1

1u

ARISTOTLE
AND

THE EARLIER PEEIPATETICS

BEING A T BANSLAT ION FEOM

ZELLEB S PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS

BY
B. F. C.

COSTELLOE,
AND

M.A.

J.

H.

MUIRHEAD,

M.A.

IN TWO VOLUMES -VOL.

II.

LONGMANS, GKEEN, AND

39

CO.

PATERNOSTEK BOW, LONDON NEW YORK AND BOMBAY

1897

All

rights

reserved

""

AEISTOTLE
AND THE EAKLIEK PERIPATETICS
VOL.
II.

WORKS BY

DR.
:

E.

ZELLER.
History
of

PRE-SOCRATIC SCHOOLS
Grown
8vo. 30 s.

Greek

Philosophy from the Earliest Period to the time of Socrates. Translated from the Uerman by SARAH F. ALLEYNE. 2 vols.

SOCRATES AND
Translated

THE

SOCRATIC
by 0.
J.

SCHOOLS.
REICHEL,

from the German

M.A.

Crown

8vo. 10*.

M.
Translated

PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY.

Crown
8vo.
18.s.

from the German by SARAH F. ALLEYXE and A. GOODWIN*.

STOICS, EPICUREANS,
lated from the
8vo. 155.

AND
0. J.

SCEPTICS.
RETCHED M.A.

German by

Trans Crown

HISTORY OF
SOPHY.
ALLEYNE.

ECLECTICISM"
Translated from

IN

GREEK PHILO
F.

the

German by SARAH

Crown

8vo.

10.$.

6d.

OUTLINES

OF THE

HISTORY

OF GREEK

PHILOSOPHY.

Translated from the

ALLEYNE and EVELYN ABBOTT.

German by SARAH F. Crown 8vo. 10$. 6d.

LONGMANS, GREEN,
39 Paternoster

&

CO.

New

Row, London York and Bombay

CONTENTS
OF

THE SECOND VOLUME

CHAPTER X
PHYSICS

continued

C. Living Creatures The Body as an Organic Its relation to the Body, 4. The Soul, 1 Whole related to the Soul as Means to End. 10. Stages of Ani mate Existence, 21. The Evolution of Organic Life and the
.

Law

of Analogy, 24.* Indications of life in Inorganic Nature History of the Earth and Mankind, 29.

Plants, 33.

Animals, 37. Their Bodies and the homogeneous materials of which they consist, 38. Organs and their Functions, 41. Generation and difference of Sex, 48. Sensation, 58. The Five Senses, 62. Census Communis, 68. Memory and Imagination, 70. Pleasure and Pain, 75. Sleep and Waking, 75. Dreams, 76. Death, 77. Scale of Value in animal creation, 78. Classification of animal
Species, 80.

CHAPTER XI
PHYSICS

continued

Man
The
Active and Passive Reason, 97. Immediate and mediate exercise of Reason, 105. Desire and Volition, 108. Practical Reason and Rational Will. Free Will, Voluntariness, Intention, 114. The question of 112. the Unity of the life of the Soul, 119. The Birth of the Soul, The Union of the Parts of the Soul, 123. The Immortality 120.

Human

Body, 90.

Soul and Reason, 92.

of the Soul, 129.

Personality, 134.

vi

ARISTOTLE
CHAPTEK
XII

PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
A. Ethics
Happiness, 138. The essential elements of Happiness, 140. External Goods, 144. Pleasure, 146. Value of Pleassure, 148. Moral Virtue, 153. Virtue as a Quality of the Will distinguished from Natural Impulses, 155. Intellectual Insight, 157. The The Consent of the virtuous Will: the Origin of Virtue, 160. Proper Mean, 161. The Virtues, 163. Courage, Self-control, &c., Distributive and Corrective Justice, 171. 167. Justice, 170. Complete and Incomplete, Natural and Legal Eight other dis The Intellectual Virtues: Insight, 177. The tinctions, 175. right relation to the Passions, 188. Friendship: its moral Import, 191. Nature and Kinds of Friend Further discussions, 198. ship, 193.
of
:

The End

Human Activity

CHAPTEK

XIII

PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
B. Politics

continued

Necessity, Nature, and Functions of the State Aristotle s Politics, 203. Ethical import of the State, 207. Aim of the State, 208. The Household as element in the State, 213. Husband and Wife, Master and Slave, 216. Pro 214. Parents and Children, 215. duction and Possession, 220. Against Common Property in Wives, Children, and Goods, 220. The State and the Citizen, 222. Differences among citizens, 229.
;

Their political importance, 229.

of Constitution, 233. Comparative Value and Justification of leading forms, 244. Monarchy and Kepublic, 249. The Best State, 258. Its natural conditions and economic basis, 258. Training of the Citizen, 261. Birth and Education, 262. Music, 266. Unfinished state of this part of the Politics in reference to Intellectual Training, Punishment, &c., 269. The Constitution, 272. Imperfect Forms, 274. Democracy, 274. Oligarchy, 277. Aristo The distribution of Tyranny, 282. cracy and Polity, 278. Political Power, Changes in the Constitution, &c. 283.

Forms

CHAPTER XIV
RHETORIC
Problem of the Rhetoric, 289.
tion, 294.

Kinds of Proof, 293. Demonstra Different species of Demonstration appropriate to

CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME

different Kinds of Discourse, 295. 296. Style and Arrangement, 297.

vii

Remaining forms

of Proof,

THEORY OF FINE ART

Beauty, 301.
307.

The

Art as Imitation, 303. The effect of Art Arts, 318. Tragedy, 320.

Catharsis,

CHAPTER XVI
RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF ARISTOTLE
S

PHILOSOPHY
Signifi

Aristotle s attitude to Religion, 325. His Theology, 327. cance and Origin of Popular Religion, 330.

CHAPTER XVII
RETROSPECT
Aristotle s point of view, 336.

Gaps and Contradictions,

School, 346

342.

Development of the System, 338. Tendency of the Peripatetic

CHAPTER XVIII
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL
His Life, 348. Writings, 351.
;

THEOPHRASTUS

Standpoint, 355. Logic, 358. Meta Physics: Nature in Theology, 369. physics: Aporise, 364. of the general Inorganic Nature, 373. Structure and history World, 379. Botanical Theory, 381. Nature of Vegetable life, 383. Parts of Plants, 384. Origin of Plants, 385. Classification, move 388. Zoology, 389. Anthropology: the Soul as cause of ment, 390. Reason, Active and Passive, 392. Higher and lower The Freedom of the parts of. the Soul, 395. The Senses, 396. Ethics, 399. Will, 399. Happiness, 402. Views on other points of ethical doctrine, 406. Politics, 410. Religious views, 412. Rhetoric and Theory of Fine Art, 414.

CHAPTER XIX
EUDEMUS, ARISTOXENUS, DIC^EARCHUS, AND OTHERS
417. Metaphysics, 421. Physics, 419. Logic, 418. Ethics: Virtue as a divine gift, 422. Theology, 424. Uprightness, 426. Other peculiarities of Eudemian ethics, 427. Of Aristoxenus, 429. Ethical views, 431. Theory of Music, 433.

Eudemus,

the Soul, 436

VOL.

ii.

viii

ARISTOTLE
:

Dicasarchus
life,

Anthropology, 438.
Politics, 441.

The

practical

and the theoretic

440.

Phanias, Clearchus, and others, 443.

CHAPTEK XX
THE SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS
Demetrius of Phalerus and others, 447. Strato, -150. Logic and Ontology, 454.
Physical principles Time, Motion, 458.
:

STRATO

Nature and Deity, 456,

456.

Heat and Cold,

Cosmology. 464.

Gravity,

Vacuum,

Anthropology, 466.

CHAPTER XXI
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL AFTER STRATO TILL TOWARDS THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY
Lyco, 474. Hieronymus, 475. Aristo, 477. Critolaus, 479. Phormio, Sotion, &c., 483. Pseudo-Aristotelian Literature, 494. Logical, Metaphysical, Physical Writings, 495. The Marjna, Moralia, 498. The Economics, 45)8. The Rhetoric addressed to Alexander, 499. Conclusion, 499.

APPENDIX
ON THE FORM OF THE
POLITICS
501

INDEX

509

Addenda and Corrigenda.

Tage 5,
1. 10, for cut read cut in pieces for alien read allied 61,1. 5, for force read faculty 90, n. col. 1, 1. 19, for whole read whale 111, n. 3, col. 2, 11. 2, 7, for cylinders read springs 147, n. col. 1, 1. 16,/or these last, however, are merely causes read the satisfaction of a want, moreover, is merely the cause 152, 11. 1, col. 1, 1. 3, omit wrong 171, 1. 7, for quality read equality

n. 2, col. 2,

6,1. 8,

,,
.,

.,

1. 3 from bottom, after things read that for moral insight read moral virtue 1. 6, for p. 182 read p. 1 83 184, n. col. 2, 1. 10 from bottom, for picture read future 195, n. 4, col. 1, 1. 4 from bottom, /or 3 on preceding page read 2 196, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 3, for pupil read audience 204, n. 2, col. 2, 1. 5 from bottom, for p. 203 supra, read Appendix, p. 507. 231, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 9,/or finds itself more at home read exercises more influence 242, 1. 10, for indispensable read indisputable 243, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 6, for chiefly read nearly 245, 1. I, for But even any one of such advantages as these confers read But even such advantages as these confer of themselves no title to rule in the State. 259, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 8, for size read greatness 267, n. col. 1, 1. 9, omit or 274, 1. 8, for or form, differing read or from differing sense read Since, however, proof is the chief 292, 1. 9, for But as he regards end in view 322, n. col. 1, 1. 8 from bottom, for added read not added 324, n. 5, col. 1, 1. 11, omit vol. i. 325, 11. 1, 3, for section read chapter n. 2, col. 2, 1. 5, before p. 291 read vol. ii. 327, 1. 6,/or scientific read theoretic last line, omit and 331, n. 2, col. 1, 1. 2 from bottom, for /nar/eta read /xai/reia :i35, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 10,/or in chap. i. read vol. i. pp. 5, n. 7; 20, n. 2 38, n. 339, 1. 9, for motion read matter 1. 10,/or relation read relationship 375, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 9,/o?* Melinus read Melissus 1. 6 from 382, bottom, for geological read zoological

172, n. 2, col. 2,
1.

178,

4,

182, n. col. 1,

snj>ra

References.

The following references are

col. 2,
1.

to Vol.

i.

Vol.

ii.

p. 159, n. 2, col. 1,
;

1.

180, u. 2,
1. ].

181, n. col. 2,
11.

1.

bottom
n. col.
332, n.

204, n. 2, col. 1,

bottom;
1,
1,

219, n. 3, col. 1, 1. 1. 10 292, n. 1, col. 1,

;

1. 11 from bottom 1, and 10, and 1. 2 from bottom 4 from bottom 236, u. col.
;

and

182, n. 1, col.
;

1,

6 3
;

206, n. 4, col. 2,
1.

from from
267,
1.

1,

10 from bottom
;

1.

10
2,

302, n.
1.

1,

col. 1,
3,

11.

6,
1.

12
1

331, n.

1,

col. 1,

col.

1, 1.

343, n. 2, col.

349, n.

col. 2,

from bottom.

ARISTOTLE
AN D THE

EARLIER PERIPATETICS
CHAPTER X
[CHAP. jx.
c.

OF GERMAN TEXT]

Living Creatures
1
.

The Suul and Life

WHAT distinguishes living creatures from all others is the Soul. All life, in fact, consists in the power of self1

2 movement, that

is,

in a capacity inherent in a being of

effecting changes in itself: the simplest form of which is confined, as in the case of plants, to nutrition, growth,

and decay. 3
1

But every movement implies two elements

:

De An. i. 1, 407, a, 4 the investigation into the nature of the soul is of the highest value for science, fJ.d\i<jTa 5e irpus T?V
(pv<nv

fwirapxy
diov

fj.6vov

fiv

avr6

<pa/j.tv,

a to-Qricris, Kivrjffis Kal vovs, ardffis rj Kara TCTTOV, ert Kivnffis ^

Kal (pdiais rf Kal rpocpTiv Sib Kal ra (pv6fj.fva irdvra
tjv
<f>aivTai

Kara
5o/ce?

fffTt
\_rj

yap olov

apx^l

ruv

aij^ijtris.

^ytcv
2

^UXTJ].

Ibid. ii. ], 412, b, 16, cl. a, 27, and see infra,. 3 Ibid. ii. 2, 413, a, 20 \eyofjitv obv Siwpi(r6ai rb efj.tyvxuv TOV atyuxov r$ frji.; irAeoraxws 5e
:

Ixofra
Si

8vvafji.iv

Kal

yap 4v avrots opX ^ foiavrriv,

(pdiffiv

^s av^ffiv re Kal
. . .

Aa/4-

fidvovo-i

owSe^iio

yap avrols

uTrap^et
itself

Svva/ui.is

a\\f] fyvxr)s.

As

this lowest

rot-

fjv

Ae7o^eVoi, Kav tV
II.

n TOVTWV

form of life presents wherever the higher is (see

VOL.

ARISTOTLE
:

something that moves, and something that is moved form and matter; and if a thing moves itself, it must

Hence every being contain this duality within itself. that has life must be a compound being and if we ca.ll the material part, which is subject to motion, the body,
1 ;

it

that the form, which is the cause of has a being separate from and independent of motion, the body. 2 And as the form in general is identified with
will follow

the efficient and the final cause, this being may also be 3 The form said to be the final aim or end of the body.

thus considered as motive or efficient force

Aristotle

Entelechv

4
;

is called by and hence he defines the Soul as

infra) it universal
ibid.
c.

may
1,

mark

[sc.
a>

be treated as the of a living thing rwv Se 412, a, 13 TO. fjCev ex

;
:

Mciapli.

viii.

3,

1043,

a, 35.

Ari

stotle had already described the soul in the Eudemus as eTSds ri ;

ff(a/u.dr<i0v~]

see

i.

TO.

OVK exet
81

Ae yo-

l)e

383 sq., supra. An. ii. 4, 415,

b, 7,

where

/j.ev

r^\v

avrov
(f>&i(rii>.

On the r Kal avr)ffiis /ecu other hand, T)e An. i. 2, 403, b, 25 (TO f/JL\fyvxov 877 rov atyvxov
/j.d\icrra
Sia<pfpfLV

after the passage quoted,!. 356, n. 1, sup., he goes on, 1. 12:

&s

ovffia [sc. air la fffrlv

S?i\oi>

TO
77

yap

cCinov
fjv

TOV

eli/at

So/eel,

iraffiv

ovffia, fffriv,
77

rb 8e
atria

re Kal

rw

alaBdveodai), ex

rb tivai

rots ^wffi 8e Kal a

presses merely the popular view, not the technical definition, of

life.
1

rovrwv
8
cbs

^vx"f].

UVTOS \6yos
wcrirtp

?j

fTt TOV eVTcAe xeia.

77

wal ou eVe/cej/

i|/vx^

atria

See
TTO.V

p. 4, n. 1, infra.
ii.

DC An.
a &^

1,

412,

a,

15:
o>s

yap 6 vovs eVeKa TOU Trote?, TO* avrbv rpoTTov 77 Kal rovr
<pv(Tis,

ttHTTf

aW/AO,
elf?;,

(pVOLKbv
ovfffa 5
ffco/J.a
:

jUeTt xOJ/

fffriv

avrjj

TeAoy.

roiovrov 8
lfa *

eV

^CUTJS ovff

OUT cos

ToTs

^V

^^X

7 ^

[-J

KOTOt

trvvQ&rri

eVel 8 eVri

roiovfie

(f>v<Tif

iravra yap TO (pvcriKa moTTJS ! I//UX 7 5

[TEBNDBLBNBUBG
roiovtii;

TORSTRIK:

Kal aufj.a Kai a. rotdj/Se],

/nara

i*p7 at/a

is

eVe/co TT)J

tyvxris

ovra.

He then

v|/iX

ov yap fffri TWV /ca0 UTTO8 us (r&fjia, fj.a\\ov Kfi;j.fvov rb

7.

Kal
oi
?z>

V\~TI.
ff iav

avayKa iOv apa

e?z/at

ws

goes on to show, what is a matter of course, that the soul is an Part. An. i. 1, efficient cause. 641, a, 25 the ovffia is both effi cient and final cause roiovrov 8e
:

TOU fyov

f/Toi iruffa

77

Part. An. i. 1, 641, a, li-32; Gen. An. ii. 4, 738, b, 26;

n
4

Cf.

i.

379, supra.

the Entelechy, or more accurately as the First Entelechy, of a natural body endowed with the capacity of life. This again applies to none but organic bodies, the members of which are designed for some definite
1

pur

pose and serve as instruments for the fulfilment of 2 The Soul accordingly is the First special functions.
ii. 1, Aristotle pro ^ 8 ovffia eVTeAe ^eta [the form is the efficient force]. TOIOVTOV apa o~w/j.aTOs eVTeAe^eta. The expression entelecheia has,
1

DC An.
:

TIVOS
TOiovSl
eo-rat.

yap
/fat

fKacrrov
rJ

TUI>

ceeds

/uopiuv,

opoiws 5e

oAor)

aj/a^/CTj

&pa

e?i/at

Kai tn rotwvSl,

et e/ce?i/o

however, a double sense at one time it is the power of action that is understood by it at another, the activity itself (the standing example of the former
: ;

Ibid. i. 5, G45, b, eVel /j.fv opyavov irav 4Ve/cct TOV, TO ov cVe/ca trpa^is ns, fyavtpbv on TO crvvoXov KO.\ tnWo TTjKe
:

Se rb

<rw/j.a

irpd^tos

TWOS

ej/e/ca

ir\r]povs.

As

meaning is eViim^, of the latter, QecapeTv; see ibid., and cf Me.taph.

.

the saw exists for the sake of sawing, so TO aca/md ircas Trjs ^UXTJS ei/e/cei/, /cat TO, /Aopia TWV epywv irpbs
&
Tre^u/cef e/caa-rov.
Jlrld.
ii.

1,

ix. 6,

]048,

a,

34

a,

Sensu, 4, 441, b, 22; (fen. An. ii. 1, 735, a, J TREN(

;

33;

DC

Pliys. viii. 4, 255,

DELENBURU, De An. 314

G46, b, 10 sqq.: of the constitu ent parts of living things some are homogeneous, others hetero

sq.
(

BONITZ, Arist. Mctapli. ii. 3 Ji). The soul can be called entelecheia only in the former sense
it is

geneous (see i. 517, n. G, wi/pra} the former, however, exist for the
sake of the latter; e/fetVcoi/ [sc. Ttav a.vofj(oio^.f:pu>v~^ yap Hpya nal
irpdeis etViV Kai vsvpwv &c.
. . .

(that of the power), seeing that present even in sleep ; this

Sioirep ef CKTTUV

is

what
>/,

is

when

meant by the addition

in
1.

(rwfo-Tr)Ka(TL

TO.

bpyaviKo.

TWI>

popiuv.

Ibid.

ii.

10,

27

it

is

said

G55, b, plants have only a few heterogeneous parts Tr^oi:

;

37

TOS,

for

the power always pre

:

cedes the activity. Aristotle proceeds, 1. 28 TOIOVTO 8e [so. St/voyuej fayv *X: OI/ o ^ bpyaviKbv, adding that theparts of plants also are organs, though very simple ones (cf. Part. An. ii. 10, G55, b, 37). On the definition of organic life cf. the passage quoted by TRENDELENBUKG in loco ; Part. An. i. 1, 642, a, 1) as the axe to fulfil its purpose must be hard, UVTWS
1>

yap o\iyas irpdeis b\iyiav bpydvuv The organic parts of T; xwvi-sthe body, therefore, are those which serve a definite purpose for this use of the word see, e.g.
:

&>

(fen.

An.

ii.

4,

731),

b,

14: TO IS
crvvovaiav
:

opyaviKo is
/.Lopiois.

irpus

rijv

orra
/ifcj-a
i}

fj.lv

Ing/\ An. 4, 705, b, 22 yap bpyavmo is /u.fpfo~t xpw8 olov trofflv

ToiovTii))
?)

(\4yu>

irjfpv^iv

TIVI

aAAw

TIJV

flpri/j.fi rjv

p.tTafio\T)v [locomotion] Troiflrat. . ocra 8e IJ.TJ TOIOVTQIS

. .

popiois,

avry

Ttt)

owf.La.Ti

bia\r]\l/tis

/cat

tVei

ri

aiauLa

upyat- uv

iroiovfj.fl/a

Tr^ot/j^tTut.

All

the

B2

ARISTOTLE

1 This definition Entelecliy of a Natural Organic Body. does not, indeed, apply to the higher portion of the Soul, which in the human spirit is added to its other

parts.

With

this,
:

nothing to do

it

is
2

however, Natural Philosophy has rather the subject-matter of the

First Philosophy.

The

soul, considered as the

ciple of the body,

must

itself

be incorporeal

form and moving prin 3 and here

;

Aristotle contradicts the interpreters of his theory who It does not represent it as being material in nature.

move

itself, as Plato thought, for then it would be a motu Di as well as a wovens, and every motum exists in
1

space.

Nor

is it

harmony of

its

own body

5
;

for

such

harmony would be
:

either a union or a proportionate

mixture of different materials, and the soul is neither one nor the other the notion of harmony is better
suited to physical conditions, such as health, than to the soul. Again, it is not a number that moves itself,
f)

parts of a living body, however, serve some active purpose. DC An. ii. 1, 412, b, 4 ei
1
:

Ue An.
408,
a,

i.

3, 401, a, 21,

c.

-1,

5rj

Koivbv
etrj &j/

eiri

ira<rr}s

vf/i/x^s
77

Set"

htytiv,

eVreAe ^eta

irpwrr)

oo^iaToy (pvffLKov opyavLKov, and a similar definition is given, 1. 1) otVia sqq.: it is the \6yos [or the Kara rov \6yov] <rdc/iiaros
<$>V<TIKOV

30 sqq. The further reasons that are urged against this view we must here pass over. On (he Platonic conception of a world-soul see i. 459. n. 5, mpra.
5

On
_L)c

this
Pll. d.

ZELLER,
ti

assumption, Gr. i. 413.

cf.

roiovbl (x VTOS v-PWv Kwr^atws KCU (rrarrews tV eauToS.

-

An.
this

i.

4 init. 408, a, 30,

where

An.
cf
.

ii.

See on this subject Purl, 17-b. 10: a, 641, 1,

ii.

conclusion is supported with further arguments, cf. PHILOP. De An. E, 2, in, (Ar. Fr.
1L):
r<f

De An.
2,
3

sqq.,

i. 1. 403, a, 27, b/J 413, b, 24.

Kexpyrai
. .

Se
.

xa.1

avrbs

ApitrroTeXris
8ia\6-ya>

eV

rq3

Ev8fi/j.(f)

See
iu v

p. 2,
1,

Jttrent.

467, b,

ovx

Dt n. 2. siijtra. 14: SfjAoy ort ovrriav tlvai (Tuj/xa rT]V

bvo tiri^ip h^^ffi rav-

rots.

pia.

^v

ovrws

TT)

(piirrlv,

tirri

avrijs [i

Tjs

\^V\TJS J, oAA. o/iuos

on 7
/xo^t y,

fioffrla
OVK.

ti/ui/TiW, rij 5t fyvxy ovbev

n
?

apuov
77

q,

avap,
.

Ivwriov
.

tV Tin TOV (Tujuaros inrdpxti

apa

i)

^f^

b-pfJLOv

a tarlv

PHYSICS
for it does

not move

itself,
1

and

if it

were a number

it

It is not some one sort of certainly could not do so. material, as Democritus thought, nor a mixture of all 2 for if it were a mate materials, as Empedocles held
:

rial it

could not spread through all parts of the body, 3 and since two bodies cannot coexist in the same space
;

if

the soul must contain

able to perceive

all

materials, in order that

all,
it

it

may be

them
it

would oblige us to ascribe to

materials in order that
identify tures do not breathe. 4
it

the same argument all combinations of

all.

may know

We

cannot

with the

air

we breathe, since all living crea Nor is it diffused through nil sorts

of matter/5 since simple bodies are not living creatures. The soul, then, is not in any sense corporeal,
Se
Ttj
ap/j.ovia,
T]

(pricrl,

TOV

PJi.

(1.

Gr.
i.

i.

807
5,

sq.

on the

latter,

avTiov fffrlv

TOV
/cat

o~u>(jLaTO?

avap/jLoaria avap/nocrria Se TOV

ffj.\l/i>XOv

ffu/naTos voffos Kal dtrfleVeta

S)v

alffxos.

T& ^kv
7]

affv/j.fj.Tpta

409, b, 23 sqq. c. 2, 404, b, 8, Ph. d. Gr. i. 725. Only one of Aristotle s many objections to the theory of Empedocles is

De An.

eVrt TUiV (TTOL-^fiwV

TCCV
6/j,oio/j.pctJV
r/

VOffOS,

affOfVfia,

T& Se Tb Se

here given.
3 As it is obvious that the nutritive and sensitive soul at least does, from the fact that when a plant or an animal is cut, life remains in all parts alike so long as its organic conditions are

Twv opyaviK&v rb alamos. [On this, however, see i. 517, n. 6, sujtraJ^

ft

Toivvv

>?

avapfjiOffTla

v6<ros

/cat

d(T9eveia Kal alamos, f) apfj-ovia apa vyeia Kal tV%i/s /cat /caAAos. tywxfr

Se ouSeV
(f>r)/jCl

TOVTWV, OVTG OVTC Ivxys ovre /caAAoy

eo"Tt

vyia

present;
ii.

De An.
;

i.

5,

2,

413, b, 13

cf.

i.

411, b. 19, 4, 409, a,

;

yap
&v.
/cat

eT^ej/ /cat 6

@epo"tT7js
rj

OVK apa

fcrrlif

raura ^iei/ eV e /cefj/ots. THEMIST. De An. 44 sp. SIMPL. DC An.

;

9: Lonf/lt. V. 6, 4(57, a, 18 JUT. vi Sen. 2, 4G8, b, 2 sqq. 483. De An. i. 5, 410, b, 27. 5 this attributes Aristotle
1

14, a, o,

and OLYMPIODOBUS

in

view
it

first to

Ph(pd. p. 142, also mention this argument from the Eudcmus. 1 cf. Ibid. 408, b, 32 sqq. ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 871, 2. On the former of these
;

specially
i.

Thales, but identities with Diogenes of

Apollonia

and
5,

Heraclitus
;

cf

De An.
2

also 411, a, 7 sqq. c. 2, 405, a, 19 sqq. and ZELL. Ph. d.Gr. i. pp. 178, 2 238 240
; :
:>S7,
;

views see

De An.
c. 2,

i.

">

in it. c.

:>,

C-42

t-q.

406, b, 15 sqq,

403, b, 28,

and

ARISTOTLE
and none
of the attributes peculiar to corporeal
it.

sub
it

stances can be ascribed to

On

the other hand,

cannot exist without a body. 1 Aristotle is even anxious to indicate the particular matter in which it resides,

and which

to another

it passes from one being of procreation. This he process describes at one time as Caloric (Osppov), at another as
it

carries with

it

as

in

the

Pneuma, regarding it as alien to the aether, and of a higher nature than the four elements but he is wholly unable to give any clear account of its or
;

qualities,

harmonise this conception with the general teaching of the Physics? The only right view is that the soul is
to
J-JO
-.

1.

11*

11.

1,
77

TilOj

Jl,

i
Cl)

OTl
t
<

JU6J/

"y(f)pl(TTOV

^)V

(TUtLLCLTOS

O(TOiS

^y%^/ X P rT ^ rov ffct>/J.aros, T) jue prj rivd avrfjs, el TT(pVKV, OVK oSTjAoi/ /jLpl<Trl) ov juV AA ez/ta ye ovOev /co>Auet,
p.ev
.
. .

ovv OVK fffnv

f/J.irepihafj./3dvfrai
o"

rb

0etoi/

(roiovros

fffrlv 6 Ka\ov/j.fvos vovs),

rb 8

dx(*>pi<TTOv,

rovro rb

WlMMER

o-irpu.a
rr/s

read

o~a>[Md]

[with yovys

Sta

rb

|U7?0ei/os

e7j>at

cru>fj.aros

4vre-

Aexeias.
b,
4, n. 3,

Cf.

Gen. An.

ii.

3,

736,

a, 7 sqq. and p. supra, and p. 8, n. 1, infra. The principal passage upon the subject is 6 en. An. ii. 736,

22 sqq. 737,

StaAueTot /cat irisv/u.urovrai (pvo~iv As ^X ov vypdv Kal 7rj/u/xaTw57j. the material in which the soul resides is here expressly distin

P>,

guished from the elements, it is naturally thought of as aither,

b,

29

Trdffrjs fjCfv

ovv ^U^TJS Svvau.is

erepov o~w/j.aros HOIK* /ce/cotj/wi/7]/ceVat /Cat rttlV Ka\OV/J,fV(i>V QflOrepOV

aroix* i-tov
rrjTi
at

a>s

Se

$ia<f)epov(ri

nuto-

which elsewhere (see i. 476, n. 2, and 477, n. I, supra) is described in almost identical terms. But on the other hand the rather is neither
hot nor cold, nor as the element of the immutable spheres can it ever enter the region of the

^u^ot
f)

Kal dri/mia aAAifjAa)!/,

ovrca

/cat

Travruv

fj.fv

roiavrrj Stac/>epet (pixris. yap eV a"irep/u,aTt

T<J?

fvvrrdpxei,

o-rrep

Trote?

yoviu.a.

Hvai

ra ffirep/uaTa, rb Ka\ov/j.voi> TOVTO 5 ov Trvp oi5e ToiavTf]

effriv,

8ep/m6v.
Svva.fj.is

a AAa rb
Kal

changes of birth and death (see i. 473 sq. supra, and the admirable discussion in MEYER S Arist. Tkierk. 409 sqq.).
earthly

ev Tj5
irvev/uia

a"JTpfj.aTi
f)

Kal

Even
i.

dvaKoyov
(TToix^iv-

ev Ttf Trj/ei^aTt fyvffis, ofxra T$ affrpwv

TU>V

if, relying upon De Cado, 269, a, 7 (on which, however, see i. 474, n. 1, supra), we suppose

2,

It is

not

fire

but heat,
Se
rf)s

whether of the sun orof animals,

that generates
701/775 (Tw/aa, fv

life,

rd

&

ffvva.Trfpx^TO.1

rb

rb
<rirep/ui.a

r-?is

^UXLKTIS dpxys, rb

(with KAMPE, Erkenntnisstk. (L Ar. 23) that it is forcibly injected into the organic germ, the ques tion would still remain how we are to explain such a process

PHYSICS
the form of
exist with body, since the form cannot out the matter to which it belongs, and yet it is not
its

and how the evolution which we must ascribe to the ffirfp^a whether we TTJS \|/ux KT?s apx^s,
take Sia\veff6ai as referring to the germ itself or only to the consistent with the is 701/7), immutability of the aether (i. 476, in question, supra}. The material moreover, is never described as
rether.

and motion,
r}]v

667, b, 26 avayKalov eV auTaJ T [as the sensitive De liesplr. c. 8, 474, soul] fivai. a, 25, b, 10: rb ^v Kal f) rrjs
iii.

5,

rov

Bep/j.ov

apxV

r6iru>

\l/vx^s
<rriv
.

e|ts
.

/xeTa

flep^oVrjTOS Ttvos

It

is

merely compared

Nor, indeed, does Ari stotle ever speak of an ethereal matter, but only of vital heat and vital breath, as residing in the body. Similarly ^Zte Vila; irdvra Se ra /j.6pia 4, 469, b, 6

with

it.

yap epydferai irdvra. This heat resides in the heart. The other faculties of the soul cannot exist without the nutri tive, nor the nutritive &vev TOV (pveV rovrcf yap 77 (pvffis ffiKOv Trvpos
.

irvpl

/j.ireirvpVKev

avr^v.

C.

13,

477,

the higher animals have more heat a^ua yap avayK-r) Kal
a,

16

\l/vx^l s

TIVO.

ffl>/J,<pVTOV

0ep/U.O T7JTa (pVfflKTiV

TeTux 1? 16, 478, a, 28 cooling 8ta

"^vvrts

<:e/I/at

rt/j,i(arpas.

c.

all

animals require
/capSfa rr]s
.

TT>

eV rrj
C.

of the living, the coldness of the dead, body. iov Sr; ravrrjs rijv dpxh v T *? s

whence the heat

a.va.yKa

6jU7rupcoo*ii
<p

^1
"H

ini^t.

TOV 0epuoD, iv (which, 480, b,

?rup).

T]

apxfy

OptirriKr)

1, is

0ep/xoVrjTOS eVai juois flvai,

"

eV

rrj

/capS.a
5

TO?S
eV

IHd.
TTJS
T

c. 17,

also called 479, a, 7 sqq.

:

TO?S

dvalfiOis

the apx^?
,-.,

fays gives out

. .
.

b Tav

"

dvo-Xoyov

epyd&rai yap

Kal
v

,v

KOIVUVOVV
fore,

avTT)s.

When,

there

dXiffra 8e rb

With the heat

of the heart life too becomes extinct, 5ia TO r^v

through old age the lungs (correspondingly the gills) grow

dry and
stiff,

the

fire

(i.e.

the

vital heat) gradually dies

away

vaQcu

TTCLCTL,

Kal

and
ev

f/j.irirvpfv/j.fvns

TOIS

popiois

rovrois [the heart is as it were the hearth on which the soul s

fire

is easily put out altogether. yap rb bXiyov elvai rb dep/J-bv, are rov irXt .arov SiaireTrvevKoros sv TCO TrA^/^e: TTJS fays, Toxews

Sib

burns]
rjv

avdyirn
iv

ajua TO re
Oep/jiov

virdpx

TO IVVV Ka ^ T I/ T0 ^
/

aircxTpevvvrat.

L)& All.
TTt)V

H.

-H

Jill.

epydfcrai Se

irtyiv

rb

Qep[J.6v

rovrov (rear tip ay, Kal rbi/ Ka\ov/j.evov ddvarov eTrat T^VTOVTOV Part. A)i. ii. 3, 650, a, (peopdv. 2 as it is only by heat that food can be digested, all plants and animals require an apxr) Ofp^ov the c. 7, 652, a, 7 sqq. Qva-iK-f]. soul is not fire but resides in a its chief fiery body, heat being instrument in the performance of its functions of nourishment
:

Gen. An. ii. 1, 732, a, 18: the rovro higher animals are larger
;

S
c.

OVK
6,

0p,uoTrjros 743, a, 26: rj 5e

avev

vJ/ux

K^-

Qep^TTjs

ri&paTi.

744, a, 29

man

has the

purest flepjiiOTTjs ei/ rfj /capStct. Cf. Gen. An. ii. 4, 740, b, 29: the nutritive power of the soul forms and feeds plants and ani-

ARISTOTLE
itself material. 1

This enables us to answer the question about the unity of soul and body. Their relation to one another is just the same as that which subsists
mals, xpw^vi] olov opydvois
TijTt Kal ^VXP^TTJTI.
6cpfj.6-

fan
a,

(for

this

is

the sense in

According to

which we must understand 475,

Beside these 11, 669, b, 1). passages, the statement in Gen. An. ii. 3, stands rather isolated. Granting that the o-w/xa 6ei6repoi> there spoken of is distinguished from the Tn/eG/ta in which it resides (r) eV T Tri/ei^icm
ru>v

Gen. An. iii. 11 (see i. 460, n. 3, supra) the vital heat resides in the Trvfvfjia, the apx^i r v tfVfitfJMTOS (De Somno, 2, 456, a, 7) in the
heart,

from which
;

all

animal
eV

<noixe{<av

heat proceeds

in those animals

which

heart, T$ rb o.vd\oyov av^wrov Trvev/j.a Kal ffvvi^dvov QaiavafyvawiAfvov verai (ibid. 1. 11). This jrvfvfj.a
trv/j.<j)VTov,

have

no

which

is

a natural and

(pvffis), it is j et hardly possible to attribute to it an rethereal nature. The truth seems rather to be that Aristotle here feels a

inlierent property, not an external adjunct, of animals, is frequently

want which

mentioned, as in Gen. An. ii. 6, 744, a, 3, v. 2, 781, a, 23 (ZELLER,

d. 6V. i. 16, 659, b, 1 7), where are told that it pervades the channels of hearing and smell, and is the medium by which sounds and smells are conveyed to their respective senses Par/ An. iii. 6, 669, a, I, where it is said that in the case of bloodless animals, which have less internal heat

his philosophy as a whole does not enable him to The writer of the supply.

Ph.

spurious treatise TT. nj/efytaros discusses the nature of the

Tn>fv/j.a

we

e/u.<pvTov,

means
subject.

though he by no
himself to this

confines

and do not require

the
TTvev/jLa ffvfjifyvTov

to breathe,
is

sufficient

for purposes of cooling. As, how ever, according to the above, it is also the seat of animal heat, the phrase must be understood in the sense explained in Resplr. 9, 474, b, 31 sqq., to mean that cooling, in the case of such nonrespirating animals as require more than that caused by the air or water that surrounds them, is

Tie gives no indication, however, of the view he held of its material character. The ques tion of the relation of Aristotle s assumptions with regard to the to his doctrine of the irvtvfjLa. Nous is for later discussion (see Ch. XT. on the Keason, infra}.
1

See

p.

2,

n. 2,

supra, and
:

(jovro yap rov e^ipu^ou) f) Kara ovcria Kal rb e?8os /cat rb ri \6yov Toi5e (TcafMari. c. 11, fy flvai T
ovffia
TIJ>

Metcipli. vii. 10, 1035, b, 14 5e i] TUV ^(f(av ^VXT)

eVei

the body is the v\rj, 1037, a, 5 the soul the ovo-ia ?; irpwri]. viii. 3,
:

produced by the expansion and

contraction of the Tn/eD^a enfyvrov,

which in turn, by setting in motion the abdominal membrane which pi oduces, #.//., the chirp of
the cricket, causes
it

De An. ii. 2, 414, a, form is everywhere distinguished from the matter which receives it, so is the soul TOVTO & ^uei/ Kal alaQavo/jLtQa Kal
1

1043, a, 35. 2 as the

:

av

8tavoovfj.0a irpwrcas, uxrrf \6yos ris eirj Kal el&os, a\\ ov% vKt] Kal
j

to act as a

o//

T/nx<^

yap

Af-

PHYSICS
between form and matter.
1

To ask whether

soul and

body are one, is just as ridiculous as to ask whether the wax and the form impressed upon it are one. They are and they are not they are separable in thought,
:

inseparable in reality.

Life

is

not a combination of

3 and the living being is not some soul and body, two parts 4 but the thing joined together of these
;

soul

you

the active force that operates in the body, or, of the soul. will, the body is the natural organ
is

if

We

cannot separate them any more than we can separate 5 None but a living body deserves the eye and eyesight.
the

name of body, 6 and a particular soul can only exist 7 Therefore the Pythagorean in its own particular body.
yo/J.ei>T]s
S>v

TT)S ovcrias, KaOdirep e

As perhaps the Platonists

TO 5e U ATJ, TO 5e e rovrwv 5 fj juei/ v\i] 8vvaufjifyolv eirel Se pis, TO Se cTSos eVreAe ^eta TO e| aptyoiv f/J.^vxov, ov rb ffw/md TO
(j.cv

cTSos,

it, consistently with the account of death in PTiatdo, G4, c. 4 Metaph. viii. G, 1045, b, 11.

defined

eVreAe^eta ityvxys, aAA ai/rrj TWOS. Kal Siarovro KaAws <Tu/j.ar6s oTs 5o/ce? JU-^T &vev vTTO\a/J.I3di>ov<nv,
(TTiv
(TW/JiaTOS

the &ov Top. vi. 14 i nit. Cfjv and are not a (rvv9eais (rvvSeo-^os of soul and body.
:

/}

De An.
Kal
[sc.
T]

flvat

jU7JT6

Tt
<TO>/J.d

T]

T\

u^/ts

fyvxh- (Tupa /J.GV yap DC An. (TufMaros Se rt. b, 11 sqq.

OVK
ii.

eo"Tt,

\l/v%-fi

1,413, a, 1 5J rov opydvov T] T^ t T ] VTf\ex fia

ii.
:
o>s

Svi/a/JLis

I/

1,

412,

5e

rrw/J.a

ru 5uj/a^ei or
T)

aAA
ri

thus illustrates: if the axe were a creature, its nature as an axe would be its soul if the eye were a separate being-, its eyesight (ttyts) would be its soul, y Kara avTt) yap o(f>6a\/J.ov
;

6 b(j)&a\iJLbs

K6pr] Kal

uxrirfp fyis, /ca/cef

ov<ria

fbid. 412, b, 11, 20, Part. An. i. 1 640, b, 33 sqq. 041 Gen. An. ii. 5, 741, a, 10. a, 18. Meteor, iv. 12, 389, b, 31, 390, a,
,
,

2f>.

rbv

\6yov.
7)S

oif/fws,

6 8 v\rf otyOaA/jibs airoXfnrovffijs OVK tffTiv

10.
7

Metaph.

vii. 10,

De An.
:

ii.

2,

1035, b, 24. 414, a, 21 (fol

o<f>ea\/j.6s.

The
i.

as sight
1

is

soul is to the to the ej*e.

351, n.
1,

body

lowing on the passage quoted p. 8, n 1 supra) Kal Sia TOVTO eV ffw^a-ri

.

See

De
is

soul
ft

supra. An. ii. 1, 412, b, G the the entelecheia of an

:

oi>x

fv cru>iJ.aTi TOIOVTQ, Kal v-rrdpxei, Kal els (Ta>/^a w(T7r6p of Trporepov

fVT]pfJio^ov
oi>TS

organic body.
fV
T)
rl>v

^ U X^
Kiipbv

5ih /cat ou Se? farfiv K(d r ^ G&l*&O"Tp

",

avrr)V, ovQev irpoffSiopieV TtVt Kal TroiCfj, Kaiirep oi/Se

ouSe

Kal

rb

(TXTj^ia,

oi5

fKacrrov V\T\V Kal rb ovv\t).

rov rvxovros Sexetrflat rb T\)\QV. o JT(t) 8e yivtrai Kal Kara eKaffrov yap rj \6yov
(paivofj.ei>ov

10

ARISTOTLE

notion of one soul passing through bodies of the most various sorts is just as absurd as if one should imagine
that one and the same art could use tools of the most that a flute, for example, various kinds indifferently could be of the same use to a carpenter as an axe.
1

The true essence

essence

of everything

is its

form, and the

of everything that comes into being is its or end. 2 purpose Living creatures are no exception to this law. Every living creature is a little world, a whole,

the parts of which subserve as instruments the purpose But every instrument depends upon the of the whole. 3

nature of the work for which

it

is

designed

so the

body

exists for the soul,

and the
its

are determined
rw

by those of
rrj

qualities of every body 4 soul. Nature, like a

o ?s opydvois,

eV

Svi

d/j.fi

virdpxovTi Kal

owe ia
r}]V
-

Cf. the TretyvKev fyyivfffOai. passages quoted, i. 221 , n. 1, sujtra,

I/AT?

8e

tyvx^v

T$

ffw/iunn (ef.

p.

8, n. 1,

supra,
i.

ad Jin.)
yap Kara

from Phys. ii.t), and elsewhere. l)e An. i. 8, 407, b, 13 most

1 :

See
i.

375, n.

sqq. supra.

1, and i. 459. The expression, Part.

writers

is (Aristotle thinking principally of Plato) make the mistake of speaking of the union of soul and body, ovBev TrpocrStopi-

An.
T-fjV

1, (540,

b, 28,

i]

ffavres,
&i/
T7?J>

8<a

riv

alr iav

Kal 8ra

TTWS

KVplWTfpa T7JS vhiKys (pixTfus, is used with refer ence to the above question of the relation of soul and bod}^.
/JLOp<pijV

(plHTlS

%)^ovros rov

o~(f)fj.aros.

Kairoi
TTOtfl

3
8oftei>

See

p. 3,

n.

2,

mipra^ and
:

TOUT

afayicaiof e/Vcu

yap

Phys.

viii. 2,

252, b, 24

el 8

4v

&y

KOlV(i>v(o.V

rb

jJLtV

-rrdcrxft

Kal rb u.ev
Ol>9tV

TO 8f Kivflrai rb Se
1

rovro Swaraj/ yeveaOai, ri Ka>\vft TI avrb o fyit/STji CU Kal Kara rb iruv :

fl

VTrdp^ Tp^S a\\T)\a Tols rvxovffiv. of 8e tiuxeipovffi Xeyeiv irolov rt y ^vxv, Ttepl 8e TOU 8eo[j.evov (rw/JLaros nvOfv
KlVii,
jj.6i>ov

rOVrCDf 8

yap 4v /AiKpy
1

Koff/jLw

ytvercu, Kal

Part. An.

i.

1,

640, b, 22
a,

sqq.

concluding
ovrcas &v

(041,

29)

en

irpoffSiopi^ovcriv, uxncep

eVSe_\;o-

wore Kal

XtKriov

e t-rj raj

fjifvov

Kara

robs

TIvPayopiKovs
8o/f? yap
fISos

pl (pvcrf&s

OfwprjriKty Trepl

irfpl TTJS I/ATJS,

evSveodai
"t8ioi>

traJ^ua

e^etv

Kal

c. 5,

645, b, 14
irciv

eVei Se

ei"

irapairXriaiov 8e \eyovcriv TJS (pair] T?;V TfKToviKr)v

T^
Sf

JJLCV

upyavov

fVfKO, rov,

ruv
ns,

rov

<Tu>/j.aros

u.opiuv

(Kao-rov
s

av\oi>s

evSvfffdat

Se?

yap

T"i]v

evfKa rov, rb 8 o5 eVe/m irpa^

PHYSICS

11

to each the instrument it can judicious manager, gives 1 use. Instead, therefore, of deducing the spiritual from

the corporeal, as the elder physicists had done, Ari stotle takes the opposite path, describing the soul s life
as the

While end and the body s life as the means. had said that man was the most rational Anaxagoras denies any truth being because he had hands, Aristotle dictum unless it be reversed man has hands to this
because he
the most rational being for the instru ment must be fitted to its work, not the work to its
is
;

instrument.-

The nature

of the

instrument

is

not,
:

indeed, a matter of indifference in respect to the result cannot be made out of any substance or by

anything

any means

3
;

but this does not negative the fact that

the choice of the instrument depends upon the purpose in view. 4 It is perfectly obvious that it does in the case
(pavtpbv
irX-i)povs.

on
.

KOI rk

avvoXov

Gup-a.

Part. An.

iv. 10,

687, a, 7-23,
:

trvvfo-T-riKe
.
.

irpdews
ej/e/cej/.

TWOS

eveKa
TTWS
ruu>

Start Kal T&

ffu/j-d

T yjs ^U^TJS

tpyuv
!)(>

Metapli.

An.
1

1035, b, 14 sqq. see p. 2, n. 3, m/>ra. Part. An. \\\ 10, GST, a, 10:
ii.

Trpbs a vii. 10,

Kal TO. [topia ire^u/cev tKacrrov.

words just after the passage quoted above irpoauvn avXrirri Sovvai i,KeL yap paXXov avXovs ^ T(f avXous tyovri TW yap pelirpoffQe ivai avXtjTiK^v
especially the
T<p

&vi

Xarrov,

Kal Kvpiwrepci) irpoo-ed-nKf rovaAA ov rtf e Aarroj/i rb

tj

5e

(pvffis

ael

Siavf/J,ft,

uv9p(DTros
a,

(ppovi/j.os,
-

Kafidinp tKaffTOV T$

Ti/jua>Tpoi>

/cat yuei^W .... TW ovv irXdo-ras Swa^eixf 8ea<r0cu Tex vas etrl

Svva/J.fvcf xP*l ff al

JMd-

c 8, H84,
-

T^

TrXelffrov

28

r;

Se

(pvffis

airodio wffiv ael

-ri^ov
3

V X^P a airoSfSwKev
.),

TWV opydvwv xP^r

ij

(pixris.

roTs

xPV ff O at Svvaficvots (Kaffrov T) n6v(s $ .uaAAoi/. iii. 1, 661, b, 2(i sqq.: of those organs which serve for purposes of defence or are indispensable to the support of
life,

See pp.

n. T,

and

10, n. 1,

supra.
4

There

is,

therefore, no real

fKaffra

airoS^ufnv

rj

<pv<ris

TIHS Suj OjiifVots

juaAAoj/,

xp^l ff6al P&i""s T) /j-dXicrra 5e ry yuaAiara.

the female is usually either wholly or in part unprovided with defensive organs.

Hence

inconsistency between the doctrine previously laid down and the statements, Gen. An. ii. 0, T44, a, 30, that man s intelligence affords proof of the evKpaffia of the central organ of his life; Part. An. ii. 2, 648, a, 2 sqq. c. 4, 651, a, 12, that greater intelli-

12

ARISTOTLE

The adjustment of means to end which prevails in nature here displays itself in its fullest To them we may with most perfection. propriety apply the axiom that Nature always produces the best that was possible under the given circumstances. 2
of organic beings.
1

in the nutrition

This working towards fixed ends begins to show itself and development of organisms. Nutri
is
;

not a mere operation of warmth, as was supposed in the process, but it is always the soul that regulates it and directs it to
tion

warmth may be important

a certain definite result. 3

the theory the growth of suggested by Empedocles explaining plants by saying that the fiery element tends upwards and the earthy downwards in their composition if so,
for
;

Nor can we adopt

gence
(

is

a consequence of thinner
ibid.
iv.

and cooler blood;

86, b,

conditioned result;
ii.
i.

cf.

Part. An.

10,

22, that the meaner in telligence of animals, children, and dwarfs is to be explained on the ground of the earthliness and immobility of the organ which

Further con 640, a, 24. sideration, however, reveals the difficulties in which we logical
are thus involved. The soul s development is said on the one
to be conditioned by the of its body, the character of the body on the

hand

employ ])e Itespir. 13, 477, a 16, that warmer animals have nobler souls, and J)e An. ii. 0, 421, a, 22, that man
:

their

souls

must

capabilites

excels all other creatures in the fineness of his sense of touch 5io

and that among men those who are white, and "therefore have a more delicate sensibility, are mentally more highly endowed
(cf. also ATetaph.
i.

1,

980, b, 23).

Mental activity may be pheno menally dependent upon certain conditions which in turn exist only for its sake that which in reality is the primary and con ditioning principle may appear to follow in time as a later and
:

other hand is conditioned by the requirements of the soul which, then, is primar} and con ditioning ? If the soul, winy has it not a body which permits a of its higher development powers ? If the body, how can it be itself treated as though it were the mere tool of the soul ? Meteor, iv. 12 see i. 468,
-

n. 5. siipvn.

See the discussion, supra, \. p. 459 sqq. The statements there made refer for the most part prin cipally to the organic nature.
l)c Se riffiv
:i

An.
77

ii.

4,

416, a, 9

SOKC?

rov irvpbs (pvais a?rAwy

PHYSICS

13

what keeps the two together and prevents their sepa The same applies to the structure of the ration ?
[

organism.

It is impossible to explain even the origin 2 on the supposition that their creatures of organic formed and brought together by a separate parts are

blind and purposeless necessity, only those combinations from an aimless surviving which succeed in producing

stream of matter a being adapted to an end and capable For chance produces only isolated and ab of life. 3

normal

When, on the other hand, Ave normal adaptations of Nature we dealing with the forced to regard them as purposely designed by But this is precisely what from the beginning.
results.
alria. TTJS rpotyr/s
elj/at
. .
.

are
are

her

we
TWl>S

Kal TTJS a
p.4v
-TTCOS

.TO 8e ffvvairiov
fj.)]V

[ V T f (t V eL oSoVras e| avdyKys afaTe?Aat rovs

>

>

ov

aTrAa-s

76

a lnov,

aAAa
v

fj.fi/

/jLtrpoff6iovs

o|e?s,
,

eT

Trpbs

TO
TTJV

Siatpeli

TOWS 5e
eVei

ews av fj irvpbs avfyffis ds aireipoi , rb Kavtrrbv, TUIV 5e (pvaei (rvviarau,tv<av

TrAaTels Kal
i/etj/

\pit](ri[J.ovs TT^OS

TpCKp-rjV,

ou

rb AeaiTOVTOU

irdvT&v
1

etrrt Trepas Kal

au|TJ(rea>s

Xoyos

/j.tyt6ovs

Te Kal

ravra

8e

il/u^fjs,
?)

/AoAAov
ura,
1

aAA ov irvpbs, Kal \oyov U ATJS. Cf. p. 14, n, 2, inf. ;

atriov

-ysviffQai, cxAAa 6/m.oiws 5e Kal Trepl TWJ/ ahXao ey otrois So/cel inrdpxtw TO

eVe/ca

eVe/ca

TOU.

and upon
i.

p. 360, n. 1, Ibid. 415, b,

and (Twa trioy, suand p. 463, n. 1.

28 sqq.
tiius

ovv cx7raj/Ta (jvviftt] wcnrep KO.V el eVewa TOU eyiveTU, ravra taudr) O.TTU rov avTO/j.drov
OTTOU juev
fji.fi>

(rvffrdi/Ta

e7rtT7j5eia>s

oVa

5e

/u.rj

As

Empedoclcs

to

OVTWV,
yevri
4

(XTraiAeTO

Kai

ctTroAAi/TCti,

\Ve see following note. do cannot suppose, however, that Empedocles (or any other of the
;

rd
avpoTTpwpa. ASvi/arov Se [Aristotle an 108, b, rA~]TovTOvfxeiv swers, rbv rpoirof. ravra fj.fi/ ydp /cat ndvra rd ipvfffi T) dtl ovTW yivtrai T) ws
//;/>.

expre-Aristotelian philosophers) lie pressed the theories of whieh is chosen by Aristotle as the repre sentative, in so general a sense as
is

here attributed to him.

3

firl rb 7roAu, TWI/ 5 CXTTO TU^TJS Kal ct ToP avrofJ-drov ouSeV.

.

Phys.

ii.

8,

stotle starts Ka Auet rrjz/ ^vaiv

Trtutu/ /uj5
JJe:

198, b, IB, Ari the question: T

fJ.r]

TJ
I

(Ls

dirb

(Tv/j.irTwfj.aT05
/XT;

SoKel

cVeKa TOK
a,7rc)

etVat, ei

olot TC

evtitd.

Toy
ravTO/j.dTOv, eVtKa TOU
at/ tfrj.

on

/JtArioi/,

aAA

&<nrtp

6 Zeus &c.
.

[see

i.

-171,

xupra]
/cat

wjTt

ri /ttoAuti

UVTOJ

TCI

In farther proof of design in nature, he adds: in tV bVots

14

ARISTOTLE

are doing in the case of a What makes living being. a living body is riot the separate material elements, but their special and peculiar combination, the form of the

whole to which they pertain.

cannot explain its structure by the mere of elementary forces operation

We

working in matter, but only by the operation of the soul, which employs these forces as instruments in giving form to matter. 2 Nature makes only those organs that are fitted for the purpose of each organism, and creates

them

3 in order, according to their several uses.

First

she forms the parts on which the life and growth of the 4 then the remaining most important being depend parts
;

Te AoS

fffTl

Tl,

TOVTOV

tl/eKO.

TTpaT-

rerai rb irpoTfpov KOI Tb e^f^rjs. OVKOVV ws irpaTTtTai, OVTW

W^uKe,

US fKaarov
KO.I

TTf<pVKGl

OVTC

&z/ /JL^

TOIOVTOV fffTlV oloV (f)ll(Tl Kal tveffTi dvvd/u.fiTa /uopia 8 ovB4v. /cal OTI TO Kal TO waOyTiK tj/, oTav
.
. . .

Qtyuaiv,

f/u.-rroSi

evtivs

TO

pet/ Troie?

TO Se
TVJS

rai 8

eVe/ca

rov

navx*

TOVTOV
1

eVe/co.

Kal -necpvKfv apa Cf. i. 462, n. 2,

cao~Trep

Se TO,

vwb
Sia

Te vi/r/s
opyavaav, Sid Trjs
t<n\v

yw6ju.i>a

yivfTai

T&V

supra, Part. An. i. 5, 645, a, HO just as when we speak of a bouse or furniture, we mean, not the material of which it is made, but the #A?7 noptyr), so in the in vestigation of nature we speak
:

eo~Ti

Q.\-t]Qe<TTfpov

CiVeli/

i]

8e

&o~Trep Kal

eV avTO?s Tols
VffTtpOV
av^riffiv.
e /C

TOLS
Tryiet

<pVTO?S

irepl

TTJS

ffvj/9f(re(vs
/UTJ

Kal

Trjs

oAr/s
Lib

TTfv

ot/fnay,

aAAa
Q.VTWV.

tr^pl

TUVTWV &
Trore

o/iyai/ois

Otp/jioTt^Ti

Kal

^pufjL^vr] olov Tl fy v XP r
"n

ffvft&aivei
OVffid.
i

xco^i^te^a

TTJS

??

(rcn. An. ii. -J, 740, b, 12: Se SiaKpiais yiyviTat -ruv fjLopiuv

(eV yap TOVTOLS i] Kivrjvis tKeivrjs Kal Xoycf TIV\ Kao-Toi/ yivtTai) OUTGC Kal e TO <*PX.ys ~)iyv6(Twi<jTT]<n
<}>v(rei

[itvov.

o->x

[in tlie formation of the foetus] ws T(i/es vTro\a/j.pdvov(Ti, Sta TO

<t>peo~6ai

Trt<pvKfvai

TO

6fj.oiov

irpbs

(and therefore as in for in elementary processes)

O/JLOIOV
;

Tb

Ibid. ii. 6, 744, a. )() eirtl 8 ovQfv iroiel irepicpyov ovSe /j.aTr]v 77 (pvo~ts, o~7)\ov ws ovS vo~Tepov ov8f
. :

irpoTpov.
/J.drr)v
1

tlo~Tai

yap TO

ysyovus

7^

that
flesh,
ire

Trepiepyov.
tlie

homogeneous parts, bones, &c., would unite in

masses
a AA Tb TOV 0r\
;

case

separate
tTTccfj.a

UTI

TO

lower animals the heart or the organ that corre sponds to it; Gen. An. ii. 1, 735,
Iii

a, 23.

PHYSICS
of the organism
;

15
it is
;

and

lastly

the instruments which

1

employs

for special purposes.

first,

The

nutritive soul
basis of all

developed and next the several functions of the soul by which each higher organism raises itself above that which First comes scale of being. living precedes it in the
<i

as forming the

common

life

in and next some special being. is dissolved in obedience to the same law the organism That which life can least dispense the reverse order. with dies last, the less vital organs first so that Nature
being,
sort

of

All parts of the living creature exhibit the same and functions and can only be explained as proofs of contrivance, Accordingly all Aristotle s the product of design. researches into the corporeal nature of animals are

works round in a

circle to

her starting point.

The essential and decisive view. governed by this causes are always final causes, and whatever leads in the ordinary course of nature to a definite end must
1

5 have existed for that end. lie tries to prove that every must have been in order to fulfil organ is just what it its purpose in the best possible way according to the
ii. (5, 742, a, 10 -b, 734, a, 12, 26. Gen. *An. ii.*3, 736, a, 27-b, 11 (of. 737, b, 17, c. 1, 735, a, 4

Gen. An.

6, c. 1,

3 that Ibid. c. 5, 741, b, 1H the heart is the central organ is seen at death; diroAenret
:

Cjjv

IvrtvOfv TeAcuTcuov, ffvppa vei

-rcpuTov TeAetrrouoi/,

70^

sqq.).

As the inhabitant

of

material body, the soul may be said to exist potentially in the In the evolution of the seed. soul living being the nutritive comes first, next the sensitive and rational first comes a &ov, then a definite &ov, e.g. a horse or a
:

pevov

eVl irdvrtav TO Tttevralov yiv68e arroXenreii/, TO

TT)S &o-rrep al aj/eAn--

-n^-rov
<f>ucrta>s

Siai/Ao5po/tou<rT?s

rojttcVrjs

eirl

T^V

dpxV
y evens
rj

30ey faOev.
e

tori yap T? pfv OVTOS els TO tf,

TOV
e/c

/AT;

8e

UUTOS
* 3

TTO.\IV els

TO

<t>eopa

TOV

ov.

man.O o-Tepov 70^

TO
8

filOV

ylvtrai TO T(\OS, eO-Tt T^ tKOO-TOU T7/S

Cf.

i.

450, sqq. supra.

Cf. p. 17, frf/TO.

Tt AoS.

16

ARISTOTLE
at hand.
1

He points out how every animal is with organs adapted to its mode of life, or provided how the common organs of a tribe are modified to meet
means

Nor does he neglect the inter dependence of the different members distinguishing the principal organs which directly serve to fulfil the end of life, from those which are added for their pro
its

special

needs. 2

tection

and maintenance
4

3
;

and remarking that Nature

where one organ
is

always affords the strongest protection to the noblest

and the weakest

equal to
1

parts,

that,

not

its task,

she makes or modifies another for the

and that she places organs of opposite purpose, character near one another, in order that each may lie temper and supplement the action of the other.
sees in the
artistic

instincts

of animals

an obvious

Proofs of tliis, the most important of which will call for future discussion, are given throughout the whole work DC Fart. An., and in many passages of Aristotle s other zoological and anthropological works. Thus the elephant, being not only a land-animal, but leading
1

bodies to enable other animals to escape from them more easily, and to prevent them from doing injury to themselves by their voracity.
a

The

flesh,

for

example,

is

principle organ of ^sensebones, on the other perception hand, nerves, veins, skin, hair,
;

the

nails,

&c., exist

an amphibious life in morasses, is provided with a proboscis that it may breathe more easily under water Part. An,, ii. 10,
also
;

merely for

its

sake, as is

shown Part. An. ii. 8. ZKLLER, Ph.tLGr.n. 14,

b.

b, 33 sqq. In like manner the form of birds beaks depends upon the nature of their food,
6.">8,

658, b, 2 sqq., iii. 11. (573, iv. 10, 690, b, 9. Ibid. iv. 9, 685, a, 30.
(i

8,

Ib ul.
TJ

ii.

7,

652,

a,

:!1

atl

70^

Averts

/j.r)xai>aTai

as

is

shown

{Ibid.

iii.

1,

662, b,

1,

sqq. iv. 12, 693, a, 10 sqq.) in the case of birds of prey, the woodpecker, the raven, grain- and insect-eaters, water- and moorfowl. Dolphins, again, and sharks (ibid. iv. 13, 696, b, 21) have the mouth in the upper part of their

eKaa-rov vTreppo\ f3or,B(iavr^vTov eVai/ri ou iraptSpiav, aviva^ri ryv

"iva

irpby

T^V

darepou
eVet 8

virfp0o\r]i/ edrepov. b , 16 : a-rravra 8e?Tcu rrjs evavTias

poirris, iva.

rvyxdvT] rov
:

/j.frpiou KOU

thus the head counterbalances the heart,

/j.t<rov

TOV

PHYSICS
1

17

Nor example of unconscious contrivance in Nature. does he forget the influence of necessity, which here, as elsewhere, cooperates with Nature in the realisation of her designs. 2 Indeed, he expressly requires observers
of nature to
tions.
3

use of both causes in their explana Still he holds fast to the belief that physical
4

make

causes are only means employed by Nature for her ends, and that their necessity is only conditional nor does he cease to marvel at the wisdom with which Nature
;

makes use of the materials

suited to her purposes,

and

overcomes the opposition of such as are antagonistic. Like a good housewife, she employs the dregs and refuse of animal life for beneficial purposes, and suffers
5 nothing to be wasted. best possible account G
;

She turns everything

if

to the

she

can

make one organ

Phys.
Se
ra>v

ii.

8,

199,
etrl

(pavfpuv

20: a, ruiv ^yccv

ovre

a\\<)v,

^firr](ravra

a ovTf ovre

TfX v V

fiov\evcrd/n.i>a

voie t.
vif
ij

oflei/

Siairopova irivesirorepoi
a\\Cf)
epydoi>rai

rivt

oi

apdxvai Kal ol

/j.vp/j.f]Kes

Kal TO. roi-

/caret [AiKphv 5 ovroo Trpo iovri avra. Kal ZVTOIS tpvrdis <paivraira(rv/j.(pepovra yu/6/j.ei a irpbs rb re Aos, olov
TO.

In dis 46, c; Div. i. 642, 6). cussing individual parts of the body he frequentty gives both sides in succession, e.g. Part. ii. man has thicker 14, 658, b, 2 hair than any other animal, e v 5ia r^v vyp6rt]ra rov \ov Kal 5ia ras pa(pas,
: . .
.

8e flotjOeias, OTTUS (TKeirdfaai,

&C.

(pv\\a

ffKfTTt]S.

TT}S TOW Kapirov eVe/ca UHTT* ft (pVfffl T TTOie? Kal

tvtKa. TOV rf ^eAiSwj/ Tr)v vOTTiav Kal 6 dpa^vTjs TO apa-xyioV) Kal TO. (pvTa TO. <pv\\a eVe/ca T&V Kapir&v KOI ras

The proofs have already been given, i. 360, n, 1, supra. 5 See i. 465, n. 2, supra. 6 Thus, for exam pie (Part. AH.
4

pt^as OVK avia

aAAu

rpocpris, (pavfpbv

6n

KO.TW eVe/ca TTJS atria rj fffrlv

-TJ

iii. 14, 675, b, 17 sqq.), the intes tines are coiled tightly together,

SITUS

rafjLifvrjrai

T)

(pv<ris

Kal

roiavrr] fv roTs
olffiv.
2
3

(f>vffi

yLvofj.evois Kal

Cf.

i.

See

i.

463, n. 1. 360, n. 1, supra.

Ibid, and Part. An. i. 1, Svo rp6iroi rrjs alrias 643, a, 14 Kal Se? Kiyovras Tvy%aveiv /j.d\iffra v &c. (Cf. PLATO, Tim.
:
au.<f>ow,

aQpoos fi T) eo5os rov Trepirru/jLaros, especially in those animals which are destined for a frugal manner The same thought had of life. already been expressed in PLATO,

Tim.

72, E.

VOL.

II.

18

ARISTOTLE
an animal several
for the

serve, she does not give

l
;

same

if she needs materials for strengthening one function member, she despoils another which appears less indis
2

pensable
1

if

she can achieve several objects by one

without the latter is ouSev
TTpovpyov.
-

Aristotle Thus explains (Part. An. iii. 2) that different animals are provided with differ ent means of defence, some with horns, others with claws, some with size, others with fleetness, with others repulsive again

oi/ras

thin

Gen. An. iii. 1, 749, b, 34 animals have a greater power of procreation y yap e/s rots ra rpeireTai
: ;

Ko>Aa

Tpo</>r;

excrement
irXsiovs
(pvffis

a/j.a

iKavas
SeSaxccj/

Kal
T]

/3o7j0e(as

ou

TOIOVTOIS fls TTtptTTw/xa fftrfpfjLa& yap fKeWev atyaipe i T\ TIKOV evravQa. Part. <pvffLS, TTpoffriO^ffiv

rots avToTs.

Again,

ibid. iv.

he remarks that birds which have a spur are not endowed with bent talons also
12, 694, a, 12,

An. ii. 14, 658, a, 3L in longtailed animals, the hairs of the tail are shorter, in short-tailed, longer, and the same is true of
:

CUTIOV

on

ovfiev

r)

fyvffis

irote?

the

irfpiepyov.

Again,
:

Itcspir.
eVel

10,

476,
obfiev
fiuolv

a,

6 sqq.

gills

and lungs

never exist together,

6p(t>/uLV

other parts of the iravrax ^ 7"P an-oStSoxrt [^ Xafioixra erepwOev npbs &A\o cf. ibid. c. 9, 6H5, a, 27
:

body

fyvffts]
[j.6piov,
a/j.a

5e

Troiovcrav rrjv

rV airV
For
c</>

OVTOIV Odrepov Uv fy
ei>

vTrfpoxfy T^TTOUS aSyyare? Stai/e ytiew/

fis

iroAAois
f)

fyvffis.

(just before

5 he says: And again, upyavov xP^ ffl ^ ov ^-

Part.

iii.

mals which have more perfect much of this section), Arist. Nature employs Thicrli. 468: masticating organs (i.e. the earthy refuse either for a Sovra) are supplied with simpler which horns or double rows of teeth digestive apparatus: those are defective in the former (see Part. An. iii. 2, 663, b, 31, have 664, a, 8 or, as in the case of respect, on the other band, the camel, for a hard palate, several stomachs after enume The c. 674, b, 2). 14, rating several species of animals ibid. which belong to the former class, bear, which has a hairy body, he proceeds, 674, a, 28 those must be content with a stunted In animals which, like the cornel, tail (ibid. ii. 14, 658, a, 36). stomach the case of mammals, the earthy require more than one on account of their great size material has been employed for
a/j.fpd>; :

14, 674, a, 19 sqq.

ani

r. explanations Meyer (to whom I gratefully acknowledge my obligations for

further

and the coarseness of their food, form an exception to the rule the teeth and stomach of the camel resemble those of horned
;

animals
avrrj
rrjif

5ia rb

avayKadrfpov

efvai

their tails, and accordingly, un like man, they have no flesh upon their legs (ibid. iv. 10, 689, b, Sharks, again, require this 21). earthy material to give their

KQiXiav ex* lv Toiavrtjv ^ TQVS irpoff&iovs bSovras, it can do

skins the proper thickness, and accordingly have mere gristle for

PHYSICS
organ, she makes
it

19
!

do the work

although,

when

this

arrangement
contrivances
:

will not serve, she is

2

of the different

no niggard in her materials which she has

employs the best upon the nobler and the worse upon the less important members. 3 Even in the cases where one cannot attribute any definite
utility

at her disposal she

to certain structures, they are not without a design ; for Aristotle thinks that their end mav be
ii.

their skeletons (ibid.

a,

9,

655,

uxrirep

r)

xaA/ceuTt/fT? irpbs

Meyer quotes further examples from Part. An. ii. 13,

23).

bfitXiffKoXixviov

fUTf\nai (on this GOTT-

LING, DeMachtcra J)elpkioa,Ind.

lect. Jen. 1856, p. 8);
/XTJ

657, b, 7, also Part.

1

iv.

9,

An.

Cf. 685, a, 24. iii. 2, 663, a, 31.

aAA

OTTOV

Thus the mouth, besides the common purpose of eating, serves various other ends in the various animals, and is thus
variously formed
;

firl

eVSe ^erai KaraxpTJTai Tip avT$ TrAeico epya. Pulit. i. 2, 1252,

:

b, 1

TOV oTov

ovdev yap ri (pix x a ^KOTVT

fj.dxaipav

[GOTTLIXG,
Staatsl. d. Ar.
fail,

ibid.
ii.

^ 700 Averts
.
. .

ToTs Koivcns TrdvTcav /Aopiois els TroAAa ruv ISicav Karaxp^Tai 8e ?)

crw^yayev els v, TTOtovaa Siafyopav avrov rov ftopiov

Qvffis
irpbs
TO.S

Trdvra

however, to give a complete account of the matter] ovrca ireviXpvs, aAA ej/ Trpbs ev a7roTeAo?TO aAA terra TUV yap
ai>

ONCKEN, who both

25,

TTJS

epyacrias

(Part. An. iii. Likewise Respir. c. 11 init.) the tongue (Rcsjnr. ibid. Part. ii. The hand (Part. iv. 10, 687, 17). ev upyavov dAAa a, 19) is ovx iroAAa yap uffirepel opyavov
;
eo"Ti

Siafpopds. 1, 662, a, 18, cf.

6pydi>(Di>

6/cao-TOi/,

aAA

7roAAo?j epyois

fvl

SovXevov.

MEYER,

Arist.

ThierJt. 470, rightly

remarks that

these statements are inconsistent with the principles of the parsi mony of nature as previously
laid

Trpb

opydtxav (cf. De An. iii. 8, 432, a, 1) ; it is (b, 2) Kal owt, nal

we

down, and even although

grant that
it

is

possible to

Kal

&\\0 OTTOIOVOVV
;

OTT\Ol>

Kttl

OpyCLVOV,

and similarly the breasts of there is a certain arbitrariness in women, Part. An. iv. 10, 688, a, the way in which it is applied. 3 19 sqq., the trunk of the ele Gen. An. ii. 6, 744, b, 11 sqq., phant, lUd. ii. 16, 659, a, 20, and where Nature s management is the tails of animals, ibid. iv. 10, compared in this respect with 690, a, 1 (among other passages). that of a household in which the 2 Part. An. iv. 6, 683, a, 22 free members receive the best,
&c.
:

with Aristotle, a basis of reconciliation in the phrase faou eVSe xeroi, we cannot deny that
find,

8irov
eirl

yap eVSe ^erai ^prjo fiai Svalv

epya Kal p.^ f^iroSi^eiv irpbs
ovStv
i)

food, the servants a coarse quality,

Sv

and the domestic animals the

worst.
c 2

(pvaris

elude iroietv

20
fulfilled in
1

ARISTOTLE
the very symmetry and perfection of their and that this explains why many animals have which they or at least the indications of them,
It is only

form,

organs,

2 do not use.

where he cannot discover the

can bring least trace of purpose that our philosopher chance or blind himself to explain a phenomenon by
3

necessity.

He

treats

it,

for

example,
(8tcJ>ur)),

the as a universal law that all be in pairs organs should has a right seeing that the body and a left, a front and a back, an upper and a lower (Part. An.
iii.

where the hairs of the tail of the horse and other animals are
described as merely ornamental. 2 The hind, while it has no horns, has teeth like the stag, because it belongs to a horned
class;

7 init.

c.

5,

667, b, 31 sqq.).
all

Even where to

there is only a single organ, exerts himself to prove that it 669, b, 21 double
:

appearance he
is

and similarly in certain female has species of crabs the

which belong properly yevei only to the male, 6n eV elffi fx ovri Xt^ 5 (PttTt. An.
claws
T<?
T<f

(ibid.

/col

tyK$a\os
Train

fiovherai

iii.

2,

664, a,

3, iv. 8,

684, a, 33).

elvat

Kal

r&v

aAff

tKaffrov.
T)

Kara rbv avrbv 5e \6yov

KapSfa TO?S KoiXiais. the lungs). Another typical law where it is that the nobler parts, in the upper is possible, should be and on the right as part, in front the better position (Part. An-. Hi. 3 665, a, 23, b, 20, c. 5, 667, b, 34 cf. c. 7, 670, b, 30, c. 9, 672, 19 sqq.); so, a, 24, c. 10, 672, b, locomotive likewise, that the (the opx*0 -should pro

Likewise

neces Again, spleen, which is a sity only to viviparous animals, and is therefore more strongly developed in these, is yet found
to exist in all
o-rjjueiou
II/
X"P

(ira u/xi/cpoj
j

Sxrirep

as

kind

of

counterpoise to the liver, which is on the right side of the body and therefore requires something to correspond to it on the left,

woV

a.va.yKouov jueV TTWS,

^ Xiav

impulse ceed for the same reason from this quarter (Ingr. An. 5, 706, b, on Animals. The 11) cf. Ch. X. same esthetic conception of Nature s contrivances is expressed in the observation, Part. An. ii.
;

dvcu Train TO?S Cyois (Part. An. iii. 7, 669, b, 26 sqq. c 4, 666, a, 27,
cf.

//.

An.

ii.

15,

506, a, 12).

Similarly the monkey, belonging as it does to the four-footed

races,
offov
is

endowed with a
xapiv,
1,

tail
ii.

ffri/J-fiov

II An.
;

8,

502, b, 22,

c.

498, b, 13.

Cf.

that men are 14, 658, a, 15 sqq., better protected in front than nobler behind, the front being the side, and therefore
(TtuieoTepo)

MEYER,
JtfetJi.

d.

p. 464 sq. arist. Forsch.

EUCKEN,
104 sqq.,

91.
3

purposeless creation of

demanding stronger defences; and in 1. 30 of the same passage,

this kind

ireiTTwo he

finds in

the gall (Part, An.

iv. 2,

677, a,

PHYSICS

2l

This prevalence of design in nature shows itself, as we have seen before (i. 466 sqq.), in a gradual pro

The continual process of development. life are not shared by various functions of the soul and
gression,

in equal perfection, but different living creatures forms of animation, and different parts of the soul, may be distinguished, which determine the gradations of animate life. Plants are confined to nutrition and pro
all

soul alone is active in them. pagation the nutritive Beasts add to this the sensitive soul, for sensation is the
1
;

most universal mark of distinction between beasts and 2 The lowest form of sensation, common to all plants.
animals,
is

the sense of touch

here begins the feeling

appetites,

of pain and pleasure, and the

among which

11 sqq.; see i. 361, n. 1, supra). Upon necessity and chance, p. 359 sqq. supra. De An. ii. 2 (see i. 511, n. 2, supra). Ibid. 413, b, 7: QpwriKov Se \fyo/j.V rb TOLOVTOV p.6piov rr/s v K(d Ta /Aere ^ei. c. 3
1

living energy which first forms and afterwards nourishes the body, but that the former is the more important function

same

ovv avr-n tffrlv T\ epfiniK^ ^u^, Kal TOUT avr-r] effrl Kal y ytvv&ffa.
6i

fyvxiis

fffrlv

TJ

<f>vra

fyvcris

T)

e/cao-TOu,

T) yap 0pirMI if. c. 4, 415, a, 23 \\OIS t>7TClpX 6t TIKT] ^VXTl Kal TflTs
;

ovaa Kal
.

eV

Kal
<f>vTO?s

eV

Kal

irpuTf]

Kal

KOivordr-n

fivvapis

eVrt tyvxys, KO.& Cw virapx* 1 onraffiv. fjs evrlv epya yfvvr)ffai Kal
rpotyy xp^ffla 588, b, 24; Gen.
-

ovv Cyv

, De An, ii. 5m
.

2, 413, b,

1:

T)>

ravTr)v

xei TO?S
atvOfiffiv

&<ri,

rb 8e
Kal

S/o

ffist.

An.
i.

viii. 1,

irpuTUS

yap ra

An.

23, 731,

a, 21,

procreation alone is tioned as the peculiar function and De of the vegetable sense
;

men

Ka\ ou

fji/

,u.6vov.
;

De

Sensu,
c. 1,
ii.

c. 1,

436, b, lo
b, 18, 27
a, 32,
Ittf/r.
;

De
;

.Invent,

467,
;

An.
eVel

ii.

4, 41H, b. Se OTTO rot)

TTpoffayopeveiv av ytvvr\ffa.i olov avrb, di] y^wnriKi] olov avr6.

,

23, it is said : re Aovs airavra re Aos Se fb SIKOIOI

T]

Part. An.
c. 4,

10, 655,

irpunr]

fyvxy

On the

ii.

other hand, Gen. An., ii. 4, 740, b, 34 sqq. (cf. c. 1, 735, a, 16), shows that it is one and the

passages expressly tinction between the

iv. 5, 681, a, 12 705, a, 26 sqq. b, Gen. An. i. 23, 731, a, 30 Most of these 1, 732, a, 11. notice the dis

656, b, 3

An.

&v

and the

22

ARISTOTLE
1

the appetite for food appears first. One division of creatures combines with sensation the power of living
2 locomotion, which also belongs to the bestial soul. Lastly, besides nutritive and sensitive life, man pos

sesses
soul.
3

Reason, the third and highest faculty of the The soul exists in no other form than those

which we have just described. 4

These themselves,

however, are so related to each other that the higher cannot exist without the lower. 5 Animal life exhibits

De An. ii. 2, 413, b, 4 sqq. 21 sqq. c. 3, 414, b, 1-16, 415, a, 3 sqq. iii. 12, 434, b, 11 sqq. c DC Sensn, 1, 13, 435, b, 17 sqq. 436, b, 10-18; Part. An. ii. 17, 661, a, 6 H. An. i. 3, 481), a, 17 DC Somno, 1, 454, b, 29, c. 2 init. In these passages Aristotle some
1 ; ;
;

of the tyvxal mentioned. Ibid. 414, b, 28: TrapaTrAij:>

mWS

Kal TO.

fX fl TCf TTfpl TWV Kara tyvx tjV yap eV

<*el

ff\lf]jJ.a.TU>l
TO>

e06|f;s virdpxei 8vvd/Ai rh irporepov

firi

re

T&V

(Tyr\l*-V-T<0v

Kal

eVi riav
fiej/

e^\|/u^wj/ }

oi jv

eV

Terpaycavcf)

rpiytavov eV al(r6r]TiKy 8e TO
TiKoi
. . .

Opt-rr-

times mentions o0^ alone, some times a(p}) Kal yevffis, as the property of all animals, but the apparent inconsistency is ex plained by the fact that Aristotle regarded the sense taste as a form of touch DC Sensu, 2, 438, De An. ii. 9, 421, a, 19: b, 30.
;

/met/ yap rov 9peTrTIKOV T() QLtfrSriTiicbv OVK tffTiv TOV al(T9T)TiKov xupi&Tai TO QpeirriKov

avev

eV TO?S

(pvTo is.

tra\iv
8
a<prj

aveu /uev
aio-0r]o~f(v

TOV airTtKov T&V a\\wv

i,
.
.

avev Tcav
Kal
T>

TWV

ii.

W
2

TO. /u.v

e^et
8

hiit.

iii.

De An.
;

ii.

12, 434, b, 18. 3, 414, b, 10.

OTTOV

KlVr)TlKl)V,

TO.

wara OVK t6l.

3,

3 Ibid, ii. 3, 414, b, 18 (of. iii. Gen. An. i. 23, 731, 427, b, 6

Kal

Zidvoiav ofs
TU>V

fjitv

yap

Ao-yjo-yiibv
a<pQapTa.

fyQapTu/v [to the

tlie stars,

^a

a,

30 sqq.)

frepois 8e [rfav

cp<i)v

I.e.

virdpxfi] Kal rb SiavoyTiKov re KCU vovs, oiov avQpuTTois Kal e t TL roiovKal Tifj-iwrepov. TOV fTp6v fartv
ir)

belongs],

TOVTOLS
8

Kal

a pure vovs TO. \onra

eKaaTov, ov
^uej/

wd

Ta,

ois

e /cetj/coi/

jraffi XoyicrfjLos.
<pavTa<r(a,

aAAa

TO?S

ai/8e

the latter part of this obser vation see the discussion upon the different kinds of living

On

TO. 8e

TavTrj

/aovrj faffiv.

TTfpl

8e TOV

d(apTf]TlKOV

VOV (TfpOS

beings infra.

De An. ii. 3, 414, b, 19: just as there is no figure which is not either triangular, quad rangular, or with some other number of arrgles, so there is no soul which is not one or other
4

(on this see infra ). Ibid. c. 2, 413, a, 31, with regard to the OpsiTTiKov: x.(apit<rQai 8e TO?TO aAAwj bvvaTbv, TO. 8 aAAa fj.lv TOVTOV aftvvaTov eV TO?S 6"r]To is.
Ao-yos
T>V

Cf.
11.

i.

n Jin.

De

Sonino,
1,

De

Jurent.

1, 454, a, 467, b, 18 sqq.

PHYSICS
a developing scale, in which each successive step in Plato s doctrine of the cludes all that went before.
is thus applied to all animate exist parts of the soul of its ence, without violence to the general conception

originator,
1

tail,
1

though with important modifications of de and we are enabled to embrace all natural si
Never in each of the parts. theless, Aristotle himself speaks of parts of the soul (see p. 21, n. 1,
on

Aristotle objects, indeed (De 22 sqq. 433, a, 31 sqq.), to Plato s three Cold

An.

in. 9, 10, 432, a,

division,

oh the ground that if the functions and facul ties of the soul our principle of

we make
division

De Vita, supra and although he

;

i.

467, b,

1(5),

tries

more

fully

we have

far

more than

three parts, for the difference between the Qpeirriicbv, alaQt]TiKbv,

voririK^v, /3ouAeur titbit,
is

wider than between

the

e7ri#t^u.TjTiKc>j/

and
5,

9v/j.iKbv,

and
i

asks,
TT?J/

De An.
it
:

i.

411, b, 5, in

to preserve the unity of its life amid the multiplicity of parts, he cannot be said to have been any more successful than Plato in this endeavour, nor does vovs bear any closer relation in his theory to "the lower elements of the soul than does the immortal part in

view of
iJ

ri

ovv TTOTC

(rwfx

Plato

s.

His

departure

from

fxV

ftepio-Tr?

cannot be the
;

irfyvKiv ; it body, for it is

rather the soul which holds the body together if, on the other hand, it be said that it is an in corporeal force, then this is the But the question proper soul.
tlie former, the soul itself be so [f the latter, then just as well ? for the parts of the crw^xov another avvex ov must be sought,

Plato, accordingly, does not seem to be so important in principle. He differs from him partly in his account of different forms of animal life, but Plato, no less than he, assigns the lowest of the

immediately recurs, If or manifold ?

is

this simple

why .cannot

and so on

ad

tnjinitum.

We

three parts into which he divides the soul to plants, the middle one to beasts, and holds that the higher part presupposes the lower but not vice versa see Div. i. p. The chief difference be 714. tween the philosophers is in their respective starting points while
; :

should thus finally be forced to suppose that each part of the soul resides in a particular part of the body, which is obviously not the case either with respect to the reason, which has no bodily

Plato begins his investigation into the nature and parts of the soul from the ethical side, Ari stotle approaches it from the side of natural science. On the other

organ corresponding to it at all, nor in respect of the lower prin ciple of life, which, in the case of those animals and plants which
survive being cut in pieces, lives

STRUMPELL (Gvscli. d. theor. Phil. 324 sqq.), as BEANDIS has pointed out, ii. b, 11158 sq.,
hand,
goes too far in saying that Ari stotle attributes to one and the same being not only different

24

ARISTOTLE

from the lowest to the highest in one comprehensive view as concentrated and progressive manifestations of
the same
life.

This progressive development of animal life corre sponds to the actual fact, which Aristotle had no doubt observed, and which had led him in the first instance
to
his

theory,

that

all

organic

nature

exhibits

steady progress from

productions to richer

more imperfect and and fuller forms of life.

defective

he

says,

makes

so gradual a transition

Nature, from the inani

mate to the animate kingdom, that the boundary lines which separate them and the position of the inter
mediate are rendered indistinct and doubtful.
the inanimate kingdom comes that of Plants we not only distinguish greater arid less
;

Next

to

and here

degrees of vitality subsisting among individuals, but the whole tribe seems animate when compared wdth inorganic

from plants to animals is so that many marine creatures leave us in doubt gradual whether they are animals or vegetables, since they
faculties or parts of the soul but different souls, to man four, to beasts three (counting- the sensitive and the motive principles as

substances, inanimate Again, the transition

when compared with

animals.

the nutritive soul being contained in the sensitive, and the sensitive
in the rational, just as the triangle is contained in the quad-

two). ^Aristotle speaks, indeed, of

tyv

x *i

OpewTiK}), alae-nriK^

\oyuch
c-.//.pre-

and of different ^v X a\ (see ceding page DC Vita,

;

3,

4(59,

but he does not mean that several souls exist together in an individual as so many separate beings he even defines the relaa, 24),
;

tion of these so-called tyv X al to one another in the distinctest manner as one of comprehension,

rangle (see preceding note), so that an animal, for instance, can no more be said to contain two souls than a quadrangle can be said to contain two kinds of If he fails, as a matter figures. of fact, perfectly to preserve the unity of the soul throughout (see end of Ch. XII.), we are not on this account justified in denying that

he attempted to do

so.

PHYSICS

25

from

adhere to the ground, and cannot live when separated it. Indeed, the whole tribe of Ostreacecc, when

compared with locomotive animals, resemble vege The same may be said about sensation, phy tables.
sical structure,

mode
:

of

life,

propagation, the rearing of

their young, &c.

in all of these respects

we

notice a

1 The continuity gradual progression of development. of this order brings into play the law of Analogy, the presence of which Aristotle takes some trouble to

demonstrate in the sphere of organic structures arid their vital functions. Analogy, as we have shown
2

before,

is

the

bond which unites

different genera

in organic nature, as elsewhere, it transcends generic differences, and where no real similarity of kind is
possible, produces resemblance.
1

This analogy may be

-

Hist.

An.

viii. 1,

588, b, 4
;

sqq.where detailed proof is given Part. An. iv. 5, 681, a, 12, where, in speaking of zoophytes and the differences which are to be observed amongst them, he remarks: T] yap (pvcris utrafiaivfi (rvvex&s airb TWV atyvxtov *is TO. $a Sia T&V favTdiv
jUti/

Two kinds of avdxoyov x^p 15 birds differ from one another by the size, for instance, of their wings birds and fish, on the other
;

hand,

r<f

avdXoyov

irrepbv, darepty
all

Ae;ns.

yap e/ceify Analogies

<a

of this kind are

:

OVK OVTWV 5e

<<av

ouTcas

fcffre SoK~it/ Trd/j-irav i^iKpbv

8ta<J>epeii/

Oarepov ddrepov TOJ ffvvvtyyvs a\AyjAots.

2

found in almost animals ra yap TroAAa dvd\oyov ravrb TreirovQtv. Similarly in the following passage, 644, b, 7 sqq. a contrast is drawn

I.

272, n.

2,

su/>ra.

With

\vhat follows of. MKYER, Arlst. Tkirrk. 334 sqq. 103 sq. Part. An. i. 4, (541, a, 14. Why are not water and winged
:{

animals

included
eo-rt

under
irdOr]

one
KOIVO.

between differences which exist within the same genus, e.g. between large and small, soft and hard, smooth and rough animals, and lliose which permit us lo trace only general analogies. To the same effect, c. 5, 645, b,
I
:

name
KCtl

yap
Kal
6/j.cas

fi/ta

iro\\a
^(pwv,

Koiya iroAAoTs
TO.

virdpx^ T&V

TOVTOLS
ciAA
ru/v

To7s ttAAois

aoS
yap

airaffiv.

opdcas SicopiffraL
6<ra,

Trrepa

TToSes /AH/ ctTrAcDs, olov AeTTj Ses, Kal ird9rj Sr/ rbv

rovrov rbv
8ta</>epet

irpoirov.

/uei/

avrbv
/j.fv

Tpo-rrov

TOVTOIS,

ra

avd-

yevwv
i,

o0

virepox^f

\oyov. heyw S
uTrapx 61
/J.wv

Kal rb fj.a\\ov Kal rb r/rrov,

ravra

a.v&\oyov, on roils TrAew^ajv, TO?S Se ir\i>5e TO?S

ova

e^et rb

^v

ob, &

26

ARISTOTLE

In place of observed in the most different quarters. blood, bloodless animals have certain humours which
correspond to
Molluscs,
it
;

and
5

this is also the case with flesh. 2

being without fat, are provided with an substance/ analogous Cartilage and gristle correspond to bones in snakes and fish, and in the lower animals
their place is supplied

by shells, &c., which serve the same purpose of supporting the body. 4 The hair of

quadrupeds answers to the feathers of birds, the scales

of fishes, and the mail of oviparous land animals 5 the teeth of beasts to the bills of birds.* Instead of a
5

heart, bloodless animals

have a similar central organ, 7

and instead of a brain, something like one. 8 Gills take the place of lungs in fishes, and they inhale water
instead
of
air.

Roots perform the same

office

for

vegetables as heads, or rather months, for animals,

and

;tofo,

cKeivois
fj.V

repov avr
ai/xa,

TOVTOV

517, a,
5

1,

KCU

TO IS

Tins Se TO ava.-

Part.

\oyov rrfv avrrjv ex ov ^vva/j-iv Tjj/Trep I bid. 20 Tols fvai/uots TO afyia. sqq.; Hist. An. i. 1, 480, b, 17
sqq., 487, a, 9,
ii.

644, a, 1, 486, b, 21.

6
7

1,486, b, 19. 691, a, 15, i. 21. Hist. iii. 10 hut.

i.

iv. 11,

4,
i.

Part.iv. 12, 692,

b, 1.1.

1,
1

491, a 14 sqq. ; 497, b, 9 viii. 1 (sec infra). Hist. An. i. 4, 489, a, 21

c. 7,
;

Part. An.
650, a, 34,

i.

5,
iii.

(545,

b, 8,

ii.

3,

Gen. An,,

ii.

4,

5, 668, a 4, 25, De 740, a, 21.

647, a, 30, iv. 5, 678, b, 1, 681, b, 14, 28, a, 34; Gen. An. ii. 1, 735, a, 23 sqq. c. 4, 738, b, 16. c. 5, 741, b, 15. De -Resplr. c. 17, 478, b, 31 sqq.
ii.

Part

1,

!)<

Motn An.

c.

10, 703, a, 14.

On

tSo inno, c. 3,

456, a, 35,

and other
iii.

passages. Part. An.

668, a, 25,
ii.

1,

ii. 8 init. 647, a, 19

;

5,

the parts which Aristotle regarded as analogous to the heart see MEYER, p. 429.
8

Hut.
11
:

Part.
Part-,
iv.

ii.

7,

652, b, 23, 653, a,

489, a, 18, 23 l)e An. ii. 11, 422, b, 21, 423, a, 14. 3 Gen.. -An. i. 19, 727, b, 3; Part. ii. 3, 650, a, 34. Part. ii. 8, 653, b, 33- fin. c. 9, 655, a, 17 sqq. c. 6, 652, a, 2 Hist. iii. 7, 516, b, 12 sqq. c. 8,
i.

An.

3, 4,

DC Somno,
"

3, 457, b, 29.

i-nit.

viii.

2,

28

De

i. 5, 645, b, 6, iii. 6 676, a, 27; Hist. An. 589, b, 18, ii. 13, 504, b, Ilcsp. c. 10 so. 475, b, 15,

1,

476, a,

1,

22.

PHYSICS
1

27

Some animals which take up food into their systems. have no tongues are provided with an analogous organ. 2 The arms of men, the fore feet of quadrupeds, the wings
3 of birds, the ela\vs of crabs, are all analogous, while 4 the elephant has a trunk instead of hands. Oviparous

animals

are of

born

from
is

embryo

mammals

correspondingly, the eggs surrounded with a skin like that

;

of an egg, and in the chrysalis insects assume an oval form. Reversely, the earliest germs of higher animal

corresponds to the worms from which insects are bred/ The habits, occupations, tempers, and reason of animals can be compared with those of men while the
life
-

human

soul in childhood can scarcely be distinguished Thus does one inner bond of from that of beasts/

union permeate
life

one all departments of organic nature unfolds itself from the same fundamental forms in

And as continually ascending degrees of perfection. and design, organic nature is the sphere of contrivance
1

De An.
rS>v

ii.

4,

41G,

a, 4

us

After
T<

illustrating

th
:

ovrws ai pifai Kf(pa\r} riav $>VTMV, 6t xP~h Ta opyava \tysiv ravra Kal krepa raits Zpyois.
rj

&W,

De

Jtivent. c. 1, 468, a, 9;
C. 4,
-

Ingr. An.

proceeds ^aAAoi/ Kal yrrov yap TO Se rbv avBpwirov irpbs us yap ev a.vd\oyov Siatpepti
.
. .
0p<i>Tra)

examples he

708, a,

(5.

G78, b, G-10. iv. 12, 693, a, 26, b, Hist. i. 1. 10, C. 11, ($91, b, 17 48H, b, 19, c. 4, 489, a, 28, ii. 1, 497. b, 18.
iv. 5,
:<

Part. Part.

O&TWS tv
Toiavrr) TO.TOV 8

rexvn Kal croc/x a Kal (Tvi/e ois TWV frpuv Iffriris tr

QWIK.}) 8vva/j.is. eVri TO TOIOVTOV
tirl

rr;r

TWI/ iraiSwv

Part.
Hist.
iii.

iv.

12, 692, b, 15.

eV r)\iKiav ftXf^aaiv TOVTOIS yap roov vcrrfpov l|ewz/ 7! Kal eo-o^eVwr Zffriv *5eti/ oiov
jj.fi>

"ix?

vii. 7,

586, a, 19
467. n.
1,

Gen.
:

o-Tre p^ara,

8ia<pfpei

ovOev
1

us

An.
fi

9.

See

i.

Hist. An.
^CfHav

viii. 1,

supra, 588, a, IS

enreu/

TJ

^vx^ rrisrwv

0i)piwv tyvx^s

eVefTTi

yap eV rols
fx*

Tr\eia TOis Kal

*!

T&V
f}}v

aAAcov

<*

>v

^ e P^
rwv

Kara rbv xp^ vov TOVTOV, laar ovSev fl ra /j.ev ravTa ra 5 itapaTrA^trta TO 8 a.va\oyov tnrap^et roils
aXoyov,
ftAAots Cf
s-

rpoirw, airep

eirl

avQp-Ja-

e^et (pavepurtpas ras

5ia<popds.

28
it is

ARISTOTLE
itself in

universe must serve.

of

turn the object which all the inorganic The elements exist for the sake
arid

homogeneous substance,
structures.
is

this for the sake

o*~

organic existence
first

Here,
:

therefore,
is

the

order

of

reversed

that which
1

last in origin is

Nature, after displaying a continual decrease of perfection from the highest sphere
in essence

and value.

of heaven to earth, there reaches her turning point, and the descending scale of being begins to reascend. 2 The

elements by their mixture prepare the conditions neces sary for the development of living creatures, and we
see Life
its
1

expanding

itself

from

its first
3

weak germs

to

highest manifestation in humanity.

Part. Aii.
8
i.

ii.

1,

616, a, 12:
[i.e.

rovrwv

8e TO. avou.oiOfj.fpri

rpiwv
fj.fv

ovff&v rSov o~vv6fo-fuv [on

Qftt] rrjv

which see
av ris

517, n. 6, sujJ.~] irpwr-rjv fK roav KaAou,ue vwv VTTO riv<av a roi Xfiwv .... 8euTe pa Se avffraais fK ruv Trpwruv T]
ra>v

organic nature], ravra yap tf8r) TO rf\os fX fl Ka^ T0 7re Ps wa avve| afj.(porfp(i)v jj.fi/ ovv ra
fo~rr]Kf
rS>v

6fjt.oiofJ.fpfi

/uopiuv rovrcav, dAAd TO. roov avofj.oiofj.epuv fVfKfV

6/j,oiofj.fp)v fyvcris

fv TOIS

<OLS

fffnv
-

fffrlv,

olov

TWV a\\wv
Kal

o~apKos Kal raiv roiovrwv. rpirr] Se

6o~rov

Kal

ets elfflv,

TeAeuTaia rbv
oloV

apidfj,bv

fj

ruv
Kal

ii.

1,

fKfivuv yap fpya Kal irpdolov o<p9a\fj.ov, &C. Cf. what is said in Gen. An. eVel yap Iffn ra 731, b, 24
:

aVOfJ,OLOfJLfpWV,

TTpOfftoTTOV

fj.fv

X*ipbs
eVel

fX

fi

ruv roiovrwv fvavrius firl TTJS Ka T ^ s oiifflas ra yap

Kal
S

fj-opicav.

d f Sta Kal 0e?a ruiv ovruv ra 8 fvSfxofJ-fva Kal slvai Kal /uty elvai, TO
8e

y<

r)]V

Ka\bv Kal rb Qfiov atnov dei Kara avrov fyvaiv rov ftt\riovos eV

TTJ yfvfffft

irporfpa rrjv

(()vo-iv

Kal

irpoorov

TO

TT)

yfvffffi

TeAeu-

rawv, for the house does not exist for the sake of the stones and the bricks, but these for the sake of the house, and generally the material for the sake of the form and the final product: rep /j.ev ovv

TO?S eV5e%oyueVots, rb 8e /j.r) a io iov e(m wal tlvai Kal eV5e%Jyuej/oV fj.fra\a/j.f3dvfii Kal rov ^e

rov /SeAriWos, (3e\riov Se frwyu.aTs, TO 8 e^^u^oj/ rov

Sia rr)v vl/i/XTjf, Kal TO tlvai rov Kal TO flfai rov fj.r]
^"TJJ/

/J.TJ

]iv,

Sid

TauTav Tas alrias y(vt(Tis

Xpovy irporepav
fivai

rr)V

i/Arji/

avayKa iov

fffriv.
3 That Aristotle conceives of such a process of development from lower to higher forms, and of man as the highest step in the scale of evolution, by refer-

Kal rT\v yfvfffiv, \6ycf Se rrjv ovffiav Kal rfyv fKaarov fj.opty fiv. (txrre ryv fj,fv ruiv o Tot^e/coi
r<?

{/ATJJ/

avayKa iov flvai rtov 6fj,oiou.fpu>v varfpa yap e /ceiVcoz TavTa TTJ
1

PHYSICS

29

inorganic

Aristotle finds the first indications of this Life in Movement in general may be renature.
An. i. 6, 491, a, 19) should begin with man as being best known Nor can we with FRANTto us. zius (Arist. -iib. die Tlieilc d.
TMere,p. 315, 77; contrast MEYEK, Arist. TJiierh. 481 sqq.) conclude from these passages that Aristotle regards nature under the form of
a retrogressive rather than a pro con gressive development, and ceives of its history as that of an ideal animal assuming a
succession of degenerate shapes as it descends from the human For, in to the vegetable form. the first place, he does not always

ence to which we may test the attained by degree of perfection lower forms of being, is obvious from the passages referred to, 25 sq., and i. 465 pp. 21 sq., as well as from those

which immediately follow. Of. further Part. An. ii. 10, 655, b, H7 sqq., (ten. An. i. 23, 731, a,
24.

sq.,

supra,

In

the

former

of
:

these

passages Aristotle says have few and simple TO 5e irpos Gfi

T<

plants organs,

TOVTUV erepa
rov
rjv

irpb

rtpwv

Kal TroXvxovo-repav,

oawv

/J.TJ

fj.6vov
tyvffis

aAAa
.

/cat

TOV v

fjv

T]

roiovro 5

eV-rt

TO TWV

% yap fj,6vov ytvosTOU Qtiov TWV rjfjuv yvwpithe latter

begin with man, but only when he is treating of the external when, on the other organs hand, he is dealing with the
;

In iravTwv. yap TWV QVTWV ovffias oufleV effnv &\\o epyov ouSe T0 ^ OTTf pharos irpa^LS ou5e/xia TrA-V ^ rov Se &ov yeveffts ov^ovov TO yevvriffai fpyov (TOUTO fj.lv yap
v,
?l

/jLaXiffra

rfjs iJ.lv

internal organisation, a field in which more is known o the lower animals than of men, he

KOIVOV

TT&VTUV}, a\AO TWOS iravra jueTe^oufrt, ra fj.ev -n-Aetoro?, ra 5 eXarrovos, ra a iffQ^ffiv yap Sf ird/J.irav piKpus.

TUV

(at>TUV

Kal jvaxreus

8 aiVrfhjo-ts yvuxris TI?. fXovcriv, -T] iroXv ravr-^s 5e TO rifjuov Kal an^ov

Siafyfpei (TKOTTOvffi Kal irpbs TO TUV

irpbs

(ppAvricnv

a^vx^v

yevos.

7ap TO (ppovetv utrirep jUev Trpbs ouoev flvai 5o/fe? TO Koivcave iv

a<pr)S

takes the opposite course (Hist-. An. i. 16 init., cf Part. ii. 10, 656. But, in the second place, a, 8). it does not at all follow that that which is more known to us must in itself be the first either in of time, or point of value or that because Aristotle, in treating of the forms of organic life, and begins with the more perfect more imperfect, proceeds to the nature follows the therefore
.

KOL ytvffews /j.6t>ov, irpas Se It is not 07jo-iav pe\TiffTov.

dvato"-

incon

with this view that, Aristotle starting from man, 20 sqq.) (Part. An. iv. 10, 686, b, should attribute to the different animal tribes a continually di minishing degree of perfection as compared with him, and (Hist.
sistent

in producing them. the contrary, he states as that nature definitely as possible reverse order; proceeds in the the see, besides other passages, There is here preceding note. no question of a metamorphosis such as that described, either

same course

On

or progressive. retrogressive Aristotle does not conceive of an

30

ARISTOTLE

garded as a sort of life. In a certain sense we attribute animation to everything we talk of the life of the air
:

to the phenomena of the organic life of animals in the sea. Again, the world has its youth and age like plants and animals, except that they do not succeed each other as conditions of the whole, but are present simultaneously as alter
1

and the wind, and find analogies

nating states of
into fresh
increase,
life

its parts.

we 11- watered region may

dry up and grow

old,

while an arid tract

may

spring

When streams by timely moisture. the land about their mouths is gradually
when they dry up, the sea becomes these changes take place slowly, length
aK/ad^iv Kal
<pO(i>eiv

changed
land. 2

to sea;

When

ideal individual either developing or degenerating into various

avayKalov

rrj

5e yf, rovro yiverai Kara

Oep/j.6rr]ra.

The organic forms do forms. not themselves pass into one another; the transition is effected by nature as she rises to the fuller exercise of her creative
power. Cf. p. 25, supra. See i. 459, n. 5, 460, n.l, sup., and Gen. An. iv. 10, 778, a, 2:
1

^pos 5/a As these

increase or diminish, portions of the earth change their character,

oxrre
5ia/teVetj/,

p.*xP l TW&J Hvvfipa Swarai e/ra %T)paiverai Kal

yrjpd-

/Bios

yap

ns

d\iv crepoi Se roiroi fticac rat Kal tvvSpoi yiyvovrai Kara utpos. Where a region dries up, the rivers

teal Trvev/j.ar6s

eVrt Kal

yevevis Ka
v.

Upon the
ii.

sea
<qq-

Meteor,

2,

355, b, 4

356, a, 33 sqq. Cf. on this

14.

the

fall

and
i.

remarkable exposition, Meteor,

The same

regions, Aristotle

there says, are not always wet or dry, but according as rivers or disappear, the land arise retreats before the sea or the sea before the land. This happens, however, Kara nva rd^iv Kal irfpioSov.

decrease and finally disappear, the sea retreats, and land is formed where the sea was before the opposite happens when the moisture of a district increases, As examples of the former process, Aristotle in the following passage (351, b, 28 sqq., 352, b, 19 sqq.) names Egypt, which is unmistakably a TrpJerxoxm rov
;

apx^l Se TOUTCOJ/ Kal diriov

rf/s

on
ra

Kal

yys ra evrbs,
rci

SoffTrep

(T(t>uara

r&v (pvrwv

Kal

fyoov.

In regard yypas. to the latter, however, aaa irav

an epyovrov irora^ov (Sajpov rov irora/j.ov, HEROD, ii. 5), and the region surrounding the oracle of Ammon, which, like Egypt, lies below the level of the sea and must therefore once have been the sea bottom; Argolis and the neighbourhood of
NeiAou,

My-

PHYSICS

31

of time and the gradual character of the transformation cause the memory of them to be usually forgotten
l
;

when they happen suddenly they belong

of devastating inundations
2

to that class

which Aristotle, following 3 attributed those relapses into primitive barbarism Plato, which, coeternal though the human race is assumed to be
to
Greece; the Ijosphorus. the shore of which is continually changing. Some, he says (352, a, 17 sqq. according to ii. 3, 356, b, 9 sqq., he is thinking here of Democritus, but the same view is ascribed to A.naximander and
ceniii in
;

rowovs vypovs T
TTOTctyuoTy

tlvai OaAarrrj Kal

Kal ^rjpovs.

The

Tariais,

consequently, and one day cease to Palus Maeotis will rb yap tpyov avrwv
-

the Nile will flow, and the be dried up

:

*x fl

"

fp 119

"

Diogenes;
i.

cf.

ZELLER, Ph.

d. 6fr.

Xp6vos OVK fx ei Ibid. 351, b, 8 sqq, which

1

205,

2,

799, 4), attribute these

also refers to Egypt.

*

changes to a change in the world

as a whole, els yivopej/ov rov ovpavov, holding that the collective mass of the sea is diminished by

The other

possibility, of a

sudden destroying heat, is even more completely neglected by Aristotle than by Plato.
:i

gradual

evaporation Meteor, ii. 3). But if the sea changes places and contrariwise land

(contrast
in many into land into sea,

Plato introduces the story

of the Atlantides in the

Tinwus

we cannot

explain this upon the ground of a yevevis rov K6o~/j.ov

ytXoiov yap Sia /miKpas Kal aKapiaias 6 5e rr\s fj.eraf3o\as KLvelv TO
TTUI>,

with the remark that devastating tempests, at one time of fire, as in the time of Phaethon, at another of flood, overtake man kind at intervals. When cities, with all their attendant civilisa
tion,

yr\s

oyKOs Kal rb peyedos ovQtv ecrri a\\a STJTTOU Trpbs rbv o\ov ovpav6v.

become overwhelmed

latter, the survivors,

who

in the are for

iravruv rovruv atriov

on

yiyvtrai Sta xP fviavrbv olov ev TCUS /car

otfwl>

Sopais

OVTCI) irepiuSov
i/icbj/

nvbs

/j.e

the most part semi-barbarous mountaineers, must begin again from the beginning. Hence we have a youthful Hellenic culture
side

Kal

virppo\%

ujjifipuv.

OVK del Kara rovs avrovs Deucalion s flood was TOTTOVS. chiefly confined to ancient Hellas or the country watered by the

by side with an effete Egyptian civilisation. The same conception recurs in the account
of the gradual rise of civilised states out of primitive barbarism, the in the Lans, iii. 676, B sqq.

Achelous.
8

Cf.

352, b, 1(5:

eVel

avdyKi] rov o\ov [the globe] yiyvtffOai JJLGV Tiva

/j.evt

whole
/xero-

robs

avrovs

ad

question whether the human race has existed from all eternity or only for an indefinitely long time (vi. 781, B) being left undecided.

32

ARISTOTLE
1

yet from time to time befall it in the of its civilisation. 2 Life nevertheless in the strict history sense exists only, as Aristotle emphatically declares, in

with the world,

beings which are moved by their

own

soul,

.<?.

in Plants

and Animals/3
Aristotle does not, indeed, expressly say that this is so in any extant passage of his writ
1

suggested hypothetically, and not from the point of view of

his
1.

own

theory.
i
.

Cf.

BERNAYS,

ings; it follows, however, from his whole view of the world that

Theoph/r.

Frommigli. 44 sq. It has already been shown

d.

he could not have assigned a beginning to the human race any more than to the world it self. As man is the end of nature, she must have been im perfect for an infinite period of time, if at any time the human
race did not as yet exist. More over, Aristotle actually says (cf. i. 475, n. 4, 508, n. 2, supra, that in the history of civilisation the same discoveries have been

4, 508, n. 2, and 25G, supra, and will be still further proved Ch. XII. part that Aristotle regards reli 2,

475, n.
2,

n.

and proverbial gious beliefs truths as remnants of a civilisa tion which has been destroyed by devastations of nature. These
devastations, however (accord ing to p. 30, n. 2), can only have affected particular parts of the earth, although often so wide that the scanty survivors of the former population were forced to

made an
and

infinite

number of

times,

Theophrastus, among other arguments against the eternity of the world con troverts that which uses the comparative recentness of these discoveries to prove that mankind came into being within a definite period of time. See Ch. XII. part
pupil,

his

begin again from the very begin

ning.

When,

therefore,

CEN

SORINUS, 18, 11, says of the great minus mundi (on which see ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. i. G84, n. 4, and 250), quern Aristoteles maximum
potius quam magnum appellat,

we

According to CENSORINUS, 4, 3. Aristotle taught the eternity of the human race in one of his own writings. The question which he discusses Gen. An. iii. 11,
3.

may
ibid.

not conclude (as BERNAYS,

762, b, 28 sqq. how we are to conceive of the origin of man and the four-footed tribes (efaep

syevovro
(paa i rij/fs
TTJS

TTOTC
.

yriyevf is,
.

Sxnrep

170, shows) that Aristotle conceived of periodic revolutions in the history of the universe or even of the earth as a whole. He may have employed the ex pression in discussing the views of others perhaps in the books upon philosophy (on which see p. 56
sq.).
:t

eiTrep

fy ris

ap^
is

yfvffffws

iraffi

TO?S

ipots)

See

p. 1,

supra.

PHYSICS
2.

33

Plants.
1

Plants stand lowest in the scale of living creatures.

They

first

body, and of the lowest sort, and its functions are confined to nutrition and propagation. 2 Vegetables are not en

display a real soul, inhabiting an organic no mere analogue of a soul. Yet this soul is

dowed with sensation and locomotion

life

or the faculties of
vital point

from which they spring. 3

They have no

/jLsaorrjs), as is proved by the fact that continue to live after being cut in pieces; and they owing to this defect they are insensible to the form

of unity (no

coalesced; for in reality they have but one soul, they combine though several potential souls. 5 Again the sexes have not yet
1 On Aristotle s botanical All that his treatise cf. p. 93.

of that which operates upon them. 4 compare them to animals that have

Hence we may

they have no right and left side, but merely an upper and a lower
;

extant works contain upon the subject of plants is to be found collected in WIMMEE S Phytologioe Aristot. Fragmenta (Breslaa, 1838).
2
3

See p.

1, n. 3,

supra.

21, n. 2, supra. As plants never awake to sensation, their condition is like an eternal sleep, and they do not, accordingly, participate in the alterna-

Seep.

705, a. 29-b, 21 1, 467, b, 32; De Ccel.o, ii. 2, 284, b, 27, 285, a, 16, cf. i. On Plato s view 497, n. 1, supra. of plants, which in spite of particular deviations from Aristotle s is yet nearly related to it, see Ph.
c.

Inyr. An. Jurent. c.

4,

d.

Gr. pp. 731, 714,

4

7.

De An.

i.

5, 411, b, 19, ii.

;

2,

Vitoe, c. 6, 467, a,
c. 2,

tions of sleep and waking (De Somno,!, 454, a, 15 Gen. An. v. For the 1, 778, b, 31 sqq.). same reason there is no distinction between the front and the back in plants, for this depends upon the position of the different organs of sense. Finally, being without the power of locomotion while they participate in growth,
;

413,b,16,c. 12, 424, a 32 Long. 18; Juv. et Sen. See also foil. n. 468, a, 28. 5 Juv. et Sen. 2, 468, a, 29

sqq., where, speaking of insects which can live in a divided form, he says they are plants which live on in slips they have only one soul tvepyela, but several 5ui/a/*et. yap rk roiavTa T&V TroAAots tpois ffv/nircGen. An. i. 28, 731, a,
:

eo//ca<n

$<ov

(f>vK6<nv.

VOL.

II.

34

ARISTOTLE

attained to separate existence in them: confined to mere vitality and the propagation of their species, they

remain in the condition of perpetual union of the sexes. The nature of their body corresponds to this incom
pleteness in the
life

of their soul.
;

Its material
2

com
is

of earth position consists principally

for

its

structure

few functions, and therefore pro simple, designed 3 vided with few organs deriving its nourishment from
;

the earth, and being deprived of locomotion, it is rooted to the ground, and the upper part of it, which corre
is turned downwards sponds to the head of animals, 4 It is true that the better member to the worse place.

in its contrivance

we do not

altogether

fail

to trace the

we do so only indis designing faculty of nature, but 5 in comparison with other living But, though tinctly.
creatures plants occupy so low a place, compared with
21
:

drexvcDs toiKe
eli/at
:

TO.

a uxrirep

(pvTa

Siaiperd.

Zte

An.

ii.

2,

413, b, 18

ws

ova-ris rfjs

eV TOVTOIS

food (Gen. An. iii. 2, 753, b, 25 H. An. vii. 19, 601, b, 11), for the consumption of which heat is necessary (see p. 12, n. 3, and
;

fKaffrtu (j)vrw, Suva^ei 8e

p. 14, n. 2
;

Cf Part. An.
.

iv. 5,

682, a, 6
;

De

Rcsp. c. 17, 479, a, 1 Ingr. An. 7, 707, b, 2. 1 Gen. An. i. 23, 731, a, i. 24, b, 8, c. 20, 728, b, 32 sqq. c. 4,
4 fin. iv. 1, 763, b, 24, iii. 10, 759, b, 30; Hist. An. viii. 1, 588, b, 24, iv. 11, 538,

717,

a,

21,

ii.

supra). 412, b, 1 1, Part. An. ii. 10, 655, b, 37; Phyg. viii. 7, 261, a, 15. 4 Ingr. An. c. 4 init. c. 5, 6, 467, 706, b, 3 sqq. Long. Part. Juv. et Sen. c. 1 fin. b, 2
fin.,
ii.
3

ad

De An

Vita>,

An.
5

iv. 7, 683, b, 18, c. 10,

686, b,
:

31 sqq.

See further
ii. 8,

p. 27, n. \,sup.
teal

a,

18.
2

Phys.

199, a, 23

Iv

Resp. 13, 14, 477, a, 27, Gen. An. iii. 11, 7 61, a, b, 23 sqq. 29. That Aristotle held that there were other constituents in plants besides earth is obvious from the
;

De

<

yLv6^jiva
<pv\\a

Trpbs
rrjs

rb re Aos, olov TO. IVe/co rov Kapirov

ei/e/ca

ruv

passage cited i. 482, n. 3, supra. According to Meteor, iv. 8, 384,

b, 30,

plfas OVK.
rpo(pris.

6.v<a

KOLOTTWV [sc. e%et] Koi ras a\\a warco eVe/ca rfjs

:

plants consist of earth and water, the water serving for their

Kal eV b, 9 b eVe/ca rov,

ro is

(pvTo"is

TJTTOV

5e

PHYSICS
and especially the propagation of the

35

the inanimate world the operation of the soul in plants,

species, must be 1 As all terrestrial placed very high. things imitate by their endless reproduction the eternity of Heaven, so living creatures are enabled by means of procreation to partake, within the limits of their own particular species, of the eternal and the divine. 2 This then is the highest aim of vegetable life. more elevated 4 rank of vitality appears in Animals, to which Aristotle

Cf. preceding- note and p. 13 sqq. Gen. An, ii. 1, 731, b, 31: ^Trei yap aSvvaros r) tyixris rov

roLOV Tov yevnvs ai Sios efyai, /ca0 eVSe xercu Kara. rovrov rpo-Kov,
l

bi>

fffnv fctSiov rb yiyi/6/utvov. apiO/mp /j.ev ovv dSiWroi/, .... efffei 5

eVSe xerar Sib yevos del avQpwirwv Kal earl Kal Ibid.
<?<av

of the plant into root, stem branches, and leaves. The root is the nutritive organ, and the leaves are veined in order to dif fuse the nutriment which is con tained in the sap (Part. An. iv
4,

678, a,

9,

iii.

5,

<pvra>v.

all animals and 735, a, 16 plants have rb epeirriKov rovro 5 eWt

:

rb yevvnriicbv eVe pou olov avro rovro 70/3 iravrbs (pixrei reAeiou

Jnv. et Sen. 3, 468, b, 24). Again (Part. An. ii. lOinit.), he divides the bodies of plants and animals into three chief parts: that by which they take up food into
their system (the head), that by rid themselves of su perfluous matter, and that which lies in the middle between these

668, a, 22;

fpyov Kal
ii.

&ov

Kal (pvrov.
:

De An.

which they

4,

415, a,

2(5

r&v tpycav
Kal
yur/

(pvffiK&rarov yap
a><nv,

rots
r)

oaa re\eia
TT/J/

TTT/pco/xara,

y4vfffiv

e^et, rb iroirjo-ai erepoi/ olov avrb, faov yuei/ (i^oi/, (pvrbv 5e (pvrbf, iva rov del Kal rov Oeiov f-ierexvinv fi Svvavrai &c. Polit. i. 2, 1252, a, 28. Cf the passages, Gen. etCorr. ii. 10 and 11 (i. 511,
avTOfj.drrjv
.

from which (Econ, i. 3, s/>.), 1343, b, 23 is copied, and on the Plato propositions of which Aristotle here follows, Ph. d. Gr i
n. 3,

two. In pi ants, the root is the head (see p. 27, n. l,svpra~) as the nu triment they draw from the earth is already digested, they require no store- chamber for useless sur plus (on this see also Gen. An. ii. 4, 740, a, 25, b, 8); nevertheless^ the fruit and the seed which form at the opposite end from the root are secretions (Part, in
;

ii.

3,
4,

10,

iv.

512, 3.
3

650, a, 20, 655, b, H. An. iv. 6^ 678, a, 11

3<>

DeAn.

ii.4.

Seep.

21, n. 1,

supra.

Among further details of Aristotle s doctrine of plants may be mentioned: (1) his division

531, b, 8, with which De Sensv, 445, a, 19, where the elements which plants fail to absorb and leave behind in the soil seem to be regarded as irepirr^ara of the food of plants, is not inconsis5,

D2

36

ARISTOTLE

so large a portion of his scientific accordingly devoted

activity.
1

tent).

water are (2) Earth, and the food of plants (Gen. et Corr, Part. An. ii. 3, ii. 8, 335, a, 11
;

650, a, 3,

and

p. 34, n. 2,

supra.
;

Cf II An. vii. 19, 601, b, 12 it Gen. An. iii. 11, 762, b, 12); food is the sweet part of their that nourishes plants and animals

hand, excess! vefruitf ulness stunts and destroys plants, because it absorbs too much of the nutritive substance (Gen. An. i. 8, 718, b, 20 12, iii. 1, 749, b, 26, 750, a,
sqq. iv. 4, 771, b, 13,

b 25;

cf. //.

An.v.

i. 18, 725, 14, 546, a, 1

(De

Semni, 4, 442, a,

1-12); this

on barren trees, especially the wild fig-tree, see Gen. An. i. 18,
726, a, 6, c. 1, 715, b, 21, iii. 5, 755, b, 10; //. An. v. 32, 557, b, On the origin of the seed, 25). see the remarks, Gen. An. i. 20, 728, b, 32 sqq. c. 18, 722, a, 11, 723, b, 9. On the development of

of their vital they consume by aid heat (of. p. 12, n. 3, and p. 14, n. 2, and Part. An. n. 3, 6oO, itujtrtt, in its turn, is a, 3 sqq.), which,

supplied to
thoir

them

food,

partly

partly from from the

albeit
;

surrounding atmosphere, plants do not require respiration too cold or if the atmosphere is too hot the vital heat is destroyed and the plant withers (De Sensu,
c.

the germ from the seed and on pro Sen. c. pagation by slips, Jnv. et 3, 468, b, 18-28 (cf. WiMMER, p. An. 31; BRANDIS, p. 1240): Gen.
ii.
iii.

6;

cLRespir.

17, 478, b, 31).

As to the influence exercised and colour of upon the character nature of the soil plants by the and water, see Polit. vii. 16, 1335,
b 18; Gen. An.
ii.

739, b, 34, c. 6, 741, b, 34, 752, a, 21, c. 11, 761, b, 26; selfRespir. c. 17, 478, b, 33. On generation in plants and animals, and on parasites, there are remarks
2,

in Gen.

An.
9,

i.

1,

715, b, 25,

iii.

11,

4,
;

738, b, 32

762, b,

sqq. v. 6, 786, a, sqq. 11 543, b, 23; De Sensu, 4, 441, a, De ll 30; cf. Prdbl. 20, 12;
Color, c. 5.

H. An.

v.

-(3) The seed and the

fruit of plants are

made

of the

of their food surplus portion c. 7, (Part. An. ii. 10, 655, b, 35, Gen. An. iii. 1, 749, 638, a, 24 b 07, 750, a, 20, i. 18,722, a, 11, 723 b, 16, 724, b, 19, c. 20, 728, 2 sqq. Meteor. a, 26, c. 23, 731, a, contain iv. 3, 380, a, 11); they and the food of both the
; ;

18; H. An. v. 1, 539, a, 16. (4) On the length of life and the decay of plants vide Meteor, i. 14, 351, a, 27 Longit. Vita?, c. 4, 5, 466, a, 9, 20 sqq. c. cf. 6 De Respir. 17, 478, b, 27 Gen. An. iii. 1, 750, a, 20; on the fall of the leaf and evergreens, Gen. An, v. 3, 783, b, 10-22. On the sources from which he received assistance, ride the
; ; ;

the

new

plant (De An.

4,
;

germ

ii. 1,

412,
6,
i.

valuable account of BRANDIS, ii.b, 1298-1305. Of his predecessors in this field the most important was undoubtedly Democritus,

b,26; Gen.An.ii.

740, b,

whom

smaller plants are 23, 731, a, 7) more fruitful, being able to ex

the pend more material upon

he frequently mentions with the greatest respect. He refers further to certain views
of Diogenes of Apollonia, Anaxagoras, Empedocles, Parmenides,

formation of seeds: on the other

PHYSICS

37

3.

Animals.

The powers of nutrition and propagation are accom panied in all animals by sensation, the feeling of plea sure and pain, and the appetites in most of them also by the power of locomotion. Hence the sentient and Even the motive soul is now added, to the vegetable. that moral and intellectual life which reaches its full
:

development in
animals
:

man may

be dimly traced in the lower

they exhibit gentleness and fierceness, fear

;

fail

and courage, cunning and understanding nor do we to perceive an analogue to the scientific faculty of
in

men

the teachableness of certain animals

display

while

conversely children

the

same kind of rudi-

Alcmason, Herodorus, Leophanes, Syermesis, Polybus, several state

LANGE, indeed, judges differently, The Gescli. d. Material, i. 61

:

ments of Ctesias and Herodotus (which, however, he treats with critical distrust), and now and then, rather by way of literary
poets. Notwithstanding all these, he must have mainly relied for his knowledge of animals upon his

belief that Aristotle was a great discoverer in natural science is The know still widely diffused.

ledge,

however,

that

he

had

embellishment,

to

the

own

observations, supplemented as those were by information received from shepherds, hunters, fishermen, breeders, and veterin

ary doctors. His theory, \vith the exception perhaps of a few isol ated points, maybe regarded as his own original work. The setting into place and putting to use of the facts left him by his predeces sors, BEANDIS remarks, 1303, as well as the scientific form which

predecessors in this field has necessarily caused this opinion to be much critisised, c. Yet when we ask where we hear LANGE of these predecessors, refers us (pp. 129, 11, 135, 50) merely to a quotation from MULLACH, Fr. Phil. i. 338, who, how himself much ever, expresses

many
.
. .

losophos superat erudition em ali-

Stagirites illam

more guardedly: haud scio an qua reliquos phi-

qua ex parte Democriti librorum

lectioni debuerit.

On
is

which Alexander
lent Aristotle

the aid said to have

he gave to zoology, are in

bability
Aristotle s

all

own

pro work.

zoological investigations see p. 29 sq. 1 See p. 21, supra.

in his

38

ARISTOTLE
intellectual

mentary moral and

detect in brutes. 1

development which we
their bodies answer

The character and structure of

588, a, 18 fvecTTi yap &c. (see p. 27, n. 6, su//.
viii.
1,
:

An.

pra).

Kal dypiorr]s Kal irpaoT^s Kal %aAe7roT7js Kal avSpia Kal SeiAi a Kal (p6fioi Ka.1 Gappy

Kal

yap

r]fj.c-p6rr)s

Kal
TTfpl

9v/Li.ol

Kal

iravovpylai
(Tvvsfftuis

Kal

TTJS

r^jv Sidvoiav

evfLffiv

eV iro\\rns avr&v o^otOTTjres. (For the continuation of this passage

1141, a, 26; Part. An. ii. 1, 4, In the a, 5, 650, b, 24. ninth book of his Natural History Aristotle treats not only of habits of animals in general but more especially of the traces of intelli Of gence which they exhibit. all quadrupeds the sheep has the smallest amount of intelligence
<>48,

see p. 27, n. 6.)

TO.

Ibid.
cpa)v

ix. 1 init.
ru>T

ijdri

ru>i>

6(7x1

|Uej/

afji.o.vpoTfpiov
i)TTOi>

Kal

7)/uUis

evr)\a Kara

<Tiv,

T&v

8e /j.aKpo/3i&
irepl

repo.

tyaivovrai

SvvauLV
ffiv

yap e^oi/Ta TIVO. eKavrov riav rrjs xj/uxf/s

irepi

jra6r]/j.drcav

(pv<ntt}]v,

re

(ppovr)-

the stag, on (c. 3, 610, b, 22) the other hand, displays a large amount (c. 5). Bears, dogs, panthers, and many other ani mals find out the proper remedies against wounds and sickness, and the proper means of assistance against the attacks of other ani
;

Kal

ev fiBetav

Kal

avfip iav

Kal

re Trpaoryra Kal x a ^ f TTOTTjra Kal TO.S &\\as ras TOiavras

SfiAiai/, Trept

mals (c. 6). With what intelli gence again do swallows build their nests, and the pigeon pro
vide for his
(c. 7);

e|et?.

eVia ,8e

KOivoovet:

nvbs ana

mate and

his

young

Kal
/j.ff

jJiaQtiffttos

Trap

Kal SiSatr/caAias. ra :al irapa aAA^Aajj/ ra 8e

how cunningly
their

partridges

manage
;

love-affairs,

and

T(av avOpunruv, offa-rrep aKoijs fjifre^ei, ,ur? jj.6vov offa TWV tyoty&v aAA offa Kal rwv arj/uLetcav BiaiffdavcraL

hatch and protect their broods how cleverly the crane (c. 8)
directs his flight

ras
8

5m4>opas.

(Cf.
.
.

c.
.

3 init.

tfdr)

riav

Qpwv

8ia<pepei

ra Kara
:

design

re 8ei\{av Kal Trpctoryra Kal avftpiav Kal f]/j.tp6r riTa Kal vovv re Kal

discussing the the sexes with respect to disposition, Ari stotle continues, G08, b, 4: rovruv
avoiav.)

After

what (c. 10) displayed in the habits of birds in general, in the choice of a habitation, in the building of their nests, in the search for In food (see ibid. c. 11-36).
;

is

difference

between

manner Aristotle remarks upon the cunning of many marine

like
(c. 37), the industry of spiders (c. 39), of bees, wasps, and the like (c. 40-43), the docility and cleverness of ele phants (c. 46), the moral instinct of camels and horses (c. 47), the humane disposition of dolphins (c. 48), &c. ; with all which it is only natural that much that
is

animals

i^j/Tj

/j.ev

rwv

T)QS>v

tarlv

eV

ws etVeTi/, /u.a\\ov 8f (pavep-J!)rtpa fv rots fx ovffL /uAAoi/ yOos Kal jj.d\i(rra eV ai dpcaww rovro yap
iracnv

&c.

i. 1, 488, b, 12 sqq.; Gen. 23 (see p. 28, n. 3, supra). Upon the docility and sagacity of many animals see also Metaph. i. Etli. iv. 7, 1, 980, a, 27 sqq.

Cf.

An.

i.

questionable should be mixed

up.

which animals occupy in the scale of Their more numerous and various functions require a greater number and complexity of
animated nature.
organs.
treatise

to the higher rank

Aristotle discusses

all

these
1

organs in his
(ii.

on the Parts of Animals.

the
blood,
fat,

First

2-9) he
they

describes
consist

homogeneous materials of which

veins, skin, &c.

marrow, brain, flesh, bones, sinews, The fundamental constituents of these

materials are the elements of warmth, cold, dryness, and humidity. 2 Flesh, or that which corresponds to it
3 amongst the lower classes of animals, is the most essen tial and indispensable portion of the animal economy for Aristotle, unacquainted as he was with the nerves, believed that flesh was the medium of the most universal of the senses, that of touch, and therefore the most
:

universal organ of animal life. 4 Bones, sinews, and 5 external coverings serve to unite and protect the flesh. The blood furnishes the nourishment of the various solid
(j
1

More
i.

accurately
n. 1,

in

the
;

eVrii/ 0^77, TCCUTTJS 5

cuVflijT^ptov TO

last three

books of this treatise

rotovrov

/j.6pt6v

tffriv.

On

the

see
2

92,

and
ii.

i.

89, n. 2,

importance of

flesh for sensation

supra, on these arid the

Avaro/nai.

2 init.-c. 3, 660, a, 2, referring to the different respects in which one thing is said to be warmer than another, and the transition from one state into another.
3
.

Part. An.

see, further, c. 1, 647, a, 19, c. 3, 650, b, 5, c. 10, 656, b, 34; H.

An.

i. 3, 4, 489, a, 18,23; but especially De An. ii. 11, 422, b, 34 sqq. 423, b, 1 sqq. 29, iii. 19, The organ of 2, 426, b, 15. sensation itself is the heart (see

Cf. p. 26, n. 2, supra. Part. ii. 8 init. irpurov

:

infra}.
5 6

Part.

ii.

8,

653, b, 30 sqq.

r<TKrrW]

TTfpl

ffapitbs

%X ovffl o-dpKas, ev 8e TO IS avaXoyov TOVTO yap apx^) Kal /ca0 curb TWV 0-oo/j.a ywi earLv.
$r)\ov 5e /car& rbv
<ov

TO IS &\\ois TO
eV

The blood, or that which cor-

\6yov

TO yap
a-laQficriv,

opi6/j.e9a

rw ex eiv
"Kptarw

TTOWTOV

5e

TV

a\nt\

responds to it (see p. 26, n. 1. sup.}, is most immediately food (reAeurcu a or eVxaraj rpotpfy to the animal body (De Somwo, c. 3, Part. ii. 3, 650, a, 456, a, 34 32 sqq. c. 4, 651, a, 12 Gen. An.
;
;

ARISTOTLE
constituents.
is

^The brain serves to cool the blood, 1

and

therefore
2
;

water

composed of the cold elements of earth and the marrow 3 and other parts 4 are made of

blood. Here, therefore, we may notice a graduated scale of means and ends. The homogeneous elements of the body exist for the sake of the organic, 5

surplus

fulfil their end directly as parts of the organism, a second class serves merely as nutriment to the former, and a third consists of the superfluous

but while some of them

remnant of the second, 6 which nevertheless has a use of 7 its own in the economy of Nature and is not lost. Each of these materials is of superior or inferior quality
according to its purpose, so that even here different animals and different parts of the same animal do not

stand upon the same

ii.

level.
;

The
Kal

soul resides primarily

4, 740, a, 21,

and passim}

on
of

&Kavdav

quality, therefore, the life both of soul

its

much

/jnrepi\a/j.f}av6/j.evoi
4 Such as the seed, which is afterwards discussed, and the milk (Gen. An. iv. 8). 5 See i. 517, n. 6, ii. p. 3, n. 2,

and body

Part. An. ibid., and c. 2, 648, a, 2 sqq. According to the latter passage, thick warm blood is more conducive to strength, thin cool blood to sense

depends

and

The perception, and thought. best mixture is one of warm but thin and pure blood. 1 Ibid. c.7 (seep 16,n.6,.w/;.).
Only animals which have blood, have a brain (ibid. human beings have a proportionately larger one than
therefore, 652, b, 23)
beasts,
27),
;

supra. Part. ii. 2, 647, b, 20 sqq. See i. 465, n. 2, supra. Part. ii. 2, 647, b, 29 (after explaining the three kinds of avrav 8e TOVTUV at Siatyopal Trpbs a\\r)\a rov fieXriovos
6
7

p. 28, n. 1,

men than women (653, a, because their blood, being warmer, requires more to cool it. Bloodless animals, however, have something analogous to the brain
;

re &\\wi/ Kal TO jtiei/ yap \fTrrorepov TO 5e iraxyTtpov Kal rb eoTi rb Se IJ.GV Kadapwrepov
eiffiv,

olov

ru>v

irpbs

al/ma

Tfpov rb Se dep^repov ei/ re TOLS /j-opiois rov tvbs fyov (TO yap eV TO?S
avca

see p. 26. n. 8, svpra. 2 Ibid. 652, b, 22. 3 Ibid. c. 6 fin.

T/}S ajjUctT

pepfffi

irpbs

TO

KOTW

/u6pia

TavTats Tals Siacpopa is} Kal

\b /ueAos] Kris rpotyijs TTJS fls offTa

:

Similar differ ences in flesh are referred to,

-jrpbs eVepoj/.

PHYSICS
in the

41

Pneuma, which
its

is

the cause of vital heat, and

which in turn has

If

chief seat in the heart. 1

we proceed

homogeneous

consider the organs formed of materials, we must notice in the first

to

place that animals possess a point of functional unity, and consequently an organ in which their vitality is

centred

2
:

heart, in others

in creatures that have blood this organ is the 3 something similar ; it is only some of

the very lowest classes that so closely resemble plants

possess at least potentially several points of vitality and to continue living after they have been
as to

cut in pieces. 4

This central organ

is

formed at the

very beginning of life in every animal, and cannot Its function 6 be destroyed without its dissolution. 5 Part. iii. 3, 665, a, 1, c. 7, 670, b, all identified cf MEYEK, Arist. 2. De An. ii. 9, 421, a, 25 ol TMerk. 224).
;
.

/j.V

yap ffK\f\p6ffapKoi acpve is T^V Siavoiav, ol 8e i*.a\a.K.6aapK.oi. evcpvets. 1 Cf. p. 6, n. 2, supra. 2 See p. 33, n. 4, supra.
3

Part.

iii.

4, 666, a,

10, 20,

667, a, 32;

De

28

Gen. An.

Vita, 3, 468, b, ii. 4, 739, b, 33,

n. 7, supra, and Gen. An. ii. 4, 738, b, 16 o.pxn TTJS (frvffeus 77 Kapdia Kal rb avaXoyov,

See

p. 26,

a, 24, where the view of Democritus is controverted which

740,

7P

irpoffB^Kf] Kal TOVTOV Vita et M. c. 2-4 Part. iii. 4, 665, b, 9 sqq. c. 5, 667, b, 21. For a more detailed account of the parts which, according to Aristotle, represent the heart, and are always situated in the centre of the body, see Part. iv. on their 5, 681, b, 12-682, b, 8 situation see further, Juv. et Sen.

rb

Se

KCXTW

Xapiv.

De

2, 468, a, 20.
4

represented the outer portions as being formed first, as though we were dealing with figures of wood or stone and not with living beings, whose evolution proceeds from within outwards. MEYER, Arist. TMerk. 425 The blood is boiled out of sqq. the food by means of the heat of the heart (De Resplr. 20, 480, 2 sqq.) the circulation of the blood, as well as the distinction between veins and arteries
fi

Aristotle remarks this,

ii.

De

(Part.
20,

iii.

4, 666, a, 6. a,

De Respir.

An.

Juv. et 413, b, 16 sqq. Sen. 2, 468, a, 26 sqq. Ingr. An. Part. An. iii. 7, 707, a, 27 sqq. 5, 667, b, 23, iv. 5, 682, b, 1 sqq. (see p. 33, n. 5, supra}, of many insects (which have not yet been
2,
;

480,

10,

and the whole

;

veins, Part.
3),

description of the system of the iii. 5 Hist. An. iii.

was unknown to Aristotle, who, however, was acquainted with the beating of the heart and

42

ARISTOTLE

consists partly in preparing the blood, and partly in producing sensation and motion. Next in importance
the pulse (cf. i.262, n.l,fftp.)and mentions the different quality of the blood (see infra, and cf p. 40,
.

b,

30, 480, a, 2, 14, c. 21, 480, a,

D. 8, supra).

describes
a,

He many
Hist.

also accurately of the veins

(Part. iii. 12 sqq.

avOp.
p.

5,

cf.

28).

An. Hi. 3, 513, PHILIPPSON, The veins have

"TArj

As the cause of b, 17). respiration, the heart is also the cause of motion Do Somno, 2, 456, a, 5, 15, cf. Ingr. An. c. 6, The sinews, more 707, a, 6 sqq. over, have their source in the
24,
;

their source, not, as Hippocrates and his school held, in the head, but in the heart (Part. ii. 9, 654, b, 11, iii. 4, 665, b, 15, 27, c. 5 init. Hist. An. iii. 3, 513, a, 21
; :

Gen. An. ii. 4, 740, a, 21 De Somno, 3, 456, b, 1). The separation between the purer and the thicker blood is effected, at least in the case of all the larger animals, in the heart, the former passing upwards, the latter down
;

heart, which is itself very sinewy, although they are not wholly dependent upon it (Hist. An. iii. 5; Part. iii. 4, 666, b, 13). Aristotle, however, does not ex how the limbs are set in plain motion by the heart (see MEYER, p. 440). The heart is the primary seat of sensation and of the sensitive life: Part. An. ii. ], 647, a, 24 sqq. c. 10, 656, a, 27
sqq. b, 24, iii. 4, 666, a, 11, c. 5, 667, b, 21 sqq., iv. 5 (see p. 41, n. 3, supra) De Somno, 2, 456, a, 3 Juv. et Sen. 3, 469, a, 10 sqq. b, 3. Cf. Ch. X., part 3, infra. The blood vessels are the channels by means of which sensations reach
; ;

wards (Dc Somno,

13 sqq.
sqq.
; ;

c.

Part.

iii.
iii.

4,
IS),

Hist. An.

3, 458, a, 665, b, 27 521, a, 9).

of the heart enables the blood, and this again enables the body, to retain its heat (Part. iii. 5, fi67, b, 26); the heart, Part. iii. 7, 670, a, 24, is therefore compared to the Acro polis, as the place in which Nature maintains her sacred fire. The boiling of the blood produces (v. MEYEE) steam in the heart, causing the latter to heave and thus expanding the chest into the space, thus left vacant, air rushes and so cools the whole that it again contracts until the steam which is generated in the heart again produces the pulsation which is transmitted through all the veins and is accompanied by
;

The native heat

the heart (Part. iii. 4, 666, a, 16), although the blood itself is with out sensation (ibid and Part. ii.
1

The 650, 652, b, 5). sense of touch transmits itself by means of the flesh (seep. 39, n. 4,
3, b, 3, c. 7,

supra ), the others through pas sages (Tro poi) which extend from the organs of sense to the heart (Gen. An. v. 2, 781, a, 20), and by which we must suppose him to mean the veins, as MEYEE, p. 427 sq., andPniLiPPSOX, passage referred to above (in treating of
the TTopot which lead to the brain Hist. An. i. 16, 495, a, 11, iv. 8, Part. An. ii. 10, 656, 533, a, 12 cf. Juv. et Sen. 3, b, 16) show Part. ii. 10, 656, a, 469, a, 12 29; Gen. An. ii. 6, 744, a, 1;
: ;

respiration (Part. ii. 1, 647, a, 24, iii. 2, 665, b; Hist. An. i. 16, De Respir. 20, 479, 495, b, 10
;

PHYSICS
to the heart is the brain, 1 the

43

already know,

is

to cool

purpose of which, as we the blood and temper the

warmth arising from the heart, Aristotle directly contradicts the notion that it is the seat of sensation. 3
The lungs
4

are also

used

for

cooling the blood, the

to this

5 windpipe supplying them with air. With a view

purpose, their nature is varied according to the greater or less amount of internal heat an animal possesses.

The lungs of mammals

Hist.

are the fullest of blood

those of

birds and amphibious beasts, of air. 6

An. iii. 3, 514, a, 19, i. 11, In the case of the 492, a, 21. senses of smell and hearing,
between the objects perceived and the veins that lead to the
heart, there
is

Fishes, which are

treated with especial reference to function as the vocal organ. 5 For the discussion of this point in detail, v. Part. iii. 6, and
its

the treatise

TT.

Ai/am/oTjs, especi

further interposed
;

the
6,

Trvv/j.a
1

(rv/u.<f)VTov
;

Gen. An.

ii.

744, a,

Part.

ii.

16, 659, b,

The nerves are unknown to Aristotle cf. PHILIPPSON, Hid. and MEYER, p. 432 if he was
15.
; :

ally c. 7, 474, a, 7 sqq. c. 9 sq. The veins branch c. 13, c. 15 sq. out from the heart to the lungs and serve to carry the air from

the latter to the former; Hut.

An.

i.

17, 496, a, 27;

MEYER,

p.

led to the theory of the above-

which SCHNEIDER (Arist. Hist. An. iii. 47) and FRANTZIUS (Arist. iib.
ir6poi

mentioned

by

431 (see supra and Ph. d. Gr. i. 730, 4). Plato had already assumed that the heart was cooled by the lungs.
Uetpir. 1, 470, b, 12, c, 10, Part. 475, b, 19 sqq. c. 12 in.it. It is iii. 6, 669, a, 6, 24 sqq. interesting to observe how Ari
;

die TJieile d. Thiere, p. 280, 54) understand him to mean nerves by the actual observation of cer tain of the nerves, this of itself

would be a proof that he did not

know them

as nerves.

See also

Oh. X. part 3. 1 Part. iii. 11, 673, b, 10. 2 See p. 40, n. 1, supra. The spinal marrow is united to the brain for the purpose of being cooled by it.
3

Part

ii.

10,

656, a,

5 sqq.
;

imperfect acquaintance with the facts lead him to false His observations conclusions. had led him to see that there is a connection between respiration and animal heat but as he had no conception either of the oxi dation of the blood or of the nature of combustion generally,
;

stotle s

(where Aristotle has chiefly in view PLATO S Timteus, 75, B sq.)

cf.

or of the circulation of the blood, he held that its heat was merely

MEYER,
4

p. 431.
iii.

See Part.

3.

Hist. An.
is

iv. 9,

where the windpipe

fully

cooled and not nourished by re spiration. In Respir. c. 6, 473, as he expressly controverts the view

44

ARISTOTLE

less in need of cooling organs, are provided with gills in order to expel the water absorbed with their food after it has performed its cooling function. Bloodless
1

animals are without lungs, which, on account of their colder nature, they do not need. 2 The nutritive matter

from which the blood

is

formed in
4

the

heart,

is

prepared by the digestive organs, which are separated from the nobler viscera in the case of all full-blooded
animals by the midriff, in order that the seat of the sensitive soul may not be disturbed in its operations by
the

warm steam

5 rising from the food.

The food

is

that the air which is inhaled serves for food to the internal
fire.
1

Rvspir. 10,476,
;

a, 1 sqq. 22,

b, 5, c. 16

H. An.

ii.

13, 504, b,
;

28,

26, n. 9, supra. that fish also

spir. c. 2, 3.

and other passages see p. The earlier view

breathe
air,

away by the heat, while that part which is bitter and heavy is left behind all else serves merely to season its sweet ness {De Sensu, 4, 442, a, 2 sqq., cf. Gen. An. iii. 1, 750, b, 25 Meteor, ii. 2, 355, b, 5 Part. iv.
; ;
;

Ari

stotle expressly controverts,

Re-

solution of the

question was only possible (as MEYER remarks, p. 439) after the discovery of the conversion
of gases.
2

sweet 35). (De Sensu, 4, 442, a, 17, 23; sweet Long. V. 5, 467, a, 4) blood is the more wholesome
1,

676,

a,

Fat

is

677, a, 27), and fat (Part. is well-boiled, nutritious blood

iv.

2,

(Part.
iii.

ii. 5,

651, a, 21).

Part.

6,

669, a, 1

Re-

The teeth perform merely a

spir. c. 9 (see p. 7 sq. supra), c. 12, Aristotle knows, in 476, b, 30.

deed, of the respiratory organs of some bloodless animals, but he assigned to them another function. 3 In Gen. et Corr. ii. 8, 335, a,
9 sqq., De Sensu, 5, 445, a, 17, Aristotle remarks generally of plants as well as animals that this material is a mixture of all

preliminary function (Part. ii. 3, 650, a, 8). On the mouth, as the organ for taking up the food into the system, which, however, serves several other purposes as well, see Part. ii. 10 init. (cf. p. 19, n. 1, swpra), c. 16, 659, b, 27 sqq.,

the elements

see

i.

482, n. 3, sup.

That which properly furnishes nutrition is the sweet part, for this, being lighter, is boiled

De Sensu, 5, 445, a, 23. Part. iii. 10, 672, b, 8-24 cf. Ph. d. Gr. \. p. 729. That the vegetable soul (the (f>&ns) is situated below the midriff, is said also Gen. An. ii. 7, 747, a, 20. Cf.
iii.

p. 41, n. 3, supra.

PHYSICS

45

subjected to a preliminary process of preparation in the stomach, and reduced to a fluid state, which admits of
1

2 It passes by evaporation into entering the body. the veins that surround the stomach, and thence into

its

the heart, where Leaving the heart,

it

is

converted into pure blood. 3

carried to the different parts of to their several necessities 4 the body, according The passage of the blood from the stomach into the veins is
it is

by the mesentery, the tendrils of which are as were the roots or suckers by means of which animals absorb their food from the stomach, as plants do from
effected
it

the earth. 5

The

fatty covering of the epiploon causes

an increase of digestive
the same function
liver

warmth

in the

6 abdomen, while

is performed for the blood by the and spleen, 7 which also serve as a kind of anchor 8 On the by which the network of veins is secured.

different

in the described Part. \\\. 14, 674, a, 21-675, a, 30 H. An. ii. 17, 507, a, 241

The nature

of

which

animals

is

509, b, 23, iv. 1, 524, b, 3, c. 3, 527, b. 22, &c. 2 Cf. Part. ii. 2, 647, b, 26. 3 Part. ii. 3, 650, a, 3-32, De Somno, 3, 456, b, 2 sqq. 4 It is pointed out, Gen. An. iv. 1, 766, a, 10, ii. 6 (see p.
19, n. 2, supra), Meteor. ii. 2, 355,
b, 9,

pass spontaneously into those parts for which it is destined. 5 Part. iv. 4, 678, b, 6 sqq. ii. 3, 650, a, 14 sqq. According to these passages the stomach serves the same purpose for animals, as the earth does for plants it is the place where their food is kept and prepared for use. 6 Part. iv. 3, 677, b, 14, where
;

an attempt

is

made

to explain

the formation of the

that each part is formed and nourished out of suitable materials, the nobler parts of better materials, the lower out of infebut we are not told how rior
;

From passages this is effected. such as Gen. An. iv. 1, 766, b, 8, ii. 3, 737, a, 18, i. 19, 726, b, 9, cf ii. 4, 740, b, 12 sqq., we gather
.

epiploon physically (e| avdyKris). 7 Part. Hi. 7, 670, a, 20 sqq. 8 Part. Hi. 7, 670, a, 8 sqq. (cf. c. 9, 671, b, 9) where the same remark is made of the kidneys and the intestines generally
(similarly Democritus

compared

merely that

Aristotle

supposes
to
rpo</>r?

the blood as the e(rxT7j

the navel of the child in the mother to an anchor, see Part. i. 807,6). It has already been shown (p. 20, n. 1, supra)i\\&t the spleen

46

ARISTOTLE

other hand, the gall is only useless matter which has been rejected by the blood. The full-blooded animals, which on account of their warm nature need more fluid
1

nourishment, are provided in their bladder and kidneys with special organs for rejecting the surplus matter which thus gains admittance into the body. 2 Corre

sponding to the mouth, which receives food, and the 3 all animals gullet, which conducts it to the stomach, a conduit in their bowels for expelling the use possess

But in the case of some animals a portion of the digestive function is per formed by the bowels. 5 The narrowness and windings of these passages serve to moderate the appetite, and therefore the most voracious animals are those which have wide and straight canals like fishes 6 but the real need of nourishment depends upon the amount ol
less refuse of their
;

nourishment. 4

is not equally a necessity to all animals. Bloodless animals want this intestine as well as fat Part. iv. 5, (578, a, 25 sqq. ii. 5, For further descrip651, a, 25. tion of the form of these organs in different animals, see Part. iii. 12, 678, b, 20, 28, c. 4, 66(5. a, 28,
;

of the fat of the kidneys, 672, a, 1 sqq., from the point of view both of physical necessity and of natural design is especially
full
a

ment

and

interesting,

the alimentary canal, which, however, is not found in

all

On

c.

7,
1

670, b, 10.

l)i

An.

ii.

15,

animals, see Part. iii. 14. 4 Part. iii. 14, 674, a, 9 sqq.
>

506, a, 13.

See p. 20, n. ?-, supra. Since only sweet substances are nutribitterness of gall tious, the shows that it is a irepiTrw^a,
677, a, 24. It is accordingly not found in all animals ilrid. 676, b, 25, iii. 12, 673, b, 24 H. An. ii. 15, 506, a, 20, 31.

675, a, 30, 656, b, 5. r Jbifl. 675, b, 28. G Ibid. 675, b, 22: oaa /nets ovv eli/cu 8e? T&V C(f (av ffoxppovtffrfpa
Trpbs
-

T}]V

r~?)s

Part.iv.

2,

x^p 10 5
ri]v

^v

rpoipris iroiyo iv evpv-

^K

*X 6t

^yd\as Kara
3

KCITW

Koi\iav,

e Aj/cccs

e^ei
r)

TT\LOVS Kal OVK

fjikv

vdvfvrepd eariv.
Troie?

yap evpvxvpia
8

trXi]Qovs

Part.

iii. 8,

9;

II.

An.

ii.

16.

Aristotle knew of exceptions to the above rule and found means

of explaining them.

His treat-

r) fvBvrrjs raxvrrjra &c. Ibid. 675, a, 18 Gen. An. i. 4, 717, a, 23 sqq.; PLATO, Tim. 72, E sq.

iinQv^iav,

eVtfluyU/as

PHYSICS
warmth
or cold in the nature of the animal.
1

47

Support and protection are supplied to the softer parts by the framework of bones, or what corresponds to it in the
lower animals. 2
start

from the spine

All the bones of sanguineous animals 3 and here it is certain that

;

Aristotle has the credit of being the first to indicate one of their common properties. 4 The limbs are united to

the spine by means of sinews and joints, which connect them all without impeding motion. 5 With reference
to

motion and the organs of motion in their mechanical

Aristotle

aspect,
tions. 6

has recorded several just observa

In other cases he not unfrequently supports remarks of questionable value by artificial and inde1

Part
r
,

iv. 5,
ki,.,

682, a, 22
,
,....

rb
Kal

jap

6ep[j.bv

Kal SeTrat TpoQijs

_\.,

-\ xx

2 Part. ii. 8, 653, b, 33 sqq. ; see p. 39, n. 5, supra ibid. c. On the parts 9, 654, b, 27 sqq. analogous to the bones, see p. 26, n. 4, supra. 3 Part. ii. 9, 654, b, 11

moves requires a fulcrum 3) that two organic parts at ] eas t a re necessary to produce motion, one to sustain the pres sure and one to exercise it (ibid.
all that
(c.
;

705, a, 19)
;

that there

is

always
;

Se

T&V

jj,v
7)

(j)\/3ct>v

an even number of feet (c. 8,708, Hist. An. i. 5, 489, b, 22) a, 21 that all forward motion in organic beings is produced by bending and stretching (c. 9, c.
this chapter fur 10, 709, b, 26 ther contains discussions on the flight of birds and insects, and the importance of the different organs of flight) that in order that he may stand upright man may not have more than two legs, and that the upper parts of his body must be lighter in propor tion to the lower than in the case of the lower animals (c. 11 init.). The same is true of many of the remarks in c. 12-19 on the bend ing of the joints and the means of locomotion both in men and in different animals.
;
;

offTutv

Ka.XoviJ.svri
-rraffiv,
a</>

^xovffLv offrd
r)

TWV aAAwi baT&v eart

4

<pvais.

Hist.

An.
(ia

iii. 7,
ftcra.

516, b, 22
evai/ud

Traj/ra 5e TO.
3

For the full treatment of this subject see Part. ii. 9, 654, b, 16 sqq. On one or two remark
omissions in Aristotle s Osteology, e.g. of all mention of the pelvis and of the parallel between the legs of animals and
able

human
441 sq.
3

beings,

see

MEYER,

p.

E.

iropeias

in the treatise TT. rf. tywv the statements that

:

48

ARISTOTLE

monstrable assumptions. 1 Nor can we pretend that hemade the least advance towards a physiological explana
tion of the circumstances which affect and

accompany

locomotion. 2

One

of the

most important distinctions between

is

animals and vegetables

the difference in their

manner

While vegetables have no sex, the of reproduction. 3 of the sexes begins with animals, their re separation
union being only transiently effected for purposes of Since animals are not intended for mere reproduction.
sup.),

Thus, c. 4 sq. (cf i. 497, n. 1, he endeavours, not without much subtilty, to establish the position that motion always pro ceeds from the right, although he obviously derives it, not from
1
.

(Hist. An. he says plainly four). His account moreover, c. 12 sqq., of the walk of animals, as MEYER shows, 441 sq., is not free from
error.
2

We are told, indeed, that

all

scientific observation,

but from

the
(c. 5,

dogmatic

presupposition

motion proceeds from the heart, but it is not explained how this
is

706, b, 11) that the top is superior to the bottom, the front to the back, the right to the left,

possible (see p. 41, n. 6, supra).

Trvev/uLaros,

and that therefore the apxal must have their seat on the upper front and right side.
Albeit he remarks himself that we may equally say that these are the superior situations be cause the apxal have their seat in On the latter point cf. them.
ibid. 705, a,

proposed, TT. that the vital spirit streams through the sinews and is the moving force, is not Aristotelian.
c.

The

explanation
8

init.,

The work

in

which Aristotle

has treated of this question, TT. yevftrecas, has received the warmest recognition even from
(p<av

scientific

284,
\fy<a

b,

29 sqq. De Ccdo,\\. 2, 26 apxas ^ap rain-as

;
:

of the present day. not certainly in other respects inclined to place

men

LEWES, who
an

is

ddev apxovrai TTpwrov al

ro?s

Kiv-fi-

exaggerated

estimate upon

(Tfis

X OV(TIV
77

0"

Tt 5e
OTT^

a-rrb

yuev

Aristotle s scientific investigation,

rov

avw
T]

av^ffis,

8e

roav

agrees with

AUBEKT and WIM-

Kara ro-jrov, OLTTO 5e rwv He Kara rrjv e,u7rpo(r0ei> 7] goes on to add, c. 6 sq., an equally artificial proof of the
5eiaii/
ai<rQf]<nv.

MER

(p. v. sq. of their edition) in

statement (which
c. 1,

An.

is made also 704, a, 11, c. 10 init. Hist. i. 5, 490, a, 25 sqq.) that

;

sanguineous

animals

cannot
legs

expressing his admiration of this which handles some of the deepest problems of biology with a masterly grasp, astonish ing at so early a time, and is even less antiquated at the present day than Harvey s celebrated work
treatise,

move on more than four

(Artet.

413).

PHYSICS

49

life, but also for sensation, it follows that the exercise of their reproductive functions must be confined to certain occasions. 2 Only the ostreaceous tribes and
l

belong they resemble plants in not propagating themselves bv copulation, and animals in not being generated from seeds
:

are sexless ; placed upon the boundary which separates the animal from the vegetable kingdom, thev are deprived of the functions which to both

zoophytes

reproduced by a process of 4 And the like am spontaneous generation from slime. biguity of nature is displayed in their case with regard to locomotion/5

or fruit.

They

are, in fact,

Passing to the comparison of the sexes, we

may remark

that the male and female are related to each other as form and matter. 6 The former is the the latter is
active,

the passive, part the one bestows the motive and plastic force, the other supplies the material to be moulded 7
;
;

&VTOS, the V Tu V tpyov Koivh TUV tAvrwv Gen. An. i. 23, from which quotation has already been made,
Tr<i

The Zpyov

TOV

p. 29, supra.
3 Besides a few others, to be mentioned hereafter, which must

Theophrastus. * Separation of the sexes is expressly confined to the a and as iropevriKa. testaceous animals are described^ in the passage just referred to as /uerafr
ovra. -ruv /ecu rwv fyvruv, and accordingly of neuter gender it is said of them, Tnrir An
1<)

be regarded as exceptions.
c. 1,

&W
:

Gen. An. i. 23, 731, b, 8, 715, a, 25, b, 16, ii. 1, 732, a, 13, iii. 11, 761, a, 13-32. Only

such relatively simple organisms can be produced in this way, and accordingly if it be true, as some hold, that men and quadrupeds are sprung from the earth, they must have been evolved from worms or eggs which preceded them (Gen. An. iii. 11, 762, b, 28 sqq.). Aristotle, however, does not himself share this view, although it is to be found in

rci 5 71J, b, 13 <WpaKo Kiv^rai ^v, KLV^TOH 5e irapci

P/

ua

</>tW

ou ydp eVri KivriTiKa, aAA us u.\v ^uoV^a /cai Trpoo-TrecpvKOTa Kiv-n-nKa ds 5e TropevriKa ^vi^a. Jt is previously said that they move as

animals with feet would their legs were cut off. See i. 353, supra

move

if

Gen. i. 2, 716, a, 4: T f/s yeveaecas apx&s Q.J/ TLS O-J-Y ^Kiara eeijj -rb 6rj\ v Kal rb Upper r b uev Uppev us rfjs Kivfirew; Ka \ rf s

VOL.

II.

60

ARISTOTLE
1

Aristotle the one gives the soul, the other the body. this opinion so firmly that he denies any maintains male seed in the participation on the part of the
2 material composition of the embryo, declaring that it only communicates the necessary impulse to the sub 3 stance derived from the female, as is the case generally

with form in

its relation to

matter, active to passive,

In each of these cases the propelling to propelled. former does not enter into any material union with the
latter principle,

but only operates upon

it.

Just for

this reason, according to Aristotle, is the

KlVOVffl

male distinct
TO.S

6r)\v us
/ULfV

I/

ATJS.

c.

20, 729, a

TO

xf
3

P fS K(d TO. op-yava

rv

v\t]v.

appev Trape xercu TO re eTSos Kal T^V O.pX nV T7JS KlVffffWS, TO 8e TO L. 29 TO rroSfj-a Kal T^V v\f]v.
:

He compares
ii.

the seed in

07jAl>

aopev t(TT\v ws KLVOVV, TO 8e 6rj\v, fj 0r?Au, us Trader IKOV. Again, c. 21, 729, b, 12, 730, a, 25, ii. 4, 738, b, 20-3G, 740, b, 12-25, and _/;.9sfw< cf. also foil, notes. Gc-n. An. ii. 3 (see supra^. 0,
;
1

An. i. 20, 729, 739, b, 20, with the runnet which causes milk to curdle. Ibid. iv. 4, 772, a, 22, however, deprecates too exact an application of this comparison.
this respect, Gen.
a,

11,

4,

& TO TTJS 701/77 s .a, eV 2) (Tvvairpx f Tai TO (nrc-p/u.a TO TT}S Ibid. 737, a, 29 ^VXIKVS PX^ S (see p. 52, n. 2. infra) c. 4, 738, 8e TO juei/ crw/j-a e /c b, 25 CyjAeos, TJ 5e tyvxy K TOI; appevos.
n.
:
<rw[.

4 Gen. An. i. 21, 729, b, 1: does the male seed contribute to the formation of the young us

Kal jj.6piov
(Tct>/j.aros,

oi/

(vtivs

TOV

fjuyvvfjievov

nj

v\ri 5

T?7

eo"Ti

TOI>

(TU)/j.a
TJ

/;Aeos, /} TO f.(ff Trapa TOV ovdfv Kou wvet TOV (nrepij.aTos,

eV avTCf) Svva/j.is Kal

for,

Kivrifns

Gen. An.
is

i.

young
in

formed
lies

the 21, 22 in the mother,

:

the material on which the plastic force of the father is exercised but into which the male seed does not enter as any part of the embryo, oto-Trep Ou8 OTTO TOG T6KTOJ/OS TTpOS r}]V TUV v\uv v\t]V OWT airepx^rat oiidev,
ouTe
/j.va>

whom

Aristotle decides of these views hand, ou (paivtTai TOU iradrjTiKov Kal

; J

for the second

on the one

yiyvo^fvov ev t /c TOV TTOIOVVTOS &s fWTrdpxovTos iv TO; yivOfJLfvy TOV oAws 877 e /c TOU TTOtovvTOS, ov5
KIVOVVTOS, and, on the other, it is supported by several other facts which show that generation is possible with out material contact between the male seed and the female matter, as in the case of the subsequent fructification of wind-eggs.
Kivovp.4vov Kal

fj.6piov

ovdev fffTiv fv Tip yiyvo3

Kal 8ia

rrjs TtKroviKris, ctAA TO elSos OTT eiteivov

rj

fy
Kal

rrjs

Kivf}(Tcas eV TT? V\T), Kal

cV

TO

eTSoy,

PHYSICS
from the female, wherever
form
is ib

is

possible

for if the

distinct they are, Accordingly, he is careful to distinguish between the procreative substance of the male, which is the seed, and that of the female, which he

superior to the matter, the

1

more

the better the result must be.

identifies with the catameriial discharge.

He

holds that

they are both, generically, of the same sort and the same origin, being a secretion of nutritive matter, a 2 This fluid, however, is secreted product of the blood.

and of a cruder sort with the forming the menses of women or what in men, corresponds to them among other animals 3 it becomes seed. Thus the same substance however,
in larger quantities
sex,

weaker

Gen. An.
r?is
i

ii.

1,

732, a, 3:
TT/I/ (pvtriv
Kiuov<rr]s

fie\TLOi*os Se Kai Qeiorfpas

ovo~r]S

air as

TT)S

irparr]S,

y 6

elSos,

TT/S
>i

Kex a} P
8ic\

~Q ai

Aoyos unctp^ei Kal TO U ATJS, &e\nov Kal TO T0 Kpelrrov rod povos.

ev
oo~ois

TOUT

^ evSf^rai

it must therefore be Treplrrw/j-a a part of the useful Tre/jiTTw^o of the body. But the most useful nutritive substance is the rpoQ^ the oW^im ecrxarrj or the blood
;

is

therefore
rpo<br)s,

TTJS

Kal

TWyua

rrfpirrr}s eis TCI ^ue pTj SiaSi-

ai/uLariKrjs

5o/j.fj/r)S

reXevraias (c. 19, 726, b,

:

6-f)\eos
2

TO appev.

The detailed investigation

of the subject is to be found in Gen. An. i. 17-20. Aristotle

This is the reason why 9). children resemble their parents 8fj.ot.oy yap TO TrpoffeAdbv trpbs TC\
fAfpr)

r$

t>7roAet</>0eWt

ware
-^

begins (721, b, 11 sqq.

729,a, 6, 730, a, 11
)

cf.

c. 20,

airfpjjLa

earl

TO

rrjs

%e/pbs

by denying the
is

rov

Trpoo-(i>Trov

a secre tion drawn from all parts of the body (on which cf Z ELL. Ph.d. Gr.
.

opinion that the semen

adioptGrcos Kal
<fov

x^P
olov

^ o\ov rov % TrpoGwirov f) o\ov

Kfiv(av
virepp.a

TO rd q ov

tvepyeia,
va.fj.ei

roiovrov TO

eKao~rov Sy-

720, 6, AUBERT-WlMMEB, their ed.). He then (724, a, 14 sqq.) shows that ffirepua must be one of two things, either
1.

805,

2,

(ibid. c. 13).

On

the pro

p. 7 of

perties and material composition of the semen, see Gen. An. ii. 2. 3 Ibid. 726, b, 30 sqq. c. 20, 729, a, 20. Aristotle, c. 19, 727, a, 15 sqq. explains the weaker veins, the paler colour, the smaller quantity of hair, and the smaller bodies of women on the ground of defective supply of blood.

parts

an excrement from the organic of used-up matter (a

triWT?7^a) or a surplus of nutri tive matter (a mpirrwfia), and in the latter case either a useless or

a useful surplus. nor can ,

It
it

cannot be a be a useless

E 2

52

ARISTOTLE
an application in the two cases, takes the one form it cannot exhibit the

receives so different

that where
other. 1

it

well this theory of the two procreative substances fits into our philosopher s views about the generative process and the relation of the
see at once
sexes.

We

how

If the menses

consist
it

of the

same material

as the seed, except that

has not received in them

the same development,

perfect seed.
2

to im what the seed So they contain potentially

;

we may compare them

possesses actually

they are the matter, while the seed

communicates the impulse to development and form. Being a remnant of the essential nutriment, the menses and the seed continue even after their union in the

embryo the motion which they previously maintained in the bodies of the procreative pair, and by the exercise of their native impulse to growth and nutrition
3 If the produce something that resembles its parents. to be brought forth were merely vegetable, the being
1

C.

19,727,

a,

25:

Ivel

5e

male.
3

ffrlv & yiyvtrai TO?S 94)\f<riV rovr us rj yov^j TO?S appfffiv, Suo 8 OVK

Of. c. 5, 741, a, 15. Ibid. 737, a, 18 rov 8e

:

ffirep-

paro?
?rep
rfis
rr]i>

UVTOS Trpirrw/j.aros Kal KIVT}I/-

rai o~ir(piJ.aTiKas c^ua yiveffOai ov aTTOKpio~ei.s, (pavepbv on rb 0f)A.v ffv/Ji.fi y.XXfTai o"rr(p,u.a.(ls rrivytveaiv.
V?>ex

ou/xeVou Kivr]ffiv rrjv avrrjf /ca0

rb

ffu/ma

avdvTcu
rpoty-i/s,

/j.epio[j.evr)s
ei s

a"xi"rjs

orav f^Op

et /j.ev
oi>K

"yap

(nrfp/Jia tfv,

TO

Kara/iTjvia

ixrrepav ffWiffTrjcri Kal Kive? rb

&</

fa

vvv

5e

5ta rb

ravra

It is yiyvetrdat e /ceti/o OVK fffTiv. shown also, c. 20, cf. ii. 4, 739, a, 20, that there is nothing else that can be taken for female semen. 2 Gen. An. ii. 3, 737, a, 27 rb yap OrjAv oifnrep appev cVrl Kal ra Kara/j-^via Trfirrjpci}/ui.evov,
:

rb TOV 6r]\fos rrjv avr-ffv 1 KIVOVJivntp avrb ptvov KO.K.HVO. Kal yap e /ceTvo Trepirrcapa Kal iravra ra /j.6pia e^et 8uirepiTTw/j.a
K(VT}<nv

rvyx*

j/a^et,

roiavr
<f>fpei

evepyeia 8 ovdev. Kal yap ra e^ei fj.6pia 5vvd/u.i, -p 810-

fv yap Ka9apbv Se. Pvov, T^/V rjjs ^/vx^js apx^f, as may be seen in the case of wind-eggs, which are produced without the co-operation of the
mrepfjLa,

ov

OVK

fX

rov appevos. itia-rrep 6rt jj.ev yiverai irirfjpw/j.va ore 8 ov, Kal e/c 6r-\fos ore (j.ev 6rj\v ore 8 rb yap 6-fj\v &c. ov, dAA appsv.
07jA.u

rb

yap Kal

e /c

Treirripw/J.fi cav

ovr<a

b,

Cf. i. 19, 726, (see preced. n.). 13 (see n. 2 on preceding page).

PHYSICS
female, he holds, would suffice for its development, since the nutritive forces of the soul are already active in her

For the birth of portion of the procreative substance. an animal, on the other hand, male seed is indispen

germ of sensitive life. The matter of the male having thus begun to operate actively upon the passive substance of the female, an
1

sable, since it alone contains the

effect is produced corresponding to the nature of both. Their proper nature grows and develops from the two elements, not because the materials are spatially at

tracted to their like, but because each element when once set in motion moves in the direction for which it

has a natural predisposition

Gen. An. ii. 5, 741, a, 9: if the material for the birth is contained in the female Trepn-rojjua and the female portion of the same had the same soul as the male, why is it unproductive by itself ?
1

because, in fact, the seed

atriov 8
(pvTOv
effrl

6ri Statyepei Tb
aiaOfjCrfi
. .
.

(pov

rov

separation of the sexes this is impossible otherwise the male would serve no purpose whereas in reality it is from the male that the sensitive soul comes at the beginning. IMd.ii. 4, 740, b, 12 T? 8
;
;

el ovv Tb rb TTJS roiain-rjs Trou)TiKbv appev OTTOU /cex^P T t T ^ 0*7 A u Kal $VXT]S, T& appev, aSvvaTOv TO Qrj\v e

SiaKpiais yiyvtTai

TCOJ/

[j.opiuv

[in

the process of evolution] ovx &s

/cej/at
<pepecr6ai

rb
,

6/j.oiov

irpbs

rb

avTOv yfvvav

cpov.

It

is

seen,

the case of windeggs that the female is to a certain extent capable of unaided production. These have a cer tain Swapis ^VXIK-T), although only of the lowest kind, viz. BpcTTTiKr), but as animals possess a sensitive soul as well, no animal can come from them. If there were animals of which no males are to be found, as perhaps is the case with the red sea mullet (al

however, in

[a view which he pro ceeds to refute] ctAA 6n rb TTpiTT(afj.a rb TOV flrjAeos Swd/J.i T0iovr6v tffTii* oiov rb (fov, Ka\ Hv(TTi SwdfMfi TO, /j.6pia fvepyfict
6/j.oiov
.
.

<pvffi

8ta ravTrjv TIJV alriav ouflei/, yiverai eKaffrov avTwv, Kal drt TO Kal Tb iradyT iitbv

Tb
8

fj.fv

iroieT

Tb 8e
Tb apptv.

apx^]v

T^S

far from cer tain), in such cases the female would be self -begotten. On the

though this

is still

The operative

Kivf)ff(as force is

here the

other hand, where

there

is

nutritive soul, whose instruments are cold and heat. c. 5, 741, b, the male portion is the 7
:

54

ARISTOTLE
germ and
;

contains the

operative forces which 2 but the character of the generative matter and of the germinal life which it contains, deter

1 The potentiality of the soul. nature uses in this process are

heat and cold

mines and regulates these

forth a

forces.

Every germ brings

being similar to that from which it sprang, because the blood, the direct source of nutriment to the definite sort, body, tends to form a body of a certain

and

this
it

tendency continues to operate in the seed.

