In view of Chapter n, it is important to notice that the
uninterrupted linear succession of individuals, which embodies the
eternity of a species, is in fact an unbroken repetition of cycles.
As Philoponos expresses it, the perishable things attain to specific
eternity only*
by imitating the circular movement of the heavenlybodies '. Thus, in order that the human species may be eternally
actual, the cycle'
man-seed-embryo-child-youth-man' must be
endlessly repeated.
36 l)
32-34. OUTW . . . yv&nv. (rvvtipciv was used intransitively
above, i6a 8, i8a 13. Here it is passive. We must understand
TO elWu (b33) in its widest sense, so as to include the *
being'
of all forms and kinds of ovra. In b34 TT)J> yeVeo-iv is, I think, the
subject of the verb yiWcrtfcu, the words TO y. d. K. r. ytvecnv forming
a single phrase'
that coming-to-be should itself (KOL) come-to-be
perpetually '.
36b34. TOUTOU, SC. TOT) ytVco-tfai act KOL TYJV yivtvw.
37a r.YJ
. . . owexrjs. The same thing (cf. Phys. 26 i a 3 iff.)
cannot come-to-be and pass-away, increase and diminish in
magnitude, alter from hot to cold and vice versa, or move from
A to B and back again, without a break in its change at the point
where reversal takes place. In that sense, no /xeTa/?oA.rj except
266 COMMENTARY
circular motion is' continuous
'
(for the meaning of
cf.*
i6*> 4).
The (
continuity' of yeVeo-is and <f>0opd in nature, upon which
Aristotle insists, is not the continuity of a single /xera/JoAi/, i. e.
not continuity in the change of a single thing. What he maintains
is that (a) there always are things coming-to-be in nature and
eo ipso there always are things passing-away : (b) everything which
comes-to-be is thereby committed to a 'vital cycle
' which it is
bound to complete by passing-away : (c) the endless linear suc-
cession of the individuals of a species is the endless repetition of
a cycle (cf.*36
b30-32) : and (d) the course of nature as a whole
is a cycle, in which the dominance of yeVeoris as the sun approachesalternates with the dominance of <t>0opd as it retreats.
37a1-7. 816 . . . eorii'. The reciprocal transformations of Earth,
Air, Fire, and Water are due to the conversion of one, or both,
of their constitutive elementary qualities into the] contrary quality
or qualities (cf. B. 4). Of these elementary qualities, the dry and
the moist are par excellence passive (jrdOr)) and the hot and the
cold are par excellence active (8wa/ms) : cf.*29^ 24-26. Hence
1 the things which are reciprocally transformed in virtue of their
passions and their powers of action'
are in the first instance the'
simple bodies',
which Aristotle here adduces in illustration ;
though the description is no doubt intended to cover the a-vvOtra
also, in so far as their yi>eVs and <f>6opai are ultimately due to
the transformations of the a-n-Xa crw/Aara of which they all consist
(cf.* 28* 32-33 ; 34
b3iff-)-
Now there are in nature reciprocal transformations of the'
simple bodies' which go on endlessly and continuously. One
instance is the transformation of Water into Air and Air into
Water, to which we owe the succession of the seasons (cf.*36
b
6-7). But Aristotle's words here (37a 4-6 and a
7-i5) suggestthat he is thinking of a still more comprehensive cycle of trans-
formations, in which Fire is included as well as Water and Air.
(Perhaps, indeed, the reciprocal transformation of Water and Air
is to be regarded as simply a part of the more comprehensive
cycle.) And in fact there is, as we saw (*22b2~3), a never-
ending cycle of transformations of the Water, Air, and Fire, which
envelop the Earth. Water is always ascending and becomingAir, Air always ascending and becoming Fire : and conversely,
Fire is always descending and becoming Air, and Air descendingand becoming Water.
B. 10. 337ai-9 267
In all such transformations there is motion in a straight line,
upwards and downwards : but since the motion is reversed
the terminus of the ascent becoming the apxrj of a complementarydescent and vice versa it 'returns upon itself, and thus*
imitates circular motion ' and is continuous. The upward and
downward motions together form a cycle of transformations
which inevitably repeats itself endlessly.
37a5. inlX.ii> . . . uSwp. Aristotle abbreviates his description of
the downward transformation, omitting the intermediate stage,
viz. Air.
37a7- ^ ^ori?. The principle is of universal application,
though it is here inferred from the fvOcia <f>opd upwards and down-
wards of Water, Air, and Fire. Hence L's reading (evtfeta TOVTWI/
<o/>a) must be rejected as a blundering correction.
37a7~I5- fya Terayon. The sun's annual movement, by
which it alternately approaches and retreats, causes the alternate
ascent and descent of Water, Air, and Fire. They are thus
brought into contact, Water with Air, Air with Fire, Fire with
Air, and Air with Water : and the effect of this contact is the
action-passion, and the reaction and re-passion, of the contrary
constitutive elementary qualities, from which the transformations
of these 'simple bodies' result (cf. e.g. *23a i2-22,*34b
20-30).
Apart from this continuous reciprocal transformation of the4
simple bodies ',which is thus due to the
* dual motion',
the
Lower Cosmos would long ago have suffered disruption. For
each of the '
simple bodies' would long ago, in the infinite lapse
of time, have reached its*
proper place'
the place allotted to it
by the Order (a15 reray^vy, cf.
*36
b10-15) and have
remained there quiescent and isolated. Hence, if it were not
for the sun's' dual motion ',
all interaction between the '
simple
bodies', all chemical process, all formation and dissolution of
compounds in short, all energy and life whatever would have
vanished from nature.
37a 8. Tii/cs. It is not known who these people were.
37a9- ec . . . XP^- The physical universe 'contains and
comprehends within itself infinite time'
(de Caelo 283^ 29 : and
cf. below,*37
a22-25). Hence whatever is true of the 'simple
bodies'
as they exist in the Lower Cosmos now, must be
compatible with their having existed through an infinite ante-
cedent time.
268 COMMENTARY
37a io. ou . . . orujjjLaTa. The problem is to explain why the
simple bodies have not long ago got entirely separated from one
another. Hence, though such an isolation of the simple bodies
would entail also the disruption of the compound bodies, we must
reject J's TO. avvOfra o-w^ara as a correction due to misunder-
standing.
37*15-17. SIOTI . . . eipT)fA^wK. This little epilogue marks the
completion of the treatise on the causes : cf.*35** 24 37*33.
Sam, i. q. OTL : cf.*33
b 22-26.
37* 17-33. ^ire! . . . xP&vov' a note to confirm Aristotle's theory
that the revolution of the outermost sphere is the efficient cause
of the continuity of the sun's annual movement, and therefore
(mediately) of the continuity of the alternation of yeVe<ris and
The note takes the form of (i)a gigantic protasis (37*17-31),
breathless indeed and rather loose in syntax, but concentra-
ting into a number of distinct praemissa the results of
Aristotle's discussions in Phys. ,so far as they are relevant to
his present purpose : and (ii) an apodosis (37** 32-33) which
(a) reaffirms in a more precise form the thesis asserted at
36b2-3 (T^S fj.V ovv o-vvexeias rj
TOV o\ov (0/001 curia), leaving US to
infer that the revolution of the 'body' which constitutes the
outermost sphere is mediately the cause of the continuity of
the alternation of ycVeo-is and <f>6opd, and (b) answers a question,which was suggested by one of the praemissa (37*22-25), but is
not otherwise connected with the present inquiry.
The praemissa may be summarized thus :
(i)If there is to be continuous eternal movement, there must
be a single, unmoved, ungenerated, and unalterable initiating
cause (a17-22): (ii) there must be continuous circular move-
ment because of the continuity of time (a 2 2-25): (iii)
the
continuity of the movement depends upon the continuity of the
body which is moved (and not primarily upon the continuity of
the '
path'
of its movement) ; but the continuous moving bodymust move in a circle if it is always to remain continuous with
itself throughout its movement (* 25-31).
37*17-22. eVel . . . dpx^K. Cf. Phys. . 255** 31 260*10:
Metaph. 1072* 19 1074^ 14. The reference here and below (cf.a i8
TrpdVepoi', 25 cv rots lv apxy Aoyois) is to the Physics, the
first in the series of Aristotle's works on natural philosophy : cf.
Introd. 10.
B - IO' 337
37*22-25. owexoGs . . . 8iwpia6ir|. On Aristotle's conceptionof time, cf. Phys. 217^29 224
ai7, 25i
t) iorT. ; Metaph. io7ib
6-n.
Time and change reciprocally imply one another. There can
be no change which is not in time, no time without change,
and no perception of time without the perception of change.'
Continuity' and ' succession
'
are primarily spatial and charac-
terize magnitudes (cf.* i6b 4). But the change of a continuous
magnitude, so far as the latter preserves its continuity, is itself
' continuous '
: and exhibits' succession
'
(* before' and '
after ')
in a sense analogous to the'
succession'
(order of position) in
the parts of the magnitude. From this continuity and succession
in change, the continuity of time and its order of *
before' and
*
after'
are derived.
We recognize time when we perceive' before
' and 'after
'
in
a change: i.e. 'when we perceive a change now, and again now,
and recognize that the * nows '
are two and separated from one
another by an interval different from both. Time, in fact, is that
which is limited by the * now '
: and that which is limited is
change qua numerable or measurable. Hence time may be
defined as dpifyios KII/^O-CWS Kara TO Trporepov KOL va-repov : but by
dptfytos in this definition we must understand TO dpi0/Aov//,ei>ov or
TO apiOprjTov, and not<J apiOpovfjLtv (cf. Phys. 219^ 1-8).
Time is one, continuous, uniform in its flow, and without
beginning or end. Ultimately, therefore, the change of which it
is a Tramps i. e. of which it is the dptfytos or the /ACT/DO? in the
sense explained must itself be one, continuous, uniform, and
without beginning or end. But the only kind of change, which
can satisfy these conditions, is circular motion : and the only
change, which in fact satisfies them, is the revolution of the
outermost sphere (cf.*36
a30). Time therefore implies, and is
implied by, the eternal uniform revolution of the TT/OWTO? ovpavos.
It is that in it which is' numerable '
or ' counted '. It' measures
'
it, and is' measured '
by it.
37a 23- xwpk. FHJ read avev, which E recognizes as a variant.
But it is difficult to see why avev should have been corrected into
X<O/HS, whereas xpk maY nave Deen altered into avev owing to the
scribe's reminiscence of Phys. 218^33 and 219* i.
37a25-31. au^x^s Act aupex^s- Continuity is predicable
primarily of magnitude (cf.*37
a 2 2-25): and /x,e'ye0os,in its
fullest and most proper sense, is three-dimensional, i. e. o-w/xa (cf.
270 COMMENTARY
e. g. de Caelo 268* 20-24). Hence the continuity of a movement
is determined primarily by the continuity of the moving body.
But 'amongst continuous bodies which are moved, only
that which is moved in a circle is" continuous "
in such a waythat it preserves its continuity with itself throughout the move-
ment '
(a30-3 1 TOVTOU ... dec <rwe;(e's). Hence '
that in which
the movement occurs'
i. e. the path of the movement con-
tributes, by its continuity, to the continuity of the movement.
37a26-27. iroVepoi' . . . irdOos ; Aristotle is here concerned only
with <opa. But the general doctrine, which he is applying, was
based in the Physics on discussions covering all forms of ^TajSoX-rj.
Hence he illustrates the *
sphere'
(TO /<S)
of /aVryo-is by Wflos
(which is the'
sphere'
of dAAoiWts : cf. e. g. Phys. 262* 2-5) as well
as by TOTTOS.
In a 26 TO ei/ <S = TW TO lv <o, by an ellipse not uncommon in
Aristotle. Cf. Bywater, Contributions to the textual criticism of the
Nic. Ethics^ note on i i32b i. Similarly in a
29 TO> kv w = TU> TO ev
<S (sc. avvexes etrai).
37a28-30. irws . . . ex61 - The result of this parenthesis viz.
that the continuity of the '
sphere'
of </>opa (though not of anyother kind of KIVTJO-IS) contributes, as a secondary condition, to the
continuity of the movement is utilized in the continuation of
the main sentence. For it is only a circular '
path' which is
continuous : hence continuous movement implies a continuous
body moving in a circle.
37a30-31. TOUTOU . . . del owx& TOUTOU (sc. TOV K/ov/u,eVov
17 o-vvexovs) is a partitive genitive. For a similar instance of the
partitive genitive in the singular, cf. Eth. Nic. H27 a7 and
Bywater, I.e., note on 1149* 16.
TO Kv*cA,o>, sc. KivovfjLfvov : cf. e.g. de Caelo 27oa 33 (TO KVK\<I)
o-w/ta), 289a3<D (TOV KVK\IKOV o-w/AOTos). Philoponos wrongly
supposes the phrase to mean TO KvfcXoTepcs o-w/xa. When Aristotle
refers to the shape of the revolving body (i.e. of the ovpavos), he
speaks of it as o-<<upoeioVs : cf. e. g. de Caelo 286b 10 287^ 21.
37* 33- 4 XP^kOK>SC< 0"VV;(T7 7TOlt.
B. 11
37a 34 38b i9. 'Eirel . . . cleat. With the treatise on the
causes Aristotle has completed the task which he originally
proposed to himself (cf.*35
a24 37
a33). The present chapter,
therefore, is to be regarded as an appendix. The bulk of the
B. 10. 337*26 ii. 337bi3 2V
chapter (37* 34 38^ 6) explains in what sense, and under what
conditions, the things which come-to-be are *
necessary '. Aristotle
establishes that any continuous coming-to-be, which is cyclical^
exhibits' absolute
'
as well as'
hypothetical'
necessity. Theremainder of the chapter (38
b6-i9) briefly explains why yeveo-is
in some instances is cyclical, whilst in other instances it proceeds
(or appears to proceed} in a straight line onwards without reversion.
There is a good exposition of 37b 14 38
b19 in Alexander,
aTTOptai Kat Avcras, 111. 5-
3^a 34 _ b3. 'Eirel . . . yei^otiai : formulation of the main pro-
blem of the chapter. Wherever there is continuous change of any
kind, there must be consecutiveness. For a continuum (TO owexe's)
is that kind of consecutive series (TO c^>e^s), whose terms are
(a) immediately next to one another (exo/x/a) and moreover
(b) so closely connected that their limits are not merely a/xa, but
coalesce into one : cf.* i6b 4. Hence the continuity of
ye'veo-is
implies a succession of yiyvo'//eva such that yiyi/o'/zevov follows'
consecutively ',and without any interval, upon ycyW/xo'oi/. The
problem then arises : Is the coming-to-be of every member of
this succession contingent, so that every one of them might fail to
come-to-be? Or is the coming-to-be of any of them necessary
in the sense that some member (or members) will be of necessity ?
37b3~9- OTI . . . lorai. The question is whether any of the
ytyvo/xeva will be of necessity. For that the coming-to-be of some
ofthem at any rate is*
contingent ',is evident (a) from the different
meaning assigned by common usage to the terms /xe'AAci and
ecrrcu (b3-7 : cf. also Parva Naturalia 463
b28-31) and (b) from
the fact that the being of some things is contingent, which implies
a corresponding contingency in their comtng-tq-be (b7-9).
The argument in b3-7 is an appeal to linguistic usage ; and
therefore I prefer to alter /xeXW into /xcXXet with 4>c,instead of
adopting Bywater's neat emendation (TO o corai) of the reading in
the manuscripts (TO &TTCU).
37b7~9- ^w ^orrai. Aristotle is appealing to a general
distinction (oAws) within T<X 6Wa. which is a fundamental principle
of his philosophy. The omission of rd (b9) makes the argument
slightly more cogent. ovrws eet, SC. evS^rai /cat/AT) ycWo-0ai.
TOVT', SC. TO yiVecr&u.
37b12-13.
*01/ ei/S^x* ^ 011
> The problem is : Are all
yiyvo/xeva contingent (i.e. at most conditionally or hypothetically
necessary), or are some e. g. the occurrence of the solstices
272 COMMENTARY
unconditionally or absolutely necessary? If the solstices are
absolutely necessary occurrences, they correspond to the necessary
which are dSwara/x-r)
cu/at (b11-12) : they will therefore be
i? yevecrOcu, i. e. it will be impossible for them to be /M/
Svvara ycvca-Oai or pr) ei/Sexo/xeva yeve<r#ai. They cannot *fail to
be able to occur'
: for, if so, their occurrence might not even be
actual, and a fortiori it would not be necessary.
This interpretation of b 1 3 (ofy olov re py cv&ex&rOcu, sc* fpoTras
ycvfo-Oai) is consistent with the doctrine of de Interpr., chapters
12 and 13. -It is false, we must remember(1.
c. 22b 29-33), to say
of ' the necessary'
that it is ^ Bwarov eu/ai, as well as to say of it
that it is Swarbv /) elvai.
Bonitz, perhaps rightly, places a mark of interrogation after
yeVeo-tv (b
12), and reads apa for apa in b13.
37b14-25. ei STJ . . . uorepok. Aristotle lays down the general
principles of the nexus between antecedent and consequent in
a temporal sequence : cf. Post. Anal. 95* 24 96a
7.
If, in a temporal sequence, A is the cause of an effect B, B's
occurrence implies the prior occurrence of A. Hence from the
being of B we can infer that A must have occurred : and unless
A occurs, B will not occur. But we cannot, from the occurrence
of A, infer that B will occur. The nexus> therefore, so far is not
reciprocal. B is not necessary at all, and A is only e vTrofleVews
avayKolov i. e. necessary, if B is to occur, or presupposed in the
being of B.
Suppose, however, that B's occurrence is unconditionally or
absolutely necessary, whilst, whenever B occurs, its being will
presuppose the occurrence of A. Under these conditions, the
nexus is in a sense reciprocal. For (as before) B's occurrence
implies the prior occurrence of A. And, if A occurs, B will
occur because B in any case must occur and, when it occurs,
its occurrence will follow upon the prior occurrence of A. Here,
therefore, the absolute necessity of B extends itself, as it were,
over A, since A's occurrence is presupposed in that of B,
The validity of the latter part of this argument clearly
depends upon the meaning which Aristotle gives to' absolute
necessity of occurrence'
;and that is explained below, 37
b29
38*5. The effect of that explanation is to restrict 'absolute
necessity of occurrence ',and the reciprocal necessary nexus, to
the members of eternally-repeated cycles of yiyvoptva. Moreover,
even in such cycles (cf.*38
b6-i9),
' absolute necessity of occur-
B. ii. 337b i2 338*3 273
rence'
attaches to the members of the cycle only qua embodyingan identical type or species, not to them qua individuals severally
excluding one another.
37b 25 38a17. el . . . Ku'icXto. No member of a rectilinear
succession of yiyvd/xeva, whether infinite (b25-29) or finite
(b29-33), can exhibit ' absolute necessity of occurrence '. If
a thing is to come-to-be with ' absolute necessity ',it must come-
to-be always and invariably : and that is possible only if it is
a member of an eternally-repeated cycle of yiyvd/Aeva (37b33
38* 5). Hence ' absolute necessity of occurrence ' and '
reciprocal
necessary nexus '
(which depends upon it) are to be found only in
cyclical Kivrjo-is and cyclical ye/<ns (38a5-17).
37b25-29. el ... y^<r0ai. The reading of E*J in b
26, which
I have adopted (except that I have substituted roBl for rdSe),
is given as a variant by Alexander (diropuu /cat Avo-eis, ii. 22, pp. 71,
72) whose interpretation I have followed.
In a causal succession of events, proceeding from the presentonwards in a straight line ad infinitum (
b25 ets dVapoi/ . . . CTTI TO
Karoo), there can be no member whose occurrence is absolutely
necessary. For take any one of the events subsequent to the
present, e. g. P (b 26 TWI/ vo-rcpov ro8i). P's future occurrence
is necessarily presupposed by (i.e. is contingent upon) the future
occurrence of the still later next event, R ;that is contingent upon
the future occurrence of the still later next event, S;and so on
ad infinitum (b 2 7-28 dei . . . yci/eV&u). Hence the occurrence
of P, and of every subsequent member of the infinite succession,
is contingent (e wro&crecos dj/ayKatoi/) and not absolutely necessary
(aTrAxos dvayKatoi/).
