1 1u

/ ,

ARISTOTLE
AND

THE EARLIER PEEIPATETICS

BEING A T BANSLAT ION FEOM

ZELLEB S PHILOSOPHY OF THE GREEKS

BY

B. F. C. COSTELLOE, M.A.
AND

J. H. MUIRHEAD, M.A.

IN TWO VOLUMES -VOL. II.

LONGMANS, GKEEN, AND CO.

39 PATERNOSTEK BOW, LONDON
NEW YORK AND BOMBAY
1897

All rights reserved

 ""

* \

B
 AEISTOTLE
AND THE EAKLIEK PERIPATETICS

VOL. II.
 WORKS BY DR. E. ZELLER.

PRE-SOCRATIC SCHOOLS : a History of Greek

Philosophy from the Earliest Period to the time of Socrates.
Translated from the Uerman by SARAH F. ALLEYNE. 2 vols.
Grown 8vo. 30 s.

SOCRATES AND THE SOCRATIC SCHOOLS.

Translated from the German by 0. J. REICHEL, M.A.
Crown 8vo. 10*. M.

PLATO AND THE OLDER ACADEMY. Translated

from the German by SARAH F. ALLEYXE and A. GOODWIN*.
Crown 8vo. 18.s.

STOICS, EPICUREANS, AND SCEPTICS. Trans

lated from the German by 0. J. RETCHED M.A. Crown
8vo. 155.

HISTORY OF ECLECTICISM" IN GREEK PHILO

SOPHY. Translated from the German by SARAH F.
ALLEYNE. Crown 8vo. 10.$. 6d.

OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF GREEK

PHILOSOPHY. Translated from the German by SARAH F.
ALLEYNE and EVELYN ABBOTT. Crown 8vo. 10$. 6d.

LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.

39 Paternoster Row, London
New York and Bombay
 CONTENTS
OF

THE SECOND VOLUME

CHAPTER X
PHYSICS continued

C. Living Creatures

The Soul, 1 Its relation to the Body, 4.

.
The Body as an Organic
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 Human Body, 90. Active and Passive
Soul and Reason, 92.
Reason, 97. Immediate and mediate exercise of Reason, 105.
Desire and Volition, 108. Practical Reason and Rational Will.
112. Free Will, Voluntariness, Intention, 114. The question of
the Unity of the life of the Soul, 119. The Birth of the Soul,
120. The Union of the Parts of the Soul, 123. The Immortality
of the Soul, 129. Personality, 134.
vi ARISTOTLE

CHAPTEK XII
PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY
A. Ethics
The End of Human Activity 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
Origin of Virtue, 160. The Consent of the virtuous Will: the
Proper Mean, 161. The Virtues, 163. Courage, Self-control, &c.,
167. Justice, 170. Distributive and Corrective Justice, 171.
Complete and Incomplete, Natural and Legal Eight other dis ;

tinctions, 175. The Intellectual Virtues: Insight, 177. The

right relation to the Passions, 188.
Friendship: its moral Import, 191. Nature and Kinds of Friend
ship, 193. Further discussions, 198.

CHAPTEK XIII

PRACTICAL PHILOSOPHY continued

B. Politics
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,
214. Parents and Children, 215. Master and Slave, 216. Pro
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.
Forms 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
cracy and Polity, 278. Tyranny, 282. The distribution of
Political Power, Changes in the Constitution, &c. 283.,

CHAPTER XIV
RHETORIC
Problem of the Rhetoric, 289. Kinds of Proof, 293. Demonstra
tion, 294. Different species of Demonstration appropriate to
 CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME vii

different Kinds of Discourse, 295. Remaining forms of Proof,

296. Style and Arrangement, 297.

THEORY OF FINE ART

Beauty, 301. Art as Imitation, 303. The effect of Art :

Catharsis,
307. The Arts, 318. Tragedy, 320.

CHAPTER XVI
RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF ARISTOTLE S PHILOSOPHY

Aristotle s attitude to Religion, 325. His Theology, 327. Signifi

cance and Origin of Popular Religion, 330.

CHAPTER XVII
RETROSPECT
Aristotle s point of view, 336. Development of the System, 338.
Gaps and Contradictions, 342. Tendency of the Peripatetic
School, 346

CHAPTER XVIII
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL : THEOPHRASTUS
His Life, 348. Writings, 351. Standpoint, 355. Logic, 358. Meta
physics: Aporise, 364. Theology, 369. Physics: Nature in
general Inorganic Nature, 373. Structure and history
;
of the
World, 379. Botanical Theory, 381. Nature of Vegetable life,
383. Parts of Plants, 384. Origin of Plants, 385. Classification,
388. Zoology, 389. Anthropology: the Soul as cause of
move
ment, 390. Reason, Active and Passive, 392. Higher and lower
parts of. the Soul, 395. The Senses, 396. The Freedom of the
Will, 399. Ethics, 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
Eudemus, 417. Logic, 418. Physics, 419. Metaphysics, 421.
Ethics: Virtue as a divine gift, 422. Theology, 424. Uprightness,
426. Other peculiarities of Eudemian ethics, 427.
Aristoxenus, 429. Ethical views, 431. Theory of Music, 433.
Of
the Soul, 436
VOL. ii. a
viii ARISTOTLE
Dicasarchus :
Anthropology, 438. The practical and the theoretic
life, 440. Politics, 441.
Phanias, Clearchus, and others, 443.

CHAPTEK XX
THE SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS : STRATO
Demetrius of Phalerus and others, 447.
Strato, -150. Logic and Ontology, 454. Nature and Deity, 456,
Physical principles : Heat and Cold, 456. Gravity, Vacuum,
Time, Motion, 458. Cosmology. 464. 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. Phor-
mio, 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
n. 2, col. 2, pieces
6,1. 8,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
172, n. 2, col. 2, 1. 3 from
bottom, after things read that
178, 1.for moral insight read moral virtue
4,
182, n. col. 1, 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 snj>ra

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
292, 1. 9, for But as he regards sense read Since, however, proof is the chief
. . .

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
382, 1. 6 from bottom, for geological read zoological

References.
The following references are to Vol. i. : Vol. ii. p. 159, n. 2, col. 1, 1. 8 ; 180, u. 2,
col. 2, 1. 2 ; 181, n. col. 2, 1. 1, and1. 11 from bottom ; 182, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 6 from
bottom ; 204, n. 2, col. 1, 11. 3 and 10, and 1. 2 from bottom ; 206, n. 4, col. 2, ]. 3 from
bottom; 219, n. 3, col. 1, 1. 4 from bottom 236, u. col. ; 1, 1. 10 from bottom ; 267,
n. col. 1. 10
292, n. 1, col. 1, 10 12
1, ; 1. ; 302, n. 1, col. 1, 11. 6, ; 331, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 1 ;

332, n. 1, col. 1, 1. 1 ; 343, n. 2, col. 2, 1. 1 ; 349, n. 3, col. 2, 1. 1 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 self-
1

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 But every movement implies two elements

De An. i. 1, 407, a, 4 the

1
:
fwirapxy fj.6vov t fiv avr6 <pa/j.tv,

investigation into the nature of diov vovs, a to-Qricris, Kivrjffis Kal

the soul is of the highest value ardffis rj Kara TCTTOV, ert Kivnffis ^
for science, fJ.d\i<jTa 5e irpus T?V Kara rpocpTiv Kal (pdiais rf Kal
(pv<nv
fffTt yap olov apx^l ruv aij^ijtris. Sib Kal ra (pv6fj.fva irdvra

^ytcv \_rj ^UXTJ]. 5o/ce? tjv <f>aivTaiyap 4v avrots

2
Ibid. ii. ], 412, b, 16, cl. a, Ixofra 8vvafji.iv Kal opX ^ foiavrriv,
27, and see infra,. Si ^s av^ffiv re Kal (pdiffiv Aa/4-
3
Ibid. ii. 2, 413, a, 20 \eyo- :
fidvovo-i . . .
owSe^iio yap avrols
fjitv obv Siwpi(r6ai rb efj.tyvxuv
. . .
uTrap^et Svva/ui.is a\\f] fyvxr)s. As
TOV atyuxov r$ frji.; irAeoraxws 5e this lowest form of life presents
rot- fjv Ae7o^eVoi, Kav tV n TOVTWV itself wherever the higher is (see
VOL. II. B
2 ARISTOTLE

something that moves, and something that is moved :

form and matter; and if a thing moves itself, it must

contain this duality within itself. Hence every being 1

that has life must be a compound being and if we ca.ll ;

the material part, which is subject to motion, the body,

it that the form, which is the cause of
will follow

motion, has a being separate from and independent of

the body. 2
And as the form in general is identified with
the efficient and the final cause, this being may also be
3
said to be the final aim or end of the body. The form
thus considered as motive or efficient force is called
by
4
Aristotle Entelechv ;
and hence he defines the Soul as

infra) it may be treated as the Mciapli. viii. 3, 1043, a, 35. Ari

universal mark of a living thing ;
stotle had already described the
ibid. c. 1, 412, a, 13 rwv Se : soul in the Eudemus as eTSds ri ;
[sc.
TO. fjCev ex
ff(a/u.dr<i0v~]
l see i. 383 sq., supra.
3
a> TO. OVK exet Ae yo- l)e An. ii. 4, 415, b, 7, where
/j.ev r^\v 81 avrov after the passage quoted,!. 356, n.
r Kal avr)ffiis /ecu On the (f>&i(rii>.
1, sup., he goes on, 1. 12:
other hand, T)e An. i. 2, 403, b, &s ovffia [sc. air la fffrlv
25 (TO f/JL\fyvxov 877 rov atyvxov S?i\oi>
TO yap cCinov TOV eli/at

/j.d\icrra Sia<pfpfLV So/eel, iraffiv 77 ovffia, rb 8e fjvrots ^wffi

re Kal rw alaBdveodai), ex rb tivai fffriv, atria 8e Kal a

presses merely the popular view,

rovrwv 77 ^vx"f].
fTt TOV
not the technical definition, of UVTOS \6yos ?j eVTcAe xeia.
life. 8 cbs wal ou eVe/cej/ 77 i|/vx^ atria
1
See p. 4, n. 1, infra. wcrirtpyap 6 vovs eVeKa TOU Trote?,
-
DC An. ii. 1, 412, a, 15: TO* avrbv rpoTTov 77 Kal rovr <pv(Tis,

ttHTTf TTO.V aW/AO, (pVOLKbv jUeTt xOJ/ fffriv avrjj TeAoy. roiovrov 8 eV
a &^ ovfffa 5 OUT cos ToTs ^V s ^ ^^X 7^ lfa * KOTOt
^CUTJS ovff [-J
o>s
elf?;,

trvvQ&rri eVel 8 eVri ffco/J.a roiovfie (f>v<Tif

iravra yap TO (pvcriKa mo-
Kal /nara I//UX 7! 5 i*p7 at/a is
[TEBNDBLBNBUBG :
aufj.a TTJS .

roiovtii; TORSTRIK: Kai a. rotdj/Se], eVe/co TT)J tyvxris ovra. He then

goes on to show, what is a matter
v|/iX ov yap fffri TWV /ca0 UTTO-
7.
of course, that the soul is an
Kfi;j.fvov rb (r&fjia, fj.a\\ov
8 us efficient cause. Part. An. i. 1,
Kal V\~TI. avayKa iOv apa 641, a, 25 the ovffia is both effi :

?z>
oi ff iav e?z/at ws cient and final cause roiovrov 8e ;

TOU fyov f/Toi iruffa 77

Part. An. i. 1, 641, a, n

4
li-32; Gen. An. ii. 4, 738, b, 26; Cf. i. 379, supra.
the Entelechy, or more accurately as the First
Entelechy,
of a natural body endowed with the
capacity of life.
1

This again applies to none but organic

bodies, the
members of which are designed for some definite
pur
pose and serve as instruments for the fulfilment of
2
special functions. The Soul accordingly is the First
1
DC An.
ii. 1, Aristotle
pro TIVOS yap fKacrrov TUI>
/uopiuv,
ceeds ^ 8 ovffia eVTeAe ^eta [the
:
opoiws 5e /fat rJ oAor) aj/a^/CTj &pa
form is the efficient force]. TOiovSl e?i/at Kai tn rotwvSl, et e/ce?i/o
TOIOVTOV apa o~w/j.aTOs eVTeAe^eta. eo-rat. Ibid. i. 5, G45, b, eVel H :

The expression entelecheia has, Se rb /j.fv opyavov irav 4Ve/cct TOV, TO

however, a double sense at one 5 ov cVe/ca trpa^is ns,
fyavtpbv on
:

time it is the power of action KO.\ TO crvvoXov tnWo TTjKe <rw/j.a

that is understood by it at ; irpd^tos TWOS ej/e/ca As

ir\r]povs.
another, the activity itself (the the saw exists for the sake of
standing example of the former sawing, so TO aca/md ircas Trjs ^UXTJS
meaning is eViim^, of the latter, ei/e/cei/, /cat TO,
/Aopia TWV epywv irpbs
QecapeTv; see ibid., and cf Me.taph. . & Tre^u/cef e/caa-rov. Jlrld. ii. 1,
ix. 6, ]048, a, 34 ; Pliys. viii. 4, 255, G46, b, 10 sqq.: of the constitu
a, 33; Sensu, 4, 441, b, 22; DC ent parts of living things some
(fen. An. ii. 1, 735, a, J TREN- (
; are homogeneous, others hetero
DELENBURU, De An. 314 sq. ; geneous (see i. 517, n. G, wi/pra} ;

BONITZ, Arist. Mctapli. ii. 3 Ji). (

the former, however, exist for the
The soul can be called entele- sake of the latter; e/fetVcoi/
[sc.
cheia only in the former sense Ttav
a.vofj(oio^.f:pu>v~^ yap Hpya nal
(that of the power), seeing that irpdeis etViV . . .
Sioirep ef CKTTUV
it ispresent even in sleep ; this Kai vsvpwv &c. (rwfo-Tr)Ka(TL TO.
is what is meant by the addition bpyaviKo. popiuv. Ibid.
TWI>
ii. 10,
>/,
when in 1. 27 it is said :
G55, b, 37
plants have only a :

few heterogeneous parts Tr^oi- ;

yap o\iyas irpdeis b\iyiav bpydvuv

TOS, for the power always pre T; xwvi-s- The organic parts of
cedes the activity. the body, therefore, are those
-
Aristotle proceeds, 1. 28 :
which serve a definite purpose :

TOIOVTO 8e [so. St/voyuej fayv *X: OI/ for this use of the word see,
1>

e.g.
o ^ bpyaviKbv, adding that the- (fen. An.
&>
ii. 4, 731), b, 14: TO IS
parts of plants also are organs, opyaviKo is irpus rijv crvvovaiav
though very simple ones (cf. /.Lopiois. Ing/\ An. 4, 705, b, 22 :

Part. An. ii. 10, G55, b, 37). On orra fj.lv yap bpyavmo is /u.fpfo~t xpw-
the definition of organic life cf. /ifcj-a 8 olov trofflv
(\4yu> ?) irjfpv^iv
the passage quoted by TRENDE- i} TIVI aAAw ToiovTii)) TIJV flpri/j.fi rjv
LENBUKG in loco ; Part. An. i. 1, p.tTafio\T)v [locomotion] Troiflrat.
642, a, 1) as the axe to fulfil :
.. ocra 8e IJ.TJ TOIOVTQIS
.
popiois,
its purpose must be hard, UVTWS avry e Ttt)
owf.La.Ti bia\r]\l/tis
/cat tVei ri aiauLa upyat- uv All
iroiovfj.fl/a Tr^ot/j^tTut. the
B2
4 ARISTOTLE
1
Entelecliy of a Natural Organic Body. This definition
does not, indeed, apply to the higher portion of the
Soul, which in the human spirit is added to its other
parts. With this, however, Natural Philosophy has
nothing to do : it is rather the subject-matter of the
2
First Philosophy.
The soul, considered as the form and moving prin
3
ciple of the body, must itself be incorporeal and here ;

Aristotle contradicts the interpreters of his theory who

represent it as being material in nature. It does not

move itself, as Plato thought, for then it would be a

motu Di as well as a wovens, and every motum exists in
space.
1
Nor is it a harmony of its own body ;
5
for such
a 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

Again, it is not a number that moves itself,

f)
the soul.

parts of a living body, however,

serve some active purpose. Ue An. i. 3, 401, a, 21, c. -1,

DC An. ii. 1, 412, b, 4 ei

1
:
408, 30 sqq. a, The further
5rj n Koivbv eiri ira<rr}s vf/i/x^s Set" reasons that are urged against
htytiv, etrj &j/ eVreAe ^eta 77 irpwrr) this view we must here pass over.
oo^iaToy (pvffLKov opyavLKov, and a On (he Platonic conception of a
similar definition is given, 1. 1) world-soul see i. 459. n. 5, mpra.
sqq.: it is the \6yos [or the
otVia 5
On this assumption, cf.
Kara rov \6yov] <rdc/iiaros <$>V<TIKOV ZELLER, Pll. d. Gr. i. 413.
roiovbl (x VTOS v-PWv Kwr^atws KCU
ti
_L)c An. i. 4 init. 408, a, 30,
(rrarrews tV eauToS. where conclusion is sup-
this
See on this subject Purl, ported with further arguments, cf.
-

An. ii.1, 641, a, 17-b. 10: PHILOP. De An. E, 2, in, (Ar. Fr.
cf . De An. i. 1. 403, a, 27, b/J 1L): Kexpyrai Se xa.1 avrbs 6

ii. 2, 413, b, 24. ApitrroTeXris . . . eV rq3 Ev8fi/j.(f)

sqq.,
3
See p. 2, n. 2. siijtra. Dt r<f 8ia\6-ya>
bvo tiri^ip h^^ffi rav-
Jttrent. 1, 467, b, 14: SfjAoy ort rots. pia. ^v ovrws TT) apuov q,

ovx iu v T tlvai (Tuj/xa rT]V ovrriav (piirrlv, tirri n

ti/ui/TiW, 77 avap-
avrijs [i Tjs \^V\TJS J, oAA. o/iuos on 7 fioffrla rij 5t fyvxy ovbev Ivwriov
tV Tin TOV (Tujuaros inrdpxti /xo^t y, OVK. apa i) ^f^ ? b-pfJLOv a tarlv , . .
 PHYSICS

for it does not move itself, and if it were a number it

certainly could not do so. It is not some one sort of 1

material, as Democritus thought, nor a mixture of all

2
materials, as Empedocles held for if it were a mate :

rial itcould not spread through all parts of the body, 3

since two bodies cannot coexist in the same space and ;

if the soul must contain all materials, in order that it

may be able to perceive them all, the same argument

would oblige us to ascribe to it all combinations of

materials in order that it may know all. We cannot

identify it with the air we breathe, since all living crea

tures do not breathe. 4 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, (pricrl,

TOV PJi. (1. Gr. i. 807 sq. ;
on the latter,
avTiov fffrlv avap/jLoaria
T] De An. 409, b, 23 sqq. c. 2,
i. 5,
TOV o~u>(jLaTO? avap/nocrria Se TOV 404, b, 8, Ph. d. Gr. i. 725. Only
ffj.\l/i>XOv ffu/naTos voffos Kal dtrfleVeta one of Aristotle s many objections
/cat alffxos. S)v T& ^kv affv/j.fj.Tpta to the theory of Empedocles is
eVrt TUiV (TTOL-^fiwV 7] VOffOS, T& Se here given.
3
TCCV 6/j,oio/j.pctJV r/ affOfVfia, Tb Se As it is obvious that the
Twv opyaviK&v rb alamos. [On this, nutritive and sensitive soul at
however, see i. 517, n. 6, sujtraJ^ least does, from the fact that
ft Toivvv >?
avapfjiOffTla v6<ros /cat when a plant or an animal is cut,
d(T9eveia Kal alamos, f) apfj-ovia apa life remains in all parts alike so
vyeia Kal tV%i/s /cat /caAAos. tywxfr long as its organic conditions are
Se ouSeV TOVTWV, OVTG
eo"Tt
vyia present; De An. i. 5, 411, b. 19,
(f>r)/jCl
OVTC Ivxys ovre /caAAoy ii. 2, 413, b, 13 ;
cf. i.4, 409, a,

yap eT^ej/ /cat 6 @epo"tT7js

9: Lonf/lt. V. 6, 4(57, a, 18 JUT. ;

&v. OVK apa fcrrlif rj vi Sen. 2, 4G8, b, 2 sqq. 483.

raura ^iei/ eV e /cefj/ots. THEMIST.
/cat De An. i. 5, 410, b, 27.
1

De An. 44 sp. SIMPL. DC An. ;

5
Aristotle attributes this
14, a, o, and OLYMPIODOBUS in view first to Thales, but identities
Ph(pd. p. 142, also mention this it specially with Diogenes of
argument from the Eudcmus. Apollonia and Heraclitus ;
cf .

1
Ibid. 408, b, 32 sqq. cf. ;
De An. 411, a, 7 sqq.
i. also
5, ;

ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 871, 2. c. 2, 405, a, 19 sqq. and ZELL.

On the former of these Ph. d.Gr. i. pp. 178, 2 238 240 ;
: :

views see De An. i. "> in it. c. :>, :>S7, 2 ; C-42 t-q.

406, b, 15 sqq, c. 2, 403, b, 28, and

 ARISTOTLE
and none of the attributes
peculiar to corporeal sub
stances can be ascribed to it. On the other hand, it

cannot exist without a body. 1 Aristotle is even anxious

to indicate the particular matter in which it
resides,
and which it it carries with
passes from one being it as
to another process of in
This he the
procreation.
describes at one time as Caloric
(Osppov), at another as
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,

to harmonise this conception with the general
teaching
of the Physics? The only right view is that the soul is
*
J-JO -. 1. 11* 11. 1, TilOj Jl, i OTl JU6J/ "y(f)pl(TTOV ^)V (TUtLLCLTOS O(TOiS
p.ev ovv OVK fffnv ^y%^/ X P rT ^ 77 Cl) t rb 0etoi/
f/J.irepihafj./3dvfrai (roiovros
<

rov ffct>/J.aros, T) jue prj rivd avrfjs, el o" fffrlv 6 Ka\ov/j.fvos vovs), rb 8
/jLpl<Trl) TT(pVKV, OVK oSTjAoi/ . . .
dx(*>pi<TTOv,
rovro rb o-irpu.a [with
ov juV AA ez/ta ye ovOev /co>Auet, WlMMER read o~a>[Md] rr/s yovys
Sta rb |U7?0ei/os e7j>at
cru>fj.aros
4vre- StaAueTot /cat irisv/u.urovrai (pvo~iv
Aexeias. Cf. Gen. An. ii. 3, 736, ^X ov vypdv Kal 7rj/u/xaTw57j. As
b, a, 7 sqq. and p.
22 sqq. 737, the material in which the soul
supra, and p. 8, n. 1, infra.
4, n. 3, resides is here expressly distin
-
The principal passage upon guished from the elements, it is
the subject is 6 en. An. ii. 736, P>,

naturally thought of as aither,

b, 29 :
Trdffrjs fjCfv ovv ^U^TJS Svvau.is which elsewhere (see i. 476, n. 2,
erepov o~w/j.aros HOIK* /ce/cotj/wi/7]/ceVat and 477, n. I, supra) is described in
/Cat
QflOrepOV rttlV Ka\OV/J,fV(i>V almost identical terms. But on the
aroix* i-tov a>s Se $ia<f)epov(ri
nuto- other hand the rather is neither
rrjTi at ^u^ot Kal dri/mia aAAifjAa)!/, hot nor cold, nor as the element
ovrca /cat f) roiavrrj Stac/>epet (pixris. of the immutable spheres can it
Travruv fj.fv yap eV a"irep/u,aTt
T<J?
ever enter the region of the
fvvrrdpxei, o-rrep Trote? yoviu.a. Hvai earthly changes of birth and
ra ffirep/uaTa, rb Ka\ov/j.voi> 8ep/m6v. death (see i. 473 sq. supra, and
TOVTO 5 ov Trvp oi5e ToiavTf] Svva.fj.is the admirable discussion in
effriv, a AAa rb t MEYER S Arist. Tkierk. 409 sqq.).
ev Tj5 a"JTpfj.aTi
Kal Even if, relying upon De Cado,
irvev/uia Kal ev Ttf Trj/ei^aTt fyvffis,
f) i. 269, a, 7 (on which, however,
2,
dvaKoyov ofxra T$ affrpwv TU>V see i. 474, n. 1, supra), we suppose
(TToix^iv- It is not fire but heat, (with KAMPE, Erkenntnisstk. (L
whether of the sun orof animals, Ar. 23) that it is forcibly injected
that generates life, rd Se rf)s into the organic germ, the ques
701/775 (Tw/aa, fv & ffvva.Trfpx^TO.1 rb tion would still remain how we
rb r-?is ^UXLKTIS dpxys, rb are to explain such a
<rirep/ui.a
process
 PHYSICS
exist with
the form of body, since the form cannot its

out the matter to which it belongs, and yet it is not

and how the evolution which and motion, 667, b, 26 iii. 5, :

we must ascribe to the ffirfp^a r}]v rov avayKalov eV

Bep/j.ov apxV
TTJS \|/ux KT?s apx^s,
whether we T auTaJ [as the sensitive
r6iru>

take Sia\veff6ai as referring to soul] fivai. De liesplr. c. 8, 474,

the germ itself or only to the a, 25, b, 10: rb ^v Kal f) rrjs
is consistent with the \l/vx^s e|ts /xeTa flep^oVrjTOS Ttvos
701/7),
immutability of the aether (i. 476, <rriv
yap epydferai irdvra.
. . .
irvpl
in question, This heat resides in the heart.
supra}. The material
moreover, is never described as The other faculties of the soul
rether. It is merely compared cannot exist without the nutri
with Nor, indeed, does Ari
it. tive, nor the nutritive &vev TOV (pv-
eV rovrcf yap 77 (pvffis
stotle ever speak of an ethereal ffiKOv Trvpos

matter, but only of vital heat avr^v. C. 13, 477,

/j.ireirvpVKev
and vital breath, as residing in a, the higher animals have
16 :

the body. Similarly ^Zte Vila; more heat a^ua yap avayK-r) Kal ;

c.
4, 469, b, 6
irdvra Se ra /j.6pia : \l/vx^l s
TeTux 1? <:e/I/at
rt/j,i(arpas.
16, 478, a, 28 : all animals require
/
eV rrj
TIVO. ffl>/J,<pVTOV 0ep/U.O T7JTa (pVfflKTiV cooling 8ta TT> /capSfa rr]s
of the living, C. ^1 ini^t.
whence the heat
.
"^vvrts 6jU7rupcoo*ii .

the coldness of the dead, body. TOV 0epuoD, iv <p

T] apxfy "H
OptirriKr)
iov Sr; ravrrjs rijv dpxh v T *? s 1, is also called
a.va.yKa (which, 480, b,
eV rrj /capS.a TO?S ?rup). IHd. c. 17, 479, a, 7 sqq. :

0ep/xoVrjTOS
b Tav
eVai juois flvai, TO?S 5 dvalfiOis eV the apx^? TTJS fays gives out
"

Kal
"

dvo-Xoyov epyd&rai yap ,-., T ,v . . .

v
KOIVUVOVV avTT)s. When, there
dXiffra 8e rb fore, through old age the lungs
With the heat of the heart life (correspondingly the gills) grow
the the
too becomes extinct, 5ia TO r^v dry and stiff, fire (i.e.
vital heat) gradually dies away
Kal and is easily put out altogether.
vaQcu TTCLCTL,

f/j.irirvpfv/j.fvns
ev TOIS popiois Sib yap rb bXiyov elvai rb dep/J-bv,
rovrois [the heart is as it were are rov irXt .arov SiaireTrvevKoros
the hearth on which the soul s sv TCO TrA^/^e: TTJS fays, Toxews .

/ j i 1 -H
TO IVVV aircxTpevvvrat. L)& All. H. Jill.
.

fire burns] . . .
avdyirn
rb
epydfcrai Se
:

ajua TO re rjv virdpx iv Ka ^ T I/ T0 ^

/
TTt)V irtyiv Qep[J.6v

Oep/jiov rovrov (rear tip ay, Kal rbi/

Ka\ov/j.evov ddvarov eTrat T^VTOVTOV
Gen. An. ii. 1, 732, a, 18: the
rovro
(peopdv. Part. A)i. ii. 3, 650, a, higher animals are larger ;

2 as it is only by heat that food

:
S OVK avev
0p,uoTrjros vJ/ux K^-
can be digested, all plants and c. 6, 743, a, 26: rj 5e Qep^TTjs
animals require an apxr) Ofp^ov
c. 7, 652, a, 7 sqq. the : ri&paTi. 744, a, 29 : man has the
Qva-iK-f].
soul is not fire but resides in a purest flepjiiOTTjs ei/ rfj /capStct.
its chief Cf. Gen. An. ii. 4, 740, b, 29:
fiery body, heat being
instrument in the performance the nutritive power of the soul
of its functions of nourishment 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 6cpfj.6- fan (for this is the sense in
TijTt Kal ^VXP^TTJTI. According to which we must understand 475,
Gen. An. iii. 11 (see i. 460, n. 3, a, 11, 669, b, 1). Beside these
supra) the vital heat resides in passages, the statement in Gen.
the Trvfvfjia, the apx^i r v tfVfitfJMTOS An. ii. 3, stands rather isolated.
(De Somno, 2, 456, a, 7) in the Granting that the o-w/xa 6ei6repoi>
heart, from which all animal ru>v
there spoken of is
<noixe{<av

heat proceeds ;
in those animals
which have
heart, no T$
o.vd\oyov rb av^wrov Trvev/j.a
avafyvawiAfvov Kal ffvvi^dvov Qai-
verai (ibid. 1. 11). This jrvfvfj.a
trv/j.<j)VTov,
which is
inlierent property, not an external
adjunct, of animals, is frequently
mentioned, as in Gen. An. ii. 6,
744, a, 3, v. 2, 781, a, 23 (ZELLER,
Ph. d. 6V. i. 16, 659, b, 1 7), where
we 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
and do not require
the TTvev/jLa ffvfjifyvTov
for purposes of cooling. As, how
distinguished from the Tn/eG/ta in
eV which it resides (r) eV T Tri/ei^icm
(pvffis), it is j et hardly possible
to attribute to it an rethereal
nature. The truth seems rather
a natural and to be that Aristotle here feels a
want which his philosophy as a
whole does not enable him to
supply. The writer of the
spurious treatise TT. nj/efytaros
discusses the nature of the
Tn>fv/j.a e/u.<pvTov, though he by no
means confines himself to this
subject. 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
irvtvfjLa. to his doctrine of the
to breathe, Nous is for later discussion (see
is sufficient Ch. XT. on the Keason, infra}.
See supra, and
1

p. 2, n. 2,
ever, according to the above, it Metcipli. vii. 10, 1035, b, 14 : eVei
is also the seat of animal heat, 5e i] TUV ^(f(av ^VXT)
(jovro yap
the phrase must be understood in ovffia rov e^ipu^ou) f) Kara TIJ>

the sense explained in Resplr. 9, \6yov ovcria Kal rb e?8os /cat rb ri

474, b, 31 sqq., to mean that fy flvai T Toi5e (TcafMari. c. 11,
cooling, in the case of such non- 1037, a, 5 the body is the v\rj,
:

respirating animals as require the soul the ovo-ia ?; irpwri]. viii. 3,

more than that caused by the air
or water that surrounds them, is
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
1043, a, 35. De An. ii. 2, 414, a,
12 as the : form is everywhere
distinguished from the matter
which receives it, so is the soul
TOVTO & ^uei/ Kal alaQavo/jLtQa Kal
8tavoovfj.0a irpwrcas, uxrrf \6yos ris
av eirj Kal el&os, a\\ ov% vKt] Kal
it to act as a j 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, :

2
Life not a combination of
inseparable in reality.
is

soul and body,

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

soul is the active force that operates in the body, or, if

you will, the body is the natural organ

of the soul. We
cannot separate them any more than we can separate
the eye and eyesight.
5
None but a living body deserves
the name of body, 6 and a particular soul can only exist
7
in its own particular body. Therefore the Pythagorean

3
yo/J.ei>T]s TT)S ovcrias, KaOdirep e As perhaps the Platonists
S>v TO TO 5e U ATJ, TO 5e e
(j.cv cTSos, defined it, consistently with the

ufjifyolv rovrwv 5 fj juei/ v\i] 8vva- account of death in PTiatdo, G4, c.

4
pis, TO Se cTSos eVreAe ^eta
eirel Se Metaph. viii. G, 1045, b, 11.
Top. vi. 14 i nit. Cfjv and
TO e| aptyoiv f/J.^vxov, ov rb ffw/md the &ov :

(TTiv eVreAe^eta ityvxys, aAA ai/rrj are not a (rvv9eais (rvvSeo-^os of /}

<Tu/j.ar6s
TWOS. Kal Siarovro KaAws soul and body.
vTTO\a/J.I3di>ov<nv,
oTs 5o/ce? JU-^T &vev
5
De An. ii.1,413, a, 1 5J
: o>s

flvat jU7JT6 Tt T] T\ u^/ts Kal T]

rov opydvov T]
Svi/a/JLis
(TW/JiaTOS <TO>/J.d

OVK VTf\ex fia t T ]

T ^ I/
fyvxh- (Tupa /J.GV yap eo"Tt, \l/v%-fi [sc.
DC An. 5e ru 5uj/a^ei or aAA
(TufMaros Se rt. ii. 1, 412, rrw/J.a uxrirfp

b, 11 sqq.thus illustrates: if the 6 b(j)&a\iJLbs T) K6pr] Kal ri fyis, /ca/cef

axe were a creature, its nature as
an axe would be its soul if the ;
fbid. 412, b, 11, 20, 2f>.

eye were a separate being-, its Part. An. i. 1 640, b, 33 sqq. 041, ,

eyesight (ttyts) would be its soul, a, 18. Gen. An. ii. 5, 741, a, 10.
avTt) yap o(f>6a\/J.ov y Kara
ov<ria Meteor, iv. 12, 389, b, 31, 390, a,
rbv \6yov. 6 8 otyOaA/jibs v\rf 10. Metaph. vii. 10, 1035, b, 24.
oif/fws, 7)S airoXfnrovffijs OVK tffTiv
7
De An. ii. 2, 414, a, 21 (fol
o<f>ea\/j.6s.
The soul is to the body lowing on the passage quoted p. 8,
as sight is to the ej*e. n 1 supra) Kal Sia TOVTO eV ffw^a-ri
.
,
:

1
See v-rrdpxei, Kal
fv cru>iJ.aTi TOIOVTQ, Kal
i. 351, n.
supra. 1,
*
De An. ii. 1, 412, b, G the :
w(T7r6p of Trporepov
oi>x
els (Ta>/^a

soul is the entelecheia of an fVT]pfJio^ov avrr)V, ovQev irpoffSiopi-

5ih /cat ou Se? farfiv oi>TS eV TtVt Kal TroiCfj, Kaiirep oi/Se
organic body.
K(d r ^ G&l*- rov rvxovros Sexetrflat
ft fV T) ^ U X^ &O"Tp ", (paivofj.ei>ov

ouSe rl>v
Kiipbv Kal rb (TXTj^ia, oi5 rb T\)\QV. o JT(t) 8e yivtrai Kal Kara
fKacrrov V\T\V Kal rb ovv\t). \6yov eKaffrov yap rj
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
various kinds indifferently that a flute, for example,
could be of the same use to a carpenter as an axe.
1

The true essence of everything is its form, and the

essence of everything that comes into being is its

purpose or end. 2 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
of the whole. 3 But every instrument depends upon the
nature of the work for which it is designed ;
so the

body exists for the soul, and the qualities of every body
4
are determined by those of its soul. Nature, like a

eV rw Svi d/j.fi virdpxovTi Kal rrj owe ia o ?s opydvois,

TretyvKev fyyivfffOai.
I/AT? Cf. the r}]V 8e tyvx^v T$ ffw/iunn (ef. p.
passages quoted, i. 221 , n. 1, sujtra, 8, n. 1, supra, ad Jin.)
from Phys. ii.t), and elsewhere. 1, and i. 459.
-
See i. 375, n.
l)e An. i. 8, 407, b, 13 most
1
:
sqq. supra. The expression, Part.
writers (Aristotle is thinking An. i. 1, (540, b, 28, i] yap Kara
principally of Plato) make the T-fjV KVplWTfpa T7JS
/JLOp<pijV (plHTlS
mistake of speaking of the union vhiKys (pixTfus, is used with refer
of soul and body, ovBev TrpocrStopi- ence to the above question of the
relation of soul and bod}^.
1

ffavres, 8<a riv alr iav Kal TTWS

mipra^ and
3
%)^ovros rov o~(f)fj.aros. Kairoi 8oftei> See p. 3, n. 2,
&i/ TOUT afayicaiof e/Vcu 8ra yap Phys. viii. 2, 252, b, 24 : el 8 4v &y
T7?J>
KOlV(i>v(o.V rb jJLtV TTOtfl TO 8f rovro Swaraj/ yeveaOai, ri Ka>\vft
-rrdcrxft Kal rb u.ev Kivflrai rb Se TI avrb o fyit/STji CU Kal Kara rb iruv :
KlVii, rOVrCDf 8
VTrdp^ Tp^S Ol>9tV 1 fl
yap 4v /AiKpy Koff/jLw ytvercu, Kal
a\\T)\a Tols rvxovffiv. of 8e jj.6i>ov

tiuxeipovffi Xeyeiv irolov rt y ^vxv,

1
Part. An. i. 1, 640, b, 22
Ttepl 8e TOU 8eo[j.evov (rw/JLaros nvOfv sqq. concluding (041, a, 29) :

en irpoffSiopi^ovcriv, uxncep eVSe_\;o- wore Kal ovrcas &v XtKriov e t-rj raj

fjifvov Kara robs TIvPayopiKovs pl (pvcrf&s OfwprjriKty Trepl

irfpl TTJS I/ATJS,
evSveodai traJ^ua 8o/f? yap
"t8ioi>
e^etv fISos Kal . c. 5, 645, b, 14 : eVei Se
.
irapairXriaiov 8e \eyovcriv T^ JJLCV upyavov irciv fVfKO, rov, ruv
ei" TJS (pair] T?;V TfKToviKr)v Sf rov <Tu>/j.aros u.opiuv (Kao-rov
av\oi>s evSvfffdat Se? yap T"i]v
evfKa rov, rb 8 o5 eVe/m irpa^ s ns,
 PHYSICS 11

to each the instrument it can

judicious manager, gives
Instead, therefore, of deducing the spiritual from
1
use.
the corporeal, as the elder physicists had done, Ari
stotle takes the opposite path, describing the soul s life

as the end and the body s life as the means. While

Anaxagoras had said that man was the most rational
denies any truth
being because he had hands, Aristotle
to this dictum unless it be reversed man has hands
because he the most rational being for the instru
is ;

ment must be fitted to its work, not the work to its

instrument.- The nature of the instrument is not,

indeed, a matter of indifference in respect to the result :

anything cannot be made out of any substance or by

3
any means ;
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 on KOI rk avvoXov Gup-a.

-
Part. An. iv. 10, 687, a, 7-23,
trvvfo-T-riKe irpdews TWOS eveKa especially the words just after
irX-i)povs. . . . Start Kal T& ffu/j-d TTWS the passage quoted above irpoa- :

T yjs ^U^TJS ej/e/cej/. Kal TO. [topia ruu>

i,KeL yap uvn avXrirri Sovvai
T<p

tpyuv Trpbs a ire^u/cev tKacrrov. paXXov avXovs ^ T(f avXous tyovri

1035, b, 14 sqq.
vii. 10, irpoffQe ivai avXtjTiK^v
TW yap pel-
Metapli.
!)(> An. ii.see p. 2, n. 3, m/>ra.
4 ; &vi Kal Kvpiwrepci) irpoo-ed-nKf rov-
1
Part. An. \\\ 10, GST, a, 10: Xarrov, aAA ov rtf e Aarroj/i rb
5e ael /cat yuei^W .... TW ovv
tj (pvffis Siavf/J,ft, Kafidinp Ti/jua>Tpoi>

tKaffTOV T$ irXdo-ras Swa^eixf 8ea<r0cu Tex vas

uv9p(DTros (ppovi/j.os,
Svva/J.fvcf xP*l ff al - JMd- c 8, H84,
- T^ etrl TrXelffrov TWV opydvwv xP^r
a, 28 :
r; Se (pvffis airodio wffiv ael -ri^ov T V X^P a airoSfSwKev ij (pixris.

roTs xPV ff O at Svvaficvots (Kaffrov T)

3
See pp. .), n. T, and 10, n. 1,
n6v(s $ .uaAAoi/. iii. 1, 661, b, 2(i supra.
sqq.: of those organs which serve
4
There is, therefore, no real
for purposes of defence or are inconsistency between the doc-
indispensable to the support of trine previously laid down and
life, fKaffra airoS^ufnv rj <pv<ris
the statements, Gen. An. ii. 0,
TIHS Suj OjiifVots xp^l ff6al P&i""s T) T44, a, 30, that man s intelligence
juaAAoj/, /j-dXicrra 5e ry yuaAiara. affords proof of the evKpaffia of
Hence the female is usually the central organ of his life;
either wholly or in part unpro- Part. An. ii. 2, 648, a, 2 sqq. c. 4,
vided with defensive organs. 651, a, 12, that greater intelli-
 12 ARISTOTLE
The adjustment of means to end
of organic beings.
which prevails in nature here displays itself in its fullest
perfection. To them we may with most
1

propriety
apply the axiom that Nature always produces the best
that was possible under the given circumstances. 2
This working towards fixed ends
begins to show itself
in the nutrition and development of organisms. Nutri
tion not a mere operation of warmth, as was
is
supposed ;

warmth may be important in the process, but it is

always the soul that regulates it and directs it to

a certain definite result. 3 Nor can we adopt
the theory
suggested by Empedocles the for
explaining growth of
plants by saying that the element tends
fiery upwards
and the earthy downwards in their composition if
so, ;

gence is a consequence of thinner conditioned result; cf. Part. An.

and cooler blood; ibid.
(
22, that the meaner in
86, b,
telligence of animals, children,
and dwarfs is to be explained on
the ground of the earthliness and
immobility of the organ which
their souls must employ ])e
Itespir. 13, 477, a 16, that warmer
animals have nobler souls, and
J)e An. ii. 0, 421, a, 22, that man
excels all other creatures in the
iv. 10, ii. 640, a, 24.
i. Further con
sideration, however, reveals the
logical difficulties in which we
are thus involved. The soul s
development is said on the one
hand to be conditioned by the
:
capabilites of its body, the
character of the body on the
other hand is conditioned by
the requirements of the soul
which, then, is primar} and con
-

fineness of his sense of touch 5io ditioning ? If the soul, winy has it
not a body which permits a
and that among men those who higher development of its
are white, and "therefore have a powers ? If the body, how can it
more delicate sensibility, are be itself treated as though it
mentally more highly endowed were the mere tool of the soul ?
(cf. also ATetaph.
1
i. 1, 980, b, 23). Meteor, iv. 12 see i. 468, ;

Mental activity may be pheno n. 5. siipvn.

-
menally dependent upon certain See the discussion, supra, \.
conditions which in turn exist p. 459 sqq. The statements there
only for its sake that which in
: made refer for the most part prin
reality is the primary and con cipally to the organic nature.
ditioning principle may appear
:i
l)c An. ii. 4, 416, a, 9 : SOKC?
to follow in time as a later and Se riffiv 77 rov irvpbs (pvais a?rAwy
 PHYSICS 13

what keeps the two together and prevents their sepa

ration ? The same applies to the structure of the
[

It is impossible to explain even the origin

organism.
2
of organic creatures on the supposition that their

separate parts are formed and brought together by a

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
of life. 3 For chance produces only isolated and ab
normal When, on the other hand, Ave
results. are

dealing with the normal adaptations of Nature we are

forced to regard them as purposely designed by her

from the beginning. But this is precisely what we

alria. TTJS rpotyr/s Kal TTJS a T f (t V eL [ V >

>
TWl>S

elj/at . . . .TO 8e ffvvairiov p.4v -TTCOS oSoVras e| avdyKys afaTe?Aat rovs

,
ov fj.)]V
aTrAa-s 76 a lnov, aAAa fj.fi/ /jLtrpoff6iovs o|e?s, eT

Trpbs TO Siatpeli ,
TOWS 5e
v
ews av fj TrAaTels Kal rb Aeai-
irvpbs avfyffis ds aireipoi , \pit](ri[J.ovs TT^OS

rb Kavtrrbv, TUIV 5e (pvaei (rvviara- i/etj/ TTJV TpCKp-rjV,

eVei ou TOVTOU
u,tv<av irdvT&v etrrt Trepas Kal Xoyos eVe/ca -ysviffQai, cxAAa

/j.tyt6ovs Te Kal au|TJ(rea>s

ravra 6/m.oiws 5e Kal Trepl TWJ/ ahXao
8e
1
aAA ov irvpbs, Kal \oyov ey otrois So/cel inrdpxtw TO eVe/ca
il/u^fjs,
U ATJS. Cf. p. 14, n, 2, inf. ; TOU. ovv cx7raj/Ta (jvviftt]
OTTOU juev
/AoAAov ?)

and upon atriov and (Twa trioy, su- wcnrep KO.V el eVewa TOU eyiveTU,
and p. 463, n. 1. ravra taudr) O.TTU rov avTO/j.drov
ura, i.
p. 360, n. 1, fji.fi>

1
Ibid. 415, b, 28 sqq. (rvffrdi/Ta e7rtT7j5eia>s oVa 5e /u.rj

2
As tiius to OVTWV, (XTraiAeTO Kai ctTroAAi/TCti,
Empedoclcs
do see following note. \Ve rd
;

cannot suppose, however, that avpoTTpwpa.

yevri
ASvi/arov Se [Aristotle an
4
Empedocles (or any other of the
ex- swers, 108, b, rA~]TovTOvfxeiv
//;/>.

pre-Aristotelian philosophers)
rbv rpoirof. ravra fj.fi/ ydp /cat ndvra
pressed the theories of whieh
lie

is chosen by Aristotle as the repre rd ipvfffi T) dtl ovTW yivtrai T) ws

firl rb 7roAu, TWI/ 5 CXTTO TU^TJS Kal
sentative, in so general a sense as
is here attributed to him. ToP avrofJ-drov ouSeV. ct . . .

dirb SoKel
198, b, IB, Ari
3 (Ls (Tv/j.irTwfj.aT05
ii. 8, TJ
Phys.
the question: T cVeKa TOK etVat, ei olot TC
stotle starts I /XT;

Ka Auet rrjz/ ^vaiv fJ.r]

evtitd. Toy
Trtutu/ /uj5 on /JtArioi/, aAA &<nrtp
a,7rc) ravTO/j.dTOv, eVtKa TOU at/ tfrj.

JJe: 6 Zeus &c. [see i. -171, xupra] In farther proof of design in

. wjTt ri /ttoAuti UVTOJ /cat TCI 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
1
We
structure by the mere of elementary forces
operation
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 in order,
according to their several uses.
3
First
she forms the parts on which the life and
growth of the
4
being depend then the remaining most important
;
parts
Te AoS fffTl Tl, TOVTOV tl/eKO. TOIOVTOV fffTlV oloV (f)ll(Tl
TTpaT-
rerai rb irpoTfpov KOI Tb Kal tveffTi dvvd/u.fiTa
e^f^rjs. /uopia
OVKOVV ws irpaTTtTai, OVTW 8
W^uKe, ovB4v. /cal OTI TO . .

KO.IUS TTf<pVKGl ,
OVTC Kal TO waOyTiK tj/, oTav
Qtyuaiv,
fKaarov &z/ /JL^ n f/u.-rroSi . . evtivs TO pet/ Troie? TO Se navx* 1 -

rai 8 eVe/ca rov Kal -necpvKfv apa Se TO, vwb

. .
cao~Trep TVJS Te vi/r/s
TOVTOV eVe/co. Cf. i. 462, n. 2, Sia T&V
yw6ju.i>a yivfTai opyavaav,
supra, eo~Ti 5 Q.\-t]Qe<TTfpov CiVeli/ Sid Trjs
Part. An. i. 5, 645, a, HO
1

:
t<n\v
i]
just as when we speak of a bouse 8e
or furniture, we mean, not the
material of which it is made,
but the #A?7 noptyr), so in the in w
&o~Trep Kal eV avTO?s Tols
vestigation of nature we speak TOLS <pVTO?S VffTtpOV e /C T
irepl TTJS ffvj/9f(re(vs Kal Trjs oAr/s Tryiet TTfv av^riffiv. ^pufjL^vr] olov
ot/fnay, aAAa /UTJ tr^pl TUVTWV & Lib Kal
o/iyai/ois Otp/jioTt^Ti fy v XP r Tl "n

ffvft&aivei xco^i^te^a Trore TTJS (eV yap TOVTOLS i] Kivrjvis tKeivrjs Kal
OVffid. i Q.VTWV.
-
Xoycf TIV\ Kao-Toi/ yivtTai) OUTGC Kal
(rcn. An. ii. -J, 740, b, 12: e TO
<*PX.ys
~)iyv6-
(Twi<jTT]<n <}>v(rei

?? Se SiaKpiais yiyviTat -ruv

fjLopiuv [itvov.
[in tlie formation of the foetus] 3
Ibid. ii. 6, 744, a. )() eirtl . :

ws T(i/es vTro\a/j.pdvov(Ti, Sta TO 8 ovQfv iroiel

irepicpyov ovSe /j.aTr]v 77
o->x

TO (pvo~ts, o~7)\ov ws ovS

6fj.oiov
vo~Tepov ov8f
Trt<pvKfvai <t>peo~6ai
irpbs
Tb (and therefore as in
O/JLOIOV irpoTpov. tlo~Tai
yap TO ysyovus
elementary processes) for in ; /J.drr)v 7^ Trepiepyov.
that case homogeneous parts, 1
lower animals the
Iii tlie
flesh, bones, &c., would unite in heart or the organ that corre
separate masses a AA ;
UTI TO sponds to it; Gen. An. ii. 1, 735,
ire tTTccfj.a Tb TOV 0r\ a, 23.
 PHYSICS 15

of the organism ;
and lastly the instruments which it

for special purposes.

1
The nutritive soul is
employs
developed first, as forming the common basis of all life ;

and next the several functions of the soul by which

each higher organism raises itself above that which
scale of being. First comes
precedes it in the living <i

2
and next some special being. in sort of
being,
dissolved in
obedience to the same law the organism is

the reverse order. That which life can least dispense

with dies last, the less vital organs first so that Nature ;

3
works round in a circle to All parts
her starting point.
and functions of the living creature exhibit the same
and can be explained as
proofs of contrivance, only
the product of design. Accordingly all Aristotle s

researches into the corporeal nature of animals are

view. The essential and decisive

governed by this
causes are always final causes, and whatever leads in
1

the ordinary course of nature to a definite end must

5
have existed for that end. lie tries to prove that every
organ is just what it
must have been in order to fulfil
its purpose in the best possible way according to the

3 that
Gen. An.ii. (5, 742, a, 10 -b, Ibid. c. 5, 741, b, 1H :

734, a, 12, 26. the heart is the central organ is

6, c. 1,
-
Gen. *An. ii.*3, 736, a, 27-b, seen at death; diroAenret
70^
11 (of. 737, b, 17, c. 1, 735, a, 4 Cjjv
IvrtvOfv TeAcuTcuov, ffvppa vei
As the inhabitant of a 8 eVl irdvrtav TO Tttevralov yiv6-
sqq.).
material body, the soul may be pevov arroXenreii/, TO
-rcpuTov
8e

said to exist potentially in the -n^-rov TeAetrrouoi/, &o-rrep TT)S

al aj/eAn--
seed. In the evolution of the <f>ucrta>s Siai/Ao5po/tou<rT?s

soul eirl dpxV 30ey faOev.

living being the nutritive rojttcVrjs
T^V
comes first, next the sensitive and tori yap T? pfv y evens e TOV /AT;

rational first comes a &ov, then

:
OVTOS els TO tf, rj 8e <t>eopa
e/c TOV
a definite &ov, e.g. a horse or a UUTOS
*
TTO.\IV els TO w ov.
Cf. 450, sqq. supra.
man.O o-Tepov 70^ ylvtrai TO T(\OS,
i.
3
TO 8 filOV eO-Tt T^ tKOO-TOU T7/S Cf. p. 17, frf/TO.
Tt AoS.
 16 ARISTOTLE
means He points out how every animal is
at hand. 1

provided with organs adapted to its mode of life, or

how the common organs of a tribe are modified to meet
its special needs. 2
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
3
tection and maintenance ;
and remarking that Nature
always affords the strongest protection to the noblest
and the weakest parts,
4
that, where one organ is not
equal to its task, she makes or modifies another for the
purpose, and that she places organs of opposite
1

character near one another, in order that each

may
temper and supplement the action of the other. lie
sees in the artistic instincts of animals an obvious

Proofs of tliis, the most im-

1
bodies to enable other animals to
portant of which will call for escape from them more easily, and
future discussion, are given to prevent them from doing injury
throughout the whole work DC to themselves by their voracity.
Fart. An., and in many passages a
The flesh, for example, is
of Aristotle s other zoological and the principle organ of ^sense-
anthropological works. perception bones, on the other
;
-
Thus the elephant, being not hand, nerves, veins, skin, hair,
only a land-animal, but leading nails, &c., exist merely for its
also an amphibious life in mor- sake, as is shown Part. An. ii. 8.
asses, is provided with a proboscis ZKLLER, Ph.tLGr.n. 14,
that it may breathe more easily 658, b, 2 sqq., iii. 11. (573, b. 8,
under water Part. An,, ii. 10, ; iv. 10, 690, b, 9.
b, 33 sqq. In like manner the
6.">8, Ibid. iv. 9, 685, a, 30.
form of birds beaks depends (i
Ib ul. ii. 7, 652, a, :!1 : atl
upon the nature of their food, 70^ TJ Averts /j.r)xai>aTai irpby T^V
as is shown {Ibid. iii. 1, 662, b, 1, eKaa-rov vTreppo\ f3or,B(iavr^vTovV
sqq. iv. 12, 693, a, 10 sqq.) in the eVai/ri ou iraptSpiav,
aviva^ri ryv "iva

case of birds of prey, the wood- darepou virfp0o\r]i/ edrepov. b , 16 :

pecker, the raven, grain- and eVet 8 a-rravra 8e?Tcu rrjs evavTias
insect-eaters, water- and moor- poirris, iva. rvyxdvT] rov /j.frpiou KOU
fowl. Dolphins, again, and sharks TOV thus the head counter-
/j.t<rov
:

(ibid. iv. 13, 696, b, 21) have the balances the heart,
mouth in the upper part of their
 PHYSICS 17

example of unconscious contrivance in Nature. Nor 1

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 make
use of both causes in their explana
3
tions. Still he holds fast to the belief that
physical
causes are only means employed by Nature for her ends,
and that their necessity is only conditional nor does ;
4

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. She turns everything to the
best possible account G ;
if she can make one organ

Phys. ii. 8, 199, a, 20: 46, c; Div. i. 642, 6). In dis

Se (pavfpuv etrl ruiv ^yccv cussing individual parts of the
ra>v
a\\<)v,
a ovTf TfX v V ovre body he frequentty gives both
^firr](ravra ovre fiov\evcrd/n.i>a sides in succession, e.g. Part. ii.
voie t. oflei/ Siairopova irivesirorepoi 14, 658, b, 2 man has thicker
:

vif ij rivt a\\Cf) epydoi>rai oi T hair than any other animal, e

apdxvai Kal ol /j.vp/j.f]Kes
Kal TO. roi- v 5ia r^v vyp6rt]ra rov
avra. /caret [AiKphv 5 ovroo Trpo iovri \ov Kal 5ia ras pa(pas, . . .

Kal ZVTOIS tpvrdis <paivraira(rv/j.(pe- 8e flotjOeias, OTTUS (TKeirdfaai,

povra yu/6/j.ei a irpbs rb re Aos, olov &C.
TO. (pv\\a TT}S TOW Kapirov eVe/ca The proofs have already
4

ffKfTTt]S. UHTT* ft (pVfffl T TTOie? Kal been given, i. 360, n, 1, supra.

5
tvtKa. TOV rf ^eAiSwj/ Tr)v vOTTiav Kal See i. 465, n. 2, supra.
6
6 dpa^vTjs TO apa-xyioV) Kal TO. (pvTa Thus, for exam pie (Part. AH.
TO. <pv\\a eVe/ca T&V Kapir&v KOI ras iii. 14, 675, b, 17
sqq.), the intes
pt^as OVK avia aAAu KO.TW eVe/ca TTJS tines are coiled tightly together,
rpocpris, (pavfpbv 6n fffrlv atria rj
-TJ
SITUS rafjLifvrjrai T) (pv<ris
Kal ^
roiavrr] fv roTs (f>vffi yLvofj.evois Kal aQpoos fi T) eo5os rov Trepirru/jLaros,
olffiv. Cf. i.463, n. 1. especially in those animals which
2
See i. 360, n. 1, supra. are destined for a frugal manner
Ibid, and Part. An. i. 1,
3
of life. The same thought had
643, a, 14 Svo rp6iroi rrjs alrias:
already been expressed in PLATO,
Kal Se? Kiyovras Tvy%aveiv /j.d\iffra Tim. 72, E.
v &c. (Cf. PLATO, Tim.
au.<f>ow,

VOL. II.
18 ARISTOTLE

serve, she does not give an animal several for the same
function if she needs materials for strengthening one
;
l

member, she despoils another which appears less indis

pensable ;
2
if she can achieve several objects by one

Thus
1
Aristotle explains without the latter is ouSev oi/ras

(Part. An. iii. 2) that different TTpovpyov.

animals are provided with differ Gen. An. iii. 1, 749, b, 34
- :

ent means of defence, some with thin animals have a greater

horns, others with claws, some power of procreation y yap e/s ;

ra rots
with size, others with fleetness, rpeireTai
Ko>Aa
Tpo</>r;

others with repulsive TOIOVTOIS fls TTtptTTw/xa fftrfpfjLa-

again
excrement 5 iKavas Kal TIKOV & yap fKeWev atyaipe i T\
; a/j.a
irXsiovs /3o7j0e(as ou SeSaxccj/ T] <pvffLS, TTpoffriO^ffiv
evravQa. Part.
(pvffis rots avToTs. Again, ibid. iv. An. ii. 14, 658, a, 3L in long- :

12, 694, a, 12,he remarks that tailed animals, the hairs of the
birds which have a spur are not tail are shorter, in short-tailed,
endowed with bent talons also ; longer, and the same is true of
CUTIOV 5 on ovfiev r) fyvffis irote? the other parts of the body ;

irfpiepyov. Again, Itcspir. 10, iravrax ^ 7"P an-oStSoxrt [^ fyvffts]

476, a, 6 sqq. :
gills and lungs Xafioixra erepwOev npbs &A\o [j.6piov,
eVel cf. ibid. c. 9, 6H5, a, 27 5e
never exist together, :
a/j.a

obfiev 6p(t>/uLV
Troiovcrav rrjv rV airV vTrfpoxfy fis iroAAois

fiuolv 8 OVTOIV Odrepov Uv fy T^TTOUS aSyyare? Stai/e ytiew/ f) fyvffis.

(just beforehe says: 5 ei>

c</>
For further
explanations r.

upyavov xP^ ffl ^ ov ^- And again, Meyer (to whom I gratefully

Part. iii. 14, 674, a, 19 sqq. : ani acknowledge my obligations for
mals which have more perfect much of this section), Arist.
Thicrli. 468: Nature employs
masticating organs (i.e. a/j.fpd>-

a the earthy refuse either for

Sovra) are supplied with simpler
digestive apparatus: those
which horns or double rows of teeth
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,
several stomachs after enume the camel, for a hard palate,
;

The
rating several species of animals ibid. 674, b, 2).
c. 14,
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).
require more than one
stomach the case of mammals, the earthy
on account of their great size material has been employed for
and the coarseness of their food, their tails, and accordingly, un
form an exception to the rule ;
like man, they have no flesh upon
the teeth and stomach of the their legs (ibid. iv. 10, 689, b,
camel resemble those of horned 21). Sharks, again, require this
animals 5ia rb avayKadrfpov efvai earthy material to give their
avrrj KQiXiav ex* lv Toiavrtjv ^
rrjif
skins the proper thickness, and
TQVS irpoff&iovs bSovras, it can do accordingly have mere gristle for
 PHYSICS 19

organ, she makes do the work when

!
it this
; although,
arrangement will not serve, she is no niggard in her
2
contrivances : of the different materials which she has
at her disposal sheemploys 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 to certain structures, they are not without a

design ; for Aristotle thinks that their end mav be

their skeletons (ibid. ii. 9, 655, uxrirep r) xaA/ceuTt/fT? irpbs fUTf\nai

a, Meyer quotes further
23). bfitXiffKoXixviov (on this GOTT-
examples from Part. An. ii. 13, LING, DeMachtcra J)elpkioa,Ind.
657, b, 7, iv. 9, 685, a, 24. Cf. lect. Jen. 1856, p. 8); aAA OTTOV
also Part. An. iii. 2, 663, a, 31. /XTJ eVSe ^erai KaraxpTJTai Tip avT$
Thus the mouth, besides
1
firl TrAeico epya. Pulit. i. 2, 1252,
the common purpose of eating, b, 1 : ovdev yap ri (pix
serves various other ends in the TOV oTov x a ^KOTVT
various animals, and is thus fj.dxaipav [GOTTLIXG, ibid. ;

variously formed ; ^ 700 Averts . . .

ONCKEN, Staatsl. d. Ar. ii. 25,
ToTs Koivcns TrdvTcav /Aopiois els TroAAa who both however, to give fail,
ruv ISicav Karaxp^Tai ?) 8e . . . a complete account of the matter]
Qvffis Trdvra
crw^yayev els v, ireviXpvs, aAA ej/ Trpbs ev ovrca
TTOtovaa Siafyopav avrov rov ftopiov yap a7roTeAo?TO aAA terra TUV
ai>

irpbs TO.S TTJS epyacrias Siafpopds. 6pydi>(Di> 6/cao-TOi/, ^ 7roAAo?j epyois

(Part. An. iii. 1, 662, a, 18, cf. aAA fvl SovXevov. MEYER, Arist.
Respir. c. 11 init.) Likewise ThierJt. 470, rightly remarks that
the tongue (Rcsjnr. ibid. Part. ii. ; these statements are inconsistent
17). The hand (Part. iv. 10, 687, with the principles of the parsi
a, 19) is ovx ev upyavov dAAa mony of nature as previously
iroAAa yap uffirepel opyavov
eo"Ti laid down, and even although
Trpb opydtxav (cf. De An. iii. 8, we grant that it is possible to
432, a, 1) ; it is (b, 2) Kal owt, nal find, with Aristotle, a basis of
reconciliation in the phrase faou
Kal &\\0 OTTOIOVOVV OTT\Ol> Kttl OpyCLVOV, eVSe xeroi, we cannot deny that
&c. 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.
19 sqq., the trunk of the ele 3
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, :

8irov yap eVSe ^erai ^prjo fiai Svalv food, the servants a coarse quality,
eirl Sv epya Kal p.^ f^iroSi^eiv irpbs and the domestic animals the
ovStv i) (pvaris elude iroietv worst.

c 2
20 ARISTOTLE

fulfilled in the very symmetry and perfection of their

form,
1
and that this explains why many animals have
or at least the indications of them,
which they
organs,
do not use.
2
It is only 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, where the hairs of the tail of

the the horse and other animals are
as a universal law that all
be in pairs described as merely ornamental.
organs should (8tcJ>ur)),
2
The hind, while it has no
has a right
seeing that the body
and a left, a front and a back, horns, has teeth like the stag,
because it belongs to a horned
an upper and a lower (Part. An.
c. 667, b, 31 sqq.). class; and similarly in certain
iii. 7 init. 5,
species of crabs the
female has
Even where to all appearance
he claws which belong properly
there is only a single organ,
exerts himself to prove that it
is only to the male, 6n eV yevei T<?

double 669, b, 21 :
elffi fx ovri Xt^ 5 (PttTt. An.
T<f

(ibid.
fiovherai iii. 2, 664, a, 3, iv. 8, 684, a, 33).
/col 6 tyK$a\os
Again, spleen, which is a
r&v aAff
neces
elvat Train Kal
tKaffrov. Kara rbv avrbv 5e \6yov sity only to viviparous animals,
Likewise and is therefore more strongly
KapSfa TO?S KoiXiais.
developed in these, is yet found
T)

the lungs). Another typical law

where it to exist in all (ira u/xi/cpoj Sxrirep
is that the nobler parts,
j

in the upper as a kind of

is possible, should be
II/
o-rjjueiou X"P )

and on the right as counterpoise to the liver, which

part, in front
is on the right side of the body
the better position (Part. An-. Hi.
3 665, a, 23, b, 20, c. 5, 667, b,
and therefore requires something
to correspond to it on the left,
34 cf. c. 7, 670, b, 30, c. 9, 672,
a, 24, c. 10, 672, b,
19 sqq.); so, woV a.va.yKouov jueV TTWS, ^ Xiav S

locomotive dvcu Train TO?S Cyois (Part. An. iii.

likewise, that the
7, 669, b, 26 sqq. c 4, 666, a, 27,
impulse (the opx*0 -should pro
An.
ceed for the same reason from
cf. //. ii. 15, 506, a, 12).

this quarter (Ingr. An. 5, 706, b, Similarly the monkey, belonging

on Animals. The as it does to the four-footed
11) cf. Ch. X.
;
is endowed with a tail
same esthetic conception of races,
II An. ii.
offov xapiv, 8,
Nature s contrivances is expressed ffri/J-fiov
Cf.
498, b, 13.
in the observation, Part. An. ii. 502, b, 22, c. 1,

that men are MEYER, p. 464 sq. EUCKEN,

14, 658, a, 15 sqq.,
;

arist. Forsch. 104 sqq.,

better protected in front than
JtfetJi. d.
nobler 91.
behind, the front being the
side, and therefore
3
A purposeless creation of
(TtuieoTepo) ireiTTwo he finds in
this kind
demanding stronger defences;
the gall (Part, An. iv. 2, 677, a,
and in 1. 30 of the same passage,
 I
PHYSICS 2l

This prevalence of design in nature shows itself, as

we have seen before (i. 466 sqq.), in a gradual pro
continual process of development.
a The
gression,
not shared
various functions of the soul and life are by
in equal perfection, but different
allliving 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
soul alone is active in them.
1

pagation the nutritive

;

Beasts add to this the sensitive soul, for sensation is the

most universal mark of distinction between beasts and
plants.
2
The lowest form of sensation, common to all
is the sense of touch here begins the feeling
animals, ;

of pain and pleasure, and the appetites, among which

11 sqq.; see i. 361, n. 1, supra). same living energy which first

forms and afterwards nourishes
Upon necessity and chance, p.
359 sqq. supra. the body, but that the former is
De An. ii. 2 (see i. 511, n. 2,
1 the more important function ;

6i ovv avr-n tffrlv T\ epfiniK^ ^u^,

supra). Ibid. 413, b, 7: QpwriKov Kal TOUT
Se \fyo/j.V rb TOLOVTOV p.6piov rr/s avr-r] effrl Kal y ytvv&ffa.

v K(d Ta /Aere ^ei. c. 3

fffrlv TJ fyvcris T) e/cao-TOu,
fyvxiis <f>vra

ovaa Kal eV Kal eV

MI if. c. 4, 415, a, 23 T) yap 0pir- ;
<f>vTO?s

TIKT] ^VXTl Kal TflTs \\OIS t>7TClpX 6t .

Kal irpuTf] Kal KOivordr-n fivvapis

2
De An,, ii. .
2, 413, b, 1: T)>

eVrt tyvxys, KO.& virapx* 1 V

Cw ^ ovv Cyv5m ravTr)v
rb 8e S/o
onraffiv. fjs evrlv epya yfvvr)ffai Kal xei TO?S &<ri,

ffist. An. viii. 1, atvOfiffiv irpuTUS Kal yap ra

rpotyy xp^ffla -

588, b, 24; Gen. An. i. 23, 731,

a, 21,procreation alone is
men S

tioned as the peculiar function Ka\ ou fji/ ,u.6vov. De Sensu, c. 1,

of the vegetable sense and De ; 436, b, lo ;

De .Invent, c. 1, 467,
An. 23, it is said : b, 18, 27 Part. An. ii. 10, 655,
ii.4, 41H, b. ;

re Aovs airavra a, 32, iv. 5, 681, a, 12

656, b, 3
eVel Se OTTO rot) ;
;

SIKOIOI re Aos Se fb Ittf/r. An. 705, a, 26 sqq. b,

c. 4,
TTpoffayopeveiv ,

av 8 Gen. An. i. 23, 731, a, 30

ytvvr\ffa.i olov avrb, di]
;
T] irpunr] ;

On the 1, 732, a, 11. Most of these

y^wnriKi] olov avr6.
ii.
fyvxy
notice the dis
other hand, Gen. An., ii. 4, 740, passages expressly
tinction between the &v and the
b, 34 sqq. (cf. c. 1, 735, a, 16),
shows that it is one and the
 22 ARISTOTLE
the appetite for food appears first. One division of 1

living creatures combines with sensation the power of

2
locomotion, which also belongs to the bestial soul.
Lastly, besides nutritive and sensitive life, man pos
sesses Reason, the third and highest faculty of the
3
soul. 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.

1
of the tyvxal mentioned.
21 sqq. c. 3, 414, b, 1-16, 415, a, Ibid. 414, b, 28: TrapaTrAij-
:>

3 sqq. iii. 12, 434, b, 11 sqq. c mWS 8 fX fl TCf TTfpl TWV ff\lf]jJ.a.TU>l

13, 435, b, 17 sqq. DC Sensn, 1, ;

Kal TO. Kara tyvx tjV yap eV <*el TO>

436, b, 10-18; Part. An. ii. 17, e06|f;s virdpxei 8vvd/Ai rh irporepov
661, a, 6 H. An. i. 3, 481), a, 17
; ;
firi re T&V (Tyr\l*-V-T<0v
Kal eVi riav
DC Somno, 1, 454, b, 29, c. 2 init. e^\|/u^wj/ } oi jv eV Terpaycavcf) fiej/
In these passages Aristotle some rpiytavov eV al(r6r]TiKy 8e TO Opt-rr-
times mentions o0^ alone, some TiKoi /met/ yap rov 9peTr-
. . . avev
times a(p}) Kal yevffis, as the TIKOV T() QLtfrSriTiicbv OVK tffTiv TOV
property of all animals, but the al(T9T)TiKov xupi&Tai TO QpeirriKov
apparent inconsistency is ex eV TO?S (pvTo is. tra\iv 5 aveu /uev
plained by the fact that Aristotle TOV airTtKov T&V a\\wv aio-0r]o~f(v
regarded the sense taste as a i, a<prj
8 avev Tcav
form of touch DC Sensu, 2, 438, ;
. . Kal TWV
b, 30. De An. ii. 9, 421, a, 19: TO. /u.v e^et wara
T>

ii. W hiit. iii. 12, 434, b, 18. OTTOV KlVr)TlKl)V, TO. 8 OVK t6l.
2
De An. ii. 3, 414, b, 10.
3
Ibid, ii. 3, 414, b, 18 (of. iii. Kal Zidvoiav ofs fjitv yap
3, 427, b, 6 Gen. An. i. 23, 731,
; Ao-yjo-yiibv TU>V
fyQapTu/v [to the ^a
a, 30 sqq.) :
frepois 8e [rfav cp<i)v a<pQapTa.
I.e. tlie stars, a pure vovs
virdpxfi] Kal rb SiavoyTiKov re KCU belongs], TOVTOLS Kal TO. \onra
vovs, oiov avQpuTTois Kal e t TL roiov- wd Ta, ois 8 e /cetj/coi/ eKaaTov, ov
, TOV fTp6v fartv Kal Tifj-iwrepov.
ir)
jraffi XoyicrfjLos. aAAa TO?S ^uej/ ai/8e
On the latter part of this obser <pavTa<r(a,
TO. 8e TavTrj /aovrj faffiv.
vation see the discussion upon TTfpl 8e TOV d(apTf]TlKOV VOV (TfpOS
the different kinds of living Ao-yos(on this see infra ). Ibid.
c. 2, 413, a, 31, with
beings infra. regard to
De An. ii. 3, 414, b, 19:
4
the OpsiTTiKov: x.(apit<rQai 8e TO?TO
just as there is no figure which fj.lv aAAwj bvvaTbv, TO. 8 aAAa
T>V

is not either triangular, quad TOVTOV aftvvaTov eV TO?S 6"r]To is.

rangular, or with some other Cf. i. n Jin. De Sonino, 1, 454, a,
number of arrgles, so there is no 11. De Jurent. 1, 467, b, 18 sqq.
soul which is not one or other
 PHYSICS

a developing scale, in which each successive step in

cludes all that went before. Plato s doctrine of the
is thus applied to all animate exist
parts of the soul
of its
ence, without violence to the general conception
originator, though with important modifications of de
tail,
1
and we are enabled to embrace all natural si

Aristotle objects, indeed (De

1 on in each of the parts. Never
An. 22 sqq. 433,
in. 9, 10, 432, a, theless, Aristotle himself speaks
a, 31 sqq.), to Plato s three Cold of parts of the soul (see p. 21, n. 1,
division, oh the ground that if supra De Vita,
;
i. 467, b, 1(5),

we make the functions and facul and although he tries more fully
ties of the soul our principle of to preserve the unity of its life
division we have far more than amid the multiplicity of parts, he
three parts, for the difference cannot be said to have been any
between the Qpeirriicbv, alaQt]TiKbv, more successful than Plato in
voririK^v, /3ouAeur titbit, this endeavour, nor does vovs bear
is wider than between any closer relation in his theory
the e7ri#t^u.TjTiKc>j/
and 9v/j.iKbv, and to "the lower elements of the soul
asks, De An. i. 5, 411, b, 5, in than does the immortal part in
view of it : ri ovv TTOTC (rwfx i Plato s. His departure from
TT?J/ iJ fxV ftepio-Tr? irfyvKiv ; it Plato, accordingly, does not seem
cannot be the body, for it is to be so important in principle.
rather the soul which holds the He differs from him partly in
body together if, on the other ;
his account of different forms of
hand, it be said that it is an in animal life, but Plato, no less
corporeal force, then this is the than he, assigns the lowest of the
proper soul. But the question three parts into which he divides
immediately recurs, is this simple the soul to plants, the middle
or manifold ? If tlie former, one to beasts, and holds that the
why .cannot the soul itself be so higher part presupposes the lower
just as well ? [f the latter, then but not vice versa see Div. i. p.
;

for the parts of the crw^xov 714. The chief difference be

another avvex ov must be sought, tween the philosophers is in their
and so on ad tnjinitum. We respective starting points while
:

should thus finally be forced to Plato begins his investigation

suppose that each part of the into the nature and parts of the
soul resides in a particular part soul from the ethical side, Ari
of the body, which is obviously stotle approaches it from the side
not the case either with respect of natural science. On the other
to the reason, which has no bodily hand, STRUMPELL (Gvscli. d.
organ corresponding to it at all, theor. Phil. 324 sqq.), as BEANDIS
nor in respect of the lower prin has pointed out, ii. b, 11158 sq.,
ciple of life, which, in the case goes too far in saying that Ari
of those animals and plants which stotle attributes to one and the
survive being cut in pieces, lives 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 nature exhibits a
organic
steady progress from more imperfect and defective
productions to richer and fuller forms of life. Nature,
he says, makes so gradual a transition 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. Next to
the inanimate kingdom comes that of Plants and here
;

we not only distinguish greater arid less degrees of

vitality subsisting among individuals, but the whole
tribe seems animate when
compared wdth inorganic
substances, inanimate when compared with
Again, the transitionfrom plants to animals is so
gradual that many marine creatures leave us in doubt
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 sensi-
tive and the motive principles as
two). ^Aristotle speaks, indeed, of
a tyv x *i OpewTiK}), alae-nriK^ \oyuch
and of different ^v X a\ (see c-.//.pre-
ceding page DC Vita, ; 3, 4(59,
a, 24),but he does not mean that
several souls exist together in an
individual as so many separate
beings he even defines the rela-
;
tion of these so-called tyv X al to
one another in the distinctest
manner as one of comprehension,
animals.
the nutritive soul being contained
in the sensitive, and the sensitive
in the rational, just as the tri-
angle is contained in the quad-
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
figures. If he fails, as a matter
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

adhere to the ground, and cannot live when separated

from it. Indeed, the whole tribe of Ostreacecc, when
compared with locomotive animals, resemble vege
tables. The same may be said about sensation, phy
sical structure, mode of life, propagation, the rearing of
their young, &c. : in all of these respects we notice a

gradual progression of development.

1
The continuity
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

3
possible, produces resemblance. This analogy may be
1
Hist. An. viii. 1, 588, b, 4 avdxoyov x^p 15 Two kinds of -

sqq.where detailed proof is given ;

birds differ from one another by
Part. An. iv. 5, 681, a, 12, where, the size, for instance, of their
in speaking of zoophytes and the wings birds and fish, on the other
;

differences which are to be ob-

-
hand, r<f avdXoyov b yap e/ceify
served amongst them, he remarks: irrepbv, darepty Ae;ns. Analogies
T] yap (pvcris utrafiaivfi (rvvex&s airb of this kind are found in almost
TWV atyvxtov *is TO. $a Sia T&V fav- all animals ra yap TroAAa : <a

Tdiv jUti/ OVK OVTWV 5e <<av ouTcas dvd\oyov ravrb TreirovQtv. Simi-
fcffre SoK~it/ Trd/j-irav i^iKpbv 8ta<J>epeii/ larly in the following passage,
Oarepov ddrepov TOJ ffvvvtyyvs a\- 644, b, 7 sqq. a contrast is drawn
AyjAots. between differences which exist
2
I. 272, n. 2, su/>ra.
With within the same genus, e.g. be-
\vhat follows of. MKYER, Arlst. tween large and small, soft and
Tkirrk. 334 sqq. 103 sq. hard, smooth and rough animals,
Part. An. i. 4, (541, a, 14.
:{
and lliose which permit us lo
Why are not water and winged trace only general analogies. To
animals included under one the same effect, c. 5, 645, b, I :

name ? eo-rt yap fi/ta irdOr] KOIVO. iro\\a Koiya iroAAoTs virdpx^ T&V
KCtl TOVTOLS Kal To7s ttAAois aoS ^(pwv, TO. /AH/ ctTrAcDs, olov TToSes
airaffiv. ciAA 6/j.cas opdcas SicopiffraL Trrepa AeTTj Ses, Kal ird9rj Sr/ rbv
1

rovrov rbv irpoirov. 6<ra,

/uei/ yap avrbv Tpo-rrov TOVTOIS, ra S avd-
8ta</>epet
ru/v yevwv o0 virepox^f \oyov. heyw S a.v&\oyov, on roils
Kal rb fj.a\\ov Kal rb r/rrov, ravra /j.fv uTrapx 61 TrAew^ajv, TO?S Se ir\i>-
i,
ova e^et rb /J.wv ^v ob, & 5e TO?S
26 ARISTOTLE

observed in the most different quarters. In place of

blood, bloodless animals have certain humours which

correspond to it ;
and this is also the case with flesh. 2

Molluscs, being without fat, are provided with an

Cartilage and gristle correspond
5

analogous substance/
to bones in snakes and fish, and in the lower animals

by shells, &c., which serve the

their place is supplied
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 repov avr TOVTOV 517, a, 1, 1,486, b, 19.

i.

5
KCU TO IS fj.V ai/xa, Tins Se TO ava.- Part. iv. 11,
691, a, 15, i. 4,
\oyov rrfv avrrjv ex ov ^vva/j-iv Tjj/Trep 644, a, 21. Hist. iii. 10 hut. i.

Tols fvai/uots TO afyia. I bid. 20 1, 486, b, 21.

6
sqq.; Hist. An. i. 1, 480, b, 17 Part.iv. 12, 692, b, 1.1.
sqq., 487, a, 9, 491, a 14 sqq. ;
c. 7,
7
Part
647, a, 30, iv. 5,
ii. 1,
ii. 1, 497, b, 9 viii. 1 (sec infra).
; 678, b, 1, 681, b, 14, 28, a, 34;
1
Hist. An. i. 4, 489, a, 21 ;
Gen. An. ii. 1, 735, a, 23 sqq. c.
Part. An. i. 5, (545, b, 8, ii. 3, 4, 738, b, 16. c. 5, 741, b, 15. De
650, a, 34, iii. 5, 668, a 4, 25, -Resplr. c. 17, 478, b, 31 sqq. !)<

Gen. An,, ii. 4, 740, a, 21. De Motn An. c. 10, 703, a, 14. On
tSo inno, c. 3, 456, a, 35, and other the parts which Aristotle regarded
passages. as analogous to the heart see
-
Part. An. ii. 8 init. iii. 5, MEYER, p. 429.
8
668, a, 25, ii. 1, 647, a, 19 ;
Hut. Part. ii. 7, 652, b, 23, 653, a,
An. i. 489, a, 18, 23 l)e An.
3, 4, ;
11 : DC Somno, 3, 457, b, 29.
ii. 11, 422, b, 21, 423, a, 14. Part-, 5, 645, b, 6, iii. 6
"

i.
3
Gen.. -An. i. 19, 727, b, 3; i-nit. iv. 676, a, 27; Hist. An.
1,
Part. ii. 3, 650, a, 34. viii. 2, 589, b, 18, ii. 13, 504, b,
1
Part. ii. 8, 653, b, 33- fin. c. 28 ;
De Ilcsp. c. 10 so. 475, b, 15,
9, 655, a, 17 sqq. c. 6, 652, a, 2 ; 476, a, 1, 22.
Hist. iii. 7, 516, b, 12 sqq. c. 8,
 PHYSICS 27

take up food into their systems. Some animals which 1

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 born from eggs correspondingly, the ;

embryo of mammals is 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
lifecorresponds 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 ;

human soul in childhood can scarcely be distinguished

from that of beasts/ Thus does one inner bond of
union permeate all departments of organic nature one
life unfolds itself from the same fundamental forms in

continually ascending degrees of perfection. And as

organic nature is the sphere of contrivance and design,

1
De An. ii. 4, 41G, a, 4 : us After illustrating th
rjKf(pa\r} ovrws ai pifai
rS>v
&W, examples he proceeds :

riav $>VTMV, 6t xP~h Ta opyava \tysiv yap ^aAAoi/ Kal yrrov

T<

ravra Kal krepa raits Zpyois. De irpbs rbv avBpwirov TO Se . . .

Jtivent. c. 1, 468, a, 9; Ingr. An. a.vd\oyov Siatpepti us yap ev

C. 4, 708, a, (5. 0p<i>Tra) rexvn Kal croc/x a Kal (Tvi/e
-
Part.
G78, b, G-10. iv. 5, O&TWS tv ois TWV frpuv Iffriris tr
:<

Part.
iv. 12, 693, a, 26, b, Toiavrr) QWIK.}) 8vva/j.is.
10, C. 11, ($91, b, 17 Hist. i. 1. ;
TO.TOV 8 eVri TO TOIOVTOV tirl rr;r
48H, b, 19, c. 4, 489, a, 28, ii. 1, TWI/ iraiSwv r)\iKiav ftXf^aaiv eV
497. b, 18. TOVTOIS yap roov vcrrfpov l|ewz/ jj.fi>

4 7! Kal
Part. iv. 12, 692, b, 15. eo-o^eVwr Zffriv *5eti/ oiov "ix?

5
Hist. vii. 7, 586, a, 19 : Gen. o-Tre p^ara, 8ia<pfpei
8 ovOev us
An. iii. 9. See i. 467. n. supra,
1, enreu/ TJ ^vx^ rrisrwv 0i)piwv tyvx^s
1
fi
Hist. An. viii. 1, 588, a, IS : Kara rbv xp^ vov TOVTOV, laar ovSev
Tr\eia TOis Kal T&V fl ra /j.ev ravTa ra 5 itapa-
eVefTTi yap eV rols aXoyov,
aAAcov ^CfHav fx* *!
T >v
<* ^ e P^ f}}v TrA^trta TO 8 a.va\oyov tnrap^et roils
rpoirw, airep eirl rwv avQp-Ja- ftAAots Cf s-

e^et (pavepurtpas ras 5ia<popds.

28 ARISTOTLE

it is itself in turn the object which all the inorganic

universe must serve. The elements exist for the sake
of homogeneous substance, arid this for the sake o*~

organic structures. Here, therefore, the order of

existence is reversed : that which is last in origin is

first in essence and value.

Nature, after displaying a
1

continual decrease of perfection from the highest sphere

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 expanding itself from its first weak germs to
3
its highest manifestation in humanity.
1
Part. Aii. ii. 1, 616, a, 12: rovrwv 8e TO. avou.oiOfj.fpri

rpiwv 8 ovff&v rSov o~vv6fo-fuv [on [i.e. organic nature], ravra yap
which see 517, n. 6, sujJ.~] irpwr-rjv
i. tf8r) TO rf\os fX fl Ka^ T0 7re Ps

fj.fv av ris fK roav KaAou,ue -

Qftt] rrjv e| afj.(porfp(i)v jj.fi/ ovv ra wa avv-
vwv VTTO riv<av a roi Xfiwv .... 8eu- fo~rr]Kf /uopiuv rovrcav, dAAd TO.
rS>v

Te pa Se avffraais fK ruv Trpwruv T] 6fjt.oiofJ.fpfi

roov avofj.oiofj.epuv fVfKfV
ra>v
6/j,oiofj.fp)v fyvcris fv TOIS <OLS fffnv fKfivuv yap fpya Kal irpd-
fffrlv, olov 6o~rov o~apKos Kal
Kal ets elfflv, olov o<p9a\fj.ov, &C.
TWV a\\wv raiv roiovrwv. rpirr] Se -
Cf. what is said in Gen. An.
Kal TeAeuTaia rbv apidfj,bv fj ruv ii. 1, 731, b, 24 eVel yap Iffn ra
:

aVOfJ,OLOfJLfpWV, oloV TTpOfftoTTOV Kal d f Sta Kal 0e?a ruiv ovruv ra 8

fj.fv

X*ipbs ruv roiovrwv

Kal fj-opicav. fvSfxofJ-fva Kal slvai Kal /uty elvai, TO
eVel S fvavrius firl TTJS y<
8e Ka\bv Kal rb Qfiov atnov dei Kara
fX fi Ka T ^ s oiifflas ra yap r)]V avrov fyvaiv rov ftt\riovos eV
TTJ yfvfffft irporfpa rrjv (()vo-iv TO?S eV5e%oyueVots, rb 8e /j.r) a io iov
Kal irpoorov TO TT) yfvffffi TeAeu- eV5e%Jyuej/oV e(m wal tlvai Kal
rawv, for the house does not exist fj.fra\a/j.f3dvfii Kal rov ^e
for the sake of the stones and the rov /SeAriWos, (3e\riov Se
bricks, but these for the sake of frwyu.aTs, TO 8 e^^u^oj/ rov
the house, and generally the Sia rr)v vl/i/XTjf, Kal TO tlvai rov /J.TJ

material for the sake of the form flfai Kal TO rov fj.r]^"TJJ/ ]iv,
and the final product: rep /j.ev ovv Sid TauTav Tas alrias y(vt(Tis
Xpovy irporepav rr)V i/Arji/ avayKa iov fffriv.
3
fivai Kal rT\v yfvfffiv, \6ycf Se r<?
That Aristotle conceives of
rrjv ovffiav Kal rfyv fKaarov fj.opty fiv. such a process of development
. (txrre ryv fj,fv ruiv o Tot^e/coi
. . from lower to higher forms, and
{/ATJJ/ avayKa iov flvai rtov 6fj,oiou.fpu>v of man as the highest step in
varfpa yap e /ceiVcoz TavTa TTJ the scale of evolution, by refer-
1
 PHYSICS 29

Aristotle finds the first indications of this Life in

inorganic nature. Movement in general may be re-

ence to which we may test the An. i. 6, 491, a, 19) should begin
attained by with man as being best known
degree of perfection
lower forms of being, is obvious to us. Nor can we with FRANT-
from the passages referred to, zius (Arist. -iib. die Tlieilc d.
pp. 21 sq.,
25 sq., and i. 465 TMere,p. 315, 77; contrast MEYEK,
as well as from those Arist. TJiierh. 481 sqq.) conclude
sq., supra,
which immediately follow. Of. from these passages that Aristotle
further Part. An. ii. 10, 655, b, regards nature under the form of
H7 sqq., (ten. An. i. 23, 731, a, a retrogressive rather than a pro
gressive development, and
In the former of these con
24.
ceives of its history as that of
passages Aristotle says plants
:

have few and simple organs, an ideal animal assuming a

TO 5e irpos Gfi T<
succession of degenerate shapes
as it descends from the human
TOVTUV erepa irpb rtpwv to the vegetable form. For, in
Kal TroXvxovo-repav, oawv /J.TJ fj.6vov the first place, he does not always
rov rjv aAAa /cat TOV v fjv T] tyvffis begin with man, but only when
. roiovro 5 eV-rt TO TWV he is treating of the external
ytvos- % yap fj,6vov organs ;when, on the other
TOU Qtiov TWV rjfjuv yvwpi- hand, he is dealing with the
iravTwv. In
/jLaXiffra
internal organisation, a field in
v, ?l

the latter : yap TWV QVTWV

rfjs iJ.lv
which more is known o the
ovffias oufleV effnv &\\o epyov ouSe
lower animals than of men, he
T0 ^ OTTf pharos takes the opposite course (Hist-.
irpa^LS ou5e/xia TrA-V ^
yeveffts rov Se &ov
. .
An. i. 16 init., cf Part. ii. 10, 656.
.
.
ov^ovov
TO yevvriffai fpyov (TOUTO fj.lv yap a, 8). But, in the second place,
KOIVOV TUV TT&VTUV}, a\AO
(at>TUV
it does not at all follow that that

Kal jvaxreus TWOS iravra jueTe^oufrt, which is more known to us must

ra fj.ev -n-Aetoro?, ra 5 eXarrovos, ra in itself be the first either in
of time, or
Sf ird/J.irav piKpus. a iffQ^ffiv yap point of value or
8 aiVrfhjo-ts yvuxris TI?.
that because Aristotle, in treating
fXovcriv, -T]
iroXv of the forms of organic life,
ravr-^s 5e TO rifjuov Kal an^ov
begins with the more perfect
and
Siafyfpei (TKOTTOvffi irpbs (ppAvricnv
proceeds to the
more imperfect,
Kal irpbs TO TUV a^vx^v yevos.
therefore nature follows the
Trpbs jUev 7ap TO (ppovetv utrirep
same course in producing them.
ouoev flvai 5o/fe? TO Koivcave iv a<pr)S

KOL ytvffews /j.6t>ov, irpas Se dvato"- On the contrary, he states as

It is not incon definitely as possible
that nature
07jo-iav pe\TiffTov.
reverse order;
sistent with this view that, proceeds in the
the
Aristotle see, besides other passages,
starting from man,
20 sqq.) preceding note.
There is here
(Part. An. iv. 10, 686, b,
should attribute to the different no question of a metamorphosis
animal tribes a continually di such as that described, either
or progressive.
minishing degree of perfection retrogressive
as compared with him, and (Hist. 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 :

and the wind, and find analogies to the phenomena of

the organic life of animals in the sea. Again, the
1

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
nating states of its parts. A we 11- watered region may
dry up and grow old, while an arid tract may spring
into fresh by timely moisture.
life When streams
increase, the land about their mouths is
gradually
changed to sea; when they dry up, the sea becomes
land. 2 When these changes take place
slowly, length
ideal individual either developing aK/ad^iv Kal <pO(i>eiv avayKalov rrj
or degenerating into various 5e yf, rovro yiverai Kara
^pos 5/a
forms. The organic forms do Oep/j.6rr]ra. As these
not themselves pass into one increase or diminish, portions of
another; the transition is effected the earth change their character,
by nature as she rises to the oxrre p.*xP l TW&J Hvvfipa Swarai
fuller exercise of her creative 5ia/teVetj/,e/ra %T)paiverai Kal
yrjpd-
power. Cf. p. 25, supra. d\iv crepoi Se roiroi fticac
See i. 459, n. 5, 460, n.l, sup.,
1
rat Kal tvvSpoi yiyvovrai Kara
utpos.
and Gen. An. iv. 10, 778, a, 2: Where a region dries up, the rivers
/Bios yap ns teal Trvev/j.ar6s eVrt Kal decrease and finally disappear,
yevevis Ka Upon the sea the sea retreats, and land is
v. Meteor, ii. 2, 355, b, 4 <qq-
formed where the sea was before ;

356, a, 33 sqq. the opposite happens when the

-
Cf. on this the fall and moisture of a district increases,
remarkable exposition, Meteor, i. As examples of the former pro-
14. The same regions, Aristotle cess, Aristotle in the following
there says, are not always wet passage (351, b, 28 sqq., 352, b,
or dry, but according as rivers 19 sqq.) names Egypt, which is
arise or disappear, the land
unmistakably a TrpJerxoxm rov
retreats before the sea or the sea NeiAou, an epyovrov irora^ov (Sajpov
before the land. This happens, rov irora/j.ov, HEROD, ii.
5), and
however, Kara nva rd^iv Kal irfpi- the region surrounding the oracle
oSov. apx^l Se TOUTCOJ/ Kal diriov on of Ammon, which, like
Egypt,
Kal rf/s yys ra evrbs, SoffTrep ra lies below the level of the sea
(T(t>uara rci r&v (pvrwv Kal fyoov. and must therefore once have
yypas. In regard been the sea bottom;
Argolis
to the latter, however, aaa irav and the neighbourhood of
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 to that class

2
of devastating inundations which Aristotle, following to
3
Plato, attributed those relapses into primitive barbarism
which, coeternal though the human race is assumed to be

ceniii in Greece; the Ijosphorus. rowovs vypovs T tlvai OaAarrrj Kal

the shore of which is continually TTOTctyuoTy Kal ^rjpovs. The Tariais,
changing. Some, he says (352, consequently, and the Nile will
a, 17 sqq. according to ii. 3,
;
one day cease to flow, and the
356, b, 9 sqq., he is thinking here Palus Maeotis will be dried up :

of Democritus, but the same view rb yap tpyov avrwv *x fl "

fp 119 " ^
is ascribed to A.naximander and Xp6vos OVK fx ei -

Diogenes; cf. ZELLER, Ph. d. 6fr. Ibid. 351, b, 8 sqq, which

1

i. 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
gradual evaporation
Meteor, ii. 3). But if
places the sea changes
and contrariwise land
we cannot explain this upon the
ground of a yevevis rov K6o~/j.ov
ytXoiov yap Sia /miKpas Kal aKapiaias
fj.eraf3o\as KLvelv TO 6 5e rr\s
yr\s oyKOs Kal rb peyedos ovQtv ecrri
STJTTOU Trpbs rbv o\ov ovpav6v. a\\a
iravruv rovruv atriov
on yiyvtrai Sta xP otfwl>
olov ev TCUS /car fviavrbv
,
OVTCI) irepiuSov
i/icbj/ Kal virppo\%
OVK del Kara rovs avrovs
TOTTOVS. Deucalion s flood was
chiefly confined to ancient Hellas
or the country watered by the
Achelous. Cf. 352, b, 1(5:
8 avdyKi] rov o\ov [the
globe] yiyvtffOai JJLGV Tiva
/j.evt
robs
*
The other possibility, of a
sudden destroying heat, is even
more completely neglected by
Aristotle than by Plato.
(contrast
:i
Plato introduces the story
in many of the Atlantides in the Tinwus
into land with the remark that devastating
into sea, tempests, at one time of fire, as
in the time of Phaethon, at
another of flood, overtake man
kind at intervals. When cities,
TTUI>,
with all their attendant civilisa
tion, become overwhelmed in the
latter, the survivors, who are for
the most part semi-barbarous
mountaineers, must begin again
Sopais from the beginning. Hence we
nvbs /j.e have a youthful Hellenic culture
ujjifipuv. side 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,
eVel in the Lans, iii. 676, B sqq. the
whole question whether the human race
/xero- has existed from all eternity or
only for an indefinitely long
time (vi. 781, B) being left
avrovs ad undecided.
 32 ARISTOTLE

with the world, yet from time to time befall it in the

1

2
history of its civilisation. Life nevertheless in the strict
sense exists only, as Aristotle emphatically declares, in

beings which are moved by their own soul, ? .<?. in Plants

and Animals/3

1
Aristotle does not, indeed, suggested hypothetically, and
expressly say that this is so in not from the point of view of
any extant passage of his writ his own theory. Cf. BERNAYS,
ings; it follows, however, from Theoph/r. i
Frommigli. 44 sq.
. d.
his whole view of the world that -
It has already been shown
he could not have assigned a 1. 4, 508, n. 2, and 25G,
475, n.
beginning to the human race n. supra, and will be still
2,
any more than to the world it further proved Ch. XII. part
self. As man is the end of 2, that Aristotle regards reli
nature, she must have been im gious beliefs and proverbial
perfect for an infinite period of truths as remnants of a civilisa
time, if at any time the human tion which has been destroyed
race did not as yet exist. More by devastations of nature. These
over, Aristotle actually says (cf. devastations, however (accord
i. 475, n. 4, 508, n. 2, supra, ing to p. 30, n. 2), can only have
that in the history of civilisation affected particular parts of the
the same discoveries have been earth, although often so wide
made an infinite number of times, that the scanty survivors of the
and his Theophrastus,
pupil, former population were forced to
among other arguments against begin again from the very begin
the eternity of the world con ning. When, therefore, CEN
troverts that which uses the SORINUS, 18, 11, says of the great
comparative recentness of these minus mundi (on which see ZEL-
discoveries to prove that mankind LER, Ph. d. Gr. i. G84, n. 4, and
came into being within a definite 250), quern Aristoteles maximum
period of time. See Ch. XII. part potius quam magnum appellat, we
3. According to CENSORINUS, may not conclude (as BERNAYS,
4, 3. Aristotle taught the eternity ibid. 170, shows) that Aristotle
of the human race in one of his conceived of periodic revolutions
own writings. The question which in the history of the universe or
he discusses Gen. An. iii. 11, even of the earth as a whole.
762, b, 28 sqq. how we are to He may have employed the ex
conceive of the origin of man pression in discussing the views of
and the four-footed tribes (efaep others perhaps in the books upon
syevovro TTOTC yriyevf is, Sxnrep philosophy (on which see p. 56
(paa i rij/fs . . .
eiTrep fy ris ap^ sq.).
TTJS yfvffffws iraffi TO?S ipots) is
:t
See p. 1, supra.
 PHYSICS 33

2. Plants.

Plants stand lowest in the scale of living creatures. 1

They first display a real soul, inhabiting an organic

body, and no mere analogue of a soul. Yet this soul is
of the lowest sort, and its functions are confined to
nutrition and propagation. 2 Vegetables are not en
dowed with sensation and locomotion or the faculties of
life from which they spring. 3 They have no vital point
of unity (no /jLsaorrjs), as is proved by the fact that

they continue to live after being cut in pieces; and

owing to this defect they are insensible to the form

of that which operates upon them. 4 Hence we may
compare them to animals that have coalesced; for
though in reality they have but one soul, they combine
several potential souls. 5 Again the sexes have not yet

1
On Aristotle s botanical they have no right and left side,
treatise cf. p. 93. All that his but merely an upper and a lower ;

extant works contain upon the Inyr. An. 705, a. 29-b, 21

c. 4,
subject of plants is to be found Jurent. c. 1, 467, b, 32; De Ccel.o,
collected in WIMMEE S Phyto- ii. 2, 284, b, 27,
285, a, 16, cf. i.
logioe Aristot. Fragmenta (Bres- 497, n. 1, supra. On Plato s view
laa, 1838). of plants, which in spite of
parti-
2
See p. 1, n. 3, supra. cular deviations from Aristotle s
21, n. 2, supra. As
3
Seep. is yet nearly related to
it, see Ph.
plants never awake to sensation, d. Gr. pp. 731, 714, 7.
their condition is like an eternal 4
De An. i. 5, 411, b, 19, ii.
sleep, and they do not, accord- 2, 413,b,16,c. 12, 424, a 32 Long. ;

ingly, participate in the alterna- Vitoe, c. 6, 467, a, 18; Juv. et Sen.

tions of sleep and waking (De c. 2, 468, a, 28. See also foil. n.
5
Somno,!, 454, a, 15 Gen. An. v.
; Juv. et Sen. 2, 468, a, 29
1, 778, b, 31 sqq.). For the sqq., where, speaking of insects
same reason there is no distinc- which can live in a divided form,
tion between the front and the he says they are plants which
:

back in plants, for this depends live on in slips they have only ;

upon the position of the different one soul tvepyela, but several
organs of sense. Finally, being 5ui/a/*et. yap rk roiavTa
eo//ca<n

without the power of locomotion T&V TroAAots tpois ffv/nirc-

$<ov

while they participate in growth, Gen. An. i. 28, 731, a,

(f>vK6<nv.

VOL. II. D
34 ARISTOTLE

attained to separate existence in them: confined to

mere vitality and the propagation of their species, they
1
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 com
2
of earth its structure is
position consists principally ;

simple, designed few functions, and therefore pro

for
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
the better member to the worse place. It is true that

in its contrivance we do not altogether fail to trace the

designing faculty of nature, but

we do so only indis
comparison with other living
5 in
tinctly. But, though
creatures plants occupy so low a place, compared with

21 :
drexvcDs toiKe TO. a uxrirep food (Gen. An. iii. 2, 753, b, 25 ;

(pvTa eli/at Siaiperd. Zte An. ii. 2, H. An. vii. 19, 601, b, 11), for
413, b, 18 : ws ova-ris rfjs eV TOVTOIS the consumption of which heat
is necessary (see p. 12, n. 3, and

fKaffrtu (j)vrw, Suva^ei 8e p. 14, n. 2 supra). ad fin.,

Cf Part. An.
.
iv. 5, 682, a, 6 ;
De 3
De An
1, 412, b, 1 ii. ;

Rcsp. c. 17, 479, a, 1 Ingr. An. ;

Part. An. ii. 10, 655, b, 37;
7, 707, b, 2. Phyg. viii. 7, 261, a, 15.
Ingr. An. c. 4 init. c. 5,
4
1
Gen. An. i. 23, 731, a, i. 24,
b, 8, c. 20, 728, b, 32 sqq. c. 4, 706, b, 3 sqq. Long. 6, 467, ; Vita>,

4 fin. iv. 1, 763,

21, ii. b, 2 Juv. et Sen. c. 1 fin. Part.
717, a, ; ;

b, 24, iii. 10, 759, b, 30; Hist.

An. iv. 7, 683, b, 18, c. 10, 686, b,
An. viii. 1, 588, b, 24, iv. 11, 538, 31 sqq. See further p. 27, n. \,sup.
5
a, 18. Phys. ii. 8, 199, a, 23 : teal Iv
2
De
Resp. 13, 14, 477, a, 27,
b, 23 sqq. Gen. An. iii. 11, 7 61, a,
;
<

yLv6^jiva Trpbs rb re Aos, olov TO.

29. That Aristotle held that there <pv\\a rrjs rov Kapirov IVe/co

were other constituents in plants

besides earth is obvious from the ei/e/ca ruv KOLOTTWV [sc. e%et] Koi ras

plfas OVK. a\\a warco eVe/ca rfjs

passage cited i. 482, n. 3, supra.
6.v<a

b, 9 Kal eV ro is
According to Meteor, iv. 8, 384, rpo(pris. :
(pvTo"is

plants consist of earth and

b eVe/ca rov, TJTTOV 5e
b, 30,
water, the water serving for their
 PHYSICS 35

the inanimate world the

operation of the soul in plants,
and especially the
propagation of the species, must be
placed very high.
1
As all terrestrial
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 A
rank of vitality appears in 4
Animals, to which Aristotle
1
Cf. preceding- note and of the
p. plant into root, stem
13 sqq.
- branches, and leaves. The root
Gen. An, ii. 1, 731, b, 31: is the nutritive
^Trei organ, and the
yap aSvvaros r) tyixris rov leaves are veined in order to dif
roLOV Tov yevnvs ai Sios l

fuse the nutriment which is con

efyai, /ca0 bi>

eVSe xercu Kara. rovrov

rpo-Kov, tained in the
fffnv fctSiov rb yiyi/6/utvov. sap (Part. An. iv
apiO/mp 4, 678, a, 9, iii. 5, 668, a, 22;
/j.ev ovv dSiWroi/, .... efffei 5 Jnv. et Sen. 3, 468, b,
eVSe xerar Sib yevos del 24). Again
avQpwirwv (Part. An. ii. lOinit.), he divides
Kal earl Kal Ibid.
<?<av
<pvra>v. the bodies of plants and animals
735, a, 16 all animals and
plants
:
into three chief
have rb epeirriKov rovro 5 eWt parts: that by
which they take up food into
rb yevvnriicbv eVe
pou olov avro their system (the
rovro 70/3 iravrbs (pixrei reAeiou head), that by
which they rid themselves of su
fpyov Kal &ov Kal (pvrov. De An. perfluous matter, and that which
ii. 4, 415, a, 2(5 :
(pvffiK&rarov yap lies in the middle between
r&v tpycav these
rots a><nv,
oaa re\eia two. In pi ants, the root is the head
Kal yur/ TTT/pco/xara, r) TT/J/ y4vfffiv (see p. 27, n. l,svpra~) as the nu ;
avTOfj.drrjv e^et, rb iroirjo-ai erepoi/ triment they draw from the earth
olov avrb, faov yuei/
(i^oi/, (pvrbv 5e is
already digested, they require
(pvrbf, iva rov del Kal rov Oeiov no store- chamber for useless sur
f-ierexvinv fi Svvavrai &c. Polit. plus (on this see also Gen. An. ii.
i. 2,
1252, a, 28. Cf the passages, .
4, 740, a, 25, b, 8);
Gen. etCorr. ii. 10 and 11 (i. nevertheless^
511, the fruit and the seed which
n. 3,s/>.),
from which (Econ, i. 3, form at the opposite end from
1343, b, 23 is copied, and on the the root are secretions
(Part, in
propositions of Plato which ii. 3, 10, 650, a, 20, 655, b, 3<>

Aristotle here follows, Ph. d. Gr i iv. 4, 678, a, 11 H. An. iv. 6^

:

512, 3. 531, b, 8, with which De Sensv,

3
DeAn. ii.4.
Seep. 21, n. 1, 5, 445, a, 19, where the elements
supra. which plants fail to absorb and
*
Among further details of leave behind in the soil seem to
Aristotle s doctrine of be regarded as irepirr^ara of the
plants may
be mentioned: (1) his division food of plants, is not inconsis-
D2
36 ARISTOTLE

so large a portion of his scientific

accordingly devoted
1
activity.

(2) Earth, and

water are hand, excess! vefruitf ulness stunts
tent).
the food of plants (Gen. et Corr, and destroys plants, because it
Part. An. ii. 3, absorbs too much of the nutritive
ii. 8, 335, a, 11 ;

and substance (Gen. An. i. 8, 718, b,

650, a, 3, p. 34, n. 2, supra.
20
Cf II An. vii. 19, 601, b, 12 ; 12, iii. 1, 749, b, 26, 750, a,
it sqq. iv. 4, 771, b, 13, i. 18, 725,
Gen. An. iii. 11, 762, b, 12);
food b 25; cf. //. An.v. 14, 546, a, 1
is the sweet part of their
that nourishes plants and animals
on barren trees, especially the
1-12); this wild fig-tree, see Gen. An. i. 18,
(De Semni, 4, 442, a,
of their vital 726, a, 6, c. 1, 715, b, 21, iii. 5,
they consume by aid
heat (of. p. 12, n. 3, and p. 14, n. 2, 755, b, 10; //. An. v. 32, 557, b,
and Part. An. n. 3, 6oO, 25). On the origin of the seed,
see the remarks, Gen. An. i. 20,
itujtrtt,
in its turn, is
a, 3 sqq.), which,
them partly from 728, b, 32 sqq. c. 18, 722, a, 11,
supplied to
thoir food, partly from the 723, b, 9. On the development of
albeit the germ from the seed and on pro
surrounding atmosphere, Sen. c.
plants do not require respiration
; pagation by slips, Jnv. et
if the atmosphere is
too cold or 3, 468, b, 18-28 (cf. WiMMER, p.
31; BRANDIS, p. 1240): Gen.
An.
too hot the vital heat is destroyed
4
739, b, 34, c. 6, 741, b, 34,
and the plant withers (De Sensu, ii.

17, 478, b, 31). iii. 752, a, 21, c. 11, 761, b, 26;

2,
c. 6; cLRespir.
Respir. c. 17, 478, b, 33. On
self-
As to the influence exercised
upon the character
and colour of generation in plants and animals,
nature of the soil and on parasites, there are remarks
plants by the An.
in Gen. i. 715, b, 25, iii. 11,
and water, see Polit. vii. 16, 1335, 1,

b 18; Gen. An. ii. 4, 738, b, 32 762, b, 18; H. An. v. 1, 539,

9,
2 H. An. v. a, 16. (4) On the length of life
sqq. v. 6, 786, a, sqq. ;

11 543, b, 23; De Sensu, 4, 441, a,

and the decay of plants vide
ll 30; cf. Prdbl. 20, 12;
De Meteor, i. 14, 351, a, 27 Longit. ;

Vita?, c. 4, 5, 466, a, 9, 20 sqq. c.

Color, c. 5. -(3) The seed and the
made of the 6 De Respir. 17, 478, b, 27 cf.
fruit of plants are
;
;

of their food Gen. An. iii. 1, 750, a, 20; on the

surplus portion
c. 7, fall of the leaf and evergreens,
(Part. An. ii. 10, 655, b, 35,
Gen. An. iii. 1, 749, Gen. An, v. 3, 783, b, 10-22.
638, a, 24 ;

b 07, 750, a, 20, i. 18,722, a, 11, On the sources from which

1

723 b, 16, 724, b, 19, c. 20, 728,

he received assistance, ride the
2 sqq. Meteor. valuable account of BRANDIS, ii.b,
a, 26, c. 23, 731, a,
;

iv. 3, 380, a, 11); they

contain 1298-1305. Of his predecessors
and the food of in this field the most important
both the germ
was undoubtedly Democritus,
new plant (De An. 412,
ii. 1,
the
b,26; Gen.An.ii. 4, 740, b, 6, i. whom he frequently mentions
smaller plants are with the greatest respect. He
23, 731, a, 7) ;

refers further to certain views

more fruitful, being able to ex
the of Diogenes of Apollonia, Anax-
pend more material upon
formation of seeds: on the other agoras, Empedocles, Parmenides,
 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

the motive soul is now added, to the vegetable. Even 1

that moral and intellectual life which reaches its full

development in man may be dimly traced in the lower

animals :
they exhibit gentleness and fierceness, fear
and courage, cunning and understanding nor do we ;

to perceive an analogue to the scientific faculty of

fail

men in the teachableness of certain animals ;

while

conversely children display the same kind of rudi-

Alcmason, Herodorus, Leophanes, LANGE, indeed, judges differently,

Syermesis, Polybus, several state Gescli. d. Material, i. 61 The :

ments of Ctesias and Herodotus belief that Aristotle was a great

(which, however, he treats with discoverer in natural science is
critical distrust), and now and still widely diffused. The know
then, rather by way of literary ledge, however, that he had
embellishment, to the
poets. many predecessors in this field
Notwithstanding all these, he . . has necessarily caused this
.

must have mainly relied for his opinion to be much critisised, c.

knowledge of animals upon his Yet when we ask where we hear
own observations, supplemented of these predecessors, LANGE
as those were by information refers us (pp. 129, 11, 135, 50)
received from shepherds, hunters, merely to a quotation from MUL-
fishermen, breeders, and veterin LACH, Fr. Phil. i. 338, who, how
ary doctors. His theory, \vith the ever, expresses himself much
exception perhaps of a few isol more guardedly: haud scio an
ated points, maybe regarded as his Stagirites illam
qua reliquos phi-
own original work. The setting losophos superat erudition em ali-
into place and putting to use of qua ex parte Democriti librorum
the facts left him by his predeces lectioni debuerit. On the aid
sors, BEANDIS remarks, 1303, as which Alexander is said to have
well as the scientific form which lent Aristotle in his
zoological
he gave to zoology, are in allpro investigations see p. 29 sq.
bability Aristotle s own work. 1
See p. 21, supra.
38 ARISTOTLE

mentary moral and intellectual development which we

detect in brutes. 1
The character and structure of their bodies answer
1
//. An.
588, a, 18 viii. 1, :
1141, a, 26; Part. An. ii. 1, 4,
fvecTTi yap &c. (see p. 27, n. 6, su- a, 5, 650, b, 24.
<>48,
In the
pra). KalKal dypio-
yap r]fj.c-p6rr)s ninth book of his Natural History
rr]s Kal irpaoT^s Kal %aAe7roT7js Kal Aristotle treats not only of habits
avSpia Kal SeiAi a Kal (p6fioi Ka.1 Gappy of animals in general but more
Kal Kal
9v/Li.ol iravovpylai Kal TTJS especially of the traces of intelli
TTfpl r^jv Sidvoiav (Tvvsfftuis evfLffiv gence which they exhibit. Of
eV iro\\rns avr&v o^otOTTjres. (For all quadrupeds the sheep has the
the continuation of this passage smallest amount of intelligence
see p. 27, n. 6.) Ibid. ix. 1 init. :
(c. 3, 610, b, 22) the stag, on ;

TO. 8 ijdri ru>i>

cpa)v 6(7x1 ru>T
|Uej/ the other hand, displays a large
afji.o.vpoTfpiov Kal amount (c. 5). Bears, dogs,
i)TTOi> 7)/uUis evr)\a Kara panthers, and many other ani
<Tiv,
T&v 8e /j.aKpo/3i& mals find out the proper remedies
repo. tyaivovrai yap e^oi/Ta TIVO. against wounds and sickness, and
SvvauLV irepl eKavrov riav rrjs xj/uxf/s the proper means of assistance
jra6r]/j.drcav (pv<ntt}]v, irepi re (ppovr)- against the attacks of other ani
ffiv Kal ev fiBetav Kal avfip iav Kal mals (c. 6). With what intelli
re Trpaoryra Kal x a ^ f -
SfiAiai/, Trept gence again do swallows build
TTOTTjra Kal TO.S &\\as ras TOiavras their nests, and the pigeon pro
e|et?. eVia ,8e KOivoovet: nvbs ana vide for his mate and his young
Kal jJiaQtiffttos Kal SiSatr/caAias. ra
(c. 7); how cunningly partridges
/j.ff Trap aAA^Aajj/ ra 8e :al irapa
manage their love-affairs, and
T(av avOpunruv, offa-rrep aKoijs fjifre- hatch and protect their broods
^ei, ,ur? jj.6vov offa TWV tyoty&v aAA (c. 8) how cleverly the crane
;

offa Kal rwv arj/uLetcav BiaiffdavcraL directs his flight what

(c. 10) ;

ras 5m4>opas. (Cf. c. 3 init. : ra design displayed in the habits

is
8 tfdr) riav Qpwv . . .
8ia<pepei
Kara of birds in general, in the choice
re 8ei\{av Kal Trpctoryra Kal avftpiav of a habitation, in the building
Kal f]/j.tp6r riTa Kal vovv re Kal of their nests, in the search for
avoiav.) discussing the After food (see ibid. c. 11-36). In
difference the sexes between like manner Aristotle remarks
with respect to disposition, Ari upon the cunning of many marine
stotle continues, G08, b, 4: rovruv animals (c. 37), the industry of
8 i^j/Tj /j.ev rwv T)QS>v tarlv eV spiders (c. 39), of bees, wasps,
iracnv ws etVeTi/, /u.a\\ov 8f (pavep-J!)- and the like (c. 40-43), the
rtpa fv rots fx ovffL /uAAoi/ yOos docility and cleverness of ele
Kal jj.d\i(rra eV ai dpcaww rovro yap
phants (c. 46), the moral instinct
of camels and horses (c. 47), the
&c. i. 1,
488, b, 12 sqq.; Gen.
Cf. humane disposition of dolphins
An. 23 (see p. 28, n. 3, supra).
i.
(c. 48), &c. ; with all which it
Upon the docility and sagacity is only natural that much that
of many animals see also Metaph. is questionable should be mixed
i. 1, 980, a, 27 sqq. Etli. iv. 7, ; up.
to the higher rank which animals occupy in the scale of
animated nature. Their more numerous and various
functions require a greater number and
complexity of
Aristotle discusses these
organs. all
organs in his
treatise on the Parts of Animals. 1
First (ii. 2-9) he
describes the homogeneous materials of which they
consist blood, fat,marrow, brain, flesh, bones, sinews,
veins, skin, &c. 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
external coverings serve to unite and 5
protect the flesh.
The blood furnishes the nourishment of the various solid
(j

1
More accurately in the eVrii/ 0^77, TCCUTTJS 5 cuVflijT^ptov TO
last three books of this treatise ;
rotovrov /j.6pt6v tffriv. On the
see i. 92, n. 1, and i. 89, n. 2, importance of flesh for sensation
supra, on these arid the Avaro/nai. see, further, c. 1, 647, a, 19, c. 3,
2
Part. An.
2 init.-c. 3,
ii. 650, b, 5, c. 10, 656, b, 34; H.
660, a, 2, referring to the different An. i. 3, 4, 489, a, 18,23; but
respects in which one thing is especially De An. ii. 11, 422, b,
said to be warmer than another, 19, 34 sqq. 423, b, 1 sqq. 29, iii.
and the transition from one state 2, 426, b, 15. The organ of
into another. sensation itself is the heart (see
3
. Cf. p. 26, n. 2, supra. infra}.
4 5
Part. ii. 8 init. irpurov : Part. ii. 8, 653, b, 30 sqq.
6
r<TKrrW] TTfpl ffapitbs TO IS
eV The blood, or that which cor-
%X ovffl o-dpKas, ev 8e TO IS &\\ois TO responds to it (see p. 26, n. 1. sup.},
avaXoyov TOVTO yap apx^) Kal is most immediately food
(re-
0-oo/j.a /ca0 curb TWV ywi earLv. Aeurcu a or eVxaraj rpotpfy to the
$r)\ov 5e /car& rbv \6yov TO yap animal body (De Somwo, c. 3,
<ov
opi6/j.e9a rw ex eiv a-laQficriv, 456, a, 34 Part. ii. 3, 650, a,
;

TTOWTOV 5e TV "Kptarw a\nt\ 5 32 sqq. c. 4, 651, a, 12 Gen. An. ;

 ARISTOTLE

constituents. ^The brain serves to cool the blood, 1 and

is therefore composed of the cold elements of earth and
water ;
2
the marrow 3 and other parts 4 are made of

surplus 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
but while some of themfulfil 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
remnant of the second, 6 which nevertheless has a use of
its own in the economy of Nature and is not lost.
7

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
8
stand upon the same level. The soul resides primarily

ii. 4, 740, a, 21, and passim} ;

on Kal &Kavdav
its quality, therefore, much of /jnrepi\a/j.f}av6/j.evoi
the life both of soul and body
depends Part. An. ibid., and c.
;
4
Such as the seed, which is
2, 648, a, 2 sqq. According to afterwards discussed, and the
the latter passage, thick warm milk (Gen. An. iv. 8).
5
blood is more conducive to See i. 517, n. 6, ii. p. 3, n. 2,
strength, thin cool blood to sense and p. 28, n. 1,
supra.
perception, and thought. The 6
Part. ii. 2, 647, b, 20 sqq.
best mixture is one of warm but 7
See i. 465, n. 2, supra.
thin and pure blood. Part. ii. 2, 647, b, 29 (after
1
Ibid. c.7 (seep 16,n.6,.w/;.). explaining the three kinds of
Only animals which have blood, avrav 8e TOVTUV at
therefore, have a brain (ibid. Siatyopal Trpbs a\\r)\a rov fieXriovos
652, b, 23) human beings have a
; eiffiv, re &\\wi/ Kal
olov ru>v

proportionately larger one than irpbs TO jtiei/ yap

al/ma
beasts,men than women (653, a, \fTrrorepov TO 5e iraxyTtpov Kal rb
27), because their blood, being IJ.GV Kadapwrepov eoTi rb Se
warmer, requires more to cool it.
Bloodless animals, however, have Tfpov rb Se dep^repov ei/ re TOLS
something analogous to the brain ; /j-opiois rov tvbs fyov (TO yap eV TO?S
see p. 26. n. 8, svpra. avca pepfffi irpbs TO KOTW /u6pia
2
Ibid. 652, b, 22. TavTats Tals Siacpopa is} Kal
3
Ibid. c. 6 fin. :
\b /ueAos] Similar differ
-jrpbs eVepoj/.
T/}S ajjUctT Kris rpotyijs TTJS fls offTa ences in flesh are referred to,
 PHYSICS 41

in the Pneuma, which is the cause of vital heat, and

which in turn has its chief seat in the heart. 1
If we proceed consider the organs formed of
to

homogeneous materials, we must notice in the first

place that animals possess a point of functional unity,

and consequently an organ in which their vitality is
2
centred : in creatures that have blood this organ is the
3
heart, in others something similar ; it is only some of
the very lowest classes that so closely resemble plants
as possess at least potentially several points of
to

vitality and to continue living after they have been

cut in pieces. 4 This central organ is formed at the
very beginning of life in every animal, and cannot
be destroyed without its dissolution. 5 Its function 6
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). :

5
/j.V yap ffK\f\p6ffapKoi acpve is T^V Part. iii. 4, 666, a, 10, 20,
Siavoiav, ol 8e i*.a\a.K.6aapK.oi. evcpvets. 667, a, 32; De Vita, 3, 468, b,
1
Cf. p. 6, n. 2, supra. 28 ;
Gen. An. ii. 4, 739, b, 33,
2
See p. 33, n. 4, supra. 740, a, 24, where the view of
3
See n. 7, supra, and
p. 26, Democritus is controverted which
Gen. An. ii. 4, 738, b, 16 o.pxn :
7P represented the outer portions
TTJS (frvffeus 77 Kapdia Kal rb avaXoyov, as being formed first, as though
rb Se irpoffB^Kf] Kal TOVTOV
KCXTW we were dealing with figures of
Xapiv. De
Vita et M. c. 2-4 Part. ;
wood or stone and not with
iii. 4, 665, b, 9 sqq. c. 5, 667, b, living beings, whose evolution
21. For a more detailed account proceeds from within outwards.
of the parts which, according to MEYER, Arist. TMerk. 425
fi

Aristotle, represent the heart, sqq. The blood is boiled out of

and are always situated in the
centre of the body, see Part. iv.
5, 681, b, 12-682, b, 8 on their
the food by means of the heat of
the heart (De Resplr. 20, 480,
;
2 sqq.) the circulation of the
;

situation see further, Juv. et Sen. blood, as well as the distinction

2, 468, a, 20. between veins and arteries
4
Aristotle remarks this, De (Part. iii. 4, 666, a, 6. De Respir.
An. 413, b, 16 sqq.
ii. 2, Juv. et ; 20, 480, a, 10, and the whole
Sen. 2, 468, a, 26 sqq. Ingr. An. ; description of the system of the
7, 707, a, 27 sqq. Part. An. iii.
; veins, Part. iii. 5 Hist. An. iii. ;

5, 667, b, 23, iv. 5, 682, b, 1 sqq. 3), was unknown to Aristotle,

(see p. 33, n. 5, supra}, of many who, however, was acquainted
insects (which have not yet been 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 b, 30, 480, a, 2, 14, c. 21, 480, a,
mentions the different quality of 24, b, 17). As the cause of
the blood (see infra, and cf p. 40, .
respiration, the heart is also the
D. 8, supra). He also accurately cause of motion Do Somno, 2,
;

describes many of the veins 456, a, 5, 15, cf. Ingr. An. c. 6,

(Part. iii. 5, Hist. An. Hi. 3, 513,
a,12 sqq. cf. PHILIPPSON,
avOp. p. 28). The veins have
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
wards (Dc Somno, c.
707, a, 6 sqq. The sinews, more
"TArj over, have their source in the
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
:
plain how the limbs are set in
;
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,
3, 458, a, supra) De Somno, 2, 456, a, 3
; ;

13 sqq. ; Part. iii. 4, 665, b, 27 Juv. et Sen. 3, 469, a, 10 sqq. b, 3.

sqq. ;
Hist. An. iii. IS), 521, a, 9). Cf. Ch. X., part 3, infra. The
The native heat of the heart blood vessels are the channels by
enables the blood, and this again means of which sensations reach
enables the body, to retain its the heart (Part. iii. 4, 666, a, 16),
heat (Part. iii. 5, fi67, b, 26); the although the blood itself is with
1

heart, Part. iii. 7, 670, a, 24, is out sensation (ibid and Part. ii. ,

therefore compared to the Acro 3, 650, b, 3, c. 7,

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

which is transmitted through all Hist. An. i. 16, 495, a, 11, iv. 8,
the veins and is accompanied by 533, a, 12 Part. An. ii. 10, 656,
;

respiration (Part. ii. 1, 647, a, b, 16) show cf. Juv. et Sen. 3,

;

24, iii. 2, 665, b; Hist. An. i. 16, 469, a, 12 Part. ii. 10, 656, a,
;

495, b, 10 De Respir. 20, 479,

; 29; Gen. An. ii. 6, 744, a, 1;
 PHYSICS 43

to the heart is the brain, 1 the purpose of which, as we

2
already know, is to cool 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 are also used for cooling the blood, the
4
windpipe supplying them with air. With a view
5
to this

purpose, their nature is varied according to the greater

or less amount of internal heat an animal possesses.
The lungs of mammals are the fullest of blood ;
those of
birds and amphibious beasts, of air. 6 Fishes, which are
Hist. An. iii. 3, 514, a, 19, i. 11, treated with especial reference to
492, a, 21. In the case of the itsfunction as the vocal organ.
senses of smell and hearing, 5
For the discussion of this
between the objects perceived point in detail, v. Part. iii. 6, and
and the veins that lead to the the treatise TT. Ai/am/oTjs, especi
heart, there is further interposed ally c. 7, 474, a, 7 sqq. c. 9 sq.
the Trvv/j.a (rv/u.<f)VTov ; Gen. An. ii. c. 13, c. 15 sq. The veins branch
6, 744, a, 1 ;
Part. ii. 16, 659, b, out from the heart to the lungs
15. The nerves are unknown to and serve to carry the air from
Aristotle cf. PHILIPPSON, Hid.
; the latter to the former; Hut.
and MEYER, p. 432 if he was : An. i. 17, 496, a, 27; MEYER, p.
led to the theory of the above- 431 (see supra and Ph. d. Gr. i.
mentioned which ir6poi by 730, 4). Plato had already assumed
SCHNEIDER (Arist. Hist. An. iii. that the heart was cooled by
47) and FRANTZIUS (Arist. iib. the lungs.
die TJieile d. Thiere, p. 280, 54) Uetpir. 1, 470, b, 12, c, 10,
understand him to mean nerves 475, b, 19 sqq. c. 12 in.it. Part. ;

by the actual observation of cer iii. 6, 669, a, 6, 24 sqq. It is

tain of the nerves, this of itself interesting to observe how Ari
would be a proof that he did not stotle s imperfect acquaintance
know them as nerves. See also with the facts lead him to false
Oh. X. part 3. conclusions. His observations
1
Part. iii. 11, 673, b, 10. had led him to see that there is a
2
See p. 40, n. 1, supra. The connection between respiration
spinal marrow is united to the and animal heat but as he had
;

brain for the purpose of being no conception either of the oxi

cooled by it. dation of the blood or of the
3
Part . ii. 10, 656, a, 1 5 sqq. nature of combustion generally,
(where Aristotle has chiefly in or of the circulation of the blood,
view PLATO S Timteus, 75, B sq.) ;
he held that its heat was merely
cf. MEYER, p. 431. cooled and not nourished by re
4
See Part. iii. 3. Hist. An. spiration. In Respir. c. 6, 473, as
iv. 9, where the windpipe is fully 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

1
after it has performed its cooling function. Bloodless
animals are without lungs, which, on account of their
colder nature, they do not need. 2 The nutritive matter
3
from which the blood is formed in the heart, is
4
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 rising from the food.
5
The food is

that the air which is inhaled away by the heat, while that
serves for food to the internal part which is bitter and heavy
fire. is left behind all else serves
;

merely to season its sweet

1
Rvspir. 10,476, a, 1 sqq. 22,
b, 5, c. 16 ;
H. An. ii. 13, 504, b, ness {De Sensu, 4, 442, a, 2 sqq.,
28, and other passages see p. ;
cf. Gen. An. iii. 1, 750, b, 25 ;

26, n. 9, supra. The earlier view Meteor, ii. 2, 355, b, 5 Part. iv. ;

that fish also breathe air, Ari 1, 676,35). a, sweet Fat is

stotle expressly controverts, Re- (De Sensu, 4, 442, a, 17, 23;
spir. c. 2, 3. A solution of the Long. V. 5, 467, a, 4) sweet ;

question was only possible (as blood is the more wholesome

MEYER remarks, p. 439) after (Part. 677, a, 27), and fat
iv. 2,
the discovery of the conversion is well-boiled, nutritious blood
of gases. (Part. ii. 5, 651, a, 21).
2 4
Part. iii. 6, 669, a, 1 ;
Re- The teeth perform merely a
spir. c. 9 (see p. 7 sq. supra), c. 12, preliminary function (Part. ii. 3,
476, b, 30. Aristotle knows, in 650, a, 8). On the mouth, as the
deed, of the respiratory organs organ for taking up the food
of some bloodless animals, but into the system, which, however,
he assigned to them another serves several other purposes as
function. well, see Part. ii. 10 init. (cf. p. 19,
3
In Gen. et Corr. ii. 8, 335, a, n. 1, swpra), c. 16, 659, b, 27 sqq.,
9 sqq., De Sensu, 5, 445, a, 17, iii. 1De Sensu, 5, 445, a, 23.
;
5
Aristotle remarks generally of Part. iii. 10, 672, b, 8-24 ;

plants as well as animals that
this material is a mixture of all
the elements ;
see i.
That which properly furnishes
nutrition is the sweet part, for
this, being lighter, is boiled
cf. Ph. d. Gr. \. p. 729. That the
vegetable soul (the (f>&ns) is
482, n. 3, sup. situated below the midriff, is said
also Gen. An. ii. 7, 747, a, 20. Cf.
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
its entering the body. It passes by evaporation into
the veins that surround the stomach, and thence into
the heart, where it is converted into pure blood. 3

Leaving the heart, carried to the different parts of

it is

the body, according to their several necessities 4 The

passage of the blood from the stomach into the veins is
effectedby the mesentery, the tendrils of which are as
itwere the roots or suckers by means of which animals
absorb their food from the stomach, as plants do from
the earth. 5 The fatty covering of the epiploon causes
an increase of digestive warmth in the 6
abdomen, while
the same function is performed for the blood
by the
and spleen, 7 which also serve as a kind of anchor
liver

by which the network of veins is secured.

8
On the
1
The nature
in the of which pass spontaneously into those
different described
animals is parts for which it is destined.
5
Part. \\\. 14, 674, a, 21-675, a, Part. iv. 4, 678, b, 6 sqq.
30 H. An. ii. 17, 507, a, 24-
;
ii. 3, 650, a, 14
sqq. According
509, b, 23, iv. 1, 524, b, 3, c. 3, to these passages the stomach
527, b. 22, &c. serves the same purpose for
2
Cf. Part. ii. 2, 647, b, 26. animals, as the earth does for
3
Part. ii. 3, 650, a, 3-32, plants it is the place where their
;

De Somno, 3, 456, b, 2 sqq. food is kept and prepared for use.

6
4
It is pointed out, Gen. An. Part. iv. 3, 677, b, 14, where
iv. 1, 766, a, 10, ii. 6 (see p. an attempt is made to explain
19, n. 2, supra), Meteor. ii. 2, 355, the formation of the epiploon
b, 9, that each part is formed and physically (e| avdyKris).
7
nourished out of suitable mate- Part. Hi. 7, 670, a, 20 sqq.
8
rials, the nobler parts of better Part. Hi. 7, 670, a, 8 sqq.
materials, the lower out of infe- (cf. c. 9, 671, b, 9) where the
rior but we are not told how
;
same remark is made of the kid-
this is effected. From passages neys and the intestines generally
such as Gen. An. iv. 1, 766, b, 8, (similarly Democritus compared
ii. 3, 737, a, 18, i. 19, 726, b, 9, the navel of the child in the
cf ii. 4, 740, b, 12 sqq., we gather
. mother to an anchor, see Part. i.
merely that Aristotle supposes 807,6). It has already been shown
the blood as the e(rxT7j rpo</>r?
to (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, 1

which on account of their warm nature need more fluid

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
gullet, which conducts it to the stomach, all animals

possess a conduit in their bowels for expelling the use

less refuse of their nourishment. 4
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

is not equally a necessity to all ment of the fat of the kidneys,

animals. Bloodless animals want 672, a, 1 sqq., from the point of
this intestine as well as fat ;
view both of physical necessity
Part. iv. 5, (578, a, 25 sqq. ii. 5, and of natural design is especially
651, a, 25. For further descrip- full and interesting,
tion of the form of these organs a
On
the alimentary canal,
in different animals, see Part. iii. which, however, is not found in
12, 678, b, 20, 28, c. 4, 66(5. a, 28, all animals, see Part. iii. 14.
4
c. 7, 670, b, 10. l)i .
An. ii. 15, Part. iii. 14, 674, a, 9 sqq.
506, a, 13. 675, a, 30, 656, b, 5.
See p. 20, n. ?-, supra. Since
1 r
Jbifl. 675, b, 28.
>

G
only sweet substances are nutri- Ibid. 675, b, 22: oaa /nets ovv
tious, the bitterness of gall eli/cu 8e? T&V C(f (av ffoxppovtffrfpa
shows that it is a irepiTrw^a, Trpbs T}]V r~?)s rpoipris iroiyo iv evpv-
Part.iv. 677, a, 24. It is accord-
2, x^p 10 5 -
^v ^K *X 6t ^yd\as Kara 3

ingly not found in all animals ; ri]v KCITW Koi\iav, e Aj/cccs 5 e^ei
ilrid. 676, b, 25, iii. 12, 673, TT\LOVS Kal OVK vdvfvrepd eariv. r)

b, 24 H. An. ii. 15, 506, a, 20, 31.

; fjikv yap evpvxvpia Troie? trXi]Qovs
2
Part. iii. 8, 9; II. An. ii. 16. iinQv^iav,
r) fvBvrrjs raxvrrjra 8
Aristotle knew of exceptions to &c. Ibid. 675, a, 18
eVtfluyU/as ;

the above rule and found means Gen. An. i. 4, 717, a, 23 sqq.;
of explaining them. His treat- PLATO, Tim. 72, E sq.
 PHYSICS 47

warmth or cold in the nature of the animal.

Support
1

and protection are supplied to the softer parts by the

framework of bones, or what corresponds to it in the
lower animals. 2 All the bones of sanguineous animals
3
start from the spine 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
aspect, Aristotle has recorded several just observa
tions. 6
In other cases he not unfrequently supports
remarks of questionable value by artificial and inde-
1
Part . iv. 5, 682, a, 22 : rb all that moves requires a fulcrum
jap 6ep[j.bv Kal SeTrat TpoQijs Kal (c. 3) that two organic parts at
;
_ r , _\., ki,., , ,.... -\ xx ] eas t a re
necessary to produce
motion, one to sustain the pres
2
Part. ii. 8, 653, b, 33 sqq. ; sure and one to exercise it (ibid.
see p. 39, n. 5, supra ibid. c. 705, a, 19) ;
that there is always
9, 654, b, 27 sqq. On the parts an even number of feet (c. 8,708,
analogous to the bones, see p. a, 21 ;
Hist. An. i. 5, 489, b, 22) ;

26, n. 4, supra. that all forward motion in

3
Part. ii. 9, 654, b, 11 organic beings is produced by
Se T&V jj,v (j)\/3ct>v bending and stretching (c. 9, c.
offTutv 7) Ka.XoviJ.svri 10, 709, b, 26 this chapter fur
;

^xovffLv offrd -rraffiv, a</>

ther contains discussions on the
r) TWV aAAwi baT&v eart <pvais. flight of birds and insects, and
4
Hist. An. iii. 7, 516, b, 22 the importance of the different
Traj/ra 5e TO. (ia ftcra.
evai/ud organs of flight) that in order
;

that he may stand upright man

3
For the full treatment of may not have more than two legs,
this subject see Part. ii. 9, 654, and that the upper parts of his
b, 16 sqq. On one or two remark body must be lighter in propor
able omissions in Aristotle s tion to the lower than in the case
Osteology, e.g. of all mention of of the lower animals (c. 11 init.).
the pelvis and of the parallel The same is true of many of the
between the legs of animals and remarks in c. 12-19 on the bend
human beings, see MEYER, p. ing of the joints and the means
441 sq. of locomotion both in men and in
3
E. rf. in the treatise TT. different animals.
iropeias tywv the statements that :
48 ARISTOTLE

monstrable assumptions. 1 Nor can we pretend that he-

made the least advance towards a physiological explana
tion of the circumstances which affect and accompany
locomotion. 2
One of the most important distinctions between
animals and vegetables is the difference in their manner
of reproduction. 3 While vegetables have no sex, the
separation of the sexes begins with animals, their re
union being only transiently effected for purposes of
reproduction. Since animals are not intended for mere

Thus, c. 4 sq. (cf i. 497, n. 1, (Hist. An. he says plainly four).

1
.

sup.),he endeavours, not without His account moreover, c. 12 sqq.,

much subtilty, to establish the of the walk of animals, as MEYER
position that motion always pro shows, 441 sq., is not free from
ceeds from the right, although error.
he obviously derives it, not from 2
We are told, indeed, that all
scientific observation, but from motion proceeds from the heart,
the dogmatic presupposition but it is not explained how this
(c. 5,706, b, 11) that the top is is possible (see p. 41, n. 6, supra).
superior to the bottom, the front The explanation
proposed, TT.
to the back, the right to the left, Trvev/uLaros, that the
c. 8 init.,
and that therefore the apxal vital spirit streams through the
must have their seat on the sinews and is the moving force, is
upper front and right side. not Aristotelian.
Albeit he remarks himself that 3
The work in which Aristotle
we may equally say that these has treated of this question, TT.
are the superior situations be yevftrecas, has received the
(p<av

cause the apxal have their seat in warmest recognition even from
them. On the latter point cf. scientific men
of the present day.
ibid. 705, a, 29 sqq. De Ccdo,\\. 2,
; LEWES, who not certainly in
is

284, b, 26 apxas ^ap rain-as

: other respects inclined to place
\fy<a
ddev apxovrai TTpwrov al Kiv-fi- an exaggerated estimate upon
(Tfis ro?s X OV(TIV - 0" Tt 5e a-rrb yuev Aristotle s scientific investigation,
rov avw 77 av^ffis, OTT^ 8e roav agrees with AUBEKT and WIM-
5eiaii/ T] Kara ro-jrov, OLTTO 5e rwv MER (p. v. sq. of their edition) in
e,u7rpo(r0ei> 7]
Kara rrjv He ai<rQf]<nv.
expressing his admiration of this
goes on to add, c. 6 sq., an treatise,which handles some of
equally artificial proof of the the deepest problems of biology
statement (which is made also with a masterly grasp, astonish
c. 1, 704, a, 11, c. 10 init. Hist. ; ing at so early a time, and is even
An. i. 5, 490, a, 25 sqq.) that less antiquated at the present day
sanguineous animals cannot than Harvey s celebrated work
move on more than four legs (Artet. 413).
 PHYSICS 49

life, but also for sensation, it follows that the exercise

of their reproductive l
functions must be confined to
certain occasions. 2 Only the ostreaceous tribes and
3
zoophytes are sexless ; placed upon the
boundary which
separates the animal from the vegetable kingdom, thev
are deprived of the functions which to both
belong :

they resemble plants in not propagating themselves bv

copulation, and animals in not being generated from seeds
or fruit. They are, in fact,
reproduced by a process of
spontaneous generation from slime.
4
And the like am
biguity of nature is displayed in their case with regard
to locomotion/5

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
;

1
The Zpyov TOV
&VTOS, the Theophrastus.
tpyov Koivh TUV tAvrwv V Tu V Tr<i .
*
Separation of the sexes is
-
Gen. An. i. 23, from which expressly confined to the a
quotation has already been made, iropevriKa. and as testaceous
p. 29, supra. animals are described^ in the
3
Besides a few others, to be passage just referred to as /uerafr
mentioned hereafter, which must
be regarded as exceptions.
ovra. -ruv &W /ecu rwv
fyvruv, and
4
accordingly of neuter gender it
Gen. An. i. 23, 731, b, 8, is said of
them, Tnrir An 1<)

c. 1, 715, a, 25, b, 16, ii. 1, 732, a, 71J, b, 13 rci 5

:
<WpaKo e
P/
ua
13, iii. 11, 761, a, 13-32. Only Kiv^rai ^v, KLV^TOH 5e
irapci </>tW

such relatively simple organisms ou ydp eVri

KivriTiKa, aAA us u.\v
can be produced in this way, and ^uoV^a /cai Trpoo-TrecpvKOTa Kiv-n-nKa
accordingly if it be true, as some ds 5e TropevriKa ^vi^a. Jt is
hold, that men and quadrupeds previously said that they move as
are sprung from the earth, animals with feet would
they move if
must have been evolved from their legs were cut off.
worms or eggs which preceded See i. 353, supra
them (Gen. An. iii. 11, 762, b, Gen. i. 2, 716, a, 4: T f/s
28 sqq.). Aristotle, however, does yeveaecas apx&s Q.J/ TLS O-J-Y ^Kiara
not himself share this view, eeijj -rb 6rj\ v Kal rb Upper r b uev
although it is to be found in Uppev us rfjs Kivfirew; Ka \ rf s
VOL. II.
60 ARISTOTLE
1
the one gives the soul, the other the body. Aristotle
maintains this opinion so firmly that he denies any
participation on the part of the
male seed in 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,
propelling to propelled. In each of these cases the
former does not enter into any material union with the
4
latter principle, but only operates upon it. Just for
this reason, according to Aristotle, is the male distinct

KlVOVffl TO.S

6r)\v us I/
ATJS. c. 20, 729, a r
9 : TO e xf P fS K(d TO. op-yava rv v\t]v.

appev Trape xercu TO re eTSos Kal

/ULfV
3
He compares the seed in
T^V O.pX nV T7JS KlVffffWS, TO 8e 07jAl>
this respect, Gen. An. i. 20, 729,
TO rroSfj-a Kal T^V v\f]v. L. 29 TO :
a, 11, 739, b, 20, with the
ii. 4,

aopev t(TT\v ws KLVOVV, TO 8e 6rj\v, fj runnet which causes milk to

0r?Au, us Trader IKOV. Again, c. 21, curdle. Ibid. iv. 4, 772, a, 22,
729, b, 12, 730, a, 25, ii. 4, 738, b, however, deprecates too exact an
20-3G, 740, b, 12-25, and _/;.9sfw< ; application of this comparison.
cf. also foil, notes.
4
Gen. An. i. 21, 729, b, 1:
Gc-n. An. ii. 3 (see supra^. 0,
1
does the male seed contribute to
n. 2) TO TTJS 701/77 s
: .a, eV & <rw[.
the formation of the young us
(Tvvairpx f Tai TO (nrc-p/u.a TO TT}S Kal jj.6piov oi/ (vtivs TOV
^VXIKVS PX^ S Ibid. 737, a, 29 - (Tct>/j.aros, fjuyvvfjievov nj
(see p. 52, n. 2. infra) c. 4, 738, v\ri T?7Trapa TOV /;Aeos, /} TO f.(ff
b, 25 8e TO juei/ crw/j-a e /c
: eo"Ti TOI>
(TU)/j.a ovdfv Kou wvet TOV (nrepij.aTos,
CyjAeos, TJ 5e tyvxy K TOI; appevos. TJ
5 eV avTCf) Svva/j.is Kal Kivrifns ;

21, 22 the
-
Gen. An. i. : Aristotle decides for the second
young is formed in the mother, of these views ; for, on the one
in whom the material on lies hand, ou (paivtTai
yiyvo^fvov ev t /c
which the plastic force of the TOU iradrjTiKov Kal
TOV TTOIOVVTOS &s
father is exercised but into which fWTrdpxovTos iv TO; yivOfJLfvy TOVJ

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 fj.6piov
TTOtovvTOS, ov5 oAws 877 e /c TOU
Kivovp.4vov Kal KIVOVVTOS, and, on
the other, it is supported by
several other facts which show
ovdev fffTiv fv Tip yiyvo- that generation is possible with
3

/j.va> rrjs TtKroviKris, ctAA rj out material contact between the

Kal TO elSos OTT eiteivov fy male seed and the female matter,
8ia rrjs Kivf}(Tcas eV TT? V\T), Kal as in the case of the subsequent
cV y TO eTSoy, Kal fructification of wind-eggs.
 PHYSICS

from the female, wherever ib is possible ;

for if the
form is superior to the matter, the
distinct they are, more
the better the result must be. Accordingly, he is careful
1

to distinguish between the procreative substance of the

male, which is the seed, and that of the female, which he

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
product of the blood. This fluid, however, is secreted
in larger quantities and of a cruder sort with the
weaker forming the menses of women or what
sex,

corresponds to them among other animals in men, ;

3
however, it becomes seed. Thus the same substance
1
Gen. An. ii. 1, 732, a, 3: Treplrrw/j-a it must therefore be

fie\TLOi*os Se Kai Qeiorfpas TT/I/ (pvtriv a part of the useful Tre/jiTTw^o of

ovo~r]S r?is air as
i
TT)S Kiuov<rr]s the body. But the most useful
irparr]S, y 6 Aoyos unctp^ei Kal TO nutritive substance is the rpoQ^
elSos, TT/S U ATJS, &e\nov Kal TO ecrxarrj or the blood the oW^im ;

Kex a} P >i

TOUT
~Q ai T0 Kpelrrov rod
ev oo~ois
povos. ^
evSf^rai Kal
is therefore TTJS ai/uLariKrjs
rrfpir-
8ic\ TWyua rpo<br)s, rr}s eis TCI ^ue pTj SiaSi-
5o/j.fj/r)S reXevraias (c. 19, 726, b,
6-f)\eos TO appev. 9). This is the reason why
2
The detailed investigation children resemble their parents :

of the subject is to be found 8fj.ot.oy yap TO TrpoffeAdbv trpbs TC\

in Gen. An. i. 17-20. Aristotle fAfpr) r$ t>7roAet</>0eWt ware TO
begins (721, b, 11 sqq. cf. c. 20, airfpjjLa earl TO rrjs %e/pbs -^ rd
729,a, 6, 730, a, 11 ) by denying the rov Trpoo-(i>Trov ^ o\ov rov q ov
opinion that the semen a secre is adioptGrcos x^P % TrpoGwirov f) o\ov
tion drawn from all parts of the Kal
<fov
olov Kfiv(av eKao~rov
body (on which cf Z ELL. Ph.d. Gr. .
tvepyeia, roiovrov TO virepp.a Sy-
1. 720, 6, AUBERT-WlMMEB,
805, 2, va.fj.ei (ibid. c. 13). On the pro
p. 7 oftheir ed.). He then (724, perties and material composition
a, 14 sqq.) shows that ffirepua of the semen, see Gen. An. ii. 2.
must be one of two things, either 3
Ibid. 726, b, 30 sqq. c. 20,
an excrement from the organic 729, a, 20. Aristotle, c. 19, 727, a,
parts of used-up matter (a 15 sqq. explains the weaker veins,
triWT?7^a) or a surplus of nutri the paler colour, the smaller
tive matter (a mpirrwfia), and in quantity of hair, and the smaller
the latter case either a useless or bodies of women on the ground
a useful surplus. It cannot be a of defective supply of blood.
,
nor can it be a useless
E 2
52 ARISTOTLE

receives so different an application in the two cases,

that where it takes the one form it cannot exhibit the
other. 1 We
well this theory of the
see at once how
two procreative substances fits into our philosopher s
views about the generative process and the relation of the
sexes. If the menses consist of the same material
as the seed, except that it has not received in them
the same development, we may compare them
to im

perfect seed.
2
So they contain potentially what the seed

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
produce something that resembles its parents. If the

being to be brought forth were merely vegetable, the

1
C. 19,727, a, 25: Ivel 5e male. Of. c. 5, 741, a, 15.
3
rovr ffrlv & yiyvtrai TO?S 94)\f<riV Ibid. 737, a, 18 rov 8e :
ffirep-
us rj yov^j TO?S appfffiv, Suo 8 OVK paro? UVTOS Trpirrw/j.aros Kal KIV-
rai o~ir(piJ.aTiKas c^ua yiveffOai
V?>ex ou/xeVou Kivr]ffiv rrjv avrrjf /ca0 T}I/-

aTTOKpio~ei.s, (pavepbv on rb 0f)A.v

ov ?rep rb ffu/ma avdvTcu /j.epio[j.evr)s
ffv/Ji.fi y.XXfTai o"rr(p,u.a.(ls rrivytveaiv. rfis a"xi"rjs rpoty-i/s, orav f^Op ei s

et /j.ev "yap (nrfp/Jia tfv, TO Kara/iTjvia rr]i> ixrrepav ffWiffTrjcri Kal Kive? rb
oi>K &</
fa vvv 5e 5ta rb ravra irepiTTw/j.arb TOV 6r]\fos rrjv avr-ffv
yiyvetrdat e /ceti/o OVK fffTiv. It is Jivntp avrb
K(VT}<nv 1 KIVOV-
rvyx*
shown also, c. 20, cf. ii. 4, 739, a, ptvov KO.K.HVO. Kal yap e /ceTvo Trepir-
20, that there is nothing else that rcapa Kal iravra ra /j.6pia e^et 8u-
can be taken for female semen. j/a^et, evepyeia 8 ovdev. Kal yap ra
2
Gen. An. ii. 3, 737, a, 27 : roiavr e^ei fj.6pia 5vvd/u.i, -p 810-
rb yap OrjAv oifnrep appev cVrl <f>fpei
rb
rov appevos. itia-rrep
07jA.u

Trfirrjpci}/ui.evov,
Kal ra Kara/j-^via yap Kal 6rt jj.ev
e /c Treirripw/J.fi cav

mrepfjLa, Ka9apbv Se. fv yap ov yiverai irirfjpw/j.va ore 8 ov, ovr<a

OVK Pvov, T^/V rjjs ^/vx^js

fX l Kal e/c 6r-\fos ore (j.ev 6rj\v ore 8

apx^f, as may be seen in the case ov, dAA appsv. rb yap 6-fj\v &c.
of wind-eggs, which are produced (see preced. n.). Cf. i. 19, 726,
without the co-operation of the b, 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

portion of the procreative substance. For the birth of

an animal, on the other hand, male seed is indispen
sable, since it alone contains the
germ of sensitive life. 1

The matter of the male having thus begun to operate

actively upon the passive substance of the female, an
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
2
has a natural predisposition because, in fact, the seed
1
Gen. An. ii. 5, 741, a, 9: separation of the sexes this is
if the material for the birth is
impossible otherwise the male
;

contained in the female Trepn-rojjua would serve no purpose whereas ;

and the female portion of the same in reality it is from the male
had the same soul as the male, that the sensitive soul comes at
why is it unproductive by itself ? the beginning.
atriov 8 6ri Statyepei Tb rov IMd.ii. 4, 740, b, 12 T? 8
(pvTOv aiaOfjCrfi . el . ovv
. Tb
(pov
^
SiaKpiais yiyvtTai TCOJ/
:

[j.opiuv [in
appev rb TTJS roiain-rjs Trou)TiKbv
effrl the process of evolution] ovx &s
$VXT]S, OTTOU /cex^P T t T^
0*7 A u Kal
T& appev, aSvvaTOv TO Qrj\v e /cej/at rb 6/j.oiov rb
<pepecr6ai irpbs
avTOv yfvvav cpov. It is seen, 6/j.oiov [a view which he pro
however, in the case of wind- ceeds to refute] ctAA 6n rb
, . .

eggs that the female is to a TTpiTT(afj.a rb TOV flrjAeos Swd/J.i

certain extent capable of unaided T0iovr6v tffTii* oiov rb (fov, <pvffi

production. These have a cer Ka\ Hv(TTi SwdfMfi TO, /j.6pia fvepyfict
tain Swapis ^VXIK-T), although S ouflei/, 8ta ravTrjv TIJV alriav
only of the lowest kind, viz. yiverai eKaffrov avTwv, Kal drt TO
BpcTTTiKr), but as animals possess a Kal Tb iradyT iitbv
sensitive soul as well, no animal
can come from them. If there
were animals of which no males Tb fj.fv iroieT Tb 8e
are to be found, as perhaps is the
case with the red sea mullet (al 8 apx^]v T^S Kivf)ff(as Tb apptv.
though this far from cer
is still The operative force is here the
tain), in such cases the female nutritive soul, whose instruments
would be self -begotten. On the are cold and heat. c. 5, 741, b,
other hand, where there is a 7 :the male portion is the
54 ARISTOTLE

contains the germ and potentiality of the soul.