Hence

happens that the character of individuals as

well as of races comes to be propagated in the act of

primary source of the evolution,
as
it

<rap

rb S
fj

oarovv, OVKCTI,

aAA

f}

is

this

which contributes

Kivriffis

aTrb

TOU yevviiaavros TOV

the sensitive soul, ci/virap 5 eV Tfj v\r) Swdpei TUV

ei/reAe^eta ftvros 6 effri Si/ya^et rj [read rb] e| ou yiverai, as is

rb rb

e
</>ef)s

Kal & jSouAoj/rat

(pv(TiKwi>,

further expounded, c. 4, 740, b, 25 (see last note of preceding page), c. 6, 743, a, 3 r) Se yevecris
:

rives

TUV

rb

(pepecrQai ets
&>s

fffTii>

e /c

T&V

6/j.oio/j.epuv

virb tyv^ecas

6fj.oiov,

XSKTCOV ovx
TO.

roirov

jUeTaySaAAoyra

^pi
Kal

j.

KwelaQai,
Kal

dAAa

{jLtvovra

aXXoiov^va

/laAaKOTTJTl (TK\1)p6Tt)Tl Kal rats aAAcus rals Xpcf>/j.acri

f 6/J.OLO/j.epcav fiia t>opcus,

Kal

T&V
evep-

yivo^va

After explaining how different materials are formed in both ways, he continues, 1. 21 auTTj 5e [heat] ot/re 6 TI eru^e TTOIC? ffdpKa 3) offrovv, ou0 oirr) eru^ei/, ciAAa rb iT<pvKbs Kal
Kal dep/uLOT-rjros.
:

-fj

Tre<pvK

Kal ore
&//

Tre ^u/cei/.

oure yap

fpov, a view which had already been proved in detail in c. 1 (from 733, b, 30, onwards). See on this, Gen. ii. 1, 733,
1

rb 8uva/xet

i7rb

TOV

/j.r]

T^V

ej/e p-

cure rb rV evfpyeiav %xov Troi-fjffei etc 8e 0p/J.6Tr]S TOV TVXOVTOS T]

yeia.v e^oi/ros KIVIJTIKOV ecrrai,
.
. .

b,

32, 735,
2

a,-

4 sqq.

c. 3,

736, b,
TdafjiaTi
TO<ravTr\v
K(vt]<nv

and p. 6, n. 2, supra. In generation proper these spring from the (pvtris TOU yevv&vros in spontaneous generation, from the KIV^ITIS Kal dep^r^s TTJS
8 sqq.
;

Kal

^xovffa T^)V
Offf\
{jiopi

Kal T^JV evepyciav,

Ka<TTOV

<TV/J./JI.TpOS

Ci s

TUV

jiv

TI

5e ^u|is

ffTpr)(ris

SCTTLf.

743, a, 32. 3 Ibid. c. 1, 734, b, 31 fj.ev ovv Kal yUaAx/ca &c. Ka.1 v|/uxpoTTjs TTOiTjo eie^ Uv

&pas

ibid.

ii.

6,

e|

roSl

rb

Se

rb avdyKrjs &O~T roSi 7roie?v, eV

[ra

roTs yivouevois eVe/ca

/nev

TWOS ffv^^ai
b Se

bv Se \6yiv,

PHYSICS
1

65

If the male seed, which communicates the generation. of development, has sufficient vigour to mature impulse

the substance offered to

:

it,

the child follows

its

father s

sex if it lacks the necessary warmth, a being of colder For the ultimate distinction nature, a woman, is born. between the two sexes is one of greater or less vital

heat

the

perfect

warmer nature can mature the blood to seed, the colder must content itself with supply

ing the raw material of procreation in the catamenial 2 Woman is an unfinished man, left standing discharge.

on a lower step in the

veiv

scale of development.
takes

The gen?)

&c.
(1.
e

for

all

this

yap OVTWS

TpiTOV Se irpos TOV(pOopa CIS

KpaTov/j.i>ov

place
5

16)

rrj /j.ev e

a.vdyKi)S rrj

OVK
1

avdyKrjs dAA eW/ca TWOS. Seep. 51, n. 2, suj}. and p. 58,

TOIS \flTTTOV OTl e tTTCp TolvavTiov, Kal Tb /JL^

n. 3, inf. Tb fjCev 7
:

Gen. An.
<nrep/j.a

766, b, inr6Kirai irep iT-

iv. 1,

TOV STj/m-iovpyovvTOS avdyKT) virb lUerajSaAAeij/ eis TovvavTiov. Hence STOJ/ 70^ the true explanation
:

rw/na TpotpTJs ~ov TO eir^aroj/. ecrxaTOV Se Ae yw Tb Trpbs eKaffTov [i.e.

p))

KpaTfj
St

7}

apxT]
ffiioi

MT
eTSos TI au

Tre if/cu

eVSerai/

dep/j.6TTf]TOS

each part of the body

n. 4,
8upra]<f>fp6fievov.

45, 5tb Kal HOIKC

see

p^

aydyy ets Tb aAAa TavTrj

8

yTTrjQfj,

avdyKT]
. .

fJLevov T(p

yevv>i<TavTi.

TouvavTiov fjLCTafid\\iv.
e^et 8ia(popav eV TTJ

After refuting various views as to the origin of the difference of the sexes, Aristotle proceeds, Gen. An. iv. 1, 765, b, 8 eVei Tb upper Kal Tb 6r)\v SiwpiffTai 5wdfj.ei Kal aSvvajnia TIV\ /*ev jap
:

Suj/ct^et,
J

&O~T els :al Tb opyavov Siafpfpov The same TOIOVTOV /j.eTa&d\\ei.

(T<)

Svfd/J.fVOl>

TTTTIV
eftJous
/met?

Kal

ffVVHTI

6.VO.I

account is repeated clearly and Cf. c. 3, 767, precisely, 766, b, 8. number of facts are b, 10. adduced, c. 2, in support of this

theory. TOV
vov

appev

T& Se
ffvviff-

See
ii.

p. 52, n. 2,

aSvvaTovv 8e

An.

3, 737, a,

27

snpra; Gen. rb yap 8y\v

-TreTrr/poj^eVoi/.

i.

Kal ^KKpivciv 0r}Au [similarly 20, 728. a, 18]) ert el iraffa Kal , avdyKy
TO.

appev lixnrep iv. 6, 775, a,

effTi
<pvffiv

effTl

14

ao-deveaTepa yap

Kal

appeva Tcav

OrjXewv

^vxpoTepa TO. 07}Aea T)]V Kal Set inroXa/j./Bdveiv

elvai
i.

itvai. [The proof being that the former excrete the pre pared seed the latter in menstrua tion the raw blood.] a/j.a 8 f) (pvfflS T-}]V T SlIVa/JLlV ttT Kal Tb ilpyavov
,
. . .

T))V
:

eoiKe 20, 728, a, 17 Se Kal TT]V ,uop<V yvv^ Kal irats,

:al

effTiv

i)

yvv}]
3,

ayovov.

v.
x.
8.

784,

Sffirep appev Cf. a, 4.

Proll.

The

statement,

56

ARISTOTLE

erative organs themselves are adapted to their functions ; we must not regard them as the causes but as the signs of sexual difference. should rather look for the
1

We

ground of sex distinction in the vital principle itself and in the central organ and seat of life for, though it is not
:

complete until the sexual parts appear, yet its are laid in the formation of the heart at the

germs

mencement

of foetal existence. 2

On

very com this account sex

plays a most various and important part in animal life, influencing to a greater or less extent the temper as well
as the physical structure of animals, 3 while castration is followed by vast changes in the nature of men and

brutes. 4
Longit. V. 6, 467, a, 32, vavcaSfffTepov yap TOV 07^Aeos rb appev,

TOV fojAeos Kal appevos Kal

alria
<TT

T]

the upper portions of his body being relatively greater, does not quite harmonise with this, for it is just the excessive size of those portions that constitutes the dwarfishness of children (Part. An. iv. 10, 686, b, 10 De Mem.
;

eV rovTcp IV. avrr] Kal 6rj\v S 7787? Kal appv fffrlv, orav Kal ra p.6pio. ols Siafyepei r6 Hxp
GfjAv
3

2,

women
1

453, a, 31, b, G), with are compared.

2
:

whom

See last note but one. Ibid. 766, a, 30 ef olv TO

"

TOV appevos. The chief passages on this head are //. An. iv. 11, where the peculiarities in the physical structure of each of the sexes in the various animal tribes, and ibid. ix. 1, where differences of character are discussed.
4

A
svia
e

description of which
//.

is

p.fv

appev o-px f] TLS Kc cfinoir, ZO~TI 5 appev ?; Svvarai TI, OrjAu Se rj aSvvaTe?, TTJS Se Svvdfjiews opos Kal TT}S dSui/ajUuxs TO TreirriKov eli/at 3)
ireirTiKov TTJS vffrdrris
/JLfv
T/JOC/>T}S,

given,
OTJ

An.
Tcajs

iv. 1, 76(5, a.

Gen. An. 28, gives the reason

ix.

503.

/noptcav apx^-i elcriv. Kti -rj6ei(rr]s TroAAa avdyKf]

p.}]

&

iv

Tols

fva.lp.ois

al/j.a

/caAe?rai

ei/ 5e Toils CL\\OLS T^ avaXoyov, TOVTOV Se T^ aiTiov ev TTJ ap^rj Kal

T>

/j.opa)

T&

XOVTL

TTJJ/

TTJS

According to the passage just referred to, such an effect could not be expected to follow the excision of the testicles, but only
of the heart
stotle,

6ep/j.OTr)Tos

apxr/v,

avayKalov
it)

apa

ev rols
Kal
3)

4va.ip.ois (rvviffraffGai /capSiai/,

appev

e<re<r0cu

6r)\v

TO

without knowing

yiv6p.tvov.
ffiv

tv 5e TO?S aAAois yevevirapxtL TO 0yj\u Kal r6 appev

TO

rrj

Kapdia avd\oyov.

TJ

p.tv

ovv

especially as Ari v. 7, 787, b, 26, their special treats the former as a functions, mere appendage to the seminal For the account of the ducts.
:

Gen. An.

PHYSICS

57

Other phenomena besides the distinction of sex pro ceed from weakness in the procreative power. The movement communicated by the male seed tends to
form a being similar to the -parent from whose body was derived the motive force. If, however, the seed is
not vigorous enough to overcome the generative sub stance of the female, a woman is born or if it cannot
;

succeed in imitating the paternal type, then the child resembles its mother and not its father again, should
;

the seed

fail

in both of these attempts,

which usually

happens, a female child is born with a resemblance to If the movement is itself deficient in force, 2 its mother.
1

the child lacks the personal characteristics which the

movement ought

and only receives, in the generic properties which the descending degrees, parent had possessed over and above those of his own Instead of the parental type, that of the individuality.
to reproduce,

family

transmitted, so that the child resembles his So it grandparents, or still more distant ancestors.
is

may happen

that nothing but the type of the race is communicated, so that the child, for instance, has a

human form without any family

characteristics.

Lastly,

it is possible that the offspring should turn out merely a living creature without even the human attributes, as
3 in the case of children born with bestial forms.

If

the

proper

relation

between the

male and female

matter which he gives in accordance with the latter hypothesis, see Hid. 788, a, 3 sqq. Gen. An. iv. 3, 767, b, 15 sqq.,
1

guishes, iMd. 768

\vOucriv at Kivriaeis,

a,

14, 31, eav

from the other

7?

case,
3

eai/

/J.TJ

Kpariari
;

Kivnais

[rov &v$p6s],

768, a, 2 sqq. 21 sqq. 2 Aristotle expressly

IMd.

iv. 3

cf. esp.

767, b,

distin-

24, 768, b, 15, 769, b, 2 sqq.

58
is

ARISTOTLE
all

altogether wanting, then no conception at lows. 1

fol

Among
all

the

phenomena
of

of

life

which are common to

animals we

may next mention

difference
is

important point 2 Sensation vegetables.

Sensation, the most between animals and

a change produced in the

3 percipient by the object perceived, a movement to the soul through the medium of the municated

com
4

body.

c. 2, 767, a, 13 sqq. of other passages re lating to the distinction of the sexes and to procreation, we must be content briefly to indicate. The sexual parts of different ani mals are discussed Gen. An. i. 2-16, ii. 6; Hist. An. iii. 1, cf. AUBERT-WlMMER, pp. 3 Sq. of their edition of De Gen. An. puberty, menstruation, and lac tation, Gen. iv. 8, ii. 4, 738, a, 9 the causes of fruitfulness sqq.
1

Ibid.

number

8 of insects, especially bees (with regard to which Aristotle holds that the queens and female workers are born of queens, drones of working bees, and that there is no marriage among
iii.
;

them),
19 (cf

ibid.

iii.

9,

10, Hist. v.

and unfruitfulness, Gen.

;

ii.

7,

TroXvTOKia, 746, a, 29-c. 8 Jin. oXiyoTOKia and povoTOKia, certain kinds of abortion, the perfect and imperfect formation of child

188 sqq.); spontaneous generation, ibid. iii. i. 23 Hist. v. 15 sq. c. 11, Jin., 19, 551, a sq. c. 11, 543, b, 17, vi. 15, 569, a, 10 sqq.; the nature of the birth and the time of pregnancy, ibid. iv. 9. The dif ferences which separate the vari ous grades of animal creation in
Arist.

LEWES,

superfcetation and the like, Gen. iv. 4-7 the formation of the bodies of animals and the order of the development of their Gen. ii. 1, parts, Hist. viii. 7 sq. 734, a, 16-33, 735, a, 12 sq. c. 4,
ren,
; ;

respect of their origin and method of propagation will call for fur ther discussion below, and the
origin and gradual evolution of the soul will be the subject of the next chapter.
2 See pp. 27 and 37, supra and with the following account cf. BAUMKER, Des Arist. Lekre von den Sinnesvcrmogen (Leip;

5, 741, 739, b, 20-740, b, 25, b, 15 sqq. c. 6 (743, b, 20 com nature to an artist, who pares first sketches the outline of his

c.

sic,
3 4

1877).

De An.
Kivrjffis

ii.

on the colours) the nourishment of the embryo through the navel, Gen.
;

picture and then lays

TIS

5 init. Sia TOV

au>/j.a.TOs

ii.

7,

Hist. viii. 8

the production
:

and development
iii.

of birds, Gen. of fishes, iii. 3-5, 7 of mollusca and testacea, ibid.

1 sq. 6
;

I)e Somno, 1, 454, a, far we may speak of a movement of the soul at all is the subject of subsequent disTTJS tyvxvs.
9.

How

PHYSICS
The nature of this process may be explained and esti mated by the abstract laws of action and passivity. It
1

the object of perception which sets the change in motion, the percipient which undergoes the change. The
is

former
is

the latter passive. related to the former in the same

is active,

Hence the

latter

to the possible or as

form to matter.
its

way The
is

as the actual

perception for

developed into by the object perceived the form of the object actuality by 2 This relation, how is impressed upon the percipient.
is fitted
;

which a subject

nature

ever, is further conditioned

by the nature of the perci

pient

be called a passive

Like thought, perception can only legitimately affection, if the phrase is taken to
De An.
OVK
Ti 8

3 include the progress from mere capacity to actuality.

i.

See the passages quoted vol. 454 sqq.,to which express allu
1

ii.

5,

417,

b,

2:

airXovv ouSe
(f>6opd

sion
2

is

made De An. ii. 5, 417, a, 1. De An. ii. 5, 417, a, 9 to the

end of the chapter, where the

preceding discussion is summed up in the words rb 8 alo-9-rjT IK^V
:

8vvd(jii

tarT\v

oioy

rb

alffOrjT^v
eiprjTca
"bv,

^ 817

eVreAexeia, ovv /uej/

iii.

/caflaTrep
oi>x

opoiov
:

W,UOICOTCti Kal
e /ce?j/o,

0~TIV oloV

2,

425, b, 25
tvfpyeia

^ Se
rrjs
/ata,

rov

alffQrirov
TI

Kal
Kal

TOV T^) /J.v TIS evavriov, rb 8e crcar^pia yuaAAoz/ TOW 5vvd/j.i OVTOS virb TOV eVreAexeta ijvros Kal o/jLoiov OVTWS ws 5vva/j.Ls Thus in the Trpbs eVTeAexetaj/. case of learning, we must either refrain altogether from saj ing that the learner is the subject of an operation or we must distin guish between two kinds of rr)V re firl TO.S aTfpriTiKas
inrb
r

alcrO-fiffe&s

avrr) /ueV

etm

rb 8 eivai ov ToA rbv avratv

8
o tov
T\
$6<pos

\yca
Kal
Kal

a)8oA^i/ Kal T^V e-jrl TOLS (of. i. p. 197). e|eis ital TT]V

0tW

6 /car

ei/epyeiaj/
.

a/cor?

/tar

evepyeiav
tivvd/J-cvov

orav 8

evepyrj
v|/o<?7

rb

aKoveiv

Swd/J-evov tyocpe iv, r6re rj /car evepyeLav aKor) afj.a yiverai Kal
rt)
1

so Similarly with perception soon as the percipient comes into the world, exet^STjfiSo-Trep eTncrTTjjUT/j/ Kal rb aladdveffOat. Kal rb war eVep:

Vpyeiav i|/o0os. And as ope rations and motions take effect

6 /car

upon passive subjects,

this parti

cular operation takes place upon the percipient. Of. infra, p. 60, n. 3, p. 61, n. 4 and see Part. An. ii. 1, 647, a, 5 sqq.
;

yeiav 8e 6fJ.olws heyerai r$ Qcwpelv (as the latter is the actual appli cation of a faculty which is al ready possessed, so perception is the activity of a faculty which already exists in the percipient) 8ta0e pet Se [sc. TO cuaQaveaQai rov .fv ra flfa etV. OTL rov
;

60

ARISTOTLE

Perception, therefore, may be equally described as an act, or more accurately as the joint act of percipient and perceived, which act, however, has its seat in the former. 2 Further, the perceived object can be said to stand to the percipient in the relation of actuality to
1

possibility only in so far as the one is capable of being It is not the perceived and the other of perceiving. matter of an object which acts the sense in ques upon tion, but only those properties of an object which the Hence it particular sense is designed to perceive.

follows that

it is is

matter that

the sensible form of objects without the received in the act of sensation. The

material object itself

ent,

but only

its

not communicated to the percipi 3 This apprehension of the operation.

is
cises, ErTi.-TJieoried. Arist, 80,4), for the object is not subject to
is a joint operation, the result of which is That this act gives perception. a true account of the objects

rys tvepyeias eco0ei rb dparbv Kal rb aKovcrrtv &c. iii. 7, 431, a, 4 8e rb p.ev alffB-rjrbv e/c ovros rov alffQf]riKov
, :

any operation, but there

iroiovv

[The perceived
that

object

makes

which

is

capable of perception and which is only a Svvd/j.ei &i/ into an fvepyeiq oV.] ov yap 7rao-%6t oiS a\\oiovrai. Sib #AAo eTSos TOUTO
Kivfjcreus

perceived, has already been said, in vol. i. pp. 208 sqq. 2 De An. ii. 2, 456, a, 5 et
:
8"f)

fffriv

-rj

Kivrja is Kal

TJ

iroirjo-ts

[something
T]

different
airXais

Kal

rb
/car

Trd9os

fV
T<j5

from

iroiou^eVoD,

Kivt\ffis~\.

yap /averts rov

^v,
rj

rov ^6$ov Kal r^v aKo^v

evepyeiav
flvai
. .

evepyeia

eV
f]

rfj

Kara

erepa

r)

rov rere\eo-(j.fvov
,

fj.fv

ovv rov
a/cor;

(such also, however, is the otV6T]riKbv according to ii. 5, 417, b, 29 sqq.).

1

7)

5e TOW aKovffrtKov

eirel

I)e An. iii. 2, 426, a, 15 5e /j.ia /net? iffnv T] evepyeia, y

:

Similarly with all the other senses rov rj evepyeia Kal r\ rov alo~6r)r IKOV
aKovo~is.
:

rov aladrjrov Kal r] rov alffdyriKov, rb S tlva.1 erfpov &c. Cf. foil. n.

here no question of any reciprocal operation of the sensi ble object and the sensitive
is

There

organ (PRANTL, Arist. v. d. Farben, 144, whom KAMPB criti

12 init. y fj.ev rb SfKriKbv flSwv avev rr}s vA.r]s, alff6t]rS}v oiov 6 Kf]pbs rov Sa/cruAiou avtv rov crift hpov Kal rov -^pvffov Se^erat rb
ii.
:

De An.

a i<Tdr)o~LS

effri

ru>v

(rr]/j.f7ov,

PHYSICS

61

form without the matter is only possible where there is in the soul a point of unity, a centre in which the sensible

and on this account impressions can reflect themselves first appears in the animal perception kingdom. More
;

over, since the faculty of perception is the force and form of the physical organ, it presupposes a certain

harmony
is

in its

component parts

and

if this

harmony

disturbed by too vehement an impression on the 2 The seat sense, then the faculty of perception is lost.

3 of this faculty is invariably a homogeneous body which must contain potentially both of the opposite qualities that may be communicated to it by the objects of sense but just for this reason it must itself stand mid 4 The operation of the object upon way between them.
;

$)

%aA./cos, 6/j.oi(tiS Se Kal fj tKaffTov virb TOV UXOVTOS

\l/6<pov

T?)y U ATJS.

iii.

12,

aAA ovx p Xv/J.6v T) v e/mVcoj/ \eyerai, aAA 37 al Kara TOV \6yov. (There is no trace, however, in this pas sage of what VOLKMANN, Grundz.
7ra<r%ei,

434, a, \vithout

29

those
offa

^cDi/ra
p.}]

are

ato-dya-is,

SCKTIKO.

TUV

elSwi aveu TTJS v\r]s.

Cf. also

supra, pp. 33 sqq. and notes, as well as the remarks infra, upon the sensus com munis,
2

d.

Arist. Psyckol. \_Abhandl. d.

x.

Do An.
;

ii.

126 sq. Psycliol, i. 218] finds in it, viz. that sense is not affected by sounds &c. in so far as each of these is what it is, but in so far as the sense
is

bbhm. Gesellsch.

12, 424, a, 26:

the
6os~)

alaGo.v6ij.Gvov is
ctftre-riaris,

a body (^eye-

is

not

p.eyeOos,

on the other hand, a\\a \6yos TIS Kal

ai<rOavofj.ei/ov~\.

Svva/nts
<t>at/epbjs

Kij/ov [TOV
5
e/c

TQVTWV Kal
al

SLO.

TL

what it De An. iii.

alatiiiTripiov

is.

Cf. foil. n.
:

and

7TOT6

T&V

al(rOr]TW}/
TO.

2,

TO yap 425, b, 23 SCKTIK^V TOV alaOyTov

(pOeipovo~i
?T

virep&o\al lav yap alaQt)T^]pia

avev

rrjs v\r]s eKaffTov.

Whence

it

Kiv-ncns,
f,v
f)

iffxvpoTtpa TOV alcrQrjTiipiov y Ai/ ercu 6 \6yos, TOVTO 8

ato-Vya-is,
&a"irep

follows that all perception is of a gee i. 207, universal, a roiovSe n. 1, supra. 1 D6 An. ii. 12, 424, a 32 plants have no aiffSycris, although they are not without souls; yap TO /j.r) exeiv ,uecroT7?Ta, TOiavTTjv apx,))!/ oiav ra eifSrj
;
:

ical

r) o-vfj.<puv

Kal 6 TOVOS Kpovojuevuv (rcfroSpa TUV Cf. iii. 13, 435, b, 15.
.

3 Part. An. ii. 1, 647, a, 2 sqq., where alffOvjT fjpia in this sense are distinguished from the opyaviKa

(face, hands, &c.). Aristotle remarks this spe-

ARISTOTLE
the senses depends upon a from the one to the other.

medium which transmits it Flesh is the medium of the

l

sense of touch, air and water of the other senses

to this

and

the materials of which the organs of sense consist correspond. The connection, however, of the
five senses

medium

with the four elements

Aristotle. 3

is

only tentatively

adopted by

The higher

tribes of animals

cialiy of touch, 423, b, 29 sqq.

An. ii. 11, This sense, he the says, perceives opposite rti Se alcrQ-i)qualities of bodies
;

De

tempted to establish this con nection, but be does not say to whom he refers. The citations on the views of Empedocles and
Democritus

(ZELLEH,

Ph.

d.

StWyuet Toiovr6v eari popLov. Since

perception is a Tra^eii/ by which the Swa/jiti ~bv is made by the

operative
principle
.

into

some
is

thing like that which

TOV
6jJ.r>i(t}S

itself

fvepyeiq (cf supra, p. 59, n. 2), 816

[SO.

MS r6 0V0?7T19pJOI/
2)

Qepfj.ov

KOI \]/vxpov
cos

(TKA-rjpou

Kal
dlov Sta

/*a\aKov OVK alffOavo/neda, aAAa T&V

tf7rep/3oAcT
i/,

Gr. i. 723, 817, 3) and from Plato (ibid. ii. a, 727, 3) on this head are not sufficient to explain the statement (in the above passage De Sensu) that one of the four elements was assigned to each of the senses, but that this only raised the difficulty of the discrepancy in their respec
tive
3

TTJS

aiV075<rews

yu.ecrdTTjTtta

TWOS
TO.

oijcrris

rfjs

eV TO?S
Kal
iii.

numbers. See the two passages,

De An.

aia&riTo iS

tvavTitaffsbis.
alffOrjTa.

TOUTO Kpivei
pe<rov

KpiriK6v: just as the

order that it may perceive black and white must be neither of these actually but both potentially, so it is with the sense of touch. Ibid. ii. 7, 410, a, 7-35. According to this passage, the medium of the perceptions of
1

rd yap eye in be able to

438, b, 16 sqq. In the former of these Aristotle desires to show that

2,

and De 8ensn,

sight is light, of hearing air, of

smell moisture
yfvcrfcas
Se.

irepl

e% Their

jjikv 6/j.oices

Se atyfjs Kal ov ^aiVerat

medium

there cannot be more than the live senses (the opposite had been asserted by Democritus see ZELL. Ph. d.Gr.i.Sn, 5), which he proves in this way the properties of things are perceived either im mediately or by means of a medium. The former is the case with the perception of touch (only in the sense, however, that the medium is in the percipient
:

(see supra,

n. 4) is flesh. For further details, see infra, and in i. 518, n. 3, supra

p. 39,
Aristotle remarks himself (Part, An. ii. 1, 647, a, 12 DC Fensv, c. 2, 437, a, 19 sqq.) that several of his predecessors at
;

supra, and of. In 423, b, 12). the latter case the sensitive organ for each class of percep tions must consist of an elemen tary material of the same kind
itself:

see

n.

1,

De An.

ii.

11,

as that through the medium of which the perceptions reach the

PHYSICS

63

possess all the five senses ; the lower are without one or other. It is only the sense of touch, and its desenses.

Properly speaking,

how

rjs

t /c
T<$

ever, we have only water and air to deal with, as fire operates as vital heat in all the senses, and

aiTTLKbv jris. ^ TL a(f)7js ea-riv.

earth peculiarly (i5/ws) either in none or in touch (of which taste, according to Aristotle, is a subordinate variety see p. 22, n.
:

supra). Even flesh, however, the organ of the latter sense, does not consist merely of earth, but of a mixture of earth and
1,

in loco, p. 80 sq. out) to suppose that Aristotle here intends to assign the organs of the various senses to the four elements respectively. He here .repeats what he says in the De An. of the organ of smell when he remarks that it is merely
(as

ALEX,

... 70 8e yevvTiictv elSts It is impossible

irvpos

pointed

Suvd/j.fi

what

Although it is, therefore, the most material of

the organs of sense, it yet stands in the middle between the different kinds of tangible
all

water and

oaQpria-is is evepyeta,
7?

air.

8vvd/j.i
fffT\v,

yap

9fp/j.r)

that, like the eye, it is closely connected with the brain,

and

TOV ^v^pov v\f)

things,
all.

and (De An.

is
iii,

sensitive to

them

sqq.

13,
ii.

Part. An.
653,

ii. 11, 423, a, 11 435, a, 11-b, 2; 1, 647, a, 19, c. 8,

The pupil of the b, 29.) eye is of water sounds are per ceived by air in the passages of the ear the sense of smell resides in both air and water.
;
;

of universal pro perties of things, however, such as form, size, motion, &c., cannot be confined to the organs of any particular sense, being in its nature common to all (cf. infra, pp.66 sqq.). In the second of the above passages it is said #oV
:

The perception

the coldest and dampest part of the body but smell itself is assigned to fire, because it is produced by the heating of the cold olfactory organ by the 007x77 which is of a fiery KaTrj/ciiS-ris, nature. (So also c. 5, 444, a, 8-22, where Aristotle explains on this ground the ;esthetic pleasure in smells peculiar to man see last note on next page.) But according to Bekker s text, the words &c. would give the meaning just referred to as inadmissible. It is all the
;

((>ai/epbv

o>se?

more welcome to

find that, as

efirep

TOVTUV

TI (Tu/xjScuVej,

KaGdirep

ktyofifv, (pavephv ws 8e? TOITOV TOV

Tpoirov

(ZTroSiSoVaj

ital

TWV
v.

alaOrjrrip

wv

npotTa.iTTeiv evl T&V

TOV fjitv v/j./maTos TO opaTiKov vSaTos VTTO\^TTTOV, afpos Se TO T&V alo-Qt]TiKbv, irvpbs
ty6<t>a>v

5e T)]V

uo~<ppr)o~iv.

jap evfpyfia

r\

crnfprjcm TOVTO

dvvd/uiti

TIKQV

77

TO bafypav00707 KairvcaS^s T LS
77

avaOv/j-iaffis,

avaQv/ui.iao~is

BAUMKEE, p. 47 sq. reminds us, four of the seven MSS. in DC Senm, 43K, b, 17, give el before Sel, so that we may read <pa.v(pvv us et SeT rcav GTOI^ I.WV, TOV iiej/ oiittaro? \-c. In this view, Aristotle offers the explanation that follows only hypothetically, and from a point of view differ ent from his own. This view of the passage corresponds precisely with that of ALEX, ibid., who seems, therefore, also to have read ef before 5cT; cf. p 78:
:
. . . .

64

ARISTOTLE

pendent sense of taste, which is quite indispensable. 1 Of touch Aristotle says that it is as impossible for an animal to be without it as for any other creature but an animal to possess it. It is, in fact, the most universally

and therefore any excessive impression made upon this sense would not, as in the
important sign of
life;

case of the others, destroy a single organ alone, but the life itself of the animal. 2 These two senses are thus the

life

commonest and lowest they serve the baser needs of 3 while sight and hearing, as the means of rational
;
:

development, occupy the highest rank.

ever, deserves the preference, since

Hearing, how
this sense
all

the

possibility

of
is

oral

we owe to 4 instruction. Of

living

creatures

man

furnished with the subtlest taste and

subtlest feeling ; many animals exhibit the other senses in a greater state of acuteness, 5 but in the case of man
6 they play a special part in his spiritual culture.

ei

o0Tw,

<pT]a\v,

eVl

rr s tyews e^ei
t

other hand, are so ov TOV

eVe/ca,

eli/oi

Kal Sia Toirro, Kada eyA/xoz/ro Tiz/es,

eVcao-TOJ/
a.laQif]ri]piov

endo-Tcp
c.
;

ruv
80
:

(TTOi^fiwv aj/aTiOercu ov yap 5?7 bpeffKovra

p.

aury \eyei

&c.

cf.

also

Part.

An.

ii.

1,

point cf. the not consistent statements, Hist. An. iv. 8 De An. ii. 3, 415, a, 3 sqq. iii. 12, 434, b, 11-29, c. 13, 435, b, 17 sqq. ; De Sensu, De Somno, 2, 1, 436, b, 12 sqq. 455, a, 5 Metaph. i. 1, 980, b, 23 MEYEE, Arist. Thierk. 432

617, a, 12. 1 On this

ctAAa rou eu. DC; Ail. iii. 13, 435, b, 19 ; cf. C. 12, 434, b, 22 sqq. Do Sensti, 1, 436, b. 12 to end of chap. ; Mctapli. ibid. * tie An. ii. 9, 421, a, 9-2G
* ;

wholly

De 8ensu, 4, 440, b, 30 sqq. Part. An. ii. 16 sq., 660, a, 11, 20 Gen. An. ii. 2, 781, b, 17.
;

I)e

An.

ibid.

man s

higher

intelligence is explained on the ground of his finer feeling; but it is certain that Aristotle

regarded
ear
as

the

human

sq

and
-

eye and

p. 22, n. 1,
iii.

supra.
434, b,

De An.

12, 13,

cance

also of higher signitifor the development

;

22, 435, b, 4-19.

Feeling is indispensable to every animal for the preservation of life, the other senses, on the

of the spiritual life than those of the lower animals Etli. iii. 13, 1118, a, 16 sqq., he remarks of smell, hearing, and
sight,

C5

Coming
that

to the particular senses, Aristotle observes

the

Formed
are

seat of sight is in the pupil of the eye. of water, this organ is affected by colours which
1

communicated to it through a transparent medium. Sounds acting on our ears through the medium of air are transmitted to the sense by the air in the auditory
2

passages.

by

air

and water

Smells are conveyed to the olfactory organ they are inhaled with the air by
:

to non-respiring animals water is respiring animals The primary qualities of matter the medium of smell. 3
;

which belong
De
Scnsu,
I.

to all bodies

and their particular modificareflecting

ibid.

5, 443, b, 15-444, a, 9, 28 sqq., of smell, that man alone takes delight in these sensations for their own sake and not merely for the sake of food (albeit smell is his lowest sense
:

the light)
2,

is

proved,

459, b, 23 sqq., by a fictitious experience. Part. An. ii. 10, 656, b, 13 sqq. De An. ii. 8, 420, a,
;

De Insomn.

2 sqq.;
52.
It

cf.

p.

478;

BAUMKEE,

De
ii.

Sensu, 4, 440, b, 31
9,

De An.

421, a, 9)
:

of the senses

generally Aristotle says, ffen.

ibid.
T\\V IAZV ovv
ir6pp<aQv

it.

O.KPL-

not quite clear how Aristotle conceives of the con nection of this air with the central organ of sense; he merely
is

T&V
,

aiffdriffecav

^KKTTO.

us

remarks, Part. An. the ears are united

opinion,
i.

ibid.,

that

TT/V 8e Trept TO.S Siacpopas irdvrcav ei>cu<r07]Toi , his

with the occiput (which, according to his

organs of sense being the purest, and the least earthy and material, and his skin being the finest. MEYER, ibid. 435 sq., brings together his statements with
regard to the sensitive organs of the various animals. See p. 64, supra De Sen&ii,
1
;

empty)
3

means De An. ii.

b}*
1

262, n. 1, mpra, is of passages. 9, 421, b, 8

;

sqq.

iii.

Sensu,
8 sqq.
;

5,

De (see p. 6, supra) 442, b, 27 sq. 444, a, cf. p. 537, 3, 539, 6, 478,

53
sq.

med.

BAUMKEE,

It

has

been already remarked,

is

p. 62, n. 3,

sujyra,ika,t the sense of smell also

2, 438, a,
i.

12 sqq.

b, 5

Hut. An.

491, b, 20; Part. An. ii. 8, 653, b, 25, c. 10, 686, a, 37 sq.; Gtn. An. ii. 6, 744, a, 5, and
8,

there

elsewhere

cf.

BAUMKEE,

48

sq.,

and

That the 518, n. 3, supra. eyes also operate upon the objects (and that not merely by
i.

connected with the brain, but is nothing said about any connection between it and the heart. Aristotle shows, De Sensu, 455, a, 4 sqq., that smell 5, occupies a middle position be tween the alaO^a-fis airriKal and 5i &\\OV a(V07}T.KCU.

VOL.

II.

66

ARISTOTLE
The

1 tions are the proper objects of the sense of touch.

:

organ of touch is the heart the medium through which 2 impressions are transmitted to the heart is the flesh
;

and the same may be said of taste, which is nothing but a species of touch, 3 the only difference being that
the tongue
is its sole

conductor.

How

the sensations
their seat

communicated by particular senses can have

in the head, 5 while the seat of the sensitive life itself is in the heart, 6 and all sensation belongs to one and

the
1

same part of the

De An.
fj.(V

soul,
5

Aristotle

fails

to

ex-

airral

ii. 11, 423, b, 26: ovv elaiv at Siatyopal rov (Taj/no \~yu) 5e ras ffw/j.aros f) at ra trroix^a 5iopiovffi t SioL<popks Be i]pbv vyp6v. tyvxpbv, Oep/j.bi sides these fundamental qualities the sense of touch perceives also

against

BAUMKER, 78 sqq., shows as SCHELL (Die EinJieit des

nach Ar. 163 sqq.) from
ii.

tieelenl.

and

hardness and softness and others, Aristotle asks accordingly, 422, b, 19, whether it is only one sense or several. He rejects the latter supposition, however, 1. 27 sqq., with the remark that the other senses also perceive more than one fvavrtorrfs by hearing, for example, besides height and depth we perceive loudness of
:

412, b, 18, 413, a, 2, 17 sqq. iii. 2, 426, b, 8; Part. An. ii. 1, 647, a, 2 sqq. c. 8, 653, b, 24 sqq., and other passages, that Aristotle assumes this to be the case in respect to the above three senses.
1,
ii.

De An.

11, 423, b,

Cf.

De

Svnsu,

c.

(p.

62, n. 3,

iupra). 6 Vide p. 41 sq. The view that the brain is the seat of sensation (ALCM^EON, see ZELL. Ph.d.Gr. i.

sound, softness and roughness in the voice, &c. Therefore BEENTANO S assertion (Psyclwl. d.
85) that it is erroneous according to Aristotle to regard feeling as only a single sensitive faculty, is not accurate. 2 See p. 39, n. 4, p. 62 n. 3, sup. De An. ii. 11, 422, b, 20, 35 sqq. 423, b, 1 sqq, 22 Part. An. ii. 10,

Ar.

PLATO, Tim. 67, B, 76, D), expressly refuted by Aristotle : Part. An. ii, 10, 656, a, 15 sqq. De Juvent. b, 11, c. 7, 652, b, 2 He holds himself 3, 469, a, 20. that the brain is devoid of feel456, 1
;

is

ing, resting his

view upon supThierk. 431.

posed experiences, upon which

see

656, b, 35;

5-20
3

De Vita, 3, BAUMKER, 54 sqq.

p. 22, n. 1, supra,
i. ii.

469, a,

425, a, 31, and more fully De Sensu, 7, 449, a, 5 avdyK-t] sqq., where inter alia a.ira.VTa &pa tv TI e?j/cu rrjs if/vx^s,
7
:
<p

MEYER, Arist. DeAn. iii. 1,

a Vflaj eTcu,

&A.A0

Se

761/05

St

See

and on
sq.

the sources of taste,

*

518

Just as one and the same thing has different properties, so

&AA.OU.

De An.

11, 423, a, 17 sqq.

c. 10,

422, a, 34,

Kal

OfTtov Kal eVl TT}S if/vx^s fb avrb tv tlvai apid/my rb

PHYSICS
1

67

plain.

If his view is that the pictorial

image

is

gene

rated in the organs of sense, while its reference to the 2 the question still object takes place in the heart, remains, how can sensation originate in organs in

which the sensitive soul does not reside

eIW.i
eVepoj/ Kal

461,
l*.v

a,

T&V

/J.fv

yevei

rwv

8e
T<

e /Set.

yap

e/ce?0ej/

30 goes on to say: [sc. OTTO TWV

apxhv Kal
TT}i>

Kal evl, \6yci) 5

wcrre Kal aiffOdvoiT &j/ a,ua avTifi ou TC auraS. DC

2,

irpbs T^i/

eyprjyopoos So/cet

455, a, 20: eo-rt ^tv yap atffQricris Kal TO Kvpiov aiffOr)fj.(a eivai atV07jeret rov TT]piov ey TO 8

Somno,

opav Kal aKoveiv Kal alffOaveaQai, Kal 8ia TO ottyiv eVi ore KivtlaQaL
SoKtlV OV KLVOVp.VflV 6p5.V
TCf
d>CCU6J/,

Kal

yevovs fKaffTov Tepov (its charac ter is different in each kind of

sensation).
1

Neither from Part. An.

;

iii.
;

Svo Kivtiffeis flaayrb ei/ Svo 5o/ce?i/. The ye\\eii> words refer, as the repetition of SoKeti/ shows, to the cases of selfTT]v
a(p7]t/

666, a, 16, ii. 10, 656, b, 3 DC cf. Hist. An-, i. 4, 489, a, 23 Somno, 2, 455, b, 6, nor from the passage in c. 3 of the TT. cwirviwv, which seems to give the greatest support to this view, are \ve justified in saying with certainty that Aristotle regards the blood as the conductor by which the sensitive movements are led to the heart. He certainly assumes that a portion of the blood flows at intervals back to the heart,
4,

deception discussed c. 2, 460, b, 3 sqq. 11, 20, 22 sqq. c. 3, 461, b, These Aristotle explains on 30. the ground that the judgment upon the object and the pictorial image are due to the exercise of
different

16
TO

faculties (ibid. 460, b, afaiov Se TOV ffv^aiv^iv ravra

/caret

/j.^i

TTJV

avTi]v

SvvaiJ.iv

Kp ivtiv TO T Kvpiov [subj.] Kal $ TO. (pavTaa /aaTa 6 Acos 7/i/eTcu). yap [as c. 3, 461, b, proceeds] TO
d^>

eKao-Ti]s

alo-O-tiaews

(pr)(Tiv

r)

carrying its own natural motions with it (ibid. 461, b, 11). From this, however, he merely concludes (as will be shown, p. 71, n. 3, infra} that the movements caused by
previous perceptions and latent in the organs of sense, being no longer overpowered by move ments in the blood, are liberated and carried in like manner to the heart it appears, therefore, that he regards them as different from those in the blood. 2 This is the view put forward in the passage just referred to in the treatise upon Dreams, where
;

apxr),

av
:

p.7]

erepa
yuej/

<f)a.ivTai

KvpiwTepa avTicpi). ovv TrdvTws, So/ceT

5 o j irdvTws TO <paivo/j.vov [the sun, for example, appears to us to be a foot broad, nevertheless we- refuse to believe it; c. 2, 460,
b, 18],
T}]V

dAA

eaj/

[but only when]

r)

TO t-niKplvov
otKfiav

K3.TexT]Tai.
K.

.vT\aiv.

It

KivrJTai is this

67Ti/<:prj/oi (461,b, 24 sq.) which refers the sense-perception to its object. It, for instance, when

Kvpiov Kal

sensation presents us with the

image of a particular man, iden

tifies it

with the man in question. In sleep, on the other hand, when

i

68

ARISTOTLE

The separate senses, however, are insufficient of themselves to explain the fact of sense-perception. The such as time, motion and universal qualities of things
rest,

are not, like unity and multiplicity, size and form of special senses sound and colour, the peculiar objects
l

all the senses, and only indirectly The faculty, therefore, by which they are by from all the particular perceived must be distinct 2 senses: it must be a sensus communis or common sense." This sense, moreover, enables us to compare and dis

they are perceived by

each.

different senses. 3 tinguish the perceptions of

imprisoned, the image is taken for the object The seat of this faculty itself. cannot be other than a single
consciousness
is

When,

sense-perceptions, and the multi

plicity of the senses even assists us in distinguishing them from the latter (OTTCOS rirrov Xav&avri ra

Kvpiov

al<rOriTT]piov

(De Somno,

2,

455, a, 21), of which sleeo and waking are particular states (see
p. 75, infra).

aKO\ov6ovvTa Kal Koiva, ibid. 425, Were we therefore con b. 5). fined for our perception of them to the particular senses, we should

DC An. ii. 7, Aristotle dis tinguishes between a0 aura [not merelv Kara (ru^t,8ej37jKbs] cuVflTjra
1

know them only as accessory (e.g. we saw a white object, which moved, we should perceive only
it:

between ftua and

:

KOIVO.,

remarking

its

colour and not

^7817

its

motion).

A6 7 co 8 rSioj/ ^v & (^ 418, a, 11 cVSe xercu erepa alffQi]<r^i alaQdveaOzL

.
. .

rcov 8e KOIVUV
Koivrjv ov
Icfriv
t Si

exo,uej/ atffQrifftv

K nva. 8e
<rx^/",

/aV>)<m,

-hpe/Aia,

apiQ-

OVK ap a (ibid. 425, a, 24sqq.). Do

<rv/j./Be/3r]K6s

Kara

fj.(js,

/AfjeOos. Similarly, iii. 425, a, 13: oAAa pfyv oi5e rwv ri KQIV&V oTw T elvai alar0riT-f)pi<
1,
>v

Mem.

ibid,

says that

size
/co)

and
rb

motion are known to us by the

same faculty as time,

(pdvTair/jia

ftuoy,

u>v

aia-8ai>6/j.eea.

Ka Kar
<r.

[sc.

avrrjs]

rr/s

Koivris

aLffdrjfffcas 7ro9os eVrti/.

Cf. i.435,

proposal to read ov K. is rightly rejected by J3RBNTANO, olov Kti/^o-ecos, Psychol. d. Ar. 98], (7Tct<rews, (rx^aTOS, fjieyfOovs, apid-

STRIK

n. 2, supra.
3

De An.
sense

iii.

2,

each

perceives

426, b, 8: ras rov

juou,

On

450, a, 1). time see p. 73, n. 4, infra. z We are informed of motion

evos.

I)e

Mem.

viroKeifjievov alffOyTOv Siatyopas, e.g. sight, those of colour. eVei 8e Kal rb \VKbf Kal rb y\vKv Kal fKaarrov

rSiv
juej/,

&c through the separate senses Kara (Tt^/SejSrjKbs (De An. iii. 1; v.
preceding note). These qualities
are accompaniments of particular

alffOrjTtov irpbs e/cafrroj/ Kpivorivi ai(T0av6/j.Oa OTI Siatyepfi ;

8?;

avd-yKi]

alardrjcTfi-

altrdrjra

yap
rb

otfre

8^

Ke-xw/Jzo-^ueVots

Kptveiv

OTI

tTtpov

PHYSICS

69

further, we declare the phenomena presented to us by the senses at one time to be objectively real, at another to be unreal, it cannot be our senses themselves that

pronounce this judgment, for their presentations are in both cases alike nor if we are deceived in our judgment, are the senses to blame for the mistake, seeing that
;

they always report correctly.

all
is

The common principle of alone responsible for the reference sense-perception of the perception to the object, and therefore for the mistakes that are made. 2 The same principle, finally, is
1

the basis

of self-consciousness which accompanies all sense-perception since perception is different from the
:

thing perceived, the senses which supply us with the picture of the object cannot also inform us of its ob
3

jective reality.
SfjAa elvai. It

The organ
ej/t

of the

common sense

is

the

TOV \evKov, aAAa Se?

nvi

must therefore be one and the same faculty by which we distinguish different kinds of sensations from one another and to this, in order that these may be compared with one another, these must be
:

faculty can know the distinction between whiteness and sweetDe Somno, 2, 455, a, 1 7 ness.
:

/cat

Kpivei
TO.

8/7

Kal Svvarai Kpiveiv

on

erepa

ycvffei ovre

y\vKta rwv XtvK&v, oure fyei OVT a/j.Qo tv, a\\d

popitp
fjifv
TU>V

nvi
c.

Koivi?

airavTow. effn

yap

/j.ia

simultaneously present, meetingin it as two lines meet in a com-

(see p. G6, n. 7, supra). Cf i. 209, n. 3, supra.

.

(The details of this point. theory, which suggests many clifficulties, cannot be here discussed besides TRENDELENBUBGW&Z0C0, see the discussion of it in KAMPE,
;

mon

Seep. 67, n. 2,suj)ra, where this is shown to have been Aristotle s view. 3 DC An. iii. 2 init.: eVel S
-

ala"9av6/ne6a

on bpw^v

Kal d/couo-

Ar. 107; BEENTANO, Psycliol. d. Ar. 90 sqq. BAUMKER, vO sqq.). Similarly T IVI 8 eiriKpivei c. 7, 431, a, 20 Ti Siafyepei y\vKv Ka\ 0p/j.6v ... OVTOD Se Kal TJ yap ev n 6\us 6 opos [the boundary] &c. Just as one sense knows the distinction between -white and black, so one and the same
Erkenntti.lssth. d.
;
:

avdvicn % rrj oi^et aiaQaveaQai tin 6pa, $ erf pa [sc. alffd^ffei]. The
/*ep,

former, however, is inadmissible, if for no other reason, because in that case we must assign colour to the seeing subject [the opwv irpwrov), as to all visible De Somno. 2, 455, a, 15 things.
:

eo-rt

8e

ns

Kal

Koivh
7

8vva/j.is

aKo\ovdov<ra iraffais,

/cat

on

6pa

70
1

ARISTOTLE
in which, as

heart,

we have

already seen, the general

2
c

principle of the sensitive

life resides.

To

this single faculty of perception, or

common

sense, proceeds 3 important mental phenomena.

4

Aristotle

to

attribute
It
is

number of

the source of

imagination and memory, which are therefore shared Imagination is by many brutes as well as by man.
a

movement produced by
5

sensation, an after-effect of

the sense-perception

in other

words a spent sensa-

Kal aKovei alffOdverai [so BONTTZ, Arist. Stud. iii. 72, reads accord ing to the text of two MSS.
;

also the central organ of sensa

tion.
3

For the following account

d.
b.

BEKK. has
ye

Kal cuV0.] o^et opa %TI opa

.

ov
.

yap

8/7 TT)

a\\d

TLVI

FEEUDENTHAL, Ueber Bfgriff d. Wortes (pavraffia

see

O.TTO.V-

Arist. 1863.
c. 10,

TUV.
1

The heart
,

is

the ev Kotv bv
evepyeiav aTravrav (De

aiVfl JjTTjpiOj
al<rd-f]0~eis

els o TO.S KO.T*

An,
;

Juvent.

1,

avayKcuov 467, b, 28); TO ye Kvpiov

ev ravrr) TO?S evai-

T&V
/jiois

alffd^ffewv ev iracriv.

rovry yap
T<av

ava.yKa.1ov

elvai

TO iravTdW

Koivbv
a, 10).
-

alcrOTjTripicav alffO-riT-fipiov (ibid. c. 3, 469,

3, 428, a, 9, 21, Hut. 433, a, 11, c. llin.it. 25 De Mem. 1, 1, 488, b, 449, a, 28, 450, a, 15, c. 2, 453, a, 6 MetapJi. i. 1, 980, a, 27, b, 25 cf. p. 71, n. 3, p. 73, n. 4, Infra. Some animals, therefore, dream as well as man, Divin. p. S. 2,
;

De An.

iii.

i.

463, b, 12.
5 After showing, De An. iii. that it is neither nor vovs, nor eVio-Tirj^rj, nor 5o |a, nor

Cf. supra, p. 42 sq. and p. 66, n. 6, and on the question how

3,

df<r07j<m,

the sensations of the three senses which have their seat in the head are transmitted to the heart, p. 67, n. 1 But the heart is also the seat of the sense of touch (see p. 67, n. and to this the remark, 1, supra} DC Somno, 2, 455, a, 22, seems to refer, where it is said that the ?5(oi/ and the koivbv of aftrflrjcns
.

a combination of 5 J|a and afcrflrjo-i?,

Aristotle proceeds,
428,
b,

10
TJ

aAA

7ret5))

eo"Tt

KwrjOtj/ros
virb

rovftl

KivelffQai

erepov

TOVTOV,

5e

(pavracria KW7]als TLS SoweT elvai Kal OVK avev alaOJ-ffews yiyveffQai aAA al(r8avo/jLfvois Kal )V atffQriffis effrlv,
eo~Ti

Se yiveadai Kivtiffiv VTTO TTJS evtpyeias TTJS al a Or) (Tews, Kal ravrrjv
6fj.oia

[for this we must suppose to be the meaning of TOVTO, 1. 22, placing with BONITZ the words ov yap XpupaTos, 1. 17-22, in a paren
.

elvai rfj aia6r)o~ei,

r]

elrj

vTT)

is ovre avev alffO^fffas re /j.}) ai<r6avo/j.evois iroAAa KCT avrr]v Kal

i/,

thesis]

a/uLa

T$

aTTTiKy

fj.d\

o"0

iroielv Kal

/cat

eJvai
:

virdpx*i, this

of

the

being the only one senses whose organ is

Kal

aA7j07j

Kal

^ev

L. 30

ovv

p.ridev p.ev

a\\o

PHYSICS
tion. 1

71

The motion caused by the external impression the sensitive organ not only produces an immediate upon effect in the sensation which follows, but continues in
whence under certain circumstances it organ, passes to the central organ, and in this way repro duces the pictorial image, 3 even in the absence of the obthe
[so the majority of the MSS, TORSTR. with E reads $) % (pavr., but considers the words spurious BEKK. and TREND, are
;
;

in reading T) pr) TOVTO 5 ccrrl [ToRSTR. conj. e^ei] TO Aex^ei/, j] <pavra(r:a kv eit] KiVrjcns UTTO rrjs aiffdr) crews

certainly

wrong

(pavra<riav^

TTJS /car

De evepyeiav yiyvo^vr). 459, a, 17 (a passage which establishes the true reading in DeAn. 429, a, 2 as yiyvoiievt],
Insomn.
1,
->]$).

not
1

Rliet.

i.

11, 1370, a,
e<rr\v

28

rj

Se

(pavraffia.
2

ai<rQi}cris

TIS

acrdevfis.

De Mem.

1,

350, a, 27

the

where e ts is yui/Tj^uyj, consists of a kind of which attrd-riais produces in the soul (i.e. the tyvx^ alcrd-nriK^) and in the part of the body where ib resides y yap yivo^vn Kivrja-is
irdQos,
<oypd<prifjLa,

case by the rapid growth, in the latter by the rapid decay, of the body. The latter passage would of itself be sufficient to prove that in Aristotle s view the persistence of the sense-impressions, which are compared to the impress of a stamp, is not that of actual material copies of the objects (even in his account of senseperception itself, p. 58 sq. supra, Aristotle gives no countenance to such a view), nor even that of qualitative changes in the organs themselves, but is due to the continuance in the organs of the motions caused by the original sensation. This, however, becomes still more obvious from the quotations that follow in the On the whole subnext note. ject see FREUDENTHAL, p. 20
sqq.
3 This is the sense of the passage in IT. evvirv. c. 3, already After showing in, referred to. the beginning of c. 2, 6n KO.\

the former

otov

TVTTOV

TWO.

rov

alcrd r)iLi.aTos KaQdirep o!

<T(ppayt6/j.evoi

TO?S 8aKTv\iois.

under deep
is

this account, emotion or in the

On

early years of childhood,

memory
els
05a>p

weak, the excitement being

Ka.6a.Trep
&i/

a.-rr\()6vTos

rov

QvpaOev alcrOrjrov
alaQr]ra ovra,

too strong,
peov

efjL.uevei TO. alcrd-fi/j-ara

/j.irnrTov(rr)s
;

TTJS

/ctj/^o-ecos

Kai

that

TAJS atypaylSos

age

Sia TO

conversely in old ^xta-Qai fwear] /cat Sia

ffK\f]p6Tf]Ta TOV 8exofj.evov TO ird6os OVK eyy.verai 6 TVTTOS. The same

phenomenon

is

explained,

c.

2,

453, b, 4, as the result, not only in the case of children but of old men, of a /ctV^o-ts caused in

faculty which gives judgment upon the corresponding objects is different from that which supplies the sense with the images of them (cf. p. 67, n. 2), and that in this way we get the delirious fancies of fever and other illusions of sense into which we are seduced by passion

the

72
1

ARISTOTLE
To
this

ject.

power of reproducing images of sense Ari the name of Phantasy and to the images stotle gives themselves the cognate name of phantasms. 2 Phantasy,
;

and emotion,
in
c.

Aristotle proceeds

67, n. 2,

supra); 6rav yap

the

motions

caused

partly by impressions made upon us from without, partly by those produced from within the body itself, are repressed during the day by the activity of sense and

[as isexplained,461, b, 10], KUTLOVTOS TOV TrAefcTTOi; aifj.ci.TOS tirl T))V

apx^v

ffvyK.a.TepxovTa.1

at

evovo~ai

thought,

and rendered imper

ceptible [a(paviovTai tirrirep irapa as the light of TroAu irvp eAarToi/ the stars before the sun]
;

however, partly partly eVep-yeioc, the former appearing ( eirnro\d.eiv ) when the others by which they have hitherto been repressed dis T appear Kal \v6fJifvai eV
Kij/rjo-eis.

These

exist,

8vi>d/j.fi

o\[y<p

5e

5t

apy tav
irl

T&V

Kara

AonrqiJ a i/bLan rcf eV TO?S al(T0r)Tr)piois Kivovvrai [in the blood which is

T
Kara^epoi/rat Kal yiKadLffTa/m.fvrjs

after the
TTJS

[the heart]
VOVTO.I

(pavepal

Tapaxvs- The same thing takes place in sleep (461, a, 18 sqq.) TO.
:

behind in he organs of sense main body of it has flowed back to the heart, the sensitive motions contained in it, which have hitherto lain latent,
left
1

(pavTacr/iiaTa Kal al viroXoii

[those lingering remnants of the motions produced by impressions

upon the senses which are the cause of phantasms cf. p. 70, n. 5,
;

become liberated owing to the exhaustion, by the diminution of the quantity of blood, of those motions which have hitherto restrained them], x V(Tai fyoi6a rrjra wtrirep ra eV rots
ve<p<Ttv,

iraptiKa^ovariv avOp&nois Kal Kfvrav-

SUprci\ &T
ird/j.irav,

fj.\v VTTO

/j.eioi>os

ova"rjs

Trjs etprj^eVrjs Ktvi](Tcas

afyavi&VTai ore Se TeTapay/^fvai

. .

<pai-

vovrai

KaQitTTauitvov

5e

Kal

StaKpivo/jLfvov
ei/at^uois,
t]

TOV

a"fJ.aTOs

eV TO?S

(rw^b^eVrj
ac/)

TWV TWV

Kivrjcris

e/cacrrou

[the motion caused by the sense-impression which is trans mitted from the organs of sense to the heart] eppw/j.va Te iroiei TO.
T-ripioiv

So pois Tax^us ^ueTajSaAAovTa. long as we keep hold even of a remnant of. consciousness in sleep we do not mistake those images for the things; if on the other hand we have lost all consciousness that we are asleep, we take the one for the other.

Dreams

(ra

<paiv6/jLeva

e5f5a?Aa

KaOcvSovTt, 462, a, 11) are there fore only the remnants of the

Kal [so. TroteT] QaiveaOai TL 5m TO. airb TTJS o^ecos KaTa(pep6[ji.va opav, Sia 5e TO, dirb
fvv-jrvia,

motions

caused

by

sensation

Kal

8o/ceTi/

/u.i>

TTJS aKorls

aKoviv.

ofj-OtOTpoTrcas

5e

Kal

a7rb

T&V

&\\<av

aiaOriTypicav.

For the apx^ accepts as true what the senses report, so long as it remains uncontradicted by a more authoritative report (cf. p.

(461, b, 21), as which they are often clearly recognised at the moment of waking. Hence he says, Zte An. iii. ra yap 8, 432, a, 9
1
:

u Arjs.
2

For proof of this see BONITZ,

PHYSICS

73

moreover, he holds to be the source of the images which 1 accompany thought. To these it is impossible to apply 2 the above sensational explanation they must be con
:

sidered as in

some way independent products of

intellec

tual activity. Aristotle, however, has given us no account of their origin or their relation to the images of sense.

While the reports of the single senses in their own depart ments are unerringly true, the imagination and the gene
ral reports of the

common

sense

.are

exposed to

illusion. 3

If an imagination relates to earlier perceptions and pre 4 sents a copy of them, then we call it memory (fjLVjjfjbrj) ;
Jnd. Arist. 811, b, 11 sqq. 812,

a,

the excitations of the organs of

sense.
3

9,25.
1

See next chapter.

Aristotle

See

i.

209, n. 3,
:

and

ii.

67,

actually

distin

n. 2,
4

supra.

guishes
(pavra<r-a.

between two kinds of De An. iii. 10, 433, b,

28

opfKTiKbv 8e [so. TO Qfov iffrlv] OVK avev (pavTacrias. (pavrarria Se

:

De Mem. i all memory refers to the past and therefore presup poses the intuition of time, 449, b, 28 ftcra xP& vov oilffOdverai, Tavra
:

7}

\oyL<TTiK^]

r)

al<r07jTiKr].

liova. -T&V
S>

<f<av

/j.vri/JLOi

evei, Kal Tovrcp

/J.ev

ovv

Kal

ra #AAa
T)
. . .

alaOdverai.

<pa

(See

i.

436, n. 2,

ii.

c.

11, 434, a, 5:
(pavraffia

/u.ej/

al(r9-r]TLK^

ical

and 71, n. 3, supra. ) The faculty upon which memory de

70, n. 4,

5e

/SouAeimKr)

eV

TO"IS

\oyiffr i/co??.

can only here the power of reproducing from the motions that linger in the organs of sense the images represented by them, the
alo-OrjTiK))
<bzvT.

As

mean

phantasy, for it always to sensory primarily images, and in a derivative and sense to thoughts in secondary

pends

is

refers

so far as thought itself is impos sible without a pictorial image,

<$>O.VT.

rb yap jSouAeuriKT? (or Ao7iO"Ttcr) jSouAeveo-flcu Kal XoyifecrQcu ravrov,

:

2, 1139, a, 12) must the power of projecting images of things in the future,

Eth.

vi.

mean

of means and ends whose com parative value it is the function of jSouAeucns to estimate with a view to the exercise of choice. Such images, however, are not, like those of memory, given in

as is shown (450, a, 15) by the fact that brutes have memory as Cf. 450, a, 13: well as man. (iitrre TOV voov/j.evov [I/OOUI/TOS or vov 1 ] /cara (rv/j.^e^Kos &v efy, avr6 5e TOV Trpwriv alaOrjTiKOv. T?IS 450, a, 22 rivos f*.fv ovv
1

Kad"

TU>V

e<rrlv

f)

Kal
/j.vr]/j,ovVTa

r]

tyavepby, OTL Kal CO~TI (fiavraffta

/j.v^/.i.i],
1

Kad"

avra

fj.ev

orra earl

(ptavTatrra,
jj(,}]

Kara

(TVju.fieBr)Kbs Se oo~a

avev (pavracrias.

The ^av

74

ARISTOTLE
is

and the conscious reproduction of a memory

recollec

tion (avdfjLvrja-is). Man alone is capable of recollection, since he alone can reflect ; * but memory, as we have
said, is

shared by brutes.

Recollection depends upon

the natural coherence of the

the imaginative pictures

movements which produce by virtue of this coherence

one image is called up by another formerly connected with it. 2 These movements have their seat in the
however, only becomes a recol
lection
(/j.vTHJ.6vev/j.a)

o~v\\oyio-jjL6s TLS fffTiv. Jf.

An.

ibid.

when we

recognise in it the copy of an actual perception, when we con nect with it the thought that it is the repetition of a previous perception a point upon which we are not always certain. Ac cordingly we sometimes fail to re cognise actual memories as such, and at other times mistake mere fancies for memories (450, b, 18
eVrl /Liv-fiM [the chap, concludes] Kal TO mvi]^.oVfvtiv, efyjTjrat, art (pavTaff/AUTOS, us eiK6vos ov <f)dvTao-/jLa, e|ts (which
sqq.).
iJ.ev otiv

also connects /3oiM.etW0aiwith avafj.ifj.vf)o-Kfo-Oai as peculiar to man. 2 Aristotle Perhaps gives this explanation, ibid. 451, a, H) sqq., with a tacit reference to

the mnemonics mentioned by him in other passages (De An. iii. 3, 427, b, 19 De Insomn. 1. 458, b, 20; Top. viii. 14, 1(53, b, 28). he takes Kecollection, says,
;

place,
7^5e

eVeiS);

iretyvKev

}]

Kivr)(Tis

Tl

should

be

taken,

not,

with

FREUDENTHAL, ibid. 36 and elsewhere, in its narrow sense dis cussed i. 285, n. 3, supra, but in the simple sense of having or keeping;
cf

the connection is a necessary one, the rirst is invariably recalled by if it is the second merely Some habitual, only as a rule. times, however, a single occur rence creates a fixed habit. AvafMi/uLvf)o Kffdai both in the case of intentional and unintentional
76j/0"0at

jweTa Trji/Se

if

T&V

449, b, 25) Kal TLVOS fj-opiov 6ri TOV Trptarov alff67]riKOV Kal y XP OVOV alffOavo/neOa. Hist. An. i. 1 fin. De Mem. As ii. 451, b, 2, 453, a, 6 sqq. the reason of this, it is said, in on TO ava/ju/jii/ f}o~Keo~()ai 453, a, 9
.

c.

i.

ev

T)ijCiv,

recollection consists in recalling former motions in their order until we arrive at the object of start in this process search. OLTTO TOU vvv [i.e. from a present

We

intuition]
6/uLoiov
3)

T)

aAAou TWOS, Kal

y)

a(p

effTiv olov o~v\\oyia/u.6s

ns on yap
ij

TTp6r*pov

6?5ev

3)

^Kovfftv

n.

TOIOVTOV

o~v\\oyi^Tai 6 Kal ecrnv olov ava/j.L/j.j/r]o~K6/ui.vos, ns. TOVTO 5 ofs Kal TO

HiraOe,
K.al

TOU avveyyvs. Aristotle has not further deve loped these hints upon the socalled laws of the association of
ei-avTiov

ideas,

nor has he explained whether of the two principles of

yap TO

fiov\evso~6ai.

avd/j.vr)(Tis, avdyKf] and %6os, the former embraces only those cases

PHYSICS
heart.
1

76

the feelings

Lastly, from sensation and imagination arise of pleasure and pain, 3 and the appetites, we shall have to treat in detail when we come whereof

to Anthropology. 3

of the

Aristotle regarded Sleep and Waking as conditions common faculty of perception. 4 Sleep is the
its free activity.
wa/cbj/,
77

imprisonment of that faculty, waking is

in which the physical movement that underlies the pictorial image
irpbs

TO ayaQbv Kal

TOI:

spontaneously produces other such movements or includes also those in which the content of a conducts presentation given
necessarily to the recollection of On the other certain others. hand, Aristotle gives us the

Phys. vii. 3, 247, a, 24 yap KUT ivepyeiav TO TTJS

aCro.
Sici
/j.vfifj.rjv
$)

/}

OTTO Trjs

eATn Sos.

ft /j.ev ovv /CCIT fvfpyfiav, TO afaiov, el 8e Sia e ATn Sa, OTTO TCUTTJS ^ yap oia tTro.Qofj.ev (jL^.vi]^.4vois TO TTJS T/Soi^s
T)

oia.

ireio o yuefla

e\iriov<riv.

We

general law which determines the succession of those associations

viz.

which depend upon habit,

on
former
cwoAou1.

shall return to pleasure in dealing with the Ethics, but neither here nor there do we find an

that each presentation is recalled by that which immediately preceded

it its

accurate psychological
of the feeling. 3 Cf. meantime

account
ii.

De An.

2,

occurrence
Oovffiv

r$ yap

efler

at

Kivi]ffis

ctAArjAats,

a
it
is

T7Ji/5e

(451, b, 28, cf.

22).

IMd. 453,
irddos,

a, 14 sqq., where TO stated, cm o-<JyiaTi/coV

413, b, 23, c. 3, 414, b, 1-16, iii. De 8 sqq. iii. 11; 7, 431, a, Part. An. Som.no, i. 454, b, 29 ii. 17, 661, a, 6. 4 IUd. c. 2, 455, a, 5-b, 13
;
:

Kal

r]

avd/j.vr](ns
.

eV

(f)avTd(Tfj.aros

avaTI Kivei fv

/j.ifj.vrjo-K6/j.vos (rcD/j.aTiK6v

sleep and waking do not belong to the senses individually, but to the Kvpiov T&v a\\tov trdvTuv
alo dqT-fipiov,

T& TrdOos what This is is not, in deed, further explained. Since, however, the seat of memory in

the TrpaTov $ aladdi.

veTai irdvTuv.

De Somno,
ei

e.g.

454, a, 32

general
this
2

is

the heart,

it

must be
b,

TO IVVV TO

eyprjyopevai.

&pio-Tai

which is meant. Do An. ii. 2, 413,

yU6i/

TO

23:
O\TJV

OTTOU

yap
!

aar#Tj<m,

Kal AUTTTJ Te

Kal

riSovTi, OTTOV

Se TauTa, e| aj dyKtjS
iii.

Kal

eiri8v/u a.

3,

414, b, 4
fl$V

TOVTO 8 TOV avdyKrj TTO.V TO

Ka9evofiv
V.

f Ka6evSfiv tvavTiov eo~Tlv aSvvafJLia Si

fyprjyopevai

eypyyopus ej/8eaovvaTov yap aei

T6 Kal
1,

XVTTT]

KO.I

TO

Kttl

It

is

impossible,

how

Xvirif]p6v.

(Similarly

De Somno,
:

Ko*Tt

454, b, 29.) c. 7, 431, a, 10 TO ^Secrflcu Kal \virf7(r6ai TO

Tfj

ever, that it should sleep for ever, for to sleep without awaking would be to lose the power of

sensation.

454,

b,

25

TTJS

76

ARISTOTLE

these conditions are only exhibited by beings capable of sensation but with them they are invariable, for the faculty of perception cannot remain active
:

Hence

without experiencing exhaustion from time to time. The object of sleep is to maintain life, to refresh and
1

restore

and

this again subserves the higher

2

purpose of

The natural causes of sleep lie in waking activity. the nutritive process. The vital warmth drives the
fumes away from the food upwards collecting there, they make the head heavy and induce sleepiness but
;

cooling in the brain, they sink down again and cause a refrigeration of the heart, in consequence of which the
activity of this chief organ of sensation is suspended. This condition lasts until the food is digested and the

purer blood, destined for the upper portions of the body, is secreted from the denser sort, which passes

downwards. 3

Dreams

arise

from the internal motions

of the organs of sense, which continue after the trans mission of external impressions has ceased. In the

waking
of sense

state these motions disappear beneath the action

and thought; but in sleep, on the contrary, and especially towards the end of sleep, when the dis turbance of the blood has ceased, they stand forth more 4 Hence it may happen that an internal motion clearly.
al(rO-fi<T<as

a.Kivt)<riav

rpoirov riva r^jv /te/ Kal olov Seff/muv virvov

elvai (pa/j.v,
1

r^v Se \vaiv Kal r^v

aveaiv eyp-fiyopviv.

above, we must suppose that these sleep also. 2 Ibid. ii. 455, b, 16-28, c. 3, end.
3

See preceding note and DC Somno, 1, 454, b, 14-455, a, 3, where it is said that all animals are actually ostracea except observed to sleep, and thaf, on the general grounds mentioned

De Somno,
is

c. 3,

where

this

point
4

very fully discussed,

illustrated

As is shown and interestingly by careful observations

fields,
IT.

from cognate

swirviuv

(see p. 71, n. 3, supra}, cf. Divin,

PHYSICS
in the body,

77

which would not be perceived in waking

itself

felt in dreams, or that dreams, people to subsequent action by the reversely, impel It is also images which they present to the soul.

hours,

makes

possible that sensible

impressions

reach

us in sleep

which would not have struck upon our senses in the more disturbed atmosphere of the daytime, or would have failed to arouse our attention. Thus some pro
phetic dreams
this

may

be explained naturally; anything

must be considered a casual coincidence, beyond for we notice that many dreams do not come true at
all.
1

Death, like sleep, must be explained by an altera

tion in the central organ. It happens when the vital warmth, which resides in the heart (or the correspondp.
>S.

1, -1(53,

a,

7 sqq.

Dreams

according to the account here given (c. 3, 462, a, 8, 29) are

Kiv^fffis

caused by fancy]
TTjpiots,

TO>

rots cuVflrj... TO (pavraa/j-a TO cnro TTJS Kiv^a-ews rwv ala0^juLdrcau, orav eV KaQfvSeiv 77, 77 KafleuSei, TOUT
ecTTtf evvirviov.

(pavra(TrLKal eV

[movements

This is essentially the doctrine set forth in the treatise TT.

1

opinion which, he thinks, may have given rise to the belief in the existence of the Gods. If at the time of the composition of this dialogue he attributed any real value to this opinion,it would be only one of the many proofs of the influence which the views of Plato still exercised over him. His whole treatment of the subject as given above shows far he was at a later time

how
from

TTJS KO.& virvov jUcti/TZKTjs.

It cannot,

on the other hand, be regarded

as the expression of Aristotle s scientific conviction when in one of his Dialogues (see i. 390, n. 3, Kupra) he speaks of the soul in sleep and just before death, when about to withdraw from the body
into its true being, as possessed of a power of insight into the future, Such a view, it is much more probable, does not at all express his own conviction, but merely an

regarding eleep as a higher condition of the spiritual life. The views that Cic. Divin. i. 38, 81 attributes to Aristotle on the
of prophetic foresight aliquid in anirnis pracsagiens atque divinum ) said to be possessed by hypochondriacs were

power
(

much more probably taken from one of the Dialogues, than from Divin. p. S. c. 2 init. or Eth. End.
vii. 14,

1248,

a, 39.

78

ARISTOTLE
is
1

ing member),

extinguished.

The cause

of this

extinction, which affects all fire alike, is generally the want of nourishment. This may be brought about in two ways either the operation of antagonistic mate 2 rials may prevent the fire from maturing its aliment,
:

blood

which in the case of life is the vapour rising from the or else an excess of warmth may induce too
;

3 rapid consumption of it. natural decay of old age.

The

latter takes place in the

During a length of time the have been growing gradually harder respiratory organs and drier, moving themselves in consequence more
slowly,

and becoming incapable of providing the neces

4 Accordingly sary covering process for the inner heart. the inner fire decreases more and more, until at last it

extinguished, like a little flame, by some insignificant movement. 5 The causes of greater or less longevity are discussed by Aristotle in a special treatise.
is

Up
the

to this point

we have

dealt

exclusively with

common conditions and peculiarities of animal life. These common characteristics are displayed in the most
and degrees of completeness by the dif The animal kingdom exhibits
;

different forms

ferent races of animals.

1

and

see pp. 7 c. 4 42, supra, andcf. Ees/rir. 17,

Vita,
fire

De

cf.

5 DC Repir. 17, 479, a, 7 sqq. De Vita, 5, 4G9, b, 21, 470, a,

478, b, 31 sqq. 479, a, 7 sqq. 2 As in the extinction of

coals

(where the suffocation of fire by is cited as an illustration,

iv. 1,
;

by water.
Vita,c. 5, 496, b, sq. The third possible case, when the supply of the requisite aliment fails, as in death by starvatiou,
is
3

De

in the same way). 379, a, 3 Loiigit. V. 5, 46ti, a, 19, 22, b, 14; Gen. An. v. 3, 783, b, G.

and explained
Meteor,

here

unnoticed

by

Aristotle.
4 That this is the purpose served by respiration has already

Hep: fiaKpofiifoviTOSKcA fipaxvcf. Gen. An. iv. 10, 777, b, 3. Upon the results there ai rived at, c. 5, 6, it is impracticable here to enter more fully,
^

^torriros

been proved

at p. 43.

PHYSICS

79

a gradual and continuous progression from the poorest and most undeveloped forms of life to the highest, and
it is

Aristotle s undisputed distinction to have first dis covered this scale and to have followed it through all
1

Even the local habitations aspects of animal life. of the different animals, the elements to which they belong, enable us to distinguish their several degrees
of honour and importance. 2
As has already been gener shown, p. 20 sqq. supra cf 466 sqq.
1
;

Nor must
thing at
all

the variations

springs from either

If

ally
i.

ice or

fire.

to

Aristotle frequently touches this point. His statements it, however, are not always consistent with one another either in regard to the birth and habitations, or in regard to the elementary constitution of dif ferent living creatures. Meteor, iv. 4, 382, a, 6 (De An. i. 5, 411, a, 9 relates to another subject) he

popular

we may put down mode of speech

air-animals in
(pi\o<ro(pias,

upon upon

the mention of the treatise IT.

by which are only meant winged ani

mals, yet the fire-animals men tioned in his Natural History and alluded to by other writers (cf.

says

eV 777 KCU tv vSari

a /JLOVOV

(rnv, eV de /n 8e nal irvpl OUK fffriv, OTI Tuiv ffwfj.drwv v\r] ravTa. (On

FABBICIUS, on Sext. Pyrrh. i.41. IDELER, on Meteorol. ii. 454 PHILO, Plant. Noe, 216, A, De Gigant. 285, A) cannot be recon ciled with his other- statements. But, secondly, with regard to the
;

the statement in the latter clause v. i. 483, n. On the other 2,siy>ra). hand, according to CiG. N. D. ii. 15, 42; PLUT. Plat. V. 20, 1 (Fr. Ar.
19),

material constituents of living bodies, Aristotle holds (DeAn. i. 5, 411, a, 9. iii. 13 init., and the pas sage refei red to in i. 482, n. 3,
*wy>.)

he had declared, probably in

the dialogue IT. </nAofro0 as, that as there are land-, water-, and airanimals (C^ a X P ffa^a twSpa,
i

that while each contains a mixture of all the elements, there may be a preponderance of different ele

ments
also,

in different bodies.

Here

or according to Cic. cum animantium ortus in ttrra sit, aliorum in aqua, in aere aliorum ), there must also be (ya ojpdvLa, and the stars must there fore be animate. Again, Hist. An. v. 1.9, 552, b, 6-15, he speaks of
irrt]va,

alioium

however, his statements are not always consistent. De Bespir. 13, 477, a, 27, he says ra /nev yap
:

7eVos [and ace. to Gen. An. 743, b, 10, shell-fish and Crustacea], ra 8 e | VSaros oloi/ rb
ii.

6,

i(av evvfiptav
7re(oh/
TO.
fj.ev

TU>V

Se

TTTTJ^WI

/ccti

worms which spring by spon

taneous generation from
ice, flies

e|

aepos
fv
TO?S

ra

e/c

Trvpos.

e/cao-ra

oiiceiois

which spring from

Gen,, et

fire,

whereas,

TOTTOIS

he had expressly denied that any

Corr.
ii.

3,

330, b, 29,

%x ei r ^ t/ Ta^iv avrtav. On the other hand, Gen. An. iii. 11, rd p.tv yap fyvra. &(.irj 761, b, 13
:

80

ARISTOTLE

in their vital heat be neglected, as that is a point of the greatest moment in determining the perfection of animate

existence. 1

Together with the

vital

heat must be

men

tioned the character of the blood and of the humours

corresponding to it in other animals, on which depends the broad distinction between sanguineous and blood

The temper and intelligence of animals are regulated in a great measure by the constitution of their blood, while of course its influence over their
less creatures.

physical structure

not less important. 3 It is only sanguineous animals which have flesh, the bloodless are
is

yTs,
5t
ire^a

o/pos

aToy Se rd eVuSpa, ra TO 5e /j.a\\ov Kal

Kal ^VXTJS
-

rfTvx n

ffi ai Ti/J.iocTfpzs.

On

this distinction, of

which

^ITTOV Kal fyyi/Tfpiv Kal Troppwrepov TroAArji/ iron? Kal 6av/j.ao~Tr)v 5ta(topdv.

TO Se TtTapTov ytvos OVK

TO)!/

firl

TOVTCCV

TOTTUV 5e?

^VjTeTz/

/CGUTOt

jSovAerai 76 Tt Kon-a Tyy TOV Trupoy dAAa 5e? TO roiovrov flvai Ta.)-iv.
. .

Aristotle very frequently makes use, see, besides many other pas sages, Hist. An. i. 4-6, 489, a, 30, 490, a, 21, 26 sqq. b, 9. ii. 15 init Part. An. ii. iv. 1 init. c. 3 init.
;

ytvos
Tf]s

VjTeTi/

eVt TTJS

o"eA.7jM7s

OI/TTJ

yap (paivtrai Koivuvovaa

airo(TTd<Te(i)s,

The

rerdpwhole class
r?is

650, b, 30, and the passages referred to 26, n. 1, supra. From Part. iii. 4, 665, a, 3 1
2, 648, a,
1.

c.

4,

(ArjjUO/fpiTO? 5

eot/cej/

ov

KaXws

Sia-

of 7rea (land animals and birds) are here assigned to the air, just as De tSoim/, c. 5, 444, a, 10, men and quadrupeds are classed with those oaa jueTe%et /j.a\\ov rrjs TOV
aepos ^uo-eccs: fire-animals on the other hand are said to inhabit the

avr jUt/cpoT7jTa TWV ava /J-cav ravra = their elVcu intestines) BRANDiS,ii.b. 1301 concludes that
Aa/8etV
Trepl

Dernocritus had

made
;

the dis

moon, of which there is a sugges tion also De An. ii. 3, 414, b, 18 But it (see p. 20, n. 3, supra). remains to be asked how in the ethereal region, to which the moon also belongs, there can be beings
constituted of all the elements. Cf. MEYER, Ari*t. TJiierk. 413 sq 393, and i. 472 sqq. supra. De Ifcsp. 13, 477, a, 16 Ta
1
:

tinction between sanguineous and bloodless animals the inference, however, is a doubtful one, as

Democritus

may have mentioned

maybe Aristotle s.
ii.

only particular species of animals, and the general designation of

them
3

as

&vai/j.z

Part. An.

p. 39. n. 6,

s/>ra)

12: iroXXwv 8
(pvffLS

648, a, 2 (see c. 4, 651, a, ffTtv alria ri TOV

2,
;

Kal

KV.TO.

Tb

fjdos Tols
a{o-Qt]o~iv,

Kal
s

KaTa
v\r)

TV)--

yip ICTI

yap

PHYSIOS
l ;

81

the provided with something analogous to flesh former have a heart, the latter another kind of central 2 The vital heat and composition of the blood, organ.
again,

determine the development of the organs of

and secretion the brain, lungs, kidneys, 3 In everything bladder, and their peculiar functions. relating to the motion and posture of animals, Aristotle does not fail to recognise a special significance. Some
refrigeration

grow like plants adhering to the ground the more perfect races, on the contrary, are capable of locomo
tribes
:

tion at will. 4

differences in the organs of motion

Furthermore, he traces very considerable and the modes of

5 It is only in the progression displayed by the latter. case of locomotive creatures that we find the opposition

of right and

left,

to

which Aristotle

attributed

much

importance,
tion. 7

together with a more complex organisa Lastly, while in shell-fish and plants the head

looks downwards,

and while

in animals without feet or

with
it is
1

many

feet it is

turned to the middle of the world,

unity and centralisation of the while in
birds

turned upwards in bipeds, and particularly in man. 8

See p. 26, n. 2, mpra. See p.26,n. 7; p.41,n.3, tup. See p. 26, n. 8 p. 40, n. 1,
;

2 3

vital force (ibid. c. 7),

common with some

have
little

and
4

they

p. 43, n. 6,

supra.
6"81,

Hist. An. viii. 1, 588, b, 10 a, 12sqq.; Part. An. iv. 5,

power of steering their

20; Inyr. An. 19;

415, a, 6,
5

De An.

flight (ibid. 10, 710, a, 4). b See p. 33, n. 3, sup.,andln(/r.

ii.

3,

and p. 49, n. 5, gupra. Even birds seem stunted

(/ce/coAo/ScoTcu)

fish

in this respect, but even more so (Part. An. iv. 13 init.} in the motion of ser;

pents and worms there is properly no distinction of right and left in (Inc/r. An. 4, 705, b, 22 sqq.) the case of insects the multitude of their feet indicates deficient
;

An. 4,705, b, 13 to end. Aristotle there remarks (70G, a, 18) that the distinction between right and left reaches its highest development in man, Sia rb /COT a tyvmv eiv r ^ v ^V a / 8e /m.d\i(TTa tx &4\ri&v re rb 8eibi/ rov apurrepov
"

<t>u0fi

ttal

/cex^pto-^eVoi/.
7

Part. An. Part. An.

c.

iv.
iv.
;

7 init.
7,

Tngr. An.

De

683, b, 18 Vita, 1, 468,

VOL.

II.

82

ARISTOTLE
its

The

structure of the body and the relation of of posture. 1 correspond to these differences

members

In

human

the body is lighter than the beings the upper portion of of their intellectual activity, and lower, for the sake

because of their greater warmth.

size

In quadrupeds the
are
greater.

and weight of these

parts

As

the vital heat decreases, and the earthly ingredients to preponderate, the number of the feet is mul

begin

tiplied,

and the whole body head becomes one great Beyond sensation disappears, the begins to turn downwards, 2 animal becomes a vegetable. The size of animals, again,
until at last they disappear,
foot.

this point the

a,

Man s upright posture is 5. a. 20, explained, Resjrir. 13, 477, as the result of the purity and abundance of his blood Part An.
;

8e (pepovrbpdpos Kal -n-efrvov ^yar\> nutp&v &c. [of. i. 467, n. 2, snpra\ Sib Kal aQpoveo-repa -n-avra ra
.
. .

&a
8
8r?

TUV

av6pd>irwv
TJ

evriv.

atnov
iroAA<

ii.

7,

653,

it a, 30, iii. 6, 6(59, b, 4,

...

on

T??S

^vxvs

apxr)

is

fact of his

accounted for by the cognate higher temperature, heat having the effect of raising the fact t he body, as is proved by that warm-blooded quadrupeds are the more up(the fooroKa} An. iv. 10, 686, a, 25, right. Part. the argument is put teleologicarms instead of foreally: man has
ecrn fj.6vov TOJV feet, bpQov /J.ev yap Sta Tb r^v fyvffiv avrov Kal TT]V

iVi

8vo-Kivr)T6s Iffri Kal o-w^aroJSrjs. 8 \drrovos jvop.evr)s TT?S

alpovo-ns

Qep^rriros Kal rov yew-

Sous irAeiovos, rd re (rw/j.ara e\dr-

rova r&v re Aos 8

&W

effrl

Kal TroAuTroSa,

yiyverai Kal Teropfva irpbs r^v yrjv. piKpov 8 OVTW apxV *X vffl irpopaivovra Kal Kal TO Kara rrjv KefyaXfy /carco re\os a/aVrjToV eart Kal phpiov
T?>

arro Sa

fyav

avaiaQfiTov, Kal yiverai fywrov.

is

o vfflav
5

eli/ai

Qeiav

epyov

Se

rov

eeiordTOvrbvocTvKctiQpoveivrovro 8 ov paoiov TToAAoi) TOU avw0tv eVi^aros- TO 70^ /3apos -TTotet T^V Sidvuiav Kal fae-ncnv. The increased of weight of the upper portions the body requires that it should

since Ingr. An. c. 11 manj biped and designed for an} upright walk, the upper parts of;
:

body must be lighter, the! lower heavier. Birds cannot have? man on the upright posture account of this posture cannot have wings (for the reason givenj be placed horizontally on several for this, the student must consult TO 0dpos Aristotle himself). Cf. prev. n lep-s, ov Sui/a/xeVTjs (pfpeiv ^ s Kav ra y-p eo-Tt ra &a and Hist. An. ii. 4, 500, b, 26. 2 Part. An. iv. 10 see p. 8li TaAAa Trapa TOJ/ av6pwTrov yap fffnv ov TO p.kv avu n. 8, supra.
his
;
-

83

corresponds to their place in the scale of existence the warmer animals, according to Aristotle s notion, are ge nerally speaking greater, and therefore the sanguineous
:

larger than the bloodless, although he notice several exceptions to this rule. obvious basis of classification may be found in Another

animals are

does not

fail to

the

mode

of birth

and propagation.

Some animals

are

viviparous, and form their offspring in the womb, either with or without the intervention of an egg. 2 second class lay eggs, perfect in the case of birds, oviparous

quadrupeds, and snakes imperfect in the case of fishes, A third kind pro molluscs, and molluscous ostracea.
;

pagate themselves by worms, produced sometimes with, sometimes without, copulation, 3 and attaining their ulti

mate form only

all insects

after repeated transformation

almost

fourth series spring from slime or from the excre by spontaneous generation tions of animals as, for instance, the majority of shell

belong to this class.

fish

and some

fishes
all

and

insects. 4

The common funda

mental type of
is

these different modes of propagation

development from worms through eggs to organic form 5 but this process runs a different course, produ;

Respir. 13, 477, a, 18; Longlt. V. 5,466,b, 18, 28; Part. An. iv. 10, 686, b, 28 Hint. An. Gen. An. ii. 21 sqq. ij 5, 490, a, 732, a, 16 sqq. 2 The former is the case (#>?.
;
;
I"

n.
ii.

1,

5 Hist.
4

supra), c. 5, 755, b, 20, (see p. 53, n. 1, supra};

An.

iv. 11,

538, a, 19.
1,

Gen. An.

ii.

from 732.

a,

An.

ii.

1,

732,

a,

32,

i.

10,

and

elsewhere) with man, horses, cattle, dolphins, &c., the latter

with cartilaginous fish and vipers, 3 Instances of monogenesis

Aristotle finds in bees
fishes
;

25 onwards; Hist. An. i. 5, 489, a, 34-b, 18; Polit. i. 8, 1256, b, 10 sqq. On viviparous animals see especially Gen. An. ii. 4 sqq. on the others and on spontaneous generation, the passage cited p.
;

58,n.l,andp. 49, n.

and some

MBYEB,
5

Gen. An.

iii.

10 (see p. 58,

On

4, s?^., and also Arist. Thierk. 453 sqq.

the one hand, he holds

G 2

84

ARISTOTLE

to the higher cing a more or less perfect result, according So, since the the lower status of the animal. or warmer and less earthy animals are the noblest, we may

follow the warmth and say that birth and development The mode of material composition of the organisms. their birth reflects the perfection or imperfection of their nature, and if we estimate the whole animal
1

one standard, we obtain a scale which from the most perfect down to the least leads gradually

kingdom by
2

this

perfect.

Nor

are the senses equally distributed

OLOV

among

that the embryo even of oviparous and viviparous animals is vermicu lar at first, and, on the other, the

tion]

yiyverai [in chrysalisaTOVTOV 8 otinov on 77

.

/repaid irpb

&pas

eJoro/cet

which chrysalisation of insects appear first as worms is a trans formation into the form of an egg; so that even here the law of ana An. logy does not desert us Gen iii. 9, 758, a, 32 ffx^obv yap eoi/ce rb iroLvra (TKOjArj/coTOKeTv irpu>TOV OLTfX^ffTaTOV KvTf]fJ.a TOIOVTOV
.

aTf\tav
UVTOS TOV
q>ov

T^V

at>TT?s,

us

tr/ccoArj/cos

eri eV avtf

^aAa/coD.

case
1

with

The same is the moths and similar

:

animals. Cf. n. 2, infra. Gen. An. ii. 1, 732, b, 28

yap

eV traffi 8e Kal Tois fiTTiv. TOKOVfft Kal TOiS WOTOKOVffl

tobv

fooTO/cf?
TTi>ev/j.a

yap
eV
Kt

avTcS,

8c-x6/J.evoi

rb

rb KU7],ua rb irpwrov aS
fffTlv
T]
(f)v<ri.s.

ra
TOV o~Kw\r)Kos rb /j.Ta 5e TOVTO TO. juev (pOTOKtl 8 dreAes, e|cu Se Kv-n/j-a re Aetoj/ ra eVt TCOV yiyveTai re AeiOi Kaddircp
8
,

vyp6rpa
ir\ev/j.wi/

0pf.t.6Tpa Kal
6ff(av

TTJV

(pvcriv

yewSri
(^UfTi/C^S

TT)S

Sep^UOTTJTOS
wtTTrep Se TO al rb ATJ|

T7JS

<fov

OpOS tvai/j.6s eVriv TeAeov, 6 8e a

.

IxdvcuiV

e^prjTat

7roA\a/cts.

TO.

ey
TiVO.

uibv

dreAes, O JTUS rb

aUTols

(pOTOKOVVTtt
T"b

Tp6lTOV

reAetoi

e/c

TOV

uexa
vypbv
TIS

(TvffT fifJi.a

Tb

e^

ap^Tjs

iretyuKsv.

Warmth and

moisture

aJoetSes yiveTai
vfj-ivi

TTfpte ^erat

yap Tb

Ae?rT(j5,

Kaddirep Uv ft

d^e Aot Tb TUV cpui 6o~Tpa>tov. An. viii. (Of. on this point Hist. The insect germ is a worm, 7.)
it is born by ordinary or by spontaneous generation, and the same is true of caterpillars and of the supposed spiders eggs.

whether

are favourable, cold and dryness hostile to perfect development Aristotle tries to show, 733, a, 3 methods of sqq., how the various the production depend upon various ways in which these are

distributed
2

and combined.
733,
f]

IHd.
cbs

a,

32:
TO.

Se

vorjaaL

TO. trKcoATj/cwSrj irpoeXQovTa. Se irivra Act^3-)^TCt TCAOy K2U TOV jU V00l $

aTTuSi Saxni

(pvffis.

/J.ev

yap

reAewrep.x

/cat

Oep^^repa TWV

PSYSICX
the different tribes
:

85

them

possess in

all

it is only the more perfect which the five senses, while the others partake of

Again, there are only a few animals in which memory and imagination and accordingly they are developed from sensation
less

more or

completeness.

differ

widely in intelligence

and

docility.

In the

last

place, Aristotle turns his attention to the habits and character of animals, and is at pains to point out the

characteristics

which establish a
life

closer or

more

distant
3

resemblance between the

of

men and

brutes,

noticing especially, for instance, how in the sexual life of animals and their treatment of their young we

have all stages, from a merely vegetable indifference up to a species of moral conduct towards offspring. 4 Aristotle failed to combine these different points of view in such a way as to establish a complete and
graduated classification of the whole animal kingdom nor, indeed, did he succeed in avoiding constant errors
:

and contradictions
owing
Te\*iov
Trotoj/

in his treatment

of this

subject,

to

the complicated and crossing principles of

/3aiVet

rb TIKVOV Kara TO with perfectly developed organs] .... Kal yevva 8)7 ei/ ravra auToTs evOvs. ra 8e
ctTroSiSoxri
[i.e.
<pa

irddos

avry,

SxrTrep

efyryrcu

ra yap
irp&Tov
o
o"/cc6A7j

evrojua

o-/ca>A7?KOTO/ceI

TO

TrpozXQwv 8 ^5coS7js yiverai

(77

Scirrepa

ei/

CLVTOIS

fjikv

reAeia evdvs (fooroite i aavra Trpwroi/), Qvpafc Se fooroKel. TO. 8e fj.fv ov reAejoi ysvva, (p6v 8e yevva Kal TOVTO reAeiov T^
q>ov

ov yevva 8e yoroK-f)-

/uLevrj

Svva/j.ii

yap xpvffa\\ls Ka\ovipov ex e O- e ^T e /c

rrj

TOVTOV

/u.Ta@o\fj re Aos.
*

yiverai ffiov eV \a/3bv rb rr)s

Tpiry

yevf<T(as

(p6v.

TO.

ert Tovrcav

f^ovra

T)]V fyvcriv
u6i>,

^v^poTfpau uov peis ytvva ov

2, 5,

415,
2

Hist. a, 3

An.
;

iv.

De An.
2,

ii.

De Somno,
supra.

455, a,

and

p. 64,

reAetov 8e aAA e^co reAetourai, itaQdirep TO ruv AeTriScordJ* ixQvcav

yevos Kal Ta /JLaXaKocrrpaKa Kal TO. /j.a\aKia. rb 8e irf/j,7rrov yevos Kal tyvxpdrarov ovS t^oTo/ce? e| avrov, aAAa KOI TOV [rb] TOIOVTOV e|co (rv/J.-

See the passages referred to supra, p. 70, n. 4, and p. 38, n. 1. 3 See p. 38, n. 1, supra.
4

Hist,

An.
i.

cf.

Oecon.

3,

viii. 1, 588, b, 28, 1343, b, 13.

ARISTOTLE
division

which he followed.

He
:

generally divides the

brute creation into nine departments, between which some transitional forms intervene these are viviparous

quadrupeds, oviparous quadrupeds, birds,

fishes,
2

whales,
Close to

molluscs, malacostraca, testacea, the oviparous quadrupeds are placed the snakes, although
3 in several points they resemble fishes.

and

insects.

A more

general

law of

classification is his opposition

between sanguin
to the

eous and bloodless animals.

first five

To the former belong the

;

classes of those
4

we have enumerated

But though this opposition latter, the remaining four. an application, 5 and though Aristotle uses has so broad 6 he does not divide the it as an essential distinction,
whole animal kingdom into the two classes of san and then subdivide these into guineous and bloodless, 7 His other systems of classias viviparous, &c. species
cf
1

With the following account MEYER, Arist. Thierk. 485 sqq.

1

i. 6, ii. 15 init. iv. Part. An. iv. 5 init., among other passages. Cf. MEYER, ibid. 102 sqq. 151 sqq., ibid. 71 sqq., but especially 84 s objections sqq., upon Aristotle to dichotomy and to other artifi

Hist. An.

init.,

irpbs ra \onra rwv ra fjLf fvai^.a ra 8 avai/j.a elVat. 8ri Part, a, 33 iv.^3,^678, Ian ra /uei/ Hvai/J.a ra 5 avai/jia
:

rep \6ycii eVu7rap|ei O Jffiav avrwv. Cf.

rq>

opi^ovn

r}]V

BRANDIS,

ii.

b,

1294

cial classifications.
3

See,
iv.

An.

on the one hand, Part. init., Hist. An. ii. 17,

among other passages, and, on the other, Hist. An. iii.

508, a, 8,
7,

516, b, 20, ibid. c. 1, 509, b, 15, v. 5, 540, b, 30 ; Gen. An. i. 3, 716, b, 16 ; Part. iv. 13, 697, a, 9. MEYER, ibid. 154 sq.

7 MEYER, ibid. 138 sq. In Part. An. i. 2 sq. Aristotle sets forth in detail the reasons why regards it as inadmissible to be his classification upon such a di vision (see i. 241, n. 3, supra, and cf. i. 271, n. 2, sup.), expressly stat ing, 642, b, 30 xaAeTrb?/ /iei/ oiiv
h<

sq. Cf.

8ia\aj8etV Kal els roiavras Siatyopas iv uv e<rriv e?57j Sicrff Sriovv

<ov

Kal
8e

fj.rj

eV TrAeiocrt

See the passages cited, p. 80, n. 2, supra. 5 See p. 80, supra. 6 Hist. An. ii. 15, 505, b,
2f>

,/

ybp Swprpfi ra peyiffra

ytvt]

ra avaipa (no other word could have been used consistently with the context whicl This characteristic is follows).
$ oSvvarov
ets

PHYSICS
fication are

87

as when he employed with even less rigour, and water-animals, of viviparous, ovi 2 of locomotive and non-locomo parous, and vermiparous, 3 of two-footed, four-footed, many-footed, and foot

speaks of land-

tive,
less,

of walking, flying,

swimming
6

creatures,

of carni-

Aristotle, vora and herbivora, and so on. the summa in tracing the subordinate species into which make use of these distinctions for genera are divided, find the the purpose of classification. He rather tries to 7 and if he cannot divisions observation, natural

Nor does

by

he succeed in marking off the species by these means, intermediate races belonging does not hesitate to assume 8 Lastly, to the one sort and partly to the other.
partly
unsuitable for the differentia of a summa species, if for no other reason than because it is a nega tive one, and negative conceptions cannot be further subdivided
presented, Hist. An. i. 5, 489, b, 23, 490, a, 5, as separate classes, the latter being subdivided into
TTTfpcara, iriXwra

and

Sep/iOTrrepa;

according to any inlying principle

a, 1 sqq. b,
1

as a opposed to these we have third class all those which move

of classification (642, b, 21, (543, 9-26). Hist. An. i. 487, a, 34, viii. ix. 48, 631, a, 21, ii. 2, 648, 2 init. other passages cf
a, 25,

upon the
6

earth. Hist. An.

3,

i.

1,

488, a, 14,
;

viii.

Polit.

among
2,

other passages

592, a, 29, b, 15, 28 i. 8, 1256, a, 24, among v. MEYER, p. 100.

;

Part,
6,

i.

642, b, 10 sqq.
;

144, b, 32 sqq. See also p. 79, n. 2, supra. 140. Hist. An. i. 5, 489, a, 34, see other passages;
58

Top. vi. MEYER, 84 sq.

;

MEYER,

ibid.

p.

158-329,

account of gives an exhaustive these. s Such transitional forms are

the

among MEYER,
82
sq.

monkey standing between

;

97 sq. 141 sq., and p. which supra, according to as a fourth class we should have self -generated animals. 3 13 Ingr. An. 4. 705, b, Part. An. iv. 5, 681, b, 33 sqq. c.
7 init. 4 Hist.

man and

viviparous quadrupeds the bat between flying and walk with ing animals, but properly as much claim to be reckoned
as viviparous quadrupeds which is assigned a place between land- and water- ani the ostrich, which, al mals though a bird, in many points resembles a quadruped the cro codile, which is an oviparous to a

among
the

seal,

An.

i.

4,

489, b, 19

Part. An. iv. 10, 687, a, 2, 689, b, 31 sqq. Ingr. An. 1, 704, a, 12. c. 3 sqq. 5, 706. a, 26 sqq., b, 5 Neu0-Ti/c() and Trrrjva are re
;

quadruped approximating

88

ARISTOTLE
it

though

cannot be denied that Aristotle

system

represents a gradual progression toward completeness in the animal creation which attains its summit in

man, yet the respective dignities of whole classes are left undetermined, and the different points of view from which he judges them intersect each other so awkwardly that the same class often ranks higher in one respect and
lower in another.
less perfect

Zoophytes, generally speaking, are than true animals shell-fish are less perfect
;

than locomotive creatures, the footless than those which are provided with feet, the vermiparous than the ovi
parous, and these than the viviparous

man. 2

But whether

insects

all animals than rank above molluscs and

;

malacostraca, birds above amphibious animals, fishes above snakes, or vice versa, Aristotle does not enable us
to decide.

about the respective of shell-fish and insects. positions Again, though san animals are the nobler on account of their guineous

We

3 may even doubt

warmth and their more complex organisa tion, still some insects, like bees and ants, are superior to many of them in intelligence and art. 4 If birds as
greater vital

oviparous animals rank below mammals, their posture 5 it seems approximates them to man strange, there that they should be more remote from mankind in fore,
;

fish

serpents (see

p. 86, n. 8, sii-

2
3
4

See

i.

487

sq. supra.
p. 486,
ii.

jyra);amongbloodlessanimalsthe nautilus and the hermit crab are

molluscs which are related to Crustacea. See the references given by MEYER, pp. 146-158.

As MEYER, Part. An.

shows.
4

2,

648, a,
is

sqq.; see p. 39, n. 6, supra,

where
sug-

a solution of the difficulty

gested, which, however, an adequate one.
5

is

The

zoological position of man is discussed infra, p. -90, n. 1. 1 See p. 25 sqq. supra p. 28,
;

hardly
;

Ingr. An.

Hist.

An.

i.

5,

6, 706, a, 25, b, 3 489, b, 20.

n. 3,

among

other passages.

PHTS1CS
mode
of birth

and physical structure than the mammals.

When we take the spontaneous generation of sexless ani mals as a sign of a low rank, intermediate between the vegetable and animal worlds, we are surprised to find the
same mode of propagation not only in
in fishes.
2

insects but even

On

the other hand, since viviparous animals

most perfect, 3 whales and dolphins, as well as skates and vipers, take precedence of birds and amphi
are the

bious animals, though inferior to them in many respects. 4 If we explain the transition from quadrupeds to mul
tipeds,

and from these to

5

footless creatures

by a continual

declension of warmth, the bloodless insects ought to be warmer than the sanguineous snakes, fishes, and dol
6 It cannot be denied that the complex variety phins. of the facts cannot always be harmonised with the presup positions of the system, and that it is impossible to

cation.

avoid disproportion and even contradictions in its appli The majority of these defects appear to have

escaped Aristotle
artificial

s
7

means

others he tries to avoid by but he never allows himself to be

notice
;

shaken in his great conviction that organic nature presents a graduated scale of progressive development towards perfection.
said to
;

Since an upright posture is accompany greater vital heat see p. 81 sq. supra. See p. 82 sq. sup., cf p. 48 sq. 3 Gen. An. ii. 4, 737, b, 26.
1
.

See
Cf.

p. 81, supra.

Cf. p. 83, n. 2, supra.

In the case of cartilaginous

proof
this requires no in the case of cetaceans their want of feet at least, and as compared with birds the position of their heads, are in Aristotle s view important defects.
lish
;

and vipers

p. 487 sq. where further examples are given. 7 See also Gen. An. i. 10 sq. where the viviparousness of sharks is explained on the ground of their natural coldness, whereas the same property in mammals is

MEYER,

made

to

depend

upon their
; ;

greater heat and perfection cf. Part. An. iii. 6, 669, a, 24 sqq.

Gen. An.

ii.

4,

737, b, 26,

and

other passages.

90

ARISTOTLE

CHAPTER XI
CONTINUATION

Man
THE end
of this evolution
is

Man.
1

His body unites

him with the lower animals, and especially with the But already even in class of viviparous land-animals.
1

It
is

man

might be doubted whether classed by Aristotle with

in a class
7eV7j

viviparous quadrupeds or placed by himself. Thus, Hist. An. i. 6, 490, b, 15 sqq., those

which have no subordinate

species under them are compared to the genus &v9p(airos ; on the other hand, ibid. ii. 8 init., man is opposed to the TeTpdVoSa, and the monkey is described as an

and which has no subordinate species under it; Part. i. 5, 645, b, 24, where opvis is adduced as an example of a yevos, av6puiros of an eTSos; Hist. An. ii. 15, 505, b, 28, where the first class of
,

as one

sanguineous animals is described comprehensively as faQpuiros re Kul TO. faordica TUV rfrpairoScov
;

ibid. vi. 18 iuit.

Trepl irdvrcav

Trepi /j.fv

ovv rfav

intermediate form between them. This apparent contradiction is due to the fact that Aristotle has no name for the whole class as a biped, man cannot be classed along with rerpdiroSa fooroKovvra on the other hand, feoTOKovvra would embrace the whole which he declares to be a separate ytvos, In reality man is treated as a species of the same genus to which viviparous quadrupeds be This is unmistakably the long. intention in Hist. An. i. 6, 490, b, 31 sqq., where he is described along with the lion, the stag, &c., as an =I8os rov yeVous rov ruv
:

Trepl

Se

ruv

fooroKfl nal Trepl av6 Ae/creW ra ffv/uLfBaivovra. Gen. An. i. 738, a, 37: ovre yap TO. 8,
ocra

fyoroKovvra ofJLoius e^et irdi/ra [sc. ras v(TTpas\ aAA &v9poo7roi /uej/ TO- 8e /cat Ta vre^a irdvTa KaTca Ibid. (Te\dx n fooTOKOvvrct &VW. ra &OTOKOVVTO. ii. 4, 737, b, 26 A certain Kal rovrwv avdpcoiros. distinction between man and other viviparous land-animals is doubtless referred to in these and other passages (e.g. Part. An. ii. 17, 660, a, 17), but Ari stotle does not seem to have re.

PHYSICS
the characteristics of his physical organism

91

we have

evidences of something higher, which raises him far His body is of a warmer above the lower animals.

temperature than theirs.

He

has therefore more blood

1

in proportion and a larger brain. his greater heat and nobility of have true symmetry of form and 2 In which corresponds with it.

In him alone, as the

nature demands, we the upright posture

man

the distinction
3

between the right and the

left is

most

fully developed.

As his blood
his

the purest, his sensibility is delicate, of perception the most refined, and his powers 5 His mouth, his windpipe, understanding the keenest.
is

most

his lips, and his tongue add to their other functions that of speech, which marks him out from all living
6

things.

Nature has not confined man,

as she has the

His means of other animals, to one means of defence. are infinite, and can be adapted to self-preservation His hand is the tool of all needs. 7 suit his
changing
garded mental
it

as sufficiently fundaman a to constitute

"

b,

3,

9, c.
1,

11, 710,
5,

Vita,

468, a,

b,5-17; De and i. 467, n. 3,

;

separate yevos. 1 Part. An.

iii. 6,

ii.

7,

653, a, 27-37,

669,b,4,iv.lO(seep.81,n.8, Respir. 13, 477, a, 20. supra-) Upon this depends also length of life (in which respect man is held to be excelled only by the
;

supra. 3 Ingr. An, 4, 706, a, 18 p. 81, n. 6, supra. 4 Hespir. 13, 477, a, 20.
5

see

See

p. 64, n. 6,
ii.

and

p. 11, n.

4,
c.

supra. 6 Part.

16, 659, a,

30 sqq.

elephant) in so far as this depends in turn upon the correspondence between the composition of the body and the sur-

a, 20,

rounding atmosphere, and especially upon the heat of its upper portions; Gen. An. iv. 10, 777,
b, 3 sqq.
a,

1, 662, 786, b, 19 ; 32. Hist, An. iv. 9, 536, a, 7 Part. An. iv. 10, 687, a, 23, in the celebrated passage upon the human hand, after the words Aristotle p. 11, n. 2, supra,

17, 660, a,

17 sqq.
v.

iii.

25

Gen.

7,

30
2

Loiujit. Vit. c. 5, 6, 466, sqq. b, 14, 467, a, 31.

:

quoted, says aAA

:

Besides the passages already referred to, cf Ingr. An. 5, 70(5,

.

a-yi/eVrTj/cey o^a aAAa he is naked rwv [because and defenceless Aristotle has

ol \eyovres

ws

ov

Ka\a>s

6 fodpuiros

x^

&<v

92
so

ARISTOTLE
ingeniously contrived for the most widely that it takes the place of every In a word, man is the first and most perfect

tools,

different purposes

other. 1

of

all

2 living creatures.

And

for this reason, just as

each less perfect thing finds its end in that which is more perfect, 3 so all lower forms of animal life are
destined for the use of man. 4
It is in the soul of

man, however, that

this perfection

has

Even his physical superiority has proper been vouchsafed to him because his body has to only serve as the instrument of a nobler soul. 5 While the
its

seat.

other animals are confined to the lower operations of the nutritive and sensitive life, man rises above them
all

by virtue of

his faculty of thought. 6

Gen. An. ra re Aeta
ii. 4,

Nutrition,
:

probably in view PLATO S Protayoras, 21, c] OVK opOus Xsyovcriv. ra /j.fv yap &AAa piav e% et /3o7j0eicw, Kal /j.eral3d\\(o~0ai avrl TCCUTTJS erepav OVK effriv, aAA avaynaiov ael KaOevo eiv uffirep vTroSeSe/j.fi oi
Kal Trdvra TTpdrreiv,
Kal

$a

Se 737, b, 26 Trpwra, roiavra Se TO Kal TOVTOW avOpwiros

&m

3
4

Of. p. 28. Pollt. i. 8,

1256,

b,

15:

rfy

ire

pi

rb

<ra>;ua

a\ea>pav

/x

oir\ov

e^cuv.
fioriOeias

r$

5e

Xature has provided that every creature should meet with its necessary food when it comes into the world oSo-re 6/j.oius SijAov
;

rds re

TroAAds

6n

Kal

yevo/j.fj/ots

Ka ^ ravras del escort jitero5 OTT\OV olov Uv Pd\\eiv, eri

*X

IV

fyvra

TUV
(pa

(puv

ollfrfov TO. re eVe/cev eTj/ai Kal

roAAa
yuez/

Kal
1

oirov

ct.v

See the further account in the passage just quoted, and p.

19, n. 1
a,
1,

TUV avQpwirwv xdpLV, ra /cat Sia rty xP^ fflv Ka 5ia r^]v rpo<pyv. rwv 8 aypiuv, fl /j.)) irdvra, aAAa rd ye irXe io ra TTJS

^epa

rpocprjs Kal aAATjs j8o7j0eias eVe/cei/,

also DeAn.iii. 8, 432, where the hand is called

;

iVa Kal

<r6r]s

Kal
i

&AAa opyava
obv
T]

yivt]-

rai e| aiircav.
/j.7]re

(pvffis [MfjOev

opyavov opydvcav. Hist. An. ix. 1, 608, b, 5 the ethical characteristics of the sexes are more prominent eV TOLS
:

pyre
TTUV
5
6

dreAes [without reason] Trote? /j.drr]v, avayKatov ruv av6pu>-

VKv
See See

avra ivdvra

7re7rot7]/ceVai

r})v (pixnv.

dos Kal /j.d\iffTa eV

p.
p.

TOVTO
(pvffiv

[sc.

rb C^

0>/

] 7^-P

10 22

sq. sq.

supra. supra.

PHYSICS
propagation, the
alternations

03

of sleep

and

waking,

birth, old age, death, sense-perception, even imagina l tion and memory, are common to man and beast alike
;

nor do these phenomena as they exhibit themselves in 2 And the each differ essentially from one another.

same is true of tfye feelings of pleasure and displeasure 3 That which and the desires that spring from them.
belongs to
of

man

alone of

all

known

creatures

is

Mind

or

Reason (NoOs-). 4

By Nous
its

Thought in

means the power widest acceptation, 5 but also more

Aristotle

in so far as it deals specifically the faculty of thought 6 and especially the faculty of with supersensible reality,
1

Voluntary recollection alone

cf. p. 715 sq.

conceptions
IXOJ/TI

is

beyond their power;

2

Kpivti.

erep^ apa % erepcos Kal o\ws &pa us

rrjs uArjs,

On these points, therefore, we have simply to refer to the

previous chapter. 3 See p. 22, n.
4

X^piffTa
0&T60

ra
of

Trpdy/uLara
is

Kal ra irepl rbu

Kplvei

vovv. vovs,

The

1,

supra.

Aristotle, like Plato, distin guishes for this reason between the rational and the irrational

part of the soul;

a,

EtJi.

i.

IB, 1102,

as is shown by the preceding context. It may, indeed, seem strange that it is said of it that it knows (for we must give this more general signification to wpiVetv here, as in

subject

26 sqq. Polit. 17, and passim.

;

vii. 15,

1334, b,
:

De An.
Se

iii.

4,

429, a, 23

vovv

Siavoe iTai
1

Kal

After

explaining

De An.

iii. 4,

429, b, 10 sq., the distinc

tion between the concrete thing with its ingredient of matter

and the pure unadulterated form,

Aristotle
0-ap/cl

DC An. iii. 3, 428, a, 2) heat and cold and the sensible qualities of cuVflrj-n/coS things in general (where not only is it not neces sary on account of the context to read alaOrjrf with BEENTANO, Psychol. d. Ar. 134, but it is not admissible). But while the simple perception of the data of sense belongs to ataB-ri<ns, and not to vovs,
T<

continues,
Kal
(rdpxa.

1.

12:
&AA<p

TO
if)

yet every judgment relating to

eli/cu

them is shared in by thought

in the wider sense) (cf
.

ovv

rb Bep/mbv Kal al<rOr]TLK(f fyvxpbv Kpivei Kal uv \6yos ris

rb
ri

and211,n. l,.s-^.); tent reason also may be described

and

(vovs i. 209, n. 3, to this ex

rb

a-apKl
is

elvat

[the pure
/cpiVei.

conception of the

<rap]

The same

true of all abstract

which by means of the perceptive faculty knows sensible things. Conceptions, on the other hand, as such, universal thoughts limited to no individual experias that

P4

ARISTOTLE

grasping in an immediate act of consciousness that which cannot be the object of mediated knowledge.
1

This part of the soul cannot be entangled in the life 2 of the body. It must be simple, changeless, impassible.
ence are known by reason per se, although the material for them is supplied by sense-perception (as in the case of the conception Instead of saying this of o-apl).
simply, Aristotle expresses him self in such a way as to leave it ambiguous whether these are

importance in connection with the essential meaning of the passage, since this would be the same even although we take the illustration of the broken and extended line as merely explana
tory of
1

&AA.COS exeii/.

recognised by a faculty different from that by which sensible ob jects are recognised or by the same faculty acting in a different way. If we had here a dilemma between the two terms of which we had to decide, we could only say, as Aristotle does, that they are known being .(vovs another faculty) than by TO cuV07)Ti/coV. But the statement of three
&\\(f>

this faculty belong first chiefly the highest principles of thought, the fyteo-a; cf. i. 197, n. In this way (according 4, supra. to i. 197, n. 3, sup., cf. the citation

To

and

from Metaph. xii. 7, i. 203, n. 3, SV/A) Nous knows itself by an im mediate intuition, as thinker and thought here coincide. Whether the thought of God and other
metaphysical
also

if alternatives, nothing else, shows that Aristotle regards each of the first two descriptions as admissible in a certain sense. The Nous knows insensible things by a faculty different from that by which it knows sensible ob different in jects, and, indeed,

conceptions are objects of immediate cognition, Aristotle, as already observed, i. 204, does not say.
the
2 De An. iii. 4, 429, a, 8 (on what precedes see i. 199,n.2,s?/? ):
1

avayKT) apa,
eli/at,
&o"irep
>

eirel

irdvTa voel,

a/j.iyri

fynalv

Ava^ayopas [see
Kparrj,
Trape/x-

ZELL. / 7/.d.6V.i.886,l]iW
TOVTO
8
iffrlv
"va.

yvup

^rj

essence and actual reality (x u P Lm of f-ensecrrbv) from the faculty it knows perception, seeing that them by itself alone but in so far as it is also true that the
;

<paiv6ju.j>oj/

yap

K(a\vi

rb

aAAo-

Tpiov Kal di

TKjJ.-paTTej,
fj.TfjSein.iav

werre U7j8 O.VTOV

tlvai (pixriv

on

SvvaTOV.
j/oCy

....

aAA $i Tavrr)v, 6 apa Ka\ovfj.evos TTJS tffTiv ovQtv

ovr&v
Trplv

reason knows sensible things, we may say that it know s insensible things by a different method it knows the former directly, the
r
;

TUV
crwp.an
.

votlv.

Stb ouSe /j.ffj.7^0aL

TTOIOS
il}

fv\oyov ai/Tbv TCO TIS yap av ytyvoiro,

[it

tyvxpbs

6fpfj.bs

would

in this

latter only indirectly

of the judgment it the data of sense. This is the meaning of the words % us rj KK\aff/j.evri &c., the further ex

by means passes upon

case partake of the properties of the body and as it would thus

bring with

it

definite qualities to

the cognition of yorjra, it could not exhibit that atrdQeia see i. 199,
n.
2,

planation of which

is

of

minor

supra

and

purity from

PHYSICS
it has for its object pure form abstracted from matter, so is it itself free and unfettered by the 1 It has no bodily organ like the senses 2 it is body. not born, into existence like the other parts of the

Just as
all

admixture which
the

it requires for exercise of its universal an expla faculty of thought nation which seems to harmo nise better with the meaning of Sib &c. than that of BKENTANO, ilri-d. 120 sqq.], ?) K&V
:

6pyav6u TI
5

eftj,

&orirfp TO? alfftiririKcp

:

&c. nor is A^yts eTnyVo~is or aAAoioxns, but rather an i)pf/j. a Kal Kardo-raffis the removal of obstruc rapaxfns tions which hinder the reason in the exercise of its functions, re sembling the awakening from
; !

vvv $ avQ4v effriv

5

av ns,

et

b, 22. a7ropr)(reie vovs cbrAoDV eerrt

sleep.
is

Kal dirafles
crit.

[HAYPUCK,

Obst TVat.

in loo. al. Arlst. p. 3, not without reason regards these words as strange, inasmuch as it hardly requires to be explained, as is done 1. 25 sqq., that TO airades is not subject to trdax* lv he would therefore strike them
,

Seep 93, n. 6, sup. Xupiffrbs of ten applied to Nous, the lower faculties of the soul being ax&piffroi cf preced. and foil. n. p. 96, n.
;
.

1,

infra.

Trfpl

De An. ii. 2. 413, b, 24 8e ToG vov Kal TTJS 0ecop7jT(/cf/s

:

Svvd/uLfus ov5evTrca<pavfpbv,a\\ OiK \!/VXTJS yfvos erepov elvai, Kal TOVTO

/J.OVOV

vSfX ral
|,

X a} P

ff

al [ SC al Siov

out

we might
a,

airaOes

429,
vo

to 18
el

prefer instead of - see read a/^iyes

Kaddirep

rb

T0 * TOU

quoted

above]
. .
.

Kal

/j.r)devl jUTjflei/
,o~ei,

TTOJS e^ei Koivbv, TO vof iv Trdcrx* iv r L

the
rj

See preced. and foil. n. and further statement De An.

: oi>x

iii. 4,

This independence of the the remark reason explains

cm 5 429, a, 29 fytofe awddeia TOU alffBrjriKov Kal rov

tirl

yorjriKov, (pavepbv

rwv
TJ

cuV07)T/j,ev
"yap

which
a,

is

added,

De An.

ii.

1,

413,
:

alffO^ffecas.

4 sqq. to the definition of the soul as the entelechy of its body it follows that the soul (or at any rate certain parts of it, if it has

ov Siivarai alffOdveffdai aAA 6 K rov (T(p68pa aiffd^ruv vovs orav ri vo^ffrj (T(p68pa vorirbv. ou%
.

i]TTOv roe? TO

uTroSeo"Tepa,

aAAa
-

Kal

not separa*e (xcopio-Tos) end 76 Irom the body ov /LL^V ovdev /cwAvet (see p. 6, n. 1, supra}. Cf. further n. 3 below, p. 96, n. 2, in fra, and the passages referred to below bearing upon vovs Trotrjri/cbs ; also De An. i. 3, 407, a, 33 T) eoiKev ijpffjL^afi nvl Kal v6t]ais
parts)
is
:

juaAAov

<xAA

yap alaQt]riKbv OVK avevffwnaTos,65ex ca P ia r 6 s In view of these definite declarations, the attempt (KAMPE, Erkenntnissth. d. Ar. 12-49) to attribute to the Nous a material substratum con
fifv

TO

sisting of asther

the outset a profitless one. even the passage quoted

n.
2,

must appear at Not

p.
6,

vii.

3,

247, b,
/Afpovs

ouS

at

TOU
o;5e

vof]riKov

e^eis
:

aAAotcoa"ets.

Ibid. 247, a, 28

a\\a rfv

from.Gen. An. ii. 3 can be adduced in support of it, for even there the o-irfp/j.a of the

90
soul
is
l
;

ARISTOTLE
nor
is it

affected

2 by the death of the body.

It

real, therefore,

only in the act of thinking; apart

uei/

dpx$?,so far as it refers to

ex oVTa
OVK
C^OI/TO,
l
(l}

dereov,
irplv
3)

the Nous, is described as -^OIOT^V

ffw/j-aros

ej/ep7eia
Ka.Qa.TTfp

8
TO.

and even although

it

it

is

iiVa T ^ J/ /

Kurj-

said that

enters the

womb

fj.draji e A/cet

T^V the

rpocprjv Kal irotel TO

does not follow from this that it is united to this oran.v other material substratum the Nous is said, indeed, to be in the body during life, but not to be mixed up with it or entangled in its life the 701/77 itself it enters

with the

701/77, it

TTJS

ToiavTfjs tyvxrjs epyov.

With

regard

to

tyux*)

ala-d-rjTiK^

from without;

cf.

p.

100, infra.

J/OTJTI/C?? he then shows that either all their parts must come into being for the first time at the moment of birth or must all have pre-existed, or else that some of them do the one, some the other,

and

Furthermore, even although the ;etherlike the Nous is called divine and unchangeable, the essential
distinction

and
oi>x

continues
ol6v

on

uej/
ir

re

iraffas
e/c

<f>avepov

fffTiv

tuv TOIOVTWV.

between them (the

one is a body, the other is not) is not thereby abolished, for it has already been shown, i. 476, that

oaruv yap eVru/ apx&v f] evepyeia ST)\OV ori ravras iivfv ), aSiivarov inrdpxtw, olov

we have nothing
KAMPE,

do with any and when immaterial matter

to
;

p. 32, 39,

argues in sup

port of his view that the stars, which are made of tether, are in telligent beings, he forgets that it is not the stars themselves that are
so,

avev irofi&v wcrre Kal OVT dvpaOev tiffievai aSvisarov. yap avras KaO auras elffievtu olov re dx<^p 0"TOus ovcras, OUT eV TO 7ap o"irpfj.a fiffievcu
eo-Tli/ [and therefore not something coming from with

rpo(pr)s

but the spirits by

their

whom

they

out].
JJL&VOV

A.et7T6TC

and

spheres are moved. Although, lastly, the Nous is said,

QvpaQev

[8^7] tire iff ifvcu

8e

TOI/

vovv

Kal Qtlov

1177, b, 34, as compaied with the multiplicity of the other faculties of the soul, to be
Etli. x. 7,

of small compass (ry piKphv) but pre-eminent in power and we cannot fairly conclude value, from this metaphorical expiession that it is held by Aristotle to be united to a body. Gen. An. ii. 3, 736, a, 31,
oyK<?

e?j/ai n.6vov ovQtv yap avrov rrj evepyeia KOIVWV elffwfAaTiK}) ivtpycia. TO 5e TT^S 701/775 &c. 737, a, 7 see p. 6, E. 2, sup. DeAn.i. 4; see For further discussion of foil. n.
:

ihe question of the entrance of reason into the body, see p. 80,
supra.
2 De An. i. 4, 408, b, 18 o 5e vovs eoiKfv tyyivtffQai oucrta ns olaa Kal ou <pOtp0~dai. ^aXiara
: 1

Aristotle asks
Kvf]/j.aTi
T)

TroVepoj/ ej

yap

{(pdeipeT

&/

UTTO

TTJS

et/

TW

ou, Kal irodsv ; to

which

77jpa a/a-avpuxreus, vvv 8 io~cas oirep eVi TUV alffdtiTiqpiiav o"UyU)8atJ/t et

he replies

olv Kal tfpeTm/cV \J/uxV ra o-Trep^ara

(b,
TO.

8)

TT>

p.*v

7op AajSpt
/3\TTOl
iSlI/

o TrpeaftvTT]S o /x^a Totoi/St, Kal 6 VfOS. &0"7Tep

TO. KUTjjuara

l(rra
x<P

SJjXoj/ OTI

TO 77jpas ov rtf T^V

PHYSICS
from this
the mere potentiality of thought. And since actual thought in the sphere of nature precedes the mere potentiality to think, while in the sphere of
it is
1

the

mind potentiality necessarily precedes Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of Reason actuality, the Actual and the Potential, the Active and in man
2

human

the Passive

that which produces everything, and that which becomes everything. 4 The former alone is sepa rate and distinct from the body impassible, eternal, immortal, absolutely pure and perfect Actuality. Pas:

Bfvai,

a\\

ev

= ctAAa ry
a>

ireirov-

supra),

if

the

vovs

iroirjT.

were
of

G4vai Ti

Kf7vo

KaQdirep

^iix?) <TTiJ/], Kal V /j.edais Kal voffois.

T]

taken to be the

antithesis

rb voetv 8^ Kal rb Qewpe iv [j.apaiverai &\\ov rivbs effca [inside the body] (p0ipo/j.vov, avrb 8e airades Icrnv [the subject of anaOfs is rb voovv, I which corresponds to vovs above land is to be supplied from voeiv]
i

vovs 6ewpr]TLKbs (I)e ii. 3, 415, a, 11, iii. 9,432, b, 27, iii. 10,433, a, 14), in the same sense as vovs
TrpattriKos
(

An

De An.
the

iii.

ibid.)

must

be.

But

a-<

vovs- iroir]T. is

8e vovs

"crcas

Qedreptv
5,
;

ri

I
ij

Kal O7ro0f s

eo-Tti/. iii.

430, a, 22

(see p. 98, n. 1, Ixii. 3, 1070, a,

1

infra) MetapJt. 24 sqq. (see Sec. Ion Immortality, infra). De An. iii. 4, 429, a, 21 sqq.
b. 5

sqq.

30

see

i.

199, n.

2,

ttupra, where the meaning of this statement is further explained.

2
3

as it as iroirjriKbs is elsewhere constantly used as the antithesis of TraQiiTiKbs (Tnd. Ar. 555. b, 16 sqq.), we seem to be perfectly justified in speakingof the passive and the active reason, especially as this seems to be already a recognised mode of exprfssion in ALEX. De An.
TrotrjriKbv,

oanov Kal
Trdvra

called is said

iroLe?:/.

and

140
4

(cf.

199, n. 2, supra Aristotle certainly speaks of

i.

See

WALTER, 282). De An. iii. 5 init.:

fv
airdffr)

eVel 3

uffirtp

rrj

Qvirei earl

vovs iraQ-nriKbs
;

(see p. 98, n.

1,

rb

fj.lv

v\f] ettdffTCi} ytvei

e/celz/a),
ical
i]

(TOVTO 8e
erepov 5e

injra) on the other hand, he no where uses the expression iroiriTil/cbs vovs (cf. BONITZ, Ind. Ar. 491, 2 WALTER, Die Lclire v. d. jb, prakt. Vern. 278 sqq.), perhaps because he wished to avoid the (ambiguity which might arise out the opposition he elsewhere jof (makes betwc en iroict on the one hand, and
;

& irdfra Swd/ufi

rb atnov
TTfirov6fv,

TTOL^TIKOV,

TW

TroteiV

Trdvra, olov

r^vf]

irpbs

r^v vArjv

avdyKT] Kal eV T?) ^uxf5 virdpxtLV ravras ras Siacpopds. Kal (.ffTLv o /j.fv TOIOVTOS vovs rca irdvra
yivo~dai, 6 8e
%is TJS, olov
T>

Trdvra
<p&s

jroie iv,

&s

rb
<pu>s

Tp6irov

yap

riva

Kal rb
xpcf>/maTa

TroteT

ra

vvd[j.ei

uvra

evepyeia ^pw/^ara.

(on the

other (see
II.

i.

182, n. 2,

VOL.

98
sive Reason,

ARISTOTLE
on the other hand,
is is

born and dies with

1

the body, and

If

a partaker in

its states.

we

try,

however, to reduce this account to a clear

and consistent theory, we are met by many questions which Aristotle has left unanswered.
Ibid, where Aristotle con tinues Kal OVTOS 6 VOVS [6 TTOtT]1
:

is

TJK&S]
afj.iy^s

xa?pto"rbs

Kal

a-jrad^s

Kal

4 (as will be shown infra), is itself the active Nous. The words: rb 5 avTo

spoken

of, c.
2,

p.

101, n.

TT}

ovff ia

evepyeta],
TTOLOVV

del

&v eVepye a [or yap Tiu.idoTfpoi rb

Kal
ri rj

TOV

ira<r\ovTOs

apxT]

that follow are repeated xp6v<p at the beginning of c. 7 but as they there awkwardly interrupt
.
.

TTJ9 v\~ns.

Tb 5 avro effTiv

Kar*

tvepyeiav eViO TTJjU rj TO? -rrpdy/dart [ of. i. 398. n. 3, supra] 11 8e Kara Svvapiv

the connection, TORSTRIK, p. 199, doubtless right in holding that they along with the rest of c. 7,
is

Ypoi O? TrpOTfpa eV TW evl OAOJS 8e ou5e [so TOKSTR. reads instead of ore fj.lv voci dAA ou] Xpovif ore 5 ov j/oeT. x w P L(T ^LS 5 eVrl ju^ov Tt)0 oVep eVri [apart from
t
oi>x

(to

T6TeAe(7>teVoi/,

431,

a, 7)

are out of place.

the other hand, TORSTRIK (p. 185) cannot be right in striking out the a\\ in the words
ol>x

On

oi>x

the body

it is

only what

it

is

ore

yitei/

roe? &c.

According to his

without admixture of any foreign

a9dingredient], /col TOVTO fi6vov ov VO.TOV Kal a tiLov. TOVTO /J.fv airaOes, 6 5e 8e, 6Vt TradrjTiKbs vovs tyOapTbs Kal avev TOVTOV ovQev vofl. The words at the beginning of this passage
p.vr)/JLOVfi>ou.i>

reading no intelligible meaning can be attached to the remark that the Nous at one time thinks, at another it ceases to think
;

whereas

it

becomes quite

intelli

gible if we suppose Aristotle to say: In the world as a whole merely

are interpreted
(Psycliol. d.

by

BRENTANO
also
is

IJNG-

Ar. 175) and HERT{Mat. n. Form, 173) as

this

This is opposed, how ever, both to the grammar and to the sense of the passage in the first place, the connection is thus broken between this sentence and the preceding (we should require at least Kal OVTOS 5e o vovs &c.), and, secondly, not only is there nothing in the previous discus sion about another kind of Nous
separate.
;

meaning

Nous

potential knowledge does not pre cede actual knowledge even in the order of time (not to speak of that of being) it is not the case (in the world as a whole) that the Nous [this must in any case be supplied as the subject] at onetime thinks, at another ceases to think. (To make this sense more obvious a comma might be placed instead of a colon before dAA. ovx &c.) Nor is this sense inconsistent with
;

fj.r)

del

voftv,

c.

4,

430, a,

5,

as
in<

which is also x ca P to r ^)S an(^ airadys, but Aristotle knows of none such, the vovs iraQr]TiKbs, of which he has of course j ust been speaking, being
"

these words refer to thought the individual, in which the pas sage before us also recognises the distinction between the potential and the actual, and therefore rb
u,?]

not a trades, while the Nous that

del voetV.

PHYSICS
In the
first place,

99
it

with regard to Active Reason,

1

might appear that this is not only the Divine in man, but that it is identical with the Divine Spirit itself. For while it enters each man along with the germ of his physical and psychical nature as something individual, yet at the same time the terms in which it is described are such as
apply only to the Universal Spirit.
to understand
It is at least difficult

what
it

is left

of individuality
all

when we have

abstracted from
all
all

corporeal life, but also active evolution, 2 all passive states, and with these
self-consciousness. 3

not only

memory and

So

far

Alexander

of Aphrodisias had excellent cause to seek for the Active Reason in the Divine Spirit rather than in a 4 But this cannot be Aristotle s part of the human soul.

meaning. For the extramundane Divine Spirit cannot be identified with the indwelling principle of Reason which passes into the individual at birth and is a
part
of the

human

soul. 5

Yet how we are

precisely to

I represent to ourselves this part of our soul, and what kind of reality we are to ascribe to it, it is difficult to
sav.

Since

it is

said to enter the

6 body from without,

See the passages cited, p.

n. 1

9ti,

and
a,

1177,
b,
I

supra, and Etli. x. 7, 15: eiVe Qzlov bv Kal avrb

2,

97, n. 1), and proved in the sequel. 4 Of. Part. iii. a, 712, 4.

[o vovs]

et

re

TMV

30
2

el 5/?

Oeiorarov. Qeiov o vovs irpbs rbj/

TJ/UUV

ev

&i>Qpct)irov.

This can only be where there a transition from the potential to the actual; in the active reaison, on the other hand, there is nothing merely potential, for all {is pure actuality. 3 That even these belong to (the sphere of the passive reason expressly stated De An. iii.5(p.
tis
"

The distinction between the active and the passive reason is said (and to this THEMIST. De An. 89, b, pp. 188 sq. Sp. and

AMMON.
o,

in,

PHILOP. De An.
;

Q, 3,

also appeal) to reside eV rfi \j/vxfj (see ibid, supra) of one fidpiov
rrjs tyvxrjs it is said,

De An.

429, a, 10, 15, that

iii. 4, it is a.tra.Qes ;

the vovs xvpivrbs

ii.

is called.

De An.
yevos

413, erspov &c.

2,
6

b,

21,

tyuxrjs

See

p. 96, n. 1, supra.

100
it

ARISTOTLE
previously.

must have existed

s

And

this is evidently

Aristotle

view.

entered the body

has Since, moreover, even after it stands aloof from it and takes it

2 no part in its activity, the independence of its life is not compromised by this union, nor is it conditioned in But on the other hand, the body. any way by the life of we look at the matter from our own or from whether of view, the individuality which belongs Aristotle s

point

to

Reason

as a part of the

human

soul appears in this

way

to be sacrificed.

For according to Aristotle the

individual Callias or the individual Socrates is consti the union of the universal form of man tuted

only by with this particular

So, in like manner, Reason enters a human body and employs it only when

human

body.

as its instrument do

reason.

we have an individual human But how when it is united with no body, or

when
and

in spite of such union it has no material organ it could be the is wholly unaffected by the body,

reason of this definite individual

it

how. in other words,

could constitute a rational Ego, baffles comprehenre Travas earn/ [since some are united to bodily organs], ware Kal

1 In the passage 736, b, 15 sqq. referred to at p. 96 sup., it is said with regard to the if^x^ a-la-e-nriK^

ou%

ol6v

(pavepov

avayKalov 5e VOIITIK)I ovaas Trporepov [so. ras t|/ux

and

Ijroi
s]
e>

w
1

QvpaQev
stotle
etVieVat

etVieVcu

aSwarov

it

is

77

obvious that according

Trpovirapxew

Arito^ 0upa0et/

vecreaLirdtfas^TrdffasTrpovTrapxovffas, ft ras u.ev ras 5e ^77, Kal t-yyiveaQai

ft

and

menses]

mother]
/

the xQovvas ev r$ rov evravQa [in the appevos ffTrepnari, ?) &9*v [from the
ev
TT7
SA.TJ

[therefore in

MT?

et<re

~\

>

^v n

inseparably connected, and that accordingly if the latter is true of the Nous and of it alone, the former must also be true
are
2
r^-P T\

>*

Q4.

11

T)

Of)

Tl

1 S?/ /?

u. o.v

elpaQev tyytVOfJifvas % ras i^v ras 8e

,

airdffas
fi-ff.

,arjSe-

(owflev

auroD

TT;

ivepyeia

As the
to

passage proceeds immediately roivvv on say (see p. 96, n. 1.

o-ajuartK^ eVe pyeia). 3 Cf. i. 369, n. 5, 6, supra.

PHYSICS
sion.
1

101

2 Aristotle himself says, indeed, that we do not recollect the former existence of active reason, because

it is

the passive reason which renders thought possible, and this is perishable 3 just as he predicates con;
1

How
is

its

connection with

the body

in this case possible

at all is equally unintelligible, seeing- that according to p. 106,

n. 5, infra, the body is connected with the soul itself as its tool. In the words quoted p. 98, n. 1, .s?//;., from De An. iii. 5, 430, a, 23 ov /jvf]^ovtvofj.ev 8e &c. It does not matter very much whether \ve understand these words in
:

hitter words, and as the passive reason does not think anything apart from the active reason. But it is not easy to see what they add to the explanation. If memory belongs to the vovs Traflr?TiKos of course, as Qdaprbs (which as the antithesis of a ioiov refers to the beginning as well as the end ing of existence, cf. i. 360, n. 1 Jin. supra) the latter can have no recollection of the time in which it did not yet exist, or at the time in which it no longer exists and the remark itzl &vev &c. is there fore superfluous. If, on the other hand,it is the vovs airaO^s to which memory belongs, the failure of memory is not explained at all, since it is said, not that it cannot do without the vovs TraQ-nriKos, but that the vovs irad. cannot do with out it in the exercise of its activity. must takerouTou, therefore, as meaning the vovs iraQrjT. and vosl either in an absolute sense, ac cording to a familiar usage in Aristotle = ovOev voti o vo&v (or r) or tyvxy), no thought is possible, as having the active Nous for its The latter is not incon subject. sistent with the previous ovx ore Hfv vof? &c. (p. 98, n. 1); for even there it is admitted that in
;

their simplest sense as meaning that in the present life we have no recollection of the former one, or that after death we have no recollection of the present life, or more generally that the eternal

the active Nous is wholly memory for the reasons why we do not remember hold of the continuity of consciousness between the life which the rtason lives in union with the passive Nous and that which it lives in
life of

without

We

freedom from

it

and forwards.
stance,

both backwards In the first in

is

however (as
Uel>.

shown by

BIEHL,

Begr. des vovs I. Arist. Linz, 1864, p. 12 sq., and

d.

TKENDELENBUKG

in
n.

loco,

who,

however, afterwards,

on

p. 404,

2nd ed., changed his view), the words certainly mean that in the present life we remember no former one. This is the meaning suggested by the context and supported by the present tense of
the verb.
3

Ov

iJ.vi]p.ovevofj.v

oe

on

/Jifv

8e TradrjTLKbs curates, 6 fyQap r bs Kal &vev TOVTOV ovdev

TOVTO vovs
i/oe?.

the individual potential know ledge precedes actual, and there fore ovx ore fj.ev voe~i i&c. does not It apply to individual thought. is of this, however, that we must

understand Aristotle to speak in

the words, &vev TOVTOV ov&tv
i/oei,

TRENDELENBUEG

translates the

which mean, therefore, nothing

102

ARISTOTLE

tinuous thought (which he attributes to active reason) only of reason in general, and not of reason in any

where shall we look for that principle of reason which in unchangeable, eternal, unfettered by the body, and ceaselessly active, if it coincides
individual.
1

But

neither with the Divine thought on the one hand, nor with the thought of any individual on the other?

No

less serious are the difficulties that

surround

tlie

doctrine of the passive reason. led Aristotle to distinguish in the

fold reason in

We
first

understand what
instance a two

he could not overlook the gradual evolutions of the spiritual life and the difference be tween the faculty and the activity of Thought; while,
:

man

hand, he was forbidden by the principles of his philosophy to think of Pure Reason as in any sense material, or at least to predicate of it attributes
oilier

on the

which can belong to matter alone. We see, also, what in general he meant by the phrase Passive Reason viz. the sum of those faculties of representa

and

states

tion

which go beyond imagination and sensible percep tion and yet fall short of that higher Thought, which has found peace in perfect unity with its object. The
Passive Reason
is

that side of

Thought which

deals

with the manifold of sense.

It has its roots in the life

2 of the body, and develops out of sensible experience.

more than the statement elsewhere made, that the soul cannot
think without a
108, n. 2, infra).
1
(t>dvTa<T[j.a

(cf. p.

In the words of the passage we have been discussing- (p. 98, 11. 1) ?] 5e Kara Svva/jLiv xpovq) irpo:

eV T(f kv\ &c.

In

this

sense

BEANDIS

i. 518, cf. 1178) understands by passive spirit, spirit in its connection with representation in so far as it borrows the material for mediating thought from it and sensible perception and requires mental pictures, or in so far as it operates as mediat-

(Gescli.

d.

Fnt>r.

Ilandb.

ii.

b,

PHYSICS
But when we go on and

103

try to form a more definite conception of this part or faculty of the soul, we find the theory full of the most obvious contradictions and

On the other hand, Passive Reason is iden with Nous and the spiritual element in man. This Aristotle definitely distinguishes from all the
defects.
tified

faculties of sense-perception, so that it is impossible to

identify

it

either, as

of these, or,

Trendelenburg did, with the unity 2 as Brentano does, with fancy as the seat
l

of mental pictures. 3

All these

man

has in

common

with the beasts, whereas Nous is that which elevates him above them. 4 And yet, on the other hand, every
thing is denied of the Passive Reason as such, which elsewhere is regarded as peculiarly characteristic of

Speaking of Nous quite generally, Aristotle says that it is neither born nor dies it is it is separate liable to neither suffering nor change from the body and has no bodily organ it .acts altogether it independently of the body it enters it from without

Reason

itself.

ing thought.

Similarly, BIEIIL, Uel. d. Bctjr. d. vovs b. ARIST. (Linz, 1864, Gymn. Proyr.*), pp. 16 sq. But the difficulties above noted are not thus met. Arist. DC An. 493 (405)
1

2
3

Psychol.

d.

Ar. 208

sq.
2,

Upon which
Cf.
p.

see p. 108, n.
p.

infra.
1

58
is

sq.,

61, with
itself of

p.

93 supra.
Trad-rjT.

The name

vovs

a preliminary ob

Quas a sensu inde ad imaginationern men tern antecesserunt, ad res percipiendas menti necessaria sod ad intellegendas non
;

sufficiunt.

Omnes illas,

cedunt, facultates in

unum

qua? praasquasi

For jection to this explanation. the faculties of sensation and presentation Aristotle has the fixed terms, au<rQt}ffis and Qavraffia. Why, then, should he make use of

nodum

collectas,

quatenus ad res

cogitandas postulantur, vovv iraGriTIK^V dictas .esse arbitramur.

Similarly,

HERTLIXG,

Jfat.

u.

Form,

74, defines vovs iraQ. as

the

another incomprehensible and misleading one without giving any indication that it is synony mous with these terms? Nor can appeal be made to Etli, vi. 12, 1143, b, 4, as aiaQ-nffis does not
there
i.

cognitive capacity of the sensi

tive part.

mean
1,

250, n.

sense-perception supra.

cf.

104

ARISTOTLE

ifc nor perishes with in the sequel we learn that all this holds in truth only of the Active Reason. It alone is bodiless,

neither comes into existence with

it.
1

Yet

impassible, eternal, imperishable, &c.~

By what

right,

then, Passive Reason can be regarded as Nous, or how two natures with characteristics so incompatible the

one mutable, the other immutable the one passive, the other impassive the one mere potentiality, the other
; ;

ceaseless activity

how

these two can constitute one

being, one spiritual personality, passes comprehension. Nor do we require to look further than the impossibility
of harmonising the Aristotelian doctrine of the twofold Reason with itself to find an explanation of the wide
1

The attempt to obviate this difficulty by the supposition of a third form of

See
as the receptive understand differing alike from the active and the passive reason and alluded to l)e An. iii. 4 (!JKBSvovs,

Cf. p. 93 sq. 98. p.

soul. Nor, indeed, would any thing be gained by such an as sumption. If it is said, in De An. iii. 5, that the active Nous alone
is

^ci pi(TTt>s,

aTraOrjs,

a uj-yr?s, aOd(

ing,

TAXO, Pnychol. d. AT. 143, 175, 204 sq. 208 HERTLING, Mat. Form, 170 sq.) cannot be sup
;
>i.

ported.

Aristotle indeed calls vovs (De An. iii. 4, 429, a, Se/m/cbi rov ei Sou?, but there is not a word to indicate that he
lf>)

receptive reason regards this as a third faculty different from He is the active and passive. speaking in l)e An. iii. 4 of Nous quite generally, as he does al- o in
identical terms and with the same generality in De An. i. 4. ii. 1, 2 Gen. An.ii. 3 (p. 94, n. 2 p. 95,
;

is equally n. l,p. 96, n.2, *?/_/;. ) difficult to obtain any clear con

the same pre dicates are assigned in c. 4 to a different faculty, i.e. the re ceptive reason (there is no ex press mention, indeed, here of its eternity, but this is involved in X^ifTT6s),we have simply a con tradiction in terms. If, on the other hand, those predicates are first assigned to Nous in general, and it is afterwards added that they belong only to the higher part of it, whereas the other statement made about it (that it is nothing evcpyeia before it thinks see, p. 94, n. 2, supra) is true of its lower part, there is at least no obvious contradiction in the explanation. In this case the
varos, aiSios,
if
;

and

difficulty arises later,

when we

ception of this receptive under standing or to find a place for it in Aristotle s doctrine of the

further ask how are we to con ceive of these two parts in de

tail.

PHYSICS
of divergence of the views
1

105
critics as

its

to

its

true

aning.

its

is

gradual ceptions by a single immediate apprehension of intelligible reality, 2 It deals, not with constituting one indivisible act.
Theophrastus

Thought, which regarded in essence is not the mediate process of forming con union of their several parts, but the

Reason

realises itself in

had already
in

ica
o/j.oi<i)S

found

difficulties

Aristotle s

o
".

oi
/J.-f]KC-L.

Siaipero?

/cat

doctrine of the Nous (cf. 2nd ed. of Aripp. 677 sq.) The example
stocles and Alexander of Aphrodisias shows (cf. ZELL. pt. iii. a. 703 sq. 7 12) how the later Peripate l.f. tics differed on the subject. further the citations and expla An. 89, nations of THEMIST,
D<>

ru>

ovicovv ^CTTIV ri evvoe? eKa-

iV
,

eV TO)

yfjiiffei

ov yap

ecrriv,
[i.e. it is

Uv

/x?}

SiaLpeOfj,

aAA

r)

$wdu.i

in every spatial

b, 9
2,

sq.

and PHILOP. De

Art. Q.
is

presented, not quantity, if successively, but simultaneously as a whole, an aSiaiperov is thought, for though divisible it rb is not actually divided]
.

and

sqq. (less satisfactory

SIMPL. DC An. 67, b. f.)- In the middle ages it was chiefly among the Arabian philosophers and the Italian followers of Averroes that the question was debated. The older and the more recent views upon the doctrine of the two fold na ureof the Nous, especially Aver (p. 8-29) those of Avicenna, roes and Thomas, are fully dis
cussed by BRENTANO, ibid. 5 sqq. As already shown (i. 203, n.3, describes the sup.}, Aristotle it thinking of j/ousas a contact of with the object of thought. In this way it has unity and especially

Kara iroabv aSiaiperov a\\a rw e /Set t-oet eV afiiaiperw XP V V After Kal aSiaiperw r-rjs ^VXTJS. sho\ving further that in the case of space and time the indivisible qu entities like the point are known only by antithesis to the divisible, and that this is so also with evil, Aristotle continues, 430, b, 24
8e
jur;
:

et

riVL

|Ur/

tffnv

tvavriov

TU>V

air iwv [these words, which ToitSTRIK also. li)3 sqq., endeavours

to
is

which is qualitative simplicity, and not, like the unity of space time, again itself divisible DeAn. iii. 6 init. aSiaiperwv r? ^v olv a OUK etrrt vofiffis eV ryirrots, ?repl
;
:

ru>v

a conjecture which ob quite clear, seem most simply viously to be emended by assuming that cuVtW, for which Cod. S. gives arisen from r. ivavriwv, his evavriov by a reader s error and the duplication for the Trpwrov, divine reason, is said also to have im no evavriov by reason of its

emend by
not

ra>i>

rb

i|/eG5os

rb

5
r)

dStaiperoi/

eVei Six^J,

v)

5vvd/j.i

ivepytLa,

ovQtv KwXvei vofTv brav vorj rb (J.TIKOS

rb aSiaiperov,
aSiaiperov yap

b, 21, 24], avrb Kal eitpyeia effrl

materiality, Metapli. xii. 10, K)75, eavrb yivuffKti

lff Kal ^v. That this knowledge is immediate
x<P

10(3

ARISTOTLE

any combination of conceptions, but with the pure conceptions themselves, which are the imdemonstrable
presuppositions of all knowledge. and absolutely true and infallible,
1

It

is,

therefore,
distin
5

must be

guished from mediate apprehension 2 or knowledge/

Aristotle fails to
tell

Yet

us what are the faculties

upon

which

its

exercise depends

these, although

operation of

and what is its relation to we can hardly but suppose that some the Active upon the Passive Reason is here
4

may be regarded as the 5 product of Reason and Perception, although here also
Similarly- Opinion
is

meant.

implied both here and in pas sages such as Anal. Post. i. 3, 72, b, 18, ii. 9 -i/iif. (TWV ri eVrj ra ,uej/ faccra KCU apxai flaw, a Kal
t ivai

places
sqq.
;

(e.g.

Eth.

vi. 2,

De An.

iii.

1139, a, 12, 10, 433, a, 12, b,

Kal ri

tffnv vTroQeaOai 5e?

troLriffai)
;

?}

&\\ov rp6irov (pavepa

H), 91,
a,
9,

c.

where
is

it

is

added

that the reason

which has
ciples.

the faculty

to do with first prin Of. i. 245 sqq., i. 197, n. 4,

supra.
1

29, c. 1 1, 434, a, 7) it is the delibe rative faculty, or practical reason (see infra). On Sidvoia, cf. ALEX. onMetaptt. 1012, a, 2; THEMIST. DC Art. 71, b, o TIJENDELENDe An. 272; BUKG, Arist. SCHWEGLBB, Arist. Metapli. iii. 183; I JON IT/, Arist. Netajili. ii. 214, and especially WAITZ, Arist.
;

was distinguished from vovs by Plato by the name Sidvom or eVi0-Tt if.ir) (see ZELL. pt. i. 536, 2) similarly Arist. De An. i. 4, 408, 24 sqq. where it is called b,^ Sicmua, and Hid. ii. 3, 415, a, 7 sqq. where it is called \oyia phs
;

ee i. 197, n. 4, supra. This mediate knowledge

t-

ibid.
3

298 on Aoytojubs BONITZ, 39 sq. Eth. vi. 3, 1139, b, 31 (after explaining the distinguishing
Org.
ii.
;

characterises
??

of

eVto-T^uTj)

/iifv

&pa
cf.

liriffriint}

iarlv e|rs

O.TTO-

and

Sidvoia.

Usually, however,
didvoia

See further ibid, above It is a 163, n. 3. further meaning of the word when in Anal. Post. i. 3, 72, b, 1 8,
SeiKTiK:?}.

and

i.

Aristotle
Sia.voe io Oai

employs

and

in a wider sense, for

(e.g.

33, 88, a, 36, an eVio-r^uTj avairoSeiKTos is spoken of, and de

thought generally
vi.
1,

Metaph.

fined

as

VTr6\7)\l/LS

TT}S

d/uetrou
i.

1025, b, 0; Polit. vii. 2, 1324, a, 20, c. 3, 1325, b, 20; Etli. ii. 1 init. Poet. 6, 1450, a,
;

irpoTaa-fus

(on which see

197,

supra).

rlt XoyiariKov 2, and elsewhere) indicates (De An. iii. 9, 432, b, 26) likewise the faculty of thought in general, although in most
;

On the difference between opinion and knowledge, see i.

4

163, supra.

On the one hand, 5J|a has to do, not, like knowledge, with
5

PHYSICS

107

we are without any express statement. Moreover, it must be by the operation of Reason that man can recall at pleasure his former impressions and recognise them as his own. To the same source in Reason we must
1

refer,

lastly,

practical

wisdom

or insight

(Qpowrjcris)

and

arfc.

These Aristotle distinguishes from know

ledge in that they both refer to something that can be otherwise than it is tlie former having for its
;

object

2 He remarks, however, action, the latter a creation. at the same time that they both depend upon right

;in

knowledge, and he singles out wisdom especially as one of the intellectual virtues. But that which reveals
1

more

clearly

than anything else the dependence

s

of

reason upon the lower faculties in Aristotle

necessary and immutable, bat with rb eVSs^tfy.tej oi aAAcos
the

doctrine

ov.
1

eX flv

it

is

iVoArjvJ/ts
JJ/T]

T?)S

d/xe rrou

See
8e

p. 74, n. 1,
vi.
1,

supra.
;i,

irpOTarrtws Kal

avayKaias (Anal. Pott. i. 33, 89, a, 2; cf. Mvtapli vii. 15, 1039, b, 31 Etli. vi. 3, 1139, b, 18); the contingent,
.

Etli.

11 K),

erret

Troir}(ris

Kal Trpa^ts
1

avdyicr]

T )jv rex 1

!1

irot^erews

aAA

ov

-rrpdfews elrai.
vi.

Thus
4)
e|ts

however, can only be

pirically

known em

by perception. On the other hand, inr6\r]^is, winch in reality coincides meaning- with

defined (Eth. Ao yow aXr/Ooiis

(ibid,

TTOITJTIKT],

and

c.

5,

1140,

a, 3, h,

4)

5(<|a

(Eth. ibid.

Top.

vi. 11,

]49,

a, 10; Catey. 7, 8, b, J*ri. ii. 21, fifi, b, 18,

10; Anal. 67, b, 12

sqq. Arist.

and

ets aMjQys fj.ra \6yov TrpaKTiK ij irepl ra avQpwiTw ayaGa Kal KOLKO.. On the former see further i. 208, n. 1, supra on the latter
;

<hili.

elsewlure;
i.

WAITZ,
is

vi. 7 sq.,

c. 11,

Org.

523),

as
is
3,

and signed to vovs, distinguished (De An.

remark
:

5oo
iii.

428, a. 20) from (pavTavia by the 8o?7 p.lv eVerou TriffTis (OVK eVSe xeTot yap So^ovra ois

1143, b, 20, vi. 4, 1277, a, M, b, 25; and on voirjff is a,ud IT points i. 183, n. \, supra. We shall return to both in discuss ing the Ethics.
;

1143, a, 8, c 13, Pollt. 1152, a, 8

iii.

3 See preced. n. and Rliut. i. 13GG, b, 20: <ppJvr)ffis 8 4or\v aperr) Siavoias, Kad ^v eS fiovXev-

9,

iroAAoIs.

ecr6ai

fivsavrai

Trfpl

ayadouv

Kal

Trei#o?

Se

\6yos

rwv

Se

6r)piuv

108
is his

ARISTOTLE
view of the gradual evolution of Knowledge out

of Perception and Experience. 1 He remarks, also, that all are necessarily accompanied by an inner thoughts

representation or imaginative picture, whose service to Thought is similar to that of the drawn figure to the

mathematician.

And

for this

he finds a reason in the

inseparable union of insensible Forms with sensible 2 This complete interdependence of reason and Things.
sense, however, only

makes
s

all

the more palpable the

gaps which Aristotle

the two.

doctrine of

Nous

leaves between

The same
Reason
irrational

is

in the sphere of the Will. 3

true also of the practical activity of Even in the lower

sensation, for

animals Desire springs from

is

pleasure and pain, and with these comes Desire, which is indeed nothing 4 else than the effort after what is Sensation pleasant. announces to us in the first place only the existence of an object, and towards this we place ourselves by
sensation there
is

wherever there

the feelings of pleasure and pain in definite attitudes of acceptance or refusal. feel it to be good or bad,

We

See
C.

i.

De An.

ibid.
olov

205, supra. iii. see also 8 5e TT) 7, 43], a, 14:

;

Kara T^TTO^I/*
Kav

/ecu

6 voScv

^
3

waavrws,

ofj.jjL irwv

riOerai Trpb iroabv, PoeTS oi% 77 irotrof.

iroa-bv

voy,

SiavorjrtKrj

alcrQ h/u.a.Ta

(pavrdafj-ara fyvxy Sib virdpx*i

T<Z

av 5 y (pvais
8e,

77

TUV

iroaruv, aopiffroy

ov^TTOT
I//UXT?.

votl
:

&vv

(pavTaff/uaTos

?]

riOfrai IJLSV Troabv j/oel 5 y irocrbv JLLOVOV.

w/noyxeVoi/,

TO. b, 2 VOT}TIKOV eV ro7s

juej/

ovv e^T? rb
z/oe?.

<pai>Ta<TiJ.a<n

ScHBADER, Arist. de Voluntate Doctrina, Brandenb. 1847.

Lehre
4

De Mem.
,
. .

/LLaros-

eV

TW

<j>iv

vow oirep Kal eV TO) Sia-ypdeKe ireyap ou0ej/7rpoo ue^ot

xpc<;
/

419, b, 80: eVe: 5e j/oetV OVK iffTiv aiev fyy-vTacrffv^aivei yap rb avrb irdQos
1,

(Oijmn. Progr.} WALTER, Die r. d. prakt. Vernunjt in d.

;

fjTiccll.

Phil. 1874.
3,

414, b, 4;

De An. ii. 2, 413, b, 23, De Somno, 1, 454,

ii.

b,

rip

rb

Troffbv
,

upiff^vov

tlvai

rb

29; Part. An.

cf. p. 22, n. 1,

17,

661, a, 6;

o/j.cas ypd<pou.ev

&piiru4vov

supra.

PHYSICS
and there
rence
arises in us in

109

consequence longing or abhor

1

in a word, a Desire.

The ultimate ground of

this desire lies in

the practical good, i.e. in that of which the possession or non-possession depends upon our own action. The thought of this good sets the
in motion, 2 which in turn appetitive part of the soul through the organs of the body moves the living
creature.
1

The inner
iii.

process by which desire arises

rb
/n.v

De An
Kal

7,

431,

a. 8:

ovv Kal ra
c. 11,

aAAa

^irp

iev ovv alo-QaveaQai o/noiov

/J.OVQV

rw
Se

<pa.vai

(Cf.

434, a, 5.)

Phantasy
p. 8 sq.

is

voe.1v

orav
v)

r/8v

/)

thus (as SCHRADER,

and

AvTrfjpbv. oiov

Kara<pa.ffa

aTrocfcaffa,

0KL
1139,
Siai/ofa

>r)

(pevyeL

[cf.

Eth.
,

vi.

2,

a,

21: lart 8 Karafyams Kal

a>|ts

oirep

ev

aTro<pa(Tis,

TOI T

Kal (pvyfi.~\ eV ope |et S. Kal eo~n rb ^5eo-0at Kal XvirttaOai

evpye"iv

Psychol. d. AT. 1GI, remark) the link which con nects our thoughts with the de sires and impulses which spring from them. Of the process, how ever, by which thought thus

BKENTANO,
also

rb
Kal
[v.

rrj

alo~dririKrj
v)

jiterroTTjTi

irpos
T]

rb ayaObv
<f>vyri

KaKbv, y roiavra.
ri

8e Kal

upe^is

rovro

1.

TO

at/To] Tepoj/
1

TJ

Kar

Kal

oix
IKQV

TO

evepyeiav, opeKTiKbv Kal

eli ai

tyfvKriitbv,
aj<r07jT

ovr"

aAAy/Awj/ o^Te ToD

passes into desire Aristotle gives no further analysis. 3 An. iii. 10, 433. a, 27 TO bpKrl)V [us was ail Kii/e? previously proved, 1. 14 sqq ] TO aAAa TOI)T fcrrlv v) TO ayadbv
7>
:
fj.f\>

fj

aAAa TO

aAAo.

<t>aiv6[J.evov

All desire, therefore, pre supposes a presentation, although the latter must by no means be

ov TTO.V 5e, ayadov. aAAa rb irpaKTOv ayaOov. irpaKr bv 5 earl TO Iv^e^fifvov Kal aAAa-s or i jn.ev ovv T] roiavrrj 5vvaexeii/.
fjus

mistaken for
:

desire.

DI-

An.

iii.

Kivii

rr)S ^VXTJS
.
.

r)

KaXov/ui.fvrj

10, 433, a, 9 Qaii erai Se 7e 8uo ravra Kivovvra, y) opeis r) i/ous, et^

upeis,

(pavepov

eVei

Iffrl

rp
c?

a. 6j/

n\v TO KIVOVV, Sevrepov

rpirov rb Kivov/j.evov

ns

(pavraatav nQe rj us votlf tv TroAAa yap irctpa rrjv eiririva ffr i jJif]v aKO\ov6oi(Ti rais (pavraffiais Kal fv TO?S aAAots ^OLS ov voif]f~is
r$]V

KLVf7,

TO

8e KLVOVV SiTTOi/, r~b IJLZV aKiv-qrov, r~b 8e KIVOVV Kal Kivov^fvov [cf. i. 389, Se TO /iei aKivrjrov TJ
<rri
>>it]>r<i~\.

ouSe

eanv, aAAa tyavraaia veUXTTG ev\6yuis ravra Svo rai ra Kivovvra, upefys Kal Sidvoia
\oytcr/j.6s
cf>a

TrpaKrbv ayaBuv, TO 8e KIVOVV Kal KLVOV/ULVOV T^ OpfKTlK^V (^KlV^irai yap TO opeyo/.i.vov 77 opeyerat, Kal i)

irpaKTtid]

Kal

7]

(pai

rav a

Se

Zpeis

KLvncris r:s

effriv

[as

TEENf

orav KLVJJ, ov Kivei avev op ^fws. b, 27 fi opfKrutov rb ov, ravrrj avrov KtvrjriKov opeKriKov 8e OUK avev (pavracrias (pavraffia ft*
f
:

DELENBUEG
evepyeia)
[v.

rightly
1.
v)

reads]

eV.

irao-a

/}

[See p. 73,

atcr0rjTi/C7j /} AoyiffriKr} n. 2, suj)ra.~] ravrrjs

conjectures ^ evepyeia, unnecessary], TO 8e Kivov/uevov TO ^ Se Kive? bpyavu> T] ope^ty, ^ wov

^877

TORSTR. but this is

TOirro

ffw/jiariKov

eo~nv.

We

no

ARISTOTLE

brought In order properly to understand how bodily movements spring from will and desire we must
general rule.
1

Aristotle represents as a syllogistic conclusion, inas much as in each action a given case is under a

changes of inner feeling involve a 2 This corresponding change in the state of the body. is more in the treatise on the Notion fully developed of Animals. The process by which will follows the
all

recollect

that

upon

presentation of the object,

inference.

is,

we

general end

The major premiss is the minor premiss is an actual instance

; ;

are told, a kind ol the conception of a

while the con corning under the general conception clusion is the action which issues from the subsumption of the second under the first. 3 Usually, however, the
shall

recur to this

at

later

8e

Kal

ra

point.

rrjs

^v^s

TrdOt]

TTJ.VTO.

good commentary on

dvai

the passage before us is fur nished by JJe Mot a An. 6, 700, b, 15 sqq., which is probably

(j.tTa 0-wfj.aros, 9v/j.bs, irpa.6Tr)s,

modelled upon
1

it.

Et-h.

vi.

5,

1147,
T/

a,

25:

7)

/j.V
Trepl

yap KaOoAov 8o|a rwv KaO e /catrra

tjbrj

ereoa
u>v

I(TTIV,

Kvpia [Similarly De 434, a, 17.] orav 8e fj. a yzvr]rai e| avr&v, avdyK-r] rb (rv/u.irepavQev fv9a /j.ev (pdvai rljv tyvx)iv,

a io-9r)(Tis

(pofios, eAeo?, 6dp(Tos, ert x a P a Ka-i rb (f)i\f7v re Kal fjufftlv a/j.a yap TOVTOIS -rraffx^i ri rb This is seen in the fact that according to the physical state forcible im pressions at one time produce ii effect; at another, light im
<rS}jj.a.

An,

i\\.

4.

pressions produce a deep effect. ert 8e rovro /xaAAov (pavep6v /Arjdevbs yap (pofiepov (rv/u./3aivoi>Tos fv rols TrdOeai yivovrai ro is rov (pofiovjj-evov [in consecju^nce of physical et 5 states OUTWS e^ei, SrjAoj UTL ra Trddr) \oyoi tvvXn dffiv.
.
I

irpdrriv y\VKCOS yevecrSai us tv TL Tiav /ca0 fKacrTov, avdyKr] rbv ^vvd^vov Kal /Hi] /cwAuoueroj/ a/xa TOVTO Kal c. 13, 1144, a, 31 of TrpoiTTfiv.
oiov,
5e7,
64

et/

5e TCU?

TTO 1777-1 /ecus

vdus.

Travrbs

Tovrl 8e

y\v>ci>,

OMTTZ ol opoi roiovroi oiov

rb
<>p-

eo-0cu

Kivria-is

ns
v)

rov

roiOvSl
inrb

rwv Trpattriav yap ffv\\oyL<T/ji.oi apxyv ZXOVTIS eicriv, eVeiS/? rotoVSe rb re Aos Kal rb apiarrov. Cf. C. 12,
1143, b, 3 (see
i.

(Tu^aros ^ /utpovs ToG5e ei/e/ca roDSe.

Swap* us

Cf. Eth. ibid.

is said, p.

1147, a, 15,

and what

197, n. 4,

supra ),

where a minor premiss i 5 spoken of in reference to action. 2 DC An. i. 1, 403, a, 16: eot/ce

75, n. 2, on pleasure and pain as events in the aladrjTiK^ fj.ea-6rr]s. 3 Mot. An. 7, 701, a, 7 8e vouv ore /xej/ irpdrrei, ore S ov
:

Trpdrret,

Kal

/aj/e?Tcu,

ore

ov

PHYSICS

111

syllogism assumes a simpler form, by the omission of the obvious minor premiss l while, on the other hand, the usurpation of the place of the major premiss by the
;

demands of
sideration,

desire, in

cases

when we

act without con

constitutes

rashness. 2

The power
of our body

of the
is

will, however, to

move the organs

effect of

here

the heat and cold, which are caused by the feelings of pleasure and pain these in turn, by the expansion or contraction of particular parts,

explained as

an

3 produce certain changes and movements in the body.

CTV/J.-

fiaivflV

K3.1

TTfpl

T&v

aKlvf]TWV

Sizvoov/uievois

Kal

(Tv\\oyio/LifvoLS.

eK6? juei/ 6e(t>pr)/*a rb reAos fvravQa 8 e/c r&v Suo irpordcrecov rb (Tv/j.TTfpacrfj.a yiverai 7] on iravrl a^is, olov orav avdpwTTw, avrbs 8 avOpoa. .

aAA

automata, owing to the mechan ical adjustment of the cylinders, are set in motion by a slight touch, so with living beings, in whom the bones take the place of wood and iron, the sinews
that of the cylinders (cf also the passage quoted p. 53, n. 2, from Gen. An. ii. 5). The impulse, however, in their case is given
.

v6ir)<Tr)

After illus /aiei iros, trating this by further examples, ai Se Aristotle proceeds, 1. 2,
evOews.
>

irporaffets al iroirjTiKal Sia 8vo e/8coy

yfvovrat, Sia re rov ayadov Kal Sia

av|a*/o ueVa>i rwv /nopiwv depuort]ra Kal irdXiv tn^TeAAoyUeVaji/ $ia Kal aAAojou/ieVcoy. aAAotoCo-i \l/viv
8<a
/

rov Svvarov [the latter perhaps

8
at

with reference
11 12, b, 24sqq.]. 1 Ibid. 1. 25
epcarcavrcai
ei/tot,

to
:

Etli.

iii.

5,

al aicrO^creis Kal at (pavraffiai Kal al fj.lv yap aiV07jcreis evvoiai.

&<nrfp

Se

rS>v

ev8vs vwdpxov(nv a,\\oiu><reis nves ovtrai, r\ 5e (pa.vra(T:a Kal r) i/oTjcns-

irpGraaw
/SaSt^eiv avdpcairo
2

r?/z/

STJATJV

(j)L(rTao~a (TKOTre?

rr)V ere paj/ owS rj Sidvoia ouSeV olov el rb

OWTCO

Tyv

roov TTpayfj.drccv

e^owi

Svva/u.ii

ayaObv
;,
:

avdpdoTrca,

on
p.}]

avrbs

yap Tiva rb eJSos rb voov/j.evov rb rov Oep/nov rj \bvxpov y) rjSebs 7} (frofispov roiovrov rvyx^ve i ~ov dl6v
rpoirov
irep Sib

OUK eVSiarptjSei.
Sib Kal oo~a

Kal Kal

T&V Trpay^drav

fKaffTOf,

L. 28

\oyiff-

d.ufvoi irpdrrou-ev,

ra^u
$)
/)

irpdrrojULev.
rrj

(ppiTTOvcri ical fyofiovvrai vo ^aavrfs /uovov. ravra 5e iravra

orav yap irpbs rb ov

rep

i/epyf)o~Ti

alo~Qriafi

7ra9rj

eVe/ca

rrj

v$,

o5

6pyrai
yap

Qavracria T) evdvs Troje?

i/07](recos
7]

ovfjLfvwv
/uei^aj

Kal aAAoi&jfreiy e/cnV. 8 eV T(f cra/uan

aAAot-

ra

/xej/

ra

eAarrco yiverai.
yej/o^tcVr;

OTL
ei/

avr
rr]s

epcar^ffews
6pe |ecoy
/AOI,
r]

v)

Se

/j.iKpa

yU.erajSoA J;

yivsrai
at(r6r](Tis

eVe p-yeta.

apxp
slight

fJ.eyd\as

Kal

noriov
Se

eVi^u/ita \eyei.
e^Trev

roSl
v)

diafyopas

anodes,

TroAAas Trote? OVK ar)Xov a

;

Trorbv
r)

77

rj

o vovs.

tvBvs
b,
1
:

Trivet,.

Ibid.

701,

Just as

the helm produces a great effect upon the bow of a ship, so a small change
of

movement

112

ARISTOTLE
also Aristotle

Under Will
all

regard Emotion
that

as a peculiar

who, like Plato, does not form of activity classes

we should

rather place under the Jatter head.

1

Love, for example, he refers to Ov^os, by which he understands, not only spirit, but also heart.

As Aristotle proceeds, however, Desire is found to bear a different character according as it springs from
Granted that it is representation or not. desire in us, yet the always the desirable that causes desirable may be either a real or merely an apparent
rational
2

good,

and

so the desire itself

may
1

either spring from

3 rational reflection or be irrational.

To the

latter class

in the heart causes flushing-, pallor, trembling &c. over the whole
1

0V/jl.6s

Polit. vii. 7, 1327, b, 40: 6 fffTIV 6 TTOLWV TJ) fylXflTLK&V

bod}*.

8 (J. apxh H*v ovv^ wcnrep etynjTaJ, TTJS Kivfjffews TO eV

:

auTT)
rj

yap tffnv
ffvvj)6eis

7]

TTJS tyvxris Suva/xts

fyiXovfjisv.

(TTj/icToi

Se

irpbs

yap

T<

TCpCLKTb)

SilDKTbv

Kal

<pVKr6v

TOVS

Kal
-^

(piXovs 6 6vfj.bs

lTn
T?7
({>ai>Tao~ia

vor\(t(.i

Kal KOU

a^perat yunAAov,
bXiyupti<j6a.i -

Trpbs TOVS ayv&Tas,

avTccv

6p/u.6T f)s

vo/j.i<ras.