If P's occurrence were absolutely necessary, P would be an
originative source (an apxtf) of the whole succession and would
invest all the preceding events with absolute necessity (cf.*37
b 14-
25^. But the succession is ex hypothesi airetpo?, and there can
be no apx^ in what is dVetpov.
The dpx>j, which Aristotle denies to this succession proceedingad infinitum in the future (cf.
b28-29), *s in act
Jas Alexander
rightly insists, a re'Aos.
It would be the genuine'first
'
or'
primary determinant'
of
the temporally-preceding events, as the ' end '
in which they
culminate, or the final cause to which they are the necessary
means.
37b 29 38a
3. dXXa . . . di/dyicris. Even in a finite rectilinear
2254 T
274 COMMENTARY
causal succession, we cannot attribute absolute necessity to the
occurrence of the last member; and therefore none of the
members is absolutely necessary, but all are contingent (cf.*37
b
14-25). Thus, e.g., in the building of a house, the succession
begins with the preparation of the clay or the shaping of the
stones, proceeds through the laying of the foundations, and
terminates in the coming-to-be of the house (37b31-33 ;
cf.
b 14-18 and Post. Anal 95b32-37). But the coming-to-be
of the house is not obr-Aws avay/catoi/. For, if it were, it would
have to be dct. What is e dvayKT/s aTrAws, cannot possibly not-be :
i. e. its being is eternal. Similarly, if the yeVecris of anything is c
dvayxrys cbrAto?, the yeVecrts cannot possibly fail : i. e. the yeVco-is
is eternal, or the thing is cUt rf) y/eW (37b33 38
a3 : cf. e.g.
Eth. Nic. H39b23-24, de Part. Anim. 639*' 21 640* 9). But
it would be absurd to contend that' house '
is dei rfj yeveW. Whenthe foundations have been laid, the succession may nevertheless
remain uncompleted, since on any given occasion a house
ei/Se^erai ft/7 yivtcrOai (37b32-33. oral/ yap yeV^rcu, SC. flejuc'A.ios.
TOVTO, SC. rrjv OLKLOV).
In b33 I have retained TO, although it rests only upon L<E>C
,
because the argument gains in clearness and force by its re-
tention.
38a 5~i7. dydyio] . . . KUK\U>. The argument is in substance
clear, though the text seems to have got disturbed at a 10.
Coming-to-be must either go on ad infinitum^ or come to a stop,
i. e. be finite. If finite, it cannot be eternal. Since, therefore,
it is to be eternal (as was shown in B. 10), it must go on ad
infinitum. If so, there are two alternatives. It must either
(i) proceed ad infinitum in a straight line or (ii) return uponitself in a circle, i. e. form endlessly-repeated cycles. Now the
first of these alternatives(a 6 TOVTWI/ refers to the immediately
preceding words, viz. /cat et /^, r\ eis tvOv y KVK\U) is impossible.For (cf.
*37
b25-29) in an infinite rectilinear succession of
yty/o/i.va there can be no dp^, and therefore no absolute necessity,and therefore (cf. preceding note) no eternity.
Hence the second alternative alone remains.
38a 8. Xafxpako^wy. The genitive depends on apx^v.' There
can be no dp^rj of the members of an infinite rectilinear succession,whether they be taken " downwards ", i. e. as if they were future
events, or "upwards ", i. e. as if they were past events/
.38*9-10. dfdyia] . . . ctmt. The meaning appears to be:
B. ii. 337b29 338b 6 275
1 Yet coming-to-be must have an originative source if it is to be
necessary and therefore eternal, nor can it be eternal if it is
limited.'* But the text at a 10 is hopelessly corrupt. It seems
probable that the corrupt words t/^reconceal ^r l-rrl Trepas CXOV'OT/S (c^- E), Or
fjL-fJTtirl
tvOeias (cf.< c
, p. 312, 1. r) : but a clause must have dropped out
between apxrjv and //^re.
38*10-17. 816 . . . KuicXto. The only remaining alternative
(* 3^a5-17) is that the yeVeo-ts should be cyclical.
In a cyclical succession with e. g. four members (we can take
any number we like, for the principle is not affected : cf. a13-14
ovSei/ . . . TroXXwv) we shall have A necessarily succeeded by B,B by C, C by D, and D by A : and, conversely, D necessarily
presupposing C, C necessarily presupposing B, B A, and A D.Whichever way we look at this cyclical succession, it must repeatitself endlessly and continuously (
a13 KOL . . . o-wc^ws). If e.g.
the earth be moistened, vapour must rise : if vapour rises, cloud
must form : if cloud forms, rain must fall : and if rain falls, the
earth must be moistened, and the cycle has recommenced. And,
conversely, if rain falls, cloud must have formed : if cloud has
formed, vapour must have risen : if so, the earth must have been
moistened : if so, rain must have fallen : and so on continuouslyand ad infinitum (cf. Post. Anal. 96* 2-7).
38a 17 - b5. TauTa . . . uiro TOUTWI'. The conclusion just established
(ravra, cf. a14-17) is logically concordant with the eternity of the
revolution of the ovpai/os which Aristotle had proved on other
grounds in Phys. @. 7-9. For since that is circular and eternal,
it is also necessary : and the movements which are parts of it
(e. g. the movements of the inner concentric spheres), or dependent
upon it, will be necessary, eternal, and circular also. Thus the
outermost sphere, which is eternally being moved in a circle,
eternally sets the inner spheres moving in circles (b1-3 et . . .
Kwycriv). Hence the sun is eternally moved in a circle in
a determinate manner (b3 KVK\<I> &8C, sc. in the ecliptic) and this
solar motion causes the eternal cyclical change of the seasons.
Finally, on the latter depend the eternally-repeated cyclical vital
periods of the living things on and about the earth : cf.*36
a14-
18,*36
b6-7,
* b8-10,
* b10-15.
In b3 I read KVK\U after ^jAios with EHJL. The 'being
of the upper <f>op&'
is of course equivalent to' the being of the
movement of the outermost sphere'
a movement which is circular,
T 2
276 COMMENTARY
as Aristotle had just reminded his readers (38a18-19). <*>&' in
the same line, I take to refer to the special nature of the circular
path of the sun's annual movement, viz. its inclination to the
equator, on which the alternation of the seasons depends. Bonitz
reads Kv/cAw, 6 ^Xtos o>Si (sc. K^/cAw) with F : and in b 4 he proposes
(OVTOS) OVTCOS (cf. J). Neither of these readings appears to be
necessary, though both are tempting.
38b 6-i9. TI . . . etrai. Aristotle here formulates (b 6-u) and
solves (b 1 1-19) a subsidiary problem: cf. *37a
34 38b
19.
Why do some yei/^ra KOL <J>OapTa form cyclical successions, whilst
others apparently do not ? Why e. g. is there obviously a cycle in
which rain (b 6 vSara,
' showers') produces cloud, cloud rain, and
rain cloud once more (cf.*
38** 10-17) : whereas the succession
of the ycveo-cts of men and animals appears (b 1 1 COIKCV) to be
rectilinear ?
The solution depends on the recognition of a difference in the
sense in which ' the same ' member recurs. For (i) in some cycles
the same individual eternally recurs : whilst(ii)
in others no
member recurs individually the same, but the same species, or
specific form, is eternally represented in the succession of its
perishing individual embodiments. Thus (i) the heavenly bodies
e. g. the sun and the planets have a '
being'
or c substance'
(b
14, 19 OVO-LO) which is free from all forms of change exceptmotion. Each of them is the unique singular representative of
a species (cf.Introd. 10) and persists as an eternally-identical
individual, returning in eternally-repeated revolutions to the same
point on its orbit. But(ii) the yci/iyra /cat <f>OapT<i (e. g. the
individual animals and men, and the individual clouds andshowers of rain) have a *
being'
or { substance' which is subject
to <f>6opd. As individuals, therefore, they come-to-be and pass-
away once and for ever. Nevertheless rain and cloud eternallyrecur in a cycle : though the cloud, from which this shower falls,
is only specifically (not individually] identical with the cloud
to which this shower gives rise. Similarly there is a cycle in
the endless rectilinear succession of the individuals of an animal
species. The individual animals, indeed, like the individual
clouds and showers, occur once and vanish for ever : but their' form '
or species exists eternally in the sense that it'
recurs'
without interruption and without end in its individual embodiments
(cf.*36
b26-34,
* b 3-32,*37<* i,
*3 7
b14-25).
38b 15. rj . . . Kn/oujxeVu). For KLvijo-is is an adjectival and
B. ii. 338b 6-i9 277
depends like a 7ra'0os upon the substance, or subject, of which
it is predicated : cf. e. g. Metaph. io7ob36 107 ia 2.
38b18-19. el ... etfai. As Philoponos rightly explains, this
is intended to meet a criticism which might be made by a follower
of Empedokles. For Empedokles (cf.*i5
a4-8) insisted that
Earth, Air, Fire, and Water were eternal and indestructible. Accor-
ding to him, therefore, their overia is a<0apros: so that, even
if they recur as individually-identical members of a cycle, this
does not conflict with the solution which Aristotle has just
given.
INDEX TO THE TEXT
= recurrit non semel in contextu
70 dyaOov 33bl9 rov &t\Tiovos
dyyeiov 20 b9
dytvrjTOS 37*20dyvofiv 14*13TO dyvwo-TOV opp. TO firiorrjrov i8 b
23
doiaiperos i6 b 20 + ; 25b9 + ; 26*18;
34b 28 doiaipcTa TOVS oyitovs 2 7
* 2 1
rd doiaiptTa 26*1+ dSiaipera
I5b27; i6 b i6 (coni. aw-artpea 25
b7 + ffda-
14*21; I5b32 oxD/xa dSiai-
p(TOV f)ir\&TOs 27*8 irepl doiai-
pfTuv fjieyfOuv 16*14 S1^'
doid<j>opos 23bl9
doiopiaToos 22 b5
dovvarov pf) elvai opp. clvai 35a
35 Td dovvara (opp. ra Sward)/4 tfvai 3 7
b1 1 dSui/ara 1 5
b 20;
i6 bi7; 17*14; 20 b
7dfi opp. ws firl TO iroXv 33
b5 +
flvai = If dvdfKrjs clvat 37b34
sqq.
27*4+ ;28 b
34 ; 29*2; 3Ob3
33a33J 35
a4+ J 37a4+ J 38
b 6 +coni. TTvevfJta. i8 b
29 coni. vowpleal rd 8iad>avi) 24
b29 et yrj con-
tiaria sunt 31a2
; 35 *5 6 dr)p OeppbvKai vypov (olov dr/iis ydpod-qp) 30
b4
vypov /iaXXoi/ ^ Qepjiov 31*5iirifiKws dvaioOrjTOV l$
b 20 di7/>=
Empedoclis elementum 14*26 +dOfduprjToi TOW virapxoVTWv OVT(S 16*8dtSios 22 b
2; 36*15; 38*1+ rddiota coni. irpwra 35*29 If
dvdynrjs tanv 35*34, cf. 38*101^17/5 apudEmpedoclem33 b
2; 34*1 +
i8 b 22
T^V aiaBrjaiv KOI irapt-
jv 25*13 ard TJ)V
aiffBrjatv 3 1* 8
; 36b i6 opp.
/tar' d\r)8eiav l8 b29 npos TT)V
TO
25*24; 27b33; 28 b 2O
at alaOrjffets I9bl9; 24** 28
ao-erjTos l6 b!9; 19*2; I9
b ll+;20 b
2; 28 b33; 29*11+; 32*26
opp. dfpavrjs 1 8 b1 9 + aloOijTov
ar)p.eiov 2 1b14 aw/ia = attrov
29b7 at' alaOrjTal IvavTiuaeis
29b
i 3atrt'a ws v^rj 19*19 TJ
us tv v\r)sfitid Ti6(nivr) airia 18*9 i)
KaraTO cldos atria 36
*3 atrta = causa
efficiens opp. causa materialis 18*1
ittavj) 18*27 5 35b9 ^ Kvpicu-
Tijpa.35
b35 rds ahias Sicupf-
Tfov 14*2 amat coni. dpxai
v26*35
aiTiov ws v\i] 35*33 ; (opp. us TO ov
6VCKO) 35b5 CLITIOV TTJS KlVTJO-COiS
34*8 a;? '66cvif dpxt TTJS
24bi3 TO ama 21*2
TOV yfvvav 35b 26
a4; 23*1425*15; 37*19
dicivTjToi j) Kivovpfvai al cmypai i6 b5
f) difivrjTOs dpx"f] 18*5dno\ovO(w T> Xoyy 25*14 TO) dir-
TO[jLtv(u (coni. fvopiaTov tlvai} 2gb35
/card \6yov 3Ob
irj
dftoXovOf? T& KtvovfJLfva)
33b25
opp. fiaAa/ays (diro5rfat)
pifteo-Tepov 29*27npa opp. pcaa 3O
b33 6&repa.
&Kpa TWV (vavTtuv 35*8 firl Tat
a/cpu opp. nfaa> 32b7 ITTI TOIS
ditpois 32b 8
ar' d\r)6eiav opp. ard Soav i8 b 28
opp. ard Tr)v aiaOrjffw l8 b32
TO KO.T* d\TiOtiav ev 25*35 otmws
dirt<pT]vavTO irfpl TTJS d\r)6elas 25*17rdX^t's i8 b 26 yovTo Ta\t]Qes tv
TO) <paiv(aOai 1 5b9 rd d\r]6ws iroXXd
2 5aS^ paKpy d\r)OcaTO.Tov 29*21
dAA' ^ 16*29; 26*2+; 33*35;
2O*2OTO dAAotov)' coni. TO
INDEX TO THE TEXT 279
35b 26 Kal
f) dpx^l Trjs KtvrjafOJs
(V ra> avavofj.tvca Kal TW d\\oiov/jitva>2I b 6
dAAotWts 14*3 I5b23; 17*19+;
20*6+; 27*16; 28 b
29 29b2;
31*9; 32*8+ ; 37*35 coni. TO
iraax iv.
2 5b2 "h dAXofcwrts def.
I9b 10 =
17 irepl TrdOos fjLera0o\Ti
20*14; cf. 17*27, 19b33 Kara.
TO. TWV dvTcav irddrj lariv 31*10unam subiectam materiam neces-
sario praesumit I4b29 sqq. ri 5ta<pe-
povfftv d\\oiojffts Kal yeveffis 19b 6
20*7 (cf. 14*5 sqq., I5b 6 sqq.)
at a\\oiwacts at TTJS ^X'?1 34a
1 1
dAAo at dAAo 2l b25 kvavriov
ooKftv d\\(fi Kal aAAa; I5b i2 |j/
aAAo<si5b3i; I7
bi3; 20 b i8 Kar
dAAo fjitv KIVOVV /car' dAAo Se KIVOV-
fj,vov 26 b4 KOI dXXcus 38*18
d\\oTpios opp. o'tKftos 30* 17 + rd
opp. rd o/xo0t/Aa 29b 28
32 con.
fls d\\t]\a
; 34*12; 20*34
dvdyfaOai 30*25dvayKafciv SOKUV \6yos
dvayKaTov 37b29 a7rAa)s37
b io
Trapd TO dvayKaiov 35b
I
dvayKaariKol \6yoi I5b 2i
l drd7*7/s 20*17; 25*3; 37b9+ 5
38*1+ elvai ^= dtStov elvat
38*
i sqq. ,cf. 35
*34 d
17 ywcaisl dvdyKrjs, diBios 57 "ytveats 38*2If dvdyKrjs tlvai opp. I
37b2, cf.
b35
dfiapravfiv 29*10dp.yter)s 16*27;
daw/iaros 20*31dficrd^^Ta 33*31
32*28
37bl3 fffrat dvdyKrj
dir\ws opp. If VTToQ(a
Tti If dvdyKrjs Kal del a/xa 37b35
TO If dvd*yKr)s dirXSas 38*15dvaipftv 25*24 ; 27*15di/ataOijros 1 9
b1 8 +
; 32*35 dj/at-
oOijrov coni. TO ft^ ov 19*24 +
32b33; 37*6; 38*5;
dvaKVK\eiv Kal dvaKafJiiTTiv 38*4(dvaAtV/fetv) dvi^AcwTat 18*17dj/aAAota>TOS 37
* 20
dva\oyia au/ijSAT/Ta opp.8vvdfJ,f(av 33*31opp. TO) TOU iroffov p
33*28
dvaXoyov r)vr)Tai 2l b/tj
dvd\vais 29*23'Avafa7opas citatur 14*14
'E/xweSo/fA^s, A.vKnriros, /
14*12 sqq. Trjv o'lKeiav <fxvr)v
^yv6r]ffev 14*13 Taofj.oiofj.fpTj
OTOfxeia TiOrjaiv 14*19 of irepl
'A.vaayopav opp. Tofs irepi 'EfjnreSo-' H a
25y 29
b34, 30*1 +
I 9ai7
dvOpwiros I9b25+; 2O b
2O; 22*17;24*16+; 33
b7+ dv&poj-noi Kal
a)a OVK dvaKafjiiTTOvffiv els avrovs
38b 8
dwaos 36b5
Ta dvoiAotOfjifprj opp. Ta
dvopoios 22*4; 24*4+ TO d^oyuotaKOI rd 8td<f)opa 23
b 6di/Ttwcra^at 30* 1 6 + Td dvTiKcifj.eva
23*8; 24b7
dvTiarpeQdv 28*19; 37 b;24; 38*11dvTiriOfvai 23*18; 30
b 2i
dvoj (f>(peff0ai 34*1 + dv<a opp.aT<w (/ftvcfa^at) 33
b 28+ usCtrl TWV yevofifvoav opp. Karca UK emrwv eaofjifvoiv 38*9 rj dvo) <popd
38b3 TO dvca Kal TO KaToj Kal TO
TotayTa TWV di/TiKifj.evcav = T6irov
Sia(popd irpdiTr) 23*7Ta avtuOcv opp. Ta aT<y, Ta KaTtaOfV
,(roO n) 33* 14
di'oj/j.a\ia 36*30dvwpaXos Kivrjffts 36
b5 i/A?7
36b 2i dvojfjutXot yevtaets 36
b 22
dopaTos i6 b33; 24^0; 25*30
dndyeiv 36*18aTra^Tys 24*33; 24
bl3; 26*1; 27*1
drra^ opp. iraOrjTiKa (sc. Ta irotrj-
TIKO) 24b5+ oaa /xr) e'xct Tr)v
avTr)V v\r)v)iroi(? diraOrj ovra 24*34,
cf. 28*21d/rat/arcs 18*25dirfipia 16*6
antipos 14*18+ ; !5b lO+; 25*15;
32bi45 33
a 7+ 5 37a9 opp.
