The Development of Aristotle's Theology II Guthrie

7/28/2019 The Development of Aristotle's Theology II Guthrie

1/9

T H E DEVELOPMENT O F ARISTO'TLE'S THEOLOGY-11.M Y obje ct in this p aper is to discuss the date an d significance of the introductionof a plurality of unm oved mo vers in Met. A chapter 8 . As in the previous paper, i twill be necessary to give a fairly complete exposition in order that the resultingpicture of Aristotle 's development m ay be judged as a consistent whole. I shall tr yto indicate as I proceed how much of it has been supplied by the work of others.'In th e last paper2 I tried to outline a theory of Aristotle 's men tal processes up toth e point a t which h e introduced th e Unm oved Mover as the culmination of his

sys t e m . Met . A, if we except chapter 8, descr ibes a coherent system which onewould natural ly suppose to be that which he was a t this point ready to expound.T h e exposition co nsists of a highly compressed accou nt of the theory of motion andchan ge and one mo re fully expressed of the theology in which tha t theory finds it snatu ral culm ination . In fact the final wo rds of the book, if taken with th e limitationswhich A. himself expresses the desire to impose (e.g. in th e simile of th e household incha pte r IO), ma y be said to hav e been justified by its contents.

Unfor tunate ly for tho se who would expound him, he carried h is work a s tagefur the r . T h e culmination of a l l worldly processes in the one single, supremely in-different cause is satisfying, if not to our religious emo tions, a t an y rate to tha t sideof us w hich can appre ciate un ity, plan an d t he consistent working o ut of a line oftho ug ht to th e furthes t point to which logical reflection will t ake a m a n. B u t wha tar e we to make of i t when we find ourselves told with l i tt le warning tha t th is suprem ebeing, so far from being unique, is one of fifty-six, the others all presumably itsinferiors, althou gh th eir relations to it ar e never defined, bu t like itself unm oved ,eternal and incorporeal ?T h e expansion of t he theory to include a plural i ty of unm oved movers is m adeonly in Met. A 8. I n Phys. 0 , where th e existence of one unmoved mover is beingproved, th e possibil i ty of such a consum mation is vaguely hinted a t . B y tha t I meanthat th e quest ion of whether there is one or m ore than one unmoved mover is lef topen, though with a distinct bias in favour of unity.T o dispose of these passages first, they occur in Phys. 0 chapte r 6. T h e i m -possibility of self-movem ent has been proved in th e previous chapter, an d in chap ter 6something is to be 'sa id abou t th e na ture of the unmoved mover whose existence isth e inevitable result . T h e chapte r begins :

&ri 61 Sri K I V ~ U L VOlrl E ? V ~ L , p$ O ~ V & ~ K ?r L a l E&Ea l S ~ a h r l ~ e i v , T L i; i rpO;~ovK L V E ~ , 2"ri'rr i r X ~ i w , a lb i r p G ~ o v L V O ~ VB K I V ~ T O V .'S ince motion must be e ternal and unremitt ing, there must exist somethingwhich is th e first autho r of motion, either one or more, and the first m over mu st beunmoved. 'La te r i n the c ha p te r we ha ve th i s :

E h r p o h VoE16ios 6 K I V ~ U L S , ~ a l~ S L O V r b ~i vo ir v crrai irpO;rov, 1 i'v* 1 62 irXrlw, irArk~)T& OllSia. Sv 62 pa^hhov .ti iroXX&, ~ a lrirrpaupkva ij 6 i r r ~ p a6 r i v o p I [ r ~ v . TO ;V aGrO;v yhp

' Compare in general W. Jaeger, Arist . Bk. 3 (p . 68).chapter 3, and H. von Arnim, Gotteslehre xv 2 C.Q.xvii (1933)~p 162-171.


2/9

\V. K. C.G U T H R I E 91crvppacv6vrwv &el r h rencpaupkva ~ 2 X X o v yrrc6v . t ~ a v b v 2 ~ a i1 Z V , 8 irpGrov T&V ~ K L V ~ T W Vd l 6 ~ o v v bra^ dpX$ 70;s dXXo~pK L V ? ~ U C W S .(259~6-13.) If m otion is etern al, th e first mover will also be eternal, if it is o ne ; if m ore,the re will be more e ternal sub stances. B u t we m us t suppose i t t o be one r a the rtha n m a ny , a nd a f ini te number ra ther than an inf ini te . F o r if the sam e results canbe obtained, one must a lways prefer the l imited number . . . and i t i s sufficient forth er e to be only one, which shall be the f irs t of a l l unmoved things, e ternal , and thecause of motion in everything else. '

