ARISTOTLE

FUNDAMENTALS OF THE
HISTORY OF HIS DEVELOPMENT
BY
WERNER JAEGER
Translated wzth the author's correctzons
and addztzons by
RICHARD ROBINSON
H rAP NOY ENEPrEIA ZWH
SECOND EDITION
OXFORD
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
Oxford UmverSlty Press, Ely House, London W I
Gl.ASGOW mw YOItIl: TORONTO MlUIOlJRNE WElliNGTON
CAPE TOWN SAUSBVRY IBADAN NAIROBI l.USAItA ADDIS ABABA
BOMBAY CALcunA MADRAS KAIIAOU l.AHORE DACCA
KUALA l.UMPUR HONG KONG TOKYO
FIRST PUBl.ISHED 1934
SECOND EDITION 1948
REPRINTED l.ITHOGRAPHICAl.l.Y IN GREAT BRITAIN
1950, 1955. 1960, 196:1, 19
6
8
THE TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
TO THE SECOND EDITION
I
N this edition I have made about a score of alterations. most
of them suggested by two reviewers of the first editIon,
Professor BenedIct Emarson In ClassJcal Phzlology, 1935, and
Professor Harold Chermss m The AmencanJournal of Phzlology,
1935 Of the two new appendIxes, the first comes from The
Phzlosophzcal e v ~ e w 1940, and was wntten In EnglIsh by
Professor Jaeger The second comes from Sztzungsbenchte dey
preussJSchen Akademze dey Wzssenschaften, Phdosophlsch-
hlstonsche Klasse, 1928, and IS translated by myself
The editIon has a new and more complete Index, the work
of Mr James E Walsh of Harvard Umverslty, to whom the
author has asked me to make thIS acknowledgement
R R

THE TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
T
HIS IS a translatIon of Arzstoteles, Grundlegung emer Ge-
semer EntwJcklung, whIch was publIshed at Berhn
III 1923 by the Weldmannsche Buchhandlung I have consulted
the author on the meamng of numerous sentences, and he has
made several alteratIons and additIons to the Gennan text as
It appeared ill 1923 The accuracy of the rendenng has been
cntJclzed ill part by Dr Fntz C A KoHn The propnety of the
EnglIsh has been cntIclZed almost throughout by Dr Jame5
Hutton. I am very grateful to these gentlemen
ThIS translatIon IS mtellIglble to persons who know no Greek
All Greek IS rendered mto English, and the books of anCIent
wntmgs are referred to not by Greek letters but by Roman
numerals The only exceptIon to tlus rule IS Anstotlc's Meta-
phys:cs, where a pecuhar SItuatIOn make:, any use of numerals
confusmg
For ease of recogmtIon I have adopted standard translatIons
of Greek authors as far as possIble I thank the Trustees of the
Jowett Copynght Fund and the Delegatt's of the Oxford Ulll-
ver<nty Preo;., for permISSIOn to use theIr tfan<;latlOn of the works
of Anstotle, and Mes<;rs Hememann, the publIshers of the Loeb
ClassIcal LIbrary, for pernm.sIOn to replOduce R D HIcks's
translatIon of Anstotle's WJIl I have ventured to quote an
occasIOnal sentence from other trJ.nslators Without askJng per-
DIfferences of mterpretatIon between Professor Jaeger
and the Oxford translators have sometImes oblIged me to depart
from theIr rendenng The quotatIono; flom Iambhchus are trans-
lated by myself
R R

WJ.
THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE
GERMAN EDITION
T
HIS book, bemg at once treatIse and monograph, demands a
bnef word of e>..planatIon
It does not seek to give a systematic account, but to analyse
Anstotle's wntmgs so as to discover m them the half oblIterated
traces of his mental progress Its bIOgraphical framework IS
mtended merely to make more palpable the fact that hIS pre-
VIOusly undifferentiated mass of composItIons falls mto three
dIstInct penods of evolutIOn Owmg to the meagreness of the
matenal the picture that we thus obtamIS of course fragmentary ,
yet Its outhnes constItute a dlstmctly clearer VIew of Anstotle's
mtellectual nature and of the forces that msplred hIS thmkmg
Pnmanly, thiS IS a gam to the hIstory of phIlosophICal problems
dnd ongms The author's mtentlOn IS, however, not to make a
contrIbutIOn to systemJ.tlc phIlosophy, but to throw lIght on the
portion of the hIstory of the Greek mmd that IS deSignated by the
name of Aristotle
Smce 19J6 I have repeatedly given thf' results of these re-
'>carches as lectures at the umversltIes of Klel and Berlm, even
the lIterary form, With the exception of the conclUSIOn, was estab-
lIshed III essentIals at that tIme The lIterature that has Sll1ce
dppearcd IS not very Important for Anstotle lllm!>elf anyhow, and
I have noticed It only !>o far as I have learnt somethmg from It
or am oblIged to contradIct It The reader WIll look m vam
the results even of earlIer so far as they concern
merely ummportant changes of opmlOn or of form, such matters
have nothmg to do WIth development StIll less has my purpose
been to analyse all ArIstotle's wntmgs for theIr own sake and
to complete a microSCOpIC exammatlOn of all theIr stages The
ann was solely to elUCidate m ItS concrete slgmficance, by
of eVIdent eMmples, the phenomenon of hIS mtellectual develop-
ment as such
In conclUSIon I offer my profoundest thanks to the pubhsher,
who, m spite of the unfavourableness of the tImes, boldly under-
took the whole nsk of publlshmg thIS book.
BERLIN, Easte,., 1923
CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction THE PROBLEM
PART I
3
THE ACADEMY
Chapter I THE ACADEMY AT THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE'S
ENTRANCE IJ
Chapter II EARLY WORKS 24
Chapter III THE EUDEMUS 39
Chapter IV THE PROTREPTICUS 54
PART II
TRAVELS
15
228
Chapter V ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA
Chapter VI THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPH"Y
VChapter VII THE EARLIEST METAPHYSICS
-kbapter VIII THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS
Chapter IX THE ORIGINAL ETHICS
Chapter X THE ORIGINAL POLITICS
Chapter XI THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS AND
COSMOLOGY
259
293
PART III
MATURITY
Chapter XII ARISTOTLE IN ATHENS )11
Chapter XIII THE ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH 324
Chapter XIV THE REVISION OF THE THEORY OF THE PRIME
MOVER 342
Chapter XV ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 368
APPENDIXES
I DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS A Nll.w PUPIL OF ARISTOTLE 407
II ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 426
INDEXES 4
6
3

THE PROBLEM
A RISTOTLE was the first thinker to set up along Wlth rus
flphl.1osophya conceptIon of his own posItIon In history, he
thereby created a new kind of phl.1osophlcal conSCIOusness, more
responsible and Inwardly complex He was the Inventor of the
notIon of Intellectual development m time, and regards even
hiS own achievement as the result of an evolutIon dependent
solely on ItS own law Everywhere m hiS expositIOn he makes
hiS own Ideas appear as the dIrect consequences of hiS cnticlsm
of hiS predecessors, especially Plato and hiS school It was,
therefore, both phl1osophlcal and Anstotehan when men fol-
lowed him m thiS, and sought to understand hun by means of
the presuppositions out of which he had constructed hiS own
theones
Such attempts, however, have not given us a vIvid insight
Into the mdlvldual nature of hiS phl1osophy, and thiS cannot
surpnse the phl1ologlst, who IS not accustomed to use a writer's
own estimate of himself as an objective document, or to take
hiS standards from It It was especially unprofitable to Judge
Anstotle, as was actually done, by hiS understandmg of hiS
predecessors, as If any phl1osopher could ever understand hiS
predecessors In thiS sense Surely there can be only one poSitive
standard for Anstotle's personal achievement, and that IS not
how he cntlclzes Plato but how he hlffiself Plat;)mzes (since

that IS what phllosophlZlng means to him) \\'hy he gave

thiS partIcular dlrectlOn to knowledge cannot be explamed
merely from prevIous history, but onlyfrom hiS own phl1osophlcal
development, Just as he himself does not slffiply denve Plato's
posItIon In the history of Greek thought from hiS predecessors,
but explams It as the result of the meeting of those hlstoncal
Influences and Plato's own creative onglnahty In the treatment
of mtellectual progress, If we are to give full weight to the
creatIve and undenved element In great indiViduals, we must
supplement the general tendency of the times With the orgamc
development of the personal1ty concerned Anstotle himself
shows the close relation between development and fonn, the
4 ARISTOTLE
fundamental conception of hIS phIlosophy IS 'embodied form
that hves and develops' (Goethe) The aim IS, he holds, to know
the fonn and the entelechy by means of the stages of ItS growth
ThiS IS the only way In whIch the element of lawIn an Intellectual
structure' can be directly intUIted As he says at the begInmng
of hiS lecture on the prehmInary stages of pohbcallIfe, here and
elsewhere we shall not obtain the best insight Into things untIl
we actually see them growing from the begmmng'
It IS one of those almost incomprehensIble paradoxes m which
the hIstory of human knowledge abounds, that the pnnclple of
orgamc development ha'> never yet been apphed to ItS ongmator,
If we exclude a few effort.. \\-hlch, though praIseworthy, have
been qUIte partial and therefore Without mfluence It IS no
exaggeration to say that, at a time when a whole lIterature has
been assembled about the development of Plato, scarcely any
one speaks of that of Anstotle and almost nobody knows any-
thmg about It In fact, our failure to apply the evolutionary
pomt of view to hIm has finally come to be taken for an
indication of hi'> objective difference from Plato' WhIle the
history of the latter'!> development threaten" gradually to
bhnd us to the constructIve Impulse that form... one of the
fundamental clements of hIS thought, we have become accus
tomed to regard It as almo!>t a !>Ign of phllo'>ophlCal stupidity
to inqUIre Into the chronology and development of Anstotle's
doctnne and Its sources For, '"c thmk, the monad, carrYing
timelessly wlthm Itself the germ of all partIcular!>, ~ s preCl,>ely
the system
'The main reason why no attempt has yet been made to
descnbe An!>totle'!> development IS, bnefly, the !>chola!>tIc nohon
of hiS p l o s o p ~ y as a static system of conceptIOn!> HIS inter-
preters were past masters of hiS dIalectical apparatu!>, but they
had no personal expenence of the forces that prompted hiS
method of mqUIry, or of hiS charactenstIc mterplay of keen
and abstract apodIctIc \Hth a VIVid and orgamc sense of form.
Anstotle's e;pmtuahsm IS saturated WIth an mtUltIve vIsion of
reahty The stnct ngour of hie; demon!>tratIons I'> only the
salutary cham WIth whIch the fourth century restrained ItS
overflowmg energies The faIlure to reahze thiS goes back to the
separation of the more speCIfically philosophIcal parts of hi'>
THE PROBLEM 5
doctnne, the logic and the metaphysIcs. from the studies of em-
plfll.al realIty, a separatIOn which was accomplished by the hme
of the third generation In the Penpatos The servIce done later
by the lme of commentators begmnmg With Andromcus (first
century Be), to whom we owe the preservatIon of the treatIses,
was very great By chngmg to the letter of the tradition they far
surpassed the pitIable successors of Theophrastus and Strato In
e},.actness of comprehenSIOn But even they could
not restore the ongmal spmt There was no 'iteady advance of
natural and mental SCIence to 'ierve as breedmg-ground, and
therefore none of that frUItful mteractIOn between expenence
and conceptIOn flOm \\hlch ATlstotle's speculatlve notlons had
drawn theIr fleXibIlIty and theIr adaptlve power Smce then
there has been no break m the contmUIty of our Idea of Anstotle
Without a gap the Onental tradItion follows that of the com-
mentators, and OCCIdental ArIstotehamsm follo\\s the OrIental
Each of them had an educatIOnal effect on ItS age that cannot
be overestlmated, but their peculIar characterIstlc IS Just that
purely conceptual scholastlclsm which had already barred the
anCIent world from a hvmg under:>tandmg of Anstotle Men
were unable to apprehend hIS as the product of hiS
speCIal gemus workmg on the problems set him by hIS age, and
so they confined theIr attentIOn to the form m whIch It was
expressed, WIthout havmg any notion ho\\ It had grown to be
what It was In the meantlme one of the mam sources for hiS
development, the dIalogues and letters, had been lost, and the
tradItIonal attItude alone was to blame ThIS prevented aJl
access to hiS personahty So It came about that the new love
whIch the humamsts aroused for antlql1lty dId not make any
dIfference to An<;totle, espeCIally he was accounted the pnnce
of medIeval whIch was thoroughly despised by
Luther and the humamsts alIke Anstotle IS the only great
figure of anCIent phIlosophy and hterature who has never had a
Renascence Everybody knew, mdeed, that he was a power to
be reckoned WIth, and one of the foundatlons of the modern
world, but he remamed a tradItion, for the rCJ.son, If for no other,
that even after the days of humamsm and the retonnatlon men
<,t111 had far too much need of Ius content Melanchthon and the
JeSUIts both bUIlt their theology on Ius Metaphyslcs Machlavelh
6 ARISTOTLE
got lus rules from the o l e ~ c s the French cntIcs and poets them
from the Poehcs MorallSts dnd Junsts have drawn on the EthlCS,
and all phLlosophers down to Kant and far beyond on the lOgIC
As to the phlloiogists, what has prevented them from pene-
tratmg to the mner form of Anstotle's thoughts 15 not so much
an excesslVely strong mterest m the content as the narrow and
superficIal conceptIon of anCIent hterary prose remtroduced by
the humamsts They have made acute studIes of the wntmgs
that remam, and attempted to determme the text But wIth the
new feehng for style the unfimshed state m whIch these works
have come down to us was aesthetically dlspleasmg They were
Judged by the standard of hterary wntmg, whIch they constantly
flouted and whIch IS wholly alIen to theIr nature Men naively
compared the' style' of the treatises WIth Plato's dIalogues, and
then lost themselves m enthUSIasm for the marvellous art of the
latter By all kmds of ratIonalIzmg mterference, by declanng
dlsturbmg passages spunous and transposmg sentences or whole
books, they tned to force the AnstotelIan wntmgs mto the shape
of readable handbooks The reason for thIS sort of cnhCIsm was
the fallure to understand that provlSlonal fonn whIch, bemg
thoroughly charactenstIc of Anstotle's phllosophy, conshtutes
the mevltable startmg-pomt for every hlstoncal understandmg
of It Even m the case of Plato, the Importance of the form for
the understandmg of hIS pecuhar thought has often been over-
looked for long penods , departmental phllosophers and students
of lIterature, m particular, are always prone to conSider It as
.;>ometlung lIterary, whIch had no matenal sIgmficance for
Plato, m spIte of the fact that It IS umque m the history of
phIlosophy By now, however, most persons know that the
study of the development of the form of hIS wnhngs IS one of
the mam keys to a phIlosophIcal understandmg of hIm WIth
Anstotle, on the other hand, they still devote themselves ex-
clusIvely to the content, all the more so because they suppose
that he 'has no form whatever' The HellemstIc rhetoncians'
narrow notIOn of what constItutes lIterary form almost lost us
lus treatises, and IS actually responsIble for the dlSappearance of
the StOIC and EpIcurean wntmgs As soon as we abandon It
the questIon of lustoncal development naturally anses, for It IS
absolutely ImpoSSIble to explam the peculIar state of the extant
THE PROBLEM 7
writIngs wIthout the SupposItion that they contam the traces of
dIfferent stages 10 hIS evolutIOn AnalysIs of the treatises would
lead us of Itself to thIS conclusIOn, and the fragments of hlS lost
lIterary works confirm It The mam purpose of thIS book must
be, therefore, to show for the first hme, by means of the frag-
ments of the lost works and through the analysIs of the more
Important treatIses, that at the root of them there IS a process of
development It IS 10 fact out of the 1OterpretatIon of thf'se
documents, for an edItIon of the Metaphys"cs, that the present
work arose PhIlologIcal cntIclsm, however, IS here drrectly
subc;erVlent to phIlosophIcal 1Oqurry, smce we are concerned not
merely WIth the outward condItIon of the wntmgs as such, but
also WIth the revelatIon whIch thIS condItIon glVes us of the
dnvIng energy of thought

PART ONE
THE ACADEMY
CHAPTER I
THE ACADEMY AT THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE'S
ENTRANCE
ACCORDING to the eVIdence of hIS bIOgrapher, whIch IS re_-
f'l.l1able, Aristotle wrote to Kmg Ph!!!!> of _Macedon thathe
had sj5eiif1wenty years wIth Plato . Smce he wasa meml>er of
the Academy down !...he timeof t!!.e latter'Sdeath (:348/7), he
must nave-entered It dunng 368/7- At that time hewasa youth
of about 17 years I he was approachmglilsTOrtles
These acknowledged facts have aroused far too httle remark
That a man of such profoundly ongInal talent should have
remaIned for so long a penod under the mfluence of an out-
standmg gemus of a totally dIfferent compleXIOn, and should
have grown up wholly m hiS shadow, IS a fact WIthout parallel
In the hIstory of great thInkers, and perhaps of all mdependent
and creative natures whatever There IS no safer mdex to a
diSCIple's powers of asslmtlatIon, and at the same time to the
strength and sureness of hiS creative InstInct, than hIS relation to
a great master to whom he dedIcates hiS youthful affectIons
The Impersonal spmtual force that works through such a master
frees the pUpil'S powers by constraInmg them, and npens him
until he IS ready to stand alone Such was Anstotle's mtellectual
development It was hiS expenence of Plato's world that
hlffi to break through mto hIS thetwo th'at
"- _ w __ _ _ __ _
gave hiS mtellect the marvellous tautness, speed, and elaStiCIty,
by of he reached a hIgher level than Plato had-:-Tn
spite of the defimte difference between Plato's unlwuted and !tEi
own hmltec!Be_mus Thereafter, to retreat from that level would
have been to turn the wheel of fate backwards
Right down to the present day, Anstotle's .e.hllosopblCaJ
relation to Plato ha,s fr.tquentljC been SUpPOs.ed to be hke that Qf
---
a modem ]?htlosopher to Kant That IS to say, In a
I The letter IS mentjoned In the VIta Marclana (Rose. Ap'ulotelu Pp'agmenla.
P '427,1 18. see also PlI Ammon, Ibid. P 4]8,1 13. and the Latin trans, p 443,
I 12) The figure 17 does not appear In thiS passage, but had been !Joked up
With It at least as early as the Alexandnan bIOgrapher, cf Dlonys Hal ad
Amm. S (R 728)
I2 THE ACADEMY
mechanical way, he accepted certaIn bits of his
and reJected- unIqueness, and pictorIal way
of phIlosophlzmg, naturally gave nse to the SusplclOn that
Anstotle faJ.1ed to understand his archetype It was supposed
that he missed the mythical, the plastIc, and the IntUItIve In
Plato, and, because they omitted these fundamental aspects,
his cnticlsms seemed almost entIrely beSIde the pomt Bemg
thoroughly abstract, they really Involved a transItIon_to another
genus elS' aAAo yEVos-J /
What a shortSighted and pettIfoggmg charge '",it IS clear from
several passages that Anstotle w'!s well aware of thiS featur!..m
Plato's thought before he ever began to cntIClze h)m_ How
could the founder of psychology, and of ItS applIcatIon to
Intellectual and aesthetIc processes, pOSSibly have been Ig1!.!?rant
of It ;I It was preCisely Anstotle who first described, In short
and tellmg words, the poetIc and prophetIc elements which the
modems suppose they were the first to dIscover In Plato, and
hiS definitIon of the aesthetIc nature of the
than !!!ost-of theirs He never for a moment Imagmed that in
descnbmg the lOgIcal and ontological dIfficultIes of Plato'.,
theory he had disposed either of ItS hlstoncal Significance or of
the absolute value of ItS ThIS assertlOn does not need
to be supported by quotatlOn It IS self-eVIdent to anyone who
knows that Anstotle did not approach Plato's VIews In a cold
and cntIcal SpInt, but was at first spellbound for many years by
the overwhelmmg personal ImpresslOn that they made on him
a whole
It IS, however, one thing to understand, and qUIte another to
want to Imitate and perpetuate In ItS entIrety, such a complI-
cated world as Plato's, so manifold In Its mtellectual tendenCIes
and so mdlvldual In ItS presentatlOn \ Here IS where profitable
and unprofitable PlatOnIsm part companyv' IS unprofitable
to cultIvate an 'aesthetIc' and InSmcere apmg of the PlatOniC
spmt, makmg great play With ItS favounte Images and expres-
SlOns It IS profitable to work at Its problems, and this, whIch
Plato himself recognIzes as the most Important thmg, necessanly
leads beyond hun It IS also profitable to realIze the onesldedness
of our modem thought, IneVitable though thIS onesldedness IS,
by surveymg With Anstotle the contrast between our sCIences
AT THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE'S ENTRANCE 13
dnd Plato's Irrecoverable spmtual umty/Aristotle's attItude to
this problem was different at different times Begmmng by
naively trymg to Imitate and contInue the Platomc manner, he
came to (:lstmgUlsh between the abidIng essence and the out-
ward formulation, the latter of which IS either detemuned by
the aCCidents of the age or umque and so Inumtable He then
sought to remove the form while retammg the essence From
bemg a perfected form the Platomc phIlosophy became to hun
the matter or VAT) for somethIng new and higher had
accepted Plato's doctrines With his whole soul, and the 0-
discover his own relation to them occupied all hIs-life, and IS the
clue to hl development It IS possible -to discern a gradual
progress, In the vanous stages of which we can clearly recogmze
the unfoldIng of hiS own essential nature Even hiS latest
productions retaIn c;;ome trace of the PlatOnIC spmt, but It IS
weaker than In the earher HIS own notion of development
can be applIed to hImself however strong the mdividualIty of
the' matter', the new form finally overcomes Its resistance/It
grows untIl It the matter from WithIn m accordance
with Its own law, and Imposed ItS own shape upon It Just as
tragedy attaInS It<; own speCial nature (eoxe TftV epuaw)
. out of the dIthyramb' by leading the latter through
form'>, so Anstotle made hImself out of the Platomc philosophy
The history of hiS development-and the order of the documents
for thl<; can be determIned With certaInty-represents a defimte
scale of graduated In thiS dIrectIOn, although he never
got beyond compromises In matters In these matters
pupIls very often understood him better than he did himself,
that IS to 'idy, they eXCIsed the Platomc element m him and tned
to retam only what WdS pure Anstotle The speCific Anstotle
IS, however, only half the real Anstotle ThiS hiS dlsclples
faIled to grasp, but he hunself was always conscIOUS of It ..,
The Academy that entered m 367 was no longe! that
of the of the whose table Philo m the
full tide had ImagIned the leaders of art and
and the of Hellemc youth gathercd to
hear from the hps of the prophetess the great mystery of the
birth of the mtellect out of The esc;;ence of Plato's philo-
sophy had long ceased tolle-in the figure that he had created m
B
14 THE ACADEMY
hIS early works. the central figure of the philosopher Socrates
In content and method It was now far beyond the SocratIc field
of problems It was only by readmg, and not through any lIvmg
presence of the SocratIc spmt m the Academy of the slXtIes, that
ArIStotle learnt what Socrates had meant to Plato and hIS early
disciples The Phaedo and the GorgJas, the Repubhc and the
SymposJum, were now the eVidences, already classical. of a
closed chapter In the master's lIfe, and they towered above the
busy realItIes of the school lIke motionless Gods Anyone whom
these dIalogues had drawn from distant places to enJoy Plato's
actual presence must surely have been surpnsed to find no
mystenes celebrated among the phdosophers They certamly
radIated a revolutIOnIZIng force and a new senousness, and these
Anstotle found m the Academy also, but theIr claSSIc doctnnes
about the Ideas, about umty and multiplICIty, about pleasure
and pam, about the state. about the !>oul and virtue, were by no
means mVlOlable sanctuanes In the dlscusc;lOns of the students
They were constantly bemg tested, defended, and altered, m the
lIght of acute dlstmctlOns and labonous exammatlOns of theIr
logIcal valIdIty The dlst10ctlve feature was that the learners
themselves took part In thIs common effort The Images and
myths of the dIalogues remamed Plato's ~ t charactenshc and
urecapturable work. but. on the other hand, the dlscusc;lon of
conceptIons became along WIth the Academy's relIgIOus tendency
the essentIal pnnclple of the school These were the only
two elements In Plato's thought that were transferable, and
the more students he attracted the more they preponderated
over the artIstIc sIde of hIs nature Where the opposing forces
of poetry and dIalectic are mIxed In a SIngle mInd It IS natural
for the former to be progressIvely stIfled by the latter, but 10
Plato's case the school carrIed hIm Irre,>l<,tlbly 10 thIS dIrectIon
The set of Anstotle's m10d was deCided by the fact that he
entered the Academy Just as thIS momentous alteratIon, the
development of Plato's later dIalectIc. was begmmng to make
headway Thanks to the recent advances of research we can
follow thlS process WIth chronologIcal exactitude m the great
methodologIcal dialogues that Plato wrote dunng these years,
Theaetetus, Soplust, Statesman. Parmenzdes. and PhJlebus The
first dla10gue of the group, the Theaetetus, was wntten soon after
AT THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE'S ENTRANCE 1.5
the death 10 369 of the famous mathematIcIan whose memory It
honours I It IS the more charactenstic of the Academy at the
time of entrance because 10 thIS and the follow1Og
dialogues (Sophtst and Statesman) the work of the school, whIch
had been almost entIrely concealed 10 the wnt10gs of the claSSIcal
penod, begms to press Plato's whole hterary actIVIty IOta ItS
serVIce, and has thus left a pIcture of Itself that lacks no essentIal
feature 2. Jon order to understand Anstotle and hIS relatIOn to
Plato It IS unportant not to set out from the vague nohon of
Plato' as a whole, but to substItute the preCIse conception of
hIS last penod, the abstract and methodologIcal penod that
began about 369 ThIs gave Anstotle a defimte dIrectIOn, and
opened up a field of work SUitable to hIS particular dIsposItion
JSocratlc thought always kept close to real hfe, and the early
Plato was a reformer and an artist In contrast to thIS, Anstotle's
thought was abstract, and hI<; attitude was that of the pure
But the<;e traIts were not hIS pnvate property, they
were common to the whole Academy dunng the time when he
belonged to It In the Theaetetus we have the apotheosIs of the
un-SocratIc phI1o<;opher of Plato's later days The machmery of
the dIalogue gIVf>S the dehneatIon of the type to Socrates, but the
pIcture hf> draws has no re<;emblance to hImself, accord109 to hIS
own faIthful charactenzatIOn of hImself 10 the Apology, but to
the mathematICal reclu<;e, and It ObVIOUS that the new con-
I For the external reasons for thiS date see the conclusive arguments of Eva
Sachs, De Theaeteto AthemenH Mathemat>co, Berhn, 1914, pp 18 ff The main
eVHleru:e, of course, comes from th, and philosophical analysE's of the
dialogue both of which confirm the Lxternal arguments for lateness The
SophIst, which IS the posItive rlLvdopmrnt of the problem of the 1 heaetet14s,
retams ItS settmg as docs the State, man but no one nowadays conSiders the
SOPhHt an 'L1ementary dialogue comlllg at thL bLgmnmg of Plato's develop-
ment, as did Zeller and those who preceded him Campbell's fundamental
researches took some time to make their way mto Germany, but have since
been confirmed on all sHlLs by later mvestlgatlons The final touch has been
glvLn by the history of the development of Plato's dl.J.lectic, which IS a later
addItion, see espeCIally J Stud,en z14r Lntw,cklung der platonlschen
D,alekhk (ErLslau, 1917). to which I am much mdebted
Smce the appearOLnce of the German LdltJOD of thiS booJ.. Fnednch Solmsen
has tned to determlDe more exactly how far the picture presented by the
dialectical dialogues agrees with the adual philosophical activIties of the
Academy, and how far It falls short of It See hIS . Die Entwlcklung der
anstoh.hschcn Loglk und Rhetonk' (Neue Ph,lologlSche Untersuchungen, cd
by Werner Jaeger vol IV Berhn, 1929), p 240 observatIOns form a
valuable addItIOn to what IS saId above
16 THE ACADEMY
ceptIon of the theoretical' hfe has helped to determ10e Its
features Socrates had concerned himself solely wIth man, and
not with that whIch IS above the heaven or under the earth
The Theaetetus, on the other hand, speaks of the phIlo!>ophlcal
soul as . geometnz1Og' and . a!>tronomlz1Og' 1 She IS mdlfferent
to what IS near at hand, she despIses precIsely those practical
actIvItIes that occupIed the hves of Socrates' favounte hearers.
and she roams m lofty dl!>tances, a., IS solemnly quoted from
Pmdar
The Tlzeaetefus unmistakably refers to the forthcom1Og
appearance of the Parmcmdes The latter wa!> pretty certamly
wntten before the formcr\ .,equeb, the Sophtst and the States-
man; hence It was probably fimshed when Anstotle entered the
school, and cannot 10 any case be much later Those who suggest
that Anstotle was the author of the ObjectIOns whIch thIS
dIalogue raISt'S to the theory of Ideas, are makmg the unhkely
supposItIon that he took the InltIatlve In a rt'voluhonary manner
while he was shll extremely young .md had only Just entered the
society The dIalogue shows that before Amtotle the Academy
had already gone far 10 cnhclz10g the hybnd character of the
Ideas, half substances and half abstractIOns It could not be
long before the two ""ere separated Plato himself, mdeed,
thought that he could overcome the dJfncultIe." nevertheless he
prepared the way for what happened when he recogmzed It as m
pnnclple correct to make labonou,> logical and ontological exam-
mations of the Ideas, as I!> done m thiS dialogue and m later ones
Anstotle's speculatIon'> cannot be hnked up With the Phaedo
or the Repubhc and the Idea-theory as It appears 10 them
In the Theaetetus Theaetetus and Theodorus are opposIte
types One represents the young generatIOn of mathematICIans,
who are mterested In phJ.1osophy , the other the old, who will not
hear of It, though they are c;xperts In theIr own subject It was
not an accIdent that Plato's relations to famous mathematlcIans
found expreSSIOn m a dialogue preCIsely at thIS tIme For about
the year 367 Eudoxus of CyZlcuS brought hIS school to Athens,
In order to dISCUSS With Plato and hiS followers the problems that
mterested both partIes
I Theaet 173 E-I74 A
, Tannery's cODJecture de Z'ast,onomu. p n 4) IS confirmed by
AT THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE'S ENTRANCE 17
ThIS event attracted a good deal of attention, and from that
time on we constantly find members of thIs school of mathematI-
Cians and astronomers 10 commumcatIon wIth the Academy
Hehcon and Athenaeus are examples As early as the RepublIC
we can observe the effects of Theaetetus' dIscovery of solId
geometry After thell" 1Otercourse wIth Eudoxus, Plato and hls
followers took a very great 10terest 10 the attempts of the CyZI-
ceman school to explam the Irregular movements of the planets
by sImple mathematical SupposItions ThIS was not the only
way 10 whIch Eudoxus stimulated them He tremendously
enlarged theIr notiOns of geography and human culture by
bnngmg exact reports of ASia and Egypt, and by descnb10g from
extended personal expenence the status of astronomy 10 those
parts HIS contnbutIon to ethical questIons was also Important
The problem of the nature and meamng of pleasure and pam,
which was to be so central 10 Anstotle's ethiCS, led to one more
great debate wlthm the Academy 10 Plato's later years Xeno-
crates, SpeusippuS, and Anstotle contnbuted works On Pleasure
to It, Plato contnbuted the Phtlebus Many years afterwards
Anstotle, who met Eudoxus nght at the beg10mng of hIS stay 10
the Academy, could stIll speak of hiS personal ImpreSSiOn WIth
real warmth, when he was recalhng the stImulus that Eudoxus
gave Eudoxus also raIsed difficulties about the Ideas and
suggested an alteratiOn of the theory I In every field Plato's
school began to attract more and more strangers, some of them
of the most dIverse types HIS travel., had brought hIm mto
close connexiOn \-\lth the Pythagoreans gathered rour,d Archytas
at Tarentum TheIr mfluence reached as far as SIcIly, and 10
SIcily at thIS tIme there flounshed the medIcal school of
PhillstIon, whose Importance wa., so great that we must reckon
the LIfe (Rose, p 429, I 1) accordmg to which Anstotle entered the Academy
under Eudoxus Some excerptor must have misunderstood the statement and
taken Eudoxus for an archon What hiS authonty told him was Simply that
Anstotle's entry comclded With Eudoxus presf'nce Cf Eva Sachs (who
follows F Jacoby). op cit. P 17 n 2
I For Anstotleon Eudoxus' character and theoryof pleasure see Eth Nac X 2
For the latter's proposed reformillation of the Idea-theory see Metaph A 9,
991& 17, and at greater length In the second book On Ideas (Rose, frg 18g),
which has been preserved by Alexander m hiS commentary on the pa.ssage
Endoxus proposes to regard participation as the Immanence of the Ideas In the
thmgs, and to thiS Anstotle strongly objects That partiCipatIOn was the most
debated problem of the time IS clear from Plato s later dialogues
18 THE ACADEMY
among Its spmtual members such an author and physIcIan as
DIOcles of Carystus In Euboea, Plato must have had relations
wIth PhlhstIon The author of the spunous second letter appears
to know that Plato VISIted Phlhshon, and even seemIngly that
the latter was InvIted to Athens If not PhuIst!on hImself, at
any rate some real member of hIS school IS concealed behInd the
unnamed 'SIcIhan doctor' whose ImpatIence at the 10glcal haIr-
splIttmgs of the Academy IS descnbed by a contemporary comic
poet I IncIdentally thIS story shows that, although Plato was
accustomed to converse WIth speciahsts In all fields, the result
was often merely to reveal the unbndgeable gulf between IOniC
or SIClhan SCIence and what Plato understood by that word
The fact that he makes COpiOUS use of the latest researches In
medICine, mathematIcs, and astronomy, In order to construct
hIS story of creation In the must not blmd us to the
Independent manner In which he handles thIS matenal
fihe Academy of Plato's later days dId Indeed get through a
great mass of matenal. and thIS enVIronment no doubt made
It possIble for an Anstotle to learn by hiS own efforts the
Significance of empIrIcal facts, which later became so Integral
to hiS researches, but the present universal custom of speak-
Ing of an . organization of the sCIences' In the Academy IS
wrong Z Modem academIes and umversltIes cannot claim Plato
as theIr model The notIon of a systematic umty of all SCIences
was totally foreign to hIm, and stIll more so was ItS reahzatIon
m an encyclopaedic orgamzatIon of all subjects for purposes'
of teachIng and research MediCIne, mathematIcs, astronomy,
geography, and anthropology, the whole system of historIcal
SCiences, and that of the rhetoncal and dIalectIcal arts, to
mentlOn only the mam channels of Greek thought, arose each by
Itself, though several were sometImes combIned In one person,
and went each on Its own way undisturbed To a Theodorus or
a Theaetetus It would have seemed a very peculIar notIon to
combme mto one universal system of SCIences theIr mathematIcs
and the researches that some SOphIStS were makmg mto Greek
I Eplcrates frg 287 (Kock) SeealsoM Wellmann's
Arm (Berhn, 1907), p 68, and my artIcle 'Das Pneuma 1m LykelOn'
vol 48), P 51, n 3
It has been unIversal SlOce H Usener's now famous article In vol 53 (1884)
of the repnnted 10 Vorlr4ge ufld p 69
AT THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE'S ENTRANCE 19
culture or archaeology The physIcians also stood qUIte alone
Democntus, and after him Eudoxus, who to some extent
antIcipates the type that Anstotle represented, are abnormal
phenomena Eudoxus was marvellously manysided To
mathematIcs and astronomy he Jomed geography, anthropology,
medlcme, and philosophy, and was himself productive m the
first four fields
Plato was concerned exclUSively with Bemg' If we are to
gIve hIm hIs place m the traditIon of Greek thought, he IS one of
the representatIves of the speculation about substance (ovalo)
WIth his theory of Ideas he gave It a new tum, m fact, he really
restored It to life Startmg from the Ideas, and bemg concerned
solely with umty and the supersenslble, he does not at first touch
the mamfold and empIrIcal world at any pomt The dIrection
of hi'> mqUlnes IS away from phenomena towards somethmg
higher' The sheer necessities of his speculatIOn about concepts
did mdeed lead him to develop the method of divIsIOn, whIch
latcr became enormously Important for Anstotle's attempt to
get an empIrIcal grasp of plants and ammals, as well as of the
mental world But Plato himself was not concerned to reduce
mdlvlduals to a system They lay bclow the realm of Ideas,
ami, bemg completely mfimte (c5:rrElpOV), were unknowable HIS
notion of the mdlvIdual (6:TOlJ.ov) was that of the lowest Form,
which IS not further dIVI,>lble and h e ~ on the border between
phenomena and Platomc ,>clence and reahty The many claSSI-
ficatIOns of plants, &c , that Eplcrates speaks of, which were
g-enerally felt to be the most charactenstIc and pecuhar occu-
pation followed m the Academy (even Speuslppus' great Re-
semblances was apparently concerned solely thereWIth), \\-ere
pursued not from mterest m the objects themselves, but m order
to learn the logical relatIOns of conceptJOns, thiS IS Illustrated by
the quantIty of books put forward m the school at thiS time
With the title of Cla!>stficattons In classIfymg plants the members
no more aimed at producmg a real botamcal system than Plato
m the Sophtst alms at a hlstoncal study of the real SOphlStS,1
I In the fragment preVIOusly referred to Eplcrates does not Imply that the
Platomsts pursued botamcal mqumes In a posItive spmt What he IS laughmg
at IS the enthUSIasm for clasSIficatIon that led them to hold relations between
conceptIOns more Important than the thmgs themselves 'They were definmg
the world of nature and dllnd'ng the hfe ~ l o v of ammals and the nature of trees
20 THE ACADEMY
It IS no great distance from such classificatIOns of the real to
the notIon of a smgle sCience embracmg as many departmental
sCiences as there are departments of realIty (6v) And although
, the artIculatIOn of the 'iClences was not effected unhl
Anstotle's nohon of realIty hdd replaced Plato's transcendental
bemg,l It remams d remarkable fact that the Idea of a systemati-
zatIon of the departmental suences, each of whIch had ansen
mdependently, was an afterthought due to the Attic phllo'>ophy
of conceptIOns and Its enthUSiasm for classIfic,ltJon It IS almost
too late now to estimate the advantage'> and of
carrymg thiS systemdtIzatlOn through In dt-tail Presumably
both have been pretty Idrge At no perIod when research wa"
truly fiounshmg has the general of a Pdrticular phIlosophy
ever thoroughly penneated all the "uence", dnd thiS IS natural
smce each sCience has Ib own 'ipmt and It<; o\\n pnnclple Only
through dual natures, or where the lead m phIlo,",ophy ha.. been
taken by famou'S sClentI'its who Imbued It With the SpIrIt of
particular branches of research, ha" d pd.rtIal permeation
occurred Anstotle, Lelbmz, and Hegel, very dIfferent types,
are the most Important example" of thiS
Plato hImself had some "peclahzed understanding of
mathematical questions, which enabled hIm to follow the
Important contemporary developments of the 'iClence He was
also mterested 10 astronomy 50 far as It could then be treated
mathematically In later hfe he devoted hlm5elf senously to the
phySICS of the elements, hopmg to be able to gIve a mathematical
denvatIon of the qualItatIve difference" between the so-called
and the of vegetables and among these latter they were examining
what IS the specIes of the pumpkin
n.pl ylJp cpva."'S
1.IEXc.>PI]OV ]<t""V Tt Illov
l.tv1.pc.>v T' CPU"'V TO ylvT}.
K,p' Iv To\rrOIS T'l'iv
"vos ICTTI ylvov<;
Here Illoo; does not mean the habIts of ammals which would be 1.Ia'Ta It IS
the same as 'nature' and . genus', and these are actual terms from Plato
dialectic, as are defimtlon', 'divIsion', and . examinatIOn' of conceptIOns
The fragments of Speuslppus' have been collected by P Lang De
Speuslppl Academlcl scnplls (Bonn, 1911, D1SS) The title Itself shows what
the aIm of the book was
I There are all many parts of plulo80phy as there are kinds of substances',
Anst Metaph r 2, 100.' 2
AT THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE'S ENTRANCE 21
elements of Empedocles, whIch he regarded as mere phases
HIS only other mterests m phenomena lay m the sphere of
medlcme and m that of ethics and pohtlcs In the latter he
colJected, especIally for the Laws, exten.,lve matenal on cnmmal
law and the hIstory of Clvlhzatlon It was thus dunng the pf'nod
when,Anstotle was a member of the school that he turned hIS
attentlOn to partlculars And the stlmulus that hIS collectIon of
new hlstoncal and pohtlcal matter gave to Anstotle IS clear from
the numerous comcldences between the Laws and the Pohtus
On the other hand, Anstotle lacked the temperament and the
ablhty for anyth10g more than an elementary acquamtance wIth
the Academy's chIef preoccupatIon, mathematIcs, while the
Academy, contranwlse, could not stImulate hIm 10 the field of
blOloglcal sCIence m whIch hIS own true gemus lay
FruItful and congemal as was the youthful Anstotle's expen-
ence of the stnct and methodIcal procedure of the vanous
SCIences, the ImpresslOn made upon hIm by Plato's personahty
was the strongest of all Plato surveyed J.ll those fertl1e plams
from the hIgh vantage-pomt of hI" o\\,n creatIve spmt and m-
ward VlSlOn, and Anstotle was wholly preoccupIed wIth hIm
It IS not our purpose here to dISCUSS the 10fluence of Plato's
personahty on hIS contemporanes, or to reduce hIS posItIon m
the hIstory of knowledge to a formula, although to a man hke
An!>totle thIS latter que!>tIon was naturJ.lly the kernel of hiS
whole attItude to Plato The elements out of whIch hIS work
arose dId not mclude elthcr lomc lO"Topla (1Oqmry) or the
ratIonahz1Og Enhghtenment of the sophists, although these two,
m spIte of theIr dlspanty. together constItuted the forms of
knowledge par excellence at thc tIme The first of these elements
was (1) the phroneszs or wIsdom of Socrates ThIS bore only
a superficial resemblance to the fatlOnahsm of the sophIsts
EssentIally It was rooted 10 the realm, hItherto undIscovered by
Greek sCience and plulosophy, of an ethIcal conSClOusness of
absolute standards It demanded a new and superempmcal
conceptIon of mtellectual mtmtlOn The .,econd and thIrd
elements, which were also foreIgn to contemporary thought,
were two new addItIon., to the SocratIc philosophy, produced by
glvmg phronesJs a !>upersenslblc object and mak10g thiS a . form .
These were (2) the Idea, which was the result of a long process
22 THE ACADEMY
of vlSual and aesthetic development m the Greek mmd, and
(3) the long-neglected study of ovala or substance, to whIch Plato
gave new matenal by the problem of the one and the many, and
hvmg and tangIble content by the InventIon of the Ideas The
last element was (4) the duahsm of the OrphIC myth of the soul,
to whIch hIS whole constItutIOn mclmed hun, and whIch, watered
by hIS fertIle ImagmatIon, took firm root m the new conception
of bemg
When we consIder these four elements It IS not dIfficult to
suppose that he affected the ordmary educated person as a
mIxture of poet, reformer, cntlc, and prophet (The stnctness
WIth whIch he Imposed hIS new method on hImself would not at
first make any dIfference to thIs ImpressIon) Hence It IS not
surpnsmg that, m vIew of the gulf between hIm and all other
SCIence, both anCIent and modern, he has been called a mystIc
and expelled from the hIstory of thought If thIs sImple solutIon
were nght, however, It would be very hard to understand why
he has had such a great Influence on the destimes of human
knowledge, and the fact that he was the sun around whIch
revolved persons hke Theaetetus, Eudoxus, and Anstotle, that
IS to say, the most talented pIOneers of sCIentIfic research that
the fourth century produced, IS suffiCIent to condemn the cheap
WIsdom whose notIon of the complexIty of mtellectual currents
IS so madequate that It would stnke the most revolutIonary of
all phIlosophers out of the hIstory of knowledge, because he
dIscovered not merely new facts but also new dImenSIOnS
Anstotle saw as clearly ac; Eudoxus that Plato, In hIS phIlo-
sophIcal work, had welded together sCIentIfic dIscoverIes,
elements of myth, and mysterIous spmtual realms to whIch the
eye of knowledge had never penetrated ThIS weld was by no
means the mere result of the creator's subjective mclmatIon, It
was necessarIly deternlmed by the hlstoncal SItuatIon, the
elements In whIch were later analysed by Anstotle WIth a
profound understandmg alIke of the creatIon and of ItS creator
At first, however, he abandoned hunself WIthout reserve to
thiS mcomparable and IndiVISible world, as is shown by the
fragments of hIS early wntmgs, and It was preCIsely the
non-SCIentIfic elements In Plato's phIlosophy, that IS, the meta-
phYS1Cal and rellgJ.ous parts of 1t, that left the most lastmg
AT THE TIME OF ARISTOTLE'S ENTRANCE 23
Imprmt on hIS mmd He must have been unusually receptIve
for such unpresslOns It was theIr confhct WIth hIS own sCIentIfic
and methodIcal tendenCIes that later gave nse to most of lus
problems, and theIr strength IS beautIfully shown by the fact
that he never sacnficed them, although m SCIentIfic matters he
went beyond Plato at every pomt Plato he sought and found
d. man to lead hun m a new hie, Just as m hIS dIalogue Nermthus
he makes the sImple CorInthIan countryman, enthralled by the
abandon hIS plough to seek and follow the master
Plato explams the conneXlOn between knowmg the good and
followmg It m hIS seventh letter The knowledge whIch accordmg
to Socrates makes men good, and that whIch IS commonly called
SCIentific knowledge, are dlstmct The former 15 creatIve, and can
only be attamed by souls that have a fundamental affinIty to
the obJect to be known, namely, the good, the Just, and the
beautIful There 15 nothIng to whIch Plato nght down to the end
of hIS hfe was more passlOnately opposed than the statement
that the soul can know what IS Just WIthout bemg Just I ThIS,
and not the systematIzatlOn of knowledge, was hIS amI In found-
mg the Academy It remamed hIS aIm to the end, as IS shown
by thIS letter that he wrote In hIS old age Let there be a
commUnIon (01.J3i\V) of the elect. of those who, once theIr souls
have grown up m the atmosphere of good, are able by vIrtue of
theIr supenor eqUipment to share at last III the knowledge that
IS 'hke a hght kmdled by leapmg fire' It seems to hun, Plato
says, that the search after thIS knowledge IS a thIng not for the
mass of mankmd. but only for the few who WIth a shght hmt can
find It for themselves 2
I Ep VII 3HA Ibid 3iI C-R
CHAPTER II
EARLY WORKS
I\. RISTOTLE wrote a series of \\ Clrks m dIalogue form The
n.fragments that remam of them are not studIed as much as
they should be, partly because It IS pleasanter to leave such
troublesome work to phIlologIst,>, but dlso because of the con-
vIctIon, whIch has always obtamed In the PenpatetIc school,
that the true Anstotle IS to be found m the treatIses Even]f we
only WIsh to understand the treatises, however, the fragments of
the lost dIalogues can teach us a great deal If we knew nothmg
else about the relatIOn between the two kmds of wntmg, It
would be hIghly !>lgmficant to be ablE' to determme that the
dIalogues, modelled on those of Plato, belong almost entirely to
Anstotle's early year!>, and that m hIS later penod he practIcally
abandoned lIterary actIVIty (smce the treatise,> are merely thc
wntten baSIS of hIS very extenSIve d t v l t e ~ as teacher and
lecturer) There are mdeed exceptIons to thIS statement
Alexander or Colomzatwn mu,>t, to Judge from It!> title, have been
a dIalogue belongmg to the tIme when Alexander's raCIal polIcy
m ASia oblIged Anstotle to make publIc announcement of hIS
dIsapproval to the Greek-readmg world ThIS <;traggler there-
fore had a speCIal reason m Anstotlc's polItIcal posItion Mutatls
mutandts, the same IS true of the collectIOn of 158 Constitutions,
whIch was mtended for publIcatIOn and was wntten m a clear
and lIvely stylc, a,> we can tell from that of the Constitution of
Athens In spIte of these c),ceptlons, however, It remaUls true to
say that m the course of hIS development Anstotle radIcally
altered hIS VIews about the necessity of pre!>entmg SCIence m
hterary form, and about the relatIon between hterary and
truly productive work
WIth Plato the pnmary Impulse was ongmally the formative
one He dId not wnte m order to set out the contents of hIS
doctnne HIS deSIre was to show the phIlosopher 1fl the dramatic
Instant of seekmg and findmg, and to make tht' doubt and can
thct vIsIble, and that not In a mere mtellectual operatIon, but m
the fight dgamst pseudO-SCIence, polItical power, 50clety, and
EARLY WORKS 25
his own heart, for the spmt of Plato's phIlosophy necessarily
colhded with all these forces to his anginal view of
It, philosophy IS not a sphere of theoretIcal dlscovenes but a
reorgamzatlOn of all the fundamental elements of hfe Consider,
for example, the paradOXical picture of the phIlosopher In the
Theaetetus, or the duel between the Socrates of the Gorgfas and
Calhcles, who represents the egOIstical, mlght-ls-nght view of
state and SOCIety These dialogue!> have nothIng but the name
10 common wlth,the didactic conversations of GIOrdano Bruno,
Hume, or Schopenhauer Plato was wntIng the phIlosopher's
tragedy Unhke hIS Imitators he never gave mere theoretical
differences of opinIOn under a styh!>bc veneer
The Theaetetus, whIch IS contemporary With Anstotle's
entrance Into the Academy, IS the first of a group of dialogues
that are radically different from the earher ones both m form
and m content, and It ushers m the transference of Plato's
maIn phIlosophical Interests to methodologIcal, analytical, and
abstract studies I In thiS group the eqUlhbnum between the
aesthetic and the philo<;ophlcal elements m Plato's mind IS
destroyed for the sake of the latter The dl<;cords, cleally
perceptible to dehcate ear!>, begIn to appear m the Theaetetus
They ;ue due not so much to the lack of out\\ard pohsh In the
form as to the conquest of Plato's dramatiC Impulse by hiS
abstract mterest m method, to the conSIstent pursUIt of a SIngle
quesbon along a smgle let el track A man can mdeed find Plato
the dramatI'>t even here, long as he I'> able to detect rever<;al
of fortunes (lTEpI'lTETEIO) ar.d comphcatIon (lTAOKt'j) eVfn m the
development of methodological and abstract Ideas But m "plte
of the artIstIc elaboratene<;s of Its constructIOn It remams slgmfi-
cant that thiS very dialogue seems to most modern phIlosophers
Plato's phl1osopblCal achievement' It IS In fact
almost a treatise, posItive though cntIcal, and It IS not an
aCCident that m the Introduction Plato refers to hiS prevIous
J J Stenzel was the first to !pve any thorough account of the conneXIOD
betwc"n Plato s phl1o.ophlcal development and hiS form See hiS <lddress
Llteransche Form und phliosophlscher Gehalt dLS pldtoDlschen DIalogs'
}ahresberlchl d SChlcsHchen Ge"llschaft fur valeri Kultur 1916, repnnted In
Slud.P1! Zl'r Enl'mcklung<gtSchuhlc der plalon"chen Dlalekhk, &c , Brcslau, 1917,
pp 12] ff For the late dIalogues see the Chapter on ])Ie neue Methode',
PP 45 If
26 THE ACADEMY
method of wntmg dIalogues, and announces slmphficatlons the
aim of whIch 15 to glVe greater sCIentific lUCIdIty and dll"ectness
to the exposItion 1
The SopJu,st and the Statesman showmore clearly the dIfficulty
that Plato now has wIth the dIalogue form The apphcatIon of
the method of dIvIsIon to a partIcular conceptIOn, descendmg
step by step from the universal to the parhcular, IS such an
undramatic and monotonous procedure that at the begmnmg of
the Sophtst the leader of the dISCUSSIon IS obhged to tell hIS
mterlocutors not to mterrupt him too often, or preferably to
IlSten to a contmuous speech z ThIs amounts to openly abandon-
109 Socrates' r obstetnc' method of dIScussIon, and announcIng
that from now on the dIalogue form IS nothmg but an unessential
styhstIc ornament The Ttmaeus and the Phtlebus are not
exceptIOns, what they offer to the reader as dialogue IS merely a
transparent vell of style thrown over a purely doctnnal content
It IS not any VIvaCIty 10 the conversation that gIves the Tunaeus
Its tremendous effectIveness The Pkdebus could be transformed
Without dIfficulty mto a methodIcal and umfied treatise much
lIke Anstotle's Ethtcs In the Laws the last trace of scemc
llltlSIOn IS gone The delmeahon of character (Tj601Totla) IS
conscIOusly renounced, and the whole 15 a solemn address or
proclamatIOn, not by Socrates but by Plato hImself, the stranger
from Athens J
As was logIcal, the figure of Socrates, after havmg been rele-
I Theaet 143 B The Theaetetus retams the outward form of a SocratIc
dialogue, and frequently makes express reference to Socrates' IIIldWlfery But
tlus very selfCOIlSCIOUS reflection on the nature and hmlts of the Socratic
method, wluch 15 strongly emphaslZed, shows that Plato IS now purposely uSIng
the old form of cross-examinatIon ~ o s merely to clear the ground for Ius
question about the de.fimtIon of knowledge Stenzel I1ghtly POlOtS out the close
connexlon between the Theaetetus and the Soph.st, the latter solves the
problems raISed by the former. and It does not use' midwifery' Cf Socrates'
.final words at Theaet 210 c 'These are the hmlts of Illy art, I can no farther go
a Saph 217 D It 19 true that they are stilI gomg to gIve remark for remark
~ 'I1"pO; mos), It beIng assumed that the answerer Wlll always say yes, but that
IS something qUite different from the old 'obstetnc' conversation 'by questxon
and answer', where the questIoner puts forward no VIewS hut only gets the
answerer to do so
The author of the Ep.?lomls Judges the real state of aflalr9 correctly In
980 D He makes the Athemall relDlnd the two others of a. famous passage of
the Laws In words that absolutely abandon all dralDatlc reahty 'If you
remelDber, for, to be sure, you made notes (Vrro\lVl\l!OTa) at the tu:ne' Here we
are suddenly 10 the middle of a lecture
EARLY WORKS 27
gated to mmor roles from the onwards, IS finally dropped
In the Laws In the he appears once more, for the last
tIme, because thIS dIalogue dIscusses questions that had been
raised by the real Socrates (The answers are obtamed, however,
by means of methods that would never have occurred to hun )
In thIS last perIod the separation between the histOrIcal Socrates
and Plato's own philosophlZmg IS complete And that IS another
Sign that hIS general tendency towards SCIence, lOgIC, and dogma
IS seekmg self-expressIOn The last fruit of the theory of Forms
was the methods of classification and abstractlOn, WhICh are
what Plato means by dIalectic In the narrow sense of hIS later
works These methods had revolutIonIZed the form of the
controversIal dialogue that arose out of the SocratIc cross-
exarnmatlOn They had made It psychologIcally meamngless and
almost turned It 1Oto a treatIse No further progress was pOSSIble
m thiS dIrectIon It was only a question of tune before the great
art of the claSSIcal Platomc dramas died out, for ItS root was
dead ThiS was the moment at which the young Anstotle began
to take a hand I "
All members of the Academy wrote dialogues, though none
wrote more and weIghtIer ones than ArIstotle ThIS fact IS
SignIficant for the relatIon of the new generatIOn to Plato They
all used the dialogue as a ready-made form, WIthout askmg
themselves how far such an ImltatlOn was pOSSible The Greeks
naturally tended to Imitate everythmg once It was ' dIscovered' ,
and they had not yet reahzed that Plato's dIalogue m ItS
claSSIcal perfechon was somethmg absolutely Immltable, the
flower of a umque combmation of hIstOrIcal neceSSIty, mdlvldual
creatIve power, and partIcular expenence HIS pupils regarded
the dIalogue as the estabhshed vehIcle for gIvmg hvmg form to
esotenc philosophy, and hence every one deSired to see the
master's effect on himself reproduced 10 such a medIUm But
the more they realIZed that, because of the 10tunate umty
of hiS personality, hfe, and works, Plato was an mdlvlSlble
I No one has yet tned to connect Anstotle's dialogue WIth the development
of Plato's form R Hirzel (Der DJQlog p 275) does not even put the question
Usmg a merely general Impression of Plato's dialogues, he can only 6ee the
Anstotehan type as opposed to It He regards the two kinds as due Simply to
the difference In the characters of the two authors, and does not do Justice to
the factors mherent In the SituatIon
28 THE ACADEMY
magmtude that could not be taken over as a whole WIthout
producIng either a dead scholasticism or a literary duettantlsm,
the more they conscIOusly set themselves to find fundamentally
new forms for that which was sCientIfic and objective In hlID
and so could be detached These attempts properly took therr
departure not from the dialogues but from Plato's oral teachIng
It IS slgtuficant both of the youthful Anstotle's natural affimty
to Plato and of his InabIlIty to view him objectIvely that he dId
not at once take thiS WoiY, but began by contInuIng the dialogue
Clearly he found the es!:>entlal Plato more ahve, more powerful.
and more obJectIve, 111 the dialogue than In any other fonn
The remammg fragments of hiS dialogues, together WIth the
reports of antIqUity and the ImItatIOns of later wnters (he had
an especially powerful mfluence on CIcero), enable us to mfer
that AnstotIe Invented a ne\\. kmd of lIterary dialogue, namely
the dialogue of sCIentIfic diSCUSSIOn He nghtly saw that the
shadow-eAlstence of the' obstetnc' questIOn and answer must
be done away, smce It had lost Its real function by becommg a
mere cloak for' long speeches' , but, while Plato In hiS later days
was tendmg to replace dIalogue by dogmatIc lecture, Anstotle
set speech agamst speech, thus reproducmg the actual hfe of re-
search 111 the later Academy One of the speakers took the lead,
gave the subject, and summed up the result!> at the end ThiS
naturally put narrow lImIts to the delIneatIOn of personahty
The art of wntmg the speeches was taken over from rhetOrIC and
developed m accordance With the precepts of Plato's Phaedrus
The dIalogue now depended for ItS eftect more on ItS character
(i'i6os) as a whole than on the t h o p o ~ of particular person'>, and,
whl1e It 10'>1 In ae<;thetIc obJectIVIty, It pre'>umably gamed In
umty of mood and tendency It was, therefore, only logIcal for
Anstotle finally to make himself the leader In hIS own dialogues
ThIS alteratIon, whIle It did not restore the ongmal Socratic
purpose of the dialogue (that was Irretnevably lost), gave It once
more a real content, one that corresponded to the new form of
the conversatIOns 111 WhICh It had alway'> had Its root Instead
of the arena of arguments, WIth the dramatIc thrust and counter-
thru<;t of enshcal rluels, there were long theoretlcalexammatlOns
d.nd demon,>tratlOns, conducted d.ccordmg to stnct method
The change meL} be deplored, but it was mevitable. a!> Pl.lto had
EARLY WORKS 29
recognIzed when he abandoned' obstetnc ' conversation and the
dehneatIon of character The hlstonans of hterature, who do
not see what mner forces were at work, suppose themselves to
have estabhshed that Anstotle brought about the declme of the
dIalogue On the contrary, he merely perfonned the mevltable
transltlOn to another stage The dialogue of dIScussIon IS sImply
an expreSSIOn of the fact that the sClentIfic element m Plato
finally burst ItS form and remoulded It to SUIt Itself It was not
a mere matter of aesthetics, It was a development of the
philosophIc mmd, WhICh necessanly produced ItS own new
form
It IS customary to apply the casual remarb of later WrIters
about the charactenstics of Anstotle's dIalogue to all of them,
but the mere titles that that IS Impos<;Ible Eudemus or On
the Soul and Gryllus or On Rhetorzc cannot have been very
dIfferent from the earher PlatOniC type of whIch the Phaedo and
the Gorgzas are examples One of the fragments of the Eudemus
still retaIn" the Socratic technique of que<;tIon and answer I
Whether Anstotle appeared as leader of the dISCUSSIOn m
dialogue<; of thIS type IS to be doubted Those In WhICh we are
toid that he was the leader, the Statesman In two books and the
Phzlosophy In three, v.ere ObVlOU,>ly almost dIdactic works, and
entirely dIfferent 2 Plato's example ought to be enough to
I Frg 44 (I glvL thL of the fral{ments accordwl{ to the Teubner
edItion of HObe b Arlstote/" J 1886 They are dIffcrent from thobe
In the earlier Academy edItion) There IS ho"ever, no midWIfery about thiS
question and anbwer It IS thL Icarner who asks questions, while the other gives
him systematic IllformatlOn ThL conversatIOn IS nportLd by a third person, as
III the ..arlier PI,lto thu. does not use the pnnclple laid down at the
bl gIllnlng of the 1 heaet<tu,
Frgs 8 9, and 78 The ],ISt IMSb.lge (elc Lp ad Qumtum III 5, I)
to rdcr not merely to the Statesman ('de praestante vlro') but also to
the books On JustIce ( de npublica', cf ne"t note). which Cicero must have
known As soon as we look at the passages concerned Without presupposItions,
It becomes ObVIOU. that there IS no POint III the attempts to explam the' con-
tradlctlon' on CICLTO'S statements about the mos In Ad Alt XIII
19 4 he says It IS Anstotelian for the author himself to lead the diSCUSSIOn In
Ad fam I 9, 23. he calls the style of hiS books De Anstotelian, although
he IS not lumself the leader III them In eaLh place he IS nght Anstotle did not
take the kad 1Il all hlb dldJoguLs, In the and the Eudemus he certaInly
did not appear at all It IS Anstotehan to have a senes of long speeches, It IS
Anstotelian to have a speCial IlltroductIon to each book of a dialogue It IS
Anstotelian to put oneself IlltO the dialogue But there IS no passage which says
that a dialogue IS not Anstotehan unless It exhibits all three of these peeu-
lianhes at oneL We must not try to squeeze a SIngle and constant type of
C
30 THE ACADEMY
prevent us from supposmg that Aristotle had a fixed fonn whIch
he never changed As a matter of fact, hIS development as a
writer of dIalogue mcludes all stages from 'obstetriC' conversa-
bon to the pure treatise It runs parallel to hIS development as a
philosopher, or rather IS ItS orgamc expressIOn
It 15 often poSSIble to show that parbcular AristotelIan
dIalogues are modelled on particular PlatonIc ones, especIally m
thelI' contents The Eudemus IS related m thIS way to the
Phaedo, the GTyllus to the Gorgtas, and the books On Justtce to
the Republtc I The Sophtst and the Statesman, lIke the Sympo-
stum and the Menexenus, were naturally suggested by Plato's
dIalogues of the same name The Protrepttcus, WhICh was not a
dIalogue, reveals the mfluence of the protreptic passages m
Plato's Euthydemus, even to verbal echoes Plato may have
appeared as a speaker m the dIalogues
The style also shows very clo<;e dependence It seems mdeed
that Aristotle soon attamed hIS own manner, a style whose only
aIm was to be pure and clear, such as naturally belongs to the
pure SCIentist ,2. but the Eudemus, for example, contamed myths,
and It had other lIvely graces, such as frequent slmJ.1es, partly
based on well-known Platomc models, which were famous m
later antiqUity In the Simile of the subterranean men commg
up mto the lIght and seemg the heaven, the power of the
language carnes one away The myth of Midas echoes the
apocalyptiC style of the Fates m the la<;t book of the Repubhc
Cicero pra15es the golden stream of the prose m An<;totle's
Anstotehan dtalogue out of our authontIes fhe same IS true of the statement
that Anstotle attacked the theory of Forms m the dIalogues'
I That the books On JustIce are moddkd on the Republtc can be mferred
WIth certainty from (I) the eXistence of so many correspondmg dIalogues and
(2) the fact that CIcero m hIS De RepublIca makes use of both works In Plato's
RepublIC the polItIcal phtlosophy dcvelops out of the problem of Justice. Just as
It must have done m the books On JustIce The RepublIC must have already
obtamed the subtitle On JustICe by the time of Anstotle, a fact Important for
the hIstory of the ongm of the subtitles of the PlatOnIC dIalogues
2 The only mark of good style laid down by prevIOus rhetonclans that
AnstotJe recogniZes IS lUCIdIty (Rhet. IfI. 1404b I, 1414" 19, Poet 1458' 18
Cf J Stroux, De Theophrastt v,rtutlbus d,cend,. LClpzlg, 1912, p 30) LUCidity
IS said to Include everything ThIS Ideal IS mtended not 50 much for practical
oratory as for the creation of a pure and SCientifically accurate style It was
dropped again by Theophrastus and all later students of rhetonc They bowed
to the taste of the bmes but Anstotle thinks of knowledgc as a force that must
alter everyth!Dg, language !Deluded
EARLY WORKS 31
dialogues Rhetoncal affectations are entIrely absent, clear and
exact In thought, fine and movmg In character, these wntmgs
appealed to the best men of later antIqmty It IS eVIdence of
theIr Intellectual breadth that Crates the Cymc and Phlhscus the
cobbler read the Protrept1,cus together m the shop, that Zeno
and Chryslppus, Cleanthes, Posldomus, Cicero, and Philo, were
strongly Influenced In relIgIOus considerations by these works of
Anstotle's youth, and that AugustIne, who came to know the
Protrept1,cus through Cicero's Hortens1,us, was led by It to relIglOn
and ChnstIamty I The Neo-Platomsts lIved by Anstotle's
dialogues as much by Plato's, and the Consolat1,o of BoethlUs
sounds the last medieval echo of the relIgious element m them
As works of art antiqUIty did not mention them In the same
breath With Plato's, though It valued them greatly, but theIr
relIgIOUS Influence on the HellemstIc age was almo')t more
Important than Plato's thoroughly dIstant, obJective, and non-
InspIrational art
But what was Anstotle's phtlosophtcal relatlOn to Plato m
those works It would be strange If the Influence of hie; model
had been confined to the chOice of subject-matter, and to details
of style and content, whIle the general attitude to Plato was one
of reJection, as It later became Sympostum, M enexenus, Sophtst,
Statesman-were they really wntten to outdo Plato's dialogues
of the same names, and to show how the questions discussed In
them ought to have been handled Did the diSCiple obstInately
and pedantically dog the master's footsteps In order to reduce
each one of hiS works to shreds In tum Before ascnbIng to him
such a malady of taste and tact men should have glVen more
senousattentlOn tothe other posslbulty that the purpose of these
dialogues was Simply and solely to follow Plato, In phIlosophy as
well as In all other respects
The understandIng of the dialogues has had a CUrIously
unfortunate destIny ever sInce the recovery of the treatises
through Andromcus In the time of Sulla At that tIme they
I For the Pro/rep/letts In the cobbler's shop see frg 50 For Augustine's con-
version by the Hcwtens.us see Confess III 4. 7 'HIe vero hber mutavlt affe-
ctum meum et ad te Ipsum, domme, mutavlt prcces meas et vota ac desldcna
mea fecit aha Vl1Ult mJhl repente omDIS vana spes et IrnmortalItatem saplenbae
concupiscebam aestu cordiS lDcredlbl1l et surgere coeperam, ut ad te redU'em'
(c1 also VIII, 7, 17)
3% THE ACADEMY
were still much read and hIghly thought of , but they soon began
to lose ground, when the learned PerIpatetIcs undertook the
exact InterpretatIon of the long-neglected treatIses and wrote
commentary after commentary upon them The Neo-Platomsts
made some use of them, In contrast to the treatIses, as sources of
uncontamInated Platomsm , but a strIctly PerIpatetIc Interpreter
lIke the acute Alexander of AphrodlSlas does not know what to
make of them, though he must have read most of them More
naive In phIlologIcal matters than was nece'>sary at that tIme,
he explamed the relatIon between them and the treatIses by
sayIng that the latter contaIned Anstotle's true VIews, and the
fanner the false opInIOns of other persons II It was therefore
recognIzed at that tIme that there were contradIctions between
the two kmds The unsucce'isful efforts of the later PerIpatetIcs
to explam thIS puzzhng state of affaIrs can be detected m the
notOrIOUS tradItIon about the dIfference between the exotenc and
the esotenc wntIngs Students naturally looked for an explana-
tIOn of the dIalogues In the They found It In the phrase
'exotenc dIscourses', whIch occurs several times and m some
Instances can eaSIly be referred to the publIshed dIalogues In
oppOSItion to these exotenc dIscourses, WhICh were Intended for
the outSIde world, they then set up the treatises as a body of
secret esotenc doctnne, although there IS no hmt of any such
notion or expreSSIOn m Anstotle Thus the relatIOn between the
contents of the dIalogues and those of the treatIses appeared to
be lIke that of oplmon to truth In ,;orne Indeed,
Anstotle must have been purposely desertmg the truth, because
he thought that the masses were Incapable of graspIng It Even
the dIfficulty of the techmcal tenns m the treatises, WhICh gave
later scholars many headache'>, was pressed mto the serVIce of
thIS Interpretation, and a letter \\-as forged in whIch
Anstotle wrote to Alexander that the terms were purposely
made obscure m order to mIslead the ummtIated
I Ehas III Anst Categ 24
b
33 Alexander explainS the dIfference between
the lecture-notes and the dIalogues dIfferently, namely that 10 the lecture-
notes he gives hIS own opinIOns and the truth. whJ1e In the dIalogues he gIves
the opinions of othus. whIch are false' In spite of the nawetr! of the expres-
SIOn the commentator surely represents the essence of Alexander's view cor-
rectly Contradlcbons between the two k10ds of wntmg were noted as early as
Cicero (De Fm V 5, 12) In those days they were ascnbed to the literary form
of popular wnbng
EARLY WORKS 33
Modern cnticism has been sceptical about thIS mystIfication.
whIch IS ObvIously a late 1Ovention ong1Oatmg 10 the SpIrIt of
Neo-Pythagoreamsm I Nevertheless It has not got nd of the
prejUdICe agamst the dIalogues ThIS IS. of course, more dlfficult
for the moderns than It was for the anCIents, because we nowhave
only fragments to work wIth Rather, therefore, than beheve
these few but preCIOUS remnants, scholars have relIed on . the
authontIes. and espeCIally on two statements. one 10 Plutarch
and one In Proclus, both com1Og from the same source, whIch
speak of the cntIcisms of the Idea-theory that Anstotle made
m hIS EthfCS. PhYSfCS. and Metaphysfcs, and m hIS exotenc
dIalogues' 3 These passages seemed to prOVIde unshakable proof
that 10 the dIalogues Anstotle had already adopted the posItion
III whICh he stands In the cntical \\Iorks It was therefore
necessary eIther to put hIS' defection' from Plato early dunng
hIS stay In the Academy or to put the dialogues later It was not
dIfficult to find another' authonty' for the first SupposItion
DlOgene<; LaertlUs says that Anstotle fell away whIle Plato was
ahve, whereat Plato remarked, 'Anstotle has kIcked me, as
foals do theIr mothers when they are born '4 Under the 10fluence
of these passages Bernays, In hIS colourful book on Anstotle's
dIalogues, made a determmed attempt to explam away every
I It was Andromcu5' revival of the study of the treatises that first raised the
problen. of the relation between these sources of 'pun,' Anst:Jtehan doctnne
dnel the exotenc wntIngs which up to that tIme had been almost the only
"r1stotle read ThiS reVival occurred dunng the full tide of Neo-Pythagorean-
Ism, whIch m accordance wIth Its nature always looked for a secret
doctnne m all preVIOUS thmkers ThIS notion was then applIed '0 Anstotle s
\Hlbngs
z recently two works have appeared m whIch for the first tIme It IS
recogmzed that the contents of the dialogues are PlatOniC In' Ober Ansto-
tdL5' Entwlcklung' (Feslgabe fur Georg von Herllmg. FrLlburg. 1913), Dyroff
has collected m a bnef form numerous echoes of Plato In thf' dialogues HIS
pomt of view IS moslly systematic He does not go closely mto thL particular
work5 as mdeed was Impossible III hIS lImits HIS paper dId not come mto my
hands until thcsL studIes had been wntten down It confirms me In my view
yet we now need exact Interpretation. as shown by Dyroff's VICW of the
dialogue On PhIlosophy A Kall s dlsscrtahon for the doctorate dt Vienna
(DBs PhIl VIndob XI 67) also reached me subsf'quent to my own lllvcstlga-
tlOn5 He dIscusses the l:.udemus and the dialogue On PhIlosophy only HIS
general which are von Amlm's are nght and he gets good results
In detaIl but philosophically he IS not profound Nelthu of these works has
any notIOn of hnkIng up the problem of the dialogues With that of the growth of
the treatl5es
3 rrg 8 DlOg L V 2
34 THE ACADEMY
PlatonIc tum in the fragments as an outburst of lyrical feelmg
ContranWISe. Valentm Rose fastened upon them eagerly as
proofs of his fantastical view that all the lost dialogues were
SpuriOUS 1 \Vhat both scholars had m common was sunply the
Irrational conVIction that a man of such stnct and systematic
mmd as Anstotle would never abandon opmlOns once formed
They supposed that from the very begmmng hiS own wnhngs
were sharply cntIcal of Plato. and the Idea that he went through
a Platomc phase seemed to them an mtolerable contradiction of
the sober. cool, and cntIcal nature of hiS own understandmg
The conclUSIOn IS obVIOUS If thiS mwardly consistent view IS
untenable as a whole, U Anstotle began by gomg through a
Platomc penod that lasted a score of years, If he wrote works m
Plato's spmt and supported hiS view of the umverse, then our
whole prevIOus notIOn of the man's nature IS destroyed. and we
must hammer out a new conceptIon both of hiS personalIty and
Its history and of the forces that moulded hiS philosophy In
fact, thIS myth of a cool, static, unchangmg, and purely cntIcal
Anstotle, without illUSIOns, e x p e n e n e ~ or hl!ltory. breaks to
pieces under the weIght of the facts which up to now have been
artIfiCially suppressed for ItS sake It IS not really surpnsmg
that the ancient Anstotehans did not know what to make of the
dIalogues, espeCIally as It was to theIr mterest to draw a clear
dlstmctlOn between Plato and ArIstotle and make the latter's
doctnne as much of a umty as pOSSIble To them the collection
of treatises was a smgle systematic umty WIthout chronological
dlStmctlOns They had not yet learnt to apply the nohon of
development, whIch Anstotle himself could have gIven them, to
the hIStOry of a philosophy or an mdIvIdual So there was
nothmg for It but to dismISS the dialogues as gwmg un-
AnstotelIan VIews, and to explam them as a pIece of popular
lIterary hackwork In any case. even before we begm to mter-
pret them, It IS certain that the dIalogues contradIct the treatises
Where theIr affimtIes he IS shown by the fact that the Neo-
Platomsts and other adnurers of Plato's rehglOn and phIlosophy
valued them and ranked them equal to Plato's own wntmgs
I J Bemays, Die Dlaloge des Anstoteles In Ihrem Verh41tnls IU semen
tUw.gen Werken, Berlln, 1863. Valenbn Rose, Arutoteles Pseudep.graphus.
LeipZig, 1863
EARLY WORKS 35
Examples of thIs will be gIven later It only remams to consIder
the eVIdence of Plutarch and Proc1us, WhICh made Bemays
feel obliged to deny a prMrt all traces of PlatonIsm In the
dIalogues
ThIS argument also gIves way as soon as we examme It closely
In the first place, It IS not two dIfferent pIeces of eVIdence, the
correspondence In the expressIOn makes It certaIn that both
authors were followmg the same authonty, smce Proclus does
not seem to have followed Plutarch What the passage says IS
that ArIstotle opposed Plato's theory of Forms not merely In
hiS Ethtcs, Phystcs, and Mdaphystcs, but also In the exotenc
dialogues As eVIdence for this Plutarch and Proc1us quote, both
from the same source, a passage from one of the dtalogues where
Anstotle represents himself as sayIng that he cannot sympathIze
WIth the dogma of Forms, even If he should be suspected of
dIsagreeIng out of contentIousness I ThiS shows that both
accounts are founded on a concrete hlstoncal situatIOn In a
particular dialogue (most probably that On Phtlosophy, m
whIch we know that Anstotle attacked other parts of Plato's
I Frg 8 Proclus (m hIS work Examlnat,on of ArlOtotle's ObjectIOns to Plato's
T,maeus m Joannes Phl!oponus De Mund, Aetern II 2, P 31, 17 Rabe)
'There 15 none of Plato's doctnnes that that man [I e Anstotle] rejected more
deCidedly th,tn the theory of Ideas Not merely does hL call the Forms sounds
m the logIcal works, but m the Eth,cs ht> attacks the good-ID-Itsdf and In the
phySical works he demes that commg-to-bt. Call be explamcd by the Ideas
ThiS he says In the work On Commg-to-be and PassIng-away, ,md much more
so In the Metaphysus, for there he JS concuned With first ?rmclples, and he
makes long objections to the both In the beglOnmg and In the middle and
In the end of that work In tM dtalogues also he exclaIms unmistakably that he
cannot sympathJze WI th thiS dogma, even If he should be suspeded of d,sagreeing
out oj contentlou,n,ss (K6v TIS ClVTOV OITlTal :lila qnAoVlIKlav avnMY"w) ,
Plutarch adu Colot 14 (I IJj 0) 'ArIstotle IS alwdys hafJllng on the Ideas,
With regard to which he objects to Plato. and he raises all sorts of difficulty
about them In hiS etrucal (In hiS metaphYSical,) and In hiS phySICal notes, and
also by means oj hIS exoter,C dialogues ro that SO"" thought hIm contentIous
rather than philosophical these dogmas as If he were proposIng to under-
mine Plato s phllosophy' ("AoVlIKrnpov !V(OIS The onglnal source,
which both follow, and which the later author, Proclus reproduces more
accurately, hsted separately all the places In ArIstotle's works that attack the
theory of Forms Thus three passages are mentioned from the MetaphySICS,
Books A, Z and MN The mention of Post Anal I 22, 83
a
33, hk.. that of
N,c Eth I 4. recalls the actual words of the ongInal It IS the same WIth the
passage that I have pnnted In ltahcs (which comes from the dialogue 0"
PJlIlosophy) ThIS was the only passage that the author could discover 1D the
dialogues although hiS hst IS obViously very careful and complete ThiS
catalogue IS thus direct proof that thIS polemlL was unique In the dIalogues
36 THE ACADEMY
metaphYSICS) To umversalize this and apply 1ttoall the dialogues
IS J.1legItImate All It proves IS, what we already knew, that there
were one or two dIalogues m WhICh Anstotle opposed Plato
ThIs gIves us no JustIficatIon whatever for explaInIng away the
Platomc VIews that we find In other dIalogues Rather we must
recogmze that these works eVInce a development 10 philosophIcal
matters, preCisely as we demonstrated that they do In form
As a matter of fact, Plutarch hunself, although he has hItherto
been supposed to show that Anstotle was completely opposed to
Plato even In hIS dialogues, gIves us explICIt and ummstakable
proof of the fact of Anstotle's phIlosophIcal development In a
passage that has been entIrely neglectedI he actually mentions
Aristotle as the outstandIng example of the fact that the true
phJ.1osopher WIll alter hIS VIews WIthout regret, and Indeed WIth
JOY, as soon as he perceives hIS error ArIstotle, DemocrItus, and
ChrysippuS all changed theIr earlIer phIlosophical OpInIOnS In thIS
.... ay, and theword that Plutarchuses for thechange (lJFTcrrI6ecrl}ol)
proves that he cannot be refernng to que<;t1ons of mmor Impor-
tance, sInce It was a techmcal tenn In HellemstIc phIlosophy for
the passage from one school to another Moreover he must have
known that the' earlIer vIews' In questIOn (TO: 1Tp6creev mrrc?
apE01<OV'To) were expressed m Anstotle's dIalogues ThIS becomes
clear If we look back once more at the other passage and examme
It carefully 'Anstotle attacked Plato not merely In the treatIses,
but also In the dialogues. as appears from thiS and that passage'
The contrast ObVIOusly mvolves the tacit assumption that we
have here somethmg remarkable and contrary to the ordInary
rule As a general thmg Plutarch must have conSidered
Aristotle's dIalogues eVIdence of a PlatOniC pomt of VIew. thIS
IS suggested also by the fact that he occaSIOnally speaks of them
as 'Anstotle's Platomc works' Z
I Plut de InrI mol' C 7, PP 447 ff 'In philosophIcal speculatIons why IS It
not pamful to have one's 0plnJons altered by others and 10 change one's mmd
(lITcrTlBta9al) frequently I Ar.slotle bJmself and Democntus and ChrySlppuS
{{ave up some of the opmfOns tkat formerlV satHfied them Without fuss or chagrm
an,1 even \\lth plea'ure Therdore when the true appears reason
to It ,lncl "handon., the fal_f' I have c1ra\\n attentIOn to ihf
for the fi"t time In Hermes, LXIV (1929). P 22
Plut adll Colot 20,' as Aristotle Bald In hiS PlatoniC works (tv TOrS m.aTC-
VIKoIS) ThIS ]5 usually referred to the d]alogue On Philosophy It IS true that
an uD.1mpeachable tradItion m{orms us that thJs dIalogue contaIned an attack
EARLY WORKS 37
As we saw above, these facts were not so clear to everybody
10 later antlqUlty as they were to Plutarch ThIS IS shown by
an unportant statement of Eusebms' about the great polemIcal
work wntten agamst Anstotle by Isocrates' pupil CephlSodorus I
This work must have been a product of the competItion between
the Academy and the school of Isocrates, belongIng to the time
when Anstotle, then a youthful member of Plato's school, was
Introducmg the study of rhetonc there and thus causmg the
latent nvalry of the two InstItutIOns to break out mto the open
Eusebms tells us that Cephlsodorus took up arms agamst Plato's
theory of Ideas and all hIS other doctnnes m turn, and he ex-
presses surprIse that Cephlsodorus should have saddled ArIstotle
WIth these OpInIOnS In accordance \Hth the prevailmg notion
Eusebms thought of Anstotle as the natural antipode of Platu
He (or hIS authonty Numemus) did not know, and hardly could
have known at that late date, that the Anstotle ",horn Cephlso-
dams had In mInd was entirely dIfferent from the one that the
treatises, not publIshed untl1 centunes later, made faml1Iar to
readers of Impenal times Cephlsodorus knew Anstotle only
through hIS lIterary publIcatIOns, that IS to say, through the
dIalogues that he wrote while stIll a member of the Academy,
and SInce when he wntes a book agamst Anstotle he attacks the
theory of Ideas, we have SImply got to learn that up to that time
on Plato, but If, as IS hkely the phrase' the PlatoniC "'arks had become an
estabhshed name for the whole group of dialogues, there was nothmg to prevent
that On Phtlosophy fTOm bemg also descnbed m thIS way The maJonty of
these wntmgs were really PlatOniC not merely m form but also 1Il doctrme
I Euseb Praep Evang XIV 6 (he tells us that he IS here followmg Nume-
mus) 'Now tl1ls Cephlsodorus, when he saw hiS teacher IsocratLs bemg
cntlclzed by Anstotle, was tgnorant of and unfatmhar wdh Aristotle hlrn'elf ,
but since he saw that Plato's views were celebrated, and "nce he thought that
Ar.stotle ph.losophtzed after the manner of Plato he attacked A Tlstotle wtth
cTtltnsms that apphed 10 Plato, and argued agamst htm begmmng ultth the Form,
and endzng With the rest about which he lumself kncw nothmg but merely
guessed at the common opmIOn about them At the fnd of thiS section there IS
another passagL to the same effect 'This Cephlsodorus argued not agamst the
person he was attackmg [I e Anstotle], but agamst some one he did not
to attack' [I e Plato] As to the ..xplanathJn here gnen of why Cephlsodorus m
hiS polemiC agalDst Anstotle attacked the doctrme not of Aristotle but of Plato,
It IS a threadbare IDventIOn ad hoc, and cannot be taken for an mstant
To say that he was not acqUaInted WIth Anstotle's own phtlosophy, and
attacked Plato's Instead because It ",as more famons IS a solution that could
occur only to some one who had not the famtest notIOn of the rcal situation
tlunng Anstotle's stay 10 the Academy
38 THE ACADEMY
all of Anstotle's wTltmgs had been based entIrely on the
phIlosophy of Plato
Our mterpretatlOn of the sUrviVing fragments of the dlalogue!!
must defend thIS VIew 10 detaIl, and the questIons that we ralse
must concern the fragments that actually remam, and not be
merely general As startmg-pomt we must take whatever
chronological and phIlosophIcal matters can be defimtely fixed
by means of the fragments. Even the earlmess of the dIalogues
can be adequately proved only by the mterpretatIOn of each
one separately
CHAPTER III
THE EUDEMUS
T
HE date of the DIalogue Eudemus, whIch IS named after
Anstotle's Cypnan fnend, IS giVen by the motive for ItS
composItion, whIch can easLly be reconstructed from CIcero's
account of the dream of Eudemus 1
ThIS pupLl of Plato's, bamshed from hIS country, became
gravely Lli durmg a Journey through Thessaly The physIcIans
of Pherae, where he lay, had desparred of hIS hfe, when there
appeared to hun In a dream a beautiful young man who
promIsed hun that he would shortly get well, that soon after-
wards the tyrant Alexander of Pherae would meet hIS death,
and that when five years had elapsed Eudemus would return to
hIS country Anstotle related, obvlOusly In hIS mtroductlOn,
how the first and second promiSes qwckly came true, Eudemus
recovered, and soon afterwards the tyrant was assassmated by
hIS WIfe's brothers (359) All the more fervent was the exLle's
hope that five years would see the thrrd promIse fulfilled and
hImself back In Cyprus Dunng the Interval DlOn, who had been
bamshed from Syracuse, was at Athens WIth the support of
the Academy he assembled a company of resolute volunteers.
prepared to nsk therr hves for the lIberation of hIS CIty Out of
enthusIasm for Plato's pohticalldeals, whIch DlOn was supposed
to be gomg to realIze, some of the young phLlosophers )'Jilled the
expedItion Among them was Eudemus, but he was killed ill
one of the engagements outsIde Syracuse, preciSely five years
after the dream (354) ThIS unexpected fulfilment of the VISIon
was mterpreted In the Academy to mean that what the God had
foretold was the return of the soul not to ItS earthly but to It:.
eternal home
In thIS dIalogue Anstotle unmortallZed the memory of hIS
beloved fnend and sought comfort for hIS sorrow He began by
relating the story of the dream of Eudemus, ill order to show
I Anst frg 37 (CIC De Dill I 25 53) The Eudemus IS mentioned as a
de&1deratum In a catalogue of the Hurd century A D (papyrus). edited by Medea
Nona In Agyptus, vol 11(1921), P 16 Undoubtedly, therefore It was still read
at that date
40 THE ACADEMY
that by Its fulfilment the deIty Itself confirmed the truth of
Plato's doctrme of the heavenly ongm of the soul and Its future
return thither ThIS provIded the startmg-pomt for a meta-
phySIcal conver5atIon ' on the soul', the central portIon of whIch
was the questiOn of unmortahty The conception" of the Phaedo,
asceticIsm and the practIce of death, lIve agam In thIS early
work of ArIStotle's The earthly hfe of the soul 10 the chams of
corporeahty, which the Phaedo lIken" to a pnson, becomes for
him a penod of exile from an eternal home In the pIcture of
the fugItive In a foreIgn country, gazrng toward'S the home from
which he has been driven, there lIes a fervour of longmg for the
peace and secunty of the heavenly plams The Eudemus was a
book of consolation Not a word need be wasted on the s10gular
InsensIbilIty that cannot see In It anythrng but a fngid stylIstic
exerCIse m the manner of the Phaedo The only thmg that could
gwe genume comfort ~ s a hvmg faith m that reversal of the
values of hfe and death which Plato had accomphshed m the
Phaedo The author of the Eudemus had surrendered hImself
absolutely to this behef m another lIfe, and to the correspondmg
VIews of the world and the soul Hence the Neo-Pld.tomsts use
the Eudemus and the Phaedo as equally valuable 'iources for
Plato's doctnne of Immortahty We shall examme the frag-
ments of Anstotle's work In the lIght of that doctnne
LIke Plato 10 the Phaedo, Anstotle 10 the Eudemus attacked
the matenalIstIc view that IS opposed to the doctnne of Im-
mortalIty And he attacked It m the same form as It has m the
Phaedo, namely that the soul IS nothmg but the hannony of the
body, that IS to say, while different from the sum of the body's
elements, It IS the product of the nght arrangement of them-
thiS IS also the modern matenahst's account of the soul Out of
the cntICism of thiS view m the Eudemus two counter-arguments
remam The first runs thus 'Harmony has a contrary, namely
disharmony But the soul has no contrary Therefore the soul
IS not a hannony 'I
Here we have the non-IdentIty of two conceptIOns proved
from the non-Identity of theIr marks Hence Anstotle I!:l pre-
supposmg knowledge of the Important fact that the Identity
of objects depends on the Identity of theIr attnbutes The
I Anst frg 45
THE EUDEMUS 41
attnbute that he here takes as a means of companson IS one
belongmg to formal lOgic-the possibility of produclOg a con-
trary opposite to the conceptIons that are to be exammed,
namely soul and harmony This IS found to be possible wlth
harmony, but the soul has no such opposite Anstotle formulates
his syllogIsm tersely and trenchantly, and IS obvIOusly pleased at
Its laconIc cogency It IS not ImmedIately obvIOus what led hlffi
to choose precisely this hne of argument m order to demonstrate
the non-IdentIty of the two conceptIons and theu contents, but
this becomes clear as soon as we conSider the followlOg propo-
<;Itlon from hIS doctnne of the categones .substance (ovala)
admIts no contrary', that IS, It IS not pOSSible to conceive of any
contrary opposItIon to It I In reality, therefore, thiS syllogism
docs not merely contam the proof that the soul IS not a harmony ,
It ..lIsa ImplICitly presupposes-and thIS IS very lffiportant for the
plulosophlcal standpomt of the dIalogue-that the soul IS a
'Subst..lnce It IS easy to see how a thmker for whom thIS was
established doctnne mIght be led to use the above pnnclple of
formal lOgIC m attackmg the matenalist VIew, and thIS pnnclple
undoubtedly takes the opponent on hiS weakest Side
It 1<; mterestmg to observe the relatJQn between the Anstote-
han argument and that of Plato m the Phaedo (93 c ff ) The
latter IS more complicated Accordmg to Plato the soul IS either
moral, ratIonal, and good, or Immoral, IrratIonal, and bad He
..,hows that these opposed states or constItutIOns are a sort of
order and harmony, or disorder and disharmony, m the soul
There can be vanous degrees of these attnbutes In the soul
Therefore harmony It.:;elf, or ItS OppOSite, can be harmomous m
greater or less degree If the opponent's propOSItIOn were true,
d.ud the soul were nothmg but a harmony of certam states, It
would be pOSSible SImply to replace the conceptIOn of harmony
With that of the soul, which would gIve the absurdity that the
soul could be more or less soul 2 Hence hannony can be only an
attnbute of the soul, and not the soul Itself Anstotle's aItera-
tlOnof the proof-for hIS argument is nothing but a reformulatIOn
of Plato'i-shows clearly what he as a lOgiCian took exceptIOn
to m hiS ongmal The demonstratIOn III the Phaedo has ItS
own logical pnnclple as baSIS, ..lud thiS IS formulated m the
I [Anst] Categ 3
b
24 fI Plato, Phaedo 93 B-D
42 THE ACADEMY
Anstotehan doctnne of the categones thus 'substance (oua{a)
does not appear to admIt of vanatIon of degree (TO IJQhAOV Kal
TO f)TTOV) I do not mean by thIS that one substance cannot
be more or less truly substance than another, but that no
substance can be more or less that whIch It IS For eXaJl7.ple, a
man cannot now be man In a hIgher degree than he was, but he
can well be paler than he was The category of qUalIty by its
nature admIts a more or less, but that of substance does not '.
It follows from thIS law, 1 one belIeves WIth Plato that the soul
IS a substance, that there cannot be vanations of degree 10 the
soul, whIle there can be m harmony and m dIsharmony, as m
all relatives that have contranes, for example VIrtue and VIce
or knowledge and Ignorance Z Thus Plato also mfers the non-
IdentIty of soul and harmony from the ImpossIbIlIty of applying
one and the same logIcal pnnclple to both conceptIons, or, 10
Anstotehan terms, from theIr belonging to dIfferent categories
We can now see clearly why Anstotle altered the argument of
the Phaedo as he dId On Plato's VIew a 'more or less', a vana-
tIon of degree, can occur only 10 the mdetermInate (Ci:TTelpov),
never In anyth10g absolutely determmed (nepas) Now we have
a 'more or less', a vanable scale of degrees, an mtermedlate
between two extremes, wherever we have contrary OpposItes
Thus the proposItion that the Phaedo employs, namely that
substance admIts no more or less, IS referred by the Eudemus to
the pnor proposItIon on WhICh It depends, namely that substance
admIts no contrary OpposIte Hence the reductIOn of the proof
to a s1Ogle, sunple syllogIsm, WIth WhICh Anstotle achIeves the
same result
At the same tune he gets a second counter-argument out of
what IS left of Plato's proof after the extractIOn of ItS kernel
He sets thIS out m the followmg way Opposed to the harmony
of the body IS the disharmony of the body, but the dIsharmony
of the hvmg body IS dIsease and weakness and ughness Of these
I [AnstJ Caleg 3
b
33-4" 9
[AnstJ Caleg 6
b
15 'It IS possible for relatives to have contranes Thus
VIrtue bas a contrary, Vice, these both bemg relatives. knowledge, too, has a
contrary, Ignorance' From tlus It follows In 6
b
20 that 'It also appears that
relatives can admit of vanatlon of degree', just as the Incompatibility of sub-
stance With the' more and less' follows from Its Incompatibility With contrary
opposition (lvcwnbnlsl
THE EUDEMUS 43
disease IS a lack of symmetry m the elements, weakness a lack
of symmetry In the homogeneous parts (OIJ010IJEp;;). and ughness
d. lack of symmetry In the members If, therefore, disharmony
IS disease and weakness and ughness, harmony IS health and
strength and beauty But I say that the soul IS none of these,
neither health nor strength nor beauty For even Thersltes had
a soul In spite of all hiS uglmess Therefore the soul IS not a
harmony 'I
ThiS argument follows directly from Plato's anthropology
Plato distingUIshes virtues of the soul and of the body Those
of the soul are Wisdom, courage, Justice, and temperance, those
of the body health, strength, and beauty Parallel to these IS
the senes of opposite qualIties, the VICes of body and soul The
virtues depend on the harmony (symmetry), the vices on the
disharmony (lack of symmetry), of the soul or body as the case
may be ThiS explanation of disease, weakness, and uglmess, a3
lack of symmetry In the body and ItS parts or their relatIOns,
was taken over by Plato from contemporary mediCIne, on which
he based hiS whole SCIence of ethiCS or therapy of the soul, and In
which he saw the pattern of true sCience and stnct method HIS
doctnne of virtue IS a doctnne of the Illness and health of the
soul, modelled on mediCIne and havmg for pnnclple the con-
ception of measure (lJhpov) and of symmetry or harmony But
If It IS estabhshed that harmony IS the pnnCIple of the bodily
Virtues, health, strength. and beauty, It IS not poscilble at the
same tune to explaIn the soul as a harmony of the body ThiS
argument has the advantage of attackIng the rna tenahst
opponent on hiS own ground The explanatIOn of health as the
c;ymmetry of the body, and of disease as the lack of It, might
be expected to meet With approval from the representatives of
natural SCience, not so the explanatIOn of virtue as the sym-
metry of the soul, which was the startIng-poInt of the Phaedo
ThiS Platomc doctnne of the VlTtues of soul and body, whIch
Anstotle here follows and develops In detail, IS wholly foreign to
the treatises It IS In the spmt of Pythagorean mathematics
AccordIng to Plato the correct ethical state of the soul, Just hke
the normal and natural state of the body, IS only a speCial case
of the umversal cosmic law of symmetry, as that IS developed
'ArIat frg 45 (Rose, p 50, I 13)
44 THE ACADEMY
m the Phtlebus as a part of Plato's VIew of the nature of
things I
The analysIs of these two arguments has yIelded a double
result In the first place, It has shown us that 10 the Eudemus
Anstotle IS still completely dependent on Plato In metaphysIcs,
not only In the rejection of matenalIsm, but also In posItive
matters It has not Indeed been prevIously recognIZed that hIS
proofs rest on the same basIs as Plato's metaphysIcs and doctnne
of ImmortalIty, namely Plato's conceptIOn of substance and the
soul, but thIS IS to be ascnbed merely to the lack of thorough
mterpretatIOn That Anstotle here still regards the soul as an ab-
solute substance IS clear from hIS later ImItators For example,
OlymplOdorus gIves the first mference m thIS form 'harmony
has an oppoSIte, but the soul has not, for It IS a substance'
(Anst frg 45) The assertIOn that there IS a pettttO pnnetptt In
thiS fonnulatIOn IS true, but It IS equally true of the angInal
form, where the peittto IS qUIetly presupposed Z It goes back to
Plato hImself, as we have shown, for the same presuppositlOn IS
made In the Phaedo The dogmatic character of the proof IS
brought out stIU more clearly by PlotInus, when he says SImply
, the soul IS a substance but harmony IS not' J
I For the doctnne of the three virtues of the body see Plato, Rep IX 591 B,
Laws, I 631 C, and PhIl 25 D ff (espeCially 26 B) el passIm He IS fond of
drawmg the parallel bet",eLn them and the vutUf'S of the In PhIl 26 B
they are reduced to a numencally determmed relation between certam
opposites, the ongm of thiS theory IS clearly revealed by the Eudemus ThiS
dialogue also shows that the of measure or utTpov rest on a transference
mto the mental sphere of contemporary mathematical views In mediCine lhf'
Anstotehan mean (1.IE0-6"'1I) IS a conscIOus return to thiS pomt of departure, and
carnes the analogy through still more stnctly The phySICians' mf'asurc or
..npov was Itself a correct mean that had to be determmed subJeclwely, and to
be aimed at' (a-roX0:3Ea&a,) , thiS was me<hcal doctnne as earl,. as the Hippo-
cratic school The only other elaces In which the bodIly virtues appear arc
the early Top.cs (II6DI7, 139 21, 145D8) and the 7th book of the PhystCS
(246b 4), which IS known to have taken shape dunng or soon after Anstotle's
bme at the Academy (cf E Hoffmann, De Arts/olells Physlcoyum L V II, Dlss ,
Berlm, 1905) The picture is completed by the doctnne of the four virtues of
the soul 10 the PyoJyeptlcZls, wluch IS also entirely Platomc InCidentally, there
IS no difference bet",een the defimtlon of health af the symmetry of the
elements In the Eudemus, and as the symmetry of the cold and the warm m the
TOPICS, for the elements arose out of the warm, the cold, the wet and the dry,
conSidered as the fundamental OppOSites, and Anstotle often calls these
quahtles elements eveu 10 hiS treatises
Bernays,op Cit, P 145 n 15
J Plotmus, Enn IV, 7, 8 (p 133, 1 19-P. 134, I 18, m the Teubner text
THE EUDEMUS 4S
Anstotle's later doctnne lIes midway between the matenalIstic
View that the soul IS the harmony of the body, and the Platonic
view of the Eudemus that It IS a substance of ItS own The soul
IS substance only as being . the entelechy of a natural body
potentially possessing hfe' I It IS not separable from the body,
and therefore not Immortal, but In conneXlOn with the body It IS
the formulatlve pnnclple of the organism To the soul In the
Eudemus, on the contrary, can be apphed the remarks that
Plotlnus makes In his rejection of Anstotle's entelechy-soul from
the PlatOniC POint of view . The soul does not possess being
because It IS the form of , on the contrary, It is absolute
reahty (ovalo) It does not take ItS eXistence from the fact that
It IS In a body, It eXISts before ever It belongs to a body'Z Now,
smce we find the doctnne of pre-existence In the Eudemus, thiS
alone IS enough to show that the soul IS there a substance
(ovalo), and hence It IS not surpnslng that Plotlnus, who
combats the Anstotehan conceptiOn of the soul, can nevertheless
make the argument In the Eudemus completely hIS own, whIle
contranwIse thIS syllogIsm IS attacked by the supporters of
the 'genume' Anstotle, such as Alexander and follOWing him
PhIloponus Accordmg to these latter the soul has an OppOSIte,
namely pnvatIOn, and so the argument falls to the ground ThiS
view pre<;upposes the conception of entelechy, and IS a correct
deduction therefrom In reJechng the Inference Alexander
connects It WIth the argument In the Phaedo, out of WhICh It IS
developed J What dI<;hngUlshes Anstotle's early VIew of the
,>oulls In fact that the soul IS not yet the form of but
a form In It'lelf (not yet eI210s TIV6S but eT216s TI), an Idea, or
of 18B4, edited by Volkmann) It IS clear that Plotmus IS us10g the Eudemus
and not the Phaedo, because he up the one proof of the Phaedo (93 B ff )
mto the two arguments that Anstotle gets out of It He Silently substitutes
them for Plato's proof wlule he reproduces the first two arguments of the
Phaedo (92 A-C and 93 A) wIthout change
1 EVTEAlXEla cpvcnKOV 3"'1'\v IXOVTOS, De A n II I 41Z' 19 fi
In the whole chapter Anstotle examlOes hiS earher Vlew of the soul as a sub-
stance, and quahfies It wIth the doctnne that the soul IS not separable from the
body, but IS simply' substance as notion or form' ("J overla "J KClTQ TOV Myov,
412b 10)
PIOtlOUS, E.nn IV 7, B (Volkmann, p 134 I 19. and esp, p 135,1 31 ff)
J Alex 10 Anst De An apud Phllop comm 10 Anst De An, p 144.11 25 ff
(Hayduck) Form and pnvatIOn are the opposItion whose substratum IS matter
(rf Metaph 1\ 2, 1069
b
3 ff esp b
32
-
34
and 1070b lB. et passIm) Thus the
soul as an Anstotelian form has an opposIte lust as much as harmony
D
46 THE ACADEMY
somethmg of the nature of an Idea We are expressly told thiS,
and It IS now for the first bme possible really to understand It I
Anstotle hlIDself has left us an Important piece of eVidence that
throws lIght on the facts of his development When attackmg
the theory of harmony in his work on the soul he quotes hIS
earher wntmg. He takes from the Eudemus the second and
sClentmc argument, whIch he develops somewhat, but he sIlently
abandons the argument from the substantIalIty of the soul 2
The second fact that we dIscover by our analYSIS IS that the
young Anstotle was completely mdependent of Plato m the
sphere of logiC and methodology Though dependent on hIm for
hIS VIew of the world, he 15 here qUIte free, and perhaps even has a
slIght feelIng of supenonty HIS reductIOn of Plato's proof to ItS
elements, and the techmcal excellence of the two proofs that he
constructs out of them, reveal long expenence m these thmgs,
and the knowledge embodied m the doctnne of the categones
forms the presupposItIon of hIS correctIons It IS nothmg agamst
thiS that the work which we have on the categones cannot have
been wntten before the days of the Lyceum, and IS not by
Anstotle himself at all (It IS charactenstIc of the penod of
naturalIsm and empmcIsm, which arose m rus school after hiS
death) The fundamental attItude embodied In the doctnne of
the categones, and the mam portIons of the doctnne Itself, had
been developed before Anstotle dared to shake the metaphYSical
foundatIons of Plato's philosophy J
I Anst frg 46 (Rose, p '12,1 19) 'And In the Eudemus he shows that the soul
IS a Form'(E1J.6sTI) TheImportant pOInt IS the absence of any genItIve such as' of
a body' or 'of somethIng' , and we must not follow Bernays (op CIt, p 25) In
supplyIng one and then explaInIng that the expressIOn was purposely made
ambIguous In order to conceal a secret opposItIOn to Pldto Slmphclus thought
It contrary to Anstotle's usual vIew
Anst De An I 4. 408" I ff
The Categol'us cannot be an early work because the Lyceum IS gIven as an
example of the category of place and thIS undoubtedly refers to the school,
WhICh also prOVIded several other of logIcal conceptIOns One need
only thInk of Conscus the pomt of the frequent use of hiS namc as an example
becomes clear when one ImagInes the lectures In Assos, at whIch he was present
In the Catego7'>es Anstotle's doctnne of first and second substdnce IS made
nommahsttc, thlq cannot be removed or explamed away. and the very form IS
un-Anstotellan The Importance of these qllght and unmtentIonal verbal
mdlcatlOns must not be underestImated Moreover the author assumes that
the doctnne of the categones IS already known he takes up only a few ques-
bons All thIS, however, does not prevent us from seemg that most of the
detaIls are Anstoteh"n m content, the Ludemus how early III hIS develop-
THE EUDEMUS 47
ThIS shows how weak was the ongInal conneXIOn between
10glc and metaphysIcs In Anstotle's mInd, as opposed to Plato's
He IS the real father of lOgIc and devoted an unmense amount of
acute thInkIng to It But he never recognized It as a part of
phJ.1osophy and as havIng ItS own proper obJect, he always
treated It merely as an art or faculty (2l\Jvaj..lIS) With special
fonnal rules, more or less lIke rhetonc He had already become
the first specialIst In lOgIC before he deduced from his new doc-
tnne of abstractIon consequences that ran counter to the theory
of Ideas
The Influence of his studIes In logic can also be seen m some
of the other fragments of the argument for ImmortalIty 10 the
Eudemus, and espeCIally m hIS fondness for what he called
dIalectIc By thiS word Anstotle means, m contra!>t to Plato, all
tho'>e arguments that rest on merely probable premIsses and
have only subjectIve cogency Plato hImself makes extensIve
use of them m his dIalogues AlongSIde the stnctly apodlctIc
arguments they serve to support the proof as peltast'5 serve
alongSide hophtes (The enstIc SIde of Plato's and Anstotle's logIc
must always be kept m mmd) They do not possc<.,s complete
SCIentIfic exactItude (axpl13Ela) Nevertheles'>, who could despI'>e
the weight of the arguments for an after-hfe that Anstotle makes
out of the rehgIOus behefs of natIOns, the customs of ntual, and
the most anCIent myths ~ Even m hIS treatIses he usually start"
from the general VIew or from the opmlOns of great men He
tnes to combme ratIonal and purely phJ.1osophical knowledge
\'Ilth the kernel of truth that hes hIdden m thos( sources
Because of thIS he has been accused of a tendency towards
'common sense' by those who love the radIcal and the extreme
(and SInCP the RomantIc revolutIOn we have generally reckoned
!>uch persons as the most profound thInkers, at any rate m the
Intellectual sphere) As a matter of fact thIS dialectIc conceals
a pecuhar theory of expenence, m the histoncal and concrete
sense of the word In gIVmg a hpanng not merely to his own
ment they must be placed Ernst Hambruch shows m l ~ Loglsche Regeln der
plat SchUll" In der anst Toplk' that a large number of Important Items of
lOgIcal knOWledge contamed m the TOpics were discovered dunng Anstotle's
tIme 10 the Academy (Wlssenschaflhche Betlage .rum Jah,.esbencht des Aska-
ntschen GymnaStums, Berlin, 1904)
I Anst frg 44 (Rose, P 48, 11 11-22)
48 THE ACADEMY
reason, but also to what has hlstoncally been beheved, to the
collectIve expenence of men or to the Ideas of famous persons,
Anstotle IS not so much lazily relymg upon the general opmlOn
as dlsplaymg mSlght mto the 111mtatlons of every merely
Intellectual argument about such matters
To sound the metaphysIcal depth!> of the Eudemus we must go
to the myth of MIdas and Sl1enu'> When the kmg asks hIm what
IS the hIghest good (TO nO:vLwv alpETt::lTaTOV), Sl1enus unwlllmgly
reveals the mIsery and wretchedness of man's estate The style
shows the Influence of the speech of maId Lachesl", daughter of
Ananke, m the tenth book of the Republtc (617 D if) In word
and shape Sdenus breathes the melancholy humour of nature's
earthbound stupor A cleverly disgUIsed PlatOnIC termInology
conveys the pnnclples of the dualist philosophy, It IS altogether
ImpossIble that men should attam to the hIghest good, they
cannot share In the nature of the hIghest Tfie; TOU
13EATIc-rov <pUo-Ewe;) For the hIghest good for all men and women
IS not to be born (TO 1.111 yevea6ol) But, If they are born, the best
-and tkg men can attam-IS to dIe as qUIckly as pos,>lble '1
The speCIal attrachon, the real oracle, of these elevated words
lies In theIr mtentlonal amblgmty Popular WIsdom recom-
mended torpid resIgnatIon, the best thmg IS to dIe In thl<;
naIve pes5lml,>m there IS no hope whatever of another and a
perfect world, or of a higher eXIstence beyond the grave
Anstotle, on the contrary, Introduces mto Sl!l:'nus' words the
fundamental conceptwn of Plato's metaphySICS To 1.111 yevemloL
IS not merely' not to be born' , It also means . not to enter Into
BecomIng' To Becommg the Philebus (53 c if) opposes the
pure Bemg of the world of Ideas as at once ItS complete OppOSIte
and ItS hIghest aIm All that IS valudble, all that IS perfect, all
that IS absolute, belongs to BeIng, all that IS bad, Imperfect, and
relahve, belongs to BecomIng Whereas Anstotle in hIS later
ethICS dIffers from Plato In that he seeks not for an absolute
good but for the bes tfor man (av6pt::lmvov aya66v) ,Inthis dIalogue
he IS completely on PlatOnIC ground It IS shU self-evIdent to
hIm that when we dISCUSS the hIghest value we thmk of the
transcendental Bemg or the absolute Good, and not of what the
Greeks called happIness (Eli1.OIl.lovla) In the absolute Good no
1 Anst frg 44 (Rose. P 48. 1 23-P 49. 1 1 I)
THE EUDEMUS 49
earthly actIvIty can share We must get back as qUIckly as
possIble out of the realm of BecomIng and ImperfectlOn mto the
unseen world of BeIng
Anstotle's Platonism comes out most clearly m the mam
subject of the dIalogue, the doctnne of Immortahty Later on he
held that the essentIal problem of psychology was the conneXlOn
between the soul and the bodtly orgamsm, and he clatrns to have
been the first to recogmze the psycho-physIcal nature of mental
phenomena The first result of the dIscovery of these psycho-
phySIcal relatIons was mevitably to undermme the PlatOniC
bebef m the permanence of the mdIvIdual soul, and the only part
of hIS ongmal conVIctIon that Anstotle could retam was the
behef that pure Ntis Ii> llldependent of the body All the other
functIOns of the 'iouI, such as reflectIon, love and hate, fear,
anger, and memory, mvolve the p'iyeho-physlcal umty ai> theIr
substratum and dISappear together \\-Ith It I ThIS dIsbelIef ill
the trnmortahty of . the whole soul' (thIS I'i the only hlstoncally
accurate way of descnbmg what moderns often anachromstIcally
call IndIVIdual ImmortalIty) appears qmte early m Ani>totle
Among the treatIses Book 1\ of the M etaphys1c!> tend" to lImIt
surVIval to Nus, and thIi> wa" wntten soon after Plato'" death 2
And even In an excerpt made by lamblIchus out of Anstotle's
Protrept1cus we read Man has nothmg dlvme or blessed except
the one thmg worthy of trouble, whatever there IS In us of Nus
and reason ThIS alone of what we have seems Immortal and
dlvme '3 ThIS hmitatIOn causes hIm to value Nus all the hIgher,
It IS actually God m us-whIch recalls the doctrme of . Nus
entering from outsIde' HIs ethIcal doctnne of happmess and hIS
theologIcal doctnne of the thought of thought depend on thIS
VIew It IS therefore comprehensIble that as early as the Neo-
Platomsts men began to try to refer the arguments of the
Eudemus to Nus alone ThemistlUs connects up thIS dIfficult
questIon WIth the problem of how to understand the conceptlOn
of the soul lD the Phaedo, whIch hkewlse contams certam
ambIgUItIes
I For the InseparabIlity of the mental functions from the body see De An
I I 40, 16, el pass"" I'or tllL dilferenu between the 1\'115' amI the
functIons see I 4. 408 b 18-30
Anst Metaph 1\], 1070' 24 3 Anst frg 61
SO THE ACADEMY
Themlshus mdeed, or hIS source, ascnbed to the Phaedo the
secret mtentlOn of makmg only Nus eternal, but here he IS
confusIng the mtentIon of Plato's arguments wIth theIr conse-
quences I The myths of the pumshment of sms and of the
rewardIng of souls m the after-hfe mevltably mvolve the
survIval of the whole soul', and lose all sense if applIed to
Anstotle's Nus Nevertheless, It cannot be demed that the
more earnest' of the proofs m the Phaedo (to use Themlstms'
expressIOn) prove the etermty of reason only, for mstance that
from recollectIon and that from the soul's kInshIp Ith God
The fact IS that Plato dId not clearly dI,>hngmsh the two
problems m hIS dIalogues, they were first mastered m the dIS-
CUSSIOns m the Academy, whIch gave nse to Anstotle's cauhous
later fonnula In the Phaedo we can shll clearly dIscern the
ongmal currents of thought that were umted m Plato's relIgIOn
of ImmortalIty The one comes from the Anaxagorean specula-
tIOns about pure Nus. thIS rested on an apotheOSIS of sCIentIfic
reason, and constItuted the phIlosophIcal hIgh-water mark of
fifth-century ratIOnalIsm The other current IS of OpposIte
ongIn It anc;es out of the OrphIC behef m another hfe, out of the
cathartIC relIgIOn that preaches repentance and punficatlOn m
order that the soul (\lNXf)) may not suffer the most fnghtful
penalties on the other '>Ide In thIS there IS no speculatIon, It
IS the ethIcal and rehglOus feehng of the Independence and
IndestructIbIlIty of the soul's essence In Plato thec;e two
currents coalesced mto a seemmg umty ThiS umty was based,
however, not on a real kmshIp m ItS elements, but on the
marvellous combmatIOn of ratIOnal clanty and fervent relIgiOUS
longmg m Plato's own soul Beneath the probe of the analyttcal
mtellect the creatiOn breaks up again mto ItS ongmal parts
After all thIS It cannot surpnse us that In the Eudemus Ans-
totle follows the VIew of the Phaedo even In holdIng that 'the
whole soul' IS Immortal 2 ThIS realIstIc VIew IS the only one
that can gIve relIgIOUS comfort to the heart of man, whIC!1 cares
nothmg for the etermty of the unpersonal reason, WIthout love
I Anst frg 38
Tlus IS perfectly clear [rom Themlsbus' words, which Imply that It would
need' mterpretatlOn' to apply the Eudetllus' proofs of the surVIval of the soul
to Nus alone
THE EUDEMUS 51
and without memory of thIS hfe But Anstotle has wrestled with
doubts, and they have left traces In his notIon of PlatonIc recol-
lectIOn We know that m his psychology he rejects recollection
along with the Idea-theory and the survival of the whole soul' 1
The Eudemus, on the other hand, IS still based on thiS theory
But at the time of wntmg It Anstotle had already put to him-
self, and attempted to answer by Plato's method,>, the psycho-
logical question whether conscIOusness IS continUOUS In the hfe
after death ThiS IS the question on which Immortahty In the
sense meant In the Phaedo later seemed to him to founder The
contmUlty of conSCIOusness depends on memory Whereas he
later demes that Nus possese;es thiS, In the Eudemus he tnes to
save It for the soul that has returned to the other world He
does thiS by enlargmg Plato's recollectIOn Into a doctnm' of the
contInUIty of conscIOusness m all three phases of the soul's
eXistence-Its former eXistence, ItS hfe on t ~ earth, and Ite;
hfe after death Alongside the PlatOniC view that the soul
remembers the other world he sets hIS theSIS that It remembers
thiS one He supports thIS by an analogy When men fall III
they sometimes lose theIr memones, even to the extent of
forgettmg how to read and wnte, whIle on the other hand
those who have been restored from illness to health do not forget
what they e;uffered whIle they were III In the same WdY the soul
that has descended mto a body forgets the ImpressIOns recelwd
durmg ItS fanner eXIstence, whJ.1e the soul WhICh death has
restored to ItS home m the other world remembers ItS expenences
and suffenngs (nOei\lJCITO) here 1 Life without a b.Jdy IS the
<"oul's nonnal state (KCITel: Ci'vaw) , ItS sOjourn m the body IS a
severe Illness Our Lethe of ",hat we beheld In our prevIOus
lIves IS only a temporary mterruptIon and obscuratIOn of our
memones and of the contmUlty of our consclOue;ness Smce
nothmg of t ~ kmd IS to be feared when we grow well again, I e
when our souls are freed from theIr bodIes, thiS view appears to
guarantee the ImmortalIty of the whole soul' The valIdity of
the proof depends on the correctness of ItS presupposItion, that
man's knowledge IS a recollection of . the VlSlOne; there' (Tel: tKEI
6EaIJCITO) The personal ImmortalIty that the Eudemus teaches
necessanly stands or falls along With thiS Platomc dogma Plato
I De An III 5, 430 13. Metaph A 9,993 1 Anst frg 41
52 THE ACADEMY
had supported hIs great logtcal dIscovery, the a p l ~ o r ~ with the
myth of recollectIon At first the young ArIstotle followed along
the hnes of thIS myth, and we should not be JustIfied m regard-
mg thIS way of thmkmg, whIch IS a fundamental dogma m the
Meno and the Phaedo, as a mere metaphor m the pupl1 But the
moment that he had clearly grasped the speCIfically logIcal nature
of pure thought, and realIzed that memory IS a psycho-physIcal
phenomenon, he demed that Nus was capable of recollectIOn
and dropped pre-exIstence and Immortahty In the Eud-emus,
however, he has not yet reached the mstant at WhICh Plato's
realIstIc myth was to fall apart mto Its two elements, poetry
and conceptIOn
The Circle of PlatOnIC vIews that surrounds the fortunes of the
soul m the Eudemus IS now closed but for the last hnk, namely
the Forms A sober and unprejudIced cntIc WIll certamly feel
that It would be unreasonable to stnke out of Proclus' account,
whIch he descnbes as authentic AnstotelIan doctnne, Just that
lInk m the cham of conceptIons whIch alone gIVes meamng and
logical conneXIOn to the whole expOSItIon, or to declare It an addi-
tIon of hiS own ThIS IS the theory of Forms It IS preCIsely the
Forms of the Phaedo that are hIdden behmd the VISIOns there'
QUIte apart from the language, whIch IS pure Plato, Anstotle
could never have spoken In thIS way on the baSIS of hIS later
psychology and epistemology And even If Proclus' quotatIOn
dId not exphCltly guarantee the occurrence of the Forms m the
Eud-emus, the adoptIon of the doctrmes of pre-eXIstence and
recollectIon would be enough by Itself to make them necessary
As Plato says m the Phaedo, you can admIt or deny the Fonns,
but you cannot separate them from recollection and pre-
eXIstence These doctnnes stand or fall together, and the
necessIty for both of them IS one and the same I Later on, when
ArIstotle abandoned the theory of Forms, he mevltably dropped
recollectIOn along WIth It
ThIS then IS the relatIOn In whIch Anstotle stood to Plato at
about the year 354/3, after at least thIrteen years of study
I Plato, Phaedo 76 D Bernays's mam argument to prove that the outlook of
lOhe l:.udemus cannot be based on the doctnne of Forms IS once agam the
testimony of Proclus and Plutarch, that Anstotle attacked the Forms even m
the dIalogues (op CIt, p 25) AgaInst thIS see P 35 above
THE EUDEMUS 53
under hun HIS Platomc penod extends nearly down to the
death of h1S teacher In so far as early works glVe us any mfor-
mahon about the nature of a wnter, 1t IS qUlte possIble to IDfer
some of ArIstotle's typical charactenstIcs from the Eudemus
The pecuhar thmg IS that he was already a master In the realm
of method and 10glcal techmque at a time when he was stIll
completely dependent on Plato In metaphySICS ThIS depen-
dence was ObVIOusly rooted m the depths of hIS unreasoned
rehgIOus and personal feehngs The corrections that he under-
takes to mtroduce mto hIS Platomc archetype are cautlOus and
conservahve He even attempts to follow along Plato's own
most IndIvIdual path, mto the realm of the myth of the soul's
ThIS 1S the home of one of Plato's greatest phIlo-
sophical powers, the power of shapmg a Weltanschauung In
the Eudemus It already clear that Amtotle's capacity In thIS
matter IS less, m spite of the mtenslty of hiS mner need for It,
than hiS m sCience m the narrower sense
CHAPTER IV
THE PROTREPTICUS
I FORM AND PURPOSE
N
EXT to the Eudemus the Protrept1cus IS for us the most
Important work of all those wntten before Plato's death,
both because of the extent to whIch It IS preserved and because
of ItS actual sIgmficance FIrst, however, we reqUire a proof
that It was wntten before Plato's death, for as yet scarcely the
shadow of one has been offered Even the problem of Its hterary
form, though much dIscussed until recently, has not been
completely explamed Still less has any attempt been made
to determme Its phIlosophIcal contents.
The Protrept1cus holds an exceptIOnal pOSItion among Ans-
totle's early wntmgs It IS addressed to Themison, a pnnce of
Cyprus Although we know notlllng further of thIS man and hIS
Circumstances, It IS easy to Imagme what sort of person a small
enhghtened despot would be at the begmmng of the HellemstIc
age We know two other Cypnan pnnces from Isocrates' enco-
mlUm to Evagoras and hIS open letter to Evagoras' son Nlcocles
The address to Nlcocles IS a protreptIc, It prescnbes to the young
ruler the best prmCIples of Just and mtellIgent government In
the fourth century the schools competed m thiS way for the
attentIon of the temporal powers, m order to obtam mfluence m
pohtIcs We do not know whether It was through his Cypnan
frIend Eudemus that Anstotle came to know Themlson We
mu"t certamly suppose that the purpose which his letter served
formed part of the far-reachmg pohtIcal actIvIties of the
Academy at that tune
Anstotle addressed Themlson m the mtroductlOn He there
saId that ThcmIson's wealth and pOSItIon made hIm peculIarly
sUitable for phIlosophy 1 ThiS IS not a piece of flattery, as It
seems at first Sight We must remember that on Plato's view
the only persons who can hope to reahze the greatest good m the
state, and to give help to suffermg humamty, are phIlosophers
who obtam polItical power, or kmgs who devote themselves
I Anst frg 50
THE PROTREPTlCUS 55
senously to phIlosophy Thus Plato too holds that riches and
power are mdispensable mstnunents of the Idea I ThetnlSon IS
to help to realIZe the polItIcal phIlosophy of the Academy
The fonn of the work IS closely connected With thIS purpose,
and thIS IS one of the matters m whIch we suffer from havmg
usually treated the two questIons separately The protreptIc
fonn took ItS ongIn m the new educatIonal method of the
SOphIStS It IS not a development of the Socratic method It by
no means necessarIly demands the dIalogue dress, although that
has often been regarded as the natural thmg for Anstotle's
exotenc wntmgs Z When CIcero 10 hIS Hortensius put the Ideas
of Anstotle's Protrepttcus mto dIalogue form, he thought It
necessary to announce the alteratIOn even In the tItle And the
fonn of the protreptIcs that are preserved, although they belong
to the tIme of the emperors, allows us to mfer that a protreptIc
was an exhortatIOn, somethmg lIke the HellemstIc proselytIz-
mg sennon, whIch IS connected wIth It m fonn and spmt, and
whIch has been taken over by the ChnstIan church Probably
protreptIc Ideas were often converted lllto dIalogues, as has
happened In the Table! of the so-called Cebes Whether thIS was
so WIth Antlsthenes' IS not certam, but everybody
knows that Plato dId It WIth Socratic arguments m the Euthy-
demus In that dIalogue Socrates gIves to the sophISts \\'ho are
takmg part In the conversation examples of a protreptIc dIscus
SlOn WIth a pupIl, m hIS own peculIar form of questIOn and
Just dS he often makes fanCIful play WIth the SOphIStiC
fonus of expreSSIOn Anstotle expressly follows thIS claSSIcal
eXdmple of Platomc protreptIc-but only m content In fonn
he here for once takes the path not of Plato but of Isocrates
The fonn of a personal letter IS not the only thmg that Ans-
totle borrowed from thIS source, for exhortatIOn (lTapa[vEClIS)
I The author of the second PlatOniC letter IS expressmg a thoroughly PlatOnIC
nohon when he says (310 E) 'It IS a natural law that WIsdom and great power
attract each other They are always pursumg and seekmg after each other and
Commg together'
In our catalogues of Anstotle's works, both In DlOgenes and In HesychlUs
and Ptolemy the Prolrepltcus IS l1sted among the exotenc WritIngs, whIch are
glVtn first But thIS Implies nothmg "bout Its form, since It IS pOSSible that
other wntmgs beSides the dialogues were exoteJlc The Prolrephcu; would be
reckoned exoteric Just as much If It were In the form of a speech or an open
letter
56 THE ACADEMY
was a standmg part of the Isocratean method of educatIOn To
address oneself to a particular person 15 a very anCIent pomt of
'ityle In every kmd of moral maXIm and dIdactic speech In the
penod dunng whIch the accepted means of exertmg a spmtual
mfluence on mankmd was poetry. we can follow the address to
an mdividual from exhortations to Perses down to the
dIdactic poem of Empedocles and the maXIms that Theogms
addressed to Cyrnus, the schools were still usmg the latter for
the moral educatlOn of boys at the time of Socrates and the
sophIsts The sophIsts replaced thIS old-fashlOned maXlIl1-poetry
WIth a new prose form, whIch began to compete successfully
WIth the tradItional method I The pattern of a pnnce that
Isocrates gives us In hiS Ad N'tcoclem IS the sophistIc counter-
part of the pattern of chIvalry In Thf'ognis Both belong to the
same genus Anstotle's Protrept'tcus IS, however, more than a
phI1osophlcal pattern for prInces It proclauns the new Ideal of
the purely phllosophic hfe, whIch Plato demanded from the man
of action as much as from anyone (for to exhort a practIsmg
pohtIcIan to cultivate the' theoretIc hfe' IS a Platomc traIt,
foreIgn to the later Anstotle) InCIdentally work IS not, as
IS generally saId, . dedIcated' to pnncely friend The
dedIcation of dIalogues and trf'atIses belong.., to the hterary
customs of HellemstIc courtesy, no such artifiCIal usage ",as
known to the better penod WIth An'itotle the address to a
partIcular person IS still the hvmg eA-preSSIOn of the mood of
earnest ethIcal exhortatIOn It IS orgamc to the protreptic style
as such
There are other traces of the ImItatIOn of the Isocratean
exhortatIOn or It IS true that even here we find
the peculiar form that stamps everythmg commg from Amtotle,
the predommance of the arrangement of chams of thought In
apodictIc syllogIsms It IS true that hf're thIS form
could wm easy and mgemous vlctones (' Ought we to philo-
sophIze , was the question that preoccupIed every exhortatIOn
to the study of phIlosophy ArIstotle's answer came pat EIther
we ought to phIlosophIZe or we ought not If we ought, then we
I P Wendland gives the true account of the development of the prose pro-
trepbc out of the maxim-poetry of the 'YlTo6i'iKQ, In hIS Anaxlmenes von Lam-
psakos (Berhn, 1905) pp 81 ff Cf Isocr Ad N.cocl 3
THE PROTREPTICUS 57
ought If we ought not, then also we ought (In order to Jushfy
thIS vIew) Hence in any case we ought to phIlosophlZe I Most
of the remaInIng fragments have a sImIlar SyllOgIStic form)
Nevertheless, the Ideas of the older exhortations often shIne
through thIS veIl of dIalectic The rnterplay between the old
!>tore of Ideas and the new and stnkIng way of supportIng them
comes out particularly clearly In one of the longer fragments
This passage survIved long enough to get Into the ByzantIne
anthologies. ItS ongmal, unabndged form has lately been dIS-
covered In a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus z
. BelIeve that man's happmess hI's not m the magmtude of hIs posses-
sIOns but m the proper condItIOn of soul Even the body IS not called
blessed because It IS magnIficently clothed, but because It 15 healthy and
In good condItIOn, even If It lacks del araban In the same way only
the cultIvated soul IS to be Lalled happy and only the man who IS such.
not the man who IS magmficently decorated With external goods, but IS
hImself of no value \Ve do not LalI a bad valuable because It has a
golden bIt and costly we reserve our for the horse that IS
In perfect conditIon'
Or agaIn
. Just as a man would be a ridIculous figure If he were Intellectually and
morally mfenor to m the same way v.e must belIeve a man
ml'ierable If hls possessIOns are more valuable than hlmself Sabety
begets wantonness, says the proverb Vulganty lInked With power and
possessions bnngs forth folly'
These Ideas are not peculIar to PlatOniC WIsdom, but the apo-
diCtIc form of expOSItIon IS new The frequent' we must belIeve'
IS Itself one of the techmcal deVIce" of SOphIstIC exhortatIOn
Isocrates In hIS addres!:> to Nlcocles, and the author of the
protreptIc To DemomcU';, begm therr maXImS In thIS way no less
than fifteen trrnes Our phIlosophIcal analySIS WIll show that
Anstotle effectIvely transfonned not merely the InexhaustIble
storehouse of ancient Greek proverbial WIsdom, but also Plato's
ethICS and metaphySICS He makes the hortatory content of the
and the Phaedo coalesce WIth the UnIform prose of the
Isocratean protreptIc ThIS syntheSIS IS the frUIt of the young
PlatOnIst's efforts to make techmcal rhetonc at home In the
Academy, and to tum It mto a SCIentIfic dIsclplme
In thIS way the comes to be a manIfesto on behalf
of Plato's school and ItS nohon of the aim of hfe and culture
1 Frg 51 Frg 57 U Pap Oxy,ll, vol IV, pp 83 fI
S8 THE ACADEMY
Isocrates had been combmmg mmd-trammg, by means of fonnal
exerClSes m WrItIng and speakmg, with mstruchon m the pnn-
Clples of ethics and of practical statesmanship HlS cucle now
found Itself publicly opposed by a new competitor The Pro-
treptlcus showed that the Academy could hold Its own m the
sphere of rhetOrIC BeSides thiS, Its contents must have seemed
to the followers of Isocrates an open attack on their Ideal of
culture Isocrates' polemical remarks on the Platomc Ideal of
educatIng the young by means of pure phuosophy, and hiS
recommendatIOn of the banal viewpoInt of utulty m education,
deSigned to smt the psychology of the average PhulStme-these
thmgs had long called for an answer from the Academy In the
Protreptlcus Anstotle refuted the tnvlal proposItion that the
value of knowledge IS to be measured accordmg to ItS utulty m
practical life But what refuted banauslc persons even more
convIncmgly than the acuteness of hiS syllogisms was the
demonstratlOn, renewed m every lme, uf hiS own mtellectual
supenonty He showed that neither a good style of wntmg, nor
a senSible dispOSItion of one's life, nor a productive statesman-
almS towards which Isocrates professed to lead-IS
pOSSible Without solidity m the ultlmate pnnclples of human
conviction
It appears that the school of Isocrates did not fau to produce
a reJomder, and that an aCCident has preserved It for us among
the speeches of Isocrates It IS the anonymous exhortation To
Demonlcus, a wretched piece of work by an mfenor mmd, betray-
mg the spmt of sheer envy and competitIveness The author
can be recognized as a pupu of Isocrates by the arsenal from
which he draws lus Intellectual weapons-the arrangement and
the commonplaces of the speech show that It cannot have been
wntten appreCiably later Presumably It IS preserved sunply
because It was commissioned by the school In the mtroduchon
the author explams hiS mtentlons m the followmg manner I
'Those who compose protrepbc addressed to their own
fnends are, no doubt, engaged in a laudable employment, yet they do
not occupy themselves w,th the most Vital part of plulosophy Those,
on the contrary, who pomt out to the young. not by what means they
may cultivate slull m mere dialectic WII Tl111 2.E1116"TT\Ta """II fll ToiS
I [boer] Ad D,mon 3
THE PROTREPTICUS
59
A6yOlS aaKl'jaovalv).' but how they may Win repute as men of sound
charader, are rendenng a greater service to their hearers, In that,
while the fonner exhort them to proficiency In argument, the latter
Improve their moral conduct'
ThIS appears to be dIrected agamst a protreptic addressed
to a frIend from a phIlosophIcal pomt of VIew, conscIOusly
theoretical, and calhng for the study of dIalectIc Surely no
such work can have become suffiCIently famous to seem
to the Isocratean Circle, except the Protrepttcus of
Amtotle ThiS fits 10 speCially well WIth what the follower
of Isocrates says about hIS opponent's hostIle attitude towards
hfe and the world, as dIsplayed 10 hIS view of the aIm of
educatIon It was the first phIlosophIcal protreptIc, and so far
as we know the only one, defimtely to put the controversial
question whether we really ought to educate merely for' hfe'
Agamst the bourgeOIS world of Isocrates It set up Its bold
demand for' the theoretic hfe' \Ve need not, however, content
ourselves WIth general consideratIOns, It IS pOSSIble to gIve more
tangible proof of ItS mfluence on the Ad Demomcum 2.