Trtircpafffjievos 18*19 opp. ptXP1
TOV (sc. ff Bpfyis) i6 b3O drreipov
OT' fvepyeiav opp. Swdpei cirl TJJV
oiaipe ffiv 1 8 *2 1 TO dnetpov 37
b28
at TO irepifxov 32*25 TO
dirftpov TOVTO, o \tyovoi Ttves tJvai
Tr)v dpx^v 29*12 diTttpoi v\at
2O b lo IvacTi^Tey 32bl4;
33*7+ direipots tupioOai a\i]ii.a.ai
(opp. wpiafievoii) 25b27 els
direipov oi>x ol6v Tf Uvai 32b3O
280 INDEX TO THE TEXT
t$ airdpov Uvai (opp. ffTrjvai) 32b
13; (opp. iripas *X 37b25
dir(px(0-0ai i6 b 2+; 18*14+ > S^ 9
(sc. cfs) 26 b 6 T^) dpiOpta opp.(sc. (is)
b
Siaip(ia0ai)
21*4+ ;
air\ovs opp. avv0(TOS 14*28 opp.
fit/rr<$s 3Ob22, cf. 34
b32 ra dirAa
(sc. a&fJLara = 017/7, 777, TrOp, votap)
34b3 2 +J 35*9+ dn\G>s \(yei
(6 'Enir(ooK\rjs) 33b 22 quid
significet TO dirXws I7b5 dn\rj
y(V(ais, dir\f) <p0opd, rd dirAa awfjiara
vide s.vv. y(v(ffis, <p0opd, crw/ta
18*7; 19*7; 26*4; 33b4;
diroO(v 27*4dTToAavcti' 21 b 8
aTro'AAv<r0at 14*14; 19*22 diro'AtwAc
2 1*
1 6 aTToAcwAoTa 2 7b 26
dirov(fj.(iv T^valriav 36*9aTropetV I7
b20; 19*22; 37*8 TO
vvv diroprjOfV j8*ll
diroS(i(ai
diropia 16*14; l6 b!9; 2i b
ii; 34*21
5 34b3 eavpaaTri I7
b i8
I/WH^ 18*13 diropiai iro\\ai
leal (ij\oyoi I5b19
diro(paiv(ffeai 16*9; 25*17
anT(00at rrjs 34 rovKavarov 22*10
24*15 o\ovo\ov 30*2 opp.airo&(v dvai 27*3 SiyprjiJitvov
opp. awtx^5 *lvai 2 5a7 07TOT6 ydp
(al ffTiyfj.ai~) 16*30
2 3a3 T^ dvT(a0ai = /card r^v
dcprjv (noi(iv) 26 b23 6 8to/)t(7ftoj
TOW atrT(aOat 23*22 sqq. TO aTrro-
IJKVOV dvToptvov dirrop.(vov 23*25 +u.Ko\ovO(iv TO) dnTO[i(vq> 30
*I 0a-
/tcv TOI/ \virovvTd airr(aOairjp.wv 23*33 6Vav auTd Ta fuAa d^^?? 22*16
dim/cos 22 b27
OTTTOJ/ coni. 7^ i8 b3i =
alatofrto=
ovi) aiaBrjffi s d<pri 29b 8 awftaros
dirrov irddosfi dirrov 29
b1 5 dirrrj
(vavriojats 29b
1 1 Ta dura 31*10row dirruv Trofat irpSarat dtcupopal KCLI
(vavTi&afts 29bi7 sqq.
dpSdv 35*14dptfyos 36
b1 1
; 37*24 TOV dpi6p.ov
tffai (at dpxai) 35*28 ir\ttca rbv(v6s 29*1 dpiefjup opp.
dist.
ot dpxaioi 14*6; 25*3principium reale 15*19 ; 29*
13+ ; (coni. irpuTrj) 29*29; 32b 6
;
(Toy Avcipmi) 37b28, cf. 38*8 +
dpXai I4bi6(cf. 14*11 et b
4); sob
ii; 35*26; (coni. <7Toixa) 29*5
pxn = initium disputationis I5b24;
22 b26; 25*1; 26^30; 38
bn ((
dpxqs i6 b 18 ; 21*1; 27*32 (v
dpxy 27*7; 37*25dpx?) npojTr) TWV aiTiuv 24*27 dp-
Xai leal ahiai TWV avu&cuvovTcav 26*
35 ala$rjTov aufjiaTos dpxoi 29b7
(cf.b4); (coni. ctSi7) 29
b9 J
dpx^ T^S teivfjfffws 21 b6; 24*27;
24bi4, cf. 34*9 et 37*22 atTta
o6(v TT)V dpxty (tvai <pafjifv TTJS
Kivrjffws 18*1 cffTi S( 57 fjiev
larpiK^i us dpxrj (sc. TrotoOi') opp.TO ffiTtov T& us 60"xaTOI/ 24
b3 "h
dKivrjTos dpxn 18*5, cf. 5td Td iroppca
i. dfjteytOrjs 20*30 (Is
l6 b 26
dacy/xaT^ avdv(a0at 21*5+ ; 2i b i6
16*11; i6 b32 ; 17*1
els drofjia KOI ( o.ro\iuuv 17*13avAos 22*28 + pdfrvs av\oi 22*31avdv(iv intrans. 21*31; cf. fortasse
nvpl yap aijei T& irvp 33bI avf(iv
trans. 22*22; (apud Empedoclem)33
bi aufd^a^at I5
b3 + ;
20*222*11
; 33b3 av<oOai 22*24;
33b3 TO avov 21*9
avr) /fat <p0iats I9b32
au^ats 14*3; 15*28+; 25b4; 33*
35 *at>0i'<mi4b15+ ; 27*23
= /uTa/8oA?) aTa fji(ye0os 14** 15, i)
irtpt p.(y0os (/*6Ta/3oA^) 20*14 ir(pl
avf)acas 20 a 8 2 2*33 avgrjatsdist. yev(ais 20*10 sqq.; 22*4-16
dist.Tpo<p7) ( =nutritio) 22 * 20-28is TOV rcpaTOvvTOs 28*25
ffaptcos 22*27 TO *vov
22*12
TavTOftaTov teal dno TVXIJS 33b 6
os 15*12l8 b 2l
d(pavi(o0ai 28 bi3
d^ = contactus 22 b 22+ ;28 b 26
coni. Staiptais et OTiypri i6 b7
act /a Svofi' TIVWV 1 6 b 617 (v
TOIS (pvffiKoTs 23*34 Kara. T^V d<J>7]v
25b32 J
26 b 2 2 Std T( TOV KVOV KOI
Sid TTJS d<f>7Js 25b3l 7r/)t d(prjs
d<pai coni.
INDEX TO THE TEXT 281
i6 b4,
b!5 Hard rds d</>as 26
b 12;
27*12dcpri
=17 arrTiK?) aiaOrjais I9
bl9; 29**
8 + tcard rf)v d(p^v 29** IO +
d<pOapTos 23b23 opp.
; 29*30;
ets 0ados opp. 67rt7ToA.^s 30* 1 8 fv T&/3d0 30*21
0dpos opp. tcov(p6rr]5 23*8@apvs opp. Kov<pos 29*12; 29
bl9 +
TT)I/ yrjv fiapv Kal OK\r)pov (\fytt6 'E/i7T5otfATJJ) 15*11 TO 0apvcom. 777 19*31 0apvTfpov Kara
TTJV virepoxfjv 26*9ftapvTT)* opp. KOV(p6rr]s 26*7/3ta coni. irapd (pvaiv, opp. Kara <pvffiv
24*22
/St'ot
28 *14
16*9 els
/>2i b
32, cf. 22*19
17 def. 30*22
i/ 30*dist.
opp. (pOiais 36bi7 i) 1^
19*4 5)Kara <pvoiv
33 4 avyKpiaci opp. <pOopd
SiaKpiaei i6 b33, cf. at yfvcfffis KOI
at diaKpiaeis 25b3o utrum avf-
Kpiais ij yevfais !5b2O, cf. 17*31
rd avvtx<as Kivovpfva Kara yevcaiv
37*34 Trfpt rr\v "fevcatv opp. tirl
TOV dvai 37b i2
r) ytveais tls
Tovvavriov 24* 12 fis kvavria Kal
e evavricav 31*14, cf. 35*7ytveais rf
!# rovSe (Is rode fierafioXr)
20*13 ovffias /fat TOV rovSc
opp. TOV rotouSe Kal ToaovSc KOI nov
1721 f)
14*7 ?j dir\T]
17*17 rj aiT\rj yfveais opp. 17
pos I7b35 PP T' s
I7b5; i8 b
4 =17 ets TO
v (dSos) l8 b io = <p6opdTWOS i8 b
33 ffveais dir\<as opp.ytvcais TOvSi (= ^opd rouSt) 18*
32, cf.b5 17 OaTfpov yevfffis d\\ov
<pOopd 1 9*20, cf. 36
b24 77 yevtais
= <p6opa TOV /XT) OVTOS 19*28TVYXavet ovcra ev T> irepl TO fjLfaov
TOTTCV 35*24 dvdyKrj ytveffiv flvai
Kal (pQopdv irepl TO ovvaTov eivat Kal
Atr) clvai 35b4
t 77 jfvfais f dvd-yKi]s,di8ios 77 ytTOVTOV 38*2, Cf. 37
b34 V T77
KVK\O> Ktvrjffti KOI ytvtffft lari TO l
dvdyKTjs dir\ws 38* 15 ets fvOv . . .
fj ytveais 38b n
irepl yevfOfcas TTys TWV aTOixeiuv (cffKf-
\f>aro UXaTuv} 15*30, cf. 29*13sqq. ytvtatv Kal <p$opdv quo-modo explicaverit 6 Iv TO; $at5cwvt
2<uKpaTT]s 35b9 sqq.
Trcpt yfvefffcus Kal <p6opds TTJS drrXrjs 1 5*
26 I9b5 TrcDs tOTtv aTT\rj yeveffis
1 7b19 sqq. TI 5ia(p(pov0iv ytveais
Kal d\\oi<uais igl3 6 20*7 (cf. 14*5
s99-> I 5b 6 sqq.) ycvfais dist.
*10 sqq.; 22*4-16 ircpi
ycvffffus TWV dir\>v
*733*15 dvdyKT) ye-flvai avvex* 36*16 37*33
yevijTos (yfvvrjTos) 35*24 TO yevrjTOv
Kal <peapr6v 27b8; 35
b35 37 &I 6
rajevrjTd 35*32; 35b 6
7raj/ 14*9; 22 b6+; 25*34; 26 b
29; 27*26; 30bio; 34*22; 35*
31 36b 8 irdOos fevvav 16*4
15*1836*18td ytvrj 14*4 Tovavria
kv TO) auT^ 7Vct TTtivTa 24*2 TO)
ytvet at auTat (at dpxai) 35*29TO) 7CJ/ei ofjioiov Kal TavTo opp. T^;
et'Set dvonotov 23b32; 24*6
oiyfupyoi 35*14777 14*26 + ; i8 b4+ ; 19*16+ ; 29
*I
;
30b3 32
b28; 34
b4 + ; 35
a3 +
coni. TO 0apv 19*30 dfpttvavTiov iffTiv 31*2535*5 ^u-
Xpov Kal/p6V^30
b5 (rjpov
ftaAAoi' r^ if/vxpov 31*4 TO bv Kal
TO /*T) bv flvat <pd0K<ur (UapfjieviSrjs')
nvp Kal yrjv i8 b7 777
= Empe-doclis elementum 14*2615*22;33
b i2 +777tVos 26*31yiveadai TI opp. ytv(o~6ai dirAws 18*
33+ ; 19*3 sqq. dir\S>s yivcoOai
(p8fipfo-6at 17*33; 18*28+;
2O+ opp.def. 30
*5
2Oi5
5e iteratur 14*12; 19*11SeiKvvvat 32
b3i SfSetKTai 32*31 ;
36*1 5 + oedciyntvov 33*3
Kpavpov 2 9 20
~f\VKVT7)S 29 "1 2
701/77
282 INDEX TO THE TEXT
8eov o\ov TI Oewprjffat 2$b
1 7 ws rS>
\6ya> 8eov a.KO\ov0fiv 25*14SfKTiKos 20*3+ (paiverai . . . ws
Qdrepov fiev SCKTIKOV Odrepov 5' eldos
a8 b li
Senas (apud Empedoclem) 33** 2
I5b32 8ia\veoOai
opp. ffvvtevai l^.b 6
ovviaraaOai 25*32
Ta Srjntovpyovvra (sc. TO Oeppbv Kal TO
if/vxp6v) opp. TO ev 3Obi3
Arj/j.oKpiros 15*35; 16*1+; 23bio;
26*9; 27*19 coni. AfvKiiriros
14*21; I5b6+
; 25*1 coni.
'Apaa*yo'pas, A.evKiniros 14* 18
negat colorem 16* I eius sententia
de* agente et patiente 23b n sqq.
Democriti et Leucippi doctrina ex-
ponitur (vel examinatur) 14*21 sqq ;
I 5b6sqq.; 25*1 sqq.; 25^34 sqq.
(vox Democriti) I5b35; 27*
18
SiatpfTv 16*23; l6 b9; 18*6 Kara
fiepos 1 6 b30 ety eiriireSa 16*3
StatpetaOai 16*18+; i6 b24+ ;
25*7+; 27*10+; 28*16; 36*10Kara irdv ffrjfjieiov 1 6 b
3 1 els
\o)piard KOI del els eXdrrca ^.eyeOrj
1 6 b2 8 els eXdrro) vSdria 17*28
els pvpia pvpiaKis Siyprjpiva 16*22els fUKpd 27
b33 els rd
e\dxiara 28*6 els fJLrjSev 17*6Siatpereov 14*2; 27^2; 29** 17
TO diroprjfjui 27b32 Siriprjfieva
fjteye0T) 23*5 +Siaipeffts 16*16 17*15; 27*17; 28*
15 coni. d<prj, artful) l6 b7
SvvdfJLet em rty Siaipcffiv (aiteipov)1 8 *
2 1 H\droav ev ra?s Staipeffeaiv
(cf. Timaeus 35* sqq.) 3Ob i6
Siatptros i6 b2; 17*10+; 25
b32;
26 b4+ ; 27*10+ ; 28*4 -ndvrri
8iaiper6v 16*15 17*3; 25*8; 26 b
26+ ; 27*7 Siaiperov naff
onovv aijfj.ciov i6 b 2O Kara
fteaov 17*10 rd Siaiperd 2 8 bI +
SiaKpiveiv 33b2O; 34*1 opp.
<rwto~Tai'at 36*4 = ovyKpivetv rd
6jji6<pv\a 29b27 SioKpivecrOai opp.
0vfKptvea0at I5bi7; 17*27; 22 b
10529*3 Kardrdsd<pds 27*11SiaKpiffis opp. ovyKpiais 17*13; 22 b
7;
29^ 7 5 33b
1 3 SioKplaet opp. 0-^7-
Kptffet eoiKev (i) Kara tyvaw Kiprjats)
33b3i a* SiaKpiaeis opp. at yeve-
aeis 25b3o
SiaXeiiretv 37bI
5iaAAat's re piyevrcav (cit. ex Emped.)I 4
b8; 33
bi4
; 26*27PP-
opp. airy-
8id\vcris opp. avvOcffis 15*24 coni.
<t>6opd 25b3
8tr)ir6pr)Tat
SiavefjteaOai 30b 6
Stairiirreiv 35*3Siairopttv 19*9 ; 27
b27
I7bi3; 2l b ll rd
2O b25 rd 8iairooT)Oevra
Sidarrjfjia 36b5
Siaretveiv
8iarc\eiv
8ia<f>avf]s i$b23 rd Sta^ai/^ 24** 30;
26 bl3 fjia\\ov e\eiv (iropovs) rd
8ia<pavi) fj.d\\ov 24.^32
8ta<f>epeiv avrd irpos avrd 14* 23 iv
ry IT&S 1 5b
I ravrais rais Sia-
(popcus 1 8 b1 7 Td 8e SiaQepei 1 7
*
23 T(i erepa Kal 8ia(f>epovra 23b
12 8ia<pepovra
rqv <pvcriv 26 bI
8ia<f>evyeiv rqv Staipeffiv 16*16
$ia<popd i8 bi5 + ; 28 b
3o coni.
evavriojffts 32*11 17 irpbs d\\t]\a
SiaQopd 20* T 2 TOTTOV Siatyopd
irpwrrj 23*7 8ta<popai coni. irdBr]
15*8+ TWV aroi\ei(av (Em-pedoclis) 1 4
b1 8 alrwv
8ta(f)opai (Democriti) 16*1at fiiatyopai 2 9
b33 3 1*15 trptarai
8ia.(f>opal KOI evavriwffeis 29bl7 ?
cf.
at irpwrai rerrapes (sc. Statpopai')
30a25
Ta 8id<popa 23b7
Steipyetv 25*533*9
Siepov def. 30*16 opp. T^
rjp6v 30* 13 + dist. PePpeyfjievov
30*16-18Sucvat Kara rds dtyds 26 b
1 2 Sid rwv
iropojv 8uov opp. Kard rfjv d(f>rjv
etV 26 b 22
j8i] dv ^earijKeaav 37*12Aioyevrjs 22 b
i3T^ Siopdv 26 b il
pifav I 4b 2 2
; I5b2; i8 b
i; 23*
16; 2 4b3 2; 25*1; 27*6; 27
b7
Stopi^eaOat 14*6; 17*30+; i7b
14+ ; i8 b u; 19*5+ ;2o b
i8;2i b
i7; 22 b9+; 23*3+; 24^3;27*28; 29*27+ ; 31*7; 36*1437 &25
Stopta/ios 23*22 ; 29*14; 34b 2i
8iir\ovs 37*13StTTOS 2I b 20
ws 20*32 ; 24*26
INDEX TO THE TEXT 283
l8 b 26
8vo<f>6ti$ (cit. ex Emped.) I4b 22
Kara 8oav opp. /far' dX'/jOfiav l8 b27
8pav 28*35SvfTo (cit. ex Emped.) 34*5Stn-a/us i8 b
24 TIS Iv v\r) 22*28
(Ttpa Suva/its opp. i) t/A?; 35b3l
er<t>feTat 17 Swa/xts aurcDi' 27b3i
TO KO.TCL Svvajjuv irpaTTOfAeva 35b23
TOS Swdftfis ffVfiJ3d\\ffQat 33*28fjLfrpy TWV Svvdfieajv 33*32 rcus
Swdpcatv iffdfav 28*29 rets
8vvdjjiis 81 ds ytvvSiffi (TO. awftaTa}
36*
I /card TO irdOr) teal rds
5wd>ieis37a3
Svvdfjict i6 b i2+ ; I7b27 + ; 20*15;
22*21 + ; 29*33; 34bi4 + dist.
d/udfto) (ffs) 26 b 6 Opp. tVTf-
Xxai6 b2i; I7
b i6 + ; 20*13+;20 b
26; 22*6+; 26 b3i ; 34
b9
opp. h(pyeiq 27b23+ opp.
tear' evcpytiav 18*21Svvao-eai 18^25; 24
b8; 33*24 +
TO Svvarov tlvai Kalfj,f)
flvai 35*33;35
b4 (cf.
b2) rd Sword opp. rd
dSvvara (pr) tlvai) 37b
I 2b
17 eyie&iffis 36b4
eyX t/>6"' 16*4
tlSos 2i b 2i + ; 22*2+ ; 28*28; 28 b
1 1> 35
aJ 9 = dwarfs rts (V v\r) 2 2 *
28 rt x<wpt^TO>' i) ifd0os i6 b3
(coni. KaTTjyopia TIS) opp."
ii7 con. Toe rt
coni. o\rina. 2i b 28 coni.
*16+ ; 35b 6 Tdlj't/ATy
fx VTa 2i b 2i
Kara TO tiSos opp. Kara rty v\rjv2l b
23+ 17 Kara TO fitios aiTia
36*2 cidfi opp. dpt0fji> (6 avros)
38bl7 TO) efSet opp. dpiOfjiy
(dva(cdfjiiTTfiv') 38bl3, 1 6 opp.