Th ere fo l lows one shor t proof tha t t he m over must be one , which to m e a t leas tsoun ds l ike a tenta t iv e note and not entire ly sa t isfactory. I t is s imply this : motionm ust be eternal, therefore continuo us; bu t a succession of different motions is in-consistent with continuity. ~ a i r i , 8' TO behp r b i e l U V V C ,~ & , h+s[7js 06 avv cX ls .continuous i t m us t be th e motion of one thing moved by one mover .T h e dissect ing school, if one may so refer to them, in order t o br ing w hat theycall unity into this chapter , want to exp lain the br ief mentions of the possibil i ty ofmore than one unmoved mover a s la ter notes, added a f ter th e doctr ine of A 8 had beenworked out . O n the o ther hand i t seems to m e unlikely tha t A. would have put inreferences of such a tenta t iv e and doubtful character if h e had added them af ter hehad worked ou t th e doctr ine in detai l . I th ink the n tha t we have here an exampleof the tenta t ive way in which he habitual ly worked. All he had done so fa r was todemonst rate the need for an unmoved mover . I t seems to h im highly probable tha tthere can be only one su ch ( i t surely cannot b e denied th at th at i s the effect producedby these notes, ra ther tha n th at h e had a lre ady worked ou t a complicated m athe-matical an d astronom ical problem which had furnished him with the result that there

were f ifty-six unm oved movers in a l l), but h e real izes th at this is not yet proved andtha t h e must leave th e proof of i t to another occasion. T h e one argum ent for i tsunity which he notes down may well have seemed to him insufficient . W e know i twas his habit in dr iving a point home to pile proof upon proof to the extent perhap sof four or more. O n the pr inciple then of not dogmatiz ing unti l he is able to demon -s t ra te the t ru th of wha t he says , he ad ds tha t we a re not ye t in a pos i tion to saywh ether this unmoved mover is one or more, thou gh h e feels just if ied in adding a lsoth e proviso that i f he can show it to be one he wil l, and that in any case we are no tto assum e more tha n are necessary. Eco nom y in these m atte rs is another pr inciplewhich i t is not wise to lose sight of .My infe rence then wi th regard to Phys. 8 would be this. A. had, as one wouldsuppose, only worked out his theory of motion a s far as th e one unmoved mover .H e ment ions ten ta t ive ly the possib il ity tha t the re may b e m ore than one , because herealizes tha t i ts unity has not yet been fully proved ; but a t the moment he th inks i timprobab le tha t the re should be more than one , and we may a lso conc lude tha t theidea was not a t tract ive to him.'I n Met. A chapte r 8 A. says i t is t ime to go into the quest ion whose existencehe recognized in the Phys., and decide wh ether one unmov ed mover is suffic ient orwhe ther we must pos tu la te more. H is conc lus ion is tha t the sun , moon and p lane tsmu st each hav e their own unmoved m over , which equally with the f irs t must beeternal , unmo ved and incorporeal . T o f ix their num ber h e goes for help to the

1 Contrast Jaeger and von Arnim, 11. cc. That occurred to A ,, it has presented itself in the formI do not see the force of the ir linguistic objec- of a succession of movers, not a coexistenttions ( ' tautology ' J . , 'Grammatic incorrect- plurality like that described in Met. A 8. Theness' A.) I have tried to bring out by translating argument for unity which is based on the con-the passages. tinuity of motion could only be valid against the

I t should be added that, in so far as the possi- conception of a series of movers succeeding onebility of more than one unmoved mover has another in time.


3/9

W. K. C . G U T H R I E science of astron om y, and determ ines it by means of a modification of th e cur ren ttheories.H e f inds, tha t is to say, tha t he cannot s tr ict ly account for the motions of t heplanets by saying tha t they are dependent on tha t of the outerm ost sphere of thef ixed s ta rs . T h a t i s what one would regard as the na tu ra l way , mak ing a l l sub-sequent motions depend ult imately on the f irs t unmoved mover , which impartsmotion directly to the f irs t heaven. T o a cer tain extent th is is s t i l l t rue for h im.'T h e motion of the f ixed s tar s is what carr ies al l the o th ers ' (1073bz5); but th eymust h ave their own spheres a s well , moving with an independent motion. T h ereason for th is was th e belief tha t th e apparently ir regular motions of t he p lanet swere reducible to a com poun d of severa l different circular motions, such a s mig ht beobtained on the inn erm ost of a ne st of co ncen tric spher es revolvin g in differentdirections, each sphere adding i ts own motion to tha t of the one next with in i t . F o rthis belief A. had two s trong reasons, and th e combination of th e two m ust have beenirres ist ib le to h im. T h e f irst was his own conviction that n one b ut c ircular motioncould be eternal. If then th e motions of th e plane ts were really irregu lar, they couldnot be eternal . Th ey were eternal , therefore they must be resolvable in t o a com poundof circular motions. T h e second reason was that , whether from the sam e causes ornot, contemp orary as tronomers held the sam e view, and claimed moreover to h averecently accomplished the resolution by mathematics.