Ad Demon 19 'Do not heSitate
to travel a long road to thuse who
profess to offer some mstruc-
tIon, for It were a !.hame, when
merchants cross In order
to theIr store of wealth,
Anst frg 52 (Rose, p 62, 1 7)
'We ought not to shun philosophy,
If philosophy IS as we thmk the
and use of Wisdom, and
Wisdom IS onc of the greate!.t goods
We ought not to sail to the pillars
I The notIon of phIlosophy IS that of Isocrates, wh,ch reo;embles our
notIon of general culture 1hL skill m argumult' that he comlemns, and the
cultI\atIon' of thiS IS as WLndland not the cle\crness of the rhl'tonclan
He IS not protn'pbcs on bl'h,l1f of rhetonL, but logical or dialectIcal
phIlosophy cf hocr Hil 2 when the saine things are dgaIn descnbed as
'Lxcesslve m ,"rguffiLnts' (mplEpyla Iv In the Anttdos..
(2.58 ff) dialectIC gLomctry, and astronomy are associated as formmg the
opponent s charactLrlstlc educatIOnal programme As In the speech To
Demomcus, they arc saId to be useful Indeed as mtdlectual diSCiplines (265),
but not helpful for gnat actlOlls and Ideals
In hiS excellent dlscu"IOn of the Ad DemontLum P Wendland (op Cit,
PP 92 ff) l.alls attentIOn to ItS relations to Anstotle's l'rolrept,C14s, and POints
out the parallel given m the ted Although he does not draw It, It seems to me
the IDLvltable consequence of these observatIOns that the Ad DenlOnlCUm IS
maInly aImed at thc Protreptlells, and Wa.!> dctual1y written WIth the mtLntlon
of setting up ,mother goal agaInst the Ideal of that work It IS not of course
necessary that the f'Cho followed ImmedIately on the appearance of Anstotle's
","ork, but It was certamly wntten Wh1iL he was stIll alive Durmg the'IleJl.t
hundred years the Influence of thL Protrept.C14s was mueasmg (cf
Allst frg 50), which makes such a cntIclsm of It perfectly comprLhenslbk
60
THE ACADEMY
that the young should not endure
even Journeys by land to Improve
their understandmg ,
Cf the begmmng of thIS section
'Beheve that many precepts are
better than much wealth, for
~ e l t h qUickly falls us, but pre-
cepts abide through all time, for
wISdom alone of all possesSIOn" ~
Impenshable '
of Hercules and run many dangers
for the sake of wealth, whl1e we
spend neither labour nor money
for wisdom Venly It IS slavISh to
long for hfe mstead of for the good
hfe, and to follow the opmIOns of
the many mstead of demandmg
that the mdny follow our own, and
to seek for money but pay no
attenbon whatever to the noble'
The correspondence between the two passages cannot be
accidental, for the followmg reason In Anstotle the picture of
the sauors n!>kmg all dangers m their hunger for wealth provides
a very good contrast to the men who must make sacnfices m
order to cultivate the hIghest goods The pupu of Isocrates, on
the other hand, bnngs It m loosely, Just as a rhetonclan would
collect tncks of style m hiS readmg and afterwards make use of
them He IS unable to get the proper effect With It HIS anti-
thesIS seems stramed and fngld To the borrowed lmage of the
seafanng merchants he opposes the safe travel of the student
overland, gOing to Athens to attend the umverslty HIS sur-
pnsmg admomtlOn that . many lectures' are worth more than
. much wealth' IS for once not altogether lacklOg m ongmahty,
for 10 the school of Isocrates mstructlon was expenslVe
2 PRESERVATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
In hiS penetratmg book on Anstotle's dIalogues Bemays
directed the attentIon of phllologlSts to the works of the Neo-
Platon1!>ts, by glvmg some examples of theIr predIlection for
these dialogues
ThiS brought forth excellent fnnt m 1B69, when Ingram
Bywater showed that there are large portions of Anstotle's
Protrephcus m Iambhchus' work of the same name, where they
he buned under numerous excerpts from Plato's dIalogues I
As luck would have It, Bemays had by that time completed
hIS researches, and hiS conclUSIOn, that Anstotle never had a
Platomc penod, barred hun from understandmg the new diS-
covery Even Bywater hImself remamed entIrely convmced by
Bemays's argument HIS debght at hIS find led hIm to ha!>ty
I The Journal of PhIlology, vol \1, PP 55 ff
THE PROTREPTICUS 61
publication, wIthout any careful attempt to make sure of what
he had got, or to establish the lImIts of the new fragments
The Protreptuus of Iamblichus IS a reader for begInners In
phIlosophy It IS put together out of such works as taught a
genuInely Pythagorean doctnne accordIng to the Neo-Platomsts
subsequent to Porphyry These were (I) theIr own, (2) the
wntIngs, mo<;tly spunous, of the older Pythagoreans whom they
quote, and above all (3) those of Plato and the early Anstotle,
who were regarded as genuIne esotencs The sacredness of these
wntIngs IS an example of the tremendous power then exercIsed
by tradItion as embodied In books, we see It also In contemporary
ChnstIamty and JudaIsm, and later In Islam Out of loosely
connected passages from Plato'<; dialogues, mostly well-known
ones, Iamblichus weaves a vanegated carpet The tranSItIons
a.re Inadequate and stereotyped, <;0 that the seams are every-
where vIsIble at first sIght The conversational parts are trans-
formed mto contInUOUS prose, not \Hthout senous maccuraCIeS
Although It IS not expliCItly saId that Plato and ArIstotle are
bemg quoted, there IS no questIOn of an attempt to deceIve, for
every scholar was famIlIar wIth the passages Even so, It IS a
sorry pIece of work, and gIves eVIdence of the fact that literary
culture and SCIentIfic Independence were steadIly declImng at
the tIme Iamblichus took account of An<;totle's Protrepttcus
because It was the archetype of thI'; form of wntIng, If for no
other reason, and he got hIS excerpts from hIs own readmg of It
The Neo-PlatonIsts were attracted by the ascetic and religIOUS
character of the book They conSIdered It eVIdence of Anstotle's
supposed PlatOnIsm, or at any rate a mean<; of reconcilIng the
contradlctlOns between Plato and the PenpatetIc doctrIne One
may go so far as to say that the Neo-PlatonIsts cau<;ed a reVIval
of the book, for almost everyone of them reveals traces of It
We now corne to the determInatIOn of the extent of the
excerpts m Iamblichus, a task already attempted by Bywater,
HIrzel, and Hartlich I The mam portIOn of hIS book, chapters
5-19, IS made up of quotatIons from Plato's dIalogues In chap-
ters 6-12 thIS senes IS mterrupted by passages from Anstotle
I Hlrzel, Hermes, vol x, pp 83 fi Paul Hartlleh 'De exhortabonum a
Graccls Rom.lnIsque scnptarum hlstona ct !Odole' (Lelpz Studlen, vol Xl,
l'.lrt LeIpZIg, 1889)
f
62 THE ACADEMY
They all come from a lost work, and that thIS 15 the Protreptzcus
was first recognIzed by Bywater hunself IdentificatIon was not
dIfficult, because portlOns of these chapters are to be found In
CIcero, AugustIne, Praclus. and Boethms, eIther verbally the
same or nearly so, and eIther ascnbed to Anstotle or In ObvlOusly
protreptIc passages and m wntmgs that can be proved to be
dependent on hIS Protreptzcus Impressed by the lack of order
In the excerpts, HIrzel and Harthch asserted that Iambllchus
must have used other wrItmgs of Anstotle's as well, but thIS has
not been proved In additIon to Plato and Anstotle another
wnter IS used In chapter 5. and to hIm are ascnbed the parts of
that chapter that cannot be referred to Plato The end of It IS
generally reckoned along wIth the demonstrably Anstotehan
excerpts begInnIng In chapter 6 (as In the latest edItIon, that of
PistellI), but I hope to show In another place that It comes from
Porphyry ThIS would make It probable that Porphyry Ie; also
the author of the three other umdentIfied sectlOns of chapter 5.
smce they are clearly Neo-Platomc 10 ongm
The excerpts from Anstotle begIn WIth some loosely connected
arguments on behalf of the value of phl1osophy They are based
on Plato's Euthydemus. bemg taken over more or less verbally
from Socrates' protreptlc conversatIon (278 E ff), a fact that
has escaped notice \Vhat 15 more Important IS that thIS IS the
very part of the Euthydemus that Iambhchus also uses as the
begmnmg of hIS quotations from Plato (p 24, II 22 ff) SInce
It IS Improbable that the repetition of It here IS an oversIght,
and smce the words are not a pIam CItatIOn from the Euthydemus,
but a compresslOn of Plato's exposItIon mto several faIrly long
syllogIsms, In whIch there are some Anstotehan terms, It IS obVIOUS
that Iambhchus IS here usmg not Plato dIrectly, but an Inter-
medIate source That source IS Anstotle's Protreptzcus Just as In
the Eudemus Anstotle took the Phaedo for model, so 10 the Pro-
treptzcus he frequently followed the work that contaIned Plato's
cntIclsm of the SOphIStS' protrephcs, namely the Euthydemus
ThIS bnngs us another step forward Bywater compared the
followmg passages together
Cle HortenslUS (ed Balter) frg
26. (ed Mueller, frg 36)
Bean certe ornnes esse "olumus
Iambl Protr (ed Plstelh) p 24.
22
All we men w ~ to fare well
THE PROTREPTICUS 63
That Cicero made use of Anstotle's In hIS protrepbc
dialogue IS so Indubitably certaIn on other grounds that It
scarcely needed the support of this verbal agreement Bywater
supposed that here agaIn Anstotle was the common source
The passage m Iambhchus, however, along wIth Its whole con-
text (p 24,1 22,-p 27,1 10), belongs to a dIrect quotatIon from
the Euthydemus, and this makes Bywater's Inference mvahd for
Iambhchus On the other hand, the view that Cicero also made
direct use of the Euthydemus lITIputes to hlITI a more piecemeal
method of workIng than he had TIus sentence, which formed
the begmnlng of a syllogIsm, was doubtless really taken from
Anstotle's Protreptuus, and It was Anstotle and not Cicero who
got It out of the Euthydemus, along with all the passages that we
have recovered above He was unwillmg, It seems, to leave out
the famous opemng sentence of the protreptIc conversatIOn In
the Euthydemus IamblIchus, on the other hand, omIts It when
quotmg Anstotle, because a few pages earher he has copied It
dIrectly out of Plato It IS thiS method of making excerpts that
Ie; responsible for the complete lack of conneXIOn In the first
senes of arguments (p 37, 11 3-22) that he takes over from the

The next passage reveals Iambhchus' method still more
deCiSIvely (Anst frg 52)
It consIst., of a Single complete argumentatIOn, extending over
several pages (p 37, I 22-P 41, I 5) At first Sight It seem,; to
be all of a pIece Smce 11 15-24 of P 40 are also quoted by
Proclus, and by him expressly ascnbed to Anstotle, IT has been
mferred that not merely thiS passage but the whole proof IS
borrowed from the Protrept1cuS That work must certainly have
discussed the POSSlblhty of philosophy as a department of
human knowledge, ItS Importance for hfe, and the rate of Its
advance Besides thiS, the whole proof reappears In another
book of Iambhchus', where It IS Incongruously used as a defence
of mathematIcs There It IS preceded by a cntlclsm of philO-
sophy from the Side of ItS enemIes, those who are opposed to all
mere theory on pnnclple, and thiS passage also bears all the
marks of Anstotehan ongm Rose therefore connects the two
verSIOns (frg 52)
Inner eVIdence shows that there can be no doubt of the
64 THE ACADEMY
nghtness of thIS ascriptIon The onlyquestIOn IS whether Iambb-
chus took over the proof as a whole, or put It together for hlffiself
out of Anstotellan matenal In the first place, whue the excerpts
from Plato are throughout laid side by side Without any con-
neXlOn, we notIce that those from Anstotle evmce an Inner
relation In his Anstotellan source Iambbchus found a complete
tram of protreptIc thought, which he naturally e ~ l r e to
lImtate But the hope that he has preserved to us undamaged
,.. hole trams of argument from Anstotle's Protrepttcus unfortu-
nately turns out to be Illusory HIs model has mdeed mstIgated
him to attempt a connected proof of the mdependent value of
phIlosophy But the chapters m which he has articulated thIS
tram of thought, though outwardly polIshed, are a pretty crude
and VIOlent combmatlOn of AristotelIan materials Their out-
ward conJunctIon does not allow us to lOfer that they are
undamaged, or that they really belong togl'ther
Fragment 52 Will "erve as an example of the polOt The whole
IS a tnpartIte defence of phIlosophy The opemng and clOSing
words, and those m the middle, by means of whIch the three
parts are held together, are remlnl'5cent of Anstotle's manner m
hiS treatIses But If we compare the other verSIOn of thIS excerpt
10 Book III, we find that Iambhchus there omits the mtroduc-
tIon altogether and gives the conclUSIOn m another fonn It
follows that It IS he who 1'5 responsible for the structure of the
proof and for the words that mdlcate' It He has u<;ed Anstotle's
Ideas as buIldmg stones, and crudely forced them mto hIS own
miserable framework No trace of the ongmal architecture re-
mams The same conclUSIOn f o l l o ~ from the words that both
Iambhchus and Proclus have preserved at the end of the frag-
ment It 15 clear from theIr close and detaI1ed correspondence
that they are throughout the onglnal words of Anstotle The
only dlfterence hes In the pomt of view from which the quotation
1'5 mtroduced In each case Proclus uses It to prove that phIlo-
sophy IS an end m Itself (:t.I' MO alpET6v), a theSIS that receIVed
exhau!>tIve treatment 10 the Protrepttcus Iambhchus Wishes to
demonc;trate by Its means that philosophy cannot be a very
difficult study, which was certamly not Anstotle's mtentIon
ThiS arouses the SuspiCIOn that the rest of the construction of the
proof 15 equally un-Anstotehan Iambllchus' arrangement of hiS
THE PROTREPTICUS 65
matenalls superficIal, and we should be equally superficIal m
our analySIS of It If we dIvIded It by chapters, and still more so
1 we assIgned them to different wntmgs of Anstotle's There IS
no ground for the supposItIon that he used more than one work
It has been urged that such and such a chapter cannot be from
the because It mentIons thmgs that have already
been partly dIscussed m another chapter Such arguments are
not cogent The' chapters' are phantom buIldmgs They
crumble as soon as one taps the bnttle mortar that holds theIr
members m place Only the members themselves, falhng out of
theIr settmgs, will stand investIgatIon WIthout pulvenzmg
TheIr substance IS bound together by the stony lOgIC of Ans-
totle's syllOgISms
Through parallels m CIcero or Augustme and BoethlUs
l
the
followmg passages are also proved to be excerpts from the Pro-
chap 8, p 47, I 5-P 48, I 21 (frgs 59, 60, and 6r) ,
and chap 9, p 52, I 16-p 54, I 5 (frg 58) To these must be
added the begInnIng of chap 8, p 45, I 6-p 47, I 4 (frg 55)
ThIS whole porhon IS denved from a smgle source It IS charac-
tenzed by dIalectIcal mferences (' from the thIngs that seem
clear to all '), whIch Anstotle IS especIally fond of usmg In hIS
literary works, and by a peculiar use of the conceptIOn of WIsdom
(cpp6vTl CrlS), of whIch we shall speak hereaftf'r But there are
5tdl further excerpts I begIn WIth chapter 7, whIch IS especIally
Important and has up to now been held not to come from
Anstotle's
The opemng words are Iambhchus' own (p 41, II /)-r5) He
proposes to show (1) that thInkmg (TO CPpOVEIV, whIch 1" here
a genumely PlatOnIC term meamng the whole of pure philosophy)
IS valuable for men m Itself, (2) that It IS useful m hfe, because
WIthout thought and mference man cannot attam to anythmg
profitable, and (3) that philosophy IS essentIal to the attamment
of happmess, whatever outlook on hfe you may have, and
whether you understand by happmess a maXImum of pleasant
sensahons (';:Aov';)' or a hfe completely Imbued WIth ethical
I Usener's expectation (Rhem Mus, vol 28, P 400) of finding substantial
porbons of the HOtlenHus In Boetluus has not been fulfilled In fact, Boethlus
cannot have used thf' HortenHus at all as Usener hunself was later obhged to
adrmt (A need Holden, p 52) Augustine, on the other band was an a55lduous
reader of the dialogue
66 THE ACADEMY
pnnclples and occupied m their reahzatlOn (apET1'}), or the hfe
of the pure mtellect (cppOV1'lCl"Is) These three pomts correspond
exactly to the sequence of the chapters (I) chaps 7-9, (2) chap
la, and (3) chaps 11-12 Now It IS pOSSible to doubt how far
these chapters are copied from an Anstotehan source (It IS
shown below that as a matter of fact they are all excerpts from
the Protrept.cus) , but no one 15 gomg to belteve that m the order
gIVen to them m Iambhchus they constitute a smgle contmuous
fragment of Anstotle Therefore Iambhchus htmself must be
responsible for the mtroductory words m which the scheme of
the SIX follOWing chapters IS announced What he does 15 to take
thiS outlme and fill It out With selected passages from hiS source
(although no doubt the three dlvlSlons of the outhne are them-
selves copied from the same source) ThiS IS clear at the start,
after announcmg hiS plan he makes no attempt to smooth over
the transItion to verbal quotatIOn, but begms With Anstotle's
schematic phrase hi Tolvvv (p 41, I IS) The proof thus
maugurated extends down to p 43, I 25. and fonns on the Whole
a smgle tram of thought, though P 42, I 5, is undoubtedly
abbreViated At I 25 of P 43 some more eXCISIOns begm,
but the conclUSIOn of the precedmg part (p 43, 11 22-5) shows
how close was ItS anginal conneXlOn With the argument that
follows (p 43. I 27, to the end of chapter 7) I t is obvIOUS that
all thiS consists of disconnected quotations from an earher
author. and the style and the Ideas reveal at every turn that
that author IS Anstotle It was a very unmethodical proceedmg
to exclude these pages merely because there seemed to be no
external eVidence for them, when they are surrounded on all
Sides by demonstrably Anstotehan passages.
The mam thought of the first section (p 41, I I5-P 43, I 25)
IS speCifically Anstotehan, and so IS the way 10 which It IS de-
veloped In order to determme what IS favourable and advan-
tageous for each nature, the author makes use of the notion of
TEAOS" The' aun' of eveIY nature must be sought m some
slgmficant actiVity, some hvmg effectiveness that It has In the
mass of ItS effects or functIOns (!pyov) one wtll stand out as
its peculiar strength (o!lce(a apE"rlj) over agamst all other mdI-
vlduals or SpeCIes, thiS IS the work that II) essentIal to It and
constItutes ItS TEAOS The task of every nature LI) determmed
THE PROTREPTICUS 67
by Its mborn capacIty The scale of functIons accordmg to theIr
value IS gIven by nature, for the mstrumental ones are always
bIOlogIcally the lower, and the governmg ones the hIgher Such
IS the relatIOn, for example, of the bodIly to the mental functIons
In thIS sense the of the mental capacItIes has greater
value than that of the bodIly The hIghest of allIS that capacIty
of the soul whose value does not he In effectmg a mere result
(lpyov) dIstinct from Its own actIvity (t\lepyela) ThIS capa-
CIty does not aun at the productIOn of any external object, and
m It actIvIty and product are one Its name IS which
IS perhaps to be rendered as ' pure reason' has only
Itself for object and aun, and produces nothing but Itself It IS
pure IntwtIOn (6ewpla) In the conceptIon of IntUItion beIng,
actIon, and productIon, are resolved mto a umty The highest
fonn of lIfe IS neIther ordInary productIOn nor ordmary action,
but the contemplatIve VISion of the mtellect, whIch IS actIve and
productIve In a hIgher sense The followmg elements In thIS can
be seen at a glance to be AnstotelIan In content the companson
of the pleasures of contemplatIon wIth those of the dISInterested
use of the eyes, the Importance of the notIOn of functIOn
and work (evepyEla, epyov), the dIstInctIon between functIons
perlonned tn actIvItIes and those that are merely perlonned
through them, the distInctIon between the productive, the prac-
tIcal, and the theoretIcal actIVities, and the IdentIty of subject
and object In the actIve Intellect I In the doctnne of levels.
whIch IS presupposed here and receives express mentIon some-
what further on, we have the fundamental pnnclple of Ans-
totle's teleology, namely that In every sphere of reahty the
hIgher levels Include the lower Lastly, Anstotle was faImlIar
WIth the doctnne of the three lIves and three pomts of VIew, the
hedomstIc-sensual, the ethIcal, and the mtellectual
BeSIdes thI'> mternal eVIdence we have a convIncIng external
proof In the chapter on the ongmal fonn of the EthJCS It will
be shown that large and connected portIOns of the
correspond exactly In content and language to the ex-
cerpts that Iambhchus has preserved Some of them are
I The conceptIOn of Ipyov. which IS one of the most Important elements In
Anstotle's theory of value. IS present throughout the passage It appears In
the follOWing places p "2. II 5. IS, 19. 20, 22. P '13. II 6 9. 18, 21
68 THE ACADEMY
passages of whIch the author of the Eudemlan EthlCS expressly
says that he IS takIng them from' the exotenc works' Now If we
compare these passages wIth the excerpts In Iambhchus we find
that the latter are the archetypes It follows that the work from
whIch Iambhchus took these quotatIOns was one of those lost
works of Anstotle the apphcahan to whIch of the word 'exotenc'
was so long m dIspute, but IS now beyond doubt Now Iam-
bhchus' seventh chapter IS one of these excerpts Therefore It
must be AnstotelIan It IS equally certam that It must be from
the Protrephcus, SInce thIS IS true of the other passages m the
Eudemlan EthlCS that are known to be borrowed, and smce
the whole tram of thought IS protreptlc m tone
In hIS later lectures Anstotle frequently touched on the
questIOn of the value of the dIfferent kmds of lIfe, and put the
chOIce before hIS hearers In such places he mvanably dls-
tmgUlshed the hfe of pleasure and gam, the lIfe of action, and
that of the student and phllosopher The IS the
ongm both of the questIOn and of the answer, which IS that the
hfe of pure knowledge IS preferable to all other modes of human
eXistence, even from the ethIcal pomt of VieW
But the slgmficance of the quotation 10 Iambhchus' seventh
chapter IS "till not exhausted
Every reader of the M has been earned away agam
and agam by the force of ItS opemng pages Anstotle there de-
velops wIth IrreSIstible power the vIew that, far from Its bemg
contrary to man's nature to occupy hImself wIth theoretical
studIes, the pleasure of "eeIng, of understandmg, and of knowmg,
IS rooted deep wlthm hIm, and merely expresses Itself dIfferently
at the dIfferent levels of hiS conSCIOU'iness and culture It IS
really the fulfilment of man's hIgher nature, It IS not a mere
means to the satisfaction of the nsmg standards of clvlhzed hie,
but the highest absolute value and the summit of culture,
and of all studIes the hIghest and most deSirable IS the one
that produces the most exact SCIence, and reahzes m Its perfect
fOIm the dISInterested VISlOn of pure knowledge The pro-
treptlc power of these Ideas WIll be felt by all who have learnt
through expenence the supreme value of thIS actiVIty when pur-
sued for Its own sake Knowledge has never been understood and
Iccommended more purely, more earnestly, or more sublImely,
THE PROTREPTICUS 69
and It IS still a dead letter to-day for those who cannot pursue
It m thIS spmt Now to teach us to understand It m thIS pro-
found sense was what Anstotle aImed at m the Protreptzcus,
and the famow, mtroductIon to the 111etaphyszcs IS m essence
nothmg but an abbrevIated verSlOn of hIS claSSIcal expoSItIon
of the matter there ThIS IS shown by a campanson of lam-
bhchus' seventh chapter (p 43, I 20), WhICh develops the same
Idea at greater length, and carrIes the argument mto more
detail We find that the mtroductory chapter of the Metaphyszcs
IS sImply a collection of matendl e)..traeted from thIS source for
the purpose of a lecture, and that It IS not even qUIte firmly
cemented mto place
Protr, p 43, I 20 l1-fetaph AI,
All ll1en by nature deSIre to
know An llldicahon of thIS IS the
delight we takc III our for
even ap<irt from their usefulne!>s
they ave lOlled for themselves, and
,Ibove all others thc sense of SIght
For not only WIth a vIew to achon.
but wen uhen we are not gomg to
do anythmg, '/lie prefer uelng (one
mIght say) to everythIng else The
reason that thIS, most of all the
,Olses, mallCs us know and brings
/0 llght many ences between
thzng' By nature ammals dre born
With the faculty of SLl1SatJOn
Thought and contemplation
IS the deSIrable of all tlilngs Jor
men, as IS (I thmk) the of
"lght, wInch a man would
to even If nothing were
gOIng to come of It eucpt the
Itself
Agam, If we love SIght for Itself,
thiS IS suffiCIent proof that all mcn
love thought and kno\'<\edge ex-
ceedmgly But 1\ hat
life from non-hfe
perceptIon, and hfe detLrmmed
by the pre"ence of thIS cap.luty
The power of SIght dlffen from the
other bt bemg tIn ella/elt,
and thzs IS the reason whyUf plefer It
to alt If then life '" to cho5en bec,m<;e of perceptIOn, and If pe" eptlOn
IS a kznd of knowledge whlLh we dlOo<;e becduse It enahle<; the soul to
know, and If as Wi have a/Jove the prejeralJ/e one oj two tlll7lg, IS that
whzeh has Hune oj the lall/t thwg,' It nue,>sd-nI} folIo"., OJ it SIght 1., the
mo.,t de"lrable dud honoUfdule of the seme5, but thd.t Wisdom IS more
desnable than <ind all thc other and even thdn hfe Itsdf,
Slllce It has a better grasp of truth Z 1herefore all men .,cek wI5dom above
all tlung5. for they love Wisdom and knowledge because they love hfe
The meamng of the conCIse word &yCrrrT1O"IS m the second
sentence of the Metaphyszcs, namely the love of an actiVIty
for Its own sake, receIves much clearer cxpresslOn III the
I Readmg OT! Instead of oTlmp z Readmg KVp,cuTlpa ovcra
70 THE ACADEMY
correspond1Og passage of the excerpt from the Protrepttcus. as
was necessary 10 an exotenc exposItIon Every word IS obvlOusly
Anstotehan. but the excerptor has put together several distInct
passages from the Protrepttcus because of the sumlanty of theIr
contents, and as the weld IS pretty roughly made the whole gives
a tautologous effect It IS, however, qUlte Impossible to suppose
that we have here a mere paraphrase of the passage 10 the
Metaphystcs These excerpts defimtely go beyond what IS saId 10
that work ThIs IS espeCially clear m the emphasIs put on
correct logical reasomng, which corresponds to the pIcture of
Anstotle's early manner that we have received from the
Eudemus Examples are the use as a premIss of the topical
pnnclple that of two objects that whIch possesses a valuable
quahty In a higher degree IS It"elf valuable In a higher degree, I
and the use of defimtlOns In ordrr to prove that Wisdom IS good
by means of the conceptIOn of hfe Both In the Metaphyszcs and
10 the Protrepttcus the method of proof IS dialectIcal, and this
also agrees WIth what we observed m the Eudemus
The first twu chapters are of thiS nature throughout, and smce
they teach the same fundamental prInciple as the Protrepttcus,
namely the self-sufficiency of pure theoretIcal knowledge, It
IS natural to suppose that they are substantially or wholly
borrowed thelefrom ThiS can easIly be demonstrated m detail
In both wrItmgs the conceptIon of pure knowledge IS developed
by contrastmg It WIth the activity of the practical man, which
fests on mere expenence or routme It IS not the emplncal and
practIcal man who stands higher, but the theoretIcal and con-
templatIve one, for ernpmclsm never attams that mSlght mto
the causes and reasons for phenomena which the theoretIcal
man possesses OWIng to hiS mastery of the umversal The more
empmcal you are, and the more you rely on perceptlOn (npoa-
e E a l ~ the less exad your knowledge The only truly exact
knowledge IS that of what IS most knowable, namely those most
general pnnclples (Tel npc7na) whIch form the subject-matter of
the highest theoretical studIes It may well be that m practice
I In the Ewlemus the logical proposItion that the IdentIty of the oblect
depends on the IdentIty of the attnbutes was employed to refute the doctnne
that the Boul IS a harmony of the body In referring the greater value of the
object to the presence (V'rr1!1PXElv) of more valuable attnbutes Anstotle IS here
proceeding 1.0 a Slml]ar manner
THE PROTREPTICUS 71
the mere empmc will have more success than a theonst who has
had no actual expenence, but the former never attams to action
that really depends on secure pnnclples and on Insight mto the
necessIties of the case, he remaInS I banauslc The concealed
polemiC agamst banauslc persons and their contempt for theory,
which IS contmuous throughout the first chapters of the Meta-
phySfCS, was modelled on the Protreptzcus, In which Anstotle had
refuted the attacks of the empmclsts In detail Fortunately we
still possess a fragment that goes deeply mto the arguments of
the opposite Side (frg 52, Rose, p 59, 11 17 ff )
That philosophy IS useless m practical hfe may be seen m the follow-
mg manner The best example that we have the relation between the
theoretical or pure studies (hnlTTiiIJOI) and the apphed dlsClplmes that are
subordmate to them (VTTOKElIJfVOI For we notice that the geo-
metrICians are qUIte unable to apply their SCIentific proofs In practice
When It comes to dIvldmg a piece of land, or to any other operation on
magmtudes and space!., thl' can do It because of their expell-
ence, but those who are concerned wIth md.thematlcs and with the
reasons for these thmgs, while they may know how It ought to be done,
cannot do It .
The demand for exactitude (6:l<pi13EIO) m SCientific knowledge
is another thmg that IS strongly emphasized m the ProtreptfCus
It is there brought IOta conneXlOn with the doctnne that sCience
is knowledge of reasons and first pnnClples, for only the nmversal
and the pnnclples can be known with exactitude In some
passages there is even a verbal correspondence The parallel
between the two wntmgs IS equally complete m the derivatIOn
of the higher and the highest levels of knowledge from the lower
and naive ones But naturally we must not expect Anstotle to
repeat hunself mechamcally page after page, verbal echoe'i
remam the exception The most deCiSive conSideration is that
these ideas \\-ere ongmally mtended for the ProtreptKus They
belong there by their essential nature, whereas m the lectures on
metaphySICS they are an external additIon, arbitranly tailored
to SUIt the reqUirements of an mtroductlon
Immediately after the long passages of Iambhchus' thrrd book
referred by Rose to the Protrepttcus there follows a descnp-
hon, also from the Protreptfcus, of the gradual development of
philosophy out of the other I arts' (frg 53) Pre'iuppo<;mg
Plato's theory of cata<;trophes, thiS work taught that after the
7
2
THE ACADEMY
devastations of the great flood men were at first oblIged to
devote themselves to the dIscovery of the mere necessItIes of food
and hie (TO: 1TEpl Tt'}v TPOcpTjV Kol TO 3iiv 1TpWTOV 1)Vexyt<cX3
0VTO
cplAoaocpEiv) When thmgs were gomg better they mvented the
arts that serve for recreation, such as musIC and the lIke It was
later still, when theIr need of necessanes was fully supplIed, that
they turned theIr attention to hberal studIes and pure philo-
sophy AnstotIe no doubt has the mathematical dlsclplmes
espeCially m mmd when he speaks of the enormous advances
made by the pure SCiences m recent tunes (I e dUTlng Plato's
generatlOn) The same observation reappears m the
(A I, 981 b 13--982" 2) There It IS strangely out of relatIOn to
Its context, whereas In the it served to show that,
once the stimulus to phIlosophical studIes has been given, they
exercIse an irresIstIble attractIon over men's mmds The ongmal
reference to mathematics shll obtams m the Metaphyszcs, where
the mathematical mqumes of the Egyptian pnests are cIted as
the begmmng of the third era The dlstmctIOn between neces-
sary and lIberal arts also comes from the Protrephcus In fact,
everythmg In the first two chapters of the M IS taken
therefrom We must assume that thIS IS true also of the out-
standmgly Platomc theologIcal sectlOn 982 b 28-983" II, although
our matenal faus us here I
WIth regard to Iambhchus' mnth chapter, the end of It (p 52,
I6-p 54, I 5, frg 58) IS recognIzed as certamly belongmg to
I In two famous places where he IS pralsmg the diVine blessedness of pure
philosophical contemplatIOn (Metaph A2 982b 28, and Dk NIC X 7,lInG31)
Aristotle exhorts men not to be afraid of settmg their thoughts on dlvme and
Immortal thmgs thus contradlctmg the anCIent Greek precept It IS notOriOUS
that In both these passages he horrows a number of Ideas and descnptlve
formulae from the Protreptlcus and hiS reversal of the anCient exhortation
IS protrephc In the highest degree Now the author of the protrephc Ad
who (as was shown above) made polemIcal use of Anstotle's
work ID several places, wntes ID 32 as follows 'Think Immortal thmgs by
being lofty of soul, and mortal thmgs by enjoYing In due measure the goods
that you possess' Although he here understands' thmkmg Immortal thmgs'
10 a purely morahstIc and non-speculative sense he does at any rale allow
It a certam value, and thiS shows that he has been Induced by Anstotle to
correct the traditional exhortation. which would hear nothmg of such !ugh
thlnkmg Hence It IS as good as certain that the famous call' to make ourselves
Immortal as far as we can' (Etk N.c IInb 33) onglnally appeared 1D the
Protrepllus, and was borrowed thence for the EtJ"cs and the introductIOn to
the Meta.physlcs
THE PROTREPTICUS 73
the In content It fonns part of Anstotle's reply to
the obJectIon that phIlosophy IS useless for hfe We know from
CIcero that he actually used the dIVISIon of goods mto necessary
and valuable m themselves (ciVa:yKOio and 1.1' aV-r0: aycrrrWIlEVO
or tAEV6epa), and also the beautIful descnptlOn of the Isles of
the blest, whose mhabltants, havmg no earthly needs, are wholly
devoted to pure contemplatIOn I Nevertheless, Iambhchus has
largely oblIterated the force of the passage Anstotle was not
merely pamtmg a pleasant pIcture He also mtended to show
mankInd Isolated, as It were, from the needs (xpela) of lIfe In
usmg an Image for such a purpose he was followmg Plato In the
RepublIc, \\here the story of Gyges IS employed m order to
observe the behavIOur of a man who can do whatever he likes,
WIthout havmg to take any account of other men and theIr
Judgements It IS commonly held that Iambhchus gIves the
ongmal more truly than CICero ThIS 15 wrong Cicero says
supposmg we were on the Islands of the blessed, what need
should we have of oratory, smce there are no JudICIal proceedmgs
there) What need we have of the virtues of Justice,
courage, temperance, and even etlucal prudence) Only know-
ledge and pure contemplatIOn would stIll be deSIrable It follows
that we love knowledge for Its own sake, and not because of Its
usefulness or of any need of ours Iambhchus omIts all thIS, and
thereby obscures the pomt of the pIcture CIcero preserved
the tenor of the ongmal on the whole pretty accurately HIS
only alteratIon IS the addItIOn of eloquence to the four cardmal
virtues adduced In the ThIS was obVIOusly done
because of HortenslUS, who reckoned not philosophy but
eloquence the hIghest good
The proof of CIcero's supenor accuracy IS to be found m the
tenth book of the Ethzcs Here agam a remInISCenCe
of hIS early work has mfluenced Anstotle's pen 2 The subject 15
the same as that of the Protreptzcus, namely pure contemplatIOn
He contrasts It WIth the lIfe of actIOn The latter reqUIres many
external aIds for the reahzatlOn of the ethIcal dIspoSItIon (ti
xopTlyia T] Ti6IKi]) GeneroSIty reqUIres money So does
Justice, If you WIsh to return equals for equals Courage
reqUIres "trength Temperance can be tested only by the
I l'rg 58 % Elk Ntc X 8, 1178& :Z4-
b
5
74 THE ACADEMY
opportumty to abandon one's self-control How else can a good
disposItIon be exerclsed;l And without exercise It never reaches
fulfilment The knower, on the other hand, needs no external aid
m order to exercise his vIrtue, on the contrary, such aids could
only be a hmdrance to hlITl There, moreover. Anstotle repre-
sents contemplatIOn (eewpla) as Isolated and mdependent of
the necessItIes of hfe The Idea IS somewhat dIfferently turned,
Plato's doctnne of the four vIrtues IS conscIOusly reJected,
through the InclUSIOn of generosIty the whole regams 10 effective-
ness what It loses 10 enthusiasm through the suppressIOn of the
Isles of the blest In spIte of retouchmg, however. the angInal
pIcture IS stIll recogmzable, because the old method of present-
mg the thought IS retamed The essentIal pomt, both here and m
CIcero, IS the dIsappearance of the' ethIcal VIrtues' 10 the state
of pure bhss that belongs to mtellectual VISIOn ThIS proves that
CIcero's versIOn IS the more complete
The first part of the mnth chapter al50 comes from the Pro-
trephcus ThIS IS as certam from the contents as It IS from the
style Anstotle starts by dlvldmg the causes of becommg mto
nature art and chance. a dIstInctIon that he makes mother
places as well, though nowhf're ,,0 pregnantly as here I It IS a
charactenstIcally Anstotehan VIew that nature IS purposIve III
a hIgher degree even than art, and that the purposIveness that
rules 10 handIwork, whether art or craft. IS nothmg but an
ImItation of the purpOSIveness of nature The same view of
the relation between these two thmgs IS often bnefl.y expressed
m the second book of the h y s ~ c s whIch IS one of Anstotle's
earhest wnhngs It IS occaSIOnally alluded to In other places
also, but never so well developed and artIculated as here An
expressIOn hke the followmg IS stnkmgly angInal 'Nature does
not umtate art,z but art nature, and art eXIsts to help and to
make up what nature leaves undone' (p 49. I 28) The means
I We shall nreet thIS tnpartlte diVISion of the causes of becommg again m the
dialogue On PhIlosophy There Its authentiCity has been doubted, but In reahty
It IS a part of the mechanistic phySICS that obtained before Plato In Laws X
888 E, Plato had already used It preCisely as Anstotle does In the Protreptlcus,
to show that nature (cpvall) IS not behind art ("TtxYT)l In Intellect and resource-
fulness. and to develop hiS new conception of cpU"11 by thiS means The realIshc
manner In which the Idea IS worked out In the P,otr'N'cus shows how closely
Ar'lltotle followed the later Plato even In hiS philosophy of nature
That It did was the view of the Presocrabc sophists who were thoroughly
THE PROTREPTICUS 75
taken to recommend thIS VIew are agam IndubItably Aristo-
tehan He offers examples from agnculture and from the care
that the hIgher organIsms requIre before and after bIrth He
the propositIOn that there IS a UnIversal purposIve-
ness In organIC nature by examples from the mechanIcs of the
human body and ItS self-protectIng devIce!' I EverythIng comes
mto bemg for the sake of an end An end IS that whIch always
appears as the final result of a development, In accordance WIth
natural law and by a contmuous process, and m whIch the pro-
cess attaInS Its completlOn Thus In the process of becomIng the
mental IS later than the physIcal, and In the mental realm the
mtellectual element In Its pure form IS agam the later There-
fore Pythagoras was nght In calhng pure contemplatIon the end
of man, 1 e the completlOn of human nature To the queshon
what we are born for he rephed, 'to gaze upon the heavens'
Anaxagoras also expressed hImself to the same effect
Anaxagoras' apophthegm reappears In the Eudemlan Ethzcs.
Imbued With the ratlOnah.t .pmt, and taught the eXistence of a mechamcal
d.daptatlOn of means to enu m nd.ture d.nd e.peclally III the human orgamsm
Traces of 9uch a system are presC'rved In Xen ]',ftm I 4 b if, dnel Anst Part
A mmal II 15 Aristotle's philosophy of nature depenu. on an LntIrely dIffereDt
attItude, as he himself says here It IS teleologIcal Fdr from nature's exhlbltmg
mClplent' tendencle. to nval the art of ollr machInes, all d.rts are merely man's
attempt to compete With orgamc and creative nature and thiS competition
necessarily takes placE. III another medIUm (that of artlhClal constructIon). m
which It IS never pOSSible to speak uf an LUU III the highest or organll
SLn.e
I Bemays (Gesammelte Abhandlungen vol 1, P 23) believed Heraclitus to bL
the ongmator of the proposItIon that art IS an II111tatlOn of nature becauge the
duthor of the De Mundo (5 396
b
7 ff) Lxplams the process of natural becommg
,IS hcmg a harmonIOus amalgdm.ltlOn ot oppo.,tes, .wl! pro""9 thiS from the
example of tht. d.rts, WhICh he declares to bL nothmg but ImItdtIons of nature,
but what the De Mundo quotes from Helachtus In thIS connexlOn ( that WhICh
agrees and that whJCh dIlleN, that wluch produce. harmony and that whIch
produces discord ') shows no trace of such a VIeW So far as concerns the
mference from art to nature, and thL conclUSIOn that the latter IS the arche-
type, thIS view IS PenpatetIc and has nothmg to do With the sag.. of Ephesus
Demoentus has a sunIlar but distInct doctnne when he calls men the pupIls
of tht. ammals, of the spIder In weavmg and mendmg of the swallo\\ In
bUIldIng, and of the songbIru. In soug (frg 154) (With the last cf
LucretIus V 1379 Lucretius also denves cookery (1 IlOZ) and sowmg and
graftmg (1 1361) from the ImitatIOn of nature, which he cutamly got from
Dt.nIOCrltus by way of Eplcurus) But Anstotle IS concerned WIth somethmg
entIrely new He refers the propOSItion that art IS an llllltatIOn of nature to the
teleologIcal "hard.cter oj dll human constructIOn, dOll grounds It Ln th" teleo-
logical VIew of nature
76 THE ACADEMY
and the verbal correspondence 15 such that eIther Iambhchus
must have got It thence or he must have preserved for us the
source from whIch It came to the Eudemtan Ethtcs Later on,
when we analyse the whole tram of thought of the Ethtcs, It will
appear that the latter IS the fact Here agam, therefore, the
Eudemtan EthtcS reproduces the Protrepttcus, and thIS proves
that the latter 15 the source from whIch Iambhchus took not
merely the apophthegm of Anaxagoras but the whole argument
of whIch that IS a part
ThIS can be substantIated mdrrectly The doctnne that art
umtates nature IS further developed 10 Posldomus' theory of the
ongm of CIvilizatIOn \Vhat thIS was we know 10 outlme from
Seneca's mnetIeth letter, Posldomus held that the advances of
clvlhzatlOn are phtlosophlcal dlscovene'i He dId a great deal to
spread 10 later antIqUlty the AnstotelIan doctnne that the arts
arose 10 stages, first those necessary to hfe, then those of pleasure,
and lastly pure contemplatlOn It has been plausibly suggested
that he expressed thiS VIew 10 hiS Protrepttcus I If thIS hypo-
theSIS IS correct, we have here another of the many pomts 10
whIch he attached hImself to the doctrIne of Anstotle's work of
the same name WIth the partIcular nuance that he gIves It we
are not concerned, the Important thmg IS that the Anstotehan
archetype lends substantIal support to the VIew that Posldomu'>'
expresslOn of It was to be found 10 hIS Protrepttcus
The demonstratIon that the rest of IamblIchus' excerpts from
Anstotle (chaps 10-12) are also from the Protrepttcus need not
take so long Chapter 10 begms WIth the proposItIon that art IS
an ImItatIOn of nature, whIch has already been shown to come
from the Protrepttcus From thIS It IS deduced that even the
SCIence of polItIcs needs a phIlosophIcal foundatIon, SInce It
requrres, still more than medICIne and the lIke, to take Its start
from nature 10 the proper sense of the word, that IS, from true
bemg Nothmg but the knowledge of thIS can give the 'itates-
man 10Sight mto the ultrrnate norms (OpOl) 10 accordance WIth
wluch he must dIrect hIS actIVIty Pohtics can become an exact
art only when It becomes through and through philosophy As
was remarked above (p 71), thIS passage on the Ideal of exactI-
I See Gerhausser. De.- Prolrepttkos des Poseldomos (a Heidelberg thesls)
Munich, 1912. PP 18 fI
THE PROTREPTICUS 77
tude In pure sCience IS one of the parts of the that
are reproduced m the first book of the M Its Platonic
colounng In I ambhchus, which IS mtentIonally removed m the
fits the Protrepttcus very well, as the phIlosophical
mterpretatIon of the fragments (pp 90-91) Will show m detaIl,
Hirzel and Dlels recognized that this colounng constitutes no
reason for asslgnmg the passage to the Neo-Platomc excerptor,
the thoughts are too ongInal for that Anstotle pomts out that
only when polItics IS studied on sCientIfic prmclples and regarded
as a normative dlsclphne will It be freed from ItS present un-
fruitfulness and Instability (a remark espeCially SUItable m a work
addressed to a practical statesman) ThiS tram of thought cul-
mmates m the proof that m the long run pohtIcs IS theoretIcalm
character The only foundatIon for creative statesmanship IS,
not the mere analogies of expenence, but theoretical knowledge
of the ultImate standards Here agam Anstotle's mam pur-
pose IS to refute the mere emplncs, who know of nothmg better
than the so-called model constItutIOns (EVvoJ.lkXl) of Sparta and
Crete (He seems to mean Isocrates and the sophistIc theory of
the state) From thiS we learn that the cntIcal diSCUSSIOn of
the three Ideal states (Sparta, Crete, Carthage), which now con-
stItutes the second book of the Poltltcs, goes back m content to
Anstotle's AcademiC perIod We thereby obtam a very mterest-
mg fragment of hiS early views on polItIcs For all Its Platomc
presupposItions no other Platomst could have wntten It, because
of Its predommantly methodologIcal mterests I t shows that
the Protrepltcus took direct account of the Academy's polItIcal
alIDS The fact that chapter 10 IS' polItical' m content has been
supposed to prove that It must come from some purely polItical
work of ArIstotle's, but thiS IS superfiCial The deCISive thmg IS
not the content but the pomt of VIew from which It IS presented,
and the pomt of view of thIS fragment-the emphaSIS on the
theoretical character of normative polItics-shows that It be-
longs to the praise of pure' theory' m the Protrepttcus
The eleventh chapter IS concerned With the relation between
Wisdom and pleasure ThiS tOpiC has been held in-
appropnate for a protreptic, on the ground that It does not
appear In the later ones But such a method of argument IS
fundamentally unsound What was fittmg m a protrepbc
F
78 THE ACADEMY
emanatmg from Plato's school cannot be mechamcally deduced
from the commonplaces of the later protreptlcs of 1mpenal tImes
The method has been used only too enthusIastIcally m lIterary
research. but It can never be successful when we have to deal
wIth wnters ltke Plato or ArIstotle, whose fonn IS the mdlvldual
and orgamc result of the necessItIes of theIr matter It IS really
self-evIdent that the relatIon between wIsdom and
pleasure, a tradItIonal subJect of dIScussIon m the Academy,
would be In place In a protreptIc whIch attempted to show that
true happmess IS Platomc knowledge The thesIS
posItively could not be proved m any other way Anstotle was
unable to conceIve of happmess wIthout pleasure, It was there-
fore nece!'>sary to mqUire what kmd of pleasure wIsdom can gIve
If the Ideal of pure contemplatIOn was to be establIshed, thIS
problem had to be faced It IS dlscu-.sed as early as the Republtc,'
and then more thoroughly m the Phtlebus The Ntcomachean
Ethtcs agam, In the tenth book of whIch the 'theoretic lIfe' IS
shown to be true happiness, exammes both the relatIon of
pleasure to perfect actiVity and, more especIally, the sensatIon
of pure pleasure accompanymg knowledge We have already
shown that thIS portIOn of the tenth book IS partly dependent
for Its content on the Protrrpttcus, and has the same theme
Hence the pleasure of contemplatIon was a necessary part of the
of the Protrepttcus, as wIll be proved once more
when we show that the Eudemtan Ethtcs make!> use of the
Protreptuus Both m the Protrepttcus and In the Ethtcs wIsdom,
pleasure, and VIrtue are lI'ited a'i the three possIble kmd'i of
happmess In the Protrepttcus the demonstratIOn culmmates m
the proof that the lIfe of pure contemplatIon affords the most
complete satisfaction of the demands of all three of these Ideals
Contemplation IS there found to be not merely the clImax of
phIlosophIcal knowledge, but also the completIon of man's ethical
development and the pure happmess of umnterrupted intel-
lectual JOy No element m thIS constructIOn can be removed
wIthout destroymg the whole ThIS proves that the first part of
the twelfth chapter IS also an extract from Anstotle's work
It IS certainly not too bold to Imagme that the Protrepttcus,
lIke the later examples of thIS kmd of lIterature, cuhnmated m a
I Plato, Rep VI 506 B
THE PROTREPTICUS 79
descnptIon of the beata Both Its matter and Its form de-
mand such an arrangement, 50 that the mference from the later
and denvatIve to the earher and ongmalls here free from danger
What would we not gIve to possess that epilogue m which
Anstotle rose to the heIghts of hIS ultImate convIctIons 1 But to
suggest that he IS the author of the conclUSIOn actually found m
Iambhchus (p 60, I 7-P 61, I 4) 15 to let desire stIfle cntIcal
reflectIOn I Enthusiastic the sentences may be, and even m-
spIred, but It IS not the controlled enthusiasm of Anstotle, who
never forgoes the stnct rhythm of hIS apodlchc advance, and
values form higher than the highest msplratIOn, often hIS
arguments perceptIbly overflow wIth the latter Most of the
detaIls of Iambhchus' passage could mdeed well have been taken
from the and they may be so Such are the un-
naturalness of our earthly and corporeal eXIstence, the nIg-
gardlmess of all our knowledge and apprehenSIOn, the contrast
between our present unstable abodes and that place from \\'hlCh
we come and towards whIch we stnve, and the disproportIOn
between the labour reqUIred to obtam the mere neceSSities of
hfe and the time that we are able to devote to the only valuable,
the eternal thIngs But the loose and merely aSSOCiatIve con-
Junction of these notIOns mto an edlfymg summons to the other
world, the confUSIOn of Ideas that can be detected In them, the
sacerdotal unctIOn WIth WhICh the wnter mtroduces some of
Plato's ceremOnIal words, the presence of certaIn dIstInctly Neo-
PlatOnIC phrases hke . the heavenly path' and' the realm of the
gods', and lastly the eAceSSIve loquaCIty of the conclUSIOn, WIth
ItS mablhty to come to an end-all these thIngs betray retouch-
Ing by Iambhchus Then follow excerpts from Plato
3 THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE PROTREPTICUS
The has no SIngle problem Its Importance
reaches beyond the hmlts of departmental philosophy, and hes
In the unIversahty of the questIOn that It raIses about the con-
duct of lIfe-the questIon of the meamng and JustIficatIOn of
plulosophy and of Its place m man's hfe as a whole 2. Not that It
I Harthch. op Cit. pp 254 fI
With regard to the philosophy of the P"ot"epheus I find myself 1D Opposi-
tion not merely to Bernays's attempt at harmomzation, but also to the View
80 THE ACADEMY
was Plato's philosophy which first confronted men with thIS
question, It persistently recurs 10 the legends about Thales,
Anaxagoras, Pythagoras, and Democntus But every new
generation of genume students revives It and argues passIOnately
about It agamst the mass of mankmd , for m Its most thqrough-
gomg fonn the theoretic hfe' remams a postulate of the born
student, which, though ItS nghtness IS always bemg re-ex-
penenced, can presumably never be made to seem JustIfiable to
the common sense of the generahty It demands a strong and
aboundmg faIth In the power of knowledge to hft Its finder
hIgher than men are otherwIse pnvileged to attam Out of thIS
faIth, WhICh IS utterly dIfferent from the mtellectual pnde of the
pedant, Anstotle's IS wntten The expenence of
which It gives eVidence IS no commonplace Idyll of scholarship.
but the beatItude of the man who has learnt to see the world
through the eyes of Plato 1 hus It becomes a mamfesto for the
Platomc hfe, and for Platomc phIlosophy as the means thereto
For us It has the advantage of bemg the confessIOn that we are
lookmg for out of Anstotle's own mouth
It was not an aCCident that one of the younger generatIon of
AcademiCians undertook to JustIfy the Ideal of the !>cholarly hfe
to the outer world ThIS generatIOn suffered the old conflIct
between theory and practIce WIth renewed VIOlence Plato hIm-
self never demed, even m hIS mo!>t theoretIcal penods, that he
had been to school under Socrates, who put hiS pamful questIons
to hIS fellow-men at the blddmg of conSCIence and of the needs of
hfe Plato's own phIlosophy was equally rooted m the needs of
the tune and of pracbcal hfe, only ItS culmmatIon, the apprehen-
SIOn of the Forms, reaches up mto the regIOn of pure theoretI-
cal knowledge In hIS hands the SocratIc demand that we shall
expressed m the Archlv fur Geschlchte der Phltosophle (vol I, p 493) by Dlels,
who at that bme WIshed to explaJD a"ay the obvIOUS traces of PlatoDlsm m the
fragments as mere stylIstIc ornaments lhe real state of affalTS had been
suggested by l:hrzel (Hermes, vol x, p 98) He was too tImid, however, to
oppose the relgnmg preJudice, as would have been logIcal, and Dlels put rum
to SIlence SlDce then Dlels has changed hiS View about the development of
Anstotle, as IS clear from the Zeltsch"'ft fur verglotchende Sprachforschung, vol
xlVll, p 20r, n 4 He there recognJzes that my ntstchungsgeschtchte dey
Afetaphyslk has demonstrated that Anstotle had a PlatOniC penod But the
exotenc wntmgs are In part still earher than the oldest passages m the treatises,
and 10 contents they constitute the stage pnor tothe cntlcally reVIsed 1'latonJsrn
of those works
THE PROTREPTICUS 81
know the nature of vIrtue becomes a doctnne of the pnmacy
of the creatIve mtellect, whIch contemplates pure bemg and
reorgamzes hfe accordmgly He dIsputes the nght of every other
kmd of hfe to thIS pOSItion ThIS IS not an attempt to prove to
the mcornglbly practIcal that a . gift' for theory has a certam
JustIficatIon for eXlstmg along WIth other actIVItIes, because It
does no one any harm, It IS the bold behef that nothmg but the
knowledge of the hIghest truth can form the foundatIOn of a hfe
that 15 worthy of ItS name Plato never relaxed thIS claIm, even
when he had gIVen up trymg to reform reahty and was devotmg
hImself exclUSIvely to research, but the younger generatIon was
oblIged to ask Itself the questIon afresh, Just because It had never
expenenced anythmg but the theoretical lIfe, and It had to find
the value of thIS Me m the mner man, m the pure bhss of con-
templatIOn, and m the umon of the intellect WIth the eternal
Thus the Platonlc Ideal, ongmally so full of reformmg zeal, tnok
a contemplative and relIgIOUS turn
ThIS exuberant Ideal of contemplatIOn can be Justified only
by means of some conception that Imphes the IdentIty of
theoretical knowledge and practical conduct Such a conceptIOn
IS that of phronests I Phrones'/-s IS central to the Protreptuus,
WhICh IS concerned WIth the pOSSIbIlIty, subject-matter, use,
growth, and happmess, of theoretical knowledge It may be
mterpreted as the creative apprehensIOn of pure goodness
through the mner mtmtIOn of the soul and at the same time as
an apprehensIOn of pure bemg, and also as the denvatIOn of
valuable actIVIty and true knowledge from one and the same
fundamental power of the rmnd It IS one of the' mnate Ideas'
of the Greek spmt It went through a long development, but no
penod brought It nearer to ItS fulfilment than that from Socrates
to Anstotle In the ProtrepttCus Its meamng IS purely Platonlc
For a long tIme It had been spht mto two systems, one pre-
dommantly practIcal and economIC, the other moral and
relIgIOUS Tlils very spht made It SUItable to be the crystalllzmg
pomt of the thought of Socrates It was then taken over by
I [Translator's note The word q>p6"'1C7JII9 usually translated by 'wIsdom In
Plato In Anstotle's NIcomachean EthICS W DRoss ren(lprs It by proictlcal
wIsdom' SometImes the best translatIon IS 'prudence' The correspondmg
erb means 'to take thought' ]
82 THE ACADEMY
Plato, who strongly emphasIzed the element of mtellectual know-
ledge lD It, and exammed the specIal nature of this I knowledge'
It now took to Itself the Form or standard as Its object, and thus
became the mtellectual mtUltlOn of the good and the beautiful
m themselves The Form had first occurred to Plato m conneXlOn
wIth Socrates' problems, that IS to say, m the ethical sphere, but
as It wIdened Its sway until It finally became the general pnnclple
of all bemg, phroneszs received more and more content It became
the EleatIc SCIence of bemg It became the Anaxagorean Nus
In a word, It became pure theoretIcal reason, the opposite of what
It had been m Socrates' practIcal sphere At this pomt Plato
diVIded hIs system mto dIalectIc, ethIcs, and physIcs From then
on there were several phronesetS Frequently the word meant no
more than '5peclal sClence', and medlcme, and all
dl,;clphnes whatsoever, ThIS development Can be
understood only by means of the development of Plato's phIlo-
sophy as a whole, and its final divislOn mto three phIlosophIes
At the hme a development took place m the theory of the
first pnnCIples, m the course of which the Form became mathe-
matical, and ended m a theology and a monadology In the
Protreptzeus phroneszs has thiS med.nmg almost exclUSively It IS
Nus, metaphysical '>peculatIon, that which is really dlvme mus,
a power wholly distmct from the other faculties of the soul, as it
IS m the Ttmaeus J.nd the Phzlebus, In the Laws or the Epznomzs
Whereas the ProtreptzCZts phroneszs m the full
Platomc seme, as eqUIvalent to philosophIcal knowledge as
such, when we come to the Metaphyszes the conceptIon has dIS-
appeared The Nzcomaehean Ethzes also presents a wholly
different picture In thiS work the phroneszs of the Protreptzeus
1<; defimtely relected In the SIxth book consIderable space IS
devoted to the que<;hon of the posItion of phroneszs among the
mtellectual facultieS Everywhere a polemIcal mtentIon appears
between the hnes Anstotle reduces the word to Its meamng
In ordmary usage, 1 e to the sense that it had before Plato
He depnves It of all theoretical slgmficance, and sharply dlS-
tmgmshes Its sphere from that of sophza and Nus I In common
I Lth Nit VI 5 if Ordmary usage 15 emphasIZed In 1140' 2.5 and 29. b 8, 10,
and II and 1141' 25. 27. and b 5 [Tr -Ioq>la 15 practIcally IdentIcal WIth
'wIsdom' ]
THE PROTREPTICUS 83
usage It IS a practical faculty, concerned both wIth the chotee of
the ethIcally deSIrable and WIth the prudent perceptIOn of one's
own advantage Such IS Anstotle's later tenmnology He IS at
the farthest remove from the standpomt of hIS early penod
when he concedes phroneszs to ammals I In conneXlOn WIth
ethIcs Jt now means an habItual dISposlbon of the mmd to
delIberate practically about everythmg concermng human weal
and woe
2
1TPCIK'TII<i)) He mSlsts that It IS not speculatIon
but delIberatIOn, that It IS concerned not WIth the universal but
WJth the fleetmg detaus of lIfe, and that It therefore does not
have the hIghest and most valuable things In the umverse for
object, and In fact IS not a SCIence at all J What all thIS amounts
to IS the publIc recantatlOn of the Platomc VIews In the Pro-
Whereas he there metaphYSICS as the
of the kmd of truth that was mtroduced by Anaxa-
goras and Parrnemdcs and theIr followers', he here expressly
lays It down that such persons as Anaxagoras and Parrnemde!>
are not called but sophm, precIsely because whIle they
mqmred Into the eternal laws of the Universe they dId not under-
stand theIr own advantage 4
Beneath thIS change In terminology hes a change m the
fundamental pnnclplec; of metaphYSICS and ethICS
To Socrates phronesfs had meant the ethIcal power of reason, a
sense modelled on the common usage that Anstotle restores to
Its nghts m the Nfcomachean Ethzcs Plato analysed the nature
of thIS ethICal inSIght more exactly, and denved It from the con-
templation of eternal and m the la<;t re<;ort from the
Good changed It mto the SCIentific apprehemlOn of m-
dependent obJects, but Plato was Justtfied m retammg the name
phroneszs, m as much as the knowledge of true bemg was m fact
a knowledge of the pure Norms by reference to WhICh man
should oroer hIS lIfe In the contemplatlOn of the Forms bemg
and value. knowledge and acbon, coalesce When the theory
of Forms was abandoned bemg and value fell apart, and ma-
leette thereby lost ItS dIrect sIgmficance for human lIfe, WhICh to
Plato was an essentIal feature of It The dlstmcban between
I Eth Ntc VI 7 II41" 27 2 Eth Ntc VI 5. II40b 4 and 20
3 Eth N.c VI 8 II41b9 and 14.1141" 21 and 33 ff ,1142" 24
4 Frg 52 (p 59. 1 3 In Rose) Eth Ntc VI 7. 1141b 3-5
84 THE ACADEMY
metaphysIcs and ethics became much sharper than before I To
one lookmg backwards from this pomt of view Plato appears
, mtellectualIst '. because he based ethical actIOn entirely on the
knowledge of bemg Anstotle drew a hne between the two He
dIscovered the psychologIcal roots of moral action and evaluation
In character and from then on the exammabon of i']6os
took the foremost place In what came to be called ethtcal thought,
and suppressed transcendental phronests The result was the
fruItful dIstmctlOn between theoretIcal and practical reason,
which had lam together as yet unseparated m phronests
From this sketch of the hlstoncal development It follows
necessanly that 10 the Protrepttcus Anstotle based hImself on
a dIfferent metaphysIcs It was the abandonment of the Idea-
theory that led to the break WIth Plato's doctnne of the pnmacy
of phronesfs, and WIth hIS onesldedly theoretIcal denvatlon of
the ethical hfe Therefore the Protrepttcus, which IS stIll com-
pletely dommated by the conceptIOn of phronesfs 10 the old sense,
must have been based on Plato's ethical metaphysIcs, that IS, on
the UnIty of bemg and value All the essentIal part" of It are In
fact PlatOnIC, not merely 10 language but also m content No-
where ebe does Anstotle sanctIon the AcademiC diVISIOn of
philosophy IOta dialectiC, phYSICS, and ethICS (except 10 the
TOpfCS, but there It IS merely mentioned In passmg, and the
TOPfCS IS presumably one of hiS earhest efforts) z Moreover,
I ThiS IS true of all speCifically human values, but not of absolute value or
good Anstotle beheved as much as Plato that bemg and value m the absolute
sense COInCide In the conceptIOn of God In that respect he remamed a PlatOnist
to the ddy of hiS death The highest bemg IS also the highest good At the pomt
that IS farthest removed from human affairs metaphySICS penetrates mto ethICS
and ethlcs-mto metaphySICS The perspectIVe, however, has shifted completely
It IS only In the far distance that the motionless pole appears, an ultimate sign-
post, on the honzon of eXistence The conneXlQn of thiS metaphySICS With
particular actions IS too loose to Justify Its bemg called pMoneSls
In frg 52 (p 60,1 17 10 Rose), m the course of a proof that we can attain
to real knowledge, Anstotle c1eMly dlst10glllshes knowledge (I) of the Just
and the benefiCial', (2) of' nature', and (3) 'of the of truth' He does not
yet possess an expressIOn for' first philosophy' (cf P S9, II 1-4, In Rose, where
the conception of It IS agam hnked With the knowledge of the Just and unjust
and the knowledge of nature, and agam expressed by a penphrasls) At any
rate, Plato's word' dialectic' seems to him not to be charactenshc enough
It falls to dlstmgulsh ontology from ethiCS and pohtlcs, and It does not con-
tain any reference to an object For the latter reason Anstotle hmlts It to
formal lOgIC, which has no object In harmony With the tnparbte diVISion of
phl1osophy IS the proof (I) about substance (p 60 1 21-J;l 61,1 I, m Rose),
THE PROTREPTICUS 85
there IS as yet no trace of what we find 10 the Ethtcs, the
supplementation of the doctnne of VlTtue by psychologIcal
analysIs, mstead of that we have Plato's archltectomc doctnne
of the four VIrtues I The decIsive thmg, however, IS what the
Protrepttcus says about the method of ethics and polItics
The opponents of philosophy are there made to descnbe
ethics 10 accordance \Hth Plato's nohon of It, as If the correct-
ness of that nohon were self-evident It IS a sCience of the Just
and unjust, of the good and bad, like geometry and ItS related
sCiences:2 Anstotle IS here callmg attentIOn to a pomt that had
ObVIOusly aroused severe cntIclsm, the view that ethics IS an
exact sCience In another place he polItics (which he
consIders mseparable from ethics) as a sClCnce that seeks for
absolute norms (OpOl) To phIlosophICal polItIcs he opposes the
. arts', whIch use merely second-hand knowledge He reckons
ordmary empmcal politIcs as one of them, because ItS deCISIOns
are based only on the analogies of expenence and It IS therefore
mcapable of ever glvmg nse to creatIve action Philosophical
politIcs has' the exact m Itself' for object It IS a purely theo-
retIcal sCience J
ThIS Ideal of mathematical exactnes'i IS contrary to every-
thmg that Anstotle teaches m hiS Ethtcs and PoltttCS about the
method of those studies In the Ntcomachean Ethtcs he expliCItly
opposes the demand for an exact methoJ, as bemg mcompatIble
With the nature of the matenal In thiS respect he equates ethiCS
and politics With rhetonc rather than With mathematics 4 Their
proposItIons are merely typICal, never umver<;al, their mferences
are vahd at best as a general rule, and not Without exceptIon.
To the Ideal of method that he !:.tood for 10 the Protreptuus
Anstotle here replies that the more general ethical propOSItions
are the more empty and meffectlve they arc 5 Vutuallyevery
(2) about the virtues of the soul (p 61, 11 2-8 In Rose). and (3) about nature
(p 61. 11 8-17, In Rose) In Top I 14, 105
b
20 fl. Anstotle distingUishes
between ethIcal, phYSical, and logIcal premisses. here agam . dialectIcal' IS
aVOided. cf Xenocrates frg I (Heinze)
I For the four PlatOnIC see frg 52 (p 62, I I. In Rose) and frg 58
(p 68. 11 6--<})
1 Frg 52 (p 58. I 23. In Rose)
3 Iambl Protr. p 55, 11 I and 6 ff , In Plstelh
4Elh Nu r I,I094bll-:27,r 13,1102'23
, Eth N1C II 7, 1107" 29
86 THE ACADEMY
word that the Ntcomachean Ethtcs contams about thIS matter IS
wrItten WIth a polemIcal ImphcatlOn, and we must learn to read
It WIth thIS In mmd In the Protreptzcus It was saId that the
phIlosophIcal statesman IS distIngmshed from the common run
of pohhcIans by the exactness of hIS knowledge of the norms,
he beholds thmgs m themselvc'i, and does not rest content wIth
their vanegated reproductIons 10 empmcal reahty There IS an
mtentlOnal remlmscence of thIS passage, to the very
same words, m the Nzcomachean Ethzcs, but there the VIew is
converted mto ItS exact We read that one must dIs-
tmgmsh between the way In which a geometer and the way m
which a carpenter (i e an empmc) measures a right angle
The former beholds truth Itself, the latter mqmres mto the nature
of rectangulanty only so far as it IS necessary for hIS practical
purpo'ies And It IS WIth the latter, not WIth the geometer, that
Anstotle compares the SCIence of ethiCS or pohtIcs I Plato's Ideal
of an ethICS proceedmg more geometrtco I'i here emphatically
rejected, whereas In the ProtreptlcuS It 'itIll hold'i undIsputed
sway ,I and when Anstotle here InSists that for the <,tatesman,
and even for the student hstemng to lectures on ethICS, practical
expenence IS far more important than theoretical eqmpment,
that also IS polemIC agamst hiS own earher PlatOnIC VIew.
2
Of
late ongm agam IS the declaratIOn that philosophy IS not neces-
sary for a kmg, but rather a hmdrance, he should, however,
give ear to truly philoc;ophical counCillors ThIS appears to come
from d. work addressed to Ale:xander, and to refer to a particular
'iituatIon, which may be dated dunng the expeditIon 3
Between the time of the letter to Themison, which mVited hIm
to theoretIcal statesmanshIp based on the Forms, and the tIme
when Anstotle wrote thIS pIece of adVIce, a change had occurred
In the fundamentals of hIS thought
I Eth N1C I 7. logS 26 . And we must also remember what been
before, and not look for preCISion III all things ahkl', but In each class of things
such preciSion as accords With the subject-matter and so much as IS appro-
pnate to the mqUlry For a carpenter amI a gl.Ometer investigate the nght
angle In different ways. the former does so In so far as the fight angle IS Ilseful
lor hiS work, while the latter mqUires what It IS or what sort of thing It IS lor
he IS a spectator of the truth We must act III the same way. then, In all other
matters as well that our mam task may notbesubordlnated tomIllorquestions'
Cf Iambl Protr. p 55, II 1-14 m Pistelh
'Elh Nlc X 10,118['1 and 10,1 13. J Frg 647
THE PROTREPTICUS 87
The Ideal of geometncal ethics could have been conceived only
on the basIs of the later theory of Ideas To Plato knowledge
was measurement By an exact sCience he understood one that
measures thmgs In accordance wIth an absolute and completely
determmate measure Hence the mdetermmate (a-rTElpov), the
mamfold of the sensIble world, IS never an object of pure SCIence
The PhJlebus shows how m his old age he tned to make ethics an
exact SCIence on the mathematIcal pattern by means of the
pnnciples of lumt (nEpos) and measure (lJhpov) In that
dIalogue the notion of measurement IS constantly recurrIng, It
IS the Sign of the mathematIcal stage of the Idea-theory Smce
all that IS good IS measurable and determmate, whIle all that IS
evIl IS Immeasurable and mdetermmate, both m the cosmos and
m the soul, Plato's later politIcs and ethics are really nothmg but
a theoretical SCIence of measure and the norm In the second
book of hi'> lost Statesman Anstotle wrote 'th' good IS the most
c,act measure' I The PlatOnist quotes these wOP.b
agamst theIr author, and argues from them that Anstotle under-
stood Plato's doctnne better at other times Anstotle meant
preCIsely the same thmg m the ProtreptJcus when he demanded
exactness and descnbed polItIcs as a <;CIence of pure norms
ThiS IS the phIlosophy of the PhJlebus, WhICh gives the first place
m the table of goods to measure (IJE-rpov), the second to the
measurable (cruIlIlETpOV), and the thIrd to the rea'>on that appre-
hends measure (phronesJS) 2 In the RepublJc the Form of lhe
Good had been the ground of the bemg and knowa.bIhty of the
whole real world AccordIng to the Plnlebus and to Anstotle's
Statesman the reason why It IS so IS that It IS the hIghest and
umversal measure, the absolute umty that makes the world of
Forms detenmnate, symmetncal', and thereby real, good, and
knowable All that IS mdetermmate IS excluded from It We
need not here InqUire what part Plato's later VIew that the
Fonns are numbers has to play In thI5 doctnne Anstotle men-
tions It frequently In the ProtreptJcus HIS later ethICS IS an In-
tentional contradIctIOn of the view represented there and 10 the
Statesman I accordmg to It there are no umversal norms, there IS
I Frg 79 Synan's remarks on thIS statement whIch dOl>S not repro-
duce, are Important because they show that he was fully of Ull con
tradlctlOn between It and Anstotk'5 latu HOI Ph,1 60 A
88
THE ACADEMY
no measure except the indIvidual hvmg measure of the auto-
nomous ethIcal person, and phronesJs IS concerned not with the
unIversal but wIth the partIcular '
'The good IS the most exact measure' means precisely the
same as Plato's dictum m the Laws. 'God IS the measure of all
thmgs' ThIS pomted attack on Protagoras' statement that man
IS the measure of all thmgs was mtended to set the absolute
nonn on the throne of the UnIverse. Z God IS the good m Itself,
the pure monad. the measure of measures Thus polItIcs and
ethIcS become theology and take theIr stand at the head of
theoretIcal phtlosophy. what 15 and what ought to be are
IdentIcal In the absolute sense. and human actIOn IS done With
Immediate reference to the hIghest value and meanmg m the
world In accordance With Its pnnclples the NJcomachean EthJCS
demes that polItics has thiS leadmg posItIon. polItIcs can no
more be the hIghest WIsdom than the alms of human hfe can
aspIre to the highest good. whIch IS glImpsed only by the wise
man m hiS mtUltIon of the dlvlmty J
The view of the that phIlosophy ought to be made
an exact and mathematIcal sCIence,4 did not mfluence the Pro-
I 'The good man Judges each class of thmgs nghtly, and m each the truth
appears to him And perhaps the good man differs from others most by
seemg the truth 10 each class of thmgs, beUlg as ,t were a norm and measure of
them', Etk Ntc 111 6,1113" 29 If 'The refined and well-bred man therefore,
being I1S d were a law to hImself', IV 14,1128" 3' 'If virtue and the good man
as such are the measure of tach thmg, those also WIll be pleasures which ap-
pear so to him, and those thmgs pleasant whIch he enJoys', X 5, 1176" I b
Incidentally, these rcmarkablt stntences prove once more If only we look at
them m the hght of the Protreptleus th.1t An:.totJe's ethical mqumcs were
ongmally entirely dommateu by Plato's problem of the measurablhty and
measure of moral phenomena, hiS change consisted sImply In reJectmg the
universal norms, and recognJzmg no measure but the autonomous conscience of
the ethically educated person (' the good man '), a measure which can claIm no
exactness' m the epistemological sense Thus he refers every man to himself,
and recogOlzes the mexhaustlble vanety of the conditions of mdlvldual moral
action Without undermmmg the mVlOlablhty of the \Dner norm The famous
notion of Virtue as a mean between excess and defect IS also treated as a problem
10 the measurement of contlDuous quantitIes (II 5, 1106" 26), and It IS thIS
treatment that gives sense to the method employed a fact whIch IS usually
complettly mIsunderstood, because everybody Ignores the actual hlstoncal
conneXlons out of which Anstotle's problem arose
2 Plato, Laws IV 716 c 'God ought to be to us the measure of .111 thmgs,
and not man as men commonly say'
I Eth Nu VI 7,1141"20 fI
For exactness as the SIgn of a dISCIpline's bemg SCIentIfic m
character see Phli 50 B-C, 57 C-E, 58 c., 59 A 59 D, dnd so on
THE PROTREPTICUS 89
treptJcus merely wIth regard to the nature of ethICS and polItics
It IS also the underlymg reason for the account there gIven of
the relatIOn between empmcal and pure SCIence Plato's later
doctrme took from mathematIcs not merely the conceptIOn of
measure and the Ideal of exactness, but also the problem of
drawmg the lme between pure and applIed SCIence In the Pro-
trephcus the opponents of pure phIlosophy and sCience dre
represented as couplmg geometry and surveYIng, the theory of
harmony and mUSIC, astronomy and the saIlor's knowledge of
sky and weather, In order to prove that theory IS actually a
handiCap In any department of practIcal actIVIty, because It
prevents the student from gettmg practIce and often even
ImpaIrs the certamty of hIS natural InstInct 1 We should lIke to
know how Anstotle replIed to thIS cntIcIsm, but unfortunately
hiS answer IS lost The Idea of couplmg together paIrS of pure
and empmcal SCIences was naturally not Invented by hIS
opponents, It was first used by Plato The Phtlebus dIstmgUIshes
an anthmetIc of the philosophers from the anthmetic of the
many ,2 It IS SCIence In a greater or less degree accordIng as the
umts With which It operates are lIke or unlIke SlITularly there
are two' arts' of computatIOn and two of mensuratIOn, In fact,
there are many' arts' where such a tWill brotherhood eXIsts,
WIthout theIr bemg dlstmglllshed by name' Those With whIch
the true phIlosophers are occupIed are Ulcomparahly supenor to
the others because of their exactness and truth In matters of
measure and number Presumably Anstotle's answer to the
empmcists was SimIlar to Plato's III the PhllebltS It does not
matter which art' IS most serviCeable and which IS of the
greatest use, but WhICh altns at the greatest accuracy, clanty,
and truth 'A lIttle pure white IS whiter and fairer and truer than
a great deal that IS mixed'. and the lover of pure colours will
therefore prefer It unconditIonally 4 ThiS View, that knowledge
ought to be made exact even If It thereby becomes u!>eless, IS
also the conVictIon of the ProtreptJcus It anses out of thp
artIstIc attitude to mathematics that IS charactenstIc of Plato's
1 Frg 52 (p 59. II 1811, III Rose) Ph.l 56 D
3 Ph1l 57 D. Cf Ep1n 990 A, where the mathematIcal astroDomer IS COD-
trasted WIth the empmc and the man who IS weathecwlse
PhIl 53 A
90 THE ACADEMY
later theory of Ideas, and wIthout thIS artistIc feelmg for
method Anstotle IS InconceIvable
The Protreptzcus gIves clear expreSSIOn not merely to the
consequences of the theory of Fonns but also to Its actual
contents I Just as m the arts and crafts man's best tools, by
WhICh he measures and tests the straIghtness or smoothness of
perceptIble thmgs, are copIed from nature, so too the statesman
accordmg to Anstotle has definIte nonns (OpOI), WhICh he
receIves' from nature from the truth', and by reference
to whIch he Judges what IS Just, noble, good, and advantageous
Just as the tools that are taken from nature are supenor to all
others, so the best law IS that whIch mo'>t accords WIth nature
It IS, however, ImpOSSIble to produce thIS law WIthout first
haVIng learnt to know beIng and truth by means of phllo-
sophy NeIther the tools of the other arts nor theIr most
accurate calculatIOns are dIrectly denved from the hIghest
pnncIples (OUK O:rr' atlTwv TC:lV np,;m:.:lv), they come from
sources once, tWIce, or many tImes removed, and theIr rules are
obtaIned by mere expenence Only the ImitatIon (j..djJ11O'I'i) of
the philosopher IS exercised directly upon the exact 'In
(lilT' a (IT Wv TWV OOcpl(3wV) , for he IS a contemplator of thmgs
In themselves, dnd not of ImitatIOns (crVrwv y6:p bTl
O}..}..' ou lJlIJ11lJa-rWV)
Both the language and the content of thiS pass-
age are pure Plato, a fact whICh had already been notIced In the
days when the Idea that Anstotle had a PlatOnIC penod was
InconceIvable 2 So long a<; It was conSidered In IsolatIon It may
have seemed a suffiCient explanatIOn to say that It was an
ImItation of Plato's style, and that the PUpil'S own opInIOn lay
hIdden discreetly and cautIOusly beneath, but the meanIng of
these words cap be really understood only by reference to their
organIC conneXIOn WIth the phIlosophy of the and
the latter necessItates the dualIst metaphysIcs of the Fonns as
I Iambl Prot, P 54. I 22-p 55, I 14 (not m
In Hermes. X 99. Hirzel Tightly compared thIS fragment, where the ruler
and statesman IS called upon to study phtlosophy, WIth Plato's dl'mand that
kmgs philosophIze or only philosophers be kings HIrzel also says that lambli-
chus tenth chapter belongs not to the P,otTephcu, but to some purely political
"ntlllg of early penorl but WL have dlready shown th.lt tIllS IS an
t.rror
THE PROTREPTlCUS 91
the theoretIcal basIs of the above-descnbed doctrmes of values
The 'first thmgs' that are here spoken of are not the same as
those m ArIstotle's and It IS true that m
the as well as here we read that the philosopher
apprehends the highest prInciples. the th10gs that are most
umversal (lTpc7>Ta),' and we have shown that Its first two
chapters are closely dependent on the throughout,
but thiS only makes It the more slgmficant that Anstotle there
purposely aVOIds the Platomc expressIOn' the first thmgs m
themselves' (MO TO lTpCna) by excls10g the' 10 themselves'
(aVTCx)-that IS to say. by eXClsmg the very word that makes the
expressIOn' first 10 the Protrephcus a piece of speCifically
PlatOnIC term1Oology Even apart from that the expressIOn
'first thmgs' cannot here refer to the abstract unIversal 10
ArIstotle's later sense, because the abstract umversalls not con-
trasted WIth any 'ImitatIOns' (1-.1I1l"llaTa) , ImitatIOns' IS agam
a specIfically Platomc term, and cannot be sIgmficantly used
apart from the doctrIne that the Forms are archetypes (lTapa-
2.elYlJaTa) 10 whIch the thmgs of sense partiCIpate To suppose
that such an acute 10glClan and stylIst Anstotle could use
'Imltahon' merely m the etIOlated seme of 'percephble thmgs'
IS SImply ImpOSSible 2
I Metaph A.l 982" 25
2 The expressIOn' ImitatIOn I; ffiLant to emphaSIZe the greater realIty of the
archetype Hence It Lan no longer be used as soon as th.. Forms hdVL ceas('cl to
be substance; and become merdy the highest ulllversals 5tlllless would It be
pOSSIble to "dY that on Anstotle s view the parbculdr thmgs of VISible nature,
whIch dre made up of math'r and torm an lITlltdtlons' of the nntelechlCs or
forms that are aLtlve In them 'ImitatIOns' presuppose PlatolllC' tranqC'endence.
the' separateness of archetype and copy 1 he questIOn IS decldf'd by the fact
that Anstotle also uses Plato s techmcal term when cntlclzmg the Forms m
later works. he often calls them Simply 'themselves' (avra) WIthout any ac-
companymg words, Just as he does here when he says' for he IS a contemplator
of themselues. and not of .mltahons' (avrwv yap taT! aAA ou J,1'J,11J,1err",v.
lambl p 55. I 13) Here the pronoun does not refer to anythmg that has gone
before, It Is used absolutely 1 hIS way of wntmg not lUCid unless the Forms
are bemg contrasted With the correspondmg senSible phenomena or copies, and
hence we find It only when thIS IS so Cf l\lelaph 991" 5, 'm Itself and In the
particular' (I1T( T avriis kal Tiis T.v6s) , "30, 'not only of senSible thmgs, but
of themselve; also' (ov J,lOVOV TW' aAAII kal mrrwv) b 30, between the
tllIngs here and themselves TWV :AEiip6 T !OTa, oa\ avTWV) , 997
b
I",
besldps themselves and thL senSible ones' (Trap oal b 2""
'brtween themselves and the penqhabk ones' mrrwv TE oal TWV <pOap,wv)
1111; pecuhdr of Plato's h...s obVIOusly eSLapul tbL notlL< of qLhoJar!>
92 THE ACADEMY
Such a way out of the difficultIes that entangle every Ans-
totellan mterpretatlOn of the passage would be desperate, and
there IS sttll another fact that precludes It These PlatonIc ex-
pressIOns are equated WIth the phrase 'nature Itself and the
truth' Now this cannot be the AnstotelIan conceptIon of nature
In the first place, the additIon of 'Itself' would not be JustIfiable
Secondly, thiS nature IS the source of absolute and exact
standards for polItIcs and ethiCS, which Anstotle's IS not 1
Lastly, Aristotle could not say that the philosopher who In-
vestIgates nature IS mvestIgatmg 'the first thIngs themselves',
while the other arts, whose Instruments and rules are equally
obtamed from vlSlble nature, are concerned only With copies
t",o, three, or many degrees removed, for If both have nature In
the same sense as the subject-matter of theIr Imitation, what
dlstmgUlshes phIlosophy from the other arts In thiS respect
ThIS companson between philosophy, whlCh contemplates
thmgs m themselves, and the arts, which merely ImItate copIes
of caples, bnngs us a little farther It comes from the account
of the theory of Forms In the tenth book of the Republzc 2 The
tertzum comparatzoms IS the fact that both of them have their
archetype In somethmg objective and external to themselves,
from which they as It were read oft the law Qf their subJect-
matter For the arts and crafts the archetype IS the nature that
IS perceptible For phIlosophers It 1<; 'nature Itself', which can
be grasped only by pure thought It IS real bemg, and It can also
be descnbed as 'the first thmg<; them,elves' (exu-n:X TCr TIpWTa)3
It follows that these' first thmgs ' cannot pOSSIbly be the hIghest
universals, because, whereas theIr equatIon wIth' nature Itself'
gIves them obJective realIty, Anstotle m hiS matunty demed
that unIversals possess thiS The only pOSSible mference from
these facts IS that m thiS passage the highest universals and the
I Plato's Statesman, 297 Cand 300 CfI is the orlgm of the application of the
terms' imitation' and' COpies of the truth' to a politics that proceeds by earthly
models and in accordance WIth wntten laws and constitutions, and is not
creative because not based on the eternal norm In that dialogue it occurs
frequently, as does the companson of the true With a helmsman (et
297 E) The problem itself also comes from the same place In 308 C Plato's
ideal pohbcs is called' the true and natural art of statesmanship'
Plato, Rep X 599 A, 600 E. 602 C, 60) A, 605 B
s Plato 132 D 'the Ideas are as it were, patterns fixed ill nature'
The equation 01 nature, bemg, and truth, Platolllc
THE PROTREPTICUS 93
most 'exact' thlIlgs are still considered Identical With the
essentially real-and that IS true only of the Platomc Idea
Only of the Idea could one say that It IS nature Itself, the dlvme,
the steadfast, the abIdmg, and the eternal, by the Sight of which
the philosophical statesman hves, and to which like a good
helmsman he moors his ship I
The mam function of the Forms m the Protreptzcus IS to sup-
port ItS theory of knowledge by provIdmg an exact object for
pure knowledge, and secondanly to provide ethical norms ThIS
IS the dIrectIOn m which Plato's development finally took hIm,
and Anstotle follows It leads to greater emphaSIS on method,
and to the suppressIOn If not to the demal of the eXistential
character of the Forms The very proof that they do possess
real eXistence IS now made to rest mamly on the reqUIrements
and presupposItIons of conceptual knowledge If the only real
objects were sensible phenomena, conceptual thmkmg, which
alone IS exact, would have no real obJect, and m that case It
would not be knowledge at all, accordmg to the outlook of the
tIme The view that pure knowledge IS exact thus becomes really
the cardmal pomt m Plato's later thought The Form IS the
pure object revealed by exact thmkmg ThiS was one of the
Academy's mam arguments Anstotle reproduced It In hIS lost
work On Ideas, and Alexander of has preserved It
therefrom 2 It explams why the Protreptzws calls the Forms
'the exact m Itself' Even the tcchmcal term that was used 10
the AcademiC proof reappears here, namely the absolutely
detenmnate' (TO: WPIO"IJEva) 3 In later days It was one of
Anstotle's hardest problems to deCide whether we can have
any SCientIfic knowledge of the supersenslble, If Plato's Forms
do not eXist, It IS not clear how the essences of thmgs can be
grasped by general conceptIOns The Protreptzcus, on the other
hand, argues WIth remarkable determmatIOn, and ObVlOU'>ly
from qUIte different presuppOSItions, that It IS possible to have a
sCience of the Just and the good, of nature, and of 'the rest of
truth' (1 e the 'really real', OVTCUS ov) For Its author that
which IS first m order of bemg comcldes With that which IS most
knowable, and the latter, which IS also called the determmate
I Iambl Protr, p 55, II 21 fI Frg 187
] Frg 52 (p 60.1 21.10 Rose) Cf 01'1 Forms. frg 187 (p 149.1 22, In Rose)
G
94 THE ACADEMY
and the orderly, cOIncIdes wIth the good and the cause I It IS
true that expressIOns hke 'pnor by nature', and 'pnor wIth
reference to us', and 'first thmgs' In the sense of ultunatc
grounds'. occur elsewhere also m Anstotle's phtlosophy But
there]s no doubt that they arose ongmally out of Plato's argu-
ments for the Forms They fit them best, and must have been
invented pnmartlY for them Therr meamng ]5 clear only so
long as they are apphed to a transcendental reahty such as Plato
beheved m, they become ambIguous If referred to unmanent
essence Hence Anstotle IS obhged to dIfferentiate theIr meamng
and to add quahficatlons (such as 'by nature' and 'wIth refer-
ence to us ') They cannot be used absolutely, as they are m the
Protrepttcus, unle'is truth and be10g and value comclde 10 the
most perfect object of knowledge (as they do on the theory of
Fonns) The amalgamahon of ethICS and ontology. WhICh also
occurs 10 thIS argument, IS exphcable only on the SuppOSItIon
that the words 'pnor' and 'good' refer to the Forms
The final prpof IS gIVen by the vIew taken m the Protrepttcus
of the elements (O"TOIxeia) of realIty, a vIew whIch the Meta-
p y s ~ s combats 10 detail 2 In the earher work Anstotle wntes as
follows . the pnor IS cause 10 a greater degree than the postenor.
for when It ]S destroyed the thmg" that receIve their substance
(i"1)v ovalav) from ]t are destroyed along WIth ]t, hnes along
With numbers, planes along WIth hnes, and sohds along With
planes' The Metaphystcs on the other hand demes all sub-
stantIahty to the objects of mathemahcs, numbers, po1Ots, hnes.
planes, and sohds. while ]t mentIOns that the Platomsts held
thIS VIew We read there . We call that substance (ovalO')
also by whose destructIOn the whole IS destroyed, as the body IS
by the destructIon of the plane, as some say. and the plane by the
destructIOn of the lme, and In general number IS thought by
some to be of thiS nature' In the oldest porbons of the Meta-
physf,cS the cntIClsm of Platomsm ]S mainly drrected agamst
thIs, the final form of the theory of Ideas, accord1Og to whIch the
Ideas either have mathematIcal objects eXlst10g as substances
alongSIde of them, or actually are numbers themselves Ans-
totle there calls thIS' a remarkably weak argument' Th]s only
1 Frg 52 (p 60, II 17 ff , In Rose)
FTg 52 (p 60, 1 26, In Rose), cf Metaph 68, IOl7
b
18, N 3, lO9O
b
5
THE PROTREPTICUS 9S
makes It the more sIgnIficant that he hImself had formerly mam-
tamed the doctnne he here attacks It stands or falls together
wIth the PlatOnIC VIew of and wIth the doctnne that
the Ideas and the objects of mathematIcs possess transcendental
actuahty
Anstotle allows It to be seen that there was controversy 10
the Academy about the elements of realIty . It IS ImpossIble to
know anythmg else until we know the causes and pnncIples of
thmgs. whether they are fire or aIr [1 e the elements of the
phYSICIStS] or number or some other natures repVOl:IS. 1e the
Ideas] . I Plato hImself gIves sImuar hmts 10 hIS later dIalogues.
WIthout actually hftmg the veIl In the PhJlebus he speaks openly
of the strong feehng' (1TOAA'tt OiT'ov2.rl) about the theory of
Forms, and the' controversy about dIvIsIOn' (IJETCr 41CllpeO"EWS
O:\JepI O"l3ilTTl 0" IS) m conneXIOn WIth them z Anstotle took a
hvely share m these diSCUSSIOns, WhICh only makes It more re-
markable that 10 the ProtreptJcus he subordmates hIS prIvate
OpinIOn to the prevallmg AcademIC doctnne Two conclUSIOns
may be drawn WIth certamty FIrst, even m those early days he
dId not maintam the theory of Form!> as a statIc dogma, he was
an adherent of It, but he spoke of It WIth full conscIOusness of ItS
difficultIes These dIfficultIes. however-and thIS IS the second
conclusIon--did not yet seem to him suffiCIently fundamental to
enable hIm defimtely to refute Plato's doctrIne, as he dId 10 lus
work On PhJlosophy and In the MetaphysJcs soon after 348 And
so perhaps we may that neither In the ProtreptJcus nor m
Plato's later dialogues does the Academy's lIterary portraIt of
qmte reveal the true state of Its esoterIC It IS
sIgmficant that the most Interestmg thIng In Anstotlt:'s early
works and In the later dIalogues of hIS master is often preCIsely
that whIch they do not say
ThIS gIves the more value to thIS confeSSIOn of the representa-
tIve of the young generatIOn, as an addItIon to Plato's own
embodIment of the SpInt of the Academy m hIS wntmgs We
learn from It what seemed to hIm essentIal in the work of the
Academy
When he mentIons WIth enthUSIasm the recent rapid advance
(E1TIAo(llS) of phIlosophy along the road of exact SCIence. we
I Frg 52 (p 61, I 13. m Rose) Z Pl"l 15 A Cf Pa,m 130 B ff
96 THE ACADEMY
feel ourselves dIrectly transported mto the midst of Plato's
commumty of students In the Academy men felt that they
were swmunmg m the mam current of progress, In companson
With which the other arts' were stagnant water Anstotle
speaks of the pace of the movement, and he bebeves that the
completion of knowledge IS at hand He shares m the confidence
wluch hiS generation denved from the conviction that It
possessed creative power and had made unexampled progress
Men beheved that genume mqUiry can make men happy, and
thiS behef arose not from any artifiCial arguments but from
actual good fortune and mtensdied expenence, If It ever has
been true it was true then The outSider may thmk It thankless
work, exclaims Anstotle, but he who has once tasted of It can
never be satiated I It IS the only fann of human activity that IS
not restncted to any tIme or place or Instrument It does not
requITe any encouragement from external gam He who lays hold
of It 19 laid hold of by It, thenceforward he knows of nothmg
pleasanter than 'slttmg down to It J (lTpoO'e2l.pelo:) It was thiS
crrcle of students that gave birth to Amtotle's ideal of 'the
theoretic hfe'-not, that IS to say, the ammated gymnaSIUm of
the Lym or the Charmtdes, but the cabm (KcxAVI3,,) m the
secluded garden of the Academy Its qUIetude IS the real ongmal
of the Isles of the blest m the Protrephcus, that dreamland of
phIlosophical otherworldhness z The new type of philosopher
models himself not on Socrates but on Pythagoras or Anaxagoras
or Pannemdes The Protrephcus names these three as founders
ThiS change 15 Important enough to reqUIre our attention a
httle longer
ThIS seems to have been the moment at which the Academy
first raised the problem of the hlstoncal and the Platomc
Socrates, because the members were becommg more and more
conscIOus of theIr distance from the Socratic type In therr
earbest attempts to dlstmgulsh hiS share from Plato's they
naturally demed to the hlstoncal Socrates almost every piece
of phIlosophical knowledge that IS ascnbed to him m Plato's
, Frg 5Z (p 62. I 20 In Rose)
Frg 58 (p 68,1 3. and p 69. I I. In Rose) The hterary model for tlus was
Plato, GorK 526 c. and Rtp VII 540 B The Platol11Bts referred these two
passages to hfe In the Academy The Epmom,s (992 II) takes over the same Idea
THE PROTREPTICUS 97
dlalogues Later on this radIcalism was followed by a reaction,
so that Anstotle obtained the followmg result 'Two thmgs must
m faIrne51S be ascrIbed to Socrates, mductlve arguments and
unIversal defimtIon ' I In anycase there IS no conneXIOn between
Socrates and the theoretIcal phIlo<;ophy of the In
that work metaphysIcs, which has not yet receIved the name
'first phIlosophy', lS descnbed as 'speculatIon of the type mtro-
duced by Anaxagoras and Parmemdes', and the ancestor of
Plato's phtlosophy 1<; consIdered to be Pythagoras 1 Even m the
first book of the M Anstotle shll holds that Plato's
doctnne was essentially Pythagorean m ongm, though ]t added
'some pecuhantIes of Its own' 3 ThiS View, whIch must often
have astomshed the reader, 15 not mtended to belIttle Plato It
was the offiCial VIew of the Academy, and An<;totle stIll held ]t
when he wrote the<;e words about 348/7 The PlatoDlc Socrates
had been the result of the artIst's dc'me to mould and create,
the Academy's cult of Pythagoras, one of the most remarkable
examples of relIgIOUS auto-suggestIOn there have ever been, was
a projectIon of the Academy Itself and Its number-metaphySICS
mto the half-mythIcal personality of Pythagoras, whom the
PlatoDl!>ts venerated as the founder of .the theoretIc hIe'
J
and
whom they soon freely credIted wIth the VIews of theIr own hme
and school
The tale about Pythagoras In the Protreptleus, ummportant
as It IS, enables us to !>ee wIth our own eye" how story-teIlmg
developed and came to have Its fateful mfluence on the hIstory
of Greek phIlosophy Pythagoras IS asked what 15 the purpose of
human lIfe He replIes, 'to contemplate the heavens'_i In
I Mefaph M 4, 107gb 27 cautIous formula to me to be stIll the
fairest account of the hlstoncal facts Maler (SoMa/e" IubIllgen, 1913 PP
77 ff) was no doubt nght In denyIng that Socrates had any logical theory of the-
and muuctlOll It IS hIgh time that we ceased callmg Socrates the first
logICian on the strength of Anstot]e s statement But hIS actual words give no
whatever to such a View, he merely descnbes the logIcal operatIOns
that Socrates pracltsed He conSIders Socrates, however, from hiS own pmn/
of VIew HIS aIm IS not In the least to . d picture of the man but to
COV!'f In hIm as In Democntus and the Pythagoreans, the pnnutIve ongms of
logl<-3.1 method (cf 107gb 20)
1 lambl PTotr, P 51, II g and II, frg 52 (p 59,] .; In Rose)
] Metaph A 6, 9S7a 30
lamb] Protr, P 51,] B. The dIctum of Anaxagoras at] 13 IS a vanant of
thIS
98 THE ACADEMY
answer to a second question he describes hlITlself as such a con-
templator With thiS story let us compare the ClaSSiCal
account of the ongm of the word 'phllosopher' m Cicero's
Tusculan whIch comes from HeraclIdes of Pontus,
a fellow-student of Aristotle's I Here agaIn Pythagoras is being
questioned He calls hlITlself a philosopher, and to explaIn thIS
new name he tells the followmg story He compares human hfe
WIth the great festival at OlympIa, where all the world comes
together in a motley throng Some are there to do bUSIness at
the faIr and to enJoy themselves, others WISh to WID the wreath
ID the contest. others are merely spectators The last are the
phllosophers, of whom there are but few After readmg the
one recogmzes In the first two groups the repre-
sentatives of pleasure and VIrtue, that IS of the' apolaustlc' and
the' practIcal' lIves The philosopher lIves entirely for' theory',
for pure phronesls Attractive as thiS story sounds It 15 neIther
a umty nor ongInal HeraclIdes, the most aSSiduously Pytha-
gorean of all the Platomsts, has ObVIOusly been stunulated
by the He projects the mstmchon of the three
hves into the dim past The kernel of the tale lIes In the
word 'theory', WhICh InevItably suggests a double meamng
The Protreptzcus had already drawn the parallel between the
phIlosopher's contemplatIOn of realIty and the sacred spectacle
of OlympIa, and had done so III a passage close to that descnbIng
the answers of Pythagoras Z HeraclIdes slITlply combmed these
two elements mto a short story and gave It a little embellIsh-
ment What to Anstotle was merely a stylIstic deVIce now be-
comes a slITlIle of the three hves (since not every one who goes to
OlympIa IS a spectator), and IS ascnbed to Pythagoras hlIl'lself
(MOS @cpa) In reahty the tale presupposes the fundamental
nohons of Plato's later ethiCS and metaphysIcs
Lastly, we must consider what the Protrepticus can tell us
about Anstotle's early attitude towards hfe and relglOn In thIS
respect It IS supplementary to the Eudemus, It shows that the
VIew that he had there establIshed about the other world made
a radIcal dIfference to hIS OpinIOn of th15 one In both works he
IS thoroughly pesslITllShc about earthly lIfe and temporal goods
and mterests He exhorts us to throwaway hfe of our own
I CIC ruse V 3. 8 Iambl Protr. P 53. 1 19
THE PROTREPTICUS 99
accord, In order to obtaIn a hIgher and purer good In exchange
But whereas the Eudemus, wIth Its doctnne of the soul and
Immortahty, IS predommantly speculattve. the
mtroduces us to a more personal atmosphere
Followmg Plato's example and doctnne, Anstotle IS con-
vInced that there are higher, Impenshable values, and that
there IS a truer world, towards which genuIne knowledge leads
For the sake of that good he abandons all the seemmg goods
of power, possessIons, and beauty 1 The worthlessness of all
earthly thmgs has never been more contemptuously denounced
As to the dream of the aesthetic eIghteenth century-harmony,
c1oudlessseremty, and the enJoyment of beauty-theProtreptzcus
feels nothmg but the profoundest disgust for It Probably It
never really appealed to the Greek spmt There were moments,
as m the fourth century, when the aesthetiC attItude seemed to
be tnumphant m hfe and mart, but they were soon overtaken
by the reflectIOn that strength, beauty and stature are but a
laughmg stock, and utterly valueless' When these words were
wntten the beauty of the body m Its subhme austenty had long
ceased to seem dIVIne, and the art that should have Interpreted
It was hvmg on a mere semblance, the empty cult of form In
the Protreptzcus Anstotle lays hands on the beautIful AlcIbiades,
who was the Idol of that age, and In whom It dehghted to find Its
own Image He puts hiS finger on the weakness of the tIme when
he says that If a man could sce mto the of that much-
admrred body with the eyes of Lynceus'. he would find a
picture of uglIness and nausea z He hImself 1<; USIng the Lynceus-
VISIOn of another attItude towards hfe when he penetrates thIS
VISIble matenal partitIOn that surrounds us and discovers
behmd the scenes of appearance a new and hItherto mVISlble
world, the world of Plato
On thiS view the perfection of all the Imperfections of human
hfe he In the transcendental world Thus hfe becomes the
death of the soul, and death the escape mto a hIgher lIfe
Anstotle borrows the language of the Phaedo and declares that
the hfe of the true phIlosopher must be a contmual practIce
of death J He Will find nothmg harsh m that, for to hun the
I Iambl P"ot" , P 53,1 19 2 Frg 59 (p 70,1 II, In Rose, cf 11 7 fI)
J See DICls, A"chw fu" Ge$,h.,hte de" Phtlosoph" , vol" P 479
100 THE ACADEMY
Impnsonment of the soul In the body IS an unnatural state full
of mexpressible sufferIng I ThIs IS pictured In hornble colours
In the SimIle of the Etruscan pirates In order to torture their
pnsoners, these pIrates bound theIr lIVIng bodies face to face
With corpses and left them to pensh slowly. thus constraIning
hfe and putrefaction Into an unnatural UnIon In spite of the
self-tormentIng crassness of thiS SimIle, It bears the marks of
genume personal expenence and sensItIve emotIOn The young
ArIstotle had really felt the pams of man's dualIstIc eXistence,
as Plato and the Orphlcs had felt them before him It IS an
absolutely Intolerable and blasphemous nohon that thiS PlatOnIC
Imagery IS nothing but a conventIonal mask, concealIng a spIrit
In realIty playful and easy-goIng We must Simply relearn our
history The fact IS that there was a time when these Ideas
seemed to Ano:;totle an Inseparable part of hiS own ego He uses
every kind of phrase and metaphor to Inculcate them He is fond
of takIng words from the vocabulary of the mystenes, because
only by means of relIgIOn can he understand and overcome the
constraInt of man's duahstIc eXIstence As the ancIent mystIc
doctrInes whIsper, the whole of human hfe a penance for some
heavy gudt that the soul has Incurred In an earher eXistence
The supersenslble process of the soul's home-coming IS made
to mclude man's moral obhgatIons as well EthICS IS thus de-
pnved of Its absolute vahdlty and Independent worth Far
removed though Anstotle IS from redUCIng the vanous aspects of
actual moral hfe to the Single gaze of the mystIcal VISion, or from
haVIng recourse to ecstasy, he nevertheless does uncondItIonally
subordmate the realm of wIll and actIon to the contemplatIon of
the eternal good
I The final section of the excerpts from the Protreptlcus which was worked
over by Iambhchus (see page 79 above}, IS contamInated With Neo-PlatonIsm.
but the followlDg passage seems to me unmIStakably genume 'Here, however,
because It IS perhaps unnatural to our race to be here, It IS hard to learn and to
examme anytJung, and only With difficulty would a man perceive anythmg
because of the awkwardness and unnaturalness of our hfe. but If ever we can
get safely back whence we came [the Eudemus agam
l
], It IS obVIOUS that we
shalJ all do It more pleasantly and easily' (Iambl Protr, p 60, II 10-15)
AM' tvTail6C1 IIiv 11a 'TO napa 'l'v,nv lcrc.>s dvCII < 'TO ytvoc; !\\IWV XaM1TOV 'TO \Iav6av.1V 'TI
KClI ""olTllv tcr'T1 I<ClI \Io1\1s (lrv) Cllaelrvo,'To e> 11a 'rl\v a'l'v1av Kal 'rl\1I '!rapCr opvalV lc.>1\v, lrv
:At nan nO},III 6eV th'lhv8allEv, 1ijhov c.>s i')110v KClI f>9ov ClV'TO nOI1\aollEv
The repetitIon of 'IrClf'a 'l'V171Y shows that here, too, the ongInal has been
clumsily abbreVIated
THE PROTREPTICUS 101
The phl1osopher must keep hImself as free as possible from
the dIstractIons of practIcal hfe The ProtreptJcus warns us not
to become too deeply mvolved m mortal affarrs, and not to lose
ourselves on the false traIls that hwnamty follows All such
thmgs only hmder our return to God Our sole aspIratIon should
be that we may one day dIe In peace, and so return from thls
close Imprisonment to our home We ought eIther to seek truth
and devote ourselves to It, or to have done wlth hfe altogether,
for all else IS but folly and ldle talk I
I Frg 61 (p 72, I 20, ID Rose) Cicero put thiS passage at the end of hiS
Hcwlennus, along With SimIlar thoughts also borrowed from the Prolrepluus
Presumably they came at the end In the ongmal too

PART TWO
TRAVELS
CHAPTER V
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA
I
N 348/7 Plato died, and at almost the same mstant Stagrra
was destroyed by the ravagmg and burnmg troops of Phulp
of Macedon, who was attackmg the commercial cIties of the
Chalcidlc penmsula Thus at one stroke Anstotle was depnved
both of his ancestral and of his spmtual home (for such had
Plato's presence made Athens to hIm) In spite of hIs Increasmg
mdependence m mtellectual matters he had refused to leave
Plato, so long as the latter lIved, but, the master's eyes once
closed for ever, the be that bound him to hiS fellow-students was
soon broken In the very same year he departed for ASia Mmor,
leavmg hiS Circle of fnends and the scene of twenty years of en-
noblmg expenence and devoted common work I In the absence
of any mfonnahon about the true reason for thiS momentous
step, which was perhaps decided even before Plato's death, wud
suggestlOns have been put forward In hiS wntmgs Anstotle
frequently apphes sharp cntIclsm to Plato's doctnnes, hence It
was not difficult to find supporters for the conjecture that he had
broken away from Ius teacher, and that hiS departure from
Athens was the expressIOn of the break HiS character was
m the hope of dlscovenng personal reasons HiS
mockmg way affected dehcate nerves unpleasantly (although It
always gives place to the greatest respect when he speaks of
Plato), and he was particularly obnoxIOUS to those who took hiS
all-commandmg mtellect and hiS mSistence on logical punty for
the SignS of a destructive spmt He hlffiself protests agamst tbe
inSinuatIOn that a cntIclsm must always have personal motlves,
even If It happens to be true In late antiqUIty gossIp openly
charged hun With mahce and Ingratltudf", and the motIves of hiS
departure were shrouded m a thick fog of SuspiCIOn, the express
disperSIOn of WhiCh, although we have become more sceptical
about conventIOnal moral Judgements, IS not yet superfluous,
e!>peclally as the real reasons for the step are still unexplamed Z
I Apollodorus m DlOg L V 9 (cf V 3. where the chronology IS hopelessly
confused). Dlonys Hal ep ad Amm 5
Anstotle protests agaInst charges Wlbated by Plato's followers In E/h
106 TRAVELS
Aclever and cultivated scholar of Impenal times, Anstocles of
Messana, had the moral force to tear down thIs vell of legend.
Re put an end to the perslStent tradItion of the compilers by
gomg back to the pnmary sources and demonstratmg the miser
able msufficiency of the groWlds on whIch the gOSSIp rested
Chance has kmdly preserved to us the part of hIs cntIcal mqurry
where, after tnumphantly destroymg the threadbare tissue of
lIes, he shows that the rumours of a break between Plato and
Anstotle rest on a crymg mIsmterpretahon of a passage m the
latter's pupu Anstoxenus of Tarentum' In all probabulty It was
Anstocles who, after demohshing these apocryphal tales, restored
to lIght that precIOUS personal document whIch gIVes us Ans-
totle's real attItude to hIS master better than all the hypotheses
of aben malIce, namely the altar-elegy dedIcated to Eudemus z
The asserbon, that the man to whom Anstotle IS enthUSIastic-
ally teshfymg m tlus fragment IS not Plato but Socrates (whom
Anstotle had never seen m h15 hfe) , IS self-contradIctory and
psychologically unprobable 3 It would never have been put for-
ward If scholars had kept steadily m mmd the fact that thIS rare
Jewel owes ItS rediscovery solely to a cntIcal bIOgrapher's search
for first-hand mfonnahon, and therefore must have contamed
Anstotle's own explICIt account of h15 relatIOn to Plato and hIS
reply to the mahcIQus cntIcs of that relatIOn The later Neo-
Platomsts took the poem from a learned work on thIS subject,
where It was quoted only so far as It threw a dIrect hght thereon
It IS therefore clear that by the man' whom bad men have not
even the nght to praIse' IS meant m thIS elegy none other than
Plato, and that the bad men' whose praise Anstotle thmks
J 6, l096" ll-l6, and frg 8 Our InfOrmatIOn about the gossip In the schools
has been cnbcally examlIled by Stahr (Arutoteha, Halle, 1830, vol" PP 46 tf)
He takes lus matenal from FranclSCus PatntJus (DJscussJones penpIJtetJcae,
Basle, 1581) The latter, a PlatonIst of the Renascence, was qUIte blInded by
hIS hate of Anstotle, he put ImpliCIt faith In any accusatIon however absurd
I ATistocles In Euseb praep ell XV 2, 3
Thl8 18 the vIew of bnIDl8Ch (PJnlologus, vol lxv, p II) It IS rendered
probable by the fact that, as Stahr has shown (IbId vol I, P 6l)' what the
Ammonlus-lrfe of ATlStotle tells us about hIS relatIon to Plato must be referred,
on account of Its verbal echoes, to the fragment of AIlstocles preserved In
Euseblu!
3 Bernays, GesarrJmelte Abhandlwngen, vol I, pp l4311 IUghtly rejected by
WllamoWlu (Arlstolelu wnli A then, vol u. p "l3). and more recently by
Imn:usch (loc. CIt ).
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA 107
damagmg to the master are not Just any plebs, but those
mistaken adnurers who thought It theIr duty to defend Plato
agamst Anstotle's cntIclsm of hiS doctnne I A hteral translatIon
may be added here
ComlDg to the famous plam of Cecropia
He pIOusly set up an altar of holy Fnendshlp
For the man whom It 15 not lawful for bad men even to pr31se.
Who alone or first of mort.us clearly revealed.
By hlS own hfe and by the methods of hIS words.
That a man good and happy at the same time
Now no one can ever attaIn to these thmgs agam
The dedicator of the altar, here spoken of In the thIrd person,
IS unknown to us The statement that the poem was addressed
to Eudemus IS no help, because we cannot detennme whether the
Cypnan or the Rhodlan IS meant The latest Neo-Platomsts, In
then confused verSIOn of the hfe of Anstotle, professed to be
able to descnbe the InSCnptIOn on the altar, and accordmg to
them the dedIcator was Anstotle It IS qUIte unsafe to make thiS
the baSIS of an InterpretatIOn Fortunately, the vanous remam-
mg versIOns of the bIOgraphIcal tradition enable us to follow the
growth of the legends so clearly that we can detect the stages III
the gradual development of thiS supposed InscnptlOn Z
Though there IS some obscunty In the outward situatIon as
depleted by Anstotle, there IS none whatever In the Inner, and
J Only can we gIve concrete meamng to thiS passJOnate repudlatJOn of the
profane In Anstotle's style an empty rhetoncal hyperbole IS unthmkable. and
to refer It to Dlogenes the CynIc (as JS done by Gomperz, GrlecJusche Denkey,
vol II, p 539, and by Immlsch, loc CIt, P 21), because he also tau'1ht the self-
of virtue seems altogether too Dlogenes rould perhaps
have appealed to Socrates m support of hIS own doctnnes, but never to a
thmker so thf'orettcal and so far removed from himself as Plato
2 Immlsch conSIders the InscnptlOn genUine (loc Cit. P 12), but In the VIta
MarClana thc SpUrIOUS hexamrter, Anstotle set up thIS altar for Plato', IS
quoted by Itself, nght (p 432 m Rose) . and then we read, 'and tn and/ler
place he says of rum, .. a man whom It IS not lawful for bad men even to praise' ,
ThiS second lme IS a pentameter, and what happened IS that the careless compIler
of the so-called LIfe AccordIng to AmmonJus put the pentameter and the hexa-
meter togethu (p 439 In Rose), supposmg that man' was In apposItion to
'Plato and that the two lines formed a smgle distich, although they were gIVen
separately m hIS source It IS lDconcetvable that thmgs can have gone the other
way, namely that the author of the V,ta MarClana can have had the distich
before hIm as a whole, and then broken It up and saId that the pentameter came
from anothcr poem Ortglnally the quotation probably lDcluded the whole of
the fragment of the elegy, for It IS ohvlous that It was ohtamed from Anstocles
(see above. P 106, D 2)
108 TRAVELS
that IS what we are concerned with The first lme tells of a man,
presumably a pupl1 of Plato's, who carne to Athens and set up
an altar there That thiS was an altar to Plato, I e that the
latter was accorded dIVIDe honours, I cannot admit At first
Sight we may be confused by the fact that' altar' governs two
gemtlves, . Fnendshlp' and' man', but a Greek would surely
have assumed WIthout questIOn that what was meant was that
he set up an altar to most honourable Phlha, In honour of the
fnendshlp of the man whom bad men may not even praISe I
The adjectIve 'holy' puts It beyond all doubt that the diVInity
In whose name the altar was !let up was Phlha On the other
hand, the second gemtlve makes It equally certam that thiS altar
of fnendshlp was to be sacred not to any rationalIstic allegory.
not to any bloodless and hfeles" abstraction, but to the man In
whose person and achons the goddess had revealed herself to his
disciples as a very present help:t The apotheOSIS of the human
person IS ImpoSSible In Plato's concept of rehgIOn, and the
examples of AleAander, Lysander, and EplCUruS, are mapph-
cable here. Only that which ]S of the nature of a Form can be
fully dlvme J For an eAample of thiS speCifically PlatOniC re-
hglOus feeling we may take Anstotle's hymn to Hermlas (below,
p lI8) Here too we find that neither IS the poem addressed
to the dead human bemg nor IS the abstract nohon of Virtue
I WdamoWltz (loe Cit, pp 413 ff) takes IApuCJCrTo 1l"'lIOv avApOoI together
( set up an altar to a man', I e to Plato), and regards' of holy Fnendshlp' as a
gemtlve of cause. or as an lomclsm, though he thmks thiS less good, but either
would be somewhat far-fetched for the SImple and prosaic speech that had been
the rule m elegiac poetry SJnce the days of Evenus and Cntlas Immlsch, feelmg
thIS, but wantmg to preserve the altar dedicated to Plato, emended the text to
Naill''''v CJll.lvTtv ,11IIav (' 10 worship of holy Fnendshlp he set up an altar to the
man whom' &c J, wfuch IS Simply ImpOSSible (In hIS commentary on Heslod's
Works Qnd Days Wliamowitz has Since called Z'lvOs ,vACD;I' av6pwrr",v (v ::53)
a locus clasHcus for one noun govemmg two gemtlves' )
Anstotle, Xenoerates, SpeUSlppus. and Phlhp of Opus, all wrote works On
Fr.endslnp m the Academy A whole hterature of the subject arose round Plato
In hi! old age It IS true that 'erotic theses' were stili dlBCussed lD the tradi-
tional fashIon, but Eros was no longer the unifYIng symbol of the group
AnstoUe projected him lDtO metaphYSICS, where he llved on as the amor ~
that moves the world 'It moves the world by bemg loved' The neuter IS
slgmficant of the change
W.lamowlu's conception of Plato the God, to whom he supposes the altar
to be dedicated (loe Cit, vol u, pp 'P3 ff J, IS certainly fine, but It scarcely fits
the temper of the stern and piOUS men of Plato's Circle To Anstotle Plato does
mdeed hold an exceptIOnal place among' mortals' (I 4), but he always remams
the mortal who leads towards the diVine goal
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA log
persomfied VIrtue here means the dIvIne Form of human vutue
(he tWIce uses the word IJOpcpTj) stnvIng for the greatest pnze
of eXIstence, such as Anstotle and hIs fnends expenenced It In
the hfe and death of Hermlas, and therefore It IS 'the vIrtue of
Hermlas' The hymn !>Ings the praIses of an InvlSlble goddess,
never to be seen by man, but It smgs them m honour of her latest
vlSlble embodIment on earth In fine, the altar carned only one
word, 'To Fnendshlp', but Anstotle, who IS here Interpretmg
the mscnptlOn In the manner of a plOUS exegete before a sacred
object, nghtly refers It to 'The Fnendshlp of Plato' We do
not mIss the second name, although fnendshlp Involves two
persons, for In the band of 'fnends' (cplAol, as the members of
the Academy called themselves) whIch one of them could lay
eJo.cluslve claIm to thIS posItIon? Plato's fnendshlp was holy to
them all, because 1t was the mnermost bond of theIr commumty
There IS a close conne).lOn between the dedlcatlOn and the
attnbutes whIch the last hnes ascnbe to Plato In the manner of
a hymn The fundamental prInCIple, both of Plato's theory of
fnendshlp and of the actual hfe of the Academy, was that the
true fnend IS SImply the perfectly good man Hence the last
hnes pra1se Plato as the mortal through whom thIS
Form has been reahzed I He alone has shown us, or he first at
any rate, that man IS the free master of hI'> own hfe and fate If
he IS good, and he dId not merely teach It In theory, but was
a hvmg e).ample of It to hIS fnends No one WIll ever be able to
do so agaIn-so says Anstotle, If we are to conclude from the
uncomprom1smg 'he alone of all mortals', but who tell the
future, or say what 1S poss1ble to man? So Anstotle modIfies
, alone' WIth 'or first', and m the last hne he modIfies 'ever
agam' w1th 'now'-at any rate It 1S ImpOSSIble for the present
generatIon ever to equal hIm 2 In thl!> contrast between the
I Smce thiS hook was wntten I have agam dIsc-ussed the poem In ddaIl m
the Clas5tcal Quarterly (vol XXI, '927, pp 13 ff), and shown that Kart21ElfEV
(' revealed ') IS commonly used of founders of religIOns and such persons ThIS
makes It qUite unmistakable what pOSitIOn Anstotle assigns to Plato m the
elegy
On the understandmg of the final line depends the understandmg of the
whole poem In content It IS unexceptIOnable Its Interpreters have faIled to
notIce that ow (eTTI hallElv ( It '" ImpOSSIble to attam ) IS a standmg expreSSIOn
In Anstotle's treatIses for the unattamablhty of the Ideal In Pol VIII
I 332b 23 he says of a polItIcal Ideal, 'smce thiS IS not easy to attain' (ov
H
110 TRAVELS
present generatIon and the superhuman leader there IS a tragIC
resignatIon, In VIrtue of whIch thIS memonal poem IS not a mere
pIece of exalted praIse but a human and movIng confeSSIOn
The fact 15 that Anstotle In hIS Ethus demes Plato's doctnne
that man's happmess depends only on the moral power of hIS
soul I He would prevent the chatterers from copYIng thIS sub-
hme dIctum But to Plato, ItS ongmator, It was absolute truth
Where IS the man that can follow up hI') steep path ;l
Earth's InsuffiCiency
Here grows to Event,
The Indescnbable,
Here It IS done
Nevertheless, Anstotle's departure from Athens was the ex-
preSSIon of a cnSIS In hIS Inner hfe The fact remaInS that he
never came back to the school In whIch he had been educated
ThIS was presumably connected WIth the questIon of Plato's
successor, whIch would IneVItably detenmne the spmt of the
Academy for a long tIme to come, and the deCISIOn of whIch
could not meet WIth Anstotle's approval In any event The
chOlce, whether Plato's own or that of the members, fell on
Plato's nephew SpeusIppus HIS age made It ImpOSSIble to pass
hIm over, however ObVIOUS Anstotle's supenonty mIght be for
all who had eyes to see The deCISIve conSIderatIOn was perhaps
certaIn external cIrcumstances, such as the dIfficulty of convey-
"$Iu) III I z86
b
7, anstocracy would be more deSirable than monarchy,
If It were poSSible to obtam many men of the same kmd' (lrv I e to
discover m realIty, or to make real) Objection becn taken to the Juxta-
position of ever again' and' now' ThiS manner of speech IS due to the com-
pactness that compresses two pOSSible expressIOns mto one, namely' never or
at least not now' and' none of those now lIvIng' (ovl.ul TWU y. viiu) Anstotle
wntes hiS own language, and It cannot be reduced to a of rules H(' IS In-
terested solely 1D the accuracy of the Intellectual nuance that he Wishes to
convey. and not In the smoothness of the diction, e g the preCIse dlstmctlOn of
'or first' In the fourth hne IS more SUItable to a lecture than to an elegy The
master has shown us the goal-such IS the meanIng of the concluslOn-but we
men of the present cannot fly so hIgh It follows that the poem was wntten
after Plato s death, and IS addressed to Eudemus of Rhodes The feelmg IS too
dU'ect, however for It to have been wntten dunng Anstotle's latest penod It
seems to be the offspnng of strong emotion and mner conflIct If, as I beheve, It
was at Assos that both Theophrastus and Eudemus became students of
totle's, the eh'gy may have been wntten shortly after Plato's death At the
moment when Anstotle was abandomng the master In matters of doctrme, the
Impulse of hIS heart drove hIm to declare hIS mner relationship to him In the
form of an mtlmate personal confessIon
I ImmlSCh nghtly emphasIzes thIS, lac CIt, P 17
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA III
mg the Academy to a mebc, although thIS was afterwards over-
come The chOice of SpeusippuS contmued Plato's famIly In the
posseSSIOn of the property Whether, In addItion to such reasons
of external expedIency, personal anbpathies also played a part,
It IS no longer possIble to say, but on general grounds It IS prac-
tically self-eVIdent that they must have done so One thmg,
however, IS certam, It was not Anstotle's cntIcism of Plato's
fundamental doctnnes that prevented hIm from succeedmg
to the headshIp of Plato's Academy SpeusippuS hImself had
declared the theory of Ideas untenable dunng Plato's own hfe-
tIme, and had also abandoned the Ideal numbers suggested by
Plato m hIS last penod, he ffiffered from hIm m other funda-
mental partIculars as well And that Anstotle was not meanly
but highly thought of m the school when he left Athens IS proved
by the person who accompamed him, namely Xenocrates, the
most conservatIve of all Plato's students With regard to altera-
tIons of the doctrme, but at the same tIme a thoroughly upnght
man The departure of Anstotle and Xenocrates was a seceSSIOn I
They went to ASia Mmor m the conVIctIon that SpeusippuS had
mhented merely the office and not the spmt The spmt had
become homeless, and they were settmg out to budd It a new
place For the next few years the scene of their actIvity was
s s ~ on the coast of the Troad, where they worked m common
With two other Platomsts, Erastus and Conscus from Scepsls
on Ida
The Importance of thiS penod has not been recogmzed
Plato's Sixth letter, the genumeness of which has been con-
VInCIngly demonstrated by Bnnckmann,z IS addressed to Erastus
and Conscus, two former students now m ASia Mmor, and to
their fnend Hermlas, lord of Atarneus The two phIlosophers
.ire to put themselves under the protection of HermIas, smce,
while persons of excellent character, they are deVOId of worldly
I Strabo XlII 57. P 610
Rhelmsches Museum. N F . vol lXVI, 1911. pp 226 ff In our VIewS of the
external events connected With Hermlas we agree almost entirely (see my
Lnlstchungsgesch.chte der Melaphy ../l de< AT.sloleles, 1912 pp 34 ff ). and thiS
IS all the stronger eVidence because Bnnckmann started from a qUIte dIfferent
pomt and we reached the same conclUSIOn mdependently of each other
Although my book was not pubhshed until 1912. It had already been submitted
dS a theSIS to the phIlosophical faculty at Berlin when Bnnckmann's miscellany
appeared
112 TRAVELS
expenence, Henmas on hIS part IS to learn to appreciate theIr
steadfast and trustworthy fnendshlp ThIs remarkable relatIOn
between the two compamons of Plato and the pnnce of Atarneus
has been illummatedbyan mscnptIon first pubhshed by Boeckh,1
m WhICh . Hermlas and the compamons' (the formal phrase
'EPlllas Kat 01 haipol occurs five times m the ongmal) make
an alliance wIth the people of the CIty of Erythrae The
newly dIscovered commentary of Dldymus on Demosthenes'
leaves no doubt that the compamons who here
appear along WIth Hermlas as legal parties to the contract are
none other than the two phl1osophers from the nelghbounng
town of Scepsls, as was already probable from Plato's letter
Henmas was a man of lowly ongm That he was a eunuch IS
not to be demed Even the story that m earher years a bank
had employed hIm as money-changer at the counter presum-
ably rests on fact, although It IS related by Theopompus, who
descnbes hIm as unpleasantly as possIble 2 He began by gettmg
possrsslOn of some mountam vl1lages m the neIghbourhood of
Ida J Later he obtamed pubhc recogmtIon from the Persian
admmlstratIon, and was allowed to adopt the tItle of prmce, pre-
sumably after the payment of an adequate sum HIS reSIdence
was at Atarneus HIS steadl1y growmg pohtIcal mfluence ex-
tended the area under hIS control to an astomshmg SIze In the
end he must have mamtamed a substantial contmgent of mer-
cenanes, for he reduced rebelhous places to obedIence by mlhtary
raIds, and he afterwards WIthstood a SIege by the PerSIan satrap
Erastus and had hved for a long tIme m the Academy,
and then returned to theIr natIve town of Scepsls HennIas'
ongmal reason for entenng mto relatIons WIth themwas certamly
not theoretIcal enthUSIasm for Plato's phIlosophy They must
I Boeckh, 'Herlll.\as von Atarneus' In A bhllndlungen del' Berl<ner A hademIe.