TO; yevi 23b32; 24*6 17
ws ev
v\r)S(i5ti TtOeptvr) ama 18*9(t8r) (coni. rcAj;)
= 6ts rtfes 24bi7
coni. dpxai 29b9
rd i5j7 (|j/ TO) ^at'Scoi/t) dist. rd p.f8(K-TtKO. TWV fidwv 35
bI 2 + - 0?TCU
(6 Sco/f/wiT^s) a?rta 6?vat ffvefffcasKOI <f>6opas 35
bi5 f) ruv l8wv
<t>vais 35b io tivai KaTci T& i8os
opp. yivfaOai Kara rrjv ftfTd\r]i//iv
opp. /x
33coni. ^i/ i8 b
25 ty 28 b2;
3 lb23j 33*22; 33
b23 Toaira^,
TO 8' flvai aXXo 22*26 TO" auro, T^5' c^at ou T^ auTo I9
b3 lirt TOU
ftvat opp. Trepi TT)I/ yeveatv 37b n
TO evopiary tlvai 28 b2, cf. 33
b24
T^ (ffrai dist. T<} /xe'AXft 37b4 T^
Tt fffri 21 b3 TO Tt ^j/ 7i/at coni.b
Tooi/i7b6; i8 b 6 + ; 19*32; 25*3 +
;
36*21 + TO M ov i7b 3+ ;
18*14 19*32536*21+ TodirXwsov opp. TO nf) ov dir\us l8 b lO
TO Kvpius ov 25*29 TO 8vvdfj.(i
ov (VT(\exf'
ia ^ M ov I7bl7, cf.
"27 Td ovTa I5b26; 18*16+ ;
22 b27; 25*25; 26 b
29 28 bi6;
37b 8 Td <pvaci ovTa 33
b1 7 Td
oA<ws OVK ovTa 27b 6
ws flirfiv I5b4;24
b 6 us 8i piKpov irap-
ffepdatv ciirtiv 2 5b36 fiirticv 1 5
b2
ftnfp elliptice 21*17(fs) TO 1/25*26; 30
bi3 opp.
TO. TroAAd 31*25 TO KaT d\^6fiavV opp. Td d\rjOws TroAXd 25
*35
7rt TOU ev6s 32b14 TO <tv (
= Em-pedoclis ^(paipos) 15*7 +
, opp. TdTroAAa 15*20
fiff\0eiv 2i b 8 +ws fifdffTT) 17*8 Ka6* tKaaTOv opp.
tta06\ov 31*21 Td ftad' Ka<na
22*18; (opp. TO Ka&6\ov) 35*27Tt TOIOVTOV TUV Ka0' tfcaffTa \tyo-fjifvoiv atTiov 1 8 * 8
fKirpto-pa 16*34lAa/a 33
b9
f\aiov 30*6eAoTTOf ycyovevai opp. rjvfTJffBai 21*3
opp. fJift^ov "feyovtvai 2i bi4
7r' f\UTTOV TCL 6fio^oyovfifva owopdv16*5 7r' AaTT(w opp. firl ir\fioj
TOTTOV 2O*24 TO 6Adxt<7TO 28*6Ot lAdxtO-TOt (|j/OJ/TtOT7/Ts) 32
b2
TO I\avv6p.fvov 20* 21
30*7
3613fiKOTcas 19 27
.!4
b33; 25
b i+ ; 29*3;(coni. Te/K)t) 29
bi
; 3Ob2o; 33*
18+ ; 34*27 citatur I4b7,
20; 33ai9; 33 bl ,
I 4, 15; 34a3>5
ArjfJLOKptTos 14*11 sqq. ZoiKtv
tvavTia \eyfiv Kal -jrpbs TO <f>aivo-
fj,(va Kal irpos avTov OVTOS 1^*3ovSiv iffpi <f>vfft(as \fffi 33^18
of irtpl 'EpirfSoKXla opp. of itcpi
'Avaay6pav 14*25 sqq.
284 INDEX TO THE TEXT
Empedocles sex ponit o"Totxa, h. e.
quatuor elementa et duas motrices
causas 14*16, 17 quatuor
ponit 0Totx<* 14*26; 29*3; 3Ob 2o
negat generationem elementorum
15*4, generat tamen e Sphaero 15*
7 sqq. examinatur Emp. sententia
de generatione et alteratione I4b4
sqq.; de poris 24** 33 sqq. (comp.cum Leucippi doctrina 25 "5 sqq.) ;
de motu 33b 22 sqq. tota eius
doctrina examinatur et reprehenditur
33*16 sqq.
23*2735
b 2i
?6i/32b3i Tdejr/>oa06V33*6
rb (v $ (mvcirai) 37*26 +
J'ai'TtoAo7ta 23bl7
Td fvavria I4b26; 19*20+ ; I9
b2;
24*2+; 29*31; 30*31; 31*232
b2i;34
bi3+ ; 35*8 ruvtvav-
r'uav aina rdvavria 36*31 ; 36b9
Ta T' kvavria nal rd fncTav 24*8, cf.
I9b i2 ets rovvavriov
(17 ytvfffis)
24*12+ ; (/xeTa/SdAAety) 32*14rovvavriov (e contrario) 33
b3o;
34bi4 li'arrtcws Ae76tr 14*24
evavrtoTTjTos 32*23 fvavTiorrjTcs
dirfipoi32^14;
33*7 +
9+ J 31*15 alaBrirfi 29*10,d7TTJ729
b u coni.Sta0o/)d 32*10,cf. 29
b1 7 17 n(Ta0o\?i rfjs fvavriw-
(dist. kvavria Fi/at)
29*26at iyavTi&afis opp. TO Svv&fJiei awpa.
aloQrjrov 29*34 ou /t6Ta/3d\-\ovaiv 29
b 2 at alaOrjral ivav-
Tiwfffis 29** 13 fvavTiduffcis Kara.
rty d<fyf)v enumerantur 29b i8 sqq.
vScXfxfy 36b32 IvSeAexws 36*
TO OU V(KO. OV TTOtrjTlKOV 24bI4 QJS
8% rb ov evcKa (airtov kanv} $ noptpr)icat TO ttios 35
b 6
(Vfpyfia 27b29 opp. 8vvafjii
27b23+ aT
5
evfp^fiav opp.Svvdfjici 18*20
eviavr6s 36*14.ivoiKttv 16*6
*i 52O b
33; 2On+;
opp. Swdfjift i6 b2i; I7
20*13+ ; 2o b26; 22*6+
;
34b9 far' 6vre\(xc
'
ias 2O b 2l
. ; 20*34; 27*20;3i
b4 + ; 34
b335 35
a4 +
evoaais 28 b 22
(aiptiv rd d\\6rpia 29b 28 TO
Tt fy fTvcu teal TTJV fjiop<p^v 35b35
Iftufftobj 35*2citvai 20 b i2
(<t(ts) t{(is 24bi7+ at fcis coni.
TO irdOrj 27b i6
eavrd rrjs <f>va((us 23b 28
Toaovrov wart . . . 25*20ecu ArjuoKpirov 15*34(ircuvciv 33
b 20
(iraftQoTcpifav 28 b9
ciravairoSiartov 1 7b
1 9iTTtSoats opp. ftetWty 2O b
3Oiiricttews dvaiaOrjrov !9
b 2OT firncparovv kv ry fugti 1 1
*35
(7Tt\diTfiv 36b
I
eirt'ireSa (Platonisin Timaeo) !5b3O + ;
25b26; 29*22+ ddiaiptra
2 5b33 5
26 * 2 2 et's ImTreSa Sicupeiv16*2 f^fXP1 fiwreSoM' StaAuaat
1 5b3 1 irot?(70at TT)V dvdKvoiv
29*2267Tt7roA^s opp. et's fidQos 30
a1 7 ira/xi
s 15*3424; 27
bi8; 35
b 2i +
*35; I9a IO+ OCTTt-
b 22
opp. T^ ayvwffTOv i8 b23
22*15
22*9tpyov 18*6; 2i b
i I
eoTt Ofcapias 34*15 ^aas (sc. o
nAaTwy) etVat viroKtintvov Tt . . . ofo^
\pvabv rots c/xyots Tofy \pvaots 29*17TO taxaTOV irpos rb Kivov^tvov at T^
ycveaiv opp. TO TTpurov KIVOVV 24* 28
rb O"xaTOI/ a< * KIVCIV KIVOVUCVOV 24*3^ T^ a>s caxaToi/ KOI dirrdfifvov
opp. ws d^ (irotow/) 24b4, cf.
b27
et 24*33 \Ktivo 8^ o5
(sc. anyfiat teal 'ypa/^/ia
v\r) 2O b l6 T(i faxara 23*4 +ets a %axaTa StaAucTat opp. If WP
irpwrcav avyKfirai 2 5b1 9 TO" taxara
(in serie elementorum) 32b
1 2
(v eripois i6 bi8; 2Ob 28; 29*27;
37*18 TO iravTfXus Zrepov /cat TO
HrjOapTi ravr6v 23^4 TO erepal Siacpfpovra 23
b i2
^TO I
e5 33I9tvSiaiptros 28*24 ;
28 bl7
fir' v0ias 32bi3 ff cvOfia tpopd
37*7 et's fvOv opp. KVK\Q> 38*6+ ; 38
b ii (vOvs (sc. ut quodin promptu sit adferamus) 37
b3
INDEX TO THE TEXT 285
eij\oyov 23*19; 24*9535*16 fioA-A.oi' tv\oyov 15
b32 iro\v tvXoyw-
Ttpov 36*20 tv\6ya)s 26*26;3o
b6; 36
b 2 7 ; 38*17(voptaros 28*35;
34b35 T0
fviropos I5b 2i
elvat 28
fv<p0apros 17*27(<per)s 17*9;
t<ptfjs ov KOI yivofjitvov r68f
ToSf &0Tf p?) 8ia\ftir(iv 37*35 ra
e<pffjs (sc. Toav dir\u>v o~<w/*dTo;j/) 31b
4+f
(tytaravai) ircpl TOVTCJV (mffrrjaaffi
0((upr)TOV I5b l8 ircpl ovocvos
ov8cls iirtffTtjaev 15*34(X^vr
] ffriyp)) ffTiynrjs 17*3+ tear'
Tiyfi^v oiaiptT&v 17*10v ffrjfitTov ffT]fj.eiov 17*11
gats
rpotrov
viroKftfievov lS bg
I8 b 2
21*1
22*17;
A\* ou TOTO ^rjrovfi(vov
ex Emped.) I4b 2o
tos 15*10; 36bi7;
TO riffjia Ofpftov 26*12
opp. <r</>o8pa 28 b7
28 b io
TTJS ovarias I4b
i
33*16
6pdv KT\. (citatur
(JUKTO.
ffvveKvpat Oecuv(cit. ex Emped.)
34a3
qualitates quibus Empedoclis ele-
menta inter se different I4b i8 +
\4yet ('E/iTT.) TOV n\v fyXiov \fVKov
ical 0pi*6v 15*10 OLTOITOV TO n6vovdTToSot/vat T$ ircpHpfpc? axhtiari ro
6tpn6v (reprehenditur Democritns)26*5 Otpfji6TCpov 26*10 TO
virfp0a\\ov opp. TO Tjpt/j.a
26*12 irctpvKev, &s <paffi,
OepfAov SiaKpivtiv TO 8f fyv
ffvviffTavcu 36*30(pn6TTjs 26*7; 29*34;
32*
1 2 ou yap 77 0fpfjLOTijs
(3d\\(i KOI 17 i//vxp6TT)s ets d\\r)\a22 b l6
0fo-is 22 b3+ ; 23*5+ ^ opp.
14*24; I5b9 at 0(o-tis
0eo)ptTv 32*3; 35*27; 35b 20
pfjo-ai 25b35; 27*30;
o\ov TI 2 3b
1 8 0f<uprjTov 1 5
19; 17*32
0iyyavfiv 26*33 J26 b 2
; 27*2(0Vr}(TKeiv') Tf0VU)TOS 2I b
3I
0pavf<r0ai 26*26
iaTptfcri 24*35 ; 24b3; 28*22
iaTpos 24*30; 35b 2l
iSios 2O b29 Ar)(Ji6KpiTos irapa TOVS
a\\ovs iSi
iM
ets dtretpov Itvat
(is aiMipov opp. ffTTjvai 3enl TO KO.TOJ
iitavos 18*13 + ; 33b22; 35*31; 35
b9
8irjrr6pr)Tai iKavus 2 1b
1 1
iaos i6 bio; 20*23; 33*32; 35*28;
36bIO + iravTl ffwfMiTi TOV oyieov
iffov fffTai Kv6v 26 b 2O
yap lad TC iravTo. (cit. ex Emped.)33*20 TO iffov dist. T^ opoiov
6 0f6s 36b32 TO o*TOtxra Staupivfi 33
a3o
... 17 (pi\ia TO (pvfffi irpoTfpa TOV (iffTavai) ffrrjvat 32b l2
0ov 0fol 8% Kal TavTa (Emped.doctrina respicitur) 33
b 2i
0fpfjialviv 24*9+; 27*4+ 0fp- Ka06\ovijl3 i2
; 23*22 ; 36*13fj.aiv(o()a.i 22 b
l6; 24*17 + J24b 2+ KaO' (KaffTOV 31*20
(ua&iOTavai} TavTov Ka0effTijK 14*14opp.
24b 8
et fopov-vypov = irpw-TOi VaVTlOJfflS KCLTO. TT)V CL<p^V 2g
b
18 sqq. Ofppov def. 29*26X<apiffTov 24
b19 TO Oepfjiov
opp. iftvxpoTijs l8 b l6 OUTC yapTO Oepfjiov v\tj Tif if/vxpy ovTt TOVTOT> Qfpua 29*31 na\\ov fcal
fJTTOv Qepfiov KOI tyvxpov 34b 8 sqq.
enumerantur inter
22*16+17
b7 TO Ka06\ov opp. TO
35*287^11 ; 3i
b 26
7) Ka\ovp.(vr] dir\rj
14*7 fj.fTa0o\i) KaTa. (Jieyt0os, 17
KOI <p0iais I4bi4
22 bl; 28 b
31 ; 29M 6
/AT) Ka\ov I7b5 TO fca\d opp. TO
286 INDEX TO THE TEXT
did. avvrjQfiav 25*21\eytiv 29*6
p. vyiaivciv 17*34+; I9b
13 TO Ka.fj.vov 24*18KdTTVOS 3I
b25 +
KaTaaicevdfav I4b
l; 25*26
KO.TCX(LV TOITOV 2O bT
Karrjyopia rtj Kal eTSos opp. ffTtprjffis
l8 b l6 TO irpuiTov KO.& (KaaTijv
KaTijyopiav TOV OVTOS 17b 6 at
Karrjyopiat 1 7b9 J 19*11
Karrirfpos 28 b 8 +KO.TO) (KivtiaOai) 33
b 28 + us
iirl ruv (ffopfvtuv 38* 8 TO KO.TW
opp. TO dvo) 23*7 ITTI TO KO.TQ)
37 25 rcL KO.TO) rov II opp. rd
dvcaOfv 33*14Td KOLTtaOcv opp. rd dvcudev (TOV II)
33*15TO KOLVffTOV 22*11
; 25*5+ ; 25b9+ ;;
26 b
15 + Kfvov coni. cra)/xa OVK al-
a9r)Tov 2O b 2 x<u/)t<rT^l/ 21*6
/fcvoO ^ OI/TOS Ir Tofs d5tat/)Tots 26*
24 Totf/Ji'2o b27;25*4 + ;25
b3 +
i. q. x&pa. ffufiaTOS 26 bi9 5td
TOV KfVOV 26*2 - KOI 5td TS
(Kepavvvvai) TO KpaOev 28*12
Kr)p6s 27b
i 4 ; 34*32TO Ktveiv /cat mvetaOcu comp. TO TTOKIV
ical iraaxw 24* 25 sqq. TO" KIVOVV
2i b 7+ ;26 b
s; 37*17 comp.TO iroiovv 23*12 sqq. 8ix&s
\eycTdt 24*26 irpuiTOV Kai
aiTiov Trjs Kivrjffeajs 34*7 TO Sid
TO ovvf\S)s KivetaBai T.\\a KIVOVV
18*7 TO irpSiTOv KIVOVV opp. TO
fffX&TOV 24*30 -dKlV1)TOV 24
b
12, Cf. 37*19 ^d KlVOVVTa (=
Empedoclis </>t\ta at vcr/cos) dist.
TO. awfjuiTiKd (sc. o-Totxea) 14*17TO KOTO, (pvffiv KiveTaOai (opp. /Stg KOI
vapd tyvaiv) 33b3O Kivovpfvai
l) i6 b 6 17oufft'a
j)/fti'ou-
TO KivovfjLvov 23*J3+ > 37*264- TO KVK\<p KIVOV-
pcvov 38b
I Ta avvfx&s Ktvovfjitva
ytvfffiv r)dKKo'uuaiv r] oAws
37*3415*28; 23*18; 24*27 25*
27; 33b 22+
; 34*8+ ; 35bi7
TI K\>K\<a Kivrjais 37*24 ; (coni. ytve-
ms) 38*15; (coni. fjTOV ovpavov)
38*18 77/faTd (pvffiv Kivrjffis 33
b32
TIKard T^V <popdv Kivrjffis 36*15 17
T(OV TTOfKUV KIV1JO-IS 26 b7 l) dpX 1^
T^J Kivrjo-ews 18*2;
2i b6; 24*27;
24b14 tv Kivrjffti aKivrjTOv 24*31
HTa@a\\ovTa 8id TTJV xivrjffiv yivov-TO.I yrj KOI irvp (secundum Empedo-clem) 15*22 tv TOIS irepl Kivrjfffois
\6yois 1 8 *3 Kivrjfffis 38
bI at
tv KVK\O> Kivrjafis 37*20de causa efficiente generationis et
corruptionis 36*1 5 sqq. : vide etiam
s. v. (f>opd de causa continuitatis
motus 37*17 sqq. Empedoclisdoctrina de motn examinatur 33
b
22 sqq.
KivrjTiKos 23*12+ ; 35b 28
KIVTJTOS 23*12 +
KOIVOS 2O b23J 21*14; 28*31; 32*
18; 34*246 Koo-fjios 34*6KOTV\IJ 33*22 +
Kovtpos 29*11 ; 29bi9+ TO Kov<pov
coni. irvp 19*31Kov<poTr)s 23*9; 26*8
Kpdffis coni. /'ts, opp. avvOcais 28*8TO KpaTovv 28*26+ KpaTeTffQai
3^1*28+
Kpavpov opp. y\iffxpov 29 20 + def.
30*6KpiOds /iefux^ot irvpois 28*2
Kpvffra\\os 25*21 ; 30b 26 +
/fu/fXy 37*1+ J 38*11+; 38bl +
opp. ets u0y 38*6 + ^ KVK\ca
tpopd opp. ^ u0era ^>o^)d 37*7 ev
KVK\O) 37*20 /caTa TOV \oovKVK\OV 36*32
Kvpicas 14*10; 17*33; 22 b23+ ; 25*
28 TI KvpicaT^pa ama 35b34
KvptojTdTOv 24b27 {JuaXiOTa Kvpitas
20*2
\an0dvfiv 35*28; 38*8 \rjirTfov
20 b34; 2i b i6
Aaj/^di/ctJ/ 17*1 +\eaivca0ai 36*10\tyfadai d{Ji<f>OTfp<vs 1 7
b1 7 iroX-
30*
ytiv 20*32Aefoi' opp. rpaxv\eiirfo-6ai 3i
b i6+ ;r>
30*1\ftTTov opp. iraxu 29
b 2o+ def.