Astronomy had a stra nge but un deniable fascination fo r Aristotle. I say s t rangebecause he was by no me ans equally fascinated by mathematics , a science with w hichit was inextricably involved. H is characte r was complex, and it would be difficult olay one's finger on th e chief reason for this fascination. N o doub t the re w as m orethan one contr ibuting factor . Bu t one th ing, I th ink, can be seen in i t. I t was one ofth e fe w outlets left to him to show his sym pathy with religion. I n ackn owledgingth e suprem acy of th e sta rs he mas paying homage to age.old belief, a s we shouldhave known in an y case and a s he te lls us h imself. I t was t he one rel ig ious tenetwhich he fel t the rationalis t could retain . And so the conclus ion to the chap ter is inth is s train :

' I t has been handed down from the dim ages and left to poster ity in the form ofmyth, tha t these pr inciples are gods, and all Na ture is set round with t he d ivine. 'Theres t is mythical accretion designed to cajole th e popular m ind and be used in t heinterests of law and utility . . . bu t if me stri p this off and ta ke the central fac t alone,tha t they called the pr imary substance gods , i t may well be thought god-inspired. . . .S o far , and so far only , are the beliefs of our country , and those handed down by ourancestors, plain and true for us. '

Perh aps tha t has someth ing to do wi th it . Wh atever the reason , i t s eemed tohim a p ity tha t philosophy was coming to be nothing b ut ma them atics ; bu t h e isready to admit tha t as tronom y is of a l l th e mathem atical sciences the one most c loselyallied to philosophy, and to tu rn to it for help in solving one of philosophy's ultim ateproblems: 1073b3 r b 61 ~ h i j 0 0 s T&V + o ~ & v E) K T ? ~ S~ ~ K E L ~ T ~ T ~ S~ h w o + I p TG VE ) T L U T ~ ~ & V U K O T E ~ V , E K ~a 0 ~ p a ~ ~ ~ G v 6 ~ i ~ i ~ U T ~ O ~ O ~ ~ C Z S . (Cp , M e t . A g g 2 a3 z : LAX&

Y ~ ~ O V E 70 ; s VSV ? j +shouo+la, +acr~o'v~wv a h & SELCY Tpa y pu -& p a e ? 7 p ~ ~ ~ ~ i f i;hhwv y,dplvT E ~ w ~ ~ L . )

T h e result of these astronomical investigations, into whose details I do not pro-pose to go, is that fifty-five sphere s are required if the m otions of th e sun, moon andplanets are to be sat is factor i ly accounted for as corl~binationsof circular motions.Consequently, A. continues, the existence of a similar number of unmoved sub-stan ces and principles is a reason able supposition.' (1074a15.)Of th e nat ure of the se unmov ed movers we are told very little. L ike the f i r s tmover of all, they must be eternal, unmoved and incorporeal. W e a r e a ls o to ld t h a t


4/9

93HE DEVE LOPM EST O F ARISTOTLE'S THEOLOGY-I1they are not of equal rank, but there must be a f i rs t and a second among them.(1073b2.) H en ce presumably they are a l l, as one would expect , to be regarded a ssubordinate to the fi rs t unmov ed mover , though in w hat way they are re la ted t o himis nowhere expressly s ta ted. I t is c lear ly intended tha t the hierarchical ar rangement ,with one supreme principle, shall be preserved, though it is difficult for us to seeexactly how this wa s to be accomplished. T h e stock objection is of co urse wellknown. I f they are pure form, how-can they be subordinated to the Pr im e M over ?H o w indeed can thev be different ia ted f rom him at a l l ? T h e subordination of a l lth e rest of the universe is due to the eleme nt of matter, i.e. unrealised potentiality, inthings. T he y are s t i l l s t ruggling, by vir tue of the $ 6 ~ 1 ~i thin them , to achieve ahigher degree of form. B ut the unmoved movers have no e lement of potent ia l itywhich could mak e them subordinate .T hi s is the objection which we instinctively feel, and which makes us w ant tobel ieve tha t the expisi t io n of chapte r 8 is not an integra l par t of th e system which therest of the book s ets forth. Otherw ise, i t seems, A. mus t be convicted of p reachingincompatible doctr ines a t the same t ime, without perceiving their incompatibi l i ty .\\7e wa nt to believe it, bu t we cann ot yet say we are convinced of it. T h e hope ma yyet be so~ttnium ptantis, non docetztis. T h e matter m ust be looked into fur ther .W hat eve r the re la t ive dates of th is chapter and the rest of t he book, there isl i t tle doubt abou t the ac tual da te of the chapter , tha t i t is a late one. I t mus t f a l lwithin the last seven years of Aristotle 's l ife. I t was the n that A. made the acquaint-anc e of C allippus and discussed astronom y with him . The use of the imperfect( ~ T ~ ~ E T O073b33) sugg ests e i ther tha t he is recording an ac tual conversa tion w hichhe had with Call ippus or , more probably, tha t C al l ippus was a lready dead. T h esam e tense is used of Eud oxus , who was cer tainly dead. About 330 Call ippus cam eto Athens to reform the Attic calendar, and Simplicius records the following :