1853, HlStonsch-phl1osophlSche Klasse, pp 133 ff (KleInere SckYlflen, vol v,
p 189) The Inscnptlon appears In Dlttenberger's Sylloge vol 1
3
p 307
He was certaInly a Greek. or Anstotle In hIS hymn could never have repre-
sented h,m as the upholder of the true tradItIon of HellenIC vIrtue, In contrast
to the barbanans who treacherol'5ly kIlled hIm (et the epIgram Rose. frg 674)
In the letter to Phlhp Theopompus says (Dldymus <n Demostkenem. col 5 24.
Dlels-Schubart, BerlIn. 1904) 'Though a barbanan he phIlosophIzes WIth
PlatonIsts though he has been a slave he competes WIth costly chanots at the
meetIngs' Here the first statement at any rate IS eIther a he for the sake of
rhetoncal antithesIS or merely a reference to hIS bemg a eunuch
3 Dldymus In Demoslkenem. col 5. 27. Dlels-Schubart
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA II)
have been persons of Importance m that httle Clty The com-
munity was proud of Its two learned sons It was not uncom-
mon for small Greek CltIes to call for laws from cltlzens who had
become famous The mathematician Eudoxus, who returned to
Cmdus as a great scholar, was hIghly respected there, he was
voted an honorary decree and entrusted With the task of wntmg
neW laws for the CIty I Erastus and Conscus no doubt tned to
mtroduce m Scepsls varIOUS pohtlcal reforms that had been
suggested m the Academy. as other Platomsts did In other
places, some as dictators or the advisers of pnnces, others as
commumsts and tyranmcides Presumably Plato Wished to m-
a fnendshlp between the two compamons and their
neighbour' Hermlas, because, whIle he recogmzed theu noble
l1lsposltlon, he was afraId they might be somewhat doctnnaue
The letter that we possess IS the solemn record of thIS peculIar
pact between Realpohttk and theoretIcal schemes of reform The
spmt of Plato hovers over the mstItutIon, and, although he
IS not acquamted With HermIas,2 whom he supposes to be an
unphrlosophlcal and purely practIcal man, he exhorts the
three partIes to read the letter m common whenever they come
together, and, If there should be any dIsagreement, to have
recourse to the arbItratIOn of the Academy at The move-
ment towards reform thus appears as the result of a phIlo-
SOphIC polItical system, WhICh IS to be realIzed throughout Greece
wherever the opportumty occurs, and m whIch the Academy
mtends to retam the lead
When thIS olIgarchy of men was establIshed the phIlo-
sophers naturally demanded that Hermias study geometr) and
dIah:ctIc,3 Just as Plato had once demanded It of DlOnyslUs, hiS
pupl1 Euphraeus of Perdlccas kmg of Macedon, and Anstotle of
Themlson of Cyprus, and, hke those other knowledge-hungry
men of a busy and enlIghtened but mwardly vacillatmg century,
Hermlas applIed himself to study with mcreasmg zeal, and, what
I DlOg I VIII 88
See Plato, Letter VI, 322 E Strabo. on the contrary (XIII 57. P 610).
wrongly makes Hermlas a phIlosopher and one-tIme student of Plato's, In order
to explaIn hIS conneXlOn WIth the Academy For some mexplIcable reason thIS
contradIctIon was formerly supposed to prove the letter SpUriOUS, although
<;trabo'saccount contams manyother maccuracles (Bnnckmann,loc CIt, P 228)
J Plato, Leiter VI ]22 0
114 TRAVELS
IS more, wrected Ius hfe on moral pnnclples, WhICh Theopompus,
perhaps not wIthout some JustIficatIon, declares that he had not
done dunng the first years of hIs nse From the contradIctory
Judgements of the Chlan, who consIdered hIm absolutely un-
scrupulous, and of the Platomsts, whose honest admIratIOn for
hIm IS reflected by Anstotle and Calhsthenes, I we may con-
clude that he was an unusual person, a mIxture of natural Intel-
lIgence, enterpnsmg energy, and great will-power, but at the
same tune full of unresolved contradIctIons At any rate the
benefit that he receIved from the men of Scepsls was not merely
In regard to the health of hIS soul, we now know from Dldymus
that they gave Ium correct pobtlcal adVIce, for WhICh he pre-
sentedthemWIth the town of Assos On theIr recommendatIOn he
voluntanly changed hIS tyranny' Into a mIlder form of constItu-
tIon' ThIS step conCllIated the AeolIan peoples of the coast, and
the consequence was that the terntones from the Ida-range
down to the coast of Assos came over to hIm of theIr own free
will In the mllder form of constItutIOn we may recogmze the
Idea of Plato and DlOn, who had Intended to consolIdate the
Syracusan tyranny by the adoptIOn of a constItutIOnal form,
and then to umte the CIty-states of SIcIly, for purposes of foreIgn
pohtIcs, under Its strIctly monarchIcal leadershIp \\That could
not be reamed In SIcIly became a polItIcal realIty In mInIature In
ASia MInor 2
I See the JuxtaposItion of favourable and unfavourable Judgements In
D,dymus, col 4, 60 if He quotes In tum Book XLVI of Theopompu5 Ph,lzpp,c
H,stones, hIS letter to Plul,p, CallIsthenes' encomIum on Hermlas, ArIstotle's
poem to hIm, Hermlppus' hfe of ArIstotle, and Book VI of Anaxlmenes'
Phll,pp,c HIS/ones
, Dldymus, col 5, 52, Dlels-Schubart I have added some tentative nstora-
bans at the begmmng
Kal ]Is (Tilv IT t-
crrpaTilY(1')a., 'I'IAOUS 21' rnol1\acrro KoplaKOY] Kal "E-
pa<rrov Kal APlcrrOT(tA'lV Kal hvoKpa-n,v] 21'0 Kat
lTcWr(OS O\}]TO' lTapa ( Eplllq ] "'err<-
pov ( ] ilKO(uaov auT';;V ] f21""",v
auT(OIS 2I]c.>p<a[s] ( rnlT1'Jll]'" 2It Titv
TUpav[vl2I]a IIIETI]l>T1'J[aov .Is lTpalO]-ripav 2Iu-
vacrrdav 21.0 Kal lTc!m[1')S Ti'iS O'W].[yy]us rni'ip-
Ie.><; Aaaoii, &TIl [211\ Kall/lTp1')a]eds Tol! .1-
P'lIlivoIS 'I'.Aoa6q><II! ir[TrivE.IlV] Tl'iv 'Aaalwu
mA,., 116:i\laTCI 11' QUT(wu 'Apl-
crrOTtAll. ohtt.6Tcrra [2I'h<fITO lTplbs TOVTOV
The text,together WIth the restoratIons,may be translated as follows And Into
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA IIS
The reforms of Erastus and Conscus must have occurred
before Plato's death, because, smce m 347 Anstotle Jomed them
not m Scepsls but m Assos, Hermlas' gift must have been an
accomplIshed fact at that time Dldymus expressly tells us,
what we did not know before, that HermIas heard the phIlo-
sophers and lIved with them for a considerable penod, and, m
fact, Plato could not have referred m hiS sixth letter to such
purely theoretical questions as the doctnnc of Forms (322 D)
unless he had known that each of the three recipients was m-
terested thercm Thc language of Dldymus compels us to
Imagme not merely casual philosophical dISCU'iSlOnS but actual
lectures In thiS group the lead naturally fell to Anstotle, and
the fact that Hermla'i felt 5pccmlly obhged to him seems to
show that he took the outstandmg part m the lectures Nothmg
less than a colony of the Athcman Academy was takmg shape
In A'iso'i at thl'i time, and there was laid the foundatIOn of the
5chool of Anstotle
It must have been here that CallIsthenes enjoyed the mstruc-
tlon of hiS unde, for he did not hear him m Athens, m any case
we have to assume that he was personally acquamted with
Hermlas, because he wrote an encommm on him In later days
Nelcus, the son of Con5cus, was one of the most active and Im-
portant AnstotelIans, and Thcophrastus came from the nelgh-
bourmg town of Eresus on Lesbo5 'Nhen, at the end of three
years, Anstotle left A'iSOS and settled himself at Myhlene m
Lesbos, It was probably the Influence of Theophrastus that led
to the deCISIOn I He It was abo, as IS well known, who bequeathed
the country, he made expedition" and he made fnends of Corl'cus
and Erastus and Anstotle and Xenocrates, hence all these men lived with
Hermlas afterwards he to them h<- gave them gifts
he actually changed the tyranny mto a mlld!'r rule, therefore he also came to
rule over all the nelghbounng country far as Assos, and then bemg excel'd-
mgly pleased With the said he allotted them th<- city of Assos
He accepted Anstotle most of all of th('m and was very mtlmate With hlnI
I That Theophrastus lamed Anstotle J.t least as early as the Macedoman
penod IS proved by hiS personal knowledgl., of and by the fact that he
owned property there (DlOg L V 52, HfSlor,a Planlarum III I I I, IV 16 3)
1 hIS can have been acqUIred only by means of a faIrly long stay m that place,
and such a stay can have occurred only dunng the penod pnor to the foundmg
of the school at Athens (335). when Anstotle, together With the httle group
that had followed him to MacLdon, was often away from the court for long
Intervals, and espeCially dUring the years Immediately precLdmg Alexander's
acceSSIOn, when the latter was already takmg part m affairs of state If thiS IS
tl6 TRAVELS
AnstotJe's papers and lIbrary to Neleus, who 10 turn left them
to hIS relatives 10 Scepsls The close conneXlOn between Anstotle
and the fnends 10 Scepsls and Assos, for the sake of studyIng
phIlosophy, finally removes all appearance of romance from the
oft doubted story of the redIscovery of hIS papers at Scepsls In
the cellar of Neleus' dec;cendants ,I and It IS now clear that the
frequent use of the name Conscus as an example In Anstotle's
lectures goes back to a time when Its owner was actually SIttIng
on the bench of the lecture-room In Assos In thiS conneXlOn It
15 Important to observe a traditlOn found In the JewIsh wnter
Josephus (c Apwnem 176), whIch has apparently never receIved
any notIce He mentIons a work of Clearchus, one of the better-
known earber Penpatehcs, on sleep Anstotle hImself appeared
as a figure 10 thl!> dIalogue, and told of a Greek-speak1Og Jew
who came to him dunng hIS reSIdence In ASIa Mmor 10 order
to study phIlosophy' WIth hIm and some other members of the
!>chool' Whether thIS story was Clearchus' own mventwn or an
actual pIece of tradItion whIch he used for hIS own purpose, m
eIther case he must have been convmced that there had been a
tIme when Anstotle was teachmg 10 ASIa Mmor together WIth
other Platomc;ts, and that can only have been the hme when he
was teachmg 10 Assos In every respect the expenences of thIS
stay In ASIa Mmor were deCISIve for Anstotle's later hfe
Hermlas gave hIm hIS mece and adopted daughter, to
WIfe We know nothmg about thIS marriage except that of It
was born a daughter who receIved the "arne name as her mother
In hIS wIll Anstotle dIrects that the bones of hIS wIfe. who had
so It follows that Theophrastus acquaintance With Anstotle dates from the
master S stay In ASia Minor, and that followed him thence to
MacedoD It IS not Indeed ImpOSSible that he had e' en heard Plato, gone
through the same process of development as Anstotle (DlOg L V 36), and
left Athens along WIth him, but It IS very Improbable He died m the 123rd
Olympiad If he was twenty years old when hE' came to Anstotle at Assos In
34
8
/7, he would be at least eighty when he died, even supposing that It was the
first year of the OlympIad (288), and may have been anythmg up to eighty-four
Hence It IS scarcely poSSible that he was Plato's pupil for long It IS much more
natural to thmk that he was attracted from Lesbos to the neighbounng Assos
by the teaching of Anstotle and the other A(,ademlClans there HIS fnendshlp
With Calhsthenes (to whom Theophrastus dedicated CallIS/henes, or On Gnef
after hiS death DlOg L V 44) must also belong to a time before the foundmg
of the school at Athens. Since thiS man followed Alexander to ASia In 334 and
never returned
I Strabo XIII 54 P 608
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA I I 7
died before him, shall be laid beside his own, as was her last
wish Strabo's account IS as usual romantIcally exaggerated, he
tells a sensatIOnal story of Anstotle's flight with the tyrant's
daughter, which he supposes to have taken place after the
capture of Hemllas Here as elsewhere the new Dldymus dis-
covery has corrected and enlarged our knowledge After three
years of activity at Assos Anstotle went to Myhlene m Lesbos,
where he taught until 343/2 He then accepted Kmg Phlhp's
lllvltatIOn to go to the court of Macedon as tutor of the pnnce I
Soon after entenng on thiS new 'Work he received news of the
ternble fate of Hermlas Mentor, the PersIan general, after
hIm up m Atarneus and unsuccessfully beleaguenng
him there, treacherously enticed hlIn mto a parley and earned
hIm off to Susa There he was questioned under torture about
hIS secret treaties 'WIth Kmg Pluhp. and when he steadfastly
preserved sIlence he was crucIfied Under the torture the kmg
caused hIm to be asked what last grace he requested He
answered 'Tell my fnends and companIons (lTPOS TOVS <pfAOVS
TE Kal tTalpovs) that I have done nothmg weak or unworthy
of phIlosophy' Such was the farewell greetmg delIvered to
Anstotle and to the at Assol> z Anl>totle's attach-
ment to hiS fnend, and the deep emotIOn that he felt at hiS
death, are stIll hvmg to-day 1Il the cenotaph at Delphi, for
which he himself composed the dedIcatory epigram, and m the
beautIful hymn to Hermlas While the natlOnahst party at
Athens. led by wa!> blackenmg the character of
the deceased, while pubhc opmlOn was dublOU,) about hIm m
Hellas and feehng ran very high throughout the land agamst
Phlhp and hIS partIsans, Anstotle sent out mto the world thl!>
poem, ill which he declared himself passIOnately on the Side of
the dead man
I Cf my Enl Met Ansi. p 35 For an example of the wrong vIew see Gercke
In Realenzyklopl1dte dey klasSlschen Alterlurtlsw1Ssenschafl, valli, col 1014
He regards the fall of Henmas as the reason for Anstotle s 'flight, and hence
assigns It to the yLar 345. since It IS estabhshLd that Anstotle spent only three
years In Assos (348-5) , but Dldymus has shown that he left Assos whIle Hermlas
was stIll alIve, and that the lattu did not fall until 34J Some (mcludlng
Gercke, lac Cit) have conjectured that An.totle wa. III Athens for a short
Intervemng penod, dunng which he taught In the LycLum. but thiS rests on a
rash mlSmterpretatIon of Isocrates ..... lI 18
2 Dldymus, col 6 J5
118 TRAVELS
Virtue towome to mortal race,
prize In life,
Even to die for thy shape,
Malden, IS an envied fate 1I1 Hellas,
And to endure vehement unceasmg labours
Such fruit dost thou bestow on the mmd,
Like to the Immortah, and bt,ttcr than gold
And ancestors and languid-eyed sleep
For thy sake Heracles the son of Zeus and Leda's youths
Endured much 10 their deeds
for thy potency
fhrough longmg for thee Achilles and Ajax came to the house of Hades
For sake of thy dear the of also
left the sun's beams desolate
Therefore hiS deeds shall be famous III song.
And he be declared Immortal by the Muses,
Daugh ters oj Memory,
thly magmfy the guerdon of steadfast fnendshlp and the worship of
Zeus the hospitable
The umque value of thiS poem for our knowledge of Ans-
totle's philosophICal development has never been explOIted For
the most part It has been regarded merely as a human document,
but It shows that when Anstotle had completed hiS destructIve
cuhclsm of Idea, exact thmkmg and relIgIOUS feelIng
went separate paths In hIm To the sCIentIfic part of hImself
there was no longer any such thmg as an Idea when he wrote
these hnes, but m hiS heart It hved on as a rehgIOus symbol, as
an Ideal He reads Plato's works as poetry Just as In the Meta-
phystcs he eAplams the Idea, and the partlclpatlOn of the sen-
Sible world In Its being, as the free creahon of the contemplatIve
ImaginatIOn, !>o here m hiS poem It appears to hIm again, tran!>-
figured mto the !>hape of a vlrgm for whom m Hellas It IS still
exqUIsite to die The words' In Hella<;' must not be 0" erlooked
Calhsthenes also, m the encomIUm whICh he wrote on hIm at
thIS hme, u!>cs Hermias' brave death as d. picture of Greek VIrtue
(cipE"TTj), In contrast WIth the character of the barbanans (6 TWV
l3apf36:pcuv Tp61TOS),' and Anstotle's dedIcatory epIgram at
Delphi reveals hate and contempt for the' Medes', who dId not
overcome Hermld.s In open fight but craftIly broke theIr word
and cruelly murdered hIm The JuxtapoSItIon of Hermlas WIth
Heracles and the DlOscun, WIth Achilles and Ajax, ]S not a tnck
I Dldywus col b 1()-13
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA 119
of the panegyric style, Anstotle does not mtend to deck out
hIS ffIend m the pathetic paraphernalIa of Homer's h r o ~ On
the contrary, all Hellemc herOIsm, from Homer's naive kmd
down to the moral herOISm of the phLlosopher, appeared to hun
:u. the expressIOn of one smgle attitude towards lIfe, an attItude
which scales the heights of hfe only when It overcomes It He
found the soul of the Greeks' power m thiS Platomc vuiue or
herOIsm, be It mlhtary prowess or steadfast sLlence m pam, and
thiS he mstilled mto Alexander, so that m the mIddle of a
century of enhghtenment that proud conqueror long fought and
earned himself as If he were Achilles On hiS sarcophagus the
sculptor represented the decldmg battle between Hellenes and
ASiatIcs as an example of the same contrast-on the VIsage of
the Onentals the marks of deep phySical and spmtual suffenng,
m the forms of the Greeks the ongmal, unbroken, mental and
bodily might of heroes
The unfnendly attitude of Anstotle and hiS compamons to-
wards Persia was at that tIme umversal m the Macedoman
court Now that the testImony of Dldymu!> has rehabilItated
Demosthenes' fourth Ph1hpP1C, we know for certam that as
early ~ 342/1 Philip WdS already !>enously thmkmg of a plan
for a natIOnal war agam!>t the hereditary foe, a war such as the
Pan-Hellemc propaganda of Isocrates and hi!> crrcle had long
been brewmg Only th1s could Justify the bmte force by whIch
the kmg of Macedon was mlInrr over the free Greek cItIes By
means of hIS secret agent') Demosthenes knew that Hennlas had
made agreement!> WIth Phlhp, and thereby put himself m a
senous posItIon as regards PerSIa ThiS military treaty opened
the \\-ay for a Macedoman attack on Persia Hennlas, bemg a
far-sighted polItICian, had been well aware that the tIme was npe
to mvoke Phlhp's protection for hiS hard-won posItIon m north-
west ASia Millor The clash between the Persian empire and the
milItary power of Macedon seemed to hun mevltable, and he
hoped to preserve h l ~ mdependence by glYmg Phulp the ASiatIc
bndgehead and assunng htm of a 5trong base m Aeoha We do
not know who told the Persians of these plans However that
may be, when the PerSIan general had taken Hermlas pn')oner,
Demosthenes reJolCed to thmk that the great kmg would soon
extract from htm, under torture, confeSSions such as to throw a
120 TRAVELS
glanng lIght on Ph1hp's plot, and to make PersIa ready for the
a.lliance wIth Athens on behalf of whIch Demosthenes had long
stnven in vam 1
It IS scarcely conceIvable that Anstotle knew nothlllg of the
hIgh affaIrs of state whIch Ph1hp, at whose court he was hVing,
was arrangmg wIth hIs own frIend and father-m-Iaw He re-
moved to Pella III 342, Henmas fell m 341 We do not know
whether the secret treaty was made dunng thIs year, or was
already m bemg when Anstotle went to Macedon, but It IS
probable that It dId not remam secret for long, and therefore was
concluded not very long before the catastrophe At all events
ArIstotle went to Pella WIth the approval of Herrmas and not
WIthout some kmd of pobhcal mISSIon The conventional tradI-
tIOn has It that K10g PhilIp was search10g the world for a man to
hIS unportant son, and therefore ht upon the greatest
philosopher of the age, but at the hme when Anstotle was
lectunng m Assos and MytIlene he was not yet the 10tellectual
leader of Greece, and Alexander was not yet an hlstonc figure
Nor can the chOIce have been deCided by the fact that
father Nicomachus had been the personal phy51cIan of Amyntas
.1t the court of Macedon, for smce then four decades had passed
Everythmg indICates that It was the conneXIOn between Henmas
and PhIlIp that really suggested thIS remarkable symbolization
of world-wIde hlstoncal events, the aSSOcIatIOn of the th10ker
and the great kmg Merely to play pnvate tutor would not have
slllted Anstotle's vmle character, and there was never much
outlook 10 Macedon for a part such as Plato had taken at the
court of DIOnyslUs and Anstotle hImself towards hIS pnncely
fnend In Atarneus Hence It IS Important that \\hen we analyse
the Pohftcs we observe a gradual transItion from Plato's ethIcal
r,tdiCahsm. and from hIS speculatIOn about the Ideal state, to-
wards Realpohllk, and that we are led to the conclusIOn that
thIS change was accomphshed mamly under the mfluence of the
e\.pencnced statesman Hermlas Anstotle dId not recommend
to Alexander the PlatOnIC Ideal of the httle c1ty-.,tate, such as It
IS preserved 10 the oldest portions of hIS Pohhcs , although thIS
I Demosthencs, OrallOns, X 31 Cf the schoha ad loe They refer the
mystenous hints of the fourth Plul>f>P1C to HermlilS and thIS has been confinned
by \"omm\"ntary
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA 121
Ideal still had Its Importance for the Greek cIties, whIch had re-
mained formally autonomous, and although he afterwards re-
cogmzed It again when he lectured at Athens He was well aware
-and that he undertook the work IS more sIgmficant of hIs
character than all hIs pohtIcal theones-that he was forming
the Ideas of the heIr of the leading state In Greece, the most
powerful European kingdom of the age, and that he was at the
same tIme a dIplomatic hnk between Phdlp and Henmas The
death of the latter gave an unexpected turn to everything, but
the antI-PersIan sentIment of the coahtlOn thus destroyed be-
came a part of Anstotle's emotIonal hfe, and In that atmosphere
Alexander grew up
It was a matter of faIth WIth Anstotle that Greece could rule
the world If It were polItIcally umted As a phdosopher he re-
cogmzed the cultural leadershIp of thIS people, whIch, wherever
It found Itself, penetrated and dominated the surrounding
natIons WIth astomshIng power No race could VIe WIth the in-
tellectual compactness of the urban Greek, both ill war and In
commerce he conquered by hIS mere techmcal supenonty and
personal self-rehance On the other hand, thptrd.dltIonal narrow-
ness of pohtIcal lIfe In the autonomous CIty-state put In the
way of any orgamc umon dIfficultIes that Anstotle, born In Chal-
Cldlce, was unable to appreCIate WIth the AttIc democrat's long-
standmg paSSIOn for freedom Bemg the son of a famlly that had
lIved at the Macedoman rourt, It was easy for hIm to accustom
hImself to the thought of Grecce umted under Macedoman leader-
ShIp But In such an unstable form of state there would ineVIt-
ably be an antmomy between the patnarchal or agrIcultural
kmgshlp on the one hand, and the freedom of the CIty-demo-
craCieS on the other ThI<, would make for Inner dlsumon and
could be overcome only by the out!>tandIng personalIty of a real
king, In whom Greece could see ItS own embodunent Anstotle
knew that such a man IS a gIft of the Gods He was not a sup-
portcr of monarchy at all costs, Grrek thought III fact never
possessed-or at least that of the fourth century dId not-the
]unstIc inSIght necessary to appreCIate the value of legItImacyand
a fixed succeSSIOn The less, however, that the Greeks regarded
a monarch as rulIng by legal ng'ht In our sense, the more ready
they were, even III the century of the greatest enhghtenment,
122 TRAVELS
to bow before the natw-al mborn kmghness of a superior mdl-
vidual, If he appeared as a saVlOur m chaos. and unposed upon
thelI' world of outworn polItical forms the law of inexorable
hlstoncal Ananke
Anstotle hoped to find such a born lung 10 Alexander, and It
IS due to him that the young monarch, although he always re-
mamed enough of a to base hunself on hiS sohd
household troop'>, hiS descent from Heracles, and hlS posItIon
as commander-m-chlef, did sometImes honestly th10k of hiS
hIStOrical mlS!:>lOn as a Hellemc proJect The tremendous dJffer-
ence between him and Phl.hp comes out most clearly m their
attitude towards the Greeks Phulp knew how to make an m-
telligent use of Greek clvl.hzabon, a<; IS shown by hiS mVltatIon
to Amtotle, for example, and he could not Imagme a modem
Without Greek techmcal skill and military SCience, or With-
out Greek diplomacy and rhetonc But mwardly he was Just a
cunmng barbanan, and hiS gemal power only made the fact
more grossly ObVIOUS, more msultmg By nature Alexander was
a true SClOn of thiS wild stock, and hIS Greek contemporaries.
who were deceived by excellent educatIOn 1Oto supposmg
that he might be measured by Greek standards, could never
understand ius combmatIon of great qualities With demomc
mcalcula.b1hty, mad deSire for pleasure, and, m later days, m-
creasmg outbreaks of brutalIty and cruelty Nevertheless, hiS
remarkably high degree of personal and hlstoncal self-conSCIous-
ness IS a clear sign of the mfluence of Anstotle HIS favounte
plan, to set out for ASia hke a second Achilles, IS charactenstIc
of the peculiar mixture In hun, and of the clearness With which
he hunself apprehended It He was Greek In hiS literary and
moral schoolIng He was Greek ill stnvIng for 'Virtue', I e for
a higher and more harmomous mdlvlduallty But hlS defiant
Imitation of Achilles expresses hIS romantic and paSSlOnate con-
vIction that there was a contrast between hImself and the exces-
sLvely clvtlLzed culture and pohtlcs of the fourth century, and
also perhaps expresses a certaIn feehng of half-barbanan kmght-
hood that made It unposslble for him to merge hunself In Greek
enhghtenment He marches to ASia surrounded by hlStonans
and scholars, 111 Ilium he seeks out the grave of Achilles and
plonounces him fortunate because he found Homer to be the
ARISTOTLE IN ASSOS AND MACEDONIA 123
herald of his deeds Of such a youth Anstotle might well
expect that he would lead the Greeks to umty and estabhsh
theIr dommIOn 10 the east over the rums of the Persian empU"e
(the two thmgs were mseparably connected 10 hIS mmd) The
commumty of Ideas between the two men was ObVIOusly very
close, not merely while Anstotle was lIvmg 10 Macedon, but
down unhl long after the begmmng of the PerSIan wars Only
when the expedition mto ASia had Immeasurably extended the
honzon of the Ihadlc landscape dId Alexander begm to con-
found the bearmg of Achilles WIth other and onental roles
Then hiS Greek mISSIOn gave place to the new aun of reconcilmg
peoples and equahzmg races, and Anstotle opposed hIm strongly
ThIS end of their mhmate conneXlOns, however, must not be
allowed to cast any shadow over the tIme when Alexander, as
heU" to the throne of Macedon, laId the foundatIOns of hiS polI-
tIcal thought under the tutorshIp of Anstotle, and the latter
made a close fnendshlp WIth Anhpater, WhICh 10 some respects
took the place of that WIth Hermlas, and wmch lasted even after
the death of the phIlosopher When PhilIp dIed Alexander ful-
filled hIS teacher's dearest WIsh by rebUIld109 hIS bIrthplace
Staglra, WhICh had bepn devastated by dunng
the ChalCldic war Theophrastus' mother-City, Eresus on
was also spared when the took the Island Call1s-
thenes accompamed to ASia as hlstonan
CHAPTER VI
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY
T
HE hIStory of the most productIve epoch m Anstotle's hfe
has prevIOusly been a blank sheet Of the penod from his
thrrty-seventh to his forty-mnth years, that IS, from the tune
when he left the Academy to the tIme when he returned to
Athens from Macedoma and founded the PenpatetIc school
(347-335), nothmg has been known No essentIal conneXIOn
could be traced between his' travels' and the secluded We m the
Academy that had preceded them In any case they seemed to
hne no speclalln1portance for the understandmg of Anstotle as
a thm1.er Smce hiS wntmgs could not be accurately dated there
appeared to be a complete vacuum between hIS AcademIC and
hiS PenpatetIc penods, It bemg supposed that the treatIses were
all wntten dunng the latter Smce nothmg preCIse was known
about hiS teachmg and wntmg prevIOUS to the foundatIon of hiS
'>chool, It IS not surpnsmg that scholars unagmed hiS thought as
haVing reached a final shape. and regarded the treatIses as Its
'iystemahc and defimtlve expresslOn WIthm thIS system the
highest place appeared to belong to metaphySICS. the study of
pure being. an overarchmg dome beneath which all depart-
mental SCIences were mcluded, presupposed, and thereby can-
celled
We now know from the newly dIscovered work of Dldyrnus
that Anstotle resumed hIS teachmg Immediately after 347. and
that hIS mdependent appearance occurred whue he was stIll
at Assos 'What we hear of hI'> actIVIty dunng these years shows
that It had come to be lus deSire to exert a WIdespread pubbc
mfluence At the same tln1e, everythmg pomts to the conclUSIOn
that hIS close affimty WIth Plato and Plato's preoccupations
wntInued undisturbed He went on hVlng and teachmg among
Plato's pupils As we have seen, hIS departure from the school
J.t Athens was In no sense a break WIth the AcademIC commumty
as such, and It would be an mtolerable contradIctIon to
that, after havmg remamed a true dISCIple throughout hiS
master's bfe, he broke away from him the mstant he was dead
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 125
On the contrary, hIs development took on more and more of the
publIc character that had always determmed Plato's personalIty
and mfluence He founded schools and sowed the seeds of phl1o-
sophy 10 vanoU"i places -He took part In polItIcal affdlrs, as
Plato had dont', and came to have mfluence at the courts of the
most powerful ruler'> of the age For the first tIme he began to
number Important men among hI'> pupl1s
It IS a prlOn probable that thIs was al"o the hme of hIS fir'lt
appearance before the general publIc a'l a cnhc of Plato, smce
he now had the PlatoniC phl1o'>ophy on hiS own re-
and accordmg to hIt> own conct'phon of Its nature
Starting from thl'l reflectIOn, we must try to penetrate farther
mto the my,>tcnoU'i darknt'ss of these deCISIve years, dunng
\\ hlch he reachpd the first comprehensIVe formulatIOn of hIS own
polOt of view We discover that between the early, dogmahc-
dBy PlatOniC, <;tage of hI<; devt'lopment, and th(' final form of hIS
thought 10 ItS matunty, there was a penod of tramltIon "hose
nature ran be definItely asc.ertamtd 10 many partIculars, a
penod wlwn he wa'l cntIC171ng, rearrangmg, and detachmg hlm-
'ielf, a penod. prevIOusly wholly overlooked, wInch wa'> clearly
dIstInct from the fin,t! form of hIS phIlo'>ophy, although It reveals
the entelechy of the Idtter 10 all essential pomts Tht' ad"dntage
of exammmg thiS SituatIOn IS not merely to obtam a pIcture of
the gradual growth of hIS pr10clples Only when we know what
he emphaSizes as hme goes on, what hr suppresses, and what he
mtroduces, can wr form a clear conceptIOn of the deternumng
forces that were workmg to bnng about a new Weltanschauung
m him
At the head of thIS development I place the dIalogue On
Plalosophy It IS generally reckoned along WIth the earher
wnt1Ogs,1 but Its doctrme IS obVIOusly a product of the transI-
tIon The numerou!> fragments rema101Og. some of them qUIte
substantial, make the attempt at reconstructIOn more hopeful
than It IS With any of the other lost works Here agam we shall
have to go IOta the mmutIae of interpretation 10 order to extract
I Bernays and HLltz see no dIfference betwLcn thiS and the other e,<otellC
WTltlngs, because they assume that Aristotle attacked Plato ID .ill of them
Dyroff, on the other hand (op Cit, P 82). umversahzcs hiS corrcLt VllW th.it the
contents of the and the ProtTeplleus were mostly PlatOniC, and
assumes that the same was true of that On PhIlosophy also
I
126 TRAVELS
the essential from our matenal Up to the present It has been
very lIttle understood In style, m content, and m purpose, It
holds a unique place In Anstotle's development
On IS expressly mentIOned attacked the
doctrme of Ideal numbers, and It IS m fact the sole lIterary work
of whIch we definitely know that Its contents were anti-Platonic
ThIS cntlclsm apparently formed part of a general refutahon of
the doctnne of Ideas, for_It deals not WIth Speuslppus' view that
the mathemahcal numbers were mdependent substances, but
With Plato's own later form of the doctnne, accordmg to whIch the
Ideas \\ere numbers 'If the Ideas were another kInd of number,
and not the mathematIcal, we should have no understandmg of
It For who understands another kmd of number, at any rate
among tlit' mdJonty of liS 'I Synanus ha!> preserved these words
for us from the second book of the dIalogue The speaker IS
Anstotle himself, expressmg hIS apona about Plato's doctnne
half m protest and half m mockery
The same attItude seems to me to be expressed m another
fragmentary cntlclsm of the Idea-theory, the OrigIn of whIch,
though not defimtely recorded, IS more than probable ThiS IS
the passage taken by Proclus and Plutarch from a common
source to prove that Aristotle attacked Plato m the dIalogues as
well as In the treahses 2 SInce the tradlhon does not mform us of
a cntlClsm of Plato In any dialogue except that On
and smce thIS umdentIfied cntIclsm agrees surpriSIngly well With
the attitude expressed In the fragment quoted by name from
thIS dialogue, It would be unnatural not to aSSIgn both to the
same work, espeCially as the mere tItle of thiS work, so unusually
mformatIve for a dialogue, suggests a thorough exammatIOn of
the fundamental problems of phIlosophy Here agam Anstotle
himself was the speaker We do not know the exact words he
used, but both accounts preserve the remarkable expreSSIOn, . he
cannot sympathIZe WIth the theory of Ideas, even If he should
be beheved to be dlsagreemg out of mere contentiousness' ThIS
protest Illummates even more clearly than the other fragment
the fact that m hIS pIcture of the stubborn confhct of opmIOns
Anstotle was representmg the actual sItuatlOn Somethmg had
to give way FInally he appeals to the respect that all mqUIrers
1 Frg 9 Frg 8 See above. page 35
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 127
owe to every honest and reasoned conVlctlon He emphatically
repudIates the malIcIous suggestion, whIch of course had been
made m the Academy, that lus divergence of VIew was due to
personal reasons This unputatlon was obvIOusly one of the
malO reasons why he pubhshed hIS cnhclsm, whIch no doubt
had already been a matter of dIscussIOn for some tune Wlthm the
Platomc CIrcle When at length he announced to the world, 'I
cannot but malOtalO my obJection', he had ceased to be greatly
concerned about recovermg the good wIll of those former fnends
from whom he now dIssented He was ready to submIt hiS argu-
ments to the verdIct of the pubhc I
If we may Judge from the title and the fragments, the dialogue
was pecuhar In form as well as 10 content CIcero, when appeal-
109 to Anstotle to Jushfy hiS own procedure, tells us that the
latter appeared 10 hIS own dIalogues and led the dIscussIOn We
have shown, however, that this probably occurred only In a few
dialogues, 10 fact only In the Statesman and the Phtlosophy 1 In
the latter the promInence of Anstotle hunself IS surely connected
With the nature of the work d.S a kInd of personal mamfesto The
title suggests a farrly systematic treatise, and thIS the fragments
confirm No doubt a supporter of the PlatOniC view made a long
speech In opposlhon to Anstotle CIcero tells us, moreover, that
Anstotle wrote a separate mtroductlOn for each of the books
when hIS dIalogues had more than one, from thIS we may mfer
that each book was complete In Itself, as In Cicero's dIalogues 3
Thus both formally and philosophIcally the work IS mIdway
between the early Platomc works and the treatises, and m spmt
It approxunates to the latter
The date of compOSItIOn IS lOdicated by the relation between
thiS cntIclsm of the Idea-theory and that 10 the first book of the
I The passage owes Its preservatIon to Its pecuhar Importance for the
development of Anstotle's cntlcal attitude to Plato It was uDlque Hence
to uDiversahze such an IndIVIdual and Irretnevable SItuatIOn, and apply It to
all the dialogues, IS a procedure that refutes Itself
See above, p 29
J CIC Ep ad All IV 16 2, 'quomarn In 910guhs hbns utor prooemus, ut
Anstoteles 10 eIS quos vocat The lDtroducbons must therefore have
been .. ery loosely connected WIth what followed Accordmg to Proelus (.n Par-
men I 659. Cousm) tbe samewas trueof the dIalogues of Theophrastusand Hera-
elides PontIcus, which were modelled on those of Anstotle In the Eudemus,
on the contrary, the dISCUSSion anses naturally out of the Introductory settIng,
as It does ID Plato
128 TRAVELS
M One of the few pomts that can be finnly estab-
hshed about the chronology of the treatIses IS thIS
Plato's death Anstotle produced a happy sketch of the malO
-results of the mass of dIscussIOn that had been gomg on about
the Fonns wlthm the Academy. 10 whIch he attempted to out-
Ene hIS new system of lmproved PlatOnIsm, the mtroductlOn to
thIS early sketch IS contamed m the first book of the Meta-
phystcs I Now It IS InconceIvable that the cntIclsm 10 the
dIalogue On Phtlosophy, whIch was addressed to the publIc and
cast 10 literary form, came before thIS esotenc dIscussIOn, that
cntIClsm wa'i not the first but the final step For the sake of the
Academy Amtotle would aVOId as long as possIble a pubhc
exammatlOn of the mternal controversIes of hIS school on logIcal
and metaphysIcal questIons, whIch few persons were capable of
Judgmg, and the remamIng fragments prove that he dId so only
when "lelf-defence oblIged hIm It follows that the dIalogue was
wntten at the same tIme as the cntIclsm of the Forms In the
fir'it book of the M etaphystcs, or slIghtly later, and certamly
after death Anstotle enter'i the lIsts armed not merely
WIth destructIve cntIclsms but also WIth a vIew of hIS o",n
UntIl Andromcus pubh'ihed the thIS dIalogue re-
mamed the chIef source of mformatlOn about An.,totle's general
phI1osophlcJ.1 opmlOns m the ancIent world, and from It the
StOICS and EpIcureans took theIr knowledge of him It
however, an undeveloped Anstotle WIth '" hom they had to
content themselves
He began WIth the hlstoncal development of philo'iophy He
dId not confine hlm"lelf to the Greek phllosopheN from Thales
on",ard, who dIsplay a real contInUity, and who were pure
mqUlrers, proceedmg WIthout presupposltlOns along defimte
hnes Contrary to hiS procedure m the llfetaphysfcS. he went
back to the Eac;t, and mentIOned ItS anCIent and tremendous
creatIons \Hth Interest and respect 1n the first book of the
MetaphysIcs he touches only on the EgyptIan pnests and theIr
to mathematIcs, for the sake of the e"ample of philo-
sophIC leIsure and contemplatIon that they gave to the Greeks
In hIS dIalogue, however, he penetrated to the earlIest tImeS-If
",e follow hIS own chronology-and spoke of the MagI and theIr
I See E.. I M'I AnsI. pp 28 if esp P 33
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 129
teachIng I Then came the venerable representatives of the
oldest wIsdom, the theologtans. as he calls them.
the doctnnes of the Orphlcs. and no doubt HeslOd,
though he does not appear In the fragments, and finally the
proverbIal wIsdom tradItionally ascnbed to the Seven WIse
Men, the preservatIon of whIch was specIally cared for by the
God of DelphI ThIs gave occaSIon to mention the old Apolhne
worship It IS worth noticing that Anstotle was the first suc-
cessor of Plato to nd hunself of Plato's contemptuous OpIniOn of
the SOphIsts He restored the name to Its nghtful meaning as a
title of honour, and he had the hlstoncal InSIght to put the
Seven WIse Men at the head of thIS succeSSIOn of commandmg
Intellects, whose Influence on the development of Greek thought
seemed to hIm so Important that he Included It m the hlstOl1' of
phIlosophIcal WIsdom Z
ThIS mass of facts was cntIcally sIfted and reduced to order
Anstotle raIsed the question of the genuineness of the remammg
OrphIC poems He denied that Orpheus wrote verse, and he
distInglllshed between the relIglOus Ideas and the fonn m whIch
they were handed down, correctly as,>Ignmg the latter to a fairly
late penod, about the end of the SIxth century ThIS IS the ongm
of the VIew, whIch still holds the field, that the mystIficatIOn of
the OrphIC poem was Invented by Onomacntus, theologIan to
the who "l:re Interested m OrphIC
Anstotle aho mqUIred mto the antIqUIty of the proverb' Know
thyself', WhICh ",as InSCrIbed over the entrance to the temple at
DelphI He sought to determme Its date by mean'> of the hIstory
of the bUIldmg 4 SImIlarly. mstead of naIvely admmng the
hoar antIqUIty of EgyptIan WIsdom and of Iraman rehgIOn, he
attempted to aSSIgn to them the most defimte pOSSIble dates 5
ThIS stnct chronology IS the result not of a mere antIquanan
I Frg 6
The eVIdence for these detail. In the dialogue On Plulosophy IS as foHows
Apart from the datmg of the n.bglon of the Magi, only the calculation abo\' t the
antiqUity of the Delph.l(" proverb' Know If', whIch led on to th". quc-<;bon
of the date of the Seven Wise Men, IS defimtely ascnbed to thiS dIalogue (frg 3)
Anstotle dsslgned the proverb to a time pnor to Chllon It foHows that frag-
ments 4 and 5 come from the same context That the theologians must have
mentioned IS obVIOUS from the fact that 10 the Metaphystcs too he makes
reflectIOn begm Wlth them
J I'rg 7 FIg 3 5 FIg 6
130 TRAVELS
Interest but of a phJ.1osophlcal pnnclple HIs doctnne was that
the .,ame truths reappear 10 human lustory, not merely once or
tWice, but mdefiDltely often 1 He therefore laid the foundation
of a collection of Greek proverbs, on the ground that these
laCOniC and stnkmg empmcal precepts are the survivalS of a
pre-hterary philosophy, and have preserved themselves by word
of mouth, through all the changes 10 the nation's SPIrIt, 10 virtue
of their breVity and pregnancy HIS keen eye perceived the
value of proverbs and proverbial poetry m the study of the ongms
of ethical reflection To the educated Greek the detailed labour
of makmg such a collection seemed banauslc, and Anstotle's
attempt evoked open scorn from Isocratean Circles 2. In examm-
Ing the antiqUity of the DelphiC maxim' Know thyself' he tned
to determme the question from which of the Seven Wise Men It
came By means of hiS deductions from the buJ.1dl.l1g he settled
this rather empty controversy With a Judgement of Solomon,
SInce the maxim IS older than Chilon It comes from none of the
Wise Men, but was revealed by the Pythia herself The pOlOt
of the argument becomes clear when we conSider Plutarch's
statement, accordmg to which Anstotle '10 the PlatoDlc works'
held that 'Know thyself' IS the most dlvUle of the precepts at
Delphi, and that It was this same precept that gave Socrates hiS
problem The pecuhar phrase' m the PlatoDlc works' ToiS
IDa- (.o)vIKois) IS parallel to '10 the Socratic works', which
means Plato's Socratic dialogues, It must refer to the fonn, not
the content, and It must mean Anstotle's Platomc dIalogues
The relabon here estabhshed between the old DelphIC maxim
and the new Socratic search for ethical knowledge fits better
IOta the dialogue On PhJlosophy than lOto any other It IS an
example of the doctnne that phJ.1osophlcal truths are rediS-
covered throughout the course of history Thus Socrates became
the restorer of the ethical prl.l1clple of Apolhne rehgIOn, 10 fact,
as Anstotle tned to show by the tale of the VISit to DelphI, It
was from thIs ancIent centre of revelatIOn that he received the
I De ClUlo I ), 270b 19. Me/eM' I ). 339
b
2.7. Me/4ph /I 8, 1074
b
10.
Pol VII 10,1)29
b
2.,5
For Anstotle's Interest In proverbs see In Bomtz s Index At-,s/ote-
,'c...... For the VIew that proverbs are remnants of anCIent phIlosophy see
frg 13 For colleclloDs of the proverbs see Dlog L V 2.6 and
II 60 D
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 131
external unpulse leadmg to those questions that agItated all the
ethIcal problems of hIS age I
The conneXIOn thus dIscovered between relIgIOn and phtlo-
sophy extends throughout the dialogue Socrates' Apollme
mISSIOn had already been touched on by Plato 10 the Apology,
here the doctnne of cycles IS used to broaden it mto a renascence
of DelphIC wIsdom ApollImsm and SocratIcIsm are the two fOCI
m the development of Greek ethIcs The InqUIry mto the date of
the ongm of Orphlsm must have been part of the same Idea
Anstotle never doubted the hlstonClty of Orpheus, he em-
phaSIzed the lateness of the lIterary formulatIOn solely In order
to replace the PlslstratId versifier and oracle-monger wIth a
genume prophet of Greek antIqUIty He was certam that the
OrphIC poems were late, there was nothmg, however, to prevent
the relIgIOUS teachIng Itself from beIng of great antIqUIty What
led hlID to mqUlre mto the date of ItS ongin was doubtless Its
recent return In a more spmtuahzed form m Plato's doctrme of
the after-Ide and the soul's progress
Another example of thIS method IS to be found In the follow-
mgfragment In hIS Natural Hlstory Phny says (30 3) 'Eudoxus,
who wished It to be thought that the most famous and most
benefiCIal of the phIlosophIcal sects was that of the MagI, tells
us that thIS Zoroaster hved 6,000 years before the death of
Plato Anstotle the same' We know that Eudoxus, the
astronomer and fnend of Plato, mterested hImself In Onental and
Egyptian learnmg dunng hiS stay In those parts He brought
WIth hIm to Greece the lore that he had gathered from the repre-
sentatIves of a world shll more or less closed to the Hellenes
At that tIme the Academy was the centre of a very strong
mterest m the Onent Ac; an omen of Alexander's expeditIOn
and the consequent rapprochement between Greek and ASIatIc
thIS Interest IS of great and by no means suffiCiently recogmzed
sIgmficance The channels through which the Eastern 10fluence
I That I and 2 belong With 3 cannot be doubted, soon as It IS
perceived that the key to the whole IS the theory of the periodiC return of all
knowledge We are not concerned here With the question whether the DelphiC
precepts really helong to the ethiCS of Apollo, or are pieces of foreign wOOom
avalhng themselves of the god's protection The parallel between Socrates and
the Delpluc maxim also appears m Pa -Plato, A/cob I 124 B takmg the adVice
of myself and of the DelphiC maxim .. Know thyself"
I3:Z TRAVELS
forced Its way can be traced only to a small extent From a
fragment of the Academy's hst of students, preserved on a
papyrus from Herculaneum, we happen to knowthat a Chaldaean
was a regular member of the school I ThiS appears to have been
dunng Plato's last decade Other signs of Onental mfluence
pomt to the same penod Such are the parallel m Alnlnades I
between Plato's four VIrtues and the ethIcs of Zarathustra, and
the astral theology put forward as the hIghest wIsdom by Plato's
pupLl and secretary, PhLlIp of Opus, In hiS postscnpt to the Laws
To recommend the new rehgIOus views whIch he IS earnestly
proclaImmg . to the Greeks' PhilIp openly appeals to Onental
sources z These tendenCies undoubtedly ongmated dunng the
time when Eudoxus was present 10 the Academy, although our
matenal unfortunately does not permit us to evaluate to itS full
extent the tremendous mfluence exercIsed upon the Platomsts
by thIS man They are connected 10 part wIth the Academy's
admiration for Chaldaean and' Synan' a"tronomy, from whose
anCIent emplTlcal acquamtance with the heavens It had ob-
tamed Its reckomng of the tunes of revolutIOn and Its knowledge
of the seven planets, a knowledge that appears In PhLllp of Opus
for the first tIme 10 Europe In part, agam, these tendencies are
connected wIth the appeal of the relIgIOUS dualIsmof the Parsees,
v. hlch seemed to lend support to the dualIstic metaphysIcS of
Plato's old age The bad world-soul that opposes the good one
m the Laws IS a tnbute to Zarathustra, to whom Plato was
attracted because of the mathematIcal phase that hIS Idea-
theory finally a'isumed, and because of the mtensified duahsm
Involved therem J From that tIme onwards the Academy was
keenly 10terested 10 Zarathustra and the teachmg of the MagI
Plato's pupil Hennodorus dIscussed astrahsm In hIS Mathe-
matfes, he denved the name Zarathustra from It, declanng that
It means' star-worshipper'
I Tnde:c A cad Hercull1n col 111 p J 3 (Mekler)
Ep1'11 986 E 987 B, and ql!7 D-<)88 A Ps -Plato, AICtb I 121 '1>-122 "
1.l1w< h. 896 E Atk And as the soul orders and inhabits all things that
move however movmg. mnst we not say that she orders also the heavens;
Cit Of coune A til One soul or more' More than one-I will answer for you.
at any rate we must not suppose that there are less than two--one the author
of good. and the other of the opposite'
For Hermodorus On Matlaemahcs, used by SQbon In the Dtadoche. see
DlOg L I 2 and 8. cf Schol on Ps -Plato. -4/nb I 122 A
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 133
These mfluences gave nse to Anstotle's mterest m the Magi m
the dIalogue On Phtlosophy Even the attempt to detemllne
Zarathustra's date had already been made by other Academics
Hennodorus, for mstance, had put hun 5,000 years before the
fall of Troy The researches of thiS Platomst were still the mam
authonty on the matter \\'hen the learned Alexandrian SotIon
wrote his history of the philosophical schools Besides Henno-
dorus he mentIOned the suggestIOn of Xanthus, accordmg to
which Zarathustra hved 6,000 years before the InvaSIOn of
Xerxes I The date given by Anstotle and Eudoxus, as reported
by Plmy, differs from the other traditIonal dates In Its pecuhar
pomt of reference When we compare' 6,000 years before Plato's
death' With figures reckoned from the fall of Troy or from the
expeditIon of Xerxes (which later gave way to that of Alexander),
It becomes obvIOUS that thiS manner of statement IS due not to
chronological convemence but to the deSire to connect Zara-
thustra and Plato as two essentially slml1ar hl!>toncal pheno-
mena The pomt of the companson, and of Anstotle's Interest
In the round thousands of the Interval, IS clearly the view put
forward m On Phtlosophy that all human truths have theIr
natural and necessary cycles Now In a fragment that IS known
to belong to the first book of thiS dialogue Anstotle speaks of the
teachmg of the Magi, namely the !raman duah!>lU, accordmg to
which there are two pnnClple." a good and a bad spmt, Ormuzd
and Ahnman, and these he Identifies With the Greek dlvlmtIes
Zeus and Hades, the god of heavenly hght and the god of
chthomc darknes., Plutarch, also, compares Plato's doctnne of
the good and the bad world-souls With the duahsm of the
Chaldees and Magi It IS natural to suppose that the same con-
SIderatIOn was actuatmg Anstotle m the fragment where he
draws a parallel between Zarathustra and Plato Z ThiS SUppOSI-
tIon IS rendered certam by the only other passage where he men-
tIOns the MagI, namely one of the oldest parts of the Metaphystcs,
which must be aSSIgned on other grounds to the time when On
Phtlosophy was bemg WrItten Here agam the subJect IS Platomc
duah"m As the earhest forerunners of thIS VIew Anstotle men-
tIOns m Greece Pherecydes, m ASIa the Magi 3 The Academy's
DlOg L I 2
] Melaph N 4 loglb!l
z Frg 6 Plut,Jrch. Is el 0511' 370 E
134 TRAVELS
enthusIasm for Zarathustra amounted to IntoXIcatIon, lIke the
redIscovery of IndIan philosophy through Schopenhauer TI
heightened the histoncal self-conSCIOusness of the school to thmk
that Plato's doctrme of the Good as a dIVIne and unIversal
pnnciple had been revealed to eastern hwnanIty by an Onental
prophet thousands of years before
ThIs explanatIOn IS confirmed by the number 6,000 We know
from Theopompus, ",ho perhaps had It from Eudoxus hImself,
that the generatIOn of Eudoxus and Anstotle was aware of the
great cycle In IranIan religIOn, and of the world-Wide drama of
the struggle between Ormuzd and Ahnman 1 Ormuzd and
Ahriman rule m turn (avo each for 3,000 years For
another 3,000 years they fight, and each trIes to Injure the other
and destroy what he has created FInally the good SpInt gams
the day The length of thIS eschatologIcal drama IS varIously
estImated In IranIan tradItIon, sometImes as 9,000 years (thiS IS
apparently the figure that Theopompus' source follows). and
as 12,000 The SIgnificance of each three-thousand-
year act In the world-cycle vanes accordIngly For thIS reason
the means at our disposal will perhaps not allow us to determIne
unambiguously the preCIse POints at whIch Zarathustra and
Plato are supposed to but It IS certaInly not an aCCI-
dent that the figure 6,000, whIch accordmg to Anstotle and Eu-
doxus IS the number of the years between the two, IS diVISIble
by 3,000 Zarathustra and Plato are ObVIOusly two Important
I Theopompus frg 72 (Mueller) Cf Jackson, 'The Date of Zoroaster,
Journal of Ih. Ame...can 0",,"1 Soc vol XVII (1896) P 3 F Curnont, Texles
.1 monum d. M,lk,a, vol I p 310, n 6 and recently Glsmger, Erdb."hr'lbung
des Eudoxus 1907) Since the creatIOn of the good God IS completed 10
6000 years, the ChnstIan fathers and philosophers of hIStory Identlfy thIS
penod With the SIX days of creatIOn accord109 to the MosaiC story
In the ongInal German edition of thiS work I tned to fix more accurately
the probable pOSltlons of Zarathustra and Plato m the world-drama of IraDIan
rehglon SlIlce then my assertIOn that the assIgnment of Zarathustr... to a date
6,000 years before Plato Imphes some lOner conut-xlon between them, or rather
h<'tween theIr pnnclples, has been largely taken up by onentallsts and IS
perhaps generally accepted In View of recent IraDlan researches, howevLr, I
now prefcr not to attempt the harmoDlzahol1 of the Greek and PersIan tradi-
tIOns slDce for my purpose the only Important thmg IS to estabhsh Ihe fact Ihat
after hIS dcath and evcn while he was still hvmg Plato was brought
mto conneXlOn With Zarathustra and Wlth IraDlan teachmg about the struggle
between the good pnnclple and the bad On Plato as the founder of a rellglOn,
as Anstotle s altar-elegy regards hIm, see my artIcle' Anstotle's Verses m
Pr,use of Plato. Th. ClaSSICal Qua,terlv, vol XXI (19:17), P 13
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 135
stages m the world's Journey towards Its goal, the trIumph of
the good
The mam reason for asslgnmg Plmy's fragment to the first
book of the dIalogue On Phllosophy IS that only ID thIs context
can It be fully understood, but smce Rose mcluded It among the
fragments of the spunous Maglcus-for no dIscoverable reason
-It may be well expressly to dIsSIpate the shadow of Su"'plclOn
that has thereby fallen upon It I PlIny did not get hIs mfor-
matIon from the On the M agl of AplOn, as Rose unrea!lonably
conjectures, but from the learned work of the !lame title by
Henmppus, the follower of Calhmachus In the next hne he
unmistakably mdlcates Hermlppus as hIs source, and expresses
naive wonder at his WIde readmg 10 the ongmal texts, whICh IS
very proper 10 VieW of his own lack of It It was not Phny but
Hermlppus who consulted Eudoxus and Anstotle We may con-
firm thiS by companng the pas!lage With fragment 6, a statement
about the Magi which IS defimtely known to belong to the first
hou1. On Phllosophy Thl'i also comes from Hermlppus, and here
agam he mentions EudoAus and Anstotle as hIS sources We
give the two excerpt!:> by Side
Plmy, Natural Hlstory, 30 3
\Vlthout doubt It began With
Zoroastu III PerSIa, d.S the authon-
agree It IS not so clear
whether there was only one man of
thiS name, or another one later on
Eudoxus, who held It to be the
most excellent and valuable of all
phllosophlcal "ects, ,>ald that thiS
Zoroa'itu lived SIX thousand
befox-c the dCd.th of Plato Anstotle
says the same Hernl1ppus, who
DlOgenes Laertms I, Prologue 8
A nstotle m the first book of hu
dIalogue On PhIlosophy declax-es
that the Magi are more ancient
than the Egyptians, and further,
that they believe III t\\O pnnclples,
thc good splnt and the eVil 'pint,
th(. one called Zeus or Orrnuzd,
the othex- Hades or Ahnrnan ThLS
IS (.onfirmed by Hermlppus m hiS
first book about the Magi, Eudoxus
in hiS Voyage I'ound the World, and
1 Anst frg 34 Cf Rose, ArHt Pseudep'graphus, p 50 The reason why Rose
assIgned the fx-agment to the Maglcus IS presumably that In Laertlus
(I I and 1 8) thl, wmk IS mentIOned as one ofAx-lStotle's m the Immediate
contcxt of the quotatIOn fx-om On Philosophy about the Magi Precls{' examma-
tIon shows, however, that DlOgenes I" not followmg the same source In quoting
each of the two works as Anstotle 5 The spunous lIfag1cus was as maln
source by and Hermodorus, for lhogenes mentIon> all three names both
In I I-l ar <lID I 7-!l (the c""c{'rpt (''<tends down to 'and Hennodorus agrees With
hIm ID thi where.." th. lIl[ormatlon from Anstotlc's On Ph,losophy and
Eudo,"us n ... , uut,unlJ frulIl HUffilppUS, as holS been shown above
13
6
TRAVELS
wrote copIOusly about all that art, Theopompus In the eighth book
and commented on two mullon of his Phlltpplca
hnes wntten by Zoroa'Ster affix-
mg an Index to every book, 'Say!.
that hi'S teacher \1 as ARonaLe"
and that he hlm,elf lived five
thou,,<l,nd year, before the Iropn
.... olr I
It IS eVIdent that Herrmppus used the same sources for both
thesf' accounts of the Magi, namely the dialogue On PhzlosoPhy
and the Voyage of Eudoxus He must have quoted them exactly
earh hme DlOgenes preserves hiS quotatIon m full, but PlIny,
as often, n<1mes only the authors Without the books Phny's
fragment fib excellently With the theory of cycle,>, and With the
chronological m the first book O,l Phzlosophy, which
c,ontamed other about the MagI, In future, therefore,
It IS to be mcluded among the fragments of this dialogue The
parallel posItIon of Plato and Zarathustra m the cycle does not
gIve the ImpressIOn of havmg been Invented dunng Plato's bfe
It was certamly not to be found m the Voyage of Eudoxus, who
died long before him The ongmalIty of Eudoxus lay solely In
puttmg Zarathustra 6,000 years ago' It was Anstotle who,
led by hIS doctrIne of the penodiCal return of all human know-
ledge, first speCIfically connected thIS figure WIth the return of
dualIsm, and thereby put Plato m a ... ettmg that corresponded to
hIS profound reverence for hIm There can be no doubt that the
dIalogue III whIch he thus dIrected the lIght of the centunes upon
hIS master was wntten after the latter's death 2
I On the correct form of the name' Agonaces ' see Fr C Andreas m Reltzen-
stem, 'D.e Gotbn Psyche, Sltzungsbenchte der HeIdelberger Akadem.. der
WlSsenschaften, PlulosophlSch-h.stonsche Klasse, vol Vlll (1917) Abh 10, P 'Ii
On the s.glllficance of the above diSCUSSion of Anstotle's statements about
Zarathustra s teachmg for the onent ... l tradition and Its chronology see ReItzen-
stem-Schaeder Studun zum ant.ken Sy"kretls7llus aus Iran und Gruehellland
(LClpZlg, 1926). P 3
If PlIny's words' scx mllIbus olnnorum ante Platonls mortem' do not come
from the mtermedlate source Herm'ppuS---lt IS true, as Eduard Fraenkel has
pOInted out to me that In techmcal Lhronology . ante mortem ' sometimes
means no more th... n ante ahquem'-but from Henmppus' authonty tbey can
only be from ArIStotle, smce Eudoxus d."d before Plato (It.s .mposslble to
follow GlSlnger op Cit P 5, n r m supposing on the bd.SIS of the passage In
Phny that Eudoxus dlCd later than Plato) Merely on mternal grounds, how-
ever, It seems to me certam that such a companson could never have ar.sen
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 137
The doctnne that truth returns at certam mtervals assumes
that men are Incapable of permanently retammg It once It has
been discovered It was not supposed, however, that humamty
cannot maIntaIn Itself for long upon a high spmtuallevel, and
for that reason contmually loses agam even truths that have
been known for a long time The theory was that the traditIOn,
and m fact cIvIlIzatIOn as a whole, IS penodlcally destroyed by
vIOlent convulSIOns of nature In other words, Plato's doctnne
of catastrophes was apphed to the hIstory of phl1osophy By-
water has given conVInCIng reasons for belIevIng that thiS
doctnne occurred In Anstotle's dIalogues I In the It IS
!>uggested that all the more ancient traditions of the Greeks have
been anmhllated by overwhelmmg natural events Such myths as
those of Phaethon and of the flood are there Interpreted as traces
of these events m human memory The same method of Inter-
pretatIOn IS applIed to the oldest records of culture In the Laws,
Just Anstotle m the MetaphyslcS explams the stones of the
Gods as remnants, distorted by tradItion, of an early stage of hIS
own theory of the movers of the spheres 2 ThIS rationaliZIng
procedure certaInly cannot have ongInated m Plato's ImagIna-
tive braIn It bears the stamp of loman SCIence, and presum-
ably It comes from Eudoxus hlffiself, together wIth the theory of
catastrophes Anstotle made free use of It In the M eteoro-
for example, he argues from the mythical trd.dltlOn to the
prehistoncal eXistence of the hypothesIs of ether, which as a
matter of fact was mvented by hlffiself 3 On the other hand,
Eudoxus IS certamly not the author of the VIew that all Intel
lectual thIngs recur ThiS, however, only brIngs out more clearly
wlule Plato was stili ahve, and the same IS true of the attitude of the dIalogue as
a whole to Plato and hIS phIlosophy
I Bywolter of Phtlology, vol Vll, p 65) assIgn" to the On PhilOSOPhy
portIOn" of PhIloponus In Nlcom The theory of catadysms IS there
connected WIth the growth of knowledge, and thiS IS an Idea that Anstotle took
over from Plato and developed The form of the theory that Bywater analy,es
IS, however, StOIC the notIOn of the development of the arts and of
the continual that thIS causes III the meanmg of 'wI!.dom' See my
Nemeslos von Lmesa, QueUenforschungen zur GeschlChte des Neupla-
tomsmus und zu pos..donlOS (Berhn, 1914), PP 124 if See also Gerhausser,
Der ProtreptIllOs des Pos"donlos (HeIdelberg theSIS. 1912), pp 16 ff
I Plato, Tlmaeus 22 A-C, 109 D ff, Laws III 677 A, Anst Metaph
II 8, 1074
b
1-13
] Meteor I J, 339
b
20 ff, De Gaelo I 3 270b 16 fI , De Ammal Mot 3,
699" 27. Pol VII 10, 1329b 25
138 TRAVELS
the effect of contemporary natural SCIence on men's thought about
the hIstory of culture, on their use of the myths, and on theIr
conceptIon of the human spmt, whIch, hke nature wIth her forces,
IS ever bnngmg forth anew that whIch hes hIdden wIthIn Itself
By representmg Plato In the first book as a man of the ages,
out of the reach of every petty contradlchon, and as the cul-
mmatIon of all prevIOus philosophy, Anstotle gave the proper
perspective to the cntIcism that followed The second book was
a destructIve cnhcl!>m of the Ideas The thIrd gave hIS own VIew
of the world, It was a cosmology and a theology, hke the second,
It took the form throughout of a cntIclsm of Plato, for the sImple
reason that It was dependent on hlID at every step Its general
content!> are de!>cnbed by the EpIcurean In CIcero's De Natura
Dearum In essentIals Anstotle adopted the stellar theology of
Plato's later days ThI:', It seemed to him, must be the pomt of
departure for metaphySIC!> now that the theory of Forms had
collap&ed P!ato conceived that behmd the Sidereal story of hIs
loiter years there lay the supersenslble world of Ideas. of whIch
the vIsIble heavens were a copy Anstotle. however, was con-
cerned exclUSIvely wIth the cosmolOgical SIde of thIS dual world
(So. though m a dlffert'nt manner, was that other pupil of Plato's,
Pluhp of Opus. In the EpmamtS) In thiS way he became the r ~ l
founder of the cosmic rehglOn of the HellemstIc philosophers.
whIch, emancIpated from popular behefs, sought Its obJects of
worshIp solely In the heavenly bodies The threads connectIng on
the one hand Anstotle's stellar rehglOn with the Academy. on
the other StOIC theology wIth Anstotle's early Views, have not
yet been laId bare In partIcular, the Importance of Anstotle In
thiS conneXIOn has not been clearly recogmzed, because scholars
have taken theIr start too exclUSively from the treatIses, whIch
were totally unknown to the Hellemstlc age
According to the unfavourable account m Cicero, whIch comes
from some EpIcurean source also used by Phllodemus. anstotle
In hIs thud book On Phllosophy declared now that God was
mInd, now that he was the world, now that he was the ether.
and now thdt he ",as some other being, to whom the world was
subordInated. and who gUIded Its movement by a kmd of back-
\\ards turnmg (repllcahone quadam) 1 By applYing the dogma of
J Frg 26 (C1C D. Natuya D.oYlIm I 13. 33)
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 139
the EpIcurean school the cntIc dIScovers gross contradIctIons In
these statements. but, however superficIal his Judgement of
them may be, the correctness of the account as such cannot be
doubted The God to whom the world IS subordmated IS the
transcendental unmoved mover, who guIdes the world as Its
final cause, by reason of the perfectlOn of hIS pure thought ThIS
JS the ongmal nucleus of AnstotelIan metaphysIcs BesIdes thIS,
Anstotle descnbed the ether as a dIvme body, or as a more
dIvme body, as he does m the treatises , did not call
It God 1 The dIvImty of the ether does not seem to fit very well
wIth a stnct transcendental monotheIsm, but below the un-
moved mover were the stargods, whose matter was ethereal
There IS no real contradIctIon m the fact that Anstotle called
now the world and now the ether God, I e first the whole and
then the part . World' here does not mean what the EpIcurean
takes It to mean It IS not the HellemstIc conceptlOn of the
cosmos filled WIth hVIng creatures and contammg all thmgs, but
the heavens, the mere penphery ThIS was the way m WhICh the
old Academy used the word, as the Epmomts also shows In thIS
work It IS saId to be mdIfferent whether we call the highest God,
who IS the heaven, Uranus or Olympus or Cosmos In another
passage we read that the truest descnptlon of hIm IS Cosmos 1
The mfluence of the later Plato on the dIalogue On Phtlosophy
was not confined to termInology In the maIn features of theo-
logy, also, It corresponds almost perfectly With the Eptnomts
It IS noteworthy that the_Epicurean, who IS lookmg for pomts
of attack, says nothIng whatever about the fifty-five sphere-
gods of the later In thIS dIalogue Anstotle
obvlOusly had not yet adopted that VIew
ThIS IS confirmed by a statement of Pseudo-PhIlo's m the work
On the Etermty of the Worid Anstotle IS there saId to have Im-
puted terrIble atheIsm (1l.elvT,v &eeOTT]To) to the phIlosophers
who declared that the world had a begmmng or an end, because
I Cicero tra.nslates ' ether' by caeh ardor ThIS IS usual, and the descnptlon
of It as dlvme IS further eVidence that what IS meant IS Anstotle's hypotheSIS
of ether the fifth element (cf CIC De Natura Deorum I 14, 37, ardof'em, qUI
aether nomlnetUf', to whIch Pla.berg refers III commentmg on Our passage)
Anstotle mu.t therefore have putforward the hypothesI. while he was still III the
Academy It became fairly general there, though It suffered some excIsIons
and modIficatIOns Its first presentatIOn to the pubhc was no doubt that In the
On PhIlosophy Ejnn 977 A, Band 987 B
140 TRAVELS
they thereby that this great and vlSlble God (ToaOVTov
6pcrro\l 6e6v) was no better than a work made with hands He
the cosmos a pantheon comprehendmg sun, moon, fixed
stars, and planets He densively observed that, whereas formerly
he had feared that hIS house mIght collapse only through tempest
or old age or careless constructIOn, there was now a far greater
danger unpendmg, If we belIeved the thmkers who destroyed the
whole UnIverse m theIr statements I
We recogmze the tone Where Anstotle IS attackmg the
phYSICI5tS' VIew of the destructIOn of the world It IS bltmgly
It IS dlstmctly mIlder dnd more respectful when he IS
rejectIng Plato's account of creatIOn m the Tlmaeus-for that IS
what ' a \\ork made WIth hands' refers to Here we have the
same personal aIr as we found In the cntIcism of the Fonns m
the second book The thIrd book too, as we learn from CIcero's
account, was WrItten WIth polemIcal reference to Plato through-
out ThiS must apply mamly to the doctnne that the world
eternal, for that was Anstotle's greatest mnovatlOn ,% and smce
the passage doe,> not come from any of the eAI<;tIng treatIses,
d.nd IS undoubtedly taken from a dialogue m VIew of Its !>tyle, the
only source that can pOSSIbly be suggested for It IE. the dIalogue
On Phllosophy It was thIS work, now lost but much read m
d.ntIqmty, that contamed the two phIlosophical VIews then con-
SIdered most charactenstlc of the adoptIOn of the
ether as the element of the heavens, and the assertIOn that the
cosmos IS mdestructIble and uncreated The doxographers com-
monly mentIon the two together as hiS dlstmchve addItIons to
Pldto'S cosmology, and thIS IS correct
In spite of the divergence In details the doctnne of the dIa-
logue stIll completely Platomc In ItS pOSItIve Views, and above
all In the fUSIon of theology and astronomy The Laws IS the
ongm of the accusatIOn of atheIsm agamst those whose astro-
nomical VIews are unorthodox In that work Plato converted
thIS SCIence, preVIOusly very atheistIcal, mto the essence of
, Frg III Ps -PhIlo, De Ael Mundi 3. 10 (p 53 In Cohn-ReIter)
Frg 26 (eIC De Natura Deorum I 13 33) III tertia de
phtlosophla libra Malta turbat a, magIstro suo Platone d.s;cnt.cns Ma,nutlus
Inserted a non before dlSsfnllfns, and Rose In adopting It
but th,s glVeq an unacceptabll meamng ..nd Vahlen h.." that It IS also
hstIcally ImpOSSIble (cf Plasberg, large ed.tion p 2Iil)
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 141
theology 1 It agrees with Cicero's account that the above-men-
tIoned passage of Pseudo-PhIlo also uses the word' cosmos' In
the sense of heaven For what IS the doctnne of the cosmos
'comprehending wlthm Itself' sun, moon, and stars, but a re-
flectIOn of the picture of the umverse In the ~ m e u s (30 D);>
'The Deity, Intendmg to make thiS world lIke the farrest and
most perfect of intelligIble beings, framed one ViSible anlffial
comprehendmg W'tthzn ztself all other anlffials of a kindred nature'
It IS true that for Anstotle the heavens are no longer the VISible
Image of the highest Form, 'Yhlch containS wlthm Itself all other
Forms and the whole Intelhglble cosmos The world of Forms IS
gone, and With It the demlUrge who made the VISible world on
the pattern thereof But thiS only Increases the rehglOus and
metaphysical dignity of the Image, I e of the heavenly bodies
and of the cosmos Itself as the VISible unity of the world, the sole
empmcal guarantees of Plato's demand that there should be
something permanent and endunng m the flux of becoming The
expresslOn 'vIsible God' IS Itself Platomc, and the companson
of the heavens With a pantheon mcludIng all the partIcular gods,
though the words may belong not to ArIStotle but to PhIlo, IS
AnstotelIan In intentIon and reappears In the Epznomzs when
the sky IS descnbed as Olympus z The old theory of Olympus
gIVes place to the feehng that there IS dlvlmty In the cosmos, and
the word thus symbohzes thiS deCISive change In the history of
Greek rehglOn The stars are hvmg, rational beIngs, mhabltlng
the cosmos In dlvme beauty and unchangeableness ThiS IS the
theogony of Hellemstlc and late antiqUIty, and Plato stands at
1tS fountain-head
In Anstotle's later metaphYSICS, as we know, the prmclple of
the unmoved mover was no longer Isolated, a speCial transcen-
dental mover was aSSigned to each of the spheres that produce
the apparent progresslOns, retrogradatlOns, and stationary
pomts, of the heavenly bodies Of thiS view there IS no trace In
our dialogue The unmoved mover hovers above all other gods,
Immatenal and separated from the world as pure Form The
I Laws 821 D-822 c, 898 c, and 899 A The pact between astronomy and
atheism IS dissolved In 967 A ff
Z For the sky as Olympus see Ep,n 977 B for the stars as Images of the gods
Within It see Ep,n 984 A
K
142 TRAVELS
umty of the world IS anchored In that Form The stars and the
heavens, however, have souls wIthin them and follow their own
Inner laws spontaneously and conscwusly This theory of Im-
manent star-souls excludes the other method of explanation
The causes of the heavenly motions had long been discussed In
the Academy In the Laws Plato mentions three hypotheses as
reasonable, without defimtely deCiding In favour of anyone
They are to be vahd for all heavenly bodIes without distinction
Either we mu<;t thmk of the stars as bodIes WIth souls InsIde them
(to Plato the ,;oulls the pnnclple of spontaneous movement), or
the soul, not being inside the star, make,; Itself an external body
of fire or aIr and thereWith propels the star, or finally the soul
has no body at all, but guIdes the motion of the star 'by some
extraordmary and wonderful power' I Plato's own theory IS
probably that of the Immanent souls, for this fits best both with
hIS view that the soul IS the pnnclple of all movement and with
the plastic slmphclty and vltahzmg power of hiS thought He
descnbes the second as 'the view of certam persons' (A6yOS
TIVWV), presumably astronomers, one thmks of the spheres of
Eudoxus, although he 1<; almost certamly too early to have be-
heved that the spheres had souls The o d l e s ~ soul of the third
hypotheSIS IS obvIOusly a transcendental Form, movmg the star
as final cause, as the beloved moves the lover It IS the pnnclple
of the unmoved mover The wonderful power of which Plato
speak<; may be Imagmed as SimIlar to the longmg of senSible
thmgs for the Idea, or to ArIstotle's orexzs
It Will presumably always remam ImpOSSible for us to deter-
mme \\<hether It was Anstotle himself or some other AcademiC
who first conceived the theory of the unmoved mover and
applIed It to the problem of stellar motion The communa\
nature of theIr studies prevents us from dIstIngUIshmg the
preCIse share of each person The spmt of the Idea IS PlatOnIC,
that IS to say, It IS one that could not have ansen by Itself, but
only wIthm the PlatOnIC UnIverse of thought, whoever ItS acute
Inventor may have been Anstotle used It only for the hIghest i
prInciple, which IS dIshnct from the world and has absolutely nol
motion, the stars and the heavens, on the other hand, were
moved by Immanent souls We know thiS not merely from the
I Laws X 898 E
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 143
passage 10 Phuo, but above all from the ArIstotelIan arguments
preserved by CIcero, whIch must now be exammed Accordmg
to Plato one of the three hypotheses had to be true of all
heavenly motIons wIthout dlstmctIon The fact that Anstotle
combmes the first and the thIrd perhaps mdicates that he was
not the ongmator of eIther
In the second book of hIs work on the Gods CIcero gIves us
proofs of theIr eXIstence from Cleanthes, from Chryslppus, from
Xenophon, and several from Anstotle, whIch he obVIOusly ob-
tamed not from hIS own read109 but from a ready-made collec-
tIon I Many of the arguments sImply repeat what has already
been saId Even the collectIOn Itself did not denve everythmg
from the ongmals, any more than Sextus, who also made a
collection of arguments for the eXIstence of Gods, largely
SImIlar to thIS one m content 2 Hence Cicero's account must be
used crItIcally Nevertheless, It IS authentic 10 essence Both
pomts can be demonstrated from the very first argument All
elements gIve rIse to lIvmg thmgs, earth to some, water to
others, aIr to others Hence It seem" absurd to Anstotle to
!>uppose that there are no lIvmg thmgs m the element that by Its
punty and power of movement IS most sUited for their produc-
tion, namely the ether Now In the regIOn of the ether we find
the stars Presumably, therefore, the "tar'> are lIvmg bemgs of
keen mtelligence and extremely rapid motion
ThiS argument has been correctly assigned to the dIalogue On
but It cannot have appeared there m ItS present
form We have seen that m that work An"totle was already
mamtammg the doctrme of ether as a fifth element The argu-
ment preserved by CIcero presupposes only four It cannot be-
long to a penad pnor to the mtroductIOn of the fifth, and there-
fore cannot be assigned to any earlIer work of Anstotle's, It IS
an adaptatIon of hIS argument to the StOIC theory of the elements,
the latter bemg a compromise between the tradItional and the
AnstotelIan View, by which fire and ether were regarded as a
smgle element The only thmg that CIcero's StOIC authonty
correctly reproduces IS the formal analOgical nature of the
reasomng Anstotle began With the umversal valIdity of the
I CIC De Natura Deorum II '5. 42-.f<j (partly reproduced In Rose as frgs
2) and 24) Sext Emp Adv Phys I 49
144 TRAVELS
propOSItion that there are hvmg thmgs m every element of whIch
we can have expenence From thIS he mferred that there are
also hvmg bemgs m the ether, although that element IS not
dIrectly open to SCIentIfic mquIry The angInal sense of the
argument must therefore have been thIS smce It can be de-
monstrated that hvmg thmgs occur In all the elements, some In
earth, others 10 water, others m aIr, still others In fire, there must
certamly be some 10 the ether as well, now the stars are m the
ether, therefore they are hvmg thmgs ThIS was suggested by
the TJmaeus (39 E), where the four elements are peopled wIth as
many kmds of dlvme beIng The EpmomJs takes account of
thIS theory of ether, whIch had appeared 10 the meantime, by
assummg five kmds of elemental God mstead of the four of the
Ttmaeus, but the author shows, by the mere order m whIch he
puts the elements, that hIS mtentIon IS not to follow Anstotle
ImphCltly, but to make a conservative adaptatIOn of ills hypo-
theSIS to that of the TJmaeus Accordmg to Anstotle ether takes
the hIghest place 10 the world, then follow fire, aIr, water, earth
PhIhp retams fire m the hIghest pOSItion, then follow ether and
aIr, then water and earth, thus the only change m Plato's
doctnne IS that 10 the place of aIr, the hIghest and purest level of
WhICh had already been called ether by Plato hImself,I we have
two separate elements 2 Thus the Epmomts, whIle outwardly
assImIlatmg the theory of ether, Intentionally evades the really
essentIal element 10 the Idea Anstotle's argument, unlIke
Plato's, IS not meant to demonstrate the eXIstence of any mytillc-
ally conceIved gods or SpIrIts It IS mtended to be a stnctly
empmcal proof, and as such It presupposes that Anstotle thought
he could empIrIcally demonstrate the eXIstence of hIS fire-
ammals As late as the Htstorta Ammaltum he was stIll 10-
I Ploaedo 109 B. Tim 58 D
The po5.ltJon of the five elements In the world IS given In Epm 984 D if In
981 c the ether IS called the . fifth body' ThiS IS the Anstotehan expression
but here It means merely the fifth and last body to be discovered, not that
whIch IS farthest away from the earth That the ether was called the 'fifth
body' or the 'fifth substance' In the On Phdosophy o o ~ s from the fact that
the doxographers ",hose source IS always thiS dialogue. UnIversally employ
thIS mode of refernng to the specI6cally Anstotellan view In the treatises It IS
the 'tint body The EP.nomzs 15 the earhest of the many works to which the
Oft PJlIlosophy gave the expressIon' fifth body' there are also numerous other
respects In WhICh It IS dependent on It SInce Isocrates (V 12) mentions the
Laws In the year 346. Anstotle's dialogue must have appeared In 348/7
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 145
terested In Insects that were supposed to fly through fire wIthout
being damaged, and speaks of observatIons made upon such
creatures m Cyprus I The most sIgnIficant passage, however, IS
one In Apulems, not mcluded m the collectIOn of fragments,
where the doctnne of . fuebom anImals' IS expressly attnbuted
to ArIstotle It will be worth whIle to look closely at thIS pass-
age, not for the sake of the mIraculous fire-dwellers, but for the
tram of thought that they enable us to follow
In hIS \\-ork on Socrates' dlvme SIgn ApulelUs has an argu-
ment superficIally sImIlar to ArIstotle's, but actually qUIte
dIfferent both In purpose and m premIsses Smce there are
hvmg bemgs In the earth and the water, and smce In fire (as
ArIstotle says) there are creatures that are born m thI>, element
and remam m It contInually, and smce lastly there are also
hvmg thmgs m the ether, namely the stars-whose possessIOn of
souls had m the meanwhIle become such an establIshed dogma
that It could be treated as a matter of expenence-It follows
that there are hVIng thmgs In the aIT, too, although they are In-
vlSlble, namely the spmts of the aIr 2 The only AristotelIan
elements m thIS argument are those WhICh Apulems, follOWIng
hiS source, dIrectly attnbutes to Anstotle, that IS to say, the
fire-anImals That It was not Apulems but hIS authonty who
remodelled the argument IS shown by several passages In PhIlo,
where the same Inference occurs wIth the same emphasis on the
proof of the eXIstence of spmts In the aIr, i e dngels PhIlo
remarks, also parenthetIcally, that these fire-anllnals are to be
found In Macedoma, that IS to say, he avoids lettIng hIS readers
know of hiS heathen source, and names the country Instead of
the man J ThIs correspondence between two authors WIdely
separated m hme shows that some StOlC phIlosopher, hVIng be-
fore the days of ChnstIamty or of PhIlo, changed the real Aris-
totelIan argument from a proof of the dIvImty of the cosmos
Into a proof of the eXistence of angels The two forms are com-
pletely and hopelessly confused In the parallel passage of Sextus 4
J Hlst An V 19. 552b 10 ,
Apul De Deo SacI' VIII 137. P 15. I 12. In Thomas
, Philo De Glg 2 7-8. De Plantat 3 12. De Samn I 2l.135 In the last
passage he omits the fire-antmals In the altered form of the argument they
were really only a nUIsance
Sext Emp Adv Phys I B6. P 410, I 26 It 15 there IOferred both that
146 TRAVELS
Without further mqUIry concernmg the author of this alterahon,
we may content ourselves with the conclUSIOn which alone IS
important for the argument preserved by Cicero, namely that It
ongmallymcluded the fire-ammals and the five elements, and that
these were afterwards suppressed by CIcero's StOIC authonty 1
In any case the fire-ammals and the whole argument must
come from a dialogue It IS ImpOSSible to refer the passage m
ApulelUs to the msects that are said to fly through fire m the
HtstoTla Ammahum, although this IS done by the commentators,
because the essentIal pomt, whIch IS reqUIred for the argument
In On Phtlosophy, namely that the ammals are born In fire and
lIve their whole hIe m It, occurs only m Apulems and PhIlo, and
not m the Htstorta Ammahum The passage comes from the
work that Hellemc;hc phIlosophers and doxographero. used more
than any other wntmg of Anstotle's
there are splnts In the au and that the stars have souls The and
the ange1010glLal have been confused
J The of the argument In Philo and IS obvIous at first glance
In remodelling Anstotle's argument In order to obtam a proof of the
of spmts m the air the author follo"lng Ep,nomls 984 D ff where the
eXistence of star-souls IS assumed, and that of aery bemg, demonstrated
on the contrary, must hav(' meant by the aery bemg' certam d.n,mals
known to expenence smce otherWise analogy breaks down Presumably he
meant the bird, If so, It fits excellently that ApulelUs' authonty opposes thIs
very supposItion 1D detail He nghtly remark, that buds ar.. 't, rrestnal
aDimal. Moreover, they occupy only the lower regIOn of the aIr No bud can
fly over Olympus (he gives mathematical measurements of ItS height, but the
lIumber of the stades has unfortunately dIsappeared from the manuscnpts)
whereas the atmosphere stretches far above It 'from the lowest of the
moon to the highest peak of Olympus This region cannot be wholly WIthout
mhabltants Furthermore, the d.uthor, m order to obtam the four StOIC
elements IDstead of Anstotle's five regards the fire-ammals and the .tars as
both fire-dwellers HI' only conceSSlOll to Anstotle IS to separate the ether, not
as a distInct element but merely as the purest upper level of fire ThIS baroque
mIXture of angelology, empmcal observation, and exact SCientific thmklng
corresponds to my Idea of who already been suggested as
Apulelus' source by Rathke (De Apulel quem scnpslt de deo Socm!ls hbello,
p 32 Berlm, 1911) Rathke has faJled to observe, however, that
PosldonlUs makes use of the dIalogue On P1nlosophy In hiS argument and
comblOes It With the Ep,nonus ReInhardt's line book on Posldonlus (Mumch
]921) seems to me far too sceptical about the rehglOus and mythIcal element In
hIS thought, for Instance, It wrongly demes that he beheved m fire-ammals
}.lowadays "e underestimate the mfiuence of the old Academy and of the early
AnstotIe on PosldonlUs and the StOICS m general The fact that In Do:>;ograph,
432 4, only four kInds of hvmg thing are ascnbed both to Plato lind to
IS merely one of the many confUSIons of that textbook-WIsdom (ef Dlels 10 the
Proleg , p 64)
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 147
It IS also possIble to show how the angInal form of the argu-
ment mfluenced the literature evoked by On ~ l o s o p y about
the eternIty of the world We can follow step by step the process
by whIch thIS lIterature obtaIned ItS weapons from the armoury
of thIS dialogue We have already mentIoned In thiS conneXlOn
the work traditIonally attnbuted to PhIlo on the etermty of the
world, WhICh uses not merely Anstotle but also other good Pen-
patetIc authors lIke Theophrastus and Cntolaus SInce the
appearance of Anstotle's book the StOICS had come forward
With their doctrIne that the world IS continually destroyed and
regenerated, and the PenpatetIc VIew reqUIred to be defended
agaInst the counter-arguments of the Porch Because of thiS
element In the author, who lIved at about the begmnmg of the
ChnstIan era and shared the contemporary tendency to har-
momze Plato and Anstotle, the form of the arguments, whIch he
uses WIthout mentIomng theIr ongmator, has been greatly
altered, and we are by no means Justified In ascnbIng to Ans-
totle everythmg that IS Included among the fragments On the
other hand, Just as Rose omits the fire-ammals 10 Apulems and
Philo. so 10 the present work he omits an argument WhICh.
whIle not Itself AnstotelIan, IS nevertheless formulated 10 words
borrowed from Anstotle's . zoogomc' argument-to use the ex-
preSSIOn 10 the Epznomls Whereas, accordIng to our hypotheSIS,
Anstotle argued by analogy from the IIvmg creatures 10 the
known elements to the eXIstence of star-souls 10 the ether.
Pseudo-PhIlo presupposes thiS and converts the argument mto
one agamst the transltonness of the world If all the hvmg
creatures that maIntam themselves 10 the regIOns of the vanous
elements are one day to disappear, both those on the earth and
those 10 the water and those m the air and those 10 fire (lTVpl-
yova). It follows by analogy (KaT' OvaAoylav) that the heavens
also, the sun, the moon, and all the stars (1 e the IIvmg thmgs In
the ether). are dedicated to destructIon ThIS, however, con-
flicts With theIr dIVInity, With WhICh theIr etermty stands or
falls I It IS ObVIOUS that we have here a conflatlOn of two claSSIC
arguments from Anstotle On Phzlosophy HIS mference from
the dlvlmty of the heaven to Its etermty I'> mechamcally applIed
to all celestial bodIes (By a verbal umtatlOn of the passage m
I Pseudo-PhIlo, De -tel MundI 14 45. In Cohn-ReIter
148 TRAVELS
which he called the heaven' this great vIsible God'i they are
descnbed as . this great and blessed anny of vIsible Gods acknow-
ledged of old', 6 T C V r ~ alCT6T]Twv 6ewv eV2Iall.loov TO TTOAal
vOI.lIcr6els CTTpaTOs) With thIS the author conflates the zoo-
gomc argument If In the four known elements all IIvmg things
pass away, they must do so In the ether also, by analogy
The logiC, which IS decidedly not hiS strong POInt, IS not Im-
proved by the change It IS In fact an empty verbalIsm and a
mere tnJ1sm, Incomprehensible until we see that he IS attemptmg
to carve something apparently new and ongmal out of the
famous arguments of hiS source To US, however, he does the
serVIce of confinmng the occurrence of the fire-ammals, the five
elements, and the mference from analogy, In the AnstotelIan
clrgument that we have recovered by examinIng Cicero HIS
testimony IS all the weightier because In other parts of hiS work,
where he IS obVIOusly USIng a StOIC source, he recognIZes only
four elements Z
In order to separate the ongInal from the subsequent addi-
tIons and alterations, It has been necessary to go mto the
hlstoncal effects of the dialogue With regard to those argu-
ments for the diVInIty of the stars WhICh are next cited by
Cicero, and whIch seem to be closely connected With the prevIOus
one, the problem of dlstmgUlshmg the ongInal from the accre-
tIOns and distortIOns has recently been raised for the first tIme
It has been suggested that only the last argument ( 44), which
Indeed IS expressly descnbed as such, IS Anstotellan J Stnctly
taken, ItS opemng words ('Nec vero Anstoteles non laudandus
est In eo, quod ') Imply that the preceding ones also belong
to hIm, but In case of necessity It IS poSSible to understand them
as referrmg back to the first, which was expressly ascnbed to
hIm The mtermedlate matter would then belong to another
author, and be Inserted here merely because of ItS sImIlanty to
Anstotle's arguments It IS thought that Posldomus' theory of
heat can be detected In It, and certaInly, In View of what has
been saId m connexlOn WIth the first argument, the pOSSIbility
of StOIC colounng cannot be excluded The vanous arguments
I Frg 18
Pseudo-PhL1o, De Ael MundJ II :Z9
J K Remhardt, PoseldOfllos. PP :Z28 ff
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 149
form such a connected and significant senes, however, that we
ought not to tear them apart unless we have to The tram of
thought IS as follows
SInce all the other elements contaIn hfe the ether must do so
too Hence the stars that we see there must be hVIng thmgs,
and, In keepIng with the fineness and moblhty of the ether, they
must be of the highest Intelhgence and veloCity To extend this
relation between the elements and the character of the bemgs
hVIng In them, the relation between the mtellectual qualIty of
the stars and the Vital powers of the ether IS parallel to that
between the mtelligence and temperament of man and the
food-supply and chmatIC conditIons of his dwellmg-place Where
the air IS pure and thm the Inhabitants are more mtelligent and
thmk more keenly and qUIckly than those who hve In a thick
and heavy atmosphere The same appbes even to the effects of
hght and heavy foods on the human mmd Smce therefore they
hve 10 the regIOn of the ether, whIch IS the finest of all elements,
and smce they are nounshed by the exhalatIOns of earth and
sea, which are reduced to extreme thmness as they traverse the
great Intervemng space, the stars must possess Intelbgence of
the highest sort The correctness of thiS mference IS confirmed
by a fact of external expenence-the mVlOlable order and
regulanty of their motIons ThiS cannot be the product of
Nature, SInce Nature does not behave lIke a conscIOus ratIOnal
bemg, nor can It be explaIned by chance, for Incalculablhty and
merely average results exclude constancy and design It must
therefore be the result of a conscIous IntentIOn and an mner
purpose With the final argument thiS tram of thought culmIn-
ates In the demonstrabvn that, as their order and constancy
Imply reason and purpose, so the clTculanty of therr motion
Imphes effective free Will, smce the natural movement of bodies
IS always 10 a straight hne upwards or downwards, and Sln<.e no
overruhng external force IS present here
In the first argument Cicero expressly ascnbes to Aristotle the
statement that, SInce hvmg thmgs occur mall the other elements,
It IS absurd to suppose that they do not also occur m the ether,
whIch IS most sUItable' of all 'to beget ammate thmgs' Ac-
cordmg to Anstotle the pneuma of hfe IS analogous to the element
of the stars, which contaInS In ItS purest form the ht:at that IS
150 TRAVELS
essenhal to lIfe' In thIs argument the vltahsm of the (profes-
sedly StOIC) doctrIne of heat 15 denved from ArIstotle's doc-
tnne of the pneuma, whIch was the hlstoncal genn of the StOIC
vIew The theory that the stars are moved by souls IS carefully
developed to ItS farthest consequences The senousness wIth
whIch the argument takes Plato's semI-mythIcal VIew, and Its
consClentIous apphcatlOn of the categorIes of psychology,
zoology, and phySICS, show that Its author IS the early ArIstotle
He IS too respectful and dogmatic to doubt the correctness of
the VIew, but the more serIously he takes It, and the more
acutely he presses It, the qUIcker he will outgrow It Plato,
agam, 1<; responsIble for the theory that clImate and dIet lll-
fluence man's body and mmd, and the expressIOn of It here 15
verbally slmuar to a passage of the Laws The also,
detects a causal conneXlOn between the matenal constItutIon of
earthly creatures and the IrratIonahty and dlsorderlmess of theIr
motIOns, and between the ethereal matter of the stars and theIr
phySIcal beauty and spmtual perfectIon EIther thIS reflects
the general AcademIc VIew, or It IS borrowed from ArIstotle's
work, whIch appeared Just pnor to the 2
The dialogue On carrIes out the analogy III more
detad The stars dre surrounded by the purest atmosphere
Their food IS the fine exhalatIOns of earth and sea-Anstotle here
uses thIS old physlCal doctnne to support hIS viewof the heavenly
bemgs and their phySIOlogical processes, later he abandoned
It From thiS dialogue Cleanthes took It over, together with all
the rest of Anstotle's early theology, and made It at home III the
StOIC school J
I De Grn An II 3 736b 29 .II Laws V 747 D Eptn 981 K
, In MeteOt' II 2, 354
b
33 ff ATlstotie th.. phySICists theory that
the sun feeds on the of the sea The theory must have been qUite
old, .mc.. on th.. ba.. of It some phySICIsts naively explamed the solstice as a
change of pasture Though Anstotle Inlght smile at thiS anthropomorphic
account, the general theory was qUite Lonsonant with hIS own vIew that the hot
feeds on the wet (e g Metaph A 3 983b 23) When he objects that the sup-
port.... of the theory ought to have proVIded, not merely for the sun, but also
for the (Jjj" 19) that IS slmp)y the consequem,e that he hlJnself had
formerly developed m the dialogue On Phtlosophy lIeanthes took It over from
thiS work (CIC Nat Deorum II 15. iO Armm frg 504) He al<;o appropnated
the explanation of the M>lstlce (Nat Deorum. III 14 37 Armm frg JOI) In
LOmpanSOn with the level attamed by Anstotle StOIC phy51CS presenb many
example5 of thl. sort of ataVism, namely the conflabon of Anstotle s early
c<>smologlLal theology With Pre-Anstoteltan theones
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 151
The Ep o ~ s also contaInS the argument for the eXIStence of
star-souls from the regulanty of the heavenly motIOns, at some-
what greater length but wIth less dialectical power, and here as
In Anstotle It IS dIrectly connected with the zoogomc' argu-
ment ThIS hItherto unnotIced correspondence oblIges us to
mfer that Philip and Anstotle both glVe the ruhng AcademIc
doctnne I Anstotle's formulatlOn of It was dIrectly suggested
by Plato In the Laws, at the begmmng of the argument that
the stars have souls, we read that some say that all thIngs do
become, have become, and will become, some by nature, some by
art, and some by chance' The elements and' the bodIes whIch
come next m order--earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-'
. all eXIst by nature and chance, and none of them by art " for
they are totally and absolutely WIthout soul
2
The phySICI'itS
whom Plato IS attackmg meant by nature the same as Anstotle
m these arguments (for he IS here usmg their tnchotomy cmd
refutmg them WIth theIr own weapons), namely an aggregatIOn
of matter WIthout mInd or soul Plato, on the contrary, makes
the soul the chIef prIncIple of becommg, and hence demands a
new conceptIOn of nature 3 There are, however, countless pass-
agee; m Anstotle where thIS lower conceptIon of nature, haVIng
once become famIlIar to lum, IS used WIthout hesitatIon, m the
very next argument, for example, the tendency of fire and aIr to
go upwards, and of earth and water to go downwards, IS saId to
be a natural movement The diVISIOn of all becomIng mto
natural, fortUItous, and IntentIOnal, also occurs In hIS Protrep-
tzeus The method of the argument, namely the estdbhshment
of one pOSSIbIlIty by the elImmatIOn of all other'>, IS connected
WIth Plato's later dialectIc of dIVISIon, and IS charactenstIc of
Anstotle
The same method IS used In the last argument, a refinement
of the prevIOUS one, WhICh IS expressly stated to come from
Anstotle All motIon IS produced eIther by nature or by force or
by free will So far as It IS natural, the motion of bodIes IS
always m a straIght Ime upwards or downwards, and not
CIrcular lIke the motion of the heavenly bodIes Nor can thiS
CIrcular motIOn be explamed by external force, for what force
can be greater than that of those bodIes themselves;l The only
I Eptn, 982 fI 1 Laws X 888 E ff I Laws X 892 C, 891 C
152 TRAVELS
remaining possIbIhty IS motion by free wIll For thI'> lOference
too there IS a parallel 10 the Epmomf,s, where mentIOn IS made of
a most perfect delIberatIOn (6:plC"TTJ on the part of
the star-souls I ThIS IS the ground of the unalterable necessity
that guIdes the revolutIOns of the stars TheIr perfectlOn con-
SISts In the fact that the CIrcular path, whIch the star-soul at the
same tIme contemplates and wIlls, IS the Ideal mathematical
form ThIS act of will can never alter, because all true perfec-
tion excludes the tendency to detenorate Thus the law that
the soul of the star Imposes on ItS matter necessanly lOvolves
that the star has free will, SInce WIthout thIS there could be no
reflectIOn WIth a VIew to action z To thIS extent Anstotle's
notion of free WIll IS the exact complement of the notIOn of most
perfect dehberatIOn In the Epmomf,s, they are adjacent elements
In a smgle thought-constructIOn J The doctnne that the stars
move of theIr own free will, belOg an ObVIOUS contradIction of
Anstotle's later VIews, has compelled those who deny hIS de-
velopment to Institute the most desperate ad-hoc conjectures
It IS saId that CIcero has SImply grossly mIsunderstood hIS
authOrIty 4 It IS not worth whIle to refute these extravagances
10 detaIl, our analySIS of the theory of star-souls seems to have
made It clear that, even If thIS mtermedlate stage m AnstotJe's
development were not so unquestionably recorded, we should be
practically oblIged to reconstruct It a pnon In all ItS parts
The last argument also throws much lIght on the anglO of
I Lpnl 982 C Eptn 982 B
, The motIon of the stars can be due to free wIll only If It rests on conscIous
pUlJlose (1Tpoa!pEaIS) The latter, however, IS . delIberatIve desIre' and there-
fore presupposes delIberatIOn (Eth N<e III 5) In 1112" 2 I Anstotle expressly
demes that there can be delIberatIon about thmgs eternal Thus he rejects
earlIer doctnne that the stars have WIlls In hIS later penod the only remnant
of the old vIew IS the use of the word' actIon' (1TpanoIV) 10 connexlon WIth the
heavenly motIons ThIS early doctnne that the stars have conSCIOUS wI.1ls must
not be confused '\\Ith the View that God, as the final cause moves the world by
means of the deSIre WIth whIch all stnve towards hlnl (cf Zeller, vol 11
2', P 375, n 3) The latter IDvolves neither that matter 15 an 10dependent
pnnclple of acbon whIch stnves towards Form, nor that all mcludmg the
morgamc world possess souls Accordmg to Anstotle everythmg seeks to
perform ItS funchon perfectly, and that IS ItS good (Ka1.ov) Because of thIS It
connected Wlth everythmK else (cf Metaph "10,1075.16, all thmgs are ordered
together somehow') The conneXIon of all thIngs With each other IS the order
(T6I;.S) of the world, whose' end' IS God, the most perfect hemg Thus every
tlung seeks God In so far as It realIzes Its own end
4 Demays, Ina/oge de5 Anstohle5, p 104
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 153
Anstotle's celestIal physIcs, I e hIS doctnne of ether Were It
not that we have already proved It, It might be doubted whether
10 thIS dialogue the ether was assumed wIthout demonstratIOn,
on the ground that he here reckons as natural' only the motIOns
of heavy bodies downwards and of hght ones upwards In a
straIght hne, whereas he denves the CIrcular mohon of the stars
not from theIr matenal constItutIOn but from their free will
ContranwIse, he tells us In the De Caelo that there are five
elements and a speCial kmd of motIon IS natural to each of them,
motIon downwards to water and earth, upwards to fire and aIr,
and In a CIrcle to ether I He expressly calls the latter the body
that moves In a CIrcle, thus makmg this an essentIal property
of It Here agaIn those who deny hIS development are dnven to
the desperate expedIent of reducmg the account m the dIalogue
On to mere poetry ,z but the arguments are far too
acute and senous for that, and apparently It has escaped notIce
that the two VIews are mutually exclUSIve The denvatIOn of
CIrcular motIon from the matenal nature of the ether reveals the
mtentIon to explam all phenomena of movement whatever by
the natural laws of matter, but thiS can be done only by means of
a double phySICS, one terrestnal and the other cosmiC, the latter
bemg exempt from the former's law of graVItatIon !he double-
entry book-keepmg thus establIshed was not abolIshed agam
untIl modern phySICS At any rate It was a SCIentific Irnprove-
I De Caelo I 2-3
Bemays (op CIt, p 104) was unable to conceive how Anstotle m thiS
dialogue could have so utterly repudIated the fundamentals of hiS cosmology
(presumably thiS means the derivatIOn of all from natural' causes),
and could have so accepted the vulgarly anthropomorphic
deificatIOn of the heavenly bodies' Such a misconceptIon was poSSible only at
a tIme when Illsufficlent attentIon was paId to Plato's Laws and to the Epmom.s,
before the effect of Zeller's rejectIon of the former had altogether ceased Plato's
doctnne of star-souls has DothlDg to do With the naIve popular belief In Hellos
and Selene To denve the Circular motion of star, and sky from an Immatenal
cause was the most natural thmg for a PlatoDlst Slllce Plato thou/:ht of as
a Circular movement, and smce the new dl'l.overy of the regularIty and
s1lllphclty of the heavenly motIons favoured the suggestIon that they were pro-
duced by a mathematIcal mtelligence, cf Plat T.m 34 A, 37 c and often
AccordlDg to the T.maeus Nus and NeceSSity diVIded the creatIon of the cosmos
between them (47 E) In De An I 3, 406b 26 ff ArIstotle attacks III detau the
doctnne of the contlDuouS CIrcular motIOn of Nus W,th hIS abandonment of
tlus PlatonIC View, and WIth hiS change In the nobon of the psychological
functloll1ng of Nus, there mevltably followed the fall of the theory of Immanent
star-souls
154 TRAVELS
ment on the procedure of the Academy and of Anstotle In his
early years, which had gIven an anthropomorphic account of the
relation between the mathematical law and. the Inert matter of
the stars by Introducmg psychophysical analogies-the Ejnno-
mJS even ascnbed leglslahve funchons to the will of the stars 1
We now see that the ongInal purpose of the ether must have
been somethmg other than to denve the celeshal motions from
the nature of the matter of the stars, smce It was already
In eXistence as a hypothesIs before It was endowed with the
attnbute of circular motion What first gave nse to It was
ObvIOusly the new and preCise calculations, undertaken by the
school of Eudoxus and by Phlhp of Opus, about the size and
distance of sun, moon, and the other heavenly bodies These
calculations rendered untenable the old physical doctrme that
the upper heavens and the stars are composed wholly of fire, m
VIew of the smallness of the earth and the mfimte extent of the
UnIverse there was no longer any proportlOn between the
quantity of fire and the other elements, and In fact It would have
com.umed them all Thus the new dtscovenes upset the theory
of the mutatIOn of the elements and thereby removed one of the
foundatlOns of contemporary cosmology z Later on Anstotle
used his hypothesIs to construct a cosmic physICS without star-
souls or mythical additions We now have the later view fully
developed In the first book of the De Caeto, which makes an
Impressive beginnmg \\'lth the new doctnne, It IS not too rash,
however, to assert that thiS lecture has undergone later altera-
hons, and that m ItS angInal form It belongs to the penod when
the notion of ether was new In favour of thiS It may be said
that m content It IS concerned almost entirely with Plato's later
cosmology and cntIclzes that alone, that parts of It are still qUIte
theological m colounng, and that large portIOns are taken over
verbatim from the third book of the dialogue On PhJlosophy
The doctnne of the star-gods and of the dlvlmty of the cosmo')
(I e the sky). whIch received ItS first complete statement m thIs
dialogue of ArIStotle's, constitutes, together with Plato's cos-
mology as a whole, the permanent expressIOn of the great Intel-
I Ep.., 982 B.. the necessity which belongs to the soul whtch possesses
Intelhgence legtslates as ruhng and not as ruled '
, Anst Meteor I 3. 339
b
.. fI esp 3,\0' I fi
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY ISS
lectua! stunulus gIven to the phllosoplucal world of the fourth
century by the new astronomical dlscovenes The hypotheslS
that the planetary motions are clI'cular and perfectly orderly,
and that the ongma! configuration of the whole heavens penodlc-
ally returns when the Great Year
l
IS complete, threw the
astomshmg I1ght on Plato's fundamental prmclple that the
matenal phenomena of the sensIble world are controlled by
mmd and order, and opened up fruitful relatIOns between phllo-
sophy and the study of facts The first attempt to Illustrate on
d. grand scale the' rule of reason' over matter was the doctrme
of star-souls ThIS went far beyond the needs of mere natural
SClence, but Its myth of the soul opened up unsuspected oppor-
tumties for the constructIOn of a Weltanschauung It IS clear
that to Plato the Important part of the doctnne was Its mythIcal
and spmtuahstlc element Its appeal to the early Anstotle, on
the other hand, rested on the fact that speculation, whose 10-
;,oluble problems the human mmd cannot perpetually aVOId,
could here base Itself on sol1d empmcal facts, even If they were
fd.cts that admitted of more than one explanatIon Thus, whlle
the views of both comclde 10 content, Anstotle's close-kmt
argumentatIOn breathes a new sCIentific splnt, accordmg to
which all myths, however overflowmg with emotIOnal values,
are Simply materIal for methodical mqUiry ThiS spmt reveals
Itself most clearly 10 hiS posItIvely msatIable deSire for proof If
we compare the account 10 the Ep'momH, where Plato's doctnne
IS swallowed dogmatically and full rem given to the taste for
edificatlon and rehglOus mystery, we percelw stlll more clearly
that, 10 deahng With the Platomc myth, the chOICe lay between
scholastiCism on the one hand and cntIcal SCIence on the other
Plato himself understood himself 10 thiS way, and gave hiS
puplb the nght to apply thiS reahstIc measure to himself, when
he mtroduced hiS myth as one of several pOSSible hypotheses z
But what great thmker ever understood hilllself correctly The
old controversy whether Anstotle understood Plato shows a
I The' Great Year' IS mentIoned In Anst frg 25 Rose can scarcely be nght,
ID lDcludlDg thIS among the frdgments of On Ph.losophy, MnLe
TJ.CltuS (D.al 16, 10 ff) tells u\ that It referred to m CIcero's H ortenSJus
CIcero took It presumably from the mam source, whIch Anstotle's Pro-
Ireptzeus, but v,lth thIS question we are not concerned
, Plato, Laws X 898 E
15
6
TRAVELS
complete lack of comprehension He appears to stand upon
the same ground and wrestle with Plato for better inSight,
but lus VictOry consIsts not In refutmg hlffi but In Impressmg
the stamp of hiS own nature on everythmg PlatOniC that he
touches
The same IS true of the second mam diVision of the dialogue,
namely the phllosophy of rehglOn, for In thiS work Anstotle
founded not merely HellenistIc theology,I but also that sym-
pathetIc but at the same tlffie obJective study of the Inner
religiOUS Ute for which antiquity had no name and no lOde-
pendent diSCIpline apart from metaphySICS It did not VindIcate
It!> mdependence untll the modern age gave It the name of
'phlloc;ophy of rehglOn' ThiS IS another aspect of the early
Anstotle which. m spite of ItS lOestImable Importance for the
history of the human mmd, has been overlooked or Ignored down
to the present day-perhaps because the conventional pIcture
of him (as a purely mtellectuallst metaphySICIan) mIght have
been dIsturbed If It had appeared that hIS dIalectIcal operatIOns
were msprred from wIthin by a lIvmg relIgIOn, with which all the
members of the logical organism of hIS philosophy were pene-
trated and Informed The history of the phIlosophy of religIOn,
In the modem sense of the phrase, begms wIth the sophists and
theIr first great attempts to gIve a psychological explanatIon of
nature and ongm Rationalism, however, can never advance
more than a lIttle way along thiS road, because It lacks the organ
I What he worked out under thIS name as an mdependent dlsclphne derIves
mdeed In content from the later form of Plato", general vIew of the world but
hIS foundation of a separate dlscJphne mdlcates an JDtense concentration of the
on the problem of God, whJch was somethmg entIrely new and had an
epoch-makIng SIgnIficance for HellenIstic philosophY The StOIC theology
developed the Anstotehan It IS true that owmg to ItS monIstIc tendency Jt
abandoned ArIstotle's transcendent God, but COlDcldence of contcnt IS not the
decISIve thmg 10 the e\aluatlon of hIS mfluence \Vll.at IS deciSIve IS the whole
lOner attitude of the new age towards the problem of theology, and the poSJ-
tIon aSSigned to It In the ery centre of philosophy In content Anstotle's theo-
laI:)', With Its sharp dIstinctIon bet"een the hIghest God and the star-gods dId
not exert Its full Influence until the begmmng of the ChrIstian era ThIS age
demanded a. deus exsvpera..tus....us. who, unseen, gUIdes the world from a
subluoely dIStant thTOne, hJgh above the courses of tbe stars Anstotle then
began to have a strong effect on contemporary PlatoDlsm. hiS view was com-
bmed With Onental rehglOus behefs, and sometuoes WIth tht' 50-
called negative theology, whIch WdS the clunax of relIgiOUS expenence In the
Hellemsbc East, whether pagan or ChrIstian
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 157
by whIch the phenomena of the relIgIous lIfe are properly per-
celved, and hence the philosophy of relIgIOn dId not enter on ItS
classIcal perIod until the tlITle of the early Anstotle and the
Academy In the later days of Plato Here were supphed the two
condItIons essentIal for a study at once psychologIcally penetrat-
mg and rehglously productIve-on the one hand Increased
theoretIcal InsIght Into all the phenomena of the SpInt, on the
other hand a pIety, arIsmg out at Plato's power of constructIng
myths and symbols, whIch opened fresh sources of relIgIOus m-
splratlOn to a commumty Imbued WIth a new feelIng for the
values of hfe It IS a fact, though the accepted hIstory of philo-
<;ophy may Ignore It, that almost the entIre stock of later and
modem Ideas about the phIlosophy of relIgIOn can be traced to
thIS SOC1t>ty
The mam questIOn concerns the natural sources, and the
theoretIcal JustIficatIon. of our lOner certamty about the objects
of relIgIOn, that IS to say, It concerns the realIty of the numInOUS
To the naive relIgIOus conscIOusness thiS IS no problem at all It
becomes one only when popular faIth has been destroyed, and
the Intellect has been specifically directed towards the sphere of
relIgiOUS Ideas Then comes the penod of arguments for the
eXistence of God After the hasty tnumph of cntIclsm With ItS
destructIve ratIonalIsm, the relIgIOUS mstmct, homeless but m-
eradicable, seeks shelter WIth Its conqueror The XenophontIc
arguments for God's eXIstence arIse from thiS need for the aid of
ratIonalism Now Plato 10 hiS early and middle penods had no
objective and theoretical attitude towards the questIOn, such as
~ ImplIed 10 the eXistence of a philosophy of rehglOn He was
engaged 10 creatIng new worlds, 10 which the only proper
demeanour was that of piOUS contemplation The Fonn of the
Good was not merely an etemalldeal for the state, but also the
~ y m o l of a new consCIOusness of God It was m fact rehglOn
It<;elf, for WIth Plato's phIlosophy rehgIon entered on the stage
of speculatIOn and sCIence entered on that of the creatIOn of
relIgIOUS Ideas Not untIl hIS later days do we find reflectIon on
the roots of faIth and on ItS compatibility With natural sCIence
In the theology of hiS old age the rulIng thought IS that of the
prIonty of soul to body, and of spmt and law to blmd matter
The loman conceptIOn of nature as mechamcal causatIon gives
L
1,58 TRAVELS
way to a vIew accordmg to whIch everything IS derIved from
splntual forces and IS once more . full of Gods' J
The real argument for God's eXIstence first appears WIth the
early ArlStotle He It was who, m the thIrd book On Phllosophy,
demonstrated the reality of a hIghest bemg wIth stnctly syllo-
gIstIc arguments, and thus gave the problem the sharp, apodlctIc
form WhICh has contmually goaded keen religIOUS thmkers, m all
later centunes, towards new attempts to make our expenence of
the Ineffable vJSlble even to the eye of the understandIng . In
general, wherever there IS a better there IS also a best Now
smce among the thmgs that are one IS better than another,
thrre IS also a best thmg. and thIS would be the dIvme'1 Here
we stumble upon the root of the ontolOgical argument, though
bound up, as Anstotle's phYSICS reqUIre, wIth the. teleologIcal
one \Vherever there IS a senes of comparable thmgs dIsplay-
Ing gradual differences of value there IS also a most perfect thIng
or maXImum, even when we are concerned not WIth mere
Imaginary senes, but wIth the actual senes from less to more
perfect m reality In nature, whIch to ArlStotle possesses a form
and purpose that work and create from wIthm, allIS gradatIOn,
every lower thIng IS related to something hIgher and rulmg To
hIm thIS teleologIcal order IS a law of nature and can be empIrIc-
ally demonstrated It follows that In the realm of eXIstmg thIngs
(I e among the real Forms of nature) there IS a most perfect
thmg, whIch, naturally, must also be a real Form, and WhICh, as
the hIghest final cause, IS the pnnclple of everythIng else ThIS
IS what IS meant by the last sentence, that the most perfect
bemg would be IdentIcal WIth the dlvme WIthin the Ansto-
telIan VIew of nature as a realm of stnctly graded Forms thIS
argument IS valId, and It aVOIds the later InIstake of supposmg
that the eXIstence of the most perfect beIng IS a predIcate m-
volved In the very Idea of perfectIon, so that It could be obtaIned
from thIS Idea by mere analySIS WIthout the aId of expenence.
The Form of all real Forms must necessanly be Itself real
When ArIstotle equates thIS WIth the dIVine he does not, of
course, thereby prove the truth of the popular notIon of God.