3O*I \6WTOTfpOV 32*22
A.(vKiirnos 14*12; 25*23; 25b 6 +
coni. 'EfJintdoKXTJ'i,'
Ava^ayopas
14*12 coni. ArjuoKpiTos 14*18+
; I5b6+ ; 25*1
INDEX TO THE TEXT 287
Leucippi doctrina exponitnr 25*23sqq. ; comp. cum Emped. doctrina
25b 6 sqq. ;
dist. a Platonis doctrina
25b25 sqq. vide etiam s. v. AJ/-
15*10; I7b45 33
b27; 32
b
20+ ; 33*29 TO \vn6v 27b i6 +
Kal TO 0fpfj.6v=
irdOrj KO.0' offov
dAAotourat povov 23* 19 \fvtc6v-
fif\av enumerantur inter qualitates
quibus Empedoclis elementa inter
se differunt i4b19 +
\evn6Trjs 23b25 + ; 29
b n; 32bi7
\-qerj 34ft
1 2
At0o?34b
i At^ot 34*2801 \OyiKOI5 (opp. (frvaiKWs} ffKOTTOVVTCS
16*11
\6yos = definitio 14*3; J7bi4 o
\6yos 6 TTJS (KaffTov ovffias 35b7
Kara TOV \6yov opp. KarcL TTJV V\TJV1 7
*24 r$ \6yy opp. T$ dpiOny
(?s) 2O b14 opp. Tony (xwpiffrfi
t/Aj/) 2O b24 Siatptpeiv 22*24
\6yos = ratio mathematica 28*9;33
a34J 33
b n +J 34bl 5
\6yos= argumentum, ratiocinatio 25*
13; 27*16; 27b7 o Ao7os 5*77-
iropti 27b27 6 dvayKafav SOKWV
\6yos 17*1 \6yoi dvayKao~TiKolteal OVK fviropoi 8ia\vfiv I5
b 2i
otKfioK KOI (pvariKois \6yois -neirfTaQai
16*13 *K T v woAAcDv Ao'ycoi/
dOfwprjTOi TUIV virapxovroav ovrts
16*8 ry \6yq> (opp. rfj alffOriact)
a,KO\ovOciv 25* 14 ITTI TOIV \6ycov
opp. 7Ti TWV TrpaypaTcav 25*18OOVTOS Ao7os I4
b25 ;
i6 b2; 24*24;
32*19; 32b9 ot irap' -?in<av \6yoi
25*23 TTfpl iravrojv tvl
SiajpiKaai 25*1 owfav rw2 1
* 1 8 C7?7
"6^ 7^P nva TOVTO
\6yov 18*31 tv roTs irp6rpov
\6yois 25b34 ot kv dpxy \6yoi
37*25 tv rots ircpl Kivfjoeajs
\6yots 18*4 virfvavrioi dAAi^Aois
\6yot 23b 2 oiKfios 6 \6yos avrwv
TJ7 viro0ff(t OVTOI <pavai l^b9 Kara
\6yov 24*14; 3Ob 2 +
\onrov 16*24; '6 b 25; 20*8; 28 b3i
rci \oiira Kal Svo avfJifioXa. 32b29
Aoos KVK\OS 36*32TO) AvyKfT 8' ovOfV fiffjuyptvov 28*15\vfiv l6b 18 XveaQai 2j
b 10T(> flSos 28*27
6\vira>v 23*33\VfflV (VpfW 2I b I2
d 23*1
ot fjiaivofjievoi 25*20fjia/cprifft Kara x^ova Svero pifais (cit.
ex Emped.) 34*5 fMicpy d\r}-Oiararov 29*20
fj.a\aKov (opp. ffK\r)pov) 26*13+;29
bl9+ def. 30*8 ftaAa-
Kov-aK\rjp6v enumerantur inter qua-litates quibus Empedoclis elementainter se differunt I4
b19 + /xAa-
26*86 HavOdvoiv 18*34
uavia 25*19 +T navbv teal rb TTVKVOV 30
b1 1
T6/>a opp. irvKvorcpa yivtaQai 26*23fMvwais 30
b 10
fjMprvpeTv 35*9ftdraiov 26*26
(jLaxeffBat 15*16peyeOos I5
b 27+ ; 16*24+ ;i6 b
i + ;
2o b23 2i b
i6; 25b22; a6 b
i7;
27*8 coni. ffwfia 16*15+ ;
20*30+ fjicyeOovs v\rj 21*7/ira/3oA^ Kara ptyeOos I4
bi4, vfpi
pcycBos 20*14+ peytOr) dSiaiperaI 5b2 7> (coni. a¶) i6 b i6
(XTo/ia 16*12; i6b 32; 17*1Siriprjufva 23*5+ CK pr) fjttyc
-
eSiv i6 b5
rd peOe/tTiKd rwv flSSiv 35b i2 +
fifOiardvai 28*34 (JKOiffraffOai 30*927*31opp.
opp.
i; 37
b6+ TO fjif
dist. rb (arai 37b4
i4bs; 20*21+
; 21*25+ ;
32*27; 32b 2O fv ry avrov
37 ai1 " X&M -reray-
37*1414*20; 21*3; 2i b
22; 23bi8;
28*5+; 34a3 T +; 34
b 2 aT
fttpos dtatpciv 1 6 b30 17
Kara pepos
opp. 17 dir\fj ytvtffts I7b35
30bi7+ ; 32
b 7+ TO plffov= medium inter contraria 32*35;34
b27 (cf.
b 28 TO ptaov iroAv oi
OUK doiaip(Tov)= centrum uni-
versi TO irpbs TO fifcov (opp. TO irpbs
TOV opov) Qcponevov 3Ob33; o rrepl
TO fieaov TOTTOJ 35*25; cf. 6 TOV
Hfoov (sc. o-ci;/iaTos) TOTTOS 34b3i
fjifffov TI depos Kil vSaTos fj dfpos Kal
irvpos 32*2 1 (? cf.
a35) KaTd plaov
SiatptTov 17*10, cf. 16*20KaTa ufaoTTjTa 34
b29
288
21, cf. I9bi4
avfrjaiv /cat <p8iffiv, /tar' aXXoiaxjiv
I4b27 Tofs ndOeaiv 15*14, cf.
I5bi8eti9
b il Kara T& na0T)
teal Td? Swdftfis 37*2 5id rty
15*22 TO
INDEX TO THE TEXT
tis r65f o\ov 1 7
is 31*24; 3ib i3+; 32*2
$ fls d\\rj\a fjicTa^affis 37*
1 1
os 19*2015*2; 17*234-; 18*25;
i8 bso; I9
b 7+; 20*4+; 29*8;31*11; 3i
b3 + ; 32
b 22 +; 33
a
10 ; 36*19; 36b2 Hardyfvtfftv
tjd\\oio)aiv j) oAcus 37
*
35^KarcL
pcyeOos I4bi4 "h
*K rovSf tis
roSe (opp. 57 Trfpl ftfyfOos et f/ irepl
20*12 TIlv r> ffvvt-
fra0o\rj 17*19 ^ nfra-
rfjs cvavTi&fffcas I9b3t 17
HcrapoXi) (h T&vavria 32*7; 32b 22
at fji(Ta0o\a.i rov avyKfipfvov 1 5b1 1
1 5b
i 335
opp. dn-o/SoAi; (sc. rwi'
ra fira\\(vofjiva 26 "35
fjLfTa^v coni. KOIVOV 28*31 PP-TO)V (vavricav eftarepov 34
b13 rd
/iera^u 30b14 ; 33*11 opp. rd
fvavTia 24*8, cf. I9b i2
^rdH(Tav avroiv (sc. rwi' 'E/t7rcSo\ous
ffrfp(S)v') KCVO. 25b !0 dcpa
Tl6fVTS ^ TTV/) ^ Tt p.CTafv TOVTCUV
27*19/card nTa<(>opav 24
bi5
2 1b24 ntTp(io9ai 33*21 + ;
TO) TOU 7TO<70l5fJlfTpOV 2I b
24J
fjicrpy opp.33*27
b31; 29*22 TOU
30bl7 TO avvoXov
2i2 T 7/^0 TOUTO (sc. Em-
pedoclis) 34* 2 8 ni-fnara 30
b1 5
yvvvai olvov vSan 21*33 (cf. 22*9)fjd(avTcs apSftv 35*14 /J-iyvvaOai,
fjuxtfival (absolute) 22 b24; 24
b34 ;
33b1 6 fu-xOevTos nvos dist. na$'
avro ptTaf36\\ovros 27*25 fie-
fjuyfifva opp. ffaiKpivtaTaTa 3Ob34
StdXXa^'s T fjuytvrcav (cit. ex Em-
ped.) I4b 8
; 33bi4 Sid TO ftt-
s
Td ntyvvpevd 27b5 + rd
27b i+; 28*2 TO fuxOtv 22*10;
28*10; 28 b7
ts fuitpd Hal lAaTTcw (Std/)jo*is) 17*16fuitpd [UKpots irapaTtOifJitva. 28*33Kard fjiiKpd 28*7 +
; 34*29 ptKpbvK fjitydXov (yivcoOcu )
1 7a35 /it-
po{5 ejjifjiiyvvfjifvov 15^13TO /JiKpo/j.(pts 30*2Sid iuKpoTi]Ta (doparot iropoi) 24
b3l,
^ (
[MKTOS Opp. dn\OVS 3Ob 22 /JUKTOV =
mistum 28*4534*14 = miscibile
27b2i; 28*31 ;
28 b i+ def.
28 b 20 T fUKTov = miscibile 27*32; 27
b8; 28 b 22+ Td /xt/n-d
aufiara = corpora mista 34b3i
i; 22 b8+; 27*3028 b
26; ; 34 l 9 con.
icpdffis 28*9, dist. ovvOfais 28*6 +fjdis T StdAAa^ts TC fjuyevrcav (cit.
ex Emped.) I4b 8
; 33bi4
,^7
p.iis = TOIV fjiiKTcav d\\otcaO(vro}v
tvuffis 28 b 22 iTCpl fjtif(as 27*30 sqq.
fu/ifToeat 37*3 +34ai2
povovffOai 32*24HOVMS 20* 1 1
p.6piov 20*21;
2i b 2O+ ;28*1 +
Odrfpov fjioptov (kvavriwafOJs) 32*11rd popta 2j
b 12
ri coni. iraflos 2O b l7 diretpa TO
wA^^os Kal rds /xop^ds 14*23 i)
t*op(pri coni. TO ftSos 35*16+ ;
35b 6 coni. r& ri fy ctvai
35b35 PP- 36a
14 &s
5*30
(sc. opp.
T^S popart? TUIV yfvijrwv fcal (pOaprwv
exponitur 35*28 sqq.
os opp. dpovaos I9b25+; 34*
14*20; 34*25s 16*22
TO veiKos (Empedoclis) 15*7 opp.77 <pi\ia 15*17; 33
bi 2 + 5 34 ai +
flTl TOV VCtKOVS VVV Opp. TTpOTtpOV (1TI
rns 34*6, cf. 15*6 sqq.
vorjaat
ttv 36*1022*2+
INDEX TO THE TEXT 289
26; 34b29 def. 29
b3i TO
rjpov opp. TO vyp6v et T& Sicpov 30*
13 TO Tf\((us rjp6v 30*7 TO
Trpomus (rjpov 30a 20 (rjpov-vypov
et 0(pp6v-iJ/vxp6v= trfxarai ivavTifa-
fffis KO.TCL TJJV d(prjv 29bl9 sqq.
jj/joV-u-y/joVenumerantur inter quali-tates quibus Empedoclis elementainter se differunt I
bi
i6 b io+ ; 3
oyreos 2i aii; 26*31; 27
bi5
ITOVTI awfMTi TOV oyreov tffov tarai
Ktvov a6 b ao aUtaipera TOVS o-y-
KOVS 27*21 5<d fffJUKporrjra TOJV
oytcuv 25*3065osi8 b
3 + o8$Hb35
oi<70at I5b9; 17*22; 18*27; 29*30;
b9; 29
b3i opp. a\-
\6rptos 30*21 rty olfcelav <pojvty
riyvorjfffv 'Avaay6pas 14*13 o
olfcetos TOTTOS 34b34 i) o'tKfia x&P -
37*9 OLKClOtS KCU (pVfflKOlS \6yOlSireireiffOcu 16*13
ofros 21*33 22*31 ; 24*30; 28*27irpbs bXi-ya /SAtyarcs 16*9o\ov nera0a\\iv 17*22; I9
bi4
o\ov aiTTfadat 30*2 aAAaT-
Tftv TOITOV 20*20 o\ov TI Oeupfj-
oai opp. fj-fpos n \tyciv 23bi7
TO OAOI' Opp. T& {JiOplOV, TO. fJLOplO. 2O*
23; 28*9 rb o\ov (rerum univer-
sitas) 25*9+ ; 36b32 i^TovoAou
0opa36b3 o\<us I7
b n; I9ai8;
20*1; 2O b3o; 24*1+; 26*28;
2 b6; 37
a35
(cit. ex Emped.) I4b 2i
^s20bi9; 33*34 Too
vir TOU opo-ycvovs (ircQvict it
24*1 T& bfioycvT] 23*30 ;
ofiofiSrjy dist. onoyevrjs 2Ob 2O
6pOH>IJ.Cpr)S 28*4+ TOL
22*19 "~~ PP-2 1
b1 8 + Ta ofj.oiofj.fpr)
Ti0r)<iiv('Avaay6pas') 14*19, def. 14*20 a7rA.a Kal aroi^fia. 14*28
opoiov coni. TO" auro 23b ii+ ; 24*6-
Opp. TO" ttUTO 3Ob24 TO OfJLOlOV
(ra ofjioia) 23b4+ dist. T^
taov 33*30 opo'iy avgavfrai
22*3 irpoai6vros av^avovrat r$6/iO('a> I5
b3 6/iotcws 14*2; 18*
26; 23b6; 35*26.
OfjLOlOVV 24*IOufto\oyfiv 25*25 npos TTJV a'iffOrjaiv
6no\oyo6fjicva 25*24 -
fifvij TTJ aladrjfffi -fjTOU wupos yeveaiy
31*34 6no\oyovfjitva rois -nap'
\6yois 36b i6 6p.o\oyov-
6/ioG
\4yovffiv 23b3
27b 2O
29b3o T^ 6ft6<pv\a opp.
&\\6rpia 29b 28TO (UKT6v 28 b 2i
\eyfaOai opp. Q&repa diro
TOJV fT(pcav Kai TUV irportpwv 22 b3i
TTciv 35b 8
14*6 ; 22 b3O
firl TOIS oro/ia^Tai (cit. ex Emped.)
28*156irr)\tKovovi> i6 b
8; 26 b i8
; 16*10; 18*23;27*16; 36
bi 7 ; 37*35
\tvKov opdv (cit. ex Emped.)I4
b 2i
3 2b
l
Ta opyava 36*9 +
opyaviKos 36* 2
6peyeff0at 36b 28
17*18; 33*8; 33b25 ociv
(= definitum esse) TO avv-
opos 29b3i+ itpos TOV opov (opp.
irpbs TO utaov) QeptffOai 3Ob32 ; 35
*
20 i) fJiop(pT) KOI TO flSos airavTcav
v ToTs opots 35*21ooToCi' 14*19+; 2i b
i9+ ; 22*19;33
b9; 34
b3 offTa 15*31; 34*
2M 34b25
^ TOU ovpavov (fcivrjffis) 38*19ouo-ta = substantia 1 4
b14 ;
1 8 b35 ;
21*34; 38bi4+ coni. TO To5e
I7b 9+ coni. T^Se TI I7
b32,cf.
i8 b!5et 19*13 5vvafj.fi TIS ovffia,
fVT\cxelq be ov I7b24, cf. 20*13
wj ft>8(xfral ovffiav ovaiq (vavTtav
fTvai 35*6 ovaias yeveffis KOI TOV
TovSf opp. TOU TotoCSe Kal TOGOVOG
KOI irov I7b 2l ovffias fffTai
yfVfffis (K n?i ovaias I7b 8 ev
ovffiq opp. tv T> TTO< 19*15ovffiat I7
b 11 + 519*18+avv(0TUffcu ovffiat 28 b
33
17ovo-ta
17 (KaaTov (=
i)(KaffTOV 0u<rts,
essentia rei) 33bi4 o \6yos 6
TTJS iitaaTov ovffias 35b7
eyyvTCLTa etvcu TTJS ovaias
o^ts (irp6T(
0r)naTa I5bi8;26*2l
31*3;26 b
3; 28*
2 9 INDEX TO THE TEXT
19+ ;28 b l+ ;
Kal iroiTjTi/ta 23*9; 24*7; 28 a 2o + ;
29b 2I+ TOV ira0T)TlKOV
eos 16*4; i6 bi3; I9
b
23; 21*25; 23*18; 26*2; 29bis;
37*27+ /tad' avTo I9b27;
(Opp. TO Tt fffTl) 2 1b3
-fj ffV/JL-
oA<ws 20 aI
'
kvavnu-
I9b 2l opp. TO viroKfi-
8 coni. p.op<prj 2o b
17 dv(V V'AT/S 28 b I2 fldos
TI xwpiarbv 77 irdOos l6 b3 iraOos
8% KaO' offov dAAotovTcu p6vov 23* 19,cf. I4
b1 7 f] nepl irdOos (fiera/SoA^)
20*14 Kara TO itdOos Kal TO
iroi6v (/zeTa/3oAi7) I9b33
d7rd07726*i9; 26 b7; 34*13 coni.
SiaQopai 15*9+ coni. at
f(is 27b l6 TO, Ttav d-moiv irdOrj
31*10 TWV iraBSiv oi)0\v
27b22, Cf. I7
b II+ Ct 20 b25
naQfai fJiTa0d\\fiv 15*15TOIS irdOcGl KOI KUTCL
(//6Ta/3oAi7) 17*26, cf. I9b ll /card
TCL ird8r) Kal ras Swdfitis (/^Ta/3aA-
37a 2
fyk^a. (ira0rjTiKov) 28 b 6
iranTr\ripes 25a29
TO TravScxfs (in Platonis Timaeo) 29a
Hiravoirepfua I4
a29
iravT\>s 34b io
(TTapaXa/jiftdveiv') irapei\r)(pafj.fv irapdTWV irpoTtpov 23
bI
napa\oyi6fj.fvos (6 Ao^oy) 17*1irapaTT\rjfftov 25*19irapaTiOcaBai 28*33jrapeK0T]vai 25
b36
napfievidrjs duos terminos
statuit, irvp KOI yrjv i8 b6, cf.
napiSovTfs coni. virepfidvTcs TTJV aia8rj-aiv 25*14
TO rrav (totum corpus) 16*29+; 26 b9
= 6 ovpav6s, 6 Koffpos 14*8; 18*
18-; 25* 7 + (omnino) 15*
TO itda~xov opp. TO KOIOVV 23*18 ;
12 + ; 24*4+ aTiypal ^To8t TraOovffai i6 b
4\rfpbv ireirov06s TI effTiv 30*5
ira^u opp. \tiTTov 29b 20 + TO ira\v
TOV frjpov (kaTi) 30*4 iraxyTfpov
32*22(vfiOeiv) -ntirewdai 16*13iTfipaaQai 35*14 ircipaTfov 1 5
b24 ;
i6 b i8
ircpaivftv intrans. 25*16 wtntpuo/*!vos opp. direipos 18*18, cf. 38*10
TO iTtpas irepaivfiv av irpbs TO" Ktvov
25*15 irepas *xfiv 38*5 T^TTkpas e^opTa 37
b3o
T^ Iffpi O 2O a II
nepiepyov 26 b 8 +
37*5TO irpifxov coni. TO dirfipov
TO KadoXov Kal TO irdvTa
ris 26 a4
(irrjyvvvai) ircnrjyos opp. vypov 27*17+ coni. aK\r)p6v 27*21 +TO irfirrjyos opp. TO vyp6v 30*14 +aicKrjpbv yap IOTI TO irfmjyos, T(> 81
TTfiryyos frpov 30*
1 1 irenrjyevai81' \\ftif/iv vyp6TT)Tos 30
*7
TTlKpOTT)? 29b
I 2
irAaTOS 27*8(irXaTTftv) TTir\afffji4va) Tivl TOVT'
loiKevai 25*10nAdT<uj/i5*29; 25
b25 + ; 3o
bi6; 32*
29 citatur 29*15 sqq. Pla-tonis Timaeus respicituri5
b3o; 25
b
24; 29*13; 3obi6; 32*29 eius
doctrina de indivisibilibus planis
reprehenditur I5b3osqq.; 29*2-
24 eins doctrina dist. a doctrina
Leucippi 25b25 sqq.
irXtovax&s 30* 1 2
TJ-A^OS 25*35; 30b7 aireipa TO
ir\f)0os 14*22 ; 25*30TOJV OVTOJV 25
a 2R
TT\rjpr)s 25a n
; 26*^13 +Tr\r)povff0ai 26 b 8
TO tfXrjaiov (<ro)jua) 37a i2
n\ivOos 34bi ttXivOoi 34
a 2o +irvevfJLa 21 b
9 coni. drip i8 b 2o
noiftv Kal irdaxew a\\r)\a 23^7TTOKIV TI d\\rj\a 23
bl3, cf. 29*
b 22
TO plv iroici TO 5c irdaxfi Tds<pvo-iKas
noififfets I5b5 fj.eTov iroifTv 16*
31 pcyedos iroiftv 16*33 irvp
iroifjffat 22*14. 1T P^ TOV voiciv
Kal Trda\tiv 23bi sqq. TO iroieiv
Kal irdaxtiv comp. TO KiveiaOat Kal
Kivflv 24*25 sqq. TO TTOKW Kal
ndax^Vj ww? 4j/8ex*Tat avufiaivtiv
24b25 27
a29 TToi(ia6ai TTJV dvd-
\vfftv 29*2223*15 24
bi6; 35
b27
^ '
TO
TO irpuTov (iroiovv^) opp. TO '<i0\aTOV
INDEX TO THE TEXT 291
24*33 T0 np&Tov iroiovv
24** 1 3 TO uoiovv effx&Tov Kai
Kvpi&TOTOV 24*2*] ra iroiovvra
28*32 Kal irdo~xovTa 24b33
iroirjffis 22 b13 + ; 24*32 al Qvaiitai
iroirjffds 15b 6
os 23*10 24bi5; 26*2; 28*
+; 28 b2i; 29
b 2i + Hffri
TO iroirjTiKov ainov s oOev
dist. ooa ev v\y et oora /XT) iv vXrj
tX(l r?lv ^op^rjv, quorum ilia iraOij-
nica, haec autem diradrj sunt 24**
4 sqq.iroi6v dist. irocrov, irov 1 7
bi o + dist.