Cf

foil
i.

pages.
109, n.

\l/vis.

Tb
r)8v

|Uei/

Tb S
/j.Ta

yap Xvin]pbv (pevKTbv, Herri Se ra SiwKTbi

,
.
.

De An.

iii.

10; see

3,

supra.
;
:

Xvirrjpa

Kal

f/8e a

iravra
/ca)

\l/ve(t>s

TWOS

i.

So
olov

with

fear,

fright,

sexual

3 De An. iii. 10, 438, a, 9 (see 109, n. 2, sup. ) 1. 22 vvv Se 6 ^v vovs ov (paiveTai KIV&V avfv ope ecos

pleasure, &c.
eiScoAoiS

p.vrifia.1

-xp^jJifvoi

Se Kal tXirlSes, TO IS TOIOV-

yap fiov\r]o~is opens Kara T})V Xoyicrijibv KivrjTai,

r)

OTO.V

5e

Kal

Kara

TOIS, ore /wev %TTOV ore aiTiai TWV avTajv eifflv.

Se /xaAAoi/

fiovXyffiv

/ciJ/?Tai.

r;

upe^is Kivtl
tiri6vfJU9

And

since

the inward parts from which the motion of the limbs proceeds are so arranged that these changes take place very easily in them, the motions follow our thoughts instantaneously. TO. jj.lv yap opya[accusative] irapaa-Kevdfri eVmjSefcw TO. ird.6r), y 5 upeis TO.
viKa/j.(pr]
7ra0rj,

jrapa Tbv Xoyi<TfJ.6v. ?? ijpf^is TIS ecrrtV. vovs

yap
/j,ev

ovv iras

op66s ope^LS 5e Kal (pavTacr ia Kal eTtel 5 dpd^j Kal OUK bpQi). b, 5
:

opf^eis yivovTai evavTtai aAA^Aats, TOVTO Se (rv/jL/Saivei OTO.V o X6yos

Kal
8

f)

Ti.6v/j.

a evavTiai
Sia
i]

&ffi,

eV Tfns
/J.ev

(6

xpovov yap vovs

. .

cuaQrjffiv

upe^iv T] (pavTacria auTTj 8e yifTai /} 5ia vor]ffws ^ Si aua Se Kal ra%u Sta T& ai(T6i crectiS.
T-TJV
t

aj/de\Ki.v KfXfVfi,

T& /j.e\Xov fTriQvuia Sm

ev kv
f)

Tb ^87})
KLVOVV,
.

efSei

/u.ev

e ir]

Tb

Tb
i.

Ope/CTiKbl/,

6peKTlKbl>,

irom]TiKbv

Kal ira.Qt]TiKbv

T&V

irpbs

apid/j.w

5e TrAejco TO. KLVOVVTO.

elvat

Ithet.

11,

1370, a,

18: rwv Se

PHYSICS

113
1

belong anger and the appetite for sensual gratification. In so far as reason goes to constitute the conception of the end and reacts upon the desire it is called Practical
or Deliberative Eeason. 2
at

Desire
Se

which

is

guided byj
rifj.upia

eiriOv/j.icav

fjCtv

a\oyoi

elffiv a!

the

first

impulse to

given

fj.fTa

\6yov.
yu.e7

Sensual desires are

a
(5

ttAoyot,

\6yov 5e
:

ocra

e /c

rov
iii.

TTfiaO^vai
4,

iriQv/j.ov(riv.

Polit.

1277,
:

a,

^ U X^
vii.

*K

^oyov

ical

1334, b, 18 TTJS ^IT^TJS opca/jifv Svo /*(p7], rb re a\oyov Kal TO \6yov %x ov Ka ^ ras e|eis TOLS TOVTCDV Svo TOJ/ apiOrb JJLCV tffTiv upe|is TO 5e uij/ /J.QV, vovs. Cf. foil. note. 1 Following Plato, Aristotle often opposes these two forms of
opeeo>s.

Ibid.

15,

>

sure the moment that \d,yos or a io-6r)(ns declares anything to be Neverthe ess in the pleasant. stricter psychological discussion,

by the reason without awaiting its fuller commands -jn9vfj.ia, on the other hand, makes for plea
:

De An. iii. 9, 432, a, 18 sqq., Aristotle rejects the view that the
\oyi<mKov,

OvfjiiK^v

and

eiri9v/j.Ti-

pe|is
liliet.i.

a\oyos to one another; 10 (seep. 114, n. 3, infra).

ii.

JJe

An.

3,

414, b, 2

ope^is

IJLSV

are the three parts of the soul which produce motions, partly because the distinction between them is less than, e.g., that between the QP^TTTLKOV and atVflrjTi/cbi/
Ti/coi/,

yap

fTTLBv/ata Kal dv/j.bs Kal fiov\r](ns

and partly because the

ridv/j-ia is

then defined as
iii. 9,

ope|:s
ej/

TOU ^Se os)

TO?

432, b, 5
f)

re

opeKTiK^v cannot thus be divided and the soul made to consist of

XoyiffTiKy

yap

pov\ir](ns

yiverai, Kal eV T Kal 6 eu/j.6s. Etli.

a\6y(p fj iridv/j.ia iii. 4, 1111, b, 10

:

three separate parts. Aristotle gives no more accurate definition

of
6v/j.6s
;

even P. Meyer

minute

while Trpoaipfo-is is neither tiriQv/j.ia nor 6v/jubs, since both the latter

discussion of the passages that bear upon it ( O 6v/j.bs ap. Arist.

belong also to irrational beings, but the former does not. Polit. vii. 15 (see p. 114,n. 3, infra), cf. Mat. An. 6, 700, b, 22, o. 7, 701, a, 32 Eth. End. ii. 7, 1223, a, 20 J/. MOT. i. 12, 1187, b, 36. In the Topics (ii. 7, 113, a, 35 sq., iv. 5, 126, a, 8, v. 1, 129, a, 10) the Platonic division of the Aoyur;
;

Platonemque, Bonn, 1876) arrives at conclusions as unsatisfactory as the shorter one by Walter,

on the customary According to this, it indicates as a rule the passions which prompt to the
ibid. 199 sqq.

meaning

of the word.

avoidance or

retaliation of

in
it

juries. Nevertheless the tenderer

IKOV, 6v/j.oei?)s

and

eVifli^TjTt/cbi/ is

emotions are also assigned to

cf. p. 112, n. 1.
2

employed as one which

ally recognised,

is

gener
7,

and

Etli. vii.

De AH.
0,116 i/os

iii.

10, 433, a, 14
eVe/ca

1149,
Less

a,

24 follows Plato in the

vovs Se [sc.

KiVTjTt/cbj/j o

TOV
Sta-

remark (Ph.

d. Gr. i. 714) that it is disgraceful to be unable to rule Qvfjibs than the desires eoi/ce yap o 6v/j.bs O.KOVGIV /ueV Tt TOU
:

A o-y
Kal
r)

Kal 6 irpaKTiKos

(pfpGl
r]

6^Ci}pfjTlKOV TO} opf^is eVe/ca rov 7rao"a ou

6

TOl)

T\l.
yap

ope|<s,

avr-r]

[\o7ou, irapaKoveti/

5e

it

yields to

vov

TO 5

apxy rov irpaKTiKov eo^aTOi/ ap;^ TTJS Trpd-

VOL.

II.

114

ARISTOTLE
1

reason Aristotle, with Plato, calls Will in the nar 2 rower sense of the word, appropriating the name Desire
to its irrational exercise.
fold
3

The

latter stands in a

two
it

relation

to

reason.
it,

On

the one
this

intended to submit to
obtain a share in
it.

and by

is hand, to obedience

On

own nature

irrational it

the other hand, being in its resists the demands of reason,

4 and often overpowers them.

Between these two kinds

;

of impulse stands
ecos.

man
uo

with his Free Will

<ai-

for that
2,

we

&ffrf
TO.

ev\yws ravra

ai-

it

see ch.
1

xii.

part
i.

infra.

verai

Kivovvra, ope^is Kal Sidvoia See further, p. 109, n. 5,

:

Ph.d. Gr.

p. 505. Practical reason itself

must
:

Cf.c.9.432,b,27. Mh.vi.2, 8vo TO, \6yov 1139, a, 6 tv yue?/ & flewpoD/Aey ra tyovta., roiavra rwv ZVTWV, offwv at
u7roKei<r0a>

not be mistaken for

will,

which,

to Aristotle, is essentially a desire the former is merely thought in

relation to action.
3

De An.

iii.

10,

433, a, 22

ra
erepa
erepoj/

va
Kal
r<

irpbs

yap ra
TT/S

r<a

rwv
. . .

ytvei rb

ij/ux^s irpbs

and c. sqq. (see p. 112, n. 3, supra), where 11, 434, a, 12 (see foil, n.), is jSouATjfrts opposed to o pe|iy,
Rlwt.
uei>

\ey(r9a> endrepov ireQvKOS rovrwv rb juei/ tTrtorTTj/xofi/cbi/ rb 5e

8e

i.

10, 1369, a, 2:

T)
<Vr^S

jSowATjcrts

ayadov
?)

t>peis

(ou0ets
olif]0ij

XoyiariKov. r~b yap j8oi>Aev 8e Koyi^ffQai ravrbv, ov6ds Aeuerai irepl ruv
Sidvoia Kal
vj

e<r0ai

Kal

yap BovXerai aAA

elrai ayadbv~)

orav

a\oyoi 8 ope|ets bpy^

K al
7
:

eV^i a.
^
ot erai

Eth.

v. 11, o

U36,

b,
]U^|

ovre yap /SouAerai oi0eis &

o"7rou8aror,

oterai elvai
oi/x

TC-

aKparr]S

,uT?8e
.
T<xAi?0es

TroiTjTi/crjs

rb
if

KO!

eo-ri

Kal

Trpdrreiv irpdrrei. See further, p. 113, n. 1. ^Cf. PLATO S statements, PA. ^r.i. p.
<Z.

SeTi/

rovro yap effn navrbs KCU eoyov, rov Se -npaKriKOv

rrj

and p. 719, 3. At other times the word has a wider meaning, as

505,
Sidvoia

rov CUT?? ovOev Kive i, aAA rj eVe/ca Kal irpaKTiK-i]. Ibid. c. 12, 1143, b, 1 ; see p. 197, n. 4, supra. Polit. vii. re Sixf? 14, 1333, a, 24 Snfprjrat \6yov exo^l, Ka9 ov Trep
:

6peei

rrj

op0.

L.

35j

Polit. vii. 15, 1334, b, 22 (6v^bs yap is IT i 8e liriBvpla Kal yevo-

In

J^7*.

iii.

6,

both meanings

[rb 0auev

TpoTroj/

Staipeti/-

^ 7p
eta>-

are concerned, where to the question whether ^SouATjcrts has refer ence to the good or to the apis given parently good, the reply that per se, and in a virtuous man, it is to the former alone in a bad man, to the latter, 4 Eth. i. 13, 1102, b, 13 we
; :

VpaKTiK6siffTih6yos6tetepnruc6s.
Cf p. 106, n. 2, sup. For a closer view of the practical reason and the activity which proceeds from
.

PHYSICS
are the authors of our

115

own

actions,

and that

it lies

in

our

own power

to be

1 good or bad, is Aristotle

firm

must distinguish in the soul a rational and an irrational part. The latter, however, is of two The one of its con kinds.
stituent parts, the nutritive soul,

wffTTfp fftpatpa [v.

1.

-av~\

rf

upe^is TT}V

ope|u/, 8e ael
cScrre

orav aKpao~ia yevrfTai. (pvo~fi TI avca apxiKUTepa Kal

Tpfts
(popas
^877

/ai/el",

KiveiaQai.

has nothing to do with action

8e Kal

The various attempts made to explain and amend the last

passage

a\\rj

ris

(pvo~is

TTJS

byTRENDELENBURGand

aXoyos
fj.evTot

elvai,

Try

Xoyov.

/xere^oi O a Both in the

temperate and the intemperate man, reason operates on the one

hand
&AAo

(paiverai 8 TL -rrapa T^V

eV

avro is

Kal

X6yov
^P

irefyvKos,
-ray

Kal

aVTiTetvei

rov
els TO.

KaQdrrep TO. (rco^aros yu.opta

TORSTRIK, in loco, BRENTANO, Psyehol. d. Ar. Ill sq., and the Greek commentators (discussed in Tren.), it is the more justifiable here to omit as the thought ex pressed is clear enough. Depart ing from previous editions, Zeller would now suggest ore 8 e/ceiVrj
: .
. .

8eta

Tovvavriov
Qeperai,
ia
.
. .

Trpocupou/ieVcuj/ Kivr)o~ai els TO. apio~Tepa irapa-

Kal

eVl

rrjs

yap
ev

at appal run*
rrj

rl tyvxW aKpaTwv

ital

elvai

n irapa rbv X6yov,

TOVTW
Kal
e iTro/u.ev

i^ux?)

vopiartov
eVai/Tiou/xe. .

vov

WTifiatvov

Xoyov SfKalrovro^aiverai
. .

jUeTe ^eif,
T<^5

Trjv yVt]Tai Ari /aye?], &o~Te, &c. stotle s doctrine differs from that of Plato as presented Ph. d. 6V. i. 713 sq., only in this, that in place of the Platonic Gvphs we have here the appetites as a whole. Eth. iii. 7, 1113, b, 6:
TavTf]v,
$<T7rep

TJ

avw

o~<pa7pa
.
.

/car co,

ore
.

r)

opeis

[</)u(ret

e>

irfiQapx^ yovv \6yif) rb rov eyKparovs (paiveraL /cal rb a\oyov Sirrov. rb /JL\V 877 Koivuvtl \6yov, yap fyvTiKbv ov8afj.us
.

7]jjuv
i)

8e Kal y aper^, opo ius 8e Kal v ols yap KaKla. lyjuv T~O
e^>

irpaTTfiv, Kal rb /J.T) TrpaTTeiv, Kal GV ails rb /j.)], Kal TO vai &Q~T ei rb

bv
TTCOS,
?;

e (/)
)

ri/juv
r)/juv

eo"Tt,

KarrjKoov Gcrrus avrov

.
. .

errrat

Kal ireiQapxiKov
TTCOS

ori 8e
v

ov,
e<p

Kal

virb

Xoyov TO a\oyov,
ivi alffxpov
el

TJljfiv,

Kal

r]

vovQ^Tt]ffis /cat Traffa

oj/ e(|)

^,77 Trparretv Kal rb Trparreti/ ^?v. et 8 e^) ^jU?!/

el

rb

re Kal TrapaKX-rjcris. rovro fyavai X6yov 0~raL Kal rb X6yov

Kvp .ws
14, Kal iv
avrqi,
a.KOvo~TiK.6v

8e XP$) Ka-l

ra KOKa irpaTTtiv Kal

TO.

oiVxpa,

6/j.oius 8e KOJ rb /U.T; Trparreii/, TOWTO 8 ^i/ rb ayado is Kal Ka.Ko7s

TO 8
e</)

rifjuv
.

apa rb
.

eiriflKfO i Kal

TI.

Polit. vii
8e
o~vo

1333,

a,

10

Siyp-nrai

TO^S ye vvv Kal T^V a/j.<pi(r0r)T r)TOV,

elvai
.

3)

ov (paTeov

apx^v

zlvai ouSe yevvi]rriv

X6yov KaO

aurb, rb 8 OVK e_^et u.\v K.off aurb, Xoycp 8 viraKoveiv SwdZte An. iii. 11, 434, a, 12 \LSVOV.
:

T&V

TTpdl-ecav,

d 8e own

raura

&o~Trep [if he is

Kal TSKVUV ; author of his

fj,rj

actions]

c^aij/erat Kal

%x

ei/tore

[?j

ope|ts]

Kal

/cti/e?

tKelvr} TavTi]v,

[j.v ety ctAAas apx&s avayayzlv Trapa TOLS e0 r)/MV, &v Kal at
I

116
conviction,

ARISTOTLE

which he supports by the recognised volunand by the moral responsibility tariness of virtue, which is presupposed in legislation and in the judgment in rewards and punishments, praise and
1

universally passed blame, exhortation

and warning. 2

In the case of settled

it

moral

that states, it is true

he believes

to be partly

otherwise.

upon

ourselves
it is

or bad

when we that when the

said that
all

just 3 are sick to be well.

These in their beginnings, indeed, depend but when we have once become good as little in our power not to be so, as
;

In like manner he admits

4

will has once acquired a definite bent, the

external action necessarily follows.

desire

what seems good

to them,

But when it is and that

not responsible for this seeming, Aristotle they to admit it, since even the disposition which refuses 5 determines our moral judgments is our own creation.
are

does he regard with more favour the attempt to nature of the disjunctive judgment the prove from the

Nor

TIIUV Kal

avrh ttf
,

Jjftv Kal litotffia.

eot/ce Sry,

1112

b 31:

a0a-

and the question investigated how far and in what cases we

are irresponsible for ignorance or

Tr ep
rS>v

rfpW

Zvepovos

&ai

a PX

>l

rpdSetav,

and elsewhere.

On

Aristotle s doctrine of the freedom of the will, see SCHBADEB, TBENDBLENBUBG, Histor. ibid Beitr. ii. 149 sqq. Aristotle frequently makes use of this argument, accusing the dictum of Socrates and Epi; 1

how

mental and bodily defects, and far, on the other hand, we

are responsible for them as in themselves culpable. 3 EtU. iii. 7, 8, 1114, a, 12 sqq., b, 30, cf. v. 13, 1137, a, 4, 17 particular just and unjust actions are voluntary and easy, ea/ but rb &SI %x ovras ravra
:

charmus, oMels ZK&V TTOV^S ov5 &Kuvu.dicap( on which seePh.d.Gr.

i

otfre
4

pdSiov

otfr

eV

avrois.

462, 5,

iii.

b, 119, 2, cf. 719, 3),

of the inconsistency of declaring good to be voluntary, evil involuntary; Eth. iii. 7, 1113, b,

Metapli. supra. 5 Ibid. Hi.

ix. 5,

see

i.

385, n. 2,

7,

1114,

a,

31 sqq.

14 1114 b 12 sqq. 2 Mil. ibid. 1113, b, 21, 1114, discussed a, 31 where this is fully
,

The question how far it is possible consciously to commit a mistake is more fully discussed in the
JEtMcs.

See infra,

PHYSICS

117

regards contrary, tion of all action that is the subject of moral

1 On the of a contingent result. logical impossibility as an essential condi voluntariness he

judg

ment

2
;

and

volition (for

does not exhaust the conception of Aristotle calls the actions of children and
if this

3 even of animals voluntary), at least without volun If ajl that is voluntary tariness no volition is possible.

is

not also intentional, yet

1

all

that

is

intentional

must

See i. 230, n. 4, supra. It has already been there shown that Aristotle does not hereby avoid but this only all difficulties; shows more clearly how important he regarded it to rescue the possibility of voluntary actions.
2

ask to which of these the ignor ance refers the action being involuntary in the highest degree when the mistake concerns the
:

Etli.

iii.

1 init.

rrjs

aperfjs

5); Trepl

7ra07j
j.ev

re Kai irpd^is ovarjs,

Kovaiois eiraivtav eirt 5e TO?S

essential points of its aim and object. Finally, it makes a differto Aristotle, ence, according whether an action committed in ignorance is matter of regret or

Kal

irl

rots

not
it

aKovcriois

ffuyyvwfjiris,

&c.

In

c.

if the doer does not regret he acquiesces in it, so that while it cannot be regarded as
;

1-3, cf. v. 10, 1135, a, 23 sqq. rb and aKovffiov are fully "discussed. According to the account here given, that is in
is done under compulsion or in ignorance. We must distinguish, however, in the former between physical compul

voluntary, it is not involuntary in the sense of being against his

will (c. 2 init. and///. cf. vii. 8, On the 1150, a, 21, c. i) init.). other hand, that is (c. 3 init.)
;

voluntary which

tKOvffiov ov
/ca0

)]

e/ca<rTa

apx^l *v eV ols

avra>

etSon

TO.

r\

irpa^Ls,
e</>

or

(1135,
fj.rir

a,

23) & av

ris

ruv

avrw

involuntariness,

which constitutes absolute and moral com pulsion, which is only relative; in
sion,

uvTdiv ei5o)J Kal

*bv yUTjTe
i.

llliet.

the latter,between unconscious ac

tion (ayvoovvra
alsoiroieTz/),

ayvoSiv irpdTTr) Cf. 10, 1368, b, 0: eKoVres 5e oaa etSores Kal /u-// avayfj.rj

yu^re ov eVe/ra.

which may

be voluntary (as when some thing is done in haste or anger), and action from ignorance (Si
As, further, a-yvoiav Trpdrreiv). there are many things on which an action depends (nearly correjsponding to the familiar quis, mid, iiM, &c., Aristotle mentions ris Kal ri Kal -n-fpl ri /) eV T IVL
:

On tlie other hand, deliberation is not a necessary condition of volnntariness on the Aristotle expressly contrary, denies that passion and emotion destroy the voluntariness of an action. 3 Etli. iii. 3, 4, 1111, a, 24, b, 8. Will, however, in the stricter
. :

sense (see

p.

114, n. 3, wvpra},

cViore

5e

Kal

rivt,

oiov

bp-yavy

Ka.1

ei/e/ca

TIVOS),

we must

cannot be attributed to either of them.

118
1

ARISTOTLE

needs be voluntary. It is in his view the intention upon which in the first instance the moral quality of an act
2 In like manner deliberation is only possible depends. with reference to those things which lie within our own

power,
cate

Aristotle, however, has not

attempted to indi

more exactly the inner processes by which free volition operates, nor to solve all the difficulties which surround the doctrine of the Freedom of the Will. The
1

Hth.
!

iii.
8)7

Trpoa pe(TLs

4, 1111, b, 6 ?j zKovaiov IAZV (paiverai,

:

same description
vi. 2, ocra

is

repeated
v. 10,

Etli.

1139, a, 23,
/

cf.
^JL\V

1135,

ov

TavTov
Kal

8e,

aAA
ftev

eVl

irXtov TO
Kovo~iov
/cat

b, 10 ( 7r/3oeAo uei Oi 5e

\Trpa.TTOiJ.v\

Kov(riov
TrcuSes

TOV

yap
<a
,

TaAAa
,

KOIVWVC I,

Trpo/SouAeucra/zej/ot, aTrpoaipzTa ocra airpofiovhevTa). the

On

ftal

ra eai(pvr]S Kara Trpoaipeffiv

other hand, 6 peis in the narrower sense of mere irrational desire is

1.

5
8)7

ov.

1112,

a,
[/;

(paiverai cKovaiw ov

14: fKovffiov /tiej/ Trpoafpetm], TO 8

TrpoatpeToV.
:

said o

DC An. Hi.
sq.,

11, 434, a, 12, cf. to be without part in TO

irpoaipe icrdai

TTO.V

(So

also Itliet. ibid. ovv ocra fj.lv eKovres [so. iroiovffiv], ov TTCIJ/TO
Trpoaipov/j.evoi,

T
TO.

700

TayaOa

7)

KaKa
:i

iroioi

Tives

f cr^aej/

(ibid. C.

etSores

Aristotle

then

further

aTrarra.) distin

4,

1112, a, 1). BouAeuo.u60a 8e

irepl

TWU

e(p

guishes Trpoalpfffis from eViflu^u a, 0u,abs, fiov\ri(ris (by which he here means wish, rather than mill as it is directed towards what is im possible and- beyond our power) and 8o|a (or, more accurately, a certain kind of 8o|a, e.g. what is right opinion upon right, what is to be feared, &c., and generally upon practical
its characteristic questions) mark is deliberation (c. 5, 1113, Se itai TrpocttptToi /3ov\VToi> a, 2 TO avTu. TrAr)v d(f)ocpi(r/j.vov ijSf] rb yap K TT\S @ov\rjs ac Trpoouperov eVriv) cordingly, TO irpoaiperbv is defined as /3ov\evTuv opsKrhv T&V TJ/UUV,
;
.
T^>

end, but with the means. We set ourselves an end and then ask,
just as in

1112, a, 30. Aristotle further shows (1112, b, 11 sqq. vii. 9, 1151, a, 16) that deliberation deals, not_with_ tlie
j]f.uv irpa.KT(icv,ibid. c. 5,

mathematical analysis,
;

what are the conditions under which it may be attained we next inquire what is required to create these conditions, and so on until we arrive by a process Qjf
ajialysis at the first condition of the desired result which lies in

1 J
*

our power.
of. this
;

With the knowledge

<p

and
T&V
TOV

Trpoaipffis as povAevTiKT) ope^LS

e(p
f]/j."iv

condition, deliberation ceases with the endeA.vojar_io realise it, action begins, Cf. TREXDELENBUEG, Histor. Scitr.
.

(ibid.

1.

&ov\cvo~ao~9cu

yap

e/c 9 sq.) KpivavTes

;

ii. 381 sq. WALTER, Lelire prakt. Vcrn. 220 sq.

;

v. d.

iv.

The

PHYSICS

119

to the Stoics, while it has

credit of first clearly perceiving these points belongs been left to modern philosophy

their force. fully to appreciate

Before going on, however, to examine from the point of view of the Aristotelian Ethics the forms of activity

which proceed from free self-determination, there are some anthropological questions which still demand inves These have been already touched upon, but tigation.
only

now admit of a complete survey. As Aristotle recognises in the collective

sphere of

animate existence a progressive evolution to ever higher forms of life, so he regards the life of the human soul from

Man unites in himself every the same point of view. form of life. To the nutritive life he adds the power life of sensation and motion, and to these again the
to Thought rises in him from sensation and imagination, and thence to reflexion and memory the highest stage of the pure intuitions of the reason He is rational will. action, from sensual desires, to and experience, but of perception capable not merely He raises himself in moral also of art and science. as in the latter he action above animal desire

of reason.

just

transcends the merely vegetable processes of nutrition

Aristotle accordingly sums up his and propagation. the the Soul in a single sentence whole doctrine of inasmuch as it Soul is in a certain sense all Actuality, unites in itself the sensual and the spiritual, and thus
:

contains the

a description which applies But just as of course, to the soul of man. especially, we found it to be a defect in Plato s theory that he was

Form

of both

See

vol.

i.

p. 199, n. 2, supra,.

120

ARISTOTLE

unable to find any inner principle of unity in the three parts into which he had divided the soul, and that he

undoubtedly

failed

to

propound

this

problem with

scientific accuracy, 1 so

we have
relation

to regret in Aristotle a

similar omission.
nutritive life

The

might

itself

whether the

latter is

between the sensitive and have suggested the question an evolution from the former, or

whether they come into existence simultaneously, and subsist side by side separate from one another. And
where, if the latter be the case, are we to look for the con nection between them and the unity of animal life ? This
difficulty,

however,
its

is still

more pressing

in reference to

Eeason and
soul.

relation to the lower faculties of the

end of

Whether we regard the beginning, progress, or their union, everywhere we find the same un
;

solved dualism

nowhere do we meet with any

satis

2 factory answer to the question where for the unifying principle of personality

we

are to look

which governs while

soul. 3

it

unites

all

the one power the other parts of the

of the soul, speaking generally, coincides, according to Aristotle, with that of the body
it
is.

The

birth

whose entelechy

He

not

only rejects

any

assumption of pre-existence, but he expressly declares that the germ of the life of the soul is contained in the male semen and passes with it from the begetter into
the begotten. 4
Ph.
| -

But, on the other hand, he

pp. 717 sq.
;

i*

unable to

d.

Gr.

i.

Which Aristotle, however, does not forget to put to Plato

see p. 23, n.
3

1,

supra.

BvenScHBLi/s attempt (Die

complete consistency of the Aristotelian doctrine is wholly un successful. Detailed criticism of it may here be omitted without prejudice to the following
investigation.
4

Einlieit des Seelenlebens aus d. Principien d. arist. Phil, entmiclielt. Freib. 1873) to prove the

See p.

-10,

n. 1, p. 6, n. 2, p. 53,

n. 3,

and

p. 96, n. 1,

suvra.

PHYSICS

121

apply this to the rational part of the soul, since that is something wholly different from the principle of life in
the body.
this also is

While, therefore,

it is

held that the germ of

it is

propagated in the seed, the same time that it alone enters

yet asserted
3

at
2

man from

without,

and is not involved in his physical life. But how an immaterial principle which has absolutely nothing in common with the body and possesses no bodily organ
can be said to reside in the semen and propagate
itself
riot to mention wholly incomprehensible the fact that not one word is anywhere said of the time

through
or

it, is

of its entrance into it. Nor can this be met by the assumption that the Spirit difficulty 5 proceeds direct from God, whether we regard its origin as an event necessarily following the operation of

manner

natural laws, or as in each case the effect of a creative act of the Divine Will. 6 For the former view, which
1

See

p.

90,

n.

1,2,

x/t-

pra.
It enters

implement it emplc^s, which is used to explain the union of soul

in the seed,

the womb, indeed, but comes to the latter

and body

(p. 3, n. 2, supra}, applicable to the reason, which

OvpaOtv, as is clearly explained in the passages quoted, p. 96, n, 1,

has no such implement.

94, n. 2,
5

Of.

p.
ii.

Gen. An.
:t ;

ii.

3, 73(5, b,

15 sqq.

and p. ]00, n. 2. BRANDIS, Gr.-Hom.

latl er

Pldl.

XwpiaTbs (Gen.
;

An.

ii.

3,

b.

1178.
(i

737, a, 9 Be, An. iii. 5 see p. 90, n. l,andp. 98, n.l,stf/;.), which here, as perhaps also in Plato s account of the Ideas, means not merely separable but actually separate,

The

view, that of the

was not only generally assumed by mediso-called

creationists,
ajval Aristotelians as undoubtedly Aristotle s, but is accepted by

the equivalent phrase ovQev yap O.VTOV Ty fvepyeia Koivvvel (ro^ari/a? evtpyeia being used for it, 739, a,
28.
4 We cannot conceive of an immaterial being occupying a position in space, nor is the relation of the active force to the

BRENTANO,
sqq
,

Mat. und Form, 170 (more cautiously also L. SCHNEIDER. UmterUicMeitsWire d. Arist. 54 sq.), is inclined to follow. According to BEEN.,

whom FERTLING,

Psychol. d. Ar. 195

the spiritual part is created out of nothing by the immediate act

122

ARISTOTLE
more
or less with the doctrine of Emanation,

coincides

not only no support whatsoever in Aristotle s irreconcilable with his view of system, but it is wholly the unchangeable and transcendent nature of God.
there
is
1

The assumption, on the other hand, of the creation of the human spirit by the Deity conflicts with Aristotle s 2 that God does riot express and emphatic statement
interfere actively in the world by an exercise of will. Aristotle says, moreover, as distinctly as possible, that
3

the spirit

is

exempt from birth no

it

less
4

than from death,

though in a certain was impossible, accordingly, that the question how and by whom it was produced at the birth of the body should have even been raised by him.
thus attributing to
pre-existence,

impersonal sense.

It

Even upon
question
spirit s

only question that could arise the regarding the causes which determine the
the a

union with

human

body,

and with

this

and regarding particular body in each particular case, Aristotle s this union takes place the way in which
writings contain not a single word
;

whether

it

be that

this question never suggested itself to him, or that he

and at the same time the character of a human body is given to the material part (p. 199); the reason is produced by God from nothing at the moment at which the fo3tus in its natural development reaches thelast
of God,

to

be an effluence from the

2
3

asther,

the Qeiov

On which
As
is

ffw^a.

see i. rightly remarked also

( Uftb.

399 sq.

by BIEHL
b.

d.

Arist.

Linz,

Bcgriff vovs 1864 Gymn

;

stage (which, according to n. 2, preceding page, must be at apoint of time previous at any rate to the
procreative act); see also p. 203. Cf. alsoi. 413 sqq. Still less of course can we, with GROTE ii. 220, 230), regard (Arist. the absolutely immaterial spirit
1

Progr. p. 9). 4 Cf. the passages quoted, p.

96, n. J,

and p.

101, n. 2,

slip.

The

obvious meaning of these passages cannot justly be set aside upon the general grounds advocated by BBENTANO, p. 196 sq., which find no support either in the psychology of Aristotle or in

PHYSICS

123
1

to leave it alone. regarded it as insoluble and preferred Nor is he more explicit with regard to the question of

the origin of the

said to begin

Passive Reason/ whose existence is and end with that of the body. 2 Although we should naturally assume that he regards it as the

outcome of the union of the active

spirit

with the

he gives us no faculty of reproductive imagination, yet us to form a definite conception of its hint to help
3

origin.

If

we

farther examine the union in

man

of different

faculties,

we

find

it difficult

to understand

how

in one
is

being two parts can be united, of which the one

exposed to passive states, the other incapable of pas the former bound up with the body, the latter sivity
;

Does Reason, we may ask, participate in the physical life and the mutation of the lower faculties, or do the latter participate in the im
without a physical organ.

might mutability and impassiveiiess of Reason ? find support for both assumptions in Aristotle s writ
ings, yet each in turn, can be

We

shown

to be inconsistent

with the presuppositions of his philosophy.

any rightly interpreted statement to be found in his texts. The words, Gen An. ii. 3, 730, b, 5, to which BKENTANO,
1

On
nacli

the

d.

mensclil.

Secle

Arist.

105, calls attention, point rather Sib Kal irepl vov, irore KOL\ to this
:

TTWS

fji.eTa\a[j.f3dvei

Kal

Trodev

ra

luLrfx oVTa TCXUTTJS T?}s apxfjs, 6^ei T airopiav Tr\i<rTr)v Kal Set tvpoOv/m.f iffQai

Kara

8vva/j.iv

AajSetV

Halle, 1873, p. 46 sq.) supposes the passive reason to be a radiation of the active on its entry into the body. This assumption, however, finds no support in any statement of Aristotle or in his system as a whole. According to Aristotelian principles, the reason, like all immaterial and
1

Kal
2
3

KaOoo-ov ei/Se^erou.
Of. p. 98, n. 2.

unmoved
VeT-

being, can promote the development of other things

SCHLOTTMANN (Das

by

solicitation,

but cannot deitself.

gangliclie

und Unvergangliclie in

velop anything else from

124

ARISTOTLE
of

one hand, in his account

Passive

Reason

the

qualities of the perishable parts of the soul are trans ferred to Reason while, on the other hand, just as
;

immaterial

Form

in general or the motive

power

as

such

is

said to be itself

unmoved,

so Aristotle denies

movement and change not only to Reason, but also to the Soul in general. 3 The conception of the Passive Reason, in fact, concentrates in itself all the contradic
tions
1

we

are at present considering. 4

jj.V ev
if

The motionless-

See See

p. 96 sqq. svpra. the passage already

5,

eo Tt, rovro

quoted, p
3, 4.

from

De An.

i.

VTTO TT)S ^U^TJS a\\<a 5 re KivelaQai Kara TOTTQV avrr v.

t

It
it

Aristotle opens the dis cussion at the beginning of c. 3 with the explanation that not only is it not true to say that the soul can, from its nature, be an eavrb KLVOVV, dAA ev rwv aSvvdrwv rb VTrdpxeiv avrri Kivrjffiv.

might,

indeed,
itself.

appear that
(pa/afv

moves

yap

r^v

en
8e

Se bpyieo-0ai re Kal

Kal Siavoe LcrQai

ravra

iravra

Kiv t]o~eis

elvai

SOKOVO-IV.

Of the arguments by which

is

this

odev TO 6

olf]9eiri

OVK

ris av avTT)v KivelaQai eariv avayKalov

.

proved, the
to

first

(400, a, 12)
t

yap
eAeeTi/

fcroos

Xtyeiv rriv
$)

is

Aristotle
:

completely con
$vx]l-

SiaTTJ

vincing

recradpoov 5e Kivr o~eocv UIHTWV, (fiopas, dAAoiaVeoJS, <p6!o~&s, av^aecas, rj fiiav rovrcav Kivolr av
/)

voriordai,

aAAa
roiro 5e

rov
/J.TJ

avQpwTrov
s

ev
ore

TTJS Kivr)(Tf(as

ovo"ns,

dAA

TT\LOVS

3)

Trdaas.

ei

5e

Kivtirai

pexpi fKelvys, ore

oiov
f)

fj.}]

Kara

(rv/jL^eftriK^s,

(pvffei
el

V7rdpx oi
KLvr,o-eis

Kivriffis

avrri.

&r 5e rovro

/aev aio~6ri(ris air^

rwvSl [it is
soul], rj eVl ras
/)

a motion which proceeds from

the
senses
a?r

Kal r OTTOS
ev

iraffai

yap
el

TOTTW.

al Ae^0e?crai 5 eo~rlv r)

to

the

5
ei/

avdjjivriffis

eKeiVrjs

ovffia TTJS tyvxys

TO Kivelv eavrrjv,

rols alffdrjr npiois icii/r^eis

/J,ovds.

ov Kara (yv/ji^e^Kbs avrrj TO KiveiaOai inrdpxoi. After proving in

Pltys.

vii.

3,

246, b,

24,

shows

detail how impossible the soul should move,

cially

it

is

that

and espe

that

it

should move in

space, Aristotle returns, c. 4, 408, a, 30, once more to the original question and declares that it is impossible that the soul should be self -moving it
;

reference to the higher faculties that neither virtue and ^ ice on the one hand, nor thought on the other, can be said to be an a\\oiw(ris of the soul, al though they are produced by an
dAAoia-o-ts
3

with

Cf.

i.

Cf. p. 94, n. 2. 386, n. 1, and

i.

359,

n. 1, supra.
4

can move and be

Kara
0-vu.BeBinKbs,

moved"

only

See

p. 103 sq. supra.

oiov

Kivelo~Qai

PHYSICS
ness of the lower faculties of the soul
is

125

contradicted

among

other things

the characteristic

by what has just been said about difference between them and Reason.
l

For how can they be susceptible of impression when they are wholly excluded from movement and change,
2 seeing that every impression involves a change ? Where, finally, are we to look in this union of hetero

geneous parts for that centre of equilibrium of the soul s we call Personality? It cannot reside, it life, which

would seem, in Reason, for this is the pprmanent uni versal element in man which is unaffected by the
changing conditions of individual life it is not born, and it does not die it is free from all suffering and change; it is subject to no failure or error; neither
;
;

love nor hate nor

memory nor even

belongs to it, but only to the man Neither can Personality lie in the lower faculties of the
soul.

intellectual activity 3 in whom it resides. 4

For, on the one hand, Aristotle, as we have just seen, combats the view that these are subject to motion, and finds the proper subject of the changing states of
feeling

and even of intelligent thought, not in the soul

and body in man. itself, but in the union of both soul On the other hand, he asserts that the essence of each
As, for instance, the passage quoted, p. 109, n. 5, according to which, in desire, the appetitive part of the soul is both mover and moved, the Cv ol/ * s on ty moved and the description of
1
;

p.
a,

99,

n.
cf.

3,

and

p.

124, n. 2,

10, 433, olv iras 6p06s, but especially De An. i. 4, 408, b, 24: Kc T ^ VOGIV Sri fal rb 0eo>pe/ /j.a-

supra,

De An.

iii.

26

vovs

fj.lv

"

paiverai
/J.EVOV,

&\\ov nv^s

e<ro>

fyQeipo-

sensation, p. 58, n. 4. 2 See i. 454, n. 2, 3. 3 Atdvoia in the sense of discursive thought as explained, p.
106, n.
4

avrb 5e

a-rrades effTiv

(see p.

2.

Besides the passages quoted,

ri 5e Siayoetotfai OVK tffTiv e/ceivov irdBi], a\\a rovSl TOV e^oi/ros Ka TOVTOV e/ceTvo, 77 e/ceTj/o ex el ^Qeipo^vov otfre juv^oi/euet cure
96, n. 2, supra),
/cat

$iAe?i/

y)

ytua eTi/

126

ARISTOTLE
is

individual

his reason, 1

thought
hension. 2

alone, but every

by which he understands, not kind of intellectual appre

And

if

the subject of emotion, he

3

he refuses to acknowledge the soul as is not likely to find it in the

The most serious difficulty, however, arises in body. connection with his theory of the Will. Will cannot
belong to Reason as such, for Reason taken in itself is not practical but theoretical. Even practical thought is sometimes regarded Aristotle as a function of a by
different faculty

from theoretic. 4
desire,

Movement and
is

action,

in fact,

come from

which in turn

excited by

5 Desire, again, can cause movement, but imagination. not rational movement, 6 for it belongs to animals as well

<pi\*1

ov yap fKfii/ov ^v,

.

aAAa TOV
e

supra.

KOIVOV, & cbroAcoAei

1

Mh.x.
Kal
eftre/j

7,

1178, a, 2: 8o

tiv

foCy]
ix.
4,

ficaffros TOVTO [i.e. rb Kvpiov Kal au.fivoi/. 1166, a, 16, 22: TOV Sia-

elvai

See the passages from Eth. 1139, a, 35, already em Sidvoia 5 ployed, p. 113 sq.
vi.

2,

CUT}; ovOev Kivet, Kal TrpaKTiK-f).

a,

aAA rj eVewa TOV De An. iii. 10, 433,

c.

VOTITIKOV
5o/ce?
.
.

X^P IV
.

07T6/J

6/CCMTTPS ell/CU

22

/ULGV

vovs ov (paiverai KIVWV

9,

8o |ete 8
-/)

av rb voovv
c.

&MV
aAAa

opt&ws.
fJ.fyv

432, b,

26:

fKaffros

e?i/cu

jUaAftrra.

8,

oi/Se

T^>

XoyiffTiKov Kal 6

1168, b, 28: the good man might be said to be pre-eminently avros, seeing that love of the
<piA-

Ka\ov/j.evos vovs
/uev -yap
TCiV,

b effTlv 6 KIV&V Oea pr]TiKos ovQfv j/oel irpaKOu8e \fji TTfpl (pfVKTOV Kal
TI

(Kvpiurarov^) part of himself predominates in all he does. wa-nep 8e Kal ird\is TO

most essential

SiwKTov ovQtv.

8e

KiVtjffis

/}

(pev-

yOVTOS TL T) SutiKOJ/TOS TL f(TTlV. oAA ouS OTOV decopri TI TOLOVTOV,

ijSr]

KvptdoTaTov /uaAicTT tivai So/eel Kcd ^AAo (Tvo T rjfJ.a, OVTCO Kal avdpwKal iyKparfys 8e Kal TTOS . .
irav
.

Tl

Kal

/ceAeuet (pevyeiv $) St^/ceii/ tTTLTCLTTOVTOS TOV VOV

KO.\

aKparfys Ae^erat ro3 Kpar^v Tbv vovv v) (A)], ws TOVTOV e/cacrrou ti^ros
Kal
2
3

\eyov(rr]s TTJS Siavoias (pevytiv TI v) 8tco/C6if ou KivziTai aAAa Kara Trjv

ireirpaytvai

SOKOVCTIV avrol Kal

iviOvfilav irpaTTei, oiov b aKpaTr.s. Kal oAws 6pw/j.js OTI 6

laTpiKriv OVK
laTai,

\6yov yuaAt<rra. See p. 93, n. 5, supra. Eth. x. 2, 1173, b, 10: if pleasure is an avairX^puffts, the body must be that which feels pleasure, but this is not the case. 4 Eth. vi. 2; see p. 113, n. 2,

fKovffitos TO. yuera

Kvpiov

OVTOS

TOV

TroieTj/

ws eTepov TWOS Kara T?;I

TTJS

aAA
8

ov

De An.
T]

iii.

9 fin., after the

passage just quoted:

ouS

oAAa

^V

ope^is TavTvjs Kvpia TTJS Kivf,-

PHYSICS
1

127

as

man, whereas the Will belongs to man alone. Both Reason and Desire must therefore enter into Will as 2 But in which of these two the constituent parts.
essence of the Will or the power of free self-determina On the one hand, the it is hard to say. tion
resides,

desire power of controlling

is

is

attributed to Reason, which

defined as the motive

force, or

more accurately the

3

source from which jand immorality

is

the resolutions of the will proceed: 4 treated as a perversity of Reason.

it is

On
o-ecos

the other hand,

of

asserted that Reason initiates

hand,
w
(Polit.

yap eyKparels
TrpaTTOvffiv
]V

must
i.

oboy

the

reason

Kal

iridviJ.ovvTS ov
i>pe|ti/,

o Se vovs

a\\ a

De An.
above
i.
:

iii.

9, v.

598, 5
EtJt.

Cf.p.H4,n.3,andp. 117,n.3.
See
p.
J

tirirdrrovTos rov vov.

14,

n
:

3.

and

Etli.

13

the opeKTiKbv partakes of

vi. 2,

vov Kal

Sto our avev 1139, a. 33 avev T/fli/cr/s Siavoias OUT Sio b, 4 effrlv eews T/ irpoaipcffis. f vovs T] vpoa pfffi* v) T) ope/cri/cos Kal f? roiavnj opeis SiavofiTiKri apxn &ve P wiros. If, in opposition to the above view, it be said that
:

\6yos, p Karr^Koov ivriv avrov Kal Treidapx^v, similarly Polit. vii. \6yos, however, 14, v. p. 588 the reason), in resides only and this obedience it is which constitutes the difference be
;

tween
aitpaT-fjs

the

eyKpaTTjs
iii.
iii.

and

the

the will belongs to op(is, which as a is regarded by Aristotle separate part of the soul (SCHRADEE, Arlt. de Volunt. Doctr. 12), this cannot be admitted. Aristotle himself states clearly enough that reason is an element of will, but

(De An.
In
JEt/i.

9,

n. 6).

see p. 12(5, 5, 1113, a,

5 (iravtrai yap e/cafTTOs frr&v irws avrbv avaydyp 7rpa|ei, orav eis

rV

reason is essentially different from the animal soul to which

ypets belongs.

that the

frequently says in the soul reason. belongs by nature to the It is Kvpiov in it (Eth. x._7, ix. 8 see p 126, n. 1, supra) it has no i 5, 410, a, 12 superior (De An.
"

Aristotle

command

TTJS 8e

xj/uxfjs

elvai

Kpelrrov Kal
S

apx hf [sc. TT)S 7rpa|ea)i- when lie is convinced that the action depends only on himself] Kal avrov [thi* is the partitive genitive] els TO yyovfitvov TOVTO yapTb irpoatpov/j.evoi ), we must understand by TO rjyovpe vov the reason, not (as WALTER, Lehre v. d. prdkt. Vernunft, 222 the har sqq. prefers to take it) monious union of reason and en deavour, the man as a whcle, which could not be called the governing part of the man.
4

ktvvaT&rcpov &p%ov, aSvvarov f TL rov vov~). Desire, on the other

Etli. vii. 7,

1150,

a, 1 sqq, c.

9,

1151, a, 17 sq.

128

ARISTOTLE
is

no movement and Reason cannot

perfect

and

infallible.

But

if

err, it

cannot be the seat of the Will, to

evil.

which belong the doing of good and the doing of

actually supposes this to reside, it is im possible to say. He is clearly drawn in opposite directions by opposite considerations between which he is unable to

Where Aristotle

His high conception of take up any decided position. the nature of the spiritual element in man forbids him
implicate Reason in the life of the body, or to attribute to it error and immorality ; on the other hand,
to

Reason alone that the reins of government in But the two elements are in reality inseparable, and in deducing only what is
it is

to

the soul can be committed.

good in our actions from Reason, while limiting

lower faculties of the soul
all

to the

that

is

faulty, every act

which has
all

for its object

what

is

divisible

and corporeal,

change in act or state, he breaks up human nature into two parts between which no living bond of con 2 Similar difficulties would nection can be discovered.
on the former head, p. on ihe second, De An. iii. 10(p.l25,n. 4), and p. 197,n.4,*Mpra. Etk.i. 13, 1102, b, 14: rovyzp
Of. 126, n. 5,
1

The difficulty remains even although we assume with BRANDTS

Kal
TJS

rov

d.Kpxrovs

rl>v

/3e ATiffTa

^UXTJS rb \6yov %x ov opdus yap Kal enl ra so that in TrapaKaXe i

a, 105 sq. ii. b, 1042 sq.) that freedom, according to Aristotle, consists in the spirit s faculty of self-evolution in accordance with
(iii.

its

own

For we

may

fundamental nature. ask to which part of

incontinence the mistake does not lie with the rational part of the soul ibid. ix. 8, 1169, a, 17
:

Tras

yap vovs
6 8

alpe irai rb /SeAno-Toi/

eauT<,

pcp,

where virtue

? eTnetK/ys Tretflapx 6 is said to conT<

the soul this evolution belongs ? The active reason cannot certainly evolve itself, for it is unchangeable; nor can the appetitive aQ d sensitive exhibit free selfevolution,

being

always deter;

in the subordination of the higher portions of the soul to the reason, which in its turn always chooses the right.
si st

mined by something else onlywhere there is reason do we find

free activity.

Keason, which

Lastly, the Passive is the only other

PHYSICS

129

have arisen in regard to self-consciousness had Aristotle

gone deeper into this aspect of the question. But just his failure to do so or to raise the question in the form in which it now presents itself to us, as to what it is

permanent self amid our changing shows more clearly than anything else how imperfectly he grasped the problem of the unity of
that constitutes the
acts

and

states,

the..personal

life.

Now,

if

reason enters

man

union with the other faculties of his

open to the same and indefiniteness contradiction we cannot find any definite place for it between reason and sense. The above defi nition of freedom is more like Leib nitz s than Aristotle s. Here also, as in the case already discussed
alternative, charge of
is
;

from without, and if its soul, and with the

i.

413, supra, sq., BRANDIS seems to find too close a resem

blance between Aristotelian and

modern German doctrines. The argument upon which he chiefly Jelies for the above view is that,
its seat part of our in the nature, and therefore spirit, and if further the spirit is ,he essence of a man, we may conclude that it must develop by free self-determination accord ing to its original character as individual essence. But spirit or reason constitutes, according to Aristotle, only one side of the will its reference to sense is as essential an element. Will is not pure reason, but rational desire.

tion as of error, for according to Aristotle s expressed opinion change and evolution are con fined to the sphere of sensation or even more strictly to the body. It is difficult, therefore, to say nhat Aristotle regarded as the seat of the freedom of the will. He remarks, indeed, that we are conscious of every form of our activity as such, and there fore of our own existence. Etk. ix. 9, 1070, a, 29 6 5 6pwv on 6pa alaQdvfTai ical 6 ci/coiW on
1 :

self-determination has

aKOVfi KOL 6 paSifav

fTTL

on

a5/et,
CffTl

teal
Tl)

in the

governing

T(aV

&\\(t)V

6/LLOlWS

TI

i^vov
/j,6

on fvepyov/nev, av on
voov/j.v.
7)

SXTTC
/cat

ai(T0az><fyie#a

on
al<r6av6/j.eGa

TO

on

voov^v, on

etr/ueV

rb -yap f lvai 3\v ao-0aye<r0cu ^) p<mz/) ; This consciousness, however, he regard s as im mediately given with the activity in question. In per ception it has its seat in the
nf.ttsus

And even were

ciimmunls (seep. 69, n. 3). the identity of self -con sciousness in the different activi

How
ties

it

not

so, if will

were exclusively an exercise of

reason, we could only conclude that it is as incapable of evolu-

parts

which he refers to different and faculties of the soul is to be explained he does not

inquire.

VOL.

II.

130

ARISTOTLE
1

body, continues throughout to be merely an external one, we cannot but expect that a union which begins 1 in time will also end in time. Upon this point, Ari
stotle holds

with Plato that there

soul.

is

a mortal and also

These unite together at the beginning of the earthly life, and separate from one another again at its close. In the further develop ment, moreover, of this thought he at first closely In his earlier writings he enunciated followed Plato.
an immortal part in the
its

the Platonic doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul, incarceration in the body, and its return at death to
2 a higher existence,

He

therefore

assumed the con

tinued personality and self-conscious existence of the

individual after death, although he failed, like Plato, to investigate the question how far this doctrine
fully

was consistent with the presuppositions of the Platonic 3 With the independent development of philosophy. his own system, however, he was necessarily led to

As he came to conceive question these assumptions. and soul as essentially united, and to define of body
the soul as the entelechy of the body, and as, further, he became convinced that every soul requires its own

proper organ, and must remain wholly inoperative without it, he was necessarily led, not only to regard the
pilgrimage of the soul in the other world as a myth, but also to question the doctrines of pre-existence and 4 Inasmuch as immortality as they were held by Plato.
1

Aristotle s doctrine
is

of im-

The references on
have

this sub-

mortality
vol.

discussed

by

SCHEADEE, JaJir b.f. PMlologie, 81 and 82 (1860), H. 2, p. Leonh. SCHNEIDEE, 89-104

;

UnsterUlclikeitslehre d.

Arislot.

already been given. BEEN AYS, Dial. d. Arist. 21 sqq. 143 sqq. 3 On which cf. Ph. d. Gr. i. 717 sq.
ject Cf.
4

(Passau, 1867), p. 100 sqq.

Cf. p. 10, supra.

PHYSICS
the soul
is

131 for its existence

dependent upon the body

and perish Only incorporeal spirit can precede and outlast the bodily life. But this, according to is to
with
it.

and

activity, it

must come

into existence

Aristotle,

be found only in the reason and in that part of it which is without taint of the lower activities of the soul namely, the Active Nous. Neither the sensitive nor the nutritive life can exist without the body. These come into existence in and with it, and can no more be conceived of apart from it than walking apart from feet. Even Passive Eeason is
1

transitory, like

everything else which is subject to impression and change. The Active Reason alone is eternal and im perishable it alone is not only separable, but in its
;

very nature absolutely separated from the body. 2 But what now is the active reason which thus alone outlives
deatli ?

It is the universal as

individual

element in man.

distinguished from the All personal forms of

activity, on the other hand, are referred either to the lower faculties of the soul, or to the whole, which is

made up
to be.

If

body,

we

of soul and body, and which at death ceases we think of reason as separate from the must exclude from it love and hate,

and

memory
all

intelligent
See
bee
p. 6, n. 1,

thought;
96, n. 1,

likewise,
6 vovs

of

course,

and p.
n.
3,
1,

p.

98,
ii.

[whether anj thin^r remains after

the dissolution of the constituent parts of a composite substance]

wTepov

supra, 1070, a, 24:

fcroptoi

Pnroy
i

frforTftpoMfeiraiAtfei,
7r5(ra

oiov

r)

$vX r) roiovrov,^

aAA

xa.aa.v yhp tefoarov 1ffo See on this point the passages cited on pp. 125, n. 4 and 101, n. 3, De An. i. 4, 408, a 24 In the sqq. iii. 5, 430, a, 22. first of these passages Sm^io-flai f iv, p.i ff eiv, fivwovefeiv are ex pressly denied of reason and the statement that these belong in any sense to a rational being
>s

<t>i\

K2

132
affections, together

ARISTOTLE
with the feelings of pleasure and to the sphere of the sensitive
for
it

pain,
life;

all

of which belong

and since even will depends the union of Reason with Desire,
1

existence

also

upon must peiish

with the lower parts of the soul. Spirit or thought Aristotle doubtless conceived of as surviving death, and
since
it

realises itself only in

the activity of thought,

this activity also

it is

held to

must remain untouched by death, as 2 But of the way be proof against old age.
are to think of this continuance of thought

in which

we

after its separation

from the body and the lower faculties

Even of the soul Aristotle gives us no hint whatever. without the aid of pictorial is
thought
impossible

any imagination, after the death of the sentient soul. intelligible sense

which cannot be said

to

exist

in

And when
4

the body, which the soul as individual pre

supposes
reflexion
is

when perception, imagination, memory, when the feelings of pleasure and pain, the
the addition
otfre
:

Kail

qualified by rovrov QBcipopevov

oi/re
</>tAeT.

Sib

perishes at death, no individual

fivri-

thought is possible
is

(p. 101, n. 3), it

povevei
^j/,

ov yap fiteivov
t>

a\\a rov

KOIVOV,

airoAwAej/.
it

With regard
,

to the second,

has
n.

already "been remarked, p. 101, 2 sun that the words 8e refer in the first instance, fjL\v indeed, to the failure to remember the existence out of time of the Nous anterior to its life in time.but that what is true of the present life in relation to an anterior one must be equally true of the future life in relation to the preoujUVTj/iove<5<-

obvious that neither can survive death. SCHLOTTMANN S explanation (p. 50 of the work mentioned to p. 123, n. 3, supra}, according which the words ou ^vn/j-ov^vn^v, &c. refer to the continuous activity of the vovs TronjTi/cbs in the present life as an unconscious one, is consistent neither with the connection in which they stand nor with the meaning which is constantly attached to /j.vnnoveveiv
in Aristotelian phraseology, Cf p. 109, n. 1 2, and p.
]
.

sent.

Since

memory

to p. 70 sq.) is sensitive soul

(according an attribute of the

26

sq.
2
3 4

and depends upon

the bodily organs, and since without the passive reason, which

See p. 96, n. 2. gnprti. See p. 108, n. 2, supra. Cf i. 369 sq., supra.

.

PHYSICS
;

133

emotions, the desires and the will when, finally, the whole being compounded of the union of soul and body has ceased as a whole to be, we are at a loss to see where that solitary remnant which he calls spirit

can

still

reside,
life

and how we can

1

personal expressly rejecting the idea that the dead can be happy, and in comparing their state to the loss of all sense, 2
1

at

all.

still speak of any And. indeed, Aristotle himself in

Even BKENTANO

S Psychol.

dead are incapable of any ac

tivity.
elvai ri

Arut. 128 sq. fails to find a satisfactory answer to this ques tion while maintaining that the soul must remain an individual entity after its. separation from the body, he yet admits that it is no longer a complete substance,
d.
;

He

says, indeed, in the

:

passage that follows

r<3

8o/ce?
KO.K.OV
U>VTI

yap
Kal
/a r)

reGvewri Kal
Kal v
o>

repeating the statement, p. 196 But how a man -can be the sq.

e, and p. 1101, eoLKe yap e /c TOUTOJV, el Kal 8iiKve?Tai irpds ai>TOvs OTIOVV, eiV ayddov eiVe TOVVO.VTIOV, afyavpov TL
<r

ayaOov, a I 9 a v
:

e"iirfp

raj

y. e

b, 1

same person when he

the
is in

no lunger perfect subsiance which he

is
:

Kal /AiKptiv $) air\a>s ?) eiceivois elvai, el 8e yU^, Toaovrov ye Kal TOIOVTOV

/u.^ iroielv evSai/Jiovas rovs /J.rj uvras [those who are not so] ,u7j5e TOWS OVTO.S atyaipe ia Qat r6 fj.aKapiov.

ware

the present life, it is difficult to see not to mention that the contradiction of an imperfect substance finds no place in Ari
stotle s system.
2

His meaning, however, cannot here be that the dead have a feel
ing of happiness or unhappiness which is increased by the pro sperity or misfortune of posterity (which is the subject under dis This is even expressly cussion). denied and would be wholly in consistent with the rest of Ari stotle s teaching. He is here speaking of the aesthetic estimate of human life, the question being how far the picture of happiness with which the life of a man pre sents us is altered by the light or shade cast upon it by the fortunes of his descendants, just as (1100, a, 20) by the honour or disgrace which follow himself

EHi.

iii.

4, 11

cris

ecrrl

TWV

b, 22 (&ov\riaSwdrcav, olov ada1

1,

not here in point, as adavaffia must be understood to mean here, not immortality after death, but immunity from death,
vaa-ias ) is

deathlessness. Hid. c. 11, 1115, the discussion is merely of a, 20 the common opinion. On the other hand, Ktli. i, 11 is of im portance for our question. Ari stotle here asks whether the dead
:

can he happy, and replies (1100,

a, 13): ^ rovr6 ye iravreXus arotrov ttAAcus re Kal roils Xeyovtfiv TIJJUV

tv4pytidv
(J.QVO.

nva

rrjv

evSat/jLoyiav ;
re9veu>ra

el

bv
/UTje
oAo>i/

evSai-

rovro

&c., obviously

implying that the

death. How remote is an actual, personal immortality from Aristotle s is thought

after

134

ARISTOTLE

seems to deny the existence of any such remnant.

Under

Aristotle

He

ifc is impossible to say that a doctrine of personal immortality. taught taught merely the continued existence of thinking
1

these circumstances

the attributes of personality, and never explaining nor apparently even raising the
spirit,

denying to

it

all

question, how far this spirit can still be regarded as belonging to an individual, as incorporeal reason, in 2 In spite of its eternity and impassivity, certainly is.
this omission

we have only another

instance of that

defect which, taking its rise in the Platonic school, permeates the whole of Aristotle s Anthropology. Just
as his

Metaphysics gives us no clear and consistent account of Individuality, so his Psychology fails with
regard to Personality. As he there left it undeter mined whether the ground of individual existence lies
in Matter or in
as to

Form, so here we are left in the dark whether Personality resides in the higher or in the lower faculties of the soul, in the immortal or in the

We are left to conclude mortal part of our nature. that each of these alternatives involves difficulties which
Aristotle has done nothing to remove,
obvious also from Kt h.ix. 8, 1169, The good man, he there a, 18.
says, will do much for his friends and country, K&V Serj virepaTroOvr} a/tew
. . .

and which, there;

have referred in such a case to the recompense in the next life in Aristotle there is no trace of any such conception. The same
is

6\iyov

yap

xptivov
r)

true of Etli.
ch/

iii.

12, 1117, b, 10

rirrdr/vai

ff(()6Spa /zaAAoi/

eAoir hv

offcp

TTO\VV ?j/JeVa, Kal /Btaxrai Ka\<as 5 fviavrbv 7) TToAA ITTJ TVXOVTWS, Kal
/j.iav Tipa^iv Ka\r]v Kal /j.eyd\7)v T) TroAAas Kal /Aiicpas. Toils 5 vTrepairo-

iracrav

/uaAAoz/ r}]V apST^v Kal eyScu/xoyeVTepos

7ri

e^P
?},

^uaAAoi/
rep

TW

Qavd.r<p

\VTrr]8 f)ffTai
fjv

TOIOVTC{>

yap

/m.d\iffra

aiov,
airo-

Kal
l

OVTOS

/AeyicrTwv

ayaQwv

OvflffKovcri

TOUT

fous

o"i>,u/3cuVei

crrepe iTai elSws.

alpovvrai yap psya /caAoi/ eauroTs. Besides the inherent worth of the

SCHEADEK,
See

ibid. 101 sq.

p. 99, n. 5,

noble deed Plato would certainly

PHYSICS
fore,

135

we cannot doubt
as such or

tie

failed

himself to observe.
it

Reason

Pure Spirit cannot,

would appear,

be the seat of Personality, since it is the eternal, It is un universal, and immutable element in man.

touched by birth and death, and by the changes of the temporal life. It abides immutably within the circle of
its

own life, without receiving impressions from with out or passing any part of its activity beyond itself. To the sphere of sense, on the other hand, are assigned

all multiplicity and movement, all interchange between the world and man, all mutation and evolution in a

word,
ence.

all

that is definite and living in personal exist Yet the personality and free self-determina

tion of a rational being cannot be said to reside in the sensitive part of his nature. Wherein does it, then,
reside ?

To

this question Aristotle has

no answer

for

just as Reason, on his view, enters the sensitive soul at birth from without and leaves it again at death, so

during

life

also there is lacking

the two.

And what

is

said about the Passive

any inner unity between Reason

its

and the Will is wholly ness and uncertainty,

unfitted,

on account of

vague

to afford

any

scientific principle

that can mediate between the heterogeneous parts of the human soul.

136

ARISTOTLE

CHAPTEK

XII

PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY

A.

Ethics

HITHERTO we have had for our aim the investigation of the knowledge of reality as such. have now to deal with an activity to which knowledge serves only

We

as a means.
action.
1

The

This consists either in production or in scientific investigation of the latter

Aristotle embraces under the general name of Politics, 2 distinguishing, however, between Politics proper, or the doctrine of the State, and Ethics, 3 which naturally
See i. 181, n. 3, supra, and upon the method of this science, i.
1

See

i.

philosophy

187, supra. Practical is also called ^ -rrepl

168, n. 2, supra. That it has not to do, however,merely with practical interests is obvious among other passages from Polit. iii. 8 init.
:

ravdpunriva (pi\o<ro(pia, Etli. x. 10, 1181, b, 15.

3

relation

The common view of the between them, which

i

Set 5e

/j.iKp<p

Sia /j.a.KpoT(puv etVeTj/

was adopted

187,

viz.

that

ris

e/ca<TT7j

TOVTWV T&V iroXirti&v

T$

Kal yap e^ei Tivas vnropias, 8e TTfpl SKaffTTIV /J.(do$OV <pl\0cro(povvTi Kal i*}) /J-dvov airo<TTIJ>

Ethics treats of the moral activity of the individual, Politics of the State, cannot, even in view of

what NICKES,

Zte

pol d. Arist.

wpbs
i

rb

trparTeiv
/j.t]5e

rb

/mr)

irapopav

TI

aAAa SyXovv rr)v irepl While, there dA7j0etoj/. fore, practical philosophy qua practical has to do with action, qua philosophy it has the scien tific interest of pure knowledge.
/,

Libr. p. 5 sq., and BRANUIS, p. 1335, remark, be admitted to be wrong. Aristotle certainly dis
tinguishes (Etli. x. 10) between the two parts of Politics on the ground that the second deals with the means by which the knowledge of virtue acquired in

ETHICS

137

precedes it. Turning to the latter, we must ask first how the End of all human action is defined by Aristotle.

We

shall

then proceed to his account of the nature of

;

Moral Activity and of the particular Virtues passing thence with him to the discussion of Friendship, which forms the link between Ethics and Politics.
1

(the first is applied to life, and he proves the necessity of this

further
ledge,

on the investigation ground that discussions (or know

themselves to
able of virtuous. Accordingly, Ethics and Politics may be said to be related to one another as the pure and the applied part of one and the same But as those means are science. to be found, according to Ari stotle, only in the life of the
\6yoi)

are

not

make men

community, upon which the Ethics (as an account of moral activities

as such) does not further enter, the above description corresponds to the actual relation in which the works stand to one another. Even Aristotle, moreover, dis

tinguishes (Eth.
:

vi. 8,

1141, b, 23)

between two kinds of practical knowledge that which refers to the individual, and that which eori refers to the community, Se, he says, teal TI iroA.m/cJ) Kal
rj

ets, T& ^Woi elvai ov ravrbv avrcus, and after distinguishing the different de
<pp6vi]<ns

T]

O.VTT] ]UfU

It is not true that the Magna Moralia, subordinates politics to ethics (BRANDIS, foW.): thelatter is there described at the very outset as a /m-fpos TT/S 7roAiTt:?}s, it being added that the subject as a whole should be called, not ethics, but politics. When NTCKES, ibid., sees in the Ethics only a the siimm/trn treatise upon bontim, this description (in so far as it indicates merely the ascer tainment and enumeration of the constituent parts of the su-mmiini Ijonwni) is too narrow the Ethics itself classifies its contents (s. 10 init.~) under the four titles of the suinmum bonum, the virtues, friendship, and pleasure so that it is apparent, even on the sur face, that it is not a mere descrip tion of the summum banum, but an account of moral action as a whole. If, on the other hand, we include in the discussion of the suinmum bonuiit the detailed investigation into all its condi tions and constituent parts, the
;

partments of

politics

(TT)S

TTept

Tr^Aiv, sc. eTTKTTrjjiojs) he continues : 8o/ce? Se Kal (ppovrjffis fJ.d\iffT slvai

ft

irepl

avrbv Kal eW.

(ppovncris
is

While,

how

in relation to moral conduct, ethics the prin is simply the account of ciples which (pp6vr)<ns establishes.
ever,

knowledge

Eudemus

(v.

i.

accordingly calls

186, n. 4, supra) it by this name.

suggested description would be too wide, for its most important constituent, theoretic activit} is not fully discussed in the Eth*e*. We have already discussed (p. 96 sq ) the threefold revision of the Ethics of Aristotle, and shall confine ourselves in the following account to the Nicomachean Ethics, which alone is the parallel giving genuine,
7

138
1.

ARISTOTLE
of all hurnan activity l is the Good, or, accurately, that Good which is within the reach of
action, for

The End

more

human

Ethics has no concern with the

The final aim of all action must be the highest Good in other words, it must be something which is sought, not for the sake of anything else, but simply and solely for its own sake, and is.
:

abstract Idea of the Good. 2

sufficient of itself to invest life

passages from the other two only where they elucidate or deviate

with the highest worth. 3

Nor

from
1

it

Of.

in any important respect. on this subject TEICH-

MULLEE ( Die Einheit der arist. Eudamonie, Bulletin de la Class?

d.

is it true that the idea of the good, at any rate as an ideal, furnishes the guiding principle in the pursuit of the KTIJTO. Kal Inter alia, irpaKTa rcov ayaOdav.

he says

airopov Se Kal ri
etScos

w
rdya66v
t

Sci.
xvi.

hist.-philol.

et pollt.

de
cturo

VAcademie
t.

who

de St-Petersbourg, N. 20 sqq. p. 305 sqq.), rightly emphasises the dis

&c., as

though moral philosophy

were meant for the service of

handicraft. This it certainly is not in Aristotle himself (as may

tinction between the constituent elements and the external con ditions of happiness.
2

Etll.

i.

illlt.

Ua
8e

herewith be expressly remarked in view of the remarks of TEICH-

Kal Tracra

^ue tfoSos, 6fj.oicas

re

Kal

etyizcrOai

irpoaipfffis, So/ce? Sib

aya6ov

Ka\ws

TayaObv, ov irdj/T e^ierai. This good is called here (1094, a, 18), and c. 2, 1095, a, 16, irpaKrlv and irpaKThv aya96v. Aristotle

vavro

MULLER, loc. cit. 315 sq.), and it must be if he is justified in using against Plato an argu ment tha.t with equal justice
yet

next comes to speak more fully, c. 4, of the Platonic Idea of the Good (Ph. d. Gr. i. 591 sqq.), and after bringing forward several other it arguments against this 1096, b, 30 says, ibid. discussion, however, properly et belongs to another science Kal tvriv sv TI Kal [so RASSOW, yap Forsch. ill), die niliom. Eth. 53 sq., with three MSS., for rb
:

might be turned against himself for it must be confessed that the advantage to be derived by the weaver or the carpenter in the pursuit of his calling from Ari stotle s treatise upon happiness
;

is

not great.
:

Tt

3 et 8^j Etli. i. 1, 1094, a, 18 re Aos fffrl ruv irpaKruiv & 5t uvrd /3ouAdyU.e0a, TaAAa 8e Sta

TOVTO,
aireipov,

Kal

fj.}]

Travra

8t

erepov
ets
/j.aT-

alpov/bLfOa

(irpofiffi

yap ovrw 7
KSV^V Kal
a>s

&<TT

elvat

aiav T}\V ope|tj/) SyjAoi/

ely
1

TOUT Uv

aya9bv KaTyyopov/jLevov XMpiffTov TL avrb Kofl avTO, 5?jAoj/

Koivrj

is OVK

&j/

en? irpaKTOv ovfie KTt]T^)V vvv Se TOIOVTOV ^VjT

rayaObv [absolute good] Kal To apiffTov. c. 5 in every form of activity the good is that ov fa AOITTO TrpaTTcrai the
:

ETHICS

139

This highest Good is admitted on all hands to be but when we ask in what Happiness itself Happiness
l
:

TeAos.

WO~T
etrrl

Ti

TUIV

(BEANDIS,
Uv
efoj

p.

1344; MUNSCIIEE,
in Etli. N.

OLiravTwv

Te Aos, TOUT

QiM st.

crlt.

Marb.
;

TO TrpaKTOv ayaOov, el 8e TrAetco, TavTa TO 8 apiarov Te AetoV

.

1861, p. 9 sqq.), gives a wholly inadmissible sense to the passage

Tt

(paij/erai

TeAetoVepoi/
Si

8e

how

could what

is

complete

still

\yo/j.fv TO KaO avTO SIUKTOV TOV

Si

eVepo;/ /ml
TU>V

Tt) /iTjSe TTOTe

^AAo

? (as TEICHMULLER rightly asks, loo. cit. p. 312), or how can

grow

Kal KaO aina Kal 8td aipfrbv To00 aiptT&v, Kal air\>s Sr; Te Aeioi To /ca0 auTO aiptrov del /cal ^tTjSe iroTe 8 aX\o. And further on TO 700 Te\iov ayaGov avTapKes So/ce? flvai TO 8 avTapKts
1

happiness,

contains all be increased by further additions ? Moreover, it

which

goods in
is

itself,

expressly said, Etli. x. 2, 1172, that nothing can be the good o jueTa TIVOS T&V /cafl avrd
b, 32,

Tidefjiev
TOJ/

o /JLOvov/j.vov alpcTov
/cal

Troie?

e^Sea (simi larly PLATO, Phileb. 22, B); x. 6, 30. Cf. i. 12, where H76, b,
j8: oj/

/xrySei/os

it

is

as complete in itself,

explained that happiness, is not an v, but a Ti/uiiov, something

ayaOuv atperwrepov yivfrai. TEICHMULLER accordingly proposes to take the sentence as an apagoge happiness is the most desirable thing, if we do not regard it as a sum, but if we do, then the addition of the smallest of goods
:

Aristotle
i.

presupposes
liliet.

this,
i.

must make it more desirable, and therefore we cannot regard

it

Etli.
init.,

2,

1095, a, 17;

as a

sum

of particular goods.

something universally acknowledged. He proves it more

fully, Etli. i. 5, 1097, a, 34 sqq. ; cf. x. 6, 1176, b, 3, 30, from the

as

points of view indicated in the preceding note. In Etli. i. 5, how ever, the words, 1097, b, 16 sqq., make a difficulty !Vi 8e, it is here said, -navrcav alp^ru>Tarf]v [sc.
:

The same explanation is given by THILO, Zeitschr. /. eseacte Phil. ii. 3, 284 sq., and LAAS The question, how (see infra). ever, in the passage is, not whether
happiness

sum of goods, but the most desirable of things or not nor does awis

whether

it

is

apiQ/uiov/jivos

elVcu]

/AT;

8e 5r)\ov o

ffwapiG^lv can only here have the meaning which it has in the kindred passage (explained
;

sum

mean regarded

as a

e\axicfTOv

TWV ayaOwv

by Top.

iii.

2,

.117,

a,

16,

and

yap

aya6u>v

jiiei oi/,

yivsrai rb b,yaQG)v 8e rd ^l^ov atpedet.

ALEXANDER
;

Ta>Tpov

The most obvious

these

meaning

words, viz. that happiness is in the highest desirable without the degree addition of anything else, and is increased by every addition although of ever so small a good

of

in loco) Rliet. i. 7, Polit. vi. 3, 1318, a, 1363, b, 19 El. 5, 167, a, 25; Etli. 35; Soph. ii. 3, 1105, b, 1; i.e. it must mean either to count along with or
to

count up

when used with

a singular subject it can of course only mean the former, and ac cordingly is explained, 1. 14 of

140
consists,

ARISTOTLE
differences
at

give the preference to pleasure, others to practical activity, a The first of these third class to the scientific life. 2

once

arise.

Some

views seems to Aristotle hardly to deserve refutation.

the same passage, by and understood in this sense, M. Mor. i. 2, 1184, a, 15 sqq. of.
;

the former case,

iravTbiv after

we may supply
and

alperwrepav in the
:

preceding

words

ILASSOW, Beitr.
Ethilt

z.

Erld. d. nik.

them

to

mean

We

explain hold that

(Weimar, 1862, Gymn.Progr.), p. 5 sqq., where the ex planations of LAAS (Ev8ai/u.oi>{a Arist. Berl. 1858, 7 sqq.), MuxSCHEK, and others, are also dis KAFSOW sown explana cussed. tion (p. 10 that happiness is not to be reckoned among goods nor regarded as a good beside other goods ) is not easy to harmonise with the language of the passage. If the text is cor
:

happiness is the most desirable of all things so far as it is not or itself classed as one of them in so far as it is classed along with other things, combined with the smallest other good, that it is more desirable than all else be The most recent editor sides. and commentator on the Nicomacliean Ethics, RAMS AUEK, pays no regard either to the inherent difficulty of the passage or to
;

rect,

to as

we must explain it rather mean We regard happiness

:

the attempts of his predecessors

to solve
1

it.

the

most desirable of
it

all

Fee Etli.
sqq.,

can be com pared with them without itself being classed as one of the iravra [it is more desirable than any thing else] if we dosire to class it as a good together with other
things, so far as
;

sqq., c. 9 init.
b,

14

2, 1095, a, 20 Rhet. ibid. 1360, where the things

i.
;

which are commonly regarded as happiness are enumerated and

discussed in detail for the special necessities of the orator. Aristotle says previously,
i. 2, 1095, a, 28, that he does not intend TO investigate every view upon the nature of happi ness, but only such as are the most commonly accepted and the most plausible. As such he names these three, c. 3 init.

goods, it would become more desirable still if its value were increased by the addition of ever so small anotln-r good. But it is difficult to see the force of the latter remark, for the proof of the proposition that happiness is perfect good, is only weakened by this concession to a non-Aristotelian point of view. It is a question whether the words v-n-epoxv yap aipeTuTtpov del, or perhaps the whole
.

EtJi.

TO
ovic

-yap

ayaObv KCU TTJI/ tvaiij(.ov iav aAo ycos eoiKaffiv e /c rwv fiiwv
ol flfV
7TO,\A.ol

VTTO\a/J.pdl>ll

Kal
Kttl

(pOpTlK&TClTOl
fiiov

T7]V

^8oi/T?f,

Si6

passage from

crwapid/u.ov/u.evrii

Se

rpets

ayairooiri yap elai

T^V
VVV

airoXaviTTiKov.
ol

^aXiffra.

to alptTWT. del may not be insertion by a later hand.

an
In

lp1f]/jLVOS

irpovKO.I 6

al rpiros 6 9ecapt]TiK6s,

ETHICS
Without denying that pleasure most thorough contempt for the
highest not self-sufficing
that
is
life

141

good,
is

he has a
dedicated

which

Pleasure, he remarks, cannot be the to pleasure alone. it is Good, for these among other reasons that
:

many things own wholly apart from

that some pleasures are not desirable have an independent value of their
;

the pleasure that they bring

that pleasure and enjoyment are only a recreation, and sake of action ; that even the worst only exist for the

men,

whom we

cannot

call

in

any sense happy, are

whereas that alone is capable of sensual enjoyment, 1 which the virtuous man recognises as such. truly good Just as little can honour or wealth be admitted to be

The former does not so much affect the highest good. its value, those to whom it is paid as those who pay it fact that it pro moreover, consists essentially in the duces consciousness of worth, which, therefore, is of
;

2 Wealth, again, is more value than the honour itself. its own account, so that it wants the not desired on 3 first characteristic of Good in the higher sense.

The happiness of man can, in fact, 4 in that activity, or more accurately

1 Eth. i. 3. 1095, b, 19, x. 2, 1172 b 26, 1173, b, 28 to the end of the chap.; c. 6, 1176, b, 121177 a 9. 2 /;a. i. 3, 1095, b, 22 sqq. 3 Ibid. 1096, a, o, cf. Hint. i.

consist only in his

activity
i.

which

is

See

e.g.

Eth.
;

3,

1095, b, 31,
1098,
b,

c. G,

1098, a, 3

and the more

c,

definite

statement,
8ia<j>epei

9,

31

5e "Iffus ov /J.iKpbv eV

KTr,<Ti

xM
"

ff

*>

&P iff Tov inroXa^avtiv

"

5,

1361, a, 23. 4 reAristotle frequently not peats that happiness does consist in the mere possession of certain advantages, in a mere n. 3, sup.) e|is (on which see i. 285, or Ki-ijffiv, but in actual activity,

Kal eV e|ei $ fvtpye r^v fiev yap y. fV ayaObv airoeVSex 61 ^l /ca0eudiov T reAeTi/ vvdpxovffav,
"

M^

SOVTL % Kal

&\\ws vws
ov X

rty

frepyctav

e^pjrj/cdTJ, ol6v re

irpd^i yap As at the Olympic games it is not sufficient to be strong and fair,

e| avay/crjs Kal ev Trpa^i.

142

ARISTOTLE
What
kind of activity is this ? which he shares even

1 proper to him as man.

Not the general

with
;

vital activity,

sensitive activity, which plants belongs to the lower animals as well as to man but the activity of reason. 2 the activity of reason, in so far as it
;

not the

Now

is The proper hap rightly performed, we call Virtue. piness of man consists, therefore, ID virtuous activity, or, inasmuch as there are several such, in the noblest

and most

3 .perfect of these.

But

this is the theoretic

or pure activity of thought. For it noblest faculty and directs itself to the
order
victory, to

belongs to the/
highest object;!
tpyov
KidapHrrov

crown of but one must engage in

the

win

rpbs
fj.ev

rb
8

yap rb
eu
i

the contest for it so in life we win the good and the fair by action alone. In reference to these passages, see x. 6, 1176, a,
33: enro^ev 8
ei ScujU.o/ iaJ

KiOapi^tiv, (nrovSaiov Se

rb

OVTWS, dvOpunrov Se epyov fayv riva, ravrriv 8e evepyeiav Kal irpd^is ^era

on

OVK CGTIV
.

ts

[77

Kal yap Tip Kadevfioi/Ti KOU TOJ virdpxL dv aAAa SvaTvxovvTi ra /uLfyicrra yUaAAoy els evepyeidv Tiva Qereov. ix. 9, 1169, b, 29: 77 euSat^aoj/t a
8ta
/3iow
. .

\6yov, a-irovfiaiov 8 dvSpbs ev ravra Kal /caAais, tKaarov 8 eS Kara. rr)v otKeiav dperr)v aTTOTeAetTai ei 8
ovrca Tb dvQpuTrivov

dyaQo
ctperV,
:

yiverai /car
at dperal

Kara
x. 6, 1176, b, 2

Kal reAeiorciTT?!/.

fvipyeid
STJ AOI

T(S

CCTTIV,

77

8
oi>x

ei/epyeia

OTI yivzTai Kal

TI.

wTrapyet

Sxnrep KTri/ud
1

Eth. i. 6, 1097, b, 24: we shall discover wherein happiness

consists,
dvOp&Trov. Kal iravTl
eVrlj/
tpyu>

et
A7j<|>0e/7j

Tb epyov TOV
.

are valued either for the sake of something else or for their own sake the latter is the case when nothing is expected from them beyond the activity
activities
;

&<nrep

yap av\T]Tp
Kc
P>
"

itself. Happiness (y. supra} must be an activity of the latter kind.

Tex v LT

oAcus
eV

Ziv

ToiavTa
dftfTTiv

eiz/ai

SoKovcm/ at

Hpyov TI

Kal

irpd^is,

TW

SoKe? Tayadbv elvai Kal TO ev,

Trpdteis. rd (TjrovSaia Trpdrreiv

Kar yap Ka\d Kal rwv Si aura,

T>V

epyov avTOv. Ibid. 1. 33 sqq. 3 Eth. i. 0, 1098, a, 7 e* 8 CTT\v epyov di>6pxTrov ^u^rjs evepavev \6yov, yeia /coxa Xoyov T) Tb 8 avTo (partis epyov flvai ycvi ToCSe Kal TovSe (TirovSalov
HO~TL TI
*
:

aiptrtav [sc. eo-TiV]. Kal 8e at rjSe iai.

TraiSiuv

Happiness, however,

cannot consist in these (see p. 141, n. 1, sup.), but (1177, a, 9) eV rats

/car

dpeTrjv fvepyt iais

b,

it is

(i.

10,

T<

1099, aperty
(i.

26) tyvxvis evepyeia /car iroid ns, or more accurately

init.), tyvxrjs

13,

!Trjs

war

evepyeid TIS

/car

ETHICS
is

143

exposed to the least interruption, and affords the

;

it is least pleasure dependent on foreign and external expedients it is its own aim and lupport and is valued purely for its own sake in it man arrives at rest and peace, while in the military

tighest

>bject,

and

political, or in

the practical
is

life

generally, he
lie

is

ever restlessly pursuing

activity itself.

ends which

outside

the

Reason

the Divine in us.

It is the

true essence of the man.

The pure

can alone perfectly accord with alone can afford him unconditional satisfaction, and raise him above the limitations of humanity into the
life
1

activity of reason his true nature. It-

of God. 1
Eth.
x.

Next
:

to
5

it

comes moral
yap p
<xAA

activity,
OVTW

which

7, init.

el

av0pci)ir6s eo~Tiv

T)

evepyeia. evXoyov Kara r?V KpaTLtrrrjv avTf} eire 8^7 vovs 8 ai/ e?77 TOV apiffTOv.
ev8a.ifj.ovia

war

aperr/i/

uffcf

p Qe16v TI ev avT$ 8e Stacpepet TOVTO TOV

rj

TOffOVTca Kal

TOVTO
rarov,

e lTe

&AAo

rt,

eire Qelov

eT7)v.

evepyeia. TIJS Kara el 87^7 Qelov &c.

e tTe rcav ev r)(juv rb OeioTOVTOV evepyeta Kara T}]V oiKeiav aperrjv eft) Uv r] T\eia evSat-

bv Kal avrb
f)

(see
1
:

p.

161.

X.

8,

we

require
<p

many
T^V

1178, aids

b,

to

action,

8e OewpovvTi ovo evbs

T&V

Trpos

ye
T}\V

evepyeiav
eju-Koo id

After proving this as above, Aristotle continues, 1177, b, 16: et 8$; TUV i*.tv Kara ras dperos
TOI.
irpa|ecoi/

XP

La

V.A

ws ye

eiTrelv

Kal

eo~Ti

irpos
TO,

avOpwiros
atpe^Tai
SeTjcrerat 8

eo"Ti

Kal

decapiav TrAetocn

o~vrj,

at

iroXirtKal Kal
fieyeOfi

KUT

apeTr/v

irf>a.TTetv

/caAAet

Kal

avrai 8
tfyizvTai
etcrti/,
7)

atrxoAoi Kal reAous Tivbs Kal ov Si auras atperai

8e TOV vov evepyeia (nrovSfj
So/C6i

T^

avOpcaTreveffdai.

ovv TUV TOLOVTWV irpbs Se reAeia i]

QeutpriTtK t]

evftai/ULOvla

on

T IS

effTiv

evepyeia

Kal

evTevQev

av

tyaveir}.

T6
Kal

8ia<pplJS

06(Wp7JTtK^ OVffa,

Trap

avr^v

ovSevbs

ai/TTj 8e (Twav^ei r^f tvepyeiav, Kal T& avrapKes 8^ Kal a"xoAct(TTj/cbz/ Kal avdpunrct), Kal ocra aAAa &TPVTOV
a>s

The gods are pre-eminently con sidered happy but what actions can we assign to them ? Shall we suppose that they exhibit
;

their
selling,

justice their

by

valour

buying and by en

TO? {jLaKapicp air ovf/ner at,

Tf]v

Kara rav-

T^V fvepyeiav
Srj
.

reAeia
Bpcairov
fiios

ovra, r\ fvHcufjtovla avrt] ai/ 6^77 av6 8e TOIOVTOS ai/ e^Tj

<paivTai
.

danger, their liber of money, their self-command by the conquest of

countering

ality
evil

by

gifts

KpfiTTcaf

$)

/car

avOpwirov

ov

sleep

desires like

? Nor will Endymion.

they
T<

8?^

144

ARISTOTLE

thus constitutes the second essential element of happi ness. Inasmuch, however, as it is the Divine in man

which

is called into exercise in thought, the latter may whereas moral be regarded as a superhuman good virtue is in an espec al sense the of man.
;
:

</ood

While these are undoubtedly the essential and in dispensable elements of Happiness, Aristotle does not
)

exclude from that notion other gifts and advantages, some of which proceed from moral and rational activity,
while others are independent of
tavri
.

it.

Thus, for instance,

1334, b, 14.

&c. (see
rots
Trei/

i.

?97, n.

1,

supra)
airas
6
e</>

Pol.
1

vii. 15,

yap

0eo?s

Eth.
.

x. 7 (see

preceding n.)

jSios fj.aKa.pios, ToTs 5 avQpcairois, offov 0/j.oicafj.d ri TT)S rotavrys evep-

C.

yelas virdpxzt
ovfiev

r&v

a\\ccv Cv uv
oi>5a/J.rj

euSatyUOz/e?,

eVeiS??
e(p>

[euSaf^wj/] o icara T^V &X\i)v aper^j/ [/Sios] at yap /car avrfyv fvepyeiai dvdpcajriKai ffvvffcvKTai Se Kal ^
.
. .

8 init.

Sevrepws 5

6 f capias.
ivGi
rj

ocrov

8)7

(ppovrjais r?7

TOV
8

Oeup

a, Kal

v8ai/j.ovia,

(rvvrtprrHAcvai

virtues]
Kal evZaifj-ov^lv [sc./uaA\oi/ uTr ov Kara (rvju-fiffiyKls, aAAa
rr]v Becapiav
Tijji a.

Kal

tfOovs apery avrai [the ethical ro?s TrdOecri irepl rb

.

ffvvderov av elev

of 8e

rov avvQerov
Sr]

Kara
auT7)v

dperal dvOpcaTriKai.
/COT

Kal 6 ftios

avr^j
e^rj

yap Kad
av
r]

avTOS

/cat

evSaifJ-ovia.

Ibid.

WCTT

ei 8cn/xoz//a

Metapli. xii. 7, 1072, ^ Oecapia rb ^diffrov Kal b, 24 Cf. i. 398, n. 5, supra. apia-rov. The contradiction between these statements and Pol. vii 2, 1324, a, 25, c. 3, 1325, b, 14 sqq. is only
dfcapia TIS.
:

1178, b, 5 (see preceding n.). will be obvious from the pre ceding account, the distinction here is merely in the mode of

As

apparent. In the latter passages theoretic activity is not compared as such with practical, but the life of solitary devotion to science with the social life of the state; and while the practical life is declared to be the more excellent, the expression is used in it s wider sense, and the theoretic activity which is self-sufficino:a.nd directed towards no external end is ex pressly said to be the most
perfect form of
Trpa^is.

we say with 327) that, because Aristotle wavers in the mode of presenting his view, the theoretic understanding is intended to be left out of account in denning
expression, nor can

HITTER

(iii.

human
2

happiness.

statement that such things deserve to be called ad vantages only in so far as they have a directly moral significance (TEICHMULLER, loc. cit. 337 sq.)
is

The

not Aristotle

he

calls

them

Cf. also

enough goods, and that which is a good is presumably an advantage.

often

ETHICS
I

145

happiness necessarily presupposes a certain complete ness of life. child cannot be happy any more than

it

can be virtuous, for

action. 1 insufficient:

[moral
is

it is still incapable of any rational, Mere temporary happiness, moreover, one swallow does not make summer. 2

Therefore, if

we cannot
is

say with Solon that no

man

is

dead, yet we must admit that happiness can, at any rate, only be looked for in a life which has reached a certain degree of maturity. Happiness, in fact,

happy

till

he

is

the virtuous activity of the soul in a completed

life.

Again, requires for perfect happiness certain external goods. Happiness, it is true, is something other than good fortune. 4 Poverty, sickness, and mis

man

may even serve the brave man as an occasion noble conduct, and so far the really happy man can never be miserable. And yet, on the other hand, no will call a man any longer happy if the fate of a jone Priam overtakes him 5 and while the virtuous man
fortune
for
;

an be content with few

jrespects

6 gifts of fortune, yet in

:

many

power,
1

they are indispensable to him without wealth, influence, little can be accomplished; noble
i.

Eth.
Ibid. Ibid.

2 3

i.

10, 1100, a, 1. 6 fin.

fl,

Etli. vii. 14, 1153, b, 21.

i.

1191,

a,

14:

11, 1101, a, 6 (see p. 50, n. 2, infra) cf. vii. 14, 1153, b, 17 ; Polit. vii. 13, 1332, a, 19.
1
;
ti

Mh.L
Eth.

FCOT

rots

dperrj^ TeAetcu/ et/epyovi/ra eKrbs ayaOo is IKO

fj/r]

ifi/oi/.

T^
&LOJ/

Tvxdvra
;
7)

jteAAa
.

reAftoi/

TT^

1179, a, 1 iro\\&v Kal rov fvSai/m.o^ ij(rou 8er}(re(T0ai. eVSe^eTcu avev ruv eitrbs
: t

x. 9,

olrjrfoi/

jj.->1

i/cal

^i<nao^vov

ovrai Kal rt
-<3,

piov eivai

ra Kara \6yov ; cf. p. l n. 2, IX. 7, 1177, b, 24: r] reAem 5^? \evfiai uo]/{a avrt] Uv ei jj avOpcaTrov,
ffoi
l

avrapKS
Kal
fi^i

ov yap eV rfj virfp&oXfj rb ?; irpa^is, Swarbv Se dpxovra yrts Kal Qa\a.Trrts

Kal

TcpdrrfLv ra Ka\d.
it is

Private persons,
1,

remarked, are as a rule the

Cf. Polit. vii.

\yap

dreAe s eVri
4

r<ii/

TTJS evSaiftovlas.

JW/.
VOL.

vii.

1,

1323, b,

26;

a,

happiest. 38 sqq.

1323,

II.

146
birth, beauty, joy in
;

ARISTOTLE
one
s

children,
is

are elements

in

friendship perfect happiness to the happy than to the unhappy

to all
;

even more necessary

;

health

is

invaluable

in a word, for complete satisfaction in life, besides material and external spiritual good, a certain supply of
1

advantages (xp^^la, svsrrjpia, evrjj/jLSpta) is indispen sable, and tt$3 it is a mistake to suppose is neces the virtuous man. 2 sarily bestowed by the gods upon

The

taken in themselves, therefore, are certainly a good, although to the individual they may 3 often turn out an evil.
gifts of fortune

Even pleasure

Aristotle reckoned
it

an element

in

against the reproaches cast upon happiness, defending 4 For he takes a quite it by Plato and Speusippus.
1

See Eth.
1096,
14,

i.

9,

c. 3,

a, 1, c. 11,

1099, a, 31 sqq. 1101, a, 14,

elsewhere sistently treats matter of chance see Eth.

;

x.

1153, b, 17, viii. 1 init. ix. 9, 11 (to which I shall subsequently return), x. 8, 1178, Polit. vii. 1, a, 23 sq. c. 9 init. 1323, a, 24, c. 13, 1331, b, 41, also Rhet. i. 5, 1360, b, 18 sqq. 2 Aristotle says, indeed, Eth. x. 9 ad Jin., c. 10 init., that he who lives according to reason is
22, vii.
;

10, 1099, b,
b.
c.
;

20 sqq.

vii. 14,

1173,

17 Polit. vii. 1, 1323, b, 27, 13, 1332, a, 29. 3 Etli. v. 2, 1129, b, 1 sqq. ;

cf. c.
4

13/w.
ZELL. Ph.
d. Gr.
i.

pp. 506,

Whether Aristotle includes the Cynics is not clear we might

861,3.
;

conclude so from Eth.

ibid.
i.

x. 1

cf.

dear to the gods, who take plea sure in that which is akin to themselves if the gods care for men, such a one will be the most highly favoured by them, and if anything is their gift it must be happiness. We have already seen that his system leaves no room The for a special providence. care of the gods, therefore, if we transfer the expression from po pular to scientific language, must coincide with the natural opera tion of the rational life. External goods, on the other hand, he con
;

262, doctrine of pleasure see the full

2.

For Aristotle s
vii.

discussion, Eth. x. 1-5,

15.
x.
2,

12-

It

is

sufficient
:

fifv

1173, a, 15 ayaObv &p{(r9ai, r^v 8 ^S Severa aopiarov effect, ori

Kal

to quote Xtyovffi 5e rb

jUaAAoi/

TO

i]TTOV

(PLATO,

sqq. 30, & sq. and other passages, see ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 506) but the same is true of the virtues or of health. It i

Pklleb. 27,

further asserted that pleasure a motion and a becoming (cf Pi d. Gr. i. 506, 3): but if it were
.

ETHICS
different

147

view of
the

its

nature.

Plato had

pleasure to

sphere
;

of indeterminate,

relegated motionless

Being or Becoming to Aristotle, on the other hand, it igj&ther the natural perfection of every activity, and as such the immediate outcome of the perfected activity

move ment and a becoming, but the goal in which every movement of life finds rest and completeness. The
1

in as true a sense as health and beauty are the diate outcome of bodily perfection. It is not a

imme

motion

it

certain lapse of time,

;

must continue for a and there

fore, like all motion, have a definite velocity if a becoming, it must have a definite product ; but neither of these is the case
:

r) yeiav rj fjSovf). rjSovf). 1174, b, 31 reAeto? 5e TT^V evepyeiav r) ^5oj/?; &s ?) e|is tvvTrdpxovffa [as this ovx particular form of activity itself, as, for instance, virtue], dAA &s TI re Aos olov roils
:

pleasure

but it is 1. 29 sqq. c. 3, 1174, a, 19 sqq.). Furthermore, every pleasure in volves a pain it is a satisfaction, and every satisfaction pre supposes a want but there are which involve no enjoyments pain, and do not consist in satis
:

produced by a motion, not itself a motion (ibid.

is

&pa.
fore, as

It lasts,

there

long as the activity in question continues as it was, but changes and fades with the
activity itself, which in man can never but be an intermittent one (cf. vii. 15, 1154, b, 20 sqq.), c. 5, 1075, a, 20: &vcv re yap fvepyeias ov yberai ySov)], Tracrdv
re tvepyeiav TeAeiot
SoKovffi Kal raj
e/fSet
})

faction of

want

these

last,

fjSovf)
1

oQev

however, are merely causes of pleasure, not the pleasure itself

b,

SLa<pepeiv
ixp"

ra
\

yap

erepa

T$

e?5ei

erepwv

(ibid. 1173, b, 7 sqq. vii. 15, 1154, Lastly, there are evil 15).
;

pleasures but it does not follow for this reason that all pleasure is evil (x. 2, 1173, b, 20 sqq. c. 5, 1175, b, 24 sqq. vii. 13 f. 1153, a,

17-35, b, 7-13).
init. pleasure perception, com plete at every moment of time o\ov yap ri effn Kal /car ouSeVa
:

Et li.

x.

This is furolo/j.e6a TfXfiovffdai. ther developed in the passage that follows, prominence being given to the fact that every activity obtains from the pleasure springing from it a heightened energy and power of endurance, whereas it is disturbed by that

is like intuitive

which proceeds from another;

vii.

14,

1153, b,

14;
Eliet.
:

The statement,
is

i.

see infra. 11 init.

8

less

accurate
t]v

inroKeiffOca

jov

yivoiJt.vi]S

TeAeicw-

r/utV eli/cu
rrjs

f]Qovr\v

KLvnaiv

nva

elSos.

c.

4,

1174, a,
Kal
vep-

20: Kara iraaav yap

ov}],
<5,uo:a>s

Kal
<j)v(Ti,v,

Kal KaTaffTaffLv aOpoav v fis THV virdpxova ai

AUTTTJJ

6fwpiav

Se SidvoLav TeAeto? 5e T^JV

Se TOVVCLVT IOV,

For

on the one hand,

strictly

speak -

L 2

148

ARISTOTLE

an activity the higher the pleasure that accom panies it. Thought and moral action afford the purest pleasure, and the blessedness of God is nothing but the pleasure which springs from the most perfect
1

activity.

The

according to Aristotle is

universal pursuit of pleasure, therefore, an absolute necessity, and is,

3 Pleasure indeed, nothing else than the instinct of life. 4 and a it is true, be the highest good itself; cannot, made between the different kinds of plea distinction is

which has a value assigned to it proportion to the value of the activity which it only the pleasure of the virtuous man is 5 to be true and truly human. Nevertheless,
sure, each of
;
v

in direct

produces
declared
Aristotle

is far
1

from excluding pleasure in general from the con-

ception of happiness, or assigning to it the subordinate place which Plato had marked out for it.

We

have

now

to

consider in what relation these

different conditions of happiness stand to one another.

That the most indispensable element of it the one in which the essence of happiness must primarily be sought can only be the scientific and moral activity In of the soul, is often enough asserted by Aristotle.
treating, for instance, of the relation
Aristotle does not regard the soul as moved at all, and, on the other, pleasure, according to the passage just quoted, is not a motion, but the consequence of a motion. This definition is again
ing,

between

activity

1153, a, 20.

Metapli. ibid. Etk. vii. 15, see p. 398, n. 5, sup. 1154, b, 25 3 vii. 14, 1153, b, 25-32 x. 2, J172, b, 35 sqq. c. 4 sq. 1175, a,
;
;

referred to,
b, 6.
1

M. Mur.

ii. 7,

1205,

Metaph-xii. 7,1072, b, 16, 24; Mil. x. 2, 1174, a, 4, c. 4,

20,

1174, b, 20, c. 7, 1177, a, 22, b, i. 9, 1099, a, 7-29, vii. 13,

1170, a, 19. supra. x- 2, 1173, b, 20 sqq. c. 4 init. c. 5, 1175, a, 21 sqq. b, 24, 36 sqq. 1176, a, 17, c. 7, 1177, a, 23, i. 9, 1099, a, 11, vii. 14, 1153,

10-21,
*

ix. 9,

See

p. 140,

b,

29 sqq. and n.

1,

supra.

ETHICS

149

and pleasure, he asserts the unconditioned superiority A life of the former as definitely as could be desired. devoted to enjoyment seems to him unworthy of man.

The only
is is
I
:

activity
:

the practical the theoretic.

which he admits to be properly human the only one that is more than human
Pleasure
is

not the end and motive

-.

of our actions, but only a necessary concomitant of If the two could be activity according to nature.

good man would unconditionally prefer without pleasure to pleasure without activity 2 activity but as a matter of fact it is of the very essence of virtue that we cannot separate pleasure from it, and that we
separated, a
;

find

immediate satisfaction in virtuous activity without

3 From this point any addition of pleasure from without. of view the purity of Aristotle s ethics and the distinct

ness of

His beyond suspicion. with more reason be might accused of making man too dependent upon merely natural and accidental advantages. Yet even these he
his

utterances

are

account of external goods

See Eth

eXoiro
Sia
a>s

p. 140 sqq. supra. ovSeis T ay x. 2 Jin. rjv iratS/ou Sidvoiav e-^wv

:

TO. (pvffei rjSea.

roiavra 8

at /car

aperrjv Trpdeis, Stare Kal TOVTOLS eialv r/8e?ai Kal KaQ auras, ovfiev

/3

ou, r^Sffyiei/os

e
<|>

ols TO. TraiSia

8^ TrpoaSelrai

TTJS

fjSoi rjs

fitos
J

OLOV

iroiaiv

re /.laAtdTa,
TTjOrji/ct.

ot8e

xaipeiv

avruv
e%ei rols
6
.

Sicrirep

Trepidirrov

rwbs, aAA

roov euff^lffrtov, /uLrjSeirore

Trepl
ai/
,

TroAAa re
el /XTjSefipS-v,

vSrjv 7roir](Tai[j.e6

Kal

eirupfpoi
^

rjSov^j
etSeVat,

oiov

f)SonV ev eavrcp. irphs ayaObs elpr]fj.cj/ois yap ov5 /x^ -^a tpuiv rais Ka\a7s Tpd^ffw ei 8 OI/TOJ, Ka9 avras &v e^ev
rrjv
e<rr\v
.

et

ras aperas 8 e | a v d y K t]S eirovrai

ouSej/

at

/car

apicrrov

aperfyv irpd^eis f)Se?at apa Kal /caAAttrroi/

T;

Kal
8ia>-

rovrois

TjSoral,

Siatyepei

e\ot/j.e6a yap av ravra yivoir air avr&v T)$ovr\.

Kal

el

^Siarov
piffrai

ev^aip.ovia,
.

Kal

ov

c. 6,

see
etrri

p. 142, n. 3,
3

supra. Hid. \. 9, 1099, a, 7 8e Kal 6 ffios avr&v Kad avrbv

:

airavra yap ravra virap-^ei ratra rats apiarais evepPolit. vii. 18, 1332, a, 22 yeiais.
.
. :

roiovr6s effriv o
ri]v aperr]V

<nrovficuos
<p

Sia

r]8vs

ra ayadd earL ra

TO?S 8e (piXoKaAoLs evrlv v^Sea

ayaOd.

150

ARISTOTLE

in so far as they are the only recognises in so much and conditions of a perfect life and the instru indispensable

ments of moral

y spiritual

is undoubtedly from wishing to On right. fortune. He is convinced represent man as the sport of that man s happiness and misery depend upon his and moral condition that here alone we can

activity

and

in this he
is

the other hand, he

far

look for the foundation of lasting satisfaction that the be shaken happiness of the virtuous man cannot easily
;

by external fortune or changed

hardest
Plato
3

into misery
as

by the

lot.

Aristotle declares

that the

true goods

are

unhesitatingly as those of the soul:

external and physical goods, on the other hand, are

fflh.
vii.

14,
8

yap

evepyeia

1153, b, 16: reAetos efJ.ia

Kal
fjLTa

Koivfj

TCUS

TrjAecrtj/,

apfT ljs

evfiai/Jioi

T&V

TOCTOVTOV

KXopi]yf]lJ-fvfis S)CTT yueTe^eii TCOV

6*7rt

war
sq.
;

Sib TrpocrSeTTai 6

TOCV

ev

(Tc6/xaTt

ayadwv

Kal
/ATJ

^A. ^^.
J

aperV

7rpa|ecoi/.
i.
2>

Cf.
w.

p.

144

e/crbs Kal rrjs TU%rjs, OTTCOS 01 8e Tl)V Tat/ra.

J^/t.

i.

11, 1100, b, 7: rb pev

7raKO\ov9e7i>

rats

ri/xais

ovSafj.cas.

Kal rliv Svffrvx iais /Ji.eyd\ats

zvdai/j.ova (pdffKOvres

bpOov

ayaObs [the Cynics: cf Ph. d. Gr. i. 258, 3, 267, 4 but perhaps also PLATO see ibid.
elvat,
.

ecV y

ov yap tv Tainais Tb ev fy KaKtas, aAAa TrpotrSerrat TOVTGOV o avOpaiTTLVos fi ios, KaOdtrep e^n-a^e;
,

743

How far 1154, b, 11 have certain bodily enjoyments any value ? ^ our (as aya9al at avayKalai, on Kal rb p.}] KaKbv ayaQov ecrnv; ^ /uej^pi TOV ayaOai ; ibid. i. 9 sq. 1099, a, 32. aSuj/aroi/
Xeyovffiv.
:

sq.],

3)

e/co j/Tes

3)

aifovres

oi>8ej/

aperr?^ cj/e p7eicu rr)s ev$ai/J.ovias, at 8 tvavriai owSe^ 7 a P TOV tvavTiov Trept
elfflv
, .

Kvpiai 8

at

/car

epyccv /3e/3ato T7js cos irepl ras eVep7ei as ras /car aper^v /xovt^corfpai 7ap /ca) TCOV fTriffrf]p.cov avrai 80/j.ev

7ap

ir)

ou

pdSiov ra KaAa irpdrrfiv 1 ivra. TroAAa 7ap

t,

elvai. 1101, a, 5 ouSeVore yevoir tt,v 6 ov /j.iiv [j.aKapi6s ye, av

Kovffiv

&6\ios

ri>xais

TTfpnrecrr).
:

<pt\cav

KaOd-rrep St Kal irAoirrou &C.

bpydvwv Sia TOJV b, 27

:

Kal

evfj-erdpoXos

ouSe TTOIK L\OS ye his happiness

will be disturbed only

by many

5e \oiirwv ayaOcov [besides virtue] ra ^tep virdpx fiV avayKalov, ra 8e Kal TrecpvKev p^p^crtjua avvepya

grievous misfortunes, from which he will again recover only with

difficulty." 3

Polit. vii. bpyaviK&s. 40 /6os uev apLffros,

:

1,

1323, b,

Lams,

v.

743,

Qorg. 508,

ETHICS
valuable

161
1

only

as

means

to

the former.

He

even

self-love consists in the expressly says that since true it does not hesitate for the effort after goods,

higher

sake

of friends and

country to

sacrifice

all

outward

advantage and even life itself. that of the morally beautiful actionhighest reward
is

Yet

in all such cases the

action

and beautiful reaped by the doer of it, since a great is of more value and affords a higher happiness
2

than a long life which has accomplished nothing great. to suffer than to do Similarly, he holds that it is better case it is only our body wrong, for in the former
EtU. i. 8, 1098, b, 12 veveuv Sr; rcav ayaO&v rpixfi, Kal
:

spiritual goods, on the other hand, are valuable in proportion

If the soul to their greatness. is of more value than the body and external things, the goods of the soul must be of more value

rv
irepl

TO,

irepl

Kiffra aya9d.
a,

Polit. vii. 1,

1323,
;

the happy man must pos sess all three classes of goods the only question is, in what In re degree and proportion. spect of virtue, most people are very easily contented (TTJS aperrjs

24

than bodily and external goods.

en

Se

TT/S

i|/ux^) s

evenev

ravra
<xAA

Tre(j)VKv
atpelcrOa.!.

irdvras 8e? aipeTCi Kal rovs eu typovovvras,

%X fLV iKavbv elvcu vo^i^ovcriv oiroffwith riches, power, and honour, on the other hand, there We must is no satisfying them. point out to them, on Kr&vrai
ovovv)
;

OVK eKeivcav eveKfV rrjv fyvX^V. The blessedness of the gods shows that happiness depends for its amount upon the degree of virtue and insight, os ev5ai/j.wv (j.\v eari ovdev 8e Kal /j.aKapi.os, 8t
c
TU>V

Kal fyvXarTovffiv ov ray operas rots eKeiva ravrais, Kal rb 6/cTos, aAA

Si a*/rbj/ f^wrepiKccv ayaOuv ctAAa avrbs Kal T(f Troids ris elvai T}\V
<t>v<riv,

and accordingly we

dis
ia.

tinguish
virdpx*L rots rb -fjQos /mev Kal T)]V Sidvoiav KCKOO fJL nfJ.evois els t)7rep/3oraj?

evSat/j.ovla from evrvx 2 Eth.. ix. 8, 1169, a, 6 sqq.,

where,

\p-r\G (puiv, fv

Se TOVTOIS

Material posses like sions, every instrument, have a natural limit imposed by the purpose for which they are used; increased beyond this limit they are useless or mischievous
;

e\\e nrov<TLv.

among other things (see especially the passage cited, p. ra /caAAi<rra 132). it is said, 9 Uv TT&VT etrj ra Trpdrreiv Koivfj T
:

Seovra
ffra

Kal I5ia eKaffTCf ra peyiroiayaQcav, efaep TJ aptrr] et/cdrcos 8)? So/ce? ovr6v eariv. 31 airovbaios elvai, avrl irdvrcav alpov[?]
rS>v
:

(j.evos

152

ARISTOTLE

or property that suffers, in the latter it is our character. 1 Aristotle thus keeps fast hold throughout of the principle with which he started in the investigation of the highest

good
1

namely, that happiness consists primarily and

acting according to
suit

essentially in

reason, or

in

the

exercise of a perfected virtue. to be considered as good only

Other goods can claim,

rnodo
:

in so far as

they are
or a

natural product of this activity, like pleasure,

to its attainment, like

means

goods.

outward and physical a case occur in which a choice Should, however,

must be made between the different goods, all others must give way before the moral and spiritual, since they alone are absolutely and unconditionally good. 2
ness, the
is the essential condition of happi problem of Ethics is to investigate the nature 3 of virtue and to exhibit its constituent the parts

If,

then, virtue

question being of course confined to spiritual perfec

tion.
1

Now

this,

like spiritual activity itself, is of a

a,

Eth.v. 15, 1138,

28:

it is

evSai/uovia fyvxys evepyeid TIS KCLT

an

both to suffer injustice wrong and 1o do it, the former being an eAaTrov. the latter a TrAeoj/ ex^tv TOV /J.eaov, but to do
evil

aper^v reAe-ay, irepl dper??? eVi(TK^TTT^OV Ta.xayapovTws av fieXTtov

KO.}

irepl
4

rrjs

v8ai/j.ovtas

Oeupi]-

(rj.iij.sv.

injustice
-

is

worse, as

it

alone

is

/itera Kaicias.

have already seen this (p. 149), and shall find further in his theory of virtue that Aristotle admits only those as genuine virtues which seek their end in the moral activity itself Etli. iv 2 init.: al Se KOT dperV KaXou Kal TOV /caAou eVe/ca 7rpa|eis
;
.

We

By the word dper}) the Greek meant, as is well known,

not only moral excellence but every accomplishment or perfertion that belonged to person or In this sense it is used thing.

by

Aristotle, e.g.
;
-

Mrtaph.
Etli.
ii.

v.

16,

and 2}ass^ m Here, however, where we are dealing with human

happiness
tion
5e
it

1021, b, 20 sqq.

5 init.

6 5e

8i5oi>s

UT? TOI)
&\\yi>

KaAoG
atriai/,

can only be a ques:

eVeK-a
oy/c

aAAa

5ta

TZJ/

t\fv8fpios
3

dAA aAAos
13
:

TIS faQy-

spiritual excellences ; Eth. Hid. 1 102, a, 13 irepl dpervjs

e Tntr/ceTTTe o;/

of

crfTai.

avOpcairivris

SrjAoi/

Etli.

i.

:-ir\

eVrlr

r)

OTI.

Kal

yap TayaObv avdpdnrivov

ETHICS
twofold
(f)8iKrj).

153

nature

intellectual

($iavoj)TLKr))

and moral
irrational
its

The former
the
latter
so.ul

relates to the activity of reason

as such,

to

the

control
.

of the

elements of the.
with the
latter. 2

by the ration al

The one has

seat in thought, the other in will. 1

Ethics has to do

2.

Moral

Virtue.

To

aid

us in

the investigation of the nature of

Moral Virtue, Aristotle begins by indicating where we must look for virtue in general. It is not an emotion or a mere faculty, but a definite quality of

mind

(efts-).

Emotions as such are not the object

a.vQp<a-

of!

v evSatfJ-Ovtav
ir(vt]V.

which

is

consistently maintained

apfTriv

Se

\eyo/j.ev

avOpoj-

TTivr)v

ov rrjv rov
ical

rr)s
1

tyvx^s

<rca/jt.aTOs, aAAa Trjv rijv evfijti/uLoviav 5e

After discussing (Eth. i. 13) the difference between the ra tional and the irrational element in the soul, and distinguishing two kinds of the rational, that to which rationality attaches in a primitive, and that to which it attaches in a derivative, sense, thought and desire (see p. Ill,
n. 4, supra), Aristotle continues, 1108, a, 8 Siopi^rai 8e /cal TJ dpe-r^
:

throughout. 2 This is obvious, not only from the name of this science and from isolated statements which describe irpa^is as its sub ject, e.g. those referred to p. 181,
11.

3,

and

Etli.

ii.

2,

1104,

a, 1,

but from the plan of the JWcowackean Etliics as a whole, which must have been different had the object been the propor tionate treatment of dianoetic

and

ethical

virtue.

On

ihis

rr\v Siatyopav ravrriv Xiyo^v yap avrcov ras /u.ev fiiavo-nriKas ras Se i}9iKas, aocpiay /mtv /col ffvv<riv

Kara

point and on the discussion of the dianoetic virtues in the sixth book, see infra. 3 The relation of these three to one another is explained Eth. ii 4 imt. eVel ovv ra ev rrj tyvxy
:

TTJTO

Se

Kal

yii>6/*vu

returns to this distinction at the beginning of Eth. ii. 1, and vi. 2. Ethical virtue is thus regarded as the product of desire ruled by reason, i.e. of will (see a view of it p. 114, snpra),

He

rpia eVrl, eets, TOVTCDV kv ri

Se TrdOr)
n.

iraQt]
eiVj

8vvd.ij.eis

^ apery)

(f)6(3ov,

Opznos,
Trodov, \
\virT],
,

[micros,

6Aa?s ols

as ira6r]TiKol

154

ARISTOTLE
In themselves they cannot make us

praise or blame.

either good or bad. They are involuntary, whereas virtue presupposes an activity of the will. They

indicate certain

movements

virtue

and

vice,

on the

other hand, are permanent states. Nor can a mere faculty be the object of moral judgment. Faculty is

innate

1 These differ acquired. from a mere faculty as well as from science (and finally art) in this, that while the latter embrace both of two ;

virtue

and

vice

are

2 the exclusively to one man who has the power and knowledge of good has the power and knowledge of evil also, but he who wills the

opposites, the former

refer

same time will the evil. It is on the other hand, to distinguish equally necessary, virtue from mere external action as such. He who
good cannot
also at the

would act morally must not only do the right, but he must do it in the right frame of mind. 3 It is this, and not the outward effect, that gives to the action its moral
worth. 4
olov
/ca0

It is just this
as Svvarol
/)

which makes virtue and moral

avrd
TTCOS

\virr)6f)vai

fXefiffai,

opyiaOrivai r) eejs 8e /cafl

eu
7)

^X^i

8i/ca/a>s

T)

(rw<f)p6v(as

as irpbs

TO. irdQt] e^o/j.ei

KO.KWS

285, n. 3, sujtra. Ibid. 1105, b, 28sqq., ending with the words: o TL /LLCV ovv earl
e|ts cf. p.
1

On

Trpdrrerai, aAAa Kal eav 6 trpdrrwv TTUS ex cav sparry, TO. /mev b, 5 ovv irpdy/j,ara Si/cata Kal cruxppova \eyerai, orav y roiavra ola Uv 6
:

Tea yivei

f]

aper^j,

e^Tjrat,

Cf. C.

1, 1103, b, 21 sq. ~ ouSe J?tk. v. 1, 1129, a, 11 yap rbv avrbv exet rpoirov ciri re
:

SIKCUOS T) o -rrpa^iev SIKCUOS 5e Kal truxppcav early ov% 6 ravra TrpdTTwv, aAAa Kal 6 OVTW irpar-rcav
cr<i><pp(av

us

ol SiKaiot Kal ol
vi.

(rdafypoves Trpdr-

rovviv.

rwv ruv

eVjo TTj^uco;/ Kal

e ewi/.

vi>a[j.e(av

Kal eVi

Aristotle

1144, a, 13 sqq. distinaccordingly

13,

$vi>a/j.is

p.lv

yap Kal
T)

Tri(TTr*i/j.r)

So/ce?

r&v evavriwv

avrrj

guishes between the just character and the just act, ibid. vi. JO,
inlt, et al. (see
4

elvai (see p. 224, n. 3, SVA/;? ), ets S tvavriwv ov, olov a?rb T) tvavria.
r<av

rijs vyieias ov irpdrreraira evavria, aAAa ra vyieiva fj.6vov.

3 Etli. ii. 3, 1105,* a, 28: ra 5e /cara ras aperas yiv6/j.eva OVK eav

yap eV
e|et,

below \ JMd. iv. 2, 1120, b, 7 ov rq TrA^et ruiv SiSo/uevcav rb

:

eXevQepiov.
OI/TT?

aAA
Se

sv rfj rov Si86vros Kara rty ovaiav

ETHICS
insight so hard
1
:

155

we are dealing here, not with but with the general character of the particular actions,
that
actor.

Aristotle defines this character

more accurately

as

a character

In so doing he defines the limits of the moral sphere in both directions, distin
of the will.

virtue?, which has to do with action, from mere natural and therefore non-moral disposition on the one hand, and from mere knowledge which has no The founda reference to human action on the other.

guishing moral

tion

and presupposition of morality lies in certain natural qualities. In order to be able to act morally, one must first be a man with a certain psychological

and physical constitution

for

and with a natural capacity

virtue

virtue

3
;

for

every

presupposes

certain

natural qualities ($>voriKal sgsis), definite impulses and inclinations in which the moral qualities already to a certain extent reside. 4 This natural disposition, howi

Hid.
(

I
II II

BpooTTOi

aSifceu/,

pqSiov.

ol 5 avv. 13 init. eauroTs otovrai eli cu rb Sib ical Tb SiKaiov zlvai TO 5 OVK eo~Tiv avyyv:

he might indeed perform, aAAa

rb Tb
SeiXaiveu/
teal

Tb
fffrl,

dSt/ceTz/

ov

ravra

iroizlv

(ruyUjSejS^K^?,

aAAa rb

TT\^V Kara wSl e^orra

fffQai fiff yap rrj rov yziTovos Kal I 7ruTa|ai TI)V 7rA7](TiW KOI Savi/ai rfj
I

ravra
-

Cf. p. 116. Polit. vii. 1?, 1332, a, 38.

iroitiv.

I
||

paSiov Kal eir e^oj/ras ravra I iroitlv ovre pdSiov OUT eV avro is. 6/j.oitos Se Kal Tb yv&vai TO. SiKOia Kal TO. aSuca ovSev o iovTai aofybv

xe

T^

apyvpiov

JZtli.
<pvfft

ii.

avrols,

aAAa rb

<iSi

apa

1, 1103, a, 23: OUT ovre irapa (piHTiv eyyi-

vovrai al apeTal, aAAa iretyvKOffi [lev rjfjt.1v Se^aaOai auras, reAetouyUeVoiS 5e 8ta TOV edovs. Polit. ibid.
:

eli/at,

OTL Trepl
TO.

&v

ol v6/j.oi

ov xaAe7r5^
I

vvievat.

aAA
r)

\4yovffiv ou raOr
(TUyUjSe-

dyaOot ye Kal

ecrri

5i/caia

aAA

Kara

I &riKbs, aAAa
TTOJS
I

ircas

irpaTT6[J.eva

Kal

ve(j.6fJLva

St/coto.

To know

an easy matter. On the same ground Aristotle adds I/that the just man cannot act Particular outward acts If unjustly.
this is not
|;

yiyvovTai dia Tpicav. TO, Tpia Se ravra effn 0os \6yos. 4 Eth. vi. 13, 1144, b, 4 iraffi yap So^e? e/cao-ra TWV r\Q&v vtrapx eiv (j) ^ creL Jrcas Ka ^ 7"P Si^oiot /cai
<pv<ns

cnrovfia ioi

(raxppoviKol Kal aj/SpeTot

ex/"-

Kal

V
i.

*v0i/s

*K

y^v^rrjs.
ii.

raAAa (M.
1199,

Mor.

35, 1197, b, 38,

3,

156

ARISTOTLE
It is

ever, is not yet moral.

but even in the lower

found, not only in children, animals. When, therefore,

1

Aristotle speaks of physical virtues, he expressly dis tinguishes these from virtue in the proper sense of

the word, 2 which consists in the union of natural impulse with rational insight and its subordination to

Natural disposition and the- operation of natural impulses do not depend upon ourselves, whereas virtue is in our own power. The former are innate in us the
it.
;

latter

by practice. carries this principle of excluding all involuntary moods and inclinations from the moral sphere so far as to
gradually acquired
it

is

Aristotle

extend

to the earlier stages of the moral

life

itself.

not only excludes emotions such as fear, anger, 5 pity, &c., from the sphere of praise and blame, but lie
b, 38,
vii. 7,
c. 7,

He

1206, b, 9.)

Cf. Polit.

yap TWV Qfaei OVTUV a\\us

UTI bcra
ai,
fjikv

0/<

on the unequal distribution of moral and intellectual capacity

in the different nations.
II.
1,

(pvcrei ri/uuv irapa-

TO.S

8wa,uets TOVTUV

irp6-

An.
; ;

ix.

Etli.

Una.
],

1, 488, b, 12, see p. 38, n. 1, supra] see n. 3.

i.

viii.

Kvpiws aya8bv
Etll.
b,
0.1

^ Kvpia 8:
Kal

vaTepov 8e ras fvcpyeias Sight, for example, we do not receive by it is the antecedent perception condition of perception. TCLS 5
dTroSi Soyuei/.
:

operas

fvepyf]o~avTS
:

3
cri

Hid. 1144,
Kal 6r pioLS
t

yap
x.

we become virtuous by

(pvcrucal

vtrdp-

moral, vicious
10,

e|eis,

aAA avev

vuv /3Aa/3epcu
(T

fyaivovTai oiiaa

icTXvpy iivev ityecos

j8cuj/et
jU?7

KIVOVJJL^VU>

by immoral, action, 1179, b, 20 (referring, as also does i. 10 init., doubtless, to PLATO S Meno, 70, A, 99, E)
:

^X

(rfyaXXeffQai iV^upais 5ta lv fytv, ovTca 5

e|is 6fj.oia

yivzcrQai
<pvo~ei,

8
8

ayaOovs otovTai
H6ei,
<f)i>o~ea>s

ol fji^v
T\>

ol

ol 8e SiSav?;.

eav Se AajSr? vow, eV

5m</)epet.

fj-ff

ovv TT)S
rifuv

8f}Aoi/

ws OVK

r)

ovaa TOT
17:

Kvpcas
4

9T
1,

}).

virdpx*i, Qe as aiTias TO?S &s

ariv

aAAa

8/a Tivas

d\r]6u>s

Eth.
Kal

ii.

1103,

a,

^8
e

v-rrdpxei.

On
115

evTvx*voluntariness

Tovvofj-a v atrb TOV tdovs.

as characteristic of moral virtue, iUd. ii. 4, 1106, a, 2, iii. 1 init. ;

ov
c.

4 init.
5

and
ii.

p.
4,

OTI ov5e/J.ta

TUV

T)6iKwv

Eth.

sq., supra. ]105, b, 28; see

ovdfv

p. 154, n. 1, supra.

ETHICS

157

Iraws a distinction between continence (syKpareia) and In drtue, incontinence and vice in the stricter sense.
1

ike

manner he regards modesty rather

2 as a virtue.

as

an emotion
Aristotle

han
ails

In

all

these states of

mind

to find the universality of consciousness

action

is Droceeding from a principle. noral which is not done with rational insight, nothing mmoral which is not done in defiance of it.

He

holds that nothing

While virtue

is

impossible without insight, insight

md

morality

are not identical.

As

wjll in

general

union of reason and desire, 3 the moral quality of the will must be treated under the same Moral virtue is concerned with pleasure and category.
consists of the
pain, since it

has to do with actions and emotions which

:

3ause these feelings pleasure and pain are the primary 5 4 source of desire, and the criterion of all our actions,
vii. 1, 1145, a, 17, 35 1150, b, 35, 1151, a, 27. Vloderation, according to these massages, is a <r-7rou5aa eis, but
1

Ibid.
c. 9,

pain,
to

and for
;

this very reason are

Md.

be counteracted by punishat ments iarpeiai yap rtves 5eiaTpe?cu5ia rut evavr^v Tre^vKam,
*l<riv,

lot ail apeTT/. 2 Ibid. IV. 15,

:

yiveaOai
ii.

inr6K^irai apa
irepl

r\

^of7)
Kal

1108, a, praiseworthy, indeed, not a virtue it is a ytieoroTTjs

7, it

eivai

f)

Toiaint]

rjSovas

is

AuTras

tv rots Trddecri.
3

On

the will, see pp. 113 sq.

fieXTiaruv irpaKTiK)], 77 5e Kaicia Tovvavr iov Tpiuv yap ovruv T&V tls raj cupeVets Kal rpiuv rwv els TO.S (pvyas, KaAoC <ry^er<av
. .

and
4 5

p. 126.

povros

r^/Seos,

Kal Tpiiav

TU>U

tvavTiw,

this cf. also pp. 107 sqq. Etli. ii. 2, 1104, b, 8: Trepl

On

f}fiovas
TTj
q>av\a

yap Kal Xviras 4crrlv 77 8ta juei/ yap rr)V ^ovr v TO. irparro^v 5ta Se Trjv XvTrt\v
T)0i/c>?

alffxpov fSha&epov Av-n-npav, Trepl irdvra /j.ev Tavra 6 ayados KaropQuTLK6s eariy 6 Se KaK^s a^.apTr]T IK&S
,

KOIVT] /j-dhurra 5e irepl rrjv y$ovi}v Kal TTCKTI, re -yap CCI/TTJ TOLS
(,u>ois

aperai
T\
vfy
r)

flffi irepl

irpdeis Kzl
Si<i

Trddr],

SeTrddet Kalird<ryTrpdieTreTai TOUT av Kal AUTTTJ, Kal

dpeTT? Trepl

yap rb Ka\bv Kal rb Kavov r/5i/ <paiVerai Ka\ ras irndeis, ol jj.tv /uaAAoy
Kal
. .
. . . .

oi 8

^ovas

Kal AuTray.

A11 moral failings desire for pleasure

spring from

and

dislike of

ware TJTTOC, ySovfj Kal \virri Kal \viras iraaa irepl ijSovas T? irpay/m-areia Kal rrj apery Kal rr)
. .
.

158
to

ARISTOTLE
refer in a certain sense

which we

even the motives

of utility and right. 1 Aristotle, therefore, controverts the Socratic doctrine that virtue consists in knowledge. 2

His objection to this view is, broadly speaking, that it neglects the irrational element of the soul, the patho
3 logical side of virtue.

When

he proceeds to a closer

investigation of its fundamental principle, he shows that it rests on false Socrates had main presuppositions.

tained that

it

was impossible
4
;

to do evil

knowing that

it

was

evil

and hurtful

that to say this is purely theoretic and practical knowledge.

first place,

Aristotle shows, on the contrary, to overlook the distinction between

For, in the
the.

he remarks, we must distinguish between

possession of knowledge as mere skill, and knowledge as an activity. I may know that a certain action is

good or bad, but

this

case remain latent,

knowledge may in the particular and in this way I may do evil with

out being conscious at the

6
Xpu>/jievos

moment

that

it is evil.

But,

fjifv

yap

rovrois

KO.K&S.

ayaOlis effrat, 6 8e KO.K&S II. 5, 1106, b, 16 \4yu

:

It must be taken, however, in the light of what is said above,

p.

149, n.

3.

The

5e

rV

thought of

7?0i/c77i/

[dperr?!/]

OUTTJ

yap
1.

earn

irepl iraQr) Kal -jvpd^eis.

Ibid.

24,iii.linit. (seep. I 17, n. 2, sup. ), vii. 12, 1152, b, 4, 1172, b, 21; x.

the good operates upon the will through the medium of feeling, the good itself presenting as desirable and something
affording pleasure
tion.
vii.
2

vii. 3,

see p. 143, n. 1, supra. Phys. 247, a, 23 Kal TO oXov rfy

:

and

satisfac-

r}9iK^)v

dperV

& rj^ovais Kal

3)

AUTTCUS
/car
fy

eZVcu

(rvfj.fte^riKfV

yap

evepyetav
p.vt]p.T]v
3)

rb TTJS airb TTJS

rjdovris

5ta

eATri Sos.

Pol.
:

13, 1144, b, 17 sqq. 1146, b, 31 sqq. cf. C. 3 init. x. 10, 1179, b, 23; End. i. 5, 1216, b, vii. 13 fin.] M. Mor. i.
Etli. vi.
5,
1,
1

viii. 5,
1

1340, a, 14.

182, a, 15,
3

c.

35, 1198, a, 10.

vi. 13, c,

This statement (Etk. ii. 2 see preced. n.~) might seem surprising, as Aristotle draws a very
clear distinction

As may be concluded from

especially M. Cf. p. 157, n. 5, supra.
d.

the statements in Etli.

2,

1139, a, 31,
i.

and

between plea(v. p.

M.

1.

sure

and the good

140

sq.)-

See Ph.

Gr.

i.

p.

118

sq.

ETHICS
in the

159

second place, concerning the content of this knowledge, we have to distinguish between the general For if every principle and its practical application.
action consists in bringing a particular case under a general law, it is quite conceivable that the agent,
1

while he knows and presents to himself the moral law in its universality, yet may neglect the application of it to
the particular case and permit himself to be here deter mined by sensual desire instead of by moral principle. 2

While, therefore, Socrates had asserted that no one is voluntarily wicked, Aristotle maintains, on the contrary,
that
1

Aman
.v-c.^

is.

master of his actions, and even makes this

_

*_>">

voluntariness of action the distinguishing mark of the 3 In like practical as opposed to the theoretic life.

manner

practical activity is distinguished from artistic. In art the chief thing is knowledge or skill to produce certain works in conduct, it is will. In the former the
:

object is that the production should be of a certain character in the latter the essential thing is that the
;

agent himself should be

intentionally
is

so.

There the
;

the better

man

here

it is

man who errs the man who

i

errs unintentionally. 4

Moral
sists

5 according to Aristotle, conin the union of the merely nataral activity of

activity, then,

impulse with the rational activity of insight,

1

or,

more

Cf. p. 110, n. 1, supra.

183, n.
3
4

2,

and

which deals primarily with excess. Another

Etk.
vii.

p. 107, n. 2, supra.

5,

characteristic of

action as dis-

See pp. 115 sqq. supra. Eth. ii. 3 (see i. 6), vi. 5, 1140, b, 22; Metaph.^i. 1,1025,
b, 22.
5
i.

tinguished from knowledge which, however, Aristotle does not mention in this connection has already been mentioned, p.

Eth.
a,

vi.

5,

1129,

83

1140, b, 22 cf. v. MetapTi. v. 29 fin.

160

ARISTOTLE

accurately, in the subordination to reason of that part of the soul which while itself irrational is yet suscep
tible of rational

determination

namely, desire.
is

The
the

ultimate source of moral action

will,

the rational desire or

is

and the most

essential property of will

it

freedom with which

rational impulses. 2

decides between sensual

and

when freedom
Virtue
is

itself

Morality, however, is only perfect/? has become a second nature./

will,

a permanent quality of the

:

habit

acquired by free activity morality has its roots in 3 If we ask, therefore, what is custom, rjOos in sOos the origin of virtue, the answer is that it comes neither

by nature nor by instruction, but by

practice.

For

while natural disposition is the necessary condition, and ethical knowledge the natural fruit of virtue, yet for its essential character as a definite bent of the will
virtue
1

is

4 wholly dependent on continued moral activity,

Etli.

i.

13 ad fin.

See also what is said on this subject p. 115 sq. 3 Seep. 153 andp.!56,n. 4, 4 After showing that one be2

cupovp.evos Si avra, rb 5e rpirov Kal eav Kal /3e/3cucos d^raKiv^rcas

^X wv
/niKpbv

irpdrrrj

irpbs

Se rb rets
p.tv

s?/>.

aperds [sc.
r)

e;e/i>]

rb

eiSeVat

comes moral only by doing moral

actions, Etll.
4), Aristotle
ii.
1

(see p. 156, n.

asks whether we do not in making this assertion involve ourselves in a circle, since in order to do moral actions

ouSev itrxuet, TO 5 d\\a ou /jLtKpbv dAAd rb irav Swarai, fiirep e: TOU Tro\\a.Kis irpdrreiv rd SiKaiaKal craxppova TrepryiVeTat. X.
:

quoted

we must apparently be already

moral
;

10, 1179, b, 23 (after the words 6 5e \6yos Kal p. 156, n. 4) y SiSaxv ^TTOT OVK eV oVacrij/ dAAa Se r; TrpoSLipydadai Iffxvy,
TO?S
-jrpbs
eflecrt

not so

and answers that in a work of art

should

it

is
is

T}\V

it

rb

/caA<is

sufficient that it

itself

be

cocnrep

of a certain character, ra 5e Kara rds aperas yivo^va OVK lav avrd

ircas

oW^ta

-y^v ou

rov aKpoarov ^/vx hf x a l P eiJ/ Ka l v- -ffe iv, rb T}\V Opzfyovcrai

at/
3

yap

aKoixreie

\6yov

%XP

SiKaicas ^

rerai,

dAAa
edi/

crcacppovws irpdrKal edy d irpdrrow irws

dirorpeTrovros ou8 au O-UI/CI TJ 6 Kara Trddos rbv 8 ovrws exovra Trcas olov re /u.traTre LO ai ; oAcus T ou
u>f

rpdrrr), irp&rov yuev edj/ elSws,

Trpoaipov/j.svos,

Sowe?

\6yq>

Kal

if

pa-

&ia- Se?

5})

uTret/ceii/ rb irdQos dAAa rb ^Bos irpovirdpxeiv nus

ETHICS

161

by which that which was at first matter of free resolve Even the becomes an unfailing certainty of character.
1

comprehension of ethical doctrine

ing to Aristotle,

is

conditioned, accord:

by

practice in virtuous action

he

who

would

listen to a

moral discourse must be already well

practised in virtue. The moral will must precede the 2 Virtue, therefore, always pre knowledge of morals. Chil supposes a certain degree of spiritual maturity.

dren and slaves have no virtue in the

the

strict sense of

word,

for

they have no

will,

imperfect one, and young men 3 ^* philosophy, because they still lack stability. Hitherto we have been concerned merely with the

or as yet only an are unfit for moral

L^ \

fr

form of moral conduct

contents.

of the
will is

we as yet know nothing of its we have found to be a moral quality will. We have now to ask what quality of the moral ? To this Aristotle answers first quite
:

Virtue

the quality, by means of which man not becomes himself good, but rightly performs his only 4 Right activity he further defines as proper activity.
generally
:

artpyov TO KaX^iv Svffx^p^vov rb al^xpov. Somewhat more is conceded to instruction Polit. vii. 13,1338,a, 38
ot/ceiov TTJS apeTTjs,

Here also tyixris eOos \6yos sqq. are mentioned as the three sources of virtue of the last, however, it TroAAa yap irapa is remarked TOVS fdiff^ovs Kal T}\V fyiHTiv Trpdr;
:

Aristotle differs from him merely in distinguishing- the higher virtue of the philosopher from that of habit, while Plato limits moral virtue to this source, l Ibid. ii. 3 (see preced. n.): it is aproperty of virtue /Qe/3cuo>s Kal
a/neraKLvr]rcas c. 2, 452, a.
7787?

Cf. Zte ^x eiv 27 (iiffTrep yap

:

Mem.
fyvffis

ffi

\ws

Sia TOJ/ \6yov, eav irtiaQwffiv X iv fcXriov. The di-

TO e0os,
2

and
i.

p. 116, n. 3, supra.

Etli.

1, 2,

unimhowever, is vergence, Plato, of whose Ianportant. guage we are forcibly reminded in the above passages, had taught that moral habit must precede insight (see Ph.d. 6V.i.pp. 532 sq.);

1095,
3

a, 4, vi. 13,

1094, h, 1144, b, 30.

27 sqq.
:

Ibid.
8
r)0os
i.

i.

with the words

:

Siatyepei
$)

ovQzv vzos T^IV TiXiKiav

TO
4

Polit.

c. 10, 1100, a, 1, veap6s 13, 1260, a, 12 sqq. 31.

ii.

Ibid.

5: pt]r4ov ovv

on

VOL.

II.

162

ARISTOTLE

that which avoids the extremes of excess and defect, and conversely, and thus preserves the proper mean
l
:

wrong

activity is that

which deviates on one side or the

2

other from this boundary line. the nature and position of the

In further determining proper mean, we have to

take into account, not merely the object of our action, but, what is much more important, our own personal
nature. 3

The problem mean relating to proper

of morality is to strike the ourselves in feeling and action neither to overstep or fall short of the limit set by the character of the agent, the object and the circum
:

stance^.

Aristotle admits, indeed, that this description

?j

iraffa aper??, ov ctv

e

aper/;,

avro re
epyov
7]

3)

Trpbs

rj/mas

rb
J

tffov

*X OV avrov ev
67Ti

cnroreAe?
airooi(ico~LV

KCU
.

rb
et 8)j

virp/3o\ris

Kal

AAen|/ea S.
/me<rov

TrdvTUV OlirWS

^(, Kal

TOUT rOV

ys avOpuirov aperr) e lf] av e |(s r/s ayadbs avQpuTros yiverai Kal cu rb kavrov epyov a7ro5c6crej, Ibid. 1106, b, 8: el 5^ iraffa eTntTTrj/uTj oirrco rb Hpyov eu e TnTeAe?,
a<

ac/>

irpbs

TO

fjifffov

f}\4irovffa
(.
. .

Kal

fls

rovro

fayovcra

ra Hpya
KKL
e5

cos TTJS

Se rov ^aev Trpdy/j-aros TO tffov airex 01 ^Karepov ruv aKD jov, oirep fffrlv ej/ Kal ravrbv iraffi, irpbs ii/uas Se o fJ.r TS -TrAeo^a^et TOVTO 8 oi/_\; e^ /j-Tire eAAe/Tret. Tai/Tbi Traaiv. If, for example, two cutlets are too little food, while ten are too much, the /xeVoi/ Kara TO irpay/jia would be

oi<5e

T7JS

TTJS 5e

this amount, however, might be too much for one, too little for another ovrw 8/7 iras tTruirr^wv six
:
:

aKpifietfTepa Kal afitivtov earlv, lacnrep Kal ?; (pi/ffis, rov ^teVou

&i/ ei rj o-Toxao"Ti/c^.

rrjv vvepfioXTiv (pevyei,

jj.lv

rb Se

fj.fo~ov

Kal rrjv eAAenJ/ii ^VjTe? Kal rov6

Trpdy-

aipe irai,
/j.aros
4

^taov Se ov rb rov
Trpbs
Tj/j-as.

Aristotle remarks that either Hie virtue or the vice have not unfrequently no name to desig nate them in common language
2
;

dAAa T^

Hid. 1106, b, 16 (after the words quoted inn. 1, supra) \tyta

:

5e rTjV 7]OiKr]f
e o-Ti

[apeT^]

avrt]

ydp

Etli.

1107, b, 1, 7, 30, a, 5,- 16, iii. 10, 1115, b, 25, 1119, a, 10, iv. 1, 1119, b, 10 sq., 1125, b, 17, 26, c. 12, b, 19, c. 13, 1127, a, 14. 3 Ibid. 1106, a, 26: eV
ii.

7,

1108,
c. 11, 34, c.

Kal Trpd^eis, eV Se TouTOis effrlv uTrep^SoA^ Kal eXXeityis

TTfpl
Trdd-r]

Kal
ical

rb

ytteVoj/.

oiov

Kal

<po/3r)0rivai

1126,
iravr\

Oappri(rai

Kal

eTridv/jLrjffai

Kal
o Aais

Kal Kal
/j.a\\ov OVK eu
irpbs

eAeyjtrai

Kal

XvirriQrivai
ijTroi/,

o~n

Kal

8/j

(rwe;e?
/jLev

/ecu

SiatptrcS tffn Xafitlv

Kal

rb

TrAerof
T

rb 5 (\aTrov rb
7)

iffov,

Kal

avra

Kar

avrb rb

ovs Kal

TO 8 oVe ov eVeKa Kai

a/j-tyorepa ols Kal Se? Kal e

(^>

Kal

u>s

8el,

ETHICS
is

163

still

a very general one, and that

closer if
it

we have to look we would discover the proper mean, arid with

l

the right criterion of action but (the opOos \6yoi) he can only here refer us to practical insight, whose
;

suitably nature, conformably to a reasonable definition, such as 2 the man of insight would
give.

it is to mark out what is right in particular and he therefore defines virtue as that quality of the will which preserves the mean to our

business
;

cases

view Aristotle goes on to deal with the particular virtues, without any attempt to deduce them from any one definite principle. Even the
this point of

From

suggestions towards such a deduction which were to be found in his own theory as above stated, he left on one side. that he had Seeing investigated the idea of

Happiness, and had found in Virtue the essential means thereto, he might have made an attempt to define the various kinds of activity which enable us to reach this end, and so have sought to arrive at the main kinds
does, however, nothing of the kind. gives us certain indications of the points of view from which he deals with the order of the

of

Virtue.

He

Even where he

,ueV<n/

Te Kal apurrov, oTrep eo-Tt rijs dpo icas Sf /cat irepl ras irpd|ets farlv u7rep/3oA}/ Kal Kal TO peffov .... ^eo-orTjs eAAet^ts ris apa fo-rlv r) apery, (TTOxa<rriKr] ye o5o"a rov n4ffov. Of. foil. n.
dpeTTjs.
:

jueo-OTTjro^, as ^era|u Qauev e/i/at rrjs vireppohfjs Kal rr,s

eAAffyeajs,
eo-rl
j.ei,,

ovcras

Kara r6v
8e trace s
. .

opfloV \6yov.

5e

ov9h
ras

Sto 5e? Kal

-rrepl

rrjs

Etk. vi. 1 we ought to choose, as before remarked (ii. 5) the fifcroi/, not the virep/3o\7] or eAAei^is_Tb Se fietroif evrlv is 6 In every\6yos o opebs \eyfi.

aXrtQes eli/cu TOUT ftpqfjifvov, aAAa Kal rls T early 6 5ta>pto>teW

6p6bs Aoyoy Kal rovrov ris opos. * Ibid. ii. 6 init. tffnv apa $ ape T ^ e|ts irpoaiperiK^ eV ^(ror^n
:

thing

e o-Tt

TIS (T/coTrbs ?rpbs

&j/ airo-

olffa rfj irp6s

T)fj.as,

wptcriufvr}
6pi<Tiei><

^AeVwt/ 6

Ao-yy

TOI/

\6yov ex wi/

firirelvei

Kal ws \v 6 (pptvipos

Kal aviqcnv, Kai ris

effrlv dpos

ruv

164

ARISTOTLE

them, these points of view are themselves in no way based on any principle.
ethical virtues in his treatment of
1
1

After
:

defining

virtue

as

virtues

uff6Tf]s, Aristotle continues, Etli.

ii.

from the general statement we must turn to particular in

7

which consist in the subordination of the lower instincts that are concerned with the

mere defence and maintenance

of life
Qvfjibs,
:

stances of the principle.

ovv
Ka\
<$>6fiovs

Trepl \*.\v

bravery the virtue of

6dppr)

avSpeia

p.^ff6rf]s

....

Trepi

ySovas 5e Kal

temperance the virtue of The second group of fTTL9vfj.ia.

[those, i.e., as is here hinted, and definitely stated in and iii. 13, 1117, b, 27sqq. of
\viras

a^

7et

0"ts]

Gbitypoavvf]

....
Se

Trepl

Se

virtues (liberality, love of honour, gentleness, and justice, which is placed last for special reasons) have for the sphere of their exercise political life in time of

to these belongs also

irepl

TL^V Kal aXo^vxla, and the corresponding anonymous vir tue the virepfioX)) of which is
ambition, eori Se Kal
. . .

Trepl

ju,eo-oT7js,

which

he

opyriv calls

Furthermore, there are TrpaoTTjs. three ^eo-oTTjres which relate to Koivuvia. \6yuv Kal Trpc|ecoi/, one to TO aXr)6s in these (a\7j0em), the two others to TO ySv, the one
infra), eV TrcuSta, the other (p. 169, n. 4, infra),
(p.

peace, and the part which the individual takes in affairs of state, as well as the positions he the third the occupies in it amenity of life, r6 eS gfjv. But it is impossible to show that Ari stotle founds his classification of the virtues upon this scheme. In the first place, the reason
;

which he himself gives for con selfand bravery necting

command with one

another

is j

169,

n. 6,

eV

-naff i

TOLS

Kara TOV
iii.

fiiov.

Of
it

bravery
yap
at
ra>v

and
aX6yuv
is

ffwcppoa-vvri

is

further remarked,
aperai.

13j

SOKOVCTI

This

/xepwv avrai eli/ai classification,

is

that they stand for the virtues of the irrational parts of a man; this is only to say (unless, with KAMSAUER, we reject the words altogether) that it is suitable to discuss self-command along

however,

a loose one, nor

with bravery because it has been customary since the time

of Plato to name these together as the virtues of

any

defined principle clearly HACKER S discoverable in it. attempt in his interesting essay

two
6v/j.bs

TuHungsprincip der moralischen gendreihe in der nikomackischen Ethik, Berl. 1863) to show that
Aristotle
is

(Das

EintJicllungs-

und Anord-

and TO eViflujUTyTiKov respectively, Had he been governed by those which principles of classification Hacker ascribes to him, he must
have classed
bravery.
If
TrpaoTrjs

along with

guided by such a

principle imports, apparently, more into his account than is admissible. According to this view, Aristotle intended to indi cate in the first place those

the latter is the subordination of the instinct of self, the former is (iv. 11) the; but anger /xeo-oV7js irepi opyds of springs from the instinct
:

revenge, which, like bravery,

had

ETHICS
There

165

is therefore nothing for us to do bat to set out, without reference to any exact logical connection, what Aristotle has himself said as to those virtues which he

enumerates.

The preliminary
its seat in
;

proposition, that there are

indeed,

more

Qv^s (iv. 11, 1126, a, 19 sqq. Rliet. ii. 2 init. 12, 1389, 26 Kal avSpeiorepoi [ot ve ot] a,
:

ovre yap opyi6v/j.w5LS yap 6/j.evos ovSels (po&e iTai, cf. p. 583,
.

2),

and which,

like

it

(Etli.

iii.

is Aristotle from seeing in bravery only the yuecrdVTjs of an animal instinct, in anger that is properly directed and controlled that of a higher instinct which is concerned with civil life, that

11, 1116, b,

23 sqq.),

we

share

he declares

(Etli.

iii.

11, 1116, b,

with the

brutes.

Anger and

bravery, therefore, are so closely related that it is often difficult to distinguish them from one another (Eth. ii. 9, 1109, b, 16
sqq., iv. 11, 1126, b, 1, cf. Rliet. ii. 5, 1383, b, 7), and in Rliet. ii. 8,

1385, b, 30, anger

is

irdOos

avSplas.
irepl

If,

even called notwith

standing
yiico-oTTjs

belong
virtues

this relationship, the rets opyas is said to to a different group of

from bravery, on the ground that the latter springs only from the instinct to pre
serve the vegetative
life,

when men 23-1117, a, 9): despise clanger from anger or desire for revenge (opyi^o/j.fvoi, Ti/j.wpov/j.evoi^) they can no more be called brave than an animal when it rushes in rage \_Sia TUV QV/J.OV, which here hardly differs from opy$~] upon the huntsman who has wounded it. Nor does the position assigned to the virtues which are concerned with the use of money admit of beingexplained on the ground that riches always secure a certain
social station

to

its

possessor

while

(HACKER,

p.

16), for there is

no

anger

is

concerned chiefly with

injuries
p.

honour of a
15,

inflicted the upon citizen (HACKER, 18), this is scarcely con

allusion in Aristotle to this point of view, although in the case of /uiya\OTrp7rta (not, however, of
e

Aeu0e/HOT77s)

mention

is

made,

sistent with the statements of Etli. iv. 11, 1125, b, Aristotle. 30, he says expressly of anger ra 5e s/nTroiovvra iro\\a Kal 8ia<p:

other things, of expendi ture for public purposes. Tf, on the other hand, this had been the

among

povra, and,
,

on the other hand, of

principle of classi(ication,bravery in war would have found a place

in this group. Finally, it cannot be said that the third group con cerns TO eu ($v any more closely than the other two for e5 fjv in the Aristotelian selfsense,
;

r braver} that it does not consist in not fearing death under any circumstances, but in not fearing death eV TO?S KaAAi<TTois,especially in war (iii. 9, 1115, a, 28), which

has a much more direct relation to political life than the loss of merely personal honour. So far

command,
are

liberality

and

justice,

certainly
T() r)du

more

important

than

eV TrcuSm.

166

ARISTOTLE

virtues than one, is established by Aristotle, against the position of Socrates, who had reduced them all to Aristotle himself admits that all completed Insight.
is in its essence and principle one and the same, and that with Insight all other virtues are given. Yet at the same time he shows that the natural basis of virtue the moral circumstances must be different in different cases. The will of the slave, for example, is

Virtue

different

from the will of the freeman

the child
is

the will of the

woman and
adult man.

not the same as the will of the

Therefore he holds that the moral activity of different individuals must be different. Not only
possess a particular virtue which others do not possess, but it is also true that different demands must be made on each particular class of

will one individual

men. 2
Ethics
1
,

Aristotle says very little (and that not in bis but in his (Economics) of the virtues of the
vi. 13,

Etk.
re

oi6v

ayaGbv

e?i/at

1144, b, 31 Kvpias avzv

:

oi>x

irpbs

avrbv rptirov, dAA 6ffov rb avrov epyov. Sib rbv

aperrjv,
. .
.

It appears, indeed, r,QiK?is aperrjs. as though the virtues could be

riQiK}}v

rcav
avrols.

tKavrov
r<av

oaov

eViySaAAei

separated from one another avrbs v(pve(rraros Trpbs yap 6 a?ra(ras, &(TTG T r)v /uej/ tfSr) rrjv S OVTTW ei\ri(pcas etrrat. This ^s not TOVTO yap Kara /j.fv TO.S really so
ol>

tiere (pavc-pbv

on

early

^0t/cr? dper)?
/cat

c-ipritifvoov

Travruv.

ou^ ^
avfipos,

ttvrfy ffca(ppo(rvi/r)

yuvaiKos Kal

&c. Although it is not here said that one virtue can exist

airXws

tyvcrmas aperas eVSe xerat, /ca0 as Se Aeyerni ayaObs, OVK eVSe-

X^rai
-

apa yap ry

fypovr]<Ti

/j.iS.

oucrp Traaai
vi. 13,
/Aei/

i>Trdpov<nv.

without the others, and although on the other hand, this is adniitted JiJth. vi. 13 to be the case only with the physical virtues, yet
the imperfect virtue of slaves or women must be regarded as an

See preceding
1260, a, 10:
/j.opia

n.

and

Polit.

trao-iv

eVi7rapx e

ra

rjjs

ij/vxys,
. . .

a\\
6/j.oiws

incomplete
t-ion,

eVuTrapxet Siatyepovrws
<?x

and partial posseswhich excludes the com-

roivvv avayKcuov Ire p^ ras fLV Ka 5e?v ijdLKas viroXT]irrov aperds uei/ fj.Tfx lv Tavras, dA\ ov rbv
"

prehensive virtue of insight, and therefore extends to some and not to others.

ETHICS
several classes.

167

perfected form, which

In the Mhics he treats of Virtue in its it assumes in man, whom alone he

1

elsewhere regards as the perfect type of humanity, and it is of this alone that he describes the constituent parts.

Bravery

stands at the head of the

list

of the virtues.

He

is

brave

who does not

fear a glorious death or the

near danger of death, or more generally he who endures, dares or fears what he ought to, for the right object, in
2 The extremes way and at the right time. between which Bravery stands as the mean are on the one side Insensibility and Foolhardiness, and on the other

the right

Cowardice. 3

identified with

Nearly related to Bravery, but not to be it, are Civil Courage and the courage

which springs from compulsion, or anger, or the wish to escape from a pain, 4 or which is founded upon fami
liarity

a favourable result. 5

with the apparently terrible or upon the hope of Self-control 6 follows as the second

virtue, which, however, Aristotle limits to the preserva1

Etli.

iii.

9-12.

5/jeia

most closely resembles true

a,
Si

C.

Ka\bv
7ri(/>e

9, 1115, a, 33: 6 ire pi rbv QO.VO.TOV dSe^s Kal ocra Qa.va.rov

bravery

(1116, apTT)V yivsrai

8ta /caAou

27),
alSoo

tin

5t

yap Kal
yap~)

b,

pei v-rroyvia ovra. c. 10, 1115, 6 /j,v ovv a, Se? Kal ou eVe/ca
:

ope^iv (TI^TIS

Kal

virofjievtov

Kal (pofiov/j.vos, Kal ws Se?

e Kal6appiav,av8pe ios 6 A<ryos, yap, Kal us
tu>

Kal ore,
/car

6/j.oicas

ovi8ovs OVTOS. alo"vpov Nevertheless Aristotle distinguishes between them, TroAm/o?

(pvyyv

aiav

Kal Trpdrrei 6 ai/5peTos KaXov 8}} eVe/co 6 dj/Spetos virofjievei

Trao-%61
.
.
.

avSpeia being heteronomous to the extent that the brave deed is not done for its own sake.
c. 13-15, in "StWfypoffvvf}, contrast to a.Ko\a(ria and to a species of insensibility for which there is no name, as it is not

Kal irpaTTfi TO. Kara rr]v avSpetav. Cf. Rhet. i. 9, 1366, b, 11. 3 C. 10, 1115, b, 24 sqq.
4

As
of

in

suicide,

which Ari-

stotle

therefore

mark
1116,
5

regards as a cowardice; iii. 11,

1166, b, 11.

a, 12, cf. ix. 4,

C. 88 (where, however, 1117, a, 20, the words 3) Kal must be

found among men (c. 14, 1119, a, 9; cf. vii. 11 init.: Aristotle would perhaps have ascribed this failing, of which he says, et
5
5<?

rep p-qQev fffnv ytiv /^TjSe

Sta^epet
efrj

omitted).
VOL.
II.

Of

these,

iroAiTt/cr/ a.v-

erepov

erepou,

ir6ppci)

tiv

TOU

*M 4

168

ARISTOTLE

tion of the proper mean in the pleasures of touch and in the satisfaction of the merely animal and sexual

impulses.
3

Next comes Generosity,

as the proper
2

mean

between Avarice and Extravagance, the attitude in which is at once giving and taking external goods 3 and worthy of a free man, and the kindred virtue moral
of Munificence in expenditure.
Ascetics avdpwiros elvai, to the of a later time) of. vii. 8, 1150, a, IV) sqq. and the passages re
;

Magnanimity
4

(in his

Me7aAo7rpe7reta,

ibid.
a,

4-6,
23,

ferred to

below from book

vii.

which is denned, 1122, the words ei/ ptytOti

5a7rai/7j:

by

TTpfTrovo-a

upon

e 7/cpaTeta
1.

and

aKpaoia

Rliet.

it

stands

iUd
/xeTa

13.

In the words with

[bravery]
8 o
/j.pu>v

which he opens this discussion,

5e

ravTTiv

irepl
i

tween /juKpoirpeireia, hand, and fiavavo-ia and aweipoKa\la on the other. It differs from eAeuin having to do, not only flepiJ-rrjs with the right and proper, but with the sumptuous expenditure

midway be on the one

(Tdxppoa vv ns
at

\ey(a/j.V

KOV ff

yap TUV a\6yu)V

avrai flvat is referring to aperat, Aristotle

;

Plato s doctrine he himself has no reason to ascribe bravery, any more than moral virtue as a whole, to the irrational element
in the soul.
1

money (iv. 4, 1122, b, 10 sqq., where, however, 1. 18, we shall have to read, with Cod. L b b
of

Kal

fffTiv

epyov

/j.eya\OTrpeireia

Or,

more

correctly,

libera

lity, eAeu0epiOT7js.
"

AveAeu0epia

worse

and cur curia. The and more incurable of

work in great of and explain 1. 12 as meaning either the magnitude here is contributed by the jueyaexcellence

matters,

these faults is avarice, Etli. iv. 3, 1121, a, 19 sqq. 3 The noble Etli. iv. 1-3. handles spirit in which Aristotle
this subject
KCCT
ctpeTTji/

other passages, in

seen, among 2 init. at 5e TOV 7rpae/s KaAai Kal

may be
Kal
6

c.

Ka\ov
Sclxrei

eVe/co.

TOV /caAou

eVe/ca

eAev0epiOS Kal 6p9us

ovt>

being a sort of great ness of liberality in respect to the same objects, or it is the which con magnitude here stitutes, so to speak, the great ness in the munificence, &c. unless we prefer the surmise of RASSOW, Forsch. iib. d. nilto Ethik. 82, who inserts \a&ovo"ns
AoTrpeTrrjs,
;

rb Kal ravra ^Se cos ^ aAuTrws yap KOT aperriv r/5i; ?) a\virov,
^Kiffra Se \vir-np6v
/a.))

SeT,

^ TOV

KaXov

6^5e

5i5ous ols

after peyedos, which might easily have fallen out owing to the OUO-TJS which follows, so that the

eVe/ca

aAAa

meaning

is

liberality

which

is

5ia TIV &\\i)v alrlav, OVK eAeu9e>os a\\ aAAos ris ^B-fifferai. ovfr 6
TO. /J.a\\ov yap e Aorr kv Tqs KaA^y Trpdews, TOVTO

directed to the same object at taining a sort of grandeur ). met. i. 9, 1366, b, 18. 5 Me-yaAoiJ t X a as midway be-

ETHICS

169

description of which Aristotle has, perhaps, before his mind the example of his great pupil), honourable ambi 2 3 of Amiability, 4 Gentleness, the social virtues tion,
1

6 5 Simplicity, Geniality in company follow and to these are added the graces of temperament, 7 Modesty, 8 and
:

righteous Indignation.
tween meanness of spirit O and vanity (XOW^TTJS),
t/c
J/i>X

wards particular persons.

iv.
is
iii.

End.
simply

7,

1233, b, 29,
<f>t\ia.

it

is

7_9

Rliet. ibid.

Mya\6tyvxos
avrbv

called

(1123, b, 2) o

/Aeyd\cai>

a^itav

aios wv
cellence.
1

this virtue,

therefore,

always presupposes
This
virtue
is

actual

ex

5 The likewise nameless mean between vain-boasting (dAct^i/em) and self-depreciation (e/pcoj/eux, of which the extreme is seen in

described,

Etli. iv. 10, as

QiXoTi/jiia

the

mean between
which
is
e Aeu-

and

aQiXoTipia,

the pavKOTTivovpyos), iv 13. 6 EurpaTreAi a or eVi5ejoT7js (iv. 14), the opposites being /3a>,uoAoxia. is a

related to /xeyaAovJ/uxi a as
fleptoTTjs

and

aypdrris.
:

Here

also

it

is

to /meyaXoirptireia, but
is

for
2

which there

no proper
opyds, iv.

question of social tact 6 1128, b, 31 5^ X aP ie

eAeufle ptos

(cf.

"

Kal

word.

ovTcas

et,

diov

v6/j.os

The
,

juetrJrTjs

irepl

11.

Aristotle calls this virtue the corresponding vices

with especial reference, however, to the entertainment of

8>v

eai;T<),

society.
7

and

aopyna-ta,

remark
Kal

all these ing, however, that names are coined by him for the

Me<ro ro7s TrdOefft TT?Tes eV ev rots Trepl TO. irdOi] (ii. 7,

1108,
these,

a,

30),

called
iii.

purpose. The irpaos is accordingly ols 5e? Kal ols Set defined as 6
<=<>

Trae^TLKal, Ettd.

jueaoTTjTes 7 init.

Among
,

End.

iii.

classes also

opyi6/J.vos, Ibid, ore al offov \p6vov. d/cpo xoAos and the xaAeTrJy.
3

ert 8e

Kal

cos

Se? Kal

and
15,
ii.

on the
8

Ai$6s.
157,

See
n.

Etli.
2,

iv.

Which

14 fin., title.

Aristotle himself, iv. comprises under this

4 Using the word to designate the nameless virtue which, Etli. iv. 12, is opposed on the one side

supra). The modest man, according to these passages, is the mean between the shameless and the bashful
7
(p.

man (:aTa7rA^|). Modesty, how ever, is not so much a virtue in

the proper sense as a praiseworthy affection suitable only for youth, as the adult should do nothing
of

to complaisance and flattery, on the other to unsociableness and moroseness, and described as the

tact which knows 6fii\ftv us Se?. Aristotle there remarks that it closely resembles a, but differs from it in not resting upon inclination or dislike to
social
</>*At

which he requires to be ashamed. 9 Only in ii. 7, 1108, a, 35 sqq., where it is described as

(j>66t>ov

Kal

170

ARISTOTLE

Justice, however, claims the fullest treatment, and Aristotle has devoted to it the whole of the fifth book
1 of his Ethics.

Considering the close connection be

tween the Ethics and the

special

attention

which the
!

Politics, it was necessary that should be paid to the virtue upon maintenance of the commonwealth most

L
f

Justice, however, is not here to be directly depends. understood in the wider sense in which it is equivalent
2 to social virtue as a whole, but in its

narrower mean-

in

or
D"

as that virtue which has to do with the distribution

3 of goods, the preservation, namely, of the proper mean 4 or proportion in assigning advantages or disadvantages.

it

concerns joy and sorrow at the fortunes of others, and consists in T Au7re?cr0cu etrl TO?S avaius tv Similarly Rhet. ii. 9 TrpaTTovffiv.
init.

highest criterion eVet 8 o T init.

.

cf.

Eth.

v.

6
KOI

HSittos avicros Kal

VKTOV,
TL
8
etrrl
(TTL

Srj\ov
et

on

TOV O.viffOV
. .

TOVTO
C.

TO

iffov

ovv rb aSiIffOV.

H. FBCHNEE, Ueber den GerecMiy1

Cf

on

this

subject

KOV
init,
4

&VHTOV, TO SlKCUOV

keitsbeyriff d. Arist. (Lpz. 1855),

As the distinguishing mark

HILDENBRAND, Gesch. u. System d. Reclits- nnd Staatsi. 281-331, who also j>htto*(ipMe, cites other literature; PRANTL in BLUNTSCHLI S Staatworterbuch, i. 351 sqq. TRENDELENpp. 27-56
;
;

of a5i/aa in this narrower sense, irAeoyeKTelV is mentioned (c. 4) TTfpl TlfJ-^V ?) XP hfMara
l

$1

nvi e^o:/wev tv\ bvofj-ari Aa/3eu/ TauTa irdvra, Kal Si ^

ft
aTrb

rfyv
(c.

TOV

/ce p5ois
a, ,

it

consists

BURG, Hist. Beitr.

-

iii.

399 sqq.
fyvXaKTlKO.

Ttt

TTOirjTLKO.

Kal
KOll

10, 1134, auTa? i/e/xetj/

33) in
aTrAcor

ruv

Ti)S
ttUTTJS

evSai/j.oi ias
TTJ

Kal

TWV

TTOAtTlKTJ

popiav COVLa the

ap6T$7 TeAeia,
irpbs

that

^epos aperris aAA oArj evavria afiiKia ^.epos apery?, ov5 TI f) /ca/aas aAA oAT? KaKia
.
.

erepoi/, it is ov

aAA ov% of which

air\u>s

aAAa
said

it

is

eAarToi 8e roav avrAaJs Ka/cwj/. Of justice, on the other hand, it is said, c. 9, 1134, a, 1: Kal ecrrl Ka6 $\v 6 5 iKaios
)

rpaKTiKbs Kara Trpcaipecrtv

TOV

/J.ei>

rrfs oA?7S

dper^s ovffa

XP^"

1S

Trpbs

#AAoy, TJ 1129, b, 17, 25 sqq. 1130, a, 8, c. 5, 1130, b, 18). 3 For the mean, as in the case of every other virtue, is here the

8e TT}? KaKias (Eth. v. 3,

Kal 8mi e u7]TJ/cby ical a\\ov Kal Trpbs eTepoi/, ov% OVTWS wffTe TOV /j.V cupeToG TrAeoi/ avTw eAccTTOi/ Se
Si/catou,
/

avTw

irpbs

tTp<p

T<p

TT^aiov, TOV /3Aa/8epoO 8 ava.ira\ii>, aAAa TOV iffov TOV /caT ava\oyiav, It &/J.QIUS oe Kal aAAoj irpos a\\ov.
1

\*( Rhet.

i.

9,

1366, b, 9)

ETHICS
But
this proportion will

171

be different according as we
!

are dealing with the distribution of civil advantages and the common property, which is the function of
distributive justice, or with the removal and prevention of wrongs, which is the function of corrective justice.
1

In both cases the distribution of goods according to the law of quality must be the aim. 2 But this law demands
in the former case that each should receive, not an equal amount, but an amount proportionate to his deserts.

The distribution,
:

therefore,

is

here

made in a geometrical

as the merits of are to those of B, so is proportion the honour or advantage which receives to that which B receives. 3 In the other case, which relates to the

A A

correction of inequalities produced by wrong, and to contracts, there is no question of the merits of the
individual.
loss in

Everyone who has done wrong must

;

suffer

proportion to the unjust profit which he has there is subtracted from his gains an appropriated amount equivalent to the loss of the man who has
suffered the wrong. 4
St

In like manner, in buying and

xovffiv.

fy ra avraiv

Ka.(TToi

J3eitr.

ii.

357 sqq.

Right and justice, therefore, find a place only among beings who,
like

13EANDIS, p.
<L

man, may possess too much

not

sq. ; KASSOW, Forsvh. ul. nikoni,. Eth. 17, 93).

3

1421

This

is

referred to Polit.
16.

iii.

those who, like the gods, are confined

or too little
to

among

no limit in this respect, or who, like the incurably bad, are incompetent to possess anything
at all; Eth, v. 13, 1137, a, 26.
1

We

should speak rather of

right.

Conversely of public burdens, each would have to take his share according to his capacity for discharging them. Aristotle, however, does not touch upon this point, although he must have had it in view, Eth. v.
0,

1280,

a,

public
2

and private

ALKO.IOV in this

sense

&SIKOV = &VKJOV. in the wider sense, on the other hand, the former = = Trapa.voiJ.ov (v. v6/j.i/j.ov, the latter

= fcroi/,

5;

cf.

TEENDBLENBUEG,

Hist,

7, 1131, b, 20, where he speaks of the eAarrov and pe ifrv KCIKOV. 4 By KepSos (advantage or gain) and fr/jiia (disadvantage or loss) Aristotle means in this connection, as he remarks, Eth. v

172

ARISTOTLE

question merely of Here, therefore, the rule is from him who has too that of arithmetical equality

it is a selling, renting, letting, &c.,

the value of the article.

much an amount
1

is

taken which will render both sides

In matters of exchange this equality consists equal. 2 The universal measure of value is in equality of value.
1132, a, 10, not merely what is commonly understood by them. As he comprehends under correc
7,
eiprj/icj/rji/

Kal

yap

dirb

KOIVWV
7,
eo"TCU

iav yiyvrjTaL rj KaTa TOV \6yov TOV

irpbs

tive justice not only penal also civil law, as well as the

but law

avTov

ftvirep

~x.ovffi

^AA7]Aa Ta

of

contract, he has greatly to extend the customary significa

of the

Ka l T ^ aSiKov TO flffevexOfvra avTiKi/u.vov TW SiKaici) TOvTCfj TTapa 8 V TO?S Tb avd\oyov effTiv.

T>

tion

words in order to

include these different concep tions under a common form of ex

pression. Accordingly he classes every injustice which anyone commits as /ce pSos, every injustice which anyone suffers as C^uta.
1

crvvaXXdypaffi 8 iKaiov fffTl TI, Kal TO &8iKov aviffov,

fjizv

fa

KaTa
K.O.TO.

Trjv

aAA ou avaXoyiav ^Kflyijv aAAa

api9{j.riTiKTiv.

TTJV

ovdev yap
<f>av\ov

Sta^epet,

et

eTTtei/crjs

air-

aAAa

irpbs

Ibid.

c.

5-7,

especially

c.

/j.6vov /SAeTret

TOV &\dfiovs Trjv Sta^opav 6 v6p.os &C. PLATO

5,

1130, b, 30:
Kal
/j.ev

rrjs 8e

Kara
KO.T

/j-epos

SiKaioffvvris

TOV
fffTiv

SiKaiov

ev

avrrjv eTSos rb ev

( Gorg. 508, A) had opposed iffoTTJS yetofLGTpiKT] to Tr\eov(ia.

2

After

discussing,

in

the

rcus
T)

Siavo/jLcus

T/^UTJS

TWV

a\\cav
rrjs

oaa.

xpTj/xaTwr yuepiora rois

/)
.

above passage, both distributive

KOLVcovovfTL

TroAire/ as,
o"u;

ej/

and corrective justice, Aristotle comes (c. 8) to the view that

justice consists in retribution, TO dvTnreTrovdbs (on which see Ph. d. Gr. i. 360, 2). This he rejects as a valid definition of justice in

8e TO

iv TO?S

aAAa y/u.a(n
jUeprj

OMTIKOV.
effTi TO.

TOVTOV Se yap avvuXXayiJ.d. rwv

5

Svo

Sioprcav

TO. JJLCV eKoixrid

TO.

aKovaia, eKOvffia /J.V

"

TOiaSe olov
eyyvrj,
dcaffLS

Trpaffis, uvij, ^a.veiffjj.os, XP^ 5 ? irapaKarad^KT], fj.lff-

eKovffia

5e Xe^erat,

OTI

r\

general, since it is applicable neither to distributive nor even, punitive strictly speaking, to
justice. Only Koivwviai aAAa/crt/cat rest upon rb avTiireirovObs, which,

CKOIHTLOS.

rSiv 8

aKo

ra
ta,

\adpoua, olov /cAorrTj, irpoaywyeia,

/3iam,
olov aiicia,
ir-fipoixris,
8eo"/ios,

fpap-

aTraria,
TO,

however, is here, not /COT laorri but KaT ava\oyiav TW avTiiroi

:

Se

Qdvaros,
:

apirayrj,
Tit

Trr]\aKicrfj.6s.
fj.fv

c.

KaKyyopla, irpoG, 1131, b, 27

yap Stave /j.7]TLKbv 5 tKaiov ruv KOIVWV aet /cara T^V ava\oyiav

avdXoyov tfu/x^ueVei r) Tr6\is (1132, b, 31 sqq.): it is not the same, but different, though equivalent things are exchanged norm the one another, for for each exchange being con-

yap

ETHICS

173

demand, which is the source of all exchange; and the Now symbol which represents demand is money.
1

as are tained in the formula the goods of the one to those of the other, so must that which the former obtains be to that Of. which the latter obtains. It is thus obvious ix. 1 init. that the previous assertion, that corrective justice proceeds ac cording to arithmetical propor tion, is inapplicable to this whole
:

much support for this view. From the passages quoted in the
find

preceding note, it is obvious that by distributive justice, Aristotle means that which has to do with the distribution of Koiva, whether these are honour or other advan
tages by corrective justice, on the other hand, so far as it relates to KOv<Tia ffvvaXXa.yfji.ar a, in the
;

class

of

transactions.