' Call ippus of Cyzicus s tudied with Polemarchus the f r iend of Eu doxu s, andcam e to Athens af ter the t ime of Eudo xus, where he l ived with A,, correct ing andsupp leme n t ing w i th h is a id t he d is cove ri es of E ~ d o x u s . ' ~Considering all this, we can scarcely help supposing that when A. proposes arat he r startling development of his metap hysics based on astronom ical theories whichhe sa ys are a modification of E udo xus ' views made by Callippus and h imself , it isthese conversa t ions which have prompted it . T ha t br ings the chapter well into themiddle of the last s tay a t Athens, the Lyceu m per iod. I t was probably composedbetween the years 330 and 325. A. left Athens for Cha lkis in 323, an d died in 322.

Th is in itself is comin g to be considered good evidence for th e chapter being latertha n th e rest of the book, s ince Jaeger 's work has shown i t to be probable th a t th etrea t ise M et. *Iis not a work of the last period of A ristotle 's life. H i s argu m entsthemselves cannot be accepted without reserve , but i t is like ly th at fur th er s tudy wil lgo to prove his conclusions r ight .F ro m an ex am ination of the fragm ents of Aristotle 's early works, Jaeg er hascompleted the proof tha t in his young days in the Academy A. was a whole-hear tedsympa th ize r with P la ton ism. W hen one tu rns to the la te r works , the t r ea t ises tha tare preserved to us ent ire , it does no t need argu me nt to show th at A . is looking atPla ton ism from the s tandpoint of an independent cr it ic, and h as given u p i ts mostfundam ental tenet, th e belief in the existence of trans cen den t forms. T he re is alsonoticeable as a new feature , and one which mu st be regarded a s character is t ica l lyAristotelian, his interest in the special sciences, prompted by a f irm belief in the im-por tance of tha t contr ibut ion to knowledge which is mad e by observat ion, as forexam ple in the field of biology. Jaeger take s these facts, th at A. star ted l i fe as a