1
The
operative forces which nature uses in this process are
2
heat and cold but the character of the generative ;

matter and of the germinal life which it contains, deter

3
mines and regulates these forces. Every germ brings
forth a being similar to that from which it sprang,
because the blood, the direct source of nutriment to the
body, tends to form a body of a certain
definite sort,

and this tendency continues to operate in the seed.

Hence it happens that the character of individuals as
well as of races comes to be propagated in the act of

primary source of the evolution, <rap

rb S oarovv, OVKCTI, aAA f}

as it is this which contributes Kivriffis fj aTrb TOU yevviiaavros TOV

the sensitive soul, ci/virap ei/reAe^eta ftvros 6 effri Si/ya^et rj
5 eV Tfj v\r) Swdpei TUV [read rb] e| ou yiverai, as is
further expounded, c. 4, 740,
b, 25 (see last note of preceding
rb e </>ef)s
Kal & jSouAoj/rat page), c. 6, 743, a, 3 r) Se yevecris :

rives TUV (pv(TiKwi>,

rb (pepecrQai ets fffTii> e /c T&V 6/j.oio/j.epuv virb tyv^ecas

rb 6fj.oiov, XSKTCOV ovx &>s roirov Kal dep/uLOT-rjros.After explaining

jUeTaySaAAoyra TO. ^pi j.
KwelaQai, how different materials are
dAAa {jLtvovra Kal aXXoiov^va formed in both ways, he continues,
/laAaKOTTJTl Kal
(TK\1)p6Tt)Tl Kal 1. 21 auTTj 5e [heat] ot/re 6 TI
:

Xpcf>/j.acri
Kal rats aAAcus rals T&V eru^e TTOIC? ffdpKa 3) offrovv, ou0
f
6/J.OLO/j.epcav fiia t>opcus, yivo^va evep- oirr) eru^ei/, ciAAa rb iT<pvKbs Kal -fj

Tre<pvK
Kal ore Tre ^u/cei/. oure yap

fpov, a view which had already

rb 8uva/xet &// i7rb TOV /j.r] T^V ej/e p-

been proved in detail in c. 1 cure

yeia.v e^oi/ros KIVIJTIKOV ecrrai,
(from 733, b, 30, onwards). rb rV evfpyeiav %xov Troi-fjffei etc
See on this, Gen. ii. 1, 733,
1
TOV TVXOVTOS T] 8e 0p/J.6Tr]S . . .

b, 32, 735, a,- 4 sqq. c. 3, 736, b,

8 sqq.and p. 6, n. 2, supra. TdafjiaTi TO<ravTr\v Kal
2 Kal T^JV evepyciav,
In generation proper these ^xovffa T^)V K(vt]<nv

spring from the (pvtris TOU yevv&v- Offf\ <TV/J./JI.TpOS

Ci s Ka<TTOV TUV
ros in spontaneous generation,
; {jiopi
jiv . . .
TI 5e ^u|is ffTpr)(ris
from the KIV^ITIS Kal dep^r^s TTJS SCTTLf.

&pas ; 743, a, 32.

ibid. ii. 6,
3 rb
Ibid. c. 1, 734, b, 31 : e| avdyKrjs &O~T
fj.ev ovv Kal yUaAx/ca &c.
roSl rb Se roSi 7roie?v, eV
Ka.1 v|/uxpoTTjs TTOiTjo eie^ Uv [ra roTs yivouevois eVe/ca TWOS ffv^^ai
bv Se \6yiv, M /nev b Se
 PHYSICS 65

If the male seed, which communicates the

1

generation.
impulse of development, has sufficient vigour to mature
the substance offered to it, the child follows its father s
sex if it lacks the necessary warmth, a being of colder
:

nature, a woman, is born. For the ultimate distinction

between the two sexes is one of greater or less vital
heat : the warmer nature can mature the blood to
perfect seed, the colder must content itself with supply

ing the raw material of procreation in the catamenial

discharge.
2
Woman is an unfinished man, left standing
3
on a lower step in the scale of development. The gen-

veiv &c. ;
for all this takes yap OVTWS . . .
TpiTOV Se irpos TOV-
16) rrj /j.ev e a.vdyKi)S rrj TOIS \flTTTOV OTl e tTTCp ?) (pOopa CIS
place (1.
5 OVK e avdyKrjs dAA eW/ca TWOS. TolvavTiov, Kal Tb /JL^ KpaTov/j.i>ov

Seep. 51, n. 2, suj}. and p. 58, virb TOV STj/m-iovpyovvTOS avdyKT)

1

n. 3, inf. Gen. An. iv. 1,

766, b, lUerajSaAAeij/ eis TovvavTiov. Hence
7 Tb fjCev
: inr6Kirai irep iT- the true explanation STOJ/ 70^ :
<nrep/j.a

rw/na TpotpTJs ~ov TO eir^aroj/. ecrxa- p)) KpaTfj 7} apxT] MT

TOV Se Ae yw Tb Trpbs eKaffTov [i.e. Tre if/cu St eVSerai/ dep/j.6TTf]TOS
eTSos TI au
each part of the body ;
see
45,
p^ aydyy ets Tb ffiioi

n. 4, 8upra]<f>fp6fievov.
5tb Kal HOIKC aAAa TavTrj yTTrjQfj, avdyKT]
fJLevov T(p yevv>i<TavTi.
TouvavTiov fjLCTafid\\iv. . . .

After refuting various views 8 e^et 8ia(popav eV TTJ Suj/ct^et,

J

as to the origin of the difference :al Tb opyavov Siafpfpov &O~T els

of the sexes, Aristotle proceeds, TOIOVTOV /j.eTa&d\\ei. The same
Gen. An. iv. 1, 765, b, 8 eVei Tb : account is repeated clearly and
precisely, 766, b, 8. Cf. c. 3, 767,
upper Kal Tb 6r)\v SiwpiffTai 5wdfj.ei
TIV\ Kal aSvvajnia /*ev jap (T<) b, 10. A
number of facts are
Svfd/J.fVOl>
TTTTIV Kal ffVVHTI 6.VO.I adduced, c. 2, in support of this
theory.
snpra; Gen.
3
TOV eftJous appev . . . T& Se See p. 52, n. 2,
vov aSvvaTovv 8e ffvviff- An. ii. 3, 737, a, 27 : rb yap 8y\v
/met?
Kal ^KKpivciv 0r}Au [similarly appev effTl -TreTrr/poj^eVoi/.
lixnrep
14 ao-deveaTepa yap
20, 728. a, 18]) ert el iraffa iv. 6, 775, a, :
i.

, avdyKy
Kal effTi Kal ^vxpoTepa TO. 07}Aea T)]V
Kal Set inroXa/j./Bdveiv
TO. appeva Tcav OrjXewv <pvffiv

elvai T))V
itvai. [The proof being
that the former excrete the pre 20, 728, a, 17 i. eoiKe :

Se Kal TT]V ,uop<V yvv^ Kal irats,

pared seed the latter in menstrua
,

tion the raw blood.] a/j.a 8 . . . :al effTiv i) yvv}] Sffirep appev
v. 784, a, 4. Cf.
f) (pvfflS T-}]V T SlIVa/JLlV ttT ayovov. 3,
Kal Tb ilpyavov Proll. x. 8. 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 germs

are laid in the formation of the heart at the
very com
mencement of foetal existence. 2 On 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, vavca- TOV fojAeos Kal appevos Kal T]

SfffTepov yap TOV 07^Aeos rb appev, alria avrr] Kal eV rovTcp IV. <TT

the upper portions of his body 6rj\v S 7787? Kal appv fffrlv, orav
being relatively greater, does not Hxp Kal ra p.6pio. ols Siafyepei r6
quite harmonise with this, for it GfjAvTOV appevos.
is just the excessive size of those 3
The chief passages on this
portions that constitutes the head are //. An. iv. 11, where
dwarfishness of children (Part. the peculiarities in the physical
An. iv. 10, 686, b, 10 De Mem. ; structure of each of the sexes in
2, 453, a, 31, b, G), with whom the various animal tribes, and
women are compared. ibid. ix. 1, where differences of
1
See last note but one. character are discussed.
2
Ibid. 766, a, 30 ef olv TO :
4
A description of which is
p.fv appev o-px f] TLS Kc cfinoir, ZO~TI "

given, //. An. ix. Gen. An.

503.
5 appev ?; Svvarai TI, OrjAu Se rj iv. 1, 76(5, a. 28, gives the reason :

aSvvaTe?, TTJS Se Svvdfjiews opos Kal OTJ svia Tcajs /noptcav apx^-i elcriv.
TT}S dSui/ajUuxs TO TreirriKov eli/at 3) e Kti -rj6ei(rr]s TroAAa
avdyKf]
p.}] ireirTiKov TTJS vffrdrris T/JOC/>T}S,
&
iv Tols
/JLfv fva.lp.ois al/j.a /caAe?rai According to the passage just
ei/ 5e Toils CL\\OLS T^ referred to, such an effect could
avaXoyov, TOV-
TOV Se T^ aiTiov ev TTJ ap^rj Kal T> not be expected to follow the
/j.opa) T& XOVTL TTJJ/ TTJS excision of the testicles, but only
6ep/j.OTr)Tos apxr/v, avayKalov apa of the heart especially as Ari
:

ev rols 4va.ip.ois (rvviffraffGai /capSiai/, stotle, Gen. An.

v. 7, 787, b, 26,
Kal 3) appev e<re<r0cu
it) 6r)\v TO without knowing their special
yiv6p.tvov. tv 5e TO?S aAAois yeve- functions, treats the former as a
ffiv
virapxtL TO 0yj\u Kal r6 appev mere appendage to the seminal
TO rrj Kapdia avd\oyov. TJ p.tv ovv ducts. For the account of the
 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
its mother. If the movement is itself deficient in force, 2
1

the child lacks the personal characteristics which the

movement ought and only receives, in
to reproduce,

descending degrees, the generic properties which the

parent had possessed over and above those of his own
individuality. Instead of the parental type, that of the

family transmitted, so that the child resembles his

is

grandparents, or still more distant ancestors. So it

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 accord- guishes, iMd. 768 S a, 14, 31, eav
ance with the latter hypothesis, \vOucriv at Kivriaeis, from the other
see Hid. 788, a, 3 sqq. case, eai/ /J.TJ Kpariari 7? Kivnais
Gen. An. iv. 3, 767, b, 15 sqq.,
1
[rov &v$p6s],
3
768, a, 2 sqq. 21 sqq. IMd. iv. 3 ;
cf. esp. 767, b,
24, 768, b, 15, 769, b, 2 sqq.
2 distin-
Aristotle expressly
 58 ARISTOTLE
is altogether wanting, then no conception at all fol

lows. 1

Among the phenomena of life which are common to

all animals we may next mention Sensation, the most
important point of difference between animals and
2
vegetables. Sensation is a change produced in the
3
percipient by the object perceived, a movement com
municated the through the medium of the
to soul 4
body.

c. 2, 767, a, 13 sqq.
Ibid.
1
8
iii. of insects, especially bees
;

A number
of other passages re (with regard to which Aristotle
lating to the distinction of the holds that the queens and female
sexes and to procreation, we must workers are born of queens,
be content briefly to indicate. drones of working bees, and
The sexual parts of different ani that there is no marriage among
mals are discussed Gen. An. i. them), ibid. iii. 9, 10, Hist. v.
2-16, ii. 6; Hist. An. iii. 1, cf. 19 (cf LEWES, 188 sqq.);
Arist.
AUBERT-WlMMER, pp. 3 Sq. of spontaneous generation, ibid. iii.
their edition of De Gen. An. ; 11, i. 23 Jin., Hist. v. 15 sq. c.
puberty, menstruation, and lac 19, 551, a sq. c. 11, 543, b, 17, vi.
tation, Gen. iv. 8, ii. 4, 738, a, 9 15, 569, a, 10 sqq.; the nature
sqq. the causes of fruitfulness
;
of the birth and the time of
and unfruitfulness, Gen. ii. 7, pregnancy, ibid. iv. 9. The dif
746, a, 29-c. 8 Jin. TroXvTOKia, ;
ferences which separate the vari
oXiyoTOKia and povoTOKia, certain ous grades of animal creation in
kinds of abortion, the perfect respect of their origin and method
and imperfect formation of child of propagation will call for fur
ren, superfcetation and the like, ther discussion below, and the
Gen. iv. 4-7 the formation of
; origin and gradual evolution of
the bodies of animals and the the soul will be the subject of
order of the development of their the next chapter.
2
parts, Hist. viii. 7 sq. Gen. ii. 1, ;
See pp. 27 and 37, supra ;

734, a, 16-33, 735, a, 12 sq. c. 4, and with the following account

739, b, 20-740, b, 25, 5, 741, c. cf. BAUMKER, Des Arist. Lekre

b, 15 sqq. c. 6 (743, b, 20 com von den Sinnesvcrmogen (Leip-

pares nature to an artist, who sic, 1877).
first sketches the outline of his
3
De An. ii. 5 init.
4
picture and then lays on the Kivrjffis TIS Sia TOV au>/j.a.TOs

colours) the nourishment of the

; TTJS tyvxvs.I)e Somno, 1, 454, a,
embryo through the navel, Gen. 9. How
far we may speak of a
ii. 7, Hist. viii. 8 ;
the production movement of the soul at all is
and development of birds, Gen. the subject of subsequent dis-
iii. of fishes, iii. 3-5, 7
1 sq. 6 ;
:

of mollusca and testacea, ibid.

 PHYSICS

The nature of this process may be explained and esti

mated by the abstract laws of action and passivity. It 1

is the object of perception which sets the change in

motion, the percipient which undergoes the change. The
former the latter passive.
is active, Hence the latter

is related to the former in the same way as the actual

to the possible or as form to matter. The perception for

which a subject by developed into is fitted its nature is

actuality by the object perceived the form of the object ;

is impressed upon the percipient.

2
This relation, how

ever, is further conditioned by the nature of the perci

pient Like thought, perception can only legitimately
be called a passive affection, if the phrase is taken to
3
include the progress from mere capacity to actuality.

See the passages quoted vol.

1
De An. ii. 5, 417, b, 2:
i. 454 sqq.,to which express allu OVK Ti 8 airXovv ouSe
sion is made De An. ii. 5, 417, a, 1. T^) /J.v TIS TOV
(f>6opd
inrb
2
De An. ii. 5, 417, a, 9 to the evavriov, rb 8e crcar^pia yuaAAoz/ TOW
end of the chapter, where the 5vvd/j.i OVTOS virb TOV eVreAexeta
preceding discussion is summed ijvros Kal o/jLoiov OVTWS ws 5vva/j.Ls

up in the words rb 8 alo-9-rjT IK^V :

Trpbs eVTeAexetaj/. Thus in the
8vvd(jii tarT\v oioy rb alffOrjT^v case of learning, we must either
^ 817 eVreAexeia, /caflaTrep eiprjTca refrain altogether from saj ing r

/uej/ ovv oi>x opoiov "bv,

that the learner is the subject of
W,UOICOTCti Kal 0~TIV oloV an operation or we must distin
e /ce?j/o, iii. 2, 425, b, 25 :
^ Se guish between two kinds of
rov alffQrirov tvfpyeia Kal rrjs rr)V re firl TO.S aTfpriTiKas
alcrO-fiffe&s TI avrr) /ueV etm Kal /ata, a)8oA^i/ Kal T^V e-jrl TOLS
rb 8 eivai ov ToA rbv avratv \yca e|eis ital TT]V 0tW (of. i. p. 197).
8 o tov $6<pos
6 /car ei/epyeiaj/ Kal Similarly with perception so :

a/cor? T\ /tar evepyeiav . . . orav 8 soon as the percipient comes into

evepyrj rb tivvd/J-cvov aKoveiv Kal the world, exet^STjfiSo-Trep eTncrTTjjUT/j/
Swd/J-evov tyocpe iv, r6re rj
v|/o<?7
rt) Kal rb aladdveffOat. Kal rb war eVep-
1
/car evepyeLav aKor) afj.a yiverai Kal yeiav 8e 6fJ.olws heyerai r$ Qcwpelv
6 /car Vpyeiav i|/o0os. And as ope (as the latter is the actual appli
rations and motions take effect cation of a faculty which is al
upon passive subjects, this parti ready possessed, so perception is
cular operation takes place upon the activity of a faculty which
the percipient. Of. infra, p. 60, already exists in the percipient) ;

n. 3, p. 61, n. 4 and see Part. An. ; 8ta0e pet Se [sc. TO cuaQaveaQai rov
ii. 1, 647, a, 5 flfa etV. OTL rov .fv ra
sqq.
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
1

former. 2 Further, the perceived object can be said to

stand to the percipient in the relation of
actuality to
possibility only in so far as the one is capable of being
perceived and the other of perceiving. It is not the
matter of an object which acts the sense in ques
upon
but those of an
tion, only properties object which the
particular sense is designed to perceive. Hence it
follows that it is the sensible form of objects without the
matter that is received in the act of sensation. The
material object itself not communicated to the
is
percipi
ent, but only its operation.
3
This apprehension of the

rys tvepyeias eco0ei rb dparbv Kal , cises, ErTi.-TJieoried. Arist, 80,4),

rb aKovcrrtv &c. iii. 7, 431, a, 4 : for the object is not subject to
8e rb p.ev alffB-rjrbv e/c
any operation, but there is a joint
ovros rov alffQf]riKov operation, the result of which is
iroiovv [The perceived perception. That this act gives
object makes that which is a true account of the objects
capable of perception and which perceived, has already been said,
is only a Svvd/j.ei &i/ into an in vol. i. pp. 208 sqq.
fvepyeiq oV.] ov yap 7rao-%6t oiS
2
De An. ii. 2, 456, a, 5 et :

a\\oiovrai. Sib #AAo eTSos TOUTO 8"f)

fffriv -rj Kivrja is Kal TJ iroirjo-ts
Kivfjcreus [something different Kal rb Trd9os fV T<j5 iroiou^eVoD,
from Kivt\ffis~\. T] yap /averts rov rov ^6$ov Kal r^v aKo^v
evepyeia ^v, rj airXais /car evepyeiav eV rfj Kara
erepa r) rov rere\eo-(j.fvov flvai . . .
f] fj.fv ovv rov
(such also, however, is the otV-
6T]riKbv according to ii. 5, 417, b, , 7) 5e TOW aKovffrtKov a/cor;
29 sqq.).
Similarly with all the
aKovo~is.
1
I)e An. iii. 2, 426, a, 15 : other senses rj rov :

eirel 5e /j.ia /net? iffnv T] evepyeia, y

evepyeia Kal r\ rov alo~6r)r IKOV
rov aladrjrov Kal r] rov alffdyriKov,
rb S tlva.1 erfpov &c. Cf. foil. n. 3
De An.
12 init. ii.
y fj.ev :

There here no question of any

is a i<Tdr)o~LSrb SfKriKbveffri ru>v

reciprocal operation of the sensi alff6t]rS}v flSwv avev rr}s vA.r]s,

ble object and the sensitive oiov 6 Kf]pbs rov Sa/cruAiou avtv rov
organ (PRANTL, Arist. v. d. crift
hpov Kal rov -^pvffov Se^erat rb
Farben, 144, whom KAMPB criti (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

impressions can reflect themselves and on this account ;

perception first appears in the animal kingdom. More

1

over, since the faculty of perception is the force and

form of the physical organ, it presupposes a certain
harmony in its component parts ;
and if this
harmony
is disturbed by too vehement an impression on the
sense, then the faculty of perception is lost.
2
The seat
of this faculty is invariably a homogeneous 3
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
way between them. The operation of the object upon

$)%aA./cos, 6/j.oi(tiS Se Kal fj T?)y U ATJS. iii. 12,

tKaffTov virb TOV UXOVTOS 434, a, 29 : those are
^cDi/ra
Xv/J.6v T) aAA ovx p
\l/6<pov 7ra<r%ei, \vithout ato-dya-is, offa p.}] SCKTIKO.
v e/mVcoj/ \eyerai, aAA TUV elSwi aveu TTJS v\r]s. Cf. also
37
al Kara TOV \6yov. (There
supra, pp. 33 sqq. and notes, as
is no trace, however, in this pas well as the remarks infra,
upon
sage of what VOLKMANN, Grundz. the sensus com munis,
d. Arist. Psyckol. \_Abhandl. d. 2
Do An. ii. 12, 424, a, 26:
bbhm. Gesellsch. 126 sq. Psycliol,
x. the alaGo.v6ij.Gvov is a body (^eye-
i.
218] finds in it, viz. that 6os~) ; ctftre-riaris, on the other hand,
sense is not affected by sounds is not p.eyeOos, a\\a \6yos TIS Kal
&c. in so far as each of these is Svva/nts Kij/ov [TOV
ai<rOavofj.ei/ov~\.
what it is, but in so far as the sense <t>at/epbjs
5 e/c TQVTWV Kal SLO. TL
iswhat it is. ) Cf. foil. n. and 7TOT6 T&V al(rOr]TW}/ al
virep&o\al
De An. iii. 2, 425, b, 23 TO yap :
(pOeipovo~i TO.
alaQt)T^]pia lav yap
SCKTIK^V TOV alaOyTov
alatiiiTripiov ?T iffxvpoTtpa TOV alcrQrjTiipiov y
avev rrjs v\r]s eKaffTov. Whence it Kiv-ncns, Ai/ ercu 6
\6yos, TOVTO 8
follows that all perception is of a f,v f) ato-Vya-is, ical a
&a"irep r) o-vfj.<puv

universal, a roiovSe gee i. 207, Kal 6 TOVOS Kpovojuevuv

(rcfroSpa TUV
;

n. 1, supra. Cf. iii. 13, 435, b, 15.

.

1
D6 An. ii. 12, 424, a 32 :
3
Part. An. ii. 1, 647, a, 2 sqq.,
plants have no aiffSycris, although where alffOvjT fjpia in this sense are
they are not without souls; distinguished from the opyaviKa
yap TO /j.r) exeiv ,uecroT7?Ta, (face, hands, &c.).
TOiavTTjv apx,))!/ oiav ra eifSrj Aristotle remarks this
spe-
 ARISTOTLE
the senses depends upon a medium which transmits it
from the one to the other. Flesh is the medium of the
sense of touch, air and water of the other senses ;
l
and
to this medium
the materials of which the organs of sense
consist correspond. The connection, however, of the
2
five senses with the four elements is only tentatively
adopted by Aristotle. 3 The higher tribes of animals

cialiy of touch, An. ii. 11, De tempted to establish this con

423, b, 29 sqq. This sense, he nection, but be does not say to
says, perceives the opposite whom he refers. The citations
qualities of bodies rti Se alcrQ-i)- ;
on the views of Empedocles and
Democritus (ZELLEH, Ph. d.
StWyuet Toiovr6v eari popLov. Since Gr. i. 723, 817, 3) and from
perception is a Tra^eii/ by which Plato (ibid. ii. a, 727, 3) on
the Swa/jiti ~bv is made by the this head are not sufficient to
operative principle into some explain the statement (in the
thing like that which itself is above passage De Sensu) that one
fvepyeiq (cf supra, p. 59, n. 2), 816
. of the four elements was assigned
TOV 6jJ.r>i(t}S [SO. MS r6 0V0?7T19pJOI/ |
to each of the senses, but that
Qepfj.ov KOI \]/vxpov 2) (TKA-rjpou Kal this only raised the difficulty of
/*a\aKov OVK alffOavo/neda, aAAa T&V the discrepancy in their respec
tf7rep/3oAcT i/,
cos TTJS aiV075<rews dlov tive numbers.
3
yu.ecrdTTjTtta TWOS oijcrris rfjs eV TO?S See the two passages, De An.
aia&riTo iS tvavTitaffsbis. Kal Sta iii. 1 and De 8ensn,
438, b, 2,
TOUTO Kpivei TO. alffOrjTa. rd yap 16 sqq. In the former of these
pe<rov KpiriK6v: just as the eye in Aristotle desires to show that
order that it may be able to there cannot be more than the
perceive black and white must live senses (the opposite had
be neither of these actually but been asserted by Democritus see :

both potentially, so it is with the ZELL. Ph. d.Gr.i.Sn, 5), which he

sense of touch. proves in this way the properties:

1
Ibid. ii. 7, 410, a, 7-35. of things are perceived either im
According to this passage, the mediately or by means of a
medium of the perceptions of medium. The former is the case
sight is light, of hearing air, of with the perception of touch
smell moisture :
irepl Se atyfjs Kal (only in the sense, however, that
yfvcrfcas e% jjikv 6/j.oices ov ^aiVerat the medium is in the percipient
Se. Their medium (see supra, itself: see supra, and of.
n. 1,
p. 39, n. 4) is flesh. For further De An. ii.
423, b, 12).
11, In
details, see infra, and in i. 518, the latter case the sensitive
n. 3, supra organ for each class of percep
-
Aristotle remarks himself tions must consist of an elemen
(Part, An. ii. 1, 647, a, 12 DC ; tary material of the same kind
Fensv, c. 2, 437, a, 19 sqq.) that as that through the medium of
several of his predecessors at 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 de-

senses. Properly speaking, how rjs t /c

?

irvpos ... 70
ever, we have only water and air aiTTLKbv jris. T<$ 8e yevvTiictv elSts
^
to deal with, as fire operates as TL a(f)7js ea-riv. It is impossible
vital heat in all the senses, and (as ALEX,
in loco, p. 80
sq.
earth peculiarly (i5/ws) either in pointed out) to suppose that
none or in touch (of which Aristotle here intends to
assign
taste, according to Aristotle, is a the organs of the various senses
subordinate variety see p. 22, n. : to the four elements
respectively.
1, supra). Even flesh, however, He here .repeats what he says in
the organ of the latter sense, the De An. of the organ of smell
does not consist merely of earth, when he remarks that it is merely
but of a mixture of earth and Suvd/j.fi what oaQpria-is is evepyeta,
water and Although it is, air. 8vvd/j.i yap 9fp/j.r) 7? TOV ^v^pov v\f)
therefore, the most material of fffT\v, and
that, like the eye, it is
all the organs of sense, it yet closely connected with the brain,
stands in the middle between the coldest and dampest part of
the different kinds of tangible the body but smell itself is
;

things, and is sensitive to them assigned to fire, because it is

all. (De An. ii. 11, 423, a, 11 produced by the heating of the
sqq. iii, 13, 435, a, 11-b, 2; cold olfactory organ by the 007x77
Part. An. ii. 1, 647, a, 19, c. 8, KaTrj/ciiS-ris, which is of a fiery
653, b, 29.) The pupil of the nature. (So also c. 5, 444, a,
eye is of water sounds are per ; 8-22, where Aristotle explains
ceived by air in the passages of on this ground the ;esthetic
the ear the sense of smell
;
pleasure in smells peculiar to
resides in both air and water. man see last note on next page.)
;

The perception of universal pro But according to Bekker s text,

perties of things, however, such the words &c. would
((>ai/epbv o>se?

as form, size, motion, &c., cannot give the meaning just referred
be confined to the organs of any to as inadmissible. It is all the
particular sense, being in its more welcome to find that, as
nature common to all (cf. infra, BAUMKEE, p. 47 sq. reminds us,
pp.66 sqq.). In the second of the four of the seven MSS. in DC
above passages it is said #oV :
Senm, 43K, b, 17, give el before
efirep TOVTUV TI (Tu/xjScuVej,
KaGdirep Sel, so that we may read :
<pa.v(pvv

ktyofifv, (pavephv ws 8e? TOITOV TOV us et SeT . rcav GTOI^ I.WV, TOV
. .

Tpoirov (ZTroSiSoVaj ital

npotTa.iTTeiv iiej/ oiittaro? \-c. In this view,
TWV alaOrjrrip wv evl T&V Aristotle offers the explanation
TOV fjitv v/j./maTos TO
v. that follows only hypothetically,
opaTiKov vSaTos VTTO\^TTTOV, afpos and from a point of view differ
Se TO T&V alo-Qt]TiKbv, irvpbs
ty6<t>a>v
ent from his own. This view of
5e T)]V uo~<ppr)o~iv.
o jap evfpyfia r\ the passage corresponds precisely
crnfprjcm TOVTO dvvd/uiti TO bafypav- with that of ALEX, ibid., who
TIKQV . . .
77 8 00707 KairvcaS^s T LS seems, therefore, also to have
avaOv/j-iaffis, 77 5 avaQv/ui.iao~is 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
important sign of and therefore any excessive life;

impression made upon this sense would not, as in the

case of the others, destroy a single organ alone, but the
life itself of the animal. 2 These two senses are thus the
commonest and lowest they serve the baser needs of ;

3
life while sight and hearing, as the means of rational
:

development, occupy the highest rank. Hearing, how

ever, deserves the preference, since we owe to this sense
4
the possibility of oral instruction. Of all
living
creatures man is 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

they play a special part in his spiritual culture.

6

ei o0Tw, <pT]a\v,
eVl rr s tyews e^ei
t other hand, are so ov TOV eli/oi
Kal Sia Toirro, Kada eyA/xoz/ro Tiz/es, eVe/ca, ctAAa rou eu. DC; Ail. iii.
eVcao-TOJ/ a.laQif]ri]piov endo-Tcp ruv 13, 435, b, 19 ; cf. C. 12, 434, b,
(TTOi^fiwv aj/aTiOercu c. ; p. 80 : 22 sqq.
ov yap 5?7 bpeffKovra aury \eyei Do Sensti, 1, 436, b. 12 to
*

&c. ;
cf. also Part. An. ii. 1, end of chap. ; Mctapli. ibid.
*
617, a, 12. tie An. ii. 9, 421, a, 9-2G ;
1
On this point cf. the not De 8ensu, 4, 440, b, 30 sqq. ;

wholly consistent statements, Part. An. ii. 16 sq., 660, a, 11,

Hist. An. iv. 8 De An. ii. 3, 415, ; 20 Gen. An. ii. 2, 781, b, 17.
;

6
a, 3 sqq. iii. 12, 434, b, 11-29, c. I)e An. ibid. : man s higher
13, 435, b, 17 sqq. ; De Sensu, intelligence is explained on the
1, 436, b, 12 sqq. De Somno, 2, ; ground of his finer feeling;
455, a, 5 Metaph. i. 1, 980, b,
; but it is certain that Aristotle
23 MEYEE, Arist. Thierk. 432 the human
;
regarded eye and
sq , and p. 22, n. 1, supra. ear as also of higher signiti-
-
De An. iii. 12, 13, 434, b, cance for the development
22, 435, b, 4-19. of the spiritual life than those
3
Feeling is indispensable to of the lower animals Etli. iii. ;

every animal for the preservation 13, 1118, a, 16 sqq., he remarks

of life, the other senses, on the of smell, hearing, and
sight,
 C5

Coming to the particular senses, Aristotle observes

that the seat of sight is in the pupil of the eye.
Formed of water, this organ is affected by colours which
are communicated to it through a transparent medium. 1

Sounds acting on our ears through the medium of air

are transmitted to the sense by the air in the auditory
2
passages. Smells are conveyed to the olfactory organ

by air and water they are inhaled with the air by

:

respiring animals to non-respiring animals water is ;

the medium of smell. 3 The primary qualities of matter

which belong to all bodies and their particular modifica-

De 5, 443, b, 15-444, a, 9,
Scnsu, reflecting the light) is proved,
ibid. 28 sqq., of smell, that
I. De Insomn. 459, b, 23 sqq., by
2,
man alone takes delight in these a fictitious experience.
sensations for their own sake and -
Part. An. ii. 10, 656, b,
not merely for the sake of food 13 sqq. De An. ii. 8, 420, a,
;

(albeit smell is his lowest sense : 2 sqq.; cf. p. 478; BAUMKEE,

De Sensu, 4, 440, b, 31 ;
De An. 52. Itnot quite clear how
is
ii. 9, 421, a, 9) ;
of the senses Aristotle conceives of the con
generally Aristotle says, ffen. A it. nection of this air with the
ibid. :
T\\V IAZV ovv ir6pp<aQv O.KPL- central organ of sense; he merely
T&V aiffdriffecav ^KKTTO. us remarks, Part. An. ibid., that
the ears are united with the
, TT/V 8e Trept TO.S Siacpopas occiput (which, according to his
irdvrcav ei>cu<r07]Toi , his opinion, i. 262, n. 1, mpra, is
organs of sense being the purest, empty) means
b}* of passages.
and the least earthy and material, 3
De An. ii. 9, 421, b, 8
and his skin being the finest. sqq. iii. 1 (see p. 6, supra) De ;

MEYER, ibid. 435 sq., brings Sensu, 5, 442, b, 27 sq. 444, a,

together his statements with 8 sqq. ;
cf. p. 537, 3, 539, 6, 478,

regard to the sensitive organs of med. ; BAUMKEE, 53 sq. It has

the various animals. been already remarked, p. 62, n. 3,
See p. 64, supra De Sen&ii,
1
; sujyra,ika,t the sense of smell also
2, 438, a, 12 sqq. b, 5 ;
Hut. An. is connected with the brain, but
i. 491, b, 20; Part. An. ii. 8,
8, there is nothing said about any

653, b, 25, c. 10, 686, a, 37 sq.; connection between it and the

Gtn. An. ii. 6, 744, a, 5, and heart. Aristotle shows, De Sensu,
elsewhere ;
cf. BAUMKEE, 48 sq., 5, 455, a, 4 sqq., that smell
and 518, n. 3, supra.
i. That the occupies a middle position be
eyes also operate upon the tween the alaO^a-fis airriKal and
5i &\\OV a(V07}T.KCU.
objects (and that not merely by
VOL. II.
66 ARISTOTLE

tions are the proper objects of the sense of touch.

1
The
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.
4
How the sensations
communicated by particular senses can have their seat
in the head, 5 while the seat of the sensitive life itself is
in the heart, 6 and all sensation belongs to one and
7
the same part of the soul, Aristotle fails to ex-
5
1
De An. ii. 11, 423, b, 26: BAUMKER, 78 sqq., shows as
airral fj.(Vovv elaiv at Siatyopal rov against SCHELL (Die EinJieit des
ffw/j.aros f) (Taj/no \~yu) 5e ras tieelenl. nach Ar. 163 sqq.) from
SioL<popks
at ra trroix^a 5iopiovffi t De An. 412, b, 18, 413, a, 2,
ii. 1,

Oep/j.bi tyvxpbv, i]pbv vyp6v. Be ii. 17 sqq. iii. 2, 426,

11, 423, b,
sides these fundamental qualities b, 8; Part. An. ii. 1, 647, a, 2
the sense of touch perceives also sqq. c. 8, 653, b, 24 sqq., and
hardness and softness and others, other passages, that Aristotle
and Aristotle asks accordingly, assumes this to be the case in
422, b, 19, whether it is only one respect to the above three senses.
sense or several. He rejects the Cf. De Svnsu, c. 2 (p. 62, n. 3,
latter supposition, however, 1. 27 iupra).
sqq., with the remark that the
6
Vide p. 41 sq. The view that
other senses also perceive more the brain is the seat of sensation
than one fvavrtorrfs by hearing, :
(ALCM^EON, see ZELL. Ph.d.Gr. i.
for example, besides height and 456, 1 PLATO, Tim. 67, B, 76, D),
;

depth we perceive loudness of is expressly refuted by Aristotle :

sound, softness and roughness Part. An. ii, 10, 656, a, 15 sqq.
in the voice, &c. Therefore BEEN- b, 11, c. 7, 652, b, 2 De Juvent. ;

TANO S assertion (Psyclwl. d. 3, 469, a, 20. He holds himself

Ar. 85) that it is erroneous that the brain is devoid of feel-
according to Aristotle to regard ing, resting his view upon sup-
feeling as only a single sensitive posed experiences, upon which
faculty, is not accurate. see MEYER, Arist. Thierk. 431.
2
See p. 39, n. 4, p. 62 n. 3, sup. ,
7
DeAn. iii. 1,
425, a, 31, and
De An. ii. 11, 422, b, 20, 35 sqq. more fully De Sensu, 7, 449, a, 5
423, b, 1 sqq, 22 Part. An. ii. 10,
; sqq., where inter alia avdyK-t] :

656, b, 35; De Vita, 3, 469, a, &pa tv TI e?j/cu rrjs if/vx^s, a.ira.VTa <p

a Vflaj eTcu, &A.A0 Se St

5-20 ; BAUMKER, 54 sqq. . .
761/05
3
See p. 22, n. 1, supra, and on &AA.OU.Just as one and the same
the sources of taste, i. 518 sq. thing has different properties, so
*
De An. ii. 11, 423, a, 17 sqq. OfTtov Kal eVl TT}S if/vx^s fb avrb
Kal tv tlvai apid/my rb
c. 10, 422, a, 34,
 PHYSICS 67

1
If his view is that the pictorial is
plain. image gene
rated in the organs of sense, while its reference to the
2
object takes place in the heart, the question still
remains, how can sensation originate in organs in
which the sensitive soul does not reside ?

eIW.i eVepoj/ Kal 461, a, 30 goes on to say:

T&V /J.fv yevei rwv 8e e /Set. l*.v yap [sc. OTTO TWV
e/ce?0ej/
wcrre Kal aiffOdvoiT &j/ a,ua avTifi T<

Kal evl, \6yci) 5 ou TC auraS. DC irpbs T^i/ apxhv Kal eyprjyopoos So/cet
Somno, 2, 455, a, 20: eo-rt ^tv yap opav Kal aKoveiv Kal alffOaveaQai,
fj.(a atffQricris Kal TO Kvpiov aiffOr)- Kal 8ia TO ottyiv eVi ore KivtlaQaL
TT}i>

TT]piov ey TO 8 eivai atV07jeret rov SoKtlV OV KLVOVp.VflV 6p5.V d>CCU6J/,

Kal
yevovs fKaffTov Tepov (its charac TCf TT]v Svo Kivtiffeis flaay-
a(p7]t/
ter is different in each kind of ye\\eii>
rb ei/ Svo 5o/ce?i/. The
sensation). words refer, as the repetition of
1
Neither from Part. An. iii. SoKeti/ shows, to the cases of self-
4, 666, a, 16, ii. 10, 656, b, 3 ; deception discussed c. 2, 460, b,
cf. Hist. An-, i. 4, 489, a, 23 DC ;
3 sqq. 11, 20, 22 sqq. c. 3, 461, b,
Somno, 2, 455, b, 6, nor from the 30. These Aristotle explains on
passage in c. 3 of the TT. cwirviwv, the ground that the judgment
which seems to give the greatest upon the object and the pictorial
support to this view, are \ve image are due to the exercise of
justified in saying with certainty different faculties (ibid. 460, b,
that Aristotle regards the blood 16 : afaiov Se TOV ffv^aiv^iv ravra
as the conductor by which the TO /j.^i
/caret TTJV avTi]v SvvaiJ.iv
sensitive movements are led to Kp ivtiv TO T Kvpiov [subj.] Kal $
the heart. He certainly assumes TO. (pavTaa /aaTa
7/i/eTcu). 6 Acos
yap
that a portion of the blood flows [as c. 3, 461, b, proceeds] TO d^>

at intervals back to the heart, eKao-Ti]s alo-O-tiaews (pr)(Tiv r) apxr),

carrying its own natural motions av p.7] erepa KvpiwTepa avTicpi).
with it (ibid. 461, b, 11). From <f)a.ivTai yuej/ ovv TrdvTws, So/ceT
this, however, he merely concludes
:
5 o j irdvTws TO <paivo/j.vov
[the
(as will be shown, p. 71, n. 3, infra} sun, for example, appears to us
that the movements caused by to be a foot broad, nevertheless
previous perceptions and latent in we- refuse to believe it; c. 2, 460,
the organs of sense, being no b, 18], dAA eaj/ [but only when]
longer overpowered by move
ments in the blood, are liberated
TO t-niKplvov K3.TexT]Tai. r) ^ KivrJTai
T}]V otKfiav K. .vT\aiv. It is this
and carried in like manner to Kvpiov Kal 67Ti/<:prj/oi (461,b, 24 sq.)
the heart it appears, therefore,
;
which refers the sense-perception
that he regards them as different to its object. It, for instance, when
from those in the blood. sensation presents us with the
2
This is the view put forward image of a particular man, iden
in the passage just referred to in with the man in question.
tifies it
the treatise upon Dreams, where In sleep, on the other hand, when
i 2
68 ARISTOTLE

The separate senses, however, are insufficient of

themselves to explain the fact of sense-perception. The
universal qualities of things such as time, motion and

rest,unity and multiplicity, size and form are not, like

l
sound and colour, the peculiar objects of special senses ;

all the senses, and only indirectly

they are perceived by
by The
each.
faculty, therefore, by which they are
must be distinct from all the particular
perceived
senses: it must be a sensus communis or common sense."
2

This sense, moreover, enables us to compare and dis

different senses. 3
tinguish the perceptions of
consciousness imprisoned, the
image is taken for the object
itself. The seat of this faculty
cannot be other than a single
Kvpiov al<rOriTT]piov
455, a, 21), of which sleeo and
waking are particular states (see
p. 75, infra).
DC An. ii. 7, Aristotle dis
1
tinguishes between a0 aura [not
When,
is sense-perceptions, and the multi
plicity of the senses even assists
us in distinguishing them from
the latter (OTTCOS rirrov Xav&avri ra
(De Somno, 2, aKO\ov6ovvTa Kal Koiva, ibid. 425,
b. 5). Were we therefore con
fined for our perception of them
to the particular senses, we should
know them only as accessory (e.g.
we saw a white object, which
it:

merelv Kara (ru^t,8ej37jKbs] cuVflTjra moved, we should perceive only

between ftua and KOIVO., remarking its colour and not its motion).
418, a, 11 A6 7 co 8 rSioj/ ^v & (^
:
rcov 8e KOIVUV ^7817 exo,uej/ atffQrifftv
cVSe xercu erepa alffQi]<r^i alaQdveaOzL Koivrjv ov Kara OVK ap
<rv/j./Be/3r]K6s

. . . K nva. 8e /aV>)<m, -hpe/Aia, apiQ- Icfriv t Si a (ibid. 425, a, 24sqq.). Do

fj.(js, /AfjeOos. Similarly, iii.
<rx^/",
Mem. ibid, says that size and
1, 425, a, 13: oAAa pfyv oi5e rwv motion are known to us by the
KQIV&V oTw T elvai alar0riT-f)pi< ri >v same faculty as time, /co) rb
ftuoy, u>v Ka (pdvTair/jia [sc. avrrjs] rr/s Koivris
aia-8ai>6/j.eea. Kar aLffdrjfffcas 7ro9os eVrti/. Cf. i.435,
STRIK proposal to read ov K.
S <r. n. 2, supra.
is rightly rejected by J3RBNTANO,
3
De An. iii. 2, 426, b, 8:
each sense ras rov
Psychol. d. Ar. 98],
olov Kti/^o-ecos, perceives
(7Tct<rews, (rx^aTOS, fjieyfOovs, apid- viroKeifjievov alffOyTOv Siatyopas, e.g.

juou, evos. I)e

450, a, 1). Mem. sight, those of colour. eVei 8e Kal
On time see p. 73, n. 4, infra. rb \VKbf Kal rb y\vKv Kal fKaarrov
z
We are informed of motion rSiv alffOrjTtov irpbs e/cafrroj/ Kpivo-

&c through the separate senses juej/, rivi ai(T0av6/j.Oa OTI Siatyepfi ;
Kara (Tt^/SejSrjKbs (De An. iii. 1; v. avd-yKi] 8?; alardrjcTfi- altrdrjra yap
preceding note). These qualities
otfre 8^ Ke-xw/Jzo-^ueVots
are accompaniments of particular Kptveiv OTI tTtpov rb
 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. The common principle of

1

allsense-perception alone is
responsible for the reference

of the perception to the object, and therefore for the

mistakes that are made. 2 The same principle, finally, is
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
jective reality.
3
The organ of the common sense is the
TOV \evKov, aAAa Se? ej/t nvi faculty can know the distinction
SfjAa elvai. must there-
It between whiteness and sweet-
fore be one and the same faculty ness. De Somno, 2, 455, a, 1 7 :

by which we distinguish different /cat Kpivei 8/7 Kal Svvarai Kpiveiv on

kinds of sensations from one erepa TO. y\vKta rwv XtvK&v, oure
another and to this, in order
:
ycvffei ovre fyei OVT a/j.Qo tv, a\\d
that these may be compared with nvi Koivi? popitp TU>V

one another, these must be airavTow. effn fjifv yap /j.ia

simultaneously present, meeting- c. (see p. G6, n. 7, supra).

in it as two lines meet in a com- Cf i. 209, n. 3, supra.
.

mon point. (The details of this Seep. 67, n. 2,suj)ra, where

-

theory, which suggests many cliffi- this is shown to have been

culties, cannot be here discussed
besides TRENDELENBUBGW&Z0C0,
see the discussion of it in KAMPE,
Erkenntti.lssth. d.Ar. 107; BEEN-
TANO, Psycliol. d. Ar. 90 sqq.
BAUMKER, vO sqq.). Similarly
c. 7, 431, a, 20 : T IVI 8 eiriKpivei
Ti Siafyepei y\vKv Ka\ 0p/j.6v ...
yap ev n OVTOD Se Kal TJ
6\us 6 opos [the bound-
ary] &c. Just as one sense knows
;
Aristotle s view.
3
DC An. iii. 2 init.: eVel S
ala"9av6/ne6a on bpw^v Kal d/couo-
/*ep,avdvicn % rrj oi^et aiaQaveaQai
;
tin 6pa, $ erf pa [sc. alffd^ffei]. The
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
things. De Somno. 2, 455, a, 15 :

the distinction between -white eo-rt 8e ns Kal Koivh 8vva/j.is

and black, so one and the same aKo\ovdov<ra iraffais, 7
/cat on 6pa
70 ARISTOTLE

heart,
1
in which, as we have already seen, the general
2
principle of the sensitive life resides.

To this single faculty of perception, or c

common
sense, Aristotle
proceeds to attribute a number of
3
important mental phenomena. It is the source of
4
imagination and memory, which are therefore shared
by many brutes as well as by man. Imagination is
a movement produced by sensation, an after-effect of
5
the sense-perception in other words a spent sensa-

Kal aKovei alffOdverai [so BONTTZ, also the central organ of sensa
Arist. Stud. iii. 72, reads accord tion.
ing to the text of two MSS.
3
;
For the following account
BEKK. has Kal cuV0.] ov yap 8/7 TT) see FEEUDENTHAL, Ueber d.
ye o^et opa %TI opa . . . a\\d TLVI Bfgriff d. Wortes (pavraffia b.
O.TTO.V- Arist. 1863.
TUV. 4
De An. iii.
3, 428, a, 9, 21,
1
The heart is the ev Kotv bv c. 10, 433, a, 11, c. llin.it. Hut. ;

aiVfl JjTTjpiOj ,
els o TO.S KO.T* evepyeiav An, 1, 488, b,
i. 25 De Mem. 1, ;

al<rd-f]0~eis avayKcuov aTravrav (De 449, a, 28, 450, a, 15, c. 2, 453, a,

Juvent. 1, 467, b, 28); TO ye Kvpiov 6 MetapJi. i. 1, 980, a, 27, b, 25
; ;

T&V alffd^ffewv ev ravrr) TO?S evai- cf. p. 71, n. 3, p. 73, n. 4, Infra.

/jiois iracriv. ev rovry yap ava.yKa.1ov Some animals, therefore, dream

elvai TO iravTdW T<av
alcrOTjTripicav as well as man, Divin. p. S. 2,
Koivbv alffO-riT-fipiov (ibid. c. 3, 469, 463, b, 12.
a, 10).
5
After showing, De An. iii.
Cf. supra, p. 42 sq. and p.
-
3, that it is neither nor df<r07j<m,

66, n. 6, and on the question how vovs, nor eVio-Tirj^rj, nor 5o |a, nor
the sensations of the three senses a combination of 5 J|a and afcrflrjo-i?,
which have their seat in the head Aristotle proceeds, 428, b, 10 :

are transmitted to the heart, p. 67, aAA 7ret5)) eo"Tt

KwrjOtj/ros rovftl
n. 1 But the heart is also the seat
. KivelffQai erepov virb TOVTOV, TJ 5e
of the sense of touch (see p. 67, n. (pavracria KW7]als TLS SoweT elvai Kal
1, supra} and to this the remark,
;
OVK avev alaOJ-ffews yiyveffQai aAA
DC Somno, 2, 455, a, 22, seems to al(r8avo/jLfvois Kal )V atffQriffis effrlv,
refer, where it is said that the eo~Ti Se yiveadai Kivtiffiv VTTO TTJS
?5(oi/ and the koivbv of aftrflrjcns evtpyeias TTJS al a Or) (Tews, Kal ravrrjv
[for this we must suppose to be 6fj.oia elvai rfj aia6r)o~ei, elrj
the meaning of TOVTO, 1. 22, placing vTT) r] is ovre avev alffO^fffas

with BONITZ the words ov yap . . . re /j.}) ai<r6avo/j.evois

XpupaTos, 1. 17-22, in a paren iroAAa KCT avrr]v Kal
thesis] a/uLa T$ aTTTiKy fj.d\ o"0 iroielv Kal i/,
/cat eJvai

virdpx*i, this being the only one Kal aA7j07j Kal ^ev L. 30 : t

of the senses whose organ is ovv p.ridev p.ev a\\o

 PHYSICS 71

tion. 1 The motion caused by the external impression

upon the sensitive organ not only produces an immediate
effect in the sensation which follows, but continues in
2
the organ, whence under certain circumstances it
passes to the central organ, and in this way repro
duces the pictorial image, 3 even in the absence of the ob-

[so the majority of the former case by the rapid

the MSS, TORSTR. with E reads ; growth, in the latter by the
$) % (pavr., but considers the words rapid decay, of the body. The
spurious BEKK. and TREND, are
;
latter passage would of itself be
certainly in reading T) pr)
wrong sufficient to prove that in Ari-
TOVTO 5 ccrrl [ToRSTR.
(pavra<riav^
stotle s view the persistence of
conj. e^ei] TO Aex^ei/, j] <pavra(r:a the sense-impressions, which are
kv eit] KiVrjcns UTTO rrjs aiffdr) crews compared to the impress of a
TTJS /carevepyeiav yiyvo^vr). De stamp, is not that of actual
Insomn. 459, a, 17 (a passage
1, material copies of the objects
which establishes the true read- (even in his account of sense-
ing in DeAn. 429, a, 2 as yiyvoiievt], perception itself, p. 58 sq. supra,
not ->]$).
Aristotle gives no countenance
1
Rliet. i. 11, 1370, a, 28 : rj to such a view), nor even that of
Se (pavraffia. e<rr\v
ai<rQi}cris
TIS qualitative changes in the organs
acrdevfis. themselves, but is due to the
2
De Mem. 1, 350, a, 27 : the continuance in the organs of the
irdQos, where e ts is yui/Tj^uyj, con- motions caused by the original
sists of a kind of <oypd<prifjLa,
sensation. This, however, be-
which attrd-riais produces in the comes still more obvious from
soul (i.e. the tyvx^ alcrd-nriK^) and the quotations that follow in the
in the part of the body where ib next note. On the whole sub-
resides y yap yivo^vn Kivrja-is
; ject see FREUDENTHAL, p. 20
otov TVTTOV TWO. rov sqq.
3
alcrd r)iLi.aTos KaQdirep o! <T(ppayt6/j.evoi
This is the sense of the
TO?S 8aKTv\iois. On
this account, passage in IT. evvirv. c. 3, already
under deep emotion or in the referred to. After showing in,
early years of childhood, memory the beginning of c. 2, 6n KO.\
is weak, the excitement being a.-rr\()6vTos rov QvpaOev alcrOrjrov
too strong, Ka.6a.Trep &i/ els 05a>p efjL.uevei TO. alcrd-fi/j-ara alaQr]ra ovra,
peov /j.irnrTov(rr)s TTJS /ctj/^o-ecos Kai that thefaculty which gives
TAJS atypaylSos conversely in old
; judgment upon the corresponding
age Sia TO ^xta-Qai fwear] /cat Sia objects is different from that
ffK\f]p6Tf]Ta TOV 8exofj.evov TO ird6os which supplies the sense with
OVK eyy.verai 6 TVTTOS. The same the images of them (cf. p. 67, n.
phenomenon is explained, c. 2, 2), and that in this way we get
453, b, 4, as the result, not only the delirious fancies of fever
in the case of children but of and other illusions of sense into
old men, of a /ctV^o-ts caused in which we are seduced by passion
72 ARISTOTLE

ject.
1
To
power of reproducing images of sense Ari
this
stotle gives the name of Phantasy and to the images ;

themselves the cognate name of phantasms. 2 Phantasy,

and emotion, Aristotle proceeds 67, n. 2, supra); 6rav yap
in c. 3 : the motions caused [as isexplained,461, b, 10], KUTLOV-
partly by impressions made upon TOS TOV TrAefcTTOi; aifj.ci.TOS tirl T))V
us from without, partly by those apx^v ffvyK.a.TepxovTa.1 at evovo~ai
produced from within the body Kij/rjo-eis. These
however, exist,
itself, are repressed during the partly partly eVep-yeioc, the
8vi>d/j.fi

day by the activity of sense and former appearing ( eirnro\d.eiv )

thought, and rendered imper when the others by which they
ceptible [a(paviovTai tirrirep irapa have hitherto been repressed dis
TroAu irvp eAarToi/ as the light of appear Kal \v6fJifvai eV
;
T o\[y<p

the stars before the sun] ; AonrqiJ a i/bLan rcf eV TO?S al(T0r)Tr)piois
5e 5t apy tav T&V Kara Kivovvrai [in the blood which is
left behind in he organs of sense
1

. . . irl T after the main body of it has

[the heart]
VOVTO.I (pavepal
Tapaxvs- The same thing takes
place in sleep (461, a, 18 sqq.) TO.
(pavTacr/iiaTa Kal al viroXoii
[those lingering remnants of the
motions produced by impressions
upon the senses which are the
Kara^epoi/rat Kal yi- flowed back to the heart, the
KadLffTa/m.fvrjs TTJS sensitive motions contained in it,
which have hitherto lain latent,
: 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 fyoi6-
rrjra wtrirep ra eV rots a ve<p<Ttv,

cause of phantasms cf. p. 70, n. 5, ; iraptiKa^ovariv avOp&nois Kal Kfvrav-

SUprci\ &T fj.\v VTTO /j.eioi>os ova"rjs pois Tax^us ^ueTajSaAAovTa. So
Trjs etprj^eVrjs Ktvi](Tcas afyavi&VTai long as we keep hold even of a
ird/j.irav, ore Se TeTapay/^fvai <pai-
remnant of. consciousness in
vovrai . . . KaQitTTauitvov 5e Kal sleep we do not mistake those
StaKpivo/jLfvov TOV a"fJ.aTOs eV TO?S images for the things; if on the
ei/at^uois, (rw^b^eVrj TWV other hand we have lost all
t] Kivrjcris ac/)
e/cacrrou TWV consciousness that we are asleep,
[the motion caused by the
T-ripioiv we take the one for the other.
sense-impression which is trans Dreams (ra <paiv6/jLeva e5f5a?Aa
mitted from the organs of sense KaOcvSovTt, 462, a, 11) are there
to the heart] eppw/j.va Te iroiei TO. fore only the remnants of the
fvv-jrvia,Kal [so. TroteT] QaiveaOai TL motions caused by sensation
Kal 5m
8o/ceTi/ TO. airb TTJS o^ecos/u.i> (461, b, 21), as which they are
KaTa(pep6[ji.va opav, Sia 5e TO, dirb often clearly recognised at the
TTJS aKorls aKoviv. ofj-OtOTpoTrcas 5e moment of waking.
Kal a7rb T&V &\\<av
aiaOriTypicav.
1
Hence he says, Zte An. iii.
For the apx^ accepts as true 8, 432, a, 9 ra yap :

what the senses report, so long as

it remains uncontradicted by a u Arjs.
2
more authoritative report (cf. p. For proof of this see BONITZ,
 PHYSICS 73

moreover, he holds to be the source of the images which

accompany thought. To these it is impossible to apply
1

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

9,25. sense.
3
1
See next chapter. See i. 209, n. 3, and ii. 67,
2
Aristotle actually distin n. 2, supra.
guishes between two kinds of De Mem. i all memory refers
4
:

(pavra<r-a.
De An. iii. 10, 433, b, to the past and therefore presup
28 opfKTiKbv 8e [so. TO Qfov iffrlv]
:
poses the intuition of time, 449, b,
OVK avev (pavTacrias. (pavrarria Se 28 ftcra xP& vov oilffOdverai, Tavra
:

7} \oyL<TTiK^] r) al<r07jTiKr]. liova. -T&V <f<av /j.vri/JLOi evei, Kal Tovrcp

/J.ev ovv Kal ra #AAa <pa

S> alaOdverai. (See i. 436, n. 2, ii.

c. 11, 434, a, 5: T) /u.ej/

and 71, n. 3, supra. ) The
70, n. 4,
al(r9-r]TLK^ (pavraffia . . . ical faculty upon which memory de
5e pends phantasy, for it always
is

/SouAeimKr) eV TO"IS
\oyiffr i/co??. refers primarily to sensory
As can only here
alo-OrjTiK)) <bzvT. images, and in a derivative and
mean the power of reproducing secondary sense to thoughts in
from the motions that linger in so far as thought itself is impos
the organs of sense the images sible without a pictorial image,
represented by them, the <$>O.VT.
as is shown (450, a, 15) by the
jSouAeuriKT? (or Ao7iO"Ttcr) rb yap : fact that brutes have memory as
jSouAeveo-flcu Kal XoyifecrQcu ravrov, well as man. Cf. 450, a, 13:
Eth. vi.
2, 1139, a, 12) must (iitrre TOV voov/j.evov [I/OOUI/TOS or
mean the power of projecting vov 1 ] /cara (rv/j.^e^Kos &v efy,
1

images of things in the future, avr6 5e TOV Trpwriv alaOrjTiKOv.

Kad"

of means and ends whose com 450, a, 22 rivos f*.fv ovv : T?IS TU>V

parative value it is the function e<rrlv

f) tyavepby, OTL
/j.v^/.i.i],

of jSouAeucns to estimate with a Kal r] (fiavraffta Kal CO~TI

1

view to the exercise of choice. /j.vr]/j,ovVTa Kad" avra fj.ev orra earl
Such images, however, are not, (ptavTatrra, Kara (TVju.fieBr)Kbs Se oo~a
like those of memory, given in jj(,}]
avev (pavracrias. The ^av
74 ARISTOTLE
and the conscious reproduction of a memory is 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 movements which produce
the imaginative pictures ; 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 o~v\\oyio-jjL6s TLS fffTiv. Jf. An. ibid.
lection (/j.vTHJ.6vev/j.a) when we also connects /3oiM.etW0aiwith ava-
recognise in it the copy of an fj.ifj.vf)o-Kfo-Oai as peculiar to man.
actual perception, when we con 2
Perhaps Aristotle gives
nect with it the thought that it this explanation, ibid. 451, a, H)
is the repetition of a previous sqq., with a tacit reference to
perception a point upon which the mnemonics mentioned by him
we are not always certain. Ac in other passages (De An. iii. 3,
cordingly we sometimes fail to re 427, b, 19 De Insomn. 1. 458, b,
;

cognise actual memories as such, 20; Top. viii. 14, 1(53, b, 28).
and at other times mistake mere Kecollection, he says, takes
fancies for memories (450, b, 18 place, eVeiS); iretyvKev }] Kivr)(Tis

sqq.). Tl eVrl /Liv-fiM [the

iJ.ev otiv 7^5e 76j/0"0at the
jweTa Trji/Se ;
if

chap, concludes] Kal TO mvi]^.o- connection is a necessary one,

Vfvtiv, efyjTjrat, art (pavTaff/AUTOS, the rirst is invariably recalled by
us eiK6vos ov <f)dvTao-/jLa, e|ts (which the second if it is
; merely
should be taken, not, with habitual, only as a rule. Some
FREUDENTHAL, ibid. 36 and times, however, a single occur
elsewhere, in its narrow sense dis rence creates a fixed habit.
cussed i. 285, n. 3, supra, but in the AvafMi/uLvf)o Kffdai both in the case
simple sense of having or keeping; of intentional and unintentional
cf .
449, b, 25) Kal TLVOS fj-opiov
c. i. recollection consists in recalling
T&V 6ri TOV Trptarov alff67]ri-
ev T)ijCiv, former motions in their order
KOV Kal y XP OVOV alffOavo/neOa. until we arrive at the object of
Hist. An. i. 1 fin. De Mem.
1
; search. We
start in this process
ii. 451, b, 2, 453, a, 6 sqq. As OLTTO TOU vvv [i.e. from a present

the reason of this, it is said, in intuition] T) aAAou TWOS, Kal a(p

453, a, 9 on TO ava/ju/jii/ f}o~Keo~()ai
:
6/uLoiov 3) TOU avveyyvs.
ei-avTiov y)

effTiv olov o~v\\oyia/u.6s ns on yap Aristotle has not further deve

TTp6r*pov $ 6?5ev 3) ^Kovfftv ij n. loped these hints upon the so-
TOIOVTOV o~v\\oyi^Tai 6
HiraOe, called laws of the association of
ava/j.L/j.j/r]o~K6/ui.vos, Kal ecrnv olov ideas, nor has he explained
ns. TOVTO 5 ofs Kal TO whether of the two principles of
avd/j.vr)(Tis, avdyKf] and %6os, the
K.al yap TO fiov\evso~6ai. former embraces only those cases
 PHYSICS 76

Lastly, from sensation and imagination arise

1
heart.
the feelings of pleasure and pain, 3 and the appetites,
whereof we shall have to treat in detail when we come
to Anthropology. 3
Aristotle regarded Sleep and Waking as conditions
of the common faculty of perception. 4 Sleep is the
5
imprisonment of that faculty, waking is its free activity.

in which the physical movement irpbs TO ayaQbv Kal wa/cbj/, 77 TOI-

that underlies the pictorial image aCro. Phys. vii. 3, 247, a, 24 :
/}

spontaneously produces other yap KUT ivepyeiav TO TTJS

such movements or includes also Sici /j.vfifj.rjv $) OTTO Trjs eATn Sos.
those in which the content of a ft /j.ev ovv /CCIT fvfpyfiav,
given presentation conducts TO afaiov, el 8e Sia
e ATn Sa,
necessarily to the recollection of OTTO TCUTTJS ^ yap oia
certain others. On the other tTro.Qofj.ev (jL^.vi]^.4vois TO TTJS T/Soi^s

hand, Aristotle gives us the T) oia. ireio o yuefla e\iriov<riv. We

general law which determines shall return to pleasure in deal-
the succession of those associa- ing with the Ethics, but neither
tions which depend upon habit, here nor there do we find an
viz. that each presentation is accurate psychological account
recalled by that which imme- of the feeling.
diately preceded it on its former 3
Cf. meantime De An. ii. 2,
occurrence :
r$ yap efler cwoAou- 413, b, 23, c. 3, 414, b, 1-16, iii.
Oovffiv at Kivi]ffis ctAArjAats, 7, 431, a, 8 sqq. iii. 11; De
a T7Ji/5e (451, b, 28, cf. 1. 22). Som.no, i. 454, b, 29 Part. An. ;

IMd. 453, a, 14 sqq., where ii. 17, 661, a, 6.

it is stated, cm o-<JyiaTi/coV TO n 4
IUd. c. 2, 455, a, 5-b, 13 :

irddos, Kal r] avd/j.vr](ns eV sleep and waking do not belong

(f)avTd(Tfj.aros . ava- to the senses individually, but
/j.ifj.vrjo-K6/j.vos (rcD/j.aTiK6v TI Kivei fv to the Kvpiov T&v a\\tov trdvTuv
$ T& TrdOos what This is is not,
;
alo dqT-fipiov, the TrpaTov $ aladd-
in deed, further explained. Since, veTai irdvTuv.
however, the seat of memory in De Somno, i.
e.g. 454, a, 32 :

general is the heart, it must be ei TO IVVV TO eyprjyopevai. &pio-Tai

this which is meant. TO
2
Do An. ii. 2, 413, b, 23: f Ka6evSfiv tvavTiov
OTTOU yU6i/ yap aar#Tj<m, Kal AUTTTJ Te TOVTO 8 eo~Tlv aSvvafJLia Si
Kal riSovTi, OTTOV Se TauTa, e| aj dyKtjS TOV
O\TJV fyprjyopevai . . .

avdyKrj TTO.V TO
!
Kal eiri8v/u a. iii. 3, 414, b, 4 :
eypyyopus ej/8e-
Ka9evofiv aovvaTov yap aei
T6 Kal XVTTT] KO.I TO fl$V T Kttl V. It is impossible, how
Xvirif]p6v. (Similarly De Somno, ever, that it should sleep for ever,
1, 454, b, 29.) c. 7, 431, a, 10 : for to sleep without awaking
Ko*Tt TO ^Secrflcu Kal \virf7(r6ai TO would be to lose the power of
Tfj sensation. 454, b, 25 : TTJS 8
 76 ARISTOTLE
Hence these conditions are only exhibited by beings

capable of sensation but with them they are invariable,

:

for the faculty of perception cannot remain active

without experiencing exhaustion from time to time. 1

The object of sleep is to maintain life, to refresh and

restore ;
and this again subserves the higher purpose of
2
waking activity. The natural causes of sleep lie in
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 state these motions disappear beneath the action
of sense 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
clearly. Hence it may happen that an internal motion

al(rO-fi<T<as rpoirov riva r^jv /te/ above, we must suppose that

a.Kivt)<riav Kal olov Seff/muv virvov these sleep also.
2
elvai (pa/j.v, r^v Se \vaiv Kal r^v Ibid. ii. 455, b, 16-28, c. 3,
aveaiv eyp-fiyopviv. end.
See preceding note and DC
1 3
De Somno, c. 3, where this
Somno, 1, 454, b, 14-455, a, 3, point is very fully discussed,
where it is said that all animals 4
As is shown and interestingly
except ostracea are actually illustrated by careful observations
observed to sleep, and thaf, on from cognate fields, IT. swirviuv
the general grounds mentioned (see p. 71, n. 3, supra}, cf. Divin,
 PHYSICS 77

in the body, which would not be perceived in waking

hours, makes
felt in dreams, or that dreams,
itself

reversely, impel people to subsequent action by the

images which they present to the soul. It is also

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 may be explained naturally; anything
beyond must be considered a casual coincidence,
this
for we notice that many dreams do not come true at
1
all.

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 correspond-

p. >S.
1, -1(53, a,
according to the account here
given (c. 3, 462, a, 8, 29) are
Kiv^fffis (pavra(TrLKal
caused by fancy] rots cuVflrj- eV
TTjpiots,... TO (pavraa/j-a TO cnro TTJS
Kiv^a-ews rwv ala0^juLdrcau, orav eV
KaQfvSeiv 77, 77 KafleuSei, TOUT
TO>
ecTTtf evvirviov.
This is essentially the doc-
1
trine set forth in the treatise TT.
TTJS KO.& virvov jUcti/TZKTjs.
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
7 sqq. Dreams opinion which, he thinks, may
have given rise to the belief in
the existence of the Gods. If at
[movements 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 sub-
ject as given above shows how
It cannot, far he was at a later time from
regarding eleep as a higher con-
dition of the spiritual life. The
views that Cic. Divin. i. 38, 81
attributes to Aristotle on the
power of prophetic foresight
( aliquid in anirnis pracsagiens
atque divinum ) said to be pos-
sessed by hypochondriacs were
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

ing member), is extinguished.

1
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,

which in the case of life is the vapour rising from the

blood or else an excess of warmth may induce too
;

3
rapid consumption of it. The latter takes place in the

natural decay of old age. During a length of time the

respiratory organs have been growing gradually harder
and drier, moving themselves in consequence more
slowly, and becoming incapable of providing the neces
4
sary covering process for the inner heart. Accordingly
the inner fire decreases more and more, until at last it
isextinguished, like a little flame, by some insignificant
movement. 5 The causes of greater or less longevity are
discussed by Aristotle in a special treatise.

Up to this point we have dealt exclusively with

the common conditions and peculiarities of animal life.
These common characteristics are displayed in the most
different forms and degrees of completeness by the dif
ferent races of animals. The animal kingdom exhibits
1
De Vita,c. 4 see pp. 7
;
5
DC Repir. 17, 479, a, 7 sqq.
and 42, supra, andcf. Ees/rir. 17, cf. De Vita, 5, 4G9, b, 21, 470, a,
478, b, 31 sqq. 479, a, 7 sqq. o (where the suffocation of fire by
2
As in the extinction of fire coals is cited as an illustration,
and explained in the same way).
by water.
3
De
Vita,c. 5, 496, b, sq. Meteor, 379, a, 3 Loiigit. V.
iv. 1, ;

The third possible case, when 5, 46ti, a, 19, 22, b, 14; Gen. An.
the supply of the requisite ali- v. 3, 783, b, G.
6
ment fails, as in death by starva- Hep: fiaKpofiifoviTOSKcA fipaxv-
^

is here unnoticed by ^torriros cf. Gen. An. iv. 10, 777,

tiou, ;

Aristotle. b, 3. Upon the results there

4
That this is the purpose ai rived at, c. 5, 6, it is imprac-

served by respiration has already ticable here to enter more fully,

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 isAristotle s undisputed distinction to have first dis
covered this scale and to have followed it through all
aspects of animal life. Even the local habitations
1

of the different animals, the elements to which

they
belong, enable us to distinguish their several degrees
of honour and importance. 2 Nor must the variations
1
As has already been gener thing at all springs from either
ally shown, p. 20 sqq. supra cf ;
. ice or fire. If we may put down
i. 466 sqq. to a popular mode of speech
2
Aristotle frequently touches the mention of air-animals in
upon this point. His statements the treatise IT. by (pi\o<ro(pias,

upon it, however, are not always which are only meant winged ani
consistent with one another mals, yet the fire-animals men
either in regard to the birth and tioned in his Natural History and
habitations, or in regard to the alluded to by other writers (cf.
elementary constitution of dif FABBICIUS, on Sext. Pyrrh. i.41.
ferent living creatures. Meteor, iv. IDELER, on Meteorol. ii. 454 ;

4, 382, a, 6 (De An. i. 5, 411, PHILO, Plant. Noe, 216, A, De

a, 9 relates to another subject) he Gigant. 285, A) cannot be recon
says : eV 777 KCU tv vSari a /JLOVOV ciled with his other- statements.
(rnv, eV de /n 8e nal irvpl OUK fffriv, But, secondly, with regard to the
OTI Tuiv ffwfj.drwv v\r] ravTa. (On material constituents of living
the statement in the latter clause bodies, Aristotle holds (DeAn. i. 5,
v. i. 483, n.
2,siy>ra).
On the other 411, a, 9. iii. 13 init., and the pas
hand, according to CiG. N. D. ii. sage refei red to in i. 482, n. 3, *wy>.)

15, 42; PLUT. Plat. V. 20, 1 (Fr. Ar. that while each contains a mixture
19), he had declared, probably in of all the elements, there may be
the dialogue IT. </nAofro0 as, that as a preponderance of different ele
there are land-, water-, and air- ments in different bodies. Here
animals (C^ a X P ffa^a twSpa,
i also, however, his statements are
irrt]va, or according to Cic. cum not always consistent. De Bespir.
alioium animantium ortus in 13, 477, a, 27, he says ra /nev yap :

ttrra sit, aliorum in aqua, in aere

aliorum ), there must also be (ya 7eVos [and ace. to Gen. An.
ojpdvLa, and the stars must there ii. 743, b, 10, shell-fish and
6,
fore be animate. Again, Hist. An. Crustacea], ra 8 e | VSaros oloi/ rb
v. 1.9, 552, b, 6-15, he speaks of i(av evvfiptav TU>V Se TTTTJ^WI /ccti

worms which spring by spon 7re(oh/ TO. fj.ev e|

aepos ra 8 e/c
taneous generation from ice, flies Trvpos. e/cao-ra 8 fv TO?S oiiceiois
which spring from fire, whereas, TOTTOIS%x ei r ^ t/ Ta^iv avrtav. On
Gen,, et Corr. ii. he3, 330, b, 29, the other hand, Gen. An. iii. 11,
had expressly denied that any 761, b, 13 rd p.tv yap fyvra. &(.irj
:
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
2
less creatures. 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

physical structure not less important. 3 It is only

is

sanguineous animals which have flesh, the bloodless are

yTs, aToy Se rd eVuSpa, ra Kal ^VXTJS rfTvx n ffi ai Ti/J.iocTfpzs.

5t ire^a o/pos TO 5e /j.a\\ov Kal -

On this distinction, of which
^ITTOV Kal fyyi/Tfpiv Kal Troppwrepov Aristotle very frequently makes
TroAArji/ iron? Kal 6av/j.ao~Tr)v 5ta- use, see, besides many other pas
(topdv. TO Se TtTapTov ytvos OVK firl sages, Hist. An. i. 4-6, 489, a, 30,
TOVTCCV TO)!/ TOTTUV 5e? ^VjTeTz/ /CGUTOt 490, a, 21, 26 sqq. b, 9. ii. 15 init
jSovAerai 76 Tt Kon-a Tyy TOV Trupoy iv. 1 init. c. 3 init. Part. An. ii. ;

flvai Ta.)-iv. dAAa 5e? TO roiovrov

. . 2, 648, a, 650, b, 30, and
1. c. 4,

ytvos VjTeTi/ eVt TTJS o"eA.7jM7s OI/TTJ the passages referred to 26, n. 1,
yap (paivtrai Koivuvovaa rerdp-
r?is supra. From Part. iii. 4, 665, a, 3 1
Tf]s airo(TTd<Te(i)s, The whole class (ArjjUO/fpiTO? 5 eot/cej/ ov KaXws Sia-
of 7rea (land animals and birds) Aa/8etV avr
Trepl
are here assigned to the air, just jUt/cpoT7jTa TWV ava /J-cav
as De tSoim/, c. 5, 444, a, 10, men elVcu ravra = their intestines)
and quadrupeds are classed with BRANDiS,ii.b. 1301 concludes that
those oaa jueTe%et /j.a\\ov rrjs TOV Dernocritus had made the dis
aepos ^uo-eccs: fire-animals on the tinction between sanguineous and
other hand are said to inhabit the bloodless animals the inference, ;

moon, of which there is a sugges however, is a doubtful one, as

tion also De An. ii. 3, 414, b, 18 Democritus may have mentioned
(see p. 20, n. 3, supra). But it only particular species of animals,
remains to be asked how in the and the general designation of
ethereal region, to which the moon them as &vai/j.z maybe Aristotle s.
also belongs, there can be beings
3
Part. An. ii. 2, 648, a, 2 (see
constituted of all the elements. p. 39. n. 6, s/>ra)
c. 4, 651, a,
;

Cf. MEYER, Ari*t. TJiierk. 413 sq 12: iroXXwv 8 ffTtv alria ri TOV

393, and i. 472 sqq. supra. (pvffLS Kal KV.TO. Tb fjdos Tols
De Ifcsp. 13, 477, a, 16 Ta
1
: Kal KaTa TV)-- a{o-Qt]o~iv,
s v\r) yip ICTI
yap
 PHYSIOS 81

provided with something analogous to flesh the ;

l

former have a heart, the latter another kind of central

organ.
2
The vital heat and composition of the blood,
again, determine the development of the organs of
refrigeration and secretion the brain, lungs,
kidneys,
bladder, and their peculiar functions.
3
In everything
relating to the motion and posture of animals, Aristotle
does not fail to recognise a special significance. Some
tribes grow like plants adhering to the ground the :

more perfect races, on the contrary, are capable of locomo

tion at will. 4 Furthermore, he traces very considerable
differences in the organs of motion and the modes of
5
progression displayed by the latter. It is only in the
case of locomotive creatures that we find the opposition
of right and left, to which Aristotle attributed much
6
importance, together with a more complex organisa
tion. 7 Lastly, while in shell-fish and plants the head
looks downwards, and while in animals without feet or
with many feet it is turned to the middle of the world,
it is turned upwards in bipeds, and particularly in man. 8
See p. 26, n. 2, mpra. unity and centralisation of the
1

2
See p.26,n. 7; p.41,n.3, tup. vital force (ibid. c. 7),
while in
3
See p. 26, n. 8 p. 40, n. 1,
;
common with some birds they
and p. 43, n. 6, supra. have little power of steering their
4
Hist. An. viii. 1, 588, b, 10 flight (ibid. 10, 710, a, 4).
sqq.; Part. An. iv. 5,
b
a, 12- 6"81, See p. 33, n. 3, sup.,andln(/r.
20; Inyr. An. 19; De An. ii. 3, An. 4,705, b, 13 to end. Aristotle
415, a, 6, and p. 49, n. 5, gupra. there remarks (70G, a, 18) that
5
Even birds seem stunted the distinction between right and
in this respect, but
(/ce/coAo/ScoTcu) left reaches its highest
develop-
fisheven more so (Part. An. iv. ment in man, Sia rb /COT a tyvmv
13 init.} in the motion of ser-
; /m.d\i(TTa tx eiv r ^ v ^V a / 8e " -
<t>u0fi

pents and worms there is properly &4\ri&v re rb 8eibi/ rov apurrepov

no distinction of right and left ttal /cex^pto-^eVoi/.
7
(Inc/r. An. 4, 705, b, 22 sqq.) in ;
Part. An. iv. 7 init.
8
the case of insects the multitude Part. An. iv. 7, 683, b, 18 ;

of their feet indicates deficient Tngr. An. c. 5 ;

De Vita, 1, 468,
VOL. II. Q
82 ARISTOTLE

The structure of the body and the relation of its members

correspond to these differences
of posture. 1 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. In quadrupeds the
size and weight of these parts are greater. As
the vital heat decreases, and the earthly ingredients

begin to preponderate, the number of the feet is mul

and the whole body
until at last they disappear,
tiplied,
becomes one great Beyond foot.head this point the

begins to turn downwards,

sensation disappears, the
2
animal becomes a vegetable. The size of animals, again,

a, 5. Man s upright posture is ^yar\>

8e (pepovrbpdpos Kal -n-efrvov

explained, Resjrir. 13, 477,

a. 20, nutp&v &c. [of. i. 467, n. 2, snpra\
as the result of the purity and . . Sib Kal aQpoveo-repa -n-avra ra
.

abundance of his blood Part An. ; &a TUV av6pd>irwv evriv. . . . atnov
ii. 7, 653, a, 30, iii. 6, 6(59, b, 4,
it 8 ... on TJ T??S ^vxvs apxr) iroAA<

is accounted for by the cognate 8r? 8vo-Kivr)T6s Iffri Kal o-w^aroJSrjs.

fact of his iVi 8 \drrovos jvop.evr)s TT?S
higher temperature,
heat having the effect of raising alpovo-ns Qep^rriros Kal rov yew-
t he body, as is proved by
the fact Sous irAeiovos, rd re (rw/j.ara e\dr-
that warm-blooded quadrupeds rova r&v &W effrl Kal TroAuTroSa,
are the more up- re Aos 8 arro Sa
yiyverai Kal Tero-
(the fooroKa}
right. Part.
An. iv. 10, 686, a, 25, pfva irpbs r^v yrjv. piKpov 8 OVTW
the argument is put teleologic- irpopaivovra Kal apxV *X vfflT?>

arms instead of fore- Kal TO Kara rrjv KefyaXfy

ally: man has
/carco
ecrn fj.6vov TOJV phpiov re\os a/aVrjToV eart Kal
feet, bpQov /J.ev yap
fyav Sta Tb r^v fyvffiv avrov Kal TT]V avaiaQfiTov, Kal yiverai fywrov.
o vfflav eli/ai Qeiav epyov Se rov Ingr. An. c. 11 since
manj :

eeiordTOvrbvocTvKctiQpoveivrovro is biped and designed for an}

a
8 ov paoiov TToAAoi) TOU avw0tv eVi-
5
upright walk, the upper parts of;
^aros- TO 70^ /3apos body must be lighter, the!
his
-TTotet T^V Sidvuiav Kal lower heavier. Birds cannot have?
fae-ncnv. The increased the upright posture man on ;

of account of this posture cannot

weight of the upper portions
the body requires that it should 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
TaAAa Trapa TOJ/ av6pwTrov Part. An. iv. 10 see p. 8li ;

yap fffnv ov TO p.kv avu n. 8, supra.

 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
animals are larger than the bloodless, although he
does not notice several exceptions to this rule.
fail to l

Another obvious basis of classification may be found in

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 A
class lay eggs, perfect in the case of birds, oviparous

quadrupeds, and snakes imperfect in the case of fishes, ;

molluscs, and molluscous ostracea. A third kind pro

pagate themselves by worms, produced sometimes with,
sometimes without, copulation, 3 and attaining their ulti
mate form only after repeated transformation : almost
all insects fourth series spring
belong to this class. A
by spontaneous generation from slime or from the excre
tions of animals as, for instance, the majority of shell
:

fish and some fishes and insects. 4 The common funda

mental type of all these different modes of propagation
is development from worms through eggs to organic
form 5 but this process runs a different course, produ-
;

1
n.
Respir. 13, 477, a, 18; 1, supra), c. 5, 755, b, 20,
Longlt. V. 5,466,b, 18, 28; Part. ii. 5 (see p. 53, n. 1, supra};
An. iv. 10, 686, b, 28 Hint. An. ;
Hist. An. iv. 11, 538, a, 19.
4
ij 5, 490, a,
21 sqq. Gen. An. ii. ;
Gen. An. ii. 1, from 732. a,
732, a, 16 sqq.
I"
25 onwards; Hist. An. i. 5, 489,
2
The former is the case (#>?. a, 34-b, 18; Polit. i. 8, 1256, b,
An. ii. 1, 732, a, 32, i. 10, and 10 sqq. On viviparous animals
elsewhere) with man, horses, see especially Gen. An. ii. 4 sqq. ;

cattle, dolphins, &c., the latter on the others and on spontaneous

with cartilaginous fish and vipers, generation, the passage cited p.
3
Instances of monogenesis 58,n.l,andp. 49, n. 4, s?^., and also
Aristotle finds in bees and some MBYEB, Arist. Thierk. 453 sqq.
fishes ;
Gen. An. iii. 10 (see p. 58, 5
On the one hand, he holds
G 2
84 ARISTOTLE
to the higher
cing a more or less perfect result, according
or the lower status of the animal. So, since the

warmer and less earthy animals are the noblest, we may

follow the warmth and
say that birth and development
material composition of the organisms. The mode of 1

their birth reflects the perfection or imperfection of

their nature, and if we estimate the whole animal

kingdom by one standard, we obtain a scale which

this

leads gradually from the most perfect down to the least

2
Nor are the senses equally distributed among
perfect.
that the embryo even of oviparous OLOV yiyverai [in chrysalisa-
and viviparous animals is vermicu tion] . TOVTOV 8 otinov on 77
eJoro/cet
lar at first, and, on the other, the /repaid irpb &pas
which aTf\tav T^V us
chrysalisation of insects
at>TT?s,

UVTOS TOV eri eV avtf

appear first as worms is a trans
tr/ccoArj/cos

formation into the form of an egg; q>ov ^aAa/coD. The same is the
so that even here the law of ana case with moths and similar
logy does not desert us Gen
An. ;
. animals. Cf. n. 2, infra.
iii. 9, 758, a, 32 ffx^obv yap eoi/ce
:
Gen. An. ii. 1, 732, b, 28
1
:

iroLvra (TKOjArj/coTOKeTv irpu>TOV rb

yap OLTfX^ffTaTOV KvTf]fJ.a TOIOVTOV
fiTTiv. eV traffi 8e Kal Tois foo- yap
TO/cf? eV rb
TOKOVfft Kal TOiS WOTOKOVffl avTcS, 8c-x6/J.evoi

tobv rb KU7],ua rb irpwrov aS TTi>ev/j.a

Kt

ra 0pf.t.6Tpa TTJV (pvcriv

8 fffTlv TOV o~Kw\r)Kos

T] (f)v<ri.s. vyp6rpa Kal ^ yewSri TT)S
rb T7JS OpOS
/j.Ta 5e TOVTO TO. juev (pOTOKtl Sep^UOTTJTOS (^UfTi/C^S
8 dreAes, e|cu Se 6ff(av tvai/j.6s eVriv
Kv-n/j-a re Aetoj/ ra
.
ir\ev/j.wi/
eVt TCOV wtTTrep Se TO TeAeov, 6 8e a
yiyveTai re AeiOi Kaddircp ,
<fov

IxdvcuiV e^prjTat 7roA\a/cts. TO. 5 ey ATJ| al rb uibv dreAes, O JTUS rb

aUTols TiVO. reAetoi e/c TOV
(pOTOKOVVTtt Tp6lTOV
uexa T"b (TvffT fifJi.a Tb e^ ap^Tjs iretyuKsv. Warmth and moisture
aJoetSes yiveTai TTfpte ^erat yap Tb are favourable, cold and dryness
Ae?rT(j5, Kaddirep Uv ft hostile to perfect development
vypbv vfj-ivi
Aristotle tries to show, 733, a, 3
TIS d^e Aot Tb TUV cpui 6o~Tpa>tov.
An. viii. sqq., how the various
methods of
(Of. on this point Hist.
the
7.) The insect germ is a worm, production depend upon
whether it is born by ordinary or various ways in which these are
and combined.
by spontaneous generation, and distributed
32:
the same is true of caterpillars
2
IHd. 733, a, Se
cbs
and of the supposed spiders eggs. vorjaaL
aTTuSi Saxni TO. yap
irpoeXQovTa. Se irivra
TO. trKcoATj/cwSrj f] (pvffis. /J.ev

K2U TOV jU V00l $ Act^3-)^TCt TCAOy reAewrep.x /cat Oep^^repa TWV

 PSYSICX 85

the different tribes it is only the more

:
perfect which
possess all the five senses, while the others partake of
them in more or
Again, there areless completeness.
1

only a few animals in which memory and imagination

are developed from sensation and accordingly they ;

2
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 closer or more distant
resemblance between the life of men and brutes,
3

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 in his treatment of this subject,
owing to the complicated and crossing principles of

Te\*iov rb TIKVOV Kara TO

ctTroSiSoxri /3aiVet irddos avry, SxrTrep efyryrcu
Trotoj/ with perfectly deve-
[i.e.
ra yap evrojua o-/ca>A7?KOTO/ceI TO
loped organs] .... Kal yevva 8)7 irp&Tov TrpozXQwv 8 ^5coS7js yiverai
ravra ei/ auToTs evOvs. ra 8e
<pa
o o"/cc6A7j (77 yap xpvffa\\ls Ka\ov-
Scirrepa ei/ CLVTOIS fjikv ov yevva /uLevrj Svva/j.ii ipov ex e O- e ^T e /c
reAeia evdvs (fooroite i 8e yoroK-f)- TOVTOV yiverai ffiov eV rrj Tpiry
aavra Trpwroi/), Qvpafc Se fooroKel. /u.Ta@o\fj \a/3bv rb rr)s yevf<T(as

TO. 8e fj.fv ov reAejoi

q>ov ysvva, re Aos.
(p6v 8e yevva Kal TOVTO reAeiov T^
*
Hist. An. iv. 8 ;
De An. ii.

(p6v. TO. 8 ert Tovrcav ^v^poTfpau 2, 415, a, 3 ;

De Somno, 2, 455, a,
f^ovra T)]V fyvcriv uov peis ytvva ov 5, and p. 64, supra.
2
reAetov 8e aAA e^co reAetourai,
u6i>,
See the passages referred to
itaQdirep TO ruv AeTriScordJ* ixQvcav supra, p. 70, n. 4, and p. 38, n. 1.
3
yevos Kal Ta /JLaXaKocrrpaKa Kal TO. See p. 38, n. 1, supra.
4
/j.a\aKia. rb 8e irf/j,7rrov yevos Kal Hist, An. viii. 1, 588, b, 28,

tyvxpdrarov ovS t^oTo/ce? e| avrov, cf. Oecon. i. 3, 1343, b, 13.

aAAa KOI TOV [rb] TOIOVTOV e|co (rv/J.-
 ARISTOTLE

division which he followed. 1

He generally divides the
brute creation into nine departments, between which
some transitional forms intervene these are viviparous :

fishes, whales,
quadrupeds, oviparous quadrupeds, birds,
2
molluscs, malacostraca, testacea, and insects. Close to

the oviparous quadrupeds are placed the snakes, although

in several points they resemble fishes.
3
A more general
law of classification is his opposition between sanguin
eous and bloodless animals. To the former belong the
first five classes of those we have enumerated ;
to the
4
latter, the remaining four. But though this opposition
5
Aristotle uses
has so broad an application, and though
6
it as an essential distinction, he does not divide the

whole animal kingdom into the two classes of san

guineous and bloodless,
and then subdivide these into
7
species as viviparous, &c. His other systems of classi-

With the following account irpbs ra \onra rwv

1

cf . MEYER, Arist. Thierk. 485 sqq. ra fjLf fvai^.a ra 8 avai/j.a elVat.

2
Hist. An.
i. 6, ii. 15 init. iv. Part, a, 33 8ri :

iv.^3,^678,
1 Part. An. iv. 5 init.,
init., Ian ra /uei/ Hvai/J.a ra 5 avai/jia
among other passages. Cf. rep \6ycii eVu7rap|ei rq> opi^ovn r}]V
O Jffiav avrwv. Cf. BRANDIS,
MEYER, ibid. 102 sqq. 151 sqq., ii. b,
ibid. 71 sqq., but especially 84 1294 sq.
sqq., upon Aristotle
s objections
7
Cf. MEYER, ibid. 138 sq. In
to dichotomy and to other artifi Part. An. i. 2 sq. Aristotle sets
cial classifications. forth in detail the reasons why h<

3
See, on the one hand, Part. regards it as inadmissible to be
An. iv. 1 init., Hist. An. ii. 17, his classification upon such a di
among other passages,
508, a, 8, vision (see i. 241, n. 3, supra, and
cf. i. 271, n. 2, sup.), expressly stat
and, on the other, Hist. An. iii.
7, 516, b, 20, ibid. c. 1, 509, b, ing, 642, b, 30 xaAeTrb?/ /iei/ oiiv
:

15, v. 5, 540, b, 30 ; Gen. An. i. 8ia\aj8etV Kal els roiavras Siatyopas

uv e<rriv e?57j Sicrff Sriovv iv
3, 716, b, 16 ; Part. iv. 13, 697, a,
<ov

Kal eV TrAeiocrt
9. MEYER, ibid. 154 sq. fj.rj

4
See the passages cited, p. 8e
$ oSvvarov ra avaipa (no other
ets
80, n. 2, supra.
5
See p. 80, supra. word could have been used con-
6
Hist. An. ii. 15, 505, b, 2f> :
sistently with the context whicl
,/
ybp Swprpfi ra peyiffra ytvt] follows). This characteristic is
 PHYSICS 87

as when he
fication areemployed with even less rigour,
and water-animals, of viviparous, ovi
1

speaks of land-
2
of locomotive and non-locomo
parous, and vermiparous,
3
tive, of two-footed, four-footed, many-footed, and foot
5
4 of carni-
less, of walking, flying, swimming creatures,
vora and herbivora, and so on. Aristotle,
6
Nor does
in tracing the subordinate species into which
the summa

genera are divided,

make use of these distinctions for
the purpose of classification. He rather tries to
find the

natural divisions observation,

7
and if he cannot
by
succeed in marking off the species by these means,
he

does not hesitate to assume intermediate races belonging

8

partly to the one sort and partly to the other. Lastly,

unsuitable for the differentia of presented, Hist. An. i. 5, 489, b,

a summa species, if for no other 23, 490, a, 5, as separate classes,
reason than because it is a nega the latter being subdivided into
tive one, and negative conceptions TTTfpcara, iriXwra and Sep/iOTrrepa;
as a
cannot be further subdivided opposed to these we have
third class all those which move
according to any inlying principle
of classification (642, b, 21, (543, upon the earth.
6
Hist. An. i. 1, 488, a, 14,
a, 1 sqq. b, 9-26).
Hist. An. i. 487, a, 34, viii.
1 viii. 3, 592, a, 29, b, 15, 28 ;

Polit. i. 8, 1256, a, 24, among

2 init. ix. 48, 631, a, 21, ii. 2, 648,
other passages v. MEYER, p. 100.
a, 25, other passages cf
among ;
. ;

MEYER, ibid. p. 158-329,

Part, i. 2, 642, b, 10 sqq. Top. vi.
;

gives an exhaustive
account of
6, 144, b, 32 sqq. ; MEYER, 84 sq.
140. See also p. 79, n. 2, supra. these.
Hist. An. i. 5, 489, a, 34,
58
s
Such transitional forms are :

among other passages; see the monkey standing between

MEYER, 97 sq. 141 sq., and p. man and viviparous quadrupeds ;

which the bat between flying and walk

82 sq.supra, according to with
as a fourth class we should have ing animals, but properly
self -generated animals. as much claim to be reckoned
as
3
Ingr. An. 4. 705, b,
13 ; among viviparous quadrupeds
Part. An. iv. 5, 681, b, 33 sqq. c. the which is assigned a place
seal,

7 init. between land- and water- ani

4
Hist. An. i. 4, 489, b, 19 ;
mals the ostrich, which, al
;

Part. An. iv. 10, 687, a, 2, 689, b, though a bird, in many points
31 sqq. Ingr. An. 1, 704, a, 12. c.
;
resembles a quadruped the cro ;

5, 706. a, 26 sqq., b,
3 sqq. codile, which is an oviparous
to a
5
Neu0-Ti/c() and Trrrjva are re quadruped approximating
88 ARISTOTLE

though it cannot be denied that Aristotle s system

represents a gradual progression toward completeness
in the animal creation which attains its summit in
1
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. Zoophytes, generally speaking, are
less perfect 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 all animals than

;

man. 2 But whether insects rank above molluscs and

malacostraca, birds above amphibious animals, fishes
above snakes, or vice versa, Aristotle does not enable us
to decide. We may even doubt
3
about the respective
positions of shell-fish and insects. Again, though san
guineous animals are the nobler on account of their
greater vital 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

oviparous animals rank below mammals, their posture

approximates them to man
5
it seems
strange, there
;

fore, that they should be more remote from mankind in

fish 2
; serpents (see p. 86, n. 8, sii- See i. 487 sq. supra.
3
jyra);amongbloodlessanimalsthe As MEYER, p. 486, shows.
nautilus and the hermit crab are 4
Part. An. ii. 2, 648, a, 4
molluscs which are related to sqq.; see p. 39, n. 6, supra, where
Crustacea. See the references a solution of the difficulty is sug-
given by MEYER, pp. 146-158. gested, which, however, is hardly
The zoological position of man is an adequate one.
discussed infra, p. -90, n. 1. 5
Ingr. An. 6, 706, a, 25, b, 3 ;
1
See p. 25 sqq. supra p. 28, ; Hist. An. i. 5, 489, b, 20.
n. 3, among other passages.
 PHTS1CS

mode of birth and physical structure than the mammals. 1

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 insects but even
in fishes. 2
On the other hand, since viviparous animals
are the most perfect, 3 whales and dolphins, as well as
skates and vipers, take precedence of birds and amphi
bious animals, though inferior to them in many respects. 4
If we explain the transition from quadrupeds to mul

tipeds, and from these to footless creatures by a continual

5
declension of warmth, the bloodless insects ought to be
warmer than the sanguineous snakes, fishes, and dol
6
phins. It cannot be denied that the complex variety
of the facts cannot always be harmonised with the presup

positions of the system, and that it is impossible to

avoid disproportion and even contradictions in its appli
cation. The majority of these defects appear to have
escaped Aristotle s notice others he tries to avoid by
;

7
artificial means : but he never allows himself to be
shaken in his great conviction that organic nature
presents a graduated scale of progressive development
towards perfection.
*
Since an upright posture is
1
See p. 81, supra.
said to accompany greater vital Cf. p. 487 sq. where
MEYER,
heat see p. 81 sq. supra.
; further examples are given.
-
See p. 82 sq. sup., cf p. 48 sq. .
7
See also Gen. An. i. 10 sq.
3
Gen. An. ii. 4, 737, b, 26. where the viviparousness of
Cf. p. 83, n. 2, supra. sharks is explained on the ground
In the case of cartilaginous of their natural coldness, whereas
lish and vipers
this requires no the same property in mammals is
proof in the case of cetaceans
;
made to depend upon their
their want of feet at least, and as greater heat and perfection cf. ;

compared with birds the position Part. An. iii. 6, 669, a, 24 sqq. ;

of their heads, are in Aristotle s Gen. An. ii. 4, 737, b, 26, and
view important defects. other passages.
90 ARISTOTLE

CHAPTER XI
CONTINUATION

Man
THE end of this evolution is Man. His body unites
him with the lower animals, and especially with the
class of viviparous land-animals. But already even in
1

1
It might be doubted whether and ,

man is classed by Aristotle with as one which has no subordinate

viviparous quadrupeds or placed
by himself. Thus, Hist.
in a class
An. i. 6, 490, b, 15 sqq., those
7eV7j 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
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
sanguineous animals is described
comprehensively as faQpuiros re
Kul TO. faordica TUV rfrpairoScov ;

the monkey is described as an ibid. vi. 18 iuit. :

Trepi /j.fv ovv rfav
intermediate form between them.
This apparent contradiction is Trepl irdvrcav . . .
Trepl
Se ruv
due to the fact that Aristotle has ocra fooroKfl nal Trepl av6
no name for the whole class as : Ae/creW ra ffv/uLfBaivovra. Gen. An.
a biped, man cannot be classed i. 8, 738, a, 37: ovre yap TO.
along with rerpdiroSa fooroKovvra ; fyoroKovvra ofJLoius e^et irdi/ra [sc.
on the other hand, feoTOKovvra ras v(TTpas\ aAA &v9poo7roi /uej/
would embrace the whole which /cat Ta vre^a irdvTa KaTca TO- 8e . . .

he declares to be a separate ytvos, (Te\dx n fooTOKOvvrct &VW. Ibid.

In reality man is treated as a ii. 4, 737, b, 26 ra &OTOKOVVTO.
:

species of the same genus to

which viviparous quadrupeds be
long. This is unmistakably the
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
Kal rovrwv avdpcoiros. A certain
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 91

the characteristics of his physical organism we have

evidences of something higher, which raises him far
above the lower animals. His body is of a warmer
temperature than theirs. He has therefore more blood
in proportion and a larger brain.
1
In him alone, as the
nature demands, we
greater heat and nobility of
his

have true symmetry of form and the upright posture

which corresponds with it.
2
In man the distinction
3
between the right and the left is most fully developed.
As his blood the purest, his sensibility is
is
4
delicate, most
his powers of perception the most refined, and his
5
understanding the keenest. His mouth, his windpipe,
his lips, and his tongue add to their other functions
that of speech, which marks him out from all living
6
Nature has not confined man, as she has the
things.
other animals, to one means of defence. His means of

self-preservation are infinite, and can be adapted to

suit his needs. 7
His
changing hand is the tool of all

garded it as sufficiently funda- "

b, 3, 9, c. 11, 710, b,5-17; De
mental to constitute man a Vita, 1, 468, a, 5, and i. 467, n. 3,
separate yevos. supra.
1
Part. An.
3
Ingr. An, 4, 706, a, 18 see
ii. 7, 653, a, 27-37, ;

iii. 6,669,b,4,iv.lO(seep.81,n.8, p. 81, n. 6, supra.

4
supra-) Respir. 13, 477, a, 20.
;
. Hespir. 13, 477, a, 20.
Upon this depends also length of
5
See p. 64, n. 6, and p. 11, n.
life (in which respect man is 4, supra.
held to be excelled only by the
6
Part. ii. 16, 659, a, 30 sqq.
1, 662, 17 sqq.
elephant) in so far as this de-
iii.
c. 17, 660, a,
25786, b, 19 ;
Gen. v.
pends in turn upon the corre- a, 20, ; 7,

spondence between the composi- Hist, An. iv. 9, 536, a, 32.

tion of the body and the sur-
7
Part. An. iv. 10, 687, a, 23,
rounding atmosphere, and espe- in the celebrated passage upon
cially upon the heat of its upper the human hand, after the words
p. 11, n. 2, supra,
Aristotle
portions; Gen. An. iv. 10, 777, quoted,
says aAA ol \eyovres ws
b, 3 sqq. Loiujit. Vit. c. 5, 6, 466,
:
:
a-yi/eVrTj/cey
a, 30 sqq. b, 14, 467, a, 31.
ov Ka\a>saAAa o^a
6 fodpuiros x^
2
Besides the passages already rwv he is naked
[because &<v

referred to, cf Ingr. An. 5, 70(5,

. and defenceless Aristotle has ;
92 ARISTOTLE

tools, so ingeniously contrived for the most widely

different purposes that it takes the place of every
other. 1 In a word, man is the first and most perfect
of all living creatures.
2
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 properits Even his physical superiority has
seat.

only been vouchsafed to him because his body has to

serve as the instrument of a nobler soul. 5 While the
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 Nutrition,

probably in view PLATO S Pro- Gen. An. ii. 4, 737, b, 26 Se : &m

tayoras, 21, c] OVK opOus Xsyovcriv. ra re Aeta $a Trpwra, roiavra Se TO
ra /j.fv yap &AAa piav e% et /3o7j0eicw, Kal TOVTOW avOpwiros
Kal /j.eral3d\\(o~0ai avrl TCCUTTJS
3
erepav OVK effriv, aAA avaynaiov Of. p. 28.
4
uffirep vTroSeSe/j.fi oi ael KaOevo eiv Pollt. i. 8, 1256, b, 15:
Kal Trdvra TTpdrreiv, Kal rfy ire
pi Xature has provided that every
rb <ra>;ua a\ea>pav /x creature should meet with its
necessary food when it comes
oir\ov e^cuv. r$ 5e into the world oSo-re 6/j.oius SijAov
;

rds re fioriOeias TroAAds 6n Kal yevo/j.fj/ots ollfrfov TO. re

*X Ka ^ ravras del escort jitero-
IV fyvra TUV (puv eVe/cev eTj/ai Kal
Pd\\eiv, eri 5 OTT\OV olov Uv roAAa TUV avQpwirwv xdpLV, ra
(pa
Kal oirov ct.v yuez/ /cat Sia rty xP^ fflv Ka
^epa
5ia r^]v rpo<pyv. rwv 8 aypiuv, fl
See the further account in /j.)) irdvra, aAAa rd ye irXe io ra TTJS
1

the passage just quoted, and p. rpocprjs Kal aAATjs j8o7j0eias eVe/cei/,
19, n. 1 also DeAn.iii. 8, 432,
;
iVa Kal <r6r]s
Kal &AAa opyava yivt]-
a, 1, where the hand is called rai e| aiircav. i obv T] (pvffis [MfjOev
opyavov opydvcav. /j.7]re dreAes [without reason] Trote?
-
Hist. An. ix. 1, 608, b, 5 :
pyre /j.drr]v, avayKatov ruv av6pu>-
the ethical characteristics of the TTUV VKv avra ivdvra 7re7rot7]/ceVai
sexes are more prominent eV TOLS r})v (pixnv.
5
dos Kal /j.d\iffTa eV See p. 10 sq. supra.
6
TOVTO [sc. rb C^ 0>/
] 7^-P See p. 22 sq. supra.
(pvffiv
 PHYSICS 03

propagation, the alternations of sleep and waking,

birth, old age, death, sense-perception, even imagina
tion and memory, are common to man and beast alike
l
;

nor do these phenomena as they exhibit themselves in

each differ essentially from one another.
2
And the
same is true of tfye feelings of pleasure and displeasure
3
and the desires that spring from them. That which
belongs to man alone of all known creatures is Mind or
Reason (NoOs-). 4 By Nous means the power
Aristotle
of Thought in its widest acceptation, 5 but also more

specifically the faculty of thought

in so far as it deals
6
with supersensible reality, and especially the faculty of
Voluntary recollection alone
1
conceptions :
erep^ apa % erepcos
Kal o\ws &pa us
is beyond their power; cf. p. 715 sq. IXOJ/TI Kpivti.
On these points, therefore,
2
X^piffTa ra Trpdy/uLara rrjs uArjs,
we have simply to refer to the 0&T60 Kal ra irepl rbu vovv. The
previous chapter. subject of Kplvei isas is vovs,
3
See p. 22, n. 1, supra. shown by the preceding context.
4
Aristotle, like Plato, distin It may, indeed, seem strange that
it is said of it that it knows (for
guishes for this reason between
the rational and the irrational we must give this more general
part of the soul; EtJi. i. IB, 1102, signification to wpiVetv here, as in
a, 26 sqq. Polit.;
vii. 15, 1334, b, DC An. iii. 3, 428, a, 2) heat and
17, and passim. cold and the sensible qualities of
5
De An. iii. 4, 429, a, 23 :
things in general cuVflrj-n/coS
T<

Se vovv Siavoe iTai Kal (where not only is it not neces

sary on account of the context
6
After explaining
1

,
De An. to read alaOrjrf with BEENTANO,
iii. 4, 429, b, 10 sq., the distinc Psychol. d. Ar. 134, but it is not
tion between the concrete thing admissible). But while the simple
with its ingredient of matter perception of the data of sense
and the pure unadulterated form, belongs to ataB-ri<ns, and not to vovs,
Aristotle continues, 1. 12: TO yet every judgment relating to
0-ap/cl
eli/cu Kal (rdpxa. ^ &AA<p if)
them is shared in by thought (vovs
in the wider sense) (cf . i. 209, n. 3,

ovv al<rOr]TLK(f
rb Bep/mbv Kal rb and211,n. l,.s-^.); and to this ex

fyvxpbv Kpivei Kal uv \6yos ris ri tent reason also may be described
as that which by means of the
perceptive faculty knows sensible
rb a-apKl elvat [the pure things. Conceptions, on the other
conception of the <rap] /cpiVei. hand, as such, universal thoughts
The same is true of all abstract limited to no individual experi-
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, importance in connection with

although the material for them
is supplied by sense-perception
(as in the case of the conception
of o-apl). Instead of saying this
simply, Aristotle expresses him
self in such a way as to leave it
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 &AA.COS exeii/.

ambiguous whether these are

1
To
this faculty belong first
recognised by a faculty different and chiefly the highest principles
from that by which sensible ob of thought, the fyteo-a; cf. i. 197, n.
jects are recognised or by the 4, supra. In this way (according
same faculty acting in a different to i. 197, n. 3, sup., cf. the citation
way. If we had here a dilemma from Metaph. xii. 7, i. 203, n. 3,
between the two terms of which SV/A) Nous knows itself by an im
we had to decide, we could only mediate intuition, as thinker and
say, as Aristotle does, that they thought here coincide. Whether
are known .(vovs
&\\(f> being the thought of God and other
another faculty) than by TO cuV07)- metaphysical conceptions are
Ti/coV. But the statement of three also objects of immediate
the
alternatives, if nothing else, cognition, Aristotle, as already
shows that Aristotle regards each observed, i. 204, does not say.
of the first two descriptions as
2
De An. iii. 4, 429, a, 8 (on 1

admissible in a certain sense. what precedes see i. 199,n.2,s?/? ):

The Nous knows insensible things avayKT) apa, eirel irdvTa voel, a/j.iyri

by a faculty different from that eli/at, &o"irep fynalv Ava^ayopas [see

by which it knows sensible ob ZELL. / 7/.d.6V.i.886,l]iW>

Kparrj,
jects, and, indeed,
different in TOVTO 8 iffrlv "va.
yvup ^rj Trape/x-
essence and actual reality (x u P Lm <paiv6ju.j>oj/ yap K(a\vi rb aAAo-
crrbv) from the faculty
of f-ense- Tpiov Kal di TKjJ.-paTTej, werre U7j8 O.VTOV
it knows aAA $i Tavrr)v,
perception, seeing that tlvai (pixriv fj.TfjSein.iav

them by itself alone but in so ;

on SvvaTOV. 6 apa Ka\ovfj.evos TTJS
far as it is also true that the j/oCy .... ovQtv tffTiv
reason knows sensible things, we TUV ovr&v Trplv votlv.

may say that it know s insensible

r
Stb ouSe /j.ffj.7^0aL fv\oyov ai/Tbv TCO
things by a different method it ; crwp.an . TTOIOS TIS yap av ytyvoiro,
knows the former directly, the tyvxpbs il} 6fpfj.bs [it would in this
latter only indirectly by means case partake of the properties of
of the judgment it passes upon the body and as it would thus
the data of sense. This is the bring with it definite qualities to
meaning of the words % us rj the cognition of yorjra, it could not
KK\aff/j.evri &c., the further ex exhibit that atrdQeia see i. 199,
planation of which is of minor n. 2, supra and purity from
 PHYSICS

Just as it has for its object pure form abstracted from

allmatter, so is it itself free and unfettered by the

body.
1
It has no bodily organ like the senses 2 it is ;

not born, into existence like the other parts of the

admixture which it requires for

the exercise of its universal &c. nor is A^yts eTn- ;

faculty of thought an expla :

yVo~is or aAAoioxns, but
nation which seems to harmo rather an i)pf/j. a Kal Kardo-raffis !

nise better with the meaning rapaxfns the removal of obstruc

of Sib &c. than that of BKEN- tions which hinder the reason in
TANO, ilri-d. 120 sqq.], ?) K&V the exercise of its functions, re
6pyav6u TI eftj, &orirfp TO? alfftiririKcp sembling the awakening from
vvv $ avQ4v effriv :
b, 22. a7ropr)(reie sleep.
5
1
5 av ns, et b vovs cbrAoDV eerrt Seep 93, n. 6, sup. Xupiffrbs
Kal dirafles [HAYPUCK, Obst TVat. is of ten applied to Nous, the lower
crit. in loo. al. Arlst. p. 3, not faculties of the soul being ax&pi-
without reason regards these ffroi cf preced. and foil. n. p. 96, n.
;
.

words as strange, inasmuch as it 1, infra. De An. ii. 2. 413, b, 24 :

hardly requires to be explained, Trfpl 8e ToG vov Kal TTJS 0ecop7jT(/cf/s

as is done 1. 25 sqq., that TO Svvd/uLfus ov5evTrca<pavfpbv,a\\ OiK
airades is not subject to trdax* lv , \!/VXTJS yfvos erepov elvai, Kal TOVTO
he would therefore strike them /J.OVOV vSfX ral X a} P L
C ff al [ SC - T0 *
out ;
we might prefer instead of |, Kaddirep rb al Siov TOU
airaOes to read a/^iyes
- see
429, a, 18 quoted above] Kal -
See preced. and foil. n. and
/j.r)devl jUTjflei/ e^ei Koivbv, TTOJS . . . the further statement De An.
vo ,o~ei, el TO vof iv Trdcrx* iv r L iii. 4, 429, a, 29 cm 5 fytofe :
oi>x

This independence of the rj

awddeia TOU alffBrjriKov Kal rov
reason explains the remark yorjriKov, (pavepbv tirl rwv cuV07)T-
which is added, De An. ii. 1, 413, alffO^ffecas. TJ /j,ev "yap

a, 4 sqq. to the definition of the ov Siivarai alffOdveffdai

soul as the entelechy of its body : K rov (T(p68pa aiffd^ruv aAA 6 . . .

it follows that the soul (or at any vovs orav ri vo^ffrj (T(p68pa vorirbv. ou%
rate certain parts of it, if it has i]TTOv roe? TO uTroSeo"Tepa, aAAa Kal

parts) not separa*e (xcopio-Tos)

is juaAAov TO
yap alaQt]riKbv OVK
fifv
Irom the body ov /LL^V end 76
: <xAA
avevffwnaTos,65ex ca P ia r 6 s In view -

ovdev /cwAvet (see p. 6, n. 1, supra}. of these definite declarations, the

Cf. further n. 3 below, p. 96, n. 2, in attempt (KAMPE, Erkenntnissth.
fra, and the passages referred to d. Ar. 12-49) to attribute to the
below bearing upon vovs Trotrjri/cbs ; Nous a material substratum con
also De An. i. 3, 407, a, 33 T) :
sisting of asther must appear at
v6t]ais eoiKev ijpffjL^afi nvl Kal the outset a profitless one. Not
even the passage quoted p. 6,
vii. 3, 247, b, 1 : ouS at TOU n. from.Gen. An. ii. 3 can be
2,
vof]riKov /Afpovs e^eis aAAotcoa"ets. adduced in support of it, for
Ibid. 247, a, 28 : a\\a rfv o;5e even there the o-irfp/j.a of the
90 ARISTOTLE
2
by the death of the body.
l
soul ;
nor is it affected It

is real, therefore, only in the act of thinking; apart

dpx$?,so far as it refers to uei/ ex oVTa dereov,

the Nous, is described as -^OIOT^V ej/ep7eia 8 OVK C^OI/TO, irplv 3)

ffw/j-aros and even although it is Ka.Qa.TTfp TO. x (l}

P l
/
iiVa T ^ J/ Kurj-
said that it enters the womb fj.draji e A/cet T^V rpocprjv Kal irotel TO
with the does not follow
701/77, it TTJS ToiavTfjs tyvxrjs epyov. With
from this that it is united to this regard to the tyux*) ala-d-rjTiK^
oran.v other material substratum : and J/OTJTI/C?? he then shows that

the Nous is said, indeed, to be in either all their parts must come
the body during life, but not to into being for the first time at the
be mixed up with it or entangled moment of birth or must all have
in its life the 701/77 itself it enters
; pre-existed, or else that some of
from without; cf. p. 100, infra. them do the one, some the other,
Furthermore, even although the and continues : on uej/

;etherlike the Nous is called divine oi>x

ol6v re iraffas ir

and unchangeable, the essential <f>avepov

fffTiv e/c tuv TOIOVTWV.
distinction between them (the oaruv yap eVru/ apx&v f] evepyeia
one is a body, the other is not) is ), ST)\OV ori ravras iivfv
not thereby abolished, for it has aSiivarov inrdpxtw, olov

already been shown, i. 476, that avev irofi&v wcrre Kal

we have nothing do with any to dvpaOev tiffievai aSvisarov. OVT
immaterial matter and when ; yap avras KaO auras elffievtu olov
KAMPE, p. 32, 39, argues in sup re dx<^p 0"TOus ovcras, OUT eV

port of his view that the stars, fiffievcu TO 7ap o"irpfj.a

which are made of tether, are in
eo-Tli/ [and therefore not
telligent beings, he forgets that it rpo(pr)s
is not the stars themselves that are something coming from with
so, but the spirits by whom they out]. A.et7T6TC 8e
[8^7] TOI/ vovv
and spheres are moved.
their JJL&VOV QvpaQev tire iff ifvcu Kal Qtlov

Although, lastly, the Nous is said, e?j/ai n.6vov ovQtv yap avrov rrj
Etli. x. 7, 1177, b, 34, as com- evepyeia KOIVWV elffwfAaTiK}) ivtpycia.
paied with the multiplicity of the 737, a, 7 TO 5e TT^S 701/775 &c.
:

other faculties of the soul, to be see p. 6, E. 2, sup. DeAn.i. 4; see

of small compass (ry piKphv) oyK<?
foil. n. For further discussion of
but pre-eminent in power and ihe question of the entrance of
value, we cannot fairly conclude reason into the body, see p. 80,
from this metaphorical expies- supra.
sion that it is held by Aristotle
2
De An. i. 4, 408, b, 18 o :

to be united to a body. 5e vovs eoiKfv tyyivtffQai oucrta ns

Gen. An. ii. 3, 736, a, 31,
1 olaa Kal ou <pOtp0~dai. ^aXiara
Aristotle asks :
TroVepoj/ ej yap {(pdeipeT
1
&/ UTTO TTJS et/ TW
77jpa a/a-avpuxreus, vvv 8 io~cas oirep
Kvf]/j.aTi T) ou, Kal irodsv ; to which eVi TUV alffdtiTiqpiiav o"UyU)8atJ/t et

he replies (b, olv 8) : TT> p.*v 7op AajSpt o TrpeaftvTT]S o /x^a Totoi/St,

tfpeTm/cV \J/uxV ra o-Trep^ara

Kal /3\TTOl iSlI/
&0"7Tep
Kal 6 VfOS.
TO. KUTjjuara TO. x<P
l(rra SJjXoj/ OTI TO 77jpas ov rtf T^V
 PHYSICS

from this the mere potentiality of thought.

it is And 1

since actual thought in the sphere of nature precedes

the mere potentiality to think, while in the sphere of
the human
mind potentiality necessarily precedes
2
actuality, Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of Reason
in man the Actual and the Potential, the Active and
3
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 ireirov- supra), if the vovs iroirjT. were
G4vai Ti Kf7vo v
^iix?) <TTiJ/],
a>
T] taken to be the antithesis of
KaQdirep V /j.edais Kal voffois. Kal vovs 6ewpr]TLKbs (I)e ii. 3, 415, An
rb voetv 8^ Kal rb Qewpe iv [j.apaiverai a, 11, iii. 9,432, b, 27, iii. 10,433,
&\\ov rivbs effca [inside the body] a, 14), in the same sense as vovs
i

(p0ipo/j.vov, avrb 8e airades Icrnv TrpattriKos ( De An. iii. ibid.) must

I
[the subject of anaOfs is rb voovv, be. But a-< the vovs- iroir]T. is called
I which corresponds to vovs above oanov Kal as it TrotrjriKbv, is said
land is to be supplied from voeiv] Trdvra as iroirjriKbs is
iroLe?:/. and
I . . . 6 8e vovs "crcas
Qedreptv ri elsewhere constantly used as the
I Kal O7ro0f s eo-Tti/. iii. 5, 430, a, 22 antithesis of TraQiiTiKbs (Tnd. Ar.
(see p. 98, n. 1,
ij infra) MetapJt. ;
555. b, 16 sqq.), we seem to be
Ixii. 3, 1070, a,24 sqq. (see Sec. perfectly justified in speaking-
Ion Immortality, infra). of the passive and the active
De An. iii. 4, 429, a, 21 sqq.
1
reason, especially as this seems
b. 5 sqq. 30 ;
see i. 199, n. 2, to be already a recognised mode
ttupra, where the meaning of this of exprfssion in ALEX. De An.
I statement is further explained. 140 WALTER, 282).
(cf.
2
See 199, n. 2, supra
i.
4
De An. iii. 5 init.: eVel 3
3
Aristotle certainly speaks of uffirtp fv airdffr) rrj Qvirei earl n
vovs iraQ-nriKbs (see p. 98, n. 1, rb fj.lv v\f] ettdffTCi} ytvei (TOVTO 8e
injra) on the other hand, he no
;
& irdfra Swd/ufi e/celz/a), erepov 5e
where uses the expression iroiriTi- rb atnov ical TTOL^TIKOV, TW TroteiV
l/cbs vovs (cf. BONITZ, Ind. Ar. 491, Trdvra, olov r^v vArjv
i] r^vf] irpbs

jb,
2 WALTER, Die Lclire v. d.
; TTfirov6fv, avdyKT] Kal eV T?) ^uxf5
prakt. Vern. 278 sqq.), perhaps virdpxtLV ravras ras Siacpopds. Kal
because he wished to avoid the (.ffTLv o /j.fv TOIOVTOS vovs rca irdvra

(ambiguity which might arise out yivo~dai, 6 8e T> Trdvra jroie iv, &s
jof
the opposition he elsewhere %is TJS, olov rb <p&s Tp6irov yap
(makes betwc en iroict riva Kal rb <pu>s
TroteT ra vvd[j.ei
on the one hand, and uvra xpcf>/maTa evepyeia ^pw/^ara.
(on the other (see i. 182, n. 2,

VOL. II. H
98 ARISTOTLE

sive Reason, on the other hand, is born and dies with

the body, and is a partaker in its states.
1

If 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
1
is spoken 4 (as will be shown
of, c.
tinues Kal OVTOS 6 VOVS [6 TTOtT]-
:
p. infra), is itself the
101, n. 2,

TJK&S] xa?pto"rbs
Kal a-jrad^s Kal active Nous. The words: rb 5 avTo
afj.iy^s TT} ovff ia &v eVepye a [or . . .
xp6v<p
that follow are repeated
evepyeta], del yap Tiu.idoTfpoi rb at the beginning of c. 7 but as ;

TTOLOVV TOV ira<r\ovTOs

Kal ri apxT] they there awkwardly interrupt
TTJ9 v\~ns. Tb 5 avro effTiv rj Kar* the connection, TORSTRIK, p. 199,
tvepyeiav eViO TTJjU rj TO? -rrpdy/dart [ of. isdoubtless right in holding that
i. 398. n. 3,
supra] 11 8e Kara Svvapiv they along with the rest of c. 7,
Ypoi O? TrpOTfpa eV TW evl OAOJS 8e t $ 1 (to T6TeAe(7>teVoi/, 431, a, 7)
ou5e [so TOKSTR. reads instead of are out of place. the other On
ou] Xpovif dAA ore fj.lv voci
oi>x hand, TORSTRIK (p. 185) cannot
ore 5 ov j/oeT. x w P L(T ^LS 5 eVrl be right in striking out the
ju^ov Tt)0 oVep eVri [apart from in the words
ol>x
a\\ oi>x

the body it is only what it is ore yitei/ roe? &c. According to his
without admixture of any foreign reading no intelligible meaning
ingredient], /col TOVTO fi6vov
a9d- can be attached to the remark
VO.TOV Kal a tiLov. ov p.vr)/JLOVfi>ou.i>
that the Nous at one time thinks,
8e, 6Vt TOVTO /J.fv airaOes, 6 5e at another it ceases to think ;

TradrjTiKbs vovs tyOapTbs Kal avev whereas it becomes quite intelli

TOVTOV ovQev vofl. The words at gible if we suppose Aristotle to say:
the beginning of this passage In the world as a whole merely
are interpreted by BRENTANO potential knowledge does not pre
(Psycliol. d. Ar. 175) and HERT- cede actual knowledge even in the
IJNG- {Mat. n. Form, 173) as order of time (not to speak of that
meaning this Nous also is of being) it is not the case (in the
;

separate. This is opposed, how world as a whole) that the Nous

ever, both to the grammar and [this must in any case be supplied
to the sense of the passage in the ;
as the subject] at onetime thinks,
first place, the connection is thus at another ceases to think. (To
broken between this sentence and make this sense more obvious
the preceding (we should require a comma might be placed instead
at least Kal OVTOS 5e o vovs &c.), of a colon before dAA. ovx &c.)
and, secondly, not only is there Nor is this sense inconsistent with
as
nothing in the previous discus fj.r)
del voftv, c. 4, 430, a, 5,
sion about another kind of Nous these words refer to thought in<

which is also x ca P to r ^)S an(^ airadys,

"
the individual, in which the pas
but Aristotle knows of none such, sage before us also recognises the
the vovs iraQr]TiKbs, of which he has distinction between the potential
j ust been speaking, being
of course and the actual, and therefore rb
not a trades, while the Nous that u,?] del voetV.
 PHYSICS 99

In the first place, with regard to Active Reason, it

might appear that this is not only the Divine in man, but 1

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. It is at least difficult
to understand what is left of individuality when we have
abstracted from it not only all
corporeal life, but also
all active evolution, 2 all passive
states, and with these
all
memory and self-consciousness. 3 So far Alexander
of Aphrodisias had excellent cause to seek for the
Active Reason in the Divine Spirit rather than in a
part of the human soul.
4
But this cannot be Aristotle s
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
body from without,
6

See the passages cited, p. 9ti, 97, n. 1), and proved in the sequel.
n. 1 and 2, supra, and Etli. x. 7,
4
Of. Part. iii. a, 712, 4.
1177, a, 15: eiVe Qzlov bv Kal avrb 5
The distinction between the
[o vovs] et re TMV ev Oeiorarov.
TJ/UUV active and the passive reason is
b, 30 : el 5/? Qeiov o vovs irpbs rbj/ said (and to this THEMIST. De
I
&i>Qpct)irov. An. 89, b, pp. 188 sq. Sp. and
2
This can only be where there AMMON. in, PHILOP. De An. Q, 3,
tis a transition from the potential o,also appeal) to reside eV
rfi \j/vxfj
to the actual; in the active rea-
(see ibid, supra) of one fidpiov
;

ison, on the other hand, there is rrjs tyvxrjs it is said, De An. iii. 4,

nothing merely potential, for all 429, a, 10, 15, that it is a.tra.Qes ;
{is pure actuality. the vovs xvpivrbs is called. De An.
3
That even these belong to ii. 413,
2, b, 21, tyuxrjs yevos
(the sphere of the passive reason
"
erspov &c.
expressly stated De An. iii.5(p.
6
i
See p. 96, n. 1, supra.

H 2
100 ARISTOTLE

it must have existed previously.

And this is evidently

Aristotle s view. 1
Since, moreover, even after it
has

entered the body it stands aloof from it and takes

2
no part in its activity, the independence of its life is
not compromised by this union, nor is it conditioned in
the body. But on the other hand,
any way by the life of
whether we look at the matter from our own or from

Aristotle s of view, the individuality which belongs

point
to Reason as a part of the human soul appears in this

to be sacrificed. For according to Aristotle the

way
individual Callias or the individual Socrates is consti
tuted only bythe union of the universal form of man
3
with this particular So, in like manner, human body.
Reason a human and employs it
only when
enters body
as its instrument do we have an individual human
reason. But how when it is united with no body, or
when in spite of such union it has no material organ
it could be the
and is wholly unaffected by the body,

reason of this definite individual how. in other words,

it could constitute a rational Ego, baffles comprehen-

re Travas
ol6v
1
In the passage 736, b, 15 sqq. ou%
earn/ [since some are
referred to at p. 96 sup., it is said (pavepov
with regard to the if^x^ a-la-e-nriK^ united to bodily organs], ware Kal
and VOIITIK)I avayKalov 5e : Ijroi w QvpaQev etVieVcu aSwarov it
Ari-
is

ovaas Trporepov [so. ras t|/ux s] e>

77 1
- obvious that according
to^
stotle Trpovirapxew and 0upa0et/
vecreaLirdtfas^TrdffasTrpovTrapxovffas,
ft ras u.ev ras 5e ^77, Kal t-yyiveaQai
etVieVat inseparably con-
are
ft ev TT7 SA.TJ
the
[therefore in nected, and that accordingly if
xQovvas ev r$ rov the latter is true of the Nous and
menses] MT? et<re

evravQa [in the of it alone, the former must also

appevos ffTrepnari, ?)
mother] &9*v [from the
^v be true
/ ~\ >

n ^
^ * >*
A 2 r^-P T\ Q4. 11 2 T) Of) Tl 1 S?/ /? I

airdffas % ,arjSe- (owflev auroD TT; ivepyeia

elpaQev tyytVOfJifvas
% ras i^v ras 8e
u. o.v fi-ff.
As the o-ajuartK^ eVe pyeia).
3
to Cf. i. 369, n. 5, 6, supra.
passage proceeds immediately
say (see p. 96, n. 1.
on roivvv , ^
 PHYSICS 101

Aristotle himself says, indeed, that we do not

1 2
sion.

recollect the former existence of active reason, because

the passive reason which renders thought possible,
it is

and this is perishable 3 just as he predicates con- ;

1
How its connection with hitter words, and as the passive
the body is in this case possible reason does not think anything
at all is equally unintelligible, apart from the active reason.
seeing- that according to p. 106, But it is not easy to see what
n. 5, infra, the body is connected they add to the explanation. If
with the soul itself as its tool. memory belongs to the vovs Traflr?-
-
In the words quoted p. 98, n. TiKos of course, as Qdaprbs (which
1, .s?//;., from De An. iii. 5, 430, a, as the antithesis of a ioiov refers to
23 ov /jvf]^ovtvofj.ev 8e &c. It does
: the beginning as well as the end
not matter very much whether ing of existence, cf. i. 360, n. 1
\ve understand these words in Jin. supra) the latter can have no
their simplest sense as meaning recollection of the time in which
that in the present life we have it did not yet exist, or at the time

no recollection of the former one, in which it no longer exists and;

or that after death we have no
recollection of the present life, or
more generally that the eternal
life ofthe active Nous is wholly
without 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
freedom from it
and forwards.
stance, however (as
BIEHL, Begr. des vovs I.
Uel>. d.
Arist. Linz, 1864, p. 12 sq., and
TKENDELENBUKG
however, afterwards,
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
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.
We must takerouTou, therefore, as
both backwards meaning the vovs iraQrjT. and vosl
In the first in either in an absolute sense, ac
is shown by cording to a familiar usage in
Aristotle = ovOev voti o vo&v (or r)
or
tyvxy), no thought is possible,
in loco, who, as having the active Nous for its
n. on p. 404, subject. The latter is not incon
sistent with the previous ovx ore
Hfv vof? &c. (p. 98, n. 1); for
even there it is admitted that in
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.
oe on TOVTO is of this, however, that we must

/Jifv curates, 6 8e TradrjTLKbs vovs understand Aristotle to speak in

fyQap r bs Kal &vev TOVTOV ovdev i/oe?. 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
individual. 1
But
where shall we look for that principle
of reason which in unchangeable, eternal, unfettered

by the body, and ceaselessly active, if it coincides

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. We understand what

led Aristotle to distinguish in the first instance a two
fold reason in man
he could not overlook the gradual
:

evolutions of the spiritual life and the difference be

tween the faculty and the activity of Thought; while,
on the hand, he was forbidden by the principles
oilier

of his philosophy to think of Pure Reason as in

any
sense material, or at least to predicate of it attributes
and which can belong to matter alone. We see,
states

also, what in general he meant by the phrase Passive

Reason viz. the sum of those faculties of representa
:

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
of the body, and develops out of sensible 2
experience.

more than the statement else- (Gescli. d. i. 518, cf.

Fnt>r.

where made, that the soul cannot Ilandb. ii.

1178) understands
b,
think without a (t>dvTa<T[j.a (cf. p. by passive spirit, spirit in its
108, n. 2, infra). connection with representation
1
In the words of the passage in so far as it borrows the
we have been discussing- (p. 98, material for mediating thought
11.
1) ?] 5e Kara Svva/jLiv xpovq) irpo-
:
from it and sensible perception
eV T(f kv\ &c. and requires mental pictures, or
In this sense BEANDIS in so far as it operates as mediat-
 PHYSICS 103

But when we go on and 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
defects. On the other hand, Passive Reason is iden
tifiedwith Nous and the spiritual element in man.
This Aristotle definitely distinguishes from all the
faculties of sense-perception, so that it is impossible to

Trendelenburg did, with the unity

l

identify it either, as
2
of these, or, as Brentano does, with fancy as the seat
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
Reason Speaking of Nous quite generally,
itself.

Aristotle says that it is neither born nor dies it is ;

liable to neither suffering nor change it is separate ;

from the body and has no bodily organ it .acts altogether ;

independently of the body it enters it from without

: it ;

2
ing thought. Similarly, BIEIIL, Psychol. d. Ar. 208 sq.
Upon which
3
Uel. d. Bctjr. d. vovs b. ARIST. see p. 108, n. 2,

(Linz, 1864, Gymn. Proyr.*), pp. infra.

But the difficulties above 58 61, with
1

16 sq. Cf. p. sq., p.

noted are not thus met. p. 93 supra. The name itself of
1
Arist. DC An. 493 (405) : vovs Trad-rjT. is a preliminary ob
Quas a sensu inde ad imagina- jection to this explanation.
For
tionern men tern antecesserunt, ad the faculties of sensation and
res percipiendas menti neces- presentation Aristotle has the
saria sod ad intellegendas non
;
fixed terms, au<rQt}ffis and Qavraffia.
sufficiunt. Omnes illas, qua? praas- Why, then, should he make use of
cedunt, facultates in unum quasi another incomprehensible and
nodum collectas, quatenus ad res misleading one without giving
cogitandas postulantur, vovv iraGri- any indication that it is synony
TIK^V dictas .esse arbitramur. mous with these terms? Nor can
Similarly, HERTLIXG, Jfat. u. appeal be made to Etli, vi. 12,
Form, 1 74, defines vovs iraQ. as the 1143, b, 4, as aiaQ-nffis does not
cognitive capacity of the sensi there mean sense-perception ;
cf.

tive part. i. 250, n. 1, supra.

104 ARISTOTLE
neither comes into existence with ifc nor perishes with
it.
1
Yet
in the sequel we learn that all this holds in
truth only of the Active Reason. It alone is bodiless,

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

Cf. p. 93 sq. Nor, indeed, would any

1
soul.
2
See The attempt
p. 98. thing be gained by such an as
to obviate this difficulty by the sumption. If it is said, in De An.
supposition of a third form of iii. 5, that the active Nous alone

vovs,as the receptive understand is ^ci pi(TTt>s, aTraOrjs, a uj-yr?s, aOd-

(

ing, differing alike from the varos, aiSios, and

active and the passive reason and
alluded to l)e An. iii. 4 (!JKBS-
TAXO, Pnychol. d. AT. 143, 175,
204 sq. 208 HERTLING, Mat.
;
Form, 170 sq.) cannot be sup
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
the same pre if
dicates are assigned in c. 4 to
a different faculty, i.e. the re
ceptive reason (there is no ex
>i.
press mention, indeed, here of its
eternity, but this is involved in
X^ifTT6s),we have simply a con
lf>)
tradiction in terms. If, on the
other hand, those predicates are
first assigned to Nous in general,

regards this receptive reason and it is afterwards added that

as a third faculty different from
the active and passive. He is
speaking in l)e An. iii. 4 of Nous
quite generally, as he does al- o in
identical terms and with the same
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
;

generality in De An. i. 4. ii. 1, 2 ;

Gen. An.ii. 3 (p. 94, n. 2 p. 95, ;
n. l,p. 96, n.2, *?/_/;. ) ^
is equally
difficult to obtain any clear con
ception of this receptive under
standing or to find a place for
it in Aristotle s doctrine of the
true of its lower part, there is at
least no obvious contradiction in
the explanation. In this case the
difficulty arises later, when we
further ask how are we to con
ceive of these two parts in de
tail.
 PHYSICS 105

critics as to its true

divergence of the views
of its
1

aning.
Reason Thought, which regarded in
realises itself in

its essence is not the mediate process of forming con

the union of their several parts, but
ceptions by gradual
isa single immediate apprehension of intelligible reality,
2
It deals, not with
constituting one indivisible act.

Theophrastus had already ica e

a o oi /cat
found difficulties in Aristotle s o/j.oi<i)S ". Siaipero?
ovicovv ^CTTIV
doctrine of the Nous (cf. 2nd ed. ru>
/J.-f]KC-L.

of Ari- eV TO) ri evvoe? eKa-

pp. 677 sq.) The example
iV yfjiiffei
ov yap Uv
stocles and Alexander of Aphro- , ecrriv, /x?} SiaLpeOfj,

disias shows (cf. ZELL. pt. iii. a. aAA r)

$wdu.i [i.e.
in every spatial

703 sq. 7 12) how the later Peripate quantity, if presented, not it is

tics differed on the subject. l.f. successively, but simultaneously

further the citations and expla as a whole, an aSiaiperov is
nations of THEMIST, An. 89, D<> thought, for though divisible it
rb
b, 9 sq. and PHILOP. De Art. Q. is not actually divided] . . .

and is 8e Kara iroabv aSiaiperov a\\a

2, sqq. (less satisfactory jur;

SIMPL. DC An. 67, b. f.)- In the rw e /Set t-oet eV afiiaiperw XP V V

Kal aSiaiperw r-rjs ^VXTJS. After
middle ages it was chiefly among
the Arabian philosophers and the sho\ving further that in the case
Italian followers of Averroes that of space and time the indivisible
the question was debated. The qu entities like the point are known
older and the more recent views only by antithesis to the divisible,
and that this is so also with evil,
upon the doctrine of the two
fold na ureof the Nous, especially Aristotle continues, 430, b, 24 :

Aver et e riVL tffnv tvavriov TU>V

(p. 8-29) those of Avicenna,

|Ur/

roes and Thomas, are fully dis air iwv [these words, which Toit-
cussed by BRENTANO, ibid. 5 sqq. STRIK also. li)3 sqq., endeavours
-
As already shown (i. 203, n.3, to a conjecture which
emend by
describes the is quite clear, seem
not ob
sup.}, Aristotle
viously to be most simply
thinking of j/ousas a contact of
it

with the object of thought. In this emended by assuming that ra>i>

way it has unity and especially cuVtW, for which Cod. S. gives
which is r. ivavriwv, his arisen from
qualitative simplicity,
and evavriov by a reader s error and
not, like the unity of space
the
time, again itself divisible DeAn. ; duplication for the Trpwrov, ;

iii. 6 init. r? ^v olv

:
aSiaiperwv ru>v
divine reason, is said also to have
a OUK etrrt no evavriov by reason of its im
vofiffis eV ryirrots, ?repl
rb i|/eG5os . . . rb 5 dStaiperoi/ materiality, Metapli. xii. 10, K)75,
b, 21, 24], avrb
eavrb yivuffKti
eVei Six^J, v) 5vvd/j.i r) ivepytLa,
Kal eitpyeia effrl Kal lff
ovQtv KwXvei vofTv rb aSiaiperov, ^v. x<P

brav vorj rb (J.TIKOS aSiaiperov yap That this knowledge is immediate

10(3 ARISTOTLE

any combination of conceptions, but with the pure

conceptions themselves, which are the imdemonstrable
presuppositions of all knowledge. It is, therefore,
absolutely true and infallible, and must be
1

distin
guished from mediate apprehension 2 or knowledge/ 5
Yet
Aristotle fails to tell us what are the faculties
upon
which its exercise depends and what is its relation to
these, although we can hardly but suppose that some
operation of the Active upon the Passive Reason is here
meant. 4
may be regarded as the
Similarly- Opinion
product of Reason and Perception, although here also
5

isimplied both here and in pas places (e.g. Eth. vi. 2, 1139, a, 12,
sages such as Anal. Post. i. 3, sqq. ;
De An. iii. 10, 433, a, 12, b,
72, b, 18, ii. 9 -i/iif. (TWV ri eVrj 29, c. 1 1, 434, a, 7) it is the delibe
ra ,uej/ faccra KCU apxai flaw, a Kal rative faculty, or practical reason
t ivai Kal ri tffnv vTroQeaOai 5e? ?} (see infra). On Sidvoia, cf. ALEX.
&\\ov rp6irov (pavepa troLriffai) ;
c.
onMetaptt. 1012, a, 2; THEMIST.
H), 91, a, 9, where it is added DC Art. 71, b, o TIJENDELEN- ;

that the reason is the faculty BUKG, Arist. De An. 272;

which has to do with first prin SCHWEGLBB, Arist. Metapli. iii.
ciples. Of. i. 245 sqq., i. 197, n. 4, 183; I JON IT/, Arist. Netajili. ii.
supra. 214, and especially WAITZ, Arist.
1
ee i. 197, n. 4, supra.
t-
Org. 298 on Aoytojubs BONITZ,
ii. ;
-
This mediate knowledge ibid.39 sq.
was distinguished from vovs by 3
Eth. vi. 3, 1139, b, 31 (after
Plato by the name Sidvom or eVi-
explaining the distinguishing
0-Tt if.ir) (see ZELL. characterises of
pt. i. 536, 2) ;
eVto-T^uTj) :

similarly Arist. De An. i. 4, 408, ?? /iifv &pa liriffriint} iarlv e|rs O.TTO-
24 sqq. where it is called See further ibid, above
SeiKTiK:?}.
b,^
Sicmua, and Hid. ii. 3, 415, a, 7 and cf.
163, n. 3.
i. It is a
sqq. where it is called \oyia phs further meaning of the word
and Sidvoia. Usually, however, when in Anal. Post. i. 3, 72, b, 1 8,
Aristotle employs didvoia and 33, 88, a, 36, an eVio-r^uTj avairo-
Sia.voe io Oai in a wider sense, for SeiKTos is spoken of, and de
thought generally (e.g. Metaph. fined as VTr6\7)\l/LS TT}S d/uetrou
vi. 1,1025, b, 0; Polit. vii. 2, irpoTaa-fus (on which see i. 197,
1324, a, 20, c. 3, 1325, b, 20; supra).
Etli. ii. 1 init. Poet. 6, 1450, a,
; On the difference between
4

2, and elsewhere) rlt XoyiariKov

; opinion and knowledge, see i.
indicates (De An. iii. 9, 432, b, 26) 163, supra.
likewise the faculty of thought On the one hand, 5J|a has
5

in general,
although in most to do, not, like knowledge, with
 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
;inaction, the latter a creation.
2
He remarks, however,
at the same time that they both depend
upon right
knowledge, and he singles out wisdom especially as
one of the intellectual virtues. But that which reveals 1 5

more clearly than anything else the dependence of

reason upon the lower faculties in Aristotle s doctrine

the necessary and immutable,

bat with rb eVSs^tfy.tej oi aAAcos S ov.
eX flv i it is iVoArjvJ/ts T?)S d/xe rrou
1
See p. 74, n. 1, supra.
-
irpOTarrtws Kal avayKaias (Anal.
JJ/T] Etli. vi. 1, 11 K), ;i,
Pott. i. 33, 89, a, 2; cf. Mvtapli . erret 8e Troir}(ris Kal Trpa^ts e
vii. 15, 1039, b, 31 Etli. vi. 3, T )jv rex 1 aAA
; avdyicr] !1
1
irot^erews
1139, b, 18); the contingent, ov -rrpdfews elrai. Thus
however, can only be known em defined (Eth. vi. 4) e|ts
pirically by perception. On the Ao yow aXr/Ooiis TTOITJTIKT],
other hand, inr6\r]^is, winch in (ibid, and c. 5, 1140, a, 3, h, 4)
reality coincides meaning- with m ets aMjQys fj.ra \6yov TrpaKTiK ij
5(<|a (Eth. ibid. ;
Top. vi. 11, ]49, irepl ra avQpwiTw ayaGa Kal KOLKO..
a, 10; Catey. 7, 8, b, 10; Anal. On the former see further i. 208,
J*ri. ii. 21, fifi, b, 18, 67, b, 12 n. 1, supra on the latter ; <hili.

sqq. and elsewlure; WAITZ, vi. 7 sq., c. 11, 1143, a, 8, c 13,

Arist. Org. i. 523), is as 1143, b, 20, vi. 1152, a, 8 Pollt.
;

signed to vovs, and 5oo is iii. 4, 1277, a, M, b, 25; and on

distinguished (De An. iii. 3, voirjff is a,ud IT points i. 183, n. \, supra.
428, a. 20) from (pavTavia by the We shall return to both in discuss
remark 8o?7 p.lv eVerou TriffTis
:
ing the Ethics.
3
(OVK eVSe xeTot yap So^ovra ois See preced. n. and Rliut. i.
9, 13GG, b, 20: <ppJvr)ffis 8 4or\v
aperr) Siavoias, Kad ^v eS fiovXev-
iroAAoIs. ecr6ai fivsavrai Trfpl ayadouv Kal

Trei#o? Se \6yos rwv Se 6r)piuv

 108 ARISTOTLE
is his view of the gradual evolution of Knowledge out
of Perception and Experience. 1 He remarks, also, that
are necessarily accompanied by an inner
all
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
Things. This complete interdependence of reason and
sense, however, only makes all the more palpable the
gaps which Aristotle s doctrine of Nous leaves between
the two.
The same is true also of the practical activity of
Reason in the sphere of the Will. 3 Even in the lower
irrational animals Desire springs from sensation, for
wherever there pleasure and pain, is sensation there is

and with these comes Desire, which is indeed nothing

else than the effort after what is 4
Sensation
pleasant.
announces to us in the first place only the existence of
an object, and towards this we place ourselves by
the feelings of pleasure and pain in definite attitudes
of acceptance or refusal. feel it to be good or bad, We
1
See i. 205, supra. Kara T^TTO^I/* /ecu 6 voScv waavrws,
-
De An. iii. 8 see also ;
Kav ^ iroa-bv riOerai Trpb
voy,
ibid. C. 7, 43], a, 14: TT) 5e ofj.jjL irwv iroabv, PoeTS oi% 77 irotrof.
SiavorjrtKrj fyvxy (pavrdafj-ara
T<Z av 5 y (pvais 77 TUV iroaruv, aopiffroy
olov alcrQ h/u.a.Ta virdpx*i Sib . . .
8e, riOfrai IJLSV Troabv w/noyxeVoi/,
ov^TTOT votl &vv (pavTaff/uaTos ?] j/oel 5 y irocrbv JLLOVOV.
3
I//UXT?. b, 2 TO. :
juej/ ovv e^T? rb ScHBADER, Arist. de Volun-
VOT}TIKOV eV ro7s <pai>Ta<TiJ.a<n
z/oe?. tate Doctrina, Brandenb. 1847.
De Mem. 419, b, 80: eVe: 5e
1, (Oijmn. Progr.} WALTER, Die ;

, . . j/oetV OVK iffTiv aiev fyy-vTacr- Lehre r. d. prakt. Vernunjt in d.

/LLaros- ffv^aivei yap rb avrb irdQos fjTiccll. Phil. 1874.

eV TW vow oirep Kal eV TO) Sia-ypd- 4
De An. ii. 2, 413, b, 23, 3,
<j>iv
eKe ireyap ou0ej/7rpoo ue^ot xpc<; / 414, b, 4; De Somno, 1, 454, b,
rip rb Troffbv upiff^vov tlvai rb 29; Part. An. ii. 17, 661, a, 6;
, o/j.cas ypd<pou.ev &piiru4vov cf. p. 22, n. 1, supra.
 PHYSICS 109

and there arises in us in consequence longing or abhor

rence in a word, a Desire.
1
The ultimate ground of
this desire lies inthe 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
The inner process by which desire arises
3
creature.