But

it

first

instance,

fair

dealing

in

not even apply to penal justice. Even here the proportion

does

commercial

life,

and not the

geometrical as A s act is to B s, so is the treatment which A re ceives to that which B receives. Only indemnification for injury
is
:

{is
/

determined to according arithmetical proportion, and even here it is merely an analogy, as it is only an equivalent that is granted (it is an obvious defect in Aristotle s theory that it makes no distinction between indemni
fication and punishment, and here treats punishment, which

legal justice of litigation, as the expression Kovaia (rvva.XKdyiJ.ara. indicates, since it is a name given to them (c. 5) because they rest upon voluntary contract. Even in these there are redress and cor rection the loss which, e.g., the
:

seller suffers

on the deliverance

of his goods is compensated by the payment for the same, so that neither party loses or gains
(c. 7, 1332, a, 18), and only when no agreement can be arrived at is the judge called in to under

certainly has other aims as well, merely as a loss inflicted upon the transgressor for the purpose of rectifying his unjust gain).

When,

however, TKENDELEN405 sqq.) distin guishes the justice in payment and repayment, upon the basis of which contracts are con

BUEG

(ibid.

tice,

from corrective jus and assigns it to distribu so that the latter embraces tive, the mutual justice of exchange as well as the distributive justice of the state, while corrective justice is confined to the action of the judge, either in inflicting penalties or in deciding cases of
cluded,

take the settlement. They be long, therefore, not to Sicw/e^T?riitbv, but to SiopOcariKov SiKaiov. On some other defects in Ari stotle s theory of justice, among which the chief is his failure clearly to grasp the general con ception of right, and to deduce a scientific scheme of natural rights, see HILDENBRAND, Hid.
p.

293 sqq.
1

Ibid.
e<

1133,
Set
o
TTCUS ircas

a,

19:
u>v

irdvra
tarrlv

ffvp-^Xfira

e?i/at,

aXXayi] Kal yivzrai

. .

rb vofjuff^ eA7jA.u#e

^aov
apa
rrj
ei/i

Set

irdvra yap nvi irdvra

aXrjdfia

rovro

fffrl

/aev

7]

disputed ownership, he cannot

174

ARISTOTLE

justice consists in right dealing with reference to these relations injustice in the opposite. Justice requires that
:

man

loss,

should not assign to himself greater profit or less to the other party greater loss or less profit, than
:

injustice consists in doing rightfully belongs to each 1 so. just or an unjust man, again, may be defined

as one

whose

will identifies itself

with one or the other

These two, injustice in the act and in A man may do the agent, do not absolutely coincide. without acting unjustly, 2 and one may act injustice
of action.
3 and accord unjustly without therefore being unjust ingly Aristotle makes a distinction between hurt,
;

mode

wrong, and

injustice.

rys xpeas TO
76701/6

tion

is

asked
yUTjTrco

eVct 5

tanv
6
TroTa

Kara

(TvvQT)Ki}v,

whence the
Cf
.

Kovvra

afiiKOV

elvot,

name

vo/^Lff/na,

from

v6/j.os.

b,
fiiKiav,

10 sqq. ix. 1,1164, a, 1. See the further treatment of money, Polit. i. 9, 1257, a, 31 sqq.

olov

See p. 170, n. 4, supra, and As justice ibid. c. 9, 1134, a, 6.

1

^ ArjffT-fis ; the reply is, that if one, e.g., commits adul tery from passion, not Sia irpoaipjuoixoy
fcrecas

apxh v

we must say
8

thus consists in respect for the

rights of others, it is called an d\\6rpiov dyaebv, c. 8, 1130, a, 3, c. 10, 1134, b, 2. 2 Etli. v. 10, 1135, a, 15 Svrtav
:

IL\V
oi>8e

ovi>,

afiiKos

OVK

effriv,

oiov

ouSe 8e, 6/cAe^/e Cf. follow fjLOixbs, eiJLoixevffe Se. ing note, p. 116, n. 3.
/cAe TTTTjs,

and

8e

rS>v

SiKttiuv
dSi/ce?

Kal
fj.lv

d8iK<av

r)V

Ibid. 1135, b, 11, all actions are divided into voluntary and

elpri/Jievwv,

Kal

SIKCUO-

irpaye i, orav eKcav TIS avrd irpdrrri

involuntary, and the former again into intentional and unintentional

(see p. 116 sqq. supra}
oixrSw ftXafi&v
T(Jov
:

orav
KOS
.

&KWV,
.

OUT
/)

dSi/cel

ovre

rpi&v

S^/

Si/ccuoTTpcrye? ccAA
.

Kara v vfj.fi eftf)8i.KaioTrpdeitovffiq)

kv

ra

s KOLVOO-

dSiWTjyua Se Kal
T<p

iapiara.1
)

Kal

viais [in a passage which Ari stotle has here, perhaps, in view,

UHTT

effrai

OI/TTO)

TI aSiKov /uei/ 4av pr] TO ZKOVGIOV

4,

jrpofffj.
3

Lams, ix. 861, E, PLATO had dis tinguished fiXafir) from dSiKTjjaa, cf. Ph. d. Gr. \. 719, 3 fin.~\ ra ij.lv /xer
a-yvoias ajj,apriifjiard effrtv [or

*C.

9 (see p. 170, n.

su-

more

pra\

the 8 iKaios had been defined

as irpaKTtKos TOV diKaiov

:

Kara srpoaipea iv
c.

10

init.

the ques

accurately, 1. 16, either drvx^/J-ara or a uapr f]fiaTa a/mapravfi fj.lv yap orav f) dpxfy sv avrcp ^ TTJS curias,
i

ETHICS

175

In discussing the nature of justice we must further take account of the difference between complete and incomplete natural and legal right. Eights in the
fullest sense exist
l

only between those

who

are free
political
2

and and

equal

hence the distinction between

domestic or
proprietary

paternal,

right.

Political
;

right, again, is divided into natural

and legal right the former of which is binding upon all men in like manner, while the latter rests on arbitrary statute, or refers to
particular cases
art/vel
5

and relations
. .

3
;

for

however dissimilar
op.oiov

orav
fiey,
/AT]

e^coflei/l

orav

ou

ravrbv rovrois aAA

fffriv
dSt/cta

ov

8e etSaJS
dSi/cTj^a
e.q.

[wrong
.

Trpof$ov\vo as Se, done in passion:

yap
ea>s

Trpbs

avrAaJs

Tb 5e
77

/CTTj/xa

ra aurov Kal rb TCKVOV,

/J,T)
.

anger]
Se

orav 5
Si/catos,

e /c irpoai.

av

TTTjAt/coi/

Kal
.

xa>pj(T0?7,

peVews,
0,11010)5

aSt/cos
/cat

ical

fj.oxG npos

uxrrrep ^ue pos

avrov

orav

trpo-

eAOjUepos SiKaioirpayfj

SiKaioTTpct.ye t

yvvalKa e o*Ti reKva Kal KTTjjj.ara rovro yap eVrt

Trpos

Stb ^uaAAoi/ St/catoy T) Trpbs

.

KWV TTpdrrr). But Se, &y (J.6VOV even involuntariness can only excuse oro /xr? /LLOVOV dyvoovvres aAAa Kal Si ayvoiav a/u.ypTdvovo~i, not wrong committed in thought lessness which is caused by cul
pable passion.
1131, a, 25: TO frrov^cvov effri Kal TO dirXws fiixaiov rovro Se Ka\ rb TToArrt/cbj 8 iKaiov. zffriv eVt KOivw&v fiiov irpbs rb tivai
1

TO olKovofj.iKbv SiKaiov zrepov Se /cat TOUTO ToO iroXiriKov. 3 Ibid. 1134, b, -18: ToC 5e TToAtTt/coG St/catou Tb (Uei/ (pvo~tKov eo~n rb Se VO/J.IKOV, (pvffiKbv fj.ev rb
Kal ov rip
o e|
?)
. .

So/celj/

)}

fj.

C. 10,

apx^s /u.ei ovdev Stacpe pet OI;TC;S aAAws, orav Se Oavrai Sta^e pet CTI 8aa e?ri ruv KaOfKaffra
.

vo/j-oderovo-iv.

Cf. C. 12, 1136, b,

i\tvQfpuv Kal tffwv ^ o.vaKo yia.v %) Kar war dpiQp.6v. Where these conditions are ab sent, we have not TO iroXiriKbv
avrdpKeiav,
S Kaiou, aAAa lar kind of
rl ZiKaiov [a

Natural right is universal unwritten law [v6/j.os Koivbs aypa33.

<pos^\
;

positive right

\_v6/u.os

Stos],

particu

on the other hand, is described as written law (Rliet.. i. 10, 1368,

7; cf. c. 14, 1375, a, 16, c. 15, 1375, a, 27, 1376, b, 23; Eth. viii. 15, 1162, b, 21): but even here there is a distinction between the written and the unwritten (or that part which belongs to
b,

justice,

guished from TO

as distin on-Aws St/caiov]

a0 o^oioVrjTa. /cal (b, 13) is always Kara VO/AOV Kal ovroi fv ols eirecpvKei flvai v6fj.os 5 ^ffav ev oTs virapx*i I<r6rrjs rov
b, 8: Tb Se OfffTToriKov OLKaiov Kal rb TrarpiKov
2

The former

custom and
J^VZ.
1134,

habit), Rlict.
cf.

i.

13,

1373, b, 4
a, 35.

Eth. x. 10, 1180,

176

ARISTOTLE

and changeable human laws and institutions may be, we cannot deny that there is a natural right, nor is the existence of a natural standard disproved by the possi
bility of

right

is

1 Indeed, such natural divergence from it. the only means of supplementing the defects

which, seeing that it is a mere general rule and cannot by its very nature take account of exceptions, attach

even to the best law. 2

it is

When

such an exception occurs

necessary to sacrifice legal in order to save natural This rectification of positive by natural right right.
3 Several other questions, which Equity. Aristotle takes occasion to discuss in the course of his

constitutes

researches into the nature of justice, 4

1

we may

here pass

cf.

Eth. Rhct.

v. 10,
i.

1134, b, 24 sqq. ; 13, 1373, b, 6 sqq.,

Ka06\ov. The eViei/crjs is there fore (1. 35) O T&V TOIOVTQ)!/ TTpOKal
irpaKTiKos, Kal b fj.^) &c., and eVtet/ceta is TIS Kal ov-% erepa TIS
is

where Aristotle appeals for the Kowbv 8 iKaiov to well-known verses in ^ophocles and Empedocles, and to the universal agreement of men. 2 Similarly PLATO, Ph. d. Gr.
<pvo~fi

Whether it

tarily to suffer injury

possible volun and to do

i.

763,
3

1.

14, especially 1137, b. 11: rb eTneiKes SiKaiov ^ueV ZO~TLV, ov rb KaTa v6fj.ov Se, aAA tTrav6pdca/j.a
vo/j,i/m.ov

Eth.

v.

SiKaiov.

And
1.

oneself an injury, and whether in an unequal distribution the distributor or the receiver com mits the wrong. Aristotle deals

after
:

proving

the

above,

24

5i6

with these questions, Eth. v. c. He is prevented 11, 12 and 15.

finding any satisfactory solution of them, partly by the limitation of injustice to TrAeoye|ta, partly by the failure which is connected with it clearly to distinguish between alienable rights, of which it is true volentl

from

os SiKaiov
n. 1,

[on which see p. 175, 8e [which suprti], ov TOV ctTrAcos

<t>v<riic6v

here as Polit.iii. 6, 1279, a, 18, and Eth.v. 10, 1134, a, 25 =

5 iKaiov^

aAAo rov
Trap a TO
:

Sta TO airXoos [for

a?rA.

might be the words, how conjectured ever, may be explained by sup plying after Sia ro OTTAWA, not SlttaLov, but bpiaao-Qai, or a similar
word]
avTi]
T]

which

non fit injuria, and inalienable, and similarly between civil and penal wrongs. Doubts have been
entertained as to the genuine ness of one part of these discus
sions. Chap. 15 is connected with the discussion of justice in

a/j.apTrj/m.aTos.
fyvffis
i]

Kal

effTiv
e?r-

TOV

eTTtet/cous,

at/6pOwfAa VOJJ.QV y

eAAtiTret

oia TO

ETHICS
over, especially as he arrives at

177

no

definite conclusions

with regard to them.

The discussion of the principal

virtues serves

to

confirm the truth of the general definition of virtue In all of them the question is one of previously given. the preservation of the proper mean between two

But how are we to discover the Neither in the previous general dis cussion nor in his account of the individual virtues has Aristotle provided us with any reliable criterion of
extremes of error.
proper mean?

judgment upon

this head.

In the former, he refers us

to insight as the guide to the 1 discovery of the right ; in the latter, it is the between two vicious

opposition

and one-sided extremes that reveals the proper mean. But when, we ask what kind of conduct is vicious there
a

manner .which
s.

is

certainly not
(Abli. d.

Aristotle
JBair.
iii.

SPENGEL

Akad. philos.-philol. Kl. 470) proposes therefore to transpose c. 10 and c. 14, but this does not get over the diffi culty, as c. 13 would still disturb the connection between c. 12 and 15. FISCHER (De Eth. Mcom. $c. p. 13 sqq.) and FEITZSCHE (Ethica Eudemi, 117, 120 sqq.) regard c. 15 as a fragment from the fourth book of the Eudemian Ethics. BRANDIS, p. 1438 sq., leaves the choice open between these and other possible explana tions (e.g. that it is a preliminary note to a larger discussion).

This investigation is expressly said to be still in prospect at the of c. 12, and while it beginning
is certainly not more, it is also not less satisfactory than the kin dred investigations, c. 11 and 12.

settled: in c. 11 it was asked whether what one suffers volun tarily, here whether what one inflicts on oneself, is a wrong.

TRENDELENBURG

declares

him

with this transposition, in support of which he appeals to M. Mor. i. 34,

1196,
JV. v.

self, ibid. 423, satisfied

a, 28,

compared with Eth.

b,
8,

The

difficulties

seem

to

dis

appear if we place c. 15, with the exception of the last sentence, between c. 12 and 13. It is not true that the question which it discusses has been already

the other hand, KAMSAUER has not a word in allusion to the difficulty of the In the text of position of c. 15. c. 15 itself, however, the order is cf. certainly defective; KAMSAUER, in loco, EASSOW, Forsck. uber die nikom. Eth. 42, 77, 96
15,

1138,

On

See

p. 163, n. 2,

supra.

VOL.

II.

178
is

ARISTOTLE

none to enlighten us but the man of insight, no ulti mate criterion but the notion which he may have formed All moral judgment, and with it of the proper mean.
all

then,

moral insight, is thus conditioned by Insight. If, we would understand the true nature of moral

virtue

we must next

face the question of the nature of

ight,

and accordingly Aristotle devotes the sixth

its

book of the Ethics to

1

discussion, illustrating

it

by
its

comparison with kindred qualities, To this end he practical import.

It is usual to assign a more independent position to the sec
1

and explaining
first

distinguishes,
if

inadequately met),

the Ethics
;

tion upon the dianoetic virtues. The Ethics is thought to be a gene ral account of all the virtues which
are partly moral and partly in tellectual the former are treated of B. ii.-v., the latter B. vi. But while Eudemus (according to
;

were to deal with intellectual activity for its own sake, and without relation to human action in the sense in which vi. 7, 1141,1
a,

28 declares that Politics

nothing

Eth. Eud.

may have
this

ii. 1, 1220, a, 4-15) treated his subject in way, Aristotle s intention

to do with it. The! treatment, moreover, in the sixth book, as it stands, if it professes to give a complete account of dianoetic virtue, is very unsatis

hasj

seems to have been different. Ethics, according to Aristotle, is merely a part of Politics (see p. 135 sq.) from which

The highest modes of factory. intellectual activity are precisely those which are disposed of
most
This, on the other briefl}*. hand, becomes perfectly intelli gible if we suppose the true aim to be the investigation of dianoetic virtues ffis, the other being only mentioned here in order to mark off the province of
<j>p6vri-

Eudemus

1218, b, 13) is (i. 8, careful to distinguish it as a separate science. Its aim is not

but (see p. 181, n. 3, supra) yvwvis, Trpa^is (Eth. Eud. i. 1, 1214, a, 10, know represents it as not only ledge, but also action ), and
.

accordingly it requires experi ence and character to understand it (Eth. N. i, 1095, a, 2 sqq., see
p. 161, n. 2, 3,

(bp6vr](ns from theirs and clearly to exhibit its peculiarities by the antithesis. Aristotle has to speak of because, as he him
<ppovn<ns,

supra). It would be inconsistent with this practical aim (an objection which, accord ing to M. MOT. i. 35, 1197, b, 27, was already urged by the older is there Peripatetics, and which

self says, c. 1 (p. 163, 2, supra), he has defined moral virtue as

conduct according to opdbs \6yos,

QpovifiLos would define it, and because the discussion forms

or as the

a necessary part of a complete account of moral virtue. Of. on

ETHICS
as

179

we have already

seen, a two-fold activity of reason,

:

and the practical that which deals with necessary truth, and that which deals with what is
the theoretic

matter of choice.
ledge, wisdom,

Inquiring further how reason,

know

2 are related to one insight and art he answers that knowledge deals with neces another, sary truth, which is perceived by an indirect process of

this

head

also
8,
/ecu

vi.

supra), x.
eev/CTCu Se

1178,
f]

13 (p. 166, n. 1, avva, 16:

rrj

an

apery; eVjcmj^Tjs, (ro<pta, and an dperT? Te x^s, likewise in the last

(pp6vr)(TLS

rov

instance

o-ocp a.

Aristotle
<ro<t>ia,c.

cer

tfdovs aperfj, Kal avry rrj (ppovT]o-i, eftrep al juei/ TTJS <>poi/r,(reccs dp%a2

Kara ras
1

i)6iKds tlffiv aperas, TO 8 op8bv roov ijOiKwv Kara r^v fyp6vr\(riy. See p. 113, n. 1, supra. 2 Eth. vi. 3 init. earw 87] ols
:

7, 1141, tainly speaks of a, 12, as dper$7 re xi/Tjs, but only in the popular sense as voty ia has
;

do only with the necessary, it cannot in this sense be dperr?

to
s
>

aATjfleuei

fj

tyvxb

Tcp

Karatpdvat

r)

a.Tro(pdvai irevrz rbv apid/.t6v e7rto T7j/x77, <pp6vri(ris 5 fffrl r^x v

"ni

ravra

[which
insight

we have
for
o~o<pia,

lack

to translate by of a better

word],

vovs, viroXtyei

yap

intends to Aristotle five or only some of those virtues is, on our view of the aim of this discussion, not
treat
all

Whether

apart inaccuracy, Prantl s is untenable, for in the first place Aristotle expressly says, 2 init., that the dianoetic c. virtues are the subject of the dis cussion that follows, and nowhere hints that there is any difference in this respect among the five
-

whose sphere a\\as X LV

is

TO eV5e-

Btrt,

from view

this

which he enumerates
nition
live.

c. 3,

and

in

the second place Aristotle

of
If
is

s defi

we cannot
(Ueber

very important. At the same time agree with PKANTL

die
dianvut.

virtue applies to all

:

Tuq.

d.

quality

nikom. Etli. Munch. 1852) in re and fypAvnais as garding the only diano,e tic virtues: the former, that of the \6yov c^ov, so far as it has for its object T() nfy eVSex^^vov aXXcas ^X iv the latter with the qualities which are sub ordinate to it (edjSouAfo, (ruj/etrts,
<ro(pia

every praiseworthy a virtue ( EtJi. i. 13 fin. ruiv 8e eeon ras tvcuvfT&s dpfTav Ae^oyuev) eVio T^rj and rex^f] are undoubtedly e eis eiraiverai (as

example of e ^s, e TncrTrj/n? is the one which is given in Categ. c. 8, 8, a, 29, 11, a, 24) if, on the other
;

yvca/j-f],

Seiv^TTjs), in

so far as

it

refers to
>

TO

eVSexo/^ei/oi/

a\\oas

f vovs, on the other hand, fX lv he says that as immediate it cannot be regarded as a virtue, and T^\vt\ that they of firiffT^fji. are not virtues, but that there is
rj

of virtue elsewhere (Top. v. 3, 131, & rOV X OVTa IfOlfi (TTTOUSCUOJ/, b, 1), this also is applicable to both. The same is true of vovs when conceived of, not as a special part of the soul, but as a special quality of that part, as it must be when classed along with eirto-T^/ir;,

hand,

we accept the definition

N 2

180

ARISTOTLE
in other words,

thought
truth
is

by inference

that necessary

also the object of reason (vovs) in that

it

narrower

means the power of grasping in an act of immediate cognition those highest and most universal
sense in which truths which are the presuppositions of
&c.
it
;

all

knowledge

2
;

c.

12
a
:

init.,

moreover,

it is

ex
if

pressly described as a ets, but

is

eis

it

must be a ejs
aper-fr.

eiraivfr-fj
1

in other words, an cf. Ibid. c. 3; p.

c.
6,

243,

supra. Ibid.
?/.

and frequently,

p.

in
is

244, sqq. this sense

From
vovs

reason

TrpaxriKos

volves a self-contradiction, air65eiis according to p. 243 sq. being a conclusion from necessary whereas deliberation pre raises has to do with TO eVSep/. e^etz/) TOV e(r%aTOu Kal ez/ Kal Trjs erepas Trporacrecos. a e/c yap TOV ov eVe/co avTai yap TUV Ka.Q fKacrTa TO KadoXov [the
j
1

distinguished. The

difference,
iii.

according to

De An.

10, Eth.

clause, e hitherto baffled

tators,

last

yap,

&c.,

has
to be
lv

the

commen
^^ Ac

vi. 2, 12 (p. IIP), n. 2, cf. 118, n. 1, mfpra), is that the object of the practical reason is action, and therefore TO eVSex- a\\ws *x ll whereas the theoretic reason is
i

and ought perhaps

avTf]
S
etrri vovs.

struck out]. TovTcav ovv %x

a^ffOrjffLv,

cording
there
ciples
is,

to this passage also besides the reason which

concerned with
jU?;

all ftvuv a!
-

apxal
^

eV5e;Oj/Tcu aAAcor *X IV

ms

knows the unchangeable

of

prin

further treatment of the prac tical reason Aristotle is hardly consistent. In the passages cited, p. 113, n. 2, its function is de scribed as &ov\V(r6ai or AoylfcffOai, while it is itself called TO
of less import (ac cording to p. 106, n. 2, supra) that for vovs Trpa.KTLKos stand also Sidvoia
\oyia-TiKov
it is
jrpa.KTiK.ri,

second

whose

demonstrations, is object

a
TO
V

and which, therefore, is Trp6Ta<ris, described as an ataQrjffis of these (TOVTWV can only refer to these
apxal TOV ov
eVe/ca).

By

<rx&TOV

can only be meant the same as iii. 5, 1112, b, 23 (cf. vi. 9, 1142, a, 24 and p. 118, n. 3, sujjra) where
it is said,

TrpaKTiKov

Kal

fiiavorj-

rb eo^aToi/
sv

ej/

Trj

ava-

the other hand we read, Eth. vi. 12, 1143, a, 35 Kal

TiK6v.

On

& vovs

Kal

T&V laywruv eTr yap TUT irpuTcav opcav

a/i(/>^Tf

pa

Kal

TWV

Kal fO~x aT(al/ vovs etrrt Kal ov \6yos, Kara ras a7roSei|ets TUIV 5 /J.V
aKivriTtoV opwv Kal TrpwTwv, 6 o rats irpaKTiKaTs [sc. eVio-Trj^ats,
a7ro5ei |cn,

T the primary condition afriov, 1112, b, 19) for the attain ment of a certain end, with the discovery of which deliberation ceases and action begins, as set
\vffei TrpwTov slvai

forth,

iii.

5,

1112, b, 11 sqq.;

De

not

as the species irpaKTiKal

An. iii. 10 (see p. 113, n. 2, supra). As it lies in our own power to

cannot stand as the antithesis to the genus airo^i^is; moreover, the former phrase in
a7roSei|eis

make this condition actual

it

or not,

is
it

But

described as cvdexo^evov. does not coincide in mean-

ETHICS
that

181

wisdom
as

consists in the union of reason

Lelire
v.

and know

ing,

WALTEE,

d.

prakt. Vern. 222, assumes, with the Tpa irporaffis, the second The latter is the premise. minor premise of the practical in the example ad syllogism
:

n. 1,
v.

improper sense described p, 250, supra (for another example,

Eth.
ii.

9,

1109, b, 20),

and
(v.

Aristotle

himself
at(rQi}<ns

remarks
it

p. 183, n. 4, infra) that

here calls

duced,
supra),
8e?,

Etli. vi. 5

(seep. 110, n.

1,

better to call

^>p6vr\(ns.

what he would bo But even

iravrbs yXviceos rovrl 5e y\vKv, &c., it is the clause this is sweet ; the eo-xa-

yi>e<r6ai.

the
it

e0"xaTOj/,

i.e.

the
of

must be object

TrpaKrbv, aur0?](m, as

on the other hand, which leads immediately to action is

TOV,

is a particular, and all par ticulars are so (cf. p. 183, infra).

is more remarkable is that the passage before us places the function of the practical reason, not in PovXeveaOai (on which v. p. 182, n, 5, infra), but in the cognition of the erepa -wp6raais and the e(T%aToz/. It is wholly inadmissible to with say, WALTER, ibid. 76 sqq., that it is speaking of the theoretic reason and not of the practical at all.

What

the conclusion (in the given case

TOVTOV
called,
n. 2,

yeveffdai

SeT),

which

is

De An.

iii.

10 (see p. 113,
;

vi. 8, 1141, b, 12, bv ayaGov 7rpaea>s, irpa.Kr rb irpaKrov is described as as,then, rb effxarov, vi. 8, 1141, b, 27, c. 8, 1142, a, 24 also, and only this can be meant by rb ej/5ex- in the

supra), Eth.

xh T^S

passage before us, the minor premise ( this is sweet, this is shameful ) does not refer to a mere possibility but to an un
alterable reality. It is certainly surprising to be told that both of these are not known by a \6yos,

impossible to understand 6 p.sv Kara, ras O.TVO5ei|efs, &c.,to mean that one and the same Nous knows both. If
It
is

the

words

but by Nous, seeing that the minor premise of the practical syllogism is matter of perception, not of Nous,while the conclusion, rb f<rxarov, being deduced from the premises, is matter, not of vovs, but of \6yos, not of im mediate but of mediate know
Nevertheless, although ledge. in many cases (as in the above, rovrl yXvKv) the minor premise of

2 of this book (see supra) where, consis with other passages, ra tently
p. 113, n. 2,

we examine c.

eVSex

aAAcos e xeii are expressly

assigned to the vovs Trpa/crt/cta as the sphere of its action, while the OetoprjTiKos is contined to the
sphere of necessary truth, and if consider how important a place the latter doctrine has in

we

the practical syllogism is a real perception, there are other cases in which it transcends mere per
ception as, for instance, when the major premise is we must do what is just, the minor this action is just. In such cases we can only speak of otfrrQrjffis in the
:
<

Aristotle s philosophy (cf p. 197, supra Anal. Post. i. 33 init.: of the eVSex- &V.AWS lv there is neither an eTnar-fi/tri nor a vovs~), we must regard it as more than improbable that what in all other passages is in the distinctest terms denied of this reason is here expressly affirmed of it.
.

n. 4,

<?x

Such an explanation

is

unneces
fyp6vr}<ns,

sary: Aristotle says of

182

ARISTOTLE
cognition
of the

ledge in the
1

highest and

worthiest

These three, therefore, constitute the purely objects. theoretic side of reason. They are the processes by

which we know the actual and

cannot be matter of

its

laws.
it

What
is,

they deal
the

with cannot be otherwise than as

and therefore

human
concerns
3

effort.

On

other

M hand,
the

art

and insight 2 deal with human action: in

case as
it

one

production,

in

the

other as it is conduct. Insight alone, therefore, of all the cognitive activities can be our guide in matters of It is not, however, the only element in the conduct. The ultimate aims of action determination of conduct.
4 are determined, according to Aristotle, not by delibera 5 or, as he would tion, but by the character of the will
:

the virtue of thepractical reason, both that practical deliberation, and that the immediate know ledge of the effxa-TOv arid irpaKTOv, is the sphere of its operation He (see p. 182, n. 3, infra }. attributes, therefore, to it the knowledge both of the actual, which is the starting-point of deliberation, and of the purpose

have

to
is

regard
of
all

man
beings.

as

the

noblest

former
is

The concerned with what

best for
f)

man

on the other
Kal
eTncrHj/uT;
(j)vcrci.

hand
c.

(rotyia

tarl

Kal vovs

ruv
:

Tifj-iwrdrcav TTJ
uiv

8 init.

T\

Se dpp6vf]ffis Trept
irepl

TO

avdpcairiva

Kal

Herri

/3ow-

TOVT

epyov
S

rb eS

fiov-

which
1

is its goal.

\eve(r6at,

ovOels Trepl

ject ing
&<TT

C. 7, 1141, a, 16 (after re the common and in

aofy a)
:

accurate use of the word

STJAOJ/

re\os T I fffn Kal TOVTO v. See also p. 183,

n. 2, supra.
3
4

on

7]

aicpiftecTTdTrj
i)

&v
Se?

T&V

eTncrTTJiUoJz/

eit]

ffoty a.

See

p. 107, n. 2,

supra.
v.

apa TOV

(T0(p6v

p.)]

/JLOVOV

ra
eft?

TWV
ras ^

As was rightly pointed out

Lelire
d.

apx&v
apxas
crofyia

eiSeVcu,

aAAa

Kal

Trepl

by WALTER,

praJit.

a\r)Qeveiv.

OXTT

&j/

vovs

ical

e7n<rT7]yU77,

aiffirep

T&V Hiri(rT-f)/j.r) e^ovffa Tijj.Lvra.rwv. Of. p. 290, n. 2, supra.

Kf.tyaXfyv
2

Vern. 44, 78, and HARTENSTEIN in opposition to TRENDELENBi RG (Hist. Beitr. ii. 378), and the earlier view of the present
treatise.
3

It would be preposterous, Aristotle continues, c. 7, 1141, a, 20, to regard ^pJvrjo-ts and TToXiTiK^] as the highest know in that case we should ledge
;

EtU.
Trepl

iii.

5,

1112;

b,

11

fiov\v6/Ji.e9a 8e ou Trepl

T&V

Te\>v

a\\a
the

TWV

irpbs

physician,

ra reATj. So the orator, the

ETHICS
1

183

at happiness, it depends upon explain it, while all aim the moral character of each individual wherein he seeks Practical deliberation is the only sphere of the it.

exercise of insight

2
;

and since

this has to do, not with

universal propositions, but with their application to the particular is more in given cases, knowledge of It of the universal. 3 dispensable to it than knowledge
is this

aims and to particular application to practical cases that distinguishes insight both from science given 4 On the other hand, it is and from theoretic reason.
legislator
:

de/J-evoi.

re Aos

ri

TTOJS

(c. 9,
4

1142, a, 11), being without

Etli. vi. 9, 1142, a,
fypovriffis

vi. Kal 5ia rivcov tffrai ffKOirovffi. rb epyov curort \e~trai 13, 1144, a, 8
:

experience.

23

on

Kara
Trotet

r}]v fypovr\(nv Kal

TI

rr\v

T]

OVK

eTTiffrrifj-r],

fyavt&<r~fp

a.peri]v

/j.ev
T]

yap
8e

aperrj
<pp6vn(ris
:

pov

rov yap taxdrov early,

W/>.,

opObv,

ra
/j.ev

Trpbs

ztprirai

rovrov.

L.

20

r^v

ovv

[in 182, n. 2,S

the passage quoted,

p.

where
8,

it

was shown
irpaK.r bv
:

TrpoaipecTLv opQ^v 5 offa Ktvr]s eVe/ca ire(pvK

iroiei

y apery, rb
irpdr-

to be concerned with the

ayatiov
;

recrOai

OVK

effri

TTJS

apfrijs

aAA

See further, ere pas Swdfjifcos. p. 186, n. 5, infra. 1 See p. 139, n. 1, supra. C. 8 init.-, see p. 118, n. 3,
supra. 3 MJt. vi. 8, 1141, b, 14 (with reference to the words quoted n. 2 preced. p.) oi/5 effrlv r\ ^p6vr,ffis rtav KaBoXov IJLOVOV, aAAa SeT Kal ra
:

1141, b, 27 yap ^t ^iff/jLa irpaKrhv ws rb yap irpaKrbv roiovrov [sc.

cf.
c.

rb

yap vovs ruv opwv, &v OVK

rj

eo~rt

8e

rov

etrxarof, ov OUK

t(mv
ri

67r(o"T7jyU77,
,

riav tSi co*

aAA aarflrjfm, oix aAA oi a alcrOai d/J-eda

yap
/cccKet.

ori rb ev roTs /naQrj/m.ariKo is eo~xa rot

rpiyuiov^

ffrr^fferat

aAA

avrt]

/ua\\ov
Kfivr]S

a1fcr07j(ris

KadeKavra yvoopi^iv
TI

irpaKruc^ yap,
TO.

8e

irpal-LS

irepl

KadeKavra.
is

And

accordingly (as
i.

remarked

also Metaj)h.
(i.e.

881, a, 12 sqq.)

^AAo elSos. This passage has been discussed in recent times by TRBNDELENBUEG (Hist. Beitr. ii. 380 sq.),
fypovriffis,

experience without knowledge without apprehension of the universal) is as a rule of greater practical use than knowledge

TEICHMULLER

(Arist. Forsr.li.

i.

without experience,

rj

Se

$p6vr)<ns

253-262), and more exhaustively by WALTER (Lehr. v. d. prakt. Vern. 361-433). The best view of Aristotle s meaning and the
rests grounds on which it may be shortly stated as

ravTt]v [the apprehension of the particular ~| /iaAAov. For the same

follows

$p6vf)<ns

is

here distin

reason young people lack

guished from

eVta-TT^n?

by marks

184

ARISTOTLE

seen in both these respects to be a manifestation of practical reason, the essential characteristics of which it

When

which are already familiar

it
is

to us.

further opposed to Nous, which is described as con

cerned with indemonstrable prin ciples, we can obviously under stand by Nous in this sense only the theoretic, not that reason

perception but with a perceptive The afoOiiffis, there fore, which is concerned with the

judgment.

ea-Xarov of practical deliberation

is

not

ataQi}(ris

ruv /JiW,
of

i.e.

the

which Aristotle calls practical and distinguishes from the former

as a different faculty of the soul on no other ground than that it
(like according to the passage before us) has to do with the TrpzKTbj>, the eVSex^ueroj/, the
<j>p6vTiffts,

always accompanied by particular sensa but an aivQfiffis of another tions),

the sensible qualities of objects which are pre sent to particular senses (as was shown, p. 69 sq. sup., this is

apprehension

What that kind is is not expressly said, but merely indi

kind.

eo-xaTOf (see p. 180, n. 2, supra). Finally, it cannot surprise us

cated by an example that which informs us

:

it is like
T>

that

the

eo-^aroi/,

with

which

3-n eV TO?S ^aQt]}j.a.TiKols fffxarov rpiycavov,

insight is concerned, is said to be the object not of tina-Tripr) but of aiffQ-riais. For this ea-%aToj/, which is found in the conclusion of the practical syllogism, is that in the fulfilment of which action consists, and is always therefore a definite and particular result the eo-xaroj/ is the source of the resolution to undertake this journey, to assist this one
;

in need, &c. (cf. p. 180, But the particular is not the object of scientific know ledge but of perception cf.
is

who

n. 2).

p.

163

sq.

While

have to deal in the conclusion

of the practical syllogism (often as was shown, p. 180 sq., in its minor premise), not only with the apprehension of an actual fact, but at the same time
also,

this is so,

we

that in the analysis of a figure the last term which resists all analysis is a triangle. (For only so can the words be understood, as is almost universally recognised EAMSAUEE S explanation, which takes the general proposition to meanprimam vel simplioissimam omnium figwram essc trianyulum, is contradicted by the circum stance noted by himself that such a proposition is not known In other words, by afodrj<Tis.) this ctfo-077/ns involves a judgment upon the quality of its object. But such propositions as this must be done differ even from the given instance, this is a triangle, in that they refer to something in the picture and not
;

with

its

subsumption under a

universal concept (as in the con clusion I wish a good teacher Socrates is a good teacher Socrates must be my teacher
:

merely to something present to the senses. They are therefore still further removed from per ception in the proper sense than it is. Hence he adds they are more of the nature of (pp6vrj(ris it is more akin to The pas afcr0i7<m.
:

accordingly, not with a simple

sage, therefore, gives

and there is no reason

good sense, to reject the

ETHICS
so perfectly reproduces that

185
difficulty in re

we have no

in other the virtue of practical reason reason educated to a virtue. Its words, practical is on the one hand the individual and his good, object

cognising in

it

on the other the commonwealth

is

in the former case

it

Insight in the narrower sense, in the latter Politics, which again is further divided into QBconomics, and the
sciences of Legislation and Government. 2 In the sure of the proper means to the ends indicated by discovery
3 in right judgment on the Insight consists Prudence matters with which practical Insight has to deal, Under
;

standing;

in so far as a
eV rots

man
to
a,

judges equitably on these

10
3
Ei>pov\{a,
;

words from 6n rb

/j.a6.

cf. p. 136.

the end, in which case we should have to suppose that the actual
conclusion of

ibid.

c.

10;

cf.

the chapter

has

p. 118, n. 3, supra. to this account of

According
it,

v(3ov\ia

been
1

lost.

Aristotle does not, indeed,

expressly say so, but he attri

to vovs irpaKTiicbs (see 180, n. 2) precisely those activities in which <pp6vr}ffis ex
p.

butes

must not be confounded with knowledge into which inquiry and deliberation do not enter as elements, nor with evo-roxia and ayx woia, which discover what is
right without

much

deliberation,
is not a definite

presses

itself,

viz.

Pov\eve(r9ai
eVSe-

nor with
quality

8o|a,
;

which also
it is

and

occupation with the

an inquiry

XO/J-evov,

the irpaKr bv ayadbv, the

that

of both they are concerned with matters of not of afodrjffis,

tcrxarov,

and remarks

of see

but the
p.
7]

understanding
106, n.
2),
viz.

/3of Af/s

Kara rb

w^eAt/uoj/,

Kal ov 8e? Kal &s Kal ore.

And we

knowledge (p. 183, n. 4, sujjra). These statements are consistent only on the supposition that they refer to one and the same sub ject, and that insight is merely
the right state of the practical reason. PEANTL S view (ibid. p. 15), that it is the virtue of rb Soa<TTiicbv, is refuted even by the passage which he quotes on its behalf, c. 10, 1142, b, 8 sqq., not to speak of c. 3, 1139, b, 15 sqq. 2 C. 8 sq. 1141, b, 23-1142,

must further here distinguish ev fiefiov\fvffQai between rb and rb irpos ri re Aos eu )3e/3ouAva9ai. Only the former deserves
air\S>s

unconditionally
eu)8oiA/a,

which
r)

is

fined as bpQoTt]s
irp6s TI reAos, ov

to be called therefore de Kara rb crvp-tyepov

77

ibid.

c.

11.

Its

relation to 1143, a, 6
(f)povf](ri.

(ppovriffis is described irepl TO. avra p.\v rrj

eVrif, OUK tffn 5e

ravrbv

186

ARISTOTLE
we
call

matters towards others,

him Right-minded.

Just, therefore, as all perfection of theoretic reason is included in Wisdpjn. so all the virtues of the practical

reason are traced back to Insight. 2 /The natural basis of insight is the intellectual acuteness which enables us

and apply the proper means to a given end.^ turned to good ends it becomes a virtue, in the case a vice so that the root from which opposite spring the insight of the virtuous man and the cunning of the knave is one and the same. 4 The character of our ends A
to find

If this

is

however, depends in the first instance upon our will, and the character of our will upon our virtue and in that
;

sense insight
avvtffis
(ppovritfLS
teal

may

be said to be conditioned by virtue. 5

?j

<pp6vf)<ns

juej/

yap

1142,

a,

fiTLTaKTUc i effTiv T I yap Sel Trpoirreii/ v) /mri, rb TC\OS avrTJs

eo~Tiv
/)

ffvv<ris

and

11 sqq.) that while vovs, yvca/n-rj are to a certain

<ro(pia

extent natural gifts,

(ppovrjffis

and
t<rn

Se avve/ris

It consists eV T
eVi rb Kpiveiv irepl
i]
<ppoi>T]!r!s

fffTiv,

TOVTUV irepl &v a\\ov \iyavTOs,

evyv&uovas is accordlDg 19 sqq. rj TOV
similarly TOV KpiTiKr]
Kal

ST?

are not. 3 Ibid. c. 13, 1144, a, 23 ris 8vva/j.is KaXovvi SftvortjTa.

:

avrrj 5

eVri roiavrri

&<TT

ra
Ka]

Trpbs

Ka\ Kpivtiv Ka\ws.

j,

TOV viroTtOevTa
Tf]v

Q-KOTT OV

crvvTzivovTa

KaO

8vvao-dai
4

ravTa Trpdrrfiv
1.

rvyof>v

yvd!>/J.r)v,

to

c.

11, 1143, a,
Kpiffis

lUd.
rj

26

Uv ply

eViei/fous
(Tvyyvct>/j.ri

6p9^,

Ka\bs,
:

ciraivtT-f)

effriv,

av
11,

yvu/j. r]

Se

(j)av\os,

All right conduct towards others, however, has to do with equity (c. 12, 1143, a,
tirifKovs
bpQ-i}.

1152,

a,

11

VII. iravovpyia. Sia T& TT]V

TOV
fj.ev
.

5ia<pfpeiv

rrjs (ppovftffecas
.
.

fvov Tpoirov

Kal KaTa

Tbv

31).

\6yov tyyvs

Aristotle accordingly con cludes the discussion of the dianoetic virtues with the words
:

etvat, Siafpepeiv Se
.

Tt)v irpoa peffii

8ee above.

Kara Plato

ri

jueic

ovv icrrlv
.
.

r)

(ppovriais

Ko.l

f)

that he himself appears to regard these as representative of the t\vo chief classes of the dianoetic virtues.
ffocpia
,

efyTjrcu,

so

had already remarked vi. 491 E)that the same natural gift which rightly guided produces great virtue, under wrong guid-|
(Rej>.

ance
5

is

the source of great vice.

There is this difference, moreover, between them and most of the

others (c. 12, 1143, b, 6 sq.
c. 9,

Etli. vi. 13, 11 44, a, 8, 20 (see p. 182, n. 5, iuj)). Ibid. 1. 28 (after the words quoted n. 3, 4 ) e<m 5
:

r\

(f>p6vT]o~is

oi>x

ovic

avev

Trjs

^ Siv6rr]s, etAA. Svvduews Taurus, i\

ETHICS

187

But, conversely, virtue may also be said to be condi for just as virtue directs the will tioned by insight it the proper means to to objects, insight teaches
l
;
:

good 2 Moral virtue, there employ in the pursuit of them. and insight reciprocally condition one another fore, the former gives the will a bent in the direction of while the latter tells us what actions are the
good,
3

good. volved

The
is

circle in

which we seem here

4

to be in

not really resolved by saying that virtue and and grow up together by a insight come into existence that every single vir of habituation gradual process
;

tuous action presupposes insight, every instance of true 5 but that if we are in search practical insight virtue
;

of the primal germ from which both of these are evolved, we must look for it in education, by which the insight of the older produces the virtue of the

younger.

generation This solution might suffice

if

we were

deal

of individuals, ing merely with the moral development

5

6|is

[which here, as

p.

153,

vi.

n. 3, xnpra, indicates

quality] rw ofji.fJLa.n [insight is to the eye also] OVK

6i

a permanent rovry yiverai

13, 1145, a, 4: OUK earo.i TJ irpoaipevis op6^ uvev $poi"h<rews ovV

ai>ev

compared
&i>ev

aperr/s

yap
-rrepl

aptrrjs f? pev yap TO r(\os, rj 8e ra npbs rb reAos Trotel irpdrreiv. 3 ovv 30 SrjAoy 1144, o16v re of on ov
:
1>,

5ta\|/euSeo-0ai itas apx<is.

irote?
&<rre

ias irpaKTi-

tyavephv
p.7]
:

on
8e

dSv-

ayaObv elvai ttvpius avev avev T oi/5e $p6i i/j.oi

aperrjs.

varov

typovLfjiov elj/at

ovraayaQov.

X. 8

see p. 178, n.

1 Jin.

Cf

c.

5,

140, b, 17

r$

5te</>-

supra.
4

6apfJi4vtf 5t

^ov^v
rj

Ka:

AUTTTJI/

evOvs
8ia

TEENDELENBUEG,
\\.

Histor.
refers

ov Qaiverai

apx*l,ov5e [sc.^a^erat
eVe/cez/
/cat
irp6.Treii>.

Peitr.
5

385

sq.

avrqS] Sell/ rovrov rovff alpeto-Oanravra Kal

TEEXDELENBlfRG
;

on

VII.
1

1151, a, 14 sqq. Eth. vi. 13, 1144, b, 1-32. Cf. preceding note and p. 156,
9,

this point to M. Mor, ii. 3, 1200, ovre yap avev rr)S (pporfifffvs a, 8 ij at &\\ai aperal yivovrat, r&v reAeia

oW
s-

<pp6rn<ris

n. 3,
2>

svpra.

apercav,

a\\a

&vev^

crvvfpyovffi

Tra

See

p. 182, n. 5, supra.

Eih.

a\\-f)\wv.

188

ARISTOTLE

and with the question whether in time virtue here

But the chief difficulty precedes insight or vice versu. lies in the fact that condition one another abso they
lutely.

Virtue consists in preserving the proper mean,

the

which can only be determined by

if this

man of insight.

so, insight cannot be limited to the mere But, of means for the attainment of moral ends discovery the determination of the true ends themselves is impos sible without it while, on the other hand, prudence
:

be

merits the

name

of insight only

when

it is

consecrated

to the accomplishment of moral ends.

insight is the limit of moral virtue in one direction, those activities which spring, not from the will, but from natural impulse (without, however, on that

As

account being wholly withdrawn from the control of the To this class belong will) stand at the other extreme. the passions. After the discussion, therefore, of insight,
follows a section of the Ethics which treats of the right and wrong attitude towards the passions. Aristotle
calls

the former temperance, the latter intemperance

distinguishing them from the moral qualities of selfcontrol (o-wfypoa-vwrj) and licentiousness, 2 by pointing out that while in the case of the latter the control or

tyranny of the desires rests upon a bent of the will founded on principle, in the case of the former it rests merely upon the strength or weakness of the will. For
morality centres in the relation of reason to desire, concerned with pleasure and pain 3 if further there is in this respect always a wrong as opposed to
if all

and

is

Cf. p. 163.
3

P. 167 n. 6,

See

p.

156 sq. sujwa.

ETHICS

189

still this the right, a bad as opposed to the good opposi be of three different degrees and kinds. tion may If

we suppose on
from
all

the one hand a perfected virtue, free alike weakness and vice, and on the other a total

absence of conscience,

we have

in the former case a

divine and heroic perfection which hardly exists among men, in the latter a state of brutal insensibility which
If the character of the will, with equally rare. so completely and immutably good or bad as out being
is
1

in the cases just supposed, yet exhibits in fact either of these qualities, we have moral virtue or vice. 2 Finally, if we allow ourselves to be carried away by passion, without actually willing the evil, this is defined as intemperance or effeminacy if we resist the seductions of passion, it is
;

temperance or constancy. Temperance and intemper ance have to do with the same object as self-control and
namely, bodily pain and pleasure. The difference lies in this, that while in the case of the
licentiousness

former wrong conduct

the case of the latter
the will.
it

springs only from passion, in springs from the character of

If in the pursuit of bodily pleasure or in the avoidance of bodily pain, a man transgresses the proper limit from weakness and not from an evil
will,
1

Etlt. vii. 8 itdt.

T>V

irepl TO.

(pevKTav rpta aKpaaia Qr]pi6ri]s.

tfQ-r]

effrlv ei 8?], /ca/aa

TO.

eyavTia
juez/

Aristotle speaks further c. 6, 114, 8, b, 19, 1149, a, 20, c. 7, 1149, b 27 sqq. Among bestial desires

TO?S

fj.ev

Sval

8ri\a

TO

yap

apTr)v rb 5 eyKpaTftav Ka\ov/j.j/ OypdrriTa /j-dXiffr av rpbs 5e

rV

\eyew
al

T))V Tj^tas vTrep WO. Kal 9etav ...

yap

vd

wcTTrep ovSe Or]piov eVrl /cawla apeTT], OUTCOS owSe 0eoO, aAA rj Ti/juwrepov dpT7]s, i] 5 eT6p6v

he reckons a.<ppodiffia ro?s appeal, by which, however, as the context, shows, he means only passive not active TrcuSepacrria. 2 See preceding note and the remarks which follow upon the relation of (rcafypoavi r) and d/coAoffia to fyKpaTcia sides p. 160 sq.

and

aKpa<r(a,

be-

yevos Kanlas. &C.

Of

Qt]pi6rf]s

190

ARISTOTLE
is

in the former case he

intemperate, in thelatter effemi

limit,

nate

if

he preserves the proper

he
still

is

or constant. 1
1

The
:

latter

type of

man

differs

temperate from

Ibid.

f/Soi/ds

oVt /uei/ ovv Trepl C. 6 Kal\vtras elalv otV e 7/cpaTets

ital fj.a-

Kal KaprepiKol Kal ot d/cpaTe?s

Aa/fol, (pavep6v.

other hand (who is defined 1150, b, 1 as e AAeiTrcol/ Trpbs a ot TroAAol Kal avTiTfivovo i Kal SvvavTai), avoids

More

accurately,

pain
5e T(f

undesignedly.
/j.ev

di/TiKetrat

these qualities, like

o-co^poo-uj/rjand

d/coAao-ta, refer to bodily pain and pleasure; only in an improper sense can we speak of xP r)/J aTWV
-

awparet 6 eyKpaTys, T$ 8e C. 9, 1151, a, jixaAa/c&iJ 6 /caprept/fos. 11 the d/co Aao-Tos desires im

:

moderate bodily enjoyments on

principle (5td TO ireTreTo-^at), this desire having its roots in his moral character as a whole (Std TO TOtowTos elj/at olos Stco/cety auTas)
.
.
.

a/cpareTs Kal /cepSovs Kal TI/J.TJS Kal dvuov. TUV 8e Trepl ras o"ajjuaTiKas
S,

Trepl

as

Ae^Oyuei/

TOI>

Ka\
Trpoaipf io Oat
i)Trep/3oAds
. . .

aKoXaGTOV, 6
7)8rtj/a>j/

Tip

T&V Kal TWV

SidaKwv Tas

eo"Tt

Se Tts Std TTO^OS

eKffTa-

\virT)pu>v

(pevyuv

TIKOS irapa TOJ/ opdbv \6yov, bv &o~T

/jLfis
fj.i]

dAAa irapa irpoaipe(rii> Kal rrjv Sidvoiav, aKpa-rrjs Aeyeraf, ou /card

irp6(Tdecnv, KaQdirep 6p7fys,dAA
a7rAa>$

TrpaTTeti/

KOTa TOV 6pdbv

S>ffT

\6yov KpaTel TO
SeTi/

5 irdOos, elvat TOIOVTOV olov Trewe io Oai StwKeiv

p6vov.

MaAa/c;o refers to the

a/cdAao-ros,
o-w^pwi/,

objects.

same The aKpar^s, therefore,

the fjKpar^s
etVl
/xei/

ovT6s

Tas TOtairras TjSoms ov 6 fffTiv aKpaT^s

(/>aGAos

and the and the

ravra,

U aKO\d(7TOv, ouSe
ai
7)

Trepl

7ap TO

0e\Ti<TTOV,

a\\
ot

ovx

wffavTws

eivlv,

dAA
Uv

TrpoaipovvTai ol 5 TrpoaipovvTai. Sib /j.a\\ov a

i*ev
6t7TOt/i6J/,
00"TiS
(J.

ou

dpx77. aAAos 8 eVavTtos, 6 ffj.jj.fveriKos Kal OVK fKffTaTiKos Sta 76 TO

/ra0os (and so, previously, c. 4, 1146,b,22). C. 11, 1152, a, 15: the

rip/j.a

5ic6/cet

ras

inrepfioAas

Kal

intemperate
e/cw^, Trovrjpbs 8
eTrtei/crjs
coo"0

man
ov

acts

indeed

(pevyei
tiffris

fjierpias
T^>

Auiras,

rovrov

^ 7ap

Trpoatpetrts

Stci eirtOv^v (T<p6Spa. 8 init. in reference to the said objects, eo-rt /j.ev OVTWS ex flv

i)fj.nr6j/ir]pos.

He

C.

ai
,

Kal

&v

ol

iro\\ol

TTOAAol
Trepl

5e Kpartiv Kal wv ol 7JTTOUS- TOVTCOV 5 6 fJLfV

eo*rt

ffSovas d/cpOT^j 6 5
Trepl
.

5e

Xinras
.
.

/j.a\aKos
fj.fv

tyKparfys, 6 8e
uTrep?)

icafjrepiKos

o
ra>v

ras
tJ

fio\as

SiuKcav
7^

rjSe w?/

Kcntf
,

L7repj8oAds

Std

Trpoatpeo

St

auras

al jurjSev 5t
.
.

aicoXaa-ros

erepov aTrofia ivov, tXKtiirwv 6 6 5

8e
jiieVos

resembles a state which has good laws but which does not observe them the irovnp bs one in which the laws are observed, but are bad. He differs, therefore, from the d/co Aaff Tos in that he feels re morse for his actions (cf. Eth. iii. 2, p. 590 mid. above) and is therefore not so incurable as the latter. Accordingly, Aristotle compares excess with epilepsy, aKoXatria with dropsy and con
;

di/Tt/ce//xe^os,
6/j.iocas

6 6

ffdctypav.
o"a>ua-

sumption
init. ).
do"0eVeta

(c. 8,

1150,

a,

21, c. 9

Se

/cal

Ttds

Ai/rras

(pevywv Tas
J\TTav
/uaAa/cbs,

Two

kinds of intemper
TrpoTreVeta,

St

Trpoatpeirtj/.

The

dAAa Std on the

ance are further distinguished,

and

that

ETHICS
the

191

man who
he

is

virtuous in the proper sense

still

in that

is

struggling with evil desires, from

1

which the other

is free.

The general question

of

how

and how

far it is possible to act

from intemperance, and

desire,

to let our better

knowledge be overpowered by

has been already discussed. 2

3.

Friendship
all

Upon

the account of

that relates to the virtue of

the individual, there follows, as already mentioned, a treatise upon Friendship. So morally beautiful is the

conception of this relationship which we find here unfolded, so deep the feeling of its indispensableness,
so pure

and disinterested the character assigned

of
refined

to

it,

so kindly the disposition that is

indicated, so profuse

the

wealth

and

Aristotle could have left us no

happy thoughts, that more splendid memorial

Aristotle justifies

of his

own

heart and character.

him

admitting a discussion upon Friendship into the Ethics partly by the remark that it also belongs to
self for

the account of virtue, 3 but chiefly on the ground of the

which is deliberately pursued and that which, springing from violence of temper, is thoughtlessly pursued of these the latter is described as more curable (c. 8, 1150, b, 19 sqq. c. 11, 1152, a, 18, The inconstancy of the in27).
;

excusable are exaggerations of noble impulses (c. 6, 1148, a, 22 sqq.). Onanger, fear, compassion, envy, &c. see also lihet. ii. 2,
5-11.
C. 11, 1151, b, 34: g T f yap
otos eyKparys Xoyov Sia ras
Troielv
/cal
/uijSej/

temperate man finds its opposite extreme in the headstrong and

self-willed

trapa

riv
fj.lv

aw/mar titas

yjSoj/as

ffdtxbpcav,

a\\

roan

(iVxt/poyvc^coi/,

%x wv

&

OVK

l^cui/

</>^Aas

eVt-

iSioyvw/uuv, c. 10, 1151, b, 4). The excesses of anger are less to be blamed than those of internperance (c. 7, c. 8, 1150, a, 25

6v/j.ias, iral
"jSeo-flcu

irapa.

6 p.ev TOIOVTOS olos /JL^J r^bv \6yov, 6 S oTos

JJ.YI

^SecrQai * P.
3

a\\a ayeaQai. 155 (EtJi. vii. 5.)

yap apery
TLS

sqq.

cf.

v.

and

p.

113,

10, 1135, b, n. 1); still

20-29

!<TTI

^er

more

aperris

viii. 1 init.

192
it

ARISTOTLE
has for

significance

human

life.

friends

l
:

the happy man, that he

Everyone requires may keep his happi

;

2 it by the sharing it with others comfort and support for advice youth, old age, for assistance. manhood, for united action it unites Friendship is a law of nature parents and

ness

and enjoy

afflicted, for

children
,

by a

natural

bond,
justice

citizen

with
is

citizen,

man

with man. 3

What

demands

supplied

in the highest degree by friendship, for it produces a unanimity in which there no longer occurs any viola tion
is, therefore, not only but morally necessary. 5 The social impulses outwardly of man find in it their most immediate expression and

of mutual

rights.

It

and just for this reason it constitutes in satisfaction Aristotle s view an essential part of Ethics. For as Ethics
;

and the moral no account of moral activity can be to him complete which does not represent it as
is

conceived by

him

in general as Politics,

life

as life in society, 6 so

For what follows see

Etli.

Ibid.
/j.kv

1.

24

sqq.;

hence,
SIKO.IO-

viii. 1,

1155, a, 4-16. 2 Ibid. avev yap fyiXiav ouSels eAorr &y fjv, e^ow ra \onra ayaOa

(pi\cav
ffvvt]s,

ovrtav

oiSei/ Set

ovres TrpocrSeovrai (pi\ias, Kal T&V SiKaiwv rb /aaXiara

Si/catot 5

Travra

...
5?

ri

yap

wpeAos

TTJS

roiavTrjs
fvepytarias,
3

ei6T7jpias

a<cupe0ei0-7js

yiyverai /xaAitrra Kal

(pi\iKbv elj/cu So/ce? [the highest justice is the justice of friends!. 5 ou fj.6vov 8 avayxaiov L. 28
;

eTraii/ereoTaTTj Trpbs (plAovs.

iffriv
6

Ibid.
:

alia
aTras

ftSot

Tr\dvais

16-26, where inter av ns Kal eV TO?S [wanderings] ws olKtiov

c.

aAAa Kal KaXov. See on this line

x.
7,

p. 186, n. 1.

Etli.

1177,

a,

30

/j.fv

avQpwnos avOpcoirq) Kal (pi\ov. aroirov 8 Of. ix. 9, 1169, b, 17 taws Kal rb p.ov(t>rf]V ITOIC LV rbv p.aKa.pLov ovdels yap lAotr &i/ KaO
:
1

SiKaios Sen-cu Trpbs ovs SiKaioirpayTjcret Kal /ue# wi/, O/ULO IWS 8e Kal 6
(Tiacppuj/

Kal

aj/Spelos

Kal
c. 8,

roav

a JTbv TO. TrdvT* e^eu/ aya6d TTO\IrtKbis yap 6 av9p<aTros Kal <rvrjv On this see further ire(pvK6s.
infra.

1178, eVrt Kal irAetWi ffv($ aipslrai TO. /car aperV Cf. p. 144, n. 1, supra, Trparreij/.
;

aAAcov fKaaros, only virtue is self-sufficient

theoretic

b,

5:

avOpcairos

ETHICS
socially

193

The examination, therefore, of while completing the study of Ethics Friendship, constitutes at the same time the link which unites it
constructive.

with the doctrine of the State.

Aristotle understands in general of mutual good will of which both e^ery relationship 2 This relationship, however, will parties are conscious.

By

friendship

assume a
the
basis

different character according to the nature of

upon which

it

rests.
:

The

objects of our
*

attachment are in general three

surable,
;

the good, the plea-

and the useful 3 and in our friends it will be sometimes one of these, sometimes another, which
attracts us. seek their friendship either on account of the advantages which we expect from them or on account of the pleasure which they give us, or on account of the good that we find in them. A true friendship, however, can be based only upon the last

We

He who loves his friend only the sake of the profit or the pleasure which he obtains from him, does not truly love but his
of these three motives.
for

own advantage and enjoyment

4 ingly his friendship changes.

him, only with these accord

True friendship exists

Aristotle inserts, however, two sections upon pleasure and happiness between them, in the

tenth book thus connecting the end of the Ethics with the beginning, where the end of human effort had been defined as happines sVIII. 2, 1155, b, 31 sqq. must (where, however, 1. 33, be omitted after ii/). Friendship is here defined as etvoia, ev

ship only when each knows that the other wishes him well. The definition of the Rhrt. i. 5, 1361, b, 36, as one oaris i oferai aya9a elvat e/cetVw, irpaKTiicos
(f>i\os,

eVrjj/

ficial

oil

5t e/ce?j/oi/, is a superone for rhetorical purposes 3 Ibid. 1155. b, 18: 8o K e?ybp irav QiXtta-eai aAAa rb (pi\f] T bv

avrw

rovro
"

avTiireiroveoari

mutual good will becomes friend-

Xav6dvov(roi,

as

5 elvai aya6bv % ySb j) -^ffi^ov. * Ibid. c. 3, 5. Friendships for the sake of profit are formed for the most part older

among

VOL.

II.

194

ARISTOTLE

between those alone who have spiritual affinities with one another, and is founded upon virtue and esteem. In such a friendship each loves the other for what he He seeks his personal advantage and is in himself. in that which is good absolutely and in itself.
pleasure Such a friendship
l

cannot be formed quickly, for the

friend must be tried by long intercourse before he can nor can it be extended to many, for an be trusted
;

inner relationship and a close acquaintance is only same time. 2 It is, moreover, possible with a few at the

no mere matter of feeling and inclination, however indis of character, 3 of which pensable these may be to it, but
it is

as lasting
;

an element as the virtue to which

it

is

people those that are for the sake of pleasure, among the young. Only the latter require that, the friends should live together, and they are least durable when the parties are unlike one another and pursue different ends the one, for instance (as in unworthy love affairs), his own pleasure, the other his advantage. Cf, c. 10,
:

dyaBoi [for they are so in so far as they are good]. OVTOI JJLSV ovv
dir\(t>s

(pi Aot,

e/celVoi Se

Kara

tfu/XjSe-

/STJKOS
2

Kal

T<

wfj-oitoffOai

TOVTOIS.

Cf. n. 2
still
3
:

on following page.

VIII.

more

7, 1158, a, 10 sqq., and fully ix. 10. eWe VIII. 7, 1157, b, 28

:

77

(iiei/

(piATjcm

Traflet,

73

Se

1159, b, 15, ix. 1, 1161, a, 3 sqq. VIII. 4 init. reAeia 8 eVrli/

1 :

(ptAia n. 3,

et

and

(on eis, see p. 285, rj p. 153, n. 3, supra}

yap

(ptATjcris

ovx

TJTTOI/

Trpos

ra

7j

T<av

ayaOuv

</uAia

Kal /car cipe-

T-//J

OJJLO IUV

OUT ot

yap

To.yo.Qa.

ofjioius

fiov\ovrai aAA^Aoiy ij dya0oi dyadol 8 fial Kad aurovs. of 8e /3ouAo;U,ej/oi Ta.ya.6v. TO?S (piXois

KaTa yap OVTUS 4x ov(ri KC Kos [they are friends for the sake of one another and not of merely accidental object]
vs
"
"

TayaOd fiovXovTai rots fKGivwv eVe/ca, o j KaTa But on the rrddos dAAa /ca0 e u/. other hand, as is further re marked, mutual pleasure in one another s society is an element in
e
eo>s,

al

<pi\ov[AfVois

friendship

is said, ibid.

Siafj-f

veL

ovv

f?

TOVTUIV
77

(piAtcc ecos

Uv

ayadol

3io~iv,

8
:

dperr)
of
fj-fv
$)

fj.6viiu.ov.

Ibid.
fflUOV,

c.

6 init.
8t

fyavXoi

ftfovrai

(f>l\oi

rjSoi/V

TO XP^~
01
rj

TOMTT]
Si

OfJ.0101

UVTfS,

of morose persons it of TOIOV1158, a, 7 roi fvvoi IJLSV elaiv aAA7)Aois QovXovTai yap Ta.ya.Qd KO.\ diravTUffiv 8 ov irdvv CLS Tas xpeias (f)L\oi eiVl Sia Tb fj.1] (rvvr]fji.pveLV /irjSe aAA^Aots, a 877 ^aAtoV elvai
;
:

ayaOol

UUTOVS

^(Aot

yap

ETHICS
equivalent.
is

195

Every other kind, attaching as it does to external and unessential, is merely an imperfect copy of this true friendship. This requires that friends should love the good in one only another, that they should receive only good from one another

what

and

return only good. 2 Virtuous men, on the other hand, neither demand nor perform

any unworthy service to to be done for them. 3 it just as true friendship rests on likeness and equality of character and spiritual gifts, all
one another, nor even permit
it
4 be said to rest upon equality.

friendship

may
1

The equality

is

See

n. 1

and

on preceding page,
c.

viii. 8,

1158, b, 4 sqq.

10,

1159, b, 2 sqq. * 0. 4, 1156, b, 12: (KaTepos air\cas ayaObs Kal

eVrti/
fyiXa)

T<$

[each is not only per se good, but a good to his friend], ot yap
ayaOol Kal airXcas ayaOol ital dAAr/Aots ox^eAtyUOi. 6/j.oicas 5e Kal f/SeTs Kal yap curAcos ol ayaOol TjSets /cat
eKatTTCf yap Ka9 fiSovf)]/ etVu/ at olicelai irpdl-tis Kal at TOIUV-

aAArjAoiS
Tat,

TWV
TOV

6/j.oiai.

c. 7,

Tes

5e at avTal 71 1157, b, 33: fyiXovv(piAov TO ai>TO?s ayaObv

ayaOoiiv

this trans the meaning i s i nas . as love is a praiseworthy it is a kind of thing, perfection the friends, or is based upon perfection; as, therefore the that rests upon actual friendship merits is lasting, that which rests upon true love must be so

words preceding forbid

;

1476, as the love of friends is like the love of their virtue, for the
<

(pL\e?i/ eot/cei/ [which we cannot explain with BEANDIS, p.

TO

lation

much

SOT

fV ots

OL-TOt
<pi\ia.

fj.evos

6 yap ayaObs (pi\os yej/6ayadbv yiveTai $ (pi\os e/caovv Te TO avTy ayaQbv, Tepos Kal TO avTaTroSiSuxn Trj Bov\r)<t>i\ovffiv

too]. yivtTai /COT d|taj/, fttviflOl (})i\0l Kal J! oVru 5 ^ Ka l O l

TOTO

yap
Iff6rns
teal

^>tAe?

"iffov

6fj.oi6rns
r,

ffi

Kal
T<$

v
5e
fj.d\io-Ta

TjSeT

b omit ^, so that the same pro verb is here cited as ix. 8, 1168, b,

<$>iX6Tt}s

f)

tVoTTjs

Ae^eTat yap [or with Cod.

Sia

ydp ^tAoTTjs lo-6Tr, s T; TWV ayaOwv Tavff

-]

C. 10, 1159, b,

4.

ov a T is eVSefc to TO^TOU fyttfuwts dmSupctTat a\\ v This is so even in the case of lovers.
,

v\ov<ri

aj^aO^s

elSon-

rvyxdvci

See

n.

and viii.

3 on preceding page,
:

tvavTiov
effTiv.

Ka8
TOVTO

10, 1159, a, 34 TTJS (ptAtas ovffrjs ev TO?

avrb,

ciAAa

KaTa

yap

dyaSov.

Cf

n. 2, supra.

o 2

196

ARISTOTLE

besides having like objects perfect when both parties, in view, are like one another in respect of worth. 011 the other hand, the object of each is dif

When,
ferent,
2

other,

or when one of the parties is superior to the we have proportional instead of perfect equality
:

each lays claim to love and service from 3 Friend the other, proportionate to his worth to him. in which also the question ship is thus akin to justice,
or analogy
is

one of the establishment of equality in the reW 4 but law and right take tions of human society
;

seeks pleasure, the other advan and his tage or of the sophist the former disciple, in which teaches and the latter pays ix. 1,
;
;

in the case of the lover and his beloved, or the artist and his pupil, in which the one party
1

As

Parents Kal a! $i\iai. al perform a different service for

^i\-fi<rfis

children from that which chil dren perform for parents; so long as each party does the duty that belongs to it they are in a
right

193, n. 4, mp. of parents E.g. the relation and children, elders and youths, man and wife, ruler and ruled, viii. 8, 1158, a, 8, and elsewhere. 3 VIII. 8 init. eiVt 5 olv al

1164,

a,

2-32

cf. p.

and enduring relation to each other. dvaKoyov 5 eV trdaais rats KaO vircpo^v ovcrais 5e? yivevBai, olov Kal T^V
<pi\iais
</MA7j<rti/

rbv

dfjt,eivci)

/*a\\ov

(pi\f?ff6ai

Kal rbv
</>iAeTi/,

e/pr/juei/at (ptAi

cu eV

avra yiyverai rai dAA^Aois

ai/r
TU>V

oV
3)

ra yap tVorr/rt d^olv Kal fiovXoverepov

i)$OVT)V
:

TUV a\Ac0v yap /car diav

r6r

uxpeXi/awrepov, Kal OTav Ka(TTov 6/j.oius

TJ
<pi\f)ffis

yiyvt]-Tai,

erepov dvQ
OlOV
c.

yiyverai irus ia6 n}s 6 S^j rrjs Cf. C. 13, 1161, (pi\ias elvat SOKC?. rb /car a, 21, c. 16, 1163, b, 11
:

as-.
a><f>eAei

15 init.
V iffOTfjri

rpir-

dtfav yap (iraviffol Kal

<pi\iav.

<T&&I

r^v

ovcrwv

ix.

init.

eV

trdo~ais

rwv
ijVTWV
ru>v

V
Krt0

<pih(i)V

Se

uirepoxV

(.Kal

yap

6fjLoiws

dyadol

<pi\oi

yivovrai Kal

afj.iv(*)v

8e Kai ijoets, Ycipovi, o/jioius

5e rdis dvOjUoeiSe o-t (piXiais [those in which the two parties pursue different ends] rb dvd\oyov Icd&i o~wfi TT]V fyiXlav, Kaddirep Kal
olov Kal eV
c

Ty

iroAiriKi)

T^

poj/Tes) rovs o^eAei cus Kal (pi^-fiv *LO~OVS uev KOT lff6TfjTa Set S Kal TO?S AoiTroTs iffdfriv, rovs
5ia<pe
TCI>

dvrl

TWV
,
.

dvtffovs rep

diroSiSova i.

dvd\oyov rats virepo^ais c. 8, 1158, b, 17 (after

:

irepl

a c. yvtrai /car VIII. 11 init.: eoi/ce Se ravra Kal eV Tols avrols

ev
<pi\ta

elvat

in citing examples of friendship unlike relations) erepayapkKdo-rov rovruv dper^ Kal rb epyov, erepa
Se Kal
{

Kal rb SiKaiov % re yap Koivuvia SOKC ITI 5 iKaiov

<bi\ia

airdo-r)

elvai Kal

5e.

/cafl

Offov 5e KOIVCDVOV^>i\ia

ffiv, firl

roffovrov effri

Kal

yap

d>i\ovffiv

erepai ovv Kal

rb oiKaiov.

Cf. p. 192, n. 4, supra.

ETHICS
account in the
in
first

197

instance of relations of inequality,

which individuals are treated in proportion to their worth, and only secondarily of relations of equality,
whereas in friendship the reverse
is

the

case

that

which
equals,

is

primary and perfect is the friendship between while that which exists between those who are
is

not equals

only secondary.

Aristotle

next discusses those connections which

are analogous to friendship in the narrower sense. He remarks that every community, even such as exists for

a special purpose, involves a kind of friendship, and he shows especially with regard to that form of community which embraces all others namely, the political what personal relations correspond to its principal forms, that 2 From these, is, to the various kinds of constitution.

which are more of the nature of contracts, he then pro ceeds to separate the relationships of kindred and pure
VI1T. 9 init
rb taov
rfj
(f>i\ia
:

ej/

re TO?S StKa
"HTOV

fyio 01^ ots KCU

* ffri

wy 8e
eV

Qaivfrai ^x flv

7P
;

slave, no friendship but in such cases possible there are not even rights (c. 18,
is
;

master and

eV p.fv TOIS SiKaiois

irpwrvs rb

ar alav

[i.e. 5iave/j.r)TiKbv SLKCUOV,

which

is

based upon analogy

1 1 78, b, The 10). distinction, as a whole, is rather a trifling one, and it is obvious

ibid.

cf. x. 8,

see p. 171 sqq.], rb Se /caret troabv [i.e. SiopOuriKov, which proceeds

from the quotations on p.

196, n. 4,

and

p. 192, n. 4. supra,, that it

was

upon the principle of arithmetical

equality] Seurepcos, eV 5e TTJ fyiXia rb p.ev Kara Troabv Trpwrws [since perfect friendship, of which all other forms are imperfect imitations, is that which is concluded between persons equally worthy for the sake of their worth see p. 194, n. 1, and 195, n. 2, supra], rb Se /car diav Sevrepus in support of which Aristotle points to the fact that where the inequality is very
; :

not accepted even by Aristotle himself as exhaustive of the subject. The reason is to be found in the obscurity caused by his failure clearly to separate between the legal and the moral side of
justice.

On the special relations of travelling companions, comrades in war, members of clans, guilds, &c., of. viii. 11; on the State and the various forms of consti2

great, as in the case of

men and

tution,
4,

c.

12

sq.,

and

p.

196, n.

gods or

(c.

13,

1161, a, 32 sqq.)

supra.

198
1

ARISTOTLE

friendship.

on

On the same principle lie distinguishes later two kinds of the friendship which rests on mutual advantage, which are related to one another as written to unwritten law the legal, in which the mutual
2
:

obligations are definitely fixed, and which therefore is merely a form of contract and the moral, in which the services to be rendered are left to the good will of the
;

individual.

Aristotle further examines the occasions

rise

which give
friends.

to

discord

and separation between

remarks that it is chiefly in friendship for the sake of advantage that mutual recriminations arise, for where friendship is cherished for the sake of virtue
there
is

He

a rivalry in

mutual

service,

excludes any sense of unfairness oh either side

it

which successfully where

;

is

founded merely upon pleasure

it

is

likewise

impossible for either party to complain of unfairness, if he fails to find what he seeks. On the other hand, the

man who

performs a friendly service in the hope of a like return, too often finds himself disap obtaining 3 The same may be said of pointed in his expectations.
friendships between unequals. Here also unfair claims are frequently made, whereas justice demands that the

more worthy should be recompensed for that which cannot be repaid to him in kind by a corresponding measure of honour. 4 Finally, misunderstandings easily
1

VIII. 11 inlt.:
oi>v

eV ^Koivwvia.

/icy

irtHTa
<}>i\ia

effrlv,

Ka&dirsp
ai

f ipT)Tai-

d(pnpifreif

&v ris rrjf re

eTcuptKTjp.
<f)v\TiKal

(rwyyevutfyv Koi rrjv 3e TroXiTLKal KOI

ffvfj.ir\oiKai,

KOI

vuvtKois eoiKaffi /j.a\\ov

/ca9
els

KOI ovai Toiav-rai, KOIolov yap

o^oXoylav nva fyaivovrou flvat. TavTas 8e rd^eiev &v TIS Kal TT\V
.

discussed in c. 14, partly a!j| 12 sq. shall ret urn to these in the section upon the Family. VIII. 15, 1102, b, 21 sqq. 3 See the interesting discussion in viii. 15. Cf. also what is said on the relation of teacher and scholar, ix. 1. 11 04, a, 32 sqr 4 VIII. 1(5.
art-

c.

We

"

Relationships of kindred

ETHICS
arise

199

where each party has a different object in view in

1

Aristotle further discusses entering upon the alliance. the cases where a man s duty towards his friend con
flicts

with his duty towards others, and he lays down

the wise principle that in each case we must consider the peculiar obligations which the circumstances in
volve.
2

He
if

dissolved

asks whether a friendly alliance should be one of the parties to it changes, and he

answers that separation is unavoidable in cases where the change is one in the essential conditions of the
connection.
self
3

He

and love of

friends, recognising in
4

surveys the relation between love of the latter a

reflection of the attitude

tains towards himself;

which the virtuous man main and he connects with this the
s is

question

whether one should love oneself or one

it

friend more, deciding

impossible that there

.

by pointing out should be any real opposition

it

that

1 For the fuller discussion of cf p. 193, n. 4, this case see ix. 1

;

been deceived in a friend, supposing oneself to have been loved

disinterestedly (Starb ?)0os), while with the other it was only a matter of pleasure or profit. 1 f a friend degenerates morally, the first duty is to aid him in

supra.
especially 11C5, a, 16, 30 eVel 8 erepa yovevffi Kal d5eAKal traipois KCU vpyerais, fKaarois TO. ot/ceTa Kal ra apfMor2,
:

IX.

</>ois

TOJ/TCC

airovij.r)T(oi>

ital

ffvy-

yeveai

KOI (puAeVcus Kal iroXirais Kal TCHS \onrots awa<nv ael TretpareW
Sr)

TO oiKtlov aTroWyueiv, Kal avyKpivtiv ret eKaffroLs virdpxovTa KCCT oiKei6~ When TTjra Kal aper^v $ x^l ffLV the relation is homogeneous this comparison is easier when he:

recovering himself, but if lie proves incurable, separation is the only resource, for one cannot and ought not to love a bad man. If, lastly, as is often the case in youthful companionships, the one outruns the other in

terogeneous, it is more difficult to make but even in the latter case it cannot be neglected. 3 IX. 3: this is, oE course, the case where the friendship is
;

moral and intellectual development, true fellowship becomes henceforth impossible; nevertheless, the early connection should be honoured as much as it
fcan be.
4

based upon pleasure or advanor, again, when one has tage

;

IX.

4,

Hid.

1.166,

where the discord

b, 6-2 .), in the soul of

200

ARISTOTLE
self-love con
i.e.

between the claims of those two, since true

sists in

coveting for ourselves

what

is

best

the

morally beautiful
1

and great

but we participate in this

only the more fully in proportion to the sacrifice we make for a friend. In the same spirit Aristotle expresses him

upon the view that the happy man can dispense with friends. He denies this on many grounds. 3 The happy man, he says, needs
friends

self (to pass over other points 2 )

whom

he

may

benefit

their excellence affords a high sense of to the consciousness of one s own

;

the contemplation of enjoyment akin

it

is
;

easier

to

one gains moral iiivigoration for oneself from intercourse with Above all, man is by nature formed for good men. association with others, and the happy man can least
good, and his consciousness of that life and activity a pleasure, so also the existence of a friend, in whom his own existence is doubled, and the consciousness of this existence, which he enjoys in 5 intercourse with him, must be a joy and a But good.
the wicked is depicted with remarkable truth, and the moral is drawn consistently with the practical aim of the Etliws ei 8r)
:

energise in

company with

others than alone

afford to lead a solitary life his own life and activity is a

4
;

for just as to each

man

children

one

(c. s friends,

8)

the

number

of

which ought to be

TO ovrcas %Xtiv
tyevKTfoi
f.(.ei/ws
1

neither too small nor too great, but ought to include so many
ocroi tls TO ffv^fjv ifcavoi, seeing that a close relationship is possible only between few, the closest (epus as uTrepjSoA^ ^tAioy), only between two; although of political friends (members of the

XLO.V ecrrlv
^oxO"npiav

a9\iov,

Tr)v

Siarera-

c.

see p. 133, n. 2, supra, 151, n. 2, supra, relation of evvoia (ix. o>oVoia (c. 6) to the apparent fact that the benefactor usually loves the benefited more than the latter the former, every one loving his own production, as the mother does her
8,

IX.

ad Jin., p. 2 The 5) and

<f>t\ia

same party) one can have a great

number.
3
4

IX. IX,

9, cf. viii. 1.

9,

1169, b,
a,

1155, a, 5. 7; see p. 192,

n. 3,
5

supra. Ibid. 1170,

13 sqq. where,

ETHICS
if

201

further whether we require friends more in or adversity, the answer is, 1 that it is more prosperity necessary to possess them in adversity, nobler in
2

we ask

prosperity. their help ;

In the former case we are more in need of

manly

natures,

which know how to bear

pain alone, have more need of friendly sympathy in the other case. man ought to be eager to invite his

friends to share his joys, loath to have recourse to in sorrow on the other hand, he ought to be
;

them more
both. 3

ready to hasten to them

in joy.

when they

are in trouble than

True friendship, however, demands Friendship is an association and community of

extension of self-love to embrace others.

life,

an

Each takes

the same delight in the existence and activity of his friend as he does in his own, and imparts to his friend

what he most values himself. 4

after first referring to al<redvo-9ai voflv as constituents of human life, Aristotle proceeds, 1. 19 rb 8e fjv r$v Katf avrb aya<rv$jv

Friendship, therefore,
Kal Koivwvelv

and

\6yw

Kal Sia-

So|ete rb ffvfjv eVt ruv avQpuirwv XsytcrQai, KOI oO% CTT! rSsv Sxrirep (3oo~Kr]fj.dTu}V rb eV
~av

voias

ovrw yap

65>v

Kal

^SeW
OTL
fj

iraaiv

7}Sv

elvai.

b,

Si^Trep eoi/ce rb 5 alff:

rep

avr$ veuea-Qat. IX. 11.

-

BdvfffOai

rwv

f]8ewv
{co^,

/co0

similar

distinction

be-

rb 5 ayaObv v-jrapxav eV favrtp aivQavea-0ai ^Su. [In being conscious of perception and thought we are conscious of life rb yap e?j/cu fy
:

auro

$iWt yap ayaQbv

tween avayKalov and ayadbv or

Ka^bv has already
us, p.

come before
.

165, n. 1 (from MetapTi.i. 2), 192, n. 5, supra. Of Polit. vii. 14, 1333, a, 36 ra 5 avayKcua Kal
:

aiorOdvtffQai Kal i/oeli/, a, . 32.] Se irpbs eavrbv e ^ei 6 crirovSa ios, Kal
.
.

o>s

xP^ frt At
3
i]

T&V

Ka\>i>

eVe/cev.

irapovata

Srj

ruv

<pi\(av,

c.

Trpbs

rov (piXov
fffriv
.

<t>i\os

erepos yap avrds 6 KaOaTTfp ovv rb avrbv

11

concludes,

eV

airaffLi/

alpfri)

(paiverai.
4 See n. 5 above, and ix. 12 (at the end of the section upon friendship) ap ovv, wffirep rols fpSaffi rb ovru 6pa.v a.ya.irt)r6rar6v eo-n, Kal rots (pi\ois alprcarar6v effri rb
: . . .

clvai alperov effriv e/coo-r^, ovrca Kal rb rbv ^} irapair\r)(ri(as. rb 8

</>iAoi/

flvai i\v alperbv Sia rb alffOdveaOai avrov ayaOov 8e roiavrr} 7) ataQyais ^5e?o KaO eavrr^v, ffvvaur6dvso-6ai apa Set Kal rov (piXov ori (0~nv, rovro 8e yivoir" o.v eV
bvro<i.
1

ffv^fjv ;

Koivcavia

yap

f]

QiXia.

Kal

r<

us

trpbs

iaurbv t^ej, OVTU Kal irpbs

202
is

ARISTOTLE

the most conspicuous example of the natural sociableness and solidarity of mankind. It is the bond that
unites

men
as

to one another, not in

any merely outward

by community of legal rights, but by the instincts of their nature. In friendship indi deepest vidual morality expands into a spiritual communion.
manner,
a

limited and dependent on the accidental circumstances of personal relations. It

this
is
still

But

communion

is

in the State that

it first

more

solid foundation

in

receives a wider scope and a fixed laws and permanent

institutions.

TOI>

<pi\ov.

Trfpl

O.\JT\>V

77

QTl

(TTIV alpeTT)

KOU TTfpl

203

CHAPTER
TR ACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
B.
1.

XIII
(CCLNTIX UEI
1
>)

Politics

Necessity,
s

Nature and Function of the State

be said, as of some other portions of his philosophy, that there are several points in it on which it is difficult for us to obtain
Aristotle

OF

theory of the State it

may

certainty or completeness of view, owing to the state in which his treatise on Politics has come down to us.

the union, so unequal, where they exist, the distribution, of the powers and qualities which

So rare

is

we here

find

combined in equal proportions, that the

eight books of the Politics of Aristotle form, indeed, one of the most remarkable works that antiquity has be queathed to us. With the most comprehensive know

ledge of the facts of history and the completest insight into the actual conditions of social life, Aristotle here

combines the subtlest power of marshalling in the service of scientific thought the materials which are
so supplied
1 .

But

the

completion
(Leipzig-,

of the

work was
:

On the more recent literatare which treats of Aristotle s theory of the State as a whole and in its several parts, see HILDENBRAND, Gescli. u. tit/st. tier Itechtsimd Staa^pHlosopHe

UEBERWEG,
and

I860), i. H42 sqq. Grundriss,i. 203 sq.

;

(5th ed. 187G)

SUSEMIHL,

Jalirb.

/. Philol. vol. xcix. 593, ciii. 110,

BuusiAN s Jakretbericht, 1874, p. 592 sq. 1877, p. 372 sqq.

204

ARISTOTLE
l

probably prevented by the death of the author and when the sketches which he had left came to be put to
;

gether.
1

it

was impossible to avoid

lacunce,

and these must

See Appendix, it impossible to Cicero, make Here, as in the case of the accept this view, even were we 76 sq. supra), to grant that the note, Metaphysics (see p. ^ the notes left by Aristotle seem QeoQp., did not find a place in to have been simply put together Hermippus s enumeration until without revision or alteration. after Apellicon s discovery of the Tradition does not tell us who books, and to treat Krohn s eli undertook this task but as mination of the supposed TheoTheophrastus is named as the phrastian passages from our text editor of the Metaphysics as less arbitrary than it is __ The (p. have been he same arguments hold good also 79), it may which would explain the fact against HILDENBRAND S (GescJt. that the Politics seems to have d. PecMs- u. StaatspkiL i. 360) been in circulation also under his and ONCKEN S (Staatsl. d. Arist. name. It is alluded to by Diog. v. i. 65 sq.) supposition that the 24, in the curious words 7ro\tPolitics at the death of the TIKTJS aKpodcTfws ws 7] author existed only in the original rov dri. As they stand, these MS., and that between the death words give no conceivable sense, of Theophrastus and Apellicon s as it could not have been in discovery it had disappeared. It tended to explain the nature may, indeed, appear strange that of Aristotle s Politics by compar during this period we find such them with Theophrastus s as meagre traces of it, but this finds ing the better known. The question, sufficient in the explanation rises whether the feebleness of the interest taken therefore, words TroA. a.Kpod(re<j0s d 77 are not at this time in political investiga alone original, ^ eo^paa-rou hav tions, and the poverty of the been first placed in the philosophical remains that have ing margin by another hand, and survived to us from it. Even in then incorporated in the text as the later ages, this most important with us taken from account of Aristotle s TI &eo(f)p. political it. KROHN doctrines is seldom mentioned aKpodvtws preceding that the con (ibid. 51) supposes (see the passages cited by SUSEjunction of the works of Theo who follows MIHL, xlv, p. and Aristotle in the SPENGEL, Ucb. d. Pol. d. Arist. phrastus cellar at Scepsis may partly ex \_Abh. d. Miinchn. Akad. \. 44], and plain why much that belongs to HEITZ, Verl. Schr. d. Ar. 242 should have found hardly a dozen in fifteen centu Theophrastus its way into the Politics of Ari ries), and, apart from the extract
o>y

eo<t>pd(T-

stotle,

and why

it finally

came

to

in

be thought that Theophrastus was its author but the indica

;

STOB^EUS (see

p. 203, supra), is

tions given, p. 150, supra, of the use of the work up to the time of

not discussed with any fullness except by the Platonist EUBULUS (Part iii! a. 71 9, b, 408, 1, POEPH.
V. Plot. 15, 20), a part of

whose

POLITICS

205

always remain a serious hindrance to the student of the Politics, even although the leading thoughts and funda mental features of the treatise are hardly affected by them.

However valuable
finds, as

individual virtue and the

it

know-S
?

ledge which instructs us in

may

be, Aristotle yet

was to be expected

in a Greek, that both are

inadequate so long as they are confined to individuals. Morality finds its first perfect realisation in the State.
the moral activity of a community is greater, more perfect, nobler, and more divine than that oi

In

itself,

individuals. 1

maintenance of virtue
State.

But even the continuous production and is dependent wholly upon the
instruction
:

Mere

is

insufficient

in

the

vastf

majority of cases he who is a slave to desire neither It is fear of listens to admonition nor understands it.

punishment, not aversion to

evil,
is

that

moves him.
its

He
sake.

knows nothing

of joy in what

noble for

own

How

then, to correct inveterate ten dencies by mere exhortation ? Habit and education alone are of any avail, not only with children, but with adults as well, for these also are for the most part amen
is

it

possible,

But a good education and able only to legal constraint. laws are possible only in the State. 2 Only in stringent
the State can
State
is

attain his proper good. 3 Life in the His nature has the natural vocation of man.
UTT

man

ruv

ApiffTorcXovs tv

ff&fciv

ayair-f]T^v

p.ev

yap Kal

evl

UXdrwvos TloAiTeiav a,VTipi}iJ.evo)v has been made public by MAI, Collect. Vatic, ii. 671 sqq. el yap Etli. i. 1, 1094, b, 7
1 :

Kal
2
3

Ibid. x. 10.
Polit.
i.

ciety aims at
tie

1 init. Every sosome good, yuaAurra

Kal ravr6v effriv [TO Tt Aos] ei/i Kal tro\i, |Ue?oV 76 Kal TfAewrepov rb T7s TroA.a>s (mtJ eTcu Kal \a&?v Kal

crro^d^erai]
irdcras

Kal rov Kvpiiardrov irdvruv [sc. rj iravuv Kvpuardri] Kal

Tri^x ovffa ras ^\\as

O^TTJ

200

ARISTOTLE
him
for society, 1 as is clear

destined

from the fact that

2 power of speech.

he alone of

all

creatures possesses the

In the State moral activity finds at once and completion. The State is the moral
therefore
3

its

condition

family

prior in itself to the only in the order of its

whole, and is individual and the

origin in time

and of

human need does it come after them. 4 Only a being who is more or who is less than human can live apart from the community of the State. To man it is in
dispensable. For as with moral culture he is the noblest of all creatures, so without law and right he is the worst and the adjustment of rights is the function of the community at large/ The morality, therefore,
Ka\ov/uLvr) ir6\is Kal TJ iroXiriK f}. Eth. i. 1, rb Tavrrjs [TT/S TroAt1094, b, 6 re Aos 7repi^oi &j/ ra riav TZ/CTJS] SXTTC TOUT &// efy ra.vQp<aa\\u>v,
e<rrii>

T]

1252, b, 30: Sib iraaa iro\is

effrlv, e^7re/j Kal at Trpurai KOivcaviai

KoiiHavia

7)

reAos yap ainai reAos eVrtV.

4

fKeivcov,

rj

tie

tyvvis

irivov

ayadov.

How

far

this is

consistent with the higher place assigned to Qewpla. has been al ready discussed, p. 143 sq. supra. Polit. i. 2, 1253, a, 2 bn
1 :

Only in this sense is it said, Mh. viii. 14, 1162, a, 17: avGpuiros yap rrj tyvo-ei ffvvSvao-TiKbv yUaAAoj/
^)

Kaiortpov

iroKiTiKbv, offq} irpoTtpov Kal avayoiKia TTo Afws. That is

rwv

(pixrei

}]

TroAis earl, Kal

on

av-

OpwTros tyvaei iro\LTiKbv

:

$ov.

With

a reference to this passage, iii. 6, 1278, b, 19 (pixrei fj.4v eo-nv avOpcairos {ipoi/ Tro\irtKbv, Sib Kal fj.r)ei/

serves to satisfy is there fore definitely distinct from rb Ka\6v; see p. 201, n. 2, supra. But this does not the

avayKaw which

a physical need, and

prejudice

subordination
social

Sf6/nvoi rrjs Trap a\\T)\(av fiorideias OVK eAaTTOv bpeyovrai TOV crv^fjv. Etli. ix. 9 see p. 192, n. 3, supra ; cf. preceding note. a Polit. i. 2, 1253, a, 7 sqq. 3 Polit. i. 2, 1253, a, ]9:
;

bond

of every other to the political. On

the other hand, the State and the household seem rather to be

Trp6rpov
Kal

Sr?

rf)

tyvcrei Tr6\is

$7

oiKia

fKatrros TUJLUV fanv. rb yap o\ov irporspov avaynatov eli/ai TOV el yap pepovs. avrdpKtjs
.

regarded by Eudemus as parallel institutions (see Eud. vii. 10, 6 7^ 1242, a, 22 avtipuiros ov fj.6vov iroXiriKbv dAAa Kal olKovopiKbv economics being also C$0"), separated by him from politics
:

see p. 186, n.
3

4,
2,

dfjLoiws

rols

Polit.

i.

supra. 1253, a, 27:

6 St

e|et

irpbs

rb o\ov.

POLITICS
of individuals has
its

L>07

indispensable complement in the

in Politics.
said,

State

Ethics

is fulfilled

It follows from

what has just been

that the

fu action of the State cannot, according to Aristotle, be

limited to that which even then, it would seem, was held by some, as it has been held by a much larger

number in modern times, to be its only one namely, The State the protection of person and property.
certainly owes its origin, as Aristotle admits, primarily Families unite in communities for to a human need.

purposes of intercourse communities again into States. But the conception of the State is not thereby ex Its function does not stop with care for the hausted.
;

physical wellbeirig of
citizens

its

members, since

this care is

extended to slaves and domestic animals as well as to

protection against external enemies and security of intercourse. Such a community is an alliance and not a commonwealth, norl
;

nor even with the

common

is it less so

because the

allies

form a geographical unit]

While

it is

indispensable to the existence of a political

all these objects should be secured, a State, in the proper sense of the word, first arises yet from the effort of the citizens to realise a perfect and

community that

Se6/j.vos 5i avTapKeiav, ovtiev /uLepos

x a}P l(T Q* v
iravrtav.
!\ou<ra

v6p.nv Kal 8 fays

xe

6e6s (as he lias said already at line 3 of the same page: 6 airo\is 8ia (pixriv
TrdAews,
&<TT

r)

drjpiov

v)

^aAeTra TaTT?

-yap

P t(TTOV aSiKia

oVAa

%x

u>v

(pverai

<ppovf]at

avdpoajros otr\a Kal apery, ofs

Kal
effTiv
/j.ei>

ov
$)

Sia

T\)\t\v
r)
1

tfroi

<pav\6s

eVi ravavria.
Sib

ecm
. .
.

%p7}<r0cu

/xaAKTra.

KpeiTTUv
r/

ovv

(5p/ur?

ttv$pco7ros). (pvtrti iraffiv eirl TTJV roi-

a.vo(Ti<aTQ.Tov

Kal

a/ypidcraTOv

avryv Koivwiav
ffas /JLeyiffTcw

6 Se Trp&ros (rvtrrr)-

aveu dpervjs TTO\ITIKOV T/

KoivcDvlas

8e
St/crj
i]

SutauHrvv)]
TTO\ITLK?JS

yap

yap Kal

a-yaQuv ounos. Siairep TeAeco^tv P\THTTOV TUV

f<TTW,

rdis fcrriv

Se

SI /CTJ

rov

SiKaiov Kpiais.

OUTU

Kal

208

ARISTOTLE
The aim
of the State
2

1 self-sufficing social life.

is,

in

Happiness, however, consists in the unimpeded exercise of virtue. 3 The happiness of a whole people cannot differ from that
of individuals.

word, the happiness of the

citizens.

Accordingly, the highest function of the State and of statecraft is to form and educate citizens.
1

fj.ev

Polit. i. 2, 1252, b, 12 r) ovv els iraffav fi/ufpav ffvvfcrrt]:

aperrjs Kal /ca/ctas

"oaoi

(ppovri^ovcriv ev-

Kvla
fo~nv.

Koivcavia
.
.

Kara.

<pvo~iv

ol/cos

vo/jiias.

y Kal (pavepbv
eVt/xeAes
elvai

on
ry

Set ?repi
1

f)

e/c

TT\fi6v(t}v

OIKIWV

aperrjs

y"

us

koivuvia Trpwrr)

xpTJ<reo>s

eVe/cei/ /*$]

ahrjBus
X<*pw-

ovofjLa^o/j.vr) TrJAet,

/j.rj

\6yov

Qvaiv
flvai.

/xaAnrra 5e Kara f(pr]u.epov /caiyUTj. eot/cey r) KM/A?) airoLKia ot/cias

the extension of the family springs the village com munity, which in the earliest times is ruled by the head of the family ... ^ 5 e/c it\ei6vwv KU/J.UV Koivcavia re Aetos ir6\is, rj 8^ iraaris fx ovffa Tfpos TTJS avrapKeias ws eVos etVetV, yivo^vi^ p.ev ovv rov fjv eVe/cer, ovaa Se rov ev fjv.
Sib
/ecu

From

Every other combination an alliance, not a State every law which does not aim at
is
;

making the

citizens

just
if

and
the

good is a o-vvd-fiKij, not a Nor does it alter matters

v6fj.os.

parties in question inhabit the same place, (pavepbv roiwv, 6ri KOiviavia r6irov Kal rj TToAts OVK eWt
crtyas

avrovs Kal

rrjs f^ev

ravra

iraffa

ir6\is (pixret ecrrlv,

ffaep

avayKaov
TTO AIS,

(drat
jj.}]v

at irpwrai Koivowiai

ttitivuv,
iii.
?

TJ

Se

(pvffis

re\os yap re Aos

:

ou

oi/S

rovrwv airavrwv
rov cv

^877

TT^Ats,

aAA

9 1280, a, 25 Civil society exists not merely for the protection of property, nor yet rov rjv /JLOVOV eVe/cev, ctAAct /uaAAoi/ rov (v fjv (/cal yap &i/ SouAwv Kal r&v ttAAwj CtyteV fy Tr6\is vvv S OVK Hart Sta rb /j.^j ^uere ^eji/ euSat/j.ovias yurjSe rov fjv Kara irpoaipfffiv),
p.-t]rf

yv

Koivoivia Kal rals ot/ctats,

Kal rois yfVfffi, ^WTJS reAetas X^P IV Kal avrdpKOvs. Polit. iii. 9, 1280, b, 39:

re Aos

u.ej/ /u.ej/

ovv -TT^Aews
Se

rb eS 0j/

yevcav Kal K<a(J.iav KOivuvia fays reAetas Kal avrdpKOvs. rovro S earii , us (pa/j.ev, rb

TroAis

avfM^a-xias
/cat
.

eVe/cei/,

oirws

virb

d5t/ca)vTat,

ju^jre

Sta

ray

apa
j/

federates, neither under any common au thority ovr rov iroiovs rivas fivat Se? (t>povriovo~iv arepoi rovs erepovs, ouS OTTOSS /XTjSels aSt/cos eo-rat riav vTrb ras orvvd fjKas jUTjS CtAATj^
5

rfy irpbs Being merely con such partners are

rrjv -^prfffiv

KOiviaviav,
8,

aAA
a,

ov

rov ^
ra>v

ffv(fjv.

vii.

1328,
ris

35:

5e

TT^A S

Koivcavia

eVrt
TTJS

6/j.oiccv,

eVe/cev

8e

^w^s
eVel

ej/Se-

XOjUeVrjs
fvSai/j.oi>ia

apiffrys.

5
"

effrlv

rb

apiffrov,
/cat

avrt]
1

5e
Tfs

apeTTjs eVep7eta re Aetos &c.

3

XP^

e|et ^Se/jiiav,

aAAa

jj.6vov

See

p.

137 sqq. snpra.

POLITICS
to cherish in

209

them
1

all

to furnish the impulse to

moral and spiritual fitness, and an inherently noble and satis

fying
citizen

activity.

The qualities which make a good and a brave man are thus seen to be the same
:

the completed virtue of a citizen is not a virtue, but virtue in its application to civic life. 2 Virtue, however,
1

See

p. 208, n. 1,

i.

13, 1102, a, 7, ii. 1, 1103, b, Polit. vii. 2 init., c. 35 init.

:

suvra; Eth. 3;

Si/catos
C. 9,

Kal

(ppoviij.os

Kal

Polit. iii. 4 Is the virtue of the O.VTIP ayaBbs identical with that of the TTOA/TTJS airovfiaios or not ? Absolutely identical they certainly are not (as has already been remarked, Eth. v. 5, 1130, b, 28), for not only does each different form of State make

1328, b, 37: eV rfj K d\\ iff r a Tro\iTvo[Avp TroAei Kal TJJ /ce/CTTj-

lAtvri

StKaiovs avSpas air\^s,

aAAa

he sides with existing laws and institutions, defends even what

severe and unjust in them), 13, 1332, a, 3G Kal yap d Travras evSdxerai (TirovSaiovs dvai, Kad tKaarov 5e ruv Tro\iTocv /u??
is
c.
:

reference to State the irpbs ryv ^a given vTr60<nv SiKaios is he who, while
;

irpbs T}]V viroQeo-iv (in

peculiar bers (civil virtue, therefore, will have a different character under different forms of constitution), but the State itself consists of

demands upon

its

mem

heterogeneous elements, and not merely of men of mature virtue. In so far, on the other hand, as the State may be regarded as a free community, as being the government of freemen and equals (TroAm/oj apxh, o-pX^ r ^ v
ojj.o((i}v

[even although it be possible for the community as a whole to be excellent while each of the individuals is not, the imperfec tions of the members being com pensated for by the perfection of the whole; we shall have to allude to this further on in refer
ring to Polit. iii. 11, 13, 15], OUTWS alpsTwrepoi [yet the latter, viz. that all the individuals

Kal

eAeu0e

pa>i/,

1277, b, 7

they coincide, for no one is qualified to be a member of such a State who does not know both
sqq.),

should be virtuous,
desirable]
eKao-TOV
;

is

the

more
1

dftroAoufle?

yap ry
c.

KaQ"

Kal
:

rb

how

iravras.

to

command and how

to

1332, a, 11

obey in other words, who is not an OLV^P ayaOos. Hence, c. 18, 1288, a, 37, with reference to c.
4
:

&PXW and
State
all
C.

the best

As the virtue of the man is one

U,

and the same, but

all

eV

in the best are fitted to govern, the

Tols

\6yois

OTL

rrjv

avSpbs aptrrii TroAecos TTJS dpurTTjy.

b,

fSei^dl] avrrjv avayKcuov eli/at Kal iroXirov rys

vii.

TTpdOTOLS

legislation must aim at making the citizens in it g;ood men.

15

lilit.

firel

Se

1,

1323,
Kal

opov avayKalov flvai

avSpl Kal rfj dpiirTp

T<

33

avSpia

Se

rbv avTuv re apiffTy

TroAecos

TroAireta.

Ac

aioavvr] Kal typovijcris r}]v avrrji/

v
/ca<TTOS

cording to these explanations, the

words
T

4, 1277, a, 4) el (iii. avayKalov ayaOovs elvai rovs

VOL.

II.

210
is

ARISTOTLE
twofold
is

theoretic
is

and

practical.

To ask which

of

these

equivalent here to asking whether superior or war is to be the ultimate aim of civil life peace sincQ the proper occupation for times of peace is, T according Aristotle, Science, whereas in w ar the main
;

object is the acquisition of the greatest possible power But we have already seen that Aristotle of action.
1

places the theoretic life much higher than the practical, and accordingly we are not surprised to find him

sharply criticising those constitutions which, like the Spartan and the Cretan, are adapted rather for war

than for peace.

quests in view, as

Such

States, he says, have only con

if every kind of dominion over others, whomsoever it may be forced and by whatsoever] upon means achieved, were permissible; and on this account; they nourish in individuals the spirit of violence and ambition, and estrange them from the arts of peace, and so when their dominion is secured and the martial activity

should give place to the peaceful, such States forthwith Aristotle himself regards the peaceful fall into decay.
occupations as the true object of social
life
;

war he

permits only as a

means

to peace, only, therefore, in so far

the discussion that follows, This parallel, however, is only partially relevant. Aristotle tells us himself (Poht. vii. 15, 1334, a, 22 sqq.) that even moral
virtues,

TroAei eV rfj ffTrovSaiq. occurring-, moreover, as

irohiras,

they do in a dialectical discussion (an to be understood an-opia), are not as though Aristotle himself in-

tended to deny that necessity, He means them merely as a preliminary affirmation of the condition under which alone civil and individual virtue absolutely

such as justice and

self-

command,
pensable Moreover,

are especially indisin time of peace,

Whether and under what circumstances this condicoincide.

while scientific acneeds peace most, yet it can only at ^best be practised by a small minority of the
tivity certainly
citizens.

tion

is

present,

is

the subject of

POLITICS
as
it is

211

those

whom Nature

necessary for self-defence or for the subjugation of has destined to serve. He de

mands, accordingly, that besides bravery and constancy, which are necessary in order that the State may assert
namely, justice, should temperance, and scientific culture la) also be cultivated. It cannot be denied that the aim of
(<^XO<TO<

its

independence, the virtues of peace

1

is thus placed sufficiently It is not, high. indeed, to Aristotle the absolutely highest, as it was to the Greeks of an earlier age. To him as to his teacher the highest is that scientific activity which in itself can

the State

which

This alone it is in dispense with the society of others. man attains the highest perfection permitted him
his nature, in

by

which he transcends the limits of

humanity and lives the life of God. Only as man does he require practical virtue and the community in which
it

manifests

itself.

indispensable to him.

As man, however, these are wholly But the highest form, of com

munity, embracing and completing every other, is the Its aim comprehends every other moral aim, State.
while
to the
its institutions

moral
it

extend
of
is

not only give security and stability by means of law and education, but over a whole people. We thus arrive at a
life

definition of the highest function of the State as that

making

the citizens

happy by means of

virtue.

This

life that we have In only a single feature * already met with in Plato. do the two philosojjhei g difjerjrpm. one another, but it
^
1

essentially the same view of civil

Polit. vii.
7,

2,

3,
4.

Etk. x.

1177, b,

143, n. 1, arid on acquisition of slaves, Polit.

14, 15; Cf. also p. war for the

i.

c.

1256, b, 23.
-

Of. the citations

x. 8,
n. 1.

from Etli. and other passages, p. 143,

p 2

8,

212

ARISTOTLE

i^_a__fondamental one. /-In Plato the State, like every thing else upon earth, is essentially related to the other

world, whence

all

truth and reality spring.

This

is

the

ultimate source of his political idealism. Just as the Ideas belong to that supersensible world, so the philo sophical rulers to whom he entrusts the realisation of
these Ideas in the State have their

home

there also, and

only unwillingly descend to take part in earthly affairs. The State, therefore, serves not only for moral educa

but also as a preparation for that higher life of the disembodied spirit into which a beautiful glimpse is opened to us at the end of the Republic. Of this
tion,

view of the State and of

human

life

no trace in
which
tin

Aristotle."?

We have simply and

in general,

we

find

solely here

and with that happiness the immediate outcome of moral and spiritual It is not the aim of the State to represent perfection.
to do with the present life
is

ideal world beyond or to prepare for another life, but to satisfy the wants of the present. And just as he does not require philosophy to be the ruling principle

in politics, as we shall see immediately, so, on the other hand, he sees no opposition between these two, such
as

might make the

political activity of the philosopher

He holds that human appear as a painful sacrifice. nature has two equally essential sides which find their
satisfaction in the practical activity of the statesman

and the theoretic activity of the philosopher respectively.

None but God can

as

man

It is

live in contemplation alone. Man cannot renounce practical life in a community. no mere compulsion, but a moral need, which makes
life

the State and the

which

it

offers

a necessity for

POLITICS
It
is

213

the aim of the Politics to investigate the means

by which the State fulfils its functions, the various more or less perfect conceptions of the nature of these functions, and the institutions that correspond to them.

But before applying himself to this investigation, Ari book of his political treatise discusses the Family and the Household for he holds that in
stotle in the first
;

order perfectly to understand the nature of the State, it is necessary to analyse it into its simplest con
stituents.
1

2.

The Household as a Constituent Element of the State

and as such

the most perfect form of human society, prior to every other in order of thought. But just as elsewhere in Aristotle that which is first in essence is last in origin, the primordial principle the

The State

is

is

last result, so

the

first

natural form of society

namely,

the Family
its

precedes the political as the condition of

2 origin in time.

The family is constituted by means of the three husband and wife, pa-rents and children, master and servant. 3
relations of
1

Polit.

i.

1,

1252,

a,

touching

upon

the

17 (after distinction

OVTCD Kal iroXiv e| &v (rKoirouvrts 6\j/6fMfOa Kal -jrepl

TOVTOW

between political and household economy): SrjAov 8 4arai TO \eyop.VOV

/xaAAor, ri re Siafpfpovatv aXX^Xuv Kal e i TI rexi/t/cbi/ eVSe xercu Aa/3eIV

7T6/H
2 3

V^yf][by which he means not so much his method, as the plan which he intends to follow in the investigation, and which he had indicated at the end of the Ethics ]. &(nrep yap ev ro7s
T7?I>

fTTL(TKOTTOV(TL KO.TO.

GKaffTOV

T&V
2.

pfjBeVTOW.

Cf

C.

fjLfvriv /j-fOoSoj/

3 init.
Polit.
i.

aAAois TO (TwOerov ^xp t& v affvvOfrwv avdyifn SmipelV (ravra

l

yap

Aax O Ta

fj.6pia

TOV iravrbs),

Ibid. c. 2, c. 3, c. 12 init. Aristotle describes, in c.2, the relations of man and wife, slave and freeman, as the two fundamental ones. He begins with the discussion of the latter, c. 3 sqq., and connects with it that of the

214

ARISTOTLE
The
relation of

husband and wife Aristotle

treats as

its basis,

an essentially moral one. A natural instinct forms, indeed, but the union must assume the higher forms
1

The reason of friendship, good will, and mutual service. of this is that the moral capacities of each are partly similar and partly different, and that therefore a free rela
is not only possible, but is demanded both to find their complement. They by the need of The wife as stand, in one sense, upon equal terms.

tion

between them

well as the

husband has a

will of her

own and

a virtue

proper to herself.

She, too, must* be treated as a free Where the women are slaves, this is a proof to person. Aristotle that the men also are slaves by nature, since

a free

On

can unite himself only with a free woman. 2 the other hand, it is also true that the moral

man

capacities of the

from those of the

virtue less perfect
is

woman differ in kind and in degree man her will is weak (axvpos), her
:

and

self-sufficient,

her vocation, as a

not independent production but quiet retire whole, ment and domesticity. 3 The true relation, accordingly,
different

reserving
relations,

kinds of the two

c.

properly

natural to us,

i.e.

to discuss the

remaining

family
perty.
*

before
i.

slavery
;

and

pro-

1260, b, 8, for subsequent treatment, on the ground that the education of women and children and all
13,

arrangements must depend upon the character and aim of the State. The discussion of these, however, is not resumed in the Politics as we have it, what is said in lib. vii. and viii. on education being without special reference to family life. For the
household
purpose of exposition, it to take the order which
is is

2 init. Eth. viii. 14, 1162, a, 16 sqq.; cf.GSc. i. 3 sq. 2 Polit. i. 2, 1252, a. 1 sqq. c. 13, 1260, a, 12 sqq.; Eth. ibid. 3 Polit. i. 5, 1254, b, 13, c. 13, 1260, a, 12, 20 sqq. iii. 4, 1277,
Polit.
cf. 20 sqq. (Ec. i. 3, ad Jin. Hist. An. ix. 1, where cliiferences of character and disposition are discussed in so far as they proceed from difference of sex. See

b,

best

more

ra f?7?Aea /uaAa/cwesp. 608. a, 35 repa nal KaKovpyorepa Kal i]rrov

:

POLITICS
of

215

to man can only exist where the man, as the bears rule, while the woman is treated as a free superior, partner in the household, and as such is not only

woman

protected from every kind of injustice, but also has her own proper sphere, with which the man does not
interfere.

It is

an association of
in

free
it
1

members with
as

rights frequently describes

unequal

other
it,

words,

is,

Aristotle

an

aristocracy.

the relation between Parent and Child, in discussing which, however, Aristotle confines himself characteristically enough, almost solely to the relation
is

Less free

between father and son. 2

views

just quoted, mother and further attention paid to them.

In spite of the advanced daughter have no

As

Aristotle

had

compared the married relation to an aristocracy, he 3 The compares that of father and son to a monarchy.
child has,
air\a
/cat

strictly speaking,

no rights as against

his

Trpoirerearepa Kal irepl rr)V

rG)vre.Kvw rpofyfy typovriffTiKfarepa, TO. 5 oppeva evavriws Ov/j.caS(rrepa,

Kal ayptuirepa Kal air\ovcrrepa Kal . TJrrov eirifiov\a -ywT] avSpbs cXey/Aoveo Tepoi Kal apiSaKpv /na\\ov, eri 8e <p6ovepwrepov Kal ^e^^oipo.

the levity with which Plato (Rep. 452 E sqq. of. Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 775) denies that there is any inherent difference between the sexes beyond that of their natural
v.
;

functions.
l

M~h. N.
;

viii.

12, 1160, b,

32

repots,

Kal (piAoXoiSopov fj.a\\ov Kal

Tr\r}KTiK(aTfpov.

^uaAAoi/

rb

07]

fartbe Kal5vff9v/uLov Au rov appwos Kal

Kal /cat 8vff\iri, avcuSorTepoi/ tyfvSfa-Tfpov, eyairaTTjTOTepoi/ 8e Kal IJW W.oviK&Ttpov, en Se aypvirvorepoy
Kv.1

sqq. c. 13, 1161, a, 22 ; cf. v. 10, End. vii. 9, 1241, b, 1134, b, 15 29 Polit. i. 13, 1260, a, 9 ; (Ec. i. 4, where details and practical directions are given upon this
;

oKv-nporepov Kal

6\ws

a.Kivr)r6-

rb e^Xv rov appevos, Kal f\drrov6s eariv. j8o7j0r?riKwrepov Se, &(nrp eAe x^Tj, Kal avSpeiorepov rb upper rov ^Ae^s eanv. may contrast the careful observation upon which this comparison is based with

repay

rpo<pris

head. Cf further, p. 222 sq. infra. * Such passages as Eth. viii. 14, 1161, b, 26, ix. 7, 1168, a, 24, can hardly be regarded as rele.

vant.
c.
3 Eth. N. viii. 12, 1160, b, 26, 13 writ. (End. vii. 9, 1241, b,

We

28.)

216
father,

ARISTOTLE
1

being still only a part of his parent, but the father has a duty to his child the duty, namely, of
2 The reason of this highest interests. that the child has a will and a virtue of its own,

providing for
is

its

although both are imperfect.

his father,

They

are both perfect in

and we may therefore describe the right relation between father and son as one in which the former imparts his more perfect virtue to the latter,
while the son by his obedience appropriates the virtue of his father. 3
position, lastly, of the Slave is one of complete To the institution of slavery Aristotle dependence.

The

has devoted special attention, partly with the view

its

ot

necessity and justice, and partly of investigating laying down the proper method of treating slavesThat slavery is, in the first place, a necessity, follows,

according to Aristotle, from

the very nature of the

household, whose requirements demand not only lifeless but also living and rational utensils. But utensils are

the property of him who uses them. Hence to com the accommodations of the household, human plete
1

viii.
2
8

Ibid. v. 10, 1134, b, 8; cf. 16, 1163, b, 18. Polit. iii. 6, 1278, b, 37.
Polit.
i.

constitutes a

partly

13, 1260, a, 12, 31

A complete cf. iii. 5, 1278, a, 4. discussion of the family would include that of the fraternal bond, but upon this Aristotle does not enter in the Polities only in the Ethics does he touch upon the relation existing between brothers, in treating of He remarks that friendship. brotherly love rests partty upon
,

bond of union, and upon community of life and education and that friendship between brothers resembles that between those of the same age,
;

&c.

He compares

their relation

ship to a timocracy in so far as the parties in it are naturally

upon an equality, and difference age is the only ground of superiority and ends by tracing the bond of connection between more distant relatives in a similar
in
;

common parentage, which of itself

analysis; viii. 12-14, 1161, a, b, 30 sqq. 1162, a, 9 sqq.

3, 25,

POLITICS

217

beings are required who shall be the property of their in other words, slaves. 2 master That, in the second
1

place, slavery is just, that it rests not upon legal enact ments merely, as some even then affirmed/ but also upon
5

the laws of nature, Aristotle tries to prove from the difference in the natural condition of men. Those who
are by nature fitted only for physical employments justly come under the power of those who are capable of
intellectual activity, since these are their superiors, just as the gods are the superiors of men or men of the beasts, and since generally the intellect must rule the
4 Aristotle even goes the length of affirming that body. nature has willed a physical distinction between them,

and that

it

is

freeman finds

its

only a lusus naturce when the soul of a way into the body of a slave/" And

since this in general is actually the relation of Bar barians to Greeks, the former are held to be the

natural slaves of the latter. 6

i. 4 ; (Ec. i. 5 init. slave being- (Polit. i. 4 tiv /cTTj^a ?T avOpwiros &v fin.) Se opyavov irpaKTiKbv [see (KTTJ/JLO. ibid. 1254, a, 1 sqq.] Kai x u P t(r ~ r6v), a (pixrei 8ov\os is 6 /j.^ avrov
1

Aristotle therefore regards O

refuse them unconditional submission. The remark is characteristic of a Greek. As in his view the spiritual character

Polit.

would

t>s

(pva-ei
3

aAA &\\ov,
Polit.
i.

&v9pctiiros 5e.

1253, b, 18 sqq. 1255, a, 7; cf. Ph. d. Gr. i. 1007, ONCKEN, 2, 4th edit. Staatsl. d. Arist. ii. 32 sq. * Ibid. c. 5, 1254, b, 16, 34,
3,
c.

6,

naturally and necessarily expresses itself in a harmonious external form, he finds in the acknowledged beauty of his own race a direct proof of its absolute superiority to barbarian peoples.

Plato had 3, 1325, a, 28. already expressed this idea cf. P7i. d. Gr. i. 755, 2.
vii.
;

more from this point would the slavery of black and coloured races have seemed to him to be justified.
of

How much
view

1254, b, 27, where he adds if one portion of the human race were physically as superior to the rest as the gods are represented to be, no one
5

Polit.
:

i.

5,

Polit. i. 2, 1252, b, 5, c. 6, 1255, a, 28 cf. vii. 7. Aristotle certainly admits exceptions to this assertion Nature, he re; ;

marks, i. 6, 1255, b, 1, intends, indeed, that just as man springs

218

ARISTOTLE

not only slavery itself as justifiable, bufc also war for the acquisition of slaves, provided only the slavery be strictly limited to those who are by nature destined to
1

.it.

It

whom

is unjust only when it is inflicted on those nature has destined to rule. The practice,,

accordingly, of treating prisoners of war indiscriminately as slaves, is condemned by Aristotle on the ground that
captivity

may

overtake even the best and those

who

have been unjustly attacked. 2 The nature of the rela tion of master and slave must of course be ruled by
these principles.

A wife has a weak will and a boy an imperfect one, but a slave has none at all. His will resides in his master obedience and usefulness in
;

service

are
3

the

exercising. possess a virtue

only virtues which he is capable of That the slave, being a man, must also

proper to him as man is, indeed, admitted by Aristotle, but he immediately adds that the slave can only possess a minimum of this virtue. 4
Similarly he recommends a mild and humane treatment He makes it the duty of the master to of slaves.

from man, and beast from beast, so the good should spring- from
the good, but she does not always succeed in this. He continues:
OTL
fJ.ev

to be slaves, as
c. 2, ibid.,

is

presupposed

and must be assumed

justified.

if is

war
to

for the capture of slaves

be
,.

THUEOT,

ovv

fX el
[the

TWO-

h.6yov

r]

Etudes

a,u</>r/:J7jT77<m

doubt about
Kal
ol 5

stead Of
ela-lv el /J/,

Arist. 10, proposes in OVK flfflv 01 fJLV, OVK

the lawfulness of
OVK
elcrlv ot
fj.tv

slavery] tyvfffi SouAot

which, however, would

This can only \vQfpoi STJ\OV. that all slaves or freemen are not so by nature, for he I immediately adds Kal 6n ev r

yield the awkward meaning that all slaves are so by nature.

mean

<r

TO TOIOVTOV, rb 8ov\evfiv
Kal
SIKCUOJ/.

8>v

ffv(ji<t>epei

T$

Se

T>

1256, b. 23 sqq. 1255, a, 21 sqq. Polit. 13, 1259, a, 21 sqq. 1260, a, 12-24, 33; Poet. 15, 1454, a, 20.
Polit.
i.

8,

2
3

Ibid.

c. 6,
i.

There must thus nevertheless be tribes born

Polit. ibid.

POLITICS
educate them in the virtue that
as the reward of
is

219
possible to

them

l ;

he commends the practice of promisiug them freedom 2 And yet he holds that good conduct.

the power of the master as a whole is despotic, and that love on his part towards a slave is as impossible as love of the gods towards man. 3 That Aristotle holds this
4 qua slave and not qua man, we can only regard as an inconsistency which does him honour. Greek morals and Greek ways of thought

to be true of the slave

were too powerful within him to permit him to draw ^ the more logical inference 5 that man qua man cannot
be a slave.

To the investigation of slavery, Aristotle appends more general discussions upon property and modes of
J

Polit.

i.

7, c. 13,

1260, b, 3

TO .VVV

on

in spite of

FECHNER S
d.

objection
Arlst. p.

rrjs
TO>

TOLavrrjs

(Gerechtiglteitsbegr,

apexes atnov
SecTTroTTjj/
.
.

eh/at Se?
8tb

Sov\(f T*bv Xsyovaiv ov KaAaJy

7riTa|et

ol

\6yov TOVS 5ov\ovs airoffrfpovvres

(pdo-KovTfs
-pr\<rQa.i

119) that according to Aristotle there are differences even within the sphere of human reason.
Aristotle certainly assumes such differences and even asserts, as we have just seen, that they go so deep as to render a portion of mankind incapable of freedom. But the real question is whether this assertion still holds true if we are at the same time compelled to admit that even one who belongs to this portion of man

Kal

fj.6vov

vovQtTfiTfOv

yap

/uaAAoi/

TOVS TTcuSas. On ^) the treatment of slaves see further in (Kc. i. 5. 2 Polit. vii. 10 /m., upon which HILDENBRAND. Reohtx- it. btaatsTOVS Sov\ovs
phil.
i.

400, pertinently
is
s
:

remarks

that

this

inconsistent with

for he principles nature condemns to slavery ought not to be set free he whom nature has not so con demned ought not to be held in

Aristotle

whom

kind
Kal

is

Swd/Afvos

Koiv(avT]o~ai vo^.ov
877,

ffvvd-fiKris,

Kal (pi\(as

/co#

offov avQpwiros, SiKaiov iravT\

and that there

a

is

ai>0pd[>7ru>

jrpbs ircuTOt.

slavery.

Eth. viii. 12, 1160, b, 21), c. 1160. a, 80 sqq. of. viii. 9 (see i. 3^8. n. 1, snprd). 4 Ktli. viii. 13/7t.
13,
;

it to be,

As BITTER (iii. H61) showed and as it continues to be,

thing, possession, no To a man rights can belong. will and either no virtue at all or only that of a slave friendship, on Aristotle s

To a

who has no

principles,

is

impossible.

220
l

ARISTOTLE

somewhat loosely, with the remark that acquisition slaves being a part of a man s property, the subject of here finds a natural place. 2 He distinguishes property
3 two kinds of production The natural, and artificial. former embraces all those modes of activity by which
:

the

necessities

of

life

are

obtained

the

4 hunting, agriculture, &c. the products of these arises, in the

cattle,

From

rearing of the barter of

first place,

exchange,

likewise regarded as a natural mode of pro since it immediately serves the satisfaction of duction, natural wants. 5 But the introduction, for the sake of

which

is

Polit.

i.

8-11,
i.

cf. (Ec.

i.

6.

Slaves had been previously described (c. 4 i/iit.) as a part of /CTTJO-IS, and KT-rjTiKY) as a part of olKovofj-ia nevertheless one cannot accept TKICHMULLER S statement (p. 338 of the treatise cited 137, n. 2, sup.} hat this section is here quite in For in c. 3 only the three place.

See Polit.

8.

but his ingenuity has here dis covered a connection which is not to be found in Aristotle, and has no existence but in the commen
tator s
3

own mind.
8/W.
:

C.

#Tl

yU.61/

TOIVW
fyvaiv

(TTl

rts

KTTJTJKT/

Kara

TO?S

olKOv6jJ.OLS Kal TO?S 7TOAtTiKO?S, Kttl 8 1

fyv

of master and slave, husband and wife, father and children were adduced as the

relations

air lav, STJAOV. e/rrt c. 9 init. 5e yevos a\\o /CTTJTJK^S, fj-aXiffra Kal 8 iKaiov avrb /caAeti/
:
$?i>

<f)i>(Ti

7}

TiKrjv 5 ov

....
(f>v(Tfi

ea"Ti

f]

fMfv

avToov, aAAct

and

subjects of economics, in 1253, b, 12, the theory of property is only touched upon in

proper

/j.ireipias
4

Tti/bs

Kal

re xrrjs 71^-

erat /j,a\\ov.

a few words
[?

fffri

5e

rt

^ue pos

now

After enumerating the vari ous kinds of natural production,

also
&

rejected by SUSETO??
"

MIHL]

So/ce?

yutv

e!/ai
/ue pos

oticovo/uia,

rots
7/

Se

fj.syio~Tov
"
<:

and among them, strangely enough (1256, a, 36, b, 5), A^crrem, which is neither natural to a moral
being nor a productive activity at all, he says of them (125(5, b,
26) Kara
:

xP 7 aaT T ^, which is thus here regarded as merely supplementary to the study of economics. TEICHMULLER sug gests that the remark in the
avrrjs, viz.

ej/

/xev

ovv

elSos

KTTjrtK^s
/.i.epos

fyvcriv

rrjs

olK.ovofji.iKys

upon the way in which the theory of production is con nected with the discussion of slavery, only betrays a confu sion with regard to the meaning of external goods in Aristotle
text
:

.... wv [a constructio ad sensum, referring to the different

tffrlv

activities comprehended under this class] eVrl Or)ffavpi(Tfj.bs ff ~ d.T&v irpbs farjv avayKaiwv Kal

XPW
XP"n

L/j-cav 4

fls Koivtaviav TroAec^s

c.

/)

oltcias.

i,

1257, a, 28, after the

POLITICS

221
l

commerce, of money as the universal standard of value

was followed by the development of artificial produc tion, which has in view, not the requirements of life, but
the possession of money. 2 Only the former of these kinds of production is an indispensable part of domestic 3 It has to do with real wealth, which economy. may
this reason

be denned as the stock of household necessaries, and for 4 it is strictly limited by household needs.

Money-getting, on the other hand, is wholly unlimited, herein showing itself to be naturally bad and opposed to the true art of life, inasmuch as it serves, not to purify and exalt it, but only to provide the means of
material existence and enjoyment. 5 Production as a whole is, accordingly, held by Aristotle in small esteem,
so, the more exclusively it is occupied with mere money-making business, since of all unnatural modes of production he believes money-lending to be the most unnatural of all. 6 He confines himself, ac

and the more

cordingly, in
1

what remains of
:

this discussion, to a divit-frri

account of barter
avTri
I

r)

fj.ev

ovv roi-

yap opyavov aweipov

ovSe/uiias

/U.CT aft \rjTiKTi

oi/ re

irapx (pvffiv

Ti/ojseVTii/erSosouSeV iouTexprjjCtaTto ets ava-rrX-hpooffiv yap TTJS Kara <pvaiv

T>.

re^vris oirre TrATjflet ovre fj.eye6(:i, 6 Se TT\OVTOS bpyavcav 7rAf)0os zcrrw OIKOVO/ULLKOOV Kal TTO\ITIKU>V.
5

c.

9,

1257,

b.

28-1258,
40:
air
rr,s

a,

See
c. 9, C.

p. 173,

supra.
TTJS
.

14.
c.

3
jur?

1257, a, 30 sqq. 9 fill. Trcpl iJ.lv ovv

:
-

10,

1258, a,

5e

re
.

yueTa/SArjTi/cfJs \l/eyo/*i/T]s SiKaicas

(ov

avayKaias
/cal
/j.tv
fj

xP r)/J aTL(r riK ns

Trept

yap Kara
effrlv),

efy)7]Tcu

TTJS

avayKaias,

oAA v\oywrara
(pixriv

d\A?jAa>j/

OTI

erfpa
fyvcriv

avrrjs otKovo/xiKr? 5e

ofio Ao err ariK^j

vofj.ifffj.aTos

Sia rb

/mcre?rai. air avrov

1

rf

TOV
Kal

Kara
\

irepl TTJV Tpo$T)V.

f ivai

T^V

KTrjcriv

4 c. 8, 1256, b, 30 (following the passage cited p. 220,n.4,s^.) Kal foiKV o y a\r)6ivbs TT\OVTOS CK \r)6ivbs TOVTWV tlvai. T] yap TTJS TOtauTTjs
:

OVK
tlie

e
</>

oirep

eTropiaQy

[not from
6
.

proper use of gold], a eevfro %aptj/, at )8oAf/s yap eyevfro

irate?

Se

TOKOS avTb
-

TrXeov

e&<rre

KrTj(recos

auTap/ma Trpbs wr]v OVK aweipos SVTIV

ayadyv
ovSev

....

xP n/J aria f -^
jl

Kal /xaAtrTTa irapa (pvo~iv OVTOS tariv,

TWV

ARISTOTLE
sion of
it

into its various kinds,

and

to a

few remarks

2 upon the art of obtaining a monopoly of a commodity. He places, however, a different estimate upon the

/scientific

treatment of these matters and upon the con-.

duct of them in actual practice. 3 Sharing as he does to the fullest extent the Greek contempt for manual
labour,
4

in proportion as

he naturally assigns to the latter a lower place it makes less claim upon the moral

and
1

more exclusively of and stamps the body more deeply physical occupations, with the marks of toil. 5
intellectual qualities, consists

Plato had

demanded

in his Republic that the famil

and household should be absorbed in the State, community of wives, children, and goods had appeare( to him to be the arrangement which was most desirable and alone suited to the perfect State. Aristotle rejects
this view. {/Plato desired that all things should be helc
1

He enumerates
kinds
OtKeiOTClTTJ

in

c.

over

such
/J.GV

subjects,
irpbs

as

it

is

three
(1)
tfcO.

of

xP nfjLaTL(r riK ^
cattle-rearing,
XpTJ/UaTiCTTl/C^ j its three
TOKKT/JLOS,
c.

ras

epyaffias,

agriculture,

11

8e TO eV8iaTp//3e/. KO.VTOL init Se

:

ra

(2) juera/DATjTiKr;,

with

branches,
fju<r6a.pvia,

f/j-iropia,

e^et, rrjv 8

f/Liireipiav

avayitaiav.

includes
tries
;

all

the last of which mechanical indus

inter-

Further proofs of this will

meet us
5

v\OTo/j.ia, position /u.TaX\ovpyia, &c. a collection He desires that of these and similar artifices

(3) medial e

occupying an

in the section upon the constitution of the State.

Hid.

/uei/

1258, b, 35: ela-l 5e T X epyaffMV OTTGV rvx"ns. BavavaoraTai

TO>I/

should be made (1259, a, 3), such as is actually attempted afterwards in the second book of the Economics. He adduces him As a self only two examples. rule, he refers to earlier writers upon husbandry, &c. (1258, b, He will not himself linger 59).

\icrra,

eV ols TO. (ru/nara AcojSwvTat fjt,d8ov\iKccrarat 8e oirou rov

TrAeifTTctt
e

crdo^aros

xP h a c LS
~

aycv-

Vfffrarai Se oirov
aperris.

Aa^;t(rTOf irpoffSf i

With the
cf.

definition of
5,

rb $c.vav(rov
sqq.
(Pli. d.
6

1254, b, 24
vi.

PLATO,
Gr.
i.

Rep.

495 D

He

754, 3). expresses his views on

POLITICS
in

223

common

in order that the State

might be the most

But a State is not merely a perfect unity possible. it is a whole unity; composed of many anfr various
If perfect unity without multiplicity were the highest, then must the State shrink into the Household,
parts.

and the Household into the Individual.

granted that unity
is

But even

if

we

the best thing for a State, yet the arrangements which Plato proposes would not, he thinks, be the proper means for its attainment. Not to of

speak

the difficulties which such proposals would involve in their application, 2 Plato had said 3 that the unity of the
State will be the most complete

when

all call

the same

thing mine and thine.

But

this assertion, as Aristotle

acutely remarks, is ambiguous. >4f all could treat the same things as their own private property,

perhaps be thus promoted.

sible.
If,

unity might That however, is not pos on the other hand, children and goods are

to be the

common

not follow. 4

On

property of all, the desired result will the contrary, with the exclusiveness of
all

these relationships,

their worth and all that gives would be destroyed one who had the thousandth part of a claim upon each of a thousand sons, and was not even quite sure of that, would not

them

real significance

this subject, not in the first book, which treats of the family, but

yap
ou

^6vov
rj

ri rrjv fyvcnv ccrrlv 77 TTO\IS 8 eV TrAeioVcoi/

iroXis,

in the second, which treats of earlier ideal States. This discussion is, however, mentioned here out of its order for convenience of exposition.
1261, a, 9 sqq. (of. c. 5, 1263, b, 29 sqq.) where, inter alia, he says KCUTOJ fyavepov irpo iovva Kal yivoj.i4vr] fj.ia
ii.
1

avepwirwv

aAAo Kal e| eiSti 8mou yap yiverai irj\is e This is the basis, moreo>oiW. over, of the self -sufficiency of the
tarlv

(pepovrav

State
2

ibid, b,
c.

Pollt.

2,

For a

10 sqq. fuller discussion of

3 sq. 1262, a, 14-40,

b,

which, see 24 sqq.

3

Hej}. v.
3,

462

C.

oi/Se

TroAis

tWa:

7rA??0os

^ C.

1261, b, 16-32.

224
feel as a father

ARISTOTLE
1

towards any one. 7 The same is true of Here, also, so far from leading to unity, property. community of possession would be an inexhaustible
source of
strife.
2

What

is

required

is

the just distribu

tion of property

common

use.

:$

and the voluntary surrender of it to a Community of goods, on the other

hand, along with the desire of private possession, destroys also the joy of benevolence and generosity; and just as community of women annihilates the virtue
of temperance in the relations of the sexes, so community 4 of goods renders impossible that virtue which consists in

the right attitude towards property. 5 In this opposition to the Platonic socialism we shall not only recognise Aristotle s practical sense, his clear insight into the laws

and conditions of actual life, his aversion to all ethical onesidedness and his deep knowledge of human nature and of social life, but we shall not fail to observe that
here, as in Plato, the political views are closely connected

with the principles of the metaphysical system. /JPlato

had demanded the abolition of all private possession and the suppression of all individual interests, because
only in the Idea or Universal that he acknowledges 6 Aristotle refuses to follow any title to true reality. him here. To him the Individual is the primary reality,
it is

Ibid. 1261, b, 32 sqq. c. 4, 1262, a, 40 sqq. c. 5, 1262, b, 37-1263, a, 27. 3 Ibid. 1263, a, 21-40, where
1

reproach with regard to

ffvv-r]

dfatypo-

fin.

eli/cu

XpV
1

(pavtpbv roivvv OTL friXriov iS as ras KT^O-CLS rfj 5e This is reet irotf tv Koivds.

pev

peated
see

vii. 10,

i.e.,

1329, b, 41. \.eu0epioT7js, as to which,

certainly unjust, for according to Plato, each has 10 refrain from all women who are not assigned to him by the government. The Platonic comunity of women is certainly not meant to be licence of desire (see the further discussion of this in
is

siijn-a.
J

ZELLEB S
The
6

Vortr. u. Abk.
i.

i.

76).

Ibid. 1263, a. 40-b, 14.

See Ph. d.Gr.

p. 780.

POLITICS
and has the

225

first claim to In his meta recognition. individual things are regarded, not as the mere physics shadows of the idea, but as independent realities
;

universal conceptions not as independent substances, but as the expression for the common peculiarity of a number of individuals. Similarly in his moral philo

sophy he transfers the ultimate end of human action and social institutions from the State to the individual, and looks for its attainment in his free self-development.

The highest aim

of
its citizens.

The good

of the State consists in the happiness of the whole rests upon the
1

like good of the individuals who compose it. manner must the action by which it is to be attained It is proceed from the individual of his own free will.
>4ji

only from within through culture and education, and not by compulsory institutions, that the unity of the State can be secured. 2 as in metaphysics ^In politics
had met the objection 420 B sqq.) that he had failed to make his guardians happy, with the remark that the question is of the happiness, not of a part, but of the whole
1

Plato
iv.

(Pep.

Aristotle

replies (Polit. ii. 5, 1264, b, 17): aSvt/arov 8e euScu^orwv trXeiaTuv v) j/eIV oArjj/, [we

should omit this /mrj, or read instead of $ /*$/] irdvrwv

TivSiv

el

^
r)

/j.ep>v

evSai/noviav. [Similarly, vii. 9, 1329, a, 23: euSai/jiova 5e iroXiv OVK els fj.epos TL
els

exovTwv

r))v

the other side of the truth nor is any solution of the difficulty here raised to represent the life of the guardians, as Plato himself does in a subsequent passage (Rep. v. 465 E), as the happiest. Plato in principle denies what Aristotle asserts, viz. that the happiness of the individuals as such must be the test and criteterion of all political institutions; and for that very reason he in the same passage demands that the individuals should seek their
;

it

j8Aei|/aj/Tas

Trdvras rovs TroAiras.]

5eT \eyeiv CIUTTJS, aAA ov yap

fuScu/xoi/eTz/

highest happiness in unselfish devotion.

Polit. ii. 5, 1263, b, 36 the true nature of the State must not
:

T>I>

avT&v Tb

wvTrep rb

TOVTO yap ej/Se^era: TOO 6\(p virdpx*w T&V Se fj.epwj/ jurjSerepy, TO Se eiiSai/j.ove iv aSwaTov. In these remarks we have only
apTiov

VOL.

II.

be sacrificed to an exaggerated conception of unity (see p. 223, n. aAA 5f?7rA7}0os Si/ . Sta l,si<fl.); *
.
.

226

ARISTOTLE

the central point with Plato is the Universal, with The former demands that Aristotle the Individual.

the whole should realise

interests of individuals
:

its

the latter that

all

ends without regard to the it be reared

individual interests that

upon the

satisfaction
title to

of

have a true

be regarded. These remarks form a natural introduction to the

discussion of the various forms of political constitution. To this, after criticising earlier political sketches and
1

theories,

the Politics.

Aristotle applies himself in the third book of The link which we should look for between
c

the family and the State, viz. the conception of Society, was not yet an object of inquiry. A science of Sociology belongs to modern, indeed to quite recent times. Even the idea of
*

the community, to which there then existed

nearer analogies, is not a special subject of discussion. To Aristotle as a Greek the State is coincident with the
City the -community, therefore, so far as it is different from the State, can only be the Village this, however, is a merely transitional form which is lost in the City
;
;

or Nation so soon as a comprehensive social union takes

rV

iraitieiav

Koij/V fal

fj.tav

Troiiiv

Kal rov ye fjie\\ovra -rraiSeiav elffdyeiv, Kal vo/ni(ovra Sia

[sc T})V TroAiv]

ravTTfjs HffeaOai

T^viroXiv

o"irov$aiav,

aroirov TO?S TOIOVTOIS

[community
otevBai
Kal rrj
eflecri

of

women and
aA\a
fj.7]

goods]
TO?S
VO/JLOIS.

Siopdovv,
1

<()L\o(TO(f)ia

Kal rols

into the details of this criticism as they are to be found in the second After a book of the Politics.
lively polemic (c. 1-5) against the community of women, children, and goods, and other pro-

One cannot here enter

posals of the Republic, Aristotle proceeds to discuss (c. 6) PLATO S Laws [on these and other assertions with regard to Plato s political philosophy sec ZELLER, Platon. Stud. 288 sqq. 203-207] the proposals of Phaleas and Hippodamus (c. 7 sq.); the Spartan (c. 9), the Cretan (c. 10), and the Carthaginian (c. 11)
;

constitutions
see,

and, finally

(c.

12

however, Ph. d. Gr. i. 676), the laws of Solon, Zaleucus, Charondas, and other ancient
legislators.

POLITICS

227

the place of mere local association limited to the needs of trade.

1

particular institutions by this social union has to realise its end,

But the
it

means

of which and the forms

which

must

take, will

depend

essentially
it

upon the
It is

character of the individuals

whom

includes.

with these, therefore, that Aristotle next deals.

3.

The State and

is

the Citizens

The State

the composite whole, and the con

the subjects whose relations to one stituent parts of it another are determined by the character of the con
stitution

are the citizens. 2

What,

then, constitutes a

One can live in a city without citizen or citizenship ? of it. Foreigners may even be admitted being a citizen
to its courts of law.

On

the other hand,

it is

not neces

citizen parents, for sary that the citizen should be born of in that case neither the first founders of a State nor those

who

at

any time have the franchise conferred

011

them

would be citizens. 3

citizen in the proper sense of the

word is one who is entitled to take part in the govern ment of the State and in the administration of j ustice. A State is an aggregate of such persons, which must be suffi cient of itself to satisfy all the demands of their common
life.
4

It is true that as the essence of a thing consists

3
:

See

p. 208, n. 1,
iii. 1,

Polit.

the

TroAtre a

is

supra. 1274, b, 36 sqq. TUV ryv iro\iv

;

Polit.

iii.

1 sq.

1275, a, 7 sqq.

b, 21 sqq.
4

Ibid.

c.
air\<t>s

1,

1275,
?)

a,

22:

olKovvroiv rd^is

ns

the

the other hand,

TroAiTwv TI 7rAr)0os.

is

on a composite
iroAts,

TroAiTTjs 8

ovSev TWJ/
TO?

&\\wv

6pierai

/ua\\ov

^ere xe"

whole consisting of many parts

Kpiffecas xal

apxys (similarly, c. 13, 1283, b, 42). After some further

228

ARISTOTLE

in general not in its matter but in its form, the essence

of the State must be sought for in its form or con stitution. State remains the same so long as its

constitution remains unaltered, even although the indi viduals who are the People should change; on the

other hand, the State changes when its constitution is 1 changed, even although the citizens remain the same.

Yet

it is

itself to

equally true that the constitution has to adapt the character and condition of the men for

The members of the State are designed. not equal to one another in every respect, but neither
it is

whom

are they unequal in every respect. 2 Now all constitu tional law is concerned with the distribution of political

An equal distribution is just only rights and benefits. on condition that the persons amongst whom they are
distributed are themselves equal to one another.
explanations, in
If,

on

the

course of

pointed out that under apx^i we must include the busi ness of the popular assembly, Ari
is

which it

ravrv
I lefTTi

Kal

ruv avr&v KaroiKO jvrtav

stotle concludes, ibid, b, 18 $ yap z^ovaia Koivwvzlv apxrjs 0ov\*vTiKfjs

:

J/Ot

TOUT7JS T77S

tTtp&v avdpwirwv. however, we must here understand, not merely the constitution in the narrower but the whole social sense,
Trd/uLTrav

avTTjv Kal

By

TToAire^o,

rb T(av TOIOVTOOV irATJdos With the last avrdpKeiav fays. clause, cf. p. 208, nn. 1 and 2.
c. 3, 1276, a, 34 How long the ir6\is be said to be one and the same ? So long it might be answered, as it is inhabited by the same race. But this is
1 :

organisation.
2

n.

1,

Cf. on the one hand p. 223, and on the other Pol. iv. 11,
jSorfAereM
lvai Kal

may

1295, b, 25: Tr&Vts e| lawv

paXiffra,
<pi\ia

Se

ye

7)

6fj.oicav

on

wrong
ris
77

eftrep

yap
ffrn

eVrt
Se
.

TroAis,

for only between such is and Koivwvia iroKniK^ Cf. vii. 8, 1328, a, 35. possible. The citizens, as we shall find, will be equal in freedom, in

yiyvoiJ.vris Kal Siacpepoixrris rrjs iroXiTfias uvayKatov e/z/at 8oetej/ &j/ Kal T^V Tr6\iv efi/ai /JL^ rrjv avryv

TTO/I ITUJS,

TroAiTfias

erepas rep

eftJet

common political rights and to a certain degree also in common social virtue; they will be unlike
in property, avocation, descent,

....

/xaAitTTa Ae/cre oj/

TV avTv

and individual capacity.

POLITICS

229

the other hand, the persons are unequal, justice requires

In order, therefore, rightly to of the character of State institutions, we must judge

a,n

unequal distribution.

know wherein
which

consists this equality the State has to deal.

1

and inequality with

all,

essential importance in this regard are, first of the occupations and manner of life of the citizens. 2 Parallel to the distinction which we noted in the House

Of

hold between freemen and slaves,

we have among citizens

exempt from menial labour, and those who have to devote themselves, to it. One who performs menial offices for an individual is a slave one who does so for the community is a day-labourer
are
:

themselves those

who

or artisan (ffdvavaos) 3 The importance of this distinction appears from the statement 4 that the rights
(#?7S>)

of citizenship belong to persons of this class only in imperfect States, but not in the best. The object of the latter is the happiness of the entire people and so, as
;

only attainable through virtue, no one who is incapable of true virtue can be a citizen in a State of which virtue is at once the basis and the end.

happiness

is

9 init. Both democracy rest upon ri^ht but neither upon per1

Pol it.

iii.

eli/cu

<paaiv.

-noiuv 8

Iff6rf]s

tffrl

oligarchy

and

KaliroiwavHroT-ns,
e^et

Se?^
c.

Xa.vQa.vsiv
<iAo-

yap TOUT

airopiav Kal

fect right, dlov 8o/ce?

etVcu, /cat
e<TTi/,

tffov

rb SiKaiov

(rotyiav

iro\iriKrjV.

13,1283,
9.

a,

aAA
rb

ov iraffiv
O.VHTOV
eVTii/,

aAAa
So/ce?

26 sqq.
2 3
4

Tols

taois.
eTt/cu

Kal
KOI

Polit.
iii.

iii, 5, vii.

SiKaiov

yap

aAA.
c.

ov

-jrafftv

a\\a

rols avivois.

12,

1282, b, KJ: eo-Tt Se iroXiriKbv ayaObv rb Sucatoi/, TOVTO 8 ftrrl rb

Kowrj
TI
(rvfj.(pfpov,

SoKeT Se

-jraffiv tffov

rb SIKULOV

elvat,

as

is

explained

in the ethical discussions (see p. 171, sit/pra}. rl yap Kal Ticrl rb 8 iKaiov, Kal 8e?j/ TO?S taois iaov

1278, a, 11. iii. 5, 1278, a, 15 sqq. vii. 9, 1328, b, 27 sqq. 1329, a, 19 sqq. On this conception, which will often meet us again, especially in treating of the best State, see further viii. 2, 1337, b, 8 sqq. c.
5,
4,
G,

1338, b, 33, c. 5, 1339, b, 9, 1310, b, 40, 1341, a, 5, b, 14.

c.

230

ARISTOTLE

Birth and property are two further important points for consideration. While freemen as such are all
equal, the nobly born claim to have inherited higher the rich, on the ability and rank from their ancestors
;

other hand, demand a greater share in the government, on the ground that the greater part of the national property is in their hands, and that propertied men in
all

matters of business

are

more

reliable

than un-

Aristotle does not, indeed, admit these propertied. claims unconditionally, but he does not regard them as

wholly unjustified, for although political privileges cannot be claimed on the ground of each and every superiority, but only of such as are of political im
portance, yet it cannot be denied that the advantages in question are political. Thus while in speaking of
l

property distinctions he rejects the oligarchical demand for a plutocracy with the pertinent observation that it

would be
State
is

justifiable only

on the supposition that the

2 nothing but a mercantile company, yet he can not conceal from himself that distinctions of wealth are

of the highest significance for the State. Riches and poverty both involve many kinds of moral evil the rich commit outrage through arrogance, the poor through dishonesty the former know neither how to
:

obey nor how to rule over freemen, the how to rule nor how to obey as freemen

latter
;

neither

and where a

State has fallen asunder into rich and poor, it has lost the inner bond of its communal life, in the equality,

unanimity, and social sympathy of the citizens. The well-to-do middle class, being the mean, is the best it
:
1

iii.

12 sq. 1282, b, 21-1283, a, 37.

iii.

9,

1280, a, 22 sqq.

POLITICS
is

231

best secured against excesses of its

;

own and
to

attacks

enemy put itself forward in political life when the centre of gravity lies in it we have the most orderly and enduring form
;

of an

it

is

the

least anxious

of government. 1 Whosoever would give stability to his political institutions must secure the support of
this class, seeing that it holds the balance between the two contending parties of the rich and the poor. 2 More

important
citizens.

the political capacity of the is the happi ness and moral perfection of the citizens he who is able to contribute most to this will have the best claim to
still,

however,

is

The

essential

aim of the State

;

influence in the State.

But that which more than any

to do so is virtue, especially

other quality

fits

man

justice and military

ability, since,

while the latter

is

in

dispensable for
is

the preservation of the State, the former that which lies at the foundation of all society and
all

involves

other virtues. 3

There are thus

different

principles upon which political rights may tioned. 4 According as one or other of these is adopted,

be appor

1 129G, a, further shown that great cities are more exempt from disquiet than small ones, because they have a more mimerous middle class that democracies are more stable than oligarchies, because the middle

iv.

11, 1295, b,
it

21,

where

is

* The character and geographical position of the country, and similar external circumstances might also be here adduced. To the political importance of these, as may be seen from

class finds its-elf more at home in them only, however, on con-

dition that it that the best

does

so

and
e.y.

vii. 6, c. 11, 1330, b, 17, vi. 1321, a, 8 sqq., Aristotle was keenly alive. He admits that a maritime situation favours the a numerous nautical of rise

Pvlit.
7,

lawgivers,

Solon, Lycurgus, Charondas, have belonged to the middle class. 2 iv. 12, 1296, a, 34 sqq. 3 iii. 9, 1281. a, 2 sqq. c. 12 sq.
1283, a, 19-26, 37.

and thereby propopulation motes democratic institutions, He remarks that an acropolis is favourable to monarchy and oligarchy, a flat country to democracy, a number of fastnesses

232
or as several of
will

AltlSTOTLE
them are combined in a definite manner, be the character of the resulting constitution. For

while the differences in the general character of States depend upon the view taken of their end and of the
pursued, the differences in the par ticular form of their constitution depend upon the share
it is

means by which

assigned to the different classes of the citizens in the public benefits and in the activities by which these are
2

acquired.
to aristocracy
;

The

decisive

question here, however,

classes
artisans,
priests,
:

is

that where horsebreeding succeeds, and cavalry is therefore the chief military weapon, oligarchies are easily formed, &c. At the same time he suggests means (ibid. ) to counteract such results, and as these circumstances do not in any case affect the form of con stitution immediately, but only through the character of the people as that is determined by them, he leaves them out of account in the present investi
gation.
1

of

citizens

soldiers,

(farmers, proprietors,

judges
8to>pj(r /

and
ueVa>;>

adminis

trators) Aristotle proceeds ibid. C. 9 init. 8e TOVTMV

\oiirbv (TKetyaaQai irdrepov Tracri KOIvwvrjTfOf irdi Tcav TOVTCDV Y) KaQ
. . .

Ka(TTOi>

tpyov TUV
2}

ziprifJLtvcav

aAAoi/s

virodereov,

TO

/j.v iSta TO. be KOIVO.

TOVTOW
1,

e| avdyK-qs CVTIV.

(Cf.

ii.

TatiTa yap Kal 1260, b, 37.) irote? Tas iroXiTtias erepas eV pev yap TOIS ^/aoKpaTlaLS /xeTe xoutri
Trai/TesTrai/Tcoi/, ej/Se Ta"is6\iyap^iais

Tovvavriov,
8,

8imilarly,

and with
:

vii.

1328,
rijs

a,

35

fi

8e

TroAis KOivwvia ris eVrt TUJV

6/uLoicav,

express reference to this passage, iv. 3, 1289, a, 27 TOU /j.ev sqq.

ovv elvai TrAeious iro\tTeias
OTI Tramps
ffT\

8e
.

fays
8 Se

fvSexo/utvns
v8ai/j.ovia

a lTiov
TroAews

firtl

e<n\v

rb

/xe pTj

TrAetco

apiffTov,

Kal xpycris 8e ovTias

(rdcu
t)

operas ivtpyeia. Te Aaos, o~vfj,@/3r,K ware TOVS ywev efSe^efJ-tr^Xfiv avTys, TOVS Se f^iKpov

avrr)

ns

iWTjSey,

SrjAoy

cos

TOUT
6^877

ainov
KOI
irXeiovs
aAAcoi/

TOV

yiyvco-Qai Kal Bta^opos

-yap

TroAecos

TroAireias
Kal
5t

&\\ov

Tpoirov

State consists of of households, of people of large, small and average means, of warlike and unwarlike, of farmers, merchants and artisans further, there are differences of birth and capacity Of these classes some (apeTTj).
a.piQp.6v.

Tbv

an aggregation

6Ka(TTOl TOUTO 0rjpfVOVTeS fiiovs erepovs TTOIOVVTCU

2

TOVS
KOL

T Tas

times fewer,

sometimes
share
in

the enumerating forms of activity which are in

dispensable to the existence of society, and the corresponding

After

(-TroAirei a). Qavepbv TO LVVV OTI TrAe ovs avayKalov elvai TroAiTetcs ei Set Stacpepovaas aAA-

sometimes government

all,

more, the

TjAcov

Kal yap TOUT eiSei Sta^epei iroXiTeia /uef auTcov.

<r<J>a)j/

POLITICS

233

sovereign ? The different possible ways of adjusting the relations of the various classes to one another are therefore enu

Who

possesses the supreme

power

who

is

merated by Aristotle with, a view to preparing the way for an investigation into the comparative value of
particular forms of constitution, the conditions of their
rise

and continuance, and the institutions which corre spond to them.

4.

Forms of Constitution by the term Con

We

are accustomed to understand

only the general form of government of a the sum of the arrangements which particular State 2 regulate the distribution within it of political functions.
stitution
yap
8e
r)

TOOV

apx&v rd^is
irdvres

eorl,
$) })
.

8iav[j.oi>Tai

Suva/HIV

ruv

^T^OVTWV
KOIVI]V

Tavr^v Kara T^\V Kara TH/

. .

poses the sixth class was

tioned.)
1

men

iii.

6 init.
?

We

must ask
TroAews

avrcav

Iffor-^ra

avay-

how many and what constitutions

there are
ICTTI Se TroAireia

KCUOV apa Tro\iTias elva . Tocravras ocraiirfp rd^eis Kara ray uTrepo^ay elm Kal Kara ras TUV
1

rdis
/J.fv

rotiv

re
Kvp

a\\wv
Tt>

8ta<f>opas

/j.d\iffTa TTJS

ap-^ocv Kal as irdfTcav. Kvpiov

fj.opiwv.

With the same view

of

yap travTaxuv

TroAtreu^ua TVJS

explaining the different forms of constitution, the different classes in a community are then again enumerated (c. 4, 1290, b, 21 sqq.) as follows farmers, artisans,
:

TToAecos,

-rda.

TroAiTey^a 5 ecrrlv r] TTO\LIn (Cf. c. 7, 1279, a, 25.)

is

democracies the people

reign
(/ciipios);

sove

in oligarchies only
:

traders, day-labourers, soldiers, rich (euTropot) who serve the state with their money, magistrates,

a minority of the people hence the difference in these forms of

constitution.
2 This is at least the scientific conception of the constitution the written documents which define the constitution certainly neither contain all that according to this conception is included under it, nor do they confine themselves to it, but generally they contain all those laws which,
;

judges,

and members

supreme
this
f!38o/j.ov

of administration.

the
(In

enumeration,

the

words

and oySoov, 1291, a, 33 sq., cause a difficult}%to avoid which

NICKES, De Arist.
e j85o,uoi/,

Polit. 110, proposes to read CKTOV

li~br.

and

while SUSEMIHL, in loco, with CONRING, supposes a lacuna before f^So/j.ov, in which he sup

as fundamental to the State, to require special sanction.

seem

234
Aristotle
I

ARISTOTLE
meant
far

more by it.

He comprehends

under

the corresponding word Polity, not only all this, but also the substantial character of the community in question, as
that expresses itself in the accepted theory of the State He has thus the ,and in the spirit of its government. of exhibiting more clearly than is advantage commonly
1

writers the connection of the political by institutions of a people with its life as a whole, and is

done

modern

exposed to the danger of treating these as some thing independent and equally applicable to all com munities. Here as elsewhere in the Politic* the leading
less

characteristic

of

his

method

is

the

care

he takes

scientifically to trace everything back to its real source, and to find the principle of its explanation in its own

V peculiar nature.
s

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that the treatment of political constitutions suffers in simplicity when it does not confine itself to de
ducing them as the forms of an organised civil life from the spirit and mutual relations, of the citizens, but mixes itself up with the discussion of the legal details of that

life

itself.

Aristotle is not free from

obvious,
inter
alia,

this confusion, 2
Selrovsapxovras
rovs
irapavii.

As

is

-noXireiav,
ei
&/>x
"

a#

oi>s

from

p. 232, n. 1, with which cf. p. 232, n. 2, and p. 233, n. 1, supra, Besides the passage ju^t re-

"^

<pv\drriv

fiaivovras avrovs.
init.,

So also

13

and thronghoiit the whole

ferred to above, see esp. Polit. 1, 1289, a, 13: npbs jap ras
iTfias

TOVS v6fj.ovs riQevrai irdvres,

fj.fv

5el TiQtaQa.L

aAA

ov

ras

re ia
r/

yap
ras

bs rovs v6p.ovs. iroXieo-ri rdis rats Tr6\e<nv

discussion of the different forms of constitution, the question as to the nature of the iroAireia is taken to involve that of the ultimate aim of the State, and the investigation into the api<mj
TroAireta (see infra}.. is

Trepi

rivTa.i,

apxas, riva rpoirov ri TO Kvpiov rr)s ems Kal ri rb reAos 6/ca<rT7js Koivuvlas eariv Se vo/j.oi
Kal
icr/ieVoi

more con-

cerned with the laws upon education and the like than with
questions properly constitutional in our sense.

roav

Srj\ovvroov

ryv

POLITICS
although in general he has clearly distinguished between questions of law and constitution.
1
\

investigating political constitutions Aristotle 2 complains that previous writers had contented them
selves with representing

In

an ideal State, or

else

with

eulogising the Spartan or some other historical constitution. Aristotle himself aims at a more exhaustive

,,^F

treatment of his subject. Political science cannot, he the says, any more than any other, limit itself to
description
of
is
;

1L-

an

ideal.

It

must

also

show what

form of State
circumstances

it

the b^gfr-jrttemdbie^under certain given must further take account of actually

existing constitutions and of the conditions of their rise and maintenance ; and it must be able, finally, to declare

what

States. 3

institutions are best adapted for the majority of The description of the political ideal must

6,

See preced. n. and Polit. ii. Etli. x. 10, 1181, b, 12G5, a, 1 12 as his predecessors have not
1
; :

sets before Politics a fourfold problem: (I) iroXireiavr^vapiffr nv

6ewp?i(rai

ris

eari

ital

iroia.

TIS

(sufficiently)

investigated

the

ovaa ^dAioV the

airbus

en? KO.T

et<xV>

question of legislation, he will himself treat generally of this as well as of the State (TroAtreia). L. 21: iroia TroAn-eia aplari], Kal
7T<s

e/ji,irodi{ovTosTwveKT6s; (2) besides

KpaT.ffT-n

to discuss

also TT]V

e/c TOJJ/

viroKci/uifvoitvapio TTiv;
vTro6<!<Tews,

e/facrTTj

raxfleto tf, Kal

ricri VOJJLQIS

33 sqq. This complaint, however, is not altogether just in respectof Plato, who not only in the Lams had placed a second State beside his ideal republic, but in the Rep. itself had fully discussed the
imperfect forms of constitution, It is true, however, that none of these investigations satisfies Aristotle s requirements. 3 Aristotle here Polit iv. 1.

Kal eOecri xpajjuepTj. 2 Polit. iv. 1, 1288, b,

and similarly (3), rV e l (4) T^V /j-dXicrra Trdtrais rous -xoXeffiv C. 11 ap/JLorrovcrav (oil which see Of these four questions init. ). the third has not infrequently been
very strangely misunderstood,
e.g.

by

BAETHKLEMY ST-HILAIRE,

but also by GOTTLING in loco. Aristotle himself, however, states (1288, b, 28) his meaning quite

en Se unambiguously. he says, r^v e uTrofleVecos

Kal
e|

Tprrrji/,

Set

yap

rrjV SoQelffav ovvaaQai 0ewpeu/, apx^s re TTUS Uv ytvoiro, ical

y^vo^vf]

riva

rpoirov

b.v

ata^oiro

236

ARISTOTLE

therefore be supplemented by a comprehensive survey of actual facts. Aristotle does not renounce such an
ideal, but desires at the same time to investigate all other possible forms of State, the conditions under which they naturally rise, the laws which they adopt, and the institutions by which they are maintained. He

examines States with the keen sense of the

investigator,

scientific

and equal regard the great, to the normal and the abnormal, as well as with the practical eye of the statesman, who desires to do justice to the actual circumstances and adapt his
to the small
1

who pays

ideal to the given conditions.

7rAe?a"roi/

He

possesses, moreover,

y^povov

Ae -yco 5

olov

ei

TIVI

TroAet

ffvfj./3e0riKe

^UTjre

TT]V

enters into no details with refer ence to the third of these (the
first
is

oAiTeiWflat TroAireiai/ re elvai Kal TUV avay-

that of

the Rep., the

[the necessary requisites for the best], yurjre rrjv tVSe^o/xfvrji/ 6/c ritiv vTrapxovTwv, (iAAa nva (pavKorepav. (C f. iv. 11. 1296, b, Ae -yw 5e rb irpos fnroQecriv, on 9 TToAAa/as ovfftis aAArjs ovdev eviois
:

second that of the Laws), but he can hardly have been thinking
of actually existing States (3) even the second State, that of
;

the Laws, does not correspond

with Aristotle

TroAire/a

e/c

rav

vtroKifjLtv(av a.pi(TTT], for

Plato does

not show in this work what is the best that can be evolved from
existing circumstances, but, just as in the Hep., sketches the outline of an ideal Slate, which only differs from that in the Rep. in bearing a closer resem blance to reality. Still less can the State in the Laws be identified with Aristotle s TroAn-ei a e | virodecrews nor would Gvote apiffrt], have done so (Plato, iii. 357 sq.) had he not wrongly explained uTro flerm to mean an assumed

The

/ also v. 11, 1314, a, ;58.) Tro\iTela e| inrodeffeias is, ac

;

cording to this statement, identi cal with 7) So0e?cra TroAtret a, vjToQeo-is indicating- the given case, the particular circumstances that are actually present, and having, therefore, essentially the

same meaning as on p. 247, n. 2, and Ph. d. Gr. i. 1015 med., where it is distinguished from With
0<m.

the above passage PLA.T. Laws, v. 739, A sqq., has been compared. The resemblance, however, is a remote one for (1) Plato speaks not of four but only of three States to be depicted (2) he
; ;

principle.
1

See his complaint against

predecessors, ibid. &s ol TrAelo TOt rwv
Trtpl

his

12^8,
airofyc
et

b,

35

jj-tvitiv

iroXiTfias, Kal

raAAo

POLITICS

237

the philosophic spirit, which traces political institutions bask to their inner sources, looks past individual facts
to universal conceptions, and while engaged in the investigation of existing realities keeps an eye steadily fixed on the ideal. It is just this combination of dis similar and rarely united qualities that makes Ari
stotle s political
its

philosophy so unique and unrivalled in

kind.

Two

points of view haye emerged in the preceding

discussion, from

which we may distinguish and

forms
-of

esti

mate the

different

political

constitution

viz. the recognised aim of government, and the distri bution of political power. In the former respect the contrast is between those States in which the common

good and those in which the advantage of the rulers is In treating, on the other pursued as the highest end.
1

hand, of the distribution of political power, Aristotle retains at first the customary arithmetical division of
or

States according as they are governed by one, by some, by all of the citizens. Combining these two principles

he enumerates six forms of constitution, three of whic

good and three bad, setting down all those as un just and despotic in which the aim is not the common 2 Where the good, but the advantage of the rulers.
are
|

\eyovcri
1

Ka\5js, rcav
.

ye

-)(_pt\a[^wv

dia.fj.apTa.vova u

iii. 6. 1278, a, 30 As in sqq. the household the government of the slaves aims at securing in the first instance the advantage of the master, and only secondarily that of the slaves as a means to the former, and as the government of the family, on the other hand,
:

aims primarily at the good of the governed, but in a secondary way also at that of the head of the house in so far as he is himself
a member of the family so in the State we must distinguish the two above-mentioned kinds
of government. iii. /m. (pavepbv Toivw &s oaai IJ.GV 7roAiTe?cu rb Koivy
(>

<rv(j.<pepov

238

ARISTOTLE

I
-7

administration has for

one

its object the common good, if the sovereign, we have a monarchy if a minority, if the whole body of the citizens, a an aristocracy
is
; ;

polity

where

it

has for

its

the sovereign, monarchy aristocracy into oligarchy, polity into democracy.

aKoirovaiv, avrai
VOVfflV OVCTai
ticrai

object the advantage of degenerates into tyranny,

1

This

/j.ev

opQal
OtTTAaJS 8l/CCUOI/,

considerably
Politics.
rtav

Kara TO

earlier than the For as a matter of

8e

TO

atyertpov p.6vov
iraaai
bpQu>v

Kal

TroAiTetwv

8eo"7nm/ca}

yap,

rj

8e Tr6\is Koivuvia

ruv (\evdepwv early. Hence iii 17 init. eari yap rt fyvaet fiecnroffrbv Kal a\\o BaffiXevrbv KcA a\\o
:

TroAtTi/cbi/

Kal
8

fi

iKatov Kal av/j.(p(pov

eo"Ti

OVK

Kara

<pv(riv,

TUV

ciAAwi
flaiv

TroAtTeicuj/

o o cu

fact the latter also describes its polity as a timocracy (see Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 745 sq.), so that the difference resolves itself finally into this that in the Ethics, brcvitatis causa, Aristotle calls it timocracy, whereas in the Politics he appropriates to it the common term TroAtre/a, as he has room here to describe more accurately
:

raina
iv.

yap

what he means by

it.

IsocR.

yiyverai irapa (pvaiv.

1289, a, Aristotle s account is here essentially that of Plato in the Politicus (cf. Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 784J, of which he himself,
iii.

Polit.
;

7,

2,

26, b, 9

Mh. viii.

12.

Panath. 131, has been taken to refer to the passage just cited from the Ethics (ONCKBN, Staatsl.
d. Arist.

ii. 1GO), and the conclu drawn that the Ethics cannot have been composed later than Polit. iv. 2, 1289, b, 5, reminds ann. 342-339 B.C. (HENKEL, Stud, while at the same time he ziir Gesch. d. griech. Lehre vom s, Oncken takes another differs from it in a single respect. Staat, 46 There is, indeed, between the view). But it seems more probable Ethics and the Politics this that the passage refers to Plato, divergency, that while in the who in the Politicus (302 D sq.) latter the third of the three true adduces legal democracy, and

sion

forms of constitution is called simply polity, it is said in the

Ethics
$}v

8 ^ euro TJO. TTJ r i^oKpaTiK^v \ey ^cuVercu.TroAtTei af 8 avr

:

ol

TrAeuTTOi

/caAetV.

crepancy,

however,

is

This dis not so

infer

important that

we may

a change in Aristotle s political views, or that to peimit time for its occurrence we mav place the Ethics on this ground

from

it

in the Bejmblic (viii. 545 B, c) timocracy, as peculiar forms of constitution for Isocrates does not say that the writer upon whom his attack is made identi fies these two (as Aristotle does). If, however, we are to find here a reference to the followers of Plato as well, and especially to
;

Aristotle, it would probably be better to suppose that the rhe torician has in view one of his dia-

POLITICS

239

principle of arrangement, however, is not consistently preserved throughout for while it might appear from the above statement that aristocracy and polity differ from monarchy only in the number of the rulers, we
;

\
!

j^>

\f
|

learn in another passage that this itself depends upon the character of the people. So the government by

one

natural where in a people one family has a pre eminent faculty for government; aristocracy, where a
is

community of free citizens is content to submit to the government of the fittest polity, where the population
;

a military one which, having distributed the offices of State among the propertied classes according to the
is

how

standard of merit, knows both how to command and to obey. Referring further to the distinctiofiT"f"T
1

those

between democracy and oligarchy, Aristotle criticises who look for it in the fact that in the former the whole body, in the latter a minority, of the citizens

hold the sovereignty. This numerical distinction, hell the essential holds, is merely accidental and derivative
:

opposition of these two forms of constitution consists in the fact that in the one the rich, in the other the poor,

bear rule. 2

In like manner that polity which stands

between them

is distinguished by the preponderance of the middle class. 3 Elsewhere he finds the characteristic
(peptiv ir\i}Qos
&pxe<rdai

logues (such as that mentioned in \Polit. iii 6; see i. p. 119, n. 1, That the Ethics cannot supra). have been composed so early as
I ! i
,

rfyvruve \evdepoov ap-x^vvirb roav

aperr??/
i)yefj.oi>iKwv

apxV, KOSTIKOV
/cbi/,

believes, has already been shown, i. p. 154 sq.

1

Henkel

irpbs TTO\ITIK^V 5e Tr\rjeos ev $

iii.

17, 1288,

a, 1

l3a<ri\VTbv

irXrjeos iro\e/uLt8vvd/u.Gvov &pxe(T0cu Kal apxtiv rbv /car dmj/ 5toKOTO. v6/j,oi/

TT^VKCV eYyiWflcu

ovv rb

j/iey & ire(pvKe (ptpeiv 761/05

j

TOIOVTOV eVri ir\rj9os

virep^ov KO.T

Vjj.ovra rots VTr6pois ras apxds. 2 Polit. iii. 8, cf C. 7 Jin. IV.

.

jape-TV
i

yye/jLovias TroArn/cV. apiffTOKpaTiicbv 5e irA ^os o irtyvKf

Tpl>s

11, 12, 1296, a, 1, b,

3

24 sqq.

iv. 12,

1296, b, 38.

240

ARISTOTLE

peculiarity of democracy in freedom and equality, in the fact that all free men have an equal share in the

government and then combining this principle with the two others, he says that in democracy the majority of the poor and the free, in oligarchy conversely the for minority of the rich and the noble, are the rulers since in a State where all are equal the majority of votes decides, and the poor always form a majority, these
;

have necessarily the power in their own hands. 2 Fol lowing up the same line of thought, he indicates virtue,
ferent
,

wealth, and freedom as severally characteristic of dif virtue of aristocracy, forms of constitution
:

wealth of oligarchy, freedom of democracy. 3

1

In a third

iv.

4,

where
:

it

is

first

(1290, b, 1)
oi

Sfjjiios fj.ev

ecrriv

said orav

ev

rats

0-^fj.oKpariaLS
eli/at

Kupidirepovs
vir6p(av

rovs

a-jr6povs rtav
fieri,
Kvpioi>

eAeuflepoi Kvpioi

&ffiv, oXiyapx ia

ir\eiovs

yap

at

orav the

ol irXovffioi,

end

(1.

but afterwards 17): dAA

e<m

8e

TO

rots

7rAeioo"t

86av.

The

Sr]/j.oKparia

ol e Aeuflepo: fj.tv orav Kal aTTOpoi TrXeiovs ovres Kvpioi rr/s apxys Siffiv, oXiyapx ia 8 6rav ol

TrXovaioi
ovres.

yap

evyevtffrfpoi oXiyoi 1291, b, 34: etirep eV fffrlv eXevOepia ,uaAi<7T

Kal

equality of all citizens is thi seen to be the fundamental point from which government bj majority follows as an inference (o-UjUjScuVet) and from that again

Ibid.

government by the poor.

3

iv.

8,

1294,

a,

10:
opos
Srj^uou
eo-Ti

St]/j.OKparia Kaddirep

viroXa/jifidvovffi

Kparias

rives Kal
-

Iff6rfis.

p-ev o\iyapx ias Se

yap

TrAouTOs,

vi.

init.

vir66tffis

jjCev

otiv

L.

19: Tpi a
rrjs

T^
rr\s

TTJS

5-n/J.OKpariKris

TToXireias

e Aeu,

r Iff6rf]- os

0epia [or as it is expressed 1317,

b,
. .

