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&para) 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