1 Simpl. if r De caelo, p. 493. 5 Heiberg. For notes.this last para. see Jaeger, pp. 366-368 w i t h


5/9

W. K. C. G U T H R I E Platonis t and f inished it as something different , and concludes that the developmentof Aristot le 's philosophy may be regarded a s a s teady and gradual movem ent awayfrom Platonism. T h is conclusion, reached on the grounds I have mentioned, nowbecomes for him a premise for all subseq uent deductions. Any book which sho ws amore Pla tonic s tandpoint must represent an ear l ier s tage than one whose content isfur ther removed from Plato. Th is more Pla tonic a t t i tude he sees in th e downrightsta tements of A abo ut the necessity for eternal subs tanc es if the sen sible world is tobe saved f rom imp ermanence and f rom th e impossibi li ty of b eing known. Z a n d Hare more guarded in their expression on this point , and consequently were m eant tolead up n ot to A but to a more developed theology. Yet it is obvious tha t this hypo-thesis tha t Aristot le 's development away fro m Plato w as steady and continuous restsupon slender foundations. I t will be better not to regard it a t present a s an infallibles tandard . W e can the refore content ourselves wi th remarking tha t ch apte r 8 w a scertainly composed within the last seven years of Aristotle 's life, and that the rest ofthe book probably was not.B ut there are ot he r inconsistencies too which we cann ot h elp noticing. Jaegerbegins with the inconsistency of style and language. T hi s inconsistency is a real one.T h e rest of th e book is in note form. (Th at is wh at Aristote lian brevity ' comes to,a s Jaeger points o ut in his own ra ther pic turesque style . ' I t i s not in the leas t to befeared tha t A. in lecturing spoke th e so rt of G reek which man y readers, who onlyknow this side of him, worship with shu dd ers of awe a s the true Aristotelian brevity.'P. 369.) Chapte r 8 read s a s a piece of literar y writing. I t is wri t ten in completesentences, which much of the rest of the book is not. I t ha s an introductory por tionexplaining a t length the problem an d what is most l ikely to prove a f rui tful l ine ofapproa ch to it , a feature which in the rest of th e book is sadly and conspicuouslylacking.No w I do believe tha t this chapter was never intended by A. to be read in theposition in which we find it . Con sequen tly it is good to find that it differs from therest even in style. I t gives one more confidence. But i t cannot be considered any-thin g like a proof in itself . T h at Met. A contains notes of wh at was to be amplifiedorally is the only explan ation which will accoun t for the oddities of its com positionand its language. B ut it would accoun t equally well for th e fact that one section isworked ou t on paper w ith much greater care , especia lly when that section happens tobe the most difficult an d complicated of all. At such a po int th e choice of actu alwords and expressio ns becomes of suprem e impo rtance as vitally affecting th e clear-ness of the exposition, an d ev en a n experienced lectu rer m ight well be pleased tohave the ac tual words down on paper before him. T hi s is a necessary caution, fo rth e a rgum ent f rom the two styles, th e l i terary and the hypomn ematic , is becomingcommon.More convincing seems a t f irst wh at Jaeg er calls the style of th e method . H emeans that the mood in which the chapter was written is entirely different from themood of ch ap ter s 6, 7 and 9. Th ere the su prem acy of the one unmoved mover isstressed, and i ts spir i tual a t tr ibutes are described a t length. I t is God, and theme anin g of th at is th at it lives a life of e terna l and perfect blessedne ss consistingof untroubled con templat ion. I t is never theless t rue th at A. has a habit of m ixingup the m echanical and th e spir i tual , a t least in his notes, in a way which seems to usto be somet imes odd and abrupt . I t is also true (and not mentioned by Jaeger) thateven in th e case of the other unmoved movers he re turns t o t he subject of theirdivini ty a t t he end of t he chap ter , af ter mathematical astronom y has done i ts par t inestablishing their number . A clause like ? T E P L ; ~ E L r b B ~ i o vT$V ~;XT,W +&ULV does not , asJaeg er would have us believe of this whole chapter, brea the an entirely differentspirit ' f rom th e adjacent par ts of the book. (J. p. 370, ' atrnet einen vollig anderenGeist. ')


6/9

95HE DEVELOPMENT O F ARISTOTLE'S THEOLOGY-I1W h a t is more to the poin t i s tha t i t does comple tely upse t the connexion ofthou ght between the 7th and the 9th chapters , which otherwise would be unbroken.

Ch ap ter 7 leaves a subjec t-the conception of th e Di vin e Mind-unfinished, an d th ediscussion of it is resumed in chapter g wi tho ut a break. I t is certainly difficult tobelieve tha t A. wanted his discussion of th e na ture of God interrupted in the middleby an abs t ruse as t ronomica l a rgument de te rmining the exis tence and number oflesser gods. And interrupted i t is, so thoroilghly tha t th e sta tem ent tha t G od 'sact ivi ty is thou ght com es before the astronomical ch apter , the quest ion of wh at hethinks comes af ter i t .Th ere i s one passage in the chap te r which i s qui te cons is ten t in subs tance wi ththe rest of the book. Instea d of going to show th at the whole chap ter can bereconciled, i t ra th er show s u p the glar ing nature of th e discrepancy by i ts juxta-position with the rest. ' I t is th e proof tha t there is only one universe a t 1074a31-38T h e suspicion t ha t i t h as no r ight th ere is aroused f irs t of a l l by th e way it breaksinto the gram matic al connexion. I f the passage were removed, there would be a nobvious antecedent for o s r o ~in th e fol lowing sentence (. . . o"rt 6 e o l 7 ; E ~ U L VO ~ T O L. ..),namely the fifty-f ive unmoved movers. As i t is , one ha s to forget th e a rgum ent ofthe preceding e ight lines and look for an antecedent before them. Th is cannot resultin anything more than suspic ion, s ince i t is a looseness of which A . himself mighteasily have been guil ty in putt ing together his notes. (Jaeger an d von Arnim regardit more seriously.)W e proceed to the a rgumen t i tse lf . T h e proof tha t the universe i s unique i s a sfollows. If there are other universes, the re will h ave to be a n un moved mover t oplay f irs t cause to each. Th ese unm oved movers will be in form identical bu tnum erically different. B u t the elem ent of differentiation in thin gs which h ave th esa m e f o r m i s m a t t er , S inc e the r ef o r e a n unm ove d m ove r m us t be pu r e f o r m a nd ha veno mat te r , the re cannot be more than one unmoved mo ver ; and if the re i s only oneunmo ved mover there is only one universe .T h e trouble is of course th at this argum ent rules out not only the possibi l ity ofano ther universe , but a lso th e existence of the othe r unmov ed movers which A. hasjust been postula ting. F ro m all th at one can gathe r in this chap ter , especia l ly thewords wi th which they a re in troduced, these a re be ings in every way l ike the P r im eMover. Cer ta inly there is no sugg est ion of their being any thing but pure form.T he re is just the hint tha t they ar e not a l l equal , but one is pr ior to another , whichsounds as if th e Pr im e Mover was s ti l l to be considered pr ime an d had not lost i t ssupremacy. But how this result is to be demonstrable is not made c lear . H o w h eintended to f it the plural i ty of unmoved m overs into the scheme is , i t seems to me, athing we can only guess. H e does not te ll us . T hi s might be because i t was in h ismind to explain oral ly but h e did not think i t necessary to se t it down in writing. I tis unlikely that in that case there would not even have been a no te about i t , especia l lywhen the rest of the discussion is wri t ten out with such care . I t might well be onthe o the r hand because h is sys tem was s t il l f lu id. H e had wor ke d ou t t he m e ta -physic of the on e unmoved mover and i ts natu re fa ir ly complete ly w hen his co nversa-t ions with Call ippus made him wonder whether there was not a bet ter way there toexplain the m otions of the planets. H e had then worked ou t a whole system ofmovers on these l ines and the record of it was among his papers. Bu t he had not yetbrought the two together , a l though natural ly a hint of the l ines a long which i tmig ht be done was a t the back of his mind. H e would not lose sight of th e problemaltogether .T h e metaphysic of th e one unmoved m over sugg ested xla tural ly a supplementaryproof of the uniqu eness of th e universe. (I say sup plem entary because i t h ad a lready