16
.

eAeuflepia

rj

Kara ro
/J-tv

tffov^

\ev9epias 8e ev
apx^ffQai
Kal

rb ev
fal

jitepei

apx w,
Srj/j.oriKbv
api6/j.bv

yap rb diKaiov
?<rov

rb
/car

rb

exetv

effrl

aAAa

/j.r)

Kar aiav, rovrov 8 ovros rov 8t/ca/ou rb irXriQos avayKaiov elvat

Kvpiov, Kal 6 ri
fcy

a TTAOUTOS apeT^j o KaXovffiv reraprov, (Tb yap y evyeveiav, d/coAou0eT TO?S Svffiv yap evyeveid effriv ap^cuos TT\OVTOS Kal aper fj). Cf. iii. 12, 1283, a, 16 sqq. (see p. 229, supra} v. 9, 1310, a, 28 RJiet. i. 8, 1366, a, eo~Ti 8e Sr]/jLOKparias /u 4
e Aeu^ep
,

6r) rots

irXeioffi,
efi/at

eAeuflepta,

oAiyapx ias 5e
8e

TOUT tlvai Kal TeAos Kal TOUT 8e?j/ TO SiKatov (paffi yap
tKacrrov

tcrov
tfxrre

apiffroKparias Se Ta Trpbs Kal ra v6fj.ifjia, rvpavviSos

r&v Tro\irwv

POLITICS
l

241
:

passage

he enumerates four constitutions

democracy,

oligarchy, aristocracy, and government by one. In a democracy, he says, the offices of government are dis tributed according to lot, in an oligarchy according to property, in an aristocracy according to education. 2 The government of one is a monarchy if it is founded upon law and order otherwise it is a tyranny. These
;

ment which is naturally suggested by the previous survey of the different forms of constitution. Thus we should have expected from Book III. 14 onwards a discussion
of the three good kinds of State, and then of the Instead of this, Aristotle follows up the introductory dissertations which occupy chaps. 9-13 of the third book with a discussion of
first

altogether consistent with one ( another; but a still greater difficulty arises from the jj circumstance that in the further development of his argu ment Aristotle diverges widely from the order of arrange

statements

are

not

three bad.

monarchy

(III.

he next proposes to investigate (III. 18) the best form of State, which, however, he only partially does in the books (VII. and VIII.) which ought to follow here; he next turns, in the fourth book (chap. 2), to the remaining forms of constitution, with the remark that of the six previously enumerated forms monarchy and aristocracy have been disposed of, as these coincide with the best State, and that it therefore remains to discuss polity, oligarchy, democracy, and 14-17);
J

SJ

\Rhet i.S
naiScla
vTrb

1365, b, 29. rov vo^ov Ket^vr,,

not so much intellectual culture as an education iu accordance

by which we^areto understand

with law and morality and the

which spring
ct/nerro^aT/a

political capacity and attachment to the existing constitution

from
vo

it:

^le/te^re? eV rots

ol

oa
1.

<?

T7?

fyxovw,

ibid.

35

VOL.

II.

242

ARISTOTLE
;

tyranny
in the

he accordingly now proceeds to investigate,

first place (chap. 4, 1291, b, 14-chap. 6, end), the different forms of democracy and oligarchy then
;

the proper blending of these sq.) polity as (chap. two constitutions, along with several kindred forms
8
^(chap. 7);
/

This tyranny (chap. 10). lastly, from the previous account is much too divergence fundamental to permit of its being accounted for by the incomplete character of the Politics alone, and too
and,

""We

indispensable to permit of its being explained away. are forced to admit that just as Aristotle in his

account of the distinguishing characteristics of demo

cracy and oligarchy unites several different points of view which he fails completely to harmonise with one
another, so also in his treatment of polity he On the one from a certain vacillation.
is

not free
h<

hand,

reckons
it is

among the good States, on the ground tl based upon the virtue of the citizens and aims at
it

the

common
E.
fj.

good.

On

the other hand, he

is

unable to

in the

manner pro
(lib.

posed by FJ-SCHNEB

d.

Ge-

d. Arist. p. recktigTwvtnbegriff 71 sq. n., cf.p. 92, l),who assumes that by the polity of Etli. viii.

12 and Polit.

iv.

we muse under

may point out (1) that the perfect State described in vii and viii. is never referred (not even iii. 7, 1279, a, 39, vi 14, 1332, a, 34) as polity (iroKireia. simply), but as aristrocacy or
:

stand something different from the true polity which appears in Polit. vii. as the ideal State. Setting aside the unlikelihood of Aristotle s describing two dif ferent forms of constitution by the same name without qualify
ing addition, and of his totally omitting in his subsequSn^ dis cussion all further mention of the true polity described in iiyAve
4

apiorri TroAireia
1,

(<?,</.

iv. 7,

1293, b,

c.

2,

1289,

a,

31),
:

and that

polity stands only third among true constitutions (2) that in c pas ages such as Polit. iv. 2 init.
c.

8 init.

we

are expressly for

bidden to make any distinction between the polity of iv. and of

the Ethics, and the polity pre
viously mentioned among the true forms of constitution.

POLITICS
place
it

243
1
T"

on a

level

with true monarchy and aristocracy.

government by the many, and a majority I can never atttain to so high a degree of virtue and jj insight as is possible to one or to few. The one field
it is still
in"

For

the military, and accordingly the sovereign in it will naturally be the 2 collective body of those The capable of bearing arms.
is

which a polity can win distinction

virtue, therefore,
is

an imperfect one.

upon which the State is here founded The natural antagonisms between

the citizens are not removed, as in an aristocracy, by a comprehensive and uniform education of all and an

equal freedom

from meaner employments.

it

blem, therefore, must be to devise for

The pro such institu

tions that antagonistic forces will be held in equilibrium, the excesses alike of democracy and of oligarchy avoided, and the foundation laid for that predominance of the

middle classes which constitutes in Aristotle

as

opinion,

we

it is

possible in this

form

WhiL polity. to explain the which thi place of constitution occupies in Aristotle s account, th
advantage of

shall see, the chief

way

ambiguity of

its

his theory of the

1

position remains a permanent defect i State. The fundamental mistak

12,

Cf.

Mh.

viii.

1160,

a,

TiKpi&uo-eat

35

TOVTUV

-jrpbs

iraaav

5e [of

the true forms

yuev
77

dAAa ^aAurra
yap eV Kara ravr^v
t

of State]
Xeipio-TTjS

/3eATio"T77

/SacnAeta,

rr]v TroA^u/crji/ Tr\.r Qti yiyj/erai.

TT)J/

^T^o/cpaTta (which here Cf. p. 238, n. l,wp.) b, 10: democracy is chiefly related to timocracy, the majority of the citizens ruling in both with equal right, and springs from it almost imperceptibly.

= 7roAiT6ia;

-iroXiTe iav

,^ 1W

TO.TOV

TO
v

Trpoiro^ow

Kal

fj.re-

avrrjs ol /ceKT^eVoi ra In accordance with this passage and c. 17 (see 239, n 1 supra] we should read in l 37
ffi

xv

ciTrAa.

m%

(differently
d.

7,

yap Siatpepeiv (tar aperrjv

"

1279,^3,

39: eVa
j)

/**i/

from SPENGEL, Abh Munchn. Aliad. pUlos.-pltihl.

v. 23),

6\iyovs

"*"

TrAeioyy 5

^77 vaAeTror

Kl. TO

instead of TO

K 2

244

ARISTOTLE

of this ambiguity, consists (however, which is the cause in the crude division of political constitutions into good

and bad, with which he starts. In polity and that which is akin to it, there improper form of aristocracy these two alternatives a third obtrudes itself between to it, unless kind, which has no clear place assigned we give up this division and supplement the qualitative and bad by a quantitative opposition between good
difference in degrees of perfection. next into the respective titles of these
1

Inquiring forms of constitution, we must different viz. that in each and as said above
question
is

first recaty
all

of

what them the

of a distribution of rights and privileges

which can only be determined according to the prin These demand that ciples of distributive justice.
equals
receive

an equal portion

unequals,

on the

to their inequality an unequal contrary, in proportion 2 It is not, however, each and every superiority portion.

that entitles to political privileges, but only those which, like birth, freedom, wealth, virtue, stand in intimate
relation to the qualities

which are essential to a and are the indispensable elements in a full and
1

citizen,

satisfy-

Aristotle
(iv.

occasion
place

lakes 8ii.) to justify the

himself
to

simply into good and bad, seeing

he
OVT

assgns
OUTCOS,
TOLVT-nV

he

polity. says, OVK

TTap-

what differentiates polity from the best State is a mere want, so that one and the same
that
constitution

tK&3Lffiv

ovre

-as

[polity] aprt

presents

itself

in

on
TroArreias,

TO

fi

fn rf?s opQora.ri]s

comparison with the best as a defective one (SiTj/xopTTj/cacn), in comparison with all others as a
true one. Even in respect of the other forms Aristotle admits that they may be relatively

But this only &c. serves to corroborate the above remarks. For if polity is neither the best nor a vicious form of constitution, it is obvious that
constitutions cannot be divided

good;
18-35.

cf.

e.g. *v.

9,

1809,

b,

See

p.

228

sq. supra.

POLITICS
ing social
life.
1

245

But

exfen

as these confers no title to rule in the State.

any one of such advantages! Those who!

demand

to stand on a footing of equality with others

in everything because they are equal in something, or who assert pre-eminence in all respects on the ground of

pre-eminence in some, put forward an unfounded claim. 2 therefore is, to determine the relative worth of those qualities upon which a title to political

The problem

privileges can. be based, and thus to estimate the value of the claims of the various classes to the sovereignty, these express themselves in the various forms of coi

The highest of these qualities, and th; which in the perfect State is alone of importance 4 Aristotle declares, as we have already seen, to b( virtue although he does not deny to the others their]
stitution.
;

importance.

But besides the character of

individuals,

we must
tion.

numerical proporj It does not follow because an individual or tl

a

also take into account their

members of

minority are

superior to

all

the

individually in virtue, insight must therefore be superior to

together.

A majority of individuals, each of taken by himself is inferior to the minority, may as whole possess an advantage over them, as each membej
wh<

and property, that tnpy the whole body taken

finds his

higher perfection.
1

complement in the other, and all thus attain The individual contribution to the
b,

iii.

12, 1282,

21-1283,
22,
c.

a,

23

of. p.
2

229
9,

sq.
v.

wpra.
13,
1,

iii.

1280, a,

thus, but the above statement of it corresponds to what he says iii. 13, 1283, a, 29- b, 9 upon the
anQicrftf.Triffis

1283,
3

a,

26,

1301,

a,

25

and the

itpiffts

rivas

sqq. b, 35.

fyx

Se?

Aristotle does not himself formulate the problem precisely

P.

230

sq. sitpra,

246

ARISTOTLE
is less,

State in this case

but the sum of the contribu

If tions is greater than in the case of the others^ of people without this does not hold of every body it is distinction, yet there may be peoples of whom
true. 2

In such

cases, while it

would certainly be wrong

to entrust to individual

of the majority offices of State which require special personal qualifications, whole who in the public yet it must be the people as a

members

assemblies and law courts pass decisions, elect magi 3 all the more strates, and supervise their administration,
as
it

would be in the highest degree dangerous

to

for the

State

convert the

majority

of

the

citizens

into

enemies by completely excluding them from a share in the government. 4 In answer to the objection that this
is

to set the incapable in

judgment over the capable,

to

the highest place the more important function (viz.

1 Aristotle frequently returns to this acute remark, which is of so much importance in estimat ing democratic institutions see
;

irpbs

TOVS

eAaTTOus

[sc.

11 init.: OTL Se 5e? Kvpiov fivai ir\T)dos v) TOWS apicrTOVs /j.a\\ov

iii.
Tt>

yap Kpeirrovs Kal Kal /SeArious flcrlv, &s rS)V TT\l6v<)V TTpbs fJLVCt)V
Kal
e ActTTovs.

TOVS

1283, b, 33:

KW\V6l 7TOT6
%X* iv airopiav, ra^a 8e KUV TOVS yap TroAAous, &v a\-fjdfiav.
Kai Tiv
1

T&V
us
8

6\iy<av

/ca0

eKaffrov

cKaa-Tos

effTiv
ii

ov

o"irov8a7os

wv,

(rvvfXdovTas ovx ws eKaffTOV

oiov Ta
/J-ias
e/c

avrjp, ivai

iii.

aAA ws adp6ovs. 11, 1282, b, 15.

the

By
c.

public

scrutiny

(6w0t5v77), c.

11, 1281, b, 33, 1282,

aAA
prjTa

u>s

ffv/uLiravTas,

a, 26.
4

SelTrva

TWV

11,
1.

1281,

b,

21

sqq.,

XopriyrjOfVTb)]/
128(>,

[similarly a, 25]- TroAAwv yap

/j.6pLov

c.

15, OVTCOV

especially
Kal

34

-rravres

fj.V

yap
ras

fKacrTOV

(})pov f)0~ws,

^x flv apfTTJs Kal yivo~9ai ffweXOovTas

avdpwirov

Kal

rols
v,

)3eAT/ocrt

Sbcnrep
e

fva

Tb

irhvQos
Kal
C.

KaOapa Tpofy^
6\iyr]S
irepl

KaQdnep }) TTJS Kadapas

^
rfyv

YOJ/T
^e-r\

alffdrfcTfLS.

OVTU
Sidvoiav.

Trepl

^copts
f

TO

Kal
a,

TV

13,
ol

Tb Kpiveiv

1283,

40:

aAAa rfv

Kal

POLITICS

247

authority in the State) in the hands of those who are excluded from the less important (viz. the individual
offices),

Aristotle

adds to the above exposition

the

further pertinent observation that there are many things of which the user can judge as well as or better than
2 in other words, that the specialist who makes them the people, although it may not understand much about
:

the details of State and government, may yet know well enough whether or not a government is advancing its
interests.

[The

viduals

may

smaller capacity, therefore, of the indi be counterbalanced and even outweighed by

;

and vice versa, their greater their greater numbers The more capable capacity by their smaller number.
have no claim to the possession of power if there are too few of them to govern or to form of themselves a State. 3
.

The
that

first
its

condition of the survival of any constitution is supporters should be superior to its enemies.
is

But

this

a question, not

numbers.

only by into account that we can properly estimate the balance/ of political power. The stronger party is the one whicW
is superior to the other, either in both these respects or so decisively in one of them that the deficiency in|
1

It is

of quality alone, but of taking both of these elements

Cf.
etrTcu

further

c.

11,

1282, a,
%ei
pa>i/

TrAeToi/

14

yap ewacrTOS

fj.ev

KaO
-

TO Trdvrcav rovriav 3) eVa Kal /car 6\iyovs fj.eyd\as

Ibid. 1282, a, 17. 13, 1283, b, 9:
elei/

ru>v

KpiT7]s

flSorwv, airavTs Se ffvveA6ovTS /) /3eATious y) ov %eipous. L. 34: ov yap 6 Swao-rfc ou5 6 KK\7](Tia<TTr]s apxvv earlv, a\Xa TO
TU>V

apx&s apxovToov.
3

iii.

et

S^ riv

SiKa<TT"hpioi/

KOI

T/

T&V
fffn

5e

pr]devT(av
.

)8ouA^ Kal 6 STAGS Ka(TTOs fj.6pi.6v

.

Sxrre Kvpiov /j.i6vwv TO Tr\?i6os

.

TOVTUV

SiKaicas

iro\\S>v

6 STJ/J.OS Kal

T]

/SouAr; Kal

K yap TO
Se

0X1701 Tra.fji.irav ol T^V dper^i/ ^xovres, riva Se? 5ieAe7f rbv rpoirov ; v) TO o\iyot Trpbs TO epyov 8e? (TKoir^lv, et dvvarol SioiKfTv r^v Tr6\iv r) TO&OVTOI TO ir\ridos SXTT
apid/n^v
elvai ir6\iv e|

alruv.

8iKaffT-j]piov.

Kal

TO

Tt/^rj^a

248

ARISTOTLE
is

the other

more than counterbalanced.

The influence

of individuals or classes will be in proportion to the amount which they severally contribute to the stability

its end. The end, must always be the good of the whole, and Jhowever, not the advantage of any particular class. 2 And since this object is more certainly attained under the rule of

the State and the attainment of

jof

law than under that of men, who are continually subject to all kinds of weakness and passion, Aristotle differs
)

in concluding that it is better that good laws hold sway, and that magistrates be left to the freedom of their own will only in cases which laws fail
to cover,

from Plato

to their necessary universality and the of taking account of every individual case impossibility \that may occur. If it be objected that the law may

owing

iv. 12, 1296, b, 15 Se? yap Kprirrov elVou rb jSoi/Ao /xei/oy pepos ir6\ws rov u.}} ySouAo/ie i/ov rrfs
:

labourers, &c., preponderate] oirov 8e rb rcov evirbpuv

Kal
r<?

yvup ifjaav
iroiy
fy

peveiv

r}]v

iroKireiav.

[So

v.

9,

/j.a\\ov virepreivei \eiirerai TO? TrotraJ, evravda

fffri 5e Tracra TroAis 1309, b, 16.] IK re rov TTOIOV Kal rov iroyov.

rov

Aeyco 8e TTOIOV

/u.6i/

(\evQfpiav ir\ov-

b\iyapx av, Kal rijs oAt-yapxias avrbv TOQTTOV fKaffrov Kara rr\v virfpoxyv rov bi
.
.

5e

rov iraL^eiav evyeveiav, iroabv 5e ej/5er)]v rov Tr\~f)9ovs virepox fiv. X*rai 5e rb /j.ev iroibv virapxew

irAr/flovs

uirov Se rb
i)

uTrepreti/et
TU>V

TTATJ^OS

aAAy erepa) yuepfi TTJS TroAecos, 5e /ucpet rb iroo~bv, olov TrAeious TOV
. . .

axpcav ^) Kal tvravd eVSe ^erai

JJ.OVLU.OV.
2

Oarepov
iro\ireiav
rival

apiO/jibv

elvai
v)

ruv yevvaiwv rovs

TrAoucricoj/

ayW?s
povs,
yu.^

rwv

rovs

b.ir6-

/j.4vroL

roo~ovrov virepex
rcj>

lv

iii. 13, 1283, b, 36 Ought the legislator to look to the advantage of the better or of the
:

irotaj. rtf iroa-y bffov AeiVeo-^at Sib ravra irpbs aAArjAa ffvyKpirtov. oirov fj,sv ovv T ^ Tuv vTTfpfx* 1

greater
\rjirreov
Trpbs

number
tvus
TTJS

rb

5
tfftas

bpdbv bpdbv

rb 5

rb

TroAecos K\f)s

o~v/ui(})fpov

a.Tr6pcav

ir\ridos rfyv

ipr)/j.vr)v

ava-

Kal Trpbs rb KOivbv rb

r&v

iroXiriav.

\oyiav, evravQa TrttyvKtv elvai STJUOKpariav, Kal e/cacrroy eTSos STJ^IOKparias [organised or lawless,

Hence all forms of constitution which do not aim at the general

welfare are resolutely regarded as bad. 3 Cf. Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 762 sq.

&C.] Kara r)]v inrepoxfy TOV Srj/uou e/caoTov [according as farmers or

POLITICS
itself
;

240

will

be partial, Aristotle admits that it is true the lawn be good or bad, just or unjust, according as the constitution is so, since laws everywhere correspond to

the existing constitution. But the conclusion which he draws is, not that persons instead of laws should
1 The adjudicate, but that constitutions should be good. final result of all these considerations is, therefore, the

demand
the
lege

for

common good

an order founded upon law, arid aiming at of all, in which influence and privi-/
\

according whole.

should be assigned to individuals and classes to their importance for the life of the

We

have next to consider the case in which an

individual or a minority possesses personal qualities so outstanding as wholly to outweigh all the others put

Would it together in ability and political importance. not be unjust to place such persons on an equal footing
10: In whom shall the reside 1 In the rich, the best, in some distinguished citizen, or in a tyrant ? After recounting all these different views, and dismissing the third and fourth with the remark that in that case the majority of the citizens
1

iii.

rich or of the people] ra

irp6repov.
:

sovereignty masses, the

Nevertheless he arrives

finally at the conclusion (1282, b, 1) ?; 8e irpwrf] Aexfleto-o airopia

iroiel
<pavepbi>

ovSev

o vrws

erepov

&s

on

5e? rovs vo^ovs elvai Kvplovs

Kei/j.evovs opdais, rbv apxo^ra Se, av re els av re Tr\eiovs Sxri, irepl

rovrw

elvai

KVO LOVS

irepl

oa-cov

would be excluded from

:

all

po-

litical rights, Aristotle continues, 1281. a, H4 dAA urcoy (pair] Ti?

&j/
i

Qativvurovviv ol VO/HOL Xeyeiv aitni/3cDs 5;a rb /J.T] paSiov elvai Ka06\ov

rb Kvpiov o\cas

&vQpu>irov

elvai

dAAo /Aii vofjiov <pav\ov, %x ov ra 7 6 ra ffvpfiaivovra irdQr] rrepl rvv

$ vX h

J/ He suggests, indeed, an &v ovv rj v6fj.os /u,ev objection oXiyapxiKbs Se /) Sr]/j.oKpariKbs, ri

-

But the SrjAwcraf irepl iravrcav. character of the laws depends upon the constitution (iroXireia in the wider sense explained p. 232 sq.): dAAd JU.TIV el rovro, S^Aoi/ ori rovs i*.tv Kara ras opdas TTO\ireixs
ava-yKalov
elvai

SiKaiovs,

SioiVet rrepl ruv r)iropr)ju.evwv ; av/j.firjaerai yap 6/j.otws [i.e. as in the

case of the personal rule of the

rovs Se Kara ras TrapeKfie&rjKvias ov Si/ccuous. On the supremacy of law see p. 252, infra.

250

ARISTOTLE

Would
^State
for it

with the others, whom in every respect they so far excel ? it nob be as ridiculous as to ask the lion to enter

on an alliance of equal rights with the hare ? If a will suffer no political inequality, nothing is left
but to exclude from
excel the

common mass.
is

the Ostracism

its pale members who thus In that sense, the institution of not without a certain justification it
:

may, under certain circumstances, be indispensable to the safety of the democracy. In itself, however, it is wholly

Ss -->

unjust, and, as a matter of fact, was abused for party The true solution is to reg-ard men of decisive nds.
.
.

/\

AJ\
\

superiority, not as

rulers of the State, not as selves the law.

mere members, but as the destined under the law, but as them-

can as

little

rule over

They dwell among men like gods you them or divide the power with

We attitude
^/subjection.
iii.

Only (them as you can divide the sovereignty of Jove. is possible towards them namely, voluntary

They are
1284, a,
?
.

the natural, born kings

54 ris

l
;

they

13,

I:

et

efs

Tonovrov

evbs

IJ.T]

rep^o\\v, /uifVToi Svvarol

8ia(pepcav KO.T ir\eiovs /uei/ !)

vX^pufia
/x,^

And then follows the dis v6/j.os. cussion in the text above, after which Aristotle continues, 1284. dAA eVl TT}S apiffTT/js TTOb, 25
:

irapaa x.eo Oa.t TroAecos, iixrre

/3A77T77J/ flvai

ffu/u.-

\iTfias

ex et

ToAA^i
a\\&i>

airopiav,

oft

T^V r&v a\\wv dpfTriv 8vvau.iv avrwv TrdvTcav jinjSe TV/I/

Kara

TWV

ayadwv

rr]v

T^ IV TTO\ITIK^]V TTpks T7]V 6/CetJ/a J/, t iows, et 8 els, ri]V tKeivov /ULOVOV,
fOV TOVTOVf /ULpOS
ai KTOL Toarovrov
7T($AeCt>S

vircpox riv, OLOV iffxvos Kal TT\OVTOV Kal TToAi/^tA/ ay, aAA av TLS
8ia<pepwv

KO.T

apTf]v.

t(T(i)V,

ovres
&<nrep

Kal

war r^v iroXniK^v 8vva/m.iv

ov jap 8rj 0a?fi/ Uv 8e?v Kal [AfQuTTavai rbv TOIOVTOV. a\\a P.TIV ov8 apx^iv *ye TQV TOIOVTOV
Trapair\ {)(riov

yap

/ecu/

ei

TOV Aiks

eV avOpw-rrois elites slva.1 rbv roiovrov oOev SjjAov OTI Kal TT]V vofj.o6<riav avayKaiov elvai
jrepl

yap Oebv

a^io iev, pepi^ovTes Tas apxas. AenreTcu rolvvv, oirep HoiKe Tre^uKevai, Trei6eo~6ai TO) ToiovT(p iravTas

apx*w

TOVS tcrovs Kal

ry

SvvdfjLei.

Kara Se
VO/JLOS

rcav

yevei Ka.1 ry rotovrcav

dcr/J.V(as,

&(TT

TOiovTOvs

aifiiovs
c.

fiaaiXeas rfvat TOVS ev TOIS Tr6\e(Tiv.

OVK

ecrTL

avrol

yap

etVt

Similarly

17, ]288, a, 15 sqq.

POLITICS

251

1 alone have a true and unconditional title to monarchy. Such a monarchy Aristotle calls the best of all consti

believing as he does that under it the wellfor he alone is of the people is best secured being in this high sense who is endowed with every king
tutions,
;

excellence and free from every mortal defect nor will such a one seek his own advantage at the cost of his
;

will lavish subjects, but, like a god,

upon them

benefits

out of his
stotle is

own abundance. 3

In general, however, Ari- 1

of
ol

it

no eulogist of monarchy. The different kinds/ which he enumerates, 4 he regards as mere varieties/ two fundamental forms namely, military command
1

Cf.

iii.

Etli.

viii.

17, 1281. b, 41 sqq. 12, 11 GO, a, 35

^eArio-rr/
5
>?

a, 8).
:

The

first

of these kinds,

he

remarks

rovrcav 8e [of the true

forms of
,ue//
T)

constitution]
j8aa"tAeia

1285, b, 3 sqq., 20 sqq., a, 7, 14), was rather a union of certain offices, judicial,
(c.

14,

x et P (7T
:

T]

Tt/j-OKparta.

priestly, military

similarly, the

Ibid, b, 2

fj.\v

yap rvpavvos
avcoTrel,

Spartan was an hereditary

com
the

rb

eauT&j

(Tu/u.(pepois

Se

mand.

The monarchy

of

jSacnAeus rb

run/

ap^ojuevccv.
6
^urj

ov
6

yap

e trrr

f3a<ri\evs

avTapKys

Kal Tracn To7s

ayaOols virzp exeats.

avrcp
,uei/

Se TOLOVTOS ouSepby 7rpOfrSe?Tai

ra
av

ovv
ToTs

OVK
6

8 a/3^o,ueVois

yap
e^Tj

TOIOVTOS
4

Cfp.

Khypcarbs 250, n.
-jrepl

&i
1,

TIS

supra.

In the section

/3a(ri\Las,

which Aristotle .Inserts iii. 14-17, and which, as/it is closely con
nected with /the preceding dis cussion, we must here notice. Besides true monarchy he there enumerates five kinds of mon archical rule (1) that of the heroic age (2) that which is common among barbarians (3) the rule of Ime so-called J^sym: ;

barbarians, on the other hand, an hereditary mastership is (apx^ Sfa-TToriK^ but the govern ment of slaves is despotic, that Polit. iii. of freemen political 4, 1277, a, 33, b, 7, c. 6, 1278, b, 32, 1279, a, 8), to which, how ever, the subjects voluntarily submit, and which is limited by traditional usage (iii. 14, 1285, Elective monarchy a, 16, b, 23). is a dictatorship either for life or for a definite time or object. (On the cuper^/ rvpavvls v. ibid, a, 29 sqq. b, 25.) Only in an irre sponsible monarchy is an indi vidual actually master of a whole
;

people;
/uiiK^
7)

it is a kind of magnified domestic rule yap rj OIKOVO:

&<nrep

neta?

or

elective

princes

(4)

the Spartan; (5) unlimited mon archy (7ra u/3ao tA.ete, c. 16 1287
J

/SacrtAeta TIS otKias ecr-rii/, ovr<as evbs Y) /3a0"iAeia TroAecos /cat edvovs
o lKOVouia

(iM^,b,29sqq.).

252
for
life

ARISTOTLE

and irresponsible sovereignty. The former, is applicable to the most diverse forms of constitution, and cannot, therefore, be the fundamental
however,
characteristic of

any one of them.

1

By

a monarchical

constitution, therefore, in the present inquiry,

we can

only mean

But against this irresponsible monarchy. form of government there are, according to Aristotle, many objections. That it may, under certain circum
stances, be natural

and

justifiable
is

he does not, indeed,

deny.

A people

which

incapable of governing itself

must needs have a governor. In such a case govern ment by one is just and salutary. 2 If, on the other
hand, the case be one of a people consisting of freemen who stand to one another in a relation of essential
equality, personal rule contradicts the natural law, which assigns equal rights to equals in such States the only
;

just arrangement is that where this is the case it

power should alternate but is law, and not the will of a

;

monarch, that

rules. 3

If,

further,
is

it

be said that govern

ment by the

best

man

better than

government by

the best laws, because the latter issue only universal decrees without regard to the peculiarities of particular
cases,

we must remember,

in the

first

place, that even

the individual must be guided by universal principles

iii. 15, 1286, b, 33-1287, a, 16 init. iii. 17 init., after stating the objections to monarchy Aristotle continues aAA tffcas TCWT eVt /xeV TIVWV e^et rbv rpoirov rovrov, Itrl
1

7, c.

limited among some barbarian peoples as tyrannical. Nevertheless it is legitimate (Kara vop.ov /cat Sia yap TO SovXiKcbTrarpt/crj) repot elVat ra ^Qt] tyvcrei oi ju.ei/ /3ap;

Se

rivcav

oi>x

ovrws.

Herri

yap

/3apoi ruiv EAAr^coi/, of Se irepl Atrtaj/ rwv irfpl Evpwinqv,

rr)i>

r^v
IITTO-

fyvati Seo Troo Tbv Kal &AAo /3ao"tAeurbv Kal HAAo TroAtTt/cbi/ al St/catot/ Kal orv[j.(ppov. c. 14, 1285, a, 19: monarchical power is as un-

/LLtvowi rkv SfcnroriKrjv

ap-^v oi5ev

Svffxepa wovres. Cf. p. 239, n. 1, snip. 3 iii. 16, 1287, a, 8 sqq. cf. c. 17, 1288, a, 12, c. 15, 1286, a, 36.

POLITICS

253

of government, and that it is better that these should be administered in their purity than that they should

be obscured by distorting influences. Law is free from such influences, whereas every human soul is exposed
to

the disturbing influence of passion law is reason without desire. Where law reigns, God reigns incarnate
; ;

where the individual, the beast reigns as well. If this advantage seerns to be again outweighed by the
1

inability of law to take account of particular cases as

the individual governor can, this is not decisive. It from it that the constitution must follows, indeed,

admit of an improvement upon the laws 2 that the cases which the law does not take account of must be
submitted to authoritative judges and magistrates, and that provision should be made by means of a special education for a constant supply of men, to whom these
1

iii.

1287, a, 28
/ceAeucov

15, 1286, a, 7-20, c. 1(5, 6 jjikv ovv rbv v6fjiov

:

ment, like all other arts and sciences, reaches perfection gra

ap^iv

5o/cel

/ceAevtii/
JJ.OVQVS,

&p%iv r bv
6 8
Kal
Qrjpioi

6ebv Kal rbv vovv

av9p<Dirov
.

Kf\evwv

irpoffTiQf]<ri.

dually. From the earliest inhabi tants of a country, whether they be autochthonous or a remnant of

re yap 4itiQvjj.ia TOIOVTOV [perhaps better TOLOVTOV Kal 6 Qv/jibs apx ovras 8ta0"rpe bi/] Kal TOVS apiffrovs avSpas. Sioirep avfv dpe^fas vovs o vo/j.os tffTiv,
vj
:
</>ei

a more ancient population, little insight is to be expected it would be absurd, therefore, to be

:

f)

248 sq. vi. 4, 1318, b, 3 J yap e^ovffia rov Trpdrreii o ri e0e A?; TLS ov Svj/arai ^uAarretJ/ TO
Cf. p.
C
:

&</

ej/

Etli.

avQpwirwv fyav\ov. 35: 8i& owe iw/j.ev apx^w avQpwirov, dAAo rbv \6yov \_al. v6(ji.ov^, QTI kavrcp TOVTO Troie? Kal yiverai Tvpavvos. Aristotle touches on this He point, ii. 8, 1268, b, 31 sqq. there that neither the says
v.

eKatrTw rcav

bound by their precedents; written laws, moreover, cannot embrace every individual case. Neverthe less great prudence is required in changing the laws; the authority of the law rests entirely on use

10, 1134, a,

and wont, and

written nor the unwritten Jaws

this ought not to be infringed unnecessarily men ought to put up with small anomalies rather than injure the authority of the law and the government and accustom the citizens to regard legislative changes lightly.
;

can be unchangeable.

Govern

254

ARISTOTLE
may be
entrusted
;

functions

but

it

means follow that the highest authority

should reside in an individual.

does not by any in the State

On

more undeniable
that the latter
is

it

is

that

many

the contrary, tlie are superior to on!

be fooled by passioi and corrupted by desire than a multitude, and thai even the monarch cannot dispense with a multitude oi servants and assistants, the wiser it is to commit this authority into the hands of the whole people and caus it to be exercised by them, rather than by an individual
liable to

more

assuming always that the people consist of free am 2 Furthermore, we cannot overlook the capable men. fact that use and custom are more powerful than written
laws,

and that government by these at any rate has the advantage over government by a man, even although

we deny
this

this of written law.

A monarch,

finally (and?

argument weighs heavily with Aristotle), will almost/

inevitably desire to
his family
1

make

and what guarantee have we in such a

his sovereignty hereditary ii} case

best that as much as possible cases should be decided by law and withdrawn from judicial con sideration for (1) true insight is more likely to be found in the
is
;

C. 15, 12SG, a, 20-b, 1, c. n. 1G, 1287, a, 20- b, 35 of. p. 24G, 31 it 2, supra. Rliet. i. 1, 1354, a,
;
:

upon a special case, in which inclination, aversion and private

advantage not unfrequently play a part. To these, therefore, we must leave, when possible, onh such questions as refer to matters
of fact past or future. Ibid. 1286, a, 35 carca 5e rb
:

individual or the select few who make a law than in the many who have to apply it (2) laws are the product of mature delibera the tion, judicial decisions of moment (3) the most important consideration of all: the legis lator establishes universal prin law courts ciples for the future, and popular assemblies decide
; ;

Tr\TJQos

oi

e\evdepoi,

/^Sep
/}

irapa

rbv VO/LWV TrpdrrovTfs, a\\ TTtpl wv fK\eiireiv avayKaiov OLVTOV. We are dealing with ayaOol KOI &vpes Kal TroAtYcu. To the further objec tion that in large masses factions commonly arise, the reply is

made
3

on

a-rrovScuoi

ri]v

K.a.K.t1vos

6 els.

c. 10,

1287,

b, 5.

POLITICS

255

that it will not pass into the most unworthy hands, to the ruin of the whole people ? On all these grounds it to be better that the State be ruled Aristotle declares
l

by a capable body of citizens than by an individual: in other words, he gives aristocracy the preference over 2 monarchy. Only in two cases does he regard the
latter, as

we have

seen, as justified

when a people
all

stands

so

low as to be incapable of self-government, or when

others

an individual stands so pre-eminently out over

that they are forced to revere him as their natural ruler. Of the former, he could not fail to find manyinstances in actual experience he himself, for instance, Of explains the Asiatic despotisms on this principle.
;

the latter, neither his of his nation afforded

own time nor

the whole history

him any example corresponding

even remotely to the description, except that of his own 3 The thought naturally suggests it pupil Alexander.
self that

he had him in his mind when he describes the

prince whose personal superiority

ruler.
4

Conversely,

makes him a born we can imagine that he used his

he had

ideal of the true

sketched it at so early king (if a period as his residence in Macedonia 5 ) as a means of directing to beneficial ends a power which would endure
1

c. 15,

c.

15,

1286, b, 22. 1286, b, 3:

TrdvTwv

e<

STJ

T^V

lv
8

TUV

TrAetoVojj/

apxw

ayatiui/

haps have been mentioned alongside of him; he was, however, not a monarch, but a popular
a,

ai>$pai>

tfereov,

TTJI/

apiffroKpariav Se rov tvbs

fia<ri\eiai>,

leader, and in Polit. ii. 12, 1274, o sqq. is treated merely as a

4

eft} alpeT(arpoi Kparia Paffi\eias. Accordingly monarchies have changed early into republics as the number of capable people in the cities has increased. 3 Pericles alone might perai>

-noXtaiv apiffro-

demagogue.
See
ii.

ONCKEN,

Staat&l.

d.

Arist.
5

He
1.

268 sq. dedicated a treatise to

wtpl &aai\eias
;

Alexander
60, n.

see p.

256

ARISTOTLE

no opposition and no limitation, and of saying to a prince whose egotism would admit no title by the side

monarchy can only be merited by an equally absolute moral greatness. These specula Aristotle himself remarks tions, however, are delusive. that no one any longer exists so far superior to all
others as the true king must needs be. 1 Moreover, throughout the Politics he accepts the presuppositions
of Greek national

of his

own

that absolute

and

political

life,

and

it

is

not

likely that in his theory of

monarchy he should have had the Macedonian Empire, whose origin, like that ot
other peoples, he elsewhere traces to definite historical
2 3 sources, present to his thought.
1

It is better to explain

v. 10,

1313, a, 3: ov yiyvovi/uj/,

TCU 8

en

/3a<riAeTa:

aAA.

yiyiHavrai, /j-ovapx^t Kal

/j.a\\ov, 5ia rb rrjv /JacriAetav e/couffiov /uev

Kvpiav,

TroAA.oi/9

apxTlv elVcu, pei^ovuv 8e 8 elj/at rovs 6yti/iTjSei/a

oious, /cat

5ia(ppovTa
1

roffovrov oScrre airapri^eiv irpbs rb /j-fyedos Ka\ rb a 1 Sta /u.ei/ TTJS apxysa>|U,a

mythical times perhaps in a Theseus seeing that in iii. 15, 1286, a, 8 he supposes that mon archy is the oldest form of con stitution, perhaps because the few capable people in antiquity stood more prominently out above the common man than in
later times. 2 Polit. v.
10,

o&o"T6

1310,

b, 39,

roiro
&j/

eK^res
Si

ov^

dirofj.evovo iv

8e

aTraTTjs

&pp
slvai

TIS

$i

jSias,

^8?]

So/cel

TOVTO

rvpavvls.

where the Macedonian kings are mentioned along with the Spartan and Molossian as owing their
position
3

This does not, indeed, primnrily refer to the appearance in a state monarchical of a previously
prince whose personality corre sponds to that of the ideal king, but to the introduction of mon archy in states which hitherto have had another form of consti tution the words /urjSeW dpxvs seem, however, to show that Aristotle in depicting the true king was not thinking of contem porary examples. Had he desired
;
.

to

their

services

as

founders of states.

Even although the passage

7 (see infra) were taken to mean that the Greek nation now
vii.

that it has become politically united (strictly speaking it had not received /j.iav iro\iTeiav even

from Philip and Alexander) is able to rule the world, and not merely that it would be able to rule the world if it were politi
cally united, it could not be quoted in proof of the view that

historical illustrations he would have preferred to look for them in

Aristotle (as

OXCKEN,

Staatsl. d.

POLITICS
his views

257

on this subject upon purely scientific principles. the different possible cases in which virtue Among may be the basis of political life, he had to take account of
that in which the virtue resides primarily in the prince, and in which his spirit, passing into the community,
It

upon it that prowess which he himself possesses. would certainly not be difficult to prove from Aristotle s own statements about the weakness of hurnaV nature and the defects of absolute monarchy that sucll\
confers

a case can never actually occur, that even the greates and ablest man differs from a god, and that no persona

\|

greatness in a ruler can compensate for the legally! organised co-operation of a free people, or can constittot a claim to unlimited command over free men.

mined, however, though Aristotle usually

tility to all false idealism,

is in his

hos

and careful though he is the Politics to keep clearly in view the conditions reality, he has here been unable wholly to rid hi
of idealistic bias.

He

admits that the advent of

who has

a natural claim to sole supremacy is a exception but he does not regard it as an impossibility
;

and accordingly considers

this case in the

it

his

duty not to overlookrA

1

development of his theory.

After thus discussing the principles of his division \ of states into their various kinds, Aristotle next/^
proceeds to investigate the separate forms themselves! beginning with the best, and passing from it to they
Arist.
i.
I

21, supposes)

unity

under
the

the
.

saw in its Macedonian

of
his

HENKEL,
*

StudienJ&cc., p. 97.

SUSEMIHL, Jakresber. uber

sway

fulfilment

people s destiny. Cf SUSEMIHL, Jahrb. /. Philol. ciii. 134 sq.

Alterthvm87& .,,187&,p.ilTf, takes the same view.

class.

VOL.

II.

258
less perfect

ARISTOTLE
examples. The examination of the Best however, as already observed, is incomplete. must therefore be content to notice the section of
us.

State/

We
it

which we have before

5.

The Best State

For a perfect society certain natural conditions are in the first place necessary for just as each art requires a suitable material to work upon, so also does political
;

science.

community cannot, any more than an

indi

vidual, dispense with external equipment as the con A State, in the first dition of complete happiness. 2
been frequently It has denied that Aristotle intended to
1

them
JJ.T]

that, while Plato declares

-TJ/J.O.S ei>xs

Tvavra-rraffiv

elprjK

depict

an Ideal State (see HILDENBRAXD, ibid. p. 427 sqq.

a\\a xa\ira fj.v Swara 8e TTTJ (Rep. vii, 540 D), Aristotle says,
"

HBNKEL,

ibid.

74)

his

own

however, as is declarations, gradually coming to be generally admitted, leave no doubt on this head. Cf. e.g. iii. 18 Jin. vii. 1
1324, a, 18, 23, c. 4 vn.it. c. 9, 1328, b, 33, c. 13 init. The c.*15 init. iv. 2, 1289, a, 30. subject of the discussion in Polit.
init.
c.

conversely (vii. 4, 1325, b, and almost in the same words

ii. 6,

1265, a,17): 8el iroAAa

Kaddirtp TOVT03V fJit]QeV

7rpoi)TO-

Te0e7<r0cu

/JLfVTOl

2,

Aristotle certainly declares the most peculiar of Plato s propo

described by all these passages without exception as the apiffrr] TroArreia, the TTO\IS
vii.
viii. is

and

be unsuitable and im he is moreover not so entranced with his Ideal State as to deny, as Plato does, to any other the name of State and to
sals to

practicable

fjifXXova a.

/car

fvx^v

ffvvfffravai.

and Aristotle expressly says that

in depicting such a State

permit to the philosopher alone a share in its administration he

;

many demands
it

of political science that

assumptions must be made, but

these ought not to transcend the
limits of possibility. This, how ever, is precisely what Plato also had asserted of the presupposi tions of his ideal state (Rep. v. 473, c. vi. 499 c, D,502 c see Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 776), and so small is the difference in this respect between
;

should study also the less perfect conditions of actuality

and ascertain what

;

is

best in the

circumstances but at the same time he doubted as little as Plato that Politics ought also to sketch the ideal of a perfect State.
2

Polit. vii. 4 init.

POLITICS
:

259

(? place, must be neither_too small nor too great since if it is too small it will lack independence if too great, The true measure of its unity. proportions is that the
;

on the ^ on the other, be sufficiently within .a and, compass to keep the individual members intimately acquainted with one another and with the government,
citizens should,
>

number of the

Aristotle further desires a fruitful

extent,

which

itself

^supplies

all

country of sufficient the necessities of life

without leading to luxury, an J^hicTils~"easily defended and suitable for purposes of commerce. In this last respect he defends, as against Plato, 2 a maritime
situa

tion, prescribing at the

same time means of avoiding the inconveniences which it may bring with it, 3 More
still,

important
people. the people
spirit

however, is the natural character of the healthy community can only exist where combine the of

complementary

qualities

and

intellect. /^Aristotle
is

holding that this

so

among

agrees with Plato in the Greeks alone. The

Northern barbarians, on the other hand, with their unJUd. 1320, b, 5 sqq. where at the end Aristotle says 5r)\ov f TOivvv us ovr6s eVri Tro Aecos opos
1
:

iroXvdvOpu-n-os.

Cf

Etli

ix
e /c

10
6 ,fa

1170,

b,

31:

ore

7^

avQp^Trtav yewr fa Tr6\is OVT eV rov ir^Oous Se /ca /nvpidSw fri TTO AZS eVr/^-we shall not consider the latter too avrdpKfiau fays et^oTTTos. At the same time he low an estimate if we have in maintains that the general cri- view the Greek states in which tenon of the size of a state is, all full citizens share directly in not the TrATjflos, but the 8tW/m of the government (cf. Polit ibid its population, that the greatest 1326, b, 6) is that which is best * capable of Lams, iv. vn.it. ; this passage answering the peculiar ends of is, undoubtedly present to Ari the state, and that stotle s mind, accordingly although he makes we have to take into account the no mention either of it or of its number, not of the population, author. but 3 the citizens proper ou Polit. vii. 5. of^ yap ravTbv ^670X77 re ir6\is Kal

ZpiffTOs^r, yTre^oAT? Trpbs

^yiarr,

260

ARISTOTLE
spirit,
;

tamed

attain to freedom, but not to political and existence while the Asiatics, with all their art and destined by nature to be talent, are cowards, 1 Greeks alone are capable of political The slaves.

may

activity,

with that sense they alone are endowed them on all sides of moral proportion which fortifies of from extremes of excess or defect. 7 The conditions
for
all civil

and moral

life

Aristotle, in a, true

Greek

spirit,

where finds to exist only in his own people. Here, also, in view of the intellectual state of it is more
justifiable

the world at that time,

we have

the same national pride

which has already presented itself in a more repulsive aspect in the discussion upon Slavery. So far we have spoken only of such things as depend of all, however, and upon chance^ The most important the essential element in the that which constitutes
happiness of the
state,
is

the virtue of the citizens,

which

political

no longer a matter of chance, but of free will Here, therefore, we must call upon and insight. 2 In the first place science to be our guide.
is

we

shall

have to determine by

its

aid

how

best to take

Under this circumstances. advantage of the external of the division of the head comes all that Aristotle says
land and of the
1

site

and structure of the

of
:

city.

With

Pollt vii 7

where he says of
rb

which passages Aristotle him"

the Greeks (1327, b, 29)

Karct

r&v E\\fauv ywos Ampiufftfa

robs TOTTOUS, oSirws uerevet K ai -yap tvQvpov

self refers.
Sii

fyQoiv
ai

/car

Polit. vii. eu X
.

13, 1332, a, 29: v

M/**
d>v

**

5ia-

W\ea>s

(riffraff w,

T?

re vo-nrw&v eVrn/, Sichrep t\eM*p&v 5 t aT6Ae7 K al fu&iffra TroKirw^vov

Ka \ tvv^vov &PX*" ^"" see rvvxdvov TroAtre/as (on cf PLATO, Rep. iv. p. 256, n. 1) 435 B, ii. 374 E sqq. to the latter
;
.

^ ^ which
S

Kvplav yap rb fc
ri

airV

mriato

Mfj

***?*

W",

KOL Trpoatpeo-ews. 13,

Cf. C. 1, 1323,

and the whole chapter.

POLITICS
reference to the
first

261

of these he proposes 1 that a portion of the whole territory be set apart as state property, from the produce of which the cost of religious services

and public banquets may be defrayed, and that of what remains each citizen should receive two portions, one in
the neighbourhood of the city,

another towards the

boundary of

requires for the city not only a healthy site and suitable plan of structure, but
its

territory.

He

also fortifications, deprecating

contempt with which Plato

the latter.

upon valid grounds the and the Spartans regarded

Of much greater importance, however, are the means that must be adopted to secure the personal
These will not in the capacity of the citizens. perfect sort of state consist merely in educating

most

men

with a view to a particular form of constitution and to their own particular aims, nor again in making them

community, although imperfect as indivi on the contrary, since the virtue of citizens here coincides with the virtue of man universally, care must
duals
;

efficient as a

betaken to make each and every citizen a capable man, and to fit all for taking part in the government of the

But for this end three things are necessary. The ultimate aim of human existence is the education
state.

of the reason. 6

As

the higher

is

always preceded by

the lower, the end by the means, in the order of time, 7 so the education of the reason must be preceded by
1

Ibid.

c.

10, 1329, b,

3(5

sqq.

There is a similar plan in PLATO, Laws, 745 C sqq.; Aristotle, however, in Polit. ii. 6, 1265, b, 24, considers Plato s arrangement, merely on account of a trifling
difference, highly objectionable. 3 Polit. vii. 11, 12.

Lans, vi. 778 D sq. See vol. ii. p. 209, n. 2, SHJ}. Cf. p. 142 sq. and Polit. vii.
1334, b.

15,
/col

14

Se \6yos rjfuv
cSo-re

6 vovs rrjs ^vcrecas re Aos.

yevfviv teal r^v rwv eflcii/ 5e? irapaaK^vd^iv ^eAerrji/. 7 Cf. vol. ii. p. 28, n. 3, supra.
-rrpbs

TOVTOVS

T\\V

262

ARISTOTLE
of the
irrational

that

element of the soul

namely,

desire

and the training of desire by that of the body. We must therefore have first a physical, secondly a moral, and lastly a philosophic training and just as the
;

nurture of the body must subserve the soul, so must the education of the appetitive part subserve the reason. U

A Aristotle, like Plato, demands that state interference

life of the individual should begin much earlier customary in our days, and that it should regu He does not, in even the procreation of children. is

with the

than
late

2 deed, as has been already shown, go so far as to make this act the mere fulfilment of official orders, as Plato

had done in the Republic.

Nevertheless he also would

have laws to regulate the age at which marriage should take place and children be begotten, 3 careful regard being paid to the consequences involved not only to the
children in relation to their parents, but to the parents in relation to one another. The law must even determine
at

what season of the year and during what winds pro creation may take place. It must prescribe the proper
course of treatment for pregnant women, procure the ex of posure of deformed children, and regulate the number
births.

For those children who are superfluous, or whose

parents are either too young or too old, Aristotle, sharing

1

Polit.

w<T7rep

vii. 15,1334, b, 20: Se TO (Tu/jiaTrpoTfpov rfj y*v4-

and

ffei TTJS

tyvx^s,

OI/ TCO
.

Ko.1

rb &\oyov
5ib irpwrov
TTi/jLf\ftav
3)

rov \6yov ex OJ/TOS ei rov ffu/j.aros

TreiTa
TT}V

TTJI/

Trpirepav civai
TTJS

T?V
ope

TT)S

|ea>s,

vov rov TTJS rov ffw/j-aros rys T}?I/ Of viii. 3 ^w. On reason
TT>

Se

vol. ii. pp. 112 sq., desire, 155 sq. supra. \supra. ~ In the section on the Family, 3 to take place Marriage ought with men about the age of thirty-seven, with women about eighteen procreation ought not to be continued beyond the fiftyfourth or fifty-fifth year of a
?>.

man s

age.

POLITICS
as

263

to such
tion,

he does the indifference of ancients in general as immoral practices, roundly recommends abor
justifying
life,

it

on the ground that what has

l

as

yet no

has no rights.

^ From

the control of pro

creation Aristotle passes to education, which he regards

as beginning with the first moment of life, and extend 2 From the earliest years of its life care ing to the last. must be taken to secure for the child, not only suitable

exercise

and physical training, but also games and moral education. Chil dren must be left as little as possible to the society of
stories as a preparation for its

slaves, and kept altogether out of the way of improper conversation and pictures, which, indeed, ought not to be tolerated at all. 3 Their public education begins at

the age of seven, and lasts till twenty-one. 4 Aristotle founds his argument in favour of state-regulated educa
tion

upon

its

importance for the communal

life,

for

it is

the moral quality of the citizens which supports the fabric and determines the character of the common

wealth

and

if

man would practise

virtue in the state,

he must begin early to acquire it. 5 As in the best state all must be equally capable, as the whole state
has one

common
this
is

to himself, but
1

all

object in view, and as no man belongs belong to the state, this education
of
in
:>

All

treated

Ibid. 1336, b, 35 sqq.

Polit.
:

Polit. vii. 10.

viii.

init. t

where

With what follows cf. LEFMANN,Z)e Arist. Sow. Edvcatione Princ. Berl. 1864; BlEHL, Die ErzichwH/slelire d. Arist. Gymn.For Progr. Innsbruck, 1877. other literature on the subject, see UEBERWEG. Hist, of Phil. vol. i. p. 172 Eng. Tr.
3

rb yap ^dos rrjs iro\ireias e/caoTTjs rb olKtiov Kal (pv\drinter alia

reiv
tfcofle

rrjv iroXirfiav Kal

/j.fi>

Kad-

vii. 17.

Lar^cnv ef apx?!*, olov rb Srj/noKpariKbv Sti^oKpartav, rb 5 d\iyatl Se rb apxixbv bXiyapxiav fieXnffrov tfQos fie\riovos atnov TroAn-e/as. Cf. v. 9, 1310, a, 12, and vol. ii. p. 209, n. 2,

264

ARISTOTLE
in

must be wholly

common and must

be regulated
1

in every detail with a view to the wants of the whole. Its one object, therefore, must be to train up men who shall know how to practise the virtue of freemen.

The same
struction

principle will determine the subjects of in

Thus and the method of their treatment. of the arts which serve the wants of life, the future citizens shall learn only those which are worthy of a
free
2 man, and which vulgarise neither mind nor body, such as reading, writing, and drawing, the last of which,

besides

its practical utility, possesses the higher merit 3 of training the eye for the study of physical beauty. But even among those arts which belong to a liberal

education in the stricter sense, there

difference

is

an essential

between those which we learn for the sake of their practical application and those which we learn for
1

p. 209. n. 2.

of. Ibid. 1337, a, 21 sqq. Aristotle recognises,

;

indeed (Eth. x. 10, 1180, b, 7), that private education may be able more readily to adapt itself to the needs of the pupil, but replies that public education does not neces sarily neglect these, provided that it is entrusted to the proper hands.
2

Or. i. p. 754) in regarding this as the effect of trades (/J.iff8apviKal epyaariai) generally they leave
;

th ought unexercised

and generate

low views. These, however, are to be found even with the higher
activities (music, gymnastics, &c.) if these are pursued in a one sided way as a vocation. There are many things, finally, that a man may do for himself or a friend, or for some good purpose, service of in the but not

ovv
ra>v

2, 1337, b, 4 avayKcua SeT St xP f (J ljLWV OVK &S^\ov

viii.
:

on

n^v
8e

TO.

on

ov irdvra,
Qepcav

8ir]priiJ.tvci)V

r&v re f\fvit,ve\fv6fpcav,

tpywv Kai r&v

strangers.
3 viii. 3, 1337, b, 23, 1338, a, 13 sqq. Ibid. 1. 37 among the useful arts are many which must
:

on r&v

rotovrcav Se? /uer/3dvav(Tov vo^i^fiv Ka\

fidvavcrov.

fpyo
xfT?!

flvai

$? rovro

be learned, not merely for the sake of their utility, but also as
aids to further culture.
ypa/LL/u-ariKh

ras xP^ ffls Ka ^ T s ras rris aperrjs &xP r ffrov

irpbs
"
>

and

r\\v

tywxfyv

fy

rfyv

Sidvoiav.
(cf.

Ari

QtcapTinKbv

value of the rov

ypcKpucf]. latter is

Such are The chief on

TTpl

ra

stotle agrees

with Plato

Ph.

d.

POLITICS
their

265
their

own

sake.

The former have

end outside of

themselves in something attained by their means, while tiie latter find it within themselves, in the high and
satisfying activities which their own exercise affords. That the latter are the higher, that they are the only

truly liberal arts, hardly requires proof in Aristotle s view. As, moreover, of the two chief branches of
1

education
the latter

among
is

the Greeks

practised more

music and gymnastics as an aid to soldierly

efficiency, while the

culture,

it is

former directly ministers to mental not wonderful that he should disapprove

of that one-sided preference for physical training which was the basis of the Spartan system of education. He

remarks that where physical exercise and endurance are made so exclusively an object, a ferocity is produced which differs widely from true bravery nor do these
;

means
sought
1

suffice
viz.

attainment even of the object superiority in war: for since Sparta had
for the
in itself an end but only a means of recreation, and accordingly more necessary in oo-xoAto than in o^oA??. The latter consists in the attainment of the end, and therefore results immediately in

Besides what is said sup. ii. 141 sqq., on the superiority of theory to practice, and, p. 209 sq., on peaceful and warlike avocations,cf. on this head vii. 14,1333, a, 35 [ay 07/07] Tr6\jj.ov fj.fv elp-f]vns Xfyw, aarxoXiav Se <rxoA7js, ra 5 avayKaia Kal xpfaw* TUIV KaXwv tVe/cei/. Similarly c. 15, 1334, a, 14, viii. 3, 1337, b, 28 (on music): vvv fj.tv yap ws rjSovTJs x^P tv Oi
p.
:

pleasure and happiness; the for-

mer
is

is effort after

an end which

Sxrre (pavepbv SeT Kal Trpbs rrjv eV TIJ Siaywyfi ffxoX^v uavOdi/eiv OTTO Kal TTCU-

not yet attained.

on

7rAe?(rTOi

/uzrexovo iv avrrjs ol 8 e tra^av tv TrotSem, Sia rb rrjv

ai/r^v frrfilv
opOcos
.

8eue(T0at,

Kal

/j.r)

/J.OVQV

SCU/XOTO Kal eauTaJv elj/ai

X"-P

ravra /uev TO TTOIravras ras fAuQiiaeis IV ras ^* irpbs T^\V

>

aAAa
. . .

/col

<r%oAaea/

dvva(r6ai /coAws
,uei/

el

yap a^^xa
rb

fj.ci.XXov alperbv ffxoXa.tiv rrjs aaxoXias, Kal ftXcos ^r]Tr]Tov TI iroiovvras 5e? (rxoXa.^iv.

Se?,

8e

IV avayKatas Kal ecrrl fjifv TO IVVV TrcuSeia TIS fyv &s xp7j<rtyurji/ TraiSeuTe ov rovs utets owS ws avayKaiav, aA\ us fXevQspiov Kal
X<*-P

dcr^oAio^ us aAAwi/. ...

on
J

oi>x

Mere amusement

TroiSto

is

not

/caAV,

aveov

taTiv.

266

ARISTOTLE

ceased to have a monopoly of gymnastic training, she Aristotle had lost her superiority over other states.
desires, therefore, to see

gymnastics duly subordinated

education, and to prevent the more exhausting exercises from being practised before the body has acquired sufficient strength and the mind
to the true

end of

all

1 has received a counterbalancing bias from other studies. Turning to music, by which Aristotle means in the

first

in

which

instance music in the narrower sense of the word, 2 it does not include poetry, we have to distin
it

be put. 3 It serves for purposes of pleasure and of moral educa 4 and furnishes an enjoyable it soothes the spirit, tion
guish between several uses to which

may

occupation.

In the education of youth, however,

its

ethical effect is the

main

thing.

The young

are too

viii. 4, especially 1338, b, o&Ve yap ev Toils &\\ois fyois tOvwv 6pw/uLfV T)JV roov eirl avSpiav aKo\ov6ovffav rols aypiwTOLTOIS, ctAAa MAAoj/ T

7,

1341, b, 36.
4

17 OUT

By

effected, not only

;

the KaOapffis which is by sacred music

repois Kal \Ovr6Seffiv tfdeffiv w(TTe rl) Ka\bv aAA ou TO ou yap \VKOS 5e? irpuTayfavKTTtiv &\Acov Qiqpiwv TL ayooviou5e (rairo &i/ ovOeva Ka\bv KivSvvov, a\\a /j.a\\ov avfyp ayados. ol Se
.
TU>V

(/ie A.77 eopyidovTa), but by all music Polit. viii. 1342, a, 4 sqq. For the fuller discussion of

see ch. xv. infra. Aiaywyf). By this word Ari stotle means generally an activity which has its end in itself, and
,

is

therefore necessarily

accom

\iav
Kal

fls

ravra avevrss rovs

TralSas,

rcai/

avayKaiwv aTraiSayayfiTovs
<iv

panied by pleasure, like every activity which is complete in it

self (seep. 146 sq.
$?(/>.).

TroLTja-avres,

fiavavaovs Karpyd^ovre rat Kara ye TO a\7}0es, Trpbs

He there

tpyov Trj iroXniKy wnffifjiovs TTOi^ffavres, KOL Trpbs TOUTO x e ^P ov i &s fyyffiv 6 \6yos, krepwv.
jj.6vov

makes a distinction between those arts which serve human need and those which serve
fore
Siaywyri (Metapli. i. 1 sq. 981, b, 17, 982, b, 22), comprehending under the latter all kinds of

PLATO, on the other hand, in the section of the Rep. upon

musical education, deals chiefly with poetry-its form and content, bee Ph. d. Gr. i. pp. 773, 779 sq.
3

enjoyment, both nobler and humbler. In this wider sense, mere amusements can be classed
as Siaywyr) (as in Etli.
iv.

Polit.T\\\. 5,

1839, b, 11, c

14 init.

POLITICS
immature
to practise it as

267
1

It is well adapted, indeed, for

tion,

an independent occupation. amusement and recrea

;

since

it

affords innocent pleasure

may

not be
this

made an end
would

music to

but pleasure in learning, and to limit be to assign too low a place to it. 2

All the more important, on the other hand, is its in fluence upon character. Music more than any other
anger, gen tleness, bravery, modesty, and every variety of virtue, vice and passion find here their expression. This repre
:

art represents

moral states and qualities

sentation awakens kindred feelings in the souls of the hearers. 3 accustom ourselves to be pleased or pained by certain things, and the feelings which we

We

have accustomed ourselves to entertain towards the

imitation
are likely to entertain also towards the But virtue consists just in this in in what is good, pain in what is bad. feeling pleasure
reality in
life.
:

we

Music, therefore, is one of the most important means of education, all the more so because its effect upon the
12 sqq.; Pollt. viii. In the narrower 1839, b, 22). sense, however, Aristotle uses this expression for the higher activities of the kind indicated (Siaywy)) eAeu0e pioy, Polit. viii. 5,
x. 6, 1176, b,
5,

b, 40, he distinguishes the application of music to purposes of TraiSia and avdirava-is from that
irpbs

StcryoryV Kal Trpbs (ppovrjeiv,

saying (1339, b, 17) of the latter 1 hat rb Ka\ov and f?5o^ are united
in
ii.

1339,b,
Etli.

5). Accordingly ix. 11, 1171, b,

he

calls, 12, the

it.

Of.

45;

Ind. Ar.

BONITZ, Arist. Metapli. 178, a, 33;

Arist. Metapli.
iii.

society of friends, or Mctapli. xii. 7 (p. 398, n. 5, supra"), Etli. x. 7, 1177, a, 25, the active thought of the divine and the human spirit
Siaywy)). In Polit. vii. 15, 1334, a, 16, in the discussion touched

SCHWEGLER,
19 sq.

viii. 5, 1339, a, 29: they have no claim to Siaywyr) ovOevl

:

upon on p. 209 sq., he mentions and Staywyt) together, and

<TXOA^

yap dreAc? TrpovfjKti reAos. Ibid. 1339, a, 26-41, 31, 42 sqq.

a.Kpowp.voi T&V vovrai
3

b,

14yiy-

/j.i/u.-fj(rwt>

in the passage before us, c. 5, 1339, a, 25, 29, b, 13, c. 7, 1341,

268

ARISTOTLE
is

no small degree strengthened by the plea These considerations de sure that accompanies it.

young

in

instruction.

termine the rules which Aristotle lays down for musical It cannot, indeed, be separated from actual
practice, without can be arrived at

tion

is

which no true understanding of music but since the aim of musical educa not the practice of the art itself, but only the
;

cultivation of the

musical taste, the former must be

confined to the period of apprenticeship, seeing that it Even in the does not become a man to be a musician.
case of children the line

must not be crossed which separ

2 To ates the connoisseur from the professional artist. music is a trade which ministers to the taste the latter,

of the uneducated masses

so it is the occupation of

an

artisan, enfeebling to the

body and degrading

to the

To the freeman, on the other hand, it is a means The choice of the instru of culture and education. 3 ments and melodies to be used for purposes of instruc tion will be made with this end in view. Besides, how
mind.
ever, the quiet

and simple music which alone he would

for

permit his citizens to practise, Aristotle authorises

public occasions a more exciting and artificial style, which may be either earnest and purifying for those who have received a liberal education, or of a less chaste
description for the recreation of the lower classes and
slaves.
1

a,

Ibid, 1339, a, 21 sqq. 1310, 7-b, 19. 2 Aristotle deprecates in general education TO. nphs robs ayuvas TOVS Te^i/iKcus crvvTc vovra,
TO. 9av/j.d(Tia

$e TOOV a-ywvuv els rrjv iraiSfiav. 6, 1341, a, 10.

3

c.

viii.

6,

1340,

b-20,

1341,

a, 17, 1341, b, 8-18, c. 5, 1339, b,

8.
l

Kal Treptrra TOJV ipywj/,

Ibid.

C. 6, 134.1,

a-b,

8, C. 7.

& vvv

eATjAuflej/ fls

TOVS ayuvas,

e/c

POLITICS
With

269

these remarks the Politics ends, leaving even

1

the discussion of music unfinished.

It is inconceivable, that Aristotle intended to conclude here his however, With so keen a sense of the treatise upon education.

in education, and importance of music as an element it is impossible that with Plato s example before him, he should have overlooked that of poetry and, indeed,
;

he betrays his intention of discussing 2 to treat subsequently of comedy.

improbable that a

it

in his proposal

It is also

most
the

man like

Aristotle,

who regarded
and
as the

scientific activity as the highest of all, essential element in happiness, and

most

who

considered

of such vital importance as an element political science 3 in social life, should have passed over in silence the whole
4 Nor could he have desired subject of scientific training. to entrust it to private effort, for he says that the whole of Aristotle himself repeatedly education must be public.

indicates that after ethical, he intends to discuss intel 5 He promises, moreover, to return to lectual culture.
1

For after
;

viii.

init.

we

should have had a discussion of

rhythm
p.

cf

HILDENBRAND, ibid,

453 (as opposed to NICKES,

2
:

De

Arist. Polit. Libr. p. 93). rovs 5e vii. 17, 1336, b, 20 vewTfpovs OUT IdfJificav ovre KCD/J.^Sia?

0earas

i/OjU00eT7jTeov

5e? Siopiffai vcrrepov 8 firiffT-hcravTas

fj.a\\ov.
3

therefore be the goal and one of the most essential elements of education in the best state. 5 Polit. vii. 15, 1334, b, 8: Xonrhv 5e 0ecop}(Tai irorepov iraiSeureot irpArepov % ro7s eOeffiv. ravra yap 8eT irpbs #AA7jA.a ffvfj.cpwve ii ffv^caviav T^V apiffr^v. The answer is, that moral educuT<

\6ycf>

See

Etli. x.

10, 1180, a, 32,

b,

20 sqq.

4 It is the question of the education of the citizens that leads to the statement, Polit. vii. 14, 1333, b, 16 sqq., that theoretic activity is the highest and the aim of all the others. It must

must precede (see p. 261, supra); by which it is implied that a section on scientific education will follow. Several ^detion

partments are spoken of, viii. 3, 1338, a, 30 sqq., as belonging to a liberal education, and it is prescribed, viii. 4, 1339, a, 4, that after entering upon manhood

270

ARISTOTLE
life

the

of the family

and

to female education (to

which

he attaches the greatest importance, and the neglect of which he severely censures), and to discuss these at
with the various forms of greater length in connection l the text, however, as we have it, this in constitution 2 He further speaks of punish is not fulfilled.
;

promise

ment
young

as a

means

of education, 3 and
2

we should

accord-

people should receive the preliminary instruction for space of three years in the other departments (/j.aQy/j.aTa ) before the more exhausting exercise in gymnastics begins, as the two are

occasional
find in
ii.

For we cannot regard the allusions which we

6, 7, 9

as such a
of

fulfil

ment.
3

The measure

punishment

incompatible physical exhaus tion being inimical to thought so that a place should (StdVoia) here be assigned to the discussion
of scientific instruction. Pollt. i. 13, 1260, b, 8 -xepl 5e aj/8pbs Kal yvvaiK^s KOI TfKV<av Ka\ TraTpbs, TTJS re -rrepl e/cacrToi/
1
:

has already been found (see end of last chap.) in the principle of
corrective justice, according to

which each must

proportion
to

suffer loss in

advantage which he has unjustly usurped. The aim of punishment, on the

hand, according to Ari agrees with Plato ( Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 744) is chiefly to improve the culprit and deter him from further wrong-doing, but partly also, in so far as he is himself incurable, to protect society against him. Cf. Rliet.
other
stotle,

the

who here

avTuv
avTovs

dpeTTjs,
6>tAtas,

Kal TTJS

Trpbs <T(pas ri rb /caAais Kal prj

/caAws ea-rl, Kal TTWS Set TO ^er e(5 StcaKfiv TO 8e KaK&s (pevyeiv, eV Tots
irepl

Tas TToArrems avayKalov eVeAeVel 70/5 ot/aa i*fv iraffa ,ue pos ravra 8 ot/cfas, T^V 8e TOU
?rpbs
rrjv

Qiiv

iro Aecos,

i.

10,

1269,
Kal
is

b,

12:

Sta^e pet
r)

5e

juepous

TOV

o\ov

Set

TifJ-upia
/co

Kd Aao ts

fj.ev

jSAeVetv apfTTiv, avajKaiov trpbs Tro\iTfiav fiXf-rrovras ircuSeuei*/ Kal

TV

TOVS TraiSas Kal ras yvvawas, efafp TI Sia(ppei Trpbs Tb T^V TTO\IV elz/ai ffirovSaiav Kal TOVS TraiSas c?vai
Kal ras yvvalKas ffirovavayKalov Se Hiatytpfiv at T&V yuey yap yvva^Kes ^ifJ.icrv fj-zpos K 5e ruv iraiSwv ol e\eu0epajv, Koivwvol yivovrai T^S TroArreias. Cf. ii. 9, 1269, b, 17: eV So-ats TToAtTeiais <pav\ws e%et Tb irepl Tas
<T7TOu5a/ous

TOU TrdcrxovTos eVe/ca ri/nupia TOV TTOIOVVTOS, tva ii. 2 see p. 157, cbroTrArjpcoflT;. Etli. n. 5, sup. Ibid. x. 10, 1179, b, 28
f)

Aao
5e

yap tanv,

he who lives by passion cannot be improved by mere exhortation

;

Saias.

virtiKfiv Tb #Aws T ou So/ceT Traflos aAAa )8/a. Ibid. 1 180, a, 4 (of. p. 271 n. 4, infra} the better kind but of men, say some [i.e. Plato Aristotle himself is clearly of the
Xoy<p
:

same opinion], must be admon

ished, amfiQovffi 5e Kal a<pv(TTfpois olffi /coAdVets TC Kal Tt/J.(ap as eVteTOVS 8 avidrovs t,
o\a>s

yvvalKas,
eli/at

Tb
ii.

rj^to"u

T^S

8e?

vo/jLifci

BRANDIS,

b,

1673, A, 769.

POLITICS
ingly have expected a

271

full discussion of its aims and with at least a sketch of the outlines of a application, system of penal justice but in the Politics, as we have it, this subject is not touched upon. Similarly, questions of
;

2 public economy, of the treatment of slaves, and of drink

1

ing habits,

though proposed for discussion, are left and generally it may be said the whole untouched;

question of the regulation of the life of adult citizens is passed over in silence, although it is impossible to doubt that Aristotle regarded this as one of the chief problems
of political science, and that, like Plato, he intended that education should be continued as a principle of moral 4 The same is guidance throughout the whole of life.
true,

already remarked, of the whole question of if the Politics gives us little legislation light on this
as
:

opi&iv

rbi>

fj.v

yap
TC

e7ne</o?

Kal
TrziQ-

Of.

HlLDEN BRAND,
l

ibid.
5e?
Trjv

299 sqq.
Kal riva
-^prfffiv

>VTa

\6ycp

irpl KTTjcrecos
ovcriav

ical

TTJS irepl TTJJ/

bv

5e

<pav\ov

r)5ovr)s
&<nrep

eviropias

trios

\virr)
f.

Ko\dt(rOai
iii.

rp6irov
.

e^;e/
vii. 5,

irpbs

Ibid.

7,

1113,
. .

b,

avr-fjv.
-

1326, b, 32 sqq.

23: KoXa^ovcri yap

rovs Spoavras

KO.\

rifioopovvrai
.

vii.

10 Jin.

/j.oxQiipa

rovs Se

ra KoAa
TOUS

TrpctTToi/ras

ri/uLutriv,

ws

fj.fi/ TrpoTptyovres, TOVS 8e KwXvffovTfs. The aim, therefore, of punishment, unless we have to

vii. 17, 1336, b, 24, where the reference to the subsequent discussions does not apply to

comedy
4

alone,
c. 17,
.

do with an incurable offender,

is

improvement: in the first instance, however, only that improvement of conduct which springs from the fear of punishment, not that more fundamental one of the inclinations which is effected in nobler natures by instruction and admonition improvement, therefore, only in the sense in which it corresponds to the determent of the offender.
:

vii. 12, 1331, 1336, b, 8 sqq. ct especially Etli. x. 10, 1180, a, 1 forces veovs ovras ou% \K.o.vbv 8

Besides Pollt.

a,

35 sqq.

rpofprjs Kal eiri/ufXeias

rv^v
tut

opQris,

ctAA

e/retS^

Kal

avSpcadevras
v6fj.<av

5e?
Kal

eViTTjSeveti/
irepl

aura Kal
8eo://.e0

edifcorOai, Kal

ravra

ol oAcos irepl iravra rbv filov iroAAol avdyKp ^uaAAoj/ 7) Kal 3) frfj-iais TretOapxova-i

yap

272

ARISTOTLE
we must throw

head,

the blame, not upon Aristotle but upon the incomplete condition of the work. work we should also have had a In the

completed

more detailed account of the constitution of the Best In the text before us we find only two of its State.
characteristics described

namely, the conditions of

its

in it of political power. In citizenship, and the division reference to the former of these, Aristotle, like Plato,

make

with a truly Greek contempt for physical labour, would not only handicraft but also agriculture a dis
for citizenship in the most perfect state. qualification citizen of such a state can only be one who For the

but in attributes of a .capable man possesses all the himself to the order to acquire these, and to devote service of the state, he requires a leisure and freedom
;

from the lower avocations which

is

impossible to the

husbandman,

the

artisan,

and the labourer.

Such

must in the Best State be left to occupations, therefore, The citizens must direct all their slaves and metoeci.
of the state energy to the defence and administration be the possessors of landed they alone, moreover, are to
;

to the estates, since the national property belongs only 1 On the other hand, all citizens must take citizens.

of the commonwealth. This, accord part in the direction

ing to Aristotle,
;

is

demanded equally by

justice

and

since those who stand on a footing of essen necessity tial equality must have equal rights, and those who will not permit themselves to be possess the power from the government. 2 But since the actual excluded
1 24 sqq. vii. 9, 1328, b, 1329, a, 17-26,35,c. 10, 1329, b, and other 36, after the Egyptian

similar
2

dispositions
9,

have been

touched upon.
vii.

Of. p. 299,n. 4,sup. 1329, a, 9, c. 13,

POLITICS

273

administration cannot consist of the whole mass of the citizens, since there must be a difference between ruler

and

ruled,

and since

different qualities are

demanded
the

in

the administrator and in

the soldier

in

latter

physical strength, in the former mature insightAristotle considers it desirable to assign different spheres to different ages military service to the young, the duties of government, including the priestly offices, to the elders; and while thus offering to all a share in the
:

administration, to entrust actual power only to those who are more advanced in life. Such is Aristotle s account of Aristocracy. 2 In its fundamental
1

concep

tion

as the

rule of virtue
s,

and culture,

it

is

closely

related to Plato
in
detail;

from which, however, it widely differs although even here the difference is one

rather of social than of strictly political organisation.

5e
rfjs
c.

vavrts

ol

TroAtre as

14,1332, b, 12-32.
1

place, Aristotle is there speakine only of common usage (/cciAe^ 5

etw0a,uej>), giving it at the same time as the sole ground of its

2-17, 27-34, c. 14, 1332, b, 32-1333, b, 11. Mv. 7, 1293, b, 1: *p Kpariav ,uez/ ovv /caAws e^e: /caAetV
a,
t <rro-

vii. 9,

1329,

right to the title that rule of the best for the

it is

the

common

irspl

f)S

5ir)\6o/u.ej/

e j/

Aoyots T^V yap e/c an-Aws /car aper^i/ TroXireiav, KOU 6x6deffiv TIVOL AC^ irpbs ayadcav avdpw [of. viii. 9, 1328, b, 37],
[Ji.6vi)v

ro?s Trpcarois riav apiffrwv

SiKaiov

(TroKpariav.

irpoffayopeveiv apiCf. c. 2, 1289, a, 31.

and, secondly, in the per it is always actually a minority who rule. There is therefore no ground for distin guishing between the aristocracy mentioned in iii. 7 from that which is spoken of under the
;

good

fect State

Quite consistent with this is the definition of aristocracy, iii. 1, 1279, a, 34 (see p. 237, supra), as the rule bXiycw fj.sv irXfiovwv 5 ei/^s in the interest of the
r<av

same name in iv. 7 and vii. (see FECHNEE, Gerechtiglteitsbegr. d.

Arist. p. 92, n.). Still less can iii. 17 (p. 239, n. 1, supra) be cited in support of this distinction, inasmuch as it exactly suits the ideal State.

common

good,

for, in

the

first

VOL.

II.

274

ARISTOTLE
6.

Imperfect

Forms of Constitution

Besides the best constitution, there are others which,

deviating from
differ
2
;

it

in different

also call for discussion.

different degrees, 1 All these, indeed, in so far as

state,

ways and

they

from the ideal

must be reckoned

defective

but this does not prevent them from having

a certain conditional justification in given circumstances or form, differing from one another in the degree of
their relative
as

worth and

stability.
3

Aristotle enumerates,

we have

already seen,

three chief forms of imperfect

Democracy, Oligarchy, Tyranny; towhic \ as he proceeds he afterwards adds as a fourth, Polity to it. /together with several mixed forms which are akin
constitution:

Democracy

is

based upon

civil

equality and freedom.

In order that the citizens

may be equal, they must all have an equal right to share in the government the community, therefore, must be autocratic, and a majorit
;

must

decide.

In order that the citizens

may

be

free, 01

the other hand, everyone must have liberty to live as h no one, therefore, has the right to comman
pleases
;

another, or, so far as this

N

is

obedience, must belong based upon the principles fore, are democratic which are that election to the offices of state should be made
to
all.
1

unavoidable, command, lik 4 All institutions, there

See
Cf.

p. 235 sq. supra. the passages which are

1
:

Kal

jSeArico

fj.ev

cited

supra, especially Plato says, 289, b, 6 if the oligarchy &c. be good, the democratic form of constitution
Polit. iv. 2,
is

p. 238, n. \,

&AATJS ou waAois Se $av\T)v. The imperfect forms

of constitution are usually called

irapeK^da-eis.
3 4

P.
vi.

237 sqq.
2,
;

the worst, whereas if they are bad, it is the best. r/jUeTs Se 6 ravras e ln.ua
Ao>s

-inter

alia

1317, a, 40-b, see p. 239 sq.

16,

POLITICS
either
110

275
or

by universal

suffrage,

by

lot,

by rotation

that

property qualification, or only an inconsiderable one, be attached to them that their duration or their
;

powers

be limited;
justice,

that

all

share

in

the

administration of
;

that especially in the more important cases the competence of the popular assembly be extended that of the executive restricted, as much as possible
;

that
paid.

all

magistrates, judges, senators, and priests be The senate is a democratic institution. When its

functions are merged in those of the popular assembly, the government is more democratic still. Low origin, poverty, want of education, are considered to be demo
cratic qualities.
1

But

as these characteristics
states, as

may

bd

found in different degrees in different

over a particular state

may

exhibit

all

more or only some of

As these them, different forms of democracy arise. 2 variations will themselves chiefly depend, according to
Aristotle, upon the occupation and manner of life of the people, it is of the highest political importance whether the population consists of peasants, artisans, or traders, or of one of the various classes of seamen,

full

or of poor day-labourers, or of people without the of citizenship, or whether and in what rights
in
it.
3

manner these elements are combined

tion

popula
is

engaged
Ibid.

in agriculture or in cattle-breeding

in

1317, b, 16-1318, a, 1300, a, 31. 2 vi. 1, 1317, a, 22, 29 sqq. 3 iv. 4, 1291, b, 15 sqq. c. G init. c. 12 (see p. 248, n. 1, supra), vi. 7 init. c. 1, 1317, a, 22 sqq. In
3, iv. 15,

the latter passage both grounds

of the
VOL.

difference in democratic n.

constitutions the character of the population, and the extent to which the institutions are democratic are mentioned side by side. From other passages, however, it is evident that Aristotle regards the second of these as dependent upon the first.

* T 2

276

ARISTOTLE
can devote itself to its work in with a moderate share satisfied, therefore,
if it
:

general content

It is peace, in the administration

example, the choice of the their responsibility to itself, and the par magistrates, For of all in the administration of justice.
as, for

ticipation

the

rest, it will like to

leave
is

its

business in the hands

of sensible men.

This

the most orderly form of

democracy.
with.

!A community of artisans, traders, and labouTerTlTa much more troublesome body to deal
Their employments act more prejudicially upon in the the character, and being closely packed together
are always ready to * city they

meet

for deliberation in

If all without exception possess the public assemblies. if those who are not freeborn full rights of citizenship tribal are admitted to the franchise; if the old
;

citizens

and communal bonds are dissolved and the

different

elements in the population massed indiscriminately and the if the force of custom is relaxed together slaves is weakened, control over women, children, and arises that unregulated form of demo there
;

necessarily licence has always more attraction for_ cracy which, as In thi& them than order, is so dear to the masses.
1

way

of whicKU there arise different forms of democracy, 2 The first is that in Aristotle enumerates four. whichj while no exclusive^ actual equality reigns, and in which, however, accordPolit vi 4 (where, how- its peculiarity, must be ing to this passage, rb ras ever 1318, b, 13,
i

struck out) 24 ?qq.

iv
cf.
c.

cf.

iv.

12, 1296, b,
iv.

Tifj.riiJi.dTwv

flvtu,

Inlt is rather a

according to character

30 sqq. c. fi, 4, 1291, b, 12, ibid., vi. 4, 1318, b, 6, mill i fifth form seems, 1319 a, 38. 1319, a oo. b 39, to be inserted iv 4 1291

istic

form.^ others, it will ~ therefore be better to omit . Se in the passage referred to. Or.

of

the

first

With

SUSBMIHL and

between the

first

and the second

HENKEL,

ibid. p. 82.

POLITICS
influence
is

277

conceded either to rich or poor, a certain

property qualification although a small one is at tached to the public offices. The second form is that in which no condition is attached to eligibility for office be

yond citizenship and irreproachable character.

is

third)

that in which, while the public offices belong by right to every citizen, the government is still conducted on^
constitutional
principles.
finally, that in

The fourth

or

unlimited

which the decrees of the) are placed above the laws in which the people, people led by demagogues, as a tyrant by his courtiers, becomes a despot, and in which all constitutional order dis
democracy
is,
:

appears in
1

the absolute power of the

many-headed

sovereign.

Oligarchy consists, as we already know, in the rulev

of the propertied classes.

But

here, also,

we

find a

progress from more moderate forms to absolute, un

limited oligarchy. The mildest is that in which, while a property qualification sufficient to exclude the mass

of poorer citizens from the exercise of political rights is demanded, the franchise is yet freely conceded to all

who possess the requisite amount. The second form is that in which the government is originally in the pos-j
session only of the richest, who fill co-optation, either from the whole

up their own ranks by body of the citizens

is

or from a certain class.

The

third

that in whicli.I

Witical power descends from father to son. The fourth, finally, as a parallel to tyranny and unlimited demoWith the account of this form of democracy, ibid. 1292, a,
1

fiejj. viii.

557 A sqq. 562 B sqq.

4 sqq.
2,

v. 11, 1313, b, 32 sqq. vi. 1317, b, 13 sqq., cf. PLATO S

vi. 493, with the spirit of which it has obviously in common.

much

278
cracy. is that in
,

ARISTOTLE
which hereditary power
is

limited by

ws. no laws.

Aristotle, however, here remarks, in terms that would apply equally to all forms of government,

that the spirit of the administration is not unfrequently at variance with the legal form of the constitution, and
that this
is

especially the case

is

constitution

imminent. 2
;

mixed forms

of constitution

when a change in the In this way there arise these, however, are just
is

as often the result of the conscious effort to avoid the

one-sidedness of democracy and oligarchy, as

the case
polity.
strictly

with

aristocracy commonly so called and with Although the name aristocracy belongs,

speaking, only to the best form of constitution, Ari stotle yet permits it to be applied to those forms also
which, while they do not, like the former,

make

the

virtue of the whole body of the citizens their chief aim, yet in electing to public office look, not to wealth only,

but also to capacity. This kind of aristocracy, there fore, is a mixed form of government in which olig
archical, democratic,

are

all

and genuinely aristocratic elements combined. 3 To this form polity is closely allied. 4
7

Polit. iv. 5. Ibid. 1292, b, 11. So iv. 7, where Aristotle goes on to enumerate three kinds of aristocracy in this sense oirov rj TroArreia jSAeVei efc re irXovrov Kal
2
3
:

dpx^l

yap

[^775 ^teraj8oAf)s]

rb
rfj

/te/i?x0at

KaAws

ev Kal

fj.ev

iro\ireia

SrjfjLOKpartav

6\iy-

apx iav,

ev 5e rf) dpiaroKparia

re Kal r^v dper^v, fJ.d\i<rra 5vo Xeyw Se ra Svo

oXiyapx>-av

ravrd 5e ra
Kal

$rifwi>

dperrjv Kal STJ/XOJ/, olov eV Kapx^oovi Kal 4v als els ra 8vo p.6voi olov
.
.

ravra yap

al iroXire iai

re Trztp&vrai /j-iyvvvai Kal al TroAActl

rCov K.a\ov/j.evcav apiffroKpanuv ras yap aTroK\ivovo~as fj.a\Xov Trpbs
.

7)

Aa/ce5a/x.ovicov els

dper^v re Kal

8r)/j.ov,

Kal

eo~n

pil-is

ruv

Si^o

rovrcav, Sr]/J.oKparias re Kal dper^s Kal rpirov 000.1 rys Ka\ovfj.e.

. .

o\iyapx iav dpiffroKparias KaXovaiv, ras Se Trpbs rb TT\rjQos iro\ir}]V

VTJS

Tro\ireias

pe-jrovcri

fji.a\\ov.

irpbs rr]V v. 7, 1307, a,

reias.
4

See preceding note, and

iv.

POLITICS
Aristotle here describes
1

279

equally, in so far as this union is of the right sort, as a demo- \ 4 Its leading feature is, in a cracy and as an oligarchy.
reconciliation of the word, antagonism between rich and poor and their respective governments. Where the problem is solved, and the proper mean is discovered between one-sided forms of government, there must result a universal contentment with existing institutions,, and as a consequence fixity and permanence in the con-\
11, 1295, a, 31
fftv
:

it as a mixture of oligarchy and/ on a proper proportion between rich and poor 2 it is the result of the union in one form or another of oligarchic and democratic institu tions 3 and accordingly it may be classed

democracy.

It rests
;

the

Kal

apiffTOKpaTias,
TO.
fj-ev

irepl

yap as KaXovuv vvv

iriirTovffi

uairep (TV/UL@O\OV [on this expres sion, cf. inter alia, Gen. An. i.
18, 722, b, 11; PLATO, Symp. 191 D] Xa/j-fidvovTas trvvdcTeov. This may be effected in three

ciiro/j.ev,

e^wTtpu

ra?s

ir\ei(TTais
TTJ

yeiTViufft
1

Tr6\euv, TO Se /cctAou/ieV?? TroArreia

TUV

Sib TTfpl a/J.(po?v

iv.
8,

T]

TroAiTeia

us fj.ias Ae/creW. 1293, b, 33 eVri yap us airbus etVeli/ flints

:

6\tyapxias Kal Sy/AOKpaTias, tiuOaari Se Ka\eiv ras p.ev airoKXivovaas us

irpbs T}]V S^M.OKpariavTro\tTias,

ras

oAtyapx iav ^uaAAoj/ apurTOKpaTias. Of. preceding note. 2

Trpbs

Se

TT]v

Ibid.
effrl

1294,

a,

19

eVel 5e
TTJS

Tpia

ra
T7JS

a/ui.<pt(rpr)TovvTa

tV^TTJTOS

TTOAtTetOS,
.
.

f\v6pla

TT\OVTOS aper-f), SvoTv fJ.fV TOiV

Kal

fyavepbv

6n r^v
VTf6pUV

fJ.ilV,

TUV

TUV
Se

air6puv, iroXnziav

T^V

p.aXiffTa

TUV Tpiuv OL TUV a\\uv

irapa

T^V

poor men a day s wage for appear ing in court; (2) by a compro mise e.g. by making neither a high nor a low but a moderate property qualification a condition of admission to the popular assem bly (3) by borrowing one of two kindred institutions from olig archy, another from democracy e.^.from the former, appointment
: ; :

ways (1) by simply uniting dif ferent institutions in each e.g. the oligarchical custom of punish ing the rich if they refuse to take part in court business, with the democratic custom of paying
: :

aX-nQiv^v Kal irpuTt}v. n. 3, supra.

3

See

p. 278,

to office
lot
;

by election instead of by from the latter, the abolition

iv.

in order to obtain a

polity

on

we must fix our attention the institutions which are

and
olig
a<p

peculiar to democracy archy, efra e /c TOVTUV

of all property qualifications. 4 Ibid. 1295, b, 14 sqq., where this is shown more fully from the example of the Spartan constitu
tion.

e/carepas

280
stitiition

ARISTOTLE
as a whole.
1

Hence

polity is the form

of

to be the most enduring, government which promises For if we and is the best adapted for most states.

leave out of consideration the most perfect constitution, and the virtue and culture which render it possible, and 2 ask which is the most desirable, only one answer is that in which the disadvantages of one-sided possible
:

forms of government are avoided by combining them, and in which neither the poor nor the rich part of the but the prosperous middle class, has the
population, 4 decisive voice.

But

this is exactly

what we

find in

\ polity.

It exhibits the antagonistic forces of rich

and

must itself, therefore, rest on poor in equilibrium, and between them. It is the inter the class which stands
5 mediate form of constitution, that

favourable than any other to

universal justice,
1

more common well-being and

which
is

and presupposes the preponderance

eV rrj TroAt-

Ibid.\.3:
rr\
/j.e/j.iy/J.ft>r)

Set 5

TroXirtiav r r]v /car

reia

Ka\ws a^cporepa
Kal awfeew0ei/, Kal 5t
,

aAAa

fiiov

re rbv ro7s

TrAeio-rois

So/feu/ elVat Kal /rr/Serepoi

a-Oai Si

avrrjs

/n^

aurris Kal /j.r) rip ir\t ovs

!

KOivwvricrai Svvarbv Kai iroXirtiav ijy eVSe xerat TroAeis irXeiffras ras

!|a>0ei/

elvai

fjLeracrx^v

roi/y jSouAoyueVous

[not by the fact that the majority of those who wish another form of constitution
are excluded from participation in State management] (eft? yap &i/
Kal irovnpa TToAtreia rovff vTrdpxov)

^ G this question (with 235) the answer is then given as in the text. 3 5 ay iv. 11 1297, a, 6 :^
-

which

cf

p.

o<ry

a/j.eivov
4

r]

TroAtreio juix^, rocrovry

/jLovipwrepa. Cf. v. 1, 1302, a, 2 sqq.

v.

11

seep. 248, n.
TroAtreia, iv.

1,

aAAa

T<

/U7?8

av

j8ouAeo"0at

TroAi-

/j-fcrrj

11,

supra. 1296,

reiav erepai

u.i}Qtv

rwv
:

TTJS

TrdAews

a, 37.
"

IMplw.**/*S.
ap tcrry iroAiTe a Kal ris apurros &ios rals
.

Cf

iv.

init.

ris 8

TrAeiVrats TToAeo-t

/cal

TO?S TrAeiVrots
irpls

rwv

avQp&TroH>

^rf

aperV
SeTrai

virep a-vyKpivovffi /irjre irpc)? rratSeiav ?)

rV

rovs t Stciras,
irjre

<|>uo-ea;s

irpbs

a 22: Whvis I 296 1V the best constitution, that which intermediate between oligis archy and democracy, so rare? Because in most cities the middle class (rb jUeVov) is too weak because in the wars between parties the victors established no
;

POLITICS
of the middle class over each of the other two.
1

281

The

more any one of the other forms of constitution approxi mates to this the better it will be, the more widely it
differs

from

it

if

we

leave out of account the circum-

stances which
case

the worse. 2

may give it a relative value in a particular And as virtue consists in preserving

it

the proper mean,

may

be said that polity corresponds

more
life

closely than any other form of government to the of virtue in the state 3 and accordingly we shall
;

be quite consistent in classing

tions,

it

among good
upon the

constitudiffusion

and in representing
all classes

it

as based

of a definite me^sure^r^rviirTirtiL^among further, this virtue be sought? for pre-eminently in If,

military capacity,
iroKireia KOIVT] Kal
ifftj
;

and

polity be

denned as the govern-

because in

like

manner in the contest for the hegemony of Greece one party

oligarchy,
<xAA

favoured democracy, the other and because men are accustomed ^TjSe /3ouAe(r0cu
T>

"GOV

7)

ap-%ew fy]Teiv

-/)

Kparov/ji.ei

ovs

vTro^eveiv.

Speaking of the
eV
Tjyefj.ovia

influ

ence
TTJS

TWV

yevofMevcav

EAActSos,

marks, 1. the fj-eavj

els

Aristotle here re 39 for these reasons iroXireia is either never

:

found or oArya/as
yap
(/>

Kal Trap

6\tyois
JJ.QVOS

avfyp (rweiret(r6Tf]

TWV

irporepov yye/AOviq yevo/mevw The TavTf]v aTToSoui/cu T^]V ra^LV. els av^ft was formerly taken to be

hands. ONCKEN, on the other hand, Staatsl. d. Arist. ii. 269, refers the passage to Philip of Macedon but while he certainly left each state its own constitu tion in the treaty of 338, it is not known that he anywhere intro duced (airoSovvai) or restored the Can the reference /Ata-if) 7roAiTe/a. be to Epaminondas and the com munities of Megalopolis and Messene which were founded by him ? iv. 12 see p. 248, n. 1, supra. 2 Ibid. 1296, b, 2 sq. 3 Of. Polit. iv. 11, 1295, a, 35
; 1 ;

yap rb rbf
aper^j/
TT)V

ei

/caAcos eV TOIS yOiKo is efynjrcu evSai/j.oi a 0iov eli/at rbv /car

r

Lycurgus others have suggested Theseus (SCHNEIDER, ii. 486 of

;

avffj.ir6?iiarTOJ

fj.e(r6r i]ra

5e

his

edition;
iii.

Stud.

ibid. 89,

SPENGEL, Arist. Solon (HBNKBL, SUSEMIHL, in Bu/rsiaris

50),

aperTjv, T^V fj-effov avayKalov fttov elvai fieXnffTov, rrjs e/catrrot?

JaliresbericU for 1875, p. 376 sq.) and others. It cannot be said of any of these, however, that the hegemony of Hellas was in his

evSexo/uevris rvxelv fj.<r6rf)TOS. rovs Se avrovs TOVTOVS opovs avayKatov elvai Kal vroAecos apery s Kal KaKias

Kal TroXireias
4

rf

yap iro\ireta
1
,

fiios

ris ecrri TToAecos.

See

p. 243, n.

supra.

282

ARISTOTLE
of the

may be pointed out in support of that view, first, that the only form of constitution which will be tolerated by a military popu
it

ment

men

able to bear arms, 1

lation

is
2
;

one

founded upon universal freedom and

equality
soldiers

who

and, secondly, that the heavy-armed footconstituted the main strength of the
chiefly to the well-to-do portion
3

Greek armies belonged

of the

Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the people. position of polity in Aristotle s account of it, to which attention has already been called in this chapter, cannot

be said to be either justified or explained away by these remarks.

The worst

of

all

forms of constitution
4

is

for in it the best

namely, true monarchy

its

Tyranny, has been

transformed into
brief discussion

opposite.

In

the course of the

it,

which he devotes to

Aristotle distin

guishes three kinds of tyranny, applying the same name, not only to absolute despotism, but also to the elective

some barbarous peoples, and to the dicta True tyranny, torship of the old Greek ^Esymnetae. however, is only to be found in a state where an indi

monarchy

of

vidual wields absolute power in his 5 against the will of the people.
1

own

interest

and

iii. 7,

On

this

17; seep.243,n.2,sttp. head, cf. iii. 11,

iv. 2,
vii.

also

1289, a, 38 sqq. (cf. 1313, a, 34-1314, a, 29).

rb yap dirXiTiKov TWV evTr6pwv ecrrl uaAAo;/ The reason of this r) airopwv. is to be sought for partly in the fact that the equipment of the
:
TU>V

1281, b, 28 sq. 3 vi, 7, 1321, a,

12

On the same principle, according to this passage, oligarchy is the

second worst, as aristocracy is the second best, constitution, while democracy is the most tolerable of the false forms, being a perversion of polity. For a fuller statement of the same view,
see Etli.
5

was expensive, but hoplites chiefly in the preliminary training in gymnastics required by the service. Cf. also Polit. iv,
13, 1297, a,

viii. 12.

Polit.

iv.

10

cf.

iii.

14,

29 sqq.

POLITICS

283

Aristotle next proceeds to examine what division of political power is best adapted to each of the different

kinds of constitution, distinguishing here three sources of authority the deliberative assemblies, the magi 2 strates, and the law courts. The functions, however, of these three were not so defined as to permit of their
1
:

being completely identified with the legislature,

executive,

the

He

and the judicature of modern 3 political theory. does not omit to draw attention here to the tricks

and sophistries by which the predominant party, in one or other form of government, seeks to circumvent its
opponent and to advance its own interests, 4 making it however, that he himself sets small store by such 5 He further discusses the petty and hollow devices.
clear,

discharge of the more of state. He demands for this end important not merely experience, business capacity, and attach ment to the existing constitution, but before everything
offices
1285, a,
Si(

qualities that

fit

man

for the

16-b,
;

3,

and

p.

240

sq.

Kal
Trepl

P ra
/

ffv^a x ias
v6fj.wv,

Kal

SmAjVecw, Ka l
ea.va.rov Kal

Kal

b,

-16 cf. 17-ldl8,a, 10.

iv.

Tftpl

vi.

2,

1317,

14, 1297, b,

rpia
irepl

gdpta^ &v Sel

37 Itrn rwv VO\ITCWV Traff&v,

:

(v

W9\trciav

TroAn-eias aAAryAwi/ Statyepeiv iv T$ fart Se P etv ZKMTTOV Totrwv

$ia(j>

ffv^pov judicial and executive duties to vo^r-nv f X 6vTcav KaXws avo.yK.f] T^V perform. 4 X fiv Ka\ws, Kal ras eV rats irpoQdfftws xfy
"Offa
^

OewpeTv rbv rb e/cao-rj?

<rirov$cuov

S^e^ecos, Kal TUV cvBwwv, so that conformably to Greek usage the deliberative assembly, in addition to its legislative functions, has important
Qvyrjs

Kal

TroAtreuus ffoQl&vrai Trpbs TOV

p.ov,

Srj-

TWV rpiw rovr^v

PovXevopevov

^ fa

ri
.

rb
.

rwv KOIVWV, Trepl . Sevrtpov 5e rb Trepl ras ap x ds rb SwdCov. rpiTovS^ri Ibid. 1298, a, 3, Aristotle
Continues
:

&vri<ro<l>l(ovrai

the 6\iyap X iKa ffoQtfffJMTa rrjs vo^oQevias, and on the other hand a eV rats S^OKpariais Trpbs raGr 13 ) iv. 5 v h& adviseg 1307) b?
2>

Trto-Teueiy rots

Kvpiov S

Trepl

eVrl T^ /Bovwo\efj.ov Kal dpi]Vf\s

Trpbs

rb

TrArj^os

o-o^tV^aroy x ffvyxeifaois e|-

dpit>

\eyX erai yap

VTTO

TWV epyw.

234
else that

ARISTOTLE
kind of culture and character which
is

in

1 He passes harmony with the spirit of the constitution. 2 in review the various offices of state, leaving off at the

should naturally have expected that point where we discussion of the laws which portion of the missing
-relate to public offices.

He

treats wjtk^s^ecial care,

and dissolu however, the causes which produce change 3 forms of constitution and the means tion in
particular
to counteract

them. 4

Here,

also,

he

is

true to his
result

method

of specifying as fully as possible, as the

of wide observation and reflection, all the various causes which are at work and the nature of their effects;

and accordingly he challenges the conclusions of Plato s of the revolutions in states and Eepublic on the subject
their causes, with justice indeed, in so far as his theory is in stricter accordance with facts, but at of
politics

the same time not without a certain misunderstanding 5 This whole section is excep of their true character.
of acute observation, sound tionally rich in examples and knowledge of the world; it

judgment,
is

profound

to do more here than mention a impossible, however, Two of these stand of interest. few of the chief points

out in special prominence.

In the

first place,

he warns

the us against under-estimating small deviations from strife. status quo, or insignificant occasions of party the objects for which parties contend Important though the actual outbreak of hostilities may be are,
usually
1

v. 9, where the third comof the dpeTT? raonly neglected point

vi. 8. v. 1-7, 10. v. 8, 9, 11, vi.

Kal SiKaioa-vvTi ev eKaffTr) Tro\ireia

71

nobs

-rt]v

TroAn-eicu/ is

discussed

v.

12,

with especial fullness. Cf.p. 286,

n. 3. infra.

ZELLEK,

5-7. cf 1315, a, 40 sqq. Platon. Stud: 206 sq.

;

POLITICS
1

285

occasioned by the pettiest of causes, and small as the change in a government may be at first, yet this may be itself the cause of a and so there
greater,

may

gradually come about from small beginnings a complete revolution in the whole. 2 Secondly, we have the prin which constitutes one of the ciple leading thoughts in Aristotle s Politics, and is not the least of the many proofs of political insight exhibited in the work namely, that every form of government brings ruin itself by its own excess, and that moderation in the use of authority, justice to all, administration arid/

on"

good

moral capacity are the best means of retaining power/ Democracies are ruined by and

demagogy
;

by

injustice,

towards the prosperous classes

oligarchies,

by oppres
,

sion of the people and by the limitation of political monarchies by arrogance rights to too small a minority and outrage in the rulers. 3 He who desires the main
;

tenance of any particular form of government must endeavour above everything to keep it within the

limits/ of moderation, and prevent it from courting its own destruction by any one-sided insistence on the principle of its constitution; 4 he must endeavour to reconcile
coiil ^

v 4
.

init.

01
e

<rra<Tis

ov
^

ire

ylyvovrai pi p.i K
ical

fiev

olv

sqq.

pS>v

aAA
irepl

uitcpuv,

{TTaaidfrva-i

Se
at

fj.eya\wv.
Iffxvovffiv,

^aAto-ra 5e

/j.iKpa.1

orav
. .

eV
S

rols

Kvpiois

yhcevrat
rb
ri^.i<rv

eV

apx? jap yiyvfrai

These are not the only causes of their ruin, according to Aristotle, but they are among the most frequent and important. 4 v. 9, 1309, b, 18: irapa iravra Se ravra 5e7 vvv XavBdveiv,

t>

of which there follows a rich collection of examples. 2 v. 7, 1307, a, 40 sqq. c. 3, 1303, a, 20. 3 v. 5, c. 6 init.. Hid. 1305, b,
2,

apdpriipa, rj apx*} heycrai eZj/cu iravros &c. in support ;

\av8dvei

ras TrapeK&e/3r)Kv;as TTOiroAAa yap rwv Aireias, rb H.GGOV SOKOVVTCOV Sri/nonKM \vet ras 5r]/noKparias
Ko.1

TWV bXiyapxutiav ras

is

oAiyapx ias, as

well

shown

what
2 sqq.

follows.

Of. vi. 5, 1320

in a

1306, a, 12,

c.

10, 1311

a.

22

286
flicting factions
lie

ARISTOTLE
;

must counterbalance the prepon

1

derance of one by assigning corresponding influence to the other, and so preserve the former from excess. Above all, he must be careful to prevent the public
offices from being worked for selfish ends, or one portion of the people from being plundered and oppressed by Here the right course is precisely the the other. of that which is commonly pursued it is pre opposite
:

cisely the natural opponents of a constitution that require most consideration, lest by unjust treatment they be
2 transformed into active enemies of the commonwealth.

is required by the nature of the opposite of that which commonly occurs. Nothing is of greater importance for the preservation of any form of state than the previous education of those

In another respect what

is

the case

in

whose hands the power

rule depends solely

(

But capacity for upon modesty and hardihood the

is

placed.

power of the oligarch is incompatible with effeminacy. 4 And the freedom of the people with licentiousness.
this is true of all forms of constitution without excep1308, b, 24. 1308, b, 31-1309, a, 32, c. 9, 1310, a, 2 sqq. vi 5, 1320, a, 4 sqq. 29 sqq. c. 7, 1321, a, 31
2
1

v. 8, v. 8,

ircutieva-Qai

Trpbs
TroieTi/

r^v iro\ireiav ov
ols
ot

rovro, rb
f3ov\6fji.evoi,
yuei/

x a/l P OU(riv
Suv-fjcrovrai

ot

6\iyapxovvres

Sr]/j.oKpariav
ol

dAA

ols

sqq.
3

oXiyap^lv
ev
/j.ev
ap%(Wa>j>

v.

9,

1310,

a,

12:

/j.eyio~rov

vvv 5
rSav

ol 8e 5r)/j.oKpare i(Tdat. rats 6\iyapxi<us ot

Se irdvTwv

rwv
ras

et ptyuei/coj/

Trpbs

Siauevetv

o\iywpovffi
irpos
TO.S

ov iroAireias, irdvTs, rb iraLSevecrOai

rb vvv

viol rpv(p)0~iv,

ol

Se
/cal

ruv airSpwv
/aevoi

yi-yvovra.i

yzyvfj.va.ff-

Kal

TreirovrjKores,

wtrre

TroAtreias.

6cp\os yap
v6fj.<av

/SouAovrat
vccarepi^iv.

/j.a\\ov

/cal

Svvavrai

ou0ey
KCU

rcav

w^eAt/icoraTWJ/
virb
i

Similarly in demo.

a-vvSeSo^aa-^vcav
Tro\iTevo/J.V<av,

Travrcav

TUV

JUT/

HffovTaL

tidi(r/j.evoi

TroAiTe/a.

Kal TreTraiSew/teVoi tv rrj Cf. pp. 261, 284, n. 1,

1.

($ ev rais roiavTais 8r)/J.oKpa.Tia.is e/ccKTros ws (Bov\eTat rovro 8 tffrl <pav\ov ov yap 8e?

cracies

oiecrQa.1

Sov\eiav tivai rb gyv irpbs

supra. 4 Ibid.

TTIV TroAtretaj/,

aAAd

19:

fcrri

5e rb ire-

POLITICS
tion.

287

power of the monarch depends continuance upon its limitation and the unrighteous rule of the tyrant can only make men
for its
l

Even

the absolute

the odium of
its

forget origin by approaching in the form of administration to monarchy. The best means for,
its

the maintenance of tyranny is care for the common well-j being, for the embellishment of the city, and for the
public services of religion, a modest household and good economy, ready recognition of merit, a courteous and
dignified

bearing,

commanding

personality,

sobrieti^

and strength of character, regard for the rights and[ interests of all. 2 80 in like manner with regard to
oligarchy, the
for

more despotic it is, the more need is there good order in the government for just as it is tW sickly body or the cranky vessel that demands the most careful management, so it is the bad state that most
:

requires good administration in order to counterbalance

its defects.

elusion

so we arrive always at the same cor/-] namely, that justice and morality are the only

And

security for durability in states. philosopher goes in the scientific

of constitution which
it is

However deep

tie

analysis of the forms \

only to arrive
in

more or less lack this foundation, in the end at the same result, and to
also the

f
,

government must be conducted upon the principles which more obviously underlie the true forms that which in these last is the
:
1

show that

them

v. 11

ittit.

v&ovTai
^lv

Se [at

riKol

/col

rols tfQeffiv

1<roi

fj.a\\ov

T$

TO.S

/foo-jAeias

Kal vwb
$)TTOV.

rwv

apxo/j.fV(ov tyQovovvra.

ayeiv eirl TO /jLerpLcarepot/. ocrc? yap f\arr6vai/ Sxri Kvpioi, irAeiw XP VOV

v
10.
3

1314, a, 29-1315, b,

kvayKouov yueVetv Traffiv r}]v o-px^ v O.VTOL Tf ykp fJTTov y ivovTo.1 Seo-Tro-

vi. 6,

1320, b, 30 sqq.

288

ARISTOTLE

of primary object of government namely, the well-being i s i n the former an indispensable means for retaining all

the sovereignty.

The
political

fates prevented Aristotle views with the fullness

from developing his and completeness he

is,

intended in his
greatly the loser.

plan,

and philosophy

doubtless,

which we have
has come

it,

in the incomplete form in the Politics is the richest treasure that

But even

down

to us

from antiquity, and,

it is

if

we take

into

the greatest con science that we possess. tribution to the field of political

account the difference of the times,

289

CHAPTER XIV
RHETORIC

ARISTOTLE regards Rhetoric, as we have already seen, as His treatment of this, as of other auxiliary to Politics.
1

branches of science, was thoroughly revolutionary, and his labours may be said to form an epoch in its
history.

While his predecessors had contented themselves with what was little more than a collection of isolated oratorical aids and artifices, 2 he sought to lay bare the permanent principles which underlie a matter in which
success is commonly regarded as a mere question of chance, or at best of practice and readiness, and thus to lay the foundations for a technical treatment of
rhetoric. 3

He

seeks to supply what Plato

had de

manded but had not

scientific

He
1

actually attempted namely, a account of the principles of the oratorical art. does not limit the sphere of this art, as did the
Cf. p. 185, n. 1, supra,
s

and

e|es.

iirtl

d^t(/)OTepcos
efo?

eVSe-

on Aristotle
vol.
i.

rhetorical

works,

x
oi

TCU

Sf/Aoi/
St

ort
ft

&v aura xal

Kal
ot
de*

p. 72 sq. Besides what PLATO, Pliccdrus, 266 C sqq., and Aristotle himself, Rhet. i. 1, 1354, a, 11 sqq., remarks, see also Pit. d. Gr. i. p. 1013 sqq.
2 3

<58o7TOietV-

yap eTrirvyx^v
alrtav

re

Sta

ffuvf]6eiav

Tavro/uLarov,

T^V
rb
Se

eySe xercu,
iravres
az/

TOIOVTOV

ouoAoyhvaiev

BJiet.

i.

1,

1354, a, 6: ruv
oi
fj.ev

tpyov elj/at. 4 Pluedr. 269

D sqq.

cf ZELL.
.

ovv iroAAcoj/

eiVrj

ravra

Ph.

d.

Gr. p. 803 sq.

VOL.

II.

290

ARISTOTLE

ordinary view, to forensic and perhaps political oratory. He remarks, as his predecessor had done, that since the of speech is universal and may be applied to the
gift

most diverse purposes, and since

its

exercise,

whether

in public or in private, in giving advice, in exhortation, and in every kind of exposition, is essentially the same,
rhetoric, like dialectic, is not confined to any special l as dialectic exhibits the forms of thought, so field
;

must
all

rhetoric exhibit the forms of persuasive speech in

their universality,

and apart from their application

2

to

On the other hand, any particular subject-matter. 3 as Plato had already observed, the function of the art the latter of oratory is different from that of philosophy
:

aims at instruction, the former at persuasion the goal 4 of the one is truth, of the other probability. Aristotle, however, differs from his teacher in the value he attaches
;

to this art

and
5

to theoretical discussions devoted to its

agrees, indeed, with Plato in reproach rhetoric with limiting itself to aims which ing, ordinary are external, and considering it merely as a

exposition.

He

merely

means for exciting the emotions and winning over the with neglecting the higher branch of oratory jury, and
1

Rhet.

i.
t

1 init.,

and 1355,
21
;

b,
of.

7, c. 2 init. ibid. 1356, a, ii. 18 init. c. 1, 1377, b,

30 sqq.

PLATO, Pheedr. 261 A

2

sqq.

Rhet.
3)

i.

4,

1359, b,

12
?)

6Voj

8 av ris

rV

StaXe/c-n/cV

ravrrjv

&v 8wdfj.eis [rhetoric] i^ KaOdnep imffrfnas irei[dexterities] erai r}]v parai Karaa-Kevd^iv, \1\ff r ptTafiaiavT&v $V<TLV
<xAA
a<pa.vi<Ta.s

Cf. Pli. d. Gr. i. p. 803 sq. Rhet. i. 1, 1355, a, 25, c. 2 See also infra. init. 5 He does not, indeed, mention Plato in Rhet. i. 1, 1355, a, 20 sqq., but that he had him, and especially his Goryias (Ph. d. Gr.
4

i.

p. 510), in his

mind
:

is

rightly

vew

tiriffKevdfav
i>a)i>

els

eiriffT-fi/uas
,

Trpay/j.dTUJ

a\\a

observed by SPEXGEL (Ueb. die Abh. d. Rhetorik des Arist. d. Kl. Bayer. pliilos.-pliilol. Ahad. vi. 458 sq.).

\6yu>v.

RHETORIC

991

in which these means occupy a secondary place for the lower, political for forensic But on the eloquence. other hand he recognises that the one essential function of the speaker, under all is to convince circumstances, his audience, and accordingly he admits no rhetoric as
1

genuine which
logical

is

demonstration. 2

not based upon dialectic or the art of He even expressly declares

all rhetorical artifices must be rigorously excluded from the law courts, and orators forced to confine themselves exclusively to logical demonstration. 3

that

He

recognises, however,

that

all

are not open to scientific

instruction, but that for the majority of men we must from the level of the common consciousness, which moves in a region of probability, and not of abstract truth. Nor does he see any great danger in so doing, for men, he holds, have a natural sense of truth, and 5 as a general rule are He reminds us that in right. the art of oratory we possess a means of securing the victory of right, as well as of ourselves
start

defending
fall

and

that in order that

we may not

a prey to the arts of

opponents, it is indispensable that understand their nature. 6 As,

1

we should

ourselves

therefore, in the
Ka \ rb
&><,,<,

ItJiet.

i.

1,

1354,
1

a,

11 sqq.
C>

aA^s
attT ^ S

r$ &
i

TiBj IOBR
San"

eVri
l

2 1356 f 20 sqq 2,1.^6 a

1.

^^
:

1,

1354, a, 24

ov

yap

,
Se<

^*
,*

^
j

&Vd

*W*
*-j{\jfiu^

^ ^
"<fc**

Sy

0i

Ka l

rvyxdvovn

rr,s &\r,e e las

Sib

A
/cai/

A.nt

TiuuS

T7y
9.
,,

7ap
j

ei

Tis,

65

^eAAei
ol

Qeiav IVTIV
a

xp9^a<

o-rpe/^Aoj/
i
-

a^,m. Or.
5
X
7

TOUTOV
1,

Vie
4.
f>

"i

!
;

J,

1AHA a 14 4 13oo, a

1404, a, a 2 ~b 7

?l 14:

q
;

based upon dialectic

rhetoric is r6 re yap

verJ dangerous, % of all accom ments except virtuethe so in proportion to their

certailll y

1355, b, the misuse of the art of oratory is

:

7^.

Of p 256 n

and

Vf

this is true

292

ARISTOTLE

he had supplemented the investigation of scientific proof that of probable proof, in the Politics the account of

by

the best with that of defective constitutions, so in the aids to the Rhetoric, he does not omit to treat of those
orator which supplement actual proof, and to discuss the art of demonstration, not only in its strict sense, but also
in the sense of probable proof,

which

starts

with what

is

universally acknowledged and But as he regards the former as the most mankind.

obvious to the

mass of

1 Aristotle therefore treats rhetoric, not only as the counter part of dialectic (avrta-rpo^os rrj

out between the

are, so far, for the

SiaXeKTiKrj,

Rliet.

i.

init.

which, however, primarily re fers merely to the fact that they both deal, not with the con the universal tents, but with forms of thought and speech), but as a branch (see p. 185, n. 1, mpra) and even as a part of it
/J.6plOV

two sciences most part well grounded, it does not follow from this that the above account of their relation to one another is incorrect, and that we have a right, with Thurot, to set aside
the definite statement in Rliet. i. For the 2, by altering the text. orator s most important function,

Ti

TTJS

SmAe/CTlKTJS

Kal

(Rhet. i. 2, 1356, a, 30 that SPENGEL, Rliet. Gr. i. 9, reads for o^otw/xa "6/xo/a,"is for the question before us unimpor tant, but the alteration is not probable) a science compounded In a of analytic and ethics. \vord, it consists for the most of dia part in an application lectic to certain practical pro
6[Moiufia
;

according to Aristotle, is demon stration, which, as only probable, falls within the sphere of dia
lectic (Rlwt.
i.

1,

1355,

a,

3 sqq.);
e

rhetoric
c-i/So|oji/

is

demonstration

reference to the sub jects which are proper to public speaking, as dialectic is a like
in

kind of demonstration with refer ence to all possible subjects. Nor can we accept THUROT S proposal (Etudes, 248 sqq.) to read, Rhet.
i.

blems (described

p. 295, infra).

1,

While, therefore, we cannot di that rectly apply to rhetoric all

is true of dialectic in general, and still less all that is true of it as applied to the service of and while the dis

Anal.
"

1355, a, 9, Post. i.

c. 2,

1356, a, 26,
77,
a,

11,

29,

az/aAuTi/cV instead As the doctrine of

e eV5($|wv, dialectic necessarily deals with inferences in general, and as it is precisely inferences of this kind which are the sub ject-matter of rhetoric, it is better to connect it with dialectic than

philosophy,

tinctions which THUKOT (Etudes sur Aristote, 154 sqq. 2-12 sq. la Rlietoriqiie iV Questions sur seeks to point jiristote, 12 sq.)
; ^

with analytic, using

RHETORIC

293

important sense, he devotes the fullest discussion to it. Of the three books of the Rhetoric, the first two, being
the
first

section of his plan, treat of the

;

proof

(iricrrsLs)

means of while the second and third parts, on

style (Xe fts-)

into the last book,

and arrangement (rafts), are compressed whose genuineness, moreover, is not

1

beyond dispute.
which
do not.
former. 2
fall

Proofs, according to Aristotle, are divided into those

within the province of art and those which Rhetoric as a science has to do only with the

These are of three kinds, according as they

depend upon the subject, the speaker, or the hearer. A speaker will produce conviction if he succeeds in showing that his assertions are true and that he is him self worthy of credit, and if he knows how to create a
favourable impression upon his hearers. Under the first of these heads, that of the subject-matter, we shall have
to discuss demonstration; under the second, or the character of the speaker, the means which the orator takes to recommend himself to his audience under the ; third, or the disposition of the hearers, the appeals that he makes to their emotions. 3 The first and most

important part three sections. 4

of rhetoric, therefore,

falls

into these

however, in a somewhat wide sense. On the relation of dialectio to rhetoric, see also WAITZ, Arist. Onj. ii. 435 sq.
1

ypafal
8e
8<ra

Kal

ova roiavra, crrf X v

Sia r^s /uLeOoSov K al 5t

fyt/
2xrre

/earache imo-0??z/cu 5e? rovruv ro~is

Se eupe?j/
*

Swar6v.

Cf. vol.
i.

^v
a>

xrf<ra<r8ai

ra

i.

p. 74.

supra
35

Ph. ruv
at

d.

Gr.
-

p. 389.
:

L
,

2>

135G>

RJtet. i. 2, 1355, b, 5e Tno-rea,!/ a! uej/ are X

gqq
.

^ ^

i>oi

e<W

Se
5i r,p.S)v TreTropta-rai
1/
,

Aeyw 6Va aAAa irpoinr-

1377, b, 21 sqq. iii. 1, 1403, b, 9; cf. i. 8, 9, 1366, a, 8, 25. , * irepl ras airo5ei^is,-ir. ra
. .

TT.

TO. irdQr).

w-ov pdprvpes Pd.a-a.voi avy-

294

ARISTOTLE

These, again, are found to deal with subjects of different intrinsic importance, and it is therefore not
1

unnatural that Aristotle should treat the first of them, the theory of demonstration, at the greatest length.
Just as scientific proof proceeds by syllogism and induc
2 by enthymeme and instance. The exposition of the various points of view from which

tion, so rhetorical proceeds

3 a subject may be treated, the topics of oratory, occupies a considerable portion of Aristotle s treatise ; nor does he here limit himself to universal principles which are

but discusses equally applicable to every kind of speech, those peculiarities in each which depend upon the par ticular aim it has in view and the character of its
4 he thus seeks to exhibit the principles subject-matter of oratory, not only in respect to its general form, but With this also in respect to its particular matter.
;

aim he distinguishes three

See p. 291, n. 2, supra. Rhet. i. 2, 1356, a, 35-1357, 37, where the nature of these
1

different kinds or classes of

meme states
sition,

b,

in a universal propoaccount refers, as a matter of fact, to demonstration

his

means of proof is
cf. ii.

Anal. Pri. ii. 27, 70, a, 10. An enthymeme, according to this passage, is a ffv\XoyiffRhet. ,ubs e| fMrtev *) ff-np-fttav. 1356, b, 4 gives another definiKaAw 8 eVflujuij/Aa pev prjtion
22
init.
; :

in general, as he, indeed, also includes in it (e.g. ii. 20, c. 23, 1397, b, 12 sqq. 1398, a, 32 sqq.) example and induction. 4 Rhet. i. 2, 1358, a, 2 sqq. : the enthymeme consists partly of which universal propositions to no special art or science ropiKbv o-vXXuyifffj.bv, irapdSeiyfjia belong and are applicable, e.g., to physics it comes, Se e TrcrywyV pf]ropiK-r]v such as however, to the same thing, as as well as ethics, partly of the orator, qua orator, is limited are of limited application within the sphere of a particular science, to probable evidence. 3 In Rhet. i. 2, 1358, a, 2, ii. e.g. physics or ethics the former 26 init., and ii. 1 init., Aristotle Aristotle calls rfaroi, the latter *8m or eftr?, remarking that the speaks only of the principles of the enthymeme but as the ex- distinction between them, fundahad almost ample only calls to mind in an mental as it is, individual case what the enthy- entirely escaped his predecessors.
fully explained,
;

RHETORIC
speeches deliberative, forensic, and declamatory. first of these has to do with advice and
:

295
1

The
;

warning

the

second,
praise

with indictment and defence

and blame.

The

first

the third, with ; deals with the future the

;

second, with the past ; the third, pre-eminently with the In the first, the question is of present. advantage and disadvantage in the second, of right and wrong in the third, of nobility and baseness. 2 Aristotle enu
;
;

He

merates the topics with which each of these has to deal. 3 indicates 4 the chief subjects upon which advice

may

be required in politics, and the questions which arise in connection with each, and upon which information must be sought. He discusses minutely the for which all
goal

namely, happiness; its con stituents and conditions; 5 the good and the things
the marks by which we distinguish of a higher or a lower character 7 goods and, finally, he gives a brief review of the distinguishing charac teristics of the different forms of inasmuch
call

human

actions

make
6

which we

good

government,

must in each case determine both the orator s actual proposals and the attitude he assumes towards
as these
Similarly, with a view to the orator s practical guidance in the declamatory art, he enlarges upon the noble or honourable in conduct; upon virtue,
Aristotle was also midoubtedly the first to point out this important division, for we cannot regard the Rhetorica ad Alexandrum (c. 2 init. ), as has been already remarked, vol. i. p.
1

his hearers. 8

marks
4

five

in Rhet. i. 4 init. Ibid. 1359, b, 18 sqq., where are enumerated: revenue,

war and peace, defence, and imports, legislation.

3
i.

exports,

5. 6.
c. 7.
*_/>.

74, supra, as pre-Aristotelian.

8 3

i.

Rhet. i. 3. See the more general re-

Ibid.
8
i.

8,cf. vol. ii.p. 240, n. 3,

296
its

ARISTOTLE

chief forms, its outward signs and effects ; and upon of the method which the orator must adopt in treating
1 For behoof of the forensic orator, he these subjects. in the first place, the causes and motives of discusses,

and since pleasure as well as good (which unjust actions, has already been discussed) may be a motive, Aristotle the nature and kinds of pleasure and goes on to treat of 2 He inquires what it is in the circum the pleasurable. stances both of the perpetrator and of the sufferer of the 3 He investigates that tempts to its committal.

wrong

4 and the nature, the kinds, and the degrees of crime the employment of rules for adds, finally, in this section
;

outside the province of art, and 5 The views which find a place only in a judicial trial. on all these subjects agree, of course, he

those proofs which

lie

entirely with

propounds what we already know of his ethical and

except that here, in accordance

political convictions,

with the aim of the work, they are presented in a more and therefore sometimes in a less accurate
popular,

and scientific, form. Only after thus discussing the individual peculiarities of the different kinds of oratory does Aristotle proceed to investigate those forms of
to all, 6 discussing proof which are equally applicable of demonstration under this head the universal forms

with a few namely, enthymeme and instance, together

i

i.
-

9.

10 sq. ~ 3 T as TT&S ex VTfS Ka KOVO-IV, Rhet. i, 12. 4 i. 13 sq., of. c. 10 init. 5 i. 15, cf. p. 293, n. 2, supra, ii. 18 (from 1391, b, 23 onwards), c. 26, if, that is to say, we place this section (see vol. i. p. 74,
i.
^
"

SPENGEL, before the seventeen chapters of the second book. But even if, with
supra), with
first

BBANDIS(iii.l94:8q.)andTHUBOT (Etudes sur Arist. 228 sqq.), we

take the traditional order as the we must admit that the contents of the section are
original one,

fi

more in place

here.

RHETORIC
rhetorical commonplaces.
1

297

Of the two other means

of

proof, besides demonstration proper namely, the personal recommendations of the speaker and the impres

sion

upon the audience

the former

is

only cursorily

touched upon, as the rules relating to it are deducible from other parts of the argument. 2 On the other hand,
Aristotle goes into minute detail on the subject of the emotions and their treatment on anger and the means
:

of arousing and soothing it 3 on love and hatred, desire and aversion, and the means of exciting each of them 4
;
;

likewise on fear, shame, good will, sympathy, 5 indigna

7 To this he finally adds an envy, and jealousy. account of the influence which the age and outward

tion,

circumstances

(rv%ai)

of

man

exercise

upon
arid

his

character and disposition. 8 These observations conclude

the

first

most

important section of the Rhetoric

the third book treats

more shortly of
1

style

and arrangement.

In regard to the

According to the announcec.

ment made

18

fin., c.

19 treats

especially of possibility and impossibility, actual truth and falsehood, relative importance and un-

mend him to his audience the orator must get credit for three things insight, uprightness and TO IVVV benevolence: 66ev fj.lv
:
<$>povi{j.oi

Kal anrovSaioi

<pavtv

kv,

importance
V&TOV,
Kal

(irepl

Svvarov Kal ddv/)

e/c

ruv nepl ras aperas

;

Sippti/Aevwj

irdrepov ytyovev yeyovsv Kal fffrai $)OVK earai, enSe peydOovs Kal fJUKpor-nros c. 20 of Trpa.yij.arwv, 1393, a, 19) illustration, c. 21 of gnomology
irepl
rS>v

ov

(i.9
.

see p. 296, n.
irepl

1, swj}.~) \T)irr4ov

fvi>oias

Kal (f)t\ias eV

TO?S vepl
:i

ra

Trddr)

Aewreo^ vvv.

ii. 2,
4

3.

c. 4. c.

Meal account of the forms employed

;

21-26 of enthymemes, for which Aristotle gives, not only general rules (c. 22), but a complete topic.
;

5
c

5-8.
at the un-

The displeasure
fortune
(>e>e<m),

merited persons

of

unworthy

the account of
9 harmonises
ii.

in proof and disproof of (c. 23) fallacies (c. 24); of instances for combating enthymemes (c. 25 )-

which in
169).
7

Rliet.

ii.

with that in Mil.

ii.
ii.

7 (see p.

10, 11.

ii.

1378,

a,

to

recom-

12-17.

298

ARISTOTLE
is

former, a distinction

in the first place

drawn between

delivery and language. While desiderating a technical system of instruction in rhetorical delivery, the author
regrets the influence which so external a matter exer 1 He next calls cises on the general effect of a speech. attention to the distinction between the language of

the orator and of the poet, demanding of the former,

as its

two most essential requirements, clearness and 2 dignity, and advising as the means best fitted to secure

them

that the speaker should confine himself to appro 3 priate expressions and effective metaphors, upon the
qualities

He

and conditions of which he proceeds to enlarge. 4 treats further of propriety of language, 5 fullness and

6 suitability of expression.

rhythm and structure of the

sentences,

grace

and

8 lucidity of presentation.

He

examines, finally, the tone that should be adopted in written or oral discourse, and in the different kinds of oration. 9 It is impossible, however, to give here in
detail the

many

makes upon

striking observations which the writer these subjects. They clearly show that

iii. 1 1403, b, 21-1404, a, 23. Aristotle does not go fully into the discussion of what is good or
,

and syntax, are included definiteness and unambiguousness

expression,
6

of"

as well as rb
evcppaffTov.

evav-

bad delivery he merely remarks that it depends upon the voice especially upon its power, melody (ap/j.ovia) and rhythm.
;

ayvw(nov and
.

OJKOS TTJS A|es, c. 6, T& Ae f c, 7, which consists irpe-jroi/ r. chiefly in the true relation be-

rb

TrpfTrov,

the proper

mean

between rb Ta-rrfivbv and rb virep rb between a bald and an

ai<D/j.a,

tween matter and style, 7 The former c. 8, the

c. 9.
8

latter

overloaded style.
3 4 3

The
irpb

UCTTGIOV

1404, a, 24-b, 37. Ibid, to c. 4 Jin. TO eAA7jj/;eii/, iii. 5, in which,

iii.

1 sq.

the
sq.
9

o^drw

and eu5o/cfytovw TTOL^V, &c., c. 10

c. 12.

besides correct gender,

number

RHETORIC
even
its
if

299

the book did not

come

direct from Aristotle in

present form, it is yet founded upon his teaching. In the last section of the Rhetoric, which treats of

arrangement, prominence is in the first place given to two indispensable parts of every speech the presentation
:

of the subject-matter, 1 and the demonstration. To these are added in the majority of speeches an introduction

and a conclusion, so that there are four chief parts in 2 all. The method of treatment which each of these demands, and the rules both for their arrangement parts and execution which the character of the circumstances
tration.

require, are discussed with great knowledge and pene And just as Aristotle s theory of oratory as a

whole does not neglect the external aids to success, so here also devices are touched upon which are permitted to the orator only in consideration of the weakness of
his hearers or of his case. 3

The Rhetoric stands

in

this respect also as the exact counterpart of the Topics. But here, as there, it is impossible to follow these

discussions into greater detail.

1

irpoOearis,

expo&itw.

Narra-

tion is merely a particular kind of it which is employed only in forensic speeches c. 13, 1414, a,
;

sq. the proofs, c. sion.

3

19 the conclu:

34 sqq.
2

c. 14, 1415, b, 4 XavQavsiv on iravra e|a; TOV \6yov TO, roiavra -jrpbs (pav\ov

Of.

e.fj.

Set 5e

/*$)

c.

13.

In accordance with

yap aKpoar^v
JJ.O.TOS
rj

/cat TO.

e|co

TOV irpdy-

this division Aristotle discusses

14 sq.) the introduction, secondly (c. 16) the exposition of the subject (which, however, he here again calls St^Tjtm), c. 17
first (c.

a/eotWra, eVe) at/ p.^ TOIOVTOS ovQev Set Trpoo^uou, aAA 3) tivov
irpay/j.a etTretV
/ce(/>aAcuco5ws,
/ce</>aA7jj>.

rb

iva

exf) wffirep au/j-a

300

ARISTOTLE

CHAPTER XV
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART
BESIDES knowledge and action, Aristotle distinguishes,
as a third branch, artistic production,

and

to theoretic

and

2 The latter, how practical he adds poetic science. he fails to treat with the same comprehensive ever,

Of such of his works as have grasp as the two former. come down to us only one is devoted to art, and that
not to art as a whole, but to the art of poetry; and even this we possess only in an imperfect form. But

even of those which are

lost

none treated of

art, or

even

of fine art, in a comprehensive manner. 3

E. MULLER, Gescli. der Theorie der Kunst bei den Alten, ii. 1-181 BRANDIS, ii. b, 1683
1

Apart from a

sqq. iii. 156-178; TBICHMULLBB, Arist. Forsch. vol. i. ii. 1867, 1869 KEINKENS, Arist. iiber Kunst bes. ub. Tragodie, 1870 DORING, Kv/nstlehre d. Arist. For further literature on 1876.
;
;

See vol. i. pp. 106 sq., 182. There is, according to Ari a great difference be stotle, tween these to rex^n belong all the products of intelligence,
3
;

see beautiful and useful alike inter alia p. 107,n. 2, sup.; Netapli.
;

i.

1,

981, b, IT, 21.

While

re

the subject
cf.

see below
i.

and
204

cf.

UEBERWEG, Grwidr.

sq.

SUSEMIIIL, Jahrb. f. Philol. Ixxxv. 395 sqq. xcv. 150 sqq. 221 sqq. 827 sqq. cv. 317 sqq., in the preface and notes to his edition of the Poetics (2 ed. 1874), and in Bursiarts Jahresbericht for 1873, p. 594 sqq. 1875, p. 381 sqq. 1876, p. 283 sqq.

marking, Mctapli. ibid., that some of the rexvai serve npbs others -rrpbs Siaycayf]! while at Trpbs ifSovrjv //.TjSe trpbs TavayK eTTLcrrrj/j-cav are different from both, he fails, nevertheless, to give any fuller account of the
,
ru>v

marks which distinguish the from the merely useful arts Phys. ii. 8, 199, a, 15 he is
cussing, not (as

fine

in
dis

TEICHMULLEE,

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

301
1

book upon Music, whose genuineness is highly doubtful, we hear only of historical and dogmatic treatises upon poets and the art of poetry, among which some were
probably likewise spurious.

cannot, therefore, look to Aristotle for a complete theory of art nor are his
;

We

views even upon the art of poetry fully from the sources which we possess.

known

to us

Aristotle s philosophy of art is founded, like Plato s, 2 not on the conception of beauty in the abstract, but on

that of art.

The conception of beauty remains vague

to the last.

and undefined

In dealing with moral beauty

Aristotle compares the beautiful with the good inas much as the latter is desirable on its own account, 3

remarking at the same time elsewhere that, looked at from other points of view, it is as compared with
Ar. Forscli.
ii. 89 sqq. believes) of arts, but a twofold of art generally to
.

in

which
3

it differs
\.

from

it.

two kinds
relation

BJiet.
/J.GV

Ka\bv
aiperbi

1366, ovv eVrlz/ 5 av

9,

a,
5i
i)

nature. Cf

BORING,
1

On

p. 303, n. 3, infra, p. 80 sq. this treatise see vol.

and
i.

^ov

eVati/erbj

?},

33 avrb ft kv
:

p.

103, n.

PLUT. De Mm. ROSE (Fragm.

1, snjjra.

The fragment in 23, p. 1139, which

HEITZ

(*>.

43, p. 1482) and 75, p. 53) refer to

ayaOov ~bv r,5v ?J, on ayaQov. ii. rb KzAbv as dis 13, 1389, b, 37 tinguished from rb (rv/uQepov or that which is good for the indivi dual is the cbrAws aya66v. Of the
:

the Eudemus, but for which a suitable place could hardly be

numberless passages in which rb Ka\bv is used of moral beauty, of goodness, several have i.e.
already come before us,
149, n. p. 192,
3,
e.g.

me to come from
with
2

found in this dialogue, seems to

it.

We

p.

cannot,

p.

151,

n.

2,

and

however, regard this little piece,

its

n.

Pythagoreanism
s
is

and
work.
given

not
(as

find,

We can 6, supra. however, in Aristotle

copious style, as Aristotle

Of which account

in

Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 795. BELGEB, De Arist. in Arte Poetica componcnda

Platonis discipulo, gives a full and careful account of the points in which Aristotle s theory of art agrees with Plato s, and those

P. REE, ToD /caAou notio Arist. Etli. Halle, 1875, attempts to do) any more accu rate definition of this concep tion neither in the ethical nor in the aesthetic field does he seem to have felt the need of
;

such definition.

302

ARISTOTLE

goodness a wider conception, for while the term good is applied only to certain actions, beauty is predicated As the also of what is unmoved and unchangeable.
1

essential
order,

marks of beauty he indicates, at one time 3 2 symmetry and limitation, at another right size
4

and

order.

And

beauty is still left, be its relation to sensible appearance, is obvious above 5 that it is chiefly in the matheall from the assertion
xiii. 3, 1078, a, 31 TO ayaQbv Kal TO Ka\bv TO tTCpov, TO juej/ yap del eV 7rpaei,
1

yet how vague the conception of and especially how remote is held to

Metaph.

evrel

8e

is shown by MULLER, p. 9 who compares also Probl.

sqq., xix.

38, xvii. 1.
3

8e

al

eV TO?S aKivfjTois.

Accord
TO

ingly Mathematics (whose object, according to p. 183, is the un moved) has to deal in a special Ari sense with the beautiful. stotle applies, indeed, good as well as beautiful to the deity,

oj/no-yueVoj/,

Practically as

identical

with

DORING

rightly

who

is

absolutely

unmoved

(cf.

p. 397, n. 3,

and

p. 404,

he attributes to Him irpais in the wider sense (vol. i. p. 400, n.l,ad But this does not justify us in ///?,). converting the passage before u
does, Arist. (as borsch, ii. 209, 255 sqq.) into the opposite of its plain sense. It offers merely a further proof of the uncertainty of Aristotle s language with reference to TO

supra), as

observes, p. 97. 4 Poet. 7, 1450, b, 36 (cf. Pol. vii. 4, 1326, a, 29 sqq. b, 22 see p. 259, n. 1, supra, also Etli. iv. 3, 1123, b, 6): TO yap Ka\bv ev Kal Ta|et eo Tl, Sib ofae av TI yevoiro /coAoi/ yap i) Oeoopia eyyvs TOV avaiffQiiTov XP OVOV yivo/j.zvr]) OVTC
;
<#ov
,

ov yap
ej>

a/j.a

7]

dzovplc

TEICHMULLER

yivfTat, ctAA olf^eTai TO?S dewpovff, TO Kal TO 6\ov e/c TTJS decapias,
olov
et
fj.vpi(ov

ffTaSicav

ei rj

aya8bv and TO /caAoV. In Metaph. 3 he is thinking only of good in the ethical sense. 2 ToO 5e Metaph. iUd. 1.
xiii.

36^:

must be easily taken in by the eye by virtue its size, so a my thus must be easy to retain. The parenthesis u 7X 6 ^Tat if &c.) means an object is too small, its parts become merged in each other, and no clear picture of it is pos As a
visible object
:
("
7"P>

/coAoG

/j.yio~Ta

e<f57j

Tats

Kal

sible.

It is

probable that xp vov

<rv/j./J.Tpia

Kal TO wpiff^vov.

The

here are not different kinds beauty, but the forms or qualities of things in which How beauty reveals itself. these points of view are main tained in Aristotle s rules of art
e?57j

of

after avaiarO^Tov has crept into the text from Phys. iv. 13, 222, b, 15 (see BONITZ, Arist. Stud.
i.

96
5

SUSEMIHL, in
Metaph.

loco).

ibid. 1078, b, 1. reply to TEICHMULLER S objections to the above remark

In

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

matical

303

philosophy accord ingly at the beginning of the Poetics sets it wholly aside, and starts from the consideration of the nature of Art. 2 The essence of art Aristotle, like Plato,
1

sciences that the above characteristics find their application. If beauty is a quality not less of a scientific investigation or a good action than of a work of art, it is too vague a concept to serve as the foundation of a of art. Aristotle

3 generally speaking, to be imitation.

finds, It has its origin

(Arist ForscJi. ii. 275 sq ), SUSEMiHL (Jahrb. f. PhiloL cv. p. 321) has pointed out the confusion between the concrete phenomena of sense (e.g. colours, sounds, &c.) and the abstract, mathematical forms of sensible exis te ce r p. The words here used, ^ Set ffwlffraffQai TOVS et pvdovs, K a\&s ^eAAei ^ irofyo-w Ifetj/ (TEICHMULLER, ii. 278), are of course no argument against this view. It is hardly necessary to point out that such expressions
-

starting point in his theorv of art, Aristotle would have de-

voted himself before everything

to its closer investigation result of this as the investigation criterion of the claims of art,
else

and would have used the

irS>s

and

mands

This, however, he does not do while, of course, he deof a work of art that it

as

m\t

(e.g.

IK
have
i 1

jfowh. and innumerable other passages),

;

Jr X ir, ica\& 5 \4yw, &c in Meteor, i. 14, 352, a, 7, lit iv 14 1297 b 38; :i xin. 6 init. Etli. vii. 13,
. -

should be beautiful, while he speaks of a avL a ** ^Mos /eoAAiW, a /caAAW^ rpay &c. (Poet. c. 9 fin c 11 V 5ia, 1452, a, 32, c 13 1452 b 3l

KA,

1453,

a, 12, 22,

nothing to do with the

specifically aesthetic TO KaAoV.

meaning
indeed,

of

a detailed discussion of beauty and the four aesthetic ideas (order, symmetry, limitation and
size), ibid. p. 208-278, has at tempted to show that Aristotle s theory of art is based upon the

Tn^ IEICHMULLER,
"

he never deduces any rule of art from the universal conception of beauty, but rather from the special aim of a particular art 3 Poet. i. 1447 a 12 fon the different forms of poetry and TYlnCM /^ _^ a
.

and passim), yet

yxov<r tj,

oa-cu

furffffis rb abvoKov. G 2 init c. 3 init. and of ten. In the words

Phys.
r4x

ii.

8,

rh

199, a, 15 6\ws re I eV^reAer & *

A^J
J

of conception This beauty. attempt, however, is rightly disj

credited by
sqq.
If

BOEING,

p.

5 sqq.

used as fine art It is mere imitation, but it mav indeed, be also regarded as a perfecting of nature, as in the training of the voice or
fju^Trai, art
is

;93,

the abstract con-

ment

deport-

iception of beauty had been his

304

ARISTOTLE

in the imitative instinct and the joy felt in its exercise which distinguishes man above all other creatures 1 In hence also the peculiar pleasure which art affords. it does from the recognition this pleasure, springing as from the of the object represented in the picture and thus obtained, Aristotle further recognises
;

enjoyment an intimation of the universal desire

for

knowledge.

But

as

knowledge

is

of very different value accord

3 of the object known, this will of ing to the nature The object artistic imitation also. necessity be true of nature or the of imitation in art is, generally speaking, 4 But nature includes man actual world of experience. actions indeed, it is with man alone that the his
;

and most impressive arts viz. poetry and music have to do 5 and the object which it is the essential aim of the
;

imitative artist to represent consists not merely of the outward appearance of things, but to a much greater
Poet. 4 init.,

added:

this is obvious

where it is from the

jj

T^V xp
:

iav

ia roiavr-nv

nva

fact that good pictures delight us even when the objects represented produce themselves quite the opposite impression: as in the case of loathsome animals or corpses. Cf. foil. n. Poet. 4, 1448, b, 12, Ari5e /cat stotle continues: ainov ort roiirov [joy in works of art], rb u.av0dveiv ov fj.6vov TO?S QiXoffo(hois

Ehet.i. 11, 1371, b, 4 iirel 8e rb pavedveiv re jfib Kal TO davud&iv, /cat ra rotaSe dvd-yicii rjSe a elvai olov TO re ^e^r^eW,
&\\-nv alrlav.
wo-Trep
ita.1

ical
ypa<f>i^

dvopiavToiroita
ft

TTOLTJTIK^,
f?,

ital

^irav
jfytfj

&i/

eu

^ejujMj/ieW
pejjuw[j.evov

Kav
ov

*j5S

owrb rb

yap

eirl

TOVTQ
itrnv

x a!V e
3
4

ffv\\oyi(T^6s on. TOVTO e /ceti/o, #(rre

"
"
>

Aiv

Wiffrov,

d\Xa K ul
eVl

rols oAAots

Lotos aAA
alrov
et/coVas

on crvpfalvei opavTes, vras pw6A.veiv K*l avXXoyiT L tKiffTOV, olov OTI OVTOS
eVet 5ta

Ppa x v Koivuvotviv 5ta yap TOVTO X alpw T s

Cf. p. 303, n. 3, supra. Pkys. ii. 8 see p. 303, n. 3. Cf fo11 n and P a e Even
: i

of the art of dancing it is said, /cai yap OVTOI c. 1. 1447, a, 27

:

oia

TUV

S,

lav
8ia

rvxy

irpoecop-

Kal

x^aTtCo^f^ /cat
ijOr]

7ra07j

a/cobs,

ov

/xijiwj/ia

iro^ffei

T^V

aAAa

rijv

dirfpyatriav

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

305

He may degree of their inner intelligible essence. confine himself to what is universal and actual, or he
ay rise above
it.

or he

may

sink below

it.

He may

represent things as they are, or as they are commonly 2 It is in re supposed to be, or as they ought to be.
presentations of this last kind that the chief function of art consists. Art according to Aristotle must re not the individual as such, but the universal, present

the necessary and the natural.

to reflect

naked

reality

but

It must not be content must idealise it. The

painter, for instance,

;

must both be true

to his subject

and improve upon it 3 the poet must tell us, not what has been, but what must be according to the nature of the case, and on this account Aristotle prefers poetry to

and more nearly allied to philo that it reveals to us not only individual sophy, seeing facts but universal laws. 4 And this holds not only of
history, as higher
1

Poet.
ol

itlit.

eVei

Se

fju-

rrjv

iSiav

fjiovvrai

jutjuou/xej- oi
?}
.

Trparrovras,
ffirovSaiovs
7)

e rovrovs Aous elva: KaQ TOMS 1)

.

fjroi /UeArt o^as

opoiovs iroiovvres, fca\\iovs The idealism of ypd<povffiv. the Greek statues of the gods
did not, of course, escape the
s notice cf. vol. ii. 217, n. 5, sujtra. 4 Pot t. 9 if tit. oil rb ra yiv6fj.eva \eyeiv, rovro iroir)Tov Hpyov oTa fa yevoiro, Kal TO. fa-T-lv, dAA Svi/ara Kara rb eiKbs fy TO avay-

x f i P vas % Ka-l VTOVS, which Aristotle prods to illustrate from painting,

try,
2

philosopher
p.

and music.
14GO,
b,

Ibid. 25,

7:

rei

eVn
ei
,

/X^UTJT^S 6 Troirjrr/s, (ixnrep

faypdcpos 77 ris &AAos ft/coz/oavdyKri /J.ifj.e icrdai rpiwv ovr<av

Kalov.

yap

iffropiKbs Kal 6 Troir)Trjs Ae^eij/

rbv apiOfMbv eV rt aei

,

^ yap oia
3)

i\v

/)

ov

r$ e^er/ja
6^77

/}

oia

(j>acrl

Kal 5o/ce?,

ofa ef^at

Set.

We may regard these

:

Siaipepovffiv

$ yap av ra
Kal
TIS

a/nerpa

HpoSdouSej/

words

TOV

els

perpa
"av

Te0vjj/cu,

as genuine, although they stand in n rather suspicious section. 3 eWi 5e Poet. 15, 1454, b, 8
fiJififlffis
T)[j.cis

i]TTov

6i?j

io~ropia

/uerpou

3)

aj/eu /jLerpcav,

aAAa
Sib

tany

7;

TpaywSia
daL

^eATfoVcoi/,

T OV Se oia &* yevoiro.

Kal
(f>L\oaro(j)coTepov

8e?

fj.i/.L^lo

TOVS

ayaOovs

Kal

(rirouSaio77

fiKoi oypd(povs

Kal

yap

repov

Troirjcris

IffTOplas ecrriV

yuev

VOL.

II.

306
serious

ARISTOTLE

The former in poetry but also of comic. transcend ordinary forms which bringing before us
limits

must give us an ennobled picture of human characters in whom nature, for it must represent typical
1

the true nature of certain moral qualities is sensibly but the latter also, although dealing exhibited to us 2 the weaknesses of human nature, necessarily with
;

must nevertheless make

it its

chief end not to attack

3 individuals but to present types of character.

2

While,

yap
5

yiiaAAoi/ ra KadoAov, r\ ra K-afl e/cao-TOJ/ Ae^et. 8e Ka06\ov fj.ev, iroi(f ra iroT drra (rv/j-paivei \eyew T) irpdrreiv Ka.ro. TO eiKbs ?) TO avayKouov ra 8e Ka.Q tKao~rov, Tt AA/a7T0i7}<m

C. 2 Jin.
T]
i
r<av

T)

fifv

yap [comedy]
/j.i/j.e

8e

Iffropia

/SeArious
vvv.

io Oai
.

r<

C. 5 init.

T]

<rri

8e

Kara

iraaav
earl rb

/ca/ciaz/,

oAAa

rov

PidoTis tTTpaev

vj

ri ZvaOev.

Ibid.

al<rxpov

Ii51, b,

Troien/

Kav apa ffvuprj yev6vd * v [rbv TroiTjrV] fffrtv yap TTOWJT^JS tvta ovSev KcoAuei TOiavra
21)
:
rui>

yap ye\otov eanv

3

afj.dpr^/j.d cticTYOS avwfivvov Kal o

Kal

c. 5,

oTa

av

ej/cos

yevfff6ai
C.

Kal

Svvara yfVfffBat. Cf. a, 33 XPV 5 ^ Kai e

:

15, 1454,
s
tf d
r

"

T0

fflv

Cf. Poet. 9, 1451, b, 11 sqq. 1449, b, 5; Eth. iv. 14, 1128, Aristotle here gives the a, 22. New Comedy the preference over the Old because it refrains from

uxnrep

Kal

fv

(rvffrdatL, aet

rb ekbs, I) roiavra Xeyeiv % irpdrrsiv T) avayKCUOV ^ ei/cbs, /cat TOUTO ^era TOUTO % avayKalov^i elic6s. C. 1,
O>O-T

ruv irpay^dTuv rb avayKa iov (VjTetj/ ^) rbi/ TOLOVTOV ra

rf)

abuse (alffxpoKoyia). He gives Homer, moreover, the credit (Poet. 4, 1448, b, 34) of being creator, in the character of Marov \l/6yov dAAo gites, of comedy,
rb yeXolov Spa/uLaroiroi^ffas. The Poetirg are doubtless the source the re (cf. vol. i. p. 102, n. 2) of mark in CRAMER S Anecd. Paris. Append. I. (Arist. Poet. p. 78; V AHL. p. 208 Fr. 3 Sus.):
;

ylvearBai 1447, b,

not the metre bat the content that makes the poet. Empedocles (whose
i:>

sqq.:

it

is

Homeric power Aristotle praises in Dwg. viii. 56) has nothing but the metre in common with Homer.
Poet. continues: supra), Aristotle Kal rbv iroif]r^v (llpoupevov
1

7]

KocfAySia TTJS AotSopios, eTret

r\

15 (see p. 305, n. 3,

AoiSopio

airapaKaXvirrus ra
fiiffcfio iv,
r\

Trpoff-

ovra

KaKa

8e

Selrai

opy i^ovs Kal roiavra

ffK\-nporf}ros

padv/jLOVS
iroietv

Kal

ra\\a ra

5eT &c.

irapd^y^a 1) Cf following
.

note and

c.

13, 1453, a, 1G.

[indica To this subject belongs tion]. the remark in Rhet. iii. 18, 1419, b, 7, where it is said that etpcoveio is more worthy of the freeman than /3a>/xoAoxia. This also had
rTJs Ka\ov/j.vr)s
[j.<pdo-ws

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

therefore, Plato

307
art

and Aristotle agree in regarding

as a species of imitation, they draw very different con clusions from this account of it. Plato thinks of it

only

as the imitation of sensible

expresses the utmost worthlessness of art

;

phenomena and accordingly contempt for the falsity and

Aristotle,

on the other hand,

as

looks
vehicle
it

upon
to us

artistic

presentation
truths

the

sensible

of universal

and thus

places

above the empirical knowledge of individual things.

We

are

now
2

says

about the aim and the

two passages

what Aristotle Art, In to which we have already had occa

in a position to explain
effect

of

sion to refer, he

distinguishes four different uses

lidos

of

been particularly treated of by Aristotle in the Poetics (Rhet. i.

11, 1372, a, 1
cf.
:

iroiov

Troie?v,

eQifyvauv 8v7)

vacrQou -^aip^iv

opduis.

Trpbs

Sia-

5idpi(rrat 5e

irspl
:

yeXoiccvxwpls eV rots

irepl TrotTjTt/ojs

yooyrjVTi {rv^aAAerai Kal Kal yap rovro rpirov Qtrtov rSiv

(ppovr]<Tii>

VAHLEX,
Aneod.

ibid.

p.

76

Fr.
:

2),

from which must come

the
Paris,
ru>v

Fr. 9 of
fidy

ibid.

rd re ySatyioAd^a Kal rd elpwviKa Kal ra aXa^oviav. See Ph. d. 6fr. i. p. 799 a view which is not consistent with the fact that art is at the same time regarded as one of the most important means of education whose function is the presentation of moral ideas (ibid. p. 532 sq. 772 sq. 800 sq; cf. tiyntp. 209
/cw/i(>;as
1

On the other hand it very definitely referred to in the second (1341. b, 36) (pafj.lv
eipiffjievwif.

is

ou

fjLias

eVe/cej/

o|)eAeias 5eTv aAAa

rrj

Kal

Kal

KaOdpcreus

rp nov

irpbs ai/fffiv re Kal irpbs TT]V TTJS avvTOvias ai diravirpbs

5e

Siay&yTiv,

JJut, on this account, to change the text of the latter passage with SPENGEL (Ueber die Kadapffis r&v TradTfjuaTcai/, AbJi.
<riv).

D).

see p. 266, supra. In the former of these passages no mention is made of

viii.

Pol.

5,

7,

der jjhilos.-philol. Kl. der Bo^ijr. 1, 16 sq.), and to read Kal- yap TrcuSei as ej/e/ce^ Kal KaddpAltad. ix.
:
<rea>s,

Trpbs

Siaycayrjv,

rpirov

it is merely asked purification rivos 5e? xdpiv (1339, a, 15)

;
:

5e Trpbs &veffiv re &c. or K. y. TrcuS.

eV.
K.

Kaddpff.,

irpbs

aveaiv

re

/J.T%IV

ttVTTJS,

TTOrfpOV

TTCuSiaS

avdiTavaiv, rp nov Se Trpbs Siaywyyi/,

is

... ?) p.aXXov rz ivsiv ryv onjre of Trpbs dperi]v rb fMovffiKrjv, us SwaueVrii/

eVe/ca Kal avairaiHrtias

which

a violent expedient against BERN AYS (Rhein. Mits. xiv. 1859, p. 370 sqq.) rightly

308

ARISTOTLE
1
:

music
cise

it

serves

(i)

as a relaxation
;

and amusement

as a (ii)
;

means of moral culture (iii) as an enjoyable exer and (iv) as a purifying influence. Whether each
;

form of art has this fourfold function or not, he does not nor could he in any case have regarded expressly say them as all alike in this respect. Of the plastic arts he re

marks that

their ethical effect, although considerable,

is

inferior to that

of music,

while he probably hardly

a purifying influence to them. thought of attributing confine themselves to the exact imitation Where they

purpose
protests.

no higher of particular objects, they serve in his view of a rather shallow than the satisfaction
The
first

of these pro

even posals is hardly permissible, from the point of view of style, while neither of them finds any contra support in the alleged diction between c. 5 and c. 7, as the case in it is not
unfrequently
Aristotle that a preliminary divi sion is supplemented in the sequel is said, vol. i. p. 400, (cf e.g. what different classifica sqq., on the tions of constitution) both, more with the over, are inconsistent
.

1176, b, 27 sqq. p. 140, supra} the former presupposes a higher culture (see p. 309, n. 3, infra}, not so the latter: and accordingly they are completely separated from one another, 1339, a, 25, b, 13, 15 sqq., ibid. 4; cf. a, 33.
;

Cf. p. 266, n. o, supra.

2

Pol.

viii.

5,

1340,

a;
ei>

28:
fj.ev

5e

ru>v

alffOlJT&V

roTs
TO?S
i)pe/j.a

olov fv TO?S airro^s Kal

ff rots oparo is

distinction

between edifying and

is defi

as that purifying music,

(i.e.

moral

yap tan roiavra attitudes and ges

c. 7, and calls nitely set forth in for immediate notice. ISot merely three, as BEE1

tures), a\\ eirl p.iKpbv K ibid. [read ov Traces, as MULLEB

NAYS

ibid, represents

by taking

and tiay^ together. Aristotle differentiates the two he very clearly: young people, of Siaywyr), s-ays, are incapable whereas they are very much
avdiravffis

10 sq. 348 sqq. conjectures] TTJS TOiavrrjs cuVflrjorews KOIVWVOVCTIV. ert 8e OVK ecrri ravra o/u,o

inclined to
vol.
ii.

iraiSia

and

foeais (see
;

former

the p. 267, n. 1, supra) is an end in itself [re Aos],

5, 6,
;

the latter a mere means (c. Eth, x. 1339, a, 29, b, 25-42 cf.

TWV W&v. Nevertheless, young men ought not, oaov 9ia$4pci Kal TOVTWV Bewplav, to be Trepl T\\V allowed to study the pictures of a Pauson but those of a Polyr&v ypatyewv gliotus Kav ejf TIS a\\os

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

1

309

curiosity.

Nor does he seem

to expect

from Comedy

(on which see below) either morally edifying or purify

On the other hand, the purification of the ing results. the chief end, as we shall see, of serious emotions is
poetry, although that art
is not, of course, thereby ex cluded from exercising upon the hearer other effects as well which are either connected with or flow from the first.

Granted that a part of this effect viz. the amusement is due to the pleasure derived from sensible appear
ance, yet the higher and more valuable portion is due to that ideal content which, according to Aristotle, it is As a means to nobler the function of Art to present.
intellectual

enjoyment (Siaywyr)) the higher poetry

to our reason, since according to Aristotelian

must appeal

principles the measure of our rational activity is also the measure of our happiness 2 and, as a matter of fact,
;

Aristotle regards this purifying effect of art as standing In like in the closest relation to intellectual culture. 3

manner poetry can only

exhibiting to us the nature

Aristotle holds
as to

serve for moral edification by and aim of moral action in

examples that excite our admiration or abhorrence, as

it

ought undoubtedly to
effect

do. 4

Finally,

the purifying
ii.

of

Art,

we must admit
would not belong

Of. vol.

p. 304, n. 2, sup.

that

(ppovrjffis

See
x. 8,

the

quotations
ii.

from

Eth.
3

sup. vol.

p. 143,n. 1.

In the words quoted from P0Z.viii.5,p. 307, n. 2, supra: irpbs

tiiaywyfiv
vT}aiv.

to Siayuyij but to the previously mentioned dperTj. This, however, is incorrect. By aperf Aristotle

means moral
of

rt

<rvfj.fid\\eTat

Kal typo-

SPENGEL,

ibid. p. 16,

and

independently of him THUROT, Etudes sur Arist. 101, propose to read, instead of q>p6vr\(riv, eixppo7vvi]v (or
Tbev<ppaiveiv),

virtue, the training character by Siaywy^ /col the training of the intyp6vn<ns, Cf. what tellect and the taste. was said about Siaywy^j supra,
;

vol.
4

ii.

p. 266, n. 5. p.

remarking

See

304

sq.

310

ARISTOTLE

that to this day, after all the endless discussions to which Aristotle s definition of Tragedy has given rise, no
1

agreement has been arrived at upon

wherein, according to his view,
the conditions of
its
it

the

question

consists

and what are

This is, however, the production. in the extant portion of the less extraordinary, since Poetics the fuller discussion of purification contained in
2 missing, though the want may be These show, in the partly supplied from other passages. first place, that the purification of the emotions which

the original work

is

is

effected

by art takes place not

in the
3

work

of art

itself,

but in those

who

see or hear
is not,

it.

We

further learn that

the immediate object

1

as

was formerly supposed, 4

is

For a review of these see

that the Kadapvis

effected in

SUSEMIHL, Arist. TT. TTotrjr. p. 36 the audience, and the same may be proved, as MULLEE well shows, sqq. and elsewhere (see p. 300, n. 1) KEINKENS, p. 78-135, and from the Poetics; for it could be DOEING, p. 2G3 sqq. 339 sq. the said that tragedy, through fear some seventy and pity, effects a purification of discusses last es?ays and treatises bearing on these emotions in the actors only the subject, most of them written on condition that they came upon
; ;

within the previous fifteen years. 2 See supra, vol. i. p. 102, n. 2. 3 GOETHE (Naclilese zu Arist.
Poetili,

the stage in a condition of fear

or
pity,

which

(as

LESSING,

Hanib.

Dram at.

78 St. has re

1826;

Briefweclisel

<niit

288, v. 330, 354) ex plained the words 5t eAeou Kal

Zeltcr, iv.
(pofiov irepaivovrra Ti]v
Tra9r]/J.druv

marked) is by no means usually, and in the circumstances cannot

possibly often be, the case. Ari stotle, however, has expressed himself on this point as clearly AeT yap as possible, c. 14 init. [he says in treating of the produc tion of the (pofiepbv and eAeeti/br] Kal avev rov Spav OVTW (Tweffrdvai rbv fj.vQov (iiffre TOV anovovra TO.
irpa.yij.ara yiv6jJ(.Gva Kal (ppirreiv Kal

uddapffiv

T&V roiovrccv in the defi

nition of tragedy, Poet. 6, 1449, b, 24 sqq. as referring to the tranquillising effect upon the

This expla univer sally acknowledged to be inad missible (e.(j. by MULLEE. ibid. 380 sqq.; BEENT AYS, ibid. 137;
actors themselves.

nation, however,

is

now

eAeetV
4

e/c

TU>V

<ruyiij3cuj/(Wa>j/.

SPENGEL,
7,

ibid: 6).

Apart from
viii.

Thus LESSING, with all pre vious writers, Hamb. Dram. 7 1-78
St. (

the linguistic difficulty, Pol.

1342, places

Werke,

vii.

beyond a doubt

this

purification

3c2 sqq. Lachm.): depends on

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

311

moral improvement, but primarily the production of Aristotle himself defi an effect upon the emotions. between purification and moral nitely distinguishes
1 he would use for the latter as culture as separate aims to the former a style of music which is wholly opposed 2 different and requires different treatment. He describes
:

as a species of healing purification, moreover,

nothing else than the trans formation of the passions into promptitudes to virtue (p. 352). He has been followed by many
others, e.g. treatise referred to, p. 307, n. 2,

and

as n
/ue Aecrt,

yidov(Ti
Jifvovs

TT?I>

\l/vx

uxrirep

larpeias

rv877

Kal

ita6dp(Tfcas.

ravrb

SPENGEL

in

the

supra. 1 Pol.

viii.

mpra

<?.

6,

7, 1341, b, 36, see ert 8 OVK 1341, a, 21

.

rovro avayKalov ira.ff-%* iv Ka^ TOUS f\ff]/u.ovas Kal rovs (pofirjriKovs Kal rovs 6\a)S Tra0Tf]riKovs [the MSS. reading for which Spengel un necessarily suggests #Aws rovs 8 a\\ovs Ka0 ocrov eVi7nx0.], rovs
/3aAAet
ru>v

roLovrcov

eitdcrrw,

Kal

opyiao~riKuv, &o~re Trpbs rovs roiovrovs avrif Kaipovs xpr]o-rov eV ois

f)

Traffi

yiyveffdai
jUe ATj

riva

KaQapffiv

Kal

Oecopia KaOapffiv /j.a\\ov Svvarai

-

ra

ra KadapriKa vrape^ei
rols
avdpwirois.

d/3Aa/3f;

See preceding n. and c. 7. 1341, b, 32 since we must dis tinguish a moral, a practical and
:

(This is a further effect of purify ing music, different from the KO.it purifies the TraOr]Gapcris itself
:

an exciting and inspiring kind of music, and since further music

has to serve the different ends stated at p. 307, n. 2, there
fore
ori
(f>ai

riKol
;

and affords enjoyment to all the lacuna therefore which THUROT, Etudes 102 sq. surmises 8e cannot be ad before
,
6/j.oia>s

pbi>

iraffais

rals

ap/j.oviais,

xprjGreov ov

iJ.lv

rbv

From this passage, mitted.) (however we may interpret its

general meaning) this at any rate seems obvious, that according to Aristotle there is a kind of music

avrbv 8e rp6irov

irdtrais

oAAa

irpbs

jjikv

rijv

xprjo Teoi/, TraiSeiav ra"is

yQiKcardrais Trpbs 8e aKpoao~iv trzpwv

av Ka

ras

Kal raTs evOovcnaffTiKais.

Trpa.itriKas l b yap Trfpl

which produces a catharsis, although it possesses no ethical

character,

and may

not, there

pus, rovro eV Trdffais vTrdpx.ei, rip Se yrrov Stac^epet Kal rw ^taAAov [there

does not seem to be any reason to doubt these words with REIN-

KENS,
ert

p. 156], olov eAeos Kal (pofios, evdov(nacr/ji.6s. Kal yap inrb

Kivficrecas

ravrTjs TTJS rives elcriv

Ka
/j.e\

K Se

rwv iepwv
orav

rovrovs,

be used in the education of the youth, nor practised by the it may be citizens, although listened to by them namely, exciting music but if this is so, the catharsis, while not without an indirect moral influence, in itself, as re yet cannot garded from the point of view
fore,
;

312

ARISTOTLE
1

mental alleviation accompanied by pleasure, and accord

ingly looks for it not in any improvement of the will or in the production of virtuous inclinations, 2 but in the
equalisation of disturbances produced by violent emo tions and the restoration of equanimity. 3 It is here of less

importance, in point of actual fact, whether it is the reli gious or the medical meaning of purification that is pro

minent in Aristotle

mind

4
;

since in either case alike

we

are dealing with a figurative expression, in the sense that the term does not admit of being transferred literally

from the one sphere to the other, 5 and we can only decide
of in
its

immediate

effect, consist

the production of a definite character of will. That this is true also of the purification effected by tragedy admits of less doubt owing to the fact that pre cisely those emotions with which it has to deal (see infra) are here expressly connected with excitement, i.e. pity and fear. See preceding n. Similarly in Poet. c. 14, 1453, b, 10 the aim of tragic representation, which ac cording to c. 6 consists in cathar ov yap sis, is placed in a pleasure iraffav Se? ^-rjT?v rjSov^v omb rpayw1
:

Quast. comiv. III. 8, 2, 11, p. 657 A cf. BEBNAYS, Grundzuge der Verlorenen Abhandlung d. Arist. uber Wirkung der Trader godie (Abk. Hist.-pliHos. Gesettschaft in Breslau 1. 1858), 155 sqq. 199. id. Ueler die p. trag. Katharsls lei Arist. (Rhein. Mvs. xiv. 374 sq.) 4 After Bockh had indicated, in 1830 ( Ges. Id. Schriften, i. 180),
;

this

reference

in

uddapcris

to

medical purgation it was taken up first by A. WEIL (Ueb. d. Wirlcung der Trag. nacli Arist.
Philologcn,
sqq.),

5tas, aAAa Trjv oliteiav. firel 8e TT\V curb eAe ou Kal tyoftov Sta /jn^aeus

Vcrhandl. der 10. Vers. dcut seller Bale, 1848, p. 136

Se? ^Soi/ /jv Trapa.a Ktvdfcu TOV

TTOITJ-

rfy, &C. 2 Viz, xaipew opQws Kal Ainre?ffOcu,.Pol. viii. 5, 1340, a, 15, 22;

fully and indepen of his predecessors by Bernays in the treatises men tioned in preceding note which go deeply into this question.

more

dently

seep. 266, supra. * This is the sense in which many writers in antiquity took
purification,
e.g.

ARISTOXENUS

(Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 714), Ps. JAMBL. Myster. Ae-gypt. p. 22, PKOKL. in Plat. Hemp. (Plat. Opp. Basil. 1534) p. 360, 362, PLUT. Sept. Sap. Conv. c. 13, p. 156 c.

These were followed by THUROT, Etudes, 104, and many others cf. DOEING, ibid. 278 sqq. who likewise resolutely defends this view, ibid. p. 248 sqq. 5 On the other hand it cannot be supposed that Aristotle uses the word a0ap<m, which he had. coined to express a definite effect
;

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

313

/cdOappurgation, in the first instance to mean the expulsion from the body of burdensome or inju rious matter, but that inasmuch as he was here dealing with the application of this conception to states of the emotions, he came to connect with it, as he went the
o-is.

how far he means to extend the analogy contained in it by a reference to other passages and to the whole scope of his doctrine. It seems probable that he took
as

we might use
1

on,

idea of deliverance from pollution and spiritual disease as well 2 just as in general one readily combines notions

connected with the same expression in a confused com pound without clearly discriminating them from one
of artistic representation, in the Politics of music in a different sense from that in which in the Poetics he employs it of tragedy, nor does Pol. viii. 7, 1341, b, 38

Remp. 362 that Aristotle objects to Plato that he was wrong in forbidding tragedy and
iii

corned}

enrep Sia

TOVTUV Svvarbv
TrdO-rj

ffj-perpus a7T07n,U7rAaycu TO.

Kal

give the remotest justification to the presumption that the tragic

catharsis
is

a.TCOTT\rj(Ta.vTas tvepya, trpbs TT]V TTQUSetaz/ avroov e^ezi/, rb

TTirovr]Kbs

specifically different

depaTreva-avTcts all
-

from the musical. The one may be produced by different means from
the other, but the effect indicated
KaCapa-is must itself in both cases be essentially the same, unless we are to attribute to Aristotle a confusion of terms

point to this.
Polit.
viii.
fi,

According to
a, 21, eV OLS

by

orgiastic music is in f) Qewpta [the place repre sentation] KaOapcriv /ua\\ov Svvarai c. 7, 13t2, a, 1) /) fj.dOti(Tiv, and mrpemjind KaQapvis are attributed

1341,

misleading. Wirk. d. Trag. p. 13 sq. 21 sq., does not sufficiently distinguish between these two.
Arist. tind die
1

which STAHR,

is

wholly

A definite
is

kind of religious music therefore compared in its effect

Aristotle s
viii.

own
1342,

with medical purgation. Aris totle seems also to have employed the word afpoa-iwcris, which refers
to the cancelling of transgressions by offerings and other religious acts, to express the same effect.

Polit.

7,

expressions, a, 10, 14
:

Sxnrep larpeias rvx^vras Kal KaOdptrews irafft yiyvecrdai nva KaO.

. .

apaiv Kal

the

Kov(piecrdaL pet) rjSovyjs, remark in Ps. JAMBL. Do

i.

Mijst.

11

that

360 represents him why he rejected tragedy and comedy, Kal Tavra
p.

PROCL. Hid.

as asking Plato
<TWT\ov(ras

the emotions
a.7roir\r]p-

irpbs

cKpofficacriv

Tcai/

(Svvdpeis TuvTraOrj/ndruv) ovvrai Kal ivrevQev

vai
,
.

aTTOKa9aip6/u.-

aTroTraiWrai,

and in PROCL.

7ra0wj/,andreplyinghimself,p. 362, that it is not true that they serve

314

ARISTOTLE

another.