1
De An iii. 7, 431, a. 8: rb /n.v ovv Kal ra aAAa ^irp

iev ovv alo-QaveaQai o/noiov rw <pa.vai (Cf. c. 11, 434, a, 5.) Phantasy is

/J.OVQV Kal voe.1v orav Se r/8v /)

thus (as SCHRADER, p. 8 sq. and
AvTrfjpbv. oiov Kara<pa.ffa v) aTrocfcaffa, BKENTANO, Psychol. d. AT. 1GI,
0KL >r)
(pevyeL [cf. Eth. vi. 2, also remark) the link which con
1139, a, 21: lart 8 , oirep ev nects our thoughts with the de
Siai/ofa Karafyams Kal aTro<pa(Tis,
sires and impulses which spring
TOI T eV ope |et S. Kal (pvyfi.~\ a>|ts
from them. Of the process, how
Kal eo~n rb ^5eo-0at Kal XvirttaOai ever, by which thought thus
rb evpye"iv rrj alo~dririKrj jiterroTTjTi passes into desire Aristotle gives
irpos rb ayaObv v) KaKbv, y roiavra. no further analysis.
3
Kal T] <f>vyri
8e Kal ri upe^is rovro An. iii. 10, 433. a, 27
7> :

1. TO Kar evepyeiav, ail Kii/e? TO bpKrl)V [us was

[v. at/To] TJ fj.f\>

Kal oix Tepoj/ TO opeKTiKbv Kal previously proved, 1. 14 sqq ]

ovr"
1

aAAy/Awj/ o^Te ToD aAAa TOI)T fcrrlv v) TO ayadbv TO fj

tyfvKriitbv,
IKQV aAAa TO eli ai aAAo. ayadov.
<t>aiv6[J.evov
ov TTO.V 5e,
aj<r07jT

-
All desire, therefore, pre aAAa rb irpaKTOv ayaOov. irpaKr bv
earl TO Iv^e^fifvov Kal aAAa-s
supposes a presentation, although 5

the latter must by no means be exeii/. or i jn.ev ovv T] roiavrrj 5vva-

mistaken for desire. DI- An. iii. fjus Kivii rr)S ^VXTJS r) KaXov/ui.fvrj
eVei 8
Qaii erai Se 7e 8uo
Iffrl
10, 433, a, 9 upeis, (pavepov . . .
:

ravra Kivovvra, y) opeis r) i/ous, et^ rp a. 6j/ n\v TO KIVOVV, Sevrepov 8

TO
ns (pavraatav nQe rj us votlf tv
r$]V c? KLVf7, rpirov rb Kivov/j.evov
riva TroAAa yap irctpa rrjv eiri- 8e KLVOVV SiTTOi/, r~b IJLZV aKiv-qrov, r~b
ffr i jJif]v aKO\ov6oi(Ti rais (pavraffiais 8e KIVOVV Kal Kivov^fvov [cf. i. 389,
Kal fv TO?S aAAots ^OLS ov voif]f~is Se TO /iei aKivrjrov TJ
>>it]>r<i~\.
<rri

ouSe eanv, aAAa tyavraaia

\oytcr/j.6s TrpaKrbv ayaBuv, TO 8e KIVOVV Kal
UXTTG ev\6yuis ravra Svo ve- cf>a KLVOV/ULVOV T^ OpfKTlK^V (^KlV^irai
rai ra Kivovvra, upefys Kal Sidvoia yap TO opeyo/.i.vov 77 opeyerat, Kal i)
irpaKTtid] . . . Kal 7] (pai rav a Se Zpeis KLvncris r:s effriv [as TEEN-
orav KLVJJ, ov Kivei avev op ^fws. DELENBUEG rightly reads] f
b, 27 fi opfKrutov rb
: ov, ravrrj f
evepyeia) [v. 1. v) eV. TORSTR.
avrov KtvrjriKov opeKriKov 8e conjectures ^ evepyeia, but this is
OUK avev (pavracrias (pavraffia ft* unnecessary], TO 8e Kivov/uevov TO
irao-a /} AoyiffriKr} /} atcr0rjTi/C7j ^ wov ^ Se Kive? bpyavu> T] ope^ty,
[See p. 73, n. 2, suj)ra.~] ravrrjs ^877 TOirro ffw/jiariKov eo~nv. We
 no ARISTOTLE
Aristotle represents as a syllogistic
conclusion, inas
much as in each action a given case is
brought under a
1
general rule. In order properly to understand how
bodily movements spring from will and desire we must
recollect that
changes of inner feeling involve a all
2
corresponding change in the state of the body. This
is more in the treatise on the Notion
fully developed of
Animals. The process by which will follows the upon
presentation of the object, is, we are told, a kind ol
inference. The major premiss is the conception of a
general end ;
the minor premiss is an actual instance
corning under the general conception while the con ;

clusion is the action which issues from the

subsumption
of the second under the first. 3
Usually, however, the

shall recur to this at a later 8e Kal ra rrjs ^v^s TrdOt] TTJ.VTO.

point. A good commentary on dvai (j.tTa 0-wfj.aros, 9v/j.bs, irpa.6Tr)s,
the passage before us is fur (pofios, eAeo?, 6dp(Tos, ert x a P a Ka-i
nished by JJe Mot a An. 6, 700, rb (f)i\f7v re Kal fjufftlv a/j.a
yap
b, 15 sqq., which is probably TOVTOIS -rraffx^i ri rb This <rS}jj.a.

modelled upon it. is seen in the fact that

1
according
Et-h. vi. 5, 1147, a, 25: 7) to the physical state forcible im
/j.V yap KaOoAov 8o|a T/ 8 ereoa pressions at one time produce
Trepl rwv KaO e /catrra I(TTIV, u>v ii
effect; at another, light im
a io-9r)(Tis [Similarly De
Kvpia
tjbrj pressions produce a deep effect.
An, 434, a, 17.] orav 8e fj. a
i\\. 4. ert 8e rovro /xaAAov
(pavep6v /Arjd-
yzvr]rai e| avr&v, avdyK-r] rb (rv/u.- evbs yap (pofiepov (rv/u./3aivoi>Tos fv
irepavQev fv9a /j.ev (pdvai rljv tyvx)iv, rols TrdOeai yivovrai ro is rov (pofiov-
et/ 5e TCU? TTO 1777-1 /ecus vdus.
irpdrriv jj-evov [in consecju^nce of physical
oiov, 64 Travrbs
y\VKCOS yevecrSai states et 5
. OUTWS e^ei, SrjAoj
I

5e7, Tovrl 8e us tv TL Tiav

y\v>ci>,
UTL ra Trddr) \oyoi tvvXn dffiv.
/ca0 fKacrTov, avdyKr] rbv OMTTZ ol opoi roiovroi oiov
^vvd^vov rb <>p-

Kal /Hi] /cwAuoueroj/ a/xa TOVTO Kal eo-0cu ns rov

y Kivria-is roiOvSl
TrpoiTTfiv. c. 13, 1144, a, 31 of :
(Tu^aros ^ /utpovs v) Swap* us inrb
yap ffv\\oyL<T/ji.oi rwv Trpattriav ToG5e ei/e/ca roDSe. Cf. Eth. ibid.
apxyv ZXOVTIS eicriv, eVeiS/? rotoVSe 1147, a, 15, and what is said, p.
rb re Aos Kal rb apiarrov. Cf. C. 12, 75, n. 2, on pleasure and pain as
1143, b, 3 (see i. 197, n. 4, supra ), events in the aladrjTiK^ fj.ea-6rr]s.
where a minor premiss i 5
3
Mot. An. 7, 701, a, 7 :

spoken of in reference to action. 8e vouv ore /xej/ irpdrrei, ore S ov

2
DC An. i. 1, 403, a, 16: eot/ce Trpdrret, Kal /aj/e?Tcu, ore 5 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 desire, in cases when we act without con

sideration, constitutes rashness. 2 The power of the

will, however, to move the organs of our body is here

explained as an
the heat and cold, which are effect of

caused by the feelings of pleasure and pain these in ;

turn, by the expansion or contraction of particular parts,

produce certain changes and movements in the body.
3

CTV/J.- automata, owing to the mechan

fiaivflV K3.1 TTfpl T&v aKlvf]TWV ical adjustment of the cylinders,
Sizvoov/uievois Kal (Tv\\oyio/LifvoLS. are set in motion by a slight
aAA eK6? juei/ 6e(t>pr)/*a rb reAos touch, so with living beings, in
. . fvravQa 8 e/c r&v Suo irpo-
. whom the bones take the place
rdcrecov rb (Tv/j.TTfpacrfj.a yiverai 7] of wood and iron, the sinews
a^is, olov orav on iravrl v6ir)<Tr) that of the cylinders (cf also the .

avdpwTTw, avrbs 8 avOpoa- passage quoted p. 53, n. 2, from

iros, /aiei After illus evOews. Gen. An. ii. 5). The impulse,
trating this by further examples, however, in their case is given
Aristotle proceeds, 1. 2, ai Se > :
av|a*/o ueVa>i rwv /nopiwv
/
depuo-
8<a

irporaffets al iroirjTiKal Sia 8vo e/8coy rt]ra Kal irdXiv tn^TeAAoyUeVaji/ $ia
yfvovrat, Sia re rov ayadov Kal Sia \l/viv Kal aAAojou/ieVcoy. aAAotoCo-i
rov Svvarov [the latter perhaps 8 al aicrO^creis Kal at (pavraffiai Kal
with reference to Etli. iii. 5, at evvoiai. al fj.lv yap aiV07jcreis
11 12, b, 24sqq.]. ev8vs vwdpxov(nv a,\\oiu><reis nves
1
Ibid. 1. 25 :
&<nrfp
Se rS>v
ovtrai, r\ 5e (pa.vra(T:a Kal r) i/oTjcns-
epcarcavrcai ei/tot, rr)V ere paj/
OWTCO Tyv roov TTpayfj.drccv e^owi Svva/u.ii
irpGraaw r?/z/ STJATJV owS rj Sidvoia rpoirov yap Tiva rb eJSos rb voov-
(j)L(rTao~a (TKOTre? ouSeV olov el rb /j.evov rb rov Oep/nov rj \bvxpov y) rjSebs
/SaSt^eiv ayaObv avdpdoTrca, on avrbs 7} (frofispov roiovrov rvyx^ve i ~ov dl6v

avdpcairo ;, OUK eVSiarptjSei. irep Kal T&V Trpay^drav fKaffTOf,

2
L. 28 : Sib Kal oo~a p.}] \oyiff- Sib Kal
(ppiTTOvcri ical fyofiovvrai
d.ufvoi irpdrrou-ev, ra^u irpdrrojULev. vo ^aavrfs /uovov. ravra 5e iravra
orav yap i/epyf)o~Ti $) rrj alo~Qriafi 7ra9rj Kal aAAoi&jfreiy e/cnV. aAAot-
irpbs rb ov eVe/ca /) rrj Qavracria T) ovfjLfvwv 8 eV T(f cra/uan ra /xej/
rep v$, o5 6pyrai evdvs Troje? /uei^aj ra 8 eAarrco yiverai. OTL
avr epcar^ffews yap v) i/07](recos 7] Se /j.iKpa yU.erajSoA J; yej/o^tcVr; ei/

rr]s 6pe |ecoy yivsrai eVe p-yeta. apxp fJ.eyd\as Kal TroAAas Trote?
noriov /AOI, r] eVi^u/ita \eyei. roSl diafyopas anodes, OVK ar)Xov a ;

Se Trorbv 77 at(r6r](Tis e^Trev v) rj slight movementthe helm of

r) o vovs. tvBvs Trivet,.
produces a great effect upon the
3
Ibid. 701, b, 1 : Just as bow of a ship, so a small change
112 ARISTOTLE

Under Will also Aristotle who, like Plato, does not

regard Emotion as a peculiar form of activity classes
all that we should rather place under the Jatter head.

Love, for example, he refers to Ov^os, by which he

understands, not only spirit, but also heart.
1

As Aristotle proceeds, however, Desire is found to

bear a different character according as it springs from
rational representation or not. Granted that it is
always the desirable that causes desire in us, yet the
desirable may be either a real or merely an apparent
2
good, and so the desire itself may either spring from
rational reflection or be irrational.
3
To the latter class

in the heart causes flushing-, pallor,

1
Polit. vii. 7, 1327, b, 40: 6
trembling &c. over the whole fffTIV 6 TTOLWV TJ) fylXflTLK&V
1

, 0V/jl.6s

bod}*. (J. 8 apxh H*v ovv^ : auTT) yap tffnv 7] TTJS tyvxris Suva/xts

wcnrep etynjTaJ, TTJS Kivfjffews TO eV rj fyiXovfjisv. (TTj/icToi Se irpbs yap

T<
TCpCLKTb) SilDKTbv Kal <pVKr6v
TOVS ffvvj)6eis Kal (piXovs 6 6vfj.bs
lTn vor\(t(.i Kal a^perat yunAAov, -^ Trpbs TOVS ayv&Tas,
T?7 ({>ai>Tao~ia
avTccv 6p/u.6T f)s KOU bXiyupti<j6a.i vo/j.i<ras.
Cf . foil pages.
\l/vis. Tb |Uei/ yap Xvin]pbv (pevKTbv,
-
De An. iii. 10; see i. 109, n.
Tb S r)8v SiwKTbi Herri Se ra
,
. . .
3, supra.
Xvirrjpa Kal f/8e a iravra 3
De An. iii. 10, 438, a, 9 (see
/j.Ta \l/ve(t>s
TWOS /ca) i.109, n. 2, sup. ) 1. 22 vvv Se 6 ^v ;
:

So with fear, fright, sexual vovs ov (paiveTai KIV&V avfv ope ecos
Se Kal tXirlSes, OTO.V 5e
pleasure, &c. p.vrifia.1 r)yap fiov\r]o~is opens
olov eiScoAoiS -xp^jJifvoi TO IS TOIOV- Kara T})V Xoyicrijibv KivrjTai, Kal Kara
TOIS, ore /wev %TTOV ore Se /xaAAoi/ fiovXyffiv /ciJ/?Tai. r; 5 upe^is Kivtl
aiTiai TWV avTajv eifflv. And since jrapa Tbv Xoyi<TfJ.6v. ?? yap tiri6vfJU9
the inward parts from which the ijpf^is TIS ecrrtV. vovs /j,ev ovv iras
motion of the limbs proceeds op66s ope^LS 5e Kal (pavTacr ia Kal
are so arranged that these changes dpd^j Kal OUK bpQi). b, 5 eTtel 5 :

take place very easily in them, opf^eis yivovTai evavTtai aAA^Aats,

the motions follow our thoughts TOVTO Se (rv/jL/Saivei OTO.V o X6yos
(

instantaneously. TO. jj.lv yap opya- Kal f) Ti.6v/j. a evavTiai &ffi,

8 eV Tfns xpovov cuaQrjffiv
[accusative] irapaa-Kevdfri
viKa/j.(pr]
eVmjSefcw TO. ird.6r), y 5 upeis TO. (6 /J.ev yap vovs Sia T& /j.e\Xov
7ra0rj, 8
upe^iv T] (pavTacria
T-TJV aj/de\Ki.v KfXfVfi, i] 8 fTriQvuia Sm

auTTj 8e yifTai /} 5ia vor]ffws ^ Si Tb ^87}) . . . efSei /u.ev ev kv e ir] Tb

ai(T6i crectiS.
t
aua Se Kal ra%u Sta T& KLVOVV, Tb Ope/CTiKbl/, f) 6peKTlKbl>,

irom]TiKbv Kal ira.Qt]TiKbv T&V irpbs . . .

apid/j.w 5e TrAejco TO. KLVOVVTO.
elvat T Ithet. i. 11, 1370, a, 18: rwv Se
 PHYSICS 113

belong anger and the appetite for sensual gratification.

1

In so far as reason goes to constitute the conception of I

the end and reacts upon the desire it is called Practical

J

or Deliberative Eeason. 2 Desire which is

guided byj

eiriOv/j.icav at fjCtv a\oyoi elffiv a! Se the first impulse to rifj.upia given

fj.fTa \6yov. Sensual desires are by the reason without awaiting
ttAoyot, yu.e7 a \6yov 5e ocra e /c rov its fuller commands -jn9vfj.ia, on :

TTfiaO^vai iriQv/j.ov(riv. Polit. iii. the other hand, makes for plea
4, 1277, a, (5 :
^ U X^ *K ^oyov ical sure the moment that \d,yos or
opeeo>s.
Ibid. 1334, b, vii. 15, a io-6r)(ns declares anything to be
18 TTJS ^IT^TJS opca/jifv Svo /*(p7], rb
:
pleasant. Neverthe ess in the
re a\oyov Kal TO \6yov %x ov Ka ^ >
stricter psychological discussion,
ras e|eis TOLS TOVTCDV Svo TOJ/ apiO- De An. iii. 9, 432, a, 18 sqq.,
/J.QV, uij/ rb JJLCV tffTiv upe|is TO 5e Aristotle rejects the view that the
vovs. Cf. foil. note. \oyi<mKov, OvfjiiK^v and eiri9v/j.Ti-
1
Following Plato, Aristotle are the three parts of the soul
Ti/cbi/

often opposes these two forms of which produce motions, partly

pe|is a\oyos to one another; because the distinction between
liliet.i. 10 (seep. 114, n. 3, infra). them is less than, e.g., that
JJe An. ii. 3, 414, b, 2 :
ope^is IJLSV between the QP^TTTLKOV and atVflrj-
yap fTTLBv/ata Kal dv/j.bs Kal fiov\r](ns Ti/coi/, and partly because the
ridv/j-ia is then defined as ope|:s opeKTiK^v cannot thus be divided
TOU ^Se os) ;
iii. 9, 432, b, 5 : ej/ re and the soul made to consist of
TO? XoyiffTiKy yap f) pov\ir](ns three separate parts. Aristotle
yiverai, Kal eV T a\6y(p fj iridv/j.ia gives no more accurate definition
Kal 6 eu/j.6s. Etli. iii. 4, 1111, b, 10 : of 6v/j.6s ;
even P. Meyer s minute
while Trpoaipfo-is is neither tiriQv- discussion of the passages that
/j.ia nor 6v/jubs, since both the latter bear upon it ( O 6v/j.bs ap. Arist.
belong also to irrational beings, Platonemque, Bonn, 1876) arrives
but the former does not. Polit. vii. at conclusions as unsatisfactory
15 (see p. 114,n. 3, infra), cf. Mat. as the shorter one by Walter,
An. 6, 700, b, 22, o. 7, 701, a, 32 ; ibid. 199 sqq.on the customary
Eth. End. ii. 7, 1223, a, 20 J/. ; meaning of the word.
According
MOT. i. 12, 1187, b, 36. In the to this, it indicates as a rule
Topics (ii. 7, 113, a, 35 sq., iv. 5, the passions which prompt to the
126, a, 8, v. 1, 129, a, 10) the avoidance or retaliation of in
Platonic division of the Aoyur- juries. Nevertheless the tenderer
IKOV, 6v/j.oei?)s and eVifli^TjTt/cbi/ is emotions are also assigned to it ;

employed as one which is gener cf. p. 112, n. 1.

ally recognised, and Etli. vii. 7,
2
De AH. iii. 10, 433, a, 14 :

1149, a, 24 follows Plato in the vovs Se [sc. KiVTjTt/cbj/j o eVe/ca TOV

remark (Ph. d. Gr. i. 714) that it is A o-y i
0,116 i/os Kal 6 irpaKTiKos Sta-
Less disgraceful to be unable to (pfpGl 6 6^Ci}pfjTlKOV TO}
TOl) T\l.
rule Qvfjibs than the desires eoi/ce : Kal r] opf^is eVe/ca rov 7rao"a ou yap
yap o 6v/j.bs O.KOVGIV /ueV Tt TOU r) ope|<s, apxy rov irpaKTiKov
avr-r]
i

[\o7ou, irapaKoveti/ 5e ;
it yields to vov TO 5 eo^aTOi/ ap;^ TTJS Trpd-
VOL. II.
114 ARISTOTLE

reason Aristotle, with Plato, calls Will in the nar

1

rower sense of the word, appropriating the name Desire

2

to its irrational exercise.

3
The latter stands in a two
fold relation to reason. On the one hand, is it

intended to submit to it, and by this obedience to

obtain a share in it. On the other hand, being in its

own nature irrational it resists the demands of reason,
4
and often overpowers them. Between these two kinds
of impulse stands man with his Free Will ;
for that we
ecos. &ffrf ev\yws ravra uo ai-
<ai- it see ch. xii. part 2, infra.
verai TO. Kivovvra, ope^is Kal Sidvoia
1
Ph.d. Gr. p. 505.
i.

See further, p. 109, n. 5,

2
Practical reason itself must
Cf.c.9.432,b,27. Mh.vi.2, not be mistaken for will, which,
1139, a, 6 8vo TO, \6yov
: u7roKei<r0a> to Aristotle, is essentially a desire :

tv yue?/ & flewpoD/Aey ra the former is merely thought in

tyovta.,
roiavra rwv ZVTWV, offwv at relation to action.
3
De An. iii. 10, 433, a, 22
ra va yap ra r<a
sqq. (see p. 112, n. 3, supra),
and c.
irpbs
Kal rwv TT/S 11, 434, a, 12 (see foil, n.),
where
erepa ij/ux^s
erepoj/ r<
ytvei rb irpbs jSouATjfrts is opposed to o pe|iy,
endrepov ireQvKOS \ey(r9a> . . .
8e Rlwt. i. 10, 1369, a, 2: <Vr^S
T)

rovrwv rb juei/ tTrtorTTj/xofi/cbi/ rb 5e uei> jSowATjcrts ayadov t>peis (ou0ets ;

XoyiariKov. r~b yap j8oi>Aev

e<r0ai Kal yap BovXerai aAA ?)
orav olif]0ij

Koyi^ffQai ravrbv, ov6ds

8e elrai ayadbv~) a\oyoi 8 ope|ets bpy^
Aeuerai irepl ruv K al eV^i a. Eth. v. 11, U36, b, :

7 : ovre yap /SouAerai oi0eis & ]U^|

|

oterai elvai o TC- aKparr]S

1
Sidvoia Kal vj
o"7rou8aror,

oi/x ^ ot erai SeTi/

Trpdrreiv irpdrrei.
,uT?8e TroiTjTi/crjs rb KO! See further, p. 113, n. 1. ^Cf.
. T<xAi?0es
eo-ri Kal if
PLATO S statements, PA. ^r.i. p. <Z.

rovro yap effn navrbs 505,and p. 719, 3. At other times i

KCU the word has a wider meaning, as

eoyov, rov Se -npaKriKOv
)

Polit. vii. 15, 1334, b, 22 (6v^bs yap

L. Sidvoia is IT i 8e liriBvpla Kal yevo-
rrj 6peei rrj op0. 35j
8 CUT?? ovOev Kive i, aAA rj eVe/ca
rov
Kal irpaKTiK-i]. Ibid. c. 12, 1143, b, In J^7*. iii. 6, both meanings i

1 ; see p. 197, n. 4, supra. Polit. vii. are concerned, where to the ques- (

re Sixf? tion whether ^SouATjcrts has refer

14, 1333, a, 24 Snfprjrat :

\6yov exo^l, Ka9 ov Trep ence to the good or to the ap-

^ 7p
eta>-

[rb
parently good, the reply
6 is given
0auev TpoTroj/ Staipeti/-
VpaKTiK6siffTih6yos6tetepnruc6s. that per se, and in a virtuous
Cf p. 106, n. 2, sup. For a closer
.
man, it is to the former alone in ;

view of the practical reason and a bad man, to the latter,

the activity which proceeds from
4
Eth. i. 13, 1102, b, 13 we :
 PHYSICS 115

are the authors of our own actions, and that it lies in

our own power to be 1
good or bad, is Aristotle s firm

must distinguish in the soul a wffTTfp fftpatpa [v. 1.

-av~\ rf upe^is TT}V
rational and an irrational part. ope|u/, orav aKpao~ia yevrfTai. (pvo~fi
The latter, however, is of two 8e ael TI avca apxiKUTepa Kal /ai/el",

kinds. The one of its con cScrre Tpfts (popas ^877 KiveiaQai.
stituent parts, the nutritive soul, The various attempts made to
has nothing to do with action ; explain and amend the last
8e Kal a\\rj ris (pvo~is TTJS passage byTRENDELENBURGand
aXoyos elvai, /xere^oi O a TORSTRIK, in loco, BRENTANO,
fj.evTot Try Xoyov. Both in the Psyehol. d. Ar. Ill sq., and the
temperate and the intemperate Greek commentators (discussed
man, reason operates on the one in Tren.), it is the more justifiable
hand ; (paiverai 8 eV avro is Kal here to omit as the thought ex
&AAo TL -rrapa T^V X6yov irefyvKos, pressed is clear enough. Depart
T Kal aVTiTetvei -ray
ing from previous editions, Zeller
^P KaQdrrep TO. would now suggest ore 8 e/ceiVrj : . . .

rov (rco^aros yu.opta TavTf]v, Trjv

$<T7rep TJ avw o~<pa7pa

els TO. 8eta Trpocupou/ieVcuj/ Kivr)o~ai /car co, ore yVt]Tai 8 r) opeis . . .

Tovvavriov els TO. apio~Tepa irapa-

/aye?], &o~Te, &c.
[</)u(ret
. . Ari .

Qeperai, Kal eVl rrjs tyvxW rl stotle s doctrine differs from that
ia yap at appal run* aKpaTwv of Plato as presented Ph. d. 6V. i.
. . . ital ev rrj i^ux?) vopiartov 713 sq., only in this, that in place
elvai n irapa rbv X6yov, eVai/Tiou/xe- of the Platonic Gvphs we have
vov TOVTW Kal WTifiatvov . . . here the appetites as a whole.
1
Xoyov SfKalrovro^aiverai jUeTe ^eif, Eth. iii. 7, 1113, b, 6: e>

e iTro/u.ev
irfiQapx^ yovv T<^5 7]jjuv 8e Kal y aper^, opo ius 8e Kal
\6yif) rb rov eyKparovs (paiveraL . . .
i) KaKla. v ols yap lyjuv T~O e^>

877 /cal rb a\oyov Sirrov. rb /JL\V irpaTTfiv, Kal rb /J.T) TrpaTTeiv, Kal
yap fyvTiKbv ov8afj.us Koivuvtl \6yov, GV ails rb /j.)], Kal TO vai &Q~T ei rb
bv e (/) ri/juv eo"Tt,

TTCOS, ?; KarrjKoov Gcrrus avrov )

r)/juv errrat
Kal ireiQapxiKov . . . ori 8e ov, Kal el rb
^,77 Trparretv
TTCOS virb Xoyov TO a\oyov, v e<p TJljfiv, Kal rb Trparreti/
Kal r] vovQ^Tt]ffis /cat Traffa ivi alffxpov oj/ e(|) ^?v. et 8 e^) ^jU?!/
re Kal TrapaKX-rjcris. el 8e XP$) Ka-l ra KOKa irpaTTtiv Kal TO. oiVxpa,
rovro fyavai X6yov 6/j.oius 8e KOJ rb /U.T; Trparreii/, TOWTO
0~raL Kal rb X6yov 8 ^i/ rb ayado is Kal Ka.Ko7s
Kvp .ws Kal iv avrqi, TO 8 e</) rifjuv apa rb eiriflKfO i Kal
a.KOvo~TiK.6v TI. Polit. vii elvai . . TO^S ye vvv
.
3)

14, 1333, a, 10 :
Siyp-nrai 8e o~vo a/j.<pi(r0r)T r)TOV,
Kal T^V
ov (paTeov apx^v zlvai ouSe yevvi]rriv
X6yov KaO aurb, rb 8 OVK e_^et u.\v T&V TTpdl-ecav, &o~Trep Kal TSKVUV ;
K.off aurb, Xoycp 8 viraKoveiv Swd- d 8e raura [if he is author of his
\LSVOV. Zte An. iii. 11, 434, a, 12 own c^aij/erat Kal %x
:
actions] fj,rj

ei/tore Kal
[?j ope|ts] /cti/e? [j.v ety ctAAas apx&s avayayzlv Trapa
tKelvr} TavTi]v, TOLS e0 r)/MV, &v Kal at

I 2
116 ARISTOTLE

conviction,which he supports by the recognised volun-

tariness of virtue, and by the moral responsibility
1

which is presupposed in legislation and in the judgment

universally passedin rewards and punishments, praise and

blame, exhortation and warning. 2 In the case of settled

that he believes it to be partly
moral states, it is true
otherwise. These in their beginnings, indeed, depend
upon ourselves but when we have once become good
;

or bad it is just as little in our power not to be so, as

when we are sick to be well.

3
In like manner he admits
that when the will has once acquired a definite bent, the

external action necessarily follows.

4
But when it is
said that all desire what seems good to them, and that

they not responsible for this seeming, Aristotle

are
refuses to admit it, since even the disposition which
5
determines our moral judgments is our own creation.
Nor does he regard with more favour the attempt to
nature of the disjunctive judgment the
prove from the

TIIUV Kal avrh ttf Jjftv Kal litotffia.

and the question investigated
c 5 1112 b 31: eot/ce Sry, a0a- how far and in what cases we
&ai a PX are irresponsible for ignorance or
Tr ep rfpW , Zvepovos >l

and elsewhere. On mental and bodily defects, and

rS>v
rpdSetav,
Aristotle s doctrine of the free- how far, on the other hand, we
dom of the will, see SCHBADEB, are responsible for them as in
ibid TBENDBLENBUBG, Histor.
;
themselves culpable.
Beitr. ii. 149 sqq.
3
EtU. iii. 7, 8, 1114, a, 12
Aristotle frequently makes
1
sqq., b, 30, cf. v. 13, 1137, a, 4,
use of this argument, accusing 17 :
particular just and unjust
the dictum of Socrates and Epi- actions are voluntary and easy,
but rb &SI %x ovras ravra ea/
charmus, oMels ZK&V TTOV^S ov5
otfre otfr eV avrois.
&Kuvu.dicap( on which seePh.d.Gr. 4
pdSiov
Metapli. ix. 5, see i. 385, n. 2,
i 462, 5, iii. b, 119, 2, cf. 719, 3),
of the inconsistency of declaring supra.
5
Ibid. Hi. 1114, 31 sqq.
good to be voluntary, evil in- 7, a,

voluntary; Eth. iii. 7, 1113, b, The question how far it is possible

14 1114 b 12 sqq. consciously to commit a mistake
2 is more fully discussed in the
Mil. ibid. 1113, b, 21, 1114,
discussed JEtMcs. See infra,
a, 31 where this is fully
,
 PHYSICS 117

of a contingent result.
1
On the
logical impossibility
he voluntariness as an essential condi
contrary, regards
tion of all action that is the subject of moral judg
ment ;
2
and if thisdoes not exhaust the conception of
volition (for Aristotle calls the actions of children and
even of animals voluntary), at least without volun
3

tariness no volition is possible. If ajl that is voluntary

is not also intentional, yet all that is intentional must

See i. 230, n. 4, supra. It has

1 ask to which of these the ignor
ance refers the action being
already been there shown that
:

Aristotle does not hereby avoid involuntary in the highest degree

all difficulties; but this only when the mistake concerns the
shows more clearly how impor- essential points of its aim and
tant he regarded it to rescue the object. Finally, it makes a differ-
ence, according to Aristotle,
possibility of voluntary actions.
2
Etli. iii. 1 init. :
rrjs aperfjs
whether an action committed in
5); Trepl 7ra07j re Kai irpd^is ovarjs, ignorance is matter of regret or
Kal irl j.ev rots Kovaiois eiraivtav not if the doer does not regret
;

eirt 5e TO?S it he acquiesces in it, so that

aKovcriois &c. In c. while it cannot be regarded as
ffuyyvwfjiris,
1-3, cf. v. 10, 1135, a, 23 sqq. rb voluntary, it is not involuntary
and aKovffiov are fully in the sense of being against his
will (c. 2 init. and///. cf. vii. 8,
"discussed. According to the ;

account here given, that is in 1150, a, 21, c. i) init.). On the

is done under other hand, that is (c. 3 init.)
voluntary which
etSon
compulsion or in ignorance. We
tKOvffiov ov )] apx^l *v avra> TO.

must distinguish, however, in the /ca0 e/ca<rTa eV ols r\ irpa^Ls, or

former between physical compul (1135, a, 23) & av ris ruv e</>
avrw
which constitutes absolute uvTdiv ei5o)J Kal ayvoSiv irpdTTr)
fj.rj
sion,
involuntariness, and moral com fj.rir
*bv yUTjTe w Cf.
yu^re ov eVe/ra.
llliet. 10, 1368, b, 0: eKoVres 5e
pulsion, which is only relative; in
i.

the latter,between unconscious ac oaa etSores Kal /u-// avay-

tion (ayvoovvra iroieTz/), which may On tlie other hand,
.

be voluntary (as when some

also- deliberation is not a necessary
condition of volnntariness on the
thing is done in haste or anger),
:

and action from ignorance (Si contrary, Aristotle expressly

a-yvoiav Trpdrreiv). As, further, denies that passion and emotion
there are many things on which destroy the voluntariness of an
an action depends (nearly corre- action.
3
Etli. iii. 3, 4, 1111, a, 24, b,
jsponding to the familiar quis,
mid, iiM, &c., Aristotle mentions :
8. Will, however, in the stricter
ris Kal ri Kal -n-fpl ri /) eV T IVL sense (see p. 114, n. 3, wvpra},
cViore 5e Kal rivt, oiov cannot be attributed to either of
Ka.1 ei/e/ca we must them.
bp-yavy TIVOS),
118 ARISTOTLE
needs be voluntary. It is in his view the intention upon 1

which in the first instance the moral quality of an act

2
depends. In like manner deliberation is only possible
with reference to those things which lie within our own
3
power, Aristotle, however, has not attempted to indi
cate 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. 4, 1111, b, 6 ?j : same description is repeated Etli.
!
Trpoa pe(TLs 8)7 zKovaiov IAZV (paiverai, vi. 2, 1139, a, 23, cf. v. 10, 1135,
ov TavTov 8e, aAA eVl irXtov TO b, 10 ( 7r/3oeAo uei Oi / ^JL\V \Trpa.TTOiJ.v\
Kov(riov TOV ftev yap Kovo~iov /cat ocra Trpo/SouAeucra/zej/ot, aTrpoaipzTa
TrcuSes Kal TaAAa <a KOIVWVC I, 5e ocra airpofiovhevTa). the On
,
ftal ra eai(pvr]S other hand, 6 peis in the narrower
,
Kara Trpoaipeffiv sense of mere irrational desire is
5 ov. 1112, a, 14: fKovffiov /tiej/ said DC An. Hi. 11, 434, a, 12, cf.
8)7(paiverai [/; Trpoafpetm], TO 8 1.o sq., to be without part in TO
cKovaiw ov TTO.V
TrpoatpeToV. (So
also Itliet. ibid. ocra fj.lv ovv : T 700 irpoaipe icrdai TayaOa 7)

eKovres [so. iroiovffiv], ov TTCIJ/TO TO. KaKa iroioi Tives f cr^aej/ (ibid. C.
Trpoaipov/j.evoi, etSores aTrarra.) 4, 1112, a, 1).
Aristotle then further distin :i
BouAeuo.u60a 8e irepl TWU e(p

guishes Trpoalpfffis from eViflu^u a, 1112, a, 30.

j]f.uv irpa.KT(icv,ibid. c. 5,

0u,abs, fiov\ri(ris (by which he here Aristotle further shows (1112, b,

means wish, rather than mill as it 11 sqq. vii. 9, 1151, a, 16) that
is directed towards what is im deliberation deals, not_with_ tlie
possible and- beyond our power) end, but with the means. We set
and 8o|a (or, more accurately, ourselves an end and then ask,
a certain kind of 8o|a, e.g. just as in mathematical analysis,
right opinion upon what is what are the conditions under
right, what is to be feared, &c., which it may be attained we ;

and generally upon practical next inquire what is required to

questions) its characteristic
; create these conditions, and so on 1

mark is deliberation (c. 5, 1113, until we arrive by a process

Qjf
J
*
a, 2 /3ov\VToi>
. Se itai TrpocttptToi ajialysis at the first condition of
TO avTu. TrAr)v d(f)ocpi(r/j.vov ijSf] T^> the desired result which lies in
rb yap K TT\S @ov\rjs our power. With the knowledge
Trpoouperov eVriv) ac ; of. this condition, deliberation
cordingly, TO irpoaiperbv is defined ceases with the endeA.vojar_io
;

as /3ov\evTuv opsKrhv T&V TJ/UUV, <p

realise it, action begins, Cf. .

and Trpoaipffis as povAevTiKT) ope^LS TREXDELENBUEG, Histor. Scitr.

T&V e(p f]/j."iv (ibid. 1. 9 sq.) e/c ;
ii. 381 sq. WALTER, Lelire
;
v. d.
TOV &ov\cvo~ao~9cu yap KpivavTes prakt. Vcrn. 220 sq.
iv. The
 PHYSICS 119

credit of first clearly perceiving these points belongs

been left to modern philosophy
to the Stoics, while it has
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
tigation. These have been already touched upon, but
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
the same point of view. Man unites in himself every
form of life. To the nutritive life he adds the power
of sensation and motion, and to these again the
life

Thought rises in him from sensation

to
of reason.
and and thence to reflexion and
memory imagination,
the highest stage of the pure intuitions of the reason ;

action, from sensual desires, to

rational will. He is
capable not merely
of perception and experience, but
also of art and science. He raises himself in moral
action above animal desire as in the latter he
just
transcends the merely vegetable processes of nutrition
and propagation. Aristotle accordingly sums up his
whole doctrine of the Soul in a single sentence the :

Soul is in a certain sense all Actuality, inasmuch as it

unites in itself the sensual and the spiritual, and thus
contains the Form of both a description which applies
l

of course, to the soul of man. But just as

especially,
we found it to be a defect in Plato s theory that he was
See p. 199, n. 2, supra,.
1
vol. i.
 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 this
propound problem with
scientific accuracy, 1 so we have to regret in Aristotle a
similar omission. The between the sensitive and
relation
nutritive life might itself have suggested the question
whether the latter is 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, is still more pressing in reference to
Eeason and its relation to the lower faculties of the
soul. Whether we regard the beginning,
progress, or
end of their union,
everywhere we find the same un
solved dualism ;
nowhere do we meet with any satis
factory answer to the question where
2
we are to look
for the unifying
principle of personality the one power
which governs while it unites all the other parts of the
soul. 3 The birth
of the soul,
speaking generally,
coincides, according to Aristotle, with that of the
body
whose entelechy it is. 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 But, on the other hand, he i* unable to
Ph. d. Gr. i.
pp. 717 sq. complete consistency of the Ari-
-|
Which Aristotle, however, stotelian doctrine is wholly un
does not forget to put to Plato ; successful. Detailed criticism
see p. 23, n. 1, supra. of it may here be omitted with-
3
BvenScHBLi/s attempt (Die out prejudice to the
following
Einlieit des Seelenlebens aus d. investigation.
4
Principien d. arist. Phil, ent- See p. -10, n. 1, p. 6, n. 2, p. 53,
miclielt. Freib. and
1873) to prove the n. 3, 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. While, therefore, it is held that the germ of
propagated in the seed,
this also is 1
it is
yet asserted at
the same time that it alone enters man from without,
2

3
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
4
through it, is
wholly incomprehensible riot to mention

the fact that not one word is anywhere said of the time
or manner
of its entrance into it. Nor can this
difficulty be met by the assumption that the Spirit
5
proceeds direct from God, whether we regard its origin
as an event necessarily following the operation of
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-
implement it emplc^s, which is
pra. used to explain the union of soul
It enters the womb, indeed, and body (p. 3, n. 2, supra},
in the seed, but comes to the latter applicable to the reason, which
OvpaOtv, as is clearly explained in has no such implement. Of. p.
the passages quoted, p. 96, n, 1, 94, n. 2, and p. ]00, n. 2.
Gen. An. ii. 3, 73(5, b, 15 sqq. 5
BRANDIS, Gr.-Hom. Pldl. ii.
:t

XwpiaTbs (Gen. An. ii. 3, b. 1178.

737, a, 9 Be, An. iii. 5 see p. 90, n. The
(i
; ; latl er view, that of the
l,andp. 98, n.l,stf/;.), which here, so-called was not
creationists,
as perhaps also in Plato s account only generally assumed by medi-
of the Ideas, means not merely ajval Aristotelians as undoubtedly
separable but actually separate, Aristotle s, but is accepted by
the equivalent phrase ovQev yap BRENTANO, Psychol. d. Ar. 195
O.VTOV Ty fvepyeia Koivvvel (ro^ari/a?
sqq ,
whom FERTLING,
Mat. und
evtpyeia being used for it, 739, a, Form, 170 (more cautiously also
28. L. SCHNEIDER. UmterUicMeits-
4
We cannot conceive of an Wire d. Arist. 54 sq.), is inclined
immaterial being occupying a to follow. According to BEEN.,
position in space, nor is the rela- the spiritual part is created out
tion of the active force to the of nothing by the immediate act
122 ARISTOTLE

coincides more or less with the doctrine of Emanation,

there not only no support whatsoever in Aristotle s
is

irreconcilable with his view of

system, but it is wholly
1
the unchangeable and transcendent nature of God.
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
3
interfere actively in the world by an exercise of will.
Aristotle says, moreover, as distinctly as possible, that
the spirit is exempt from birth no less than from death,
4
thus attributing to it though in a certain
pre-existence,
impersonal sense. was impossible, accordingly, that
It

the question how and by whom it was produced at the

birth of the body should have even been raised by him.
Even upon only question that could arise the
the

question regarding the causes which determine the

spirit s union with a human body, and with this

particular body in each particular case,

and regarding
the way in which this union takes place Aristotle s
be that
writings contain not a single word whether
;
it

this question never suggested itself to him, or that he

of God, and at the same time the to be an effluence from the asther,
character of a human body is the Qeiov
ffw^a.
given to the material part (p.
2
On which see i. 399 sq.
As rightly remarked also
3
199); the reason is produced by is

God from nothing at the moment by BIEHL ( Uftb. d. Bcgriff vovs

at which the fo3tus in its na- b. Arist. Linz, 1864 Gymn
;

tural development reaches thelast Progr. p. 9).

4
stage (which, according to n. 2, Cf. the passages quoted, p.

preceding page, must be at apoint 96, n. J, and p. 101, n. 2, slip. The

of time previous at any rate to the
procreative act); see also p. 203.
1
Cf. alsoi. 413 sqq. Still less
of course can we, with GROTE
(Arist. ii. 220, 230), regard
the absolutely immaterial spirit
obvious meaning of these pas-
sages cannot justly be set aside
upon the general grounds advo-
cated by BBENTANO, p. 196 sq.,
which find no support either in
the psychology of Aristotle or in
 PHYSICS 123

regarded it as insoluble and preferred

to leave it alone. 1

Nor is he more explicit with regard to the question of

the origin of the Passive Reason/ whose existence is
said to beginand 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

faculty of reproductive imagination, yet

he gives us no
hint to help us to form a definite conception of its
3
origin.
If we farther examine the union in man of different

faculties, we find it difficult to understand how in one

being two parts can be united, of which the one is

exposed to passive states, the other incapable of pas

sivity the former bound up with the body, the latter
;

without a physical organ. 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
mutability and impassiveiiess of Reason ? might We
find support for both assumptions in Aristotle s writ

ings, yet each in turn, can be shown to be inconsistent

with the presuppositions of his philosophy. On the

any rightly interpreted statement d. mensclil. Secle nacli Arist.

to be found in his texts.
The words, Gen An. ii. 3,
1
730, b, 5, to which BKENTANO,
105, calls attention, point rather
to this Sib Kal irepl vov, irore KOL\
:
TTWS fji.eTa\a[j.f3dvei Kal
Halle, 1873, p. 46 sq.) supposes
the passive reason to be a radia-
tion of the active on its entry
into the body. This assumption,
however, finds no support in any
Trodev ra statement of Aristotle or in his
system as a whole. According
1

luLrfx oVTa TCXUTTJS T?}s apxfjs, 6^ei

T airopiav Tr\i<rTr)v Kal Set tvpo- to Aristotelian principles, the
Ov/m.f iffQai Kara 8vva/j.iv AajSetV reason, like all immaterial and
Kal KaOoo-ov ei/Se^erou. unmoved being, can promote
2
Of. p. 98, n. 2. the development of other things
3
SCHLOTTMANN (Das VeT- by solicitation, but cannot de-
gangliclie und Unvergangliclie in velop anything else from itself.
124 ARISTOTLE

one hand, in his account of Passive Reason 1

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

2
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 we are at present considering. 4 The motionless-
1
See p. 96 sqq. svpra. jj.V ev if eo Tt, rovro
2
See the passage already VTTO TT)S ^U^TJS a\\<a 5
quoted, p 5, from De An. i. re KivelaQai Kara TOTTQV avrr v. t
It
3, Aristotle opens the dis
4. might, indeed, appear that it
cussion at the beginning of c. 3 moves itself. (pa/afv yap r^v
with the explanation that not
only is it not true to say that the en Se bpyieo-0ai re Kal
soul can, from its nature, be an Kal Siavoe LcrQai ravra
eavrb KLVOVV, dAA ev rwv aSv- n 8e iravra Kiv t]o~eis elvai SOKOVO-IV.
vdrwv rb VTrdpxeiv avrri Kivrjffiv. odev olf]9eiri ris av avTT)v KivelaQai
Of the arguments by which this TO 6 OVK eariv avayKalov . . .

is proved, the first (400, a, 12) yap fcroos Xtyeiv rriv

is to Aristotle completely con eAeeTi/ $) Sia-
vincing recradpoov 5e Kivr o~eocv
:
t voriordai, aAAa rov avQpwTrov TTJ
UIHTWV, (fiopas, dAAoiaVeoJS, <p6!o~&s, $vx]l- roiro 5e /J.TJ s ev
av^aecas, rj fiiav rovrcav Kivolr av TTJS Kivr)(Tf(as ovo"ns,
dAA ore
/)
TT\LOVS 3) Trdaas. ei 5e Kivtirai pexpi fKelvys, ore
fj.}]
Kara (rv/jL^eftriK^s, (pvffei&r oiov f) /aev aio~6ri(ris air^ rwvSl [it is
V7rdpx oi Kivriffis avrri. el 5e rovro a motion which proceeds from
Kal r OTTOS iraffai yap al Ae^0e?crai the senses to the 5
soul], rj
KLvr,o-eis ev TOTTW. el 5 eo~rlv r) avdjjivriffis a?r eKeiVrjs eVl ras ei/

ovffia TTJS tyvxys TO Kivelv eavrrjv, rols alffdrjr npiois icii/r^eis /) /J,ovds.
ov Kara (yv/ji^e^Kbs avrrj TO Kivei- Pltys. vii. 3, 246, b, 24, shows
aOai inrdpxoi. After proving in with reference to the higher
detail how impossible it is that faculties that neither virtue and
the soul should move, and espe ^ ice on the one hand, nor
thought
cially that it should move in on the other, can be said to be
space, Aristotle returns, c. 4, an a\\oiw(ris of the soul, al
408, a, 30, once more to the though they are produced by an
original question and declares dAAoia-o-ts Cf. p. 94, n. 2.
3
that it is impossible that the Cf. i. 386, n. 1, and i. 359,
soul should be self -moving it ;
n. 1, supra.
can move and be moved" only
4
See p. 103 sq. supra.
Kara 0-vu.BeBinKbs, oiov Kivelo~Qai
 PHYSICS 125

ness of the lower faculties of the soul is contradicted

by what has just been said about

l

among other things

the characteristic difference between them and Reason.

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
life, which
we call Personality? It cannot reside, it
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 intellectual activity 3

belongs to it, but only to the man in whom it resides. 4

Neither can Personality lie in the lower faculties of the

soul. 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
itself, but in the union of both soul
and body in man.
On the other hand, he asserts that the essence of each
1
As, for instance, the passage p. 99, n. 3, and p. 124, n. 2,
quoted, p. 109, n. 5, according to supra, cf. De An.
10, 433, iii.

which, in desire, the appetitive a, 26 : olv iras 6p06s, but

vovs fj.lv

part of the soul is both mover especially De An. i. 4, 408, b, 24:

and moved, the Cv ol/ * s on ty Kc T ^ VOGIV Sri fal rb 0eo>pe/ /j.a-
"

moved and the description of

; paiverai &\\ov nv^s e<ro>
fyQeipo-
sensation, p. 58, n. 4. /J.EVOV, avrb 5e a-rrades effTiv (see p.
2 ri 5e Siayoetotfai
See i. 454, n. 2, 3. 96, n. 2, supra),
3 OVK tffTiv e/cei-
Atdvoia in the sense of dis- /cat $iAe?i/ y) ytua eTi/
cursive thought as explained, p. vov irdBi], a\\a rovSl TOV e^oi/ros
106, n.
4
2. e/ceTvo, 77 e/ceTj/o ex el Ka TOVTOV - ^
Besides the passages quoted, ^Qeipo^vov otfre juv^oi/euet cure
126 ARISTOTLE

individual is his reason, 1 by which he understands, not

thought alone, but every kind of intellectual appre
hension. 2 And if he refuses to acknowledge the soul as
the subject of emotion, he is not likely to find it in the
3
body. The most serious difficulty, however, arises in
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 Movement and action,
in fact, come from desire, which in turn is excited by
5
imagination. Desire, again, can cause movement, but
not rational movement, 6 for it belongs to animals as well

<pi\*1
ov yap fKfii/ov ^v, aAAa TOV supra.
5
KOIVOV, & cbroAcoAei . See the passages from Eth.
Mh.x. 1139, a, 35, already em
1
7, 1178, a, 2: 8o e vi. 2,
s
8 tiv Kal ficaffros TOVTO [i.e.
elvai ployed, p. 113 sq. Sidvoia 5 :

foCy] eftre/j rb Kvpiov Kal au.fivoi/. CUT}; ovOev Kivet, aAA rj eVewa TOV
ix. 4, 1166, a, 16, 22: TOV Sia- Kal TrpaKTiK-f). De An. iii. 10, 433,
VOTITIKOV X^P IV 07T6/J 6/CCMTTPS ell/CU a, 22 : 6 /ULGV vovs ov (paiverai KIVWV
5o/ce? . . . 8o |ete 8 av rb voovv &MV opt&ws. c. 9, 432, b, 26:
fKaffros e?i/cu -/) jUaAftrra. c. 8, aAAa fJ.fyv oi/Se T^>
XoyiffTiKov Kal 6
1168, b, 28: the good man might Ka\ov/j.evos vovs effTlv 6 KIV&V b
be said to be pre-eminently <piA- /uev -yap Oea pr]TiKos ovQfv j/oel irpaK-
avros, seeing that love of the TCiV, Ou8e \fji TTfpl (pfVKTOV Kal
most essential (Kvpiurarov^) part SiwKTov ovQtv. TI 8e KiVtjffis /} (pev-
of himself predominates in all yOVTOS TL T) SutiKOJ/TOS TL f(TTlV.
he does. wa-nep 8e Kal ird\is TO oAA ouS OTOV decopri TI TOLOVTOV,
KvptdoTaTov /uaAicTT tivai So/eel Kcd ijSr] /ceAeuet (pevyeiv $) St^/ceii/ . . .

irav ^AAo (Tvo T rjfJ.a, OVTCO Kal avdpw- Tl Kal tTTLTCLTTOVTOS TOV VOV KO.\

TTOS . . Kal iyKparfys 8e Kal

.
\eyov(rr]s TTJS Siavoias (pevytiv TI v)
aKparfys Ae^erat ro3 Kpar^v Tbv 8tco/C6if ou KivziTai aAAa Kara Trjv
vovv v) (A)], ws TOVTOV e/cacrrou ti^ros iviOvfilav irpaTTei, oiov b aKpaTr.s.
Kal ireirpaytvai SOKOVCTIV avrol Kal Kal oAws 6pw/j.js OTI 6
fKovffitos TO. yuera
\6yov yuaAt<rra. laTpiKriv OVK laTai, ws eTepov TWOS
2
See p. 93, n. 5, supra. Kvpiov OVTOS TOV Kara T?;I
TroieTj/
3
Eth. x. 2, 1173, b, 10: if aAA ov TTJS
pleasure is an avairX^puffts, the
body must be that which feels
8
De An. iii. 9 fin., after the
pleasure, but this is not the case.
4
passage just quoted: oAAa ^V
Eth. vi. 2; see p. 113, n. 2, ouS T] ope^is TavTvjs Kvpia TTJS Kivf,-
 PHYSICS 127

man, whereas the Will belongs to man alone. Both

1
as
Reason and Desire must therefore enter into Will as
constituent parts.
2
But in which of these two the
essence of the Will or the power of free self-determina
tion it is hard to say.
resides,
On the one hand, the
desire is attributed to Reason, which
power of controlling
is defined as the motive force, or more accurately the
3
source from which the resolutions of the will proceed:
4
jand immorality is treated as a perversity of Reason.

On the other hand, it is asserted that Reason initiates

of hand, must oboy the reason

o-ecos yap eyKparels
w i. 5 o Se vovs
iridviJ.ovvTS ov (Polit. :

Kal TrpaTTOvffiv
]V i>pe|ti/,
a\\ a
.
De An. iii. 9, v. 598, 5
above tirirdrrovTos rov vov. EtJt.
Cf.p.H4,n.3,andp. 117,n.3.
1 :

2
See J 14, n 3. and Etli. i. 13 : the opeKTiKbv partakes of
p.
vi. 2, 1139, a. 33 Sto our avev : \6yos, p Karr^Koov ivriv avrov Kal
vov Kal Siavoias OUT avev T/fli/cr/s Treidapx^v, similarly Polit. vii.
effrlv eews T/ irpoaipcffis. b, 4 Sio : 14, v. p. 588 \6yos, however,;

f
vovs T] vpoa pfffi* v) resides only in the reason),
T) ope/cri/cos
Kal f? roiavnj and this obedience it is which
opeis SiavofiTiKri
constitutes the difference be
apxn &ve P wiros. If, in opposition and the
to the above view, it be said that tween the eyKpaTTjs
the will belongs to op(is, which aitpaT-fjs (De An. iii. 9,see p. 12(5,

is regarded by Aristotle as a n. 6). In JEt/i. iii. 5, 1113, a,

5 (iravtrai yap e/cafTTOs frr&v irws
separate part of the soul (SCHRA-
DEE, Arlt. de Volunt. Doctr. 12), 7rpa|ei, orav eis
avrbv avaydyp rV
this cannot be admitted. Aristotle apx hf [sc. TT)S 7rpa|ea)i- when lie is
himself states clearly enough that convinced that the action depends
reason is an element of will, but only on himself] Kal avrov [thi* is
reason is essentially different the partitive genitive] els TO yyov-
from the animal soul to which fitvov TOVTO yapTb irpoatpov/j.evoi ),
we must understand by TO rjyovpe
ypets belongs.
vov the reason, not (as WALTER,
"

frequently says
Aristotle
that the command
in the soul Lehre v. d. prdkt. Vernunft, 222
reason. sqq. prefers to take it)
the har
belongs by nature to the
It is Kvpiov in it (Eth. x._7, ix. 8 ;
monious union of reason and en
see p 126, n. 1, supra) it has no ;
deavour, the man as a whcle,
i 5, 410, a, 12 which could not be called the
superior (De An.
:

TTJS 8e xj/uxfjs
elvai n Kpelrrov Kal governing part of the man.
4
S Etli. vii. 7, 1150, a, 1 sqq, c.
&p%ov, aSvvarov ktvvaT&rcpov
f TL rov vov~). Desire, on the other 9, 1151, a, 17 sq.
 128 ARISTOTLE

no movement and is perfect and infallible.

1
But if

Reason cannot err, it cannot be the seat of the Will, to

which belong the doing of good and the doing of evil.

Where Aristotle 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
take up any decided position. His high conception of
the nature of the spiritual element in man forbids him
to implicate Reason in the life of the body, or to
attribute to it error and immorality ; on the other hand,
it is Reason alone that the reins of government in
to
the soul can be committed. But the two elements are
in reality inseparable, and in deducing only what is

good in our actions from Reason, while limiting to the

lower faculties of the soul all that is faulty, every act

which has for its object what is divisible and corporeal,
allchange in act or state, he breaks up human nature
into two parts between which no living bond of con
2
nection can be discovered. Similar difficulties would

-
1
Of.on the former head, p. The difficulty remains even al-
on ihe second, De An. iii.
126, n. 5, though we assume with BRANDTS
10(p.l25,n. 4), and p. 197,n.4,*M- a, 105 sq. ii. b, 1042 sq.) that
(iii.

pra. Etk.i. 13, 1102, b, 14: rovyzp freedom, according to Aristotle,

Kal rov d.Kpxrovs rl>v consists in the spirit s faculty of
TJS ^UXTJS rb \6yov %x ov self-evolution in accordance with
opdus yap Kal enl ra its own fundamental nature.
/3e ATiffTa TrapaKaXe i so that in For we may ask to which part of
incontinence the mistake does the soul this evolution belongs ?
not lie with the rational part of The active reason cannot cer-
the soul ibid. ix. 8, 1169, a, 17
;
:
tainly evolve itself, for it is un-
Tras yap vovs alpe irai rb /SeAno-Toi/ changeable; nor can the appetitive
eauT<,
6 8 eTnetK/ys Tretflapx 6 ? T< aQ d sensitive exhibit free self-
pcp, where virtue is said to con- evolution, being always deter-
in the subordination of the
si st mined by something else only- ;

higher portions of the soul to where there is reason do we find

the reason, which in its turn free activity. Lastly, the Passive
always chooses the right. Keason, which 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

that constitutes the
acts and shows more clearly than anything else
states,
1

how imperfectly he grasped the problem of the unity of

the..personal life.

Now, if reason enters man from without, and if its

union with the other faculties of his soul, and with the

alternative, open to the same

is tion as of error, for
according to
charge of indefiniteness and Aristotle s expressed opinion
contradiction we cannot find
;
change and evolution are con
any definite place for it between fined to the sphere of sensation
reason and sense. The above defi or even more strictly to the body.
nition of freedom is more like Leib It is difficult, therefore, to
say
nitz s than Aristotle s. Here also, nhat Aristotle regarded as the
as in the case already discussed seat of the freedom of the will.
i.413, supra, sq., BRANDIS seems He remarks, indeed, that we
1

to find too close a resem are conscious of every form of

blance between Aristotelian and our activity as such, and there
modern German doctrines. The fore of our own existence. Etk.
argument upon which he chiefly ix. 9, 1070, a, 29 6 5 6pwv on :

Jelies for the above view is that, 6pa alaQdvfTai ical 6 ci/coiW on
self-determination has its seat aKOVfi KOL 6 paSifav on a5/et, teal
in the governing part of our fTTL T(aV &\\(t)V 6/LLOlWS CffTl TI Tl)
nature, and therefore in the i^vov on fvepyov/nev, SXTTC
spirit, and if further the spirit is /j,6 av on ai(T0az><fyie#a
/cat
,he essence of a man, we may on TO 5 on
voov/j.v.
conclude that it must develop al<r6av6/j.eGa 7) voov^v, on etr/ueV
by free self-determination accord rb -yap f lvai 3\v ao-0aye<r0cu ^) p<mz/) ;
ing to its original character as This consciousness, however, he
individual essence. But spirit or regard s as im mediately given with
reason constitutes, according to the activity in question. In per
Aristotle, only one side of the ception it has its seat in the
will its reference to sense is as
; ciimmunls (seep. 69, n. 3).
nf.ttsus
essential an element. Will is not How the identity of self -con
pure reason, but rational desire. sciousness in the different activi
And even were it not so, if will which he refers to different
ties L
were exclusively an exercise of partsand faculties of the soul is
reason, we could only conclude to be explained he does not
that it is as incapable of evolu- inquire.
VOL. II.
130 ARISTOTLE

body, continues throughout to be merely an external

1

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 is a mortal and also
an immortal part in the These unite together
soul.

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
followed Plato. In his earlier writings he enunciated
the Platonic doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul,
itsincarceration in the body, and its return at death to
a higher existence,
2
He therefore assumed the con
tinued personality and self-conscious existence of the
individual after death, although he failed, like Plato,

fullyto investigate the question how far this doctrine

was consistent with the presuppositions of the Platonic
3
philosophy. With the independent development of
his own system, however, he was necessarily led to

question these assumptions.

As he came to conceive
of body and soul as essentially united, and to define
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
immortality as they were held by Plato. Inasmuch as
1
Aristotle s doctrine of im- 2
The references on this sub-
mortality is discussed by ject already been given.
have
SCHEADEE, JaJir b.f. PMlologie, Cf. BEEN AYS, Dial. d. Arist.
vol.81 and 82 (1860), H. 2, p. 21 sqq. 143 sqq.
89-104 Leonh.
; SCHNEIDEE, 3
On which cf. Ph. d. Gr. i.
UnsterUlclikeitslehre d. Arislot. 717 sq.
4
(Passau, 1867), p. 100 sqq. Cf. p. 10, supra.
 PHYSICS 131

the soul is dependent upon the body for its existence

and activity, it must come
and perish into existence
with Only incorporeal spirit can precede and outlast
it.

the bodily life. But this, according to is to 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
distinguished from the
individual element in man. 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 of soul and
body, and which at death ceases
to be. If we think of reason as
separate from the
body, we must exclude from it love and
hate, memory
and intelligent
3
of
thought; likewise, course, all

See p. 6, n. 1, and p. 96, n. 1, 6 vovs xa.aa.v yhp tefoarov 1ffo >s

See on this point the

bee p. 98, n. 1,supra, passages cited on pp. 125, n. 4 and
ii. 3, 1070, a, 24: 101, n. 3, De An. i. 4, 408, a 24
r u
wTepov n fcroptoi sqq. iii. 5, 430, a, 22. In the
[whether anj thin^r remains after first of these
passages Sm^io-flai
the dissolution of the constituent f iv, p.i ff
eiv, fivwovefeiv are ex
<t>i\

parts of a composite substance] pressly denied of reason and

Pnroy m frforTftpoMfeiraiAtfei, the statement that these belong
oiov i
r) $vX r) roiovrov,^ 7r5(ra aAA in any sense to a rational
being
K2
132 ARISTOTLE

affections, together with the feelings of pleasure and

all of which belong to the sphere of the sensitive
pain,
and since even will depends for existence upon
life;
the union of Reason with Desire, it also must peiish
Spirit or thought
1

with the lower parts of the soul.

Aristotle doubtless conceived of as surviving death, and
since it realises itself only in the activity of thought,

this activity also must remain untouched by death, as

it is held to be proof against old age.
2
But of the way
in which we are to think of this continuance of thought

after its separation from the body and the lower faculties
of the soul Aristotle gives us no hint whatever. Even
is without the aid of pictorial
impossible
thought
imagination,
3
which cannot be said
any to exist in

intelligible sense
after the death of the sentient soul.

And when the body, which the soul as individual pre

supposes ;
4
when perception, imagination, memory,
reflexion ;
when the feelings of pleasure and pain, the
is qualified by
the addition : Sib perishes at death, no individual
Kail rovrov QBcipopevov otfre fivri- thought is possible (p. 101, n. 3), it
oi/re ov yap fiteivov is obvious that neither can survive
povevei </>tAeT.

a\\a rov KOIVOV, t> airoAwAej/. death. SCHLOTTMANN S explana-

^j/,
With regard to the second,
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 pre-
sent. Since memory
to p. 70 sq.) is an attribute of the
sensitive soul and depends upon
the bodily organs, and since
without the passive reason, which
it has tion (p. 50 of the work mentioned
n. p. 123, n. 3, supra}, according
to
oujUVTj/iove<5<-
which the words ou ^vn/j-ov^vn^v,
&c. refer to the continuous activity
of the vovs TronjTi/cbs in the pre-
sent 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,
(according Cf p. 109, n. 1 2, and p.
]
.
,
1 26
sq.
2
See p. 96, n. 2. gnprti.
3
4
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, and how we can still speak of
any
personal life at all.
1
And. indeed, Aristotle himself in
expressly rejecting the idea that the dead can be happy,
and in comparing their state to the loss of all sense, 2
1
Even BKENTANO S Psychol. dead are incapable of any ac
d. Arut. 128 sq. fails to find a tivity. He says, indeed, in the
satisfactory answer to this ques passage that follows : 8o/ce? yap
tion while maintaining that the
;
elvai ri r<3 reGvewri Kal KO.K.OV Kal
soul must remain an individual ayaOov, e"iirfp
Kal raj U>VTI
/a r)

entity after its. separation from a I 9 a v

<r o e, and p. 1101,
y. e v o> 5
the body, he yet admits that it is b, 1 eoLKe yap e /c TOUTOJV, el Kal
:

no longer a complete substance, 8iiKve?Tai irpds ai>TOvs OTIOVV, eiV

repeating the statement, p. 196 ayddov eiVe TOVVO.VTIOV, afyavpov TL
sq. But how a man -can be the Kal /AiKptiv $) air\a>s ?) eiceivois elvai,
same person when he no lunger is el 8e yU^, Toaovrov
ye Kal TOIOVTOV
the perfect subsiance which he ware /u.^ iroielv evSai/Jiovas rovs /J.rj
is inthe present life, it is difficult uvras [those who are not so] ,u7j5e
to see not to mention that the
: TOWS OVTO.S atyaipe ia Qat r6 fj.aKapiov.
contradiction of an imperfect His meaning, however, cannot
substance finds no place in Ari here be that the dead have a feel
stotle s system. ing of happiness or unhappiness
2
EHi. iii. 4, 11 b, 22 (&ov\ri-
1 1, which is increased by the pro
cris 5 ecrrl TWV aSwdrcav, olov ada- sperity or misfortune of posterity
not here in point, as
vaa-ias ) is (which is the subject under dis
adavaffia must be understood to cussion). This is even expressly
mean here, not immortality after denied and would be wholly in
death, but immunity from death, consistent with the rest of Ari
deathlessness. Hid. c. 11, 1115, stotle s teaching. He is here
a, 20 the discussion is merely of
:
speaking of the aesthetic estimate
the common opinion. On the of human life, the question being
other hand, Ktli. i, 11 is of im how far the picture of happiness
portance for our question. Ari with which the life of a man pre
stotle here asks whether the dead sents us is altered by the light or
can he happy, and replies (1100, shade cast upon it by the
a, 13): ^ rovr6 ye iravreXus arotrov fortunes of his descendants, just
ttAAcus re Kal roils Xeyovtfiv TIJJUV as (1100, a, 20) by the honour or
tv4pytidv nva rrjv evSat/jLoyiav ; el
disgrace which follow himself
bv re9veu>ra evSai- after death. How remote is
(J.QVO. /UTje oAo>i/ rovro an actual, personal immortality
&c., obviously implying that the from Aristotle s thought is
134 ARISTOTLE

seems to deny the existence of any such remnant.

Under these circumstances
ifc is impossible to
say that
Aristotle taught a doctrine of personal immortality.
1

He taught merely the continued existence of thinking

spirit, denying to the attributes of personality,
it all

and never explaining nor apparently even raising the

question, how far this spirit can still be regarded as
belonging to an individual, as incorporeal reason, in
spite of its eternity and impassivity, certainly is.
2
In
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 Form, so here we are left in the dark
as towhether Personality resides in the higher or in the
lower faculties of the soul, in the immortal or in the
mortal part of our nature. We are left to conclude
that each of these alternatives involves difficulties which
Aristotle has done nothing to remove, and which, there-
obvious also from Kt h.ix. 8, 1169, have referred in such a case to
a, 18. The good man, he there the recompense in the next life ;

says, will do much for his friends in Aristotle there is no trace of

and country, K&V Serj virepaTroOvr} any such conception. The same
a/tew . . .
6\iyov yap xptivov is true of Etli. iii. 12, 1117, b, 10 :

rirrdr/vai ff(()6Spa /zaAAoi/ eAoir hv r) offcp ch/ /uaAAoz/ r}]V apST^v e^P
TTO\VV ?j/JeVa, Kal /Btaxrai Ka\<as iracrav Kal eyScu/xoyeVTepos ?},
5
fviavrbv 7) TToAA ITTJ TVXOVTWS, Kal ^uaAAoi/ 7ri TW Qavd.r<p \VTrr]8 f)ffTai
/j.iav Tipa^iv Ka\r]v Kal /j.eyd\7)v T) rep TOIOVTC{> yap /m.d\iffra fjv aiov,
TroAAas Kal /Aiicpas. Toils 5 vTrepairo- Kal OVTOS /AeyicrTwv ayaQwv airo-

OvflffKovcri TOUT fous o"i>,u/3cuVei

.
crrepe iTai elSws.
alpovvrai yap psya /caAoi/ eauroTs.
l
SCHEADEK, ibid. 101 sq.
-
Besides the inherent worth of the See p. 99, n. 5,
noble deed Plato would certainly
 PHYSICS 135

fore, we cannot doubt tie failed himself to observe.

Reason as such or Pure Spirit cannot, it would appear,
be the seat of Personality, since it is the eternal,
universal, and immutable element in man. It is un
touched by birth and death, and by the changes of the
temporal life. It abides immutably within the circle of
itsown 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, all that is definite and living in personal exist

ence. 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 any inner unity between

the two. And what is said about the Passive Reason
and the Will is wholly unfitted, on account of its vague
ness and uncertainty, 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 We
deal with an activity to which knowledge serves only
as a means. This consists either in production or in
action.
1
The 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

1 -
See i. 187, supra. Practical
upon the method of this science, i. philosophy is also called ^ -rrepl

168, n. 2, supra. That it has not to ravdpunriva (pi\o<ro(pia, Etli. x. 10,

do, however,merely with practical 1181, b, 15.
interests is obvious among other 3
The common view of the
passages from Polit. iii. 8 init. : relation between them, which
Set 5e /j.iKp<p
Sia /j.a.KpoT(puv etVeTj/ was adopted i 187, viz. that
ris e/ca<TT7j
TOVTWV T&V iroXirti&v Ethics treats of the moral activity
Kal yap e^ei Tivas vnropias,
<TTIJ> of the individual, Politics of the
T$ 8e TTfpl SKaffTTIV /J.(do$OV <pl\0- State, cannot, even in view of
cro(povvTi Kal i*}) /J-dvov airo- what NICKES, Zte pol d. Arist.
wpbs rb trparTeiv Libr. p. 5 sq., and BRANUIS, p.
i rb /mr) irapopav /j.t]5e TI 1335, remark, be admitted to be
aAAa SyXovv rr)v irepl
/, wrong. Aristotle certainly dis
dA7j0etoj/. While, there tinguishes (Etli. x. 10) between
fore, practical philosophy qua the two parts of Politics on the
practical has to do with action, ground that the second deals
qua philosophy it has the scien with the means by which the
tific interest of pure knowledge. knowledge of virtue acquired in I
 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

1
forms the link between Ethics and Politics.

(the first is applied to life, and It is not true that the Magna
he proves the necessity of this Moralia, subordinates politics to
further investigation on the ethics (BRANDIS, foW.): thelatter
ground that discussions (or know is there described at the very

ledge, able of
\6yoi) are not outset as a /m-fpos TT/S 7roAiTt:?}s,
themselves to virtuous. make men it being added that the subject

Accordingly, Ethics and Politics as a whole should be called, not

may be said to be related to one ethics, but politics. When NTCKES,
another as the pure and the ibid., sees in the Ethics only a
:
applied part of one and the same treatise upon the siimm/trn
science. But as those means are bontim, this description (in so far
to be found, according to Ari as it indicates merely the ascer
stotle, only in the life of the tainment and enumeration of the
community, upon which the Ethics constituent parts of the su-mmiini
(as an account of moral activities Ijonwni) is too narrow the Ethics
;

as such) does not further enter, itself classifies its contents (s.
the above description corresponds 10 init.~) under the four titles of
to the actual relation in which the suinmum bonum, the virtues,
the works stand to one another. friendship, and pleasure so that
Even Aristotle, moreover, dis it is apparent, even on the sur

tinguishes (Eth.
between two kinds of practical
knowledge that which refers to :
the individual, and that which
refers to the community, eori
Se, he says, teal TI iroA.m/cJ) Kal
ets, T& ^Woi
<pp6vi]<ns T] O.VTT] ]UfU
elvai ov ravrbv avrcus, and after
distinguishing the different de
partments of
Tr^Aiv, sc. eTTKTTrjjiojs) he continues :
vi. 8, 1141, b, 23) 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
rj suinmum bonuiit the detailed
investigation into all its condi
tions and constituent parts, the
suggested description would be
politics (TT)S TTept too wide, for its most important
constituent, theoretic activit} is
7
,

8o/ce? Se Kal (ppovrjffis fJ.d\iffT slvai not fully discussed in the Eth*e*.
ft irepl avrbv Kal eW. While, how 1
We have already discussed
ever, (ppovncris inis knowledge (p. 96 sq ) the threefold revision
relation to moral conduct, ethics of the Ethics of Aristotle, and
is simply the account of the prin shall confine ourselves in the
ciples which (pp6vr)<ns establishes. following account to the Nicoma-
Eudemus (v. i. 186, n. 4, supra) chean Ethics, which alone is
accordingly calls it by this name. genuine, giving the parallel
138 ARISTOTLE

1. The End of all hurnan activity l is the Good, or,

more accurately, that Good which is within the reach of
human action, for Ethics has no concern with the
abstract Idea of the Good. 2 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.
sufficient of itself to invest life with the highest worth. 3

passages from the other two only Nor is it true that the idea of
where they elucidate or deviate the good, at any rate as an ideal,
from it in any important respect. furnishes the guiding principle
1
Of. on this subject TEICH- in the pursuit of the KTIJTO. Kal
MULLEE ( Die Einheit der arist. irpaKTa rcov ayaOdav. Inter alia,
Eudamonie, Bulletin de la Class? he says :
airopov Se Kal ri w
d. Sci. hist.-philol. et pollt. de
VAcademie de St-Petersbourg, etScos cturo rdya66v t

t. xvi. N. 20 sqq. p. 305 sqq.), &c., as though moral philosophy

who rightly emphasises the dis were meant for the service of
tinction between the constituent handicraft. This it certainly is
elements and the external con not in Aristotle himself (as may
ditions of happiness. herewith be expressly remarked
2
Etll. i. 1 illlt. Ua in view of the remarks of TEICH-
Kal Tracra ^ue tfoSos, 6fj.oicas 8e MULLER, loc. cit. 315 sq.), and
re Kal irpoaipfffis, aya6ov yet it must be if he is justified

etyizcrOai So/ce? Sib Ka\ws in using against Plato an argu

vavro TayaObv, ov irdj/T e^ierai. ment tha.t with equal justice
This good is called here (1094, a, might be turned against himself ;

18), and c. 2, 1095, a, 16, irpaKrlv for it must be confessed that the
and irpaKThv aya96v. Aristotle advantage to be derived by the
next comes to speak more fully, c. weaver or the carpenter in the
4, of the Platonic Idea of the pursuit of his calling from Ari
Good (Ph. d. Gr. i. 591 sqq.), and stotle s treatise upon happiness
after bringing forward several is not great.
3
other arguments against it Etli. i. 1, 1094, a, 18 et 8^j :

says, ibid. 1096, b, 30 this : Tt re Aos fffrl ruv irpaKruiv & 5t

discussion, however, properly uvrd /3ouAdyU.e0a, TaAAa 8e Sta
belongs to another science et ; TOVTO, Kal fj.}]
Travra 8t erepov
yap Kal tvriv sv TI Kal [so RASSOW, alpov/bLfOa (irpofiffi yap ovrw 7 ets
Forsch. ill), die niliom. Eth. aireipov, &<TT elvat KSV^V Kal /j.aT-
53 sq., with three MSS., for rb aiav T}\V ope|tj/) SyjAoi/ a>s TOUT Uv
Koivrj KaTyyopov/jLevov aya9bv ely rayaObv [absolute good] Kal
1

XMpiffTov TL avrb Kofl avTO, 5?jAoj/ To apiffTov. c. 5 in every form :

is OVK &j/ en? irpaKTOv ovfie KTt]T^)V of activity the good is that ov
vvv Se TOIOVTOV n
^VjT fa AOITTO TrpaTTcrai the
 ETHICS 139

This highest Good is admitted on all hands to be

Happiness but when we ask in what Happiness itself
:
l

TeAos. WO~T Ti TUIV (BEANDIS, 1344; MUNSCIIEE,

p.
OLiravTwv etrrl Te Aos, TOUT Uv efoj QiM st. crlt. in Etli. N. Marb.
TO TrpaKTOv ayaOov, el 8e TrAetco, 1861, p. 9 sqq.), gives a wholly
TavTa TO 8 apiarov Te AetoV
. . . inadmissible sense to the passage ;

Tt (paij/erai . . .
TeAetoVepoi/ 8e how could what is complete still
\yo/j.fv TO KaO avTO SIUKTOV TOV grow ?
(as TEICHMULLER rightly
Si eVepo;/ /ml Tt) /iTjSe TTOTe Si ^AAo asks, loo. cit. p. 312), or how can
aipfrbv Kal KaO aina Kal 8td
TU>V
happiness, which
contains all
To00 aiptT&v, Kal air\>s Sr; Te Aeioi goods in be increased by
itself,
1
To /ca0 auTO aiptrov del /cal ^tTjSe - further additions ? Moreover, it
iroTe 8 aX\o. And further on : isexpressly said, Etli. x. 2, 1172,
TO 700 Te\iov ayaGov avTapKes b, 32, that nothing can be the
flvai So/ce? TO 8 avTapKts . . .
good o jueTa TIVOS T&V /cafl avrd
Tidefjiev o /JLOvov/j.vov alpcTov Troie? ayaOuv atperwrepov yivfrai. TEICH-
TOJ/ j8: oj/ e^Sea (simi
/cal /xrySei/os MULLER accordingly proposes to
larly PLATO, Phileb. 22, B); x. 6, take the sentence as an apagoge :

H76, b, 30. Cf. i. 12, where

,
happiness is the most desirable
it is explained that happiness, thing, if we do not regard it as
as complete in itself, is not an a sum, but if we do, then the
v, but a Ti/uiiov, something addition of the smallest of goods
must make it more desirable,
1
Aristotle presupposes this, and therefore we cannot regard
Etli. i. 2, 1095, a, 17; liliet. i. 5 it as a sum of particular goods.
init., as
something universally The same explanation is given
acknowledged. He proves it more by THILO, Zeitschr. /. eseacte
fully, Etli. i. 5, 1097, a, 34 sqq. ; Phil. ii. 3, 284 sq., and LAAS
cf. x. 6, 1176, b, 3, 30, from the The question, how
(see infra).
points of view indicated in the ever, in the passage is, not whether
preceding note. In Etli. i. 5, how happiness sum of goods, but
is a
ever, the words, 1097, b, 16 sqq., whether the most desirable
it is
make a difficulty !Vi 8e, it is : of things or not nor does aw- ;

here said, -navrcav alp^ru>Tarf]v [sc. apiQ/uiov/jivos mean regarded as a

elVcu] /AT; sum ;ffwapiG^lv can only here
have the meaning which it has
8e 5r)\ov o in the kindred passage (explained
e\axicfTOv TWV ayaOwv by Top. iii. 2, .117, a, 16, and
yap aya6u>v yivsrai rb ALEXANDER in loco) Rliet. i. 7,
jiiei oi/, b,yaQG)v 8e rd ^l^ov atpe- 1363, b, 19 Polit. vi. 3, 1318, a,
;

Ta>Tpov det. The most obvious 35; Soph. El. 5, 167, a, 25; Etli.
meaning words, viz. of these ii. 3, 1105, b, 1; i.e. it must mean

that happiness is in the highest either to count along with or

degree desirable without the to count up ;
when used with
addition of anything else, and is a singular subject it can of course
increased by every addition only mean the former, and ac
although of ever so small a good cordingly is explained, 1. 14 of
140 ARISTOTLE

consists, differences at give the

once arise.
1
Some
preference to pleasure, others to practical activity, a
third class to the scientific life. 2 The first of these
views seems to Aristotle hardly to deserve refutation.

the same passage, by the former case, we may supply

and understood in this sense, iravTbiv after alperwrepav in the
M. Mor. i. 2, 1184, a, 15 sqq. of. ; preceding words and explain
ILASSOW, Beitr. z. Erld. d. nik. them to mean : We hold that
Ethilt (Weimar, 1862, Gymn.- happiness is the most desirable
Progr.), p. 5 sqq., where the ex of all things so far as it is not
planations of LAAS (Ev8ai/u.oi>{a itself classed as one of them or ;

Arist. Berl. 1858, 7 sqq.), Mux- in so far as it is classed along

SCHEK, and others, are also dis with other things, combined with
cussed. KAFSOW sown explana the smallest other good, that it is
tion (p. 10 that happiness is
: more desirable than all else be
not to be reckoned among goods sides. The most recent editor
nor regarded as a good beside and commentator on the Nico-
other goods ) is not easy to macliean Ethics, RAMS AUEK, pays
harmonise with the language of no regard either to the inherent
the passage. If the text is cor difficulty of the passage or to
rect, we must explain it rather the attempts of his predecessors
to mean We regard happiness
: to solve it.

as the most desirable of all

1
Fee Etli. 2, 1095, a, 20
i.

things, so far as can be com

it sqq., c. 9 init. ;
Rhet. ibid. 1360,
pared with them without itself b, 14 sqq., where the things
being classed as one of the iravra which are commonly regarded as
[it is more desirable than any happiness are enumerated and
thing else] if we dosire to class
;
discussed in detail for the special
it as a good together with other necessities of the orator.
goods, it would become more
-
Aristotle says previously,
desirable still if its value were EtJi.i. 2, 1095, a, 28, that he does

increased by the addition of not intend TO investigate every .

ever so small anotln-r good. view upon the nature of happi

But it is difficult to see the ness, but only such as are the
force of the latter remark, for most commonly accepted and the
the proof of the proposition most plausible. As such he
that happiness is perfect good, is names these three, c. 3 init.
only weakened by this concession TO -yap ayaObv KCU TTJI/ tvaiij(.ov iav
to a non-Aristotelian point of ovic aAo ycos eoiKaffiv e /c rwv fiiwv
view. It is a question whether VTTO\a/J.pdl>ll ol flfV 7TO,\A.ol Kal
the words v-n-epoxv yap aipeTu- . -
(pOpTlK&TClTOl T7]V ^8oi/T?f, Si6 Kttl

Ttpov del, or perhaps the whole fiiov ayairooiri T^V airoXaviTTiKov.

passage from crwapid/u.ov/u.evrii Se rpets yap elai ^aXiffra. ol irpov-
to alptTWT. del may not be an T VVV lp1f]/jLVOS KO.I 6

insertion by a later hand. In al rpiros 6 9ecapt]TiK6s,

 ETHICS 141

Without denying that pleasure is a good, he has a

most thorough contempt for the life which is dedicated

to pleasure alone. Pleasure, he remarks, cannot be the

Good, for these among other reasons that
it is :

highest
not self-sufficing ;
that some pleasures are not desirable ;

thatmany things have an independent value of their

own wholly apart from 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,
virtuous man recognises as such.
1

truly good which the

Just as little can honour or wealth be admitted to be
the highest good. The former does not so much affect
those to whom it is paid as those who pay it its value, ;

fact that it pro

moreover, consists essentially in the
duces consciousness of worth, which, therefore, is of
2
more value than the honour itself. Wealth, again, is
not desired on its own so that it wants the
account,
3
first characteristic of Good in the higher sense.

The happiness of man can, in fact, consist only in his

in that which is
activity, or more accurately
4
activity

1
Eth. i. 3. 1095, b, 19, x. 2, See e.g. Eth. i. 3, 1095, b, 31, c. G,

1172 b 26, 1173, b, 28 to the end 1098, a, 3 ;

and the more definite

of the chap.; c. 6, 1176, b, 12- statement, c, 9, 1098, b, 31 :

5e "Iffus ov /J.iKpbv eV
1177 a 9. 8ia<j>epei
KTr,<Ti

2
/;a. i. 3, 1095, b, 22 sqq. ^ xM ff r *>

&P iff Tov inroXa^avtiv

3
Ibid. 1096, a, o, cf. Hint. i. Kal eV e|ei $ fvtpye
y.
r^v fiev yap
5, 1361, a, 23. ^l eVSex 61
"
fV ayaObv airo- "

"
M^
4 re- reAeTi/ vvdpxovffav, diov T /ca0eu-
Aristotle frequently
not SOVTL % Kal &\\ws vws
peats that happiness does e^pjrj/cdTJ,
5 ov X ol6v re
consist in the mere possession of rty frepyctav
certain advantages, in a mere irpd^i yap e| avay/crjs Kal ev Trpa^i.

e|is (on which see i. 285,

n. 3, sup.) As at the Olympic games it is not
or Ki-ijffiv, but in actual activity, sufficient to be strong and fair, m
 142 ARISTOTLE

proper to him as man.

1
What kind of activity is this ?
Not the general vital activity, which he shares even
with plants not the
sensitive activity, which
;
belongs
to the lower animals as well as to man but the
activity ;

of reason. 2 Now
the activity of reason, in so far as it
is
rightly performed, we call Virtue. The proper hap
piness of man consists, therefore, ID virtuous activity,
or, inasmuch as there are several such, in the noblest
and most .perfect of these.
3
But this is the theoretic
or pure activity of thought. For it belongs to the/
noblest faculty and directs itself to the
highest object;!
order to win crown of the rpbs rb tpyov KidapHrrov
victory, but one must engage in fj.ev yap rb KiOapi^tiv, (nrovSaiov Se
the contest for it so in life we rb eu 8
OVTWS, dvOpunrov Se
i

win the good and the fair by epyov fayv riva, ravrriv 8e
action alone. In reference to evepyeiav Kal irpd^is ^era
these passages, see x. 6, 1176, a, \6yov, a-irovfiaiov 8 dvSpbs ev ravra
33: enro^ev 8 on OVK CGTIV e ts
[77 Kal /caAais, tKaarov 8 eS Kara.
rr)v
ei ScujU.o/ Kal yap Tip Kadevfioi/Ti
iaJ otKeiav dperr)v aTTOTeAetTai ei 8
8ta virdpxL dv
/3iow KOU TOJ . . . ovrca Tb dvQpuTrivov dyaQo
SvaTvxovvTi ra /uLfyicrra aAAa . . .
yiverai /car ctperV,
yUaAAoy els evepyeidv Tiva Qereov. at dperal Kara
ix. 9, 1169, b, 29: 77 euSat^aoj/t a Kal reAeiorciTT?!/. x. 6, 1176, b, 2 :

fvipyeid T(S CCTTIV, 77 8 ei/epyeia activities are valued either for

STJ AOI OTI yivzTai Kal oi>x wTrapyet the sake of something else or for
Sxnrep KTri/ud TI. their own sake the latter is the ;

Eth. i. 6, 1097, b, 24: we

1
case when nothing is
expected
shall discover wherein happiness from them beyond the activity
et Tb epyov TOV
consists, A7j<|>0e/7j itself. Happiness (y.
supra} must
dvOp&Trov. &<nrep yap av\T]Tp . . . be an activity of the latter kind.
Kal iravTl Tex v LT P>
Kc " oAcus Ziv ToiavTa 8 eiz/ai SoKovcm/ at
Kar
eVrlj/ Hpyov TI Kal irpd^is, eV TW dftfTTiv Trpdteis. rd yap Ka\d Kal
tpyu>
SoKe? Tayadbv elvai Kal TO ev, (TjrovSaia Trpdrreiv rwv Si aura,
aiptrtav [sc. eo-TiV]. Kal T>V TraiSiuv
HO~TL TIepyov avTOv. 8e at rjSe iai.
Happiness, however,
*
Ibid. 1. 33 sqq. cannot consist in these (see p. 141,
3
Eth. i. 0, 1098, a, 7 e* 8 n. 1, sup.), but
(1177, a, 9) eV rats
:

CTT\v epyov di>6pxTrov ^u^rjs evep- /car dpeTrjv fvepyt iais it is 10,
yeia /coxa Xoyov T)
Tb 8 avTo (partis epyov flvai
avev \6yov, ^ 1099, b,
;

26) tyvxvis evepyeia /car

(i.

T<
aperty iroid ns, or more
accurately
ycvi ToCSe Kal TovSe (TirovSalov . . .
(i. 13, init.), tyvxrjs evepyeid TIS
!Trjs war /car
 ETHICS 143

is exposed to the least interruption, and affords the

pleasure
tighest it is least
dependent on foreign ;

lupport and external expedients it is its own aim and ;

and is valued purely for its own sake in it

>bject, ;

man arrives at rest and peace, while in the military

and political, or in the practical life
generally, he is

ever restlessly pursuing ends which lie outside the

activity itself. Reason is the Divine in us. It is the
true essence of the man. The pure activity of reason
can alone perfectly accord with his true nature. It-

alone can afford him unconditional satisfaction, and

raise him above the limitations of humanity into the
life of God. 1 Next to it comes moral activity, which
1
Eth. x. 7, init. : el 5 yap p av0pci)ir6s eo~Tiv OVTW
T) ev8a.ifj.ovia evepyeia. war aperr/i/ <xAA
p Qe16v TI ev avT$
evXoyov Kara r?V KpaTLtrrrjv avTf} uffcf 8e Stacpepet TOVTO TOV
8 ai/ e?77 TOV apiffTOv. eire 8^7 vovs TOffOVTca Kal rj evepyeia. TIJS Kara
TOVTO e lTe &AAo rt, . . . eire Qelov eT7)v. el 87^7 Qelov &c.
bv Kal avrb e tTe rcav ev r)(juv rb Oeio- (see 161. X.
p. 8, 1178, b,
rarov, TOVTOV evepyeta Kara T}]V
f) 1 : we require many aids to
oiKeiav aperrjv eft) Uv r] T\eia evSat- action, <p
8e OewpovvTi ovo evbs T&V
Trpos ye T^V evepyeiav
TOI. After proving this as above, XP La ,
V.A ws eiTrelv Kal eju-Koo id
Aristotle continues, 1177, b, 16: eo~Ti irpos ye T}\V decapiav p 8
et 8$; TUV i*.tv Kara ras dperos avOpwiros eo"Ti Kal TrAetocn o~vrj,
irpa|ecoi/ at iroXirtKal Kal atpe^Tai TO, KUT apeTr/v irf>a.TTetv

/caAAet Kal fieyeOfi SeTjcrerat 8 ovv TUV TOLOVTWV irpbs

avrai 8 atrxoAoi Kal reAous Tivbs T^ avOpcaTreveffdai. i] Se reAeia
tfyizvTai Kal ov Si auras atperai evftai/ULOvla on QeutpriTtK t] T IS effTiv
etcrti/, 7) 8e TOV vov evepyeia (nrovSfj evepyeia Kal evTevQev av tyaveir}.
T6 8ia<pplJS
So/C6i 06(Wp7JTtK^ OVffa, The gods are pre-eminently con
Kal Trap avr^v ovSevbs sidered happy but what actions ;

can we assign to them ? Shall

ai/TTj 8e (Twav^ei r^f tvepyeiav, Kal we suppose that they exhibit
T& avrapKes 8^ Kal a"xoAct(TTj/cbz/ Kal their justice by buying and
&TPVTOV avdpunrct), Kal ocra aAAa
a>s
selling, their valour by en
TO? {jLaKapicp air ovf/ner at, Kara rav- counteringdanger, their liber
Tf]v T^V fvepyeiav ovra, r\
<paivTai ality of money, their
by gifts
reAeia Srj fvHcufjtovla avrt] ai/ 6^77 av- self-command by the conquest of
Bpcairov . . 6 8e TOIOVTOS ai/ e^Tj
. evil desires ? Nor will they
fiios KpfiTTcaf $) /car avOpwirov ov sleep like Endymion. 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

be regarded as a superhuman good whereas moral ;

virtue is in an espec al sense the of man.

: 1
</ood

While these are undoubtedly the essential and in

dispensable elements of Happiness, Aristotle does not
) exclude from that notion other gifts and advantages,
I some of which proceed from moral and rational activity,
2
while others are independent of it. Thus, for instance,

tavri t
&c. (see i. ?97, n. 1, supra) Pol. vii. 15, 1334, b, 14.
. . . rots Trei/ yap 0eo?s airas 6 1
Eth. x. 7 (see preceding n.) ;

jSios fj.aKa.pios, ToTs 5 avQpcairois, e</>

C. 8 init. Sevrepws 5
[euSaf^wj/]
.

offov 0/j.oicafj.d ri TT)S rotavrys evep- o icara T^V &X\i)v aper^j/ [/Sios]

yelas virdpxzt r&v 8 a\\ccv Cv uv at yap /car avrfyv fvepyeiai dvdpca-

ovfiev euSatyUOz/e?, eVeiS?? oi>5a/J.rj
jriKai ffvvffcvKTai Se Kal ^
. . .

6 f capias. e(p>
ocrov 8)7 (ppovrjais r?7 TOV tfOovs apery . . .

ivGi rj Oeup a, Kal % v8ai/j.ovia, (rvvrtprrHAcvai 8 avrai [the ethical

virtues] Kal ro?s TrdOecri irepl rb
Kal evZaifj-ov^lv [sc./uaA\oi/ uTr ffvvderov av elev of 8e rov avvQerov
ov Kara (rvju-fiffiyKls, aAAa Kara dperal dvOpcaTriKai. Kal 6 ftios Sr] 6
rr]v Becapiav avr^j yap Kad auT7)v /COT avTOS /cat ^ evSaifJ-ovia. Ibid.
Tijji a. WCTT e^rj av r] ei 8cn/xoz//a 1178, b, 5 (see preceding n.).
dfcapia TIS. Metapli. xii. 7, 1072, As will be obvious from the pre
b, 24 ^ Oecapia rb ^diffrov Kal
:
ceding account, the distinction
apia-rov. Cf. i. 398, n. 5, supra. here is merely in the mode of
The contradiction between these expression, nor can we say with
statements and Pol. vii 2, 1324, HITTER 327) that, because
(iii.
a, 25, c. 3, 1325, b, 14 sqq. is only Aristotle wavers in the mode of
apparent. In the latter passages presenting his view, the theoretic
theoretic activity is not compared understanding is intended to be
as such with practical, but the left out of account in denning
life of solitary devotion to science human happiness.
2
with the social life of the state; The
statement that such
and while the practical life is things deserve to be called ad
declared to be the more excellent, vantages only in so far as they
the expression is used in it s wider have a directly moral significance
sense, and the theoretic activity (TEICHMULLER, loc. cit. 337 sq.)
which is self-sufficino:a.nd directed is not Aristotle s ;
he calls them
towards no external end is ex often enough goods, and that
pressly said to be the most which is a good is presumably
perfect form of Trpa^is. Cf. also an advantage.
 ETHICS 145

I
happiness necessarily presupposes a certain complete
ness of life. child cannot be happy A
any more than
it can be virtuous, for it is still
incapable of any rational,
action. 1 Mere temporary happiness, moreover,
[moral
is insufficient: one swallow does not make summer. 2
Therefore, if we cannot say with Solon that no man is

happy dead, yet we must admit that happiness

till he is

j
can, at any rate, only be looked for in a life which has
reached a certain degree of maturity.
I

Happiness, in fact,
is the virtuous activity of the soul in a 3
completed life.

Again, man
requires for perfect happiness certain
external goods. Happiness, it is true, is something
other than good fortune. 4
Poverty, sickness, and mis
fortune may even serve the brave man as an occasion
noble conduct, and so far the
really happy man can
for

never be miserable. And yet, on the other hand, no

will call a man any
jone longer happy if the fate of a
Priam overtakes him 5 and while the virtuous man ;

an be content with few 6

gifts of fortune, yet in many
jrespects they are indispensable to him without wealth, :

power, influence, little can be accomplished; noble

1
Eth. i. 10, 1100, a, 1. Etli. vii. 14, 1153, b, 21.
2

3
Ibid. i. 6 fin. 5
Mh.L
11, 1101, a, 6 (see p.
Ibid. i. fl, 1191, a, 14: 1 50, n. 2, infra) cf. vii. 14, 1153, ;

b, 17 ; Polit. vii. 13, 1332, a, 19.

FCOT dperrj^ TeAetcu/ et/epyovi/ra
ti
Eth. x. 9,
1179, a, 1
t
:

rots eKrbs ayaOo is IKO olrjrfoi/ iro\\&v Kal y

ifi/oi/. fj/r] T^ Tvxdvra 8er}(re(T0ai. rov fvSai/m.o^ ij(rou
reAftoi/
jteAAa &LOJ/ ; 7) TT^
_ .

eVSe^eTcu avev ruv eitrbs

jj.->1

i/cal ovrai Kal rt ov yap eV rfj

piov eivai virfp&oXfj rb
.

^i<nao^vov
ffoi ra Kara \6yov ; cf. p. l
irpa^is, Swarbv Se
n. 2, -<3,
avrapKS Kal ?;

IX. 7, 1177, b, 24: r] reAem 5^? Kal fi^i dpxovra yrts Kal Qa\a.Trrts
avrt] Uv ei jj avOpcaTrov,
-
\evfiai uo]/{a
l
TcpdrrfLv ra Ka\d. Private persons,
it is remarked, are as a rule the
\yap dreAe s eVri r<ii/
TTJS evSaiftovlas. happiest. Cf. Polit. vii. 1, 1323,
4
JW/. vii. 1, 1323, b, 26; a,38 sqq.
VOL. II. L
146 ARISTOTLE

birth, beauty, joy in one s children, are elements in

perfect happiness friendship ;

is even more necessary
to the happy than to the unhappy ;
health is invaluable
to all in a word, for complete satisfaction in life, besides
;

spiritual good, a certain supply of

material and external

advantages (xp^^la, svsrrjpia, evrjj/jLSpta) is indispen

sable, and tt$3 it is a mistake to suppose is neces
1

sarily bestowed by the gods upon

the virtuous man. 2
The taken in themselves, therefore, are
gifts of fortune

certainly a good, although to the individual they may

3
often turn out an evil.
Even pleasure Aristotle reckoned an element in

happiness, defending against the reproaches cast upon

it
4
it by Plato and Speusippus. For he takes a quite

1
See Eth. i. 9, 1099, a, 31 sqq. sistently treats elsewhere
c. 3, 1096, a, 1, c. 11, 1101, a, 14, matter of chance see Eth. ;
x.

22, vii. 1153, b, 17, viii. 1

14, 10, 1099, b, 20 sqq. vii. 14, 1173,
init. ix. 9, 11 (to which I shall b. 17 Polit. vii. 1, 1323, b, 27,
;

subsequently return), x. 8, 1178, c. 13, 1332, a, 29.

3
a, 23 sq. c. 9 init. Polit. vii. 1,
;
Etli. v. 2, 1129, b, 1 sqq. ;

1323, a, 24, c. 13, 1331, b, 41, also cf. c. 13/w.

4
Rhet. i. 5, 1360, b, 18 sqq. ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. pp. 506,
2
Aristotle says, indeed, Eth. 861,3. Whether Aristotle includes
x. 9 ad Jin., c. 10 init., that he the Cynics is not clear we might ;

who lives according to reason is conclude so from Eth. x. 1 ;

cf.

dear to the gods, who take plea ibid. 262,i. 2. For Aristotle s
sure in that which is akin to doctrine of pleasure see the full
themselves if the gods care for
;
discussion, Eth. x. 1-5, vii. 12-
men, such a one will be the most 15. It is sufficient to quote

highly favoured by them, and if x. 1173, a, 15

2, :
Xtyovffi 5e rb
anything is their gift it must be fifvayaObv &p{(r9ai, r^v 8 ^S
happiness. We have already seen aopiarov effect, ori Severa
that his system leaves no room jUaAAoi/ Kal TO i]TTOV (PLATO,
for a special providence. The Pklleb. 27, sqq. 30, & sq. and
E
care of the gods, therefore, if we other passages, see ZELL. Ph. d.
transfer the expression from po Gr. i. 506) but the same is true
;

pular to scientific language, must of the virtues or of health. It i

coincide with the natural opera further asserted that pleasure
tion of the rational life. External a motion and a becoming (cf Pi .

d. Gr. i. 506, 3): but if it were

goods, on the other hand, he con
 ETHICS 147

different view of its nature. Plato had relegated

pleasure to the sphere of indeterminate, 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
in as true a sense as health and beauty are the imme
diate outcome of bodily perfection. It is not a
move
ment and a becoming, but the goal in which every
movement of life finds rest and completeness. The 1

motion it must continue for a yeiav r)rj fjSovf).

rjSovf). 1174, b, 31 :

certain lapse of time, and there reAeto? 5e TT^V evepyeiav r) ^5oj/?;

fore, like all motion, have a ovx &s ?) e|is tvvTrdpxovffa [as this

definite velocity if a becoming, ; particular form of activity itself,

it must have a definite product ; as, for instance, virtue], dAA &s
but neither of these is the case : TI re Aos olov roils
pleasure produced by a motion,
is &pa. It lasts, there
but it is not itself a motion (ibid. fore, as long as the activity in
1. 29
sqq. c. 3, 1174, a, 19 sqq.). question continues as it was, but
Furthermore, every pleasure in changes and fades with the
volves a pain it is a satisfaction, :
activity itself, which in man can
and every satisfaction pre never but be an intermittent
supposes a want but there are one (cf. vii. 15, 1154, b, 20 sqq.),
enjoyments which involve no c. 5, 1075, a, 20: &vcv re yap
pain, and do not consist in satis fvepyeias ov yberai ySov)], Tracrdv
faction of a want ;
these last, re tvepyeiav TeAeiot }) fjSovf) oQev
however, are merely causes of SoKovffi Kal raj e/fSet
SLa<pepeiv
ra
pleasure, not the pleasure itself
1

yap erepa T$ e?5ei ixp" erepwv

(ibid. 1173, b, 7 sqq. vii. 15, 1154, olo/j.e6a TfXfiovffdai. This is fur- \

b, 15). Lastly, there are evil ther developed in the passage

pleasures but it does not follow
;
that follows, prominence being
for this reason that all pleasure is given to the fact that every ac-
evil (x. 2, 1173, b, 20 sqq. c. 5, tivity obtains from the pleasure
1175, b, 24 sqq. vii. 13 f. 1153, a, springing from it a heightened
17-35, b, 7-13). energy and power of endurance,
1
Et li.init. x.
pleasure 3 : whereas it is disturbed by that
perception, com
is like intuitive which proceeds from another;
plete at every moment of time : vii. 14, 1153, b, 14; see infra.
o\ov yap ri effn Kal /car ouSeVa The statement, Eliet. i.11 init.
is less accurate : inroKeiffOca 8
jov yivoiJt.vi]S TeAeicw- r/utV eli/cu t]v f]Qovr\v KLvnaiv nva
elSos. c. 4, 1174, a, rrjs Kal KaTaffTaffLv aOpoav
20: Kara iraaav yap Kal v fis THV virdpxova ai
ov}], <5,uo:a>s
Se SidvoLav Kal <j)v(Ti,v, AUTTTJJ Se TOVVCLVT IOV, For
6fwpiav . . . TeAeto? 5e T^JV vep- 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
1

the pleasure which springs from the most perfect

2
activity. The universal pursuit of pleasure, therefore,

according to Aristotle is an absolute necessity, and is,

3
indeed, nothing else than the instinct of life. Pleasure
4
cannot, it is true, be the highest good itself; and a
distinction is made between the different kinds of plea
sure, each of which has a value assigned to it in direct

proportion to the value of the activity which produces

it; only the pleasure of the virtuous man is declared
5
to be true and truly human. Nevertheless, Aristotle
v is far from excluding pleasure in general from the con-
1

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
of the soul, is often enough asserted by Aristotle. In

treating, for instance, of the relation between activity

ing, Aristotle does not regard 1153, a, 20.

2
the soul as moved at all, and, on Metapli. ibid. Etk. vii. 15,
;

the other, pleasure, according to 1154, b, 25 see p. 398, n. 5, sup.

;

3
the passage just quoted, is not a vii. 14, 1153, b, 25-32 x. 2,

motion, but the consequence of a J172, b, 35 sqq. c. 4 sq. 1175, a,

motion. This definition is again 10-21, 1170, a, 19.
ix. 9,
*
referred to, M. Mur. ii. 7, 1205, See p. 140,
supra.
5
x- 2, 1173, b, 20 sqq. c. 4
b, 6.
1
init. c. 5, 1175, a, 21 sqq. b, 24,
Metaph-xii. 7,1072, b, 16,
24; Mil. x. 2, 1174, a, 4, c. 4, 36 sqq. 1176, a, 17, c. 7, 1177, a,
1174, b, 20, c. 7, 1177, a, 22, b, 23, i. 9, 1099, a, 11, vii. 14, 1153,
20, i. 9, 1099, a, 7-29, vii. 13, b, 29 sqq. and n. 1, supra.
 ETHICS 149

and pleasure, he asserts the unconditioned superiority

of the former as definitely as could be desired. A life
devoted to enjoyment seems to him unworthy of man.
The only activity which he admits to be properly human
is the practical : the only one that is more than human
is the theoretic. 1
Pleasure is not the end and motive
I

of our actions, but only a necessary concomitant of

-.

activity according to nature. If the two could be

separated, a good man would unconditionally prefer

2
activity without pleasure to pleasure without 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
find immediate satisfaction in virtuous activity without
3
any addition of pleasure from without. From this point
of view the purity of Aristotle s ethics and the distinct
ness of his utterances
beyond suspicion. His are
account of external goods might with more reason be
accused of making man too dependent upon merely
natural and accidental advantages. Yet even these he

1
See p. 140 sqq. supra. TO. (pvffei rjSea. roiavra 8 at /car
2
Eth x. 2 Jin. ovSeis T ay :
aperrjv Trpdeis, Stare Kal TOVTOLS
eXoiro rjv iratS/ou Sidvoiav e-^wv eialv r/8e?ai Kal KaQ auras, ovfiev
Sia /3 ou, r^Sffyiei/os e <|>
ols TO. TraiSia 8^ TrpoaSelrai TTJS fjSoi rjs 6 fitos
J
a>s OLOV re /.laAtdTa, ot8e xaipeiv avruv Sicrirep Trepidirrov rwbs, aAA
iroiaiv n roov euff^lffrtov, /uLrjSeirore e%ei rrjvf)SonV ev eavrcp. irphs
TTjOrji/ct. Trepl TroAAa re rols elpr]fj.cj/ois yap ov5 ayaObs e<rr\v

vSrjv 7roir](Tai[j.e6 ai/ Kal el /XTjSe- 6 /x^ -^a tpuiv rais Ka\a7s Tpd^ffw
v eirupfpoi rjSov^j ,
oiov fipS-v, . . .ei 8 OI/TOJ, Ka9 avras &v e^ev
^ etSeVat, ras aperas at /car aperfyv irpd^eis f)Se?at . . .

et 8 e | a v d y K t]S eirovrai apicrrov apa Kal /caAAttrroi/ Kal

rovrois TjSoral, ouSej/ Siatyepei ^Siarov T; ev^aip.ovia, Kal ov 8ia>-

e\ot/j.e6a yap av ravra Kal el ^ piffrai ravra airavra yap

. . .

yivoir air avr&v T)$ovr\. c. 6, see virap-^ei ratra rats apiarais evep-
p. 142, n. 3, supra. yeiais. Polit. vii. 18, 1332, a, 22 :

3
Hid. \. 9, 1099, a, 7 : etrri roiovr6s effriv o <nrovficuos
<p
Sia
8e Kal 6 ffios avr&v Kad avrbv r]8vs ri]v aperr]V ra ayadd earL ra
. , . TO?S 8e (piXoKaAoLs evrlv v^Sea ayaOd.
 150 ARISTOTLE

only recognises in so much and

in so far as they are the

indispensable conditions of a perfect life and the instru

ments of moral is undoubtedly
activity ;
l
and in this he

On from wishing to
the other hand, he is far
right.
represent man as the sport of
fortune. He is convinced
that man s happiness and misery depend upon his
and moral condition that here alone we can
y spiritual ;

look for the foundation of lasting satisfaction that the ;

happiness of the virtuous man cannot easily

be shaken

by external fortune or changed

into misery by the
unhesitatingly as
2
hardest lot. Aristotle declares as

Plato 3
that the true goods are those of the soul:
external and physical goods, on the other hand, are
TCUS o
fflh. vii. 14, 1153, b, 16: Kal Koivfj TrjAecrtj/,

yap evepyeia reAetos efJ.- fjLTa apfT ljs KXopi]yf]lJ-fvfis 6*7rt

8 evfiai/Jioi ia T&V TOCTOVTOV S)CTT yueTe^eii TCOV war

Sib TrpocrSeTTai 6 aperV 7rpa|ecoi/. Cf. p. 144 sq. ;

TOCV ev (Tc6/xaTt ayadwv Kal ^A. ^^. i.

2>
w.
J
e/crbs Kal rrjs TU%rjs, OTTCOS /ATJ
J^/t. i. 11, 1100, b, 7: rb pev
Tat/ra. 01 8e Tl)V rats ri/xais 7raKO\ov9e7i> ovSafj.cas.

Kal rliv Svffrvx iais /Ji.eyd\ats bpOov ov yap tv Tainais Tb ev fy

zvdai/j.ova (pdffKOvres KaKtas, aAAa TrpotrSerrat TOVTGOV o
elvat, ecV y
ayaObs [the Cynics: avOpaiTTLVos fi ios, KaOdtrep e^n-a^e; ,

cf Ph. d. Gr. i. 258, 3, 267, 4

. ; Kvpiai 8 elfflv at
aperr?^ cj/e p- /car

but perhaps also PLATO see ibid. :

7eicu rr)s ev$ai/J.ovias, at 8 tvavriai
743 e/co j/Tes aifovres oi>8ej/ TOV tvavTiov Trept ,owSe^ 7 a P
. .
sq.], 3) 3)

Xeyovffiv. 1154, b, 11 How far :

have certain bodily enjoyments epyccv /3e/3ato T7js cos irepl ras eVep-
any value ? ^ our (as aya9al at 7ei as ras /car aper^v /xovt^corfpai
avayKalai, on Kal rb p.}] KaKbv 7ap /ca) TCOV fTriffrf]p.cov avrai 80-
1101, a, 5 &6\ios
ayaQov ecrnv; ^ /uej^pi TOV ayaOai ; Kovffiv elvai. :

ibid. i. 9 sq. 1099, a, 32. aSuj/aroi/ ouSeVore yevoir tt,v 6

/j.ev
ov /j.iiv [j.aKapi6s ye, av
7ap ir)
ou pdSiov ra KaAa irpdrrfiv
1 ivra. TroAAa 7ap ri>xais TTfpnrecrr).
ouSe TTOIK L\OS ye

KaOd-rrep St
t, bpydvwv Sia Kal evfj-erdpoXos : his happiness
Kal irAoirrou &C. b, 27 TOJV : will be disturbed only by many
<pt\cav

5e \oiirwv ayaOcov [besides virtue] grievous misfortunes, from which

ra ^tep virdpx fiV avayKalov, ra 8e he will again recover only with
avvepya Kal p^p^crtjua TrecpvKev difficulty."

Polit. vii. 1, 1323, b,

3
Lams, v. 743, B Qorg. 508,
bpyaviK&s. ;

40 /6os uev apLffros,

:
 ETHICS 161

valuable only as means to the former. 1

He even
self-love consists in the
expressly says that since true
effort after it does not hesitate for the
goods,higher
sake of friends and country to sacrifice all outward

advantage and even life itself. Yet in all such cases the

highest reward that of the morally beautiful action-

is reaped by the doer of it, since a great
and beautiful
action 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
is only our body
wrong, for in the former case it

EtU. i. 8, 1098, b, 12 veve- :

spiritual goods, on the other
uv Sr; rcav ayaO&v rpixfi, Kal hand, are valuable in proportion
rv to their greatness. If the soul
TO, irepl is of more value than the body
irepl
and external things, the goods of
Kiffra aya9d. Polit. vii. 1, 1323, the soul must be of more value
a, 24the happy man must pos
: than bodily and external goods.
sess all three classes of goods ;
en Se TT/S i|/ux^) s
evenev ravra
the only question is, in what Tre(j)VKv aipeTCi Kal
8e? irdvras

degree and proportion. In re rovs eu typovovvras, <xAA

atpelcrOa.!.

spect of virtue, most people are OVK eKeivcav eveKfV rrjv fyvX^V. The
very easily contented (TTJS aperrjs blessedness of the gods shows
%X fLV iKavbv elvcu vo^i^ovcriv oiroff- that happiness depends for its
ovovv) with riches, power, and
;
amount upon the degree of virtue
c

honour, on the other hand, there and insight, os ev5ai/j.wv (j.\v eari
is no satisfying them. We must Kal /j.aKapi.os, 8t ovdev 8e TU>V

point out to them, on Kr&vrai f^wrepiKccv ayaOuv ctAAa

Si a*/rbj/

Kal fyvXarTovffiv ov ray operas rots avrbs Kal T(f Troids ris elvai T}\V
6/cTos, aAA eKeiva ravrais, Kal rb <t>v<riv,
and accordingly we dis
evSat/j.ovla from evrvx
ia.
tinguish
virdpx*L rots rb -fjQos /mev Kal T)]V
2
Eth.. ix. 8, 1169, a, 6 sqq.,
Sidvoiav KCKOO fJL nfJ.evois els t)7rep/3o- where, among other things (see
especially the passage cited, p.
Se TOVTOIS 132). it is said, 9 ra /caAAi<rra
raj? \p-r\G (puiv, fv
:

e\\e nrov<TLv.
Material posses Trpdrreiv Koivfj T
Uv TT&VT etrj ra
sions, like every instrument, Seovra Kal I5ia eKaffTCf ra peyi-
[?]
have a natural limit imposed by ffra roi-
ayaQcav, efaep TJ aptrr]
rS>v

the purpose for which they are ovr6v eariv. 31 et/cdrcos 8)? So/ce? :

used; increased beyond this limit airovbaios elvai, avrl irdvrcav alpov-
they are useless or mischievous ; (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 namely, that happiness consists primarily and
essentially in acting according to reason, or in the
1

exercise of a perfected virtue. Other goods can claim,

to be considered as good only suit rnodo : in so far as

they are a natural product of this activity, like pleasure,

or a means outward and physical
to its attainment, like

goods. Should, however, a case occur in which a choice

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
If, is the essential condition of
then, virtue happi
ness, theproblem of Ethics is to investigate the nature
of virtue and to exhibit its constituent 3
the
parts ;

question being of course confined to spiritual perfec

tion.
4
Now this, like spiritual activity itself, is of a

1
Eth.v. 15, 1138, a, 28: it is evSai/uovia fyvxys evepyeid TIS KCLT
an both to suffer injustice
evil aper^v reAe-ay, irepl dper??? eVi-
wrong and 1o do it, the former (TK^TTT^OV Ta.xayapovTws av fieXTtov
being an eAaTrov. the latter a KO.} irepl rrjs v8ai/j.ovtas Oeupi]-
TrAeoj/ ex^tv TOV /J.eaov, but to do
(rj.iij.sv.

injustice is worse, as it alone is 4

By the word dper}) the
/itera Kaicias. Greek meant, as is well known,
-
We
have already seen this not only moral excellence but
(p. 149), and shall find further every accomplishment or perfer-
in his theory of virtue that Ari- tion that belonged to person or
stotle admits only those as genu- thing. In this sense it is used
ine virtues which seek their end by Aristotle, e.g. v.
Mrtaph. 16,
in the moral activity itself Etli. ; 1021, b, 20 sqq. ;
Etli. ii. 5 init.
iv 2 init.: al Se KOT dperV and 2}ass^ m Here, however,
-

7rpa|eis KaXou Kal TOV /caAou eVe/ca where we are dealing with human
. . . 6 5e 8i5oi>s . . . UT? TOI) KaAoG happiness it can only be a ques-
eVeK-a aAAa 5ta TZJ/ &\\yi> atriai/, tion of
spiritual excellences ;
oy/c t\fv8fpios dAA aAAos TIS faQy- Eth. Hid. 1 102, a, 13 irepl dpervjs :

crfTai. 5e e Tntr/ceTTTe o;/

avOpcairivris SrjAoi/
3
Etli. i. 13 : :-ir\ S eVrlr r) OTI. Kal yap TayaObv avdpdnrivov
 ETHICS 153

twofold nature : intellectual and moral

($iavoj)TLKr))
(f)8iKrj). The former relates to the activity of reason
as such, the latter to the control of the irrational
elements of the. so.ul by the ration al . The one has its
seat in thought, the other in will. 1 Ethics has to do
with the latter. 2

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
3
mind (efts-). Emotions as such are not the object of!

v evSatfJ-Ovtav a.vQp<a-
which is consistently maintained
ir(vt]V. apfTriv Se \eyo/j.ev avOpoj- throughout.
2
<rca/jt.aTOs, aAAa Trjv
TTivr)v ov rrjv rov This is obvious, not only
rr)s tyvx^s ical rijv evfijti/uLoviav 5e from the name of this science
and from isolated statements
After discussing (Eth. i. 13)
1
which describe irpa^is as its sub
the difference between the ra ject, e.g. those referred to p. 181,
tional and the irrational element 11. 3, and Etli. ii. 2, 1104, a, 1,
in the soul, and distinguishing but from the plan of the JWco-
two kinds of the rational, that wackean Etliics as a whole,
to which rationality attaches in which must have been different
a primitive, and that to which it had the object been the propor
attaches in a derivative, sense, tionate treatment of dianoetic
thought and desire (see p. Ill, and ethical virtue. On ihis
n. 4, supra), Aristotle continues, point and on the discussion of
1108, a, 8 Siopi^rai 8e /cal TJ dpe-r^
: the dianoetic virtues in the sixth
Kara rr\v Siatyopav ravrriv Xiyo^v book, see infra.
3
yap avrcov ras /u.ev fiiavo-nriKas ras The relation of these three
Se i}9iKas, aocpiay /mtv /col ffvv<riv to one another is explained Eth.
ii 4 imt. eVel ovv ra ev rrj tyvxy
:

TTJTO Se Kal 8vvd.ij.eis

rpia eVrl,
yii>6/*vu iraQt]
He returns to this distinction at eets, TOVTCDV kv ri eiVj ^ apery)
the beginning of Eth. ii. 1, and Se TrdOr) n.

vi. 2. Ethical virtue is thus (f)6(3ov, Opznos,

regarded as the product of desire [micros, Trodov, \ ,
6Aa?s ols
ruled by reason, i.e. of will (see \virT],
p. 114, snpra), a view of it as ira6r]TiKol
154 ARISTOTLE

praise or blame. In themselves they cannot make us

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 ;
virtueacquired.
1
and
These differ vice are

finally from a mere faculty as well as from science (and

art) in this, that while the latter embrace both of two
2
opposites, the former exclusively to one the refer :

man who has the power and knowledge of good has the
power and knowledge of evil also, but he who wills the
good cannot same time will the evil. It is
also at the

equally necessary, on the other hand, to distinguish

virtue from mere external action as such. He who
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 It is just this which makes virtue and moral
olov /ca0 as Svvarol opyiaOrivai r) avrd TTCOS ^X^i 8i/ca/a>s
T) (rw<f)p6v(as

\virr)6f)vai /) fXefiffai, eejs 8e /cafl Trpdrrerai, aAAa Kal eav 6 trpdrrwv

as irpbs TO. irdQt] e^o/j.ei eu 7) KO.KWS TTUS ex cav sparry, b, 5 TO. /mev :

On 285, n. 3, sujtra.
e|ts cf. p. ovv irpdy/j,ara Si/cata Kal cruxppova
Ibid. 1105, b, 28sqq., ending
1

\eyerai, orav y roiavra ola Uv 6

with the words: o TL /LLCV ovv earl SIKCUOS T) o -rrpa^iev SIKCUOS
cr<i><pp(av

Tea yivei f] aper^j, e^Tjrat, Cf. C. 5e Kal truxppcav early ov% 6 ravra
1, 1103, b, 21 sq. TrpdTTwv, aAAa Kal 6 OVTW irpar-rcav
~
J?tk. v. 1, 1129, a, 11 ouSe : us ol SiKaiot Kal ol (rdafypoves Trpdr-
yap rbv avrbv exet rpoirov ciri re rovviv. vi. 13,1144, a, 13 sqq.
rwv eVjo TTj^uco;/ Kal vi>a[j.e(av
Kal eVi Aristotle accordingly distin-
ruv e ewi/. $vi>a/j.is p.lv yap Kal guishes between the just charac-
Tri(TTr*i/j.r) So/ce? r&v evavriwv T) avrrj ter and the just act, ibid. vi. JO,
elvai (see p. 224, n. 3, SVA/;? ), ets S inlt, et al. (see below \
4
T) tvavria. tvavriwv ov, olov a?rb
r<av JMd. iv. 2, 1120, b, 7 ov :

rijs vyieias ov irpdrreraira evavria, yap eV rq TrA^et ruiv SiSo/uevcav rb

aAAa ra vyieiva fj.6vov. eXevQepiov. aAA sv rfj rov Si86vros
3
Etli. ii. 3, 1105,* a, 28: ra e|et, OI/TT? Se Kara rty ovaiav
5e /cara ras aperas yiv6/j.eva OVK eav
 ETHICS 155

insight so hard we are dealing here, not with

: that

particular actions, but with the general character of the

1
actor.
Aristotle defines this character more accurately as
a character In so doing he defines the
of the will.
limits of the moral sphere in both directions, distin

guishing moral 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
reference to human action on the other. The founda
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
2
and physical constitution and with a natural capacity
3
for virtue ;
for every virtue 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, how-
i

1
Hid. v. 13 init. ol 5 av- : he might indeed perform, aAAa
I
BpooTTOi ( eauroTs otovrai eli cu rb rb SeiXaiveu/ teal Tb dSt/ceTz/ ov
II
aSifceu/, Sib ical Tb SiKaiov zlvai Tb ravra iroizlv fffrl, TT\^V Kara
II
pqSiov. TO 5 OVK eo~Tiv avyyv- (ruyUjSejS^K^?, aAAa rb wSl e^orra
I fffQai fiff yap rrj rov yziTovos Kal ravra iroitiv. Cf. p. 116.
-
I 7ruTa|ai TI)V 7rA7](TiW KOI Savi/ai rfj Polit. vii. 1?, 1332, a, 38.
3
I xe r T^
paSiov Kal eir
apyvpiov JZtli. ii.1, 1103, a, 23: OUT

||
avrols, aAAa rb
e^oj/ras ravra <iSi
apa <pvfft
ovre irapa (piHTiv eyyi-
I iroitlv ovre pdSiov OUT eV avro is. vovrai al apeTal, aAAa iretyvKOffi [lev
6/j.oitos Se Kal Tb yv&vai TO. SiKOia
I rjfjt.1v Se^aaOai auras, reAetouyUeVoiS
Kal TO. aSuca ovSev o iovTai aofybv 5e 8ta TOV edovs. Polit. ibid. :
j

I eli/at, OTL Trepl &v ol v6/j.oi \4yovffiv dyaOot ye Kal cnrovfia ioi
yiyvovTai
ov xaAe7r5^ vvievat. aAA ou raOr dia Tpicav. TO, Tpia Se ravra effn
I ecrri TO. 5i/caia aAA r) Kara (TUyUjSe- 0os \6yos.
<pv<ns

4
I &riKbs, aAAa ircas irpaTT6[J.eva Kal Eth. vi. 13, 1144, b, 4 iraffi :

TTOJS ve(j.6fJLva St/coto. To know yap So^e? e/cao-ra TWV r\Q&v vtrap-
I an easy matter. On
this is not x eiv (j) ^ creL Jrcas Ka ^ 7"P Si^oiot /cai
the same ground Aristotle adds
|;
(raxppoviKol Kal aj/SpeTot Kal raAAa
I/that the just man cannot act ex/"-
V *v0i/s *K y^v^rrjs. (M.
If unjustly.
Particular outward acts Mor. i. 35, 1197, b, 38, ii. 3, 1199,
156 ARISTOTLE

ever, is not yet moral. It is found, not only in children,

but even in the lower 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
3
it. 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 ;

4
latter is
by practice.
gradually acquired Aristotle
carries this principle of excluding all involuntary moods
and inclinations from the moral sphere so far as to
extend it to the earlier stages of the moral life itself.

He not only excludes emotions such as fear, anger,

5
pity, &c., from the sphere of praise and blame, but lie

b, 38, c. 7, 1206, b, 9.) Cf. Polit. yap TWV Qfaei OVTUV a\\us e 0/<

on the unequal distribution

vii. 7, UTI bcra fjikv (pvcrei ri/uuv irapa-
of moral and intellectual capacity ai, TO.S 8wa,uets TOVTUV irp6-
in the different nations. vaTepov 8e ras
II. An. 1, 488, b, 12,
i. viii. fvcpyeias Sight, for dTroSi Soyuei/.
1, ix. 1 ;
see p. 38, n. 1, supra] example, we do not receive by
Etli. Una. ;
see n. 3. perception it is the antecedent :

Kvpiws aya8bv ^ Kvpia condition of perception. TCLS 5

], Etll. operas fvepyf]o~avTS
3
Hid. 1144, b, 8: Kal yap : we become virtuous by
cri Kal 6r pioLS t
0.1
(pvcrucal vtrdp- moral, vicious by immoral, action,
e|eis, aAA avev vuv /3Aa/3epcu x. 1179, b, 20 (referring,
10,
fyaivovTai oiiaa doubtless, as also does i. 10 init.,
icTXvpy iivev ityecos KIVOVJJL^VU> (T to PLATO S Meno, 70, A, 99, E) :

j8cuj/et (rfyaXXeffQai iV^upais 5ta yivzcrQai 8 ayaOovs otovTai ol fji^v

jU?7 ^X lv fytv, ovTca <pvo~ei,

ol 8 H6ei, ol 8e SiSav?;. T\>

eav Se AajSr? vow, eV fj-ff ovv TT)S <f)i>o~ea>s 8f}Aoi/ ws OVK

5m</)epet. r) 5 e|is 6fj.oia ovaa TOT rifuv
virdpx*i, aAAa 8/a Tivas
Kvpcas 9T }). Qe as aiTias TO?S &s
evTvx*-
d\r]6u>s
4
Eth. ii. 1, 1103, a, 17: ^8 ariv
v-rrdpxei. On voluntariness
as characteristic of moral virtue,
Kal Tovvofj-a iUd. ii. 4, 1106, a, 2, iii. 1 init. ;
v atrb TOV tdovs. e ov c. 4 init. and p. 115 sq., supra.
OTI ov5e/J.ta TUV T)6iKwv
5
Eth. ii. 4, ]105, b, 28; see
ovdfv p. 154, n. 1, supra.
 ETHICS 157

Iraws a distinction between continence (syKpareia) and

drtue, incontinence and vice in the stricter sense. In 1

ike manner he regards modesty rather as an emotion

han as a virtue.
2
In all these states of mind Aristotle
ails to find the universality of consciousness action

Droceeding from a principle. is He holds that nothing

noral which is not done with rational insight, nothing
mmoral which is not done in defiance of it.
While virtue is impossible without insight, insight
md morality are not identical. As wjll in general
consists of the union of reason and desire, 3 the moral
quality of the will must be treated under the same
category. Moral virtue is concerned with pleasure and
pain, since it has to do with actions and emotions which
3ause these feelings pleasure and pain are the primary :

4 5
source of desire, and the criterion of all our actions,

1
vii. 1, 1145, a, 17, 35
Ibid. ; pain, and for this very reason are
Md. 1150, b, 35, 1151, a, 27.
c. 9, to be counteracted by punish-
Vloderation, according to these ments iarpeiai yap rtves
;
at *l<riv,

massages, is a <r-7rou5aa eis, but 5eiaTpe?cu5ia rut evavr^v Tre^vKam,

lot ail apeTT/. yiveaOai . . . inr6K^irai apa r\ ^of7)
2 eivai Kal
Ibid. IV. 15, 1108, a, ii. 7, f) Toiaint] irepl rjSovas
: it praiseworthy, indeed,
is AuTras fieXTiaruv irpaKTiK)], 77
r<av

not a virtue it is a ytieoroTTjs

;
5e Kaicia Tovvavr iov Tpiuv yap . . .

tv rots Trddecri. ovruv T&V tls raj cupeVets Kal rpiuv

3
On the will, see pp. 113 sq. rwv els TO.S (pvyas, KaAoC <ry^e-
and p. 126. povros r^/Seos, Kal Tpiiav TU>U
tvavTiw,
4
On this cf. also pp. 107 sqq. alffxpov fSha&epov Av-n-npav, Trepl
5 irdvra /j.ev Tavra 6 ayados KaropQ-
Etli. ii. 2, 1104, b, 8: Trepl
f}fiovas yap Kal Xviras 4crrlv 77 T)0i/c>?
uTLK6s eariy 6 Se KaK^s a^.apTr]T IK&S ,

TTj 8ta juei/ yap rr)V ^ovr v TO. t /j-dhurra 5e irepl rrjv y$ovi}v KOIVT]
q>av\a irparro^v 5ta Se Trjv XvTrt\v re -yap CCI/TTJ TOLS Kal TTCKTI, (,u>ois

(
aperai flffi irepl irpdeis Kzl Trddr], Kal yap rb Ka\bv Kal rb
T\ SeTrddet Kalird<ryTrpdieTreTai r/5i/ <paiVerai
Kavov . . .

vfy Kal AUTTTJ, Kal TOUT av

Si<i Ka\ ras irndeis, ol jj.tv /uaAAoy oi 8

r) dpeTT? Trepl ^ovas Kal AuTray. TJTTOC, ySovfj Kal \virri ware . . .

A11 moral failings spring from . .

irepl ijSovas
. Kal \viras iraaa
desire for pleasure and dislike of T? irpay/m-areia Kal rrj apery Kal rr)
158 ARISTOTLE
to which we refer in a certain sense 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
logical side of virtue.
3
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 to do evil knowing that it
4
was evil and hurtful ;
Aristotle shows, on the contrary,
that to say this is to overlook the distinction between

purely theoretic and practical knowledge. For, in the

first place, he remarks, we must distinguish between the.

possession of knowledge as mere skill, and knowledge

as an activity. I may know that a certain action is

good or bad, but thisknowledge may in the particular

case remain latent, and in this way I may do evil with
out being conscious at the moment that it is evil. But,

6 fjifv yap v rovrois It must be taken, however, in

Xpu>/jievosayaOlis effrat, 6 8e KO.K&S the light of what is said above,
KO.K&S. II. 5, 1106, b, 16 \4yu :
p. 149, n. 3. The thought of
5e rV 7?0i/c77i/ [dperr?!/] OUTTJ yap the good operates upon the will
earn irepl iraQr) Kal -jvpd^eis. Ibid. 1.
through the medium of feeling,
24,iii.linit. (seep. I 17, n. 2, sup. ), the good presenting itself
vii. 12, 1152, b, 4, 1172, b, 21; x. as something desirable and
7 ;
see p. 143, n. 1, supra. Phys. affording pleasure and satisfac-
vii. 3, 247, a, 23 Kal TO oXov rfy
: tion.
r}9iK^)v dperV & rj^ovais Kal AUTTCUS 2
13, 1144, b, 17 sqq.
Etli. vi.
eZVcu (rvfj.fte^riKfV 3) yap /car vii. 1146, b, 31 sqq. cf. C. 3
5,
evepyetav rb TTJS rjdovris fy 5ta init. x. 10, 1179, b, 23; End. i. 5,
p.vt]p.T]v 3) airb TTJS eATri Sos. Pol. 1216, b, vii. 13 fin.] M. Mor. i.
viii. 5, 1340, a, 14. 1, 1
182, a, 15, c. 35, 1198, a, 10.
3
This statement (Etk. ii. 2
1
: As may be concluded from
see preced. n.~) might seem sur- the statements in Etli. vi. 13, c,

prising, as Aristotle draws a very 2, 1139, a, 31, and especially M.

clear distinction between plea- M. i. 1. Cf. p. 157, n. 5, supra.
sure and the good (v. p. 140 sq.)-
4
See Ph. d. Gr. i.
p. 118 sq.
 ETHICS 159

in the second place, concerning the content of this

knowledge, we have to distinguish between the general
principle and its practical application. For if every
action consists in bringing a particular case under a
1

general law, it is quite conceivable that the agent,

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
practical as opposed to the theoretic life. In like
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 so. There the man who errs

intentionally is the better man ;
here it is the man who
errs unintentionally. 4
Moral 5
according to Aristotle, con-
activity, then, i

sists in the union of the merely nataral activity of /

impulse with the rational activity of insight, or, more /

1
Cf. p. 110, n. 1, supra. 183, n. 2, and p. 107, n. 2, supra.
2 3
Etk. which deals
vii. 5, See pp. 115 sqq. supra.
4
primarily with excess. Another Eth. ii. 3 (see i. 6), vi. 5,
characteristic of action as dis- 1140, b, 22; Metaph.^i. 1,1025,
tinguished from knowledge b, 22.
5
which, however, Aristotle does Eth. vi. 5,1140, b, 22 cf. v.
not mention in this connection i. 1129, a, 83 MetapTi. v. 29 fin.
has already been mentioned, p.
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.
1
The
ultimate source of moral action is the rational desire or
will, and the most essential property of will is the
freedom with which it decides between sensual and
rational impulses. 2 Morality, however, is only perfect/?
when freedom itself has become a second nature./
Virtue is a permanent quality of the will, a habit
acquired by free activity morality has its roots in :

3
custom, rjOos in sOos If we ask, therefore, what is
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

wholly dependent on continued moral activity,

4
virtue is

1
Etli. i. 13 ad fin. .
cupovp.evos Si avra, rb 5e rpirov Kal
See also what is said on this
2
eav /3e/3cucos Kal d^raKiv^rcas
subject p. 115 sq. ^X wv irpdrrrj . . .
irpbs Se rb rets
3
Seep. 153 andp.!56,n. 4, s?/>.
aperds [sc. e;e/i>]
rb p.tv eiSeVat
4
After showing that one be- /niKpbv ouSev itrxuet, TO 5 d\\a
r)

comes moral only by doing moral ou /jLtKpbv dAAd rb irav Swarai,

actions, Etll. (see p. 156, n. fiirep e: TOU Tro\\a.Kis irpdrreiv rd
ii. 1

4), Aristotleasks whether we do SiKaiaKal craxppova TrepryiVeTat. X.

not in making this assertion 10, 1179, b, 23 (after the words
involve ourselves in a circle, since quoted p. 156, n. 4) 6 5e \6yos Kal :

in order to do moral actions y SiSaxv ^TTOT OVK eV oVacrij/

we must apparently be already Iffxvy, dAAa Se r; TrpoSLipydadai
moral ;
and answers that it is TO?S eflecrt T}\V rov aKpoarov ^/vx hf
not so : in a work of art it is -jrpbs rb /caA<is
x a l P eiJ/ Ka l v- -ffe iv,
sufficient that it should itself be cocnrep -y^v T}\V Opzfyovcrai rb
of a certain character, ra 5e Kara oW^ta ou yap at/ aKoixreie \6yov
3
rds aperas yivo^va OVK lav avrd dirorpeTrovros ou8 au O-UI/CI TJ 6 Kara
ircas %XP SiKaicas ^ crcacppovws irpdr- Trddos rbv 8 ovrws exovra Trcas
u>f

rerai, dAAa Kal edy d irpdrrow irws olov re /u.traTre LO ai ; oAcus T ou

rpdrrr), irp&rov yuev edj/ elSws, Sowe? \6yq>
uTret/ceii/ rb irdQos dAAa
edi/ Trpoaipov/j.svos, Kal if
pa- &ia- Se? 5}) rb ^Bos irpovirdpxeiv nus
 ETHICS 161

by which that which was at first matter of free resolve

becomes an unfailing certainty of character. Even the 1

comprehension of ethical doctrine is conditioned, accord- L

ing to Aristotle, 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
knowledge of morals. Virtue, therefore, always pre

supposes a certain degree of spiritual maturity. Chil

dren and slaves have no virtue in the strict sense of

the word, for they have no will, or as yet only an

imperfect one, and young men are unfit for moral ,

L^ \

philosophy, because they still lack stability.

3 ^*
H fr

Hitherto we have been concerned merely with the

form of moral conduct we as yet know nothing of its
:

contents. we have found to be a moral quality

Virtue
of the will. We have now to ask what quality of the \

will is moral ? To this Aristotle answers first quite

generally the quality, by means of which man not
:

only becomes himself good, but rightly performs his

4
proper activity. Right activity he further defines as
artpyov TO KaX^iv
ot/ceiov TTJS apeTTjs, Aristotle differs from him merely
Svffx^p^vov rb al^xpov. Some- in distinguishing- the higher
what more is conceded to in- virtue of the philosopher from
struction Polit. vii. 13,1338,a, 38 that of habit, while Plato limits
sqq. Here also tyixris eOos \6yos moral virtue to this source,
are mentioned as the three sources l
Ibid. ii. 3 (see preced. n.):
of virtue of the last, however, it
;
it is aproperty of virtue /Qe/3cuo>s Kal
is remarked TroAAa yap irapa
:
a/neraKLvr]rcas ^x eiv Cf. Zte
- Mem.
TOVS fdiff^ovs Kal T}\V fyiHTiv Trpdr- c. 2, 452, a. 27 (iiffTrep yap
:
fyvffis
ffi Sia TOJ/ \6yov, eav irtiaQwffiv 7787? TO e0os, and p. 116, n. 3, supra.
2
\ws X iv fcXriov. The di- Etli. i. 1, 2, 1094, h, 27 sqq.
vergence, however, is unim- 1095, a, 4, vi. 13, 1144, b, 30.
portant. Plato, of whose Ian-
3
Ibid. i. 1 with the words :

guage we are forcibly reminded Siatyepei 8 ovQzv vzos T^IV TiXiKiav

in the above passages, had taught $) TO r)0os veap6s c. 10, 1100, a, 1,
:

that moral habit must precede in- Polit. i. 13, 1260, a, 12 sqq. 31.
sight (see Ph.d. 6V.i.pp. 532 sq.);
4
Ibid. ii. 5: pt]r4ov ovv on
VOL. II. M
 162 ARISTOTLE

! that which avoids the extremes of excess and defect,

A \
and thus preserves the proper mean and conversely, :
l

wrong activity is that which deviates on one side or the

2
other from this boundary line. In further determining
the nature and position of the 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. 3The problem of morality is to strike the

proper mean relating to 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
4
stance^. Aristotle admits, indeed, that this description

iraffa aper??, ov ctv ?j aper/;, avro re 3) Trpbs rj/mas rb 8 tffov

J

e *X OV cnroreAe? KCU rb epyov virp/3o\ris Kal e

AAen|/ea S.
avrov ev airooi(ico~LV . . . et 8)j TOUT Se rov ^aev Trpdy/j-aros /me<rov

67Ti TrdvTUV OlirWS ^(, Kal 7] rOV TO tffov airex 01 ^Karepov ruv ^
avOpuirov aperr) e lf] av e |(s ys a< aKD jov, oirep fffrlv ej/ Kal ravrbv
ayadbs avQpuTros yiverai Kal r/s ac/>
iraffi, irpbs ii/uas Se o fJ.r TS -TrAeo^a^et t

cu rb kavrov epyov a7ro5c6crej, /j-Tire eAAe/Tret. TOVTO 8 oi/_\; e^ oi<5e

Ibid. 1106, b, 8: el 5^ iraffa Tai/Tbi Traaiv. If, for example,

1

eTntTTrj/uTj oirrco rb Hpyov eu e TnTeAe?, two cutlets are too little food,
irpbs TO fjifffov f}\4irovffa Kal fls while ten are too much, the
rovro fayovcra ra Hpya (. . . cos TTJS /xeVoi/ Kara TO irpay/jia would be
KKL T7JS six this amount, however, might
:

e5 TTJS 5e be too much for one, too little for

another ovrw 8/7 iras tTruirr^wv
:

aKpifietfTepa Kal afitivtov rrjv vvepfioXTiv jj.lv Kal rrjv eAAenJ/ii

earlv, lacnrep Kal ?; (pi/ffis, rov ^teVou (pevyei, rb Se fj.fo~ov ^VjTe? Kal rov6
&i/ ei rj o-Toxao"Ti/c^. aipe irai, ^taov Se ov rb rov Trpdy-
Aristotle remarks that either
2
/j.aros dAAa T^ Trpbs Tj/j-as.

Hie virtue or the vice have not Hid. 1106, b, 16 (after the
4

unfrequently no name to desig words quoted inn. 1, supra) \tyta :

nate them in common language ;

5e rTjV 7]OiKr]f [apeT^] avrt] ydp
Etli. 1107, b, 1, 7, 30,
ii. 7, 1108, e o-Ti Kal Trpd^eis, eV Se
TTfpl Trdd-r]

a, 5,- 16, iii. 10, 1115, b, 25, c. 11, TouTOis effrlv uTrep^SoA^ Kal eXXeityis
1119, a, 10, iv. 1, 1119, b, 34, c. Kal rb ytteVoj/. oiov Kal <po/3r)0rivai

10 sq., 1125, b, 17, 26, c. 12, 1126, ical Oappri(rai Kal eTridv/jLrjffai
Kal
Kal Kal o Aais
b, 19, c. 13, 1127, a, 14. eAeyjtrai
3
Ibid. 1106, a, 26: eV iravr\ Kal XvirriQrivai o~n Kal

8/j (rwe;e? /ecu SiatptrcS tffn Xafitlv /j.a\\ov Kal ijTroi/, Kal a/j-tyorepa
rb /jLev TrAerof rb 5 (\aTrov rb OVK eu TO 8 oVe Se? Kal e ols Kal
(^>

iffov, Kal T avra 7)

Kar avrb rb irpbs ovs Kal ov eVeKa Kai u>s
8el,
 ETHICS 163

is still a very general one, and that we have to look

closer if we would discover the proper mean, arid with
itthe right criterion of action but l
(the opOos \6yoi) ;

he can only here refer us to practical

insight, whose
business it is to mark out what is
right in particular
cases and he therefore defines virtue as that
;
quality
of the will which preserves the mean to our
suitably
nature, conformably to a reasonable definition, such as
the man of insight would 2
give.
From view Aristotle goes on to deal
this point of
with the particular virtues, without
any attempt to
deduce them from any one definite
principle. Even the
suggestions towards such a deduction which were to be
found in his own theory as above
stated, he left on one
side. Seeing that he had 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
of Virtue. He
does, however, nothing of the kind.
Even where hegives us certain indications of the points
of view from which he deals with the order of the

Te Kal apurrov, oTrep eo-Tt rijs

,ueV<n/
jueo-OTTjro^, as ^era|u Qauev e/i/at
dpeTTjs. dpo icas Sf /cat irepl ras irpd- rrjs vireppohfjs Kal rr,s
eAAffyeajs,
|ets farlv u7rep/3oA}/ Kal ovcras Kara r6v eo-rl
opfloV \6yov.
Kal TO peffov .... ^eo-orTjs eAAet^ts ris apa 5e
j.ei,,
fo-rlv r) apery, (TTOxa<rriKr] ov9h 8e trace s
ye o5o"a . . . Sto 5e? Kal
-rrepl
rov n4ffov. Of. foil. n. ras rrjs
Etk. vi. 1 we ought to :
aXrtQes eli/cu TOUT ftpqfjifvov, aAAa
choose, as before remarked (ii. 5) Kal 5ta>pto>teW rls T early 6
the fifcroi/, not the virep/3o\7] or
6p6bs Aoyoy Kal rovrov ris opos.
*
eAAei^is_Tb Se fietroif evrlv is 6 Ibid. ii. 6 init. tffnv apa $ :

\6yos o opebs \eyfi. In every- 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} Ao-yy
^AeVwt/ 6 TOI/ \6yov ex wi/ firirelvei Kal ws \v 6 (pptvipos 6pi<Tiei><

Kal aviqcnv, Kai ris effrlv dpos ruv

M 2
 164 ARISTOTLE

them, these points of

ethical virtues in his treatment of
view are themselves in no way based on any principle.
1

1
After defining virtue as virtueswhich consist in the sub-
j

uff6Tf]s, Aristotle continues, Etli. ordination of the lower instincts

\
.

ii. from the general statement

7 :
that are concerned with the
we must turn to particular in mere defence and maintenance
stances of the principle. Trepl \*.\v of life :
bravery the virtue of
ovv <$>6fiovs
Ka\ 6dppr) avSpeia Qvfjibs, temperance the virtue of
p.^ff6rf]s .... Trepi ySovas 5e Kal fTTL9vfj.ia. The second group of
virtues (liberality, love of honour,
\viras [those, i.e., as is here
hinted, and definitely stated in gentleness, and justice, which is
iii. 13, 1117, b, 27sqq. of and a^ placed last for special reasons)
7et 0"ts] Gbitypoavvf] .... Trepl Se have for the sphere of their
exercise political life in time of
;
to these belongs also peace, and the part which the
TL^V Kal irepl
Se individual takes in affairs of
aXo^vxla, and the state, as well as the positions he
occupies in it the third the
corresponding anonymous vir ;

tue the virepfioX)) of which is amenity of life, r6 eS gfjv. But it

ambition, eori Se Kal Trepl opyriv is impossible to show that Ari

. . .
ju,eo-oT7js, which he calls stotle founds his classification of i

Furthermore, there are the virtues upon this scheme.

TrpaoTTjs.
three ^eo-oTTjres which relate to In the first place, the reason
Koivuvia. \6yuv Kal Trpc|ecoi/, one to which he himself gives for con
TO aXr)6s in these (a\7j0em), the necting bravery and self-

two others to TO ySv, the one command with one another is j

infra), eV TrcuSta,
169, n. 6, that they stand for the virtues of
(p.
the other (p. 169, n. 4, infra), the irrational parts of a man;
eV -naff i TOLS Kara TOV fiiov. Of this is only to say (unless, with

bravery and ffwcppoa-vvri

it is KAMSAUER, we reject the words
further remarked, iii.
13j
SOKOVCTI altogether) that it is suitable
/xepwv avrai eli/ai to discuss self-command along
yap ra>v
aX6yuv
at aperai. This classification, with bravery because it has
however, is a loose one, nor is been customary since the time
defined principle of Plato to name these two
any clearly
discoverable in it. HACKER S together as the virtues of 6v/j.bs

attempt in his interesting essay

and TO eViflujUTyTiKov respectively,
(Das EintJicllungs- und Anord- Had he been governed by those
Tu- principles of classification
which
Hungsprincip der moralischen
Hacker ascribes to him, he must
gendreihe in der nikomackischen
Ethik, Berl. 1863) to show that have classed TrpaoTrjs along with
the latter is the
guided by such a
Aristotle is bravery. If
subordination of the instinct of
principle imports, apparently,
more into his account than is self, the former is (iv. 11) the;
but anger
According to this /xeo-oV7js irepi opyds
:
admissible.
springs from the instinct
of
view, Aristotle intended to indi
cate in the first place those revenge, which, like bravery,
had
 ETHICS 165

There 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 proposition, that there are more (

its seat inQv^s (iv. 11, 1126, a, indeed, is Aristotle from

seeing
19 sqq. Rliet. ii. 2 init. 12, 1389,
;
in bravery only the yuecrdVTjs of an
a, 26 Kal
:
avSpeiorepoi [ot ve ot] animal instinct, in anger that is
6v/j.w5LS yap ovre yap opyi-
. . .
properly directed and controlled
6/j.evos ovSels (po&e iTai, cf. p. 583, that of a higher instinct which
2), and which, like it (Etli. iii. is concerned with civil life, that

11, 1116, b, 23 sqq.), we share he declares (Etli. iii. 11, 1116, b,

with the brutes.
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.
Anger and 23-1117, a, 9): when men
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,

5, 1383, b, 7), and in Rliet. ii. 8, which here hardly differs from
1385, b, 30, anger is even called opy$~] upon the huntsman who
a irdOos avSplas. If,notwith has wounded it. Nor does the
standing this relationship, the position assigned to the virtues
yiico-oTTjs irepl rets opyas is said to which are concerned with the
belong to a different group of use of money admit of being-
virtues from bravery, on the explained on the ground that
ground that the latter springs riches always secure a certain
only from the instinct to pre social station to its possessor
serve the vegetative life, while (HACKER, p. 16), for there is no
anger is concerned chiefly with allusion in Aristotle to this point
injuries inflicted upon the of view, although in the case of
honour of a citizen (HACKER, /uiya\OTrp7rta (not, however, of
p. 15, 18), this is scarcely con e
Aeu0e/HOT77s) mention is made,
sistent with the statements of among other things, of expendi
Aristotle. Etli. iv. 11, 1125, b, ture for public purposes. Tf, on
30, he says expressly of anger : the other hand, this had been the
ra 5e s/nTroiovvra iro\\a Kal 8ia<p- principle of classi(ication,bravery
povra, and, on the other hand, of in war would have found a place
braver} that it does not consist
r
, in this group. Finally, it cannot
in not fearing death under any be said that the third group con
circumstances, but in not fearing cerns TO eu ($v any more closely
death eV TO?S KaAAi<TTois,especially than the other two for e5 fjv in
;

in war (iii. 9, 1115, a, 28), which the Aristotelian sense, self-

has a much more direct relation command, liberality and justice,
to political life than the loss of are certainly more important
merely personal honour. So far than T() r)du eV TrcuSm.
166 ARISTOTLE

virtues than one, is established by Aristotle, against

the position of Socrates, who had reduced them all to

Insight. Aristotle himself admits that all completed

Virtue is in its essence and principle one and the same,

and that with Insight all other virtues are given. 1

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
different from the will of the freeman : the will of the
woman and the child is not the same as the will of the
adult man. Therefore he holds that the moral activity
of different individuals must be different. Not only
will one individual 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
men. 2 Aristotle says very little (and that not in bis
Ethics ,
but in his (Economics) of the virtues of the

1
Etk. vi. 13, 1144, b, 31 :
oi>x
avrbv rptirov, dAA 6ffov
oi6v re ayaGbv e?i/at Kvpias avzv irpbsrb avrov epyov. Sib rbv

r,QiK?is aperrjs. It appears, indeed, riQiK}}v aperrjv, . . . rcav

as though the virtues could be tKavrov oaov eViySaAAei avrols.
separated from one another ;
ol> tiere (pavc-pbv on early ^0t/cr? dper)?

yap 6 avrbs v(pve(rraros Trpbs r<av

c-ipritifvoov Travruv. /cat ou^ ^
a?ra(ras, &(TTG T r)v /uej/ tfSr) rrjv S ttvrfy ffca(ppo(rvi/r) yuvaiKos Kal avfipos,
OVTTW ei\ri(pcas etrrat. This ^s not &c. Although it is not here
really so TOVTO yap Kara /j.fv TO.S
: said that one virtue can exist
tyvcrmas aperas eVSe xerat, /ca0 as Se without the others, and although
airXws Aeyerni ayaObs, OVK eVSe- on the other hand, this is ad-
X^rai apa yap ry fypovr]<Ti /j.iS. niitted JiJth. vi. 13 to be the case
oucrp Traaai i>Trdpov<nv. only with the physical virtues, yet
-
See preceding n. and Polit. the imperfect virtue of slaves or
vi. 13, 1260, a, 10: trao-iv eVi7rapx e women must be regarded as an
/Aei/ ra /j.opia rjjs ij/vxys, a\\ incomplete and partial posses-
eVuTrapxet Siatyepovrws . . .
6/j.oiws t-ion, which excludes the com-
roivvv avayKcuov fLV Ka Ire p^ ras prehensive virtue of insight, and
"

<?x

ijdLKas aperds viroXT]irrov 5e?v therefore extends to some and

uei/ fj.Tfx lv Tavras, dA\ ov rbv not to others.
 ETHICS 167

several classes. In the Mhics he treats of Virtue in its

perfected form, which it assumes in man, whom alone he

elsewhere regards as the perfect type of humanity, and it

is of this alone that he describes the constituent
1

parts.
Bravery
1
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

way and at the right time.

2
the right The extremes
between which Bravery stands as the mean are on the :

one side Insensibility and Foolhardiness, and on the other

Cowardice. 3 Nearly related to Bravery, but not to be
identified with 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 with the apparently terrible or upon the hope of

a favourable result. 5 Self-control 6 follows as the second

virtue, which, however, Aristotle limits to the preserva-

1
Etli. iii. 9-12. 5/jeia most closely resembles true
2
C. 9, 1115, a, 33: 6 ire pi rbv bravery (1116, a, 27), tin 5t
Ka\bv QO.VO.TOV dSe^s Kal ocra Qa.va.rov apTT)V yivsrai Si alSoo yap Kal
7ri(/>e pei v-rroyvia ovra. c. 10, 1115, 8ta /caAou ope^iv (TI^TIS yap~) Kal
b, 1 7 : 6 /j,v ovv a, Se? Kal ou eVe/ca (pvyyv ovi8ovs OVTOS.
alo"vpov

virofjievtov Kal (pofiov/j.vos, Kal ws Se? Nevertheless Aristotle distin-

Kal ore, 6/j.oicas e Kal6appiav,av8pe ios
guishes between them, TroAm/o?
/car aiav yap, Kal us 6 A<ryos,
tu>
avSpeia being heteronomous to
Trao-%61Kal Trpdrrei 6 ai/5peTos . . . the extent that the brave deed is
KaXov 8}} eVe/co 6 dj/Spetos virofjievei not done for its own sake.
Kal irpaTTfi TO. Kara rr]v avSpetav. "StWfypoffvvf}, c. 13-15, in
Cf. Rhet. i. 9, 1366, b, 11. contrast to a.Ko\a(ria and to a
3
C. 10, 1115, b, 24 sqq. species of insensibility for which
4
As in suicide, which Ari- there is no name, as it is not
stotle therefore regards as a found among men (c. 14, 1119, a,
mark of cowardice; iii. 11, 9; cf. vii. 11 init.: Aristotle
1116, a, 12, cf. ix. 4, 1166, b, 11. would perhaps have ascribed this
5 5
C. 88 (where, however, 1117, failing, of which he says, et 5<?

a, 20, the words 3) Kal must be rep p-qQev fffnv ytiv /^TjSe Sta^epet
omitted). Of these, iroAiTt/cr/ a.v- erepov erepou, ir6ppci) tiv efrj TOU
VOL. II. *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. Next comes Generosity, 1

as the proper mean
2
3 between Avarice and Extravagance, the attitude in
which is at once
giving and taking external goods
3
moral and worthy of a free man, and the kindred virtue
4 5
of Munificence in expenditure. Magnanimity (in his

avdpwiros elvai, to the

Ascetics
4
of a later time) of. vii. 8, 1150, ; Me7aAo7rpe7reta, ibid. 4-6,
a, IV) sqq. and the passages re
which is denned, 1122, a, 23, by
ferred to below from book vii. the words ei/ ptytOti TTpfTrovo-a

upon e 7/cpaTeta and aKpaoia ;

Rliet. 5a7rai/7j: it stands midway be
iUd 1. 13. In the words with tween /juKpoirpeireia, on the one
which he opens this discussion, hand, and fiavavo-ia and aweipoKa\la
/xeTa 5e ravTTiv [bravery] irepl on the other. It differs from eAeu-
8 o KOV ff in having to do, not only
(Tdxppoa vv ns
i
\ey(a/j.V flepiJ-rrjs
avrai flvat with the right and proper, but
yap TUV a\6yu)V /j.pu>v

is referring to with the sumptuous expenditure

at aperat, Aristotle
Plato s doctrine he himself has
no reason to ascribe bravery, any
more than moral virtue as a
;
of money (iv. 4, 1122, b, 10 sqq.,
where, however, 1. 18, we shall
have to read, with Cod. L b b M ,

whole, to the irrational element Kal fffTiv epyov /j.eya\OTrpeireia

in the soul.
1
Or, more correctly, libera excellence of work in great
matters, and explain 1. 12 as
lity, eAeu0epiOT7js.
"

AveAeu0epia and cur curia. The meaning either the magnitude

worse and more incurable of here is contributed by the jueya-
these faults is avarice, Etli. iv. being a sort of great
AoTrpeTrrjs,

3, 1121, a, 19 sqq.
ness of liberality in respect to
3
Etli. iv. 1-3. The noble the same objects, or it is the
handles magnitude here which con
spirit in which Aristotle
this subject may be seen, among stitutes, so to speak, the great
other passages, in 2 init. at 5e
c. : ness in the munificence, &c. ;

TOV unless we prefer the surmise of

KCCT ctpeTTji/ 7rpae/s KaAai Kal
Ka\ov eVe/co. Kal 6 eAev0epiOS ovt>
RASSOW, Forsch. iib. d. nilto
Sclxrei TOV /caAou eVe/ca Kal 6p9us Ethik. 82, who inserts \a&ovo"ns
Kal ravra ^Se cos ^ aAuTrws rb after peyedos, which might easily
have fallen out owing to the
yap KOT aperriv r/5i; ?) a\virov,
5i5ous ols OUO-TJS which follows, so that the
^Kiffra Se \vir-np6v 6^5e which
/a.)) SeT, ^ ^ TOV KaXov eVe/ca aAAa meaning is
directed to the same object at
liberality is

5ia TIV &\\i)v alrlav, OVK eAeu9e>os

a\\ aAAos ris ^B-fifferai. ovfr 6 taining a sort of grandeur ).
/J.a\\ov yap e Aorr kv
TO. met. i. 9, 1366, b, 18.
Me-yaAoiJ t X a as midway be-
5
Tqs KaA^y Trpdews, TOVTO
 ETHICS 169

description of which Aristotle has, perhaps, before his

mind the example of his great pupil), honourable ambi
2 3
tion, Gentleness, the social virtues
1
of Amiability, 4
5 6
Simplicity, Geniality in company follow and to these :

are added the graces of temperament, 7 Modesty, 8 and

9
righteous Indignation.

tween meanness of spirit wards particular persons. End.