1 Jaeger,pp. 376 ff., Am . 72 f .


7/9

W. K. C . G U T H R I E been proved by th e doctrine of na tura l places in de caelo A 8 , 9.) This he no teddow n, but i t is surely incredible th at he intended i t for insertion in th e middle of quitea different discussion, and one which, at leas t a s far a s i t had gone, rendered thissupple me ntary proof invalid.Fin ally , we m ust not I think o mit to notice th e ab sence of finality with w hichthe resu lt s a re s t a ted . Th is i s an unusual feature . T h e t en ta tive way in which A.alwa ys began a discussion, the determinat ion to assum e nothing unt il i t had beendemo nstrated by arg um ent , carr ied wi th i t the natural corol lary tha t once the logicalproof had been established, i ts results were apt to b e regarde d a s unalterably fixed. Asho rt sen tence in troduce d by Bpa, and th e topic is closed. H er e o n th e oth er handafter his mathem at ical demonstrat ion we hav e this (1074a14):

'L e t this then be the num ber of the spheres , so tha t th e existence of a s imilarnumber of unmoved substances and principles is a reasonable supposit ion ; necessarywe may leave i t for greater brains to say. 'W e are back for a brief m oment in the atm osph ere of a Platon ic dialogue, wi thi ts at t i tude of 06yhp d ~ i G~ia~vpi(opai . In Pla to this at t i tude might m ean tha tOGTOhe had com e up to one of the great tru ths which i t was beyond th e reason of man toexplain scientifically ; he was con ten t to have go t a s fa r as he had . Sure ly we knowA. well enough to say that on the rare occasions when we meet i t in him it does notmean the same. I t means rather tha t he is not yet perfect ly satisf ied, but that i t i sth e duty e ither of himself or of somebody else to return to th e subject again.Now to sum up the posit ion. T h e introduction of a plurality of unmo ved moversin Met. A 8 is the result of applying astronomical theories to metaphysics. T h etheories in question ar e those which Callippus and A. obtaine d by wo rking on andmodifying the calculat ions of Eudoxus. The y taught tha t the apparent ly i rregularmotions of the sun, moon and planets could be worked out ult imately as a combina-tion of several circular motions in different directions. T h is assum ed a complexsystem of spheres to carry them. Eud oxus had t reated the quest ion purely a s one ofgeometry, bu t A. supposed th e sphere s to be m aterial, formed of aether, and i t wa sthis which caused him t o modify the results of Eud oxus.T h e application of th ese theories to me taphysic s l ies in suppo sing that , since themo vem ents of all these sphere s ar e eterna l and independent, they m ust be caused ineach case by an essent ial ly unmoved and eternal substance. Th ere must then exis tan equal number of eternal, immaterial unmoved movers.