This very notion of purgation, moreover, was one in which the ancients were unable to keep the ideas of from one another. 1 All the healing and expiation distinct the question more, however, are we bound to investigate
as to the internal processes

which according

to Aristotle

are the means and condition of the purification effected his own utterances, that by art. So much we learn from

the purification consists in deliverance from some or overwhelming dominating excitement of passion

mental depression

and accordingly we must under 3 stand by the expression in the first instance not any the soul of permanent affections, but purification within 4 When we ask it of unhealthy ones. the removal from
2
;
1

Whoever

is

possessed

of

enthusiasm or any other violent and enslaving emotion which burden is presses on him as a as Ai istotle ex KctTaKdaxwos,

either a purification of the emo tions or deliverance from them, for we may say either KaOaipeiv riva Tti/bs, to purify one of some thing, or KaOaipeiv r\, to purge

Pol viii. 7, 1342, a, 8. or KUTOKUX^, however, is originally conceived of as Beta which deliverance KaTOKwx^l, fr is to be obtained by reconcilia
presses
it,

KaraKcaxTl

away a defiling element. Medical language adopted this use of the word Kddapns from the time of Hippocrates (see REINKENS, p.
was transferred sphere, e.g. by
follows Foesius). It to the moral Plato, in the Phcedo 69 B, when he says that virtue is itdQapais ris TWV TOIOVTWV

151 sq.

who

tion with God, the malady is a divine visitation, the cure is the result of propitiation (cf PLATO, Pheedr. 244 Dsq.). 2 In the words quoted, p. 311,
.

viii. 7, en supra, from Polit. thusiasm is spoken of as a form of

n. 2,

jravruv a deliverance from plea Aristotle himself sure, fear, &c. uses KaQapvis in the sense of a

excitement by which

many per sons are possessed (jeaTcuc^xijUOi), and of which, by means of orgi astic music, they are as it were cured and purified, and the word is used to express the
Kov<pleff6ai

purifying secretion,

e.g.

Gen.

An.

iv.

5,

774,

a,

1,

where he

same
3

effect.

As Zeller formerly thought. 4 iraThe words KaQapais mean 8-n/j.dTcav might themselves
ru>j/

speaks of a KaOapvis Kara/j-rivtav, ibid. ii. 4, 738, a, 28 of a KdOapau rwv TrtpiTTcaf.id.Twi (for which, These 1. 27, aw6Kpi<ru is used). the examples, combined with passage referred to, n. 2 above, make it probable that KdOapffii TUV TraOT)p.dr(av means a deliver-

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART How

does Art effect this removal
?

315

some and satisfying by engaging in harmless excitements man s innate need of at times The peculiar experiencing more violent emotions.
are told by

we

that

it

produces this result

character of the effect produced by art is not, however, to be thus easily explained. How is it that the cure is
effected in this case

cases

by homoeopathic and not as in other 2 And why has the by allopathic treatment ?
effected
solicited

ance from Trad-f]/j.ara. This view seems indeed inconsistent with the terms of the well-known defini tion of Tragedy (see p. 320, n. 4, infra) in which it is said that it effects by pity and fear rV
roiavT&v
it
jra0rj uarojz/
(

by

art is a discharge of
:

emotions

as purgative

means produce health in the body by the expulsion of un wholesome matter, so purifyingmusic produces a soothing effect by providing an outlet for the
ecstatic element in us, c. Cf. 171, 176, 164 and other passages in his treatise of 1858. Similarly his successors, e.g. DORING, who
declares, p. 259, that icd6ap<ns is an excretion of diseased matter by an increased production of it, or rather an acceleration of

TO>J/

KdOapviv

for

seems as though the emotions

and fear could not possibly be banished by exciting them. In answer to this, however, it has already been pointed out by others (as by BBINKBNS, p. 1 61)
of pity

that the artificially excited emo tions of tragic pity and fear serve to release us from the emotions
(already, according to p. 311, n. 2, supra, existing in each in weaker or stronger form) of a pi ty and fear which are called forth by common facts, and that this is the reason why Aristotle writes ruv TOIOVTWV Tradr]/j.dTu>v instead of rovrcav, the two kinds of pity and fear referred to being related to one another, but not identical. (On the other hand, the fact that he writes TraO-n/ndrcav instead of ira6cav is

Nature s own heaLng process, which is already tending towards both these results and UEBER;

WEG, Zeitsehr.f. Phil. L. 33 sqq. who says it is a temporary de

liverance from certain feelings

(which, according to Ueberweg, spring from a normal want) by the excitement and indulgence of them but he overlooks the fact that TrdO-n/j-a does not mean every possible or even normal
;

feeling

(still

less

normal
i.

unimportant, both words,

wants,

p. 33,

and Grundr.

213;

as BONITZ, Arist. Stud. 5, H, has shown in opposition to BEHNAYS,

being used by Aristotle as per fectly synonymous.) Thus WEIL, ibid. 1 39 but even Bernays falls short here when he says that the catharsis
1 ;

see Eng. Tr. Hist, of Phil. vol. i. only morbid or p. 179), but oppressive moods, and that it is only from such that we require to

be
2

purged. Eth. ii.

2,

1104,

punishments:

larpeiai

b, 17 of yap riffs

316
artistic

ARISTOTLE

excitement and not any other excitement of the emotions the effect of producing peace and purification by the expulsion of the morbid matter, whereas the frequent recurrence of certain emotions in real life has rather
the effect of producing an inclination to repeat them ? but if he Aristotle did not overlook this circumstance
]
;

observed

it

we may be
it.

to explain

And

quite sure that he also attempted has this, as a matter of fact, he

is

done.

The

catharsis

indeed effected in his view by

and is a homoeopathic cure of exciting the emotions 2 is not to be expected from all but this effect them excitements indifferently, but only from such as are
;

artistic

and by
produces

artistic

Aristotle here means, as

we

his account of tragedy, not that clearly gather from the most violent emotion in us, but which

that which produces emotion in the right way. the artificial catharsis depended in Aristotle s

Had
view

emotions and not merely upon the excitation of certain

also essentially

upon the manner and means

of exciting

them, he must have sought

art, riot in its

for the criterion of a

work

contents and their proper treatment, of and solely in its effect upon the spectators but singly 3 are forced, therefore This he is far from doing.

We

elo-iv, ai

Se iaTpelai 5ia roav tvavrivv

Aristotle cannot reiterate too of ten

vcQvicaffi yiveffdai. 1 Gf.JStJt.ii. 1,1103, b,

17 sqq. Tragedy by pity and fear effects the purification of these emotions (Poet. 6) sacred music by producing in us a state of mental excitement effects the cure and
:

purgation of excitement (Polit. viii. 7, 1342, a,4sqq.,cf.c.5,1340, a/8 sqq. See p. 311, n. 2, supra), 3 To mention only one thing,

that both the action and the characters in a tragedy must evolve according to the laws of necessity and probability (Poet. Ibid, and 7, 1450, b, 32. c._9, see p. 305, n. 4, supra, c. 10, 14o2, c. 15,1454, a, 33 sqq.), and a, 18, he blames the poets for abandonis ing the development which demanded by the nature of the facts out of regard for the taste

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

to look for the reason

317

why, according to Aristotle, the excitement of the emotions produced by Art has a soothing effect, whereas their excitement in real life is
followed by no such result, in the peculiar nature of in other words, in that which constitutes the generic difference between art
artistic representation itself

latter presents us only with the par former with the universal in the particular in the latter chance largely rules, the former must
reality.
ticular, the

and

The

reveal to us in its creations the Aristotle fixity of law. nowhere expressly says that this is the reason certainly
1

but if we would supplement the mutilated fragments of his theory of art which have come down to us in the spirit of the rest of
;

why

art exercises a purifying influence

his

system we can hardly resist this conclusion. Art, we should then have to say, purifies and soothes the
it

emotions in that

delivers us from such as are

morbid or
its

oppressive by exciting such as are subordinate to

law, directing them, not towards
sonal, but

what

is

merely per

towards what

their course

upon a

is universal in man, controlling fixed principle and setting a definite

limit to their force. 2

fate of its

Thus, for example, tragedy in the heroes gives us a glimpse into the universal

ot of

man and
3

ustice;
Of

at the same time into an eternal law of music calms mental excitement and holds it
(c.
9, 1451, b, 33 1453, a, 30 sqq.).

the public
;

possible e^erpus airoiriuTr^dvai ra

3

sqq.
1

cf. C. 13,

See

We

p.

301 sq. supra. have at least a hint of

fchis

in the statement :rom Proclus, cited p. 313, n. 1, o the effect that and

thought

tragedy

serve as a cure of morbid tates of feeling by rendering it

omedy

those who pass in it from fortune to misfortune must be neither the wholly innocent nor the wholly bad they should be characters distinguished neither by merit nor wickedness, but standing
:

According to

Poet.

c.

13.

318

ARISTOTLE
1

and harmony. Although spellbound by its rhythm know how Aristotle further developed this we do not
thought,
it
still
2

we

are forced to assume that he expressed

somehow.
If

we now turn from

these general views

upon Art

us with to the special arts, Aristotle himself provides have different principles according to which they might been classified. All art is imitation, but the means,

the objects, and the manner of this imitation are different. The means of imitation are sometimes colour and form,
rather
?

common
5i

above than below the standard of morality

% jSeAT/oyos

o tov eTjTCti,

tion he would have recommended above all those pieces which he so decidedly rejects (ibid. 1453,
a, 1,

apapTiav fieyd\iiv. The tragedy must therefore be so constructed that we can put ourselves in the can say place of the hero, that we what happens to him might happen to each of us, while at the same time we feel that the
fate

30) those, namely, are punished great transgressions and virtue is rewarded, for in these the spectator has the transense that he can avoid
quillising

in

which

which overtakes him is not wholly undeserved, but is brought

on him by his own action, so revealing the laws of the moral

order of the world. KOCK, Ueb. d, Arist. Begr.d. Catharsds t lSol, misunderstands p. 11, strangely the sense of this passage in hold of pity ing that the purification depends upon the thought that we do not need to pity the
sufferer so immoderately, as he
suffer does not wholly un deservedly; the purification of that we fear, on the conviction can avoid the misfortunes which overtake the hero if we avoid the mistake which has brought them If the effect of in its train. for Ari tragedy had consisted stotle in this trite moral applica

the penalty of transgression and of virtue in a reap the reward much higher degree. Aristotle which is aware of the satisfaction these moral reflections give, but to says (ibid.) that they belong the sphere, not of tragedy, but
of

comedy.
1

STAHK

(Arist.

und

die

enough expresses on fied with Bernays explanation this head, and in this way in
volves himself in the difficulty of having to explain the catharsis, which Aristotle describes in like

Wirli. d. Trag. 19 sqq.) curiously himself as satis

terms in connection with different in one case arts, quite differently and in the other. Of. p. 312, n. 5. 2 In this view Zeller is at one with BBANDIS, ii. b, 1710 sqq. iii.
IT.

163 sqq. and SUSEMIHL (Arist. TronjT. 43 sqq.).

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

319

sometimes the voice, sometimes words, harmony, and these means, moreover, are sometimes em rhythm ployed singly, at other times several of them are com;

acting persons moral worth. 3

is

bined^N^The chief objects of imitation are living and 2 and these differ from one another in The manner (here, however, Aristotle
;
)

speaking of poetry only) differs according as the imitator himself speaks or brings forward other
speakers
others. 4
;

in propria persona,

and in the former case according as he speaks or merely reports the words of
attempted to use

Aristotle, however, has not

these differences as the basis of any systematic division of the Arts as a whole. Upon the particular arts,

moreover, with the exception of the art of poetry, very has come down to us in his works we have only a few occasional observations upon painting, 5 and a fuller
little
:

discussion of music, 6 the chief contents of which have

1

Poet.

i.

1447, a, 16 sqq.
/j.tfj.ov/j.ei>oi

to imitate (1) ^

eVepoV TL [rti/a]

fu/j-ovvrai ol

irpdr-

yiyvo^vo^ (by assuming the part

of another), (2)
/)

TOVTO.S,C. 2, 1448, a, 1.

This state-

&s rbv avrbv

/ecu

suffers only slight fication from the passages

p. 304, n. Iand2,sw/?.,on

ment

modiquoted

Under this ph /ierajSaAAoi/Ta. second category, along with perlyric

the representation of particular natural Aristotle would not objects. therefore have recognised land-

sonal narration would fall also poetry, although Aristotle

refers to it in

nowhere expressly
the Poetics as

we have

received

scape painting, which in his time did not yet constitute an independent branch of art, as art
at
all.
3
4

C. 2, see p. 305, n. 3, supra,

them. While very closely connected with Plato s division of the forms of artistic presentation, Aristotle s does not wholly coincide with it.
Poet. 2, 15, see 305, n. land Pol. viii. 5, v. vol. ii. also Pol. viii. p. 308, n. 2, supra 3, v. vol. ii. p. 264, n. 3, supra, 6 Pol. viii. 3, 1337, b, 27, c. 5-7.
3,
5

Poet.

c.

init.

Aristotle

here distinguishes, as Susemihl rightly observes, (a) ^^e?o-0at

airayyeXXovTa, (J) ^i^lffQai. iravras rovs /j.ifj.ovfj.4vovs as irpdrrovras Kai

supra.

fvepyowras.

Drama
;

is

constituted
possible

by the

latter

in (a)

it is

320

ARISTOTLE
1

already been given.

stotle s

of Ari Finally, the extant portion

itself

with poetry limits writings which deals

almost entirely to tragedy. The art of poetry, we are told, 2 from the imitation from the imitative instinct

sprang

of noble

men and

actions

came epic poetry

;

from the

imitation of ignoble, satire best adapted for the nobler poetry, tragedy
;

subsequently as the form

was deve

is the loped an important completed action, of a certain imitation of in graceful style, which varies in the length, expressed several parts of the piece, to be acted, not merely narrated, means of pity and fear the purification and

as the best for satire,

comedy.

Tragedy

effecting by 4 of these emotions.

Plhe

first effect,

o ur sympathy by poetry is to excite actors: their sufferings claim our pity; the of the are threatened excite in us dangers with which they that tragic suspense which in issue fear for the final 5 time in the further development finds relief at one
4

therefore, of tragic means of the fate

1&2. While Aristotle here attributes to music especially (as of reis there shown) the power presenting moral qualities, yet
ill
11

Sup.

vol.

ii.

p.

2GG sqq. cf.p.

C. 6, 1449,
//j<m

b.^24

TpayySia

irpa^us ffrovtofkm

Kal rttelas, /teyeflos

*xownt,
^atrrov

i,5v-

wiv*

\6y<p,

x*P ls

ruv

elSuv iv rots f^opiois [i.e. as is iin-

he does not explain in the Politic* the grounds of this advantage which it possesses over the other it arts In ProM. six. 27, cf. c. 29 5w ri TO ^ovarov ^6vov is asked Mos {yet rav aicQ-n*; and the answer is given because we perceive movements through the exhearing alone, and the ^os
:

mediately afterwards explained so that the different kinds of s and ftvffptvos Ao 7 o S ^\os are employed in the dialogue and chorus of the tragedy respecAe|<

tively

cf.

c. 1 fin.

tpwrw

KO.\

$6&ov ircpaivovva rr,v.TUV n. [on which see supra, p. 314,

4,

Dresses itself in actions, and therefore in movements. But this can hardly be Aristotle s.
e p. 303, supra.

adfin^votoiWrvvKMafaiv. Since the time of LESSING (Hamb. Drama*. 75 8t.) whom

ZeUer followed in the previous
edition, the

5.

fear

in Aristotle s

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

an unfortunate,
events.
1

321

at

another in

fortunate,

turn

of

But since the tragic poet sets before us in his heroes and in their fate universal types of human nature and life, our sympathies do not confine themselves to
these particular characters, but extend to the common elements of human nature ; and while thus on the one

hand self-regarding humours akin to pity and fear are created in us by our participation in the experiences of
the actors, on the other our own pain gives way before the feeling of others pain, our personal woes are silenced at the spectacle of universal destiny, we are delivered
1
1

from

the

oppressions

that

weigh

on

us,

and our

emotions find peace in the recognition of those eternal/ laws which the course of the piece reveals to us. 2 This
has been commonly understood of fear for ourselves excited by the thought that those
definition

whom we

future to them, the latter by those which have already be fallen them. On the contrary,
rightly objected to Lessing s explanation (SUSBMIHL, Poet. 57 sqq., and the authorities quoted by him), that according to Ari stotle s own indubitable state ment the primary object of tragic fear is not ourselves but others for he says, Poet. 13, 1453, a, 4,
;

ourselves,

see suffering are like and the fate which

it is

overtakes them might overtake us. This view rests partly on the observation that fear for the heroes of tragedy is already in volved in pity, and that there is, therefore, no reason to make par
ticular
Rliet.
<o/3os

mention of
5 inlt.
ii.

ii.

partly on 8 init., where

it
;

of eAeos
TTspl T*bv

and
T\>V

(j>6/3os

/j.ev

yap

is

defined as

AUTTTJ

e/e

fyavra.-

6 5e rrepl

avafyov CCTTLV SvaTuxovvTa, O/JLOIOV, eAeos /xei/ Trepl

<p6@os

ff iaS

fjL\\OVTOS KO.KOV (f)9dpTlKOV /) ris eVl AVTTTJ \vTT-npov, eAeos as KaKt Kal (^aivojuevy (pdapriKc-i
\virr]p(Z rov ava^iov Tv-y^dveiv. it is not asserted that the

rbv
is

dva|ioj>,

Se

irepl

7oy

OJJ.QIOV.

To

this explanation there

But

refers only to such threaten ourselves any sertion, indeed, would be wholly false and, on the other hand, it holds also, as the distinction between fear for others and pity for them, that the former is ex
;

fear evils as such as

the further practical objection that fear for ourselves produced by the spectacle of a tragedy would hardly be the proper means of delivering us from this

same
1

selfish fear. latter,

c.

The remarked

cited

by VOL.

evils
II.

which are

htill

however, as is 1453, a, 12 sqq. 35 sqq., less to the character of tragedy than to that of comedy. See supra, vol. ii. p. 31G sq.
13,

322

ARISTOTLE

first place upon the nature impression depends in the These, therefore, are the of the events represented.

important thing in every tragic representation.

1

Myth,

the soul of tragedy, and accord as Aristotle says, to investigate, in the first place, ingly he sets himself the qualities which are necessary in a tragedy that it may
is

effect its

end

viz.

natural development, proper length,

this purify
1

To distinguish from

moral ing effect of tragedy the effect as a second and different result (as UEBERWEG, Zeitschr.
f.
Pliilos.

Poet. c. 6, where, inter alia, 1450, a, 15 (after the enumeration of the six elements in tragedy,
u.v9os,
iT],

iy ?

Sidvoia,,

otj/is,

xxxvi. 284 sqq. does)

5f
fffTIV
f)

TOVTOW

seems to be incorrect.
TTcuSeia,

Although
music,

r)

T&V
/j.ifj.7icris

Aristotle, in treating of

yap rpaycpSia

eariv OVK

places side by side as co-ordinate aims

(see p. 307, n.
2,

Siaywy)), KaOapffis

avdpanrcav aAAa Kal fvSaifjiOvias

.
.

7rpaews Kal
Kal
i](

&iov

KaKoSai^ovias

supra) it does tragedy also has to pursue all these aims in like manner. On the contrary, as there is both a moral and a
not
follow

oijKOVV OTTCOS TO.

that

irpdrrovaiv,
TO.

aAAa ra
/cat

TrpdyiAara
otoi/

6 /j.vdos re Aos

T^S
ovj^

Toa ywSias.
Kal

L.

38

^^X

/^^

cathartic kind of music (i.e. one which directly affects the will,

^ux^? o /jivOos rfjs rpaycfCf. C. 9, Sias, Sevrepov Se ra r?0rj.

and one which primarily

affects

1451, b, 27

T^J/

TTOITJTT/V

only the emotions and, through them, moral character), there may also be a kind of poetry whose

rwv

/j-vOwv eivai

Sei

TTOJTJT^J/

/j.a\\ov ^ TWJ/

/j.Tpuv.

We primary aim is catharsis. must assume that tragedy, accord such ing to Aristotle, is actually a cathartic species of poetry, inas
much

the other hand, the by the mere to be spectacle (ovf/ts) is declared that which has the least artistic
effect

On

produced

value; ibid. 1450, b, 16. 2 C. 7, see supra, vol. ii.

n. 3.
3

p. 316,

as in his definition of it he must have given its aim in an

essentially complete form if he gave it at all. It is quite com to attribute to patible with this

tragedy a moral

effect,

but

it is

added

as a second, which is co ordinate with the cathartic, but follows from it as result, and consists in the peaceful state of

decided, question 1450, b, 34 sqq., in like the Politics fashion to that in as to the (see p. 259, n. 1, supra) size of the State. The longer and richer presentation is in itself the more beautiful, provided that the plot does not surfer in clear its ness fvffvvoirrov) owing to
is

This

ibid.

(rb
;

feeling which is produced by and purification of the emotions the habit of self-control which it creates in us.

the

length
is
:

offca jU.e7e06i

the true criterion here Kara rb et/cbs *

e<|>e7}s

T^

o"uu,Baivi

avayKalov els GVTWYiav eK

THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

1

323

unity of treatment, and the representation of events that are typical and of universal interest, 2 He dis
in which the

tinguishes simple events from complicated ones,andthose change in the position of the characters is

brought about by some recognition or by some reversal of 3 fortune in the course of the piece. Again he shows how myths must be treated in order to excite the emotions of pity and fear instead of those of moral indignation or satisfaction 4 or of mere wonder, and in order to produce this effect by means of these emotions them

passing speak of the style of expression best adapted to tragedy. 8 We cannot, however, here linger over
finally to
^) e| evrvxias els S )8aAAe
.

and not merely by means of the outward repre sentation. 5 He further discusses what is required for proper character-painting 6 and composition, 7
selves

Of the so-called three Ari stotelian unities of the French

1

the violation of which Nemesis (see sup. vol. ii. p. 169, n. 9) has to do, we may interpret TO
^uAaj/fya;TTOV
(c.

school, only the unity of action is to be found, as is well known, in Aristotle himself ; see Poet. c. 8 cf. c. 9, 1451, b, 33 sqq. c. 18, The unity of 1456, b, 10 sqq.
;

which, according to Aristotle

13, 1453, a, 3, c.
18, 1456, a,

21), attaches to the deserved mis fortune of the transgressor. It

place he nowhere mentions, and on that of time he only remarks

(c. 5, 1449, b, 12) that tragedy endeavours to compress the action into one day, or, at any rate, to keep as nearly as possible within this limit, but he gives no rule.
2
*

commonly taken (as it Lessing) to refer to the interest with which we

is

was by

human
accom

pany even the transgressor in such a case; but Aristotle ap

pears,

C. 9

see sup.
11,

ii.

305, n.

4.

C.

10,

yvwpia-is

and

16, where <WTre/mre reta are dis

precisely in the punishment wrong as such: one who wishes well to humanity can wish no good to its enemies
(j>i\a.v6p(airov

TO

^especially

c.

18,

to find

of

5 6

cussed. On the genuineness and position of c. 16, cf. SUSEMIHL, at p. 12 sq. of his ed. 4 In this sense, viz. of the satis faction of that moral feeling with

and ar rangement of which see SUSE MIHL, p. 10, 13 sq. 8 Ae c. 19-22, with which
|<s

C. 13, 14. C. 17 sq. C. 15, on the text

cf.

MULLER,

ibid. 131 sqq.

324

ARISTOTLE

these technical details.

With regard to the section with narrative poetry, with which the Poetics, dealing as we have it, closes, we need only remark that Ari stotle here also lays the main emphasis upon the unity
1

of the action, finding in

it

the

mark which

separates

which is the narrative of con epic poetry from history, events without reference to their inner temporaneous
connection.
2

It is chiefly, moreover,

on the ground of

its greater unity that in comparing tragedy with epic the former the higher place as a poetry he assigns to 3 Of the remaining kinds form of artistic composition.

of poetry the extant portions of Aristotle s treat. Comedy alone is briefly touched
earlier passage
it,
4
;

work do not

upon in an and cursory as are his allusions 5 to we can yet see from them that Aristotle was not
to

inclined
value.
1

concur in Plato

harsh

estimate

of

its

C. 23-26.

2
3
4

C. 23. C. 26.

See supra,

vol.

ii.

p.

304

sq.

Supplementary to these (as was shown by BEKNAYS) are some statements to be found in
5

editions of VAHLEN and as was already remarked, vol. i. p. 102. Besides the vol. i. p. 306, n. 3, quotations, siq). 313, n. 1, the division of comedy

the

SUSEMIHL,

p.

docs he admit, it as a means of moral education (see Ph. d. Gr. i. 800, 802). Aristotle admits that it has to do with human infirmity, but he adds that in deals only with harmless infirmities, and in demanding of it at the same time thar, it should devote itself not to the ridicule of particular persons but to depicting types of character, he opened the way to the recognition of it as

into
CK

7e\o>s

r&v

eK rfjs Ae|ews and 7fAw? of especial Trpa.yiJ.aTwv is

means

of purifying

and elevating
Whether.

natural

sentiments.

interest in this connection.

viii.

Cf.

Aristotle actually adopted this

P.ERNAYS, Rhcin. Mus. N. F. 577 sqq. 6 Plato had conceived in a as the general way of comedy only and representation of deformity, the pleasure produced hy it as malignancy. Only in the La/vs

view, and whether he assigned to comedy a higher position thai the music which, in Polit. viii. 7, 1342, a, 18 sqq., he withholds from the common people, cannot be positively decided.

325

CHAPTER XVI
RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF
the preceding section we had to deal with a fragmentary account of a theory which Aristotle him

IN

self

us

we have

developed more fully. In the section now before to deal with a subject which he has made no
scientifically,

attempt to treat
occasionally in

but has only touched upon

Aristotle has not

detached passages.
l

any more than Plato a philosophy of Religion in the scientific sense his system even lacks those features which give to the Platonic philosophy, in spite of the
;

severe criticisms which

it passes on the existing religion, a peculiar religious character of its own. He does not

require to fall back upon the popular faith, as Plato had done in his theory of myths, although at the same time, on the principle that universal opinion and un

never without a certain truth, 2 he willingly makes use of the suggestions and links of connection which it supplies. 3 His scientific researches
reflecting tradition are
1

His

view
is
;

Being, indeed,

of the Divine set forth in the

but the question MetapJiysiL s with which the philosophy of religion starts, as to the distinguishing characteristics of reli-

gion especially in its relation to philosophy, is nowhere fully investigated. 2 See supra, vol. i. p. 256, n. 2, and p. 291, n. 5. 3 For proofs of this, see infra.

326

ARISTOTLE
and circumstances of men which in an

do not exhibit that constant direct reference to the

personal
life

especial degree gives to the Platonic philosophy its l even in morals the motives which he religions tone ;

assigns for action are strictly ethical and not religious. His whole view of the world rests upon the principle of explaining things as completely as may be by a
reference to their natural causes
;

that the universe of

natural effects must be referred to a Divine cause he

never in the least doubts

scientific

2
;

but as this affords no

indi

explanation of

them he never connects

of Providence,

vidual facts and

divine a.gency.
to Socrates

events, as Plato so often does, with

The conception

common

Plato, as of a divine activity exercised in individual cases, finds no place in Aristotle. 3

and

We

miss, therefore, in his system that warm glow of religious feeling which in Plato has ever so strongly appealed susceptible minds, and in comparison with which the Aristotelian philosophy seems to be cold and
to
lifeless.

It

difference

would be wrong to deny or under-estimate the which exists in this respect between the

two philosophers.
in

They

different

spirit.

The

certainly treat their subject inner bond which in

Plato

philosophy with religion is not indeed completely severed in Aristotle, but it is so widely expanded as to give to science the freest scope in
unites

its

own

field.

No

attempt

is

ever

made

to

answer

scientific

questions by means of
2
i.

religious
See 399
vol.
sq.
i.

presuppose
p.

Cf. Ph. d, Gr.i. p. 793 sq. 3 Cf. svpra, vol.

421 sq.

p.

RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY

tions.

327

On

the other hand,

all

positive treatment of

religion itself, as a science in the same sense as art or morality, is as far from Aristotle s thoughts as from

Plato

s.

Different

as

is

the

attitude
to

which

each
yet in

actually

takes

up

with regard

religion,

it they approach very near to one another, the main difference in this respect being that Aristotle is more strictly logical in drawing con

their scientific views of

clusions

whose

thought. vinced like Plato of the unity of the Divine Being (in so far as we understand by this Deity in the proper sense of the word, or the highest efficient cause), of his
exaltation above the world, of his immaterial and purely and spiritual nature, and of his faultless perfection
;

premises are no strangers to Plato s Aristotle, as we have already seen, is con

he strives to demonstrate with greater fullness and more scientific accuracy than his predecessor not only the
existence

but also the

attributes

of

Deity.

But

while Plato had on the one hand identified

God with

as impersonal,

the Idea of the Good, which can only be conceived of on the other he depicted his creative and

governing activity in conformity with popular repre sentations of it, and not without sundry mythical
embellishments.
pupil,

who

defines

This ambiguity is removed by his the Divine Nature clearly and

:

on the one hand God, as a personal supernatural Being, is guarded from all con fusion with any merely universal conception or im personal power while on the other, as he is limited in his activity to pure thought and absolutely self-contained, and he operates upon the world only to set in motion the
sharply on

both sides

328

ARISTOTLE
1

Individual events outermost of the cosmic spheres. do not therefore upon this view admit of being referred
directly to

divine causation.

Zeus does not rain in

or be destroyed, but laws of nature, the
as water
2
;

order that the corn

may grow

because, according to universal descend rising vapours cool and

prophetic

dreams are not sent by the gods to reveal to us the

here of causality future, but, in so far as the question is at all and not merely of chance coincidence, they are
to

be referred as natural

effects to physical

causes

is the case in any degree altered by the fact that between God above and earth beneath numerous other

Nor

4 since the operation of eternal beings find a place ; those heavenly beings is likewise limited to causing the

motion of their own sphere, any interference on their of the kind that popular part with individual events belief attributes to its gods and demons is out of the
question.

The

essential truth of the belief in Provi

dence, however,

men,

account resign. universe the operation of Divine Power and of rational 5 he believes especially that the gods care for design that they interest themselves in those who live
;

Aristotle does not certainly on this He also recognises in the order of the

according to reason, and that happiness

See supra, vol. i. p. 388 sqq Ph.d. Gr.i. p. 785 sqq. 591 sqq. See supra, vol. i. p. 361, n. 1. 3 See supra, vol. ii. p. 75 sq.
1 ;

is

their gift

6
;

av evXoyov ap

xa

P eiv

avrovs

cf.

ffvyyeveffrarc? (TOUTO $ Uv en? 6 vovs) KOI TOVS ayairwvras naXiara TOVTO Kal Tt^cDfras avrev-

arw

Kal

r$

DlV.
4

1,

462, b, 20.
p.
sq.

5 6

See 8Upra, vol. i. See vol. i. p. 420

Etli. x. 9, 1179, a,

494
et

sq.

ws T&V fyiXwv avrols eV^eAou/cat opOus re Kal /A<s el irpdrrovTas. i. 10, 1099, b, 11
iroizlv

^eVous
fiev

24:

yap
etr/

olv

Kal

aAAo

ri

eVrl

6e>v

ris

67rt,u.e

Aeia T&V avOpcairivcav virb

&c"irep

Scu/nj/xa avdpuirois,
cvf>ai/J.ovi(tv

euAoyoi/ Kai

ylverai,

So/ce?,

/cat

RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY

329

he also opposes the notion that God is envious, and might therefore, if he liked, withhold from man his
best gift of knowledge. 1 But this Divine Providence coincides completely for Aristotle with the operation of
all the more because in setting aside the Platonic eschatology he left no room for that direct agency of the Deity which Plato had so largely ad mitted into his pictures of the future life and its retribu

natural causes

tions.

God

stands according to Aristotle outside the

is for
3

world, engaged in solitary self-contemplation ; he man the object of admiration and reverence
; ;

the

4 in him knowledge of him is the mind s highest aim lies the goal towards which, with all finite things, along man strives, and whose perfection excites his love. 5

But

as

man can

6 expect no reciprocal love from God,

yuaAicrra TUIV avOpcoirtvwv offcf /3eA-

which

is

0eoV5oTos

consists

THTTOV. viii. 14, 1162, a, 4 effn 5 rj /net/ Trpbs yovels (pi\ia re/cvoty, Kal avdpwTTOLs Trpbs 6eovs, ws Trpbs Kal virepexov eu ?re:

merely in the moral and spiritual

capacities of man in the natural possession of reason in which he has still to secure himself by actual study and practice.
8

"yap

Metaph.
ii.

i.

2,

982, b, 32 (see
:

Metaph.

xii. 7

(see supra, vol.

vii.;

SUp. vol.

163, 3)

et 8$?

\eyovffi

i.p. 184, n. 1).

SENECA, 0. N.

ol TroiTjral Kal TrecpvKe (pdovfli/

eTrl

TO

0e7oi>,

rovrov

ffvjj.$aiviv /ndhiffra

egregie Aristoteles ait, nunquam iws verccundiores esse deberc qiiam

is the highest object of thought (see su_i)ra,vo[. i. p. 398 n. 2), and theo logy therefore (vol. i. p. 184, n. 1), the highest branch of philo

fiK6s ....

aAA ovre rb

Qtlov (f)dove-

pbv eVSe^eTat e?i/at, &c. Cf. Ph. d. Gr. i. 602, 1, 787, 1. 2 Eth. i. 10: Aristotle con

cum de Dis agltur. 4 The Divine Being

tinues

$cuVeTCU
etrriv

Se

K&I/
5i

et

fify

6e6TrfjLTTT6s

a\\a

apT?V

Kai Twa /j.ddr](nv v) affK^aiv Trapa-yivfTai Ttav OfioTaTwv f-lvai TO yap

TIIS

sophy.
5 6

Cf. vol.

i.

p. 404, sqq.
,

apexes 50Ao^ Kal TeAos apiffrov

Kal

tyaiveTai If ft.aKa.pLov.

tivai

Q?UV

ri

Kal

See supra, vol. i. p. 398, n. 1 which places the passage quoted,

p. 328, n. 6, supra,

we compare with

from

Etli. viii.

the passage quoted from Etli. x. 10 on p. 156, n. 4, supra. we shall see that the happiness
this

14 in the proper light; there is a love (fyiXia) of men towards the gods, but not vice versa.

330

ARISTOTLE
can he experience any influence from him different from that of natural causes,

neither

which would be

and

his reason is the only

means whereby he enters

1

into

direct

communion with him.

Holding these views, Aristotle could not concede to

the popular religion the same significance which Plato
it must certainly have its own truth, fol him from his view of the historical evolution Uni of mankind and the value of common opinion. 2 itself a mark of truth, versal conviction is for him of all the more so when we are dealing with convictions which have been transmitted by mankind from time

did.

That
for

lowed

immemorial.
is eternal, is so,

Since the world, according to Aristotle, and if the earth the earth must be so also
;

But all parts of the 4 and one of the con globe undergo continual change,

man must

be so as well. 3
that

sequences of this

is

man s development

does not

but is ever and anon proceed in an unbroken line into a state of primitive bar interrupted by relapses 5 barism and ignorance, from which a fresh start must 6 In this way be made in the cyclic process of creation.
all

knowledge and

all

art

have been

lost

and

re

discovered times without number, and similar notions have recurred to mankind, not once or twice but with
incalculable frequency.
1

Nevertheless, a certain recolTO S rvx&vrovs avo^rovs, ftcrirep Kal

Of.

on this point, supra,

vol.

Qt]ffav, 6/u.oiovs eTi/cu ical

i.

p. 329, n. 2,
2
3 4 5

and

See &upra,

p. vol.

403 sqq.
i.

ras

ical

p. 291, n. 5.

Of. supray vol. ii. p. 32, n. 1. See supra, vol. ii. p. 29 sq. Cf. Polit.
ii.

\4yerai Kara ruiv yf)yev<av, wffr aroirov rb peveiv eV rots rovruv

S6y/j.affiv.

8,

1269,

a,

re rovs Trpderovs, etre 77776vets riffav er e /c (pOopas rivos eVweiit6s

(paal

24 Cf. Pkys. iv., 14, 223, b^ yap KviiXov tlvai ra avOpuiriva

:

-rrpdyfj-ara.

RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY

lection of particular truths has

331

changes in

man s

condition,

been retained amid the and it is these remnants of

1

departed knowledge that, according to Aristotle, form the kernel of mythical tradition. Even the popular has its roots in the search for faith, therefore, truth,

back to that intuition of the divine 2 which even Aristotle is unwilling to contradict, and
it

whether we trace

to those experiences which he regarded as the source of the popular theology, 3 or whether we trace it to a tradition which, as a remnant of an older science or
religion,

reason.
Aristotle,

must yet in the end have its roots in human More particularly there are two truths which
like
:

Plato, finds to be contained in the popular belief of his country first, that God exists and secondly, that the stellar universe is in its nature 4 divine. With the further details of Greek mythology,
;
1

Metaph.

xii.

8;

see
Ccclo
i.

p.

508, n. 2, supra. Meteor, i. 3, 339,

De
b,

d^oXoyov^v^s a7ro0cuW0cu
<t>wovs

o-u/x-

19

it

is

not

we alone who have

5
^

-n-drpioi

Cf. the appeal to Xtyovs. \6yoi, ibid. 284, a, 2. Me-

this

view

of the

irpurov aroixeiov as the substance of the celestial world,

0afj>eTai

tapli. xii. 8, p. 508, n. 2.

3
4

see supra,
vol.
i.

vol.

i.

apxaia
^

ns

See supra,

p. 390, n. 3.

inroXt)^ is
an-a

The
;

avr-f]
.
. .

Kal
.

ra>v

Trp6repov avOpooTrcav
<j>r)ffo/j.v

proof

ov yap

hardly requires see. however, the quotai.

first

8^7

ot>5e

tions, vol.
n. 6,

I
i

o\tydKis ras avras So |as avaKvicXw yivopevas ev -rols avOpuaAA a-rreipaKis. TTOIS, Polit. vii. 10, 1329, b, 25 (TX^V fj.ev ovv Kal ra a\\a 8e? vopi&iv
:

Sis

ouS

p. 390. n. 3, 4,

from

SEXTus and CICEEO, and

9
;

p. 395,

from the treatise De Ccelo, i. in the latter passage a trace of

evprjaBai
xpov<f,

\fo\\aKis^v rf TTO\\$ fj.d\\ov S aireipaKis, as like needs and states must, always have led to the same discoveries.
;

true knowledge is discovered in the name alkv, just as elsewhere in that of the aetlier ( K al yap rovro
rovvo/na Otlces e(p0ey K Tai irapa In support of his docap X aia,^. trine of the divinity of the
TU>V

De

Ccclo,
is

ii.

Jin.

Ari-

stotle s

view of the eternity of

not only truer in
Kal ri, ^avela rfj irepl av x L P- ev ourcas

the world
f

itself,
T^>V

a\\a

heavens and of the stars, Aristotle appeals to the existing religion in the passage referred just
to.

debv

jj.6vcas

332

ARISTOTLE

on the other hand, with all the. doctrines and stories which transfer the properties and weaknesses of human nature to the gods in a word, with the whole range of
anthropomorphic theology
Aristotle is as completely out of sympathy as Plato was the only difference is that he no longer considers it necessary, as Plato had
;

done, expressly to confute

treats

how

as preposterous fables. those false elements have found their

faith, Aristotle refers us

them simply

such representations, but If we ask

1

way

into the

popular

to the

inherent ten

dency in mankind to anthropomorphic representations 3 of the gods, 2 which offended even Xenophanes, or to
the fact that statesmen had accommodated themselves as
a matter of policy to this tendency, and used it for their own ends. Even ancient tradition, he says, 4 recognises that the heavens and the heavenly bodies are gods, and

that the whole world

is

is

encircled

by

divinity.

All

mythical embellishment, devised to else, however, attract the multitude, to aid legislation, and to forward
the

common

interest.

While therefore Plato had

of permitted the legislator to employ myths (the origin

Metapli. xii. 8 see p. 508, n. 2,$vpra. Ibid. iii. 2, 997, b, 8 see vol. i. p. 315, n. 2,c.4,1000, a, 18:
1
;

TOU?
<j>ao-l

Oeovs
Irt

5e

Sia

TOUTO Trdvres
5e

j8a<nAetW0cu,

ori Kal avrol oi

,uei/

Kal vvv ol

rb

dpx^ov
ra
eftJrj

aAAa

-n-fpl ACCI/

ruv

pvOLKtas tro^t^o/J.:

e&xtnXevovTO

&<rirep

5e Kal

evwv ovKaiov /xera tnrovSrjs ffKOTrGlv. a poetic Poet. 25, 1400, b, 35

representation

is

justified

by

its

eavrols d(f>o/j.oiov<nv oi avQpcairoi, ovrw Kal TOVS fiiovs ruv Oewv. This deduction of the belief in a

correspondence either with the el Se ideal or with the actual olov ra ^Serepajy, on ovru
;

<patriv,

Trepi

6euu. taws yap

ovre

fizXriov

OVTOO
6Tt>%ej>

\eyew,
&a"irfp

ovr

aATjfl?},

z,evo<pdvr)s

aAA aAA ov

Tc5e.
<t>a<ri

sovereign of the gods is all the more remarkable, because Aristotle might equally well have himself found in that tradition a proof of the unity of God. 3 Cf Ph. d. Gr. i. 490. 4 In the passage quoted from
.

Polit.

i.

2,

1252, b, 24: Kal

Metapli.

xii. 8, invol.i,

p.508,n.

2.

RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY

which he did not explain)
interest of the
State,
1

333

as

paedagogic

lies

in the

Aristotle goes a step farther, and thus comes a step nearer the view of sophistic 2 free-thinking as to the origin of religion, in maintain

ing that these myths, or at least a great part of them, had been from the beginning invented for no other
This, indeed, is what we should expect from purpose. the strictness with which he himself excludes all that
is

mythical from his scientific investigations, his refusal to introduce religious considerations into his naturalistic
relies in his Ethics

view of the world, 3 and the exclusiveness with which he upon moral motives to the neglect
of the

treats as

Eeligion itself, indeed, he always an absolute moral necessity. The man who doubts whether the gods have a claim on our reverence or not is a fit subject, he says, 4 not for instruction but
religious.
for

punishment, just as would be the man who might ask whether his parents have a claim upon his love. As in his system the world cannot be thought of apart
from.

God, so neither can

to rest this religion

man

apart

from religion.
fables as

But

upon such palpable

the myths of the popular belief can be justified only on the ground of the aforesaid political expediency. 5 Ari stotle himself sometimes makes use of these myths, as
of other popular opinions, in order to point to some
1

2 3

See Ph. d. Gr. i. 792. Ibid. i. 1010 sq.

4,

and supra,
5

It is

The expression is used

in

no

if

he

depreciatory sense, but as indieating the view that everything in the world is the effect of natural causes. 4 Top. i. 11, 105, a, 5, cf. Eth.
viii. 10,

sion
state,

vol. ii. p. 329, n. 3. possible, indeed, that had completed the discusof education in the best
s

Plato

he would have accepted doctrine, that myths were

indispensable in education, as with the easily reconcileable

1163,

b, 15, ix. 1,

1164, b,

argument.

334

ARISTOTLE
1

trace

universal truth embodied in them, just as he likes to back scientific assumptions to their most in

significant beginnings, and to pay respect to popular 2 But apart from the few uni sayings and proverbs.

versal principles of religion embodied in mythology, he ascribes to it no deeper significance; and just as little, on the other hand, does he seem to aim at its
purification.
3

He

religion,
1

just

as personally
i.

presupposes for his State the existing he did not renounce its
3,

Thus Metaph.

983, b,

27, c. 4 init. xiv. 4, 1091, b, 3.

iv. 1, 208, b, 29, hints of certain scientific views of the world are discovered in the cosmogonic myths of Hesiod and other poets Meteor, i. 9, 347, a, 5 the Oceanus is interpreted of the air-current that encircles the earth the myth of Atlas proves that its inventors, with later philosophers, attributed weight to the heavens (De Cwlo, ii. 1, 284, a, 18, in the treatise DC Motu Anim. 3, 699, a, 27, Atlas is interpreted to mean the world s axis the same treatise, c. 4, 699, b, 35, finds in Homer s lines upon the golden chain a reference to the immobility of the primum Aphrodite is said to movens)

Phys.

flute expresses the truth that this instrument is unnecessary for mental culture (Polit. viii. 6, 1341, b, 2); the worship of the Graces points to the necessity of reciprocity (Eth. v. 8, 1133, a, 2); the number three derives its signifi cance in the popular religion from the fact that it is the first num her which has beginning;, middle, and

threw away the

end (De
2

Thus,
ix.

Ccelo, //.

i.

1,

An.

268, a, 14). vi. 35, 580, a,

15,

32, 619, a, 18

he quotes
;

myths about animals in the fragment from the Eudemus (PLUT. Cons, ad Apoll. c. 27 fr. 40) he makes use of the story of Midas and Silenus on his pre
several
;

vol.

dilection for proverbs, i. p. 256, n. 2.

3

cf.

supra,

have obtained this name because

of the frothy character of the semen (Gen. An. ii. 2 Jin. }; Ares
29,

As

is

obvious from Polit.

9, c. 16,

was united with

this goddess by the first inventors of this myth because warlike natures, as a
rule, exhibit

amorous propensities
1269, b, 27)
;

which tells how the Argo nauts had to leave Heracles behind there lies a true political
a,

(Pol. fable

ii.

9,

in the

1329, a, 1335, so far in his zeal for religion as to as sign the fourth part of the land collectively to the priesthood for the support of religion cannot be
c. 12,

vii. 8,

1328, b, 11, c. 1331, a, 24,

b, 14.

But that he went

concluded (as has been suggested

in Ferienschr. N. F. i. 303) from Polit. vii! 10, 1330, a, 8. Ari stotle says indeed here that the land should be divided into pub-

observation (Polit. iii. 13, 1284, the story that Athene 22)
;

RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY

rites,

335

his dependence on friends and through the forms which it had consecrated but of the Platonic demand for the reform of religion
relatives
l ;

and expressed

Politics

by philosophy we have not a trace in him, and in his he admits into the existing cultus things which he
2 Aristotle s philosophy disapproves of in themselves. stands thus as a whole in the loosest relation to positive

religion. It takes

connection, but
little,

makes no further use

advantage of its ideas as links of literary of them. Just as

however, does it desire to see religion purified or reformed; on the contrary, it seems to accept its im
perfections as something which could not possibly be Each stands to the other in an attitude of otherwise.
essential

without

from

it

philosophy goes its own way, troubling itself about religion, or fearing any interruption in the prosecution of its own
indifference
;

much

work.
and private, and the latter again into two parts for the support of religion and the syssitia respectively, but he does not say that these parts should be of the
lie
?)

\6yovs
e<rra>

olv

rols apxovin
ei

wQev H^TG
irapa.

&ya\/j.a /x^re ypacprjv eTvot TOIOVTOW

n-paleo;?/
/LU/U.TJ<TJI

run

0eo?s TOIOVTOIS ols Kai

a.TroSi8ca<nv

rbv

T(aQa<r^bv

same
1

size.

reference the quotations on the subject of his votive offerings and gifts to the dead, in chap. i. ad Jin.
Cf.

in this

a(pin<nv

KIO.V

6 vS/j-os irpbs Se rovrots i vo^os rovs ex oi/ras irXtov irpo-riKovvav Kai vwep
6

"

o\vs

juev

Polit. vii. 17, 1336, b, 3 olv al<rxpo\oyiav e/c T?)S

:

avrSiv KO,\ TCKVUV Kai ywatKoev The latter Ti^aXfys iv TOVS Qeovs. admission clearly shows how Aristotle endeavoured to make

ecws,

faffirtp

dAAo n,
.

5eT

rbv

vo/j.o6<ETr)v

eopieiv

eVel 5e rb

iv TI

rS)v roiovTwj/

eopio/*v,
7)

things which he disapproved of and only unwillingly permitted, at least as harmless as possible.

(pavepbv

6n

Kai rb dfcapelv

ypatpas

336

ARISTOTLE

CHAPTER XVII
RETROSPECT

THE

peculiar traits of the Aristotelian philosophy are due to the fusion in it of the two elements to which
:

1 attention was called at the outset, namely the dialectic On the or speculative, and the empirical or realistic.

one hand the system finds the true essence of things to consist in immaterial form, true knowledge of them in
the apprehension of their concept on the other hand, it insists that the form should not be conceived of as a
;

transcendental idea existing apart from things, and that it is the individual, and not the universal notion or genus,
that
It therefore represents the ultimate reality. as the only source of concepts, which are experience obtained, not by turning away from the actual to an
is

ideal world, but

by apprehending
;

in their essence the

data of experience themselves thus, while pursuing the dialectic development of the concept, it unites with it Both traits a comprehensive observation of the facts.

have their roots equally in the intellectual capacity of its author, whose greatness just consists in this rare
union in equal measure of qualities which in most are found to be mutually exclusive of one another
!

men
:

the

Vol.

i.

p.

170 sqq.

RETROSPECT

337

faculty, namely, of philosophic thought and the power of accurate observation applied with living interest to the world of fact. Hitherto these elements have been

developing the concept had far outstript the power of appreciatinothe fact. They had directed attention to what is

combined in very different proportions in philosophy. In the school of Socrates and Plato the art of

inward in

man

to the neglect of the

itself as the
is

outward world,

and had regarded thought

for

immediate source

of our truth. Thought, that

to say, conceptions, stood

what was absolutely

certain, the criterion

by which

the truth of experience was to be tested. The strongest expression of, as well as the most remarkable deduction
from, this theory is to be found in the Platonic doctrine of Ideas. Aristotle indeed shares the general presup of this idealistic positions philosophy he also is con vinced that the essence of things is only known
;

by

thought, and consists only in that which is the object of our thought, or, in other words, in the form and not in the matter. He justly takes exception, however, to the
transcendental character of the Platonic Ideas. not conceive of the form and the essence as

He

can

separately from the things whose form they are. Keflecting further that our own conceptions are not independent of experience in their origin, he is
the
tion

existing and essence

more convinced of the error of the Platonic separa between the Ideas and the phenomena. In place,
view.

(then, of the

tially new

doctrine of Ideas he presents us with an essen It is not the genus but the individual

to Aristotle, constitutes the substantial jwhich, according Reality; the form does not exist as a universal from

VOL. n.

apart z

338

ARISTOTLE
it

the thing, but in

particular.

as the special form of this or that

While the general principle upon which the

is

Platonic Idealism

The
tal

development of it Idea, which Plato had conceived of as transcenden

thus retained, the special into the doctrine of Ideas is rejected.

is

founded

formative
world.

and supersensible, has a new place assigned to it as th( and efficient principle in the phenomenal

the inner essence of things, it is sought for ii the facts themselves, as these present themselves to us

As

The Aristotelian doctrine may thus in experience. described as alike the completion and the confutation
the Platonic.
It confutes
it
:

it

in the form

which Plat

same time it develops his still more fully and logically th; fundamental thought Plato himself had done, in that it attributes to form not and primary reality, but also only, with him, complete

had given

to

yet at the

creative force to produce all else that is real. Aristotle therefore, traces the potency of thought much deep

than Plato had been able to do throughout the

field

whol<

of

From

phenomena. this fundamental principle

all

the

leading

doctrines of the Aristotelian philosophy logically follow. Since the universal cannot exist apart from the indi

vidual

it

cannot form an independent reality by

itseli

And sine the individual alone has substantial reality. as absolute essem is conceived of, not the form
abstracted from phenomena, but as the efficient caus which works in them, it cannot stand as it does in
in a relation of
Plat<

mere opposition

to that

which

is tl

substratum of phenomena namely, matter. If form the absolutely real, matter cannot be the absolutely

RETROSPECT
real

339

and non-existent

for, in

order that form

may be

able

to realise itself in the matter, there

must

exist

between

the two a kinship or positive relation as well as the

apparent antagonism.
form,
it is

So matter

is

merely unrealised
is

the potentiality of which form

the actuality.

mutual relationship arises motion, and with it life, all growth and decay, all change and transmutation. But since the two principles of form and
this
all

From

natural

motion stand originally towards one another in a relation

of mere antagonism and opposition, this relation itself, or in other words motion, presupposes for form an absolute existence if it is the cause of all motion, it
;

must
if

itself

be unmoved, and precede

all

that

is

moved

not in order of time, at least in the logical order of From the sum of the forms which are em reality.

primum

distinguish the movens, or God, as pure form or pure reason Since all motions pro whose only object is itself.
therefore

bodied in matter

we must

form, they must all be striving towards a certain definite form as their goal.^ There is nothing in nature which has not its own indwelling end

ceed from

and since

all

motion leads

us

back to

primary

source of movement, the sum total of things is subor dinate to some highest end, and constitutes an organic whole in other words, an ordered world. But since
into that

form operates in matter which only gradually develops which it is destined to become, the formal

design can only realise itself under manifold restraints, and in conflict with the resistance of matter, atone time

with greater at another with less perfection. Ct p. 340 sqq., vol. i.

1

Thus the
z

340

ARISTOTLE

is composed of many parts, which vary infinitely in worth and beauty these again fall apart into the two great sections of heaven and earth, of which the former

world

exhibits a gradual diminution, the latter, contrariwise, But while all parts of a gradual increase in perfection.

the world

down to the most imperfect and insignificant are essential elements in the whole, still the definite and peculiar character of each has a claim upon our regard, and accordingly it is not less in harmony with the
of the system than with the personal inclina tions of its author to investigate great things and small

demands

alike with scientific thoroughness,

and to treat nothing with contempt as if it were insignificant and worthless for This does not, of course, exclude such degrees science. of importance among things themselves as Aristotle has
1

sought to point out in the sphere,

nature.

So among

example, of animate mundane beings the first place is

for

assigned to man, since in him alone spirit reveals itself

as spirit.

The

chief end of man, therefore, consists in

:

the cultivation and exercise of his spiritual capacities in other words, scientific knowledge and moral will are
the
essential
is

conditions

of happiness.

But

as
it

no
is

work

possible

without

appropriate material,

impossible for
into that

man

to dispense with external aids for

;

the realisation of his end

and

as all

things develop

which they are capable of becoming only

process,
so in the spiritual life of

by a gradual
is

man

exhibited a gradual process of development. there Thus from sense perception spring imagination and
1

PLATO

See on this head, vol. i. S statements noted, Ph.

p. 167, n. 3, p. 169, d. Gr. i. p. 665.

n.

3,

and also

RETROSPECT
memory, from these

341

arises thought; natural capacity precedes moral action, practice and habit precede moral knowledge; reason appears first as passive and as entangled in the lower faculties of the soul before it

realises itself as active in the purity of its being.

The

highest perfection of our spiritual life consists, however, in scientific contemplation, for here alone reason is in

immediate contact with the pure forms of things, while at the same time it is beyond question that reason cannot confine itself to the immediate knowledge of first principles, but methodically pressing forward from phenomena to conceptions, and tracing causes to their
effects,

must finally embrace the whole sphere of reality. This short survey has already shown us in the Ari
of which
are

stotelian system a well-planned doctrinal structure, the

outlines

drawn with

firm

hand in

accordance with one fundamental The care thought. and consistency with which the is executed down design to the minutest detail is manifest from the whole pre ceding account. It is nevertheless true that, as we have already had frequent occasion to remark, all the and the joints of the fabric are not equally secure ultimate source of this defect must be sought for in
;

the fact that the foundations of the whole have not been

Putting aside all those points which the want of experimental knowledge has led Aristotle to draw false conclusions and put forward un tenable explanations, and ourselves merely to limiting
in

laid sufficiently deep.

the

question of the self-consistency of his doctrine, without entering upon that of its absolute truth, we cannot deny that Aristotle has failed to unite the

342

ARISTOTLE

manner free from chief points of view in his system in a Just as in his scientific procedure self-contradiction.
dialectic
pirical

elements,

and observation, the speculative and the em are not equally balanced, but the

a priori method

common

to Socrates

and Plato con

1

itself over the more strictly empirical, tinually re-asserts in his metaphysical speculations we detect so also There is nothing in the a similar phenomenon. is so distasteful to him as which

Platonic
that

system dualism between Idea and phenomenon which in the doctrine of the abso expressed itself sharply
lute existence of the Ideas,

and of the non-reality of

His opposition to this dualism is the key-note of his whole reconstruction of the Platonic metaphysics and of the fundamental ideas peculiar to his own system. And yet, earnest and thorough as are his efforts to over
matter.

come

it,

he has not, after

all,

succeeded in doing

so.

He denies Plato s doctrine that universal class notions

but he asserts with possess substantial reality; are of the universal, and depend that all our conceptions 2 He their object. for their truth upon the reality of of the Platonic the transcendental character

him

combats Ideas and the dualism between Idea and phenomenon. funda But he himself leaves form and matter in a like to one another, in that he fails to trace mental
opposition

them back to a common source and the further develop the ment of these two principles involves him in
;

3 essence and sub contradiction of maintaining that the the same time stance of things is in the form, which at
2

See sup.

vol.

i.

p.

175 sq

p. 258, sqq.
cf. vol.
i.

Of. vol.

i.

p.

334 sqq.

On which

p.

372 sqq.

RETROSPECT
is

343

and therefore

a universal, and yet that the source of individuality also of substantiality must be the matter.

He takes exception to Plato s doctrine on the ground that his Ideas contain no principle of motion ; neverthe less his own account of the relation between form and
matter leaves
places
lest
all

actual motion equally unexplained.

;

He
but

God

as a personal being outside the world

he should derogate in anything from his perfection,

he thinks

it necessary to deny to him the essential conditions of personality. So, to escape involving him in the transmutations of finite things, he limits God s

operation (herein contradicting the more living idea of God which he elsewhere entertains) to the production
of motion in the outer cosmic sphere, and so pictures that activity to himself, as to assign spatial existence
to the Deity.

Connected with this

is

his conception of Nature.

the obscurity which surrounds In the spirit of antiquity he

describes Nature as a single being who operates with a purpose, as a rational all-efficient power and yet his
:

system supplies no subject of which these attributes Far as Aristotle has advanced may be predicated.
1

beyond the superficial teleology of Socrates and Plato, he has none the less failed actually to solve the opposi tion between physical and final causes 2 and while we must admit that the problem with which he is here face
;

to face is

one that

still

taxes our resources, and that

we

cannot therefore reproach him with having failed to solve it, it is yet curious to note how easily the two prin1

Cf.
i.

vol.

p.

with the above remarks 420 sq.

As

will be obvious
p.

from
17,

p.

358 sqq.

464 sqq. and p.

*/(/;.

344

ARISTOTLE
which he had posited

at the outset of his philo in the sequel become might mutually further contradictory and exclusive of one another.

ciples

sophy of nature
arises

difficulty

in

connection

with the Aristotelian

account of animate nature, and especially of man, as it is hard to discover any inner principle of union between the various elements of the and

inasmuch
harder

soul,

still

to explain the

phenomena
is

of

its life, if, like

every other moving force, the soul

held to be itself

unmoved.
of personal

The
life

difficulty,

however, becomes greatest

when we ask how we

the

are to

reason

comprehend in the unity of man and the lower

faculties of his soul, and to determine the share of the former in his spiritual acts and states how we are to
;

conceive of what

same
the
its

passive and incorporeal as at the time part of a soul which by its very definition is
is

entelechy of the body, and to assign to personality place between the two constituent parts of human nature of which the one transcends it while the other
sinks below
it.
1

Turning finally to

his

Moral Philosophy, we find that

here also Aristotle strove with

much

success to correct

the one-sidedness of Socrates and Plato.

He

not only

contradicts the Socratic doctrine that Virtue

is

Know

ledge, but sets aside also Plato s distinction between

To him, all moral ordinary and philosophic Virtue. are a matter of the Will, and have their qualities primary source not in instruction but in habit and education.
Nevertheless in the account of the intellectual virtues
there reveals itself an unmistakable
1

vacillation as to

P. 119 sqq.

RETROSPECT

345

the relation in which moral knowledge stands to moral action, while in the preference for theoretic over
practical activity (which follows indeed quite logically from the Aristotelian doctrine of the soul) there reap pears the same presupposition which lay at the root of the
l

very views that Aristotle controverted.

in
in
life,

So, too, even

his political

its insight other respects into the actual conditions of social

philosophy, however deep

its

and however great

superiority to Plato

s politi

cal idealism,
if

we yet

find

remnants of the old idealism

in the picture of the best State, yet in that distinction between true and false forms of

not so

much

government the untenableness of which becomes manifest by the ambiguous position which the doctrine
itself assigns to
2

polity.

every part

of the Aristotelian

There thus runs through system that dualism

had inherited from Plato, and which, with the best intentions, it never succeeded, after it had once
it

which

accepted

it

as one

of

its

wholly overcoming. hand, Aristotle strives to transcend this dualism, and the more unmistakable the contradictions in which he
involves himself

The more

fundamental principles, in earnestly, on the other

by

his efforts, the clearer

it

becomes

how heterogeneous

are the elements which are united

how difficult the problem which Greek philosophy had to face when once the opposition between idea and phenomenon, spirit and nature, had been brought so clearly and sharply into view as it was
in his philosophy, and
in the Platonic doctrine.
Cf. p. 142 sq., supra, and the proposition (p. 396, vol. i.) that only theoretic activity belongs
1

God which Aristotle expressly applies to Ethics. 2 See p. 243, supra.

to

346

ARISTOTLE
Whether
Aristotle provided the

torily solving this problem,

means of satisfac and what attempts in this

later schools, it will
it

direction

were made by the

be the

task of this work to investigate as

early followers

proceeds.

Those

foundations

who continued to build on Aristotelian and who belonged to the Peripatetic school,

to the

could not be expected to find a more satisfactory answer main problem than Aristotle himself had suc

ceeded in finding. Aristotle s own conclusions were much too deeply rooted in the fundamental presuppositions of his system to permit of their being altered without a
reconstruction of the whole.

Yet on the other hand,

thinkers so keen and independent as the men of this school continued to be, could not shut their eyes to the
difficulties of

the Aristotelian doctrine, and

fore natural that they should devise

it was there means of escaping

them.

since these difficulties ultimately arose from the fact that idealism and observation, a spiritual and a

But

had been united without being com was im pletely reconciled, and since such a reconciliation on the given premises, there was noway of solving possible
naturalistic view,

the contradiction but by the suppression of one of its terms. It was, however, to be expected in the circum stances that the scientific should obtain the preference

over the dialectic element, for it was the former that constituted the distinguishing characteristic of the
Aristotelian school in opposition to the Platonic, and the

new

interest thus implanted in it by its founder naturally exercised a stronger fascination than the older doctrine of Ideas which had been handed down by the common

tradition from Socrates

and Plato.

It

was just

this

RETROSPECT
side of the Aristotelian

347

be expected system which might

those who gave their allegiance to the chiefly to attract and so to have an undue prominence later
philosophy,
it

assigned to
ideas.

The

in subsequent deductions from Aristotelian further development of the Peripatetic

Its most school corresponds to this expectation. the immediately succeeding period portant result in

im
was

more to bring the purely naturalistic view of the world to the neglect of the spiritual and more into prominence,
side of things.

348

ARISTOTLE

CHAPTER

XVIII
I

THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL

THEOPHRASTUS

AMONG
2

the numerous

pupils of the Stagirite,

first place.
1

Theo

phrastus occupies the

Born

at Eresos in

Lesbos, he came early (perhaps even before the death of Plato) into connection with Aristotle, 3 from whom in
1

DlOG.

v.

35
fj.zv

rov

81]

pirov ytyovaai

iro\\ol yvupiftoi,

SlMPL. Phys. 225, a. and TWV ApicrroTeAous eT w id. Cater/. Schol. in Ar. 92, b, 22 rbv apiarov ruv avrov fj.adr)Tuv rbv Qe6(pp. That he was actually so is evident from all that we know of Theo:

Theophrastus, like Aristotle him self, remained a member of the Academy until the death of Plato, and after that event con tinued with Aristotle. From
several indications, moreover, we gather that Theophrastus was with Aristotle in Macedonia; for

unreliable as

is
iv.

ment
makes

( V.

H.
all

phrastus and

AELIAN S state 19) that he was

by

his position in the Peripatetic School. 2 He is constantly called Epcffios. According to PLUT. Adv. Col. 33, 3, p. 1126; N.p. suav. vlvi

highly

esteemed
it

Epic. 15, 6, p. 1097, he had delivered his native city twice from Tyrants. No particulars, however, are given, and we are not in a position to test the his torical character of the state
sec.

that he was thenes, whom he could only have come to know at that time, and that he lamented his tragic end
in a
-jrepl

Philip, it certain a friend of Callis-

the more

work

entitled KaAAio-fleVrjs ^

(Cic. T-usc. iii. 10, 21, v. 9, 25; DIOG. v. 44 ; ALEX. JDe An. 162, bjin.). The posses

-jrtvQovs

ment.

According to DIOG. v. 36 he attended at Eresos the in structions of a citizen called

first

a property at Stagira (DlOG. v. 52) and the repeated mention of this town, and of the
sion of
in it, also go to prove that he was there at the same time as Aristotle. The expres sion which the latter is said to

museum

Alcippus, elr aKOVffas FIAaTcoi/os [this is chronologically possible] lUereo TT? irpbs ApHTTOTeXyv by which it can only be meant that

have used with regard to him and Callisthenes (DlOG. 39) is all the

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTVS

1

349

Before his death point of age he was not far removed. Aristotle committed to his charge not only his private

but also his School, which he had probably already handed over to him on his departure from Athens. 3 Under Theophrastus the school grew even
affairs

more

suspicious as it is also attributed to Plato and Isocrates (see Ph. d. Gr. i. 842, 1). Similarly the assertion that Theophrastus was originally called Tyrtamus, and received the name eJ^pafrom Aristotle on account of
<TTOS

these statements, Apollodorus moreover, make him older than Aristotle, and much too old to be destined by the latter (see follow ing note) as the husband of his daughter, who was not yet grown
;

up.

According to Diog., Theo

;

his graceful style (STEABO, xiii. ClC. Orat. 19, 62 2, 4, p. 618 QUINTIL. Inst. x. 1, 83 PLIN.
; ;

H. Nat. praef. 29; DIOG.

SUID. 0eo
17,
4>p.

phrastus s birth falls between 373 and 368 B.C. he was there fore from eleven to sixteen years

38;

AMMON. De Interpr.
V.

younger than Aristotle.

b, and OLYMPIOD.
:

Plat. p.

1) is justly called in question

BRANDIS,
1

iii.

251,

by and MEYEE

He begs Theophrastus, along with some others, until Nicanor can interest himself in the matter,
2

(Gesch. der jBotanik, i. 147). The year of Theophrastus s birth and death can only be determined approximately. Ac cording to APOLLODORUS (Diog. 58) he died Ol. 123 (288-284 B.C.), but the year is not given that it was the third year of the Olympiad (BR^NDIS, iii. 254;
;

Kal eV5e x?7Tcu aura!, r&v re iratSzW Kal EpTruAAiSos ital TUV KoraAe-

and in case Nicanor, whose wife he had destined his daughter Pythias, should die
AeiyU^eWj/,

for

Strat. 7), and that he was himself the head of the school for thirty-five (BEANDIS ibid.) or thirty-six (RiTTEE
iii.

NAUWERCK, De

408) years is mere conjecture. OG. 40 gives his age as eighty-

and this is far more prob able than the statement of the spurious letter prefixed to Theo phrastus s Characters, that he composed this treatise at the age of ninety-nine, and of HIERONYfive,

before the marriage took place, he enjoins upon him the duty of marrying her in his stead and becoming the guardian of her younger brother. (See his Will, DIOG. v. 12, 13.) Theophrastus actually undertook the education of the latter, as he also after wards did that of the sons of Py thias (see p. 20, n. 3, vol. i. DIOG. 53 SEXT. Math. i. 258), and his affection for him gave occasion to one Aristippus, irepl iraXaias
; ;

MDS (Ep. 34 Ad

Tpv\l/7)s, to accuse him of erotic relations with him (DiOG. 39). In his Will (ibid. 51 sq.) Theo

Nepotian. iv. b, 258 Mart., where our text has Themistoclem instead of Theoirastum ), that he was 107, for follows log. probably here

phrastus leaves directions for the execution of pictures of Ari

stotle
3

and Nicomachus.
n. 1.

See p 37, and p. 39,

350

ARISTOTLE
flourishing,
for

more
dency

and when, after holding the presi 2 more than thirty-four years, he died, honoured
1

in spite of
4

many
left it

hostile attacks

both at home and

endowment the garden and the abroad, he 5 Nor hall in which henceforth it had its settled abode.
as an
re ls a.TT f)VTcav DlOG. 37 1-V Siarpi^V avrov /xaflrjTal Trpbs
1
:

5iff Xi \iovs.

If
life

that he had this

his

whole

this is meant number during we must suppose

by

haps Zeno s expres popular subject. sion (PLUT. Prof, in Virt. c. 6 De se ipso laud. c. fin. p. 78; 6 tKeivov xopbs pel&v, *17, p. 545)
6
e jubs
2

that the inner circle of his stu dents is referred to; if he had them all at one time it can only have been at single lectures, per on rhetoric or some other

and in the matter of the law of Sophocles (cf. also ATHEN. xiii. 610, e: KEISCHE, Forscli. 338), which made the consent of the Senate and people necessary for the opening of a philosophical
this),

8e (Tvp.Quj tTepos refers to

law (prob. ann. 306-5), all the philosophers, and among them Theophrastus, left Athens it is said to have been chiefly regard for him which caused its repeal and the punishment of its author; DlOG. 37 sq., cf. ZUMPT, Ueber den He-stand der pltilos.
Sclmlen in AtJien, AM. der Berl. Aliad. liist.-pUL Kl. 1842, 41 sq. DlOG. 39 Ae^ercu 8 avrbv
r>

school. of this

When,

in

consequence

the

number

of his students.

See p. 349, n. 1, supra. 3 See following note. Of the besides Epicurus Epicureans

KTJTIW

(rxeT

himself (PLUT. adv. Col. 7, 2, the hetaera Leontium p. 1110) CiC. N. aiso wrote against him
;

TOV

4*aA7jpecos

rouro
Kal

<rvfj.Trf

IOJ/TOS.

Theophrastus
8e
KTITTOV

s will,

i\

I),

i.

33, 93.

4 Of foreign princes Cassander and Ptolemy, according to DIOG. 37, gave him proofs of their esteem to the former of whom was dedicated a treatise the genuineness of TT. j8a<nAeuxs, which, however, was doubted by some (DlOG. 47 DIONYS. Antlmdtt. v. 73 ATHEN. iv. 144, e).
;

rbv irarov Kal ras oiKias ras

52

rbv

KTJTTOJ Tracras Si Sco^u

r&v

fyiXwv del roTs jSouAo^ueVoiS A^Ceii Kal ffv/j.(f)i\offo(f)G iv eV aura; Tracrjf dv6/ (e7reiS?57rep ou SuvaTbj/
TTOtS

del

CTTtSTJ^
JU.TJT

rpiovffi

e|i

dAA
. .

ebs

&v tepbv
Se

eo TCoa ai

Koij/p 01 k.uiyvawui -ic*

The esteem in which he was held at Athens was shown at his burial (DlOG. 41), as also pre matter of the viously in the accusation of impiety brought which against him by Agnonides, AEfailed completely (perhaps to LIAN, F. H. viii. 12, relates

"iTnrapxos

probable that the sanctuary of the Muses, de 51 sq., with its two scribed chambers, in one of which were hung the Trivatcts eV als al rrjs 77}*
&c.
It is

the elffiv, belonged to buildings here mentioned. Froi the words, 39,
TrepioSoi

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

351

were his services to the Peripatetic doctrine less con In creative power of intellect he is not spicuous. indeed to be compared with Aristotle. But he was in
fitted for the work of strengthening, and completing the system which the latter extending had left behind him. The interest in science by which he was governed even to excess, and which led him to

an especial degree

subordinate

all

other concerns to

its

peaceful pursuit and

even to forego the pleasures of the family life; l the insati able thirst for knowledge which drew from him even

when dying complaints

of the shortness of

human

life

2
;

the industry which scarcely relaxed in extreme old age the penetration, conspicuous even in what has come
3
;

ffTore\ovs
ibid.

reAeurV ZUMPT

infers,

31

sq.,

that Aristotle

had

previously possessed this garden, and that as it was to be sold after his death Demetrius man aged that it should be trans ferred to Theophrastus. BRANDis (iii. 253) considers this infer ence a rash one, but also sup poses that Aristotle taught in a

According to ATHEN. v. 186, a 402, Dind.), Theophrastus (i. left behind him also means to provide common meals for mem
bers of the school.

That Theophrastus was still unmarried at the time of Ari stotle s death is obvious from the
1

house and garden of his own in the Lyceum. We have no infor mation, however, on this point yet the opposite cannot, after what has been said p. 38, vol. i., be inferred with any certainty from the fact that Aristotle s will makes no mention of any such property. Even the words upon which ZUMPT relies, if they have any special force, may with equal reason be held to imply
;

will of the latter (see p. 349, n. that he remained so is 2, sujfra) obvious from his own and from the total absence of any state ment to the contrary, The reason
;

why he
state
i.

disdained the married he himself gives us in the fragment in HIEEON. Adv Jovin.
.

47, iv. b, 189, Mart., hereafter to

be discussed, where he dissuades the philosopher from it, chiefly on the ground that it brings with it disturbances incompatible with the scientific life.
2

that the Peripatetic school did not become the owner of property till after Aristotle s death. It is most probable, therefore, that Aristotle did not give his in
structions in a garden of his own.

Cic. Tusc.
;

iii.

28, 69;
JBjrist.

DIOG.
24
8)/

v.

41
3

HIERON.
iv. b,

Ad
y-rj-

Nepotian.
.
.

258 Mart. DlOG. 40: ereAeuro

.

paibs TUV irovuv.

TTi5r]irep

b\(yov

d^7j/ce

352

ARISTOTLE
to

that grace of lan writings the fame of which survived him, delivery, as well as the independence of his outward circum

down

us

of

his

guage and
stances
2

and the possession of

all

for the prosecution of his learned labours

the requisite means 3 all these

must have contributed

in a high degree to

promote his

The success as a scientific investigator and teacher. numerous writings which he left behind him as a monu
ment to his diligence extend to every part of the field 4 To us only a small of knowledge that was then open.
1

Of.

besides
:

the
quit
.

passages
: .
.

Mention
of

is

made

of

his

quoted Clc.Brut.3l, 121

supra, p. 348, n. 3 Jin.

library,

Theo:

Tusc. v. 9, 24 plirasto dulcior ? hie autem elegantisximus omnium pliUosoplioru tn et eruditissimus. In his case, as in Aristotle s, this merit belongs chiefly to his

which Aristotle s constituted the ground floor, in STRABO, xiii. 1, 54, p. (508, and
;

in his will (DiOG. 52

3,

ATHEN.

i.

a,

where TOVTOW shows that

s

Theophrastus

name has

fallen

popular writings, and especially to the dialogues, which, like Ari stotle s, are described as exoteric
(see p.
Ill,
n.
2,

out after that of Aristotle). O. KIRCHNER, Die Botan. Sehr. d.

3,
i.

vol.
p.

i.).

54 Cous. complains that the intro ductions in them do not hang to gether with the main content. Ac
fin.

PROKL. In Farm.

Theophr. (Jalirb. f. Pkilol. Su/pplementbd. vii. 1874, p. 4(52 sqq.), makes it appear probable from Theophrastus s botanical works that besides many parts of Greece and Macedonia he had visited

cording to
i.

HERMIPPUS (ATHEN.

was excessive and

21, a) his personal adornment his delivery

Lower Egypt, perhaps also Southern Thrace, and the coast of Asia Minor, and thus added
Crete,

the knowledge of foreign coun

tries to his other

too theatrical. Frequent men tion is made of his witticisms, Conv. ii. 1, 9, 1, v. e.g. PLUT. Qu.
5, 2,
c.

means

of re

search.

7 (vii. 10, 2, 15)

c.

10 (Cupid. Div.
2

8,

Lycwrg. p. 527;
304).

Hermippus and Andronicus had made lists of his works (see

4

p. 49, n. 4, vol.

i.

PLUT. Sulla,
Vit.

PORPH. De Abstin.

iv.

4, p.

26;
;

cf.

PORPHYR.

Plotini,

We may

opulence v. 51 sqq.). which speci considerable property in land, slaves, and money, although the 59 total amount of the last (

tus s

infer Theophrasfrom his will

(DiOG.

24) DIOG. v. 42-50 has presented to us one (upon which cf. the minute investigations of USE-

fies

Analecta TJieophrastea, Leipsic, 1858, 1-24; and on the treatises oil logic which it con

NER,

sq.) is not stated.

tains,

PRANTL,

(resell,

der Log.

i.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

portion
of these
1

353

multitudinous
a

two on botany,
350).

works remains the few shorter treatises on natural

:

This

list

not only omits

trius

Poliorcetes

some known writings (USENER,

but follows a strange After two alphabetical which the second is lists, of the clearly supplementary to
21
sq.)

(01.

118,

order.

first,

but both of which probably

the archonship of Simonides (01 117 2) iv. 8, 2, to the expedition of Ophelias (01 118, 1), ix. 4, 8, to King Antigonus. Hist. PI v. 8,
B.C.), vi. 3, 3, to
1, also refers to the period subsequent to the conquest of Cyprus by Demetrius Poliorcetes (DiODOfius, xx. 47 sqq. 73 sqq.) and was therefore written after

306

give only those of the writings of Theophrastus which were to be found in the Alexandrine or some other great library, follow

two more supplements; the

first

01.

118,
sq.)

2.

of these is not arranged according to any definite principle, the

322

(Cf. BRANDIS, iii. SIMPLICITY S stateI,

second,
It is

if

we exclude some
is

in-

again alphabetical, not improbable that this Usener thinks, is Herlist, mippus s, come to us (cf. KOBE, Arisl. Libr. Auct. 43 sq.) through Favorinus, from whom DIOG.
as

sertions,

a, that Ariof plants partly historically and partly setioloically can hardly refer to these

ment,

Phys.

stotle tieated

two works, and is the

marked,
vol.
i.

less

tant since SIMPL. (as already rep. 93, n. 2),

impor-

immediatcly before (v. 41) quotes Hermippus, and whose name is

before PLATO S will (iii. 40). How far the writings here enumerated are genuine we have scarcely any means of judging
;

also introduced before the list of ARIST. S writings (v. 21) and

had no personal acquaintance with Aristotle s treatise upon plants. In the two works ot Theophrastus,
besides many corruptions in the a number of text, there are lacunae. In the IT. aln&v the last sections (perhaps two books, since DIOG. 46 speaks of the treatise as consisting of eipht) are lost unmistakably
<pvr>v

USENER,

that a few of

of Arithmetic, perhaps also the ^ History of Theological Opinions, v. 48, 50) to Eudemus. belonged^ 1 n. Qvrav tarroplas nine books; 0wrw//amj/six books. Ithasal-

makes it probable them (the History Geometry, Astronomy, and

p. 17,

(cf

SCHNEIDER,
232
sqq.).

Tlieoplir.
.

Opp.

v.

The ascription

DIOG. 46 of ten books to the

Icrropia is

by

perhaps to be explained

by the supposition that one of those which we have (SCHNEIDER,

ibid,

thinks

the

ready been shown (supra,

93, n. 2), that these

fourth,

vol.

i.

p.

works are by Iheophrastus and hot by Aristotle; in determining the date of their composition we have further
to

which certainly has a break, c. 12 Jin.) was divided in some

manuscripts; contrariwise the fact that Hist. viii. 4, 5 and ix. 18, 2 are quoted by APOLLON. Mirab. 33, 41, as "respectively

take into

consideration

the

allusions, Hist.

PL

v. 2, 4,

to the

from

and

77

destruction of

Megara by Deme-

to the loss of

irepl QVTUV points one of the earlier

VOL.11.

AA

354
1

ARISTOTLE

2 fragments of a work on metaphysics and of 3 the important history of physics (which seems to have been the treasure-house from which later tradition chiefly

science,

books or
another.

combination with the other hand, the view that the ninth book of the botanical treatise did not originally belong to it ( WIMMER,
its

On

Theoplir.
ix.) is

Hist.

Plant.

1842, p.

by

with good reason rejected KIRCH NEK, De Theoplir.

:

Metaphysical aporite, with regard to which we do not know whether they belonged to a more comprehensive work or merely to Ac an introductory treatise. cording to the scholium at the end, the work of which they were a part was not included
either

Libr. Pltytol. 34 sqq. it is known as part of the treatise not only to DiOG. (ibid.) but to APOLLON., who in c. 29 quotes
ix. 13,
c.

by Hermippus

or

by An-

3; 20, 4, c. 31, ix. 17, 4, 41, ix. 18, 2, c. 48, ix. 11, 11, c. 50, ix. 17, 3 (here expressly as
TTJS

dronicus in their lists but quoted by Nicolaus (of Damascus). On the manifold corruptions of its text, see besides the edd. of

BEANDIS

the eVxarrj
is

Trpay/J-areias)

it

MctapU. 308 sqq.) and WIMMER (Frag in. No 12), USENER in the
Rliein. M-u-s. xvi 259 sqq. 3 This work is called

(Arist.

et

TlieopJir.

unmistakably referred to in the sixth book De Cans. Plant., even quoted ii. 6, 4 (cf Hist. ix.
.

times

(pVCTlKr)

tlTTOpia

some (ALEX.
o.),
;

i.

18, 10), its contents are forecast 8, 8 ; 2, 2 12, 1, and in 1, 4

; ;

apud SIMPL. Phys.

25, a,

19, 1, it refers back earlier books. Similarly

itself to

the

MEYER

(Gesch. d. Botanik,

i.

176 sq.)

sometimes fyvaiKa. (DiOG. ix. 22 SIMPL. De Ccelo, Schol. in Ar. 510, a, 42; STOB. KM. i. 522), elsewhere fyvaiKal 8J|cu (DiOG. v.
48),
irepl

and BRANDIS,

sq., are the right in again setting aside view that the sixth book De Causis PI. could be a separate work or wholly spurious. Even
iii.

32

(pvGiK&v (ibid. 46),

IT.

rS>v

tyvffiK&v

(ALEX. Metapli.
a, 8 bk.),
vi. 8,
TT.
TO>J>

24, 4;
fy

Bon. 536,
5o|i/

(TAUEUS apud PHILOP.

DIOG.

Adv. Prod.

the remarks upon the

seven,
finds
c.

number

4,

1,

2,

which Brandis

v, 27). 46, assigns to it eighteen hooks, v, 48, 16. USENER, Anal. Tlieophr.

strange, contain nothing surprising; Aristotle had already counted seven primary colours and seven tastes corresponding to

30 sqq., has collated the frag ments of it but the treatise

;

irepl cuo-0770-ecos

Kal

al<TQt}T(av

(WlM

the seven notes

p.

(see supra, vol.

i.

518, n. 3), and a statement similar to that which is here made about the number seven, is to he found in TH.EOPW&.DeVe?itis(F\\ 49, about the number three.
r

which Philippson deals with, uArj avdpcaTrivr) (1831), 81 sqq. (cf. USENER, ibid. 27)

MEE,

fr.

1),

seems also to have belonged

5),

On the other hand, the su a position that the extract PHILO. JEtern. m. c. 23-27, p. 51
it.

See SCHNETDEE, Opp.

ii.

647
his

WIMMEE, vol. sqq. edition (1862).

of

Mang., is taken from (UsENER,p. 38; BERN AYS, TJi phrast. ub. Frommigk. 46)
sqq.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

drew
its
l

355

accounts of the earlier physicists ) besides a The Characters are only an incomplete extract, with several foreign

number of other fragments. 2

additions,

probably from Theophrastus s treatise upon Ethics. 3 The chief feature of the scientific labours of Theophrastus,
so
far

as these

are

known

to

us,

is

the

endeavour to complete the compass and define more

sharply the

contents

of Aristotelian

doctrine.

The

fundamental principles of the system suffer no change and are not unfrequently stated in the very words of
Aristotle. 4

Theophrastus, however, exerts himself to develop his doctrine as completely as possible on every side, to increase the number of scientific and ethical
not commend itself for a dog matic and polemical discussion with Zeno the Stoic (as ZELLER has shown this to be in HERMES, xi. 422 sqq.) can have formed no part of an historical work, nor does it at all resemble the treat ise TT. ala-O^a-fws, either in tone or treatment. In the first book of the la-Topia THEOPHR. (as is shown in the Abhandl. d. Berl. Altad. 1877, p. 150 sqq.) had given a review of the prin
;
<$>V<TIK}I

phrast. Schrift iiber Frommigrecovered from keit) cleverly PORPHYRY S De Abstinentia.

The was

treatise on indivisible lines also attributed to him,

perhaps rightly. By some even ARIST. S Politics (see vol. ii. supra
p. 204, n. 2)

phrastus.
tises

was referred to Theo More recent writers

have attributed to him the trea upon colour (SCHNEIDER, iv. 8fi4, who, however, considers

ciples of earlier philosophers, in which he connected his work with the first book of ARIST. S

them only a portion of a larger work; on the other side see PRANTL, Arist. v. d. Farben, 84 sq.), upon Melissus, Xenophanes
ic. (on this see Ph. d. Gr.
sqq.).
3
i.

On this and on the ethical be found in H. DIELS writings of Theophrastus see in recent work, Doxograplti Gr^ci, fra. 4 as also ibid. p. 473 sq. the As among others, KIRCHNER, Jalirb. f. Philol. Supplefragments of the tyvcriKal So cu. 2 To those collected in Wim- mentb. vii. 532 sqq. has shown mer must be added chiefly the in respect of the botanical remainder of the treatise Trepi works. s, which BERNAYS (TllCOceive, will

Metaphysics. Fuller proof of this fact, which he was the first to per
1

476

A A

356

ARISTOTLE

rules to particular observations, to apply the Aristotelian which had been overlooked by cases, especially to those

con Aristotle, to correct the vagueness of particular His sta-rtingand to set them in a clear light.
1

ceptions

point

is

experience.

As

Aristotle in all his investiga

tions had taken his stand upon the firm ground of fact and had established even the most universal conceptions the basis of a comprehensive induction, Theo-

upon

phrastus also observation in

is

convinced that we must begin with

order to
attain
to

true

conceptions.

Theories must coincide with the data of experience, and we start with the consideration of the they will do so if
individual;

the material which perception furnishes to its own ends thought may either straightway apply to or by solving the difficulties which experience brings 3 Natural science, utilise for future discoveries.
2

light

may

Cf.

BOETH. De Interpr.
lit

p.

<pai>ep6i>.

f]

yap

292

Tlicoplirastus,

solet,

tractat,

ante

verbis iisdeni aliquibus tione Ariutitur, quibus in hoc libra

stoteles
<fe

tractate sunt, in libra et negaqnoque de affirmations

quwn de qua scilicet ab

in aliis similibus rebus

Aristotele

ras ras
alrias
eiVeli/
iai/oia,

TOX
us
air\u>s

ra

p.ev

frrovcra
8t
i)S

airopiav
Sui/rjrai

epyao/j.i>Tf),

irpopaiveiv, TI $cas eV /J.rj

r<

usus est

in omnibus
.

eTrl

TT\fov.

Ibid. 25

enim, quibus ipse disputat post ea tangit, qua maijistruw, leviter ab Aristotele dicta ante cognovit,

oiiv

Tivbs

alriov

deupeiv,
ii.

Svvd/jLeOa Si apxas aTrb rcav

alffdriffeuv

\afj.$a.voi>T*s.

CLEMENS,
5e
rr/v

ab alias vero diligentius res non Aristotele tractatas escsequitur.

2

Strom,
airb

362,

e^p.

Cans.

PL
7

i-

1,

Qai rovs

7*P \6yovs rols

=

aiffQ^ffiv

apxw

elvat Tritrrews

^ffiv
rbv

yap ravrris at apx a ^ \6yov T^V eV rj/juv Kal rr]V

eKTeivovTai.
:

"TP^S

Stavotai

6:

Gtwpovai

ffv^cavos
ii.

\6yos TWV
Trepl

yiyvofjLevwv.
i>

3,

8e

T&V

rols

SEXT. Math. vii. 217 Aristotle and Theophrastus have two criteria, aiffQi)<nv pcf 8e rwv vot\alffBriTcav, Kowfo 8e a^orepcoj/, ruv
TU>V

v6-t]<nv

&>s

6<pp.,

TO tvapyes.

iVfe

(Metaph.),

19

TO 8e

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

357

moreover, must rest upon perception because it lias to do wholly with corporeal substance. 1 Theophrastus
accordingly keeps this principle steadily in view. Where universal laws fail to explain particular facts, he does

not hesitate to refer us back to experience 2 where no complete certainty is possible he will content himself, 3 like Plato and Aristotle, with mere where
;

probability

more exact proofs fail,

to his aid, 4

he, like his master, brings analogy but he warns us at the same time not to

carry

analogy too far

or

to

mistake the

peculiar

5 phenomena, just as Aristotle had laid down as a fundamental axiom that everything must

characteristics of

6 be explained upon principles peculiar to itself. cannot say, in truth, that Theophrastus has entirely renounced the comprehensive and universal points of

We

view

but his

own

inclinations

and

scientific researches

Fr. 18

eirel

5e OVK avev u.ev

rovs

KLvrjo-ews

irdvra

evbs ovSe^ irepl yap ev Kiv^aei

Ae/creW,

ra
irepl

TT?S

Qvo-ews,^
peffov, els

avev
oi>x

Se

aXXoiwriKTJs

Kal

TraflTjTt/ojs

inrep

ruv
irepl

rb

ravra re Kal
ol6v

rovrwv
ravrr\s

Xeyovras ovx
rrjv
aJarOrjffiv,

re Kara\nre7v

aAA

awb

Treipao-6ai xp*l Oewpelv, apxofj.evovs^ ra (paivo/aeva Xa/nftdvovras /ca0 eavra, ?) aTrb rovrcav, ef rives

apa

Kvpuarepai
I

Kal

Trp6repai

rovrcav

SlMPL. Pkys. 5, a, natural science cannot arrive at the complete certainty of knowaAA OVK ar iu.a(rr eov Sia ledge rovro tyvaioXoyiav aAA apKe iffdai xpb r V K Ta rfyv ^fMerepav xP n ffLV Kal Svva/j.iv, ws Kal eo^pacrTaj So/ce?. Cf. also supra, vol. i. p. 167 sq. 4 See Cans. PL iv. 4, 9-11 ; Hist. i. 1, 10 sq. 5 Hist. i. 1, 4 we must be;

"PX

ai
2

Cans. ii. dAA ev 4, 8 ro?s KaOeKao-ra rb aKpifies u.a\\ov tvcas alo-OrjriKTis Selrai o-vveaecas, Ao ycfj Se OVK evpapes Cf
:

PL

ware of comparing plants with

animals in every respect. ravra /j.ev ovrcas vTro\r)irreov ov pdvov els ra vvv ctAAa Kal
/neXXovrcav \o.piv
offa
&<rre

r<av

a^opiVat.

Hist.
j I

i.

3,

5.

The differences
species
Sia
Sr?
;

re

acpou-oiovv

between
wfTTrep

yap /n^ oiov irepiepyov rb y\ixe-

botanical

somewhat vague
?
opqu

are ravra

o-0ai irdvrus, iva

ti

Kal r^v oiKe .av

i.

a.irofia.XXwu,ev dewpiav.

Xeyo^ev OVK aKpL/3o\oyTr]Teov

See mflra,

vol.

p.

249, n.

dAAa

r$

rvircp

\rjirreov

1, 2, 3.

358

ARISTOTLE

have an unmistakable bias in the direction of particulars rather than fundamental principles.
the method which Theophrastus and, follow ing him, Eudemus have adopted in their treatment of While holding fast by Aristotelian principles, logic.

This

is

they have permitted themselves many divergences in detail. In discussing the Conception, for instance,
1

Theophrastus refused to admit that

to the

all

contraries belong

same genus. 2 The doctrine of the Judgment, again, to which both Eudemus and he devoted separate 3 received at their hands various additions, treatises, which, however, so far as we know, were of no great
4

importance.

They introduced a

slight

change in the

i.

Of. PEANTL, Gesch. der Log. 346 sqq., who, however, seems to undervalue the contributions
1

Arist. 146, a, 24; GALEN, ibid. On their other logical treatises cf.

supra, vol.
p. 350,
6,
4

i.

p. 64, n.

1..
i.

PEANTL,
6
Ji n.
ii.

of Theophrastus and Eudemus to Logic. 2 Cf. fr. 15 (SiMPL. Categ. Schol. in Ar. 89, a, 15). 105, a
;

and Eth. End.

b, 37, c.

1222,
his

10, 1227, a, 10.

Theophrastus distinguishes
TT. treatise /caro^ao-ews different meanings of

in

ALEX, on MetapJi.

1018, a, also supra, vol. i. p. 224, n. 3. 3 in the treatTheophrastus

;

25

between
irpoTacris

(ALEX. Anal. Pr.

5,

a,

ises irepl

KaTatyda-ews
;

Kal a?ro(/)a-

ffeuis (DiOG. 44, 46 ALEX, in Anal. Pr. 5, a, m, 21. b, m, 124, a, 128; Metaph. 653, b, 15; GALEN, Libr. Propr. 11, xix. 42, K; BOETH. Ad Arist. de Interpr. 281, 286, 291, 327, Schol. in Ar. 97, a, 38, (Biile) PEANTL, 350, 4), IT. 99, b, 36 Ae lecos (DiOG. 47 DIONYS. Hal.
;
;

124, a; Top. 83, a, Similar distinctions are from the same treatise quoted and that TT. TOV rioAAaxws (which was probably on the model of Aristotle s see sup. vol. i. p. 76 sq.); Eudemus noticed the predicative force of the verb to be in exis.

ibid.

189, a.

Comp. Verb.
TU>V

p.

212, Schaf.),
ffToixeitw

IT.

TOV
)8,

\6yov

(as

353, 23. in SIMPL. Categ. Bale, rightly emends), As to Eudemus, TT. Aeneas, see ALEX. Anal. Pr. 6, b, in Metaph. 566, b, 15, Br. Anon. Schol. in

PEANTL,

tential propositions (Anon. Schol. in Arist. 146, a, 24, and for another remark of Eudemus on the verb to be see ALEX. Anal. Pr. 6, b, m). Theophrastus called particular propositions indeter-

3,

minate (see

and BOETH. De Interpr. 340, m Schol. in WAITZ, Ar. Orcf. i. 40 PEANTL, 356, 28), and Aristotle s
; ;

sup. vol. i.p. 233. n.

1,

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

359

theory of the Conversion of Propositions, with which Aristotle s treatment of the Syllogism begins, by sub
stituting a direct, in place of Aristotle s indirect, proof of the simple converse of universal negative proposi
tions.
1

As they

Modality of
indeterminate

further approached the question of the 2 Judgments from a different side, they cona.
;

e/c juerafleVecos (see supra, vol. i. p. 232, n. 2 ; Steplianus and Cod. Laur. in WAITZ, ibid. 41 sq and on his reasons for
;

PHILOP.

An.
b,

Schol. in Ar. 148,

Pr. 46

xiii.
;

cf.

b the

scholium which

doing so, PRANTL, 357). He dis tinguished in particular negative not all propositions between and some not (Scliol. in Ar. In regard to the 145, a, 30). modality of judgments he made a distinction between simple ne
cessity

PRANTL, 364, PRANTL 45, gives from Minas). criticises this convenient proof:
ZELLER, on the
siders
it

contrarj-,

con

and necessity resulting from particular circumstances (ALEX. An. P. 12, b, u.). He
elucidated contradictory opposi tion, which he declared in general
to be indemonstrable

(ALEX, on

Metapli. 1006, a, 11, p. 653, b, 15,

Br.), with the remark that con tradictory propositions are abso lutely exclusive of one another only when their meaning is fixed

and definite (Scliol. Amlros. in WAITZ, ibid. 40), a caution

against sophistical objections to

which PRANTL,
1

p. 356,

unneces

sarily takes exception.

a, 15, it

rb
T,

In AEIST. Anal. Pr. i. 2, 25, stands: ei ytnjSevl rwv B vtrdpxei, ouSe rwv A ovSevl
Tb B.
d\rj6fs
et

the right one, and says that he cannot find for that of Aristotle reasons founded on the very nature of genus and species as Prantl professes to do. 2 Aristotle had taken the con ceptions of possibility and neces sity, as has been remarked (see slip. vol. i. p. 234 sq.) to express a quality of things, not of our know ledge of things. By the possible he does not understand that which we have no reason to deny, nor by the necessary that which we are forced to accept, but by the former that which by nature may equally be or not be, by the latter that which by its nature must be. Theophrastus and Eudemus, in deed, have left us no general statement on this subject (even in the passage quoted by PRANTL, 362, 41, from ALEX. Anal. Pr. 51, a, only the words rpirov
rb virdpxov [sc. a.va,yKou6v tffTiv] ore yap virdpxei Tore ovx olov T virapxtw, seem to be p. r] long to THEO. S Prior Analytics, while the rest belong to Alex

inrdp^fL
oi>K

ydp

Tiz/t,

oiov

ry
TU>V

e<rrai

B rb A B TL
if

virdpx^iv

<TTIV.

Eudemus put
no
B,

is

7P F rav Theopbrastus and it more simply A, A is separate from

^>

TO T

/j.f]Sei>l

all

therefore separate from all A, and therefore no A is B (ALEX. An. Pri. 11, a, m. 12,
is

ander himself) but it is obvious from their departures from Ari stotle, which we are about to men tion, that they take possibility
;

300

ARISTOTLE
denied

sequently

what Aristotle

had affirmed, that

every assertion of possibility implies the opposite possi bility, and they maintained, against his denial, the
convertibility of universal negative
l ;

judgments of possi

while with regard to conclusions whose pre bility mises are of different modality, they held firmly by the
2 principle that the conclusion follows the weaker premise. further know that Theophrastus added to the four

We

five

Modes which Aristotle had assigned to the new ones, obtained by the conversion

first

Figure

of the con

clusions or the premises, a development in which we 3 certainly fail to see any advantage, and it is possible

that he treated the two other Figures in the same way, 4 asserting at the same time, in opposition to Aristotle,
that

these

also

give

perfect

conclusions. 5

He

also

and necessity only

logical sense. See sup. vol.
1

in the formal

i.

p.

ALEX. Anal. Pr.

ScJiol.

14,

234 sq.and a, m. Anon.

;

ifiAr. 150, a, 8. The proofs of the two Peripatetics are given in a scholium which PEANTL, 364. 45, prints from MINAS S notes on

sq.and on the third case, PHTLOP. Anal. Pr. li. a Scliol. in Arlst. 166, a, 12; on an argument of Theophrastus relating to this, ALEX. Anal. Pr. 82, b.). 3 For details see ALEX. Anal. Pr. 22, b. 34, b. 35, a Anon. Schol. in Ar. 188, a, 4, and
; ;

Galen
100.

Eiffaywy}]

SmAe/cTi/cr?,

p.

The same writer s quotation, 362, 41, from BOETH. Interpr. 428, upon Theophrastus relates merely to an unimportant
Similarly a modifiexplanation. cation of an Aristotelian argu-

from (Dogm. Plat. HOETH. iii.), 273 sq. 280, Oud. PHILOP. An. Syll. Cat. 594 sq Pr. xxi. b (Schol. 152, b, 15) cf.
citations, 365, 46,
Interjjr.
;

PRANTL S APUL. De

also
4

UEBEEWEG,

ment mentioned by ALEX. Ana

Pr. 42,
2

1 .,

tures

As PRANTL, from ALEX. Anal. Pr.

Sohol.

Loyik, 282 sqq. 368 sq., conjec35,

b, n.

is,

as PI4ANTL, p.
Ortj.

Cf. following note.

370, also remarks, insignificant.

in
:
<5

WAITZ,
Se

Arist.
.

From an

apodeictic and a
;

\.

45

categorical premise follows, they from a catesaid, a. categorical gorical and hypothetical, a hypothetical from an apodeictic and hypothetical also a hypothetical
;

^vaa/rius rep

BoyObs ApiororeAei irepl TOV. .

.

TOV eSo^acre
Traj/res
ol

/ecu

a7re8eiei/,

on

eV

Sevrfpy
el<riv

KCU

rpiTy
i.

ax h/

ul -

aTi Te Aetof

(which Arip. to-

conclusion (see sup.

vol.

i.

p.

234

stotle denies, see siyira, vol. 240, 11. 4). ^atVerai Sc ral
.
. .

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

It is more changed the order of several of the Modes. however, to note that Theophrastus and important,
1

Eudemus introduced
thetical

into

logic the theory of

Hypo

Both of these and Disjunctive Syllogisms. 2 embraced under the name Hypothetical, pointing they out that in the Disjunctive also that which is undeter

mined

at first is afterwards
3

determined by the addition

They distinguished further two kinds of hypothetical conclusions those which, consist ing of purely hypothetical propositions, only assign the
of a second clause.
:

conditions under which something

T})V tvavTiav avrcf (Aristotle) nepl TOVTOV 86av ex^v. 1 In the third, figure he placed the fourth of Aristotle s modes as simpler before the third, and the sixth before the fifth ( Anon. PHILOP. Schol. in Ar. 155, b, 8

is

or

is

not the case, 4

190, a,
1,

(ppaffros

ALEX.

128,

a, Schol.

ibid.

34,

156,

a,

11),

adding a
ibid.

seventh
p. 276).

mode which he obtained

first

by dividing the
2

(APUL.

however, Theophrastus expressly said that these differ from ordi nary categorical propositions only in form that he nevertheless entered with such minuteness into the discussion of them is only one of the many proofs of the frequently misspent industry with which he traversed every
;

detail.
;

As ALEX. An. Pr. 131, b. PHILOP. An. Pr. Ix. a; ScJwl.

state.

in Ar. 169, b, 25 sqq., expressly

According

to

BOETH.

3 Cf. PHILOP. An. Pr. Ix. b Schol. in Ar. 170, a, 30 sqq. ALEX. An. Pr. 109, b, m. That both these writers in the passages
;

S i/ll. Hyjwth. 606 (in PRANTL, 879, 59), Eudemus treated this
subject more fully than Theo Much less important phrastus. are the citations from Theophrastus s discussions upon syllogisms Kara irp6a \f]^iv given by ALEX. An. Pr. 128, a., cf. 88, a, m. PHILOP, cii. a; Schol. in Ar. 189,
;

named

A
C
Si

follow the Peripatetic view, as presented by Theo phrastus and Eudemus, is obvi ous from the whole context. OVTOS Tl Ot TWOS OVTOS }} OVK effTLV ^ TL fffTl SeiKVVVTS ( if
1

^
is

is,

B
),

is

if

is,

if

is,

is

which are called by Theo

viroOeTLKol

phrastus Sia Tpiwv

or

b, 12;
18, cf.

Anon.

ibid.

1.

43,
sq.

190,

a,

PBANTL, 376

These

oXuv v-jToQtTiKol, as also on account of the similarity of the

three propositions KO.T avaXoyiav. Theophrastus distinguished three forms of these syllogisms corre sponding to the three Aristote lian figures of the categorical

are syllogisms formed of propo sitions such as those mentioned

by

Aristotle, Anal.
:

Pr.

ii.

5, 58,

& TO a, 2!). b, 10 iravrl inrapxei &c.

/iTjSeri

rb

According to

362

ARISTOTLE
is

and those which prove that something

the latter a further division
is

or

is

not. 1 Of*

made

into those with a

2 hypothetical and those with a disjunctive form, both that what is of which classes, however, agree in this

stated in the major premise as possible is either affirmed or denied in the minor 3 Under the hypothetical are classed Comparative, 4 or, as the Peripatetics finally
called them, Qualitative Syllogisms. 5
syllogism, except that he trans posed the order of the second and third. ALEX. Anal. Pr.
110, a.; cf. 88, b. PHILOP. ibid. 170, a, 13 sqq. 179, a, 13 sqq. 189, a, 38. PHILOP. Scltol. in AT. 170, a, 14, 30 sqq. Cf. ALEX. An. Pr. 88, b. 2 rb elvai PHILOP. ibid. 109,
b,
rn.
; 1
:

loco c. 29, 45, b, 15), called fj.fTd\^is (ALEX. An. Pr. 88, a, PHILOP. Scliol. in o. 109, a, m. AT. 169, b, 47, 178, b, G). If this minor itself receives proof from
;

a categorical syllogism we have the so-called mixed syllogism

(ALEX.
fjLfvov,

87, b,

m.

sq.).
is

The con
o-vvn/j.-

ra>v

ditional sentence

called

}}

IJ.T)

elvai
ol

0TiKcav

Kara(TKva^6vT(tiv viroKara/m.v a.Ko\ovdlav

Of the first, two forms are next enu merated those which by affirming the antecedent affirm the conse quent, and those which by deny ing the consequent deny the antecedent ( If A is, B is. But A is, &c. and If A is, B is. But B is not, c.) Of the second by a more complicated classifica tion three forms (1) A is not at the same time B and C and D. But it is B. Therefore it is
ffKfvdovffiv ol 5e $idev%iv kc.
:

the antecedent being the the consequent the riyovpevov kivo^vov (PHILOP. Scliol. in AT.
,

169, b, 40). Theophrastus, how ever, remarked the difference

here between those conditional sentences in which the condition is introduced problematically by an Ei and those in which it is introduced affirmatively by an
ETre)

(SiMPL.
a,

509,

3).

De Ccelo, Scliol He remarked also

neither C nor D. (2) A is either B or C. But it is B. Therefore it is not C. (3) A is either B or 0. But it is not B. Therefore it is C. 3 This categorical minor pre mise following on a conditional or disjunctive major, for which the Stoics afterwards invented the name Trp6<r\r]^Ls, the older
Peripatetics
Api<rTOTe\r)v,

(ALEX. Anal. Pr. 131, b. Aid.; cf. PRANTL, 378, 57) that the AieraATj^is again is either a mere hypothesis, or immediately cer tain, or demonstrated either in
ductively or deductively. 4 Ol a-rrb TOV yiiaAAoi> Kal TOV if the 6/jioiov KOL TOV riTTov, e.g.
:

(ot
cf.

apx^uoi,

ol

irepl

PEANTL, 385, 68), following AEIST. (Anal Pr. i. 23, 41, a, 30; cf. WAITZ, in,

a good, so also is the more precious but wealth which is less precious than health is a good, therefore health is so also. Upon this see ALEX. An, Pr. 88, b, m. 109, a. b. PHILOP, An. Pr. Ixxiv. b PRANTL, 389 sqq,
less precious is
;
; ;

Kara

TrotoTT/ra,

probably

fol-

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

363

No contributions of any importance to the second main division of the Analytics the doctrine of Demon have come down to us from Theophrastus or stration Eudemus, and we may therefore assume that neither
1

of

them

differed in

clusions of Aristotle

any important point from the con on this subject. The same is
It

in substance true of the Topics, to

bad devoted several treatises. 2

which Theophrastus cannot be proved that

he interpreted the subject-matter of the science dif 3 nor do the isolated utterances ferently from Aristotle
;

on this head which have come to us from Theophrastus and Eudemus go beyond a few formal extensions of
Aristotelian doctrines. 4
lowing ARIST. An. Pr. i. 29, 45, b, 16 where, however, this ex
pression
1

Anal. Post.
b, 46.
2

2,

a;

Schol.

199,

is

not further explained.

14.

Cf.

PRANTL, 350
p.

sq.

nn. 11it

Even PEANTL (p. 392 sq.) has failed to find more than two
statements referring to this sub one in PHILOP. An. Post. ject Schol. in Ar. 205, a, 17, b.
:

PEANTL,
the
b,

352,
a.

infers
Schol.

from

statement
;

(AMMON.
in

De

Interpr. 53,

46,

distinguishing between fi and a0 avro, the other the remark in the anonymous scho
curb

lium, ibid. 240, a, 47, that defi nition is embraced under demon
stration.

Equally unimportant
/ca0

are the remarks on

avrb in
p.

27; Anon. ibid. 94, that Theophrastus dis a, 16) tinguished a twofold relation, one to the fact in regard to which the question is one of truth or the to falsehood, the other hearers but the latter is here assigned not to dialectic but to

Ar.lQS,

ALEX.
Speng.
;
;

Qu.

jVat.

i.

26,

82,

on definition in BoETH.

poetry and rhetoric. The cita tion from the Analytics of EUDE

Interpr. ii. 318, Schol. 110, a, 34 on definition and demonstra tion in Eustrat. in Libr. ii. Anal.
;

MUS

Post. 11, a, o. Schol. 242, a, 17; on the im cf. ibid. 240, a, 47 possibility of proving contradic tory propositions in ALEX, on Metaph. 1006, a, 14 SYRIAN, in Metaph. 872, b, 11 (from the treatise TT. Kara^aaews) and the definition of a|fw/ia in THE MIST.
;
:

in ALEX. Top. 70, is also quite Aristotelian. 4 Theophrastus distinguished between TOKOS and. Trapdyy\/u.a,

understanding by the latter a

rule
is 5,

definite,

which is general and in by the former one that cf. definite (ALEX. Top. 72
;
;

m. 68) of the topical heads, which Aristotle had enumerated (ytvos and tiicupopa, ftpos, ftuoi/,

364

ARISTOTLE
The conclusion
to

which we are

so far led,

namely,

that Theophrastus is by no means inclined blindly to accept the Aristotelian doctrines, becomes still more

obvious from the fragment on Metaphysics.

The

diffi

culties (aTToplai) suggested in this fragment are directed in great part to Aristotelian assumptions, but we are
left wholly in the dark as to whether and in what way the author found the solution of them. Starting from

the distinction between First Philosophy and Physics, Theophrastus here asks how their respective objects,

the supersensible and the sensible, are related to one another and after proving that there must be some
;

common bond of union between them and that the

sensible

super

must involve the sensible, he goes on to examine how this is possible. 2 The principles of Mathematics
(to

which Speusippus had assigned the highest place)

;

we problem require a higher principle, and this we can find only in God. 3 God, therefore, must be the cause of motion in
are insufficient for the solution of the
ravrbv} he placed as well as Siatyopa, under (ibid. 25), and all others
(rv/j.fie&riKbs

de

(GREGOR. CORINTH, ad Hermog. Meth. vii. 1154, w.), Eude-

except
(ibid.

under
all

opos

31

this

is

that
p.

we

are told,

but PRANTL,

seems to be wrong in

395, his in

of questions (ALEX. Top. 38), and his classificatioi of fallacies irapa TTJV \4iv (that is if GALEN. TT. r. irapo. r. Ae {. 3. xiv. 589 sqq. follows ffofpifffj..

mus s division

terpretation, cf. BRANDIS, iii. to pass over 279). He asserted

some still more unimportant remarks which are quoted by ALEX, on Metaph. 1021, a, 31,
15 (Schol. 277, 32) that opposites do not fall under one and the same generic con
T>p.
l>,

and

him), will be found in PRANTL, 397 sq. See supra, vol. ii. p. 354, n. 2. 2 1 sqq. 2 read apx*) we begin here with Trorepa, &c., the question whether, &c.
1 ;

3 sq. according to

USENER

ception (see sup. voi. ii. 358, Theophrastus s divison of

n. 2).

jvu> t

uaL

emendation (see p. 354, n. 2, supra) of which WIMMER, p. 151, 1 1 ventured to accept even old re
,

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

the world.
virtue of any

305

He

produces that motion, however, not in

movement in himself, bat of a causality more

:

accordant with his nature

he

is

the lower creation, and this alone endless movement of the heavens,
this

the object of desire to all is the cause of the

Satisfactory though
1

view undoubtedly seemed in many respects, it was If there be only one without its difficulties. not moving principle, why have not all the spheres the same move

ment

If there are several,

how can we

explain the har

mony of their

movements ? But a satisfactory reason must

must be explained
as the

also be assigned for the multiplicity of the spheres, and,

in fine, everything

outcome of

Why, moreover, should this natural desire of design. the spheres be directed to motion rather than to rest ?

And

motion

does not desire presuppose a soul, and therefore 2 ? Why do not things under the moon as well
4

for#o"Te;

we might propose to
r<$

for avyvvTov

we should perhaps
In
8 the

read
ei JUT?
1

eV 0X17015 sivai Kal irpcarois, irpdorcp. apa Kal eV

read

apiffrov).

remark

/J-^xpt

V*v

8)]

rovrw
TTOIWV

relating to the Platonists (T! ovv afj-a rfj &c.) is hardly

/j.i/j.r]<rfi,

olov

dpnos

6 \6yos,

apx^v re

/niav iravrwv, Kal rr]v evepyeiav Kal fjt.}] rfyv ovaiav cbroStSous, ert 5e Siatperbv /uTjSe iroaov ri Ae-ycoi/, aAA

intelligible, probably on account of the corruption of the text.

The sense ascribed to it by BRANDTS, iii. 328 sq. (q.v.), seems

be neither contained in the text nor admissible in itself, In the following words (et 87? e0eo-ts, a\\ws re Kal rov apivrov, ^era ^VXTJS, et ^77 TIS Ae yot Ka0
to
o aot^T77Ta
/

air\ws
juepi Scc

f^aipcav

els

/cpetTTco

nva.

Kal detorepav.

That every-

thing has a natural desire for is also stated by the good Theoph. in the fr. (from irepl
TrAowTOf) Schol. in Plat. Legg. pet 449, 8 Bekk. farji *lx*v & Uv <x7T7?A0e TrAoGros, irpbs fiovovs
:

Kal Siaffropav,

e^u^

&j/

TOUS

ayaOovs.
e^t erat

e/cao Toi

yap rov
for
this

otKtj ou

dyaOov,
its
$v<jiv

alone accords with

travra 8e TT]S /cara
StafleVews.
-

nature,
opeyerai

sq.

(where

1.

12

ra Kiv6v^va) USENEE, p. 267, in place of Sia(popav happily reads unless the expres/u.ra<popav sion is used by a mere Even analogy and improperly. the fragment quoted in the previous note speaks only of
enj
:
e^>eo"ts

living things.

366
as things above
it

ARISTOTLE
desire the best ?

And how

is it

that

in the heavenly sphere this desire produces nothing higher than rotation ? For the movements of the soul

and the reason are of a higher order than this. To this, however, it might be replied that all things cannot attain to like perfection. Finally we might ask whether motion and desire are essential or merely accidental
attributes of the heavens.
1

Touching further on the

necessity of deducing not only some but all reality from 2 first principles, we find that even in reference to these
first

principles themselves many new questions are sug Are they formless and material, or endowed gested.

with form, or both

tions
is

And

if

the

first

of these
is

assump

obviously inadmissible, there

also a difficulty

in attributing design to everything however insignifi should therefore have to determine how far cant.

We

order extends in the world and

3

why

it

ceases at certain

points.

Again, what are we

to say of rest ?

Has

it

like motion, to
first principles,

be deduced as something real from our

energy

or does positive reality belong only to among sensible objects only to motion and is

rest only a cessation of

motion

describe the relation of

In

How, again, are we to Form and Matter ? Is matter

?
4

9-11.

10 instead of
Xapfidvei ; to read:

the Platonists are accused in

;

th(

(rv/j./3aivei

USENER reads

it

would be better

yap elvai K. tru/ijS. 2 11-13 where, however, p. 153, W.n. we must punctuate thus: ovv ravT-rjs $ TOVTWV curb 5
o-ujujSoiVet
,

ru>v

sequel of doing. 3 14 sqq. 15 n. where instead of airo we ought to reac av r6. 4 This apparently is the sense 16 what of the first half of
:

apx&v a^idaffeiev &v ris, ra%a 5e wal &v ns TiflfJToi, ctTro r&v &\\ocv &p

follows, however, as it stands, is, as BRANDTS, p. 332, says, unintelligible,

as

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

367

non-existent although endowed with potential reality, or is it an existence although still void of any definite

form

Why

is

the whole universe divided into contra

is

ries so that there

does the worse far

since
also

nothing without its opposite ? exceed in quantity the better ? 2

Why
And

on account of this diversity in things knowledge is of different kinds, the question rises what method

we

are to adopt in each case

and how we are

to define

3 To assign the nature and the kinds of knowledge. to everything is impossible, for we cannot go on causes

ad infinitum either in the sensible or the supersensible world without renouncing the possibility of knowledge
;

but we can go a little way in that direction in advancing from the sensible to the supersensible. When, however,

we reach ultimate grounds

or because our eyes are too
4

of reality

we can go no

further, either because these have themselves no cause

weak

to penetrate into the

But be thought that the mind brightest light. knows these by immediate contact and therefore in
if it
5

fallibly,

yet
of

it

is

not easy, however necessary, to say

this assertion

what

it is

which we make

and which
6

is

the object of this immediate

17. Instead of Sui/a^et 8 ey (W.) we (Br.) or Swdfj.i /j.v ought probably to read Swa^ei 8 6v.
1
t>v

knowledge.
p.

Granted,

and

direction

2 3

18.

enter

cannot here 19-20. into see, particulars

;

We

246 sqq.) in the same as the statement Metapli. ii. (a) 1, 993, b, 9: wffirep yap teal TO.
TU>V

o/j./j.aTa
y/j.pai>,

irpbs

rb tytyyos ex ef
Kal
TTJS

OVT&)
o

however, BEAXDIS, iii. 334 sq. USENER, ibid. p. 269 sq. places c. 19-27 W.) between cc. 8 Br. (
3 and 4 Br.
4

tyvxris

vovs

^avepcvrara 3 For Aristotle s view see sup.

vol.
s

irpbs iravTCDv.

TO

rfj

13

and 14 W.)

i.

p. 197, n. 4.

The
.

from which

latter is a deviation Aristotle s doctrine (on

i.

cf supra, vol.

p. 205, n. 2,

So we should understand the words 26 xaAevr^ 5e Kal els avrb rov6 y vvveffts Kal y TT KTTIS ,...&/
:

368

ARISTOTLE
and the structure of the heavens and that we cannot, therefore, point to
th<

further, that the world

is

eternal

the problem yet remains of assign ing the moving causes and the final aim of the con stitution of the world, and of explaining individual forms
causes of
its origin,

of existence,
as such
is
;

down

to animals

and plants.
as

Astrononr
th<

inadequate to
since

meet the former of

is

demands

motion

just

essential

to

th(

living creatures, we must seek deeper origin for it in the essence and ultimate cause of the heavens themselves. 2 Upon the question of

heavens as

life is to

design in the world it is not always clear, apart froi other considerations, 3 whether a thing exists for

end or only in consequence of a chance coinci dence or natural necessity 4 and even assuming desi^
definite
;

in the world,

are yet unable to prove its present in every case, but must admit that there is mucl equally

we

T IVI

Troirjreoj/

T\>V

opov.
:

BEANDIS,

where we are explains to place a limit on inquiry, which the text does not seem to For the rest see 9A permit.
p. 336,

sq.
1

2G

Tre(pvKi>

fin. must be read oo~oi 5e rbi/ ovpavbv a iS:

T &paa-0cu xtf m ay be sug gested instead of (paSios 7ro0ei/ S &pa<r6ai xpy v Otherwis one might, still reading a omit the /UCITTJJ/ which precedes as an explanatory gloss virep 5e rot TTcw/0 eVe/ra rov Kal u.r)Vfv aAAccs, 6
.

a(})opifffj.bs

ov pa$ios, &c.

A^o/Jt

IQV

viroXa.fj.fid.vova iv

ert

5e,

&c.

SPENGEL (see BRANDTS, p. 337) had already changed the un meaning iipepcav into $ 2 This at any rate seems to be the meaning of 27 sq. (et olv
/J.pa>v.

here is equivalent to opicr/ubs, as n the passage from THEOPHRASTCS

aa-rpoXoyia.
3

c.)

These are indicated 28. USENER, Anal. Theoplir. 48, here

proposes
paSios
8o/ce>,
:

&\\cas
Kal

6 a^opicrfjibs ov
T<

SIMPL. Pliys. 94, a. 4 Theophr. gives examples 29 sq. where, however, 30 instead of TOVTWV x^P LV we must read with USENER (Rhein. Mus. xvi. 278) rov x^P lv ^ n what follows, it seems that the words Kal ravr\ &c. are somewhat out
in
-

....
&c.

ej/ta S^ In that case

[JLTJ

of order.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

369

that seems to oppose its realisation and even that the amount of this is largely in excess of that which
exhibits design in other words, that excess over good.
l

evil

is

clearly largely in

We

It is impossible from so mutilated a fragment to obtain any very exact information as to the views of Theophrastus upon the ultimate grounds of reality.

only see from

it

that he was not blind to the

diffi

culties of the Aristotelian doctrine,

and that he brought

these into prominence especially in connection with the question of the relation between the movens and the motum and with the teleological view of nature. must

We

nevertheless admit that even in his Metaphysics he has kept closely to the main lines of the Master s doctrine,
as
is

obvious from his

2

own

express statements on several

fact that

important heads,
Se

and from the general

:

we

(j.rj

Kal

is

28-84. In 31 read ToD0 [or rat}0 J eW/ot rov rb apio-rov, ArjTrreW, and

immediately

after: Kal airbus ^ei/a (Br. and W. Aeyo/xev a) Kal KaO tKaarov. In what follows

TWV
o Kad

&W will then correspond

to
Kal

e/cao-Toi/.

perhaps

In read

32

we ought
"

aKapialov

rb

nov
ov.

rb

eli/cn

....

TroAu

Se Tr\rj9os

(without y or e?z/at) rb In what follows the text may have originally been OVK eV aopiaria 5e povov Kal olov v\r)s
:

^et,

Ka.Qa.TTfp

ra

rrjs

the world of
sion

men
to this

Qixrews (in for the allu

there is not nature, indeterminateness and materiality, but also evil). After this, however, there seems to be a gap and of the
only,

must be
as
in

missing words a/aaBeo-rdrov alone has survived. Similarly in the

following passage to the protasis yapiKarepaeev (Ph. d. Gr. i. 852, 3, where, however USENEE S conjecture, ibid. 280, ra 8 a6p6a Kal fKaTepwOev ought to have been mentioned) an apodosis is needed this (the rarity of good ness) is even truer of Man. Of the next passage we have only a fragment in the words TO /uw ow ovra. The remainder is pro bably complete or nearly com the discussion, however, plete then breaks suddenly off and we are left without means of con jecturing its further course. In 33 USENEE S conjecture (iUd.) Qelov airai/ra eirijj.L/j.c ia-Oai. rb (for 67ri/t. 76 fle Aeii/ air.) has much to support it. 2 Besides the theological doctrines hereafter to be dis cussed we may note the distinc: ;

VOL.

II.

B B

370

ARISTOTLE

little

nowhere hear of any deviations from it. Even wha has come down to us of Theophrastus s theo
harmonises in every logical views It is indeed doctrines of Aristotle.
that he declares
respect

with the

God

at

urged against him one time to be Spirit, at

l ;

but the same objection is urged against Aristotle, whose view we must have do not find an easy ex wholly misunderstood if we of it in the fact that while he identifies God planation
another Heaven and the Stars
2

tion between

form and matter

tradict one another (Cans.

1
;

i.

1(

(Metapli. 17, THEMIST. De An. 9 1, a, m) with all that it involves, and the Aristotelian teleology, The latter Theophr. expresses in Aristotelian phraseology, Cans, PL i. 1, 1 (cf. ii. 1, 1) V 7P
:

21, 1 sq.

iv.

4,

Theophr
T>

here

to fruits

distinguishes in reference and their ripeness TcAeioTTjra ri\v re irpbs was ital
-rrpbs

rty

yeveffiv.
rj

r?

/*- yap
Swap.it/

irpbs

rpotyriv

8e

irpbs

TOV

Trotel ^O.TT\V ^Kiffra 8e (pv o-is ouSei/ eV TO?S TTpwTois Kal KvpLWTaTois.

Ibid.

i.

16, 11

(where moreover
5"

we must ^8 ): aei
[77
<f>vffis~\.

read
Trpbs

in place of 77 ri freXriffrov dppa Cf. iv. 4, 2; 1, 2. Art,

Nevertheless even the yevvqv). unnatural can by habit change its nature (Cans. ii. 5, 5, iii. 8, 4, iv. 11, 5, 7); and on the other

hand

many

vegetables

and

is partly an imitation (Cans ii. 18, 2), partly a support and completion (itod. ii. 16, 5, i.

again,

16 10 sq. v. 1,1) of the designs it differs, however of nature vol. i. p. (Cans. i. 16, 10, cf. sup. the 418, n. 3), from nature in that from within outlatter
;

operates

animals are, Theophr. believes, entrusted by nature herself to the care of man, whereby only they can reach perfection, and just herein consists the difference between wild and tame (Cans. i. 16, 23) which, as we shall find hereafter, he regards as not merely an artificial but a natural
distinction.
i.

wards, and therefore spontanewhile it ously (e/c T&V ouTOyuarcoj/), works from without by force, and
theref ore only piecemeal (Caiis.i. 12 4) hence it is that art produces much that is unnatural (ibid. i. this isnot 16, ll, v. 1, 1 sq.). Even without a purpose, but it serves not the original design of nature
; r

in Cic. N. D. nee vero TlieopUrasti inconstantia ferenda est ; mode

1

The Epicurean

13, 35:

pattern, signia

enim menti ditince tribute prince modo ccelo, turn autem

yideribusqne
c.
TTT)

ccelettibut.
5, 44,

CLEMENS, Protrept.
&eo<f>p

B:
ity

.....

tfv ovpavbv
vnovoe^.
.

but certain ends of man (cf. v. these two, however, do 1, 1); not coincide and may even con-

8c in/eC/ia rbv 6ebv

2 Cic. ibid. 33, cf Forsch. 276 sqq.

KRISCH,

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHEASTUS

871

in the highest sense with infinite spirit alone, he yet conceives of the motive forces in the stellar spheres,

and

especially in the highest of them, as eternal

and
1

Theophrastus holds this view also. To him also God in an absolute sense is pure reason, the single cause which co-ordinates all reality, and which, itself unmoved, produces motion in everything else, since
everything else desires
it.
2

divine beings.

In proof of this assumption

it
3 appears, like Aristotle,

Theophrastus had appealed,

Providence, without, however, distinguishing this divine causality from the 6 ordinary course of nature, and he demanded of man that
1 16: efrrt Se [rb Mvtapll. L KLVOVV erepov Kal o /at/el] &v TLS 6?r avrbv ayp rbv vovv Kal rbj/ Qtov.

to the universality of religious beliefs. 4 scribed its universal operation as

He
5

also de

iravres

yap avdpwiroi

....
yys

VO/J.L-

ovs

iVrope?

QeofypacrTos
TTJS

a6eovs

where

Ibid. 4 sq. (see supra), inter alia 9eia yap f)

:

VTTO
5

irdvTtov apxr) Si

fjs

airavra Kal tari

eVei 5 a.Kivr]ros

MINUC. FEL.

Kal Sm^evei
/ca#

....

Octav. 19, 11

T(f

avr^v, fyavepbv &s OVK av e tr) Kiveladai TO?S rrjs Qixrews aiTia,
Xoiirbv

aAAci

KpeiTTOi/i
r)

&\\r) rivl 8vvdju.ei Kal irpoTtpa. TOiavrr] 5

<t>vcris,
a(f>

Theophrastus tt Zenon, $c ..... ad unitatem providential omnes rcvolvuntur. Cf. PEOCL. in Tim. 138, e: 3) yap povos $ fj.aAi<TTa
-rrj

airb

TOV

irpoi

oovvTOs

rov

opeitTov
[so.

ys

r]
ti

TO,

(pr)(rlv

KvK\iK7]

Kivriffis,

which

6 Qe6(pp.

UsEftEB
supply]
r)

ibid. p.
.

263 wishes to

As is seen from ALEX. APHE., who says at the end of his

treatise
5e

crvvex^s Kal anavaros. 3 On which cf sup. vol. i. p. 390. 4 may at least infer this from the fact that in POEPH. De Abst. ii. 7 sq. (see also BEEN AYS,

De Anima
T<

tyavepcaTara

We

e6(ppa<jTos

Sf iKvvai

for flp. indicates the course of the

rb Kad tlp.apfj.vr}v ev r KaAAio-0eVei

ravrbv Kara

"bv

world

fAeopfir. iib. Fromm. 56 sq.) he treats the neglect of all worship

as an exceptional outrage, on account of which the Thracian Thoans were destroyed by the gods probably the same people of whom SIMPL. in Epict. Encliir. 38. iv. 357 Schweigh. says
;
:

as divinely appointed, which therefore Theophr. according to his manner identified with the order of nature, as he identified

the lot which God has appointed to each individual with a man s natural state. Cf.8TOB.jEbJ. i.206
:

5e

TTWS

els

rb dp.app.4vnv

BB

372

ARISTOTLE
1

he should imitate its ceaseless intellectual activity. At 2 the same time he follows Aristotle in also attributing 3 a soul to the heavens, whose higher nature reveals
itself in its orderly

motion

4
;

and since he

is

likewise

in

of the agreement with the Aristotelian doctrine 5 as the material of the heavenly structure and of eether 6 the eternity of the world, he could attribute blessedness
or divinity not only to the highest Heaven, of which
it

is

with equal right to the expressly asserted, but also

V $ TOTTOV TT]V KO.ffTOV (pVCTLV apccv alricav iroiKiXwv, Trpoaipe[(/jurreco?

upon higher principles, had done, l/xif/u^o*/ yap

eli/at

as Plato /cat avrbs

Sta

HEEREN and others],

As regards rvxn means accident,

StScocrt

al

avdyKris.

TOVTO Qeiov
Kal
Ti]v

el

TOV ovpavbv Kal yap 6e~i6s e tr

Si

the two last,

avdyKr] constraint (either of other

men

or of natural necessity) as

from (pvais or distinguished nature acting with a purpose. From the allusions to Theophr. s in Providence views upon ed. Olympiodorus in Plucd.
Finckh,
1

p. 169, 7

nothing can be
vi.

inferred.

yap TL/JLIOV avev tyvxys, us ev TW Trepl Ovpavov yeypa bev. (8ee also on the lasl head p. 281, b. Plat, Thcol. i. 12 p. 35 Hamb.) 4 Upon this see Mctapli. 34 Cic. Tusc.i. 19, 45 Iwc enimpulchritudo etiam in terris patriam illam et ai-itam (ut ait Tlico:

f^vxos

apio~Tr)v e%et ovSev eo-rtv

JULIAN,
:

Orat.
e/

185,

Spanh.
air

ctAAa Kal Uvdayopas oi re

Oe<

to this effect; how far the view also of Theophr.

e/ceu/ou M XP fO(ppdarov rb KaTa 8vvaiJ.iv 6jj.oiS>ffQai (j)a(n. Plato especially expresses himself
it

was

is

seen

2)hrastus)pMlosopliiam cog nitionis incensam excitavit cupiditate refers to the beauty of the heavens. By ira.Tpi.os Kal TraAcuci (f)i\o(ro(pia is meant, as the con text also shows, knowledge of*| the heavens, or astronomy.
5

/cat yap /ecu 6 yap fj/ieTs Trore, deC (see supra). TOVTO 6 According to Diog. v. 49 Theophr. wrote a treatise against the Academics on the blessedness

from the note:

Apt(TTOTeArjr
o
0e2>s

According

to

TAUEUS
Belilier s

(Scholiast to Timceus, Sclwlia p. 437 and

PHILOP.
Theophr.

JEtern,

rn.

xiii.

15),

of God.
2
3

See supra,
Procl.

vol.

i.

p. 495, n. 4.
:

177, a Theophrastus deems it unneces of the sary to base the existence sonl, as the cause of motion,

in

Tim.

rejected Aristotle s doctrine of; the aether on the ground oEj Plato s assertion (Tim. 31 B) that all that is solid and visibl must consist of fire and earth. 6 On this see infra, p. 380. 7 See n. 2 and the quotatic

from Aristotle

sup. vol.

i.

p. 474.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

1

373

Between him and Aristotle other heavenly spheres. there is in this regard no difference of doctrine.
to scientific

Theophrastus, however, devoted much more attention than to metaphysical inquiries, and had

indeed

much more

talent for them.

That here

also

he

continued to build upon the foundations laid by Ari stotle is beyond question; but we find him exerting
himself not

only to supplement the results of his teacher by further observation, but also to correct them With by re-examination of his scientific conceptions.
this

view he instituted an inquiry in a work of his own 2 into the conception of Motion which lay at the root of
3
;

the Aristotelian doctrine of Nature

it

and he found

necessary to deviate in some respects from the teach ing of Aristotle on this head. He asserted, for instance,
that Motion, which he agreed with Aristotle in defining as the realisation of potentiality, 4 may be predicated in
1

As Theophr. according-

to

teenth

of the Physics in SIMPL.

the passage quoted, sup. vol. i. p. 461, 3 accepted Aristotle s theory of spheres, he was obliged to presuppose also with Aristotle an eternal mover for each sphere an hypothesis which was forced upon him also by the principles of the Peripatetic philosophy

Pliys. 23, a, and Cat eg, 100, /3 (Schol. 331, a, 10, 92, b, 23) have arisen out of mere clerical errors (rif 10! and T$ t5 out of

with respect moved.

2

to

mover

and

THI A). From ei/Se/car^ in the former passage came next Se/cary in the Aldine text. 3 Theophrastus also says that physics have to do only with the motum (see sup vol. i. p. 417 sq.)
;

The three books ir. Kivfia-ews, On these and on the eight books
of the Physics (if there were really so many) see PHILIPPSON,
"TAT?

see supra, vol. ii. p. 357, n. 1. 4 evepyeia rov SiW^et KLV-^TOV

77

KIV^T^V Kara
TJ

-yt i/os

tKaffrov

rwv

Kar-nyopicav

rov Swa/nei OVTOS p

ai dp. p.
5,

84,
8,

Theophr.
281.

USENER, Anal, and B BANDIS, ill.

eleventh
four-

The

Kosu, Arist.

last rightly remarks, as libr. ord. 87 had

TOLOVTOV eVreAe^em ez/epyeia ris areA^s rov dwd/uei OVTOS y TOIOVTOV Ka.0 tKaoTov ytvos T&V KaTfiyopiuv (THEOPHR. Fr. 19 sq. 23 b, SIMPL.

already dona, that the

book

TT.

K iv-f) creoos

and the

Phys, 201, b, 94, a, m. Catey. ibid.} areA^s yap f) Kivrjcris (TH.

374
all

ARISTOTLE
;

the categories as change is not confined, as Aristotle tried to prove, to substance, size, quality, locality, but is
1

2 also applicable to relation, position, &c. Again, Aristotle

had asserted that

sible
3

all

therefore that everything

;

change takes place gradually, anc which changes must be divi

Theophrastus maintained, on the contrary, the which Aristotle himself elsewhere 4 admit possibility
apud THEMIST. De An.
In this more general change. sense he may have understooc motion of particularly the
th<

p. 199, 20 It is plain from the quota Sp.). tion, sup. vol. i. p. 383, n. 1, that

this completely agrees with Ari Nor is it easy to see in stotle.

soul

(see infra).

Aristotle als

SIMPL. Categ.

77,

e.

Phys. 202,

a,

the deviation from Aristotle which HITTER (iii. 413 sq.) finds. The first passage (Fr. 24) runs
:

however, frequently uses K.[vi)aii synonymously with /j-era and even he calls motion ener as well as entelechy (see sup. vol.
i.

TovTcp
So/ceT

/j.ev
ltd)

yap

(Theophrastus)

p. 383, n. 1) while, on the othe hand, Theophr. as well as Ai

:

xupifcffOai
eivai

TV
Se

KLvna-iv
rr]V
fj.ev

stotle says that it is only

an

in

TTJS

evepyeias,

Kivrfffiv /cat

evepyeiav ws &v eV OVTTJ

complete energy. According t( Priscian (in his paraphrase of the

Physics bk.
v.

jrepi^o/j.vrjv, ovKeri lUeWot Kal rr)v evepyeiav Kivriffiv TT]V yap e/cacrTOu

p.

287,
5e

Opp. ed.
expressly

Wimm.
:

iii.

Theophr. 269) he says

[evepyeia

oba iav Kal rb olKeiov elSos evepyeiav

elvai
eitaffTOv
fj.rj

ravra
eviore
vol.

ovcrav

ravrriv
:

and
Se

Kiv-riffis]

Sta^e pet
roTs

XP
avro is

This means, however every motion is an energy, but every energy is not a motion energy is the wider, motion ihe
Kivt](Tiv.
;

avayKatov
1

See supra,

THEOPHR.

i. p. 423, n. 1. Fr. 19,20, 23 (cf.

is It narrower conception. almost the opposite, therefore, to RITTEE S explanation that he

:

refuses to

comprehend either the conception of energy under that of motion or the conception of motion under the conception
202, a, Phys. energy. SIMPL. says: 6 eo^pao-Tos ^Te?r
<p7j<n

sup.vol. ii. p. 373, n. 4). The remarl in Fr. 20 on the motion of relatk is obscure, and in the words: rj yap eVe p7eta Klvrjffis re Kal Kaff avrb

the

text is probably corrupt. Perhaps we ought to read fj

:

evepyeia

KLvrjcris

TOV

KaO

avr6.

of

But even

so the passage is not

vi.

Se?i/
JJLSV

trepl

T&V
elfflv,

/aj/^erecoj/

el

at

quite clear. 3 Phys.

vol.
4
i.

4 inlt. (see supra,

.

Kivfjffeis

al

Se

wcrirep

p. 439. n. 3), cf c. 10.

i.

evepyeiai

rives,

which he
as
ivT]<ns

cites,

Phys.

3,

186, a, 13,

and

in

proof that not merely of motion in space, but of any

however, only Theophr. uses

the discussions upon light see supra, vol. i. p. 518, n. 3.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

1

375

1 of a simultaneous change in all parts of a mass. Ari stotle finally, in connection with the same subject, had

assumed
I

that,

although there

is

moment

at

which a
;

2 completed, there is none at which it begins change 3 Theophrastus rightly held this to be inconceivable.

is

further took serious exception to Aristotle s doctrine 4 If space is the limit set by the surrounding to of space.
I

He

the surrounded body, the latter must be a plain surface; space would move, along with the surrounding body,

which

is

inconceivable

nor would every body be in

;

be more space, since the outermost circle would not all that is in space would cease to be so, without, over,
however, itself suffering any change, if the surrounding it in one whole or were wholly (body coalesced with

removed. 5

Theophrastus was himself inclined to define

space as the order

1

and position of bodies

381,
Cf.

relatively to

THBMIST. Phys.
c.

vi. 4, p.

46 Sp.), Plato
5

views upon time.

23 sqq.

5,

SIMPL.
54 sqq.).
citation

Phys.

389, 8 sqq. 233, a,

m
is

Fr. 21, b,
;

(Fr.
in

a,

m.

SiMPL. Phys. 141, Theophrastus objects in

On
from

the other hand the

Theophrastus
23,
a,

the Physics to Aristotle s definition of space, 6n rb a-v^a co-rat

eV ^TTKpaveia, on KIVOV^GVOS ecrrat 6 TOTTOS [but according to SIMPL.

SiMPL.

Plti/st.

not

directed against Aristotle, but is in agreement with him against Melinus.

Phys.
143,
a,

131,

b,

136,

a.

141,

b,

Theophrastus

See supra, vol. i. p. 439, n. 4. SIMPL. Phys. 230, a, m. THEMIST. Phys. p. 386, 16 Sp. Cf. (ScJtol. 410, b,44, 411, a, 6). Eudemus in SiMPL. 231, b (Fr. 67 Sp.). 4 In respect to time, on the other hand, he wholly agreed with Aristotle SiMPL. Phys. 187, a, m. cf. Categ. Sohol. in Ar. 79, b, 25 controverting apparently,
3
; ;

demus treated it that space is immobile, as Aristotle also had done, see sup. vol. i. p. 432 sq. Phys.iv. 4, 212, a, 18
sqq.],

and Euas an axiom

on

yap

r}

airXavris),

ov irav acc/ma ev r6ira} (ouSe on, eav a\)va.*xJdG)aiv

at atycupai, Kal o\os 6 ovpavbs OVK fcrrai eV TOTT^ [cf AEIST. Phys. iv.
.

4, 211, a, 29], 6Vt

^Sev
aipeOy

ra eV r6ircf ovra, avra /meraKivnOevTa, sav atyTO.

-jrepiexovra avrh,

OVKI

like

Eudemus

(according
a,

SIMPL. Phys. 165,

and

to b, Fr.

ecrrcu eV

ARISTOTLE
Of less importance are some other state ments quoted from the portions of his Physics which dealt with more general questions. 2 In his treatise
1

one another.

3 upon the elements

to

which the extant passage upon

fire

ciples,
all

belongs, while holding fast to Aristotelian prin 4 he nevertheless finds certain difficulties. While

other elements

are

themselves definite materials,

it

fire

(whether we take
it

to include

light

or

not)

only exists in materials

which burn and give light;

?
if

how then can

region
1

be treated as an elementary substance

This can only be the case

5

heat

is

that in a higher pure and unmixed, whereas upon earth

m. (Fr.
kinds of becoming: by means of|

we assume

SIMPL.
:

ibid-.

149, b,

22) Theophrastus says, though only as a suggestion (ws eV airopia

irpodycav rbi/ \6yov~) yUTjTrore ou/c /co# avT~ov ovaia TLS 6 T^TTOS,
:

something similar, something opposite, and something which is neither similar nor opposite toi that which comes to be but only
in

rrj

Ta|et Kal 0e

<rei

Tcav \4ycrat
ovvd/u.is,
e/fre

Kara ras

(pvffeis
u><av

8 eirl ofj.o uas (pvrwv Kal oAct s ruiv avo/

^/JL^/V^CCV etre a^v-^iav,

general a previous actuality (Fr. 16, b, SIMPL. ibid. 287, a). 3 According to Alex, in SIMPL. Zte Caelo, init., Schol. 468, a, 11,

e/j./aop(poi>

Theophrastus had discussed these

in the treatise
TT.

Kal yap rovSfr-^v (pixTLv ZXOVTCW rwv rd^ts TLS Kal Qearis r&v /jLtpaiv
ftrri irpbs

however

rV
rrj

(ibid.

435,

O ATJI/ ovcriav

Sib Kal

fKaffTov eV

avrov x^P? \eyerai

/AfpSiv
e/cocTTOj/

rqj e^eti/ TT?I/ o\Keiav Tct|tz/, eVei KOI

TUV TOV

cr(t>fj.aT05

TwroO t](reifi av Kal aTraiT-fjcreie r^)v eavrov xd>pav Kal Qzffiv!

-

the beginning of his he had illustrated the The composition of the ele beginning of Aristotle s with the remark that all natural existences ments of heat, cold, &c. (see sup. have their principles as all natural vol. i. p. 478 sqq. to this account, bodies are composite CSiMPL. e.g. DC lync, 26 rb yap irvp 6ep/j.bv Phys. 2, b, 5, b, m. Schol. in Ar. Kal np6v refers). Similarly the PHILOP. theory of the natural weight and 324, a, 22, 325, b, 15. in the third levity of bodies cf. De Vent. Phys. A, 2, m.) book, which was also entitled 22, be Sensit, 88 sq. 5 IT. eV avTij rrj TrpccTy (Ttpaipa, bj ovpavov, he distinguishes three
treatise
4
;
: ;

At

previous note) Physics, Bk. iii. SIMPL. .Zte Ceelo, 517, a, 31, however, cites also a special work by him, trepl rrjs rwv crroixeiW 76^eo-ews (USKNEE, Anal. 21, thinks perhaps the^ same as Diog., v. 39, calls ir.

ovpavov, which b, 33, and is the same as]

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: TIIEOPI1RASTUS

it is

377

only found in union with something else and in

a process of

becoming
its

ask whether

terrestrial fire springs

but in this case we must again from the heavenly

element or owes

origin to certain states and

1

move

ments

Again, how are we to burning material. the sun ? If it consists of a kind of fire, this explain must be very different from other fire if it does not
in
;

we should then have to explain how it can kindle fire. In any case we should have to admit that not only fire but also heat are properties. But how is
consist of
fire,

it

far

possible to admit this with regard to heat, which is a more universal and elementary principle than fire ?

This suggests further questions. Are heat, cold, &c. really 2 Are the sofirst principles and not merely attributes ?
called simple bodies not rather composite things ? since

even moisture cannot be without

fire, for

if it

were

it

nor can the earth be wholly without 3 We moisture, for if it were it would fall to pieces.

would

freeze

are not, however, justified in ascribing to Theophrastus on account of these criticisms an actual departure from He is only following his the Aristotelian doctrine. 4

general custom of pointing out the difficulties which his Master s view involves, without necessarily giving it up. It is the less necessary to follow Theophrastus
which, however, only the first elemental sphere can be meant.
1

\a(jL$avov<n

rb Qepjubv Kal &a-n-p iraQy rivwv eTi-ai, OVK

Kal
5vvd/j.eis

J)e

Iffne,

OLYJMPTODOEUS
137, id. 2 Ibid. 5-7,

3-5. Cf. also in Mcteorol. i.

a^a 8e

/ecu

f)

TWV
re

ccTrAcoi/

AeyOyUeVojj/

(pvaris

/AIKT^

where

6 with

the words
rb
Trvp
3

eV uTro/cet/ieVoj rivl Kal

6

Kal

^i\ios
-

T& dp/u.6v

we

dAA^Aois &c. Aristotle also says that the elements do not present themselves separately in actuality
KOI evvTrdpxova a
4

must supply ex et
Ibid.
8
:

see sirpra, vol.

i.

p. 482, n. 4.

</>cuVercu

yap ovrco

378

ARISTOTLE
fire,

further in his discussion of

of

inasmuch

as, in spite

many true observations, he not unfrequently proceeds upon false assumptions and fails to bring to the elucida
tion of the facts
1

any actual knowledge of the processes Nor need we enter into his account of of combustion. 2 wind (the cause of which he traces to the motion of the
sun and

warm

vapours
weather,
5

),

signs of the
1

of the origin of rain, 4 of the of stones, of smells, 7 tastes, 8

rcav Kal xeijUctSi/wj Kal ei5iwi/(Fr.
fi

Thus, for the explanation several actual or supposed phenomena, we have such as sumptions as that the smaller fire (as also AEIST. supposes, Gen. et Corr. i. 7, 323, b, 8) is consumed by the greater, or that it is suppressed and suffocated by the density of the air (Fr. 3, 10 sq. 58 Fr. 10, 1 sq ) that a cold environment increases the
of
; ;

(5).

n. (Fr. 2), according to 59 written during the Archonship of Praxihulus (01. 116,
\i6u>v

2,

315 B.C.)
essay

At the beginning
the
cf.
i.

of this

treatise

on
p.

Metals, on which 6, and supra, vol.

USENER,

p. 84, n. 1, is

mentioned.

THEOPHR. (iMd.)
consist
of

makes stones

earth,

interior heat

by repulsion

(O.VTI-

TrepiVrao is) (ibid. 13, 15, 18, 74, Ft. 10, 7T. iSpOJT. 23, TT. \LTTO\I/VX. 6; Cans. PI. i. 12, 3, vi. 18, 11,

metals of water, herein (see sup. vol. i.p. 514) connecting his doc that of Aristotle, trine with whom he follows in general in the treatment of this subject
(see his

andj}assi)/i

cf.

the Index under

13, p.

SCHNEIDER S
Commentary
iv.

references in

535 sqq. and

PLUT. Qu. Nat.

the like.

915) and Hence also the state

passim],

ment
a,
;

(in SIMPL.

De

Ccclo,

268,

27 K. ScJiol. 513, a, 28) that there have been cases of sparks darting from men s eyes. 2 In 5 IT. avf(j.(av (Fr. 5).
of
v.

except that he goes much more deeply into particu lars than Aristotle did in the cor responding section of the Meteor
ology
7

(iii. 6).

made

this work mention is also of that ir. vS&rwv (cf.DiOG.

45; USENER, Anal. Tlieoplir.l}. 3 19 sq. ALEX, in Ibid.

;

smells and tastes cf. vi. 1-5 (on those of plants, the rest of the book); on smells alone: irepl otrpa/v (Fr. 4). Theophrastus here treats of the kinds of smells which do not
Cans. PI.

On

Meteor ol. 100, b

cf.

sup. vol.

i.

p.51 4 sq.Theophrastus had spoken more i uliy on this subject in an Zte Vent. 1. earlier treatise 4 On this see OLYMPIODORUS on Meteorol. i. 222 id.
rj.

permit of such sharp separation as the kinds of tastes, and next with great fullness of particular
fragrant or offensive substances, their mixture, &c. Cf. also PLUT. Qu. Conv. i. 6, 1, 4. 8 On these also he had written

ffrffieioof

vSdrow Kal

TTvev/j.d-

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

1

379

light,

colours,

sounds. 3

His view of the structure of

Farben, 181 sqq. Fr. 89, also belongs to this group.
3

a special treatise, according to DlOG. v. 46, in five books (cf.

3,

USENER,
84,11.1)
;

p. 8, and sup. vol. Cam. PL vi. 1, 2, 4,

i.

p.

1,

he

enumerates seven chief tastes with an obvious reminiscence of ARIST. De Sensu, 4, 442, a, 19 (see sup. vol. i. p. 85). Ibid. c. 1, 1 he gives a definition of xvn&s, which agrees with that of Aristotle (see
sup. vol.
i.

Muteorol.

i.

p. 518). OLYMPIOD. in 286 id. mentions an

had discussed Theophr. in these the treatise upon Music. In the fragment of this treatise which Porphyry has pre served (Fr. 89) in Ptol. Harm, (WALLISH, Opp. iii. 241 sqq.) he controverts the assumption that the difference between higher and lower notes is merely
a numerical one. cannot assert that the higher note either consists of more parts or moves

We

assumption with reference to the briny taste of sea water (that it comes from the nature of the bottom of the sea). Theophrastus had explained his theory on this subject in the of fifth book of the Physics which fragments have been pre served to us in PRISCIAN S Para phrase (see PHILTPPSON,
1 ,

more
Kivtirai

swiftly
3,

(TrAetous

apiQ^ovs

which according to 6 Jin. seems to refer to the greater swiftness of motion by means of which in the same
time
it

traverses
of

number
,

equal

a greater spaces) than

"TATJ

avOpuTrivr),

pp. 241 sqq.;

Opp. iii. 232 16 light and transparency cf. The S/ce^aj/es is, according sqq. to the view here presented, which agrees with Aristotle s (see sup. vol. i. p. 518, n. 3), not a body but a property or state of certain
Tlieoplir.

WlMMER, sqq.). On

the lower (the former was Herathe latter Plato s and elides

bodies,

and when light

is

called
(

assumption see Plt.d. 655 n. and stip. vol. i. p. 5 19). For in the first place if the essence of sound is number, then wherever we have number we must also have sound on the other hand, if number is not the essence of sound, sounds are not
Aristotle
s
;

Or.

i.

887,

1,

the

ei/e pyeta

rov Siacpavovs

18),

frtpyem must be understood in the wider sense of a irddrj/j-a or certain change in the transparent. The idea that light is a material

distinguished by number only in the second place observation shows that for a low note an
;

emanation
2

is

rejected.

All that can be obtained on this subject from the works of Theophrastus (to which, how the ever, pseudo Aristotelian treatise on Colours does not be

equally strong movement is re quired as for a high one and again the two could not accord with one another if they moved with unequal velocity or con
;

an unequal number of movements. If a higher note is audible at a greater distance,

sisted of
this is only because it mitted in a merely
is
is

long cf. supra, vol ii. p. 355, n. 2) is almost entirely in agreement with Aristotle, and it is brought together by PRANTL, Arist. ub. d.
;

trans

forward direction, whereas the deep note

transmitted in
all directions,

380

ARISTOTLE

the universe agrees in every respect with Aristotle s. 1 He shares also his doctrine that the world is without

beginning or end, defending it, ci propos of Aristotle s physical theory, with great fullness and success against
the founder of the Stoic school. 2

And

since

among

He holds
plain

that intervals do not ex the difference in notes, they merely make the latter per ceptible by omission of the inter mediate notes. In their case much more than in that of colours a qualitative difference must be admitted. Wherein this differ
ence, however, consists, Theophr. does not seem more precisely to have defined. see this from the state ment of Simplicius on the retro
1

stotle in his general

view of the

world.
-

treatise

his The extract from on this subject given in|

the pseudo Philo has already been considered, sup. vol. ii. p. 354, n. 3. Theophr. here (c. 23 sqq. Bern.) controverts four arguments of his opponent and maintains
against them
25, p.

(as

is

shown

in

ZELLER S Hermes,

We

424 sq.) c. 270, 6 sqq. that in the first

xi.

gressive spheres quoted p. 502, n. 1, and that of PseudoAlex, in Metapli. 678, 13 Bon. (^807,
b, 9 Br.)

sup. vol.i.

place their assertion that if the world were without beginning in the earth s all unevenness surface must long ago have been
levelled,

which agrees with

Fr. 171
(TT.

it.

The
6

remark
than
is

TUV

l-)(Qvu>v}

that

that the air

is nearer the fire the water refers to Ari stotle s assumption that the elements lie round the earth in the form of a sphere. We need not believe that Theophr. held the Milky Way, as MACEOB. Somn. Scip. i. 15 supposes, to be the band that unites the two hemi spheres of which the celestial he may sphere is composed have compared it with such a band, but the idea that the celes
;

fact the overlooks in the earth tire which originally heaved up the moiintains (cf. on this Theophr.

the

F. 2, 3) also keeps them up and in the second place if from the re treat of the sea which has taken place at particular places, a final exhaustion of it and an absorp tion of all elements in fire are, the overlooks inferred, this fact that that decrease (as Ari stotle had previously taught, see
;

tial

sphere

is

two parts
Aristotle s

is

really composed of inconsistent with

that the doctrine world by reason of the nature of its materials can only have the form of a perfect sphere (see sup. It has already vol. i. p. 486 sq.). been remarked sup. vol. ii. p. 372, that Theophrastus follows Ari

sup. vol. ii. p. 30, n. 2) is amerely local one and is counterbalanced by an increase at other places just as little in the third place does it follow from the transitorine^s of all particular parts of the world, that the world as a whole is transitory, inasmuch as
;

the destruction of one thing is always the birth of another (cf on

.

this sup. vol.

i.

p. 485).

If finally

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

other

381

presuppositions of the Peripatetic system the eternity of the human race was involved in the eternity of the world, while on the other hand the relatively
1

recent origin of civilisation was recognised by Theophrastus and illustrated by researches into the origin of

the arts upon which it depends 2 and of religious rites, 3 he assumed with his Master that there occurred from
|

time to time overwhelming natural disasters which, covering vast territories, either totally annihilated the
inhabitants or reduced
of barbarism. 4

them again to the primeval state The mistake, in fact, which Aristotle
is

made

in

assuming with the old astronomy that in the

involved also that of the earth
race, reveals itself again in Theophrastus.
s
5

eternity of the universe

and the human

Striking proof of Theophrastus

of natural history is afforded

ability in the field

by

his

two works upon

man and
is

therefore also the world said to have had a beginning, because the arts without which man cannot live have had one,

^a.Kpous

after

Theophr. opposes to this view the theory developed in the

text.
J

Cf. SUp. vol.

ii.

p. 32, n. 1.

tviavrwv irep^Sois and further explaining how both kinds of devastation occur, and how the inhabitants of the mountains are swept away by the one, those of the valleys and plains by the other, he proceeds Kara 877 TOVS Aex^eVras rp6irovs
:

DiOG. v. 47 mentions two books by him TT. eupTj/xdrcoj 3 See more on this subject,
.

Si^a

/jivpicav

a\\wv
TOV

fipaxvrepwi
/ntpovs

(fideipo/Jievov

irXziffrov

infra.
It is not permissible, says the pseudo-Philo, c. 27, p. 274, 3 sqq. Bern., to judge the antiquity of man from that of the arts. For (pOopal TUV Kara yrjv
4

dvQpuirvv Tri\nre7v e| dvdyKrjs Kal eTretSai/ 8e at fj.ev ras rex vas Koival v6aoi x a^ aff(1} ap^Tai 8e avrifiav Kal fiXaa-rdveiv rb yevos
. . .
<nv,

e /c

T&V

p)]

irpoKaraX^tpQevruv TOLS
apx^o-Qai Kal TO.S

tirifipicraai Setyots,

re ^j/as

ird\iv

awiaraaOai, ov rb

OVK

adpocav

airavTiav

aAAa

TUV

irXs iO Twv

Sval

rats

,u.eyiffrais

airiaisdi aTiOfi TaijTrvpbsKalvSaTos

d\eKTois (popals.
c/carepav eV
/ie pet

KaraffKriTTTeif 8 (pafflv eV irdvv

irpwTOV yevofAcvas, aAAa TTJ /xetaJcrei ruv e^oVrcof vTroffTravurdeiffas. 5 Cf. on this Pfiil.-hlstor. Abhandl. der Jjerl. Akadcmtze,

1878, pp. 105 sq.

382
1

ARISTOTLE
Observations are there collected with the most
all regions of the world acces All the information attainable by

plants.

unwearied diligence from

sible at that time.

the insufficient means and methods at the disposal of the investigator of the period, not only upon the form, and parts, but also upon the development, the

and the geographical distribution of a large number of plants, 2 is there set down. His statements are moreover in general so reliable, and where they rest on the testimony of others so cautions,
cultivation, the use,

that they give us the most favourable impression of his power of observation and critical skill. Neither ancient

nor mediasval times have any botanical work of equal importance to compare with the writings of TheoThe scientific explanation of the facts, phrastus.

however, was necessarily in the highest degree unsatis factory, since neither botany nor science in general

was as yet adequate to this task. Aristotle was able in his geological works to compensate in some degree for the like defect both by the general grandeur
of his fundamental thoughts and in particular by a multitude of brilliant conjectures and startling observ

but Theophrastus cannot be compared with Master in either of these respects.

tions
;

hi

According to KIRCHNER, Die Botan. Sclirift. d. Th. (Jahrb.

1

f. Pliilol. Supplement!), vii.) p. 497, he names 550 plants, and of these there are about 170 with re-

kno wn before his time, we cannLOt assume that he intended to enumerate all that were known
to him.
2

Cf.

gard to which we do not know whether they had been previously known. As, however, he omits several with regard to which it can be proved that they were

sqq.,

what BBANDIS, iii. 298 KIRCHXER, 499 sqq., have

from the writings of Theophrastus on the sources and compass of his botanical knowcollected
ledge.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

The fundamental

383

taken from Aristotle.

ideas of his botanical theory are Plants are living creatures. 2

1

Theophrastus does not

in

make
3

express mention of a soul

them

he regards their natural heat and moisture

life,

as the seat of their

finding in these also the chief

ground of the individual peculiarities by which they are differentiated from one another. 4 But in order that they may germinate and grow, a suitable external
environment
is indispensable. Their progress and their improvement or deterioration depend, perfection, therefore, in this respect, primarily upon the heat and
5

1 KlBCHNEB, ibid. 5J4 sqq. gives us a comparison of Theophrastus s botanical theory with Aristotle s so far as we know it. 2 Z&vra, Cans i. 4, 5, v. 5, 2 18, 2 fjttjSw. ibid. v. 4, 5 they .have not e07j [^ 0rj] and -n-pd^is, like the animals, but thev have
:

eVre

9fp/j.6rrjTi

Kal

The
:

he remarks, sure he accordingly exerts him self here and in c. 22 to dis cover marks by means of which

latter, however, are difficult to mea

we may
of

recognise the degrees

plovs, Hist. i. 1, 1. 3 Hist. i. 2, 4 airav yap (pvr^v %X ei Tiva vyporrjra Kal

:

temperature in a plant, an endeavour in which, as we might suppose, he meets with very

little success.
5

(TV/J.<PVTOV

&ffirtp

Kal

C<ov,

Cans.

ii.

3,
lv

(f)di<ns,

viroXenrovTwv yiverai yripas reAe/ws Se Qavaros Kal avavffis. Cf. 11. 3 Cans. i. 1, 3 for germination
; :

\6yov nva ex

4 ael yap 8eT r ^ v xpacriv TT)S

: :

(pvaews irpbs TO Tre/ne^oi/. 7, 1 rb avyyevls TTJS fyixrews tKaffrov T^V olitfiov [TOTTOV] ayei Trpbs
.

there

is

required

e/mftios

vypor-ns

oiov
rj

-TI

Oep/jLorris Kal
ff

7]

J/WX/J^TT^S Kal

and

(rv/jKpvTov

6ep/j.bv

as well as a

|7jpoT7js Kal

vypOTrjs
vi6v/nla

^Tjre?
iracri

70^
c.

certain proportion between them. Hist. i. 11, 1 the seed contains the <rv(j.(pvTov vypbv Kal dep/nbv, and if these escape, it loses the power of germination. See further Cans. ii. 6, 1 sq. 8, 3, and other
:

ra
9,

Trpocrtyopa

Kara r^v Kpaaiv.

passages.
Cf. Cans. i. 10, 5. Ibid. c. rets ISias e/cacrTcoi/ 21, 3 $ucreis ir ovv vypOTrjTi Kal r)p6Tir)Ti Kal s conjecture] irvKv6r-r]Ti Kal p.avoTi]TL Kal rots roiovrois
:

rov The statement of o-vyyevovs. BEANDIS (iii. 319) that the effi cacy of heat, &c., is conditioned also by the opposite is not to be found either in Cans. ii. 9, 9, or
6
:

7]

yap

anywhere
although

else in Theophrastus, he states in another

9, 7,

[WiMMER

connection, Hist. v. passive and active heterogeneous.

that

must be

384

ARISTOTLE

sun and

moisture of the air and the ground and on the effects of rain. The more harmonious the relation in
1

which which

all

these factors stand to one another and to the

plant, the
is

more favourable are they

to its development, 5

fluences

therefore conditioned partly by outward in and partly by the peculiar nature of the plant or the seed, in reference to the latter of which we must again distinguish between the active force and the

passive

susceptibility

This

physical

3 impressions from without. explanation does not, of course, with

to

Theophrastus any more than with Aristotle exclude the teleological, which he finds both in the peculiar perfec
tion of the plant itself

and in

its

usefulness for man,

without, however, going deeper into this side of the question or developing it in relation to the rest of his
botanical theory. 4 The chief subjects discussed in the remaining por tions of the two works upon plants are the parts, the

and development, and the classification of plants. In considering the first of these Theophrastus en counters the question whether annual growths such as le aves, blossoms, and fruit are to be regarded as parts
origin

of the plant or not.

Without giving a

definite answei

to this question he inclines to the latter view, 5 and accordingly names as the essential external parts of the
1 Cf. Hist. i. 7, 1 Ccius. i. 21, 2 sqq. ii. 13, 5, iii. 4, 3; 22, 3, iv. 4, 9 sq. 13, and other passages.
;

n. 1, of the compression of internal heat by external cold, 2 Caus. i. 10, 5 G, 8, ii. 9, 13,
:

In the explanation of the phenomena themselves, Theophrastus indeed not unfrequently ?ets into difficulty, and rescues himself by assumptions such as that
referred to stqjra, vol.
ii.

iii. 4, 3, 3

and passim. The tivvajjus rov

See svj}ra,vol.
Hist.
i.

iroielv

anc

rov rrdvxeiv, Caus.

4

iv. 1, 3.
ii.

p. 3G9, n. 2.

1,

1-4.

p. 378,

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

l

385

plant

He

the root, stem (or stalk), branches and twigs. 2 shows how plants are differentiated by the presence

or absence, the character, the size, and the position of these parts, 3 remarking that there is which

nothing

is

plants as invariably as mouth and belly are in animals, and that in view of the infinite variety of botanical forms we must frequently be content with mere analogy. 4 As internal parts 5 he names bark, and as the constituent parts of these wood, pith, again, 6 From sap, fibres, veins and pulp. which are
all
<

found in

these,

permanent, he distinguishes
elements, which, indeed, in
7

finally the yearly

changing

many

cases are the whole

-\

Here, however, as not unfrequently elsewhere, he takes the tree as the basis of his it
plant.

investigation

seems to stand with him

I I
I

humanity stands with and man for the perfect type of humanity. In his treatment of the origin of
tus points out three distinct

for the perfect plant, just as Aristotle for the perfect animal

plants, Theophras-

methods of propagating viz. from seed, from them, parts of other plants, and by 8 The most natural of these is spontaneous generation.
1

TO.

tronoiopcpii
vol.
2
i.

fidpia (ibid.), the (ibid. 12, cf. supra, p. 517, n. 6, and vol. ii.
e|o>

fv olov
i.

^d\i<rra

1,

9.

rb txcrciov, Hut Aristotle s view was not

altogether identical; see supra,

vol.
ii.
3 4

P-28, n.
.
.

1.

pifa, Ka.vA.bs, a.Kp/j.(av,

.

K\d8os
ov r^v

Zffri

rpo(J>

V
i.e.
i.

8e pffa
^

iJ.ev

81

eirdyerai

[it

depends on
^VO-IK^,

p. 35, n. 4. Ibid. 6 sqq. Ibid. 10 sqq.

TO.
;

not the position in the ground, on^

this,
8vva.fj.is

on the

Hisi.

Qfperai.

5e els & G, 9] /cauA&j itavAbv Se Xcyu rb virep

ei>

yrjs TreQvKbs 8e rovs curb

aKpepovas TOVTOV <r%ifoueVous, ovs Zvioi KaXovaiv ofrvs. K\a$ov 8e rb )8Aa(TT7j/ia rb e/c rovruv
e>

evrbs, ibid. ra e| &v ravra, o^oto^ep}, ibid. 2, 1. 6 Hist. i. 2, 1, 3. On the meaning of Is, <A.ty, a-ap of plants, see MEYER, Gcscli. der Bot. i. 160 sq.
7

Hist.

i.

2, 1 sq.
;

Here he follows Aristotle

ii.

e</>

see supra, vol.

p. 36.
c.

VOL.

II.

336

ARISTOTLE
All seed-bearing plants employ this method, individuals among them exhibit another as

from seed. even

well.
if

This law, acccording to Theophrastus, is not only obvious from observation, but follows still more clearly from the consideration that otherwise the seed of such

plants would serve no purpose, in a system of nature where nothing, least of all anything so essential as the
1 seed, is purposeless.

Empedocles had done,

to eggs, 2 but

Theophrastus compares seed, as he has no true con

ception of the fructification and sexual differences of He often distinguishes, indeed, between male plants.

and female

plants,

differing in this

from Aristotle

4
;

but

when we
first

inquire what he means by this, we

find, in the

as a

place, that this distinction refers always to plants whole and not to the organs of fructification in them, and can apply, therefore, only to the smallest

portion of the vegetable

place,
it is

kingdom

that, in the second

not even to

applied by Theophrastus only to trees, and all these and, thirdly, that even here it rests
;

not upon any actual knowledge of the process of fructifi 8 cation, but upon vague analogies of popular language.
1

Cans. Cans.

i.

1, 1

sq.

4,

1; Hist,

ii.

1, 1, 3.
i.

ing, and that it belongs in fact to the unscientific use of

7, 1, cf.

ZELLER, Ph.

d.

Gr. i. 717, 5. So also Aristotle, Gen. An. i. 23, 731, a, 4.

3

See supra,
p. 48.

vol.

ii.

p. 34, n. 1,
tippyy

and
4

See Index under

It is clear

and

9rj\vs.
5

gives definition of i significance or its basis; on the contrary, he frequently marks it as a customary division by the use of KaXovcri or a similar expression (e.g. Hist. iii. 3, 7, 8,

guage.

He nowhere

more

exact

mode

from his whole of applying the distinction

1,

12,

G,

15,

3,

18,

5).

The

between male and female plants that Theophrastus was not the It is plain first to make it. that he found it already exist-

division in his text is limited to trees trees, he says, are divided into male and female (Hist. i. Cans. i. 22, 1, and 14, 5, iii. 8, 1
: ;

passini)

and nowhere does he

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

On

387

the other hand, he instituted accurate observations upon the process of germination in some
1

plants.

Among
slips,

the different methods of propagating plants by

&c.,

bulbs,

which Theophrastus minutely

(Hist.
i.

dis-

any other plant but a tree male or female for although he says {Hist. iv. 11, 4) ot: a species of reed that in compari
call
;

son with others

7rpo(rotf/et,

it

is

Qr)Xvs

rrj

quite different from a division into a male and

is

this

female species. Theophrastus speaks also (Cans. vi. 15, 4) of

an

6070? 6rj\vs.

Even
;

trees,

how
:

ever, do not all fall under the above division of. Hist. i. 8, 2 Kal ra appeva 8e T&V &7]\eLS>u
oa>5e

(rTepa,

ev ols

4a"riv

a/Ltcfxa.

This is enough to show that the division is not based on any correct conceptions as to the fructification of plants, and all that he further states concerning
it

The distinction between male and female trees is found to consist in the former being barren, or at any rate less fruitful than the latter (Hist. iii. 8, 1). The most general distinction between trees is that of male and female, wv TO fj.fi/
Kapirocpopov tv ols 5e rivwv.

proves how be set upon it.

little

value must

date tree does Theophrastus say that the fruit of the female ripens and does not fall off if the pollen of the male fall upon it, and he compares this with the shedding of the spawn by the male fish but even in this he cannot see fructification in the proper sense, as the fruit is supposed to be already there his explanation of the matter rather is that the fruit is warmed and dried by the pollen, and he compares the process with the
; ;

that their 8, 2), and harder, of closer tissue, and darker, while the female are mure slender (Hist. iii. 9, 3, \, Caus. i. 8, 4). 4, 1 Only of the

wood

is

never supposes that all seedformation depends upon fructifi cation. In Caus. iii. 18, 1, he ex pressly rejects the idea which might have been founded upon
wpbs rb TeAeioyoyeu/ ^7; TO drj\u, remarking that if it were so there would be not only one or two examples of
:

caprification of figs (Cans. ii. 9, Hist. ii. 8, 4, 6, G). 15, iii. 18, 1
;

He

this fact
avrapites

e/i/cu

rb

Se

a.K.apirov

eVt

a/j.<pw

Kapirotyopa,

rb

6f)\v

Ka\\LKapir6repov
:

Kal

some, however, TTo\vKapiroTepoj/ contrariwise call the latter kind

oi
TO.

trees male.
fj.f:v

Cans.
TO.

ii.

10, 1

&Kapira
8/7

5e

aypiwv, &
naXovffiv.
2, 4, 6, c.
c. 18,

0?jAea Cf. Hist.

Kdpiri/n.a TO. 8
.
>,

ruv

appcj/a

iii.

7, c. 9, 1,

10, 4,

c. 12,
i.

0, c. 15,
1, iv. 4,

3,

Caus.
it

22,

2).

Moreover,
the

remarked that male have more branches

is

it, but it would necessarily esta blish itself in all, or at any rate in most, cases. It is not therefore, that he surprising, says (Caus. iv. 4 10) that in the of plains the earth bears case the same relation to the seed as the mother does in the case of animals. Hist. viii. 2, on grain, pulse,
;

and some

trees.

cc2

388
1

ARISTOTLE

he reckons grafting and budding, in which he 2 the stem serves as soil for the bud or the graft says and, as a second method of a similar kind, the annual
cusses,
;

reference, finally, spon sprouting of plants. taneous generation, Theophrastus indeed remarks that this is not unfrequently merely apparent, the seeds of

In

to

many
places
it

or having been carried

as to escape observation, plants being so minute by winds, water and birds to 4 But that where we least expect to find them.

does actually take place, especially in the case of 5 smaller plants, he does not doubt, and he explains it, like

the spontaneous generation of animals, as the result of the decomposition of certain materials under the in
fluence of terrestrial

and

6 solar heat.

In classifying plants, Theophrastus arranges them 7 under the four heads of trees, bushes, shrubs and herbs, at the same time to the unsatisfactoricalling attention
iiess

of this classification.

He
K\a8ov
. .
.

further distinguishes

Hist.

ii.

sq.

Cans.

i.

1-4

....

fypvyavov 8e TO airb

Also propagation and passim. by the so-called tears (Sa/cpua). on which see Cans i. 4, 6, Hist. ii. 2, GescJi. der Hot. 1, and cf MEYEE,
.

pi&s TroAuo-reAexes Kal iro\vK\a5ov *ca Se rb anb ptfos (pv\\o.

<p6pov

irpoibv da-re Aexes ou 6

Kav\bs
opovs

<nrpfj.o(p6pos.

lyg
-

Ibid.

Se?

Se
Kal

rovs

CdUS. i. 6. 3 Caus. i. 10, 1, where this discussed. subject is further 4 Caus. i. 5, 2-4, ii. 17, 5 Hist. iii. 1,5. 3 Cf. Caus. i. 1, 2, 5, 1. ii. 9, iii. 1, 4. 14, iv. 4, 10. Hint,
;

OWTCOS

aTro8exe<r0cu

Aa/ji,pdi>eu/

wsrvira) Kal eVl rb irav

X^yo^vovs

evm 70^ Uws 5o|ete, ^VaAAaTreti/ ra 8e Kal -n-apa ayoay^v [by

rr)i>

culture]

aAAoio repa

yivea da.i

K.a.1

eitftaiveiv TTJS (pixrecas.

And

after

Caus. i. 5, 5 cf ii. 9, 6, 17, 5. 7 the Hist. i. 3, 1, with further explanation SeVSpov p.\v ovv eVn TO ctTrb plfos ^ovoffr\fx es o&rbv OVK fvair6\vTov
6
;
.

by examples and explaining farther enlarging upon this fact, that there are also bushes and herbs with the form of trees, and that we might thus be inclined to lay more stress upon the size,
strength and durability of plants,

TO airb

OI ^TJ?

TTO\V-

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

389

between garden and wild plants, fruit-bearing and barren, blossoming and non-blossoming, evergreen and
deciduous
;

distinctions, he yet regards

while admitting that these also are vanishing them as the common natural
1

characteristics of certain classes.