O and vanity (XOW^TTJS),
J/i>X
t/c iv. iii. 7, 1233, b, 29, it is simply
7_9 ;
Rliet. ibid. Mya\6tyvxos is called <f>t\ia.

5
(1123, b, 2) o /Aeyd\cai>
avrbv a^itav The likewise nameless mean
aios wv : this virtue, therefore, between vain-boasting (dAct^i/em)
always presupposes actual ex and self-depreciation (e/pcoj/eux,
cellence. of which the extreme is seen in
1
This virtue is described, the pavKOTTivovpyos), iv 13.
6
Etli. iv. 10, as the mean between EurpaTreAi a or eVi5ejoT7js (iv.
QiXoTi/jiia and aQiXoTipia, which is 14), the opposites being /3a>,uoAo-
related to /xeyaAovJ/uxi a as e Aeu- xia. and aypdrris. Here also it
is to /meyaXoirptireia, but is a question of social tact
fleptoTTjs (cf.
for which there is no proper 1128, b, 31 6 5^ X aP ie : " Kal
word. eAeufle ptos ovTcas et, diov v6/j.os
2
The juetrJrTjs irepl opyds, iv. 8>vwith especial reference,
eai;T<),

11. Aristotle calls this virtue however, to the entertainment of

the corresponding vices
, society.
7
and aopyna-ta, remark Me<ro
TT?Tes eV ro7s TrdOefft

ing, however, that all these Kal ev rots Trepl TO. irdOi] (ii. 7,
names are coined by him for the 1108, a, 30), called jueaoTTjTes
purpose. The irpaos is accordingly Trae^TLKal, Ettd. iii. 7 init. Among
defined as 6 ols 5e? Kal ols Set <=<>

these, End. iii. 7 classes also

opyi6/J.vos, ert 8e Kal cos Se? Kal ,
and
ore al offov \p6vov. Ibid, on the
8
d/cpo xoAos and the xaAeTrJy. Ai$6s. See Etli. iv. 15, ii.
3
Which Aristotle himself, iv. 7 (p. supra). The
157, n. 2,
14 fin., comprises under this modest man, according to these
title. passages, is the mean between
Using the word to designate the shameless and the bashful
4

the nameless virtue which, Etli. man (:aTa7rA^|). Modesty, how

iv. 12, is opposed on the one side ever, is not so much a virtue in
to complaisance and flattery, on the proper sense as a praiseworthy
the other to unsociableness and affection suitable only for youth,
moroseness, and described as the as the adult should do nothing
social tact which knows 6fii\ftv of which he requires to be
us Se?. Aristotle there remarks ashamed.
9
that it closely resembles a, </>*At Only in ii. 7, 1108, a, 35
but differs from it in not resting sqq., where it is described as
Kal
upon inclination or dislike to (j>66t>ov
 170 ARISTOTLE

Justice, however, claims the fullest treatment, and

Aristotle has devoted to it the whole of the fifth book

Considering the close connection be

1
of his Ethics.
tween the Ethics and the Politics, it was necessary that

special attention should be paid to the virtue upon

which the maintenance of the commonwealth most
!
!
directly depends. Justice, however, is not here to be
L understood in the wider sense in which it is equivalent
2
-
to social virtue as a whole, but in its narrower mean-
f

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 highest criterion ;

cf. Eth. v. 6
fortunes of others, and consists init. eVet 8 o T
. HSittos avicros Kal

in T Au7re?cr0cu etrl TO?S avaius tv VKTOV, Srj\ov on KOI

Similarly Rhet. ii. 9 TL (TTL TOV O.viffOV TOVTO

TrpaTTovffiv.
init. 8 etrrl TO iffov . . . et ovv rb aSi-
1
Cf .
H.
on this subject : KOV &VHTOV, TO SlKCUOV IffOV. C. 9
FBCHNEE, Ueber den GerecMiy- init,
4
keitsbeyriff d. Arist. (Lpz. 1855),
As the distinguishing mark
HILDENBRAND, Gesch. of a5i/aa in this narrower sense,
pp. 27-56 ;

u. System d. Reclits- nnd Staats- irAeoyeKTelV is mentioned (c. 4)

i. 281-331, who also TTfpl TlfJ-^V ?) XP hfMara
l

j>htto*(ipMe,
cites other literature; PRANTL $1 nvi e^o:/wev tv\ bvofj-ari
ft
in BLUNTSCHLI S Staatworter- Aa/3eu/ TauTa irdvra, Kal Si ^
buch, i. 351 sqq. TRENDELEN- ; rfyv aTrb TOV /ce p5ois ;
it consists
BURG, Hist. Beitr. iii. 399 sqq. (c. 10, 1134, a, ,
33) in
-
Ttt TTOirjTLKO. Kal fyvXaKTlKO. auTa? i/e/xetj/ ruv aTrAcor

Ti)S evSai/j.oi ias Kal TWV popiav eAarToi 8e roav avrAaJs Ka/cwj/. Of
ttUTTJS TTJ TTOAtTlKTJ KOll COVLa the justice, on the other hand, it is
ap6T$7 TeAeia, aAA ov% air\u>s aAAa said, c. 9, 1134, a, 1: Kal
irpbs erepoi/, of which it is said ecrrl Ka6 )$\v 6 5 iKaios

that ^epos aperris aAA oArj

it is ov rpaKTiKbs Kara Trpcaipecrtv
evavria afiiKia ^.epos TOV Kal 8mi e u7]TJ/cby ical
apery?, ov5 TI
Si/catou, /

/ca/aas aAA oAT? KaKia f) . . .

/J.ei>
avTw a\\ov Kal
irpbs Trpbs tTp<p

rrfs oA?7S dper^s ovffa XP^"

1S Trpbs eTepoi/, ov% OVTWS wffTe TOV /j.V
#AAoy, TJ 8e TT}? KaKias (Eth. v. 3, cupeToG TrAeoi/ avTw eAccTTOi/ Se T<p

1129, b, 17, 25 sqq. 1130, a, 8, c. TT^aiov, TOV /3Aa/8epoO 8 ava.ira\ii>,

1

5, 1130, b, 18).
aAAa TOV iffov TOV /caT ava\oyiav,
3
For the mean, as in the case &/J.QIUS oe Kal aAAoj irpos a\\ov. It

of every other virtue, is here the \*( Rhet. i. 9, 1366, b, 9)

 ETHICS 171

But this proportion will 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

proportion as the merits of
: are to those of B, so is A
the honour or advantage which receives to that which A
B receives. 3 In the other case, which relates to the
correction of inequalities produced by wrong, and to

contracts, there is no question of the merits of the

individual. Everyone who has done wrong must suffer
loss in proportion to the unjust profit which he has
appropriated there is subtracted from his gains an
;

amount equivalent to the loss of the man who has

suffered the wrong. 4 In like manner, in buying and
St fy ra avraiv Ka.(TToi xovffiv. J3eitr. ii. 357 sqq. ; 13EANDIS, p.
Right and justice, therefore, find 1421 sq. ; KASSOW, Forsvh. ul. <L

a place only among beings who, nikoni,. Eth. 17, 93).

like man, may possess too much 3
This is referred to Polit. iii.
or too little not
thoseamong 0, 1280, a, Conversely of
16.
who, like the gods, are confined public burdens, each would have
to no limit in this respect, or to take his share according to his
who, like the incurably bad, are capacity for discharging them.
incompetent to possess anything Aristotle, however, does not touch
at all; Eth, v. 13, 1137, a, 26. upon this point, although he
1
We should speak rather of must have had it in view, Eth. v.
public and private right. 7, 1131, b, 20, where he speaks
2
ALKO.IOV in this sense = fcroi/, of the eAarrov and pe ifrv KCIKOV.
&SIKOV = &VKJOV. in the wider sense, 4
By KepSos (advantage or
on the other hand, the former = gain) and fr/jiia (disadvantage or
v6/j.i/j.ov, the latter
= Trapa.voiJ.ov (v. loss) Aristotle means in this con-
5; cf. TEENDBLENBUEG, Hist, nection, as he remarks, Eth. v
172 ARISTOTLE
it is a
question merely of
selling, renting, letting, &c.,
the value of the article. Here, therefore, the rule is
that of arithmetical equality from him who has too :

much an amount is taken which will render both sides

equal. In matters of exchange this equality consists
1

2
in equality of value. The universal measure of value is

7,1132, a, 10, not merely what is eiprj/icj/rji/ Kal yap dirb

commonly understood by them. KOIVWV iav yiyvrjTaL rj

As he comprehends under correc 7,
eo"TCU KaTa TOV \6yov TOV
tive justice not only penal but avTov ftvirep ~x.ovffi irpbs ^AA7]Aa Ta
also civil law, as well as the law flffevexOfvra Ka l T ^ aSiKov TO
of contract, he has greatly to avTiKi/u.vov TW SiKaici) TOvTCfj TTapa
extend the customary significa Tb avd\oyov effTiv. 8 V TO?S T>

tion of the words in order to crvvaXXdypaffi 8 iKaiov fffTl fjizv fa

include these different concep TI, Kal TO &8iKov aviffov, aAA ou
tions under a common form of ex KaTa Trjv avaXoyiav ^Kflyijv aAAa
pression. Accordingly he classes K.O.TO. TTJV api9{j.riTiKTiv. ovdev yap
every injustice which anyone Sta^epet, et eTTtei/crjs <f>av\ov
air-

commits as /ce pSos, every injustice

which anyone suffers as C^uta. aAAa irpbs TOV &\dfiovs Trjv Sta^opav
1
Ibid. c. 5-7, especially c. /j.6vov /SAeTret 6 v6p.os &C. PLATO
5, 1130, b, 30: rrjs 8e Kara /j-epos ( Gorg. 508, A) had opposed iffo-
SiKaioffvvris Kal TOV KO.T
avrrjv TTJS yetofLGTpiKT] to Tr\eov(ia.
2
SiKaiov ev /j.ev fffTiv eTSos rb ev After discussing, in the
rcus Siavo/jLcus T/^UTJS /) xpTj/xaTwr above passage, both distributive
T)
TWV a\\cav oaa. yuepiora rois and corrective justice, Aristotle
KOLVcovovfTL rrjs TroAire/ as, . . . ej/ comes (c. 8) to the view that
8e TO iv TO?S o"u;
y aAAa y/u.a(n Siop- justice consists in retribution, TO
OMTIKOV. TOVTOV Se jUeprj Svo rcav dvTnreTrovdbs (on which see Ph. d.
yap avvuXXayiJ.d. rwv TO. JJLCV eKoixrid Gr. i. 360, 2). This he rejects as a
effTi TO. 5 aKovaia, eKOvffia /J.V TO. valid definition of justice in
TOiaSe olov Trpaffis, uvij, ^a.veiffjj.os, general, since it is applicable
eyyvrj,
"

XP^ 5 ? irapaKarad^KT], fj.lff- neither to distributive nor even,

dcaffLS eKovffia 5e Xe^erat, OTI r\ strictly speaking, to punitive
justice. Only Koivwviai aAAa/crt/cat
CKOIHTLOS. rSiv 8 aKo ra rest upon rb avTiireirovObs, which,
\adpoua, olov /cAorrTj, ta, fpap- however, is here, not /COT laorri
irpoaywyeia, aTraria, but KaT ava\oyiav TW avTiiroi :

TO, Se yap avdXoyov tfu/x^ueVei r) Tr6\is

/3iam, olov aiicia, 8eo"/ios, Qdvaros, (1132, b, 31 sqq.): it is not
apirayrj, ir-fipoixris, KaKyyopla, irpo- the same, but different, though
Trr]\aKicrfj.6s. c. G, 1131, b, 27 :
equivalent things are exchanged
Tit yap Stave /j.7]TLKbv 5 tKaiov
fj.fv
for one another, the norm
ruv KOIVWV aet /cara T^V ava\oyiav for each exchange being con-
 ETHICS 173

demand, which is the source of all exchange; and the

symbol which represents demand is money. Now 1

tained in the formula as are

: much support for this view.
the goods of the one to those of
the other, so must that which
the former obtains be to that
which the latter obtains. Of.
ix. 1 init. It is thus obvious
that the previous assertion, that
corrective justice proceeds ac
find
From the passages quoted in the
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
;

cording to arithmetical propor the other hand, so far as it relates

tion, is inapplicable to this whole to KOv<Tia ffvvaXXa.yfji.ar a, in the
class of transactions. But it first instance, fair dealing in
does not even apply to penal commercial life, and not the
justice. Even here the proportion legal justice of litigation, as the
isgeometrical as A s act is to B s,
:
expression Kovaia (rvva.XKdyiJ.ara.
so is the treatment which A re indicates, since it is a name given
ceives to that which B receives. to them (c. 5) because they rest
Only indemnification for injury upon voluntary contract. Even
{is determined according to in these there are redress and cor
/ arithmetical proportion, and even rection the loss which, e.g., the
:

here it is merely an analogy, as seller suffers on the deliverance

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
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, take the settlement. They be

merely as a loss inflicted upon long, therefore, not to Sicw/e^T?-
the transgressor for the purpose riitbv, but to SiopOcariKov SiKaiov.
of rectifying his unjust gain). On some other defects in Ari
When, however, TKENDELEN- stotle s theory of justice, among
BUEG 405 sqq.) distin
(ibid. which the chief is his failure
guishes the justice in payment clearly to grasp the general con
and repayment, upon the basis ception of right, and to deduce
of which contracts are con a scientific scheme of natural
cluded, from corrective jus rights, see HILDENBRAND, Hid.
tice, and assigns it to distribu p. 293 sqq.
tive, so that the latter embraces 1
Ibid. 1133, a, 19: irdvra
the mutual justice of exchange ffvp-^Xfira Set ircas e?i/at, u>v tarrlv
as well as the distributive justice aXXayi] e< o rb vofjuff^ eA7jA.u#e
of the state, while corrective Kal yivzrai TTCUS ^aov irdvra yap
justice is confined to the action . . . Set apa ei/i nvi irdvra
of the judge, either in inflicting
penalties or in deciding cases of rovro 8 fffrl rrj /aev aXrjdfia 7]

disputed ownership, he cannot

174 ARISTOTLE

justice consists in right dealing with reference to these

relations injustice in the opposite. Justice requires that
:

a man should not assign to himself greater profit or less

loss, to the other party greater loss or less profit, than

rightfully belongs to each injustice consists in doing :

so.
1
A
just or an unjust man, again, may be defined
as one whose will identifies itself with one or the other
mode These two, injustice in the act and in
of action.
the agent, do not absolutely coincide. A man may do
2
injustice without acting unjustly, and one may act
3
unjustly without therefore being unjust and accord ;

ingly Aristotle makes a distinction between hurt,

4
wrong, and injustice.

rys xpeas TO tion is asked : eVct 5 tanv

76701/6 Kara (TvvQT)Ki}v, whence the Kovvra yUTjTrco afiiKOV elvot, 6 TroTa
name vo/^Lff/na, from v6/j.os. Cf .
b,
10 sqq. ix. 1,1164, a, 1. See the fiiKiav, olov
further treatment of money, Po- juoixoy^ ArjffT-fis ; the reply is,
lit. i. 9, 1257, a, 31 sqq. that if one, e.g., commits adul
See p. 170, n. 4, supra, and
1
tery from passion, not Sia irpoaip-
ibid. c. 9, 1134, a, 6. As justice fcrecas apxh v ,
we must say :

thus consists in respect for the IL\V ovi>,

afiiKos 8 OVK effriv, oiov

rights of others, it is called an oi>8e /cAe TTTTjs,

6/cAe^/e 8e, ouSe
d\\6rpiov dyaebv, c. 8, 1130, a, 3, fjLOixbs, eiJLoixevffe Se. Cf. follow
c. 10, 1134, b, 2. ing note, p. 116, n. 3. and
2 4
Etli. v. 10, 1135, a, 15 Svrtav : Ibid. 1135, b, 11, all actions
8e rS>v SiKttiuv Kal d8iK<av r)V are divided into voluntary and
elpri/Jievwv, dSi/ce? fj.lv Kal SIKCUO- involuntary, and the former again
irpaye i, orav eKcav TIS avrd irpdrrri into intentional and unintentional
orav 5 &KWV, OUT dSi/cel ovre (see p. 116 sqq. supra} :
rpi&v S^/

Si/ccuoTTpcrye? ccAA /) Kara v vfj.fi eftf)- oixrSw ftXafi&v T(Jov kv ra s KOLVOO-

KOS . . .
dSiWTjyua Se Kal 8i.KaioTrpd- viais [in a passage which Ari

iapiara.1 T<p eitovffiq) Kal stotle has here, perhaps, in view,

) UHTT effrai TI aSiKov /uei/ Lams, ix. 861, E, PLATO had dis
OI/TTO) 4av pr] TO ZKOVGIOV tinguished fiXafir) from dSiKTjjaa, cf.
jrpofffj.
Ph. d. Gr. \. 719, 3 fin.~\ ra ij.lv /xer
3
*C. 9 (see p. 170, n. 4, su- a-yvoias ajj,apriifjiard effrtv [or more
pra\ the 8 iKaios had been defined accurately, 1. 16, either drvx^/J-ara
as irpaKTtKos Kara srpoaipea iv or a uapr f]fiaTa a/mapravfi fj.lv yap
i f

TOV diKaiov : c. 10 init. the ques orav f) dpxfy sv avrcp ^ TTJS curias,
 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 only between those who are free and
equal ;
l
hence the distinction between political and
2
paternal, domestic or proprietary right. Political
and legal right the
right, again, is divided into natural ;

former of which is binding upon all men in like manner,

while the latter rests on arbitrary statute, or refers to
3
particular cases and relations ;
for however dissimilar

art/vel 5 orav e^coflei/l . . . orav ou ravrbv rovrois aAA op.oiov ov

8e etSaJS fiey, /AT] Trpof$ov\vo as Se, yap fffriv dSt/cta Trpbs ra aurov
dSi/cTj^a [wrong done in passion: avrAaJs Tb 5e /CTTj/xa Kal rb TCKVOV,
e.q. anger] . . . orav 5 e /c irpoai- ea>s av 77 TTTjAt/coi/ Kal /J,T) xa>pj(T0?7,

peVews, aSt/cos ical fj.oxG npos . . .

uxrrrep ^ue pos avrov . . Stb ^uaAAoi/
.

0,11010)5 Se /cat Si/catos, orav trpo- Trpos yvvalKa e o*Ti St/catoy T) Trpbs

eAOjUepos SiKaioirpayfj SiKaioTTpct.ye t reKva Kal KTTjjj.ara rovro yap eVrt

Se, &y (J.6VOV KWV TTpdrrr). But TO olKovofj.iKbv SiKaiov zrepov Se
even involuntariness can only /cat TOUTO ToO iroXiriKov.
3
excuse oro /xr? /LLOVOV dyvoovvres Ibid. 1134, b, -18: ToC 5e
aAAa Kal Si ayvoiav a/u.ypTdvovo~i, TToAtTt/coG St/catou Tb (Uei/ (pvo~tKov
not wrong committed in thought eo~n rb Se VO/J.IKOV, (pvffiKbv fj.ev rb
lessness which is caused by cul
pable passion. Kal ov rip So/celj/ )} fj.

1131, a, 25: TO fr-

1
C. 10, o e| apx^s /u.ei ovdev Stacpe pet OI;TC;S
rov^cvov effri Kal TO dirXws fiixaiov ?) aAAws, orav Se Oavrai Sta^e pet
Ka\ rb TToArrt/cbj 8 iKaiov. rovro Se . . CTI 8aa e?ri ruv KaOfKaffra
.

zffriv eVt KOivw&v fiiov irpbs rb tivai vo/j-oderovo-iv. Cf. C. 12, 1136, b,
avrdpKeiav, i\tvQfpuv Kal tffwv ^ 33. Natural right is universal
war o.vaKo yia.v %) Kar dpiQp.6v. unwritten law [v6/j.os Koivbs aypa-
Where these conditions are ab <pos^\ ; positive right \_v6/u.os
i
Stos],
sent, we have not TO iroXiriKbv on the other hand, is described
S Kaiou, aAAa rl ZiKaiov [a particu as written law (Rliet.. i. 10, 1368,
lar kind of justice, as distin b, 7; cf. c. 14, 1375, a, 16, c. 15,
guished from TO on-Aws St/caiov] 1375, a, 27, 1376, b, 23; Eth. viii.
/cal a0 o^oioVrjTa. The former 15, 1162, b, 21): but even here
(b, 13) is always Kara VO/AOV Kal there is a distinction between
fv ols eirecpvKei flvai v6fj.os ovroi the written and the unwritten
5 ^ffav ev oTs virapx*i I<r6rrjs rov (or that part which belongs to
custom and habit), Rlict. i. 13,
2 Eth. x. 10, 1180,
J^VZ. b, 8: Tb Se
1134, 1373, b, 4 ;
cf.
OfffTToriKov OLKaiov Kal rb TrarpiKov a, 35.
 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

divergence from it.

1
bility of Indeed, such natural
right is 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 When such an exception occurs
it isnecessary to sacrifice legal in order to save natural
right. This rectification of positive by natural right
3
constitutes Equity. Several other questions, which
Aristotle takes occasion to discuss in the course of his
researches into the nature of justice, 4 we may here pass
1
Eth. v. 10, 1134, b, 24 sqq. ; Ka06\ov. The eViei/crjs is there
cf. Rhct. i. 13, 1373, b, 6 sqq., fore (1. 35) O T&V TOIOVTQ)!/ TTpO-
where Aristotle appeals for the Kal irpaKTiKos, Kal b fj.^)
Kowbv 8 iKaiov to well-known
<pvo~fi &c., and eVtet/ceta is
verses in ^ophocles and Empe- TIS Kal ov-% erepa TIS
docles, and to the universal
agreement of men.
4
Whether it is possible volun
2
Similarly PLATO, Ph. d. Gr. tarily to suffer injury and to do
i. 763, 1. oneself an injury, and whether
3
Eth. v.
14, especially 1137, in an unequal distribution the
b. 11: rb eTneiKes SiKaiov ^ueV ZO~TLV, distributor or the receiver com
ov rb KaTa v6fj.ov Se, aAA tTrav6p- mits the wrong. Aristotle deals
dca/j.a vo/j,i/m.ov SiKaiov. And after with these questions, Eth. v. c.
proving the above, 1. 24 : 5i6 11, 12 and 15. He is prevented
from finding any satisfactory
os SiKaiov [on which see p. 175, solution of them, partly by the
suprti], ov TOV ctTrAcos limitation of injustice to TrAeoy-
n. 1, 8e [which
here as Polit.iii. 6, 1279, a, 18, and e|ta, partly by the failure which
Eth.v. 10, 1134, a, 25 = <t>v<riic6v
is connected with it clearly to
5 iKaiov^ aAAo rov Sta TO airXoos [for distinguish between alienable
which might be
Trap a TO a?rA. rights, of which it is true volentl
conjectured the words, how
: non fit injuria, and inalienable,
ever, may be explained by sup and similarly between civil and
plying after Sia ro OTTAWA, not penal wrongs. Doubts have been
SlttaLov, but bpiaao-Qai, or a similar entertained as to the genuine
word] a/j.apTrj/m.aTos. Kal effTiv ness of one part of these discus
avTi] T] fyvffis i] TOV eTTtet/cous, e?r- sions. Chap. 15 is connected
at/6pOwfAa VOJJ.QV y eAAtiTret oia TO with the discussion of justice in
 ETHICS 177

over, especially as he arrives at no definite conclusions

with regard to them.
The discussion of the principal virtues serves to
confirm the truth of the general definition of virtue

previously given. In all of them the question is one of

the preservation of the
proper mean between two
extremes of error. But how are we to discover the
proper mean? Neither in the previous general dis
cussion nor in his account of the individual virtues has
Aristotle provided us with
any reliable criterion of
judgment upon this head. In the former, he refers us
to insight as the guide to the
discovery of the right ;
1

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 is certainly not settled: in c. 11 it was asked

Aristotle s. SPENGEL (Abli. d. whether what one suffers volun
JBair. Akad. philos.-philol. Kl. tarily, here whether what one
iii. 470) proposes therefore to inflicts on oneself, is a
wrong.
transpose c. 10 and c. 14, but This investigation is
this does not get over the diffi
expressly
said to be still in
prospect at the
culty, as c. 13 would still disturb beginning of c. 12, and while it
the connection between c. 12 and is certainly not
more, it is also
15. FISCHER (De Eth. Mcom. not less satisfactory than the kin
$c. p. 13 sqq.) and FEITZSCHE dred investigations, c. 11 and 12.
(Ethica Eudemi, 117, 120 sqq.) TRENDELENBURG declares him
regard c. 15 as a fragment from self, ibid. 423, satisfied
with this
the fourth book of the Eudemian
transposition, in support of which
Ethics. BRANDIS, p. 1438 sq., he appeals to M. Mor. i. 34,
1196,
leaves the choice open between a, 28, compared with Eth. JV. v.
these and other possible explana 15, On
the other
1138, b, 8,
tions (e.g. that it is a hand, KAMSAUER has not a word
preliminary
note to a larger discussion). in allusion to the
difficulty of the
The difficulties seem to dis position of c. 15. In the text of
appear if we place c. 15, with the c. 15 itself,
however, the order is
exception of the last sentence, certainly defective; cf. KAM-
between c. 12 and 13. It is not SAUER, in loco, EASSOW, Forsck.
true that the question which it uber die nikom. Eth. 42, 77, 96
discusses has already been 1
See p. 163, n. 2, supra.
VOL. II.
N
 178 ARISTOTLE

isnone to enlighten us but the man of insight, no ulti

mate criterion but the notion which he may have formed
of the proper mean. All moral judgment, and with it ;

all moral insight, is thus conditioned by Insight. If,

then, 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

book of the Ethics to its discussion, illustrating it
by
comparison with kindred qualities, and explaining its

practical import.
To this end he
1
first
distinguishes,

It is usual to assign a more

1
inadequately met), if the Ethics
independent position to the sec were to deal with intellectual ;

tion upon the dianoetic virtues. activity for its own sake, and I

The Ethics is thought to be a gene without relation to human action i

ral account of all the virtues which
are partly moral and partly in
tellectual the former are treated
; nothing
of B. ii.-v., the latter B. vi. But
while Eudemus (according to
Eth. Eud. ii. 1, 1220, a, 4-15)
treated his subject in
may have
this way, Aristotle s intention
seems to have been different.
Ethics, according to Aristotle,
is merely a part of Politics
(see p. 135 sq.) from which
Eudemus (i. 8, 1218, b, 13) is
careful to distinguish it as a
in the sense in which vi. 7, 1141,1
a, 28 declares that Politics
hasj
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
factory. The highest modes of
intellectual activity are precisely
those which are disposed of
most briefl}*. This, on the other
hand, becomes perfectly intelli
gible if we suppose the true aim
to be the investigation of <j>p6vri-

ffis, the other

separate science. Its aim is not
dianoetic virtues
(see p. 181, n. 3, supra) yvwvis,
but being only mentioned here in
Trpa^is (Eth. Eud. i. 1, 1214, a, 10,
order to mark off the province of
represents it as not only
know (bp6vr](ns from theirs and clearly
ledge, but also action ), and
to exhibit its peculiarities by the
accordingly it requires experi antithesis. Aristotle has to speak
.

ence and character to understand of because, as he him

<ppovn<ns,

it (Eth. N. i, 1095, a, 2 sqq., see self says, c. 1 (p. 163, 2, supra),

supra). It would be he has defined moral virtue as

p. 161, n. 2, 3,
inconsistent with this practical
aim (an objection which, accord
ing to M. MOT. i. 35, 1197, b, 27,
was already urged by the older
Peripatetics, and which
is there
conduct according to opdbs \6yos,
QpovifiLos would define it,
or as the
and because the discussion forms
a necessary part of a complete
account of moral virtue. Of. on
 ETHICS 179

as we have already seen, a two-fold activity of reason,

the theoreticand the practical that which deals with :

necessary truth, and that which deals with what is /

Inquiring further how reason, know

1
matter of choice.
2
ledge, wisdom, insight and art are related to one

another, he answers that knowledge deals with neces

sary truth, which is perceived by an indirect process of
this head also vi. 13 (p. 166, n. 1, an apery; eVjcmj^Tjs, (ro<pta, and an
supra), x. 8, 1178, a, 16: avv- dperT? Te x^s, likewise in the last
eev/CTCu Se /ecu f] (pp6vr)(TLS rrj rov instance o-ocp a. Aristotle cer
tfdovs aperfj, Kal avry rrj (ppovT]o-i, tainly speaks of 7, 1141, <ro<t>ia,c.

eftrep al juei/ TTJS <>poi/r,(reccs dp%a2 a, 12, as dper$7 re xi/Tjs, but only in
Kara ras i)6iKds tlffiv aperas, TO 8 the popular sense as voty ia has ;

op8bv roov ijOiKwv Kara r^v fyp6vr\(riy.

todo only with the necessary, it
See p. 113, n. 1, supra.
1
cannot in this sense be dperr?
2
Eth. vi. 3 init. earw 87] ols : s >
whose sphere is TO eV5e-
aATjfleuei fj tyvxb Tcp Karatpdvat r)
a\\as X LV
apart -
Btrt,
a.Tro(pdvai irevrz rbv apid/.t6v
ravra from inaccuracy, Prantl s
this
5 fffrl r^x v e7rto T7j/x77, <pp6vri(ris
"ni
view is untenable, for in the first

[which we have to translate by place Aristotle expressly says,

insight for lack of a better c. 2 init., that the dianoetic
word], o~o<pia, vovs, viroXtyei yap virtues are the subject of the dis
cussion that follows, and nowhere
Whether Aristotle intends to hints that there is any difference
treat five or only some of
all in this respect among the five
those virtues is, on our view of which he enumerates c. 3, and in
the aim of this discussion, not the second place Aristotle s defi

very important. At the same time nition of virtue applies to all

we cannot agree with PKANTL live. every If
praiseworthy
(Ueber die dianvut. Tuq. d. quality a virtue ( EtJi. i. 13 fin.
is :

nikom. Etli. Munch. 1852) in re ruiv 8e eeon ras tvcuvfT&s dpfTav

garding and fypAvnais as

<ro(pia Ae^oyuev) eVio T^rj and rex^f] are
the only diano,e tic virtues: the undoubtedly e eis eiraiverai (as
former, that of the \6yov c^ov, so example of e ^s, e TncrTrj/n? is the
far as it has for its object T() nfy eV- one which is given in Categ. c. 8, 8,
Sex^^vov aXXcas ^X iv the latter a, 29, 11, a, 24) if, on the other ;

with the qualities which are sub hand, we accept the definition of
ordinate to it (edjSouAfo, (ruj/etrts, virtue elsewhere (Top. v. 3, 131,
yvca/j-f], Seiv^TTjs), in so far as it b, 1), & rOV X OVTa IfOlfi (TTTOUSCUOJ/,
refers to TO eVSexo/^ei/oi/ a\\oas this also is applicable to both.
fX lv f vovs, on the other hand,
>
The same is true of vovs when
he says that as immediate it conceived of, not as a special
cannot be regarded as a virtue, part of the soul, but as a special
of firiffT^fji. and T^\vt\ that they
rj quality of that part, as it must be
are not virtues, but that there is when classed along with eirto-T^/ir;,
N 2
180 ARISTOTLE

thought in other words, by inference ;

l

that necessary
truth is also the object of reason (vovs) in that narrower
sense in which means the power of grasping in an act
it

of immediate cognition those highest and most universal

2
truths which are the presuppositions of all
knowledge ;

&c. ;
c. 12 init., moreover, it is ex volves a self-contradiction, air6-
pressly described as a ets, but if 5eiis according to p. 243 sq. being
it is a eis it must be a ejs a conclusion from necessary
eiraivfr-fj in other words, an
:
aper-fr. pre raises whereas deliberation
j

1
Ibid. c. 3; cf. p. 243, has to do with TO eVSep/.
supra. e^etz/) TOV e(r%aTOu Kal ez/
-
Ibid. c. 6, and frequently, Kal Trjs erepas Trporacrecos. a
?/.
p. 244, sqq. From reason yap TOV ov eVe/co avTai e/c
yap
in this sense vovs TrpaxriKos TUV Ka.Q fKacrTa TO KadoXov [the
1

is distinguished. The difference, last clause, e yap, &c., has

according to De An. iii. 10, Eth. hitherto baffled the commen
vi. 2, 12 (p. IIP), n. 2, cf. 118, n. 1, tators, and ought perhaps to be
mfpra), is that the object of the struck out]. TovTcav ovv %x lv^^
practical reason is action, and a^ffOrjffLv, avTf] S etrri vovs. Ac
therefore TO eVSex- a\\ws *x ll i cording to this passage also
whereas the theoretic reason is there is, besides the reason which
concerned with all ftvuv a! apxal knows the unchangeable prin
jU?; eV5e;Oj/Tcu aAAcor *X IV - ^ n ms ciples of demonstrations, a
V
further treatment of the prac second whose object is TO
tical reason Aristotle is hardly
consistent. In the passages cited, Trp6Ta<ris,
and which, therefore, is
p. 113, n. 2, its function is de described as an ataQrjffis of these
scribed as &ov\V(r6ai or Aoyl- (TOVTWV can only refer to these
fcffOai, while it is itself called TO apxal TOV ov eVe/ca). By <rx&TOV

\oyia-TiKov of less import (ac

it is can only be meant the same as iii.
cording to p. 106, n. 2, supra) that 5, 1112, b, 23 (cf. vi. 9, 1142, a,
for vovs Trpa.KTLKos stand also Sidvoia 24 and p. 118, n. 3, sujjra) where
jrpa.KTiK.ri, TrpaKTiKov Kal fiiavorj- it is said, rb eo^aToi/ ej/ Trj ava-
TiK6v. the other hand we
On \vffei TrpwTov slvai T sv

read, Eth. vi. 12, 1143, a, 35 Kal : the primary condition

& vovs T&V laywruv eTr a/i(/>^Tf pa afriov, 1112, b, 19) for the attain
Kal yap TUT irpuTcav opcav Kal TWV ment of a certain end, with the
fO~x aT(al/ vovs etrrt Kal ov \6yos,
Kal discovery of which deliberation
5 /J.V Kara ras a7roSei|ets TUIV ceases and action begins, as set
aKivriTtoV opwv Kal TrpwTwv, 6 o v forth, iii. 5, 1112, b, 11 sqq.; De
rats irpaKTiKaTs [sc. eVio-Trj^ats, not An. iii. 10 (see p. 113, n. 2, supra).
a7ro5ei |cn, as the species irpaKTiKal As it lies in our own power to
a7roSei|eiscannot stand as the make this condition actual or not,
antithesis to the genus airo^i^is; it is described as cvdexo^evov.
moreover, the former phrase in But it does not coincide in mean-
 ETHICS 181

that wisdom consists in the union of reason and know

ing, as WALTEE, Lelire v. d. improper sense described p, 250,

prakt. Vern. 222, assumes, with supra (for another example,
n. 1,
the Tpa irporaffis, the second v. Eth. ii. 9, 1109, b, 20), and
premise. The latter is the Aristotle himself remarks (v.
minor premise of the practical p. 183, n. 4, infra) that what he
syllogism in the example ad
: here calls at(rQi}<ns it would bo
duced, Etli. vi. 5 (seep. 110, n. 1, better to call ^>p6vr\(ns. But even
supra), iravrbs yXviceos yi>e<r6ai.
the e0"xaTOj/, i.e. the TrpaKrbv,
8e?,rovrl 5e y\vKv, &c., it is the must be object of aur0?](m, as
clause this is sweet ; the eo-xa- it is a particular, and all
par
TOV, on the other hand, which ticulars are so (cf. p. 183, infra).
leads immediately to action is What is more remarkable is that
the conclusion (in the given case : the passage before us places the
TOVTOV yeveffdai SeT), which is function of the practical reason,
called, De An. iii. 10 (see p. 113, not in PovXeveaOai (on which
n. 2, supra), Eth. vi. 8, 1141, b, 12, v. p. 182, n, 5, infra), but in the

xh T^S 7rpaea>s, irpa.Kr

bv ayaGov ; cognition of the erepa -wp6raais
as,then, rb irpaKrov is described as and the e(T%aToz/. It is wholly
rb effxarov, vi. 8, 1141, b, 27, c. 8, inadmissible to say, with
1142, a, 24 also, and only this can WALTER, ibid. 76 sqq., that it is
be meant by rb ej/5ex- in the speaking of the theoretic reason
passage before us, the minor and not of the practical at all.
premise ( this is sweet, this is It isimpossible to understand
shameful ) does not refer to a the words
6 p.sv Kara, ras O.TVO-
mere possibility but to an un 5ei|efs, &c.,to mean that one and
alterable reality. It is certainly the same Nous knows both. If
surprising to be told that both of we examine c. 2 of this book (see
these are not known by a \6yos, p. 113, n. 2,
supra) where, consis
but by Nous, seeing that the tently with other passages, ra
minor premise of the practical eVSex . aAAcos e xeii are expressly
syllogism is matter of perception, assigned to the vovs Trpa/crt/cta as
not of Nous,while the conclusion, the sphere of its action, while
rb f<rxarov, being deduced from the OetoprjTiKos is contined to the
the premises, is matter, not of sphere of necessary truth, and if
vovs, but of \6yos, not of im we consider how important a
mediate but of mediate know place the latter doctrine has in
ledge. Nevertheless, although Aristotle s philosophy (cf p. 197, .

in many cases (as in the above, n. 4,supra Anal. Post. i. 33 init.:

;

rovrl yXvKv) the minor premise of of the eVSex- &V.AWS lv there is <?x

the practical syllogism is a real neither an eTnar-fi/tri nor a vovs~),

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
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.

action is just. In such cases we Such an explanation is unneces
can only speak of otfrrQrjffis in the sary: Aristotle says of fyp6vr}<ns,
 182 ARISTOTLE

ledge in the cognition of the highest and worthiest

objects. These three, therefore, constitute the purely

1

theoretic side of reason. They are the processes by

which we know the actual and its laws. What they deal
with cannot be otherwise than as it is, and therefore
cannot be matter of human effort. On the other
M hand, art and insight 2 deal with human action: in
the one case as it concerns production, in the
3
other as it is conduct. Insight alone, therefore, of all
the cognitive activities can be our guide in matters of
conduct. It is not, however, the only element in the
determination of conduct. The ultimate aims of action
4
are determined, according to Aristotle, not by delibera
5
tion, but by the character of the will or, as he would :

the virtue of thepractical reason, have to regard man as the

both that practical deliberation, noblest of all The beings.
and that the immediate know former is concerned with what
ledge of the effxa-TOv arid irpaKTOv, is best for man : on the other
is the sphere of its operation hand f) (rotyia tarl Kal eTncrHj/uT;

(see p. 182, n. 3, infra }. He Kal vovs ruv Tifj-iwrdrcav TTJ (j)vcrci.

attributes, therefore, to it the c. 8 init. :

T\ Se dpp6vf]ffis Trept TO
knowledge both of the actual, avdpcairiva Kal irepl uiv Herri /3ow-
which is the starting-point of
deliberation, and of the purpose TOVT epyov ,
rb eS fiov-
which is its goal. \eve(r6at, S ovOels Trepl
1
C. 7, 1141, a, 16 (after re
ject ing the common and in re\os T I fffn Kal TOVTO
accurate use of the word aofy a) : v. See also p. 183,
&<TT
STJAOJ/ on 7] aicpiftecTTdTrj &v n. 2, supra.
3
T&V eTncrTTJiUoJz/ eit] i) ffoty a. Se? See p. 107, n. 2, supra.
4
apa TOV (T0(p6v p.)] /JLOVOV ra K TWV As was rightly pointed out
apx&v eiSeVcu, aAAa Kal Trepl ras by WALTER, Lelire v. d. praJit.
apxas a\r)Qeveiv. OXTT eft? &j/ ^ Vern. 44, 78, and HARTENSTEIN
crofyia vovs ical e7n<rT7]yU77, aiffirep in opposition to TRENDELEN-
Kf.tyaXfyv e^ovffa Hiri(rT-f)/j.r) T&V Bi RG (Hist. Beitr. ii. 378), and
Tijj.Lvra.rwv. Of. p. 290, n. 2, supra. the earlier view of the present
It would be preposterous,
2
treatise.
3
Aristotle continues, c. 7, 1141, EtU. iii. 5, 1112; b, 11 :

a, 20, to regard ^pJvrjo-ts and fiov\v6/Ji.e9a 8e ou Trepl T&V Te\>v

TToXiTiK^] as the highest know a\\a Trepl TWV irpbs ra reATj. So

ledge in that case we should
;
the physician, the orator, the
 ETHICS 183

explain it, while all aim

at happiness, it depends upon

the moral character of each individual wherein he seeks

it. Practical deliberation is the only sphere of the
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
of the universal. 3 It
dispensable to it than knowledge
is thisapplication to practical
aims and to particular
cases that distinguishes insight both from science
given
and from theoretic reason.
4
On the other hand, it is

legislator :
de/J-evoi. re Aos ri TTOJS (c. 9, 1142, a, 11), being without
Kal 5ia rivcov tffrai ffKOirovffi. vi. experience.
13, 1144, a, 8 rb epyov curort \e~trai
:
4
Etli. vi. 9, 1142, a, 23 : on
Kara r}]v fypovr\(nv Kal rr\v 8 T] fypovriffis OVK eTTiffrrifj-r], fyavt-
pov rov yap taxdrov early,
a.peri]v TI /j.ev yap aperrj &<r~fp

Trotet 8e ra Trpbs ztprirai [in the passage quoted, p.

opObv, T] <pp6vn(ris

rovrov. L. 20 :
r^v /j.ev ovv 182, n. 2,S W/>.,
where it was shown
iroiei y apery, rb to be concerned with the irpaK.r bv
TrpoaipecTLv opQ^v
5 offa Ktvr]s eVe/ca ire(pvK irpdr- ayatiov ; 1141, b, 27
cf. c. 8, : rb
recrOai OVK effri TTJS apfrijs aAA yap ^t ^iff/jLa irpaKrhv ws
ere pas Swdfjifcos. See further, rb yap irpaKrbv roiovrov [sc.

p. 186, n. 5, infra.
1
See p. 139, n. 1, supra. yap vovs ruv opwv, &v OVK eo~rt
-
C. 8 init.-, see p. 118, n. 3, rj 8e rov etrxarof, ov OUK
t(mv 67r(o"T7jyU77,
aAA aarflrjfm, oix
supra.
3
MJt. vi. 8, 1141, b, 14 (with ri riav tSi co* ,
aAA oi a alcrOai d/J-eda
reference to the words quoted n. 2 ori rb ev roTs /naQrj/m.ariKo is eo~xa rot
/cccKet.
preced. p.) oi/5 effrlv r\ ^p6vr,ffis
: rpiyuiov^ ffrr^fferat yap
rtav KaBoXov IJLOVOV, aAAa SeT Kal ra aAA avrt] /ua\\ov a1fcr07j(ris ^
KadeKavra yvoopi^iv irpaKruc^ yap, fypovriffis, ^AAo elSos.
Kfivr]S 8

TI 8e irpal-LS irepl TO. KadeKavra. This passage has been discussed

And accordingly (as is remarked in recent times by TRBNDELEN-
also Metaj)h. i. 881, a, 12 sqq.) BUEG (Hist. Beitr. ii. 380 sq.),
experience without knowledge TEICHMULLER (Arist. Forsr.li. i.

(i.e.without apprehension of the 253-262), and more exhaustively

universal) is as a rule of greater by WALTER (Lehr. v. d. prakt.
practical use than knowledge Vern. 361-433). The best view
without experience, rj Se $p6vr)<ns
of Aristotle s meaning and the
grounds on which it rests
ravTt]v [the apprehension of the may be shortly stated as
here distin
particular ~| /iaAAov. For the same follows :
$p6vf)<ns
is

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

which are already familiar to us. perception but with a perceptive

When further opposed to
it is
judgment. The afoOiiffis, there
Nous, which is described as con fore, which is concerned with the
cerned with indemonstrable prin
ea-Xarov of practical deliberation
ciples, we can obviously under is not ataQi}(ris ruv /JiW, i.e. the
stand by Nous in this sense of
only apprehension the sensible
the theoretic, not that reason
qualities of objects which are pre
which Aristotle calls practical sent to particular senses
(as was
and distinguishes from the former shown, p. 69 sq. sup., this is
as a different faculty of the soul always
accompanied by particular sensa
on no other ground than that it but an
tions), aivQfiffis of another
(like according to the
<j>p6vTiffts, kind. What that kind is is not
passage before us) has to do with expressly said, but merely indi
the TrpzKTbj>, the eVSex^ueroj/, the cated by an example : it is like
eo-xaTOf (see p. 180, n. 2, supra). that which informs us 3-n eV
T>

Finally, it cannot surprise us TO?S ^aQt]}j.a.TiKols fffxarov

rpiycavov,
that the eo-^aroi/, with which that in the analysis of a figure the
insight is concerned, is said to last term which resists all
be the object not of tina-Tripr) analysis
is a
triangle. (For only so can
but of aiffQ-riais. For this ea-%aToj/, the words be understood, as is
which is found in the conclusion almost universally recognised ;
of the practical EAMSAUEE S explanation, which
syllogism, is
that in the fulfilment of which takes the general proposition to
action consists, and is
always meanprimam vel simplioissimam
therefore a definite and particular omnium figwram essc trianyulum,
result the eo-xaroj/ is the source is contradicted
;

of the resolution to undertake

by the circum
stance noted by himself that
this journey, to assist this one such a proposition is not known
who in need, &c. (cf.
is
p. 180, by afodrj<Tis.) In other words,
n. 2). But the particular is not this ctfo-077/ns involves a
the object of scientific know judgment
upon the quality of its object.
ledge but of perception cf. ; But such propositions as this
p. 163 sq. While this is so, we must be done differ even from
have to deal in the conclusion the given instance, this is a
of the practical
syllogism (often triangle, in that they refer to
also, as was shown, p. 180
in its minor
sq., something in the picture and not
premise), not only merely to something present to
with the apprehension of an the senses. They are therefore
actual fact, but at the same time still further removed from
per
with its
subsumption under a ception in the proper sense than
universal concept (as in the con it is. Hence he adds they are :

clusion I wish a good teacher

:
more of the nature of (pp6vrj(ris it ;
Socrates is a good teacher is more akin to The pas
afcr0i7<m.
Socrates must be my teacher
) ; sage, therefore, gives good sense,
accordingly, not with a simple and there is no reason to reject the
 ETHICS 185

so perfectly reproduces that we have no difficulty in re

cognising in the virtue of practical reason
it in other

words, practical reason educated to a virtue. Its

1

object is on the one hand the individual and his good,

on the other the commonwealth : in the former case it

isInsight 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
discovery of the proper means to the ends indicated by
3
Insight consists Prudence in right judgment on the;

matters with which practical Insight has to deal, Under

4
standing; in so far as a man judges equitably on these

words from 6n rb eV rots /j.a6. to a, 10 ;

cf. p. 136.
the end, in which case we should 3
Ei>pov\{a, ibid. c. 10; cf.
have to suppose that the actual p. 118, n. 3, supra. According
conclusion of the chapter has to this account of it, v(3ov\ia
been lost. must not be confounded with
1
Aristotle does not, indeed, knowledge into which inquiry
expressly say so, but he attri and deliberation do not enter as
butes to vovs irpaKTiicbs (see elements, nor with evo-roxia and
p. 180, n. 2) precisely those ayx woia, which discover what is
activities in which <pp6vr}ffis ex right without much deliberation,
presses itself, viz. Pov\eve(r9ai nor with 8o|a, which also is not
and occupation with the eVSe- an inquiry ;
but it is a definite
XO/J-evov, the irpaKr bv ayadbv, the quality of the understanding
tcrxarov, and remarks
of both see p. 106, n. 2), viz.
that they are concerned with /3of Af/s 7] Kara rb w^eAt/uoj/,
matters of afodrjffis, not of Kal ov 8e? Kal &s Kal ore. And we
knowledge (p. 183, n. 4, sujjra). must further here distinguish
These statements are consistent between rb ev fiefiov\fvffQai
air\S>s

only on the supposition that they and rb irpos ri re Aos eu )3e/3ouA-

refer to one and the same sub va9ai. Only the former deserves
ject, and that insight is merely unconditionally to be called
the right state of the practical eu)8oiA/a, which is therefore de
reason. PEANTL S view (ibid. p. fined as bpQoTt]s r) Kara rb crvp-tyepov
15), that it is the virtue of rb irp6s TI reAos, ov 77

Soa<TTiicbv, is refuted even by the

passage which he quotes on its ibid. c. 11. Its

behalf, c. 10, 1142, b, 8 sqq., not relation to (ppovriffis is described
to speak of c. 3, 1139, b, 15 sqq. 1143, a, 6 :
irepl TO. avra p.\v rrj
2
C. 8 sq. 1141, b, 23-1142, (f)povf](ri. eVrif, OUK tffn 5e ravrbv
 186 ARISTOTLE
matters towards others, we call him Right-minded. 1

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
to find and apply the proper means to a given end.^
If this turned to good ends it becomes a virtue, in the
is

opposite case a vice so that the root from which

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
however, depends in the first instance upon our will, and \

the character of our will upon our virtue and in that ;

sense insight may be said to be conditioned by virtue. 5

avvtffis teal <pp6vf)<ns

?j juej/ yap 1142, a, 11 sqq.) that while vovs,
(ppovritfLS fiTLTaKTUc i effTiv T I yap ffvv<ris and yvca/n-rj are to a certain
Sel Trpoirreii/ v) /mri, rb TC\OS avrTJs extent natural gifts, and
<ro(pia

eo~Tiv /) Se avve/ris (ppovrjffis are not.

3
It consists eV T Ibid. c. 13, 1144, a, 23 : t<rn

eVi rb Kpiveiv irepl TOVTUV irepl &v ST? ris 8vva/j.is V

KaXovvi SftvortjTa.
i] <ppoi>T]!r!s fffTiv, a\\ov \iyavTOs, avrrj 5 eVri roiavrri &<TT ra Trpbs
Ka\ Kpivtiv Ka\ws. TOV viroTtOevTa Q-KOTT OV crvvTzivovTa
j, KaO Tf]v evyv&uovas Kal 8vvao-dai ravTa Trpdrrfiv Ka] rvy-
yvd!>/J.r)v,
is accordlDg
4
to c. 11, 1143, a, 19 sqq. rj TOV lUd. 1. 26 : Uv ply of>v 6
eViei/fous Kpiffis 6p9^, similarly rj Ka\bs, ciraivtT-f) effriv, av
(Tvyyvct>/j.ri
= yvu/j. r] KpiTiKr] TOV Se (j)av\os, iravovpyia. VII. 11,
tirifKovs All right conduct
bpQ-i}. 1152, a, 11 : Sia T& TT]V
towards others, however, has to 5ia<pfpeiv rrjs (ppovftffecas TOV
do with equity (c. 12, 1143, a, fvov Tpoirov . . . Kal KaTa fj.ev Tbv
31). \6yov tyyvs etvat, Siafpepeiv Se Kara
2
Aristotle accordingly con Tt)v irpoa peffii . 8ee above. Plato
cludes the discussion of the had already remarked vi. (Rej>.

dianoetic virtues with the words : 491 E)that the same natural gift
ri jueic ovv icrrlv r) (ppovriais Ko.l f) which rightly guided produces I

ffocpia . that he
.
, efyTjrcu, so great virtue, under wrong guid-|
himself appears to regard these ance is the source of great vice.
5
as representative of the t\vo chief Etli. vi. 13, 11 44, a, 8, 20 (see
classes of the dianoetic virtues. p. 182, n. 5, iuj)). Ibid. 1. 28 (after
There is this difference, moreover, the words quoted n. 3, 4 ) e<m 5 :

between them and most of the r\ (f>p6vT]o~is ^ Siv6rr]s, etAA.

oi>x

others (c. 12, 1143, b, 6 sq. c. 9, ovic avev Trjs Svvduews Taurus, i\
 ETHICS 187

But, conversely, virtue may also be said to be condi

tioned by insight for just as virtue directs the will ;
l

it the proper means to

to good objects, insight teaches
2
Moral virtue, there
employ in the pursuit of them.
and insight reciprocally condition one another :

fore,
the former the will a bent in the direction of
gives
the while the latter tells us what actions are
good,
good.
3
The circle in which we seem here to be in

not really resolved by saying that virtue and

4
volved is

insight come into existence

and grow up together by a
of habituation that every single vir
gradual process ;

tuous action presupposes insight, every instance of true

practical insight virtue
5
but that if we are in search ;

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

generation
younger. 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. 13, 1145, a, 4: OUK earo.i TJ

n. 3, xnpra, indicates a permanent irpoaipevis op6^ uvev $poi"h<rews ovV

quality] rw ofji.fJLa.n rovry yiverai aptrrjs f? pev yap TO r(\os, rj

ai>ev

compared 8e ra npbs rb reAos Trotel irpdrreiv.

[insight is 3 30 SrjAoy ovv
to the eye also] OVK &i>ev
aperr/s 1144, 1>,
:

of on ov o16v re
6i yap
5ta\|/euSeo-0ai
irote? -rrepl
ias irpaKTi- ayaObv elvai ttvpius avev
itas apx<is. &<rre
tyavephv on dSv- oi/5e $p6i i/j.oi avev T
varov typovLfjiov elj/at p.7] ovraayaQov. aperrjs. X. 8 ;
see p. 178, n. 1 Jin.

Cf . c. 5, 1 140, b, 17 :
r$ 8e 5te</>- supra.
4 Histor.
6apfJi4vtf 5t ^ov^v Ka: AUTTTJI/ evOvs TEENDELENBUEG,
ov Qaiverai rj apx*l,ov5e [sc.^a^erat Peitr. \\. 385 sq.
8ia 5
TEEXDELENBlfRG refers on
avrqS] Sell/ rovrov
eVe/cez/ /cat

rovff alpeto-Oanravra Kal irp6.Treii>.

this point to M. Mor, ii. 3, 1200,
VII. 1151, a, 14 sqq.
9, a, 8 ovre yap avev rr)S (pporfifffvs
;

Eth. vi. 13, 1144, b, 1-32.

1 at &\\ai aperal yivovrat, ij oW
Cf. preceding note and p. 156, reAeia r&v
<pp6rn<ris
&vev^
n. 3, apercav, a\\a crvvfpyovffi
Tra s-

svpra.
2>

See p. 182, n. 5, supra. Eih. a\\-f)\wv.

188 ARISTOTLE
and with the question whether in time virtue here
precedes insight or vice versu. But the chief difficulty
lies in the fact that condition one another abso
they
lutely. Virtue consists in preserving the proper mean,
which can only be determined by the man of insight. l

But, if this be
so, insight cannot be limited to the mere

discovery of means for the attainment of moral ends :

the determination of the true ends themselves is

impos
sible without it while, on the other hand, prudence
;

merits the name of insight only when it is consecrated

to the accomplishment of moral ends.
Asinsight 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
account being wholly withdrawn from the control of the

will) stand at the other extreme. To this class belong

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 self-

control (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
if all
morality centres in the relation of reason to desire,
and concerned with pleasure and pain 3 if further
is
;

there is in this respect always a wrong as opposed to

1
Cf. p. 163. 2
P. 167 n. 6,
3
See p. 156 sq. sujwa.
 ETHICS 189

the right, a bad as opposed to the good still this

opposi
tion may be of three different degrees and kinds. If
we suppose on the one hand a perfected virtue, free alike
from all 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
1
is equally rare. If the character of the will, with
out being so completely and immutably good or bad as
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
licentiousness namely, bodily pain and pleasure. The
difference lies in this, that while in the case of the
former wrong conduct springs only from passion, in
the case of the latter it
springs from the character of
the will. 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. Aristotle speaks further c. 6, 114,
(pevKTav rpta
tfQ-r] effrlv ei 8?], /ca/aa 8, b, 19, 1149, a, 20, c. 7, 1149, b
aKpaaia Qr]pi6ri]s. TO. 5 eyavTia 27 sqq. Among bestial desires
TO?S fj.ev Sval 8ri\a TO juez/ yap he reckons a.<ppodiffia ro?s appeal, by
apTr)v rb 5 eyKpaTftav Ka\ov/j.j/ which, however, as the context,
rpbs 5e rV
OypdrriTa /j-dXiffr av shows, he means only passive
\eyew T))V vTrep Tj^tas not active TrcuSepacrria.
WO. Kal 9etav ... 2
See preceding note and the
al yap wcTTrep ovSe Or]piov eVrl /cawla remarks which follow upon the
vd apeTT], OUTCOS owSe 0eoO, aAA rj relation of (rcafypoavi r) and d/coAo-
Ti/juwrepov dpT7]s, i] 5 eT6p6v ffia to fyKpaTcia and aKpa<r(a, be-
yevos Kanlas. &C. Of Qt]pi6rf]s sides p. 160 sq.
190 ARISTOTLE

in the former case he is intemperate, in thelatter effemi

nate ;
if he preserves the proper limit, he is temperate
or constant. 1 The latter type of man still differs from
1
Ibid. C. 6 oVt /uei/ ovv Trepl : other hand (who is defined 1150,
f/Soi/ds Kal\vtras elalv otV e 7/cpaTets b, 1 as e AAeiTrcol/ Trpbs a ot TroAAol Kal
Kal KaprepiKol Kal ot d/cpaTe?s ital fj.a- avTiTfivovo i Kal SvvavTai), avoids
Aa/fol, (pavep6v. More accurately, pain undesignedly. di/TiKetrat
these qualities, like o-co^poo-uj/rjand 5e T(f awparet 6 eyKpaTys, T$ 8e
/j.ev

d/coAao-ta, refer to bodily pain and jixaAa/c&iJ 6 /caprept/fos. C. 9, 1151, a,

pleasure; only in an improper 11 the d/co Aao-Tos desires im

:

sense can we speak of xP r)/J aTWV - moderate bodily enjoyments on

a/cpareTs Kal /cepSovs Kal TI/J.TJS Kal principle (5td TO ireTreTo-^at), this
dvuov. TUV 8e Trepl ras o"ajjuaTiKas desire having its roots in his
S, Trepl as Ae^Oyuei/ TOI> moral character as a whole (Std
Ka\ aKoXaGTOV, 6 ^ Tip TO TOtowTos elj/at olos Stco/cety auTas)
Trpoaipf io Oat T&V 7)8rtj/a>j/
SidaKwv Tas . . . eo"Tt Se Tts Std TTO^OS eKffTa-

i)Trep/3oAds Kal TWV \virT)pu>v (pevyuv TIKOS irapa TOJ/ opdbv \6yov, bv &o~T
. . dAAa irapa irpoaipe(rii> Kal rrjv
.
/jLfis fj.i] TrpaTTeti/ KOTa TOV 6pdbv
Sidvoiav, aKpa-rrjs Aeyeraf, ou /card \6yov KpaTel TO irdOos, 5 S>ffT

irp6(Tdecnv, KaQdirep 6p7fys,dAA a7rAa>$ elvat TOIOVTOV olov Trewe io Oai StwKeiv

p6vov. MaAa/c;o refers to the same SeTi/ Tas TOtairras TjSoms ov

objects. The aKpar^s, therefore, ovT6s fffTiv 6 aKpaT^s
and the a/cdAao-ros, the fjKpar^s U aKO\d(7TOv, ouSe (/>aGAos

and the o-w^pwi/, etVl /xei/ Trepl ai 7ap TO 0e\Ti<TTOV,

ravra, a\\ ovx wffavTws eivlv, 7)dpx77. aAAos 8 eVavTtos, 6 ffj.jj.fv-

dAA otTrpoaipovvTai ol 5
i*ev ou eriKos Kal OVK fKffTaTiKos Sta 76 TO
TrpoaipovvTai. Sib /j.a\\ov a /ra0os (and so, previously, c. 4,
Uv 6t7TOt/i6J/, 00"TiS
(J. 1146,b,22). C. 11, 1152, a, 15: the
rip/j.a 5ic6/cet ras inrepfioAas Kal intemperate man acts indeed
(pevyei fjierpias Auiras, ^ rovrov e/cw^, Trovrjpbs 8 ov ^ 7ap Trpoatpetrts
tiffrisStci eirtOv^v (T<p6Spa.
T^>
eTrtei/crjs coo"0
i)fj.nr6j/ir]pos. He
C. 8 init. in reference to the
: resembles a state which has good
said objects, eo-rt /j.ev OVTWS ex flv laws but which does not observe
ai Kal &v ol iro\\ol them the irovnp bs one in which
;

,
5e Kpartiv Kal wv ol
eo*rt the laws are observed, but are
TTOAAol 7JTTOUS- TOVTCOV 5 6 fJLfV bad. He differs, therefore, from
Trepl ffSovas d/cpOT^j 6 5 tyKparfys, the d/co Aaff Tos in that he feels re
6 5e Trepl Xinras /j.a\aKos 6 8e morse for his actions (cf. Eth.
icafjrepiKos . . . o fj.fv ras uTrep- iii. 2, p. 590 mid. above) and
fio\as SiuKcav ra>v
rjSe w?/ ?) Kcntf is therefore not so incurable as

L7repj8oAds 7^ Std Trpoatpeo tJ ,

St the latter. Accordingly, Aristotle
auras al jurjSev 5t erepov aTrofia ivov, compares excess with epilepsy,
aicoXaa-ros . . . 6 5 tXKtiirwv 6 aKoXatria with dropsy and con
di/Tt/ce//xe^os, 6 8e jiieVos ffdctypav. sumption (c. 8, 1150, a, 21, c. 9
6/j.iocas Se /cal 6 (pevywv Tas o"a>ua- init. ). Two kinds of intemper
Ttds Ai/rras ^ St J\TTav dAAa Std
on the
ance are further distinguished,
and
Trpoatpeirtj/.
The /uaAa/cbs, do"0eVeta
TrpoTreVeta, that
 ETHICS 191

the man who is virtuous in the proper sense (

in that he is still
struggling with evil desires, from
which the other is free.
1
The general question of how
and how far it is possible to act from intemperance, and
to let our better knowledge be overpowered by desire,
has been already discussed. 2

3. Friendship
Upon the account of all 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 to it,

so kindly the disposition that is indicated, so profuse

the wealth of refined and happy thoughts, that
Aristotle could have left us no more splendid memorial
of his own heart and character. Aristotle justifies him
self for admitting a discussion upon Friendship into
the Ethics partly by the remark that it also belongs to
the account of virtue, 3 but chiefly on the ground of the

which is deliberately pursued and excusable are exaggerations of

that which, springing from vio- noble impulses (c. 6, 1148, a, 22
lence of temper, is thoughtlessly sqq.). Onanger, fear, compassion,
pursued of these the latter is
; envy, &c. see also lihet. ii. 2,
described as more curable (c. 8, 5-11.
1150, b, 19 sqq. c. 11, 1152, a, 18, C. 11, 1151, b, 34: g T f yap
27). The inconstancy of the in- eyKparys otos /uijSej/ trapa riv
temperate man finds its opposite Xoyov Sia ras aw/mar titas yjSoj/as
extreme in the headstrong and Troielv /cal 6 ffdtxbpcav, a\\ 6 fj.lv
self-willed roan (iVxt/poyvc^coi/, %x wv & ^ OVK l^cui/ </>^Aas
eVt-
iSioyvw/uuv, c. 10, 1151, b, 4). The 6v/j.ias, iral 6 p.ev TOIOVTOS olos /JL^J
excesses of anger are less to be "jSeo-flcu irapa. r^bv \6yov, 6 S oTos
blamed than those of intern- ^SecrQai a\\a ayeaQai.
JJ.YI
*
perance (c. 7, c. 8, 1150, a, 25 P. 155 (EtJi. vii. 5.)
3
sqq. ;
cf. v. 10, 1135, b, 20-29 !<TTI
yap apery TLS $ ^er
and p. 113, n. 1); still more aperris : viii. 1 init.
 192 ARISTOTLE

significance it has for human life.

Everyone requires
l
friends : the happy man, that he may keep his happi
ness and enjoy
it by
sharing it with others
2
the ;

comfort and support

afflicted, for youth, for advice ; ;

manhood, for united action old age, for assistance. ;

Friendship is a law of nature it unites

parents and :

children by a natural bond, citizen with citizen,

, man with man. 3 What justice demands is
supplied
in the highest degree by friendship, for it produces a

unanimity in which there no longer occurs any viola

4
tion of mutual is, therefore, not only
rights. It
5
outwardly but morally necessary. The social impulses
of man find in it their most immediate expression and
satisfaction and just for this reason it constitutes in
;

Aristotle s view an essential part of Ethics. For as Ethics

is conceived by him
and the moral
in general as Politics,
life as life in society, 6 so
no account of moral activity
can be to him complete which does not represent it as

1
For what follows see Etli. 4
Ibid. 1. 24 sqq.; hence,
viii. 1,1155, a, 4-16. (pi\cav /j.kv ovrtav oiSei/ Set SIKO.IO-
2
Ibid. avev yap fyiXiav ouSels ffvvt]s, ovres TrpocrSeovrai
Si/catot 5
eAorr &y fjv, e^ow ra \onra ayaOa (pi\ias, Kal T&V SiKaiwv rb /aaXiara
Travra ... ri yap wpeAos TTJS (pi\iKbv elj/cu So/ce? [the highest
roiavTrjs ei6T7jpias a<cupe0ei0-7js justice is the justice of friends!.
5
fvepytarias, 5? yiyverai /xaAitrra Kal L. 28 ou fj.6vov 8 avayxaiov
;

eTraii/ereoTaTTj Trpbs (plAovs. iffriv aAAa Kal KaXov.

3
16-26, where inter
6
Ibid. c. See on this line p. 186, n. 1.
alia : ftSot av ns Kal eV TO?S
8 Etli. x. 7, 1177, a, 30 : b /j.fv
Tr\dvais [wanderings] ws olKtiov SiKaios Sen-cu Trpbs ovs
SiKaioirpay-
avQpwnos avOpcoirq) Kal (pi\ov.
aTras Tjcret Kal /ue# wi/, O/ULO IWS 8e Kal 6
Of. ix. 9, 1169, b, 17 aroirov 8 :
, (Tiacppuj/ Kal o aj/Spelos Kal roav
taws Kal rb p.ov(t>rf]V ITOIC LV rbv aAAcov fKaaros, only theoretic
1

p.aKa.pLov ovdels yap lAotr &i/ KaO virtue is self-sufficient 1178, ;

c. 8,
a JTbv TO. TrdvT* e^eu/ aya6d TTO\I- b, 5: ^ 8 eVrt Kal
avOpcairos
rtKbis yap 6 av9p<aTros Kal <rvrjv irAetWi ffv($ aipslrai TO. /car
aperV
ire(pvK6s. On this see further Trparreij/. Cf. p. 144, n. 1, supra,
infra.
 ETHICS 193

socially The examination, therefore, of

constructive.

Friendship, while completing the study of Ethics

constitutes at the same time the link which unites it
with the doctrine of the State. 1

By Aristotle understands in
friendship general
e^ery relationship of mutual good will of which both
2
parties are conscious. This relationship, however, will
assume a different character
according to the nature of
the basis upon which it rests. The objects of our
attachment are in general three : the good, the plea- *

surable, and the useful 3 and in our friends it will

;

be sometimes one of these, sometimes

another, which
attracts us. We
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
of these three motives. He who loves his friend only
for the sake of the profit or the
pleasure which he
obtains from him, does not truly love but his him, only
own advantage and enjoyment ;
with these accord
4
ingly his friendship changes. True friendship exists
1
Aristotle inserts, however, ship only when each knows that
two sections upon pleasure and the other wishes him well. The
happiness between them, in the definition of the Rhrt. i.
(f>i\os,

tenth book thus connecting the 5, 1361, b, 36, as one oaris i

end of the Ethics with the begin- oferai aya9a elvat e/cetVw,
irpaKTiicos
ning, where the end of human eVrjj/ avrw 5t e/ce?j/oi/, is a
super-
effort had been defined as ficial one for rhetorical purposes
happi-
nes s- 3
Ibid. 1155. b, 18: 8o K
- e?ybp
VIII. 2, 1155, b, 31 sqq. oil irav QiXtta-eai aAAa rb
(pi\f] T bv
(where, however, 1. 33, must
be omitted after ii/). Friend-
^ rovro 5 elvai aya6bv % ySb j)
-^ffi^ov.
"

ship is here defined as etvoia, ev *

Ibid. c. 3, 5.
Friendships I

avTiireiroveoari
^ Xav6dvov(roi,
mutual good will becomes friend-
as 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
is in himself. He seeks his personal advantage and
pleasure in that which is good absolutely and in itself.
Such a friendship cannot be formed quickly, for the
friend must be tried by long intercourse before he can
be trusted nor can it be extended to many, for an
;
l

inner relationship and a close acquaintance is only

possible with a few at the
same time. 2 It is, moreover,
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

; dyaBoi [for they are so in so far as
of pleasure, among the young. they are good]. OVTOI JJLSV ovv
Kara
Only the latter require that, the dir\(t>s
(pi Aot, e/celVoi Se tfu/XjSe-

friends should live together, and /STJKOS Kal T<

wfj-oitoffOai TOVTOIS.

they are least durable when the Cf. n. 2 on following page.

7, 1158, a, 10 sqq., and
2
VIII.
parties are unlike one another
and pursue different ends the : still more fully ix. 10.
one, for instance (as in unworthy
3
VIII. 7, 1157, b, 28 eWe :

love affairs), his own pleasure, the 8 77 (iiei/ (piATjcm Traflet, 73 Se

other his advantage. Cf, c. 10, (ptAia e et
(on eis, see p. 285,
1159, b, 15, ix. 1, 1161, a, 3 sqq. n. 3, and p. 153, n. 3, supra} rj

VIII. 4 init. reAeia 8 eVrli/

1
:
yap (ptATjcris ovx TJTTOI/ Trpos ra
1

7j T<av ayaOuv </uAia

Kal /car cipe-
T-//J OJJLO IUV
OUT ot yap To.yo.Qa.

ofjioiusfiov\ovrai aAA^Aoiy ij dya- e TayaOd fiovXovTai rots

eo>s,
al
fKGivwv eVe/ca, o j KaTa
0oi dyadol 8 fial Kad aurovs. of <pi\ov[AfVois

8e /3ouAo;U,ej/oi Ta.ya.6v. TO?S (piXois rrddos dAAa /ca0 e u/. But on the
other hand, as is further re
yap OVTUS 4x ov(ri KC
vs KaTa " "
marked, mutual pleasure in one
Kos [they are friends for another s society is an element in
the sake of one another and not friendship of morose persons it
;

of merely accidental object] is said, ibid. 1158, a, 7 of TOIOV- :

Siafj-f veL ovv f? TOVTUIV (piAtcc ecos

Uv roi fvvoi IJLSV elaiv aAA7)Aois Qov-
ayadol 3io~iv, 77 8 dperr) fj.6viiu.ov.
XovTai yap Ta.ya.Qd KO.\ diravTUffiv
Ibid. c. 6 init. : of fj-fv fyavXoi CLS Tas xpeias (f)L\oi 8 ov irdvv

ftfovrai 8t rjSoi/V $)
TO XP^~ eiVl Sia Tb fj.1] (rvvr]fji.pveLV /irjSe
(f>l\oi

fflUOV, TOMTT] OfJ.0101 UVTfS, 01 8 aAA^Aots, a 877 ^aAtoV elvai

ayaOol Si UUTOVS ^(Aot rj yap
 ETHICS 195

equivalent. Every other kind, attaching as it does to

what external and unessential, is
is
merely an imperfect
copy of this true friendship. This requires that
1

friends should love the in one another, that

only good
they should receive only good from one another and
return only good. 2 Virtuous
men, on the other hand,
neither demand nor perform
any unworthy service to
one another, nor even permit to be done for them. 3 it
it
just as true friendship rests on likeness and
equality of character and spiritual gifts, all
friendship
may be said to rest upon 4
The equality
equality. is

1
See n. 1 on preceding page, TO
(pL\e?i/ eot/cei/ [which we
and viii. 8, 1158, b, 4 sqq. c. 10, cannot explain with
1159, b, 2 sqq.
BEANDIS, p.
*
1476, as the love of friends is like
0. 4, 1156, b, 12: eVrti/ the love of their
virtue, for the
(KaTepos air\cas ayaObs Kal fyiXa) words preceding forbid
T<$
this trans
[each is not only per se good, lation the meaning i s
; i nas . :
<

but a good to his friend], ot yap much as love is a

ayaOol Kal airXcas ayaOol ital dAAr/- praiseworthy
thing, it is a kind of perfection
Aots ox^eAtyUOi. 6/j.oicas 5e Kal f/SeTs m the friends, or is based
upon
Kal yap curAcos ol ayaOol
TjSets /cat perfection; as, therefore the
aAArjAoiS eKatTTCf yap Ka9 fiSovf)]/ that rests upon actual
friendship
etVu/ at olicelai irpdl-tis Kal at TOIUV-
merits is lasting, that which rests
Tat, TWV 5e at avTal 71
ayaOoiiv upon true love must be so
c. 7, 1157, b, 33: fyiXovv- too].
6/j.oiai. SOT 1
fV ots TOTO
yivtTai /COT d|taj/,
Tes TOV (piAov TO ai>TO?s ayaObv OL-TOt
fttviflOl (})i\0l Kal J!
6 yap ayaObs
<t>i\ovffiv(pi\os yej/6- <pi\ia. oVru 5 ^ Ka l O l
fj.evosayadbv yiveTai $ (pi\os e/ca-
Tepos ovv Te TO avTy ayaQbv,
^>tAe?
yap
Iff6rns teal
Kal TO avTaTroSiSuxn Trj Bov\r)-
"iffov
6fj.oi6rns
v r,
ffi Kal TjSeT
T<$
Ae^eTat yap
<$>iX6Tt}s f) tVoTTjs [or with Cod. 5e fj.d\io-Ta
K b omit
^, so that the same pro
Sia

verb is here cited as ix. 8, 1168, b, v\ov<ri

v , aj^aO^s
ov a elSon-
ydp ^tAoTTjs lo-6Tr, s rvyxdvci T is eVSefc to
-]
TO^TOU
f
T; TWV ayaOwv Tavff fyttfuwts dmSupctTat a\\ v This .

is so even in the
3 case of lovers.
C. 10, 1159, b, 4.
4
See n. 3 on preceding page, tvavTiov Ka8 avrb, ciAAa KaTa
and viii. 10, 1159, a, 34 :

TTJS (ptAtas ovffrjs ev TO? effTiv. TOVTO 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.

When, 011 the other hand, the object of each is dif

ferent,
1
or when one of the parties is superior to the

other,
2
we have proportional instead of perfect equality
or analogy each lays claim to love and service from :

3
the other, proportionate to his worth to him. Friend
in which also the
ship is thus akin to justice, question
is one of the establishment of equality in the reW
tions of human society
4
but law and right take ;
/
in the case of the lover
1
As al Kal a! $i\iai. Parents
^i\-fi<rfis

and his beloved, or the artist and perform a different service for
his pupil, in which the one party children from that which chil
seeks pleasure, the other advan dren perform for parents; so
tage or of the sophist
;
and his long as each party does the duty
the former that belongs to it they are in a
disciple, in which
teaches and the latter pays ix. 1, ; right and enduring relation to
1164, a, 193, n. 4, mp.
2-32 : cf. p. each other. dvaKoyov 5 eV trdaais
- of parents rats KaO vircpo^v ovcrais
E.g. the relation
<pi\iais

5e? yivevBai, olov

and children, elders and youths, Kal T^V </MA7j<rti/

man and wife, ruler and ruled, rbv dfjt,eivci) /*a\\ov (pi\f?ff6ai ^
viii. 8, 1158, a, 8, and elsewhere. </>iAeTi/,
Kal rbv uxpeXi/awrepov, Kal
TUV a\Ac0v Ka(TTov 6/j.oius OTav
3
VIII. 8 init. eiVt 5 olv al :

e/pr/juei/at (ptAi
cu eV tVorr/rt ra yap yap /car diav TJ <pi\f)ffis yiyvt]-Tai,

avra yiyverai oV d^olv Kal fiovXov- r6r yiyverai irus ia6 n}s 6 S^j rrjs
(pi\ias elvat SOKC?. Cf. C. 13, 1161,
rai dAA^Aois 3) erepov dvQ erepov
OlOV a, 21, c. 16, 1163, b, 11 rb /car :
i)$OVT)V
ai/r a><f>eAei
as-. c. 15 init. :
rpir- dtfav yap (iraviffol Kal <T&&I r^v
ix. 1 init. : eV trdo~ais
TU>V 8 ovcrwv <pi\iav.

rwv V V iffOTfjri <pih(i)V

5e rdis dvOjUoeiSe o-t (piXiais [those

ijVTWV ru>v Se Krt0 uirepoxV (.Kal in which the two parties pursue
yivovrai Kal different ends] rb dvd\oyov Icd&i
yap 6fjLoiws dyadol <pi\oi

8e Kai ijoets, Kal o~wfi TT]V fyiXlav, Kaddirep

afj.iv(*)v Ycipovi, o/jioius
olov Kal eV Ty iroAiriKi) T^
dvrl TWV
poj/Tes) rovs
c
o^eAei cus Kal 5ia<pe

yvtrai /car a c.
*LO~OVS uev KOT lff6TfjTa Set
,
(pi^-fiv TCI>

Kal TO?S AoiTroTs iffdfriv, rovs

S VIII. 11 init.: eoi/ce Se . .

ravra Kal eV Tols avrols elvat

j
dvtffovs rep dvd\oyov rats virepo^ais irepl
% re Kal rb SiKaiov ev airdo-r)
diroSiSova i. c. 8, 1158, b, 17 (after <pi\ta

elvai Kal
citing examples of friendship
in yap Koivuvia SOKC ITI 5 iKaiov
<bi\ia 5e. . . . /cafl Offov 5e KOIVCDVOV-
unlike relations) erepayapkKdo-rov :

ffiv, firl roffovrov effri Kal yap

rovruv dper^ Kal rb epyov, erepa ^>i\ia

rb oiKaiov. Cf. p. 192, n. 4, supra.

Se Kal { a d>i\ovffiv erepai ovv Kal
 ETHICS 197

account in the first instance of relations of inequality,

in 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 isprimary and perfect is the friendship between
equals, while that which exists between those who are
not equals is
only secondary.
1

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
is, to the various kinds of constitution.
2
From these,
which are more of the nature of contracts, he then pro
ceeds to separate the relationships of kindred and
pure
VI1T. 9 init :
fyio wy 8e master and slave, no friendship
^
rb taov re TO?S StKa
01^ ots KCU
ej/ eV is possible but in such cases
;

rfj (f>i\ia Qaivfrai ^x flv * ffri

7P there are not even rights (c. 18,
eV p.fv TOIS SiKaiois "HTOV
irpwrvs rb ibid. ;
cf. x. 8,
1 1 78, b,
10). The
ar alav [i.e. 5iave/j.r)TiKbv SLKCUOV, distinction, as a whole, is rather
which is based upon analogy ;
a trifling one, and it is obvious
see p. 171 sqq.], rb Se /caret troabv from the quotations on p. 196, n. 4,
[i.e. SiopOuriKov, which proceeds and p. 192, n. 4. supra,, that it was
upon the principle of arithmetical not accepted even by Aristotle
equality] Seurepcos, eV 5e TTJ fyiXia himself as exhaustive of the sub-
rb p.ev Kara Troabv Trpwrws [since
ject. The reason is to be found in
perfect friendship, of which all the obscurity caused by his failure
other forms are imperfect imita-
clearly to separate between the
tions, is that which is concluded legal and the moral side of
between persons equally worthy justice.
for the sake of their worth see On the special relations of
2
p. ;

194, n. 1, and 195, n. 2, supra], rb travelling companions, comrades

Se /car diav Sevrepus in in war, members of clans, guilds,
support of :

which Aristotle points to the fact &c., of. viii. 11; on the State
that where the inequality is very and the various forms of consti-
great, as in the case of men and tution, c. 12 sq., and p. 196, n.
gods or (c. 13, 1161, a, 32 sqq.) 4, supra.
198 ARISTOTLE

friendship. On the same principle lie distinguishes later

1

2
on 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 :

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
which give rise to discord and separation between
friends. He
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 a rivalry in mutual service, which successfully

excludes any sense of unfairness oh either side where
;

it 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
obtaining a like return, too often finds himself disap
3
pointed in his expectations. The same may be said of
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.: eV ^Koivwvia. art- discussed in c. 14, partly a!j|
/icy oi>v irtHTa <}>i\ia effrlv, Ka&dirsp c.12 sq. We
shall ret urn to these
f ipT)Tai-
d(pnpifreif 8 &v ris rrjf re in the section upon the Family.
"

(rwyyevutfyv Koi rrjv eTcuptKTjp. ai VIII. 15, 1102, b, 21 sqq.

3
3e TroXiTLKal KOI <f)v\TiKal
KOI See the interesting discus-
ffvfj.ir\oiKai, KOI ovai Toiav-rai, KOI- sion in viii. 15. Cf. also what is
vuvtKois eoiKaffi /j.a\\ov olov yap said on the relation of teacher
/ca9 o^oXoylav nva fyaivovrou flvat. and scholar, ix. 1. 11 04, a, 32 sqr
4
els TavTas 8e rd^eiev &v TIS Kal TT\V VIII. 1(5.
.
Relationships of kindred
 ETHICS 199

arise where each party has a different object in view in

1

entering upon the alliance. Aristotle further discusses

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 asks whether a friendly alliance should be
dissolved if 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.
3
He surveys the relation between love of
self and love of friends, recognising in the latter a
reflection of the attitude which the virtuous man main
4
tains towards himself; and he connects with this the
question whether one should love oneself or one s

friend more, deciding it by pointing out that it is

impossible that there should be any real opposition

1
For the fuller discussion of
this case see ix. 1 cf p. 193, n. 4,
supra.
2
IX.
especially 11C5, a, 16,
2,
30 eVel 8 erepa yovevffi Kal d5eA-
: matter of pleasure or profit. 1 f
Kal traipois KCU
</>ois vpyerais,
fKaarois TO. ot/ceTa Kal ra apfMor-
TOJ/TCC airovij.r)T(oi>
yeveai KOI (puAeVcus Kal iroXirais
Sr)
Kal TCHS \onrots awa<nv ael TretpareW
TO oiKtlov aTroWyueiv, Kal avyKpivtiv
ret eKaffroLs virdpxovTa KCCT oiKei6~
TTjra Kal aper^v $ x^l ffLV When
the relation is homogeneous this
comparison is easier when he-
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
based upon pleasure or advan-
been deceived in a friend, sup-
;
.
posing oneself to have been loved
disinterestedly (Starb ?)0os), while
with the other it was only a
a friend degenerates morally,
the first duty is to aid him in
. . . ital ffvy- 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
: moral and intellectual develop-
ment, true fellowship becomes
henceforth impossible; neverthe-
less, the early connection should
be honoured as much as it
fcan be.
Hid. b, 6-2 .),
4
IX. 4, 1.166,

tage or, again, when one has

;
where the discord in the soul of
 200 ARISTOTLE
between the claims of those two, since true self-love con
sists in coveting for ourselves what is best i.e. the
morally beautiful 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
1

self (to pass over other points 2

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 whom he may benefit ;
the contemplation of
their excellence affords a high sense of
enjoyment akin
to the consciousness of one s own ;
it is easier to

energise in company with one gains others than alone ;

moral iiivigoration for oneself from intercourse with

good men. Above all, man is by nature formed for
association with others, and the happy man can least
4
afford to lead a solitary life ;
for just as to each man
his own life and activity is a 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
intercourse with him, must be a joy and a 5
But
good.
the wicked is depicted with re- children (c. 8) ;
the number of
markable truth, and the moral one s friends, which ought to be
is drawn consistently with the neither too small nor too great,
practical aim of the Etliws ei 8r) : but ought to include so many
TO ovrcas %Xtiv XLO.V ecrrlv a9\iov, ocroi tls TO ffv^fjv ifcavoi,
seeing
tyevKTfoi Tr)v ^oxO"npiav Siarera- that a close relationship is pos-
f.(.ei/ws c. sible only between few, the
1
IX. see p. 133, n. 2, supra,
8, closest (epus as uTrepjSoA^ ^tAioy),
ad Jin., p. 151, n. 2, supra, only between two; although of
2
The relation of evvoia (ix. political friends (members of the
5) and o>oVoia (c. 6) to <f>t\ia
same party) one can have a great
the apparent fact that the bene- number.
factor usually loves the benefited 3
IX. 9, cf. viii. 1. 1155, a, 5.
more than the latter the former, 4
IX, 9, 1169, b, 1 7; see p. 192,
every one loving his own produc- n. 3, supra.
tion, as the mother does her
5
Ibid. 1170, a, 13 sqq. where,
 ETHICS 201

if we ask
further whether we require friends more in

adversity, the answer is, that it is more

1
prosperity or

necessary to possess them in adversity, nobler in

prosperity.
2
In the former case we are more in need of
their help ; 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 A
friends to share his joys, loath to have recourse to them
in sorrow on the other hand, he ought to be ; more
ready to hasten to them when they are in trouble than
in joy. True friendship, however, demands both. 3

Friendship is an association and community of life, an

extension of self-love to embrace others. 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 Friendship, therefore,

after first referring to al<redvo-9ai <rv$jv

Kal Koivwvelv \6yw Kal Sia-
and voflv as constituents of voias ovrw yap
So|ete rb ffvfjv ~av
human life, Aristotle proceeds, eVt ruv avQpuirwv XsytcrQai, KOI oO%
1. 19 rb 8e fjv r$v Katf avrb aya-
:
Sxrirep CTT! rSsv (3oo~Kr]fj.dTu}V rb eV
65>v Kal ^SeW . . .
Si^Trep eoi/ce rep avr$ veuea-Qat.
iraaiv 7}Sv elvai. b, 1 : rb 5 alff- IX. 11.
BdvfffOai OTL fj
rwv f]8ewv /co0 -
A similar distinction be-
auro $iWt yap ayaQbv
rb 5 {co^, tween avayKalov and ayadbv or
ayaObv v-jrapxav eV favrtp aivQav- Ka^bv has already come before
ea-0ai ^Su.
[In being conscious of us, p. 165, n. 1 (from MetapTi.i.
perception and thought we are 2), 192, n. 5, supra. Of Polit. vii. .

conscious of life rb yap e?j/cu fy :

14, 1333, a, 36 ra 5 avayKcua Kal :

aiorOdvtffQai Kal i/oeli/, a,

32.] . . . o>s
xP^ frt At T&V Ka\>i> eVe/cev.
Se irpbs eavrbv e ^ei 6 crirovSa ios, Kal 3
irapovata ruv c.
i] Srj <pi\(av,

Trpbs rov (piXov erepos yap avrds 6 11 concludes, eV airaffLi/ alpfri)

<t>i\os
fffriv .
KaOaTTfp ovv rb avrbv (paiverai.
4
clvai alperov effriv e/coo-r^, ovrca Kal See n. 5 above, and ix. 12 (at
rb rbv ^} irapair\r)(ri(as. rb 8
</>iAoi/
the end of the section upon friend-
flvai i\v alperbv Sia rb alffOdveaOai
ship) ap ovv, wffirep rols fpSaffi rb
:

avrov ayaOov 7) 8e roiavrr} bvro<i.

6pa.v a.ya.irt)r6rar6v eo-n, ovru . . .

ataQyais ^5e?o KaO eavrr^v, ffvvaur- Kal rots (pi\ois alprcarar6v effri rb
6dvso-6ai apa Set Kal rov (piXov ori Koivcavia Kal
1
ffv^fjv ; yap f] QiXia.
(0~nv, rovro 8e yivoir" o.v eV r< us trpbs iaurbv t^ej, OVTU Kal irpbs
202 ARISTOTLE
isthe most conspicuous example of the natural sociable-
ness and solidarity of mankind. It is the bond that
unites men to one another, not in any merely outward
manner, by community of legal rights, but by the
as a

deepest instincts of their nature. In friendship indi

vidual morality expands into a spiritual communion.
But this communion
limited and dependent on is still

the accidental circumstances of personal relations. It

is in the State that it first receives a wider scope and a
more solid foundation in fixed laws and permanent
institutions.

TOI>
<pi\ov. Trfpl O.\JT\>V 5 77

QTl (TTIV alpeTT) KOU TTfpl

 203

CHAPTER XIII

TR ACTICAL PHILOSOPHY (CCLNTIX UEI >)

1
B. Politics

1. Necessity, Nature and Function of the State

OF Aristotle s be said, as of
theory of the State it may
some other portions of his philosophy, that there are
several points in it on which it is difficult for us to obtain

certainty or completeness of view, owing to the state

in which his treatise on Politics has come down to us.
So rare the union, so unequal, where they exist,
is

the distribution, of the powers and qualities which

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 . But the completion of the work was

On the more recent litera-

1

(Leipzig-, I860), i. H42 sqq. :

tare which treats of Aristotle s UEBERWEG, Grundriss,i. 203 sq.

theory of the State as a whole (5th ed. 187G) ; SUSEMIHL, Jalirb.
and in its several parts, see HIL- /. Philol. vol. xcix. 593, ciii. 110,
DENBRAND, Gescli. u. tit/st. tier and BuusiAN s Jakretbericht,
Itechts- imd Staa^pHlosopHe 1874, p. 592 sq. 1877, p. 372 sqq.
 204 ARISTOTLE

probably prevented by the death of the author and ;

l

when the sketches which he had left came to be

put to
2
gether. it was impossible to avoid lacunce, and these must
1
See Appendix, Cicero, make it impossible to
-
Here, as in the case of the accept this view, even were we
Metaphysics (see p. 76 sq. supra), to grant that the note, ^ o>y

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 Theo-
Theophrastus is named as the phrastian passages from our text
editor of the Metaphysics as less arbitrary than it is __ The
(p.
79), it may have been he same arguments hold good also
;

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\t-
: Politics at the death of the
TIKTJS aKpodcTfws ws 7] author existed only in the original
eo<t>pd(T-

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
ing them with Theophrastus s as meagre traces of it, but this finds
the better known. The question, sufficient in the
explanation
therefore, rises whether the feebleness of the interest taken
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
ing been first placed in the philosophical remains that have
margin by another hand, and survived to us from it. Even in
then incorporated in the text as the later
ages, this most important
TI &eo(f)p. with us taken from account of Aristotle s
political
aKpodvtws preceding it. KROHN doctrines is seldom mentioned
(ibid. 51) supposes that the con (see the passages cited by SUSE-
junction of the works of Theo MIHL, p. xlv, who follows
phrastus and Aristotle in the SPENGEL, Ucb. d. Pol. d. Arist.
cellar at Scepsis may partly ex
\_Abh. d. Miinchn. Akad. \. 44], and
plain why much that belongs to HEITZ, Verl. Schr. d. Ar. 242
Theophrastus should have found hardly a dozen in fifteen centu
its way into the Politics of Ari
ries), and, apart from the extract
stotle, and why it finally came to in STOB^EUS (see p. 203, supra), is
be thought that Theophrastus not discussed with any fullness
was its author but the indica
;
except by the Platonist EUBULUS
tions given, p. 150, supra, of the (Part iii! a. 71 9, b, 408, 1, POEPH.
use of the work up to the time of 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 individual virtue and the know-S
ledge which instructs us in it may be, Aristotle yet
?

finds, as 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.
In the moral activity of a community is greater,
itself,

more perfect, nobler, and more divine than that oi

individuals. 1 But even the continuous production and
maintenance of virtue is dependent wholly upon the

State. Mere instruction is insufficient in the vastf

majority of cases he who is a slave to desire neither

:

listens to admonition nor understands it. It is fear of

punishment, not aversion to evil, that moves him. He

knows nothing of joy in what is noble for its own sake.
How is it then, to correct inveterate ten
possible,
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
able only to legal constraint. But a good education and
2
stringent laws are possible only in the State. Only in
the State can man
attain his proper good. 3 Life in the
State is the natural vocation of man. His nature has

ruv UTT ApiffTorcXovs tv ff&fciv ayair-f]T^v p.ev yap Kal evl

UXdrwvos TloAiTeiav a,VTipi}iJ.evo)v Kal

has been made public by MAI, 2
Ibid. x. 10.
3
Collect. Vatic, ii. 671 sqq. Polit. i. 1 init. Every so-
1
Etli. i. 1, 1094, b, 7 el yap:
ciety aims at some good, yuaAurra
Kal ravr6v effriv [TO Tt Aos] ei/i Kal tie Kal rov Kvpiiardrov irdvruv [sc.
tro\i, |Ue?oV 76 Kal TfAewrepov rb crro^d^erai] rj iravuv Kvpuardri] Kal

T7s TroA.a>s (mtJ eTcu Kal \a&?v Kal irdcras Tri^x ovffa ras ^\\as O^TTJ
 200 ARISTOTLE
destined him for society, 1 as is clear from the fact that
he alone of all creatures possesses the 2
power of speech.
In the State moral activity finds at once its condition
and completion. The State is the moral
whole, and is
therefore prior in itself to the individual and the
3
family :
only in the order of its 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 j

of the community at large/ The morality, therefore,

8 Ka\ov/uLvr) ir6\is Kal TJ

e<rrii>
T] 1252, b, 30: Sib iraaa iro\is
KoiiHavia iroXiriK f}.
7) Eth. i. 1, effrlv, e^7re/j Kal at Trpurai KOivcaviai
1094, b, 6 rb Tavrrjs [TT/S TroAt-
:
reAos yap ainai tie
fKeivcov, rj tyvvis
TZ/CTJS] re Aos 7repi^oi &j/ ra riav reAos eVrtV.
SXTTC TOUT &// efy ra.vQp<a- 4
a\\u>v,
Only in this sense is it said,
irivov ayadov. How far this is Mh. viii. 14, 1162, a, 17: avGpuiros
consistent with the higher place yap rrj tyvo-ei ffvvSvao-TiKbv yUaAAoj/
assigned to Qewpla. has been al ^) iroKiTiKbv, offq} irpoTtpov Kal avay-
ready discussed, p. 143 sq. supra. Kaiortpov oiKia TTo Afws. That is
1
Polit. i. 2, 1253, a, 2 bn :
avayKaw which serves to satisfy
rwv (pixrei }] TroAis earl, Kal on av- a physical need, and is there
OpwTros tyvaei iro\LTiKbv $ov. With fore definitely distinct from rb
a reference to this passage, iii. 6, Ka\6v; see p. 201, n. 2, supra.
1278, b, 19 (pixrei fj.4v eo-nv av- :
But this does not the prejudice
Opcairos {ipoi/ Tro\irtKbv, Sib Kal fj.r)ei/ subordination of every other
Sf6/nvoi rrjs Trap a\\T)\(av fiorideias social bond to the political. On
OVK eAaTTOv bpeyovrai TOV crv^fjv. the other hand, the State and
Etli. ix. 9 see p. 192, n. 3, supra ;
; the household seem rather to be
cf. preceding note.
a
regarded by Eudemus as parallel
Polit. i. 2, 1253, a, 7 sqq. institutions (see Eud. vii. 10,
3
Polit. i. 2, 1253, a, ]9: 1242, a, 22 6 7^
avtipuiros ov
:

Trp6rpov Sr? rf) tyvcrei Tr6\is $7 oiKia fj.6vov iroXiriKbv dAAa Kal olKovopiKbv
Kal fKatrros TUJLUV fanv. rb yap C$0"), economics being also
o\ov irporspov avaynatov eli/ai TOV separated by him from politics
pepovs. el yap . .
avrdpKtjs .
^ see p. 186, n.
3
4, supra.
;

rols Polit.
dfjLoiws i. 2, 1253, a, 27: 6 St
e|et irpbs rb o\ov.
 POLITICS L>07

of individuals has its indispensable complement in the

State : Ethics is fulfilled in Politics.
It follows from what has just been said, 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 protection of person and property. The State
certainly owes its origin, as Aristotle admits, primarily
to a human need. Families unite in communities for

purposes of intercourse communities again into States. ;

But the conception of the State is not thereby ex

hausted. Its function does not stop with care for the

physical wellbeirig of its members, since this care is

extended to slaves and domestic animals as well as to
citizens ;
nor even with the
protection against common
external enemies and security of intercourse. Such a

community is an alliance and not a commonwealth, norl

is it less so because the allies form a geographical unit]
While it is indispensable to the existence of a political
community that all these
objects should be secured,
yet a State, in the proper sense of the word, first arises
from the effort of the citizens to realise a perfect and

Se6/j.vos 5i avTapKeiav, ovtiev /uLepos x a}P l(T Q* v v6p.nv Kal 8 fays xe L

P t(TTOV
TrdAews, 6e6s (as he
&<TT
r) drjpiov v) iravrtav. ^aAeTra TaTT? -yap aSiKia
lias said already at line 3 of the !\ou<ra oVAa 6 5 avdpoajros otr\a
same page: 6 airo\is 8ia (pixriv %x u>v
(pverai <ppovf]at
Kal apery, ofs
Kal ov Sia T\)\t\v tfroi <pav\6s
eVi ravavria. ecm %p7}<r0cu /xaAKTra.
effTiv $) KpeiTTUv r)ttv$pco7ros). (pvtrti
Sib a.vo(Ti<aTQ.Tov Kal a/ypidcraTOv
/j.ei>
ovv r/ (5p/ur?
h 1
iraffiv eirl TTJV roi- aveu dpervjs . . .
^ 8e SutauHrvv)]
avryv Koivwiav 6 Se Trp&ros (rvtrrr)- TTO\ITIKOV T/ yap St/crj TTO\ITLK?JS
ffas /JLeyiffTcw a-yaQuv ounos. Siairep KoivcDvlas rdis fcrriv i] Se SI /CTJ rov
yap Kal TeAeco^tv P\THTTOV TUV SiKaiov Kpiais.
f<TTW,
OUTU Kal
 208 ARISTOTLE

self-sufficing social life.

1
The aim of the State is, in
2
a word, the happiness of the citizens.
Happiness,
however, consists in the unimpeded exercise of virtue. 3
/ The happiness of a whole people cannot differ from that
of individuals. Accordingly, the highest function of the
State and of statecraft is to form and educate citizens.

1
Polit. i. 2, 1252, b, 12 r) : 5 aperrjs Kal /ca/ctas
ovv els iraffav fi/ufpav ffvvfcrrt]-
fj.ev "oaoi
(ppovri^ovcriv ev-
Kvla Koivcavia Kara. <pvo~iv
ol/cos vo/jiias. y Kal (pavepbv on Set ?repi
fo~nv. . . . 5 e/c TT\fi6v(t}v OIKIWV aperrjs eVt/xeAes elvai
1

us
f)
ry y"

koivuvia Trpwrr) xpTJ<reo>s

eVe/cei/ /*$] ahrjBus ovofjLa^o/j.vr) TrJAet, /j.rj \6yov
f(pr]u.epov /caiyUTj. /xaAnrra 5e Kara Every other combination
X<*pw-

Qvaiv eot/cey r) KM/A?) airoLKia ot/cias isan alliance, not a State every ;

flvai. From
the extension of the law which does not aim at
family springs the village com making the citizens just and
munity, which in the earliest good is a o-vvd-fiKij, not a v6fj.os.
times is ruled by the head of the Nor does it alter matters if the
family ... ^ 5 e/c it\ei6vwv parties in question inhabit the
KU/J.UV Koivcavia re Aetos ir6\is, rj 8^ same place, (pavepbv roiwv, 6ri
iraaris fx ovffa Tfpos TTJS avrapKeias rj TToAts OVK eWt KOiviavia r6irov Kal
ws eVos etVetV, yivo^vi^ p.ev ovv crtyas avrovs Kal rrjs
rov fjv eVe/cer, ovaa Se rov ev fjv. ravra f^ev
Sib iraffa ir6\is (pixret ecrrlv, ffaep avayKaov (drat
/ecu at irpwrai Koivowiai re\os yap TTO AIS, ou jj.}]v oi/S

ttitivuv, TJ Se (pvffis re Aos rovrwv airavrwv ^877 TT^Ats, aAA

9 1280, a, 25
iii. Civil
? : rov cv yv Koivoivia Kal rals ot/ctats,
society exists not merely for the Kal rois yfVfffi, ^WTJS reAetas X^P IV
protection of property, nor yet Kal avrdpKOvs.
rov rjv /JLOVOV eVe/cev, ctAAct /uaAAoi/ -
Polit. iii. 9, 1280, b, 39:
rov (v fjv (/cal yap &i/ SouAwv Kal re Aos u.ej/
/u.ej/ ovv -TT^Aews rb eS 0j/
r&v ttAAwj CtyteV fy Tr6\is vvv S TroAis Se
yevcav Kal K<a(J.iav
OVK Hart Sta rb /j.^j ^uere ^eji/ euSat- KOivuvia fays reAetas Kal avrdpKOvs.
/j.ovias yurjSe rov fjv Kara irpoaipfffiv), rovro S earii , us (pa/j.ev, rb
p.-t]rf avfM^a-xias eVe/cei/, oirws virb

d5t/ca)vTat, ju^jre Sta ray apa

/cat rfy irpbs
rrjv -^prfffiv j/
KOiviaviav, aAA ov rov
.
Being merely con ffv(fjv. vii. 8, 1328, a, 35: ^
federates, such partners are 5e TT^A S Koivcavia ris eVrt ra>v

neither under any common au 6/j.oiccv, eVe/cev 8e ^w^s TTJS ej/Se-

thority ovr rov iroiovs rivas fivat XOjUeVrjs apiffrys. eVel 5 effrlv
Se? (t>povriovo~iv arepoi rovs erepovs, fvSai/j.oi>ia rb apiffrov, avrt] 5e
ouS OTTOSS /XTjSels aSt/cos eo-rat riav apeTTjs eVep7eta /cat XP^
"

1 5 Tfs
5
vTrb ras orvvd fjKas jUTjS CtAATj^ re Aetos &c.
e|et ^Se/jiiav, aAAa jj.6vov
3
See p. 137 sqq. snpra.
 POLITICS 209

to cherish in them all moral and spiritual

fitness, and
to furnish the impulse to an inherently noble and satis
fying activity. The qualities which make a
1

good
citizen 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, suvra; Eth. Si/catos Kal (ppoviij.os Kal
i. 13, 1102, a, 7, ii. 1, 1103, b, 3; C. 9,1328, b, 37: eV rfj K d\\ iff r a
Polit. vii. 2 init., c. 35 init.
-
Tro\iTvo[Avp TroAei Kal TJJ /ce/CTTj-
Polit. iii. 4 Is the virtue :
lAtvri StKaiovs avSpas air\^s, aAAa
of the O.VTIP ayaBbs identical with
that of the TTOA/TTJS airovfiaios or
^ irpbs T}]V viroQeo-iv (in reference
to State the irpbs ryv
^a given ;

not ? Absolutely identical they vTr60<nv SiKaios is he who, while

certainly are not (as has already he sides with existing laws and
been remarked, Eth. v. 5, 1130, institutions, defends even what
b, 28), for not only does each is severe and unjust in
them),
different form of State make c. 13, 1332, a, 3G Kal yap d :

peculiar demands upon its mem Travras evSdxerai (TirovSaiovs

dvai,
bers (civil virtue, therefore, will /u?? Kad tKaarov 5e ruv Tro\iTocv
have a different character under [even although it be possible for
different forms of constitution), the community as a whole to
but the State itself consists of be excellent while each of the
heterogeneous elements, and not individuals is not, the
imperfec
merely of men of mature virtue. tions of the members
being com
In so far, on the other hand, as pensated for by the perfection
the State may be regarded as a of the whole; we shall have to
free community, as being the allude to this further on in refer
government of freemen and ring to Polit. iii. 11, 13, 15],
equals (TroAm/oj apxh, o-pX^ r ^ v OUTWS alpsTwrepoi [yet the
latter,
ojj.o((i}v Kal eAeu0e pa>i/, 1277, b, 7 viz. that all the individuals
sqq.), they coincide, for no one is should be virtuous, is the more
qualified to be a member of such desirable] ; dftroAoufle?
yap ry
1
KaQ"

a State who does not know both eKao-TOV Kal rb iravras. c. U,

how to command and how to 1332, a, 11 : As the virtue of the
obey in other words, who is not &PXW and the best man is one
an OLV^P ayaOos. Hence, c. 18, and the same, but in the best
1288, a, 37, with reference to c. State all are fitted to govern, the
4 eV Tols
legislation must aim at making
: 6
TTpdOTOLS fSei^dl]
\6yois OTL rrjv avrrjv avayKcuov all the citizens in it g;ood men.
avSpbs aptrrii eli/at Kal iroXirov rys C. 15 Se
lilit. . firel . . . rbv avTuv
TroAecos TTJS dpurTTjy. vii. 1323, re apiffTy
1, opov avayKalov flvai T<

b, 33 :
avSpia Se TroAecos Kal avSpl Kal rfj dpiirTp TroAireta. Ac
aioavvr] Kal typovijcris r}]v avrrji/ cording to these explanations, the

v /ca<TTOS T
words (iii. 4, 1277, a, 4) el
avayKalov ayaOovs elvai rovs
^
VOL. II.
210 ARISTOTLE

is twofold theoretic and practical. To ask which of

these is
superior equivalent here to asking whether
is

or war is to be the ultimate aim of civil life

peace ;

sincQ the proper occupation for times of peace is,

according Aristotle, Science, whereas in w ar the main
T

object is the acquisition of the greatest possible power

of action. But we have already seen that Aristotle
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. Such States, he says, have only con
if every kind of dominion over others,
quests in view, as
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
fall into decay. Aristotle himself regards the peaceful

occupations as the true object of social

life ;
war he
permits only as a means to peace, only, therefore, in so far

eV rfj ffTrovSaiq. TroAei irohiras, the discussion that follows,

occurring-, moreover, as they do
in a dialectical discussion (an
to be understood
an-opia), are not
as though Aristotle himself in-
tended to deny that necessity,
This parallel, however, is
only partially relevant. Aristotle
tells us himself (Poht. vii. 15,
1334, a, 22 sqq.) that even moral
virtues, such as justice and self-

He means them merely as a pre- command, are especially indis-

liminary affirmation of the con- pensable in time of peace,
dition under which alone civil Moreover, while scientific ac-
and individual virtue absolutely tivity certainlyneeds peace most,
coincide. Whether and under yet it can only at ^best be prac-
what circumstances this condi- tised by a small minority of the
tion is present, is the subject of citizens.
 POLITICS 211

as it is necessary for self-defence or for the subjugation of

those whom Nature has destined to serve. He de
mands, accordingly, that besides bravery and constancy,
which are necessary in order that the State may assert
its independence, the virtues of peace
namely, justice,
temperance, and scientific culture la) should (<^XO<TO<

also be cultivated. It cannot be denied that the aim of

1

the State is thus placed sufficiently

high. It is not,

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

dispense with the society of others. This alone it is in

which man attains the highest perfection permitted him
by his nature, in 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
2
it manifests itself. As man, however, these are wholly
indispensable to him. But the highest form, of com
munity, embracing and completing every other, is the
State. Its aim comprehends every other moral aim,
while its institutions not only give security and stability
to the moral by means of law and education, but
life

extend it over a whole people. We thus arrive at a

definition of the highest function of the State as that
of making the citizens happy by means of virtue. This
is essentially the same view of civillife that we have

already met with in Plato. In only a single feature *

do the two philosojjhei g difjerjrpm. one another, but it
^

1
Polit. vii. 2, 3, c. 14, 15; 1256, b, 23.
-
Etk. x. 7, 1177, b, 4. Cf. also p. from Etli.
Of. the citations
143, n. 1, arid on war for the x. 8, and other passages, p. 143,
acquisition of slaves, Polit. i. 8, n. 1.

p 2
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
tion,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
view of the State and of human life in general, we find
no trace in Aristotle."? We have simply and solely here
to do with the present life and with that happiness
which the immediate outcome of moral and spiritual
is

perfection. It is not the aim of the State to represent

tinideal 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

appear as a painful sacrifice. He holds that human

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 live in contemplation alone. Man
as man cannot renounce practical life in a community.
It is no mere compulsion, but a moral need, which makes
the State and the life which it offers a necessity for
 POLITICS 213

It is 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
stotle in the first

the Family and the Household for he holds that in ;

order perfectly to understand the nature of the State,

it is necessary to analyse it into its
simplest con
1
stituents.

2. The Household as a Constituent Element of the State

the most perfect form of human society,

The State is

and as such prior to every other in order of thought.

is

But just as elsewhere in Aristotle that which is first in

essence is last in origin, the primordial principle the
last result, so the first natural form of society namely,
the Family precedes the political as the condition of
2
its origin in time.
The family is constituted by means of the three
relations ofhusband and wife, pa-rents and children,
master and servant. 3
1
Polit. i. 1, 1252, a, 17 (after OVTCD Kal iroXiv e| &v
touching upon the distinction (rKoirouvrts 6\j/6fMfOa Kal -jrepl TOVTOW
between political and household /xaAAor, ri re Siafpfpovatv aXX^Xuv
economy): SrjAov 8 4arai TO \eyo- Kal e i TI rexi/t/cbi/ eVSe xercu Aa/3eIV
p.VOV fTTL(TKOTTOV(TL KO.TO.
V^yf]- T7?I>
7T6/H GKaffTOV T&V pfjBeVTOW. Cf . C.

[by which he means

fjLfvriv /j-fOoSoj/ 3 init.
not so much his method, as the 2
Polit. i. 2.
plan which he intends to follow 3
Ibid. c. 2, c. 3, c. 12 init.
in the investigation, and which Aristotle describes, in c.2, the rela-
he had indicated at the end of tions of man and wife, slave and
the Ethics ]. &(nrep yap ev ro7s freeman, as the two fundamental
aAAois TO (TwOerov ^xp t& v l ones. He begins with the dis-
affvvOfrwv avdyifn SmipelV (ravra cussion of the latter, c. 3 sqq.,
yap e Aax O Ta fj.6pia TOV iravrbs), and connects with it that of the
 214 ARISTOTLE

The relation of husband and wife Aristotle treats as

an essentially moral one. A natural instinct forms, indeed,
its basis, but the union must assume the higher forms
of friendship, good will, and mutual service. The reason 1

of this is that the moral capacities of each are partly

similar and partly different, and that therefore a free rela
tion between themis not only possible, but is demanded

by the need of both to find their complement. They

stand, in one sense, upon equal terms. The wife as
well as the husband has a will of her own and a virtue

proper to herself. She, too, must* be treated as a free

person. Where the women are slaves, this is a proof to
Aristotle that the men also are slaves by nature, since
a free man
can unite himself only with a free woman. 2
On the other hand, it is also true that the moral

capacities of the woman differ in kind and in degree

from those of the man her will is weak (axvpos), her
:

virtue less perfect and self-sufficient, her vocation, as a

whole, not independent production but quiet retire
is

ment and domesticity. 3 The true relation, accordingly,

different kinds of properly natural to us, i.e. to discuss the

reserving the two remaining family before slavery and pro-
relations, c.1260, b, 8, for
13, perty.
subsequent treatment, on the Eth. viii.
*
Polit. 2 init.
i. ;

ground that the education of 14, 1162, a, 16 sqq.; cf.GSc. i. 3 sq.

women and children and all 2
Polit. i. 2, 1252, a. 1 sqq. c.
household arrangements must 13, 1260, a, 12 sqq.; Eth. ibid.
depend upon the character and
3
Polit. i. 5, 1254, b, 13, c. 13,
aim of the State. The discussion 1260, a, 12, 20 sqq. iii. 4, 1277,
of these, however, is not resumed b, 20 sqq. (Ec. i. 3, ad Jin.
;
cf. ;

in the Politics as we have it, Hist. An. ix. 1, where cliiferences

what is said in lib. vii. and viii.
on education being without special
reference to family life. For the
purpose of exposition, it is
of character and disposition are
discussed in so far as they pro-
ceed from difference of sex. See
best esp. 608. a, 35 ra f?7?Aea /uaAa/cw-
:

to take the order which is more repa nal KaKovpyorepa Kal i]rrov
 POLITICS 215

of to man can only exist where the man, as the

woman
superior, bears rule, while the woman is treated as a free

partner in the household, and as such is not only

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 free members with
unequal rights in other words, it is, as Aristotle

frequently describes it, an aristocracy.

1

Less free
the relation between Parent and Child,
is

in discussing which, however, Aristotle confines himself

characteristically enough, almost solely to the relation

between father and son. 2 In spite of the advanced
views just quoted, mother and daughter have no
further attention paid to them. As Aristotle had
compared the married relation to an aristocracy, he
compares that of father and son to a monarchy.
3
The
child has, strictly speaking, no rights as against his

air\a /cat Trpoirerearepa Kal irepl rr)V the levity with which Plato (Rep.
rG)vre.Kvw rpofyfy typovriffTiKfarepa, v.452 E sqq. of. Ph. d. Gr. i. p. ;

TO. 5 oppeva evavriws Ov/j.caS(rrepa,

775) denies that there is any in-
Kal ayptuirepa Kal air\ovcrrepa Kal herent difference between the
TJrrov eirifiov\a .
-ywT] avSpbs
. . sexes beyond that of their natural
cXey/Aoveo Tepoi Kal apiSaKpv /na\\ov, functions.
eri 8e <p6ovepwrepov Kal ^e^^oipo- l
M~h. N. viii. 12, 1160, b, 32
repots, Kal (piAoXoiSopov fj.a\\ov Kal sqq. c. 13, 1161, a, 22 ; cf. v. 10,
Tr\r}KTiK(aTfpov. fartbe Kal5vff9v/uLov 1134, b, 15 End. vii. 9, 1241, b,
;

^uaAAoi/ rb 07] Au rov appwos Kal 29 Polit. i. 13, 1260, a, 9 ; (Ec.

;

8vff\iri, Kal avcuSorTepoi/ /cat i. 4, where details and

practical
tyfvSfa-Tfpov, eyairaTTjTOTepoi/ 8e Kal directions are given upon this
IJW W.oviK&Ttpov, en Se aypvirvorepoy head. Cf further, p. 222 sq. infra.
.

Kv.1 oKv-nporepov Kal 6\ws a.Kivr)r6-

*
Such passages as Eth. viii.
repay rb e^Xv rov appevos, Kal 14, 1161, b, 26, ix. 7, 1168, a, 24,
f\drrov6s eariv.
rpo<pris j8o7j0r?- can hardly be regarded as rele-
riKwrepov Se, &(nrp eAe x^Tj, Kal vant.
3
avSpeiorepov rb upper rov ^Ae^s Eth. N. viii. 12, 1160, b, 26,
eanv. We
may contrast the c. 13 writ. (End. vii. 9, 1241, b,
careful observation upon which 28.)
this comparison is based with
216 ARISTOTLE

being still only a part of his parent, but the

1

father,
father has a duty to his child the duty, namely, of
2
providing for highest interests.
its The reason of this
is that the child has a will and a virtue of its own,

although both are imperfect. They are both perfect in

his father, 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
The
position, lastly, of the Slave is one of complete
dependence. To the institution of slavery Aristotle
has devoted special attention, partly with the view ot

investigating necessity and justice, and partly of

its

laying down the proper method of treating slaves-

That 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
plete the accommodations of the household, human
1
Ibid. v. 10, 1134, b, 8; cf. constitutes abond of union, and
viii. 16, 1163, b, 18. partly upon community of life
2
Polit. iii. 6, 1278, b, 37. and education and that friendship
;

8
Polit. i. 13, 1260, a, 12, 31
cf. iii. 5, 1278, a, 4. A complete
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 be-
;
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
in age is the only ground of
superiority and ends by tracing
;

tween brothers, in treating of the bond of connection between

friendship. He remarks that more distant relatives in a similar
brotherly love rests partty upon analysis; viii. 12-14, 1161, a, 3, 25,
common parentage, which of itself b, 30 sqq. 1162, a, 9 sqq.
 POLITICS 217

beings are required who shall be the property of their

master in other words, slaves. 2
1

That, in the second

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
body. Aristotle even goes the length of affirming that
nature has willed a physical distinction between them,
and that it is only a lusus naturce when the soul of a
freeman finds itsway 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 Aristotle therefore regards
O
1
i. 4 ;
Polit. (Ec. i. 5 init. would refuse them uncondi-
2
Aslave being- (Polit. i. 4 tional submission. The remark
tiv /cTTj^a ?T avOpwiros &v is characteristic of a Greek. As
fin.) t>s

(KTTJ/JLO.
Se opyavov irpaKTiKbv [see in his view the spiritual character
ibid. 1254, a, 1 sqq.] Kai x u P t(r ~ naturally and necessarily ex-
r6v), a (pixrei 8ov\os is 6 /j.^ avrov presses itself in a harmonious
(pva-ei aAA &\\ov, &v9pctiiros 5e. external form, he finds in the
acknowledged beauty of his own
3
Polit. 1253, b, 18 sqq.
i. 3,
c. 1255, a, 7; cf. Ph. d. Gr.
6, race a direct proof of its absolute
i. 1007, 2, 4th edit. ONCKEN, ; superiority to barbarian peoples.
Staatsl. d. Arist. ii. 32 sq. How much more from this point
*
Ibid. c. 5, 1254, b, 16, 34, of view would the slavery of
vii. 3, 1325, a, 28. Plato had black and coloured races have
already expressed this idea cf. ;
seemed to him to be justified.
P7i. d. Gr. i. 755, 2. Polit. i. 2, 1252, b, 5, c. 6,
1254, b, 27, where
5
Polit. i. 5, 1255, a, 28 cf. vii. 7. Aristotle
;

he adds if one portion of the

:
certainly admits exceptions to
human race were physically as this assertion ; Nature, he re-
superior to the rest as the gods marks, i. 6, 1255, b, 1, intends,
are represented to be, no one 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 1

strictly limited to those who are by nature destined to

.it. It is unjust only when it is inflicted on those

whom 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 the only virtues which he is capable of

3
exercising. That the slave, being a man, must also
possess a virtue 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

of slaves. He makes it the duty of the master to

from man, and beast from beast, to be slaves, as is presupposed

so the good should spring- from c. 2, ibid., and must be assumed
the good, but she does not always if war for the capture of slaves
succeed in this. He continues: is to be justified. THUEOT,
OTL fJ.ev ovv fX el TWO- h.6yov r] Etudes ,. Arist. 10, proposes in
a,u</>r/:J7jT77<m [the doubt about stead Of OVK flfflv 01 fJLV, OVK
the lawfulness of slavery] Kal ela-lv el /J/, which, however, would
OVK elcrlv ot fj.tv tyvfffi SouAot ol 5 yield the awkward meaning that
\vQfpoi STJ\OV. This can only all slaves are so by nature.
mean that all slaves or freemen 1
Polit. 1256, b. 23 sqq.
i. 8,
2
are not so by nature, for he Ibid. 1255, a, 21 sqq.
c. 6,

immediately adds Kal 6n ev r

3
I : i <r Polit. 13, 1259, a, 21 sqq.
i.

TO TOIOVTOV, 8>v
ffv(ji<t>epei 1260, a, 12-24, 33; Poet. 15,
rb 8ov\evfiv T$ Se T>
1454, a, 20.
4
There must
Kal SIKCUOJ/. Polit. ibid.
thus nevertheless be tribes born
 POLITICS 219

educate them in the virtue that is possible to them ;

l

he commends the practice of promisiug them freedom

as the reward of
good conduct.
2
And yet he holds that
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
to be true of the slave
qua slave and not qua man, we
4

can only regard as an inconsistency which does him

honour. Greek morals and Greek ways of thought
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 : in spite of FECHNER S objection
TO .VVV on rrjs TOLavrrjs (Gerechtiglteitsbegr, d. Arlst. p.
apexes atnov eh/at Se? Sov\(f T*bv
TO>
119) that according to Aristotle
SecTTroTTjj/ . . 8tb Xsyovaiv ov KaAaJy there are differences even within
ol \6yov TOVS 5ov\ovs airoffrfpovvres the sphere of human reason.
Kal (pdo-KovTfs 7riTa|et Aristotle certainly assumes such
-pr\<rQa.i

fj.6vov vovQtTfiTfOv yap /uaAAoi/ differences and even asserts, as

TOVS Sov\ovs ^) TOVS TTcuSas. On we have just seen, that they go
the treatment of slaves see so deep as to render a portion of
further in (Kc. i. 5. mankind incapable of freedom.
2
Polit. vii. 10 /m., upon which But the real question is whether
HILDENBRAND. Reohtx- it. btaats- this assertion still holds true if we
phil. i.
400, pertinently remarks are at the same time compelled
that this is inconsistent with to admit that even one who
Aristotle s
principles for he :
belongs to this portion of man
whom nature condemns to kind is Swd/Afvos Koiv(avT]o~ai vo^.ov
slavery ought not to be set free ;
Kal ffvvd-fiKris, Kal (pi\(as 877, /co#
he whom nature has not so con offov avQpwiros, and that there is a
demned ought not to be held in SiKaiov iravT\ ai>0pd[>7ru> jrpbs ircuTOt.
slavery. To a thing, possession, no
a
a
Eth. viii. 12, 1160, b, 21), c. rights can belong. To a man
13, 1160. a, 80 sqq. of. viii. 9 ; who has no will and either no
(see i. 3^8. n. 1, snprd). virtue at all or only that of a
4
Ktli. viii. 13/7t. slave friendship, on Aristotle s
5
As BITTER (iii. H61) showed principles, is impossible.
it to be, and as it continues to be,
220 ARISTOTLE
l
acquisition somewhat loosely, with the remark that
slaves being a part of a man s property, the
subject of
property here finds a natural place.
2
He distinguishes
two kinds of production natural, and artificial.
3
The :

former embraces all those modes of activity by which

the necessities of life are obtained the rearing of
cattle,hunting, agriculture, &c.
4
From the barter of
the products of these arises, in the first place,
exchange,
which likewise regarded as a natural mode of pro
is

duction, since it
immediately serves the satisfaction of
natural wants. 5 But the introduction, for the sake of
1
Polit. i. 8-11, cf. (Ec. i. 6. but his ingenuity has here dis
2
See Polit. Slaves had
i. 8. covered a connection which is not
been previously described (c. 4 to be found in Aristotle, and has
i/iit.) as a part of /CTTJO-IS, and no existence but in the commen
KT-rjTiKY) as a part of olKovofj-ia ; tator s own mind.
3
nevertheless one cannot accept C. 8/W. : #Tl yU.61/ TOIVW (TTl
TKICHMULLER S statement (p. 338 rts KTTJTJKT/ Kara fyvaiv TO?S
of the treatise cited 137, n. 2, sup.} olKOv6jJ.OLS Kal TO?S 7TOAtTiKO?S, Kttl 8 1
ihat this section is here quite in fyv air lav, STJAOV. c. 9 init. e/rrt :

place. For in c. 3 only the three 5e yevos a\\o /CTTJTJK^S, fj-aXiffra $?i>

relations of master and slave, Kal 8 iKaiov avrb /caAeti/

husband and wife, father and TiKrjv .... ea"Ti 8 f] fMfv
children were adduced as the <f)i>(Ti 7} 5 ov (f>v(Tfi avToov, aAAct
proper subjects of economics, 5 /j.ireipias Tti/bs Kal re xrrjs 71^-
and in 1253, b, 12, the theory of erat /j,a\\ov.
property is only touched upon in
4
After enumerating the vari
a few words : fffri 5e rt ^ue pos ous kinds of natural production,
[? now also rejected by SUSE- and among them, strangely
MIHL] & So/ce? TO?? e!/ai
yutv enough (1256, a, 36, b, 5), A^crrem,
oticovo/uia, rots Se fj.syio~Tov /ue pos which is neither natural to a moral
xP 7 aaT T ^, which is
avrrjs, viz. being nor a productive activity
"

"
<:

7/

thus here regarded as merely at all, he says of them (125(5, b,

supplementary to the study of 26) : ej/ /xev ovv elSos KTTjrtK^s
economics. TEICHMULLER sug Kara fyvcriv rrjs olK.ovofji.iKys /.i.epos

gests that the remark in the .... wv [a constructio ad

tffrlv
text upon the way in which sensum, referring to the different
the theory of production is con activities comprehended under
nected with the discussion of this class] eVrl Or)ffavpi(Tfj.bs XPW
slavery, only betrays a confu d.T&v irpbs farjv avayKaiwv Kal ff ~
XP"n

sion with regard to the meaning L/j-cav fls Koivtaviav TroAec^s /) oltcias.
of external goods in Aristotle :
4
c. i, 1257, a, 28, after the
 POLITICS 221

commerce, of money as the universal standard of value

l

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
be denned as the stock of household necessaries, and for
this reasonit is
strictly limited by household needs.
4

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,
and the more 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
cordingly, in what remains of this discussion, to a divi-
1

account of barter :
r) fj.ev ovv roi- yap opyavov aweipov ovSe/uiias t-frri
oi/ re
I
avTri /U.CT aft \rjTiKTi irapx (pvffiv re^vris oirre TrATjflet ovre fj.eye6(:i, 6
Ti/ojseVTii/erSosouSeV Se TT\OVTOS bpyavcav 7rAf)0os zcrrw
ets ava-rrX-hpooffiv yap TTJS Kara <pvaiv
iouTexprjjCtaTto OIKOVO/ULLKOOV Kal TTO\ITIKU>V.
5
c. 1257, b.
T>.
9, 28-1258, a,
1
See p. 173, supra. 14.
-
c. 9, 1257, a, 30 sqq. c. 10, 1258, a, 40: rr,s 5e
3
C. 9 fill. Trcpl iJ.lv ovv
:
TTJS re yueTa/SArjTi/cfJs \l/eyo/*i/T]s SiKaicas (ov
J jur? avayKaias xP r)/J aTL(r riK ns
- . . .
yap Kara oAA
(pixriv air d\A?jAa>j/
/cal
!
efy)7]Tcu Trept TTJS avayKaias, effrlv), v\oywrara /mcre?rai. rf
OTI avrrjs otKovo/xiKr? 5e ofio Ao err ariK^j Sia rb
1
,
erfpa /j.tv air avrov TOV
\
Kara fyvcriv fj irepl TTJV Tpo$T)V. vofj.ifffj.aTos f ivai T^V KTrjcriv Kal
4
c. 8, 1256, b, 30 (following OVK e </> oirep eTropiaQy [not from
the passage cited p. 220,n.4,s^.) : tlie proper use of gold],
Kal foiKV o y a\r)6ivbs
\r)6ivbs TT\OVTOS CK a
)8oAf/s yap eyevfro at
eevfro %aptj/, 6 Se
TOVTWV tlvai. T] yap TTJS TOtauTTjs TOKOS avTb irate? TrXeov . . . e&<rre
j

J
KrTj(recos auTap/ma Trpbs ayadyv Kal /xaAtrTTa irapa (pvo~iv OVTOS TWV
wr]v OVK aweipos SVTIV .... ovSev xP n/J aria f -^
- tariv, jl
 ARISTOTLE
sion of it into its various kinds, 1
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
4
labour, he naturally assigns to the latter a lower place
in proportion as it makes less claim
upon the moral
and more exclusively of
intellectual qualities, consists

physical occupations, and stamps the body more deeply

1

with the marks of toil. 5

Plato had demanded in his Republic that the famil 1

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 in c. 1 1 over such subjects, as it is
three kinds of xP nfjLaTL(r riK ^ /J.GV irpbs ras epyaffias,
(1) agriculture, cattle-rearing, 8e TO eV8iaTp//3e/.
tfcO. OtKeiOTClTTJ XpTJ/UaTiCTTl/C^ j c. 11 init KO.VTOL:Se ra
(2) juera/DATjTiKr;, with its three
branches, f/j-iropia, TOKKT/JLOS, e^et, rrjv 8 f/Liireipiav avayitaiav.
fju<r6a.pvia,
the last of which Further proofs of this will
includes all mechanical indus meet us in the section upon the
tries (3) ; occupying an inter- constitution of the State.
5
medial e position v\OTo/j.ia, Hid. 1258, b, 35: ela-l 5e T X -
/u.TaX\ovpyia, &c. /uei/ epyaffMV OTTGV
TO>I/

-
He desires that collection
a rvx"ns. BavavaoraTai

of these and similar artifices 5 eV ols TO. (ru/nara AcojSwvTat fjt,d-

should be made (1259, a, 3), \icrra, 8ov\iKccrarat 8e oirou rov
such as is actually attempted crdo^aros TrAeifTTctt xP h a c LS
~
i aycv-
afterwards in the second book of Vfffrarai Se oirov e
Aa^;t(rTOf irpoffSf i
the Economics. He adduces him aperris. With the definition of
self only two examples. As a rb $c.vav(rov cf. c 5, 1254, b, 24
rule, he refers to earlier writers sqq. PLATO, Rep. vi. 495 D
upon husbandry, &c. (1258, b, (Pli. d. Gr. 754, 3).
i.

59). He will not himself linger 6

He expresses his views on
 POLITICS 223

in common in order that the State

might be the most
perfect unity possible. But a State is not merely a
it is a whole
unity; composed of many anfr various
If perfect unity without
parts. multiplicity were the
highest, then must the State shrink into the Household,
and the Household into the Individual. 1
But even if we
granted that unity the best thing for a State,
is
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,
unity might
perhaps be thus promoted. That however, is not pos
sible. on the other hand, children and
If, goods are
to be the common property of all, the desired result will
not follow. 4 On the contrary, with the exclusiveness of
these relationships, their worth and all that
all
gives
them would be destroyed one who had
real significance :

the thousandth part of a claim upon each of a thousand

sons, and was not even quite sure of that, would not

this subject, not in the first book, ri rrjv fyvcnv ccrrlv 77 TTO\IS
yap .

which treats of the family, but ou ^6vov 8 eV TrAeioVcoi/ avepwirwv

in the second, which treats of tarlv rj aAAo Kal e| eiSti 8m-
iroXis,
earlier ideal States. This dis- (pepovrav ou yap yiverai irj\is e
cussion is, however, mentioned o>oiW. This is the basis, more-
here out of its order for conveni- over, of the self -sufficiency of the
ence of exposition. State ;
ibid, b, 10 sqq.
1 2
Pollt. 1261, a, 9 sqq.
ii. 2, For a fuller discussion of
(of. c. 5, 1263, b, 29 sqq.) where, which, see c. 3 sq. 1262, a, 14-40,
inter alia, he says KCUTOJ fyavepov
:
b,24 sqq.
3
irpo iovva Kal yivoj.i4vr] fj.ia Hej}. v. 462 C.
oi/Se TroAis tWa: 7rA??0os ^ C. 3, 1261, b, 16-32.
224 ARISTOTLE
towards any one. 7 The same is true of
feel as a father
1

property. Here, also, so far from leading to unity,

community of possession would be an inexhaustible
source of strife.
2
What is required is the just distribu
tion of property and the voluntary surrender of it to a
common use.
:$

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
it is
6
any title to true reality. Aristotle refuses to follow
him here. To him the Individual is the primary reality,
Ibid. 1261, b, 32 sqq. c. 4, reproach with regard to
1
dfatypo-
1262, a, 40 sqq. ffvv-r] certainly unjust, for ac-
is

cording to Plato, each has 10

-
c. 5, 1262, b, 37-1263, a, 27.
3
Ibid. 1263, a, 21-40, where refrain from all women who are
fin. :
(pavtpbv roivvv OTL friXriov not assigned to him by the
eli/cu pev iS as ras KT^O-CLS rfj 5e government. The Platonic com-
XpV et irotf tv Koivds. This is re- m unity of women is certainly not
peated vii. 10, 1329, b, 41. meant to be licence of desire (see
1
i.e., \.eu0epioT7js, as to which, the further discussion of this in
see siijn-a.
ZELLEB S Vortr. u. Abk. i.
76).
J
Ibid. 1263, a. 40-b, 14. The 6
See Ph. d.Gr. i.
p. 780.
 POLITICS 225

and has the first claim to

recognition. In his meta
physics individual things are regarded, not as the mere
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 the State consists in the
happiness
of its citizens. The goodof the whole rests upon the

good of the individuals who compose it.

1
like >4ji

manner must the action by which it is to be attained

proceed from the individual of his own free will. It is

only from within through culture and education, and

not by compulsory institutions, that the
unity of the
State can be secured. 2 as in
^In politics metaphysics
had met the objection
1
Plato the other side of the truth nor is ;

(Pep. 420 B sqq.) that he had

iv. it any solution of the difficulty
failed to make his guardians here raised to represent the life
happy, with the remark that the of the guardians, as Plato himself
question is of the happiness, not does in a subsequent passage
of a part, but of the whole ; (Rep. v. 465 E), as the happiest.
Aristotle replies (Polit. ii. 5, Plato in principle denies what
1264, b, 17): aSvt/arov 8e euScu^o- Aristotle asserts, viz. that the
j/eIV oArjj/, rwv trXeiaTuv v)
^[we ^ happiness of the individuals as
should omit this /mrj, or read el ^ such must be the test and crite-
instead of $ /*$/] irdvrwv /j.ep>v r) terion of all political institutions;
TivSiv exovTwv
evSai/noviav. r))v and for that very reason he in the
[Similarly, vii. 9, 1329, a, 23: eu- same passage demands that the
Sai/jiova 5e iroXiv OVK els fj.epos TL individuals should seek their
j8Aei|/aj/Tas 5eT \eyeiv CIUTTJS, aAA highest happiness in unselfish de-
els Trdvras rovs TroAiras.] ov yap votion.
T>I> avT&v Tb fuScu/xoi/eTz/ wvTrep rb
-
Polit. ii. 5, 1263, b, 36 the :

apTiov TOVTO yap ej/Se^era: TOO true nature of the State must not
6\(p virdpx*w T&V Se fj.epwj/ jurjSe- be sacrificed to an exaggerated
repy, TO Se eiiSai/j.ove iv aSwaTov. conception of unity (see p. 223, n.
In these remarks we have only l,si<fl.);
aAA 5f?7rA7}0os Si/ . Sta. .

*
VOL. II. Q
 226 ARISTOTLE

the central point with Plato is the Universal, with

Aristotle the Individual. The former demands that
the whole should realise its ends without regard to the
interests of individuals : the latter that it be reared

upon the satisfaction of all individual interests that

have a true be regarded.
title to

These remarks form a natural introduction to the

discussion of the various forms of political constitution.
To this, after criticising earlier political sketches and
theories,
1
Aristotle applies himself in the third book of
the Politics. The link which we should look for between
the family and the State, viz. the conception of Society,
c

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 posals of the Republic, Aristotle

[sc T})V TroAiv] Kal rov ye fjie\\ovra proceeds to discuss (c. 6) PLATO S
-rraiSeiav elffdyeiv, Kal vo/ni(ovra Sia Laws [on these and other asser-
ravTTfjs HffeaOai T^viroXiv o"irov$aiav, tions with regard to Plato s
aroirov TO?S TOIOVTOIS [community political philosophy sec ZELLER,
of women and goods] otevBai Platon. Stud. 288 sqq. 203-207] ;

Siopdovv, aA\a fj.7] TO?S eflecri Kal rrj the proposals of Phaleas and
<()L\o(TO(f)ia
Kal rols VO/JLOIS. Hippodamus (c. 7 sq.); the Spar-
1
One cannot here enter
into tan (c. 9), the Cretan (c. 10),
the details of this criticism as and the Carthaginian (c. 11)
they are to be found in the second constitutions ; and, finally (c. 12 :

book of the Politics. After a see,however, Ph. d. Gr. i. 676),

lively polemic (c. 1-5) against the laws of Solon, Zaleucus,
the community of women, chil- Charondas, and other ancient
dren, and goods, and other pro- legislators.
 POLITICS 227

the place of mere local association limited to the needs

1
of trade.
But the
particular institutions by
means of which

this social union has to realise its end, and the forms
which it must take, will depend essentially upon the
character of the individuals whom it includes. It is

with these, therefore, that Aristotle next deals.

3. The State and the Citizens

The State is the composite whole, and the con

stituent parts of it the subjects whose relations to one
another are determined by the character of the con
stitution are the citizens. 2 What, then, constitutes a
citizen or citizenship ? One can live in a city without
being a citizen of it.
Foreigners may even be admitted
to its courts of law. On the other hand, it is not neces

sary that the citizen should be born of

citizen parents, for

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 A 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
4
life. It is true that as the essence of a thing consists

3
1
See p. 208, n. 1, supra. Polit. iii. 1 sq. 1275, a, 7 sqq.
2
Polit. iii. 1, 1274, b, 36 sqq. :
b, 21 sqq.
the TroAtre a is TUV ryv iro\iv 4
Ibid. c. 1, 1275, a, 22:
olKovvroiv rd^is ns ;
the on
iroAts, TroAiTTjs 8 air\<t>s ovSev TWJ/ &\\wv
the other hand, is a composite 6pierai /ua\\ov ?) TO? ^ere xe"
whole consisting of many parts Kpiffecas xal
apxys (similarly, c. 13,
TroAiTwv TI 7rAr)0os. 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. A
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

changed, even although the citizens remain the same.

1

Yet it is equally true that the constitution has to adapt

itself to the character and condition of the men for
whom The members of the State are
it is
designed.
not equal to one another in every respect, but neither
are they unequal in every respect. 2 Now all constitu
tional law is concerned with the distribution of political

rights and benefits. An equal distribution is just only

on condition that the persons amongst whom they are
distributed are themselves equal to one another. If, on

explanations, in the course of

which it pointed out that under
is ravrv
apx^i we must include the busi I lefTTi Kal ruv avr&v KaroiKO jvrtav
ness of the popular assembly, Ari avTTjv Kal tTtp&v avdpwirwv.
Trd/uLTrav
stotle concludes, ibid, b, 18 $ yap :
By however, we must
TToAire^o,
z^ovaia Koivwvzlv apxrjs 0ov\*vTiKfjs here understand, not merely the
constitution in the narrower
J/Ot TOUT7JS T77S sense, but the whole social
rb T(av TOIOVTOOV irATJdos organisation.
avrdpKeiav fays. With the last 2
Cf. on the one hand p. 223,
clause, cf. p. 208, nn. 1 and 2. n. 1, and on the other Pol. iv. 11,
1
c. 3, 1276, a, 34 How long :
1295, b, 25: jSorfAereM Se ye 7)

may the ir6\is be said to be one Tr&Vts e| lawv lvai Kal 6fj.oicav on
and the same ? So long it might 1

, paXiffra, for only between such

be answered, as it is inhabited by is and Koivwvia iroKniK^
<pi\ia

the same race. But this is possible. Cf. vii. 8, 1328, a, 35.
wrong :
eftrep yap eVrt The citizens, as we shall find,
ris 77 TroAis, ffrn Se will be equal in freedom, in
TTO/I ITUJS, TroAiTfias
yiyvoiJ.vris . common political rights and to a
erepas rep Kal Siacpepoixrris rrjs
eftJet certain degree also in common
iroXiTfias uvayKatov e/z/at 8oetej/ &j/ social virtue; they will be unlike
Kal T^V Tr6\iv efi/ai /JL^ rrjv avryv in property, avocation, descent,
.... /xaAitTTa Ae/cre oj/ TV avTv and individual capacity.
 POLITICS 229

the other hand, the persons are unequal, justice

requires
a,n In order, therefore, rightly to
unequal distribution.
judge of the character of State institutions, we must
know wherein consists this equality and inequality with
which the State has to deal. 1

Of
essential importance in this regard are, first of

all,the occupations and manner of life of the citizens. 2

Parallel to the distinction which we noted in the House
hold between freemen and slaves, we have among citizens
themselves those who
exempt from menial labour, are
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

or artisan (ffdvavaos) 3
(#?7S>)
The importance of this
distinction appears from the statement 4 that the rights
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 ;

happiness only attainable through virtue, no one who

is

is incapable of true virtue can be a citizen in a State

of which virtue is at once the basis and the end.

1
Pol it.
9 init. Both
iii. : eli/cu <paaiv.
-noiuv 8 Iff6rf]s tffrl

oligarchy and
democracy rest KaliroiwavHroT-ns, Se?^ Xa.vQa.vsiv
upon ri^ht but neither upon per-
:
e^et yap TOUT airopiav Kal <iAo-

fect right, dlov 8o/ce? tffov rb SiKaiov (rotyiav iro\iriKrjV. c. 13,1283, a,

etVcu, /cat e<TTi/,
aAA ov iraffiv aAAa 26 sqq.
Tols Kal rb 2
taois. O.VHTOV So/ce? Polit. iii, 5, vii. 9.
SiKaiov 3
eTt/cu KOI yap eVTii/, aAA. iii.1278, a, 11.
5,
ov -jrafftv a\\a rols avivois. c. 12,
4
iii. 5, 1278, a, 15 sqq. vii. 9,

1282, b, KJ: eo-Tt Se iroXiriKbv 1328, b, 27 sqq. 1329, a, 19 sqq.

ayaObv rb Sucatoi/, TOVTO 8 ftrrl rb On this conception, which will
Kowrj (rvfj.(pfpov, SoKeT Se -jraffiv tffov often meet us again, especially in
TI rb SIKULOV elvat, as is explained treating of the best State, see
in the ethical discussions (see p. further viii. 2, 1337, b, 8 sqq. c.
171, sit/pra}. rl yap Kal Ticrl rb 4, 1338, b, 33, c. 5, 1339, b, 9, c.
8 iKaiov, Kal 8e?j/ TO?S taois iaov G, 1310, b, 40, 1341, a, 5, b, 14.
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
ability and rank from their ancestors the rich, on the ;

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-
propertied. Aristotle does not, indeed, admit these
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 justifiable only on the supposition that the
2
State nothing but a mercantile company, yet he can
is

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 latter neither

how to rule nor how to obey as freemen ;
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 :

-
12 sq. 1282, b, 21-1283, a, 37. 1280, a, 22 sqq.
1
iii. iii. 9,
 POLITICS 231

is best secured against excesses of its own and attacks

of an enemy ;
it is the
put itself least anxious to
forward in political life when the centre of gravity ;

lies in it we have the most orderly and

enduring form
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 still, the political capacity of the
however, is

citizens. The essential aim of the State

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

influence in the State. But that which more than any
other quality fits a man to do so is virtue, especially

justice and military ability, since, while the latter is in

dispensable for the preservation of the State, the former

is that which lies at the foundation of all society and
involves all other virtues. 3 There are thus different

principles upon which political rights may be appor

tioned. 4 According as one or other of these is adopted,
1
iv. 1
11, 1295, b,
129G, a,
*
The character and geo-
21, where itfurther shown
is graphical position of the country,
that great cities are more exempt and similar external circum-
from disquiet than small ones, stances might also be here
because they have a more mime- adduced. To the political import-
rous middle class that demo- ;
ance of these, as may be seen from
cracies are more stable than Pvlit. vii. 6, c. 11, 1330, b, 17, vi.

oligarchies, because the middle 7, 1321, a, 8 sqq., Aristotle was

class finds its-elf more at home keenly alive. He admits that a
in them only, however, on con- maritime situation favours the
dition that it does so and rise of a numerous nautical
that the best lawgivers, e.y. population and thereby pro-
Solon, Lycurgus, Charondas, have motes democratic institutions,
belonged to the middle class. He remarks that an acropolis is
2
iv. 12, 1296, a, 34 sqq. favourable to monarchy and
oligarchy, a flat country to de-
3
iii. 9, 1281. a, 2
sqq. c. 12 sq.
1283, a, 19-26, 37. mocracy, a number of fastnesses
232 AltlSTOTLE

or as several of them are combined in a definite manner,

will 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
means by which pursued, the differences in the par
it is
1

ticular form of their constitution depend upon the share

assigned to the different classes of the citizens in the

public benefits and in the activities by which these are
2
acquired. The decisive question here, however, is :

to aristocracy that where horse-

; classes of citizens (farmers,
breeding succeeds, and cavalry artisans, soldiers, proprietors,
is therefore the chief and adminis
military priests, judges
weapon, oligarchies are easily trators) Aristotle proceeds ibid.
formed, &c. At the same time C. 9 init. 8e TOVTMV
:
8to>pj(r /
ueVa>;>

he suggests means (ibid. ) to \oiirbv (TKetyaaQai irdrepov Tracri KOI-

counteract such results, and as vwvrjTfOf irdi Tcav TOVTCDV Y) KaQ . . .

these circumstances do not in Ka(TTOi>

tpyov TUV ziprifJLtvcav aAAoi/s
any case affect the form of con virodereov, 2} TO /j.v iSta TO. be KOIVO.
stitution immediately, but only TOVTOW e| avdyK-qs CVTIV. ii.
(Cf.
through the character of the 1, 1260, b, 37.) TatiTa yap Kal
people as that is determined by irote? Tas iroXiTtias erepas eV pev
them, he leaves them out of yap TOIS ^/aoKpaTlaLS /xeTe xoutri
account in the present investi Trai/TesTrai/Tcoi/, ej/Se Ta"is6\iyap^iais
gation. Tovvavriov, 8imilarly, and with
1
vii. 8, 1328, a, 35 : fi 8e express reference to this passage,
TroAis KOivwvia ris eVrt TUJV 6/uLoicav, iv. 3, 1289, a, 27 TOU /j.ev
sqq. :

8e fays rijs fvSexo/utvns ovv elvai TrAeious iro\tTeias a lTiov

. firtl 8 e<n\v
v8ai/j.ovia rb OTI Tramps ffT\ /xe pTj TrAetco TroAews
apiffTov, avrr) Se
operas ivtpyeia. Tbv State consists of
a.piQp.6v. A
Kal xpycris ns
Te Aaos, o~vfj,@/3r,K an aggregation of households,
8e ovTias ware TOVS ywev efSe^e- of people of large, small and
(rdcu fJ-tr^Xfiv avTys, TOVS Se f^iKpov average means, of warlike and
t) iWTjSey, SrjAoy cos TOUT ainov unwarlike, of farmers, merchants
TOV yiyvco-Qai TroAecos 6^877 KOI and artisans further, there are ;

Bta^opos Kal TroAireias irXeiovs differences of birth and capacity

&\\ov -yap Tpoirov Kal 5t aAAcoi/ (apeTTj). Of these classes some
6Ka(TTOl TOUTO 0rjpfVOVTeS TOVS T times fewer, sometimes more,
fiiovs erepovs TTOIOVVTCU KOL Tas sometimes all, share in the
government (-TroAirei a). Qavepbv
2
After
enumerating the TO LVVV OTI TrAe ovs avayKalov elvai
forms of activity which are in TroAiTetcs ei Set Stacpepovaas aAA-
dispensable to the existence of TjAcov Kal yap TOUT eiSei Sta^epei
society, and the corresponding auTcov. iroXiTeia /uef
<r<J>a)j/
 POLITICS 233

Who possesses the supreme sovereign ? power who is l

The different possible ways of adjusting the relations of

the various classes to one another are therefore enu
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
riseand continuance, and the institutions which corre
spond to them.

4. Forms of Constitution

We are accustomed to understand by the term Con

stitution only the general form of government of a
particular State the sum of the arrangements which
2
regulate the distribution within it of political functions.

yap r) TOOV apx&v rd^is eorl, Tavr^v poses the sixth class was men
8e 8iav[j.oi>Tai irdvres $) Kara T^\V tioned.)
Suva/HIV ruv ^T^OVTWV }) Kara TH/ 1
iii. 6 init. : We must ask
avrcav Iffor-^ra KOIVI]V . . .
avay- how many and what constitutions
KCUOV apa Tro\iTias elva . Tocravras 1
there are ? ICTTI Se TroAireia TroAews
ocraiirfp rd^eis Kara ray uTrepo^ay rdis rotiv re a\\wv ap-^ocv Kal
elm Kal Kara ras TUV8ta<f>opas /j.d\iffTa TTJS Kvp as irdfTcav. Kvpiov
fj.opiwv. With the same view of /J.fv yap travTaxuv Tt>
TroAtreu^ua TVJS
explaining the different forms of TToAecos, TroAiTey^a 5 ecrrlv r] TTO\L-
constitution, the different classes -rda. (Cf. c. 7, 1279, a, 25.) In
in a community are then again democracies the people is sove
enumerated (c. 4, 1290, b, 21 sqq.) reign (/ciipios); in oligarchies only
as follows farmers, artisans,
: a minority of the people hence :

traders, day-labourers, soldiers, the difference in these forms of

rich (euTropot) who serve the state constitution.
with their money, magistrates, 2
This is at least the scientific
judges, and members of the conception of the constitution ;

supreme administration. (In the written documents which

this enumeration,
and oySoov, 1291, a, 33 sq.,
f!38o/j.ov
cause a difficult}%to avoid which
NICKES, De Arist. Polit.
110, proposes to read CKTOV
while SUSEMIHL, in loco,
e j85o,uoi/,
with CONRING, supposes a lacuna
before f^So/j.ov, in which he sup
the words define the constitution certainly
neither contain all that according
to this conception is included
li~br. under it, nor do they confine
and themselves to it, but generally
they contain all those laws which,
as fundamental to the State, seem
to require special sanction.
 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
,and in the spirit of its government. He has thus the 1

advantage of exhibiting more clearly than is

commonly
done by modern
writers the connection of the political
institutions of a people with its life as a whole, and is
less 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
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 this confusion, 2

1
As is obvious, inter alia, -noXireiav, a# oi>s
Selrovsapxovras
from p. 232, n. 1, with which cf. &/>x
ei " "^
<pv\drriv rovs irapa-
p. 232, n. 2, and p. 233, n. 1, supra, fiaivovras avrovs. So also vii. 13
-
Besides the passage ju^t re- init., and thronghoiit the whole
ferred to above, see esp. Polit. discussion of the different forms
1, 1289, a, 13: npbs jap ras of constitution, the question as
iTfias TOVS v6fj.ovs 5el TiQtaQa.L to the nature of the iroAireia is
riQevrai irdvres, aAA ov ras taken to involve that of the
bs rovs v6p.ovs. iroXi- ultimate aim of the State, and
re ia fj.fv yap eo-ri rdis rats Tr6\e<nv the investigation into the api<mj
r/ Trepi rasapxas, riva rpoirov TroAireta (see infra}.. is more con-
rivTa.i, ri TO Kvpiov rr)s
Kal cerned with the laws upon educa-
ems Kal ri rb reAos 6/ca<rT7js tion and the like than with
Koivuvlas eariv vo/j.oi Se questions properly constitutional
icr/ieVoi roav Srj\ovvroov ryv in our sense.
 POLITICS

although in general he has clearly distinguished be- \

tween questions of law and constitution. 1

In
investigating political constitutions Aristotle
complains that previous writers had contented them
2

selves with representing an ideal State, or else with

eulogising the Spartan or some other historical consti-

tution. Aristotle himself aims at a more exhaustive I

,,^F
treatment of his subject. Political science cannot, he
says, any more than any other, limit itself to
the 1L-

description of an ideal. It must also show what

form of State is the b^gfr-jrttemdbie^under certain given
circumstances ;
itmust 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 institutions are best adapted for the majority of
States. 3 The description of the political ideal must

See preced. n. and Polit. ii.