I Plato. Laws X 899 8 Ep.n 991 D
, Frg 16 The argument reappears 10 the great schoolmen as the arsument..",
ex grad,bus
THE MANIFESTO ON PHnOSOPH1" 159
What he does IS to give a new InterpretatIon of thIS notIon,
which like all human things IS subject to change, In the SpIrIt of
the teleologIcal VIew of the world No doubt the dialogue also
cantamed the arguments wIth whIch we are familIar from the
treatises, that from the eternity of motIon, and that from the
of supposmg a lImIt to the senes of causes In order to
aVOid an mfinIte regress It was the first great attempt to render
the problem of God amenable to sCIentIfic treatment, by basmg
dialectically cogent mferences on a conSIstent mterpretatIOn of
nature CIrcumstances Imposed the task on Anstotle, but only
the greatest logIcal archItect of all tIme would have dared to
compress the whole result of his Immense efforts Into these few
simple-soundmg sentences The one thIng that we must not do
IS to separate them from hiS phySICS and examme them by
themselves They are the necessary conclUSIOn of the detaIled
development of an eldologlcal theory of nature, and they enable
us to be sure that Anstotle's phy"lcs was already completed In
pnnnple at the tIme when he wrote the dialogue. from WhICh It
follows that It was conceIved whIle he was stIll In the atmosphere
of the Academy
Anstotle also examIned In thiS work the psychologIcal sourCe,:;
of behef In God, not out of cold SCIentIfic cunoslty, but m order
that others might expenence what he had expenenced He was
thus well aware that even the most gifted logiC can never attaIn
to that IrresIstible force of mner conVIctIon whIch anses out of
the InspIred presentiments of the soul I Nobody In the ancient
world ever spoke mOl e beautifully or more profoundly about the
personal and emotIOnal Side of all relIgiOUS life than Aristotle
dunng the years when relIgion was the central problem In hIe;
mmd In the dialogue On Phrlosophy. when he wa" preparmg to
dISCUSS the dIVInity of the star", he "poke of the feeling of awe In
the presence of that whIch Ie; higher than men He recognized
I Dc Gada II I, 284b 3 also of thr co-operatIOn of 'lClenbfic speCUla-
tIon and the mner sense of God mpl Tbo 6100) which on Immediate
feehng. thus It clearly between the two Presumably It was Plato
v, ho first took the notion of mner dlvmatlOn (I'CllTT!\Jlaila.), which the poets
were already usmg In the sense of the presentiment of external events, and
stamped It With the phIloMlphlcalmeanmg of a dlvmatIon not of the future but
of deep and hidden affimtIes then applIed It for the first time to the
problem of faith and knowledge and madt' knowledge and dlvmatlon two
commensurable and complementary forms of rehglOus consciousness
160 TRAVELS
that mner composure IS the essence of all reltgtous devotion I
Just as we do not venture to enter a temple unhl our feeltngs are
composed, so, he declares, whenever we mquire mto the nature
, of the stars, we ought to enter the temple of the cosmos In a
devotIonal manner No doubt the words were mtended to pre-
pare for the accusatIOn of godlessness whIch he then launched
agamst those who demed that the heavens and the stars were
dIVIne and IndestructIble 2. Towards the end of hIS work On
Prayer he wrote, 'God IS eIther Nus or somethmg beyond Nus'
Why wnte a book on prayer If not to show that we shall not
thmk It unworthy of a phIlosopher to approach Godhead 10
prayer so long as we take It to heart that God IS Nus, or hIgher
than all rea!>on, and that only through Nus can a mortal
approach Hun NeIther Schlelermacher nor Kant dIstmgUIshed
more sharply between faIth and knowledge, between feelIng and
understandmg, than dId the ongmator of speculatIve argument
for God's eXistence 10 hIS claSSIC pronouncement 'Those who
are bemg ImtIated are not reqUIred to grasp anythmg WIth the
understandmg (lla6Eiv). but to have a certam lOner expenence
(naeelv), and so to be put mto a partIcular frame of mmd, pre
summg that they are capable of thIS frame of mmd m the first
place '4 It IS not aCCIdental that he formulates thIS epoch-
makIng dIscovery 10 conneXIOn WIth the The
cults of the old gods lacked the personal relationshIp between
the nghteous man and hIS God, whereas the mystenes gave It
the foremo,>t place by theIr mere exclusIveness, and encouraged
It still further through the varIOUS grades of InItIatIon, and
through the dIfferences m fervour WIth WhICh the mdivIdual
members of the faIthful receIved them It IS thIS spmtual factor,
and not the 'Intellectual sIgnificance' of thelT content, which
accounts for the keen mterest accorded to these cults, from the
end of the fifth centuryonwards, m all quarters where religIOn was
I Frg 14 Cf pp 139-140 above
] Frg 40 The purpose of emphasiZing God's transcendence at the end of a
work on prayer must logically have been to apply It to the question how we
ought to pray Th.. demand that we should pray 10 Nus and ID truth arose In
the Platoll.lc community, and through It the spmt of Attica restored
religIon to the men of the fourth century The fact that the gospel accordlDg
to St John gave It a new content (IV 24) by wntmg Pneuma (spmt) Instead of
Nus (certiWlJy Without knowledge of Anstotle's works) III no way dImlnlShes
the SIgnIficance of this demand for the mstory of the mlDd Frg 15
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 161
alIve How often do Plato and the early Anstotle borrow their
language and symbols to gIve colour and form to theIr own new
relIgIOUS feehng' The mystenes showed that to the philosopher
relIgIOn IS poSSible only as personal awe and devotion, as a speCIal
k10d of expenence enjoyed by natures that are SUItable for It, as
the soul's Sp1I1tual traffic wIth God, and tills lOSIght constitutes
nothing less than a new era of the relIgIOUS SpInt It IS unpossible
to estImate the mfluence of these Ideas on the HellemstIc world,
and on the Sp1I1tual relIgIon that was 10 process of formation
Anstotle denves the subjective conVIction of God's eXIstence
from two sources, from man's expenence of the msprred might
of the soul, whIch, 10 the Instants when It nds Itself of the body,
10 sleep or at the approach of death, takes on Its own' real nature'
and pIerces the future wIth prophetic eye, and from the sIght of
the starry heavens I ThIS denvatlOn IS not to be understood
hIstoncally, It does not refer to the men of pnmltIve times, It IS
a pregnant JuxtaposItion of the two great wonders that all thp
enlIghtenment of the enlIghtened cannot expla1O, the reSIdue
that the system of rationalIStic phYSICS cannot reduce Prophecy
and the Irrational and obscurer elements of the soul's hfe had
always aroused great lOterest m the Academy, and the emo-
tional relIgIOUS feelmg for the cosmos had taken ItS ongm there
What Anstotle here compresses IOta a formula IS sunply the
rehglOus attItude of Plato's CIrcle towards the umverse Even
the formula IS borrowed from Plato, for m the Laws he denves
the belIef m God from the same two sources, the everflowlOg
be109 (atvaOS ova(a) of the lOner hfe of the soul, and the SIght
of the eternal order of the stars 2. No other formula could express
so fitly the tuneless truth of the rehgIOus element m PlatOnIsm,
free from all temporary dogmatic detaLls Agam and agam It
reappears 10 hIstory as the symbol of the ultunate unassaLlable
postulate With which the SpInt confronts the lOexorable forces
of matter and chance We naturally th10k of Kant's words at
the end of the Cntzque of Practzcal Reason . Two thlOgs fill the
spmt With ever fresh and 10creasmg wonder and awe, the more
often and the more perSIstently they are reflected upon, the
starry heavens above me and the moral law WIth10 me' The
transformatIOn of the first source, the everflowmg bemg of the
r Frg 10 Laws XII 966 D
162 TRAVELS
soul (as Plato calls It), mto the moral law, IS charactenstic of the
difference between the Platonic and the KantIan spmt, although
It really goes back to the StOIC"' Kant does not defimtely say so,
but It IS clear from h,s words that this' wonder and awe' are of
a relIgiOUS nature, and were onglnally Introduced preCisely as
sources of the behef m the eXIstence and government of God
Anstotle preserves the ongmal form of the second argument
also Instead of the marvel of the soul as such, he speaks of the
prophetic powers that slumber withm It, awakenmg only when
It has nd Itself of the body ThIS IS the PlatOniC VIew The
recogmtIon of occult phenomena, maccesslble to SCIence, IS also
contrary to Anstotle's later doctnne, he refutes It In detaIl III
hi!> work on dreams I WIll anyone offer to explaIn all thiS as a
mere concessIOn to the dIalogue-style ~ It IS the same attItude
towards dlvmatlon as that III the Eudemus There IS no clearer
sign of the depth to WhICh spmtuahsm had dnven ItS fOOtS m
An5totle than thIS fact, that, even after he had abandoned the
theory of Ideas, he still retamed for some time Plato's conceptIOn
of the soul, and no doubt hIS doctrIne of Immortahtyalso Among
those who have found thiS doctnne m our passage IS PosldonIUS 2
1 Anst De Dwtnat'one pey Somnum, c Y, 462b 20. there are no truth-tellIng
dreams 'ent by God cf 462b 12 In Ttmaeus 71 A-E and Epln 985 C, on the
other hand, the pos'tIon 's the ~ a m e a, that of On Phtlosophy, frg 10
Po,.domus took over the passage on the prophetic power of the soul (frll:
10) m hIS book On Dw>nallo11, and C,cero makes thiS book the bas,s of h,s
account ,n De DWlnatIone I 6J, as he does frequently In th,s work
Sextus Empmcus, Adversus Phy-
SleOS I 20-21 (p ]95 I 6) C,cero, De DWlnaltone I 6J
A ..s/o/Ie sa,d that the nobon of gods
came irom two begmnmgs from
the phenomena of spmtual hfe by
reason of the ecstas'es and prophecies
wh'ch the soul expenences 10 sleep (6]) When therefore sleep has removed
(21) For, he says, when the soul IS by the mind from the soc'ety and contact
,tself ,n ~ e e p then ,t puts on Its of the body, then ,t remembers the
proper nature and fore&ees and fore- past perce,ves the present, and fore-
tells the future The same tlung s e e ~ the future and thus when
occurs also 10 the separatIOn from the death approaches ,t ,s much morc
body at death At any rate he beheves diVine (64) That dymg men have
that the poet Homer ha.d observed foreknowledge IS also proved by the
th,s when he made Patroclus, as he examplewh'ch l'oMdoDlus adduces
.. as bemg kIlled, foretell the kIllmg of An IDstance of th,s 's Homer's
Hector, and He<..tor foretell the death Hector, who when dymg declares the
of Ach,lIes approa.chmg death of AchllIes
Anstotle's expression 'foresees and foretells the future' was adopted by
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY
16
3
The two sources of behef m God were also borrowed from thiS
dIalogue by the Stoics Cleanthes, who puts them side by side
with the hypotheses of Prodlcus and Democntus about the
ongm of relIgIOn, thereby shows that he wrongly took them In
the hIStOrICal sense I
The great Influence of the work on the HellemstIc age appears
agam In a famous passage which recurs at second hand m all
StOIC theolOgIes ThiS passage has been preserved by Cicero,
and certamly belongs to the proof of God's eXistence In the
thrrd book On Phllosophy Z For the sake of the power wIth
which It suggests the overwhelmIng expenence of the dlvlmty
of the cosmos It may be translated here
'If there were men who had always lived benea.th the earth m good and
shinIng habitations, adorned with statues and pictures and supplied with
all the thmgs possessed m abundance by those who are conSIdered happy,
and If, however, they had never gone out above the earth, but had heard
by rumour and report that there IS a certam dIVine presence and power,
dnd then If at some bme the gorges of the earth were opened and they
were able to escape out of those hIdden places and to come forth mto
these regIOns WhICh we mhablt, then, when they suddenly saw the earth
and the seas and the sky, when they had learnt the of the clouds
and the power of the wmds when they had gazed on the sun and recog-
nized hIS greatness and beauty and the efficacy WIth WhICh he causes day
by spreading hIS light through the whole sky, when moreover, mght
haVing darkened the lands, they perceIved the whole sky laId out and
adorned WIth stars, and the vanety of the hghts of the moon, now waxmg
now wanmg, and the nsmgs and settmgs of them all and theIr
ratified and Immutable to all eternIty-when they saw thIS they would
thmk that there are gods and that these are the mIghty works
of gods'
The first thmg that we notIce IS hiS dependence on the cave In
Plato's Republtc The latter IS a magnificent representation of
the fundamental expenence of Plato's phIlosophy, namely the
reductIOn of the VISible world to a realm of mere shadows, and
Pos,doDIus In hIS defimtIOn of d,vmatlon as 'praesenslo et prae<hctlo futun'
He also Increased the number of examples out of hiS o",n
of learnlDg The dream of Eudemus 15 mcluded among them (B) As was to
be expected, special attentIOn IS paId to Plato, the and Hera-
chdes of Pontus (46 and 60--62) Here agam has been greatly m-
f1uenced by the early Anstotle
I In De Natura Deorum II 5, 13 (frg 528 m Arn,m). CIcero reports that
Cleanthes gave four reasons for the' ongm' of the belief In God The first and
fourth come from Anstotle 0.. Plnlosophy, the two other!> from Democntus and
Prod,cus Frg 12
J64 TRAVELS
the VISion of true being by which the phJ.1osopher IS separated
from his brothers and rendered lonely Aristotle's simile also
breathes a new attitude towards the world HIs men, however,
have not lIved m caves. They are modern, cultivated, satIated,
mlSeducated persons, who bury themselves lIke moles In the
sunless and comfortless splendour m whIch they are seekmg
theIr dubious happmess He makes them ascend one day mto
the lIght, there to perceive the drama that he hImself sees, the
Immeasurable marvel of realIty, the dlvme structure and motion
of the cosmos He teaches them to contemplate, not a super-
natural world, but that whIch IS VISIble to all and yet seen of
none He Ie; conscIous of bemg the first Greek to see the real
world With Plato's eyes, and hIS mtentlOnal alteratIon of Plato's
smule IS a Sign of thiS view of hiS hlstoncal mission What he
gIves us Instead of the Ideas IS the contemplation of the wonder-
ful shapes and arrangements of the cosmos, a contemplatIOn
WhICh, mtensIfied untIl It becomes relIgIOn, leads up to the m-
tUItion of the diVine dIrector of It aU
By means of the which IS equally emphatic In
asslgnmg to theology the central posItIon In philosophy, we
know that these lofty speculatIons met With energetic OppOSI-
tIon from the Greeks According to the popular Greek VIew the
knowledge of the dIVIne, the Gnosis of the Onentals, IS a thmg
that must be for ever unattaInable to mortals, and unhappy IS
the man who plagues hiS head WIth the search for the forbidden
frUlt Anstotle hlffiself, at the beginmng of the
deprecates the deeply-rooted Hellemc dislIke of extravagant
(lTeplepyla) and high-flown audacltIec; of thInkmg He often
opposes the anCIent WIsdom accordmg to whIch a mortal should
thmk mortal thmgs, and he earnestly mVltes us to bve In
eternIty I Theology became poSSible to the Greeks only when
the discovery of laws m the heavenly motions had led to the
assumptIon of star-souls, and when assured knowledge of the
1 Ep.., 988 A 'Let none of the Greeks fear that 1t not right for mortal
men ever to busy themselves Wlth matters divine, they must hold entirely the
opposite view' 988 II, the diVIDe power IS free from Jealousy The same Ideas
reappear With verbal echoes In Anstotle's MelaPl' A 2, 982b 28 fI Cf also
Elh N,c X 7, l177
b
3I, we must Dot follow those [e g EplcbaI1Ilus (frg 20 In
Dlels), and Eunpldes (BIII:ch(K 395 and 427 f[ )] who adVlSe US, bemg men, to
thmk of human tlungs, but must, so far as we can, make ourselves IrDmortal '
THE MANIFESTO ON PHILOSOPHY 165
vIsible Gods' had brought wlthm measurable distance the
possibility of an exact and astronomical theology based on ex-
penence To thiS we must add the 10fluence of the East, as the
Epmomls tells us and other eVidence confinns The Socratic
'know thyself', the qu10tessence of Apollme WIsdom, was now
converted mto Its OppOSIte In his Llfe of Socrates Anstoxenus
the PenpatetIc related that an IndIan, meet10g Socrates 10
Athens, asked hIm about his phl1osophy When Socrates
answered that he was attemptIng to understand human hfe, the
Indian repre<;ented to hIm the hopelessness of such an under-
tak1Og, smce man cannot know hunself untl1 he knows God I
ThiS sounds apocryphal, but It IS sImply the legendary fonnula-
tlOn of the View, unIversal 10 the later Academy and summed up
10 the Epm01nJs as a programme for relIgIOUS refonn, that III
future Onental astrallsm and theology would have to be com-
bined WIth the DelphiC relIgIOn of Hellas, If the Greeks were to
make rehglous progress 2 In the opmlOn of the author, who glvcs
us the rulIng tendency 10 the Academy (he could hardly repre-
!>ent merely personal preference!> as the conclUSIOn of Plato's
Laws), the way to thIS comb1OatlOn IS through mystICism Ans-
totle shares WIth him, and With all AcademICS whatever, the
View that cogmtJo deJ IS conceivable only If It IS God HImself
I frg 31 In Mueller The v.s.t of the Ind.an to Athens .s
mentioned In the fragment of Anstotle (frg 32) m D.ogenes Laertlu.
II 45 If th.s were genUine .t would presumably have to be ass.gnt"d to the
fir,t book of the d.alogue On Ph,losophy, but Rose was probably n!(ht In ID-
cludmg It under the remams of the spunous MaC'cus smce Its I..ontents do not
"Lcord w.th Anstotle The nearest parallels to the theology of the supposed
IndIan (.t .s really that of the later Plato) are Anstotle's Prolre/lleus (whose
demand that human action be based on the knowledge of God reappear. In Eth
Eud VIII 3 1249b 13-21) and the Ale.b.ades Major, wh.ch Fnedla.nder has
recently attempted to rehablhtate, and has aSSIgned to Plato's early penod
(Der grosse Alc,b.ades e.n Weg zu Plaia, Bonn, 1921) Th.s dIalogue cul-
mmates In the thes.s, elaborately and somewhat pedant.cally developed. that
the DelphIC max.m 'know thyself' can be realized only through the self-
contemplation of Nus In the mIrror of the knowledge of God (132 E-133 c)
The attainment of th.s thereby becomes the real focus of all the ethKal
pohtlcal, and educabonal problems that Plato s school mhented from Socrates
The Epznomzs also stands for th.s reduction of all eth.cal questions both of
happIness and of vIrtue. to the questIon of the knowledge of God The Alcl-
blades IS obVIOusly an attempt, undertaken by some d,sclple at the same time
as the above-menhoned works, to apply theology to the problems of Plato's
early days. and to anchor them .n a finn dogmatrc prlDc.ple to Wit, the
mystICiSm of Plato's later doctnne of Nus
2 Epln 98] o--g88 A
166 TRAVELS
knowmg HunseH He pIctures tlus achvlty as sometlung tran-
scendental and beyond the merely human standard The self IS
the Nus, which lS saId to come an from without' and to be the
dJvme ill us' , and It JS through Nus that the knowledge of God
enters mto us The author of the goes so far as to
speak of the partIcIpatIon of the one contemplator 10 the one
phronestS, whereas Anstotle never emphasIZes God's umty WIth
human Nus more than HIS transcendence 1 In any event It IS
ImpossIble to understand ArIstotle's anfluence on postenty
unless we reahze that he breathed thiS atmosphere for many
years, and that hlS metaphySICS JS rooted In It, however far Jt
may have developed beyond It on the lOgIcal Side The estab-
hshment of the worshIp of the stars, whIch are confined to no
land or nahon but shane on all the peoples of the earth,z and of
the transcendental God who IS enthroned above them, maugu-
rates the era of rehglOus and philosophIc umversahsm On the
crest of thiS last wave Attlc culture streams out anto the Hellen-
JstJc sea of peoples
I In MetlJph A 2, 983" 5-1 I the knowledge of God IS Identified With God's
knowledge For the unIOn of the human spmt With the dlvme see 986 D
Elma 984 A
CHAPTER VII
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS
I THE PROBLEM
T
HE Importance of the dIalogue On Phtlosophy IS not ex-
hausted by the lIght It throws on the penod between the
Academy and the Lyceum It gIves us for the first tune a fixed
pomt m the development of Anstotle's opmIOns, and a hlstonc-
dlly accurate startmg-place from whIch to analyse hIS meta-
phySical treatise The earlIer works ObvIOusly rest on an entirely
dIfferent basIs, but what IS the relation between the doctnnes of
thiS cldsslcal dialogue, m which he made It publIc that hence-
forth he dIssented from Plato's VIews, and the traditional Ans-
totehan metaphysIcs Naturally, we must not take what we
have learnt from the fragments and read It mto the text of the
treatise-Itself, mdeed, fragmentary, but still mcomparably
fuller Our recovered pIcture of the lost work would, however,
become Important, If analysIS of the Metaphyszcs were of Itself
to lead us along the same lmes
The fundamental conceptions of the Metaphyszcs were un-
doubtedly already deterrmned when Anstotle wrote thp dialogue
Even If we knew nothmg else but that It contamed the doctnne
of the unmoved mover, we should thereby be assured that he
had already estabhshed the conceptions of matter and form, of
potency and act, and hiS own conceptIOn of substan( e More-
over, the three separate mqumes of which the dIalogue was
composed, the hlstoncal, the cntIgl, and the have
theII counterparts m the Metaphyszcs, the first m the first book,
the second m the concludmg books and throughout, the thlId In
Book 1\ A more difficult question IS how far the dialogue con-
tamed any parallel to the so-called central books of the Meta-
physzcs, those which develop the theory of substance and of
potency and act We may say eIther that Anstotle considered
these Investigations too hard and too esotenc for publIcation, or
that It IS sunply an aCCident that no fragment of thIS portion
remams In any event It cannot have occupIed so large a space
as m the Metaphyszcs, where It outweighs everythmg else,
168 TRAVELS
especla11y 1f we OIDlt the Introduction (A-E) Theology, on the
contrary, was developed much more thoroughly than It IS In
Book A, for our accounts tell us much of whIch the Metaphystcs
by Itself would have gIven no mklmg WIth the doctnne of
star-souls we are transported mto a dIstInctly earher stage of
ArIstotle's development, and there IS much to IndIcate that, If
we had more of the dIalogue, ItS dIvergence would probably
appear still greater That would seem to be a proof of the late
ongIn of the MetaphyslcS, whIch would thus have to be aSSIgned
to ArIStotle's last penod, and thIS would agree thoroughly WIth
the VIew that has obtaIned up to now, for ever smce the Roman
empIre It has been a wIdespread OpInIOn that the Metaphystcs
was wntten late and left unfimshed
11us pIcture alters entIrely, however, as soon as we analyse
the Metaphyslcs The ongIn of the book beanng thIS name now
becomes Important for the ongIn of Anstotle's metaphySIcal
speculatton Itself I It IS totally InadnllSSIble to treat the elements
combIned In the corpus metaphystcum as If they were a umty,
and to set up, for purposes of companson, the average result of
these entIrely heterogeneous matenals As I have shown In
another place, Internal leads to the VIew that varIOUS
penods are represented, and thIS IS confirmed by the tradItIon
that the collectIon known as the MetaphyslcS was not put
together untIl after ItS author's death PrevIous InVestIgations,
however, have concerned only the hIstory of the text subsequent
to Anstotle's death, 1 e the hIstOry of hIS lIterary remams The
clanficatlOn of these matters was undoubtf'dly the first step,
but It was dIrectly Important only for the hIStory of ArIstotle's
mfluence, and the labour expended was out of all proportIOn to
the advance made In knowledge of hIS own thought and person-
altty CntIcIsm dId not regam Its meamng and Importance unhl
It sought to understand the actual state of the text as the orgamc
result of the lOner form of ItS author's thought:l. ThIS at once
led away from the questIon of the external hterary umty of the
SUrvIVIng metaphySIcal papers to that of theIr lOner phIlo-
sophIcal umty, and thus to chronology and the analySIS of de-
velopment I took the first steps along thIS road In my Entste-
, See der Metaphysak des Anstoteles, Berlon, 1912
Cf EJlI Mel Ar,sl, pp 150, 161
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS 169
der M but at that tune I was too much
under the mfluence of the old plulologIcal attitude (whose pro-
blem IS, In the as we have It, can we JustIfy the
divIsIOn mto books and the order of the parts? ') to pursue my
own findmgs to theIr logical conclUSIOns The questIOn of
chronology, on one pomt of whIch I had already reached an
assured result at that tune, must now be taken up agam In the
hght of Anstotle's phIlosophIcal development ThiS will neces-
SItate some repetitions m detail, whIch the course of the mqUIry
Itself must Justify
Before begmnmg to dISCUSS the chronology we may once more
bnefly remmd ourselves what, m the present condition of the
MetaphysfcS, IS to be ascnbed to the edItors of Anstotle's
lIterary remams Here It will be best to omIt all arguments and
rely on the results of the preVIOUS mvestlgatIOn
The aIm of the modern philologIst, to make the external order
reflect the order of compOSItion, even at the cost of the general
ImpressIOn, was qUIte foreign to anCIent edItors Anstotle's
lIterary executors were philosophers They would have gIven
much to be able to construct, out of the precIOus papers that
they found, as true a pIcture as pOSSIble of the whole mtellectual
system of 'first philosophy' as Anstotle had mtended It to be,
but theIr deSIre was thwarted by the mcomplete and dIsparate
character of the matenal For one thmg IS certam , the editors
dId not beheve that WIth the order whIch they
establIshed they were gIvmg postenty the complete course of
lectures on metaphySICS They realIZed that they were offenng
an unsatisfactory makeshIft, whIch was all that the condItion of
theIr matenals allowed The postscnpt to the mtroductory
book, the so-called lIttle a, comes after bIg A SImply because
they dId not know where else to put It It IS a remnant of notes
taken at a lecture by Paslcles, a nephew of Anstotle's dISCIple
Eudemus of Rhodes I ABr belong together, ti, on the other
hand, was still known as an mdependent work In Alexandnan
I Ascleplus, In hiS commentary on the Melaphysocs (p 4. I 20, 1D Hayduck).
refers thIs mformatIon which reached him as a trcuhbon handed down In the
Penpatebc school. to A, but tllls IS a confUSion HIS account must come from
Dotes taken at a lecture by AmmoDlus, and obViously he misheard The true
account IS given by the schohast on httle CI In the codex Panslnus (ei Enl Met
AnsI. p 114)
170 TRAVELS
tunes, as a sound blbhographlcal tradltlOn Informs us E IS a
short transItIonal passage leadmg to ZHe These three form a
whole, but theIr connexlOn wIth the preVIous books seems to be
problematIcal I, a dISCUSSIon of bemg and umty, stands entIrely
alone, and from this pomt onwards all Inward and outward con-
neXlOn dIsappears K sunply contams another form of BrE, to
whIch are appended some excerpts from the h y s ~ c s m them-
selves Just as Anstotehan as any other part of thIS collectlOn of
manuscnpts, but out of all relatIOn to their surroundIngs
SImIlarly, a passage from the h y s ~ c s has been Inserted Into Ii
A IS an Isolated lecture, glvmg a general vIew of the whole meta-
phySIcal system, entIrely complete m Itself, and presentIng no
trace of (anneXIOn wIth the rest The concludIng books MN
have no relatIOn to the precedmg, thl'; was remarked even m
antIqmty, and has led to theIr msertIon before KA m many
manuscnpts, whIch, however, does not produce a more plaUSIble
traIn of thought TheIr closest relatIOnshIp IS to the first two
books
NothIng but exact InqUiry can determIne m detaIl at what
tIme and m what conneXiOn thiS matenal arose, and how It IS to
be used m reconstructIng Anstotle's phIlosophy On no account
must we, by assummg that It IS plulosophlcally homogeneous,
cover up the problems whIch ItS content as well as Its form pre-
sents at every step We must reject all attempts to make a
lIterary whole out of the remaInIng matenals by rearrangIng or
remOVIng some of the books, and we must condemn the assump-
tIOn whIch overhastIly postulates theIr phIlosophIcal UnIty at
the expense of thelr IndIVIdual peCUharItles Each of these
papers IS the result of decades of untmng reflectiOn on the same
questIons, each IS a fruItful Instant, a stage m Anstotle's de-
velopment, an approach to the solutIOn, a step towards new
formulatIon It IS true that all the details are supported by that
potentIal umty of the whole system whIch IS actIve In every
partIcular utterance of the phIlosopher, but no one who IS con-
tent With that has the nght to call hunself faml.lIar WIth the
Anstotehan temper III ItS actuality ArIstotle has a dour, austere
form, no WIde-rangIng survey, no gemal, comfortable mtUitIon,
can really understand hun Rarely does he offer us a whole on
whIch the eye can rest WIth pleasme Only In the concrete
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS 171
deta.l1s, only by mtenslve concentration, can h15 essence be
grasped 'For the actuahty of Nus 15 hfe '
II THE INTRODUCTION AND THE EARLIEST DRAFT
OF THE CRITICIsM OF IDEAS
The piety of the editors has preserved the famous cntIc15m of
Plato's doctnne of Ideas m two verSIOns, one m the mnth
chapter of Book A, and the other m chapters 4-5 of M These
two verSIOns, which correspond almost letter for letter, cannot
both have been mtended for the same draft of the Metaphys'/,cs
If the versIOn m M, ",hlch fits perfectly mto the whole argument
of that book, was meant to remam where It IS, thiS can only
have been because ArIstotle mtended either to WrIte a new m-
traductIOn, or at the least to omit the partly dupbcated chapters
dt the end of the mtroductIon as we have It (A 8-IO) Now M
frequently refers to the first two books
l
and thiS shows that
somehow and somewhere It was meant to follow them Hence
Anstotle must have mtended to detete the cntIcal matter at the
end of the first book ThiS proves that he used parts of Book A
as raw matenal for a subsequent reconstruction
ThiS conclusIOn, that the two versIOns differ m date, IS con-
firmed by the few respects 10 which their language disagrees If
we exclude a new argument which the later passage mtroduces
agamst the Ideas,z their only difference bes 10 thp systematic
removal of the first person plural, which the earber versIOn con-
sistently uses to represent the supporters of the theory of Ideas
ThIS characterIstic' we' shows that the first book was wntten at
a time when ArIstotle could still call hlmself a PlatOnIst and a
recent supporter of the theory 3 Hence the mterval between the
two books must have been conSiderable, for m MhiS separation
from the Platomc commumty IS an accompbshed fact More-
'M2, 1077" I ( = B 2, 997
b
12-34) M 9, 1086" 34 ( = B 6. J003" 6) M 9.
1086b 2 ( = A 6, 987b I). M 10, 1086b 15 ( = B 4, 999
b
24 and B 6 1003" 6)
1 M4, I079b 3-11 , cf Enl Mel Ansi, pp 29-30
J The result of our InqUIry Into the doctnnes of the Eudemus and the
Prolrepllcus IS thus placed beyond all dou bt, up to the moment when he first
made such a crItIcism of the Ideas ArIstotle hunself ~ u p p o r t the theory
The passages are collected In Enl Melaph AnSI, p 33 'We' also occurs In the
first book outSide the dupl!cated section. wherever the doetnne of Ideas IS
mentioned Thus A 9, 992
1
II 'we state', 25 'we have given tills up' and' we
say', 27 'we assert', 28 'our account',)1 'we assert'
172 TRAVELS
over, In contrast to the considerate treatment of the first book,
the tone of the later polemic 15 often sharp or posItively con-
temptuous
As the date of the earher verslOn only one smgle fleetmg In-
stant m Aristotle's hie can be suggested Plato hunseU was dead,
this IS the unmIStakable meamng of the lffiperfect tense m whIch
he 15 spoken of, and whIch appears several tunes I In general,
thlS cnhCIsm does not give the unpresslOn of havmg been Ans-
totle's first on the subject m the Academy The means
by whIch Plato's arguments for the eXIstence of r separate' Ideas
are here referred to-mostly abbreViated tennmoiogical de-
scnptIons-presuppose that the hearers were constantly occupIed
WIth them Anstotle even assumes that they are acquamted
With the objections to them We should scarcely be able to
understand hIS account, or to mfer from hiS words exactly what
argument he IS cntIclzmg, If the commentary of Alexander of
AphrodlSlas had not preserved theIr meanmg for us from Ans-
totle's lost work On Ideas 2 He IS USIng mere formulae when he
refers to r the arguments from the SCIences', 'the .. one over
many" argument' . the third man' (a counter-argument that
does not come from hunself at all, but from Polyxenus the
sophIst,J and that Plato hunself had already puzzled over m the
Parmemdes). also to r the more accurate arguments'. some of
whIch assumed Ideas of relatives, and to . the argument that
there IS an object for thought even when the thmg has penshed ' 4
Thus the anginal form of the cnhClsm presupposes a group of
Platomc philosophers, for whom Anstotle once more sums up,
In a rapId survey, all those objectIons to the doctnne of the now
dead master that had occupied the Academy m the course of
the years, m order to mfer the neceSSIty for a complete re-
orgamzatlOn of Platomsm on the baSIS of these CrIhCISms The
bereaved school IS now standmg at a deCISIve turnmg-poInt of
ItS career OutSide of Athens, WhICh he very soon left, Anstotle
was surrounded by such a group of Platomsts, after Plato's
death, only In Assos, and then never agam In Athens he can
I A 9. 99l
a
20 he to obJect 21 'he used to call', 22 'he often pOSIted
Frgs 187-189
, AccordLDg to Phamas l.D the speech In reply to (frg 24 In
Mueller). quoted by Alex Aphr In Ansi Melaph. p 84 I 16, In Hayduck
A 9. 990
b
12 if
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS 173
scarcely have been sufficIently composed m mmd to work out,
before hIs departure, a new lecture embracmg all the cntlcisms
of Plato's doctrine and all hIs own reflections on the problems of
metaphySICS In Assos, on the other hand, he had not merely
the necessary leIsure, but also an audIence of sound phJ.1osophIcal
Judgement, mcludmg Plato's best-known dIsciples, men who
were either objective enough to lIsten to an opponent's reasons,
hke Xenocrates, or themselves full of doubt about Plato's
doctrine, as Erastus, Conscus, and theIr convert HermIas, seem
to have been At any rate Plato hImself, In hIS letter to them,
had thought It necessary to explam that even In hIS old age' he
could not gIve up the theory of Ideas He assumes that the men
of Assos also have theIr controversIes about' thIS noble lore' ,
perhaps they had consulted hIm on some pomt He exhorts
them to have recourse to the Academy 1D every dIfficulty, If
dissenSIOns threaten he will exorCIze them I After hIS death the
men of Assos mVIted the two representatIves of the conservatIve
and the cntlcal tendenCIes respectively to VISIt them, and thIS IS
the group to whom the earhest VeSIOn of the M etaphysu;s was
read It ",as contemporary WIth the dIalogue On Ph1,losophy
We can still detect that the first book IS a boldly sketched Im-
proVIzatIOn The famous opemng chapter IS borrowed 1D all
essentIals from the Protrepttcus, as our exammatIOn of the latter
showed m other words, Aristotle's fundamental attitude to
knowledge had not changed The aetIology WhICh follows It, the
doctnne of the four causes, IS taken, along WIth the other mam
conceptIOns-form, matter, potency, act-from the PhysJcs,
Anstotle expressly refers to that work as the foundatIon of what
he says here It IS new, however, when he develops hIS doctnne
of causes genetIcally out of the hIstory of earher philosophY, as
the completIOn and fresh begmmng of WhICh he represents Plato
The cntIcIsm of the Ideas, Itself also hastily thrown together,
I Plato, LeUer VI, 3
22
D 'In addItIon to the love of Ideas (a noble lore,
I ma.mtaJ.n, even In myoid age) Erastus and Conscus have need also of the lore
of self-defence agamst the base and WIcked, and of a sort of faculty of
preservatIon' (The words Til TQ\FT1) ty", Kalmp yip",u WU go tOl:ether
The usual VIew, that goes With 1Tpoa1lflu makes nonsense of the intervenIng
conceSSIve partICiple Hence We must emend 1Tpoa1.E1U to 1Tpoa1.EI) Thus thiS
statement, when we restore Its angInal meanJDg, becomes highly Significant for
the controversies about the Ideas \utlun the Academy dunng Plato's last years
and for his own pOint of view Above, p 6g
1\1
174 TRAVELS
then paves the way for his own formulation of the problems m
the second book, whIch IS equally conditIoned by the SituatIOn
that we have descnbed, and cannot be fully understood apart
from this hlstoncal background This result completes the
picture of Anstotle's relatIOn to Plato and his school that we
obtamed from the dialogue On It confirms the view
that the publicatIOn of his cntlclsm was the very last step m a
long process, the begmmngs of WhICh are lost m the darkness of
the esotenc communal studies of the Academy It IS no longer
possible to dlstmgUlsh Anstotle's own special ObjectIOns from
those of other cntIcs, for what he gives us m the Metaphystcs IS
obVIOusly a collectIon of all the essentIal arguments, IrrespectIve
of ongIn At the same tIme as he publIcly attacked the offiCIal
AcademIC doctnne, he attempted, by means of an esotenc
lecture on metaphysIcs m Assos, to convert such of hIS fellow-
students as were more favourable to hIS cntIcal attitude to a
certam conVIctIon, namely that the essence of Plato's legacy
could be preserved only by the absolute abandonment of dualism
and of the separateness' of the Ideas What he proposed
seemed to hlIDself to be pure Platomsm, and was meant to be
nothmg else, It was to be the phl1osophlcal consummatIon of
what Plato had atrned at but fal1ed to attam The most re-
markable thmg about thiS estImate of hiS own pOSItIon, which
enabled hIm to preserve hiS reverence m spite of VIOlent altera-
tIons of Plato's doctnne, IS hIS feelmg that he IS responsIble for
the orgamc development of the doctnne, and hiS determmatIon
to acqmt hImself well HIS contemporanes, however, Judged hIm
otherwIse Beneath the conservative covenng they recogmzed
a new and revolutionary attItude towards the world, and hence
they no longer conSIdered hIm a Platomst He hlffiself, however,
was not yet suffiCIently detached from hIS own development to
perceive the truth of thIS opmlOn Only m hiS latest penod did
he become wholly free and mdependent Whether hIS earher or
lus later esttrnate of hlffiself seems truer to US, wdl depend on
whether we look more to the hIStOrIcal presuppOSItions of hIS
phLlosophy. or to hiS mdIvldual way of regardmg reality and
reflectmg upon It We must call to mmd how dIfficult Plato
found It to distmgulsh hIS own IdentIty from that of Socrates,
If we are to understand, from the of hIS dIscipleshiP
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS 175
wIth Plato, Anstotle's modest repudIatIon of all and every claIm
to ongmallty
The next questIon IS how far thIs earhest verSIon of the Meta-
phystcs extends and. what Its members are In the first place,
It Includes, besides the CritIcIsm of the Ideas (where the' we ' very
clearly denotes the tranSItional period), the complete first book,
for, SInce the umty of thIs book IS above SusplclOn, the chrono-
logical mferences that can be made about a part of It must apply
also to the whole It appears that Anstotle's frequent reference
to hunself as a PlatOnist was already a stumbhng-block In the
days of antIqmty Alexander of AphrodISlas and Synan tell us
that some anCIent scholars rejected the book Accordmg to a
remark of Albert the Great the Middle Ages sometime!> ascnbed
It to Theophrastus, and apparently It was lackIng m the Arabic
translatIons 1 Both facts are to be explamed as the result of a
tradition among learned persons m antIqUity, obViously some
late editor actually omitted the book because of the assertlOn
that It was !>punou'> A comment of Alexander's on the second
book shows that thiS assertlOn was suggested preCisely by the
obJechonable . we' of the first, which seemed to mark It off from
dll the others Anstotle says (8 2, 997b 3) 'It has been explamed
m the mtroductlOn that we hold (AEyOI-lEV) the Ideas to be both
causes and self-dependent substances, whIle the theory
dIfficulties m many ways, the most paradOXical thmg of all IS
our statement that there are certam thmgs beSides those In the
matenal umverse, and that these are the same as senSible thmgs
except that they are eternal whde the latter are pen5.hable '
From thiS passage Alexander mfers that It IS wrong to reject the
first book, smce It IS here expressly referred to, and SInce ItS
, ethos' agrees preCisely With that of thiS passage, m both places
Anstotle treats the theory of Ideas as hiS own ThiS argument
presupposes that It was that . ethos' WhICh had rendered the
first book SUSpiCIOUS At that time no one understood how
Anstotle could call the Ideas hiS own doctnne, and even Alex-
ander can only suppose that It IS a deVice to give VIVidness 2
I Albertus Magn I 525b et hanc probatlonem pomt Theophrastus qUI
etlam pnmum ltbrum qUI mClplt "omnes hommes 'lClre deslderant" meta-
physlcae Anstotelts tradItur addldlsse. et Ideo In Arablcis tran,latlombus
pnmus hber non habetur
1 AJex Aphrod In Ar B:z, 997
b
3 (p 196, 1 19. 1I1 Hayduck)
176 TRAVELS
The rejectIOn must therefore be due to the orthodox PenpatetIc
scholars of the empIre, who erased all SIgnS of conneXIOn between
Anstotle and Plato because the theory of Ideas was a heresy In
whIch the master could have had no part To us thIS kmd of
cnticism sunply shows, once more, how httle we can trust the
PenpatetIc tradItion when It comes to the question of Anstotle's
development The fact IS that thIS, our chIef Witness, IS through
and through a bIassed source of mfonnatIon We have already
seen (p 32 above) how the illalogues, whIch protest loudly
agamst thIS dIstortIon of the truth, were reduced to sJ.1ence As
a rnaHer of fact, the passage In the second book, whIch Alexander
brings Into play agamst the rejectIOn of the first, shows how
close IS thE' genetIc relatIOn between the two To thIS quotatIon
from the begmnmg of the second book he mIght have added a
SImIlar one from the end, V\<hlch also has not yet been used In
the InqUlry Into chronology, IncomprehensIble as that may
seem (B 6, IO02
b
12) 'In general one mIght raIse the questIOn
why after all, beSIdes perceptIble thIngs and the mtennedlates,
one should have to look for another class of thmg, 1 e the Forms
whIch we POSIt' These two passages allow us to aSSIgn the
whole second book WIth certainty to the earher verSIOn of the
Metaphys'/,cs It was wntten m the same breath as the first
Later on we shall find that ItS content also leads to thIS conclusIOn
III THE EARLIER AND THE LATER CRITICISM OF THE
ACADEMIC THEORY OF NUMBERS
Books M and N are usually conSIdered a umty, mamly be-
cause of the urnformlty of theIr content, the cntICIsm of the
AcademIC theory of Ideas and numbers In the openmg chapter
(M I) Anstotle explams the purpose of the mqUIry He raIses
the questIon whether, beSIdes the thmgs of the phenomenal
world, there IS another kind of being, unmoved and eternal
He proposes to begIn by examInmg the thmkers who have mam-
'Being about to speak of [the Ideas] he begins by refemng to what he 5a1d IU
the first book to remmd us what the doctrIne was Hence It IS plam for many
reasons that thiS book IS also Anstotehan and belongs to the same treatise
Moreover, the" ethos' WIth wmch he spoke of them there IS the same as that
With which he remmds us of them here In both places he wntes as If he hlm-
~ l f held the theory of Ideas' Cp Synanus. Comm ,,. Metaph ad loc (p 23.
I 9. In Kroll) he, however. ~ probably merely followmg Alexander
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS 177
tamed such a kind of bemg. namely Plato and his school He
lays down a fixed plan of procedure, the mere arrangement and
method of which would mVlte the closest attention Fm.t we are
to consider the constructiOns of mathematics, simply as such, I e
without reference to the metaphysical doctnnes that have been
attached to them, such as the view that they are Ideas, or that
they are the prmclples and essence of all thmgs In the sf'cond
place we must examine the Ideas. here agam we must consider
them not with reference to Plato's later mterpretatiOn of them
as numbers, but m their anginal and genume fonn Thirdly
there must be a cntIcal study of the mathematical phIlosophy of
Speuslppus and Xenocrates
In thiS scheme the first two parts, the diSCUSSIOn of the bemg
(ovalo) of mathematIcal objects and the cntIclsm of the ongmal
theory of Ideas-with both of which we are familIar from Plato's
dialogues-have really no mdependent slgmficance They are
Simply stages m An'itotle's methodical eXpOSitIOn of that which
was their hlstoncal consequence, namely the doctnne'i of Speu-
SlppU'i and Xenocrates The latter are the mam objects of
mterest III the mqUlry, as would be clear merely from the length
of their treatment They obVIOusly con'ihtuted the actual
problem at the time when M was m the wntIng. whereas the
PlatOnIC Ideas are mentiOned only for the of
Anstotle defimtely tells us thiS In the pa'>sage where he IS glvmg
the Idea-theory ItS place m the book Not because It "tIll
has supporters In the Academy I'i he gomg to Include It In
thIS dISCUSSiOn, but merely' for form'<; d'i It were' r Speu-
SippUS abandoned the Ideas entIrely, replacmg them WIth
numbers as a higher kmd of realIty Xenoerates, conservatively
attemptmg to save Plato's later theory, IdentIfied the mathe-
matical . essences' With th(' Ideas which Plato had regarded a<;
number'i, that IS to say, he compromised between Plato J.nd
Speuslppus Anstotle calls thiS the' third mode' of the th('ory.
and naturally It must have been the last to appear
ThiS shows that M was wntten much later than the first
books It IS true that AnstotIe mentIOns speculatIon about
I "0a0ll v6iJOII XaplV, Metaph M [ [0]6' 2] [W DRoss tran'ilates 'only as
far as the accepted mode of treatment demands' Tr J For the expression set'
Bernays, D.e D.aloge des Arlstoteles, p 150
178 TRAVELS
nwnbers a great deal earlIer-m the Protrepttcus. but dunng
the penod unmedlately after Plato's death, m whIch the onginal
Metaphystcs took shape, hIS manner of cntIcIzmg the Idea-
theory had been the very opposIte In the first two books thIS
theory IS still the acknowledged centre of phIlosophIcal mterest
he there regards It as the startmg-pomt for all metaphysIcal and
lOgical speculatiOn whatever In M, on the other hand, we can
already detect clear sIgns of the Academy's reactIOn to hIS
cntIcisms He IS now able to treat the classIcal form of Plato's
metaphySICS as admIttedly superseded To refer to It he merely
appeals to hIS own earlIer, detaIled cntIcIsm-not to the first
book, but to hIS exoterIc wntIngs, whIch. as they are WIdely
known, he need not here repeat I In thIS reference we recognIze
the dIalogue On Phtlosophy, WhICh was not mentIOned m the
cntIcIsm In the first book. and presumably dId not come Into
e>"Istence untIl shortly thereafter SInce then a long tIme had
elapsed, thIrteen years or more In accordance WIth the new
sItuatIon ArIstotle no longer gIves first place to the CrItICIsm of
the Ideas, WhICh, dunng the penod ImmedIately after Plato'"
death. had no doubt stIll found many supporters The altered
SItuatIon IS the real reason why, m the new verSIOn, he entIrely
deletes the CrItICIsm of Plato In the first book, whIch had been
the burnIng questIon of hIS earlIest metaphysIcs WIth the
necessary alteratIons, whIch are agaIn caused wholly by thp new
external and Internal situahon,2 he Incorporates It mto hIS new
work agaInst the mathematIcal phIlosophy of SpeusippuS and
Xenocrates, as the forerunnprs of thIS doctnne the Ideas stIll
possessed some hIstoncal Interest HIS earlIer companIons are
now sharply attacked, theIr theory of numbers IS declared a
hallUCInatIOn
EverythIng POInts to the tIme when the PenpatetIc school
was hostile to the PlatOnIC We may begIn by runmng over the
structure of the book
A. INTRODUCTION, M I. 1076- 8-32
B PART ONE The obJects of mathematics (purely as such).
10
7
6
- 32-
I0
7
8b
9
I They cannot be tn senstble tlnngs, 1076- 33-
b
II.
, 1076- 26-31 [W D Ross's translatIon,s scarcely conSIstent WIth Prolessor
]aeger'slIIterpretatIon Tr) See above, p 171
179
Ideal number and mathematIcal number-Plato
MathematIcal number only-Speuslppm.
Ideal and mathematical number are the same-
Xenocrates (' another thmker ')
2 Refutatwn of these forms, 1080
b
37-I08S
b
34
(a) RefutatIOn of Plato, I080
b
17-1083" 17,
(I) If all umts are aSSOCiable, 1081" 5-17
(11) If they are all massoclable, 1081" q_b 35
(lll) If those In different are dIfferentIated,
but those m the same number undInerenhated,
1081b 35-1082b 1
(IV) There IS no posslblhty whatever of dlfferentIat-
mg umts and hence none of makmg them
Ideas, loB2
b
2-1083" 17
(b) RefutatIOn of the other number-metaphysIcians,
108
3" 2G-I08S
b
34
(1) DIstmctIon of three poSSIble forms, 1083a 27-
b
18
(a) SpeUSlppUS, 1083" 27- b I
(13) Xenocrates (' the thud verSlOn '), 1083
b
1-8
(y) The Pythagoreans, 1083b 8-18
(11) RefutatIOn of these doctnnes, 1083b19-1085 b34
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS
2 nor separate from them, I076b I2-I077b It
3 The manner of their existence pecuhar (they are
sensIble thmgs qua quantitatIve), I077b 12-
10
7
8b
9
C PART Two Ideas (purely as such, without reference to
numbers), I078b <}-1080" 11
1 ofthe oftke theory, I078b 12-3
2
2 DJalectJcal refutatum, 1078b 32- 1079 b II
3 by means ofphysJcal consJderattons, I079L 12-
1080"11
D PART THREE Numbers as separable substances, loBo" 12-
108S
b
34
I Denvatzon ofallposstbleforms ojthe theory, IOSo"I2-
b
36
(a) Three forms are conceivable, lOBo" IB-b S
(I) Numbers are massoclable
(11) They are assocIable
(m) Some are associable and others not
(b) Each form has found supporters (except I), 1080
b
6-
3
6
(1)
(11)
(lll)
ISo TRAVELS
E CONCLUSION, Io8S
b
35-1086" 20
I The dJsagreement between these thJnkers makes their
doctnnes SUSPiCWUS
2 The modern representatwes of the doctrtne have not im-
proved on Plato
3 Their failure is due to the falsity of their first pnnciples
ThiS tram of thought shows a stnctness of construction that
we do not often find m Anstotle HIs lecture-notes are usually
too hable to contmual alteratIon for any polIsh of form to appear,
but thiS book IS arranged on one plan throughout, and has
obVIOusly been carefully elaborated It IS a whole With begm-
mng, middle, and end Its orlgmalIty lIes not so much 10 the
detaIls as In the totalIty Anstotle Wishes to umfy mto one last
great cntIcal survey all hiS reflections on Ideas and numbers,
that IS, on the problem of reality He conceive,>
the plan, typical of hiS lOgical genms, of systematically develop-
109 and refutmg, not merely the doctrines actually reIgmng m
the Academy, but all pOSSible forms of the Academic' fiction'
whatever Into thiS framework he fits those versIOns of the
theory which had found historical representatives, reducmg
them to a fe\\' fundamental presuppositIOns whiCh he shows to
be false The mtroduchon, and more espeCially the conclUSIOn,
are carefully pohshed , towards the end the sober language take'>
on an almost oratorical tmge The end, of course, IS not the end
of the book, but M 9, 1086 20 The succeedmg words are the
begmnmg of a new diSCUSSIOn, thiS had already been notIced m
anCient hmes, and, followmg Schwegler, I have demonstrated It
m detaIll It IS espeCially clear from the sentence,> Just precedmg
the break (M 9, 1086" 15-20) , they are wholly m the manner of
an epilogue Anstotle loves to conclude a lecture With a lme of
poetry, as 10 1\, or m the lecture on Fnendship which was later
1Ocorporated mto the NtComachean EthfCS (Books VIII and IX),
so here he fimshes With a quotatIOn from Eplcharmus, and Just
as he takes leave of hiS audience at the end of the Soplnstical
Refutations, or completes a lecture on the Ideal state by refernng
those hsteners who are still unconvmced to another occaslOn,l
so here he has a partmg word for hiS hearers, who 10cluded
apparently students of the opposite persuaSIOn, not yet shaken
I Eftt MelQPh Anst, PP 41 f[ Pol VII I. 1]2]b]6
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS lSI
10 their faIth 'He who IS already conv1Oced might be further
convmced by a longer discuSSlOn But one still not conv1Oced '-
the tram of thought breaks off
Ongmal as thIS lecture IS m Its method, It IS not so m the
material that It uses Anstotle appears to have worked mto it
every note that he had prevIOusly made about the problem It
IS not probable that nothing but the cntIcIsm of the Ideas m
chapters four and five was borrowed from the earher verSlOn of
the Metaphys'Ics The whole book IS a rapId sketch, everywhere
It bears the marks of different styles It IS sIgmficant that per-
fect smoothness only m the mtroductlOn, the
the detaIled programme, and the transItIons-m a word, m all
the passages WrItten specially for the present formulatIOn and
necessanly late m ongm The style of the CrItIcism of the Ideas,
which comes from the older sketch, IS wholly distinct from that
of the framework, and thiS alone would betray ItS
charactt'r
It IS also qUite mconceIVable that tht> long rows of counter-
arguments, monotonously lInked together WIth' agam' (D z(b)
(11)), whIch I have not tned to systematize m the aoove analysIs,
were ever worked over for the purposes of the present composI-
tion They seem to have been adopted WIthout alteration from
an eaTher work
Clear proof that such was the orlgm of the book 1<; afforded by
the passage attached to It at the end (M 9, 1086" 21, to the end
of M ra) Some of the anCIent commentators wanted to mclude
thIS m the followmg book, thmkmg that It was a preface, as
mdeed It IS I Its connexlOn With Book N would have been
very superfiCial, however. the edItors responsible for our
manuscript tradItIon displayed more mSIght They recogIllzed
that there IS no direct transition They therefore followed
the procedure WhICh they have adopted m other SimIlar cIr-
cumstances, and Inserted thiS preface, which had been handed
down by Itself, as a loosely connected additlOn to M They
thereby expressed their belIef that It IS closely related to the
book to whIch they attached It What the relatIOn IS becomes
clear when we compare thiS preface WIth that at the begmnmg
of M
I Synan 1,. Ar Metaph, p 160, I 6, 1D Kroll
182 TRAVELS
Preface, M I, ro76"8
lVe have stated what is the sub-
stance of senSible things, dealing 111
the treatise on physICS with matter.
and later wIth the substance which
has actual eXIstence Now SInce
our mqull:Y IS whether there IS or IS
not besides the senSible substances
any wl12ch IS Immovable and eternal,
and, If there I!>, what It I!>, we must
first conSIder what IS saId by
others
Two opmlons are held on thiS
'iubjl'Ct, It IS said that the objects
of mathcmabcs-I e numbers and
lint,> and the hke-are substance!>.
and agam that the Ideas are sub-
stance!> And SInCe (I) some recog-
nlze these as two dIfferent classes-
the Ideas and the mathematical
numbers, and (z) !>ome recogmze
both as haVing one nature, whIle
(3) others say that the mathemahcal
substances are the only substances,
we must conSIder first the objects of
mathematics, not quahfymg them
by any other characteristic-not
a'ikmg, for Instance, whether they
are ldt'a" or not Then aftLY
thIS we must separately conSIder the
Ideas them"elves m a general way,
and only as far a'i the accepted
mode of treatment uemallds
Preface, M 9, ro86"21.
Regardmg the first pnnclples
and the fiT'lt causes and elements.
the VteWS expressed by those who dIS-
cuss only senSIble substance have
been partly stated In our worRs on
phySICS, and partly do not belong
to the present mqmry But the
VIews of those who assert that there
are other substances beSIdes the sen-
Hble must be cOllHdered next after
those we have been mentIOmng
then some say that the
Ideas and the numbers are sUl.h
substances, and that the elements
of these are elements and prinCiples
of real thmgs v.e must mquue re-
gardmg these what they !>ay and In
what particular form they say It
Those who pOSIt numbers only,
and these mathematical, must be
conSidered later, hut a'i regards
those who believe In the Ideas one
might sun ey at the same hme
their mode of thmkmg and the
dIfficulty mto WhICh they fall
1 he subject-matter enVIsaged by the preface In M 9 IS
preCisely what already been dlscu<;sed In the prevIOUS part
of the book The reference to numbers as 'pnncIples' and
, element'> . IS a pIece of AcademIC termmology that Anstotle can
be to have used from the Protrephcus on We are not to
suppose that In M 1-9 he has treated numbers as mdependent
substances, and 1<; now gomg on to conSider their character a'>
pnnclples and elements of all bemg I The sequel shows clearly
I AnCient \.ommentators explained the difference between the two dlSl.us-
SIon, aJ> bemg that III M I-y, 10861 20, Anstotle treat,> of the PlatoDlc sub-
stances ("",ala,) as .eparate whJle from M9, 10Sf>I 21, to the end of N,
he treat. (If the"" same essences as pnnClples ..nd elempnt. of reality but the
,,'Conct treo1tment 's JD no and .It no pemt based on the first, and doe. not
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS 183
that In M 9 he means, exactly as he dId In M r, the separate
eXIstence (XWpIO'lJeSs) of the Ideas, of numbers, and of the other
mathematical quantities such as pomts, lInes, planes, and sohds
WIth thIS In mmd, let us read the folloWIng words (M 9.1086"26)
. Smce, then, some say that the Ideas and the numbers are such
substances, and that the elements of these are elements and
pnnclples of real thmgs, we must mqmre regardmg these per-
sons. first, what they say and, secondly, In what partIcular fonn
they say It' That IS exactly the content of Book M Anstotle
could not possIbly have spoken so If Mhad preceded, he could
not possIbly have begun to discuss Ideas and numbers afresh, as
If he had so far saId nothmg about them Moreover, he speaks In
M9 of the' mode' and of the' difficulty' of Plato's doctnne, two
thmgs whIch he wIshes us to keep separate This dlstmctIOn
rests on the same method of crItical mqmry mto the VIews of
other philosophers as that employed m M 1-9 FIrst the
doctnne It<;elf IS stated. then follows a cntIclsm In whIch It.,
dIfficulties are developed The correspondence extends even to
the verbal detaIls For example, each preface starts by appeal-
mg to the PhysJCS for the theory of sensIble substances Each
has the expressIOn, we must begm by . consldenng' the kmds of
supersensible essence that are' asserted' by . other' thmkers
Thus both the content and the language clearly show that we
have here two parallel versIOns of the preface to a crItlcal dis-
CUSSIOn of AcademIc metaphysIcs
Now what IS the relation of these two verSIOns to each other m
tIme At first we are tempted to suppose that M9 IS ,>Imply a
verbal vanant that Anstotle afterwards rejected
The pOSSIbIlIty of a merely styhstlc dIfference IS, however,
excluded by the fact that, In spIte of all theIr correspondences,
the two prefaces dIverge In one decIsIve respect, the arrange-
ment whIch they propose to gIve to the subject-matter of the
work In M 9 we read 'Those philosophers who hypostaslZe
numbers, and these the mathematical number,>, must be con-
recogmze Its eXIStence at all It really handles both questions together, and
CntlclZes Plato's supersen\lble essences both as separate and as
. and prmclples of real thmgs' As we shall ,e( In th.. Lou.-e of our
inquiry It agrees With the of Anstotle's metdphyslLaJ views that the
emphaSIS here lies more on the slgmficance of these essence, as elements of
reabty than on their substantIa.1Jty
184 TRAVELS
sldered later But as regards those who beheve m the Ideas we
can survey at the same tune their mode of thmkmg and the
dIfficulty mto whIch they fall 'I The preface m M I IS far more
careful m the arrangement of the same matter Anstotle there
enumerates not merely Ideas and numbers, but also theIr sub-
dIVIsions, and before both of them he places mathematical
magnItudes as such, thus the mtroductIOn dIsplays the same
gradual and cautIous method as we have seen to permeate the
book as a whole In the preface m M 9, on the other hand, the
Inqurry 1& In a somewhat more mchoate stage, and what IS lack-
Ing IS preCIsely thIs dIstInctIve detail In the dIfferentIatIon of the
problem
We have here, therefore, not a merely verbal vanant, but the
mtroductIOn to an earher cntIclsm of AcademIc number-meta-
phySICS, m WhICh the subJect was treated accordmg to a dIstmctly
less developed method Z As already suggested, there are pre-
sumably other portIOns of thIS older wntmg also embedded as
raw matenal In the new constructIOn, the present Book M, but
we are no longer able to separate them
In order to determme the date of the earher verSIOn we must
make a detour, whIch will mvolve the mterpretahon of an
obscure passage that has not yet been nghtly understood Here
agam the opportumty which the passage offers for exact datmg
has been overlooked as completely as In the decIsive portIOns of
Books A and 8
In M10, Io86
b
14, Anstotle begms hiS refutation of the Idea-
theory wIth a dIfficulty WhICh he had fonnulated m 8 6, 1003 - 6
Let us now mention a pomt which presents a certaw difficulty both to
those who belJeve In the Ideas and to those who do not, and wInch was
stated befOTe, at the begmnlng. among the problems (I) If we do not suppose
substances to be separate, and In the way In which particular things are
saId to be separate, we shall destroy substance, as may be admitted for
the sake of argument, (2) but If we conceive substances to be separable,
how are we to Conceive tbell' elements and theIr prmclples ?
I M 9, 1086- 29
2 In my Enl Metaph Ansi, pp -42 fI, I recognize that the passage from
M9. 1086& 2 I, to the end of the book IS a subsequent addition, WhICh the editors
attached to the complete diSCUSSIon M1--9, 1086& 20 Strangely enough. how-
ever, I fwed to see that MI and M9. 1086- 2I H, undoubtedly form a doublet,
the two parts of whIch must have aI'lSen at Widely separated bmes Tlus diS-
covery alters my whole treatDlent of Books M aDd N. as the followmg pages
will show
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS l8S
, (A) If they are mdIvldual a.nd not umversal, real thmgs will be Just of
the same number as the elements, and the elementswill not be knowable
(B) But if the pnnclples are universal. [either the substances composed
of them are also umversal, or] non-substance will be pnor to substance,
lor the umversal IS not a substance, but the element or pnnclple is
Universal, and the element or pnnclple 15 pnor to the thmgs of WhiCh it is
the pnnClple or element'
ImmedIately before tills passage Anstotle has explamed the
dIfficultIes Involved m the Idea-theory by means of Its orlgm
(r086" 3S-
b
14) The mam dIfficulty arIses from the fact that the
Ideas are regarded both as unIversal (Ka6oAOU), and at the same
time as eXIstmg Independently and hence to a certam extent as
a new lund of partIcular (Tc';)V Kcx6' EKQo-rOV) The cause of thIS
peculIar duality 10 theIr nature was the fact that Plato had
asserted the unreality of phenomenal thmgs, because he had
been led by HeraclItus to the VIew that all perceptIble thmgs, all
sensIble partIculars, are 10 cont1Oual flux and have no permanent
eXIstence On the other hand, the ethIcal 10qUInes of Socrates
had mdIrectly gIven nse to the new and Important dIscovery
that SCIence IS of the unIversal only, though he hImself had not
abstracted conceptIons from real obJects nor dechred them
!>eparate Plato then went further-accordmg to Anstotle's
retrospectIve account-and hypostasized unIversal conceptIOns
as true be10g (ovala)
Then follows the Important passage Anstotle here develops
the questIOn whether the pnnciples are unIversal or In some
sense partIcular ThIS IS dIfficult both for the of the
Ideas and for theIr opponents He tnes to show that eIther
answer seems necessanly to lead to absurdIties If the l'nnnples
dre particular they are unknowable, smce only the unIversal IS
knowable If, on the other hand, they are unIversal,
!>tance would be pnor to substance, and we should have to de-
nve substance, whose pr10ciples they are, from the ulllversal,
WhICh IS ImpOSSIble, smce the unIversal I!> never a substance
These are the logIcal consequences, Anstotle contmues, of de-
nvmg the Ideas from elements, and of assummg alongSIde thmgs
of one kmd a transcendental UnIty hke the Ideas TIllS summary
Would by Itself suffice to show that what he ha!> m mmd IS really
the theory of Ideas, and not speCIally ItS opponents, m spIte of
lus mtroductory words, o!1ly, he needs them both m order to
186 TRAVELS
fonnulate lus questIon as a duemma He regards the dIlemma,
whether the elements and pnnclples are partIcular or uruversal,
as a part of a more general one, namely the followmg If we do
not assume that substances ovalell;) eXIst separately as
we say that particulars do, we destroy substance (,.,;v ovalav) ,
If, on the other hand, we assume that they do eXISt separately
and mdependently, we have the above-descnbed dIfficulty
whether their pnnclples are particular or unIversal
The first part of the more general duemma seems to contaIn a
tautology, but It only seems to The plural' substances' and the
smgular 'substance' eVIdently IndIcate some dIfference of mean-
Ing The' substances' to WhICh Anstotle IS here refernng cannot
be those' recognized by every one', namely senSIble thIngs, for
then It would have been meamngless to add' and In the way In
which partIcular thmgs are said to be separate' On the con-
trary, the partIcular mode of eXIstence that senSIble thmgs ex-
hibit serves here SImply as an analogy to illummate the manner
of the mdependent eXistence of the' substances' Now thiS IS
precisely Anstotle's usual way of descnbmg Plato's Ideas m
therr character as real essences, hence It cannot be doubted-
thIS IS also the view of Bomt?-that behmd these 'substances'
he the Ideas, or some supersenslble reahty correspondmg thereto
If we refuse to follow Plato and hIS school 10 assummg per-
manent reahtles, we destroy all ' substance' (Anstotle allows thiS
for once) , If, on the other hand, we assume any mdependent and
separate bemg, we are faced With the above-mentIOned dIfficult
consequences about the denvatlon of ItS pnnclples
So far we have not conSIdered the words' as may be admItted
for the sake of argument' ThiS IS Bomtz' translatIon of
Jk>vMllE6a MyEIV, and others have followed hlffi, as they
usually do In dIfficult crrcumstances I He bases thIS rendenng
on the correct VIew that 10 the first alternatIve Anstotle IS
grantmg somethmg that he does not really beheve Anstotle's
duemmas always take thIS fonn, and we need have no uneasIness
about the thought Nevertheless, hIS translatIOn IS lffipOSSIbie
The Idea 'as we w111 admIt for once J cannot be expressed In
Greek by Ws AtyEIV Pseudo-Alexander IS another
I Anstolelts' Metapllynk I/btrsetzt V01I HermaKK BOKa/Z (edited from hi.
remams by Eduard Wellmann, Berlm, 1890), p 298
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS
18
7
person who obvlOusly dId not understand these three words
HIS foolish and hasty paraphrase cmEp ou (' which
",e do not admit ') IS SImply a Sign of complete helplessness It
gives almost the Opposite of the real sense, and the suggestion
that it IS actually the better readmg was properly rejected by
Bomtz
The commentators have failed to observe that c:,S'
is a frequent idlOm In A9, 990b 17, we read And 10 general the
arguments for the Forms destroy the thmgs whose eXistence we
[Platomsts] thmk more important (lJ.(iMov than
that of the Ideas themselves', namely the pnnclples of the Ideas
The manuscnpt Ab reads and mserts ot AEyOVTES'
EtAT] (' those who beheve m the Ideas thmk' mstead of . we
thmk '), the latter bemg adopted by the Byzantme mixed verSiOn
E ThiS change was suggested by the parallel passage m M 4,
1079" 14, where it is guaranteed by the tram of thought In our
passage, however, the context supports preCIsely the first person
plural The malO reason for Bomtz's mlSlnterpretation of
l3ovAEa6al was the additIOn m thls- passage of the mfimtive
AEyEIV, which seems to be otIOse on thiS rendenng If it had
been Simply Ws 130vA6lJ.eea or Ws AEyOIJ.EV he would scarcely
have misunderstood Yet thiS very combmatlOn, l3ovAEa6cXl
AtyEIV, is not unusual as an expressIOn for that a
. understands' by concepttons Thus m Plato's Laws.
x 892 C, we have, by 'f nature" the phySiCists understand
commg-to-be m reference to the elementary pnnClples', where
. understand' is AEyEIV
Strangely enough, thiS usage has been frequently mistaken m
Anstotle In Metaph N 2, 1089" 19, he speaks of the meanmg of
non-bemg m Plato's 'He by (l3oVAETQI AEyEIV)
the non-bemg the false and the character of falsity' Bomtz
WrItes AtyEI m accordance Wlth mterprctil
tlOn, and Chnst follows hIm I\EyEIV should be restored, as
bemg the only accredIted readmg, AEyEI IS a bad conjecture of
Pseudo-Alexander's, who erroneously takes It WIth Kal TaVTJ,V
T'J)v cpvalv Exactly the same mterpretatlOn apphes to N 4,
:1091. 30 . A difficulty, and a reproach to anyone who finds it no
difficulty, are contamed m the question how the elements and
the pnnclples are related to the good and the beautiful, the
188 TRAVELS
dIfficulty IS this, whether any of the elements IS such a thmg as
we mean by Atyelv) the good Itself and the best,
or thIS is not so, but these are later m ongm than the elements'
Here again ehnst suspected MyElV of bemg a spunous adffitlOn,
because he dId not understand the IdIOm
Let us now apply thIS knowledge to the passage With whIch
we started, I086
b
18-19 The true translation must be 'If we
do not suppose substances to be separate, and In the way in
which particular thmgs are said to be separate [as Aristotle hIm-
self does], we shall destroy substance in the sense tn whtch we
Platomsts understand tt' Only when we see thIS are we In a
pOSItion fully to comprehend the smgular 'substance' (""v
ovalav), which IS slgmficant for Plato's termmology In the
hrs1. hom of the dilenuna Anstotle shows the dIfficulties mto
WhICh he, as a Platontst, falls owmg to hiS rejectIOn of the Ideas
and therr . separateness', the second gIves the difficulties m-
"olved m the theory of separateness' So long as we do not
realIZe that m the first hom the opponents of ' separateness' are
Judged accordmg to Plato's nohon of substance, we do not m
the least understand the pomt of the dilemma It now becomes
clear that the opponents of the Ideas here are not the spokes-
men of matenalIsm or of common sense-how could Anstotle
ever refute them With a conception of substance whIch they
must mevltably reJect as beggmg the questIOn from the start?
The dilemma IS lOgically vahd only for those who stand on
Platomc ground The truth IS that Anstotle here dlStmgmshes
two sorts of Platomst, who mamtam the Ideas and those
who do not Both are mvolved m contradictIons, because both
presuppose Plato's conception of substance The conclUSIOn IS
obviOUS the contradIctIOns can be resolved only by a new nohon
of substance ArlStotle IS thmkmg of the Idea that the real IS the
umversal the particular He cannot, however, express It here
(the problematic form of the passage entrrely forbids It) , he can
only hmt that merely to abandon the Ideas IS not enough, thiS
mroad on Plato's first pnnclples carnes With It the oblIgahon to
reconstruct completely the whole view of bemg on whIch the
doctnne of . separateness' rests
ThiS answers the queshon of the date of the preface M 9-10
Like the first two books, It IS a part of the ongmal
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS
18
9
and wntten at the same tune. namely dunng the cntical penod
10 Assos, when Anstotle was attackmg the theory of Ideas as a
Platomst among Platomsts Hence It IS not surpnsIng that there
are stIll closer relations between these two books and thIs newly-
recovered fragment The central books of the
ZHao strangely enough. contaIn absolutely no quotations from
the first two, not even from the problems 10 the second Al-
together dIfferent IS thIS new portIon of the matter that ongm-
ally followed A and B In spIte of ItS shortness, M9-10 contams
more references to A and B than all of Z-/\ put together I The
next questIon IS, do we possess only the preface of thIS part of
the ongInal or are there some traces of the body of
It? ThIS leads us to the exammation of Book N May there not
be a true Idea at the bottom of the VIew of those anCIent cntIcs
who separated M g-10 from M 1-9, and regarded It as an mtro-
duction to the followmg book? We showed above that a
perfectly smooth transItwn IS not to be found, hence the
question cannot be answered mechamcally by means of the
conventIonal deVIce of redlvld10g the books Nevertheless,
these dIssenters from the tradItIonal dIVISiOn may have based
theIr expenment on a kernel of correct observatiOn, even If
theIr means of expla1010g It were VIOlent and wrong And thIS
IS actually so Just as M g-ro contams the old preface that
was replaced by M I, so m Book N a lucky chance has thrown
mto the hands of the edItors of Anstotle's remams the very
portIOn of the ongmal Metaphys'tcs whIch he meant to replace,
m hIS last verSIOn, WIth the much Improved and perfected
dIscussIOn of M 1-9.
Here agam we may take as an external cntenon the SignpO<;t
that has guIded us correctly before As m A and S, we find m N
an allUSIOn to the fact that Anstotle, when he was outhmng
these lectures, felt hunself still a member of the Academy Th('
passage m question, WhICh has not yet been noticed m thIS con-
nexIOn, comes 10 the cntIClsm of SpeUSIppUS (N 4, IOgI" 30-33)
. A dIfficulty, and a reproach to anyone who finds It no dIfficulty,
are contamed m the questIon how the elements and the prm-
ciples are related to the good and the beautiful, the dIfficulty IS
I 1086" 34 cites B6, 1003" 6. 1086
b
2 refers to A 6, 987b I, I086
b
15 to B 4.
999
b
24. aDd to B 6. 1003" 6
190 TRAVELS
tius, whether any of the elements IS such a thJng as we mean by
the good dsel! and the best, or this IS not so, but these are later m
ongm than the elements' The IdlOmhas already been explamed
It only remams. therefore. to draw from this passage the same
conclUSlOn about the date of Book Nas we did about M9 and 10
Not only IS the expression that of a Platomst, but the whole
athtude also corresponds exactly to the hckhsh situahon m
Assos We Platomsts, says Anstotle, put at the head of phIlo-
sophy and at the begInmng of the world the Good m Itself (CXliTo
TO 6:ya96\1) or the Highest Good (TO apUTTO\l) SpeUSlppUS, on
the other hand, supposes an evoluhon of the Good and Perfect.
WhiCh forces its way mto realIty only at the end of a gradual
process of becommg (VlTTEpoyEves) I In thIS fundamental
problem of Weltanschauung Aristotle feels hunself the more
genume Platomst, because he puts at the begmnmg, not mdeed
Plato's Good m Itself. but the ens per!ectfSSJmum. makmg It the
prmciple and startmg-pomt of all movement He thereby pre-
serves the essential nerve of Plato's thought, whereas SpeUSIppUS
entirely reverses It 1 Surely we detect a note of !>elf-JustIficatIon
In these words
If thIS book was really wntten In Assos, hke A, B, and M<)-10.
we should not expect It to attack Xenocrates, who had accom-
pamed Anstotle thIther, m the same unspanng manner as
happened later m M1--9. after the final breach 'Mth the Academy
It IS true that there too Anstotle's mam adversary IS Speuslppu!>,
but It IS Xenocrates who receIves the roughest treatment. WIth
the mmimum of flattery, hIS hybnd compromI<;e IS saId to be the
worst of the three verSIOns That was wntten m the Lyceum,
when Xenocrates had asswned the headshIp of the Academy, and
hIS opmIOnswere begmnmg toexert a WIder mfluence Onthe other
hand, the earher verSlOn of the preface mentlOns. beSIdes the
theory of Ideas. only that of SpeUSIppUS, and, correspondmgly.
the diSCUSSIon in Book N refers to the view of Xenocrates only
I SpeuSlppu9. frgs 34a ff and 3Se (Lang)
The dialogue Oft PhIlosophy also represenh the permanent essence of
PlatOnism as CODSIStJDg 10 the VIew that the Good (ltycr86u, lip,,""") IS the
govemmg pnnclple of the world (see above. p 134) ThiS central doctnne there
earns Plato a place beSides Zarathustra It formed the POlDt of departure for
Anstotle's new' theology', which attempted to preserve the Good as a sub-
stance by anchonng Its transcendental rea.1Jty 10 the teleologIcal structure of
nature
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS 191
once, and then bnefly and consIderately J ThIS very natural
deference to the VIew of hIS fellow-worker In Assos IS a welcome
confirmatIOn of our datmg
InspectIOn shows that Book N as a whole really IS the diS-
CUSSIOn announced In the earher preface In M 9, 1086" 29, we
read 'Those who POSIt numbers only, and these mathematIcal
[I c SpeuslppuS], must be consIdered later', first we shall ex-
amIne the theory of Ideas The latter 15 undertaken Immediately,
and 15 completed by the end of M10 It must be what IS referred
to In the first words of the next book (' regardIng thiS kInd of
substance, what we have said must be taken as suffiCIent '),
which then goes on to speak only of the mathematIcal
and their denvatIOn We have to admit, however, that the diS-
CUSSIOn of the Ideas III M 9-10 IS somewhat bnef, even conslder-
mg that III the earhest verSlOn of the Metaphyszcs the real
cntIClsm of the theory had already been given 1ll the first book
We seem also to need a connectmg passage, the above-quoted
openmg words of the last book give the ImpreSSlOn of bemg a
merely external transItIon, Illserted by an editor for want of
anythmg better Hence It IS probable that III thiS aIriest verSlOn
of the cntIcism as well as m the later ones Anstotle took account
not merely of the Ideas and of Speuslppus' mathematical sub-
stances, but also of the Illtermedlate stage, namely Plato's later
doetnne of Ideal numbers ThiS might very well have stood III
the gap, and would then, presumably, have been mcorpor.lted
Illto Book M when the Metaphyszcs was reconstructed However
that rnay be, It IS ImpOSSIble to doubt that N wIth the
older preface, smce It contams the detaIled refutatIOn of Speu-
SIPPUS which was there announced As m the preface the
emphaSIS hes on the SIgnIficance of the Ideas and numbers as
elements and prznczples (O'TOlxeia Kai 6:pXal) of realIty, so the
same pOInt of VIew determmes the eXpOSitIOn throughout
Book N 2
I N 3, logob 28. whereas M8, 1083b 2, reads' It IS eVident from thIS that the
thIrd [that of Xenocrates] the wont'
See above, pp 182-183 ThIs elements and
of realIty Anstotle understood the doctnne of the Great and Small, or IndeJimte
Dyad, and the One, from which Plato denved the Ideas ThIS later form of
Plato's speculation was upheld also by and other AcademICS m
many versIOns. the ntcetles of which we need not here consIder It makes It
certam that to Anstotle In lus early days metaphySICS was a scIence of the
J92 TRAVELS
ThIs IS connected histoTlcally WIth the unportance whIch the
questIon about the elements and pnnclples of the Ideal numbers
had for Plato's later thought It also agrees WIth the nature of
the two openmg books, where first phIlosophy IS always defined
as the theory of the hIghest pnnclples and causes of bemg It
may be stated here, although the meVItability of the asserhon
will not be clear untIl we have analysed the later passages, that
the viewof metaphysIcs as a study of first pnnclples, an aehology
of the real-a view whIch IS connected WIth Plato's latest phase
-IS a SIgn of the earlIest verSIOn of the Metaphyszcs, whereas
the later fonnulatIon always devotes more attention to the
problem of substance as such Even m the doctnne of
supersensible reality (M 1-9) we can clearly detect the aspect
of prmcIple'> Yleldmg place m the later verSIOn to that of
substance Itself
It 15 obvIOUS that In the ongmal Metaphysus the attack was
directed mamly agaInst SpeUSlppUS At that time he was the
leader of the Atheman school, and Anstotle threw hIS whole
weight agaInst the false dIrection m WhICh he was seekmg salva-
tion SpeuslppuS was fully convmced of the necessity of recon-
structmg Plato's phIlosophy, but he took hIS start, accordmg to
Anstotle, from the one pomt m whIch the Idea-theory was not
capable of fruItful development He abandoned the notIOn of
fonn and the relatIOn to the senSible world, he retained the un-
tenable' separatIOn' of the universal, merely replacmg Plato's
Ideal numbers With the objects of mathematics themselves as
the fundamental realIty Anstotle makes the same cntlclsm of
. modern thmkers' (I e SpeUSlppUS) m the first book, when he
say'> that they have substItuted mathematIcs for phJ.1osophy,1
and whereas m the later cntIclsm of Mthe tone IS cool and COD-
elements and pnnclples of realIty SlDce he later vIewed It as anythlDg but thIS,
at least In so far as It IS an a.ccount of substance, he can have retamed the
tradItional defimtlOn of It only SO long as It was for hIm exclUSIvely theology
The latter study, though not Indeed a doctrine of elements, IS one of princIples.
In fact the descnptlOn 'about elements' fits nothmg whatever but a mathe-
matical metaphYSICS such as, accordmg to Anstotle, Pla.to put forward In hIS
final lecture on the Good (Anstoxenus, 1 Har". II Inlt} Thus, whereas
Book N, III thoroughly PlatoDlc fashIon, examlDe5 both the reality of the super-
senSible lind also Its elements and pnnclples, later on, III Book M, Anstotle con-
fined hImself to an lIlqLUry lIlto the reality of the superseDSlble 31lbstances
mamta1lled by Plato and hIS schooi
A 9,992"32
THE ORIGINAL METAPHYSICS 193
descendmg, m the oldest versIOn It IS frequently emotional or, as
10 thf' dialogue On Phdosophy, bItmgly c;harp, as when he ex-
cld.IDlS about Plato's doctnne of the Great and Small 'the
elements-the great and the small-seem to cry out agamst the
vIOlence that IS done to them, for they cannot m any way
generate numbers'.1
I N 3. logl
1
9
CHAPTER VIII
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS
T
HE preval1mg view that the Metaphys'lcs IS a late work has
been rendered untenable by our dIscovery that It contams
large portions of an earlIer versIOn belongmg to the first half of
the fortles The doctrIne that we must now hold-and It IS really
obvIOUS m Itself-Is that even dunng the years Immediately
before and after Plato's death metaphysIcs was the true centre
of Anstotle's cnttcal actIvIty On the other hand-and thiS IS a
no less Important result-he returned to the matter agam during
hiS last penod and undertook a reorgamzatlOn that mtroduced
fresh Ideas mto the old matenal, exclsmg parts of It and reshapmg
others to fit theIr new surroundmgs The traces of thIS last
alteration enable us to guess the direction III which he wIshed to
develop hIS phIlosophy The mdlvIdual peculIantles of the
earlier and later portions cannot be clearly grasped, naturally,
except through the knowledge of theIr I alternatmg harmony'
wlthm the final structure that mcludes them both
Our analysIs must start from that punfied torso of the Meta-
PhYSlCS whIch we have obtamed by exammmg the hIstory of ItS
ongm, and the mner relationships of which, as Anstotle meant
them to be, we have rendered more vlSlble through removmg the
loose pages appended by the editors ThIS IS the compact body
of books down to I, excludmg a and !:J., Bomtz hImself dIS-
entangled It correctly 10 the mam I He ~ o estabhshed the fact
that the senes IS unfimshed-m partIcular, the theology as we
have It (1\) IS not the mtended conclUSIOn-and thIS statement
needs to be emphatically asserted m VIew of recent attempts to
throw doubt on the convincmg arguments m Its favour Only m
the account of the last two books does Bomtz reqUire supple-
mentmg, he obVIOusly took less mterest m them, because hiS
attention was dIrected mamly to the doctnne of substance We
have shown that Book M was meant to replace N in the later
verSIOn, It therefore belongs to the torso establ1shed by Bomtz
I See the introductIon to hIS Kommema, zu, Melapltysoll d A" vol u He,
In tum, was follOWing BrandlS (cf E'" MdlAplt Arts', PP 3 ff )
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 19.5
The metaphysIcs that Aristotle here offers us 10 sweepmg strokes
IS the famous doctnne of substance 10 general, the phllosophy of
substantial fonns, which served so many later centUries as the
framework of theIr Vlews of nature and bemg To discover how
this mcomplete but mighty structure grew up we must start
from ItS centre, that IS from the doctnne of substance
In Book B, which develops the problems of . the SCience that
we are seek1Og', Anstotle IS aware of the problem of sub!>tance
only m the speclahzed fonn of the question whether the super-
senSible world IS real After four mtroductory problems con-
cern10g the nature of the new science he places thiS question,
hke a . far-beammg countenance', at the head of the eleven
problems that carry us mto the real arena of the dlsclphne Thus
he emphaSIzes ItS fundamental lffiportance by the posItion he
assigns to It rEver smce Plato created the Ideas It had been
absolutely the problem of phIlosophy In fommlatlOg the task of
metaphYSICS as he does, therefore, Anstotle starts directly from
Plato's fundamental questIOn He expresses It, 10 fact, preCisely
as a PlatOnIst would the transcendental realItIes that we belIeve
to eXist 10 separation from senSible phenomena, such as the Ideas
and the objects of mathemabcs-do they truly eXist And If
not, can we POSIt, over and above senSible th1Ogs, any other kmd
of supersenslble reahty About the senSible world (ala6T)"ri)
ovala) he says nothlOg whatever The very first sentence goes
straight to the central question, that of transcendence, the
succeedmg problems nse out of thIS root hke trunk, boughs, and
branches A mere glance Will show that they too ongmated
Without exceptIOn on Platomc territory What are the first
prmclples Are they the genera, as Plato rnamtams, or, as
natural sCience teaches, the elements of VISible thmgs If the
former, are they the hIghest or the lowest genera What IS the
relatIOn between the umversal, which Plato regards as sub-
stance (ovala), and Bemg or RealIty Is the' truly real' the
rnost abstract of abstractIons, or do we approach the real more
nearly the more we descend from the heights of abstraction to
I The four mtroductory problems are treated In Melaph 82,996" 18--997- 33
The problem of the Bupersenalble follows m 997- 34 For the dlSunctIon
between essenbaI problems. and those whIch merely mtroduce and define the
SCience of metaphYSICS. see EMI MdIJpll Arlsl. p 100
196 TRAVELS
concreteness, to pa.rtIculanty, to the mdlvldual? Is each of the
first pnnclples one m number, as an IndIVIdual, or m kmd, as a
genus? Are the pnnclples of penshable and of ImperIshable
thmgs the same? Can we make bemg and umty the pnnclple
and ongm of all thmgs, as Plato does, or are they mere abstrac-
tIOns vOId of all real content? Are Plato and h15 dISCIples nght
m makmg substances (ovalol) out of numbers, hnes, pomts,
planes, and sohds? Smce the abstract IS not real or essential,
but only somethmg common to many thmgs, what has led men
to assume the eXIStence of Ideas Are we to thInk of the first
pnnclples as mere matter and potency, after the fashIon of
natural SCIence, or as somethmg that from the very begmn10g
works and IS active? (ThIS was the questIOn m dIspute between
Plato and SpeUSlppUS, m which, as we have already mentIOned,
Anstotle SIded WIth Plato) In fine, what Book B develops IS
SImply and solely the problems of the PlatOnIC doctnne, and In
the earhest penod of hiS MetaphysJcs Anstotle appears as the
Improver of that doctnne The questIOns here raISed he Without
exceptIon 10 the sphere of the supersenslble In their totahty
they make up a type of phl1osophy that not merely denves
wholly from Plato, but IS PlatOnIC 10 Its very nature, m spite of
the fact that It presupposes and IS actuated by a sceptical
attitude towards the Ideas All the problems of' the sCience that
we are seekmg' anse out of the cnsls m Plato's doctnne, and
consist m efforts to rehabultate the assertIOn of supersenslble
realIty
We naturally look for dISCUSSIOn of these problems In the mam
body of the work, whIch IS contamed, accordIng to the prevau-
109 View, m Books ZHS The four mtroductory problems, whIch
determme the conceptIon, subJect-matter, and extent, of meta-
phySICS, are dealt WIth 10 the books lIDmedlately succeed10g the
hst (r and E) We should expect Anstotle to follow It further,
whIch would bnng hun to the questIon of supersenslble reahty
m Book Z We should also expect to find, conformably to rand
E, some exphCit reference to the fact that we were nowapproach-
mg the central problem of metaphySICS Instead, however, of
the question about the eXIStence of the supersenslble, Book Z
unexpectedly confronts us With the theory of substance m
general From thIS pamt onwards, throughout the next three
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 197
books, the lIst no longer has any significance at all Not only
does It cease to dIctate the order of the eXposItIOn, but there IS
not even a smgle mentIOn of It This SImultaneous disappear-
ance both of the references to It and of the actuai discussIOn of
It IS clear proof that either Anstotle abandoned m mid composI-
tIon the ongmal plan as he had contemplated It m Book B-
whIch, In a work that was one both m outhne and m perfor-
mance, would be strange to the pomt of mconcelvablhty-or
the books on substance (ZH8) are not the executIon of the
ongmal plan at all, but somethmg new and later which either
replaced It or was mserted mto It
That Book B really does belong to a distinctly carher version
than the books on substance can very eaSily be shown As we
demonstrated above (p 176), It was wntten at the same tIme as
Book A. dunng the years Immediately after Plato's death Now
the ' we', With which Anstotle here deSignates hlffiself a
Platomst. IS no longer to be found when we come to hiS CnhCISITI
of Plato's doctnne m Book Z I On the other Side, we recovered
a large part of the oldest Metaphys1cS In M 9-10 and Book N,
and the assertion, that ongmally Z did not belong to the
Metaphys'tcs as outhned m B, IS convmcIngly demonstrated by
the facts (I) that thIS part of the oldest verSIOn, whIch IS also
charactenzed by the use of 'we' In Its polemIC, concerns Itself,
a'i was to be expected, exclUSIvely With the problems stated In
B, that IS, WIth the question about the reality ()f the super-
sensIble. and (2) that as soon as we re-enter thIs field-the fidd
I Namely Book Z, chapters 13 tf In thIs book Anstotle examines the ques-
tIOn of the nature of substance on the broadest pOSSIble baSIS, startlOg from the
dIstInctIOn of four dIfferent meamngs of the word, as matter, as Form a'
uOlversaI. and as essence HIS object IS to show that 10 the true conceptIOn of
substance the three last meanmgs are uOlted In conneXlOn WIth the question
how far matter contnbutes to the reality of the Form and the essence, he
develops hIS double conceptIon of substance The same question leads on to tl>"
of an Immatenal and Form The mquuy whether the
universal also possesses realIty leads to an examlOatlOn of the theory of Ide"s
(Z 13 ff) wluch reproduces the essentIal notlllns of the refutation III the fir.t
book, though 10 another dress and from another POlllt of view The two
refutatIons can hardly have appeared m one and the same course of Iet-tures
Theu relation to each other becomes mtelhglble If we suppo.e that Book Z was
not onglDaIly mtended for msertlon wlthm the larger dISCU'SIOD In whIch we
now find It, but was an Isolated treatment of the question of ThIS
whole work On Substance must be later than the oldest parts of the Metaphyncs,
SIDce there IS no 'we' In the cntIclsm of the Ideas 10 Z 13 tI
198 TRAVELS
of metaphySICS In the narrower sense-the references back to
Book B begm agam r
ThIs result, that the books on substance had no place In the
ongmal plan, seems to undennme the fundamental notIon of
AnstotelIan metaphysIcs I must, therefore, take account of the
objectIon that It IS the essence of thIS type of speculatIon not to
grasp the supersensible dIrectly but to reveal It IndIrectly-to
make It not the startmg-pomt but the conclUSIOn Must not the
theory of the bemg of the hIghest pnnclple, whIch cannot be
grasped by any expenence, base Itself on a theory of substance
bUIlt Up step by step WIth the help of the realItIes that can be
expenenced, and nsmg steadIly from the known to the unknown
And do not the mqulTles about substance and actuabty (ZHe)
expressly lead us to the threshold of the doctrme of supersenslble
bemg It IS certaInly true that thIS part of the M IS
preparatory, and It IS obVIOUS that In hIS last versIOn Anstotle
mtentIonally gave It ItS present place The theory of substance
10 general was now to form the doorway to that of the lffimatenal
substance of the pnme mover We shall InqUIre later how the
speCIfic character of hIS metaphySICS was Insured pnor to thIS
defimtIve arrangement, but here It IS essentIal to establIsh the
fact that the present verSIOn was preceded by one In whIch thIS
gradual development of the conceptIOn of bemg was not to be
found The sketch of the problems of metaphySICS 10 Bdoes not
enVIsage the excursus mto the general theory of substance and
actuahty In ZHa, and these books themselves reveal at every
step that they cannot have been ongInally wntten for the syste-
matIc purpose to whIch they are devoted In the final scheme
as we have It
In VIew of the unportance of thIS POInt I will here establIsh It
m still greater detaIl It IS true that Book Zbegins by emphasIZ-
mg that the best method will be to start from the substances
that are perceptIble to sense It IS true that thIS IS followed by a
fine and Justly famous dIgreSSIon on the nature of human appre-
hensIOn, and on the adVIsabilIty of startmg always from what IS
known' to us', namely that whIch IS guaranteed by perception,
In order to proceed to that whIch IS knowable . by nature',
namely the object of pure thought as such But now thIS ex-
t See above, p 171, n 1
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 199
planation of the reasons leadmg Anstotle to prefix to his
account of the supersenslble an exammation of substance m
general oCCUrs 10 all manuscnpts 10 the wrong position Bomtz
\\as the first to dlscover the displacement (though he drew no
concluslOns), and ever Since his day our editions have given us
thIS wandenng passage at the pomt where It belongs The error
cannot be due to a confUSIOn In a late manuscnpt, for It Occurs
m both classes of the tradition, and therefore appeared III all
anCient manuscnpts The only possIble explanatIOn IS that It
\\as an afterthought wntten on a loose sheet, and inserted mto
the wrong part of the text by the very first editor 1 There IS a
second reference to the merely preparatory nature of the mqUlry
about sensIble realIty, and thIS also IS so loosely connected With
the adjacent words that It seems to have been added 5ub<;e-
quently by Anstotle z
One thmg IS certam Books ZH do not dISCUSS substance m
the way In whIch one would expect from these passages They
I lIfetaplr Z 3, 1029
b
3-12 These words have got mto the begmmng of the
of essence whl"re they are qUite meanmgless They really contmue
the "ords 'Some of the .enslble substances are generally admitted to be
.ubstances, so that we must look first among these' (1029" 33), which also
belong to the subsequent addItion Clearly the first words of the Imertlon were
wntten between the of the old manuscnpt, and hence occur m theIr
propel place 10 our copIes The rest for which there was DO room, was WI tten
on a separate sheet Another example of an addition on a loose IS the
passage'Regard1Og mtelhglble', Z II, I036b 32-1037" 5
Metaph Z I J, 1037" 10 if , seems to me to be such an addition, mtended [0
represent the work On Substance as a prelunmary to the theory of .upersenSible
substance and to Lall attention to thiS function at an early stage of the dlscus-
If It had lJeen IUcluded from the beglDfilng, Anstotle would ,urely, when
of matter, have madL some reference, however slight, tL the matter
which Plato even 10 substance Yet there 1'1 not a
smgle syllable here about the Great-and-Small, although 10 the MetaPhySICS It
would necess<lnly IOterest him much more than matter m the phySICI.ts sense,
of which Z says so much We can understand how, when msertlnll' ZHe, he
,,",auld add words at tht' end of the first part of the mqulry Whether
there IS, apart from the matter of such substances ,mother kind of matter, and
one should look for some substance other than these, e II' numbers or somethlOg
of the sort, must be conSidered later For It IS {or the sake of thts that we aTe
trymg to determme the nature of perceptible sub,tances as well, BIDce m a
.ense the IDqUlfy about perceptible substances IS the work of phySICS, I e of
.econd philosophy' That words are a later additIOn of ATlstotle's al.a
proved by the next sentence (1037" 17-20), whIch IS a reference, IDseparably
connected With thiS passage to the additIOn about defimtIon which composes
H 6 Thll> addition and the reference to It were, hke other alterations of the
same kmd, mtroduced Into the scheme of the later Metaphyucs on the OCCa810D
of the IDsertlon of Books ZHB
200 TRAVELS
do not keep steadl.ly Ul view therr supposed purpose of leadmg
up to the proof of the eXistence of supersenslble reality On the
contrary, they gtve the Impression of being WT"tten SImply Ul
order to refute Plato's conceptIOn of being, according to which
the hIghest bemg IS the highest universal, and m order to con-
front thiS exaggerated Immatenallsm With a proof that matter
and substratum have a posItive Significance for our conception
of realIty We here find Anstotle's comblDdtIon of logtc and
concreteness glVlOg nse to a new conception of substance as
form and entelechy, the questIOn of the separableness' of which,
though deCISive for the metaphysIcIan, receives no particular
attentIOn In fact, Plato's constant effort always to abstract
from matter IS here rejected as one-SIded, and attention IS called
to the Importance of matter for our notion of essence I In VIew
of all thIS It IS not surpnslOg that the means which Anstotle uses
to develop hiS notIOn of form actually consISt In an analySIS of
becomJng, and that he bnngs out very clearly the fundamental
Significance of hiS notion for the proper comprehensIOn of thiS
phYSical conception 2. The way In which Book Z discuSses the
vanous meanings of 'substance' one after the other, and the
result of the inqUIry, prompt the suggestIon that we have here
an orlgtnally Independent work on the problem of substance, the
fundamental Importance of thiS subject havlOg already been
shown by the CritIcism of the Ideas even In the earhest versIOn of
the Metaphysus (above, p 188) It cannot be denied, of course,
that even In the earhest period of Aristotle's phYSical speculatIon
hIS new conceptIOn of substance, or rather of bemg, must be pre-
supposed as such, but thIS conceptIon took ItS anglO Just as
much In phySICS and In logtc] as Ul metaphysIcs, and It IS per-
I Metaph Z II, 1036b 22 And so to reduce all thmgs thus to Fonns and to
eIJmmate the matter IS useless labour, for some thmgs surely are a parbcular
form 10 a partlC\'.r matter' Metaph Z 8, 1033" 24 fJ
3 Anstocle's lDterest lD the problem of substance often comes out lD the
book, and metaphySICS and analybcs' are also very lnbmately concerned
With It (for the latter see Z 12 and H 6) It belongs to phYSICS because of Its
connexlOn WIth the theory of becommg and of change, to metaphySICS because
of the conception of lmmatenal Form and because of the problem of separate-
ness' , and to 'analytlcs' because of 'essence' and Its relations WIth the t o r l ~
of defimtl0n, of abstractIOn and of the c1assJ1icatioli of conceptIOns as genera
and specIes We need only reahze thIS manYSidedness 10 order to understand
why thIS work stood' between' the above-mentioned dlsclplmes unW Anstotle
llIcorporated It mto the MetaphysICS
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 201
fectly possIble that hlS earhest metaphysIcs (WhICh, as we learn
from the dIalogue On PhIlosophy, was still pure theology), whl1e
It made clever use of the conceptions of entelechy and actuahty
m attackmg the problem of God, nevertheless dId not mclude
any general dISCUSSIon of substance, much less make It the
central consIderatIOn
The conJecture that the dISCUSSIon of substance did not
ongmally stand m ItS present pOSItIOn can be further supported
by a number of weIghty external mdicatIons I In the first place,
there IS no reference whatever to ZH8 m the older books On
the other hand, I refers to ZH, and descnbes them as 'the dIS-
CUSSIons about substance' , thIS by Itself mdlcate,> therr relative
mdependence Anstotle mentions them m the same way m e 8,
104gb 27 (' It was saId m the dISCUSSIOns about substance ') It
appears from thIS that the two Books Z and H, which form a
smgle whole-H begms WIth a recapitulation of Z, and offers a
senes of appendIces thereto-are regarded both m e and m I as
mdependent \\'hat IS still more lffiportant IS that the mtroduc-
bon of Z IS often referred to as the begmnmg, as m Z 4, 102g
b
1
(' smce at the start we dlStlngmshed the vanous marks by which
we determme substance ') Usually the words 'at the start'
mean the begmnmg of the whole course of lectures, namely
Book A, as they do, for example m 8 and m M 9-10, passages
whIch belong to the ongmal Metaphystcs We have an example
of at the start' used m a central book to refer to ItS own begm-
mng m the dISCUSSIOn of fnendshlp m the Ntcomachean EthtCS
(VIII-IX), and there IS no doubt that thIS was ongmally an m-
dependent work Z was also at one tune the begmnmg (1f an
mdependent work, It was m fact the first of a whole senes of
lectures ThIS IS shown by e 1, I04Sb 31, where agam m the
first part of our work' means the begmnmg not at A or of e,
but of Z It follows that thIS senes began WIth Z, then came H,
I SInce It IS here lmportant to assemble all the proofq, I may be allowed to
recapitulate bnefly the Inferences that can be drawn from the recIprocal
referenCes 10 the books of the MetaphySiCS, although I have already emphaSiZed
them (Ent Metaph Arlst, pp 9
0
11 and 106) It IS preclselv "Ith regard to the
matter of chapter four of the first part of my earher book, namely the con-
nected and contmuous portlOns of the MetaphysICS. that I now behevp It
poSSIble to push the analySIS far enough to obtam a complete understandmg of
the author's mtentlOn whereaq I have nothmg Important to add to my prevlOus
remarks about the p ~ s g s that are Isolated and mdependent addItIons
202 TRAVELS
H was presumably followed bye, as now Whether I also be-
longed to the ongmal senes, or was added later when Anstotle
removed ZHe from their Isolation and mserted them mto the
MetaphysJcs, IS difficult to decide On the whole, It seems to
have been added later I 2, 1053b 16, refers to Z, 13-17, thus.
'If, then, no umversal can be a substance, as has been said m our
discussion of substance and bemg' Here ZH are still thought of
as mdependent, and It does not appear that they come at the
begmmng of a senes to which I also belongs On the contrary,
another passage, In whIch I refers to e, makes agamst It with
regard to the substance and nature of the one we must ask m
which of two ways It eXists, this IS the very question that we
reviewed m our discussIOn of problems, VlZ what the one IS'
(I 2, 1053b 9) ThlS mdlcates that the ongmal mdependent
work consisted only of ZHS, that I was added when Anstotle
was workmg on the final verSlOn of the MetaphyslcS That IS
why It regards e as the mtroductlOn
If we now consider the relation of Book Z to what precedes It,
we find that thiS once more confirm,; our view that It was mtro-
duced mto Its present place after havmg been ongmally m-
tended as a complete work m Itself As we have seen, Books r
and Econtam the dISCUSSion of the fir'>t four problems. concern-
mg the nature of the sCIence that we are seekmg' ThiS dISCUS-
SIOn ends With E 1 Then comes somethmg new, VIZ the theory
of the vanous senses of 'bemg', and the theory of the most
fundamental of these, namely essence (ova-Ia:) In other words,
thIS IS the begmmng of the mam part of the MetaphysJcs Ans-
totle starts by enumeratmg all the relevant meamngs of 'bemg'
m the Wldest sense of the word 'Smce the unqualIfied term
"bemg" has several meamngs, of which one was seen to be the
aCCidental, and another the true (" non-bemg" bemg the false).
while beSides these there are the figures of predication (e g the
"what", quality, quantity, place, tune, and any slIDuarmeanmgs
which "bemg" may have), andagam besides all these there IS that
which "IS" potentially or actually-smce "bemg" has many
meanmgs, we must first say.regardIng the aCCidental, that there
can be no sCIentific treatment of It 'I He then discusses the
aCCldental, and thereafter bemg In the sense of the truth or
I M,"'p. E 2, 1026- 33
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS
20
3
falsIty of Judgements ThIS short passage extends to the end of
E Z begms the exammation of bemg 10 the fundamental sense,
that IS, of the categones, and especially of substance (ovO'la),
which IS the mam object of the sCience concerned
Strangely enough, the new book opens WIth almost the
Hienhcal words that have unmedlately preceded, and WIth the
same enumeratIOn of the senses of bemg 'There are several
senses 10 whIch a thmg may be said to "be", as we pomted out
prevIOusly [here we expect at the least a reference to the h<;t
that was gIVen m E 2, but a surpnse awaIts us] 10 our book on
the vanous senses of words, for 10 one sense the" bE'mg" meant
1<; " what a thmg IS " or a "thIS", and m another sense It means a
quahty or quantity or one of the other thmgs that are predIcated
.l':> these are'
Here It IS perfectly clear that, If E2 had preceded, eIther Am-
totle would have referred hiS readers to the full and detaued
account of the meamngs of 'bemg' there given, or he would not
have enumerated these meanings at all, because everyone
would have them m mmd If, on the other hand, Z was wntten
mdependently of the other books of the MetaphysfcS ~ s a dISCUS-
"IOn of substance we can at once understand why It would have
to begm by bnefly determlmng the relatIOn of substance to the
other pOSSIble meamngs of 'bemg', usmg the table of categones
as Its startmg-pomt For thiS purpose he referred to the lecture
On the Vanous Senses of Words, which no doubt he often gave
ThIS dId not fonn part of the lectures on Metaph),sfCs at that
time, but was an mdependent mqUlry It IS our so-called Book
6, whIch receIved ItS present unnatural pOSItion not from Ans-
totle but from hIS editors When, durmg the later rewntmg, the
book on substance and the account of potentIahty were mtro-
duced mto the places that they now occupy, thIS brought about
an alteratIOn 10 the whole structure of the Metaphysfcs, to put
It more correctly, Anstotle mtroduced them With the mtentIon
of changmg the structure m a defimte fashIOn The pattern of
the new plan was the method followed 10 the diSCUSSIOn of sub-
stance (ZH), where the vanouS senses of 'substance' (matter,
form, universal. essence) proVIded the gmdmg thread by m n ~
of which Anstotle's conceptIOn of It wa!> gradually buJlt up,
through ItS vanous hlstoncal and logical levels, before the
204 TRAVELS
r e ~ e r s eyes In the second versIOn of the MetaphysJcs he
apphed thIS method to the conception of 'bemg' m Its Widest
sense. and' substance' now became Just one of a whole senes of
meanmgs of 'bemg' m thIS broad sense To the theory of pure,
Immatenal fonn he prefixed that of fonn m general, as the true
reahty and substance, In front of thIS agam he put the doctnne
of the vanous senses of 'bemg'. from whIch he selects ' sub-
stance' as the only one that affects metaphysIcs The selectIOn
conSIsts In startmg WIth the senses that slgmfy nothmg eXISten-
tIal or mdependent, but only the aCCIdental modl1icatlons of
bemg or the attItudes of comCIOusness to bemg In VIew Qf Its
merely preparatory nature thiS part IS gIven very summartly
(E 2-4) In the present versIOn of the Metaphystcs It fonns the
conneXIOn between the earher introduction (A-E I) and the new
body (ZHSIM) Leadmg up to the mam dIscussIOn, and sketch-
mg the structure of what IS to follow, It was naturally the last
part to be mserted Its mtroductJon converted the hst of the
senses of 'bemg' mto the outbne of the whole composItIon We
must realIze, however, that thIS compOSItIOn IS the final stage m
a long process of development-mcomplete and provlSlonal, m-
deed, even m thiS la"t verSIOn, but nevertheless beaTIng all the
marh of the determmatIOn to make a great S} nthesls The
additIons, msertIons, and eXCISIOns, which ongmated mostly m
thiS final stage, eVInce a umtary aIm that was perfectly foreign
to the ongmal versIOn-the construction of a theory of the mam-
fold sense" of 'bemg', a sort of ontological phenomenology,
wlthm whIch the old PlatOnIC doctnne of transcendent and Im-
matenal Form still remams as conclUSIOn, but no longer holds
the centre of mterest
I may here mtroduce a paragraph on the last chapter of
Book e, whIch I have discussed m detaIl m a prevIOUS work I
ThIS passage deals With the two meanmgs of truth, first, truth
and falSity 10 the ordmary sense, when we call a ludgement true
or false accordmg as It Joms the predicate to the nght subject or
not, and secondly the truth of metaphyslcal statements of bemg,
which do not anse from discursive thmkmg and hence are never
true or fabe as dIscursIve Judgements are The truth of meta-
phYSical statements expressmg a beIng that 15 not an object of
I E7I1 Melaph AnsI. P 49
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 205
expenence rests. accordmg to Anstotle. on a special mtUltIve
form of apprehensIOn. which resembles sense-perceptIOn more
than discursive thmkmg m that It IS a sort of mtellectual VISion,
a pure' contact and assertion' This IS the only remnant of
Plato's contemplation of the Ideas that has survived 10 Ans-
totle's metaphysIcs Why he dIscusses It here IS explamed by
hlm!>elf m E4, where he shows that bemg m the common sense
of the truth or falSIty of a proposItion IS not part of the meta-
physIcian's problem about bemg Into this passage he mserted
a later reference, which can be very sunply recognized as such
by the disturbance of the sentence-constructIOn to which It has
given nse, there IS also, he says, a second kmd of truth, mtUltIve
apprehensIOn, on whIch all general views of the UnIverse depend,
and thiS he IS gomg to discuss later The discussIOn IS the final
chapter of Book e I have shown In my earher book, follOWing
Schwegler. that thIS chapter IS a subsequent addItion to Book 8,
and that the reference to It m E4 must have been Inserted at the
hme when the chapter Itself was attached Anstotle mtroduces
hiS account of mtellectual mtUItlOn, and of the metaphySical
sort of truth, at a fittIng place, namely between the end of the
doctnne of potentIahty and the begmnlng of that of the reahty
of the supersenslble, which was mtended to follow Immediately
ThiS msertIon, WhICh must also have been made on the occa!>IOn
of the mtroductIon of ZH8, shows once agam the attempt to
arrange a gradual ascent up the scale of bemg to Immatenal
essence, and to make the whole work smgle m ItS aim, though
constructed of such dIsparate matenals That wa!> thl' spmt of
Anstotle's final recensIOn
By good fortune our discovery of two separate verSIOns of the
preface to the theory of the supersenslble, the earher m M9, and
the later m MI, enables us to test our hypotheSIS that the Meta-
physJCS ongmally dId not contam the doctnne of matenal sen!>Ible
form I If thIS Suppositlon be correct, the later versIOn must pre-
suppose the books on substance, With theIr detaIled analysI,> of
sensI1)le bL!ng and of Immanent form v v ~ o v el:Aos) whereas the
earlIer must proceed dIrectly to the problem of transcendental
bemg, as we should expect accordmg to the early plan m Book 8,
and regard the world of sense (alaful-riJ ovala) as m no respect an
See pp 182 ff above
o
206 TRAVELS
object of 'the science that we are seekmg' It 15 necessary to
examme these parallel versions once more from this pomt of
View, and I pnnt them SIde by side agam for thIS purpose
Later Vemon (M 1)
We have stated what IS the sub-
stance of sensIble thmgs, deahng
10 the treatise on physIcs wIth
matter, and later the substance
wInch has actual eXistence Now
sInce our mqulry IS whether there
IS or IS not beSIdes the sensIble sub-
stances any whIch IS Immovable
and eternal, and, 1f there IS, what
It IS, we must first comnder what IS
sald by others
Ongmal (M9.1086"21)
Regardmgthefirstpnnclples and
the first causes and elements, the
vIews expressed by those who dIS-
cus') only senSIble substance have
been partly stated In our works
on nature, and partly do not belong
to thepresentmqulry , butthevle",s
of tho!>e who assert that there are
other substances beSIdes the sensI-
ble must be consIdered next after
those we have been mentlonmg
The ongmal versIOn, startmg from the defimtlOn of meta-
phYSICS as the theory of the first pnnclples and causes (which IS
usual In the oldest parts of the work), begInS the doctnne of
substance WIth Plato's dIVISion mto sensIble and supersensible
As In A and B, so here the dISCUSSIon starts With the VIew'> of
other thInkers The materialIstic teachmg of the PresocratIc
phIlosophy of nature (' the VIews expressed by those who dISCUSS
only senSible substance ') IS partly referred to the and
partly declared not to belong to the present mqUIry Here It IS
Important to notice that Anstotle IS not speakmg of semible
substance Itself, as he does In the later versIOn The VIew that
senSIble substance as such has any concern WIth metaphysIcs IS
still utterly foreIgn to him SenSible realIty belongs to physIcs,
'the views expressed by those who dISCUSS only senSIble sub-
stance have been partly stated 10 our works on nature' Further-
more, these VJews do not belong to the present InqUIry' , that IS
to say, they have already been cnhClzed In Book A To suppose
that Anstotle IS referrIng here to Books ZH IS ImpOSSIble I those
books contam nothmg whatever about the thmkers \\-ho admit
no realIty but what IS perceptible to sense, and beSides, It IS not to
be supposed that Anstotle would have confined hImself to such a
negatIve mode of expreSSIOn, If he had preVlously gIVen a detailed
account of thiS very senSIble realIty 1D ZHe The underlymg view
of thIS versIOn IS rather the slIDple alternative eIther there IS only
senSible realIty, and then there IS no metaphySICS, and the first
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 207
SCIence IS physIcs, or there 15 somethIng supersenslble, and then
there l!t also a sCience of that. namely metaphysIcs Hence
Anstotle turns at once to the phtlosophers who mamtamed the
reahty of the supersenslble. that IS to say, the school of Plato
Between thiS stage of hiS development, when the problem still
appeared to hun as a sunpie duahsm. and that represented by
the versIOn 10 M 1, comes the InsertIon of ZHe. WhiCh m large
part opened metaphysIcs to sensIble substance, and the expan-
!twn of thIS dISCIplIne mto a sCIence of the mamfold senses of
bemg It IS true that ArIstotle shll tells us, obVIOusly borrOWIng
the language of the oldest versIOn. that sensible c;ubstance has
already been dIscussed m the PhysIcs, but he makes a qualIfica-
tIon dealmg m the treatIse on phYSiCS wzth maUer, and later WJth
the substance whJch has actual exutence' Whereac; In the earher
versIOn phySICS mcludes all bemg that IS perceptIble by sense, It
IS here confined to the exammatIon of matter 1 hIS means that
form and actual eXIstence (1') KaT' ova/a) are to be
assIgned mamly to the sCience under consIderatIOn, which I!t
metaphysIcs Anstotle therefore removes the words' and partly
do not belong to the present mqUlry " and replaces them With a
reference to the newly mtroduced diSCUSSions of ZH0, ",hICh
concern preCIsely the' actual eXIstence' of thmg::. perceptIble by
sense ThIS backward reference corresponds to the forwanl one
Inserted m ZII, 1037' 10 ff , whICh attentIOn to the account
of supersensible realIty to be given m Book M(see J.bove. p 199)
Both of them belong to the later verSiOn, and are n.cant to umte
what was ongmally separate ThIS also showc;. though It scarcely
needed proof. that the later versIOn of the diSCUSSion of thf' super-
senSible (M 1-9) was Intended for the latest MetaphysICS. as
enlarged by the mtroductIon of ZH9 ThiS IS also Indicated by
the fact that both these parts are connected With the msertIOn of
Book I
But Were these new passages SImply' Interpolated . Could
Anstotle sunply Juxtapose a theory of senSible substam.e and an
mtroductlOn ongmally mtended to lead to an account of the
supersenslble? Would not Insoluble contrcidlctIons necessanly
follow? And SlOce the transItIon from the mtroductIOn BrE to
the' mterpolated' portIOn has seemed smooth to all readeT!> down
to the present day, what IS the pnnclple that enabled hun to
208 TRAVELS
connect the metaphysIc of the transcendental wIth the doctnne
of unmanent entelechies There really IS such a lmk between
the two stages, VIZ the conceptIOn of bemg as such (c5v ij 6v), by
means of which he defines the object of metaphysIcs m the
mtroductIon We have been accustomed to thmk of this con-
ception as the seed out of which the mamfold senses of bemg
developed m Anstotle's mmd lIke a flower, for does It not
embrace both the pure act of dIvme thought and those lower
forms of changmg nature that are subject to becommg and diS-
solution, and IS not he who studies bemg as such exempt from
the necessIty of confimng hunself to absolute bemg, and able to
mclude m hIS researches the bemg of every sort of thmg, even of
the abstractIons of the understandmg ThIS IS what the final
form of the Metaphyszcs actually does, and that has betrayed us
mto supposmg that the conceptIOn could not have been realIzed In
any other way We now see, however, that thIS IS a mistake,
though a very natural one. We can, m fact, show from the
Metaphyszcs Itself that there was an earher stage m hIS develop-
ment when he had not yet drawn thIS concluslOn from the con-
ceptIOn of bemg as such, ",hen he did not regard metaphySICS as
the dIalectical development of the mamfold senses of bemg, and
when he thought of Its subject-matter sImply and exclUSively as
the ImperIshable and eternal The proof of thIS IS K 1-8, a pas-
sage often declared spunous, but vmdicated once and for all by
our results
I have shown 10 my earher dISCUSSIOn of tlus mvaluable
document that certam tmy words, the frequent use of whIch
betrays a stranger's hand, although the style 15 otherWIse
thoroughly Anstotehan, are the unconscIOUS addItIons of a dIS-
CIple who was takmg down the lectures of the master But as a
source for ArIStotle's doctnne the book 15 crystal-pure It re-
produces the three mtroductory books, BrE, pomt for pomt
throughout, usually m the same words, though 10 a much
shorter fonn It cannot be explained eIther as a prelunmary
sketch of the fuller verSIOn, or as a mere excerpt from It, It IS
dIstinct and 10dependent It must be a note taken of thIS part
of the lectures on metaphySICS dUrIng an earher stage of theIr
development, for, m spIte of large resemblances, It differs
characterIStically from the fuller verSIOn m some respects
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 209
When we examme the conneXIOn between thIS earlIer intro-
ductIon and the mam body of the work, whIch IS what mterests
us mostly here, It becomes clear that thIs verSIOn belongs to a
tune before the InterpolatIOn of the book., on substance, ZH8,
when the mtroductIon was followed ImmedIately by the theory
of the supersensible In the later form of the Metaphystcs we find
a transItIonal passage (E 2-4) between the end of the mtroduc-
tIOn (E 1) and the begmmng of the mam part (Z 1) The same IS
true of the earher (K 8, 1064b15-1065. 26), but the charactenstIc
feature of the later tranSItIOn IS absent here, namely the enumera-
tIon of the senses of bemg, whIch prOVIde the framework of
Books ZH8 It IS true that here also Anstotle dIscusses, as he
does m E 2-4, the two senses of bemg that he sets aSIde before
entenng on the mam problem of metaphySICS, (1) aCCIdental
bemg and (2) the truth or falSIty of Judgements, the fanner be-
cause It IS not bemg proper at all, the latter because It IS anI" an
act of conSCIOusness But the classIficatIon that he announces In
E2, and CaITleS out m the later verSIOn of the 1J;JetaphyslcS as we
have It, receIves no mentIOn whatever m the older mtroductIOn
We are tempted at first to eAplam thI,> by the brt.vIty of the
excerpt, but now that we have dIscovered In M 9, 1086" 21 ff ,
the oldest verSIOn of the preface to the central portion of the
work, and seen that It presupposes a Metaphystcs n0t contam-
Ing Books ZH8, It IS no longer pOSSIble to Imagme that we have
here a mere play of chance Moreover, there IS another unmI<;-
takable SIgn of later reVISIOn In E 2-4, 'WhICh IS also absent here,
and that IS the reference that we find m E 4, 1027
b
28, to the
subsequent msertIon of the mqUIry mto the conceptwn of meta-
phY<;lCal truth (8 10), thIS naturally does not occur m the
parallel passage m K8, 1065" 24, because there was no Book 8
m the ongmal Metaphystcs
~ t r p conSIdered K 1-8 spunous, on the ground that the
conceptIOn of metaphyslCs therem contamed IS not to be found
In the mam part of the tradItional M etaphystcs 1 He goes so far
as to speak of a Platomzmg author, and of the un-Anstotehan
tendency of thIS work to exclude matter and all that 15 connected
I Archzv fur Geschtchte dey Phtlosophle, vol I, p 178 The standard that he
uses 15 the customa.ry one, 1 e the conceptIOn of metaphySICS tn the books
added dunng the composltlon of the second version (ZHe)
210 TRAVELS
with it from the investigation To hun, with the presuppositions
of that tIme, this observatiOn was a serIOUS ground for SUspIcion
To us the very same fact becomes a conVIncmg proof of genUine-
ness J MetaphysIcs IS here viewed a<; a sCience of the unmaterlal,
and we have shown from the remain,> of the earliest versIOn that
this was the original notIOn Nothmg could be a more relIable
test of the correctness of our conclusIOn than thl!> restoratIon of
the oldest of the Introductory books to Its true TIghts Even the
most secret doors of the enchanted castle spring open of theIr
own accord, after long and hopeless efforts to bre<1k mto them
by force, now that we have dIscovered that the pnnclple of de-
velopment IS the real key
If we compare K 1-8 step by step with the later verSIOn,
\\Oe find that In all the changes whIch he mtroduced In erE,
Anstotle was actuated by the smgle purpose of adapting the old
mtroductlOn to the new structure of the Metaphyszcs, which
mcluded matenal bemg as wdl as the other sort TIllS concessIOn
to the matenal world appear'S m the formulatIon of the very
fir'it fundamental problem (fifth m the whole h'it of problems),
concernmg the reahty of the supersenslble \Ve preViOusly re-
marked that the antIquated ImpreSSIOn made by Rook eis due
to the Platomc manner In which thr problems are expressed,
but we now see that m thiS matter Kis still more antIquated and
stnct 2 WhIle even B beyond the boundanes of the
phenomend.l world In the very first problem, by askmg whether.
apart from the senSible, there IS also a supersenslble substance
such as the Ideas, the verSIOn In KIS more e::l.clUSIVe still
totIe here asks whether 'the sci.ence that we are seekmg' deals
wIth perceptible substances' or not w:th them, but wIth certain
I ln my E1I! Melaph A,ul, pp f,J fJ, I defended the genumeness of K 1-8
JD det'l.ll agamst N<ltorp's reJertJon, and reached the conclUSIOn that Its phIlo-
sophIcal content IS \\octhy of Anstotle 10 eve" partIcular The frequent use of
the particle 'yI winch perhapo reveals a hand other than Anstotle's, 13
nothIcg aga.lCst the genUIneness of the content It no doubt due to the dISCIple
who took noteo on Aristotle's lecture and prepared the present verSIon
Nevertheless, I must WIthdraw my of Natorp In far as ItS aim
wa. to explll.1c a"ay the traces of Pl;"\pmsm that he dIscovered From the
pOInt of vIew of Anstotle's hlstoncal development they are completely un-
obJectionable, and In fact precIsely what our prevIous analySIS would lead us
to demand
Cf pp 195-196 ahove The anbquatedness of BIS therefore a charactenstic
that hab surVIved 111 spite of the reVlblon
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 211
others' I This excludes all possibilIty whatever that sensible
substance should belong to metaphysIcs On the contrary,
sensible and supersenslble bemg here constitute, Just as we found
them to do m M 9-10, a simple dualIstic either-or 1 In the
reVISion thIs eIther-or becomes a not-only-but-also, as the latest
::.tate of the presents It to US In the co-ordmatIon
and superordlnatlOn of the Immanent and the tran<,cendent
forms
We find the same emphatic elthrr-or In the part of Kwhere
Anstotle discusses the aim of his ontological mqUlry . It IS In
general hard to say whether one must assume that there IS a
::.eparable substance besides the senSible substances (I e the sub-
stances In this world), or that the:.e are the real things and
Wisdom IS concerned with them For we seem to seek another
kmd of substance, and this IS our problem, I e to see If there IS
-,omethlng that can eXist apart by Itself and belongs to no
senSible thing 'J By the 'somethlng that can eXist apart by
It"elf' (XWpIOlOV Kae' Anstotle here doe::. not mean the
concrete, particular eXistence of the phenomenal world, although
this too IS often spoken of as . eXisting apart' , he IS USing the
expressIOn 10 the sense III which Plato's Ideas' e\.lst apart', as IS
shown by the quahficatlOn 'and belongs to no senSible thing'
(IJTlAEvl TWV Vrrapxov) By this addition he exphCltly
ehmlnates all thought of the Immanent forms (evvAov E11.os) ,
m the same connexlOn the latter are said to be, so far as con-
cerns their eXistence, penshable (cp6apT6v) On the other hand,
It IS a cert.l1n to him a!> d. PlatonIst that the object of
metaphySIcs-If there IS such a ::'clence-must be an eternal,
I I',Jetaph B 2 997" 34 = K I 39 I previously that thiS
dilemma was meant to mdlcatc that the truth hes m the middle-metaphysIcs
IS the study of the Form, which mC'1udes both the substance of the world of
thmgs and also superscnslblc reahty, eXlstmg 10 the second Without
matter But the passages that we are ..bout to seem to render tIns
InterpretatIon ImpoSSible (see espeCially K 2, 1060
1
7). and It must be acknow-
ledged that the exclUSive formulation, 'eltht'r the senSIble world or the supcr-
-enslble , IS absolutely essential to the gefleral view Imphed m K If Natorp had
pursued throughout the whole MetaphySICS the divergences of doctrme th..t he
10 K, he would not have declared thIS book spunous, but would have
discovered the chronological and the IIIner dIfferences between the two dIstinct
seb of matenal, differences that can be satlsfactonly explamed only through
supposlllg that Aristotle gradually developed away from Plato
See pp above J K 2, 1060' 7-13
212 TRAVELS
transcendent essence, having Its bemg In Itself (&tAIOl; ovcrla XOOpl-
CTT'J) Kol Kae' c:n:m;,,) He tells us that we must thmk of It as
analogous to Plato's Ideas, not to the objects of sense Unless
there really IS somethmg of this sort, all that the best mmds have
thought out must be mere sound and smoke How could there
be any order m the world Without It? Order Imphes
eternal, transcendent, and endunng I The emphatic nature of
these expressIOns differentIates them sharply from the later
version Anstotle IS here still qmte close to Plato, and they
breathe a passIOnate advocacy of Plato's demand for a super-
senSible world-all the more ImpressIve because It anses duectly
out of the convIction that the reIgning theory of Ideas IS Im-
pOSSible z
The eternal, unalterable reahty, and the eternal laws of the
cosmos dependmg thereon, form, accordmg to K I-B, the pre-
supposItion of the posslblhty not merely of the sCience that we
are seekmg'. but even of any consistent logical thmkmg and any
absolute and endunng truths, smce the world of sense IS m
perpetual flux, and affords no foothold J Thus the law of con-
tradIctIon IS l'!:>tabhshed In an essentially ontologIcal manner,
whereas the later versIOn seems to omit the ontolOgIcal passages
I K2 1060" 21 'It would seem rather that the {arm or shape IS a more Im-
portant pnnclple than [the matter] but the form IS penshable, so that there IS
no eternal substance at all which can eXist apart and mdependent But IS
paradOXical, {or such a pnnclple and substance se(.ms to eXist and IS sought by
nearly all the most refined thmkers as that eXIsts, (or how IS then'
to be order unless there IS eternal and Independent and permanent) ,
See also K 2, 1060 b I-J
Z See the Immediately preceding reJechon of Plato's VerSIOn of the super-
sen'lble. K2, 1060" 1]-18 ThIS passage perhaps preserves more dIrectly than
any other the PlatoDlI: postulate that lIes at the root of AnstotJe's metaphySICS,
the postulate of the realIty o{ the transcendental It also ,haws that hi,
startmg-pomt (or the rehablhtatlon of the doctnne was that order In nature
which seemed to him mexplIcable WIthout the assumptIon of a transcendent
, good' as the first pnnclple
J K6. 1063" II In my E,n/ Metaph Ar,s/, p 82, I pOinted out that Natorp
went too far when he ascnbed to the author o{ Kthe view that 1D the earthly
and penshable there IS no truth whatever, but I went too far m the opposIte
directIOn when I denied that there any difference at all between th" and
Anstotle's usual account of truth It must be alIo\\ed that thiS passage
emphaSizes the eternity of cosmic reahty, and bases the pOSSlblhty of endunng
truths chlelly on that. whereas In r 5, 10lQA I ff on the contrary, the maID
emphaSIS IS on the POSSlblhty of obtawmg defimte proposItions even about the
world o{ sense, and the COSIIlOS and 'the nature that IS changeless' are mentIOned
only an second place (1010.25)
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS
21
3
for the most part It IS true that the conclUSion of Book r says
somethmg about the conneXlOn between the possibility of know-
mg permanent truths and the etermty and Immovablhty of
bemg, but, smce this passage was lackmg m some of the anCient
manuscnpts, It IS obvIOus that we have here a sectIon deleted by
Anstotle dunng hiS recenSIOn, but discovered among hiS papers
by the editors and pubhshed along With the rest In any event,
thiS section Itself shows that the orIginal versIOn of r laid more
emphaSIS on the metaphysical bases of the law of contradiction I
Both the ontolOgical proof of the law, and the mcIuslOn of these
fundamental logIcal problems m metaphysIcs, were pieces of
PlatOniC tradItion So was the que<>tlOn where one should diSCUSS
the matter of the obJects of mathematiCs, and whether It belongs
to first philosophy Z Actually, the diSCUSSIOn of It occurs m
Book N, the close relatIOn of which to K 1-8 IS another SIgn of
the age of both
We have already seen that In Book B the nature of the
problems IS determmed by the problems and content of Plato's
metaphySICS ArIstotle was somewhat superficial m altenng thiS
part, and hence It has not lost Its fundamentally Pl<1tomc char-
acter Apart from the fact that m two places he actually left the
old 'we' of hiS Platomc days,J of which no other trace remams
In the new verSion, he obVIOusly dId not alter or modify any
passages except those that exphcltly contradicted hiS new view
, r Il, 1012
b
22-end of the book, was lacking 10 some of t1:le anCient manu-
scnpts accord1Og to Alexander In A,.sl metaph ,p 341, I 30 (Hayduck)
K I 1059
b
15-21 I have discussed the conception of 'the matter of the
objects of mathematics In Lnt Metaph Ar1St, P 74, and shown, contrary to
Natorp, that It belongs to Plato s later metaphySICS I dId not, howe\ {r, fully
answer the question \'ohy thiS problem IS stated only 1D K, and not also In B
ThIS C<ln be explaJned If we observe that, as I had already recogDlzed at that
time, the of the problem In N 2, lo88
b
14 Both Nand K
belong to the ongmal JyfetaphyHcs, and the one IS therefore the fulfilment of
the promIse gIven 10 the other Now the later versIOn of these matters (8 and
M 1---<)) largely suppresses the question about the elements of
substance, as has been shown above (p 192) ThIS was bound up With
Plato's late doctnne of the eXistence of numbers, &c , as separate substances
In mature penod Anstotle nd himself of thIS doctnne, and he then deleted
the whole complex of whIch It was a part
J See p 175 above The fact that Book Bwas revIsed In order to appear a.
part of the mtroductlOn to the later verSIOn of the MetaphySICS wbereas the
cntlclsm of tbe Ideas In A 9 was meaDt to dll>appear entIrely, J.
complete explanatIon why so few traces of thIs' we' remam 10 B Those that do
are Mmply overSIghts
214 TRAVELS
of metaphysIcs The number and nature of the problems re-
mamed In general untouched There IS Just one place where he
Inserted a new one, and thIs IS charactenstlc, for It concerns the
content of the Inserted books, ZHe Just before the last pro-
blem (B 6, IO02
b
33) he raises the questIOn of matter and of the
actualIty and potentIalJty of the pnnclples, and here he also
takes account of perceptIble realIty Now Since, as Natorp
observed, thiS questIon doe!> not appear 10 K 1-8, we can only
conclude that Anstotlc Inserted the new problem when he was
alterIng the three Introductory books to make them lead up to
the theory of Immanent fonn and of potentIalIty and actuahty
Book K, on the contrary, IS stIll stnctly Platomc In so far as It
dIvorces the notIon of pure being from all matter and equates It
wIth that WhICh IS selfexlstent, unmoved, and transcendent
Moreover, whereas In the last versIOn the cnhclsm of the Ideas
was removed from A 9 to the new Book M, the earher form of
the mtroductIon presupposes the angInal state of affairs, In
whIch the cntIclsm "as stIll In the first book, SInce It refers us
for the refutatIOn of the Ideas to what has preceded II ThIS
proves that the three Introductory books, arE, also underwent
alteration and had a new nahan of metaphySICS Introduced mto
them We have now recovered the earher and the last versIOn of
almost the whole M etaphyslcS
It can be shown, ho\\ever, that even the earher verSIOn of the
Introduction (K 1-8) IS not the anginal form of the MetaphyslcS
We have seen that In K 1-8 metaphySICS IS deSCrIbed as the
sCIence of that which IS unmoved and eternal and transcendent
We also find there, however, the defimtlOn of It a!> the SCIence of
being as such (ov;:i c5v), though not developed, c1.S It IS In the later
verSIOn, mto a sCience of the mamfold meanings of bemg m-
eludmg the perceptIble beIng of movable nature ThIS combina-
tIon of the two defimtIons 10 K1-8 15 a serIOUS difficulty, and
becomes only too painfully obVIOUS In the later VerSIOn of E,
whIch In Its present reVised form IS meant to Introduce the
sCIence of the mamfold meamngs of being Smce the earher dnd
the later versIOns do not dIffer 10 thIS respect, but only In the
J K J, JOS9
b
3. presupposes the refutatIon of the Ideas In A 9 B 2, 997
b
3.
on the other hand, the correspondmg passage m the later verSion, presupposes
only the b15toncal explanation o( the Idea-theory m A 6, which T('mamed m
place when the refutation WIIS removed to M 4-5
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS
21
5
extensIOn that they asSIgn to the nohon of bemg, we shall not
fall mto error If we use them both together m what follows
In E I (= K7) Anstotle explams what he understands by a
SCIence of bemg as such All sCIences mqurre mto certam causes
and pnncipies of thmgs As examples he mentions medicme and
gymnastics, and-to take one With a more developed method-
mathematics, 1 e the examples usual m Plato's theory of SCIence
and method Each of these SCIences marks off systemattcally a
defimte sphere of realIty (6\1 TI) and a defimte genus (ywOl; TI)
and studIes the resultIng hmited complex of facts None of them
dIscusses the beIng of ItS obJect, they all eIther presuppose It on
the ground of expenence, as do natural SCIence and medICIne, or,
lIke mathematics With Its aXIOms, they start from partIcular
defimtIons TheIr demonstrations, whIch dIffer from each other
only m degree of accuracy, deal solely WIth the propertIes and
functIons followmg from these defimtIons or from facts eVl<:Ient
to sense The metaphysIcian, on the other hand, mqUIres about
bemg precisely as beIng He the presuppOSItIons of
these SCIences, of whIch they themselves are neIther wIllmg nor
able to glVe an account
AnstotIe supplements thiS explanatIon at the begmmng of
Book r ( = K3), where he bnngs out even more fully and clearly
the dlstmctlon between first phIlosophy as UnIversal sCience and
the SCiences, between bemg as such and ItS particular
realm,> Here he treats bemg not as a sort of obJert separate and
distinct from others, but as the common pomt of reference for all
states, propertIes, and relatIOns, that are connected WIth the
problem of realIty As the mathematICIan, accordmg to hIm,
looks at all thmgs solely from the pomt of VIew of quantity, so
the phIlosopher studIes everythmg that belongs to bemg as such.
whereas the phYSICIst, for example, conSIder<; It only as In
mohon Many tlungs 'are' only because they are the affectIon
or the state or the motIon or the relatIOn of some one bemg-
they denve from somethmg that' 15' SImply In Plato's school
the method of refemng (avaywyfl) all the affections (were,) of
bemg to somethmg smgle and common TI Kal KOIV6v) was
dIViSIon In the form of OppoSItions (iVCI\lTIWaeIS), whIch were
referred to certaIn most general or 'first' dI<;tmctIons m bemg
Anstotle presupposes a knowledge of the SpeCial work of the
216 TRAVELS
school m thIS field, and of Its lIterature He means the OppOSI-
tion between the one and the many, the same and the other, the
lIke and the unhke, m short the whole sphere of PlatonIc dia-
lectIc, as we find It 10 the mqumes about bemg and the one (ov
Kallv) m Book I, or agam an mqUlry hke that on the ultimate
pnnclples of thought, the laws of contradIctIon and of excluded
mIddle, WhICh he treats In r It IS true that the conneXIOn of
these questions WIth hiS own theory of substance IS only medIate,
but obVIously he was trymg to find a defimtIon of metaphysIcs
that would make room for the tradItIonal dIalectIc To Plato
dialectic was as such ontology To Anstotle It was rather a
practIcal and hlstoncal questIOn whether thIS whole logIC of
bemg was under all CIrcumstances to be mcluded 10 first philo-
sophy HIS ongmal metaphySICS was theology, the doctnne of
the most perfect bemg, It was hard to combme abstract dialectic
WIth thIS once the Ideas were gone But he tned to lInk them up
by means of theIr common relatIOn to bemg as such (ov DcSv)
Whereas 10 thIS conneXlOn the highest form of phIlosophy
appears as the uDlversal SCience, It IS Immediately followed by a
different picture 10 EI ( = K 7). where Anstotle IS trymg to dls-
tmgUlsh metaphySICS, phySICS, andmathematics, by their objects
He here diVides sCiences IOta theoretical, practical, and produc-
tIve PhySICS IS a theoretical SCience, It studies the bemg that IS
capable of motion, and therefore regards the conceptual essence
and fonn only m so far as It IS lomed WIth matter To abstract
from the matter would always be a mistake 10 phySICS Even
psychology must be pursued m t ~ manner, so far as we are
concerned With the realm of the psychophysICal Mathematics
IS also a theoretical sCience Anstotle raises the question, mdeed,
whether ItS objects really have an unmoved, separate, and mde-
pendent realIty. as the Academy mamtamed (He here deCides
agamst thiS doctnne, while at the same tJrne adoptmg the
Academy's tnpartlte diVISIon of theoretical phIlosophy and ItS
assignment of mathematics to a place between ontology and
physIcs) But, however that may be, mathematics at any rate
regards ItS objects as unmoved and mdependent (is 6:JdV'TlTO Kol
DXc.>PIO"TO: 6Ewpei), whIch only makes It clearer that the study
of real unmoved and transcendent bemg (If there IS any such)
Will be the task of a theoretIcal SCIence But what IS thIS science?