He

lays special stress,

2 however, on the division into land arid water plants. Tn his own treatment of plants he follows the first main

division, except that

ther. 3

he classes trees and bushes toge Into the further contents of his botanical writ

ings, however,

we cannot here enter. 4 Of Theophrastus s work upon Zoology 5 hardly any

:

thing remains to us nor does the information which we possess from other sources as to his zoological doc
trines justify us in attributing to

him more

in this field

he concludes again, 5 5td 5?/ ravra \to/j.fv OVK aKtfio:

&a"jre

v
1

T&

a review of the contents of both works see also a shorter one in MEYER, Gescli. der Bot. i. 159
;

TfIVS

sqq.

Hist. i. 3, 5 sq. and some further remarks c. 14, 3. In respect to the distinction be

tween garden and wild plants especially he observes here and

iii. 2, 1 sq. that this is a natural one, as some plants degenerate under cultivation, or at least do not improve others, on the con trary (Cans. i. 16, 13), are de signed for it.
;

Seven books, which DiOG. v. enumerates singly by their particular titles, and then comprehends under the common title TT. foW. Single books are also cited by Athenasus among
43
first

others

see

USENER,
himself

p.

5,

Theophrastus

refers

(Cans. Pl.ii. 17, 9, cf iv. 5, 7) to the IffTopianrfpi &uv. He does not

seem, however (if we may judge from the single titles in Diogenes), 1 Cans. ii. 3, 5. to have intended in this work to 3 Books ii.-v. of the History of give a complete natural history, Plants treat of trees and bushes, but only (as was his general plan therefore of ligneous where Aristotle had already laid plants book vi. of shrubs books vii. down the essential principles) of herbs book ix. dis viii. to supplement Aristotle s work cusses the sap and healing by a minute treatment of par ticular points. To this work qualities of plants. 4 BEAXDIS, iii. 302 sqq., gives belong Fr. 171-190.
2

Hut.

i.

4,

2 sq. 14,

3, iv, G,

390

ARISTOTLE

s labours by further obser and some isolated researches of minor value. vations His views upon the nature of life and of the human 2 Several of the fundasoul are of more importance.

than an extension of Aristotle

The

citations

from him

re

lating to this, apart from isolated. and sometimes rather mythical, references to his natural history Fr. 175 and the statement (e.ff. in PLUT. Qu. conv. vii. 2, 1), are the following: limited to

that the measure of it is relation to man, 6 yap avOpooiros 3) p.6vov fy

Animals occupy a higher stage than plants they have not only
:

life

but

also

07?

[^]

and

The use which rj/j.fpov. the different animals are to one another Theophrastus had referred to in the Natural History (Caus. 9 cf. ii. 17 5). Concerning the origin of animals he also believes in spontaneous generation even in the case of eels, snakes and
/uaAiCTTa
;

(Hist. i. 1,1); they are related to man, not only in body, but also in soul (seeinfra, p. 394, Their life proceeds in the n. 1). first instance from a native, in
irpd^fis

fish

(Cans.
Fr.

i.

1, 2,

5,5,

ii. 9,

17, 5;
cf.

171,

9, 11,

174,

1,

(>

ternal heat (Fr. 1 TT. AenroiJ/ux. 2) at the same time they require a suitable (fru/uneTpos) environment, air, food, &c. (Cans. PL ii. 3, 4 alterations of 17, 3); sq. iii. place and season produce in them
;

PORPH. DeAbfft. ii. 5, accord ing to which the first animals must have sprung from the earth, and the treatise ir. in DIOG-. v. 46) their meta
TU>V
(?<av

avTOju.ot.Tvt>

morphoses are mentioned in Cans.

ii.

1G,

7,

iv.

5,

7.

Kespiration

certain changes (Hist. ii. 4, 4, With Cans. ii. IB, 5, 10, fi). Aristotle (see Chap. X. sw^ra) the Theophrastus emphasises marks of design in their bodily organs as against the older phys the physical organism is the ics instrument, not the cause of vital
:

he conceives, with Aristotle, to serve the purpose of refrigera tion fish (to not breathe, because the water performs this service
:

for

them

(Fr. 171, 1, 3
is

cf.

Fr.

10, 1).
7, 1, 4,

Lassitude 6, 16) to a
of of

composition
tuents
avi>T7]y/j.a,

the
ii.

traced (Fr. a de <nWrj|is, certain consti body (cf. the

;

vol.

p. 51, n. 2, sup.}

Here, however, Theophrastus does not, any more than Aristotle (see Ch. VII. supra), overlook the fact that even in the case of animals it is
activity

(De

Sensu, 24).

vertigo (Fr. 8, IT. Ixiyyuv}, to the the of circulation irregular humours in the head. Fr. 9, TT. ISpwTcav investigates the proper
ties

impossible to trace in every parti cular a definite design (Fr. 12, 29

dis see supra, vol. ii.p. 11, n. 2). tinction is occasionally made be tween land- and water- animals
3,

of perspiration and their conditions. Fainting is the re sult of the want or loss of vital heat in the respiratory organs (Fr. 10, TT. AetTToil/uxtas); simi larly palsy results fruin cold in

(Hist. i. 4, 2,14, 3. iv. 6, 1 Cam. ii. 5) wild and tame (Hist. iii. 2, 2, Cans. i. 16, 13) on the latter dis tinction in Hist. i. 3, 6 he remarks
; ; ;

the blood (Fr. 11,

-

IT.

irapaXvcrews).
v.,

Theophr. had spoken of the

soul in Physics, Bks. iv. and which according to THEMIST,

De

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: TIIEOPHEASTUS

391

mental conceptions of the Aristotelian doctrine are here

called in question. as the

Aristotle

unmoved

principle of

all

had described the soul movement, and had

1

referred its apparent

movements, in so far as they can Theo be regarded as such, to the body. properly this is true only of the lower activi phrastus held that ties of the soul thought-activity, on the contrary, must,
:

he thinks, be regarded as a movement of the

An. 91 a, Spengel were also entitled
1

soul.

ii.
TT.

p.

199, 11,

ij/ux ?*-

See supra, Ch. XI. According to SIMPL. Plnjs. 225, a, he said in the first on of pev book IT. Kivhffews
:

in quibus tractat locos ab But Aristotele ante tractates. this very similarity makes it

opel-eis

al

af

fitiQu^iai
flffl

ffw^ariKal

Kivf)aeis

Kal ooyal Kal OTTO

possible that Hermolaus merely transferred Theophrastus s name from the second passage to the a transference first hardly justified by that passage itself.

TOVTOW
is

8e bcrai apx^l^ ^xofo tj , ravras OVK HCTTLV Kpurets Kal Beupiai,

eVepoj/

ayaye iv, aAA

ei/

avrrj

The statements of Themistius seem rather to refer to another, and indeed far later, writer
than Theophrastus,
e.g.,

TT)

Ka ^ *) e J ^P7 e la ifuxf Ka ^ ^ UPX*! Kal rb Ve Aos, fl 5e ST) Kal 6 vovs

KpsiTTOV TI
STJ
e|a>0i/

when he

/j.epos

tirei<Tiwv

Kal QeioTtpov. aVe Kal -jravreXeios.

Kal

TOVTOLS eirdyei
L

TOVTWV

ovv virep yuei/ (TKeTTTeov tt Tiva x u P l(r V-bi

opov,
al
eirel

reproaches his anonymous op ponent (68, a), with having wholly forgotten apparently Aristotle s views upon motion,
Kairoi
Trept

(TVVQ^IV

e /cSeSw/cws

TU>V

Tpbs rbv

TO

ye

Kivf](T(as

elpt^fifvuv

ApiffTo-

ravras 6/j.o\oyovthat Theo music as phrastus also described

Kii/7}(rets eh/cu

TeAei (Theophrastus can

hardly

fj.evov.

We know

have

treatise e/cSeSw/cws moreover points to an

written

such

Kiv-tjais

tyvxys.

To him,

also,

KITTER, iii. 413, refers THEMIST. Do An. 68 a, Sp ii. p. 29 sq., where divers objections to Ari stotle s criticism of the assump
soul the moves, tion that an unnamed are cited from writer who is described with the

original work nor was it neces sary to appeal to this to prove that Aristotle s theory of motion might have been known to him) when he reports of him (68, b.)
;
:

opoXoyuv
ovcriav
fyflffiv,
f

TTJV Kivncriv elycu Kal (pvffiv,

6ff(p

r^s
Sia

kv

i^aXXov

words

T(av

Api0"TOTeAous

THEMIST. 89 Sp. e|eTO(TT^y. eo^pacrp. 189, 6, certainly says TOS ev ols e|eTO^ei TO Api(TTore\ovs:
b.

Tovoincp juaAAoj/ rr\s ovirias aiirys iiffraff6cu, &c, (this Theophrastus

would certainly not have

said)

when he

and Hermolaus Barbaras trans

lates (according to Hitter)

both

passages

Theophrastus

in

Us

says to him with refer ence to this that he appears not to know the distinction of motion The general tone and energy.

392
Aristotle

ARISTOTLE
had spoken of a Passive Reason, declaring is innate, and that
1

that only the capacity of knowledge

this

knowledge;
present at

capacity can only develop gradually into actual but the development of that which is
first

only as a capacity
is

in other words, the

It is

realisation of possibility

movement. 2

improbable

that Theophrastus on this account defined the nature of the soul differently from Aristotle 3 but on the other
;

passive question, indeed, as to how reason can at once come from without and be innate, may be answered by assuming that it enters at the moment of birth. But a further
difficulty arises
:

hand, he found serious difficulty in accepting his view of the relation between active and reason. The

if

it

be true that reason

is

at first

nothing actually, but everything only potentially, how does it accomplish that transition to actual thought and passion, which we must attribute to it in one sense
or another,

when
it is

be said that
it is

performs an act of thought ? impelled to think by external

it

If

it

things,

hard to understand how the incorporeal can be acted upon and altered by the corporeal. If it receives the
impulse from
of Themistius

itself

the only other alternative to imAristotle had himself defined the soul as the entelechy of an

s argument conveys the impression that he is dealing with a contemporary. See supra, vol. ii. p. 96. See^7-a,vol.ii.p.380,n.l. JAMBLICHUS says, indeed,
1

organic
therefore,

body.

Theophrastus

would have merely added that the first substratum

;

in
[sc.

STOB. Eel.
^

TTjra avr^v a^pifrvrai /car ovviav rov eeiov a^aros, %v [the re\fi6T??y

TO^

eVepot fc Apio-TOTcAi/cwi/] Te\fi6~

i.
:

870

of the soul, the 6elov o-w^o is the ether which, however, he probably meant in the same sense in

which Aristotle also (see supra,

vol. ii. p. (5, n. 2) conceived of the soul as united to a substance like the ether.

perhaps, not the QCiov

/caAe?
ots

cru/^a]

fi>Te\(Xfiav

Apto-TOTtAijs,

wvirfp 8^ ev eV

eo^atrros.

But

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

393

then it is not passive at all. In pulse from the senses any case this passivity must be of a different kind from it is not the mobilisation of that passivity in general
:

which has not yet reached completion, but it is a state of completion. If, moreover, matter is defined as that which exists only potentially, dees not reason, conceived
of as

mere

finally,

son, as

become something material ? If, the distinction must be made in the case of rea elsewhere, between the efficient and the material
potentiality,

cause, the question yet remains, how are we further to describe the nature of each ? what are we to understand

by the passive reason

if it is

and how

is

it

that the active

reason, innate, does not act from the very first ? if it i,s not innate, how does it afterwards originate ?
l
1

Theophrastus in THBMIST.

with

it

91 a, Sp. 198, 13 sq. (the same in a rather poor and corrupt extract in PRISCIAN S

De An.

divine

as

Aristotle well as

had said of
of

human

paraphrase,

ii.

4,

p.

365
irws

sq.

thought that in its exercise it is the object of thought see supra, vol. i. p. 197, n. 3, and p. 199]
;

Wimm.)
|o>0ej/

5e

vovs

nore
;

Kal

&v Kal
;

ci&crTrep

(TriQeros, o/xcos

yap
yeiav

Se? Trdff^fiv avrov ; [sc. Tratrxeii/], eforep els evepTt

ri^fi,

T&

ffv/j.<f)vf]s

Kal ris ^ (pvcris avrov

/j.r)5fv

Sunrep
virb

7]

TO

fMfi>

yap
rf

elvat /car

ej/e p-

dora-judr&j

Se
?)

ffuf^aros

atvQriais ri rb
/cat

yeiav,

Svi dfMfi

8e

irdvra,

Sxrirep Kal
Xrjirrfov,

aVffdyorts.

/caAws, ov yap OVTM

4pio~TtKbv

TrdOos

irola

jU,6TO)8oAr) /
rj

TTorepoj/

aTr

e/ce:i/ou

ap^r)

-ft

air

a>s

oi5e avros
a>s

avrov

ydp

aAA

viroKeii^cviiv
eirl

riva

hand]

/j.v irdff-^eiv air

rb

yap [for on the one

e/cetj/ou

5^|etev

rwv v\iK(av [the above statement, that it is nothing KOT evepyeiav, must not be taken to mean that it is never present itself rather is its pre sence as faculty presupposed by every exercise of reason]. dAAa rb %(ji)t)v apa ov^ us siriQtTov, aAA us ev rrj irpwry yevefffi av/j.irtpiSwa/j.iv, Kaddirep Kal
:

av [sc. o vous] (ouSei/ 70^ d^) eauTOu [sc. Tratrxet] T&V eV iraflei), TO 5e apxw [1. dpx$?, as PRISCIAX

\a(j.fid.vov [-jSafdjUej/or]

dereov.

TTWS

5e

TroTe yivfrai

TO

VOIJTO,;

[how

does reason become the object of thought ? how does it unite itself

has] iravrcav elvai Kal eV TO j/oelv Kal /j.}) faffirep rals altrdr](T<Tiv air avrov [thought must lie in its own power, and not come to it from the object as sensation auToD must be re to the senses ferred to e /ceiVou BEENTANO S changes, Psychol. d. AT. 219, are unnecessary], rdxa 8 &v tyaveir] Kal TOVTO aTOirov, fl 6 vovs v\i]s
also
avT(f}
;

394

ARISTOTLE
fast

That Theophrastus nevertheless held

l

by the Ari

stotelian doctrine of the twofold nature of reason is

what we know of the way in which beyond dispute he silenced his doubts shows merely that he took the
;

various terms, as applied to reason, in a different sense

from that which they bear in other

exe* (pvffiv /j.yo ev &v, Svvar6s. Themistius
airavra
8e

fields,

holding that

adds that Theophrastus continued these discussions in the fifth book of the Physics, and in the second on the Soul, and that they are
fj.t<TTa

(pvo-ei, rb fj.lv us vAyv Kal rb Se atriov Kal iroirjriKbv, Kal ori ael rb iroiovv rov ri/u.iu>repov
Trdffij

eV

Svvd/u,i,

Trdo~xvros Kal

77

apyr/ rijs v\ris.

ravra
irdXiv
/j.evov

airoSfx^rai, SiaTropz? 8e, rives ovv avrat al Svo (pvo~eis, Kal ri

fj.lv

TroAAtoj/ jnev airoptuiv,

iro\\uv
rov

rb
rff

fnroKeifj.vov
iroiririKfp

7}

8e eTTiffrdaeoov iroXX&v 8e \vaeuiv.

o-vv^prrj-

The

result Svvdfj.ei vov

jropovo
Lv,

is,

on

fj.iKrbv
itoL fjriKov

yap
Kal

/cat

irepl

TTUS o vovs UK re

rov
fj.lv

o~x e $bv

ra avra
earriv

8mezre

rov Swd/aei.
6

el

ovv

o~vjj.<pvros

etre

e^cadev

KLVWV, Kal
Kivelv].

[so.

evdvs expfjv Kal del el Se vo-repov, fj,era

\eyovo~i

8e

Kal

X^piffrbv, &o~Trep

avrbv airadfj rbv TTOLTjriKbv Kal

rivos Kal ir&s f) yevevis ; eoiKev ovv Kal ayevvr]TOs, el-rep Kal acpeapros. evvTrapxtov 8 ovv, Sia ri OVK ael ;
T)

rlv evepyeia
o vovs, el

dnaOfys yap, (prjcriv, apa oAAws iraOfjriKos also has these words, [PKISCIAN but he also quotes, as an intro duction to them, the remark
/XT/

Sid ri Arj07j Kal avarr) Kal ^/evSos;

^ Sia rfv n iiv; The last para graph THEMTSTIUS gives, 89

b, Sp.,

189,

8,

more

literally,
:

that we cannot suppose reason to be wholly impassive

:

el fj.lv apparently, as follows yap us eis, tyijo-lv, rj Svvafj.is eKeivc*)

[the VOVS
ael,

TTOiTJT.], et fj.lv

0~VlJ.(pVrOS

el

yap
[1.

#Ao>s

airaO-rjs,

(prjcrli

ovSev
UTT

vo-})<rei\.

Kal OTI rb TradrjTtKbv

eV] aAA

avrov
oi>x

ds

rb

KivtiTiKhv
Kivtiais,

\f]irreov,

us

areA^s 70^ T] evepyeiav. [So

also PEISCIAN.] Kal Trpoiwv ^ai [following Aristotle, see sup., vol. ii. p. 61, n. 3] TOS /*ev ala-B-fjareis OVK avev crw/u,aros, rbv 5e vovv \(api(n-6v.
(Sib, here adds PRISCIAX, c. 9, 272 W., TUV e|w TrpoeXBovTuv
.]

varepov &c. The development of the active reason from the potential is described also in the fragment in PEISCIAN, c. 10, which has its place here, as the acquisition of

Kal

ev6vs exprjv

el 5

p.
[1.

ov Se7rai irpbs rfyv reAdfMevos 8e Kal Trepl

r<av

the sense discussed, For the text in the above, besides SPENGEL and BEANDIS, iii. 288 sq., TOESTEIK, Arist. de An. 187 sq. and BEENTANO, Hid. 216 sqq.
e|ts
i.

(in

vol.

p. 285, n. 3, supra).

rov

may be
1

consulted.

TToitjriKov

vov
e /ce?j/o,

Siwpiff/
(prjffiv,

ApicrroreXei,
0-/C67TT60V
t>

Of. previous note vol. ii. p. 391, n. 2.

and supra,

[perhaps 2rt]

877

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

its
is

395

evolution has no relation to the incorporeal, which always present to it, but only to the corporeal, of
1

which it furnishes the explanation. In the views to which we have just referred, and especially in attributing motion to the activity of the
soul,

Theophrastus shows an umnistakeable inclination

to identify the spiritual element in

with the physical.

down
of the

man more closely a statement has come Similarly to us in which he asserts that the soul of man is

same nature as that of animals, that it exhibits the same activities and states, and is only distinguished

Even the intimations in THEMISTIUS take this turn. The potentiality of passivity and
1

tlvai ra Svvdfj.fi Kal TO fvepyeia c. 20, p. Trpdy/nara ATjTrreoi/ 281, W. Tovro 5e [the previous
. . . :

the reason is taken to be of another kind than that of cor

poreal existence; as independent of the body it does not require external impressions in order to reach completeness as active, but is self -evolved from Suva/us

citation from Aristotle] Siapd 6 &. eVcrye* aAA OTO.V ytvyrai

vor]dri,
i>o-r)ra

w
5e

/cul

5rj\of

OTL
r)

ravra

e ^ej, TO.
r]

ael, eiVep

eVto-T^rj
Trpdy/j-affiv

Qewavrr]

pf]TiKT]

ravrb ro7s
/car

8e

7)

eWp7etai>

SrjAoi/oVi,

KvpicaTaTt] ydp.

and forgetfulness are explained by its union with

to e|ts
;

error

in this

as

the body.
stotelian

On

point yap probably an explanation of

[We must
.

way and

ta.ke avT-rj

similar lines

is

the

Theophrastean defence of the Ari

doctrine
(see

rc5 Priscian.] rovreffTi vor^ra,

(TffiSrj

v<$,

fy-ricrl,

rd
/car

which PRISii.

TO. p.fv ael ^i)Aa, ovcriav avro"is

CIAN gives us W.) ira\iv Se

:

17, p. 277,
(f>i\o-

Kal
(TTi[i>]

oirep

rd voyrd
ffvcTroi-^ws

i>Trofj.i^.vi](TK^i

rd Se
T<$
v<$

vv\a, orav voyOri, Kal avrd

i>Trdpj;i,

(TOfpwrara 5 &e6(pp. us Kal avrb TO e?j/cu TO, Trpdyfjiara rbv vovv Kal Kal 5vvdjj.fi \t]TrrfOV evepyeia
otKetws
iva
/urj

ov^ ws

Kara
TO

ffreprjffii

ws eVt rris uArjs TO Svvd/j.ei, r) Kara

oAAct

evepyeia

VTTOVOT] ffwfji.fi/

fjLtiSf

us

firl

rrjs

alff9 f)(Tws,

evda

rwv alcrdrjrypiwv Kivr,(rews il rwv \6ywv yiverai Trpoflo\}], Kal TUV e|w KeifAevcav ovffa 0(aavrrj prjTiK?/, aAAa voepus eVt vov Kal rb
Sid TTJS

ydp Ta tVuAa TW vi$ dv\cp OVTL aAA orav o vovs rd eV avrq} p.}] ws avrd fj.6vov aAAa Kal ws dtria rwv evv\wv vcp virdp^fi rd p, Tore Kal Kara TT)V alrlav. In making use of these passages it must not be forgotten that we have in them the words of Theophrastus only in the paraphrase of a NeoavTtp
voTf]dr]a6fj.eva
T6t>

ovSeiroTe

platonic.

396

ARISTOTLE
it

from
ever,

by a greater degive of perfection.

This,

how

can only refer to the lower powers of the soul The relation of the lower to the exclusive of reason. 2
higher elements of the soul seems also to have offered
insuperable difficulties to

him

we know

at least that

in regard to the imagination he was in doubt whether it ought to be referred to the rational or the irrational
3

part.

doctrine of reason

From what we know of his treatment of the we may conjecture that he found this

4 subject also full of difficulty. have fuller details of Theophrastns s doctrine of

We

POEPH. UK

Abut.

iii.

25
iibr-r

(apud

BEEN AYS,

Tlieoplir.
;

Frommir/h. 97, 184 for the frag ment there given belongs, as BEKNAYS proves at p. 99, to this hook and not to the TT. {ywv
fofypacrros
\6yu>.
T<JOV

The rest conceins oiKei6rr)s. Porphyry, not Theophrastus. The \oyiff/j.ol, which with the beasts are different in per fection, are not in anjr very
different

Se

KCU
e /c

analoga

from the position of vovs and (ppovycrts,

rovs

aurcav yfvvj]Qtvro.s
fivai
(pixrei

....

OIK.

ascribed to the beasts by Ari stotle (supra, vol. ii p. 27, n. 6,

fiovs

tya.fj.fv

dAA7]Acoi

and
3

p. 38, n. 2).

So also of people of the same race, even if they are not of the same descent irdvras 5e rovs avOpc&Trovs
:

MMPL. DC An.

to the difference

As 80, a. between phan

see
also 263,

tasy and perception,

a\\r]\ois

(ptt/jLei/

olKfiovs

re

ical
r<f

PEISCIAN,
1

c. 3,

fi,

W.

Suolv Qarepov, $) af eivai roov TO? $j KOL Kal TO.VTOV -yei/ovs

els elvai
ai>ra>v,

T]9<jav

iv

....

KOI
TO>I>

^v

Kal

Traffi

this theory of the imagination was connected a question referred to by PEISciAN (see PLOTIN. p. 565, ed.

With

ois

a i re at avral

ffuifjidruv

ap^al

Didot,
It is

[i.e.

seed, flesh,
r<j5

of. BBAXDIS, iii. 373). to be noted, however, that

TTQ\V 5e yUaAAoj/ ras cv avro?s \|/ixas a8ia<p6povs Tre<pvKevai, \eyca ofy rats iriOv/j.iais Kal rats opyals, en 5e ro?s AoytcryUoTs, /cat ^.aAffTTa iravTiav rats alffd^fftatv. aAA tacnrep ra (ru/J.ara, Kal ra?
<?.].

Priscian does not expressly name Theophrastus and that the sup
;

position that he is here referring to him is a conjecture of DUBNBE S. The question is, why do

ovrca
nacri

TO

yuej

we remember our dreams when we are awake, and forget our

waking
life in

dreams

We

do

ye

fj.r]i/

aiirols at

avral TT(pvTJ

not get any clear answer from

Priscian.

naaiv apxai. STJAO? 5e

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

the senses. 1

:i97

Here, however, he adopts Aristotle s con 2 The views clusions without important modification.
of previous philosophers upon the senses and the objects of sense-perception are accurately presented and tested

from the point of view of the Peripatetic doctrine. 3

Theophrastus himself explains sensation, with Aristotle, as a change in the organs of sense by means of which
they become assimilated, not in matter but in form, to This effect proceeds from the object of perception. 4

In order that it may be produced it is the object. 5 that the latter should stand to the organ of necessary
sense in a certain harmonious relation, the nature of

which accordingly here forms an important subject of it may not, however, be sought for either discussion
(;

in the

homogeneity or the heterogeneity of the con

7 stituent parts of its terms alone.

The operation

of

can only notice in pasanother anthropological inquiry: namely, the discussion on Melancholy, which is to be found in the Aristotelian ProHems (xxx. 1, pp. 1)53-955), the
1

We

sing

circumstances, sometimes a condition of cold and weariness, and sometimes a heat-

rounding

ing and exciting effect,

For which see

vol.

p.

58 sqq. of
to

Theophrastean origin of which the book ?r. MeAcry(I.e. from XoAt os mentioned by DJOG. v. 44), ROSE, De- Arist. libr. ord. 191 has
detected by means of the reference therein (954, a, 20) to the The book on Fire ( 35, 40).
diverse effects which it was custernary to attribute to the ^ueAatj/a XoAr? are explained, with the aid of an analogy drawn from the effects of wine, by the theory that the ueAotvo %oA^ was of its

supra. In the which sec vol.

3
4

ii.

De
ii.

Sensu, as
p. 354, n. 3.

PEISCIAN,
/m.ev

\fyei
eft>7?

/cat

i. 1, p. 232, ovv KOI avrbs, Kara TO. roiis \6yovs &Veu TT/S v\t]s
s

W:

yiveo-Oai

rrjv

t |o/*o,Wii/.

The

theory of an airoppo^, i.e. an efrluence from the object to the sense, is attacked in the De
Sensu, 20, cf. Cans. PI. vi. 5. 4. Compare the passages cited from Aristotle supra, vol. ii. p. 59 n. 2.
i. 37, p. 254, W. De Sensu, 32, PEISC. 44, 258, W, Cans. PI. vi. 2, 1,5, 4.

5
fi

PRISCIAN,

own nature
of

cold, but

was capable
p.

i.

taking on a high degree of heat, and that accordingly it produced according to the sur-

Both views are attacked by Theophrastus in the De Stnsii,

7

398

ARISTOTLE

the object upon the senses is always mediated, accord In developing ing to Theophrastus, by a third term.
1

his

doctrine, as in criticising his predecessors, he doubtless discussed each of the senses separately, but

own

only a meagre

Like Aristotle, from the other senses, but did not wholly agree with that philosopher s view of the way in which the uni 3 He defends versal qualities of matter are perceived.
the veracity of sensation against the attacks of
critus.
31; the first also ibid.. 19, and the second opud PRISC. i. 34, p. 252. Cf. sujira, vol. i. p. 454 sq. Cf. supra, vol. i. p. 519 (on the 5tr?xes and Sioff/j-ov). Pmsc.
1

come down to us. 2 he distinguished the sensus communis

report

has

here

Demo-

i.

16, 20, 30, 40, p. 241, 244, 250,

255; Cans. PL vi. 1, 1. Theophrastus here says, in agreement with Aristotle (vide supra, vol. ii. p. 64), that all sensations reach
us through some medium, which is in the case of Touch our own flesh, and in the case of the other sub certain external senses for Sight tbe trans stances parent medium for Hearing, the for Taste, water for Smell, air He also air and water together. considers that the immediate organs of sense-perception in the
: ; ;
;

of Hearing make the keenest impression on our emo tions (PLUT. De Audiendo, 2, p. and the account of eyes 38, a) that send out fire (aptid SIMPL. De Ccolo, Schol. 513, a, 28 with which the citations supra, vol. ii. p. 65,n. 1, should be compared) and the criticisms of the theory of Democritus (see ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 818) as to the exist ence of an image of any visible object in the air. Nevertheless THEOPHRASTUS himself said (op. PRISCIAN, i. 33, p. 251, W) as to images in mirrors TTJS

tions

fj.op(pT]s

(tHTTTfp

o.iroTvir&ffiv

iv

T(

aepi
3

yii>e<rdai.

Aristotle
iii.>

had said
1,

(in the

c*seof Sight, Hearing and Smell are formed out of water and air. Besides the passages already cited, we ought to mention here the observations (Fr. 4 De Odor.
4,
;

425, a, 16 sqq.) that size, form, &c. were per ceived by means of motion &TO;

De Anima,

Se 6 Qe6(pp. [(prjalv^ flrrjvfj-op^v TT) Kivrjaei (PRISC. i. 46, p. 259, W).

irojf
,

Cans. PI. vi. 5, 1 sq. which follow Aristotle, as to whom see supra, vol. ii. p. 65, n. 3) that although Smell is in man the feeblest of the senses, yet he alone cares for a pleasant smell for its own sake, and that sensa

4 In the De Sensu, 68 sq. (where, however, for the corrupt Xv/j.ov in 68 we should read, not, with Schneider and Philippson, X^AoO, but rather 9ep/j.ov ) he com plains that Democritus treated weight, lightness, hardness and

softness as things in themselves,

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

As

399

a Peripatetic, Theophrastus of course asserted the freedom of the will. In his treatise on voluntary action 2 he fully discussed this subject, and possibly
1

took notice of the Stoic doctrine of determination that was just then rising into notice. But on this point, as

on so

many

others

in Aristotle s

psychology which
is

investigation, little Theophrastus s contribution to science.

demanded

further

known

of

We

have somewhat

fuller

information as to his

ethical doctrines. 3

Here
cold,

also

he merely continued the

Theoplir. 4
sq.)

and yet considered

heat,

USENER, Anal.
attributes
to

sweetness &c., as merely relative He argues qualities of things. that if these qualities depend on the form of the atoms e.g. if

Theophrastus the 42. following ethical works: TT. ptuv three books (if this work really treated of the different
pursuits
icbs, iic.

warmth

is

said

to

consist in

in

life,

roundness of atoms then such qualities must be in some sense objective. If they are supposed not to be objective because they do not appear alike to all men, then the same conclusion should
follow as to
all

e.g.

the
ii.

fiios

[cf. svjtra, vol.

p. 140,

n. 2],

and was not merely bio

;

graphical)

43,

(ATHEN.
C),
IT.

xiii.

562,

e.

a epwriKos 467, b. 606,

other qualities of

p.

Even as to such qualities things. as sweetness and bitterness, people are deceived only as to a particular case, and not as to the
nature of sweets and bitters. Properties so essential as heat

epwros a (3TEABO, X. 4, 12, 478), TT. ei/SatjCioj/i as (ATHEN. xii. 543, xiii. 567, a; BEKKEE, Ancc-d. Gr. i. 104, 31 Cic. Tusc.
;

v.
1
1

9,
)
;

24, cf. 44,

,

^ELIAN.
ijSovrjs

V.

][. ix.

TT.

Te Arjs a
xii.

TT.

rjSovrjs

us A/ncrro&\\o a (ATHEN.

and

cold, must be something be longing to the bodies that have them. Cr on this the references
.

supra, vol. i. p. 209. EPICURUS defended the atomic view against

526, d, 511, c; ibid. vi. 273, c. viii. 347, e, where he adds, how ever, that this work was also at tributed to Chamseleon) KoAAi;

ffQfv-ns $
fin.,

TV.

TtcvQovs

(ALEX. De An.
25,
iii.

Cic.

Tusc.
45,

THEOPHRASTUS
Adv.
1

v. 9,
TT.

10,

(ap.
i.

PLUTARCH,
206
:
e6<f>p.

21);

Col. 7, 2, p. 1110).

STOB. Eel
i

(HiERON. GELL. N. A.

Qixtas 3 B. vi. 517, b, ed. Vallars.:

i.

3, 10, viii.
TT.

6,

and
;

irpoorSiaipe

(Mem.

-ap9poi)

rcus

airiais

T^V

Trpoa pecnv.

PSEUDO-

infra, p. 409 sq.), 2 B. (Cic. ad Att.

46,
ir.

QiXoTi/j-ias

ii.

ad

PLUT.
2
3

Jin.)

V. Horn. ii. 120, p. 1155. EL eKovffiov a , DlOG. V. 43.

tyevdovs jfiovTjs

(OLYMPIO
47,
a!
:

DOR.

Philcb.
ias
:

269);
infra)
:

TT.

cf.

DlOG. v. 42 sq. (with which the further information in

T]QiKu>v <TXO\()V

rjOiKol

(v.

TT.

/coAa/cet as

400

ARISTOTLE
of Aristotle, his chief merit being the greater

work

fullness with

which he develops
:

it

in details.

We

can-

a (ATHEN. vi. 254, d) dpiX-nrucbs a: tr.opKova: TT. irXovrov a! (ASPAS. in Eth. N. 51,andCiC. Off. ii. 16,
56).

ral books.
Etli.

In fact, EUSTRAT. in
61,
b,

N.

tells

ously

from

us, obvi well-informed

TrpojSA^uaTa troXniKa. i]9iKa

TT.
u<reeuis
;

50, (pvffiitaepwTiKaa (Sclwl. in Aristojjk.

as to
ii.

BERNAYS

Av. 1354; view vide supra

iraiUfias
T)

p. 355, n. 2),

TT.

T.

a (to this aperuv % IT. work the Fragrn. apud STOB. /Y/>riZ. iv. 216, No. 124, ed. Mem. A work TT. ight be referred). wi/ not named by Diogenes is referred to by SIMPL. Catcg. 69, TheoAr. 70, b, 3. 8. 6 cAoZ. phrastus, however, also wrote two
ffu><ppo(rvvT]S

larger ethical works, of which one may possibly be the i)6iKal <rxoh.ai of Diog., which must in that case have had more than one book. The two are referred to as HQiKa and TT. HfloJi/. Out of 0eo0o. eV rms WIKOIS, PLUT. Pericl. 38

quotes

story about
TV.
T)Q<av

Pericles.

source, that the verse ej/ Se SiKaLOffvvri, &c. (ARIST. Etli. v. 2, 1129, b, 29) was ascribed by Theophrastus in the first book TT. H0o)j/ to Theognis, and in the first book of the H0t/ca to PhoFrom one of these cylides. works, or perhaps from both, the (ketches of various faults which are collected in the Characters as we have it appear to. have been borrowed. That this, as it stands, is an authentic work of Theophrastus is incredible and that a genuine treatise on Cha racters by him underlies it, as BRANDTS, iii. 360, thinks possible, is in fact very unlikely. The origin of the collection above suggested explains, on the one hand, the fact that it does not
;

Ei rots

Theophr. had,

according to the Scholiast in CRAMER S Aneod. Paris, i. 194, made mention of the avarice of
Simonides,

form a connected whole, and, on the other, the fact that it exists
in several different recensions, as to which cf. PETEESBN, Tlwopli.

and
e.

ATHEN.
wrote

xv. 673

to according a contemporary
irtpl irepl

Characteres, p. 56 sqq.,

SAUPPE,

of this scholar
five

named Adrantus
r&v
T)Q<av

books

itapa

Philodemi De vitiis, I. x. (Weimar, 1853), p. 8. SPEXGEL, AWiandl. der Munchener Akad.

Phil., Philos. Kleinschriften, iii. 495, and PETEESEX, Tlwopli. Characteres, p. 66, have also sug gested that this Theophrastian treatise has been used for the statement of the ethical of the Peripatetics in teaching STOBAEUS, Eel. ii. 242-334,

eo^pao-Tw ev rots

Ka6

and iffropiav Kal Ae|ii/ Q/iTOVfiwotv, a sixth book Trepl TWJ/ cV rols

We
this

must assume from

ethical
treatise

this that

Theophrastus was on a more compre Aristotle s, hensive scale than since it gave occasion for so much
of

more voluminous an historical commentary and we also gather

;

his

expressly that it, like the Nicomaoliean Ethics, comprised seve

already con nected a part of the account (v. remarks on p. 254) with THEOPHR. S book ir. cvrvxias. In any case, the sources from which

HERREN having

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

from
Aristotle s

401

not, however, fail here to observe a certain deviation

problem had not overlooked the significance of external goods and circumstances for the moral life of man, but he regarded these only as aids and instru ments of moral activity, and insisted on their subordina
combine.
Aristotle

point of view, consisting not so or different conclusions as in a slightly altered estimate of the relative importance of the dif ferent elements which it is the of ethics to

much

in

new

In Theophrastus, on the other hand, we find springing from his desire to escape from all disturbances a tendency to attach greater importance to outward circumstances. With that preference for
activity which is so deeply rooted in the Aristotelian system, there is united in Theophrastus the demand of the student to be permitted to devote

tion to practical virtue.

theoretic

himself without hindrance to his work as well as that

limitation to private life which was the outcome of the altered conditions of the time. As a consequence of this his moral tone lacks some of the rigor and force which, in spite of his cautious regard for the external

conditions of action, are so unmistakable in Aristotle.

The

objections, however,

especially

by

his Stoic opponents,

which were urged against him, on this ground, are

the difference between him an insignificant one of emphasis, not a fundamental one of principle.

manifestly exaggerated;
is

and Aristotle

STOB^US drew must have been much later date (cf ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. iii. a, 546 sq.) and we
of a
.

Theophrastus himself, except in the one passage (at p. 300) where

of

cannot use his statement as evidence concerning the teaching

he is named. As BRANDTS, p. 358-9.

to

this

cf

VOL.

II.

D D

402

ARISTOTLE

The character here attributed to the ethical views of Theophrastus shows itself especially in his account of to be the goal of philosophy happiness, which he holds While he agrees in general. as of human activity
1

with Aristotle in holding that virtue is absolutely alone, at least in a special desirable, and regards it, if not
2 sense as good, he yet was unable to admit that outward He denied that virtue alone conditions are indifferent.

was

sufficient for happiness,

or that the latter could

exist together with extreme forms of physical suffer 3 He complained of the disturbances to which our
ing.
1

Cic. Fin. v. 29, 86 auctoritas philosophic,

omnis
ut
ait

the distinction. In Tusc. v. 9, 24, CICEEO himself tells us that

vita Theophrastus, consist!! in beata compararda. beate enim

admitted Theophrastus kinds of Goods as did

stotle (supra, vol.
ii.

three.

Ari
(see
n. 3,

vivendi cupiditate incensi omnes sumus assuming that the words ut ait Th. are to be transposed to this place, as appears probable. 2 CICERO, Legg. i. 13, 37-8, counts Theophrastus and Aristotle among those qui omnia recta et honesta per se expetenda duxerunt, et ant nihil omnino in bonis numerandum, nisi quod per se certe ipsum laudabile esset, aut nullum habendum magnum bonum, nisi quod vere laudari sua

p. 151, n. 1),

Plato and the

Academics ZELLEK, Ph. d. Gr. i. 808, and 879, n. 2).

3
. .

CiC.jPw.sr.v.8,24: Theophr. statuisset, verbera, tormenta, cruciatus, patriaa ever.

cum

siones, exilia, orbitates

magnam
;

vim habere ad male misereque vivendum [so said Aristotle also

v.

supra, vol.ii. pp. 145, 150, nn.

1,

sponte posset. To Theophrastus, however, we ought to ascribe only the latter of these opinions, and this the more confidently be cause it is probable from the con
text that

non est ausus elate et ample loqui, cum humiliter demisseque vexatur autem ab sentiret
2],
. .

omnibus [by the Stoics and, above quodmulta all, the Academics]
.

disputarit,

quamobrem

is

qui tor-

queatur,
esse

CICEEO

is here,

as else

non

crucjetur, beat us Cf. Fin. v. 26, possit.

qui

where,

following ANTIOOHUS, whose eclectic point of view led him to minimise the differences between the ethics of the Stoics and of the Peripatetics, just as much as the Stoics, on their side, were accustomed to exaggerate

It is no doubt the same part of the teaching to which CICERO, in Acad. ii. 43,

77, 28, 85.

134,alludes when he remarks that Zeno had expected of virtue more than human nature admitted,

Theophrasto multadiserte copio-

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

intellectual life
is
1

403

of the subjected from the body; shortness of human life, which ceases when we just have arrived at some degree of insight 2 and of the dependence of man upon circumstances which lie
;

his own control. It was not indeed his inten tion to depreciate in this way the worth of virtue, or to seek the essence of happiness in accidental advantages and states, 4 but he certainly seems to attribute to out

beyond

ward
done.

relations greater importance than his master

The explanation

of this trait

however, in his predilection for the life of study. He is not accused of attributing to external goods as such any positive value. 5 Even his
seque [contra] dicente and also when he complains, in Acad. i. 9, 33, that Theophr. spoliavit virtutem suo decore imbecillamque reddidit, quod negavit in ea sola positum esse beate vivere cf. Fin. V. 5, 12 Theophrastum
;
. .

had must be sought, the peace and quiet of

Cf.

The
PLUT.

story

supra vol. about

ii

p. 402, n. 1. Pericles in

Pericles, 38, can only be intended to lead up to a negative

dummodo plus in virtute teneamus, quam ille tenuit, firmitatis

et roboris.
1

tamen adhibeamus ad pleraque,

answer to the question which is there proposed by Theophrastus, el irpbs ras Tv^as TpeVerai ra ijfi-r]
TOLS T&V (rw/uLdrcav KIVOV/JLCVO. irdOeffiv e^tffrarai TTJS As aperijs.
/cal

the words cited from Callisthenes, they are (as CICERO himto
self

p. 135, e.

AjjudPLVT. DeSanit. tu. 24, In PORPH. De Abstin.

remarked and indicated by

iv. 20, p. 373 have the saying TroAt; ffwfj.ari reAe?j/ evo iKiov T^V
:
rq>

we

his metrical translation) a phrase of some other writer, probably a orcomic poet, which Theotragic

explained :_that is, a^it in the Plutarch Fragment i. 2, 2,

p. 690,
-

is

the

AuTrai, (f)68ot,

Vide supra,
Cic. Tusc.

vol.

ii.

p.

351,

n. 2.
3

v. 9,

25

Vexatur
libris et

idem Theophrastus

et

quod

scholis omnium philosophorum, in Callisthene suo laudavit

illam
Cons,

sententiam:

vitam

phrastus quoted; and, besides, it would be necessary, before we could draw a safe inference from them, that we should know the context in which Theophrastus introduced them. An isolated excerpt such as this in an attack by an opponent is not a safe basis for a conclusion as to Theophrastus s real teaching,

regit

fortuna,

non sapientia. Cf.PLUT. ad ApolL 6, p. 104, d.

He is blamed merely because he holds that sorrows and misfortune are a hindrance to
5

DD

404

ARISTOTLE
pleasure
1

statements about
Aristotelian
scientific
life

closely

accord with

the

teaching.

But that preference

for the

which he shared with Aristotle 2 was in his case not free from one-sidedness, and he held him self aloof from all that might in any degree disturb him
in the practice of it. fragment of his work

We

see this especially in the

3
;

from which he upon Marriage dissuaded the philosopher, both on the ground that the care of a house and family withdrew him from his work, and that he especially must be self-sufficient and
happiness

but this
:

is

genuine

Aristotelian teaching v. sup. vol. ii. p. 402, n. 3. But, on the other hand, he required (ap. STOB. Floril iv. 283, No. 202, Mein.), that men should by simplicity of life make themselves independent of

quality between different sorts of pleasure, which the Peripatetic He admitted. school always meant merely, as is clear from the
fuller

given by explanation OLYMPIODORUS, that the ascrip tion of truth and falsehood

he desired, ap. external thing s PLUT. Lye. 10 (see PORPH. De Abst. iv. 4, p. 304), Cup. Div. 8, a p. 527, to see man become by proper use of wealth &TT\OVTOS Kal &T)\OS and he rinds (ap. Cic. Off. ii. 16, 56) the chief value of riches in the fact that they serve
;
;

to pleasure is inappropriate, be cause every pleasure is for the

man who

a true pleasure, false is there fore never suitable. If the words fy prjreoi &c. which follow still refer to THEOPH., it seems that he even admitted the use of the
feels
it

and the predicate

for
1

magnificentia et apparatio

words

true

and

false

in this

popularium munerum. In the passage given by

ASPASIUS
115;
cf.

Class. Journal,

xxix.

BRANDIS,

iii.

381)

connection, if only they were properly explained. 2 Cic. Fin. v 4, 11, says of both, vit3 autern degendaa ratio

THEOPH.

says, as Aristotle also

said, that it is

maxume quidem
quieta,
in

illis

placuit

might have

not the

desire of a pleasure which is blameworthy, but the passion-

ateness of the desire and the want

of
self-control.

According

to

OLYMPIODORUS
Stallb.,

(in Pkileb. 269,

contemplatione et cognitione posita rerum, &c. Ib. 25, 73, and Ad Alt ii. 16, we are told that Dicasarchus gave the to the practical preference and Theophrastus to the life,
theoretical.

he

maintained
aA.rj07)

against
J/eu8f?

Plato,
this,

ySovfyv,

3 HlEROX. Adv. Jovin. i. 47, a\\a irdffas dAijfleTs. By iv. 6, 189, Mart. Vide Thenhowever, he cannot have plmt&ti Opp. (ed. Schneid.) v.
jury

flvai

Kal

meant

to

deny the differences

in

221 sqq.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

1

405

able to dispense with family life. It is quite consistent with this attitude of thought that Theophrastus should

shun, as a hindrance to perfect happiness, such external fatalities and sufferings as threaten freedom and peace
of mind.

His nature was not adapted

ills

for the battle

with the world and with the

strength which
this

from the
ness
;

scientific

The time and would demand would be withdrawn labours which were his only happi
of
life.

would interrupt quiet contemplation and the intellectual peace that accompanied it. Therefore he avoided everything which might involve him in such a conflict. Both the Stoic and the Epicurean school at
it

this time

and

self-sufficient.

aimed at making the wise man independent Theophrastus pursued the same

end, except that, true to the spirit of the Peripatetic

1

sage

Theophrastus in this pas is answering the question,

woman
one
not
is

is

costly to keep
his

a rich
faults

unendurable.

A man does
s

Whether the wise man would take a wife ? He begins by say

ing that he would, si pulchra esset, si bene morata, si honestis parentibus, si ipse sanus ac dives. But he promptly goes on to say that all these conditions are seldom combined, and therefore it is more prudent to avoid

discover

wife

until after

marriage.

Her de

matrimony.

Primum enim im-

pediri studia philosophise, nee posse quemquam libris et uxori The best pos pariter inservire. sible teacher might be to be

mands, her jealousies, her insis tences on what is due to her and her family are endless. A beauti ful wife is hardly to be kept faithful; yet a wife without beauty is a burden, &c., &c. It is wiser to leave one s housekeeping to a faithful servant, and to trust to one s friends in case of sick As for company, a man ness. needs no wife the wite man is never alone, for he has the wise
:

found abroad, but one could not go to seek him if one was tied tn ii wife. Again, a, wife has no end of costly wants. She fills her husband s ears, as Theophrastus
explains in lively mimicry, with

men

of

all

ages for his

if

panions; and

men

fail

com him he

hundreds

of

complaints

and

reproaches, night

and day.

A poor

can speak with God. Noi- should one set store by children, for they often bring one rather trouble and expense than joy or For heirs, a man does help.
better to choose his friends.

406
ethics,

ARISTOTLE
he refused to overlook the external conditions of
life.
1

the self-sufficient

As

in the points hitherto discussed

the difference

discernible between Theophrastus and Aristotle is one of degree only, which does not admit of being strictly of his moral denned, so also in the remaining portions

philosophy which are

known

to us

it is

but seldom that

visible.

view any important divergence of

is

Theo

defined virtue as the preserva phrastus, like Aristotle, tion of the true mean according to reason between two
vices,

accurately, as the quality of the will 2 directed to this end, under the guidance of insight.
or,

more

We

should not, however, be

a>s

referring to Theo phrastus the line of argument set out in CiC. Fin. v. 6, J 7, 9, 24 sqq.
justified in

word
n.

ar 6 (pp6vifj.os dpifffttv [this is for word the Aristotelian

;

definition
2].

snpra, vol.
raJ
ii.

ii.

p.

163,

elra
Etll.

7rapa0e |U fI/os

nvas

Eel. ii. 246 sqq., in Stoic dogma of the life according to nature is brought into relation with the Peripatetic of the different kinds of

and STOB. which the

ffvvylas,

a,Ko\ }vQws

(ARIST.
eTretra
pd6f]
K.

/ca0

7) CKXCTTOV firdyow

y.

7ret-

theory

we should read awn

K. tirdyiav r.

rbv rp jirov TOVTOV

rp. T.]
i

[perhaps

for Cicero s account is de rived, according to c. 3, 8, 25, 75,

Good

yj&piv

a"5e

from Antiochus, and that in Stobasus (ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. iii. a, 546 sq. 2nd erf.) from Arms Didymus, and the later Eclecti cism has manifestly coloured both
27, 81

aKoAao"io,

ai/Speta,
ffvvr]

Opatrvr-rfs,

ava\yri(ria opytAoTTjs, Si/catoSetAia

acrwrta,

e\vdepL6rr]s,

av-

\evdepia
Treta,

of these sources 2 STOB. Eel.

irpbs

peyahoirpeirfia, /JUKpovptAfter an ex (ra\a.Kwvia.

ii.

800: ri olv

r)/J.as [ifffov &pi<TTOV, oiov, $r\3iv 6 Qetcbpavros, ev rats ivrvxious oSt

pet?

TroAAa

8tfA0o>;

/col

/uaKpus a5o-

planation on these lines of the nature of the virtues named, he adds, at p. 306 TOVTO /j.(v TO TUJV i]9iKwv aperuv elSos vaQiiTiKbv Kal
:

Aea-x^as, 681 8 0X170 /cat [which GAISF. unnecessarily deletes] ov5e ravayKcua. OUTOS 8e aura & eSet
fj.1]

Kara,

Ji(r6rt]ra.

Oecapov/ufvov,

8r?

T7

TOV Kaipov

eAa/3ei/. avrf] pfaroTrjs

aAA

T]

irpbs rjjuav, avrrj

yap
8t
l

v<$>

TJ/A&V &pi-

Kara rb
St /catos

fjifv (ppovriais YSto^, at/rat 8

ru7s

-rjdiKOiS

e /ce: */??

Kara

o ea-Tti/

<Tvfj.fBe/Br]K6s.

ori [read o] fj.ev Kal typoviyios, 6 fffrl

yap yap
ov

r/aay,

TototrSe
wpi<T/j.evri

avrbv \6yos

etSoTroje?,

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHEASTUS

407

opposite

In the description of the different virtues and their vices we cannot doubt that he went into
1

greater detail than his master, although we can follow his work here only in respect of some of the vices under the uncertain guidance of the Characters. He did not,

however, conceal from himself that the distinction be tween the separate virtues is to a certain degree a

vanishing one, inasmuch as they

insight a
fj.T)v

all

find

in
2

moral

common
0poi/ijuos
<xAA

root
/cai

and connecting

principle.
:

That

on

[6]
tSiov,

SiKaios

Kara rb
Kv.ya.QSiv

on T&V KaX&v
<pav\ov

KOIVWS TrpaKTUths
(i.e.

the persons acting where, that is to say, the /Aeo^TTjs -npbs rb irpay/j.a is observed, but not the
/uLeff6r r]s

ouSei os

(pponjats

is

con

tained

idea of justice immediately, since justice is the adjustment of relations concern

in

the

vol.
1

ii.

r)/j.as irpbs p. 162, n. 3).

(cf.

supra,

ing rights according to ^p6vn<ris but justice is contained in the idea of QpovnvLs only mediately). Down to this point the extract
;

seems to come from THEOPHRASTUS, because there is an unbroken grammatical connection from the elra words &c., irapa6e/u.evos, which can only refer to him. The reading eV rais evrvxia-is in the second line of the passage is rightly supported by PETERSEX,
Characteres, 67 sq., against HEEREN S conjecture, eV
Tlieophr.
TOIS

This cannot be said to be proved with any certainty (as has been already pointed out), from what we find in STOB. Eel. ii. 316 sqq., and Cic. Fin. v. 23, It is, however, probable in 65. itself, arguing on the analogy of the general lines of Theophrastus s work, and it is made still more probable when we remember the detailed description of a series of failings which we have in the
Characters.
cf sujtra, vol.
.

We

are

told
i.

by
:

HERMIPPUS (ap. ATHEN.

ii.

21, a

p. 352, n. 1),

bably with some

(as

pro exaggeration

PETERSEN, however, himself distorts THEOPHRASTUS S meaning (which in

irepi

tvrv)^ia.s.

BRANDIS,

p.

359, justly re

marks), that Theophrastus in his lectures carried even a mimicry

of

this evidently
is

incomplete excerpt not very clearly expressed) when he reads Kal p-^v rbv Kaipbv eAa)8ei/, in place of ,ur? r. K. eA. For the

outward

characteristics

to

words ovros

!Aa/3ei/

indicate,

not the correct course, but a third kind of error, that, namely, in which what is done may be right in itself but not right in relation to the particular circumstances of

great lengths. His tendency to and talent in such pictures of de tail is obvious from the Fragm. just described at p, 405, n. 1, The notice of Adrantus supra. (supra, p. 400) is probably one of

numerous examples introduced by him to illustrate his Ethics. 2 ALEX. APHR. De An. 155,

408

ARISTOTLE
scientific

one who so preferred

distinguished

to

practical

activity

dianoetic from

moral virtue cannot be

nor could he easily avoid touching upon it in but whether he here discussed it at length his Ethics

doubted

it

Nor have we fuller informa impossible to tell. tion as to his treatment of the passions. 2 are only informed that he maintained, seemingly against Zeno,
is
1

We

the naturalness and inevitableiiess of certain emotions, such as anger against wrong-doing and under excite ment. 3 For the rest he demands that no one should act

under the influence of passion for instance, that no one should inflict punishment in anger. 4 Of the sins
b
:

Traffai

(.ppovrifffi.

av eiroivro at aperal rrj ovSs yap pafiiovrtov apercav

&e6<f)paffTov

316, we find the e ts to which belong aofpia,

KO.TO,

rov

TCCS

and
the
8

fypovriffis,

distinguished from
Since, himself

ovTCt) Aa/SetV,

ws

/uvj

Kara TI
yivovrai
Kara,

e|ts

-jrpaKTLK i].

how
(see

vtlv

avras
at

aAA/^Aats.
Trpoariyopiai
(Jf.

ever,

Aristotle

avrcus

irXelarov.

the end of

rb the
:

passage from STOB.EUS quoted in the preceding note. Ibid. p. 270 decides, both for itself and for all other virtues, what is and what is not to be done, rwv 5
.i>Ti<rt.s
<$>p

supra, vol. ii. p. 178, n. 1) only discussed the theoretic activities in his EtJilcs i-o far as was neces sary for the complete explana tion of the ethical aspect of life, we cannot assume that Theophr. treated the subject in any other

eKao TTji
1

aTrorffj-vetrdai /JLOVO.

way.
-

SIMPL. Schol.
ii.

did not, PETEESEN, ib. 66, concludes (with SPENGEL, AbUindl. der Miinclien. Altad.
lie

That

citing the T. Tra6cov (d.

vol. p.
.

THEOPHE.
tions of
3

Ar. 70, b, 3, q. v. supra, us that tells distinguished the no

in
>i)9),

pJiilol.-plillns.

Kleinscliriften,

iii.

urivis, opyri
/

and

6v/nbs

by

495) from the absence of the Dianoe^ic Virtues in the Maynci It is, however, to be Moral.ia. observed, on the one hand (as

the formula of uaA.Ao

/cai
i.

TJTTOV.

SENECA,

tie Ira,

12,
ii.

1,3;

B ABLAAM. Eth. seo.

14, 1, Sto.

BBAXDIS, ii. G, 156(5, iii. 361, suggests), that these virtues are not in fact unknown to that book, and, on the other hand, that it is impossible to prove that the bo -k here follows TheoIn HTOB^US, Eel. ii. phrastus.

13 (Mill. Max. pair. xxvi. 37 D, and aputl BE.\NDIS, iii. 356). Against the Stoics were doubt less also directed the arguments mentioned by ISiMPL. Catcg. Schol. 86, b, 28, as to the muta bility of the virtues. 4 iSTOB. Floril. 1 .), 12.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

409

of passion he declared those of desire to be worse than

anger, since
1

it is

worse to succumb to pleasure than to

pain.

Theophrastus, like Aristotle, had devoted special attention to the moral relations which rest upon com

munity of life. We know of special treatises written 2 He set by him upon Friendship, Love, and Marriage.
the highest value

upon Friendship provided it is of the which, however, is not often the case. 3 He right kind, even went so far as to permit slight violations of duty
if

the interests of a friend could thereby be greatly furthered, holding that in this case the qualitatively higher worth of moral virtue was outweighed by the
quantitative
of gold
4

preponderance

of

the

counterbalancing

advantage to a friend, just as the value of a little piece

copper. selection of friends have appeared to him. 5
1

might be exceeded by a large quantity of All the more necessary must prudence in the

The three
partly

Schol. Paria.
v.

M. AUREL. irp. favr. ii. 10, apud CEAMER, Am-cd.

i.

21-28,

who

gives

the

174.

So also Aristotle
ii.

Greek text, partly a translation and summary. CICERO (Amic.

11 sqq. 17, 61) passes, as Gellius rightly complains, much too He delightly over this point. claims passionately against the

supra, vol.
2

p. 190, n. 1

and

p. 113, n. 1.

Supra, vol. ii. p. 399, n. 2. Theophrastus s three books on Friendship were extensively used by CICERO for his De Amicitia cf. GELL. N. A. i. 3, 11.
:

HIERON.

in

Micham,

iii.

1548,Mart.: scripsit Theophrastus tria de amicitia volumina, omni

view, which nobody set up, that a man should commit treason or other gross crimes to oblige a friend but at the end he concedes in two words, that if a friend s interests are very deeply
;

eampraeferenscharitati,ettamen raram in rebus humanis esse contestatus

est.

involved, declinandum sit de via,

Cf.

the

modo ne summa turpitudo seremark quatur. BRANDTS (iii. 353) sees

in this a criticism of the teaching of Theophrastus but this does not seem to be necessary.
;

quoted supra, vol. ii. p. 405, n. 1, that to be cared for by a friend is better than to be tended by a wife, 4 See GELL. A. i. 3, 10,
JV".

PLUT. Frat. Am.

8, p.

482,

410

ARISTOTLE

kinds of friendship which Aristotle had distinguished he also recognises, and doubtless in his treatise upon them made many fine observations upon the pecu
1

liarities

of each of

them and the divers

us.
2

relations in

which friendship involves

:

He

has

much

less

sympathy with the more passionate affection of the lover to him this is an irrational desire which over
powers the
soul, and, like wine,

may

moderation. 3

This, however, is not the

only be enjoyed in ground of his

own

disinclination to marriage ; 4 upon which, notwith standing, as upon the education and the conduct of
5 women, he may be credited with having

said

much
apart
:

that

is

true. 6
s political

Of Theophrastus
b (STOB.
Ep.
i.
:

writings

we know,

Floril. 84, 14 SENECA, see Schneider, v. 3, 2

; ;

3, 50 ad fin. better Saveiffavra (oviAas

STOB. Floril.

It is

aTroAa-

289) friends, try before love them with our family, the converse is true. l EUSTEAT. in Etli. N. 141, a (BEAXDIS, iii. 352, by a slip re fers it to TheoAspasius) phrastus and Eudemus held that friendships of persons in unequal relation were divisible into the
:
,

we we

must

Further
of
this

interesting-

fragments

work

THEOPHE. will be found HEYLBUT, De Tlieoplir. Liltr.

<pi\ias,

of in
IT.

13 sqq.
64,
27,

STOB. Floril.
xiii.

29;

ATHEN.
4

562,

e.

same three
init., n. 3.
2

classes as friendships of equality. Cf. Mil. End. vii. 4

and see supra,

vol.

ii.

p.

96,

woman
see

Examples are the citations In given in GELLIUS, viii. 6

:

reconciliations w^ith friends ex are planations dangerous

:

not her No.

Supra, vol. See STOB. Floril. 74, 42 a should neither wish to nor to be seen ibid. 85, 7 politics but housekeeping is sphere; ibid. vol. iv. 193; 31 Mein. education in ypd/j.ii.
:

p. 405, n. 1.

PLUT. Frat. Am.

20, p.

490

If

friends have everything in com mon, it must especially be true that they have their respective friends in common PLUT. Cato
:

necessary for girls also, but it should not be carried beyond what is needful for house keeping. 6 In the passage cited in STOB. Floril. 3, 50, he insists on
/j.ara is

Min.

Excessive friend ship easily passes over into hate.

c.
;

37

sympathy and friendliness to wards wife and children. The

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

fact that here also

411

from a number of historical statements, only the general he endeavoured to supplement the Ari
stotelian

different kinds

teaching and that to Aristotle s account of the of States he added a collection of laws.

In his own investigations into the nature of the State

he gave special prominence to the discussion of the magisterial offices, and to the treatment of the problems
arise in connection with special circumstances. not to be supposed that Theophrastus deviated in any respect from the principles of Aristotle s political doctrine and if in addition to the national bond of
It is
]

that

remaining fragments

of

Theo-

ethical texts phrastus s give us only isolated remarks, often keen and finely observed, but without any special philosophic interest. Such are the apoph thegms preserved by STOBYEUS in the JFlorileffiu-iit (see the index thereto) and by PLUTABCH, Agfa, Sertnr. c. c, 13 2, and the statement as to his commenda
:

out a political philosophy, with great knowledge of the subject J the locus de re(Divi.n. ii. 1, publica was, he says, a Platone Aristotele Theophrasto totaque Peripateticorum familia tractatus
;
>

uberrime Legg. iii. 6,14: Theo phrastus vero institutus ab Ari stotele habitavit, ut scitis, in eo generererum ), but he gives us fur ther details as to the contents of
;

tion of hospitality in Cic. Off. ii. 18, 64: the remark (probably aimed at Anaxagoras) as to the relation between pleasure and pain, cited by ASPASIUS inArist.

his political writings. Legg.

iii.

o,

14: Sed hujus loci de magistratibus sunt propria qusedam, a

(Classical Journal, xxix.) The note ap. ULYMPIOD. in Phileb. 169 as to the three fold i//eG5os, relates, not to moral
114.

Etli.

Theophrasto primum, deinde a Dione [? Diogene] Stoico quassita

subtilius.

Fin.

\.

4,

14

Om

nium

fere civitatnm,

non

Grreciaj

but to the possible meanings of vJ/euS^s T/Soi^ (cf.

falsehood,
sujtra, vol.ii. p. 404, n. 1.)
1

know

For almost everything we

of his politics

we

etiam barbaric, ab mores instituta disciplinas, a Theophrasto leges e iam cognovimus; cumque uterque eorurn docuisset, qualem in republica principem esse conAristotele
r

solum, sed

are in

debted to CICERO. We know, in fact, that he was one of

Cicero s authors
tells

favourite

veniret, pluribus praaterea cum scripsisset, quis esset optimus hoc amplius reipublica; status
:

(Ad

Att.

ii.

political 9,2). Cicero

not only that Theo phrastus had thoroughly worked

us,

Theophrastus, quaa essent in re publica inclinationes rerum et momenta temporum, quibus esset

moderandum utcumque

res pos-

412

ARISTOTLE

fellow-citizenship he gives express prominence to the natural brotherhood of all men, yet this is quite in 2 harmony with the spirit of his master, however signi
1

ficant the

approach in

it

may be

to the cosmopolitanism

of the Stoics. 3

In one of his ethical writings Theophrastus expressed views upon sacrifice in which the ascetic Aristotelian
Of Theophrastus s poli works we know from Diogenes, c., the v6/*oi in twentyfour books (see Fr. 97-106; the eTm-OjUv? VO/JLUV in 10 bks. can only be a later extract from the
tularet.
tical

(by

Cic.

Fin.

v.

4,
).

11 as

momenta temporum

the Further

bk. TT. Trapoj/dju (DioG. 47), perhaps also excerpts from the v6/j.ot ; 3 bks. vofjLoQsrcav (the title was no doubt 4 bks. z/o/xo0eVcu or TTfpl vo/j.o6.^ Tro\iriK(av e6G)v 6 bks. (D. 45), and again 2 bks.
VOJJ.OL)
;

bk.

IT.

v6fJLtav

andl

notes as to these writings and the evidence about them will be found in USENEK, Anal. Th. 6 sqq., HENKEL, ibid. 19 sqq. and as to the VQ/J.OI in particular,
;

o>

i/

see
1

USENER,
the
ii.

Rliein.

Mus.

xvi.

470 sqq. See

supra, vol.
8

PORPH. De Abut.
See
the

passage
iii.

apud
cited

25,

p. 396, n. 1.

passage

from

(D. 50), which were probably a duplicate or excerpt of the others [unless we are to read in D. 50

Etli. viii. 13, 1161, b, 5 referred to supra, p. 219, n. 5, where Ari

with COBET and

z.

HENKEL

stotle says that

a friendship with

(Stud.

a slave

Gescli. d. grlecli. Lelire vom Staat, p. 20), not iroXiriKwv, but, on the analogy of the Aristote

possible, not indeed 77 SoDAoy, but fj HvOpwiros yap flvai TL SiKaiov ira.vr\ avQp&irtf Trpbs iravra T}JV ^vvd^vov KOIVOWTJis
ffat
i
<f>

5o?
K al

lian
p.

iro\iTiKbs (supra, vol. 1, 1 bk. TT. rfjs 59) TToAmKoO] Tro\iT(ias apiffTTjs (D. 45) or &i/ TroAts (D. 49) TTUS OIKOLTO 2 bks. eVtT<tyU7 TTJS
;

v6fj.ov

Kal

(Tvvd f)Kr)s

\i a
S.
3

S);,

/ca0

offov &vdpw-

7T

&pi<rr

vos iro\iTfias

1 1

(D.

42)

and

bk. bk.

TT. TT.

(D. 45;, both probably combined in the 2 bks. ?r. ftatri\eias (D. 49)
;

irpbs

KdcrffavSpov
47),
iv.

TT.

)8a<rtAtas

Cf. BERNAYS, Theophr. iib. FrommigTt. 100 sq. His remark that in the Aristotelean Ethics there is no note of the love of humanity must be somewhat limited by the passage just cited; but we may concede that in Theophrastus

(D.

which
144,
e,
;

according

ATHEN.

was

to also as
iratSeias

side Aristotle
this

of

was

things, which in far less promi

cribed to Sosibius 4 bks. Pacri\(<i)s rovs Kaipovs (to 2 bks. Kaipwv, L).
;

1 bk.

TT.

nent, obtained

much

greater im

ferred).

TroXLriKwv irpbs which also the oO, may be re This work is often cited

portance in conformity with the spirit of the new epoch which came with Alexander.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

1

413

He followed Empedocles and anticipated Porphyry. not only sought historically to prove that originally
2 were used for only the simplest products of nature and that animal offerings especially were of sacrifices, 3 later origin, but he also demanded that men should

abstain from the latter, and confine themselves to the The more harmless presentation of fruits of the field. 4 of animals in general and the use slaughter, moreover, of their flesh, in so far as the former was not rendered

necessary by their ferocity, the latter by lack of other provisions, he was consistent enough to condemn, on the ground that these beasts are akin to us, and
therefore possess rights as against us which forbid us 5 forcibly to rob them of life. He did not, however, on this

account desire to renounce the national rites of

sacrifice.

merely said that their moral value lay, not in the 7 greatness of the gift, but in the disposition of the giver.
1

He

The

IT.

fvffefifias,

d.
</.

v.

supra, vol.
2

ii.

p. 355, n. 2.
;

E.g. first grass, then fruits

first

water, then honey, and,

still

later,
3

wine.

ii. 5-8, 12-15, 20-1, pp. 39, 56, 62, 79, Bern. He dealt with human &c.,

POBPH. De Abstin.

belief in Demonology, cannot be taken from TheopLrastus and, in fact, Porphyry does not ascribe it to him. Nor have we any sufficient ground in PLUT.
;

sacrifices

(ibid.

c.

7)

and with
;

the peculiar customs of the Jews as to sacrifices (ii. 26) see, as to the mistakes in the latter section, BERNAYS, p. 109 sqq. 184-5. 4 Ibid. c. 12 sqq. 22 sqq.
3

Def. Orae. 20, p. 420, to assert that Theophrastos believed in Deemons. Even if it be true that the passage correctly represents his attitude to the belief, it

would only prove that, while he could not accept it in the prevailing form, he did not feel free
to reject
"

it

absolutely.

Ibid.

c.
ii.

cf. sujjra,
6

12-18, 22-23, p. 396.

43,
-ij/j.e is.

and
&<TT

Ibid.

ii.

p.

184

Kara
dvffou.ff

ra
Kal

elpr)/u.va

Qeotypdo-TCf)

The theory

which Porphyry here sets out, that this view was founded on a

Florll. 3, 50, Toivvv rbv ^eAAoj/ra 8av/j.a<r6T](Ta-dai irepl rb Qelov fyiXoQVTT]V dlvai r$ iroAAa dveiv aAAa ry iruKva TI/J.O.V rb Qeiov rb /j.fv yapevTropiasTbS oa toT-riTosa Ti/ui.e ioi

Apud STOB.
:

he says

xM

and

ap.

PORPH. De Abstin.

ii.

c.

414

ARISTOTLE

His whole conception of religion was undoubtedly iden

tical

with that of his master.

2

From
Rhetoric

the numerous works

of Theophrastus

upon

only a few not very important observations

are preserved. 3

Of

his

works upon the theory of art 4

Cic. De Invent, i. S5, 61), and also the statement of AMMONIUS

19, he goes on to say that the costliness of the offering is not the important thing, but rather the purity of the intention for the Godhead will be best pleased by the right direction of that in us which is akin to Himself, and most divine with which cf
;
:
.

AEIST.
1

theology, see supra, vol.

sq. lar religion

have shown this of his ii. p. 370 As to matters touching popu

We

Etli. ix. 9, 1179, a, 24.

(Theophr. Fr. 74 sq. cf. supra,\6\.. p. 363, n. 3) that Theophr. dis tinguished in speech a double relation that to the hearers, and that to the subject in hand. With the former Ehetoric and Poetics are concerned, and these studies accordingly have to do with choice of expression, charm
ii.

and its myths,it would

be quite in the spirit of Aristotle if Theophrastus explained the Prometheus myth b}^ the theory
that Prometheus was the lirst teacher of men (Fr. 50, b. ScJwl. in Apoll. Rlwd. ii. 1248), and the myth of the Nymphs nursing Dionysos by reference to the tears of the vine (ATHEN.
xi. 465, b).
-

of utterance, pleasing and effec tive presentation of the subject, &C rrjs 8e -ye irpbs ra Trpdy/aara
:

rov

\6yov crxetrews
/

(pi\6(ro(pos

irpor)yoviJ.Vtos
ij/eDSos
ctTToSet/crus.

eVt^ueA^o-eTaj, TO re 5teAe 7xwz Kal rb aA^fles

AMMONIUS

cites this

I)e

quo

cf.

UsBNER, Anal.
i

Theophr. p. 20 whose conjecture, that the words eiSr? irpl Ttyyuv pyropiKcav are the general title covering the books separately set out in the list, seems very
probable.
3

sentence to prove that the ir. dealt only with the tpfMlvcias airo(f>avTLKbs \6yos: it must ac cordingly have referred in the text of Theophr. only to the form of oral statement, and it cannot have been intended as a statement of the distinction be

tween philosophy in general and Khetoric and Poetics. 4 DIOG. 47-8, 43 mentions two TT Troi^Tz/ojs, and one TT.
Kw/LLySias

The definition

of the tr/tc^ua
ii.

ATHEN.
latter,

in vi.

as

oviSi(r/j.bs afMaprias Tropeo-^rj^ua-

names the
a, also

and in

viii.

261, d, 3J8,

Tta-^ueVos

(PLUT. Qu. Conv.

*31),

1,

certainly taken from one of the rhetorical books (or perhaps, as BRANDTS, iii. 366. suggests, from the ir. yfXoiov) and a few similar details (see Fr. 93-96, the Index to the

4, 7, p.

which

is

the if. y f \oiov, but what he professes to cite from it is quite incredible. The statement that

Tragedy was fjpwixris Tu%7js TrepiO-TOO-IS (DiOMED. De Oratione, p. 484, Putsch) could not have satisfied Theophrastus as a com
plete definition, after the elabo-

Rhetores Graeci

s. v.

Theophr..

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

1

415

detailed

any most part refers to the physical explanation of sounds, and has already been dealt with in that connection. 3 Other
information.

the books on music, which were highly valued by the 2 ancients, are the only ones of which we have

Even

this

for

the

wise

learn merely that Theophrastus ascribed the music to a movement of the soul, 4 by means of which we are delivered from the trouble and annoy
effect of

we

ance caused by certain affections;

which Aristotle had already pro
vided.
1

that he

further

rate investigation of the subject

PHIT. N. P. S-var. V. sec. Epic. 13, 4, p. 1095, argues thus against Epicurus: rl \4-yets, &
ETT/Koupe
fiatiifcts,
jrepl
;

in animi motu, ut putat Theophrastus. 5 At the end of Fr. 89 he says pia 5e qvais rris /j.ov(TLKrjs, Kivi}ais rfjs tyvxris [or, as he put

terea

it earlier,
,

KiOapwSoov

/col

av\7)Tuv
ofifv-r)

T)

Kara.

tcaOfv aKpoaa-6/j.fi os fls

eV Se

av/j.iro(Ticp

rb Oearpov Qeofypavrov

TUI>

5ta

ra

-rrddf]

KUKIUV,

-J)

(TVIJL<$>(I)VI&V

SiaXejo/ufvov KOI
3>TO.

OVS TTtpl O^pOV TO. rais xeptri ; He thus

The manifestly defec tive clause at the end is amended by BRANDIS, p. 369, by reading,
et
/j.f)

^v.

not

r?

Kara
:

air6\.,

but %

K.

air6\.

places Theophrastus on a level with the famous musician Aristoxenus.

The

reference

to

ex Theophrastus cannot be plained (BRANDIS, iii. 369) of table talk about Music found in one of his books or otherwise published by him, any more than
the reference could be.
2 IT. /jiovffiKTJs

Music is fitted to give us relief from the pains that arise from the emotions, or to awake them where they do not

meaning

exist.

would
i\v

This sense, however, require, instead of et either OTTOV OVK evriv or eaz/
3

y.
is

Besides, the sense so obtained

^ ^
as

not

to

Aristoxenus

ZELLER
follows
:

altogether satisfa.ctory. suggests that the text

$7

may have been somewhat

K.

2 bks. (D. 47 cf. a (D. 46) infra, TT. For a fivOfiuv a (D. 50). from bk. ii. TT. p. vff. (Fr. Fragm. see supra, vol. ii. p. 379, n. 3. 89)
n. 3); ap/uoviK&v
;

cnr6\.

KUKIUV,

3
4

Supra, vol. ii. p. 379, n. 3. So CEXSORIN. Di. Nat. 12, haec [musica] enim sive in
.
.

voce tantummodo est sive, ut Aristoxenus, in voce et cormotu, sive in his et pneporis
.

@\riov exeiv^uas Troie? ^ ei 3\v Music is a movement of the soul which brings relief from the pains produced by the emotions, and so produces in us a higher kind of wellbeing than we should have Lad, if these emotions had never been aroused which is exactly the Aristotelian idea of Cathar
:

sis

cf.

supra, vol.

ii.

p.

309 sqq.

416

ARISTOTLE
:

lively impression produced by music with the peculiar susceptibility of the 2 and that he held that even physical auditory sense disease could be cured by music. 3 So far as we may infer
;
;

enumerated three of these affections and possession that he connected the

l

pain,

pleasure,

from these few fragments the nature of Theophrastus s theory of art, it cannot have been different from that of
Aristotle.

PLUT. Qu. Com.

:

i.

5, 2, p.

phrastus
a

it is

623

Ae-yei

5e

Qeocpp.

/uLovcriKrjs

ATHEN.
v6<rovs

impossible to say. on Se xiv. 6]24, a

:

Kal
v6ovffia.(r/j.bv,
<><>

iarai

/AOVGIK})

e6(pp.

Iffropticrev eV rcS -rrepl

eV0oi(na<r /

irapaTpeirovToi 67/cAiVovTos

e /c
TT/J/

rov ffvvf)9ovs Kal

(pwf]i
.

Iff^LaKOUS
AeTy,
rf)
e(

(f>(iffKWV

UVOffOVS

uoD, SlUTe-

See

/carai;A7)(rot
ap/ji.ovia.

TIS rov roirov

JOH. LYDUS, De Me. us. ii. 7, p. 54, Both., and in CRAMER S Anecd. Paris, i. 317, 15. 2 PLUT. De Awl. 2, p. 38, a
also
:

ypvyia-Tt

The

like in

PLIN. H. N. xxviii.

2, 21.

We

Kfpl
6

rrjs aKovffTtKrjs

ala Q f)(rws, yv
elvai
(prjcrt

are told that viper bites and other hurts were, according to THEOPHR.. healed by flute-play
ing-

e6(pp

ira.6r)TiK(i)Td.Tr)i

(GELL.
c.

iv.

13, 2,

APOLLON.

whether the further argu ments are also taken from Theojraffwv;

Miralll.

49).

417

CHAPTER XIX
EUDEMUS, ARISTOXENUS, DKLEARCHUS, AND OTHERS
in importance to Theophrastus of the immediate comes Eudemus of Rhodes. 2 disciples of Aristotle
l

NEXT

Rivalling

numerous

treatises

Theophrastus in erudition, on the Peripatetic

All that

he

also

wrote

philosophy and
of

the history of science. 3

1

we know

him

We know
He

nothing further
is

of his life. to as the scholar of

often referred Rhodian and as the

Aristotle,

to

38 sqq.) that Aristotle sent it to to ask if it should be pub lished, for the book is obviously

him

guish him from other

men

distin of the

incomplete;
3

cf.

Hist.-pUl. Abh.
of the following

same name (?. FRITZSCHE, EtJi. Mud. xiv). As he seems to have framed his Lof/ic under
Theophrastus s personal influence, but corresponded by letter with him about Aristotle s Physics (y.

d. Berl. Aliad. 1877, p. 156.

We know

books by Eudemus (for the pas sages where they are named see FRITZSCHE, ibid, xv., and for the Fragments, see SPENGEL, End. Frar/menta, ed. ii. 1870):
larropiai, ApiOiffropia, A<TTpoAoyiKal la-Topiai, the chief and almost the unique source of all later information as to the ancient
fj.r)TiK$)

we may

supra, vol. i. p. 136, n. 2, p. 143), conjecture that he lived

T(a/nTpiKal

for a time at

Athens under Theo

phrastus s teaching, and that he afterwards went to his home, or to some other Cf. country.
infra, p. 419, n. 2. 2 He is so described in the story referred to supra, vol. i, p. 39, n. 1, and in the statemert
(ibid. p.

mathematicians and astronomers. To these may perhaps be added a

history of theological ideas at least, that he went into this inquiry closely, and that in this connection (following Aristotle cf. supra, vol. i. p. 57, n.) he dealt with the cosmogonies of Orpheus,
;
:

Aristotle

that he edited This Metaphysics. story, however, is made doubly improbable by the statement (ASCLEP. Schol in Ar. 519, b,
80, n.)
s

Homer, Hesiod, Acusilaus, Epimenides, and Pherecydes, and

VOL.

II,

E E

418

ARISTOTLE

however, goes to show that his merit as a philosopher

consisted far

more
1

in his appropriation

of Aristotelian doctrines than in

lopment of them. In logic, shown, he found it necessary to deviate from his master on isolated points, and in one or two not unimportant
respects to supplement the Aristotelian theory
with
the
those
2
;

and propagation any independent deve indeed, as has been already

but

also

Babylonian,

Zoroastrian, Phoenician, and (less accurately) the Egyptian theo ries as to the origin of the world, we learn from DAMASC. De Prlnc. c. 124-5, p. 382 sqq. cf. DIOG. L. Procem. 9 (Fr. 117-8); cf also supra,vo\. ii. p. 352, n. 4 fin.
;
.

which

anatomical inquiries for a writer named Eude mus is mentioned with praise by GALEN (vide Index; ROSE, ibid. SPRENGEL, Gesch. d. Arzneik 4,
;

ed.
20,
(v.

i.

539-40), liUFUS, Eph.

i.

9,

and the Homeric Scholiast

In the same connection he may well have treated of the Platonic Cosmogony, and the remark proserved by PLUT. An. Procr. 7, 3, have p. 1015, as to Matter, may

FEITZSCHE, ibid. xx. 49-50). Since this Eudemus, however, is not in any of these places described as the Khodian, and since,
according to Anat. 3, vol.
ii.

GALEN (De
ii.

Ut.

belonged to this discussion, al though it might also belong to There were also a his Physics. TT. ywvias, an AraAurt/ca in at least two books (supra, i. p. 67, n. 1, Fr. 109 sqq.), a IT. ii. p. 358, n. 3 Aeecos (supra, vol. i. p. 66, n. 1; Fr. 113 sqq.) but probably not Cate
; ;

6,

vol. iv.

890, De Semine, 646, Hippocr. et

Plat. Plac. viii. 1, vol. v. 651, Loc. Affect, iii. 14, vol. viii. 212, in Aphor. vol. xviii. a, 7, Libr.

vol. gories or IT. ep/iTjve/as (supra, Then there was the i. p. 65). Physics, which we shall speak of presently, and the Ethics, of

Propr. vol. xix. 30) he was clearly not the senior of Herophilus, and probably not of Erasistratus, who was a pupil of Theophrastus (DiOG. v. 57), nor of the Metrodorus (SEXT. Math. i. 258) who is referred to as the third

husband of Aristotle
(supra, vol.
i.

daughter
;

possess the first three books and the last (supra, A zoological vol. i. p. 98, n. 1). work was also current under his name in later times, as we know
still

which we

p. 20, n. 3)

we may

more probably suppose that he is another Eudemus. The rhetori cian Eudemus (De cf Gen. FEITZSCHE, p. xvii) is also
: .

from APUL. Apol. c. 36 (Fr. 109), JULIAN, Hist. An. iii. 20, 21, iv.
8,

to be distinguished philosopher.
1

from
93,

our

45,

53,
tells

56,

v.

^lian
not

us of

its

7; but what contents does

SIMPL.

Phys.
/ecu

b:

To

this

make for its authenticity. Eudemus ROSE (Arist.

Ord.
174)
also

(Uaprupe? 5e rep \6yca T&V yvricnuiTaTOS

eraipocv.

E^STJ/XOS b

ApiffroreXovs
ii.

Libr.

assigns

Cf supra,
.

vol.

p.

358 sqq.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

410

he rightly held fast by its fundamental principles, and in such changes as he made, we that he coincided gather for the most part with Theophrastus, who, as the more

independent thinker of the two, probably here led the 2 In his account of Aristotle s way. he followed
1

Phi/sic*

step by step the lines of the original, as a rule retaining

3 In his own Physics he seems to have very words. permitted himself scarcely any important departure from his master, 4 his modifications consisting merely of 5 a reduction of the number of books, a few

its

transposi

tions,
1

historical
is

and doctrinal explanations, and such

us (ibid. 93, b, 94, a FT. 2G) that EUDEMUS in his second book ascribed change in time
;

indicated by the beyond those points which they have in common, there is very little noted which is peculiar to Eudemus, but much more which is peculiar to Theo
fact
that,

This

phrastus.
2

Apparently

he

undertook
:
.

(i.e. a becoming old) to the four Aristotelian kinds of motion (v. supra, i. p. 423, n. 1). Yet we know that he did not agree with

this

work primarily

book words ap. SIMPL. Phys. 173 a

et

as a text for his oral lectures cf his

:

s extension of move to all the categories (see supra, ii. p. 373), and that, in

Theophr.

ment

5e

ns

Triffrevcreie

Tols

HvOayo-

&s iraXiv ra aura apiQp.<p [i.e. that in a future world each in dividual will entity recur], Kayh /u.vQo\oyfj(rw rb pa^ iov [the Professor s rod] ex^f vfuv /caflTj^uepeiois,
vois.

explaining ABIST. Phys. v. 2, 22G, 23, he expressly pointed out we could only talk of a motion of relation by using the word in a secondary sense (cf.
a,

that

If

we take

this passage
siipra,

along with that quoted

vol.

i. p. 136, n. 2, it will be seen to be probable that Eudemus set up a school of his own in some

it

city other than Athens, and that was for this school that he compiled his Physics.
J

ibid. 201, b). Apart from this question, we shall rind no vari ance beyond the expression of a few slight doubts as to unim portant items of detail. 5 SIMPL. names only three books in the work of Eudemus and as the citations he gives us extend over all the six earlier
;

See the very full references given supra, i. p. 148, n. 4. 4 SIMPLICIUS, who so often speaks of EUDEMUS, notes only a single such variance, and that
is

Aristotelian books, (cf following notes) while the seventh was

.

passed over by Eudemus (supra, i. p. 82), there cannot in all have been more than four books in the

sufficiently doubftul.

He

tells

Eudemian Physic- s. The inquiries which

ti

in Ari-

E E 2

420

ARISTOTLE

changes in the mode of expression as seemed to him to In the numer be necessary for the sake of clearness. ous fragments of his treatise we cannot fail to recognise
1

a true apprehension of the Aristotelian doctrine, careful consideration of the different questions involved in it,
stotle

occupy Phys.

vi.

1-2 were

the
1

fourth

and

that

of

the

dealt with by Eudemus (ace. to SIMPL. 220, a) in connection with the question as to the di visibility ad infinitum of Space and Time, which is discussed in

eighth.

In the present edition ZELL. has not considered it necessary to demonstrate this position by a review of the Fragments of the

AEIST. Phys.

iii.

6 (cf. supra, i.p.

the Physics, were by Eudemus placed in the third (SIMPL. 124, a a, 155, b, 167, b, 169, b, 173, THEMIST. Phys. 40, a). So also Eudemus dealt in the second book (perhaps in the same con nection) with the question (which
;

either wholly or in part 430, n. 1) in his second book; whereas Space and Time in general, discussed by AEIST. in the fourth book of

Eudemian Physics, mostly found in SIMPL., as was done in his second German edition, pp. 701703 partly because BEANDIS, iii. 218-240, has fully gone into the contents and character of the
:

partly because the materials are also fully given by SPENGEL, FT. 1-82. The only items the latter has passed over are the remarks, a/pud SIMPL. Phys.
2,
a,

work, and

(cf.

ABIST. Metaph.

xiv. 1,

AEISTOTLE discusses Phys. vi. 5 ad fin.) how far we may say of

it takes qualitative change that place in an indivisible time. Otherwise Eudemus seems to have followed the order of the

1087, b, 13, and DlOG. iii. 24) that Plato was the first who called the

works, excepting always the seventh book. For at the beginning of his commentary on this seventh book, at p. 242, a, SIMPL. says Kal 8 ye Ev^nfj.osiJ.expi
Aristotelian
:

material causes ffrotx^a, and the passage cited from PLUTAECH, supra, ii. p. 418. In the introduc tion to this work, Eudemus (?;. SIMPL. 11, a; Fr. 4) raised the question, not touched in the Aristotelian Physics, whether each of the different sciences should

ToCSe TO?S

deduce its own principles, or whether they should in common derive them from one higher /jLarzias rovro TrapeA^ajv cos Trepirrbv eirl ra science. Here also, however, as ZELLEE shows (Hist.-phil. AbAccording to what is handl. d. JBerl. Akad. 1877, p. 159 juerrjAflev. said at p. 216, a, Eudemus passed sqq. and supra, i. p. 79, n. 1) EUDEMUS was following one of directly from the end of the i.e. the Me his master s texts fifth book to the sixth book.
crxtftbv TTJS irpayaKoAouflTjcras, /ce(/>aAcuofS
(JAois

fifth

Therefore the main part of the and sixth books must have come with Eudemus, as with Aristotle, between the matter of

taphysics

(iii.

2,

iv.

3,

5),

of

which we also find echoes else where in the Eudemian Physics.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS,

and a
skilful elucidation of
;

ETC.

421

ceptions

many statements and con but we shall look in vain in them for fresh

scientific ideas or observations. 1

Passing over a noteworthy peculiarity in his doctrine of the Categories, 2 we may observe an important devia tion from his master in the borderland between physics

and metaphysics.
Aristotle
s

While

in

general
3

agreeing with

theological conceptions, Eudemus yet rightly finds the assertion that the primum inoveits must itself
1

Eudemus,

says BRANDIS,

p. 240, very rightly, shows him self in his Physics as a scholar

who follows with care and com prehension the lines of his master s thought, and who only
leaves them reluctantly and in minor matters. When FJRITZSCHE, Eth. End. xviii. rests the opposite view on WEISSE S state

of the spheres, that, namely, through the pole of which the axis of the heavens passes, inas

ment (Arist. Phys. p. 300) that it had no parts cf p. 422, n. 2, in Eudemus in the Physics varied fra, and Spengel, p. 109 et a^epes,
:
.

He maintained, however, follow ing Aristotle (supra, i. p. 395), that

:

moves quickest reading which SIMPL. found in Alexander, and which is clearly better than that of the SIMPL. MS. text itself).
as
this

much

(following

the

greatly from Aristotle, this only shows that neither of them had accurately examined the state ments of Simplicius.
2 In Etli. N. i. 4, 1091), a, 24 ABIST. named 6 Categories rt, TTOlbv, TTOffOV, Tl, 7Tp6s XP^ VOS TOTTOS; EUDEMUS, on the other in the Eth. End. i. 8, hand, says
:
>

rb Trpwrcos KIVOVV nal awrerai TOV /ai/ou^ueVoi;, irws e^et /j.r] also re irpbs atro / Eudemus
</>T?cnV,

i(TTi

Good occur
TI,

1217, b, 20, that Being and the in many Trrcoaeis, the

TO>

KOI irpbs iroibv, iroffbv, Trore, TOVTOIS rb fj.ev eV icwe ia dai TO 5e eV TO? Kivtlv where the latter

peats the saying that God thinks only on himself (Eth. End. vii. ov yap OVTWS 6 12, 1245, b, 16 e ei 6ebs x [like a man], aAAa /SeArtov ^} wcrre ^AAo TI votlv avrbs ainov 8 ori yfjuv jj.tv Trap avr6v. rb eS KO.Q erepoi/, e/cetV^ Se avrbs ev eVnV), and therefore aurov rb he deduces the further proposi tions that the Godhead needs no friends, and that God, by reason
:
e<5

two,

not
i.

found
p. 274),

in

Aristotle
iroie?u

(supra,

appear to re

place the Aristotelian

a

and

of his wide separation from man kind, does not love man, or at least does not so love man as man loves God (see Eth. vii. 3-4,

FT.
b,

81, b,

SIMPL. 319, a
.

and

that the primum mot ens has its seat (cf Aristotle supra, i.p.409, n. 4) in the largest
says
;

1238, b, 27, 1239, a, 17, c. 1244, b, 7, 1245, b, 14 supra, 398, n. 1).

;

12,
i.

p.

422

ARISTOTLE
in order to

move with the world

move

it

inconsistent

with the immateriality of the movens. He does not seem to have observed, however, that the assumption which he
himself shares as to
its position in space is equally so, nor does he appear to have given any further explanation of the way in which God moves the world. 2

for the

It is to its theological side, again, that we must look most distinctive peculiarity of the Eudemian

ethics. 3
1

Aristotle had confined himself entirely to the

i.

R-itpra,
2

p.

409.
;

CLsifjtra.ii. p. 421, n. 3 FT. 82, SiMPL. 320, a: 6 SeEuS. rovro

/jLtv

OVK a-KOpel

o-rrep

A.pi(rrore\r]S,

It is the less easy to see any solution of the question in this argument, that the con nection of the primum movens
Kivrjvei.

ei

eVSe ^ercu ri

KLVOV^VOV Kivelv

(rvvex&s, o. TOpe i 8e avr\ rovrov, el eVSe ^ercu rb aKivrirov Kivelv So/te?

yap,
42. ],

(prjal,
r)

wdovv

rb KIVOVV Kara r6irov r) e\Kov Kivelv [siqira, i. p.

6t

is not satisfactory either in itself or on the lines of the Aristotelian system. For in the theory stated by Eudemusthe

with the earth

11.

1].

Se

/LIT)

/J.6VOV

OVrWS,

further,

aAA ovv
&AAoi/,
r}

airr6jj.ev6v ye y) avrb 77 Si Si evbs fy Tr\ei6v(av, TO 5e

*

a/nepes ovfievbs eVSe^erat ai|/air0at

earth does move by contact, and, a thing which by its nature is unmoved cannot be taken as analogous to a thing that is at rest, since rest (see
supra,
i. p. 419, n. 5 ad Jin.) can only be predicated of that which has motion. 3 It has already been pointed out (supra, i. p. 98, n. 1, cf. ii. p. 176, n. 4) that this text is really a work of Eudemus of which only the first three books and the seventh are preserved and that FISCHER and FRITZSCHE are in
;

ov yap ianv avrov rb ^ev Se Trepcts, r&v Se aTrro^teVajj/

rb

apx">l

ra

apa [supra, i. p. -138, n. 1]. ovv KLvr (TeL r~b a/Afpes ; Kal Auei on ra fjikv TT]V airopiav Ae -ywv,
Trepura
TTOJS
t

Kivovfj.fva

Kivel

ra Se

ijpe/j.ovvra,

Kal
/j.eva

ra

/mev

Ktvo6/u.eva
[].

Kivtl OCTTTO-

a\\b)s

airro/uieva,
;

ra

Se
iii.

Tjpe/novvTa

a\\(as

BnANDls,

2 JO, conjectures, airr. d\\a a\\u*s, and SPENGEL, p. 110, curr. a A A w v but the words following
;

error in referring
15,
vii.

to

it

book

.v.

and books

vi.

and

vii.

of the

show that before the there must be some reference to that which is at rest], ovx o/j.oiws Se
&AAo>s

Nlconiacliecin Etliics.

Etli.

End.

iravra

pKpOe ia av

ov yap ws rj yrj ri)V crtyaTpav eir avrfyv e/ctVei, oirrccs Kal rb irpwrais KiVTJffav ov
av<a

yap
TI

Kivel

Kiv^ffeus eKelvo ov yap av en irpcarcDS Kivoit] Se yrj ovSeirore i]pe/u.ovo~a Trpuroos

Trpoywo/j-evris

13-15 (which Fritzsche, with the majority of the MSS., counts as an eighth book) contains certain fragments of a larger tract, the text of which is much There is, however, no injured. doubt that this tract did in fact stand at the end of the JEudemian

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

natural side of

423

of morals

human aims and capacities Eudemus connects human

in his theory action in its

With origin and end more closely with the divine. reference to the origin of action he remarks that many people without acting from insight are yet fortunate in
all

that they do

and as he was unable

to regard this

pheDomenon as accidental on account of the regularity of its occurrence, 1 he held that it must be referred to a
fortunate gift peculiar to these persons a natural up But whence comes rightness of will and inclination.
this gift ?

Man

has not given

it

to himself

it

therefore

come from God, who

is

the source of

must move

ment
Etltics
p.

in the world. 2

Insight, moreover,

and the virtue

proper (as FEITZSCIIE, 244, says, and BRANDTS, ii. b, 1564-5, proves), and not before bk. vii. as SPENGEL, supposed (p. 401-2, of the text cited supra, i. p. 98, n. 1), by reason of M. Mor. ii. 7 (from 1206, a, 36 onwards)
8, 9.
1

that such people are not so much evTvx^s as evfyve is. ri Se Sry ; [he goes on at 1247, b, 18] ap OVK tveiaiv 6p(j.al eV TT) ^^Xl? a v

airb

Xoyicr/j-ov,

at

airb

opezws
;
et

a\6yov, Kal irporepxi avrai

f&Tl
(pVffCL
7j

yap

Si

fTTldvfliaV
firl

t)pe|is,

(pvcrtL

ye
el

^SfOS rb ayafov
tiffiv

On
i.

the principles set out

p. 362, n. 5, p. 462, n. 3.

fiaSi^oi
evcpvels,

hv

irav.

8^ nviS

supra, 2 In End. i. 1, 1214, a, 16, it was said that men could become happy either by /ua07jo"is or by affKy&is, or in one of two other
tfroL Ka6direp ol j/t^^^ArjTTTOt ri6e6\7]7TTOi TUII avd pcair tav , Trvoia fiai[j,ov(ov TWOS uxrirep 4vQov-

wffirtp

(TT^aei/oi aSeti/,

ySiKol UUK eViovrcas tv irefyvKaai

ol

Kal avev \6yov OP/J.UHTIV,

(pVffLS
<5

aAA on

r)

TTE(pVKe, K3.1

1TlQvfJiOV(TL Kttl

TOVTOV Kal rare Kal ovrcos ws Sel

Kal

ways
Kal

ov Sel

i<al

ore, ovroi

tiaropOw-

kav Tv-^ffiv atypoves ovrcs Kal a\oyoi .... eKtivovs /J.ev rolwv
(rovffi

<7ia(bj/res,

^ Sta

ri>x~nv.

He

goes
yap
0Los.
6p/*ri

8ia Kal

(pitcrus
77

on in greater detail at Eud. vii. 14 with many people almost succeeds, however everything little (ppovno-is they have (atypovts
:

upe|ts ovffa ov

eSe/

KarwpBuKrev, 6 Se

\oyi(T/j.bs -^v r/Ai-

OVTZS KaTOp6ovo~i Tro\\a eV ols r] en 8e Kal eV ols TtyvT] ru%77 Kvpia earl, iro\v /J.CVTOI Kal rv^rjs eVujrapxei),

and

this,

on the above

may ask, he adds, at 1248, a, 15, dp avrov TOVTOV Tv^f] alria, TOV eVtSu^uTytrat oy Se? Kal OTe SeT ; and having, as will be seen presently, answered this in the negative, he adds, at line
Eud.
TOUT
Trjs
ap%-*7

We

principles, is to be attributed, not to chance, but to the fyva-is, so

424

ARISTOTLE

that springs from it, however much they may differ in themselves from this unreflecting apprehension of
right,

point to the same source, since every rational activity presupposes the existence of reason, which must itself be
1

And just as virtue in its origin is referred to God, so God is held to be the ultimate end of all intellectual and moral While Aristotle activity.
the gift of God. 2

had described

scientific

lectual activity
ness,

knowledge as the highest and the most essential element in

further conceives of this

intel

happi

Eudemus

knowledge as

the knowledge of God, and accordingly converts Ari stotle s proposition that happiness is coextensive with

thought (Osvpta)

into the statement that

everything

0ebs Kal
[
rj/uuv
77].

[so Fr. for

TTO.V]

KivtL

Qtlov.

yap \6yov

-rrcas

iravra rb
r)

apx

ev ov \6yos

Since this is without \6yos see last note, and End. ibid. 1246, b, 37, 1247, a, 13 sqq.
;

End.

ibid.

dAAa

1248,

a,

15: in

TI KpeTrTov.
eTTiOTTjjUTjs

ri ovv Uv Kpelreft?

TOV Kal
TrArjv

[Kal vov, as

SPENGEL and FRITZSCHE add]

yap dper^ rOv vov [better, perhaps, ficeivov or TOV evovcri yap 0eoG] opyavov apx^v TQiavrviv, fy Kpe iTTcav TOV vov Kal Pov\ev(reci)s they hit the right measure without \6yos, not
;
rj
. . .

the caseof such happily organised natures does the ground of their fortunate Qfois lie in ? 2)
Ti>xr)

6e6s

ov

ye irdvruv eWcu
vor]<rai

Kal

TOV

yap
ov

Kal

&ov\v(Ta(rdai.is

yap

77

@ovhev(TaTo

,8ovXev<rdiu.evos

[their insight

not
TLS,

the
ov5
Kal

out
tvorjcre

dAA
fls

come of a previous consideration],

eo-Tij/

apxi

through practice or experience, but In the same adds Eudemus, prophetic dreams are to be explained eoj/ce yap 77
T<

0e<.

w<*y,

TOVT OVK apa TOV vorjcrai. 6 vovs apx^, ouSe TOW fiovXeiKraffQai
vorjaas

trpoTtpov

voriffai

aireipov.

TL

ovi/

a\\o
i\s

ir\7]v

rrvxr]

>

[Nous as the principle of immediate knowledge] aTroAuoa-PX*)

&O-T

airb

TI/X^S awavTa
x^)

la-rat,

el

ffTi TIS

OVK
ri
Svi/aff0aL -noieiv ;

rov \6yov iffxy lv /uaAAoi the condi p. 1225, a, 27 / tion of the eV0ot>(nwj Tesand7rpoAe yovTes is not a free one, although the resulting activity is ra
/j.4vov
.

8e

Sia

Of.

ii.

TOVTO
v,

&c. (see last

;

two
p.

notes).
3

Eth. N.
1.

tional (Smi/ofas tpyov).

We

x. 8

supra,

ii.

find

143, n.

Eudemus shows how

a similar view of TV XT/I in Aristoxenus.

exactly he agrees with Aristotle also in the statement (Eth. End.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

is

425

tion of God.

a good in proportion as it leads us to the contempla All that hinders us on the other hand by

reason of excess or defect from the contemplation and worship of God is evil and it is just this conception which
;

supplies what is wanting in Aristotle, namely a exact definition of the kind of action that is
reason.

more

according to

The more persistently we keep that goal in view the less shall we be distracted the irrational element by in the soul. But while the effort after the knowledge
1

1244, b, 23 sqq. 1245, a, 9 supra, 200, 5), that life is nothing- else than aV0cveo-0e Kal yvwptfav, .... wore Sta TOVTO ital
vii. 12,
;

Tai>Tf]s

5e

eVe/ca

e/cetrr?

OVTU
ov

of.

e%et /cara
eVe/ca
TJ

T&

OcwptjTiKov.
o

yap

e-jriTaKTiKws

apxw

0v dei jSouAerat [men wish always

to live],
C".
1

Se TO
Setrat.

ov

(^povrjais eVe/ca

9ebs, aAA ov eViTctTTei (StTT^i/

StciptfTTOt

eV

on

)8ouA erect

act

yvcapi-

aAAots),

eVel

e ^elfos

ye

oyDej/bs

Eth. End. vii. 15, 1249, a, 21(probably the conclusion of the whole work) as the doctor has a definite point of view [opos], by reference to which he judges what is, and how far anything is,
:

Ey

this reading, in

which

Trepi

healthy, Tas
yiiej

ovrca

Kal

before and after Stajpto-ra: are a parenthesis, the A man should argument is that direct his life by that in him which naturally rules; but that is twofold, the active power
:

the

words

T<3

(nrovSaica

which determines a man

work,

Trpdl-eis
ayada>i/

Kal alpeareis
TTJS
eea>s

r&v
/cat

(pv<TL

OVK tiraiveTtav 8e
(puyr)S

and the end towards which that The former is power works.
Reason or the latter is found in the Godhead and the Godhead as the highest end of
<pp6vr)o-is
:

Set TWO. elj/at

opov Kal

TIJS cupeVeajs Kal itepl

XP~n~

P.O.TUV
T>V

nhrjdovs Kal 6\iyoT7]Tos Kal Kal (pvyj^s, eurtr^fyuaro)!/ [1.

Kal Trept xpTj/xarwj/ irKr)Qos Kal oAtyoTrjTa, tfec.J. ej/ /u.ev ovv roils irporepou \%6ri T ^ &s o Xoyos ....

our activity rules us not, how ever, like a ruler who gives orders for his own ends, since the God
;

TOVTO

ov &a(pfs Se [sup. ii.p. lG3,n. 1]. SelSr? ooo-n-ep Kal ff TO?S aAAots irpbs T)J ap%oj/ TJI/ Kal
a\-r]6es /iev,

Trpbs
TT]V

T-r]v

e|tv

/cara rrjv ei/ep-yetaj/

TOV apxovTOs .... enel Se Kal

.,

uj

Kal apxo{J.evov, Kal

r-r]v
,1

TOV Se Se o: Trpbs
avT-r]

eavTuv
.

v-\>)^i\v

5e
X

oiTT-f]
\

Kal

aAAws 71x0 ri aAAws 7] vyi:fcta,

,

head has no need of our services and God is the end,not in the sense in which manis, butin that higher sense in which he can be also the end for all men. As to this twofold meaning of the ov eVe/ca Aristotle had stated his views in his work on Philosophy but his extant works give us only a few hints, from which we gather that a distinction is to be drawn be;
;

426

ARISTOTLE
is,

of
all

God

according to Eudemus, the ultimate source

of

morality, yet the form under which fche latter first appears and the principle which gives unity in the first instance to all the virtues is that goodness of disposi

which he calls uprightness (/ca\oKaya6ia), and which consists in the habitual desire for what is abso lutely worthy, the noble and the laudable, for its own
tion

sake

of the good. 1

in other words, in perfected virtue based on love Aristotle had indeed touched upon this
Eth. End. vii. 15, init. Having dealt with the several Virtues, we must also consider the whole which is made up by
1

tween that which profits by an activity and that which is its final end; cf. Phys. ii. 3, 194,
a,

35

Ifffitv

yap

TTCOS

ical

y/u.e is

St^cDs yap rb ov eveKa etpTjrcu 8 ev ro7s Trepi fyi\oao<t>ia.s.

re Aos

their union.

This

is

Ka\oKayadla.

Metaph.
n. 3,
b, 1
:

xii.

supra,

i.
ii.

p. 355,
4,

As the well-being of all parts of the body is the condition of

Health, so the possession of all is the condition of virtues It is, however, not Rectitude. the same thing as the mere ayadbv elvai. Only those goods are /caAa, oVa Si avra l atpera (so read with SPENGEL, in lieu of the unmeaning irdvra cf Rliet.
>vra

ad

Jin.

De An.

415,

ivdvra yap e/ce/oi> \_rov fleiou] dpeyerai, KUKSIVOV eVe/ca Trpdrrei rb 8 ov offa Trpdrret Kara tyvaiv.
ov rb 8e in the passage quoted above, to have this last passage in his mind even if the words TO 8 ou eV. &c., which recur in line 20, should, us TEENej/e/ca

Sirrbv rb

/j.tv

<>.

Eudemus seems,

i.

9,

sujtra,

ii.

p. 301, n. 3) eVcu-

i/era eVrtj/,
(cf.

DELENBUEG thinks, be rejected. Eudemus then goes on: TJTIS ovv

alptffis /cat
KTT)O~LS

and only of the virtues 1248, b, 36) can this be said. ra (pvcrti Ayadbs /j.cv ovv tffriv
3>

ruv
v)

(pvaei aya/j.d\Lcrra
-

Q&v
fy

Troir,(rei
7i

T^V rov Oeov

ado/uiaros

Ozwpiav.

xP 7l/J arcav
/caAAto"TO?

iAwv

v)

TUV a\\(av

a.ya6u>v,

avTT]

apio~TT] Kal OVTOS 6 opos rjTis 8 79 Si ej/Se/ai/ 7) Si

Ka>At

ayadd eVrtv aya8d(r. i ^.jii.p. 149, n. 3, and Eth. N. v. 2, 1129, b, 3), which happens only when the right use is made of these goods (honour, wealth, health, good
fortune, &c.)
rtf
;

vireppoXyv rbv Oebv OepaTreveiv /cat 0ewpe?v, awTTj 8e (pav\ir). fx et ^^ rovro

ei

/caAos

8e

Kayadbs

[so. 6

xwv

i e. ]

but
rf?

we have

this

in
TT}S

our soul

i|/uxf?

Kal OVTOS

tyvxys 6 [which is not in Cod. R. and should be omitted]

apiffros,

opos

ra [1. TO] T]Ktffra rov &\\ov [Fr. rightly

roiovrov.

ayad&v ra /caAa virdp^i-v aura /cot Trpa/crt/cbs avrcp 8t tivai T&V KO.X&V Kal avroov kveKa. man proposes to be virtuous, If a but only for the sake of these natural goods, then he may be indeed ayadbs avTjp, but he cannot
ruiv
ru>

have Ka\onaya6ia, for he desires

the beautiful

not for

its

own

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

427

perfect virtue under the name of justice, but only incidentally, and in so far as it presents itself in men s
relations to one another
l
:

the proper bond of union

his view, insight. 2

between the virtues being, in

In

giving express prominence to the quality of will and disposition which lies at the foundation of all the virtues,

Eudemus

supplies a lacuna in the Aristotelian account.

In effect, however. Aristotle had stated the same prin 3 ciple in his discussion of the essential nature of virtue.
is

known

In other respects the Eudemian Ethics, so far as it to us, differs, like the Physics, from the Ari

stotelian only in individual transpositions, elucidations, and abbreviations, in changes of expression and the mean
4 ing of words.

Eudemus indeed breaks the close connec

Politics

tion

between the Ethics and the

by inserting
In his

Economics as a third science between them. 5

Ethics, moreover,

he gives a more independent place

than Aristotle to the cognitive activities and to the

corresponding dianoetic virtues/
sake. latter
a, 3,

But these
see

diver-

To those
is

of

whom

this

and
ii.

also

BEANDIS, who at

true,
KO.)

on the other hand

(before Trpoaipovvrai, at 1249, there seems to be a small not only the beautiful in lacuna), itself, but also every other good, comes to be beautiful, because it subserves an end which is the beautiful 6 5 oi6/j.evos ras aperas
:

1557 sqq. iii. 240 sqq. has put together the variations of the Eudemian Ethics from the Nicomachean.
b,
5

Cf.sw/y., i.p. 186, n. 4. It will

be shown
the

ex^tr SetV eVe/ca T&V ZKTOS ayaQiav rb ra /caAa (ru^e^Tj/cos t err iv ovv KaXoicayaOia irpdrTGi.
Kara,
apcT-r}
1

reAeios.

infra, in discussing ^coPseudo-Aristotelian that it is possible that nomics, Eudemus himself wrote a treatise on Economics, and that it may perhaps be preserved to us in bk. i. of that work.
6

Supra,

ii.

p. 170.

Supra,

ii.

p. 178, n. 1.

That

Snpra,\i. p. 166, n. 1. 3 Supra, ii. p. 154, nn. 3, 4 155, n. 1 p. 149, n. 3. 4 With what, follows cf. FKITZSCHE, Eth. End, xxix. sqq.
;
;

EUDEMUS, i. 5, 1216, b, 16, includes

the poetical and practical sciences under the term TTOI^TIKOI (iriffTTJ;uat, in contradistinction to the
theoretical,
is

unimportant.

428

ARISTOTLE

ment of ethical questions. the Eudemian Ethics are

1

gencies have no perceptible influence upon his treat The further peculiarities of
still

more

unessential. 1
;

On

EUD. condenses the open Me. i. 1) into a few words and begins with Nic. i. 9,
ing (Eth.
1099,
a,

24; he expressly does

away

the the constituents and the insepa rable conditions of happiness (cf

in i. 2,1214, b, 11 sqq. with distinciion drawn between

that virtue hardly touched was, however, called not merely e|is (End. ii. 5, c. 10, 1227, b, 8, &c.), but also 8id8e<Tis (ii. 1, 1218, b, 38, 1220, a, 29) is nothing. End. ii. 5 is in essence taken from Nic. ii. 8. The inquiry as
is

sw2?nz,ii.p. 150,n. 1; i.p.360,n.l): he expands in i. 5 Nic. i. 3 (partly

vi. 13 v. supra, ii. p. 158, n. 2); inserts in i. 6 methodo logical observations which are in fact entirely in agreement with Aristotle s views extends in c. 8 the discussion of the Idea of the Good out of Nic. i. 4 with certain
; ;

by using N.

free will, &c., is opened by Eudemus, ii. (j, with an intro duction which is peculiar to him, after which he gives, at c. 7-10, in a free selection and order the

to

main points of the Aristotelian argument in Nic. iii. 1-7 (cf. BKANDIS, ii. b, 1388 sqq.), and
11 with the question not put by, but for the solution of which Nic. iii. 5, 1 112, b, 12 sqq. is used) whether it is
closes in
c.

(which

is

general observations omits the inquiry in Me*, i. 10-12(cf. supra, ii. p. 144 foil.) and modifies the argument of Nie. i. 8-9 by com
;

bining it with what goes before. In the discussion of the nature

ii. 1, 1218, Aristotelian matter (Nic. i. 6, x. 6 init. i. 11 init. i. 13, 1 102, b, 2 sqq.) freely worked up what follows is more closely connected with Nic. i. 13 and ii. 2 follows Nic. ii. 1 so ii. 3 is Nic. ii. 2, 1104, a, 12

of Virtue, Etli. End.

a, 131-1219, b,

26

is

will (Trpocu petm) or insight (\6yos) that virtue directs aright? Eude mus decides for the former, be cause the main question in virtue is the end of our action, and this is determined by the will whereas the protection of our
;

power of insight from distortion by desire is the business of eyicpdreia, which is a praiseworthy
quality, but
is

from

apery?.

to be distinguished In the treatment of

sqq.

ii. 5,

1106, a, 26,

ii.

8 init.

the sketch of the virtues and vices 1220, b, 36 sqq. (which secrns, however, to include later additions see FEITZSCHE, ad loc. ) follows Nic. ii. 7 1221, b, 9 sqq. rests on Nic. iv. 11, 1126, 8 sqq. With End. ii. 4, cf. Nic. a, ii. 2, 1104, b, 13 sqq. and c. 4 init. Nic. ii. 1 (genesis of virtue by virtuous acts) is passed over, and Nic.ii. 5 (virtues are neither Swd/j.eis nor ird9r], therefore e|eis)
:

the specific virtues Eudemus follows his master, with unim portant variations, as follows iii. 1 (avSpeia ) is Nic. iii. 8-12 iii. 2 (ffw<ppoarvvr]) is Nic. iii. 13-15
:

3) to Trpaorr^s (Nic. iv. 11), and next (c. 4) to eAeyflepoTTjs (N. iv. 1-3), and in C. 5 to /J.ya\o\^vxia (JV. iv. 7-9), and c. 6 to ptyaXoirpeirtia (N. iv.
(c.

then we pass

4-6).

These

are

generally
additions.

abbreviated, and

show only a

few

explanatory

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

429

the other hand, the connection of e"thics with theology, discussed above, resting though it obviously does upon
Aristotelian doctrines, nevertheless presents an unmis takable departure from the spirit of the Aristotelian

philosophy and an approach to the Platonic. With the religious attitude which characterised Eu1

demus, the naturalism of his fellow-disciples Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus stands in striking contrast. The former of these, 2 who, before he became acquainted with AriFinally, in c. 7 (cf N. iv. 12-15, and supra, i. p. 169) Eudemus deals
.

with

veyue<m, cuSws,

<JnA.ia,

(r/j.voTr]S

(absent
air\6T7)s,

in

JVic."),

dArjfleta

and
of

and

evrpaireXia,

all

be named his Pasiclcs (aj). PHILOP. Pasicrates ), who is also called a scholar of Aristotle, if it be true (according to the views set

nection

should

nephew

which, with a certain variance

as laudable qualities, but not as virtues in the strict sense, as
Aristotle,

from

he

treats

out supra, vol. i. p. 79) that he was the author of bk. ii. (a) of the Metaphysics. See c. 1, wcrwep yap Kal TO. TWV 993, a, 9
:

being merely
or
Qvffiital

jueo-o-njTes iraQ-nriKal

ufj.fj.ara

Trpo?

TO tyeyyos
rrjs
rrj

aperal

(1233, b,

18,

ovrca Kal

1234, a, 23 sqq.), because they do not involve a trpoaipea is. Tifj-ia (Nic. iv. 10) is passed over and for certain virtues left with out a name by Aristotle ($tAia
4>tAo;

vs irpb i
.VTWV,

ra

and

cf.

with this PLATO, Pep. vii. init. Otherwise the contents of this book show no remarkable pecu
liarity.
2 For the life and works of Aristoxenus see MAHNE, De AriAmsterd. 1793, and ttoxeno, MULLEE, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 269 sqq., where the Fragments are collected. He was born at Tarentum (SuiD. Api(TT6. STEPHANUS BYZ. De Urb. Tdpas), and was the son of Spintharus (DiOG. ii. 20, SEXT. Math. vi. 1 as to his alleged second name, Mnesias a/pud SUID., see MULLER, p. 269), who was a cele brated musician (^ELIAN, H.
;

and

aXrfieia)

Eudemus, as

usual,

has a technical term a note of the later date of his book. The three following books we possess
only (v. supra, i. p. 98, n. 1) in The the Aristotelian orginal. seventh has in c. 1-12 chiefly an of the restatement original matter of the inquiry as to Friendship (in Nio. viii. ix.) so constructed that new ideas only

appear in minor points, and con

tradictions of the Aristotelian teaching never. The three final chapters of this book (more cor rectly bk. viii.) have been already dealt with, supra, ii. p. 422, n. 3.
1

Anim.

ii.

11,

p.

34,

Jac.).

He

With Eudemus

in this

con

learned also, according to SUID. from the musician Lamprus (de

430
stotle,

ARISTOTLE
phil<

had been a student of the Pythagorean the highest sophy, acquired by his writings on music musicians of antiquity, 2 and what we reputation among know of his works amply justifies his fame. While far
l

outstripping

all

his predecessors in the completeness of

quo Ph.

v.

MAHNE,
Gr.
i.

d.

p. 12; cf. ZELL. p. 45, n. 3), from the

of Neleus

(?

but he
svpra,
i.

is

of too

Neleus of Scepsis; late a date

;

Pythagorean Xenophilus (ibid. i. p. 310, n. 5), and from Aristotle. As a scholar of Aristotle, he is
Cic. Tiisc. i. 18, 41, named and GELL. N. A. iv. 11, 4. He himself refers in Harm. Elem. p.
\>j

In any case, we cannot rely on it. The period of the life of Aristox.,
of
limit, is

p. 187, n. 1, p. 139, n. 3).

30 (ZELL. ibid. p. 596, n. 3), to an oral statement of Aristotle s, and at p. 31 of the same he
relates that Aristotle used, in his lecturing, to give out before-

which we cannot fix either broadly determined by relations to Aristotle and Dicaaarchus: whenCYEiLL. C. Jul. 12 C, places him in Ol. 29 he is
his

hand the subject and general lines of his discussion. SuiDAS

relates
that, being

one of the

confusing him (see MAHNE, 16) with the much earlier Selinuntian poet he is, however, more correct in 208, B, when he calls him younger than Menedemus of Pyrrha (ZELL. Pli. d. Gr. p. 365,
;

most notable of Aristotle s scholars, he had expectations of becoming his successor, and that

n. 2, p. 837).

when this did not come about he abused Aristotle after his death,
AKISTOCLES, however (supra,i. p.
ll,n.
1,

p. 12, n. 1), refutes

the
it

last suggestion,

and possibly

was merely the statement cited

p. 11, n. 1 (which refers really to another person), that started the story. learn further that Aristoxenus lived at first, probably in his youth, at Mantinea, and that he was a friend of Dicsearchus (Cic. in Tusc. 1.18,41, calls him his asqualis et condiand in Alt. xiii. scipulus, 32, he mentions a letter then extant from Dicsearchus to Ari-

on

We

of those known to p. 270, includes eleven works, some of them in several books, on Music, Ehythm, &c., and also on the Musical Instruments. still possess the three books TT. ap^oviKuv a large fragment of the ir. ftvOpiKiav Groi^e icav, arid other fragments (ajj. MAHNE, p.
1

The

list

us, in

MULLER,

We

<TToixti<0v,

130 sqq. and MULLER, p. 283 For the literature covering Aristoxenus s harmonic and
sqq.).

rhythmic theories, see UEBERWEG, Grundr. i. 216.

2 O MovffiKbs is his regular As the chief authodescription. rity on music, ALEX, in Top. 49 classes him with the great men of medicine and mathematics,

Ad

We know not on what grounds LUCIAN S story, Paras. 35, rests, that he was a parasite
stox.).

Hippocrates
Cf. also

and

Archimedes.
ii.

PLUT. sup.

p.

415,n.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

1

431

his investigations, he was distinguished also in a high 2 degree by the strictness of his method, by the of his definitions,

accuracy

and by the thoroughness of his musical

He occupied himself besides with questions of natural science, psychology, ethics, and politics, 3 as well as with arithmetic 4 and with historical sketches. 5
knowledge.

Of the reliability of these last, however, his fabulous statements about Socrates and Plato, 6 obviously inspired in part by a depreciatory motive, give us anything but
a favourable impression. 7
so far as they are known union of the severe morality of the Pythagoreans with the scientific empiricism of the PeriCic. Fin. v. 19, 50, De Or at. iii. since they are closely connected 33, 132; SlMPL. Pliys. 193, a; with Pythagorean views. From VITRUV. i. 14, v. 4. the (ru/jL/jLiKra vTro/j.v iju.aTa, we have He frequently himself calls in MULLEE, 290-1, extracts

The views

of Aristoxenus,

to us, exhibit a

attention, with a certain pride, to the number and importance of the inquiries which he was the first to undertake e.g. in
:

which
1

Harm. EL
52

It is his

e,ach

& c. custom to preface inquiry by a statement as

pp. 2-7, 35-37,

relate to natural history. In the Fragm. from the TT. dptfytTjTj/cjjs, STOB. Eel. i. 1G. 5 He composed a History of

to the procedure to be followed, and an outline of the argument, so that the reader may be clear as to the way which lies before

him,

and the exact point at which he finds himself; Harm.

Harmonics (cited in Harm. EL p. 2) a work on Tragic Poets, another on Flute-players, and also a work called pioi avSp&v which dealt apparently with all the famous Philosophers down to Aristotle and also the imo^vi}from which we fj.aTa lo-ropiKa,
;

El. p. 30-1, 3-8, p. 43-4. 3 His works of ethical inter est not included, only the but also TlvQayopiKal a great part of his historical
curo</>c(rets

have citations referring to Plato and Alexander the Great. In his other books also there was no doubt much historical matter. 6 Cf. ZELL. Pit. d. Gr. i. pp.
48, 51, 2, 54, G, 59 sqq. 342, 372, 1, 373, 6, and the story cited by

writings about the Pythagoreans. Besides these, we hear of his

v6fj.oL

LuciAN, Paras. 35 from Aristoxe

s Sicilian journeys. Generally speaking, the re putation for learning which Cic. Tusc. i. 18, 41; GELL. iv. 11, 4; HIEEON. Hist. Eccl. Prasf. accord
7

iraiSevriKol

and

vo/j.oi

iroAi-

nus as to Plato

TiKoi.

books about the Pythagoreans may have contained

The

ciied

the passages concerning the soul in the following notes,

432

ARISTOTLE
Of
a stern and ascetic disposition,
1

patetics.

although

a Peripatetic, he found himself so completely in agree ment with the ethical teaching of the Pythagoreans,
that he puts his own views into the mouth of philo 2 The views he attributes to sophers of this school.

Pythagoreans

commendatory

of

piety,

moderation,

gratitude, fidelity to friends, respect to parents, strict obedience to law, and a careful education of the young, 3

while harmonising with the inner spirit of Pythagorean own ethics, at the same time unquestionably express he connects himself with PythSimilarly opinion.
"his

4 agoreanism in going a step beyond Eudemus, and

referring good fortune partly to a natural gift and 5 Even in his views upon partly to divine inspiration. music the same tendency asserts itself. He attributes
to music, as Aristotle, following the Pythagoreans,
him, may be as well deserved as the reputation for style which Cic. Ad Att. viii. 4 concedes to both Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus. 1 So at least we are told:

had

ibid. Fr.17),

concerning

artificial,

natural and morbid desires, and the Fragm. given by ATHEN. xii. 545, a, out of the Life of Archytas

him r$ ye\c}Ti ava Kpdros TroAe JULIO s, and ADRAST. aj). PROCL. in Tim. 192 ov irdvv TO e?Sos A, says of him

^LIAN, V.If.

viii. 13, calls

(FT. 16), of which, however, he has given only the first half, i.e. the speech of Polyarchus in praise of pleasure, while its re
futation
nrnst

by

Archytas,
followed,

which
is

avrjp e/cetVos (jLOvcriicbs, ciAA

oirws av

2 We must assume that he himself composed, or so far as he took them from ancient sources, at least fully accepted, such Pythagorean sayings as those in the Life of Archytas cited infra, in the following notes. 3 cf. this In connection, the Fragm. quoted in ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 428-9, and that apud STOU. Floril. s. G7 (see MULLER,

not quoted. 4 Supra, ii. p. 422 foil. 5 FT. 21 ap. STOB. Eel. i. 206 (taken from the irvQ. a-jrotydraS HtyatTKov (teis) irepl Se eli/cu /J.EVTOI [WYTT. conj. n^v TL]
:

have

Ti>x~ns

/cat SaL/m.6viov

/Afpos avTrjs, ytveffQai

TWV
>)

avOpcairuv eviois eirl eVi rb x^pw, fal elvai (pavepoos /car

avTb TOVTO TOVS /uej/ evri^er? TOVS Se O.TVX&, as may be seen by the

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

also done, a
1

433

moral and educative, and at the same time a purifying, effect, inasmuch as it calms emotion and alleviates morbid states of feeling. 2 But while insisting
that music in this aspect should be permitted to retain its original dignity and severity, he holds that the same

ingly

demand we

is

find

made by its character as art and accord him bitterly complaining of the effeminacy
;

and barbarism which

in

the music of his time had

3 usurped the place of the earlier classic style. Neverthe-

fact that the former without

any

judgment

a reach fortunate result, and. the latter with every 8e Kal e repoi/ el^ou Care do not.
eiSos,

TIT^TJS

KaO

ft

ot /xej/
a(f>ve?s

ei</>ue?s

1136, e, in opposition to Plato s preference for the Dorian tones and the matter cited by OBIGENES ap. PEOCL. in Tim. 27 c, from Aristoxenus also belongs to
:

Kal evffroxoi, dt

8e

re

KOI

this subject.

STEABO, i. 2, 3, p. 15-G: Poetry as an instrument in edu cation acts not by tyvxaywyia,

1

even the but for ff(a<ppovi(r^.bs musicians jueTaTTCiowTcu TTJS aperrjs

ravT~r]S

TrcuSeuTfKoi

yap

zivai
^Qcav,

(f>aai

Kal

eiravopQuTtKol

r&v

as,

the Pythagoreans, following Aristoxenus said also. Cf. Fr.

17,

MAEC. CAPBLLA, ix. 923 (FT. 24) Aristox. and the Pytha goreans believed that the f erocia animi can be softened by music. CEAMEE, Anecd. Paris, i. 172, the Pythagorean, according to Aristox., used for the purification of the body iarpiKy, and for that of the soul juoujn/dj. PLUT. Mvs. c. 43, o, p. 1146-7: Arist. said
:

a (STOB. Floril.
TTV&.

v.
:

70,

from the
<piAoKa\ia

airocp.)

taken the true

Trap
TO.

iffdye(rdai jjiovcriK^v [at banquets] offov 6 oTi/os <70aA.\eti/

/j.i>

is

not concerned with

TC

(Twfj.aTa
rrj

Kal ray Siavolas.

TJ

the outward adornment of life, but consists in a love for the KaAa and e07j eViTTjSeu^uaTa Harm. El. 31 TJ fj.fi /SAaTrre: ra ^9f],
:

Se

/j.ovariK7j

Kal

irepl avryv raei re crv/uifjierpta els T^V evavTiav Kara-

crracriv

ayet re Kal irpavvei. Aristox

is
c.

but we must f] not on that account demand of Harmonics, w hich is only a part of the science of /uLovffM^, that it should make people morally better. The moral effect of music
8e romuTTj
ax/>eAe?
T

49 (who cites as his authority Theophrastus) to have cured by music a man afflicted with a mental ailment. 3 THBMIST. Or. xxxiii. p. 364
:

himself Mlrab.

said

by APOLLON.

Apt(TTo|
ijSr)

/J.OV(TLKbs

6ri\VVOfM4vT}V

is

referred to in the remark of

aj>.

Aristotle,

PLUT. Mas.

c.

17,

Ti]v (jiovffiKTiv eTretparo avappwvvvai, avTus re aya-jruv ra avdpiKurepa T&V Kpov^druv, Kal ro7s /j.a6r]-

VOL.

II.

F F

434
less

ARISTOTLE

Aristoxenus confronts his Pythagorean predecessors as the founder of a school which remained opposed to

He ages of antiquity. treat with their imperfect reproaches them, not only ment of the subject, 2 but also with their capricious method of procedure since, instead of following the as he believed, imposed guidance of facts, they had, certain a priori presuppositions upon them. He himself
theirs

down

to

the

latest

demands, indeed, as opposed to an unscientific empi but he starts from the ricism, principles and proofs;
data of experience, and refuses to seek for the essence and causes of that which perception reveals to us in 3 In order, other field than that which these supply.

any
rats

e /cKeAeuo;!

TOU

/j.a\OaKov

a^fj-fvovs cjuAepyerv TO appeviairbv 4v rots fjLf \tffiv whereon follows

;

an attack on the theatre music of

time. xiv. says in Fr. b O (ap. ATHEN. as the people of the 632, a) Italian Posidonia, who were first Greeks and now Tyrrheneans or Ifomans, still celebrate yearly the Hellenic festival of sorrow because they have become barhis
:

Cf. as to this opposition of the Pythagoreans or Harmonists, and the Aristoxenians, whose diii erences Ptolermeus seeks to
l

own

Aristox. himself

solve,
p.

BOJESEN,

De

Harmon,
j

Scicntia Grace. (Hafn. 1833) 19 sqq. and the citations there

i.

from PTOLEMJEUS, Harm. 2, 9, 13, &c.), POKPHYR. in

(c.

Ptol.

Harm.
2 3

Opp. iii.) 189, 207, 209-10, CAESAR, Grundz. der

(Wallis.

Mhythmik, 22-3.
Supra,
vol.
ii.

barians,
r]/j.ets,

ovrw

5r)

ovv,

(ptjcrl,

/col

p. 431,
:

11.

I.

eVeiSr?

Kal

ra Oearpa
Traj Syjfios

eit&ap8rj

Harm.
riva

El. 32
rj/.i.e

(pvtTiKyv
rijv

yap

fidpwrat Kal els /j.^ydATjv

TrpoeATiAi
/j.ovffLK t-1,
flej
i)

La<p6opav

<pafj.ey

is

($HVT]V

avrt]

KivrjffLV KivelaOai,
SLaar-rj/J-a riQfvai.

Kal Kal

aurovs Kad yfv6fi.i 0i o ia ^v r) o\iyoi a^a ut/uvTjo"K:o u.60a Cf. also Harm. El. 23, fiovffiK^.
j

ov% &s eTu%6 rovrav airo}

and the remarks a/pud PLUT.

Qu. Conv.
vii. 8. 1,

4, p.

711

C,

where Aristox.
nents
2>ra

ra KaX iav, and 1)6 Mus.

1142,

calls his oppodvavSpoi Kal 5iaredpv/jLim.evoi Si ^ovffiav Kal aweipoC.

8ei|ets ireip&^da Aeyeti/ 6^.o\oyovpevas rots (paivouevois, ov KaQd-rrep of ^poff^v, of nev dAAoTptoAoyovvrts Kal TV?/ /xu alaByoiv c/c:AiOVK aKpiffi, vorirds vovres, &s ova^v Kal 8e Karao Ktvdfrvrts alrias, (pdaKovres \6yovs re rivas a.piQp.uv
etJ/cu

31,

p.

Kal

rdxn

where he

tells

a COiltem-

TO re 6|J

if pus &\\ij\a, cv ols Kal Qapv yiverat, Trdvrav

him to ponirv how ill it becomes conform to the taste of the day.

aXXorpiwrarovs \6yovs Kiyovrts Kal evavriwdrovs rots (paivo^vois

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

435

moreover, to establish his conclusions upon an inde pendent basis, he excludes on principle all those which might be borrowed from another science the theory of music, he holds, must be limited to its own proper field,
:

must completely exhaust it. We cannot here enter more fully into Aristoxenus s theory of music, and must be content with the statement of its most general principles as an indication of its character and tendency. 2
but
it
1

01

Se a
K.C

s
,

eicacTTO.

i/ev

airias

ou5e

avra ra
AaBelV

must begin with data which are immediately established by per

ception.

Ka06\ov Se eV

T<3

fi/j.e

is

8e

apx as re

^p%eis

Treiptia/jieOa

ffQai
rrjif

TrapaTripr)Teoi>,

OTTWS /j.^r

<paivo/u.evas

airaffas
e /C

rols

^tre ipois
ffVfJi&ai-

inrepopiav

e/xTTiTrrco/xei/,

airo

fJ.OV(TlK!JS Kttl TO.

TOVTtoV

vovra airodeutvvvai
8
rj

....

Trpay/uLarela els Svo

efc

avdyfrai re rr/j/

aKoyv ical eh TT\V Sidvoiav. rrj jjCtv yap awof) Kpivofj.ev ra rcav SmarTjp.6.r(av p.eyt6r). TTJ
JJLSV

T) ({xwys Kivfjfffcas aepos av ^TJT Ka^TrrovTes fvrbs [narrowing the bounds of our knowledge] TroAAa T&V otWcoi/

TWOS

apxf fJ-eyoi,

8e Siavoia Oewpov-

ras TOV-TUV Swdfj-^is.

Music
;

is

not like Geometry. The latter has no need of observation

T<

In fact, however, not go into the physical inquiries as to the nature of tones see next note, and cf
~a-Ko\ip.ird,vuiJLtv.

Aristox. does

ibid. pp. 1 a.nd 8.

2

The

basis on

which Aristox.
is

rd^iv p. 38,
T)

i)

rrjs
:

altr6r,(T(as
e/c

ad Jin.
re

proceeds in his Harmonics

the

Svo yap
(TVV^ffLS

human
20,

voice (cf.

Harm.

TOVT03V
fffTiv,

T7JS

fJiOV(TLKr]S

and CENSOKIN.

El. 19, c. 12, who

/nv^^s. P. 43, ad Jin. three things are needful right apprehension of the phenomena, right arrange ment of them, and right conclu sions from them. As to the somewhat hostile criticisms of later writers, such as PTOLEM^EUS
aiffQ-fiffftis
:

Kal

says t*hat Aristox. held that music consisted in voce et corporis

motu
from

but he cannot conclude

this that he considered it to consist merely in this and to

(Harm. i. 2, 13), PORPHYE. (in Harm.Wallis. Up p. Hi. 211), and BOBTHIUS (De Mas. 1417, 1472, 1476) upon the method of
Ptol.

Aristoxenus, see
sqq.
1

MAHNE,
. :

BEANDIS,

iii.

Harm.

El.

p. 167 380-1 44 Harmonics

have no deeper basis, especially as this would be in contradiction with the quotation supra, vol. ii. p. 432, n. 5, and as CENSOEIN. in the same passage, says of So crates also that, according to him, music was in voce tantummodo ). The voice has two kinds
of

movement

that

of

and that of song.

speech
it

For speech
F F 2

436

ARISTOTLE

Arlstoxenus iurther described the Soul as a harmony, and more definitely as the harmony of the Body. The
activities of the soul were held by him to spring from the concurrent movements of the bodily organs as their

has
ffis

for a continuous motion song a movement of intervals (KIJ/TJ;

lesser

ffw^x^is

and

5ma"TrjjUaTi/fry)

that is, in speech we have a con tinual change of tone, while in singing each tone is held for a certain time at the same level Whether a tone (ibid. p. 2, 8).
is

Steer is (quarter tone) is given as the smallest perceptible and stateable difference of tone (pp. 13-4), while the greatest which can be represented by the

human

instrument

TreVre Kal Sis Sia

voice or by any single is said to be the Sia = two oc TracrcDj/ (

no,

in itself a form of Aristox. says he

motion or
will
;

not

inquire (Hid. p. 9, 12) he says a tone is at rest so long as it

does not change its note, but allows that this may be an actual rest or may be merely a same
ness of motion (o/xaAoV^s
$ TOUTOTTJS)
;

/ciHjo-ews

nor will he go into the question whether the voice really can hold exactly the same note, for it is enough that it appears to us to do so. ctTrAws
yap, orav av ovrca Kivyrai
facrre
a/cof),
fj.r]Sa/j.ov
7]

tyiav^i,

So/ceo/

iffraffQai

rfj

ffvve-xri

K.ivr](riv,

orav

\eyofj.ev Tavrrjv Trjv 8e ffT^vai TTOV 5o acra

elra
<pavri,

7rciA.iv

Sia^aiveiv riva roirov Kal TOVTO TroL rf](ra<ra TraAti/

e<p

erepas
O-TTJI/CU

Tacrews
SO^T?,

[level
/cat

of tone] TOVTO eVaAAa|

The taves and a fifth) (p. 20). notions of tone and interval are denned (p. 16-7), and the differ ent tone-systems are given (p. 17-8) with the statement that of these the diatonic is the most original, the chromatic the next, and the enharmonic the last, so that the ear is with difficulty accustomed to it (p. 19), &c. The further course of the inquiry cannot be followed here. That Aristox. (as in Harm. pp. 24, 4546) fixed the compass of the fourth at two and a half, of the fifth at three and a half, and of the octave at six tones, whereas the true compass is rather less, because the half-tones of the fourth and fifth are not a full half, is matter of criticism in

PTOLBM. Harm.
roiavTyv \4yopev. The result of this must be a bad circulus in definiendo,

i.

10;

BOETH.

DC Mus.

1417;

by which the eTrirao-is (fxavrjs is defined as a movement of the voice from a low to a high note, and the Hvecris (poov^s a movement from a high to a low one, while ovrr)s, conversely, is denned as
TO yev6/J.vov

Nat. 10, 7. Of. Proer. c. 17, p. the apjuLoviitol are the followers of Aristox., elsewhere called opin his treatment of rhythm Aristox. also treated of the letters of the alphabet as the elements of speech see DIONYS.
;

CENSORIX. Di. also PLUT. An. 1020-1 (where

yaviKol or sible that

/j.ovcriKol).

It

is

pos

and
TTJS

Sia TTJS f7nrd(Tws, as TO yevo/j-tiiw Sia aj/eVews (p. 10). Again, the
jSopuTrjs

Com]). T erb. p. 154.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

common
product
;

437

a disturbance in one of these parts,

in other words, death. 1

which destroys the concord of their movements, causes

the extinction of consciousness

In this doctrine he only followed a view which had been

already adopted by others -probably Pythagoreans It would commend itself all the more to before him. 2

him as an empiric in that it offered an explanation of the soul which harmonised with his views upon music.
Just as in music he confines himself to the facts of
experience, so in treating of the life of the soul he confines himself strictly to its sensible manifestations ;

and just

as there

he sees harmony arising from the

concurrence of particular sounds, so he holds that the

1

Cic. Tusc.

i.

10, 20:

Aristox.

harmoniam

ipsius corporis intentionem [roVos] quandam [animam dixit] velut in cantu et fidibus qua? harmonia dicitur, sic ex corporis totius natura et figura varios motus cieri, tanquam in cantu sonos. Of. c. 18, 41, where, on
.
.
.

in fidibus ex constructione corporis et compagibus viscerum vim sentiendi existere scilicet ut singularum
. .

corporis partiumfirmaconjunctio

membrorumque omnium consentiens in unurn vigor motum ilium sensibilem faciat animumque concinnet, sicut nervi bene inEt tenti conspirantem sonum. sicuti in fidibus, cum aliquid aut

the other hand, we are told membrorum vero situs et figura animo quam corporis vacans
:

possit video.

harmoniam
C. 22, 51 et Aristox.
:

efficere,

non

Dica3archus
.
. .

interruptum aut relaxatum est, omnis canendi ratio turbatur et

solvitur, ita in corpore, cum pars aliqua membrorum duxerit vitium, destrui universa, corruptisque omnibus et turbatis occidere

nullum quidem omnino animum esse dixerunt. LACTANT. Instit.vii. 13 (perhaps

also

following

Cicero):

quid

Aristox., qui negavit omnino ullam esse aniraam, etiam cum vivit in corpore? but held that

sensum eamque mortem

2

vocari.

harmony is engendered out of the tension of strings, ita in corporibus ex compage viscerum ac vigore membrorum vim sentiendi existere. LACT. Opif. D. 16 c. Aristox. dixit, mentem omnino nullam esse, sed quasi
as
:

ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 413. Aristox. probably stated this view in his books on the Pythagoreans but what is quoted from
;

him by JAMBL.
41, as to the

Tlieol.

Aritlmi. p.

Metempsychosis of

Pythagoras does not prove that

Aristox. himself believed in that doctrine,

438
soul originates
in

ARISTOTLE
the

concurrence of bodily move

friend
2

ments.

Along with Aristoxenus his Dicsearchus of Messene disciple

]

and

fellow-

is

usually classed,

on account of his views upon the nature of the soul, 3 which he appears to have made even more expressly

and thoroughly the subject of his investigations. 4 He also held that the soul has no absolute independent
1

As

18,
vol.

Ad
ii. 2

to this, see Cic. Fuse, i. Att. xiii. 32, and supra,

s.

p. 429, n. 2.
t\,

According to SUID.

he

was the son Messene in

Aristotle,

of Phidias, born at Sicily, a scholar of

torician
is

a philosopher, a rhe and a geometrician. He often called a Messenian and a

of
Aristotle
(e.g.

2) and that he was employed by the Macedonian kings to measure the heights of mountains (PLIN. H. Nat. ii. 65, 162), which work we know that he did in the Peloponnesus, for S UIDAS ascribes to him Kara/iJiTp-f)<ris r&v eV rieAoHis learning is irovvi](TCf opwis.
vi.

scholar

Cic.

Ad

praised by PLIN.
Att.
ii.

(loc. cit.),
i.

by ClO.
1

and elsewhere, and

(cf. p. 226).

Legg. Hi. 6, 14; ATHEN. xi. 460-1, xv. 6GG, b and a). Why

by VAEEO, DC B. R.

TIIEMISTIUS names him among

of Aristotle traducers (supra, vol. i. p. 40, n. 1), it is for neither the difficult to say circumstance referred to by MULLEE (Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 225-6) that he gave more importance to the practical life than Aristotle did (see below), nor the fact

the

His dates of birth and death cannot be As to his exactly determined

MULLEE, ibid.
and
ii.

life

writings,

see

OSANN,

1-119; FUHE, Dica-arcM Me&sen. qua; supersunt (Darmst. 1841); MULLEE, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 225 sqq., from whom the Fragments hereafter cited are
JBeitr.

taken.
3
4

(which OSANN, p. 46, connects with this accusation) that Dicrearchus departed from Aristotle s teaching as to the soul, has any thing to do with their personal relations, of which THEMIST. is
speaking.
inserted the
It
is

Cic. Fuse.

i.

We know from

18, 41, 22, 51.

Cic.

Ad Att.

xiii.

32, Fuse. i. 10, 21, 31, 77; PLUT. Adv. Col. 14, 2, p. 1115,

that he wrote two works on the

soul,

which were dialogues, one

THEMIST. or

his

possible that copyists have

wrong name: Demochares, for example, might be suggested instead. We have no further information about Dicasarchus, except that he lived in the Peloponnesus (Cic. Ad Att.

at Corinth, the other in Lesbos. Whether with either of these (OSANN, 40- 1, suggests the Kopiv6iaKbs) the work DC Interitu
laid
Off. ii. 5, 16; 351) was identical must remain an unsolved pro blem but it seems improbable.

Hominum
Consol.

(Cic.

ix.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS. ETC.

439

existence of its own, but is merely the result of the mixture of material constituents, being in fact nothing else than the harmonious union of the four elements in

united to the body accord ingly and diffused through all its parts does the soul It was only, therefore, to be partake of reality.
a living body
:

only as
1

it is

expected that he should from this point of view vigor 2 It is more ously combat the belief in immortality. to be told that he believed in revelations surprising

through dreams and ecstatic

1

states.

These, however,
rrj

Cic.

makes a
maintain,

Tusc. i. certain
nihil

10, 21

Die.

according to Dicasarchus, T&

QiHTfi
<rv/j./j,iu.iy/j.evoi>,

Pherecrates
esse
in

v)

TO

rov

omnino
avrrj 8e
/j.))

animum et hoc
inane
. . .

esse

nomen totum
homine

Trapbv rrj

//I

XJ?

&<nrp

neque
vel

i>Trdpxov.(1)

inesse in bestia virnque ononem earn, qua vel agamus quid vel sentia;

animum

animam nee
were

SlMPL. Categ. Schol.

:
. . .

mus

[/aVrjcm

and

a lffdrja-is

already indicated by ARIST. De An. i. 2, 4.03, b, 25, as the distin guishing- marks of the e ^t X 01 ]*
in

in Ar. b8, a, 26 ALK. rb /j.ev (MOV (rui/exwpei elvai, rV 5e alriav / avTOv NEMES. ^ux^* a^7?pei. Nat. Horn. p. 08: AiKaiapxos Se
[T^I/
\l/vx~nv

recrffdpoov

PLUT.
i.

Aeyei] ap/jLoviav rwv also (TTOixtlwv (so Plac. iv. 2, 5 ; STOB. Ed.

omnibus

corporibus
esse

vivis

Eequabiliter

fusam,

nee
.

a separabilem corpore esse, quippe qufe nulla sit [cf. 11, 24 nihil omnino animum dicat esse],

nee

sit

unum

quidquam

et

alone], ita tione naturae vigeat et sentiat lUd. 18, 41 [Die.] ne condoluisse quidem unquam videtur, qui animum se habere non sentiat 22, 51 (v. supra, vol. ii. p. 437, n.
; : ;

nisi corpus simplex [the body figuratum ut tempera-

796; HERMIAS, Irris, p. 402), is the same as Kpacris Kai ta. TWV (TTotx 6i/a / for it is not the musical kind of har mony, which is meant, but the harmonious mixture of the warm, cold, moist and dry elements in the body. Accordingly he is said to have considered the soul as avoixrios (which means, not immaterial, as OPANN, p. 48, translates but non-sub it,

which

ffv(j.<b(n}v

"

stantial).

1,

and Acad.
ii.

The meaning of TEKc.

ii.

39, 124).
/i^ eli/cu

SEXT.

says he taught

rV
vii.

TULL. De An. under STRATO)

"

is
i.

15 (cf. infra, not clear.

31,
7,

(Pyrrh.
irapa

31), ^mjSej/
0"e3/ua

e?i/at

Cic. Tusc.

77,
;

TO TTWS %x ol/
:

(Matll.
ri]v

Ei

ATTICUS, 349). xv. 9, 5

.

a-p.
:

Eus. Praep.
O ATJJ/

TANT. Instit. next note.

3

vii.

13

LACand cf.

ai>r

pr]K

Ps.-PujT.Plae.v.lA-. Apurro-

vit6(TTO.ffiv TTJS \l/vxvs.

STOB. Eel.

i.

870

JAMliL. ap. the soul was,

TC ATS Kal AIK. rb KO.T

440

ARISTOTLE
1 able, like Aristotle, to reconcile

he was doubtless
his doctrine
2

with

planation. the priestly arts of prophecy can easily be gathered from the fragments of his work upon the Cave of Tro-

by means of a natural ex That he was no friend of divination and

of the soul

phonius.

Connected with Dicaearchus

view of the soul

is

his assertion that the practical life is superior to the theoretic. 4 One who held, as he did, that the soul was inseparably united to the body could not ascribe to that
is

activity of thought in which it withdraws from all that external in order to become absorbed in itself, the same value as Plato and Aristotle, out their

following

view of the nature of mind, had done. Conversely, one who found the highest activity of the soul only in the
practical side of life

must necessarily have been

of
it

all

the

more ready

to

conceive

as

not in

its

nature

force that pervades them.

separable from the bodily organs, but as the operative But Dicgearchus demands
with Aristotle in this connection, Certainly we cannot ascribe to

Kal TOVS ovftpovs, aBavarov fj*v elvcu i/o^iCoj/resrV^i/xV, Geiov 8e TIVOS ^ere xeiz/ avrrjv.

ou

Similarly

him what

in Cic. Divin.
ibid._
ii.

i,

3, 5, 50,

51, 10:

113. Cf. magnus Dicas-

archi liber est, nescire ea [qua?

ClC. Divin. i. 50, 113, says as to the loosing of the soul from the body in sleep and
in

ventura sint] melius esse,

scire.
;

quam

Cf supra,
.

vol.

ii.

pp. 76, 328.

note but one) that the soul has something divine, would not stand in his for even Democritus (ZELL. way, Ph. d. Or. i. 812-3) admits as much. It is, however, questionable whether the Placita have any right to couple Dicsearchus
last

PLUT. in the

The proposition (PSEUDO-

excitement, and, in fact, Cicero does not name Dicscarchus for his view. 3 Fr. 71-2, ap. ATHEN. xiv.
641,
p.
4

e,

xiii.

594,

e;
Att.

of.

OSANN,
ii.

107 sqq.
Cic.

Ad

16:
est

quoniam tanta controversia

Dicrearcho,
familiari
tuo,

cum

Theophrasto, amico meo, ut ille tuus rov irpcucriKbv piov longe omnibus anteponat, hie autem rbj/
0e/>7jTi/coV

Cf. ibid. vii. 3.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

441

that just as this psychic force penetrates the whole body, the moral force should manifest itself throughout the whole of human life it is not the lecture that
:

makes the philosopher

the
official

it is

business that

not the public oration or makes the statesman; but the

philosopher is he who carries his philosophy into every circumstance and action of his life, the statesman he

who

dedicates
1

his

whole

life

to

the

service

of the

people.

With
found

this strong practical

bent Dicaaarchus naturally

;

and accord ingly we hear, not only generally that he gave special attention to these, 2 but also that he wrote accounts of Greek Constitutions 3 particularly we know that in his
;

political studies especially attractive

4 he proposed a combination of the three pure forms of con

Tripoliticus

a development of Aristotelian ideas

stitution

(democracy,

aristocracy,

and monarchy) as

the best, and pointed to Sparta as an example of this combination. 5 Beyond this we know hardly anything
This is the leading idea of the passage in PLUT. An seni s.
ger. resp.
c.
1

26, p. 796, of

which

we may assume

that its general content belongs to Dicjearchus and not merely sen^the single tence Kal yap rovs eV ra?s ffroous
avaKcfyiTrroz/ras

or a political aim but the one use is as incorrect as the other 2 Cic. Legg. iii. 5, H. 3 Cic. Ad ii. 2 (cf. Os ANN, p. 13 sqq.) names accounts by him of the Constitutions of Fella, Corinth, and
;

Att.<

Trepnrarelv

(pa.(T\v,

Athens,

which

&s eAe-ye AiKatapxos, ouKeri Se TOVS cis aypbv ? tylxov n The paSifrvras. meaning of that sentence will then be as follows as people use the word TreptTrareTv only of
:

probably

were

parts of a general History of Constitutions, if not indeed of the

Bios EAAdSos (infra) that his TroAn-eia
;

SUID. says
ZirapTiaTtiv

walking, which is done directly for the sake of movement, so they commonly use the words
fyLXoffofyelv

may also have been part of the Tripoliticus) was publicly read in Sparta every year,
(which
4

only of those activities which expressly and directly serve a philosophic

and

Cf. supra, vol.

ii.

p.

230 sq

iroAiTeueo-flcu

and especially pp. 278 sqq. 5 That this was the main idea of the Tpnro\iTiKbs and that

442

ARISTOTLE
1

s political philosophy. may pass over the fragments of his numerous writings upon history, geography, and the development of literature

of Dicaearchus

We

and

art, especially as the views expressed in of no particular philosophical interest. 2

them are

CiCERO,who studied and admired Dicasarchus (supra, vol. ii. p. 440, * n. 4; fuse. i. 31, 77, delicige meas Dicasarchus Ad Att. ii. 2), borrowed from him the theory of the amalgamation of these forms of Constitution and the idea of
;

Att. xiii. 32 says he wishes to use of the TripoUticits, was the De Gloria. 1 Direct information on this

Ad

make

head we have none, except the remark (cited by PLUT. Qu. Conv.
iv.

exhibiting this amalgamation in a working polity, and that pro bably FoLYB.vi. 2-10 also follows Dicasarchus, has been shown by

OSANN,

ibid.

p.

sqq.,

who,

however, is wrong in treating as genuine the political Fragments of Archytas and Hippodamus, and in citing in support of his

Procom. p. 659), that we should seek the good will of all, but the We friendship of the good. gather from PORPH. De Abst lr. 1, 2 (see next note), and from the saying (Cic. Off. ii. 5, 16, Consol. ix. 351 Bip.) that many more men have been ruined by the hands of men than by wild

view PLUT. Qu. Conv. viii. 2, 2, 3, p. 718, where Dicasarchus is merety speaking of the combina tion of Socratic and Pythagorean
This infer elements in Plato. ence assumes the highest degree of probability when we observe that PHOT. Bill. Cod. 37, p. 8, a (following some scholar of the
sixth

beasts or catastrophes of nature, that Die. denounced war. According to POEPH. Hid. it seems that Die. (like Theophrastus) saw even in the custom of slaughtering animals, the commencement of a downward

century) speaks of
8iKa.iapx.iKbi>,

elSos

which con sists in an amalgamation of the three kinds of constitution, and is the best kind of government, and that (according to FT. 23 b.
TroAtrefas

tendency. 2 His views a,s to the conical form of the earth (Fr. 53; PLIN. // N. ii. 65, 1(52) and the eternity of the world and of the races of men and animals are
purely Aristotelian (Fr. 3, 4 ap. CBNS. Di. Rat. c. 4 VAIIRO,
;

ATHEN. iv. 141, a) the Tri-politicus contained an exact descrip tion of the Spartan Phiditia, and

R. Itust. ii. 1) and inasmuch as he strove (using the myth of the rule oL Kronos) to represent with
;
!

when we compare with these

data the fashion in which both Cicero in the Republic- (e.g. i. 29,
45-6, and ii. 28, 39) and Polybius cit. deal with the subject. loc,. OSANN also suggests (p. 29 sqq.) that the work for which Cic.

intelligence the original condition of mankind and the gradual transition from a primi tive state of nature to pastoral life began the (with which eating of flesh and war) and the further advance to an agricul
tural life (Fr. 1-5, b;

much

PORPH.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

1

443

Of another Peripatetic known to us by name, Phanias, the friend and fellow-citizen of Theophrastus, we possess only isolated statements upon history and science. 2 The same is true of Clearchus of Soli 3 since
;

although
to us, 4

among

his writings, so far as they are

5

known

none are

historical,

from them which we

the quotations possess relate to history, and these

all

yet almost

6 are for the most part so paltry and insignificant, and

De

Abstin.

iv.

I,

2,

p.

295-6

have
i.

written
ibid.,

HIERON. Adv. Jovin. IE. t. iv. b, Mart. CENSOR, c. 4 205, VARRO, R. R. ii. 1, i. 9) he must, like Aristotle and Theophrastus
;

(AMMON.

works on Logic and v. supra, vol.

(supra,vol. ii. pp. 30 sq. 378 sq.), have supposed that the history of human civilisation moved in a
settled cycle.
1

Our information as to the

of this

life

man (from
;

The information p. 64, n. 1). which exists about these texts, and the fragments of them which are preserved, have been collected by VOISIN (De Phauia Eras. Gand. 1824) and after him by MULLER, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 293 sqq. 3 HeisoftencalledSoAeus; and
that the Cyprian, not the Cilician,
Soli is meant, is clear (as many have observed, and as MULLER,
ibid. 302,

STRABO,

xiii. 2, 4, p.

SUID. s. v. 618 PLUT.

;

Tliemist. c. 13

AMMON. in

Categ.,

wrote to this Phanias, de quo cf. also Schol in Apoll. Rhod.i. 972. 2 hear of various historical

maintains against VERRAERT, De Clearclw Sol. Gand. 1828, p. 3-4) from ATHEN. vi. 256, Aristotle, and lived in and after c. e. f. We know nothing more 01. Ill (in Ol. Ill, 2, Aristotle about his life, except that he returned from Macedonia to was a scholar of Aristotle. (See Athens). DIOGENES, v. 37, quotes notes on next page.) 4 a letter which Theophrastus, See the list and Fragm. when he was advanced in age, apud VERRAERT and MULLER,
ubi supra.

Schol. in Ar. 28, a, 40) is limited to the statements that he belonged to Eresos, that he was a scholar of

We

works of Phanias a work TT. iroiriTw, another on the Socratics (which may have dealt with other philosophers also) a book irpbs TOI/S o-o^io-ra?, of which the Trpbs AtJSwpoj/ (Diodorus Kronus) was perhaps a part, and a TT. to which the matter cited by PLIN. H. Nat. xxii. 13, 35 from Phanias the physicist may have
;

Even the TT. fricav, which seems to have been his chief work, and from which we have citations of books 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8, cannot have been, if we are to judge by these Fragments, a biographical work, but only a
discussion of the value of differ ent kinds of lives cf. MULLER,
:

$UTO>J>,

ibid. p. 302.
6

This cannot be wholly due

belonged.

He

is

also

said to

to the fact that we owe the cita tions to a gossip like Athenasus.

444

ARISTOTLE
little

exhibit so

critical

power, while Clearchus

1

own

conjectures are so devoid of taste, that they give us but a mean opinion of their author s powers.

Generally

it

may

be said that what

we know

of

him

is little fitted

to establish the assertion that he is second to

none of

the Peripatetics, 2 although, on the other hand, it must be confessed that we do not know what those departures

from the true Peripatetic doctrine were with which Plutarch charges him. 3 Besides a few unimportant 4 and a discussion of the different scientific assertions,
kinds of riddles, 5 some hints as to his views upon ethics can be extracted from the fragments of Clearchus these, however, merely amount to the statements that
:

luxury and extravagance are in the highest degree repre 6 hensible, although, on the other hand, Cynic and Stoic
indifference
to

external

circumstances are

far

from

E.g. his explanation of the

:

myth of the egg of Leda, ap. ATHEN. ii. 57, e the ancients in
place of

Apjo-rorf Xovs 3 l)e Fdc.

Lull. 2, 5, p.

920

and

virsptpov used, fov simply, SO, since Helen was begotten

u^erepos yap 6 avrjp, ApurroTeAovs TOV TraAcuoG yzyovus <rvvi]Q-r]s, el KCL\ TroAAa TOV TrepnraTOu TrapeVpe^/ev.
4

in a virepqiov, the story arose that she came out of an egg his statement, ap. DiOG. i. 81, as to
!

FT.

SPRENGEL,

70-74, a, 76, 78 cf. Gesch. d. Arzneik.

;

Pittacus (evidently founded only on the well-known verse ap.

(fourth edition); i. 412-3. Fr. 63, apiid

r>

v.

ROSEXBAUM, ATHEN.
d.

x.

PLUT. VII. Sap. Cnv.

157, e)
aAeTi/
:

c.
r\v

14, p.

448,
i.
ti

c. cf.

PEANTL, Gesch.

Log.

TOVT^

yvfj.va.cria

virov

399

sq.

and

his idea that (Fr. 60

So Clearchus, in his

TT.

iW,

Miiller) man-eating steeds of Diomedes meanb his

ap.

the

daughters
2

C. Apion. i. 22, ii. 454 Haverc. KA.. 6 ApJo-roTeAofs &v fj.a6TTT7)s real rcav e/c rov irfpnrd:

JOSEPH.

had recounted the numerous examples of these failings and their which consequences, ATHENJEUS cites from him
(Fragm..

21-23)

3-14, cf. Fr. 16-18, and, on the other hand

TOV

(f>t\ocr6(t)(i}v

ou&ei/bs
c.
:

Sevrepos.
2oAei>s

ATHBX.

xv. 701,

KA.. 6

(Fr. 15, ap. ATHEN. xii. 548, d), named Gorgias to prove the

Sevrepos TWV

TOV

(rotyov

wholesome

effects of moderation.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC.

l

445

that a sharp distinction must be drawn between friendship and flattery 2 that passionate and unnatural love should be avoided, 3 and such like. On

praiseworthy

the whole, Clearchus gives us the impression rather of a

versatile

and well-read, though somewhat

superficial,

man of letters, 4 than of a scholar and philosopher. Among the pupils of Aristotle is sometimes reckoned
Heraclides of Pontus. It has already been re 5 marked, however, that neither the chronology nor the
character of his doctrines
tion,
is

although

his learned efforts

favourable to this assump show that he was

to the Peripatetic school. certainly closely akin Aristotle s influence may have had a more decided
effect

upon the
before

orator

and poet Theodectes, who

Persian
as
d.

died,
6
7

however,
Several
1

Alexander s

expedition.
Callisthenes,

other

Aristotelians,
xiii.

such

Ajmd ATHEN.

Gil, b,

NAYS, AWt.
Sf.llsch.

he distinguishes (apparently in
opposition to the Cynics and perhaps to the Stoics also) between
fiios
2

in Breslau,
lib.

Hist.-philos. Gei. 1858, 190,

Theophr.

Frommigk.

110,

Kaprepiubs
Cf.

and

the

/3ios

KvviK6s.

187) need not, from our extant information as to Clearchus, be considered spurious.

FT. 30, 32 (ATHEX. vi. 533, e) with the bold sketch of a young and weak Prince ruined by flattering courFT. 25-6 (ATHBN. vi. tiers, &c.
255, b,
xii.

Supra, vol. ii. p. 387, n. 1, p. 433 sqq. cf. ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i.
;

p. 843, n.
6

1.

On

this writer,

who

is

often

255,
3

c.

258, a).
xiii.

FT. 34-36 (ATHEN.

_

573,

a,

589, d. 605, d, e).

4

Aristotle

The conversation between and a Jew reported by

quoted by Aristotle, and of whom we have suggested (supra, vol. i. p. 72, n., following PLUT. Alex. c. 17) that he was with Aristotle in Macedonia, see WESTEEMANN S
Gescli.
d.

Tlercdnamk.

lei

d.

Clearchus (FT. 69, op. JOSEPH. C. Apion. i. 22), maybe regarded as a literary invention, together with the accompanying explanation that the Jews derived their The philosophy from India. book cited (ir. vwov, de quo BEE-

Griech. u.
A,
21,
7

Rom.

i.

84, A, 6, 142J
vol.
i.

and supra,

p. 40,

n. 2, p. 72.

of Aristotle
vol.
i.

This kinsman and scholar is referred to supra,

p. 22, n. 1

ad fin.

(see also

VALEK. MAX.

vii. 2, ext. 8,

SUID.

446

ARISTOTLE
1

Leo of Byzantium,
only as writers

and

Clytus,
3

are

known

to

us

on history, Meno

only as the author

of a history of pharmacology. 4 Of a theological work of Hipparchus of Stagira only the title has come down to us. 5 Of those who are not accredited with any written or oral teaching of their own, we need say
6

nothing.
to his death, see 32 sqq. Further information about him and his writings will be found in GEIER, Alex. Hut. Script. 191 sqq. MULLEK, Script. Her. Alex. \ sqq.
KaAAio-0.),
i.

and as
p.

supra, vol.

for this work all the writings of earlier physicians then extant.
4

Of the historian Marsyas

tell
i. p. 22, n. 1) we can whether and how far he

(supra, vol.

not

The

little

we can glean

adhered to the Peripatetic phi

losophy.

of

this historian (whom SUID. Bi confounds with an earlier politician of Byzantium of the

AeW

SUID. "Iirirapx. (of. LOBECK, Aglaoph. 608) names a work of

his
:

TO

appev

Kal

flrjAu

same name) from SUID. iMfl., ATHEN. xii. 553-1, and PSEUDOPLUT. De Fluv.
out Gr.
2

irapa

2, 2,

24, 2, is set

in
ii.

MULLEK, Fragm.
328-9.

Hist.

ATHEN.
i.

xiv. 655, b, xii. 540,

c; DIOG. 333.
3

25;

MULLEE, Hid.

&AAa nvd. Including Adrastus of Philippi (STEPII. BYZ. De Urb. $i\nrEchecratides of Methymna TTOI) (STEPH. BYZ. M^0u/tra) King Cassander (PLUT. Alex. c. 74); Mnason of Phocis (ATHEN. vi.
0eo?s Kal ris 6 ydu.os, Kal
u
;

in HippocT. da Nat. Horn. vol. xv. 25-26 K., says this physician was a scholar of Ari stotle s, and wrote an iarpiK^ ffwaywy}) in several books, erro

GALEN,

264, d. ^LIAN, V. If. iii. 19) ; Philo, whom, according to ATHEN.

;

neously ascribed to Aristotle him self. It is clear that this was an historical collection of medical theories, both from the title (which is the equivalent of the
supra, vol. i. p. 73, n. 1), and also from the remark of Galen, that he had used
Te^i/ciif

610-11, and DIOG. v. 38, Sophocles, the author of the law referred to supra, vol. ii. p. 350, n. 4, indicted for an offence the against the constitution Eucairos named supra, vol. i. p. 97 (cf. HETTZ, Verl. Schr. 118Plato named by 19), and the
xiii.
;

DIOG.
pupil.

iii.

109.

ffvvaycayr]

Aristotle

friend,

Antipater was but not his

447

CHAPTER XX
SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS
I

STKATO

who belonged to the Theophrastus, the literary and historical tendency seems also to have been the predominating Most of those who are mentioned as belong one.
the majority of those
of

WITH

school

ing to

it

have confined themselves in their literary

labours to history, the history of literature, ethics, po This is true of Demetrius of Phalitics, and rhetoric.
lerus,
1

distinguished as a scholar and statesman

has studied his the most thorough manner Demetrii Plial. Vita. &c.,

l ;

of

OSTERMANN

with

Phocion, to

have played

life in

in

De

some part as one of the chiefs of the Macedonian aristocratic

party, for

published (Part I.) Hersf. 1847, and (Part II.) Fulda, 1857; the titles and fragments of his writ ings are given by him in Part II., and by HERWIG, Ueber Deme.tr. Phal. Schriften, &c., Kinteln, Born about the middle of 1850. the fourth century (OST. i. 8), and probabl} while Aristotle was still alive, DEMETRIUS studied under Theophrastus (Cic. Brat. 9, 37, Fin. v. 19, 54, Leyg. iii. 6, 14, Off. i. 1,3; DIOG. V. 75), and (according to DEMETR. MAGN. apud DIOG. v. 75) he made his first appearance as a popular orator about the time that Harpalus came to Athens, i.e. about 324 B.C. On the termina tion of the Lamian War he seems,
-

when, after Antipater

B.C.),

death (318
party
while,

came

the opposition into power for a

and Phocion was executed, Demetrius also was tried and condemned to death (PLUT. Pkoc.

He escaped his sentence, 35). however, by flight, and when, in the following year, Cassander made himself master of Athens, he handed over to Demetrius the direction of the State under an oligarchical republican constitu tion. For ten years Demetrius occupied this position, and even if it be admitted that his rule may not have been blameless, he did most important service for the prosperity and order of Athens. He is accused of vanity, haughti-

448
1

ARISTOTLE
and
his brother

Duris,

Lynceus
23,

of Chamaeleon, 3

and

ness, and immorality by DURIS and DIYLLUS, ap. ATHEX. xii. 542, b sqq. xiii. 593, e, f (though

i. 95, 1, 3, and cf. Offic. QUINT. Inst. x. 1, 33, 80, and DIOG. v. 82), although he does

JULIAN, F. //. ix. 9, transfers statement to Demetrius but the untrustPoliorcetes) worthiness of Duris and the animus of his statements lead us to suppose a high degree of exaggeration. When Demetrius Poliorcetes, in 807 B.C., took the Piraius, an insurrection broke out in Athens against Demetrius Phal. and Cassander s party. he Protected by Poliorcetes,
the
;

not find in his speeches the fire of the great orators of free Athens. That he brought about the translation of the so-called Septuagint is palpably a fable, as to which OSTERMAKN ought not to have credited the lying Aristaaus (ii. 9 So also the work on sqq. 46-7). the Jews is a forgery, although

and the power

both

HERWIG (pp. 15-16), and OSTERMANN (ii. 32-3), have

it.
1

escaped to Thebes, and finally, after Cassander s death (01. 120,

accepted
All

we know

of

DURIS

is

298-99 B.C.), went to Egypt. Here Ptolemy Lagi accorded him an honourable and influential position, in which he was spe
2,

he was a Samian and a of pupil Theophrastus (see

that

ECKERTZ S account

cially
:

active

in

founding

the

of him, De Ditride Sam. Bonn, 1846 MULIER, Fraym. Hist. Gr. ii. 466
;

Alexandrian library (OST. i. 2664 who, however, on p. 64 makes a very improbable suggestion,
ilncl.
ii.
-a-,

To sqq. and ATHEN. iv. 128, a). define the exact date of his life
time
(cf.

MULLER,

ibid.)

is

riot

sqq.;

cf.

GRAUERT,
i.

Hist.
;

pl il. AnalJit en,

310

DROYSEN, Gesoli. d. Kclsqq. After lenism. ii. b, 10G sqq). the death of this prince (and
according
to

According to ATHEN. d, he had, at some period, governed his native town, but when we cannot say. His
possible. viii. 337,

HERMIPP. apud

untrustworthiness matters is very

in

historical

unfavourably

DlOG.

v.

78 immediately after,

which Would be 283 B c.) Pto lemy Philadelphus, whose suc cession Demetrius had opposed,
banished him to a place in the country, where he lived some time as a political prisoner, and where he eventually died from the bite of an adder (Cic. Pro
9, 23, says this was suicide; but HERMIPP., nt supra, states it as an accident). CICERO speaks very highly of his talents as an orator and as a scholar (see Brut. 9, 37 sq. 82, 285, Orat. 27, 92, De Orat. ii.

criticised in PLUT. Pericl. 28. That this criticism is borne out

by what we know of the state ments cited from DURIS, ECKERTZ has amply proved. Nor is his
literary talent highly thought of either by PHOT. Cod. 176, p. 121,
a,

Verb.

Rabir. Post.

41 sqq., or by DIONYS. Comp. v. 28 K. 2 See ATHEN. ibid. A list of

his writings is given ibid. p. 466.

3

by MULLER,

See KOPKE, De Cliamceleonte Peripatetico, Berl. 1856. Of him also we know but little. He was a native of Heraclea in Pontus

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STEATO

1

449

Praxiphaues.

men, however,
philosophical

Even from the ethical writings of these nothing has come down to us of a Of a few other disciples of character. 2
accord with that of Theophrastus. Whether he is the same person as the Praxiphanes described as a

(ATHEN.
ix.

iv. 184, d, viii. 388, b, 374, a, &c.), and is probably the same person as he whose courageous answer to king Seleu-

cus is mentioned by MEMNON (apud PHOT. Cod. 224, p. 626, a). He is described as a Peripatetic by TATIAN, Ad Gr. 31, p. 269, a and the circumstance that his book IT. 7]^ovr)s was attributed
:

whom
Trap

Peripatetic

and Grammarian, to

Callimachus dedicated a work (BEKKEEL S Anec. ii. 729, where, however, our text gives
E^Kpdvovs see also ARA.T. ed. ii. 432), is uncertain (as ZUMPT, AM. d. Bcrl. ATtad. v. J.
;

Buhle,

also to Theophrastus (cf. ATHEN. vi. 273, e, viii. 377, e) corrobo rates that description. From this

circumstance KOPKE (p. 34) concludes that Chameleon was in fact a pupil of Theophrastus. He may, however, have been bis since he co-disciple, (apud DIOG. v. 92) criticised his com patriot Heraclides, who was one
of

1. 1842, Hist.-pldl. p. 91, has remarked), inasmuch as CLEM. Strom, i. 309. says that a Mytilenean named Praxiphanes was the first person who was called

ypa/j./j.ariK6s.

Nevertheless,
it is is

it

seems probable that

the same person who in all these passages.

Praxiphanes,

one and intended

pupil of
is

named PLATO,
hi. 109,

pupils (ZELL. Ph. Gr. p. 842, 2) for a Besides Chameleon plagiarism.

d.
i.

Plato

elder

mentioned by DIOG.

and expressly distinguished by him from the other Plato referred to

supra, vol.
2
ii.

we

have also a mention by TATIAN, in the same passage

(cf.

p. 466, n.

l!.

Of PEAXIPHANES we know

also

ATHEN.
in
II.

xii.
a!,

513,
84,

b,

EUSTATH.

p.