W e can say tha t the work of Cal l ippus an d A. in formulat ing the as t ronomicaltheories on which this is based was not carried out until seven yea rs or less beforeAristotle's death.If we look a t the chapter in the context in which we now h ave i t we not ice :(a ) T ha t the theory cannot as i t s tands be brought into l ine wi th the descriptionof the P rim e Mover of all , if we try to bring abou t the reconcil iation on Aristotelianprinciples . Th ere is a hint tha t th is i s wh at A. wanted to do (1073bz), but nothingis said to indicate tha t these movers are anything but pure form, and there cannotexis t more than one pure form.(b ) T h a t this inconsistency is broug ht forcibly to ou r notice by a short passage

in t he chap ter i tself. (1074a31-38.) T h is is a passage which follows naturally on th erest of the book, but conflicts with the theories of chapter 8. I t i s a proof tha t therecan only be one universe, relying for i ts efficacy on this very tenet, tha t there cann otbe more than one pure form. W e ar e s t rengthened in our bel ief th at th is i s a realcontradiction, and not one unwarrantably assumed by us , when we not ice that theinsertion of t h e passag e upsets the gram ma tical connexion of th e senten ces im -mediately preceding and following it.


8/9

THE D E V E L O P M E N T O F A R I S T O T L E ' S T H E O L O G Y - I 1 97(c) T h at the whole ch apter b reaks very rudely into the c lose connexion ofthought which exists between chapters 7 and 9. Th ese chapte rs toge ther g ive asingle, consistent account of th e eternal contemplation which is the perfect activ ity of

God . T h e astronomical calculations of chap ter 8, proving the existence of a n um berof subordinate deities, split this account in the middle.Th ese ar e the most cogent points in th e argumen t f rom unsuitabil ity to context .With these a lready in mind we may permit ourselves to notice other character is t icsof the chap ter , which cannot help str iking us, a l though they do not in themselvesafford certain proof th at the chap ter is misplaced. Su ch are the entirely differen tstyle of the langua ge in which it is written and the more calculating, scientific moodwhich its argum ents reveal. No w perhaps, thou gh not I think earlier, it is per-missible t o quote th e a t tract ive bu t som ewhat rhetor ical words in which Jaeg er s ta te shis argument (p. 371) :' After reading chapter 8 it is impossible to re captu re th e speculative tra in ofthou ght which has been broken off a t the end of chapter 7. F r om upwa r d- rush ingflights of tho ugh t and fro m speculation Plato nic in its religious tone we ar e broughtrudely down to the f la t ground of niggling calcula tions and the subtle t ies of th especialist.'T h a t is a summ ary of the re levant points in an exam ination of chapter 8 and itsre la t ions to i ts context. I t is I think suff ic ient to just ify us in drawing th e importantnegative conclusion that the doctrine of th e unmoved mo vers of th e sub ordin atesph eres is not a part of th e philosophy of the one unmoved mover in th e form inwhich the rest of book A expounds it.On the positive side it would be harder to give an opinion. Bo th the content ofthe chap ter and i ts demo nstrably la te date suggest tha t i t represents a la ter phasethan the rest of th e book. T h e account may have been found among th e remainsand put together with A by a not too intelligent editor becau se th e subjec t of A isfirst philosophy and this is the only other portion of Aristotle 's work which dealswith tha t subject . W h y he chose for i t s uch a peculiar ly inapt posit ion in th e bookit would be hard t o sa y; but his choice did not m atter great ly, since in no par t of thebook could it have been introduced with propriety.In any case , the results which we m ay take as cer ta in, that i t does not as i ts tands f it in as a par t of th e metaphysic of th e one unmoved m over , and th at i t is oneof the latest pieces of Aristotle 's writing, are of considerable interest. T h e fact of

the date is important , because i t means tha t we can study in this c hap ter th e direct ionwhich Aristot le's though t was taking in his last years. Jaeg er sees in i ts mathemati-cal astronomy, i ts spintis ierende Ausrechn ungen, ' as he cal ls them, a sup port fo r histhes is of a s teady t rend away f rom Pla tonism and pure specula tion a nd towards theminutiae of the specia l sc iences. I am not sure tha t he ha s a l l the evidence on hisside , and i t is a point which, owing to this for tunate c ircumstance tha t we can datethe chapter , is worth going into. T h e f inal words of John B urnet 's last paper on A.exp ress a hope th at mo re can be done in th e way of determining th e chronolog icalorder of his works, an d a conviction t ha t if this w ere done we sh ould see tha t t hela test s tage of his philosophy was different f rom w hat Jaeg er a t present supposes i tto have been. In this connexion he m akes mu ch of th e theoretical tone of th e lastbook of th e Nicomacheaw Ethics. No one except Jaeger , so fa r a s I know, hasthought of using th e 8th chapter of Met. A as evidence for this quest ion, and yet init we have the one bit of Aristotelian writing whose late da te is f ixed for us beyondall reasonable doubt by extern al evidence. And althou gh of no gre at length, it isphilosophically highly distinctive and hence important.I t cannot be disputed that A. in the Ly ceum period did devote much painstaking