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS
21
7
It cannot be physIcs, for the objects of that, although mde-
pendent (xwplO"Ta) are not unmoved, nor can It be mathematIcs,
for ItS object, whIle partly unmoved, IS not mdependent and
separate Only the hIghest form of phIlosophy studies a sort of
bemg that IS both mdependent and unmoved 1 ThIs defimtIon
by Itself would suffice to conclude that Anstotle IS thmkIng of
the unmoved mover, and he says hlffiself m the next sentt'nce
that the pnnclples he means are the causes of the vIsIble dlvme
thmgs (aiTla cpavepois TWV eelwv). In vIrtue of whIch he
calls metaphysIcs theology (eEoAoyIK';)
But now thIs detenmnahon of the nature of metaphysIcs
purely by means of ItS subject-matter, namely unmoved and
transcendent bemg, makes It one special sCIence among others
Whereas elsewhere It IS consIdered as the unIversal SCience of
bemg as such, and sharply contrasted wIth the sCiences that
examme only a speCial kmd of bemg (ov TI Kol TI),Z
It I!> Itself merely the knowledge of the hIghest kmd of bemg
(mpl TO Its object IS saId to qe bemg of
thiS kInd (TOlaV'TT] cpUC-IS), and It IS to be looked for m a parti-
cular genus of reality, namely m the cosmic reglOn of what IS
VISible but lmpenshable The contradIctIOn IS undemable, and
Anstotle hImself observed It In a note that obvlOusly breaks
the tram of thought, and must therefore be a later addltlOn, he
makes the follOWIng remarks
, One mIght raIse the questIon whether first philosophy IS unIversal 01
I Metaph E r 1026' r3, as corrected by Schwegler 'For physlLs deals With
thmgs whIch eXIst separately lthe MSS have' mseparably' J but are not Im-
movable, and SOme parts of deal With thmgs which are Immovable
but presumably do not separately, but as embodied m matter whIle the
first 'iC1Cnc.e deals With thmgs whIch both separately and are Immovable'
The conjecture of some reader found way Into the manuscnpts--a reader
who took' separately' as meanmg 'transcendentally', and reahzed that thIS
would not be true of the forms' emba<:lJed tn. matter , of whIch the vl.lble world
consists But' separately' means here merely 'mdcpendently', and Anstotle
uses the word m thiS sense even of perceptible thIngs The object of meta-
phySICS, however, sIDce accordmg to thIS definrtron It IS both IDdependent and
unmoved, must eXIst 'separately' In the sense of 'tran!!Cendentally', because
only the supersenMble exlublts both charactenstIcs at once
Metaph E r. r02jb 8 'all these SCIences mark off some particular bemg-
some genus, and IDqulIe Into thIS, but not IUtO belllg SImply nor as bemg
Contrast IOz6' r9 on metaphys.cs as the scIence of diVine thtngs 'It IS obVIOUS
that If the diVIne .s present anywhere It IS present In thtncs of tJ"s SCfft And the
highest science must deal With the h.ghest genus, e the dIVIDe
218 TRAVELS
deals with one genus, I e some one kmd of bemg (qujall/ T1vC: J,Ilav) , for not
even the mathematical sciences are all alike In this respect-geometry
and astronomy deal with a certam particular kind of thmg, while
universal mathematics applies alike to all We answer that If there IS no
substance other than those which are formed by nature, natural science
WIll be the fir!;t SCience, but If there 15 an Immovable substance, thiS IS
'pnor' to the world of senSible appearances, and metaphySICS IS the first
SCience, and umversal Just because It l'ijil'st And It will belong to thiS to
conSider bemg as being-both what It 15 and the attnbutes which belong
to It a'i bf'wg 'I
ThlS gloss does not remove the contradiction On the contrary,
It only makes It more ObVIOUC; In attempt10g here to combme
the two defimtlOns he understands by a umversal sCience a
sCience of the' first' object, whIch IS a pnnclple In a more com-
prehenSIve sense than are the other kmds of bemg, but 10 r I
and the begmmng of Eumversal meant that which does not refer
to any particular part of bemg at all, and ArIstotle could not and
does not assert that the Immatenal movers of the stars are not
particular be1Ogs' nor < one sort of bemg' One lmght perhaps
be mclmed to suspect that neither the problem nor Its solutIOn,
which looks so much lIke an observation made en passant, comes
from Anstotle himself, but smce It also appears 10 the other
verSIOn 10 K8, and since It expresses a contradlctlon that IS really
present, there IS nothing for It but to admit that the phIlosopher
dId not find the solutIOn of the problem, or at any rate thd.t It dId
not occur to hlffi until after the two verSIOns were already fused
together
These two accounts of the nature of metaphySICS certamly did
not anse out of one and the same act of reflectIOn Two funda-
mentally different trams of thought are here 1Oterwoven It is
obVIOUS at once that the theological and Platomc one IS the older
of the two, and thiS not merely on hlStoncal grounds but also
because It is far more schematic andless developed It IS a product
of the PlatOniCtendency to make a sharpdIVISion between the sen-
Sible and the supersenslble spheres When metaphySICS IS defined
as the study of bemg as bemg, on the other hand, reahty 15 re-
garded as one smgle, umfied senes of levels, and thiS therefore 1S
the more Anstotellan account of the two, that IS to say, the one
1 E I. 10:26. :23-3:2 Banlu pomts out the contradJcoon ID hiS commentary
He linds no explanatIon
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 219
that corresponds to the last and most charactenstic stage of his
thought At first he proceeded stnctly m the direction mdlcated
by Plato, that IS, he retamed the supersenslble world as the
object of first phuosophy, as we learn from the mamfesto On
PhIlosoPhy, and merely replaced the transcendental Ideas with
the first mover, WhiCh, bemg unmoved, eternal, and transcen-
dent, possessed the properties that bemg must have accordrng to
Plato ThiS, hIS earlIest, metaphySICS was exclUSively a sCience
of the bemg that IS unmoved and transcendent, I e theology It
was not the SCIence of bemg as such
ThiS result IS further confirmed by the treatIse commonly re-
ferred to Simply as the theology', namely Book" of the Meta-
phystcs Bomtz saw that, whereas one would expect thiS book to
give us the conclUSIOn of A-e, It actually stands m no relation
to the others ThiS IS because It IS really a small mdependent
work The style and the chOIce of Ideas show that It IS an
Isolated lecture, composed for a speCIal occaSion, glvmg US not
merely the part of metaphySICS that IS called theology but some-
thIng much more comprehensIve-a complete sy<;tem of meta-
phySICS tn nuce Aristotle here offers us a compact -ketch of hiS
whole theoretical phuosophy, begmmng WIth the doctrme of
substance and endmg With that of God It IS obVIOusly hIS In
tentIOn, not to mtroduce hIS hearers to techmcal Inqumes, but to
hft them out of themselves WIth the selfcontaIned swmg of hiS
great picture of the whole WIth confident blows of the hammer
he chisels magmficent sentences, which even to-day WE' m-
voluntanly read aloud, m spite of the abbreVIated nature of
notes made for oral delIvery 'The creative actiVIty of thought
IS lIfe' 'All thIngs are ordered towards an end' 'On thIS
pnnClple hang the heavens and nature' The conclUSIOn, where
he addresses the PlatOniC dualIsts In the words of Odysseus
(' the rule of many IS not good, one ruler let there be '), IS pflSI-
tIvely stImng In effect It IS a o u m ~ n t umque of Its kmd, for
here, and here alone In hIS lectures, Anstotle boldly sketches hIS
picture of the umverse In ItS totalIty, dlsregardmg all questIOns
of detau At the same tune It IS Invaluable as a source for the
hl'itory of Ius development, for In date It belongs to the theo-
lOgical penod whose eXistence we have demonstrated It enables
us to see what relation the doctrme of Immanent forms had to
220 TRAVELS
that of the transcendental mover before the hrst-named became
a part of metaphysIcs Itself
The lecture IS sharply divided mto two unequal portions The
first of these (cc 1-5) dIscusses the doctnne of senSIble reality,
Its analySIS results m the conceptIons of matter, form, potency,
and act The second (cc 6-IO) begins straight away With the
speculatIve Idea of the unmoved mover and With the assertIOn
of a supersenslble realIty UnlIke the second, the first part IS not
an end In Itself, It IS there simply for the sake of the second, to
which It serves as foundatIOn From the world of movmg thmgs,
which he descnbes as forms developmg and realIzIng themselves
m matter, Anstotle ascends to the unmoved source and end of
thclI" motIon. the form of all forms, pure act, the form that IS
creative and free of all matter With thiS ,>ubJect he therefore
spends almost tWice as much tune as with that of the first part
To a casual glance the constructIOn seems to be the same as m
the later presentation of metaphySICS In both the doctnne of
substance and of actuahty precedes theology, and the earher
part of 1\ IS m essentials parallel to the content of Books ZHe
But the deCISive conSideration IS that m 1\ the notIon of meta-
phySICS IS confined to the later part, the earher IS not reckoned
as belongmg thereto The conclUSIOn of the first part runs 'We
have stated, then, what are the prmClples of senSible thmgs and
how many they are' I The second begms . Smce there were
three kmds of substance, two of them phYSICal and one un-
movable, regardmg the latter we must assert that It IS necessary
that there should be an eternal unmovable substance' (ou17la)
Whereas later ArIStotle deSCrIbes the two kmds of senSible reahty
as . m a sense' the concern of physlc'>,z he here calls them
. physical' Without quahficatlOn The unmoved and eternal, on
the other hand, IS the object of metaphySICS Without quahfica-
tlOn, Just as It IS m the earher verSIOn of the mtroductlOn and m
Book N, wluch we have shown to be early 3 In exactly the same
I Melap1l /I 5. I071
b
I
Me/ap1l Z II, 1037" I., 'SlDce 10 a sense the mqulry about perceptible
substances IS the work of phySICS, I e of second philosophy'
, The deternunatlon of 'the scll'nce that we are seeking by means of the
qualItIes of eternity, mdependence. and permanence. ",hlch must belong to Its
object m accordance With the example set by the theory of Ideas, appears, as
we have seen. not merely In the older version of the mtroducbon (K 2, 10601 26),
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 221
way he here says sunply that sensible reabty IS penshable, and
mfers that, If there eXists nothmg but the forms unmanent In
sensible thmgs, everythmg m the umverse IS necessanly subject
to the Heracbtean flux 1 Book,> Kand 1\ also agree m recognlzmg
a,> the object of 'the sCience that we are seekmg' only the tran-
scendental, that which IS not unmanent In any sensible thmg
The three anginal kmds of bemg are clearly apportioned between
phySICS and metaphysics The two kmds that belong to the
'>enslble \\- arId, the unpenshable substdnce of the heavenly bodIes
and the penshable substance of plants, ammals, &c ,are assigned
to phySICS Without any bmltatIon, because they are bound up
WIth matter and motion. unmoved substance IS the object of
, another sCience', metaphysIcs J
Jommg all these observations together, we maysaythat Book 1\
represents the stage that we have discovered to corne before the
tradItIonal metaphysIcs, a stage that was stIll purely PlatOniC
dnd dld not recogmze the doctrIne of sensIble substance as an
mtegral part of first phIlosophy In Anstotehan language,
metaphY'>lcS as 1\ understands It does not study the whole
category of substance, but takes a particular part of It Its
ubJect IS confined to the part of the category of substance that I'>
perfect and good, namely God or reason 4 It seeks for a tran"
but also in the early A 2, 28-" I I, where thIS sCIence- IS from the fir.t
a"umed to be theology, as It JS m the dJalogue On PhIlosophy That Dook N
belongs to the oldest stratum of the MetaphysIcs "as proved abcne pp IR') t'
Hence It IS e.peClaUy Important that m opemng sentence, (1087" 30)
book IS Just as defimte a. Book " in contrastmg the conception of metaphy,lC'
,,. the scIence of the' unchangeable substances' "Ith phySICS a, thp theory of
lh.. "orId of motIon Anstotle IS refernng to the )f thr Platom.ts,
th.. doctnne of Ideal Numbers (hence the plural 'J, but the- contra.t
between the two SCJences based on the absolute distInctness of their oblects, J,>
Ob'IOusly entIrely accepted by him
I Sen.lble substances, ",th the exceptIOn of the heavenly ar.. de-
'"Tlbed SImply as penshabJe In 1\ 1,1069" 31, and 6, I07Ib 6, cp K 2 1060"22
lhe later account in Z B, I033b 5, and H 3, I043b 15, IS much more complex
mu,t be de,tructIble WIthout bemg ever tn coune of being destroyed, and m""t
have come to be" Ithout ever bemg In course of cclmlng to be' Here the world
of appearances, which to Anstotle was ongmally Just changeable, !la, be..n
thoroughly penetrated With the Idea that ,t too partakL. of the unchangeable
because of the forms that hold sway In It
Melaph K 2, ]06oa 12 eXlstmg apart by ,tself and bdonglDg to no senSible
thlDg' Cf "6 I07Ib 19, and 7. 1073""
J " I. Io6'}a 30 and 36
For the Vie" that the good In the category of substance ,s God or reason see
Eth Nte I 4, 1096' 19 fI, esp "21 and cl Eth l:.ud I 8, 12I7b 30, an:!
p
222 TRAVELS
scendental entIty such as Plato's Idea, combInIng absolute
reality (ovala) with absolute value (aya66v) AccordIng to A
values and realitIes are two separate ascendmg senes, convergmg
towards the top They meet at the pomt where the highest value
(apICTTov) comcldes WIth the purest reahty (ovala) This IS the
PlatoDlc notlon of the most perfect bemg (ens perfecttSstmum),
which we have already found set out In the proof of God's
eXistence m the dialogue On Phtlosophy
The second and still more unportant thmg to notice IS the
posItion of the dodnne of immanent forms In Book 1\ we can
at last see clearly how this Vital part of Anstotle's phIlosophy
was related to theology whIle It was stIll a part of physIcs The
gradual ascent from sensIble to pure supersenslble form, which
later took place Wlthm metaphysIcs, IS effected m A by the
pnmltIve deVice of lettmg metaphysIcs, as the sCience of the un-
moved and transcendental, SImply rest externally on phySICS,
the SCIence of the movable and unmanent By the logical maDl-
pulatIon of the objects of senSible expenence phySIC!> obtam'S the
conceptIons of form and entelechy, which It distIngUishes from
matter and potency, and the relatIOns of whIch to these other
conceptIons It determmes It then hands them over to meta-
phYSICS Whereas phySICS, however, 15 never able to abstract
from the moment of matter and motIon, which m expenence are
always found along With the form, metaphySICS, standmg on ItS
shoulders, reaches up to the conceptIOn of a highest and Im-
rnatenal form, on whIch nature, as a totahty, . depends' and In
which alone phySICS receives Its completion With reference to
Its functIon as the SummIt of the system of phySIcal movements
thIS form IS called the first mover Here we come upon the
earl1est form of Anstotle's theology-the doctrme that phYSICS
IS to be completed by a transcendent 'end' T o . . ~ . towards
whIch all the VISIble motIon m the world 15 dIrected, and by
which the phenomena of nature are' saved'
Although the real proof of the early date of " IS ItS form,
which exactly fits the results of our analySIS of the other books,!
MlJlaph II 7. 1721 34 Thus the ongmal metaphySICS was the science of pure
and perfect bemg and of the highest good. not, !Ike the later. of all Iunds and
senses of being
I Chapter 8, which was IIlserted later aD. IS treated below III a separate dls-
CUIMon
mE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 223
confirmatIOn IS to be found In certam of Its external relations to
them Whereas Its relatIOn to the final versIOn of the Meta-
phyncs, as we have It, IS entIrely negatIve, It eVIDces the closest
connexlOn WIth the fragments of the ongmal versIOn, to which
It stands near Ul time, and especially wIth Book N Bomtz
faded to notice thIS because he was lookIng only for connectmg
hnks between A. and the umfied series of books that precedes It
ThIS senes, however, and the plan of It, are later than A., whereas
we have shown that N, although m posItIon It comes afterwards,
IS part of the earlIest state of the MetaphysJCs, and ObVIOusly
precedes A 10 time In any event It would be natural to con-
Jecture that 10 a merely occasIOnal discourse, mtended to give
only a short summary of hTh whole metaphySical View, ArIstotle
would make use of hIS lecture-notes And 10 fact A15 little more
than an extract from hiS more detailed esotenc lecture, 30 far as
the remams of the ongmal MetaphysJcs enable us to judge It IS
true that we do not possess the really posItIve part of the phIlu-
sophy of the supersensible, I e the doctnne of God, eIther 10 the
earher or m the later verSIOn, but the precedmg cntlcal portion,
WhICh was directed agamst the metaphySICS of the other
AcademiCians, was used hberally as a source of thiS discourse,
and presumably the posItive part of /\'s theology had exactly
the same relatIOn to the lost theologyofthe ongmal MetaphysJcs,
that IS, was Simply an excerpt therefrom We may make the
relatIOn between A. and Nclearer by settmg Side uy Side some of
the passages that are dependent on each other
N 4, 1092'9 A. 7, 1072bJO
If then, It IS equally Impossible Those who suppose, as t l ~ Pytha-
not to put the good among the f i r ~ t goreans and SpeUSlppUS do, that
prmClples and to put It d.mong supreme beauty and goodness are not
them m thiS way eVidently the present m the beglTl7nng, because the
pnnClples are not being COlTectly begmmngs both of plants and of
descnbe" Nor does anyone ammals are causes, but beaut-, and
conceiVe the matter correctly If he completeness are In the effects of
compares the prlTlClples of the um- these, are wrong m theIr opinIOn
verse to that of anImals and plants. For the seed comes from other In.
on the ground that the mon com- dlvlduals which are poor and com-
plete always comes from the 10- plete. and the first tiling IS not seed
defimte and lflcomplete--whlch IS but the complete bemg, e g we must
what leads thIS thmker to say that say that before the seed the"e IS a man,
thiS IS also true of the first pnn- -not the man produced from thl'
l:Z4 TRAVELS
clples of reahty, so that the One It- seed, but another from whom the
self IS not even an eXlStmg thmg seed comes
This IS Incorrect, for even m thJS
world of ammals and plants the
prmclples from which these come
are complete, for d IS a man that
produces a man, and the seed IS not
first
It IS ObVIOUS at first glance that one of these passages must
have been mfluenced by the other Although A mentlOns Speu-
SlppUS by name, whIle N attacks hIm anonymously, there can be
no possIble doubt that N IS the ongmal and more complete
verSlOn It IS much more precise It bnngs out more clearly the
fact that the 'pnnclples of ammals and plants', of whIch both
accounts speak, were held by SpeusippuS to provIde an analogy
to the . pnnclples of the umverse'. and that thIS IS not a stnct
mference but a mere companson (napelKCIJelv) The argument
from the evolution of orgamsms to a correspondmg evolu-
tion of the UnIverse appears to Anstotle as a tranSItIOn to
another genus' The account In A does not even mentIOn the
questIonable logrc of thls argument. It only remarks In passmg.
because the begrnmng., both of plants and of ammal., ',&c But
the evolutIomst theory IS not true even of orgamsms-thls IS the
second part of the account-because the first thmg IS not the
seed but the actual hVIng man, he bemg pnor to the seed At the
begmmng, therefore, comes pure actualIty, not potency or
matter The mfluence of Nalso appears at the end of the lecture
N 3, 1090b 13 A 10, 1075 b37
Agam, If \\e are not too eaSily And those who say mathe-
satisfied, we may regarding all matlcal number IS first and go on
number and the objects of mathe- to generate one kind of substance
matlcs, press thiS difficulty, Ihal after another and give different
thev COJ'ltrlbule nolhlng 10 one an- pnnClples for each, make the sub-
olher Ihe prIOr to the posterIOr, for stance of the unl!lerse a mere ser:es oj
If number did not eXISt, none the episodes (JOY one substance has no
less spatial magmtudes would eXist Influence on another by Its eXistence
for those who malntam the eXIs- or non-existence). and they give us
tence of the objects of mathe- many govermng pnnclples , but the
mattcs only, and If spatial magm- world refuses to be governed badlv
tude'> d1d not eXist. soul and sen- . The rule of many is not good, one
s1ble bodies ould eXlst But the ob- ruler let there be '
served facts show that nature .s not a
series oj epISodes. lJke a bad tragedy
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 225
ThIS makes It clear that the whole concludmg pOl han of
Book Awas mfluenced by the polemIc agamst SpeUSIppUS In N3
WhIle wntmg this part of hiS sketch Anstotle had hiS earlIer
techmcal work before him, or at any rate It was very present to
hIS mmd Here too there can be no doubt that the ongmal
version was Nand not the much bnefer passage In A In Book N
'the pnor contnbute nothmg to the postenor' IS more clearly
put Its VIYld expreSSIOns for the vanous levels of bemg accord-
mg to Speuslppus degenerate m A Into the obscure statement
'for one 'iubstance has no mfluence on another by It!> eXistence
or non-existence' We know that Speuslppu<; held that every
hmd of beIng has Its own pnnclples, one for numbers, another
for mdgmtudes, another for the soul, and on, and that between
these prmclples there IS no further connexlOn I These fine dl'i-
tmchon<; are clearly reproduced In N on Speuslppus' VieW
numbers might wholly dIsappear, although they dre the highest
prInCIple, Without affectmg the e:ustence of magmtudes. "hldl
come next, and sImilarly magmtudes could go Without In any
\\ ay changIng thp eXistence of con!>ClOu!>nes!> or of the e), tended
AnstotIe aptly calls tIllS a nature composrr} of discon-
nected scenes lIke a bad tragedy In A the omISSIOn of the last
phla"e makes the picture of 'a nature WIthout conneXIOn be-
t\\,een Its scene,,' ob<;cure to the pomt of mcomprehenslblht)
Instead of It he here "Witches over to the magnificent SImIle of
the monarch and the many rulers, which make" ,m equaily
stnkIng pIcture of the "tructurelec.,s anarchy of SpcmIppus'
theory of the first prInciple" Why doe!> he drop the Simile With
which he began PrecI!>ely he no longer fCf'l, It VIVidly
enough to do It full JustIce He Simply produce::. It {rom IllS store
as somethmg rcady-made and qUlte famlhar
Chapters one ann twu of Book N were also u5ed 10 the com-
position of A The keynote of N I IS the same a-; that of the last
chapter of A-polemiC agaIn"t Plato',> dualism of first prInCiples
The rest Will be obvIOUS If we Juxtapose them
N I, ID87" 29 A la,
10
75" 25
All make the first "" e must not f'l.ll to observe how
prtnClples contrartes But S1nce many ur paradOXIcal re-
there cannot be anythmg pnor to confront who holrl
I Metaph Z 2 I02Bb 21
I\. 10,
1
75. 34
Furthe", all things, except the one,
Will, on the view we are CritICIZing,
partake of evil, for the bad Itself IS
one of the two elements
226 TRAVELS
the first pnnclple of all thmgs, the different Vlews from our own, and
pnnclple cannot be the pnnclple what are the views of the subtler
and yet be an attnbute of some- thmkers, and wluch views are at-
thmg else To suggest thiS IS hke tended by fewest dllnculbes All
saymg that the white IS a first make all things out of contranes
pnnclple, not as anythmg else but But neither' all thmgs' nor' out of
as white, but yet that It IS predlc- contranes' IS nght, nor do these
able of a subject, I e that ItS bemg thmkers tell us how all the thmgs
white presupposes Its beIng some- m wluch the contranes are present
thmg else, thiS IS absurd, for then can be made out of the contranes ,
that 'Subject wt.ll be pnor But all for contranes are not affected by
things which are generated from one another Now fOY us thiS dlffi-
thear contraries Involve an under- culty IS solved naturally by the fact
lYing subject, a subject, then, must that there IS a thard element These
be present m the case of contranes, thinkers however make one of the
If anywhere All contranes, then, two contraries matter, thiS IS done
are always predicable of a subject, fOY Instance by those who make the
and none can eXISt apart But unequal matter for the equal, OY the
these tJlJnkers make one of the con- many matter foY the one
t"ayUS matter, ~ makmg the un-
equal-which they take to be the
essence of plurallty_altey fOY the
equal,' and otheys makang plurality
malter for the One
N 4, I09Ib 35
It follows, then, that all thmgs
partake of the bad except one-the
One Itself (b
30
) These absurdi-
ties follow, and It also follows that
the contrary element IS the ball-
Itself
Book A concludes WIth an ImpreSSIVe account of the devIOUS
consequences of duahsm as upheld by the Academy, whIch
serves as a fod to the stnct monarchy of Anstotle's doctrme of
the thought that thmks Itself ThIS part IS nothmg but a mosaIC
of ISolated sentences and Ideas from N I It IS true that It
slIghtly popularIzes and SImplJ1ies the hIghly dIfferentiated
matenal of Book N, but the mam argument of that book agamst
the dualIst theory of the pnnclples remams VISIble everywhere
the contranes must mhere m a thud thmg as a substratum, m
accordance WIth the AnstotelIan doctnne of form and pnvatIon,
whIch reqUIre matter m order to change Into each other A
I OmlttIDg TIj'l Iv!
THE GROWTH OF THE METAPHYSICS 227
simply asserts the terhum dabttur, N proves It For us, Anstotle
tnumphantly exclaims, the problem IS solved without difficulty,
for there IS a thud thmg and that IS not maUer, the substratum
of contrary states, but absolute thought, the form that IS wlth-
out matter and hence not hable to any change or to any con-
trary The mevltable consequence of the reJechon of dualism IS
not matenahsm but the absolute monarchy of nllnd
CHAPTER IX
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS
T
HE key to the understandmg of Anstotle's ethIcS hes m the
problem of the relahon between the Ntcomac!tean and the
Eudemtan versIOns The so-called Magna Moraha may be dIS-
regarded It IS SImply a collectIOn of eAcerpts from the two
other works, ItS author was a Penpatehc who used the longer
presentations 10 order to make a bnef handbook for lectures In
practIce the Nlcomachean EthlcS has always predommated over
the other mam treatise almost wIthout mterference The Eude-
mlan has remamed entirely m the background, ItS only use
has been to help occaSIOnally In the mterpretatIOn of dIfficult
passages There IS good reason for thIS procedure, for the Nzco-
machean Ethzcs IS deCIdedly supenor In completeness of con-
structIOn, clanty of style, and matunty of thought Even m
antIqUIty men dIscussed the Nzcomachean only, and neglected
the Eudemtan, and the latter IS stIll almost virgIn soIl Recent
years have seen a commendable move towards better thmgs, but,
so far as can be observed, It has not yet had much effect.
In the last century an event occurred WhICh remforced the
natural preference of scholars for the better work Spengel, the
celebrated Anstotehan and reVIver of anCIent rhetonc, declared
the Eudemtan EtJncs to be spunous I HIS famous article, WhICh
ImmedIately obtamed umversal acceptance and stIll holds the
field for the most part to-day, expressed the VieW that thIS work
was not merely pubhshed by Anstotle's pupIl Eudernus of
Rhodes, but abo wntten by hun While Its frequent and re-
markable correspondences WIth the Nlcomachean EthlcS could
only be explaIned as due to a close follOWIng of Anstotle's
doctnne and of ItS formulatIOn 10 that work, he held that 10 Its
deviatlom, which are conSiderable, the Eudemtan EthlCS betrays
the mdlvlduahty of Eudemus The Nlcomachean EthlCS was so
much better m many respects, and so much ncher and nper as
a whole, that It was ImpOSSIble to Imagme what could have
caused Anstotle to wnte such a much less happy replIca The
I Abh d bayr Akad d WISS, vol 111 (18.p), PP 534 fi
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 229
detenoratlOn was therefore ascnbed to the pupIl Above all,
the theological denvatiOn of morality m the EudemMn EthIcS
seemed mcompatlble with the preval1mg Idea of Anstotle I
Its differences from the other work In this respect certamly do
requITe explanatiOn It was thought that they should be con-
nected with the personal devoutneso. of Eudemus, about
which, however, nothmg was known except that he pie-
sumed to be the author of a history of theology, which
scarcely to be taken as an expressIOn of hvmg, personal reli-
gIOn, espeCially as he also wrote a history of mathematic,> and
dstronomy Mamly becau::.e of the belief that he I'> the author,
there has grown up a notion of 'the pIOUS Eudemu'i' whICh
very badly with the posItIve spmt of the PenpatetIc school after
Aristotle J
However that may be, the two German editIOn,> now avail-
able, that of FrItzsche In 1851 and that of Su'>emlhl III 1884, both
entitle thiS work Eudemt Rhodn Etlaca, and. the valudble
lI,>h commentarIes on the Ntcomachcan Ethtcs by Grant, Stewart,
.md Burnet, as well as the German teAt by Apclt, ,Illiegard the
other a::. a work of Eudemu'i
The tradItIon gIves no support to thI" 'iUpp0'iitlOn It 1<; true
that the problem of the three book.. common to both Etll1cS gave
n,>p III antiqUity to the thl'ory that they belong to Eudl'mu,> .!TId
were transferred to the Nlcomachean to fill a gap ,4 but
the mual view was the OppOSite, smce the)' do not appear In the
manue;cnpts of the Eudemlan Ethtcs ThiS mIl'>t ha\ e been so de;
early as the AlexandrIan perIod, for the lI<;t of ArIstotelian works
known (and presumably actually III the hbrary) at Alexandna
dunng the time of Calhmachus' pupil Herrnlppu" only
an EthtC5 10 five books, which IS obVIOusly the Eudemzan wlth-
I Zeller, Art,totle and the Larlur Pertpatetlcs, vol 2 (1897) PI' 4
21
-7
Grant The Eth.cs of Anstotle, vol I PI' 13 ff
Zeller,op CIt, P 417, n 3 If Eudemus In thIS work the
f(onles of Orpheu., Homer He'lOd, AcusIlau" l'herecydp" and EpImemdes, and
of the Zoroastnan and other onentaJ theoJog'le', he dId to the
of Anstotle'. remarks on the subject m hiS hook On PhilosoPhy
] FOr the pIOUS Eudemu.. ' ,ee C Plat 1rzstotele>
edItIon by EmIl Pnnz zur Oettm!;en-Splelberg (Berlm 11)07), I' 3Q4 G"rLke
finds hun remarkably rehgIOus for a PenpatetIC. (Elnl 1 d hi AI! vol u'
P 4
0
7)
Aspaslu"Comm wAnst eth N,c p 1';1,1 24 andp 1(,1 19 mHeylbut
230 TRAVELS
out the three that were taken over later from the NJcomachean 1
Two of the tradItional hypotheses to explam the two verSIons
and titles betray thelI" lateness by theIr mere Ignorance Thus
CIcero suggested that the NJcomachean mIght well be by NICO-
machus-a conclusIOn whIch mdeed would be Inevitable If the
EudemJan were by Eudemus 2 ThIS IS a mere mventIOn, as hIS
threadbare argument for It shows why should not the son of a
famous father have been hunself a capable man for once?
Equally late and amateurish IS the mterpretatlon of the two
titles as meanmg the EthJCS to NJcomachus and to Eudemus In
ArIstotle's day the dedIcation of treatIses was unknown, as IS
clear when we contrast hIS genume works WIth the SpUrIOUS
Rhetonca ad Alexandrum, to whIch some naIve and unhIstorlcal
person, completely mIStakIng the hterary custom of the fourth
century, has prefixed a foreword and dedIcatIOn Not to men-
han that the two EthJCS have no dedIcatIOns and are not pub-
hshed works at all, but lecture-notes
The general VIew of earher antIqUIty seems to favour sunply
the pubhcatlon, by NIcomachus and Eudemus, of two sets of
Aristotle's lecture-notes There IS nothIng agamst the SUppoSI-
tion that Anstotle left behmd hIm more than one verSIOn of hIS
lecture on ethICS, as we have discovered that he dId WIth meta-
phYSICS Here as there It IS a pnon probable that the earher of
the two verslOns IS the one of whIch only fragments remam The
deCISIOn of the questIon must come m the mam from the dIS-
covery of the mner lOgIC that controls the development of Ans-
totle's ethIcal problems Kapp has made a begmmng of thiS
kmd of mqUiry m a keen and careful pIece of work that IS far
the best thmg wntten on the EudemJan EthJCS and theIr phIlo-
sophIcal poSItIon dunng recent years J He compares the two
I In spIte of recent doubts thJS seems to me to be proved by the mentIOn of
, five books of ethICS m DlOgenes hst, wh,ch goes back to Hernuppus That
Hesychlus' list mentions ten books IS no contradiction, even Jf both ~ t denve
from HermJppus' catalogue Hesychlus IS obVIOuslyrelernng to the Nlcomachean
EthICS, and either Henmppus himself mentioned thiS 8.$ well as the Eudem,an
or else the live was later altered to ten The statement l.D DlOgenes IS confinned
by the fact that the manu5Cnpts of the Ewdem'lltJ EthICS gIVe only five books
See the references for thiS and the follOWlng theory In SusemJhl's edJtion of
the Eud."llaft EthICS, pp xvm ff, and In Von der MtihU's dissertation D, A,.
eth Eudem awctorltllt, (GOttlngen, 1909), pp 25 if
J E Kapp, Dlls V,,.h41tJlls de,. ."d.much,JI zu,. 1Ilkomllchuch." Eth,k.
Frelburg, 19J2 Dissertation
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 23
1
Eth,cs afresh, and comes to the conclusIon that the Eudmaan
IS to be restored to ArIstotle and to be regarded as the earher
Von der Muhll had reached the same result a fewyears prevlOusly,
takmg hIS start from the specIal relatIons of the Eudennan EthJCS
to the PohtJcs and to some other works 1
My own results, whIch partly agree With and partly go beyond
those of my two predecessors, were reached along another path
and Without knowledge of their observations Smce their View,
that the Eudenuan EthJCs IS early and genume, does not seem
to have gamed general acceptance, and Since I hope to be able
to make the matter dear once and for all, I WIll set out my own
method here It was a dIsadvantage of theIr 'Work that It was
not related to Anstotle's development as a whole In particular,
by confimng thetr compansons to the two great Eth,cs they
gave a handle for many obJectIons, smce they had no fixed pomt
of temporal reference Such an Immovable cntenon IS to be
found m ArlStotle's earhest ethICS, which has never yet been
'ienously considered By means of the fragments of the Pro-
treptJCus, mcludmg the newly recovered matter, It IS possible to
make a pIcture of the development of hIS ethICS m three clearly
separated stages the late Platomc penod of the Proireptzcus,
the reformed Platomsm of the EudemJan, and the late Ansto-
tehanlSm of the NJComachean For us the most Important form
of the mqUIry Will be the questIon which of the two E!h,cs IS to
be regarded as the Immediate product of the problems of the
Protrept,cus, and whether It IS possIble to demo:Istrate a con-
tinuous advance at all
I Von der Muhll, op Cit The speCial value of thts erudite wJrk IS that It
traces out very completely the relations that BendIXen (PJnlologw>, vol x
(1856), pp 575 fI) had already shown to eXist betwl"en the Ewd'....an PJnes
and the Pollt.cs, and ~ some further observatIOns of the same kmd We
shall return to thiS question In the chapter on the Politics, a subject for which
It IS Important but I would rather not make It the foundation of my lDqUlry
Into the Ewd.....afl EOnes, be<.ause the correspondences do not perhaps ron-
sbtute a complete proof by themselves alone, lD spIte of the fact that those who
favour the authorship of Eudemus might find It hard to give a satisfactory
explanation of the method of work which Von der Muhll proves the author tC'
have used Von der Muhll finds a Dumber of phllosophlcallnaccuranes In the
treatise, and e x p l l n ~ them by the assumptIon that It IS a !let of somewhat
careless notes made by Eudemus from Arutotle's lectures, but Kapp s acute
InterpretatIon has cleared them up (op Cit pp 8 ft) and therefore the
questIOn whether the work IS Eudemus' notes or Arllltotlc's ongLDal still
remainS open
232
TRAVELS
I THE PHILOSOPHICAL RELATION OF THE EUDEMIAN
ETHIC') TO THE PROTREPTICUS
The EthJCS begms Its mqUlry mto the aun of
human hfe wIth a bold sketch of the system of ends Thus from
the start the problem IS put mto relatIOn with AnstotelIan
teleology as a whole, and the nature of what follows IS mdlcated
The begmnmg of the first book of the EudemJan EthJCS mtro-
duces the same mqUIry m a much less systematIc, but more
VIVid and personal, form On the propylaeum of the temple of
Leta on Delos, the lecturer these hnes appear
Moc;t noble I!> that which IS ]ustest, and best IS health,
But pleasantest I!> It to Win what we Ime
To thiS apodlctIc expressiOn of popular Greek sentiment he
oppose'>, not Without feelmg, his own theSIS 'But for ourselves,
let U'> not agree With thiS author, for happmess IS the noblest
and best and at the same time the pleasantest' ThiS place':> the
questiOn of happmess at the summit of ethiCS, and the whole of
the first book IS concerned WIth It The conneXIOn between
ethiCS and happmess had been traditional smce Socrates and
Plato, and the N1comachean EthJCS also retams It as startmg and
closmg pomt But the latter work IS much more modern m pre-
fixmg to the diSCUSSiOn of happmess a chapter which denves
from the general system of ends the formal conceptIOn of a neces-
sary supreme end of all human effort Not until the begmmng
of the next chapter IS thIS equated WIth
The second pomt that Anstotle deals With m the NJcomachean
EthJCS before entenng on the diSCUSSion of happmess IS the ques-
tIon of method Our study of the ProtreptJcus has shown that m
the NJcomachean EthJCS he had arnved at a view about method
dlametncally opposite to that of hiS early days As early as the
proem he gives It clear formulatiOn I Here agam the Eudemzan
I For the contrast between the p.yotreptlCus and the N.comachean EthlCs In
pOInt of method see above, pp 85 ff The applIcation of the name proem' to
the part whIch In the N'comachean Eth,cs precedes the place where the
Evdem,an begms (I e Eth N,c I 2) comes from Anstotle himself These
remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected, and the
purpose of the mqulry, may be taken as our proem' He then returns to the
Idea oC the supreme end, usmg the same words as ill the first chapter
and declares It, as m the Eudem,an Ethus, to be happmess The emphaSIS on
the contrast WIth Plato's and WIth hIS own earlIer method. and Its InsertIOn
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 233
EthICs IS less defimte It contams no reflectIons on the peculI-
anty of ethIcal method Instead the author dIscusses the dIffer-
ence between the philosophIcal and the unphllosophlcal treat-
ment of ethIcal and pohtical questions, a pomt that had already
receIved detailed exammatIon 10 tht' Protreptzcus t In that work
empirICISm was sharply opposed to the ratIonal knowledge of
the pure norms, and todIalectic as the only phIlosophIcal method
The Eudem1,an Eth1,cS does not, lIke the N1,comachean, meet thI!:>
VIew WIth an absolute repudIatIOn of the demd.nd for exact geo-
metncal treatment, on the contrary, It smoothes over the con-
trast on WhICh the N1,comachean verSlOn purposely throws Lt
bnght lIght 'One must try to obtam conVIctIon from reasomng
(MYOI), but to use the phenomena as eVIdence and as examples'
Further, It IS neces'iary to bnng the phllo!:>ophical norm mto
harmony WIth the prevaIlmg ethIcal VIews by reveahng theu
underlymg kernel of truth through conceptual mampulatlOn
Thus the conceptual analySIS of e"pencnce repldces the soul'.,
"'pontaneous knowledge of the ldeds a'i we find It 10 the Pro-
Irept1,cus, although emphaSIS IS still laId on the fact that expen-
ence by Itself IS 'confused', that only the Logos can lead to d.
clear InSIght mto the cau!:>e'i of th1Og!'> The contrast between the
phliosophical and the unphIlosophlCal treatment IS no longer the
ac; that between the nonnative or loglcLtl and the cmpmcal
It now corresponds to two speCIes of concern WIth expenence
a lower one that merely a!>certLuns facts, and a hIgher thd.t seeb
for the reasons of the facts The Wd.y m whIch the standpomt
of the Eudem1,an Eth1,cS has been mfluenced by thp Plutrephcus
('<in also be seen m It<; attItude towards the assertIOlJ that the
polItICIan needs theoretical knowledge of the ethIcal norm It
sounds almost lIke the defence of a half-abandoned doctnne
when \\-e hear that such a knowledge 'not superfluous' even to
the polItICIan, because he mu.,t understand the reasons of ethIcal
dnd polttIcal facts On the other hand, however, the
bf'fore the begmnmg of the inqUIry proper, therefore wholly mtentlonal 10
the Nuomachean Eth,cs
I Von der Muhll (op Cit, P 21) that LI" Lud I fi,s directed agalmt
Plato and the Academy Kapp doubts thl' The truth" that An.totle .. here
refernng to the remarks on method In own Pro/rep/leu> (lambl Pro/r L x).
\\-hleh were PlatoOlc In essence, and IS partly ernendmg dnd partly reJectmg
them Cf above, pp 85 ff
234 TRAVELS
Ethscs deprecates the phl.1osophers who burden thIS dlScJphne
wIth wJde-rangmg abstract dIscussIons (thIs means the theory
of Ideas and of Ideal numbers), and stigmatlZes therr thorough-
ness as due to nllsunderstandmg or to pomposity
Between the Protreptscus and the Eudemsan Ethics Anstotle had
In fact abandoned the theory of Ideas and separated ethics from
metaphysIcs The eJghth chapter of the first book contams the
refutation of the Idea of the good, which also occurs m the first
book of the Nscomachean Ethscs, but whereas the latter prefaces
Its cntlclsm with a sharply aggressIve statement of the revolu-
tIon that thIS step had produced m method, the Eudemsan
EtklCs tnes rather to show that sn spste of the cntJclSm of the
Ideas and of the earber method very substantIal portIons of the
Protreptscus retam their valIdity
Closer InspectIon of the first book of the Eudemsan Etkscs
shows that ItS formulatIOn of the problems IS throughout deter-
mmed to a stnkmg extent by the ProtreptJcus, and mdlrectly by
Plato's way of thmklOg One of the permanent parts of Plato's
theory of 'Virtue', and especially of Jts lOtroductory statement
of problems, was the question whether men are 'vrrtuous' by
nature or through habJtuatIon or knowledge or dlvme gIft or
luck, and smce It was usual to subordmate the questIOn of the
nature value of vIrtue to that of true happlOess, the Eude-
msan Ethscs, at the beglnmng of Its inqUIry Into happmess, com-
bmes both questions In the form. Does happmess anse through
natural constitutIOn or through InSIght or through habitua-
tion, &c We are already falmhar With the answer from the
Protreptscus whether It depends on one or more or all of these
causes, men are essentIally agreed that happ10ess (whIch IS here
suddenly equated With 'lIVing well') 15 made up of three factors,
the relative unportance of which however 10 secunng the end IS
variously estlffiated These are phronesss, virtue, and pleasure
Men place the happy and perfect hfe sometlffies 10 one of them
and sometimes In the correct mixture of them Thus Plato 10
the Phtlebus puts It In the mixture of phronesss and pleasure,
whue AnstotIe's Protreptscus deCides for the umon of all three
facultIes I The end of hfe TOU KaAWs 3i'\v), which ethiCS
has to establISh, depends on the deCISion of thiS questIon In
J Plato, PI"I 22 A. lambl P,OI" P 41, I If, and P 59, I 26 (Plstelh)
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 2JS
every event the problem of happmess leads to that of the best
hIe (mpl I3lov TOU KpaTIO"TOU Kal 3c.>'iS Tiis apiaT'l')S) To speak
of 'hvmg dIVmely' (IJQKap1ws) IS perhaps less deSirable than to
speak of 'hvlng well and nobly', the first expresslOn might
TalSe objection The correction shows once more that thiS
part of the IS dependent throughout on the
for the latter spoke WIthout mlSglvmg of the
diVine (IJQKOPIOV) In man, and proclaImed that he should lIve
for that alone I
The fourth chapter, whIch contains the companson of the
three 'hves', IS also based on the As In that early
work, three typIcal forms of hfe are here derIved from the three
fundamental forces that are the source of all human values, the
know1Og mind, the moral character, and the experIence of deSIre
The hfe that IS based on knowledge has Its roots In phronests,
that of practIcal pohtIcs 10 VIrtue, that of enjoyment In pleasure Z
The example of Anaxagoras, who, when asked who IS the happiest
man, answered 'None of those that you thmk so, but someone
who would seem extraordmary to you', also appears to come
from the Protrcptteus, for the statement that Anaxagoras hIm-
self held that man's happmess hes not 10 wealth or beauty, but
perhaps In a Just, pure, and pamless hfe enjoYing diVine
contemplation (TIVOs 6ewplas KOIVWVOVvTa 6efas), correspond",
exactly to two passages In the where the same
phIlosopher descnbes the contemplatIon of the heavens as mar"s
true aim, and assigns a share of the dlvme to human hfe III
vIrtue of Mind J Thus we find In the denvatlon of the three
lIves, as we have already found In the accounts 01 the nght
method for ethiCS, that the Eudemzan EOl1es IS nearer to the
Prolreplfeus In thought than I" the N1wmachean The latter IS
Indeed famIharwlth the three hves that VIe for the pnze of happi-
ness, and mentIOns them In the same cannexlOn ,4 but It men-
hans them In pass10g only, and as If they were an estabhshed
I The dubncbon between' hvmg' and' hVlDg well (perfectly truly, nobly)'
IS developed at length In the Protreptuus (Iambl Protr. c XI. cf eapecLall}
p 46, 1 2.5. P 58, 1 I P 60, I 9) For the' dl\ Ine' and' hVlng
dl\lnely' see EtA Eud I 1,1214" 30.3. 1215" 10 and cp Iambl, P 4
8
,1 9
EtA Eud I 4. 1215" 26-b 6
J Eth Eud I 4. 1215b 6-14 Iambl Prot", p 51, II 11-15, and p 4
8
,
II 13-1 8
til NJC I 2, I09S
b
17
236 TRAVELS
tOpIC, whereas the other work lays great weIght preclSely on
the systematic denvatlon of them from the three concepbons
of vrrtue, and pleasure ThIS denvatIon reveals the
ongm of the theory of the three It ves, It arose out of Plato's later
ethIcs The begInS byaskmg what IS the hIghest good for
man, and makes the two !lve" of and pleasure compete
for the posItion I The adds VIrtue, and declares
the best Me to conSIst m the correct admIxture of the three
The E udemtan Etlnes takes Its start from thIS stage of the
development
The fundamental reason why the Ethtcs, whl1e
retamIng the hves, abandons the denvatIOn of them from the
tnchotomy hes m the change m Ans-
totle's attItude towards phronests m thIS work 2 We need men-
tion thIS pomt only bnefly, smce we have already dIscussed the
contrast between the notlOn of phronests m the and
III Plato, and that m the EthtcS The two formula-
tions of thIS notion express the two an!>wers that Plato and
Anstotle gave to the questIOn of the ultimate standard and
sanctlOn of morahty In the Protrepttcus. phronests retam,> the
full Platomc sense of the Nus that m contemplatmg eternal
bemg IS at the same time contemplatIng the hIghest good There
only the phIlosopher hves the !lfe of phronests The Nteo-
maehean EtJnes, on the other hand, does not make moral mSIght
dependent on knowledge of the transcendental, It looks for a
'natural' foundatlOn of It In practical human conSCIOusness and
m moral character Phroneszs and the whole tnchotomy of the
Protreptuus are aCC0rdmgly deleted from the fir"t book The
Eudemtan Ethtcs, on the other hand, not only retams It m the
I Plato, Phil 20 E
In Eth NIC I 2, 109Sb 14, the three hves are no longer denved from the
three goods On the contrary we are supposed to learn from the hves \I hat
men thmk good In the hfe of enjoyment tillS IS pleasure m that of politics It
IS honour (not virtue) When he comes to the contemplative life Anstotle IS In
a difficulty (1096" 4). smce he cannot mention phronesls He therefore refers to
the account to be given later 'Third the contemplative hfe which v.e
shaJl conSIder later' To thIS he adds the hfe of money-maklllg, the aim of
which IS wealth He thereby all trace of the old tnchotomv
The new hves are Simply the result of the psychological obsenation of h[e,
whereas the old ones were Ideal pOints of reference We have already noticed
thiS procedure of obhteratlOn In the treatment of the four PlatOniC of
the Pro/rep/lelIS In Eth NIC X 4 1178a 2i (above, pp 73-74)
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 237
eacher sense, as we have shown, hut develops the outhne and
plan of the whole ethIcal system from It I
It announces the plan 10 the follow1Og way 'Let us first con-
sIder vIrtue and [notIce the order, It corresponds to the
actual order of treatment 10 the mqumng IOta the nature
of each of them, and whether they are, eIther themselves or the
actions that proceed from them, parts of the good hfe' Pleasure
IS to be dealt With later Z Smce the central
are lost, we must use the to see whether this
proposal IS actually carned out The later versIOn has preserved
the ongmal construction, although the role played by
10 It IS essentIally different from that to It 10 the former.
The first part, 'on vIrtue', IS contamed 10 Books II-V Book VI
follows with the theory of reason and knowledge, WhICh the
Etlnes would descnbe as 'on phronesls' The nomen-
clature used In the Nlcomachean IS 'moral' and' mtellectual virtue'
(whIch also occurs In the earher work), 'moral VIrtue' bemg
equated WIth the part 'on vIrtue', and '1Otellectual VIrtue' WIth
that 'on but 10 spite of the change of name m the
latter verSiOn phronesls shll remams the chief sublect of the
part Book VII pleasure, which IS also treated of In X
In the last part of X An'itotle the 'iynthesls of the three
bves The Interven10g books on (VIII and IX),
though found 10 the Euderman EthlCS too, cannot tldve been
ongmally 10tended for thiS place, smce they go beyond tht'
ongmal conceptual structure of the Ethtcs J WIthout the
Eudemtan verSIOn It would now be llnpO'iSIble to seC' that the
"ystem of Anstotle's Ethtcs IS an orgamc developrnen., III three
, In A nstotle Nlcomachean Eth". Book VJ (( ambndge I <j09) GrLenv.uod
out that With regard to the meaning of phroneSls then I' thL con-
trast between the NlComachean and the I_udemtan EtM" v.e haH_ shown
(pp 81 ff above) to eXist between It and the Protrept"us K.lpP makes use of
thiS observatIOn (op CIt, P 4R)
I Elh Eud I 5. 1216' 37 ,
J I have shown In my Ent Metaph Artst (pp 15" if) that An,totle ,
treatises arose by the combination of Isolated and ,e1f-Lontamed monographs
(MYOI, 1J!901>OI, &c) ThIS does not mean that there I, er an Idea unltmg "
large group of such monographs. or that thl'lr reJatlOnsblp lS one of loose Juxta-
posItion In thought as well as In expressIOn It" slmpl} an a.d to the under-
,tandmg of the way In which Aristotle's' ,""orks' were and It enables
us to expiam their Incoherences and apparent Irrelevancle, by recalling the
phdosopher s manner of ,""orklng and teachmg
Q
238 TRAVELS
separate branches of 1OqUIry, of the tnpartIte dIVISIon 10 the
ProtreptJcus The goal towards whIch each leads IS the theory of
happiness 10 the final book, which IS supported by all three
together The Nfcomachean EthfCS does not give thiS derIvatIon
m Its Introductory book, but leaves the OrIgIn of the actual
structure obscure ThiS IS another IndicatIOn of the comparatIve
earhness of the Eudemlan versIOn
What hght do these conslderatlons throw on the questIon
of It now appears Inconceivable that after the
master's death Eudemus should have dehberately gone back to
a stage that the master had long passed, especIally when we
conSIder the close umty of the school On the baSIS, therefore,
of the InSIght that we have obtamed mto the gradual develop-
ment of the ethical problem we must declare It an untenable
assumptIon that Eudemus IS the author of the EthJCS named
after hun In the study of the hIstory of Greek phIlosophy It
has often happened that men have tned to explam by means of
bIOgraphical and personal conSideratIons facts that were neces-
sItated by a law 10herent 10 the matter Itself The senes Phfle-
bus, Protreptfcus, Eudemfan EthfCS, Nfcomachean EthfCS, evmces
an Irrefutable hlstoncal logiC No member can be exchanged
WIth any other PreVIOusly It was pOSSIble to be m doubt about
the pOSItIon of the Eudemfan EthfCS, but now that we have
fixed the two end-pomts of Anstotle's development, namely the
ProtreptfCus and the Nfcomachean EthfCS, whose genumeness IS
undoubted, It IS easy to see that the Eudemfan versIOn falls, not
on a contmuatIon of thIS hne, but wIthm It It IS 'the ongmal
EthJCS', If one may use thIS phrase to mean the earlIest fonn of
10dependent AnstotelIan ethiCS, datmg from the penod after
the break With Plato's metaphysIcs
The ongmal Ethus holds the same place m the development
of Anstotle's moral theory, morpholOgically speakmg, as the
ongmal M etaphysfCs does 10 the development of hIS metaphysIcal
thought The two agree in theIr unmIstakable determmatIon to
find a tenable substItute for Plato's mam doctnne, now that It
has been refuted-a substItute that should also satIsfy rehgIous
needs, and generally take the place of the contemplatIon of the
Ideas In every partIcular CntIclsm of Plato had to be subor-
dmated to the effort to create a new form of Platomsm which,
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 239
whLle confonnmg to the facts of expenence, should remam as
conservative as possible In content the ongInal Etlucs IS related
to the ongmal MetaphysIcs by the exclusively metaphYSical
basIs that It assigns to morility Just as Anstotle was stIll so
to speak bodLly attached to Plato's metaphysICs through theo-
logy, so, dunng thiS penod when his own philosophy was bemg
born, was he attached to Plato's ethiCS through hIS theonomlc
morality, thiS bemg what the conceptIOn of phronesls meant to
Plato
By phr01usls the Eudemlan EthICS understands, hke Plato
and the Protreptlcus, the phl1050phlcal faculty that beholds the
hIghest real value, God, In transcendental contemplation, and
makes thiS contemplation the standard of wlli and a<..tlOn, It IS
stIll both theoretIcal knowledge of supersenslble bemg and prac-
tical moral IOslght I Anaxagoras IS still the pattern of I:hls con-
templatIon of truth, as he was In the Protreptlcus PhroneslS 1<;
shU the essence of the phIlosophic and contemplatIve hie Hen<..e
It IS stIll regarded as ruhng over all the SCIences (KVplo lToa(;)v
and as the most valuable knowledge
All thIS IS clearlyopposed to the NU omflchean EthICS
Phronesls IS the tram.fonner that convert'> the knowledge of
the eternal Good mto the ethIcal movement of the will, dnd
apphes It to the detalls of pra..-tIce J In the Nlcomachean
It 1<; the 'state of capacIty to act', and 110 man ever does anything
wlthout It The phIlosophIcal knowledge of Gud IS no lor,ger
ItS essenhal condltIon That knowledge Ie; a !>Ollrce of higher
I The dlff..rence between thiS contemplation (e.",pl... ) and diSC 'iClentlfiL
thought IS dl!'cussed by Anstotle In Metaph e!O It IS an alf"u not of truth 10
the of empmcal Judgements. but of an Immediate vIsion tholt actually
touches (8Iyyl!Ml) ItS object (which IS a V0'1T6v), compare the
(Iambl ,p 58 I 14), where the moln "ho POSSI''iSeS phronens IS defined con-
templating the most knowable parts of reailtv The difference also appears 10
the fa.ct that according to Elh Ewi VII I 1 J 35, phroneHs IS not a !lCll'nce
(hTl<rT'l\,I',) th..t can be turned either to good or to bad use, but a virtue of Nus.
which changes one s whole character and 10 another sort of know-
ledge' (ytvo<; dMo yv<.>ac.>S) It IS a virtue of Nus 10 the too (Iambl
p 4
1
, 11 if) This" not contradlrteJ by the fact that It IS there (p
II S ff) ca.lled a science here that' other !IOrt of know-
ledge'
For the . contemplatIOn of truth see Eth Eud I 4. and Iamb!
Prot,. P 4
7
11 15-25 For 'ruilng over all the s(aenreg' see Eth Eud VIII I,
1246b 9, and Iamb! . P 13, 11 2-7
J Etk Eud VIn 2 U1S1 29 virtue IS thf' of Nus'
240 TRAVELS
insIght revealed to few mortals, but thIS does not mean that prac-
tical WIsdom IS confined to the narrow circle of philosophers
Thus Anstotle tnes to understand the fact that unphtlosophlcal
morahty eXIsts by reference to the autonomous conSCIence and
Its mward standard Only at the end does he add the contem-
platIve hfe to thIS picture, and even then he does not make moral
VIrtue completely dependent on It' In the Eudemfan verSIOn he
IS stIll far from any such conceSSIOn to what Plato calls bour-
geOIS moralIty (111'11.100(0 6:peTi]) There phronesfs IS sttll stnctly
confined to the contemplatIOn of the dIvme pnnciple, and wIth-
out It ethIcdl actIOn IS ImpossIble, the only mnovatIOn IS that
the objects of contemplatIOn are no longer Plato's Ideas but the
transcendental God of the ongmal Metaphysfes, who IS a meta-
morphOSIS of the Idea of the Good In the Eudemfan Ethfes the
central notIon IS sttll God, Just as It IS the unmoved mover m the
M etaphysfcs, ethIcal actIon IS stnvmg towards God The Pro-
treptteus also recogmzes only one aIm of lIfe-to escape from the
semible and earthly world to God 'There IS a pnnciple beyond
WhICh there 1<; no other', says the ongInal EthfCS WIth regard to
the processes that go on wIthm the soul m the umverse God
moves everythmg, so IS It m the soul In a certaIn sense It IS the
dIVIne m us [namely Nus] that moves everythmg For the pnn-
ciple of reason IS not reason but somethmg hIgher And what
could be hIgher than knowledge but God;i'2 ThIS IS the same
thought as Anstotle had expressed at the end of hIS work On
Prayer (see p 160 above) HIS earnest mterest m 'enthUSIasm'
In the Eudemtan Etlnes, the great value that he sets on prophecy,
fortune, and the Instmcttve, so far as It comes not from nature
but from dIVIne mspIratlOn, In bnef hIS emphaSIS on the Irra-
tIOnal, belongs to the same stage as the VIew In the dIalogue On
Plulosophy, where the IrratIOnal claIrvoyant powers of the soul
are descnbed dS one of the two of behef m God He here
, In Etk Nlc X 7 the life of WIsdom and reason called dlvme and
human In X R' the hfe m accordance WIth the other kmd of vIrtue' set
agaInst thIS hIghest Ideal as takmg the second place, and as bemg the really
human hfe About thiS non-phdosophlcal VIrtue we read as follows (1178. 16)
'Practical WIsdom, too IS hnked to vIrtue of character, and to prachcal
WIsdom, SInce the pnnclples of practical WIsdom are m accordance ,,,th the
moral VIrtUes and nghtness m morals IS m accordance WIth practical WIsdom'
Thus ethIcal vIrtue stands on ItS own base and has Its happmess m It
also has Its o\\n reason ' Elk Lud VIII z, 1248.23
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS
24 1
bets msplratIon above reason and moral mSlght, not because It
IS IrratJonal-on that ground Plato, m genumely Socratic fashIon,
had put reason above 'enthusIasm'-but because It comes from
(yod RatIonal morality misses mfallibilIty It IS the product of
mere sober reflectIOn The sureness of InSpIratIOn, on the other
hand, IS lIke IIghtmng, as a blInd man, no longer seemg what
lit's before hiS eyes, has a far better memory and see,!, every-
Hung clear before him wlthm, ,!,o the man whom God InspIres,
though blmd, surer than those that see ThiS descnptIon of
the melancholic and msplred person, full of persoual expf'nence,
I" of value for the l.:.nderstandmg of An.,totle m hiS
middle vears I
In the Eudemzan Ethzn Anstotle I'> still expressmg the dIrect
rele.... dnce of knowledge of God to moral action, as he had done
earlier, by mean" of the PlatOnIC conceptIOn of the dbsolute
norm 2 In the later Etlnes thIS recedes very much mto the
bdckground, for the instinctive (EvCTToxla) of morally
educated WhICh IS a Idw to Itself, not an aim that can
be clearly at <l .<.mgle pomt, unlike the hIghest Good by
rcfHence to whl<'h the Eudemwn EtJnes dlrrrt" us to lIve The
<le'>cnptlOn of the mOTdlly good hfe as the Imltdtlon of
norm'i l'i to be found In the Protreptzeus In the Nzeomachran
on the other h,md, we ha\e the famous defimtIonofmoral
behavIOur a'i a mean determmed by In<,lght m the way m whIch
the man who phronesH would determme 1t Th1S 11as
Riven n'>f' to much smce It abslJ act, and
ItS purpose IS not clear at SIght J Now at the end of the
I ror !'nthu<.la,rn "ee I th I ud VIII 2, 124Aa 30 If , for prophf'{ v 3S and
jH Thc '" hole of Vln I' d, 'oted to fortune An,totl!' d"tmgUlshes phySIcal
and mrtol.ph} ';Ical ;;00,1 fortune Lme lZ4So 19 I' connected", lth On Ph,lo-
IOphv fr!( 10
> The Plator'lc cOnrtptlOn of the 6poo; sometlmLS companYI With or equated
to KW"" developed m the Protreptlcus (Iambl p 54, I 22- P .'Jb, I 7) It 19
Jundamrntal f"r the method ,tnd the ml taphy,;IC' of Plato', lateY <lnd
(<<rher ethlc<, Thl" notIOn of an ab,olutc nol"'n al.'>O 10 Llh Lud II 5.
IlU
b
7 ':n 9, U4,h )6 and U43
b
2<) and VIIf 3 1249' H b, 19 2l and
24 Alter the d"appedrancc of Lhc which had been the :urn of all
normative jud!(ement and effort the conc<ptlOn cf God took over thu role
'lost of the dbove-mentlOned pol.ssage, rrkr to thl, Throughout the Nl[o-
machean Eth,c, the "ord 6pO'; has a different meamng and the (onc('puon of
God " not broug-ht mto the problem of the noym
J 1:th '" It I I 4 '107" 1 VIrtu" then, I' a ,tate of character conccmE'd With
chOice, Iymg In a mean Ie thL mean rclatne to us. th.s bems detcrmmed by d
242 TRAVELS
EudemJan EthJCs there IS a long WscusslOn of the nonn by refer-
ence to which the good man recogniZes and pursues the morally
good Thts passage enables us to see how Anstotle ongInally
conceived the relatIon between theorehcal and practical reason,
and what he understands by 'nght reason' The physIcIan also
makes use of a norm, we read, In order to determIne what IS
healthy for the body and what IS not It is pOSSIble to say. there-
fore, that the healthy IS that WhICh medlcme and the reason
employed In medIcme prescnbe, but thIs IS as Indefimte as It IS
true The conception of the reason employed In medICine must
take ItS content from the obJectIve pnnclple to whIch It IS rela-
tIve, namely health and Its unalterable law Thus medlcme IS
on the one hand the knowledge of health and on the other the
apphcabon of thIs knowledge to the particular case In the
same way moral reason IS partly the knowledge of an obJectIve
value (6ECoJPTlTIKOV), and partly the apphcatlOn of thIs knowledge
to human behaVIOur, the morallmperatlve (ffiITCXKTIK6v) Now
the absolute value or hIghest good, which reason thus grasps, IS
God I God IS to be thought of not as IssUIng laws and commands,
not as duty or will, but as the hIghest Bemg, suffiCIent to Hun-
self Will and command anse only when reason or phronesJs
devotes Itself to the contemplatIOn of thIS Bemg Hence our
rational pnnclple, and by that pnnclple by which the man of practical Wisdom
would determine It' Here. for once, the Idea of the norm reappears ThiS IS the
most pregnant expression that could poSSibly be found of the change In Ans-
totle's attitude towards thiS problem The fact IS that there IS no uDlversal norm
for bun a.ny more 'State of character In accordance With nght reason' was
mcluded In the definition of vutue by all PlatonIsts (see VI 13, IIH
b
21) In
VI 1.1138b 25, Anstotle declares that thiS. though true, IS anythmg but clear. m
thIs book, therefore, he gives a more accurate account of the share that phronesls
has In chOice Its function IS no longer to apprehend the unIversal norm. as
It was In the Prolrephcus, but to discover the ngbt means of attammg the end
(TV."", cn<cnr6s) determined by the moral Will (VI 13. IIH" 9 and 20, 11.5" 5)
I EIIJ Eud VIII 3, 1249" 21 to the end Here too he IS objecting to the
obscunty of the AcademiC definition of the norm as 'determmed by a rational
pnnclplc' (1249b 3), as In Ella Nlc VI I, II38b 25 The problem remained With
him throughout hiS hfe, but the solution here IS different from that III the later
Elhlcs The companson between pIJronens and medlcme had been used III the
Academy AnstotJe modifies It In hiS earher EtJncs by dlstingUlshlllg between
theoretlcal and pracbcal medicine Ph,.onesls apprehends the nann (health or
God) aDd the.ll apphe8lt In Elh Nlc VI 13. I IH" 4, he calls the fint process
W1l1dom and only the second ph,.oneslS As early as the p,.ol,.epllcus we find
Moreover what canon of goods have we. or what more accurate norm, than
the man "ho has phroneslS)' (frg 52, p 61, I 25, III Rose) But here plaronesls
18 rolJ a. general kInd of knowledgc Without any dlfferenttatIon at all
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 243
most preSSIng duty IS to choose all the occupatIons and activItIes
and goods that further the knowledge of God Theoretical phtlo-
sophy IS the means to man's moral education Everything,
whether possessIOn or actIon. IS morally bad and reprehensIble
if It hInders a man from servIng and knowIng God (TOV 6eov
6ep<I1TeVelv Kat 6ewpeiv) I We know that deum colere et cognoscere
IS still a common defimtIon of rehglOn The concluslOn of
the Eudemlan EthICS IS the locus classIcus for theonoffilc ethICs
as taught by Plato In hIs later days God IS the measure
of all thmgs In preservmg thIS much from the wreck of the
Idea-theory Anstotle beheves he I'> retammg the abldmg essence
of PlatOnIC morahty, the notIon of the absolute nonn and of the
transcendence of the Good, whIch had gIven to
the Pldtomst a new expenence of God No wonder that Eude-
mm" the supposed author of thIS EthICS, has always beelllooked
on as a pIOUS man I All thIS was IncompatIble WIth men'" Idea
of Anstotle ThIS first lecture on ethICS exhales the rehglC'u'>
fervour of hIS youthful Platomc faIth Agamst such an ethIC,>
of pure devotIon to God the famous pIcture of the contemplatIve
hfe 10 book ten of the Nfcomachean EthICS fades, and becomes
httle more than an objectIve If IdealIzed descnptIon of the hfe
of the scholar devoted to research, nsmg at the end to the mtUl-
han of the ultImate force that guIdes the sphp.res Some of the
old notes sound agam m thIS pIcture, but not qUIte WIth theIr
old power The strength of the later Ethfcs hes rather 10 Its
parts, WIth theIr analy,>I'; of concrete moral types, and In Its
nch and humane urbamty
The contemplatIon of God wa!> ongmally cluselj connected
WIth the theory of fnendshlp, which m the NJcomacheatJ EthICS
IS expanded mto a general soclOlog} of the mamfold forms of
human relatIonshIp In thIS complex phenomennlogy of socIety
\\ c should be hard put to It to detect the close conneXlOn between
Anstode's phIlosophy of fnendshlp and theory of Ideas,
had we :lot the older EthICS to gIve us a clear pIcture of the method
that Anstotle ongtnally had 10 rnmJ He here replaces the tram.-
cendental and Universal Idea of the Good WIth Ideal types. as he
does throughout hiS earher ethICS and pohhcs These Ideal types
are Immanent In expenence, and yet they are nonnative and not
, EtA Eud VIII 3 1249b 20
244 TRAVELS
mere descriptive averages sImply read off from experience The
most Important of them IS 'first fnendshlp' (TTpWTT] <pIAfa). from
which In the Eudemtan Ethtcs all forms of fnendshlp are' denved'
Th., an<;es dIrectly out of the conceptIOn of the 'first pnnClple
of friendship' (TTpWTOV <pIAov) as developed In Plato's Lysts I
But whereas the latter wa<, the hIghest metaphysIcal value (aUTo
TO aya66v) , In contrast \\11th whIch all that <;eerns dear on earth
1<; nothIng but a <;hrtdow, In 'fir"t fnend<;hlp' An<;totIe IS construct-
Ing the pIcture of the Ideal fnend'ihlp He retaInS the kernel of
Plato''i notion-the of fnend5hlp on the ethIcal prinCIple
of the (,ood-but he mdke,> the Good a concrete moral value
devrlopmg \\ Ithm the character of the man hImself The supra-
per.,on.ll ground of the value of the human relationshIp no longer
dlvt'rts ,lttentlon from the personahty of the fnend, on the con-
trary, It 1... concentrated ,md Incarnated thereIn Anstotle';, Idea
I" therefore not Just another way of refernng all sOCIal values to
the general problem of value, It!> dIm IS rather to estabhsh the
mdependent worth of the moral personahty, and In the last
resort of human morahty m general, a'i oppo!>ed to the cosmIC
Good that l'i based on the Idea of God
"I he denvatlOn of the vanoll'i form!> of fnend<;hlp from 'fir!>t
fnendshlp' IS accomphshed In the carher EtJucs by mean<;
of purely PlatOniC conceptIons The dl<;tmctlon between Will
(!X>VAEa6a1) and deSIre corresponds to Plato's dIS-
tInction between the absolute Good, whICh I!> the natural goal
of the Will, and the apparent good, whICh IS the goal of the
deSires Plato IS also the ongIn of the separatIOn of the good
from the pleasant, and of the doctrine that the good WIthout
quahficatlon Identical WIth the pleasant Without qualificatIOn.
so that the fnendshlp of the really good man IS at the same hme
pleasant The malO part of the diSCUSSIon In the Eudemtan
EthICS 1<; devoted to shOWIng that 'first fnendshlp' combmes 10
Itself all the marks that have ever been declared charactenstlc
of the es!>cnce of fncndshlp, even those that seem to be mutually
exclusI\ e--a examplf' of early Anstotehan dialectic
The NJcomachean EthJcs, on the other hand, wntes 'perfect
friendship' Instead of 'first fnendshlp. because the latter expres-
I Plato LISts
Sf'C nil E,uJ \ II 2, and for the first fnend VII l J 28
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 245
SlOn clearly recalls the theory of Ideas, and leads one to expect
a purely deductive method I It retams, mdeed, the Platomc
doctnne that the other kmds of fnendshlp are not co-ordmate
and can be called 'fnendshlp' only per and the denva-
hon of them from the Ideal conception of perfect but
the Important thmg for Anstotle now IS the psychological and
"oclOloglCal analysIs, which far outweighs the other even 10 bulk
We shall see later that a similar development occurs m the
Polthcs abo A mass of facts gathered from expenence, governed
essentially by their own laws, and becommg more and more an
mdependent object of mterest, has been mtroduced mto the
framework of what prevIOuslyan Ideal Platomc constructIOn
If the baSIS of true fnendshlp IS personal goodness, th(' ethical
relation of the ego to the non-ego must be determmed by that of
the ego to It,>elf By dlstingUIshmg the ratIOnal part of the <;oul
from the mfenor part'>, which nevertheless c.w be moved by
An<;totle 1<; able to represent the ethical relatIOn of tht>
LgO to Itself by of the conception of self-love (cpIAOIfTfa),
by which he understand" not .,elfishnes!>, which popular morality
nghtly condemns, but the kmdred affection of the lower part,
\\hlch I" "poken of ar., If It ",ere actually a '>rcond ego, for man'!>
l\lg-her "elf (aU-r6) 2 By the self the Protreptu liS meant tll{'
'diVine 10 u<.,', m accordance "'Ith Plato',> later doctnne, and
Plato's VIC" of the nght relation of the ,>oul that I!> ruled by
Nus to\\ard.., Itr.,elf can be learnt from the (34 B). where
the lllghest vlSlble God IS !laid to be 'ahle to comer'll' With Ibelf.
and needmg no other fnend'ihlp or acquamtance' 'Ihtl'> the
selfi"hnco.s of the natural man IS cancellr d ,md IDdoe lo serve hiS
Will to be hI" true self The p"ychologlc.ll problems connected
With thl!:> 'lew are not formulated sharply enough for our
reqUlrrments, but thl<., objection applies to the whole of Ans-
totle's theory of Nus, ",hleh 1<' In f.let a legacy from Plato'!, later
speculatlom In the religIOUS atmosphere of the Eudemtan
Ethtcs the mysticism of the doctnne of self-love, from which
I Elk 'V,c \'111 4
Z Elk r"d VII 6 and Uh ;I"c IX 4 and 8 We here have speculatIOn
developing a pll'Ce of popular Gret>k ..... 'idam that often found a'In
0 ( 309, Wbat good man not fnendly to himself J' Eur Med 116
fr!/: 460 and l\fen '107 For Nus 'lee lambl Protr, P '12,
II 3 dnu q and Lth NlC IX /! IluMb 35, and X 7, 117/!> 2
246 TRAVELS
AnstoUe denves the charactensbcs of true fnendshlp,l 15 dlI'ectly
mtelhglble Its commandment, 'to serve and contemplate God',
also rests on Plato's theory of Nus
Our result reqUires, naturally, to be supported 10 detail by a
comparative 1OterpretatlOn of the two Ethtcs ThiS, howevel,
cannot be undertaken here Philology must first make good Its
neghgence With regard to the Eudemtan Ethtcs and give us a
serviceable commentary, and above all a real text, which as yet
IS completely lackmg For our purposes It must suffice If we
have succeeded 10 show1Og that we can clearly detect 10 the
development of Anstotle's ethIcal thought the same stage as IS
charactenzed by theology 10 hiS metaphysIcs, and that the
ongmal Eth"s IS closely connected With the ongmal Metaphystcs 2
2 THE EUDEMIAN ETHICS AND THE PROBLEM OF
THE EXOTERIC DISCUSSIONS
The above conclUSIOns about the development of Anstotle's
Ideas are confirmed and augmented when we discover that the
Eudemtan Ethus display" d. close verbal dependence on Ius early
work!> Most Important of all are It,> relatIOns to the Protrep-
ilCUS, whICh here too casts a wholly new hght upon our problem':>
The f..lct IS that between the Eudemlan Etlacs and the parts of
the Protreptlcus that we have recovered from Iambhchus there
are remarkable correspondences extendmg over long passages
Apparently they have never before been noticed, and yet they
suffice, even apart from the question of the place of the Eudemtan
EthlCS m the history of Ideas, to refute the prevailmg view that It
was wntten by Eudemus and IS a late work Their Importance
.1S eVidence of the way 10 which Anstotle worked, and of the
relation between hiS teachmg and hiS hterary productIOn, IS 50
great that we must here dIscuss them U1 detail A welcome by
product of our mqUlry will be the deCISive solutIOn of a problem
that apparently has been despaired of, and that yet IS constantly
I Elh EwJ VII 6, 12io. 23
J Hemays .tatement that ArIStotle's theology permeates hiS phLlosophy as
little as hIS God permeates the world (IktJ0K' d.. Anslol.l.s, p 82), must now
be abandoned as regards the early and IlUddle penods It remams a lIote-
worthy fact, however, that the wnhngs of hIs latest penod could suggest such
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 247
bemg reopened because It IS fundamental to the understandmg
of Anstotle-the problem of the so-called exotenc dIscussIOns
We may start from the begmnmg of the second book of the
EudemJan EthJcs, where the author lays the foundation of hIS
theory of vrrtue and gives a denvatIOn of the conception of It
We do not need to examme m detaIl the content of this passage,
whIch IS the core of the work, a short survey of the tram of
thought will suffice Havmg completed the mtroductIon, which
1<; contamed m the first book, the author tells us that we are now
to make a fresh start m our mqurry ThIS consists 10 dividIng
all goods mto several classes For the dlvlSIon he expressly
J.ppeals to the' exotenc discussions', m order to aVOId establIsh-
mg It In detail here The kmds of value enumerated m the first
buok (phronesJs, VIrtue, and pleasure) are all 'm the soul',
whether they arc permanent states of character or
faculties (2.wCrIJElS) or actIvIties (lvtpYElal) and movements
(KIVllO"elS) Now the same as'iumption, he contmues,-namely
that we have to deal With eIther a state or a conditIon or a
faculty In the soul-also applIes to Virtue, and must therefore
form the basIs of the followmg development of the conception
The text has come do""n to uS m poor condItion, for the manu-
scnpts have a lacuna In the divISIon of goods TT6:v'ra 2.Ti TO:
aya6a ,; ExTOs ,; t The correspondmg passage of the
Ntcomachean Ethtcs giVes a threefold dIVISIon of goods 'Goods
have been diVIded Into three classes, and some are descnbed
external, others as relatmg to soul or to body, we call those that
relate to soul most properly and truly goods, and psychical
actIOns and actIVIties we class as relatIng to soul" ThIS I'>
ImmedIately preceded by the statement that we must get clear
about the nature of happIness not merely by means of general
pnnclples but also by usmg 'what IS commonly saId about It'
Fmally, the same diVISion reappears m the Poltttcs 'Asswnmg
that enough ha'i been already saId m the eA.otenc dISCUSSIOn!>
concernmg the best hfe, we will now only repeat what IS con-
tamed In them CertaInly no one WIll dispute the propnety of
that partItIon of goods whIch 'ieparates them mto three classes,
VIZ external goods, goods of the body, and goods of the soul,
or deny'. &c Z Here agam we have the same dIVISIOn borrowed
I Elh Nt, I 8, 1098b 12 1 Pol va 1,1323" 21
248 TRAVELS
from the exoterIC dIScussIOns-and not merely the dlVlSlon as
such, but also Its applIcation to the mqUlry concernmg the best
hfe, for the passage expressly refers to 'exoterIC discussIOns
concerning the best lIfe', the fundamental notions of which are
to be adopted III the present diScussion I
Zeller, who supposed Eudemus to be the author of the
Eudemlan EthlCS, tned to expiam this reference to the exotenc
dlScuo;<,lono; by saymg that Eudemus IS really only reproducmg
the passage of the Nlcomachean Eth,CS m whICh It IS said that we
must happmes'i III the lIght of 'what 1<; commonly said
about It', and that m thl!> vague phra'ie to 'thIS distinc-
tIOn we make even m our esoteric diSCUSSIOns' he \Vao:; copymg
the passage m the POl1t,CS Z ThiS mterpretatIon lcave.... It obscure
how Eudemus could come to speak of one of Anstotle's \\ ntmgs
m the first person ('wc make')
We can now see, as earher scholars could not, that so long as
they assumed Eudemuo; to have been the author of the Eudemwn
Eth,CS It was Simply Imp0!>slble to solve the problem of the
exotenc dl3CusslOns For either they followed a sound philo-
logical Instmct for style and understood by these diSCUSSIOns
.lctual works of Anstotle, a'5 dId Bernal'S (amI then they carne
mto IrreconCilable conflIct With the reference to exotenc dlscus-
Mons m the Eudemlan EthlCS3) , or else they startfd from thI<;
passage and constructed WIth reckles'> lOgIC a!> empty a a'i
po<;slble for 'exotenc', whIch not so much an explanatIOn as
a \'oay of escapmg the dilemma, and which VIOlated all the law'i
of phIlological mterpretatIon 4 Now that we have rC'itored the
I The Oxford tran,lators sometImes render hoyol by 'ulh phra'e'
11' 'd.,cu"lon, our thus ImplvlOf:' a Ie" different from that
maintamed In thl' book \\ hilI' pre,en 109 their \ er<;ton, .I, much a, pO<;<;lbll,
for the ,ake of rdl rlnll 1 h... ve been ubliguj to bnn.: them Into line ..... Ith
the theory of th" chapter Tr
H"",es, vol xv p 554
] Oddly enough He,n...y., took no notlle o[ passage (Uh rud IT 1).
'ill far as I can 'ee although he 'ystemabc... n.,. e'l ... mmed all the place' "here
An,totll' exotenc dlSl U5'lOno On the pre.upposltlon, of tho,e day,
It would have toppled whole edlhce
H t'bt'r dIe exoten..chen Reden des Anstoteles . ner Bet! 4kad
1883. pp 477 ff (the m the r.ud"'"lJn Fln,es IS on P 4A1)
oippt'.Ir to ha\e found general appro\ al "hlCh I. comprehen"ble In
\Ie" 01 the Mtuatlon fo-da} there I' nothIn!: for It but to admit that trail
was the wrong one The slncenty of hI' ..... ork hO\"," er ha, pre\ entl'd It from
being u;ele!>S
For PhIOIUHS, virtue and pleasure
are m the soul, dnd 'iorne or all of
these seem to all to be the lnd
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 249
c'ltdemzan EtMes to ArIstotle there IS no longer anythmg agamst
Bernays' conjecture that the exotenc dIscussIOns were defimte
\\ntlngs, and In fact the hterary works of ArIstotle It I!> con-
firmed by the newmatenal, wIthout which It would have remamed
,1 mere hypothesIs The only alteratIOn reqUIred IS that in the
present case we are concerned not ..\-lth a dIalogue, as Bernays
upposed, but with the Protreptmls
Profr ,p 52, I 12 Eth Eud II I, 1218
b
32
'-,0 other [that IS external All goods are either outsIde or
be done for the sake (m the body or) III the soul, and of
of the that haH' thl!r seat III these those III the soul are more de
the man himself and of the latter thIS dlstmellon we makl
tho,t> that are lI1 the body should even tn our popular d.scusslOns
hc rlont> for the sake of those that
,Ire In the soul, and \Irtue for the
<"Lke of phrones.s PhroneHs the
,upreme good [Then comes .1
dt>llmtwn of good, J
Protr ,p 59,1 26
\\ C dssume that happmess
{Ither phrones>' dnd kmd of
\\I,dorn or VIrtue, or the greate'it
!,o"Ible amount of pleasure, or all
three [fhen follow, .1 more <lL-
Lulul account J
EtTt Eud 1210" 28 Protr ,p 41,1 20
(Ine part of the "oul I, reason
I I, the natural ruler and )udf.(e
uf concermng The
nature of the other part IS to fol-
10\\ It and submit to rule
Let It be as,umpd that thp
of the ..,oul partakmg of red,on .In'
two, but that they partake not III
the "arne \l;ay, but the <ne b} It.<.
ndtural tendency to wrnman,1 thec-
othlr by It,> natural tendency to
obec-y and listen
Element.. that have been taken over ready-maue mto the
Eudemlan EOnes, and somewhat hastily put together, arc to be
found In the Prolreptlcus not merely In a fonn that for the mo!>t
part verbally echoe<; them, but also, which more Important,
In the context to WhiCh they were ongmally orgamc
Pmtr, p 41,1 22 Eth Eud II 1,1218" 37
The good ,tate of erythmg IS Let thiS then be d.S'iumed, amI
that whIch III ac('ordanle \\Ith .11'0 that vIrtue IS the best state or
It" proper vIrtue To attam to conditIon or faculty of all
Eth Eud II 1, 121g
b
32
It makes no difference whether
the soul IS dllllsible or .ndlvlS.ble,
so long as It hoiS d.fferenl facultieS,
namely those mentioned above,
Just as m the curve we have un-
separated the concave and the con-
vex, or, agam, the straight and the
whIte, yet the straIght IS not white
except mCldentally and III not the
essence of the white I We also
neglect any other part of me soul
that there may be, e g the vegeta-
tive, for the above-mentlCrned parts
[I e Ihe rlJllonal oms] are pecul.ar
250 TRAVELS
proper virtue IS good A thmg IS that have a use and work II ThIS
10 a good state when Its most essen- IS clear by mductlon. for In all
tlal, commandmg, and valuable cases we lay tlus down ega gar-
parts have their virtue From thIS ment has an excellence. for It has
It follows that the natural vIrtue of a work and use, and the best state
a thing IS betler when lhe I1nng Iiself of the garment IS Its excellence
IS beller by nature The better by Similarly a vessel, house, or any-
nature III tholt which has more of tlung else has an excellence II
the commandmg and leadmg ele- Therefore SO also has the soul, for II
ment 10 Itsell, as man has com- has a work And let us assume thai
pared With the other ammals Now lhe beller slate has the belter work,
the soul IS better than the body (be- and as the states are to one another
u ~ It IS more commandmg), and so let us assume the corresponding
wlthm the !>oul Itself the ratIOnal works to be to one another And
and mtellectual part IS better than the work of anythmJi: IS ItS end, It
the rest 11 necessanly follows, IS clear, therefore, from thiS that
therefore, that Ihe v.rtue of IhlS pari, the work IS better than the state,
whalever II IS IS the 1'1I051 des.rable for the end IS best, as bemg end
of alil/mlgs, not merely for us but for we assume lhe besl, Ihe final
al!O absolutely or for everyone, slage, 10 be the end for Ihe saJie of
and everyone would hold, I pre- whlell all else e:nsts That the
sume that ",e are constituted work, then, IS better than the state
either wholly or chiefly, by thiS or conditIOn IS plaIn
part Furthermore, when a thmg
olccomphshes "S work as well as
p<>'i'lble, then, proVided that It IS
Ih work es!>cntlally and not Just
accidentollly, we must declare Ihat
such a stale of affa.rs '5 also good,
and that thiS accomplIShment IS the
most perfeci v.rtlle, .n accordance
wllh whICh II IS the nalure of each
Ih.ng 10 perform tis work
A complex and d'v,slble I1l1ng has
severoll d.fferenl ac/IV.lles, but If a
thmg IS naturally s.mplc, and.s not
relative m essence .t must have
only one true and proper virtue If
therefore man IS a Simple ammal,
and If Ihe essence of hiS substance IS
reason and. nlelleel h.s work can be
nothIng whalever but perfect truth
-the dIscovery of the truth about
thmgs, but If hIS nature IS com-
pounded of several faculties It IS
clear that when a thmg naturally
fulfils more than one function .ts
I OTmttmg ToV
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS
",ark IS always the best of these
functions, for example. health IS
the work of the doctor and safety
that of the navIgator Now d H
Impossible to mentIon any better
WO'Tk of the Intellect, or of the thmk-
109 part of our soul, than tfuth
Truth IS therefore the essential
work of thIS part of the soul
25
1
to the human soul, therefore the
vlrtues of the nutnbve part, that
concerned with growth, are not
those of man For, If we speak of
!urn qua man, he must have 7eason
Qnd moral Qct10n as govemmg pnn
clples And Just as general good
condition of the body IS com-
pounded of the partIal
so also the excellence of the 'loul,
qua end But of virtue or excel-
lence there are two speCies, the
moral and the mtellectrfal
The Eth1CS considerably alters the order of the Ideas The
logical structure IS more lummous and more systematIc m the
Protrephcus For good measure the EthiCS adds examples
explammg 'by mductIOn' the connexJOn between VIrtUI' and
work The applIcatIon of all thiS to the soul IS perIonned III the
Protrept'lcus With exemplary lUCIdIty. begmmng WIth the
'nuw the ,;oul' but the Ethzes merely It WIth 'therefore
also has the soul', and leaves all details for oral elaboration
}Jo<;slbly, mdeed, IamblIchus found the examples In h1'> ,;(mrce
but left them out, yet they are extremely tnte dnd peda-
gogical It more probable that Anstotle did not cite them at
,111 In hi" literary work, hut mtroduced them only when he came
to wnte hiS lecture We must say the of the eXdmples of
convex and concave by which the mseparablhty of the parts pf
the second paragraph There. InCidentally,
the difference m man's aim as envisaged by the two
(jut clearly In the Protrepticus the sale aim of human lIfe was
the theoretical knowledge of (phronesis) The theoretic
hfe hung hIgh above all other and wa':. sharply sundered
from them The soul, which was descnbed man's essence,
there conceIved as the mdlvlslble UnIty of the pure ratIOnal
(after the manner of Plato's later theory of Nus), which has
nd Itself of ammal and vegetable eXistence a5. well as of \\'111 and
de<;Ire In the lectures, on the other hand, we read that It makes
no difference whether the soul IS a umty or has parts, and prac-
tice now takes Its place beSide thought (AOyIO"I-lOS) a':.
equally worthy Anstotle now holds that happmess depend5. upon
the mteractIon and eqmhbnum of the ratIOnal and IrutlOnal
252 TRAVELS
power!> In the soul In sayIng this he IS not merely paymg
attentIon to the clauns of ordmary hfe. he IS estabhshmg a new
Ideal, and seekmg to overcome the harshness of hIS prevIOus
purely mtellectual attItude (see espeCIally 121g
b
39-1220 5)
He was therefore obhged to suppress the pas5.age In which the
Protreptzeus had represented pure contemplatIOn as the only
valuable and essenhal occupahon of the human soul (p 42, I 22-
P 43. 1 25) All the alteratIOns that he Introduce!> In the Ethus
are logical consequences of Hus fundamental change In his Idea'>
The Protrepttcus I::> also the root of what we read m the first
book of the Eudemwn Ethzcs We have already shown thiS of
the first four chapters by analysmg the tram of thought In them
The !>lXth discusses the new method In ethiCS, and we have seen
that It IS throughout directed agamst the Protrepttcus (above,
p 233) That the greater part of the fifth also comes directly
from thiS work IS clear from the follOWIng JuxtaposItion Ans-
totle I!> here giVIng the proof that lIfe by Itself IS not the greatest
good, but receives Its value from phronests
ProtT ,p 45, I 6
It obHOU'i to e"crybody that
no one Ulould choose to IlVe, even If
he had the A'reatc!ot wealth and
power that man has ever had, If
he were dl'prwed of hIS reason and
mad, not ('ven If he were to
be constantly enJoymg the mo!ot
vehement pleasure!>, as Insane
persons do It 5<'ems therefore that
everyone !ohun!o folly as much a'i
po!oSlbl' Now the 0PP0'iltc of
folly l'i phroneSls, and of 0pposlte!o
one IS to be 'ihunned and the othu
to be deSIred As dl'icae IS to be
shunned health IS to be de!oued
AccordIng to thl'> argument too
therefore, It appean. that phrones,
IS tllf most desirable of all things
For If d. man had everythmg, but
the thmkmg part of hun wa.-. C01'-
rupled and dIseased, hfe would not
be deslrable for him The other
goods would be no benefit to him
ThlS IS ",hy all men beltttle all
Eth Eud I 5. I215b IS
About many other thmgs It
dlfucult to Judge well but most
difficult about that on which Judge-
ment seems to all easiest and the
knololtledge of It m the power of any
man-VIZ what of all that IS found
m llvmg IS deSIrable For there
are manv consequences of life that
make men fling away life, as dlSea5e,
eXLC!o'iIVe pam, stonns, so that It IS
clear that, If one ""ere the
po""er of chOIce, not to be born at
all would, as far .1t least as these
reasons go, have been deSirable
Further, the life we lead as chlldrw
IS >lot desuable, for no one 1>1
senses would consent to return again
to Ous Further many mCidents
Involvmg neither pleasure nor pam
or Involvmg pleasure but not a
'l'Ioble kl7ul are !>uch that, a\ far as
they ace concerned, non-existence
IS preferable to hfe And generally,
If one were to bnng together all
1HE ORIGINAL ETHICS
uther goods so far as they know
what reason IS and are capable of
td'itlng It Thl'l IS also why none
{If u, could enduye to be dywnk 01'
I" be a chIld throughout life ThIS
"hy sleep though extremely
pleasant. not even If
"c '>uppose that the sleeper expen-
1 nces all the pleasures
(p Protr p 40. I 6 'It
thoroughly slaVish to long for
mere Ide mstead of for the good
Ide', a favounte posItion of Ans-
totle's
253
that all men do and expenence but
not wllImgly because not for ItS
own sake, dnd were to add to thIS
an eXIstence of mfimte duration,
one would none the more on account
of these experIences choose f'Xlstenee
rathf'r than non-exIstence But
further. neIther for the plea.'>ure
of eating alone or that of sex. If all
the other pleasures were removed
that knowmg or seemg or any other
sen'le prOVides men With. 1IJ0uid a
stnglc man value eXIstence, unless he
were utterly servtle. for It I'" clear
that to the man makmg thiS chOIce
there would be no difference
between being born a brute and
a man We may 'lay the same
of the pleasure of ,leeptng For
what 1'1 the difference between
...Ieepmg an unbroken slet'p fmm
one's day to one's last. 'lay
for a thou'land or any number of
and hvmg the hfe of a plan t }
It IS not chance that these parallel trams of thought are so
lIke earh other It IS Inconceivable that An.,totle unconSCIOusly
formulated a view that was familIar to him In the same way In
h\ 0 different place'i All doubt'i are removed by the qnotatIOn
from the Protrepttcus that follows a few lInes lower
Protr . PSI, 1 II Eth E.ud I 5. 1216" II
1 hey that when Anaxagoras
\\,1... askLd why one should
to b(' born and hve he answered the
'lulstlon thu.... 'for the sake of
\ lCWlng the hcaven'i amI the
In 1t. and moon and sun.
lluplYlnl'( that everythmg ebe

And so they tell u'> that Anaxa-
gora'i answered a rna" who Wd.S
problems of thIS sort and
askmg why one should choose
rather to be born than not--'for
the sake of VieWIng the heavens
and the "hole order of the Uni-
verse'
SInce the Eudemtan EthlcS connect;, thls representative of the
theoretic hfe very closely With those of the t .... o others. and SInce
thls passage IS dependent on the Protrepllcus almost to the very
word;" we are Justified In also ascnbIng what follo.... to the same
source, down to 1216" 27 We here find Sardanapallus set agaIn'it
Anaxagoras as the representativeof the hfe of pleasure, alongwlth
R
254 TRAVELS
Smmdyndes the Sybante 'and others who hve the voluptuary's
life' All these persons believe that happ10ess and the pleasures
of the sensrs are one and the same Even If we had no eVidence,
It would be probable that the P70treptteus named these repre-
sentatIves of the voluptuous hfe, who are merely touched on In
the Eudemtan EtJnes, and also those of the hfe of pohhcs, of
WhiCh the Ethtes mentIons no examples The plastIc force of the
Idea fits the style of a hterary work bettcr than a lecture, and In
the Ethus Anstotle gIVes It merely a<; a bald narrative, wIthout
the full vIvidness and effectJvene.,s of which It IS capable As a
matter of fdrt, however, Cicero tWICe quote!> a passage from
Anstotle which proves conclUSively that thiS passage too comes
from thr Protrepttcus I In reJectmg Sardanapallus' View of hfe
CIcero quotes hiS epitaph, translatmg it IOta Latm hexameters
Haec habeo quae edl quaeque exsaturata lIbIdo
hauslt, at lila lacent multa et praeclara rehcta
HE' expressly says that he get., from Anstotle both the epitaph
and the witty method by which he punctures Its fnvolous view of
hfe The resemblance of these passages to that 10 the Eudemtan
Ethtcs mll"t not us mto supposmg that Cicero or hiS
source made use of thiS work The two mam charactenstIcs of
these passages do not appear mIt or 10 any of Anstotle'<; treatIses,
and SInce dunng those hmes only hiS lIterary works were read,
there can be no doubt that CIcero IS quotmg from one of them
HIS aKreement WIth the Eudemlan EthlCS IS Simply due to thE'
fact that both used the ProtreptlcuS
ThiS becomes shll clearer when we examme more clo!>ely the
remammg words that Cicero quotes from Anstotle 'QUId ahud,
10qUit Anstoteles, m bOVIS, non m regIS sepulcro mc;cnberes"
It IS no longer pos!>lble to detenmne whether Anstotle really
said that Sardanapalllls' epitaph might Just as \\ell have been
wnttE'n on the tomb of a bull To me the sentence seems unmI!:>-
takably to reveal hIS hghtly mockmg air, but to have been
I elc Tusc Dl5p V 35 101 Dc [ItI II 3l, 106 Rose pnnL. both cOffimS'
from the dialogue 0" JusI.u (frg 90) Bemavs also supposed that
they were fragments of an '\n.totehan dialogue. and sugge.ted the NCTlnlhus,
of which we know nothmg (op Clt, P 84) He did not compare them WIth Elh
Erul I 5. 1216- 16, but With the passage denved from thls one 10 Elh NlC I 3
1095
b
19 The latter IS only a famt echo of the Protrcpttcus like most of the
tr:lCeS of that early work remammg In thls late one
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 255
somewhat vulgarIZed In the ImmedIately precedmg passage of
the (I21S
b
3S). on the hfe of the pure pleasures
of sense, we read 'No one would value eXistence for the pleasure
of eating alone or that of sex, If all the other pleasures were
removed that knOWing or seemg or any other sense provIdes men
wIth, unless he were utterly servIle, for It IS clear that to the
man makmg tlus chOlce there would be no dIfference between
be109 born a brute and a man, at any rate the ox m Egypt,
,,\hlch they reverence as ApIS, In most of such matters has more
power than many monarchs' Smce the precedmg and the
followmg sentences (T21Sb15-34, 1216" 2-ID and 1216" II-16) are
tdken more or less verbally from the It IS probable
that thIS one IS too The companson between the Apls-ammal
.md the monarchs seems somewhat strange here m the
and IS dIfficult to understand, since prevIously Anstotle had
merely sa](l that only a slave would choo<;e <;uch a hfe, but
CIcero that m the ongmal a compan"on was drawn
between the dlvme bull of the Egyptians and the royal volup-
tuary Sardanapallus, and thiS explam.', the pomt of saymg that
In sen'mal enjoyment ApIs has more freedom than all the
!TIonanh" 10 the world (1216" 2) An<;totle has hiS
quotatIOns from the Protreptzcus rather dIsJomtedly We have
now traced the larger part of the fifth chapter to the
(dm\n to 1216" 27, and <L'i far d." the thought goes do\\n to 36)
TIm., the Ettdemzan Ethzcs contaIn!> many more extracts from
.tnd t'laboratIOn!> of the Protrepttcus than are IOdlcated by expliflt
references to exotenc works And there are yet more
In whIch It hds undoubtedly been u">ed, espeCIally In HIe ">o-called
Book VIII, gospel of the 'contemplatIOn and sen'Ice of
God' 1<; borrowed from the deep rehglOus feehng of that eddy
",ork VIII 3, 1248b 27-34, abo remwds one of the
(cp frg 57 m Rose) Fmally, there remam to be explamed certam
remarkable that have never yet received <;uffiClent attt'n-
hon Two of them are w the eIghth chapter of the first book
Anstotle there shows that the Idea of the Good cannot be the
hIghest good for which \\e are seekmg, 10 other WaTch, he
the ethIcal consequences of the refutatIOn of the theory of Ideas
For the refutatIon Itself he refers to a publIshed work 'ThIS
has been conSIdered 10 many way" both m our exoterIC and m
256 TRAVELS
our philosophIC dIscuSSIOns 'I By the many 'ways' he means the
refutation of the theory from the logIcal, from the ontologIcal.
and from the phySIcal, pomts of VIew, whIch are clearly dlstm-
gulshed m the Metaphystcs By the 'exotenc' refutatIOn of the
Ideas he does not mean somethmg 'popular' as opposed to phIlo-
sophIcal. as has been on the contrary. the Meta-
phystcs. whIch also assumes thIS refutatIOn, expressly descnbes
It as the most detaIled and complete diSCUSSIOn of the questIOn
avaIlable He IS refernng to the second book of the dialogue On
Phtlosophy. whICh had Just been publIshed at the time when he
was lectunng on ethIC!> In Assos 3 By the 'phIlosophIc dIscus-
SIOns' he means hIS formal lectures, espeCIally those on meta-
phySICS. whIch were also composed at that tIme The second
refercnce In thIS chapter IS to the same dIalogue 'Further, there
IS the argument wntten m the dI!>COUT!>C (Myo<;)-that the Idea
Itself of Good IS useful to no art or to all arts m the same way
Further, It IS not practIcable', &c 4 The followmg arguments
agamst the Idea of the Good, whIch are only mentIoned and not
I Eth Eud I 8, 1217b 22
And as the Oxford translation reads Tr
J We must assign the lcudemlan EthICS to thiS perIod for the followmg
(I) Its very close relations to the above-menboned early Later on, m
the Nuomachean Ethus, these relatIOns were oblIterated far as possible (l)
I ts parallelIsm With the earlIer and theological phase of the M elaphyHcs m Ideas
and problems (3) The loose way in whIch the parts CrItiCiZing Plato are
worked In In I 6-B The passages that agree WIth the Prolreplleus are appar-
ently remnants of a lecture wntten whIle ArIstotle sbllm the Academy
(4) The dialogue On Phtlosophy, mentIOned In I B, IS the termmus posl quem
It appeared m 34B/7 (5) Conscus of Asos who IS omitted or erased
from the Nuomachean Ethzcs, appears as a convenbonal example In II I,
1220 19, and VII 6, I240b 25, in each place obvlou<;ly With a humorous
purpose There IS notlung m the tram of thought that ArI<;totle to call
mm 'the darkest man In the market-place' It can be explamed only bv the
loltuabon m which he uttered these word_
Eth Eud I B 121B.36 ThiS reference, together ""th that In Book VII,
which IS discussed ID the next paragraph, was declared bpunous by WLlson and
thereafter by Susemlhl The manner seemed unusual But In view of the
number of references to exoterIC works m tlus early perIod and of the
bystematlc reclprocalmtluence of wntmg and teachmg that they dIsplay, there
IS really nothlDg surprIsmg m It Anstotle also refers to oral diSCUSSIOns ID the
Academy, as ID Ella Eud VII 6, 1240' 22 ( By a man's attitude to hLmself the
other modes of fnendslup, under which we are accustomed to conSider frIend-
ship In our discourses are deterrmned '), and to an mqUlry, obVIOusly dia-
lectical 10 character, conducted by means of the accepted defimtlOns 'the
vanous defimbons of frIendship that we give 10 our discourse' (VII II,
1244" 20)
THE ORIGINAL ETHICS 257
developed, are also part of the extract from thIS dIalogue That
whIch 15 'wntten' IS avauable to all, and may be found In 'the
dIscourse' Anstotle must therefore be refemng to a work that
had receIved lIterary pubhcahon, and that was too well known
In the cIrcle to whIch he was lectunng for hIm to mentlOn Its
name ThIS confirms the conclUSlOn that we should draw from
his COpIOUS use of the Protrept1,cus when he first began to lecture
he constantly referred to hIS dialogues and to the Protrcpt1,CUS,
and presupposed that hIS hearers were famuIar wIth them
There IS a sImIlar reference In Book VII 'as It IS wntten In the
discourse' (I244b 30) And a few hnes lower we read (b 34) 'We
must put together two statements made In the discourse, first
that hfe IS deSirable, and secondly that the good 15 so '(:Ad
yap olJa crvveElval 2vo EV Tt;J My'll, cSTi TE TO Irjv alpET6v, Kal
OTI TO aya86v ) The words that follow are corrupt Now
these t\\O statements ",ere actually made In the Protrept1,cus
It was c,a1d there that the affirmahon of the wIll to hve IS at the
same hme the affinnatlOn of the deSIre for knowledge, smce the
lIfe of men, m contrast to that of ammals and plants, IS con-
SClOmness and knowledge (cxlcrllavEcrllal, yvwpl3EIV) 1 But thIS IS
exactly what we find a few hnes hIgher up m the Eudem1,an
Eth1,cS (b 23) It IS followed Immediately by the sentence con-
tammg the phrase 'as It IS wntten In the dIscourse' Here too
the text IS corrupt, a word havmg fallen out, but the sense IS
clear If one could make the expenment of cuttmg conSCIOusness
and knowledge out of a man, and If thIS man nevertheless
retamed the power of observmg hIS state of mmd, or what was
left of It, he would find hImself observmg a totally dIfferent
bemg, as If 50mebody else were hVIng In hIS stead The corre-
spondmg passage of the Protrept1,CUS IS not preberved, but It
certamly must have eXIsted, for thIS very method of eXClSlOn,
abstractIOn, and l!>olahon, for WhICh Anbtotle appeals to 'the
discourse', IS constantly used In that work,2 and the view that
knowledge and Intellect are man's true self IS used there to
establIsh the Injunction that we should hve only for tlllS hIgher
part We see then that dunng the hme when the earhest lectures
I lambl Protr. p 56 1 22, and P 44, 1 II
Z IbId. P 44. I II. P 45, II B, lB. and 25. P 53 I 3 Cp Elh Eud I 5.
1215b 32. VII 12,1245" 14, and VII 14.1248. 39 40, a.nd b 2
258 TRAVELS
on ethics were bemg wntten philosophical discussIOn 10 the school
at Assos turned mamly on these wntmgs
The anCient problem of the exotenc discourses IS now settled
once and for all We have not merely demonstrated the fact
that Anstotle used his lIterary works m hiS lectures-this would
hardly have needed proving, smce he hImself frequently speaks
of so domg m an unmistakable manner (xpfjotlal)-but also
revealed, by means of our new matenal, exactly what wntmgs
It was that he used, and what IS the phIlosophical explanatIon
of thiS remarkable fact It IS bound up with hiS development
In the earliest penod after hiS break with Plato's theory, when
It became necessary completely to rewnte all the mam branches
of philosophy, he took from hIS early composItIons whatever he
could shll use, and constructed the new With the help of the old
At the end of the first book of the earher for example,
the cntIcism of the Ideas, borrowed from the dialogue On
sophy, stands somewhat Isolated between older passages taken
from the , the Ntcomachean Etlncs, on the other hand,
prOVIdes a whole new scheme, which naturally presupposes hiS
new pomt of VIew from the outset The part played by the Pro-
trepttcus m the earhest Metaphystcs has already been dIscussed
In Assos Anstotle could still thmk that hIS distance from Plato
was not so great but that he mIght everywhere connect WIth hIS
AcademIC penod Later on he dIscovered more senous conse-
quences 10 hIS new Ideas They led hIm farther and farther away
from the old HIS early Platomc wntmgs then dropped entIrely
out of sIght, and It seems that he even abandoned the begmmng,>
of hiS emanCIpatIOn from Plato, hIS own first attempts at a cntIcal
philosophy, as bemgstIll too penetrated WIth the
of hIS dogmatic penod ThIS appears to be the explanatlOn of the
fragmentary conditIon of the earhest Ethtcs and Metaphystcs I
I I cannot leave thiS "Ithout mentlOnmg the three books that arc
common to the two versions of the Eth,cs Eth N,c VI Lannot belong to the
Eudem,an Etk,cs because of Its VIew of pkYonests, which later than
that In Elk Eud I and VII. and argues agaInst It We must that these
three books entered the Eudem,an versIOn together and at a later time. and
therefore that they come from the Nuomachea" edition but thIS does not prove
that the latter IS all of a pIece The absencE' of connexlOn between the two
accounts of pleasure m Books VII and X remains a problem That In Book
VII IS presumably somewhat earher than that In Book X It presupposes a
different conclUSIon
CHAPTER X
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS
I
F we possessed the wntmgs that the anCIents knew of we
should have a pIcture of Anstotle's pohtIcal development
reachmg from hIs AcademIc begmmngs down to hIS old age
The <;enes start,; wIth the two books on the Statesman, suggested
by Plato's work of the same name, and the four 'bulky' books
On J1tshce I WhIle these wntmgs would have gIven us exacter
knowledge of the conneXIOn between Anstotle's pohtIcs and
Plato's, Alet:ander or On Colomzatlon, a memOIr m the form of
a dIalogue, also would have mtroduced us to the late
penod when the royal pupIl was breakmg and makmg empIres
III ASia, \\Inle the agemg phIlosopher followed the dIZZy flIght
of hIS fortunes from afar WIth anxIOUS The loss of thIs
work has hIdden from what ,,,e should of all have hked
to know-what effect thIs world-wIde change m the hlstoncal
scene had on Amtotle's political thought Z The work On Mon-
archy, whose gemllneness we have neither the matenal nor (m
VIew of the testimony of the AlexandrIan catalogue of Anstotle's
works) the nght to doubt, must belong to the time when he was
prepanng Phlhp's son for hIS hIgh office, or, rather, must be the
of the close of that penod We shall not doubt for an mstant
that m thIs book the pllliosopher, who wrestles WIth the pro-
blem of monarchy so senomly m hIS PohttCs, tned to gIve new
ethIcal and spmtual content to the traditlOnJ.l Idea of a kmg J
I (Ie De Rep III 8, 12
2 A 51deltght IS thrown on hI' of the problem of the relation between
and "h,ch v.a'i deCISIve as regards methods of
colomzatlOn, by the fragment of a letter to Alexander In whIch he advl'ie, him
to behave the Greek'i a'i a leader and tov.ards the barbatIan'i as an
absolute and unlimited monarch, to "hlch they were to treat the
fonner as fnends and equal'i, and the latter as or plants' (frg 658)
The dissent of Eratosthenes and Plutarch how emphatically the hnmane
Hellemsbc cosmopohtans rejected HilS vIew Although It IS typically Greek In
Anstotle's ca'ie It certainly the result of reflection on the facts The
attempt to assign thiS fragment to the work On Monarchy (Heitz, Die verlorenen
SchrtfLen des Artsloleles, p 206) does not seem to me successful
3 It must have been a commuDicatlon sent to Alexander on hiS ascending the
throne, somewhat hke the Prolrepllcus and lsocrates' N,cocles, that IS to say.
of a more general and ethical nature To a kmg standing at the summit of
lOO TRAVELS
All these are serIOUS losses as regards the history of the hme
and the personahty of the thmker, but the disappearance of
that monument of PerIpatetlc scholarship, the collection of 158
constltutIOns, has dealt our knowledge of Greek history and
culture an Incurable wound The fortunate recovery of the first
book of the collection, the of Athens, wntten by
Anstotle himself as a sort of canon for the whole, has at any
rate made It certam that the undertakmg was not orgamzed
untIl those last decades m which he reached hiS matunty
Nothmg ]S more s]gmficant of the fonn hIS development took
than the fact that he did not pue up thiS gigantic mass of
materIal until the systematic foundations of hIs pohtIcal thought
had long been laid, whereas theoretically It ought to have pre-
t:eded them The two pomts furthest removed from each other
In tIme, the books On and on the nature of the Statesman
at the begmmng, and the collectIon and claSSificatiOn of conshtu-
hans at the end, make the general directIOn of hiS development
certam
Our prIme object of mterest IS the begmnmg, the breakmg
away from Plato Our mam source of knowledge must always
be the analYSIS of the extant eIght books of the , but thiS
analysIs can hope for results only If, here as with the and
the we take what remams of the early wntmgs as
a CrItenon by whICh to estImate the extent ofAnstotle'scontmu-
ally mcreasmg dIstance from hIS startmg-pomt Here agam the
newly recovered fragments of the Protrepttcus gIVe us some valu-
able matenal, and make good to some extent the ureparable
loss of the mam polItIcal works of hiS early days
Plato's aim was to make polItIcs a sCience by umtIng It
mseparably With the theory of mdJVldual VIrtue and basmg It
on knowledge of the Idea of the Good The Republtc I!> bUllt
upon the mqUlry mto Justice ThiS was the model for
power and success one does not philosophical adVIce as to the way In
whIch he should regard office ThIS agrees \\'Itlol what CIcero says (4d Au
XII 40, 2 and XIII 28, 2) of a 'hortatory' letter of wntten at
Alexander's request and dealmg among other matters WIth the question of true
fame The ('ommumcatlon On Afonarclty Informed the Greeks of the ethical
and political pnnclples m accordance WIth which Alexander had been taught,
and by askmg hIS tutor to set them down and publIsh them In a 'hortatory'
letter the young pnnce clearly mdIcated hIS mtentlOn of rulIng In the sPlOt of
them
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 261
books On justlce, whIch CIcero m turn Ius In
hIS Republtc In Anstotle's first Independent EthlCS the Good
was no longer the real object of all ethIcal and pohtlcal sCIence,
but m hIS earlIest penod It was the kernel of polItICS, Just as It
IS the central theme III Plato's Republtc We know thIS from the
unportant fragment of the second book of the Statesman In
whIch the Good IS descnbed as the most exact of all standards
ThIS presupposes Plato's later theory of Ideas, whIch, as we
have already seen, was chIefly concerned, as regards ethIcs and
pohtIcs, wIth the problems of exactItude and of the norm, and
emphasIzed the not1Ons of measure and measurmg I The pomt
IS confirmed by the Protreptwus, whIch brmgs out 10 a note-
worthy manner the exactItude of polItical SCIence and contrasts
It, as a new form of theoretIcal knowledge, WIth the polItIcs of
practIcal statesmen Its purpose, we there learn, IS not to treat
a partIcular state by all the methods that expenence suggests.
such a procedure-the sole one that the Anstotle of the fourth
and hUh books of the Pohbcs admIts at all for general practIce
2
-
IS expressly condemned .Just as no man IS a good bUllder If
he no hne or other such tool, but lffiltates other buIld1Ogs,
so perhaps If a man who IS makmg laws for a city or practIsmg
pohtIcs looks to and lffiltates other human actlOO'i or conshtu-
tIons, whether Spartan or Cretan or other such, he not a good
and perfect lawgIver For the copy of d thmg that IS not Ideal
(KaA6v) cannot be Ideal, and the copy of a thmg that IS not
dIvme and permanent cannot be dIvme and permanent '3 Only
the pure phIlosopher, who nds hunself absolutely of empIrICISm
I See above, p 87
2 In Pol IV I, 128S
b
21-1289" 7, the conventlOnal theory 01 the Ideal
IS cntIcl2ed for concermng Itself only WIth the construction of a st.tte m
accordance v.lth Ideal standard.... and not WIth the more
urgent In actual politics, how to better a given state that does not conform to
the Ideal standard. but IS perhaps thoroughly mfenor and rotten ThiS cannot
be done, Indeed, Without the erection of a standard. but can It be done
Without expenence and the knowledge of analogous c.tses m reality,
IS shown by Books IV-VI of the Pohtus
J Iambl Protr. p 55, 11 7-.lJ It" mterestIng to note that the sophistical
theory of the state. which held that the perfect \\dS realized at
Sparta or In Crete. rejected In the Protrepttells because It " too close to
emplncal reality or takes ItS standardo; therefrom, whereas In Pol IV I.