18,

Sum.
A017J/S),

A07}i>cuas,

and

HESYCH.

nothing at all except what is stated in the text. Of the eight works of DUEIS known to us,
the

MEGACLIDES
1

of a Peripatetic named (or Metacl.) from

critical

whose work on Homer a remark is cited.

most important were un doubtedly the three historical onss (the Greek and Macedonian
"

Described as frcupos &eo(ppd<rAc TOV, by PROCL. in Tim. 6, c. cording to this passage he objected to the beginning of the Timceiis according t o TZETZES, in Hesiod. Opp. et Di. v. 1, he considered
;

Histories, the Agatlwcles, and the Samian Chronicles). Four other works treated of festival

and
cal,

plays, of tragedy, of painters, of sculpture. The work TT.

v6fj. j)v

but

may have been philosophi we have from it nothing

the introduction to this book as

spurious. 655, calls

STEABO,

xiv. 2, 13, p.

him a Rhodian, and

EPIPHAN.
adds

Exp. Fid. 1094, a, that his doctrine was in

II.

but two mythological notes. From Lynceus, who was a writer of comedies and also a gourmet, and author of a book on the art
of cookery

(ATHEN.

iv. p.

131-2,

VOL.

G G

450

ARISTOTLE
1

Theophrastus some are known to us only by name, while others hardly merit the title of philosophers. 2

Much more
vi.

important as a contributor to philosophy

313-4;
cf. iv.

p.

228

c,

vii. p.

p.

128,

a),

ATHEN^EUS,

in

his

vop.(v. There were also historical, grammatical and literary re

numerous quotations (see the Index to ATHEN. and MULLER, ibid.), and PLUT. Demetr. c. 27,
Sclwl. Tkeocr. to iv. 20, give us

only a few notes and stories, Of the chiefly about cookery.

sixteen

writings

of

CHAME

searches, a Rhetoric, a collection of speeches, which Cicero must have known, and another collection of letters. Nevertheless, out of all this mass of matter literary nothing, except a quantity of his
torical

15 sqq., enumerates, twelve related to the epic, lyric, comic, and tragic
p.

LEON which KOPKE,

and grammatical scraps and a few insignificant remarks of moral and political interest,
15, 38-40, 54,

has come

and were concerned merely with literary history. Only a few unimportant historical re marks have reached us from the TIpoTptirTiKbs and the treatises IT.
poets,
fj.fOr)s,
TT,

down to us. (Fr. 6OSTERMANN, from

;

DIOG.
c. 6, p.

v.

20, 12, 18
libr.

STOB. Florll. 8, PLUT. Cons, ad Apoll. 104 DlODOR. Exc. Vatic.

82, 83
;
;

^SOJ/T/S,
:

TT.

wv (see

Nova

xxxi., also five in MAI S Collect, ii. 81, POLYB. Exc.

KOPKE, p. 36 sqq. the citations are to be found in ATHENEUS, passim, in CLEMENS ALEX. Strom. i. 300 A, in BEKKEE, Anecd. i.
233,

1. xxx. 3, Hid. 434 sq., Exc. 1. xxxiv.-xxxvii. 2, ibid. 444 ; ibid.

x.

22,
i.
1

RUTIL. LUPUS, De Fig.

1.)
is

Sent.

and DIOG. iii. 46). DEMETEIUS was one of the most fertile

This
are

who
cf.

named

so of all the men in the Will of

authors of the Peripatetic school,

Theophrastus

(DiOG.

v.

52-3;

HERWIG (op.oit.p.lQ sqq.) identify NELEUS

fifty writings, some of them com prising several books from this list, however, must be withdrawn, in any case, those on the Jews (see supra, vol. ii. p. 447, n. 1) and perhaps those on the Egyptians (seeOsTERMANN,p.34). Amongst the genuine writings there were a good many treatises on moral
;

and besides the forty-rive works of his which DIOG. v. 80 men tions, we hear of others. OSTERMANN (0/7. cit. ii. p. 21 sqq.) and

supra, ii. p. 350, n. 5) to suc ceed Strato in the enjoyment of

the ground bequeathed by him

for the School,
i.e.

HIPPARCHUS,
i.

(supra, vol.

p.

137,

and p. 139, n. 3), CALLINUS, DEMOTIMUS, DEMARATUS, CALLISTHENES, MELANTHES,PANCREON, NICIPPUS; the same may be said of NICOMACHUS and the three sons
of Pythias (cf. supra,vol. i. p. 20, n. 3 ad Jin., and SEXT. Math. i.

258),PROCLES,

STOTLE
slave,
2

DEMARATUS, ARI and of Theophrastus s

subjects (including the eight Dialogues, which appear to have been of this class), as well as two

Like

poet,

POMPYLUS (DiOG.v. 36). MENANDER, the comic who is also said to have

books on statecraft, and one

TT.

been a pupil of Theophrastus.

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTVS: STRATO

451
1

is Strato of Lampsacus, the successor of Theophrastus, and the only one of his pupils of whom it is known tha t he followed out with success the scientific lines laid down by him and by Aristotle. 2 After Theophrastus he is the most 3 distinguished of all the

Peripatetics,

possibly have been invited on the suggestion of Demetrius Phalereus. His letters (or letter)
to Arsinoe,

Strato, a native of Lam psacus (DiOG. v. 58, &c., Aa^a/cr;ris is one of the epithets com monly used with his name) was a pupil of Theophrastus (ibid Cic. Aoad. i. 9, 34, Fin. v. 5, 13. SIMPL. Phys. 187, a, 225, a, &c.). He succeeded him as chief of the School, held that post for eighteen years, and died (ibid. p. 68) in Ol. 127, between 270 and 268 B.C. If, as DIOG. ibid, says, he was really the teacher of Ptolemy Philadelphus (who was called to govern along with his father in 285 B.C., and succeeded him on the throne in 283 B.C.) he must have stayed some time at the Egyptian court, to which he may
1

other details, cf Stratone Lampsaoeno, Berl. 1836; KRISCHE, For seining en $c p. 349 sqq. and see also BRANDIS, iii. p. 394 sqq. 2 Erasistratus, the celebrated physician, was also considered by many as one of Theophrastus s

father

For

NAUWERCH, De
,

pupils

GALEX,
ii.

(DiOG. v. 57; Nat. Faoult.

see
ii.

also
vol

4,

88, 90-1, K., De Sang, in After, c. 7, vol. iv. 729, as the assertion of the followers of Era

sistratus). able, but

This is not improb according to GALEX

Ptolemy s

sister

and

wife (quoted by DIOG. p. 60), would lead us to suppose that such was the case. The story that his princely pupil him

(Nat. Faoult. ii. 4, ibid, in Hippoor, de Alim. iii. 14, vol. xv. 307-8, and cf. Do Tremore, c. 6, vol. vii. 614) his doctrine differed in many ways from that of the He even affirmed Peripatetics. ovSzv opOws tyvuKevai -jrfpl (pvo~*us TOVS TreptTrarriTiKovs. It appears that it is only in the acknow of the complete tele ledgment ology of nature (whereon cf.

gave
His

GALEX, Nat. Faoult.

78, 81) that

ii.

tells

eighty talents, only with a

DIOG.
(pacri.

himself
will,

2, vol.

ii.
;

He

however (apud DIOG. p. 61 sqq.), shows him to be a wealthy man.

left in his

testament the 5m-,

Tpifr}]

(the garden

and club-housel

he agreed with them and even to this he did not So far as we always adhere. know, he never made any inde pendent philosophical researches
;

see

of the School), with all arrange ments necessary for the SyssitiaJ and his library, with the exception of his own MSS., to

SPREXGEL,
58:

4th. ed.; ROSEXBAUM, 3 Cf. following

Gesch. d. Arzneik. i. p. 321 sqq.

note;

and

DiOG.
T$]y

V.

ariip

e\\oytfi.&TaTos

the rest of his property he left to Arcesilaus, a namesake, either a son or a nephew of Strato s

Lyco

Kal (pvcriKos eTn/cATjfleis airb TOV irepl

dewpiav TO.VTTIV irap

;

OVTLVOVV

eVmcAeVrara 8iaTerpi<ptvai. SlMPL. Phys. 225, a TO?S ap urrois Tlepi-

GG

452

ARISTOTLE

position

which he merited not only by the extent of his but also still more by the knowledge and his writings,

for he sur acuteness and independence of his thought, himself in the originality of his passed Theophrastus

scientific labours.

His numerous writings, which seem

to have
ticular

treatment

aimed rather at the thorough investigation of par than at a systematic and comprehensive questions extend over the whole field of of the
2

philosophy.
rrarririKols

But

subject, his strong point

was the study of

6rav 8
ri
e|

apiQ^ov^vos.

Even
all

/j.d(Ti6s

fo-riv,

avrov ri
ISlwv eVtrfo\v

Cicero,

who

was not at

well

irpocptpyrai
vorj/J-drcav

Kai

rwv

calls him, in disposed to Strato,

Fin.\. 5, 13, [inphysicis] magnns, and in Acad. i. 9, 34 praises his Nevertheless, acre ingenium. fre his school was not so much Menedemus quented as that of as to which STRATO (of Eretria),

(paiverai
crTepo.f

rots

f^yrirai, rrapa Irfio r fj/j.oo LV eu7j0eKal

vct)6porpos
is

avrov

which last statement, however,

difficult to accept as unbiassed.
-

DIOG.

v.

sides the Letters

fjLara,

59-60, gives (be and the UTTO^J/T]-

An. 13, p. (apud PLUT. Tranqu. consoles himself with the

472)

remark

ri

ovv
ol

Oav/j-ao-rbv,

et

the authenticity of which was doubted), some forty-four added writings, to which may be
the book
also the
Trepl

irAeioi/es eiat-v

\oveff6ai 0e Aoi/Tes

rwv a\i(pff6ai ^ov\ofj.fvuv ; This independence, of which

1

by PKOCL.

rov ovros mentioned in Tim. 242 sq., and

we
ruiv

shall find several proofs,

Col.

was
;

by

also recognised

by the ancients

PLUT. Adv.
&AAcoi>

14,3, p. 1115:
Kopv-

TT. Kivhffeus mentioned SIMPL. Phys. 214, a, and His works may be 225, a. classed as follows (1) Logic: if.
:

<pai6raros

nepwraiTjTiKWJ *2rpdrwv OUT

Apiaro-

Te Aet

Kara TroAAa ffvpQepcrai, &C. Pseudo- GALEN, Hist. Phil. c. 2, rov 2rpap. 228 K. [ ApKTTOTe ATjs]
:

rov opov. rf. rov rrporepov ytvovs. (2) Tt. rov 18 iov. rrpooi^ia. rf. rov Metaphysics : rf. rov ovros.
T07ra>v

rfporepov

Kal vffrepov

(mentioned

also 107,
a,
Tf.

by SIMPL.
a,
rf.

roova

ClC. XapaKrripa $vfflO\6yvs [-fas].

;

rfpo(rr\yaysv

eis

ftiov

riva

in Categ. 106, a, Schol. in AT. 89, a, 40, 90,

12).

Fin. v. 5, (following Antiochus) Acad. i. nova pleraque 13, In ea ipsa [i.e. in 9. 34, discedit a Physics] plurirnum POLYB. Exc. Libr. xii. 25, suis. KO\ yap vol. ii. 750 Bekk. c.
:

rov

ffv/j-pe/BriKoros.
rf.
0wi>
.

rov ^aAAoj/ Kal rtrrov. rf. rov

^.eA-

Xovros.
rf.

apx&v y heat and cold,

principles),
Kevov.
u,ij-(0s.
rf.
rf.

y (3) Physics (which treated o1

&c., as physic

rf.

Swdpfuv.
""

rf.

T<

XP OVOV
rf.

e tfeiVos

[^rpdrcav
/cai

^ucrt/cbs]

Kovfyov

Mv4\ffeus. Kal jSapeos.

iri/fv/jiaros.
rf. rf.

TOU ovpavov.
4/euSoTroieTj/

rov

9av-

n. faoyovias.

rpvfyr}:

SCHOOL OF TIIEOPHRASTUS: STRATO

453

Nature, which was pursued by him in a spirit which justifies the name, bestowed upon him pre-eminently
KOU
viuv.

aucrea S.
IT.

TT.

virvov.
IT.

TT

tVivTrTT.

aitfOya-ews.

ityecos.

T&V

aTTOpov/j.ei>wv
<$<av.

IT.
<j><av.

rwv /avdoTT.

XoyovjJievow
6pa>irivrjs.

TT.

(pvffecas avv6fftav.
.

IT.

fv0ov(ria(T/J.ov.

TT.

Kp

.ffecajS. TT.

Ai/^oG KO.I (TKOTCafffUl

(In the case of these three works it is possible that there is a con fusion with of the writings physician and follower of Erasi
stratus presently to be mentioned, but it is to be remembered that

of earlier of the of the various arts. Be origin sides the above-named works of which can (the authenticity not, except to a very limited

rect

Diogenes. the

Strato wished to cor

opinions

writers

on the subject

extent,be tested),

it

himself wrote Theophrastus about vertigo and such subjects.)

The \vffeis cnrop rifjid.Tcav and the work TT. airtuv appear to have
dealt

physics

with certain problems of and the book TT. rwv

;

/j.ra\\iKcav jj.rjxwnn& Ttov also

was

concerned with the mechanical side of physics. (4) Ethics: IT. TT. jjSovris. TT. evdaiju.0Ta.ya.Qov y vias. IT. &lwv (if this was not an
.

Vena; Sect. adv. Erasislratum 2, vol. xi. 151, and De V. S. adv. Erasistrateos 2, vol. xi. 197) that we must also refer to this philosopher certain works on medicine, if the Strato named in these passages is in fact the same person. DIOG. v. 61 expressly makes a distinction be tween the two, and though in this he only follows Demetrius of Mag nesia, there is the less reason to
(Zte

from GALEN

would appear

historical work).
SiKaiO(rvvr]s

IT.

TT. avSpeias. TT. ao tKov. IT. fiacri-

doubt his testimony (as ROSE, De Arist. Lib. Ord. 174, has done) since the physician Strato is described as a follower of
Erasistratus, not only by GALEN the passages (as is clear in already cited and still more clear in De Puls. Differ, c. 17, vol. \iii. 759), but also by ORIBAS.
Collect, xlv.

Aetas

TT.

/3cnAea>y

(pi\o(r6(pov

(these
latter,

two works,

may have been

)8oo-.
TT.

especially the written for

;

Ptolemy Philadelphia it, is only COBET, however, who gives the

title
TT,

23

(pi\.,

for the earlier

Auct.

iv.

60),

(a/p. MAI, Class. and by EROTIAN

;

texts give
is,

(f>i\o(ro<pias).

There

moreover, the work

^vpfi^drcav

e\eyxoi 5vo, which is evidently the same as that which CLEMENS, Strom, i. 300, A 308, (and EUSEB. Prap. Er. x. 6, 6, quoting or him) cites by the words ez/

r<$

eV To7s TTpl
;

VpT]lJ.d.T<i)V.

Nat. i. Ind.IA-b ri, vii. ( qui contra Ephori up^/j.aTa scripsit ) says it was written against

PLIN. Stratone
.

Ephorus (probably, however, against others as well), and this accounts for the title given by

{Lex. Hippocr. p. 86, Franz) while TEBTLTLLIAN, De An. 14, contrasts the views of Strato and Erasistratus with those of Strato the philosopher on the question of the seat of the soul. If, according to DIOG. ibid., the physician was a personal pupil of Erasistratus, he is probably the same as the person whom GALEN, De Comp. Medic, iv. 3, vol. xii. 749 calls a Berytian; cf. on this subject SPRENGEL, Gcsch. d. Arzneilt. 4, 559 (ed. 1).

454

ARISTOTLE
l

of the Physicist. What we are told of his contributions to logic and ontology 2 is not very important. On the other hand, the whole

among all the Peripatetics,

difference
stotle

between his point of view and that of Ari becomes at once manifest when we ask how he
Aristotle

conceived of the principles of existence and change in

the world.
in the
first

had referred these to Nature, which

instance he conceived as universal efficient

cause, but also further described as

God

or the First

Mover, without, however, clearly defining the relation

1

Examples

of the use of this,

the commonest description ap

plied to Strato (as to

which see generally KRISCHE, Forscli. 351), we already have in the notes on
p. 451, n. 1, 3, sup. CiC. Fin. v. 5, 13
:

Compare also primumTheoperpauca de

thereby he placed truth and error merely in the voice (i.e. in the words). The second half of this statement is probably merely a deduction drawn by Sextus and the first half of it does not
;

phrasti Strato physicum se voluit, in quo etsi est magnus, tamen

nova pleraque
moribus.
;

et

either accurately reproduce Strato s expressions or his mean Strato is further said to ing. have given as the definition of

This CiC. Acad. i. 9, 34, says with even less qualifica tion and he will not allow that Strato should be considered a Peripatetic, partly on this account and partly on account of the variance of his opinions on phy
sics.

Being: rb ov
cCtnov,
i.e.

etrri

rb

rr\s 8/a^ioi/TJs

he defined it as the permanent element in things (PnoCL. in Tim. 242, E). We see further from SIMPL. in Categ. 106, a, 107, a sqq. (Schol in Ar. 89, a 37, 90, a, 12 sqq.), that he
distinguished various significa tions of the terms Trp6repov and varfpov, which SIMPL. ibid, takes the trouble to reduce to the five which Aristotle reckons in cap. 12 of the Categories. Finally ALEX.
b, 2) criticise

The

list

of his writings,

however, gives evidence that he did not leave ethics out of ac count. SENECA states the posi tion more justly when he says of

him

(Nat. Qu. vi. 13, 2): hanc partem philosophise maxime coluit et rerum natuiaa inquisitor
fuit.
2

We are told

and ALD. (Schol 281, an attempt which Strato had made to amplify an
Top. 173,

by SEXT.

Matlt.

viii. 13,

that he did not, like the Stoics, distinguish between idea, word, and thing (cn)!Jia.iv6p.tvov, (r-riiJLalv ov, Tt^xapo;/), but only, with Epicurus, between the at}fjioivov and the rvyxdvov, and that

Aristotelian rule (Top. iv. 4, 125, 5) for ascertaining the rela tions of subordination between
a,

two concepts.
here.

It is impossible,

however, to discuss

the

point

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO

of these
1

455

two conceptions to one another. Strato, on the other hand whether because he recognised the obscurity and fundamental contradiction in the Ari

stotelian view, or because the whole bent of his thought was opposed to an external supernatural cause re nounced the idea of God as a Being separate and distinct from the world as a whole, and contented himself with

Nature.

This

itself,

however, he was unable otherwise

consciousness operating and reflection. He regarded the world, as Plutarch 3 says, as a lifeless whole, and all natural phenomena as the effect of natural He was convinced with
necessity.

2 to conceive of (agreeing in this with Aristotle ) as a Force without

than

necessary

Democritus, in spite of his opposition to his doctrine of Atoms, that the explanation of everything must be found in gravity and motion, and he is accordingly accused by Cicero and others of maintaining that God was unnecessary in the constitution of the world. 4
See supra, vol. i. pp. 388, 420 sqq. 2 See supra, vol. i. p. 464, n \Adv. Col. 14, 3, p. 1115 (v.
-

to be the basis of nature.

He

sup. vol.
o-TOTe Aei

ii.

p. 452, n. 1): OUT

Apt-

Kara

ras tvavrias eo^x* Sc|as Trepi Kivfaeus nepl vov Kal TeATrepl \l/vxTJs Kal TTpl ycveffeias ou euTw^[5e] TOZ/ KO auToi^ Kov elvtu TO 5e Kara
IIAaT&>z/i
O>O//

Kal

^o\\a

ffvptpepcrai

can only mean that Strato maintained the necessity of nature it is Plutarch s own (avr6fj.arov) idea to identify this necessity with because both chance, stand equally in antithesis to the teleological conception of nature (of. supra, vol. i. pp. 357 sqq.).
;

>

Jrriffl,

<p-u<nv

eirea-daL

ra>

eVSiSoVat

TO

Kara Tvxr)v apx^iv yap auTo /iaTOi/, e/Ta ovrca

jrepaiv(r9ai fKaa-rov.

rwv

ClC. Acad. ii. 121 38, Negas sine Deo posse quidquam, ecce tibi e transverse Lampsacenus Strato, qui det isti Deo immunitatem magni quidem mu-

We

(pvffiKajv

iraQiav

must guard

our-

selves against believing Plutarch (as of Democritus, cf. ZBLLER,

negat opera Deorum fabricandum mundum. Quaecunque sintdocet omnia esse

neris se uti arl
. .
.

Or. i. 788-9) when he tells us that Strato held chance (TUX??)

d.

Ph.

effecta natura: nee ut ille, qui asperis et Isevibus et hamatis un-

cinatisque

corporibus

concreta

456
It

ARISTOTLE

would be truer to say that his view identified God with Nature, in which he saw nothing personal, nothing akin to man, but only the universal energy which is
the source of
all

change and becoming in things

represent

l
:

and
as

on this ground accurate writers

him

2 denying that the Deity has a soul, and "holding that the heavens and the earth, in other words the universe,

are God. 3

Passing to his account of natural causes, we find that Strato, as already remarked, was unable, in spite of his naturalism, to reconcile himself to any such
mechanical explanation of the world as that of Demo4 it no adequate critus, partly because he found in 5 of phenomena, and partly because he held explanation
that
indivisible

bodies

were as inconceivable as an
K&V inrthe idea of God. a\\dr]s ryv QIHTIV [even if he puts nature in God s place], us
.
.
.

base esse dicat, interjecto inani. Somnia censet hsec esse Democriti,

non docentis, sed optantis.

Ipse autem singulas mundi partes persequens, quidquid sit aut fiat naturalibus fieri aut factum esse docet ponderibus et motibus.
1

SENECA
D.
.

a/pud
1
:

AUGUSTIN.

Cic.

vii.
.

aliquis

The Epicurean

i.

13, 35 says: ejus [Theophrasti] auditor Strato,

is

D. nee audiendus
in Cic N.
;

Platonem

hoc loco dicet aut feram ego aut Peripateticum

.

Stratonem, quorum

Deum
ariiuio
3
?

sine corpore,

alter fecit alter sine

i.

qui natura sitam e&se censet, quas causas minuend! augendi gignendi habeat, sed careat omni sensu [consciousness] et figura [i.e. the
qui physicus appellatur
in

omnem vim divinam

TEETULLIAN, Adv. Marc.

Strato

13

ccelum

et

terrain

human form
gods].

of!

the

Epicurean

repeated almost word for word by L/ACTANT. De Ira, D, c. J init. and more con
This
is

[Deos pronuntiavit]. 4 Supra, vol. ii. p. 455, n. 4. 5 At any rate this appears to be the meaning of Cicero s somnia non docentis sed optan
{supra, vol. ii. p. 455, n. 4) the atoms are a capricious hypo
tis
:

by MINUC. FELIX, Octav. Straton quoque et ipse naturam [sc. Deum loquitur]. So likewise MAX. TYE, i. 17, 5
cisely
19,

9:

of which it is asserted and hoped, but not proved, that it will explain the facts it was
thesis,

invented to explain.

says that even the atheist has

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRA8TUS: STRATO

infinite

457

void.

The

essential causes consist rather,

on
5

2 his theory, in the properties of things, or more accu that cause these properties/ rately in the active forces The ultimate properties he further held to be Heat and

which Aristotle had already recognised as the 5 active elements in things, apparently attributing, with 6 Aristotle, the higher reality to that which he considered
Cold,
4

7 the primary and positive principle of life and being. The primary substratum of cold he held to be water
;

of heat,

fire

or

warm

vapour.

Heat and cold are

one
forces

continually at war ; trance, the other is

where the
expelled.

an

en

This alternation ex
of the thunderstorm
forces,

plains, for example, the

phenomena

and the earthquake. 9

On both

Given these corporeal

points

see further

STOB. Eel.

i.

298

infra.

The hypothesis of a vactfww was dealt with by STRATO (?;.

wp., vol.
ii.

ffroixe ia. TO Q^p^bv KCU TO Of. infra, n. 9.

5
"

one of presumably directed against Democritus. Whether he went further into the refutation
p. 452, n. 2) in

his treatises,

Supra, Supra,

vol.

i.

vol.

i.

p. 480, n. 3. p. 483, n. 2.

EPIPHAN. Exp. Fid. 1090

^rpdr
ova-iav
.

^,Tparwv(<av\\.

of the Atomistic theory, or contented himself with Aristotle s elaborate criticism, we know not.
2

i//d"/cou

T^V

6ep/j.riv

alriav Travrav
8

virapx*"

PLUT.
:

Prim.
^rwiKol
Se
/ca)

Frit/.
T<

9,

p.

SEXT. Pt/rrh.
for
C.

iii.

33 (and
p.

948

of

^v
As

aepi

TO
T
us,

nearly word
Hist.

word GALEN.
5,

TT^WTWS

tyvxpbv

a.iro5iS6vre^,

Phil.

244)

2TpaTcov 8e d (pvtriKbs ras Toi^TTjTas [apxV Ae 76i]. So also, as FA-

E^7re5o/cA-/js {/SaTi.

^TpcxTwj/

to

warmth, though
All
:

BRICIUS has already remarked, we must in the Clementine ReCallicognitions, viii. 15, for stratus qualitates [sc. principia mundi dixit] read Strato for

positive information fails the parallel is self-evident. also Aristotelian this is

v.

supra, vol.
"

i.

p. 483,
:

11.

2.

SENECA, Nat. Qu.

:

vi.

13,

(on Earthquakes)
tale

hujus [Strat.]

Callistratus.

dealt with this question in the three books tr. ap%o)v, and perhaps also in the IT. SwdP.GWV (supra, vol.
ii.

STRATO

decretum est Frigidum et calidum semper in contraria

abeunt, una esse non possunt. Eo frigidum confluit, unde vis calida
discessit, et

p. 452, n. 3).

invicem

ibi

calidum

458

ARISTOTLE

Strato found that he could dispense with the incor

1

poreal.

We

are net told

how

Strato connected the primary

opposition of heat and cold with the other elementary kinds of opposites, or how he deduced the elements from
it
;

On

on the latter point he probably followed Aristotle. the other hand, he combated his views upon gravity.

Aristotle assigned to each element its place in the uni verse according to the direction in which it tended. The earth he accordingly held to be alone absolutely heavy ; fire, on the other hand, to be absolutely light while air
;

2 and water were relatively heavy and light. Strato, on the other hand, asserted, with Democritus, on the

ground of a very simple observation, that

est,

all

bodies are

Wells

unde frigus expulsum est. and pits are therefore

TIJS v\r]s, fyv

tKarepos avToSv e^e A-

warm

in the winter, quia illo se calor contulit superiora pcssi-

QspfjLOTepav /uev 6 TrprjiTT^p, 5e u rvcpuv. Cf. here

denti frigori cedens. If, then, there is a certain amount of heat accumulated in the earth s a further quan interior, and
tity

said supra, vol i. ii. p. 378, n. 1, as to the theory of avrnrepiffraffis in Aristotle and Theophrastus.
is

with what
p. 515, n. 2

vol.

of

heat,

or

of

PLUT.^
ravrl,

ibid.

TO.

cold,

is

eV

thereupon

added

sure, the excess itself an outlet

under pres must find for by force, and

: :

E^TreSoKA^s re Kal ol ^rouiKol ras

ols

Cf. also

what

is

said

arise thereby earthquakes vices deinde hujus pugnas sunt defit calori congregatio ac rursus

eruptio.

Tune
;

frigora

compes-

futura dum alterna vis potentiora cursat et ultro citroque spiritus terra concutitur. commeat, STOB. Eel. i. 598 ^rpdrcav, s, 6rav
;

cuntur et succedunt

mox

on Light and Heat, infra, p. 460, n. 2, and see PLUT. Plac. v. 4, 3 (GrALEN. H. PMl. c. 31, p. 322): ^rpdrcov Kal Ay^KpiTos Kal T^V
SVVO.IJLIV

[sc.

irvv/ji.aTiK^ ydp.

TOV (TTrep^aToy] crutfj-a Strato is as little

likely as Democritus to have called a a Swa^ts he only affirmed, as the genuine text of
au>fj.a ;

a.Troppvi, 8e
Kal

Se

Plutarch correctly says, that forces are attached to material things as to their substratum
-

TVfpwvas

rip

rw

Swpra,

vol.

pp. 447-8, 477.

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS STRATO

: ;

459

heavy and press towards the centre and if some of these this is because of the pressure which the heavier exercise upon the lighter. How he further

mount upwards,

whether explained this difference of degree in weight he conceived that while everything had weight, yet.

on account of the qualitative difference in materials, everything had not the same weight or whether, with
;

2 Democritus, he held that all matter was equally heavy, and explained the difference of the specific gravity of

them

bodies by the assumption of empty interspaces within we do not know. The views he elsewhere

For expresses rather support the latter supposition. while strenuously combating with Aristotle the atomic 3 theory and asserting the infinite divisibility of bodies,
he yet agreed with Democritus in assuming the exist ence of void while rejecting as indecisive most of the
: 1

sqq.

SlMPL. De Casio, 121, a, 32 K., Schol. in Ar. 486, a, 5

:

ov ^rpdraiv
-rravra

/j.6vos

ovSe
TO.
CTT!

E-jriKovpos
o-dufj.ara

e\eyov

elvai

or: Se oure TT) uir dAAirJAcoj/ e tfflAfyet fiia6[j.eva Kivelrat [the elements,

ySape a

Kal (pvaei /j.V Kal

(ptp6/ui,eva

by movement
positions]

in their SeiKwcriv

natural
[ Apto-r.]

dAAd

irapa (pvo~iv H\dr<av olSe

rb Karca 5e eVl rb avw,

(pepo^eVryi/

ravT7]s Se yeyovaffi er avrov ^rpdrcov 6 re Kal ETTi/coupos,

irpbs

rf/s
Aa/j.Trai

STOB. r^v 86av Kal 8te\eyxei. Ecl.\. 348: S.Tpariav /J.V irpoffetvai ro~is cr^^affi (^VCTIKOV fidpos, ra Se
Kov(f>6repa

pvTTiTa ^X eLV vo^i^ovres Kal

eii/
-

rb

jUeVoi/

(pepe(rdai,

r<

Se

ra

TO IS fiapvrepois eVtTroAadiov eKirvpif]vi6/u.va. ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 779.

ftapvrepa vfyi^aveiv ra i)rrov /3ape a vir fKfivuv eK8\i/3e<T9ai &ia vpbs rb

ef ris u^e?Ae TT/J/ yrjv, by rb vSccp is rb Kevrpov, Kal ft ris rb vSwp, rbv depa, Kal e: of Se rov rbv depa, rb irvp irdvra irpbs rb p.(Tov <pepo~9ai Kara fyvffiv rK,U7]ptov Kopifyvres rb TTJS yys viro(Tir(i>/ji.vr)s rb wScop eVl TO Karw (t>peo~0ai Kal rov vSaros rbv de pa, a7^oouo-i &c. Iffreov Se 6ri
aval,
itiffrf

Supra,

vol.

ii.

and SEXT. Math.

rowa rbv
fyvcriK6v

p. 455, n. x. 155 Kal

:

4,
8r]

ovrcas ^\v^\Qf]ffo.v ot Trept rov ~2,rpa-

e \Qe~iv

rovs

/nev

yap

^pot/ous ets a/j-epes vireXafioi/ KaraX^ysiv, ra 5e (Tw/j.ara Kal rovs

r6trovs eis
e7o"0at

aireipov rejAveffOai,

KIV-

re rb

Kwov/u.evov

XP^ l V
ffr^/JLa

^ ov aOpovv

d/xfpe? ^eptcrrbv Sid-

eV

Kal ov Trepl rb Trp6repov TrpoCf. infra, p. 462, n. 2. rtpov.

460

ARISTOTLE
1

reasons adduced in support of this assumption, he yet as believed it impossible to explain many phenomena
for instance those of light

supposition of
caloric

may

except on the pieinto which light and empty interspaces find an entrance. 2 Since, however, this

and heat

only proves the existence of empty spaces within the material world, and since his definition of space, which

resembled Aristotle
1

s,

excluded the conception of a

avaiptiv SoweT. owre,
eA|is. Srj\ov. el Sia
eA/cet Kal
fj.r)

The three reasons

for the

ei
ri

assumption of a vacuum, which

rb

Kevbi>

ARISTOTLE reckons

in Phys. iv. 6, 213 (cf. supra, vol. i. p. 434), Strato (according to SIMPL. Phyn. 153, a) reduced to two, efo re
TT>

5i

aX^rjv alriav.
ciAA
otfra}

\tOos ovSe

yap

airoSeiKvvovaii/,

VTTOTI-

Kara. r6irov Kivnaiv Kal els rriv

o~<i)/u.dro(>v

TWV

TriXfjo it

movement

in space
;

\i.6. that no and no con

densation would be possible with out a void] rpirov Se TrpocrriO-riari. rb airb TTJS oA/CTjs TTJV yap aiSr]plnv \idov ?Tpo (nS^pta Si krepwv
e\Keiv avfj-Paivei (as
tlier

\eyovres. These arguments, as well as the other remarks we find in SIMPL. on this subject, must be directly or indirectly derived from STRATO S book TT. Kevov.
-

Oevrai rb Kevbv ol

SIMPL. Phys. 163, b

6 ^eV-

TOL Aa/J.^aKr)vbs ~2.rpa.rwv oeiKvuvai ia\a/u.Treiparai, on ecrrt T^ Kevbv

SIMPL. furcannot, how that any of

fiavov rb

TTO.V

au>fj.a

{bcrre

yur)

elvai

explains).

He

twv
aepos
77

OTL OVK &v 5

(Tcafj-aros

ever,

have found

aAAou
rb (pus
SvvafjLi

these arguments was convincing, for we find that as to the first of

iv

ovfie

aAA?j
ircas

them SIMPL.
the

154, b, after citing

examples with which Ari stotle had confuted it, goes on still more striking to remark is the refutation which Strato brings against it namely, that a small stone in a closed vessel tilled with water will move to wards the mouth when one turns So again, as the vessel round. to the third argument, SIMPL.
:

rov rb rov ayyeiuv et yap rb vypbv *?X Tr6povs, ctAAa /8/a SteVreAAoi/ avrb

yap

at

els

at avyal. ffvve/Saivev

virepeKxe ifrdai

ra

irXripri

fMev

riav

r&v ayyeiwv, Kal OVK av at aKrivw o.veKXu>vro irpbs

rbv avw r6irov at Se Karco 8ie|e7ri7rrov. From this passage we also gather that Strato, even more
definitely

than

Aristotle,

con

says in 155, b 6 oe Srpdrcav rbv airb rrjs eAecos [sc.

:

ovSe 77 ava\vwv e\is, avayKaei riOeadai rb Kevov. ovre e A|is <pavepov. yap el eariv
oAo>s

sidered light and heat to be material. 3 STOB. Eel. i. 380: rfaov Se elvai [according to Strato] T& /j.erav Sidcrrrj/j-a rov irepi^ovros Kal rov TrepiexofAevov which differs

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO

461

confined the existence space outside the world, Strato to the world itself, and rejected the view of of void Democritus that there is an infinite void outside our
world.
1

On

time,

likewise,

he held views different

number

from his predecessors. Aristotle s definition of time as or count of movement appeared to him to be false. Number, he remarked, is a discontinuous, time

and motion are continuous quantities, which cannot,

therefore, be counted.

Time is continually beginning and ending; with number this is not the case. The this is never so parts of number exist simultaneously
;

with portions of time.

If time

is

number, present
avrb
TU>V

from the Aristotelian definition

only in the circumstance that the latter of assigned the inner boundary the surrounding bodies as the space which the surrounded body
(supra, vol.
i.

p. 432, n. 4)

us a0 OecapriffQai oloi rues ol Tro\\ol

8e
roiavrrjs
oljj.a.1

rbv

Aa/J.\f/a.Krii

bv TTJS

yeveatiai

$6l-flS.

For

occupies,

whereas Strato, who allowed that bodies were sepa rated by a void, considered the void between the surrounding and the surrounded bodies as the space of the latter. STOB. ibid.: ^.rpdrwv e&Tepw
1

juei/

elvai TOV dv, /tfy From eVSorepw 5e Svvarbv yevzcrBai. the same source, as it appears, we have in THEODORET, Our. Gv. & Se ^rpdrcov 58 Aff. iv. 14, p. e^aXiv [so. ^ ol STOU/CO!], f|0ep
Ki>
e</>7}

K6<T/j.ov

u.ev

/xTjSev

eli/cu

/cei/by,

evSodev 5e

SIMPL., it will be observed, does not absolutely ascribe this view to Strato; and, besides, he is in this passage dealing only with the proposition that Space is entirely occupied by the body of the world, which excludes the notion of an exterior void, but not the possibility of smaller interior vacua. But SIMPL. is inaccurate when, at 140, b, he says that some believe that space is to be found without matter, as Demo ol Se Stacritus and Epicurus e ^ov Kal tTriTT]ffrrjfj.a Kal del ffu^a
:

n. 2

Swarbv eli/cu. Herewith, and with on p. 460, agrees SIMPL. Pliys. some hold the x a n riK ^ 144, b to be unbounded, as did Demo
:
>P

Seiov irpbs

Ka<TTOj/,

us ...

o Aa/j.-

^aKrjvbs

1/

spaces ignored.

The empty ^Tpdruv. inside bodies are here

critus,
KofffALKCf)

ol

8e

laofj-erpov
iroiovffi,

avrb
Kal

ra>

(Taytcm

8m

TOVTO
eli/ctt

rri

^v

eauroD

<bvcrei

/cevbv

2 Which subject, as well as that of the vacuum, he treated in a separate work; siqsra, vol. ii.

5e avrb \eyovffL, TreirXripSxrOai ael Kal /u.6vr) 76 T?J brivoiq

p. 452, n. 2.

462

ARISTOTLE

time and unity must be the same. Why, finally, should time, as the measure of earlier and later, refer only to motion and not equally to rest, to which earlier and
later also apply ?
l

He

himself defined time as amount

amount of motion and he carefully distinguished 4 between time and that which is in time, 5 and accordingly refused to admit
activity,
3
;

of

the quantity or

rest

that days, years, &c., are portions of time they corre spond rather to real and definite events, whereas time
:

See SIMPL. Phi/ 8. 187, a, for a detailed account of these objec tions. Strato also remarked, as is observed in the latter part of
1

(pu(TLKbs

....
jueVpoi/

eAe^ej/
ird<Tr)s

xP^vov

VTT-

apx^iv
fj.0frjs

irap-f)KL

yap

Kivrjo tws Kal iraai ro7s KIVOV-

p.4vois

ore

Kive irai
*6r

Kal

iraffi

rols
5ta
V(P

the

same passage, that

UTTO

if

eV
Trepi-

aKivrjTois

aKivTjri^i.
TO.

Kal

Xpovcf tlvaC
e xerrflaf,

TOU xpdvov

TOVTO iravra
yiverai.
4

yivo/j-eva eV

time. note.
2

then Eternity is not in SIMPL. goes on as in next

:

XP

SIMPL. 187, a

ical

&\\a

5e

iroXXa di/TetTT&j/ irpbs T^V Apio-roTe Aous a.ir6offiv 6 S.rpdrcav avrbs rov xP& v v TO eV TCUS 7rpaeo"i iroabv
flvai
TifleTcu.

SIMPL. 187, a, Strato dis cusses the concepts of the raxv and and says the former is
pa8i>,

iJ.cv iroa-bi/, atf ov ijp^aro & eVauo-ttTO, oXiyov, TO 5e yeyovbs eV avry iroXv, and the

y rb
els

Kal

iroXvv

Xpovov
6/j.olcas

fyap.fv

a.TToSri/j.e iv

yap, (ptio~l, Kal irAelV

latter the opposite, 6rav $ TO p.cv TTOirbv ev avraj TroAv, TO Se ireTrpay-

Se

Ka0T?o-0<u

Ka
Kal

KO!

Xpovov C(TTl TO
u>v

(pa/meif
7TOO"OJ/

iroXvv TrpdTTfiv, Kal oXiyov, tov fj.ev

TTflAu,

TTOXVV

XP vov

Se

TO ev

e/ccto"Tots

o\iyov, oXiyov TOVTOOV

xp^ vos 7&P

iroffov.

We

have a similar definition of Time from Speusippus, if the state ment in ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 859,
n.

4
3

In rest we have no such distinctions, and so in a state of rest time is neither quick nor slow, but only greater or less for it is only action and motion, not the eV $ TJ irpa^is, which can be faster or slower. 5 Or more correctly, that in which time is for in SIMPL. 187, b, d, he expressly says Sia TOVTO 5e
pevov 6\iyov.
;
7ro<roj

is correct.

iravTa
i.

eV

STOB. Ed.
irovov.
x.

xpovta
7roo~bv

e?j/oi

(pa/m,ev,

OTL
TO"LS

250: ^rpdrcav
Iv
Kiv?)<rei

iraffi

TO

aKO\ov9el Kal
ol<riv.

[TO/ xptvov]
i)pe/j.ia
1

T>V

Kal

yivo/iMfvois Kal TO?S

In such

37 (Math. &s rives ??

(ptialv
(j.ovris.

SEXT. Pyrrh. iii. 128) ^rparwv 5,

:

a case we use the word in

versely (/caTa TO

con

A/Jio-TOTe ATjs
x.

[xpovov
Kal

we
or
eV

say,

the

fVcwT/oi/), as town is in confusion,

when

ef^ot]

/j,Tpov Kivi}(Tfws

mankind

in terror,

on TUVTU

Math.

177: ST/XXTWJ/ 6

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO

is
1

463

The statement only the duration of these events. that time according to Strato consists of indivisible minima, and that motion does not proceed continuously in these several portions of time, but completes itself

moment by moment, 2 seems

hension. 3

to rest

Strato had

shown

in a

upon a misappre more comprehensive

4

fashion than Aristotle that

time,
1

motion,

like

space

and

is

continuous.

The

seat of motion,

especially in

SlMPL. 187, b
<M<^

r)/j.

[add. Kal
effn

fjL^v\

P a 8e K al Kal eviav-

a,

of

rbs

OVK

15) as to the indivisibility the present and the d6p6a

XP OVOS
rj

"Se

oAAa ra
s,

XP OVOV
$
TJ

/nev 6 (pear ia /u.bs Kal

rrjs
<rc\-fivns

On
5

this also

Strato wrote a
168, a
:

ra Se

Kal

rov

separate book.

f)\iov

TreptoSos,

aAAa

XP^

OS

SIMPL.
i>bs

eVrt rb iroabv eV $ ravra. (What follows is not from Strato, as

Pliyx.

Se

^rparuv OVK

OTTO

rov

p.6vov
elvat
</)7jo-t/,

BEANDIS,

awex^ TW
Kal /ca0

nivi\ffiv

iii.

403, affirms,

but

oAAa

rather a criticism of his view by SIMPL.) On the other hand, we must not conclude from SIMPL.
ibid.

eavrrjv,

ojy, el Sta/coTretTj [if it

were not con

Svo
Sia-

tinuous],
(l.-j>7?i

ardfffi

StaAa^/Saj/o/x.eVT?

189,
Kal

),

/cat

rb

/xera|i;

(e

/c

5e

rovrwv r&v

ffrafffwv

(1. (TTatrewj/)

Kivri<nv

ovcrav

rov ^rpdrcavos awopias Treplrov/j.^, dvai rbv %poVoi/ StaAvetj/ that Strato Suvaroj/) denied the reality of time; he
Awff-ecoi/

ras

aSiaKoirov.

Kivriffis

Kal iroabv Se n, ^7ja"iv, Kal Siaiperbv ds del 5tot-

pera.

What
from

follows

is

not de

rived

simply brings forward this aporia in the same sense as Aristotle himself had done in Phyg. iv. 10
init.
2

explanation
text, as is

Strato, but is an of the Aristotelian

:

shown by the words

elTrei/

SEXTUS, sup.

vol.

ii.

p. 452,

n. 1.

Strato expressly says, amid SIMPL. Phys. 187, a, that time cannot be the number of motion,
SIOTI
irocrbv

AKIST. Phys. 11, 219, a, 13] oar] yap r/ &c. It is not until /ctVrjo-is, the end of this section, i.e. in the middle of 168, a, that SIMPL. returns to Strato with the words dAA 6 yuei/ ApitrTore ATjs eotKey e /c
TTUS
[i.e.

dAAa

iv.

6
r)

pet/

apid/j.bs
Kivri<ns

Si(ap

rov

o~a<p(TTepov

iroL^crao-dai.

r^]v

Se

Kal 6

eVi/3oA7^

o Se
1

^rpdrcav ^)iAo/caAcos

tion,

more

rb 8e (ruj/e%es OVK apidOn the continuity of mo

will be

KM

found infra.

Probably Strato only repeated the teaching already worked out by

Aristotle

avr^v avrfyv r^v Kivi]ffiv e8ei|e rb ffwex^s e^ouo-av, laws Kal rovro /SAe irwv, iVo irpbs ^ovov c-rrl rfjs Kara roirov Kii/Vjo-ews, aAAa
KaQ"

Kal

Trl

r&v &\\cav iraa&v

avt/dyfjrai

(supra,

vol.

i.

p. 43y,
3,

ra A

n. 2; p. 417,

and Phys.

i.

186,

464

ARISTOTLE
only
in

qualitative change, he sought for, not material that is moved, but also in that

the

which ceases
1

and that which comes into being with the motion. He corroborated the theory of the acceleration of motion

by simple observations of the

fall

of bodies. 2

fundamental departure from the Aristotelian cos

is

mology

attributed to Strato

by Stobaeus, who

tells

us that he held that the heavens are

that the stellar radiance
3

made

of

fire,

and
s

is

a reflection of the sun

light.

As

to the former of these doctrines

it

we may
it

wonder that

is

nowhere

else

mentioned, as

in

abandonment of reality involves nothing less than the the theory of the ether and all the deductions founded

upon

are not therefore justified in denying that the difficulties which beset the Aristotelian as
it
;

yet

we

the stars

of sumptions as to the light- and heat-giving power have caused Strato to attribute a fiery may
1

instead of an etherial nature to heaven and the heavenly Nor need the statement as to the light of the bodies.
stars

cause us any serious difficulty in view of the Yet the evidence of state of astronomy at that time. Stobseus gives us no sure guarantee of the truth of
these statements.
1

The

assertion that Strato conceived

See the Fragrn. of the book apud SlMPL., ibid.
i.

SIMPL. 191, a (referring to KOL KccAoJs ye, ofyicu, 6 Pliys. v. 1) ov p.6vov eV Ta5 2rpaTcoi/ rtiv Kivr)(Tiv elvai, ctAAa /ecu eV Kii/oujU-eVw TW ef ov Kal (v rw els &, SAAoi/ Se
:

?r.

/cii/rjo-ews

214,
3

a.

Eel.

500

<fj(rii/

ITap/AeWSTjs,

Hpa/cAerros, ^rpdrwv, Zrjvuv irvpi-

Tpoirov
jSctAAoi/,
/j.ev

eV

v-jroKeifJ-fvov,

rb f*.tv yap IKCO-T^. /aveircu ws ^era<pf)(rl,

us

(pdeLpo/jLtvov,

TO Se c| ou Kal TO els &. TO TO 5e us yivo-

518 I. vov elvai rbv olpavov. ^rpdrcev Kal avrbs ra &(TTpa virb TOV T)\iov (pwri^effdai.
:

/j.i>ov.

On

the

corresponding
i.

definitions of Aristotle, see vol.

p. 417, n. 2, supra.

Supra, vol. i. p. 509 sq. In the first place what Strato says only of the fiery sphere could not be transferred to
3

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO

of the parts of the world as infinite
if this involves,
l

465

is

obviously untrue,

as

it

appears to do, the infinite exten

2 sion of the world in Other reported doctrines space. 3 of Strato relating to the 4 comets, fixity of the earth,

meteorological
discussed here.

phenomena and earthquakes, 5 the forma

7

tion of seas, 6 to colours

and sounds, 8 cannot be

fully

the heavens and, in the second place, that which related only to the planets cannot be extended to all the stars.
; 1

EPIPHAN. Exp. Fid.

eAeyev
elva.i

the rest is his epfj^iavown), Strato propounded the hypothesis, which he justified by palseontological observations, that the

1090,

airsipa Se
2

TO,

For this view was not held

1.

by

Strato,

461, n.

as shown supra, p. The statement is pro

bably only a misinterpretation of his teaching as to the un

limited divisibility of matter, as to which see supra, p. 459, n. 3. 3 That Strato (like Aristotle) held this view, and that he sup ported it by a special argument of
his own, appears

JOHAX. DAMASC.

was originally sepa rated from the Mediterranean, and this sea from the Atlantic, by isthmuses, which were broken through in course of time. 7 As to this, the excerpts from
i.

Black Sea

17, 3

(STOB.
:

Meineke) give us only the not very clear remark

d
avrois rbi; ^era|i/
8
(pr)<rw

Floril. iv. 173, ed.

curb

TU>V

epa.

from CRAMER,
413:
vvv
6
rrj

Anecd.
Trpojuevfj

Oxon.

iii.

Se

[l.irpo/cei/u.eV^J

airto-

\oyia. TTJ ireplrrjs

aKii>r)(rias

Trjs

yys

ALEX. APHR. De Sensu 117 (p. 265, 9 sqq., ed. Thurot), intimates that Strato explained the fact that it is impossible to dis tinguish tones at a great distance

^rpdruv

So/ceT

irpuros

(pvo-utbs

Xp^faffdai.

The argument un
is

fortunately
4

not given. STOB. Eel. i. 578 (PLUT.

;

Plan. iii. 2, 5 GALEX, //. Phil. 18, p. 286). A comet accord ing to Strato was (pas &<Trpov
:

(De Sensv, 44 5. b, 6) by the theory that 1he form of movement in the air was altered on the way but
6,
T<

not, like Aristotle

ov

yap (pnoriv eV rcJ nrcas rbv aepa rovs Sicupopovs

(f>06yyovs

7reptAT700ei>

vecpei

irvKvaj,

KaOdirep

yiveirdat,

aAAa

TT?

eirl

Tcof Aa/uTTTTjpajj/ yivfrai. See supra, vol. ii. p. 457,

TTJS

TrX-rjyrjs

avKroT^ri.

(What follows is

n. 9.

According to STRABO, i, 3, 49 (from ERATOSTHENES, who, however, without doubt is

4, p.

not the view of Strato, but of Alexander, as THUROT reminds us at p. 451 of his

only quoting Strato as far as the words, on p. 50, r^v

These words harmonise exactly with the beginning of the pseudoAristotelian fragment TT. d/couo-rojj/, ras 5e $<avas aTracras 800, a, 1
:

edition.)

VOL.

II.

H H

466

ARISTOTLE
Upon
his physiological views also
1

isolated and unimportant statements.

i

we have only His doctrine of

it

\L6(i>ovs

yiyvea-Qcu ov .
.

KCU

TOVS

T<

rbv

aepa

with the same movement as has itself.

otovral /caflaTrep ffxnfMrifrffeai, KivtlffQai aAAct TO? irapaTii/es,

TrX-naiws
a.vT bv

GALEN, De
iv.

Sent.

ii.

5, vol.

ffv(Tr\\6/j.fvov

/ecu

This coincidence, however, does not go far enouo-h to justify the supposition (BRANDTS, ii. b, 1201) that that treatise is the work of Strato, however well and caretKTeiv6nfvov,

&c.

629, informs us that Strato explained the origin of the difference of the sexes (nipra, vol. ii. somewhat more p. 55, n. 2) in a material manner than Aristotle

fully
It
is

considered,
it

and

however
appear,

worthy of him

may

not, therefore, necessary here to go into the manner in which the tones of the human

(without, however, adopting the views of Democritus, d. q. v. ZELL. Pli. d. Gr. i. 805, 2), by the theory that either the male seed lias the preponderance over the female (which Aristotle would

not admit, supra, vol. ii. p. 50 over the male. sq.) or the female

voice and of musical instruments and their various modifications are in that tract explained. The is general basis of the theory most clearly set out at p. 803, b,

According to PLUT. Plac.

v. 8, 2

(GALEN,
irapa

//. Phil. 32, p. 325),

he

allowed that abortions originated

% tyaipefftv, % TrpovQeffiv, ^-raGtviv [misplacement of parts] % Trufv^drufftv [evaporation, or perhaps addling of the seed

34

sqq.

passage, which reminds Heraclides s theory (ZELLEE, Ph. d Gr. i. p. 887, 1) every sound is composed of particular beating
vibrations
(irXyyal),

According to this one of

caused by air contained therein].

Finally
in

JAMBLICH.

Tlicol.

which

we

cannot distinguish as such, but sound perceive as one unbroken

;

high tones, whose movement

is

more vibraquicker, consist of tions and low tones of fewer,

Several ceasing

Arithm. p. 47 (which MACROB. Sown. Soip. 1, 6, 65, repeats cf. also CENSOEIN. Di. Aat. 7, 5) we have his views on the first stages of the development of the embryo week by week. Similar also opinions on this subject are
;

tones

vibrating

and

at the same time are heard by us as one tone. The height or depth, harshness or and in fact every softness,

attributed to the physician Diocles, of Carystus, who, accordthe ing to AST S notes on Theol. Arithm., flourished about about 232 B.C.), Ol. 136 (i.e.

quality of a tone depends (803, b 26) on the quality of the motion originally created in the air by the body that gave out This motion propathe tone. e-ates itself unchanged, inasmuch
as each portion of the air sets the next portion of air in motion

IDELER, was a and one ot s, the persons charged (see DIOG. v. 62) with the execution of his testament. SPRENGEL, however

and who, according

Meteorol. pupil of Strato
Arist.
i.

to

157,

(Gesch.d.ArzneAh. fourth edition,

p.

463),

believes

him

to

have

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO

the

467

human

soul,

on the other hand, owing to

its

diver

gence from that of Aristotle, claims our attention. That he should adopt an independent view was to be
expected from what we already know of his general If these theory as to the efficient forces of the world.
in general are inseparable from matter, this must be true While it does not follow also of the powers of the soul.

from this that Strato must necessarily have explained the soul, with Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus, as the har 2 mony of the body, yet he could not admit Aristotle s
doctrine that
it is

separate from

all

motionless, and that a part of other parts and from the body.

it

is

All

activities of the soul,

3

he asserts

still

more emphatically
thought, as well

than Theophrastus, are movements

since they all consist in the action of a as perception hitherto inactive force and in proof of the view that
;

between the activity of sense and reason there is in this fact respect no essential difference, he appealed to the

which had been already observed by

of an earlier date, and as rightly for even if it be true, is alleged without proof, that he lived a short time after Hippocrates, nevertheless GALEN (in
;

Aristotle,

that

we

been

Q-ncrlv

fleo-re pa.

S.Tpdrwv, o^vrepa Kal vuWhether he really meant

to

show that the soul is a harmony, or whether this remark is only meant to serve as an argu-

his

expressly counts him amongst the predecessors of Erasistratus and what we know of his views (SPEENGEL, ibid.} confirms this, Which subject he treated in the works ir. tyveeuis avdpuirivris
; 1

Aphorisms,

vol.

xviii.

a,

7)

ment against the Platonic objection (Phfsd. 92 E sqq.), or, finally, whether the phrase merely belonged to the statement of
learn.

and
-

TT.

aiV07}<res.

someone else s opinion, we do not TEETULL. De An. 15, distinguishes Strato s view from that of Dicnsarchus, and we shall
see that he
3
4

OLYMPIODOB.

Sclwl. in Plue:

is

right.
ii.
1.

don., p. 142, does indeed say $TI cos apfji-ovla ap/j.ovias ourepa
/cat

Supra, Supra,

vol.

vol.
2.

p. 391, n. 2. p. 195, n. 1,

fiapvTepa,

OVTU Kal

xl/ux^

^ V X^ 5

>

an(^ P- 206, n.

HH2

468

ARISTOTLE

are unable to think anything of which we have had no But, on the other hand, he re previous perception.
1

marked that perception and sensation are conditioned by thought, since often when we are thinking of some
thing
else
fail

the

impressions

which our

senses

have

received

to rise into consciousness. 2

is

In general,
the
seat

however, the soul and not the body

sensation
;

of

believe ourselves to feel a pain in the part affected, this is merely the same delusion as when wT e think that we hear sounds outside, whereas in
for

when we

reality

we apprehend them only in the ear. Pain is caused by the sudden transmission of the external im if the pression from the part affected to the soul
;

connection

is

broken we

feel

no pain. 3

Strato accord-

SIMPL. Phys. 225, a:

ov rrjv Aoye? KivziffQai p.6vov aXoyov, dAAa Kal rfy Ao-yi/ojj/, Kivi]<Teis \eywv elvai ras evepyeias
TT/S
i|/u_^ijs,

2 PLUT. Solert. An. 3, 6, p. 961 (and from him POEPH. Da Abst.

iii.

24)
oi<5

/cotrot

SrpaT&Ws ye rov
fffilv

(pvffiKov
cos

\6yos

a-rroSeiKvv

Ae-yet

ovv

eV

rcJJ

Trepl

alaOdveffdai TOirapdirav avev rov voelv wTrap^ei Kal yap ypd/j./j-ara

otyei

Kivycrecas irpus &\\ois TroAAoIs Kal Ta5e ael yap 6 voSsv /civeTrcu,
&o"jrep

TroAAa/cis

fiwropvo/j.evovs rfj
rrj
^//xas

Kal

\6yoi Trpoa-jriirTovTes
irpbs

Kal

opcav

Kal

O.KOVWV Kal

aKorj

5ia\avddvovcriv
elr

Kal Sia-

6(T<ppxiv6/iji.evos
v6fi<ris

TTJS

yap ^ ivepyeta Stavoias KaOdirep Kal r/ [he means that

(pvyov<n

e^ovras,

srepois rbv vovv avdis iravri\6e Kal

opaffis TTJS

otyeus

/xeraflei Kal [yUeTaJSico/cei rcov irpo ie-

both are Suvo/xet UVTOS evepyeiai, movements]. Kal irpb TOVTOV 5e

TOI) p7]TOv yeypa(j)i> at TT\?ffrai KivJ)ff(av atriai. as KaO avrrjv Kiveirai Siaru>v

pevuv cKacrrov
rest is

^K\ey6fj.evos. [The most probably not taken

on

ovv

flffiv

from
vovs
i.

6pf)

Kal AeAe/crat rj Strato.] &c. (v. ZELL. Ph. d. Gr.

irepl

462, 5), &s rov

>ra

ra

auffB^ffeotv irporepov, 5f)A(5v zffTiv. oo~a

Kal as

vir~b

TWV

Kal
3

irdOovs,

Uv

6/j.nara

irapfj

(ppovovv, atffOriffiv ov TTOLOVVTOS.

yap
3)

Trp6repov ewpa/ce ravra ov Siivarai voeiv, olov T6irov

/urj
ru>v

PLUT. Utr. An. an Corp.

sit
:

ypatpas % avSpiavras $) roiovrcav. a\\(av TI ^ words 6rL ovv curtat are

rS>v

The more

Libido (Fragm. i. 4, 2, p. 697) ol fjizv yap airavra ffv\Xt]fi $ i)v ravra [sc. ra TTCI^TJ] rfj ^vxfj (pepovres
avedeo-av, &o-irp 2,rpdrcav 6 (pvffi ov u.6vov ras eiriQv/Aia :, dAAa Kal
1

or less incomprehensible, as do not know the context.

we

ras \vTras, ovSe

rovs (pofiovs

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO.

469

ingly combated the distinction which Aristotle drew between the rational and the sensitive part of the soul.

The

according to his view, is a single force reason preceded, however, by Aristotle (which, with the Stoics he seems to have called TO rjysjuoviKov 2) is the totality
soul,
;
l

of the soul,

and the

different senses are only particular

3 expressions of this central force.

The
iva
Trpbs

seat of the soul

TOVS (p06vovs Kal Tas

Tovres\

/uri

(rvvcfyc

[-arra

aAAa
fv
Kal

ySovas Kal a\yr)$6vas Kal oAccs iraa ay a tcrdritriv

Kal
T?7
il

irovovs

Kal

WYTT.]
Plac.

t/xj?

ffwlffTaofBai
TO,

(fidjuevos

yevijTai. eTTi TTOAAO?S

iv.

T& (ppovovv ravTa jj.kv olv 6

O)S

flKOS
:

TOLOVTOIS.
TO.

TTJS

tyvx^s

roiavra iravra
jUTjSe

OTav

TrpoffKpovffcti/j.ei

rrjv KC-

ST^CITWV Kal irdd-r] TTJS ^vx^js Kal ray eV r^J i]yeiJ.oviK<p, OVK eV TO?S
23,
06cri

r^TTOts

o~vvio~Tao~6at.
?J
/ce?(70at

eV

70/7
UTTO-

SaKTV\ov orav
dr)Ta

eKTe/JLu/Jiev

avaio~-

TavTrj
jj.ov)}v.

[rovT<f

T^^

yap

fj.ovi.Kov,

AotTra ir\r}v TOV 7)7^Trpbs & TV)? 7rA?J7^s o|ecos

TO,
ris

&o~7rep

firl

T&V SfLvwv

Kal

r^v ouaQriffLv a\yr]56va

Se
TT]V

Kal
1

ws
tivai

ruvyv
eirl

ro7s

V. supra, vol.

ii.

p. 127, n. 3.

2
T}>

See preceding and following

airb rrjs

apx^s

rb

f)7e-

notes.
3 See p. 468, n. 3, supra; SEXT. Math. vii. 350 o/ ei/ 8m()ee^
:

(jiQViKbv StaarTj/xa rfj aiffd ho ti irpoffAo*yi^OjU6i/oi,

TrapaTT\Tf](ri(a5

T^V

e/c

TOV Tpav/jiaTos irovov ov% OTTOU

(pf:i
,

TTJJ

aAA

ttQzv

etr^e

&s

ol

TT\LOVS

ot

Sf avT^v elvai TO.S

<nra>v

eli/at SoKov/jL

aio~0r}o~is

eV
Sib

Kaddirep Sid TIVUIV

e/ceii/o

TTJS tyvxrjs a(p ov Trti

TUV

TrpoffKoil/avrfs avrtKa ras [here must be the seat of the soul, v. infra] ffwfjyayov eV TW TrA.f}yevri [topic? TOV Tj-yffj.ovLK.ov T^V a (o 6r)o~iv o^ews airodiSovTOs. Kal irapeyKOTTTO/iLev 3re T& TTj/eGjua kav ra /xepTj Secr/io?? 5ta-

Kal

6(ppvs

irpoKinrTovo-av, rjs o~Tdo~ecas ^p|e ~2,Tpa.T(av re o (pvffiKos Kal Alvtio-i8r)/j.os. TERTULL.

aiaQ-r)T npi(av

De

An. 14

plum

demo

est et Heraclito

non longe hoc exema Stratone et Jnesi;

nam

et ipsi

eo"0

Aa^jSaj/rjrat

xe

P"

[WYTTENB.
&v
TO,

conjectures av
%ep<ri
;

ff(p6opa Tne ^o/zei/ T. /*.

unitatem animas tuentur, qute in totum corpus diffusa et ubique ipsa, velut flatus in calarao per cavernas, ita per sensualia variis

ai ra?s S. 5toA. &C. but it would, perhaps, be better to read

jUeprj
Seff/j..

modis emicet, non tarn concisa

quam

8ia\a/j.lSdvr}Tai

T)

raTs

%6/jfri

tre/JoSpa

fj-evoi Trpbs T7]v

TTie fwjUei ] iVraStdSoffiv TOV irddovs

Kal T^IV Tr\T]yriv ev roTs avaiaQ ^TOis

[WYTT.

conj.

Since Strato dispensata. did not, at the same time, like Dictearchus, regard the soul as a separate substance, but only as a force which is inseparable from the body through having therein

470

ARISTOTLE
*

and Strato placed in the region between the eyebrows Thence in the part of the brain which is there situated.
he held that it permeates the whole body, aud especially 2 the organs of sense, connecting it probably with the 4 anima vitce. 3 Sleep is the retreat of this spirit, but in
its

appointed place, and in which the unity of the life of the soul is to be distinguished from its individual manifestations (see following note), TEET. De An. 15, is able to cite Strato, along with
Plato, Aristotle, and opposition to those
others, in who, like

reach the TjyenoviKbv, and, on the other hand, that the soul is affected by the part in connec tion therewith prove that the soul is not always spread all over the body, but has its seat in the
head, whence after receipt of the impressions it streams to How the organs of sense, &c. Strato believed this was brought about, we do not learn. We can only suppose that he had in his mind either the nerves, which had at that time been discovered

pale, dum in esse sensus,

abstulerunt princi animo ipso volunt quorum vindicatur On the other hand, principale. Sextus can also say that accord ing to Strato the soul is identical with the cu<r07](reis, inasmuch as
Dicasarchus,
Strato, like Aristotle, did not allocate different parts of the soul to feeling and thought. PLUT. Plac. iv. 5, 2 (GALEN,
1

by Herophilus and Erasistratus, and which (or at any rate the

nerves) were, as ophthalmic appears from SPREKGEL, Getcli.

H. Phil. c. 28, p. 315 THEODORET, Cur, Gr. Aff. v. 23, p.

;

73)

^rpdrcav

[rb
ii.

TTJS

tyvxys
:

POLLUX, Onomast.
/j.ev
.
.

226

vovs Kal
.

\oyt<riJ.bs

ere Kara rb

peffotypvov,

us

e\eye ^Tpdroav. TERTULL. De An. 15 nee in superciliorum meditullio [principale cubare putes], Cf. supra, ut Strato physicus. vol. ii. p. 468, n. 2.
:

2 Such is the result when we combine the passages quoted supra, vol. ii. p. 468, n. 2 and

n.

to

the statement as 3, with The the seat of the soul.

supra, p.
n.

expressions employed
468,
2

namely irpoKvirreiv, cmicare, which imply, on the

one hand, that outer impressions

Arzneik. 4th ed. i. pp. 511-2, 524 held by them to be conduc ting tubes or, more probably, that he was thinking of the which, according to arteries, Erasistratus, carried, not the blood, but the Tri/ev^a faTiKbv through the body (iUd. p. 525 sq.). 3 This view is referred to in It also the following note. accords with what is said supra, vol. ii. p. 468, n. 2, about the interruption of the irvev^a flowing to the yye/j.oviKlii and on p. 458, n. 1 about the Svva/jus irv^v^ariKT] of the seed. 4 TERTULL. De An. 43 Strato [here the natural philo sopher and not the physician is meant] segregationem consati
d.
,
:

spiritus

[somnum

afnrrnat].

SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STJRATO

471

what way dreams were brought into connection with

this

impossible to say. As on this theory reason no longer constitutes the distinctive mark of the human soul, as a peculiar higher element in it, so Strato was free, on the one hand, to assert
it is

view

that

him coincided with

which for and without which he consciousness, found sense-perception inconceivable; 2 while, on the other
all

living creatures participate in reason,

hand, he was forced to extend to the whole of the soul what Aristotle had taught as to the fmitude of its lower
find him accordingly not only combating elements. 3 the Platonic doctrine of reminiscence, but criticising in a hostile spirit the proofs of the immortality of the soul

We

advanced in the Plicedo^ in a way which leads us to sup1

PLUT. Plac.
Ph.
\rivl

v. 2,

(GALEN,
says:
yiveadai~\
(pvfffi TTJS

Plifed. ed.

Finckh.

p.

127 (also

Hist.

30,

p.

320)

[TOUS

ovetpovs

add. GAL.]
TTCOS

Siavoias eV roTs virvois

alaOrjTiKu-

PLUT. FT. vii. 19) p. 177 (follow ing Alexander of Aphrodisias, as this commentary so often does, as may be seen by the context),
p. 188, a
4
,

repas

/teV

(TTJS

\|/i>xf)s

add.
Se

/3

GAL.)

yiyvo/jievr]s,

Trap

avrb

The arguments against the

TOUTO TCf yVWffTlKW KlVO/J.ei>T)S [GAL. gives incorrectly yvcaffriKrjs 711/0,1*The meaning appears to evrjs ].

be that, during sleep the irra tional nature of the mind is the action of stronger, and

proofs brought forward in the Phcedo, 102, A sqq. which are given by OLYMPIODOH. in Phcsd. p. 150-1, p. 191, are as follows If the soul is immortal because
:

as

essentially

life

it

cannot

thought being interrupted, the

mind

receives

and takes

in

many

images or impressions, all more or less confused, which if awake it would allow to pass unnoticed
supra, vol. p. 439, n. 3).
(cf.
-

ii.

p.

75

sq.

and

applied animals also can and of plants, for they not, so long as they live, be dead to every natural being, for the natural state of such excludes anything unnatural to all things
; ;

the same can be die, to all living bodies, of

EPIPHAN. Exp. Fid.

$ov
\eyev ov
e?i/cu.

irav
3

[1.

1090, eAeye

vov^ SfKTiitbv

See the extracts, probably from the work ir. avQpu(/>uo"ecos

n-ivr)s,

in

OLYMPIODOE.

Sclwl.

itt

position is incompatible with dissolution and existence with But death is not destruction. something whitfh approaches life while it lasts, but it is a loss of

composed and created,

for

com

472

ARISTOTLE

pose that along with these proofs he had abandoned the

belief in immortality itself.

From

the Ethics of Strato only a definition of the

Aristotle,
1

Good, which in substance agrees with that of has been preserved to us.
has not been proved that a quality inseparable from the concept of the soul, a quality inherent and. not
life.

It

life is

(eVt<7>e

poK<ra)

and consequently must in the end become weaker and die. Strato
also brought arguments against the assertion in the Pha d. 70 c sqq., that as the dead proceed from the living, so must the living proceed from the dead. .This

imparted (eVt^epo^ej/Tj), and even if this be the case, it can only impart life as long as it exists and as long as it is without death. Admitting all this, there always remains the consideration that, as a, finite thing, it can only possess a tinite and limited power,

statement he proves (ibid. 186) to be incorrect, for existing matter does not originate from destroyed matter. Further, if a part for example, an amputated limb does not again live, this is

not the case with the whole. Also that which is derived from another resembles it only in in quantity. species and not And, again, we do not always rind any such law of reciprocity, for food becomes flesh, metal turns into rust, wood info coal, and the young man becomes an old one, but the reverse changes never happen. Thus nothing can come of the contrary, unless the substratum is retained and not destroyed. That without such a reciprocity further origin of individuals must cease is riot correct it is only requisite that similar beings, and not the same individuals should be produced. SXOB. Eel. ii. 80 [ayaObv ^TJO"!] rb T\eiovv ^v rrjs evepyeias 8vva.fj.iv 8t Cf. herewith, supra, Xavo/j.ev. vol. ii. p. 141 sq.
:

473

CHAPTER XXI
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL AFTER STRATO TILL TOWARDS THE END OF THE SECOND CENTURY

EVEN

after

Strato

there

were not wanting

men

of

the Peripatetic school who won distinction by thenextensive knowledge and their powers of teaching and
exposition
;

but there

is

no evidence that

it

henceforth

produced any philosopher who merited the name of an It continued to be one of the independent thinker.
chief centres of the learning of the time and of the contemporary schools none but the Stoic, which had risen to eminence under Chrysippus, could rival it in this
;

respect.

It cultivated especially the historical, literary

and grammatical studies which marked the Alexandrian age above all others, and in connection with these it
jealously devoted itself to rhetoric and ethics, but even in these fields contributed little that was original. Its
in science and metaphysics, if they did not remain altogether barren, seem to have been wholly
efforts

confined to the propagation of older doctrines. can we make the scantiness of our information
sponsible for this
;

Nor
re

not only have we seeming poverty of the unfruitfulness of the Peri express complaints patetic school in the period referred to, but we are
for
1
1

STRABO,

xiii.

1,

54, p.

(>OD,

says that after Theophrastus the

ability

Peripatetics being under the disthat they possessed of

474 forced to

ARISTOTLE
suppose that
if

there

important to relate of Strato s have been a richer stream of historical allusion to them, and especially that the learned commentators upon

had been anything successors there would

who preserve so deep and significant a silence as to the Peripatetics between Strato and Andronicus, would have found more frequent occasion to mention
Aristotle,
1

them

s successor, Lyco of Troas, who was president 2 of the Peripatetic school for nearly half a century, and

Strato

Aristotle only a limited of treatises, and these

exoterical,
^TjSef
(pelv Trpay/uiaTiKctis

number
mostly
fyiXovo-

(DiOG.
vol.
ii.

68).

He was named by
young man,

Strato his heir in the school {supra,

c^eir [in the

p.451,n. 1), and succeeded

way

of

him

in his chair as a

real
0eVeis
[to

scientific

advance],

aAAa

embellish].
:

[commonplaces] ArjKvOi^ziv PLUT. Sulla,

Se
irpefffivrepoi

26

ol

Tlfpnra<pai-

about 270-268 B.C., and after conducting the school for fortyfour years, died at the age of se venty-four, about 224 B.C. (DiOG.
68 and supra, vol,
ii.

rr)TiKol VOVTO.I

/J.ei>

[before Andronicus] KO.& eavrovs yevo/j.fi

p. 451, n. 1).

OL

it Xapifvres teal <pi\o\6yoi, but plain that they did not possess the texts of Aristotle and Theo-

is

The last suggestion phrastus. of course, incorrect; as is also the idea that the philosophic barrenness of the school began only after Theophrastus (v. supra,
is,
i. Ignoratio pp. 138-9 sqq.). dialectic^ is also charged against Cic. Fin. iii. the Peripatetics by

next note but one) busied him self greatly with public affairs and, according to DiOG. 66, did great service to Athens, where he must have become a citizen (if by ffv/npovheveiv DIOG. here means that he spoke in the public We hear that he assemblies). was esteemed and rewarded by
;

Lyco was a famous orator (see

12, 41.

been unable to the countless cita tions of ancient philosophers in a the various commentaries,
1

Zeller has

the earlier Pergamenian kings, admired by Antigonus, invited by Antiochus to his court in vain 67 meaning, no (DiOG. 65,
:

find,

among

doubt, Antiochus II., surnamed Theos), and his will (apud DiOG. 69 sqq.) shows that he was a

single one which refers to any of these writers. 2 Lyco of Troas (DiOG. v. 65, PLUT. Zte Mail. 14, p. 605) was a pupil both of Strato and also of the dialectician Pantoides

wealthy
lived as
xii.

man.
one
;

According

to

HEEMIPP. (apud DIOG. 67) he

but the account

which ANTIGONUS (apud ATHEN.

547, d) gives of his pride is/no doubt, grossly exaggerated. The

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

1

475

behind him a number of works, was distinguished by the grace and brilliancy of his style rather than by
left
2 the originality of his contributions. has come down to us of his writings

The
is

little

that

confined to a

definition of

the Highest Good,

4

and a few remarks

upon Contemporary with Lyco, but diverging more widely Our from Aristotle, was Hieronymus of Rhodes. 5
same authority (ibid. 548, b) and DIOG. 07 show him to have been
greatly occupied with gymnastic His testamentary direction arts. as to his funeral (DiOG. 70) is that it should be seemly but not
it certainly does not exhaust, the Aristotelian defini

ethical subjects.

though

but we do not know whether Lyco meant it to

tion of happiness
;

not.

be an exhaustive definition or On the trifling worth of

extravagant.
1

worldly possessions, see following

slave,

To a
to

doubt,

who helped him in

had, no
his

note.
4

work

Apud
et

Cic. Tusc.

iii.

32. 78,

and

whom he gave his freedom,

(apud DIOG. 73)
;

he bequeaths

talking of asgritudo, Lyco says, parvis earn rebus moveri, fortunaa

rdyua StjSAta ra aveyi wa/j.eva

the

corporis
ma,lis.

incommodis,

unpublished writings, on the other hand, he left to his pupil

Callinus, to edit for publication. 2 CiC. Fin. v. 5, 13: Hujus [Stratonis] Lyco est oratione locuples,

non animi
140
(iv.

Apud STOB.

Floril., Exc. e Jo. Damasc.ii. 13,

226,ed.Mein.), Lyco says

of TratSem that it is iepbv affvXov. DiOG. 65-6 describes him as

bs
av))p

Also

DiOG.

rebus ipsis jejunior. 65-6, praises the

Kal TTepiyeycavlis eV
rfj

Kal

irepl

TraiSwv

K<ppa(TTiKbv

quot ing at the same time some of his

y/j.ei/os,

&Kpcas (TvvTeTa.

p/j.r]feict,

and the

euySia of

his

speech, for which he was also called T\vK<av (as in PLUT. lHd.\ but he adds the remark eV 8e
:
T<

sayings. 5 Cic. fin.

3,
ii.

ATHEN.

x.

424-5; DIOG.

26;

STRABO,
others, all

xiv. 2, 13, p. 656,

and

ypdfpeiv

avo/J.oios

avry.

The

his

examples cited by DiOG. confirm Cf. THEMIST. judgment. Orat. xxi. 255 B, as to his cele

speak of HIERONYMUS as a Khodian. He was a contempor ary of Lyco, Arcesilaus, and the sceptic Timon at Athens (DiOG.
v. 68,
iv.

brity in his
3

own

time.
:

41-2,
x.

ix.

112).
calls

When

CLEMENS, Strom, i. 416 D A.VKOS [Lyco must be meant] 6 nepiTraTTjTi/cbs rrjv aXrjOiv^v x a P^ v
rrjs

ATHEN.

424-5

him a

I^V^TJS
[?]

reAos eAe^ei/

eTi/cu,

ws

A.i>Kifj.os

rV
not

tnl

rois

/caAoTs.

This

does

conflict

with,

disciple of Aristotle, he is merely using the phrase loosely as mean ing a Peripatetic. Not to this man, but to the historian Hier onymus of Cardia, who was the

476

ARISTOTLE
this philosopher,
1

knowledge of

who was

distinguished,

according to Cicero, for his learning and versatility, is confined mainly to historical observations, 2 the titles of
3 are told books, and unimportant isolated quotations. that he declared the summum bonum and the ultimate

We

all action to consist in painlessness, which, how he sharply distinguished from pleasure, going ever, 4 beyond Aristotle in denying that the latter was in any

end of

companion in arms of Eumenes and Antigonus, must we refer the statement of LUCIAX, apud MACBOB., 22, as to a person of this

the writers on music.

That the

name who
of age, as
1

lived to be 101 years clearly shown at the beginning of the chapter. Cic. in the Orator, 57, IPO
is

Hieronymus mentioned in DAMASCIUS and JOSEPHUS is not the same as this writer has been shown by ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. i.
84.

calls

him Peripateticus inprimis nobilis, and in Fin. v. 5, 14, he

:

speaks oE
his

prtetereo multos, in

doctum hominem et suavem Hieronymum. Cf. also Fin. ii.

6, 19.

Sundry

details are to be

As in Cic. ibid, (from a work on Rhetoric or Metre) the citation of about thirty verses in Isocrates a remark in PLUT. Qu. Conv. i. 8, 3, 1, p. 626, on the shortsightedness of the aged a word in SENECA, De Ira, i. 19, 3, against anger, and in STOB.
3
;

gathered also from the passages

cited infra.
-

For example

ATHEN.

Floril., Ease, e Jo. Dam.ii. 13. 121 (vol. iv. 209, ed. Mein.), against

ii.

education by pedagogues.

48, b, v. 217, e, xiii.

e,

556. a, 557,

602, a,

l(TTOpiKa

604, d (chiefly from the which is viro/Jiff)/iji.a.Ta,

o,

named

at 557.

G35-6 (from the

TronjTwv,

and G04 d), xiv. fifth book TT.

which treated of odes for the KiOdpa), x. 424-5, xi. 499500 (from the work ir. jue07jy), x. 434-5 the (from Letters); DiOG. i. 267 (from the second

The chief source of informa tion here is CICERO, who often refers to this view of Hieron. So A cad. ii. 42, 131: Vacare ornni molest ia Hieronymus And Fin. [tinem esse voluit]. v. 11, 35, 25, 73, Tusc. v. 30, Tenesne 87-8; Fin. ii. 3, 8:
4

igitur,

book of the (nropdSiriv viro/u.vr) u.aTa, which are no doubt identical

l

inquam, Hieronymus Rhodius quod dicat esse summum bonum, quo putet omnia referri
oportere

with the

Itrr.

UTTO^LW/.),

ii.
TT.

14

(he

like), 26, 105 (eV T viii. 21, 57, ix. 16;

eVox^s),

? Teneo, inquit, finem videri, nihil dolere. Quid? idem iste de voluptate quid

illi

Conv.

Procem.

3,

PLUT. Qu. mentions his

sentit?

Kegat esse

earn, inquit,

Xoyoi irapa also reckons

TTOTOV

yevofjifvoi

and
suav.

him (N.
p.

propter se ipsam expetendam; 6, 19 Nee Aristippus, qui volupta:

p.

tem

summum bonum

dicit,

in

Vim,

13,

6,

1096)

amongst

voluptate ponit non dolere, neque

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

sense a
Prytanis. After

477
also

good.
1

To the same
s

period
2

belongs

Lyco

death Aristo of Ceos

was elected by

the choice of his fellow-disciples to the presidency of

Hieronymus, qui
statuit

summum bonum

Prooem.

3,

names him among the

dolere, voluptatis nomine unquam utitur pro ilia indolentia quippe qui ne in
;

non

distinguished philosophers who have written table talk. Aristo is called KeTos in

expetendis qnidem rebus numcret Hierony voluptatem. v. 5, 14 mum quern jam cur Peripateticum appellem, nescio, summum enim bonum exposuit vacuitatem
:
;

Lyco

s will

has since

(Dioo. v. 74) and it been the custom to

Cf. CLEMENS, *tn>m. ii. 6 TlepiTf leptiavv/uios irarriT IK^S reAos /xej/ en/cu r fi ao%doloris.
:

name him thus, in order to dis tinguish him from the Stoic of the same name, hpicrruv 6 X?os, who is, nevertheless, often eonfounded with him on account of the similarity of their surnames. Another surname, louAirjTTjs or IAITJTTJS (DiOG. vii. 164) shows that his family came from Julis, the chief town in the island of
Ceos, as
x.
is 5, C, p.
Url>.

415, C
AT/TWS
TTJJ/

rjv

reAt/chj/ 8

ayadbv

(j.6vov

derived his in formation from the same source Acad. ii. 42, 131 and as CICERO, there ANTIOCHUS is indicated as
;

tvSainoviav. seems to have

Here Clement

486,

remarked by STRABO, and STEPHANUS,

PLUT.
Zte

That Cicero s authority. directly acquainted with an ethical as well as a rhetorical work of Hieronymus cannot really be inferred from Fin,, ii. 6, a is also re This 19. ferred to by JAMBL. apud STOB. Eel. i. 920, and the X ia by PLUT, Sto. Rep. 2, 2, as the ideal The latter adds of Hieronymus. that, like Epicurus, he lived up to his theory.
Cicero

De

louAis,

Ex\l.

was

<xoxAT]<ri

605 names ApiVrwi/ e /c Ke co between Glyco and Critolaus Lyco himself speaks of him as his pupil (see following note) and CiC. Fin, v. 5, 13. When we find that not he but
14, p.
;

T}<rv

Aristo is in SEXT. Math. ii. 61 called the yvwpifjios of Critolaus, it is hardly possible to suppose that a younger Peripatetic of the
is meant, but we must suppose that yvwpipos, which is ordinarily used of a pupil, has a wider here signification QUINTILIAN, xi. 15, 19 seems to have used the same expression

same name

This Peripatetic was em ployed by Antigonus Doson (B.C. 230-221) in various State affairs, and POLYP,, v. 93, 8, reckons him among the eiri<pave is &i/5pes e /c TOV
1

TrepLirdrov.

He must have been

Critolai peripatetic! discipulus.

at that time already considerably advanced in years, if his pupil EUPHORION was really born (as SUIDAS says) in Ol. 126, B.C. PLUT. Com*. 277-273. Qu.

Again,
7]Ao>Tr?s
:

we hear
of

that he was a

the

Borysthenean

Bio see STRABO, x. 5, 6, and ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. i. 294, 4. The meaning may be merely that he

478

ARISTOTLE
1

have been distinguished rather for the grace and finish of his style than for 2 Of his numerous writings originality of thought, some of the titles, 3 and a few fragments, chiefly only
the school.
also is said to

He

of

an
be

historical

character,

have

come

down

to
;

admired

may

sonally

Bio s writings, or it was per that he acquainted with Bio,

still

who must have been

during
It is

living
(cf.

Aristo
d.

youth
i.

ZELLEK, Ph.

Gr.

294, 4).

[Lyconis, sc. discipulus] Aristo sed ea quae desideratur a magno philosopho gravitas in eo non fuit. Scripta sane et multa et sed nescio quo pacto polita auctoritatem oratio non habet.
;

not Aristo of Ceos, but of ArChios, that worked with 241 B.C.) cesilaus (who died

The same
(lit

is

meant by STRABO

according to STRABO, i. 2, 2, p. 15; SEXT. Pyrrh. i. 234; DIOG. For further information iv. 33. about him and his works see

HUBMANN,^
Supplement,
sqq.
;

in
iii.

Jahn s
1834,

Jalirb.
p.

102

KiTSCHL, Aristo d.\Peripat,

Cic.

the comparison with Bio. 3 Of his works we know a Lyco (mentioned by PLUT. Aud. Po. 1 init. p. 14, where no one else can be meant; cf. Cic. Cato M. 1, 3, and also RITSCHL, ibid. ), which is there classed with uEsop s Fables and the Abaris of

supra)

in

apud

DC

Sen.

(Rltcin.

Heraclides,

and

which

must,

N. F. 1842, i. 193 sqq.); KEISCHE, Forscli. 405-6, 408. Aristotle^ appears to have at least indicated Theophrastus as his successor; Theophrastus bequeathed the irep-iraTos to ten friends Strato t to Lyco (v. supra, vol. i. p. 39, n. 1, and vol. ii. p. 350, n. 5); Lyco left it in his will (apud DIOG. v. 70)
1

Mm.

therefore, like this latter, have been a collection of fables; and also the EpwriKa 8/ji.oia, cited by

ATHEN.
674,
b.

563-4, xv. appears, however, from DIOG. vii. 163, that all the works there said to be by the kftoic Aristo (except the Letters
x. 419, c. xiii.

It

T>V

of PAN^TIUS and SOSICRATES) were also ascribed to our Aristo

ro is /SouAo/xeVois and yv(p(iJ.cav particularly to ten friends there named (all of whom except Aristo are otherwise unknown), with the proviso TrpodT^ffda dcaa av 8 avrol ov b.v inro\a/j.l3di><a(rL Sm/^ez/elV ffvi av^etv firl rov Trpdy/j-ciTOs Kal
:

of Ceos

probably, however, only

some of them were so ascribed, and it is only of some that the ascription could in any case be
true.

/j,d\icrTa. SwfiffecrOai.

If,

however,

what THEMIST.
relates
is

Or. xxi. 255 B,

true, he must have allowed Aristo a precedence even

before himself. 2 Cic. Fin. v.

All the Fragments in ATHENJEUS (see Index) except that at ii. 38, 9 (a note on beverages) as also the notices apud PLUT. Thcmist. 3, Aristid. 2, SOTION, De Fluv. 25, are concerned with Ko doubt matter. historical
4

5,

13

Concin-

DIOGENES
p. 37, n. 4)

(v. 64,

supra, vol.

i.

nus

delude

et

elegans

hujus

took from Aristo the

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

us.

479

His successor,
of

Critolaus

of

Phaselis

in

Ly;

the Peripatetic testaments philosophers, besides other in formation about them and this is probably the reason why his history of the Lyceum does not go beyond Lyco. There has also
;

been handed down to us, in STOB. Eel. i. 828 (where it is our

Aristo that is meant), a division of the aj/TtATjTTTt/c^ Svvafjus rr\s tyvxys into the aiV07jTi:bz/and the fotJs, the tirst working in connec tion with the bodily organs, and

said by any of our authorities for CLEMENT, who gives a list of the Peripatetic Diadochoi in Strom, i. 201 B (or, at least, the printed text of that passage) passes over Aristo ( after Ari bv stotle SmSe ^ercu Qeoippaffros AVKCOV elra Kpir6S.TpaTcaV Aaos 6?ra Aio Scopos ). PLUT. De
2>i/

Exil. 14, p. 605, does not give a

full
list,

but only names those

Peripatetics

from

abroad,

who came to Athens when he says

the

latter
;

working
also

without
in

organs

and
ii.

SBXT.
ii.

TAvKcav
o>,

K TpwdSos,

Math.

61,

QUINTIL.

15,

19 (cf. infra, p. 483, n. 1) a de finition of Rhetoric, which allows us to suppose that he wrote some

work on the subject. The Frag ments from Aristo in STOBJEUS, Floril. (see Index), belong to the Stoic of that name, as is clearly shown in various passages for example, 4, 110; 80, 5; 82, 7, 11, The information about 15, 16. an Aristo given by SIMPL. Categ., Schol. in Ar. 65, b, 10, 66, a, 38 evidently refers to a younger Peripatetic, one of the successors of Andronicus, and probably the same as he whom SENECA, Ep. It is not 29, 6, makes fun of.
:

Ke KpLToXaos ^CKTTJA/TTJS. Neither does Cic. Fin. v. 5, 13-4 intend to state the order of sequence of the heads of the school, for he is only speaking of the relation of the later Peripa tetics to Aristotle and Theophrastus and so, after naming Strato, Lyco, and Aristo, he con in Prsetereo multos, tinues,
;

his

Hieronymum

also after

a few remarks about him, he adds, Critolaus imitari antiques Thus there appears voluit, &c. to be a possible vacancy for further names between Aristo and
Critolaus,

and this is made some what more probable when we con

clear

PLUT.
In

which Aristo Amator. 21,

Demosth.

is

meant
p.
4,

in

2,

PrfPc. gar.

Reip. 10,

767, p. 804.

30 the printed texts, at any rate, give As to the work IT. /cej/oX?os. 8oi as, as the extract therefrom
10,

PLUT.

sider the time which elapsed between Lyco s and Critolaus s death, which seems very long for only two school directors. Lyco

a^vd PHILODEM. De Vit. x. 10, 23, SAUPPE makes it probable

de Vit. Lib. Dec. pp. 6-7, 34) that they refer to our Aristo. That Critolaus was Aristo s direct successor is not expressly
(Pliilocl.
1

died 226-4 B.C., but Critolaus (see foil, note) was in Rome 156-5 B.C. Supposing that he took this journey during the latter part of his life, we have a period of more than seventy years to cover his and Aristo s
school-directorship,

the forty-four years

directorship
it

and if we add of Lyco s makes in all for

480
1

ARISTOTLE
seems to have been more important.
men
(

cia,

All that

we

the three

nearly 120 years.

d.

ZUMPT

Bestand

Philos.

gap between Aristo and Critolaus, but that it rather seems most
likely that

Schulen in Athen. Abli. d. Berl. Akad. Hist.-phll. Kl. 1842, p. 90

sqq.) is inclined to interpose other names between Aristo and Critolaus, and he cites the Anony-inus of Menage, who at p. lii, 8, avrov West., says SiaSoxoi 8 [Arist.] T7?s <rxoAf;s Kara rdiv
:

he did

nor,

know
:

any intervening directors onymus and the rnulti

he passes over are those

of Hier-

whom whom he

ot Se

AVKLCTKOS,

npvravis, $opjj.{tov KptroAaos. Un fortunately, this evidence is not

y

For we cannot accept as a trustworthy list of the school-chiefs correctly set out Kara rdiv, a statement which
satisfactory.

could not insert in the list of not SidSoxoi since they were school-directors. Also the state ment that Andronicus (or, accord ing- to some, his pupil Boethus) was the twelfth director in suc cession from Aristotle, is de cidedly against ZUMPT S theory. And why, after all, could not the presidencies of Aristo and Cri
tolaus

places between Strato and Lyco,

who

have lasted seventy or eighty years, just as well as that of Lyco lasted forty-four, and that of Theophrastus thirty-six

undoubtedly

followed

directly one upon the other an unknown individual, Praxiteles, not even mentioned in Strato s will (whom we cannot make a contemporary and colleague of ZUMPT would have .Strato, as it, any more than his StaSoxos), and describes as the second in order after Aristo, Praxiphanes, who was a scholar of Theo

? The latter two, by the way, were no longer young when And we they were appointed. know from LUCIAN, Macro!). 20

years

that, Critolaus

(not as
T

ZUMPT,

p.

90, says, Aristo) lived in fact

to over eighty-two j ears of age. The Stoics Chrysippus and Dio

phrastus (xupra, vol.

ii.

p. 449),

and as the

fifth

after

him

at

Athens Phormio, who, as we learn from Cic. De Or at. ii. 18, 75-6, was in 194 B.C. an old man, and in Ephesus, evi dently not merely on a journey
;

genes held the presidency for at least eighty years, and the first five Stoic Diadochoi presided in all for a period of 140 years. Similarly, from 1640 to 1740, and again from 1740 to 1840, only three princes, and from 1G40 to 1786 (i.e. in 146 years) only four princes occupied the throne of
Prussia.
1

and

inserts

the

still

earlier
is

The native town

of Critolaus

Prytanis (supra, vol. ii. p. 477, n. 1) as Aristo s fourth suc cessor: and supplies us in all with as many as seven Diadochoi be tween the years 226 and 156 B.C. On the other side we must remember that CICERO S words do not necessarily imply any

determined by PLUT. ibid, and other evidence. Otherwise the

we have relating to his life is that he took part, in conjunction

with Diogenes and Critolaus, in celebrated embassy which (according to Cic. Acad. ii. 45,
the

only certain piece of information

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

know of
his views
l

481

shows him to have been in the main a 2 true adherent of the Peripatetic teaching, who, however, differed from Aristotle on several Thus he points.
conceived of the soul, including the reason, as consist of ether, 3 and in his Ethics he went ing beyond Ari
4 asserting that pleasure was an evil. his views upon the nature of the respects

stotle in

In other

summum

are thoroughly Aristotelian: he describes it generally as the perfection of a natural life, and further claims for it more particularly that it should embrace the three kinds of Goods/ he among which,

bonwn

however,

137, during the consulship of P.

Scipio 9 A. u.

and M. Marcellus,
c.,

i.e.

598-

et
is

or 15(5-5 B.C.

see

CLIN

Critolaus imitari antiques voluit, quidem est gravitate proxi-

mus, et redundat

TON, Fasti Hellcn.) was sent to the Athenians to de precate the fine of 500 talents which had been imposed on the Athenians for the sack of Oropus. For further information on this

Rome by

quidem

manet.
tures in

oratio, attamen patriis institutes In reference to his lec

in

Rome, GELL. vi. 14, 10 (following Rutilius and Polybius) Violenta et rapid a Carsays:
neades dicebat, scita et teretia Critolaus, modesta Diogenes et
sobria.
2

subject see PAUSAN. vii. 11; Cic. ibid., De Orat. ii. 37, 155, Tu*c. iv. 3, 5, Ad Att. xii. 23 GELL.
;

As CICERO indicates
i.

N. A. vi. 14, 8, xvii. 21, 48; PLIN. 21. N. vii. 30, 112; PLUT. Cato Maj. 22; ^L. V. It. iii. 17 (see
infra as to the historical That bearings of the story). Critolaus, as well as the others, lectured in Rome is expressly
stated (see following note).
is

see

preceding note. 3 STOB. Eel.

Kal

58: KpiTo\aos
vovv
air

AtoSwpos

Tvpios

also

aidepos An. 5 :

airaQovs.

TERTULL.

I)e

earn

Nee illos dico solos, qui [animam] de manifest is cor. .

.

It

and from what we know of the age of his successors, that Crito
laus
life.

also apparent from what has been stated in the foregoing note,

ut Cri poralibus effingunt tolaus et Peripatetici ejus ex quinta nescio qua substantia [the 7re yu,7rT77 ovcria, the ether].

made

this journey late in

GELL. N. A. ix. 5, 6 ; Cri tolaus Peripateticus et malum esse voluptatem ait et multa alia

Except by the fact that he

mala parere ex

lived to be over eighty-two years of age (v. ibid.), tt is not possible to indicate the date of his death.
1

sese, injurias, desidias, obliviones, ignavias. 5 CLEMENS, Strom, ii. 316,

KpirJAaos
Tilths,

Cf. also

5e, 6 Kal ai/Tus UepiTraTt]-

Cic. Fin.

v. 5,

14:

TeAetoTTjTa

eAe7ej/

[sc.

TO

VOL.

II.

I I

482

ARISTOTLE

those of the gave so unconditioned a preference to shrink into complete insignificance soul that the others beside them. Similarly in Physics he came forward as
1

the defender of an important Aristotelian doctrine in maintaining the eternity of the world and of the human
2 He rests his arguments chiefly race against the Stoics. the immutability of the order of nature, which upon

excludes the supposition that man has ever come into exist ence in any other way than as he now does he
;

adduces as indirect proof of the same the multiform

in the idea that primeval man incongruities involved from the earth ; and concludes that man, and sprang

must be eternal, nature having, had already declared, 3 conferred as Plato and upon the whole race by means of propagation the immortality which she was unable to bestow upon
therefore also the world,
Aristotle
individuals.

He
it

further remarks that a self-caused

existence like the world

had a beginning,

must be eternal if the world would exhibit growth and evolution,

;

not only in respect of its material frame, but also of the indwelling reason that governs it this, however, is
;

like it, already perfect. While impossible in a being, or want destroys living creatures, they sickness, age,
evpoovvros fiiov. reAos] Kara fK TUV rpicav yevwv [the three kinds of Goods] 0-17^X77^>ixnv

libra

ilia

Critolai

qui

cum

in

rV

alteram lancem animi bona imponat, in alteram corporis et externa,

pov^ivnv TrpoyovLKyv
TeAei<$T7}Ta

[? di/fl/wTn/cV]

ii

58

STOB. Eel. jurjviW. virb 5e T&V vewrepwv Flept-

tantum propendere illam bonorum animi lancem putet, ut

ruvairo Kpiro\dov, [so. re Aos Ae^erot] rb e Trdvrcav ruv TOVTO o t^TreTrATjpcotteVoi

iraTTjTiKtav,

terram et maria deprimat. 2 PHILO, JEtern. Mundi, p. 943 B 947 B, Hosch., C. 1115, Bern.
3

ayaOwv
1

Se fy rb

e /c

TUV rpwv yevwv.

:

Supra, voi
d.

ii.

p.
i.

35, n. 2

Cic. Tusc. v. 17, 51

quasro,

Quo

cf.

ZELL. Ph.

Gr.

512,

3.

loco

quam vim habeat

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

cannot
affect

483

the world as a whole; if the order or destiny of the world is acknowledged to be eternal, this must also be true of the world itself, which indeed
is

nothing else than the manifestation of this order.

While the leading thoughts of this argument are not new, yet we must recognise in them an able defence of
the Peripatetic doctrine. What Critolaus is of little importance.
l

we

are further told of

Contemporaneous with Aristo and Critolaus was the Peripatetic, whom Hannibal met at 2 Ephesus (circ. 195 B.C.), but of whom beyond the un seasonable lecture which he delivered to the Cartha
Phormio,
ginian hero upon generalship, nothing further is known. 3 To the same period belong 4 apparently Sotion s 5 much-read work on the schools of and the

philosophy
senex,

According to STOB. Eel. i. 252, Critolaus held time to be a 3) ^irnov, and not a See also SEXT. Math. ii. 12, 20. According to QUINTIL. ii. 17, 15, he made sharp attacks on Ehetoric (of which Sext. tells us
i>6r)fj.a
<ris.

delirus

have
years.
3

then

Phormio must been advanced in

something), defining it, accord ing to QUINT, ii. 15, 23, as usus diccndi (and QUINT, adds, nam hoc rpifi}) significat}, which means (as PLATO had said in the Gnrg. 463 B) that it was not an art but a mere readiness of speech Further acquired by practice. information as to what he said in connection with this criticism of oratory may be found in GELL.
2

MANN, TIapa8o6 p. 1!)1). 5 Cf. WESTERMANN, Uapa5oo and see p. xlix; particularly PANZERBIETER,
ypa<poi,
7pa</>ot,

For, as already remarked, of the statement of the ANON. MEN. cited at p. 480, n. supra. 4 That Sotion was a Peri patetic is not expressly stated, but is evident from the whole character of his writings. Of. SOTION, De Fluv. 44 (WESTER-

we can make nothing

Sotion,

Supplement,

We

where
have this incident from

it is

Cic. De Orat. ii. 18. As Hanni bal was then with Antiochus in

given by

Jahrbb. 211 sqq. shown from the data DIOGENES that the
v.

in

Ja Jin s

(1837)

p.

must have been about Ephesus, the time stated in the text and as he called the philosopher a
it
;

must have been written between 200 and 150 B.C. probably between 200 and 170 B.C.: inasmuch as, on the one hand, Chrysippus, who
Aia5o^?7 TUIV
(f>i\o(r6(f>a}v

i2

484
histories

ARISTOTLE
of

Hermippus

and

Satyrus.

Heraclides

died about 206, was mentioned in the book (Dioa. vii. 183), and, on the other hand, Heraclides

Lembus (de quo infra) made an extract from it. PANZEEBIETER also makes it probable that the AtaSox?? consisted of 13 books, whose contents he endeavours to
To this work belong indicate. also the references in ATHEN.
iv. 62, e,
viii.

In this case we must persons. also attribute to that Peripatetic (ZELL., Hid. iii. a, 694, 2nd ed.) the citations in ALEX. APHE. Top. 123 (which appear to be from a commentary on Ari
stotle),

and
i.

in
is

CEAMEE S
3
;

Anecd.

Paris,

391,

same man
and Alex.
hand, the

and the perhaps meant in

c.

PLTJT. Frat.

Am.

16,

p.

487,

348, c, xi. 505, c;

vii.

SEXT.
viii.

Math.

15.

ATHEN.

On the other moral maxims cited by

c. 61.

336, d, tells us of another work of Sotion s, Trepl TUV Ti/j.wvos

<Ti\\uv.

STOB^US
teacher.

belong
It is

to

Seneca

It is very questionable

whether
possible

it is chronologically that he could have written the 12 books AioKA-eiW eAe 7x wI/ directed against Diocles of Magnesia (v. DION. x. 4). At any rate the Ke pas A/j.a\0eias,
T (GELL. J\ A. i. 8, 1, cf. with PLIN. H. N. prasf. 24), the frag
.

impossible to say who was the Sotion frequently cited in the Geoponica, but he was in any case not the author of the M. HERTZ AtaSoxr]. Kamenta Gelliana (Brest. Universitatschrift, 1868) p. 15-6 attributes the Ke pas A^aA.0. to the elder Sotion, but this does not follow from what is said by

ment on
p.

WESTEEMANN

rivers S

and springs

(in

GELL.
1

i.

8,

cf.

ATHEN.

xiii.

napa8o6ypa.<poi,

183 sqq., cf. with PHOT. Blbl. Cod. 189), which was probably part of the last-named work, the
writing
14,
10",

588 c; DIOG. ii. 74. See LOZYNSKI, IIerndp])i PEELLER, Fraf/m. Bonn, 1832 in JaJm s Jahrb. 1836, xvii. 159
;

IT.

opyris

(STOB. Floril.

sqq.
iii.

MULLER,
;

Fraf/m. Hist. Gr.

and
the

15) those from which are derived

20, 53, 108, 59, 113,

NIETZSCHE, Rliein. sqq. Mus. xxiv. 188-9, z. HEEMIPPUS

is

35

Fragments

apud

STOB.

described

by

HIEEON.

De

Floril. 84, 6-8, 17. 18, belong to one or perhaps to two younger men of the same name. should say to one, if the Peri

We
by
A/*.

Script. Eccl. c. 1 (whose autho rity is not of much value) as a Peripatetic, and by ATHEN. ii. 58-9, v. 213-4, xv. 696-7 as 6

patetic
is

Sotion mentioned GELL. as author of the Kepa?

identical with the Sotion
(ft/list.

who

was Seneca s

49. 2, 108,

17-20) teacher in the school of Sextus (ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. iii. a,

600, 3, 605, 3) Hist. Gr. iii.
;

MULLEE, Fragm.

granted that this but theie seems to

1GS takes it for is the case, be some pro bability that they were different

the pupil of KaAAiuax e os, i.e. he is, therefore, Callimachus the same Hermippus probably is said to be a native of Srnyrr in ATHEN. vii. 327 c. As hear that in his chief work he mentioned the death of Chrysippus (DiOG. vii. 184) whei he is not referred to as an autho
;

for later events, we may infer that he must have writtei

rity

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

Lembus,
about 200
1

485

Agatharchides and Antisthenes

of

Rhodes

The

B.C. or soon after. citation in the Etymol. M. 118, 11 would carry the elate a little further to about 203 B.C. if the work there referred to was by him see MULLER S note to Fr. 72. Of his books, we hear of a great work of biography, the Bioi, different parts of which seem to have been known by various names.A separate
;

verbs (DiONYS. HAL.Antigititt. i. 68) are probably, but not cer of a later tainly, the work scholar of whom (if he existed) we do not know whether he was or was not a Peripatetic (for in ATHEN. xiii. 55(5, a, only our Satyrus can be meant, and he is in fact always designated in the

second

work

IT.

ru>v

eV

TraiSeia

(Etym. M. ibid.), of which the IT. TWV 5iaTTpe\l/di>Tcav eV TrcwSem 5ov\(av cited by SUIDAS s. v. "la-rpos was no doubt a part, is with a great balance of proba bility ascribed by PEELLEE, MULLEE and others to the later
5ia\a/j.il/dvTwv

same manner). We can say with more certainty that the poem on precious stones, which PLIN. H. JY. xxxvii. 2, 31, 6, 91, 7, 94, cites as by a Satyrus, was not the work of our Peripatetic. Cf. MULLEE, iUd. 159, and the Fragments there, which in so far

As to Hermippus of Berytus. other writings ?z0belongingto our Hermippus, see PEELLEE, p. 174 For the list of the works of sqq.
Aristotle
p. 51.

they are genuine, contain only historical matter, excepting those from the Characters. See MULLEE, Hist. Gr. iii. 167 sqq. HEEACLIDES, surnamed
1

as

and Theophrastus pro

bably given in the Bioi, see vol. i. In like manner, SATYEUS is described as a Peripatetic
in
248, d. xii. 534, His b, 541, c. xiii. 556, a. chief work was a collection of biographies, cited as the Bfot
vi.

Lembus (cf. MULLEE, ibid.), came, according to DIOG. v. 94, from Calatis in Pontus or from Alex andria; according to SUIDAS,
s.r.

ATHEN.

Hpa/cA.

from Oxyrynchus in

(cf.
xii.

ATHEN.
541,
c,

248, d, f, 250 f, xiii. 557, c, 584, a

vi.
;

DIOG. ii. 12, viii. Adv. Jovin. ii.

Ecol.
c.

40, 53
14,

HIEEON.
Script.

DG
called

fully (as

1), and is inferred

iib.

more

by BEEN AYS, and

Egypt. According to SUID. he lived under Ptolemy Philometor (181-147 B.C.) in a distinguished SUID. calls him position. ffofyos, and adds that he was the author of philosophical and other works. As his helper Agath archides (see following note) is counted among the Peripatetics,
<pi\6-

Theophr. Adv. Joe.} Biot eV8o wi/ Further ATHEN. iv. 168 avSpuv.

Fro mm. 161 from

HlEE.

his own literary activity lay in this direction, we may include him also as one of the school.

a writer who evidently our Satyrus, a frag ment from a work IT. xapaKT^puv. Another book in which a list of the Denies of Alexandria was given (THEOPHIL. Ad Autol. ii. p. 94), and a collection of pro
E,

cites

from

is

The Ae/j-^evTiK^s Ao 7os, which is said to have been the origin of his surname (DiOG. ibid.), was
probably a philosophical work; but the most important of his works were, in any way, those which were historical. We know
of an historical

work

in at least

48G
are rather later. 1

ARISTOTLE

No single utterance on philosophy, has been preserved to us from any of these. however, More important for us is Diodorus of Tyre, 2 the suc
cessor of Critolaus.

with his master,

In his view of the soul he agreed but differed from him and from
century (MiJLLEE, Hist. Gr. 182, believes the two to
iii.

thirty-seven books, an extract from the biography of Satyrus (DiOG. viii. 40, 44, 53, 58), and a AtoSox^ in six books, which was an epitome of Sotion s work (DiOG. v. 94, 79, viii. 7, x. 1). See the Fragm. of these, apud

be

different persons). The citations in Diogenes do not carry us beyond the death of Cleanthes

(MULLER,

ibid.).

That

the

MULLEE, ibid. AGATHAECHIDES

1

of Cnidos,
xiv.

pseudo-Aristotelian MayiKbs probably belonged to this Antisthenes of Rhodes has been already re-

6
2,

etc

rwv irepnraTow (STBABO,

p.

was secretary to the above-named Heraclides Lembus (PHOT. Cod. 213 init.), and was afterwards (as we learn from his own words apud PHOT,
15,

656),

marked, supra, vol. i. p. 81, n. 1. STOB. Eel. i. 58, calls this Diodorus a Tyrian, and in ClC.
Fin. v. 5, 14, Strom. 1, 301 B, he is described as the disciple and successor of Critolaus. Otherwise nothing is known about him, and it is impossible to define the date of his death or of his accession to the headship of the school; if. however, we can trust what Cic. says in the De Orat. ibid., he must have been still alive in 110 B.C. (see
i.

De

Orat.

11, 45,

and

CLEM.

Cod. 250, p. 445, a, 33, 460, b, G) the tutor of a prince (MtJLLEE, ibid. 191 supposes, with WESSEthat it was Ptolemy LING,
II., who reigned from 117-107 B.C.). Agatharchides wrote several historical and ethnographical works, of which one on the Red Sea has been pre-

Physcon

served in great
rest see

part,
;

by PHOT.
as to the

ZUMPT,

Ueber

d.

Cod. 250, pp. 441-460

philos. Schulen in

A then.,

Bestand d. Abh.

So d. Berl. Akad. Hist.-phil. Kl. MULLER, p. ANTISTHENES is spoken of by 1842, p. 93) but this, in view of as a Peri- the facts set out in n. 3 on p. 487 PHLEGON, Mirab. 3,
;

190 sqq.

patetic author, of

and

distinguished

infra,
3

is

whom he tells us a wonderful story about an alleged occurrence of the year 191 B.C. He is probably the same as the Peripatetic whose Ata5ox* Diogenes often cites, and is. perhaps, also to be identified with the historian from Rhodes, who, according to POLYBIUS, xvi. 14, was still alive during the first thirty years or so of the second

questionable,
;

So STOE. ibid.
ii.

see supra,

he did overlook the difference between the rational and the irrational in the soul;
vol.
p. 481, n. 3.
Still,

not

propose

to

for,
1,

according to PLUT. Fragm.

Utr.

An. an Corp.

c.

6,

2 (if

here AioScapos

read for take the AidSoi/ros, or AidSoros adopted by Dfibner as being another form of the same

may be if we may

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

487

Aristotle in his ethics, uniting with their views upon the summum lonuni those of Hieronymus, and to a
certain

extent

combining

the

Stoic

and Epicurean

ethical principles with one another by maintaining that ! happiness consists in a virtuous and painless life ; as,

however, virtue was declared by him to be the most essential and indispensable element in it, this deviation
is

in

reality
3

less

important

than at

first

appears.

Erymneus,
name),

the successor of Diodorus,

we know

only

Xoyiicbv

allowed that the the tyvxr] had its special irddrj, and that the ffv/jio-cfyioTt] and a\oyov [sc. T

he
of

<J>ues

which can iraflr? also be reconciled with the airaQes of Stob. by supposing that he held that the modifications of the rational portion of the soul, of activities the including thought, were improperly de
had special
;

mus], re Aos airotyaiveTcu rb 0.0%ATJTCOS /cal Ka\ws rjv. 2 We find also a definition of Rhetoric ascribed to a Diodorus (NiKOL. Procjymn. Rhet. Gr.

apud SPENGEL,

iii.

451, 7),

which

scribed traQos. 1 Gic.Fin.v. 5, 14: Diodorus, ejus [Critol.] auditor, adjungit

implies that he wrote about Rhetoric. There is the less reason to doubt that this Dio dorus is the Peripatetic, since we have seen that the same question arose in the cases of Aristo and Critolaus siqjra, vol. ii. p. 483,
;

n. 1.

ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. Hie quoque suus est de summoque bono dissentiens dici vere Peripateticus non potest. So also
;

The long and detailed frag ment of POSIDONIUS, preserved by ATHEN. v. 211, d sqq., gives
3

25, 73,

ii.

6, 19,
ii.

and Acad,
11, 34:

ii.

42,

131;

cf.

Fin.
:

Callipho

ad virtutem nihil adjunxit, nisi voluptatem Diodorus, nisi va

Tusc. v. 30, cuitatem doloris. Indolentiam autem honest85 ati Peripateticus Diodorus ad Eadem [like lUd. 87 junxit.
: :

the history of one Athenion, de scribed as a Peripatetic, who had studied first in Messene and in Larissa (the addition that he became head of the school in

Athens

the Stoics] Calliphontis erit Diodorique sententia quorum uter;

is plainly a blunder of Athenaeus, which is refuted by his own quotation from Posidonius), and had then contrived by flattery to ingratiate himself

with Mithridates, and so to make

que honestatem
ut

omnia, longe et retro ponenda censeat. CLEMENS, Strom, ii. 415 c wol
:

sic complectitur, quse sine ea sint,

himself for a time the master of Athens (meaning evidently the

ir

TTS

-yv6p.evos

[as Hierony

same man who is called Aristion by PLUT. Sulla, 12, 13, 23, and elsewhere, and who is described by APPIAN, Mithr, 28, as an Epi-

488

ARISTOTLE
to

by name. With regard two philosophers who in

ethics occupy

Callipho and Dinomachus, an intermediate

they belonged. Among our sources of information with regard to the state of the Peripatetic philosophy during the third and second century B.C. are probably to be reckoned

position between the Epicureans and the Peripatetics, we are wholly ignorant to which school
1

excluded

most of the writings which our previous investigation as spurious from the collected works of

Aristotle.

While the contribution they supply

it is

is

an
but

insignificant one, yet that it will repay us to

not so wholly worthless

its

examine

contents.

To

this

class belongs, in the field of logic, the second part of the

Categories, which has probably come down to us in its 2 present form from that period. Important as these socalled Postprasdicamenta of the later logic may have

been, yet the treatment which a few of the principles of Aristotelian logic here receive cannot but

appear

and Posidonius says explicitly that this man was a natural son of Athenion, a pupil of Erymneus. As Athens recurean)
;

volted

the rule of the 88 B.C., it follows from the account given in this

from
in

CLEMENT says, they sought in pleasure, but they further explained that virtue was equally valuable or rather, according to
as
it
;

Tiisc.

v.

Romans

30,

87

indispensable.
v. 25, 73,

According to Cic. Fin.

Fragment that Erymneus cannot have begun his headship of the school later than 120-110 B.C.
1

was older than Callipho Diodoru*. and according to Acad.

ii.

45, 139, older, or at

any rate

What is known of

these two
Fin.
ii.

younger, than Carneades. It is not stated to what school

not

philosophers through Cic. ii. 6, 19, 11, 34 (supra, vol.

p.

487, n. 1), v. 8, 21, 25, 73, Acad. ii. 42, 131, T-USG. v. 30, 85, 87,
Offic,.
iii.
ii.

34,

Strom,
this:

415

c,

119, and CLEM, limits itself to

he and Dinomachus belonged; but EARLESS (Fabric. SiMloth. iii. 491) makes a gross mistake when he suggests that this Dinomachus is Stoic mentioned
"the

by LuciAN,
2

that they thought to find the highest happiness in the union of pleasure and virtue, or,

Pltilopseud. 6 sqq. for the latter was evidently a contemporary of Lucia n.

Supra,

vol.

i.

p. 64, n.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

insignificant to us,
e

489

and a like judgment must be passed the last chapter of the work Trspl ^p^r)vsias. 1 upon The spurious treatise on the Elements of Metaphysics 2
contains, with the exception of a passage in the second

book already touched upon, 3 scarcely any modification

The work upon Melissus, /eno and Gorgias, of the date of whose composition
of the Aristotelian doctrine.

we know absolutely not so much by any

stotelian teaching as

nothing, proves its spuriousness positive deviations from the Ari

by the defects of

its

historical

statements and critical expressions, as well as by the 4 Of works upon Physics general obscurity of its aim.
tion as an example of the eclectic

World will hereafter engage our atten method of combining and Stoic doctrines. 5 The treatise upon In Peripatetic divisible Lines which, if it is not the work of Theothe book upon the
6 phrastus himself, appears to date from his time, ably combats a view which Aristotle had rejected. To the

treatises

school of Theophrastus and Strato perhaps belong the upon Colours, Sounds, the Vital Spirit, and the
1

The Postprcedicamenta treat

c. the four 10-1, (1) kinds of opposition which have been described already, supra, vol. i. p. 223 sqq. (2) c. 12, the different significations of the

of

motion, in agreement with the views stated supra, vol. i. p. 428, n. 1; (5) c. 15, on the *x ll/ the meanings of which are set out rather differently from the Aristotelian account in Metapli.
f

with a slight, but TTporepov, dissent from merely, formal Metaph. v. 11; (3) c. 13, the signiti cations of the li/na, this section being only based in part

v. 23.
2

Of.

with supra,
vol.
ii.

vol.

i.

p. 66,

n. 1.
1. Supra, Of. herewith ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 4G4 sqq. 5 ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. iii. a, 558 sqq. 2nd ed.
4 G 3

p. 429, n.

upon
part
foe.),

the earlier texts and in

WAITZ, ad (cf. though not contrary to the

original

views

of

concerning

Aristotle; (4) c. 14, the six kinds of

Cf. supra, vol.

d.

i.

and ZELL. Ph.

Gr.

i.

p. 86, n. 1, 868, 4.

490

ARISTOTLE

works which are not without inde and exhibit evidence of respectable work in pendence, the field of science. The first of these, differing widely from Aristotle, traces the origin of the colours to the elements, of which fire is said to be yellow while the
rest are naturally white
;

Motions of Animals

black

is

caused by the trans

mutation of one element into another, the burning up of air and water and the drying up of water. 1 All
colours are said to be mixtures of these three elements. 2

described as the proper colour of fire 3 that it 4 is conceived of as corporeal is obvious, not only from its being classed, as we have just seen, with the colours,

Light

is

but also from the way in which the lustre and the
dulness of thick transparent bodies are alike explained. 5 Upon the further contents of this treatise, as it goes on
to discuss in detail the preparation of colours

and the

natural hues of plants and animals,

we cannot here

stop to enlarge.
;

With

regard, similarly, to the short

For more 10, c. 3, 793, b, 33. detailed theories on the origin of the different colours, see c. 2, 3.
C. 1, 791, b, Gsqq. cf. with 791, a, 3. 4 Strato held the same views on this, but not Aristotle or
:

1 De Color, c. 1 PRANTL, Arist. v. d. Farben, 108, finds in this treatise a confusion of two views (a) that darkness is either the absence or partial absence of light (the latter in the case of shadows or of rays penetrating through the density of some
:

Theophrastus
518, n. 3, vol.
5

supra, vol.

i.

p.

transparent body) and (J) that blackness is to be explained in the manner stated in the text. The inconsistency, however, is for the O-/COTOS, only apparent which produces the appearance of the blackness (791, a, 12), is to be distinguished from the p.\av xp&pa) which is the quality of bodies tending to check light
; :

ii.

p. 379, n. 1.

Lustre (o-Tt A^oj/) is (c. 3, 793, a, 12) a ffvvfx la (parks KOI TTVKVOTIIS transparent matter looks dark, when it is too thick to allow the rays of light to pierce
:

it,

like air, which in too dense a

and bright when it is thin, when not present

form
l

is

overcome
I^

by the rays

x w P CtJLJ/os

7r

OUT&JJ

and produce VKOTOS (791,

2

b, 17).

C, 1, 791, a, 11, c. 2, 792, a,

TTVKvoTtpuv OIHTWV Kal 8ia(f>aivo/Ji.ev(av 5i avrov (c. 3, 794, a, 2 sqq.).

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STEATO

work upon Sounds, which
to that
in tone

491

and method is related

on Colours, and
1

is

to

be attributed perhaps to the

same author, it will be sufficient to refer to our previous We must assume a different author quotation from it. 2 for the work upon the Vital Spirit, which discusses in a

somewhat sceptical tone the origin, sustenance, dif fusion, and operation of the anima ritce accepted by
3 This Aristotle as the primary substratum of the soul. book, on account of its fragmentary character and the

numerous corruptions in the

incomprehensible to us.

text, is

sometimes almost

Its general presuppositions of

4 design in nature, and of a soul and vital spirit united with it 5 in man, are Aristotelian. Peculiar to itself, on

the other hand,

the assumption that the vital spirit, 6 as Erasistratus had held, spreads from the heart by
is

means of the
it

arteries

is

this (and not, as Aristotle held, the flesh)

through the whole body, and that which

is

the primary organ of sensation. 7 Inspiration, the the consumption and distribution of the food, 8 pulse,
are effects of the operation of the vital spirit, which

nourishes itself from the blood, the breath serving only, The relation of the as Aristotle had taught, to cool it. 9
1

Supra, vol.

ii.

p. 465, n. 8.
cf.

As
i.

to

which
11.

also supra,

vol.
3
4

p. 89,

3,

ad Jin.
ii.

Supra,

vol.

p. 6, n. 2.
,

Of. c. 7, 484, b, 11

27 sqq.

c. 9,
5

485, b, 2 sqq. C. 9, 4S5, b, 11

phrastus (supra, vol. ii. p. 451, n. 2), and as to his theory of the dissemination of the pnenma through the arteries, see SPRENGEL, Gesok. d. Arznuik. 4 ed. i. 525 sqq. on the relations of the
;

cf.

with

c.

ir.

TrvevpaTus

480, a, 17, c. 4, 482, b, 22, c. The subject 5, 483, a, 27 sqq. of the treatise did not give any occasion for the statement of any view as to the Nous. 6 As to this physician, who was probably a pupil of Theo1,

see KOSE, 167-8.

7

De

to his teaching Arist. Lilr. Qrd.

c. 2,
s y

C. 5, 483, a, 23 sqq. b, 10-26, 481, b, 12, 18. C. 4-5. Cf. supra, vol. ii. p. 6, n. 2,

p. 43.

492
1

ARISTOTLE
which was said to reside in the
is

operative pneuma,

sinews and nerves, 2 to this vital principal

altogether clear.
3

not

made

Of

a later date than this treatise, 4

is

and much more

one upon the Motion of Animals, clearly written, to be the work of Aristotle, 5 inad which professes
missible as this claim
is.
6

The contents of this work are

almost entirely drawn from Aristotle, but are in parts so combined as wholly to contradict the spirit of his
It starts from the principle that all mo teaching. tion must ultimately be referred to a self-moving and unmoved entity, 7 but proceeds by a singular applica

tion of
1

it

to

draw the conclusion that every mechanical

The
first

at

p.
3

C. 1-2, c. 5 ad Jin. where 484, a, 8 we must read

:

words of the

ir.

(TVfji^VTOV TTCCS

T)

Siap-Off),

&C.

Kivhffews present it as the r completion of an earlier inquin

The sinews and nerves were not distinguished by Herophilus,

discoverer of nerves, or by his contemporary, Erasistratus, or indeed for a long time
first

which
dicate

is

evidently the TT.

c. 1,

meant
(av

to in

^<f

Topeias.

the

Again
6,

in

698, a, 7

we have
in
c.

a reference to Pliys.
(cf.
TT.

viii.

at p. 700, b, 4, lines 21

and

afterwards, but they were desig nated as a whole by the common

term

veDpa,

which had originally

the

(f>i\offo<pias

only SPRENGEL, ibid. 511-12, 524-25.

signified
3

sinews

TT. TT.

supra, vol. i. p. 80) to the TJ/VXTJS and the IT. rrjs TrpwT-rjs in c. 11 ad Jin. to the cpcav ^.op .tav, the TT. ^U^TJS, the
;
y<av

aiffO /jcrecas Kal virvov Kal /ui/^/irjJ,

C.

8 init. (where at p. 485,

:

a, 4

we should probably read

:
&j>

3 eVri \6yov &\TIOV ws vvv Ci?T6ii/) OVK 5^|ere K.ivr\eveKa ra otTTa, aAAa /j.a\\ov rb avdhoyov, eV $ vevpa rb irvev/j.a rb Kivr)TiK6v. * As we see from the fact that the IT. TTj/evfjiaTos is quoted in the
ir)

to the IT. yevto-eus as an immediately preceding treatise. These references are made jus*-, in the way in which Aristotle himself was accustomed to quote

and

(pwv Kiv-fiffzcas c. 10, 703, a, 10 supra, vol. i. p. 92. The pos sibility that both works have the same author is not excluded: but the style and manner of ex pression differ too much.
TT.
:

cf.

Nevertheless the v. is so free, both in style and matter, from any of the marks which would betray a very late date, that we should not be justified in referring it to a time subsequent to the war s, of Andro(?wv
KLvf]ffeu>s

his works.

nicus.
6

Supra,
C.
1,

vol.

i.

p. 93, n. 1.

698, a, 7 sqq. (where

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

:

493

in the motion presupposes two unmoved entities itself a motionless point from which the motion thing

of it a motionless body proceeds, and outside from which it again the thing rests ; which
l

upon
con

cludes that principle which propels the the latter, but must be out world cannot ba within 2 It further shows in a discussion with side of it.

the unmoved

which we are already

familiar, how the presentation of the desirable object to the mind creates the desire, and 3 this in turn the physical movements, which all proceed from the centre of the body as the seat of sensation or,

to

be

strict,

from the

soul,

which there has

its

abode. 4

The soul thus operates upon the body by means of the expansion and contraction, the rise and fall of the vital
spirit (nTvsvfjia

av^vrov).
it is

In order that
it

it

should so

operate, however,
its seat in

not necessary that

should leave

body,

the heart and act directly upon all parts of the of order that since, in virtue of the principle
its
5 decrees find automatic fulfilment.

governs the whole,

we should read
atcii/TjTOj/),
1

TOUTOU

8e

TO

Aristotle s belief as to the

still-

700, b, 7. C. 1, 698, a, 11, c. 2 ad Jin. have and c. 4, 700, a, 6 sqq. also at 698, a, 11 the remarkable statement 5e? Se TOVTO povov
c. 6,
;

and

ness of

We

the earth, but this is hardly his meaning. He is only carried away in the heat of controversy into using an argument which would make, in fact, against Aristotle himself.
3

T<?

e-rrl

Si

KCU \6ycf Ka06\ov Aa^elz/, TWV KaOeKaa-ra Kal rwv alffdfjTcai , avep Kal rovs KaQo\ov ^TOV^V

^ a\\a

C. 6-8; Sl(jjra,vo\.
C. 9.

ii.

p.

110

sq.
l

\6yovs which is an exaggeration of the view which is indicated as that of Aristotle, supra, vol. i.

C. 10.

This recalls both the

TT.

1(57.
-

work quoted, the and also the TT.

irvevpaTos,

C. 3-4, where the myth of Atlas referred to in De Ctelo, ii. 1, 284, a, 18, is proved to be

We mechanically impossible. might conclude from 699, a, 31 share that the author did not

which, in the discussion it contains as to the action of God on the world (c. 6, 398, b, 12 sqq, 400, b, 11 sqq.), appears to have in view the passage referred to in the text, as also c. 7, 701, b, 1.
KO<T/J.OV,

494

ARISTOTLE

The pamphlet ends with some remarks upon involun

tary movements.
1

Among

we must reckon

the superior pseudo-Aristotelian writings also the Mechanical Problems? which,

little

however, contain too

to detain us here.

of a philosophical character

Even the work on Physiognomy,

however mistaken the attempt as a whole, furnishes us with an example of logical methods and careful, some times even keen, observation. Its leading thought is 3 the complete interdependence of from body and soul it concludes that there must be certain which physical
;

indications of moral and intellectual characteristics, the extent and subtilty of which may be measured both

by

the analogy of certain of the lower animals and by the impression produced by the figure, features and gait.
this latter subject many of its observations are not 4 without value. The tenth book of the Natural

On

History deviates from one of the fundamental principles of the Aristotelian physiology 5 by the assumption of a female
seed, but in other respects gives evidence of careful

observation, remarkable for that time.

it

belongs
1

to

the

school

of

Strato. 6

At the earliest The pseudo-

C. 11.

2
3

Supra,
C.
1

vol.
:

i.

init.

p. 86, n. 1. ori al Sidvoiai

urrep rov /nrj yevvav, which has been mentioned supra, vol. i. p.

(irovrai ro?s

0-do/j.ao-i,

Kal OVK ehlv

ov<rai

avral Kaff eouros aTrafleTs rov o-(t>naros Ktv^ffctav . rovvavriov 82? rots rrjs tyvxys
.

ruv
Kal

87, n. 1. 5 C. 5, 636, b, 15, 26, 37, c. 6 Jin. C. 2, 634, b, 29, 36, c. 3, 636, a, 11, c. 4 Jin. &c., wherewith cf.
vol.
6 ii.

irad f)-

p.

50

sq.

p.affi

r)i
<r>/j.a

ffu/j.ird(rxov
:

4 init. /uot rj tyvxb Kal rb trw^a (Tv/u.-jraOe iv This o-vpirdGeia redAAyjAots &c. calls the terminology of the
yivfrai &c.
;

c.

tpbv So/ce? Se
fyai

The female seed has already

been discussed in connection with Strato, supra, vol. ii. p. 466, n. 1. This book differs still further from Aristotle (as KOSE,
Arist. Libr. Ord. 172, points out) in that it inculcates that the

Stoics.
4

Probably identical with the

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

495

Aristotelian Tales of the Marvellous cannot be adduced as examples of independent research, but only as a

proof of the uncritical eagerness with which the later learning was wont to collect even the most improbable
statements, if only they were surprising enough and the same is in the main true of the form in which the
;

Problems have

come down

to us.

These works are

useless to us in a history like the present, if for no other reason, because we are entirely ignorant through

how many hands they have come, and when they

received their present form. Among the ethical works in the Aristotelian collection
there are three besides the
later Peripatetic origin
: 1

Eudemian

Ethics which are of

the essay upon Virtues and Vices, the so-called MagnaMoralia, and the Economics. The first
of these will

come before us hereafter among the evidences

of the Eclecticism of the younger Peripatetic school. The Magna Moralia is an abbreviated reproduction of

the Nicomachean and the

Eudemian

Ethics,

which (apart
of these)

from the books which are

for the

common
2

to both

most part follows the

latter,

although in indivi

dual sections preferring the former. The essential points of the earlier works are as a rule intelligently grasped and placed in due prominence, sometimes even receiving
seed
is

absorbed through the

TTi/eCjua,

and not, as Aristotle believed, by the warmth of the

(c. 2, 634, b, 34, c. 3, 636, That a, 4, c. 5, 637, a, 15 sqq.). the book is post- Aristotelian is

and

uterus

See supra, vol. i. p. 96 sqq. see also p. 85, n., as to the Aristotelian fragment on the Signs of the Weather; and as to
!
;

the books on Plants, which do not here concern us, see p. 93

n. 2.
2

again proved by the passage on the /AuA.77, c. 7, 638, a, 10-18, which is copied, word for word, from the Gen. An. iv. 7, 775, a, 27 sqq.

pliilos.-philol. Kl. d.
iii.

SPENGEL, Abhandl. d Bayr. Akad 515-6; BRANDTS, ii. b, 1566.

Cf.

496

ARISTOTLE

further development and elucidation. The manner of presentation is in parts clumsy and not free from repe titions, nor is the proof always convincing, while the
1

which the writer frequently delights to propose, receive an unsatisfactory solution, or none at all. 2 In the original parts of the work we find much that is more or
,

less

at

variance

ethics. 3
1

The author avoids the

with the spirit of the Aristotelian religious view of ethics

and into TeAeia and areA?). The methods already introduced by the Stoics seem to have influenced
the writer of the

Kg.

B. i. 1, 1183, b, 8 sqq. Soil. 3, 1199, a, l<)-b, 36,

ii.

15, 1212, b,

37 sqq.

b,

27 sqq.

The

i. 35, 1127, difficulties so

M. Nor. in

seriously discussed at ii. 6, 1201, 16 sqq. are curiously and a, characteristically petty. 3 In this respect the following
i. 2-3 points may be noticed gives us various divisions of the kinds of Good, of which only that into spiritual, bodily, and exter nal goods (in c. 3) is Aristote lian, and the subdivision of the spiritual goods into dpovna-ts,
:

this matter, for we know some thing of their fondness for mul

distinctions between different senses of the ayaOttv, do

tiplying

quo

v.

STOB.

ii.

92-102, 124-5,

130, 136-7; DIOG. vii. 94-98; Cic. Fin.iii. 16, 55; SEXT. Pyrrh.
iii.

aperrj,

and
ii.

7)Soj/rj

is

taken from

181 SENECA, Epist. 66, 5, 36-7. As these Stoical classifi cations had their origin chiefly in the work of Chrysippus, we
;

1218, b, 34, where, however, these three are not given as a division, but are only intended as examples of spiritual goods. Peculiar to this author is the division of goods into the
1,

JKud.

might found upon this circum stance an inference as to the

of the M. Mor. itself. Again, though it is not true that the M. Mor. leaves out the clianoetic virtues (for only the name is wanting, and at i. 5, 1185, b, 5, i. 35, the subject is really dealt with), yet, on the other hand, it is against the Aristotelian prin ciples to say, as the author does, that only the virtues of the &\oyov (i.e. the ethical virtues, which, therefore, are alone named dperal) are eTraij/erat, but that those of the \6yov ^x ov are n t

date

n fua (God, the

Soul, the Nous,

&c.), the

the

eVatj/era (the Virtues), Swd/jLeis (a curious expression

Swd/j.i ayaOa, i.e. the things, such as riches, beauty, &c., which may be used for good or evil), and fourthly, the ffwffnKOV KO.I ironiTiKbv TOV ajaOov pecu liar to him also are the divisions into things which are good un conditionally or good condition ally (i.e. virtues and external T\TJ (as goods), into re Arj and health and the means to health),
;
ot>

for the

1185, b, 5 sqq. c. 35, 1197, The author, in this respect dissenting from Aristotle, under the head of the dianoetic virtues
(i. 5,

a, 16).

combines

reyi/Tj

with

t-mffr-hu.-!}.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER 8TRATO

which he found in Eudemus.
tion
1

497

Of the

later

combina

of

the

Peripatetic
his

teaching with

Stoic

and
a
;

Academic elements
which term

work contains hardly a

35>

trace

in the M. Mor. is constantly used for T^xvn (i1197, a, 18, cf. with the Mo. Mh. vi. 5, 1140, b, 21 and 1198, a, 32,
;

ii. 7, 1205, a, 31, 120(5, a, 25, cf. Nic. Etli. vii. 12-13, 1152, b, 18, 1153, a, 23; ii. 12, 1211, b, 25, cf. Mo. Etli. x. 7, 1167 b, 33 only in M. Mor. i. 35, 1197, a, 12 sqq. is re ^j/yj used in the same \\ay as in Me. Etli. vi. 4, 1140, see SPENGEL, ibid. p. a, 11; 447) while, on the other hand, the M. MOT. oddly adds to the four remaining dianoetic virtues viroA^is as a fifth (i. 35, 1196, b, When the author defines 37). justice in a wide sense as aper^j reAem, and adds that in this sense a man can be just for himself alone (i. 94, 1193, b, 2-15), he overlooks the closer definition given by Aristotle, that it is the apery reAem Trpbs erfpov (supra, vol. ii. p. 170, n. 2). As to the question whether a man can do himself an injustice, which Ari stotle had dealt with in the Mo. Eth. v. 15 ad fin. metaphorically as referring to the injustice of one part of the soul towards another, the author of the M. Mor. takes it literally (i. 34,
;

they are not always good for individual people and when the author (in ii. 7, 1204, b, 25 sqq.) describes pleasure as a movement of the sensitive part of the soul, he follows Theophrastus rather than Aristotle cf supra ii DD
; ;
.

147, 391, n. 2.

In the discussion on evrvx a, (M. Mor. ii. 8 End. vii. 14) the author that it consists
1

0eij/, in that he supposes God to apportion good evil according to merit and, with Eudemus (tii-pra, vol. ii. p. 424 sq.), he traces it back partly to a /J.7dwTca<Tis TTpay/m.dTcaj/, but partly also and to the

in an

eVi^Ae^

^suggests

and

T>V

chiefly

with Eudemus

happy disposition of the person s nature (the <iW &\oyos), the operation of which he compares with that of an enthusiasm, admitting, however, as did his predecessors, that it is directed by a Divine Being. The author of the M. Mor. further agrees
(sujjra, vol.
ii.

p.

1196,
his

a,

25,

ii.

11,
if

So the question

1211, a, 27).

man can

be

friend was similarly treated by EUDEMUS, vii. 6, 1240, 13 sqq. b, 28 sqq. and M. Mor. a,

own

The M. 1211, a, 30 sqq. very unaristotelian in the circumstance that (at ii. 3, 1199, b, 1) it includes Tyranny as one of the things which may be good in themselves, even if
ii.

425, n. 1) as to the union of all the virtues to form Ka\oKa.yaO ia (ii. 9), and concludes with him that the real function of ethical virtues is that they guard the active reason from derangement by the passions; but he omits the consideration of the relation of reason to the Godhead and the doctrine that the knowledge of God is the final aim of life.
2

11,

Mor.

is

we can
is

The only passage in which find any positive refer

ence to the doctrine of the Stoics that just cited, i.e. i. 2; there is, perhaps, a negative reference
in
ii.

7,

1206, b,

17

aTrAcDs

VOL.

II.

K K

498

ARISTOTLE

this account, and partly on account of the of its language as contrasted with the richness poverty of such writers as Critolaus, it must be referred to the

and partly on

third

or

at

latest

to

the
it

second century

but

in

scientific

independence

is

the Eudemian Ethics.

Of

decidedly inferior even to earlier date than the Magna

first

Moralia

is

without doubt the

of this

book of the (Economics.

The contents

small

but well-written treatise

consist partly of a recapitulation and summary, partly of an expansion of the view Aristotle had taken in the
Politics of the

and Slavery
2

Household, the relation of Man and Wife, the last of these he does not attempt to

justify.

original part of it refers to the as a special science from separation a modification of Aristotle s views which we Politics

The most
of

Economics

The book in have already met with in Eudemus. 3 general reminds us of Eudemus its relation to the
;

economical sections of the Politics very much resembles that of the Eudemian to the Nicomachean Ethics, and
the whole style of treatment, and even the language which is clear and elegant, but lacks the nerve of
Aristotle
s
4

would

afford further support to the

con

Philodemus, jecture that Eudemus was its author. 5 and although however, attributes it to Theophrastus ;
ol &\\oi, rrjs ou%, us otovrai operas apxfy Kal rj yf/j.cav effriv 6 aAAa p.a\\oi> ra irddrj. \6yos, Supra, vol. ii. p. 213 sqq.
1

certainly
Aristotle.
3
4

cannot

attribute

to

Supra,

vol. i. p. 186, n. 4. It is difficult to find, as in

others goes

This circumstance amongst to prove that this work is not an Aristotelian sketch antecedent to the Politics, but is based 011 the cognate section of the Politics itself and is an elaboration of it which we

the Ethics of Eudemus, any doctrine that can be called unbut the expression Aristotelian T^V TWV larpuv 8waiJ.iv, c. 5, 1244,
;

b, 9, is
s

surprising,
Vit. ix. ( Vol.

De

Here,

iii.)

Col. 7, 38, 47, 27, 15,

where chaps.

PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO

all

499

we can conclude from

name,
1

this is that several

MSS.

bore

his

yet there

is

no decisive consideration that

can be urged against the correctness of this view. 2

The

second book of the (Economics, which has no connection with the first, is as unmistakably later in as it
origin
Its contents consist chiefly of a collection of anecdotes in illustration of a point in Ari
is

inferior in value.

introduced by a dry and somewhat 4 enumeration of the different kinds of singular Economy. This book, while without doubt proceeding from the
Peripatetic school, is only one of the many proofs of the paltry pedantry which after a few generations became
its

stotle s doctrine, 3

predominating feature.

dedicated to Alexander, which, as 5 formerly remarked, cannot be previous to Aristotle, is the work of a rhetorician whose date cannot be further

The

Rhetoric

determined.

It

need not here delay

originality.

us, as it exhibits

no philosophical

Even with

these

pseudo-Aristotelian

books,

our

knowledge of the written works which proceeded from the Peripatetic school of the third and second centuries, and of their contents, must be admitted to be in the
highest degree defective as compared with their
1-5 of the Economics are submitted to a detailed and searchor spurious,
stotle.
* The absence of the Economics from the list of works by

number

attributed to Ari-

ing criticism.

Of. as to this

and

as to certain variations of the Philodemian from the common text which it indicates, the notes of the [editor and his preface
(Vii.-Viii.).
1

Theophrastus given by Diogenes proves little. 3 Supra, vol. ii. p. 222 n 2

4

The

a(nAMe ^

ffarpairiK),,

Supra,
vol.
i.

vol.

ii.

p.

86,

n.

p. 204, n. 2, 1 (T. &,r6fjL<av

TTO\ITM)I,

and

ISwriicf)

followed.

ypaw&v) 104, and ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 476, 1, where it is shown that this was the case with

by a catalogue of the various sources of income belonging to

each of these,
5

many

of

Supra,

vol.

i.

p. 74, n. 3.

these works,

genuine

KK2

500

ARISTOTLE
Nevertheless such imperfect know places us in a position to form a true

and copiousness.
ledge as

we have
it,

estimate of the development of this school as a whole.

under Theophrastus and Strato, taking an honourable place till towards the middle of the third century we see it especially making important con
see
;

We

tributions in the field of natural science,

and under the

influence of this scientific interest modifying important Aristotelian doctrines in a direction which seemed to

promise greater unity to the system, but which if con the abandon sistently followed out must have involved

ment

of

many

of its essential features.

But the

spirit

of the time was unfavourable to these efforts, and the

Peripatetic school could not loDg resist its influence. Soon after the time of Strato all independence of thought

and simultaneously also in logic and meta to confine itself physics, ceased, and the school began to ethics and rhetoric, and that historical and philo extent and variety sophical erudition which with all its
in science,

compensates us

neither

with a healthy criticism of

tradition nor a broad treatment of history for its poverty

This was the signal for its in philosophic thought. It of subordinate importance. relapse into a position continued nevertheless to do good service in propagat
in forming ing the knowledge of earlier researches, and the moderation of its ethical doctrine, which differed by

from Aristotle s only in a few isolated particulars, a wholesome counterpoise to the one-sidedness of other But the lead in the scientific movement had schools.
seek in the passed into other hands, and we have to of younger schools the true exponents of the philosophy

the age.

APPENDIX
ON THE FORM OF THE POLITICS
(Being
vol.
ii.

p. 204, n. 1.)

THE form
to

in

which
i.

Aristotle s Politics has

come down

to us (as

presents many peculiar features. After a short introduction, bk. i. discusses the Household as an element in the State chiefly on the economic side. On the other hand, the Family and Education are reserved for a later
100,
11.

which

see also

1)

on the ground that they have to adapt themselves to the general form of political life (c. 13, 1260, b, 8). Passing in bk. ii. to the doctrine of the State itself, Aristotle proposes, in the first place, to investigate the Best Form of State (i. 13 Jin. ii. 1 init.),
place,

proceeding by
States,

way of introduction to criticise the most famous whether actually historical or merely imagined by philo sophers. After examining the idea of the state and of the citizen (iii. 1-5), he goes on in bk. hi. (6-13) to distinguish the different Forms of Constitution and to discuss the various points of view from which their value maybe estimated. In iii. 14 he turns to
Monarchy
as the
first

of the true forms, devoting four chapters

to its discussion.

Chapter 18 proposes to take up the discussion of the Best State, but breaks off with an incomplete sentence, which is not resumed till bk. vii. 1 init. Meanwhile the subject also has to stand over. Bk. iv. treats of the Constitutions which

remain

after

viz. Oligarchy,

Monarchy and Aristocracy have been disposed of, Democracy, Polity and Tyranny. It discusses

which is the best suited for the majority of states and under what conditions each is natural. Finally (cc. 14-16) it investi-

502

ARISTOTLE

with

gates the various possible arrangements for the bodies entrusted legislative, executive and judicial powers. Bk. v. is devoted

to the question of

their

change in the different forms of government, decay and the means for their preservation. Bk. vi.

introduces us (2-7) to the subordinate species of democracy and oligarchy, and (c. 8) to the discussion of the different offices of Bk. vii. begins (1-3) the treatment of the best state state. promised in iii. 18, with a discussion of happiness in the indi
vidual and in the community, and then proceeds to sketch the outlines of the best state itself (c. 4 bk. viii. fin.}, devoting
especial care to the subject of education
(vii.

15, 1134, b, 5-viii. 7).

and kindred questions The work ends informally with the

discussion of Music.

Even
the

earlier scholars recognised that neither the scope nor

arrangement of the work as it stands corresponds with Aristotle s original plan, and recent critics are still more pro nounced on this head. After NICOL. ORESME (1489) and SEGNI (1559) had remarked that the subject of bks. vii. and viii. con nects with bk. iii., SCAINO DA SALO (1577) was the first to propose actually to place them between bks. iii. and iv. Sixty years later (1637) CONRING not only independently repeated this suggestion but went on to attack the integrh^ of our text,
indicating in his edition of 1656 a number of lacunce of greater or less extent which he suspected to exist. In more recent

times the subject attracted the attention of BARTHELEMY STHILAIRE (Politique d Aristote, i. pp. cxli-clxxii), who, while he denied that the work as we have it is either incomplete or mutilated, held, on the other hand, not only that bks. vii. and viii. should come after iii., but that bks. v. and vi. should like wise be transposed (the latter coming between iv. and v.). He himself observes this order in his translation, and he has been followed by BEKKER in his smaller edition and by CONGREVE. Both of these suggestions are accepted by SPENGEL ( Ueb. d.
Politik d. Arist.
Abli. d. Miinclin.

Akad.

pliilos.-pliilol.

KL

v.

1-49),

NICKES (De Arist.

(

Polit. Libr.
ii.

Bonn, 1851,

p.

67 sqq. 112

sqq.), BRANVis(Gr.-rdm>PhiL

p.

1666 sqq. 1679

Biicher in

sq.),

and

others.

WOLTMANN

Ueb.

d.

Ordnung

d.

d. Arist. Politik.

Rliein. Mus. 1842, 321 sqq.), on the other hand, while accepting the transposition of v. and vi., rejects the removal of vii. and

APPENDIX
viii.

503

from their present place. HILDENBRAND (Gescli. u. Syst. d. und Staatspliil. i. 345-385 cf. FECHNER, Gerechtigkeitsbegr. d. Arist. p. 65, p. 87, 6), on the contrary, defends the traditional order of v. and vi., but inserts vii. and viii. between The traditional arrangement of both these sections iii. and iv. has been defended by GUTTLING (Preface to his edition published 1824, p. xx sqq.), FORCHHAMMER (Verhandl. d. Philologenvers. in Kapsel, p. 81 sq., Philologus, xv. 1, 50 sq. on the former with
Beclits; ;

curious suggestion that the Politics follows the order of the four causes, see SPENGEL, loc. cit. 48 sq., HILDENBRAND, op. cit.
its

390

sq.),

HOSE (De

Politik d. Arist.

Philol.

Arist. Libr. Orel. 125 sq.), xiii. 264-301 see

;

No modern scholar p. 496), and others. judgment on the integrity of the work without reservation several e.g. GOTTLING (loc. cit.),. and especially NICKES (p. 90, 92 sq. 109, 123, 130 sq.) even controvert it. SPENGEL, however (p. 8 sq. 11 sq. 41 sq.), BRANDIS (p. 1669 sq. 1673 sq.) and even NICKES (98 sq.) admit several not inconsiderable lacunce especially at the end of bk. viii., while VAN SCHWINDEREN (De
;

BENDIXEN (Zur HILDENBRAND, accepts CONRING S

Arist. Polit. Libr. p. 12

see

HILDENBRAND,
i.

p. 449)
ii.

held that
the

two books, SCHNEIDER

(Arist. Polit.

p. viii,

p. 232) that

greater part of the discussion on the best state, is lost. Lastly, HILDENBRAND (p. 387 sq. 449 sq.) surmises that at least three

books are wanting at the end of bk. viii., and at the end of the whole the last section of bk. vi., besides, perhaps, four books on
the philosophy of law.
If, finally,

by

that the work was completed was subsequently mutilated and fell into disorder. BRANDIS, however (p. 1669 sq.), is inclined to consider bk. viii. unfinished rather than mutilated, and this view is more fully developed by HILDENBRAND (p. 355 sq. 379 sq.),

the text, the

we ask how we are common opinion is

it

to explain the present state of

Aristotle himself, but that

who
iv.,

holds that Aristotle intended to insert the essay on the

ideal state

which
v.

is

begun in bks.
its

vii.

and

viii.

between

iii.

and

but postponed
iv.

bks.

and

completion till he should have written and was overtaken by death before he had
will

finished either

it or bk. yi., which was to follow v. (Some further references to the literature of the subject

be found in

BARTHKLEMY ST-HILAIRE,

p.

146

sq.

NICKES,

p.

67

504

ARISTOTLE
p.

BENDIXEN,

265

sq.

HILDENBRAND,

p.

345

sq..

from

whom

the above are partly taken.) Zeller s own view, the grounds of which can here be only shortly given, is as follows (1) As regards the order of the text, the majority of recent scholars are undoubtedly right in holding that Aristotle intended bks. vii. and viii. to follow immediately after iii. The contents of bk. ii. as well as its opening words taken with the conclusion
:

of bk.

i.

are clearly preparatory to a discussion of the best state.

is expressly taken up at the end of bk. iii., and the interrupted sentence with which it closes is resumed at the beginning of vii. in a manner that can hardly be explained except upon the hypothesis that the passage was continuous in the original. Finally, the section upon the best constitution is quite certainly presupposed by such passages as iv. 2, 1289, a,

This discussion

30, b, 14,

c. 3,

1290,
iv.

a, 1 (cp. vii. 8, 9), c. 7,

1293, b,
c.

1,

also

c. 4,

1290,

b,

38
p.

(cp.

3,

vii.

3),

SPENGEL,

20

sq.).
fip.lv

If

it

which see be urged that the words Ka ntpl

1

and even

(on

rag a\\as TroXirelas

TtdeuprjTai npoTfpnv

appear to refer to the

contents of bks. iv.-vi., it may be replied that these words may just as well be taken to refer to the ideal constitutions criticised in bk. ii. (TUS a\\as iroXireias, ii. 1, 12GO, b, 29) as HILDENBRAND

The words in question, however, fit so (p. 363 sq.). the passage in which they occur that it is best to consider them, with SPENGEL (p. 26) and most other critics, as a later gloss. (2) On the other hand, there seems no necessity to transpose bks. v. and vi., as has already been shown by HILDENBRAND. The only valid ground for this change is the close connection of the contents of iv. and vi. taken together with the
ill

takes

them

review in
to iv.
c.

preliminary
e.g.

iv. 2,
rfj

1289, b, 12 sq.
/tetfo So) rfj

The other arguments,

that

the words eV
15, as

-rpb ravrrjs in vi. 2, 1317, b, 34, refer

v. 9,

though

it

immediately preceded, and that

:

1309,

b, 16, TO 7roAAa /ay elp^^evov

refers to vi. 6 as well as to

are of little value the pedodos npo TUVTTJS may denote not only the immediately preceding book (the division into books can hardly be Aristotle s) but the whole preceding section, including bks. iv. and v. while TroXXaKis is more naturally taken as referring to v. 3, 6 than to vi. 6, if indeed it is necessary to see in it a reference to any other passage besides
;

iv. 12,

APPENDIX
iv. 12,

505

where the principle that the supporters of the existing

should consider their opponents, although only

constitution

expressly stated in this general form, is applied with so much detail that it might very well be said to have been here

repeatedly (1296,

The b, 24, 31, 37, as well as 15) emphasised. argument, however, above referred to rests upon a gratuitous assumption as to the plan of the work. The contents of iv. and vi. are undoubtedly closely related, but it does not follow that they must have formed a continuous whole. It is possible that
Aristotle first completed the general theory of the imperfect forms of constitution (iv. and v.), and afterwards in vi. returned
to the first section of the earlier investigation, because he wished to make a more special application of the principles there laid

down.

So

far

from contradicting

this

view the passage

iv. 2,

1289, b, 12 sq. is quite satisfactorily explained on the supposition that it is intended merely as a sketch of the plan of bks. iv. and
v.

Of the

five points
iv.

here mentioned, the

fifth

first

three are dis

o-aTrjpiat
rcoz>

cussed in
iv.

3-13,

the

(the

(pflopal

and

TroAtreteoz/) iii v.,

while

it is all

the

more

likely that the section

14-16

is

meant

for the discussion of the fourth (riva rporrov

del Kadio-rdvai

ravras ras TroAtrei a?), as Aristotle expressly says (1289, b, 22) that he intends here to touch only lightly on all these subjects (ndvTav TOVTOOV orav Troir/o-oo/xe&z CTUITO/ACOS TI]V

v^x o
is

vrl v fJ-veinv

hence also the vvv

iv. 15,

the scheme of this discussion

w hich
r

is

laid

down

1300, a, 8), and as in iv. 14 init.

It is quite natural, therefore, actually carried out in c. 16. that v. 1 should open with the words rrepi pev nvv TWV aXXtov wv
7rpoi\6fj,eda o^eSci/ tiprjrai vrept TTUVTCOV,

nor

is

there any necessity

to take these

words as referring

to bk. vi. as well.

is

That we
fin.
c.

should even be wrong in doing so

vi.

proved by the passages in

c.

which admittedly

refer to v., viz.

;

1 init.

and

4,

since in all these passages the 1319, b, 4, c. 5, 1319, b, 37 rejection of the words in question or the change of a re&copT/roi Trporepov with a ^ecop^^o-erat vvrepov could be justified only as a
last resource.
vi. is

more

Finally, the incompleteness of the discussions in easily explained if we suppose it to have been coin-

posed subsequently to v. (3) With regard to the integrity of the text, we have to acknowledge, in the first place, that many single sentences are

506

ARISTOTLE

In the second place, we have several irremediably corrupt. isolated passages which are undoubtedly insertions by a later
e.g. ii. 12, which was suspected by GOTTLING (p. 345 sq. on the passage in question) and BRANDIS (1590, A, 586), though defended by SPENGEL (p. 11) and NICKES (p. 55 sq.), and rejected from 1274, a, 22 onwards by SUSEMIHL (no impartial critic can accept KROHN S conclusion in the Brandenburger Programme Zur Kritik Arist. Schriften, 1872, p. 29 sq. that scarcely the half of the Politics can be attributed to Ari stotle). Lastly, we have every ground to believe that important sections of the work were either left unfinished or have been

hand,

lost.

The treatment

of the best state

is

obviously incomplete

Aristotle himself refers us for the further discussion of musical

education with which he breaks off to essays on rhythms (viii. 7 init.} and on comedy (vii. 13, 1336, b, 20) but besides these
;

we had

a right to expect a full discussion of the question of the proper treatment of poetry, and the scientific training of the citizen, which Aristotle s principles could hardly have permitted
to leave

untouched (see vii. 14, 1333, b, 16 sq. c, 15, 1334, 1339, a, 4, and more fully on this and other points the the life of the family, the education section on the best state)
b, 8, viii. 4,
;

him

the treatment of children (iraidovopia), property, the treatment of slaves, drinking booths, are merely mentioned to
of

women,

be expressly reserved for later treatment (see i. 13, 1260, b, 8, vii. 16, 1335, b, 2, vii. 6, 1326, b, 32 sq. vii. 10 fin. vii. 17, 1336, the constitution of the ideal state is only sketched on b, 24) the most general lines, vii. 15 similarly we look in vain for
; ;

of the laws for the regulation of adult life, indis pensable as they are declared (Ethics, x. 10, ] 180, a, 1) to be for the welfare of the state, and of legislation in general in the nar

any account

rower sense as distinguished from the constitution, although earlier writers are expressly reproached (Ethics, loc. cit. 1181, b, 12) with the neglect of this point, while Pol. iv. 1, 1289, a, 11
requires that the discussion of the different constitutions shall be followed by that of the laws (on the distinction between them see also ii. 6, 1265, a, 1), not only of the best absolutely but of those

which are best adapted for each form

reference
is

made

of constitution, and express in other passages to a section upon legisla

:

tion (see v. 9, 1309, b, 14

an-Xws- 6e, oo-a

ez>

rots vofJiois
1

as

o-v/j.-

APPENDIX
\yoptv and
iii.

507

15, 1286, a, 2: ro }iV

rals TroAireiat?, airavra ravra o-a>ei ray ovv Trepi rrjs roiavrrjs orparr/ytay (r$co TTJV v6p.(ov ex ft ft XXoi fidos rj TroXtTftas WOT
d<pfi

Cf.

HILDENBRAND, 351
all

sq.

449

sq.

If

we

consider

how much

these discussions would have required, we can easily understand how large a part of the essay on the best state which Aristotle had designed is wanting. But the last-

space

quoted passages prove also that the discussion of the imperfect forms was to be supplemented by a section on legislation to which bk. vi. appears to have been designed as an introduction. As moreover the discussion of the dpxal in iv. 15 is resumed in vi. 8, we should have expected similar discussions of the legis lative assemblies and the law courts (iv. 14, 16). Finally, seeing
that vi. 1, 1316, b, 39 sq. expressly notes the absence in the foregoing discussions of all reference to the forms of constitution which result from the union of heterogeneous elements (e.g.

an oligarchical senate with

aristocratic

courts

of law),

and

proposes to remedy this omission, we must reckon this section also among those which either have been lost or were never
completed.

Which of these alternatives we ought to accept, and how we ought to explain the form in which the work has come down to us, we have not sufficient data to decide.
(4)

accordingly

But the circumstance that the chief lacunce are at the end of main divisions of the work lends countenance, as HILDENBRAND rightly remarks (p. 356), to the view that neither was completed by Aristotle himself. We must suppose, moreover, that he developed coincidently the doctrine of the best state and of the imperfect forms, although he intended on completion of the whole to combine them in strict order of succession. This view gains some support from the fact that there is no evidence that the work ever existed in a more complete form, and that even DIOG. v. 24 (Hermippus) gives only eight books, while the extract from ARIUS DIDYMUS
the second and third of the

given by STOB^EUS, Ed. ii. 326 sq. (cf. vol. iii. a, 546 sq.) at no point goes beyond what is contained in the Politics as we have it. The view here taken is accepted by SCHINTZER (Zu Arist. Politik Eos, i. 499 sq.), and with more hesitation by UEBERWEG (Grundr. i. 178, 5th ed.). SUSEMIHL, on the other hand

508

ARISTOTLE
ci.

(Jahrbb.f. PhiloL xcix. 593 sq.

li.

sq.),

and ONCKEN

(Staatsl. d. Ar.

343 sq 349 sq. Arist. Polit. i. 95 sq.) follow Barthelemy

St-Hilaire even in the transposition of bks. v. and vi. Upon Chicken s hypothesis that the Politics and other works of
Aristotle

have come down

to us only in the

form given to them by

students, Zeller has already expressed his opinion (supra, vol. i. p. 133), which coincides with what Suseinihl had previously

held upon the same point (see Jahrbb. f. PJiilol. vol. cxiv. 1876, The passage from Politics, vii. 1, discussed in p. 122 sq.).
vol.
i.

p.

115, n.

4,

itself contradicts this

hypothesis.

On

grounds we must reject the view (BERNAYS, Arist. Politik, 212) that the work we have consists of a collection of notes which were designed for the philosopher s own use in his oral instructions. In this case his style would have been much terser and more condensed, nor should we have had those forms of transition to which attention has been called by ZELLER (supra, vol i. p. 135, n. 2) and by ONCKEN, i. 58 (for further examples
similar
see
vii.
(ol
i.

3,

1253, b, 14,
1325,
a, 15),

i.

2,
/caret

8 init. i. 9, 1257, b, 14, or of reference, as in

vii.
iii.

1,

1323, b, 36,

12, 1282, b,

20

Xoyot, ev ois fttobptorcu nepl TMV rjdiKwv), viii. 7, 1341, b, 40 (iraXiv lv rdls rcfpl TTOITJTLKTJS cpovfifV cra(^>ecrTpoz ), vii. 1, 1323, a, 21, iii. 6, 1278, b, 30 (see supra, vol. i. p. 115,
(f)i\o(To<piav

The Politics, in fact, together with the Ethics and the Rhetoric, belong to that class of Aristotle s works in which the reader is most plainly before his eyes, the style being much too
n. 4).

notes designed for the author s exclusive use. Let the reader take the passages i. 2, 1252, a, 34-b, 27, c. 4, 1253, b, 33-39, c. 9, 1257, b, 14-17, i. 11, 1258, b, 39-1259, a, 36, vii. 1,
full for

1323,

a,

2-1324,

a,

4,

vii.

2,

1324,

a,

25-1325,

a, 15, iv. 1 init.

and then ask himself whether anyone would write in such a

way

for his

own

private use.

INDEX
ACADEMY,
i.

10, 29,

142
;

ii.

497

Body and
130,

Accidents, i. 213, 223, 281 Actuality, i. 278, 340 ii. 97 Alexander the Great, i. 21-43, 169, 396 ii. 255
;

soul, ii. 4, 90-98, 101, 390-92, 436-38, 467-70,

480

CALLISTHENES,
Categories,
i.

i.

32

ii.

Analytics, i. 67, 124, 147, 191, 211, 232,265; ii. 363 Anaxagoras, i. 307, 442 ii. 11 Andronicus his edition of Ari stotle s works, i. 49-51, 112, 137 of Theophrastus works,
;

64,

147,

348, 445 155, 192,

274-90

ii.

421, 488

ii. 352 Animals, ii. 21, 37, 85-89, 90 - History of, 87-88, 125, 149, smaller tracts as to, 155, 494 i. 91, 152; ii. 39, 110 Aristo, ii. 477-79 Aristocracy, ii. 215, 241-44, 255, 273, 278-82, 501 Aristotle, Life and Character, i. 1-47 Philosophy, general view of, i. 161-71; method, i. 17180; divisions, i. 180-90; ii. 336-37
;

Categories, i. 274 foil. Catharsis, ii. 307, 311-17 Cause, i. 355 ii. 456-57 Change, i. 302, 347, 366, 395, 423, 441 Citizen, ii. 227-33, 261-62 Clearchus, ii. 443-45 Concepts, i. 192, 212, 298, 376
;

ii.

336
of,
ii.

Constitution, forms 58, 441-42, 501

233-

Contingency,

i.

362-64

Contradiction, principle of, i. 225-51, 304 Conversion, i. 236, 240 Corpus Aristotelicum, i. 105, 131,
145, 177

Courage,

ii. ii.

Works,
Art,
i.

i.

48-160
i.

Critolaus,
ii.

167 479

foil.

Aristoxenus,

11

429-38

464
i.

ii.

301-24

DE

344, 355, 392, 409, 507 Atomists, i. 305-08, 426, 434,

Apxal,

ANIMA, i. 89, 150, 378 Death, ii. 77, 133

i.

ii.

Definition,

70,

75,

192, 213,

442-58 ii. 455-56 Axioms, i. 248-52

;

BEAUTY, ii. 191, 264, 301-04, 331 Becoming and Being, i. 294-95,
297, 302, 310, 324, 341, 347,

265-70 Demetrius of Phalerus, i. 142 ii. 351, 447 Democracy, ii. 238-41, 27477, 501 Democritus, i. 210, 442-58 5, 36, 455-61
;

ii.

366

510
Demonstration,
ii.

ARISTOTLE
294
foil.
1

Desire, ii. 108-15, 160 Dialectic, i. 173, 185, 252, 255

ii.

the Will, i. 230, 114-18, 129, 399 ii. Friendship, i. 29 148, 191,
of

Freedom
363
;

ii.

290-92
;

202

Dialogues, i. 55-61, 177 ii. 438-42 Dicasarchus, i. 151 Difference, i. 70, 223

GOD,

i.

389-416, 470;

ii.

211, 327-33, 343,

s

364,
139,

122, 370-

Diodorus, ii. 486 Diogenes, Catalogue of Aristotle works, i. 2, 48, 144-52 Dreams, ii. 72, 76

71 Goods, external, 53, 496

ii.

144-

community
HAPPINESS,

of,

ii.

222-24
151;
ii.

EDUCATION,
Eleatics,
i.

ii. 262-72, 307 309-10, 323

i.

116,

138-53, 208, 487-88

Elements, i. 469-520 Empedocles, i. 304, 442, 450 ii. 5, 12-13, 413 Epicurus, i. 9 ii. 350 Essence, i. 163, 194-95, 213, 220, 337 ii. 10 Ethical Theories: of Aristotle, i. 159, 168; ii. 136, 225
; ; ;

Hieronymus, ii. 475 History of Animals, i. 87 Household, ii. 213-27

IDEAS,
162,

Platonic
204,
ii.
i.

theory of, i. 296-97, 313-27,

436

Identity,

337-47 223
134,

of Plato, ii. 147, 161 of later Peripatetics, i. 157; ii. 399, 410, 412, 422-91 of other schools, ii. 158, 432 Ethics, Nicomachean, i. 44, 73, ii. 137, 98, 116, 132, 250, 318 153, 166-67, 177-78, 333, 495, 498 Eudemian Ethics, i. 97, 115, 143, 157, 250, 397, 427, 495, 497;

Imagination, ii. 70; 85 Immortality, ii. 129-30, 471-72, 482 Impulse, ii. 155-56

167, 195, 296, 329, 224, 338 Induction, i. 202, 212, 252 Infinity, i. 350, 427 Insight, ii. 157-59, 163, 166, 177, 182-88 (see also
i.

Individual,

369-74

ii.

*/>o-

98

Eudemus,
ii.

i.

115,

55, 80, 1 10, 135, 142 148, 234-35, 358-63,

JUDGMENT,
Justice,
ii.

417-29, 497-98 Evolution, i. 196 ii. 24 Exoteric teaching, i. 27, 110,

;

i. 229 foil. 170-176, 192, 196

KNOWLEDGE and

Opinion,

i.
;

46,
ii.

121, 223

Experience

(see

Knowledge)
i.

70, 163, 194-203, 319, 336 180, 367, 392

LOGIC,

i.

191-273
ii. 479 27, 36 474-75, 479
i.
;

FINAL CAUSE,
459

174, 356, 404,

i.

Lyceum,
Lyco,
ii.

First Philosophy, 273, 290, 417

;

76, 184, 189,

ii.

4 (see also

MAGNA MORALIA,
ii.

i.

80, 97,

150
418;

Metaphysics ) Form and Matter, i. 179, 204, 329, 340-80 ii. 339
;

137, 495-96
i.

Mathematics, ii. 364

183-84,

INDEX
Matter (see Form and Matter) Mean, doctrine of the, ii. 16264, 168, 170, 177-78 Melissus, i. 309, 311 ii. 489 Memory, ii. 70, 85
;

511
i.

Personality,

402
1

ii.

125,

134-

35 Phanias,
ii. ii.
i.

4 3

Phormio,
Physics,
ii.

483
;

81-86, 124, 417, 520

;

Metaphysics, i. 62, 76, 124-36, 160, 274-327, 328-416; ii.

204, 364, 369

Meteorology,

i.

83,

149, 155, 512-

376, 419, 489 ii. 464 Planets, i. 501 Plants, i. 93-94 ii. 33-37 Plato, Aristotle s relations
6,
;

to:

20 Methodology, i. 193, 212 Modality, i. 233 Monarchy, ii. 243, 249-55, 501 380-89, 394, 422, Motion, i. 473; ii. 339, 365-66, 373463, 492-93 75, Music, ii. 266-68, 301, 308,31114, 319, 415, 432-35, 46566

6-18 personal, philoso phical, i. 161-62, 296, 420, 508 ii. 161, 259 428, 477,
i.
;

aesthetics of,

ii.

301, 307
i.

Ideal
ii.

Theory,
foil
ii.

313

foil.

337

Religion,

325-35

NATURAL HISTORY,
60,

29-30. 259-

417-68

381-90.

16-49, 81-89, Aristotle s (For

ii.

see Animals, History of} i. Nature, 359-64, 417-68; ii. 10-21, 343, 454 Necessity, i. 358, 362 Nous, i. 199, 201, 248 ii. 93105, 131-32, 181, J84
;

Natural History,

Republic, ii. 222-23, 262 (see also Ideas) Pleasure, ii. 75, 108-11, 141, 146-49, 157, 481 i. 102, 127, 151, 155; ii. Poetics, 204, 303, 310, 501 Poetry, 301-06, 309, 319 UoXirciat, i. 30, 49, 58, 101
127, 133, 137, 178, 203-88, 335, 501 (Appendix) Polity, ii. 234, 274, 280, 345, 501 Possibility, i. 340-48, 278 Postulates, i. 248-49
Politics,
i.

100-01,

155;

ii.

Potentiality,

i.

347-55,

378-

(ECONOMICS, i. 100, 151, 186 ii. 166, 495-98 Oligarchy, ii. 239, 274, 277-78, 501
;

85
i. 161, 313 Problems, i. 87, 96, 106 Production, ii. 220 foil.

Pre-Socratics,

ii.

495

Opinion (see Knowledge) Organon, i. 69, 193-194

n. n.
n.
eftUTjvefas,
i.

Proof,

i.

68, 128, 191, 212,

243-

293-98 Property, ii. 220-27

56
;

ii.

49, 50,

66,

114,

147, 192

ii.

489
i.

&WV
125
;

7ej>eVea>s,

50,

90, 92,

Pseudo-Arist. Writings, ii. 379, 488-99 Ptolemy, i. 52, 91, 96

i.

63-64

ii.

48
i.

Philadelphus,
ii.

i.

139, 142, 144

&<av

p.opi(av,

50, 83, 92-93,

448, 451, 453

125
n. ^vxns,
i.

55, 89 foil.,
;

Perception, 202-11 106, 468

158 ii. 59-60,

;

Lagi, ii. 448 Philometor, ii. 485

Peripatetics, i. 27, 137, 441 105, 340-47, 348-500

ii.

Physcon, ii. 486 Punishment, ii. 172, 271 Pythagoreans, i. 63, 282, 311, 320, 428 ii. 9, 431
;

512

ARISTOTLE
Syllogism,
ii.
i.

i. 180; ii, 93-109, 113, 120-35, 179, 182, 392-95 Religion, ii. 325-35 Republic, ii. 249 Rhetoric, i. 72-74, 107, 127. 155
;

REASON,

67, 70, 191-92, 233

361

ii. 289-99 Rhetoric to Alexander, i. 73-74, 148 ii. 499 Rhetoric, school of, i. 28, 414 Eight, ii. 175 foil.
;

ii. 188-89 Theophrastus, i. 36, 79, 135, 137, ii. 32, 105, 349 148, 234-35 Time, i. 282, 433; ii. 105, 461-64 Tories, i. 68, 107, ] 24-36, 101, 265 ii. 363 Tragedy, ii. 310, 316-24 Tyranny, ii. 241, 274, 282, 501

TEMPEEANCE,

SCEPSIS, cellar

of,

i.

137-41
194,

ii.
i. 167, 194-95,214, ii. 224, 296, 329, 338-39, 369 338, 343 Universe, i. 469, 520 ii 377-81
; ;

204
Science,
i.
;

UNIVEESALS,

164,
ii.

178,

211,
ii.

290, 335 Self-control, 167, 188

355
((rw^/jotrwrj),
ii.

Uprightness
;

(/foAoKayafli a),

ii.

426

Sensation,

305 70, 108, 468

i.

43,

58, 66,

VIETUE,
208-10
j

ii.

90, 142, 153-62, 185,

Senses, ii. 62-70, 396-98, 468-70 Sex, ii. 48-58, 466 Slaves, ii. 161, 166, 216-19 Sleep, ii. 68, 75, 470 Socrates, i. 1, 162, 171-80, 213, 313, 392 ii. 100, 337, 344 Socratic Schools, i. 313
;

Virtues,

ii.

intellectual, 344, 496-97

163-77, 496-97 ii. 107, 177-202,

Vices,
ii.

Virtues
j

and

495

WILL,

ii.

108-18, 126-29, 135, 155,

ii.

160, 188-89, 344

Sophists, i. 162, 296-97, 312 Sotion, ii. 483 Soul, ii. 1, 92-94, 119-23, 130-35, 344, 395-96, 467-72, 481, 486, 491, 493 Space, i. 282, 432-37; ii. 105,

Women,
!

214, 220, 224, 262

of,
i.
i.

270, 506

World, eternity 331, 482

structure
of,
i.

469

ii

472

unity

of,

485
i.

461
Speusippus, i. 19, 320-22 Spheres, i. 304, 489-501 Stars, i. 492 foil.. 504 ii. 464-65 State, ii. 193, 203-13, 411, 501 the best, ii. 241, 258-74 Strato, i. 141-2; ii. 450-72 Substance, i. 284-90, 293, 33037, 373
;

XENOCEATES,
Xenophanes,
i.

15,
;

320
ii.

309

332
ii.

ZENO.i. 296-97, 310, 439; 489

,

355,

i. 186 ii. 107, 178, 184. * 309, 496 (see also Insight)
;

THE END.

QO
Spottiswoode

&

Co, Printers. New-street Square, London,

411

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF

TORONTO LIBRARY

"Z.S

V.2.

SIGMUND SAMUEL LBEABT