1
sets before Politics a fourfold
6,12G5, a, 1 Etli. x. 10, 1181, b,
; problem: (I) iroXireiavr^vapiffr nv
12 as his predecessors have not
:
6ewp?i(rai ris eari ital iroia. TIS

(sufficiently) investigated the ovaa ^dAioV en? KO.T et<xV>

question of legislation, he will e/ji,irodi{ovTosTwveKT6s; (2) besides

himself treat generally of this the airbus KpaT.ffT-n to discuss
as well as of the State (TroAtreia). also TT]V e/c TOJJ/ viroKci/uifvoitvapio TTiv;
L. 21: iroia TroAn-eia aplari], Kal similarly (3), rV e l and
vTro6<!<Tews,

7T<s
e/facrTTj raxfleto tf, Kal ricri VOJJLQIS (4) T^V /j-dXicrra Trdtrais rous -xoXeffiv
Kal eOecri xpajjuepTj. ap/JLorrovcrav (oil which see C. 11
2
Polit. iv. 1, 1288, b,33 sqq. init. ). Of these four questions
This complaint, however, is not the third has not infrequently been
altogether just in respectof Plato, very strangely misunderstood, e.g.
who not only in the Lams had by BAETHKLEMY ST-HILAIRE,
placed a second State beside his but also by GOTTLING in loco.
ideal republic, but in the Rep. Aristotle himself, however, states
itself had fully discussed the (1288, b, 28) his meaning quite
imperfect forms of constitution, unambiguously. en Se Tprrrji/,
It is true, however, that none of he says, r^v e uTrofleVecos Set yap
these investigations satisfies Ari- Kal rrjV SoQelffav ovvaaQai 0ewpeu/,
stotle s requirements. e| apx^s re TTUS Uv ytvoiro, ical
3
Polit iv. 1. Aristotle here 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

I the institutions by which they are maintained. He
examines States with the keen sense of the scientific

investigator, who pays

equal regard and to the small
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
ideal to the given conditions. 1
He possesses, moreover,

7rAe?a"roi/
y^povov Ae -yco 5 olov ei enters into no details with refer
TIVI TroAet ffvfj./3e0riKe ^UTjre TT]V ence to the third of these (the
oAiTeiWflat TroAireiai/ first is that of the Rep., the
re elvai Kal TUV avay- second that of the Laws), but he
[the necessary requisites can hardly have been thinking
for the best], yurjre rrjv tVSe^o/xfvrji/ of actually existing States (3) ;

6/c ritiv vTrapxovTwv, (iAAa nva even the second State, that of
(pavKorepav. (C f. iv. 11. 1296, b, the Laws, does not correspond
9 :Ae -yw 5e rb irpos fnroQecriv, on with Aristotle s TroAire/a e/c rav
TToAAa/as ovfftis aAArjs vtroKifjLtv(av a.pi(TTT], for Plato does
eviois ovdev not show in this work what is
the best that can be evolved from
/ also v. 11, 1314, a, ;58.)
; existing circumstances, but, just
The Tro\iTela e| inrodeffeias is, ac as in the Hep., sketches the
cording to this statement, identi outline of an ideal Slate, which
cal with 7) So0e?cra TroAtret a, only differs from that in the
vjToQeo-is indicating- the given Rep. in bearing a closer resem
case, the particular circumstances blance to reality. Still less can
that are actually present, and the State in the Laws be identified
having, therefore, essentially the with Aristotle s TroAn-ei a e | virode-
same meaning as on p. 247, n. 2, crews apiffrt], nor would Gvote
and Ph. d. Gr. i. 1015 med., where it have done so (Plato, iii. 357 sq.)
is distinguished from With 0<m. had he not wrongly explained
the above passage PLA.T. Laws, uTro flerm to mean an assumed
v. 739, A sqq., has been compared. principle.
The resemblance, however, is a 1
See his complaint against
remote one for (1) Plato speaks
;
his predecessors, ibid. 12^8, b,
not of four but only of three 35 : &s ol TrAelo TOt rwv airofyc
States to be depicted (2) he ; jj-tvitiv Trtpl iroXiTfias, Kal et 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 philosophy so unique and unrivalled in
its kind.
Two points of view haye emerged in the preceding
discussion, from which we may distinguish and esti
mate the different forms -of 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

pursued as the highest end. In treating, on the other
1

hand, of the distribution of political power, Aristotle

retains at first the customary arithmetical division of
States according as they are governed by one, by some,
orby all of the citizens. Combining these two principles
he enumerates six forms of constitution, three of whic
are good and three bad, setting down all those as un
just and despotic in which the aim is not the common
good, but the advantage of the rulers. Where the
2

|
\eyovcri Ka\5js, rcav ye -)(_pt\a[^wv aims primarily at the good of the
j dia.fj.apTa.vova u .
governed, but in a secondary way
1
iii. 6. 1278, a, 30
sqq. As in: also at that of the head of the
the household the government of house in so far as he is himself
the slaves aims at securing in the a member of the family so in
first instance the
advantage of the State we must distinguish
the master, and only secondarily the two above-mentioned kinds
that of the slaves as a means to of government.
[

the former, and as the government -

[ iii. /m.
(>

(pavepbv Toivw &s

:

of the family, on the other oaai IJ.GV 7roAiTe?cu rb Koivy

hand, <rv(j.<pepov
 238 ARISTOTLE

-7
I administration has for its object the common good, if

one the sovereign, we have a monarchy if a minority,

is
J an aristocracy if the whole body of the citizens, a
;
;

polity ;
where it has for its object the advantage of
the sovereign, monarchy degenerates into tyranny,
aristocracy into oligarchy, polity into democracy.
1
This

aKoirovaiv, avrai /j.ev opQal considerably earlier than the

VOVfflV OVCTai Kara TO OtTTAaJS 8l/CCUOI/, Politics. For as a matter of
ticrai 8e TO atyertpov p.6vov rtav fact the latter also describes its
iraaai Kal polity as a timocracy (see Ph.
bpQu>v
TroAiTetwv d. Gr. i. p. 745 sq.), so that the
8eo"7nm/ca} yap, rj 8e Tr6\is Koivuvia difference resolves itself finally
ruv (\evdepwv early. Hence iii into this that in the Ethics,
:

17 init. eari yap rt fyvaet fiecnroff-

: brcvitatis causa, Aristotle calls it
rbv Kal a\\o BaffiXevrbv KcA a\\o timocracy, whereas in the Politics
TroAtTi/cbi/ Kal fi iKatov Kal av/j.(p(pov he appropriates to it the common
8 OVK eo"Ti Kara <pv(riv,
term TroAtre/a, as he has room
TUV ciAAwi TroAtTeicuj/ o o cu here to describe more accurately
flaiv raina yap what he means by it. IsocR.
yiyverai irapa (pvaiv. Panath. 131, has been taken to
1
Polit. 1289, a,
iii. 7, iv. 2, refer to the passage just cited
26, b, 9 ;
Mh. viii.
Aristotle s 12. from the Ethics (ONCKBN, Staatsl.
account is here essentially that of ii.
1GO), and the conclu d. Arist.
Plato in the Politicus (cf. Ph. d. drawn that the Ethics cannot sion
Gr. i. p. 784J, of which he himself, have been composed later than
Polit. iv. 2, 1289, b, 5, reminds ann. 342-339 B.C. (HENKEL, Stud,
s, while at the same time he ziir Gesch. d. griech. Lehre vom
differs from it in a single respect. Staat, 46 Oncken takes another ;

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
forms of constitution is called in the Bejmblic (viii. 545 B, c)
simply polity, it is said in the timocracy, as peculiar forms of
Ethics TJO. TTJ:8 ^ euro constitution for Isocrates does
;

$}v r i^oKpaTiK^v \ey not say that the writer upon

^cuVercu.TroAtTei af 8 avr
whom his attack is made identi
ol TrAeuTTOi /caAetV. This dis fies these two (as Aristotle does).

crepancy, however, is not so If, however, we are to find here

important that we may infer a reference to the followers of

from a change in Aristotle s
it Plato as well, and especially to
political views, or that to peimit Aristotle, it would probably be
time for its occurrence we mav better to suppose that the rhe
torician has in view one of his dia-
place the Ethics on this ground
 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 j^>

from monarchy only in the number of the rulers, we \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
is

eminent faculty for government; aristocracy, where a

community of free citizens is content to submit to the
government of the fittest polity, where the population ;

is a military one which, having distributed the offices

of State among the propertied classes according to the
standard of merit, knows both how to command and
how to obey. 1

Referring further to the distinctiofiT"f"T

between democracy and oligarchy, Aristotle criticises
thosewho 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
holds, is merely accidental and derivative the essential :

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 I

logues (such as that mentioned in (peptiv ir\i}Qos &pxe<rdai

\Polit. iii 6; see i. p. 119, n. 1, rfyvruve \evdepoov ap-x^vvirb roav

I
supra). That the Ethics cannot aperr??/ i)yefj.oi>iKwv irpbs TTO\ITIK^V
!have been composed so early as apxV, KOSTIKOV 5e Tr\rjeos ev $
i
Henkel believes, has already been TT^VKCV eYyiWflcu irXrjeos iro\e/uLt-
,
shown, i. p. 154 sq. 8vvd/u.Gvov &pxe(T0cu Kal apxtiv
/cbi/,
1
iii. 17, 1288, a, 1 : l3a<ri\VTbv KOTO. v6/j,oi/ rbv /car dmj/ 5to-
I
ovv rb TOIOVTOV eVri ir\rj9os Vjj.ovra rots VTr6pois ras apxds.
j/iey
& ire(pvKe 2
j
(ptpeiv 761/05 virep^ov KO.T Polit. iii. 8, cf C. 7 Jin. IV.
.

jape-TV yye/jLovias TroArn/cV.

Tpl>s 11, 12, 1296, a, 1, b, 24 sqq.
3
i
apiffTOKpaTiicbv 5e irA ^os o irtyvKf 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

minority of the rich and the noble, are the rulers

l
for ;

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,
wealth, and freedom as severally characteristic of dif
ferent forms of constitution virtue of aristocracy, :

,
wealth of oligarchy, freedom of democracy. 3 In a third

1
iv. 4, where it is first said ev rats 0-^fj.oKpariaLS
(1290, b, 1) :
Sfjjiios fj.ev ecrriv orav Kupidirepovs eli/at rovs a-jr6povs rtav
oi eAeuflepoi Kvpioi &ffiv, oXiyapx ia vir6p(av ir\eiovs yap fieri, Kvpioi>

8 orav ol irXovffioi, but afterwards 8e TO rots 7rAeioo"t 86av. The

at the end (1. 17): dAA e<m
equality of all citizens is thi
Sr]/j.oKparia fj.tv orav ol e Aeuflepo: seen to be the fundamental point
Kal aTTOpoi TrXeiovs ovres Kvpioi rr/s from which government bj
apxys Siffiv, oXiyapx ia 8 6rav ol majority follows as an inference
TrXovaioi Kal
evyevtffrfpoi oXiyoi (o-UjUjScuVet) and from that again
ovres. 1291, b, 34: etirep
Ibid. government by the poor.
3
yap eXevOepia ,uaAi<7T fffrlv eV iv. 8, 1294, a, 10:
St]/j.OKparia Kaddirep viroXa/jifidvovffi Kparias p-ev yap opos
rives Kal Iff6rfis. o\iyapx ias Se TrAouTOs, Srj^uou 8
-
vi. 2 init. ;
vir66tffis jjCev otiv L. 19: Tpi a eo-Ti T^
e Aeu- r
TTJS 5-n/J.OKpariKris TToXireias rrjs Iff6rf]- os rr\s

0epia [or as it is expressed 1317,

a TTAOUTOS apeT^j
,
e Aeu^ep

b, 16 :
eAeuflepia rj Kara ro tffov^ (Tb yap reraprov, o KaXovffiv
. . .
\ev9epias 8e ev /J-tv rb ev evyeveiav, d/coAou0eT TO?S Svffiv y
jitepei apx^ffQai Kal apx w, fal yap evyeveid effriv ap^cuos TT\OVTOS
yap rb diKaiov rb Srj/j.oriKbv rb Kal aper fj). Cf. iii. 12, 1283, a,
?<rov
exetv effrl /car api6/j.bv aAAa 16 sqq. (see p. 229, supra} v. 9, ,

Kar aiav, rovrov 8 ovros rov

/j.r) 1310, a, 28 RJiet. i. 8, 1366, a,
;

8t/ca/ou rb irXriQos avayKaiov elvat 4 eo~Ti 8e Sr]/jLOKparias /u

:

Kvpiov, Kal 6 ri fcy 6r) rots irXeioffi, eAeuflepta, oAiyapx ias 5e

TOUT tlvai Kal TeAos Kal TOUT efi/at apiffroKparias Se Ta Trpbs
TO SiKatov 8e?j/ tcrov Kal ra 8e
(paffi yap v6fj.ifjia, rvpavviSos
tKacrrov r&v Tro\irwv tfxrre
 POLITICS 241
l
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
;

statements are not

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
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
firstof the three good kinds of
State, and then of the .
three bad. Instead of this, Aristotle follows
up the
introductory dissertations which occupy chaps. 9-13
of the third book with a discussion of
monarchy (III.
14-17); he next proposes to
investigate (III. 18)
the best form of State,
which, however, he only partially
SJ
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
I remains to discuss
polity, oligarchy, democracy, and

J \Rhet i.S 1365, b, 29. political capacity and attach-

, naiScla vTrb rov vo^ov Ket^vr,, ment to the existing constitution
by which we^areto understand which spring from it: ol
not so much intellectual culture
as an education iu accordance
^le/te^re? eV rots
ct/nerro^aT/a fyxovw,
vo ^
ibid.
oa
1.
<?

35
T7?

with law and

morality and the
VOL. II.
 242 ARISTOTLE

tyranny ;
he accordingly now proceeds to investigate,
in the first place (chap. 4, 1291, b, 14-chap. 6, end),

the different forms of democracy and oligarchy then ;

sq.) polity as
8 the proper blending of these
(chap.
two constitutions, along with several kindred forms
^(chap. 7); lastly, tyranny (chap. 10).
and, This
/ divergence from the previous account is much too
fundamental to permit of its being accounted for by the
character of the Politics alone, and too
incomplete
1

indispensable to permit of its being explained away.

are forced to admit that just as Aristotle in his
""We

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 is not free
from a certain vacillation. On the one hand, h<

reckons among the good States, on the ground tl

it

it is based upon the virtue of the citizens and aims at

the common good. On the other hand, he is unable to

1
E. fj.
in the manner pro may point out (1) that the :

posed by FJ-SCHNEB (lib. d. Ge- perfect State described in vii

recktigTwvtnbegriff
d. Arist. p. and viii. is never referred
71 sq. n., cf.p. 92, l),who assumes (not even iii. 7, 1279, a, 39, vi I
that by the polity of Etli. viii. 14, 1332, a, 34) as polity (iroKireia.
12 and Polit. iv. we muse under simply), but as aristrocacy or
stand something different from apiorri TroAireia (<?,</.
iv. 7, 1293, b,
the true polity which appears 1, c. 2, 1289, a, 31), and that
in Polit. vii. as the ideal State. polity stands only third among
Setting aside the unlikelihood of true constitutions (2) that in :

Aristotle s describing two dif pas ages such as Polit. iv. 2 init.
c

ferent forms of constitution by c. 8 init. we are expressly for

the same name without qualify
ing addition, and of his totally
omitting in his subsequSn^ dis
cussion all further mention of the
4
true polity described in iiyAve
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 243

place it on a level with true monarchy and 1

aristocracy. T"

For government by the many, and a majority I

it is still

can never atttain to so high a degree of virtue and

jj
insight as is possible to one or to few. The one field in"

which a polity can win distinction the military, and is

accordingly the sovereign in it will naturally be the

collective body of those 2
capable of bearing arms. The
virtue, therefore, upon which the State is here founded
is an imperfect one. The natural antagonisms between r
the citizens are not removed, as in an
aristocracy, by a
comprehensive and uniform education of all and an
equal freedom from meaner employments. The pro
blem, therefore, must be to devise for it 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 s opinion,
as we shall see, the chief WhiL
advantage of
polity.
it is
possible in this to explain the
place which
way thi
form of constitution in Aristotle
occupies s account, th
ambiguity of its position remains a permanent defect i
his theory of the State. The fundamental mistak
1
Cf. Mh. viii. 12, 1160, a, TiKpi&uo-eat -jrpbs iraaav
35 : TOVTUV 5e [of the true forms dAAa ^aAurra rr]v TroA^u/crji/
of State] /3eATio"T77 yuev 77 /SacnAeta, yap eV Tr\.r Qtit
yiyj/erai.
Xeipio-TTjS^T^o/cpaTta (which here Kara ravr^v TT)J/ -iroXiTe iav
,^ 1W -
= 7roAiT6ia;Cf. p. 238, n. TO.TOV TO
l,wp.) Trpoiro^ow Kal fj.re-
b, 10: democracy is chiefly related xv v
avrrjs ol /ceKT^eVoi
ffi
ra
to timocracy, the
majority of the ciTrAa.In accordance with this
citizens ruling in both with equal
passage and c. 17 (see 239, n 1
right, and springs from it almost supra] we should read in l 37
imperceptibly. (differently from SPENGEL, Abh
^
m% 7,
1279,^3,
39: eVa /**i/ d. Munchn. Aliad. pUlos.-pltihl.
yap Siatpepeiv (tar aperrjv j) 6\iyovs Kl. v. 23), instead of TO
" "*"

TrAeioyy 5 ^77 vaAeTror 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
I obtrudes itself between these two alternatives a third
to it, unless
kind, which has no clear place assigned
we give up this division and supplement the qualitative
opposition between good
and bad by a quantitative
1
difference in degrees of perfection.

Inquiring next into the respective titles of these

forms of constitution, we must first recaty what
different
as said above viz. that in each and all of them the
question is of a distribution of rights and privileges
which can only be determined according to the prin
ciples of distributive justice.
These demand that
receive an equal portion unequals, on the
equals ;

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
which are essential to a
relation to the qualities citizen,

and are the indispensable elements in a full and satisfy-

1
Aristotle himself lakes simply into good and bad, seeing
occasion (iv. 8ii.) to justify the that what differentiates polity
place he assgns to polity. from the best State is a mere
OUTCOS, he says, OVK want, so that one and the same
OVT TOLVT-nV TTap- constitution presents itself in
[polity]
tK&3Lffiv ovre -as aprt comparison with the best as a
on TO fi
defective one (SiTj/xopTTj/cacn), in
fn rf?s opQora.ri]s comparison with all others as a
TroArreias,&c. But this only true one. Even in respect of the
serves to corroborate the above other forms Aristotle admits
remarks. For if polity is neither that they may be relatively
the best nor a vicious form of good; cf. e.g. *v. 9, 1809, b,

constitution, it is obvious that 18-35.

constitutions cannot be divided See p. 228 sq. supra.
 POLITICS 245

ing social life.

1
But exfen any one of such advantages!
as these confers no title to rule in the State. 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
The problem therefore is, to determine the relative
worth of those qualities upon which a title to political
,

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
3
stitution. The highest of these qualities, and th;
which in the perfect State is alone of importance
Aristotle declares, as we have 4
already seen, to b(
virtue although he does not deny to the others their]
;

importance. But besides the character of individuals,

we must also take into account their
numerical proporj
tion. It does not follow because an individual or tl
members of a minority are superior to all the
individually in virtue, insight and property, that tnpy
must therefore be superior to the whole body taken
together. A majority of individuals, each of wh<

taken by himself is inferior to the

minority, may as
whole possess an advantage over them, as each membej
finds his complement in the other, and all thus attain
higher perfection. The individual contribution to the
1
iii. 12, 1282, b, 21-1283, a, thus, but the above statement of
23 ;
of. p. 229 sq. wpra. it corresponds to what he says
2
iii. 9, 1280, a, 22, c. 13, iii. 13, 1283, a, 29- b, 9 upon the

1283, a, 26, v. 1, 1301, a, 25 anQicrftf.Triffis and the itpiffts rivas

sqq. b, 35. fyx Se? -

3
Aristotle does not himself P. 230 sq. sitpra,
formulate the problem precisely
246 ARISTOTLE

State in this case is less, but the sum of the contribu

tions is greater than in the case of the others^ If

this does not hold of every body of people without

distinction, yet there may be peoples of whom

it is

true. 2 In such cases, while it would certainly be wrong

to entrust to individual of the majority offices members
of State which require special personal qualifications,

yet it must be the people as a

whole who in the public
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 for the

State to 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 irpbs TOVS eAaTTOus [sc.
to this acute remark, which is of
so much importance in estimat Kal yap Kpeirrovs Kal
Kal /SeArious flcrlv, &s
ing democratic institutions see ;

iii.11 init.: OTL Se 5e? Kvpiov fivai fJLVCt)V rS)V TT\l6v<)V TTpbs TOVS
/j.a\\ov ir\T)dos v) TOWS apicrTOVs
Tt>
e ActTTovs. 1283, b, 33:
KW\V6l 7TOT6
Kai Tiv %X* iv airopiav, ra^a 8e KUV
1
T&V 6\iy<av

a\-fjdfiav. TOVS yap TroAAous, &v us /ca0 eKaffrov aAA ws adp6ovs.

8
cKaa-Tos effTiv ov o"irov8a7os avrjp, iii. 11, 1282, b, 15.
3
ii (rvvfXdovTas ivai By the public scrutiny
wv, ovx ws eKaffTOV (6w0t5v77), c. 11, 1281, b, 33, 1282,
aAA u>s
ffv/uLiravTas, oiov Ta a, 26.
4
SelTrva TWV e/c /J-ias
c. 11, 1281, b, 21 sqq.,
prjTa
c. 15, especially 1. 34 : -rravres fj.V yap
XopriyrjOfVTb)]/ [similarly
128(>, a, 25]- TroAAwv yap OVTCOV
fKacrTOV Kal Kal rols )3eAT/ocrt ras
/j.6pLov ^x flv apfTTJs
(})pov f)0~ws,
Kal yivo~9ai ffweXOovTas v, KaQdnep }) ^
Sbcnrep fva avdpwirov Tb irhvQos KaOapa Tpofy^ TTJS Kadapas rfyv

e YOJ/T alffdrfcTfLS. OVTU Kal Trepl 6\iyr]S ^copts

TO ^e-r\ Kal TV Sidvoiav. C. 13, irepl Tb Kpiveiv f

1283, a, 40: aAAa rfv Kal ol

 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 1
the
further pertinent observation that there are many things
of which the user can judge as well as or better than
2
the specialist who makes them in other words, that :

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. smaller capacity, therefore, of the indi
[The
viduals may be counterbalanced and even outweighed by
their greater numbers and vice versa, their greater ;

capacity by their smaller number. The more capable

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 first condition of the survival of any constitution is
that its supporters should be superior to its enemies.
But this is a question, not of quality alone, but of
numbers. only by It is taking both of these elements /

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
Cf. further c. 11, 1282, a, TrAeToi/ TO Trdvrcav rovriav 3) ru>v

14 : etrTcu yap ewacrTOS fj.ev %ei pa>i/

KaO eVa Kal /car 6\iyovs fj.eyd\as
KpiT7]s flSorwv, airavTs Se
TU>V
apx&s apxovToov.
-
ffvveA6ovTS /) /3eATious y) ov %eipous. Ibid. 1282, a, 17.
3
L. 34: ov yap 6 Swao-rfc ou5 6 iii.13, 1283, b, 9: et S^ riv
KK\7](Tia<TTr]s apxvv earlv, a\Xa TO apid/n^v 0X1701 Tra.fji.irav ol T^V
elei/

SiKa<TT"hpioi/
KOI T/ )8ouA^ Kal 6 STAGS dper^i/ ^xovres, riva Se? 5ieAe7f rbv
T&V 5e pr]devT(av Ka(TTOs fj.6pi.6v rpoirov ; v) TO o\iyot Trpbs TO epyov
fffn TOVTUV Sxrre . . . SiKaicas 8e? (TKoir^lv, et dvvarol SioiKfTv r^v
Kvpiov /j.i6vwv TO Tr\?i6os K yap Tr6\iv r) TO&OVTOI TO ir\ridos SXTT
iro\\S>v 6 STJ/J.OS Kal T] /SouAr; Kal TO elvai ir6\iv e| alruv.
8iKaffT-j]piov. Kal TO Tt/^rj^a Se
 248 ARISTOTLE
the other is more than counterbalanced. 1
The influence
of individuals or classes will be in proportion to the
.
amount which they severally contribute to the stability
the State and the attainment ofits end. The end,
jof
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
law than under that of men, who are continually subject
. to all kinds of weakness and passion, Aristotle differs
3
from Plato 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, to their necessary universality and the
owing
I

\
impossibility of taking account of every individual case
\that may occur. If it be objected that the law may

1
iv. 12, 1296, b, 15 Se? yap :
labourers, &c., preponderate] . . .

Kprirrov elVou rb jSoi/Ao /xei/oy pepos oirov 8e rb rcov evirbpuv Kal

rrfs ir6\ws rov u.}} ySouAo/ie i/ov yvup ifjaav /j.a\\ov virepreivei r<?

peveiv r}]v iroKireiav. [So v. 9, iroiy fy \eiirerai TO? TrotraJ, evravda

fffri 5e Tracra TroAis 5e
1309, b, 16.] b\iyapx av, Kal rijs oAt-yapxias
IK re rov TTOIOV Kal rov iroyov. rov avrbv TOQTTOV fKaffrov
Aeyco 8e TTOIOV /u.6i/ (\evQfpiav ir\ov- Kara rr\v virfpoxyv rov bi
rov iraL^eiav evyeveiav, iroabv 5e irAr/flovs . . . uirov Se rb
r)]v rov Tr\~f)9ovs virepox fiv. ej/5e- uTrepreti/et TTATJ^OS i)

X*rai 5e rb /j.ev iroibv virapxew axpcav ^) Kal

TU>V
Oarepov
erepa) yuepfi TTJS TroAecos, aAAy . . . tvravd eVSe ^erai iro\ireiav rival
5e /ucpet rb iroo~bv, olov TrAeious TOV JJ.OVLU.OV.
apiO/jibv elvai ruv yevvaiwv rovs 2
iii. 13, 1283, b, 36 Ought :

ayW?s v)
rwv TrAoucricoj/ rovs b.ir6- the legislator to look to the ad-
povs, yu.^ /j.4vroL roo~ovrov virepex lv
vantage of the better or of the
rtf iroa-y bffov AeiVeo-^at irotaj. rcj> greater number ? rb 5 bpdbv
Sib ravra irpbs aAArjAa ffvyKpirtov. \rjirreov tvus rb 5 tfftas bpdbv
oirov fj,sv ovv vTTfpfx* 1 T ^ Tuv Trpbs rb TTJS 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 STJUO- Hence all forms of constitution

Kpariav, Kal e/cacrroy eTSos STJ^IO- which do not aim at the general
Kparias [organised or lawless, welfare are resolutely regarded
&C.] Kara r)]v inrepoxfy TOV Srj/uou as bad.
3
e/caoTov [according as farmers or Cf. Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 762 sq.
 POLITICS 240

itselfbe partial, Aristotle admits that it is true the lawn ;

will 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
adjudicate, but that constitutions should be good. The
1

final result of all these considerations is, therefore, the

demand for an order founded upon law, arid aiming at

the common good of all, in which influence and privi-/

lege should be assigned to individuals and classes \

according to their importance for the life of the

whole.
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

together in ability and political importance. Would it !

not be unjust to place such persons on an equal footing

1
10: In whom shall the
iii. rich or of the people] ra
sovereignty reside 1 In the irp6repov. Nevertheless he arrives
!
masses, the rich, the best, in finally at the conclusion (1282,
some distinguished citizen, or in b, 1) ?; 8e irpwrf]
:
Aexfleto-o airopia
a tyrant ? After recounting all iroiel <pavepbi>
ovSev o vrws erepov
these different views, and dis- &s on 5e? rovs vo^ovs elvai Kvplovs
missing the third and fourth Kei/j.evovs opdais, rbv apxo^ra Se, av
with the remark that in that re els av re Tr\eiovs Sxri, irepl
|

case the majority of the citizens rovrw elvai KVO LOVS irepl oa-cov
would be excluded from all po- Qativvurovviv ol VO/HOL Xeyeiv aitni-
litical rights, Aristotle continues, /3cDs 5;a rb /J.T] paSiov elvai Ka06\ov
1281. a, H4 dAA urcoy (pair] Ti?
:
SrjAwcraf irepl iravrcav. But the
&j/ rb Kvpiov o\cas &vQpu>irov
elvai character of the laws depends
i dAAo /Aii vofjiov <pav\ov, %x ov ra 7 6 upon the constitution (iroXireia
;
ra ffvpfiaivovra irdQr] rrepl rvv in the wider sense explained p.
! $ vX h
J/ He suggests, indeed, an
- 232 sq.): dAAd JU.TIV el rovro, S^Aoi/
objection &v ovv rj v6fj.os /u,ev
: ori rovs i*.tv Kara ras opdas TTO-
j

j
oXiyapxiKbs Se /) Sr]/j.oKpariKbs, ri \ireixs ava-yKalov elvai SiKaiovs,
i SioiVet rrepl ruv rovs Se Kara ras TrapeKfie&rjKvias ov
r)iropr)ju.evwv ; av/j.-
j
firjaerai yap 6/j.otws [i.e. as in the Si/ccuous. On the supremacy of law
;
case of the personal rule of the see p. 252, infra.
 250 ARISTOTLE
i with the others, whom in every respect they so far excel ?
/
Would 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
^State inequality, nothing is left
for it but to exclude from its pale members who thus

excel the common mass. In that sense, the institution of

the Ostracism is not without a certain justification it :

may, under certain circumstances, be indispensable to the

safety of the democracy. In itself, however, it is wholly
unjust, and, as a matter of fact, was abused for party
nds. The true solution is to reg-ard men of decisive
u /\
Ss -->
. .

AJ\ superiority, not as mere members, but as the destined

\ rulers of the State, not as under the law, but as them-
A selves the law. They dwell among men like gods you
V can as little rule over them or divide the power with
(them as you can divide the sovereignty of Jove. Only
We attitude is possible towards them
namely, voluntary
^/subjection. They are the natural, born kings ;
l
they

iii. 13, 1284, a, . I: et 54 ris v6/j.os. And then follows the dis
efs Tonovrov 8ia(pepcav KO.T cussion in the text above, after
rep^o\\v,
?
!) ir\eiovs /uei/ which Aristotle continues, 1284.
evbs IJ.T] /uifVToi Svvarol vX^pufia b, 25 dAA eVl TT}S apiffTT/js TTO-
:

irapaa x.eo Oa.t TroAecos, iixrre /x,^ ffu/u.- \iTfias ex et ToAA^i airopiav, oft

T^V r&v a\\wv dpfTriv

/3A77T77J/ flvai Kara TWV a\\&i>
ayadwv rr]v
TrdvTcav jinjSe TV/I/ 8vvau.iv avrwv vircpox riv, OLOV iffxvos Kal TT\OVTOV
T^ IV TTO\ITIK^]V TTpks T7]V 6/CetJ/a J/, t Kal TToAi/^tA/ ay, aAA av TLS
iows, et 8 els, ri]V tKeivov /ULOVOV, 8ia<pepwv
KO.T apTf]v.
fOV TOVTOVf /ULpOS 7T($AeCt>S ov jap 8rj 0a?fi/ Uv 8e?v
Kal [AfQuTTavai rbv TOIOVTOV. a\\a
t(T(i)V, ai KTOL Toarovrov war P.TIV ov8 apx^iv *ye TQV TOIOVTOV
ovres Kal r^v iroXniK^v 8vva/m.iv Trapair\ {)(riov yap /ecu/ ei TOV Aiks
&<nrep yap Oebv
eV avOpw-rrois elites apx*w a^io iev, pepi^ovTes Tas apxas.
slva.1 rbv roiovrov oOev SjjAov OTI AenreTcu rolvvv, oirep HoiKe Tre^u-
Kal TT]V vofj.o6<riav avayKaiov elvai Kevai, Trei6eo~6ai TO) ToiovT(p iravTas
jrepl TOVS tcrovs Kal ry yevei Ka.1 ry dcr/J.V(as, &(TT fiaaiXeas rfvat TOVS
SvvdfjLei. Kara Se rcav rotovrcav TOiovTOvs aifiiovs ev TOIS Tr6\e(Tiv.
OVK ecrTL VO/JLOS avrol yap etVt Similarly c. 17, ]288, a, 15 sqq.
 POLITICS 251

alone have a true and unconditional title to monarchy.

1

Such a monarchy Aristotle calls the best of all consti

2
tutions, believing as he does that under it the well-
being of the people is best secured for he alone is ;

king in this high sense who is endowed with every

excellence and free from every mortal defect nor will ;

such a one seek his own advantage at the cost of his

subjects, but, like a god,
will lavish upon them benefits
out of his own abundance. 3 In general, however, Ari- 1
stotle is no eulogist of monarchy. The different kinds/
of it which he enumerates, 4 he regards as mere varieties/
ol two fundamental forms namely, military command

1
Cf. iii. 17, 1281. b, 41 sqq. a, 8). The first of these kinds, he
2
Etli. viii. 12, 11 GO, a, 35 : remarks 1285, b, 3 sqq.,
(c. 14,
rovrcav 8e [of the true forms of 20 sqq., a, 7, 14), was rather a
constitution] ^eArio-rr/ ,ue// T) union of certain offices, judicial,
j8aa"tAeia x et P (7T >?
5 T] Tt/j-OKparta. priestly, military ; similarly, the
3
Ibid, b, 2 : 6 fj.\v yap rvpavvos Spartan was an hereditary com
rb eauT&j (Tu/u.(pepois avcoTrel, 6 Se mand. The monarchy of the
jSacnAeus rb run/ ap^ojuevccv. ov barbarians, on the other hand,
yap e trrr f3a<ri\evs 6 ^urj avTapKys is an hereditary mastership
Kal Tracn To7s ayaOols virzp exeats. 6 (apx^ Sfa-TToriK^ but the govern
Se TOLOVTOS ouSepby 7rpOfrSe?Tai ra ment of slaves is despotic, that
ovv avrcp ,uei/ OVK av of freemen political Polit. iii. ;

ToTs 8 a/3^o,ueVois 6 yap 4, 1277, a, 33, b, 7, c. 6, 1278, b,

TOIOVTOS Khypcarbs &i TIS e^Tj 32, 1279, a, 8), to which, how
Cfp. 250, n. 1, supra. ever, the subjects voluntarily
4
In the section -jrepl /3a(ri\Las, submit, and which is limited by
which Aristotle .Inserts iii. 14-17, traditional usage (iii. 14, 1285,
and which, as/it is closely con a, 16, b, 23). Elective monarchy
nected with /the preceding dis is a dictatorship either for life
cussion, we must here notice. or for a definite time or object.
Besides true monarchy he there (On the cuper^/ rvpavvls v. ibid, a,
enumerates five kinds of mon 29 sqq. b, 25.) Only in an irre
archical rule (1) that of the :
sponsible monarchy is an indi
heroic age (2) that which is
;
vidual actually master of a whole
common among barbarians (3) ; people; it is a kind of magnified
the rule of Ime so-called J^sym- domestic rule yap rj OIKOVO-
:
&<nrep

neta? or elective princes ; (4) /uiiK^ /SacrtAeta TIS otKias ecr-rii/, ovr<as
the Spartan; (5) unlimited mon 7) /3a0"iAeia TroAecos /cat edvovs
evbs Y)

archy (7ra u/3ao tA.ete, c. 16 1287

J
o lKOVouia (iM^,b,29sqq.).
252 ARISTOTLE
for and irresponsible sovereignty.
life The former,
however, is applicable to the most diverse forms of

constitution, and cannot, therefore, be the fundamental

characteristic of any one of them. By a monarchical

constitution, therefore, in the present inquiry, we can

only mean But against this 1
irresponsible monarchy.
form of government there are, according to Aristotle,
many objections. That it may, under certain circum
stances, be natural and justifiable he does not, indeed,
deny. A people which is 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 power should alternate but ;

where this is the case it is law, and not the will of a

monarch, that rules. 3 If, further, it be said that govern

ment by the best man is 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
1
iii. 15, 1286, b, 33-1287, a, limited among some barbarian
7, c.16 init. peoples as tyrannical. Neverthe-
-
iii. 17 init., after stating the less it is legitimate (Kara vop.ov
objections to monarchy Aristotle /cat
Trarpt/crj) Sia yap TO SovXiKcb-
;

continues aAA tffcas TCWT eVt /xeV

:
repot elVat ra ^Qt] tyvcrei oi ju.ei/ /3ap-
TIVWV e^et rbv rpoirov rovrov, Itrl /3apoi ruiv EAAr^coi/, of Se irepl r^v
Se rivcav oi>x
ovrws. Herri yap n Atrtaj/ rwv irfpl Evpwinqv,
rr)i>
IITTO-

fyvati Seo Troo Tbv Kal &AAo /3ao"tAeu- /LLtvowi rkv SfcnroriKrjv ap-^v oi5ev
rbv Kal HAAo TroAtTt/cbi/ al St/catot/ Svffxepa wovres. Cf. p. 239, n. 1, snip.
3
Kal orv[j.(ppov. c. 14, 1285, a, 19: iii. 16, 1287, a, 8 sqq. cf. c.

monarchical power is as un- 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 1

this advantage seerns to be again outweighed by the

inability of law to take account of particular cases as

the individual governor can, this is not decisive. It

follows, indeed, from it that the constitution must

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. 15, 1286, a, 7-20, c. 1(5, ment, like all other arts and
1287, a, 28 6 jjikv ovv rbv v6fjiov
:
sciences, reaches perfection gra
/ceAeucov ap^iv 5o/cel /ceAevtii/
dually. From the earliest inhabi
&p%iv r bv 6ebv Kal rbv vovv JJ.OVQVS, tants of a country, whether they
6 8 av9p<Dirov
Kf\evwv irpoffTiQf]<ri. be autochthonous or a remnant of
Kal Qrjpioire yap 4itiQvjj.ia
.
vj a more ancient population, little
TOIOVTOV [perhaps better TOLOVTOV :
insight is to be expected it :

bi/]
Kal 6 Qv/jibs apx ovras 8ta0"rpe </>ei
would be absurd, therefore, to be
Kal TOVS apiffrovs avSpas. Sioirep bound by their precedents; written
avfv dpe^fas vovs o vo/j.os tffTiv, laws, moreover, cannot embrace
Cf. p. 248 sq. vi. 4, 1318, b, 3 J C
:
every individual case. Neverthe
f)yap e^ovffia rov Trpdrreii o ri &</
less great prudence is required in
e0e A?; TLS ov Svj/arai ^uAarretJ/ TO
changing the laws; the authority
ej/ eKatrTw rcav
avQpwirwv fyav\ov. of the law rests entirely on use
Etli. v. 35: 8i& owe
10, 1134, a, and wont, and this ought not to
iw/j.ev apx^w avQpwirov, dAAo rbv be infringed unnecessarily men;

\6yov \_al. v6(ji.ov^, QTI kavrcp TOVTO ought to put up with small
Troie? Kal yiverai Tvpavvos. anomalies rather than injure the
-
Aristotle touches on this authority of the law and the
point, ii. 8, 1268, b, 31 sqq. He government and accustom the
there says that neither the citizens to regard legislative
written nor the unwritten Jaws changes lightly.
can be unchangeable. Govern
254 ARISTOTLE

functions may be entrusted ;

but it does not by any
means follow that the highest authority in the State

should reside in an individual. On the contrary, tlie

more undeniable it is that many are superior to on!
that the latter is more
be fooled by passioi
liable to

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

assuming always that the people consist of free am

Furthermore, we cannot overlook the
2
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 of written law.
3
A monarch, finally (and?
this argument weighs heavily with Aristotle), will almost/
inevitably desire to make his sovereignty hereditary ii}

his family ;
and what guarantee have we in such a case

C. 15, 12SG, a, 20-b, 1, c.

1
1G, 1287, a, 20- b, 35 of. p. 24G,
;
n.
2, supra. Rliet. i. 1, 1354, a,
31 it
isbest 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
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 Tr\TJQos oi e\evdepoi, /^Sep irapa .

make a law than in the many rbv VO/LWV TrpdrrovTfs, a\\ TTtpl /}

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
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 : on a-rrovScuoi ri]v

ciples for the future,

law courts K.a.K.t1vos 6 els.
3
and popular assemblies decide 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 l

Aristotle declares it to be better that the State be ruled

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 stands
so low as to be incapable of self-government, or when
an individual stands so pre-eminently out over all others
that they are forced to revere him as their natural
ruler. Of the former, he could not fail to find many-
instances in actual experience he himself, for instance, ;

explains the Asiatic despotisms on this principle. Of

the latter, neither his own time nor the whole history
of his nation afforded him any example corresponding
even remotely to the description, except that of his own
3
pupil Alexander. The thought naturally suggests it
self that he had him in his mind when he describes the
prince whose personal superiority makes him a born
4
ruler. Conversely, we can imagine that he used his
ideal of the true king (if sketched it at so early he had
a period as his residence in Macedonia 5 ) as a means of

directing to beneficial ends a power which would endure

haps have been mentioned along-

1
c. 15, 1286, b, 22.
-
c. 15, 1286, b, 3: e<
STJ T^V side of him; he was, however,
lv TUV TrAetoVojj/ apxw ayatiui/ not a monarch, but a popular
8 ai>$pai>
TrdvTwv apiffroKpariav leader, and in Polit. ii. 12, 1274,
tfereov, TTJI/ Se rov tvbs fia<ri\eiai>, a, o sqq. is treated merely as a
alpeT(arpoi eft} ai> -noXtaiv apiffro- demagogue.
4
Kparia Paffi\eias. Accordingly See ONCKEN, Staat&l. d.
early monarchies have changed Arist. ii. 268 sq.
into republics as the number of 5
He dedicated a treatise to
capable people in the cities has Alexander wtpl &aai\eias ;
see p.
increased. 60, n. 1.
3
Pericles alone might per-
256 ARISTOTLE
no opposition and no limitation, and of saying to a
prince whose egotism would admit no title by the side
of his own that absolute
monarchy can only be merited
by an equally absolute moral greatness. These specula
tions, however, are delusive. Aristotle himself remarks
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 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. It is better to explain
1
v. 10, 1313, a, 3: ov yiyvov- mythical times perhaps in a
TCU 8 en /3a<riAeTa: i/uj/, aAA. Theseus seeing that in iii. 15,
yiyiHavrai, /j-ovapx^t Kal 1286, a, 8 he supposes that mon
/j.a\\ov, 5ia rb rrjv /JacriAetav e/cou- archy is the oldest form of con
ffiov /uev apxTlv elVcu, pei^ovuv 8e stitution, perhaps because the
Kvpiav, TroAA.oi/98 elj/at rovs 6yti- few capable people in antiquity
oious, /cat /iTjSei/a 5ia(ppovTa stood more prominently out
roffovrov oScrre airapri^eiv above the common man than in
irpbs rb /j-fyedos Ka\ rb a 1 - 1 later times.
2
TTJS apxys-
a>|U,a
Sta /u.ei/ o&o"T6 Polit. v. 10, 1310, b, 39,
roiro eK^res ov^ dirofj.evovo iv where the Macedonian kings are
&j/ 8e Si aTraTTjs &pp TIS $i jSias, mentioned along with the Spartan
^8?] So/cel TOVTO slvai rvpavvls. and Molossian as owing their
This does not, indeed, primnrily position to their services as
refer to the appearance in a state founders of states.
3
previously monarchical of a Even although the passage
prince whose personality corre 7 (see infra) were taken to
vii.

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
historical illustrations he would
have preferred to look for them in
mean that the Greek nation now
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
Aristotle (as OXCKEN, Staatsl. d.
 POLITICS 257

his views on this subject upon purely scientific principles.

Among the different possible cases in which virtue
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,
confers upon it that prowess which he himself possesses.
It would certainly not be difficult to prove from Ari-
stotle s own statements about the weakness of hurnaV

nature and the defects of absolute monarchy that sucll\

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 is in his hos

and careful though he is
tility to all false idealism,
the Politics to keep clearly in view the conditions
I

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 it his duty not to overlookrA

this case in the development of his theory.
1
\

After thus discussing the principles of his division \

of states into their various kinds, Aristotle next/^

proceeds to investigate the separate forms themselves! I

beginning with the best, and passing from it to they

Arist. i. 21, supposes) saw in its HENKEL, StudienJ&cc., p. 97.

unity under the Macedonian *
SUSEMIHL, Jakresber. uber
sway the fulfilment of his class.Alterthvm87& .,,187&,p.ilTf,
people s destiny. Cf SUSEMIHL, . takes the same view.
Jahrb. /. Philol. ciii. 134 sq.
VOL. II. S
258 ARISTOTLE

less perfect examples. The examination of the Best

State/ however, as already observed, is incomplete.
We must therefore be content to notice the section of
it which we have before us.

5. The Best State l

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. A community cannot, any more than an indi

vidual, dispense with external equipment as the con

dition of complete happiness. 2 A State, in the first
It1
has been frequently them that, while Plato declares
denied that Aristotle intended to JJ.T]
Tvavra-rraffiv -TJ/J.O.S ei>xs elprjK
an Ideal State (see HIL-
depict a\\a xa\ira fj.v Swara 8e TTTJ
DENBRAXD, ibid. p. 427 sqq. (Rep. vii, 540 D), Aristotle says, "

HBNKEL, ibid. 74) ;

his own conversely (vii. 4, 1325, b,
declarations, however, as is and almost in the same words
gradually coming to be generally ii. 6, 1265, a,17): 8el iroAAa 7rpoi)TO-
admitted, leave no doubt on this Te0e7<r0cu
Kaddirtp
head. Cf. e.g. iii. 18 Jin. vii. 1 /JLfVTOl fJit]QeV TOVT03V
init. c.1324, a, 18, 23, c. 4
2, Aristotle certainly declares the
vn.it. c. 9, 1328, b, 33, c. 13 init. most peculiar of Plato s propo
c.*15 init. iv. 2, 1289, a, 30. The sals to be unsuitable and im
subject of the discussion in Polit. practicable he is moreover not
;

vii. and described by all

viii. is so entranced with his Ideal State
these passages without exception as to deny, as Plato does, to any
as the apiffrr] TroArreia, the TTO\IS other the name of State and to
fjifXXova a. /car fvx^v ffvvfffravai. permit to the philosopher alone
and Aristotle expressly says that a share in its administration he ;

in depicting such a State many demands of political science that

assumptions must be made, but it should study also the less
these ought not to transcend the perfect conditions of actuality
limits of possibility. This, how and ascertain what is best in the
ever, is precisely what Plato also circumstances but at the same ;

had asserted of the presupposi time he doubted as little as Plato

tions of his ideal state (Rep. v. that Politics ought also to sketch
473, c. vi. 499 c, D,502 c see Ph. ;
the ideal of a perfect State.
2
d. Gr. i. p. 776), and so small is the Polit. vii. 4 init.
difference in this respect between
 POLITICS 259
(?
place, must be neither_too small nor too great since if :

it is too small it will lack

independence if too great, ;

unity. The true measure of its

proportions is that the
number of the on the
citizens should,
^
and, on the other, be sufficiently within .a
>

compass to keep the individual members

intimately
acquainted with one another and with the government, 1

Aristotle further desires a fruitful

country of sufficient
extent, which itself all the necessities of life
^supplies
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
important however, is the natural character of the
still,

people. A healthy community can only exist where

the people combine the
complementary
of qualities
and intellect. /^Aristotle
spirit agrees with Plato in
holding that this is so among the Greeks alone. The
Northern barbarians, on the other hand, with their
un-
1
JUd. 1320, b, 5 sqq. where Cf Etli
iroXvdvOpu-n-os. ix 10
at the end Aristotle
f
says 5r)\ov :
1170, b, 31: ore 7^ e /c 6 ,fa
TOivvv us ovr6s eVri Tro Aecos
opos avQp^Trtav yewr fa Tr6\is OVT eV
^yiarr, rov ir^Oous Se /ca
ZpiffTOs^r, /nvpidSw fri TTO AZS eVr/^-we
yTre^oAT? Trpbs avrdpKfiau fays shall not consider the latter too
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
not the TrATjflos, but the 8tW/m of the directly in
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
accordingly s mind,
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 the citizens proper ou 3
Polit.
of^
:
vii. 5.
yap ravTbv ^670X77 re ir6\is Kal

s 2
260 ARISTOTLE

tamed attain to freedom, but not to political

spirit, may
existence while the Asiatics, with all their art
and
;

talent, are cowards,

and destined by nature to be
slaves.
1
The Greeks alone are capable of political
with that sense
activity, they alone are endowed
for

of moral proportion which fortifies them on all sides

of
from extremes of excess or defect. 7 The conditions

all civil and moral life Aristotle, in a, true Greek spirit,

finds to exist only in his own people. Here, also,

where
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
that which constitutes the essential element in the
is the virtue of the citizens,
happiness of the state,

which no longer a matter of chance, but of free will

is

and insight. 2 Here, therefore, we must call upon

science to be our guide. In the first place
political
we shall have to determine by its aid how best to take
circumstances. Under this
advantage of the external
of the division of the
head comes all that Aristotle says
land and of the site and structure of the city. With
1
Pollt vii 7 where he says of of which passages Aristotle him-
rb self refers.
the Greeks (1327, b, 29) :

p "

Polit. vii. 13, 1332, a, 29:

r&v E\\fauv ywos Ampiufftfa
.

Karct robs TOTTOUS, oSirws fyQoiv Sii /car eu X V M/** v ^ **

ai 5ia- W\ea>s (riffraff w, d>v
T?
uerevet K ai -yap tvQvpov
airV Mfj
vo-nrw&v eVrn/, Sichrep t\eM*p&v
re
5 t aT6Ae7 K al fu&iffra TroKirw^vov
Ka \ tvv^vov &PX*" ^"" ^ ^ S
Kvplav yap
rb fc
ri
mriato
***?* W",
^
which
see KOL Trpoatpeo-ews. Cf. C. 1, 1323,
rvvxdvov TroAtre/as (on
cf PLATO, Rep. iv. 13, and the whole chapter.
p. 256, n. 1)
.
;

435 B, ii. 374 E sqq. to the latter

 POLITICS 261

reference to the of these he proposes 1 that a portion

first

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 its
2
He
requires for the city not
territory.
only a healthy site and suitable plan of structure, but
also fortifications, deprecating 3
upon valid grounds the
4
contempt with which Plato and the Spartans regarded
the latter.Of much greater importance, however, are
the means that must be adopted to secure the personal

capacity of the citizens. These will not in the most

perfect sort of state consist merely in educating men
with a view to a particular form of constitution and to
their own particular aims, nor again in
making them
efficient as acommunity, although imperfect as indivi
duals on the contrary, since the virtue of citizens here
;

coincides with the virtue of man universally, care must

betaken to make each and every citizen a capable man,
and to fit all for taking part in the government of the
5
state. But for this end three things are necessary.
The ultimate aim of human existence is the education
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
Lans, vi. 778 D sq.
1 4
Ibid. c. 10, 1329, b, 3(5 sqq.
-
There is a similar plan in 3
See vol. ii. p. 209, n. 2, SHJ}.
6
PLATO, Laws, 745 C sqq.; Aristotle, Cf. p. 142 sq. and Polit. vii.
however, in Polit. ii. 6, 1265, b, 15, 1334, b. 14 : 6 Se \6yos rjfuv
24, considers Plato s arrangement, /col 6 vovs rrjs ^vcrecas re Aos. cSo-re

merely on account of a trifling -rrpbs TOVTOVS yevfviv teal r^v

T\\V
difference, highly objectionable. rwv eflcii/ 5e? irapaaK^vd^iv ^eAerrji/.
3 7
Polit. vii. 11, 12. Cf. vol. ii. p. 28, n. 3, supra.
262 ARISTOTLE

that of the irrational 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
with the life of the individual should begin much earlier

than customary in our days, and that it should regu

is

late even the procreation of children. He does not, in

deed, as has been already shown, go so far as to make
2

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

posure of deformed children, and regulate the number

of

births. For those children who are superfluous, or whose

parents are either too young or too old, Aristotle, sharing

1
Polit. vii. 15,1334, b, 20: and desire, vol. ii. pp. 112 sq.,
?>.

w<T7rep Se TO (Tu/jiaTrpoTfpov rfj y*v4- 155 sq. supra. \supra.

ffei TTJS tyvx^s, OI/ TCO Ko.1 rb &\oyov ~
In the section on the Family,
3
rov \6yov ex OJ/TOS . 5ib irpwrov Marriage ought to take place
ei rov ffu/j.aros TTJI/ TTi/jLf\ftav with men about the age of
Trpirepav civai 3) T?V TT)S thirty-seven, with women about
TreiTa TT}V TTJS ope |ea>s, eighteen procreation ought not
;

rov vov TTJS TT>

to be continued beyond the fifty-
T}?I/ Serov ffw/j-aros rys fourth or fifty-fifth year of a
Of viii. 3 ^w. On reason
. man s age.
 .

POLITICS 263

as he does the indifference of ancients in general as

to such immoral practices, roundly recommends abor
tion, justifying it on the ground that what has as

yet no life, has no rights. l

^ From the control of pro
creation Aristotle passes to education, which he regards
as beginning with the first moment of life, and extend

ing to the last.

2
From the earliest years of its life care
must be taken to secure for the child, not only suitable
exerciseand physical training, but also games and
stories as a preparation for its moral education. Chil
dren must be left as little as possible to the society of
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 a 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 object in view, and as no man belongs
to himself, but all belong to the state, this education
1
All this is treated of in Ibid. 1336, b, 35 sqq.
Polit. vii. 10. :>

Polit. viii. I init. t where

2
With what follows cf. LEF- inter alia rb yap ^dos rrjs iro\i-
:

MANN,Z)e Arist. Sow. Edvcatione reias e/caoTTjs rb olKtiov Kal (pv\dr-

Princ. Berl. 1864; BlEHL, Die reiv tfcofle rrjv iroXirfiav Kal Kad-
ErzichwH/slelire d. Arist. Gymn.- Lar^cnv ef apx?!*, olov rb Srj/no- /j.fi>

Progr. Innsbruck, 1877. For KpariKbv Sti^oKpartav, rb 5 d\iy-

other literature on the subject, apxixbv bXiyapxiav atl Se rb
see UEBERWEG. Hist, of Phil. fieXnffrov tfQos fie\riovos atnov
vol. i. p. 172 Eng. Tr. TroAn-e/as. Cf. v. 9, 1310, a, 12,
3
vii. 17. and vol. ii. p. 209, n. 2,
264 ARISTOTLE

must be wholly in common and must be regulated

in every detail with a view to the wants of the whole.
1

Its one object, therefore, must be to train up men who

shall know how to practise the virtue of freemen.
The same principle will determine the subjects of in
struction and the method of their treatment. Thus
of the arts which serve the wants of life, the future
citizens shall learn only those which are worthy of a
2
freeman, 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 is an essential
difference between those which we learn for the sake of
their practical application and those which we learn for
1
Ibid. 1337, a, 21 sqq. of. ;
Or. i. p. 754) in regarding this
Aristotle recognises, as the effect of trades (/J.iff8apvi-
p. 209. n. 2.
indeed (Eth. x. 10, 1180, b, 7), Kal epyaariai) generally they leave;

that private education may be able th ought unexercised and generate

more readily to adapt itself to the low views. These, however, are
needs of the pupil, but replies that to be found even with the higher

public education does not neces activities (music, gymnastics,

sarily neglect these, provided that &c.) if these are pursued in a one
it is entrusted to the proper hands. sided way as a vocation. There
2
viii. 2, 1337, b, 4 : on n^v are many things, finally, that a
ovv TO. avayKcua SeT St man may do for himself or a
ra>v
xP f (J ljLWV OVK &S^\ov
)
l i
on 8e friend, or for some good purpose,
ov irdvra, r&v re f\fv- but not in the service of
8ir]priiJ.tvci)V

Qepcav tpywv Kai r&v it,ve\fv6fpcav, strangers.

3
on r&v rotovrcav Se? /uer- viii. 3, 1337, b, 23, 1338, a,
13 sqq. Ibid. 1. 37 among the :

fidvavcrov. /3dvav(Tov useful arts are many which must

fpyo flvai $? rovro vo^i^fiv Ka\ be learned, not merely for the
xfT?! sake of their utility, but also as
irpbsras xP^ ffls Ka ^ T s " aids to further culture. Such are
ras rris aperrjs &xP r ffrov >
ypa/LL/u-ariKh andypcKpucf]. The chief
value of the latter is on
r\\v rfyv Sidvoiav. Ari QtcapTinKbvrov TTpl ra
tywxfyv fy

stotle agrees with Plato (cf. Ph. d.

 POLITICS 265

their own sake. The former have their 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
As, moreover, of the two chief branches of
1
view.
education among the Greeks music and gymnastics
the latter is practised more as an aid to soldierly

efficiency, while the former directly ministers to mental

culture, it is 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 suffice attainment even of the object

for the

sought viz. superiority in war: for since Sparta had

Besides what is said sup. ii.

1
in itself an end but only a means
p. 141 sqq., on the superiority of of recreation, and accordingly
theory to practice, and, p. 209 sq., more necessary in oo-xoAto than
on peaceful and warlike avoca- in o^oA??. The latter consists in
tions,cf. on this head vii. 14,1333, the attainment of the end, and
a, 35 [ay 07/07] Tr6\jj.ov fj.fv elp-f]vns
: therefore results immediately in
Xfyw, aarxoXiav Se <rxoA7js, ra 5 pleasure and happiness; the for-
avayKaia Kal xpfaw* TUIV KaXwv mer is effort after an end which
tVe/cei/. Similarly c. 15, 1334, a, is not yet attained. Sxrre (pavepbv
14, viii. 3, 1337, b, 28 (on music): on SeT Kal Trpbs rrjv eV TIJ Siaywyfi
vvv fj.tv yap ws rjSovTJs x^P tv Oi ffxoX^v uavOdi/eiv OTTO Kal TTCU-
7rAe?(rTOi /uzrexovo iv avrrjs ol 8 e 8eue(T0at, Kal ravra /uev TO TTOI-
tra^av tv TrotSem, Sia rb rrjv SCU/XOTO Kal ravras ras fAuQiiaeis
ai/r^v frrfilv . . .
/j.r) /J.OVQV eauTaJv elj/ai IV ras ^* irpbs T^\V
X"-P >

opOcos aAAa /col <r%oAaea/ dcr^oAio^ us avayKatas Kal IV X<*-P

dvva(r6ai /coAws . . . el
yap a^^xa aAAwi/. ... on
fjifv TO IVVV ecrrl
,uei/ Se?,
fj.ci.XXov alperbv 8e rb TrcuSeia TIS fyv &s xp7j<rtyurji/
oi>x

ffxoXa.tiv rrjs aaxoXias, Kal ftXcos TraiSeuTe ov rovs utets owS ws

J

^r]Tr]Tov TI iroiovvras 5e? (rxoXa.^iv. avayKaiav, aA\ us fXevQspiov Kal

Mere amusement TroiSto is not /caAV, aveov taTiv.
266 ARISTOTLE

ceased to have a monopoly of gymnastic training, she

had lost her superiority over other states. Aristotle

desires, therefore, to see gymnastics duly subordinated

to the true education, and to prevent the
end of all

more exhausting exercises from being practised before

the body has acquired sufficient strength and the mind
has received a counterbalancing bias from other studies.
1

Turning to music, by which Aristotle means in the

first instance music in the narrower sense of the word,
it does not include poetry, we have to distin
2
in which
guish between several uses to which be put. 3 it
may
It serves for purposes of pleasure and of moral educa
4
tion it soothes the spirit,
;
and furnishes an enjoyable
5
occupation. In the education of youth, however, its

ethical effect is the main thing. The young are too

1341, b, 36.
1
viii. 4, especially 1338, b, 7,
4
17 o&Ve yap ev Toils &\\ois fyois
:
By the KaOapffis which is
OUT eirl roov tOvwv 6pw/uLfV T)JV effected, not only by sacred music
avSpiav aKo\ov6ovffav rols aypiw- (/ie A.77 eopyidovTa), but by all
TOLTOIS, ctAAa MAAoj/ T music Polit. viii. 1342, a, 4 sqq.
;

repois Kal \Ovr6Seffiv tfdeffiv . For the fuller discussion of

w(TTe rl) Ka\bv aAA ou TO see ch. xv. infra.
,

5e? irpuTayfavKTTtiv ou yap \VKOS Aiaywyf). By this word Ari

ou5e &\Acov Qiqpiwv TL ayoovi-
TU>V stotle means generally an activity
(rairo &i/ ovOeva Ka\bv KivSvvov, which has its end in itself, and
a\\a /j.a\\ov avfyp ayados. ol Se is therefore necessarily accom
\iav fls ravra avevrss rovs TralSas, panied by pleasure, like every
Kal rcai/ avayKaiwv aTraiSayayfiTovs activity which is complete in it
fiavavaovs Karpyd^ov-
TroLTja-avres, self (seep. 146 sq. $?(/>.).
He there
rat Kara ye TO a\7}0es, Trpbs re <iv fore makes a distinction between
jj.6vovtpyov Trj iroXniKy wnffifjiovs those arts which serve human
TTOi^ffavres, KOL Trpbs TOUTO x e ^P ov i need and those which serve
&s fyyffiv 6 \6yos, krepwv. Siaywyri (Metapli. i. 1 sq. 981, b,
2
PLATO, on the other hand, 17, 982, b, 22), comprehending
in the section of the Rep. upon under the latter all kinds of
musical education, deals chiefly enjoyment, both nobler and
with poetry-its form and content, humbler. In this wider sense,
bee Ph. d. Gr. i. pp. 773, 779 sq. mere amusements can be classed
3
Polit.T\\\. 5, 1839, b, 11, c as Siaywyr) (as in Etli. iv. 14 init.
 POLITICS 267

immature to practise it as an independent occupation. 1

It is well adapted, indeed, for amusement and recrea

tion, since it affords innocent pleasure but pleasure ;

may not be made an end in learning, and to limit

music to this would 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
art represents moral states and qualities
anger, gen :

tleness, bravery, modesty, and every variety of virtue,

vice and passion find here their expression. This
repre
sentation awakens kindred feelings in the souls of the
hearers. 3 We
accustom ourselves to be pleased or
pained by certain things, and the feelings which we
have accustomed ourselves to entertain towards the
imitation we
are likely to entertain also towards the

reality in But virtue consists just in this in

life. :

feeling pleasure in what is good, pain in what is bad.

Music, therefore, is one of the most important means of
education, all the more so because its effect upon the

x. 6, 1176, b, 12 sqq.; Pollt. viii. b, 40, he distinguishes the appli-

5, 1839, b, 22). In the narrower cation of music to purposes of
sense, however, Aristotle uses TraiSia and avdirava-is from that
this expression for the
higher irpbs StcryoryV Kal Trpbs (ppovrjeiv,
activities of the kind indicated
saying (1339, b, 17) of the latter
(Siaywy)) eAeu0e pioy, Polit. viii. 5, 1 hat rb Ka\ov and
f?5o^ are united
1339,b, 5). Accordingly he calls, in it. Of. BONITZ, Arist. Metapli.
Etli. ix. 11, 1171, b, 12, the Ind. Ar.
ii. 45; 178, a, 33;
society of friends, or Mctapli. xii. SCHWEGLER, Arist. Metapli. iii.
7 (p. 398, n. 5, supra"), Etli. x. 7, 19 sq.
1177, a, 25, the active thought of viii. 5, 1339, a, 29: they
the divine and the human spirit have no claim to Siaywyr) ovOevl :

Siaywy)). In Polit. vii. 15, 1334, a, yap dreAc? TrpovfjKti reAos.

16, in the discussion touched -
Ibid. 1339, a, 26-41, b, 14-
upon on p. 209 sq., he mentions 31, 42 sqq.
and Staywyt) together, and
<TXOA^
3
a.Kpowp.voi T&V /j.i/u.-fj(rwt> yiy-
in the passage before us, c. 5, vovrai
1339, a, 25, 29, b, 13, c. 7, 1341,
268 ARISTOTLE

young no small degree strengthened by the plea

is in
sure that accompanies it. These considerations de
1

termine the rules which Aristotle lays down for musical

instruction. It cannot, indeed, be separated from actual

practice, without which no true understanding of music

can be arrived at but since the aim of musical educa
;

tion is 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
does not become a man to be a musician. Even in the
case of children the line must not be crossed which separ
ates the connoisseur from the professional artist.
2
To
the latter, music is a trade which ministers to the taste

of the uneducated masses ;

so it is the occupation of an
artisan, enfeebling to the body and degrading to the

mind. To the freeman, on the other hand, it is a means

of culture and education. 3 The choice of the instru
ments and melodies to be used for purposes of instruc
tion will be made with this end in view. Besides, how
ever, the quiet and simple music which alone he would
permit his citizens to practise, Aristotle authorises for

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
4
slaves.

1
Ibid, 1339, a, 21 sqq. 1310, $e TOOV a-ywvuv els rrjv iraiSfiav. c.

a, 7-b, 19. 6, 1341, a, 10.

2 3
Aristotle deprecates in gen- viii. 6, 1340, b-20, 1341,
eral education TO. nphs robs a, 17, 1341, b, 8-18, c. 5, 1339, b,
ayuvas TOVS Te^i/iKcus crvvTc vovra, 8.
TO. 9av/j.d(Tia Kal Treptrra TOJV ipywj/, l
Ibid. C. 6, 134.1, a-b, 8, C. 7.
& vvv eATjAuflej/ fls TOVS ayuvas, e/c
 POLITICS 269

With these remarks the Politics ends, leaving even

1

the discussion of music unfinished. It is inconceivable,

however, that Aristotle intended to conclude here his

treatise upon education. With so keen a sense of the
in education, and
importance of music as an element
with Plato s example before him, it is impossible that
he should have overlooked that of poetry and, indeed, ;

he betrays his intention of discussing it in his proposal

2
to treat subsequently of comedy. It is also most

improbable that a man like Aristotle, who regarded the

scientific activity as the highest of all, and as the most

essential element in happiness, and who considered

political science
of such vital importance as an element
in social life, should have passed over in silence the whole
3

subject of scientific training.

4
Nor could he have desired
to entrust it to private effort, for he says that the whole of
education must be public. Aristotle himself repeatedly

indicates that after ethical, he intends to discuss intel

lectual culture.
5
He promises, moreover, to return to
1
For after viii. 7 init. we therefore be the goal and one of
should have had a discussion of the most essential elements of
rhythm ; cf . HILDENBRAND, ibid, education in the best state.
5
453 (as opposed to NICKES, Polit. vii. 15, 1334, b, 8:
p.
De Arist. Polit. Libr. p. 93). Xonrhv 5e 0ecop}(Tai irorepov irai-
2
vii. 17, 1336, b, 20 rovs 5e : Seureot T<
irpArepov % ro7s
\6ycf>

eOeffiv. ravra yap 8eT irpbs #AA7jA.a

vewTfpovs OUT IdfJificav ovre KCD/J.^-
Sia? 0earas i/OjU00eT7jTeov . . . ffvfj.cpwve ii ffv^caviav T^V apiffr^v.

vcrrepov 8 firiffT-hcravTas
5e? Siopiffai The answer is, that moral educu-
fj.a\\ov.
tion must precede (see p. 261,
3
See Etli. x. 10, 1180, a, 32, supra); by which it is implied
b, 20 sqq. that a section on scientific edu-
4
It is the question of the cation will follow. Several ^de-
education of the citizens that partments are spoken of, viii. 3,
leads to the statement, Polit. vii. 1338, a, 30 sqq., as belonging to
14, 1333, b, 16 sqq., that theoretic a liberal education, and it is pre-
activity is the highest and the scribed, viii. 4, 1339, a, 4, that
aim of all the others. It must after entering upon manhood
270 ARISTOTLE

the life 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

greater length in connection

with the various forms of
text, however, as we have it, this
l
constitution in the ;

promise is not fulfilled.

2
He further speaks of punish
ment as a means of education, 3 and we should accord-

young people should receive

2
For we cannot regard the
the occasional allusions which we
preliminary instruction for
as such a
space of three years in the other
find in ii. 6, 7, 9 fulfil

departments (/j.aQy/j.aTa ) before ment.

the more exhausting exercise in
3
The measure of punishment
gymnastics begins, as the two are has already been found (see end of
last chap.) in the principle of
incompatible physical exhaus
tion being inimical to thought corrective justice, according to
(StdVoia) so that a place should which each must suffer loss in
here be assigned to the discussion proportion to
advantage the
of scientific instruction. which he has unjustly usurped.
Pollt. i. 13, 1260, b, 8
1
-xepl : The aim of punishment, on the
^

5e aj/8pbs Kal yvvaiK^s KOI TfKV<av other hand, according to Ari

Ka\ TraTpbs, TTJS re -rrepl e/cacrToi/ stotle, who here
agrees with Plato
avTuv dpeTTjs, Kal TTJS Trpbs <T(pas ( Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 744) is chiefly to
avTovs 6>tAtas,
ri rb /caAais Kal prj improve the culprit and deter
/caAws ea-rl, Kal TTWS Set TO ^er e(5 him from further wrong-doing,
StcaKfiv TO 8e KaK&s (pevyeiv, eV Tots but partly also, in so far as he is
Tas TToArrems avayKalov eVeA- himself incurable, to protect
irepl
Qiiv eVel 70/5 ot/aa i*fv iraffa ,ue pos society against him. Cf. Rliet.
iro Aecos, ravra 8 ot/cfas, T^V 8e TOU i. 10, 1269, b, 12: Sta^e pet 5e

rrjv TOV o\ov Set TifJ-upia Kal Kd Aao ts r) fj.ev yap

juepous ?rpbs
jSAeVetv apfTTiv, avajKaiov trpbs TV /co Aao TOU TrdcrxovTos eVe/ca
is tanv,
Tro\iTfiav fiXf-rrovras ircuSeuei*/ Kal f) 5e ri/nupia TOV TTOIOVVTOS, tva
ii. 2 see p. 157,
TOVS TraiSas Kal ras yvvawas, efafp cbroTrArjpcoflT;. Etli. ;

TI Sia(ppei Trpbs Tb T^V TTO\IV elz/ai n. 5, sup. Ibid. x. 10, 1179, b, 28 :

ffirovSaiav Kal TOVS TraiSas c?vai he who lives by passion cannot be

Kal ras yvvalKas ffirov-
<T7TOu5a/ous improved by mere exhortation ;

#Aws T ou So/ceT virtiKfiv Tb

Saias. avayKalov Se Hiatytpfiv at Xoy<p

T&V Traflos aAAa )8/a. Ibid. 1 180, a, 4 (of.

yuey yap yvva^Kes ^ifJ.icrv fj-zpos
e\eu0epajv, K 5e ruv iraiSwv ol p. 271 n. 4, infra} the better kind
,
:

Koivwvol yivovrai T^S TroArreias. of men, say some [i.e. Plato but
Cf. ii. 9, 1269, b, 17: eV So-ats Aristotle himself is clearly of the
TToAtTeiais <pav\ws e%et Tb irepl Tas same opinion], must be admon
yvvalKas, Tb rj^to"u T^S ished, amfiQovffi 5e Kal a<pv(TTfpois
eli/at 8e? olffi /coAdVets TC Kal Tt/J.(ap as eVt-
vo/jLifci
1673, A, 769. TOVS 8 avidrovs e- o\a>s
BRANDIS, ii. b, t,
 POLITICS 271

ingly have expected a full discussion of its aims and

application, with at least a sketch of the outlines of a

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

3
ing habits, though proposed for discussion, are left
untouched; and generally it may be said the whole
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
guidance throughout the whole of life. The same is
true, asalready remarked, of the whole question of
if the Politics gives us little
legislation :
light on this

opi&iv rbi>
fj.v yap e7ne</o? Kal Of. HlLDEN BRAND, ibid. 299 sqq.
l
>VTa TC \6ycp TrziQ- irpl KTTjcrecos ical TTJS irepl TTJJ/
bv 5e <pav\ov r)5ovr)s ovcriav eviropias trios 5e? Kal riva
\virr) Ko\dt(rOai &<nrep rp6irov e^;e/ irpbs Trjv -^prfffiv
f. Ibid. iii. 7, 1113, b, .
avr-fjv. vii. 5, 1326, b, 32 sqq.
-
23: KoXa^ovcri yap KO.\ rifioopovvrai vii. 10 Jin.
3
rovs Spoavras /j.oxQiipa . . . rovs Se vii. 17, 1336, b, 24, where
ra KoAa TrpctTToi/ras ri/uLutriv, ws the reference to the subsequent
TOUS fj.fi/ TrpoTptyovres, TOVS 8e discussions does not apply to
KwXvffovTfs. The aim, therefore, comedy alone,
of punishment, unless we have to 4
Besides Pollt.
vii. 12, 1331,
do with an incurable offender, is a, 35 sqq. 1336, b, 8 sqq. ct
c. 17, .

improvement: in the first in- especially Etli. x. 10, 1180, a, 1 :

stance, however, only that im- ou% \K.o.vbv 8 forces veovs ovras
provement of conduct which rpofprjs Kal eiri/ufXeias rv^v opQris,
springs from the fear of punish- ctAA e/retS^ Kal avSpcadevras 5e?
ment, not that more fundamental eViTTjSeveti/ aura Kal edifcorOai, Kal
one of the inclinations which is irepl ravra 8eo://.e0 tut v6fj.<av
Kal
effected in nobler natures by in- oAcos irepl iravra rbv filov ol yap
struction and admonition im- : iroAAol avdyKp ^uaAAoj/ 7)
provement, therefore, only in the TretOapxova-i Kal frfj-iais 3)

sense in which it corresponds to

the determent of the offender.
272 ARISTOTLE

head, the blame, not upon Aristotle but

we must throw
upon the incomplete condition of the work.
In the work we should also have had a
completed
more detailed account of the constitution of the Best
State. In the text before us we find only two of its
characteristics described namely, the conditions of its

citizenship, and the division

in it of political power. In

reference to the former of these, Aristotle, like Plato,

with a truly Greek contempt for physical labour, would
make not only handicraft but also agriculture a dis
for citizenship in the most perfect state.
qualification
For the citizen of such a state can only be one who
attributes of a .capable man but in
possesses all the ;

order to acquire these, and to devote himself to the

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

occupations, therefore,
must in the Best State be left to
slaves and metoeci. The citizens must direct all their
energy to the defence and administration
of the state ;

be the possessors of landed

they alone, moreover, are to
to the
estates, since the national property belongs only
citizens.
1
On the other hand, all citizens must take
of the commonwealth. This, accord
part in the direction
is demanded equally by and
ing to Aristotle, justice

necessity ;
since those who stand on a footing of essen

tial equality must have equal rights, and those who

will not permit themselves to be
possess the power
2
excluded from the government. But since the actual
1
vii. 9, 1328, b, 24 sqq. similar dispositions have been
1329, a, 17-26,35,c. 10, 1329, b,
touched upon. Of. p. 299,n. 4,sup.
2
36, after the Egyptian
and other vii. 9, 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 in
the administrator and in the soldier in the latter
physical strength, in the former mature insight-
Aristotle 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 1

account of Aristocracy. 2 In its fundamental

concep
tion as the rule of virtue and culture, it is
closely
related to Plato from which, however, it
s,
widely differs
in detail; although even here the difference is one
rather of social than of
strictly political organisation.

5e vavrts ol place, Aristotle is there speakine

rfjs TroAtre as only of common usage (/cciAe^ 5
c. 14,1332, b, 12-32. etw0a,uej>), giving it at the same
1
vii. 9, 1329,
2-17, 27-34, a, time as the sole ground of its
c. 14, 1332, b, 32-1333,
b, 11. right to the title that it is the
Mv. 7, 1293, b, 1: *p t <rro- rule of the best for the common
Kpariav ,uez/ ovv /caAws e^e: /caAetV good and, secondly, in the per
;

irspl f)S 5ir)\6o/u.ej/ e j/ ro?s Trpcarois fect State it is

always actually
Aoyots T^V yap e/c riav apiffrwv a minority who rule. There is
an-Aws /car aper^i/ TroXireiav, KOU therefore no ground for distin
6x6deffiv TIVOL
AC^ irpbs ayadcav guishing between the aristocracy
avdpw [of. viii. 9, 1328, b, 37], mentioned in iii. 7 from that
[Ji.6vi)v SiKaiov irpoffayopeveiv which is spoken of under the
api-
(TroKpariav. Cf. c. 2, 1289, a, 31. same name in iv. 7 and vii. (see
Quite consistent with this is the FECHNEE, Gerechtiglteitsbegr. d.
definition of aristocracy, iii. 1, Arist. p. 92, n.). Still less can
1279, a, 34 (see p. 237, supra), as iii. 17
(p. 239, n. 1, supra) be cited
the rule bXiycw fj.sv irXfiovwv
r<av
in support of this distinction,
5 ei/^s in the interest of the inasmuch as it exactly suits the
common good, for, in the first ideal State.

VOL. II.
 274 ARISTOTLE

6. Imperfect Forms of Constitution

Besides the best constitution, there are others which,

deviating from it in different ways and
different degrees, 1

also call for discussion. All these, indeed, in so far as

they differ from the ideal state, must be reckoned

defective ;
2
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 worth and stability. Aristotle enumerates,
3
as we have already seen, three chief forms of imperfect

Democracy, Oligarchy, Tyranny; towhic

constitution:
\ as he proceeds he afterwards adds as a fourth, Polity

/together with several mixed forms which are akin

to it.

Democracy is based upon civil equality and freedom.

In order that the citizensmay 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

pleases no one, therefore, has the right to comman
;

another, or, so far as this is unavoidable, command, lik

4
N
obedience, must belong to all. All institutions, there

fore, are democratic which are

based upon the principles
that election to the offices of state should be made
Kal
p. 235 sq. supra.
1
See jSeArico fj.ev
2
Cf. the passages which are &AATJS ou waAois
cited p. 238, n. \,
supra, especially Se $av\T)v. The imperfect forms
Polit. iv. 2,289, b, 6 1Plato says, : of constitution are usually called
if the oligarchy &c. be good, the irapeK^da-eis.
3
democratic form of constitution P. 237 sqq.
4
isthe worst, whereas if they are vi. 2, 1317, a, 40-b, 16,

bad, it is the best. r/jUeTs Se 6 Ao>s -inter alia ;

see p. 239 sq.
ravras e ln.ua
 POLITICS 275

either by universal or
suffrage, by lot, by rotation that
110
property qualification, or only an inconsiderable one,
be attached to them that their duration or their
;
powers
be limited; that all share in the administration of
justice, especially in the more important cases that ;

the competence of the popular

assembly be extended
that of the executive restricted, as much as
possible ;

that all
magistrates, judges, senators, and priests be
paid. 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
may bd
found in different degrees in different states, asmore
over a particular state may exhibit all or only some of
them, different forms of democracy arise. 2 As these
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,
or of poor day-labourers, or of
people without the
fullrights of citizenship, or whether and in what
manner these elements are combined in it.
3
A popula
tion engaged in agriculture or in is in
cattle-breeding

1
Ibid. 1317, b, 16-1318, a,
3, iv. 15, 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
the latter passage both grounds
of the difference in democratic
VOL. n.
constitutions the character of
the population, and the extent to
which the institutions are demo-
cratic are mentioned side by
side. From other passages, how-
ever, 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

general content
if it

It is satisfied, therefore,
with a moderate share
peace,
in the administration example, the choice of the
:
as, for

their responsibility to itself, and the par

magistrates,
of all in the administration of justice. For
ticipation
leave business in the hands
rest, it will like to
the its

of sensible men. This is the most orderly form of

democracy. !A community of artisans, traders, and

labouTerTlTa much more troublesome body to deal
with. Their employments act more prejudicially upon
in the
the character, and being closely packed together
meet for deliberation in
city they
are always
* ready to
If all without exception possess the
public assemblies.
full rights of citizenship if those who are not freeborn
;

are admitted to the franchise; if the old

tribal
citizens
and communal bonds are dissolved and the different

elements in the population massed indiscriminately

if the force of custom is relaxed
and the
together ;

control over women, children, and

slaves is weakened,
arises that unregulated form of demo
there necessarily
licence has always more attraction for_
cracy which, as
In thi& 1

them than order, is so dear to the masses.

of whicKU
way there arise different forms of democracy,
2
The first is that in
Aristotle enumerates four. whichj
while no
actual equality reigns, and in which, exclusive^

Polit vi 4 (where, how- its peculiarity,

i
however, accord-
ever 1318, b, 13, M
must be ing to this passage, rb ras
flvtu, according to
struck out) ;
cf. iv. 12, 1296, b, Tifj.riiJi.dTwv
iv. Inlt is rather a character
24 ?qq. With
30 sqq. c. fi, istic of the first
form.^
4, 1291, b,
iv
SUSBMIHL and others, it will
cf. 12, ibid., vi. 4, 1318, b, 6,
c.
A
fifth form
mill i seems, therefore be better to omit
~
1319, a
1319 a, oo.
38. .

b 39, to be inserted Se in the passage referred to. Or.

iv 4 1291
and the second HENKEL, ibid. p. 82.
between the first ;
 POLITICS 277

influence is 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. A third)
isthat in which, while the public offices
belong by right
to every citizen, the government is still conducted on^
constitutional principles. The fourth or unlimited
democracy is, which the decrees of the)
finally, that in

people are placed above the laws in which the people,

:

led by demagogues, as a tyrant by his courtiers, becomes

a despot, and in which all constitutional order dis

appears in the absolute power of the many-headed

1
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 f

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 up their own ranks by
co-optation, either from the whole body of the citizens
or from a certain class. The third is that in whicli.-
Witical power descends from father to son. The fourth, I

finally, as a parallel to tyranny and unlimited demo-

With the account of this

1

fiejj. viii. 557 A sqq. 562 B sqq.

form of democracy, ibid. 1292, a, vi. 493, with the spirit of which
4 sqq. v. 11, 1313, b, 32
sqq. vi. it has obviously much
in common.
2, 1317, b, 13 sqq., cf. PLATO S
278 ARISTOTLE

cracy. is that in ,
which hereditary power is limited by I

no laws.
ws. 1
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 when a change in the
constitution is imminent. 2 In this way there arise
mixed forms of constitution ; these, however, are just
as often the result of the conscious effort to avoid the
one-sidedness of democracy and oligarchy, as is the case
with aristocracy commonly so called and with polity.
Although the name aristocracy belongs, strictly

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, and genuinely aristocratic elements

are all combined. 3 To this form polity is closely allied. 4

1
Polit. iv. 5. 7 :
dpx^l yap [^775 ^teraj8oAf)s] rb
2
Ibid. 1292, b, 11. ^ /te/i?x0at KaAws ev fj.ev rfj
So iv. 7, where Aristotle goes
3
iro\ireia SrjfjLOKpartav Kal 6\iy-
on to enumerate three kinds of apx iav, ev 5e rf) dpiaroKparia ravrd
aristocracy in this sense oirov rj : re Kal r^v dper^v, fJ.d\i<rra 5e ra
TroArreia jSAeVei efc re irXovrov Kal 5vo Xeyw Se ra Svo $rifwi>
Kal

dperrjv Kal STJ/XOJ/, olov eV Kapx^oovi oXiyapx>-av ravra yap al iroXire iai
. Kal 4v als els ra 8vo p.6voi olov
. . re Trztp&vrai /j-iyvvvai Kal al TroAActl
7) Aa/ce5a/x.ovicov els dper^v re Kal rCov K.a\ov/j.evcav apiffroKpanuv . . .

8r)/j.ov, Kal eo~n pil-is ruv Si^o ras yap aTroK\ivovo~as fj.a\Xov Trpbs
rovrcav, Sr]/J.oKparias re Kal dper^s r}]V o\iyapx iav dpiffroKparias Ka-
. . Kal rpirov 000.1 rys Ka\ovfj.e-
.
Xovaiv, ras Se Trpbs rb TT\rjQos iro\i-
VTJS Tro\ireias pe-jrovcri irpbs rr]V reias.
4
fji.a\\ov. v. 7, 1307, a, See preceding note, and iv.
 POLITICS 279

Aristotle here describes

it as a mixture of
oligarchy and/
1

democracy. on a proper proportion between

It rests
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
;
equally,
in so far as this union is of the
right sort, as a demo- \
cracy and as an oligarchy.
4
Its leading feature is, in a

word, the
reconciliation of the
antagonism between rich
and poor and their respective
governments. Where the I

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 : Kal yap as KaXov- uairep (TV/UL@O\OV [on this expres
fftv
apiffTOKpaTias, irepluv vvv sion, cf. inter alia, Gen. An. i.
TO. iriirTovffi
ciiro/j.ev, fj-ev e^wTtpu 18, 722, b, 11; PLATO, Symp.
ra?s ir\ei(TTais TUV
Tr6\euv, TO Se 191 D] Xa/j-fidvovTas trvvdcTeov.
yeiTViufft TTJ /cctAou/ieV?? TroArreia This may be effected in three
Sib TTfpl a/J.(po?v us fj.ias Ae/creW. ways (1) by simply uniting dif
:

1
iv. 8, 1293, b, 33 eVri yap : ferent institutions in each e.g. :

T] TroAiTeia us airbus etVeli/ flints the oligarchical custom of punish

6\tyapxias Kal Sy/AOKpaTias, tiuOaari ing the rich if they refuse to take
Se Ka\eiv ras p.ev airoKXivovaas us
part in court business, with the
irpbs T}]V S^M.OKpariavTro\tTias, ras democratic custom of paying
Se Trpbs oAtyapx iav ^uaAAoj/
TT]v poor men a day s wage for appear
apurTOKpaTias. Of. preceding note. ing in court; (2) by a compro
2
Ibid. 1294, a, 19 : eVel 5e mise e.g. by making neither a
:

Tpia effrl ra a/ui.<pt(rpr)TovvTa TTJS high nor a low but a moderate

tV^TTJTOS T7JS TTOAtTetOS, f\v6pla property qualification a condition
TT\OVTOS aper-f), . . .
fyavepbv 6n r^v of admission to the popular assem
fJ.fV TOiV SvoTv fJ.ilV, TUV VTf6pUV bly (3) by borrowing one of two
;

Kal TUV air6puv, iroXnziav kindred institutions from olig

T^V Se TUV Tpiuv OL archy, another from democracy :

p.aXiffTa TUV a\\uv irapa T^V e.^.from the former, appointment

aX-nQiv^v Kal irpuTt}v. See p. 278, to office by election instead of by
n. 3, supra. lot from the latter, the abolition
;
3
iv. 9 : in order to obtain a of all property qualifications.
polity we must fix our attention 4
Ibid. 1295, b, 14 sqq., where
on the institutions which are this is shown more fully from the
peculiar to democracy and olig example of the Spartan constitu
archy, efra e /c TOVTUV a<p e/carepas tion.
 280 ARISTOTLE

polity is the form

stitiition as a whole.
1
Hence of
to be the most enduring,
government which promises
f and is the best adapted for most states. For if we
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

possible that in which the disadvantages of one-sided

:

3
forms of government are avoided by combining them,
and in which neither the poor nor the rich part of the
population, but the prosperous middle class, has the
decisive voice.
4
But this is exactly what we find in

It exhibits the antagonistic forces of rich and

\ polity.

poor in equilibrium, and

must itself, therefore, rest on
the class which stands between them. It is the inter
5
mediate form of constitution, that more which is

favourable than any other to common well-being and

6
universal justice, and presupposes the preponderance

1
Ibid.\.3: Set 5 eV rrj TroAt- TroXirtiav r r]v /car
reia rr\ /j.e/j.iy/J.ft>r)
Ka\ws a^cporepa aAAa fiiov re rbv ro7s TrAeio-rois

So/feu/ elVat Kal /rr/Serepoi Kal awfe-, KOivwvricrai Svvarbv Kai iroXirtiav ijy
ew0ei/, Kal 5t ras irXeiffras TroAeis eVSe xerat
a-Oai Si aurris Kal /j.r)
avrrjs /n^ rip ir\t ovs
!
!|a>0ei/
elvai fjLeracrx^v ^ G this question (with
-

[not by the fact

roi/y jSouAoyueVous which 235) the answer is
cf .
p.
that the majority of those who then given as in the text.
3
iv. 11 1297, a, 6 :^ 5 ay
wish another form of constitution ^
, o<ry
^

are excluded from participation a/j.eivov r] TroAtreio juix^, rocrovry

in State management] (eft? yap &i/ /jLovipwrepa. Cf. v. 1, 1302, a, 2 sqq.

4
Kal irovnpa TToAtreia rovff vTrdpxov) v. 11 ; seep. 248, n. 1, supra.
5
aAAa T<
/U7?8 av j8ouAeo"0at
TroAi- /j-fcrrj TroAtreia, iv. 11, 1296,
reiav erepai u.i}Qtv rwv TTJS TrdAews a, 37.

IMplw.**/*S.
1V
"

I 296
- U
a 22: Whvis
2
Cf . ap tcrry
iv. 1 1 init. : ris 8 the best constitution, that which
iroAiTe a Kal ris apurros &ios rals is intermediate between olig-
TrAeiVrats TToAeo-t /cal TO?S TrAeiVrots archy and democracy, so rare?
rwv avQp&TroH> ^rf irpls aperV Because in most cities the middle
virep rV rovs t Stciras, class (rb jUeVov) is too weak ;
a-vyKpivovffi
/irjre irpc)? rratSeiav ?) <|>uo-ea;s
SeTrai because in the wars between
irjre irpbs parties the victors established no
 POLITICS 281

of the middle class over each of the other two. 1

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 may give it a relative value in a particular
case the worse. 2 And as virtue consists in preserving
the proper mean, it may be said that polity corresponds
more closely than any other form of government to the
life of virtue in the state 3 and accordingly we shall ;

be quite consistent in classing it among good constitu-

tions, and in representing it as based upon the diffusion

among of a definite me^sure^r^rviirTirtiL^-

all classes

If, further, this virtue be sought? for pre-eminently in

military capacity, and polity be denned as the govern-

iroKireia KOIVT] Kal ifftj ;

because in hands. ONCKEN, on the other
manner in the contest for the
like hand, Staatsl. d. Arist. ii. 269,
hegemony of Greece one party refers the passage to Philip of
favoured democracy, the other Macedon but while he certainly
;

oligarchy,and because men are left each state its own constitu
accustomed ^TjSe /3ouAe(r0cu T> "GOV tion in the treaty of 338, it is not
<xAA
7) ap-%ew fy]Teiv -/) Kparov/ji.ei ovs known that he anywhere intro
vTro^eveiv. Speaking of the influ duced (airoSovvai) or restored the
ence TWV eV Tjyefj.ovia yevofMevcav /Ata-if) 7roAiTe/a. Can the reference
TTJS EAActSos, Aristotle here re be to Epaminondas and the com
marks, 1. 39 for these reasons
: munities of Megalopolis and Mes-
the fj-eavj iroXireia is either never sene which were founded by him ?
found or oArya/as Kal Trap 6\tyois
1
iv. 12 see p. 248, n. 1, supra.
;

2
els yap avfyp (rweiret(r6Tf] JJ.QVOS TWV Ibid. 1296, b, 2 sq.
3
irporepov yye/AOviq yevo/mevw
(/>
Of. Polit. iv. 11, 1295, a, 35 :

TavTf]v aTToSoui/cu T^]V ra^LV. The eiyap /caAcos eV TOIS yOiKo is efynjrcu
els av^ft was formerly taken to be rb rbf evSai/j.oi a 0iov eli/at rbv /car
Lycurgus others have suggested 5e
r
; aper^j/ avffj.ir6?iiarTOJ , fj.e(r6r i]ra
Theseus (SCHNEIDER, ii. 486 of TT)V aperTjv, T^V fj-effov avayKalov
his edition; SPENGEL, Arist. fttov elvai fieXnffTov, rrjs e/catrrot?
Stud. iii. Solon (HBNKBL,
50), evSexo/uevris rvxelv fj.<r6rf)TOS. rovs
ibid. 89, SUSEMIHL, in Bu/rsiaris Se avrovs TOVTOVS opovs avayKatov
JaliresbericU for 1875, p. 376 sq.) elvai Kal vroAecos apery s Kal KaKias
and others. It cannot be said of Kal TroXireias rf yap iro\ireta fiios
any of these, however, that the ris ecrri TToAecos.
4
hegemony of Hellas was in his See p. 243, n. 1 , supra.
282 ARISTOTLE
ment of the men able to bear arms, 1
may be pointed it

out in support of that view, first, that the only form of

constitution which will be tolerated by a military popu
lation is one founded upon universal freedom and
2
equality ; and, secondly, that the heavy-armed foot-
soldiers who constituted the main strength of the
Greek armies belonged chiefly to the well-to-do portion
3
of the people. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of the
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 is
Tyranny,
for in it the best namely, true monarchy has been
transformed into its opposite.
4
In the course of the
brief discussion which he devotes to it, Aristotle distin

guishes three kinds of tyranny, applying the same name,

not only to absolute despotism, but also to the elective
monarchy some barbarous peoples, and to the dicta
of

torship of the old Greek ^Esymnetae. True tyranny,

however, is only to be found in a state where an indi
vidual wields absolute power in his own interest and
5
against the will of the people.
1 4
iii. 7, 17; seep.243,n.2,sttp. iv. 2, 1289, a, 38 sqq. (cf.
2
On this head, cf. iii. 11, also vii. 1313, a, 34-1314, a, 29).
1281, b, 28 sq. On the same principle, according
3
vi, 7, 1321, a, rb yap 12 : to this passage, oligarchy is the
dirXiTiKov TWV evTr6pwv ecrrl uaAAo;/ second worst, as aristocracy is
r) airopwv.
TU>V The reason of this the second best, constitution,
is to be sought for partly in the while democracy is the most
fact that the equipment of the tolerable of the false forms, being
hoplites was expensive, but a perversion of polity. For a
chiefly in the preliminary train- fuller statement of the same view,
ing in gymnastics required by see Etli. viii. 12.
5
the service. Cf. also Polit. iv, Polit. iv. 10 ; cf. iii. 14,
13, 1297, a, 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, 1

distinguishing here three sources

of authority the deliberative
assemblies, the magi
:

strates, and the law courts.

2
The functions, however,
of these three were not so defined as to
permit of their
being completely identified with the legislature, the
executive, and the judicature of modern 3
political theory.
He 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
clear,however, that he himself sets small store by such
petty and hollow devices. He further discusses the
5

qualities that fit a man

discharge of the more for the

important of state. He demands for this end

offices
not merely experience, business
capacity, and attach
ment to the existing constitution, but before
everything

1285, a, 16-b, 3, and p. 240 Kal ffv^a x ias Kal

sq. SmAjVecw, Ka l
Si( P ra : Trepl v6fj.wv, Kal Tftpl ea.va.rov Kal
-16 cf. vi. 1317, Kal
;
2, Qvyrjs S^e^ecos, Kal TUV
b, 17-ldl8,a, 10. cvBwwv, so that conformably to
/
-
iv. 14, 1297, b, 37 Itrn
rwv VO\ITCWV Traff&v,
:
^ Greek usage the deliberative as-
rpia sembly, in addition to its legisla-
gdpta^
&v Sel
irepl OewpeTv rbv <rirov$cuov tive functions, has important
ffv^pov rb
judicial and executive duties to
vo^r-nv
(v
e/cao-rj?
f X 6vTcav KaXws avo.yK.f] T^V perform.
W9\trciav X fiv Ka\ws, Kal ras 4
^ irpoQdfftws xfy eV rats "Offa

TroAn-eias aAAryAwi/
Statyepeiv iv T$ TroAtreuus ffoQl&vrai Trpbs TOV Srj-
P etv ZKMTTOV Totrwv
$ia(j> fart Se p.ov, the 6\iyap X iKa ffoQtfffJMTa rrjs
TWV rpiw rovr^v ^ fa ri rb vo^oQevias, and on the other hand
PovXevopevov Trepl rwv KOIVWV, a eV rats S^OKpariais
Trpbs raGr
Sevrtpov 5e rb Trepl ras ap x ds . . .
) iv. 13
^
&vri<ro<l>l(ovrai

rb SwdCov. 5
v h& adviseg .

rpiTovS^ri 1307) b? 2>

Ibid. 1298, a, 3, Aristotle

Continues
^ Trto-Teueiy rots o-o^tV^aroy x dpit>
:
Kvpiov S eVrl T^ /Bov- Trpbs rb TrArj^os ffvyxeifaois e|-
Trepl wo\efj.ov Kal dpi]Vf\s \eyX erai yap VTTO TWV epyw.
234 ARISTOTLE

else that kind of culture and character which is in

harmony with the spirit of the constitution.

1
He passes
2
in review the various offices of state, leaving off at the

point where we
should naturally have expected that
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
tion in forms of constitution and the means
particular
to counteract them. 4 Here, also, he is true to his

method of specifying as fully as possible, as the result

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
of is in stricter accordance with facts, but at
politics
the same time not without a certain misunderstanding
5
of their true character. This whole section is excep
of acute observation, sound
tionally rich in examples
judgment, and knowledge of the world; it
profound
to do more here than mention a
isimpossible, however,
few of the chief points of interest. Two of these stand
out in special prominence. In the first place, he warns

us against under-estimating small deviations from

the

status quo, or insignificant occasions of party

strife.

the objects for which parties contend

Important though
are, the actual outbreak of hostilities may be
usually
-
v. 9, where the third com-
1 vi. 8.
a
of the dpeTT? v. 1-7, 10.
raonly neglected point
v. 8, 9, 11, vi.5-7.
Kal SiKaioa-vvTi ev eKaffTr) Tro\ireia
1315, a, 40 sqq.
5 cf
71 nobs -rt]v TroAn-eicu/ is discussed v. 12, ;

ZELLEK, Platon. Stud: 206 sq.

with especial fullness. Cf.p. 286,
n. 3. infra.
 POLITICS 285

occasioned by the pettiest of causes, and small as the 1

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
ciple which constitutes one of the 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 on"

itself by its own

excess, and that moderation in the use f

of authority, justice to all, administration arid/ 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 ,

rights to too small a minority monarchies by arrogance ; i

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
coii-
l
v 4
. init. :
ylyvovrai fiev olv These are not the only
^ sqq.
01 ov aAA
<rra<Tis
pi p.i K
ire
pS>v
causes of their ruin, according to
e K Se
uitcpuv,
^
{TTaaidfrva-i irepl Aristotle, but they are among
fj.eya\wv. ^aAto-ra 5e ical at /j.iKpa.1 the most frequent and important.
Iffxvovffiv, orav eV rols Kvpiois
4
v. 9, 1309, b, 18: irapa iravra
yhcevrat
rb
. . . eV apx? jap yiyvfrai
S
Se ravra 5e7
\av8dvei
^
XavBdveiv, vvv
ras TrapeK&e/3r)Kv;as TTO-
t>

apdpriipa, rj apx*} heycrai

eZj/cu iravros &c. in support
ri^.i<rv
; Aireias, rb H.GGOV iroAAa yap rwv
of which there follows a rich SOKOVVTCOV Sri/nonKM \vet ras 5r]/no-
collection of examples. Ko.1 TWV bXiyapxutiav ras
2
Kparias
v. 7, 1307, a, 40
sqq. c. 3, oAiyapx ias, as is well shown in
1303, a, 20. what follows. Of. vi. 5, 1320 a
3
v. 5, c. 6 init.. Hid. 2 sqq.
1305, b,
2, 1306, a, 12, c. 10, 1311 a. 22
 286 ARISTOTLE

flicting factions ;
lie must counterbalance the prepon
derance of one by assigning corresponding influence
to the other, and so preserve the former from excess.
1

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

the other. Here the right course is precisely the
opposite of that which is commonly pursued it is pre :

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.
In another respect what is
required by the nature of
the case the opposite of that which commonly occurs.
is

Nothing is of greater importance for the preservation of

f any form of state than the previous education of those
3
in whose hands the power But capacity for
is placed.
rule depends solely upon modesty and hardihood the ;

(
power of the oligarch is incompatible with effeminacy.
(
the freedom of the people with licentiousness.
4
And
) this is true of all forms of constitution without excep-

1
1308, b, 24.
v. 8, ircutieva-Qai Trpbs r^v iro\ireiav ov
2
1308, b, 31-1309, a, 32,
v. 8, rovro, rb TroieTi/ ols x a/l P OU(riv ot

c. 9, 1310, a, 2 sqq. vi 5, 1320, a, 6\iyapxovvres ^ ot Sr]/j.oKpariav

4 sqq. 29 sqq. c. 7, 1321, a, 31 f3ov\6fji.evoi, dAA ols Suv-fjcrovrai ol
ol 8e 5r)/j.oKpare i(Tdat.
sqq. yuei/ oXiyap^lv
3
v. 9, 1310, a, 12: /j.eyio~rov vvv 5 ev /j.ev rats 6\iyapxi<us ot
Se irdvTwv rwv et ptyuei/coj/ Trpbs rb rSav ap%(Wa>j>
viol rpv(p)0~iv, ol Se
Siauevetv ras iroAireias, ov vvv ruv airSpwv yi-yvovra.i yzyvfj.va.ff-

o\iywpovffi irdvTs, rb iraLSevecrOai /aevoi Kal TreirovrjKores, wtrre /cal

irpos TO.S TroAtreias. 6cp\os yap /SouAovrat /j.a\\ov /cal Svvavrai

ou0ey rcav w^eAt/icoraTWJ/ v6fj.<av vccarepi^iv. Similarly in demo-
KCU a-vvSeSo^aa-^vcav virb Travrcav cracies ($ ev rais roiavTais 8r)/J.o-
:

TUV Tro\iTevo/J.V<av,
i
JUT/ HffovTaL Kpa.Tia.is e/ccKTros ws (Bov\eTat . . .

tidi(r/j.evoi Kal TreTraiSew/teVoi tv rrj rovro 8 tffrl <pav\ov ov yap 8e?

TroAiTe/a. Cf. pp. 261, 284, n. 1, oiecrQa.1 Sov\eiav tivai rb gyv irpbs
supra. TTIV TroAtretaj/, aAAd
4
Ibid. 1. 19: fcrri 5e rb ire-
 POLITICS 287

tion. Even the absolute

power of the monarch depends
for its continuance upon its limitation and the un- ;
l

righteous rule of the tyrant can only make men forget

the odium of its
origin by approaching in the form of
its administration to monarchy. The best means for,
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, themore despotic it is, the more need is there
for 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.
3
And
so we arrive
always at the same cor/-]
elusion namely, that justice and morality are the only .

security for durability in states. However deep tie

philosopher goes in the scientific analysis of the forms \
of constitution which more or less lack this foundation,
it is
only to arrive in the end at the same result, and to f
show that in them also the
government must be con- ,

ducted upon the principles which more

obviously under- f

lie the true forms that which in these last is the

:

1
v. 11 ittit. : v&ovTai Se [at riKol /col rols tfQeffiv 1<roi
fj.a\\ov
T$ TO.S ^lv /foo-jAeias Kal vwb rwv apxo/j.fV(ov tyQovovvra.
ayeiv eirl TO /jLerpLcarepot/. ocrc? yap $)TTOV.
f\arr6vai/ Sxri Kvpioi, irAeiw XP VOV v - H } 1314, a, 29-1315, b,
kvayKouov yueVetv Traffiv r}]v o-px^ v 10.
O.VTOL Tf ykp fJTTov y ivovTo.1 Seo-Tro- 3
vi. 6, 1320, b, 30 sqq.
288 ARISTOTLE
of
primary object of government namely, the well-being
all i s i n the former an indispensable means for retaining

the sovereignty.
The fates prevented Aristotle from developing his

political views with the fullness and completeness he

intended in his plan, and philosophy is, doubtless,
But even in the incomplete form in
greatly the loser.
which we have it, the Politics is the richest treasure that
has come down to us from antiquity, and, if we take into

account the difference of the times, the greatest con

it is

tribution to the field of political science that we possess.

 289

CHAPTER XIV
RHETORIC

ARISTOTLE regards Rhetoric, as we have already seen, as

1

auxiliary to Politics. His treatment of this, as of other

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 4
had de
manded but had not actually attempted namely, a
scientific account of the principles of the oratorical art.
He does not limit the sphere of this art, as did the
1
Cf. p. 185, n. 1, supra, and e|es. iirtl 8 d^t(/)OTepcos eVSe-
on Aristotle s rhetorical works, x TCU Sf/Aoi/ ort efo? &v aura xal
vol. p. 72 sq.
i. <58o7TOietV- St ft
yap eTrirvyx^v
2
Besides what PLATO, Pliccd- oi re Sta ffuvf]6eiav Kal ot
rus, 266 C sqq., and Aristotle Tavro/uLarov, T^V alrtav de*

himself, Rhet. i. 1, 1354, a, 11 eySe xercu, rb Se TOIOVTOV

sqq., remarks, see also Pit. d. Gr. iravres az/
ouoAoyhvaiev
i. p. 1013
sqq. tpyov elj/at.
3
1354, a, 6: ruv D sqq.
4
BJiet. i. 1, Pluedr. 269 ;
cf ZELL.
.

ovv iroAAcoj/ oi fj.ev eiVrj ravra Ph. d. Gr. p. 803 sq.

VOL. II. u
290 ARISTOTLE

ordinary view, to forensic and perhaps political oratory.

He remarks, as his predecessor had done, that since the
giftof speech is universal and may be applied to the
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
field
l
as dialectic exhibits the forms of thought, so
;

must rhetoric exhibit the forms of persuasive speech in

all their universality, and apart from their application
to any particular subject-matter. On the other hand, 2

3
as Plato had already observed, the function of the art
of oratory is different from that of philosophy the latter :

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 to theoretical discussions devoted to its

exposition.
5
He
agrees, indeed, with Plato in reproach

ing, ordinary rhetoric with limiting itself to aims which

are external, and considering it merely as a
merely
means for exciting the emotions and winning over the
jury, and
with neglecting the higher branch of oratory

3
1
Rhet. i. 1 init., and 1355, b, Cf. Pli. d. Gr. i. p. 803 sq.
4
7, c. 2 init. ibid. 1356, a,
t
30 sqq. Rhet. i. 1, 1355, a, 25, c. 2
ii. 18 init. c. 1, 1377, b, 21 ;
of. init. See also infra.
PLATO, Pheedr. 261 A sqq.
5
He does not, indeed, men-
2
Rhet. i. 4, 1359, b, 12 : 6Voj tion Plato in Rhet. i. 1, 1355, a,
8 av ris 3) rV StaXe/c-n/cV ?) ravrrjv 20 sqq., but that he had him, and
[rhetoric] i^ KaOdnep
&v 8wdfj.eis especially his Goryias (Ph. d. Gr.
imffrfnas irei- <xAA i.
p. 510), in his mind is rightly
[dexterities]
erai r}]v observed by SPEXGEL (Ueb. die
parai Karaa-Kevd^iv, \1\ff
avT&v r ptTafiai-
a<pa.vi<Ta.s
Rhetorik des Arist. Abh. d. :

$V<TLV

vew els eiriffT-fi/uas pliilos.-pliilol.

Kl. d. Bayer.
tiriffKevdfav
i>a)i>
Trpay/j.dTUJ ,
a\\a 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
circumstances, convince
his audience, and 1

accordingly he admits no rhetoric as

genuine which is not based upon dialectic or the art of
logical demonstration. 2 He even expressly declares
that all rhetorical artifices must be
rigorously excluded
from the law courts, and orators forced to
confine
themselves exclusively to logical demonstration. 3
He
4
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
start
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
as a general rule are 5
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 defending and
;

that in order that we may not fall a prey to the arts of

opponents, it is indispensable that we should ourselves
understand their nature. 6 As, therefore, in the
1
ItJiet. i. 1, 1354, a, 11 sqq. aA^s Ka \ rb &><,,<,
r$ &
r attT ^ S eVri Sy

2 1356 f
2,1.^6
i TiBj IOBR
a 20 sqq San"
1
o
^^
. ,
C> S
^
^*
l &Vd
*W*
^ ^ "<fc**

0i
Ka l
S
i

1. 1, 1354, a, 24 ov ,
:

yap Se<
rvyxdvovn rr,s &\r,e e las Sib

,* j A.nt TiuuS
v A *-j{\jfiu^ T7y
7ap /cai/ ei Tis, 65 ^eAAei Qeiav IVTIV Of p 256 n 9.
,,

j
a^,
TOUTOV ol Vie a
7^. and
1355, b, the Vf
xp9^a<
o-rpe/^Aoj/ Or. m. 1404, a,
1, 4. misuse of the art of oratory is
5 a 2 ~b 7 certailll yverJ dangerous, % :

m
f>

"i i 1AHA
14 4 a 7
X
-

J, q this is true of all accom

!

13oo, a ?l
14:
,
4
;
rhetoric is ments except virtuethe
based upon dialectic ;
r6 re yap so in proportion to their
292 ARISTOTLE

he had supplemented the investigation of scientific proof

by that of probable proof, in the Politics the account of
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 obvious to the mass of

mankind. But as he regards the former as the most
1

1
Aristotle therefore treats out between the two sciences
rhetoric, not only as the counter most part well
are, so far, for the
part of dialectic (avrta-rpo^os rrj grounded, it does not follow from
SiaXeKTiKrj, Rliet. i. 1 init. this that the above account of
which, however, primarily re their relation to one another is
fers merely to the fact that incorrect, and that we have a
they both deal, not with the con right, with Thurot, to set aside
tents, but with the universal the definite statement in Rliet. i.
forms of thought and speech), 2, by altering the text. For the
but as a branch (see p. 185, n. 1, orator s most important function,
mpra) and even as a part of it according to Aristotle, is demon
/J.6plOV
Ti TTJS SmAe/CTlKTJS Kal stration, which, as only probable,
falls within the sphere of dia
6[Moiufia(Rhet. i. 2, 1356, a, 30
that SPENGEL, Rliet. Gr. i. 9, lectic (Rlwt. i. 1, 1355, a, 3 sqq.);
reads for o^otw/xa "6/xo/a,"is for rhetoric is demonstration e

the question before us unimpor c-i/So|oji/reference to the sub

in

tant, but the alteration is not jects which are proper to public
probable) a science compounded
; speaking, as dialectic is a like
of analytic and ethics. In a kind of demonstration with refer
\vord, it consists for the most ence to all possible subjects. Nor
of dia can we accept THUROT S proposal
part in an application
lectic to certain practical pro (Etudes, 248 sqq.) to read, Rhet.
blems (described p. 295, infra). i. 1, 1355, a, 9, c. 2, 1356, a, 26,
While, therefore, we cannot di Anal. Post. i. 11, 77, a, 29,
rectly apply to rhetoric all
that az/aAuTi/cV instead
"

is true of dialectic in general, As the doctrine of

. and still less all that is true of e eV5($|wv, dialectic necessarily
it as applied to the service of deals with inferences in general,
philosophy, and while the dis and as it is precisely inferences
tinctions which THUKOT (Etudes of this kind which are the sub
sur Aristote, 154 sqq. 2-12 sq. ; ject-matter of rhetoric, it is better
to connect it with dialectic than
Questions sur
la Rlietoriqiie iV
^

jiristote, 12 sq.)
seeks to point 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 means of
proof while the second and third
(iricrrsLs) ;
parts, on
style (Xe fts-) and arrangement (rafts), are
compressed
into the last book, whose genuineness, moreover, is not
1
beyond dispute.
Proofs, according to Aristotle, are divided into those
which fall within the province of art and those which
do not. Rhetoric as a science has to do
only with the
former. 2 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 of rhetoric, therefore, falls into these
three sections. 4

however, in a somewhat wide ypafal Kal ova roiavra, crrf X v

sense. On the relation of dia- 8e Sia r^s /uLeOoSov K al 5t
8<ra
fyt/
lectio to rhetoric, see also
WAITZ, /earache imo-0??z/cu Swar6v. 2xrre
Arist. Onj. ii. 435 sq.
1
5e? rovruv ro~is ^v xrf<ra<r8ai
ra
Cf. vol. i.
p. 74. supra ;
Ph. Se eupe?j/
Gr.
d.
-
i.
p. 389. *
L 2> 135G> a>
l gqq ^ ^
RJtet. i. 2, 1355, b, 35 ruv
^ :
1377, b, 21 sqq. iii. 1, 1403, b, 9;
5e Tno-rea,!/ a! uej/ are
X i>oi e<W at cf. i. 8, 9, 1366, a,, 8, 25.
. .
, , , , .

SeAeyw 6Va *
irepl ras airo5ei^is,-ir. ra
5i r,p.S)v
TreTropta-rai aAAa irpoinr- TT. TO. irdQr).
1/ 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.
tion, so rhetorical proceeds
The exposition of the various points of view from which
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

subject-matter
4
he thus seeks to exhibit the principles
;

of oratory, not only in respect to its general form, but

also in respect to its particular matter. With this
aim he distinguishes three different kinds or classes of

1
See p. 291, n. 2, supra.
-
Rhet. i. 2, 1356, a, 35-1357,
b, 37, where the nature of these
means of proof is
fully explained,
cf. ii. 22 Anal. Pri. ii. 27,
init. ;
70, a, 10. An enthymeme, accord-
ing to this passage, is a ffv\Xoyiff-
,ubs e| fMrtev *) ff-np-fttav.
Rhet.
1356, b, 4 gives another defini-
tion KaAw 8 eVflujuij/Aa pev prj-
:
ropiKbv o-vXXuyifffj.bv, irapdSeiyfjia belong
Se e TrcrywyV pf]ropiK-r]v it comes,
meme states in a universal propo-
sition, account refers, as a
his
matter of fact, to demonstration
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
universal propositions which
to no special art or science
and are applicable, e.g., to physics
;

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
to probable evidence. the sphere of a particular science,
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
speaks only of the principles of
*8m or eftr?, remarking that the
the enthymeme but as the ex- distinction between them, funda-
;

ample only calls to mind in an mental as it is,

had almost
individual case what the enthy- entirely escaped his predecessors.
 RHETORIC 295

deliberative, forensic, and declamatory. The

1
speeches :

first of these has to do with advice and

warning ;
the
second, with indictment and defence ;
the third, with
praise and blame. The first 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

merates the topics with which each of these has to deal. 3
He 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
human actions make
namely, happiness; its con
stituents and conditions; 5 the
good and the things
which we call good
6
the marks by which we
;
distinguish
goods of a higher or a lower character 7 and,
finally, ;

he gives a brief review of the

distinguishing charac
teristics of the different forms of inasmuch
government,
as these must in each case determine both the orator s
actual proposals and the attitude he assumes towards
his hearers. 8 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,

1
Aristotle was also mi- marks in Rhet. i. 4 init.
doubtedly the first to point out 4
Ibid. 1359, b, 18 sqq., where
this important division, for we five are enumerated: revenue,
cannot regard the Rhetorica ad war and peace, defence, exports,
Alexandrum (c. 2 init. ), as has and imports, legislation.
been already remarked, vol. i. p. 3
i. 5.
74, supra, as pre-Aristotelian. i. 6.
8
Rhet. i. 3. Ibid. c. 7.
3
See the more general re- 8
i. 8,cf. vol. ii.p. 240, n. 3, *_/>.
 296 ARISTOTLE

itschief forms, its outward signs and effects ; and upon

of
the method which the orator must adopt in treating
these subjects.
1
For behoof of the forensic orator, he
discusses, in the first place, the causes and motives of

unjust actions,
and since pleasure as well as good (which
has already been discussed) may be a motive, Aristotle
the nature and kinds of pleasure and
goes on to treat of
the pleasurable.
2
He inquires what it is in the circum
stances both of the perpetrator and of the sufferer of the

wrong that tempts to its committal.

3
He investigates
4
the nature, the kinds, and the degrees of crime and ;

adds, finally, in this section

rules for the employment of
those proofs which outside the province of art, and
lie
5
which find a place only in a judicial trial. The views
he on all these subjects agree, of course,
propounds
entirely with what we already know of his ethical and
political convictions, except that here, in accordance
with the aim of the work, they are presented in a more
popular, and therefore sometimes in a less accurate
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
under this head the universal forms of demonstration
with a few
namely, enthymeme and instance, together
i
i. 9. supra), withSPENGEL, before the
-
10 sq.
i.
firstseventeen chapters of the
3
TT&S ex VTfS Ka ^ T as
"
~^ l second book. But even if, with
KOVO-IV, Rhet. i, 12. BBANDIS(iii.l94:8q.)andTHUBOT
4
i. 13 sq., of. c. 10 init. (Etudes sur Arist. 228 sqq.), we
5
i. 15, cf. p. 293, n. 2, supra, take the traditional order as the
ii. 18 (from 1391, b, 23 on-
fi
original one,we must admit that
wards), c. 26, if, that is to say, we the contents of the section are
place this section (see vol. i. p. 74,
more in place here.
 RHETORIC 297

rhetorical commonplaces. 1
Of the two other means of
proof, besides demonstration proper namely, the per-
sonal 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

6
tion, envy, and jealousy.
7
To this he finally adds an
account of the influence which the age and outward
circumstances (rv%ai) of a man exercise upon his
character and disposition. 8
These observations conclude the first arid most
important section of the Rhetoric ;
the third book treats
more shortly of style and arrangement. In regard to the
1

According to the announce- mend him to his audience the

ment made c. 18 fin., c. 19 treats orator must get credit for three
especially of possibility and im- things insight, uprightness and
:

possibility, actual truth and false- benevolence: 66ev fj.lv TO IVVV

hood, relative importance and un- <$>povi{j.oi
Kal anrovSaioi <pavtv kv,
importance (irepl Svvarov Kal ddv- e/c ruv nepl ras aperas Sippti/Aevwj
V&TOV, Kal
irdrepov ytyovev ov see p. 296, n. 1, swj}.~) \T)irr4ov
/) (i.9 ;

yeyovsv Kal fffrai $)OVK earai, enSe . . .

irepl 5 fvi>oias Kal (f)t\ias eV
irepl peydOovs Kal fJUKpor-nros rS>v TO?S vepl ra Trddr) Aewreo^ vvv.
c. 20 of
:i
Trpa.yij.arwv, 1393, a, 19) ; ii. 2, 3.
4
j
illustration, c. 21 of gnomology ; c. 4.
c.21-26 of enthymemes, for which 5
c. 5-8.
|

: Aristotle gives, not only general c

The displeasure at the un-
rules (c. 22), but a complete merited fortune of unworthy
;

I
topi-
Meal account of the forms employed persons (>e>e<m),
the account of
in proof and disproof of which in Rliet. 9 harmonises
;

\ (c. 23) ; ii.

fallacies (c. 24); of instances with that in Mil. ii. 7 (see p.
for
|
combating enthymemes (c. 169).
25 )- 7
i
ii. 10, 11.
-
ii.
1378, a, G : to recom- 8
ii. 12-17.
298 ARISTOTLE

former, a distinction is 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
cises on the general effect of a speech.
1
He next calls
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 and conditions of which he proceeds to enlarge. 4
He treats further of propriety of language, 5 fullness and
6
suitability of expression. rhythm and structure of the
sentences,
7
grace and lucidity of presentation.
8
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 striking observations which the writer
makes upon these subjects. They clearly show that

1
iii. 1 1403, b, 21-1404, a, 23.
,
and syntax, are included definite-
Aristotle does not go fully into ness and unambiguousness of"

the discussion of what is good or expression, as well as rb evav-

bad delivery he merely remarks; ayvw(nov and evcppaffTov.
6
that it depends upon the voice OJKOS TTJS A|es, c. 6, T&
especially upon its power, melody irpe-jroi/ r.
Ae f c, 7, which consists
.

(ap/j.ovia) and rhythm. chiefly in the true relation be-

2
rb TrpfTrov, the proper mean tween matter and style,
between rb Ta-rrfivbv and rb virep 7
The former c. 8, the latter
rb between a bald and an
ai<D/j.a,
c. 9.

overloaded style. 8
The UCTTGIOV and eu5o/cfytovw
3
iii. 1404, a, 24-b, 37.
1 sq. the irpb o^drw TTOL^V, &c., c. 10
4
Ibid, to c. 4 Jin. sq.
3 9
TO eAA7jj/;eii/, iii. 5, in which, c. 12.

besides correct gender, number

 RHETORIC 299

even if the book did not come direct from Aristotle in

its 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
parts demands, and the rules both for their arrangement
and execution which the character of the circumstances
require, are discussed with great knowledge and pene
tration. 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- sq. the proofs, c. 19 the conclu-
tion is merely a particular kind sion.
of it which is employed only in 3
Of. c. 14, 1415, b, 4
e.fj.
:

forensic speeches c. 13, 1414, a,

;
Set 5e XavQavsiv on iravra e|a;
/*$)
34 sqq. TOV \6yov TO, roiavra -jrpbs (pav\ov
2
c. 13. In accordance with yap aKpoar^v /cat TO. e|co TOV irpdy-
this division Aristotle discusses JJ.O.TOS a/eotWra, eVe) at/ p.^ TOIOVTOS
14 sq.) the introduction,
first (c. rj ovQev Set Trpoo^uou, aAA 3) tivov
secondly (c. 16) the exposition of rb irpay/j.a etTretV /ce(/>aAcuco5ws,
iva
the subject (which, however, he exf) wffirep au/j-a /ce</>aA7jj>.

here again calls St^Tjtm), c. 17

300 ARISTOTLE

CHAPTER XV
THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART

BESIDES knowledge and action, Aristotle distinguishes,

as a third branch, artistic production, and to theoretic

and practical he adds poetic science.

2
The latter, how
ever, he fails to treat with the same comprehensive
grasp as the two former. Of such of his works as have
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 Apart from a

1
E. MULLER, Gescli. der
Theorie der Kunst bei den Alten,
ii. 1-181 BRANDIS, ii. b, 1683
sqq. iii. 156-178; TBICHMULLBB,
*
See vol. i. pp. 106 sq., 182.
3
There is, according to Ari
stotle, a great difference be
tween these to rex^n belong all
;

Arist. Forsch. vol. i. ii. 1867, the products of intelligence,

1869 KEINKENS, Arist. iiber
;
beautiful and useful alike see ;

Kunst bes. ub. Tragodie, 1870 ;

inter alia p. 107,n. 2, sup.; Netapli.
DORING, Kv/nstlehre d. Arist. i. 1, 981, b, IT, 21. While re
1876. For further literature on marking, Mctapli. ibid., that some
the subject see below and cf. of the rexvai serve npbs
UEBERWEG, Grwidr. i. 204 sq. ;
others -rrpbs Siaycayf]! while at ,

cf. SUSEMIIIL, Jahrb. f. Philol. Trpbs ifSovrjv //.TjSe trpbs TavayK

Ixxxv. 395 sqq. xcv. 150 sqq. 221 eTTLcrrrj/j-cav are different from
ru>v

sqq. 827 sqq. cv. 317 sqq., in the both, he fails, nevertheless, to
preface and notes to his edition give any fuller account of the
of the Poetics (2 ed. 1874), and marks which distinguish the fine
in Bursiarts Jahresbericht for from the merely useful arts in
1873, p. 594 sqq. 1875, p. 381 sqq. Phys. ii. 8, 199, a, 15 he is dis
1876, p. 283 sqq. cussing, not (as TEICHMULLEE,
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 301

book upon Music, whose genuineness is highly doubtful, 1

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 We
to Aristotle for a complete theory of art nor are his ;

views even upon the art of poetry fully known to us

from the sources which we possess.
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
and undefined to the last. 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) in which it differs from it.
two kinds of arts, but a twofold 3
BJiet. \. 1366,
9, a, 33 :

relation of art generally to Ka\bv /J.GV ovv eVrlz/ 5 av 5i avrb

nature. Cf p. 303, n. 3, infra,
. and aiperbi ^ov eVati/erbj ?}, i) ft kv
BORING, p. 80 sq. ayaOov ~bv r,5v ?J, on ayaQov. ii.
1
On this treatise see vol. i.
p. 13, 1389, b, 37 rb KzAbv as dis
:

103, n. 1, snjjra. The fragment in tinguished from rb (rv/uQepov or

PLUT. De Mm. 23, p. 1139, which that which is good for the indivi
ROSE (Fragm. 43, p. 1482) and dual is the cbrAws aya66v. Of the
HEITZ (*>. 75, p. 53) refer to numberless passages in which
the Eudemus, but for which a rb Ka\bv is used of moral beauty,
suitable place could hardly be i.e. of goodness, several have
found in this dialogue, seems to already come before us, e.g. p.
me to come from it. We cannot, 149, n. 3, p. 151, n. 2, and
however, regard this little piece, p. 192, n. 6, supra. We can
with its Pythagoreanism and not find, however, in Aristotle
copious style, as Aristotle s work. (as P. REE, ToD /caAou notio
2
Of which account is given in Arist. Etli. Halle, 1875,
Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 795. BELGEB, De attempts to do) any more accu
Arist. in Arte Poetica componcnda rate definition of this concep
Platonis discipulo, gives a full tion neither in the ethical nor
;

and careful account of the points in the aesthetic field does he

in which Aristotle s theory of seem to have felt the need of
art agrees with Plato s, and those such definition.
302 ARISTOTLE

goodness a wider conception, for while the term good

is applied only to certain actions, beauty is predicated

also of what is unmoved and unchangeable. As the 1

essential marks of beauty he indicates, at one time

2 3
order, symmetry and limitation, at another right size
and order.
4
And yet how vague the conception of
beauty is still left, and especially how remote is held to
be its relation to sensible appearance, is obvious above
5
all from the assertion that it is chiefly in the mathe-

1
xiii. 3, 1078, a, 31 is shown by MULLER, p. 9
Metaph. :
sqq.,
evrel TO ayaQbv Kal TO Ka\bv
8e who compares also Probl. xix.

tTCpov, TO juej/ yap del eV 7rpaei,

TO 38, xvii. 1.
3
8e al eV TO?S aKivfjTois. Accord Practically identical with
ingly Mathematics (whose object, TO oj/no-yueVoj/, as DORING rightly
according to p. 183, is the un observes, p. 97.
4
moved) has to deal in a special Poet. 7, 1450, b, 36 (cf.
sense with the beautiful. Ari Pol. vii. 4, 1326, a, 29 sqq. b, 22 ;

stotle applies, indeed, good as see p. 259, n. 1, supra, also Etli. iv.
well as beautiful to the deity, 3, 1123, b, 6): TO yap Ka\bv ev
who is absolutely unmoved (cf. Kal Ta|et eo Tl, Sib ofae

p. 397, n. 3, and p. 404, supra), as av TI yevoiro /coAoi/ <#ov

he attributes to Him irpais in the yap i) Oeoopia eyyvs TOV

,

wider sense (vol. i. p. 400, n.l,ad avaiffQiiTov XP OVOV yivo/j.zvr]) OVTC

///?,).
But this does not justify us in ov yap a/j.a 7] dzovplc

converting the passage before u yivfTat, ctAA olf^eTai TO?S dewpovff,

(as TEICHMULLERdoes, Arist. TO Kal TO 6\ov e/c TTJS decapias,
ej>

borsch, ii. 209, 255 sqq.) into the olov et fj.vpi(ov ffTaSicav ei rj j

opposite of its plain sense. It As a must be easily

visible object
offers merely a further proof of taken in by the eye by virtue
the uncertainty of Aristotle s its size, so a my thus must be

language with reference to TO easy to retain. The parenthesis

aya8bv and TO /caAoV. In Metaph. u 7X 6 ^Tat
(" &c.) means if 7"P>
:

xiii. 3 he is thinking only of good an object is too small, its parts

in the ethical sense. become merged in each other,
2
Metaph. iUd. 1. ToO 5e and no clear picture of it is pos
36^:
/coAoG /j.yio~Ta e<f57j
Tats Kal sible. It is probable that xp vov
<rv/j./J.Tpia
Kal TO wpiff^vov. The after avaiarO^Tov has crept into
e?57jhere are not different kinds the text from Phys. iv. 13, 222,
of beauty, but the forms or b, 15 (see BONITZ, Arist. Stud.
qualities of things in which i. 96 ; SUSEMIHL, in loco).
beauty reveals itself. How 5
ibid. 1078, b, 1.
Metaph.
these points of view are main In reply to TEICHMULLER S
tained in Aristotle s rules of art objections to the above remark
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 303

matical 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 philosophy of art. Aristotle accord
ingly at the beginning of the Poetics sets it
wholly
aside, and starts from the consideration of the nature
1

of Art. 2 The essence of art Aristotle, like Plato,

finds,
3
generally speaking, to be imitation. It has its
origin
(Arist ForscJi. ii. 275 sq ), SUSE- starting point in his theorv of
MiHL (Jahrb. f. PhiloL cv. p. art, Aristotle would have de-
321) has pointed out the con- voted himself before everything
fusion between the concrete else to its closer
investigation
phenomena of sense (e.g. colours, and would have used the result
sounds, &c.) and the abstract, of this as the
investigation
mathematical forms of sensible criterion of the claims of
art,
exis te ce
This, however, he does not do
-

,
r p.
The words here used, and
^
irS>s
while, of course, he de-
Set ffwlffraffQai TOVS mands
et of a work of art that it
pvdovs,
^eAAei K a\&s Ifetj/ ^ irofyo-w should be beautiful, while he
(TEICHMULLER, ii. 278), are of
course no argument against this
speaks of a ** KA,
avL a
^Mos /eoAAiW, a /caAAW^ rpay
view. It is hardly
necessary to V 5ia, &c. (Poet. c. 9 fin c 11
point out that such expressions 1452, a, 32, c 13 1452 b 3l
as m\t Jr
X ir, ica\& 5 \4yw, &c .
1453, a, 12, 22, and passim), yet
(e.g. in Meteor, i. 14, he never deduces any rule of art
352, a, 7,
lit iv 14 1297 b 38; from the universal
IK i :-
xin. 6 init.
-

Etli. vii. 13,

conception of
jfowh. ;
beauty, but rather from the spe-
and innumerable other passages), cial aim of a
particular art
i
have nothing to do with the 3
Poet. i. 1447 a 12 fon the
1
specifically aesthetic meaning of different forms of
TO KaAoV. TYlnCM /^ _^ a poetry and
Tn^
I . :

yxov<r tj, oa-cu

m
"

IEICHMULLER, indeed, furffffis rb abvoKov. G 2 init

a detailed discussion of c. 3 init. and of ten. In the
beauty words
and the four aesthetic ideas C
Phys. 199, a, 15 6\ws re I
i
ii.
I

(
(order, symmetry, limitation and
size), ibid. p. 208-278, has at
r4x ^ rh ^
8,
eV^reAer & *
r
A^J
I tempted to show that Aristotle s fju^Trai, art used as fine art It
is J

theory of art is based upon the is mere

imitation, but it mav
conception of beauty. This indeed, be also regarded as a
attempt, however, is rightly dis- perfecting of nature, as in the
j
credited by BOEING, 5 sqq.
p. training of the voice or deport-
;93, sqq. If the abstract con- ment
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 ;

hence also the peculiar pleasure which art affords.

1
In
this pleasure, springing as it does from the recognition
of the object represented in the picture and
from the

enjoyment thus obtained, Aristotle further recognises

2
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
artistic imitation also. The object
necessity be true of
of imitation in art is, generally speaking, nature or the

actual world of experience.

4
But nature includes man
and his actions indeed, it is
;
with man alone that the
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

1
Poet. 4 init., where it is jj T^V xp iav )
ia roiavr-nv nva
this is obvious from the &\\-nv alrlav. Ehet.i. 11, 1371, b,
added:
4 iirel 8e rb pavedveiv re jfib Kal
fact that good pictures delight :

TO davud&iv, /cat ra rotaSe dvd-yicii

us even when the objects repre-
sented produce themselves quite rjSe a elvai olov TO re ^e^r^eW,

the opposite impression: as in

ical dvopiavToiroita
wo-Trep ypa<f>i^

eu
the case of loathsome animals ita.1 TTOLTJTIK^, ital ft &i/
^irav
Kav owrb rb
or corpses. Cf. foil. n. ^ejujMj/ieW f?,
jfytfj
*j5S
ov eirl TOVTQ
-
Poet. 4, 1448, b, 12, Ari- pejjuw[j.evov yap
Aiv itrnv
stotle continues: ainov
5e /cat x a!V e ffv\\oyi(T^6s
>
" "

ort on. TOVTO e /ceti/o, #(rre

roiirov [joy in works of art],
rb u.av0dveiv ov fj.6vov TO?S QiXoffo- 3
d\Xa K ul rols oAAots Cf. p. 303, n. 3, supra.
(hois Wiffrov, 4
Lotos aAA Ppa x v Koivuvotviv
eVl Pkys. ii. 8 see p. 303, n. 3. :

alrov 5ta yap TOVTO X alpw T s

5
Cf fo11 n and P a e Even
- - -

et/coVas on crvpfalvei of the art of dancing it is said, i

opavTes,
c. 1. 1447, a, 27 /cai yap OVTOI
vras pw6A.veiv K*l avXXoyi-
:

T L tKiffTOV, olov OTI OVTOS oia TUV o

x^aTtCo^f^
S, eVet lav ^ rvxy irpoecop-
Kal /cat ijOr] 7ra07j

ov 5ta /xijiwj/ia iro^ffei

a/cobs, T^V
aAAa 8ia rijv dirfpyatriav
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 305

degree of their inner intelligible essence. He may

confine himself to what is universal and actual, or he

ay rise above it. or he may sink below it.

1
He may
represent things as they are, or as they are commonly
2
supposed to be, or as they ought to be. It is in re

presentations of this last kind that the chief function

of art consists. Art according to Aristotle must re
present not the individual as such, but the universal,
the necessary and the natural. It must not be content
to reflect naked reality but 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
history, as higher and more nearly allied to philo
sophy, seeing that it reveals to us not only individual
facts but universal laws. 4 And this holds not only of
1
Poet. 2 itlit. . eVei Se fju- rrjv iSiav
fjiovvrai ol jutjuou/xej- oi Trparrovras, opoiovs iroiovvres, fca\\iovs
e rovrovs ?} ffirovSaiovs 7) ypd<povffiv. The idealism of
Aous elva: . . .
fjroi /UeArt o^as the Greek statues of the gods
KaQ TOMS 1) x f i P vas % Ka-l did not, of course, escape the
VTOVS, which Aristotle pro- philosopher s notice cf. vol. ii. ;

ds to illustrate from painting, p. 217, n. 5, sujtra.

try, and music. 4
Pot t. 9 if tit. oil rb ra yi- :

2
Ibid. 25, 14GO, b, 7: rei v6fj.eva \eyeiv, rovro iroir)Tov Hpyov
eVn /X^UTJT^S 6 Troirjrr/s, (ixnrep fa-T-lv, dAA oTa fa yevoiro, Kal TO.
ei faypdcpos 77 ris &AAos ft/coz/o- Svi/ara Kara rb eiKbs fy TO avay-
, avdyKri /J.ifj.e icrdai rpiwv ovr<av Kalov. d yap iffropiKbs Kal 6 Troir)Trjs
rbv apiOfMbv eV rt aei ^ yap oia i\v ov r$ e^er/ja Ae^eij/ $
/)
a/nerpa
oia Kal 5o/ce?, ofa ef^at Siaipepovffiv yap av ra
, /} (j>acrl 3) 6^77 HpoSd-
Set. We may regard these words TOV els perpa Te0vjj/cu, Kal ouSej/
as genuine, although they stand i]TTov "av
6i?j io~ropia TIS
in n rather suspicious section. /uerpou 3) aj/eu /jLerpcav, aAAa
3
Poet. 15, 1454, b, 8 eWi 5e :

fiJififlffis tany 7; TpaywSia ^eATfoVcoi/, T OV Se oia &* yevoiro. Sib

T)[j.cis 8e? fj.i/.L^lo daL TOVS ayaOovs Kal (f>L\oaro(j)coTepov
Kal (rirouSaio-
fiKoi oypd(povs Kal yap repov Troirjcris IffTOplas ecrriV 77 yuev

VOL. II.
306 ARISTOTLE

serious poetry but also of comic.

The former in
forms which transcend
bringing before us ordinary
limits must give us an ennobled picture of human
characters in whom
nature, for it must represent typical
the true nature of certain moral qualities is sensibly
exhibited to us but the latter also, although dealing ;
1

2
necessarily with the weaknesses of human nature,
must nevertheless make it its chief end not to attack
3
individuals but to present types of character. While,
2
C. 2 Jin.
yiiaAAoi/ ra KadoAov, r\ fifv yap [comedy]
: T)
yap 7T0i7}<m
8e /SeArious io Oai
5 ra K-afl e/cao-TOJ/ Ae^et.
Iffropia
T] /j.i/j.e

8e Ka06\ov fj.ev, iroi(f ra vvv. C. 5 init.

i .
r<
r<av T]
<rri

iroT drra (rv/j-paivei \eyew T) irpdr- 8e

reiv Ka.ro. TO eiKbs ?) TO avayKouov

. ra 8e Ka.Q tKao~rov, Tt AA/a-
. .
1
Kara iraaav /ca/ciaz/, oAAa rov
ri ZvaOev. Ibid. earl rb
PidoTis tTTpaev vj al<rxpov

Ii51, b, 21) Kav apa ffvuprj yev6-

: yap ye\otov eanv afj.dpr^/j.d
n Kal

Troien/ vd * v cticTYOS avwfivvov Kal o

[rbv TroiTjrV] 3
fffrtv yap rui> Cf. Poet. 9, 1451, b, 11 sqq.
TTOWJT^JS
tvta ovSev KcoAuei TOiavra c. 5,1449, b, 5; Eth. iv. 14, 1128,
oTa av ej/cos yevfff6ai Kal a, 22. Aristotle here gives the
Svvara yfVfffBat. Cf. C. 15, 1454, New Comedy the preference over
T0 tf d fflv the Old because it refrains from
a, 33 XPV 5 ^ Kai e :
" s
abuse (alffxpoKoyia). He gives
r

uxnrep Kal fv ruv irpay^dTuv

rf)
(rvffrdatL, aet (VjTetj/ ^)
rb avayKa iov Homer, moreover, the credit
I) rb ekbs, rbi/ TOLOVTOV ra
O>O-T (Poet. 4, 1448, b, 34) of being
roiavra Xeyeiv % irpdrrsiv T) avay- creator, in the character of Mar-
ov \l/6yov dAAo
KCUOV ^ ei/cbs, /cat TOUTO ^era TOUTO gites, of comedy,
rb yeXolov Spa/uLaroiroi^ffas. The
ylvearBai% avayKalov^i elic6s. C. 1,
not the it is Poetirg are doubtless the source
1447, b, i:>
sqq.:
(cf. vol. i. p. 102, n. 2) of
the re
metre bat the content that makes
the poet. Empedocles (whose mark in CRAMER S Anecd. Paris.
Homeric power Aristotle praises Append. I. (Arist. Poet. p. 78;
in Dwg. viii. 56) has nothing but
V AHL. p. 208 Fr. 3 Sus.): ;

the metre in common with Homer. 7] KocfAySia TTJS AotSopios, eTret r\

Poet. 1
15 (see p. 305, n. 3, AoiSopio airapaKaXvirrus ra Trpoff-

continues: ovra KaKa fiiffcfio iv,

8e Selrai
supra), Aristotle
r\

Kal rbv iroif]r^v (llpoupevov rTJs Ka\ov/j.vr)s [indica [j.<pdo-ws

Kal ra\\a ra tion]. To this subject belongs

opy i^ovs Kal padv/jLOVS
roiavra the remark in Rhet. iii. 18, 1419,
iroietv irapd^y^a 1) b, 7, where it is said that etpcoveio
5eT &c. Cf following .
is more worthy of the freeman
ffK\-nporf}ros
note and c. 13, 1453, a, 1G. than /3a>/xoAoxia. This also had
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 307

therefore, Plato and Aristotle agree in regarding art

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 phenomena and accordingly
expresses the utmost contempt for the falsity and
worthlessness of art ;
1
Aristotle, on the other hand,
looks upon artistic presentation as the sensible
vehicle to us of universal truths and thus places
it above the empirical knowledge of individual
things.
We are now what Aristotle
in a position to explain

says about the aim and the Art, In effect of

2
two passages to which we have already had occa
sion to refer, he distinguishes four different uses of

been particularly treated of by lidos iroiov n Troie?v, eQifyvauv 8v-

Aristotle in the Poetics (Rhet. i. vacrQou -^aip^iv opduis. Sia-
7) Trpbs
11, 1372, a, 1 :
5idpi(rrat 5e irspl yooyrjVTi {rv^aAAerai Kal (ppovr]<Tii>

yeXoiccvxwpls eV rots irepl TrotTjTt/ojs : Kal yap rovro rpirov Qtrtov rSiv
cf. VAHLEX, ibid. p. 76 ;
Fr. 2), On the other hand it
eipiffjievwif.
from which must come Fr. 9 of is very definitely referred to in
the Aneod. Paris, ibid. :
fidy the second (1341. b, 36) (pafj.lv :

rd re ySatyioAd^a Kal rd
/cw/i(>;as 8 ou eVe/cej/
fjLias o|)eAeias rrj
elpwviKa Kal ra aXa^oviav. ru>v
5eTv aAAa Kal
See Ph. d. 6fr. i. p. 799 a
1

view which is not consistent with Kal KaOdpcreus . . .

rp nov
the fact that art is at the same 5e irpbs irpbs ai/fffiv re
Siay&yTiv,
time regarded as one of the most Kal irpbs TT]V TTJS avvTOvias ai dirav-
important means of education JJut, on this account, to
<riv).

whose function is the presentation change the text of the latter

of moral ideas (ibid. p. 532 sq.
passage with SPENGEL (Ueber
772 sq. 800 sq; cf. tiyntp. 209 die Kadapffis r&v TradTfjuaTcai/, AbJi.
D). der jjhilos.-philol. Kl. der Bo^ijr.
2
Pol. see p. 266,
viii. 5, 7, Altad. ix. 1, 16 sq.), and to read :

supra. In the former of these Kal- yap TrcuSei as ej/e/ce^ Kal

Kaddp-
passages no mention is made of <rea>s,
. . .
Trpbs Siaycayrjv, rpirov
purification it is merely asked
; 5e Trpbs &veffiv re &c. or K. y. TrcuS.
(1339, a, 15) rivos 5e? xdpiv
:
eV. K. Kaddpff., irpbs aveaiv re
/J.T%IV ttVTTJS, TTOrfpOV TTCuSiaS avdiTavaiv, rp nov Se Trpbs Siaywyyi/,
eVe/ca Kal avairaiHrtias
... ?) p.aXXov is a violent expedient against
onjre of Trpbs dperi]v rz ivsiv ryv n which BERN AYS (Rhein. Mits.
fMovffiKrjv, us SwaueVrii/ rb . . xiv. 1859, p. 370 sqq.) rightly

x 2
308 ARISTOTLE

music 1
: it serves (i)
as a relaxation and amusement ;

(ii)
as a means of moral culture (iii) as an enjoyable exer;

cise ;
and (iv) as a purifying influence. Whether each
form of art has this fourfold function or not, he does not
expressly say
nor could he in any case have regarded
;

them as all alike in this respect. Of the plastic arts he re

their ethical effect, although considerable, is
marks that
2
inferior to that of music, while he probably hardly
a purifying influence to them.
thought of attributing
Where they confine themselves to the exact imitation

of particular objects, they serve in his view

no higher
than the satisfaction of a rather shallow
purpose

The first of these pro 1176, b, 27 sqq. p. 140, supra} ;

protests.
even the former presupposes a higher
posals is hardly permissible,
from the point of view of style, culture (see p. 309, n. 3, infra},
while neither of them finds any not so the latter: and accordingly
support in the alleged
contra they are completely separated
diction between c. 5 and c. 7, as from one another, 1339, a, 25, b,
it is not the case in
unfrequently 13, 15 sqq., ibid. 4; cf. a, 33.
Cf. p. 266, n. o, supra.
Aristotle that a preliminary divi 2
Pol. viii. 1340, 28:
sion is supplemented in the sequel 5, a;
5e alffOlJT&V
(cf e.g. what
is said, vol. i. p. 400, fj.ev
ei>
ru>v
.

different classifica
sqq., on the
olov fv TO?S airro^s Kal
tions of constitution) both, more ;
roTs
with the TO?S ff rots oparo is
over, are inconsistent
distinction between edifying and i)pe/j.a yap tan roiavra
as that is defi moral attitudes and ges
purifying music, (i.e.

nitely set forth in

c. 7, and calls tures), a\\ eirl p.iKpbv K
[read ov Traces, as MULLEB
ibid.
for immediate notice.
ISot merely three, as BEE-
1 10 sq. 348 sqq. conjectures] TTJS
NAYS ibid, represents by taking TOiavrrjs cuVflrjorews KOIVWVOVCTIV. ert
and tiay^ together. 8e OVK ecrri ravra o/u,o
avdiravffis
Aristotle differentiates the two
he
very clearly: young people,
of Siaywyr), TWV W&v. Nevertheless, young
s-ays, are incapable
whereas they are very much men ought not, oaov 9ia$4pci Kal
and foeais (see Trepl T\\V
TOVTWV Bewplav, to be
inclined to iraiSia
the allowed to study the pictures of
vol. ii. p. 267, n. 1, supra) ;

former is an end in itself [re Aos], a Pauson but those of a Poly-

gliotus Kav ejf TIS a\\os
r&v ypatyewv
the latter a mere means (c. 5,
Eth, x.
1339, a, 29, b, 25-42 cf. ;
6,
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 309

curiosity.
1
Nor does he seem to expect from Comedy
(on which see below) either morally edifying or purify
ing results. On the other hand, the purification of the
emotions is the chief end, as we shall see, of serious

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
the function of Art to present. As a means to nobler
intellectual enjoyment (Siaywyr)) the higher poetry
must appeal to our reason, since according to Aristotelian

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 the closest relation to intellectual culture. 3 In like
manner poetry can only serve for moral edification by

exhibiting to us the nature and aim of moral action in

examples that excite our admiration or abhorrence, as
Aristotle holds it
ought undoubtedly to do. 4 Finally,
as to the purifying effect of Art, we must admit

1
Of. vol. ii. p. 304, n. 2, sup. that (ppovrjffis would not belong
2
See the quotations from to Siayuyij but to the previously
Eth. x. 8, sup. vol. ii. p. 143,n. 1. mentioned dperTj. This, however,
3
In the words quoted from is incorrect. By aperf Aristotle
P0Z.viii.5,p. 307, n. 2, supra: irpbs means moral virtue, the training
tiiaywyfiv rt <rvfj.fid\\eTat Kal typo- of character by Siaywy^ /col
;

vT}aiv. SPENGEL, ibid. p. 16, and typ6vn<ns,

the training of the in-
independently of him THUROT, tellect and the taste. Cf. what
Etudes sur Arist. 101, propose to was said about Siaywy^j supra,
read, instead of q>p6vr\(riv, eixppo- vol. ii.
p. 266, n. 5.
4
7vvi]v (or Tbev<ppaiveiv), remarking See p. 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

the
agreement has been arrived at upon question
wherein, according to his view, it consists and what are
the conditions of its
production. This is, however, the
less extraordinary, since in the extant portion of the
Poetics the fuller discussion of purification contained in

missing, though the want may be

2
the original work is

partly supplied from other passages.

These show, in the
first place, that the purification of the emotions which

is effected by art takes place not in the work of art itself,

but in those who see or hear it.