I28Bb 41. It" rejected for the opposite reason that It proceeds too schematically
.tnd refers everything to a norm, Instead of adaptmg ItSelf Lompletcly to the
actual gl\ en case
262 TRAVELS
and looks to the law of nature and of being as the hIghest arche-
type, who, lIke a good helmsman, casts anchor only on an eternal
and permanent bottom--only he can gIve endUrIng laws, and
only hl5 practIce IS rIght and normatIve 1 The nahan of nature
here, occumng 5.everal hmes, unambIguously dlstIngmshed
from Anstotle's later conceptIon of by the synonyms used
for It It means that WhICh at once zs and ought to be, In accordance
wIth Plato's metaphY!>lcs Its peculIar colOUrIng IS obtamed by
thf' emphasIs of archetypal character The banauslc arts con-
struct theIr canon-tlus example must be taken symbohcally-
In accordance wIth nature In the same way the most exact of
all arts, phIlosophiCal pohhcs, takes ItS canon from nature Itself
mrn;), which 15 the bemg of the Ideas It IS In fact a
canOlllC of values, concerned exclUSively with absolute standards
(OpOI) The relatIOn between thIS theorf'hcal pohtIcs and the
practIcal kmd IS descnbed by means of the clever SImIle of the
eye, which does nothmg and produces nothmg, eAcept to dlsttn-
gUlsh vlSlble thmgs and make them clear, and WIthout whIch
nevertheless we be practically helpless and unable to
move 2 ThIS pohtIcs as developed III Plato's Statesman The
!>lugglsh mechalllsm of a system of abstract law I" there con-
trasted With the royal artlst In statecraft, whose hvmg know-
ledge of the Ideas gIves hIm an adaptablhty m hce of dIfficult
cases of practIcal polItIcs such as can never be obtamed by mere
chapter-and-ver5e booklearlllng, but IS to be compared rather
to the art of the phySICIan, becam,e It anses from hvmg and
productIve knowledge 3
I lambl Prolr, P 55 I 24
, Iambl Protr, p 5(J, I 4 For Just as SIght make, and constructs nothlllg
(for It, only functIOn to dlshnfi(Ulsh and each thmg), and yet It
to act and help, us very greatly m our actIOn, (for we should b"
almo,t completd} unable to move If "e "ere depnvecl of It) It IS plalll that,
though tlll' knmdedge "theordlcal "e neverthele" do thou,and, of things
III alcordanLe WIth It, and dlOose dung, and shun othErS, and m general
all good thing' by rLa"lll of It' pa"age of the has mflu-
encul 1 c" .\ <c \ I 11 T1 v,here Anstoile elUCIdate' the functIOn of
phroneSls WIth the example of a strong body that mme, V,ltlJOUt and
hence badly'
J 1he Greeks called the sCIences' arts' because they ne\ er for an Instant lo,t
Sight of the cultural of theoretIcal actiVIty Art or really mcludes
both the "'hole content of the theoretIcal knowledge (and III thl' sense Plato
and An,totle contrast It With experience, because by thl'Y mean
,oml'thlng conclptual) .Ind the po\\er that makes thl' kno\\leJge frultful.n hfe
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 263
Thus the sole fonn of polttIcal thought ongmally recogmzed
by Anstotle was that handed down by Plato, the Utopia He
sought for the absolute standard, WhIch IS not to be found In
expenence
WIth this mSlght let us approach the extant eIght books of
the The charactenstIc feature of their constructIon IS
that the whole culmmates lo an account of the Ideal state (aplO1'T'\
lTOAlTElo:) In the last two books (VII and VIII) I This high pomt
rests, however, on the broad empmcal baSIS of a theory of
the mamfold fonns of actual pohtIcalltfe, wIth theIr vaneties
and theIr transfonnatIOns lOto one another, to WhICh IS added
a casUIstry of the dIseases of the state and the methods of treat-
109 them (IV-VI) The precedlOg book (III) determmes the
elementary presupposItions of polItics by developmg the concep-
tIons of CIty and cItIzen, and by denvlOg the vanous fonns of
constitutIon from the vanous modes of allottmg pohtlcal nghts
In the partIcular states We arc here gIvlOg only a rough out-
lme of the content, In order to make the mam features of the
constructIOn appear as clearly as possIble In Book II Anstotle
prefixes to thIs theory of the elements a crItical survey of the
systems of previOUS pohtIcal theonsts To thIS agam the first
book proVIdes a still more elementary mtroductiOn, dI!>cussmg
the fundamental kmds of government (apxiJ) more from the
SOCiOlogIcal or economIC pomt of VIew, and thus takmg ItS start
genetically from the slmple5t components of polItical lIIe
There IS a thoroughgomg mner logIC m the combmatiOn of
these books mto a whole Evelythmg appears to lead up, m
methodIcal progress, to the crowmng aIm, the Ideal standard of
a state fulfillmg all wlshe!> But for centurIes, ever smce the
has been systematically studIed, close CrItical examma-
tIon has revealed dIfficulties that make It Improbable, and m
fact lffiposslble, that the treatise as we have It wac; ever planned
as a whole or c;prung from a smgle creatIve act of the mmd Up
to the present scholars have spoken mamly of the dIfficulties
In the hterary composltlon, but we must not apply hterary
I follow the traditIonal numbering of the books, as found m the manu-
SCripts, and not the alteratIOn preferred by most editors I do not mean to
deny that there IS a kernd of correct observatIOns at the of their procedure,
but the dilficultIes cannot be \\bolly removed by changmg the order of the

264 TRAVELS
standards here, and the fact IS that the problems of composI-
tion have a deeper root, the philologIcal apona anses out of a
wfficulty In the philosophIcal method and structure For the
present, therefore, we WIll not enter into detailed analysIs, or
follow Anstotle book by book, only to lose ourselve<;, as has so
often happened, In purely external questIons about the correct
posItIon of passages and books We must begm by obserVing
the peculIar Janus-face that the Poltt",es presents as a whole,
gazmg on the IdealIsts as If It were a PlatOniC UtopIa and on the
realIsts as If a sober and empmcal SCience, and yet obVIOusly
being really both at once
In boldness of creative fancy and m legIslative magnIficence
Anstotle's Ideal state IS not to be compared WIth Plato's Republtc
or even With hIs Laws It has been truly saId that m the Laws
Plato moderates hI<; state m order to bnng It closer to realIty,
and that Anstotle relaxes It still further In domg thIS he IS
follOWIng the path taken by Plato In hiS old age, but much more
IS he follOWing hiS own Inward tendency, which seeks to recon-
cIle the Idea and the realIty at all cost,> He tells us hImself
that for an Imaginary Ideal state we may assume conditIOns as
favourable as we please, but not ImpOSSIble I The UtopIan
part of hIs Pohites, however, IS not ItS real strength, although the
Ideal state gIves the mark by reference to whIch the external
organiZatIOn of the whole structure IS detennmed The really
ongInal and charactenstIc feature of the work IS the way In
which It takes over Plato's notIOn of an Ideal state and supports
It WIth a broad empmcal foundatIOn amountmg to a descnptIve
SClCnce of constitutions, the method of which It develops WIth
profound mSlght The Important thmg for Anstotle IS the weld-
mg together of the two forms of polItIcs, the combmatIon of
Books VII and VIII, containing the Ideal state, With IV-VI,
which develop the theory of actual hIstOrIcal states, or rather
of the mamfold vanetIes, dIseases, and treatments, of actual
states The pnnClple of thIS arrangement IS clearly expressed
by hImself at the end of the Ntcomaehean Ethtcs, where he Jams
polItics to ethICS m order to umte the two mto a smgle compre-
henSIve SCIence of man, Including both the indIVidual and the
J Pol II 6 rz6sa 17 (rn the course of the of Plato s and
VII 4 1]2S
b
]6
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 265
social aspects (i) nepl TO: av6pwlTlva CPIAoO"ocpia) 'Frrst, If any-
thmg has been said well m detall by ear11er thmkers. let us try
to review It, then m the 11ght of the constitutIons we have
collected (be TWV CYVVTlYI..1EVWV lTOAITElc;W) let us study what sorts
of mfluence preserve and destroy states, and what sorts preserve
or destroy the particular of constltutIOn. and to what cause
It IS due that some are well and others 111 admullstered When
these have been studIed we shall perhaps be more hkely to see
With a comprehensive VIew which constitutIOn IS best, and how
each must be ordered, and what laws and customs It must use,
If It IS to be at ItS best 'I
ThiS programme obVIOusly lffiphes a turmng-pomt m the
development of An'itotle's Pohtzcs In unambIguous language
he here abandons the purely method that Plato
and he himself had prevIOusly followed, and takes his stand on
sober empmcal study What he says IS In fact-and nothmg
but hIS extreme expliCitness has prevented hiS bemg under-
stood- 'Up to now I have been usmg another method I have
made my Ideal state by logical construction, Without bemg
suffiCiently acquamted With the facts of expenence But now I
have at my disposal the COpIOUS matenal of the 158 constltu-
tlOm, and I am gomg to use It m order to give to the Ideal state
a posItive foundatIOn 'z ThIS was wntten at the end of the latest
I Eth NIC X la, 1I81b I] to the end
I We must always remember that the statements of Anstotle's POint of
as we have them In the treatIses or rather In the survIvIng of the
treatIses, can be understood only stages In the hVIng whole of Ins
rntel1ectual development Hence there I, often somethmg relatIve about them,
whIch IS not fully comprehensIble to those who do not bear the other moments
of the In mInd Many III the Elh.cs and the Metaphyslcs
must be taken as self-polemIC, In ",hlch the phIlosopher transcends hIS earher
VIews Among such IS the conclUSIOn of the Eth,cs, 'when these have been
studied we shall perhaps be more hkely to see With a comprehenSIve VIew whIch
IS best' whIch refers to an earher stage when the ldea of such a
pamstaklng and weanwme detour through the empmcal facts had never
entered hiS head That the expressIon tK Ta.V lNVTjylJl!v",v 1ToAr""C;;v refers to the
collectIOn of 158 consbtubons-awczy"'Y'1 In thIS sense IS common In Anstotle,
compare avvczy"'y1\ TEXvC:;;v-has been conjectured from bme to bme, and much
useless mgenUlty has been expended on denymg It, most reLently by Heitz (DIe
verlo.enen Schnften des A pp 2]1 ff) It was, 01 course, ImpOSSIble to
draw conclUSions from thc,e words about Anstotle s de\;clopment when the
GonslJlutJO'n of Athens, which belongs to hiS latest penod, had not been re-
covered, and the Nuom(lchean had not yet been recognized as the latest edition
of EthiCS
266 TRAVELS
verSlOn of the that IS to say, m his last decade Thecollec-
tion of constitutions came mto bemg at the same hme It was
the penod dunng which he gave to hiS early theological meta-
phySICS the broad foundation of a theory of bemg m general,
whue m ethics the psychological and descnptlve element began
to oust the speculative mode of treatment Some may find It
surpnsmg that thiS development took place so late We have
Imagmed Anstotle as bemg on that road from the begmmng
The fact that hiS progress was gradual, however, IS completely
proved by the contrast between the last paragraph of the
machean Ethzcs and the method of the Protreptzcus and the
Statesman, while the temporal mdlcatIons are unambiguous
The remark about the mtroduction of a new and empmcal part
to precede the theory of the be5t constttutlOn refers to Books
IV-VI, whose content he there clearly descnbes, and It has
long been mferred that these books are composed of the matenal
contamed In the collectiOn of constitutiOns, because, qUIte apart
from thiS passage, their attitude towards the subJect IS different
and they display an meAhaustIble wealth of hlstoncal examples I
They are the only books of the Pohtzcs that menhon recent
hlstoncal events The aIluslOn to the murder of Kmg PhllJp
(336) proves that they were wntten dunng Anstotle's second
stay m Athens That he took thIS opportumty to rewnte the
whole IS not said and IS m Itself unhkely We must there-
fore mqUIre how far It IS still pOSSible to dlstmgUlsh earher and
later levels In domg we may start from the results obtamed
by those who have mveshgated the proper order of the books J
I '" L Newman, The POIIIICS of vol 1 (Oxford, 1887). p 491
WIlamo\Htz Ansloleles und Alhen, vol I, p 359
, Pol V 10 13 II b 2 The murder IS not mentIOned as a recent affaIr, nor for
ItS own sake at all, but one of a of SImIlar quoted as
examples of the murder of pnnces for revenge Xap,v) Hence the
passage may have been wntten much later Zeller, ArIslotle and Ihe Earlter
Penpatellcs, vol I, p 154 n 4, mfers from It that the whole Po!zllcs was
wntten late, but the IS preCisely how far Its chronological ImphcatlOn
Lan be extended Only Books IV-VI, which Anstotle descnbes at the end of
the ElhiCs a. ba.ed on the collection of constitutions, and which have thiS ongm
uneqUivocally .tamped on theIr faces can be assigned With certamty to the last
penod 10 Athen. They are contemporary With the production of the Nlco-
mach_an ElhiCs That the rest 15 earher Will be demonstrated bela.... The first
book, however, IS an exceptIOn
J Wila.mowitz .... as the first person to put forward the conjecture that 10
the Polll<cs la.ter layers are on earher (ArIslolel.. und Alhen,
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 267
Ever smce the ItalIan humamsts of the Renascence mterested
themselves In the Pohttcs cntIcs have attacked the tradItional
order and tned to restore the 'genume' by means of more or
less vIolent alteratIOns In the mneteenth century these theones
forced theIr way mto the edItions The two concludmg books, VII
and VIII, were placed after the thIrd, and IV-VI were made the
end WIthIn this latter group, agaIn, the fifth and Sixth books
were sometimes made to change places In recent years Wilamo-
Wltz has prote!>ted energetically agam,>t thIS rage for alteratIon,
"and certamly such a mechamcal operatIOn IS unhkely to reduce
the traditIon to 'order' Our first task mu!>t be to obtaIn an
understandmg of the hl!:>toncal necessity of the actual state of
affairs In this, however, we can get substantIal help from the
facts that the cntIcs have brought to lIght Books II and III
are not an mtroductIOn to d general theory of thf' state It IS
clear from their method, from their problems, and from some
exphclt utterances, that they arc meant to mtroduce an Idcal
state 10 the manner of Plato I Those who WIshed to make the
la!:>t two books, contammg the Ideal state, follow Immediately
on thiS mtroductIon, \\cre able to appeal to thc fact that II and
III are closely connected to VII and VIII by mutual references,
whereas they do not mentIOn the mtervemng Book,> IV-VI
Their conne..... IOn With the latter I" qUIte loo,>e 2 Observant readers
vol 1, pp 356 ff), and It h,S keen sense that fir,t I/;a'\e Anstotl('
place m the de"elopment of the fourth century a mJ.n and ab a
of pohtlCb
I It dear at the first ,'ght that Book II IS a h"toncal and cntlCaI mtroduc-
bon to d theory of the ldeal ,tate, and not to a theory 0' the ,tate wlthout
quahficatlOn Book III, on the oth! r hand appear., to mtroduce more general
questIOns, the conceptIOn of the Clt} ,md the clbzen a' ,uch, dnd the
tlOn of all fonns of the b"d \\LII as the good Thl"
normatl'. e character of thlS lIds'lh, atlOn ho"('\ er, that Anstotle "
workmg up to the be,t state 1 he latter" really m h" mmd throughout, ,u'
III 3, 1276" 30 ft (and cp VII 4. 1325b 39), III 4 ("here he aoks whether
the VIrtue of a man and of d CitIzen arc the same or not for LX 127()b 37 and
1277" 2 and 5) ,III S, 1271\. 8 and 17 (the lDqUlry mto the POhtlCdl nghts of
artisan.,) III 9, 12 Bob 5, 31, 39 and 1281" 2 (the detcrmmatwl1 of the correct
Vlew of the state as an orgamzatlon for pubhc cd ucatlOn dnd the relectlon ot
the Manchcbterstate') III 13 12R4' I and b 25, III 14, 12S4b 3S, III 15,
1286' B dnel 15 and III IR, 1288' 33 to the cnd
z For to VII and VIII lD III see the note Contranwlse
VII 4. 1325b 34. refers back to III b-8, and VII 14,1333" 3 refers to III 6
1278b 32 ff , WIth the \'oord, 'a, I observed In the first part of th" treatise'
VII 1(, 1335
b
4. refer. fOT\\anl to VIn Thl'> make, It the more remarkable th"t
TRAVELS
could not fall to notice that these mtervemng books positively
mterrupt and disturb the constructlOn of the best state For,
although the end of the N/'comachean says that they are
to fonn the foundatlOn of It, this arrangement never got beyond
the mere mtentIon, and m pomt of fact they do not 10 any way
prepare for and estabhsh the Ideal state, or at least not directly
The final consideratiOn was that m the manuscnpts the first
sentence of VII also appears, with shght verbal alterations, at
the end of III At the begmmng of VII It IS given the style
appropnate to the opemng of an mdependent monograph, whlle
at the end of III Its form IS such as to connect drrectly with the
concludmg reflections of that book Anstotle's wntmgs contam
several examples of such techmcal mdlcatIOns of the order of the
rolls The fact that Book VII once followed III was thus no
longer an hypothesIs but an express tradltlOn
If we supposed that the closmg words of the N1Comaehean
Etlnes, which give the outlme of the were not wntten
by Anstotle hlffiself-as has actually been suggested-but by
hiS editor, whether Nlcomachus or Theophrastus, then It would
be the latter who mterrupted the genume Anstotehan order by
msertmg Books IV-VI If, however, thiS outhne comes from
Anstotle, which seems to me the only trustworthy mterpreta-
han, he hlffiself mserted them, and the words at the end of
Book III are a rudlffient of the ongmal state of affaIrs In either
case It IS proved that VII and VIII ongmally followed on II and
III, but If Anstotle himself made the msertlon we have no nght
to undo hiS step What we have to dlstmgmsh, therefore, IS not
a true and a false, but an earlier and a later, order of the books
The difficulty has ansen out of Anstotle's development, and,
mstead of makmg order by force, we ought to be thankful that
the tradition stlll allow,> us a ghmpse of the growth of hiS Ideas,
a glImpse possible, however, only because the final enlargement
does not anse orgamrally out of the earher POltt1CS, and because
the parts are merely tacked, not sewn, together
Revlewmg our results so far, we have first the angmal Pol1t1cs
III, VII, and VIII take no account of IV-VI, as IV-VI, on the
other hand, do not lack references to III and VII These latter, however, are
not as to demand the msertlOn of IV-VI between III and VII-VIII
In fact, such an mserhon appeared to be excluded by the conneXion between
III and VII-VIII and their references to each other (See below, pp 273-274)
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 269
of the Ideal state, dIrectly connected wIth Plato In vIrtue of Its
aIm It begIns In Book II wIth a hIStOrICal survey of the earher
theonsts about the Ideal state, IncludIng Plato, and wIth a
cntIcism of theIr UtoPiaS Apparently thIS book was OrIgInally
the begInmng, just as the hlstoncal part IS the begInmng of the
of the dIalogue On and of the books
On the Soul It was useless, however, as an IntroductIOn to any-
thIng but a dISCUSSlOn of the Ideal state, and hence a more
general IntroductlOn had to be prefixed to It when the dISCUSSIon
developed mto a general theory of the state I In Book III we
have the tranSItion to the fundamental conceptions Involved In
the state Its mam content IS the denvatlOn of the SIX arche-
typal constitutions from the amount of the share In the govern-
ment enjoyed by theIr CItizens Here agaIn we have the charac-
tenstIc search for absolute norms and standards, espeCIally In
the dIstinction between the true and the degenerate forms The
attItude IS just as theoretic and conceptual as that of the actual
descnptIon of the best state In Books VII and VIII, to whIch It
often refers We shall return to the latter
Over agaInst thIS speculatIve pIcture stands the empmcal
part In Books IV-VI It shows no trace of the old Platomc
spmt of constructIons and Ideal outhnes ArIstotle does, how-
ever, expressly define hIS attitude towards the older part when,
<1t the begInmng of IV, he explaInS that In addItIon to the con-
structlOn of the Ideal It IS a no less Important task of the political
theonst to examIne what IS good or bad for a partIcular state
m given condItlOns The constItutlOn of an absolute Ideal, and
the determmatIOn of the best politics pOSSIble under gIVen condI-
bons, are parts of one and the same SCIence HIS on thI"
POInt show that he felt a certaIn dIfficulty In combInIng Plato'"
UtopIan speculatlOns WIth thIS purely empIrIcal treatment,
although he belIeved hImself able to overcome It He tned to
escape by POIntIng to the analogy of a double form of medICIne
and gymnastICS, the one concernIng Itself WIth the pure standard
and the other applyIng the knowledge thus gaIned to the gIven
case Throughout the mtroducbon to the empIrIcal part one
can scarcely help feehng that there IS an undertone of polemIC
agaInst the mere constructIon of Ideals, and that ArIstotle was
1 POT the VIndIcatIOn of the ,lew that Book I IS late see below, p 272

270 TRAVELS
very proud of his mnovatlon The uncomprOlmsmg of
the unattamable Ideal could not help the rent and nven actuah-
ties of Greek polItics
The malO pomt, however, IS that 10 the empmcal mqumes of
the mserted books the Ideal state IS no longer the norm that
detenmnes what IS attamable and deSirable In gIven Circum-
stances The standard there IS Immanent and bIOlogIcal It 1'5
obtamed by Immersmg oneself sympathetically 10 the mamfold
possIble forms of the state, and not by lookmg to a smgle, fi"ed,
Ideal goal Hence Anstotle IS never weary of mSIstmg that there
are not one kInd of democracy, one kmd of olIgarchy, and so on,
but very dIvergent vanetles, and whereas 10 Book III democracy
and ohgarchy are regarded as merely degenerate and contrary
to the norm, In IV they are the two types to whIch almost all
actual constitutIOns are 10 practice to be referred, although
Anstotle still retams hIS old systematic dIVISIOn Into two cate-
gones of value, good constitutIOns and perversIOns The essen-
tIal thmg for the understanding of Books IV-VI IS not what he
preserves of the old, but hIS new method, which could never
have been denved from speculatIOn about the Ideal state In
that speculatIOn the rule was logical dIVISIOn, but here It IS the
feeling for bIOlogical form ThIS comes out clearly In the detailed
methodIcal companson between the theory of the forms of
state and that of the morphology of ammals, whIch Anstotle
places at the begmmng of hiS new inqUiry I ThiS IS tangIble and
I Pol IV 4. I290b 25 If we were gOIng to speak of the different specIes of
ammal we should first of all detenmne the organs that are Indispensable to
every ammal, as, for example, some organs of sense and the Instruments of
receivIng and dlgestmg food, such the mouth and the stomach,
organs of locomotIOn AssumIng now that there are only so many kInds of
organ, but that there may be differences In them-I mean different kInds of
mouth, and stomach, and perceptl"e and locomotIve organ-the pOSSible com-
blDatlOns of these dltierences Will furnish many vaneties of aDimal
(For aDimals cannot be the same which have different kmds of mouth or ear)
And when all the combmations are exhausted there wIll be as molny sorts of
ammal as there are combinatIOns of the necessary organs The same then, IS
true of the forms of government that have been described' Then follows the
parallel between the particular parts of the SOCial orgamsm and those of the
!IVIng thIng By the way In which he works It out Aristotle shows that he
regards thiS not as an mgemous analogy but as a revolutIOn lD method and the
result, wInch he emphaSizes agam and aga.Jn lD what follows, IS Important
enough the few forms of constItutIon distIngUIshed In Book III do not exhaust
the hst, for each of them IS dIVISible again according to the way In which the
parts arc combmed, and thiS can vary very Widely
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 271
unnllstakable eVIdence of the mfluence exerted on the construc-
tIve way of thmkmg that he mhented from Plato by the descnp-
tIve sCiences of nature, especially bIOlogy and morphology, which
underwent development on all Sides dunng his later penod It
IS not a question merely of the control of conceptual construc-
tIOn by expenence That had always been hIS tendency. even
m the old account of the Ideal state he had had recourse to
expenence to confirm or overthrow Plato's speculations But
m these late books the unbiased observatIOn of empmcal reahty
has led him to a wholly different mode of treatment, whIch
starts from the particular phenomena and seeks to discover their
mner law, hke a sCIentist observmg the charactenstIc motions
and emotions of a hvmg thmg The theory of the dIseases of
states and of the method of cunng them IS modelled on the
physIcIan's pathology and therapy It IS scarcely pOSSIble to
ImagIne a greater contrast to the doctnne of an Ideal norm,
which constItuted Plato's pohtIcal theory and that of Anstotle
m hIS early days, than thIS VIew, accordIng to WhICh no state IS
so hopelessly dlsorgamzed that one cannot at least nsk the
attempt at a cure RadIcal methods would certaInly destroy It
m short order, the measure of the power" of recovery that It can
exert must be determmed solely by exammmg Itself and ItS
condItIon
We must here content ourselves WIth thIS general charac-
tenzatiOn, and not enter further Into the detailed analySIS of
these three books It IS necessary, however, to say one more
word about the first As already remarked, It was added when
the eXIsting structure was enlarged mto a gem'ral theory of
polItics by the msertIOn of the purely empmcal part It sets out
the plan of the whole as Anstotle conceived It whIle workIng
on the later ~ r s o n He mtended to develop m the mtroduc-
tIon the fundamental natural condItIons of all polItical eXIstence,
In order to construct the state from nature, out of ItS SImplest
presupposItions These presuppOSItIons are the three funda-
mental elements of all SOCIal hfe, master and slave, man and
wIfe, parent and chud I The way m which he carnes out, or
rather fads to carry out, the resultIng threefold dIVISIOn of hIS
matenal shows that there were certam dIfficultIes m hIS path
I Pol I 3. 1253b 4-8
272 TRAVELS
The first book dIscusses only the first of these three fundamental
relatIons, the questIon of slaves and Its connexlOn wIth the
economy of socIal lIfe As to the two other subjects proposed,
mamage and chIldren, Anstotle consoles his readers by remark-
Ing at the end that these had better be dIscussed In connexlOn
wIth the problem of the family, 'when we speak of the dIfferent
forms of government' (tv nepl At first
sIght thIS looks lIke an IncomprehensIble faIlure 10 consIstency
and lucIdIty, and It makes the close of thIS book very unsatIs-
factory The explanatIOn IS that he was In an awkward posItion,
and only VIOlent means could help hIm out of It Marnage and
the famIly had already been lIberally dIscussed In the earlIer
versIOn of the Polztzcs, on the occaSiOn of the cntlClsm of Plato's
demand that wIves and chtldren should be common He was
therefore oblIged eIther to delete thIS earher treatment, thereby
destroymg the maIn attractIOn of hIS cntIclsmof Plato's Republzc,
or to abandon the account of It In Book I and content hImself
wIth a reference to that In II I He chose the latter The muh-
I Pol I 13, 1260
b
8-13 It IS not permissible to omit the article before
l1'OAlTflers or to It from to Tiil ThiS would make the refer
to the part of the Pohts that contams the Ideal state, which. however does
not mentIon the problem of the famIly, and It would be poor consolatIOn to
suppose that the missIng diSCUSSIOn appeared 1D the final part of the last book,
whIch IS lost It IS surely a dubIOUS proceedmg to alter the traditIOn on the
ground of a passage that m;!y never have eXisted The expressIOn' when
we of the different forms of government (tv TOll 1I".pl 1I"oAI... IS
ambiguous In IV 2, 1289" 26, our ongmal discussIOn about governments'
means the classIficatIOn of constItutIons mto MX kmds In the thIrd book In
II I. 1260
b
29, ArIstotle understands by the . other constItutIons', In contrast
to hiS own Ideal state, the UtopIas by other theonsts, whIch he
critIcizes m that book, at the end of the same bool{ he agam up thiS
mqulry under the name of 'our mqulry Into the various constItutIons (1274b 26)
Now the problem of the famIly IS fully dIscussed In the cnticlsm of the com-
mumty of Wives and chIldren In Republtc (II 3-4), and although
An,totle there develops hiS own view somewha.t mdlrectly, by contrast With
what seems to him a mistake, thiS very Indirectness IS mentIoned 1D the pre-
lImmary announcement In I 13 1260b 10 'The relatIons of husband and "Ife
parent and chIld, their several Virtues, what tntercourse wtth one another
IS good and what eVil, and how we may pursue the good and escape the eVil,
Will have to be dISCUSSed when we speak of the different forms of government'
He here Indicates a treatment of the questIon In the form of a CriticIsm of the
WTong view If he had meant to diSCUSS It In the same way as he does the
problem of slavery It would be ImpoSSible to conceIve any reason why he
should not have done so Immediately after the fanner. but Book I was wntten
to precede a pre-exlstmg treatIse In WhICh the question had already been
cussed, IS proved by the brusque transItion to Boo\" II, where we ,Lre told
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 273
lated structure of the first book IS thus the consequence of ItS
adaptatIon to the older verSIOn The concludmg passage, WhICh
IS Intended to make the transItIon to the older part wIth ItS
problem of the Ideal state, also betrays the dIfficulty of dOing
so by ItS remarkable tortuousness-thIs has even been made a
reason for denymg that It IS genuIne, and yet It does not succeed
In dISgUISIng the abrupt change of thought WhICh stnkes the
reader of the opemng sentence of Book II
These results may be confirmed by examInmg the system of
references There are m fact two dIstInct sets,Imposed one on the
other, and partly contradIctIng each other At first, naturally.
the scholar treats them as all on a level and tnes to harmOnIze
them Then he sets them agamst each other and declares one
half to be mterpolatIOns But the only way to untIe the knot IS
to bear the facts of Anstotle's development In mmd, and so to
dlstmgUIsh the references that must have occurred In the old
sketch of the Ideal state (because they presuppo<;e that alone)
from the later ones, whIch presuppose the whole o l t t ~ s as
It now stands The only dIrectly demonstrative references,
naturally, are those that conflIct wIth the present state of the
Polzt1CS Those pre<;upposmg It may belong to the late'it verSIOn,
and hence prove nothIng If we make a dIVIsIon mto two groups
on thIS pnnCIple, we find that what IS presupposed by the group
conflIctmg wIth the present state of the treatise IS that the books
containIng the Ideal state (II, III, VII, VIII) were ongmally
umted and Independent Book III was once the real begmnIng of
the treatIse, Since the contents of II are merely negatIve Hence
It IS often referred to wIth the phrase 'at the commencement of
our mqUIry' (ev Tois TIpWTOlS MYOIS) Even Book IV refers
to III m thIS way, although It belongs to the later verSIOn, and
thIS shows that IV-VI were Inserted before the first book was
prefixed to the whole' Before the first book was wntten
",thout \\arnmg that the aIln of pohtIcs IS to set up an Ideal state, although
unbl that moment the diSCUSSIOn had been concerned solely wIth the state m
general
I For Book III or the begmnmg of It referred to as 'at the commencement of
our inqUiry' see III 18, 1288" 37 ( = III 4) VII 14, 1333" 3 ( = III 6)
IV 2, 1289" 26 ( = III 6) IV 7, 129]b 2 ( = III 4-5), and IV 10, 1295" 4
( = III 14-17) If SusemIhlls nght, It also conflicts wIth the present state of
the Polzt.cs when IV 3. 1290"' refers to VII, B-g, with the words' which were
mentIoned by us when treatmg of anstocracy', but we cannot absolutely
274 TRAVELS
Anstotle used to refer to hIs exotenc dIalogues for the matters
now treated there, namely slavery and the doctnne of the
three forms of rule obtammg wlthm the household (master,
husband, and father) They were fully treated m those works,
and so we read m III 6, 1278b 30 'There IS no difficulty In
dlStmgUlshmg the vanous kmds of authonty, they have often
been defined already m the exotenc works 'I He then gIves the
claSSIficatIOn exactly as we find It m the first book the kmds of
authonty are master and slave, husband and wIfe, father and
chud That he nevertheless refers to a dIalogue for thIs c1assl-
ficatlOn can fau to be surpnsmg only If Book III belongs to a
verSlOn m whIch I dId not occur In the final versIOn he con-
ceIved the plan of fillmg up thIs gap by gIVmg a full dlscusslOn
of the matter m an Introductory book It then became neces-
sary to Insert In the passage quoted a reference to the fact that
the subJect had already been treated m the first book But the
older reference to the dialogues was not removed, and the Juxta-
posItion of the two IS a strange contradlctlOn 2 Anstotle Intro-
duced another reference to I at a passage In VII where he
touches on the subject of master and slave ,3 and the remarkable
relation obtammg between the references m II, III, VII, and
VIII, and those m 1v-vI. already dIscussed, can also be satls-
factonly explamed If we bear the development of the work In
mmd 4 The reason why II, III, VII, and VIII, the books con-
exclude the posslblhty that the reference here IS to III 4 Newman (The
PolitICS of Arlstotle, vol IV, p 155) suggests III 12 1283" 14 ff See the next
note but one
I The Oxford translation, In l s u s s l o n ~ outSide the school' presupposes
another view of the meaning of ' exotenc', but see p 249 above Tr
Pol III 6, I278b 17 If thiS reference to Book I had been present from the
beg1OnIng, and I Itself therefore were as old as III, It would be Impossible to see
why ArIstotle here finds It necessary to repeat all over agam what he hold
already said there about the forms of authonty, and to appeal to the exoterIc
works for support It IS clear from the other references to exotenc works that
we have here an extract from a dialogue, and that Anstotle mtroduces It for the
want of anything bet/er. but thiS presupposes that at the bme of wnt10g III was
not preceded by I
] Pol VII 3, 1325" 30 'about which I have SaId enough at the commence-
ment of thiS treatise' Here, as 10 III 6, I278b 18 'the commencement of thiS
treatISe' does not mean Book III which IS Its usual sense m the PollIICS, but
Book I That IS to say. It presupposes the latest reVISion Both references were
Introduced on that occasIOn That the PollI.es conta3DS any references not
mserted by Anstotle himself I cannot adDllt
See p 267 above
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 275
tammg the account of the Ideal state, are bed together with a
network of mutual references, whlle they do not mentlOn the
mtervenmg Books IV-VI, IS that they were wntten as one and
at an earher tIme The same fact also explams why the latest
and empmcal part, and especIally IV, frequently takes account
of the old
Let us now attempt to determme more exactly the date of the
sketch of the Ideal state, as agamst that of the later books and
of the collectlOn of constItutlOns As With the EthJCS and the
Metaphystcs, we must start from Its conneXlOns WIth AnstotIe's
early wntmgs-and It IS sIgnificant that only the older part of
the PoLJtJCS shows any such conneXIOns, the later books, IV-VI,
evmce not the shghtest trace of a relatIon to the dIalogues
Unfortunately the matenal at our disposal for companson IS
extremely poor The ProtreptJcus, the only work that we can
use, helps us solely m matters where the PoLJtJCS IS directly based
on the EthJCS The survlvmg remams contam httle that IS wholly
pohtIcal ThiS misfortune IS to some degree counterbalanced, of
course, by the fact that the conneXIOn between the PolJtJCS and
the EthJCS was much closer m the early penod than afterwards
Later on, whlle Anstotle stIll formally preserved the umty of
the two dlsclpbnes, and even systematIzed them externally mto
one great whole, the ethiCS of the IndIvidual had nevertheless
been practically completely separated, beneath the surface, from
ItS tradItIOnal PlatOnIC yokefellow, and a way was already open
to the mdependence that It obtamed m HellemstIc tImes
We start WIth the begmnmg of Book VII, which lays the
foundatIon of the Ideal state It IS thoroughly PlatOnIC In
IdentIfymg the end of the state WIth the ethical end of the
mdlvldual, for thiS IS the meanIng of the proposItIon from which
the mqmry proceeds, that the best state IS that which assures
ItS cItIzens of the best hfe (atpETC';>TCXTOS, aplO"TOS I3los) In say-
Ing thIS Anstotle IS by no means subordInatIng the state to the
welfare of the mdlvldual, as a bberal would do, but IS denvIng,
as Plato does, the categones for Judgmg the value of the state
from the ethIcal standards that apply to the soul of the IndI-
Vidual To say that the 'best hfe' of the state and of the IndiVIdual
are one and the same does not mean for him that thmgs are well
With the state If everybody has good food and feels comfortable,
276 TRAVELS
but that the !>pmtual and moral value of the state IS based on
that of ItS citizens Its ultimate source IS the evaluatmg soul of
the mdlvldual On the other hand, the hIghest ethical concep-
tIon to which that soul attams IS the state, towards whIch man IS
by nature predIsposed
Plato perfonns the denvatIon of the best state from ethIcal
standards wlthm a smgle SCIence WIth Anstotle, however, the
dIfferentIatIOn of ethIcs and pohhcs has advanced so far that at
thIS pomt he IS obhged to remmd hIS readers of the fundamental
Importance of the ethical doctnne of the 'best lIfe' Now the
form that the ethical question here takes ('What IS the best
hfe ') IS by Itself a sign of the date of thIS pIcture of the Ideal
state, for, although ItS mfluence can stIll be detected even m the
later Ethtcs, It there constItutes merely the tradItIonal frame-
work wIthm which Anstotle develops hIS reahstIc and psycho-
logIcal doctrIne of character, whereas m the Plttlebus and the
Protrepttcus, and even In the angInal EthtCs, It 1<; stIll the centre
of the whole problem of value When, therefore, we find that
Anstotle, when he has to determme the questIon of the best lIfe
m order to establIsh hI!> Ideal state, appeals to hIS exotenc
works, we shall not be surprIsed, but shall give the matter our
senous attentIOn, and shall not merely conSIder the lIterary
form, as had been done up to now, but also eAammc the con-
tent HIS language unmIstakably ImplIes that he IS ba5mg
hImself on a partIcular work on the 'best lIfe', and thIS must be
the Protrepttcus I Bernays, who was the first to recogmze thIS
passage as a self-quotatIon, conJectured the reference to be to
the totally unknown dialogue Nerwthus,Z whICh 1<; an Incom-
prehensible VIew, but he dId lastmg serVIce In drawmg our
attentIon to the change of style that takes place In the follow-
mg chapter J From the unusualness of such elevated wntmg m
the treatIses, and from Its COInCIdence With the reference to the
eAoterIC works, he concluded that we have here an extenSIve
reproductIon of one of Anstotle's dIalogues, down even to the
details Du,ls afterwards put the problem of <;tyle mto a more
general settmg, and explamed the stnkmg nse In tone, whIch
I Pol VII I, 1323" 21 Here agam the Oxford translatIon ImplIes a different
VIew Tr
> Bernays, D,e Dlalogc des Ansloleles, p 89 J Dernays, op Cit P 77
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 277
occurs m several passages of the treahses, as a sort of
mtended to produce an ethical effect by workmg on the hearer's
subjective feelIngs He did not belIeve that any ofthese passages
were borrowed from the dialogues I After what has been saId,
however, the fact that the treatises frequently make use of the
exotenc works reqUIres no further confirmatIOn, and the mtro-
duehan to Book VII of the Pol1hcs IS a case m pomt Never-
theless, the elevated style IS certamly not to be ehplamed by
saymg that Anstotle has faIled to remove all traces of the
ongmal tone, for It IS thoroughly SUItable to an mtroductIOn to
the Ideal state, and recurs m SImIlar places where borrov.mg
from the dJalogues JS not to be assumed 2 The fact IS that thIS
passage happens to combme both elevahon of style and bor-
rowmg from an early work Anstotle takes from hJS ehotenc
"ource not merely the Ideas, but also the attempt to make them
protrephcally effechve by means of a parhcular style
The first thmg that he takes over from the ProtreptlcuS, as m
the begmmng of the second book of the Eudemlan EthlCS, IS the
divIsIOn of all goods mto external, bodIly, and !:>pmtual HappI-
ness depends on the possessIOn of all three kmds, although It IS
naturally not so much the phIlosopher's busmess to demonstrate
the nece!:>slty of the e"Xtemal or of the bodIly goods as of those
of the moral and !>pmtual personalIty 'No one would mamtam
that he IS happy who has not m him a partIcle of courage or
temperance or Justice or phronesls, who IS afraid of every Insect
that flutters past him, and Will commit any cnme, however
great. m order to gratIfy hiS lust of meat or dnnk, who wIll
J D,el., review of Georg Ka,bel'. 'Shl und Text der nOhl"Toia des
Anstoteles' III Gott gel Anz, 1894, and' Zu Anstoteles ProtreptIkos und
Ciceros HorteDslUs In Arch f Gesch d PhJlos vol I, P 478 In my Enl
1I1elaph Ansi I followed D,els (p 137), and I stili hold Jt Jmposslble to ,mpute
to Anstotle .uch a manner of usmg h,s d,alogues as to fall mto mvoluntary
remm,scences of their style like a late compl1l"r If the style changes ,t JS
always because he mtends to produce a particular effect But whereas formerly
I believed With Diels that was a reason for dispensmg entirely w,th the-
SUppOSJtlon that Aristotle borrowed from h,s exotenc works, thJS mference
must Dow of course be abandonea Vahlen's dJSCus.lOn of the opemng of the
.Jxth book of the PolzlJCs (BeY W.ene,. Akad d WJSS, vol lxxu pp 5 ff),
though admirable for fine ImguIstlc observatlOns does not help to sohe
Bernays' problem of the ongln of the Ideas 10 tillS chapter
1 A., for example, 1D the first book On the Payts of AnJmals, whJch IS the
1OtroductIon to a long senes of lectures on ammal., and JS very general 1D
character
278 TRAVELS
sacnfice hls dearest fnend for the sake of half-a-farthmg, and
IS as feeble and false m mmd as a chud or a madman' The age
of thIs passage IS clear from ItS mentIOn of the fOUf PlatonIc
vIrtues, mcludmg phrones'J,s, whIch IS substItuted for soph'J,a m
accordance wIth Plato's late VIew We have seen the same four-
fold schemE" In the Protreptteus I The Importance assIgned to It
15 shown by the four examples That gIVen for the value of
phronests can shll be found In our fragments of the Protrepttcus.
'No one would choose to hve, even If he had the greatest wealth
and power that man has ever had, If he were depnved of hIS
reason and mad, not even If he were gOIng to be constantly
enjoyIng the most vehement pleasures' And later on we read
'If a man had everythmg, but the thmkmg part of hIm was cor-
rupted and dIseased, hfe would not be desuable for him The
other goods would be no benefit to hIm ThiS IS why all men
behttle all other goods so far as they know what reason IS and
are capable of tastIng It ThIS also IS why none of us could
endure to be drunk or to be a chIld throughout hfe '2
ThiS, however, IS unIversally acknowledged, the Palthcs con-
hnues Men dIffer only about the degree, that IS, about the
questIon WhICh sort of good we need most of 'Some tlunk that
a very moderate amount of VIrtue IS enough, but set no hmlt
to theIr deslfes of wealth, property, power, reputatIon, and the
lIke' Yet 'happmess, whether COnSI'itmg m pleasure or VIrtue
or both [thIS was the problem of the Phzlebus and the Protrep-
tteus],J IS more often found WIth those who are most highly
cultivated In theIr mmd and In theIr character, and have only a
moderate share of external goods, than among those who possess
e:\.ternal goods to a useless extent but are defiCIent In hIgher
qualItIes' These words reproduce Idea!:> and phrases charac-
tellstIc of the Protrepttws The man 'most hIghly cultIvated In
mmd' IS the counterpart of the man m the Protrepttcus who IS
'decked m shmmg raiment' but whose soul IS 'Ill eVil state' ..
1 Frg 52 (p 62, II 2-4 In Rose) and frg 58 (p 68, II 6--9 In Rose) Compare
Pol VII I, I
3
2
J
b 33-6. and 15, 1334" 22
, Frg 55 (p 65, II 4-7 and 15-21 In Rose)
, Iambl Protr, p 41, I 12, and p 59 I 27. In PIstelh
Pol VII I, 132J" J6 11 . cp frg 57 The method of determIning the parts
played In happiness by external posseSSIons aud by the state of the SQulls the
~ m In both pas!.ages
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 279
Anstotle mentIons thIS mner 'state' a few hnes lower down m
the Polztzcs 'The best state of one thmg m relatIon to another
corresponds In degree of excellence to the Interval between the
natures of whIch we say that these very states are states 'I The
Protreptzcus expresses the same thmg more sImply 'If the state
of a man's soul IS bad neIther wealth nor strength nor beauty IS
a good for hIm On the contrary, the more the excess In whIch
these states are present the more and the greater the harm
they do to the man who possesses them wIthout phroneszs'
(frg 57 end)
External goods must have a lImIt (1TEpos) , for they are means,
and every means IS useful for somethmg Treated as an end m
Itself, a means becomes harmful to the man who makes hIm-
self Its slave, or at the least It becomes useless The more we
mcrease mner goods, however, the more useful they are, If the
epIthet 'useful' as well as 'noble' IS appropnate to such subjects z
Here agaIn the Protreptzcus IS the source In that work we read
'To look for some result from every pIece of knowledge, and to
demand that It be useful, IS to be absolutely Ignorant of the
fundamental dIfference between goods and necessItIes, and thIS
dIfference IS very great Such thmgs as we deSIre for the sake
of somethIng else, and WIthout whIch we could not hve, should
be called necessary condItIons (avayKo"io l<o\ OWOhlO), whIle
what we deSIre for ItS own sake, even If nothmg else comes from
It, IS good m the stnct sense For It IS not the truth that one
thmg IS deSIrable for the sake of another, and that for the sake
of another agam, and so on to mfimty, there IS a stop some-
where' (cp Pol 1323b 7, 'external goods have a hmlt') In
general one must not be always a!>kmg 'What use IS or 'How
does that help us , there IS an Ideal ('the noble and good') that
stands above base usefulness 3 'Each one has Just so much of
happIness as he has of VIrtue and phroneszs'-the formula of the
Eudemzan Ethzcs 'God IS a wItness to us of thIS truth, for he IS
happy and blessed, not by reason of any external good, but m
I For Anstotle's tendency 10 the Protrephcus to express In the
manner of formal logic see Iambl PratT. p 43. I 28, and p 44, I 21 Both of
these examples also refer to the ehglble and the more ehglble
Pol VII I, 1323b 7-12
J Frg 58 (p 68, I 19, In Rose) At I 1 of P 69 m Rose three Imes have
fallen ou t after MyOl'v through a error, cp Iambl PTotT p 52, II 28 ff
280 TRAVELS
hlffiself and by reason of hIs own nature 'J (ThIs sort of argu-
mentation belongs to the perIod shortly after ArIstotle's eman-
cipation from Plato, when the theolOgical element still had the
upper hand and stIll penetrated ethres and pohtIcs Later on
he aVOIded mtroducIng such metaphySical matters) That thiS
too IS copIed from the ProtreptIcus IS shown by the fragment that
Cicero has preserved about the beata VIta on the Islands of the
blest 'Una Igitur essemus beatI [SCll 51 nobiS III beatorom
Insuhs Immortale aevum degere hceretJ cogmtIOne naturae et
sClentIa, qua sola eham deorum est vita laudanda '2 Here too
the true nature of human happIness IS Inferred from the reason
of God's happmess ThIS Inference, together wIth the dIstmc-
tIon between happIness and good fortune, whIch IS developed
m the next hne of the PolItICS, 15 found both m the early works
and m the oldest form of the Ethzcs and In the NIcomachean
Ethzcs, but the whole manner m whIch It IS here treated IS that
of the earher penod 3 The first chapter of Book VII ends wIth
these words 'Thus much may suffice by way of preface, for I
could not aVOId touching upon these questIons, neIther could
I go through all the arguments affectIng them, these are the
bUSIness of another lecture' (htpCIS O')(oAiis) The hearer who IS
not satIsfied IS thus expressly promised another dIscussIOn of the
question In the PlatOnIC Circle In WhICh these lectures were
wntten ArIstotle expected opposItIon to hiS IdentificatIOn of the
happmess of the state WIth that of the mdividual It would not
be dIfficult for a philosopher to merge hImself In Plato's City
of phIlosophers and serve ItS ends, but Anstotle's new Ideal state
IS not to be ruled by Platomc kings When, III the first chapter,
he speaks of the Identity of the best hfe for the state and for the
mdIvldual CItIzens, It IS 5Igmficant that he recogmzes as pOSSIble
kmds of hfe only two a maximum of pleasure or a hfe of ethIcal
and practical goodness He does not mentIon the hfe of pure
reason (phroneszs) 4 To thIS a Platomst would have to reply,
'Then there IS nothmg for the phIlosopher but to Withdraw
entlTely from pohtlcal hfe', and thiS would be the necessary
consequence of Anstotle's own view m the ProtreptIcus, where
phIlosophy alone could determine the highest polItIcal norm,
1 Pol VII I, 1]2]b 21-26
J Cp Eth Eud VIII 2
2 Frg 58 (p 68, I 10, In Rose)
Pol VII I, 1]2]b J
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 281
and was the lawgIVer m the state Now, however, that the Ideal
state had been approxImated to realIty what room was there
for the contemplative lIfe of the phIlosophIcal mdlvldual Here
for the first tIme the antmomy between state and mdIvidual
becomes a sCIentIfic problem, though as yet only m a very
restncted sense, smce It IS only the phIlosophIcal ego, the ego
of phronesls, that may have mterests hIgher than the state's to
represent For the ordmary clhzen who IS sImply the product
of the relgmng polItical pnnclples there IS no such problem m the
anCIent world HIS membership m the state exhausts hIS nature
But Anstotle demand'l that m the Ideal state the commumty
and the mdiVIdual shall never have IrreconCilably dIvergent
alms, and so m the next two chapters of the PolltlCS we have the
spectacle, the mterest of whIch IS more than hlstoncal and bIO-
graphIcal, of the author of the Protrepttcus, who has now aban-
doned Plato's City of philosophers, workmg out the resultmg
mevltable conflict between hIS phIlosophIcal and hIS socIOlogIcal
conSCience LIke the antmomy between faIth and knowledge
m metaphySICS, and that between character and the speculative
mmd m ethICS, thIS between the state and the mdlvldual (the
latter bemg eqUIvalent to cultural values) 1'1 not theoretIcally
pOSSIble untIl we come to Anstotle's mutIlated verSIOn of Plato
The ongmal undIVIded umty of the actIve forces m Plato's
romantIc myth of the state could no longer restram the tendency
of these factors more and more to separate and dIverge Ans-
totle tnes to reconcIle them once agam mto a hIgher umty The
thoroughgomg upholders of the contemplatIve hfe had long seen
that the ultimate of Plato's Ideal was to shun all
actual states and hve as a metIc I3los) , for where was
the phIlosoplucally adjusted state m whIch theIr Ideal could
find a place All actual constItutIOns, It seemed to them, were
Just mIght, nothmg but mIght, tyranny, and slavery The
han was not to act, not to rule, not to Incur the reproach of
takmg part m the despotic horror of polItical actIVIty, WIth ItS
selfishness and Its hunger for power WIth such thmkers Ans-
totle contrasts those who hold that to act forcibly and to rule
IS the only thmg worthy of a man There are states whose whole
constitutIOns and laws are aImed solely at breedmg a proud,
masterful, and warlIke spmt m theIr CItizens And so far as
282 TRAVELS
constItutIons are not lIfeless products of chance, WhICh most of
them are, they are without exceptIOn of this character accord-
mg to him I Now hIS newIdeal IS constructed as a mean between
these two radical e",tremes The boundless mdlVlduabsm of the
thoroughgomg PlatOnIst, who prefers absolute freedom to tak-
mg part m a despotIc state, and wishes neither to rule nor to
be ruled, IS mdeed ethically better than the modern state's
Ideal of power, he says, but rule IS not necessarlly despotIsm,
and a large number of men are simply born to be dependent It
IS also unjustIfiable to condemn actIOn and praise mactIvlty
He IS mcomparably Greek when he declares that there must be
truth m the view that 'he who does nothmg cannot do well'
To the Hellemc mmd thiS was a certamty that reqUIred no
discussIOn Clearly Anstotle can combme the philosopher's
Ideal hfe with thiS view of the purpose of state and society only
by representmg phIlosophiC contemplatIOn as Itself a sort of
creatIve 'actIon' Here agam he IS opemng up new roads, and
makmg a new tIe to replace Plato's shattered mythical syntheSIS
of knowledge and hfe The actIvity of the creatIve mmd IS-
bulldmg Anstotle has abandoned the lonely heights of the
Protrepttcus He now places himself In the midst of actIve hfe,
and comes forward as an architect of thoughts (0 Tois 211ovoiOls
apxnil<TWv), to bulld a state m which thiS mtellectual form of
actIon may obtaIn recogmtlOn and become effective as the crown
of all the human actIVities that further the common good z Thus
he wrestles with the reabty, who!>e nature he now sees more
clearly, and preserves hiS youthful Ideal HIS cntlclsm of the
fundamental ethical and polItIcal pnnclples of the Protrepttcus,
and of Its theory of the best lIfe, IS as much to the fore In hiS
early account of the Ideal state as we have found It to be at every
step m the angInal Eehtcs, and. thiS fact not only proves the
early date of that account, but also allows us, for the first tIme,
to give It Its nght place m the history of hiS development The
angInal Poltttcs comes, In fact, at the same stage as the anginal
Ethtcs and the ongInal M etaphystcs 3
I The two types are descnbed In ~ VII 2, 1324
a
35 fI
2 Pol VII 3. esp 1325b 15 tI
J The dependence of Book VII on the Protrepticus IS by no means confined to
the first three chapters. which are analysed above For example, It can be
clearly detected ID chapter 15 also The mentIOn of the four PlatonIC virtues
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 283
ThIS gIves a fresh meanmg to the numerous passages where the
old sketch of the Ideal state refers to the Ethzcs They have
usually been supposed to apply to the Nzcomachean verSIOn,
even when the Eudemzan was perfectly possIble There remamed,
mdeed, the pecuhar fact that some of the chIef ones would fit the
Eudemzan only, whIch was supposed to be by Eudemus,l but
smce m these passages the Ethzcs IS not expressly quoted but
tacitly made use of (which IS the ordmary thmg), It was possIble
to mamtam that It was Eudemus who had the Pohtzcs before
him whde wntmg, and not the other way about Now that
we have disproved hiS authorship and determmed the age of
the Ethzcs called after hIm, the real relation becomes clear If the
sketch of the Ideal state must, m view of ItS close relatIOn to the
Protreptzcus, have been wntten dunng the fortIes of the fourth
century, It IS self-evident that It cannot have used any Ethtcs
but the ongmal one In VII 13, for example, It quotes a long
account of the fight relatIon between means and end The
source of thIS admittedly cannot be the Ntcomachean Eilncs
Nor IS It pOSSible to suppose that these ethical reflectIons first
appeared m the Polttzcs, where they are only mentIoned m pas-
smg, whereas the Eudemzan Etlucs gwes them m their ongmal
there (1334" 22 ff) IS suffiCient to show that tlps whole sketl,h of the stat!'"
belongs to .1 very early date, and the tOpIC on the necessIty of phl1o'IDphy and
of the moral vIrtues upon the Islands of the blest IS dIrectly borrowed from the
Protrept.cu> (frg 58) Thence comes the lDvective agamst persons who
are unable to use the good; of hfe (frg 55), whIch follows thiS tOPiC do the
statements at the end of the chapter about the relatIOn betwe!"'n body and soul,
and about the parts of the !>Oul (Iambl ProtO' PSI. I 18-p 52, I 2) 'lhe
deficlencle; of nature are what art and education seek to fill up' (VII 17.
1337" 2) I; verbally copIed from Iamb) Protr, p 50,11 1-2 'Nature has gIveR
older men wisdom' (VII q 132q' 15) comes from p 51, II 24 ff
I Bendixen was the first to pomt out (Plnlologus, vol XI (1856), pp 575 fl)
.lgalDst Spengel's vIew that the Eudem,an EthiCS was wntten by Eudemus, that
there are eral passages \\ here the POlttlCS sho,", s a relllarkable conneXlOn WIth
the Eudemlan EthICS He dId not, howe\er venture to mfer definitely that
declaratIOn of spunou;ness was untenable In the Gottmgen dls-
;ertation (1909) that I have already mentioned Von der Ml.lhll reopened the
dlscusslOn of BendIXen's observations (p 19). but did not examlDe them m
detaIl Now, however that we have adequately established the Anstotehan
ongm of the Euduntan EthICS by another path, and determined that It was
wntten while he was movmg away from Plato, It IS necessary to take a new
Hew of Bendixen's matenal
Pol VII 13, 1331b 26 Cp Dh Eud II II, 1227b 19 That the passage IS
borrowed from the EthICS IS rendered certam by the fact that thIS chapter
expressly refers to 'the Fth,cs' In two other places (1332" 8 and 21)
284 TRAVELS
context It IS equally ImpossIble that, eIther by chance or by
an accIdent of memory, Anstotle formulated the same Ideas,
III the same language In two Illdependent passages Such ar.
eAplanatlOn IS excluded by the eXIstence of numerous other
simIlar correspondences with the Eudemlan Ethles, some of
which have very charactenstIc details They all go to show the
same fact, namely that when he wrote the oldest parts of the
POllhcs ArIStotle had the Eudemlan Etlues before him and fre-
quently quoted It, and the correctness of thIS vIew IS decIsIvely
proved by the fact that these remarkable borrowmgs all occur
m the oldest books of the Pohtles, those concermng the Ideal
state I LIke the Nleomaehean Ethus and the later verSlOn of
the Polzhes, the ongmal Pol1tles and the ongmal Etlnes arose
1Il close conneXlOn WIth each other
ThiS same thIrteenth chapter makes use of the ongmal Etlnes
m several other passages That .1t 1332" 8 IS too general to per-
mit defimte mferences,2 but 3 21 ff can refer only to the ongmal
and not to the Nlcomachean because the manner m
whIch It IS expressed eAactly reproduces the relevant passage m
the former, while there IS nothmg correspondmg to It III the
latcr (Thc passage that the edItors refer to m the Nteomaehean
versIOn does not fit J) That the Eudemlan IS meant IS also shown
I Taken III conneXlOn Ydth our whole inqUIry thl<, POint final It never
been remarked Up to the present the connexlOm between the
Pol>lzcs and the Eudem,an Eth,cs have been examined only III order to deter-
mme whether the latter genume, and they must be allowed to be m-
capable of dOing BeSides the stnkmg borrowmgs from the Eudemtan EthICS In
Books II and vn of the Poltllcs, .1.0(1 abo m III the dl',tlnctlOn between two
meanmg<, of 'use', a<, we fiud It III Elit Dud III 3, 1231b 3S, al<,a occurs m Pol
I () 1257" 5, that 1<, to ,ay, m one of the later parts, and sllmlarly two passage'
of the latE' Book V contain proverblll maJdms that also appear In the angInal
thlcs (Bendixen, op CIt, P ,So) famt ..ehoes arc not real proof"
however and cannot be put on the level as the borrowmgs m II. III, and
VII Some of them an and 'orne, lIke the h,o of
are thmgs that \\ auld necessanly be repeatpd
The passage concerns the defimbon of happIness and Anstotle refers to
'the Ethle' , for It As far as the passage 1tself goes, th1S InIght mean Eth Nlc
I (, I09S" 16 1f the other e",amples d1d not make 1t l1nposs1bk The emphas1s
on the realIzatIOn and perfeci exerclSc of vutuc IS, however, a sltn of t'J.e true
state of affaus 1hls formulatIOn occurs In I:th Eud n I,121') 2 bound up
With the determInabon of happmess It IS the standing dehmtlon In the earher
PO/lileS, cp VII 8, 1328338
] The verbal parallel to Elh Eud VIII 3, 1248b 26, IS clear at first Sight,
whereas there IS no convmcIng cornspondenee to Elh N1C III 6,
1113" IS II
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 285
by the quotation In 1334" 40 ff , where the thoroughly charac-
tenstlc story of the Spartan VIew of VIrtue IS taken from Eth
Eud 1248b 37 ff , as It IS also In II, 1271b 4 ff The
dlstmctIon between genume vIrtue and the spunous Spartan
kmd necessanly assumed speCIal Impol tance for Anstotle when
he was layIng the foundatIons of hIS archetypal state More-
over, Its conneXIOn WIth 1332" 21 ff IS so close as to prove that
all three places refer to the same paragraph of the
Eehus In 1332" 21 we read 'ThIs also has been determIned In
accordance WIth ethIcal arguments, that the good man IS he
for whom, because he IS VIrtuous, the thmgs that are absolutely
good are good' Eek Eud 1248b 26 runs 'A good man, then, IS
one for whom the natural goods are good', followed by the
reason, on WhICh Anstotle IS relYing In thIS passage of the
There IS also a quotation from the anginal In
the thIrd book of the Pohtzcs (1278b 20 ff) In contrast to thIS
dependence of the earher books of the on the Eudaman
verSIOn there IS not a Single demonstrable trace of theIr depend-
mg on the
Another part of the early sketch of the Ideal state enables us
to determIne ItS date more accurately by means of an entIrely
dIfferent approach ThIS part IS Book II, whIch contains the
cntIcism of the earher wnters of UtopIas, ItS chIef attractIon
bemg the cntIcIsm of Plato, far the most detaIled that we have
from Anstotle BesIdrs the genume UtopIas he dIscusses Sparta
and Crete, whIch \\-ere regarded by Greek pohtIcal theonsts of
the fourth century as haVing exemplary comtItutIons (EVvOIJOU-
IJEval lTOAITEIal) He also dlscussec; Carthage I In theIr present
I Book II as a whole IS early. but the much dIscussed concludmg chapter
may be an exceptIOn In date as well as III other respects Anstotle there
a catalogue of lawgIvers. and the charactenstlc or I1.IOV of the
statesmanshIp or wntlDg'5 of each Scholars have always recognIzed that ItS
conneXIOn WIth the precedlllg book IS loose If It were ongInally Intended for
I ts present posItion It would be hard to se" why Plato and Phaleas are dIscussed
a second tune For thIS reason Wilamowltz rejects I:!74bg-I5 (Arzstoteles lind
A the", vol 1 pp 64 ff) But obVIously the catalogue of lawgI\;erS arose mde
pendently and was added to the book subsequently as I have shown m Ent
Metaph Anst, p 45 The tendency to collect all IndIVIdual cases, and
the method of e"amlOlOg charactenstIcs, suggest that It belongs to the late
penod when Anstotle was uSlllg SImIlar methods m the descnptIon of nature
The Importance of the study of charactenstIcs III Hellemstlc SCIence, for
eXaIn)l)e In ethnography. IS well known
T
286 TRAVELS
fonn these chapters must have been written shortly after 345.
smce the departure to Crete of Phalaecus. the Phoclan mer-
cenary captam. IS mentIoned as havmg recently occurred .. but
In substance they are older, for the Protrepttcus demes that Crete
or Sparta 'or any other such' IS an exemplary constItutIOn In the
very same way These states are 'there described as 'human
states'. the ImItatIOn of whIch can gIve only a human construc-
tIon, and never anythmg endunng and dIVIne 2. Moreover, the
matenal that Aristotle uses must surely have been collected
before hIs stay m A'isosand MytIlene, when Plcitowas workmg on
the Laws and Spartan and Cretan 1OstItutIOns were a favounte
subject of dISCUSSIOn 10 the Academy The new 1Ofonnatton
about Crete came from the hIstory of Ephorus, and appeared
sImultaneously 10 Pol."ttCS II and m the spunous Platomc
dIalogue Mmos, WhICh was probably wntten shortly after
Plato's death J We do not know Anstotle's authonty for the
CarthagIman constItutIOn, but at any rate he had exammed thIS
also long before the collectIon of constItutIOns was made In
these studIes he was gUIded by the Idea of a standald As 10
the Protrept."cus, hIS purpose was to show that the best state
does not occur anywhere m reahty The notIOn of the nonn or
whIch retIres to the background 10 the N."comachean, but
whIch we hav!' found stIll 10fluentIal 10 the ongmal Ethtcs, IS
nowhere so consIstently apphed as m the account of the Ideal
I Pol II 10, 1 272b 20 where pace Newman (op CIt, vol 11, P 360)
means not a foreIgn but d mercenary "ar, as Fullebom and Oncken
have already poInted out The former meamng IS later Greek [The Oxford
translatIOn follows Newman -Tr]
z Iambl Protr, P 55 I 17
J It IS not possIble to decide With certaInty the old controversy whether
Anstotle used Ephorus for the traditIon about Crete or contranwlse What IS
excluded of course that Ephorus used Anstotle's Cretan Constzlutzon, the
collectIon of constItutions waS made much laLer, for Ephorus's work was known
to Calhsthenes, who went to ASIa WIth Akxander In 334 (see Wrlamowltz,
1'1'"toteles und At/len, vol I P 305) 1 hat ArIstotle should have used Ephorus
for hIS cntIclsm of Cretan affaIrs In Pol II 10 dunng the latter half of the
fortIes, IS not at "ll Imposslbll" In Itself, either chronologically or otherwIse,
SInce he was stIll far from the real study of partIculars that characterIzed hIS
latest penod On the other hand In the early VII 14, 1333
b
18, he speaks of
Tlnbron's work on the Spartan state. and of 'all those who have wntten about
the Lacedaemoman constItutIon', and hence he may have had local sources for
Crete as well Thl" nature of the Inferences about Crete IS, however, so SImIlar
In Anstotle and In Ephorus, and so modem, that one would prefer to suppose
that a hIstOrian ltke EphOlus was theIr ongInator
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 287
state, and thIS IS yet another reason for placmg thIs account In
the same penod as the Eudemtan Ethtcs I
The cntlclsm of Plato's Republu IS very Important for our
knowledge of the contrast between Anstotle's nature and Plato's
because It IS not buned 10 abstract epIstemological fonnulae. It
was probably fimshed, together With the malO body of the
account of the Ideal state. before the Laws appeared. which
happened whl1e Anstotle was 10 Assos The account was then
completed. whIle the ImpressIOn created by this work was still
fresh ThIS can be detected throughout In fact, the actual
cntlcism of the Laws Itself seems to have been wntten rather
hastIly As IS well known, It con tams all sorts of IllaccuraCles
that suggest superficIal readmg Anstotle's remams mcluded
COpIOUS extracts from the Laws as well as from the Republtc.
they were undoubtedly made for cntIcal purposes At thIs tIme
he lacked the patIence to form an exhaustIve Judgement on the
work as a whole He approached It With hiS opmlOns more or
less made up beforehand. thmkmg himself already beyond It
and therefore not bound to lIsten With an open mmd In spite
of many correspondences III detaIl he was conscIOus of follow109
another pnnciple All the more. however. did ItS powerfully
realIstIc method of treatment compel him to make frequent
Isolated references to It, usually of a cntIcal kmd, of course For
example, 'we must not overlook the fact that even the number
that Plato now proposes for the cltll;em,2Will reqUIre a temtory as
large as Babylon, or some other huge Site, If 5,000 per"ons are to bp.
supported III d l e n e s ~ together wIth theIr women and attendants.
who WIll be a multitude many tIme" as great' J HISgeneral opmIOn
IS 'The dIscourses of Socrates always exhibIt grace, ongInahty,
and thought'. but whether they are nght 1" another questIOn
I A few examples must suffice In many passages the meaning of the word
6pos vacillates between norm as essence (the necessary determination o[ the
essence) and norm as end In Book VII thf' actual outhne of the Ideal state,
I have noted the followmg examples 2 1324b 4 4 1120" 35-36 1326b 23 and
32 1327" 6 7. 1327b 19, 13 1331b 36 (6pos directly synonymous With <7k01TOs.
TIAOS) , 15. 1334" 12, l71<o1TOslsalsofrequcnt 2,1324"34.13 1331b27andjl 14,
1333
b
3 and 13 Books II, III. and VIII also use thiS conceptIOn of the norm
often (Bonltz. Ind Arlst 5 v, does not do JustIce to thiS meamng of IIpos) II 6
1265" 32 7.1267" 29,9 1271" 35 III 9, 1280" 7 13, I283b28. VIII 7.
134lb 33 (cp also 6. 1341b 15)
To Wv .lpTJIllvov nAi\llo5 The Oxford translation mvolves another mter-
pretabon -Tr J Pol II 0, 1265" 13
288 TRAVELS
It IS signIficant that one of hIs cntIclsms of Plato's Ideal states
IS that. they take no account of forelgn affaIrs Plato constructs
hIS state In a perfectly empty space As to the brutal conflIcts
that anse In actual polItIcal eXIstence, he eIther Imagines them
removed or-what would be worse-never thInks of them at all
It was certamly a clever and accurate observatIon 'that the
legIslator ought to have hIS eye dIrected to two pOints, the people
and the country', but what about the nelghbounng states'
Smce there are always neighbours, and since It IS ImpossIble to
lIve the Ideal eAlstence Isolated and undisturbed, whether one
IS an mdlvldualm a state or a state 111 the communIty of states,
It lS necessary to have a mIlItary org2:llzatlOn adjusted not
merely to the cucumstances of one's own land but also to the
nature of foreign countnes I The state must not merely meet
the foe bravely In case of mvaSlOn, as Plato demands, but also
prevent all other powers from desmng to attack It Anstotle IS
Just as sharp as hIS master m condemnmg the glonficatlOn of
power and empIre as the ultImate alm of the state, he demes
that the people should be orgamzed exclUSIvely for the sake of
war, and that the state should concentrate onesldedly on thIS
smgle way of developmg Its powers The charactensbc part of
hIS VIew, however, lS what he adds to thIS The necessItIes of
foreIgn polItIcs force the state IOta the struggle of conflIctmg
natIOnal Interests, and are lIable to give It a duectlOn dIfferent
from that dIctated by Its ethICal end
What led hIm as a Platomst to thiS change of vIew' Clearly
It was not theoretIcal reflectIons, but personal contact WIth
actual foreIgn polItICS The PhzhPPtcs of Demosthenes would
hardly have thIS effect on a mmd hke Anstotle's, though they
began before he left Athens On the other hand, contmuous
mtercourse wlth a practIcal polItICian lIke Hermlas of t r n e u ~
must have gIVen a new Impulse to hIS polItIcal thmkmg, Just as
he m turn convmced HermIa!> of the necessIty of ethIcal alms In
polItIcs HIS account of the Ideal state was completed m Assos
and shortly afterwards
No Greek state of the penod was more dependent on 'nelgh-
bounng countnes' than that of Hermlas Its unstable eqmlI-
bnum, WIth Phulp's milItary natIon reachmg out powerfully
I Pol II 6, 1265" 18 ff
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 289
on the .l:!:uropean sIde of the Hellespont, and the PersIan empIre
Jealous of ItS overlordshlp on the ASiatic bank, demanded
unremlttmg VIgilance of eye and ear And It IS remarkable how
the un-Platomc Idea of the necessity for armaments, along wIth
the fear of powerful and hostile neIghbours, pervades the whole
account I In an mterestmg passage Anstotle attacks Plato's
pecuharly Spartan Idea that towns should not be fortIfied 1 He
declares that 10 vIew of modem SIege-weapons and the new
inVentIOns 10 artillery thIS 1'5 an old-fashIOned preJudIce, although
perhaps It was JustIfiable when one was surrounded only WIth
enemIes weaker than oneself, as Sparta used to be, and not WIth
opponents of crushmg supenonty ThIS fits the sItuatIOn of
Hermlas, who had, 10 fact, strongly fortified Atarneus, and was
afterwards actually beSIeged by the PersIans WIthout success
And the other passage already mentIOned refers exphcltly to an
earlIer sIege of thIS place 3 It IS ObVIOUS that here Hermlas hIm-
self was the source of mformatlon After obJecting to Phaleas, as
he had to Plato, that he takes no account of the neceSSIty for an
energetic foreIgn pohcy and for mIlItary armament 10 hIS descnp-
tIOn of the Ideal state, Anstotle demands that domestic pohtIcs
also, 10 whIch most of these theonsts are unfortunately too
exclUSIvely mterested, shall always be conducted 10 the closest
connexlOnWIth external affaIrs Above all, one must aVOId amass-
109 wealth Jarge enough to excIte the attacks of more powerful
enemIes and too large to be defended by Its owners In thIS
respect the proper standard was set up by Eubulus of Atameus,
the predecessor of HermIas, who had prevIOusly been a banker
He saId that 'a more powerful neIghbour must have no mduce-
ment to go to war WIth you by reason of the excess of your
wealth' , and when Autophradates, the PerSIan satrap, proposed
to beSIege hIm 10 Atarneus he mVlted hIm to calculate the cost of
the SIege, takmg mto account the length of tIme reqUIred He
declared hImself ready to leave Atameus at once for thIS amount,
and so brought hIm to realIze that the expense of the project
would have been out of all proportIon to ItS Importance Auto-
phradates made the calculation and deSIsted from the sIege
I Pol II 7,1267"19, II 9,126<)"40 and VII II,I33oh31
Z Pol VII II, 1330b 32 to the end of the chapter
1 Pol II 7, 1267" 19-37
TRAVELS
Thus the local colour of Atarneus IS reflected 10 the early
pIcture of the Ideal state Such a whImsIcal treatment must have
been wntten before It wal> besIeged for the second tune by the
same fnghtful enemy, before the death of Herrmas had dunmed
the amus10g memory of the sly tncks of old Eubulus, hIS teacher
10 statecraft, and shattered the pnvate happmess of Anstotle
and hIS family In thIS passage we seem to be hstemng to
the actual conversations, whIle Henmas calls the attentIOn of the
PlatOnist, whose mmd IS open to all ImpresslOns, away from the
Ideals and towards the facts HermIas's efforts 10 thIS respect,
and hiS voluntanly takmg the adVice of the phIlosophers at
As<;os and changmg hIS tyranny mto a more moderate constItu-
tIon, are reflected 10 the hIgh value accorded to thIS mode of
government m Anstotle's outhne of the Ideal state, and 10 hIS
exphclt hrmtatIon of the cIty's sIze and temtory
I conclude wIth a word or two about the character of Ans-
totle's method In constructIng an Ideal state The foundation,
whIch he lays 10 Book III, IS the famous dlvlSlon of all pOSSIble
constitutIOns mto SIX, three true and three degenerate (lTOpEKI3ci:-
O"EIS) He takes over thIS normatIve attitude from the polItIcal
works of hIS AcademIC penod, to WhICh he expressly refers In
the passage where he develops hIS sIxfold claSSIfication Chap-
ters 6 and 7 of the thIrd book are essentIally nothmg but extracts
from those works Here the course of hIS development IS espeCI-
ally pIam Plato had descnbed the vanous types of constItu-
tIon In the last part of the Republtc In the Statesman thIS led
to the construction of a systematIc conceptual scheme of true
and perverted constItutions Anstotle's methodIcal and archI-
tectomc traIt led hIm to fasten on thiS pomt, as also dId the
fact that the Statesman appeared dunng hIS most receptIve years
as a member of the Academy For these reasons hIS study of
Plato's polItIcal doctnnes IS concerned mamly WIth thIS work,
although It seems that from the first he emphaSized the economIC
and SOCIal aspects of the vanous constItutIOns more than the
purely formal ground of the classIficatIon The Influence of ItS
denvatory, conceptual, and constructIve method appears chIefly
10 the fact that he does not make hIS Ideal state SImply grow out
of the earth, as Plato does 10 the and the Laws, but
develops It from a complete classIfication of constItutions accord-
THE ORIGINAL POLITICS 291
mg to their value This enables him to mtroduce mto the que<;-
tIon of the best state, so far as the subJect allows, the apodlctIc
stnctness that was essential to hIs nature He IS always stnvmg
for precIse conceptIOns I HIs Ideal state IS logIcal in framework,
It IS a pIece of thought-construction in whIch the state IS based
ngtdly on ItS fundamental elements and conceptIOns He IS very
httle Interested in the VIVId and realistic exposItIon of detail
that makes the Laws hVIng and effective In the seventh book,
for example, the dISCUSSIon of a POint as Important as land and
populatIon IS scarcely more than a bare enumeratIOn of the
vanous necessary condItIOns The same IS true of the sketchy
sectIOn on the fundamental conditIons (wv OVK avev) of the
eXIstence of the state 2 Plato's sovereIgn legIslative art of build-
Ing the state becomes In Anstotle, in accordance WIth hIS
pnnclples, a SCIentific deductIon, no longer purely PlatOnIC III
anythIng except Its aIm, whIch remaInS the knowledge of the
absolutely standard constitution
Anstotle looks to expenence to confirm hiS conceptual con-
structIOns, but thIS IS somethmg entirely dIfferent from the
empmcal method of the later books, whIch contain the mere
morphology of the actual state It IS pnor to that not merely
as the whole IS pnor to the part or the end to the means, but
because bIOgraphIcally speaking It IS an earher and less developed
stage of hIS polItICal theory Apart from many famous Isolated
remarks, ItS speCIal nature and value he maInly in ItS dehberate
employment of the method of denvatlOn Anstotle's greatec;t
creative power, hIS sense of concrete form, hIS ablhty to see
the Idea movmg in the flux of the lIvmg, reached ItS matunty
only In hIS last penod, when he wrestled successfully WIth
the unlImIted matenal of partIcular phenomena At that tIrot',
I In thiS claSSification every constitution IS a fixed conception Anstotle IS
stIlI far removed from the Idea of the later books of the Polzl1cs, that there may
be vanous sorts of olIgarchy and democracy, val)'lng greatly III value, accord-
Ing to the nature and combmatlOns of the vanous parts of the state For tius
reason It IS not probable that the development of the vanous forms of monarchy
at the end of III belongs to the book m Its earhest shape that IS, to the account
of the Ideal state as wntten dUlIng the forties, espeCially as It IS also eon-
sidered In IV A more exact analysIS would have to determme how ArIstotle
regarded the tranSitIOn from III to IV when he was mtroducmg Books IV-VI,
and how far he altered the conclUSion of IlIon that account
Pol VII 4, 1326" 5. and VII 8. 1328b 2 ff
29Z TRAVELS
however, the framework and comprehensIve fonn of hIS Polztzcs
had long been fixed, and mto It the new matter had to go,
though It almost burst It No wonder men have not felt them-
selves bound by thIS synthesIs, but entitled to use whatever
parts appealed to them and supported theIr own posltlons
Neverthele'5s, It IS not a true estlmate of ArIstotle's achIevement
to take from hIs pobtlcal or hIs ethIcal constructlon notlung but
ItS nch expenmental matenal, as the empmcIst so often does, or
to thmk, wIth the normatlve theonst, that one IS Justified In
regardmg It as a secondhand Ideal of the PlatOnIC type The
great, the new and comprehensIve feature m Anstotle's work
IS hIS combmatIOn of normatlve thought, whIch had led hIm to
set up a fresh Ideal state better adapted to reabty, WIth a sense
of form capable of mastenng and organIzmg the multlpbclty of
actual pohbcal facts ThIS sense of form kept hIS stnvmg for the
absolute standard from leadmg to stiffness, and revealed to hIm
a thousand kmds of pohtlcal e:ll.lstence and methods of Improve-
ment, whIle hIS stern grasp of the end preserved hIm from the
relatIVIty so easrly mduced by abandOnIng oneself mdIfferently
to the comprehenSiOn of all that IS In both respects, and m the
UnIon of the two, he may well serve as the pattern of the mental
and moral SCIences to-day
CHAPTER XI
THE ORIGIN OF THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS
AND COSMOLOGY
I
N Anstotle's sCientific works it is conSiderably harder than 10
those that are stnctly phIlosophical to corne at the essentIal
nature of hIS development LIttle can be saId about the detaIls
of the growth of hIS sCientIfic thought. and presumably even the
most searchmg mqmry mto the compOSItIOn of these wntmgs,
and the companson of all detads, would not overcome thIS
mIsfortune, although we can say wIth perfect certamty that m
VIew of the mtensity of hIS research hIS progress was perhaps
more astoundmg m thIS field than m all others, and that here,
far more even than elsewhere, he must be understood through
hIe; development If we are really to grasp hIm m hIsmdividuahty
It would be absurd to suppose that there IS nothmg to be diS-
covered but relatively ummportant details, such as the gradual
mcrease of hIS vast mass of matenal and the date of that partI-
cular draft of hIS lectures which happens to have been preserved
We have already pomted out that there are Important differences
m phySical doctnne between the dIalogue On Ph1losophy and
the work On the Heaven (p 153) We have found him gradually
emancIpatmg hImself from the preSUppOSItIOns of the mythical
mterpretatIOn of nature, which always retamed a po\\'erful
mfluence over the Greek mmd, and had received fresh Impetus
from Plato's theory that the stars have souls To examme thIS
effort more accurately by means of COpIOUS examples would
certamly be of the greatest mterest for the hIstory of Anstotle
even as a phIlosopher, for It would bnng the Immanent tenden-
Cies of hiS thought clearly to hght The mere order lD which he
devoted himself to the different parts of nature would give us a
curve WhIch would be e;omethmg qmte other than a senes of
aCCIdental pomts along the course of hIS biOgraphy-so much can
be confidently affirmed beforehand, smce we are dealIng With the
mmd of an Anstotle Up to the present, however, we have un-
fortunately not attamed thIS InSIght, and therefore we must here
confine ourselves towhat our mqumes have alreadyrevealed to us
294 TRAVELS
It IS necessary to begm wIth a warnmg agamst the perpetually
recumng attempt to detenmne the temporal order of Anstotle's
sCIentIfic works by means of theIr forward and backward refer-
ences Such references constItute a chronologIcal cntenon only
when they contradIct each other or the actual outhne of a work,
and when these contradIctIOns are supported by other observa-
bans concermng the subject-matter Itself Now the works on
natural sCIence dIsplay a ngId system of references, and Zeller
beheved that hiS vIew of the order m whIch they were wntten
could be based on thIS system I Accordmg to thIS View the
envisages the Phystcs as somethmg not yet wntten,
whereas the Metaphystcs and the EthJcs, together WIth most of
the other SCientific works, quote It or presuppose It. from which
It IS Inferred that the PhysJCS was wntten between the Analyttcs
on the one hand and the Metaphystcs, Ethtcs, and so on, on the
other, a conclUSIOn further supported by the fact that It does
not Itself quote or presuppose any of these latter works The
order of composItion would therefore be Phystcs, On the Heaven,
On Comtng-to-be and Passtng-away, Meteorology, and thiS appears
to be confirmed by the Meteorology, which lIsts the other works
as havmg preceded Itself m preCisely thIS order 2 For the present
we may disregard Zeller's further Inferences about the Htstory of
Ammals, the work On the Soul, and the other wntmgs on organIc
nature We have here one of those deeply rooted mlsunder-
standmgs to whose meradlcable mfluence we owe the fact that
scholars have mostly belIeved that any exact determmatlOn of
the order of composItIOn was ImpOSSIble on pnnclple What thIS
method gIVes us IS at best only the order that Anstotle at the
close of hIS literary actIvIty belIeved to be demanded by the
nature of the subject-matter or by pedagogical conslderabons,
It WIll never gIve us a glImpse of hIS development or even of the
mere order of the composItIon of parbcular works We can no
more raIse a chronologIcal structure on the senes of references
m the phySIcal wntlngs than we can argue from a mention of
the Ethtcs In the or of the Pol1,t1,CS m the Eth1,cs, or of
the Ethtcs m the Metaphystcs, to the pnonty of the work m
I Zeller, Artstotle rmd the Later Penpatehcs, p 158 Cf L Spengel, 'Ober
dIe ReIhenColge der naturwlssenschaCthchen Schnften des Anstoteles', Abh d
Munch Al<ad, >,01 v, pp 150 ft. Meteor I 1,338" 20
THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY 295
questIOn or of Its content, wIthout carefully exammmg the fonn
of the quotatIOn and the way 10 whIch It IS used, and takmg
account of the posSIbilIty that the verSIOn referred to IS earber
or later than the one that has come down to us The supposed
chronologIcal order IS nothmg but the general scheme-perhaps
a thoroughly late Idea-mto whIch at the end of hIS researches
Anstotle forced the mass of hiS detailed mqumes It agrees
wIth the order as gIven In the best manuscnpts,l and that thIs
IS factual and not temporal has presumably never been doubted
We must beware of confusmg temporal wIth systematIc pnonty,
as It IS easy to do, and of equatmg the tIme when an Idea
receIved lIterary form wIth the tIme when It first occurred to the
philosopher
The value of beanng all thIS m mmd would prevIOusly have
been purely theoretIcal, smce the dates of compOSItIon of the
Metaphysus, Eth1CS, and so on, were themselves unknown, and
all the wntmg'> that we possess were supposed to have been
crowded together m the last penod The mqumes of the fore-
gomg chapters have altered thIS, however, and hence It IS Impor-
tant to steer clear of a procedure that has thus far aVOIded
contradIctIons only because It has not been applIcable at all
On the other hand, however, we cannot altogether dIspense WIth
the references to the SCIentIfic works In the other wntmgs,
because the nature of the subJect excludes all or practIcally all
references to contemporary hIStOry, and because the develop-
ment of Anstotle's method here does not fall mto such sharply
dIstIngUIshed penods as are gIven for Instance by the break WIth
Plato's doctnne In the Eth1CS and the Metaphys1cS When we use
these references, therefore, we must first e>.amlne them carefully
Of all the references to the PhYS1CS there IS only one group
that really has chronologIcal SIgnificance, namely those In the
oldest parts of the Metaphys1cS We have shown that the first
book of the Metaphys1cS was wntten shortly after Plato's death,
at a tIme when ItS author was still a PlatOnIst, For the teleo-
lOgIcal doctnne of the four causes, on whIch Anstotle bases
I For further detaIls about the order of exposItion 1D the lectures, so far as
concerns the works followmg the Meteorology on anthropology and orgamc
nature, see my artIcle 'Das Pneuma 1m LykeJOn', Hermes, vol xlvlJI, P 38 For
the order see Anst de an mot et de an me ,p VJI1, ] aeger
296 TRAVELS
metaphysIcs, thIS book slDlply refers to the wIthout
gIVIng any arguments for the exhaustIveness of the classI1ica-
bon ThIS IS not an Isolated quotatIOn such as could be Imagmed
away wIthout hurtIng the context, and therefore mIght have
been added later There IS a whole senes of passages m whIch
Anstotle keeps on returnIng to the fact that hIS hlstoncal
survey of the doctnnes of earher thmkers throughout confirms
the theory of the four causes as stated In the Physzcs I The
whole first book of the M etaphyszcs rests on thrs presupposItIon,
and would collapse If the aetIology of the Physzcs were not behmd
It In every lIne ThIS IS Incontrovertible proof that not only
the second book of the Physzcs, whIch sets out the theory of the
causes, but a complete senes of InvestIgatIOns fallIng under the
general notIOn of 'physIcal works' (<pvCTlKa). was already In
about 347 ThIS IS further confirmed by the Isolated
references In the M etaphyszcs
z
and above all by the general
nature of thIS work, SInce ItS whole phIlosophIcal conceptIOn
presupposes the Physzcs and develops out of It Two of the
foundatIOns of Anstotle's first philosophy belong to Physzcs,
and they are the most Important of all, namely the dIstInctIon
between matter and form and the theory of mohon From
these two presuppOSItIons he denves the neceSSIty of the first
mover, and even that paIr of conceptIons by means of whIch
motion IS hnked Up WIth form and matter, namely potency
and entelechy, IS not foreIgn to the Physzcs The Idea of Inter-
pretIng nature In thIS teleologIcal fashIOn, and ItS expreSSIOn In
the Physzcs, arose In the atmosphere of the Academy and under
Plato's eye It must be aSSIgned not to Anstotle's latest but
to hiS earhest stage J
I Metaph A3,983"33 7,988"2IandbI6,8,989"24,andlo.993"U
2 Of the places where the MetaphySICS appeals to the PhySiCS the most
Important for our are naturally those occumng m the parts that can
be shown to be the oldest. that IS to sa}, the begmnmg of the earher mve"tlga-
bon mto the reality of the (M 9.1086"23), and the laymg down
of the whole system of phySical conceptions 10 Book II, 1-5
] Gercke's statement that the PhySICS was wntten or completed after Ans-
iotle had founded hIS school, and therefore m hIS latest perlOd (Pauly-WI"sowa,
Realenz d Klass Aft. vol 11 c 1045, I 38, under 'Anstoteles), rests on an
ObVlOUS piece of carelessness The assass1OatlOn of Kmg Pluhp IS not mentIOned
at all 10 the passage to which he refers, PhySICS II 23 (SIC). or 10 other words no
such pas-age eXlsb He IS confus1Og the PhYSICS WIth the RhetorIC. \\hICh men-
Philip at II 23 and then once more mlxmg up thiS mention With the well-
THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY 297
That IS not true wIthout qualIficatIon, however, of our presept
versIOn of the In Its whole extent ThIS work resembles
the phIlosopher's others In contaInmg both early and late
matenal The present pOSItIon of the seventh book IS not due to
Anstotle hunself at all, for In content It comes too close to the
other parts of the PhysJCs In whIch the problem of motIon IS also
dIscussed I That It belongs to the oldest part, and arose at a tIme
when he dId not yet regard the theory of Ideas as SImply ex-
ploded, IS more than probable 1 LIke the M and the
known reference to Philip's death In Pol V IO,I3IIb2 I draw attention to
thiS only because ItS occurrence In such an authontatlve positIOn IS hkely to lead
many reader& astray It IS true that our verSIOn of the PhySICS belongs to the
penod, but the reasom. that Gercke gives for thiS fact do not prove It
(even the fact that It was WrItten after the Ana/ytles cannot possibly prove It as
late as thiS), and anyhow IS a questIOn merely of reVISion and has no slgm-
ficance whatever for Anstotle's philosophical development
I Eudemus omitted It m hiS paraphrase of the Phyncs (see the preliminary
remarks on Book VII In the commentary of SlmphclUs, vol u, p 1036, 1D
Dlels) which shows that It did not belong to the collection entitled PhYSICS that
Anstotle himself put together and bequeathed to hiS disciples ThiS, however
naturally does not pro"e that the work was completely unknown 1D the Pen-
patos It was 10 fact, hke some of the books of the MetaphySICS that were
ongmaUy handed down mdependently, preserved as bemg an Important
hlstoncal document but havmg, In View of the 'great and comprehensive
theorems' of the la&t book-to use SlmpllclUs'S expressIOn-scarcely any prac-
tical value It appears to have been the generation of AndroDlcus With Its
piOUS deSire to produce a complete collectIOn, that first mcorporated It m the
PhySICS SlmphclUs compared the two versions 1D which It IS preserved With-
out bemg ahle to discover any differences of content worth mentIOning He IS
nght 10 pomtmg out, however, that the proofs of the first mover 10 Book VII
&tand on a lower level than those In Book VIII and presumably thiS IS the
reason why Anstotle replaced It With the latter Cp E Hoffmann De At'lstn-
tells Physlcorum lIbn septlml ongme et auctot'ltate (Berhn, D,ss , 190.'
Phys VII 4 249
b
19-26, IS difficult and requlfes Intf'rpretatIon SlnLe
SlmpllclUs no one has tned to explam It If we except the translation by Puntl
(LeIpZig, 1854. p 367), who did not understand the tram of thought In the
fourth chapter Anstotle shows that the vanous sorts of motion, for example
quahtatlve alteration (aAAol",a'l) and locomotion (",pa) , are mcommensurable
The Idea of equal velOCity can be apphed only to spectfically slmuar
and commensurable motIOns For example, quahtatlve motions can be com-
pared With each other, and quantitative motIOns can he compared With each
other In the first example we speak of the hkeness or unhkeness
of thequahtatlve alterations ,ID the secondwe speak of the equahtyorJnequality
(avllra,."s) of the quantitative motions Inequahty anses from the 'gnater or
of the quantitative motions when they are compared together, unhke-
ne's from the more or less' of two quabtatlve alteratIOns when they are com-
pared There IS another kmd of motion that concerns the sub.tance and not
merely the quality or quantity, namely becomlDg and penslung Two becom-
caD be compared m pomt of velOCity only when we are concerned With
two thlDgs of the same species as for example, men Speech ha. no
'298 TRAVELS
Etkscs the IS a compIlatIOn of at least two parts, each of
whIch agam consIsted of several monographs These two parts,
On the and On Mohon, are always carefully dIs-
t1OgUIshed, not merely10 the works On the Heaven and On Commg-
to-be and Passmg-away, but also 10 the last book of the
(VIII) ThIS book IS really no part of the for It quotes
passages from these two parts WIth the fonnula 'as we have pre-
vIOusly shown In the I Presumably It was ongmally,
hke the books On Substance and Be1ng, WhICh ongmally stood out-
Side the M (that 15, before It). one of the lllqumes that
Anstotle reckoned as half physIcs and half metaphysIcs, and as
category, however, that can pregnantly the nature of the difference
between two becommgs and Anstotle therefore asks to be pardoned for merely
spealung of their 'dIfference' (lnpOTns) 10 a general and colourless manner, and
for not bemg able to mention any palT of like more and less 10
quahtatlve alteratlon and greater and smaHer 10 locomotion, that would make
It clear that the distinction here IS neither mtenslve nor extcnMve, but
thlOg different Then foHows the remark that IS Important for the Lhronology
"the substance With becommg we are concerned lS a number (as Plato
and the Academy then the difference III \eloclty between the becom-
lOgs of two IS to be regarded as the anthmetlcal difference
between two numbers of Ihe same speete, With regard to the more and the
There IS however, no common term for thiS difference 10 velOCity The last
sentence IS corrupt but ItS meanmJ:: I' that there IS also no term
correspondlOg to 'more and less and 'greater and smaller' to descnbe the two
becomlOgs that are bemg compared Now the statement that the substances
whose becommgs are compared must be of the same species foHows
from the whole argument of the fourth chapter, but what IS the of thiS
demand 10 the case of the numbers' We must remember that accordmg to
Melaph M 7, IOBob
37
ff, one of the mam dIfficulties of the theory of Ideal
numbers the questIOn whether the monads of which they are
are perfectly commensurable hke those of anthmetlc, or whether every 'first
number', th, dyad tnad, tetrad, and ,0 on, composed of monads of a
special kmd, so that only the monads Inside a particular number are commen-
surable and 'of the same species' (the oCCurs m A 9, 991b 24) The
phrase of the speCies, therefore, proves that ID our passage Anstotle IS
stIli contemplatmg the posslblhty that substance may be a number, which he
elsewhere Otherwise ODe might thmk that "e have here only an
example mtended to make the meanmg concrete as SlmphclUs does when he
doubts whether Anstotle refers here to Ideal numbers or merely to the view
that the- nature of e\erythmg depends upon a particular numencal relatlon of
ItS parts but the as!>ertlOn that the numbers must be 'of the same species'
excludes the latter mterpretatloD, for, If It IS not ObVIOUS ID Itself that they must,
the refe:rence can only be to the Ideal If so, the cha:racte:r of the
arguments lD Book VII whIch calls 'weaker or as Alexander [more
correctly] says more verbal' (op Cit, P 1036 I 12), wIll be best explamed by
supposmg that In the courseof the years Anstotle perfected them more and more
For another mdlcatlon of the early anglO of Book VII see above, P 41, n 1
I Bomtz, Ind 98" 27
THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY 299
proVIdmg the transItIon from the one to the other I Its temporal
posItIon can be determIned by Its treatment of the theory of the
movers of the spheres, whIch IS not worked out In so decIdedly
unIfied a fashIOn as In the later verSIOn In Book 1\ of the Meta-
phySfCS Z Yet we can clearly recogmze that Book VIII IS Intended
to glVe a very careful re-estabhshment of the theory of the first
mover on a phySical baSIS, and to defend It agaInst all sorts of
obJections that had already been brought from the astronofiucal
side, probably by Call1ppUS J Fauly certamly, therefore, It was
not wntten until the time of Anstotle's greatest power, and
SInce even then It was not yet a part of the (and hence
presumably never at all dunng Its author"s hfe) , the as
we know It, dId not yet eXist as a whole ThiS IS supported by
the fact that the M quotes as 'phYSICS' the two works
On the Heaven and On and Passmg-away At that
time, therefore, thiS word did not mean our but a larger
group of mdependent monographs Among ItS oldest parts were
that on thp first pnnclples, to Judge from the first book of the
and that on matter and form, to Judge from Book
N of the same work, that IS to say, the first two books of our
We may suppose, however, that m substance these
works go back as far as hIS PlatOnIC penod, although certaIn
passages, such a!> the mentIon of the Lyceum III Book IV, reveal
later reVISIOn of the detaIl!> 4 For the history of Anstotle's phIlo-
sophical development the date of completIOn IS more or less
ummportant compared With the discovery that the speculatIve
character of what IS called the In the narrow sense 15
connected With Its dIrectly PlatOnIC ongIn It \\>as worked out
as part of a PlatOnIC theory of the world, and stands on the
same ground ThiS IS espeCially clear when we come to the
problems of concrete detaIl In the books On the Heaven, whIch
are also referred to m the oldest parts of the M 5
The begmmng of the first of these books must be early m essence,
I Phys VIII 1,251' 5 on the eterOltyof motion We then, how
thiS matter stands, for the discovery of the truth about It IS of Importance not
only for the study of nature, but also for the investIgation of the Frrst Pnnclple '
Z The proof that chapter 8 of Book A of the MetaphySICS WIth Its theory of
the movers of the spheres IS a later addItion IS given below 10 chapter XIV
J Phys Vln 6 4 Phys IV II,2IQb2I
, See Bomtz, lnd Ar IOI' 7
TRAVELS
smce It places tnumphantly at the start of the whole course of
lectures the young Academician's own discovery that there IS a
fifth element, the ether As we have already shown, this theory
IS older than the books On Phzlosophy, which are based on It,
and 15 necessanly connectedwith the first begmmngs of the theory
of the unmoved mover and the heavenly bodies I The fonn that
Anstotle gives to hiS theory of ether In the first chapters On the
Heaven IS later than the account In the exotenc work (above,
p 154) The VIew prevIOusly held, that In the dialogue he did
not express hiS real OpInIOn, but rather gave a poetIc embellIsh-
ment of It, IS untenable, for what he preserves m hiS work On
the Heaven IS precisely the pomt that was supposed to be poetIc,
the theory that the heavenly bodies have souls 2 The difference
between the two comes In the phYSical theory of the natural
motIon of SImple bodIes, and m ItS conneXIOn With the theory
of weight, which IS establIshed m a wholly different manner m
the dialogue At thiS pomt we realIze only too clearly what
Important matters are hIdden from us by the dearth of source-
matenal Nevertheless, the of the books On the
Heaven does at any rate enable us to observe how Anstotle's
cosmology arose out of Plato's We know the latter directlyonly
from the Ttmaeus, behmd which lIe the far-reachIng Pythagorean
speculatIons of the school, and It IS therefore very Important that
thiS work of Anstotle's allows us a glImpse of the diSCUSSIOns
that went on about the subJect m the Academy
That thiS IS true of the problem of ether has already been
shown It connects directly With the Ttmaeus, and we find It
I For the ongm of the theory of ether the exhaustIve dISCUSSion of Eva
Sachs, Die funf platomschen Korper (Berhn 1917) She, too. comes to the conclu-
SIon that the readmess WIth WhICh Plato's followers accepted the theory shows
that It arose m the Academy and Anstotle therefore put It forward before
Plato's death Compare what was saId above about the relatIon between the
Eplnomls and the dialogue On Phzlosophy, p 144 n 2
De Caelo II 12,292" 18 'We have been tlunkmg of the stars as mere bodies
and as UDlts With a senal order mdeed but entIrely InaDlmate but we should
rather conceive them as enJoymg hfe and actIon' The recalls the
dialogue On Philosophy and Plato's famous remarks In the Laws Accordmg
to DB Caelo II 8 however, It IS the spheres, and not the stars on them, that
move themselves, and thiS, taken stnctly, Imphes that It IS the spheres that
have souls (or have movers as m Metaph A 8), and not the stars as 10 the
dialogue On Philosophy It IS only after long exammatIon, hO\"ever. that
Anstotle here deCides that only the spheres and not the stars e themselves,
so that here too we have a development of hIS earher view
THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY 301
reflected 10 the wntmgs of all Anstotle's fellow-students But
the questIOn whether there can be an mfimte body, whether
the world IS fimte or 1Ofimte, and whether there IS only one
world or more-a very Important questIon for Anstotle's meta-
phySICS, smce the eXIstence of the first mover depends on It-
must also have been dIscussed by the astronomers 10 the Academy
while Plato was stIll alIve, and answered by Anstotle 10 accor-
dance wIth hI!> own View, which was that the world IS one,
eternal, and fimte He tnes to prove not merely that there
actually IS only one heaven but also that there could not be
more than one It may seem otherwIse, because every fonn
(eI:AoS) that IS realIzed 10 matter usually eXists 10 a number of
speCl.ucally IdentIcal (0\10E\1.Tj) examples Actually, however, It
makes no dIfference to the result whether we regard the form
as transcendent, that IS, as an Idea, or as mseparable (obVlously
some of the Platonlsts were trymg to fasten on thIS pomt) ,I
for m thIS questIOn one must not start from the form at all,
accordmg to Anstotle, but from the matter Smce the cosmos
mcludes all matter there cannot be any other world beSides
The argument seems somewhat naive, but for him It IS not really
absurd, because by 'the heaven' he means, as he at once goes on
to say, not merely the outermost sphere, or the regIOn of the
hIghest elements, 10 whIch the heavenly bodies move, but the
comprehensive All, whIch IS to be thought of as corporeally
plastIc, but never as actu znfimtum ThIS plastIc ball eAhausts
all the matter that there IS OutSide It there IS m fact not even
place or tIme or VOid, much less bodies The transcendental
and supramundane IS therefore not m !>pace nor 10 a
place, tIme does not age It, nor IS there any sort of change 10
that realm beyond the outermost sphere But let us allow Ans-
totle to speak for hImself HIS words breathe here a cere-
momousness unusual 10 the treatIses 2.
I The passage IS Interestmg because In It the theory of Ideas and
View that the form IS Immanent Side by Side as equally ]usttfiable POSSI-
bUltIes .Any shape or form has, or may have more than one partIcular Instance
On the suppOSitIOn of Ideas such as some assert, thiS must be so, and equally
on the view that no such entity has a separate eX1&tence For 10 every case
10 which the essence IS 10 matter It IS a fact of observation that the particulars
of hke form are several or 10fimte 10 number' (De Caela I 9, 278" 15 )
De Caela I 9, 279" 17 I follow Bernays In glVlDg the Greek and thf;
translation Side by Side
\.J
30Z TRAVELS
qlCXlIEpOv 6pa 6T1 oVn TOnOS oOTE It IS clear then that there IS
KE\lOv oOTE XPOvos fcnlv 2116"1Tep neither place, nor vOId, nor bme,
OUT' fv TciKfT rrtcplJ1Cfv, OUTE outside the heaven Hence what-
xp6vos airrci rrolei YTlPO:(7J(fIV, oV1.' ever there IS, IS of such a nature as
terrlv ov1.fvoS ouMl.Ila TWV not to occupy any place, nor does
time age It, nor IS there any change
vmp -nl
v
TETayl.lfvnV cpopciv, m any of the things that he beyond
QM.' civaMolwTa Kat crna6fi -nlv
the outermost motIon. they con-
&plerrrjV 'xoVTCI 3
w
l1
v
Kal -nl
v
CIVTap- tmue through their entire duration
Kferr6:TT]v 1.lanki TOV arraVTa a[wva unalterable and unmodified hvmg
Kal yap TOiiTO ToWol.la 6flws Icp6Ey- the best and most self-suffiCient of
ICTal lTapa TWV O:pXa1wv TO yap hves As a matter of fact, thIS
TO 1Tep,txov TOV Tfis lKo:errou word 'duratJOn' possessed a dIVine
3wi'\S Xpovov, ou I.ITleEv KaTa slgmficance for the anCients, for
tpUCTIV. alwv lKO:OTOV KtKATlTC1I KaTCx the fulfilment that mcludes the
TOlllIVTt!lV 1.[ 1Ioyov Kal TO TOU lTCIVTOs penod of hfe of any creature, out-
oupavoO Tt1los Kat TO TOil m:!lVTa SIde of which no natural develop-
ment can fall, has been called Its
XpOvov Kal -nlV chmpiav lTEpltxov
duration On thf' same pnnclple
TtAos alC:>v lerrlll, <!mo TOO ael elval the fulfilment of the whole heaven,
elA'lcpWs Tr,V lrrwvulllav, a6civaTOS Kal the fulfilment that mcludes all time
&eTOS 6&e1l Kal Tois 6AAols and mfimty, IS 'durabon'-a name
Tols I.I!v cn:plj3terrepov ToTS 1.' 6:l.Iavpc:;is, based upon the fact that It tS always
TO elval TE l<al3fiv Ital yap KaeO:lTe p -duration Immortal and dlvme
lVTOlslyltVK1Ilolscplllooocpf)l.Iaol From It denve the bemg and hfe
1Tep1 Ta 6ela rro1l1l0:KIS rrpocpal- that other thmgs, some more orless
veTa I Tols lIoyo IS TO 6elo11 artIculately but others feebly,
t!I\IETaj3ATl"'lOV Ovayl<aiov E1val "ITer.. TO enJoy So, too, m tts dtscusswns
conurmng the dwme, popular Phtlo-
rrpwTov Kal 6:KpOTaTOV [&] OUTWS
sophy often propounds the vIew
lx
ov
l.IapTvpeT ToTS elpTll.ltvolS that whatever IS dlvme, whatever
oCrr. yap OAAo KpEiTT6v lOTIII {)TI IS pnmary and supreme, IS neces-
I'IVliCTEI (beeivo yap av eiTl 6eIOTEpOII) sanly unchangeablf' ThIS fact
OUT' IXEI cpaijAov ov6tv, Olrr' confirms what we have satd For
TWV aV-rou KaAWV ov1.evQs lOTIV Ka\ there 15 nothlOg else stronger than
arravCTTOv2.1)KIVTjoIVKIIlETTaIEVlIoyws It to move It-smce that would
rr(wra yap "lTaVnal KIVOVIlEVa, 6Tav mean more diVine-and It has no
rAe" els TOV OIKfTov T6rroll, TOU :ll defect and lacks none of Its proper
ICIiKAw aWllaTOS 6 CIVTOs T61TOS 66ev excellences Its unceasing move-
Kat Els &\1 nMvTq rnent, then, IS also reasonable, smce
everythmg ceases to move when It
comes to Its proper place, but the
body whose path IS the Circle has
one and the same place for start-
Ing pelOt and goal
'The diSCUSSIOns of popular phuosophy' means the dialogue
On Phtlosophy, the only onc that discussed the theological
THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY 303
problem and exammed Its relabon to the questIOn of the eternal
cIrcular motion of the firmament The final words are a more or
less verbal quotation from the argument of thIS dialogue, as
preserved by SlmphcIUS m hIS commentary on the passage. he
expressly descnbes the dIalogue as the source to whIch Anstotle' s
reference apphes Strangely enough, Bernays. who discussed
thIS passage of SImphclUs acutely,1 confined hIS attlnbon to the
reference, and failed to observe that the whole of the passage
ImmedIately precedmg It, quoted above. can be recognIzed by
ItS style as a pIece of hterary prose taken from the same dIa-
logue Even the begmmng of the tenth chapter, whIch 1IDme-
dlately follows. does not read lIke an ordmary lecture. though
here only Isolated traces of another style can be pomted out
Anyhow we must expect Aristotle dunng hiS early period to
mtroduce free reproductions of large porbons of hIS hterary
works not merely mto hIS pohtIcal, metaphySIcal, and ethIcal,
but also mto hIS SCIentific, lectures The dialogues, of course.
did not often mentIOn SCIentific matters In the thIrd book On
Phtlosophy, however, he had dIscussed (see p 140 above) the
questIOn whether the heaven IS eternal. and argued agamst
Plato's VIew that, whIle It will have no end, It had a begtnnmg
We may therefore conjecture some dependence on that dIalogue
preCIsely m the ~ t part of the first book On the Heaven. whIch
follows the part quoted above, and m the begmmng of the second,
because the very same question IS here dlscussed-'whether
the cosmos IS uncreated or created and Impenshable or pensh-
able' In essentials thIS mqUIry IS. hke that of the dIalogue, a
runmng polemiC agamst Plato's Ttmaeus, winch IS exphcltly
mentIoned:l. Now the begtnmng of the second book IS so com-
pletely ahen m style and method to Anstotle's usual pedagogIcal
procedure that the only pOSSible explanatIon IS that here. too. he
IS reproducmg parts of the third book On Phtlosophy Our lack
of matenals renders direct proof ImpossIble, but smce we have
shown conclUSIvely by numerous examples that such borrowmg
does occur, and smce we know that there IS a long extract from
thIs book a few pages earher, there can presumably be no doubt
about the ongtn of the present passage
I Bernays, DIe verlorenen D.aloge des Ar"toleles, p no
De Caelo I 10, 280 28 Cf 27g
b
32
TRAVELS
OTI !ltv ow ocm yiyovev 6 lTQs
OUT' (v2.eXETcxl cp6apiivCXI.
Ka9c!rnEp cpao'IV aVT6v, aliA'
els 1<a\ 6n.IOS, apXTJv IJtv 1<a\ TEhEvTT}V
olil< TOU lTavTOS EXWV
:A. KallTEplExwV aVTc;J armpov
Xp6vov, TE TWV
Aal3Elv T'l)v lTlaTlV Kal 2.1(J: Tiis
TijS '!Tapa TWV a?Aws Aey6VTWV Ka1
yewWVTWV lX\fT6v eI ycxp OVTWS IJtv
(XEIV K0:6' oV 2.. Tp6'!TOV
yEvtaeal Aeyovow OUl<
Tal, \.IEyOAT)V O:v EXOI 1<al ToVTO pOlTflv
e1s '!TlaT1V lTEpl Ti'iS aVTOV
Kat Tiis ai:A16TT)TOS 2.16'!TEP KaAws EXEI
av\.l'!Tel6Elv ElX\fT6v TOUs apxalovs Kal
\.IOAlaTa lTaTplovS t'}\.IWV alIT)eE1S Elval
Myovs, Ws EaTlV 666:vaT6v TI Kat
eETov TWV EX6VTWV 1<lvT)alv, EX6v-
TWV :M TOlaVTT)V WaTE \.IT)eEv e1val
lTEPas aliTi'iS. aMa IlQAAOV TalrrT)V
TWV &hAWV T6 TE yap '!TEPas
TWV mplEx6VTWV EaTI, Kal aV-rT) t'}
KVKAocpopla TEAeIOS ovaa lTEPIEXEI TaS
cheAeiS Kal Tas Exovaas lTEPas Kal
lTaVAav, avTf} 2E ov:Aelllav OUT' apxflv
Exovaa OUTE TEAev-n']v, aM' arrCXVaTOS
ovaa TOV ClTmpov Xp6vov, T(;'W 2'
aAAWV TWV Illv ahla Ti'is apxiis. TWV
:At :AExoIlEvT) TTJV lTaVAav TOV 2.'
ovpavov Kal TOV avw T6lTOV 01 IlEv
apxalol ToiS 6EOiS QrrEVElllav ws /)VTCX
1l6vov 666:vaTOV 6:AE vw IlCXpTVpEi
A6yos wS acp6apTos Ka1 aytVT)TOS, hi
2' 61Ta61is lTaaT)S evT)TiiS
EaTlv, 2E 6:rrovos 21(J: TO
IlTl:Ae\.lIQs lTpoa:AEiaeall3lcxlas 6:v0yKT)S.
f} KaTExE1 KWAVovaa cpEpEaeO:l mcpv-
K6Ta &AAwS lTOv yap TO
TOIOVTOV ElTilTOVOV, Oa'l'lTEP O:v ai2uw-
TEpOV fl, Ko:l 21a9EaEws Tiis aplCTTT]s
allOIPOV, 216lTEP OUTE KaTO: TOV TWV
lTaACXlWV 1l000V VrrOAT)1TTEOV EXEIV, oi
cpaalVATAavTlSs TIVOS aliTc;J lTpoa:AEi-
That the heaven as a whole
neIther came Into beIng nor admIts
of destructIon, as some assert, but
IS one and eternal, WIth no end or
begInnIng of Its total duratIon,
contaInIng and embracIng In Itself
the InfinIty of tIme, we may con-
VInce ourselves not only by the
arguments already set forth but
also by a conSIderatIon of the vIews
of those who dIffer from us In pro-
VIdIng for ItS generatIon If our
vIew IS a pOSSIble one, and the
manner of generatIon whIch they
assert IS ImpossIble, thIS fact wLlI
have great weight 10 convIncIng us
of the ImmortalIty and eternIty of
the world Hence It IS well to per-
suade oneself of the truth of the
ancIent and truly tradItIonal
theones, that there IS some
Immortal and dIVIne thIng whIch
possesses movement, but move-
ment such as has no lImIt and IS
rather Itself the lImIt of all other
movement A lImIt I" a thIng that
and thIS CIrcular mobon,
bemg perfect, contaIns those Imper-
fect motions whIch have a lImIt
and a goal, haVIng Itself no begIn-
nIng or end, but unceasIng through
the mfinIty of tIme, and of other
movements to some the cause of
then begmnIng, to others offenng
the goal The ancIents gave to the
Gods the heaven or upper place,
as beIng alone Immortal, and our
argument testIfies that It
I" IndestructIble and ungenerated
Further, It IS unaffected by any
mortal discomfort, and, In additIon,
effortless, for It needs no constraIn-
Ing necessIty to l[eep It to ItS path,
and prevent It from mOVIng WIth
some other movement more natural
to Itself Such a constraIned move-
ment would necessarLly Involve
effort-the more so, the more
eternal It were-and be In-
THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY 305
a6cn 'Tliv C1c.TTT1plav {OIKl'tC11 YO:P Kal consIStent Wlth perfection Hence
-roiiTov 01 avc-n'lC1cnrTS -ro,", Myov 'Tliv we must not beheve the old tale
rX
e1v
Vrr6ATlllllV Iianpov which says that the world needs
yap mpl fx6v-re.>v Kal some Atlas to keep it safe-a tale
yETlPwvanO:v-re.>v -rwv 6:IIe.> aWl!O:Te.>v composed, It would seem, by men
who, I1ke later thmkers, conceived
VrrEa-rT}C1av a\r'rcji l!v6IKWS lrv6:yKT}v
of all the upper bodIes as earthy
rl!IjI\I)(OV oCi-re 2.'; -roiiTov -rov -rp6nov and endowed With weight, and
VrrOATl'll""l"EOV, ow 2.10: 'Tliv :A(VT}C1IV therefore supported it 10 their fabu-
66:novos "TV)'X6:vov-ra lpopiis [2.lli] lous way upon ammate necessity
-rfis olKElas hI We must no more believe that than
-rOC1oiiTov Xp6vov, KaBanep 'El!m- follow Empedocles when he says
2.oKAfis cpllC11V aMa ov:A' \nrO that the world, when Its motIOn
IjI\I)(fis eVAoyov O:vayKaJOVC1TlS IlEVelV became faster because of the whirl,
cit2l10V ou:AE yap -rTis 'iNXfis o16v -r' kept Itself [suspended] all thiS
E1val 'Tliv -rOlaV-rT}V O:AVlTOV Kol time only by means of Its own
j..laKap(av O:vO:yKTl yap KQl 'Tliv eqUllibnum Nor, agam, IS It con-
ceivable that It should persist eter-
K(VTlC11V 1Jf'TO: ovaav, E1mp
nally by the necessitation of a
KlveiC1Bal -rov npe.>-rou soul (world-soul) For a soul could
I1WIla-rOS O:AAe.>S Kol KIVEi avYexws, not hve m such conditions pam-
6:O)(OAOV elVQl Kal naC1TlS Crrn]May- lessly or happily, smce the move-
j..lEVTlV Pc;rl1-re.>VTlS ll!cppovos, Ei yE IlTl:A' ment mvolves constramt, bemg
WCTTTEP l"ii 'iNXTi n; -rWV 6vTl-rwv 3c;:.wv Imposed on the first body (the
El1-rlv 0:vO:nauC11S ,; lTEpl -rov V1TvOV heaven), whose natural mohon IS
YIVOIlEVTl -rov aWj..la-ros c5:veC1IS, aM' different, and Imposed contmu-
O:vayKaiov -rIVOS Il
oi
pav Ka-re- ously It must therefore be uneasy
and devoid of all rational satls-
XEIV cnrr,;v citL.IOV Kol c5:-rpIJ'TOV
faction, for It could not even, hke
el :Ar, KaeO:nEp EilTol!ev Iv:Aexe-ral -rov
the soul of mortal ammals, take
E1PTlllEVOV lXelV l"p6lTOV 1Tepl -rfis
recreation 10 the bodily relaxation
lTpw-rTlS lpopaS, ov 1.16vov alJ'TOV mpl of sleep An IXlOn's lot must needs
";s ai1116'T'1l"os oli-rws possess It, wlthout end or respite
{1lj..lEAel1-repOV, aMa Kol -rfi l!av-re(c;r n; If then, as we said, the view
lTEpi -rov Beov 1l6vws Crv lxo1l!ev oli-rws already stated of the first mohon
6l!OAOYOVl!evWS anocpalVEaeal avll- IS a pOSSible one, It IS not only more
cpwvovs A6yovs appropnate so to conceive of Its
aMo: -rwv IlAv -rOl0V-rWV Mye.>v eternity, but also on thiS hypo-
laTe.> -ra vW I theSIS alone are we able to advance
a theory consistent With popular
dlvmauons of the dlvme nature
Butof this enoughfor thepresent I
It scarcely needs to be proved III detaJ1 that the style of thIS
chapter IS qUIte other than that of Anstotle's SCIentIfic prose
I By these words, With "hleh he resumes hiS ordinary lectunng style, Ans-
totle himself clearly tells us that the preced.lOg passage belongs to 'another
genus', and one which does not stnctly fit the sober sclenbfic mode of treat-
ment prevailing elsewhere In thiS work
306 TRAVELS
The chOIce of high-soundIng words that do not occur elsewhere
In these level plains, the notIceably solemn and elevated tone,
the wealth of rhetoncal deVIces, the ornamental pansosls, chias-
mus, and antIthesis, the bold Images, such as that of Plato's
world-soul bound lIke IXlOn to the perpetually turning wheel of
the heaven, the nngmg doublets, lIke 'a bmlt and a goal' (iOS
lTEPOS KollTaVAav), 'a lot Without end or respite'
&'t610V Kol a-rpVTOV), 'the ImmortalIty and eternity of the
world' (els lTlO"ilv mpl ifjS &eavoalos alrTOU Kol Tiis &i2l16T11iOS),
'uneasy and devoId of all ratIOnal satisfactIon', 'painlessly and
happily', 'the ancient and truly traditIonal theones', 'Involve
effort and be InconsIstent With perfectIon', above all the arti-
fiCial order of the words, lIke the prose of Plato's later dialogues,
and the careful aVOIdance of hiatus, give to thiS passage a tone
and dlgmty fittmg only to a dialogue At the end It becomes
partIcularly clear that m their ongInal connexlOn the purpose of
those phySIcal Ideas was mamly relIgIOUS and metaphySical
\\i'e have seen, In fact, that the 'symphony' between the phySIcal
study of the Impenshable heavens and what Anstotle beauti-
fully and very PlatOnIcally calls the vOIce of God WithIn us IS a
conjunction charactenstIc of the third book On Phtlosophy The
merely dialectIcal nature of the argument, which starts from the
respect due to the views of the anclent'5, from relIgIOUS tradi-
tions, and from the probable (eVAoyov), also reveals ItS source
ThiS gIves us a termtnus post quem for the compOSItIOn of the
eXlstmg versIOn of the books On the Heaven It was wntten after
the dIalogue On Phtlosophy, and therefore at the earlIest one or
two years after Plato's death It was probably not much later
than thiS, however, for the whole pomt of view IS that of the
later Academy I The cosmic theones of the Pythagoreans,
which were so often blIndly accepted In thiS CIrcle, the belIef
that the heaven and the earth are sphencal In form, the doctnne
I Its Wlde dIvergence from the dIalogue On PhIlosophy as regards ether.
which proves that thiS dialogue IS ItS termmus post quem, Since It can l)e taken
only as a correctlon and not as a prevIOus stage of the view there given, might
seem to make agamst SUppOSlDg that the De Caelo followed too closely on the
dialogue We have, however, found Aristotle makmg generous use of hIS exotenc
works only lD the treatises belonging to the middle penod, which were still fairly
near to them lD time, and we must therefore work On the Heaven
maInly arose, or that the first draft of It was sketched out, dunng hiS rmddle
penod, and that reVISions, some of themdrastic, took place dunng his later years
THE SPECULATIVE PHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY 307
of the spheres, the doctnne of their hannony, which Anstotle
IS as concerned to disprove as he is to get a clear and detaued
physical picture of the way m which they may move the stars;
the problems of the shape and rotatIon of the stars, which Plato
had mooted, the fact that the astronomical catalogues of the
Babylomans and EgyptIans are obvlOusly stIll a new discovery,
the controversy, so momentous for subsequent history, about the
posItIon and motIon of the earth m the umverse, m which Ans-
totle deCided that It IS sphencal, but, m VIew of the lack of con-
vIncmg eVIdence that It moves, must remam m the centre of
the umverse m accordance With the relgmng view of the nature
of gravitatIonal phenomena, the mdIvlslble hnes of Xenocrates,
Plato's theory of the elements as mathematIcal corpuscles, the
problem of weight, With which the Academy struggled m vam-
thIs whole nchly developed world of physical speculatIons, a
vanegated structure made up of many speCial problems strung
together, often apparently Without much system, can be under-
stood only hlstoncally, by reference to the soll that bred It, the
Academy Anstotle's Ideas were not put on paper m this shape
untu after 347, but they were formed while he was sull m
the Academy, m the course of diSCUSSion with Plato and hiS
compamons I
I The date of the Mete01'ology IS difficult to deterrrune The treatise 0,.
ComIng-to-be and PassIng-away, to which must be added the third and fourth
books On the Heaven very defimtely along the same speculative hnes
as the PhyStcs and the treatI.e On the Heaven It. polemiC concerns Plato's
reductIon of the four to mathematical figures (hrfTTElla), and the
atomic theory or LeuClppus and Democntus The Meteorology, OD the other
hand, plunges mto detal! Although the dlstmctIon between a general and a
special portion IS essentIal to the plan of Anstotle's works on nature, and
although these works accordmgly mclude both, yet, III View of the PolItiCS
and other wntmgs, there can be no doubt that the empmcal matenalcame later,
and was collected gradually, and often reacted upon conceptual philosophy
We must not therefore date the Meteorology too early Ideler's reasons for
putting It before Alexander's expeditIon to ASia (Artst Meteor vol I, p IX) are
not cogent There IS httle to be mferred from the fact that Anstotle, followlllg
Herodotus, correctly believes the Caspian Sea to be an mland one, whereas
Alexander's expeditIon came to the false conclUSIOn that It connects V.lth the
North Sea, a view whIch thereafter preVailed until modern tImes, for even the
HIstory of AnImals, which IS certamly later, takes ItS accounts of Egyptian
ammals not from the reports of eyewitnesses but from Hecataeus of Ml!etus
(Dlels, Hermes, vol XXI1, the correspondences between the HIstory of AnImals
and Herodotus were remarked by the great Cuvler 10 hiS Hlstolre des sCiences
naturelles, vol I (1841), P 136, cp A von Humboldt, Kosmos, vol 11 (1847).
P 427, n 95) The fact that the Meteorology mentions the bummg of the temple
308 TRAVELS
We cannot here undertake to gIVe a general estImate of Ans-
totle's phJ.1osophy of nature (we shall attempt to do so m the
last part of thIS book), It must suffice to bnng out the mam
facts about the course of hIS development as such Our pIcture
of the early appearance of the fundamental, 1 e cosmologIcal
and speculatIve, parts of hIS theory of nature, the Physzcs and
the work On the Heaven WIth theIr appendIX On Comzng-to-be
and Passzng-away, IS confirmed by the apparently late ongm
of the works On the Parts and On the Generatzon oj Ammals
These are based on the exact observatIon of detaIl They are
the most perfect and most charactenstIc thmgs that he produced
In the sphere of natural SCIence In contrast to them hIS phySICS
and cosmology, WIth theIr conceptual and abstract dISCUSSIons
of the general pnncipies of nature and of the world at large, are
much nearer to Plato not only m the problems that they dIscuss
but also m method, for they are examples of the careful and
cntIcal development of Plato's doctnnes that charactenzes
Anstotle's mIddle penod, the tIme when he wrote hIS account
of the Ideal state and hIS theologIcal ethICS and metaphySICS
HIS contmuous polemIC agamst detaJ.1s of Plato's natural phJ.1o-
sophy must not blInd us to the fact that these cntIcisms anse
preCIsely out of hIS greater nearness to Plato here, not out of
dIstance from hIm It IS true that the thmgs he IS most con-
cerned to bnng out are the collapse of the mVlSlble world of
Ideas erected by Plato a!> the paradIgm or pattern of the VISIble
cosmos, hIS own dIslIke of mere speculatIon WIthout the support
of expenence, and hIS sceptical attItude towards several of
the bursts of unvenfiable cosmologIcal fancy mto whIch many
AcademIes had been led by theIr taste for Pythagorean phJ.1o-
sophy, but we have only to put together hIS Physzcs and Plato's
Tzmaeus, and contrast themboth WIth the mechamcal VIewof the
world put forward by Democntus, or the purely mathematIcal
theory of the heavens suggested by Eudoxus, to see that he stands
wholly on ground prepared byPlato, and that hISworks on phYSICS
and cosmology are essentIally dISCUSSIOns withm the Academy.
at Ephesus (356) With the words vOv avvlj3alVE (III I, 371. 30) gives us only a
term,nus post quem, for thiS vOv IS known to be very ambiguous and to allow
a Wide marglO Whereas the expressIOn 'we have only met With two 10stances
of a moon-rambow 10 more than fifty years' (III 2,372" 29) does not seem to
fit a young man even If we do not take the first person literally

PART THREE
MATURITY
CHAPTER XII
ARISTOTLE IN ATHENS
I
N the year 335/4 Anstotle returned to Athens after an absence
of thirteen years, not havmg seen It smce the death of his
master Alexander's accessIOn to the throne had put an end to
the opportumtIes for direct mfluence at the court of Macedon
The young kmg must mdeed have offered him an honourable
leisure. together with the means for prosecutmg research, and
no one will beheve that at a moment when he needed expenenced
adVice more than ever he purposely removed from his neigh-
bourhood the man who up to then had been his tutor m states-
m<tnshlp, and who contmued to sharpen his pohtIcal conscience
down to the time of the ASiatic expedition, I but the rhythm
of their hves had become too divergent now that Alexander, m
order to save a throne that tottered under every new mcumbent,
was hurrymg from campaign to campaign, and fightmg for
recogmtlOn now m the Balkans and on the Danube, now In
Greece We do not know whether Aristotle remamed at the
court up to the moment of hiS return to Athens, or had prevIOusly
Withdrawn for a conSiderable penod to hiS paternal property In
StagIra The latter IS mdlcated by a fragment of a letter, the
genUineneSS of which, however, IS much to be doubted, smce
It suggests the stilted deVices of the rhetonClan rather than
Anstotle's easy manner, which was celebrated In antiqUity as
the Ideal epistolary style z That he kept up some contmuous
relation With the court IS also suggested by the fact that he dJd
not return to Athens untIl Alexander crossed to ASia Mmor
Immediately after Alexander's accessIOn (336) there had been
a nsmg In Athens under the leadership of Demosthenes, who had
been out of polItics smce Chaeronea, and the example had been
FOI" the conjecture that Anstotle wrote the work On Monat'Chy on the occa-
sion of Alexander's accesSIOn see above, p 259 n 3
Frg 669 In Rose I went from Athens to Stag.ra because of the Great
Kmg, and from Stagrra to Athens because of the great cold' In Itself, however,
the natural thlng to suppose IS that Anstotle spent lus time In study at Stagu'a
whenever he was not rt'qulred at the court, see above, p 115 n I, on Theo-
phrastus' stay In Stagrra
312 MATURITY
followed by his fnends throughout Greece Alexander's prompt
suppression of the 'rebellion' seemed to have restored peace and
obedience, until the report that he had been killed while m ~
palgmng on the Danube caused the nationalIst party to nse
once more (335) and proclaIm freedom and autonomy I Once
agam they were very qUIckly sobered Alexander stormed
Thebes and razed It to the ground, a warnmg to the other Greeks
Only WIth the utmost dIfficulty dId Athens escape the degradIng
order to dehver up Demosthenes and all the natlOnahst leaders
These persons nowdIsappeared from the pubhc scene The feehng
agamst Macedon grew considerably less tense Alexander WIth-
drew In October, 335 In May, 334, he crossed Into ASia Mmor
and defeated the Persian satraps on the Gramcus
About thiS time Anstotle came to Athens as the flower of
Greek Intellect, the outstandIng philosopher, wnter, and teacher,
the fnend of the most powerful ruler of the bme, whose rapidly
nsmg fame raIsed hun With It even In the eyes of persons who
stood too far from him to understand hIS own unportance HIS
Intention to return to the place of hIS growth may have been
developed dunng hiS last years m Macedoma, when he was hV10g
In the retIrement of research It was hiS recollectIon of Plato
that made him see In thiS return somethmg more than a mere
outward condition of any really Wide mfluence He thereby
announced himself pubhcly to all the world as the successor of
Plato It IS true that the Academy was estranged from hun
After the death of Speuslppus (339/8) the members had chosen
Xenocrates as thelr head Z For Anstotle It was out of the ques-
tIOn to re-enter a SOCIety now led by a former compamon of such
different mtellectual mterests, anxIOUs though he was to pre-
serve a good external understandmg With that venerable man
We do not In fact hear of any quarrel (probably many persons
attended lectures In both places), but from thiS moment the
Academy surrendered the lead to the new school, which Ans-
toUe opened first 10 the corndors of the palaestra In the Lyceum,
and afterwards presumably outside It In a nearby space, With
SUItable rooms, In front of the gate of DlOchares In the east
of the town, a spot that had been a meetIng-place of sophists
I Arnan I 7. 2 'proDllSlng freedom <and autonomy). anCient and noble
nameD' Ind A,ad Her,ul, col VI. P 38 (Mekler)
ARISTOTLE IN ATHENS 313
for decades So long as Anstotle remamed withm the walls of
Athens that dethroned queen of cItIes was once more, and for
the last bme, the mtellectual centre of the Hellemc world, the
metropohs of Greek learnmg When he and Theophrastus wed
It was all over Thereafter the centre of gravIty lay 10 Alex-
andna Anstotle the non-Atheman 10 Athens, at once the mtel-
lectual leader of the natIon and the stronghold of Macedoman
mfluence 10 what had formerly been the leadIng CIty of the AWc
empIre-that IS the symbol of the new age
Anstotle founded hIS new home of learnmg under the protec-
tIon of hIS powerful Macedoman fnend AntIpater, whom Alex-
ander had left behmd as regent and commander-m-chief 10
Macedon and Greece It IS much to be regretted that we have
lost hIS correspondence wIth thIS lffiportant man, who seems to
have been more intImate wIth hlffi than anyone else after the
death of Herrmas Smce AntIpater came from a totally dIfferent
envIronment, and was no scholar, theIr fnendship must have
been based on some profound kmship of character ThISexplams
how a relatIonshIp that began In the court of Philip, at a tIme
when Anstotle was m hIgh favour WIth the kmg and WIth
Alexander, could outlast Alexander's fickle kIndness and forge
a lIfelong bond that did not let Antlpater go even when lus
phIlosophIcal fnend was dead ArIstotle appomted hIm the
executor of hIS last WIshes m hIS will The few remammg frag-
ments of theIr letters speak the language of unhesitatmg mutual
trust We may lOfer that Anstotle and hIS cucle were at one
WIth the pohtlcal mtentIOns of Macedon, Since dunng the years
334/23 AntIpater was governmg the domestIc affaIrs of Greece
With authonty Virtually absolute
The Macedoman party at Athens, which was partIcularly
strong among the nch, could now come forth mto the open With-
out danger Mutual dIstrust had assumed fnghtful proportions
among the CItIzenry, and It was still easy for the nationalists
to stage and wm oratoncal contests hke that between Demo-
sthenes and Aeschmes about the crown, and thereby to get the
masses temporarily on theIr SIde They were powerless, however,
agamst the Macedoman lances, and they no longer had the sup-
port of the educated, to whose mdifference, m fact, the shIpwreck
of Demosthenes' efforts was mamly due To the mtellectual
314 MATURITY
CIrcles It was a dlstmct gam to have the moral support of a
school dIrectly connected with the Macedoman admlOlstrahon
Popular orators hke Lycurgus and Demosthenes could not
preval1 agamst the ethical and mtellectual ascendancy of the
new amvals, and could not Impute treachery or corruptIon to
men who were not Athemans It was nowhere possible to con-
Vict them of dIrectly politIcal purposes, their mfluence meducat-
mg a new group functIOned more through theIr tacit reJechon
of Demosthemc natIonalIsm than through any pohtIcal pro-
gramme With hiS fine sensIbIlity for such thmgs Anstotle always
carefully aVOIded touchmg the sore spot of Atheman pnde or
lettmg fall any sharp remark about Demosthenes and hiS party,
objectIOnable as they doubtless were to him Not untIl years
later does the Lyceum dare to reveal ItS pnvate opmIOn m the
bItIng expresslOns of Theophrastus and of Demetnus of Phale-
rum on the style and delIvery of Demosthenes as a popular
orator Anstotle was not, of course, shortSighted enough to hold
Demosthenes responsIble for the war of Chaeronea, as Aeschmes
and hiS followers dId The only remark of hIS that IS preserved
about Demosthenes rejects thIS vIew-but nothmg could be
falser than to make thIs a reason for supposmg that he had some
understandmg of Demosthenes' pOSItion The group of mtel-
lectuals m the Lyceum, though not m the least cosmopolItan,
were resIgned, all the more so because they had no confidence
m Alexander's almost fantastIc reconstructlOns of the world,
and refused to consIder fratermzatlOn of races or fuslOn WIth
ASIatIcs Anstotle stood over the Greek natIon lIke a troubled
phySICIan at the bedSIde of hIS patlent Demosthenes and the
natIonalIsts could not understand an attItude thus rooted m the
recogmtIon of the bItter truth They saw 10 Anstotle's school
a Macedoman secret-servIce bureau I
There IS no school of leammg of WhICh we have so complete
a pIcture as the Lyceum The very lectures that were gIven
there are mostly preserved to us 10 the wntmgs of Anstotle
I Tlus was certaUlly Demosthenes' View Only he did not dare to say It
aloud, as hiS nephew Demochares dId when defending the decree of Sophocles
(3
0
7/
6
) ThIS decree abolIshed the pro-Macedoman schools of philosophy after
the IIberatlon of Athens by Demetnus the Besieger For the ~ l n e r s about
Anstotle and hIS followers In the fragments of Demochares s e ~ Balter-Suppe,
Or All. vol u, pp 3.111
ARISTOTLE IN ATHENS 315
Atheman law forbade foreIgners to acqUIre land In AttIca, and
yet later on we find Theophrastus In posseSSIOn of a property
consIstIng of a large garden contaInmg a sanctuary of the Muses
(m accordance WIth the precedent of the Academy), an altar,
and several lecture-rooms I It was m one of these rooms that
the maps (yfis mplollo1) were set out on boards (TTlvCIKES) The
other mstruments of learnmg, such as the lIbrary, must have
been there too In the Museum were a statue of Anstotle and
other oblatIons Demetnus of Phalerum, the pupil of Theo-
phrastus, gave hIm thIS land to be hIS own property (i1l10V),
although he was a metIc ThiS must have been an act of speCIal
legal SIgnificance, for It was contrary to the constItution SInce
even under Anstotle the school possessed a great deal of matenal,
and In partIcular a collectIon of books that can have been housed
only m a large buIldIng, we cannot aVOId the conjecture that the
property later given to Theophrastus was preCIsely that on whIch
Anstotle himself had taught Demetnus preserved It for the
school because the memory of the founder clung to that plot
of ground The actual gtft, however, must have been made
out m Theophrastus' name, smce In hIS WIll he bequeathes the
Penpatas to the school WIth these words 'The garden and the
walk and the houses adJoInmg the garden, all and sundry, I
gIve and bequeath to such of our enrolled fnends as may WIsh
to study lIterature and phIlosophy there In common, SInce It IS
not pOSSIble for all men to be always In reSidence, on conmtIOn
that no one alIenates the property or devotes It to hIS pnvate
use, but so that they hold It lIke a temple In Jomt posseSSIOn and
lIve, as IS nght and proper, on tenns offamIlIanty and fnendship 'z
These beautIful words show that the spmt that Anstotle had
planted In the school was stIll lIVIng there TheIr common lIfe
was regulated accordmg to defimte rules As a symbol of theIr
commumty they had regular monthly SOCial gathenngs, eIther
to eat or to dnnk Later, In the will of Strata, we find lIsted
along WIth the lIbrary the tableware for the banquets, lmen, and
dnnkIng-cups J These must have become more complete WIth
each succeedmg generatIOn, for dunng the leadershIp of Lyco
I Dlog LV 39 The society therefore formed a fraterwty e l a a ~ dedicated
to the cult of the Muses
Dlog L v 52 J Dlog L V 62
316 MATURITY
there were complaxnts that the poorer students could no longer
take part III the feasts, because there was too much luxury
Anstotle hnnself wrote codes for the dnnkmg and for the feast-
mg (V6lJ01 OVlJ1TOTIKOI and v6lJoi OVO"O"ITIKOI). as Xenocrates
and Speuslppus dId for the Academy These regulatIOns played
a not inconsIderable part In the phl1osophlc schools I
The lectures were also regulated TradItion Informs us that
Anstotle gave hiS more dlfficult and phuosophlcal lectures 1n
the mornmg, and that In the afternoon he spoke to a larger
pubhc on rhetonc and dIalectic In addItion to hIS there were
lectures by the older dIscIples, such as Theophrastus and
Eudemus We do not hear of many dIscIples of Anstotle by
name, but what Greek 15 there who wrote dunng the next hun-
dred years on natural SCIence, on rhetonc, on literature, or on
the hIstory of clvulzatIOn, and was not called a PenpatetIc;l
LaVIsh as the grammanans are WIth thIS tItle, It IS easy to see
that the Intellectual Influence of the school soon extended over
the whole Greek-speaking world We find scarcely any names
of Athemans among the famous PenpatetIcs, a large part of
the students must have come from other CIties In the Lyceum
Plato's communal hfe or v ~ v became a umverslty In the
modern sense, an orgamzatlon of sCIences and of courses of study
The students, though still callIng themselves 'fnends', followmg
Plato's pleasant custom, were constantly coming and gOIng,
because, as Theophrastus says WIth a trace of reSIgnatIOn, 'It
IS not pOSSIble for all men to be always In reSIdence' One thIng,
however, remaIned common to the new school and to the
Academy ItS mner order was, Just hke the Idea of the PlatOnIC
commumty, an expreSSIOn of the qUIntessential nature and mInd
of ItS creator The orgamzatlOn of the PenpatetIc schoollS a
reflectlOn of Anstotle's nature, the act of a SIngle guIdIng mInd
whose wIll hves In ItS members
We usually do not make suffiCIently clear to ourselves that
Anstotle was not one of those great phIlosophIcal authors who
bequeath theIr work to postenty In hterary form, and really
begm to hve only when they are dead, smce the wntten word
works for them The senes of hterary works In Plato's style that
I For the extemal orgalllzabon of the Penpatebc society and the election
of officers see V.'llamowltz. Anl.gonos lion Karyslos, p
26
4
ARISTOTLE IN ATHENS 317
he published dunng hIS earlIer years was apparently mostly
completed by the tIme he began to teach at Athens. at any rate
the more Important dIalogues belong to a much earlier penod.
and It IS hardly to be supposed that dunng these years he once
more occupIed hImself by the way, m a more or less playful
manner, wIth composmg lIttle conversatIons He was now more
than ever absorbed In teachmg The treatIses that we possess
are the groundwork of hIS IIvmg Illfluence on hIS pupils In the
Phaedrus Plato tells us that the wntten word IS useless III the
transmISSIon of real SCIentIfic knowledge We have belIeved
only too long that we could dIsregard thIS VIew, fundamental
though It be to the comprehenSIOn of the dIalogues, and only
now do we begm to see that It has Its basIs m the actual relatIon
obtammg between hterary productIOn and oral teachmg III
Plato's Academy, and that every general VIew of the dIalogues
that does not see them on the background of thIs comprehenSIve
pedagogIcal actIvIty represents a dIsplacement of the centre of
gravIty' WIth Anstotle the sItuatIon IS dIfferent once agam
Here we have a gradually mcreasIng paralYSIS of the deSIre for
hterary creatIOn, until finally he IS wholly wrapped up In teach-
mg The vast sum of hIS hfe IS to be found neIther In the
treatIses nor m the dIalogues It lIes III hIS lIVIng mfluence on
hIS pupIls, rooted not m Plato's Eros but m the deSIre to know
and to teach When separated from theIr creator and hIS vOIce
the treatIses could not and dId not produce any Illdependent
effect Even the PenpatetIc school was unable to understand
them once the Immedlate pupIls of Anstotle were no longer there
to mterpret, and on the early HellemstIc age thIS gIant mass of
knowledge and reflectIOn had an amazmgly IllsIgmficant mflu-
ence Not untIl the first century before Chnst were the treatIses
dIsmterred, but even then the Greek professors of phIlosophy
III Athens dId not understand them z When the labonous work
of the commentators, contmued for centunes, had once more
rendered vlSlble these mIghty thought-structures, WhICh had
come wIthm a haIrbreadth of bemg lost to postenty for ever.