9/9

98 THE D E V E L O P M E N T O F A R I S T O T L E ' S T H E O L O G Y - I 1research to the specia l sc iences. Bu t i t does not fol low tha t he ga ve up metaphysicalspeculat ion on tha t account, or that his metaphysical speculat ion degenerated into amere ad junct of the specia l sc iences.l T ha t is not the concIusion which I shoulddra w from a scrutiny of this, the la test phas e of his m etaphysics w hich is kno wn tous. I t is ra ther the other way round. I t looks as if h is aim, which he m ight hav erealized had he lived to perfect th e system , was ra ther to m ake his increasing know -ledge of sc ience serv e a s the handm aid of a t ruly grea t metaphysic which h is masterhimself might not have been ashamed to own.I n the se two pa pe r s I hav e tr ied to give evidence for th e thesis that Aristot le 'ssystem , instead of showing a development a l together away from P laton ism, mightra ther be described a s in so me respects the furnishing of logical groun ds for pre-se rv ing wha t he regarded a s the essentia l pa r ts of P la tonism in tac t . I t sometimeshappened tha t when he was only ha l f -way to h is goa l he was fur the r removed f romPla to th an when h is t r a in of thoug ht was comple tely worked out . S o in h is work onth e f irs t cause of motion t he f irs t s te p wa s to reduce Pla to 's indwelling soul to anentire ly mater ia l is t ic phenomenon. T h e next s tep was to realize , s t i l l mark ing everyste p of the way a s only another s tage in the sa me tra in of logical tho ugh t, tha t t hismate r ia l subs tance was not the u l t imate cause , which must a f te r a ll b e somethingincorporeal and transcendental . T o put th is in a more genera l form, i t was h isprogress in t he exact sc iences i tse lf which w as helping him, not to cast off Pla to nism ,but to sub stantia te more and mo re of the Pla ton ic posit ion. Th is posit ion, on th ethesis here s ugge sted, he had renounced in middle life, not b ecaus e he did not b elieveit to be true , but because he could not yet prove i t to be true , and had decided thati t was th e phi losopher 's duty to begin a t th e bot tom and only assum e wha t w as se l f-eviden t or else susceptib le to logical proof.

T h e appl ica t ion of th is genera liza tion to Met. A chapte r 8 might be this . T h eatta inm ent of th e one unm oved mover as the cu lmination of his theor ies of motionhad restored to A. one fundam ental dogm a of Pla tonism , that the f irst pr inciple m usta t least be incorporeal. Bu t in the Laws, his last work, Pla to supposed for histheory not only a soul for the f irst heaven, but a lso a sepa rate one for each of theplane ts , the sun and th e moon. I n some way it was to be unders tood tha t the soulof th e f irs t heaven w as su preme, but never theless the souls of th e other heavenlybodies did h ave con trol of- their own movem ents a nd were in fac t entire ly separa temovers. H o w this could be is not explained by Pla to.Sure ly the pa ra l le l wi th A. here is s tr iking. In Pla to the f irs t pr inciple ofmotion was soul . I n A. i t is an unmoved mover . In P la to not only the fi rs t heavenbut a lso the p lane ts have souls ; in A. not only the f irs t heaven but a lso the planetsare to have external mov ers, according to th e doctr ine of this ch apter an d of thischap ter a lone. Does i t not look a s if t he discussions with Call ippus the astronomerh a d h a d an u l ter ior purpose in view, tha t A. had seen in astronomy the possibility ofrestoring a no the r little bit of Pla ton ic belief to the realm of tru e, becau se dem on-s t rable , -phi losophy? As we have i t , i t has not yet been perfect ly f i t ted into thesys tem, but tha t may st i ll have been to come when dea th cut h im off a t the com-parative ly early ag e of sixty-three .T h at is my ground for suggest ing the possibil i ty that A. in his last years wa snot degrading metaphysics into an adjunct of the specia l sc iences, but ra ther turninghis know ledge of science to accou nt in reinsta ting on a firmer bas is a metaph ysicalsystem a s l ike the Pla to nic a s his own more ra t ional typ e of mind could a l low.W. K. C. GUTHRIE .PETERHOUSE,AMBRIDGE.

1 One of Jaegm's pages has for its heading : I am anxious should at least not pass without' Auslieferung der Metaphysik an die Fachwis- further question.senschaft.' Th at summarizes the attitude which

Documents

The Development of Aristotle's Theology II Guthrie