TI, iroa6v, irov 18*15 *v 7roi$opp. iv To> ITOOW 33
a29 tv ry
iroica opp. iv ovcriq 19*16 Kara.
TO irddos teal TO iroiov
\fyeaOat 2 2 "30Tci iroAAa opp. TO %v 15*20 Tci
a\r)0S>s iro\\d opp. TO KO.T d\i]0tiav(f 25
*36 auTO" TO Tpiycavov iro\\&
fffTCU l6*I2 Ol TTOXAOI l8 bI9
ot irXeiaTOi 23b3 ITTI iro\v avvti-
peiv 16* 7 ws wt TO ito\v 23* 25 ;
33b5 + ^ irXrov 1 7
b14 iVt
TrAetcw TOTTOJ/ 20*24 TT\(IOTOV 1 5b
28
oia, TWV iropcov Suov opp. /mra26 b 22
ITOO'OV 16*30 dist. iroi6v, irov
I7b TO + dist. TI, irotov, irov
18*16, cf. 19*12 TO iroa6v,iroffov TO Ka06\ov opp. irooov Tt,
act.p iroffrj 22*16 sqq. ivT<JJ
iroaw opp. Iv TTOJO) 33*30 KaTci TO
iroaov (/4Ta)8oAi7) I9b3l (avft-
0\T)Td) 33* 20 sqq.
iroT^pcas 20*29 +irov dist. iroffovj iroiov 1 7
b2 7 dist.
Tt, iroaov, iroiov 18*16 coni.
TO TOi6vSet
Toaovoe opp. TO T<JSc
I7b 22 TO irov dist. iroiov, iroffov
I7b l0
TO irpdyna $ avufifffijice opp. TO TTO^OJ
37*29 TO. irpdynaTO. 15*33;29
a5 36*24 opp. avToi i8 b
26 PP- T^ ffd.Qi] KOI al (fis
27bl7 inl TOJV irpayfiaTcav opp.
firl TUIV \6yuv 25*18
irpeiv 36*10irpioav 36*8irpo'ifvai 16*14wpoffdytiv opp. dndyfiv
irpoffayoptveaOai 29*20irpoffyivfffOai 15*16; 2 1
b 26
irpoocivai 35b7
irpoaOeffis 27*24 irpoaOtffiv
irpoa6fup(iv 36*1 2
irpoaifvai 36b 3+ irpoai6vTos avd-
VOVTO.I Ty (Jftoi'y 1 5b3 irpoawvTos
TIVOS avdv(ff&ai opp. diri6vTos<f>0iveiv
21*4 (cf. a2I>
2 7) J2jbl 3 /HW-
IOVTOS ntv TOV rjXiov ycvfffis effTiv,
dm6vTOS ol <f>0iffis 36b
1 7 TO irpoa-iov 22*26
7rpoo*/foVTft 7^p TroAAofs 26*27irpoffTiOfaOat 21*30; 33
b2 /iT(i
TOU irpoo"TiO(fj.(vov 33*6irpoavirapxtiv 35*31of irpoTfpoi 35
* 18 of irpoTfpov 23b 2
iv TOIS irp6Tpov \6yois 25^*34
irpoTfpa T^V <j>voiv 15*25 TO.
irp6Tfpa TOV Oeov 33b 21 TT;
<J>voti irp6Tepov 29b i6 de neces-
sitatis nexu inter TO irpoTtpov et TO
vffTfpov 37b14 sqq. ; 38
* Ia
27*31
TO irpSiTOV KaO' (KdffTrjv Karrjyoplav TOVOVTOS I7
b 6 dia<f>opd irpdrrrj 23*7irpwTCU dia(popal Koi cvavTiajfffis 29"17, cf. 30*25 ij v\rj % irp&Ti) 29*23 of irp&TOi <f>i\offo<f>r)o-a.VTcs 1 7
b30
T(i irpwTa = TcL diSia 35*32 (cf. *29)= dpxdi Kal OTOixtia 29*5 (cf. 15
b
26) TO. TcpGrra TWV o-eafjidTcuv 2 5b1 7
= i Siv irpujToav ffvyKciTai teal
els a fffxara SiaXverai 25b i8
TOV v Tofs irpwTois
TO irpwTcas r)pov 30*19 TO
irpS/Tov KIVOVV, iroiovv vide s.vv.
KiveTv, iroiciv
TO irvKvov opp. TO pavov 3Ob l2
(TTO/)OI) irvKvol Kal KaTa O~TO?XOV 24b
31 irvKVoTfpa ytveffOai 26*23Kal fjiavuffft TaAAcc yewaioi
30b io
irvp i8 b 3+; 19*15+; 2O b 2o+;22*10+ ; 23
b8; 24*9; 25*20;
27*4 + ; 27b ii +
;28 b
35 29b27;
3ob2 35*19; 36*7+ J 37*5 +
coni. TO Kov<pov 19*31 coni.
voojp Kal Ta TotaiJTa 29*35 TO
irvp *Xfl *v v^fl TO 6*PP- V 24bl9
Ofpfj.bv Kal rjpov 30b3 Ofp-
fjiov p.d\\ov f) rjpov 31*5 = virep-
&o\fi OfppoTTjTos 3ob25 sqq. ^-et
vocup contraria sunt 31*1; 35*5
U 2
292 INDEX TO THE TEXT
Ta opyava (KIVCI) 36* 12
H&vov korl Kal fM\iara rov etSovs
8td TO nttpvKtvai QfpeaOai irpos TOV
opov 35*19 tv\oyov TO novov T>V
air\>v ownaTwv Tpe^ta&ai TO irvp
35a*7 (paivcTai Kal TO irvp avTo
KivotifJitvov Kal irdo~xov 36*7TO irvp Empedoclis elementum 14*
2615*22; 25b23; 33
bi+^ P
Kal 777= Parmenidis OTOI b
7; 3obi4
inyw/ifr 34*33irvptvos 26*31nvpoeiofis 30
b24
irvpos 33b 8+ irvpoi 28*3
tv T TTWS oia<{>(p(iv I5b
I
i8
(cit. ex Emped.) I4b 22
fii{ais (cit. ex Emped.) 34*5
ffdp 14*19+; 21*2022*28; 34*25+;34b
5 + iroo-f] 22*20 +
adpKts 15*31; 34*20; 34b25
i8 b i+; 19*12+;
ov 17*11 aiaOrjTov 2 1D
1 4Ka6' OTIOVV ffrjpfTov l6 b
1 1 + KO.TO.
irav arjfjitiov l6 b3l
aiTtov 24b3
b iabi9+ ;
20b 2i + ; 26*3 + ;
coni. ireirrjyos 27*21+ ; 30*11 T^V 8^ yfjv ftapvKOI ffK\1Jp6v (\(fl 'E/*7T65o*A^$)
15*11 vide etiam s. v. iM\aKov
o-K\r)p6Trp 26*8aKOTtfiv (pvatKtas opp. \oyiKws 16*11
ota fffjiiKpoTijTa T&V oyKuv (dopara)
otvov 28*27(aTtpeiv) TO cffTeprjfjifvov TUVTTJS 30*
18 +o-Tfpe6s 29*22 (TTfped 16*3; 25
b
5 + ;26*22 irfpl rS)v aotaipfTuv
ffTfpfw 2^35 sqq-
o-Tfprjais l8 b!7 TO (Tepov TWV
cvavTicav 32*23ffTiyfjir] 17*3+; 2Ob i5 coni.
arni(Tov 17*12 irapa TTJV atyty KOI
T^V oiaipeaiv Kal T^V OTiyi^v l6 b 7
aKivrjTOi f) Kivovficvai at ffTifftai l6 b 6
d(pal Tool iraOovffai i6 b 416*27+ 5
i6b 27
d<f>S>v % o-TiynSjv i6 bis; 17*7
oixftov 15*1+; 25b23; 29
bi3
aTotxtta 14*15 + ; 3Ob 8 coni.
dpxa* 29a5 biaQopal TWV OTOI-
4** 1 8 TO, ffTOixfto- (= d'/fp,
5 + ; 29b23; 31*
W f*Xf**> "*) 3a30 + J 3 1
b27
opp. Ta CK TOW aroixtiwv 22 b6,
cf. 34*10 TOJV aufiaTow 33*I 7, c ^* 34 &I 6 TO. KaXovfJifva
o-TOixfta 22 b2; 28 b
3i; 29*16 +d aTO(xa Empedoclis I4*.i6 15*25; 25
b2o(cf.29*3); 33*19; 33
b 2o
quomodo moventur 33^22 sqq.
irtpl
TlXaTOjv 15*31, cf. 29*13 sqq. 7ra)s K TWI/ OToixftcaveaovTai ffapKfs Kal baTa KT\. 34*20sqq. ; 34
b 16 sqq.
o~Toixfud(ffT(pa coni. irpoTfpa T^V<pvffiv 15*24
/mrd
rd avyyevrj opp. rd/IT) o/*o</>v\a 2Q
b3O
ffvyKCiO-Oat 14*22 ; 16*27+ 52i b
i8;
25bi95 34
a3o; 34
b32 TO avy-
KfifJlfVOV I5b 12
29b 26+
I5bi7; 17*27+; 22 b
io; 29*3crvyKptffis opp. oiaKpiffis 17*13; 22 b
7;
29*7; 33b i2 4^ c\aTT6vcav
17*16 fj o"vyKpiffis fuis 22 b 8
uirumavyKpiais 1) ytvfais 15b2osqq.;
cf. 17*31 ffvyKpiaei opp. SiaKpi-od I5
b8; i6 b
34 ; 17*18+(ffvyKvpeiv) avvfKvpae Oecav (cit. ex
Emped.) 34* 3at avfv(is 30*31 +at avlvyiai 32
b3
(<rt;AA.a/*j8di'ftJ/) ffvvftXrj/jtfjifVTj Ty v\p 77
popcpfi KOI TO c?5os 35*
1 5rd ffvpfiaivovTa 26 b
I irdOos TJ tru/tjSt-
PrjKos o\cas 20 aI /mrd avfjifiefirjKos
23b2 7 opp. KaO' avTo 2O b 5 +coni. fv rofs irdO(ffi (sc. ftera/SoA^)
17*2633*27
os 33*19 +
2*32 av/x/SoAa 31*24 + ;
3ib4 ; 32
b29
avpniveiv 35*1avwfTpos 24
b35
avpirXrjpovv 36b3 1
avfupvfjs 27*1owd^yctj' coni. avyKpivetv 29*29
ets / 15*6 ets rd 5uo 3Ob 2o
22*21
30*31 ; 32b3O
1 6* 8; 18*13 avveipeaOat
36b33
36b3
35*2
INDEX TO THE TEXT 293
26 b 10; 36*24 37*32 ir6pot
5b7 <p\fJ3es awexets
27*1 r6 awexes rovrois dir6prjfjia
2 7b3 2 avvexts (?vai T ^0" PP-
airreaOai oiyprjfjifvov 25*6 avro
avry del ffvvexfs 37*31 avvcxovsnvos dpiOfjids 6 \p6vos 37*24 i)
ev
r> avvexei nera&o\rj 17*19 ffvve-
Xus 18*7; 19*19; 35bl9; 36
ai6;
37*34; 38ai3
8td avv/)0fiav 25*22ovv9effis opp. 8iaAua'*ji5
a23 PP-
otaipeffis 17*12 ; 27*18 dist.
avvBeros opp. dir\ovs 14*29 TOavvOerov opp. rd dn\a 34
b35 ev
airavrt ra> avv8er<f iravra rd dirXd
ivearai 35*9avvtoetv I4
b13
avvitvai 15*23; 27b 28 opp.
awiardvai opp. Sianpiveiv 36*4avvtffrrjKcv 31*3; 34*16; 35*22at </)u<r avvfarwffai ovaiai 28 b
33ffvviaraaOai opp. 8ia\vcadai 25*32
ovvoXos 2 1b 2
avvojjio\oytTa0ai 29*6avvopdv 16*5awnOfvai i6 b
9 ffwriOeaOcu 16*
3+ 5 25*34; 28*25; 33b9
avvr6fjicas 17 14ffwowvpos 14*20
ia 19*1515*21
a<paipa 20*22; 34*33a<pd\\fff0ai 17*20a<p68pa opp. irdp.irav
28 b 6
<rx%*a 26*15; 2 7bi4 TO
com. TO flSos 2i b27 <
8ia<pcpovra fi6vov (rd irpoara row
ffcapdrcav} 25b i8 rd axij^ara
(= Democriti et Leucippi oreped
dSiaipfra) I5b7+ ;
26 bi; cf. 26*
4+ wpiaOai ffxnuaai 25b27 +
2 7 bl 5
27*1521 b
1 2 r$ \6ya> rd virdp-2 1 *
1 7 , cf.* 2a ff&faOtu
21*21; 22*24; 2 7
bl7+ /card
/uwpd ffutffJifva (rd ftiyvv^fva) 28*
7, cf. 34*29 et34b 6
Kpa.T7)s (6 Iv T$ *ai'Sa;j/t) 35b io
eius de generatione et corruptionedoctrina examinatur 35
b i2 sqq.
uifia i6 bi +
; I9b i2
;2o b
2 21 i$ ;
29bi5; 3i
b3o
*15 + ; 20*30-1-
29b15 TO KVK\<P aw/wt
*32 T^ Suva/jet aw^a29*33 irpt alffOijrov
aufjiaTos dpx^v 29b7 sqq.
opp. dacyfidTy av(dva0ai 21*5d(ra;/xaTa 28 b 3+ ; 33*17; 34*16;35*22 = Td a7rAa aw/XTa 31
b
28; 33a3iJ 33
b27+ J 36*1; 37*
8 + Td drrAa ou^ara 30b 2 + ;
3ia7; 3i
b35 35*i7; 37
a3 ^
TTpura aufjuira 3ob6, cf. 25
b 18 et 29*28 Td fuicrd. ffufMTa 34
b3l Td
ow^ara 32*4 Td alaOrjrdara 28 b
33, cf. 29*25 aw^araipfra 14*21 ; I5
b29+; cf. 25**
17 sqq. coni. ncyeOr) i6 b!5
explicantur et inter se comparanturTd air\d owpaTa 3O
b 2i sqq.; vis
6 rp6iros rrjs (Is d\\ij\a fjLfTa@o\fjs
31*7 sqq. ;eorum motus naturales
et contra naturam 33b 26 sqq.
acufJia,TtK6s 2O b22; (coni.
29*9; 34*14+ Tddist. rd Kivovvra (aroi\eia Empe-doclis) 14*16
TO ffupcvofjicvov jjt
coni.
rdts opp. Offfis (row dSiaipiruv
oca/MTcav^) 14*24; I5b9 irdvruv
yap can rafts 36b
1 2
(rdTTeif) fv ovticfuq X&pq rcraypivri
37*15raxus 32*31T6\cta (coni. dir\f)) yivtais 17*17rcXius 30*7; 35*2Td rf\r) coni. rd i8r)
= f(is nvts
24b i8 WXos = postremo 22*32
rcnvtiv i6 b ii; 30
b i8
3 Texvrl 35b33 T<i T Vl? dist. rd
<pvffft yiv6{jifva 35b3i Td airo
ist. rd tyvati 35b 28
in Platonis Timaeo) 29*23I5
b3o; 25
b24; 29*13;
32*29ToSe Tt coni. ovaia I7
b3i, cf. i8 b
i5coni. fUos i8 b
32 opp.roiovfe, noaov (arj^aivtiv) 19*12,cf. i8 b I TO roSe coni. ovaia i7
b
9 + TO Svi'ctfid novov roSc Kal 6v
J 7b2 7 "h
*K TOvSf els roSe nera-
/SoAiJ 20*12, cf. 18*23 +ToSt 18*32 + ; 37
b26; 38*11 Toi/St
18*30 +roiovdi 2O b 22
Tofxos 34*20+ ; 34blT07TOS 20*20+
J2O b
I; 23*! +
J 34"2
> 37*27 + ^ irtpi TO fjieffov r&-
*os 35*25 irepl rov rov plow
2 9 4 INDEX TO THE TEXT
TOTIOV 34b32 roVov SiaQopa
23*6 SvO (V T(p aVTQ> ffUfMTa
TOW<P 2i a8, cf. 2i b i6 Kara TO-
irov (fjKTapaXXeiv) I4b27; I9
b32;
20*22 r6v<p opp. T> \6yy(X<W/MO-TT) VAT;) 2Ob 24 of r6iroi
= regiones elementis propriae 30b
31, cf. 34b34
rpa\v opp. \e?ov zgb 20
Tpeipfiv dist. avfiv 22*23 rpe<p-aOai 35*10 + dist. avca0cu
22*24 ro rpe(p6fji(vov 35*15auTO" TO rpi-ycuvov l6*I2
rpovai 37b l2
Tpoirrj Kal SiaBiyy (Democrit.) I5b35 ;
27*18 rpotty yap "xfHapxni^taBai16*2
Tpoiros 34*27 ; 36b3i TOV rpoirov
^rjTovftfVf dAA' ov TO viroKeifJievov
i8 b 8 6 rp6nos TJJS fjifTa0o\fjs
3ib3; (opp. TO ircpl o eoriv) 20*
16; 31*10 KO.T a\\ov Tp6irovTOIOVTOV 34
b1 6 Kara rov avrov
rporrov rfjs ne068ov 27*30 rdv
flprjufvov rpoirov 34b19 of rp6irot
Koff ous r<i fjL(v iroic? rcL 8% n6,axfl
25b I2
v 33 7 opp. irecpv-
34*2
nutrmentum (av&v(i) 21*
32 + ; 22*1, *28; 27bi4; 35*10 +
= nutritio, dist. afyrjffis, 22*23 s^Q-
vfxavtiv) orrcas trvxt opp \6yy nvi
(owe\0fiv} 33b lo
tTvx*v 33b i6 o
TO TVXOV 23b30
33bl 5 &* rvxrjs coni. airo
(avo)
vytafav 24*30 vyiafcaOat 24*16TO vyta^ofjievov 24
bI
vyiaivciv 17*34+; I9b l2
v-yUta 24*35;* 24bi5; 28*23+ ; 35
b
21 +vyp6v I4
bi9; 22*2; 29
bi9 3 i
b33;
32b 2o + ;34
b29; 35*1+ def.