Anstotle at last began to be for the second tIme the master of
the schools At last people began to understand that they must
not confine themselves to such of hIS wntmgs as shone WIth the
I See my Ent Metaph Anst, p 140 a e,c Top I 3
X
318 MATURITY
crown of lIterary fame, but must learn to see the real man at
work m the unpubhshed treatises. m order to catch the last
shimmer of the mdiVIduality of a mmd so mggardly towards
postenty and so profuse towards its own surroundmgs Thus
Anstotle has become, qUlte contrary to his own mtentIon, the
teacher of all nations ThiS mission to all bmes and places stands
m ViVId contrast to hIS personal mfluence and desIre, which dis-
played the genume Greek concentratIOn on the here and now,
and focused all hi!> powers on his Immediate cucle Teachmg
hke Anstotle's has never been seen agam To the Greeks it was
somethmg absolutely new, and, With the age of the great phllo-
sophie schools Just begmmng, It started a new epoch StOICS,
Epicureans. AcademIcs, all laId more weIght on oral teachmg
than on hterary self-expressIOn
Anstotle's relatIOns WIth Alexander cannot be traced to the
end The memOIr On Colomzatwn, WIth its dlalogue-hke sub-
title Alexander, proves that they contmued unbroken down to
the time when the kmg was estabhshmg CitIes m Egypt and
ASia They cannot, however, have remamed unaffected by the
fate of Calhsthenes, which overtook him m the year 32 7 I
ThiS nephew of Anstotle's had been his pupll dunng hIS stay
m Assos and also at Pella Afterwards, Immediately before
Alexander's departure for ASIa, he had helped hIm to draw up
the hst of DelphIc Victors He then Jomed the kmg's head-
quarters, With the approval of hIS uncle From the begmnmg
it was undoubtedly his mtenbon to record the kmg's deeds HIS
glonficatIOn of Alexander m the work that he dedIcated to him,
hke his panegync on HennIas, betrays the fact that his mterest
m his subject was not that of the true histonan, but was rather
of a personal nature He thought hImself mto Alexander's mmd
WIth philosophical persIstence, but he did not always reach the
undlstorted truth He was no student of human nature He
was a scholar of fine ht8rary taste, a philosopher With a keen
mtelhgence, and not Without talent as an orator. espeCially m
extempore speakmg, but as Anstotle himself declared he was
devoId of natural common sense Although he was a personal
adherent of the kmg, and constantly defended hun m hIS history
agamst the oppOSItIon of the old Macedoman nobility, who dIS-
I See Jacoby on 'Calhsthenes' In Pauly-WIssowa, vol x, C 1674
ARISTOTLE IN ATHENS 319
trusted hIS pollcy towards ASlatlcs, he nevertheless managed.
by an untimely dIsplay of phLlosophic mgmty on the questIon
of obeIsance, to bnng upon hImself the unfortunate SuspICIOn
of conspIracy wIth that very oppOSItion, and thus to mcur the
dIspleasure of the kmg HIS posItion at the court had presum-
ably always been Isolated, SInce he belonged neIther to the party
of the Macedoman mLlItary nobIlIty nor to the Greek lIterary
scandalmongers who swarmed at headquarters, but depended
exclUSIvely on the personal favour of the kmg When that was
WIthdrawn he was helpless agamst the mtngues of the rest It
IS now certam that the men ImmedIately surroundmg the kmg
afterwards thought It expedIent to conceal some of the CIrcum-
stances attendmg Calhsthenes' fall HIS guLlt was by no means
estabhshed by normal process of law, and hIS executIon was one
of the autocratIc acts that Alexander commItted at that tIme.
when the extreme tenSIOn of hIS mental and phySIcal powers
sometImes led to volcamc outbursts of ternble paSSIOn eVen
agamst hIS nearest fnends Though we may draw the veLl of
pIty OVer these mhumamtIes they could not but cloud Anstotle's
memory of the kmg and eJl.tmgUlsh the feelIng for hun m hIS
heart He tned to preserve hIS spmtual balance by bemg Just,
mexorably Just even Wlth regard to the shortcommgs of hIS
nephew The filthmess of human nature mSIsted on belIevmg
m antiqUIty that Alexander's early death was due to pOlson
admmlstered at the mstIgatIon of Anstotle That was not the
phllosopher's character, but the cup of kmgly fnendship had
certamly been embIttered by a pOIsonous drop
Anstotle's stay at Athens stIll depended solely on Alexander
When m the year 323 the news came of the latter's death, thIS
tIme no one would belIeve It, but when It was finally confinned
there was no holmng the natIonahst party The sole protectIOn
of the fnends of Macedon had been AntIpater, but he, too, hke
Anstotle, had lost the confidence of the kmg dunng the last
years, and was at that moment on the march through ASIa
Mmor towards Babylon He had been bIdden to the court, to
remam for the future under the kmg's eye Anstotle aVOIded
the sudden overflow of natIonalIst hate and the attacks of the
Demosthemc party by fleemg to ChaIns m Euboea The parental
property of hIS dead mother was there, and there he remamed
320 MATURITY
dunng the folloWIng months until hIS own death An affectIon
of the stomach from whIch he suffered put an end to hIS hfe
shortly afterwards, In hIS sIxty-thud year It seems that he was
aware of the approach of death, for the wIll that we possess was
drawn up In (halclS 1 He was not spared the news that the
Delphians, who had accorded hIm honours for hIS hst of Pythlan
VIctors, were revokmg them now that hIS royal patron was dead,
but even the confUSIOns of thIS tune could not pennanently
dIsturb the peace of hIs soul, speCIally sensItive though he was
to man's mIsfortunes 2.
A word about hIS pnvate hfe dunng these last years HIS
guardIan Proxenus and hIS fostennother had long been dead
He had adopted theIr son Nicanor and made hunself a father
to hIm Nicanor was an officer on Alexander's staff In the
year 324 the kmg sent hImto Greece as the bearer of an Important
message He It was who had to announce to the Hellenes
assembled at OlympIa for the natIonal festival that Alexander
claImed dIVIne honours By hIS WIll Anstotle bequeathed to
Nicanor the hand of hIS daughter PythIas, who was still a mmor,
a chIld of the long dead PythIas After the death of hIS WIfe he
had taken a certaIn Herpylhs mto hIS house, by whom he had
a son called Nlcomachus In hIS will he IS careful to prOVIde
faIthfully for them all, and also for hIS students There IS some-
thmg affectIng In the spectacle of the exIle puttIng hIS affaIrs
10 order He IS constantly calhng to mmd hIS home In Stagua
and the lonely house of hIS parents far away, the figures of hIS
foster parents, hIS only brother Anmnestus, whom he lost early,
and hIS mother, whom he could pIcture only as he had seen her
when a chud HIS deSIre IS that hIS mortal remams be not
dIVIded from the bones of hIS WIfe Pythlas, as was also her last
WISh Between the hnes of the sober practIcal dISpOSItIOns In thIS
last document we read a strange language, such as IS not to be
found In the wills of the other heads of the PenpatetIc school,
I It speaks of Chalels and StaglJ"a as bemg the only pOSSible places for
Herpyllis to live, and does not mention Athens (DlOg L V 14) It also regards
as uncertam where Anstotle IS to be buned (V 16), whIch would undoubtedly
have been dIfferent If the arrangements had been made at Athens dunng qUIet
times
2 Frg 666 10 Rose (letter to AntJpater) 'About the votmg at Delphi and
their depnvmg me of my honours my feeling IS that I am sorry but not
extremely sorry' The tone of thIS fragment IS very genume
ARISTOTLE IN ATHENS 321
WhICh are also preserved It IS the warm tone of troe humamty,
and at the same tIme the sign of an almost temfYIng gulf
betweenhIm and the persons bywhom he was surrounded These
words were wntten by a lonely man. A trace of thIs remaInS m
an extremely movIng confessIon that he makes In a letter of thIS
last penod, words that have an InImItably personal fragrance
'The more sohtary and Isolated I am, the more I have come to
love myths' WIthIn the nOIsy house there SItS an old man hVIng
entIrely to hImself, a hermIt, to use hIs own expresslOn, a self
WIthdrawn Into Itself, a person who In hIS happy moments loses
hImself m the profound wonderland of myth I HIS austere and
reserved personahty, carefully hIdden from the outSIde world
behmd the Immovable ramparts of learmng, here reveals Itself
and raIses the veIl of ItS secret As WIth most anCIent person-
ahtIes, we know Just enough of Anstotle's to reahze that we
cannot really know anythmg about It So much, however, we
do see, that thIS full hfe was not exhausted, as a superficIal eye
mIght suppose, by all ItS SCIence and research HIS 'theoretic
hfe' was rooted In a second hfe, hIdden and profoundly personal,
from whIch that Ideal denved ItS force The pIcture of Anstotle
as nothIng but a SCIentIst IS the reverse of the troth ThIS was
precIsely the age m whIch the self began to be emancIpated from
the chaInS of the objectIve SIde of hfe, when It felt more con-
SCIOuSjy than ever before that It could not be satIsfied WIth
eJl.ternal creattOn alone At thIS tune the pnvate SIde of hfe
WIthdrew from the turmOIl of actIon mto ItS qmet corner and
made Itself at home there The pnvate SIde of mdlvlduals
also awoke and locked the door agamst umnVIted guests The
absolutely objectIve form m WhICh Anstotle always presented
hImself to the outSIde world was already based on a conscIOUS
separation of personal from externalIzed actIVItIes Only a lIttle
later the rapIdly swelhng torrent of subjectIVIty burst ItS dam
I Frg 668 In Rose According to Anstotle myth and philosophy are closely
connected ThIS was a problem that he took over from Plato Metaph A 2,
g82
b
17 'A man who IS puzzled and wonders tlunks hImself Ignorant Hence
even the lover of myth IS In a sense a lover of WIsdom, for the myth IS composed
of wonders' It IS of course one thing to see elements of phIlosophy m the
love of myth, and another when the phIlosopher, as Anstotle does In thIS
fragment, mdulges hImself by returmng at the end of hIS long struggle With
the problems to the half-hIdden, IllogICal, obscure. but suggestive, language
of myth
3'Z:Z MATURITY
and swept all fixed objects away mto the rhythm of Its own
mward movement
The bust that recent research recognizes as bemg really
Anstotle's shows a very mdlVIdual head I The artist has done
his work m a somewhat conventlOnaIly refined manner, but m
spite of that It has a speakmgly VIVId personalIty As m the
famous head of Eunpldes, the thmker IS revealed by the haIr
hanging over the powerful forehead m thin and sparse locks The
arbst has not stopped, however, at such more or less typical
features m his effort to grasp hIs subject's mdIVlduahty From
the Side we are struck by the contrast between the chm Juttmg
out beneath a tIghtly closed mouth, giVing an expression of
mdomltable energy, and the cntIcal, contemplative, perfectly
level gaze of the eyes, directed towards some fixed pOlnt out-
Side the man and strangely unconscIous of the paSSlOn and move-
ment portrayed m the lower half of the face The mtenslty of
that penetratmg V1SlOn IS almost dlsqUletmg The whole coun-
tenance gives an ImpresslOn of highly cultivated mtelhgence,
but from the very first Instant thiS IS subordmate to the expres-
sion of stramed and earnest attentlOn that embraces all the
features The control of the mtellect IS eVIdent throughout
Only round the mockmg mouth there plays a shadow of suffer-
mg-the sole element of the mvoluntary that thls VIsage reveals
In concluslOn we may place here a translatlOn of hIS will It
transports us duectly mto the human atmosphere In whIch he
hved z
, All will be well, but, In case anythmg should happen, Anstotle has
made these dlsposlbons Anbpater IS to be executor m all matters and
In general, but, until Nlcanor shall arnve, Anstomenes, Tlmarchus,
Hlpparchus, DlOteles and (If he consent and If ClI"cumstances permit him)
Theophrastus shall take charge as well of Herpylhs and the chl1dren as of
the property And whE'n the gul [hIS daughter Pythlas] shall be grown
up she shall be given In marriage to Nlcanor. but If anythIng happen to
the gul (which heaven forbid and no such thing Will happen) before her
marriage, or when she IS mamed but before there are children, Nlcanor
shall have full powers, both With regard to the child and With regard to
everythIng else, to admInister In a manner worthy both of himself and
of us Nlcanor shall take charge of the girl and of the boy Nlcomachus as
1 StudDlczka, Em Bzld12ls des Ansloleles, LeipZig, 1908 (Dekanatspro-
gramm.)
Z DlOg L V II R D Hicks's translatIOn (Loeb ClaSSical Library)
ARISTOTLE IN ATHENS 323
he shall thmk fit In all that concerns them as If he were father and
brother And d anythIng should happen to NIcanor (which heaven
forbid I) either before he mames the girl, or when he has mamed her but
before there are children, any arrangements that he may make shall be
vahd And d Theophrastus IS wl.1lmg to hve With her, he shall have the
same nghts as Nlcanor Otherwise the executors m consultation With
Antlpater shall admmlster as regards the daughter and the boy as seems
to them to be best The executors and Nlcanor, m memory of me and of
the steady affection wIDch Herpylhs has borne towards me, shall take
care of her In every other respect and, d she desires to be mamed, shall
see that she be given to one not unworthy, and besides what she has
already received they shall give her a talent of silver out of the estate and
three handmaids whomsoever she shall choose beSides the maid she has
at present and tI.e man-servant Pyrrhaeus, and If she chooses to remain
at Chalcls, the lodge by the garden, If m Stagua, my father's house
WhIchever of these two houses she chooses, the executors shall furmsh
With such furniture as they thmk proper and as Herpylhs herself may
approve NIcanor shall take charge of the boy Myrmex, that he be taken
to hiS own fnends m a manner worthy of me With the property of hIs
which we received AmbraCls shall be given her freedom, and on my
daughter's mamage shall receive JOO drachmas and the maid whom she
now has ~ to Thale shall be given, m addition to the maid whom she
has and who was bought, a thousand drachmas and a maid And Simon,
in addition to the money before paid to him towards another servant,
shall either have a servant purchased for him or receive a further sum of
money And Tycho, Philo, OlymplUs, and IDS child shall 'lave their
freedom when my daughter IS marned None of the servants who WaIted
upon me shall be sold but they shall contmue to be employed, and when
they arnve at the proper age they shall have their freedom If they deserve
It My executors shall see to It when the Images which Gryllion has been
commissioned to execute are fimshed, that they be set up, namely that of
Nlcanor, that of Proxenus, which It was my mtentlon to have executed,
and that of Nlcanor's mother, also they shall set up the bust which has
been executed of Anmnestus, to be a memonal of him seemg that he dIed
childless, and shall dedicate my mother's statue to Demeter at Nemea or
wherever they thmk best And wherever they bury me, there the bones
of Pythlas shall be laid, m accordance With her own mstrucbons And to
commemorate Nlcanor's safe return, as I vowed on hIs behalf, they shall
set up m Staglra stone statues of Ide size to Zeus and Athena the SaVlOurs
CHAPTER XIII
THE ORGANIZAnON OF RESEARCH
ARISTOTLE'S second stay m Athens was the culmmatlOn of his
ndevelopment It was hIS matunty, he completed his doc-
trine and functioned as the head of a great school Since scholars
have long recognIzed a connexlOn between the extant wntmgs
and his actIvity as a lecturer, while on the other hand they have
supposed that only dunng thiS last penod was he actually
lectunng, they have naturally concluded that all the treatises
were composed dunng thiS time, and have swallowed Without
mIsgiVing the awkward consequence of theIr mference, namely
that the whole composItIon must have been crowded mto the
short space of thirteen years We cannot put the relgmng view
more bnefly than It has been expressed by Zeller, who IS stIll
reckoned an authonty on these questions 'If, then, the view
already mdlcated as to the destmatlOn of these texts for his
scholars, their connexlOn With hIS teaching, and the character
of theIr cross-references be nght, It follows that all of them must
have been composed dunng hIS final sOjourn In Athens' 1
Our mqUlry mto the sOjourn at Assos has made It unnecessary
to say more about the untenabl1Ity of thIS VIew, and It also makes
It possIble to get a clearer notion of the special SIgnificance of
Anstotle's last penod wIthm hIS whole development Now that
we have succeeded m determmmg the spmt and dIrection of hIS
work durmg the middle years, we see that the last phase, that
In Athens, was very clearly distIngUIshed from the precedmg
Bold speculatIOn and extensive empmcal Investigation, which
accordmg to the prevIOus view were both compressed Into a
narrow space m the. last penod, now become separated m time
The foundatIons of his phIlosophy were complete by the middle
I ZelIer, Anstotle and the Earlter Penpatetzes, vol I, p 155 Cf Bernays,
DIe Dlaloge des A rlstoteles, p 128 'All the survlvmg works belong to the last
penod of Anstotle's hfe. and even lf the httle that has been ascertamed about
their chronologlcal relatIons to each other were ever to be mcreased by fortu-
nate dlscovenes, the nature of thelr content excludes all hope that even the
earhest of them could ever be early enough to show us Anstotle still wOrklng
at his system. at all pomts It presents Itself to us as complete. nowhere do we
see the buIlder buI1dlng ,
THE ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH 325
penod-takmg 'phl1osophy' m the narrow sense m whIch It IS
always used by the and therefore excludmg hIS
gIgantic researches m the SCIences of nature and of man He
began his philosophIcal development by followmg Plato, he then
went on to cntIcIze hIm, but m hIS thud penod there appeared
somethmg totally new and ongInal He turned to the empmcal
mvestIgatIon of detal1s, and by consIstently carrymg out hIS
conception of form he became m thIS sphere the creator of a
new type of study For the present we WIll not ask what IS the
relatIOn between thIS lme of work and the phIlosophy of the
precedmg stage, nor how far the one completes the other and
how far It goes beyond It We must begm by establIshmg the
fact as such, namely that whl1e the central philosophIcal dIS-
cIplInes only receIved dunng thIS penod certam alteratIOns
charactenstIc of the "pmt of the new dIrectIOn that hIS work was
takmg, It was the WIde field of nature and hIstory m whIch he
was really productive The mam proof of thIS lIes m the recently
dIscovered papyn and mscnptlOns, but theIr necessary con-
sequences for the hIstory of hIS development have not yet been
drawn
An hononfic mscnptIOn dug up In the year 1895 records the
deCISIOn of the Delphians 'to praIse and crown' Anstotle and hIS
nephew CallIsthenes III gratitude for theIr havmg establIshed a
complete lIst of the wmners at the Pythlan games from the earlIest
tlmes to the present I Such a lIst had of course necessItated very
extenSIve researches among the archIves, researches whIch must
have been sIgmficant for the hIstory of culture and lIterature as
well In thIS work Anstotle was, so far as we can see, breakmg
new ground It cannot have taken place very early 10 VIew of
the co-operatIOn of hIS nephew, who had been hIS dISCIple at
Assos and at Pella (above, p 318), nor yet after 334, when CallIs-
thenes went to ASIa WIth Alexander It was probably 10 con-
neXIOn WIth hIS hIstory of the Sacred War that Callisthenes
obtamed access to the archIves of the DelphIC pnests, m order
to study the sources for the struggles and negotiations WIth the
Phoclans, whIch could not be done elsewhere That the actual
date of the LtSt of Pythtan Wtnners was about 335/4, shortly
before Callisthenes' departure for ASIa, IS shown by the mason's
I Dlttenberger, Sylloge
J
, P 485
326 MATURITY
bill for cuttmg a stone record of thIS lIst, WhICh is preserved and
bears the name of the DelphIc archon Caphis (331/0) It was a
labonous pIece of work, amountmg, by recent calculations, to a
tablet of about 60,000 words It can be none other than the hst
of Anstotle and Calhsthenes, the chisellmg of WhICh apparently
contInued through several years 1 It follows that thIS hst was
drawn up towards the end of the Macedoman penod or at the
begInmng of the Atheman
To the same penod belong Anstotle's great antIquanan
researches mto the competitions at the great DlOnysia and the
Lenaea, and hiS records of the dramatIc perfonn-
ances at Athens, whIch later formed the framework of the
chronology used by the Alexandnne hlstonans of hterature for
theIr hIstory of the claSSIcal theatre, and are still the foundation
of all we know about the date!> when the pIeces were played
These researches, fundamental for the hIstory of Greek htera-
ture, were undoubtedly suggested by Anstotle's philosophical
study of the problems of poetics The immense collection of
matenal comes after the philosophical study, for the lost dIa-
logue On Poets certamly goes back to early days Here agam
the new element IS the amphficatlOn of conceptual treatment
by means of the study of historIcal and chronolOgical detail
These researches can only have been made on the spot, m the
archives of the archon, and therefore either pnor to the death
of Plato or after 335 The analogy of Aristotle's other works of
thiS sort, however, clearly mdicates that they belong to the late
penod, and It is very ObVIOUS of it!>elf that the prelImmary
mvestigatlOns, WhICh would have been ImpOSSIble WIthout the
pemUSSlOn of the government, were made m conneXlOn With the
CiVIC reform of the theatre that Lycurgus, the maker of the new
stone theatre at Athens, undertook towards the end of the
thIrtIes 2 Just as he arranged for state copIes of all the old
1 Cf Homolle m Bulleltn de correspondance hellemque, vol XXll, p 631
Anstotle's Interest In the development of the mam hterary forms, espeCially
tragedy and comedy, whICh the pObt-Anstotehan Penpatetics extended to
further classes (as appears from Horace AI'S Poet 73, 275). IS revealed m the
fragments of hiS Vlctones preserved on an mscnpbon (C I A II 971), which
mention the first performance of or revels Unhke the Dldascahae thiS
work arose not out of Anstotle's mterest m the history of the theatre but merely
out of the Atheman state's offiCial mterest m the persons and tnbes of the
winnIng backers and producers Hence It clearly proves the conneXlOn betv.een
THE ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH 327
tragedIes and monuments to the claSSIcal masters, as well as
provldmg for regular revivals of their plays, so must he have
been the man who set up In stone at the back of the Porch,
behind the theatre of DIonysus, the record of all dramatic
competItions Since the end of the SIxth century The catalogues
of Anstotle's wntIngs also mention a work comparable to the
hst of Pythian winners on the winners at the OlympIan games,
follOWing In the path first trodden by the SOphIst Hlpplas of
Ehs Of thIS nothmg IS known Presumably It was dIrectly
suggested by the Pythlan hst, If so It must also belong to the
second stay In Athens
It can be shown, as we have prevIOusly remarked, that the
same conclusIOn IS probably true also of that tremendous under-
taking, the collectIOn of IS8 constItutIOns The sole tIme when
the philosopher could command the external aIds necessary for
such an extensive work, whIch must have employed a very large
number of researchers, was whl1e he was head of a great school
wIthin whIch he could train feHow-workers SUIted to hIS purpose
The sOJourn at the court of Pella IS not a conceIvable alternatIve,
for, whl1e he had finanCIal support there, he could not have
found the necessary aSSIstants The Constttutwn of Athens,
whIch was recovered at the beginning of the mnetIes and fonns
the first book of the collectIOn, coming from Anstotle's own pen,
gives In the speCIally COpIOUS matenal of AttIc hIStOry an example
of the method to be adopted throughout the whole work The
temporal references show that It was not pubhshed before 32 9/8 1
The work on the other constItutIOns, of which, thanks to
these and Lycurgus' CIVIC reform of the theatre On the DJdascahae
see Jachmann De AnstotelJs DJdascal"s (DissertatIOn) Gottmg-en, 1909
I .For some time after the dIscovery of the ConstdutlOn of Athens much
unnecessary dust was raised about Its date as well as about Its genuineness
Torr detected the truth at once In hiS 'Date of the Constitution of Athens'
(A thenaeum No 3302, cf Clasncal Rel1Jew, vol v, 3, P 119) The date of com-
pOSitIOn IS hmlted In the backward direction by the mention of the archon
Cephlsophon (329/8), and forwards by the mentIOn In chapter 46 of the build-
Ing of triremes and quadnremes but not of qumqueremes, which, however, are
spoken of m C I A II 809 d 90 as eXlstmg- and are there taken over from the
prevIous offiCial year It follows from thiS InscnptlOn that the deCISion to budd
of which Anstotle IS unaware, must have been taken at the
latest In 326 Hence the ConstdutJon of Athens was wntten between 329/8 and
327/6 See Wl1amowltz, Anstoteles und Athen, vol I, p 2lI, n 43 I pass over
the completely mistaken attempts to put the work back mto the fifties
328 MATURITY
unusually numerous fragments, we stIll possess a vanegated
pIcture, cannot therefore have been done before Anstotle's last
years, If, mdeed, It was completed at all dunng hIS hfe
WIth thIS colossal compIlatIOn, the result of careful and
detaIled work based on local source-matenal, Anstotle reached
hIS pomt of greatest dIstance from the phIlosophy of Plato The
mdividual IS now almost an end In Itself The same character
appears still more clearly In the purely lIterary and philological
Problems, the number of the books of whIch, as col-
lected by the edItors, was probably SIX, they lead up to Alex-
andnan mterpretatIon and cntlclsm, and together With the
foundatIOn of poetIcs, of the chronology of lIterature, and of the
study of the personahty of poets, they have made Anstotle
the creator of philology, whIch hIS pUpIl'S pupil, Demetnus of
Phalerum, afterwards carned over to Alexandna We can prove
that the l:.IKaJwjJCXTa Tr6AEWV or Pleas of the also belongs to
thIS late penod (and thus make It faIrly probable that the Bar-
banan (ustoms does so too) by means of a fragment mentIomng
the expedItIon of Alexander of Molossus to southern Italy, where
he met hIS death Aeschmes In hIS speech on the crown refers
to thIS death as beIng a very recent event, and hence It falls at
the end of the thIrtIes, 330 beIng the year usually assIgned I
The above-mentIOned works represent a sCIentIfic type of
exact research Into the real world that was somethIng absolutely
new and pIOneer m the Greek world of the tIme Even Demo-
cntus cannot be compared WIth It Freed from the Platomc way
of thInkIng, Anstotle hereWith became the hero of the hne of
umversal InqUIrers that began WIth the Alexandnne phIlology
of Callimachus and Anstarchus and has perpetuated Itself every
few centunes SInce the Renascence In Isolated outstandmg
figures such as Scahger He far surpasses all hIS successors, how-
ever, m the ongInahty of method that enabled hIm to fore-
shadow the SCIence of future mIllenma-the method of applyIng
the pnnciple of fonn to the detaIls of reahty, the IdeCl of the
umformlty of nature-and In the compleXIty of gemus by whIch
I Anst frg 614 m Rose Aesch Ctes 242 The expeditIOn of Alexander
the Molosslan IS mentioned In the Pleas as a hlstoncal example, and IS obViously
already past The Customs, With Its ethnological, antIquanan, and mytho-
logical mterest, should belong to the same penod of study It IS the counter-
part of the ConsMutzrms
THE ORGANIZAnON OF RESEARCH 329
he spanned not merely the history and theory of culture but also
the opposite hemisphere of natural sCience
In natural SCience, agam, the work of his last penod reveals
him as the master not so much of phl1osophy as of 'lustory' m
the Greek sense of the word, which mcludes the detaIled study
of nature and natural lIfe as well as the knowledge of human
events We have been accustomed of old to take his sCientific
works as all of a piece, and to put the Hlstory of Ammals, and
the books on the Parts and on the Generatlon of Ammals, mto
the same senes as the Physlcs, the work On the Heavens, and
that On Commg-to-be and Passmg-away We should certamly
hesitate, however, to assert that the Problems were early, smce
the collectIOn as we have 1t IS not Identical With Anstotle's at
all, but m part the property of his disciples, who were the
1mmedlate contmuators of the detailed research maugurated
10 the Penpatos ThiS makes 1t very probable that even the
genumely AnstotelIan problems belong to the late penod, as IS
mdicated also by the richness of their matenal and the vanety
of their special mterests It IS really perfectly obvIOUS m Itself
that the celestial mechamcs of the work On the Heavens, together
With the specula.tIve treatment of the fundamental conceptions
of 'phYSICS', were AcademiC m ongm, as we have shown them
to be, whereas thiS absorption m detaIls, most of them utterly
unrelated to phIlosophy, does not fit the penod of speculatIon
But we must farther still The Hlstory of Ammals Itself
belongs m mtellectual structure not to the conceptual type
exemplIfied by the PhYSlCS but to the same level as the collec-
tIon of constItutIOns As a collectIOn of material ItS relation to
the books on the Parts and on the Generatlon of Ammals, which
work upon It and mqUlre mto the reasons of the phenomena that
It contams, IS exactly the same as that of the collectIOn of
constitutIOns to the late, empmcal books of the PohtlCS It
prOVIdes them With a substratum Hence It IS With the Hlstory
of Ammals Just as With the Problems, thiS work shows the clearest
traces of d1fferent authors, the last books are by younger
members of the school, who appear as contInumg, completmg,
and even correcting and cnhc1zmg, the work of the master
Probably the task was organIZed Just lIke that of collectmg the
constItutiOns, the work bemg dlstnbuted among vanous persons
330 MATURITY
nght from the start What part Anstotle hImself took m It can
hardly be detennmed wIth certamty now The descnptIon of
the vegetable world, whIch IS very closely connected wIth that
of the ammal, was assIgned to Theophrastus, who carned It
through on hIS own It can scarcely be true, as has sometimes
been asserted, that the of would be conceIvable
apart from the dlscovenes made by Alexander's expedItIon
The mfonnatIOn It contams about the habIts of ammals a.t tha.t
time p,nknown m Greece, such as elephants, presupposes the
expenences of the march to IndIa, and there are certamly
numerous other passages where the mfluence of thIS enonnous
extensIOn of Greek knowledge IS stIll concealed from us How
great was the profit of the ASIatic expedItIons to Theophrastus'
botany IS made clear m Bretzl's admIrable though not final
work J Thus all mdlcatIons pomt to a late date for the ongm of
the phJ.1osopher's zoolOgIcal works We must not project thIS
whole orgamzatIon of SpeCIalIzed research backwards mto the
Academy, that would gIve a completely Illusory pIcture It has
been shown above that the Resemblances of SpeUSIPl--US, though
mamly concerned WIth plants, dId not contam botamcal studIes
m the manner of Theophrastus but matenal for the method of
dIVISIOn by genus and specIes as recommended by Plato m hIS
later days m the and the Statesman and as actually
practised m the Academy merely for the sake of the lOgIC of
classIficatIon and not out of any mterest m particular thmgs and
the condItIons of theIr lIves 2 We can clearly detect, In Anstotle's
I M Bretzl, BotanlSche Forschungen des Ale%anderzugs, LeipZIg, 1903
In the first book On the Parts of Animals, which contams a general metho-
dologlcalmtroductIon, the slgIUficance of which for the aim of ArIstotle's latest
researches must be evaluated hereafter, he contrasts hiS pomt of view In detail
(cc 2-4) With the AcademIC method of diVISIon The prInCIple of dIchotomy
as put forward by Plato 10 the Sophist and the Statesman and afterwards applIed
to particular natural kInds by hiS especIally SpeuslppuS, IS there
sharply critiCized both from the standpomt of logiC and also as bemg useless ID
the ConstructIOn of a real zoology, If one is to aVOId teanng related species
asunder It IS true that even ID the early TOPiCS (VI 6 144
b
32) he CritiCizes
certam superfiCialIties of AcadeDllc diVISion from the logical pOInt of VIew, but
thiS sort of contrad,ctIon had alrea.dy ansen w1thm the AcadeIDlc Circle 1tsell,
as he tells us there The cntic1sm m the Parts of Ammals and at other places ID
the zoological works IS totally mdependent of th,S It arose out of h,S own long-
contmued posItive concern With the actual ammal kIngdom, and 1S the upshot
of hiS elIorts to wrest a new claSSification from the facts themselves The
IOcornpleteness of thiS 'system', which has often led to the demal of itS
THE ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH 331
H'story of Ammals and Theophrastus' H'story of Plants, the
mfluence of the schemahsm of thIs method, but to suppose that
Its real achIevement lay m the classIficatIon of ammals and
plants would be wrong It was far less Important m the develop-
ment of natural SCIence than the fact that here for the first tune
the observatIon and descnptlOn of the mdlvldual and ItS hfe-
hIstory was bemg taken absolutely senously It IS Just here that
the achIevement of Anstotle and hIS school was so vast, m spIte
of several blunders whIch, In VIew of the multIplICIty and vanous
worth of the sources he had to use, were mevltable while the
method was m ItS mfancy The Meteorology will also belong to
thIS penod as a whole I The book on the cause of the Nile's
floods, the genumeness of which can no longer be doubted, IS a
particularly mterestmg case of a speCIal problem m thIS sphere
We can almost see Anstotle at work dunng thiS penod when he
commumcates to hIS fellow-workers the results of the latest
ObserYatlOns from the upper valley, and ends hiS account wIth
the exclamatIOn 'The Nile floods are no longer a problem, for It
has actually been observed that rams are the cause of the
swellmg '2
Very closely connected with the studIes of orgamc nature and
hvmg thmgs IS the set of mqumes that Anstotle undertakes m
hIS work On the Soul and m the group of anthropologIcal and
phySIOlogICal monographs attached thereto The mere fact that
he attaches to psychology the doctnnes of perceptIon and colour,
of memory and recall, of sleep and wakmg, of dreams, of breath-
mg, of the mohon of hvmg thmgs, of longevIty, of youth and age,
of hfe and death, reveals a conSIstently phySIOlogIcal attItude,
the startmg-pomt of thIS senes of studIes IS necessanly psycho-
logy, because the soul IS here conceIved as the pnnclple of lIfe,
eXistence, IS due to ItS late appearance In Anstotle's development as a tlunker
See Jurgen Bona Meyer, Ansloleles' T.erkunde, E.n Be.trag ZUr Geschlchle der
Zoo!ogu, Phys.olog,e und aUen Ph,losophu (Berlln, 1855). pp 53 and 70 ff
I See above, pp 307-8
Z I am conVinced by Partsch's excellent article 'Des Anstoteles Buch uber
das Stelgen des Nil', Abhandlungen der sachs,schen Ge>;ellschaft der W,ssen-
schaften (phllo50plllSCh-hlstonsche Klasse). vol XXVll, p 553, LeipZIg, 1910 The
ongmal form of the conclUSIOU trauslated In the text IS preserved by Phobus
(OIlKtTl t,,,'IV yl!tp 'i'avEpC>S urr,;,v see Partsch, p 574).
and IS of Anstotle, cf Metaph H 6, 1045' 24 'the question Will
no longer be thought a dIfficulty'
332 MATURITY
WhICh IS thereafter pursued through all ItS charactenshc mam-
festahons All sorts of traces Indicate that the senes only
gradually attaIned to Its present completeness I The con)unc-
hon of these more general phySlOloglcal prehmmanes with the
zoological works to fonn a comprehensive pIcture of the orgamc
world, as we now have It, gIves us an artIshc pedagOgIcal struc-
ture which did not appear m thIS form until the last penod
The question IS how far the psychology Itself shares m the general
development that we have already sketched, and whether we can
discover any data for the constructlOn of a chronology of thiS
work and of the so-called Parva Naturaha
In thiS conneXlOD the third book On the Soul, which contams
the doctnne of Nus, stands out as peculIarly Platomc and not
very sClenhfic ThIS doctnne IS an old and permanent element
of Anstotle's phIlosophy, one of the maIn roots of hiS meta-
phySICS The treatment of It In thiS work goes deeply mto
metaphySICS On and around It the psycho-phySical theory of
the soul was subsequently constructed, as It appears, without,
however, bndgmg the gulf between the two parts whose Intel-
lectual hentages were so dIfferent It mIght be objected that
thIS twofold character pervades Anstotle's whole phIlosophy
and must have been Inherent m It from the begmmng Agamst
thiS VIew It must be saId that the doctnne of Nus \\-as a tradI-
honal element Inhented from Plato, who, however, had no
psycho-phySICS or only shght begmmngs of one, and that, while
we find a developed theory of Nus even In the earlIest works of
Anstotle of whIch we can have exact kno\\-ledge, as IS conSIstent
WIth the general speculatIve tendency of hIS first Platomzmg
phIlosophy, we do not find any trace of empmcal psychology In
those works The latter pursUlt IS entuely hIS own mventlOn
Hence It IS certamly not an aCCIdent that hIS ethICS, for example,
IS bUllt on a very pnmltIve theory of the soul, namely the
dlvlslOn of It mto a ratIonal and an IrratIonal part ThIS vener-
able doctnne, appeanng m Anstotle as early as the Protrepttcus,
IS SImply Plato's For practIcal reasons he left It undIsturbed
m later days, although hIS psychology had advanced a long way
III the meantime and he no longer recogmzed parts of the soul
I See BrandiS Gnechlsch-riimlsche Phllosop}ne. vol 11 b 2, pp II92 if and
my article 'Das Pneuma 1m LykelOu', Hermes, vol XIVlll, P 42
THE ORGANIZAnON OF RESEARCH 333
at all In ethIcs It remamed convement to work wIth the old
Ideas, and no errors followed senous enough to vItiate the
ethIcal result, Plato's old system was mgramed m the founda-
tions of hIs ethIcs for good and all Nevertheless he thmks It
necessary to apologIze for thus sImphfymg hIS problem I The
structure of hIs ethIcs would probably have been dIfferent 1,
when ItS foundatiOns were bemg laId, hIs psychology had already
reached the level at whIch we know It ThIS contrast of levels
can still be pomted out in defimte detaIls The way m whIch the
Eudemus develops Plato's theory of RecollectiOn, and the behef
in personal Immortahty as we find It there and even m the
dIalogue On Phtlosophy (that IS, even at the begmmng of
the mIddle penod), are incompatIble wIth the psycho-physIcs of
the work On the Soul as It has come down to us They presuppose
~ persIstence after death of precIsely that part of human
conSCIOusness whIch accordmg to the phIlosopher's later VIew
IS bound up wIth the body 2 Moreover, we have to recogmze
that the ethIcs of the mIddle penod, wIth ItS theolOgIcal notiOn
of claIrvoyance and of prophecy, IS still on the same level as the
dIalogue On Phtlosophy, whereas the work On the Interpretatwn
oj Dreams, whIch belongs to the senes of phySIOlOgIcal mqmnes
attached to the books On the Soul, represents a complete break
With thIS PlatoTIlzing VIew The state of mmd here IS completely
non-ethIcal and purely sCIentIfic, and more Important than the
fact that Anstotle rejects hIS previOUS VIew IS the method on the
basIs of whIch he rejects It He even introduces consIderatiOns
drawn from the psychology of ammals, a clear SIgn of the changed
spmt of thIS new and completely unmystIcal attItude 3 Now the
1 In the Eudemtan Ethtcs An5totle IS stlll confidently baSing hiS doctnne
of virtue on the old schematIC diVISIOn of the soul Into two parts that share
In reason' (II 1, 1219b 28) Just as he does In the Protrepttcus, whIch he IS here
follOWing word for word (see above, p 249) On the othu hand, the corre-
sponding passage of the later version (Eth Ntc I 13, ] 102 23 II) apolo-
getically mSlsts that the statesman and the practical man, 10 order to Judge
questlons of vIrtue correctly, need a mInimum (only that I) of psychologIcal
knowledge 'To refine further IS perhaps more labonous than the matters In
hand demand Moreover, some pomts concerning vIrtue are suffiCIently
explained In the exotenc works, and they should be consulted' Then comes
the doctnne, tradltlonal at thIS POint, of the rational and the IITabonal parts
of the soul, but WIth a short reference to the problemabc nature of the concep-
tlon of 'parts of the soul' Accordmgly tills phrase IS purposely aVOIded 10 what
follows Z See above, PP 50 II
3 In thiS e,<tremely interesting essay Anstotle tnes to gIve a natural explanatJon
..
334 MATURITY
new spmt IS sovereIgn throughout the first two classIcal books
of the psychology, wIth theIr theory of sense-perceptIOn and the
accompanyIng VIew of the soul as the entelechy of the orgamc
body The doctnne of Nus could never have gIven nse to thIS
Equally epoch-makIng are the researches In the short phySIO-
lOgical works It IS not a bold Inference, but SImply an eVIdent
fact, that they belong to the same late stage of development as
the work On the I nterpretatwn of Dreams, whIch IS Inserted among
them as a monograph on a problem mhented from Plato I In
content, In method, In date, and m general outlook, thiS whole
complex of researches belongs WIth the great works on the parts
and generatIOn of hVIng thIngs Even If, therefore, the present
verSIOn of the thIrd book On the Soul IS umform and con-
temporary WIth the other two and the Parva Naturalla (on
which I hazard no OpInIOn, because the matenals for a deCISIon
are lackmg), that cannot alter the fact that the Ideas about Nus
are earlIer, whIle the method and the executIOn of the rest IS
later and belongs to another stage of development-In fact, to
another dImenSIOn of thought z
Another and no less Important creatIon of Anstotle's later
days was the foundatIon of the hIStory of philosophy and the
SCIences, a great collective work, encyclopaediC In dImenSIOns yet
umform In outlook, whose monumental structure first made
of the phenomenon of dream-dlvmatIon by means of psycho-physIOlogy He
does not deny that we sometImes have prevIsIon of the future m the dream-
state, but he does now deny that thIS prevIsIon proceeds from metaphYSIcal
regIOns Agamst the behef m dreams sent by a god there IS the fact that neIther
wIse nor good men are accustomed to have such dreams, but often precIsely
morally mfenor persons who happen to be phySIcally dIsposed to them, and
also the fact that ammals too have dreams (a reference to the HIstory oj
AnImals, IV 10, 536b 28) He shows the connexlOn between what we dream
and the subconscIOus or conscIOus ImpressIons of the wakmg hfe and
In detail the causes of the dIstortIOn of Images 1D dreams For dlvmatlOn m
the dIalogue On PhIlosophy see above, pp 162 ff, and m the ongmal ethiC'>
above, pp 240-241
I It IS not Illummatmg to that Anstotle could have adopted the
standpOInt of SCIentIfic psychology In other matters at a tIme when he was stIll
chenshmg the mystIcal vIew of dIVInatIon, and that Just on thIS one pomt
conservatIve Platomsm was stIll causmg hIm to compromIse On the contrary,
hiS change of VIew about dIVInatIon was SImply the logical expression of a
change m hIS whole manner of regardmg psychIC hfe
1 Although the PaJ'va NatuJ'al1a deal only WIth the general phySIOlOgIcal
condItions of hfe, and do not enter Into detaIl., theIr frequent mentIon of prm-
clples of classmcatlOn usual m the zoologIcal works shows clearly that they are
based on these emplncally ascertaIned 'dIVISIons'
THE ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH 335
vlSlble to sense that hvmg umty of knowledge whIch the Pen-
patos embodIed On a VIew of the world-process such as Ans-
totle's the hIstOry of the gradual advance of human knowledge
IS the grand final theme of learnIng WIth It SCIence attaInS the
stage of an hlstoncal understandIng of the Inner teleologIcal law
of Its own beIng, Just as It mIght that of a plant or an ammal
It IS astoundIng how he executed thIS task It far exceeded the
powers of a smgle person, and had to be dIvIded among several
workers, hke the descnptIon of polItIcal forms or that of orgamc
nature Theophrastus was allotted the hIstOry of the phySIcal
and-m the modem sense-metaphySIcal systems, WhICh he
portrayed m eIghteen books In dISCUSSIng the development
of those two modes of thought, Inseparably connected In anCIent
tImes, he gave d. systematIc arrangement to all the problems
from Thales and the' phySIOlOgists' down to hIS own age Enough
fragments of the work still eXIst, most of them recovered from
the late doxographers, to enable us to estImate the compre-
henSIVe nature of the comparatIve hIStOry that he produced It
could not have been carrIed out WIthout the aId of Anstotle's
lIbrary, the first conSIderable collectIon of books that we know
of on European soIl, and the documentary trustworthmess of
the personal researches on whIch It rested made It antIqUIty's
last word on the subject In later tImes It was frequently con-
tmued and carrIed down to the then present, selectIons were
chosen from It, ItS contents were compressed mto the most
vahous forms, until In late antIqUIty, dIluted to the utmost and
rendered as far as pOSSIble mechamcal, It was made mto an
Introductory textbook for begmners BeSIdes the of the
there was Eudemus' hIStOry of anthmetIc, geometry,
and astronomy, and presumably also hIS hIStOry lilf theology
The former m partIcular was an authontatIve work throughout
antIqUIty, and most of the later statements about the hIStOry
of anCIent mathematIcs go back to It There was also a hIStOry
of medlcme, WhICh Menon was commIssIOned to wnte, an extract
from It has recently been restored to us on a newly dIscovered
papyrus ThIS whole work on the hIStOry of knowledge can have
ansen only m that late penod when the first attempts at a
hIstory of phIlosophy, as we find themm the early M A,
were contInued on the grand scale of the and when
336 MATURITY
specialtzed mqUInes 10 the field of orgamc nature had estabhshed
commumcatIOn wIth the sphere of medICine
Under the leadershIp of Theophrastus the Penpatetic school
further cultivated Its relatIOns With the more famous of the con-
temporary schools of medicme, such as tha.t at CnIdus, and later
on that at Alexandna Dynastic confirmation was gIVen to these
relations by the mamage of Anstotle's daughter Pythias to
Metrodorus, a representative of the Cmdlan school, who taught
at Athens-no doubt In the Lyceum-where the great phySICIan
Erasistratus was hIS student It can be shown that m hIS wnt-
mg Anstotle makes constant use of medIcal lIterature, not
merely of the HIppocratIc kmd that flounshed In Cos, but even
more of the Pneumatic phySICIans of the SICIlIan school (Phlhs-
tlOn, DIOdes), and thIS proves that these studIes were pursued
In the Lyceum In conneXIOn WIth phYSIOlogy and anthropology
Then, too, was collected the pedagogIcal matenal treated tn the
medical work Dtssectwns, to whIch ArIstotle often refers In the
zoolOgIcal wntIngs ThIS book was an Illustrated, atlas-lIke
work, for figures and drawmgs are expressly mentIOned The
fact that such eqUIpment was needed for object-lessons shows
that there were regular courses of lectures In anatomy and
phYSIOlogy, WhICh- was not so In Plato's Academy Plato's
medIcal studIes In the Tzmaeus and hIS relatIOns WIth PhIhstion
were Isolated events Here agaIn the real orgamzer, the man
who made empIrIcal InvestigatIOn an end m Itself, was ArIstotle
To us moderns the SCIentific study of mInutiae IS no longer
unfamiliar We thmk of It as the frUItful depth of expenence
from whIch alone genume knowledge of reahty flows It needs
a hvely histoncal sense, such as IS not often found, to realIze
VIVIdly at thIS bme of day how strange and repellent thIS mode
of procedure was to the average Greek of the fourth century,
and what a revolutIOnary InnOvatIOn Anstotle was makIng
SCIentIfic thought had to forge step by step the methods that
to-day are Its securest posseSSIOn and most commonplace tool
The techmque of the order!y observatIon of particulars, methodI-
cally pursued, was learnt from the exact modem medJcme of the
end of the fifth century, and m the fourth century from the
astronomy of the onentals WIth theIr century-long catalogues
and records Earher students of the phIlosophy of nature had
THE ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH 337
not gone beyond the dIvmatory explanation of Isolated strik-
mg phenomena What the Academy had added was, as has been
saId, not the collectIon and descnptIon of partIculars, but the
logIcal classIficatIon of unlversal genera and speCIes Plato
m hIS later years had, of course, mSIstently demanded that we
should not stop half-way m our classIficatIOns, but carryon the
dlvlSlons untIl we came to the mdlvlSlble, for the sake of the
exhaustIve completeness that alone could lend certainty to
the method, but he was refemng only to the specIes, not to the
sensIble appearances HIS mdivisible stIll remaIned a umversal
The first person to Inveshgate the sensIble as the vehIcle of the
unlversal rimmattered form') was Anstotle ThIs aIm was a
new one even III companson WIth the empmclsm of the older
medICIne and astronomy.
He needed unspeakable labour and patience to lead hIS hearers
mto the new paths It cost hIm many efforts of persuaSIOn and
many bItmg repnmands to teach the young men, who were
accustomed to the abstract play of IdeCis m Attic verbal duel-
hng, and understood by a hberal educatIOn the fonnal capacIty
to handle pohtIcal que"tIOns WIth the aid of rhetonc and logIC,
or at best perhaps the knowledge of 'hIgher thmgs'
to teach them to devote themselves to the mspectIon of msects
and earth-worms, or to examIne the entraIls of dIssected ammals
WIthout aesthehc repugnance In the mtroductIOn to hIS work
On the Parts of Ammals he mltIates hIS hearers mto thIs kmd
of study WIth an acute exposItIon of the method, and depIcts
m an ImpreSSIve manner hIS new JOY m the art of nature and m
the newly dIscovered world of secret orderhness I We repro-
duce hIS words here m order that they may receIve the attentIOn
due to them m the hIstory of the mmd as Anstotle's profeSSIOn
of hIS new Ideal of studymg the mdlvldual He speaks of the
very dIfferent attractIOns of hIgh speculatIon m the Platonlc
sense and of the empmcism recommended by hImself He tnes
to be faIr to both, but we can feel on wmch SIde lay, If not hIS
heart. at any rate hIS SCIentIfic mterest, when he was trymg to
Impress these Ideas on hIS dISCIples They were wntten at a
tIme when the metaphySIcal and conceptual attItude of hIS
early decades, though shll formmg the construchve framework
I Part An I 5, 644
b
22
MATURITY
VIeW, no longer held any place In hIS creatIve
33
8
of hIs general
activIty
Of thmgs constituted by nature some are ungenerated, Impenshable,
and eternal, whl1e others are subject to generation and decay. The
former are excellent beyond compare and divine, but less accessible to
knowledge The eVIdence that mIght throw hght on them, and on the
problems whIch we long to solve respectmg them, IS furmshed butscanttly
by sensation, whereas respectmg penshable plants and ammals we have
abundant mformatlon, hvmg as we do 10 thelI' midst, and ample data
may be collected concernmg all their vanous kmds, 1 only we are wlllmg
to take suffiCIent palOs Both departments, however, have theIr speCial
charm The scanty conceptions to whIch we can attam of celestial thmgs
glVe us, from theIr excellence, more pleasure than all our knowledge of
the world 10 whIch we bve, Just as a half ghmpse of persons that we love
IS more dehghtful than a leIsurely view of other thmgs, whatever their
number and dImenSIOns On the other hand, 10 certitude and m com-
pleteness our knowledge of terrestnal thmgs has the advantage More-
over, theIr greater nearness and affimty to us balances somewhat the
loftIer mtt'rest of the heavenly thmgs that are the objects of the hIgher
phIlosophy Havmg already treated of the celestial world, as far as
our conjectures could reach, we proceed to treat Qf ammals, Without
omlttmg, to the best of our ability, any member of the kmgdom, however
Ignoble For If some ha.ve no graces to charm the sense, yet even these,
by dlsclosmg to mtellectual perception the artistic Spirit that deSigned
them, gIve Immense pleasure to all who can trace lmks of causation, and
are mchned to phIlosophy Indeed, It would be strange If mImiC repre-
sentatIOns of them were attractIve, because they dISClose the mlmebc
slull of the pamter or sculptor, and the ongmal realIties themselves were
not more mterestmg, to all at any rate who have eyes to discern the
reasons that determmed therr formation We therefore must not reCOIl
WIth chtldlsh aversIOn from the exammatlon of the humbler ammals
Every realm of nature IS marvellous and as Herachtus, when the
strangers who came to VISIt him found hIm warmmg hImself at the
furnace m the kItchen and heSitated to go 10, IS reported to have bidden
them not to be afraId to enter, as even m that kItchen dlvmltles were
present, so we should venture on the study of every kmd of ammal
WlthOut distaste, for each and all WIll reveal to us somethmg natural and
somethmg beauttful Absence of haphazard and condUCIveness of every-
thmg to an end are to be found 10 Nature's works 10 the hIghest degree,
and the resultant end of her generations and combmatlons IS a form of
the beautiful
If any person thmks the exammatIon of the rest of the ammal kmg-
dom an unworthy task, he must hold 10 hke disesteem the study of man
For no one can look at the pnmordla of the human frame-blood, flesh,
bones, vessels, and the hke-wlthout much repugnance Moreover, when
anyone of the parts or structures, be It whIch It may, IS under dISCUSSIon,
It must not be supposed that It IS Its matenal composItion to WhICh
attention IS bemg directed or whIch IS the object of the diSCUSSIon, but
THE ORGANIZAnON OF RESEARCH 339
the relation of such part to the total form 5urularIy, the true
obJect of arclutecture IS not bncks, mortar, or timber. but the house. and
so the pnnclple obJect of natural philosophy IS not the matenal elements.
but theIr compOSItion, and the totahty of the form, mdependently of
whIch they have no eXIstence'
The words read hke a programme for research and Instruc-
tIon In the PenpatetIc school They explaIn to us the spmt
that reIgns In the works of Anstotle's followers, though these
men placed metaphySICS even more In the background than he
does here, untIl It was expressly bamshed by Strato In the second
generatIOn The later development of the school can In fact
be understood only through the almost exclUSIvely empmcal
Interest here expressed by Anstotle m hIS old age, Just as Plato's
dISCIples attached themselves wholly to hIS later VIews Ans-
totle IS not, of course, propOSIng the complete eXCISIOn of meta-
phYSICS and celestIal phySICS On the contrary, thIS very passage
shows that the lectures on the ammal world were preceded by
some In that sphere It IS ImpossIble, however, to mIstake the
complete change In hIS mood and the dIsplacement of hIS Inner
centre of graVIty as compared WIth the tIme when he thought
of hImself pnmanly as the reVIver of Plato's supersenslble
phIlosophy and the pIOneer of a new speculatIve knowledge of
God In hIS work on metaphySICS thIS study appears, In the true
Platomc fashIOn, as the only exact SCIence because the only one
based on pure Nus. and though he called It, when he was wntIng
the ongInal metaphYSICS, a SCIence vouchsafed only to dlvme
knowledge, he was at the same tIme expressIng rus proud
confidence that reason cannot be too hIghly thought of by man,
and that nothmg m reahty IS hIdden from ItS power How
dIfferent sounds the language of hIS old age' He no longer speaks
of the world of appearances as more knowable to us but to be
contrasted WIth the essence of reahty, whIch IS more knowable
naturally He JustIfies metaphYSICS now by means of the ever-
lastmg longmg of the human heart to penetrate the mystenes
of the Impenshable and mVlSlble world, and IS ready to content
hImself WIth the merest corner of that hIdden truth, whtle the
precedence as real SCIence (1') T;;S VrrepoXf]) IS nowclearly
aSSIgned to empIrIcal research ThIS IS the praIse of devotIOn
to the small. the confeSSIOn of alleglance to the study that
340 MATURITY
fulfils Its hIghest achIevements m the of the
collectIon of the hIstory of the theatre, and the
chromcle of the Pythlan competItIons
The spIrItual bond between the work and purpose of these
years and the reformed Platomsm of the fortIes IS hIS pecuhar
conceptIon of 'Immattered form', which m the passage quoted
he sets up as the real aIm of the study of nature ThIS Idea, from
bemg the obJect of an ontologIcal theory of knowledge, came
year by year to be rather a hvmg mstrument of the most vaned
researches It now appears, therefore, not wIth the slgmficance
of a metaphysIcal pnncIple-takmg 'metaphysical' not In our
sense but m Anstotle's-but as the dIrect obJect of conceptually
mterpreted expenence In the same way the notion of purpose,
whIch IS connected wIth It, IS not m Itself a metaphysIcal con-
ceptIon for Anstotle, but IS SImply read off from expenence The
sphere of applIcabIlIty of the notIon of form, therefore, extends
far beyond the Immanent essences of hiS metaphysIcs, the latter
bemg restncted, properly speakmg, to the entelechles of natural
thmgs He explams It In the passage quoted by means of the
analogy of artIstIc form Through thIS analogy hIS conceptIOn
of form can be applIed to the structures of human culture, WhICh
are partly of a purely artIstIc kmd, and partly on the borderlIne
between conscIOUS spmtual creahon and the spontaneous work
of nature, of the latter kmd are the state and all the forms of
human socIety and manners of lIfe By hIS nahan of form he
bndges the contrast between pure thought and the empmcal
study of mdIvIduals, between nature and art HIS empIrICISm
IS not a mechamcal amaSSIng of dead matenal, but the morpho-
logIcal artIculatIOn of realIty He orgamzes and overcomes the
mamfold (6:'rrElpoV) of appearances, whIch Plato SImply passes
over, by ascendmg from the smallest and most mSIgmficant
traces of orgamc form and order to more comprehenSIve umtIes
Thus he builds up out of expenence the total pIcture of a world
whose ultImate effiCIent and final cause IS once more a hIghest
form, the form of all forms, creahve thought Accordmg to
Plato the spmtuahzatIOn of man's whole life could be attamed
only by turmng away the mmd from appearances to the arche-
type, accordmg to Anstotle It IS III the end IdentIcal WIth the
specIalIzatIon of knowledge as here understood ThIS IS because
THE ORGANIZATION OF RESEARCH 341
every new discovery of a form, be It that of the lowest msect
or amphibian or of the tlmest part of human art or speech, 15
a step onward m the task of makmg mmd supreme over matter
and thus 'glYmg meamng to reahty' There IS nothmg m nature,
even the most worthless and contemptible, that does not con-
tam somethmg wonderful wlthm Itself, and he whose eye with
glad astomshment discovers It IS akm to the spmt of Anstotle
CHAPTER XIV
THE REVISION OF THE THEORY OF THE PRIME
MOVER
I
N Anstotle's last perIOd there was another pregnant altera-
tIon In hIS theology, ObvlOusly made m conneXIOn WIth the
final reVISIOn of the M On thIs occaSIon the oldest
part of thIS study, and that In whIch hIS Platomc hentage most
persIstently asserted Itself, I namely the theory of the unmoved
mover and of ItS relatIOn to the celestial revolutIOns, undenvent
a change As has been shown,z the actual elaboratIOn of the
theologIcal portIOn was never completed m the final verSIOn,
but there remains a conSIderable passage that was mtended to
form part of It, and was subsequently mserted by the edItors
mto Book A, to whIch m subject It belongs
From ItS apparent lack of all external relatIon to the rest
Bomtz mferred that Book A IS not the mtended conclUSIOn of
the Metaphystcs but an mdependent treatIse, and must be
aSSIgned to an earlIer date J We have confirmed thIS mference
m another way by revealmg the conneXIOn of Book A WIth the
earlIest verSIOn of the M and the form there gIven to
the doctnne 4 Agamst thIS early dating, however, there stands
the mentIon of Eudoxus' pupil Callippus m chapter 8 5 LIttle
as we know about thIS famous a5tronomer and hiS dates, It IS
extremely unprobable that he met Anstotle before the latter's
second stay In Athens The only fixed pomt In hIS chronology
IS the great reform of the AttIC calendar, whIch he was inVIted
to undertake by the Atheman government 6 The new era, WhICh
I Above, pp I.p ff
Z Above, p 223
J BoD.ltz, Comm In A,. Metaph ,p 25 Cf above, p 219
Above, pp 219 ff
As was pomted out by Apelt 1D Ills reVIew of my 'Ent Metaph Anst',
Berltner ph.lolog.sche lVochenschnft, 191'Z, c 1590
6 HIS date IS bnefly discussed by Boeckh m hiS VIerJllhnge SonnenkreI5e d
All, pISS. WhiCh, however, does not make use of the passages In the Meta-
PhYSICS For hiS era see the article In Pauly-Wlssowa under the headmg
'Kalhppische Penode' , It IS a fault that there IS no article on Callippus lllmself
In thiS encyclopaedIa He a separate study As yet there IS not even
a collectIOn of the remams of hiS teachmg
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 343
IS usually called after hIm, began 10 330/29 He must therefore
have been work1Og 10 Athens for a considerable penod about
this tIme, and naturally he would renew the relatIOns established
by Eudoxus with the learned Circles 10 the city This IS proved,
WIth as much certamty as anyone could WISh for, merely by the
way 10 WhICh Anstotle speaks of hIm 10 /\ 8 He could not have
reported as he does on the changes proposed by Callippus In the
sphere-system of Eudoxus unless he had dIscussed these ques-
tIons With the astronomer himself 10 the school Circle It was 10
fact, as will become clear hereafter, preCisely these dIscuSSIOns,
that IS to say the direct stImulatIon that he received from the
astronomical Side, whIch first mClted Anstotle to work out the
doctnne of the movers of the spheres The lIDperfect tense that
he uses when speakmg of Calhppus' alteratIon of the Eudoxlan
system admits of two explanatIons only eIther It merely means
that Anstotle owes hiS knowledge of these hypotheses to pre-
VIOUS oral diSCUSSIOns WIth CallIppus, or It also Imphes that at the
tIme of wntIng Calhppus was no longer ahve Smce Anstotle
also uses the Impedect 10 speak10g of Eudoxus, who IS known to
have been long dead and With whom agam Anstotle was per-
sonally acquamted, the most probable conclUSIOn IS that both
were true of Calhppus as well I All the later must be the date of
chapter 8 It must come dunng Anstotle's last tlIDe at Athens,
and presumably after 330 ThIS conclUSIOn IS extremely Impor-
I 1\ 8 I073b 17 'Eudoxus 10 suppose that the motion of the sun
or of the moon Involves, III either case, three spheres Calhppus 10 make
the posItion of the spheres the same as Eudoxus dId. but wJu.le he used to assJgn
the same number as Eudoxus did to JupIter and to Saturn. he used 10 Ihlnk two
more spheres should be added to the sun and two to the moon If one IS to
explam the observed farts' Anstotle uses SlmLiar language when spealung of
vIews put forward by Plato In oral dISCUSSIOn. for ex, A 9. 992 20 'Plato even
to to tills class of tillng as bemg a geometrical fiction, and used 10 gIve
the name of pnnclple of the line-and thiS used 1'1 pont-to the indi-
VISible hnes' The express addition of 'often' here IS deCISIve for the under-
standmg of thIs Imperfect and we must supply It 1D the passage about Eudoxus
and Calhppus For the Imperfect as the expresslOn of the oral tradition of a
school see for ex On Ihe SublIme III 5 (and WLiamowltz's comment thereon In
vol xxxv. p 49, n 2) Similar are the reminiscences of the Academy
mMelaph ZII,1036b25(theyoungerSocrates).andElh NIC X 2,II72
b
9-20
(Eudoxus) AntiqUity S knowledge of the reasons for Calhppus alteratlons In
the Eudoxlan system was based on the oral tradition of the Lyceum as pre-
served by Eudemus (see lus frg 97. p 142 In Spengel)
J\ccordlIlg to Slmphclus In de Caelo (p 493, I 5. In Helberg) 'Calhp-
pus of Cyzlcus. after studymg With the fnend of Eudoxus. came
344 MATURITY
tant for Anstotle's development Either this chapter was
wntten at the same time as the rest of Book 1\, and then all
our conclusIOns about the antiqUIty of the form gIVen to the
doctrme m that book (above, p 221) would totter, or our proof
that the earhest MetaphysfCs had a dlstmct fonn of the doctnne
holds good of Book A also, and then chapter Bmust be not an
ongmal element but a later InSertIOn
While the doctnne of Book 1\ Incontrovertibly belongs to the
earher conceptIOn of metaphysIcs, sharp eyes have been equally
certaIn ever SInce the days of antiqUIty that chapter 8 IS not
an orgamc member of ItS surroundmgs but a foreign body It
remaInS, however, to gIve the real proof that what Isolated
cntIcs have always suspected IS actually so Whereas others
have usually taken theIr 6tart from the astronomIcal content of
the passage, we will begm wIth the style
Book A IS an outhne of a lecture, not mtended for the use of
other persons at all (above, p 219) It contaIns only the maIn
POInts, sketchIly put together, sometimes merely Jotted down
one after the other wIth a recurnng 'Note, next, that " and
bare of all styhstIc pohsh In detail I The greatest dIfficulties
of InterpretatIOn come m the first or phySIcal part, WhICh pro-
VIdes the foundatIOn for the doctrIne of the first mover, but
even the second part, In WhICh thIS doctnne IS expounded, IS not
much more readable, which m view of the fundamentallmpor-
tance of the subject has always been found extremely dIstres-
SIng EverythIng IS left to the actual delIvery There IS not the
shghtest to fear that In hIS lectures Anstotle spoke the
sort of Greek that some readers, knOWIng none but these parts
to after the la>ter and spent hiS bme with Anstotle correctmg and supple-
mentIng the dlscovenes of Eudoxus' That thiS was not the Academic penod
but the time when was head of a school. follows not merely from the
separatIOn of thiS stay of Calhppus from the celebrated Atheman
sOjourn of Eudoxus (m 367). but also from the descnptIOn of hIm as a pupIl
not of Eudoxus but of Eudoxus' pupIl Polemarchus Otherwise. moreover. we
should not have merely Anstotle mentioned as collaborator but rather
Plato All pomts to the penod of Calhppus' reform SlmphclUs have
obtaIned hiS mformatIon from a learned traditIon (Eudemus history of
astronomy. apparently consulted m Soslgenes, see Slmphclus. op CIt p 488,
I 19). for It cannot be deduced merely from the passage m the Metaphys.cs
1 See Metaph II 3. 106g
b
35 and 1070' 5, and the hnkmg of arguments WIth
fT,. kaf, :AI. :AI. or 1\ kaf. mamly m the early chapters but also. for
ex. m cha.p 9. 1074b 21.25.36,38.107585 and 7. and chap 10.1075834. b 14.
16, 28. 34.
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 345
of hun, reverence with respectful awe as genmne Anstotehan
brevity How he really spoke is shown by chapter 8, which m
contrast to the rest of the book is fully wntten out In conse-
quence itS style is so stnkmgly distmct from that of itS context
that we must seek a reason for thiS phenomenon
In chapter 8 Anstotle discusses the questiOn whether there
is only one essence such as the unmoved mover, or a consider-
able number of them, so that they form a class He begms wIth
some remarks on the hIstory of the problem of detemllmng the
number of the first pnnCIples with mathematical exactitude
He then puts forward the theory that, Just as the heaven of
the fixed stars reqmres an eternal unmoved mover m order
that It may move, those other complex motions executed m the
heavens by the planets each reqmre therr own unmoved mover
ThiS is because the stars are by nature eternal, and therefore
their motion pre<;upposes some other eternal WhICh must possess
mdependent bemg exactly as they do m accordance With the
pnnClple that only substance (ouaia) can be pnor to substance
For each star we must assume as many movers as It executes
motions, and smce the system of Eudoxus, which Anstotle has
adopted, assumes a speCial sphere to each mobon, thiS means
that there must be preCisely as many unmoved movers as there
are spheres It is for astronomy, not for metaphysIcs, to calcu-
late the number of these spheres, but of course thiS does not
mean that astronomy has anythmg to do With the assumption
of unmoved movers The latter IS purely metaphysical m ongm
Anstotle does, however, transgress the bounds of metaphysics
when he enters mto the calculatIOns of the astronomers and tnes
to show-as it 1<; the mam purpose of hiS diSCUSSIOn to do--that
neither the system of Eudoxus nor the revIsed form of It put for-
ward by Callippus suffices to explam all the planetary motiOns
Eudoxus had arnved at 26 spheres CallIppus raised the number
to 33 Anstotle With hiS hypothesis of 'counteractmg spheres'
m r e ~ e d It to 47 or 55
ThiS survey of the mam content of the astronomIcal chapter
WIll suffice to show that it IS mcompabble WIth ItS context not
merely m itS style of wntmg but also m ItS 'style' of method
The theology of the two precedmg chapters breathes an entIrely
different spmt The unmoved mover there discussed moves the
346 MATURITY
heavens by Itself, and through the medIUm of them, WhICh move
themselves, It moves thIS world of thIngs whose motIOn IS purely
external to It I The seventh chapter exanunes the character and
essence of the hIghest pnnclple It IS unmatenal mInd, pure act,
serene and blessed hfe free from all Interruption Anstotle
~ c n e s to It an eternal unmoved essence (ovcrla) that tran-
scends all that IS perceptible to sense It can have no size or
extensiOn, It IS an IndiVISIble umty, unpassIble and unchange-
able In VIew of these essentIal propertIes the hIghest pnnclple
IS declared to be God, for by the conception of God we under-
stand an essence that IS eternal, hVIng, and most perfect Now
all thiS applIes, accordIng to Anstotle, to Nus Nus IS not only
the eternal and most perfect thIng, 'the actualIty of thought IS
hfe' ThiS denvatIon of the Absolute IS of course so conCIse
and so far from exhaustIve that It at once raIses a senes of ques-
tIons to whIch Anstotle glVes no answer, but the tram of thought
radiates a force, generated by relIgIOUS expenence, that carnes
one away We are rrreslstIbly driven on to the questIon of the
nmth chapter what IS the content of thiS actiVIty of Nus and
what relatIon obtaInS between the content of ItS thought and ItS
perfectiOn? If It thmks nothmg It IS at rest, and hence at the
most a potency, not a pure actIvIty, If It thmks somethmg other
than Itself It thmks somethIng less perfect than Itself, and thereby
dImmIshes ItS own perfectIon Thus Anstotle leads hIS hearers
m one fhght to the conclUSIOn that necessarily follows from the
conceptIon of dIvme (that IS, of the most perfect) bemg thought
thmks Itself, and m thIS creatIve act It eternally enJoys ItS own
absolute perfectIOn
Chapter 8 mterrupts thIS contmuous traIn of thought and
breaks It mto two parts Remove It, and chapters 7 and 9 fit
smoothly together After readmg chapter 8, on the other hand,
It IS unpossIble to take up agam the speculatIve medItation
broken off WIth chapter 7 From soanng flIghts, from Platomc
rehgIOus speculatIOn, we plunge headlong down to the mono-
tonous plam of mtncate computatIon and speCIalIzed Intelli-
gence SunphclUs was nght when he said that such a dISCUSSIon
belonged rather to phYSICS and astronomy than to theology ,3
I Metaph II 7, 1072' 24 Cf Phys VIII S, 2S6
b
14 fJ
2 Slmpl In Al'ut de Cae/a, p SID, I 31
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 347
for It loses Itself entirely m subSidiary matters, and shows far
more mterest m ascertammg the exact number of the spheres
than It does understandmg of the fact that thl5 grotesque
mulhphcatlOn of the prune mover, thIs army of 47 or 55 mov-
ents, meVltably damages the dlVme posItion of the prune mover
and makes the whole theology a matter of mere celestial
mechamcs Hence SunphClUs transferred hIS explanation of
thIs astronomIcal passage to ~ commentary on the De Caela,
and It has been a favounte subject for astronomers from 50S1-
genes to Ideler I Valentm Rose, however, when he WIshed to
transfer the whole of Book 1\ from the MetaphyslcS to the PhYS1CS
made the mIstake of appeahng not merely to chapter 8 but also
to the equally physIcal character of the fifth chapter of the first
part 1. He failed to see that Anstotle needed a foundatIOn for hIS
doctnne of the prune mover, and that ongmally the theology
was buut up dIrectly and qUIte externally on the theory of
phySIcal 'substance' The only real stumblmg-block, therefore,
15 the astronomical mterpolatlOn, and before bamshmg the whole
book on that account It IS surely more reasonable to examme
where the chapter Itself properly belongs Lasson's procedure
m takmg the whole astronomIcal passage out of the text mto a
note was far better, as he thus restored the conneXlOn between
the seventh and nmth chapters J It IS m fact an msertlOn that
can have been made only by the edItors of Anstotle's remams
In subject It IS certamly closely connected WIth the questlOn of
the prune mover. but the mmuteness With whIch It treats a
I Soslgenes In SlmphclUS, op Cit, P 498, II 2 ff
1 ValentIn Rose, De Artstatells IIlworum ardtne et auctors/ate, p 160 He con-
Siders that the baSing of theology directly upon a precedlDg physlcalmqurry-
which he truly sees to be charactenstIc-ls the product of some post-Theo-
phrastean PenpatetIc who had 'already conceIVed the 'false' nobon of meta-
phySICS as the sCience of the thmgs that come after phySical thlDgs' He holds,
naturally, that the metaphysIcs of 'substance' IS the only genuIDe Anstotehan
doctnne Thus he puts thmgs exactly the wrong way round ID reahty the
stage of development that we have In Book II comes before the metaphysIcs
of 'substance'
] Ar,stoteles' Metaphys,k, translated mto German by Adolf Lasson (Jena,
1907), pp 175-6 Lasson contented himself, however,wlth removlDgthe rmddle
part of the chapter, I073b 8-1074. 17, which contalDs the aetual calculatIon of
the number of the spheres, while retaJnmg the begmDlng and end In so dOIng
he faded to perceive the mdlvlslble styhstlc and matenal uDlty of the whole
The middle porbon carnes the begmnmg and end along With It Moreover, hiS
reason for hiS actIon was mereIV to help the student, he did not perceive the
hlstoncdl ongm of the break ID the tram of thought
348 MATURITY
subsIdIary problem IS SO utterly exceSSIve m an Isolated lecture
confimng Jtself entuely to the mam outlmes that It must have
been wntten for another, more detaued conneXiOn In VIew of
thIs agreement between the cntenon of style, the mterruptlOn
of the tram of thought, and the mternal contradlctlon between
the late ongll1 of the part and the anCIent character
of the book as a whole, It IS an eAtremely probable conJecture
that the mterpolatLOn IS not due to Anstotle hImself I The
edltorf> proceeded here Just as they dId m other parts of the
Now smce the pomt that Anstotle reached m
workmg out the later verSiOn of the Metaphys1cs was precIsely
the threshold of theology, It seems ObVIOUS that we have 10 the
eIghth chapter of Book /\ a pIece of the new verSIOn of thIs final
part We observe that here agam Anstotle was not m the least
content WIth hIS ongmal vIew, even m the last reVlSlon he
reconstructed the whole theory of the movers of the spheres
As we have prevIously dIscovered m the dialogue On Ph1lo-
sophy, the theology of Anstotle's earher stage knew nothmg of
thIs theory Smce the ether had not yet become the element that
'by nature' moves m a CIrcle, and the stars moved sImply through
the will of the star-souls, we must suppose that at that hme
Anstotle's Idea was Just that the heavenly bodIes themselves have
souls, and that he dId not thmk It necessary to POSIt a number
of movers for each one of them, correspondmg to the number of
ItS spheres (above, pp 141-142) At that tune, therefore, hIS
only deVIatIOn from Plato's VIew lay m supposmg an unmoved
mover above the first heaven, whIch, bemg eternal, produced
the eternal mohon of the world By thIs theory he overcame
the notIOn of a self-movmg world-soul, whose mohon, hke that
of all the other self-movmg thmgs known to us m expenence, had
a begmmng. however, he had apparently always assumed,
With Eudoxus, the eXIstence of spheres for the wandenng stars,2
I ThIS, however, 10 no way demonstrates the spunousness of the chapter,
whIch for a long tIme some have thought they must assume,
they recogmzed Its IOcoherence WIth the rest, for ex , J L Ideler (the son)
In hIS Anstolehs Meteomloglca, vol I, pp 31B ff The father dId not make thIS
mIstake, see 'Gber Eudoxos', Abhandlungen der Berhner Akademte (hlstonsch-
phtlosophlsche Klasse) 1B30, pp 49 ff
Sel" De Caelo II 9, 12, esp 293" 5-B Anstotle there expressly says that the
heavenly bodIes have souls-they possess 'actron' and 'lIfe', 292" I8-2I-but
these suuls bdong not to the spheres hut to the stars themselves, WhICh 'we
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 349
It followed by analogy from his doctnne of the first mover
that each of these circular motions (cpopal) beneath the outer
heaven must also have Its own mover, for If there were only the
first mover we should expect all the other spheres to move In
thE' same path as that of the fixed stars This objectIOn IS made
by Theophrastus, who places the questIOns of celestialmechamcs
In the centre of his fragment on metaphySICS I Even at that tune
there were still Anstotelians who clung to one mover And
Theophrastus shows us why, for he contmues 'If that which
Imparts movement IS different for each movmg body and the
sources of movement are more than one, then their 'harmony as
they move In the directIOn of the best desire' aplC'"TTl) IS
by no means obvIOus And the matter of the number of the
spheres demands a fuller discussiOn of the reason fbr It, for
the astronomers' account IS not adequate' He then reveals the
difficulty concealed m Anstotle's conceptIOn of desue and
Impulse and ecpEcns), namely that It presupposes a real
soul, and cnticlZes the exclUSiOn of the earth from the system
of cosmic motIOns If CIrcular motiOn IS the most perfect It IS
surely astomshmg that the earth should have no part mIt.
Such an assumption presupposes either that the force of the first
mover does not reach as far as the earth or that the earth IS not
susceptible to It In any case-and here Theophrastus comes
very close to the modern VIew-the questIOn IS transcendental
(olov lnrEp/3crrOV TI Kai Cx3TtTTlTOV) Metaphyszcs fI. 8 IS an
attempt to draw the real consequences of applymg the unmoved
mover to all the spheres Theophrastus' book IS an echo of the
new doctnne, whIch was bemg discussed dunng Anstotle's old
falsely take to be mere bodies and soulless monads In space' He IS speak.mg
therefore not of the movers of the spheres, but of Plato's theory of star-scula,
which we have from the dialogue On PhIlosophy that he beheved In
early days We have proved above pp 299 11) that the fundamental
doctnnes of the books On the Heaven are early In ongm The recogDlbon of
'actIon' and 'hIe' m the stars IS also connected With the PlatOniC view
I Theophrastus, MetaphYSICS, p 310 BrandIsll TO 2.. TaVT 1\2.'1 Myov 2.ITa.
'lTAllovos mpl njs topto.ws, 'lTola Kal Tlv",v, tml2.'; 'lTAlI", KlllV.IKc!I, "al allpOpal TpO'ITOV
V1TE\IavTla., Kal TO c!Iv>iWTOV "at 00 Xc!IpIV c!Iq>avtS .1 TE Cv TO "'VOW, 6"'Io=v TO .. 'lTMa
-r.;v a\rn'iv (sc K.""Toeal KtVT]O'V) "TE "all' fKaa-rov hepav (sc TO "'voW ta-rIV) al T' 6:pxal
'lTAlIOVS, .;)a-r. TO OV",,"'vov avr",v e1s lov-r",v -r.;v 6:pICTTTlV ou6a../;)s qlav.pov TII2.t Ka-ra
TO 'lTAiieos T"'V OqICIlp"'V Tiis alTlcs ...IJova J'1TET Myov ov yc!Ip 6 ye T"'V QOTpoA6y<wv
(SC Myos locavOs tOTIV) Then follows the cntlcism of the nobon of (q>EO'S or
c!IpICTTTl, an element of Anstotle's PlatOnIC penod WhICh he always retamed (cf
PP 15211 above), even when he had abandoned the star-souls
Z
350 MATURITY
age He agrees WIth 1\ 8 m takmg the theory of the first mover
mamlyas a physIcal doctnne, but he reflects still more clearly
the ddficultIes mto which the multIphcatIon of the first pnnciple
plunged Anstotle's metaphysIcs
Anstotle hunself asks to be excused, m I\. 8, for entenng a
sphere that IS beyond the bounds not merely of phl1osophy
proper but even of demonstratIve necessIty He will not speak
of 'necessity' at all, but merely of the 'probable' I ThIS merely
probable character contradIcts, however, the ongmal concep-
tion of metaphySICS as a study far surpassmg phYSICS m exactl-
tude, and Aristotle only makes the contrast more sensIble when
he excuses hunself by remarkmg that anyhow astropomy IS the
closest related to phIlosophy of the mathematIcal discIplmes Z
How far the empmcal method of thIS pronouncement of the 55
movers IS from that of the old M appears espeCially
m the remark that the venficatIon of these assertIOns must be
left to speCIalIzed sCience The purpose of the whole account IS
therefore sunply to gIve an Idea of the matter XO:PIV)
ThIS expreSSIOn sounds alarmmgly hke fictIon The phrase 'to
gIve some nohon of the subject' really means Just what Anstotle
says the Platomsts did when they assumed a certam ongm of
numbers merely-to quote their own expressIOn-'for the sake
of theonzmg', not, therefore, as a Judgement about any reahty
Assummg then the correctness of the theory of the spheres
and of the number of them as calculated, what he WIshes to
show IS that the number of the first pnnclples must be defimte
and preCisely determmable ObVIOusly It was a speCIal SCIence,
namely astronomy, that set h1IIl to extendmg hiS theory of
the first mover It taught h1IIl that the hypotheSIS of a smgle
umform ultImate motion was too pnmltIve to account for the
Metaph II 8, 1074. 14 'Let thiS, then, be taken as the number of the spheres,
so that the unmovable substances and pnnclples also may probably be taken
as Just so many the assertIon of necess,ty must be left to more powerful
thmkers' Cf also 1074. 24, 'It IS reasonable to Infer thiS from a conslderatlon
of the bodies that are moved' For the exactItude of the sCience of the Imma-
tenal see a 3, 995" 15 ff
" Metaph /I B, 1073
b
3 'In the number of the movements we reach a problem
which must be treated from the standpolllt of that one of the mathematical
sciences whIch IS most aklll to phIlosophy-VIZ of astronomy' HIS reason IS
that astronomy, lD contrast to the other mathematIcal dlsclpllDes, deals With
an actual and moreover With an eternal rea.hty-whtch certalllly sounds
extremely" eak
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 351
complIcatlOns of the actual heavenly motions, and that the
calculations of the number of the spheres undertaken by the
school of Calhppus offered the possibility of precisely deter-
mmmg the number of the first pnnciples
Aristotle's adoption of thlS new road, while It does honour to
his unbendmg sense of fact, mvolved hlm m mextncable con-
tradictlOns They are so clear and ObVlOUS on the surface that
It would be absurd to try to soften them Durmg the later
days of antiqmty, when much labour and great acuteness was be-
stowed on the mterpretatIOn of ArIstotle's phl1osophy, Plotmus
gave a deCISive cntIclsm of thls theory, m which he developed
the doubts raised by Theophrastus I He first deprecates the
method of mere probabilIty, whlch Anstotle was oblIged to
admit because he could not attam to certamty He then argues
that even the probabilIty is m poor shape, for, if all the spheres
are to make up one umfied world-system, the many unmoved
movers which thmk themselves should rather have one smgle
aim, the first mover The relatlOn, however, of the many movers
to the first is wholly obscure Either all these mtellIgible
essences must arise from the first, and must, Just as the spheres
which they move fit mto the outermost sphere and are governed
by it, be contamed m the hIghest Nus as Its objects, WhICh
would gIve an mtelllgible world l1ke Plato's, or each of them
must be an mdependent pnnclple, and If so there IS no order or
structure among them, and they cannot explam the symphony
of the cosmos
A further counter-argument of Plotmus' IS that If the movers
are all wIthout body, how can they be many, smce no matter
attaches to them as principle of Thls objection
IS taken from Anstotle's own assumptions, and had m fact
occurred to hlm In the mlddle of the eIghth chapter of Book 1\
there IS a remarkable passage that will not merge WIth itS con-
text as far as the thought is concerned Even a superficial
readmg of It shows that it necessanly destroys all that IS said
m 1\ 8 about the multIphclty of unmoved movers 'EvIdently
there IS but one heaven For If there are many heavens as there
are many men, the movmg pnnclples, of which each heaven will
have one, will be one In form but In number many But all
I Plobnus. ElI7leads V I, 9
352 MATURITY
thmgs that are many m number have matter, for one and the
same defimtIon, e g that of man, apphes to many thmgs, while
Socrates IS one But the pnmary essence has not matter, for
It IS complete realIty So the unmovable first mover IS one both
m defimtIOn and m number, so too, therefore, IS that WhICh IS
moved always and contmuously, therefore there IS one heaven
alone'r The smgleness of the heaven IS here proved by an mdIrect
method If there were more than one, the first prmClple of each
of them would be only genencally Identical wIth those of the
others, while mdlvldually (cipI61Jc';) dIstinct, as, for example, m
the genus man, where the mdlvldual men comclde In form, but
are many m nwnber Whereas the conceptIOn of man IS common
to all mdlviduais of this genus, Socrates and the others are each
d. partIcular real umty, smce every time that the conceptIOn of
ffian Itself as form to matter another mdIVIdual arIses
The first essence (TO Tl elVa! TO 1Tp(;>TOV), the hIghest mover
that guIdes the heaven, IS an exception It IS pure entelechy
and has no matter That IS to say, thIS hIghest form IS not a
genus appearmg m several exemplars It has no conneXIOn wIth
matter, WhICh IS the pnnciple of mdIvlduatIOn In the highest
of all forms umty of form and real smgleness comclde Hence
that which It moves, the heaven, also occurs once only
In the first place, It IS clear that Plotmus' argument agaInst
there bemg many movers IS nothmg more than an apphcatIOn
of the prInClple here laId down by Anstotle to the question of
the mtelligences of the sphere'S If matter IS the prmClple of
mdIvlduatIOn, as Anstotle teaches here and elsewhere, eIther
the movers of the spheres cannot be Immatenal, SInce they form
a pluralIty of exemplars of a genus, or Anstotle refutes hImself
by retammg hiS doctnne of lffimatenahty, smce thiS excludes
IndiVIdual multIphClty In either event he falls mto contradiC-
tion with the presupposItions of hiS own philosophy The fact
IS that the form of forms, the unmoved mover, IS m ongIn an
absolutely umque beIng, and ItS peculiar qualIties are such
that any duplIcation destroys the presupposItions of ItS own
conceptIOn The same conclusIOn follows froIn the proof
m the where Anstotle mfers the umqueness of the
unmoved mover from the contInUIty and umtyof the world's
I Metaph "8, 174. 31 ff
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 353
mahan The conunentators awmt that they cannot explam this
difficulty I
If. however, we consider the passage from a ImgUlstlc pomt
of view. the first glance shows that It IS foreign to ItS context
With ItS first words, 'evidently there IS hut one heaven', another
style begms, and with the last word of the msertIon, 'therefore
there IS one heaven alone', It ceases agam It IS the same short-
hand style as obtams m the rest of Book A, and contrasts sharply
With the Impeccable language of chapter 8 That the passage IS
an msertlOn IS also clear from the fact that It dIsturbs the gram-
matical conneXlOn In the next sentence, 'our forefathers m
the most remote ages have handed down to theIr postenty a
tradItIon, m the form of a myth, that they are gods and that
the dlvme encloses the whole of nature', the plural 'that they
are gods' refers to nothmg 2 To learn who 'they' are we have
to go ten hnes back, where we are told that the end of every
movement IS one of the dlvme bodies that move through the
heaven The words 'dlvme bodIes' lead directly to the reflectIOn
(ro74br) that the men of old were nght to thmk them gods
and to beheve that the dlvme IS somethmg that encloses the
whole of nature The mtervemng argumentatIon, deducmg the
~ m l n s s of the heaven from the Immatenahty and umqueness
of the first mover, IS a later and m fact a cntIcal addItion, for
It ImphCItly contams the refutatIon of the assumptIOn that
there are more movers than one Anstotle must have noted It
agam::.t thIS passage as a pIece of self-cntIclsm, hiS faIthful
edItors mtroduced It mto the text. and the keenest thmkers of
postenty have racked their brams to understand how an Ans-
totle could have mvolved hImself 10 such contradictIons
r Bomtz,op Cit, p. 512, Schwegler, DIe MetaphysIk des Anstoteles, vol IV,
p 280 Rose (op Cit, P 161) regards the passage as the dddltIon of a disciple,
because In De Caelo I 9 Anstotle proves the uOlqueness of the first heaven on
phySical grounds, but In the same work (8, 277
b
g-IO) Anstotle says that the
pOInt can also be proved by means of the liltetaphyszcs, and thiS proof would not
be discoverable In the latter work were It not preserved for us m the passage
In questIOn, /I 8, 1074' 31-39 It only fits, however the earher MetaphYSICS,
which knew nothmg of movers of the spheres-the same SItuation as when De
(aelo was wntten-and not the doctnne of /I 8 There are no demonstrable
addItions by dIscIples to the text of the Metaphyszcs
As Rose observed op CIt, P 101 [The Oxford translator wntes 'these
bodIes' preCIsely 10 order to make the reference clear The Greek IS merely
oVToI-Tr)
354 MATURITY
The ongInalidea of the unmoved mover was a unIfied and
self-consIstent conceptIon The later applIcatIon of the same
pnnciple to the other spheres was also all of a pIece, but It dId
not agree wIth the earlIer system Anstotle began to feel doubts
about It ansIng out of the assumptIons that had fonned the
basIs of the ongInal notIon of the one unmoved mover When,
therefore, we see that thIS very part, the theory of the unmatenal
first pnnciples, is lackIng In the final versIOn of the
and that Instead of It we have only a makeshIft, namely an early
lecture (!\) together WIth a SIngle pIece of the new theory
(chapter 8) whIch still shows clearly that precisely In the last
penod of hIS lIfe Anstotle was wrestlIng WIth these problems
anew and faIlmg to solve them-when we see thIS we shall
presumably no longer thmk that the state In whIch the matenal
has come down to us IS due merely to the malIgmty of histoncal
chance ObVIOusly hIS growmg tendency to treat phIlosophIcal
problems In the manner of the speCIal SCIences, workIng together
WIth the fennent of the new Ideas In cosmology, as we found
them m Theophrastus, had shattered the self-confidence of the
more or less Platomc speculatIOns of hIS theology and drIven
hIm to attach hImself Increasmgly to empmcal SCIence In thus
surrendenng metaphysIcs to the speCial SCIences he began a new
era ConSIstency on the empmcal SIde made hun InCOnsIstent
WIth hIS speculatIve foundatIons ThIS contradIctIon In hIS
thmkmg, whIch he no longer had the force to overcome, IS
SImply the result of the deep-seated mexorable lOgIC of hIS
whole development, and that must reconcile us to hIm InCi-
dentally, he made a mIstake, accordIng to the astronomers, In
calculatmg the number of the spheres and got two less than he
should have He was movmg here In a less familIar regIOn ThIS
error adds to the probabilIty that chapter 8 IS only a prehrnmary
verSIOn, brought to lIght from among hIS papers There can be
no doubt, however, that It comes from Ar1Stotle hunself It
does not come from Theophrastus, for, whereas hIS tenn for the
counteractmg spheres was not avu..{TTouaal but ci\rravaqlEpouaal.
only the former expreSSIOn occurs III our chapter Eudemus In
U\S H\story of Astronomy assumes the Ilroblem as well known In
PenpatetIc CIrcles 1
I Tlus diSposes at Rose's CODJecture, op. Cit., P 161 For the
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 355
We possess two other works that throw lIght on the advance
of the school m tacklIng the problem of the prune mover The
first IS the essay On the Motwn oj Ammals, whose genumeness I
have shown m detaIl on an earher occasIon, after the doubts
raIsed agamst It had long held the field I ThIS exammes In
partIcular the mechamcs of an1l1lal motIon In order to change
ItS place every IIvmg thmg reqmres a fixed fulcrum, agamst
whIch the 11l1lb that IS making the movement supports Itself If
only one 11l1lb of the body IS to move, as the lower arm or leg,
thIS fulcrum may be wlthm the body Itself, so long as It IS out-
SIde the hmb that IS bemg moved, as m these examples the elbow
or the kneeJomt If, however, the whole body IS to move It must
have a fixed pomt lymg outsIde Itself m order to push off For
land-ammals the earth serves as reSIstance, eIther dIrectly or
mdlrectly, for those that SWlID the water, for those that fly the
arr In the second, thIrd, and fourth chapters of the work
Anstotle exammes the analogous problem m the motIon of the
umverse He there dIscusses a recent hypotheSIS, agreemg WIth
ItS mventor that there must be an unmoved first prmCIple and
that thIS cannot pOSSIbly be eIther mSlde or a part of the movmg
vault of heaven,' for then the heaven would eIther stand qmte
still or break up He dIsagrees WIth hIm, however, when from
thIS reflectIOn he deduces that the poles of the world's aXIS have
a certaIn force, because they are the only conceIvable pomts of
rest In the heavenly sphere, and thus seem to present themselves
as the only fixed pomts smtable for a mechamcal explanatIon of
the world's motIon AgaInst thIS Anstotle holds that a mathe-
matIcal pomt as such cannot possess phySIcal reahty or exten-
SIOn, far less exert force Moreover, even If these two POInts
dId have some force, they could never produce a SIngle umfied
G'l'alpal see SlmphLlUS, Comm In AnsI de Caelo, P 504, 1 6
(Helberg) Pseudo-Alexander, {ollowmg the astronomer notices
Anstotle's miscalculatIon In hiS Comm In A. Metaph pp 705 I 39 -706, I 15
(Hayduck) Eudemus gives for IncreasIng the numbers of
the spheres 10 frg 97 (p 143 Sp)
I 'Das Pneuma 1m LykcLOn', HeYmes vol XlVlll, pp 31 ff
De A,umaltum Motu, c ], 699"17 Notice the dlstlncbon that Anstotle
draws between the representatIves of thiS SuppOSItIon and the Inventors of the
myth of Atlas He IS not attaLkmg the same VIew tWice over Rather he men-
tIons the mythical merely to show that thiS modern view has had
forerunners
356 MATURITY
mahan hke the heaven's, and he expressly tells us that the
author of the hypothesIs assumed two poles The questIon IS
connected wIth the problem whether the heaven could be
destroyed I If, for example, we were to assume that the earth IS
the reqUITed fulcrum, as beIng the centre of the world, then,
apart from the fact that the fulcrum must not he wIthIn the
movIng body and therefore not WIthIn the Universe In thiS case,
we should have the further dIfficulty of explaInIng how the
InertIa of the earth, which must be thought of as a hmlted
quantIty, could suffice to counterbalance the force of the world's
aXIs actIng agamst It The latter must IneVItably exceed the
Inerha of the earth, and hence force It out of ItS place In the
centre of the umverse All these dlfficulhes are removed If we
suppose that outSIde the clrchng heaven there IS an unmoved
cause of mahan such as Horner conceIVed Zeus to be when he
makes hrrn say to the Gods (VIII 21-22 20)
You could not push from heaven to earth
Zeus the hIghest of all. even If you laboured exceedmgly
And all gods and all goddesses took a hand
The way In whIch Anstotle here agam makes use of a myth
In a philosophIcal questIOn IS charactenshc of hIm Not only
does he denve hIS own pnnclple from Homer both here and In
Book" of the Metaphystcs , he also attempts to bee a reVival of
the myth of Atlas In the VIew, which he here attacks, of the
earth as the fulcrum of the world's aXIs 2-
The hypotheSIS that the motIon of the umverse requITes an
unmoved fulcrum, that the two poles serve as such, and that
they are therefore the unmoved first prInCIple of the mahan of
the heaven, IS clearly astronomical In ongIn It takes account of
An,>totle's demand for a prune mover, and yet purposely aVOIds
every metaphy,>Ical theory and seeks rather for a purely mathe-
matIcal explanatIOn WithIn the world as gIven We may suppose
that some astronomer of the Eudoxlan kmd, such as Callippus,
had taken up thIS bOlt of athtude towards the bold metaphYSical
Inferences that Anstotle had thought It necessary to make from
Eudoxus' theory of the spheres The unknown astronomer tned
I De Ammahum Motu, c 4. esp 699
b
28 ff See also 3, 699" 31 ff
See Metaph 1\ 8 I074
b
1-14. la, 1076"4 For the myth of Atlas see De
n ~ m h u m Motu, 3. 699" 27 fl. and also the prevIous note but one
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 357
to obta1O, for the first tune, a clear Idea of the mechamcal
Imphcations of the motion of the heaven, and 10 so domg he took
hIS departure from the known k10ds of mohon and their laws
This way of lookmg at the th10g was undoubtedly new to
Anstotle HIs own unmoved mover had been teleologically con-
ceived, and moved the world by pure thought The fact that he
here at once adopts the attitude of the new natural SCience, Just
as he dId 10 the question of the number of the movers, shows
very clearly how much he vacillated 10 hIS last penod about the
nature of the fundamental problem of metaphysIcs In hIS work
On the MotlOn of Ammals he tnes to show that even from the
pomt of view of modern celestial mechamcs the unmoved mover
standmg outsIde the umverse offers the only conceIvable solu-
tIOn Even now, of course, his mover does not become a 'force'
of a physical k1Od, but he speaks of ItS be10g touched by the
movIng cosmos as If there really were a spatIal and physIcal
relatlOn between the two, and then destroys the pomt of his
own acutely formulated problem by a transItion to the 1Otelh-
glble world, namely the notIon of the first pnnCIple mov1Og the
umverse purely as an object of thought Theophrastus takes
account of this attempt also 10 his metaphysIcal fragment, and
actually quotes the same Homenc hnes 10 the same conneXlOn,
or rather assumes that they are familIar In thIS conneXlOn 2
Whereas the work On the MotlOn of Ammals does not men-
tIOn the theory of the movers of the spheres, we have 10 Book
VIII of the a document belongmg to the penod of
doubt, when Anstotle, though senously consldenng the pOSSI-
bilIty of extendmg the pnnCIple of the prune mover to the
planetary spheres, still hesItates to draw thIS consequence As
we have shown above,3 the book IS one of the latest parts of the
I D. Antmalzum Motu, c 3 699"15 'It must touch something Immovable
In order to create movement' Correspondingly In L 4. 700" 2, 'and all gods
and all set hands to It , where the companson extends to settm!(
hands to It as well to the Immoblhty of Zeus tf 15 pOInt always
remamed uncertain In De Cen et Corr . I 6, 323" 31, where he speaking
of phySIcal contact (0'P1'll. Anstotle says, 'so that If anything that IS Itself
unmoved moves something else It "ould touch the thing moved but nothing
would touch It' He seems to have dropped thIS self-contradlcV)T)' Idea later
(see Zeller Anstotle and the Earlzer Penpatehcs vol I p 408)
In De Antmalzum Motu, c 4, 699
b
36 11 ,Anstotle quotes Imes VIII 21-22
and 20 On P 3Il, I. II (Brandis), of hiS Metaphyncs Theophrastus quotes
VIII 24 ID the conneXlOn 3 p 299
358 MATURITY
In content It OCCUpIes a mIddle place between phYSICS
and metaphysIcs, for It develops the theory of the unmoved first
pnnciple as far as that IS possIble mSIde and wIth the methods
of phYSICS In the sIxth chapter Anstotle shows the necessIty
of the hypothesIs of a pnme mover Behmd the exposItion we
glImpse the possIbIlIty of assummg a larger number of such
movers, but he purposely avoIds connectmg thIS question
wIth the proof of the pnme mover, smce the latter IS naturally
not sImplIfied by the SS planetary movers WhICh It entails
Hence we find only a bnef hmt at the begmmng of chapter 6
(258b 10) 'Smce there must always be motion wIthout mter-
mISSIOn, there must necessanly be somethmg, whether one
or a that first Imparts motion, and thIS first mover
must be unmoved' The expreSSIOn 'whether or' (ehe
fiTE) IS ArIstotle's ordmary way of mdicatmg that behmd hIS
formulatIOn lIes another problem, of WhICh he assumes that hIS
hearers are aware, but whIch he wIshes to exclude at the present
tIme I Such a problem IS usually one of the controverSIes of the
school ThIS passage therefore makes It certam, as we had already
dIscovered from Theophrastus, that even after the dISCUSSIon of
the planetary movers had begun there still remamed m the
Penpatos adherents of the theory that there IS only one first
pnnciple of motion ThIS IS agam confirmed m what follows,
where It becomes clear that Anstotle was not hImself the leader
m extendmg the earher theory, but rather yIelded unwillmgly
to the arguments of others Let us first examme the conneXIOn
(2S8
b
12 ff )
Although there are some unmoved pnnciples of motion and
some self-movmg bemgs that are not of eternal duration, thIS
IS not for Anstotle any dIsproof of the neceSSIty of the first.
absolutely unmoved, and eternal mover. for there must be a
cause of motion that produces the contmuous commg-to-be and
I For example In the Protrep/zeus (Iambl Protr, p 39 I 4, In futelli)
. whether fire or aIr or number or some other natures that are the first causes
of the others' By the last he means the Ideas These words were wntten whIle
the Academy was shll debatmg about the theory of Ideas See further Me/aph,
A 9. 991 b 18 . And man himself, whether It IS a number In a sense or not. WIll
stIli be a numencal ratIo of certam thIngs' The parenthetIcal InsertIon refers
to a questIon that was burmng at the tIme when Book Awas wrItten, whether
the Ideas are numbers or not In each passage Anstotle IS refeTTlng to oral
dIQCUSSlOns m the school
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 359
passmg-away of those non-eternal unmoved bemgs, together
wIth all change whatever. and thIs pnnclple cannot be IdentIcal
WIth anyone of the other movers mentiOned, It IS transcendent
and embraces them all We may translate the Important words
(259" 3 ff)
'Nevertheless there IS somethmg that comprehends them all, and that
as something apart from each one of them, and thIS IS the cause of the
fact that some things are and others are not and of the contmuous process
of change, and this cause'l the motion of the other movers, whJ.le they are
the causes of the motion of other things Motion, then, bemg eternal, the
fir'lt mover, tf there tS but one, wIll be eternal also, tf there are more than
one, there Will be a pluraltty of such eternal movers We ought, however, to
suppose that there tS one rather than many, and a fimte rather than an
tnfimte number When the consequences of either assumption are the
same, we should always assume that thmgs are fimte rather than mfimte
m number, smce m things constituted by nature that which IS fimte and
whlLh IS better ought, If pOSSible, to be present rather than the reverse,
and here tt tS suffictent to assume only one mover, the first of unmoved
thmgs, which bemg eternal Will be the pnnclple of motion to everythmg
else The followmg argument also makes It eVident that the first mover
must be somethmg that IS one and eternal '
In the words that I have ItalICIzed Anstotle returns to the
alternatIve left open m the first sentence of the chapter, 'whether
[the first mover IS] one thmg or a plurahty' He does not defimtely
say. however, as he does m M 1\ 8, that we must apply
the pnnclple to all the spheres, but doubtfully adds 'If there IS
but one, If there are more than one, there will be a pluralIty of
such eternal movers' HIS sole hmt as to how we can deCIde
lIes m the observatiOn that we should assume a smgle mover
rather than many, and, If we assume many, a fimte rather than
an mfimte number Accordmg to hIS teleolOgIcal conceptIOn of
nature, and accordmg to the Platomc vIew m whIch he shared,
mathematIcal defimteness dnd lImItatIon IS the chIef attnbute
that we must demand from the hIghest realIty and the first
pnnclples He does not dare, however, to conclude WIth cer-
tamty that there can be only one pnnclple of thIS sort. he merely
says that the assumptiOn of oneness IS preferable to that of
pluralIty Whether there may not nevertheless be a pluralIty
of movers he will not deCIde It sounds lIke an attempt to
comfort hImself, and he reveals whIch of the two VIews he
favoured m wntmg these words when he concludes the dIgres-
SiOn With the sentence 'It IS suffiCIent, however, to assume only
3
60
MATURITY
one mover, the first of unmoved thmgs, which bemg eternal
will be the pnnclple of motion to everythmg else' (that IS, to the
souls of terrestnal creatures) Its eternity IS here made the dlS-
tlOgUlshlOg mark of the pnme mover, the foundatIOn of Its
character both as pnme and as the anglO of the others
On the assumptIOn of a pluralIty of movers It IS not easy to
say how Anstotle thought of their relation to the revolution of
the outer heaven Everyth10g that IS suggested about It 10 thiS
chapter 'iounds rather provlSlonal Lmes 25g
b
1-20 explam why
It IS ImpOSSIble to follow Plato, who, however, IS not named, 10
placmg at the head of the world's motion, on the analogy of the
bemgs that have souls, somethmg that moves Itself, a world-
soul The motion of all the self-movlOg creatures that expenence
acquamts us WIth has a beglOmng at some time, the motion of
the world, however, cannot be Imagmed to have begun at a
defimte mstant, for then It would have passed mto real1ty out
of pure potency, whereas all merely potential bemg may Just
as well not be If, therefore, ",e assume that the heaven moves
Itself as Plato would have It, It still requITes somethmg absolutely
unmoved outSide Itself as the ongmal cause of Its motion More-
over, a self-movlOg thlOg IS always at the same hme acn-
dentally moved, even If by nature 1t IS unmoved, as souls are
m bod1es, the highest pnnClple must not be moved
even aCCldentally
After wntmg thIS Anstotle appears to have thought of the
obJection (259b 28) that then neIther would the movers of the
planetary spheres present an exact analogy to the pnme mover,
although they per'i1st unmoved so far as movmg theIT o",n
sphere'i 1S concerned, because, lOasmuch as these spheres are
diverted from the1r own motion by that of the outer heaven and
carned along 10 the path of the fixed stars, the1r must be
aCCldentally moved along w1th them, that 1S to say, the place
of their movers must be changed He establIshes, 10 a hastily
wntten final sentence, thiS d1fference between earthly creatures,
wh1ch though unmoved move themselves acc1dentally through
changmg the place of the1r bodIes, and the mteillgences of
the heavenly spheres, that the latter are acc1dentally moved
not by themselves but by somethmg else, namely the outer
heaven How th1S helps to prove theIr unmob1hty IS not clear,
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 3
61
presumably It IS merely an attempt to estabhsh any sort of
speufic dIfference between terrestnal and celestial movers It
certamly does not lessen the gap between the highest and the
planetary movers, for, If the latter are aCCidentally moved
by somethmg else through the attractIOn of theIr spheres mto
the revolutIOn of the outer heaven, thiS spatial conceptIOn
mevitably presupposes that they do not transcend theIr spheres
hke the pnme mover, whIch IS outsIde the world, but are
Immanent m them hke souls SImphclU!> objects to thIS mfer-
ence WIthout gIvmg reasons, but Alexander of AphrodlSlas was
Justified In makmg It I At any rate no other mterpretation IS
possIble on the baSIS of thIS passage alone The sphere-souls
would then be a transitIOnal stage between the ongmal purely
Platomc doctnne of star-souls m the dIalogue On
and the transcendent sphere-movers of M 1\ 8, for
although even m the latter chapter (whose comparative lateness
follows from the mere degree of defimteness WIth WhICh It sets
out the new doctnne) these movers are not expressly descnbed
as 'separated', WhICh IS all the more stnkmg smce every other
charactenstic of the first mover is assigned to them, we
nevertheless suppose that Anstotle here regarded them as eXIst-
mg apart He says that they precede the substance of the
"'pheres, and must therefore be of the nature of substance
themselves,2 such a mode of eJ..pressIOn does not fit the relation
between soul and body, for accordmg to Anstotle the soul IS
not a substance pnor to the substance of the body It is clear,
therefore, that m the long run he was unable to be satisfied With
the doctnne that the sphere-movers are aCCidentally moved by
the first heaven, and therdore deCIded to hold that the planetary
movers are also transcendent ThIS got nd of the external
contradlctlOns on one SIde At the same tlrne, however, It
plunged hIm mto the flood of difficulties mvolved m hIS new
account of the relatlOn between the other movers and the
I Slmpl In Ar'sl Phys, vol II, pp 1261, I 30--1262, I 5, In Dlels
I Melaph 1\ 8 1073. 3l 'Each of these movements also must be caused by
" substance both unmovable In Itself and eternal For the nature of the stars
IS eh'rnal just because It IS a certam kmd of substance, and the mover IS
eternal and pnor to the moved, and that WhICh IS pnor to a substance must be
a substance EVIdently, then, there must be substances WhICh are of the same
number as the movements of the stars, and 1D theIr nature eternal, and 1D them-
selves unmovable, amI WIthout magmtude for thl" reason before mentioned
362 MATURITY
highest Nus, whIch ultunately threatened the foundatIOns of his
theology
These mdlcahons 10 thIS chapter of the PhysJCS of a pluralIty
of unmoved guiders of the stars are obviOusly mere subsequent
addlhons Anstotle lOserted them at the hme when the school
was beg10mng to dtscuss the extenSIOn of hIS theory of the
unmoved mover, when there was still not much more than the
bare pOSSIbility of decId10g for a larger number of planetary
movers The passages 10 questIOn are three
The first IS 258
b
10 Here grammatical reasons suggest that
the parentheSIS 'whether one th10g or a pluralIty' IS to be
regarded as an addihon If we hold It to be ongmal, the follow-
109 words, 'It IS not necessary that each of the thmgs that are
unmoved but unpart mohon should be eternal, so long as there
IS Just one such th1Og', I must be about the movers of the spheres,
to which 'whether one thmg or a pluralIty' refers ThiS, however,
gives no sense, as was observed by SlffiplIclUS, who taCItly subsh-
tutes the souls of terrestnal creatures as subJect That they
must be the non-eternal unmoved movers whose eXIstence Ans-
totle allows IS not merely clear from what follows
z
but neces-
sary m Itself, for the movers of the stars, If they are to be
assumed at all, must be as lffipenshable as the stars themselves
Thus tnt parenthesIS actually upsets that contrast between the
one eternal and the many penshable movers whIch IS Just
Anstotle's pomt Moreover, the words do not fit well 10 the
sentence 1Oto whIch they have been mtroduced, for It IS hard
to Imagme how we can argue from the contmmty of the heavenly
mohon (whIch IS all he IS talk10g about both here and m what
precedes and 10 what follows) to the eXIstence of an unmoved
eternal mover 'whether one thmg or a pluralIty' As a marg10al
note they are comprehensIble, m the text they dIsturb the stnct
tram of thought
The second passage, 259 7-13, IS an equally ImprOVIsed
I The Oxford translatIOn dIffers here, but not In anythIng e9!lcnbal to the
present POint -Tr
In what follows Anstotle often deSCribe'! them as . thIngs that move them-
selves' (as In 25Sb 24. 259" I, 259
b
2 ff , and b 17) and uses thIS expressIOn as
synonymous With the techmcal term' unmoved but Imparting motion' In
259
b
2 he expressly mentions' the animal kingdom and the whole class of hvmg
thmgs
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 363
reference to the pOSSlbihty of several movers 'Motion, then,
bemg eternal, the first mover will be eternal also (If there IS
but one, If there are more than one, there will be a plurahty of
such eternal movers)' As the words stand they are remarkably
tautological, for all that can be meant IS If there are several
movers, there IS more than one eternal pnnclple If Anstotle
had merely Wished to state the pnnclple that every continuous
eternal revolution, whether that of the outer heaven or that of
some other sphere, presupposes an unmoved eternal mover,
Without gomg mto the question how many such revolutions and
movers there are, he would have expressed hlffiself more or less
10 this way 'If there IS a pluralIty of contmuous revolutions,
there IS also such a mover for each one of them' ThiS, however,
IS just the consequence that he still shnnks from drawmg, as
the conclUSIOn of the msertlOn shows 'It IS sufficient to assume
only one mover' In M A 8 he IS concerned only to
ascertam the number of the spheres and thereby of the movers,
while the pnnclple, that there IS a mover for every sphere, IS
established Here, on the other hand, It IS preCisely thiS question
of pnnClple that has to be decided, whether we can get on With
one mover Instead of many That IS why he mtentlOnally speaks
10 such an obscure and mdeclslve fashIOn If motion IS eternally
contmuous there must be an eternal mover-If there IS only one
mover, If, however, there are several there are also several eternal
tlungs, that IS to say, they must of course be eternal also
however, one I!:> enough In style too the passage from 'If there
IS but one' onwards gIVes the ImpreSSion of a subsequent addi-
tion Fmally, Anstotle could hardly have contmued as he does
If the suspected words had always stood 10 theIr present posItion
(259" IS) 'We have shown that there must always be motion
That bemg so, motion must also be contmuous, because what IS
always IS contmuous, whereas what IS merely 10 successIOn IS
not continuous But further, If motion IS contmuous It IS one,
and It IS one only If the mover and the moved that constitute It
are each of them one' ThiS must have been wntten when
Anstotle, In Infernng from the contmulty of the motion to the
mover, was still thmkmg of the motion of the world In ItS
totality, for If he meant only that there are as many movers as
there are contmuous motions the parenthetical question whether
364 MATURITY
there IS one mover or more would have no pomt, and there
would be nothmg to say except 'There IS a number of unmoved
movers correspondmg to the number of the spheres'
The thrrd passage that owes ItS eXIstence to an addItIon
IS 25g
b
28--31, at the end of the sene" of proofs Anstotle's
ongmal mtentIOn was to make the contrast between the world-
spmt and the mdlvldual of the terrestnal realm as great
as possIble The Idea of the world-spmt had undemably been
obtamed from the analogy of the souls of lIvmg thmgs, but that
was only the more reason for gIvmg espeCIal prommence to ItS
outstandmg and exceptIOnal posItIOn Apart from Its mtellectual
charactenstIcs, thIS appears m ItS absolute ImmobIlIty The
souls of lIvmg creatures, whIle unmoved m themselves, move
themselves mdlrectly when they move the body so that It
changes Its place ThIS IS not true of the pnme mover, whIch
we must POSIt as the cause of the eternal contmuous motIon of
the umverse , m ItS transcendence It remams unmoved
both m Itself and aCCIdentally Now when Anstotle came to
mtroduce the sphere-souls he could not exempt them from all
motIon as he had the pnme mover, for, though unmoved m
themselves, they are carned along by the outer heaven wIth
therr spheres In order, however, that they mIght not smk to
the level of terrestnal 'souls', he mserted thI" passage (259 b 28-
31), whIch nevertheless, as we showed above (p 361), cannot
conceal the fact that he IS here mtroducmg a new pnnclple that
does not harmomze wIth the contrast between the self-movmg
earthly souls and the absolutely unmoved spmt of the world
For the rest, the addItIon was mtended to be hypothetical Just
hke the two others, It was merely to recogmze the posstbthty
that the spheres have movers, nothmg more
The later PenpatetIcs, who knew the final form of the doc-
tnne of the sphere-movers from Metaphystcs A 8,
mterpreted these addItIons to the Phystcs m accordance wIth It
They were bound to assume that here also Anstotle had the
same pomt of VIew, and to read It mto thIS chapter In general
they were able to carry thIS out wIth the help of the further
assumptIon that Anstotle wIshed to explam here only the pnn-
clple of the relatIon obtammg between contmuous revolutIon
and unmoved mover, and not to raIse the questIOn of the speCIal
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 365
nature and number of the movers of the spheres, but there IS
one passage on which thIS view mevltably came to wreck At
the end of the cham of argument we read as follows (259
b
20)
'Hence we may confidently conclude that If a thmg belongs to
the class of unmoved movers that are also themselves moved
accidentally, It IS ImpOSSible that It should cause contmuous
motion So the neceSSIty that there should be motion con-
tmuously reqUIres that there should be a first mover that
unmoved even If, as we have said, there to be m
the world of thIngs an unceasIng and undyIng motIon' That
the correct readIng was elva! Tl L.Ei TO lTpWTOV K1VOVv &t<!VTlTOV
Koi KaTO: which remaInS only In one lIttle-notIced
manuscript, IS clear from whose InterpretatIOn of the
passage presuppo<;es It I Only the hIghest and transcendent
mover IS unmoved aCCIdentally as well as m Itself, not the
sphere-souls, as ArIstotle hImself says In the InterpolatIon
25g
b
2R-3I If then only the prune mover IS In questIOn here,
how could the Interpreters also discover the doctnne of the
sphere-movers In the passage So far were they, however, from
SUppOSIng Anstotle could ever have thought otherWise that they
Simply corrected the passage and made It mean exactly the
by Inserting a negatIve The false readIng 'and not
unmoved aCCIdentally' has made Its way Into all the better
manuscrIpts, although It IS not even hngUIstIcally IntellIgible
and the real meamng IS exactly repeated at 258
b
IS
Fortunately tradItIOn ha<; preserved for us the way In WhICh
the first generatIon of followers dealt With the nddle
presented by thiS chapter of the Eudemu<; partly
I SImpl In Phys ,vol II, P 1260, I I I (Dlels) Cp the apparatus cntleUs and
Dlels 'Zur Textgeschlchte der "nst PhysIk'. BerIchte der BerlIner AkademIe,
18H2
2 Cp 258b 13 'The followmg conslduatlOns WIll make It clear that there
must necessanly be some such thIng, WhICh, whIle It has the capacIty of movIng
somethmg ehe. IS Itself unmoved and exempt from all change [as Slmphclus
correctly reads the manuscnpts give unmoved m respect of all external
change] which can affect It neIther In an unquahfied nor In an accIdental sense
1 hese words correspond to thosc at thL end of the whole argument 10 25g
b
lQ-28 The two together enclose the senes of proofs and thus show that thIS
whole chapter IS concerned solely With the hIghest movmg prinCIple The false
readmg Ka1"Q occurs at 25g
b
24 In all the manuscnpts except H,
although some one has erased the m E (PansInus), eIther because he had
looked at SImphclUs' commentary or because hIS own reflectIons had revealed
to mm that the lOgIC of the argument requires Its removal
Ad
366 MATURITY
paraphrased the PhysJcs, and partly reproduced It word for
word, 10 a large work of several books apparently lOtended for
lectures In domg so he often gave more precIse expreSSIOn to
doubtful and sometimes added new arguments or
made other addlhons, none of WhICh can count as hIS own
property For the most part he simply brought the up
to the state 10 WhICh the problems were at the tIme of Anstotle's
death This IS perfectly clear 10 our passage Dunng the time
Just before the master's death the theory of the prune mover
had been expanded mto the theory of the movers of the spheres
Eudemus looked 10 vam 10 thIS chapter of the PhysJCS for a
defimte explanation that there IS a plurabty of unmoved movers
The last of the arguments for the eXIstence of an unmoved
mover seemed rather, as we have seen, to exclude altogether
the posslbulty of a multIpbcatIon of thIS pnnclple In hIS para-
phrase Eudemus therefore IDserted mto Anstotle's argument,
'smce there must necessamy be contmuous mohon, there must
also be the unmoved first mover', the words 'for each revolu-
tIOn', that IS, for each of the spheres 1 He thus read mto Ans-
totle's statement the doctnne that Its author had finally recog-
mzed as the true one He was Justified m consldenng It the
authentic one, and he saw 10 the words of the PhysJCS a formula-
tion that no longer accorded WIth Anstotle's most advanced
VIew He could not help seemg, naturally, that the elevated
style of the 'undymg and unhnng motion' 10 thIS passage makes
It fundamentally ImpOSSIble to suppose that It refers to any-
thmg but the mohon of the first heaven and the God who causes
It, the whole pyramId of arguments 10 the last book of the
Physus culmmates In thIS Idea It 18 10 fact, bke many other
formulatIons m thIS work, one of the eVIdences that ItS first
I Simpl, op Cit, vol II, P 1262 I 16, In Dlels (Eudemus, frg 80, P lOS,
I 5, ID Spengel) HavlDg first that there IS always mobon, and that It
has neither a before which It was not nor an end after which It Will
not be, and next that the pnme mover' In each mot,on" Eudemus add"
must be unmoved both In Itself and accidentally ThiS recapitulation of
the content of the sixth chapter of Physte, VIII refers, as far as Eudemus'
addition IS concerned, to the words (259
b
22-24) So the necessity that there
should be motion continuously requires that the first mover (I) should eXist
and be unmoved both m Itself and aCCidentally' How Eudemus reconCiled
hImself to the fact that hiS addition openly contradiCts Anstotle's own explana-
bon, according to which 'ImmobIlity both In Itself and ace,dentally' belongs
only to the hlghest mover, remaIDS obscure
REVISION OF THEORY OF PRIME MOVER 367
draft dates from an early penod Eudemus and hIS fellow-
students, therefore, knew this when they asserted therr authentic
mterpretahon, but the conSCIOusness that Anstotle's survlvmg
papers are the deposit of a process of evolutIOn was obViOUsly
lost soon afterwards
CHAPTER XV
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY
T
HE name of ArIstotle suggests ImpersonalIty, tImeles'iness,
Intellectual sovereIgnty over the whole world of abstract
thought throughout long stretches of hIStOry, and scholastIc
Idolatry In order to assImIlate hIm entIrely to theIr own world
the MIddle Ages erased hIS IndiVIdual characterIstIcs and made
hIm the representatIve of philosophy The greatness of such an
attItude towards the matter that he r p r s t ~ IS undemable,
and he hImself auned at the matter and not at the person, at
eternal truth and not at hIstOrIcal learnIng , but the days when
he was IdentIfied WIth truth Itself have passed HIS hIstorIcal
Importance as the Intellectual leader of the West IS certaInly
not lessened by the fact that the evolutIOn of Independent
phIlosophIcal achIevement In European culture has taken the
form of a five-hundred-years' struggle agaInst hIm Seen from
the modern POInt of VIew, however, he IS now merely the repre-
sentatIve of the tradItIon, and not a symbol of our own pro-
blems or of the free and creatIve advance of knowledg-e We
attaIn a frUItful relatIon to hIm only by d. detour, by hIstorIcal
knowledge of what he meant to Greek culture and phIlosophy,
and of the speCIal task that he fulfilled In hiS century ThIS fate
befalls every great spmt who obtaInS historIcal survIval He
must be detached from hIS hIstOrIcal roots and neutralIzed
before he can become accessIble to postenty Only hIstory can
then answer the further questIon when the POInt has been
reached where thIS 'lIVIng' Influence changes to the Oppo!>Ite,
so that nothIng but a return from the tradItIon to the sources
and to the real hIstOrIcal meamng of hIS hfe can save hun from
Intellectual death Even to-day we cannot easIly agree whether
ArIstotle has reached thIS POInt, SInce the scholastIc philosophy
lIves on among us as a world In Itself The present book, at any
rate, anses out of an hlstoncal attItude towards hIm-whICh,
however, does not necessarily make It useless to those who thInk
fundamentally otherwISe, for WIthout deepemng our under-
standIng of ArIStotle as an hlstoncal person we cannot even get
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 369
a full grasp of the special nature and depth of hI:- mfiuence on
postenty
I propose therefore to conclude my discussIOns by applymg
the histoncal results of this book to the place of Anstotle m the
mtellectual movement of his century Up to the pre'ient the
mner connexlOn between his philosophical form and the great
problem that Plato propounded to the scholarship of Greece
has been made eVIdent mamly m hIS cntIclsm of the Ideas and
m the evolutIon of particular conceptIOns This e:xammation of
particular conceptions IS the special task of the philosophIcal
mterpretatIon of Plato and Anstotle The philological hIstory
of development, on the other hand, while requmng and further-
mg this philosophIcal mterpretatlOn, does not find Its ultImate
aIm m the history of problems a'i such, but :,ees therem only the
special fonn taken by the whole mtellectual progress of the
natIOn m the philosophical sphere To ask how far philosophy
led or was led m this progress IS Idle The question can hardly
be decided even If one takes the whole culture of a penod mto
account, because one erroneously :,uppose'i that only the content
of conscIOusness really matters, and falls to see the slgmficance
of the fonnulatIon gIven to thIS content by philosophy What
follows attempts to understand the orgamc slgmflcance of Ans-
totle's philosophy wlthm Greek culture purely through Itself
and Its hlstoncal CIrcumstance:" ab:,tractIng from the matenal
content of the partIcular dl:,nplmes and concentratmg attentIon
,>oleIy on the hlstoncal nature of his problem and Its Intellectual
forms
I ANALYTICAL THINKING
Anstotle's huge achievement m logical mqUlry shall be
touched on here only so far as It charactenzes the whole spmt
of his phIlo'iophy In It the analytIcal power of thought
obtamed cla"slcal expressIOn The way was prepared for It by
certam dlscovenes In elementary logic contamed In the theory
of Ideas, and by the epIstemolOgIcal and methodical traIt In
Plato, but the and Categones sprang from another
root than Plato's Invanably concrete and objectIve thoughL
Modern research has successfully attempted to show that a large
number of logical proposItIons occumng In undoubtedly early
works such as the and the Categones (above, p 4
6
)
370 MATURITY
arose m the Academy and were sunply taken over by Anstotle.
and a comparative analysIs of the elementary logIC of Plato's
dIalogues, carned mto the smallest details, would confinn and
enlarge thIs result, as our exammatiOn of the Eudemus has shown ,
but Anstotle IS the first person m whom we find real abstraction
It took possessiOn of all hIS thmkIng Here IS not the place to
examme the first appearance of the abstract and ItS gradual
emergence m Greek thought, nor to show how It unfolded Itself
more and more clearly out of Plato's Idea It was reserved for
Anstotle's powers of observation to grasp It wholly m Itself,
WIth Its own pecuhar laws In hIS untmng research mto the
logical properties and relations of the categorIes and of the forms
and presuppOSItions of SCIentific mference we can detect the
mvestlgator of later years, seekIng to span m ItS entirety the
whole realm of logIcal fact He constructs hIS new disCIphne
as a purely fonnal act, and expressly tells us that for hIm logIC,
hke rhetOrIC, IS not a theory of objects and so not a SCIence
(qllAocrocpla), but a faculty (:2.livaIJ1s) and a techmque He sepa-
rates It ngorously from the questiOn of the ongm of conceptions
and thoughts m the soul, and thus from psychology, and regards
It purely as an mstrument of knowledge, but for thIS very
reason he Joms hIS doctnne of the syllOgIsm to hIS theory of
objects to make a self-supportmg theory of knowledge, the s l ~
of WhICh IS the mqmry mto the so-called aXiOms ThIS does not
Justify us m speakmg of a metaphysical lOgIC He had broken
up the old ontologlc-the only fonn of logIC known to Pre-
Anstoteltan phl1osophy-once and for all mto the elements
Word (Myos) and Thmg (ov) The bond between them had to
be restored somehow, and thIS was done by m e n ~ of the con-
ception of formal cause, whIch was at once conception and thmg,
ground of knowmg and ground of beIng ThIS may not seem a
satisfactory solution-It was histoncally condItioned by Ans-
totle's reahsm-but It IS very far from the projection of logIcal
conception, Judgement, and mference, mto the real ~ Hegel
teaches It
It IS necessary to reahze the tremendous mfluence of the
analytical attItude on the mtellectual form of Anstotle's phIlo-
sophy, for It detemunes every step that he takes In hIS works
everythmg IS the most perfect, polIshed, lOgical art, not the
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 371
rough-and-ready style of modem th10kers or scholars, who fre-
quently confound observation wIth mference and are very poor
10 consclOUS nuances of lOgical preclSlOn Because we no longer
have feelmg or bme for thIS art, and because we are more or less
mnocent of the finer cultlvatlOn of thmklng as anCIent dIalectic
understood It, our modem mterpreters of Anstotle do not dIS-
play an exceSSIve amount of It m theIr commentanes In thIS
respect we could learn a good deal from the anCIent exposItors,
who-at any rate those who do not belong to the dechne-
follow every step of the method wIth the consclOUS mterest of
the artist m thmkmg The fact IS that the thmkmg of the fourth
century IS m the same case as ItS speech, both are closed worlds
to the ordmary person of to-day, only the pale ghmmer of a
notion of them ever penetrates hIS conSClOusness \Vhatever
attitude we take towards thIS consclOUS techmcal culbvation,
we have In It a part of the essence of the fourth century. to
whIch we always feel ourselves Intellectually very close because
the names of Plato and Anstotle have a dIrect sIgmficance for
us From that to real understanding, however, IS another long
Journey
The "Igmficance of thIS analytical habIt of mind In the actual
treatment of problems can be followed step by step, for example
m the Etlncs, where the frUitful but problematic equabons Into
whIch conceptlOns were forced by the older speculatlOn (such
as 'VIrtue = knowledge') gIve way for the first tune to a real
analySIS of the growth of ethIcal motives and of the fonns of
ethIcal actlOn and will ThI<; IS by no means sImply 'psycho-
loglZlng' ethIcs, the startmg-pomt IS always an exact logIcal
mqUIry Into the meamng of parbcular words and conceptions,
together WIth a sharp dehneatlOn of theIr apphcabIhty A<; an
example we may take the analy"es In VI of
phIlosophIC WIsdom, Nus, SCIentific knowledge, art,
understanding. good dehberation, and cleverness The psycho-
logIcal debcacy Wlth WhICh he here takes apart the knotted
mass of conceptions contaIned In Plato's IS a very
great advance along the path from the blank Idea of the Good
to an ethICS of will and mtention. and It would never have
been pOSSIble but for hI!> conceptual analySIS, whIch prOVIded
hIm WIth a theory of meamng, based on language, from WhICh
MATURITY
psycholOgical comprehenSIOn could take ItS
37
2
hIS sympathetic
start
The example also shows clearly that when so exammed Plato's
'conceptIons' at once dIssolve mto theIr component parts and
are then Irrevocably lost How much p r o n s ~ s mcluded accord-
mg to hIm-the Idea as object and the contemplatIon of the
Idea as the process of knowledge, theoretIc recourse to the know-
ledge of the Good and the practIcal fulfilment of sentIment and
actIon by means of thIS vISIOn, m short, the whole 'philosophIC
hfe' Anstotle reduces It to the meanmg correspondmg to
ordmary speech, It becomes 'ethIcal mSIght' and IS then only
one element among many 10 the analysIs of the moral ethos
In the same way Anstotle's thmkmg dIfferentIates between
Plato's theory of bemg and hIS theory of knowledge The
Idea, the palpable mtelhgible umty of the mamfold, whIch was
at once ethIcal Ideal, aesthetIc form, logIcal conceptIon, and
essentIal bemg, 10 an as yet undIVIded umty, breaks up mto
'umversal', 'substance', 'shape', 'what-It-was-to-be-so-and-so',
'defimtIon', and 'end', none of whIch conceptIOns comes any-
where near It m comprehensIveness Anstotle's 'fonn' (eTAos)
IS the Idea (lAta) mtellectuahzed, and IS related thereto Just
as hIS phroneSH IS to Plato's Everythmg that Plato's spmt
touched has a certam plastIc roundness, than whIch nothmg
more strenuously reSIsts the analytIcal urge of Anstotle's
thought, whIch IS to Plato's as the dnatomlcal dIagram IS to
the plastIc human form Perhaps thIs shocks the aesthetIc and
the rehglOus man Anyhow It IS charactenstIc of Anstotle
The executIon of thIS pnnciple wa<; the bIrth of SCIence 10 the
modern sense We must not forget, of cour<;e, that the pheno-
menon not merely possesses thl!> esotenc sIgmficance but IS al<;o
a symptom of the whole 10tellectual development Wlthm the
hIstory of Greek thought Anstotle stands deCIdedly at a pomt
of tranSItIon After the tremendou,", achIevement of Plato's
phIlosophy, 10 whIch the antIque power of myth-makIng was
Imbued WIth the fructIfymg logIcal mtellIgence to an unprece-
dented degree, the world-pICtunng creatIveness of the old days
began apparently to fall, and to !>uccumh to the preponderance
of the SCIentIfic and conceptual attItude The man who clInched
thIS mevitable histoncal development was Anstotle, the founder
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 373
of sCIentIfic phIlosophy It IS charactenstIc of phJ.1osophy, or at
any rate of Greek phJ.1osophy, that thIS act dId not become the
start of a new and fruItful philosophIcal development, but was
sunply a hIgh pornt through WhICh It passed, and whichremamed
attached to the name of Anstotle The mechamcal outward
form of hIS art of A nalytzcs was mdeed taken over by HellemstIc
phJ.1osophy, and pursued nght down to scholastIcIsm, but hIS
analytIcal spmt, far from descendmg upon It, found ItS food m
posItIve SCIence The foundation of sCIentIfic phJ.1osophy became
the dIrect cause of the final separation of SCIence from phJ.1o-
sophy, because m the long run the Greeks could not endure the
mtruslOn of the sCIentIfic spmt upon therr o r t ~ to pIcture the
umverse
The pecuhar form through whIch the analytIcal thought of
sCIentIfic phIlosophy mastered both the real world and ItS mtel-
lectual hentage was the method of dlvislOn, mference, and
dIalectic HypothesIS played only a subordmate part, and was
conSIstently used only m conneXlOn WIth dlvislOn HellemstIc
SCIence dId not possess the practical prereqUisItes for makmg
frUitful use of thIS method, especially experunent All dIVISIOn
orders as well as dlstmgUIshes , It delimIts the range and content
of conceptIons and the apphcabulty of methods, and thereby
leads mdrrectly to the general conceptual arrangement of thmgs
that we call system Anstotle has always been reckoned the
systematIzer par excellence, because under the mfluence of hIS
thought philosophy was dIVIded mto a senes of mdependent
dISCIplines combmed mto a umty by therr common mtellectual
purpose The first attempts, however, at makmg phIlosophy
systematic m thIS way occur m the Academy m Plato's later
VIew, when In the Phzlebus he dIstingUishes phYSICS as 'second
phIlosophy' from the study of the Ideas, WhICh Anstotle after-
wards called 'first philosophy' That ethICS, too, had already
asserted ItS mdependence wlthm the Academy IS shown by
Xenocrates' celebrated tnchotomy, lOgIC, phySICS, ethICS, WhICh
estabhshed an epoch In HellemstIc philosophy
Those very StOIC and EpIcurean systems, however, clearly
show that Anstotle's and Plato's 'systems' lacked the mam
feature of the type-they were not closed It IS no aCCIdent that
they were unfamilIar WIth the techmcal term aVO'Tfl1.10, WhICh
374 MATURITY
aptly descnbes the constructive character of the Hellemstic
pIctures of the world, self-sufficIent, emphasIzIng totahty, and
far removed from hVIng research The soul of Anstotle's thought
IS not puttmg together (OVVlaTCIval) but dlvldmg C.6latpeiv),
and that not as a pnnclple of constructlOn but as an mstrument
of lIvIng research Hence his 'system' remams provlSlonal and
open In every direction No passage can be cIted In which he
even lays down the hmlts of the maIn dlsclphnes unambiguously
and defimtIvely, and those who marvel at the systematIc articula-
tion of hIS phtlosophy cannot even say mto what parts It divides
The celebrated dlvlSlon mto theoretIcal and practIcal and pro-
ductIve, wIth the dlvlslOn of the first Into theology and mathe-
matics and phySICS, IS nowhere realIzed and does not embody
hIS actual system, It IS a merely conceptual classlficatlOn At
the level of development at whIch he wrote those words It
slgmfied merely a geometncallocus for the leadmg part played
by metaphysIcs In philosophy Moreover, the particular diS-
ciplInes as such alwaY5> opposed the greatest dIfficulties to the
attempt at a completed systematIzatlOn, as IS only too Intel-
lIgIble no\\' that we kno\\' how Anstotle's wntIngs attaIned their
form AnsIng out of Indefatigable work on speclahzed problems,
they always present a disparate picture If we examIne their
systematic structure m detail In thIS respect the Hlstory of
Ammals IS the same as the Metaphys1,cs or the PohtlCS OutlIne.,
of a systematic arrangement, often Introduced only dunng the
subsequent labour of weldIng the parts together, are carned
only half through or remaIn entirely unfulfilled To produce
an external archltectomc was not the ongInal Idea of thIS
bUIlder and therefore none can be 'reconstructed', any more
than the treatIses With their overlappIng layers can be made Into
a smooth lIterary whole
If we dismISS thl5> sen5>e of system, namely an edIfice of dogma,
there remaIn., only that analytical power of separatIng and order-
Ing which IS systematIc In a very different sense System wIll
now mean not the outwardly vlSlble fa<;ade, the constructlOn of
a totahty of knowledge, lIfeless and dogmatic, out of the multI-
plICIty of particular dlscovenes and dISCIplInes, I but the Inner
I Hellenistic notion of thl.' IS stnkmgly developed by Sextus
EmpiriC'" (Adverm, LoglCo, r Ig8, 3 ff ) on the baSIS of hls-mamly StOlc-
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 375
stratrlicatIon of fundamental conceptIons, whIch ArlStotle was
the first to bnng to hght When he fhngs the net of the cate-
gones over reahty, then selects from them the mdependent
'thls-somethmg-or-other' (T6:?e TI), declares It the 'substance'
of philosophIc thought, and so descends the pltshaft of thIS con-
ceptIon, m order to lay bare m It one after the other the levels
of matter, form, essence, umversal, potency, and act, that IS
certamly systematIc thmkmg By thlS analySIS the mere 'thIS-
'iomethmg-or-other' IS dIfferentIated mto the form WhICh deter-
mmes matter, and m whIch umversal conceptual thmkmg grasps
the essence of the real, the latter bemg related to matter as
act to potency The same fundamental conceptlOns persIst hke
subterranean strata through several disciphnes Thus the con-
ceptIon of form penetrates psychology and lOgIC and all the
'>peClal SCIences, while It also belongs to phYSICS and metaphySICS,
that IS, to theoretIc phIlosophy The doctnne of Nus runs through
metaphySICS, ethIcs, psychology, and analytIcs These common
mtellectual themes hold the dlsclphnes Inwardly together The
umty does not anse, however, from any mtentIonal aSSImIlatIon
of the parts to each other, It is the ongInal kernel out of WhICh
the multIphClty has grown Plato's Idea WJ.S ethIcs, ontology,
and theory of knowledge, m one The method of divislOn dIS-
solved It mto several dIsciphnes, but m accordance wIth Plato's
stnvmg for umty Anstotle bmlt up beneath them a conceptIon
correspondmg to the Idea, a conceptIon common both to reahty
and to knowledge, which umted the multIphClty at ItS root
Nevertheless each speCial sphere retams ItS tentative and
mqmnng character, never achlevmg satIsfactIOn m the ex-
ternal form of completeness and ummpeachable construction,
always Improvmg itself, overthrowmg what it had prevIOusly
set up, and lookmg for new paths If there IS any totahty for
WhICh Anstotle stnves it IS a totahty not of fimshed knowledge
but of problems ThiS may be Illustrated by our conclUSions
about hiS ethICS Accordmg to Plato's statement of the pro-
blem happmess conSisted eIther In VIrtue or m pleasure or m
phrvnesH The h ~ l e u s shows how the problem of pleasure,
sources Truth IS here conceIved as a 'fixed' scientific system (0)'; QV hncrn'u.l"
Ka&'O'T'lKVla C7VO'T'llJaT'''''') and the latter IS charactenzed as a congenes of many
thmgs (66polalJa IK ",-"ov,",.)