3
We further learn that
the immediate object is not, as was formerly supposed, 4

1
For a review of these see that the Kadapvis is effected in
SUSEMIHL, Arist. TT. TTotrjr. p. 36 the audience, and the same may
sqq. and elsewhere (see p. 300,
be proved, as MULLEE well shows,
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
;

last discusses some seventy and pity, effects a purification of

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. the stage in a condition of fear
2
See supra, vol. i. p. 102, n. 2. or pity, which (as LESSING,
3
GOETHE (Naclilese zu Arist. Hanib. Dram at. 78 St. has re
Poetili, 1826; Briefweclisel <niit
marked) is by no means usually,
Zeltcr, iv.288, v. 330, 354) ex and in the circumstances cannot
plained the words 5t eAeou Kal possibly often be, the case. Ari
(pofiov irepaivovrra Ti]v T&V roiovrccv stotle, however, has expressed
Tra9r]/J.druv uddapffiv in the defi himself on this point as clearly
nition of tragedy, Poet. 6, 1449, as possible, c. 14 init. AeT yap
b, 24 sqq. as referring to the [he says in treating of the produc
tranquillising effect upon the tion of the (pofiepbv and eAeeti/br]
actors themselves. This expla Kal avev rov Spav OVTW (Tweffrdvai

nation, however, now

univer
is rbv fj.vQov (iiffre TOV anovovra TO.
sally acknowledged to be inad irpa.yij.ara yiv6jJ(.Gva Kal (ppirreiv Kal
missible (e.(j. by MULLEE. ibid. eAeetV e/c TU>V
<ruyiij3cuj/(Wa>j/.
4
380 sqq.; BEENT AYS, ibid. 137; Thus LESSING, with all pre
SPENGEL, ibid: 6). Apart from vious writers, Hamb. Dram. 7 1-78
the linguistic difficulty, Pol. viii. St. ( Werke, vii. 3c2 sqq. Lachm.):
7, 1342, places beyond a doubt this purification depends on
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 311

moral improvement, but primarily the production of

an effect upon the emotions. Aristotle himself defi

nitely distinguishes between purification and moral

culture as separate aims
1
he would use for the latter as :

opposed to the former a style of music which is wholly

different and requires different treatment. He describes
2

purification, moreover,
as a species of healing and as n

nothing else than the trans yidov(Ti TT?I> \l/vx V /ue Aecrt,

formation of the passions into Jifvovs uxrirep larpeias rv-

ravrb
promptitudes to virtue (p. 352). Kal ita6dp(Tfcas. 877

He has been followed by many rovro avayKalov ira.ff-%* iv Ka^ TOUS

others, e.g. SPENGEL in the f\ff]/u.ovas Kal rovs (pofirjriKovs Kal
treatise referred to, p. 307, n. 2, rovs 6\a)S Tra0Tf]riKovs [the MSS.
supra. reading for which Spengel un
necessarily suggests #Aws rovs
1
Pol. viii. 7, 1341, b, 36, see
8 a\\ovs Ka0 ocrov eVi-
mpra <?.
6, 1341, a, 21 ert 8 OVK .
7nx0.], rovs
/3aAAet ru>v roLovrcov eitdcrrw, Kal

opyiao~riKuv, &o~re Trpbs rovs roiov- Traffi yiyveffdai riva KaQapffiv Kal
rovs avrif Kaipovs xpr]o-rov eV ois
f) Oecopia KaOapffiv /j.a\\ov Svvarai ra jUe ATj ra KadapriKa vrape^ei
d/3Aa/3f; rols avdpwirois.
See preceding n. and c. 7.
-
(This is a further effect of purify
1341, b, 32 since we must dis :
ing music, different from the KO.-
tinguish a moral, a practical and Gapcris itself it purifies the TraOr]-
:

an exciting and inspiring kind of riKol and affords enjoyment to

music, and since further music all ;
the lacuna therefore which
has to serve the different ends THUROT, Etudes 102 sq. surmises ,

stated at p. 307, n. 2, there before 8e cannot be ad

6/j.oia>s

fore (f>ai pbi>

ori xprjGreov iJ.lv mitted.) From this passage,
iraffais rals ap/j.oviais, ov rbv (however we may interpret its
avrbv 8e rp6irov irdtrais xprjo Teoi/, general meaning) this at any rate
oAAa irpbs jjikv rijv TraiSeiav ra"is seems obvious, that according to
yQiKcardrais Trpbs 8e aKpoao~iv trzpwv Aristotle there is a kind of music
av Ka ras Trpa.itriKas which produces a catharsis,
l
Kal raTs evOovcnaffTiKais. b yap Trfpl although it possesses no ethical
character, and may not, there
pus, rovro eV Trdffais vTrdpx.ei, rip Se fore, be used in the education of
yrrov Stac^epet Kal rw ^taAAov [there the youth, nor practised by the
does not seem to be any reason citizens, although it may be
to doubt these words with REIN- listened to by them namely,
KENS, p. 156], olov eAeos Kal (pofios, exciting music but if this is so, ;

ert 8 evdov(nacr/ji.6s. Kal yap inrb the catharsis, while not without
ravrTjs TTJS Kivficrecas Ka an indirect moral influence,
rives elcriv K Se rwv iepwv /j.e\ yet cannot in itself, as re
rovrovs, orav x garded from the point of view
312 ARISTOTLE

mental alleviation accompanied by pleasure, and accord 1

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
4
minent in Aristotle s mind ;
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 its immediate effect, consist Quast. comiv. III. 8, 2, 11, p.

in the production of a definite 657 A cf. BEBNAYS, Grundzuge
;

character of will. That this is der Verlorenen Abhandlung d.

true also of the purification Arist. uber Wirkung der Tra-
effected by tragedy admits of less godie (Abk. der Hist.-pliHos.
doubt owing to the fact that pre Gesettschaft in Breslau 1. 1858),
cisely those emotions with which p. 155 sqq. 199. ;
id. Ueler die
it has to deal (see infra) are trag. Katharsls lei Arist. (Rhein.
here expressly connected with Mvs. xiv. 374 sq.)
excitement, i.e. pity and fear.
4
After Bockh had indicated,
1
See preceding n. Similarly in 1830 ( Ges. Id. Schriften, i. 180),
in Poet. c. 14, 1453, b, 10 the aim of this reference in uddapcris to
tragic representation, which ac medical purgation it was taken
cording to c. 6 consists in cathar up first by A. WEIL (Ueb. d.
sis, is placed in a pleasure :ov yap Wirlcung der Trag. nacli Arist.
iraffav Se? ^-rjT?v rjSov^v omb rpayw- Vcrhandl. der 10. Vers. dcut seller
5tas, aAAa Trjv oliteiav. firel 8e TT\V Philologcn, Bale, 1848, p. 136
curb eAe ou Kal tyoftov Sta /jn^aeus sqq.), more
fully and indepen
Se? ^Soi/ /jv Trapa.a Ktvdfcu TOV TTOITJ- dently of his predecessors by
rfy, &C. Bernays in the treatises men
2
Viz, xaipew opQws Kal Ainre?- tioned in preceding note which
ffOcu,.Pol. viii. 5, 1340, a, 15, 22; go deeply into this question.
seep. 266, supra. These were followed by THUROT,
*
This is the sense in which Etudes, 104, and many others ;

many writers in antiquity took cf. DOEING, ibid. 278 sqq. who

purification, e.g. ARISTOXENUS likewise resolutely defends this

(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.
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

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
/cdOap-
o-is. as we might use
purgation, in the first instance to
c

mean the expulsion from the body of burdensome or

inju
rious matter, but that inasmuch as he was here1

dealing
with the application of this
conception to states of the
emotions, he came to connect with it, as he went the 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 iii
Remp. 362 that Aristotle
Politics of music in a different objects to Plato that he was
sense from that in which in the wrong in forbidding tragedy and
Poetics he employs it of tragedy, TOVTUV Svvarbv
corned} , enrep Sia
nor does Pol. viii. 7, 1341, b, 38 ffj-perpus a7T07n,U7rAaycu TO. Kal
TrdO-rj
give the remotest justification to a.TCOTT\rj(Ta.vTas tvepya, trpbs TT]V TTQU-
the presumption that the tragic Setaz/ e^ezi/, rb avroov
TTirovr]Kbs
catharsis is
specifically different depaTreva-avTcts all point to this.
from the musical. The one may be -
According to Polit. viii. fi,

produced by different means from 1341, a, 21,orgiastic music is in

the other, but the effect indicated place eV OLS f) Qewpta [the
repre
by KaCapa-is must itself in both sentation] KaOapcriv /ua\\ov Svvarai
cases be essentially the same, /) fj.dOti(Tiv, and c. 7, 13t2, a, 1)
unless we are to attribute to mrpemjind KaQapvis are attributed
Aristotle a confusion of terms
which is
misleading. wholly A definite kind of religious music
STAHR, Arist. tind die
Wirk. d. is therefore compared in its effect
Trag. p. 13 sq. 21 sq., does not with medical purgation. Aris
sufficiently distinguish between totle seems also to have employed
these two. the word afpoa-iwcris, which refers
1
Aristotle s own expressions, to the cancelling of transgressions
Polit. viii. 10, 14
7, 1342, a, :
by offerings and other religious
Sxnrep larpeias rvx^vras Kal KaOdp- acts, to express the same effect.
trews . irafft yiyvecrdai nva KaO-
. .
PROCL. Hid. 360 represents him
p.
apaiv Kal Kov(piecrdaL pet) rjSovyjs, as asking Platowhy he rejected
the remark in Ps. JAMBL. Do tragedy and comedy, Kal Tavra
Mijst. i. 11 that the emotions <TWT\ov(ras Tcai/
irpbs cKpofficacriv
(Svvdpeis TuvTraOrj/ndruv) a.7roir\r]p- 7ra0wj/,andreplyinghimself,p. 362,
ovvrai Kal ivrevQev that it is not true that they serve
aTTOKa9aip6/u.-
vai , . .
aTroTraiWrai, and in PROCL.
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
;
2

3
stand by the expression in the first instance not any
purification within
the soul of permanent affections, but
the removal from it of unhealthy ones.
4
When we ask

1
Whoever is possessed of either a purification of the emo
enthusiasm or any other violent tions or deliverance from them,
and enslaving emotion which for we may say either KaOaipeiv
burden is riva Tti/bs, to purify one of some
presses on him as a
KctTaKdaxwos, as Ai istotle ex thing, or KaOaipeiv r\, to purge
presses Pol viii. 7, 1342, a, 8.
it, away a defiling element. Medical
KaraKcaxTl or KUTOKUX^, however, language adopted this use of the
is originally conceived of as Beta word Kddapns from the time of
KaTOKwx^l, fr m
which deliverance Hippocrates (see REINKENS, p.
is to be obtained by reconcilia 151 sq. who
follows Foesius). It
tion with God, the malady is a was transferred to the moral
divine visitation, the cure is the sphere, e.g. by Plato, in the
result of propitiation (cf PLATO, . Phcedo 69 B, when he says that
Pheedr. 244 Dsq.). virtue is itdQapais ris TWV TOIOVTWV
2
In the words quoted, p. 311, jravruv a deliverance from plea
viii. 7, en sure, fear, &c. Aristotle himself
supra, from Polit.
n. 2,
thusiasm is spoken of as a form of uses KaQapvis in the sense of a
excitement by which many per purifying secretion, e.g. Gen.
sons are possessed (jeaTcuc^xijUOi), An. iv. 5, 774, a, 1, where he
and of which, by means of orgi speaks of a KaOapvis Kara/j-rivtav,
astic music, they are as it were ibid. ii. 4, 738, a, 28 of a KdOapau
cured and purified, and the word rwv TrtpiTTcaf.id.Twi (for which,
is used to express the 1. 27, aw6Kpi<ru is used).
These
Kov<pleff6ai
the
same effect. examples, combined with
As Zeller formerly thought.
3
passage referred to, n. 2 above,
4
The words KaQapais ira- ru>j/ make it probable that KdOapffii
8-n/j.dTcav might themselves
mean TUV TraOT)p.dr(av means a deliver-
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 315

How does Art effect this removal some ? we are told by

that it produces this result
by engaging and satisfying
in harmless excitements man s innate need of at times

experiencing more violent emotions. The peculiar 1

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 by homoeopathic and not as in other
cases by allopathic treatment ?
2
And why has the
ance from Trad-f]/j.ara. This view effected by art is a discharge of
seems indeed inconsistent with solicited emotions : as purgative
the terms of the well-known defini means produce health in the
tion of Tragedy (see p. 320, n. 4, body by the expulsion of un
infra) in which it is said that it wholesome matter, so purifying-
effects by pity and fear rV TO>J/ music produces a soothing effect
roiavT&v jra0rj uarojz/
( KdOapviv ;
for by providing an outlet for the
it seems as though the emotions ecstatic element in us, c. Cf.
of pityand fear could not possibly 171, 176, 164 and other passages
be banished by exciting them. in his treatise of 1858. Similarly
In answer to this, however, it has his successors, e.g. DORING, who
already been pointed out by declares, p. 259, that icd6ap<ns is
others (as by BBINKBNS, p. 1 61) an excretion of diseased matter
that the artificially excited emo by an increased production of it,
tions of tragic pity and fear serve or rather an acceleration of
to release us from the emotions Nature s own heaLng process,
(already, according to p. 311, n. 2, which is already tending towards
supra, existing in each in weaker both these results and UEBER- ;

or stronger form) of a pi ty and fear WEG, Zeitsehr.f. Phil. L. 33 sqq.

which are called forth by common who says it is a temporary de
facts, and that this is the reason liverance from certain feelings
why Aristotle writes ruv TOIOVTWV (which, according to Ueberweg,
Tradr]/j.dTu>v instead of rovrcav, the spring from a normal want) by
two kinds of pity and fear the excitement and indulgence
referred to being related to one of them but he overlooks the
;

another, but not identical. (On fact that TrdO-n/j-a does not mean
the other hand, the fact that he every possible or even normal
writes TraO-n/ndrcav instead of ira- feeling (still less normal
6cav is unimportant, both words, wants, p. 33, and Grundr. i. 213;
as BONITZ, Arist. Stud. 5, H, has see Eng. Tr. Hist, of Phil. vol. i.
shown in opposition to BEHNAYS, p. 179), but only morbid or
being used by Aristotle as per oppressive moods, and that it is
fectly synonymous.) only from such that we require to
Thus WEIL, ibid. 1 39 but
1
;
be purged.
even Bernays falls short here 2
Eth. ii. 2, 1104, b, 17 of
when he says that the catharsis punishments: larpeiai yap riffs
316 ARISTOTLE

artisticexcitement 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 ?
]

Aristotle did not overlook this circumstance but if he ;

observed it we may be quite sure that he also attempted

to explain it. And this, as a matter of fact, he
has

done. The catharsis is indeed effected in his view by

exciting the emotions

and is a homoeopathic cure of
them 2
but this effect
;
is not to be expected from all
excitements indifferently, but only from such as are
artistic and by artistic Aristotle here means, as we
his account of tragedy, not that
clearly gather from
which the most violent emotion in us, but
produces
that which produces emotion in the right way. Had
the artificial catharsis depended in Aristotle s view
emotions and not
merely upon the excitation of certain
also essentially upon the manner and means of exciting
for the criterion of a work
them, he must have sought
of contents and their proper treatment,
art, riot in its
but singly and solely in its effect upon
the spectators

This he is far from doing.

3
are We
forced, therefore ;

elo-iv, ai Se iaTpelai 5ia roav tvavrivv Aristotle cannot reiterate too of ten
that both the action and the
vcQvicaffi yiveffdai.
1
Gf.JStJt.ii. 1,1103, b,17 sqq. characters in a tragedy must
evolve according to the laws of
Tragedy by pity and fear
-

effects the purification of these necessity and probability (Poet.

emotions (Poet. 6) sacred music 7, 1450, b, 32. Ibid, and
:
c._9,
see p. 305, n. 4, supra, c. 10, 14o2,
by producing in us a state of mental and
excitement effects the cure and a, 18, c. 15,1454, a, 33 sqq.),

purgation of excitement (Polit. he blames the poets for abandon-

ing the development which
is
viii. 7, 1342, a,4sqq.,cf.c.5,1340,

a/8 sqq. See p. 311, n. 2, supra), demanded by the nature of the

3
To mention only one thing, facts out of regard for the taste j
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 317

to look for the reason 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
artistic representation itself
in other words, in that
which constitutes the generic difference between art
and The
latter presents us
reality. only with the par
ticular, the
former with the universal in the
particular ;

in the latter chance

largely rules, the former must
reveal to us in its creations the
fixity of law.
1
Aristotle
certainly nowhere expressly says that this is the reason
why art exercises a but if we would
purifying influence ;

supplement the mutilated fragments of his theory of art

which have come down to us in the
spirit of the rest of
hissystem we can hardly resist this conclusion. Art,
we should then have to say, purifies and soothes the
emotions in that it delivers us from such as are morbid or
oppressive by exciting such as are subordinate to its

law, directing them, not towards what is

merely per
sonal, but towards what is universal in
man, controlling
their course upon a fixed principle and
setting a definite ,

limit to their force. 2 Thus, for example, tragedy in the

fate of its heroes gives us a glimpse into the universal
ot of man and at the same time into an eternal law of
3
ustice; music calms mental excitement and holds it
Of the public (c.9, 1451, b, 33 possible e^erpus airoiriuTr^dvai ra
sqq. ;
cf. C. 13, 1453, a, 30 sqq.).
1
See p.301 sq. supra. 3
According to Poet. c. 13.
2
We have at least a hint of those who pass in it from fortune
fchis in the statement
thought to misfortune must be neither the
:rom Proclus, cited p. 313, n. 1,
wholly innocent nor the wholly
o the effect that and bad they should be characters
tragedy :

omedy serve as a cure of morbid distinguished neither by merit

tates of feeling by nor wickedness, but
rendering it standing
318 ARISTOTLE
1
and harmony. Although
spellbound by its rhythm
know how Aristotle further this
we do not developed

thought, still we are forced to assume that he expressed

2
it somehow.
If we now turn from these general views upon Art
to the special arts, Aristotle himself provides
us with

different principles according to which they might

have

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 above than below the tion he would have recommended

common standard of morality
? o tov eTjTCti, % jSeAT/oyos
5i apapTiav fieyd\iiv. The tragedy
must therefore be so constructed
that we can put ourselves in the
place of the hero, that we
can say
what happens to him might
happen to each of us, while at
the same time we feel that the
fatewhich 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
does not suffer 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
in its train. If the effect of
for Ari
tragedy had consisted
above all those pieces which he
so decidedly rejects (ibid. 1453,
in which
a, 1,30) those, namely,
are punished
great transgressions
and virtue is rewarded, for in
these the spectator has the tran-
sense that he can avoid
quillising
the penalty of transgression and
of virtue in a
reap the reward
much higher degree. Aristotle
is aware of the satisfaction
which
these moral reflections give, but
to
says (ibid.) that they belong
the sphere, not of tragedy, but
of comedy.
1
STAHK (Arist. und die
Wirli. d. Trag. 19 sqq.) curiously
himself as satis
enough expresses
fied with Bernays explanation
on
this head, and in this way in
volves himself in the difficulty of
having to explain the catharsis,
which Aristotle describes in like
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.
163 sqq. and SUSEMIHL (Arist.
TronjT. 43 sqq.).
IT.

stotle in this trite moral applica

 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 319

sometimes the voice, sometimes words,

harmony, and
rhythm these means, moreover, are sometimes em
;

ployed singly, at other times several of them are com-

bined^N^The chief objects of imitation are living and
2
acting persons and these differ from one another in
;

moral worth. 3 The manner (here, however, Aristotle

)

is speaking of poetry only) differs according as the

imitator himself speaks or brings forward other
speakers ;
and in the former case according as he speaks
in propria persona, or merely reports the words of
others. 4 Aristotle, however, has not attempted to use
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
little
only a :

few occasional observations upon painting, 5 and a fuller

discussion of music, 6 the chief contents of which have

1
Poet. i. 1447, a, 16 sqq. to imitate (1) ^ eVepoV TL [rti/a]
8
fu/j-ovvrai ol /j.tfj.ov/j.ei>oi irpdr- yiyvo^vo^ (by assuming the part
TOVTO.S,C. 2, 1448, a, 1. This state- of another), (2) /) &s rbv avrbv /ecu
ment suffers only slight modi- ph /ierajSaAAoi/Ta. Under this
fication from the passages quoted second category, along with per-
the repre-
p. 304, n. Iand2,sw/?.,on sonal narration would fall also
sentation of particular natural lyric poetry, although Aristotle
objects. Aristotle would not nowhere expressly refers to it in
therefore have recognised land- the Poetics as we have received
scape painting, which in his time them. While very closely con-
did not yet constitute an inde- nected with Plato s division of
pendent branch of art, as art the forms of artistic presenta-
at all. tion, Aristotle s does not wholly
3
C. 2, see p. 305, n. 3, supra, coincide with it.
4 5
Poet. c. 3 init. Aristotle Poet. 2, 15, see 305, n. land
here distinguishes, as Susemihl 3, supra. Pol. viii. 5, v. vol. ii.
rightly observes, (a) ^^e?o-0at p. 308, n. 2, supra also Pol. viii.
;

airayyeXXovTa, (J) ^i^lffQai. iravras 3, v. vol. ii. p. 264, n. 3, supra,

rovs /j.ifj.ovfj.4vovs as irpdrrovras Kai 6
Pol. viii. 3, 1337, b, 27, c.
fvepyowras. Drama is constituted 5-7.
by the latter ;
in (a) it is possible
320 ARISTOTLE
of Ari
Finally, the extant portion
1

already been given.

with poetry limits itself
stotle s writings which deals
almost entirely to tragedy. The art of poetry, we are told,
2
from the imitative instinct from the imitation
sprang ;

of noble men and actions came epic poetry ;

from the
imitation of ignoble, satire ; subsequently as the form
best adapted for the nobler poetry, tragedy was deve
is the 3
loped ;
as the best for satire, comedy. Tragedy
imitation of an action, of a certain
important completed
in graceful style, which varies in the
length, expressed
several parts of the piece, to be acted, not merely narrated,
and effecting by means of pity and fear the purification
of these emotions.
4
Plhe first effect, therefore, of tragic
o ur sympathy by means of the fate
poetry is to excite
the
of the actors: their sufferings claim our pity;
with which are threatened excite in us
dangers they
fear for the final issue that tragic suspense which in
5
the further development finds relief at one
time in

4
i
vol. ii. 2GG sqq. cf.p. C. 6, 1449, :

Sup. p. b.^24
ill 1&2. While Aristotle here
11 TpayySia //j<m irpa^us ffrovtofkm
attributes to music especially (as
Kal rttelas, /teyeflos *xownt, i,5v-

of re- wiv* x*P ls ^atrrov ruv

is there shown) the power \6y<p,

elSuv iv rots f^opiois [i.e. as is iin-

presenting moral qualities, yet
he does not explain in the Politic* mediately afterwards explained
so that the different kinds of
the grounds of this advantage
s and
which it possesses over the other ftvffptvos Ao 7 o S ^\os Ae|<

are employed in the dialogue

arts In ProM. six. 27, cf. c. 29
it

is asked 5w ri TO ^ovarov ^6vov and chorus of the tragedy respec-

Mos {yet rav aicQ-n*; and the tively ;
cf. c. 1 fin. tpwrw KO.\

answer is given because we per- :

ceive movements through the $6&ov ircpaivovva rr,v.TUV

[on which see supra, p. 314,
ex- n. 4,
hearing alone, and the ^os ,

Dresses itself in actions, and adfin^votoiWrvvKMafaiv.

Since the time of LESSING
therefore in movements. But this
can hardly be Aristotle s. (Hamb. Drama*. 75 8t.) whom
e p. 303, supra.
ZeUer followed in the previous
edition, the fear in Aristotle s
4 5.
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 321

an unfortunate, at another in a fortunate, turn of

events. But since the tragic poet sets before us in his
1

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 1

the feeling of others pain, our personal woes are silenced 1

destiny, we are delivered

at the spectacle of universal
,

from the oppressions that weigh on us, and our I

emotions find peace in the recognition of those eternal/

laws which the course of the piece reveals to us. 2 This
definition has been commonly future to them, the latter by
understood of fear for ourselves those which have already be
excited by the thought that those fallen them. On the contrary,
whom we see suffering are like it isrightly objected to Lessing s
ourselves, and the fate which explanation (SUSBMIHL, Poet. 57
overtakes them might overtake sqq., and the authorities quoted
us. This view rests partly on by him), that according to Ari
the observation that fear for the stotle s own indubitable state
heroes of tragedy is already in ment the primary object of tragic
volved in pity, and that there is, fear is not ourselves but others ;

therefore, no reason to make par for he says, Poet. 13, 1453, a, 4,

ticular mention of it partly on of eAeos and 6
;
(j>6/3os
:
/j.ev yap
Rliet. ii. 5 inlt. ii. 8 init., where TTspl T*bv avafyov CCTTLV SvaTuxovvTa,
<o/3os is defined as AUTTTJ e/e
fyavra.- 6 5e rrepl O/JLOIOV, eAeos /xei/ Trepl
T\>V

ff iaS rbv
fjL\\OVTOS KO.KOV (f)9dpTlKOV /) dva|ioj>, <p6@os Se irepl 7oy
\vTT-npov, eAeos as AVTTTJ ris eVl OJJ.QIOV. To this explanation there
(^aivojuevy KaKt (pdapriKc-i Kal is the further practical objection
\virr]p(Z rov ava^iov Tv-y^dveiv. But that fear for ourselves produced
it is not asserted that the fear by the spectacle of a tragedy
refers only to such evils as would hardly be the proper
threaten ourselves any such as means of delivering us from this
sertion, indeed, would be wholly same selfish fear.
false and, on the other hand,
; The
1
however, as is
latter,
it holds also, as the distinction remarked 1453, a, 12 sqq.
c. 13,
between fear for others and pity 35 sqq., less to the character of
for them, that the former is ex
tragedy than to that of comedy.
cited by evils which are htill -
See supra, vol. ii. p. 31G sq.
VOL. II.
322 ARISTOTLE
first place upon the nature
impression depends in the
of the events represented. These, therefore, are the

important thing in every tragic representation. Myth,

the soul of tragedy, and accord
1

as Aristotle says, is

to investigate, in the first place,

ingly he sets himself
the qualities which are necessary in a tragedy that it may
2 3
effect its end : viz. natural development, proper length,

To distinguish from this purify Poet. c. 6, where, inter alia,

1

ing effect of tragedy the

moral 1450, a, 15 (after the enumeration
effect as a second and different of the six elements in tragedy,
result (as UEBERWEG, Zeitschr. u.v9os, iT], ^ iy ? Sidvoia,, otj/is,

Pliilos. xxxvi. 284 sqq. does) 5f TOVTOW

f.
seems to be incorrect. Although fffTIV r) T&V
eariv OVK
Aristotle, in treating of music, f) yap rpaycpSia /j.ifj.7icris

places TTcuSeia, Siaywy)), KaOapffis avdpanrcav aAAa 7rpaews Kal &iov

Kal
side by side as co-ordinate aims Kal fvSaifjiOvias KaKoSai^ovias

(see p. 307, n. supra) it does

2, . . . oijKOVV OTTCOS TO. i](

not follow tragedy also

that irpdrrovaiv, aAAa ra
has to pursue all these aims
6 /j.vdos re Aos
in like manner. On the contrary, TO. TrpdyiAara /cat T^S
as there is both a moral and a Toa ywSias. L. 38 :
^^X ? /^^ ovj^

cathartic kind of music (i.e. one Kal ^ux^? o /jivOos rfjs rpaycf-
otoi/

which directly affects the will, Sias, Sevrepov Se ra r?0rj. Cf. C. 9,

and one which primarily affects 1451, b, 27 : T^J/ TTOITJTT/V /j.a\\ov

rwv /j-vOwv eivai Sei ^ TWJ/
only the emotions and, through TTOJTJT^J/

them, moral character), there may /j.Tpuv. On

the other hand, the
also be a kind of poetry whose effect by the mere
produced
primary aim is catharsis.
We spectacle (ovf/ts) is declared
to be
must assume that tragedy, accord that which has the least artistic
ing to Aristotle, is actually
such value; ibid. 1450, b, 16.
2
a cathartic species of poetry, inas C. 7, see supra, vol. ii. p. 316,
much as in his definition of it n. 3.
3
he must have given its aim in an This
question decided, is

essentially complete form if he

ibid. 1450, b, 34 sqq., in like
the Politics
gave it at all. It is quite com
fashion to that in
as to the
patible with this
to attribute to (see p. 259, n. 1, supra)
but size of the State. The longer and
tragedy a moral effect, it is

added as a second, which is co richer presentation is in itself

ordinate with the cathartic, but the more beautiful, provided that
follows from it as result, and the plot does not surfer in clear
fvffvvoirrov) owing to
ness its
consists in the peaceful state of (rb
the the true criterion here
feeling which is produced by length ;

and V Kara rb et/cbs *

purification of the emotions
is : offca jU.e7e06i

the habit of self-control which it T^ avayKalov e<|>e7}s

o"uu,Baivi els GVTWYiav eK

creates in us.
 THE PHILOSOPHY OF ART 323

unity of treatment, and the representation of events

1

that are typical and of universal interest, 2

He dis
tinguishes simple events from complicated ones,andthose
in which the
change in the position of the characters is
brought about by some recognition or by some reversal of
fortune in the course of the 3
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
selves 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
passing
finally to
speak of the style of expression best adapted
to tragedy. 8 We cannot, however, here linger over
^) e| evrvxias els S the violation of which Nemesis
)8aAAe .

(see sup. vol. ii. p. 169, n. 9) has to

Of the so-called three Ari
1

do, we may interpret TO

stotelian unities of the French ^uAaj/fya;-
TTOV which, according to Aristotle
school, only the unity of action (c. 13, 1453, a, 3, c. 18, 1456, a,
is to be found, as is well
known, 21), attaches to the deserved mis
in Aristotle himself ; see Poet. c. fortune of the transgressor. It
8 cf. c. 9, 1451, b, 33
;
sqq. c. 18, is
commonly taken (as it was by
1456, b, 10 sqq. The unity of Lessing) to refer to the human
place he nowhere mentions, and interest with which we
on that of time he only remarks accom
pany even the transgressor in
(c. 5, 1449, b, 12) that tragedy such a case; but Aristotle
endeavours to compress the action ap
pears, c. 18, to find
into one day, or, at any rate, to ^especially
TO
precisely in the
(j>i\a.v6p(airov
i
keep as nearly as possible within punishment of
this limit, but he wrong as such:
|
gives no rule. one who wishes well to
2
C. 9 see sup. humanity
; ii. 305, n. 4. can wish no good to its enemies
*
C. 10, 11, 16, where <W- 5
C. 13, 14.
yvwpia-is and Tre/mre reta are dis
6
C. 17 sq.
cussed. On the genuineness and 7
C. 15, on the text
and ar
position of c. 16, cf. SUSEMIHL, rangement of which see SUSE
at p. 12 sq. of his ed.
4
MIHL, p. 10, 13 sq.
In this sense, viz. of the satis 8
Ae c. 19-22, with which
|<s

faction of that moral

feeling with cf. MULLER, ibid. 131 sqq.
324 ARISTOTLE

these technical details. With regard to the section

poetry, with which the Poetics,
1

dealing with narrative

as we have it, closes, we need only remark that Ari
stotle here also lays the main emphasis upon the unity

of the action, finding in it the mark which separates

epic poetry from history,

which is the narrative of con
events without reference to their inner
temporaneous
2
connection. 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
form of artistic composition. Of the remaining kinds
of poetry the extant portions of Aristotle s work do not
treat. Comedy alone is briefly touched upon in an
earlier passage and cursory as are his allusions 5 to
4
;

it,
we can yet see from them that Aristotle was not
inclined to concur in Plato s harsh estimate of its
6
value.
1
C. 23-26. docs he admit, it as a means of
2
C. 23. moral education (see Ph. d. Gr. i.
3
C. 26. 800, 802). Aristotle admits that it
4
See supra, vol. ii. p. 304 sq. has to do with human infirmity,
Supplementary to these (as
5 but he adds that in deals only
was shown by BEKNAYS) are with harmless infirmities, and in
some statements to be found in demanding of it at the same
the editions of VAHLEN and time thar, it should devote itself
SUSEMIHL, as was already re- not to the ridicule of particular
marked, vol. i. p. 102. Besides the persons but to depicting types
vol. i. p. 306, n. 3, of character, he opened the way
quotations, siq).
313, n. 1, the division of comedy to the recognition of it as
p.
into 7e\o>s
eK rfjs Ae|ews and 7fAw? means of purifying and elevating
CK r&v Trpa.yiJ.aTwv is
of especial natural sentiments. Whether.
interest in this connection. Cf. Aristotle actually adopted this
P.ERNAYS, Rhcin. Mus. N. F. view, and whether he assigned
viii.577 sqq. to comedy a higher position thai
6
Plato had conceived in a the music which, in Polit. viii.
as the 7, 1342, a, 18 sqq., he withholds
general way of comedy only
representation of deformity,
and from the common people, cannot
the pleasure produced hy it as be positively decided.
malignancy. Only in the La/vs
 325

CHAPTER XVI
RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF

IN the preceding section we had to deal with a

fragmentary account of a theory which Aristotle him

self developed more fully. In the section now before
us we have to deal with a subject which he has made no

attempt to treat scientifically, but has only touched upon

occasionally in detached passages. Aristotle has not

any more than Plato a philosophy of Religion in the

l
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
reflecting tradition are never without a certain truth, 2
he willingly makes use of the suggestions and links of
connection which it supplies. 3 His scientific researches

1
His view of the Divine gion especially in its relation to
Being, indeed, is set forth in the philosophy, is nowhere fully
MetapJiysiL s ;
but the question investigated.
with which the philosophy of 2
See supra, vol. i. p. 256, n. 2,
religion starts, as to the distin- and p. 291, n. 5.
3
guishing characteristics of reli- For proofs of this, see infra.
326 ARISTOTLE

do not exhibit that constant direct reference to the

personal life and circumstances of men which in an
especial degree gives to the Platonic philosophy its
l

religions tone ; even in morals the motives which he

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
2
never in the least doubts ;
but as this affords no
scientific explanation of them he never connects indi
vidual facts and events, as Plato so often does, with
divine a.gency. The conception of Providence, common
to Socrates and
Plato, as of a divine activity exercised
in individual cases, finds no place in Aristotle. 3 We
miss, therefore, in his system that warm glow of religious
feeling which in Plato has ever so strongly appealed
to susceptible minds, and in comparison with which
the Aristotelian philosophy seems to be cold and
lifeless.

It would be wrong to deny or under-estimate the

difference which exists in this respect between the
two philosophers. They certainly treat their subject
in a different spirit. The inner bond which in
Plato philosophy with religion is not indeed
unites

completely severed in Aristotle, but it is so widely

expanded as to give to science the freest scope in
its own field. No attempt is ever made to answer
scientific questions by means of religious presuppose
2
1
Cf. Ph. d, Gr.i. p. 793 sq. See vol. i.
p. 421 sq.
3
Cf. svpra, vol. i.
p. 399 sq.
 RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY 327

tions. 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 which each
actually takes up with regard to religion, yet in
their scientific views ofit they approach very near to

one another, the main difference in this respect being

that Aristotle is more strictly logical in drawing con
clusions whose premises are no strangers to Plato s
thought. Aristotle, as we have already seen, is con
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

spiritual nature, and of his faultless perfection and ;

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
the Idea of the Good, which can only be conceived of
as impersonal,on the other he depicted his creative and
governing activity in conformity with popular repre
sentations of it, and not without sundry mythical
embellishments. This ambiguity is removed by his
pupil, who defines the Divine Nature clearly and

sharply on on the one hand God, as a

both sides :

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
328 ARISTOTLE

outermost of the cosmic spheres. Individual events 1

do not therefore upon this view admit of being referred

directly to divine causation. Zeus does not rain in
order that the corn may grow or be destroyed, but

because, according to universal laws of nature, the

2
as water
rising vapours cool and
descend ; prophetic
dreams are not sent by the gods to reveal to us the
future, but, in so far as the question is
here of causality
at all and not merely of chance coincidence, they are
3
to be referred as natural effects to physical causes
Nor is the case in any degree altered by the fact that

between God above and earth beneath numerous other

4
eternal beings find a place ; since the operation of

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
The essential truth of the belief in Provi
question.
dence, however, Aristotle does not certainly on this
account resign. He also recognises in the order of the
universe the operation of Divine Power and of rational

design
5
he believes especially that the gods care for
;

men, that they interest themselves in those who live

6
according to reason, and that happiness
is their gift ;

1
See supra, vol. i. p. 388 sqq ;
av evXoyov xa l
P eiv T avrovs
cf. Ph.d. Gr.i. p. 785 sqq. 591 sqq. ap arw Kal r$
ffvyyeveffrarc? (TOUTO
-
See supra, vol. i. p. 361, n. 1. $ Uv en? 6 vovs) KOI TOVS ayairwvras
3
See supra, vol. ii. p. 75 sq. naXiara TOVTO Kal Tt^cDfras avrev-
DlV. 1, 462, b, 20. iroizlvws T&V fyiXwv avrols eV^eAou-
4
See 8Upra, vol. i. p. 494 sq. ^eVous /cat opOus re Kal /A<s
irpdrrovTas. i. 10, 1099, b, 11
5 el
See vol. i. p. 420 sq.
:

6
Etli. x. 9, 1179, a, 24: et yap fiev olv Kal aAAo ri eVrl 6e>v

ris 67rt,u.e Aeia T&V avOpcairivcav virb Scu/nj/xa avdpuirois, euAoyoi/ Kai
So/ce?, /cat etr/
ylverai, &c"irep cvf>ai/J.ovi(tv
 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
2
natural causes 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
tions. God stands according to Aristotle outside the

world, engaged in solitary self-contemplation ; he is for

man the object of admiration and reverence ;

3
the
knowledge of him is the mind s highest aim
4
in him ;

lies the goal towards which, with all finite things,

along
man strives, and whose perfection excites his love. 5
But as man can expect no reciprocal love from God,
6

yuaAicrra TUIV avOpcoirtvwv offcf /3eA- which is 0eoV5oTos consists

THTTOV. viii. 14, 1162, a, 4 effn :
merely in the moral and spiritual
5 rj /net/ Trpbs yovels (pi\ia re/cvoty, capacities of man in the natural
Kal avdpwTTOLs Trpbs 6eovs, ws Trpbs possession of reason in which he
Kal virepexov eu ?re- "yap
has still to secure himself by
actual study and practice.
1 8
Metaph. i. 2, 982, b, 32 (see Metaph. xii. 7 (see supra, vol.
SUp. vol. ii. 163, 3) : et 8$? \eyovffi i.p. 184, n. 1). SENECA, 0. N. vii.;
n ol TroiTjral Kal TrecpvKe (pdovfli/ TO egregie Aristoteles ait, nunquam
0e7oi>,
eTrl rovrov ffvjj.$aiviv /ndhiffra iws verccundiores esse deberc qiiam
fiK6s .... aAA ovre rb Qtlov (f)dove- cum de Dis agltur.
pbv eVSe^eTat e?i/at, &c. Cf. Ph. d.
4
The Divine Being is the
Gr. i. 602, 1, 787, 1. highest object of thought (see
2
Eth. i. 10: Aristotle con su_i)ra,vo[. i. p. 398 n. 2), and theo
tinues :
$cuVeTCU Se K&I/ et fify logy therefore (vol. i. p. 184,
6e6TrfjLTTT6s etrriv a\\a 5i apT?V n. 1), the highest branch of philo
Kai Twa /j.ddr](nv v) affK^aiv Trapa-yi-
sophy.
vfTai Ttav OfioTaTwv f-lvai 5
TO yap Cf. vol. i.
p. 404, sqq.
6
TIIS apexes 50Ao^ Kal TeAos apiffrov See supra, vol. i. p. 398, n. 1 ,

tivai tyaiveTai Kal Q?UV ri Kal which places the passage quoted,
ft.aKa.pLov. If we compare with p. 328, n. 6, supra, from Etli. viii.
this the passage quoted from 14 in the proper light; there is a
Etli. x. 10 on p. 156, n. 4, supra. love (fyiXia) of men towards the
we shall see that the happiness gods, but not vice versa.
330 ARISTOTLE

neither can he experience any influence from him

which would be different from that of natural causes,

and his reason is the only means whereby he enters into

1
direct communion with him.
Holding these views, Aristotle could not concede to
the popular religion the same significance which Plato
did. it must certainly have its own truth, fol
That
lowed him from his view of the historical evolution
for

of mankind and the value of common opinion. Uni

2
versal conviction is for him of itself a mark of truth,
all the more so when we are dealing with convictions

which have been transmitted by mankind from time

immemorial. Since the world, according to Aristotle,
is eternal, the earth must be so also and if the earth ;

is so, man must be so as well. 3

But all parts of the
4
globe undergo continual change,
and one of the con

sequences of this is that man s development does not

proceed in an unbroken line

but is ever and anon
into a state of primitive bar
interrupted by relapses
barism and 5
from which a fresh start must
ignorance,
6
be made in the cyclic process of creation. In this way
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. Nevertheless, a certain recol-

1
Of. on this point, supra, vol. TO S rvx&v-
Qt]ffav, 6/u.oiovs eTi/cu ical
and 403 sqq. ras ical rovs avo^rovs, ftcrirep Kal
i.
p. 329, n. 2, p.
2
See &upra, vol. i.
p. 291, n. 5. \4yerai Kara ruiv yf)yev<av, wffr
3
Of. supray vol. ii. p. 32, n. 1. aroirov rb peveiv eV rots rovruv
4
See supra, vol. ii. p. 29 sq. S6y/j.affiv.
5
Cf. Polit. ii. 8, 1269, a, 4 : Cf. Pkys. iv., 14, 223, 24 :

b^
eiit6s re rovs Trpderovs, etre 77776- (paal yap KviiXov tlvai ra avOpuiriva
vets riffav er e /c (pOopas rivos eVw- -rrpdyfj-ara.
 RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY 331

lection of particular truths has been retained amid the

changes in man s condition, and it is these remnants of
departed knowledge that, according to Aristotle, form
the kernel of mythical tradition. Even the popular 1

faith, therefore, has its roots in the search for

truth,
whether we traceback to that intuition of the divine it

which even Aristotle is unwilling to 2

contradict, and
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, must yet in the end have its roots in human

reason. More particularly there are two truths which
Aristotle, 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 p. d^oXoyov^v^s a7ro0cuW0cu o-u/x-

508, n. 2, supra. De Ccclo i. 3 ;
<t>wovs
Xtyovs. Cf. the appeal to
Meteor, i. 3, 339, 19 it is
b, :
-n-drpioi \6yoi, ibid. 284, a, 2. Me-
not we alone who have this view tapli. xii. 8, see supra, vol. i.
of the irpurov aroixeiov as the p. 508, n. 2.
substance of the celestial world, 3
See supra, vol. i.
p. 390, n. 3.
0afj>eTai 5
^ apxaia ns inroXt)^ is
4
The first hardly requires
avr-f] Kal ra>v
Trp6repov avOpooTrcav proof ; see. however, the quota-
^
ov yap an-a
. . . .
8^7 <j>r)ffo/j.v
ot>5e
tions, vol. i. p. 390. n. 3, 4, from
Sis ouS
o\tydKis ras avras So |as SEXTus and CICEEO, and p. 395,
avaKvicXw yivopevas ev -rols avOpu- n. 6, from the treatise De Ccelo, i.
TTOIS, aAA a-rreipaKis. Polit. vii. 9 ;
in the latter passage a trace of
I

i 10, 1329, b, 25 (TX^V fj.ev ovv :

true knowledge is discovered in
!
Kal ra a\\a 8e? the name alkv, just as elsewhere in
vopi&iv evprjaBai

\fo\\aKis^v rf TTO\\$ xpov<f, that of the aetlier ( K al yap rovro

;
fj.d\\ov S aireipaKis, as like needs rovvo/na Otlces e(p0ey K Tai irapa TU>V

and states must, always have led In support of his doc-

ap X aia,^.
!

to the same discoveries. trine of the divinity of the

2
De Ccclo, ii. 1 Jin. : Ari- heavens and of the stars, Aristotle
stotle s view of the eternity of appeals to the existing religion
the world is not only truer in in the passage just referred
f itself, a\\a Kal ri, ^avela
rfj irepl to.
,
T^>V debv jj.6vcas av x L P- ev ourcas
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 such representations, but

treats them simply as preposterous fables. If we ask 1

how those false elements have found their way into the

popular faith, Aristotle refers us 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 encircled by divinity. All

else, however, mythical embellishment, devised to is

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

TOU? Oeovs 5e Sia TOUTO Trdvres

Metapli. xii. 8 see p. 508, n.
1
;

ori Kal avrol oi

2,$vpra. Ibid. iii. 2, 997, b, 8 see ; <j>ao-l
j8a<nAetW0cu,

vol. i. p. 315, n. 2,c.4,1000, a, 18: ,uei/ Irt Kal vvv ol 5e rb dpx^ov

aAAa -n-fpl ACCI/ ruv pvOLKtas tro^t^o/J.- e&xtnXevovTO &<rirep
5e Kal ra eftJrj

evwv ovKaiov /xera tnrovSrjs ffKOTrGlv. eavrols d(f>o/j.oiov<nv oi avQpcairoi,

Poet. 25, 1400, b, 35 a poetic : ovrw Kal TOVS fiiovs ruv Oewv. This
representation is justified by its deduction of the belief in a
correspondence either with the sovereign of the gods is all the
ideal or with the actual el Se ;
more remarkable, because Ari-
^Serepajy, on ovru olov ra <patriv,
stotle might equally well have

Trepi 6euu. taws yap ovre fizXriov himself found in that tradition
OVTOO \eyew, ovr aATjfl?}, aAA a proof of the unity of God.
3
6Tt>%ej> &a"irfp z,evo<pdvr)s
aAA ov Cf Ph. d. Gr. i. 490. .

<t>a<ri
Tc5e.
4
In the passage quoted from
xii. 8, invol.i, 2.
1252, b, 24: Kal
2
Polit. i. 2, Metapli. p.508,n.
 RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY 333

which he did not explain) as paedagogic lies in the

interest of the 1
Aristotle goes a step farther,
State,
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
purpose. This, indeed, is what we should expect from
the strictness with which he himself excludes all that
is mythical from his scientific investigations, his refusal
to introduce religious considerations into his naturalistic
view of the world, 3 and the exclusiveness with which he
relies in his Ethics upon moral motives to the neglect
of the Eeligion itself, indeed, he always
religious.
treats as 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
forpunishment, 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 man apart from religion.
But to rest this religion upon such palpable fables as
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
See Ph. d. Gr. i. 792. 4, and supra, vol. ii. p. 329, n. 3.
2 5
Ibid. i. 1010 sq. It ispossible, indeed, that
3
The expression is used in no if he had completed the discus-
depreciatory sense, but as indi- sion of education in the best
eating the view that everything state, he would have accepted
in the world is the effect of Plato s doctrine, that myths were
natural causes. indispensable in education, as
4
Top. i. 11, 105, a, 5, cf. Eth. easily reconcileable with the
viii. 10, 1163, b, 15, ix. 1, 1164, b, argument.
334 ARISTOTLE
universal truth embodied in them, just as he likes to 1

trace back scientific assumptions to their most in

significant beginnings, and to pay respect to popular
2
sayings and proverbs. But apart from the few uni
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. He presupposes for his State the existing

3
religion, just as personally he did not renounce its

1
Thus Metaph. i. 3, 983, b, threw away the flute expresses
27, c. 4 init. xiv. 4, 1091, b, 3. the truth that this instrument is
Phys. iv. 1, 208, b, 29, hints of unnecessary for mental culture
certain scientific views of the (Polit. viii. 6, 1341, b, 2); the
world are discovered in the cos- worship of the Graces points to
mogonic myths of Hesiod and the necessity of reciprocity
other poets Meteor, i. 9, 347, a,
; (Eth. v. 8, 1133, a, 2); the
5 the Oceanus is interpreted of number three derives its signifi
the air-current that encircles the cance in the popular religion from
earth the myth of Atlas proves
;
the fact that it is the first num her
that its inventors, with later which has beginning;, middle, and
philosophers, attributed weight end (De Ccelo, i. 1, 268, a, 14).
2
to the heavens (De Cwlo, ii. 1, Thus, //. An. vi. 35, 580, a,

284, a, 18, in the treatise DC 15, ix. 32, 619, a, 18 he quotes

Motu Anim. 3, 699, a, 27, Atlas several myths about animals in ;

is interpreted to mean the world s the fragment from the Eudemus

axis the same treatise, c. 4, 699,
; (PLUT. Cons, ad Apoll. c. 27 fr.
b, 35, finds in Homer s lines upon 40) he makes use of the story of
the golden chain a reference to Midas and Silenus on his pre ;

the immobility of the primum dilection for proverbs, cf. supra,

movens) Aphrodite is said to
;
vol.i.
p. 256, n. 2.
3
have obtained this name because As is obvious from Polit.
of the frothy character of the vii. 8, 1328, b, 11, c.
1329, a, 9,
semen (Gen. An. ii. 2 Jin. }; Ares 29, c. 12, 1331, a, 24,1335, c. 16,
was united with this goddess by b, 14. But that he went
so far
the first inventors of this myth in his zeal for religion as to as
because warlike natures, as a sign the fourth part of the land
rule, exhibit amorous propensities collectively to the priesthood for
(Pol. ii. 9, 1269, b, 27) ;
in the the support of religion cannot be
fablewhich tells how the Argo concluded (as has been suggested
nauts had to leave Heracles in Ferienschr. N. F. i. 303) from
behind there lies a true political Polit. vii! 10, 1330, a, 8. Ari
observation (Polit. iii. 13, 1284, stotle says indeed here that the
a, 22) the story that Athene
;
land should be divided into pub-
 RELIGIOUS ASPECT OF HIS PHILOSOPHY 335

rites, and expressed

his dependence on friends and

through the forms which it had consecrated

l
relatives ;

but of the Platonic demand for the reform of religion

by philosophy we have not a trace in him, and in his
Politicshe admits into the existing cultus things which he
2
disapproves of in themselves. Aristotle s philosophy
stands thus as a whole in the loosest relation to positive

religion. It takes advantage of its ideas as links of literary

connection, but makes no further use of them. Just as

however, does it desire to see religion purified or

little,

reformed; on the contrary, it seems to accept its im

perfections as something which could not possibly be
otherwise. Each stands to the other in an attitude of
essential indifference philosophy goes its own way,
;

without much troubling itself about religion, or fearing

from it
any interruption in the prosecution of its own
work.

lie and private, and the latter ?) \6yovs

again into two parts for the sup- olv e<rra> rols apxovin wQev H^TG
port of religion and the syssitia &ya\/j.a /x^re ypacprjv eTvot TOIOVTOW
respectively, but he does not say n-paleo;?/ /LU/U.TJ<TJI ,
ei ^ irapa. run
that these parts should be of the 0eo?s TOIOVTOIS ols Kai rbv T(aQa<r^bv

same size. a.TroSi8ca<nv6 vS/j-os irpbs Se rovrots

1
Cf. reference the
in this a(pin<nv vo^os rovs ex oi/ras
6 i
^ "

quotations on the subject of his KIO.V irXtov irpo-riKovvav Kai vwep

votive offerings and gifts to avrSiv KO,\ TCKVUV Kai ywatKoev
the dead, in chap. i. ad Jin. Ti^aXfys iv TOVS Qeovs. The latter
2
Polit. vii. 17, 1336, b, 3 : admission clearly shows how
o\vs juevolv al<rxpo\oyiav e/c T?)S Aristotle endeavoured to make
ecws, faffirtp dAAo n, 5eT rbv things which he disapproved of
vo/j.o6<ETr)v eopieiv . . . eVel 5e rb and only unwillingly permitted,
iv TI rS)v roiovTwj/ eopio/*v, at least as harmless as possible.
(pavepbv 6n Kai rb dfcapelv 7) 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 :

or speculative, and the empirical or realistic. On the

one hand the system finds the true essence of things to 1

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 the ultimate reality.

is It therefore represents

experience as the only source of concepts, which are

obtained, not by turning away from the actual to an

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

a comprehensive observation of the facts. Both traits
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 men

are found to be mutually exclusive of one another : 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
combined in very different proportions in
philosophy.
In the school of Socrates and Plato the art of
developing
the concept had far
outstript the power of appreciatino-
the fact. They had directed attention to what is
inward in man to the neglect of the outward world,
and had regarded thought itself as the immediate source
of our truth. Thought, that is to say, conceptions, stood
for 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. He can
not conceive of the form and the essence as
existing
separately from the things whose form and essence
they are. Keflecting further that our own conceptions
are not independent of
experience in their origin, he is
the more convinced of the error of the Platonic separa
tion between the Ideas and the phenomena. In
place,
(then, of the doctrine of Ideas he presents us with an essen

tially new view. 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
apart
VOL. n. z
338 ARISTOTLE

the thing, but in it as the special form of this or that

particular. While the general principle upon which the

Platonic Idealism is founded thus retained, the special
is

development of it into the doctrine of Ideas is rejected.

The Idea, which Plato had conceived of as transcenden
tal and supersensible, has a new place assigned to it as th(
formative and efficient principle in the phenomenal
world. As
the inner essence of things, it is sought for ii
the facts themselves, as these present themselves to us
in experience. The Aristotelian doctrine may thus
described as alike the completion and the confutation
the Platonic. It confutes it in the form which Plat
had given to it : same time it develops his
yet at the
fundamental thought still more fully and logically th;
Plato himself had done, in that it attributes to form not

only, with him, complete

and primary reality, but also
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 whol<

field of phenomena.
From 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

the individual alone has substantial reality. And sine

the form is conceived of, not as absolute essem
abstracted from phenomena, but as the efficient caus
which works in them, it cannot stand as it does in Plat<

in a relation of mere opposition to that which is tl

substratum of phenomena namely, matter. If form

the absolutely real, matter cannot be the absolutely
 RETROSPECT 339

real 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. So matter is merely unrealised

form, it is the potentiality of which form is the actuality. 1

From mutual relationship arises motion, and with it

this
all life, all growth and decay, all change and
natural
transmutation. But since the two principles of form and
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 itself be unmoved, and precede all that is moved

if not in order of time, at least in the logical order of

reality. From the sum of the forms which are em

bodied in matter we mustdistinguish the
therefore

primum movens, or God, as pure form or pure reason

whose only object is itself. Since all motions pro
ceed from 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 ;

and since all motion leads us back to a 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
form operates in matter which only gradually develops
into that 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. Thus the
Ct p. 340 sqq., vol. i.
1

z 2
340 ARISTOTLE

world 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

exhibits a gradual diminution, the latter, contrariwise,
a gradual increase in perfection. But while all parts of
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
demands of the system than with the personal inclina
tions of its author to investigate great things and small
alike with scientific thoroughness, and to treat nothing
with contempt as if it were insignificant and worthless for
science. This does not, of course, exclude such degrees
1

of importance among things themselves as Aristotle has

sought to point out in the sphere, example, of animate

for

nature. So among mundane beings the first place is

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 conditions of happiness. But as no
work is possible without appropriate material, it is

impossible for man to dispense with external aids for

the realisation of his end ;

and as all things develop
into that which they are capable of becoming only
by a gradual process, so in the spiritual life of man
there exhibited a gradual process of development.
is

Thus from sense perception spring imagination and

1
See on this head, vol. i. p. 167, n. 3, p. 169, n. 3, and also
PLATO S statements noted, Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 665.
 RETROSPECT 341

memory, from these 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 The
purity of its being.
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
stotelian system a
well-planned doctrinal structure, the
outlines of which are drawn with a 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
joints of the fabric are not equally secure and the
;

ultimate source of this defect must be

sought for in
the fact that the foundations of the whole have not been
laid sufficiently
deep. Putting aside all those points
in which the want of experimental
knowledge has led
Aristotle to draw false conclusions and
put forward un
tenable explanations, and ourselves
limiting merely to
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

chief points of view in his system in a

manner free from
self-contradiction. Just as in his scientific procedure

dialectic and observation, the speculative and the em

elements, are not equally balanced, but the
pirical
a priori method common to Socrates and Plato con
1

itself over the more strictly empirical,

tinually re-asserts
so also in his metaphysical speculations
we detect
There is nothing in the
a similar phenomenon.
Platonic which is so distasteful to him as
system
that 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
matter. 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
come it, he has not, after all, succeeded in doing so.

He denies Plato s doctrine that universal class notions

but he asserts with him
possess substantial reality;
that all our conceptions are of the universal, and depend

for their truth upon the reality of

their object.
2
He
the transcendental character of the Platonic
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;

ment of these two principles involves him in

the

contradiction of maintaining that the

3 essence and sub
the same time
stance of things is in the form, which at

175 sq
2
Of. vol. i.
p. 334 sqq.
See sup. vol. i. p. p. 258, sqq.
3
On which cf. vol. i.
p. 372 sqq.
 RETROSPECT 343

is a universal, and yet that the source of individuality

and therefore 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 all actual motion equally unexplained. He

places God as a personal being outside the world ;
but
lest 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 the obscurity which surrounds
his conception of Nature. 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

may be predicated. Far as Aristotle has advanced
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 prin-

2
1
Cf. with the above remarks As will be obvious from p.
vol. i.
p. 420 sq. 358 sqq. p. 464 sqq. and p. 17, */(/;.
344 ARISTOTLE

ciples which he had positedat the outset of his

philo
sophy of nature might in the sequel become mutually
contradictory and exclusive of one another. further A
difficulty arises in connection with the Aristotelian
account of animate nature, and
especially of man,
inasmuch as it is hard to discover
any inner principle
of union between the various elements of the and soul,
harder still to explain the
phenomena of its life, if, like

every other moving force, the soul is held to be itself

unmoved. The difficulty, however, becomes greatest
when we ask how we are to comprehend in the unity
of personal life the reason 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 passive and incorporeal as at the

is

same time part of a soul which by its

very definition is
the entelechy of the body, and to assign to personality
itsplace 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
ordinary and philosophic Virtue. To him, all moral
qualities are a matter of the Will, and have their primary
source not in instruction but in habit and education.
Nevertheless in the account of the intellectual virtues
there reveals itself an unmistakable vacillation as to
1
P. 119 sqq.
 RETROSPECT 345

the relation in which moral knowledge stands to moral

action, while in the preference for theoretic over
l

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
very views that Aristotle controverted. So, too, even
in his political philosophy, however deep
its
insight
in other respects into the actual conditions of social
life, and however great its superiority to Plato s politi

cal idealism, we yet find remnants of the old idealism

if not so much
in the picture of the best State,
yet
in that distinction between true and false forms of

government the untenableness of which becomes

manifest by the ambiguous position which the doctrine
2
itself assigns to polity. There thus runs through
every part of the Aristotelian system that dualism
which had inherited from Plato, and which, with the
it

best intentions, it never succeeded, after it had once

accepted it as one of its fundamental principles, in

wholly overcoming. The more earnestly, on the other
hand, Aristotle strives to transcend this dualism, and
the more unmistakable the contradictions in which he
involves himself by his efforts, the clearer it becomes
how heterogeneous are the elements which are united
in his philosophy, and 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 the Platonic doctrine.
1
Cf. p. 142 sq., supra, and the toGod which Aristotle expressly
proposition (p. 396, vol. i.) that applies to Ethics.
2
only theoretic activity belongs See p. 243, supra.
346 ARISTOTLE

Whether Aristotle provided the means of satisfac

torily solving this problem, and what attempts in this
direction were made by the later schools, it will be the
task of this work to investigate as it proceeds. Those
early followers who continued to build on Aristotelian
foundations and who belonged to the Peripatetic school,
could not be expected to find a more satisfactory answer
to the 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, andit was there

fore natural that they should devise means of escaping

them. But since these difficulties ultimately arose from
the fact that idealism and observation, a spiritual and a
naturalistic view, had been united without being com
pletely reconciled, and since such a reconciliation
was im
possible on the given premises, there was noway of solving
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 347

be expected
side of the Aristotelian system which might
chiefly to attract
those who gave their allegiance to the
laterphilosophy, and so to have an undue prominence
assigned to it in subsequent deductions from Aristotelian

ideas. The further development of the Peripatetic

school corresponds to this expectation. Its most im
the immediately succeeding period was
portant result in
to bring the purely naturalistic view of the world
more
and more into prominence, to the neglect of the spiritual

side of things.
 348 ARISTOTLE

CHAPTER XVIII
THE PERIPATETIC SCHOOL I THEOPHRASTUS

AMONG the numerous pupils of the Stagirite, Theo

phrastus occupies the first place.
1
Born at Eresos in
2
Lesbos, he came early (perhaps even before the death
of Plato) into connection with Aristotle, 3 from whom in

1
DlOG. v. 35 : rov 81] Theophrastus, like Aristotle him
pirov ytyovaai fj.zv iro\\ol yvupiftoi, self, remained a member of the
Academy until the death of
SlMPL. Phys. 225, a. and Plato, and after that event con
TWV ApicrroTeAous eT tinued with Aristotle. From
w id. Cater/. Schol. in several indications, moreover, we
Ar. 92, b, 22 rbv apiarov ruv
:
gather that Theophrastus was
avrov fj.adr)Tuv rbv Qe6(pp. That with Aristotle in Macedonia; for
he was actually so is evident unreliable as is AELIAN S state
from all that we know of Theo- ment ( V. H. iv. 19) that he was
phrastus and his position in the highly esteemed by
Philip, it
Peripatetic School. makes it all the more certain
2
He is constantly called that he was a friend of Callis-
Epcffios. According to PLUT. Adv. thenes, whom he could only have
Col. 33, 3, p. 1126; N.p. suav. vlvi come to know at that time, and
sec. Epic. 15, 6, p. 1097, he had that he lamented his tragic end
delivered his native city twice in a work entitled KaAAio-fleVrjs ^
from Tyrants. No particulars, -jrepl -jrtvQovs
(Cic. T-usc. iii. 10,
however, are given, and we are 21, v. 9, 25; DIOG. v. 44 ; ALEX.
not in a position to test the his JDe An. 162, bjin.). The posses
torical character of the state sion of a property at Stagira
ment. (DlOG. v. 52) and the repeated
3
According to DIOG. v. 36 he mention of this town, and of the
first attended at Eresos the in museum in it, also go to prove
structions of a citizen called that he was there at the same
Alcippus, elr aKOVffas FIAaTcoi/os time as Aristotle. The expres
[this is chronologically possible] sion which the latter is said to
lUereo TT? irpbs ApHTTOTeXyv by have used with regard to him and
which it can only be meant that Callisthenes (DlOG. 39) is all the
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTVS
point of age he was not far removed.
Before his death
Aristotle committed to his charge not only his
private
2
affairs 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
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^pa-
from Aristotle on account of
<TTOS
his graceful style (STEABO, xiii.
2, 4, p. 618 ClC. Orat. 19, 62 ;
QUINTIL. Inst. x. 1, 83 PLIN.
H. Nat. praef. 29; DIOG.
SUID. 0eo 4>p. ; AMMON. De Interpr.
17, b, and OLYMPIOD.
: V.
1) is justly called in question
BRANDIS, iii. 251, and MEYEE
(Gesch. der jBotanik, i. 147).
The year of Theophrastus s
1
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;
NAUWERCK, De Strat. 7), and
that he was himself the head of
the school for thirty-five (BEAN-
DIS ibid.) or thirty-six (RiTTEE
iii. 408) years is mere conjecture.
OG. 40 gives his age as eighty-
five,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 HIERONY-
MDS (Ep. 34 Ad Nepotian. iv. b,
258 Mart., where our text has
Themistoclem instead of Theo-
irastum ), that he was 107, for
log. probably here follows
349
1
Apollodorus these statements,
;
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
phrastus s birth falls between
; 373 and 368 B.C. he was there
;
;
fore from eleven to sixteen years
38; younger than Aristotle.
He begs Theophrastus, along
2
Plat. p. with some others, until Nicanor
by can interest himself in the matter,
Kal eV5e x?7Tcu aura!, r&v re iratSzW
Kal EpTruAAiSos ital TUV KoraAe-
and in case Nicanor,
AeiyU^eWj/,
for whose wife he had destined
his daughter Pythias, should die
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
Tpv\l/7)s, to accuse him of erotic
relations with him (DiOG. 39).
In his Will (ibid. 51 sq.) Theo
phrastus leaves directions for
the execution of pictures of Ari
stotle and Nicomachus.
3
See p 37, and p. 39, n. 1.
350 ARISTOTLE

more flourishing, and when, after holding the presi

1

2
dency for more than thirty-four years, he died, honoured
in spite of many hostile attacks
3
both at home and

abroad, he
4 endowment the garden and the
left it as an
5
hall in which henceforth it had its settled abode. Nor

DlOG. 37
1 a.TT f)VTcav re:
ls this), and in the matter of the
law of Sophocles (cf. also ATHEN.
1-V Siarpi^V avrov /xaflrjTal Trpbs
this is meant xiii. 610, e: KEISCHE, Forscli.
5iff Xi \iovs. If by
that he had this number during 338), which made the consent of
his whole life we must suppose the Senate and people necessary
that the inner circle of his stu for the opening of a philosophical
in
dents is referred to; if he had school. When, consequence
them all at one time it can only of this law (prob. ann. 306-5),
all the philosophers, and among
have been at single lectures, per
on rhetoric or some other them Theophrastus, left Athens
haps
Zeno s expres it is said to have been chiefly
popular subject.
sion (PLUT. Prof, in Virt. c. 6 regard for him which caused its
fin. p. 78;
De se ipso laud. c. repeal and the punishment of its
6 tKeivov xopbs pel&v, author; DlOG. 37 sq., cf. ZUMPT,
*17, p. 545)
6 e jubs 8e (Tvp.Quj tTepos refers to Ueber den He-stand der pltilos.
the number of his students. Sclmlen in AtJien, AM. der Berl.
See p. 349, n. 1, supra.
2 Aliad. liist.-pUL Kl. 1842, 41 sq.
3
See following note. Of the DlOG. 39 Ae^ercu 8 avrbv
r>

besides Epicurus KTJTIW (rxeT

Epicureans
himself (PLUT. adv. Col. 7, 2,
TOV rouro
p. 1110)
the hetaera Leontium 4*aA7jpecos . . .
<rvfj.Trf

s will,
aiso wrote against him CiC. N. i\
; IOJ/TOS. Theophrastus
52 :
rbv
rbv 8e KTITTOV Kal
I), i. 33, 93.
irarov Kal ras oiKias ras
4
Of foreign princes Cassan-
KTJTTOJ Tracras Si Sco^u r&v
der and Ptolemy, according to _

DIOG. 37, gave him proofs of fyiXwv del roTs jSouAo^ueVoiS

A^Ceii Kal ffv/j.(f)i\offo(f)G iv eV aura;
their esteem to the former of
;

(e7reiS?57rep ou SuvaTbj/
Tracrjf dv6/
whom was dedicated a treatise
the genuineness of TTOtS del CTTtSTJ^
TT. j8a<nAeuxs,

which, however, was doubted by rpiovffi JU.TJT e|i

some (DlOG. 47 DIONYS. Antl- ;

dAA ebs &v tepbv Koij/p
eo TCoa ai Se 01 k.uiyvawui -ic*
mdtt. v. 73 ATHEN. iv. 144, e).
. .
;

The esteem in which he was "iTnrapxos probable that

&c. It is
the sanctuary of the Muses, de
held at Athens was shown at his
scribed 51 sq., with its two
burial (DlOG. 41), as also pre
matter of the chambers, in one of which were
viously in the
accusation of impiety brought hung the Trivatcts eV als al rrjs 77}*
which elffiv, belonged to
the
against him by Agnonides,
TrepioSoi

failed completely (perhaps

AE- buildings here mentioned. Froi
to the words, 39,
LIAN, F. H. viii. 12, relates
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 351

were his services to the Peripatetic doctrine less con

spicuous. In creative power of intellect he is not
indeed to be compared with Aristotle. But he was in
an especial degree fitted for the work of
strengthening,
extending and completing the system which the latter
had left behind him. The interest in science by which
he was governed even to excess, and which led him to
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 ;

3

the penetration, conspicuous even in what has come

ffTore\ovs reAeurV ZUMPT infers, According to ATHEN. v. 186, a

ibid. 31 sq., that Aristotle
previously possessed this garden,
and that as it was to be sold
after his death Demetrius man
aged that it should be trans
had (i. 402, Dind.), Theophrastus
left behind him also means to
provide common meals for mem
bers of the school.
That Theophrastus was still
1

ferred to Theophrastus. BRAN- unmarried at the time of Ari

Dis (iii. 253) considers this infer stotle s death is obvious from the
ence a rash one, but also sup will of the latter (see p. 349, n.
poses that Aristotle taught in a 2, sujfra) that he remained so is
;

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
obvious from his own and from
the total absence of any state
;
ment to the contrary, The reason
why he disdained the married
statehe himself gives us in the
fragment in HIEEON. Adv Jovin. .

the fact that Aristotle s will i. 47, iv. b, 189, Mart., hereafter to
makes no mention of any such be discussed, where he dissuades
property. Even the words upon the philosopher from it, chiefly
which ZUMPT relies, if they have on the ground that it brings
any special force, may with with it disturbances incompatible
equal reason be held to imply with the scientific life.
that the Peripatetic school did 2
Cic. Tusc. iii. 28, 69; DIOG.
not become the owner of property v. 41 HIERON. 24 Ad
; JBjrist.
till after Aristotle s death. It is 258 Mart.
iv. b,
Nepotian.
most probable, therefore, that 3
DlOG. 40: ereAeuro 8)/ y-rj-
Aristotle did not give his in paibs . . .
b\(yov d^7j/ce
TTi5r]irep
structions in a garden of his own. TUV irovuv.
 352 ARISTOTLE

down to us
writings that grace of lan
of his ;

guage and delivery, the fame of which survived him, 1

as well as the independence of his outward circum

2
stances and the possession of all the requisite means
3
for the prosecution of his learned labours all these

must have contributed in a high degree to promote his

success as a scientific investigator and teacher. The
numerous writings which he left behind him as a monu
ment to his diligence extend to every part of the field
4
of knowledge that was then open. To us only a small

1
Of. besides the passages
3
Mention is made of his
quoted supra, p. 348, n. 3 Jin. :
library, which Aristotle s
of
Clc.Brut.3l, 121 :
quit . . . Theo- constituted the ground floor, in
plirasto dulcior ? Tusc. v. 9, 24 : STRABO, xiii. 1, 54, p. (508, and
hie autem elegantisximus omnium in his will (DiOG. 52 ;
ATHEN. i.

pliUosoplioru tn et eruditissimus. 3, a, where TOVTOW shows that

In his case, as in Aristotle s, this Theophrastus s name has fallen
merit belongs chiefly to his out after that of Aristotle). O.
popular writings, and especially KIRCHNER, Die Botan. Sehr. d.
to the dialogues, which, like Ari Theophr. (Jalirb. f. Pkilol. Su/p-
stotle s, are described as exoteric plementbd. vii. 1874, p. 4(52 sqq.),
(see p. Ill, n. 2, 3, vol. i.). makes it appear probable from
PROKL. In Farm. 54 i.
fin. p. Theophrastus s botanical works
Cous. complains that the intro that besides many parts of Greece
ductions in them do not hang to and Macedonia he had visited
gether with the main content. Ac Crete,Lower Egypt, perhaps also
cording to HERMIPPUS (ATHEN. Southern Thrace, and the coast
i. 21, a) his personal adornment of Asia Minor, and thus added
was excessive and his delivery the knowledge of foreign coun
too theatrical. Frequent men tries to his other means of re
tion is made of his witticisms, search.
Hermippus and Andronicus
4
e.g. PLUT. Qu.
Conv. ii. 1, 9, 1, v.
5, 2, 7 (vii. 10, 2, 15) ; Lycwrg. had made lists of his works (see
c. 10 (Cupid. Div. c. 8, p. 527; p. 49, n. 4, vol. i. ;
PLUT. Sulla,
PORPH. De Abstin. iv. 4, p. 304). 26; cf. PORPHYR. Vit. Plotini,
2 We may infer Theophras- 24) DIOG. v. 42-50 has presented
;

tus s from his will to us one (upon which cf. the

opulence
(DiOG. v. 51 sqq.). which speci minute investigations of USE-
fiesconsiderable property in land, NER, Analecta TJieophrastea,
slaves, and money, although the Leipsic, 1858, 1-24; and on the
total amount of the last ( 59 treatises oil logic which it con
PRANTL, (resell, der Log.
sq.) is not stated. tains, i.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 353

portion of these multitudinous works remains the :

two on botany, 1
a few shorter treatises on natural

350). This list not only omits trius Poliorcetes =

(01. 118, 2
some known writings (USENER, 306 the archon-
B.C.), vi. 3, 3, to
21 sq.) but follows a strange ship of Simonides (01 117 2)
order. After two alphabetical iv. 8, 2, to the expedition of
lists, of which the second is Ophelias (01 118, 1), ix. 4, 8, to
clearly supplementary to the King Antigonus. Hist. PI v. 8,
first, but both of which probably 1, also refers to the period sub-
give only those of the writings sequent to the conquest of Cy-
of Theophrastus which were to
prus by Demetrius Poliorcetes
be found in the Alexandrine or (DiODOfius, xx. 47 sqq. 73 sqq.)
some other great library, follow and was therefore written after
two more supplements; the first 01. 2.
118, (Cf. BRANDIS, iii.
of these is not arranged accord- 322 sq.) SIMPLICITY S state-
ing to any definite principle, the ment, Phys. a, that Ari-
I,
second, if we exclude some in- stotle tieated of plants partly
is
sertions, again alphabetical, historically and partly setioloi-
It is not improbable that this cally can hardly refer to these
list, Usener
as thinks, is Her- two works, and is the less impor-
mippus s, come to us (cf. KOBE, tant since SIMPL. (as
already re-
Arisl. Libr. Auct. 43 sq.) through marked, vol. had no
i.
p. 93, n. 2),
Favorinus, from whom DIOG. personal acquaintance with Ari-
immediatcly before (v. 41) quotes stotle s treatise upon plants. In
Hermippus, and whose name is the two works ot Theophrastus,
also introduced before the list of besides many corruptions in the
ARIST. S writings (v. 21) and text, there are a number of
before PLATO S will (iii. lacunae. In the IT. aln&v the
40).
How far the writings here enu- last sections
(perhaps two books,
<pvr>v

merated are genuine we have since DIOG. 46 speaks of the

scarcely any means of judging treatise as consisting of
;
eipht)
USENER, makes it probable
p. 17, are unmistakably lost (cf
that a few of them (the History SCHNEIDER, Tlieoplir. Opp. v.
of Geometry, Astronomy, and 232 sqq.). The ascription
.
by
Arithmetic, perhaps also the
^ DIOG. 46 of ten books to the
History of Theological Opinions, Icrropia is perhaps to be explained
v. 48, 50) to Eudemus.
1 belonged^ by the supposition that one of
n. Qvrav tarroplas nine books; those which we have (SCHNEI-
0wrw//amj/six books. Ithasal- DER, ibid, thinks the fourth,
ready been shown (supra, vol. i.
p. which certainly has a break, c.
93, n. 2), that theseworks are by 12 Jin.) was divided in some
Iheophrastus and hot by Ari- manuscripts; contrariwise the
stotle; in determining the date of fact that Hist. viii. 4, 5 and ix.
their composition we have further
18, 2 are quoted by APOLLON.
to take into consideration the Mirab. 33, 41, as "respectively
allusions, Hist. PL v. 2, 4, to the from and 77 irepl QVTUV points
destruction of Megara by Deme- to the loss of one of the earlier
VOL.11. AA
354 ARISTOTLE
2
fragments of a work on metaphysics and of
1
science,
3
the important history of physics (which seems to have
been the treasure-house from which later tradition chiefly
2
books or combination with
its Metaphysical aporite, with
another. On
the other hand, regard to which we do not know
the view that the ninth book of whether they belonged to a more
the botanical treatise did not comprehensive work or merely to
originally belong to it ( WIMMER,
an introductory treatise. Ac
Theoplir. Hist. Plant. 1842, p. cording to the scholium at the
ix.) is with good reason rejected end, the work of which they
by KIRCH NEK, De Theoplir. were a part was not included
Libr. Pltytol. 34 sqq. it is known : either by Hermippus or by An-
as part of the treatise not dronicus in their lists but quoted
only to DiOG. (ibid.) but to by Nicolaus (of Damascus). On
APOLLON., who in c. 29 quotes the manifold corruptions of its
ix. 13, 3; 20, 4, c. 31, ix. 17, 4, text, see besides the edd. of
c. 41, ix. 18, 2, c. 48, ix. 11, 11, BEANDIS (Arist. et TlieopJir.
c. 50, ix. 17, 3 (here expressly as MctapU. 308 sqq.) and WIMMER
the eVxarrj TTJS Trpay/J-areias) ;
it (Frag in. No 12), USENER in the
is unmistakably referred to in Rliein. M-u-s. xvi 259 sqq.
the sixth book De Cans. Plant.,
3
This work is called some
even quoted ii. 6, 4 (cf Hist. ix. . times (pVCTlKr) tlTTOpia (ALEX.
18, 10), its contents are forecast apud SIMPL. Phys. 25, a, o.),
i. 12, 1, and in 1, 4 2, 2 8, 8 ; ; ;
sometimes fyvaiKa. (DiOG. ix. 22 ;

19, 1, it refers back itself to the SIMPL. De Ccelo, Schol. in Ar.

earlier books. Similarly MEYER 510, a, 42; STOB. KM. i. 522),
(Gesch. d. Botanik, i. 176 sq.) elsewhere fyvaiKal 8J|cu (DiOG. v.
and BRANDIS, sq., are iii. 32 48), irepl (pvGiK&v (ibid. 46), IT. rS>v

the
right in again setting aside tyvffiK&v (ALEX. Metapli. 24, 4;
view that the sixth book De Bon. 536, a, 8 bk.), TT. TO>J>
fy

Causis PI. could be a separate 5o|i/ (TAUEUS apud PHILOP.

work or wholly spurious. Even Adv. Prod. vi. 8,
27). v, DIOG.
the remarks upon the number 46, assigns to it eighteen hooks, v,
seven, c. 4, 1, 2, which Brandis 48, 16. USENER, Anal. Tlieophr.
finds strange, contain nothing 30 sqq., has collated the frag
surprising; Aristotle had already
ments of it but the treatise
;

counted seven primary colours irepl cuo-0770-ecos Kal al<TQt}T(av (WlM

and seven tastes corresponding to MEE, fr. which Philippson
1),
the seven notes (see supra, vol. i. deals with, uArj avdpcaTrivr) (1831),
p. 518, n. 3), and a statement 81 sqq. (cf. USENER, ibid. 27)
similar to that which is here made seems also to have belonged
about the number seven, is to he it. On the other hand, the su
r

found in TH.EOPW&.DeVe?itis(F\\ position that the extract a

5),49, about the number three. PHILO. JEtern. m. c. 23-27, p. 51
1
See SCHNETDEE, Opp. i 647 sqq. Mang., is taken from
sqq. WIMMEE, vol. ii. of his (UsENER,p. 38; BERN AYS, TJi
edition (1862). phrast. ub. Frommigk. 46)
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 355

drew accounts of the earlier physicists

its l
) besides a
number of other fragments. 2The Characters are only
an incomplete extract, with several
foreign additions,
probably from Theophrastus s treatise upon Ethics. 3
The chief feature of the scientific labours of Theo-
phrastus, 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 ;

phrast. Schrift iiber Frommig-
matic and polemical discussion keit) cleverly recovered from
with Zeno the Stoic (as ZELLER PORPHYRY S De Abstinentia.
has shown this to be in HERMES, The treatise on indivisible lines
xi. 422 sqq.) can have formed no was also attributed to him,
part of an historical work, nor perhaps rightly. By some even
does it at all resemble the treat ARIST. S Politics (see vol. ii. supra ,

ise TT. ala-O^a-fws, either in tone or was referred to Theo

treatment. In the first book of
the la-Topia THEOPHR. (as
<$>V<TIK}I
is shown in the Abhandl. d.
Berl. Altad. 1877, p. 150 sqq.)
had given a review of the prin
ciples of earlier philosophers, in
which he connected his work
with the first book of ARIST. S
Metaphysics.
1
Fuller proof of this fact,
which he was the first to per
p. 204, n. 2)
phrastus. More recent writers
have attributed to him the trea
tises upon colour (SCHNEIDER, iv.
8fi4, who, however, considers
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. i. 476
sqq.).
On this and on the ethical 3

ceive, willbe found in H. DIELS writings of

Theophrastus see in
recent work, Doxograplti Gr^ci, fra.
as also ibid. p. 473 sq. the 4
As among others, KIRCH-
fragments of the tyvcriKal So cu. NER, Jalirb. f. Philol. Supple-
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 (TllCO-

A A 2
356 ARISTOTLE
rules to particular
observations, to apply the Aristotelian
cases, especially to those
which had been overlooked by
con
Aristotle, to correct the vagueness of particular
and to set them in a clear light. His sta-rting- 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
upon the basis of a comprehensive induction, Theo-
convinced that we must begin with
phrastus also
is

observation in order to attain to true conceptions.

Theories must coincide with the data of experience, and
they will do so if
we start with the consideration of the
the material which
perception furnishes
2
individual;
to its own ends
thought may either straightway apply
to
or by solving the difficulties which experience brings
3
utilise for future discoveries. Natural science,
light may
Cf. BOETH. De Interpr. p. <pai>ep6i>.
f] yap
in aliis
lit ras
292 :
Tlicoplirastus,
similibus rebus ras alrias TOX
solet, quwn de eiVeli/ us
tractat, qua scilicet ab Aristotele
ra
tractate sunt, in libra iai/oia, p.ev air\u>s
frrovcra
ante
8t i)S
et nega- airopiav
qnoque de affirmations
epyao/j.i>Tf),

tione iisdeni aliquibus verbis Sui/rjrai irpopaiveiv,

Ari- TI $cas eV
utitur, quibus in hoc libra
r<
/J.rj

in omnibus eTrl TT\fov. Ibid. 25 :

stoteles usus est . . .

oiiv Tivbs Svvd/jLeOa Si

quibus ipse disputat post
.

enim, <fe

ea tangit, qua alriov deupeiv, apxas aTrb rcav

maijistruw, leviter CLEMENS,
ab Aristotele dicta ante cognovit, alffdriffeuv \afj.$a.voi>T*s.

ab D 5e
alias vero diligentius res non
Strom, ii. 362, ; e^p. rr/v

Aristotele tractatas escsequitur.

2
Cans. PL
Qai rovs
i- 1, 1 = ^7*P
\6yovs rols
aiffQ^ffiv
airb
apxw
yap ravrris at apx a ^
\6yov T^V eV rj/juv Kal rr]V
elvat Tritrrews ^ffiv
"TP^S

Stavotai
rbv

7 6: K eKTeivovTai. SEXT. Math. vii.

Gtwpovai
6 217 Aristotle and Theophrastus
:
ffv^cavos
5 have two criteria, aiffQi)<nv pcf
\6yos TWV
ii. 3, :
yiyvofjLevwv.
8e rwv vot\-
Trepl
8e T&V i> rols alffBriTcav,
TU>V v6-t]<nv

ruv Kowfo 8e a^orepcoj/, &>s

6<pp.,
TO tvapyes.

iVfe 19 : TO 8e
(Metaph.),
 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,

like Plato and Aristotle, with mere 3
where probability ;

more exact proofs fail, he, like his master, brings analogy
to his aid, 4 but he warns us at the same time not to
carry analogy too far or to mistake the peculiar
characteristics of 5
phenomena, just as Aristotle had laid
down as a fundamental axiom that everything must
be explained upon principles
peculiar to itself.
6
We
cannot say, in truth, that Theophrastus has
entirely
renounced the comprehensive and universal points of
view ;
but his own inclinations and scientific researches

1
Fr. 18 : eirel 5e OVK avev u.ev rovs
KLvrjo-ews
ovSe^ irepl
evbs Ae/creW,
3
SlMPL. Pkys. 5, a, m :

irdvra yap ev Kiv^aei ra TT?S natural science cannot arrive at

avev Se aXXoiwriKTJs Kal the complete certainty of know-
Qvo-ews,^
TraflTjTt/ojs oi>x inrep ruv irepl rb ledge aAA OVK ar iu.a(rr eov Sia
;

peffov, els ravra re Kal irepl rovrwv rovro tyvaioXoyiav aAA apKe iffdai
Xeyovras ovx ol6v re Kara\nre7v xpb r V K Ta rfyv ^fMerepav xP n ffLV
:

rrjv aAA awb ravrr\s Kal Svva/j.iv, ws Kal eo^pacrTaj So/ce?.

aJarOrjffiv,
Treipao-6ai xp*l Oewpelv, Cf. also supra, vol. i. p. 167 sq.
apxofj.evovs^
ra (paivo/aeva Xa/nftdvovras /ca0 4
See Cans. PL iv. 4, 9-11 ;
^
eavra, ?) aTrb rovrcav, ef rives apa Hist. i. 1, 10 sq.
Kvpuarepai Kal Trp6repai rovrcav 5
Hist. i. 1, 4 we must be-
:
I

"PX
ai -
ware of comparing plants with
2
Cans. ii. 4, 8 PL
dAA ev : animals in every respect. &<rre

(
ro?s KaOeKao-ra rb aKpifies u.a\\ov ravra /j.ev ovrcas vTro\r)irreov ov
tvcas alo-OrjriKTis Selrai
,

o-vveaecas, pdvov els ra vvv ctAAa Kal r<av

Ao ycfj Se OVK evpapes Cf yap /n^ oiov

I

a^opiVat. .
/neXXovrcav \o.piv offa
Hist. i. 3, 5. The differences re acpou-oiovv irepiepyov rb y\ixe-
^
j

I between botanical species are o-0ai irdvrus, iva Kal r^v oiKe .av
I somewhat vague ;
Sia Sr? ravra a.irofia.XXwu,ev dewpiav.
wfTTrep Xeyo^ev OVK aKpL/3o\oyTr]Teov ti
See mflra, vol. i.
p. 249, n.
? opqu 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
This is

ing him, Eudemus have adopted in their treatment of

logic. While holding fast by Aristotelian principles,
they have permitted themselves many divergences in
detail. In discussing the Conception, for instance,
1

Theophrastus refused to admit that all contraries belong

to the same genus. 2 The doctrine of the Judgment,
again, to which both Eudemus and he devoted separate
3
treatises, received at their hands various additions,

which, however, so far as we know, were of no great

4
importance. They introduced a slight change in the

Of. PEANTL, Gesch. der Log. Arist. 146, a, 24; GALEN, ibid. On
1

i.346 sqq., who, however, seems their other logical treatises cf.
to undervalue the contributions supra, vol. i.
p. 64, n. 1.. PEANTL,
of Theophrastus and Eudemus p. 350, and Eth. End. i. 6 Ji n. ii.

to Logic. 6, 1222, b, 37, c. 10, 1227, a, 10.

2 4
Cf. fr. 15 (SiMPL. Categ. Theophrastus distinguishes
105, a Schol. in Ar. 89, a, 15).
;
in his treatise TT. /caro^ao-ews
ALEX, on MetapJi. 1018, a, 25 ;
between different meanings of
also supra, vol. i. p. 224, n. 3. irpoTacris (ALEX. Anal. Pr. 5, a,
3
Theophrastus in the treat- m .

;
ibid.
124, a; Top. 83, a,
ises irepl KaTatyda-ews Kal a?ro(/)a- 189, a. Similar distinctions are
ffeuis (DiOG. 44, 46 ALEX, in ; quoted from the same treatise
Anal. Pr. 5, a, m, 21. b, m, and that TT. TOV rioAAaxws (which
124, a, 128; Metaph. 653, b, was probably on the model of Ari-
15; GALEN, Libr. Propr. 11, stotle s see sup. vol. i. p. 76 sq.);
xix. 42, K; BOETH. Ad Arist. Eudemus noticed the predicative
de Interpr. 281, 286, 291, 327, force of the verb to be in exis-
(Biile) Schol. in Ar. 97, a, 38,
;
tential propositions (Anon. Schol.
99, b, 36 PEANTL, 350, 4), IT.
;
in Arist. 146, a, 24, and for
Ae lecos (DiOG. 47 DIONYS. Hal. ;
another remark of Eudemus on
Comp. Verb. p. 212, Schaf.), IT. the verb to be see ALEX. Anal.
TU>V TOV \6yov ffToixeitw (as Pr. 6, b, m). Theophrastus called
PEANTL, 353, 23. in SIMPL. Categ. particular propositions indeter-
3, Bale, rightly
)8, emends), minate (see sup. vol. i.p. 233. n. 1,
As to Eudemus, TT. Aeneas, see and BOETH. De Interpr. 340, m ;

ALEX. Anal. Pr. 6, b, in Metaph. Schol. in WAITZ, Ar. Orcf. i. 40 ;

566, b, 15, Br. Anon. Schol. in ; PEANTL, 356, 28), and Aristotle s
 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 further approached the question of the
2
Modality of Judgments from a different side, they con-
indeterminate e/c juerafleVecos
(see a. ;
PHILOP. An. Pr. xiii. b ;

supra, vol. i. p. 232, n. 2 ; Steplia- Schol. in Ar. 148, b, 46 ; cf. the

nus and Cod. Laur. in WAITZ,
ibid. 41 sq and on his reasons for;
doing so, PRANTL, 357). He dis
tinguished in particular negative
propositions between not all
and some not (Scliol. in Ar.
145, a, 30). In regard to the
modality of judgments he made
a distinction between simple ne
cessityand necessity resulting
from particular circumstances
(ALEX. An. P. 12, b, u.). He
elucidated contradictory opposi
tion, which he declared in general
to be indemonstrable
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,
sarily takes exception.
1
In AEIST. Anal. Pr. i. 2, 25,
a, 15, it stands: ei ytnjSevl rwv B
rb A vtrdpxei, ouSe rwv A ovSevl
inrdp^fL Tb B.
T, oi>K
d\rj6fs
B rb A virdpx^iv
B TL <TTIV.
Eudemus put
if no B is
scholium which PRANTL, 364,
45, gives from Minas). PRANTL
criticises this convenient proof:
ZELLER, on the contrarj-, con
siders itthe 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
(ALEX, on 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
p. 356, unneces 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
et
ydp Tiz/t, oiov ry rb virdpxov [sc. a.va,yKou6v tffTiv]
e<rrai TO /j.f]Sei>l
TU>V ore yap virdpxei Tore ovx olov
7P F rav T^>
T p. r] virapxtw, seem to be
Theopbrastus and long to THEO. S Prior Analytics,
it more simply : while the rest belong to Alex
A, A is separate from ander himself) but it is obvious
;

all B
therefore separate
B, is from their departures from Ari
from all A, and therefore no A is stotle, which we are about to men
B (ALEX. An. Pri. 11, a, m. 12, tion, that they take possibility
300 ARISTOTLE

sequently denied 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 judgments of possi

bility while with regard to conclusions whose pre
;
l

mises are of different modality, they held firmly by the

2
principle that the conclusion follows the weaker premise.
We further know that Theophrastus added to the four
Modes which Aristotle had assigned to the first Figure
new ones, obtained by the conversion
five 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 in the formal sq.and on the third case, PHTLOP.
logical sense. Anal. Pr. li. a Scliol. in Arlst. ;

See sup. vol. 234 sq.and 166, a, 12; on an argument of

1
i.
p.
ALEX. Anal. Pr. 14, a, m. Anon.; Theophrastus relating to this,
ScJiol.ifiAr. 150, a, 8. The proofs ALEX. Anal. Pr. 82, b.).
3
of the two Peripatetics are given For details see ALEX. Anal.
in a scholium which PEANTL, 364. Pr. 22, b. 34, b. 35, a Anon. ;

45, prints from MINAS S notes on Schol. in Ar. 188, a, 4, and

Galen s Eiffaywy}] SmAe/cTi/cr?, p. PRANTL S from
citations, 365, 46,
100. The same writer s quota- APUL. De (Dogm. Plat.
Interjjr.
tion, 362, 41, from BOETH. In- iii.), 273 sq. 280, Oud. HOETH. ;

terpr. 428, upon Theophrastus Syll. Cat. 594 sq PHILOP. An. ;

relates merely to an unimportant Pr. xxi. b (Schol. 152, b, 15) cf. ;

explanation. Similarly a modifi- also UEBEEWEG, Loyik, 282 sqq.

cation of an Aristotelian argu- 4
As PRANTL, 368 sq., conjec-
ment mentioned by ALEX. Ana 1
., tures from ALEX. Anal. Pr. 35,
Pr. 42, b, n. is, as PI4ANTL, p. Cf. following note.
370, also remarks, insignificant. Sohol. in WAITZ, Arist.
2
From an apodeictic and a Ortj. \. 45 :
BoyObs
<5 Se . . .

categorical premise follows, they ^vaa/rius rep ApiororeAei irepl TOV-

said, a. categorical from a cate- ;
TOV eSo^acre . . . /ecu a7re8eiei/, on
gorical and hypothetical, a hypo- Traj/res ol eV Sevrfpy KCU rpiTy
thetical from an apodeictic and
; ax h/ ul- aTi Te Aetof el<riv
(which Ari-
hypothetical also a hypothetical stotle denies, see siyira, vol. i.
p.
conclusion (see sup. vol. i. p. 234 240, 11. 4). ^atVerai Sc ral
. . . to-
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS

changed the order of several of the Modes. It is more 1

important, however, to note that Theophrastus and

Eudemus introduced into logic the theory of Hypo
thetical and Disjunctive Syllogisms. 2 Both of these
they embraced under the name Hypothetical, pointing
out that in the Disjunctive also that which is undeter
mined at first is afterwards determined by the addition
3
of a second clause. They distinguished further two
kinds of hypothetical conclusions those which, consist :

ing of purely hypothetical propositions, only assign the

conditions under which something is or is not the case, 4

(ppaffros .
T})V tvavTiav avrcf
. . ALEX. 128, a, Schol. 190, a, 1,

(Aristotle) nepl TOVTOV 86av ex^v. however, Theophrastus expressly

1
In the third, figure he placed said that these differ from ordi
the fourth of Aristotle s modes nary categorical propositions only
as simpler before the third, and in form that he nevertheless
;

the sixth before the fifth ( Anon. entered with such minuteness
Schol. in Ar. 155, b, 8 PHILOP. ;
into the discussion of them is
ibid. 34, 156, a, 11), adding a only one of the many proofs of
seventh mode which he obtained the frequently misspent industry
by dividing the first (APUL. ibid. with which he traversed every
p. 276). detail.
3
As ALEX. An. Pr. 131, b.
2
;
Cf. PHILOP. An. Pr. Ix. b ;

PHILOP. An. Pr. Ix. a; ScJwl. Schol. in Ar. 170, a, 30 sqq. ;

in Ar. 169, b, 25 sqq., expressly ALEX. An. Pr. 109, b, m. That

state. According to BOETH. both these writers in the passages
S i/ll. Hyjwth. 606 (in PRANTL, named follow the Peripatetic
879, 59), Eudemus treated this view, as presented by Theo
subject more fully than Theo phrastus and Eudemus, is obvi
phrastus. Much less important ous from the whole context.
are the citations from Theophras- Ot TWOS OVTOS }}
1
OVTOS Tl ^
tus s discussions upon syllogisms OVK effTLV ^ TL fffTl SeiKVVVTS ( if
Kara irp6a \f]^iv given by ALEX. A is, B is if B is, C is if A is,
An. Pr. 128, a., cf. 88, a, m. ;
C is ), which are called by Theo
PHILOP, cii. a; Schol. in Ar. 189, phrastus Sia Tpiwv viroOeTLKol or
b, 12; Anon. ibid. 1. 43, 190, a, Si oXuv v-jToQtTiKol, as also on
18, cf. PBANTL, 376 sq. These account of the similarity of the
are syllogisms formed of propo three propositions KO.T avaXoyiav.
sitions such as those mentioned Theophrastus distinguished three
by Aristotle, Anal. Pr. ii. 5, 58, forms of these syllogisms corre
a, 2!). b, 10 & TO : A /iTjSeri rb B sponding to the three Aristote
iravrl inrapxei &c. According to lian figures of the categorical
362 ARISTOTLE

and those which prove that something is or is not. 1 Of*

the latter a further division is made into those with a
2
hypothetical and those with a disjunctive form, both
of which classes, however, agree in this that what is
stated in the major premise as possible is either affirmed
or denied in the minor 3 Under the hypothetical are
4
finally classed Comparative, or, as the Peripatetics
called them, Qualitative Syllogisms. 5

syllogism, except that he trans loco c. 29, 45, b, 15), called

;

posed the order of the second fj.fTd\^is (ALEX. An. Pr. 88, a,
and third. ALEX. Anal. Pr. o. 109, a, m. PHILOP. Scliol. in
;

109, 110, a.; cf. 88, b.

b, rn. ;
AT. 169, b, 47, 178, b, G). If this
PHILOP. ibid. 170, a, 13 sqq. 179, minor itself receives proof from
a, 13 sqq. 189, a, 38. a categorical syllogism we have
PHILOP. Scltol. in AT. 170, a,
1
the so-called mixed syllogism
14, 30 sqq. Cf. ALEX. An. Pr. 88, b. (ALEX. 87, b, m. sq.). The con
2
PHILOP. ibid. rb elvai : ra>v ditional sentence is called o-vvn/j.-

}} IJ.T)
elvai Kara(TKva^6vT(tiv viro- the antecedent being the
fjLfvov,
0TiKcav ol /m.v a.Ko\ovdlav Kara- riyovpevov the consequent the
,

ffKfvdovffiv ol 5e $idev%iv kc. Of kivo^vov (PHILOP. Scliol. in AT.

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.
;
: introduced affirmatively by an
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
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
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
. ETre) (SiMPL. De Ccelo, Scliol
509, a, 3). He remarked also
:
(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
6/jioiov KOL TOV riTTov, e.g. if the :

mise following on a conditional less precious is a good, so also is

or disjunctive major, for which the more precious but wealth ;

the Stoics afterwards invented which is less precious than health

the name Trp6<r\r]^Ls, the older is a good, therefore health is so

Peripatetics (ot apx^uoi, ol irepl also. Upon this see ALEX. An,
PEANTL, 385,
Api<rTOTe\r)v, cf. Pr. 88, b, m. 109, a. b. PHILOP, ;

68), following AEIST. (Anal Pr. An. Pr. Ixxiv. b PRANTL, 389 sqq,
;

i. 23, 41, a, 30; cf. WAITZ, in,

5
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
stration have come down to us from Theophrastus or
Eudemus, and we may therefore assume that neither
1

of them differed in any important point from the con

clusions of Aristotle on this subject. The same is
in substance true of the Topics, to which Theophrastus
bad devoted several treatises. 2 It cannot be proved that
he interpreted the subject-matter of the science dif
3
ferently from Aristotle nor do the isolated utterances ;

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, Anal. Post. 2, a; Schol. 199,
b, 16 where, however, this ex b, 46.
2
pression is not further explained. Cf. PRANTL, 350 sq. nn. 11-
Even PEANTL (p. 392 sq.)
1
14.
has failed to find more than two 3
PEANTL, p. 352, infers it

statements referring to this sub from the statement (AMMON.

ject one in PHILOP. An. Post.
: De Interpr. 53, a. ;
Schol. in
17, b. Schol. in Ar. 205, a,
; Ar.lQS, 27; Anon. ibid. 94,
b,
46, distinguishing between fi a, 16) that Theophrastus dis
curband a0 avro, the other the tinguished a twofold relation,
remark in the anonymous scho one to the fact in regard to which
lium, ibid. 240, a, 47, that defi the question is one of truth or
nition is embraced under demon falsehood, the other to the
stration. Equally unimportant hearers but the latter is here
;

are the remarks on /ca0 avrb in assigned not to dialectic but to

ALEX. Qu. jVat. i. 26, p. 82, poetry and rhetoric. The cita
Speng. ;
on definition in BoETH. tion from the Analytics of EUDE
Interpr. ii. 318, Schol. 110, a, MUS in ALEX. Top. 70, is also
34 on definition and demonstra
; quite Aristotelian.
4
tion in Eustrat. in Libr. ii. Anal. ; Theophrastus distinguished
Post. 11, a, o. Schol. 242, a, 17; ;
between TOKOS and. Trapdyy\/u.a,
cf. ibid. 240, a, 47 on the im :
understanding by the latter a
possibility of proving contradic rule which is general and in
tory propositions in ALEX, on definite, by the former one that
Metaph. 1006, a, 14 SYRIAN, in ;
is definite (ALEX. Top. 72 cf. ;

Metaph. 872, b, 11 (from the 5,m. 68) of the topical heads,

;

treatise TT. Kara^aaews) and the : which Aristotle had enumerated

definition of a|fw/ia in THE MIST. (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. 1
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 super

sensiblemust 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)
are insufficient for the solution of the problem we ;

require a higher principle, and this we can find only in

God. 3 God, therefore, must be the cause of motion in

ravrbv} he placed (GREGOR. CORINTH, ad Hermog.

,
as well as Siatyopa, under de Meth. vii. 1154, w.), Eude-
(ibid. 25), and all others mus s division of questions (ALEX.
except (rv/j.fie&riKbs under opos Top. 38), and his classificatioi
(ibid. 31 this is all that we of fallacies irapa TTJV \4iv (that
are told, but PRANTL, p.395, is if GALEN. TT. r. irapo. r. Ae {.
seems to be wrong in his in ffofpifffj.. 3. xiv. 589 sqq. follows

terpretation, cf. BRANDIS, iii. him), will be found in PRANTL,

279). He asserted to pass over 397 sq.
some still more unimportant See supra, vol. ii. p. 354, n. 2.
1

2
remarks which are quoted by 1 sqq. ;
2 read apx*)
ALEX, on Metaph. 1021, a, 31, Trorepa, &c., we begin here with
and 15 (Schol. 277,
T>p. 32) l>,
the question whether, &c.
that opposites do not fall under 3
3 sq. according to USENER S
one and the same generic con emendation (see p. 354, n. 2,
ception (see sup. voi. ii. 358, n. 2). supra) of which WIMMER, p. 151,
Theophrastus s divison of jvu> t
uaL 1 1 ventured to accept even old re
,
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 305

the world. He produces that motion, however, not in

virtue of any movement in himself, bat of a causality more
accordant with his nature : he is the object of desire to all
the lower creation, and this alone is the cause of the

endless movement of the heavens, Satisfactory though

this view undoubtedly seemed in many respects, it was 1

not without its difficulties. If there be only one

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
also be assigned for the multiplicity of the spheres, and,
in fine, everything must be explained as the outcome of
design. Why, moreover, should this natural desire of
the spheres be directed to motion rather than to rest ?
And does not desire presuppose a soul, and therefore
2
motion ? Why do not things under the moon as well
for#o"Te; 4 we might propose to for avyvvTov we should perhaps
read : eV 0X17015 sivai Kal irpcarois, read apiffrov). In 8 the remark
ei JUT? apa Kal eV irpdorcp.
r<$ relating to the Platonists (T! ovv
1
6 :
/J-^xpt V*v 8)] rovrw afj-a rfj &c.) is hardly
/j.i/j.r]<rfi,

olov dpnos 6 \6yos, apx^v re TTOIWV intelligible, probably on account

/niav iravrwv, Kal rr]v evepyeiav Kal of the corruption of the text.
rfyv ovaiav cbroStSous, ert 5e fjt.}]
The sense ascribed to it by
Siatperbv /uTjSe iroaov ri Ae-ycoi/, aAA BRANDTS, iii. 328 sq. (q.v.), seems
air\ws f^aipcav els /cpetTTco nva. to be neither contained in
juepi Scc Kal detorepav. That every- the text nor admissible in itself,
thing has a natural desire for In the following words (et 87?
the good is also stated by e0eo-ts, a\\ws re Kal rov apivrov,
Theoph. in the fr. (from irepl ^era ^VXTJS, et ^77 TIS Ae yot Ka0
TrAowTOf) Schol. in Plat. Legg. p- o aot^T77Ta
/
Kal Siaffropav, e^u^ &j/

449, 8 Bekk. et farji *lx*v &

:
enj ra Kiv6v^va) USENEE, p. 267,
TrAoGros, irpbs fiovovs Uv <x7T7?A0e in place of Sia(popav happily reads
TOUS ayaOovs. e/cao Toi yap rov /u.ra<popav
unless the expres-
:

otKtj ou e^t erat dyaOov, for this sion is used by a mere

e^>eo"ts

alone accords with its nature, analogy and improperly. Even

travra 8e TT]S /cara $v<jiv opeyerai the fragment quoted in the
StafleVews. previous note speaks only of
-
7 sq. (where 1. 12 W living things.
366 ARISTOTLE

as things above it 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
1
attributes of the heavens. Touching further on the
necessity of deducing not only some but all reality from
first principles, we find that even in reference to these
2

firstprinciples themselves many new questions are sug

gested. Are they formless and material, or endowed
with form, or both ? And if the first of these assump
tions is obviously inadmissible, there is also a difficulty
in attributing design to everything however insignifi
cant. We
should therefore have to determine how far
order extends in the world and why it ceases at certain

Again, what are we Has

3
points. to say of rest ? it

like motion, to be deduced as something real from our

first principles, or does positive reality belong only to

energy among sensible objects only to motion and is

How, again, are we to
4
rest only a cessation of motion ?

describe the relation of Form and Matter ? Is matter

1
9-11. In 10 instead of the Platonists are accused in th(

(rv/j./3aivei USENER reads Xapfidvei ; sequel of doing.

3
it would be better to read: 14 sqq. 15 n.;
where
yap elvai K. tru/ijS.
o-ujujSoiVet instead of airo we ought to reac
2 av r6.
11-13 where, however, p.
153, W.n. we must punctuate thus:
4
This apparently is the sense
curb 5 ovv ravT-rjs $ TOVTWV ru>v of the first half of 16 what :

apx&v a^idaffeiev &v ris, ra%a 5e wal follows, however, as it stands, is,
ctTro r&v &\\ocv &p &v ns TiflfJToi,
,
as BRANDTS, p. 332, says, unin-
^ telligible,
as
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 367

non-existent although endowed with potential reality,

or is it an existence although still void of any definite
form ?
l
Why is the whole universe divided into contra
ries so that there is nothing without its opposite ? Why
does the worse far exceed in quantity the better ? 2 And
since on account of this diversity in things knowledge
also is of different kinds, the question rises what method

we are to adopt in each case and how we are to define

3
the nature and the kinds of knowledge. To assign
causes to everything is impossible, for we cannot go on
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 of reality we can go no
further, either because these have themselves no cause
or because our eyes are too weak to penetrate into the
4
brightest light. But be thought that the mind if it

knows these by immediate contact and therefore in

5
fallibly, yet it is not easy, however necessary, to say
what it is of which we make this assertion and which is
6
the object of this immediate knowledge. Granted,

1
17. Instead of Sui/a^et 8 ey and 246 sqq.) in the same
p.
(Br.) or Swdfj.i /j.v (W.) we t>v direction as the statement
ought probably to read Swa^ei 8 6v. Metapli. ii. (a) 1, 993, b, 9:
2
18. wffirep yap teal TO. TU>V

3
19-20. We
cannot here o/j./j.aTa irpbs rb tytyyos ex ef
enter into particulars see, ; y/j.pai>,
OVT&) Kal TTJS
however, BEAXDIS, iii. 334 sq. tyvxris o vovs irpbs TO rfj
USENER, ibid. p. 269 sq. places c. ^avepcvrara iravTCDv.
3
8 Br. ( 19-27 W.) between cc. For Aristotle s view see sup.
3 and 4 Br. ( 13 and 14 W.) vol. i.
p. 197, n. 4.
4
The latter is a deviation So we should understand the
s

from Aristotle s doctrine (on words 26 xaAevr^ 5e Kal els avrb

:

which cf supra, vol.

. i.
p. 205, n. 2, rov6 y vvveffts Kal y TT KTTIS ,...&/
368 ARISTOTLE

further, that the world and the structure of the heavens

is eternal l
and that we cannot, therefore, point to th<

causes of the problem yet remains of assign

its origin,

ing the moving causes and the final aim of the con
stitution of the world, and of explaining individual forms
of existence, down to animals and plants. Astrononr
as such is inadequate to meet the former of th<

demands ;
since motion is just as essential to th(

heavens as living creatures, we must seek

life is to

deeper origin for it in the essence and ultimate cause

of the heavens themselves. 2 Upon the question of
design in the world it is not always clear, apart froi
other considerations, 3 whether a thing exists for
definiteend or only in consequence of a chance coinci
dence or natural necessity 4 and even assuming desi^ ;

in the world, we
are yet unable to prove its present

equally in every case, but must admit that there is mucl

T IVI Troirjreoj/ T\>V

opov. BEANDIS, T &paa-0cu xtf m ay be sug
p. 336, explains where we are :
gested instead of (paSios . . . .

to place a limit on inquiry, 7ro0ei/ S &pa<r6ai

xpy v Otherwis
-

which the text does not seem to one might, still reading a
permit. For the rest see 9A omit the /UCITTJJ/ which precedes as
sq. an explanatory gloss virep 5e rot
:

2G fin. must be read

1
TTcw/0 eVe/ra rov Kal u.r)Vfv
:
aAAccs, 6
oo~oi 5e rbi/ ovpavbv a iS- ov pa$ios, &c.
Tre(pvKi> a(})opifffj.bs A^o/Jt
IQV viroXa.fj.fid.vova iv ert 5e, &c. here is equivalent to opicr/ubs, as n
SPENGEL (see BRANDTS, p. 337) the passage from THEOPHRASTCS
had already changed the un in SIMPL. Pliys. 94, a.
4
meaning iipepcav into $ /J.pa>v. Theophr. gives examples
2
This at any rate seems to be 29 sq. where, however, 30
the meaning of 27 sq. (et olv instead of TOVTWV x^P LV we must
aa-rpoXoyia. c.) read with USENER (Rhein. Mus.
3
These are indicated 28. xvi. 278) rov x^P lv ^ n what
-

USENER, Anal. Theoplir. 48, here follows, it seems that the words
proposes : &\\cas 6 a^opicrfjibs ov Kal ravr\ &c. are somewhat out
paSios .... Kal
S^ ej/ta T<
[JLTJ of order.
8o/ce>, &c. In that case
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 369

that seems to oppose its realisation and even that

the
amount of this is largely in excess of that which
clearly
exhibits design in other words, that evil is
largely in
excess over good. l

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.

We 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 own express statements on several
2
important heads, and from the general fact that we
28-84. In 31 read
J :
following passage to the protasis
t Se (j.rj ToD0 [or rat}0 J eW/ot rov
yapiKarepaeev (Ph. d. Gr. i.
Kal is rb apio-rov, ArjTrreW, and
852, 3, where, however USENEE S
immediately after: Kal airbus
conjecture, ibid. 280, ra 8 a6p6a
^ei/a (Br. and W. Aeyo/xev a) Kal fKaTepwOev
ought to have
Kal KaO tKaarov. In what follows been mentioned) an apodosis is
TWV &W will then correspond needed this (the rarity of
:
good
o Kad e/cao-Toi/. In 32 we ought "
ness) is even truer of Man. Of
perhaps to read :
aKapialov rb the next passage we have
nov only a
Kal rb eli/cn .... TroAu fragment in the words TO /uw ow
Se Tr\rj9os
(without y or e?z/at) rb ovra. The remainder is pro
In what follows the text
ov.
bably complete or nearly com
may have originally been OVK eV :
plete ; the discussion, however,
aopiaria 5e povov Kal olov v\r)s then breaks suddenly off and we
^et, Ka.Qa.TTfp ra rrjs Qixrews (in are left without means of con
the world of men for the allu
jecturing its further course. In
sion must be to this
there is not 33 USENEE S conjecture
as
(iUd.)
only, in
nature, indetermi- eirijj.L/j.c ia-Oai. rb Qelov airai/ra
(for
nateness and materiality, but also 67ri/t. 76 fle Aeii/ air.) has much to
evil). After this, however, there support it.
seems to be a gap and of the ;
2
Besides the theological
missing words a/aaBeo-rdrov alone doctrines hereafter to be dis
has survived. Similarly in the cussed we may note the distinc-
VOL. II.
B B
370 ARISTOTLE

nowhere hear of any deviations from it. Even wha

has come down to us of Theophrastus s theo
little

harmonises in every with the

logical views respect
doctrines of Aristotle. It is indeed urged against him
that he declares God at one time to be Spirit, at
another Heaven and the Stars but the same objection ;
l

is urged against Aristotle, whose view we must have

2

wholly misunderstood if we
do not find an easy ex
of it in the fact that while he identifies God
planation

tion between form and matter tradict one another (Cans. i. 1(

(Metapli. 17, THEMIST. De An.

1 ; 21, 1 sq. iv. 4, 1 Theophr
9 1, a, m) with all that it involves, here distinguishes in reference
and the Aristotelian teleology, to fruits and their ripeness T>

The latter Theophr. expresses in TcAeioTTjra ri\v re irpbs was ital

Aristotelian phraseology, Cans, rty -rrpbs yeveffiv. r? /*- yap irpbs
TOV
PL i. 1, 1 (cf. ii. 1, 1) V 7P :
rpotyriv rj
8e irpbs Swap.it/
Trotel ^O.TT\V ^Kiffra 8e yevvqv). Nevertheless even the
(pv o-is ouSei/
eV TO?S TTpwTois Kal KvpLWTaTois. unnatural can by habit change
its nature (Cans. ii. 5, 5, iii. 8, 4,
Ibid. i. 16, 11 (where moreover
we must read in place of
5"
77
iv. 11, 5, 7); and on the other
ri freXriffrov dppa hand many vegetables and
^8 ): aei Trpbs
Cf. iv. 4, 2; 1, 2. Art, animals are, Theophr. believes,
[77 <f>vffis~\.

entrusted by nature herself to

again, is partly an imitation
the care of man, whereby only
(Cans ii. 18, 2), partly a support
and completion (itod. ii. 16, 5, i. they can reach perfection, and
16 10 sq. v. 1,1) of the designs just herein consists the difference
of nature it differs, however
;
between wild and tame (Cans. i.
vol. i. p. 16, 23) which, as we shall find
(Cans. i. 16, 10, cf. sup.
418, n. 3), from nature in that
the hereafter, he regards as not
latter from within out-
operates merely an artificial but a natural
distinction.
wards, and therefore spontane-
while it 1
in Cic. N. D.
The Epicurean
ously (e/c T&V ouTOyuarcoj/),
works from without by force, and i. nee vero TlieopUrasti
13, 35:
theref ore only piecemeal (Caiis.i. inconstantia ferenda est ; mode
12 4) hence it is that art produces enim menti ditince tribute prince
;

much that is unnatural (ibid. i. pattern,modo ccelo, turn autem

16, ll, v. 1, 1 sq.). Even
r
this isnot signia yideribusqne ccelettibut.
CLEMENS, Protrept. B:
without a purpose, but it serves c. 5, 44,

not the original design of nature &eo<f>p

..... TTT) tfv ovpavbv ity

but certain ends of man (cf. v. 8c in/eC/ia rbv 6ebv

2
vnovoe^.
1, 1); these two, however, do Cic. ibid. 33, cf . KRISCH,
not coincide and may even con- Forsch. 276 sqq.
 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
divine beings. Theophrastus holds this view also. To
him also God in an absolute sense is pure 1

reason, the
single cause which co-ordinates all reality, and which,
itself unmoved, produces motion in
everything else, since
2
everything else desires it. In proof of this assumption
Theophrastus had appealed, it
appears, like Aristotle,
3

to the universality of religious beliefs. 4 He also de

scribed its universal operation as 5
Providence, without,
however, distinguishing this divine causality from the
6
ordinary course of nature, and he demanded of man that

1
Mvtapll. 16: efrrt Se [rb iravres yap avdpwiroi ....
L
VO/J.L-
KLVOVV erepov Kal o /at/el] &v TLS
6?r avrbv ayp rbv vovv Kal rbj/ Qtov. ovs iVrope? QeofypacrTos a6eovs
2
Ibid. 4 sq. (see supra), VTTO TTJS yys
where inter alia 9eia yap f)
:

5
irdvTtov apxr) Si fjs airavra Kal tari MINUC. FEL. Octav. 19, 11 :

Kal Sm^evei .... eVei 5 a.Kivr]ros

Theophrastus tt Zenon, $c .....
/ca# avr^v, fyavepbv &s OVK av e tr) ad unitatem providential omnes
T(f Kiveladai TO?S rrjs Qixrews aiTia, rcvolvuntur. Cf. PEOCL. in Tim.
aAAci Xoiirbv &\\r) rivl 8vvdju.ei 138, e: 3) yap povos $ fj.aAi<TTa
KpeiTTOi/i Kal irpoTtpa. TOiavrr] 5 -rrj airb TOV oovvTOs
irpoi
r) rov opeitTov ys 6 Qe6(pp.
<t>vcris, a(f> r] TO, (pr)(rlv
KvK\iK7] [so. Kivriffis, which As is seen from ALEX. APHE.,
ti

UsEftEB ibid. p. 263 wishes to who says at the end of his

supply] crvvex^s Kal anavaros.
r) treatise De Anima :
tyavepcaTara
3
On which cf sup. vol. i. p. 390.
. 5e e6(ppa<jTos
Sf iKvvai ravrbv "bv

4
We
may at least infer this rb Kad tlp.apfj.vr}v T< Kara
from the fact that in POEPH. De ev r KaAAio-0eVei for flp.
Abst. ii. 7 sq. (see also BEEN AYS, indicates the course of the world
fAeopfir. iib. Fromm. 56 sq.) he as divinely appointed, which
treats the neglect of all worship therefore Theophr. according to
as an exceptional outrage, on his manner identified with the
account of which the Thracian order of nature, as he identified
Thoans were destroyed by the the lot which God has appointed
gods probably the same people
; to each individual with a man s
of whom SIMPL. in Epict. Encliir. natural state. Cf.8TOB.jEbJ. i.206 :

38. iv. 357 Schweigh. says : 5e TTWS els rb dp.app.4vnv

BB 2
372 ARISTOTLE

he should imitate its ceaseless intellectual activity. At

1

2
the same time he follows Aristotle in also attributing
3
a soul to the heavens, whose higher nature reveals
4
itself in its orderly motion ;
and since he is likewise
of the
in agreement with the Aristotelian doctrine
5
eether as the material of the heavenly structure and of
6
the eternity of the world, he could attribute blessedness

or divinity not only to the highest Heaven, of which it

7
is expressly asserted, but also
with equal right to the

V $ TOTTOV upon higher principles, as Plato

TT]V KO.ffTOV (pVCTLV
apccv alricav iroiKiXwv, Trpoaipe-
had done, l/xif/u^o*/ yap /cat avrbs

[(/jurreco?
HEEREN and others], eli/at StScocrt TOV ovpavbv Kal Sta

al avdyKris. As regards TOVTO Qeiov elyap 6e~i6s e tr

the two last, rvxn means accident, Kal Ti]v apio~Tr)v e%et Si
ovSev
avdyKr] constraint (either of other f^vxos eo-rtv yap TL/JLIOV
men or of natural necessity) as avev tyvxys, us ev TW Trepl Ovpavov

distinguished from (pvais or yeypa bev. (8ee also on the lasl

nature acting with a purpose. head p. 281, b. Plat, Thcol. i. 12
From the allusions to Theophr. s p. 35 Hamb.)
4
views upon Providence in Upon this see Mctapli. 34
ed. Cic. Tusc.i. 19, 45 Iwc enimpul-
Olympiodorus in Plucd.
:

nothing can be chritudo etiam in terris patriam

Finckh, p. 169, 7
inferred. illam et ai-itam (ut ait Tlico-
1
JULIAN, Orat. vi. 185, a 2)hrastus)pMlosopliiam cog nitionis
ctAAa Kal Uvdayopas oi re cupiditate incensam excitavit
Spanh. :

air e/ceu/ou M XP fO(ppdarov rb

e/ refers to the beauty of the
KaTa 8vvaiJ.iv 6jj.oiS>ffQai (j)a(n. Oe< heavens. By ira.Tpi.os Kal TraAcuci
Plato especially expresses himself (f)i\o(ro(pia is meant, as the con
to this effect; how far it was text also shows, knowledge of*|
the view also of Theophr. is seen the heavens, or astronomy.
from the note: /cat yap /ecu 6
5
According to TAUEUS
o (Scholiast to Timceus, Belilier s
Apt(TTOTeArjryap fj/ieTs Trore,
TOVTO 6 deC (see supra).
0e2>s
Sclwlia p. 437 and PHILOP.
JEtern,
According to Diog. v. 49 Theophr. rn. xiii. 15), Theophr.
wrote a treatise against the rejected Aristotle s doctrine of;
Academics on the blessedness the aether on the ground oEj
of God. Plato s assertion (Tim. 31 B)
2
See supra, vol. i.
p. 495, n. 4.
that all that is solid and visibl
3
Procl. 177, a in Tim. : must consist of fire and earth.
Theophrastus deems it unneces
6
On this see infra, p. 380.
of the 7
See n. 2 and the quotatic
sary to base the existence
sonl, as the cause of motion,
from Aristotle sup. vol. i. p. 474.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 373

other heavenly spheres. Between him and Aristotle

1

there is in this regard no difference of doctrine.

Theophrastus, however, devoted much more attention

to scientific 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

by re-examination of his scientific conceptions. With

thisview 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 ;
and he found
itnecessary 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-
the passage quoted, sup. vol. i. p.
461, 3 accepted Aristotle s theory
of spheres, he was obliged to pre-
suppose also with Aristotle an
eternal mover for each sphere
an hypothesis which was forced
upon him also by the principles
of the Peripatetic philosophy
with respect to
moved.
to teenth of the Physics in SIMPL.
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
THI A). From ei/Se/car^ in the
former passage came next Se/cary
in the Aldine text.
3
Theophrastus also says that
mover and physics have to do only with the
motum (see sup vol. i. p. 417 sq.) ;

2
The three books ir. Kivfia-ews, see supra, vol. ii. p. 357, n. 1.
On these and on the eight books 4
evepyeia rov SiW^et KLV-^TOV
of the Physics (if there were 77 KIV^T^V Kara -yt i/os tKaffrov rwv
really so many) see PHILIPPSON, Kar-nyopicav TJ rov Swa/nei OVTOS p
"TAT? ai dp. p. 84, USENER, Anal, TOLOVTOV eVreAe^em ez/epyeia ris
Theophr. 5, 8, and B BANDIS, ill. areA^s rov dwd/uei OVTOS y TOIOVTOV
281. The last rightly remarks, as Ka.0 tKaoTov ytvos T&V KaTfiyopiuv
Kosu, Arist. libr. ord. 87 had (THEOPHR. Fr. 19 sq. 23 b, SIMPL.
already dona, that the eleventh Phys, 201, b, 94, a, m. Catey.
book TT. K iv-f) creoos and the four- ibid.} areA^s yap f) Kivrjcris (TH.
374 ARISTOTLE

allthe categories as change is not confined, as Aristotle

;

1
tried to prove, to substance, size, quality, locality, but is
2
also applicable to relation, position, &c. Again, Aristotle
had asserted that all change takes place gradually, anc
therefore that everything which changes must be divi
3
sible Theophrastus maintained, on the contrary, the
;

possibility which Aristotle himself elsewhere 4 admit

apud THEMIST. De An. p. 199, 20 change. In this more general

Sp.). It is plain from the quota sense he may have understooc
tion, sup. vol. i. p. 383, n. 1, that particularly the motion of th<

this completely agrees with Ari soul (see infra). Aristotle als
stotle. Nor is it easy to see in however, frequently uses K.[vi)aii
SIMPL. Categ. 77, e. Phys. 202, a, synonymously with /j-era
the deviation from Aristotle and even he calls motion ener
which HITTER (iii. 413 sq.) finds. as well as entelechy (see sup. vol.
The first passage (Fr. 24) runs : i.
p. 383, n. 1) while, on the othe
:

TovTcp /j.ev yap (Theophrastus) hand, Theophr. as well as Ai

So/ceT ltd) xupifcffOai TV KLvna-iv stotle says that it is only an in
TTJS evepyeias, eivai Se rr]V fj.ev complete energy. According t(
Kivrfffiv /cat evepyeiav ws &v eV OVTTJ Priscian (in his paraphrase of the
jrepi^o/j.vrjv, ovKeri lUeWot Kal rr)v Physics bk. v. p. 287, Theophr.
evepyeiav Kivriffiv TT]V yap e/cacrTOu Opp. ed. Wimm. iii.
269) he says
oba iav Kal rb olKeiov elSos evepyeiav expressly : ravra 5e [evepyeia
elvai eitaffTOv fj.rj
ovcrav ravrriv and Kiv-riffis] Sta^e pet XP
Kivt](Tiv.This means, however : Se avayKatov eviore roTs avro is
every motion is an energy, but
every energy is not a motion See supra,
1

;
vol.i.
p. 423, n. 1.
2
energy is the wider, motion ihe THEOPHR. Fr. 19,20, 23 (cf.
narrower conception. It is sup.vol. ii. p. 373, n. 4). The remarl
almost the opposite, therefore, in Fr. 20 on the motion of relatk
to RITTEE S explanation that he : is obscure, and in the words: rj

refuses tocomprehend either the yap eVe p7eta Klvrjffis re Kal Kaff avrb
conception of energy under that the text is probably corrupt.
of motion or the conception of Perhaps we ought to read fj :

motion under the conception evepyeia KLvrjcris TOV KaO avr6.

of energy. Phys. 202, a, But even so the passage is not
SIMPL. says: 6 eo^pao-Tos ^Te?r quite clear.
3
Se?i/ <p7j<n trepl T&V /aj/^erecoj/ el at Phys. vi. 4 inlt. (see supra,
JJLSV Kivfjffeis elfflv, al Se wcrirep vol. i. p. 439. n. 3), cf c. 10. .

evepyeiai rives, which he cites,

4
Phys. i. 3, 186, a, 13, and in
however, only proof that as the discussions upon light see
Theophr. uses not merely ivT]<ns supra, vol. i. p. 518, n. 3.
of motion in space, but of any
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 375

of a simultaneous change in all parts of a mass. Ari

1
1

stotle finally, in connection with the same subject, had

assumed that, although there is a moment at which a
2
I
change completed, there is none at which it begins
is ;

3
Theophrastus rightly held this to be inconceivable.
He further took serious exception to Aristotle s doctrine
4
of space. If space is the limit set by the surrounding to
I the surrounded body, the latter must be a plain surface;

J space would move, along with the surrounding body,

which is inconceivable ;
nor would every body be in

space, since the outermost circle would not

be more ;

over, all that is in space would cease to be so, without,

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 and position of bodies relatively to

1
THBMIST. Phys. vi. 4, p. 381, 46 Sp.), Plato s views upon time.
5
I 23 sqq. c. 5, 389, 8 sqq. Cf. Fr. 21, b, SiMPL. Phys. 141,
|
SIMPL. Phys. 233, a, m (Fr. a, m. ; Theophrastus objects in
I 54 sqq.). On the other hand the the Physics to Aristotle s defini-
|
citation from Theophrastus in tion of space, 6n rb a-v^a co-rat
SiMPL. Plti/st. 23, a, is not eV ^TTKpaveia, on KIVOV^GVOS ecrrat 6
directed against Aristotle, but is TOTTOS [but according to SIMPL.
in agreement with him against Phys. 131, b, 136, a. 141, b,
Melinus. 143, a, Theophrastus and Eu-
-
See supra, vol. i. p. 439, n. 4. demus treated it as an axiom
3
SIMPL. Phys. 230, a, m. that space is immobile, as Ari-
THEMIST. Phys. p. 386, 16 Sp. stotle also had done, see sup. vol.
(ScJtol. 410, b,44, 411, a, 6). Cf. i. p. 432 sq. Phys.iv. 4, 212, a, 18

Eudemus in SiMPL. 231, b (Fr. sqq.], on ov irav acc/ma ev r6ira} (ouSe

67 Sp.). yap r} airXavris), on, eav a\)va.*xJdG)aiv
4
In respect to time, on the at atycupai, Kal o\os 6 ovpavbs OVK
other hand, he wholly agreed fcrrai eV TOTT^ [cf AEIST. Phys. iv.
.

with Aristotle SiMPL. Phys. 187,

; 4, 211, a, 29], 6Vt ra eV r6ircf ovra,
a, m. cf. Categ. Sohol. in Ar. 79, ^Sev avra /meraKivnOevTa, sav aty-
b, 25 controverting apparently,
; aipeOy TO. -jrepiexovra avrh, OVKI
like Eudemus (according to ecrrcu eV
SIMPL. Phys. 165, a, and b, Fr.
 ARISTOTLE
one another. Of less importance are some other state
1

ments quoted from the portions of his Physics which

dealt with more general questions. 2 In his treatise
3
upon the elements to which the extant passage upon
fire belongs, while holding fast to Aristotelian prin
4
ciples, he nevertheless finds certain difficulties. While
all other elements are themselves definite materials,
fire
(whether we take it to include light or not)
only exists in materials which burn and give light;
how then can it be treated as an elementary substance ?
This can only be the case that in a higher if we assume
5
region heat is pure and unmixed, whereas upon earth
1
SIMPL. ibid-. 149, b, m. (Fr. kinds of becoming: by means
of|
22) Theophrastus says, though
:
something similar, something
only as a suggestion (ws eV airopia opposite, and something which is
irpodycav rbi/ \6yov~) yUTjTrore ou/c :
neither similar nor opposite toi
/co# avT~ov ovaia TLS 6 T^TTOS, that which comes to be but only
rrj Ta|et Kal 0e <rei
in general a previous actuality
Tcav \4ycrat Kara ras (pvffeis (Fr. 16, b, SIMPL. ibid. 287, a).
8 3
ofj.o uas eirl
ovvd/u.is, u><av

According to Alex, in SIMPL.

(pvrwv Kal oAct s ruiv avo/ Zte Caelo, init., Schol. 468, a, 11,
e/fre
^/JL^/V^CCV etre a^v-^iav, e/j./aop(poi> Theophrastus had discussed these
Sfr-^v (pixTLv ZXOVTCW Kal yap rov- in the treatise TT.
ovpavov, which
rwv rd^ts TLS Kal Qearis r&v /jLtpaiv however (ibid. 435, b, 33, and
ftrri irpbs rV O ATJI/ ovcriav Sib Kal previous note) is the same as]
fKaffTov eV avrov x^P? \eyerai
rrj Physics, Bk. iii. SIMPL. .Zte Ceelo,
rqj e^eti/ TT?I/ o\Keiav Tct|tz/, eVei KOI 517, a, 31, however, cites also a
TUV TOV cr(t>fj.aT05 /AfpSiv e/cocTTOj/ special work by him, trepl rrjs rwv
TwroO t](reifi av Kal aTraiT-fjcreie r^)v crroixeiW 76^eo-ews (USKNEE,
eavrov xd>pav Kal Qzffiv! Anal. 21, thinks perhaps
- the^
At
the beginning of his same as Diog., v. 39, calls ir.
treatise he had illustrated the
beginning of Aristotle s with the The composition of the ele 4

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
324, a, 22, 325, b, 15. PHILOP. theory of the natural weight and
Phys. A, 2, m.) in the third levity of bodies
; cf. De Vent. ;

book, which was also entitled 22, be Sensit, 88 sq.

ovpavov, he distinguishes three
5
IT. eV avTij rrj TrpccTy (Ttpaipa, bj
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: TIIEOPI1RASTUS 377

it is only found in union with something else and in

a process of becoming ;
but in this case we must again
ask whether terrestrial fire springs from the heavenly
element or owes its origin to certain states and move
Again, how are we to
1
ments burning material.
in
the sun ? If it consists of a kind of fire, this
explain
must be very different from other fire if it does not ;

consist of we should then have to explain how it

fire,

can kindle fire. In any case we should have to admit

that not only fire but also heat are properties. But how is
it possible to admit this with regard to heat, which is a
far more universal and elementary principle than fire ?
This suggests further questions. Are heat, cold, &c. really
first principles and not merely attributes ?
2
Are the so-
called simple bodies not rather composite things ? since
even moisture cannot be without fire, for if it were it

would nor can the earth be wholly without

freeze ;

moisture, for if it were it would fall to pieces.

3
We
are not, however, justified in ascribing to Theophrastus
on account of these criticisms an actual departure from
the Aristotelian doctrine. 4 He is only following his
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 rb Qepjubv Kal

\a(jL$avov<n

elemental sphere can be meant. &a-n-p iraQy rivwv eTi-ai, OVK

1
J)e Iffne, 3-5. Cf. also Kal 5vvd/j.eis a^a 8e /ecu f) TWV
OLYJMPTODOEUS in Mcteorol. i. ccTrAcoi/ AeyOyUeVojj/ (pvaris /AIKT^ re
137, id. dAA^Aois &c.
KOI evvTrdpxova a
2
Ibid. 5-7, where 6 with 4
Aristotle also says that the
the words : eV uTro/cet/ieVoj rivl Kal elements do not present them-
rb Trvp Kal 6 ^i\ios T& dp/u.6v we selves separately in actuality ;

must supply ex et - see sirpra, vol. i.

p. 482, n. 4.
3
Ibid. 8 :
</>cuVercu yap ovrco
378 ARISTOTLE

further in his discussion of fire, inasmuch as, in spite

ofmany true observations, he not unfrequently proceeds
upon false assumptions and fails to bring to the elucida
any actual knowledge of the processes
tion of the facts
of combustion. Nor need we enter into his account of
1

wind (the cause of which he traces to the motion of the

2

sun and warm vapours

3
),
of the origin of rain, 4 of the

signs of the weather,

5
of stones, of smells, 7 tastes, 8

Thus, for the explanation

1
rcav Kal xeijUctSi/wj Kal ei5iwi/(Fr. (5).

of several actual or supposed n.

fi

(Fr. 2), according

\i6u>v

phenomena, we have such as to 59 written during the Ar-

sumptions as that the smaller chonship of Praxihulus (01. 116,
fire (as also AEIST. supposes, 2, 315 B.C.) At the beginning
Gen. et Corr. i. 7, 323, b, 8) is of this essay the treatise on
consumed by the greater, or that Metals, on which cf. USENER, p.
it is suppressed and suffocated 6, and supra, vol. i. p. 84, n. 1, is

by the density of the air (Fr. 3, mentioned. THEOPHR. (iMd.)

10 sq. 58 Fr. 10, 1 sq ) that a
; ;
makes stones consist of earth,
cold environment increases the metals of water, herein (see sup.
interior heat by repulsion (O.VTI- vol. i.p. 514) connecting his doc

TrepiVrao is) (ibid. 13, 15, 18, 74, trine with that of Aristotle,
7T. iSpOJT. 23, TT. \LTTO\I/VX. Ft. 10, whom he follows in general in
6; Cans. PI. i. 12, 3, vi. 18, 11, the treatment of this subject
andj}assi)/i ;
cf. the Index under (see SCHNEIDER S references in
his Commentary iv. 535 sqq. and
PLUT. Qu. Nat. 915) and
13, p. passim], except that he goes
the like. Hence also the state much more deeply into particu
ment (in SIMPL. De Ccclo, 268, lars than Aristotle did in the cor
a, 27 K. ScJiol. 513, a, 28) that
; responding section of the Meteor
there have been cases of sparks ology (iii. 6).

darting from men s eyes.

7
On
smells and tastes cf.
2
IT. avf(j.(av (Fr. 5). In 5 Cans. PI. vi. 1-5 (on those of

of this work mention is also plants, the rest of the book); on

made of that ir. vS&rwv (cf.DiOG. smells alone: irepl otrpa/v (Fr. 4).
v. 45; USENER, Anal. Tlieoplir.l}. Theophrastus here treats of the
3
Ibid. 19 sq. ALEX, in kinds of smells which do not
Meteor ol. 100, b ;
cf. sup. vol. i.
permit of such sharp separation
p.51 4 sq.Theophrastus had spoken as the kinds of tastes, and next
more i uliy on this subject in an with great fullness of particular
earlier treatise Zte Vent. 1. fragrant or offensive substances,
4
On this see OLYMPIO- their mixture, &c. Cf. also PLUT.
DORUS on Meteorol. i. 222 id. Qu. Conv. i. 6, 1, 4.
rj. ffrffieioof vSdrow Kal TTvev/j.d-
8
On these also he had written
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 379

2
light,
1
colours, sounds. 3 His view of the structure of

a special treatise, according to Farben, 181 sqq. Fr. 89, 3, 6

DlOG. v. 46, in five books (cf. also belongs to this group.
3
USENER, p. 8, and sup. vol. i.
p. Theophr. had discussed
84,11.1) ;
Cam. PL vi. 1, 2, 4, 1, he these in the treatise upon
enumerates seven chief tastes Music. In the fragment of this
with an obvious reminiscence of treatise which Porphyry has pre
ARIST. De Sensu, 4, 442, a, 19 (see served (Fr. 89) in Ptol. Harm,
sup. vol. i. p. 85). Ibid. c. 1, 1 he (WALLISH, Opp. iii. 241 sqq.)
gives a definition of xvn&s, which he controverts the assumption
agrees with that of Aristotle (see that the difference between
sup. vol. i.
p. 518). OLYMPIOD. in higher and lower notes is merely
Muteorol. i.286 id. mentions an a numerical one. cannot We
assumption with reference to the assert that the higher note either
briny taste of sea water (that it consists of more parts or moves
comes from the nature of the more swiftly (TrAetous apiQ^ovs
bottom of the sea). Kivtirai which according to
3,
Theophrastus had explained 6 Jin. seems to refer to the
1

his theory on this subject in the greater swiftness of motion by

fifth book of the Physics of ,
means of which in the same
which fragments have been pre time it traverses a greater
served to us in PRISCIAN S Para number of equal spaces) than
phrase (see PHILTPPSON, "TATJ the lower (the former was Hera-
avOpuTrivr), pp. 241 sqq.; WlMMER, elides the latter Plato s and
,

Tlieoplir. Opp. iii. 232 sqq.). On Aristotle assumption see Plt.d.

s ;

light and transparency cf. 16 Or. i. 655 n. and stip. vol. i.

887, 1,

sqq. The S/ce^aj/es is, according p. 5 19). For in the first place if the
to the view here presented, which essence of sound is number, then
agrees with Aristotle s (see sup. wherever we have number we
vol. i. p. 518, n. 3), not a body but must also have sound on the ;

a property or state of certain other hand, if number is not the

bodies, and when light is called essence of sound, sounds are not
the ei/e pyeta rov Siacpavovs ( 18), distinguished by number only ;

frtpyem must be understood in in the second place observation

the wider sense of a irddrj/j-a or shows that for a low note an
certain change in the transparent. equally strong movement is re
The idea that light is a material quired as for a high one and ;

emanation is rejected. again the two could not accord

2
All that can be obtained with one another if they moved
on this subject from the works with unequal velocity or con
of Theophrastus (to which, how sisted ofan unequal number of
ever, the pseudo Aristotelian movements. If a higher note is
treatise on Colours does not be audible at a greater distance,
long cf. supra, vol ii. p. 355, n. 2)
;
this is only because it is trans
is almost entirely in agreement mitted in a merely forward
with Aristotle, and it is brought direction, whereas the deep note
together by PRANTL, Arist. ub. d. is 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 that intervals do not ex stotle in his general view of the
plain the difference in notes, world.
they merely make the latter per The extract
-
from his
ceptible by omission of the inter treatise on this subject given in|
mediate notes. In their case the pseudo Philo has already been
much more than in that of colours considered, sup. vol. ii. p. 354, n. 3.
a qualitative difference must be Theophr. here (c. 23 sqq. Bern.)
admitted. Wherein this differ controverts four arguments of
ence, however, consists, Theophr. his opponent and maintains
does not seem more precisely to against them (as is shown in
have defined. ZELLER S Hermes, 424 sq.) c.
xi.
1
We
see this from the state 25, p. 270, 6 sqq. that in the first
ment of Simplicius on the retro place their assertion that if the
gressive spheres quoted sup. vol.i. world were without beginning
p. 502, n. 1, and that of Pseudo- all unevenness in the earth s
Alex, in Metapli. 678, 13 Bon. (^807, surface must long ago have been
b, 9 Br.) which agrees with it. The levelled, overlooks the fact
remark Fr. 171 (TT. TUV l-)(Qvu>v}
6 that thetire in the earth
that the air is nearer the fire which originally heaved up the
than the water refers to Ari
is moiintains (cf. on this Theophr.
stotle s assumption that the F. 2, 3) also keeps them up and ;

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
sphere is composed he may
have compared it with such a
band, but the idea that the celes
tial sphere is really composed of
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,
inferred, this overlooks the
fact that that decrease (as Ari
;
stotle had previously taught, see
sup. vol. ii. p. 30, n. 2) is amerely
local one and is counterbalanced
by an increase at other places ;

two parts is inconsistent with just as little in the third place

Aristotle s doctrine that the does it follow from the transi-
world by reason of the nature of torine^s of all particular parts of
its materials can only have the the world, that the world as a
form of a perfect sphere (see sup. whole is transitory, inasmuch as
vol. i. p. 486 sq.). It has already the destruction of one thing is
been remarked sup. vol. ii. p. 372, always the birth of another (cf on .

that Theophrastus follows Ari this sup. vol. i.

p. 485). If finally
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 381

other 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
I

recent origin of civilisation was recognised by Theo-

phrastus 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 them again to the primeval state
of barbarism. 4 The mistake, in fact, which Aristotle
made in assuming with the old astronomy that in the
eternity of the universe is involved also that of the earth
and the human 5
race, reveals itself again in Theophrastus.

Striking proof of Theophrastus s

ability in the field
of natural history is afforded by his two works upon

man and therefore also the world ^a.Kpous tviavrwv irep^Sois and :

issaid to have had a beginning, after further explaining how

because the arts without which
man cannot live have had one,
Theophr. opposes to this view
the theory developed in the
text.
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 :

J
Cf. SUp. vol. ii. p. 32, n. 1. Kara 877 TOVS Aex^eVras rp6irovs
2
DiOG. v. 47 mentions two Si^a /jivpicav a\\wv fipaxvrepwi
books by him TT. eupTj/xdrcoj .
(fideipo/Jievov TOV irXziffrov /ntpovs
3
See more on this subject, dvQpuirvv Tri\nre7v e| dvdyKrjs Kal
infra. ras rex vas eTretSai/ 8e at fj.ev
. . .

4
It is not permissible, says Koival v6aoi x a^ aff(1} ap^Tai
<nv,

the pseudo-Philo, c. 27, p. 274, 8e avrifiav Kal fiXaa-rdveiv rb yevos

3 sqq. Bern., to judge the anti- e /c T&V p)] irpoKaraX^tpQevruv TOLS
quity of man from that of the tirifipicraai Setyots, apx^o-Qai Kal TO.S
arts. For (pOopal TUV Kara yrjv re ^j/as ird\iv awiaraaOai, ov rb
OVK adpocav airavTiav aAAa TUV irpwTOV yevofAcvas, aAAa TTJ /xetaJcrei
irXs iO Twv Sval rats ,u.eyiffrais ruv e^oVrcof vTroffTravurdeiffas.
5
airiaisdi aTiOfi TaijTrvpbsKalvSaTos Cf. on this Pfiil.-hlstor.
d\eKTois (popals. KaraffKriTTTeif 8 Abhandl. der Jjerl. Akadcmtze,
c/carepav eV /ie pet (pafflv eV irdvv 1878, pp. 105 sq.
382 ARISTOTLE
1
plants. Observations are there collected with the most
unwearied diligence from all regions of the world acces

sible at that time. All the information attainable

by
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

cultivation, the use,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,
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 Theo-
phrastus. The scientific explanation of the facts,
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
tions but Theophrastus cannot be compared with
;
:
hi
Master in either of these respects.

1
According to KIRCHNER,
Die Botan. Sclirift. d. Th. (Jahrb.
f. Pliilol. Supplement!), vii.) p.
497, he names 550 plants, and of
these there are about 170 with re-
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
kno wn before his time, we cannLOt
assume that he intended to
enumerate all that were known
to him.
2
Cf. what BBANDIS, iii. 298
sqq., KIRCHXER, 499 sqq., have
collectedfrom the writings of
Theophrastus on the sources and
compass of his botanical know-
ledge.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 383

The fundamental ideas of his botanical theory are

taken from Aristotle. 1
Plants are living creatures. 2
Theophrastus does not make express mention of a soul
in them ;
he regards their natural heat and moisture
3
as the seat of their life, 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
5
environment is indispensable. Their progress and
perfection, their improvement or deterioration depend,
therefore, in this respect, primarily upon the heat and

1
KlBCHNEB, ibid. 5J4 sqq. eVre 9fp/j.6rrjTi Kal
gives us a comparison of Theo- The latter, however,
phrastus s botanical theory with he remarks, are difficult to mea
Aristotle s so far as we know it. sure he accordingly exerts him
:

2
Z&vra, Cans i. 4, 5, v. 5, 2 : self here and in c. 22 to dis
18, 2 fjttjSw. ibid. v. 4, 5
; they ;
cover marks by means of which
.have not e07j [^ 0rj] and -n-pd^is, we may recognise the degrees
like the animals, but thev have of temperature in a plant, an
plovs, Hist. i. 1, 1. endeavour in which, as we might
3
Hist. i. 2, 4 airav yap (pvr^v :
suppose, he meets with very
%X ei Tiva vyporrjra Kal little success.
5
(TV/J.<PVTOV &ffirtp Kal C<ov,
Cans. ii. 3, 4 :ael yap 8eT
viroXenrovTwv yiverai yripas \6yov nva ex lv r ^ v xpacriv TT)S
reAe/ws
(f)di<ns, Se (pvaews irpbs TO Tre/ne^oi/. 7, 1 :

Qavaros Kal avavffis. Cf. 11. 3 ;

rb avyyevls TTJS fyixrews tKaffrov
Cans. i. 1, 3 for germination :
ayei Trpbs T^V olitfiov [TOTTOV] . . .

there is required e/mftios vypor-ns oiov -TI Oep/jLorris Kal 7] J/WX/J^TT^S Kal
and (rv/jKpvTov 6ep/j.bv as well as a rj |7jpoT7js Kal ff vypOTrjs ^Tjre? 70^
certain proportion between them. ra Trpocrtyopa Kara r^v Kpaaiv. c.
Hist. i. 11, 1 the seed contains
:
9, 6 :
7] yap rovvi6v/nla iracri
the <rv(j.(pvTov vypbv Kal dep/nbv, and o-vyyevovs. The statement of
if these escape, it loses the
power BEANDIS (iii. 319) that the effi
of germination. See further cacy of heat, &c., is conditioned
Cans. ii. 6, 1 sq. 8, 3, and other also by the opposite is not to be
passages. found either in Cans. ii. 9, 9, or
4
Cf. Cans. i. 10, 5. Ibid. c. anywhere else in Theophrastus,
21, 3 rets ISias e/cacrTcoi/
:
$ucreis although he states in another
ir ovv vypOTrjTi Kal connection, Hist. v. that
r)p6Tir)Ti Kal 9, 7,
irvKv6r-r]Ti [WiMMER
s conjecture] passive and active must be
Kal p.avoTi]TL Kal rots roiovrois heterogeneous.
384 ARISTOTLE
moisture of the air and the ground and on the effects of
sun and rain. The more harmonious the relation in
1

which all these factors stand to one another and to the

plant, the more favourable are they to its development, 5

which therefore conditioned partly by outward in
is

fluences 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

3
passive susceptibility impressions from without.
to
This physical explanation does not, of course, with
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
origin 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
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. n. 1, of the compression of in-
21, 2 sqq. ii. 13, 5, iii. 4, 3; 22, 3, ternal heat by external cold,
iv. 4, 9 sq. 13, and other passages. 2
Caus. i. 10, 5 G, 8, ii. 9, 13,
:

In the explanation of the pheno- iii. 4, 3, and passim.

mena themselves, Theophrastus 3
The tivvajjus rov iroielv anc
indeed not unfrequently ?ets rov rrdvxeiv, Caus. iv. 1, 3.
into difficulty, and rescues him- 4
See svj}ra,vol. ii.
p. 3G9, n. 2.
3
self by assumptions such as that Hist. i. 1, 1-4.
referred to stqjra, vol. ii. p. 378,
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 385
l

plant the root, stem

(or stalk), branches and twigs. 2
He 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
found in plants as invariably as mouth and belly are
all

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,
wood, pith, and as the constituent parts of these
again,
6
sap, fibres, veins and pulp. From which are these,
permanent, he distinguishes finally the yearly changing
elements, which, indeed, in many cases are the whole
7
plant. Here, however, as not unfrequently elsewhere,
-\ he takes the tree as the basis of his it investigation ;

seems to stand with him for the perfect

I plant, just as
I humanity stands with Aristotle for the perfect animal
I and man for the perfect type of
humanity.
In his treatment of the
origin of plants, Theophras-
|
tus points out three distinct methods of propagating
them, viz. from seed, from parts of other plants, and by
|

8
spontaneous generation. The most natural of these is
1
TO.
fidpia (ibid.), the
e|o> fv olov rb txcrciov, Hut
^d\i<rra

tronoiopcpii (ibid. 12, cf. supra, i. 1, 9. Aristotle s view was not

vol. i.
p. 517, n. 6, and vol. ii. altogether identical; see supra,
P-28, n. 1. vol. ii.
p. 35, n. 4.
2
pifa, Ka.vA.bs, a.Kp/j.(av, K\d8os 3
Ibid. 6 sqq.
. . . Zffri 8e pffa iJ.ev 81 ov r^v 4
Ibid. 10 sqq.
rpo(J> V eirdyerai
^
[it depends on 5
evrbs, ibid. ra e| &v ravra,
TO. ;

this, i.e. on the

not 8vva.fj.is ^VO-IK^, o^oto^ep}, ibid. 2, 1.
the position in the ground, 6
Hist. i. 2, 1, 3. On the
on^
Hisi. i. G, 9] /cauA&j 5e els &
meaning of Is, <A.ty, a-ap of
Qfperai. itavAbv Se Xcyu rb virep
plants, see MEYER, Gcscli. der
yrjs TreQvKbs aKpepovas e>
ei> . . . Bot. i. 160 sq.
8e rovs curb TOVTOV <r%ifoueVous, 7
Hist. i. 2, 1 sq.
ovs Zvioi KaXovaiv ofrvs. K\a$ov 8
Here he follows Aristotle ;
8e rb )8Aa(TT7j/ia rb e/c rovruv see supra, vol.
e</>
ii. p. 36.
VOL. II. c. r
336 ARISTOTLE
from seed. All seed-bearing plants employ this method,
even if individuals among them exhibit another as
well. 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. Theophrastus compares seed, as
Empedocles had done, to eggs, 2 but he has no true con
ception of the fructification and sexual differences of
plants. He often distinguishes, indeed, between male
3
and female plants, differing in this from Aristotle ;
4
but
when we inquire what he means by this, we find, in the
firstplace, that this distinction refers always to plants
as awhole and not to the organs of fructification in
them, and can apply, therefore, only to the smallest
portion of the vegetable kingdom ; that, in the second

place, it is applied by Theophrastus only to trees, and

not even to 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.

ing, and that it belongs in fact

1
Cans. i. 1, 1 sq. 4, 1; Hist,
ii. 1, 1, 3. to the unscientific use of
-
Cans. i. 7, 1, cf. ZELLER, Ph. guage. He nowhere gives
d.Gr. i. 717, 5. So also Aristotle, more exact
definition of i
Gen. An. i. 23, 731, a, 4. significance or its basis; on the
3
See supra, vol. ii. p. 34, n. 1, contrary, he frequently marks
and p. 48. it as a customary division by
4
See Index under tippyy and the use of KaXovcri or a similar
9rj\vs. expression (e.g. Hist. iii. 3, 7, 8,
5
It is clearfrom his whole 1, 12, G, 15, 3, 18, 5). The
mode of applying the distinction division in his text is limited to
between male and female plants trees trees, he says, are divided
:

that Theophrastus was not the into male and female (Hist. i.
first to make it. It is plain 14, 5, iii. 8, 1 Cans. i. 22, 1, and
;

that he found it already exist- passini) ;

and nowhere does he
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 387

On the other hand, he instituted accurate observations

upon the process of germination in some plants.