29 3 opp. ireirrjyos 27*17+,Cf. 3O*I4 CVOptffTOV HOXlOTO. TO
irypbv TWV SiatpfT&v 28 b4 TO
y\iaXP v vypov ireirov06s ri ioTiv
30*5 T& Vfpd, fUKTO, fM\l0TO. TWV
o-o>/lTo;v28b3 vide etiam s.v. frjpov
30*7 ; 32
bi9+ dAXorpm
T)s 30*17; (opp. oiiccia) 30* 2 2
rjs 22*32vSciTia. 17*28vdup I9
b 2+ ; 20 b 8 22*32; 26*
33+ ; 28*11+ ; 29*2+ ; 3Ob3 + ;
3ib4 33*25; 34*23+ J 35
a i+J
35b32; 37
a4+5 38
bi7 (coni.
drip) Kal rd SiaQavr) 2^b29 nvpl
ivavTiov 31*2; 35*5 rd vSojp
\fsv\pbv Kal vypov 3Ob5, \fsv\pov
ffM\\ov f) vypov 31 *4 p.6vovTWV airXSiv fv6pi<?Tov 35*1 TO
v8<ap = Empedoclis elementum 14*26 15*19 vSaTa 38
b 6veiv 38
b7 +
v\rj i8 bi4+; 19*32 + ; 20*2; 2o b
10+;
2i b 2i + ; 22*29+; 24*21 +; 24
b4+ ;26 b
6; 28*20+;29*9+ ; 32*18+ ; 34
b 3+ ; 35*
7? 2O 3 2
20 b 2 2 peyttovs 21*7 al-
ffOrjTri opp. cupavrjs 1 8 b2o Kcx<u-
pifffjtfvrj avT?i Kad' avT/jv opp. (Wirap-fv d\\<p ffwpaTt 20*33
iKT) Kal xwPi0irn 29*9T0)v awpaTQiv TWV alaBrjTuv 29*
24 TWV 4>v<nKWv o~(up.a.T(av 32*4 o~vv(i\T)fjifji(vrj TT) v\rj r) fJiop^KCLI TO eldos 35*16
'
fv v\r} 21 b
21; 24^4+ dvtv v\rjs 28 b i2
5Am atreipoi 2O b lo
^ v\rj coni. TO KaXov^fva aToi\tla 2 2 bI
$ v\r) iraerjriKov 24bi8, cf. 35
b
30 rj irpwrt) 29*23 TO
fjitaov dvaiffOijTos ovffa Kal axoupiffTos
32a35 dx&piffTos (J.6V viroKti-
pevr) 8e TOIS cvavTiois 29*30 (cf.
I4b27; 15*21; 28 b
34 ; 3Obi3>-
WfflTCp ytVOS (TWV dVTlKlfJl(V(tiv)
24b 6 oaot TrAttcu TT)V v\rjv Iros
TiQkaaiv 14*11 (cf. I4b4 et 16)
j) ws tv v\r)s eiSft TiOejjifVT) aiTta 18*9us v\r) opp. us fioptpr} (sc. dpxf>35*3 opp. ws TO ov (VfKa
(sc. atTiov) 35b5 atTta us v\rj
19*19 17 v\r) (= causa materialis)
opp. 17 nop<pfi 36*14Kara TJ)V V\TJV opp. KaTa. TOV \6yov17*24 opp. Kara TO clSos
2i b 23+ ^
Td virapxovTa (<TQJCIV) 21*18 opp.of Aoyoi 16*9 TOU virapxovTos
peyeQovs eiridoats 20 b30 TO vnap-
Xov (irvp") 22*14virfiKftv fls (avTo 30*8VTTflKTIKOS 26* 14
aSvo/jifVOJv aTfpeuv 25b5
vircvavTtos
(virfpfiaivciv) vir(p(3avT(s TT^V
irapi86vT(s avTrjv 25*1326*12
INDEX TO THE TEXT 295
rcLs vTTfpoxds d\\r}\QJv ((pOcipctv') 34b
1 2
fiapvTCpov KarcL Tr)v vncpoxfy 26*9viroOtais I
bcf vwo6cac<us opp.
OaTepov <p0opd r] OaTfpov irott ^b7 vide etiam s.v.
viroKttaBai (ws v\rf) 15*21; I9b3;
3Obi3 17 virotecifjicvr) v\rj 28 b
34(?) v\rf) viroKfifJL(vr) rots cvavTiois
20*30 T) vrroKfififvr) <pv0is 22 bl9
TO vrroKcifjifvov I4b3 ; 15* i + ; 17*
23; i8 b9 20*2; 22 b
i7; 29*32;29
b14 opp. TO iraOos t KO.T&
TOV vrroKcifjicvov \cyca9ai Ttctpvucv
I9b9, cf. 24*16 inroKciiJLCvov n
TOIS Kokovp-cvois aTOixdois 29*16cffTi n KOIVOV TO viroKCtfjicvov 34*24TO vrroKcifjifva 20*4
vitoKeiTcu. = sumptum est 21*29; 3ab
35; (/cat o5tTat) 36*23; 37b 22
vrro\civciv i8 a lo +; 19*28; 36
b 26
vnofjicvciv I9b lo 2l b
l2; 32*^vTTOTi6ea0ai 16*7; i8 b
8; 35b l2
vrro0ca8ai 29b4; 33
b25 viroOf-
T(OV I4b 26
TO vffTfpov et TO irpoTfpov 37bi4 sqq.;
38*13 ovrc eaTcu dvdyKrj
kv TOIS VGTfpOV I 7*30
o (v Tif <bai8a)vi
TO (pa.iv6fj.cva 15*4; I5bio; 25*26
Sid avvrjQfiav opp. TO a\a 25*21 ovStv d\\' rj (paiv6f*fvov 16*
29 TO?? dir\ois (patvopfvois aufj.affi
3Ob 2 ITTCI 8' OJOVTO TaXtjOes kv
TO) <paivrOai !5b lO /mi T^V
ata6r]ffiv <paivTcu yivo/Jifva 31*9, cf.
36b 16
3ob32; 35*19+;
dvca 34* I + TO
20*19 + 536*22 TO Kvtt\<p aSjp.a
27b8; 35*24; 35
b3 ; 37*
16; 38b i6
tpOeipetv Tas virepoxds dk^XaiV 34b n
<p0eipTai dir\ws opp. <p0(ipeTdi To8i
18*31 vide etiam s.v. yiveaBat
(pOiveiv 20*10 + ;21*2 +
; 22*24<p0ivov 20*19+ Ta (pOivovTa 20*IO
<pOiais 2o b3i; 22*33 coni.
ai/^7/(rtsi4b15 + ; 27*23 coni.
au/ I9b32 opp. yeveais 36
b
18
TrXrj def. l8 b lO = yevcaisTIVOS l8 b
34 $ <f>0opd ytveais TOV
p^l OVTOS 19*29 (pdopd Tovbi (vel
TIVOJ) opp. <p$opd dir\u>s 18*30 sqq.
f)d\\ov <p6opd oAAov ytvcffis 19*21
^ <f>i\ia (Empedoclis) opp. TO
J5"1 ?; 33*" + ; 34* 8
firi Trjs <pi\ias opp. Iwt TOI) VIKOVSvvv 34
*7
(f>i\oao<p?v I7b3o
<pi\oao<pia (^ eTepa ai irpoTtpa) 18*6^is (jov ira.QrjTt.KOv} 26
b35
5 + J 37 &I 3 r)<popdirpoTtpa
TTJS yfvtafcas 36*23 irpUTijTtav fj,fTa0o\(uv 36*19 r) dvoj
<popd 38b3 r) rrp&TTi <popd opp.
J7 KOLTO. TUV \oblf KVK\OV 36*3!r) TOV o\ov <popd 36
b3 ff
KVK\OJ
<popd 37*I + ; (opp. r)
fvOfta <popd)
^Trj (f>opq dist. Trj dv(ufjui\iq
Kivrjfffis) 36*30 r)KCLTO. Tr)v
<popdv Kivrjffis 36*15 quomodo17 Qopd causa sit TOU yiva6ai 36*15sqq.
(ppovTiffat 15*35(ppovSos 18*17(<pvciv} rrctpvKtvai (pepeoOai 35*19;
(opp. dird Tvxrjs <pfpf00ai) 34*4irctpvM 16*20; I9
b9; 23*10; 23
b
7 + ;26b3i; 27*3530*31; 31*13 + ;
35*20; 36*3+ Td irpbs d\\rj\aTOVTOV TOV TpOTTOV WC<pVI(6Ta 26 b
24TTf<pvKws Kal rtoifiv /cat irdaxflv 2 7
a5
TO cpvofjitvov 19*11(pvai/tol \6yoi 16*13 at (pvaiital
rrairjafis 15b 6 Ta (pvffiKa awpaTa
32*4 d<pr) T)ev TOIS (pvaiKois
(opp. cv TOIS fjaOrifjiaTiKois) 23*34oaot (vyKri/eaai (t,d\\ov cv Tots
<pvffiKois 16*6 (pvffiK&s opp.\oyiK&s 1 6 *
1 1 (pvaiKUTCpov \cyciv
35 b2 5(pvffis
= rei natura 14*5; 28*30(j)
TWV aTCpcaiv) 26*17 27*20i)
cfcdffTov <pvo~is 33bi7 OVK
ciffTrjai yap cavTd TT)S <pvffe<us
23b29 TI
TWV clowv <pvffis 35b io
77 vrroKif4.cvri <pvo~is 22 b19
ov8cv rrcpt (pvffccas \cyci ('Efj.rrc8oK\r)s}
33b l8 drrTcaOai TT)S (pvffccas 24*
15
77 <f>vffis= universa natura 18*10
77
airaaa <pvais 15*7 TOU &C\TIOVOS
opcycaOai <pap.cv Tr)v <pvaiv 36b 28
KaTd<pvaiv2$*2 ;28 b
27 (ieiv(t-
aOai} opp. rrapd <pvo~tv (=/3t'a) 33b
27+ f]KaTa (pvffiv Kivrjats 33
b
296 INDEX TO THE TEXT
32 ij <p0opd italjj ytveffis 17 KaroL
<pvaiv 36b
I o + irporcpa rty <pvffiv
15*25 rr) <pv0(i irp6Tcpovb
<pvffd trportpa. 33b 2l at <pvffci
ovaiat 28 b32 ret.
(pvcrci dist. ra airb Texvrjs 35b28, cf.
b 2 rd<pvaei ovra 33bi7 ^a.
ped.) I4b7
Xa\(ir6v 1 5b24 xa.\tifurepov 33
b4
Xa\Kos I9bi3; 28 b 8 +
tf>voi$= ffveffts (cit. ex
ra</)i/TO 35* 12
14*13
p 2i29 con. pax<uv 21
32, cf. 22*19(cit. ex Emped.) 33
bi
; 34*5Xoevfftv vSaros (fivpiois) 28*27XpoicLv ov (prjatv tlvai (Ai;/ioptTos)
16*1
Xpoviois 28*35 xpovKurtpa -fj ye3i
bnXp6vos coni. )8tos 36
b 12 6
37a 2 2 -f TOJ/ anavra. xpovov 18*4
ffy XPvy 36b lO+ kv ra>
dirflfxu \p6vy 37*9 of xpovoi /tal
ol /Stot (xdorcav dpiOftov (\ovoi 36b
1 1
Xpvcros 29*17 +Xpvoovs 29*17
b
16*2
35*21; 37*9+ TO Ktvov=
X*'/' 01 ff&fMTOS 26 bl9
X<upifav 26*32 xwA>fCc<r^u J 5*9 + 5
i6 bi4; 26 b
28; 27b28; 29*15
I* Ktxwpivpevns avrijs KaO' avr^v rrjs
v\rjs 20*33 Kfx.<apiap:tvov 2o b5;
23*2 5 25*5; 27b 28 KeXup"rf**-
va (coni. dirfxovra") pfyfOr) i6 b29
X<wpty opp. afjta 22*14 irortpov ri)v
avrijv {ntoXrjTtrtov eTvai <pvow . . . ^X<apis 14*5
X<y/>o-T<5s i6 b3 + ; I7
b io +; 20*34
21*7; 24bi9 + ; 27
b 2i+; 28 b35;
29*10+ rci /i^ x^P'"
7"" 27bi9
coni. ira.fjL<poTtpi(iv 28 b9
; 27*10 +24*10; 33*25 \(,vx*aOai
i5; 24*17; 24b2; 26*19
n (doctrina Empedoclis exami-
natur) 34*10+ at d\\oi&a(is at
I4bi9; I9
b23; 26*3 + ; 29*
32*17; 34b4+ def. 29
b
29 TO \{/vxp6v 24*10+; 26*5;29*31; 30*27; 36*4 videetiams. v. 0epfji6v
i8 bi7; 22 b
i7; 26*7; 29*34;
at oipai Ki&K\y ytvovrat 38b4
ws (=
OUTCUS) 29b3
INDEX TO THE INTRODUCTIONAND COMMENTARY
The references are to the sections of the Introduction and to the pages ofthe Commentary.
Action-Passion 148-75 alwaysbetween differentiations of an iden-
tical substratum, &c. 151^.; 172involves reaction and re-passion
157 comp. with '
moving-being moved '
153-4 mechan-ism of 156-75 not between'likes
'
only (the view of Demo-kritos) nor between ' unlikes
'
only148-51
Aether (= the fifth 'simple body')10 ; 138 ; 248 ; 256 = Fire
(Anaxagoras) 66 = Air (Empe-dokles) 233-4 ; 238
Agents, 'first' )( 'last* (='
proxi-mate ') 153 ff. t relatively )(
absolutely dnaOrj 153-6 comp.with ' movers '
146-8 ;1 53-4 do
not act by penetration through'pores' 169-71
Air (= the ' hot-moist simple body '),
par excellence' moist '219 a
sort of aqueous vapour (dr/zts) 1 39 ;
213; 221; 222; 260 a con-stituent of every dpoiopfpes u ;
64 ; 244-5 more ' real'
thanEarth 102, and than Water 260
formation of 2 2 1 See also s. v.
ElementsAlkmaion of Kroton probably origin-
ated the theory of '
pores '156 his
theory of perception 157Allen, T. W. 86Alteration (dAAotWis) )( coming-to-
be 86-7 comp. with growth1 26-7 Aristotle's theory of
105-10; 118-20; 197-8Anaxagoras
'failed to understand his
own utterance '
64 postulated
primordial'
togetherness'
of all
things 179 his theory )( that of
Empedokles 63 ;66 his o/wno-
fAfprj (opoiofjifptiai, aiftpfMTcf) 65
his aief)p= Fire 66 his theory
of thunder 8; 9
Anaximander, his conception of the
'Boundless' 193; 194; 199; 224-6Anaximenes 140; 193Antecedent and consequent in a tem-
poral sequence, Aristotle's doctrine
of their nexus 272-4Archelaos 249Aristotle discusses ' indivisible magni-
tudes'
76-86 criticizes Anaxa-
goras 64 ;1 79 Anaximander
194 ; 199 ; 224-6 Atomists 71 ;
164-9 ;l83~4 ; 248-9 Eleatics
T 6 1 Empedokles 68-9 ; 158;163-4; 169-71 ; 231-40; 248-9
Plato ( Timaeus] 70 ; 73-4; 75-6; 194-8 Pythagorean mate-rialists 249-52
' Sokrates in
the Phaedo '
248-9his conception of the three <pi\o-
aoipfcu OfojprjTiKai 1-2 of
'first philosophy'
(060X071*17) 3-
4 of natural philosophy andthe mathematical sciences 2
;
5-7 ; 10 of astronomy5 5
10 of demonstration
7-9 of the unity of a science
6 of 'scientific
'
definition
9; 122; 127-8; 177his conception of Aether 10
; 138 ;
248; 256 of aiffOrjffts as 5u-
vafus KpiriKrj 151 of'
cycles'
260; 265-7; 274-7 of de-
grees of reality 3 ;100-1 ;
180-1 ;
241-4 ;260 of dense )( rare '
124; 204; 225-6 of TO" Svva-
TOV 77-8 of TO* (<p(r]S, TO fX"ptvov, TO o*ui/6XS 80-1 ; 271 of
the ' twofold exhalation'
1 39 ;1 88 ;
221; 222 of God 4; 255-6of the ' natural heat 'HI; 133;
205-7; 246; 2^9; 261 of the
298 INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY
11; 64-5; 129-30;177-8; 188; 192-3 ; 204-7; 24-6 of 'place' (TOITOS) 116
of time 81; 267; 269 of
'the void'
115his theory of action-passion 151-75
of '
alteration'
105-10 ;1 18-20
;
^197-8 of ' combination'
(/ is)
175-89; 239-44 of coming-to-be 88-105; 246 ff. of
growth 118-21; 122-4; I2 7~3^of the '
infinite '96 of the
light and heat of meteors, planets,stars 10
; 139-40 of '
physi-cal contact
'
141-8 of the
physical Cosmos 10; 138-40 ;
144-6; 247-8; 253-6; 266-7of irpwTT) v\rj 10; 92-4; 97;
1 18-20; 137; 189; 193-4; 198-
200 See also s. w. Cause, Contact,Elements, Matter, Motion
Assimilation (in growth) 132-6due to action-passion 152
' Association'
and 'dissociation
*re-
tard and hasten yevns and <pOopa
87 attributed by Empedoklesto ' Love
'
and 'Strife
'
236-8Astronomy, Aristotle's conception of
5J I0
Atomism, its experiential basis 84its affiliation to Eleatic monism
159-605162-3 criticized byAristotle 71; 164-9; l83~4; 248-9 See also s. v. Demokritos
Birth and death 1 1; 191-3 ; 205-7 ;'
259-62Bisection, progressive 78Bodies, the '
heavenly'
10; 247-8 ;
265 the '
simple ', see s. v.