1

Among the different methods of

propagating plants by
slips, bulbs, &c., which Theophrastus dis-
minutely

I call any other plant but a tree (Hist. 8, 2), and

i. that their
male or female for although ; wood harder, of closer tissue,
is
I he says {Hist. iv. 11, 4) ot: a and darker, while the female are
] species of reed that in compari mure slender (Hist. iii. 9, 3, \,
son with others it is Qr)Xvs rrj 4, 1 Caus. i. 8, 4).
;
Only of the
7rpo(rotf/et, this
quite different is date tree does Theophrastus
say
from a division into a male and that the fruit of the female
female species. Theophrastus ripens and does not fall off if
speaks also (Cans. vi. 15, 4) of the pollen of the male fall
upon
an 6070? 6rj\vs. Even trees, how it, and he compares this with
ever, do not all fall under the the shedding of the
spawn by
above division of. Hist. i. 8, 2 ; : the male fish but even in this;

Kal ra appeva 8e T&V &7]\eLS>u he cannot see fructification in

oa>5e
(rTepa, ev ols 4a"riv
a/Ltcfxa. the proper sense, as the fruit is
This is enough to show that the supposed to be already there ;

division is not based on any his explanation of the matter

correct conceptions as to the
fructification of plants, and all
that he further states concerning
it proves how
be set upon it. The distinction
rather is that the fruit is warmed
and dried by the pollen, and he
compares the process with the
little value must caprification of figs (Cans. ii. 9,
15, iii. 18, 1 Hist. ii. 8, 4, 6, G).
;

between male and female trees He never supposes that all seed-
is found to consist in the former formation depends upon fructifi
being barren, or at any rate cation. In Caus. iii. 18, 1, he ex
less fruitful than the latter pressly rejects the idea which
(Hist. iii. 8, 1). The most general might have been founded upon
distinction between trees is that this fact wpbs rb TeAeioyoyeu/ ^7;
:

of male and female, wv TO fj.fi/ avrapites TO drj\u,

e/i/cu
remarking
Kapirocpopov rb Se a.K.apirov eVt that if it were so there would be
rivwv. tv ols 5e a/j.<pw Kapirotyopa, not only one or two examples of
rb 6f)\v Ka\\LKapir6repov Kal it, but it would
necessarily esta
TTo\vKapiroTepoj/ some, however, :
blish itself in all, or at
any
contrariwise call the latter kind rate in most, cases. It is not
oi trees male. Cans. ii. 10, 1 :
surprising, therefore, that he
TO. fj.f:v &Kapira TO. 5e Kdpiri/n.a ruv says (Caus. iv. 4 10) that in the ;

aypiwv, & 8/7 0?jAea TO. 8 appcj/a case of plains the earth bears
naXovffiv. Cf. Hist. iii. .
>, 7, c. 9, 1, the same relation to the seed as
2, 4, 6, c. 10, 4, c. 12, 0, c. 15, 3, the mother does in the case of
c. 18, 5 ;
Caus. i. 22, 1, iv. 4, 2). animals.
Moreover, remarked that
it is 1
Hist. viii. 2, on grain, pulse,
the male have more branches and some trees.

cc2
388 ARISTOTLE

cusses, he reckons grafting and budding, in which he

1

2
says the stem serves as soil for the bud or the graft ;

and, as a second method of a similar kind, the annual

8
In to
sprouting of plants. reference, finally, spon
taneous generation, Theophrastus indeed remarks that
this is not unfrequently merely apparent, the seeds of

plants being so minute

as to escape observation,
many
or having been carried by winds, water and birds to
4
where we least expect to find them. But that
places
it 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
6
fluence of terrestrial and 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 unsatisfactori-
calling attention
iiess of this classification.
8
He further distinguishes

1
Hist. ii. 1 sq. Cans. i. 1-4 K\a8ov .... fypvyavov 8e TO airb
and passim. Also propagation pi&s TroAuo-reAexes Kal iro\vK\a5ov
*ca Se rb anb ptfos (pv\\o-
by the so-called tears (Sa/cpua). on . . . .

which see Cans i. 4, 6, Hist. ii. 2, <p6pov irpoibv da-re Aexes ou 6 Kav\bs
1, and cf MEYEE,
GescJi. der Hot.
. <nrpfj.o(p6pos.
8
j lyg Ibid. 2 : Se? Se rovs opovs
-
CdUS. i. 6. OWTCOS aTro8exe<r0cu
Kal Aa/ji,pdi>eu/

3
Caus. i. 10, 1, where this wsrvira) Kal eVl rb irav X^yo^vovs
discussed. evm 70^ Uws
subject is further ^VaAAaTreti/
5o|ete,
4
Caus. i. 5, 2-4, ii. 17, 5 ;
ra 8e Kal -n-apa ayoay^v [by rr)i>

Hist. iii. 1,5. culture] aAAoio repa yivea da.i K.a.1

3
Cf. Caus. i. 1, 2, 5, 1. ii. 9, eitftaiveiv TTJS (pixrecas. And after

14, iv. 4, 10. Hint,

iii. 1, 4. explaining by examples and
Caus. i. 5, 5 cf ii. 9, 6, 17, 5.
6
;
.
farther enlarging upon this fact,
7
Hist. i. 3, 1, with the that there are also bushes and
further explanation SeVSpov p.\v : herbs with the form of trees, and
ovv eVn TO ctTrb plfos ^ovoffr\fx es that we might thus be inclined
o&rbv OVK fvair6\vTov to lay more stress upon the size,
TO airb OI ^TJ? TTO\V- strength and durability of plants,
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 389

between garden and wild plants, fruit-bearing and

barren, blossoming and non-blossoming, evergreen and
deciduous ;
while admitting that these also are vanishing
distinctions, he yet regards them as the common natural
characteristics of certain classes. 1
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 he classes trees and bushes toge

ther. 3 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?/ : a review of the contents of both

ravra \to/j.fv OVK aKtfio-
&a"jre works see also a shorter one in
;

v T& MEYER, Gescli. der Bot. i. 159

TfIVS
sqq.
Hist. i. 3, 5 sq. and some
1 3
Seven books, which DiOG. v.
further remarks c. 14, 3. In 43 enumerates singly by
first

respect to the distinction be their particular titles, and then

tween garden and wild plants comprehends under the common
especially he observes here and title TT. foW. Single books are
iii. 2, 1 sq. that this is a natural also cited by Athenasus among
one, as some plants degenerate others : see USENER, p. 5,
under cultivation, or at least do Theophrastus himself refers
not improve others, on the con
; (Cans. Pl.ii. 17, 9, cf iv. 5, 7) to
trary (Cans. i. 16, 13), are de the IffTopianrfpi &uv. He does not
signed for it. seem, however (if we may judge
2
Hut. i. 4, 2 sq. 14,
from the single titles in Diogenes),
3, iv, G,
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 plants where Aristotle had already laid
;

book vi. of shrubs books vii. down the essential principles)

;

viii. of herbs book ix. dis to supplement Aristotle s work

;

cusses the sap and healing by a minute treatment of par

qualities of plants. ticular points. To this work
4
BEAXDIS, iii. 302 sqq., gives belong Fr. 171-190.
390 ARISTOTLE

than an extension of Aristotles labours by further obser

vations and some isolated researches of minor value. 1

His views upon the nature of life and of the human

2
soul are of more importance. Several of the funda-
The citations from him re that the measure of it is relation
lating to this, apart from isolated. to man, 6 yap avOpooiros 3) p.6vov fy
and sometimes rather mythical, /uaAiCTTarj/j.fpov. The use which
references to his natural history the different animals are to one
(e.ff.
Fr. 175 and the statement another Theophrastus had referred
in PLUT. Qu. conv. vii. 2, 1), are to in the Natural History (Caus.
limited to the following: ii. 17 9 cf. 5). Concerning the
;

Animals occupy a higher stage origin of animals he also believes

than plants they have not only
: in spontaneous generation even
life but also 07? [^] and in the case of eels, snakes and
irpd^fis(Hist. i. 1,1); they are fish (Cans. i. 1, 2, 5,5, ii. 9, ,

related to man, not only in body, 17, 5; Fr. 171, 9, 11, 174, 1, (>
;

but also in soul (seeinfra, p. 394, cf.PORPH. DeAbfft. ii. 5, accord

n. 1). Their life proceeds in the ing to which the first animals
first instance from a native, in must have sprung from the earth,
ternal heat (Fr. 1 TT. AenroiJ/ux. 2) ;
and the treatise ir. TU>V
avTOju.ot.Tvt>

at the same time they require a in DIOG-. v. 46)

(?<av
their meta ;

suitable (fru/uneTpos) environment, morphoses are mentioned in Cans.

air, food, &c. (Cans. PL ii. 3, 4 ii. 1G, 7, iv. 5, 7. Kespiration
sq. iii. 17, 3); alterations of he conceives, with Aristotle, to
place and season produce in them serve the purpose of refrigera
certain changes (Hist. ii. 4, 4, tion fish (to not breathe, because
:

Cans. ii. IB, 5, 10, fi). With the water performs this service
Aristotle (see Chap. X. sw^ra) for them (Fr. 171, 1, 3 ;
cf. Fr.
Theophrastus emphasises the 10, 1). Lassitude istraced (Fr.
marks of design in their bodily 7, 1, 4, 6, 16) to a <nWrj|is,
a de
organs as against the older phys composition of certain consti
ics the physical organism is the
: tuents of the body (cf. the
instrument, not the cause of vital avi>T7]y/j.a, vol. ii.
p. 51, n. 2, sup.} ;

activity (De Here,

Sensu, 24). vertigo (Fr. 8, IT. Ixiyyuv}, to the
however, Theophrastus does not, irregular circulation of the
any more than Aristotle (see Ch. humours in the head. Fr. 9, TT.
VII. supra), overlook the fact that ISpwTcav investigates the proper
even in the case of animals it is ties of perspiration and their
impossible to trace in every parti conditions. Fainting is the re
cular a definite design (Fr. 12, 29 : sult of the want or loss of vital
see supra, vol. ii.p. 11, n. 2). dis A heat in the respiratory organs
tinction is occasionally made be (Fr. 10, TT. AetTToil/uxtas); simi
tween land- and water- animals larly palsy results fruin cold in
(Hist. i. 4, 2,14, 3. iv. 6, 1 Cam. ii. ;
the blood (Fr. 11, IT. irapaXvcrews).
Theophr. had spoken of the
-
3,5) wild and tame (Hist. iii. 2, 2,
;

Cans. i. 16, 13) on the latter dis

;
soul in Physics, Bks. iv. and v.,
tinction in Hist. i. 3, 6 he remarks which according to THEMIST, De
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: TIIEOPHEASTUS 391

mental conceptions of the Aristotelian doctrine are here

called in question. Aristotle had described the soul
as the unmoved principle of allmovement, and had
referred its apparent movements, in so far as they can
be regarded as such, to the body.
Theo 1

properly
true of the lower activi
phrastus held that this is only
ties of the soul thought-activity, on the contrary, must,
:

2
he thinks, be regarded as a movement of the soul.

An. 91 a, Spengel ii. p. 199, 11, in quibus tractat locos ab

were also entitled TT. ij/ux ?*- Aristotele ante tractates. But
See supra, Ch. XI.
1 this very similarity makes it
According to SIMPL. Plnjs.
-
possible that Hermolaus merely
225, a, he said in the first transferred Theophrastus s name
book IT. Kivhffews on of pev : from the second passage to the
al af fitiQu^iai Kal ooyal first a transference hardly
opel-eis
ffw^ariKal Kivf)aeis flffl Kal OTTO justified by that passage itself.
TOVTOW apx^l^ ^xofo tj , bcrai 8e The statements of Themistius
Kpurets Kal Beupiai,
ravras OVK HCTTLV seem rather to refer to another,
is eVepoj/ ayaye iv, aAA ei/ avrrj and indeed far later, writer
Ka ^ *) e J ^P7 e la than Theophrastus, when he
TT)ifuxf Ka ^ ^ UPX*! e.g.,

Kal rb Ve Aos, fl 5e ST) Kal 6 vovs reproaches his anonymous op

KpsiTTOV TI /j.epos Kal QeioTtpov. aVe ponent (68, a), with having
STJ e|a>0i/
tirei<TiwvKal -jravreXeios. apparently wholly forgotten
Kal TOVTOLS eirdyei virep yuei/
ovv Aristotle s views upon motion,
TOVTWV (TKeTTTeov tt Tiva x u P l(r V-bi Kairoi (TVVQ^IV e /cSeSw/cws TU>V

Tpbs rbv eirel TO ye Kivf](T(as elpt^fifvuv ApiffTo-

X L
opov, Trept
ravras 6/j.o\oyov-
Kii/7}(rets eh/cu al TeAei (Theophrastus can hardly
fj.evov. We know
that Theo have written such a
treatise
music as e/cSeSw/cws moreover points to an
phrastus also described
Kiv-tjais tyvxys. To him, also, original work nor was it neces
KITTER, iii. 413, refers THEMIST. sary to appeal to this to prove
Do An. 68 a, Sp ii. p. 29 sq., that Aristotle s theory of motion
where divers objections to Ari might have been known to him) ;

stotle s criticism of the assump when he reports of him (68, b.) :

tion that the soul moves, opoXoyuv TTJV Kivncriv r^s

are cited from an unnamed ovcriav elycu Kal (pvffiv,
f
Sia

writer who is described with the fyflffiv, 6ff(p kv i^aXXov

words b T(av Api0"TOTeAous Tovoincp juaAAoj/ rr\s ovirias aiirys
e|eTO(TT^y. THEMIST. 89 Sp. b. iiffraff6cu, &c, (this Theophrastus

p. 189, 6, certainly says eo^pacr- would certainly not have said) ;

TOS ev ols e|eTO^ei TO Api(TTore\ovs: when he says to him with refer

and Hermolaus Barbaras trans ence to this that he appears not
lates (according to Hitter) both to know the distinction of motion
Theophrastus in Us and energy. The general tone
passages
 392 ARISTOTLE
Aristotle had spoken of a Passive
Reason, declaring
that only the
capacity of knowledge is
innate, and that
this capacity can only develop gradually into actual
1
knowledge; but the development of that which is
present at first
only as a capacity in other words, the
realisation of is movement. 2 It is
possibility improbable
that Theophrastus on this account defined the nature of
the soul differently from Aristotle 3 but on the other
;

hand, he found serious difficulty in accepting his view of

the relation between active and reason. The
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 : 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
performs an act of thought ? If it
be said that it is
impelled to think by external things,
hard to understand how the
it is
incorporeal can be acted
upon and altered by the corporeal. If it receives the
impulse from itself the only other alternative to im-

of Themistiuss argument Aristotle had himself defined

conveys
the impression that he is dealing the soul as the entelechy of an
with a contemporary.
organic body. Theophrastus
See supra, vol. ii. p. 96.
1

therefore, would have merely

-
See^7-a,vol.ii.p.380,n.l. added that the first substratum
JAMBLICHUS says, indeed, of the soul, the 6elov o-w^o is the
in STOB. Eel. i. 870eVepot fc
: ether which, however, he
^
;
prob-
[sc.
TO^ Apio-TOTcAi/cwi/] Te\fi6~ ably meant in the same sense in
TTjra avr^v a^pifrvrai /car ovviav which Aristotle also (see supra,
rov eeiov a^aros, %v
[the re\fi6- vol. ii. p. (5, n. 2) conceived of the
T??y perhaps, not the QCiov cru/^a] soul as united to a substance
fi>Te\(Xfiav /caAe? Apto-TOTtAijs, like the ether.
wvirfp 8^ ev eV ots
eo^atrros. But
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 393

pulse from the senses then it is not passive at all. In

any case this passivity must be of a different kind from
passivity in general it is not the mobilisation of that :

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 become something material ? If,
potentiality,
finally, the distinction must be made in the case of rea

son, as elsewhere, between the efficient and the material

cause, the question yet remains, how are we further to
describe the nature of each ? what are we to understand

by the passive reason ? and how is it that the active

reason, innate, does not act from the very first ?
if it is

if it i,s not innate, how does it afterwards l

originate ?

Theophrastus in THBMIST. had said of

1
with it ? Aristotle
De An. 91 a, Sp. 198, 13 sq. divine as well as of human
(the same in a rather poor and thought that in its exercise it is
corrupt extract in PRISCIAN S the object of thought see supra, ;

paraphrase, ii. 4, p. 365 sq. vol. i. p. 197, n. 3, and p. 199]

Wimm.) : 6 5e vovs irws nore Kal Tt T&
Trdff^fiv avrov ; Se?
|o>0ej/
&v Kal ci&crTrep (TriQeros, o/xcos yap [sc. Tratrxeii/], eforep els evep-
ffv/j.<f)vf]s ; Kal ris ^ (pvcris avrov ; yeiav ri^fi, Sunrep 7] atvQriais
TO fMfi> yap /j.r)5fv elvat /car ej/e p- dora-judr&j Se virb ffuf^aros ri rb
yeiav, Svi dfMfi 8e irdvra, /caAws, TrdOos ; ?)
irola jU,6TO)8oAr) / /cat

Sxrirep Kal rf aVffdyorts. ov yap OVTM TTorepoj/ aTr e/ce:i/ou rj ap^r) -ft
air
Xrjirrfov, a>s oi5e avros 4pio~TtKbv avrov ; rb /j.v yap [for on the one
ydp aAA a>s
viroKeii^cviiv riva hand] irdff-^eiv air e/cetj/ou 5^|etev
Swa/j.iv, Kaddirep Kal rwv v\iK(av eirl av [sc. o vous] (ouSei/ 70^ d^)
[the above statement, that it is eauTOu [sc. Tratrxet] T&V eV iraflei),
nothing KOT evepyeiav, must not TO 5e apxw [1. dpx$?, as PRISCIAX
be taken to mean that it is never also has] iravrcav elvai Kal eV
present itself rather is its pre :
avT(f} TO j/oelv Kal /j.}) faffirep rals
sence as faculty presupposed by altrdr](T<Tiv air avrov [thought must

every exercise of reason]. dAAa lie in its own power, and not come
rb %(ji)t)v apa ov^ us siriQtTov, aAA to it from the object as sensation
us ev rrj irpwry yevefffi av/j.irtpi- to the senses auToD must be re
\a(j.fid.vov [-jSafdjUej/or] dereov. TTWS ferred to e /ceiVou BEENTANO S
;

5e TroTe yivfrai TO VOIJTO,; [how changes, Psychol. d. AT. 219, are

does reason become the object of unnecessary], rdxa 8 &v tyaveir]
thought ? how does it unite itself Kal TOVTO aTOirov, fl 6 vovs v\i]s
394 ARISTOTLE
That Theophrastus nevertheless held fast by the Ari
stotelian doctrine of the twofold nature of reason is
l

beyond dispute what we know of the way in which ;

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 fields, holding that

exe* (pvffiv /j.yo ev &v, airavra 8e eV (pvo-ei, rb fj.lv us vAyv Kal

Trdffij
Svvar6s. Themistiusadds that Svvd/u,i,rb Se atriov Kal
iroirjriKbv,
Theophrastus continued these Kal ori ael
ri/u.iu>repov
rb iroiovv rov
discussions in the fifth book of Trdo~xvros Kal 77 apyr/ rijs v\ris.
the Physics, and in the second ravra airoSfx^rai, SiaTropz? 8e,
fj.lv
on the Soul, and that they are rives ovv avrat al Svo (pvo~eis, Kal ri
fj.t<TTa
TroAAtoj/ jnev airoptuiv, iro\\uv irdXiv rb fnroKeifj.vov 7} o-vv^prrj-
8e eTTiffrdaeoov iroXX&v 8e \vaeuiv.
/j.evov rff iroiririKfp fj.iKrbv yap
The result is, on /cat
irepl rov TTUS o vovs UK re rov itoL fjriKov Kal
Svvdfj.ei vov o~x e $bv ra avra 8m- rov Swd/aei. el ovv
fj.lv o~vjj.<pvros
jropovo etre earriv ezre 6
Lv, e^cadev KLVWV, Kal evdvs expfjv Kal del
[so. Kivelv]. el Se
vo-repov, fj,era
rivos Kal ir&s f) yevevis ; eoiKev ovv
\eyovo~i 8e Kal avrbv airadfj Kal ayevvr]TOs, el-rep Kal
acpeapros.
X^piffrbv, &o~Trep rbv TTOLTjriKbv Kal evvTrapxtov 8 ovv, Sia ri OVK ael ;
rlv evepyeia dnaOfys yap, (prjcriv, T) Sid ri Arj07j Kal avarr) Kal
^/evSos;
o vovs, el
apa oAAws iraOfjriKos /XT/ ^ Sia rfv n iiv; The last para
[PKISCIAN also has these words, graph THEMTSTIUS gives, 89
but he also quotes, as an intro b, Sp., more
189, 8, literally,
duction to them, the remark
apparently, as follows el fj.lv :

that we cannot suppose yap us eis, tyijo-lv, rj Svvafj.is eKeivc*)

reason to be wholly impassive :
[the VOVS TTOiTJT.], et fj.lv 0~VlJ.(pVrOS
el
yap #Ao>s
airaO-rjs, (prjcrli , ael, Kal ev6vs exprjv
varepov el 5
ovSev vo-})<rei\.
Kal OTI rb TradrjTtKbv &c. The development of the
UTT
[1. eV] avrov oi>x
ds rb active reason from the potential
KivtiTiKhv \f]irreov, areA^s 70^ T] is described also in the
fragment
Kivtiais, aAA us evepyeiav. [So in PEISCIAN, c. 10, which has its
also PEISCIAN.] Kal Trpoiwv ^ai
place here, as the acquisition of
[following Aristotle, see sup., vol. a e|ts the sense discussed,
(in
ii. p. 61, n.
3] TOS /*ev ala-B-fjareis OVK vol. i. For the
p. 285, n. 3, supra).
avev crw/u,aros, rbv 5e vovv \(api(n-6v. text in the above, besides SPEN-
(Sib, here adds PRISCIAX, c. 9, p. GEL and BEANDIS, iii. 288 sq.,
272 W., TUV e|w TrpoeXBovTuv [1. TOESTEIK, Arist. de An. 187 sq.
.]
ov Se7rai irpbs rfyv reA- and BEENTANO, Hid. 216 sqq.
dfMevos 8e Kal Trepl r<av
may be consulted.
rov TToitjriKov vov Siwpiff/
1
Of. previous note and supra,
ApicrroreXei, e /ce?j/o, vol. ii. p. 391, n. 2.
(prjffiv,
0-/C67TT60V t>

[perhaps 2rt] 877

 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 395

its evolution has no relation to the incorporeal, which

is always present to it, but only to the corporeal, of
which it furnishes the explanation. 1

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 man more closely
with the physical. Similarly a statement has come
down to us in which he asserts that the soul of man is
of thesame nature as that of animals, that it exhibits
the same activities and states, and is only distinguished

Even the intimations in

1
Svvdfj.fi Kal TO fvepyeia tlvai ra
THEMISTIUS take this turn. The Trpdy/nara ATjTrreoi/ c. 20, p. . . .

passivity and potentiality of 281, W. Tovro 5e [the previous :

the reason is taken to be of citation from Aristotle] Siapd w

another kind than that of cor 6 &. eVcrye* aAA OTO.V ytvyrai /cul

poreal existence; as independent vor]dri, 5rj\of OTL ravra e ^ej, TO. 5e

of the body it does not require i>o-r)ra ael, eiVep r) eVto-T^rj r] Qew-
external impressions in order to pf]TiKT] ravrb ro7s Trpdy/j-affiv avrr]
reach completeness as active, 8e 7) /car eWp7etai> SrjAoi/oVi,
but is self -evolved from Suva/us KvpicaTaTt] ydp. point [We must
to e|ts and forgetfulness
;
error in this way and yap ta.ke avT-rj . . .

are explained by its union with as probably an explanation of

the body. On similar lines is the Priscian.] rc5 v<$, fy-ricrl,
TO. p.fv

Theophrastean defence of the Ari vor^ra, rovreffTi rd ^i)Aa, ael

stotelian doctrine which PRIS- (TffiSrj /car ovcriav avro"is
CIAN gives us (see ii. 17, p. 277, Kal (TTi[i>] oirep rd voyrd
W.) ira\iv Se
:
i>Trofj.i^.vi](TK^i (f>i\o-
rd Se vv\a, orav voyOri, Kal avrd
(TOfpwrara 5 &e6(pp. us Kal avrb TO T<$ v<$ i>Trdpj;i, ov^ ws ffvcTroi-^ws
e?j/cu TO, Trpdyfjiara rbv vovv Kal ovSeiroTe
avTtp ydp
voTf]dr]a6fj.eva
5vvdjj.fi Kal evepyeia \t]TrrfOV Ta tVuAa TW vi$ dv\cp OVTL aAA
otKetws iva /urj ws eVt rris uArjs orav o vovs rd eV avrq} p.}] ws avrd
Kara ffreprjffii TO Svvd/j.ei, r) Kara fj.6vov aAAa Kal ws dtria rwv evv\wv

p, Tore Kal vcp virdp^fi rd T6t>

TO evepyeia VTTOVOT] ffwfji.fi/ oAAct Kara TT)V alrlav. In making

fjLtiSf us firl rrjs alff9 f)(Tws, evda use of these passages it must not
Sid TTJS rwv alcrdrjrypiwv Kivr,(rews be forgotten that we have in
il rwv \6ywv yiverai Trpoflo\}], Kal them the words of Theophrastus
avrrj TUV e|w KeifAevcav ovffa 0(a- only in the paraphrase of a Neo-
prjTiK?/, aAAa voepus eVt vov Kal rb platonic.
396 ARISTOTLE

from it
by a greater degive of perfection.
1

This, how
ever, can only refer to the lower powers of the soul
exclusive of reason. 2 The relation of the lower to the
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. From what we know of his treatment of the
doctrine of reason we may conjecture that he found this
4
subject also full of difficulty.
We
have fuller details of Theophrastns s doctrine of

1
POEPH. UK Abut. iii. 25 oiKei6rr)s. The rest conceins
(apud BEEN AYS, Tlieoplir. iibr-r Porphyry, not Theophrastus.
-
Frommir/h. 97, 184 for the frag ; The \oyiff/j.ol, which with
ment there given belongs, as the beasts are different in per
BEKNAYS proves at p. 99, to this fection, are not in anjr very
hook and not to the TT. {ywv different position from the
fofypacrros Se KCU analoga of vovs and (ppovycrts,
\6yu>.
rovs e /c ascribed to the beasts by Ari
T<JOV aurcav yfvvj]Qtvro.s .... OIK- stotle (supra, vol. ii p. 27, n. 6,
fiovs fivai (pixrei tya.fj.fv dAA7]Acoi . and p. 38, n. 2).
So also of people of the same race, 3
MMPL. DC An. 80, a. As
even if they are not of the same to the difference between phan
descent irdvras 5e rovs avOpc&Trovs
:
tasy and perception, see also
a\\r]\ois (ptt/jLei/ olKfiovs re ical PEISCIAN, c. 3, fi, 263, W.
Suolv Qarepov, $)
els elvai r<f
1
With
this theory of the
af eivai roov $j TO? ai>ra>v,
imagination was connected a
KOL Kal TO.VTOV -yei/ovs
T]9<jav
question referred to by PEIS-
iv .... KOI ^v Kal Traffi ciAN (see PLOTIN. p. 565, ed.
ois a i re TO>I>
ffuifjidruv ap^al Didot, of. BBAXDIS, iii. 373).
at avral [i.e. seed, flesh, It is to be noted, however, that
TTQ\V 5e yUaAAoj/
<?.].
ras cv r<j5
Priscian does not expressly name
avro?s \|/ixas a8ia<p6povs Tre<pvKevai, Theophrastus and that the sup
;

\eyca ofy rats iriOv/j.iais Kal rats position that he is here referring
opyals, en 5e ro?s AoytcryUoTs, /cat to him is a conjecture of DUB-
^.aAffTTa iravTiav rats alffd^fftatv. NBE S. The question is, why do
aAA tacnrep ra (ru/J.ara, Kal ra? we remember our dreams when
ovrca TO yuej we are awake, and forget our
waking life in dreams ? We do
nacri ye fj.r]i/ aiirols at avral TT(pv- not get any clear answer from
naaiv apxai. STJAO? 5e TJ Priscian.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS :i97

the senses. 1 Here, however, he adopts Aristotle s con

2
clusions without important modification. The views
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

the object of perception. 4 This effect proceeds from
the object. 5 In order that it may be produced it is
necessary that the latter should stand to the organ of
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

stituent parts of its terms alone.
7
The operation of

1
We
can only notice in pas- rounding circumstances, some-
sing another anthropological times a condition of cold and
inquiry: namely, the discussion weariness, and sometimes a heat-
on Melancholy, which is to be ing and exciting effect,
found in the Aristotelian Pro- For which see p. 58 sqq. of
Hems (xxx. 1, pp. 1)53-955), the vol. supra. ii.

Theophrastean origin of which In the 3

De Sensu, as to
(I.e. from the book ?r. MeAcry- which sec vol. ii.
p. 354, n. 3.
XoAt os mentioned by DJOG. v. 44),
4
PEISCIAN, i. 1, p. 232, W:
ROSE, De- Arist. libr. ord. 191 has \fyei /m.ev ovv KOI avrbs, Kara TO.
detected by means of the refer- eft>7? /cat roiis \6yovs &Veu TT/S v\t]s

ence therein (954, a, 20) to the yiveo-Oai rrjv

s
t |o/*o,Wii/. The
book on Fire ( 35, 40). The theory of an airoppo^, i.e. an ef-
diverse effects which it was cus- rluence from the object to the
ternary to attribute to the ^ueAatj/a sense, is attacked in the De
XoAr? are explained, with the aid Sensu, 20, cf. Cans. PI. vi. 5. 4.
of an analogy drawn from the Compare the passages cited from
effects of wine, by the theory Aristotle supra, vol. ii. p. 59 n. 2.
5
that the ueAotvo %oA^ was of its i. 37, p. 254, W.
PRISCIAN,
own nature cold, but was capable De Sensu, 32, PEISC.
fi

44, i.

of taking on a high degree of p. 258, W, Cans. PI. vi. 2, 1,5, 4.

heat, and that accordingly it Both views are attacked by
7

produced according to the sur- Theophrastus in the De Stnsii,

398 ARISTOTLE

the object upon the senses is always mediated, accord

ing to Theophrastus, by a third term. In developing 1

his own
doctrine, as in criticising his predecessors, he
doubtless discussed each of the senses separately, but

only a meagre report has come down to us. 2

here
Like Aristotle, he distinguished the sensus communis
from the other senses, but did not wholly agree with
that philosopher s view of the way in which the uni
versal qualities of matter are perceived.
3
He defends
the veracity of sensation against the attacks of Demo-
critus.

31; the first also ibid.. 19, and tions of Hearing make the
the second opud PRISC. i. 34, keenest impression on our emo
p. 252. Cf. sujira, vol. i. p. 454 sq.
tions (PLUT. De Audiendo, 2, p.
Cf. supra, vol. i. p. 519 (on
1
38, a) and the account of eyes
;

the 5tr?xes and Sioff/j-ov). Pmsc. that send out fire (aptid SIMPL.
i. 16, 20, 30, 40, p. 241, 244, 250, De Ccolo, Schol. 513, a, 28 with ;

255; Cans. PL vi. 1, 1. Theo- which the citations supra, vol. ii.
phrastus here says, in agreement p. 65,n. 1, should be compared) ;

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
senses certain external sub
stances :for Sight tbe trans
parent medium for Hearing, the
;
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 :

air for Taste, water for Smell,

; ; fj.op(pT]s (tHTTTfp o.iroTvir&ffiv iv T(
air and water together. He also aepi yii>e<rdai.

3
considers that the immediate Aristotle had said (in the
organs of sense-perception in the De Anima, 425, a, 16 sqq.) iii.>
1,
c*seof Sight, Hearing and Smell that size, form, &c. were per
are formed out of water and air. ceived by means of motion &TO- ;

-
Besides the passages already irojfSe 6 Qe6(pp. [(prjalv^ flrrjvfj-op^v ,

cited, we ought to mention here TT) Kivrjaei (PRISC. i. 46, p. 259, W).

the observations (Fr. 4 De Odor. In the De Sensu, 68 sq.

4

4, Cans. PI. vi. 5, 1 sq. which

; (where, however, for the corrupt
follow Aristotle, as to whom see Xv/j.ov in 68 we should read, not,

supra, vol. ii. p. 65, n. 3) that with Schneider and Philippson,

although Smell is in man the X^AoO, but rather 9ep/j.ov ) he com
feeblest of the senses, yet he plains that Democritus treated
alone cares for a pleasant smell weight, lightness, hardness and
for its own sake, and that sensa softness as things in themselves,
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 399

As
a Peripatetic, Theophrastus of course asserted
the freedom of the will. In his treatise on voluntary
1

action 2 he fully discussed this subject, and

possibly
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
demanded further
investigation, little is known of
Theophrastus s contribution to science.
We have somewhat fuller information as to his
ethical doctrines. 3 Here also he merely continued the
and yet considered cold, heat, USENER, Anal. Theoplir. 4 sq.)
sweetness &c., as merely relative attributes Theophrastus the to
qualities of things. He argues following ethical works: 42.
that if these qualities depend on TT. ptuv three books
(if this work
the form of the atoms e.g. if really treated of the different
warmth is said to consist in pursuits in life, e.g. the fiios
roundness of atoms then such
qualities must be in some sense icbs, iic. [cf. svjtra, vol. ii. p. 140,
objective. If they are supposed n. 2], and was not merely bio
not to be objective because they graphical) ; 43, epwriKos a
do not appear alike to all men, (ATHEN. xiii. 562, e. 467, b. 606,
then the same conclusion should C), epwros a (3TEABO, X. 4, 12,
IT.

follow as to all other qualities of p. 478), TT. ei/SatjCioj/i as (ATHEN.

things. Even as to such qualities xii. 543, xiii. 567, a;
BEKKEE,
as sweetness and bitterness, Ancc-d. Gr. i. 104, 31 Cic. Tusc. ;

people are deceived only as to a v. 9, 24, cf. ^ELIAN. V. ][. ix.

particular case, and not as to the 1 1
) ; 44, TT. ijSovrjsus A/ncrro-
nature of sweets and bitters. Te Arjs a ,
TT. rjSovrjs &\\o a (ATHEN.
Properties so essential as heat xii. 526, d, 511, c; ibid. vi. 273, c.
and cold, must be something be viii. 347, e, where he adds, how

longing to the bodies that have ever, that this work was also at
them. Cr on this the references
. tributed to Chamseleon) KoAAi- ;

supra, vol. i. p. 209. EPICURUS ffQfv-ns $ TV. TtcvQovs (ALEX. De An.

defended the atomic view against fin., Cic. Tusc. v. 9, 25, iii. 10,
THEOPHRASTUS (ap. PLUTARCH, 21); 45, Qixtas 3 B.
TT.

Adv. Col. 7, 2, p. 1110). (HiERON. vi. 517, b, ed. Vallars.:

1
STOB. Eel i. 206 :
e6<f>p.
GELL. N. A. i. 3, 10, viii. 6, and
irpoorSiaipe i
(Mem. -ap9poi) rcus infra, p. 409 sq.), TT.
QiXoTi/j-ias
airiais T^V Trpoa pecnv. PSEUDO- 2 B. (Cic. ad Att. ii. 3 ad Jin.) ;

PLUT. V. Horn. ii. 120, p. 1155. 46, ir. tyevdovs jfiovTjs (OLYMPIO
2
EL eKovffiov a , DlOG. V. 43. DOR. Philcb. 269); 47, TT.
3
DlOG. v. 42 sq. (with which ias :
T]QiKu>v <TXO\()V a! :
rjOiKol
cf. the further information in TT. /coAa/cet as
(v. infra) :
400 ARISTOTLE

work of Aristotle, his chief merit being the greater

fullness with which he develops it in details. We can-

a (ATHEN. vi. 254, d) dpiX-nrucbs : ral books. In fact, EUSTRAT. in

a: tr.opKova: TT. irXovrov a! (ASPAS. Etli. N. 61, b, tellsus, obvi
in Eth. N. 51,andCiC. Off. ii. 16, ously from a well-informed
56). TrpojSA^uaTa troXniKa. i]9iKa source, that the verse ej/ Se
(pvffiitaepwTiKaa 50, ;
TT. u<reeuis SiKaLOffvvri, &c. (ARIST. Etli. v. 2,

(Sclwl. in Aristojjk. Av. 1354; 1129, b, 29) was ascribed by

as to BERNAYS view vide supra Theophrastus in the first book TT.
ii. p. 355, n. 2), TT. iraiUfias T) T. H0o)j/ to
Theognis, and in the
a (to this first book of the H0t/ca to Pho-
aperuv % IT. ffu><ppo(rvvT]S

work the Fragrn. apud STOB. cylides. From one of these

/Y/>riZ. iv. 216, No. 124, ed. Mem. works, or perhaps from both, the
ight be referred). A work TT. (ketches of various faults which
wi/ not named by Diogenes is are collected in the Characters
referred to by SIMPL. Catcg. 69, as we have it appear to. have
8. 6 cAoZ. m Ar. 70, b, 3. Theo- been borrowed. That this, as it
phrastus, however, also wrote two stands, is an authentic work of
larger ethical works, of which one Theophrastus is incredible and ;

may possibly be the i)6iKal <rxoh.ai that a genuine treatise on Cha

of Diog., which must in that case racters by him underlies it, as
have had more than one book. BRANDTS, iii. 360, thinks possible,
The two are referred to as HQiKa is in fact very unlikely. The
and TT. HfloJi/. Out of 0eo0o. eV origin of the collection above
rms WIKOIS, PLUT. Pericl. 38 suggested explains, on the one
quotes a story about Pericles. hand, the fact that it does not
Ei rots TV. T)Q<av Theophr. had, form a connected whole, and, on
according to the Scholiast in the other, the fact that it exists
CRAMER S Aneod. Paris, i. 194, in several different recensions, as
made mention of the avarice of to which cf. PETEESBN, Tlwopli.
Simonides, and according to Characteres, p. 56 sqq., SAUPPE,
ATHEN. xv. 673 e. a contemporary Philodemi De vitiis, I. x.
of this scholar named Adrantus (Weimar, 1853), p. 8. SPEXGEL,
wrote five books irtpl r&v itapa AWiandl. der Munchener Akad.
eo^pao-Tw ev rots irepl T)Q<av
Ka6 Phil., Philos. Kleinschriften, iii.
iffropiav Kal Ae|ii/ Q/iTOVfiwotv,
and 495, and PETEESEX, Tlwopli.
a sixth book Trepl TWJ/ cV rols Characteres, p. 66, have also sug
gested that this Theophrastian
We must assume from this that treatise has been used for
this ethical Theo-
treatise of the statement of the ethical
phrastus was on a more compre teaching of the Peripatetics in
hensive scale than Aristotle s, STOBAEUS, Eel. ii. 242-334,
since it gave occasion for so much HERREN having already con
more voluminous an historical nected a part of the account (v.
commentary and we also gather
;
his remarks on p. 254) with
expressly that it, like the Nico- THEOPHR. S book ir. cvrvxias. In
maoliean Ethics, comprised seve any case, the sources from which
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 401

not, however, fail here to observe a certain deviation

from Aristotle s
point of view, consisting not so
much in new
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
problem
combine. had not overlooked the
Aristotle
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
tion to practical virtue. 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
theoretic 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
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, which were urged against him,
especially by his Stoic opponents, on this ground, are
manifestly exaggerated; the difference between him
and Aristotle an insignificant one of
is
emphasis, not a
fundamental one of principle.

STOB^US drew must have been ofTheophrastus himself, except in

of amuch later date (cf ZELLER,
. the one passage (at p. 300) where
Ph. d. Gr. iii. a, 546 sq.) and we he is named. As to this cf
cannot use his statement as BRANDTS, p. 358-9.
evidence concerning the teaching

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
as of human activity in general. While he agrees 1

with Aristotle in holding that virtue is absolutely

desirable, and regards it, if not
alone, at least in a special

sense as good, he yet was unable to admit that outward

2

conditions are indifferent. He denied that virtue alone

was sufficient for happiness, or that the latter could

exist together with extreme forms of physical suffer

ing.
3
He complained of the disturbances to which our

Cic. Fin. v. 29, 86

1
: omnis the distinction. In Tusc. v. 9, 24,
auctoritas philosophic, ut ait CICEEO himself tells us that
vita admitted three.
Theophrastus, consist!! in Theophrastus
beata compararda. beate enim kinds of Goods as did Ari
vivendi cupiditate incensi omnes stotle (supra, vol. ii. p. 151, n. 1),
sumus assuming that the words Plato and the Academics (see
ut ait Th. are to be transposed to ZELLEK, Ph. d. Gr. i. 808, n. 3,

this place, as appears probable. and 879, n. 2).

3
2
CICERO, Legg. i. 13, 37-8, CiC.jPw.sr.v.8,24: Theophr.
counts Theophrastus and Aristotle . . . cum
statuisset, verbera, tor-

among those qui omnia recta et menta, cruciatus, patriaa ever-

honesta per se expetenda duxe- siones, exilia, orbitates magnam
runt, et ant nihil omnino in bonis
vim habere ad male misereque
numerandum, nisi quod per se vivendum [so said Aristotle also ;

ipsum laudabile esset, aut

certe v. supra, vol.ii. pp. 145, 150, nn. 1,

nullum habendum magnum bo- 2], non est ausus elate et ample
num, nisi quod vere laudari sua loqui, cum humiliter demisseque
vexatur autem ab
sponte posset. To Theophrastus,
sentiret . . .

however, we ought to ascribe only omnibus [by the Stoics and, above
the latter of these opinions, and all, the Academics] quodmulta. . .

this the more confidently be disputarit, quamobrem is qui tor-

cause it is probable from the con queatur, qui crucjetur, beat us
CICEEO as else esse non Cf. Fin. v. 26,
text that is here, possit.
77, 28, 85.It is no doubt the
where, following ANTIOOHUS,
whose eclectic point of view led same part of the teaching to
him to minimise the differences which CICERO, in Acad. ii. 43,
between the ethics of the Stoics 134,alludes when he remarks that
and of the Peripatetics, just as Zeno had expected of virtue more
much as the Stoics, on their side, than human nature admitted,
were accustomed to exaggerate Theophrasto multadiserte copio-
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 403

intellectual life
subjected from the body;
1
is of the
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

beyond his own control. It was not indeed his inten 3

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
ward relations greater importance than his master had
done. The explanation of this trait must be sought,
however, in his predilection for the peace and quiet of
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

4
; Cf. supra vol. ii p. 402, n. 1.
when he complains, in Acad. i. 9, The story about Pericles in
33, that Theophr. spoliavit . . . PLUT. Pericles, 38, can only be
virtutem suo decore imbecillam- intended to lead up to a negative
que reddidit, quod negavit in ea answer to the question which is
sola positum esse beate vivere ;
there proposed by Theophrastus,
cf. Fin. V. 5, 12 Theophrastum el irpbs ras
:
Tv^as TpeVerai ra ijfi-r]
tamen adhibeamus ad pleraque, /cal KIVOV/JLCVO. TOLS T&V (rw/uLdrcav
dummodo plus in virtute tenea- irdOeffiv e^tffrarai TTJS
aperijs. As
mus, quam ille tenuit, firmitatis to the words cited from Calli-
et roboris. sthenes, they are (as CICERO him-
1
AjjudPLVT. DeSanit. tu. 24, self remarked and indicated by
p. 135, e. In PORPH. De Abstin. his metrical
translation) a phrase
iv. 20, p. 373 we
have the saying : of some other writer, probably a
TroAt; ffwfj.ari reAe?j/ evo iKiov T^V orcomic
rq>
tragic poet, which Theo-
explained is
:_that is, a^it phrastus quoted; and, besides, it
in the Plutarch Fragment i. 2, 2, would be necessary, before we
p. 690, the AuTrai, (f)68ot, could draw a safe inference from
them, that we should know the
-
Vide supra, vol. ii.
p. 351, context in which Theophrastus
n. 2.
3
introduced them. An isolated
Cic. Tusc. v. 9, 25 : Vexatur excerpt such as this in an attack
idem Theophrastus et libris et by an opponent is not a safe basis
scholis omnium philosophorum, for a conclusion as to Theo-
quod in Callisthene suo laudavit
phrastus s real teaching,
illam sententiam: vitam regit He is blamed merely be-
5

fortuna, non sapientia. Cf.PLUT. cause he holds that sorrows and

Cons, ad ApolL 6, p. 104, d. misfortune are a hindrance to
DD 2
404 ARISTOTLE

statements about pleasure closely accord with the

Aristotelian teaching.
1
But that preference for the

scientific which he shared with Aristotle 2 was in

life

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. We see this especially in the
3
fragment of his work upon Marriage from which he ;

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
Aristotelian teaching v. sup. vol.
ii. p. 402, n. 3. But, on the other
hand, he required (ap. STOB. Flo-
ril iv. 283, No. 202, Mein.), that
men should by simplicity of life
make themselves independent of
external thing s he desired, ap.
;
PLUT. Lye. 10 (see PORPH. De
Abst. iv. 4, p. 304), Cup. Div. 8,
is genuine quality between different sorts of
:
pleasure, which the Peripatetic
school always admitted. He
meant merely, as is clear from the
fuller explanation given by
OLYMPIODORUS, that the ascrip
tion of truth and falsehood
to pleasure is inappropriate, be
cause every pleasure is for the
man who feels a true pleasure,
it

p. 527, to see man become by and the predicate

a false is there
proper use of wealth &TT\OVTOS Kal fore never suitable. If the words
&T)\OS and he rinds (ap. Cic.
; fy prjreoi &c. which follow still
Off. ii. 16, 56) the chief value of refer to THEOPH., it seems that
riches in the fact that they serve he even admitted the use of the
for magnificentia et apparatio words true and false in this
popularium munerum. connection, if only they were
In the passage given by
1
properly explained.
2
ASPASIUS ( Class. Journal, xxix. Cic. Fin. v 4, 11, says of
115; cf. BRANDIS, iii. 381) both, vit3 autern degendaa ratio
THEOPH. says, as Aristotle also maxume quidem illis placuit
might have said, that it is not the quieta, in contemplatione et
desire of a pleasure which is cognitione posita rerum, &c. Ib.
blameworthy, but the passion- 25, 73, and Ad Alt ii. 16, we are
ateness of the desire and the want told that Dicasarchus gave the
of self-control. According to preference to the practical
OLYMPIODORUS (in Pkileb. 269, life, and Theophrastus to the
Stallb., he maintained against theoretical.
3
Plato, jury flvai aA.rj07)HlEROX. Adv. Jovin. i. 47,
Kal J/eu8f?

ySovfyv, a\\a irdffas dAijfleTs. By iv. 6, 189, Mart. Vide Then-

this, however, he cannot have plmt&ti Opp. (ed. Schneid.) v.
meant to deny the differences in 221 sqq.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 405

able to dispense with 1

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 for the battle
with the world and with the ills ofThe time and
life.

strength which this would demand would be withdrawn

from the scientific labours which were his only happi
ness ;
would interrupt quiet contemplation and the
it

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
this time aimed at making the wise man independent
and self-sufficient.
Theophrastus pursued the same
end, except that, true to the spirit of the Peripatetic

1
Theophrastus in this pas woman is costly to keep : a rich
sage is answering the
question, one is unendurable. A man does
Whether the wise man would not discover his wife s faults
take a wife ? He begins by say until after Her de
marriage.
ing that he would, si pulchra mands, her jealousies, her insis
esset, si bene morata, si honestis tences on what is due to her and
parentibus, si ipse sanus ac dives. her family are endless. A beauti
But he promptly goes on to say ful wife is hardly to be kept
that all these conditions are faithful; yet a wife without
seldom combined, and therefore beauty is a burden, &c., &c. It is
it is more prudent to avoid wiser to leave one s housekeeping
matrimony. Primum enim im- to a faithful servant, and to trust
pediri studia philosophise, nee to one s friends in case of sick
posse quemquam libris et uxori ness. As for company, a man
pariter inservire. The best pos needs no wife the wite man is
:

sible teacher might be to be never alone, for he has the wise

found abroad, but one could not men of com
all ages for his
go to seek him if one was tied tn panions; and if men fail him he
ii wife.
Again, a, wife has no end can speak with God. Noi- should
of costly wants. She fills her one set store by children, for
husband s ears, as Theophrastus they often bring one rather
explains in lively mimicry, with trouble and expense than joy or
hundreds of complaints and help. For heirs, a man does
reproaches, night and day. A poor better to choose his friends.
406 ARISTOTLE

ethics, he refused to overlook the external conditions of

1
the self-sufficient life.

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
known to us but seldom that
philosophy which are
it is

view visible. Theo

any important divergence of
is

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

or, more
2
directed to this end, under the guidance of insight.

1
We should not, however, be a>s ar 6 (pp6vifj.os dpifffttv [this is
referring to Theo word for word the Aristotelian
justified in
phrastus the line of argument set
definition ; snpra, vol. ii. p. 163,
out in CiC. Fin. v. 6, J 7, 9, 24 sqq. n. 2]. elra 7rapa0e |U fI/os nvas
and STOB. Eel. ii. 246 sqq., in ffvvylas, a,Ko\ }vQws raJ

which the Stoic dogma of the (ARIST. Etll. y.7) ii.

life according to nature is brought eTretra /ca0 CKXCTTOV firdyow 7ret-

into relation with the Peripatetic pd6f] rbv rp jirov TOVTOV [perhaps
theory of the different kinds of we should read awn
Good for Cicero s account is de
;
K. K. tirdyiav r. rp. T.]
rived, according to c. 3, 8, 25, 75,
a"5e
i
yj&piv

27, 81 from Antiochus, and that aKoAao"io,

in Stobasus (ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. opytAoTTjs, ava\yri(ria

iii. a, 546 sq. 2nd erf.) from Arms ai/Speta, Opatrvr-rfs, SetAia Si/cato-
av-
Didymus, and the later Eclecti ffvvr] e\vdepL6rr]s, acrwrta,
cism has manifestly coloured both \evdepia peyahoirpeirfia, /JUKpovpt-
of these sources Treta, (ra\a.Kwvia. After an ex
2
STOB. Eel. ii. 800: ri olv planation on these lines of the
irpbsr)/J.as [ifffov &pi<TTOV, oiov, $r\3iv
nature of the virtues named, he
6 Qetcbpavros, ev rats ivrvxious oSt adds, at p. 306 TOVTO /j.(v TO TUJV
:

pet? TroAAa 8tfA0o>; /col /uaKpus a5o- i]9iKwv aperuv elSos vaQiiTiKbv Kal
l
Kara, o 8r?
Aea-x^as, 681 8 0X170 /cat [which Ji(r6rt]ra. Oecapov/ufvov,
GAISF. unnecessarily deletes]
ov5e ravayKcua. OUTOS 8e aura & eSet T7

fj.1]
TOV Kaipov eAa/3ei/. avrf] pfaroTrjs aAA T] fjifv (ppovriais
ru7s -rjdiKOiS

Kara rb YSto^, at/rat 8 e /ce: */?? Kara

irpbs rjjuav, avrrj yap v<$>
TJ/A&V &pi-
l
8t o ea-Tti/ <Tvfj.fBe/Br]K6s.
ori [read o] fj.ev yap
St /catos fffrl Kal typoviyios, 6 yap
TototrSe avrbv \6yos etSoTroje?, ov
r/aay, wpi<T/j.evri
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHEASTUS 407

In the description of the different virtues and their

oppositevices we cannot doubt that he went into

greater detail than his master, although we can follow

1

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 all find in moral
insight a common root and connecting principle.
2
That

fj.T)v
on [6] 0poi/ijuos /cai SiKaios the persons acting where, that :

Kara rb tSiov, <xAA on T&V KaX&v is to say, the /Aeo^TTjs -npbs rb

Kv.ya.QSiv KOIVWS TrpaKTUths <pav\ov irpay/j.a is observed, but not the
8 ouSei os (i.e. (pponjats is con /uLeff6r r]s irpbs r)/j.as (cf. supra,
tained in the
idea of justice vol. ii.
p. 162, n. 3).
immediately, since justice is the This cannot be said to be
1

adjustment of relations concern proved with any certainty (as

ing rights according to ^p6vn<ris ;
has been already pointed out),
but justice is contained in the from what we find in STOB. Eel.
idea of QpovnvLs only mediately). ii. 316
sqq., and Cic. Fin. v. 23,
Down to this point the extract 65. It is, however, probable in
seems to come from THEOPHRAS- itself, arguing on the analogy of
TUS, because there is an unbroken the general lines of Theophrastus s
grammatical connection from the work, and it is made still more
words elra irapa6e/u.evos, &c., probable when we remember the
which can only refer to him. detailed description of a series of
The reading eV rais evrvxia-is in failings which we have in the
the second line of the passage is Characters. We are told by
rightly supported by PETERSEX, HERMIPPUS (ap. ATHEN. i. 21, a :

Tlieophr. Characteres, 67 sq., cf sujtra, vol.

. ii.
p. 352, n. 1),
pro
against HEEREN S conjecture, eV bably with some exaggeration
TOIS irepi PETERSEN,
tvrv)^ia.s. (as BRANDIS, p. 359, justly re
however, himself distorts THEO- marks), that Theophrastus in his
PHRASTUS S meaning (which in lectures carried even a mimicry
this evidently incomplete excerpt of outward characteristics to
is not very clearly expressed) when great lengths. His tendency to
he reads Kal p-^v rbv Kaipbv eAa- and talent in such pictures of de
)8ei/, in place of ,ur? r. K. eA. For the tail is obvious from the Fragm.
words ovros . . . !Aa/3ei/ indicate, just described at p, 405, n. 1,
not the correct course, but a third supra. The notice of Adrantus
kind of error, that, namely, in (supra, p. 400) is probably one of
which what is done may be right numerous examples introduced
in itself but not right in relation by him to illustrate his Ethics.
to the particular circumstances of 2
ALEX. APHR. De An. 155,
408 ARISTOTLE
one who so preferred scientific to practical activity
distinguished dianoetic from moral virtue cannot be
doubted nor could he easily avoid touching upon it in
;

his Ethics but whether he here discussed it at length;

it impossible to tell.
is Nor have we fuller informa 1

tion as to his treatment of the passions. 2 are only We

informed that he maintained, seemingly against Zeno,
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 av eiroivro at aperal rrj 316, we find the e ts

(.ppovrifffi. ovSs yap pafiiovrtov apercav to which belong aofpia,
KO.TO, rov &e6<f)paffTov
TCCS and fypovriffis, distinguished from
ovTCt) Aa/SetV, ws /uvj Kara TI the e|ts -jrpaKTLK i]. Since, how
vtlv avras aAA/^Aats. yivovrai 8 ever, Aristotle himself (see
avrcus at Trpoariyopiai Kara, rb supra, vol. ii. p. 178, n. 1) only
irXelarov. (Jf. the end of the discussed the theoretic activities
passage from STOB.EUS quoted in in his EtJilcs i-o far as was neces
the preceding note. Ibid. p. 270 :
sary for the complete explana
decides, both for itself
<$>p
.i>Ti<rt.s
tion of the ethical aspect of life,
and for all other virtues, what is we cannot assume that Theophr.
and what is not to be done, rwv 5 treated the subject in any other
eKao TTji aTrorffj-vetrdai /JLOVO. way.
-
SIMPL. Schol. Ar. 70, b, 3,
in
1
That
did not, PETEESEN, lie citing the T. Tra6cov (d. q. v. supra,
ib. 66, concludes (with SPENGEL, vol. ii. p. . tells us that
>i)9),

AbUindl. der Miinclien. Altad. THEOPHE. distinguished the no

pJiilol.-plillns. Kleinscliriften, iii. tions of urivis, opyri and 6v/nbs by
495) from the absence of the Dia- the formula of uaA.Ao /
/cai TJTTOV.
3
noe^ic Virtues in the Maynci SENECA, tie Ira, i. 14, 1,
Moral.ia. It is, however, to be 12, 1,3; B ABLAAM. Eth. seo. Sto.
observed, on the one hand (as ii.13 (Mill. Max. pair. xxvi. 37
BBAXDIS, ii. G, 156(5, iii. 361, D, and aputl BE.\NDIS, iii. 356).
suggests), that these virtues are Against the Stoics were doubt
not in fact unknown to that less also directed the arguments
book, and, on the other hand, mentioned by ISiMPL. Catcg.
that it is impossible to prove Schol. 86, b, 28, as to the muta
that the bo -k here follows Theo- bility of the virtues.
4
phrastus. In HTOB^US, Eel. ii. iSTOB. Floril. 1 .), 12.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 409

of passion he declared those of desire to be worse than

anger, since it is worse to succumb to pleasure than to

1

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

by him upon Friendship, Love, and Marriage.
2
He set
the highest valueupon Friendship provided it is of the
right kind, which, however, is not often the case.
3
He
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 preponderance of the counterbalancing
advantage to a friend, just as the value of a little piece
of gold might be exceeded by a large quantity of
4
copper. All the more necessary must prudence in the
selection of friends have appeared to him. 5 The three
1
M. AUREL. irp. favr. ii. 10, 21-28, who gives partly the
Schol. apud CEAMER, Am-cd. Greek text, partly a translation
Paria. i. 174. So also Aristotle : and summary. CICERO (Amic.
v. supra, vol. ii. p. 190, n. 1 and 11 sqq. 17, 61) passes, as Gellius
p. 113, n. 1. rightly complains, much too
2
Supra, vol. ii. p. 399, n. 2. lightly over this point. He de-
Theophrastus s three books on claims passionately against the
Friendship were extensively used view, which nobody set up, that
by CICERO for his De Amicitia : a man should commit treason or
cf. GELL. N. A. i. 3, 11. other gross crimes to oblige a
3
HIERON. in Micham, iii. friend but at the end he con-
;

1548,Mart.: scripsit Theophrastus cedes in two words, that if a

tria de amicitia volumina, omni
eampraeferenscharitati,ettamen
raram in rebus humanis esse con-
testatus est.
quoted supra, vol. ii. p. 405, n. 1,
that to be cared for by a friend is
friend s interests are very deeply
involved, declinandum sit de via,
modo ne summa turpitudo se-
Cf. the remark quatur. BRANDTS (iii. 353) sees
in this a criticism of the teaching
of Theophrastus but this does
;

better than to be tended by a wife, not seem to be necessary.

4
See GELL. A. i. 3, 10, JV".
a
PLUT. Frat. Am. 8, p. 482,
410 ARISTOTLE
kinds of friendship which Aristotle had
distinguished
he also recognises, and doubtless in his treatise
1

upon
them made many fine observations upon the pecu
liarities of each of them and the divers relations in
which friendship involves us.
2
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 only be enjoyed in

moderation. 3 This, however, is not the 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
that is true. 6
Of Theophrastus s political writings we know, apart
b (STOB. Floril. 84, 14 SENECA, ; STOB. Floril. 3, 50 ad fin. : It is
Ep. i. 3, 2 see Schneider, v.
; better Saveiffavra (oviAas aTroAa-
289) : we
try must
friends,
before love we
them with :

our family, the converse is true. Further

.
interesting-
l
, EUSTEAT. in Etli. N. 141, a fragments of this work of
(BEAXDIS, iii. 352, by a slip re THEOPHE. will be found in
fers it to Aspasius) Theo- ; HEYLBUT, De Tlieoplir. Liltr. IT.

phrastus and Eudemus held that <pi\ias,

13 sqq.
3
friendships of persons in unequal STOB. Floril. 64, 27, 29;
relation were divisible into the ATHEN. xiii. 562, e.
same three classes as friendships 4
Supra, vol. ii. p. 405, n. 1.
of equality. Cf. Mil. End. vii. 4 5
See STOB. Floril. 74, 42 a :

init., and see supra, vol. ii.

p. 1 96, woman should neither wish to
n. 3. see nor to be seen ibid. 85, 7 :
;
2
Examples are the citations not politics but housekeeping is
given in GELLIUS, viii. 6 In : her sphere; ibid. vol. iv. 193;
reconciliations w^ith friends ex No. 31 Mein. education in ypd/j.-
:

planations are dangerous :

/j.ara isnecessary for girls also,
PLUT. Frat. Am. 20, p. 490 : If but it should not be carried
friends have everything in com beyond what is needful for house
mon, it must especially be true keeping.
that they have their respective 6
In the passage cited in
friends in common PLUT. Cato : STOB. Floril. 3, 50, he insists on
Min. c. 37
Excessive friend
;
sympathy and friendliness to
ship easily passes over into hate. wards wife and children. The
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 411

from a number of historical

statements, only the general
fact that here also
he endeavoured to supplement the Ari
stotelian
teaching and that to Aristotle s account of the
different kinds 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
that arise in connection with
special circumstances.
It isnot 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
;
]

remaining fragments of Theo- out a political philosophy, with

phrastus s ethical texts give great knowledge of the subject
us only isolated remarks, often J
the locus de re-
(Divi.n. ii. 1, ; > :

keen and finely observed, but

without any special philosophic
interest. Such are the apoph
thegms preserved by STOBYEUS in
publica was, he says, a Platone
Aristotele Theophrasto totaque
Peripateticorum familia tractatus
uberrime Legg. iii. 6,14: Theo
;

the JFlorileffiu-iit (see the index

phrastus vero institutus ab Ari
thereto) and by PLUTABCH, Agfa, stotele habitavit, ut scitis, in eo
c, 2, and Sertnr. c. 13 the :
generererum ), but he gives us fur
statement as to his commenda ther details as to the contents of
tion of hospitality in Cic. his political writings.
Off. Legg. iii. o,
ii. 18, 64: the remark
(probably 14: Sed hujus loci de magis-
aimed at Anaxagoras) as to the tratibus sunt propria qusedam, a
relation between pleasure and
Theophrasto primum, deinde a
pain, cited by ASPASIUS inArist. Dione [? Diogene] Stoico quassita
Etli. (Classical Journal, xxix.) subtilius. Fin. \. 4, 14 : Om
114. The note ap. ULYMPIOD. nium fere civitatnm, non Grreciaj
in Phileb. 169 as to the three
solum, sed etiam barbaric, ab
fold i//eG5os, relates, not to moral Aristotele mores instituta dis-
falsehood,but to the possible ciplinas, a Theophrasto leges
meanings of vJ/euS^s T/Soi^ (cf. e iam cognovimus;
r
cumque uter-
sujtra, vol.ii. p. 404, n. 1.) que eorurn docuisset, qualem in
1
For almost everything we republica principem esse con-
know of his politics we are in veniret, pluribus praaterea cum
debted to CICERO. We know,
scripsisset, quis esset optimus
in fact, that he was one of
reipublica; status hoc amplius :

Cicero s favourite political Theophrastus, quaa essent in re

authors (Ad Att. 9,2). Cicero
ii.
publica inclinationes rerum et
tells not only that Theo
us, momenta temporum, quibus esset
phrastus had thoroughly worked moderandum utcumque res pos-
412 ARISTOTLE

fellow-citizenship he gives express prominence to the

natural brotherhood of all men, yet this is quite in 1

2
harmony with the spirit of his master, however signi
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

tularet. Of Theophrastus s poli (by Cic. Fin. v. 4, 11 as the

tical works we know from momenta temporum ). Further
Diogenes, c., the v6/*oi in twenty- notes as to these writings and the
four books (see Fr. 97-106; the evidence about them will be
eTm-OjUv? VO/JLUV in 10 bks. can only found in USENEK, Anal. Th.
be a later extract from the 6 sqq., HENKEL, ibid. 19 sqq. ;

VOJJ.OL) ;
1 bk.
bk. TT.
IT. v6fJLtav andl and as to the VQ/J.OI in particular,
Trapoj/dju (DioG. 47), perhaps also
o> i/ see USENER, Rliein. Mus. xvi.
excerpts from the v6/j.ot ; 3 bks. 470 sqq.
vofjLoQsrcav (the title was no doubt See 1
the passage apud
z/o/xo0eVcu or TTfpl vo/j.o6.^ 4 bks. ; PORPH. De Abut. iii. 25, cited
Tro\iriK(av e6G)v 6 bks. ;
supra, vol. ii. p. 396, n. 1.
(D. 45), and again 2 bks.
8
See the passage from
(D. 50), which were probably a Etli. viii. 13, 1161, b, 5 referred
duplicate or excerpt of the others to supra, p. 219, n. 5, where Ari
[unless we are to read in D. 50 stotle says that a friendship with
with COBET and HENKEL (Stud. a slave possible, not indeed is
z. Gescli. d. grlecli. Lelire vom 77 SoDAoy, but fj HvOpwiros 5o?
Staat, p. 20), not iroXiriKwv, but, yap flvai TL SiKaiov ira.vr\ avQp&irtf
on the analogy of the Aristote Trpbs iravra T}JV ^vvd^vov KOIVOWTJ-
lian iro\iTiKbs (supra, vol. 1, ffat v6fj.ov Kal (Tvvd f)Kr)s K al
p. 59) TToAmKoO] 1 bk. TT. rfjs ; <f>
i \i a S);, /ca0 offov &vdpw-
apiffTTjs Tro\iT(ias (D. 45) or 7T S.
3
(D. 49) TTUS &i/ TroAts &pi<rr
Cf. BERNAYS, Theophr. iib.
OIKOLTO 2 bks. eVtT<tyU7 TTJS
;
FrommigTt. 100 sq. His remark that
vos iro\iTfias ;
1 bk. TT. in the Aristotelean Ethics there
(D. 42) and 1 bk. TT. is no note of the love of humanity

(D. 45;, both probably combined must be somewhat limited by the

in the 2 bks. ?r. ftatri\eias (D. 49) ; passage just cited; but we may
irpbs KdcrffavSpov TT. )8a<rtAtas concede that in Theophrastus
(D. 47), which according to this side of things, which in
ATHEN. iv. 144, e, was also as Aristotle was far less promi
cribed to Sosibius ;
1 bk. TT. iratSeias nent, obtained much greater im
Pacri\(<i)s 4 bks. ; TroXLriKwv irpbs portance in conformity with the
rovs Kaipovs (to which also the spirit of the new epoch which
2 bks. Kaipwv, L). oO, may be re came with Alexander.
ferred). This work is often cited
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 413

followed Empedocles and anticipated Porphyry. He 1

not only sought historically to prove that originally

2
only the simplest products of nature were used for
sacrifices, and that animal offerings especially were of
later origin, but he also demanded that men should
3

abstain from the latter, and confine themselves to the

more harmless presentation of fruits of the field. 4 The
slaughter, moreover, of animals in general and the use
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

forcibly to rob them of life. He did not, however, on this

5

6
account desire to renounce the national rites of sacrifice.

He merely said that their moral value lay, not in the

7
greatness of the gift, but in the disposition of the giver.

1
The IT. fvffefifias, d. </.
v. belief in Demonology, cannot be
supra, vol. ii. p. 355, n. 2. taken from TheopLrastus and, ;
2
E.g. first grass, then fruits ; in fact, Porphyry does not as-
first water, then honey, and, still cribe it to him. Nor have we
later, wine. any sufficient ground in PLUT.
3
POBPH. De Abstin.
ii. 5-8, Def. Orae. 20, p. 420, to assert
12-15, 20-1, pp. 39, 56, 62, 79, that Theophrastos believed in
&c., Bern. He dealt with human Deemons. Even if it be true that
sacrifices (ibid. c. 7) and with the passage correctly represents
the peculiar customs of the Jews his attitude to the belief, it
as to sacrifices (ii. 26) see, as to ;
would only prove that, while he
the mistakes in the latter section, could not accept it in the pre-
BERNAYS, p. 109 sqq. 184-5. vailing form, he did not feel free
4
Ibid. c. 12 sqq. 22 sqq. to reject it absolutely.
3
and
"

Ibid. c. 12-18, 22-23, Apud STOB. Florll. 3, 50,

cf. sujjra,
6
ii. p. 396. he says :
xM
Toivvv rbv ^eAAoj/ra
Ibid. ii. 43, p. 184 : &<TT
8av/j.a<r6T](Ta-dai irepl rb Qelov fyiXo-
Kara ra elpr)/u.va Qeotypdo-TCf)
The theory
QVTT]V dlvai ^
r$ iroAAa dveiv aAAa
dvffou.ff Kal -ij/j.e is. ry iruKva TI/J.O.V rb Qeiov rb /j.fv
which Porphyry here sets out, yapevTropiasTbS oa toT-riTosa Ti/ui.e ioi ,

that this view was founded on a and ap. PORPH. De Abstin. ii. c.
414 ARISTOTLE
His whole conception of religion was undoubtedly iden
tical with that of his master. 1

From the numerous works of Theophrastus upon

2
Rhetoric only a few not very important observations
are preserved. 3 Of his works upon the theory of art 4

19, he goes on to say that the Cic. De Invent, i. S5, 61), and
costliness of the offering is not also the statement of AMMONIUS
the important thing, but rather (Theophr. Fr. 74 sq. cf. supra,\6\..
the purity of the intention for ;
ii.p. 363, n. 3) that Theophr. dis
the Godhead will be best pleased tinguished in speech a double
by the right direction of that in relation that to the hearers, and
us which is akin to Himself, and that to the subject in hand.
most divine with which cf
: . With the former Ehetoric and
AEIST. Etli. ix. 9, 1179, a, 24. Poetics are concerned, and these
1
We have shown this of his studies accordingly have to do
theology, see supra, vol. ii.
p. 370 with choice of expression, charm
sq. As to matters touching popu of utterance, pleasing and effec
lar religion and its myths,it would tive presentation of the subject,
be quite in the spirit of Aristotle &C rrjs 8e -ye irpbs ra Trpdy/aara
:

if Theophrastus explained the rov \6yov crxetrews 6 (pi\6(ro(pos

Prometheus myth b}^ the theory irpor)yoviJ.Vtos eVt^ueA^o-eTaj, TO re
that Prometheus was the lirst
/

ij/eDSos 5teAe 7xwz Kal rb aA^fles

teacher of men (Fr. 50, b. ctTToSet/crus. AMMONIUS cites this
ScJwl. in Apoll. Rlwd. ii. 1248), sentence to prove that the ir.
and the myth of the Nymphs tpfMlvcias dealt only with the
nursing Dionysos by reference to airo(f>avTLKbs \6yos: it must ac
the tears of the vine (ATHEN. cordingly have referred in the
xi. 465, b). text of Theophr. only to the
-
I)e quo cf. UsBNER, Anal. form of oral statement, and it
Theophr. p. 20 whose conjecture, cannot have been intended as a
that the words eiSr? irpl Ttyyuv i statement of the distinction be
pyropiKcav are the general title tween philosophy in general and
covering the books separately Khetoric and Poetics.
set out in the list, seems very 4
DIOG. 47-8, 43 mentions
probable. two TT Troi^Tz/ojs, and one TT.
3
The definition of the tr/tc^ua Kw/LLySias ATHEN. in vi. 261, d,
as oviSi(r/j.bs afMaprias Tropeo-^rj^ua- names the latter, and in viii. 3J8,
Tta-^ueVos (PLUT. Qu. Conv. ii. 1, a, alsothe if. y f \oiov, but what he
4, 7, p. *31), which
certainly is
professes to cite from it is quite
taken from one of the rhetorical incredible. The statement that
books (or perhaps, as BRANDTS, Tragedy was fjpwixris Tu%7js Trepi-
iii. 366. suggests, from the ir. O-TOO-IS (DiOMED. De Oratione,
p.
yfXoiov) and a few similar details 484, Putsch) could not have
(see Fr. 93-96, the Index to the satisfied Theophrastus as a com
Rhetores Graeci s. v.
Theophr.. plete definition, after the elabo-
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: THEOPHRASTUS 415

the books on music, which were 1

highly valued by the

2
ancients, are the only ones of which we have
any
detailed information.
most part Even this for the
refers to the physical
explanation of sounds, and has
already been dealt with in that connection. 3 Other
wise we
learn merely that
Theophrastus ascribed the
effect ofmusic to a movement of the soul, 4
by means
of which we are delivered from the trouble and
annoy
ance caused by certain 5
that he further
affections;

rate investigation of the terea in animi motu, ut

subject putat
which Aristotle had already pro
Theophrastus.
vided. 5
At the end of Fr. 89 he
PHIT. N. P. S-var. V. sec.
1

says pia 5e qvais rris /j.ov(TLKrjs,

:

Epic. 13, 4, p. 1095, argues thus Kivi}ais rfjs tyvxris [or, as he put
against Epicurus: rl \4-yets, & it earlier,
ETT/Koupe ; KiOapwSoov /col av\7)Tuv Kara.
, T)
tcaOfv aKpoaa-6/j.fi os fls rb Oearpov ofifv-r) TUI> 5ta ra -rrddf] KUKIUV, -J)

fiatiifcts, eV Se The manifestly defec

av/j.iro(Ticp Qeofypavrov et /j.f) ^v.
jrepl (TVIJL<$>(I)VI&V SiaXejo/ufvov KOI tive clause at the end is amended
by BRANDIS, p. 369, by reading,
OVS TTtpl O^pOV TO. 3>TO. not Kara but %
r? air6\., K. air6\.
rais xeptri ; He thus Music is fitted to
meaning :

places Theophrastus on a level give us relief from the pains that

with the famous musician Ari- arise from the emotions, or to
stoxenus. The reference to awake them where they do not
Theophrastus cannot be ex exist. This sense, however,
plained (BRANDIS, iii. 369) of
table talk about Music found in
would require, instead of et
3

^
one of his books or otherwise
i\v either OTTOV OVK evriv or eaz/ ^
y. Besides, the sense so obtained
published by him, any more than is not altogether satisfa.ctory.
the reference to Aristoxenus ZELLER suggests that the text
could be. may have been somewhat
2
as
2 bks. (D. 47 cf.
IT. /jiovffiKTJs follows : K. cnr6\.
$7 . . .
KUKIUV,
infra,
TT.
fivOfiuv a
n. 3); ap/uoviK&v

(D. 50).
a (D. 46)
For a
; @\riov exeiv^uas Troie? ^ ei 3\v
Music is a movement of the soul
^ :

Fragm. from bk. ii. TT. p. vff. (Fr. which brings relief from the pains
89) see supra, vol. ii.
p. 379, n. 3.
3
produced by the emotions, and so
Supra, vol. ii. p. 379, n. 3. produces in us a higher kind of
4
So CEXSORIN. Di. Nat. 12,
wellbeing than we should have
1 : haec [musica] enim sive in Lad, if these emotions had never
voce tantummodo est sive, . . . been aroused which is exactly
ut Aristoxenus, in voce et cor- the Aristotelian idea of Cathar
poris motu, sive in his et pne- sis cf.
:
supra, vol. ii.
p. 309 sqq.
416 ARISTOTLE
enumerated three of these affections :
pain, pleasure,
and possession that he connected the lively impression ;
l

produced by music with the peculiar susceptibility of the

2
auditory sense and that he held that even physical ;

disease could be cured by music. 3 So far as we may infer

from these few fragments the nature of Theophrastus s
theory of art, it cannot have been different from that of
Aristotle.

1
PLUT. Qu. Com. i. 5, 2, p. phrastus it is impossible to say.
a
623 :
Ae-yei 5e Qeocpp. /uLovcriKrjs ATHEN. xiv. 6]24, a on Se :

Kal v6<rovs iarai /AOVGIK}) e6(pp.

v6ovffia.(r/j.bv, <><>

Iffropticrev eV rcS -rrepl uoD,

eV0oi(na<r /

irapaTpeirovToi e /c rov ffvvf)9ovs Kal Iff^LaKOUS (f>(iffKWV

UVOffOVS SlUTe-
67/cAiVovTos TT/J/ (pwf]i . See AeTy, e( /carai;A7)(rot TIS rov roirov
also JOH. LYDUS, De Me. us. ii. rf) ypvyia-Tt ap/ji.ovia. The like in
7, p. 54, Both., and in CRAMER S PLIN. H. N. xxviii. 2, 21. We
Anecd. Paris, i. 317, 15. are told that viper bites and
2
PLUT. De Awl. 2, p. 38, a : other hurts were, according to
Kfpl rrjs aKovffTtKrjs ala Q f)(rws, yv THEOPHR.. healed by flute-play
6 e6(pp ira.6r)TiK(i)Td.Tr)i elvai (prjcrt ing- (GELL. iv. 13, 2, APOLLON.
whether the further argu
jraffwv; Miralll. c. 49).
ments are also taken from Theo-
 417

CHAPTER XIX
EUDEMUS, ARISTOXENUS, DKLEARCHUS, AND OTHERS

NEXT in importance to Theophrastus of the immediate

disciples of Aristotle comes Eudemus of Rhodes. 2

l

Rivalling Theophrastus in erudition, he also wrote

numerous on the Peripatetic
treatises
philosophy and
the history of science. 3 All that we know of him
1
We know nothing further 38 sqq.) that Aristotle sent it to
of his life. He often referred
is him to ask if it should be
pub
to as the Rhodian and as the lished, for the book is obviously
scholar of Aristotle, to distin incomplete; cf.
Hist.-pUl. Abh.
guish him from other men of the d. Berl. Aliad. 1877,
p. 156.
same name (?. FRITZSCHE, EtJi. 3
We know of the following
Mud. xiv). As he seems to books by Eudemus (for the
pas
have framed his Lof/ic under sages where they are named see
Theophrastus s personal influence, FRITZSCHE, ibid, xv., and for
but corresponded by letter with the Fragments, see
SPENGEL,
him about Aristotle s Physics (y. End. Frar/menta, ed. ii. 1870):
supra, vol. i. p. 136, n. 2, p. 143), T(a/nTpiKal larropiai, ApiO-
we may conjecture that he lived fj.r)TiK$) iffropia, A<TTpoAo-
for a time at Athens under Theo yiKal la-Topiai, the chief and
phrastus s teaching, and that he almost the unique source of all
afterwards went to his home, or later information as to the ancient
to some other country. Cf. mathematicians and astronomers.
infra, p. 419, n. 2. To these may perhaps be added a
2
He is so described in the history of theological ideas at ;

story referred to supra, vol. i, least, that he went into this

p. 39, n. 1, and in the statemert inquiry closely, and that in this
(ibid. p. that he edited
80, n.) connection (following Aristotle :

Aristotle s This
Metaphysics. cf. supra, vol. i. p. 57,
n.) he dealt
story, however, is made doubly with the cosmogonies of Orpheus,
improbable by the statement Homer, Hesiod, Acusilaus, Epi-
(ASCLEP. Schol in Ar. 519, b, menides, and Pherecydes, and
VOL. II, E E
418 ARISTOTLE

however, goes to show that his merit as a philosopher

consisted far more in his appropriation and propagation
of Aristotelian doctrines than in any independent deve
lopment of them. In logic, indeed, as has been already
1

shown, he found it necessary to deviate from his master

on isolated points, and in one or two not unimportant
2
respects to supplement the Aristotelian theory ;
but

also with the Babylonian, those anatomical inquiries for

Zoroastrian, Phoenician, and (less which a writer named Eude
accurately) the Egyptian theo mus is mentioned with praise by
ries as to the origin of the world, GALEN (vide Index; ROSE, ibid. ;

we learn from DAMASC. De SPRENGEL, Gesch. d. Arzneik 4,

Prlnc. c. 124-5, p. 382 sqq. cf. ;
ed. i.
539-40), liUFUS, Eph. i. 9,
DIOG. L. Procem. 9 (Fr. 117-8); 20, and the Homeric Scholiast
cf also supra,vo\. ii. p. 352, n. 4 fin.
. (v.FEITZSCHE, ibid. xx. 49-50).
In the same connection he may Since this Eudemus, however,
well have treated of the Platonic is not in any of these places de-

Cosmogony, and the remark pro- scribed as the Khodian, and since,
served by PLUT. An. Procr. 7, 3, according to GALEN (De Ut.

p. 1015, as to Matter, may

have Anat. 3, vol. ii.890, De Semine,
vol. iv.
belonged to this discussion, al ii. 6, 646, Hippocr. et
though it might also belong to Plat. Plac. viii. 1, vol. v. 651,
his Physics. There were also a Loc. Affect, iii. 14, vol. viii. 212,
TT. ywvias, an AraAurt/ca in at in Aphor. vol. xviii. a, 7, Libr.
least two books (supra, i. p. 67, n. 1, Propr. vol. xix. 30) he was clearly
ii. p. 358, n. 3 Fr. 109 sqq.), a IT.
;
not the senior of Herophilus, and
Aeecos (supra, vol. i. p. 66, n. 1; Fr. probably not of Erasistratus,
113 sqq.) but probably not Cate
;
who was a pupil of Theophrastus
gories or IT. ep/iTjve/as (supra,
vol. (DiOG. v. 57), nor of the Me-
i. p. 65). Then there was the trodorus (SEXT. Math. i. 258)
Physics, which we shall speak
who is referred to as the third
of presently, and the Ethics, of husband of Aristotle s daughter
which we possess the first
still (supra, vol. i.
p. 20, n. 3) ;
we may
three books and the last (supra, more probably suppose that he is
vol. i. p. 98, n. 1). A zoological another Eudemus. The rhetori
work was also current under his cian Eudemus (De Gen. cf : .

name in later times, as we know FEITZSCHE, p. xvii) is also

from APUL. Apol. c. 36 (Fr. 109), to be distinguished from our
JULIAN, Hist. An. iii. 20, 21, iv. philosopher.
7; but what SIMPL. b:
1

8, 45, 53, 56, v. Phys. 93,

^lian tells us of its contents does (Uaprupe? 5e rep \6yca /ecu E^STJ/XOS b
not make for its authenticity. yvricnuiTaTOS T&V ApiffroreXovs
To thisEudemus ROSE (Arist. eraipocv.
Libr. Ord. 174) also assigns Cf supra,
. vol. ii.
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
way. In his account of Aristotle s
1
2
he followed Phi/sic*
step by step the lines of the original, as a rule
retaining
3
itsvery words. In his own Physics he seems to have
permitted himself scarcely any important departure
from his master, 4 his modifications
consisting merely of
a reduction of the number of 5
books, a few transposi
6
tions, historical and doctrinal explanations, and such
1
This
indicated by the
is us (ibid. 93, b, 94, a FT. 2G)
;
fact beyond those points
that, that EUDEMUS in his second
which they have in common, book ascribed change in time
there is very little noted which
(i.e. a becoming old) to the four
is peculiar to Eudemus, but much Aristotelian kinds of motion
(v.
more which is peculiar to Theo supra, i. p. 423, n. 1). Yet we
phrastus. know that he did not agree with
2
Apparently he undertook Theophr. s extension of move
this work primarily as a text ment to all the
categories (see
book for his oral lectures cf his : .
supra, ii. p. 373), and that, in
words ap. SIMPL. Phys. 173 a :
explaining ABIST. Phys. v. 2, 22G,
et 5e ns Triffrevcreie Tols HvOayo- a, 23, he expressly pointed out
&s iraXiv ra aura apiQp.<p [i.e.
peiois, that we could only talk of a
that in a future world each in motion of relation by
dividual
using the
entity will recur], word in a secondary sense
(cf.
Kayh /u.vQo\oyfj(rw rb pa^ iov [the ibid. 201, b).
Apart from this
Professor s rod] ex^f vfuv /caflTj^ue- question, we shall rind no vari
vois. If we take this passage ance beyond the expression of a
along with that quoted siipra, few slight doubts as to unim
vol.i.
p. 136, n. 2, it will be seen portant items of detail.
to be probable that Eudemus set 5
SIMPL. names only three
up a school of his own in some books in the work of Eudemus
;

city other than Athens, and that and as the citations he gives us
it was for this school that he extend over all the six earlier
compiled his Physics. Aristotelian books, (cf
J
See the very full references following
.

notes) while the seventh was

given supra, i. p. 148, n. 4. passed over by Eudemus (supra,
4
SIMPLICIUS, who so often i.
p. 82), there cannot in all have
speaks of EUDEMUS, notes only been more than four books in the
a single such variance, and that Eudemian Physic- s.
is sufficiently doubftul. He tells The inquiries which
ti

in Ari-

E E 2
420 ARISTOTLE

changes in the mode of expression as seemed to him to

be necessary for the sake of clearness. In the numer 1

ous fragments of his treatise we cannot fail to recognise

a true apprehension of the Aristotelian doctrine, careful
consideration of the different questions involved in it,

stotle occupy Phys. vi. 1-2 were the fourth and that of the
dealt with by Eudemus (ace. to eighth.
SIMPL. 220, a) in connection In the present edition ZELL.
1

with the question as to the di has not considered it necessary

visibility ad infinitum of Space
and Time, which is discussed in
AEIST. Phys. iii. 6 (cf. supra, i.p.
430, n. 1) either wholly or in part
in his second book; whereas Space
and Time in general, discussed
to demonstrate this position by a
review of the Fragments of the
Eudemian Physics, mostly found
in SIMPL., as was done in his
second German edition, pp. 701-
703 partly because BEANDIS,
:

iii. 218-240, has fully gone into

by AEIST. in the fourth book of
the Physics, were by Eudemus
placed in the third (SIMPL. 124,
a, 155, b, 167, b, 169, b, 173,
a ;
THEMIST. Phys. 40, a). So also
Eudemus dealt in the second
book (perhaps in the same con
nection) with the question (which
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
Aristotelian 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
:
ToCSe TO?S (JAois
crxtftbv TTJS irpay-
aKoAouflTjcras,
/jLarzias /ce(/>aAcuofS
the contents and character of the
work, and 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.
ABIST. Metaph. xiv. 1,
2, a, (cf.
1087, b, 13, and DlOG. iii. 24) that
Plato was the first who called the
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
deduce its own principles, or
whether they should in common
derive them from one higher

rovro TrapeA^ajv cos Trepirrbv eirl ra science. Here also, however, as

ZELLEE shows (Hist.-phil. Ab-
juerrjAflev. According to what is handl. d. JBerl. Akad. 1877, p. 159
said at p. 216, a, Eudemus passed sqq. and supra, i. p. 79, n. 1)
directly from the end of the
EUDEMUS was following one of
his master s texts i.e. the Me
fifth book to the sixth book.
Therefore the main part of the taphysics (iii. 2, iv. 3, 5), of
fifthand sixth books must have which we also find echoes else
come with Eudemus, as with where in the Eudemian Physics.
Aristotle, between the matter of
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC. 421

and a skilful elucidation of many statements and con

ceptions ;
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. While in general agreeing with
3
Aristotle theological conceptions, Eudemus yet rightly
s

finds the assertion that the primum inoveits must itself

1
Eudemus,
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 FJRITZ-
SCHE, Eth. End. xviii. rests the
opposite view on WEISSE S state
ment (Arist. Phys. p. 300) that it had no parts cf p. 422, n. 2, in
says BRANDIS, of the spheres, that, namely,
through the pole of which the
axis of the heavens passes, inas
much moves quickest as this
(following reading which the
SIMPL. found in Alexander, and
which is clearly better than that
of the SIMPL. MS. text itself).
He maintained, however, follow
ing Aristotle (supra, i. p. 395), that
: .

Eudemus in the Physics varied fra, and Spengel, p. 109 et a^epes, :

greatly from Aristotle, this only rb Trpwrcos KIVOVV nal

</>T?cnV,
i(TTi
shows that neither of them had /j.r]
awrerai TOV /ai/ou^ueVoi;, irws e^et
accurately examined the state irpbs atro / Eudemus also re
ments of Simplicius. peats the saying that God thinks
2
In Etli. N. i. 4, 1091), a, 24 only on himself (Eth. End. vii.
ABIST. named 6 Categories rt, :
12, 1245, b, 16 ov yap OVTWS 6 :

TTOlbv, TTOffOV, 7Tp6s Tl, XP^ VOS >

6ebs x
e ei
[like a man], aAAa
e<5

TOTTOS; EUDEMUS, on the other /SeArtov ^} wcrre ^AAo TI votlv avrbs

hand, says in the Eth. End. i. 8, Trap avr6v. ainov 8 ori yfjuv jj.tv
1217, b, 20, that Being and the rb eS KO.Q erepoi/, e/cetV^ Se avrbs
Good occur in many Trrcoaeis, the aurov rb ev eVnV), and therefore
TI, iroibv, iroffbv, Trore, KOI irpbs he deduces the further proposi
TOVTOIS rb fj.ev eV icwe ia dai TO
TO> tions that the Godhead needs no
5e eV TO? Kivtlv where the latter friends, and that God, by reason
two, not found in Aristotle of his wide separation from man
(supra, i.
p. 274), appear to re kind, does not love man, or at least
place the Aristotelian iroie?u and does not so love man as man
loves God (see Eth. vii. 3-4,
a
FT. 81, b, SIMPL. 319, a 1238, b, 27, 1239, a, 17, c. 12,
and b, that the primum
says 1244, b, 7, 1245, b, 14 supra, ;
i.
p.
mot ens has its seat (cf Aristotle .
; 398, n. 1).
supra, i.p.409, n. 4) in the largest
422 ARISTOTLE
move with the world in order to move it
1
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

again, that we must look

It is to its theological side,
for the most distinctive peculiarity of the Eudemian
ethics. 3 Aristotle had confined himself
entirely to the
1
R-itpra, i.
p. 409. Kivrjvei. It is the less easy to
2
CLsifjtra.ii. p. 421, n. 3 FT. ;
see any solution of the question
82, SiMPL. 320, a: 6 SeEuS. rovro in this argument, that the con
/jLtv OVK a-KOpel o-rrep 6 A.pi(rrore\r]S, nection of the primum movens
ei eVSe ^ercu ri KLVOV^VOV Kivelv with the earth is not satisfactory
(rvvex&s, o. TOpe i 8e avr\ rovrov, el either in itself or on the lines of
eVSe ^ercu rb aKivrirov Kivelv So/te? the Aristotelian system. For in
yap, (prjal, rb KIVOVV Kara r6irov r) the theory stated by Eudemusthe
wdovv r) e\Kov Kivelv [siqira, i. p. earth does move by contact, and,
42. ], 11.
1]. 6t Se /LIT) /J.6VOV OVrWS, further, a thing which by its
aAA ovv airr6jj.ev6v ye y) avrb 77 Si nature is unmoved cannot be
&AAoi/, r} Si evbs fy Tr\ei6v(av, TO 5e taken as analogous to a thing
*
a/nepes ovfievbs eVSe^erat ai|/air0at that is at rest, since rest (see
ov yap ianv avrov rb ^ev apx">l
rb supra, i.
p. 419, n. 5 ad Jin.) can
Se Trepcts, r&v Se aTrro^teVajj/ ra only be predicated of that which
Trepura apa [supra, i. p. -138, n. 1]. has motion.
ovv KLvr (TeL r~b a/Afpes ; Kal Auei 3
TTOJS t It has already been pointed
TT]V airopiav Ae -ywv, on ra fjikv out (supra, i. p. 98, n. 1, cf. ii.
Kivovfj.fva Kivel ra Se ijpe/j.ovvra, p. 176, n. 4) that this text is really
Kal ra /mev Ktvo6/u.eva Kivtl OCTTTO- a work of Eudemus of which only
/j.eva a\\b)s []. airro/uieva, ra Se the first three books and the
Tjpe/novvTa a\\(as ; BnANDls, iii. seventh are preserved and that ;

2 JO, conjectures, airr. d\\a a\\u*s, FISCHER and FRITZSCHE are in

and SPENGEL, p. 110, curr. error in referring to it book .v.
a A A w v but the words following
; 15, and books vi. and vii. of the
show that before the there &AAo>s Nlconiacliecin Etliics. Etli. End.
must be some reference to that vii.13-15 (which Fritzsche, with
which is at rest], ovx o/j.oiws Se the majority of the MSS., counts
iravra ov yap ws rj yrj ri)V crtyaTpav as an eighth book) contains
pKpOe ia av eir avrfyv e/ctVei, av<a certain fragments of a larger
oirrccs Kal rb irpwrais KiVTJffav ov tract, the text of which is much
yap Kiv^ffeus eKelvo
Trpoywo/j-evris injured. There is, however, no
Kivel ov yap av en irpcarcDS Kivoit] doubt that this tract did in fact
TI Se yrj ovSeirore i]pe/u.ovo~a Trpuroos stand at the end of the JEudemian
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC. 423

natural side of human aims and capacities in his theory

of morals ;
Eudemus connects human action in its

origin and end more closely with the divine. With

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

rightness of will and inclination. But whence comes

this gift ? Man has not given it to himself : it must
therefore come from God, who is the source of move
ment in the world. 2 Insight, moreover, and the virtue
Etltics proper (as FEITZSCIIE, that such people are not so much
p. 244, says, and BRANDTS, ii. b, evTvx^s as evfyve is. ri Se Sry ; [he
1564-5, proves), and not before goes on at 1247, b, 18] ap OVK
bk. vii. as SPENGEL, supposed tveiaiv 6p(j.al eV TT) ^^Xl? a v ^
(p. 401-2, of the text cited supra, airb Xoyicr/j-ov, at 8 airb opezws
i.
p. 98, n. 1), by reason of M. Mor. a\6yov, Kal irporepxi avrai ; et
yap
ii. 7 (from 1206, a, 36 onwards) f&Tl (pVffCL 7j Si fTTldvfliaV ^SfOS
8, 9. t)pe|is, (pvcrtL ye firl rb ayafov
1
On the principles set out fiaSi^oi hv irav. el 8^ nviS tiffiv

supra, i.
p. 362, n. 5, p. 462, n. 3. evcpvels, wffirtp ol ySiKol UUK eVi-
2
In End. i. 1, 1214, a, 16, it (TT^aei/oi aSeti/, ovrcas tv irefyvKaai
was said that men could become Kal avev \6yov OP/J.UHTIV, aAA on r)

happy either by /ua07jo"is or by (pVffLS <5

TTE(pVKe, K3.1 1TlQvfJiOV(TL Kttl

affKy&is, or in one of two other TOVTOV Kal rare Kal ovrcos ws Sel
ways tfroL Ka6direp ol j/t^^^ArjTTTOt
: Kal ov Sel i<al
ore, ovroi tiaropOw-
Kal 6e6\7]7TTOi TUII avd pcair tav , ri- (rovffikav Tv-^ffiv atypoves ovrcs
Trvoia fiai[j,ov(ov TWOS uxrirep 4vQov- Kal a\oyoi .... eKtivovs /J.ev rolwv
<7ia(bj/res, ^ Sta ri>x~nv.
He goes 8ia (pitcrus
e

on in greater detail at Eud. vii. yap 6p/*ri Kal 77 upe|ts ovffa ov eSe/
14 with many people almost
:
KarwpBuKrev, 6 Se \oyi(T/j.bs -^v r/Ai-
everything succeeds, however 0Los. We
may ask, he adds, at
little (ppovno-is they have (atypovts Eud. 1248, a, 15, dp avrov TOVTOV
OVTZS KaTOp6ovo~i Tro\\a eV ols r] Tv^f] alria, TOV eVtSu^uTytrat oy Se?
ru%77 Kvpia en 8e Kal eV ols TtyvT] Kal OTe SeT ; and having, as will
earl, iro\v /J.CVTOI Kal rv^rjs eV- be seen presently, answered this
ujrapxei), and this, on the above in the negative, he adds, at line
principles, is to be attributed, not TOUT
to chance, but to the fyva-is, so Trjs ap%-*7
 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
1

activity
presupposes the existence of reason, which must itself be
the gift of God. 2 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.
had described scientific knowledge as the highest intel
lectual activity and the most essential element in
happi
ness, Eudemus further conceives of this
knowledge as
the knowledge of God, and
accordingly converts Ari
stotle s proposition that
happiness is coextensive with
3
thought (Osvpta) into the statement that
everything

1
Since this is without \6yos
0ebs Kal h [so Fr. for TTO.V] see last note, and End. ibid. 1246,
;

KivtL yap iravra rb ev

[ 77]. -rrcas
b, 37, 1247, a, 13 sqq.
Qtlov. 5 ov \6yos 2
rj/uuv \6yov apx r) End. ibid. 1248, a, 15: in
dAAa TI KpeTrTov. ri ovv Uv Kpelr- the caseof such happily
organised
TOV Kal eTTiOTTjjUTjs eft? [Kal vov, as natures does the ground of their
SPENGEL and FRITZSCHE add] fortunate Qfois lie in ? 2) Ti>xr)

6e6s
yap dper^ rOv vov ov
TrArjv ; rj ye irdvruv eWcu ; Kal yap
[better, perhaps, ficeivov or TOV TOV vor]<rai Kal &ov\v(Ta(rdai.- ov
0eoG] opyavov evovcri yap . . .
yap 77 @ovhev(TaTo ,8ovXev<rdiu.evos
apx^v TQiavrviv, fy Kpe iTTcav TOV vov [their insight is not the out
Kal Pov\ev(reci)s they hit the come of a previous consideration],
right measure without \6yos, not dAA eo-Tij/
apxi l TLS, ov5 tvorjcre
through practice or experience, vorjaas trpoTtpovTOVT voriffai Kal
but In the same
T< 0e<.
w<*y,
fls OVK apa TOV vorjcrai. 6
aireipov.
adds Eudemus, prophetic dreams vovs apx^, ouSe TOW fiovXeiKraffQai
are to be explained eoj/ce yap 77 : TL ovi/ a\\o ir\7]v rrvxr] >

[Nous as the principle of

a-PX*) &O-T airb TI/X^S awavTa la-rat, el
immediate knowledge] aTroAuo- ffTi TIS
x^) i\s OVK
/j.4vovrov \6yov iffxy lv /uaAAoi . 8e Sia ri
Of. p. 1225, a, 27
ii. the condi :
TOVTO Svi/aff0aL -noieiv ;
/
tion of the eV0ot>(nwj Tesand7rpoAe - v, &c. (see last two
yovTes is not a free one, although notes).
the resulting activity is ra 3
Eth. N. x. 8 ; supra, ii. p.
tional (Smi/ofas tpyov). We find 143, n. 1. Eudemus shows how
a similar view of TV XT/I in Ari- exactly he agrees with Aristotle
stoxenus. also in the statement
(Eth. End.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC. 425

is a good in proportion as it leads us to the

contempla
tion of God. 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 more

exact definition of the kind of action that is
according to
reason. 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

vii. 12,1244, b, 23 sqq. 1245, a, 9 ; Tai>Tf]s 5e eVe/ca e/cetrr? OVTU 8

of. supra, 200, 5), that life is e%et /cara T& OcwptjTiKov. ov yap
nothing- else than aV0cveo-0e Kal e-jriTaKTiKws apxw 9ebs, aAA ov
o
yvwptfav, .... wore Sta TOVTO ital eVe/ca TJ (^povrjais eViTctTTei (StTT^i/
0v dei jSouAerat [men wish always Se TO ov eVe/ca StciptfTTOt 8 eV
to live], on )8ouA erect act yvcapi- aAAots), eVel e ^elfos oyDej/bs
ye
C". Setrat. Ey this reading, in which
Eth. End. vii. 15, 1249, a, 21-
1

the words
before and after
(probably the conclusion of the Stajpto-ra: are a parenthesis, the
whole work) as the doctor has :
argument is that A man should :

a definite point of view [opos], by direct his life by that in him

reference to which he judges which naturally rules; but that
what is, and how far anything is, is twofold, the active power
healthy, ovrca Kal T<3 (nrovSaica which determines a man s work,
TrepiTas Trpdl-eis Kal alpeareis r&v and the end towards which that
(pv<TL yiiej ayada>i/
OVK tiraiveTtav 8e power works. The former is
Set TWO. elj/at opov Kal Reason or
TTJS eea>s /cat the latter is
<pp6vr)o-is
TIJS cupeVeajs Kal itepl (puyr)S XP~n~ found in the Godhead and the :

P.O.TUV nhrjdovs Kal 6\iyoT7]Tos Kal Godhead as the highest end of

T>V
eurtr^fyuaro)!/ [1. Kal (pvyj^s, our activity rules us not, how ;

Kal Trept xpTj/xarwj/ irKr)Qos Kal oAt-

ever, like a ruler who gives orders
yoTrjTa, tfec.J. ej/ /u.ev ovv roils irpo- for his own ends, since the God
repou \%6ri T ^ &s o Xoyos .... head has no need of our services ;
TOVTO 8
ov &a(pfs Se
a\-r]6es /iev, and God is the end,not in the sense
[sup. ii.p. lG3,n. 1]. SelSr? ooo-n-ep Kal in which manis, butin that higher
ff TO?S aAAots irpbs T)J ap%oj/ TJI/ Kal sense in which he can be also
Trpbs T-r]v e|tv /cara rrjv ei/ep-yetaj/ the end for all men. As to this
TT]V TOV apxovTOs .... enel Se Kal twofold meaning of the ov eVe/ca
Aristotle had stated his views in
.- , uj Kal apxo{J.evov, Kal his work on Philosophy but his ;

TOV Se Se o: Trpbs r-r]v eavTuv extant works give us only a few

v-\>)^i\v

avT-r] 5e oiTT-f] aAAws 71x0 ri hints, from which we gather that

X \ ,1 . ,

Kal aAAws 7] vyi:fcta, a distinction is to be drawn be-

426 ARISTOTLE

of God is, according to Eudemus, the ultimate source of

allmorality, 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
tion 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
sake in other words, in perfected virtue based on love
of the good. 1 Aristotle had indeed touched upon this

tween that which profits by an Eth. End. vii. 15, init.

1
:

activity and that which is its Having dealt with the several
final end; cf. Phys. ii. 3, 194, Virtues, we must also consider
a, 35 :
Ifffitv yap TTCOS ical y/u.e is the whole which is made up by
re Aos St^cDs yap rb ov eveKa their union. This is Ka\oKayadla.
etpTjrcu 8 ev ro7s Trepi fyi\oao<t>ia.s. As the well-being of all parts of
Metaph. xii. 7 :
supra, i. p. 355, the body is the condition of
n. 3, ad Jin. De An. ii. 4, 415, Health, so the possession of all
b, 1 ivdvra yap e/ce/oi> \_rov fleiou]
: virtues is the condition of
dpeyerai, KUKSIVOV eVe/ca Trpdrrei Rectitude. It is, however, not
offa Trpdrret Kara tyvaiv. rb 8 ov the same thing as the mere
ej/e/ca ov rb 8e
Sirrbv rb /j.tv <>.

ayadbv elvai. Only those goods

Eudemus seems, in the passage are /caAa, oVa Si avra l atpera >vra

quoted above, to have this last (so read with SPENGEL, in lieu
passage in his mind even if the ;
of the unmeaning irdvra cf Rliet. ;
.

words TO 8 ou eV. &c., which i. 9, sujtra, ii. p. 301, n. 3) eVcu-

recur in line 20, should, us TEEN- and only of the virtues
i/era eVrtj/,
DELENBUEG thinks, be rejected. (cf.1248, b, 36) can this be said.
Eudemus then goes on: TJTIS ovv Ayadbs /j.cv ovv tffriv ra (pvcrti 3>

alptffis /cat KTT)O~LS ruv (pvaei aya- ayadd eVrtv aya8d(r. i ^.jii.p. 149,
Q&v Troir,(rei T^V rov Oeov /j.d\Lcrra n. 3, and Eth. N. v. 2, 1129, b, 3),

Ozwpiav. 7i ado/uiaros v) xP 7l/J arcav

-
/ which happens only when the
fy iAwv v) TUV a\\(av a.ya6u>v, avTT] right use is made of these goods
apio~TT] Kal OVTOS 6 opos /caAAto"TO? (honour, wealth, health, good
rjTis 8 79 Si ej/Se/ai/ 7) SivireppoXyv fortune, &c.) ;
/caAos 8e Kayadbs
rbv Oebv OepaTreveiv /cat 0ew-
Ka>At ei rtf ayad&v ra /caAa virdp^i-v
ruiv

pe?v, awTTj 8e (pav\ir). fx et ^^ rovro avrcp 8t aura /cot Trpa/crt/cbs ru>

[so. 6 t
xwv : i e. but we have this tivai T&V KO.X&V Kal avroov kveKa.
in our soul ] rf? i|/uxf? Kal OVTOS If a man proposes to be virtuous,
TT}S tyvxys 6 [which is not in but only for the sake of these
Cod. R. and should be omitted] natural goods, then he may be
opos apiffros, ra [1. TO] T]Ktffra indeed ayadbs avTjp, but he cannot
rov &\\ov [Fr. rightly have Ka\onaya6ia, for he desires
roiovrov. 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
between the virtues being, in his view, insight. 2 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.
In other respects the Eudemian Ethics, so far as it
is known 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
tion between the Ethics and the Politics by inserting
Economics as a third science between them. 5 In his
Ethics, moreover, he gives a more independent place
than Aristotle to the cognitive activities and to the
corresponding dianoetic virtues/ But these diver-
sake. To those of whom this and also see BEANDIS, who at
latter is true, on the other hand ii. 1557 sqq. iii. 240 sqq. has
b,
(before Trpoaipovvrai, at 1249,
KO.)
put together the variations of the
a, 3, there seems to be a small Eudemian Ethics from the
lacuna), not only the beautiful in Nicomachean.
5
itself, but also every other good, Cf.sw/y., i.p. 186, n. 4. It will
comes to be beautiful, because be shown infra, in discussing
it subserves an end which is the the Pseudo-Aristotelian ^co-
beautiful 6 5 oi6/j.evos ras aperas
:
nomics, that it is possible that

ex^tr SetV eVe/ca T&V ZKTOS ayaQiav Eudemus himself wrote a treatise
Kara, rb (ru^e^Tj/cos ra /caAa on Economics, and that it may
irpdrTGi. t err iv ovv KaXoicayaOia perhaps be preserved to us in
apcT-r} reAeios. bk. i. of that work.
6
1
Supra, ii.
p. 170. Supra, ii. p. 178, n. 1. That
2
Snpra,\i. p. 166, n. 1. EUDEMUS, i. 5, 1216, b, 16, includes
3
Supra, ii. p. 154, nn. 3, 4 ;
the poetical and practical sciences
155, n. 1 p. 149, n. 3.
; under the term TTOI^TIKOI (iriffTTJ-
4
With what, follows cf. ;uat, in contradistinction to the
FKITZSCHE, Eth. End, xxix. sqq. theoretical, is unimportant.
428 ARISTOTLE

gencies have no perceptible influence upon his treat

ment of ethical questions. The further peculiarities of
the Eudemian Ethics are still more unessential. 1 On
EUD. condenses the open
1
is hardly touched that virtue
;

ing (Eth. Me. i. 1) into a few was, however, called not merely
words and begins with Nic. i. 9, e|is (End. ii. 5, c. 10, 1227, b, 8,
1099, a, 24; he expressly does &c.), but also 8id8e<Tis (ii. 1, 1218,
away in i. 2,1214, b, 11 sqq. with b, 38, 1220, a, 29) is nothing.
the distinciion drawn between End. ii. 5 is in essence taken
the constituents and the insepa from Nic. ii. 8. The inquiry as
rable conditions of happiness (cf . to free will, &c., is opened
sw2?nz,ii.p. 150,n. 1; i.p.360,n.l): by Eudemus, ii. (j, with an intro
he expands in i. 5 Nic. i. 3 (partly duction which is peculiar to him,
by using N. vi. 13 v. supra, ii. p.
;
after which he gives, at c. 7-10,
158, n. 2); inserts in i. 6 methodo in a free selection and order the
logical observations which are in main points of the Aristotelian
fact entirely in agreement with argument in Nic. iii. 1-7 (cf.
Aristotle s views extends in c. 8; BKANDIS, ii. b, 1388 sqq.), and
the discussion of the Idea of the closes in 11 with the question
c.
Good out of Nic. i. 4 with certain (which not put by, but for the
is

general observations omits the ;

solution of which Nic. iii. 5, 1 112,
inquiry in Me*, i. 10-12(cf. supra, b, 12 sqq. is used) whether it is
ii. p. 144
foil.) and modifies the will (Trpocu petm) or insight (\6yos)
argument of Nie. i. 8-9 by com that virtue directs aright? Eude
bining it with what goes before. mus decides for the former, be
In the discussion of the nature cause the main question in virtue
of Virtue, Etli. End. ii. 1, 1218, is the end of our action, and
a, 131-1219, b, 26
Aristotelianis this is determined by the will ;

matter (Nic. i. 6, x. 6 init. i. 11 whereas the protection of our

init. i. 13, 1 102, b, 2 sqq.) freely power of insight from distortion
worked up what follows is
; by desire is the business of eyicpd-
more closely connected with Nic. reia, which is a praiseworthy
i. 13 and ii. 2 follows Nic. ii. 1
; ; quality, but is to be distinguished
so ii. 3 is Nic. ii. 2, 1104, a, 12 from apery?. In the treatment of
sqq. ii. 5, 1106, a, 26, ii. 8 init. ;
the specific virtues Eudemus
the sketch of the virtues and follows his master, with unim
vices 1220, b, 36 sqq. (which portant variations, as follows iii. :

secrns, however, to include later 1 (avSpeia ) is Nic. iii. 8-12 iii.

;

additions see FEITZSCHE, ad

: 2 (ffw<ppoarvvr]) is Nic. iii. 13-15 ;

loc. ) follows Nic. ii. 7 1221, b, ;

then we pass 3) to Trpaorr^s
(c.
9 sqq. rests on Nic. iv. 11, 1126, (Nic. iv. 11), and next (c. 4) to
a, 8 sqq. With End. ii. 4, cf. Nic. eAeyflepoTTjs (N. iv. 1-3), and in
ii. 2,
1104, b, 13 sqq. and c. 4 C. 5 to /J.ya\o\^vxia
(JV. iv. 7-9),
init. Nic. ii. 1 (genesis of virtue and c. 6 to ptyaXoirpeirtia (N. iv.
by virtuous acts) is passed over, 4-6). These are generally
and Nic.ii. 5 (virtues are neither abbreviated, and show only a
Swd/j.eis nor ird9r], therefore e|eis) few explanatory additions.
 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.

1

With the religious attitude which characterised Eu-

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 Ari-

Finally, in c. 7 (cf N. iv. 12-15, and

. nection be named his
should
supra, i. p. 169) Eudemus deals nephew Pasiclcs (aj). PHILOP.
with veyue<m, cuSws, <JnA.ia, (r/j.voTr]S Pasicrates ), who is also called
(absent in JVic."), dArjfleta and a scholar of Aristotle, if it be
air\6T7)s, and evrpaireXia, all of true (according to the views set
which, with a certain variance out supra, vol. i. p. 79) that he
from Aristotle, as he treats was the author of bk. ii. (a)
laudable qualities, but not as of the Metaphysics. See c. 1,
virtues in the strict sense, as 993, a, 9 wcrwep yap Kal TO. TWV
:

being merely jueo-o-njTes iraQ-nriKal ufj.fj.ara Trpo? TO tyeyyos

or Qvffiital aperal (1233, b, 18, ovrca Kal rrjs
1234, a, 23 sqq.), because they do vs irpb i ra rrj
not involve a trpoaipea is. 4>tAo-
.VTWV, and cf.
Tifj-ia (Nic. iv. 10) is passed over ;
with this PLATO, Pep. vii. init.
and for certain virtues left with Otherwise the contents of this
out a name by Aristotle ($tAia book show no remarkable pecu
and aXrfieia) Eudemus, as usual, liarity.
2
has a technical term a note of For the life and works of
the later date of his book. The Aristoxenus see MAHNE, De Ari-
three following books we possess ttoxeno, Amsterd. 1793, and
only (v. supra, i. p. 98, n. 1) in MULLEE, Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii.
the Aristotelian orginal. The 269 sqq., where the Fragments
seventh has in c. 1-12 chiefly an are collected. He was born at
original restatement of the Tarentum (SuiD. Api(TT6. STE- ;

matter of the inquiry as to PHANUS BYZ. De Urb. Tdpas),

Friendship (in Nio. viii. ix.) so and was the son of Spintharus
constructed that new ideas only (DiOG. ii. 20, SEXT. Math. vi. 1 ;

appear in minor points, and con as to his alleged second name,

tradictions of the Aristotelian Mnesias a/pud SUID., see MUL-
teaching never. The three final LER, p. 269), who was a cele
chapters of this book (more cor brated musician (^ELIAN, H.
rectly bk. viii.) have been already Anim. ii. 11, p. 34, Jac.). He
dealt with, supra, ii. p. 422, n. 3. learned also, according to SUID.
1
With Eudemus in this con from the musician Lamprus (de
 430 ARISTOTLE
had been a student of the Pythagorean
stotle, phil<

sophy, acquired by his writings on music

l
the highest
2
reputation among musicians of antiquity, and what we
know of his works amply justifies his fame. While far
outstripping all his predecessors in the completeness of

quo v. MAHNE, p. 12; cf. ZELL. of Neleus (? Neleus of Scepsis;

Ph. d. Gr. i. p. 45, n. 3), from the but he is of too late a date ;

Pythagorean Xenophilus (ibid. i. svpra, i.

p. 310, n. 5), and from Aristotle.
As a scholar of Aristotle, he is
named Cic. Tiisc. i. 18, 41,
\>j
and GELL. N. A. iv. 11, 4. He
himself refers in Harm. Elem. p.
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-
p. 187, n. 1, p. 139, n. 3).
In any case, we cannot rely on it.
The period of the life of Aristox.,
of which we cannot fix either
limit, is broadly determined by
his relations to Aristotle and
Dicaaarchus: whenCYEiLL. C. Jul.
12 C, places him in Ol. 29 he is
confusing him (see MAHNE, 16)
with the much earlier Selinun-
tian poet he is, however, more
;

hand the subject and general correct in 208, B, when he calls

lines of his discussion. SuiDAS him younger than Menedemus of
relates that, being one of the Pyrrha (ZELL. Pli. d. Gr. p. 365,
most notable of Aristotle s scho- n. 2, p. 837).
lars, he had expectations of be- The
of those known to
1
list

coming his successor, and that us, in MULLER,

p. 270, includes
when this did not come about he eleven works, some of them in
abused Aristotle after his death, several books, on Music, Ehythm,
AKISTOCLES, however (supra,i. p. &c., and also on the Musical
ll,n. 1, p. 12, n. 1), refutes the Instruments. still possess We
last suggestion, and possibly it the three books TT. ap^oviKuv
was merely the statement cited a large fragment of
<TToixti<0v,

on p. 11, n. 1 (which refers really the ir. ftvOpiKiav Groi^e icav, arid
to another person), that started other fragments (ajj. MAHNE, p.
the story. We
learn further that 130 sqq. and MULLER, p. 283
Aristoxenus lived at first, prob- sqq.). For the literature covering
ably in his youth, at Mantinea, Aristoxenus s harmonic and
and that he was a friend of rhythmic theories, see UEBER-
Dicsearchus (Cic. in Tusc. 1.18,41, WEG, Grundr. i. 216.
calls him his asqualis et condi-
2
O MovffiKbs is his regular
scipulus, and in Alt. xiii. Ad description. As the chief autho-
32, he mentions a letter then rity on music, ALEX, in Top. 49
extant from Dicsearchus to Ari- classes him with the great men
stox.). We know not on what of medicine and mathematics,
grounds LUCIAN S story, Paras. Hippocrates and Archimedes.
35, rests, that he was a parasite Cf. also PLUT. sup. ii. p. 415,n. 1 ;

i
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC. 431

his investigations, he was distinguished also in a

1

high
2
degree by the strictness of his method, by the accuracy
of his definitions, and by the thoroughness of his musical
knowledge. 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
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
The views so far as they are known
of Aristoxenus,
to us, exhibit a union of the severe morality of the
Pythagoreans with the scientific empiricism of the Peri-
Cic. 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
1

attention, with a certain pride, which relate to natural history.

to the number and importance 1
In the Fragm. from the TT.
of the inquiries which he was dptfytTjTj/cjjs, STOB. Eel. i. 1G.
the first to undertake e.g. in :
5
He composed a History of
Harm. EL & c.
pp. 2-7, 35-37, Harmonics (cited in Harm. EL
52
custom to preface
It is his p. 2) a work on Tragic Poets,
e,ach inquiry by a statement as another on Flute-players, and
to the procedure to be followed, also a work called pioi avSp&v
and an outline of the argument, which dealt apparently with all
so that the reader may be clear the famous Philosophers down
as to the way which lies before to Aristotle ;
and also the imo^vi}-
him, and the exact point at fj.aTa lo-ropiKa, from which we
which he finds himself; Harm. have citations referring to Plato
El. p. 30-1, 3-8, p. 43-4. and Alexander the Great. In
3
His works of ethical inter his other books also there was
est included, not only the no doubt much historical matter.
TlvQayopiKal but also
curo</>c(rets
6
Cf. ZELL. Pit. d. Gr. i. pp.
a great part of his historical 48, 51, 2, 54, G, 59 sqq. 342, 372,
writings about the Pythagoreans. 1, 373, 6, and the story cited by
Besides these, we hear of his LuciAN, Paras. 35 from Aristoxe
v6fj.oL iraiSevriKol and vo/j.oi iroAi- nus as to Platos Sicilian journeys.
TiKoi. The
books about the 7
Generally speaking, the re
Pythagoreans may have contained putation for learning which Cic.
the passages concerning the soul Tusc. i. 18, 41; GELL. iv. 11, 4;
ciied in the following notes, HIEEON. Hist. Eccl. Prasf. accord
432 ARISTOTLE

patetics. Of a stern and ascetic disposition, 1

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

sophers of this school.

2
The views he attributes to
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
ethics, at the same time unquestionably express own "his

opinion. Similarly he connects himself with Pyth-

4
agoreanism in going a step beyond Eudemus, and
referring good fortune partly to a natural gift and
5
partly to divine inspiration. Even in his views upon
music the same tendency asserts itself. He attributes
to music, as Aristotle, following the Pythagoreans, had

him, may be as well deserved as ibid. Fr.17), concerning artificial,

the reputation for style which Cic. natural and morbid desires, and
Ad Att. viii. 4 concedes to both the Fragm. given by ATHEN. xii.
Aristoxenus and Dicaearchus. 545, a, out of the Life of Archytas
1
So at least we are told: (FT. 16), of which, however, he
^LIAN, V.If. him r$
viii. 13, calls has given only the first half, i.e.
ye\c}Ti ava Kpdros TroAe JULIO s, and the speech of Polyarchus in
ADRAST. aj). PROCL. in Tim. 192 praise of pleasure, while its re
A, says of him ov irdvv TO e?Sos
: futation by Archytas, which
avrjp e/cetVos (jLOvcriicbs, ciAA oirws av nrnst have not
followed, is

quoted.
2
We must assume that he 4
Supra, ii. p. 422 foil.
5
himself composed, or so far as he FT. 21 ap. STOB. Eel. i.
took them from ancient sources, 206 (taken from the irvQ. a-jrotyd-
at least fully accepted, such (teis) irepl Se
: raS HtyatTKov
Ti>x~ns

Pythagorean sayings as those in eli/cu /J.EVTOI

[WYTT. conj. n^v TL]
the Life of Archytas cited infra, /cat SaL/m.6viov
/Afpos avTrjs, ytveffQai
in the following notes.
3
In this connection, cf. TWV avOpcairuv eviois eirl
the Fragm. quoted in ZELL. Ph. >)
eVi rb x^pw, fal elvai (pavepoos /car
d. Gr. i. 428-9, and that apud avTb TOVTO TOVS /uej/ evri^er? TOVS
STOU. Floril. s. G7 (see MULLER, Se O.TVX&, as may be seen by the
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC. 433

moral and educative, and at the same time

also done, a 1

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

demand is made by its character as art and accord ;

we
ingly find 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 1136, e, in opposition to Plato s

judgment reach a fortunate preference for the Dorian tones :

result, and. the latter with every and the matter cited by OBI-
Care do not. el^ou 8e Kal e repoi/ GENES ap. PEOCL. in Tim. 27 c,
TIT^TJS eiSos, KaO ft ot /xej/ ei</>ue?s
from Aristoxenus also belongs to
Kal evffroxoi, dt 8e a(f>ve?s
re KOI this subject.
2
MAEC. CAPBLLA, ix. 923
(FT. 24) Aristox. and the Pytha
:

STEABO, i. 2, 3, p. 15-G:
1
goreans believed that the f erocia
Poetry as an instrument in edu animi can be softened by music.
cation acts not by tyvxaywyia, CEAMEE, Anecd. Paris, i. 172,
but for ff(a<ppovi(r^.bs even the the Pythagorean, according to
musicians jueTaTTCiowTcu TTJS aperrjs Aristox., used for the purification
ravT~r]S TrcuSeuTfKoi yap zivai (f>aai
of the body iarpiKy, and for that
Kal eiravopQuTtKol r&v ^Qcav, as, of the soul juoujn/dj. PLUT. Mvs.
following the Pythagoreans, c. 43, o, p. 1146-7: Arist. said
Aristoxenus said also. Cf. Fr. iffdye(rdai jjiovcriK^v [at banquets]
17, a (STOB. Floril. v. 70,taken Trap offov 6 oTi/os <70aA.\eti/
/j.i>

from the TTV&. airocp.) : the true

<piAoKa\ia is not concerned with TO. TC (Twfj.aTa Kal ray Siavolas. TJ

the outward adornment of life, Se /j.ovariK7j irepl avryv raei re

rrj
but consists in a love for the Kal crv/uifjierpta els T^V evavTiav Kara-
KaAa e07j eViTTjSeu^uaTa and crracriv ayet re Kal irpavvei. Aristox
Harm. El. 31 TJ fj.fi :
1
himself is said by APOLLON.
/SAaTrre: ra ^9f], Mlrab. 49 (who cites as his
c.

f] 8e romuTTj but we must

ax/>eAe? authority Theophrastus) to have
not on that account demand of cured by music a man afflicted
Harmonics, w hich is only a part with a mental ailment.
T

3
of the science of /uLovffM^, that it THBMIST. Or. xxxiii. p. 364 :

should make people morally Apt(TTo| 6 /J.OV(TLKbs 6ri\VVOfM4vT}V

better. The moral effect of music ijSr)Ti]v (jiovffiKTiv eTretparo avappw-
is referred to in the remark of vvvai, avTus re aya-jruv ra avdpiKu-
Aristotle, aj>.
PLUT. Mas. c. 17, repa T&V Kpov^druv, Kal ro7s /j.a6r]-
VOL. II. F F
434 ARISTOTLE

lessAristoxenus confronts his Pythagorean predecessors

as the founder of a school which remained opposed to
theirs down ages of antiquity.
to He the latest
1

with their imperfect treat

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

demands, indeed, as opposed to an unscientific empi

ricism, principles and proofs;
but he starts from the
data of experience, and refuses to seek for the essence
and causes of that which perception reveals to us in
3
other field than that which these supply. In order,
any
rats e /cKeAeuo;! TOU /j.a\OaKov
l
Cf. as to this opposition of
the Pythagoreans or Harmonists,
a^fj-fvovs cjuAepyerv TO appeviairbv {

4v rots fjLf \tffiv whereon follows ;

and the Aristoxenians, whose j

an attack on the theatre music of diii erences Ptolermeus seeks to i

his own
time. Aristox. himself solve, BOJESEN, De Harmon, j

Scicntia Grace.
says in Fr. b O (ap. ATHEN. (Hafn. 1833)
xiv. j

as the people of the p. 19 sqq. and the citations there

632, a) :

Italian Posidonia, who were first from PTOLEMJEUS, Harm. i. (c. ;

Greeks and now Tyrrheneans or 2, 9, 13, &c.), POKPHYR. in Ptol. i

Ifomans, still celebrate yearly Harm. Opp. iii.) 189,

(Wallis.
the Hellenic festival of sorrow 207, 209-10, CAESAR, Grundz. der
because they have become bar- Mhythmik, 22-3.
2 I.
ovrw /col Supra, vol. ii. p. 431, 11.
barians, 5r) ovv, (ptjcrl,

r]/j.ets, eVeiSr? Kal ra Oearpa eit&ap-

3
Harm. El. 32 :
(pvtTiKyv yap
riva is rijv ($HVT]V
fidpwrat Kal els /j.^ydATjv La<p6opav 8rj <pafj.ey rj/.i.e

TrpoeATiAi flej i)
Traj Syjfios avrt] KivrjffLV KivelaOai, Kal ov% &s eTu%6
Kad aurovs SLaar-rj/J-a riQfvai. Kal rovrav airo-
/j.ovffLK t-1, yfv6fi.i 0i
o\iyoi a^a ut/uvTjo"K:o u.60a
j
o ia ^v r) /
8ei|ets ireip&^da Aeyeti/ 6^.o\oyov-

fiovffiK^. Cf. also Harm. El. 23, pevas rots (paivouevois, ov KaQd-rrep }

and the remarks a/pud PLUT. of ^poff^v, of nev dAAoTptoAoy-

711 ovvrts Kal TV?/ /xu alaByoiv c/c:Ai-

Qu. Conv. vii. 8. 1, 4, p. C,
OVK aKpiffi, vorirds
where Aristox. calls his oppo- vovres, &s
ova^v Kal
8e Karao Ktvdfrvrts alrias,
nents dvavSpoi Kal 5iaredpv/jLim.evoi
ra 2>raSi ^ovffiav Kal aweipo- (pdaKovres \6yovs re rivas a.piQp.uv
KaX iav, and 1)6 Mus. C. 31, p. etJ/cu Kal rdxn if
pus &\\ij\a, cv ols
where he tells a COiltem- TO re 6|J Kal Qapv yiverat, Trdvrav
1142,
ponirv how ill it becomes
him to aXXorpiwrarovs \6yovs Kiyovrts
conform to the taste of the day. 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,

but must completely exhaust it.
it 1

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

01 Se a s eicacTTO. i/ev must begin with data which are

airias K.C ou5e avra ra
,
immediately established by per
ception. Ka06\ov Se eV T<3
^p%e-
fi/j.e is 8e apx as re Treiptia/jieOa AaBelV ffQai
TrapaTripr)Teoi>, OTTWS /j.^r is
<paivo/u.evas
airaffas rols ^tre ipois rrjif airo
inrepopiav e/xTTiTrrco/xei/,
fJ.OV(TlK!JS Kttl TO. e /C TOVTtoV ffVfJi&ai- TWOS ({xwys T) Kivfjfffcas aepos
vovra airodeutvvvai .... avdyfrai apxf fJ-eyoi,
^TJT av Ka^TrrovTes
8 rj Trpay/uLarela els Svo efc re rr/j/ fvrbs [narrowing the bounds of
aKoyv ical eh TT\V Sidvoiav. rrj jjCtv our knowledge] TroAAa T&V otWcoi/
yap awof) Kpivofj.ev ra rcav SmarTj- In fact, however,
~a-Ko\ip.ird,vuiJLtv.
p.6.r(av p.eyt6r). TTJ 8e Siavoia Oewpov- Aristox. does not go into the
JJLSV ras TOV-TUV Swdfj-^is. Music is physical inquiries as to the nature
not like Geometry. The latter of tones see next note, and cf
; .

has no need of observation ;

T<
ibid. pp. 1 a.nd 8.
2
The basis on which Aristox.
rd^iv i) rrjs altr6r,(T(as proceeds in his Harmonics is the
, p. 38, ad Jin. : e/c Svo yap human voice (cf. Harm. El. 19,
TOVT03V T) T7JS fJiOV(TLKr]S (TVV^ffLS 20, and CENSOKIN. c. 12, who
fffTiv, /nv^^s.
aiffQ-fiffftis re Kal says t*hat Aristox. held that music
P. 43, ad Jin. three things are :
consisted in voce et corporis
needful right apprehension of motu but he cannot conclude
the phenomena, right arrange from this that he considered it
ment of them, and right conclu to consist merely in this and to
sions from them. As to the have no deeper basis, especially
somewhat hostile criticisms of as this would be in contradiction
later writers, such as PTOLEM^EUS with the quotation supra, vol. ii.
(Harm. i. 2, 13), PORPHYE. (in p. 432, n. 5, and as CENSOEIN. in
Ptol. Harm.Wallis. Up p. Hi. 211), the same passage, says of So
and BOBTHIUS (De Mas. 1417, crates also that, according to
1472, 1476) upon the method of him, music was in voce tantum-
Aristoxenus, see MAHNE, p. 167 modo ). The voice has two kinds
sqq. BEANDIS, iii. 380-1 . of movement that of
:
speech
1
Harm. El. 44 Harmonics
:
and that of song. For speech it

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 a continuous motion for ;

lesser Steer is (quarter tone) is
song a movement of intervals (KIJ/TJ- given as the smallest perceptible
ffis ffw^x^is and 5ma"TrjjUaTi/fry)
: and stateable difference of tone
that is, in speech we have a con (pp. 13-4), while the greatest
tinual change of tone, while in which can be represented by the
singing each tone is held for a human voice or by any single
certain time at the same level instrument is said to be the Sia
Whether a tone TreVre Kal Sis Sia
TracrcDj/ = two oc
(ibid. p. 2, 8). (
is in itself a form of motion or taves and a fifth) (p. 20). The
no, Aristox. says he will not notions of tone and interval are
inquire (Hid. p. 9, 12) he says ;
denned (p. 16-7), and the differ
a tone is at rest so long as it ent tone-systems are given (p.
does not change its note, but 17-8) with the statement that of
allows that this may be an actual these the diatonic is the most
rest or may be merely a same original, the chromatic the next,
ness of motion (o/xaAoV^s /ciHjo-ews and the enharmonic the last, so
$ TOUTOTTJS) nor will he go into
;
that the ear is with difficulty
the question whether the voice accustomed to it (p. 19), &c. The
really can hold exactly the same further course of the inquiry
note, for it is enough that it cannot be followed here. That
appears to us to do so. ctTrAws Aristox. (as in Harm. pp. 24, 45-
yap, orav av ovrca Kivyrai 7] tyiav^i, 46) fixed the compass of the
facrre fj.r]Sa/j.ov So/ceo/ iffraffQai rfj
fourth at two and a half, of the
\eyofj.ev Tavrrjv Trjv fifth at three and a half, and of
a/cof), ffvve-xri
K.ivr](riv, orav 8e ffT^vai TTOV 5o acra the octave at six tones, whereas
elra Sia^aiveiv riva roirov
7rciA.iv the true compass is rather less,
<pavri,
Kal TOVTO TroL rf](ra<ra TraAti/ e<p
because the half-tones of the
erepas Tacrews [level of tone] fourth and fifth are not a full
O-TTJI/CU SO^T?, /cat TOVTO eVaAAa| half, is matter of criticism in
PTOLBM. Harm. i. 10; BOETH.
roiavTyv T DC Mus. 1417; CENSORIX. Di.
\4yopev. The result of this must Nat. 10, 7. Of. also PLUT. An.
be a bad circulus in definiendo, Proer. c. 17, p. 1020-1 (where
by which the eTrirao-is (fxavrjs is the apjuLoviitol are the followers of
defined as a movement of the Aristox., elsewhere called op-
voice from a low to a high note, yaviKol or /j.ovcriKol). It is pos
and the Hvecris (poov^s a movement sible that in his treatment of
from a high to a low one, while rhythm Aristox. also treated of
ovrr)s, conversely, is denned as the letters of the alphabet as the
TO yev6/J.vov Sia TTJS f7nrd(Tws, elements of speech see DIONYS.
;

and jSopuTrjsas TO yevo/j-tiiw Sia Com]). T erb. p. 154.

TTJS aj/eVews (p. 10). Again, the
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC. 437

common product ;
a disturbance in one of these parts,
which destroys the concord of their movements, causes
the extinction of consciousness in other words, death. 1
In this doctrine he only followed a view which had been
already adopted by others -probably Pythagoreans
before him. 2 It would commend itself all the more to
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 in fidibus ex con-
. .
ipsius corporis intentionem
. structione corporis et compagi-
[roVos] quandam [animam dixit] ;
bus viscerum vim sentiendi ex-
velut in cantu et fidibus qua? har- istere . scilicet ut singularum
. .

monia dicitur, sic ex corporis corporis partiumfirmaconjunctio

totius natura et figura varios
motus cieri, tanquam in cantu
sonos. Of. c. 18, 41, where, on
the other hand, we are told
membrorum vero situs et figura
corporis vacans animo quam
possit harmoniam
video. C. 22, 51 : Dica3archus
quidem nullum
et Aristox.
omnino animum esse dixerunt.
LACTANT. Instit.vii. 13 (perhaps
also following Cicero):
Aristox., qui negavit omnino
ullam esse aniraam, etiam cum
vivit in corpore? but held that
as harmony is engendered out of
the tension of strings, ita in
membrorumque omnium consen-
tiens in unurn vigor motum ilium
sensibilem faciat animumque
:
concinnet, sicut nervi bene in-
tenti conspirantem sonum. Et
sicuti in fidibus, cum aliquid aut
efficere, non interruptum aut relaxatum est,
omnis canendi ratio turbatur et
. . .
solvitur, ita in corpore, cum pars
aliqua membrorum duxerit vi-
tium, destrui universa, corruptis-
quid que omnibus et turbatis occidere
sensum eamque mortem vocari.
2
ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 413.
Aristox. probably stated this
view in his books on the Pytha-
goreans but what is quoted from
;

corporibus ex compage viscerum him by JAMBL. Tlieol. Aritlmi. p.

ac vigore membrorum vim senti- 41, as to the Metempsychosis of
endi existere. LACT. Opif. D. Pythagoras does not prove that
c. 16 Aristox. dixit, mentem
: Aristox. himself believed in that
omnino nullam esse, sed quasi doctrine,
438 ARISTOTLE

soul originates in the concurrence of bodily move

ments.

Along with Aristoxenus his friend and fellow-

2
disciple Dicsearchus of Messene
]
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

As to this, see Cic. Fuse, i. 2) and that he was employed

1
vi.

18, Ad Att. xiii. 32, and supra, by the Macedonian kings to

vol. ii. p. 429, n. 2. measure the heights of mountains
2
According to SUID. s. t\, he (PLIN. H. Nat. ii. 65, 162), which
was the son of Phidias, born at work we know that he did in the
Messene in Sicily, a scholar of Peloponnesus, for S UIDAS ascribes
Aristotle, a philosopher, a rhe to him Kara/iJiTp-f)<ris r&v eV rieAo-
torician and a geometrician. He irovvi](TCf opwis. His learning is
is often called a Messenian and a praised by PLIN. (loc. cit.), by ClO.
scholar of Aristotle (e.g. Cic. Ad Att. ii. 2 and elsewhere, and
Legg. Hi. 6, 14; ATHEN. xi. by VAEEO, DC B. R. i. 1 (cf.
460-1, xv. 6GG, b and a). Why MULLEE, ibid. His dates p. 226).
TIIEMISTIUS names him among of birth and death cannot be
the traducers of Aristotle exactly determined As to his
(supra, vol. i. p. 40, n. 1), it is life and writings, see OSANN,
difficult to say for neither the
;
JBeitr. 1-119; FUHE, Dica-arcM
ii.

circumstance referred to by MUL- Me&sen. qua; supersunt (Darmst.

LEE (Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 225-6) 1841); MULLEE, Fragm. Hist.
that he gave more importance to Gr. ii. 225 sqq., from whom the
the practical life than Aristotle Fragments hereafter cited are
did (see below), nor the fact taken.
3
(which OSANN, p. 46, connects Cic. Fuse. i. 18, 41, 22, 51.
with this accusation) that Dicre- 4
We know from Cic. Ad Att.
archus departed from Aristotle s 32, Fuse. i. 10, 21, 31, 77;
xiii.

teaching as to the soul, has any PLUT. Adv. Col. 14, 2, p. 1115,
thing to do with their personal that he wrote two works on the
relations, of which THEMIST. is soul, which were dialogues, one
speaking. It is possible that laid at Corinth, the other in
THEMIST. or his copyists have Lesbos. Whether with either of
inserted the wrong name: De- these (OSANN, 40- 1, suggests the
mochares, for example, might be Kopiv6iaKbs) the work DC Interitu
suggested instead. We have no Hominum Off. ii. 5, 16;
(Cic.
further information about Dicas- Consol. 351) was identical
ix.

archus, except that he lived in must remain an unsolved pro

the Peloponnesus (Cic. Ad Att. blem but it seems improbable.
;
 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
a living body united to the body accord
:
only as it is

ingly and diffused through all its parts does the soul
It was only, therefore, to be
1

partake of reality.
expected that he should from this point of view vigor
2
ously combat the belief in immortality. It is more

surprising to be told that he believed in revelations

3
through dreams and ecstatic states. These, however,
1
Cic. Tusc. i. 10, 21 : Die. according to Dicasarchus, T& rrj
makes a certain Pherecrates QiHTfi <rv/j./j,iu.iy/j.evoi>, v) TO rov
maintain, nihil esse omnino
animum et hoc esse nomen totum avrrj 8e /j.)) Trapbv rrj //I XJ? &<nrp

inane . . .
neque in homine i>Trdpxov.(1) SlMPL. Categ. Schol.
inesse animum vel animam nee in Ar. b8, a, 26 ALK. rb /j.ev : . . .

in bestia virnque ononem earn,

; (MOV (rui/exwpei elvai, rV 5e alriav
qua vel agamus quid vel sentia- avTOv ^ux^* /
a^7?pei. NEMES.
mus [/aVrjcm and a lffdrja-is were Nat. Horn. p. 08: AiKaiapxos Se
already indicated by ARIST. De [T^I/ Aeyei] ap/jLoviav rwv
\l/vx~nv
An. i. 2, 4.03, b, 25, as the distin recrffdpoov (TTOixtlwv (so also
guishing- marks of the e ^t X 01 ]* PLUT. Plac. iv. 2, 5 ; STOB. Ed.
in omnibus corporibus vivis i. 796; HERMIAS, Irris, p. 402),
Eequabiliter esse fusam, nee which is the same as
Kpacris Kai
separabilem a corpore esse, ta. TWV (TTotx 6i/a /
ffv(j.<b(n}v for it " -

quippe qufe nulla sit [cf. 11, 24 . is not the musical kind of har
nihil omnino animum dicat esse], mony, which is meant, but the
nee sit quidquam nisi corpus harmonious mixture of the warm,
unum et simplex [the body cold, moist and dry elements in
alone], ita figuratum ut tempera- the body. Accordingly he is
tione naturae vigeat et sentiat ;
said to have considered the soul
lUd. 18, 41 [Die.] ne condo- : as avoixrios (which means, not
luisse quidem unquam videtur, qui immaterial, as OPANN, p. 48,
animum se habere non sentiat ;
translates it, but non-sub
22, 51 (v. supra, vol. ii. p. 437, n. stantial). The meaning of TEK-
1, and Acad. ii. 39, 124). SEXT. TULL. De An. c. 15 (cf. infra,
says he taught /i^ eli/cu rV under STRATO) is not clear.
LAC-
"

(Pyrrh. ii. 31), ^mjSej/ e?i/at Cic. Tusc. i. 31, 77,

irapa TO TTWS %x ol/ 0"e3/ua (Matll. vii. TANT. Instit. vii. 7, 13 ;
and cf.
349). ATTICUS, a-p. Eus. Praep. next note.
Ei xv. 9, 5
. : ai>r
: pr]K ri]v O ATJJ/ 3
Ps.-PujT.Plae.v.lA-. Apurro-
vit6(TTO.ffiv TTJS \l/vxvs. JAMliL. ap. TC ATS Kal AIK. rb KO.T
STOB. Eel. i. 870 : the soul was,
440 ARISTOTLE
he was doubtless 1
able, like Aristotle, to reconcile with
his doctrine of the soulby means of a natural ex
2
planation. That he was no friend of divination and
the priestly arts of
prophecy can easily be gathered
from the fragments of his work upon the Cave of Tro-
3
phonius.
Connected with Dicaearchus s 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
activity of thought in which it withdraws from all that
is 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 all the
more ready to conceive of it as not in its nature
separable from the bodily organs, but as the operative
force that pervades them. But Dicgearchus demands

Kal TOVS ovftpovs, aBavarov with Aristotle in this connection,

fj*v elvcu
ou i/o^iCoj/res-
rV^i/xV, Geiov 8e Certainly we cannot ascribe to
TIVOS ^ere xeiz/ avrrjv. him what ClC. Divin. i. 50, 113,
Similarly
in Cic. Divin. 113. Cf.
i, 3, 5, 50, says as to the loosing of the
ibid._
ii. 51, 10: magnus Dicas- soul from the body in sleep and
archi liber est, nescire ea in
[qua? excitement, and, in fact,
ventura sint] melius esse, quam Cicero does not name Dicscarchus
scire. for his view.
;
Cf supra,
. vol. ii.
pp. 76, 328.
3
Fr. 71-2, ap. ATHEN. xiv.
2
The proposition (PSEUDO- 641, xiii.
e, 594, e; of. OSANN,
PLUT. in the note but one)
last
p. 107 sqq.
that the soul has 4
Cic. Ad
something Att. ii. 16:
divine, would not stand in his quoniam tanta controversia est
way, for even Democritus (ZELL. Dicrearcho, familiari cum
tuo,
Ph. d. Or. i. 812-3) admits as
Theophrasto, amico meo, ut ille
much. It is, however, question- tuus rov irpcucriKbv piov longe om-
able whether the Placita have nibus anteponat, hie autem rbj/
any right to couple Dicsearchus 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 ;

it isnot the public oration or
the official business that 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 his whole life to the service of the
1

people.
With this strong practical bent Dicaaarchus naturally
found political studies especially attractive
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
;

Tripoliticus a development of Aristotelian ideas

4
he
proposed a combination of the three pure forms of con
stitution and monarchy) as
(democracy, aristocracy,
the best, and pointed to Sparta as an
example of this
combination. 5 Beyond this we know
hardly anything
1
This is the leading idea of or a political aim but the one ;

the passage in PLUT. An seni s. use is as incorrect as the other

ger. resp. c. 26, p. 796, of which 2
Cic. Legg. iii. 5, H.
we may assume that its general 3
Cic. Ad ii. 2 (cf.
Att.<

content belongs to Dicjearchus Os ANN, p. 13 sqq.) names ac-

and not merely sen- counts by him of the Constitu-
^the single
tence Kal yap rovs eV ra?s ffroous tions of Fella, Corinth, and
avaKcfyiTrroz/ras Trepnrarelv (pa.(T\v, Athens, which probably were
&s eAe-ye AiKatapxos, ouKeri Se TOVS
parts of a general History of
cis aypbv ?n tylxov The
paSifrvras. Constitutions, if not indeed of the
meaning of that sentence will Bios EAAdSos (infra) ;
SUID. says
then be as follows as people use
:
that his TroAn-eia ZirapTiaTtiv
the word TreptTrareTv only of
(which may also have been part
walking, which is done directly of the Tripoliticus) was publicly
for the sake of movement, so read in Sparta every year,
they commonly use the words 4
Cf. supra, vol. ii.
p. 230 sq ,

fyLXoffofyelv and iroAiTeueo-flcu

only and especially pp. 278 sqq.
of those activities which 5
That this was the main idea
expressly
and directly serve a philosophic of the Tpnro\iTiKbs and that
442
of Dicaearchus s political philosophy.
over the fragments of his numerous writings upon
history, geography, and the development of literature
and art, especially as the views expressed in
of no particular philosophical interest. 2
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
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. 8 sqq.,
however, is wrong in treating as
genuine the political Fragments
of Archytas and Hippodamus,
and in citing in support of his
view PLUT. Qu. Conv. viii. 2, 2,
3, p. 718, where Dicasarchus is
merety speaking of the combina
tion of Socratic and Pythagorean
elements in Plato. This infer
ence assumes the highest degree
of probability when we observe
that PHOT. Bill. Cod. 37, p. 8, a
(following some scholar of the
sixth century) speaks of
TroAtrefas which con
8iKa.iapx.iKbi>,
sists in an amalgamation of the
three kinds of constitution, and
is the best kind of government,
and that (according to FT. 23 b.
ATHEN. iv. 141, a) the Tri-poli-
ticus contained an exact descrip
tion of the Spartan Phiditia, and
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
loc,. cit. deal with the subject.
OSANN also suggests (p. 29 sqq.)
that the work for which Cic.
ARISTOTLE
may pass
1
We
them are
Ad Att. xiii. 32 says he wishes to
make use of the TripoUticits,
was the De Gloria.
1
Direct information on this
head we have none, except the
remark (cited by PLUT. Qu. Conv.
iv.Procom. p. 659), that we should
seek the good will of all, but the
friendship of the good. We
gather from PORPH. De Abst lr.
1, 2 (see next note), and from
who, 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
beasts or catastrophes of nature,
that Die. denounced war.
According to POEPH. Hid. it
seems that Die. (like Theo-
phrastus) saw even in the custom
of slaughtering animals, the
commencement of a downward
tendency.
2
His views a,s to the conical
form of the earth (Fr. 53;
elSos 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,
;
R. Itust. ii. 1) and inasmuch as
;
he strove (using the myth of the
!
rule oL Kronos) to represent with
much intelligence the original
condition of mankind and the
gradual transition from a primi
tive state of nature to pastoral
life (with which began the
eating of flesh and war) and the
further advance to an agricul
tural life (Fr. 1-5, b; PORPH.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC. 443

Of another Peripatetic known to us

by name,
Phanias, the friend and fellow-citizen of Theophrastus,
1

we possess only isolated statements

upon history and
science. 2 The same is true of Clearchus of Soli 3 since
;

although among his writings, so far as known

they are
to us, 4 none are 5
historical, yet almost
the quotations all
from them which we possess relate to history, and these
are for the most part so
paltry and insignificant, and
6

De Abstin. iv. I, 2, p. 295-6 ; have written works on Logic

HIERON. Adv. Jovin. IE. t. iv. b, (AMMON. ibid., and v. supra, vol.
205, Mart. CENSOR, c. 4
;
; i.p. 64, n. 1). The information
VARRO, R. R. ii. 1, i. 9) he must, which exists about these texts, and
like Aristotle and the fragments of them which are
Theophrastus
(supra,vol. ii. pp. 30 sq. 378 sq.), preserved, have been collected by
have supposed that the history of VOISIN (De Phauia Eras. Gand.
human civilisation moved in a 1824) and after him by MULLER,
settled cycle.
Fragm. Hist. Gr. ii. 293 sqq.
1
Our information as to the 3
HeisoftencalledSoAeus; and
life of this man (from SUID. s. v. that the Cyprian, not the Cilician,
STRABO, xiii. 2, 4, p. 618 PLUT.; Soli is meant, is clear
(as many
Tliemist. c. 13 ; AMMON. in Categ., have observed, and as MULLER,
Schol. in Ar. 28, a, 40) is limited maintains against VER- ibid. 302,
to the statements that he
belongedRAERT, De Clearclw Sol. Gand.
to Eresos, that he was a scholar of
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.)
a letter which Theophrastus, 4
See the list and Fragm.
when he was advanced in age, apud VERRAERT and
MULLER,
wrote to this Phanias, de quo cf. ubi supra.
also Schol in Apoll. Rhod.i. 972. 5
Even the TT. fricav, which
2
We
hear of various historical seems to have been his chief
works of Phanias a work TT. ;
work, and from which we have
iroiriTw, another on the Socratics citations of books 1, 2, 3, 4 and
(which may have dealt with other 8, cannot have been, if we are
philosophers also) a book irpbs ; to judge by these Fragments, a
TOI/S o-o^io-ra?, of which the
Trpbs biographical work, but only a
AtJSwpoj/ (Diodorus Kronus) was discussion of the value of differ
perhaps a part, and a TT. $UTO>J>,
ent kinds of lives cf. MULLER,
:

to which the matter cited ibid. p. 302.

by
PLIN. H. Nat. xxii. 13, 35 from 6
This cannot be wholly due
Phanias the physicist may have to the fact that we owe the cita
belonged. He is also said to tions to a gossip like Athenasus.
444 ARISTOTLE
exhibit so little critical power, while Clearchus s own
conjectures are so devoid of taste, that they give us
1

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
scientific assertions, and a discussion of the different
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

1
Apjo-rorf Xovs
3
myth of the egg of Leda, ap. l)e Fdc. Lull. 2, 5, p. 920 :

ATHEN. ii. 57, e the ancients in :

u^erepos yap 6 avrjp, ApurroTeAovs
place of virsptpov used, fov simply, TOV TraAcuoG yzyovus <rvvi]Q-r]s, el KCL\
and SO, since Helen was begotten TroAAa TOV TrepnraTOu TrapeVpe^/ev.
4
in a virepqiov, the story arose that FT. 70-74, a, 76, 78 cf. ;

she came out of an egg his !

SPRENGEL, Gesch. d. Arzneik.
statement, ap. DiOG. i. 81, as to (fourth edition); v. ROSEXBAUM,
Pittacus (evidently founded only i. 412-3.

on the well-known verse ap. Fr. 63, apiid

r>

ATHEN. x.
PLUT. VII. Sap. Cnv. c. 14, p. 448, c. cf. PEANTL, Gesch. d. Log.
157, e) :
TOVT^ yvfj.va.cria r\v virov i. 399 sq.
aAeTi/ and his idea that (Fr. 60 ti
So Clearchus, in his TT. iW,
ap. Miiller) man-eating the had recounted the numerous
steeds of Diomedes meanb his examples of these failings and
daughters ! their consequences, which
2
JOSEPH. C. Apion. i. 22, ii. ATHENJEUS cites from him
454 Haverc. KA.. 6 ApJo-roTeAofs
:
(Fragm.. 3-14, cf. Fr. 16-18,
&v fj.a6TTT7)s real rcav e/c rov irfpnrd- 21-23) ; and, on the other hand
TOV (f>t\ocr6(t)(i}v
ou&ei/bs Sevrepos. (Fr. 15, ap. ATHEN. xii. 548, d),
ATHBX. xv. 701, c. : KA.. 6 2oAei>s named Gorgias to prove the
Sevrepos TWV TOV (rotyov wholesome effects of moderation.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: EUDEMUS, ETC. 445

l
praiseworthy 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

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 is favourable to this assump
tion, although his learned efforts show that he was
certainly closely akin to the Peripatetic school.
Aristotle s influence may have had a more decided
effect upon the orator and poet Theodectes, who died,
however, before Alexander s Persian expedition.
6

Several other Aristotelians, such as 7

Callisthenes,

Ajmd ATHEN.
1
xiii. Gil, b, NAYS, AWt. d. Hist.-philos. Ge-
he distinguishes (apparently in Sf.llsch. in Breslau, i. 1858, 190,
opposition to the Cynics and per- Theophr. lib.
Frommigk. 110,
haps to the Stoics also) between 187) need not, from our extant
fiios Kaprepiubs and the /3ios information as to Clearchus, be
KvviK6s. considered spurious.
2
FT. 30, 32 (ATHEX. vi.
Cf. 5
Supra, vol. ii. p. 387, n. 1, p.
255, b, 533, e) with the bold
xii. 433 sqq. cf. ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i.
;

sketch of a young and weak p. 843, n. 1.

Prince ruined by flattering cour- 6
On this writer, who is often
tiers, &c. FT. 25-6 (ATHBN. vi. quoted by Aristotle, and of whom
255, c. 258, a). we have suggested (supra, vol. i.
3
FT. 34-36 (ATHEN. xiii. 573, p. 72, n., following PLUT. Alex. c.
a, 589, d. 605, d, e).
_
17) that he was with Aristotle in
4
The conversation between Macedonia, see WESTEEMANN S
Aristotle and a Jew reported by Gescli. d. Tlercdnamk. lei d.
Clearchus (FT. 69, op. JOSEPH. Griech. u. Rom. i. 84, A, 6, 142J
C. Apion. i. 22), maybe regarded A, 21, and supra, vol. i.
p. 40,
as a literary invention, together n. 2, p. 72.
with the accompanying explana- 7
This kinsman and scholar
tion that the Jews derived their of Aristotle is referred to
supra,
philosophy from India. The vol. i.
p. 22, n. 1 ad fin. (see also
book cited (ir. vwov, de quo BEE- VALEK. MAX. vii. 2, ext. 8, SUID.
446 ARISTOTLE
Leo of Byzantium, 1
and Clytus,
2
are known to us
only as writers on history, Meno 3
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.

KaAAio-0.), and as
to his death, see for this work all the
writings of
supra, vol. 32 sqq.i. Further
p. earlier physicians then extant.
information about him and his 4
Of the historian Marsyas
writings will be found in GEIER, (supra, vol. i. p. 22, n.
1) we can
Alex. Hut. Script. 191 sqq. ;
not tell whether and how far he
MULLEK, Script. Her. Alex. \ sqq. adhered to the Peripatetic phi
1
The little we can glean of losophy.
this historian (whom SUID. AeW 3
SUID. "Iirirapx. (of. LOBECK,
Bi confounds with an earlier Aglaoph. 608) names a work of
politician of Byzantium of the his : T I TO appev Kal flrjAu irapa
same name) from SUID. iMfl., &AAa nvd.
0eo?s Kal ris 6 ydu.os, Kal
ATHEN. xii. 553-1, and PSEUDO- u
Including Adrastus of Phi-
PLUT. De Fluv. 2, 2, 24, 2, is set lippi (STEPII. BYZ. De Urb. $i\nr-
out in MULLEK, Fragm. Hist. TTOI) Echecratides of Methymna
;

Gr. ii. 328-9. (STEPH. BYZ. M^0u/tra)

2
King ;

ATHEN. xiv. 655, b, xii. 540, Cassander (PLUT. Alex. c. 74);

c; DIOG. i. 25; MULLEE, Hid. Mnason of Phocis (ATHEN. vi.
333. 264, d. ^LIAN, V. If. iii. 19) ;
;
3
in HippocT. da Nat.
GALEN, Philo, whom, according to ATHEN.
Horn. vol. xv. 25-26 K., says this xiii. 610-11, and DIOG. v. 38,
physician was a scholar of Ari Sophocles, the author of the law
stotle s, and wrote an iarpiK^ referred to supra, vol. ii. p. 350,
ffwaywy}) in several books, erro n. 4, indicted for an offence
neously ascribed to Aristotle him against the constitution the ;

self. It is clear that this was an Eucairos named supra, vol. i. p.

historical collection of medical 97 (cf. HETTZ, Verl. Schr. 118-
theories, both from the title 19), and the Plato named by
(which is the equivalent of the DIOG. iii. 109. Antipater was
Te^i/ciif supra, vol. i. p.
ffvvaycayr] Aristotle s friend, but not his
73, n. 1), and also from the pupil.
remark of Galen, that he had used
 447

CHAPTER XX
SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS I STKATO

WITH who belonged to the

the majority of those
school Theophrastus, the literary and historical
of

tendency seems also to have been the predominating

one. Most of those who are mentioned as belong
ing to it have confined themselves in their literary
labours to history, the history of literature, ethics, po
litics, and rhetoric. This is true of Demetrius of Pha-
distinguished as a scholar and statesman
l
lerus, ;
of
1
OSTERMANN has studied his with Phocion, to have played
life in the most thorough manner some part as one of the chiefs
in De Demetrii Plial. Vita. &c., of the Macedonian aristocratic
published (Part I.) Hersf. 1847, party, for when, after Antipater s
and (Part II.) Fulda, 1857; the death (318 the opposition
B.C.),
titles and fragments of his writ party came into power for a
ings are given by him in Part II., while,and Phocion was executed,
and by HERWIG, Ueber Deme.tr. Demetrius also was tried and
Phal. Schriften, &c., Kinteln, condemned to death (PLUT. Pkoc.
1850. Born about the middle of 35). He escaped his sentence,
the fourth century (OST. i. 8), however, by flight, and when, in
and probabl} while Aristotle was
-

the following year, Cassander

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,
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 ARISTOTLE
2
Duris,
1
and his brother Lynceus of Chamaeleon, 3 and
ness, and immorality by DURIS 23, 95, Offic. i. 1, 3, and cf.
and DIYLLUS, ap. ATHEX. xii. QUINT. Inst. x. 1, 33, 80, and
542, b sqq. xiii. 593, e, f (though DIOG. v. 82), although he does
JULIAN, F. //. ix. 9, transfers not find in his speeches the fire
the statement to Demetrius and the power of the great
Poliorcetes) but the untrust-
;
orators of free Athens. That he
worthiness of Duris and the brought about the translation
animus of his statements lead us of the so-called Septuagint is
to suppose a high degree of palpably a fable, as to which
exaggeration. When Demetrius OSTERMAKN ought not to have
Poliorcetes, in 807 B.C., took the credited the lying Aristaaus (ii. 9
Piraius, an insurrection broke out sqq. 46-7). So also the work on
in Athens against Demetrius the Jews is a forgery, although
Phal. and Cassander s party. bothHERWIG (pp. 15-16), and
Protected by Poliorcetes, he OSTERMANN (ii. 32-3), have
escaped to Thebes, and finally, accepted it.

after Cassander s death (01. 120, 1

All we know of DURIS is
2, 298-99 B.C.), went to Egypt. that he was a Samian and a
Here Ptolemy Lagi accorded him pupil of Theophrastus (see
an honourable and influential ECKERTZ S account of him, De
position, in which he was spe Ditride Sam. Bonn, 1846 MUL- ;

cially active in founding the IER, Fraym. Hist. Gr. ii. 466
Alexandrian library (OST. i. 26- sqq. and ATHEN. iv. 128, a). To
64 who, however, on p. 64 makes
: define the exact date of his life
a very improbable suggestion, time (cf. MULLER, ibid.) is riot
ilncl. ii. 2 sqq.; cf. GRAUERT, possible. According to ATHEN.
Hist. -a-,
pl il. AnalJit en, i. 310 viii. 337, d, he had, at some
sqq. DROYSEN, Gesoli. d. Kcl-
; period, governed his native town,
lenism. ii. b, 10G sqq). After but when we cannot say. His
the death of this prince (and untrustworthiness in historical
according to HERMIPP. apud matters is very unfavourably
DlOG. v. 78 immediately after, criticised in PLUT. Pericl. 28.
which Would be 283 B c.) Pto That this criticism is borne out
lemy Philadelphus, whose suc by what we know of the state
cession Demetrius had opposed, ments cited from DURIS, ECKERTZ
banished him to a place in the has amply proved. Nor is his
country, where he lived some literary talent highly thought of
time as a political prisoner, and either by PHOT. Cod. 176, p. 121,
where he eventually died from a, 41 sqq., or by DIONYS. Comp.
the bite of an adder (Cic. Pro Verb. v. 28 K.
Rabir. Post. 9, 23, says this was
2
See ATHEN. ibid. A list of
a suicide; but HERMIPP., nt his writings is given by MULLER,
supra, states it as an accident). ibid. p. 466.
CICERO speaks very highly of See KOPKE, De Cliamceleonte
3

his talents as an orator and as a Peripatetico, Berl. 1856. Of him

scholar (see Brut. 9, 37 sq. 82, also we know but little. He was
285, Orat. 27, 92, De Orat. ii. a native of Heraclea in Pontus
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STEATO 449

Praxiphaues.
1
Even from the ethical writings of these
men, however, nothing has come down to us of a
philosophical character. 2 Of a few other disciples of

(ATHEN. iv. 184, d, viii. 388, b, accord with that of Theophrastus.

ix.374, a, &c.), and is probably Whether he is the same person as
the same person as he whose the Praxiphanes described as a
courageous answer to king Seleu- Peripatetic and Grammarian, to
cus is mentioned by MEMNON whom Callimachus dedicated a
(apud PHOT. Cod. 224, p. 626, a). work (BEKKEEL S Anec. ii. 729,
He is described as a Peripatetic where, however, our text gives
by TATIAN, Ad Gr. 31, p. 269, a :
TrapE^Kpdvovs see also ARA.T. ed.
;

and the circumstance that his Buhle, ii.

432), is uncertain (as
book IT. 7]^ovr)s was attributed ZUMPT, AM. d. Bcrl. ATtad. v. J.
also to Theophrastus (cf. ATHEN. 1842, Hist.-pldl. 1.
p. 91, has
vi. 273, e, viii. 377, e) corrobo remarked), inasmuch as CLEM.
rates that description. From this Strom, i. 309. says that a Myti-
circumstance KOPKE (p. 34) lenean named Praxiphanes was
concludes that Chameleon was the first person who was called
in fact a pupil of Theophrastus. ypa/j./j.ariK6s. Nevertheless, it
He may, however, have been bis seems probable that it is one and
co-disciple, since he (apud the same person who is intended
DIOG. v. 92) criticised his com in all these passages. A pupil of
patriot Heraclides, who was one Praxiphanes, named PLATO, is
of Plato s elder
pupils (ZELL. mentioned by DIOG. and hi. 109,
Ph. Gr.
d. p. 842, 2) for a
i.
expressly distinguished by him
plagiarism. Besides Chameleon from the other Plato referred to
we have also a mention by supra, vol. ii. p. 466, n. l!.

TATIAN, in the same passage 2

Of PEAXIPHANES we know
(cf. also ATHEN. xii. 513, b, nothing at all except what is
EUSTATH. in II. a!, p. 84, 18, stated in the text. Of the eight
Sum. A07}i>cuas, and HESYCH. works of DUEIS known to us,
A017J/S), of a Peripatetic named the most important were un"

MEGACLIDES (or Metacl.) from doubtedly the three historical

whose work on Homer a critical onss (the Greek and Macedonian
remark is cited. Histories, the Agatlwcles, and
Described as frcupos &eo(ppd<r-
1
the Samian Chronicles). Four
TOV, by PROCL. in Tim. 6, c. Ac other works treated of festival
cording to this passage he objected plays, of tragedy, of painters,
to the beginning of the Timceiis ;
and of sculpture. The work TT.
according t o TZETZES, in Hesiod. v6fj. j)v may have been philosophi
Opp. et Di. v. 1, he considered cal, butwe have from it nothing
the introduction to this book as but two mythological notes.
spurious. STEABO, xiv. 2, 13, p. From Lynceus, who was a writer
655, calls him a Rhodian, and of comedies and also a gourmet,
EPIPHAN. Exp. Fid. 1094, a, and author of a book on the art
adds that his doctrine was in of cookery (ATHEN. iv. p. 131-2,
VOL. II. G G
450 ARISTOTLE

Theophrastus some are known to us only by name,

1

while others hardly merit the title of philosophers. 2

Much more important as a contributor to philosophy

vi. p. 228 c, vii. p. 313-4; cf. iv. vop.(v. There were also historical,
p. 128, a), ATHEN^EUS, in his grammatical and literary re
numerous quotations (see the searches, a Rhetoric, a collection of
Index to ATHEN. and MULLER, speeches, which Cicero must have
ibid.), and PLUT. Demetr. c. 27, known, and another collection of
Sclwl. Tkeocr. to iv. 20, give us letters. Nevertheless, out of all
only a few notes and stories, this mass of literary matter
chiefly about cookery. Of the nothing, except a quantity of his
sixteen writings of CHAME toricaland grammatical scraps
LEON which KOPKE, 15 sqq., p.
and a few insignificant remarks
enumerates, twelve related to the of moral and political interest,
epic, lyric, comic, and tragic has come down to us. (Fr. 6-
poets, and were concerned merely 15, 38-40, 54, OSTERMANN, from
with literary history. Only a DIOG. v. STOB. Florll. 8,
82, 83 ;

few unimportant historical re 20, 12, 18 PLUT. Cons, ad Apoll.

;

marks have reached us from the c. 6, p. 104 DlODOR. Exc. Vatic.

;

TIpoTptirTiKbs and the treatises IT. libr. xxxi., also five in MAI S
fj.fOr)s, TT, ^SOJ/T/S, TT. wv (see Nova Collect, ii. 81, POLYB. Exc.
KOPKE, p. 36 sqq. the citations : 1. xxx. 3, Hid. 434 sq., Exc. 1.
are to be found in ATHENEUS, xxxiv.-xxxvii. 2, ibid. 444 ; ibid.
passim, in CLEMENS ALEX. Strom. x. 22, RUTIL. LUPUS, De Fig.
i. 300 A, in BEKKEE, Anecd. i. Sent. i.
1.)
233,and DIOG. iii. 46). DEME- 1
This is so of all the men
TEIUS was one of the most fertile who are named in the Will of
authors of the Peripatetic school, Theophrastus (DiOG. v. 52-3;
and besides the forty-rive works cf.supra, ii. p. 350, n. 5) to suc
of his which DIOG. v. 80 men ceed Strato in the enjoyment of
tions, we hear of others. OSTER- the ground bequeathed by him
MANN (0/7. cit. ii. p. 21 sqq.) and for the School, i.e. HIPPARCHUS,
HERWIG (op.oit.p.lQ sqq.) identify NELEUS (supra, vol. i. p. 137,
fifty writings, some of them com and p. 139, n. 3), CALLINUS, DE-
prising several books from this ; MOTIMUS, DEMARATUS, CALLIS-
list, however, must be withdrawn, THENES, MELANTHES,PANCREON,
in any case, those on the Jews NICIPPUS; the same may be said of
(see supra, vol. ii. p. 447, n. 1) and NICOMACHUS and the three sons
perhaps those on the Egyptians of Pythias (cf. supra,vol. i. p. 20,
(seeOsTERMANN,p.34). Amongst n. 3 ad Jin., and SEXT. Math. i.
the genuine writings there were 258),PROCLES, DEMARATUS, ARI
a good many treatises on moral STOTLE ;
and of Theophrastus s
subjects (including the eight slave, POMPYLUS (DiOG.v. 36).
Dialogues, which appear to have
2
MENANDER, the comic
Like
been of this class), as well as two poet, who is also said to have
books on statecraft, and one TT. been a pupil of Theophrastus.
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTVS: STRATO 451

is Strato of
Lampsacus, the successor of Theophrastus, 1

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
distinguished of all the 3
Peripatetics, a

Strato, a native of Lam

1

father For
other details, cf
psacus (DiOG. v. 58, &c., Aa^a/cr;- NAUWERCH, De Stratone Lam-
ris is one of the
epithets com psaoeno, Berl. 1836; KRISCHE,
monly used with his name) was For seining en $c p. 349
a pupil of Theophrastus sqq. and
,
;

(ibid see also BRANDIS, iii.

Cic. Aoad. i. 9, 34, Fin. v. 2
p. 394 sqq.
5, 13. Erasistratus, the celebrated
SIMPL. Phys. 187, a, 225, a,
&c.). physician, was also considered by
He succeeded him as chief of the
many as one of Theophrastus s
School, held that post for eighteen pupils (DiOG. v. 57; see also
years, and died (ibid. p. 68) in GALEX, Nat. Faoult. ii. 4, vol
Ol. 127, between 270 and 268 B.C.
ii.88, 90-1, K., De Sang, in
If, as DIOG. ibid, says, he was After, c. 7, vol. iv. 729, as the
really the teacher of Ptolemy assertion of the followers of Era
Philadelphus (who was called sistratus). This is not improb
to govern
along with his father able, but according to GALEX
in 285 B.C., and succeeded him on
(Nat. Faoult. ii. 4, ibid, in Hip-
the throne in 283 B.C.) he must
poor, de Alim. iii. 14, vol. xv.
have stayed some time at the
307-8, and cf. Do Tremore, c. 6,
Egyptian court, to which he may vol. vii.
614) his doctrine differed
possibly have been invited on in many ways from that of the
the suggestion of Demetrius Peripatetics. He even affirmed
Phalereus. His letters (or letter) ovSzv opOws tyvuKevai
-jrfpl (pvo~*us
to Arsinoe, and
Ptolemy s sister TOVS TreptTrarriTiKovs. It appears
wife (quoted by DIOG. that it is only in the acknow
p. 60),
would lead us to suppose that of the
ledgment complete tele
such was the case. The story ology of nature (whereon cf.
that his princely pupil him gave GALEX, Nat. Faoult. ii. 2, vol. ii.
eighty talents, DIOG. himself 78, 81) thathe agreed with them
only with a
;
tells His
(pacri. will, and even to this he did not
however (apud DIOG. p. 61 sqq.),
always adhere. So far as we
shows him to be a wealthy man.
know, he never made any inde
He left in his testament the 5m-, pendent philosophical researches
Tpifr}] (the garden and club-housel see SPREXGEL, Gesch. d. Arzneik.
;

of the School), with all 4th. ed.; ROSEXBAUM,

arrange i.
p. 321 sqq.
ments necessary for the SyssitiaJ 3
Cf.
and his library, with the following note; and
excep- DiOG. V. 58: ariip e\\oytfi.&TaTos
tion of his own MSS., to
Lyco ;
Kal (pvcriKos eTn/cATjfleis airb TOV
irepl
the rest of his property he left to
T$]y dewpiav TO.VTTIV irap OVTLVOVV
Arcesilaus, a namesake, either a eVmcAeVrara 8iaTerpi<ptvai. SlMPL.
son or a nephew of Strato s
Phys. 225, a TO?S ap urrois Tlepi-
;

GG 2
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.
1
His numerous writings, which seem
to have aimed rather at the thorough investigation of par
ticular questions
than at a systematic and comprehensive
treatment of the extend over the whole field of
subject,
2
But his strong point was the study of
philosophy.
Even fo-riv, 6rav 8 e| avrov ri
/j.d(Ti6s
rrarririKols apiQ^ov^vos.
well Kai ri rwv ISlwv eVt-
Cicero, who was not at all irpocptpyrai
rfo\v
calls him, in vorj/J-drcav f^yrirai, rrapa
disposed to Strato, rots Irfio r fj/j.oo LV eu7j0e-
Fin.\. 5, 13, [inphysicis] magnns, (paiverai
avrov Kal
and in Acad. i. 9, 34 praises his crTepo.f vct)6porpos
is
acre ingenium. Nevertheless, which last statement, however,
difficult to accept as unbiassed.
his school was not so much
fre
-
Menedemus DIOG. v. 59-60, gives (be
quented as that of and the UTTO^J/T]-
as to which STRATO sides the Letters
(of Eretria), the authenticity of which
An. 13, p.
(apud PLUT. Tranqu.
fjLara,

consoles himself with the

was doubted), some forty-four
472) added
remark : ri ovv Oav/j-ao-rbv,
et writings, to which may be
ol \oveff6ai 0e Aoi/Tes the book Trepl rov ovros mentioned
irAeioi/es eiat-v
by PKOCL. in Tim. 242 sq., and
rwv a\i(pff6ai ^ov\ofj.fvuv ;
also the Kivhffeus mentioned
This independence, of which
TT.
1

was by SIMPL. Phys. 214, a, and

we shall find several proofs,
His works may be
also recognised by the ancients ; 225, a.
14,3, p. 1115: classed as follows (1) Logic: if. :

PLUT. Adv. Col.

Kopv- rov opov. rf. rov rrporepov ytvovs.
ruiv &AAcoi> nepwraiTjTiKWJ
Tt. rov 18 iov. rrpooi^ia. (2)
T07ra>v

<pai6raros *2rpdrwv OUT Apiaro-

rf. rov
Te Aet Kara TroAAa ffvpQepcrai, &C. Metaphysics : rf. rov ovros.
Kal vffrepov (mentioned
Pseudo- GALEN, Hist. Phil. c. 2, rfporepov
rov 2rpa- also by SIMPL. in Categ. 106, a,
p. 228 K. [ ApKTTOTe ATjs]
:

eis ftiov riva 107, a, Schol. in AT. 89, a, 40, 90,

roova rfpo(rr\yaysv
ClC. a, 12). rf. rov ^aAAoj/ Kal rtrrov.
XapaKrripa $vfflO\6yvs [-fas]. rov rf. rov
Fin. v. 5, Tf. ffv/j-pe/BriKoros. ^.eA-
(following Antiochus)
Acad. i. Xovros. rf. y
0wi>
(3) Physics
.

13, nova pleraque ;

9. In ea ipsa [i.e. in rf.apx&v y (which treated o1

34,
discedit a heat and cold, &c., as physic
Physics] plurirnum rf.
POLYB. Exc. Libr. xii. 25, principles),
rf. Swdpfuv. T<

suis.
c. vol. ii. 750 Bekk. KO\ yap :
Kevov. rf. XP OVOV - Mv4\ffeus.
""

u,ij-(0s. rf. Kovfyov Kal jSapeos.

e tfeiVos 6 ^ucrt/cbs]
[^rpdrcav rov rf.
TOU ovpavov. rf. iri/fv/jiaros.

9av- n. faoyovias. rf. rpvfyr}:

/cai 4/euSoTroieTj/
 SCHOOL OF TIIEOPHRASTUS: STRATO 453

Nature, which was pursued by him in a spirit which

justifies the name, bestowed upon him pre-eminently

KOU aucrea S. TT. virvov. TT tVivTr-

Diogenes. Strato wished to cor
viuv. IT. aitfOya-ews. IT. TT. rect the of earlier
ityecos. opinions
T&V aTTOpov/j.ei>wv <j><av.
IT. rwv /avdo- writers on the subject
of the
XoyovjJievow <$<av.
TT. (pvffecas av- origin of the various arts. Be
6pa>irivrjs.
IT.
fv0ov(ria(T/J.ov. TT. v6fftav. sides the above-named works
TT.
Kp .ffecajS. TT. Ai/^oG KO.I (TKOTCafffUl .
(the authenticity of which can
(In the case of these three works not, except to a very limited
it is possible that there is a con would appear
extent,be tested), it
fusion with writings of the from GALEN Vena; Sect.
(Zte
physician and follower of Erasi adv. Erasislratum 2, vol. xi. 151,
stratus presently to be mentioned, and De V. S. adv. Erasistrateos
but it is to be remembered that 2, vol. xi. 197) that we must also
Theophrastus himself wrote refer to this philosopher certain
about vertigo and such subjects.) works on medicine, if the Strato
The \vffeis cnrop rifjid.Tcav and the named in these passages is in
work TT. airtuv appear to have fact the same person. DIOG. v. 61
dealt with certain problems of expressly makes a distinction be
physics and the book TT. rwv
; tween the two, and though in this
/j.ra\\iKcav jj.rjxwnn& Ttov also was he only follows Demetrius of Mag
concerned with the mechanical nesia, there is the less reason to
side of physics. (4) Ethics: IT. doubt his testimony (as ROSE,
Ta.ya.Qov y TT. jjSovris.
. TT. evdaiju.0- De Arist. Lib. Ord. 174, has
vias. IT. &lwv (if this was not an
done) since the physician Strato
historical work). TT.
avSpeias. TT. is described as a follower of
SiKaiO(rvvr]s y . IT. ao tKov. IT. fiacri- Erasistratus, not only by GALEN
Aetas y the passages
(as is clear in
. TT. /3cnAea>y (pi\o(r6(pov
(these two works, especially the already cited and still more clear
latter, may have been written for in De Puls. Differ, c. 17, vol.
Ptolemy Philadelphia it, is only ; \iii. 759), but also by ORIBAS.
COBET, however, who gives the Collect, xlv. 23 (a/p. MAI, Class.
title TT, )8oo-. (pi\., for the earlier Auct. iv. and by EROTIAN
60),
texts give TT. There
(f>i\o(ro<pias). {Lex. Hippocr. p. 86, Franz) ;

is, moreover, the work ^vpfi^drcav while TEBTLTLLIAN, De An. 14,

e\eyxoi 5vo, which is evidently contrasts the views of Strato and
the same as that which CLEMENS, Erasistratus with those of Strato
Strom, i. 300, A 308, (and A the philosopher on the question of
EUSEB. Prap. Er. x. 6, 6, quoting the seat of the soul. If, according
him) cites by the words ez/ or to DIOG. ibid., the physician was
H
r<$

eV To7s TTpl VpT]lJ.d.T<i)V.

PLIN. . a personal pupil of Erasistratus,
Nat. i. Ind.IA-b ri, vii. (
; Stratone he is probably the same as the
qui contra Ephori up^/j.aTa scrip- person whom GALEN, De Comp.
sit ) says it was written Medic, iv. 3, vol. xii. 749 calls a
against
Ephorus (probably, however, Berytian; cf. on this subject
against others as well), and this SPRENGEL, Gcsch. d. Arzneilt. 4,
accounts for the title given by 559 (ed. 1).
454 ARISTOTLE

among all the Peripatetics,

of the Physicist. What we l

are told of his contributions to logic and ontology 2

is not very important. On the other hand, the whole
difference between his point of view and that of Ari
stotle becomes at once manifest when we ask how he
conceived of the principles of existence and change in
the world. Aristotle had referred these to Nature, which
in the first 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 towhich see
generally KRISCHE, Forscli. 351),
we already have in the notes on
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 ;

p. 451, n. 1, 3, sup. Compare also and the first half of it does not
CiC. Fin. v. 5, 13 :
primumTheo- accurately reproduce either
phrasti Strato physicum se voluit, Strato s expressions or his mean
in quo etsi est magnus, tamen ing. Strato is further said to
nova pleraque et perpauca de have given as the definition of
moribus. This CiC. Acad. i. 9, Being: rb ov etrri rb rr\s 8/a^ioi/TJs
34, says with even less qualifica cCtnov, he defined it as the
i.e.

tion and he will not allow that

; permanent element in things
Strato should be considered a
Peripatetic, partly on this account
and partly on account of the
variance of his opinions on phy
sics. 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 co-
luit et rerum natuiaa inquisitor
fuit.
2
We are told 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
(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.
Top. 173, and ALD. (Schol 281,
an attempt which
b, 2) criticise
Strato had made to amplify an
Aristotelian rule (Top. iv. 4, 125,
a, 5) for ascertaining the rela
tions of subordination between
two concepts. It is impossible,
however, to discuss the point
here.
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO 455

of these two conceptions to one another. Strato, on

1

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
to conceive of
(agreeing in this with Aristotle )
2
than
as a Force without
necessary
operating consciousness
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 withnecessity.
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
1
See supra, vol. i. pp. 388, to be the basis of nature. He
420 sqq. can only mean that Strato main-
2
See supra, vol. i. p. 464, tained the necessity of nature
n -
it is Plutarch s own
\- (avr6fj.arov) ;
>

Adv. Col. 14, 3, p. 1115 (v. idea to identify this necessity

sup. vol. ii. p. 452, n. 1): OUT Apt- with chance, because both
o-TOTe Aei Kara ffvptpepcrai stand equally in antithesis to the
Kal
^o\\a
ras tvavrias eo^x*
IIAaT&>z/i
teleological conception of nature
Sc|as Trepi Kivfaeus nepl vov Kal (of. supra, vol. i. pp. 357 sqq.).
Trepl \l/vxTJs Kal TTpl ycveffeias TeA- ClC. Acad. ii. 121
38, :

euTw^[5e] TOZ/ KO auToi^

ou
O>O//
Negas sine Deo posse quidquam,
Kov elvtu TO 5e Kara ecce tibi e transverse Lampsace-
Jrriffl, <p-u<nv

eirea-daL ra> Kara Tvxr)v apx^iv yap nus Strato, qui det isti Deo im-
eVSiSoVat TO auTo /iaTOi/, e/Ta ovrca munitatem magni quidem mu-
jrepaiv(r9ai rwv (pvffiKajv iraQiav neris .
negat opera Deorum
. .

fKaa-rov. We must guard our- fabricandum mundum.

se uti arl
selves against
believing Plutarch Quaecunque sintdocet omnia esse
(as of Democritus, cf. ZBLLER, effecta natura: nee ut ille, qui
Ph. Or. i. 788-9) when he tells
d.
asperis et Isevibus et hamatis un-
us that Strato held chance
(TUX??) cinatisque corporibus concreta
456 ARISTOTLE

Itwould 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 :
l
and
on this ground accurate writers represent him as
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 Demo-
4 it no adequate
critus, partly because he found in
5
explanation of phenomena, and partly because he held
that indivisible bodies were as inconceivable as an

base esse dicat, interjecto inani. the idea of God. K&V inr- . . .

Somnia censet hsec esse Demo- a\\dr]s ryv QIHTIV [even if he

criti, non docentis, sed optantis. puts nature in God s place], us
Ipse autem singulas mundi partes
persequens, quidquid sit aut fiat
-
SENECA a/pud AUGUSTIN.
naturalibus fieri aut factum esse Cic. D. vii. 1hoc loco dicet
:

docet ponderibus et motibus. aliquis . . .

ego feram aut
1
The Epicurean D.
in Cic N. Platonem aut Peripateticum
nee audiendus Stratonem, quorum alter fecit
i. 13, 35 says:
ejus [Theophrasti] auditor Strato, Deum sine corpore, alter sine
is qui physicus appellatur qui ;
ariiuio ?

omnem vim divinam natura in 3

TEETULLIAN, Adv. Marc. i.

sitam e&se censet, quas causas 13 : Strato ccelum et terrain

gignendi augendi minuend! [Deos pronuntiavit].

4
habeat, sed careat omni sensu Supra, vol. ii. p. 455, n. 4.
[consciousness] et figura [i.e. the
5
At any rate this appears to
human form of! the Epicurean be the meaning of Cicero s
gods]. repeated almost
This is somnia non docentis sed optan
word for word by L/ACTANT. De tis {supra, vol. ii. p. 455, n. 4)
:

Ira, D, c. J init. and more con the atoms are a capricious hypo
ciselyby MINUC. FELIX, Octav. thesis, of which it is asserted
19, Straton quoque et ipse
9: and hoped, but not proved, that
naturam [sc. Deum loquitur]. it will explain the facts it was

So likewise MAX. TYE, i. 17, 5 invented to explain.

says that even the atheist has
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRA8TUS: STRATO 457

infinite void.
1
The essential causes consist rather, on
2
his theory, in the properties of things, or more accu
that cause these properties/ 5

rately in the active forces

The ultimate properties he further held to be Heat and
Cold, which Aristotle had already recognised as the
4

5
active elements in things, apparently attributing, with

Aristotle, the higher reality to that which he considered

6

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.

8
Heat and cold are
continually at war ; where the one forces an en
trance, the other is expelled. This alternation ex

plains, for example, the phenomena of the thunderstorm

and the earthquake. 9 Given these corporeal forces,

4
1
On both points see further STOB. Eel. i. 298 :

infra.The hypothesis of a vactf- ffroixe ia. TO Q^p^bv KCU TO

ww was dealt with by STRATO (?;. Of. infra, n. 9.
5
wp., vol. ii. one of
p. 452, n. 2) in Supra, vol. i.
p. 480, n. 3.
presumably directed
his treatises, vol. p. 483, n. 2.
"

i.
Supra,
against Democritus. Whether he
7
EPIPHAN. Exp. Fid. 1090
went further into the refutation A :
^,Tparwv(<av\\. ^rpdr
of the Atomistic theory, or con- i//d"/cou T^V 6ep/j.riv ova-iav
tented himself with Aristotle s alriav Travrav virapx*"
.

elaborate criticism, we know not. 8

PLUT. Prim. Frit/. 9, p.
2
SEXT. Pt/rrh. iii. 33 (and 948 : of ^v ^rwiKol T<
aepi TO
nearly word for word GALEN. TT^WTWS tyvxpbv a.iro5iS6vre^,
Hist. Phil. C. 5, p. 244) :
E^7re5o/cA-/js Se /ca)
^TpcxTwj/ T
2TpaTcov 8e d (pvtriKbs ras Toi^TTjTas {/SaTi. As to warmth, though
[apxV Ae 76i]. So also, as FA- positive information fails us,
BRICIUS has already remarked, the parallel is self-evident. All
we must in the Clementine Re- this is also Aristotelian : v.

cognitions, viii. 15, for Calli- supra, vol. i.

p. 483, 11. 2.
stratus qualitates [sc. principia "

SENECA, Nat. Qu. vi. 13, 2

mundi dixit] read Strato for (on Earthquakes) :
hujus [Strat.]
Callistratus. taledecretum est Frigidum et :

3
STRATOdealt with this ques- calidum semper in contraria
tion in the three books tr. ap%o)v, abeunt, una esse non possunt. Eo
and perhaps also in the IT. Swd- frigidum confluit, unde vis calida
P.GWV (supra, vol. ii.
p. 452, n. 3). discessit, et 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 the latter point he probably followed Aristotle.
On 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 ;

and water were relatively heavy and 2

light. Strato,
on the other hand, asserted, with Democritus, on the
ground of a very simple observation, that all bodies are

est, unde frigus expulsum est. TIJS v\r]s, fyv tKarepos avToSv e^e A-
Wells and pits are therefore QspfjLOTepav /uev 6 TrprjiTT^p,
warm in the winter, quia illo 5e u rvcpuv. Cf. here
se calor contulit superiora pcssi- with what said supra, vol i.
is
denti frigori cedens. If, then, p. 515, n. 2 vol.
ii.
p. 378, n. 1, as
;

there is a certain amount of heat to the theory of avrnrepiffraffis

accumulated in the earth s in Aristotle and Theophrastus.
interior, and a further quan 1
ibid. TO.
of
PLUT.^ :

tity heat, or of cold, is ravrl, eV ols E^TreSoKA^s re

thereupon added under pres Kal ol ^rouiKol ras
sure, the excess must find for
itself an outlet by force, and Cf. also what is said
thereby earthquakes arise : on Light and Heat, infra, p. 460,
vices deinde hujus pugnas sunt : n. 2, and see PLUT. Plac. v. 4, 3
defit calori congregatio ac rursus
(GrALEN. H. PMl. c. 31, p. 322):
eruptio. Tune frigora compes- ^rpdrcov Kal Ay^KpiTos Kal T^V
cuntur et succedunt futura mox SVVO.IJLIV [sc. TOV (TTrep^aToy] crutfj-a
potentiora dum alterna vis
; irvv/ji.aTiK^ ydp. Strato is as little
cursat et ultro citroque spiritus likely as Democritus to have
commeat, terra concutitur. called a a Swa^ts he only
au>fj.a ;

STOB. Eel. i. 598 ^rpdrcav, ; affirmed, as the genuine text of

s, 6rav Plutarch correctly says, that
forces are attached to material
Se
a.Troppvi, things as to their substratum
8e
Kal TVfpwvas rip rw -
Swpra, vol. i
pp. 447-8, 477.
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS STRATO : 459

heavy and press towards the centre and if some of these ;

mount upwards, this is because of the pressure which

the heavier exercise upon the lighter. How he further 1

explained this difference of degree in weight whether

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
bodies by the assumption of empty interspaces within
them we do not know. The views he elsewhere
expresses rather support the latter supposition. For
while strenuously combating with Aristotle the atomic

theory and asserting the infinite divisibility of bodies,

3

he yet agreed with Democritus in assuming the exist

ence of void while rejecting as indecisive most of the
:

1
SlMPL. De Casio, 121, a, 32 ov ^rpdraiv /j.6vos ovSe E-jriKovpos
sqq. K., Schol. in Ar. 486, a, 5 : -rravra e\eyov elvai TO. o-dufj.ara
or: Se oure TT) uir dAAirJAcoj/ e tfflAfyet ySape a Kal (pvaei /j.V CTT! rb Karca
fiia6[j.eva Kivelrat [the elements, (ptp6/ui,eva irapa (pvo~iv 5e eVl rb avw,
by movement in their natural dAAd Kal H\dr<av olSe
(pepo^eVryi/
positions] SeiKwcriv [ Apto-r.] r^v 86av Kal 8te\eyxei. STOB.
ravT7]s Se yeyovaffi rf/s Ecl.\. 348: S.Tpariav /J.V irpoffetvai
er avrov ^rpdrcov 6 Aa/j.- ro~is cr^^affi (^VCTIKOV fidpos, ra Se
re Kal ETTi/coupos, Trai Kov(f>6repa
TO IS fiapvrepois eVtTroAa-
pvTTiTa ^X eLV vo^i^ovres Kal eii/ diov eKirvpif]vi6/u.va.
-
irpbs rb jUeVoi/ (pepe(rdai, r< Se ra ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 779.
ftapvrepa vfyi^aveiv ra i)rrov /3ape a
3
Supra, vol. ii. p. 455, n. 4,
vir fKfivuv eK8\i/3e<T9ai &ia vpbs rb and SEXT. Math. x. 155 Kal : 8r]

aval, itiffrf ef ris u^e?Ae TT/J/ yrjv, ovrcas ^\v^\Qf]ffo.v ot Trept rov ~2,rpa-
e \Qe~iv by rb vSccp is rb
Kevrpov, rowa rbv fyvcriK6v rovs /nev yap
Kal ft ris rb vSwp, rbv depa, Kal e: ^pot/ous ets a/j-epes vireXafioi/ Kara-
rbv depa, rb irvp . . of Se rov
.
X^ysiv, ra 5e (Tw/j.ara Kal rovs
irdvra irpbs rb p.(Tov <pepo~9ai Kara r6trovs eis aireipov rejAveffOai, KIV-
fyvffiv rK,U7]ptov Kopifyvres rb TTJS e7o"0at re rb Kwov/u.evov eV
d/xfpe?
yys viro(Tir(i>/ji.vr)s rb wScop eVl TO XP^ l V ^ ov aOpovv ^eptcrrbv Sid-
Karw (t>peo~0ai Kal rov vSaros rbv Kal ov Trepl rb Trp6repov Trpo-
ffr^/JLa
de pa, a7^oouo-i &c. Iffreov Se 6ri rtpov. Cf. infra, p. 462, n. 2.
460 ARISTOTLE

reasons adduced in support of this assumption, he yet 1

believed it impossible to explain many phenomena as

for instance those of light and heat
except on the pie-
supposition of empty interspaces into which light and
2
caloric may find an entrance. Since, however, this
only proves the existence of empty spaces within the
material world, and since his definition of space, which
3
resembled Aristotle s, excluded the conception of a

1
The three reasons for the avaiptiv SoweT. owre, ei

assumption of a vacuum, which eA|is. Srj\ov. el Sia rb Kevbi>

ri \tOos
ARISTOTLE reckons in Phys. iv. eA/cet Kal fj.r)
5i aX^rjv alriav. ovSe
6, 213 (cf. supra, vol. i. p. 434), yap airoSeiKvvovaii/, ciAA VTTOTI-
Strato (according to SIMPL. Phyn. Oevrai rb Kevbv ol \eyovres. otfra}

153, a) reduced to two, efo re These arguments, as well as the

TT>
Kara. r6irov Kivnaiv Kal els rriv other remarks we find in SIMPL.
TWV o~<i)/u.dro(>v TriXfjo it \i.6. that no on this subject, must be directly
movement in space and no con or indirectly derived from STRA-
densation would be possible with TO S book TT. Kevov.
-
out a void] rpirov Se TrpocrriO-riari. ;
SIMPL. Phys. 163, b : 6 ^eV-
rb airb TTJS oA/CTjs TTJV yap aiSr]- TOL Aa/J.^aKr)vbs ~2.rpa.rwv oeiKvuvai

plnv \idov ?Tpo (nS^pta Si krepwv Treiparai, on ecrrt T^ Kevbv ia\a/u.-

e\Keiv avfj-Paivei (as SIMPL. fur- fiavov rb TTO.V au>fj.a
{bcrre yur) elvai
tlier explains). He cannot, how twv OTL OVK &v 5
ever, have found that any of aepos 77 aAAou (Tcafj-aros
these arguments was convincing, iv rb (pus ovfie

for we find that as to the first of aAA?j SvvafjLi

them SIMPL. 154, b, after citing ircas rov yap at
the examples with which Ari rb rov els
ayyeiuv
stotle had confuted it, goes on et yap rb vypbv *?X ^
to remark still more striking :
Tr6povs, ctAAa /8/a SteVreAAoi/ avrb
is the refutation which Strato at avyal. ffvve/Saivev virepeKxe ifrdai
brings against it namely, that a ra irXripri r&v ayyeiwv, Kal OVK av at
small stone in a closed vessel fMev riav aKrivw o.veKXu>vro irpbs
tilled with water will move to rbv avw r6irov at Se Karco 8ie|e7ri7r-
wards the mouth when one turns rov. From this passage we also
the vessel round. So again, as gather that Strato, even more
to the third argument, SIMPL. definitely than Aristotle, con
says in 155, b 6 oe Srpdrcav : sidered light and heat to be
rbv airb rrjs eAecos [sc. material.
3
ava\vwv ovSe 77 e\is, STOB. Eel. i. 380: rfaov Se
avayKaei riOeadai rb Kevov. ovre elvai [according to Strato] T&
yap el eariv e A|is <pavepov. oAo>s
/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
of void to the world itself, and rejected the view of
Democritus that there is an infinite void outside our
world. 1
On time,
2
likewise, he held views different
from his predecessors. Aristotle s definition of time as
number 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

from the Aristotelian definition OecapriffQai us a0 avrb

only in oloi rues ol Tro\\ol
(supra, vol. p. 432, n. 4)
TU>V
i.

the circumstance that the latter

of 8e rbv bv TTJS
assigned the inner boundary oljj.a.1 Aa/J.\f/a.Krii

the surrounding bodies as the roiavrrjs yeveatiai $6l-flS. For

space which the surrounded body SIMPL., it will be observed, does
occupies, whereas Strato, who not absolutely ascribe this view
allowed that bodies were sepa to Strato; and, besides, he is in
rated by a void, considered the this passage dealing only with the
void between the surrounding proposition that Space is entirely
and the surrounded bodies as the occupied by the body of the
space of the latter. world, which excludes the notion
STOB. ibid.: ^.rpdrwv e&Tepw
1 of an exterior void, but not the

juei/
TOV /tfy
elvai
e</>7}
dv, K6<T/j.ov
Ki>
possibility of smaller interior
eVSorepw 5e Svvarbv yevzcrBai.
From vacua. But SIMPL. is inaccurate
the same source, as it appears, we when, at 140, b, he says that
have in THEODORET, Our. Gv. some believe that space is to be
58 & Se ^rpdrcov found without matter, as Demo
Aff. iv. 14, p.
:

critus and Epicurus ol Se Sta-

e^aXiv [so. ^ ol STOU/CO!], f|0ep
:

u.ev /xTjSev eli/cu /cei/by, evSodev 5e ffrrjfj.a Kal del ffu^a

e
^ov Kal tTriTT]-
Swarbv eli/cu. Herewith, and with Seiov irpbs Ka<TTOj/,
us ... o Aa/j.-

n. 2on p. 460, agrees SIMPL. Pliys. ^aKrjvbs ^Tpdruv. The empty

some hold the x a n riK ^ inside bodies are here
144, b spaces
1/
: >P

to be unbounded, as did Demo ignored.

critus, ol 8e laofj-erpov avrb ra>
2
Which subject, as well as
KofffALKCf) (Taytcm iroiovffi, Kal 8m that of the vacuum, he treated
TOVTO rri ^v eauroD <bvcrei /cevbv in a separate work; siqsra, vol. ii.
5e avrb p. 452, n. 2.
eli/ctt \eyovffL, TreirXripSxrOai
ael Kal /u.6vr) 76 T?J brivoiq
 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
2
of activity, amount of motion and the quantity or
3
rest he carefully distinguished 4 between time and
;

that which is in time, 5 and

accordingly refused to admit
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

1

(pu(TLKbs .... VTT-

eAe^ej/ xP^vov
a detailed account of these objec apx^iv jueVpoi/ ird<Tr)s Kivrjo tws Kal
tions. Strato also remarked, as fj.0frjs irap-f)KL yap iraai ro7s KIVOV-
is observed in the latter
part of p.4vois ore Kive irai Kal iraffi rols
the same passage, that if eV aKivrjTois *6r
aKivTjri^i. Kal 5ta
Xpovcf tlvaC UTTO TOU xpdvov TOVTO iravra TO.
Trepi- yivo/j-eva eV XP V(P
e xerrflaf, then Eternity is not in yiverai.
time. SIMPL. goes on as in next 4
SIMPL. 187, a, Strato dis
note. cusses the concepts of the raxv
2
SIMPL. 187, a : ical &\\a 5e and and says the former is
pa8i>,

iroXXa di/TetTT&j/ irpbs T^V Apio-ro-

y rb
iJ.cv iroa-bi/, atf ov ijp^aro
Te Aous a.ir6offiv 6 S.rpdrcav avrbs Kal & eVauo-ttTO, oXiyov, TO 5e
els
rov xP& v v TO eV TCUS 7rpaeo"i iroabv yeyovbs eV avry iroXv, and the
flvai TifleTcu. iroXvv latter the opposite, 6rav
yap, (ptio~l, $ TO p.cv
Xpovov fyap.fv a.TToSri/j.e iv Kal irAelV TTOirbv ev avraj TroAv, TO Se
ireTrpay-
pevov 6\iyov. In rest we have no
6/j.olcas Se Ka0T?o-0<u Ka such distinctions, and so in a
KO! / TrpdTTfiv, iroXvv Kal state of rest time is neither quick
Xpovov (pa/meif Kal oXiyov, tov fj.ev nor slow, but only greater or less ;
C(TTl TO TTOXVV
7TOO"OJ/
TTflAu, XP vov i
for it is only action and motion,
u>v Se o\iyov, oXiyov xp^ vos 7&P not the eV $ TJ irpa^is, which
7ro<roj
,

TO ev TOVTOOV
e/ccto"Tots iroffov. We can be faster or slower.
have a similar definition of Time 5
Or more correctly, that in
from Speusippus, if the state which time is for in SIMPL. 187, ;

ment in ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 859, b, d, he expressly says Sia TOVTO 5e :

n. 4 is correct. iravTa eV e?j/oi OTL

3
xpovta (pa/m,ev,
STOB. Ed. i. 250: ^rpdrcav iraffi TO 7roo~bv aKO\ov9el Kal TO"LS

[TO/ xptvov] T>V Iv Kiv?)<rei Kal yivo/iMfvois Kal TO?S ol<riv. In such
i)pe/j.ia irovov. SEXT. Pyrrh. iii. a case we use the word in con
1 37 (Math. x. 128) ^rparwv 5, versely (/caTa TO when
fVcwT/oi/), as
:

?? &s rives A/Jio-TOTe ATjs [xpovov we the town is in confusion,

say,
(ptialv ef^ot] /j,Tpov Kivi}(Tfws Kal or mankind in terror, on TUVTU
(j.ovris. Math. x. 177: ST/XXTWJ/ 6 eV
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO 463

is
only the duration of these events. The statement 1

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 to rest upon a misappre
hension. 3 Strato had shown in a more comprehensive
fashion than Aristotle that 4
like and
motion, space
5
time, is continuous. The seat of motion,
especially in

1
SlMPL. 187, b :
r)/j. P a 8e K al a, 15) as to the indivisibility
<M<^ [add. Kal fjL^v\ Kal eviav- of the present and the d6p6a
rbs OVK effn XP OVOS "Se
XP OVOV
oAAa ra /nev 6 (pear ia /u.bs Kal $ On this also Strato wrote a
ra Se Kal
s, rj rrjs <rc\-fivns TJ separate book.
rov aAAa 5
SIMPL.
f)\iov TreptoSos, XP^ OS
Pliyx. 168, a : 6 Se
eVrt rb iroabv eV $ ravra.
(What i>bs
^rparuv OVK OTTO rov
follows is not from Strato, as
p.6vov awex^ TW nivi\ffiv
BEANDIS, iii. 403, affirms, but elvat </)7jo-t/,
oAAa Kal /ca0 eavrrjv,
rather a criticism of his view were not con
by ojy, el Sta/coTretTj [if it
SIMPL.) On the other hand, we tinuous], ardfffi StaAa^/Saj/o/x.eVT?
must not conclude from SIMPL. /cat rb Svo Sia-
(l.-j>7?i ), /xera|i;
ibid. 189, b (e /c 5e rovrwv r&v ffrafffwv (1. (TTatrewj/) Kivri<nv ovcrav
Awff-ecoi/ rov ^rpdrcavos
Kal ras aSiaKoirov. Kal iroabv Se n, ^7ja"iv,
awopias Treplrov/j.^, dvai rbv %poVoi/ ^ Kivriffis Kal Siaiperbv ds del 5tot-
StaAvetj/ that Strato What
Suvaroj/) pera. follows is not de
denied the reality of time; he rived from Strato, but is an
simply brings forward this aporia explanation of the Aristotelian
in the same sense as Aristotle shown by the words
text, as is :

himself had done in dAAa

Phyg. iv. 10 TTUS AKIST. Phys.
elTrei/
[i.e.
init. iv.
2
11, 219, a, 13] oar] yap r/
SEXTUS, sup. vol. ii.
p. 452, /ctVrjo-is, &c. It is not until
n. 1. the end of this section, i.e. in the
3
Strato expressly says, amid middle of 168, a, that SIMPL.
SIMPL. Phys. 187, a, that time returns to Strato with the words :

cannot be the number of motion, dAA 6 yuei/ ApitrTore ATjs eotKey e /c

SIOTI 6 pet/ rov
apid/j.bs Si(ap o~a<p(TTepov iroL^crao-dai. r^]v
irocrbv r) Se Kal 6 o Se
Kivri<ns eVi/3oA7^ ^rpdrcav ^)iAo/caAcos
s rb 8e (ruj/e%es OVK KM avr^v
1

apid- avrfyv r^v Kivi]ffiv

KaQ"

On the continuity of mo e8ei|e rb ffwex^s e^ouo-av, laws Kal

tion, more
Probably Strato only repeated the
will be found infra. irpbs rovro
c-rrl rfjs Kara
/SAe irwv, iVo ^ovov
roirov Kii/Vjo-ews, aAAa
^
teaching already worked out by Kal Trl r&v &\\cav iraa&v avt/dyfjrai
Aristotle (supra, vol. i.
p. 43y, ra A
n. 2; p. 417, and Phys. i. 3, 186,
464 ARISTOTLE

qualitative change, he sought for, not only in the

material that is moved, but also in that which ceases
and that which comes into being with the motion. He
1

corroborated the theory of the acceleration of motion

by simple observations of the fall of bodies. 2

A fundamental departure from the Aristotelian cos
mology is attributed to Strato by Stobaeus, who tells

us that he held that the heavens are made of fire, and

that the stellar radiance is a reflection of the sun s

light.
3
As to the former of these doctrines we may
wonder that it is nowhere else mentioned, as it in

reality involves nothing less than the

abandonment of
the theory of the ether and all the deductions founded

upon ; yet we
are not therefore justified in denying
it

that the difficulties which beset the Aristotelian as

sumptions as to the light- and heat-giving power

of

the stars have caused Strato

1
to attribute a fiery
may
instead of an etherial nature to heaven and the heavenly
bodies. Nor need the statement as to the light of the
stars cause us any serious difficulty in view of the
state of astronomy at that time. Yet the evidence of
Stobseus gives us no sure guarantee of the truth of
5
these statements. The assertion that Strato conceived

SIMPL. 191, a (referring to

1 See the Fragrn. of the book
Pliys. v. 1) KOL KccAoJs ye, ofyicu, 6
:
?r.
apud SlMPL., ibid.
/cii/rjo-ews
ov p.6vov eV Ta5 214, a.
2rpaTcoi/ rtiv Kivr)(Tiv
3
Kii/oujU-eVw elvai, ctAAa /ecu eV
<fj(rii/
Eel. i. 500 :
ITap/AeWSTjs,
TW ef ov Kal (v rw els &, SAAoi/ Se Hpa/cAerros, ^rpdrwv, Zrjvuv irvpi-
eV IKCO-T^. rb f*.tv yap vov elvai rbv olpavov. I. 518 :

Tpoirov
v-jroKeifJ-fvov,
/aveircu ws ^era-
<pf)(rl,
^rpdrcev Kal avrbs ra &(TTpa virb
TO Se c| ou Kal TO els &. TO TOV T)\iov (pwri^effdai.
jSctAAoi/,
4
/j.ev
us TO 5e us yivo-
(pdeLpo/jLtvov, Supra, vol. i. p. 509 sq.
On the corresponding In the first place what
3
/j.i>ov.

definitions of Aristotle, see vol. i. Strato says only of the fiery

p. 417, n. 2, supra. sphere could not be transferred to
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO 465

of the parts of the world as infinite l

is
obviously untrue,
if this as
involves, it appears to do, the infinite exten
sion of the world in 2
space. Other reported doctrines
of Strato relating to the 3
fixity of the earth,
4
comets,
meteorological phenomena and earthquakes, 5 the forma
tion of seas, 6 to colours 7
and sounds, 8 cannot be
fully
discussed here.

the heavens and, in the second the rest is his

;
epfj^iav- own),
place, that which related only to Strato propounded the
hypothesis,
the planets cannot be extended which he justified by palseonto-
to all the stars.
logical observations, that the
1
EPIPHAN. Exp. Fid. 1090, Black Sea was originally sepa
A :
airsipa Se eAeyev elva.i TO, rated from the
Mediterranean,
and this sea from the Atlantic,
2
For this view was not held by
isthmuses, which were broken
by Strato, as shown supra, p.
through in course of time.
461, n. 1. The statement is pro 7
As to this, the excerpts from
bably only a misinterpretation JOHAX. DAMASC. i.
17, 3 (STOB.
of his teaching as to the un Floril. iv. 173, ed.
Meineke) give
limited divisibility of matter, as us only the not very clear remark :

to which see supra, p. 459, n. 3. d curb

(pr)<rw TU>V
3
That Strato (like Aristotle)
held this view, and that he sup avrois rbi; ^era|i/ epa.
ported it by a special argument of 8
ALEX. APHR. De Sensu
his own, appears from CRAMER, 117 (p. 265, 9 sqq., ed.
Thurot),
Anecd. Oxon. iii. 413: rrj Se intimates that Strato explained
Trpojuevfj [l.irpo/cei/u.eV^J vvv airto- the fact that it is impossible to dis
\oyia. TTJ ireplrrjs aKii>r)(rias Trjs yys tinguish tones at a great distance
^rpdruv So/ceT 6
irpuros (pvo-utbs not, like Aristotle
(De Sensv,
Xp^faffdai. The argument un 6, 44 5. b, 6) by the theory that
fortunately not given.
is 1he form of movement in the air
4
STOB. Eel. i. 578 (PLUT. was altered on the way but T<

Plan. iii. 2, 5 GALEX, //. ;

Phil. 18, p. 286). A comet accord ov

1

yap (pnoriv eV rcJ

ing to Strato was &<Trpov (pas :
nrcas rbv aepa rovs
Sicupopovs
7reptAT700ei> vecpei irvKvaj, KaOdirep (f>06yyovs yiveirdat, aAAa TT? TTJS
eirl Tcof Aa/uTTTTjpajj/ yivfrai.
5
TrX-rjyrjs avKroT^ri. (What follows is
See supra, vol. ii. p. 457, not the view of Strato, but of
n. 9.
u
Alexander, as THUROT reminds
According to STRABO, i, 3, us at p. 451 of his
edition.)
4, p. 49 (from ERATOSTHENES, These words harmonise
exactly
who, however, without doubt is with the beginning of the pseudo-
only quoting Strato as far as the Aristotelian fragment TT.
d/couo-rojj/,
words, on p. 50, r^v 800, a, 1 ras 5e $<avas aTracras
:

VOL. II. H H
466 ARISTOTLE

his physiological views also we have only

Upon
isolated and unimportant statements.
1
His doctrine of

i
yiyvea-Qcu KCU TOVS with the same movement as it

\L6(i>ovs . . . . ov T< rbv aepa has itself.

ffxnfMrifrffeai, /caflaTrep otovral GALEN, De Sent. ii. 5, vol.

Tii/es, aAAct TO? KivtlffQai irapa-
TrX-naiws a.vT bv
This coinci- &c.
tKTeiv6nfvov,
dence, however, does not go far
enouo-h to justify the suppo-
sition (BRANDTS, ii. b, 1201)
that that treatise is the work of
Strato, however well and care-
fully considered,
worthy of him
It not, therefore, necessary
is
here to go into the manner in
which the tones of the human
voice and of musical instruments
and their various modifications
are in that tract explained. The
general basis of the theory
is
most clearly set out at p. 803, b,
p 34 sqq.
passage, which reminds
Heraclides s theory (ZELLEE, Ph.
d Gr. i. p. 887, 1) every sound
iv. 629, informs us that Strato
ffv(Tr\\6/j.fvov /ecu explained the origin of the differ-
ence of the sexes (nipra, vol. ii.
p. 55, n. 2) in a
somewhat more
material manner than Aristotle
(without, however, adopting the
views of Democritus, d. q. v.
ZELL. Pli. d. Gr. i. 805, 2), by
and however the theory that either the male
seed lias the preponderance over
it may appear,
the female (which Aristotle would
not admit, supra, vol. ii. p. 50
over the male.
sq.) or the female
According to PLUT. Plac. v. 8, 2
//. Phil. 32, p. 325), he
(GALEN,
allowed that abortions originated
% tyaipefftv, %
irapa TrpovQeffiv,
^-raGtviv [misplacement of parts]
According to this % Trufv^drufftv [evaporation, or
one of perhaps addling of the seed
caused by air contained therein].
Finally in JAMBLICH. Tlicol.

is composed of particular beating Arithm. p. 47 (which MACROB.

vibrations (irXyyal), which we Sown. Soip. 1, 6, 65, repeats cf. ;

cannot distinguish as such, but also CENSOEIN. Di. Aat. 7, 5) we

sound have his views on the first stages
perceive as one unbroken ;

of the development of the em-

high tones, whose movement
is

quicker, consist of
more vibra- bryo week by week. Similar
opinions on this subject are
also
tions and low tones of fewer,
Several tones vibrating and attributed to the physician Dio-
ceasing at the same time are cles, of Carystus, who, accord-
ing to AST S notes on
the
heard by us as one tone. The
Theol. Arithm., flourished about
height or depth, harshness or
and in fact every Ol. 136 (i.e. about 232 B.C.),
softness,
and who, according IDELER,
to
quality of a tone depends (803,
Meteorol. was a
b 26) on the quality of the Arist. i. 157,
pupil of Strato and one ot
motion originally created in the s,

air by the body that gave out

the persons charged (see DIOG.
This motion propa- v. 62) with the execution of his
the tone.
e-ates itself unchanged, inasmuch
testament. SPRENGEL, however
as each portion of the air sets (Gesch.d.ArzneAh. fourth edition,
believes him to have
the next portion of air in motion p. 463),
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STRATO 467

the human soul,

1
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
theory as to the efficient forces of the world. If these
in general are inseparable from matter, this must be true
also of the powers of the soul. While it does not follow
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 motionless, and that a part of it is

separate from all other parts and from the body. All
activities of the soul, he asserts still more emphatically
3
than Theophrastus, are movements thought, as well
as perception since they all consist in the action of a
hitherto inactive force and in proof of the view that ;

between the activity of sense and reason there is in this

respect no essential difference, he appealed to the
fact
4
which had been already observed by Aristotle, that we

been of an earlier date, and Q-ncrlv 6 S.Tpdrwv, o^vrepa Kal vu-

rightly for even if it be true,
;
as fleo-re pa. Whether he really meant
is alleged without proof, that he to show that the soul is a har-
lived a short time after Hippo- mony, or whether this remark is
crates, nevertheless GALEN (in only meant to serve as an argu-
his Aphorisms, vol. xviii. a, 7) ment against the Platonic ob-
expressly counts him amongst jection (Phfsd. 92 E sqq.), or,
the predecessors of Erasistratus ; finally, whether the phrase merely
and what we know of his views belonged to the statement of
(SPEENGEL, ibid.} confirms this, someone else s opinion, we do not
Which subject he treated in
1
learn. TEETULL. De An. 15, dis-
the works ir. tyveeuis avdpuirivris tinguishes Strato s view from
and TT. aiV07}<res.
that of Dicnsarchus, and we shall
-
OLYMPIODOB. Sclwl. in Plue- see that he is right.
3
don., p. 142, does indeed say :
Supra, vol. ii. p. 391, n. 2.
4
$TI cos apfji-ovla ap/j.ovias ourepa Supra, vol. 1.
p. 195, n. 1,
/cat
fiapvTepa, OVTU Kal xl/ux^ ^ V X^ 5 >
an(^ P- 206, n. 2.

HH2
468 ARISTOTLE

are unable to think anything of which we have had no

But, on the other hand, he re

1

previous perception.
marked that perception and sensation are conditioned
by thought, since often when we are thinking of some
thing else the impressions which our senses have
received fail to rise into consciousness. 2 In general,
however, the soul and not the body is the seat of
sensation when we
believe ourselves to feel a pain
;
for

in the part affected, this is merely the same delusion as

when wT e think that we hear sounds outside, whereas in
reality we apprehend them only in the ear. Pain is
caused by the sudden transmission of the external im
pression from the part affected to the soul if the ;

connection is broken we feel no pain. 3 Strato accord-

2
SIMPL. Phys. 225, a: PLUT. Solert. An. 3, 6, p. 961
(and from him POEPH. Da Abst.
Aoye? KivziffQai ov p.6vov rrjv iii. 24) : /cotrot SrpaT&Ws ye rov
aXoyov, dAAa Kal rfy Ao-yi/ojj/, (pvffiKov \6yos fffilv a-rroSeiKvv

Kivi]<Teis \eywv elvai ras evepyeias cos alaOdveffdai TOirapdirav avev

oi<5

TT/S i|/u_^ijs, Ae-yet ovv eV rcJJ Trepl rov voelv wTrap^ei Kal yap ypd/j.-
Kivycrecas irpus &\\ois TroAAoIs Kal /j-ara TroAAa/cis fiwropvo/j.evovs rfj
Ta5e ael yap 6 voSsv /civeTrcu, otyei Kal \6yoi Trpoa-jriirTovTes rrj

&o"jrep
Kal 6 opcav Kal O.KOVWV Kal aKorj 5ia\avddvovcriv ^//xas Kal Sia-

6(T<ppxiv6/iji.evos ivepyeta yap ^ (pvyov<n irpbs srepois rbv vovv

v6fi<ris TTJS Stavoias KaOdirep Kal r/ e^ovras, elr avdis iravri\6e Kal

opaffis TTJS otyeus [he means that /xeraflei Kal [yUeTaJSico/cei rcov irpo ie-
both are Suvo/xet UVTOS evepyeiai, pevuv cKacrrov ^K\ey6fj.evos. [The
movements]. Kal irpb TOVTOV 5e rest is most probably not taken
TOI) p7]TOv yeypa(j)i> on ovv flffiv from Strato.] rj Kal AeAe/crat
at TT\?ffrai KivJ)ff(av atriai. as
ru>v vovs 6pf) &c. (v. ZELL. Ph. d. Gr.
KaO avrrjv Kiveirai Sia- i. 462, 5), &s rov irepl ra 6/j.nara
Kal as vir~b
auffB^ffeotv TWV Kal >ra
irdOovs, Uv ^ irapfj

irporepov, 5f)A(5v zffTiv. oo~a (ppovovv, atffOriffiv ov TTOLOVVTOS.

yap Trp6repov ewpa/ce ravra ov
/urj
3
PLUT. Utr. An. an Corp. sit

Siivarai voeiv, olov T6irov Libido (Fragm. i. 4, 2, p. 697) :

ol fjizv yap airavra ffv\Xt]fi $ i)v ravra

3)ypatpas % avSpiavras $)
^ a\\(av TI
rS>v roiovrcav. ru>v The [sc. ra TTCI^TJ] rfj ^vxfj (pepovres
words 6rL ovv curtat are more avedeo-av, &o-irp 2,rpdrcav 6 (pvffi
or less incomprehensible, as we ov u.6vov ras eiriQv/Aia :, dAAa Kal 1

do not know the context. 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
soul, ;

(which, with the Stoics

l
preceded, however, by Aristotle
he seems to have called TO rjysjuoviKov 2) is the
totality
of the soul, and the different senses are
only particular
3
expressions of this central force. The seat of the soul

TOVS (p06vovs Kal Tas t

Tovres\ iva /uri (rvvcfyc [-arra
aAAa Kal irovovs
ySovas Kal Kal WYTT.] TrpbsT& (ppovovv
a\yr)$6vas Kal oAccs iraa ay a tcrdritriv yevijTai. ravTa jj.kv olv 6
fv T?7 il t/xj? ffwlffTaofBai (fidjuevos eTTi TTOAAO?S O)S flKOS TOLOVTOIS.
Kal TO, roiavra iravra Plac. iv. 3
TTJS tyvx^s 23, ST^CITWV Kal
: TO.
irdd-r] TTJS ^vx^js Kal ray
OTav TrpoffKpovffcti/j.ei , jUTjSe rrjv KC- eV r^J i]yeiJ.oviK<p, OVK eV TO?S
06cri r^TTOts o~vvio~Tao~6at. eV 70/7
SaKTV\ov orav eKTe/JLu/Jiev avaio~- TavTrj [rovT<f ?J /ce?(70at T^^ UTTO-
dr)Ta yap AotTra ir\r}v TOV 7)7^-
TO, jj.ov)}v. firl T&V SfLvwv Kal
&o~7rep
fj.ovi.Kov, Trpbs & TV)? 7rA?J7^s o|ecos
ris r^v ouaQriffLv a\yr]56va Kal
ws Se TT]V ruvyv ro7s 1
V. supra, vol. ii.
p. 127, n. 3.
2
See preceding and following
tivai T}> airb rrjs apx^s eirl rb f)7e- notes.
3
(jiQViKbv StaarTj/xa rfj aiffd ho ti irpoff- See p. 468, n. 3, supra; SEXT.
Ao*yi^OjU6i/oi, TrapaTT\Tf](ri(a5 T^V e/c Math. vii. 350 o/ ei/ 8m()ee^
:

TOV Tpav/jiaTos irovov ov% OTTOU TTJJ

(pf:i ,
aAA ttQzv etr^e &s ol TT\LOVS ot Sf avT^v elvai TO.S
v eli/at SoKov/jL aio~0r}o~is Kaddirep Sid TIVUIV <nra>v

eV e/ceii/o TTJS tyvxrjs a(p ov Trti TUV aiaQ-r)T npi(av

irpoKinrTovo-av, rjs
Sib Kal TrpoffKoil/avrfs avrtKa ras o~Tdo~ecas ^p|e ~2,Tpa.T(av re o
(pvffiKos
6(ppvs [here must be the seat of Kal Alvtio-i8r)/j.os. TERTULL. De
the soul, v. infra] ffwfjyayov eV An. 14 : non longe hoc exem-
TW TrA.f}yevri [topic? TOV Tj-yffj.ovLK.ov plum est a Stratone et Jnesi-
T^V a (o 6r)o~iv o^ews airodiSovTOs. demo et Heraclito ;
nam et ipsi
Kal irapeyKOTTTO/iLev 3re T& eo"0 unitatem animas tuentur, qute in
TTj/eGjua kav ra /xepTj Secr/io?? 5ta- totum corpus diffusa et ubique
Aa^jSaj/rjrat xe P" ff(p6opa Tne ^o/zei/ ipsa, velut flatus in calarao per
[WYTTENB. conjectures av T. /*. cavernas, ita per sensualia variis
S. 5toA. ai ra?s &C. but it %ep<ri ; modis emicet, non tarn concisa
would, perhaps, be better to read quam dispensata. Since Strato
&v TO, jUeprj Seff/j.. 8ia\a/j.lSdvr}Tai T) did not, at the same time, like
raTs %6/jfri tre/JoSpa TTie fwjUei
] iVra- Dictearchus, regard the soul as a
fj-evoi Trpbs T7]v StdSoffiv TOV irddovs separate substance, but only as
Kal T^IV Tr\T]yriv ev roTs avaiaQ ^TOis a force which is inseparable from
[WYTT. conj. the body through having therein
470 ARISTOTLE

Strato placed in the region between the eyebrows and *

in the part of the brain which is there situated. Thence

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 reach the TjyenoviKbv, and, on the
the unity of the life of the soul other hand, that the soul is
is to be distinguished from its affected by the part in connec
individual manifestations (see tion therewith prove that the
following note), TEET. De An. 15, soul is not always spread all over
is able to cite Strato, along with the body, but has its seat in the
Plato, Aristotle, and others, in head, whence after receipt of
opposition to those who, like the impressions it streams to
Dicasarchus, abstulerunt princi the organs of sense, &c. How
pale, dum in animo ipso volunt Strato believed this was brought
esse sensus, quorum vindicatur about, we do not learn. We can
principale. On the other hand, only suppose that he had in his
Sextus can also say that accord mind either the nerves, which
ing to Strato the soul is identical had at that time been discovered
with the cu<r07](reis, inasmuch as by Herophilus and Erasistratus,
Strato, like Aristotle, did not and which (or at any rate the
allocate different parts of the ophthalmic nerves) were, as
soul to feeling and thought. appears from SPREKGEL, Getcli.
PLUT. Plac. iv. 5, 2 (GALEN,
1
d. Arzneik. 4th ed. i. pp. 511-2,
H. Phil. c. 28, p. 315 THEO- ;
524 held by them to be conduc
DORET, Cur, Gr. Aff. v. 23, p. ting tubes or, more probably,
73) :
^rpdrcav [rb TTJS tyvxys that he was thinking of the
arteries, which, according to
POLLUX, Onomast. ii. 226 :
Erasistratus, carried, not the
/j.ev vovs Kal \oyt<riJ.bs blood, but the Tri/ev^a faTiKbv
. . . ere Kara rb peffotypvov, us through the body (iUd. p. 525 sq.).
e\eye ^Tpdroav. TERTULL. De An.
3
This view is referred to in
15 nee in superciliorum medi-
: the following note. It also
tullio [principale cubare putes], accords with what is said supra,
ut Strato physicus. Cf. supra, vol. ii. p. 468, n. 2, about the
vol. ii. p. 468, n. 2. interruption of the irvev^a flowing
2
Such is the result when we to the yye/j.oviKlii and on p. 458,
,

combine the passages quoted n. 1 about the Svva/jus irv^v^ariKT]

supra, vol. ii. p. 468, n. 2 and of the seed.

n. 3, with the statement as 4
TERTULL. De An. 43 :

to the seat of the soul. The Strato [here the natural philo
expressions employed supra, p. sopher and not the physician is
468, n. 2
namely irpoKvirreiv, meant] segregationem consati
cmicare, which imply, on the spiritus [somnum afnrrnat].
one hand, that outer impressions
 SCHOOL OF THEOPHRASTUS: STJRATO 471

what way dreams were brought into connection with

1
this view
impossible to say.
it is

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
that all which for
living creatures participate in reason,
him coincided with consciousness, and without which he
2
found sense-perception inconceivable; while, on the other

hand, he was forced to extend to the whole of the soul

what Aristotle had taught as to the fmitude of its lower
elements. We
find him accordingly not only combating
3
the Platonic doctrine of reminiscence, but criticising
in a hostile spirit the proofs of the immortality of the soul
advanced in the Plicedo^ in a way which leads us to sup-

1
PLUT. Plac. v. 2, 2 (GALEN, Plifed. ed. Finckh. p. 127 (also
Hist. Ph. 30, p. 320) says: PLUT. FT. vii. 19) p. 177 (follow
[TOUS ovetpovs yiveadai~\ ing Alexander of Aphrodisias, as
\rivl add. GAL.] (pvfffi TTJS this commentary so often does,
Siavoias eV roTs virvois alaOrjTiKu- as may be seen by the context),
repas /teV TTCOS
(TTJS \|/i>xf)s
add. p. 188, a , /3 .

GAL.) yiyvo/jievr]s, Trap avrb Se 4

The arguments against the
TOUTO TCf yVWffTlKW KlVO/J.ei>T)S [GAL. proofs brought forward in the
gives incorrectly yvcaffriKrjs 711/0,1*- Phcedo, 102, A sqq. which are
evrjs ]. The meaning appears to given by OLYMPIODOH. in Phcsd.
be that, during sleep the irra p. 150-1, p. 191, are as follows :

tional nature of the mind is If the soul is immortal because

stronger, and the action of as essentially life it cannot
thought being interrupted, the die, the same can be applied
mind receives and takes in many to all living bodies, of animals
images or impressions, all more and of plants, for they also can
or less confused, which if awake not, so long as they live, be
it would allow to pass unnoticed dead to every natural being, for
;

(cf. supra, vol. ii. p. 75 sq. and the natural state of such excludes
p. 439, n. 3). anything unnatural to all things ;

-
EPIPHAN. Exp. Fid. 1090, composed and created, for com
A : irav $ov \eyev ov [1. eAeye position is incompatible with
vov^ SfKTiitbv e?i/cu. dissolution and existence with
3
See the extracts, probably destruction. But death is not
from the work ir. avQpu- (/>uo"ecos something whitfh approaches life
n-ivr)s, in OLYMPIODOE. Sclwl. itt while it lasts, but it is a loss of
472
pose that along with these proofs he had abandoned the
belief in immortality itself.
From the Ethics of Strato only a definition of the
Good, which in substance agrees with that of
has been preserved to us.
life. has not been proved that
It
a quality inseparable from
life is
the concept of the soul, a quality
inherent and. not
(eVt<7>e
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,
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
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
ARISTOTLE
Aristotle,
1
not the case with the whole. Also
that which is derived from
another resembles it only in
poK<ra) ; species and not in quantity.
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.
1
SXOB. Eel. ii. 80 :
[ayaObv ^TJO"!] rb T\eiovv
8vva.fj.iv 8t ^v rrjs evepyeias
Xavo/j.ev. Cf. herewith, supra,
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 then-
extensive 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
independent thinker. It continued to be one of the
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
effortsin science and metaphysics, if
they did not
remain altogether barren, seem to have been wholly
confined to the propagation of older doctrines. Nor
can we make the scantiness of our information re

sponsible for thisseeming poverty not only have we ;

for

express complaints of the unfruitfulness of the Peri

patetic school in the period referred to, but we are 1

STRABO, Peripatetics being under the dis-

1
xiii. 1, 54, p. (>OD,

says that after Theophrastus the ability that they possessed of

474 ARISTOTLE

forced to suppose that if there had been anything

important to relate of Strato s successors there would
have been a richer stream of historical allusion to them,
and especially that the learned commentators upon
Aristotle, who preserve so deep and significant a silence
as to the Peripatetics between Strato and Andronicus,
1

would have found more frequent occasion to mention

them .

s successor, Lyco of Troas, who was president

Strato
2
of the Peripatetic school for nearly half a century, and

Aristotle only a limited number (DiOG. 68). He was named by

of treatises, and these mostly Strato his heir in the school {supra,
exoterical, ^TjSef c^eir fyiXovo- vol. ii.
p.451,n. 1), and succeeded
(pelv Trpay/uiaTiKctis [in the way of him in his chair as a young man,
real scientific advance], aAAa about 270-268 B.C., and after
0eVeis [commonplaces] ArjKvOi^ziv conducting the school for forty-
[to embellish]. PLUT. Sulla, four years, died at the age of se
26 : ol Se irpefffivrepoi Tlfpnra- venty-four, about 224 B.C. (DiOG.
rr)TiKol [before Andronicus] <pai-
68 and supra, vol, ii. p. 451, n. 1).
VOVTO.I KO.& eavrovs yevo/j.fi
/J.ei>
OL Lyco was a famous orator (see
Xapifvres teal <pi\o\6yoi, but it next note but one) busied him ;

isplain that they did not possess self greatly with public affairs
the texts of Aristotle and Theo- and, according to DiOG. 66, did
phrastus. The last suggestion great service to Athens, where he
is,of course, incorrect; as is also must have become a citizen (if
the idea that the philosophic by ffv/npovheveiv DIOG. here means
barrenness of the school began that he spoke in the public
only after Theophrastus (v. supra, assemblies). We hear that he
i. pp. 138-9 sqq.). Ignoratio was esteemed and rewarded by
dialectic^ is also charged against the earlier Pergamenian kings,
the Peripatetics by Cic. Fin. iii. admired by Antigonus, invited
12, 41. by Antiochus to his court in vain
1
been unable to
Zeller has (DiOG. 65, 67 meaning, no
:

find, the countless cita

among doubt, Antiochus II., surnamed
tions of ancient philosophers in Theos), and his will (apud DiOG.
the various commentaries, a 69 sqq.) shows that he was a
single one which refers to any of wealthy man. According to
these writers. HEEMIPP. (apud DIOG. 67) he
2
Lyco of Troas (DiOG. v. 65, lived as one ;
but the account
PLUT. Zte Mail. 14, p. 605) was which ANTIGONUS (apud ATHEN.
a pupil both of Strato and also xii.547, d) gives of his pride is/no
of the dialectician Pantoides doubt, grossly exaggerated. The
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 475

behind him a number of works, was distinguished

1
left

by the grace and brilliancy of his style rather than by

2
the originality of his contributions. The little that
has come down to us of his writings is confined to a
3
definition of the Highest Good, and a few remarks
4
upon ethical subjects.

Contemporary with Lyco, but diverging more widely

from Aristotle, was Hieronymus of Rhodes. 5 Our

same authority (ibid. 548, b) and though it certainly does not

DIOG. 07 show him to have been exhaust, the Aristotelian defini
greatly occupied with gymnastic but we do not
tion of happiness ;

arts. His testamentary direction know whether Lyco meant it to

as to his funeral (DiOG. 70) is be an exhaustive definition or
that it should be seemly but not not. On the trifling worth of
extravagant. worldly possessions, see following
1
To a who
slave, had, no note.
helped him in work 4
doubt, his Apud Cic. Tusc. iii. 32. 78,
and to whom he gave his freedom, talking of asgritudo, Lyco says,
he bequeaths (apud DIOG. 73) parvis earn rebus moveri, for-
rdyua StjSAta ra aveyi wa/j.eva ;
the tunaa et corporis incommodis,
unpublished writings, on the non animi ma,lis. Apud STOB.
other hand, he left to his pupil Floril., Exc. e Jo. Damasc.ii. 13,
Callinus, to edit for publication. 140 (iv. 226,ed.Mein.), Lyco says
2
CiC. Fin. v. 5, 13: Hujus of TratSem that it is iepbv affvXov.
[Stratonis] Lyco est oratione DiOG. 65-6 describes him as
rebus ipsis jejunior. bs Kal irepl TraiSwv
locuples, av))p
Also DiOG. 65-6, praises the &Kpcas (TvvTeTa.
quot y/j.ei/os,

K<ppa(TTiKbv
Kal TTepiyeycavlis eV rfj ing at the same time some of his
p/j.r]feict, and the euySia of his sayings.
speech, for which he was also
5
Cic. fin. 3, 8 ;
ATHEN. x.
called T\vK<av (as in PLUT. lHd.\ 424-5; DIOG. ii. 26; STRABO,
but he adds the remark eV 8e : T< xiv. 2, 13, p. 656, and others, all
ypdfpeiv avo/J.oios avry. The speak of HIERONYMUS as a
examples cited by DiOG. confirm Khodian. He was a contempor
his judgment. Cf. THEMIST. ary of Lyco, Arcesilaus, and the
Orat. xxi. 255 B, as to his cele sceptic Timon at Athens (DiOG.
brity in his own time. v. 68, iv. 41-2, ix. 112). When
CLEMENS, Strom, i. 416 D
3
: ATHEN. x. 424-5 calls him a
A.VKOS [Lyco must be meant] 6 disciple of Aristotle, he is merely
nepiTraTTjTi/cbs rrjv aXrjOiv^v x a P^ v using the phrase loosely as mean
rrjs I^V^TJS reAos eAe^ei/ eTi/cu, ws ing a Peripatetic. Not to this
A.i>Kifj.os [?] rV tnl rois /caAoTs. man, but to the historian Hier
This does not conflict with, onymus of Cardia, who was the
476 ARISTOTLE

knowledge of this philosopher, who was distinguished,

1
according to Cicero, for his learning and versatility, is
confined mainly to historical observations, 2 the titles of
books, and unimportant isolated quotations.
3
are told We
that he declared the summum bonum and the ultimate
end of all action to consist in
painlessness, which, how
ever, he sharply distinguished from pleasure, going
4
beyond Aristotle in denying that the latter was in
any

companion in arms of Eumenes the writers on music. That the

and Antigonus, must we refer the Hieronymus mentioned in DAM-
statement of LUCIAX, apud ASCIUS and JOSEPHUS is not the
MACBOB., 22, as to a person of this same as this writer has been
name who lived to be 101 years shown by ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. i.
of age, as clearly shown at the
is 84.
beginning of the chapter. As in Cic. ibid, (from a
3

Cic. in the Orator, 57, IPO

1
work on Rhetoric or Metre) the ;

calls him Peripateticus inprimis citation of about thirty verses in

nobilis, and in Fin. v. 5, 14, he Isocrates a remark in PLUT. Qu.
;

speaks oE :
prtetereo multos, in Conv. i. 8, 3, 1, p. 626, on the
hisdoctum hominem et suavem shortsightedness of the aged a ;

Hieronymum. Cf. also Fin. ii. word in SENECA, De Ira, i. 19, 3,

6, 19. Sundry details are to be against anger, and in STOB.
gathered also from the passages Floril., Ease, e Jo. Dam.ii. 13. 121
cited infra. (vol. iv. 209, ed. Mein.), against
-
For example : ATHEN. ii. education by pedagogues.
48, b, v. 217, e, xiii. 556. a, 557, The chief source of informa
4

e, 602, a, 604, d (chiefly from the tion here is CICERO, who often
l(TTOpiKa viro/Jiff)/iji.a.Ta, which is refers to this view of Hieron.
named at 557. o, and G04 d), xiv. So A cad. ii. 42, 131: Vacare
G35-6 (from the fifth book TT. ornni molest ia Hieronymus
TronjTwv, which treated of odes [tinem esse voluit]. And Fin.
for the KiOdpa), x. 424-5, xi. 499- v. 11, 35, 25, 73, Tusc. v. 30,
500 (from the work ir. jue07jy), x. 87-8; Fin. ii. 3, 8: Tenesne
434-5 (from the Letters); igitur, inquam, Hieronymus
DiOG. i. 267 (from the second Rhodius quod dicat esse summum
book of the (nropdSiriv viro/u.vr) u.aTa, l bonum, quo putet omnia referri
which are no doubt identical oportere? Teneo, inquit, finem
with the Itrr.
UTTO^LW/.), ii. 14 (he videri, nihil dolere.
illi Quid?
like), 26, 105 (eV T TT.
eVox^s), idem iste de voluptate quid
viii. 21, 57, ix. 16; PLUT. Qu. sentit? Kegat esse earn, inquit,
Conv. Procem. 3, mentions his propter se ipsam expetendam; 6,
Xoyoi irapa TTOTOV yevofjifvoi and 19 Nee Aristippus, qui volupta-
:

also reckons him (N. p. suav. tem summum bonum dicit, in

Vim, 13, 6, p. 1096) amongst voluptate ponit non dolere, neque
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 477

sense a good. To the same period belongs also

1

Prytanis.
2
After Lyco s death Aristo of Ceos was elected by
the choice of his fellow-disciples to the presidency of

Hieronymus, qui summum bonum Prooem. 3, names him among the

statuit non
dolere, voluptatis distinguished philosophers who
nomine unquam utitur pro ilia have written table talk.
-
indolentia quippe qui ne in
;
Aristo is called KeTos in
expetendis qnidem rebus numcret Lyco s will (Dioo. v. 74) and it
voluptatem. v. 5, 14 Hierony : has since been the custom to
mum quern jam cur Peripateti-
;
name him thus, in order to dis
cum appellem, nescio, summum tinguish him from the Stoic of
enim bonum exposuit vacuitatem the same name, hpicrruv 6 X?os,
doloris. Cf. CLEMENS, *tn>m. ii. who is, nevertheless, often eon-
415, C Tf: 8
leptiavv/uios
6 Tlepi- founded with him on account of
irarriT IK^S reAos /xej/ en/cu r fi ao%- the similarity of their surnames.
AT/TWS rjv reAt/chj/ 8 ayadbv (j.6vov Another surname, louAirjTTjs or
tvSainoviav.
TTJJ/ Here Clement IAITJTTJS (DiOG. vii. 164) shows
seems to have derived his in that his family came from Julis,
formation from the same source the chief town in the island of
as CICERO, Acad. ii. 42, 131 and ; Ceos, as is remarked by STRABO,
there ANTIOCHUS is indicated as x. 5, C, p. and STEPHANUS,
486,
Cicero s authority. That Cicero De Url>.
louAis, PLUT. Zte Ex\l.
was directly acquainted with an 14, p.605 names ApiVrwi/ e /c Ke co
ethical as well as a rhetorical between Glyco and Critolaus ;

work of Hieronymus cannot Lyco himself speaks of him

really be inferred from Fin,, ii. 6, as his pupil (see following
19. This a is also re
<xoxAT]<ri note) and CiC. Fin, v. 5, 13.
ferred to by JAMBL. apud STOB. When we find that not he but
Eel. i. 920, and the X ia by T}<rv
Aristo is in SEXT. Math. ii. 61
PLUT, Sto. Rep. 2, 2, as the ideal called the yvwpifjios of Critolaus,
of Hieronymus. The latter adds it is hardly possible to suppose

that, like Epicurus, he lived up that a younger Peripatetic of the

to his theory. same name is meant, but we must
This Peripatetic was em
1
suppose that yvwpipos, which is
ployed by Antigonus Doson (B.C. ordinarily used of a pupil, has
230-221) in various State affairs, here a wider signification ;

and POLYP,, v. 93, 8, reckons him QUINTILIAN, xi. 15, 19 seems to

among the eiri<pave is &i/5pes e /c TOV have used the same expression :

TrepLirdrov. He must have been Critolai peripatetic! discipulus.

at that time already considerably Again, we hear that he was a
advanced in years, if his pupil 7]Ao>Tr?s of the Borysthenean
EUPHORION was really born (as Bio see STRABO, x. 5, 6, and
:

SUIDAS says) in Ol. 126, B.C. ZELLER, Ph. d. Gr. i. 294, 4. The
277-273. PLUT. Qu. Com*. meaning may be merely that he
478 ARISTOTLE
the school. 1
He
have been distinguished
also is said to
rather for the grace and finish of his style than for
2
originality of thought, Of his numerous writings
3
only some of the titles, and a few fragments, chiefly
4
of an historical character, have come down to

admired Bio s writings, or it [Lyconis, sc. discipulus] Aristo ;

may be that he was per sed ea quae desideratur a magno

sonally acquainted with Bio, philosopho gravitas in eo non
who must have been still living fuit. Scripta sane et multa et
during Aristo s youth (cf. polita sed nescio quo pacto
;

ZELLEK, Ph. d. Gr. i. 294, 4). auctoritatem oratio non habet.

It is not Aristo of Ceos, but of The same is meant by STRABO
Chios, that worked with Ar- (lit supra) the comparison
in
cesilaus (who died 241 B.C.) with Bio.
according to STRABO, i. 2, 2, p.
3
Of his works we know a
15; SEXT. Pyrrh. i. 234; DIOG. Lyco (mentioned by PLUT.
iv. 33. For further information Aud. Po. 1 init. p. 14, where no
about him and his works see one else can be meant; cf. Cic.
HUBMANN,^ in Jahn s Jalirb. Cato M. 1, 3, and also RITSCHL,
Supplement, iii. 1834, p. 102 ibid. ), which is there classed with

sqq. ; KiTSCHL, Aristo d.\Peripat, uEsop s Fables and the Abaris of

apud Cic. DC Sen. 3 (Rltcin. Heraclides, and which must,
Mm. N. F. 1842, i. 193 sqq.); therefore, like this latter, have
KEISCHE, Forscli. 405-6, 408. been a collection of fables; and
Aristotle^ appears to have also the EpwriKa 8/ji.oia, cited by
1

at least indicated Theophrastus ATHEN. 563-4, xv.

x. 419, c. xiii.
as his successor; Theophrastus 674, b. It
appears, however,
bequeathed the irep-iraTos to ten from DIOG. vii. 163, that all the
friends Strato t to Lyco (v. supra,
;
works there said to be by the
vol. i. p. 39, n. 1, and vol. ii. p. kftoic Aristo (except the Letters
350, n. 5); Lyco left it in his of PAN^TIUS and SOSICRATES)
will (apud DIOG. v. 70) T>V were also ascribed to our Aristo
yv(p(iJ.cav ro is /SouAo/xeVois and of Ceos ; probably, however, only
particularly to ten friends there some of them were so ascribed,
named (all of whom except Aristo and it is only of some that the
are otherwise unknown), with ascription could in any case be
the proviso TrpodT^ffda dcaa av 8
: true.
avrol ov b.v inro\a/j.l3di><a(rL Sm/^ez/elV All the Fragments in ATHE-
4

firl rov Trpdy/j-ciTOs Kal ffvi av^etv NJEUS (see Index) except that
/j,d\icrTa. SwfiffecrOai. If, however, at ii. 38, 9 (a note on beverages)
what THEMIST. Or. xxi. 255 B, as also the notices apud PLUT.
relates true, he must have
is Thcmist. 3, Aristid. 2, SOTION,
allowed Aristo a precedence even De Fluv. 25, are concerned with
before himself. historical matter. Ko doubt
2
Cic. Fin. v. 5, 13 : Concin- DIOGENES (v. 64, supra, vol. i.

nus delude et elegans hujus p. 37, n. 4) took from Aristo the

 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 479

us. His successor, 1

Critolaus of Phaselis in Ly-
testaments the Peripatetic
of said by any of our authorities ;

philosophers, besides other in for CLEMENT, who gives a list of

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
;
the Peripatetic Diadochoi in
Strom, i. 201 B (or, at least, the
printed text of that passage)
passes over Aristo ( after Ari
stotle SmSe ^ercu Qeoippaffros bv
S.TpaTcaV AVKCOV elra Kpir6-
2>i/

Aristo that is meant), a division Aaos 6?ra Aio Scopos ). PLUT. De

of the aj/TtATjTTTt/c^ Svvafjus rr\s Exil. 14, p. 605, does not give a
tyvxys into the aiV07jTi:bz/and the full list, but only names those
fotJs, the tirst working in connec Peripatetics who came to Athens
tion with the bodily organs, and from abroad, when he says :

the latter working without

organs ;
and also in SBXT. TAvKcav K TpwdSos,
Math. ii. 61, QUINTIL. ii. 15, Ke KpLToXaos ^CKTTJA/TTJS. Neither
o>,

19 (cf. infra, p. 483, n. 1) a de does Cic. Fin. v. 5, 13-4 intend

finition of Rhetoric, which allows to state the order of sequence of
us to suppose that he wrote some the heads of the school, for
work on the subject. The Frag he is only speaking of the
ments from Aristo in STOBJEUS, relation of the later Peripa
Floril. (see Index), belong to the tetics to Aristotle and Theo-
Stoic of that name, as is clearly phrastus and so, after naming
;

shown in various passages for :

Strato, Lyco, and Aristo, he con
example, 4, 110; 80, 5; 82, 7, 11, tinues, Prsetereo multos, in
15, 16. The information about his . . .
Hieronymum ;
also after
an Aristo given by SIMPL. Categ., a few remarks about him, he
Schol. in Ar. 65, b, 10, 66, a, 38 adds, Critolaus imitari antiques
evidently refers to a younger voluit, &c. Thus there appears
Peripatetic, one of the successors to be a possible vacancy for
of Andronicus, and probably the further names between Aristo and
same as he whom SENECA, Ep. and this is made some
Critolaus,
29, 6, makes fun of. It is not what more probable when we con
clear which Aristo is meant in sider the time which elapsed
PLUT. Amator. 21, 2, p. 767, between Lyco s and Critolaus s
PrfPc. gar. Reip. 10, 4, p. 804. death, which seems very long for
In PLUT. Demosth.
30 the 10, only two school directors. Lyco
printed texts, at any rate, give died 226-4 B.C., but Critolaus
X?os. As to the work IT. /cej/o- (see foil, note) was in Rome
8oi as, as the extract therefrom 156-5 B.C. Supposing that he
a^vd PHILODEM. De Vit. x. 10, took this journey during the
23, SAUPPE makes it probable latter part of his life, we have a
(Pliilocl.de Vit. Lib. Dec. pp. period of more than seventy
6-7, 34) that they refer to our years to cover his and Aristo s
Aristo. school-directorship, and if we add
That Critolaus was Aristo s
1
the forty-four years of Lyco s
direct successor is not expressly directorship it makes in all for
 480
cia,
1
seems to have been more important.
the three men nearly 120 years.
ZUMPT ( Bestand d.
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,
West., says SiaSoxoi 8
: avrov
[Arist.] T7?s <rxoAf;s Kara rdiv
ot Se
AVKLCTKOS,
npvravis, $opjj.{tov KptroAaos. Un
y cidedly against ZUMPT S theory.
fortunately, this evidence is not
satisfactory. For we cannot
accept as a trustworthy list of
the school-chiefs correctly set
out Kara rdiv, a statement which
places between Strato and Lyco,
who undoubtedly
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
.Strato, as ZUMPT would have
it, any more than his StaSoxos),
and describes as the second in
order after Aristo, Praxiphanes,
who was a scholar of Theo
phrastus (xupra, vol. ii.
and as the fifth after
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
and inserts the still
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
ARISTOTLE
All that we
gap between Aristo and Critolaus,
Philos. but that it rather seems most
likely that he did nor, know of
any intervening directors : Hier-
onymus and the rnulti whom
he passes over are those whom he
could not insert in the list of
SidSoxoi since they were not
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
And why, after all, could not the
presidencies of Aristo and Cri
tolaus have lasted seventy or
eighty years, just as well as
that of Lyco lasted forty-four, and
that of Theophrastus thirty-six
followed years? The latter two, by the
way, were no longer young when
they were appointed. And we
know from LUCIAN, Macro!). 20
that, Critolaus
(not as ZUMPT,
p. 90, says, Aristo) lived in fact
to over eighty-two j ears of
T
age.
The Stoics Chrysippus and Dio
genes held the presidency for at
least eighty years, and the first
five Stoic Diadochoi
presided in
p. 449), all for a period of 140
years.
him at 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.
earlier 1
The native town of Critolaus
isdetermined by PLUT. ibid, and
other evidence. Otherwise the
only certain piece of information
we have relating to his life is
that he took part, in conjunction
with Diogenes and Critolaus, in
the celebrated embassy which
(according to Cic. Acad. ii. 45,
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 481

know of shows him to have been in the main a

his views l

true adherent of the 2

Peripatetic teaching, who, however,
differed from Aristotle on several
points. Thus he
conceived of the soul,
including the reason, as consist
3
ing of ether, and in his Ethics he went
beyond Ari
stotle in
asserting that pleasure was an evil.
4
In other
respects his views upon the nature of the summum
bonwn 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/
among which, he however,

137, during the consulship of P. Critolaus imitari antiques voluit,

Scipio and M. Marcellus, i.e. 598- et quidem est gravitate proxi-
9 A. u. or 15(5-5 B.C. see CLIN
c., ; mus, et redundat oratio, attamen
TON, Fasti Hellcn.) was sent to is quidem in patriis institutes
Rome by the Athenians to de manet. In reference to his lec
precate the fine of 500 talents tures in Rome, GELL. vi. 14, 10
which had been imposed on the
(following Rutilius and Polybius)
Athenians for the sack of Oropus. says: Violenta et rapid a Car-
For further information on this neades dicebat, scita et teretia
subject see PAUSAN. vii. 11; Cic. Critolaus, modesta Diogenes et
ibid., De Orat. ii. 37, 155, Tu*c. sobria.
iv. 3, 5, Ad Att. xii. 23 GELL. 2
As CICERO indicates
;
; see
N. A. vi. 14, 8, xvii. 21, 48; PLIN.
preceding note.
21. N. vii. 30, 112; PLUT. Cato 3
STOB. Eel. i. 58: KpiTo\aos
Maj. 22; ^L. V. It. iii. 17 (see Kal AtoSwpos 6 Tvpios vovv air
also infra as to the historical aidepos airaQovs. TERTULL. I)e
bearings of the story). That An. 5 : Nee illos dico solos, qui
Critolaus, as well as the others, earn [animam] de manifest is cor-
lectured in Rome is expressly ut Cri
poralibus effingunt . . .

stated (see following It tolaus et Peripatetici ejus ex

note).
isalso apparent from what has
quinta nescio qua substantia [the
been stated in the foregoing note, 7re yu,7rT77 ovcria, the
ether].
and from what we know of the 4
GELL. N. A. ix. 5, 6 ; Cri
age of his successors, that Crito tolaus Peripateticus et malum
laus made this journey late in esse voluptatem ait et multa alia
life. Except by the fact that he mala parere ex sese, injurias,
lived to be over eighty-two
years desidias, obliviones, ignavias.
of age (v. ibid.), tt is not 5
possible CLEMENS, Strom, ii. 316, D :

to indicate the date of his death. 5e, 6 Kal ai/Tus UepiTraTt]-

1
KpirJAaos
Cf. also Cic. Fin. v. 5, 14: Tilths, TeAetoTTjTa TO
eAe7ej/ [sc.
VOL. II. I I
482 ARISTOTLE
those of the
gave so unconditioned a preference to
soul that the others shrink into complete insignificance
Similarly in Physics he came forward as
1
beside them.
the defender of an important Aristotelian doctrine in
maintaining the eternity of the world and of the human
race against the Stoics.
2
He rests his arguments chiefly
upon the immutability of the order of nature, which
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
sprang from the earth ;
and concludes that man, and
must be eternal, nature having,
therefore also the world,
3
as Plato and had already declared, conferred
Aristotle

upon the whole race by means of propagation the

immortality which she was unable to bestow upon
individuals. He further remarks that a self-caused
existence like the world must be eternal if the world ;

had a beginning, it 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 ;

impossible in a being,
like it, already perfect. While
sickness, age, or want destroys living creatures, they

reAos] Kara evpoovvros fiiov.

^>ixnv
libra ilia Critolai :
qui cum in
rV fK TUV rpicav yevwv [the alteram lancem animi bona im-
three kinds of Goods] 0-17^X77- ponat, in alteram corporis et ex-
pov^ivnv TrpoyovLKyv [? di/fl/wTn/cV] terna,tantum propendere illam
TeAei<$T7}TajurjviW. STOB. Eel. bonorum animi lancem putet, ut
ii 58 : virb 5e T&V vewrepwv Flept- terram et maria deprimat.
2
iraTTjTiKtav,ruvairo Kpiro\dov, [so. PHILO, JEtern. Mundi, p.
re Aos Ae^erot] rb e Trdvrcav ruv 943 B 947 B, Hosch., C. 11-
ayaOwv o t^TreTrATjpcotteVoi TOVTO . 15, Bern.
3
Se fy rb e /c TUV rpwv yevwv. Supra, voi ii. p. 35, n. 2
1
Cic. Tusc. v. 17, 51 :
Quo cf. ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 512, 3.

loco quasro, quam vim habeat

 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 483

cannot the world as a whole; if the order or

affect

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 we are further told of
l
Critolaus is of little importance.

Contemporaneous with Aristo and Critolaus was

Phormio, 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

ginian hero upon generalship, nothing further is

known. 3 To the same period belong 4
apparently Sotion s
much-read work on the schools of 5
and the philosophy
1
According to STOB. Eel. i. delirus senex, Phormio must
252, Critolaus held time to be a have then been advanced in
3) ^irnov, and not a
i>6r)fj.a
years.
See also SEXT. Math. ii. 12,
<ris.
3
For, as already remarked,
20. According to QUINTIL. ii. we can make nothing of the
17, 15, he made sharp attacks on statement of the ANON. MEN.
Ehetoric (of which Sext. tells us cited at p. 480, n. supra.
4
something), defining it, accord That Sotion was a Peri
ing to QUINT, ii. 15, 23, as usus patetic is not expressly stated,
diccndi (and QUINT, adds, nam but is evident from the whole
hoc rpifi}) significat}, which means character of his writings. Of.
(as PLATO had said in the Gnrg. SOTION, De Fluv. 44 (WESTER-
463 B) that it was not an art MANN, TIapa8o6 p. 1!)1). ypa<poi,
but a mere readiness of speech 5
Cf. WESTERMANN, Uapa-
acquired by practice. Further 5oo p. xlix; and see
7pa</>ot,

information as to what he said particularly

in connection with this criticism
PANZERBIETER,
Sotion, in Ja Jin s
Jahrbb.
of oratory may be found in GELL.
Supplement, v. 211 sqq.
(1837) p.
where it is shown from the data
2
We have this incident from given by DIOGENES that the
Cic. De Orat. ii. 18. As Hanni Aia5o^?7 TUIV must have (f>i\o(r6(f>a}v

bal was then with Antiochus in
Ephesus, must have been about
it
the time stated in the text and
as he called the philosopher a
been written between 200 and
150 B.C. probably between 200
; and 170 B.C.: inasmuch as, on
the one hand, Chrysippus, who

i i2
484 ARISTOTLE

histories of Hermippus and Satyrus. Heraclides

died about 206, was mentioned persons. In this case we must

in the book (Dioa. vii. 183), and, also attribute to that Peripatetic
on the other hand, Heraclides (ZELL., Hid. iii. a, 694, 2nd ed.)
Lembus (de quo infra) made an the citations in ALEX. APHE.
extract from it. PANZEEBIETER Top. 123 (which appear to be
also makes it probable that the from a commentary on Ari
AtaSox?? consisted of 13 books, stotle), and in CEAMEE S Anecd.
whose contents he endeavours to Paris, i. 391, and the
3 ;

indicate. To this work belong same man is perhaps meant in

also the references in ATHEN. PLTJT. Frat. Am. c. 16, p. 487,
iv. 62, e, viii. 348, c, xi. 505, c; and Alex. c. 61. On the other
SEXT. Math. vii. 15. ATHEN. hand, the moral maxims cited by
336, d, tells us of another
viii. STOB^US belong to Seneca s
work of Sotion s, Trepl TUV Ti/j.wvos teacher. impossible to say
It is
<Ti\\uv. It is very questionable who was the Sotion frequently
whether it is chronologically cited in the Geoponica, but he
possible that he could have was in any case not the author
written the 12 books AioKA-eiW of the AtaSoxr]. M. HERTZ
eAe 7x wI/ directed against Diocles Kamenta Gelliana (Brest. Uni-
of Magnesia (v. DION. x. 4). versitatschrift, 1868) p. 15-6
At any rate the Ke pas A/j.a\0eias, attributes the Ke pas A^aA.0. to
T
(GELL. J\ A. i. 8, 1, cf. with
. the elder Sotion, but this does
PLIN. H. N. prasf. 24), the frag not follow from what is said by
ment on rivers and springs (in GELL. i. 8, 1 ;
cf. ATHEN. xiii.
WESTEEMANN S napa8o6ypa.<poi, 588 c; DIOG. ii. 74.
183 sqq., cf. with PHOT. Blbl. See LOZYNSKI, IIerndp])i
1

p.
Cod. 189), which was probably Fraf/m. Bonn, 1832 PEELLER, ;

part of the last-named work, the in JaJm s Jahrb. 1836, xvii. 159
writing IT. opyris (STOB. Floril. sqq. ; MULLER, Fraf/m. Hist. Gr.
14, 10", 20, 53, 108, 59, 113,
15) iii. sqq.35NIETZSCHE, Rliein.;

and those from which are derived Mus. xxiv. 188-9, z. HEEMIPPUS
the Fragments apud STOB. is described by HIEEON. De
Floril. 84, 6-8, 17. 18, belong to Script. Eccl. c. 1 (whose autho
one or perhaps to two younger rity is not of much value) as a
men of the same name. We Peripatetic, and by ATHEN. ii.
should say to one, if the Peri 58-9, v. 213-4, xv. 696-7 as 6
patetic Sotion mentioned by KaAAiuax e os, i.e. the pupil of
GELL. as author of the Kepa? A/*. Callimachus he is, therefore, ;

is identical with the Sotion who probably the same Hermippus

was Seneca s (ft/list. 49. 2, 108, is said to be a native of Srnyrr

17-20) teacher in the school of in ATHEN. vii. 327 c. As

Sextus (ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. iii. a, hear that in his chief work he
600, 3, 605, 3) ; MULLEE, Fragm. mentioned the death of Chrys-
Hist. Gr. iii. 1GS takes it for ippus (DiOG. vii. 184) whei
granted that this is the case, he is not referred to as an autho
but theie seems to be some pro rity for later events, we may
bability that they were different infer that he must have writtei
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 485

Agatharchides and Antisthenes

1
Lembus, of Rhodes

about 200 B.C. or soon after. verbs (DiONYS. HAL.Antigititt. i.

The citation in the Etymol. M. 68) are probably, but not cer
118, 11 would carry the elate a tainly, the work of a later
little further to about 203 B.C. scholar of whom (if he existed)
if the work there referred to we do not know whether he was
was by him see MULLER S note
; or was not a Peripatetic (for in
to Fr. 72. Of his books, we hear ATHEN. xiii. 55(5, a, only our
of a great work of biography, Satyrus can be meant, and he is
the Bioi, different parts of which in fact always designated in the
seem to have been known by same manner). We can say
various separate names.- A with more certainty that the
second work IT. ru>v eV TraiSeia poem on precious stones, which
5ia\a/j.il/dvTwv (Etym. M. ibid.), PLIN. H. JY. xxxvii. 2, 31, 6, 91,
of which the IT. TWV 5iaTTpe\l/di>Tcav 7, 94, cites as by a Satyrus, was
eV TrcwSem 5ov\(av cited by SUIDAS not the work of our Peripatetic.
s. v. "la-rpos was no doubt a Cf. MULLEE, iUd. 159, and the
part, is
with a great balance of proba Fragments there, which in so far
bility ascribed by PEELLEE, as they are genuine, contain
MULLEE and others to the later only historical matter, excepting
Hermippus of Berytus. As to those from the Characters.
other writings ?z0belongingto our 1
See MULLEE, Hist. Gr. iii.
Hermippus, see PEELLEE, p. 174 167 sqq. HEEACLIDES, surnamed
sqq. For the list of the works of Lembus (cf. MULLEE, ibid.), came,
Aristotle and Theophrastus pro according to DIOG. v. 94, from
bably given in the Bioi, see vol. i. Calatis in Pontus or from Alex
p. 51. In like manner, SATYEUS andria; according to SUIDAS,
is described as a Peripatetic s.r. from Oxyrynchus in
Hpa/cA.
in ATHEN. 248, d. xii. 534,
vi.
Egypt. According to SUID. he
b, 541, c. xiii. 556, a. His lived under Ptolemy Philometor
chief work was a collection of (181-147 B.C.) in a distinguished
biographies, cited as the Bfot position. SUID. calls him <pi\6-

(cf. ATHEN. vi.248, d, f, 250 f, ffofyos, and adds that he was the
xii. 541, c, xiii. 557, c, 584, a ; author of philosophical and other
DIOG. ii. 12, viii. 40, 53 ; HIEEON. works. As his helper Agath
Adv. Jovin. ii. 14, DG Script. archides (see following note) is
Ecol. c. 1), and called more counted among the Peripatetics,
fully (as is inferred by BEEN AYS, and his own literary activity lay
Theophr. iib. Fro mm. 161 from in this direction, we may include
HlEE. Adv. Joe.} Biot eV8o wi/ him also as one of the school.
avSpuv. Further ATHEN. iv. 168 The Ae/j-^evTiK^s Ao 7os, which is
E, cites a writer who
from said to have been the origin of
is evidently our Satyrus, a frag his surname (DiOG. ibid.), was
ment from a work IT. xapaKT^puv. probably a philosophical work;
Another book in which a list of but the most important of his
the Denies of Alexandria was works were, in any way, those
given (THEOPHIL. Ad Autol. ii. which were historical. We know
p. 94), and a collection of pro of an historical work in at least
48G ARISTOTLE

No single utterance on philosophy,

are rather later. 1

however, has been preserved to us from any of these.

More important for us is Diodorus of Tyre, 2 the suc
cessor of Critolaus. In his view of the soul he agreed
3
with his master, but differed from him and from

thirty-seven books, an extract century (MiJLLEE, Hist. Gr. iii.

from the biography of Satyrus 182, believes the two to be
(DiOG. viii. 40, 44, 53, 58), and a different persons). The citations
AtoSox^ in six books, which was in Diogenes do not carry us
an epitome of Sotion s work beyond the death of Cleanthes
(DiOG. v. 94, 79, viii. 7, x. 1). (MULLER, ibid.). That the
See the Fragm. of these, apud pseudo-Aristotelian MayiKbs prob-
MULLEE, ibid. ably belonged to this Antisthenes
AGATHAECHIDES
1
of Cnidos, of Rhodes has been already re-
6 etc rwv irepnraTow (STBABO, xiv. marked, supra, vol. i. p. 81, n. 1.
2, 15, p. was secretary
656),
-
STOB. Eel. i. 58, calls this
to the above-named Heraclides Diodorus a Tyrian, and in ClC.
Lembus (PHOT. Cod. 213 init.), De Orat. Fin. v. 5, 14,
i. 11, 45,
and was afterwards (as we learn and CLEM.
Strom. 1, 301 B,
from his own words apud PHOT, he is described as the disciple
Cod. 250, p. 445, a, 33, 460, b, G) and successor of Critolaus. Other-
the tutor of a prince (MtJLLEE, wise nothing is known about
ibid. 191 supposes, with WESSE- him, and it is impossible to
LING, that it was Ptolemy define the date of his death or
Physcon II., who reigned from of his accession to the headship
117-107 B.C.). Agatharchides of the school; if. however, we
wrote several historical and eth- can trust what Cic. says in the
nographical works, of which one De Orat. ibid., he must have
on the Red Sea has been pre- been still alive in 110 B.C. (see
served in great part, by PHOT. ZUMPT, Ueber d. Bestand d.
Cod. 250, pp. 441-460 ;
as to the philos. Schulen in A then., Abh.
rest see
MULLER, p. 190 sqq.
So d. Berl. Akad. Hist.-phil. Kl.
ANTISTHENES is spoken of by 1842, p. 93) but this, in view of ;

PHLEGON, Mirab. 3, as a Peri- the facts set out in n. 3 on p. 487

patetic and a distinguished infra, is questionable,
author, of whom he tells us a 3
So STOE. ibid. ;
see supra,
wonderful story about an alleged vol. ii. he did
p. 481, n. 3. Still,
occurrence of the year 191 B.C. not proposeoverlook the to
He is probably the same as the difference between the rational
Peripatetic whose Ata5ox* Dio- and the irrational in the soul;
genes often cites, and is. perhaps, for, according to PLUT. Fragm.
also to be identified with the 1, Utr. An. an Corp. c. 6, 2 (if
historian from Rhodes, who, ac- here AioScapos read for may be
cording to POLYBIUS, xvi. 14, AidSoi/ros, or take the if we may
was still alive during the first AidSoros adopted by Dfibner as
thirty years or so of the second being another form of the same
 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
2
is in reality less important than at first appears.
Erymneus,
3
the successor of Diodorus, we know only

name), allowed that the

he mus], re Aos airotyaiveTcu rb 0.0%-
Xoyiicbv the tyvxr] had its
of ATJTCOS /cal Ka\ws rjv.

special irddrj, and that the ffv/ji-

2
We find also a definition of
[sc. T o-cfyioTt] and a\oyov
<J>ues
Rhetoric ascribed to a Diodorus
had special iraflr? also which can ; (NiKOL. Procjymn. Rhet. Gr.
be reconciled with the airaQes apud SPENGEL, iii. 451, 7), which
of Stob. by supposing that he implies that he wrote about
held that the modifications of Rhetoric. There is the less
the rational portion of the soul, reason to doubt that this Dio
including the activities of dorus is the Peripatetic, since we
thought, were improperly de have seen that the same question
scribed traQos. arose in the cases of Aristo and
1
Gic.Fin.v. 5, 14: Diodorus, Critolaus siqjra, vol. ii. p. 483,
;

ejus [Critol.] auditor, adjungit n. 1.

ad honestatem vacuitatem doloris. The long and detailed frag
3

Hie quoque suus est de summo- ;

ment of POSIDONIUS, preserved
que bono dissentiens dici vere by ATHEN. v. 211, d sqq., gives
Peripateticus non potest. So also the history of one Athenion, de
25, 73, ii. 6, 19, and Acad, ii. 42, scribed as a Peripatetic, who had
131; cf. Fin. ii. 11, 34: Callipho studied first in Messene and in
ad virtutem nihil adjunxit, nisi Larissa (the addition that he
voluptatem Diodorus, nisi va : became head of the school in
cuitatem doloris. Tusc. v. 30, Athens is plainly a blunder of

85 Indolentiam autem honest-

: Athenaeus, which is refuted by
ati Peripateticus Diodorus ad his own quotation from Posi-
junxit. lUd. 87 Eadem [like :
donius), and had then contrived
the Stoics] Calliphontis erit Dio- by flattery to ingratiate himself
dorique sententia quorum uter- ;
with Mithridates, and so to make
que honestatem sic complectitur, himself for a time the master of
ut omnia, quse sine ea sint, Athens (meaning evidently the
longe et retro ponenda censeat. same man who is called Aristion
CLEMENS, Strom, ii. 415 c wol :
by PLUT. Sulla, 12, 13, 23, and
ir TTS elsewhere, and who is described
-yv6p.evos [as Hierony by APPIAN, Mithr, 28, as an Epi-
 488 ARISTOTLE

by name. With regard to Callipho and Dinomachus,

two philosophers who in ethics occupy an intermediate
position between the Epicureans and the Peripatetics,
we are wholly ignorant to which school they belonged.
1

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
most of the writings which our previous
investigation
excluded as spurious from the collected works of
Aristotle. While the contribution they supply is an
insignificant one, yet it is not so wholly worthless but
that it will repay us to examine its 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
present form from that period.
2
Important as these so-
called 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

curean) and Posidonius says

; as CLEMENT says, they sought
explicitly that this man was a it in pleasure, but they further
natural son of Athenion, a pupil explained that virtue was equally
of Erymneus. As Athens re- valuable or rather, according to
;

volted from
the rule of the Tiisc. v. 30, 87 indispensable.
Romans 88 B.C., it follows
in
According to Cic. Fin. v. 25, 73,
from the account given in this Callipho was older than
Fragment that Erymneus cannot Diodoru*. and according to Acad.
have begun his headship of the ii. 45, 139, older, or at any rate
school later than 120-110 B.C. not younger, than Carneades.
1
What is known of these two It is not stated to what school
philosophers through Cic. Fin. he and Dinomachus belonged;
ii. 6, 19, 11, 34 but EARLESS (Fabric. SiMloth.
(supra, vol. ii.
p.
487, n. 1), v. 8, 21, 25, 73, Acad. iii.
491) makes a gross mistake
ii. 42, 131, T-USG. v. 30, 85, 87, when he suggests that this Dino-
Offic,. iii. 34, 119, and CLEM, machus is Stoic mentioned
"the

Strom, ii. 415 limits itself to

c, by LuciAN, Pltilopseud. 6 sqq.
this: that they thought to find for the latter was evidently a
the highest happiness in the
contemporary of Lucia n.
union of pleasure and virtue, or, 2
vol.
Supra, i.
p. 64, n. ] .
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 489

and a like judgment must be passed

insignificant to us,
e
the chapter of the work Trspl ^p^r)vsias.
1
upon last

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,
of the Aristotelian doctrine.
/eno and Gorgias, of the date of whose composition
we know absolutely nothing, proves its spuriousness
not so much by any positive deviations from the Ari
stotelian teaching as by the defects of its historical
statements and critical expressions, as well as by the
4
general obscurity of its aim. Of works upon Physics
the book upon the World will hereafter engage our atten
tion as an example of the eclectic method of combining
5
Peripatetic and Stoic doctrines. The treatise upon In
divisible Lines which, if it is not the work of Theo-
6
phrastus himself, appears to date from his time, ably
combats a view which Aristotle had rejected. To the
school of Theophrastus and Strato perhaps belong the
treatisesupon Colours, Sounds, the Vital Spirit, and the

1
The Postprcedicamenta treat motion, in agreement with the
of (1) c. 10-1, the four views stated supra, vol. i. p. 428,
kinds of opposition which have n. 1; (5) c. 15, on the *x ll/ f

been described already, supra, the meanings of which are set

vol. i. p. 223 sqq. ;(2) c. 12, the out rather differently from the
different significations of the Aristotelian account in Metapli.
TTporepov, with a slight, but v. 23.
2
merely, formal dissent from Of. with supra, vol. i.
p. 66,
Metaph. v. 11; (3) c. 13, the n. 1.
3
signiti cations of the li/na, this sec- Supra, vol. ii.1. p. 429, n.
4
tion being only based in part Of. herewith ZELL. Ph. d.
upon the earlier texts and in Gr. i. 4G4 sqq.
part original (cf. WAITZ, ad 5
ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. iii. a,
foe.), though not contrary to the 558 sqq. 2nd ed.
views of Aristotle; (4) c. 14,
G
Cf. supra, vol. i. p. 86, n. 1,
concerning the six kinds of and ZELL. Ph. d. Gr. i. 868, 4.
490 ARISTOTLE
Motions of Animals works which are not without inde
pendence, and exhibit evidence of respectable work in
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 ;
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

Light described as the proper colour of fire 3 that it

is ;

4
is conceived of as corporeal is obvious, not
only from
its being classed, as we have
just seen, with the colours,
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
1
De Color, c. 1 PRANTL,
; 10, c. 3, 793, b, 33. For more
Arist. v. d. Farben, 108, finds in detailed theories on the origin
this treatise a confusion of two of the different colours, see c. 2, 3.
3
views (a) that darkness is either
: C. 1, 791, b, Gsqq. cf. with :

the absence or partial absence 791, a, 3.

4
of light (the latter in the case of Strato held the same views
shadows or of rays penetrating on this, but not Aristotle or
through the density of some Theophrastus ; supra, vol. i. p.
transparent body) and (J) that
; 518, n. 3, vol. ii. p. 379, n. 1.
5
blackness is to be explained in Lustre (o-Tt A^oj/) is (c. 3,
the manner stated in the text. 793, a, 12) a ffvvfx la (parks KOI
The inconsistency, however, is TTVKVOTIIS transparent matter
:

only apparent for the O-/COTOS,

: looks dark, when it is too thick
which produces the appearance to allow the rays of light to pierce
of the blackness (791, a, 12), is it, and bright when it is thin,
to be distinguished from the like air, which when not present
p.\av xp&pa) which is the quality in too dense a form is overcome
of bodies tending to check light by the rays :
x w P CtJLJ/os
l I^ 7r OUT&JJ
and produce VKOTOS (791, b, 17). TTVKvoTtpuv OIHTWV Kal 8ia(f>aivo/Ji.ev(av
2
C, 1, 791, a, 11, c. 2, 792, a, 5i avrov (c. 3, 794, a, 2
sqq.).
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STEATO 491

work upon Sounds, which in tone and method is related

to that on Colours, and is to be attributed perhaps to the
same author, it will be sufficient to refer to our previous
quotation from it. We must assume a different author
1

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
Aristotle as the primary substratum of the soul. This
book, on account of its fragmentary character and the
numerous corruptions in the text, is sometimes almost
incomprehensible to us. 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,
is
6
as Erasistratus had held, spreads from the heart by
means of the arteries through the whole body, and that
it is this (and not, as Aristotle held, the flesh) which
is the primary organ of sensation. 7 Inspiration, the
pulse, the consumption and distribution of the food, 8
are effects of the operation of the vital spirit, which
nourishes itself from the blood, the breath serving only,
as Aristotle had taught, to cool it. 9 The relation of the
1
Supra, vol. ii. p. 465, n. 8. phrastus (supra, vol. ii. p. 451, n.
As 2), and as to his theory of the
2
to which cf. also supra,
vol. i.
p. 89, 11. 3, ad Jin. dissemination of the pnenma
through the arteries, see SPREN-
3
Supra, vol. ii. p. 6, n. 2.
4
Of. c. 7, 484, b, 11 ,
27 sqq. GEL, Gesok. d. Arznuik. 4 ed. i.
c. 9, 485, b, 2 sqq. 525 sqq. on the relations of the
;

5
C. 9, 4S5, b, 11 ;
cf. with c. ir. TrvevpaTus to his teaching
1, 480, a, 17, c. 4, 482, b, 22, c. see KOSE, De Arist. Lilr. Qrd.
5, 483, a, 27 sqq. The subject 167-8.
7
of the treatise did not give any C. 5, 483, a, 23 sqq. b, 10-26,
occasion for the statement of any c. 2, 481, b, 12, 18.
s
view as to the Nous. C. 4-5.
6
As to this physician, who y
Cf. supra, vol. ii. p. 6, n. 2,
was probably a pupil of Theo- p. 43.
492 ARISTOTLE
1
operative pneuma, which was said to reside in the
sinews and nerves, 2 to this vital principal is not made
3
altogether clear.
Of a later date than this treatise, 4 and much more
clearly written, one upon the Motion of Animals,
is

which professes to be the work of Aristotle, 5 inad

6
missible as this claim is. 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

teaching. It starts from the principle that all mo

tion must ultimately be referred to a self-moving and
unmoved entity, 7 but proceeds by a singular applica
tion of it to draw the conclusion that every mechanical
1
C. 1-2, c. 5 ad Jin. where The first words of the ir.

at p. 484, a, 8 we must read :

Kivhffews present it as the
&C. completion of an earlier inquin
r
(TVfji^VTOV TTCCS T) Siap-Off), ,

3
The sinews and nerves were which is evidently meant to in
not distinguished by Herophilus, dicate the TT. ^<f
(av Topeias.
the discoverer of nerves, or
first Again in c. 1, 698, a, 7 we have
by his contemporary, Erasi- a reference to Pliys. viii. in c.

stratus, or indeed for a long time 6, at p. 700, b, 4, lines 21 and 9

afterwards, but they were desig (cf. supra, vol. i. p. 80) to the
nated as a whole by the common TT. TJ/VXTJS and the IT. rrjs TrpwT-rjs
term veDpa, which had originally in c. 11 ad Jin. to the
(f>i\offo<pias ;

signified theonly sinews ;

TT.
cpcav ^.op .tav, the TT. ^U^TJS, the
SPRENGEL, ibid. 511-12, 524-25. TT. aiffO /jcrecas Kal virvov Kal /ui/^/irjJ,
3
C. 8 init. (where at p. 485, and to the IT. yevto-eus as an y<av

a, 4 we should probably read :

immediately preceding treatise.
3 eVri \6yov &\TIOV ws These references are made jus*-,
vvv Ci?T6ii/) OVK 5^|ere K.ivr\-
: &j> in the way in which Aristotle
eveKa ra otTTa, aAAa /j.a\\ov himself was accustomed to quote
vevpa rb avdhoyov, eV $
ir)
his works. Nevertheless the v.
rb irvev/j.a rb Kivr)TiK6v. (?wv is so free, both in
KLvf]ffeu>s
*
As we see from the fact that style and matter, from any of the
the IT. TTj/evfjiaTos is quoted in the marks which would betray a very
TT. (pwv Kiv-fiffzcas c. 10, 703, a, 10 : late date, that we should not be
cf. supra, vol. i. p. 92. The pos justified in referring it to a time
sibility that both works have the subsequent to the war s, of Andro-
same author is not excluded: nicus.
but the style and manner of ex 6
Supra, vol. i. p. 93, n. 1.
pression differ too much. C. 1, 698, a, 7 sqq. (where
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 493

motion presupposes two unmoved entities in the :

thing itself a motionless point from which the motion

of it a motionless body
proceeds, and outside upon
which the thing rests ;
from which it again l
con
cludes that principle which propels the
the unmoved
world cannot ba within the latter, but must be out

side of it.
2
It further shows in a discussion with

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). In order that it should so
it is not necessary that it should leave
operate, however,
its seat in the heart and act directly upon all parts of the
since, in virtue of the principle
of order that
body,
5
governs the whole, its decrees find automatic fulfilment.

we should read TOUTOU 8e TO Aristotle s belief as to the still-

atcii/TjTOj/), and
700, b, 7.c. 6, ness of the earth, but this is
C. 1, 698, a, 11, c. 2 ad Jin.
1
; hardly his meaning. He is only
and c. 4, 700, a, 6 sqq. have We carried away in the heat of con-
also at 698, a, 11 the remarkable troversy into using an argument
statement 5e? Se TOVTO : povov ^
a\\a
which would make, in fact,
T<? \6ycf Ka06\ov Aa^elz/, KCU against Aristotle himself.
3
e-rrl TWV KaOeKaa-ra Kal rwv alffdfjTcai , C. 6-8; Sl(jjra,vo\. ii.
p. 110
Si avep Kal rovs KaQo\ov ^TOV^V sq.
l

\6yovs which is an exaggeration C. 9.

of the view which is indicated
a
C. 10. This recalls both the
as that of Aristotle, supra, vol. i. work quoted, the TT. irvevpaTos,
p 1(57. and also the TT. which, in
KO<T/J.OV,

C. 3-4, where the myth of

- the discussion it contains as to
Atlas referred to in De Ctelo, ii. the action of God on the world
1, 284, a, 18, is proved to be (c. 6, 398, b, 12 sqq, 400, b, 11
mechanically impossible. We sqq.), appears to have in view
might conclude from 699, a, 31 the passage referred to in the
that the author did not share text, as also c. 7, 701, b, 1.
 494 ARISTOTLE
The pamphlet ends with some remarks
upon involun
tary movements.
1

Among the superior pseudo-Aristotelian

writings
we must reckon also the Mechanical Problems?
which,
however, contain too little of a philosophical character
to detain us here. 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
the complete interdependence of 3
body and soul from ;

which it concludes that there must be certain

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.
On this latter subject many of its observations are not
without value. The tenth book of the Natural 4
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. At the earliest
it
belongs to the school of Strato. 6 The pseudo-
1
C. 11. urrep rov /nrj yevvav, which has
2
Supra, vol. i. p. 86, n. 1. been mentioned supra, vol. i. p.
3
C. 1 init. : ori al Sidvoiai 87, n. 1.
(irovrai ro?s Kal OVK ehlv 5
0-do/j.ao-i, C. 5, 636, b, 15, 26, 37, c. 6
avral Kaff eouros aTrafleTs ov<rai ruv Jin. C. 2, 634, b, 29, 36, c. 3, 636,
rov o-(t>naros Ktv^ffctav . . . Kal a, 11, c. 4 Jin. &c., wherewith cf.
rovvavriov 82? rots rrjs tyvxys irad f)- vol. ii. p. 50 sq.
6
p.affi r)i <r>/j.a ffu/j.ird(rxov fyaitpbv The female seed has already
yivfrai &c. 4 init.;
c. : So/ce? Se been discussed in connection
/uot rj tyvxb Kal rb trw^a (Tv/u.-jraOe iv with Strato, supra, vol. ii. p. 466,
dAAyjAots &c. This o-vpirdGeia re- n. 1. This book differs still
calls the terminology of the further from Aristotle (as KOSE,
Stoics. Arist. Libr. Ord. 172, points
4
Probably identical with the out) in that it inculcates that 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
1
received their present form.

Among the ethical works in the Aristotelian collection

there are three besides the Eudemian Ethics which are of
later Peripatetic originthe 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
from the books which are common to both of these)
2
for the 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 See supra, vol. i. p. 96 sqq.
!
;

and not, as Aristotle

TTi/eCjua,
believed, by the warmth of the
uterus (c. 2, 634, b, 34, c. 3, 636,
a, 4, c. 5, 637, a, 15 sqq.). That
the book is post- Aristotelian is
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.
and 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
SPENGEL, Abhandl. d
Cf.
Bayr. Akad
pliilos.-philol. Kl. d.
iii. 515-6; BRANDTS, ii. b, 1566.
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 with the spirit of the Aristotelian
ethics. 3 The author avoids the religious view of ethics
1

Kg. B. i. 1, 1183, b, 8 sqq. and into TeAeia and areA?). The

-
Soil. 3, 1199, a, l<)-b, 36, methods already introduced by
ii. 15, 1212, b, 37 sqq. i. 35,
1127, the Stoics seem to have influenced
b, 27 sqq. The difficulties so the writer of the M. Nor. in
seriously discussed at ii. 6, 1201, this matter, for we know some
16 sqq. are curiously and
a, thing of their fondness for mul
characteristically petty.
3
tiplying distinctions between
In this respect the following different senses of the ayaOttv, do
points may be noticed i. 2-3 :
quo v. STOB. ii. 92-102, 124-5,
gives us various divisions of the 130, 136-7; DIOG. vii. 94-98;
kinds of Good, of which only that Cic. Fin.iii. 16, 55; SEXT.
Pyrrh.
into spiritual, bodily, and exter iii.181 SENECA, Epist. 66, 5,
;

nal goods (in c. 3) is Aristote 36-7. As these Stoical classifi

lian, and the subdivision of the cations had their origin chiefly
spiritual goods into dpovna-ts, in the work of Chrysippus, we
aperrj, and 7)Soj/rj is taken from might found upon this circum
JKud. ii.
1218, b, 34, where,
1, stance an inference as to the
however, these three are not date of the M. Mor. itself.
given as a division, but are only Again, though it is not true that
intended as examples of spiritual the M. Mor. leaves out the clia-
goods. Peculiar to this author noetic virtues (for only the name
is the division of goods into the is wanting, and at i. 5,
1185, b,
n fua (God, the Soul, the Nous, 5, i. 35, the subject is really dealt
&c.), the eVatj/era (the Virtues), with), yet, on the other hand, it
the Swd/jLeis (a curious expression is against the Aristotelian
prin
for the Swd/j.i ayaOa, i.e. the ciples to say, as the author does,
things, such as riches, beauty, that only the virtues of the
&c., which may be used for good &\oyov (i.e. the ethical virtues,
or evil), and fourthly, the ffwffn- which, therefore, are alone named
KOV KO.I ironiTiKbv TOV ajaOov pecu ; dperal) are eTraij/erat, but that
liar to him also are the divisions those of the \6yov ^x ov are n t
into things which are good un 1185, b, 5 sqq. c. 35, 1197,
(i. 5,
conditionally or good condition a, 16).The author, in this respect
ally (i.e. virtues and external dissenting from Aristotle, under
goods), into re Arj and T\TJ (as ot>
the head of the dianoetic virtues
health and the means to health), combines reyi/Tj with t-mffr-hu.-!}.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER 8TRATO 497

which he found in Eudemus. 1

Of the later combina
tion of the Peripatetic teaching with Stoic and
Academic elements his work contains hardly a trace a
;

which term in the M. Mor. is

they are not always good for
constantly used for T^xvn (i- 35> individual people and when the ;

1197, a, 18, cf. with the Mo. Mh. author (in ii. 7, 1204, b, 25
sqq.)
vi. 5, 1140, b, 21 and 1198, a, 32,
; describes pleasure as a movement
ii. 7, 1205, a, 31, 120(5, of the sensitive
a, 25, cf. part of the soul,
Nic. Etli. vii. 12-13, 1152, b, 18, he follows Theophrastus rather
1153, a, 23; ii. 12, 1211, b, 25, than Aristotle cf supra ii DD ;
.

cf. Mo. Etli. x. 7, 1167 b, 33

; 147, 391, n. 2.
only in M. Mor. i. 35, 1197, a, 12 In the discussion on
1
!
evrvx a,
sqq. is re ^j/yj used in the same (M. Mor. ii. 8 End. vii. 14) the
;

\\ay as in Me. Etli. vi. 4, 1140, author that it consists

see SPENGEL, ibid. p. ^suggests
a, 11; in an eVi^Ae^ 0eij/, in that he
447) while, on the other hand,
;
supposes God to apportion good
the M. MOT. oddly adds to the and evil
according to merit and, ;
four remaining dianoetic virtues with Eudemus
(tii-pra, vol. ii. p.
viroA^is as a fifth (i. 35, 1196, b, 424 sq.), he traces it back
When the author defines partly
37). to a /J.7dwTca<Tis T>V
TTpay/m.dTcaj/,
justice in a wide sense as aper^j but partly also and to the
chiefly
reAem, and adds that in this sense happy disposition of the person s
a man can be just for himself nature (the <iW
alone (i. 94, 1193, b, &\oyos), the
2-15), he operation of which he compares
overlooks the closer definition with that of an
enthusiasm,
given by Aristotle, that it is the admitting, however, as did his
apery reAem Trpbs erfpov (supra, predecessors, that it is directed
vol. ii. p. 170, n. 2). As to the by a Divine Being. The author
question whether a man can do of the M. Mor. further
himself an injustice, which Ari agrees
with Eudemus (sujjra, vol. ii.
stotle had dealt with in the Mo. p.
425, n. 1) as to the union of all
Eth. v. 15 ad fin. metaphorically the virtues to form
as referring to the injustice of Ka\oKa.yaO ia
(ii. 9), and concludes with him
one part of the soul towards that the real function of ethical
another, the author of the M. virtues is that they
Mor. takes it literally (i. 34, guard the
active reason from
derangement
1196, a, 25, ii. 11, 1211, a, 27). by the passions; but he omits
So the question if a man can be the consideration of the relation
his own friend was similarly of reason to the Godhead and the
treated by EUDEMUS, vii. 6, 1240, doctrine that the
13 knowledge of
a, sqq. b, 28 sqq. and M. Mor. God is the final aim of life.
ii. 1211, a, 30 sqq.
11, The M. 2
The only passage in which
Mor. is
very unaristotelian in we can find any positive refer
the circumstance that (at ii. 3, ence to the doctrine of the Stoics
1199, b, 1) it includes Tyranny is that just cited, i.e. i. 2; there
as one of the things which
may is, perhaps, a negative reference
be good in themselves, even if in ii. 7, 1206, b, 17 :
aTrAcDs
VOL. II.
K K
498 ARISTOTLE

and partly on 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
third or at latest to the second century ;
but in
scientific independence it is decidedly inferior even to
the Eudemian Ethics. Of earlier date than the Magna
Moralia is without doubt the first book of the (Economics.
The contents of this 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 Household, the relation of Man and Wife,
and Slavery ;
}
the last of these he does not attempt to
2
justify. The most
original part of it refers to the
separation of Economics
as a special science from
Politics a modification of Aristotle s views which we
have already met with in Eudemus. 3 The book in
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
4
Aristotle s would afford further support to the con
jecture that Eudemus was its author. Philodemus,
5
however, attributes it to Theophrastus ; and although

ou%, us otovrai ol &\\oi, rrjs certainly cannot attribute to

operas apxfy Kal rj yf/j.cav effriv 6 Aristotle.
3
\6yos, aAAa p.a\\oi>
ra irddrj. Supra, vol. i. p. 186, n. 4.
4
Supra, vol. ii. p. 213 sqq. It is difficult to find, as in
1

-
This circumstance amongst the Ethics of Eudemus, any
others goes to prove that this doctrine that can be called un-
work is not an Aristotelian Aristotelian but the expression
;

sketch antecedent to the Politics, T^V TWV larpuv 8waiJ.iv, c. 5, 1244,

but is based 011 the cognate b, 9, is surprising,
section of the Politics itself and
s
De Vit. ix. ( Vol. Here, iii.)
is an elaboration of it which we Col. 7, 38, 47, 27, 15, where chaps.
 PERIPATETIC SCHOOL: AFTER STRATO 499

all we can conclude from this is that several MSS. bore

1
his name, 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
is inferior in value.
Its contents consist
chiefly of a
collection of anecdotes in illustration of a
point in Ari
stotle s doctrine, 3
introduced by a dry and somewhat
singular enumeration of the different kinds of 4
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
predominating feature.
The Rhetoric
dedicated to Alexander, which, as
5
formerly remarked, cannot be previous to Aristotle, is
the work of a rhetorician whose date cannot be further
determined. It need not here delay us, as it exhibits
no philosophical originality.
Even with these pseudo-Aristotelian our
books,
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 number
1-5 of the Economics are sub- or spurious, attributed to Ari-
mitted to a detailed and search- stotle.
ing criticism. Of. as to this and *
The absence of the Econo-
as to certain variations of the mics from the list of works by
Philodemian from the common Theophrastus given by Diogenes
text which it indicates, the notes
proves little.
of the [editor and his preface 3
Supra, vol. ii. p. 222 n 2
(Vii.-Viii.).
4
The a(nAMe ^ ffarpairiK),,
1
Supra, vol. ii.
p. 204, n. 2, TTO\ITM)I, and ISwriicf) followed.
vol. n. 1 (T. &,r6fjL<av
i.
p. 86, by a catalogue of the various
ypaw&v) 104, and ZELL. Ph. d. sources of income belonging to
Gr. i. 476, 1, where it is shown each of these,
that this was the case with 5
vol.
Supra, i.
p. 74, n. 3.
many of these works, genuine
KK2
500 ARISTOTLE

and copiousness. Nevertheless such imperfect know

ledge as we have places us in a position to form a true

estimate of the development of this school as a whole.
We see under Theophrastus and Strato, taking an
it,

honourable place till towards the middle of the third

century we see it especially making important con
;

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

sistently followed out must have involved
the abandon
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
in science, and simultaneously also in logic and meta
physics, ceased, and the school began
to confine itself

to ethics and rhetoric, and that historical and philo

sophical erudition which with all its

extent and variety

compensates us neither with a healthy criticism of

tradition nor a broad treatment of history for its poverty
in philosophic thought. This was the signal for its

relapse into a position of subordinate importance. It

continued nevertheless to do good service in propagat
ing the knowledge of earlier researches, and
in forming

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
schools. But the lead in the scientific movement had
passed into other hands, and we have to
seek in the
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 in which Aristotle s Politics has come down to us (as

to which see also i.
presents many peculiar features.
100, 11. 1)
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
place, 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.),
proceeding by way of introduction to criticise the most famous
States, 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 Monarchy and Aristocracy have been disposed of,
viz. Oligarchy, 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

gates the various possible arrangements for the bodies entrusted

with legislative, executive and judicial powers. Bk. v. is devoted
to the question of change in the different forms of government,
their 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
state. Bk. vii. begins (1-3) the treatment of the best 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 and kindred questions

(vii. 15, 1134, b, 5-viii. 7). The work ends informally with the
discussion of Music.
Even earlier scholars recognised that neither the scope nor
the 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 ST-
HILAIRE (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. Bonn, 1851, p. 67 sqq. 112
sqq.), BRANVis(Gr.-rdm>PhiL ii. p. 1666 sqq. 1679 sq.), and others.
WOLTMANN (
Ueb. d. Ordnung d. Biicher in 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 503

viii. from their present place. HILDENBRAND (Gescli. u. Syst. d.

Beclits- und Staatspliil. i. 345-385 cf. FECHNER, Gerechtigkeits-
;

begr. d. Arist. p. 65, p. 87, 6), on the contrary, defends the

traditional order of v. and vi., but inserts vii. and viii. between
iii. and iv. The traditional arrangement of both these sections
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 ;

itscurious suggestion that the Politics follows the order of the

four causes, see SPENGEL, loc. cit. 48 sq., HILDENBRAND, op. cit.
390 sq.), HOSE (De Arist. Libr. Orel. 125 sq.), BENDIXEN (Zur
Politik d. Arist. Philol. xiii. 264-301 see ; HILDENBRAND,
p. 496), and others. No modern scholar accepts CONRING S
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
Arist. Polit. Libr. p. 12 ;
see HILDENBRAND, p. 449) held that
two books, SCHNEIDER (Arist. Polit. i.
p. viii, ii.
p. 232) that the
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, we ask how we are to explain the present state of
the text, the common opinion is
that the work was completed
by Aristotle himself, but thatwas subsequently mutilated and
it

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.),

who holds that Aristotle intended to insert the essay on the

ideal state which is begun in bks. vii. and viii. between iii. and
iv., but postponed completion till he should have written
its

bks. iv. and v. and was overtaken by death before he had

finished either it or bk. yi., which was to follow v.

(Some further references to the literature of the subject will

be found in BARTHKLEMY ST-HILAIRE, p. 146 sq. ; NICKES, p. 67 ;
504 ARISTOTLE
BENDIXEN, 265 345
p. sq. ; HILDENBRAND, p. 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. are clearly
i.
preparatory to a discussion of the best state.
This discussion 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,
30, b, 14, c. 3, 1290, a, 1 (cp. vii. 8, 9), c. 7, 1293, b, 1, also c. 4,
1290, b, 38 (cp. iv. 3, vii. 3), and even c. which see
1 (on
SPENGEL, p. 20 sq.). If it be urged that the words Ka \
ntpl
rag a\\as TroXirelas fip.lv 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
takes them
(p. 363 sq.). The words in question, however, fit so
illthe 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 preliminary
review in iv. 2, 1289, b, 12 sq. The other arguments, that
e.g.
the words eV rfj /tetfo So) rfj -rpb ravrrjs in vi. 2, 1317, b, 34, refer
to iv. c. 15, as though it
immediately preceded, and that v. 9,
1309, b, 16, TO 7roAAa /ay elp^^evov refers to vi. 6 as well as to
iv. 12, 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
 APPENDIX 505

iv. 12, where the principle that the supporters of the existing
constitution should consider their opponents, although only
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, b, 24, 31, 37, as well as 15) emphasised. The

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 here mentioned, the first three are dis
cussed in iv. 3-13, the fifth (the (pflopal and o-aTrjpiat rcoz>

TroAtreteoz/) iii v., while it is all the more likely that the section
iv. 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 ^ vrl v fJ-veinv : hence also the vvv iv. 15, 1300, a, 8), and as
the scheme of this discussion w hich
r
is laid down in iv. 14 init.
is actually carried out in c. 16. It is quite natural, therefore,
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. That we
should even be wrong in doing so is proved by the passages in
vi. which admittedly refer to v., viz. c. 1 init. and fin. c. 4,

1319, b, 4, c. 5, 1319, b, 37 since in all these passages the

;

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. Finally, the incompleteness of the discussions in
vi. is more 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

irremediably corrupt. In the second place, we have several

isolated passages which are undoubtedly insertions by a later
hand, 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
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
him untouched (see vii. 14, 1333, b, 16 sq. c, 15, 1334,
to leave

1339, a, 4, and more fully on this and other points the

b, 8, viii. 4,
section on the best state) the life of the family, the education
;

of the treatment of children (iraidovopia), property, the

women,
treatment of slaves, drinking booths, are merely mentioned to
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,

b, 24) the constitution of the ideal state is only sketched on

;

the most general lines, vii. 15 similarly we look in vain for

;

any account 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
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 of constitution, and express
reference is made 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 507

\yoptv rals TroAireiat?, airavra ravra o-a>ei ray

and iii. 15, 1286, a, 2: ro }iV ovv Trepi rrjs roiavrrjs orparr/ytay

v6p.(ov ex ft ft XXoi fidos rj TroXtTftas WOT (r$co TTJV

d<pfi

Cf. HILDENBRAND, 351 sq. 449 sq. If we consider

how much spacethese discussions would have required, we
all

can easily understand how large a part of the essay on the best
state which Aristotle had designed is wanting. But the last-
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
(4)
we ought to explain the form in which the work
accordingly
has come down to us, we have not sufficient data to decide.
But the circumstance that the chief lacunce are at the end of
the second and third of the 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
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

(Jahrbb.f. PhiloL xcix. 593 sq. ci. 343 sq 349 sq. Arist. Polit.
li.
sq.), and ONCKEN (Staatsl. d. Ar. 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,
p. 122 sq.). The passage from Politics, vii. 1, discussed in
vol. i.
p. 115, n. 4, itself contradicts this hypothesis. On
similar 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
see i. 3, 1253, b, 14, i. 8 init. i. 9, 1257, b, 14, vii. 1, 1323, b, 36,
vii. 2, 1325, a, 15), or of reference, as in iii. 12, 1282, b, 20
(ol /caret
Xoyot, ev ois fttobptorcu nepl TMV rjdiKwv), viii.
(f)i\o(To<piav

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,
n. 4). 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
full fornotes 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,
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 soul, ii. 4, 90-98, 101,
Accidents, i. 213, 223, 281 130, 390-92, 436-38, 467-70,
Actuality, i. 278, 340 ii. 97 ;
480
Alexander the Great, i. 21-43,
CALLISTHENES, 32 ii. 348, 445
169, 396 ii. 255
i. ;
;

i. 64, 147, 155, 192,

Analytics, i. 67, 124, 147, 191, Categories,
211, 232,265; ii. 363 274-90 ;
ii. 421, 488
Anaxagoras, i. 307, 442 ii. 11 ; Categories, i. 274 foil.
Andronicus his edition of Ari: Catharsis, ii. 307, 311-17
stotle s works, i. 49-51, 112, Cause, i. 355 ii. 456-57 ;

137 of Theophrastus works,

;
Change, i. 302, 347, 366, 395,
ii. 352 423, 441
Animals, ii. 21, 37, 85-89, 90 Citizen, ii. 227-33, 261-62
- History of, 87-88, 125, 149, Clearchus, ii. 443-45
155, 494 smaller tracts as to,
;
Concepts, i. 192, 212, 298, 376 ;

i. 91, 152; ii. 39, 110

ii. 336
Constitution, forms of, ii. 233-
Aristo, ii. 477-79
Aristocracy, ii. 215, 241-44, 255, 58, 441-42, 501
362-64
273, 278-82, 501
i.
Contingency,
Aristotle, Life and Character, i. Contradiction, principle of, i.
1-47 225-51, 304
Philosophy, general view of, Conversion, i. 236, 240
i. 161-71; method, i. 171- Corpus Aristotelicum, i. 105, 131,
80; divisions, i. 180-90; ii. 145, 177
336-37 Courage, ii. 167
48-160 Critolaus, ii. 479 foil.
Works, i.

Aristoxenus, i. 11 ;
ii. 429-38
Art, i. 464 ;
ii. 301-24 DE ANIMA, i. 89, 150, 378 ;
ii. 1

Apxal, 344, 355, 392, 409, 507

i. Death, ii. 77, 133
Definition, i. 70, 75, 192, 213,
Atomists, i. 305-08, 426, 434,
442-58 ii. 455-56 ;
265-70
Axioms, i. 248-52 Demetrius of Phalerus, i. 142 ;

ii. 351, 447

BEAUTY, ii. 191, 264, 301-04, 331 Democracy, ii. 238-41, 274-
Becoming and Being, i. 294-95, 77, 501
297, 302, 310, 324, 341, 347, Democritus, i. 210, 442-58 ;
ii.

366 5, 36, 455-61

510 ARISTOTLE
Demonstration, ii. 294 foil. 1
Freedom the Will, i. 230,
of
Desire, ii. 108-15, 160 363 114-18, 129, 399
;
ii.

Dialectic, i. 173, 185, 252, 255 ; Friendship, i. 29 ii. 148, 191, ;

ii. 290-92 202

Dialogues, i. 55-61, 177
Dicasarchus, i. 151 ii. 438-42 ; GOD, i. 389-416, 470; ii. 122,
Difference, i. 70, 223 211, 327-33, 343, 364, 370-
Diodorus, ii. 486 71
Diogenes, Catalogue of Aristotle s Goods, external, ii. 139, 144-
works, i. 2, 48, 144-52 53, 496
Dreams, ii. 72, 76 community of, ii. 222-24

ii. 262-72, 307

HAPPINESS, i. 116, 151; ii.
EDUCATION,
138-53, 208, 487-88
Eleatics, i. 309-10, 323
Elements, i. 469-520 Hieronymus, ii. 475
History of Animals, i. 87
Empedocles, i. 304, 442, 450 ii. ;

5, 12-13, 413
Household, ii. 213-27
Epicurus, i. 9 ii. 350 ;

IDEAS, Platonic theory of, i.

Essence, i. 163, 194-95, 213,
162, 204, 296-97, 313-27,
220, 337 ii. 10 ;
436 ii. 337-47
Ethical Theories: of Aristotle, ;

i. 159, 168; ii. 136, 225 Identity, i. 223

of Plato, ii. 147, 161 Imagination, ii. 70; 85
of later Peripatetics, i. 157;
ii. 399, 410, 412, 422-91

of other schools, ii. 158, 432

^
Immortality, ii. 129-30,
471-72, 482
Impulse, ii. 155-56
134,

Individual, 167, 195, 296, 329,

i.
Ethics, Nicomachean, i. 44, 73,
369-74 224, 338 ii.
98, 116, 132, 250, 318
;
ii. 137, ;

Induction, i. 202, 212, 252

153, 166-67, 177-78, 333,
Infinity, i. 350, 427
495, 498
Eudemian Ethics, i. 97, 115, 143, Insight, ii. 157-59, 163, 166,
177, 182-88 (see also
157, 250, 397, 427, 495, 497- */>o-

98
Eudemus, i.55, 80, 1 10, 135, 142 ;

JUDGMENT, i. 229 foil.

ii. 115, 148, 234-35, 358-63,
417-29, 497-98
Justice, ii. 170-176, 192, 196
Evolution, i. 196 ii. 24
Exoteric teaching, i. 27, 110,
;
KNOWLEDGE and Opinion, i. 46,
70, 163, 194-203, 319, 336 ii.
121, 223
;

180, 367, 392

Experience (see Knowledge)
LOGIC, i. 191-273
FINAL CAUSE, i. 174, 356, 404, Lyceum, i.27, 36 ii. 479 ;

459 Lyco, ii. 474-75, 479

First Philosophy, i. 76, 184, 189,
273, 290, 417 ;
ii. 4 (see also MAGNA MORALIA, i. 80, 97, 150
Metaphysics ) ii. 137, 495-96
Form and Matter, i. 179, 204, Mathematics, i. 183-84, 418;
329, 340-80 ii. 339 ;
ii. 364
 INDEX 511

Matter (see Form and Matter) Personality, i. 402 ; ii. 125, 134-
Mean, doctrine of the, ii. 162- 35
64, 168, 170, 177-78 Phanias, ii. 4 3 1

Melissus, i. 309, 311 ii. 489 ; Phormio, ii. 483

Memory, ii. 70, 85 Physics, i. 81-86, 124, 417, 520 ;

Metaphysics, i. 62, 76, 124-36, ii. 376, 419, 489

6,
160, 274-327, 328-416; ii. Planets, i. 501 ii. 464 ;

204, 364, 369 j

Plants, i. 93-94 ii. 33-37 ;

Meteorology, i. 83, 149, 155, 512- !

Plato, Aristotle s relations to:

20 personal, 6-18 i.
philoso ;

Methodology, i. 193, 212 phical, i. 161-62, 296, 420,

Modality, i. 233 428, 477, 508 ii. 161, 259 ;

Monarchy, ii. 243, 249-55, 501 aesthetics of, ii. 301, 307
Motion, i. 380-89, 394, 422, Ideal Theory, i. 313 foil. ;

473; ii. 339, 365-66, 373- ii. 337 foil

75, 463, 492-93 Religion, ii. 325-35
Music, ii. 266-68, 301, 308,311- Republic, ii. 222-23, 262
14, 319, 415, 432-35, 465- (see also Ideas)
66 Pleasure, ii. 75, 108-11, 141,
146-49, 157, 481
NATURAL HISTORY, 29-30. 259- Poetics, i. 102, 127, 151, 155; ii.
60, 417-68 ;
ii. 16-49, 81-89, 204, 303, 310, 501
381-90. (For Aristotle s Poetry, 301-06, 309, 319
Natural History, see Animals, UoXirciat, i. 30, 49, 58, 101
History of} Politics, i.
127, 100-01,
133,
Nature, i. 359-64, 417-68; 155; 137, 178,ii. 203-88,
ii. 10-21, 343, 454 335, 501 (Appendix)
Necessity, i. 358, 362 Polity, ii. 234, 274, 280, 345, 501
Nous, i. 199, 201, 248 ii. 93- ; Possibility, i. 340-48, 278
105, 131-32, 181, J84 Postulates, i. 248-49
Potentiality, i. 347-55, 378-
(ECONOMICS, i. 100, 151, 186 ii. ;
85
166, 495-98 Pre-Socratics, i. 161, 313

Oligarchy, ii. 239, 274, 277-78, Problems, i. 87, 96, 106 ;

ii. 495
501 Production, ii. 220 foil.
Opinion (see Knowledge) Proof, i. 68, 128, 191, 212, 243-
Organon, i. 69, 193-194 56 293-98
;
ii.

Property, ii. 220-27

n. eftUTjvefas, i. 49, 50, 66, 114, Pseudo-Arist. Writings, i. 63-64 ;

147, 192 ;
ii. 489 ii. 379, 488-99

n. &WV 7ej>eVea>s,
i. 50, 90, 92, Ptolemy, i. 52, 91, 96
125 ;
ii. 48 - Philadelphus, i. 139, 142, 144 ;

n. &<av p.opi(av, i. 50, 83, 92-93, ii. 448, 451, 453

125 - Lagi, ii. 448
n. ^vxns, i. 55, 89 foil., 158 Philometor, ii. 485
Perception, 202-11 ;
ii. 59-60, Physcon, ii. 486
106, 468 Punishment, ii. 172, 271
Peripatetics, i. 27, 137, 441 ;
ii. Pythagoreans, i. 63, 282, 311, 320,
105, 340-47, 348-500 428 ii. 9, 431
;
 512 ARISTOTLE
REASON, i. 180; ii, 93-109, 113, Syllogism, i. 67, 70, 191-92, 233 ;

120-35, 179, 182, 392-95 ii. 361

Religion, ii. 325-35
Republic, ii. 249 TEMPEEANCE, ii. 188-89

Rhetoric, i. 72-74, 107, 127. 155 ; Theophrastus, i. 36, 79, 135, 137,
ii. 289-99 148, 234-35 ii. 32, 105, 349;

Rhetoric to Alexander, i. 73-74, Time, i. 282, 433; ii. 105, 461-64

148 ii. 499
; Tories, i. 68, 107, ] 24-36, 101,
Rhetoric, school of, i. 28, 414 265 ii. 363
;

Eight, ii. 175 foil. Tragedy, ii. 310, 316-24

Tyranny, ii. 241, 274, 282, 501
SCEPSIS, cellar of, i. 137-41 ;
ii.

204 UNIVEESALS, i. 167,

194-95,214,
Science, i. 164, 178, 194, 211, |
296, 329, 338-39, 369 ii. 224, ;

290, 335 ;
ii. 355 338, 343
Self-control, ((rw^/jotrwrj), ii. Universe, i. 469, 520 ii 377-81 ;

167, 188 Uprightness (/foAoKayafli a), ii. 426

Sensation, 305 i. ;
ii. 43, 58, 66,
70, 108, 468 VIETUE, ii. 90, 142, 153-62, 185,
Senses, ii. 62-70, 396-98, 468-70 j
208-10
Sex, ii. 48-58, 466 Virtues, ii. 163-77, 496-97
Slaves, ii. 161, 166, 216-19 intellectual, ii. 107, 177-202,

Sleep, ii. 68, 75, 470 344, 496-97

Socrates, i. 1, 162, 171-80, 213, j
Virtues and Vices, ii. 495
313, 392 ii. 100, 337, 344
;

Socratic Schools, i. 313 WILL, ii. 108-18, 126-29, 135, 155,

160, 188-89, 344
Sophists, i. 162, 296-97, 312 Women, ii. 214, 220, 224, 262
Sotion, ii. 483 270, 506
Soul, ii. 1, 92-94, 119-23, 130-35, !

World, eternity of, i. 469 ;

ii

344, 395-96, 467-72, 481, 486, 331, 482

491, 493 structure of, i. 472
Space, i. 282, 432-37; ii. 105, unity of, i. 485
461
Speusippus, i. 19, 320-22 XENOCEATES, i. 15, 320
Spheres, i. 304, 489-501 Xenophanes, i. 309 ;
ii. 332
Stars, i. 492 foil.. 504 ii. 464-65 ;

State, ii. 193, 203-13, 411, 501 ZENO.i. 296-97, 310, 439; ii. 355,
the best, ii. 241, 258-74 489
Strato, i. 141-2; ii. 450-72
Substance, i. 284-90, 293, 330- i. 186
, ii. 107, 178, 184.
;

*
37, 373 309, 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