ElementsThe ' Boundless
'
(Anaximander) = a
body intermediate between Fire andAir 193; 194; 199; 224-6
Brittle-viscous (itpavpov- <
yAi*)0Mr)209-10; cf. 187
Burnet, Prof. John 67 ; 94
Cause = middle term in dir68fiis
8-9 ; external'
)(' immanent '
128 <
instrumental'
248-52'
adequate ', of avfrjms 127-9efficient cause 153-4 of ytretris
95; 1 20-i; 250; 251; 253-63
of iroirjffts 1 20-1; 153-6 ; 250-2
ofafyrjats in ; 123; 127; 128;T 33J 136; 249 .
final cause, of yeveais 95 ; 235 ;
247 ; 25 1-2; 263-5 of irofyow
154-55251-2 of avfrffis 123 ;
249formal cause, of ytvtais 235 ; 247 ;
250-2 of iroirjais I2O-I; 153-
5 52.50-
2
material cause, otyfatfu 95 ; 97-8;248-525262-3I 5>-6; 250-1 of
122-3 (cf. 112-20; 128-30)final, formal, and efficient causes =God 4; 251; 255-6 causes ofthe heavenly bodies
'
247-8Chiasmus 221
Coarse-fine (iraxv-\eirTov) 204 ;208-
9; 225-6Colour, Aristotle's definition of 203
Demokritos' view of 71 ; 74-5the scale of colours 151
Columns, the contrasted, (avoroixiai)101 ; 103
Combination (iuis) 175-89; 239-44)( d\\oicaais, avfacris 178-9 )(
yVffis and <pOopa 178 ; 241-4)( mechanical mixture (avvO(ffts)
182-5; 239-40 depends on
degrees of reality 179-81; 241-4involves all four '
simple bodies',and results in a d/aotofifpcs 177-8;cf. 240-5 in the end only of
liquids 18551 86-7' nominal
'
definition of 9 ; 175-6'scientific* definition of 9; 189
primary subject of (= ' the com-
binable') 185-6 imperfectforms of 187
Combining-formula (^0705 rfjs /wt ecus)
64; 70-1 ; 130; 235Coming-to-be (and passing-away) 88-
105 ; 246 ff.'
unqualified'
)('
qualified'
88-95 ; 98-103 )('al-
teration'
86-7 - ' nominal '
definition of 88 ultimate pre-suppositions of 10; 92-4; 97;118-20; 137; 189; 193-4; 198-200 is always a two-sided
process 97 ; cf. 198-9 why it
never fails to occur in nature 94-8 ;
254-61 See also s.vv. Birth,Cause
The ' Consecutive'
(TO I^TJS) 80- 1;
^Contact = coincidence of the limits oftwo ftfycOij 80-1
;82
; 141strictly is reciprocal (between <pv<riKa
owfMTo) 141-3 ; 146-8 loosely
applied to ra pa.Orina.TiKa 141 ;
INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY 299
! 43"4' one-sided
'
(e. g. rela-
tion of Upper to Lower Cosmos)138; 142-3; 146-8 of 'wholewith whole' 82
; 85 identified
with anyM, Staipeffts 81;82
Contingent (= hypothetically )( ab-
solutely necessary) 271-5Continuity, primarily spatial 81
; 268-
70 of motion and change 81;
265-70 of time 81 ; 269The Continuous (TO ffwexf*) 86-1 ;
271The ' Contraries
'
(fI8os and arfpijffts).= a '
constitutive moment '
(OTOI-
\tiov) of body 10; 97; 137;198-200; (cf. 92-3; 118-20)
Contrarieties of touch 202-12'
primary' = ' constitutive moments '
of the '
simple bodies '189; 1 99-200; 200-3; 212-13; 223-30
Cosmos, the physical 10; 138-40;144-6; 247-8; 253-6; 266-7
1
Cycles'
260; 265-7 J
2 74~7
Definition, 'nominal' )( 'scientific'
9; 122; 127-8; 177 'nomi-nal ', of d\\oi<a<rts cf. 105-7 of
avfaais 122-3 of yevfffis 88of n'iis 951 75-6
'scienti-
fic', of avrjais 127-9 of/if
95 189Demokritos, praised for his method
76; cf. 158-9 conceived iuisas a shuffle of atoms 183-4 his
distinction between ' true-born ' and' bastard' knowledge 71-2 his
theory of action-passion 148-50of the secondary qualities 71-2 ;
74-5D. and Leukippos, their theory 65-6; 71-2; 74J 76 ff.; 84; 156;158-9; 164-9; 248-9 its
affiliation to Eleatic monism 159-60; 162-3
Demonstration, Aristotle's theory of
7-9 ideally-perfect (=
ffv\\oyia/JLos rov Start) 8 its
conclusion a commensurate judge-ment including the middle term 9its relation to definition 9
Dense-rare (irvKvov-fuivov} 1 24 ; 204 ;
225-6Descartes, his deductio = Aristotle's
d7r<55ts 9
Diogenes of Apollonia 140-1 ; 193' Discretes-in-contact
'
159; 160-2;J 73; 174
Dry-moist (fopov-vypov) = a primary
contrariety of touch 200 ff. de-fined 208 passive, acted on bythe ' hot-cold
'
205-7 deriva-
tive forms of 2 1 1-
1 2 reciprocal
action-passion of ' the dry' and
'the moist' 204-5 (cf. 186; 241-
4) the '
tempered-dry'
205 ; 242
Earth, a constituent of every d/xoto-
fiepls f u; 64; 244-5 re-
quired as food by all living things
245-6'
absolutely heavy', at
rest at the centre, the central body,&c. 10; 144; 146; 218;245 |
less'real' than Air 102
identified with rb /XT) ov by' Par-
menides' (= Pythagoreans) 100;cf. 214 See also s. v. Elements
Ecliptic, the 255; 257; 259; 260;275
Eleatic monism, its affinity to Atomism1 59-6o; 162-3 criticized byAristotle 161
Elementary qualities, see s. w. Dry-moist, Hot-cold
Elements of body (ffroix^a) irpwrrj
v\i), (15 and ffrtprjats 10 ; 137 ;
189; 193-4; (cf. 92-4; 97; 198-200)(rcL Kakovjjifva OTOIX*"*) = the
'simple bodies' 137; 189; 191Aristotle's doctrine of 10;
137-40; 189-230; 241-4; 266-7first informations of irp&Tr) v\r)
Jo; 137; 189 Air, Earth,
Fire, Water impure examples of
213; 217 their' natural
'
movements 10; 139; 238their
'
places' 10
; 138-40; 144-55218 their
' natural series'
219-21 in what sense they are
ffvij.0\rjT& 242 their reciprocaltransformations 219-30 Em-pedokles' theory of, criticized 68-9 ;
^3-4; 231-40Ellipse 270.
Empedokles, quoted by Aristotle 67 ;
231 ; 233-4; 235; 238-9parodied (?) 235 criticized
68-9; 158; 163-4; 169-71 ; 231-
40 ; 248-9 conceives the1 real ' as ' discretes-in-contact
'
159
(cf. 160-2; 173; 174) denies
a ' void' 160-1
;cf. 163 ex-
plains perception by'effluences
'
and 'pores' 157-8 explains
pits by'
pores' 159 fails to
explain psychical phenomena 239his theory
'
diametrically opposed'
300 INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY
to that of Anaxagoras 63 ;66 his
'elements' 68-9; 161; 163-4;
231-40' Love '
and 'Strife
'
64; 68-9; 231 ; 234-9'
Sphere'
68-9; 161 ; 179; 236; 240loose account of motion 236-9
ale-rip= Air 233-4; 2 38
Epikouros 184Eudoxos 5 ; 253-4Exhalation, the ' twofold ', Aristotle's
theory of 139; 188; 221; 222
Fire the fiery 'simple body', hot-
dry vapour, olov vireKKavna 139;
2135217'
absolutely light'
10; 144; 146; 218 howit contributes to constitute every
6fiotofjLpes 246 called aliHjp
by Anaxagoras 66 contrasted
with Earth by' Parmenides
'
(=
Pythagoreans) 100; cf. 214 See
also s. v. Elements
Food (niateria ex qua of growth)113; 12 2-36 of all living
things, at least two ' elements'
244-6
Herakleitos 140; 193Hippasos 193Hot-cold (Ocpfj.6v-if>vxp6v}
= a pri-
mary contrariety of touch 2Ooff.
defined 207 active, operat-
ing on the '
dry-moist'
205-7 re-
ciprocal action - passion of ' the
hot' and ' the cold
'
204-5 (cf. 186;
241-4) the '
tempered-hot'
205;
241-2; 244; 246
The '
Immediately-next' (TO80-1
; 271Indivisible magnitudes, discussed 76-
86 planes (Plato's theory),criticized 73-4; 75-6 ; 194-8contrasted with the theory of Leu-
kippos 156 solids (theory of
Leukippos and Demokritos), criti-
cized 164-9Infinite, no ' actual
'
96 recti-
linear succession, has no &p\4i 273-4 (Anaxiinander's airctpov},
see s. v. Boundless
Intelligences, the'
heavenly'
10;
155Intermediates rd ftcrav = blends of
TT" i/i/' Forms
' and '
Participants'
(theory Intermediates (rci. ftcra^v) = blends of
of Sokrates in the Phaedo ') 248-9 contraries 151 (cf. 214; 241-4)
(e.g. the 'tempered-hot') )(
Genitive, partitive, in singular 270absolute, without expressed sub-
ject 69God, Aristotle's conception of 4 ;
255-6 m *ne theory of Em-pedokles
= the '
Sphere'
236Growth (and diminution) 110-36
'nominal' definition of 122-3'scientific' definition of 127-9is a uniform proportional expan-
sion of the' form
'
of the growingtissue 129-32 ; 135-6 ; (cf. 112-13 ;
122) assimilation in 132-6involves dXAotWts and yevtais
KOI (pOopa 122 dist. from nu-trition 134-5 treatise on, as-
cribed to Aristotle no See also
s. v. Cause
Hard-soft (ffK\rjp6v-fM\aK6v\ defined
204 ; cf. 210-1 1 derived from'
dry-moist' 208
; 21 o-i I
Heat, the * natural ',' inner ',
'vital
'
in; 133; 205-7; 246; 249; 261
Heath, Sir Thomas 145; 253-4;259
Heavy-light (0apv-Kov<pov') 204 (cf.10
; 144; 146; 218)
v\ij 241-2Ion of Chios 193; 214-15 ;
216
Kallippos 5 ; 253-4Kant's conception of ' das Reale
124
Leukippos, quoted (?) by Aristotle
163 his theory contrasted with
that of Plato 156 See also s. v.
Demokritos
Lynkeus 185
Mathematical philosophy 2; 5-7
its connexion with natural philo-
sophy 6
its objects (ra naOrmaTiKa) 5 ;
116; 118; 143-4 their matter
({/A.?; 1/077x17) 10 ; 144 are not' hi place
'1 16
; 143 in whatsense they
' have position' and can
be 'in contact' 143-4Matter,
' ultimate'
(irpwrri v\r))= a
' constitutive moment '
(ffroix^ov)of body, isolable by definition 10;
92-4; 97; 118-20; 137; 189;
193-4: 198-200'
proximate' = the material con-
stituents of the 61*010fJLfprj 92 ; 97 ;
INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY 301
i36ff. ; 189; &c. of sub-
stantial change 104-5 I2 4^
not rcL ytoaptrpiKa 118-19 )
matter of s, avt]ai$,
no; 118-20identical numerically, not '
in
potentiality' 169; cf. 124 Mr-
regularity 'in 262
of roi yeufierpiKa (v\rj vorjrfy10
; 144 of <pop& (V\T) iroOtv
iroi, romierf) 10; no; 248 See
also s. v. CauseMelissos 159 ;
161
Motion (<popa) primary form of
change 254 implied in growthand diminution 112-13; 122
; 130-2
'
contrariety'
of 257'natural
'
)( 'unnatural' 237-8 ;cf.
10 '
simple'
)('
composite'
70 ;cf. 10 ' uniform
'
)(
'irregular'
257-8 continuityof 265-70 of the irp&Tos ov-
pavos 255-6; 258; 269; 275-6of the sun 'along the inclined
circle' 255-7; 259; 275Mover, the '
first' = God 95; 154;
2 5* 5255-6 ; cf. 4
' abso-
lutely' )( 'relatively* unmoved
146-8; 153-4
Natural philosophy 2; 5-7 ; 10
its connexion with the mathematicalsciences 6
;cf. 10
Necessity, absolute )( hypothetical
271-5 absolute, involves
eternity 274Not-being,
'
unqualified' = sheer no-
thing 89-91 ; 104 = the '
imper-
ceptible' 101-2; 104 =
'nega-tive real
'
(in' Parmenides ', i. e.
the Pythagorean theory) 99-100 ;
cf. 214Nutrition )( growth 134-5
Ogle, Dr. William 201;208
;216
Oil, 'viscous' 187 ; 209 full of
air 209-10The Order (rafis) controlling all
things in the Cosmos 261-2; 267
Parmenides 1 59 ;160 ;
161 = Py-thagorean theory criticized in the' Way of Opinion' 100 ; 160; 193;
214; 241 ; 251
Philosophy,'
speculative'
)('
prac-tical' and 'productive' 1-2
articulated into three 2
'first' (060X071*17) 3-4; cf. 95
'second'(^VOIXTJ} 5-7; 10
' mathematical' 5-7 ; cf. 10Place (TOTTOS), Aristotle's conception
of 1 1 6 '
primary differentia-
tion' of 144-6; 218; (cf. 10;
138-40)'
immediately-con-tinent
'
(TOTTOS fStos, irpwros) 8o-l;
1 1 6 '
imaginary'
(TO* avvexfs>
I/OT/TT) v\r)} 143-4 5cf. 10
to '
occupy ', to 'be in'
(roirov
Karexetv 9 ^v foirta ?vat) 115-16Plato, his aypoupa 56ynara 215-16
his ' Divisions'
(tv ra?s 8icp^o"eo*iv)
214-17 his doctrine of TO* ^ ov
(Sophist} 90 of the One ',4 the Great and the Small
'
(Phile-
bus) 216
(Timaeus] his conception of 'in-
divisible planes' 73-4; 75~6 ;
118 ; 173 ; 194-8 ; (contrasted withthe theory of Leukippos 156)'
elementary triangles'
70 ; 76 ;
164; 216; 226 'theOmni-
recipient'
(TO iravSfXfs) 194-8formation of Soul 217 yeveaisof flesh, bone, &c. 70Phaedo 248-9 Philebus
216; 235 Politicus 216
Republic 4 Sophist 90 ;
215-16Platonists, their argument for * indi-
visible magnitudes' 76Point, not ' consecutive
'
nor ' imme-diately-next
'
to point 8 1; 85 in
what sense '
everywhere'
in a mag-nitude 85 has '
position ', butno 'place' 115-16 (cf. 6; 81
;
143-4) can only be in con-tact 'whole with whole' 82; 85;cf. 8 1
Pores, conception of, probably due to
Alkmaion 156 inAlkmaion's
theory of perception 157 in
the theory of Empedokles 157-8 ;
159; 161 ; 163; 169-71 called
Xodvcu, &\OKCS by Empedokles 163' Powers of action
'
(in Aristotle's
theory of /4fu) 180-1; 186
; 241-4; cf. 232-3
Proprium major term in the av\\o-
ytff/ios TOU Stort 8 ; 109-10 ; cf.
128
Pythagoreans 100 ; 159-61 ; 193 ;
208; 214 ; 239 ; 241 ; 248 ; 249-52
Reality, degrees of 3; 100-1;180-
i; 241-4 ;
260
Rough-smooth (T/>axv-AW) 204
302 INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY
Science (dirooeiKTiK^ eiriffT/ifjir)}, unityof a 6 procedure of 7-9
subaltemant )( subalternate 6
Seasons, cycle of the 260;
266; cf.
275-6Smith, Prof. J. A. 94'Sokrates in the Phaedo\ criticized
248-9Solstices, the 259; 271-2Soul (17 irpojrrj, yevvijTiKr], dpeirTiKri,
avr]TiKri, ^ux7?)" efficient cause of
growth in; 123; 125; 127;128-9; 133; *36; 249 = formof the tissue or organ (d8o$ evvXov,
ovvapis TIS kv I/AT;) 130-2 ; 135-6= efficient cause of yeveats 250
(TO" bpacTiKov} moves the animal
154the human, essentially intelli-
gent i is' in place
' Kara
avfji0cf3r)K6s 116 Empedoklesfails to account for 239 Plato's
account of its formation 2 1 7The '
Sphere'
of Empedokles 68-9 ;
161 ; 179 ; 236 ; 240 = a mereshuffle of the ' elements
'
240Sub-contrary opposition 149Substance, 'simple' )( 'composite'
3 5 5The Sun = TO yevvrjTiKov 255 ; 256-61; 275
Thales 63 ; 140Theology = 'first philosophy' or
metaphysics ) natural philosophyand mathematics 2 scope
f 3~4 central object of
(= God) 4 discusses lawsof Contradiction and ExcludedMiddle 4 discusses degreesof reality 3
Time 81; 267 ; 269
Tissues (cf. ojjtoiofjifprj} compared to
'ducts' 130-1 ; 135-6 doublesense of 129-30 )( the afoecra
ftopia 192Touch, contrarieties of 202-12
the most indispensable sense 202less pure than vision 202-3
' Veins of susceptibility'
172 ;cf. 124
Vision, prior to touch 202-3'
object'
of 203 Empedokles'theory of 158
Vital,'
cycle'
265-6 heat 1 1 1;
133 J 205-7 ; 246 ; 249 ;261
period 261-2; 275
Water (= the ' cold-moist simple
body'), par excellence 'cold' 219of all the four ' elements
'
most
typically exemplifies' the moist
*
218-19 ; 245 a constituent of
every opoiopepes n; 64 ; 244-5
required as food by all living
things 245-6 less ' real'
thanAir 260 See also s. v. Elements
Xenophanes 146
Zeno 159 ;160 said to have
written an attack on Empedokles
ava\oyiq, nar' a.va\oyiav)ravTo 232-3
TO dir\S>s 6v (fir) ov), two senses of 90TO dir\S>s /J.TI
ov )( TO ^ ov dir\G>s 93diropia 72-3 ;
cf. 76dpxh dist. from aToi\tiov 193-4av\6s 130-1 ; 135av^ifriKov, TO h6v 132-3 ; 136 ; 178-
9 ; 249 ;cf. 128
aura irpos aura 65-6
247256
75
(Demokritos) 75
(I^ukippos and Demokritos)
at oiaipff(is (of Plato) 214-17194; 243
ftdos TI x<upiffrbv ^ ira6os 80- 1
VV\OV I3i; 155-
O.TOJM)V
7~8; 10 (KaTrjyopia TIS)
)( aTcpyais 101 (V v\rjs idei 95iSca\a (Demokritos) 75TO 8' ttvai ou TO avTo 105 ; cf. 135
fl fOTiv air\>s~)(
(irl pepovs 89 TJV
68; 187fueivivov )( (KfTvo 197trravairooiaTfov 93TO <f)(fjs,
80-1; 271
Oecaprjacu irepi TI 191
(or o*x7/*aTa) = the 'indivisible
bodies' of the Atomists 71
INDEX TO INTRODUCTION & COMMENTARY 303
Kairv6$ 221 J222
K<\TIKOS KaaatTfpos 1 88
Kivijats, its three (iSrj 94-5 ; 105-6Kpaffts 185TO KVK\0<pOpr)TlKOV <W/iCt 95
\6yos clSos )( v\rj 87
70-1; 130\6yov a.Ko\ov6tiv 213dialectical discussions 76
rrjs /'-
235
and Kivrjais, use of the termsin Aristotle 94-5 ; 105-6
/*fy/ia (? Anaxagoras) 179 =
'Sphere' of Empedokles i79(?);240
TU jj.ix9fv= ingredient 133
6fMtojj.pf}=
ffirtp/jLara -navrav XW'IMTWV (Anaxagoras) 65 in
Aristotle's theory 1 1; 64-5 ;
129-30; 177-8; 188; 192-3;204-7 5
240-6
oUwvvfJiov 188-9ovaiai, at tyvoti ovvtorfaaai 191-3TO OVTOK /il) OV )( TO ^ OVTWS 0V 94
irados, itaQ' avro 8; 109-10 ; cf. 128
= TTaOrjTiK^TTOioTrjsllO J1 2O irdOr)
= dAAotoxms 109 kv TO?S eavTov
irdOffft ncTal3a\\tiv 107TravairtpfJiia 66
irapa\oyi^6fjLevos 84KCLTO. TT\6,TOS ffVVTtdcffOai 75-6
, ZfjHpvTOv or avfupvTov 12 7construction of 149-50 ; 204
treated as a singleverb 150 ; 157
,four main types of 106-7
9
arjfjifiov, wider term than OTiyfaj (?) 86
ffirfpfjiara (Anaxagoras) 65ffTfprjffts 10; 91-2; 97; 137; 198-
200; 225-6; cf. 118-20
aToix^ov ydist. from apxh 193-4 =
'elementary quality' 213; 222= '
primary body'
202 rd *a-
\ovfifva aToix<?a 137
ovyKpaais 262-3
avyiepovffis 262-3ovuBoXov 220 I
TO avvex** 80- 1; 271 '
I/AT; 144; cf. 10 iroaov
)( SiupiffUfvov 144
)(
142
(Leukippos and Demokritos)
T 94
Kavfjia 1391497<Vo? of a science 6-7- Of (f>V0lKT] IO
(?) in Empedokles 67IO
os 1 88
PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE OF MEDIAEVAL STUDIES
59 QUEEN'S PARK CRESCENT
TORONTO-5. CANADA
15951