376 MATURITY
for example, made itself mdependent m hiS philosophical
mqmfles and formed a realm of its own, touchmg the questions
of and virtue and happmess only tangentially The
same thmg happened to the realms of vIrtue, fnend-
ship, and happmess They all appeared frequently m the
Academy, and always as relatively mdependent subjects of
mqmry, as is shown by the titles of the works of the members
Plato'!> dialogues give a faithful picture of the sets of problems
thus rendered mdependent Anstotle collects together all the
problems beanng on ethiCS (Tel ti6lKa), and, Without curtailmg
the free play of the particular sets, gradually subjects them
all to a tighter methodical yoke withm the framework of thiS
ongmally loose umty The umficatIon never prospered suffi-
Ciently, however, to allow a 'systematIc' JustificatiOn of the
appearance of the problems On m the eIghth and
mnth books of the for example, or to make
the double discussiOn of the problem of Pleasure In Books VII
and X explIcable through considerations other than editonal
Where we can !>ee somewhat deeper Into the ongm of the wnt-
mgs, as m the and the we observe towards
the end of the proces'> an mcreasIng effort to reach such a umfied
structure, although it i'> never completely successful Only the
history of hIS development can clearly reveal the roots and the
meamng of what we may call Anstotle's . system' The Hellen-
IStIC systems are connected With hIS late work, but they take
their departure from the external ImpresslOn and make pnmary
that which was secondary to hIm They dogmatIcally construct
a fixed picture of the world out of . valId proposItions', and m
thiS safe shell they seek refuge from the storms of lIfe
II SCIENCE AND METAPHYSICS
All the lmes of Anstotle's philosophy run together m hiS
metaphySiCS, while It on the other hand stretches out mto all
other disciplmes It expresses hiS ultunate philosophical pur-
poses, and every study of the details of hiS doctnne that does
not start from thiS central organ must miSS the mam pomt To
form a correct Judgement on itS nature and accomphshment is
not easy. If only because of the hmdrance ansmg from the
prejudice attached to the name The penod dunng which
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 377
Anstotle's philosophy held dogmatic sway ended wIth the break-
up of metaphysIcs as a branch of knowledge and thus demohshed
hIS creatIOn Smce then we mvoluntarily regard hlffi as the
leader of the dogmatists, the antipode whom Kant overcame,
and thmk we do hIma seZVlce by prefernng the non-metaphysIcal
parts of hIS philosophy and putting hIm 10 a more pOSItiVISt hght
Yet he was never a POSItiVISt even 10 the days when research
preponderated The hvmg sIgnIficance of hIS metaphysIcs cannot
be appreciated from the pomt of VIew of modern cntlcal philo-
sophy, but only 10 relation to the problems of hIS own time
When we look at It 10 the latter way we find that It IS really
founded on a cntlcal purpose HIS aIm was to purge the
philosophIcal conSCIOusness of ItS mythIcal and metaphoncal
elements and to work out the stnctly sCIentific foundations of
a metaphysIcal VIew of the world that he took over 10 ItS malO
outhnes from Plato In other words, It was hIS mterest 10 a
partIcular method that led to thIS mfluentIal construction
HIS metaphysIcs anses out of that lOner tensIOn between
10tellectual conSCIence and longing for a rehgIOus VIew of the
world whIch constitutes what IS new and problematic 10 hIS
philosophIcal personahty In the earher cosmologIes of the
Greek phYSICIStS the mythIcal and the ratIOnal elements mter-
penetrate 10 an as yet undIvIded umty From the hlstoncal
pomt of VIew It IS an abuse of language, not 10 the least excused
by ItS frequency, to call these philosophIes metaphysIcal systems
because they contam elements that are metaphysIcal 10 our
sense In thIS sen<;e, naturally, Anstotle's h y s ~ s would also
have to be called metaphysIcal, and yet precIsely thIS example
makes the hlstoncal absurdIty of thIS anachromstIc descnptlOn
as clear as daylIght Its apphcatIon to the Presocratlcs would
be sensIble only If It were meant to express that 10 foundmg
metaphysIcs as an lOdependent SCIence Anstotle's alffi had been
Just precIsely to make these dogmatic and mythIcal elements
10 the cosmologIes of hIS predecessors the conSCIOUS centre of
philosophIcal thought, whereas preVIously they had msmuated
themselves unperceIved There IS somewhat more JustificatIOn
for usmg the expressIOn of Plato's world of Ideas Here It
mdlcates the entry IOta philosophIcal conSCIOusness of the
mVISIble and mtellIgible, and espeCIally the objective SIde of the
378 MATURITY
Ideas as bemg a hIgher sort of reahty, not to be apprehended by
expenence WIth thIS IS connected In the later phase of Plato's
development the rehglOus problemof teleologIcal theology, whIch
became the startIng-poInt of Anstotle's metaphysIcs Even thIS
use of the modern conception IS, however, stnctly speakIng un-
hlstoncal-although we contInually fall back Into It agaInst our
will-and hmders the true understandIng of Anstotle's real
achIevement MetaphySICS arose In hIS mmd, and It arose out of
the conflIct of the rehglOus and cosmologIcal convIctIons that he
owed to Plato WIth hIS own sCIentIfic and analytIcal mode of
thInkIng ThIS Inner dlsumon was unknown to Plato It was a
consequence of the collapse of the procedure on whIch Plato had
based the knowledge of hIS new supersensIble reahty, and In
whIch for one Instant exact sCience and the most ecstatIc enJoy-
ment of the Inexpenenceable had seemed to COInCIde WIthout
remamder When thI,> concrete umty of myth and lOgIC fell to
pIeces Anstotle carned away as a the unshakable
confidence that In the Platomc creed of hIS youth the mmost
kernel must somehow or other be true The M IS hIS
grand attempt to make thIS Somethmg that transcends the hmits
of human expenence accessIble to the cntIcal understandmg
Because of thIS profound and prevIOusly unrecogmzed com-
mumty of problems With the philosophers of rehglOn m medIeval
Chnstendom, Jewry, and Islam, and not through d. mere acudent
of traditIon, he became the Intellectual leader of the centunes
followmg Augustme, whose Intenor world was enlarged far
beyond the hmIts of the Greek soul by their tensIOn between faIth
and knowledge The hIstory of hiS development shows that
behmd hIS metaphYSICS, too, there hes the credo ut
The study of hIS development also allows us to see more clearly
the new conceptIOn of method on WhICh thIS philosophy reposed
Up to now the reIgmng view has been that the word 'metd.-
phYSICS' owes ItS ongin merely to the order aCCIdentally given to
hIS wntmgs In some complete edItIon of the HellemstIc age-
Andromcus IS usually suggested-and that It does not express
the Anstotehan VIew of the real SItuatIOn In truth, however,
thIS word, whIch was surely COIned by some PenpatetIc earher
than Andromcus, gIves a perfectly Just pIcture of the funda-
mental aIm of 'first philosophy' In Its ongmdl sense Whereas
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 379
Plato had fixed hIS gaze from the very first moment on the
hIghest peak of the world of Ideas, and believed that allcertamty
was rooted dIrectly m knowledge of the mVIsible and mtelligible,
Anstotle's metaphysIcs IS construed on the basIs of phySICS, thus
takmg the OppOSIte dlfectlOn The hIghest monad, after havmg
been to Plato the most exact norm and the most certam object
of the mmd, came to be for Anstotle the last and most dIfficult
of all problems We U'iually overlook the fact that hIS commonest
descnptIon of the new dIscIpline IS . the SCIence that we are
seekmg' In contrast to all other SCIences It starts not from a
gIven subject-matter but from the questIOn whether Its sub]ect-
matter eXIsts Thus It has to begm by demon!>tratmg ItS own
pOSSIbIlity as a SCIence, and thIS' mtroductory' questIon really
exhausts ItS whole nature
From the very begmnmg Anstotle IS certam that the SCIence
that we are seekmg 15 pOSSIble only If there are eIther Ideas or
some' separated' mtdhgible reality correspondmg to them In
spIte of hIS cntIcal attItude, therefore, he escapes no more than
Plato dId from the notIon that all real knowmg presuppoe;es an
object lymg outSide con!>ClOusness ~ w ov Kol xwplO"T6v) WhICh
It somehow touches, represents, or mIrrors As we have saId,
thiS reahsm Ie; nothmg speCIfically AnstotelIan, but umversal
among the Greeks AnCIent thmkmg never got beyond the con-
fused notIOn of the relatIon between knowledge and Its object
mdicated by these plctonal expreSSIOns Withm these histoncal
lImIts, however, An... t o t l ~ M etaphystcs represents a state of the
problems whose relatlOn to Plato's ontoiogic corresponds pretty
c>..actly to that of Kant to the dogmatIc ratIonalIsm of the
eighteenth century The questIon, Is the SCIence that we are
seekmg possIble;l has for hIm the objectIve meanmg, Is there
thIS supposed supersensIblc reality;l whIle for Kant It has the
methodologIcal meamng, Are there a prwn synthetIc Judge-
ments;l Without winch the tradItIonal metaphySICS was mcon-
celvable The fact that ancient cnticism-Stt vema verba-bears
the reahshc, whIle modern bears the IdealIstIc, signature, must
not prevent us from detectmg the mner simIlanty of the histoncal
'iltuatlOns Both thmkers represent extreme pomts m the chams
of development to whIch they belong, and have therefore had no
postenty, except for a reVival followmg on longmisunderstandmg
380 MATURITY
and endmg m fonnahsm The really hvmg evolutIOn passes over
or goes behmd the metaphysIcal aspect of Kant or ArIStotle, dIS-
regardmg, WIth a onesldedness that IS sometImes sensatIonalIst
and at other tImes ratIonahst or mystIcal, the sCIentIfic preCISIOn
and fineness that both thmkers gave to the problems Hence
Anstotle IS the only Greek thmker WIth whom Kant could talk
on an equal footmg, and whom he could try to overcome For
the rest, whIle Kant's pOSItIon IS based exclusIvely on hIS tran-
scendental CrItIcIsm of the apprehendmg conSCIOusness, the
foundatIOn of ArIstotle's cntIcal realIsm IS hIS physIcal system,
together \Hth a crItIcal analysIs, startmg from the objects of
experIence, of the conceptIOn of bemg
MetaphysIcs IS based on phYSICS accordmg to Anstotle m the
first place because It IS nothmg but the conceptually necessary
completIOn of the expenmentally revealed system of movmg
nature The pnme task of phYSICS IS to explam mohon, and one
of Anstotle's mam objectIons to the theory of Ideas IS that It does
not do so In makmg thIS objectIOn he IS settmg up a defimte
type of natural SCIence as a classIcal model, namely the method
of constructmg hypotheses mvented by Eudoxus, WhICh explams
a complIcated 'iet of facts by refernng It to the most slIDple
pnnCIples-m thIS mstance to the mathematIcal constructIon of
all planetary motIOns from SImple CIrcles 'To save the pheno-
mena' IS the methodologIcal Ideal of It has to
elICIt the ultImate grounds of experIence from the facts them-
selves and from theIr mner law To thIS end It must, mdeed,
overstep the bounds of Immediate expenence at one pomt, but
It must not hope for more than to brmg to hght the pre-
supposItIons that he m the facts themselves when nghtly mter-
preted The reference of ammal motIon to the eternal cosmIc
motIon and of the latter to the motIon of the outermost CIrcle
was for Anstotle a fact that the natural SCIence of Eudoxus had
placed beyond all doubt It represented a degree of mathematIc-
ally accurate experIentIal knowledge never before attamed In
thIS sphere On the presuppOSItIons of Anstotehan phYSICS thIS
system of motIons had to find ItS copmg-stone m some ultImate
cause The mference to a prIme mover was thus suggested by
nature Itself
Anstotle anchors thIS branch of knowledge still more finnly
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 381
m physIcs by means of hIs analysIs of the conception of sub-
stance He thereby gives to the Idea of an ultimate cause of all
motIon a more defimte shape as the hIghest and final form m the
realm of natural forms The startmg-pomt of hIs theory of bemg
IS the world of perceptIble appearances, the mdividual thmg
of the naively reahstlc conscIOusness Was there any way of
apprehendmg thIs mdividual bemg The earher phYSICS had m
fact possessed no such means Its theory of the elements and of
motIon dId mdeed offer much mformatIon about the components
of ' all thmgs' and the forces active WIthm them, but It obtamed
thIS mformatton by pure speculatIon The techmcal analysIs of
an mdividual thing Into ItS matenal elements, as modem natural
SCIence understands It, was Just as ImpOSSIble for Democntus
with hIS hIghly developed atomIC theory as It had been for earher
and stIll more pnmitIve phySICists In the last and hIghest stage
of ItS development Plato's philosophy embraced as the object of
SCIentIfic knowledge (trrICTTi]I.I1l) the whole hIerarchy of Ideas as
developed through the dialectical art of dIVIsIOn, from the most
comprehenSive genus down to the lowest and not further dIVIsIble
speCIes (cnOI.lOV el1.os), but all that lay on the hIther SIde of the
Ideal world, where It bordered on that of experIence, was Indeter-
mmate (c5:1mpov), the object of mere opmIon, and not truly real
Plato's mdlvlslble IS not yet Anstotle's mdIvldual, an Immanent
form hnked wIth matter (evvAoveT1.oS) Earnestly though Plato
wrestled wIth the questIOn of opimon m hIS last penod, he
could not pass from the Idea to a grasp of the mdividual bemg of
expenence PhySICS to hIm was merely a heap of 'ltkely myths'
ThIS IS where Anstotle's cntIque begms HIS aun IS all along to
make the Idea capable of producing knowledge of appearances
ThIS was, to hIm, synonymous wIth the demand that the things
of sense shall be accessIble to concepts, for as a PlatOnIst he
held that only through the UnIversal are knowledge and SCIence
pOSSIble He stands In the mIddle of the change undergone by
the theory of Ideas In Plato's later years, whIch brought WIth It
the first thorough elucidatlOn of the logIcal Side of the Idea, as
the unIversal and the conceptIon, and of ItS Importance for know-
ledge The same process rendered the ontological Side of the Idea
problematIc Anstotle conSIdered It aXIOmatic that nothmg
unIversal possesses Independent eXIStence From lus pomt of
Rh
382 MATURITY
VIew Plcito's later theory of Ideas appeared as a hypostatIzatIon
of the umversal, to whIch he opposed hIS doctrme of the deter-
m1OatIon of matter by form ThIS doctrme really abolIShes the
thmgs ' of naIve realIsm by mak10g them conceptual The object
of sense-expenence can come to the knowledge of the thmkmg
subJect only so far as It becomes a conceptual form, on the other
hand It ~ only so far as It IS form The complete determ1OatIon
of realIty by the forms of the understandmg and by the categonal
multIplIcIty of theIr conceptual stratIficatIon IS rooted not m
transcendental laws of the know1Og conSCIOusness but 10 the
structure of realIty Itself Herem IS concealed a senous problem,
WhICh We must not overlook, but Anstotle's whole purpo.,e IS to
grasp the mdividual through the Idea, a procedure, however,
WhICh was conceIvable to hIm only by suppos1Og that through
the Idea one grasped that m the th10g whIch It really was (TO Tl
~ Elval) Matter IS the remnant, the non-exlstent, 10 Itself
unknowable and allen to reason, that remams after thIS process
of clanfymg the thmg mto a form and a conceptIOn ThIS non-
eXIstent neIther lS nor IS not, It IS . not yet', that IS to say lt
attams to realIty only 10 so far as It becomes the vehIcle of some
conceptual determinatIOn Hence no matter IS Just matter, as
the phYSICIStS supposed. It IS matter for thIS defimte form, but
apart from thls form and conSIdered In ltself It IS already some-
how mformed Nothmg absolutely formless and mdetermInate
'IS' at all The conceptlOn of ultImate matter, absolutely un-
formed and undetermmed, whIle a lImlt10g conceptIOn of our
thinking, does not charactenze any substantIal realIty Every-
thing lS form, but form Itself becomes the matter of a hIgher
form Thus Anstotle's VIew of be109 dnves us on towards an
ultImate Form that determines everyth10g else and IS not Itself
determined by anyth10g HIS phYSICS of Immanent forms attams
Its goal only 10 the transcendent Form of hIS metaphySICS
In thIS way form comes to explam mohon as well, of WhICh
neIther Democntus nor Plato had been able to gIve a suentIfic
account from theIr pomts of VIew The alm of ArIStotle's theory
of mohon IS to Invent a 10glC of It He tnes to make lt acceSSIble
to conceptual thought, Just as he does partIcular matenal thmgs,
by discovenng 10 lt some form or determmateness through WhICh
lt can be explamed He therefore confines lt withm a fixed frame-
AR1STOTLE'S PLACE IN H1STORY 383
work, for where alliS mahan and flux, and nothmg IS fixed and
endunng, sCience loses Its nghts Accordmg to his physIcs thlS
endurmg element IS to be found m quality and m form as the end
of motion, not m quantity Itself In the first place, he lacked the
techmcal means for makmg exact quanhtatIve measurements or
determmmg the quanhtatlve conditions of quallbes, so that re-
search could not advance 10 thiS direction Above all, however,
he saw that 10 the cosmos mobon took place 10 fixed forms and
wlthm fixed hmlts The apparent capnce and lawlessness of the
motions of lIfe on the earth, which IS very small m companson
With the world as a whole, could not m any way prejudice the
magmficent picture of the upper and lffiperlShable part of the
umverse Here, agam, Eudoxus' theory of the spheres assumed
fundamental Importance for Anstotle's view of the world In the
concert and contmmty of the eternal revolution of the stars, as
assumed In that hypotheSIS to account for the appearances VISIble
10 the sky, there was someth1Og purposeful and 1Ost1Oct With
form that could not pOSSibly be denved from the mechamcal
presupposItIons of the contemporary theory of gravity For the
most part the phySICists had had recourse to the Idea of a cosmo-
gomc vortex which set the world 10 mobon, but as men 10creased
their knowledge of the orderlmess and mvanablhty of the pheno-
mena the notion of a mechamcal cosmogony retreated more
and more mto the background, 10 fact It seemed to be non-
sense Anstotle went even farther than Plato 10 thiS matter
The latter had at any rate attempted to conceive what the
creation of the world must have been on the assumptlOn of
Eudoxus' astronomy, when he made the beg10mng not chaos but
the reason that orders th10gs Anstotle, however, breaks com-
pletely With thiS Anaxagorean ordenng or AlaK6crll1lcrlS by M10d
when he declares the heavenly bodies and the heaven Itself to be
everlastmg and uncreated and denves their motIon from mternal
formal or final causes
WIth reference to motIOn the form IS the entelechy (tV-TEA-
ExEla), masmuch as 10 ItS form each th10g possesses the end of
mohon realIZed withm Itself For the heavenly bodIes thiS IS
theIr eternal CIrcular revolutIOn, but Anstotle carnes over the
pnnclple to earthly th10gs as well, thus work1Og out Plato's
teleology In every part of hiS world of forms The mahan of
384 MATURITY
earthly thmgs appears to be, m Platomc language, chsorderly or
6:'TCXKTOS, but on closer mspectIon we dIscover that the funda-
mental pnnclple of change m the orgamc world IS the same as
It IS 10 the heavens, namely locomotIOn, to WhICh all kmds of
mohon are to be referred LocomotIon here serves the specIal
laws of orgamc commg-to-be and passmg-away. WhICh 10 theIr
turn depend on the form The entelechy of bemgs that come to
be and pass away IS the heIght of thIs organIc development In
themform appears as an orderhness and determmateness bUIldIng
from wIthIn and unfold1Og Itself from the matter as from a seed
We have always supposed that thIS latter meanIng of 'ente-
lechy' IS the angInal, and that the conceptIOn was first developed
In the case of organIC lIfe and from thence transferred to other
spheres by a generahzatIon-that It means, therefore, someth1Og
vltahstIc or biOlogIcal hke the modern' hfe-force . ThIS assumes
that Anstotle possessed from the beg10nIng the complete mastery
of zoology and bIOlogy that he dIsplays 10 the Hfstory of A mmals,
and that he more or less saw thIS prmClple m the obJect dunng
hIS researches Recently we have come to beheve that the con-
ception of bIOlogIcal development was hIS real achIevement,
whIch IS a thoroughly VICIOUS modermzatIon The meamng of
. entelechy' IS not biOlogIcal, It IS logIcal and ontologIcal In
every kmd of motion Anstotle's gaze IS fastened on the end
What mterests hIm IS the fact, not that somethmg fS comfng to
be, but that somethmg IS commg to be, that somethmg fixed and
normatIve IS makmg Its way mto eXIstence-the form
CreatIve Power, that eternal schemes,
Clasp you m bonds of love, relaxmg never,
And what In wavenng appantlon gleams
FIX ID Its place With thoughts that stand forever'
The notions of potency and act, whIch also are usually denved
from the process of orgamc lIfe, are mdeed occasIOnally Illus-
trated by Anstotle wIth the example of the seed and the
developed orgamsm, but they cannot really come from thIS
sphere They must be taken from human power or 2.wal.llS,
WhICh now remaIns latent and now becomes actIve (EPYOV),
attamIng ItS end (entelechy) only m thIS activIty It
IS still more unhlstoncal to look on the star-souls as a conse-
quence of extendmg to the whole of realIty the supposedly
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 385
vltahstic or even anuTIlshc forma as IS done by those
mterpreter'> who then consistently go on to suppose that
Aristotle ascribed a ,>oul to the morgamc also and thus make hIm
a panpsychlst
The higher we ascend m the cosmos, the more purely the
mohon expresses the form that IS ItS end As a whole the mahan
of the world IS the effect and expressIOn of a form that IS
absolute and free of all matter ThiS form completes the reaction
from Pre-PlatOnIC phYSICS, m WhICh the world arose out of
chaotIc matter and was explamed by mechamcal causes Reahty
IS m ItS determInateness and m ItS essence necessarily what It IS
It cannot be explamed from mere pOSSibilIty and chance, for
then It mIght as well not be or be otherWIse There must be form
at the head of mohon, and the highest form must be pure act,
through and through determInatIon and thought ThIS thought
cannot thmk anythmg more perfect than Itself, for as the end
of the motion of the whole world It IS necessarily the most perfect
thIng eXIstIng, SInce everythIng alms towards It Nevertheless,
the thought that thmks Itself IS not a merely formal self-
conSCIOusness deVOId of content, an absolute ego m Flchte's
In Aristotle's teleology substance and end are one, and
the hIghest end IS the most determmate realIty there IS ThIS
substantIal thought possesses at one and the same tIme the
highest IdealIty as conceived by Plato and the nch determmate-
ness of the mdlvldual, and hence Ide and everlastmg blessedness
God IS one With the world not by penetratIng It, nor by mam-
tamIng the totahty of ItS forms an mtellIgible world wlthm
himself, but because the world' hangs' (fjpTflTat) on him, he
ItS UnIty, although not m It As each thmg stnves to realIze ItS
own form, It realIzes for Its part that mfinIte perfectIon which
as a whole IS God
Anstotle',> attempt to mdke the exact thmkmg that Plato had
dIscovered, the conceptIOn and the form, bear fruIt m knowledge
of the senSible world, could only of a conceptual appre-
henSIOn of nature and ItS essence, It could not at first assist our
mSlght mto the material causes It thus created a phIlosophy of
nature, restmg on a baSIS that was' metaphysIcal' m our modern
"ense Aristotle's own Intention was the OppOSIte He belIeved
that hiS teleological explanatIon of nature had done away WIth
386 MATURITY
the earher physIcs, which denved all that occurs from matenal
and mechamcal causes While recogmzmg these lower causes he
subordmated them to the formal and final causes Matter and
force are not' nature' They are nature's handymen, she herself
IS the builder proceedmg accordmg to an Inner plan and Idea
Natural necessity as the Atomists understood It IS of course the
mdlspensable condition of nature's activity as of man's tech-
mques, but to the Interpreter of nature It remainS, as Plato had
already laid down, a merely secondary cause (avvalTlov) The
farther Anstotle went In posItive research m the course of hIS
hie, the deeper he had to penetrate In the mvestIgatlOn of the
special matenal constitution of mdl'\rldual thmgs So long, on the
other hand, as hiS phySICS remamed m the sphere of conceptual
diSCUSSIOn, the relatIon between the secondary and the final
cause gave hIm httle dIfficulty The spunous fourth book of
the Meteorology, whIch contains the first ancient attempt at
chemistry, illustrates how thiS relatIOn becomes problematic to
a follower of Anstotle as soon as he turns to the questIOn of
the constItution of matter Democntus' atomic theory and hiS
conceptIOn of the VOId Instantly reappear as workmg hypo-
theses, Without at first endangenng the fundamentally teleo-
logical character of phySICS The author of the fourth book
of the Meteorology belongs to thiS transItional stage I Strato
goes farther and drops teleology and metaphySICS along With
It, rebuildmg Anstotle's phySICS on a Democntean base He
transfers the' craftsmanshIp' of nature to matter and Its quah-
ties It has been suggested that he IS the author of thiS book,
which would then be an early work 10 which the doctnne of hIS
master struggled With atomIst conceptIOns, but we do not need
the famous name In order to understand the directIon of the
development revealed 10 thIS mterestmg work Teleological
phySICS penetrated from Plato's later days mto Anstotle's first
penod and became the groundwork of the latter's philosophy
It found frUItful soil for ItS pnnclple 10 the mvestIgatIOn of the
ammal and vegetable kmgdoms When It came to the examina-
tion of morgamc matter, on the other hand, the pnnclple of form
failed In the long run, and the atomIst pomt of view reappeared
of ItS own accord
I For what follows see J Hoimmer-Jensen, Hrl'me<. vol I, pp 1f3 If
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 387
AriStotle's Interest In method rules In his further development
also, as when he afterwards Inserts between the Phystcs and the
Metaphystcs a speCIal connecting inqUIry Into the contmmty and
etermty of the world's motion and mto Circular motion, which
takes us nght to the threshold of metaphysIcs and shows that
physIcs without IS a trunk without a head The
fundamental Idea of the later metaphySICS IS also an Idea about
method, namely to prefix to theology a doctnne of substance m
general and thus expand metaphySICS mto a study of the vanous
meamngs of bemg The theory of supersens1ble being, whose
subject-matter was distinct from that of phYSICS, now becomes a
study of the nature, as bemg, of the very subject-matter that
phySICS looks at from the pomt of view of motion Thus the two
ongmal fundamental subjects of metaphyslc<;-the phySIcal
subject of the first mover and the metaphySIcal <;ubJect of the
supersenslble-retreat Into the background, and mstead of them
there appears the new subject of the morphology of bemg One
can detect m thIS the charactenstIcs of Anstotle's later umversal
sCience of reahty, begmmng to have ItS effect on metaphySICS
and recelvmg here an ontologIcal and aXIOmatic foundation
The suppresslOn of speculation m favour of factual re<;earch also
left ItS traces, as we have seen, on the later treatment of the
question of the pnme mover The conceptually necessary com-
plement of the body of phySIcal doctnne, the prmclple on "hleh
everything depends, now becomes very hke a mere cosmological
hypotheSIS m character, and the ImpossIblhty of confirmmg It
hke other hypotheses through expenence IS ImmedIately felt to
be an mcurable defect
This mterest In the method tended to repress Anstotle's
mterest m pIctunng hIS phuosophy It was not gIven to hIm to
create stnkmg symbols of the content of hIS VIew of the world
lIke Plato's myths and SImIle" He must have felt thIS hImself,
once, m hi" first account of hIS own pllliosophy, the mamfesto
On Phtlosophy, he tned to gIve plctonal form to hiS new attitude
towards thmgs In a vanant of the slimle of the Cave m Plato's
Republtc (above, p 163). The slmue of the ascent of the sub-
terranean men to the VISIOn of the eternal ordel s and forms of
the cosmos stnkes us as a fine and indIVIdual verSIOn of the
Platomc ongmal, but dependent upon It to the last, and the
3BB MATURITY
relation between hIS attItude toward" the world and Plato's
leaves the same ImpreSSIOn It IS as though he were absolutely
presupposmg It and turmng at once to hIS own methodIcal
argumentation and analysIs Only In Isolated passages do we
suddenly become aware, almost wIth astomshment, of the hvmg
pre!>ence of a felt whole behmd the subtle network of conceptIOn!>.
It remams latent like the drIvmg rehglOus force that hes behmd
the MetaphYSfCS wIthout ever commg forward and dIrectly con-
fessmg Itself ThIS IS why both reveal themselves only m the
mdlrect forms of conceptual thmkmg and of the method he uses
to wrestle wIth them, and why the force of hIS phIlosophy as a
religIOn and as a world-vIew ha<; come alive m hIstory only where
men have not been merely seekmg aesthetic mtUItIOns but have
themselves known somethmg of thIS heavy struggle Let us
nevertheless attempt to make hIS world pIctOrIally vlSlble to
ourselves
ArIstotle mtroduced the logIcally dIscrete character of Plato's
Ideal world mto the VISIble world as well Accordmg to Plato
the happIest Image of the world of appearances IS the Herachtean
flux of all thmgs, m whIch certam endUrIng Islands appear
ArIstotle dId not look at nature so. for hIm It was a cosmos m
WhICh all motIon revolved around the fixed centres of abIdmg
forms Nevertheless, he does not, as one might expect, fOISt
upon the hvmg realIty the ngId hIerarchy of a world of ab<;tract
conceptIOns, Ius forms work as the constructIve law... of all
becommg What we feel In them most of all, ho'Wever, I!> the
separateness of accurately determmed logIcal umhe!> The
Image m which he pIcture" hIS world IS T x ~ S or order, not
av\..upwvla or harmony What he wants IS not a soundmg poly-
phomc concord, however natural thiS feeling may have been to
a HeliemstIc Greek, but the orgamzed common labour of all
forms for the reahzatIon of a superordmate Thought To express
thIS VIew of the world he mvented, for once, a happy SImIle-the
tactical motion of the warrIor!> m an army, through whIch IS
executed the plan of the unseen general Compared WIth the
'breath penetratmg all thmgs' of the StOIC momsm It IS a claSSIC
world of plastIc forms and contours The members of thIS realm
lack contact and dynamIC reaction upon each other.. ThIS
feature, foreIgn to the' harmomously umfied' world of Impenal
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 389
philosophy, 11> what Plotmus had m mmd when he desIderated
some contact between the prune mover and the forms of the
movers of the spheres The same IS true of the whole realm of
forms 10 Anstotle's cosmos, though theIr law IS embodIed most
purely and beautifully 10 that of the spheres
'The thmgs that change ImItate those that are Impenshable '
The commg-to-be and passmg-away of earthly thmgs IS Just as
much a stationary revolution as the motion of the stars In spIte
of ItS umnterrupted change nature no hIstory accordmg to
Anstotle, for orgamc becommg IS held fast by the constancy of
Its forms 10 a rhythm that remams eternally the same SimIlarly
the human world of state and SOCiety and mmd appears to hIm
not as caught 10 the mcalculable mobIlIty of Irrecapturable
hlstoncal destmy, whether we conSider lIfe or that of
nations and cultures, but as founded fast 10 the unalterable
permanence of forms that, whIle they change withm certam
lImits, remam Identical 10 essence dnd purpo1>e Thlb feelmg
about lIfe IS symbohzed by the Great Year, at the of which
all the stars have returned to their ongmal posItion and begm
their course anew In the same way the cultures of the earth wax
and wane, accordmg to Anstotle, as determmed by great natural
catastrophes, which m turn are causally connected With the
regular changes of the heavens That which Anstotle at thiS
lOstant newly discovers has been discerned a thousand times
before, Will be lost agam, and one day discerned afresh Myths
are the lost echoes telhng of the philosophy of lost ages, equal In
value to our own, and borne day all our knowledge too will be
only a hoary myth The philosopher, standmg upon the earth
10 the centre of the umverse, embraces Within the lImits of
thought a cosmos Itself bounded by fixed hmlts and enclosed
In the ethereal ball of the outer heaven The phIlosophiC Nus,
when gazmg from the peak of human knowledge upon the
eternal rhythm of the whole, diVines something of the pure
happiness of the world-spmt perdunng unmoved In
contemplative thought
The old geometncal cosmos of the Greeks wa::. differentiated
but not broken by Anstotle' s picture of the world The new Ideas
of the fourth century were mtroduced mto Its typIcal outlmes
RealIty IS now seen from within, It IS no longer solId, but to a
390 MATURITY
certam extent transparent Anstotle o m p l t ~ the reception of
Platomsm mto the ordinary Greek pIcture of the world The
perspective IS mdefimtely extended both m space and m tIme by
the astronomIcal and hlstoncal mqmnes of the century In Its
fimteness Anstotle's world IS IdentIcal WIth Plato's, but the con-
trast between the two realms, WhICh gave the last-named ItS
speCial mood and spmtuallmpetus, IS gone, and now the VISIble
cosmos Itself shmes WIth Platomc colours. The Greek pIcture of
the world has attamed Its maXImum of umfied harmony and
completeness Yet all thIS moves the spmt of the phIlosopher
not from the aesthetIc and emotlOnal SIde, but merely so far as It
can be conceptually estabhshed by stnct SCIence Although thIS
smgularly beautiful pIcture collapsed long ago, SCIence IS stIll
wrestlIng WIth the problems and methods that were developed
by means of It In them, and not m the pIcture as such, lIes the
real tvtpYEla or actIVIty of ItS gemus
III THE ANALYSIS OF MAN
The foundatIon of ethICS as a SCIence was profoundly affected
by the fact that Socrates had brought the questIOn of moral
knowledge to the forefront and that Plato went farther m thIS
dIrectIOn We are accustomed to conSider that personal con-
SCIence and mtentIOn IS the essentIal problem, and hence we tend
to look on Socrates' alIen way of putting the questIon as an
hlstoncal conditIon of hIS thought, concealIng what was m
realIty a questIon not of conSCIOusness but of conSCIence How-
ever JustIfiable It may be to make the great phenomena m the
hIstory of the Greek mind clearer to ourselves by translatmg
them mto the correspondmg categones of our day. It mvolves
the danger of mlssmg the real achIevement of Greece ThIS
achievement lIes not In relIgIOUS prophecy nor merely m the
thorough radIcalIsm WIth WhICh they applIed morahty to lIfe,
but m theIr apprehenSIOn of the objectiVIty of ethIcal values and
of the objectIve pOSItIon of the ethIcal element m the umverse
as a whole Socrates was not mdeed an ethIcal theonst, he was
merely seekmg the road towards VIrtue and away from hIS
apona of Ignorance, but thiS very startmg-pomt contams the
seed of the conclUSIOn towards whIch the development that he
maugurated was to stnve, the foundation of 'ethIcs' The
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 391
questiOn' What the good or the Just? ' IS not that of a prophet
but that of an inquirer PassiOnately though It affinns the good,
what It puts first IS the dIscovery of the nature of what we call
good, and Ignorance of thiS IS the real dIstress that It expresses
That the greatest moral leader of Greece should be so much
concerned with objectification and the apprehensIOn of the nght
shows that the Greeks could attain their highest moral achIeve-
ment only In the creatIon of a philosophy of morals ThIS IS why
the questIOn of subjectIve intentIon and' performance', of the
educatIOn of the will, takes second place WIth Socrates and IS
treated by hlffi In a way that-however much we may talk
around It--cannot satIsfy us For him. as for Plato. thIS
questIOn was not so much the sole gUIding purpose as Simply the
presupposItIon of the question that they really did feel mtensely,
namely what IS the essence of the good The road to knowledge
was long for them, on the other hand. that knowledge would
ensure action seemed almost self-evident
The development from Socrates to Anstotle has been repre-
sented as a process of increasing ahenabon from the former In
the course of which hiS practIcal moral teaching was gradually
reduced to theoretIcal form, and thiS IS how It really appears If
one looks on Socrates as mvestIgatmg the nature of conscience
and spreading a gospel of moral freedom, m other words, If one
ascnbes to him the modern Protestant and Kantlan attItude I
From our POint of VIew, however, the actual course of events was
the mevitable process of progreSSIvely obJecbfymg the morally
nght. and was due to the essentIal nature of the Greek spInt, not
to the aCCident of particular personahtIes Only thIS process
could overcome the old tradItIonal moralIty, whIch was steadily
dlSlntegratIng, together WIth the complete subjectivIsm that
accompamed the dlSlntegratIon The stnvmg for objectIvIty
was certamly born from the practical apona of a powerful and
mIlItant moral personahty. but ItS own nature compelled It to
develop by allymg Itself to philosophIcal thought. In WhICh It
found the Instrument of obtaining ItS end-or more correctly. by
calling Into eXIstence a new philosophIcal movement, WhICh
created new Instruments for Itself The movement took a
I Cf He1nnch Maler. Sokrales. sem Werk und seine geschlchtllclte Slellung,
PP 516 ff and 577 ff
392 MATURITY
dIfferent course wIth each SocratIc, accordmg to whether he
approached Socrates externally wIth sophIstical problems al-
ready m posseSSIOn of hIS mInd, and used hun merely to ennch
hIS matenal wIthout graspmg the core of hIS problem In ItS supra-
personal SIgnIficance, or, recognIZIng the new and pIOneermg
element m hIm. as Plato dId, seIzed on thIS pomt and developed
It wIth ongmatIve force
Scholars commonly regard It as another merely hlstoncal
aCCIdent that Plato made hIS great dIscovery of the moral Ought,
to use modern terms, m the form of an Idea, that IS, a super-
sensIble essence haVIng a hIgher realIty, and we excuse thIS
roundabout method by POIntIng to the artIstIc reqUIrements of
the Greek spmt Yet here agam merely to claIm supenor know-
ledge and preCIpItately Impose our own . more advanced' pomt
of VIew IS not enough The very feature that to us ~ m s round-
about or wrong was the necessary hlstoncal presupposItion of
the recogmtIon of the real nature of the thIng Itself The dIS-
covery of the obJective spmtual values, whether moral or
aesthetIc or logIcal, and theIr abstractIon In punfied form from
the Jumbled chaos of moral and aesthetIc and logIcal assumptions
always occurnng m human souls, wa<; po<;sIble only because of
the obJectIfymg, shapmg. formative vmon WIth whICh the
Greeks approached all thmgs, even the mtellectual, and to whIch
they owe theIr speCIes of phIlosophy and art Other peoples have
expenenced great moral elevations, but for a phIlosophIC account
of moralIty as a value m Its pure form the Greeks and Plato had
to come mto the world The Idea, when It dawned on the Greek
mmd, appeared to be by natural neceSSIty an objectIve reahty.
mdependent of the conSCIOusness m whIch It IS reflected And
SInce It had come as the answer to the SocratIc question' What
IS so and so ~ It also possessed the attnbutes of the object of
logIC, the conceptIon ThIS IS the only way m whIch It was
pOSSIble, at that non-abstract level of thought, to recogmze two
of the essentIal propertIes of the moral Ought, ItS mconte<;tablhty
and ItS uncondItionalIty Plato must have thought, as he dIS-
covered the Idea, that he ",as for the first tIme attammg a real
understandmg of the essence of Socrates' lIfework, It had been
the erectIon of a hIgher mtellectual world of unshakable ends
and alms (TtAOC;, opOC;) In the transcendental VISIOn of the
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 393
Good m Itself, not to be denved from any sense-expenence, the
Socratic search now attams fulfilment
Plato IS fond of puttmg hIS philosophical recogmtiOn that the
pure Good IS the only morally valId motive of human achon In
the form of the popular Greek search for the highest good or best
hfe To the numerous suggestiOns that had already been made,
mcludmg more or less all the goods of the world, he opposed hIS
own, that a man becomes happy when he becomes good' Only
the good man can use the world's goods nghtly, and hence It IS
only for hIm that they are goods m the real sense of means to the
Good He, however, IS mdependent of them, and carnes happI-
ness wlthm hImself Thus Plato bamshes eudaemomsm and the
ethIcs of goods, the foundations of every popular Greek view of
hfe LIke a true Greek, however, he recalls them m the same
lOstant, though 10 changed and elevated 'ihape The VlC;lOn of
the Good In Itself IS the ft U1t of a hfehme of fervId totI It pre-
supposes the soul's gradual famIllanzahon wIth the' Good Itself' ,
It IS revealed only to him who IS really seekmg wisdom, and then
only at the end of a pamful mtellectual road passmg through all
the methods of argument (lJe6021ol A6ywv) Unhke mechamcal
knowledge It cannot be transferred from one person to another
The best hfe IS therefore the' philosophIC' hfe, and the hIghest
Good IS the mner happmess of hIm who truly apprehends the
Good
Thus Plato became not merely the theoretIcal dIscoverer of
moralIty, but also the creator of a new Ideal of lIfe, although he
left the common moralIty standmg as a lower level beSIde philo-
SOphIC VIrtue In the course of hIS later development the phtIo-
sophlc lIfe became more and more relIgiOUS m character, as the
thought of God took the place of the Idea of the Good as the
measure of all measures Through all phases of hIS development,
however, hIS ChIef concern remamed the problem of obJectIve
values and norms LIfe' WIth reference to the end' mcluded 10
Itself the Impul"e to for the end Plato was, 10 fact, over-
whelmmgly Impressed by the newly dIscovered obJectIve world
of pure values and by the new that It Imparted to lIfe
Anstotle's early dIalogues dre full of a tremendous ardour for
Plato's phJ.1osophlc lIfe, but at the same hme even as early a
book as the Protrephcus clearly the lnmts of the mfluence
394 MATURITY
that could be exerted on CIVIC realIty by thIs exclusIve Ideal of
intellectual anstocracy The attempt to Impose It on the whole
hfe of the natIon could only lead to a complete renunciation of
realtty, smce realIty showed Itself unable to adopt It The
tendency to renounce the world, together WIth a pltchblack
pesSlInISm about Its goods and a pItIless cntIcISm of Its un-
mtellectual SOCIety, IS stnkmgly obvlOus In Anstotle's early
work Agamst thiS foil hIS metaphyslco-rehglous optImIsm
stands out all the more clearly, shmmg over all the worthlessness
and all the mIsery of thiS world, stnvmg WIth the pure mtellect
beyond thiS realm of appearances towards the beckomng goal of
Immortal hfe The lastmg ImpreSSIOn that Anstotle receIved
from thIS Platomc VIew of thmgs cannot be doubted by anyone
who has followed ItS mfluence through hIS later development, but
we must also bear m mmd the background that IS hIdden from
us by thIS typICal AcademiC vIew In thIS school beganthe move-
ment that culmmated In ArIStotle's ethICS, and even hIS dIalogues
betray somethmg of the penetratmg conceptual analysIs that
brought It mto bemg Men sought to understand the hIgh Ideal
of the philosophIC Ide by means of the nature of the human spmt
Itself, and In so domg, although they mlght at first, OWIng to the
lack of analytIcal psychology, seem to find confirmatIon of theIr
behef In the pnmacy of the knowmg mmd over the other parts
of the soul, they at any rate stumbled on the problem of the
dIfferent' parts' of the soul, and on the task of domg JustIce to
the uratIonal parts also, that IS to say, of mcludmg them m the
process of asslDulatmg the spmt to God In the as m
the other . hves' appear beSIdes the phllosophlcal,
and an attempt IS made to relate them A questIOn hke that of
the part played by pleasure In the pure philosophIC Ide leads
to the InvestIgatIon of the motives of moral actIon, and the
pedagoglcal Idea of Plato's old age, whIch was to tram up the
young to the good by accustommg them early to feel pleasure m
the good and dlsplea<;ure at the bad, IS already close to Anstotle's
ethICS, accordmg to which an act IS good only when accompamed
by JOy In the good The problemof character must also have been
worked out m the Academy, smce Xenocrates dIVIded philosophy
mto lOgIC, phySICS, and ethiCS or the study of character Plato's
later dIalogues show SIgnS of a theory of the w1l1 and of moral
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 395
responsIbilIty, whIch proves that Anstotle was not the first
person to attam a philosophIcal mastery of thlS question so
much dIscussed m Greek cnmmallaw When AnstotIe exammes
and rejects defimhons of such words as chOIce, happmess, and
pleasure, he probably takes them all from dIscussIOns In the
Academy The mtellectuahzahon of Plato's early metaphors
and the mauguratIOn of ethIcs as a separate study were already
m full swing m that school Aristotle IS merely the Platomst who
earned out these tendencIes wIth the greatest defimteness
Anstotle was not a moral lawgIver m Plato's manner ThIs
was neIther wlthm the compass of hIS nature nor allowed by the
advance of the problems Though hIS ethIcs was at first saturated
wIth the Idea of the dlvme norm, and regarded all hfe as the
serVIce and knowledge of God, even m hIS earhest work the new
element reveab another dIrectIon, namely the analYSIS of the
form., of the moral hfe as they actually are He abandons Plato's
theory of VIrtue for a theory of hvmg types, adequate to the nch
vanety of the moral hfe m all conceIvable md.mfestatIons, m-
cludmg economICS, socIety, class-relatIOnshIpS, law, and busmess
Between thIS reahstIc study of CIVIC hfe, and the lofty Ideas
handed down from Plato's relIgIOUS phIlosophy, WhICh form the
framework of the whole, there IS great tenSIOn Although
Anstotle explaIns the types of the Just man, the brave, the proud,
the hberal, and the magnIficent, by means of a smgle formal
conceptIOn of VIrtue, the prmclple of the proper mean, and
although he develop!> hIS types not by pure descnptIOn but by
a dIalectIcal constructIon m whIch every feature IS logIcally
connected WIth the others, the content IS taken from expenence
and the types thembelves anse from factual relatlOnshlps as they
are actually gIVen The Introductory dISCUSSIOn of the funda-
mental nature of VIrtue IS onentated WIth regard to the ques-
han of moral mtentIon and ItS cultIvatIon ThIS was a deCIded
step forward, the essence of moral value IS now developed out
of the !>ubJechve self, and the sphere of the WIllIS marked off as
It!> pecuhar realm ThIS really gIves the VIrtue of character
pre-emmence over that of the mtellect, and hence the larger part
of the dISCUSSIon IS devoted to It, although Anstotle IS shll far
from makmg a fundamental dIVISIon between the two The
theory of ethIcal VIrtue now becomes to a certam extent an
396 MATURITY
ethIcS ~ t h m ethIcS, and determmes the name of the whole
From Anstotle alone we should no longer see why the theory of
mtellectual VIrtue comes mto ethICS at all, If we dId not know
that to Plato (and to Anstotle m hIS youth) It had been the very
centre, the SCIence of the hIghest objective value Even m hIS
later days Anstotle connected the hIghest end of human hfe
WIth the dlvme end of the world, and hence made ethICS cul-
mmate m theoretical metaphysIcs, but hiS mam emphaSIS then
lay not on the apprehenSiOn of thiS eternal norm, but on the
question how human mdlVlduals can reaI1ze thiS norm 10 wul
and action As 10 ontology he made Plato's Idea bear frUIt 10
the apprehenSiOn of the world of appearances, so m ethICS he
made the will of the moral mdlvIdual adopt the transcendental
nann and thus objectify Itself The nann when thus lOternahzed
of course loses Its character of umversal vahdlty, for there IS no
Imperative that IS bmdmg on all men equally, except a purely
fonnal generalIzation deVOId of content Anstotle's aim IS to
umte the Idea of complete obedIence to the norm With the
greatest mdlvldual vanety The moral personalIty IS 'a law to
Itself' In thIS gUIse the Idea of personal moral autonomy, WhICh
was foreign to Plato, enters Greek conscIOusness for the first
time
The two malO parts of Anstotle's ethICS, the ethIcal doctrIne
of moralIty based on the good wlll and the metaphySIcal doctnne
of the contemplation of God as our norm, eV10ce a tendency to
nd themselves of each other more and more 10 the course of hiS
development The actual' ethIC' or theory of character, whICh
10 the ongmal EthtcS was closely bound up WIth the theologIcal
culmmatIon, afterwards becomes 10dcpendent and finds a
pnnciple of ItS own 10 practIcal mardI 1Os1ght Anstotle finally
abandoned altogether the attempt to carry Plato's pnmacy of
theoretical reason IOta the sphere of everyday ethiCS He had,
of course, watered down Plato's 'WIsdom' and 'Nus' IOta pure
'theoretical reason', and the necessity for a sharp dlst10etwn
between CIVIC and metaphYSIcal ethIC'; IS a direct result of the
lOtellectuahzatJOn of t h ~ conceptIons, whIch to Plato mednt
both the knowledge of the good and the actual goodness of the
soul Thus Anstotle preserved the fundamentally cntIcal
character of hiS philosophy 10 ethICS too The result was a
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 397
tremendous enlargement and refinement 10 psychological com-
prehenslOn of the moral self, and the compreSSlOn of' 1Otellectual-
Ism' and the metaphysIcal element mto a very small space As
10 metaphysIcs, however, so 10 ethIcs he remam" ultImately a
Platomst, there 10 that he explams the world of expenence teleo-
logIcally by reference to a hIghest mexpenenceable end, here m
that he recogmzes, beyond ordmary CIVIC morahty and the realm
of practIcal actlOn and WIll, a hfe passed m contemplat1Og the
eternal, which m his estImate unconditIonally deserves the palm,
and stands on a higher level even from the ethIcal pomt of VIew
In the Etlnes, however, he makes the morahty of
CIVIC hfe 1Odepf'ndent of Hus theology They are two separate
worlds dlffermg m rank The appearance of the' theoretIc hfe'
at thf' end of thf' work means now, not that all earthly change
JIlust be 'made Immortal' far possible, but that above the
world of practIcal morahty there IS a higher Thus Anstotle
bUIlds the Platomc world of hiS youth mto the actual world, and
gives It the highest posItIon therem, the place from which the
hght of the eternal shmes upon tll1S world ThiS JuxtaposItIon
of the two' hves' has always been felt to be 10 some way personal
dnd dependent on the phIlosopher's own expenence It does not
possess thf' radical consistency either of Plato, who finds only
the philosophic hfe worth hvmg, or of Kant, who breaks once
and for all With primacy of theoretIcal reason and declares
the moral Will to be the highest thmg 10 the world Both m
ethiCS and 10 metaphysIcs Anstotle goes a hUll' way With Kant,
but someth1Og m him makes himshnnk from the final conclUSIOn
NeIther the self-suffiCIency of pure natural sCIence nor the self-
confidence of the mere wIll to fulfil one's mOlal obhgatlOns
satisfied hiS sense of reahty and of Me Plato's transcendent
world would not let him go, and he was conscIOus that m
mtroducmg It he had dclded a new portIOn of reahty to the old
Greek structure of the world Only so can we explam why hiS
Nus takes on an mystical gleam m the theologICal parts
of hiS metaphySICS and ethiCS ThiS summit of human con-
templation comes directly out of Plato's mtellectual realm mto
Anstotle's world of facts, and gives to Ins VIew of hfe Its pecuhar
modern tensIOn and two-sldedness
In which we wIll here touch on only bnefly, the mner
Cc
398 MATURITY
stratIficatIon IS the same as In ethics and metaphysIcS. In fact,
the hlstoncal development IS particularly clear In thIS field
From the standpoInt of the history of the mInd the deciSive
problem In Plato's politics lies In that stnct uncondItional
subordInatIOn of the IndiVIdual to the state by whIch he re-
stored' the genume old Greek lIfe In the fourth century thIS
life had long been dIsrupted by the preponderance of commerCIal
forces and mterests m the state and In the political parties, and
by the mtellectual IndIVIdualism that becdme general dunng the
penod Presumably every mtelllgent person saw clearly that
the state could not be healed unless thIS IndIVIdualism could be
overcome, at least In Its crudest form as the unbounded selfish-
ness of each person, but It was hard to get nd of when the state
Itself was Inspired by the same spmt-had, m fact, made It
the pnnClple of ItS actIOns The predatory polItics of the end of
the fifth century had gradually brought the cItizens round to
these new ways of thmkIng, and now the state fell a vIctim to
the egOIstic Idea, ImpressIvely pIctured by Thucydldes, that It
had Itself made mto a pnnclple The old state WIth ItS laws had
represented to Its CItIZens the totality of all customary' stan-
dards To lIve accordIng to the laws was the hIghest unwntten
law In ancIent Greece, as Plato for one last time sadly represents
It m hIS enio That dIalogue shows the tragIC conflIct of the
fourth century sharpened mto conscIous absurdIty, the state
IS now such that accordIng to Its laws the Justest and purest
man In the Greek nation must dnnk the hemlock The death
of Socrates IS a reductw ad absurdum of the whole state, not
merely of the contemporary office-holders In the o r g ~ s Plato
measures the Penclean state and ItS weaker successors by the
standard of the radIcal moral law, and arnves at an uncon-
ditional condemnation of the hlstoncal state When he goes
on m the Republic to sacnfice the life of the mdlvldual completely
to the state, WIth a one-SIded stnctness Intolerable to the natural
feelIngs of hIS century, hIS Justification lIes m the changed spmt
of hIS new state The sun that shmes In It IS the Idea of the Good,
whIch illummates ItS darkest corners Thus the subordInation of
all mdlvlduals to It, the reconverSIOn of emancIpated persons
mto true' cItizens', IS after all only another way of expressmg
the hlstoncal fact that morahty had finally separated Itself from
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 399
polIhcs and from the laws or customs of the hlstoncal state, and
that henceforth the mdependent conscience of the mdlvldualls
the supreme court even for publIc questions There had been
conthcts of this sort before, what IS new IS the proclamahon of
a permanent confhct Plato's demand that phl1osophers shall
be kmgs, which he mamtamed unabated nght to the end,
means that the state IS to be rendered ethical through and
through It shows that the persons who stood highest m the
mtellectual scale had already abandoned the actual ship of state,
for a state lIke Plato's could not have come alIve m hiS own hme,
and perhaps not at any tune
Anstotle retams Plato'sexternal subordmatlOnof ethiCS to poh-
tIcs, but With hun, too, the real strength bes In the former, and
from It he denves the norm of the best state and the content of
the 'best lIfe' To hiS sense of reahty, however, thiS startmg-
pomt presents msoluble dIfficulties, which lead, at the very
begmnmg of the earlIer sketch of the Ideal state, to the first clear
formulation of the profound conflict concealed m Plato's state
In polItics, too, Anstotle lIves not m the Ideal world but m the
tensIOn between Idea and expenence The actual pohtlcaI hfe of
hiS tune, however, does not allow hun to find any way of relaxmg
thiS tensIOn In metaphySICS and ethiCS he keeps the door to
Plato's world open, m spite of hiS Immanent pomt of View, and
he can do so because that world IS actual wlthm hunself In
pohhcs, on the other hand, the 'best state' remams a mere
Utopia, and shows all too clearly that along thiS road the most
one can attam to IS a mere educatIonal mstltutIon InCidentally,
Anstotle did mdeed fonnulate the problem of power clearly-he
appends It to Plato's notIOn of the state as a sort of questlon-
mark-and also explam that not all 'mastery' IS fundamentally
bad, but he did not reach a satlsfymg solutIOn, and m that
advanced stage of general Greek culture a practIcal solutIOn was
no doubt altogether ImpOSSible
The problem of the state was wholly unmanageable The
Greeks' theoretical awareness of therr own pohtlcal hfe attamed
ItS lughest pomt, lIke the conscIous nervous nahonahsm of the
Demosthemc party, at a hme when the Greek city-state had
begun to declme It was a form that had hved ItS hfe out, and
it now succumbed to soclehes of a cruder sort that still retamed
400 MATURITY
their vIgour In hIS sketch of the Ideal state Anstotle turns
ImmedIately to the SIgnIficant questIon whether to escape from
the state be not the only pOSSible aIm, and begms hI'i analysIs of
actual polItIcal hfe by declanng that, wIth regard toreahty, there
IS nothmg for the phIlosopher to do but contnbute hIS supenor
knowledge of the condItIon!> of each partIcular constItutlOn to
the correct treatment of polItIcal dIsorders as they anse ThIS
attItude of reSIgnatIon IS typIcal of the mtellectual personahtIes
of the tIme, even of the practIcal statesmen, who one and all
approached the state WIth a certam detachment and whose
pohtIcs always remamed a sort of expenment ThIS detachment
and the conSClOusness of It went furthest WIth Anstotle, because,
hImself WIthout a state, he lIved as an objectIve observer m a
great state m the throes of dIssolutIon, and had mastered the
tremendous wealth of forms and pOSSIbIlItIes The only effectIve
commumty that stIlI had a strong hold on the Greeks of hIS tIme
was CIvIl SOCIety WIth It!> firm notlOns of educatIon, demeanour,
and urbamty SIgmficantly, he counts thIS not as a polItIcal force
but as part of the permanent ethIcal make-up of personalIty, and
therefore hIS dISCUSSIOn of It appears m the Ethus m the form of
specIal' vIrtues' The outer and mner support of the old moralIty
had been the laws of'the state, that of the modern was the
ObjectIve forms of SOCIety There IS no abstract ethIcal mdI-
vldualIsm m Anstotle--even the StOICS and EpIcureans kept far
from that extreme, m spIte of the cosmopolItamsm of the former
and the Ideal fnendshlp of the latter-but hIS Pol1tzcs shows WIth
crass realIsm that 'iOClety Itself IS only a small group of favoured
persons, dragged hIther and thIther and mamtammg a precanous
eXI'itence m the umversal struggle for money and power
Hf'llemstIc ethiCS finally came to rest m the notlOn of mward
freedom, whIch only occasIOnally appears m Anstotle, thIS con-
firmed for good dnd all the mdlvldual's mdependence of state
and SOCIety Wlthm Anstotle's ethICS thIS !>elf-'iufficlency eXIsts
only for the man who shares m the' theoretIc hfe', dnd even for
hIm only on certam condItIons, but thIS mcreased senSItIveness
to man's dependence on fortune' and external Circumstances 15
Itself preCisely an expreSSIOn of that longmg for mward freedom,
and that seme of the moral dlgmty of personalIty, which are
charactenstIc of thf' whole age
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY
IV PHILOSOPHY AS THE UNIVERSAL SCIENCE
Anstotle's philosophy represents the ddIicultIes that hiS age
felt about the umverse, expressed with the highest art of
methodical thought HIS sCIentific research, on the other hand,
IS more, and extends far beyond the VISIOn of hIS contemporanes
To see thIS SIde of hIS achIevement m a false light, by applymg
to It the standards of modem sCIence and factual knowledge, IS
only too easy, and has been done agam and agam, every time
that he has engaged the attentlOn of the representatives of the
specialized branches of sCience or the hlstonans of the posItIve
sCiences Perhaps, however, we may venture to hope that to-day
the nawete of all such compansons IS clear even to those who
have not been schooled by hlstoncal thought, and that we are
reheved of the obhgatlOn to examme them Here we may not
only exclude the questIOn of the correctness of Anstotle's detailed
observatIOns, but also omit to give any precise account of hiS
epoch-makmg achIevement as an mventor of methods, smce our
concern IS only to evaluate the sIgmficance of lus researches as a
SIgn of the evolutIon of philosophy
The enlargement of Platomc 'phIlosophy' mto umversal
sCience was a step forced on Anstotle by hIS hIgh estImate of
expenence and by hIS pnnClple that speculation must be based
on perceptIblereahty Nevertheless,Ittookplace only gradually,
for, though he was by nature a scholar from the begmmng and
stood out as the great reader among the abstract Platomsts-
the story that Plato called hIm so IS true m essence at any rate-
the mtellectual attItude of hiS first or transcendental penod IS
mcompatIble WIth hIS subsequent unreserved devotion to the
endless world of facts Fromtheoretical mSlght mto the necessIty
of bnngmg expenence withm the sphere of philosophic thought,
for the logIcal estabhshment of a conceptIon of bemg approxl-
matmg to the world of appearances, It is still a long way to
the collection and elaboratlOn of a gigantic mass of facts purely
for theIr own sake, and where we possess detailed mSlght mto
Anstotle's development we can still see clearly how once he set
foot on thIS road he was dnven step by step farther along It One
example must suffice The celebrated sketch of the development
from Thales to Plato m the first book of the Metaphys1.cs IS
402 MATURITY
stnctly plulosophlcal m mtentIOn, Its purpose IS to denve the
four pnnclples on WhICh Anstotle bases metaphysIcs, that IS
to say, It IS not hlstoncal, as has often been supposed, but
systematIc It compresses and dIstorts the facts for the sake of
what he wIshes to extract from them In hIS later penod thIS
account was enlarged mto a genera] hIStOry of the SCIences It
went far beyond Its ongInal systematIc purpose and became an
mdependent SCIence, governed solely by Its concern for the
matenal The collectIOn of constItutIons IS rather dIfferent, at
any rate m theory thIS factual research remamed a part of
polItIcs, Its relatIOn to whIch IS certamly closer than that of the
hIStOry of the SCIences to metaphysIcs Even m polItIcs, how-
ever, the advance from mere bookIsh scholarshIp and from the
prmclple of respectmg expenence to the workmg-up of all that
constItutIonal matenalls an unmense step and takes us beyond
the bounds of phIlosophy proper
Every other example would serve to conVInce us m a SImIlar
way that In spIte of the lOner consIstency of thIS evolutIon It
Involved a momentous dIsplacement of the centre of gravIty m
the dIrectIon of pOSItIve research The conceptual phIlosopher
became a SCIentIst who explamed the whole world m umversal
fashIOn PhIlosophy to hun was now the name of the sphere of
the SCIences as a whole When the word was comed It meant m
the first place every kmd of study or mtellectual mterest, and 10
a narrower sense the search for truth and knowledge The first
person to gIve It a permanent termmologlcal sIgmficance was
Plato, who needed, to descnbe h1S kmd of know1Og, a word that
expressed at once the unattamabIllty of the transcendental goal
of knowledge and the eternIty of the struggle towards It, the
suspenSIOn between Ignorance and' wIsdom' Never, however,
had It meant the establIshed umty and present totalIty of all
knowledge Such an Idea had never entered anyone's bram at
all In Anstotle It dId not take the form of attemptIng to JustIfy
the collectIon and orgamzatIon of all eXIStmg sCIences 10 one
school by means of some attempt at external systematIZatIOn
He was not an encyclopaedlst ThIS IS shown by the fact that,
though It may have been hIS theory to do so, he dId not actually
adopt 10 hIS' phIlosophy' the older mdependent SCIences such as
mathematIcs, optIcs, astronomy, and geography Only medIcme
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 403
got m and was mdustnously pursued. because and so far as It
offered a fruItful field for the actuahzatlOn of Anstotle's morpho
lOgical Ideas Those other stuwes dId not do so. and thus the
exceptions show that the astoundmg totahty of Anstotle's
<;Clence is an orgamc growth from the central pomt of h1s
phIlosophy, the notion of form This notiOn determmed the
hmits of what his phIlosophy could master As he developed hiS
. form' changed from a theoretical conceptiOn of bemg to an
Instrument of applIed SCience, a morphological and phenomeno-
logIcal study of all thmgs He thus put phIlosophy m a posItion
to attam a SCIentific grasp of the whole of reality It ruled over
all the provmces of knowledge to an extent that has never smce
been equalled We must. however, keep on inSIsting that the
cause of this fact IS that hiS phIlosophy possessed the power of
creatmg SCiences, so that new ones were always spnngmg forth
from ItS lap, such as the bIOlOgical, morphological, and physIO-
logical study of nature, or the bIOgraphical and morphological
sCiences of culture Mere logiC or formal systematic could never
enable phIlosophy to mamtam such a place m SCience, stllliess
could an arbitrarIly dictated view of the umverse
The relation between sCience and world-View IS the problema-
tical pomt m Anstotle's phIlosophy There are two Sides to it,
smce sCience rests on prmclples that have to be establIshed
not by Itself but by phIlosophy, whIle on the other hand phIlo-
sophy IS bullt up on the baSIS of SCientific expenence He beheved
that With this conception of thought and expenence he could
make Plato's phIlosophy mto cntlcal sCIence, for, although he
does not dIstmgmsh phIlosophy and SCIence by dIfferent names.
the startmg-pomt of hiS cntlciSm of all earher phIlosophy IS a
firm conception of what constitutes SCience Even wlthmhIS own
philosophy he recognizes that the factual knowledge of the
SpeCial sCiences IS SCientific m a supenor degree. not because of Its
greater exactitude (for thiS belongs rather to conceptual thmk-
mg) but because of Its unpregnable realIty-the problem whether
the supersensible is real gave rIse to all kInds of uncertamty m
the other sphere Anstotle's mtellectual world presents a umfied
appearance from Without, but It carnes wlthm Itself a COnsCIOUS
dIscord In the fundamental Idea that philosophy and SCIence
tend to diverge, m spite of hIS efforts to brmg them together by
404 MATURITY
concelvmg phLlosophy m the narrower and lugher sense of the
word as the necessary conclusIOn of the study of reahty Greek
sCience had always received strong stunulatlOn from that meta-
physical attitude towards the world which IS the dnvmg force
of phLlosophy, and each had furthered the other dunng their
development Once on the summit, however, they found them-
selves m conflict Anstotle restores them to unstable eqmh-
bnum This mstant represents the high pOInt of the common
part of their development
In Post-Anstotellan tunes neIther philosophy nor SCIence was
able to mamtam Itself on thIS height SCience needed freer play
than phIlosophy gave It Its results often rendered doubtful the
methods and pnnclples of explanatIOn that phuosophy had
proVided It WIth On the other SIde, the cultured classes, who
had lost theIr rehglOn, needed a metaphysical view of the world,
and thus tempted phLlosophy to renew Its bold speculative
flight, and we have to admit that m trymg to satisfy thiS longmg
It was only obeymg the unpulse of self-preservatIOn Compared
With Anstotle's cntIcal attitude StOICism and Eplcureamsm look
hke dogmatism and the collapse of SCIentIfic philosophy They
took over hIS logical techmque and developed the content of
some of hiS metaphysical Views, mlxmg them With older pnml-
tIve Ideas, or they renewed Pre-Socratic phySICS as Epicurus
renewed Democntus, and buut up an ethical Ideal of hfe on that
foundation The centre of gravity lay m metaphysIcs and ethics ,
real research was not prosecuted at all After the thIrd genera-
bon the Penpatos assumed the same practical tendency, al-
though It could not compete With the StOICS and the Epicureans
m thiS field, the result was the regrettable collapse of the school
after Strato That great mvestigator clearly shows, however,
the only path that the movement Imtiated by Anstotle could
take under the circumstances Dunng hIS penod Penpatetic
research was already m touch With Alexandna, \\-here the soLl
was more favourable than m Attica to the development of the
POSitive SCiences, and where the keen wmd of reality was blow-
mg Alexandnan sCience IS the spmtual contmuatIOn of
Anstotle's last penod There the lmk between sCience and
phIlosophy wa!> defimtely broken, the mfimtely refined tech-
mque of PtolemaiC research dispensed With the stable mtellectual
ARISTOTLE'S PLACE IN HISTORY 405
centre that Anstotle's detailed work had possessed m hIS great
spmtuahst VIew of the umverse On the other hand, the most
Important dlScovenes of anCIent sCience are due to thiS separa-
tion, which was a necessary hberatIon of research It was now
that medlcme and natural SCIence, together wIth exact philology,
attamed their greatest flowenng They were represented by
figures lIke Anstarchus, Anstophanes, Hipparchus, Eratos-
thenes, and ArchImedes From the standpomt of Anstotehan
philosophy and SCIence, of course, all thIS IS but half of the
mtellectual realm, but the deSIre for a metaphysIcal VIew of
the world, and the deSIre for SCIentific stnctness, never came
together agam m the anCIent world Aristotle IS claSSical m
spIte of hIS lateness Just because he umted them, although
even m hIm research and explanatIon preponderate over the
formation of world-pIctures
High as Anstotle's Ideal was 10 Itself, what IS still more
wonderful IS ItS reahzatIon 10 the mmd of a smgle man ThIS IS
and will remam a psycholOgIcal marvel, mto whIch we cannot
penetrate deeper The word 'umversalIty' descnbes only hIS
astoundmg power of spreadmg hImself over all fields of realIty,
and hIS tremendous capaCIty for aSSImilation, both of WhICh were
attamable only 10 a perIod conscIous of techmque, but what IS
far greater IS the 10tellectual range that 10cluded both the con-
templation of supersensible essences by pure Nus and a kmfehke
keenness of the conceptual understandmg and a mIcroscopIC
accuracy of senSIble observatIOn ThIS phenomenon becomes
more comprehenSIble If we observe 10 the course of Anstotle's
development that orIgmalIty and power of assimilatIOn balance
each other, but even so hIS leamng towards metaphySICS and hIS
hIghly developed capaCIty for 10ward expenence remam some-
thmg umque m the spmtual make-up of a pronounced observer
and dIscoverer In spIte of the many layers of hIS mental world
there IS a great umty about It because all hIS powers are
developed only so far as they serve as 10struments for the ob-
Jective contemplatIOn of realIty HIS Nus lacks Plato's world-
transformmg power, hIS conceptual thmkIng the solId practical
bulk of dogmatism, hIS observatIon the tum for mventIons and
techmcalIIDprovements, the three are umted mane smgle task,
the apprehenSIOn of what IS HIS whole creatIVIty IS exhausted
.06 MATURITY
10 the contlDual production of new InStruments for the seI'Vlce of
thIS work
The presupposItion of thIS complete devotion to the con-
templation of the world IS the ObJectiVIty, to the ultunate
spmtual depths of which we cannot penetrate, ID wmch every-
thIng that Anstotle put out IS steeped, and which he bequeathed
to Hellemstlc sCience We have already remarked that It is not
to be confused With unpersonallty, but 15 a suprapersonal form
of the mmd It IS as far removed from the artistic objectiVity
With which Plato m hIS wntmgs clothes hiS spmtual passlOn to
transform human life, as from that Thucydldean kmd which
escapes the pams of a fnghtful hlstoncal fate by regardmg It as
the necessary course of events and tummg It mto pohtIcal know-
ledge In those two AttIC wnters the struggle for objectiVity 15
the reachon of a self that concentrates on sovereIgn values and
IS passlOnately mterested 10 hfe In therr cases we ought to speak
of objectification rather than sunple objectiVity The objectiVity
of Anstotle IS someth1Og pnmary It expresses a great seremty
towards hfe and the world. whIch we look for vamly m Attica
from Solon to Epicurus It IS to be found rather 10 Hecataeus,
Herodotus, Anaxagoras. Eudoxus, and Democntus, much as
these men differ from each other There IS someth1Og peculIarly
contemplative and non-tragic about them ArIStotle, too,
possessed that world-Wide loman honzon, of whose soul-
hberat10g breadth the brood1Og Athemans had no 10klmg At
the same time the essence of the Attic spmt had a profound
10fluence upon hIm as It had upon Herodotus, It gave to
hiS comprehenSive Icnopla or 10qurry ItS umty and stnctness of
pnnclple Through these gifts he became, what It was not
vouchsafed to any of the loman contemplators of the umverse
to be, the compell1Og orgamzer of reahty and of sCience
APPENDIX I
DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS
A NEW PUPIL OF ARISTOTLE
THE great man whom I wish to Introduce IS probably not only un-
known to most of my readers as a pupil of Anstotle but IS also hkely
to be a complete stranger to them That he did not hve m the begm-
mng of the fourth century Be, as has been generally assumed up to
the present hme, but was one of the outstandmg members of the
Penpatetlc school a hundred years later IS the thesIs of a recent book
of mme entitled Dtokles von Karystos (Berhn, 1938) which IS a con-
tlnuahon of my book on Anstotle I I shall give my reasons for this
thesIS as far as It IS possible Within the hmlts of the present chapter
I
Although Diodes may still be unknown to the hlstonans of phl1o-
sophy, he IS by no means unknown to our histonans of medICine He
used to be raIled' the second HIppocrates' by the Athemans
3
of hIS
age and enjoyed a high reputatIOn among the Greek physIcians of
later centunes who preserved through frequent quotations more than
one hundred pnnted pages of hIS lost wntmgs This somewhat
meagre eVidence fonns the baSIS of our mveshgatIOns But smce we
cannot attnbute With certamty even to HIppocrates any of the
numerous which are preserved under hiS name, we are m the
case of DIOdes In a comparatively favourable Situation The longest
of hiS fragments contams about mne pages 4 ThiS IS almost what the
I D'okles von K arystos D,e gnech,sche Meduzn und d,e Schule des Arlstoteles
(Berhn, W de Gruyter & Co, 19]8) V1ll+244 pp Cf also my 'Vergessene
Fragmente des DlOkJes von Karystos Nebst zwel Anhangen
zur Chronologie der m A bhandlungen del' preussI-
schen Akadsmze del' W1Ssenschaften, ]ahrgang 1938, Phil -hlst Klasse, No 3,
pp J-.t6
In the second of these pubhcatlons I have made several additions which
confirm and enlarge. and on some mmor modIfy the conclUSIOns of my
book on DlOcles Hereafter I shall refer to the book as Dlokles and to the
artrcle above mentIOned as Vergessene F..agmente
This chapter IS repnnted, With permissIOn, from The PhIlosophIcal RWlew,
vol xhx (1940), pp 393-407
J Cf D,okles, p 4. n 4
4 Max Wellmann, Die Fragmente del' slkelzschen Arzte Akron, Phllzst,on und
des Dlokles lion Karystos (Berhn, 1901), frg '41 (1 &hall quote the fragments
of DIOdes only by their numbers In Wellmann's collectIOn)
408 DlOCLES OF CARYSTUS
anCIents would call a book and It should be sufficient to
fonn an Impression of his style, method, culture, and personahty,
which can be venfied by the rest of the fragments I The fragments
have been collected by Max Wellmann, one of the pIOneers and
acknowledged authontles 10 Greek medlcme, a field which was only
penetrated by claSSical scholars With modem hlstoncal and phIlo-
logical methods towards the end of the mneteenth century Well-
mann's collectIOn of the fragments was publIshed In Ig01 It IS part
and parcel of a collection of the fragments of the SICIlIan school of
medlcme (late fifth and early fourth century) to which, accordmg to
Wellmann, DIOdes belongs 2 Wellmann's book was a first attempt
to reconstruct the history of Greek medlc10e dunng the century after
Hippocrates' death, m whICh It reached the culmmat10g pomt of Its
SCientific development
We call thiS penod, accordmg to anCIent traditIOn, the dogmatic
school Its first and greatest was Hippocrates (second
half of the fifth century) Galen and Celsus mention as hiS successors
DIOcles of Carystus, Praxagoras of Cos, Herophllus of Chalcedon, and
Eraslstratus of Ceus DIOcle'>, they say, flounshed after Hippocrates
but before Praxagoras and the others 3 Plmy. too says that
was the second great figure of the dogmatH ')chool second, 10 time
and 10 fame, to Hippocrates anI} 4 Unfortunately we do not know
exactly when Praxagoras lIved He was the teacher of HerophIlus,
who flounshed under Ptolemles I and II at Alexd.ndna 10 the of
the thud century and later Eraslstratus was the Id.st of the senes.
hiS jtoruft be10g put by Eusebms 10 hIS Chromca m 2585 If Hero-
phllus flounshed m the 80'S and 70 s of the third century, hIS teacher
Praxagoras must have been the leader of the HIppocratIC school at
Cos about 300, or not much later If DlOcles' jtoruft as given by Galen.
Plmy. and Celsus IS correct, the problem as to where m the
long mterval between Hippocrates and Praxagoras (between 400 and
300) DIOdes IS to be put Wellmann and other scholars thought that
I The extensIve portIOn pre.erved from DIOdes book on dIet cf p 407 n 4
was Incorporated by U von \\'Ilamowltz In GrMchtSches Lesebuch (Berlm
1902), vol 11 pp 277 If as a masterpIece of Greek SCIentific prose and as one of
the most colourful pictures of the dally hfe of a Greek CItizen m Athens claSSIcal
penod At the same bme It offers a graphIC example of Dwell" medIcal art
and method and the pnnc.Iples on WhICh It rest.
1 Cf P 407. n 4 The book was as the first volume of a collectIOn of
the fragments of the Greek phySICians But a second volu me has never appeared
J Cf Ps Gal, Introd C 4 (frg 3, \\ ellmann, op CIt) Gal IV 731 Kuhn
(frg 16) Celsus praef 2 (frg 4)
Phn Nat htsl XXVI 10 (frg 5) qUI [Dweles] secundus aetate famaque
extItit
, Cf the chronology of the phySICians of the dogmabc school. Vergessene
pp 3b If . Anhang I
DlOCLES OF CARYSTUS
the 'second Hippocrates' must unquestlOnably have lIved lmme-
dlately after the first HIppocrates DIOdes often refers to wntmgs of
our Hippocratic corpus without quotmg them As a rule he does not
quote authors at all. thus makmg It very difficult to determIne hIS
tIme I BesIdes the HIppocratic mfluence, DIOdes IS strlkmgly depen-
dent upon the SICIlIan school m many charactenstIc details and for
hIS fundamental theory of the pneuma as the source of orgamc lIfe
The mam figure of that school was PhIlIstIOn Wellmann therefore
lInked DIOdes with PhlhstlOn as well as wIth HIppocrates Smce
Plato proves to be largely dependent upon PhIhstIOn's theory In hIS
and the second PlatOnIC letter mentIons a planned tnp of
PhllIstIon from Syracuse to Plato's Academy In Athens, Wellmann
belIeved that PhllIstlOn and DIOdes were contemporanes of Plato's
earher years and put them ill the first thIrd of the fourth century Z
ThIS has generally been assumed to be the case, although doubts
have bern occaSIOnally expressed dunng the last fifteen years J
When I had to deal WIth DIOdes for the first tIme, shortly after I
had completed mv doctor's dIssertatIOn, I dId not dare to questIOn
the accuracv of such authOrItIes a<> Wdlmann and FredrIch I tned
to pursue the doctrIne of the pneuma and Its mfluence on ArIstotle's
physIOlogIcal and zoologIcal theones and, In accordance WIth the
prevaIlmg VIew, prrsupposed that DIOdes dnu PhllIstIOn were
totle's sources m the same way as they were supposed to be tHe
sources of Plato's physIOlogy 4 When I returned to DIOdes some
decades later WIth a somewhat greater c>..penencc, I saw at once that
the IdIOm of thIS bnllIant author does not belong to the time when
Plato s earlIest works were wrItten, but that It I!:> characterIzed by
all the trdlts of the Greek language spoken at the begmmng of the
I For an important exceptIOn to rule cf mfra p 411 n 4 I do not
begin however With these because they are not given In a hterally-
pre,erved direct fragment of DIOdes, but occur In an excerpt made by a later
ancient phYSiCian
\\ eHmann. op Cit pp 66 ff He had a III C Frednch, H,ppo-
krahsche Untersuchungen (Berlin 1899), pp 171 and 196 Wilamowltz lac CIt.
of the same elate
J Cf DlOkles. pp 13 ff I have shown there al,o that long before these
modern doubts were V Rose In a remark of hIS almost for-
gotten book Anstoteles Pseudep,gmphus (LeIpZIg 18b3). p 380 had placed
DIOdes after An_totIe In Vergessene Fragmente, pill have added two
more scholars who wanted to place DIOdes later In the third century B c-
I A FabncIus, BlbtlOtheca Graeca (Hamburg, 1724). \01 xu p 584, and I L
Ideler, Arzstotel,s Me/earot Ltbn IV (LeIpZig, 1834) vol I, P 157 However,
both had but very mformatIon about DIOdes, and that the
authonty of their statements For thIS l-rednch and Wellmann dId not
even mentIOn these and consequently their vIew was entIrely
oblIterated, lJke that of Rose, for several decades
4 Hermes vol XIVlll (1913), P 51
410 DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS
Hellemstlc penod (about 300) I have dedlcated many pages of my
book to an mtense analysIs of hIs style and language, but I do not
thmk It feasible to repeat them here DIOdes' style, moreover, 15 full
of the phliosophlcaJ tenmnology of Anstotle I HIs fragments gIve
abundant eVidence of his perfect tralmng m, and command of, Ans-
totehan methods of thought and argument Z Smce the fragments of
hIS varIOus works show no dlfference In thls regard, the mfluence
cannot be due to a late and occasIOnal acquamtance With Anstotle
It penetrates everythmg DIOdes thus must have flounshed when
the Penpatetlc school was at Its heIght, I e about the end of the
fourth century He cannot have been much earher than Praxagoras
There are many other mdlcatlOns favounng thiS late date DIOdes
IS mentioned for the first time m Greek hterature by Theophrastus,
who quotes him as an authonty for a mmeraloglCal problem m hiS
book On Mmerals, which was wntten between 315 and 288 The
Imperfect which he uses m thiS quotatIOn seems to mdICate that he
has known him personally and that Diodes was known to the Pen-
patetlc Circle 3 DIOdes' work on dIet was dedICated to a certam
Phstarchus Wellmanll never asked who thIS man was Beloch, 10 a
short footnote of hiS Greek asks whether he wa<; a Macedoman
prInce, brother of Cassander and one of the younger sons of AntIpater 4
ThIS IS, mdeed, highly probable Anhpater was Alexander's man of
confidence, whom he entrusted WIth the adnumstratlOn of Macedoma
and Greece dunng the long years of hiS absence 10 ASia Anstotle had
I For these stylIstIc and philologIcal arguments I must refer to D,okles,
pp 16--59 The AristotelIan element, as soon as It IS recogm1ed as such, at once
establIshes a termInUS post quem for our consIderatIOns It goes
WIthout saylOg-and even the ancient CritIcs of style have pronounced thIS as <l
methodical rule fOT every .uch attempt to attnbute a document to a certain
mdlvldualIty or penod-that the .mgle symptoms which IndIcate the orlgm of
that document from a certam time do not prove much If Isolated They are
mdlcatIve of one IOdlvldual stylIstIc character or period only when VIsualized
m theIr entIrety The scholarly observer reaches hIS conclUSIons not by sum-
mmg up smgle ImpreSSIOns of more or less slRfllficance, but by one umfied
ImpreSSIOn based on many
1 CI mfra pp 414 fl , where I have compared DIOdes' method and baSIC
concepts With Anstotle
, Theophr De lap,d,bus 5 38 Wcrmp Kal D.EyEv No one has doubted
thus far that Theophrastus IS quotmg the Carystian and not another DIOdes,
even though DIOdes was supposed to have hved a century earher ThIS
IdentIficatIOn IS confirmed now SInce we find so many other mdlcatIons that
DIodes must have been a PenpatetIc of Theophrastus' own enVIronment That
DIodes the phySICIan should have been also a mmeraloglst and as such be
quoted by hiS PenpatetIc colleague must, of course, shock the modern speCIalIst
but DIodes was also a meteorologist and botanIst Cf mfra, pp 413 fl , and
P 4
2
3
J Beloch, GnechlSche GeschlChte, vol Ill, 1", P 413, n 2, and Dtokles,
PP 62 H
DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS -41 I
met Anbpater when he was the educator of Alexander at K10g
Phlbp's court, and from that time until his death AntIpater remamed
his most mtImate fnend Anstotle appomted him m his w111 as
general executor He and hiS son Cassander were the protectors
of the Penpatebc school after Alexander's and Anstotle's deaths
PlIstarchus became kmg of Lycla and Cana after the battle of Ipsus
m 301 Almost all the HellemstIc kmgs were protectors of sCience
and phl1osophy The dedication of sCientific works to prmces and
other powerful men IS a custom which begms shortly before Alexan-
der's bme
l
and throws much light upon the relatIOns of phl1osophlcal
schools and politics Moreover, 10 one of Diodes' books the cucum-
bers of AntIoch were recommended Z Antwch was founded 1n the year
300 B C Thus DlOcles wrote h1s book m the th1rd, not m the beg1nmng
of the fourth century
If he was still alive m the third century, how long did he live
Here I have to make some additions to my own book 3 There I stIll
acqUIesced lD the view of my predecessors who had occupied them-
selves With the quotation of DIOdes 10 Theophrastus' book On
Mmerals They believed that the Imperfect, DIOdes used to say',
must mean that he was dead at that time Anstotle speaks 10 the
same way of Plato when he quotes hiS oral statements after hiS death
When he quotes Plato's dialogues, he always wntes . Plato says'
But although the Imperfect may mean that the person quoted IS now
dead, It does not necessanly mean thiS It may mean only that the
person who formerly used to belong to the Circle of TI,eophrastus did
not hve any longer 10 that commumty I am mchned to thmk that
DIodes was not dead when Theophrastus quoted him m thiS way but
had been absent for some tune FIrst there IS a polemIC of DIOdes
agamst HerophIluo; m an excerpt of hIS theory on the nature of the
sperma 4 As I have saId, HerophIlus flounshed dunng the 80'S and
the 70'S of the third century, under the first and second Ptolemy m
Alexandna ThIS can very well be reconcIled WIth the chronolOgical
tradItion that DIOdes' own flounshmg preceded that of Praxagoras
I hocrates dedicated one of hiS works to Nlcocles, klDg of Cyprus, another
to KlDg Philip of Macedon Anstotle dedicated hiS Protreptw"s to Themlson,
pnnce of Cyprus Whether hiS book On Monarchy was dedicated to Alexander
the Great, we do not know, but at any rate It was offered to him
Frg 125 (Ath II 59 a)
Cf for the follOWing arguments Vergessene Fragmente, pp 14 ff
Cf Wellmann, op Cit, P 208 Dlocles quotes In that passage from Hero-
phdus, DlOgenes of Apollowa. and Anstotle Wellmann assumed that these
names were Inserted later, at least that of Herophl1u5 and Anstotle, because
he thought that Diodes lived earlier than they, but he was inconsistent enough
to thInk that the name of DlOgenes was genume, because he had hved 1D the
fifth century, I e before Wellmann's date of Diodes
412 DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS
and Herophllus The tlounshmg or akmi of a man means, accordmg
to the usage of Greek chronologists, the fortIeth year of age If
Diodes flounshed shortly before or about 300, he may have hved
untIl 260 or so, provided he reached hiS eightIeth year That he hved
to an old age IS manliest from the wIll of Strato, Anstotle's second
successor m the leadership of the school He mentions a DIOdes as
one of the leadmg authonbes of the Penpatebc school to whom he
entrusts, as executors, the permanent care of hiS will and of the
school J Strato appomted as hiS successor a young man named Lyco,
who kept thiS post for forty-four years, thus ensunng the contmUlty
of the school But Strato explIcitly adds 10 hiS w1l1 that he had con-
sulted the others before decld10g on Lyco, who was not a promment
scholar but only a bnlhant teacher and speaker The others, how-
ever, had dechned to become hiS successor, 'because they were either
too old or too busy' Strata died 10 270 or 269 If DIOdes had
attended Anstotle's lectures dunng the master's last years and If he
were born about 345, he could have reached hiS pnme about 300 and
would have been over seventy when Strato died He was thus one
of those Penpatehc authontles who were' too old' for the leadership
of the school
Now there IS a fragment of one of DIOdes' books m which GalatIa
10 ASia Mmor IS menboned as the homeland of certam vegetables Z
Galatia was named after the Gauls who mvaded ASia Mmor m the 70'S
of the third century and settled In that part of the pemnsula to which
they subsequently gave their name ThiS may have happened soon
after, dunng the 70'S or 60'S of the third century J We cannot trace
Diodes' hfetIme farther than that (I) because of the annent traditIon
that preceded that of Praxagoras, HerophIlus, and Erasl-
stratus and (2) because Theophrastus and Strata already knew him
I DlOg Laert V cf i' ergessene Fragmente, J3 to have
quoted extensIvely DIodes gynaecologIcal work and adopted hIS elaborate
medIcal theory of the hebdomadlc penods of the development of the embryo
and the human body Cf the lar!:e excerpts, frg 177, and the new Information
from a Neo-PlatonIc source, whIch I added In Vergessene Fragmente, pp J9-34
Frg J25 (Ath II 59 a) Th,s IS the passage In whIch D,odes men-
tIons the good cucumbers of AntIOch (f p 41 J
1 Professor Fehx Staehelm of Basle, author of Geseh,ekte der
kleJnasJatJsenen Galater (LeIpZIg), In a letter to me expressed the view that the
name 'Galatia' came up soon after the Galatians settled In that part of ASIa
MInor He thmks It happened In the 70'S of the thIrd century BeAt any rate,
tlus hlstoncal allUSIOn IS In harmony With the fact that DIOdes IS named In the
Will of Strato the PenpatetIc (dIed In 270)
Professor D'Arcy Thompson m rus comments on my Dzokles, Ph,lo<oph,eal
ReVieW, vol xlVIII (1939), pp 210 f[ seems to have overlooked thiS fact Even
though he IS ready to admIt that I am correct m placmg DIOdes about a century
later than he had been placed thus far Professor D'Arcy feels en-
couraged to go even farther do.... n WIth DIOdes' hfetlme But, as I saJd before
DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS 413
as an outstandmg authonty If he was considered as a possIble
candIdate for the leadershIp of the Penpatos by Strato, his name
must be engraved along wIth that of Theophrastus. Eudemus, and
Strato as one of the great characters of that astoundmg group of
scholars and sCIentists who represent the school of Anstotle
There eXIsts under the name of DIOdes a dIdactIc letter to Kmg
AntIgonus on prophylaxIs of mner dIseases I It has been rejected as
unauthentic because DIodes was supposed to have hved a century
earher It stnctly resembles the style of the larger fragments and
eVidently belongs to the begmmng of the HellemstIc era It mentIOns
the great age of the kmg, who, accordmg to all we have saId, can be
only Antlgonus I % He was about eighty years of age when he became
kmg m 35, and dIed In the battle of Ipsus In 301 In thIS letter the
author appears not only as a medical authonty, but also as a meteoro-
lOgiSt DIOdes was a umversal mmd, as were all those Penpatetlc
scholars He was at once a physIcian, botamst, and meteorolOgist
HIS connexlOn WIth Theophrastus becomes better understood when
we read that he wrote not less than three works on botany, With
regard to the dietetlCal and pharmacologIcal use of plants
From the fragments of these books modem histonans of botany have
reconstructed a pre-Theophrastean system of plants ThIS system
(cf above, p 408). DIOdes' termznus anle quem as given by the unarumous
of three anCient experts on the of Greek medlcme (Celsus,
Phny, and Galen). doe_ not permIt us to go farther do"n With Iounsh-
mg than before that of (about 300) ThiS fact, and the
Anstotehan termmology of his medical language, place Diodes' flounshmg
towards the end of the last thud of the fourth century Be-I e between the
openmg of the Anstotehan school, 335 and the flounshmg of Praxagoras, 300
I It IS m the ancient medical author Paulus Aegmeta at the end
of Book I and repnnted In D,okles, pp 75 ff where I have discussed It at
len!(th
D' Arcry I loc CIt, that perhaps the old Fabnclus, loc Cit,
was nght m referrmg DIOdes Letter to Anllgonu, to KIDg <\ntIgonus Gonatas
(second half of the third century Be) But when FabnclU, ventured hiS con-
Jecture In the year 1724, he did not know then the many other testImorua on
DIOdes which we now read m Wellmann collectIOn nor those which I added
to them We take FabnclUs surmise for what It Is-a mere ImproVisatIOn
I do not see how to reconcile It With the rest of our trarutlOn For example, how
shall we explam the ongm of the ancient tradition (Galen) that Diodes wrote
the first work on anatomy, If he had hved after Herophllus and
traslstratus, both of whom wrote great anatomical and appear to be
more advanced than DIOdes m thiS respect I And how could the charactenstIc
formula of Plmy ongmate, who terms DIOdes 'the second In tIme and m fame'
(after Hippocrates), secundus aetate famaque If m realIty he the fifth and
last m the sene, of famous dogmatic phySICians I ThiS objection been made
already by Eduard Zeller, Philosoph" der Gnechen, "01 III 2' P 916, to the
earher chronology of and Ideler, who placed DIOdes under Anbgonus
Gonatas
od
'P4 DlOCLES OF CARYSTUS
IS now broken down In the same way zoologists have reconstructed
a pre-Anstotehan system of ammals from Dlocles' classification of
the ammals 10 hiS work on diet In realIty Anstotle does not depend
upon Dlocles' zoological system, but DIOdes naturally takes advan-
tage of Anstotle's systematic zoology for hiS dietetic purpose I Galen
reports that Diodes was also the first to wnte a speCial work on
anatomy Z ThiS IS apparently 10 connexlOn with Anstotle's anatomic
dissections, the averrolJal Some decades ago a papyrus contammg
medical data was excavated 10 Egypt The editor, Professor Gerhard
of Heidelberg, was 10chned to attnbute the work, several columns of
which are preserved, to Diodes for styhstIc reasons The authontles
Silenced him because they said there were many Anstotehan terms
10 the treatise and It resembled Anstotle's Problemata In thIS they
were absolutely correct But they did not see that all the fragments
of Diodes are full of Anstotehan concepts, as we have noted From
our pomt of view their objection IS an argument/or DlOcles' author-
ship of the papyrus and not agaInst It
II
I have enumerated a number of hlstoncal and philologIcal argu-
ments. but I wlll not detam the reader any longer With details Instead,
I shall diSCUSS some more philosophical problems offered by the text
of DIOdes' fragments 3 The author dIffers from the wnters of the
Hippocratic treatises by hIS awareness of the logical and philosophical
problems 1Ovolved m hiS medical conclUSions He often hmlts the
factual statements which he uses as premises for practical adVice by
I D'Arcy Thompson, loe CIt tnes to minImIze the wngruencles
between Dloeles and Anstotle's systematic of the ammals whIch
had aroused the attention of zoologIcal and phIlological before me,
but whIch were mterpreted by them provmg s dependence upon
DIOdes because of the then prevaJimg chronology whIch made earher
than Anstotle Cf Dlokles, pp 167-!lo D'Arcy Thompson suggests for
Instance, that DIOdes could have studIed the vanous sorts of fish, mentlOned
In h,S work on dIet, at the AthenIan fish-market WIthout readmg Anstotle
ThiS sounds very convlncmg, espeCially If we neglect the order In WhICh DIodes
enumerates them But DlOcles, who has studIed m so many other
thoroughly, as wdl be shown, would Dot be lIkely to nel[lect the zoologICal
works whIch were closest to hIS Interests and the man who, m botany, had a
systematic mmd, and wrote three books on plants from hIS medIcal pomt of
VIew, must have dIssected also all sorts of anImals for hIS anatomIcal purposes
InCIdentally, the very fact that he Judges the of the human womb
from the dIssectIOns of mules (frg 29) proves that he belongs to the pre-
Alexandnan penod of anatomy
Frg Z3
3 For thIS reason, I shall not deal here WIth Diodes' medJcal and botanical
VIews, for whIch I must refer to my book
DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS 415
saymg Ei(,,)6E, . It usually happens', mstead of 'It IS so'
Though this IS not entirely ahen from Hippocrates, 10 Diodes tills
phrase IS comparatIvely frequent Its frequency slgnahzes a new
methodical consclOusness The word ei(,,)6e, which I have translated
by the adverb' usually', IS frequent 10 Anstotle It IS connected With
hIS doctnne of expenence He dlstmgulshes three grades of certamty
m knowledge that which IS necessary (6:vayxalov), that which usually
occurs (We; hTl TO noM), and that which IS only accidental
Mathematical proposItions are necessary, phySIcal premises
belong mostly to the second class, that which' usually happens' The
expresslOn IS most frequent m Anstotle's ethical, pohtIcal, phYSICal,
and zoologICal wntmgs, I e m those parts of hiS phtlosophy which are
largely based on expenence
Keen observation of the frequency and regulanty of phySIcal or
sOClal phenomena was the way 10 which Anstotle and hIS puptls tned
more and more to determme that which they called TO KCXTO: cpualV,
I e that which IS accordmg to nature Anstotle used to speak of the
KCXTO: cpualv ongmally 10 a Platomc sense In Plato It had a stnctly
teleologlCal and normative meamng It was that which ought to be
accordrng to nature, and' nature' meant the PlatOnIC Idea, whIch IS
the pattern of thmgs But later m Anstotle and 10 Theophrastus
(e g In hIS book on the causes of the plants) the KCrTO: cpvalV IS apphed
likeWIse to pathological phenomena whJCh occur WIth a certam regu-
lanty Thus empmcal observation of that which usually happens
becomes the only methodical way to determme what IS . accordmg to
nature' In thIS sense even a disturbance of the normal process of
growth 10 a plant or an ammal maybe called' accordmg to nature', If
It frequently or usually occurs under certam conditions of chmate or
weather or even disease and, 10 thiS way, proves to be . normal'
ThiS IS a development of meamng which seems rather natural m
SClences largely concerned With patholOgIcal phenomena MedlCal
pathology must have gIVen the first Impulse towards a development
of the Platomc concept of nature In thiS dlfectIon Even Anstotle
m the works of hiS earliest penod does not conSider the symptoms of
the degenerated forms of government as normal, but calls the present
conditions of real states on earth napa cpvalv, I e contrary to nature,
because they do not correspond to the Ideal More and more, how-
ever, the pathological phenomena come to the foreground as realishc
observation In Anstotle's mmd gets the upper hand According to
the medIcal patterns, a pathology of political and SOCial hfe and a
pathology of ammals and plants are developed
In spIte of thiS mcrease of the reahstIc element 10 Anstotle's school,
we must pomt out two thmgs (I) Even In Plato there was from the
begmnmg a keen mterest 10 the pathologIcal changes of nature
416 DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS
Plato's Republzc for the first hme develops a system of degenerahve
forms of the best state We also know that Plato's phrlosophy was
largely mfluenced by the medIcal pattern to whIch he refers so often
(2) In spite of the general trend towards an extensIOn of observatIon
to pathologIcal phenomena, Anstotle never gIves up the teleologtcal
foundation of hIs system, although he and Theophrastus are qUIte
aware of ItS dIfficulties m questions of detatl Thus we are not
astomshed to see m DIodes a phySICIan who shcks determmedly to
a teleologIcal vIew of nature I do not mean to say that thIS was
absolutely new, and that Hlppocrahc medICine was as deCidedly antl-
teleologIcal as modern hlstonans of medICine seem to think A phySI-
cIan who, hke the author of Eptdemlcs V, conSIders hImself only a
humble assIstant of the powers of nature when he tnes to cure
a patient of Jllness,l cannot be termed an anh-teleologlst, even If he
does not pronounce the word telas It IS true, however, that teleology
IS not an aXIOm which the Hlppocrahc writers apply systematically
to all phenomena We may say only that there IS an unmistakable
tendency m some of the Hippocratic books towards a teleologIcal
approach to nature, even though It remains undeveloped
For thIS theSIS, which on thIS occasIOn I can mamtaln only In a
dogmatIc form, I hope to gIve full eVIdence In the future DlOgenes
of Apolloma m the fifth e-entury was also a teleologlst, but m a
different way Z He IS the typIcal ratlonahst who tnes to prove that
nature acts throughout hke an Intelhgent arhst and must be mter-
preted according to the rules of human mechanKs and art ThIS type
also left ItS mark on some of our HIppocratic writings and on Anstotle
But DIodes IS a follower of the speCIfically Anstotehan teleology J
He knows the Anstotehan concepts of potentldhty and act and
apphes them, e g to the hygIene and ethiCS of sexudllJfe HIS teleo-
logICal approach to nature makes hIm accentuate the dlsclphne of
dIetetIcs more than any other part of medICme MedICine becomes
from hiS pOInt of view largely the education of the healthy man, It
IS no longer only the cure of the III In thIS It resembles Plato's and
Anstotle's phIlosophies, whIch are the dIetetIcs of the human soul
Plato, In the Gorgtas, ranh the legIslator hIgher than the Judge and
the teacher of gymnastics hIgher than the phySICIan ThIS shows that
Plato was still far from an Idea of mediCine whIch IS above all dIetetics,
the care of the healthy In hiS hme the care of the healthy was still
merely up to the gymnast The gymnast never lost that posItIon
I Cf a HippocratIc sentence lIke the m o u ~ .ova",. ",vales I'lTpol I e It IS
the patIent's own nature which really cures the Illness
Cf Willy TheIler, Geschzehlo dOT loleolog.schen NatuTbolTachtung b.s auf
Anslotolos (Zunch, 19Z5), PP Z5 ff [On Hippocrates see Paldna III Z7 if]
, Cf D.oklos, pp 5I fI
DlOCLES OF CARYSTUS 4
1
7
entIrely lD Greek cIVlhzatlOn, but somewhat later he had to share It
WIth the physIcIan when medlcme developed a carefully worked out
system of diet
DIOdes dIsplays a detaded programme of dally hie whIch gIves a
umque picture of Greek culture about the year 300 B C As does
Anstotle's ethIcs, the dIet of DIOdes presupposes a type of man who
belongs to the upper dass of human socIety He who Wlshe!> to hve
accordmg to hIs rules must be eqUIpped WIth matenal means The
whole of hyglemc hfe IS put m the framework of the regular gymnastIc
actIVIties which formed the mam part of the dady work of a Greek
gentleman m the forenoon as well as In the afternoon DIOdes does
not give only a few rules for summer and wmter lIke the HIppocratic
author On the Healthy nor does he only enumerate long hsts of
food or dnnks or exerCIses like the author of the four books On
He gIves a rounded pIcture of daily hfe from early nsmg
to bedtIme, a true Penpatetlc b10S It IS a bws, to be sure, m the
medIcal sense of the word But the attItude which thiS phySICian
takes WIth regard to diet IS almost an ethical one HIS dIetetICs IS, so
to speak, the ethiCS of the body I ThiS Idea cannot have been very
far from the Greek mmd, after Plato and AnstotIe had parallehzed
over and agam the virtues of the soul and the virtues of the body
The concept of virtue or areti means m Greek the hIghest excellence
or perfectIOn of everythmg, not Just our moral virtue Moral virtue
was a particular case of a general law of perfectIOn which pervaded
nature as a whole Anstotle mcessantly refers m hIS Eth1CS to the
bIOlogical and medical example DIOdes, on the other hand, regi-
ments the hfe of the human body by a standard Similar to that of
the Anstotehan mean We must not forget that Anstotle's Idea ofthe
nght mean and the two VICIOUS extremes of excess and defiCIency was
ongmally taken from medlcme AnstotIe compares the mdlvldual
moral actIOn of the vIrtuous man WIth the mdlvldual treatment gIVen
to a patIent by hIS phJ SlClan It cannot be reg ulat.'d by general rules
The HippocratIc author On Ancunt M ed1cme descnbe!> the art of the
phySICian as a CTToX0:3eO'fuI, a wnJectural almmg at a target 1 So
Anstotle calls the moral act a CTTOX0:3eaBOI, an almmg at the nght
mean between the VICIOUS extremes of the too much and the too hUle,
of excess and defiCIency DIOdes apphes thiS cntenon systematically
to the diet of the healthy HIS mam concept IS the . the
appropnate' It IS synonymous WIth the concept of TIprnov, / the SUIt-
able' These LOncepts presuppose the Idea that the nature of every-
thmg bears In Itself the rules accordmg to whIch it should be treated
Both concepts appear now and then before Anstotle, to be sure, but
[ Cf Dlokles PP 45 ff theory of dIet and Anstotehan ethiCS)
1 Cf Ibid P 46
418 D10CLES OF CARYSTUS
they were generalIZed by him In Anstotle's phtlosophy they became
dommant. especially 10 his ethiCS and aesthetics DIOdes transferred
them to dletetlts They, too, reveal his teleological view of nature
The malO rule of diet IS to do noth1Og agamst nature, but everyth10g
10 accordance with nature This 15 what Diodes means by adapting
oneself to nature He very often gives hiS rules 10 the stereotyped
form of ~ T m-rl, 'It IS better' Anstotle's philosophy distin-
gUishes four causes, among which the final cause IS the highest and
most Important Anstotle often cntlclzes the former natural phl1o-
sophers for the reason that they neglected this cause They did not
see that most thmgs 10 nature are as they are because It IS better
for them to be so Diodes calls the whole dlsclphne of dietetics
Hygulna From this word, which became general 10 later anCient
medIcal systems, the modem term' hygiene' IS dIrectly denved It
IS shaped on the pattern of Anstotle's philosophical dlsclphnes, for
he called them by adjectives 10 the plural of the neuter, e g Ethlca,
Pohtlca, Analytlca
In the first book of hiS treatise On Dut, Diodes discussed, obvIOusly
at the outset, the problem of medical method, With speCial regard to
aetiology Fortunately Galen has preserved the ongmal words I
Those people, Diodes says, who beheve that they must 10 every case
determme the reason why a th10g IS nounshmg or why It IS laxative
or uretK or producmg another effect of this sort, apparently do not
know, first, that this IS often unnecessary for medical practice and,
second, that many thmgs which eXist (10 Greek we have here the
philosophical word 5vra) are, so to speak, hke pnnClples (apxal) ac-
cordmg to nature, m that they do not admit a further regress to the
cause Moreover, phySICians are wrong sometimes when they take as
a premise that which IS unknown and not agreed upon and Improb-
able and believe thIS to be a suffiCIent determmatIon of the cause
We need not pay attentIOn to those phYSICIans who gIVe aetlologlcal
explanations of thiS sort and who feel obhged to define the cause of
everythmg, but we should rather put our confidence m those thmgs
whIch have been observed by expenence (hJ'TTElpla) over a long
penod of time We ought to seek a cause only when the nature of
the subject allows It, provIded that our statement about It WIll m
thiS way attam a htgher degree of knowledge and certamty
I ought perhaps to dISCUSS first the passage precedmg these words
There Dlocles pomts out that we cannot always reduce slml1ar effects
to the same cause as hiS predecessors often had done 10 then aetlO-
I Ga.l De altmentorum lac, vol VI P i55 Kuhn The more recent editIon
of Helmrelch gives several sllght Improvements of the teJt:t For the follOWing
ana.lySls of thiS InterestIng methodolOgIcal fragment, I refer to my book,
pp 25-iS
DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS 419
logIcal zeal to denve all phenomena Wlth whIch the phYSICian IS con-
cerned from a few pnmary causes Nor can we say. he contInues, that
thmgs whIch have the same taste or odour or temperature or anythmg
of the sort must have the same effects Thmgs whIch are Similar m
thIS sense of the term very often have dissimIlar effects, as can easIly
be shown It IS not true that everythmg IS laxative or uretlc or has
any other such power because It IS warm or mOIst or salty or the like
The sweet and the sharp and the bItter and all the rest of these qualI-
ties do not have the same effects, but accordmg to DIOcles we had
better say that' the whole nature IS the cause of the fact that, when
we apply each of them, certam effects usually happen I
The author of the HIppocratIc book On Annent Medtczne had
already expounded WIth remarkable zeal the belIef that those medIcal
schools are wrong whIch belIeve that they must make medICIne mto
an exact art or SCIence by adoptmg one of the systems of Iomc natural
phIlosophy and denvmg everythmg from one pnnCIple or a few prm-
cipies Z They are too much Impressed bv phIlosophy We ought
never to forget that these phIlosophIcal pnnclples are mere hypo-
theses and speculations and cannot glVe any certamty whatever to
a phySICIan who has to give a patIent the treatment he needs when
hiS hfe IS In danger The only firm ground on whIch he can stand IS
expenence DlOcles agrees With thIS HippocratIc author, and so one
may ask What IS the use of callIng hIm an Anstotellan and a phIlo-
sophIcal mmd? But here we see how the An!>totellan phIlosophy
comes In The protest of the HIppocratic author agdInst phIlosophy
IS a protest agamst natural phIloo;ophy of the type He
hImself calls It the type whIch Empedocles and that sort of people
have Introduced J But philosophy when drIven out by the front door
soon comes m agam by the back door m other clothes ThIS tIme It
IS dressed In the coat of the logICIan and methodologIst 4
When Dlocles reJects the conclUSIOn from SImIlar bIOlogICal effects
of the same cause, because SImIlar thmgs of thts sort need not neces-
sanly produce the Sd.me effects, he applIes Anstotle's new method of
dlstmguiShIng the vanous meamngs of every concept (the method
of the TTOAAOXW5 AyOIJEVa, whIch we know best from Book /). of the
M There and m Book I Anstotle enumerates vanous
I From the pomt of VIeW of the most recent development of modern SCience,
It IS characterIstIc of the SItuatIOn ID whIch DIOdes finds hImself that medIcme
and natural SCIence as a whole are mclrned to surrender the method of mechanr-
cal explanatIon of the SIngle phenomena and take an attItude whIch we now
call ganzhelll.ch or holistic
2 HIppocrates, De vet med, C I if , and espeCIally C 20
J IbId, c 20
It IS merely Ignorance of hIStOry to thmk as many hlstonans seem to do
that HIppocrates elrmmated phIlosophy from medIcme once and for all
410 DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS
mean10gs of the concept of the slml1ar (6Ilolov) Only 10 the less
exact usage of rhetoncal 1Ostruchon does Anstotle adopt the general
statement that simIlar effects are produced by slnlllar causes [ In
metaphysIcs, however, Ie 10 stnctly philosophical enVironment, he
first dlstmgulshes the vanous meanmgs of the slmdar ThiS method
became necessary at the moment when vanous branches of sCientific
thought met one another lD one and the same phIlosophICal school
Then It was reahzed that the concept of the Similar which IS used by
the mathematICIan when he speaks of Similar tnangles or parallelo-
grams, and which IS defined by Fuchd 10 the first aXIOm of the Sixth
book of the Elements, IS totally different from the' similar' which the
phySICIan IS th1Ok1Og of when speak10g of Similar causes and effects
In Anstotle's dlst1Oction of the four meamngs of 'similar' we can
still recognize that thiS was the reason for hiS attempt at differentia-
tIOn The first of the four meamngs 10 Book I of the MetaphYSICS IS
apparently meant to be a defimtIon of the mathematIcal concept of
slmdanty 2 It IS the slmllanty of two rectangular figures which are
not Identical 10 their concrete essence, compns1Og form and matter,
but 10 then form Also the second mean10g IS referred to an Identity
of form It occurs 10 th10gs which admit a 'more or less' (e g phYSical
quahtIes hke 'warm'), but whiCh actually have the same degree of
the quaht} 10 questIOn Third, ",e call slmllar those thmgs whlCh
have the same quahty (e g white colour), but have It 10 two different
shades (e g tlO and slIver) FOUl th, we call slmllar such thmgs as
have more Identical than different quahtIes It IS ObVIOUS that
DIOcles' statement that Similar bIOlogical effects need not be pro-
duced by the same causes IS based on a Similar dlst1OctIOn There IS
an essentIal difference between th10gs which are IdentIcal 10 their
form (I e substantIally) and th10gs which have only one quahty In
common h n g ~ which have In common the qualIty' warm' need
not produce all the same effect, e g on digestIon or unnatlOn DIOcles'
statement IS, of course, very short It does not refer exphCltly to
AnstotIe's logical theory But thiS was neither needed nor usual No
PenpatetIc philosopher ever mentions Anstotle when he diSCUSses,
applies, or cntlClzes the doctnne of the master But after haVIng
proved that DIOdes was an Anstotehan from hiS terminology and hiS
membershIp m the Penpatehc school, there can be no doubt that he
knows and presupposes 10 thiS claSSical methodological chapter the
Anstotehan doctnne of the vanous meamngs of SCientIfic concepts.
DIOcles throughout pays much attentIon to the question of synonyms
for diseases, medical plants, &c , and when he says, for example, that
we speak of motion as movmg and mohon as moved, he certamly IS
J Ar Rllel I 4. 136015
Ar Mel I 3, I054
b
3
DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS 421
Anstotehz1Og, and there IS no HippocratIc wnter who ever speaks 1D
this way I would rather say that he rejects In the Hippocratic way
unnecessary and unproved hypotheses In medicine, but he proves
this maxim by the new Anstotehan lOgIc
We observe the same keen conscIOusness of the 10glCalunpbcatIons
of every medical statement In the following words, 10 which he rejects
the seemmgly sCIentific demand of some medical schools to determme
the cause of everyth10g The whole paragraph IS tinged by Ansto-
tehan tenmnology When DIOdes speaks of certain facts beyond
which we cannot advance In the senes of causes and which we there-
fore have to accept as prmClples, he does not mean pnnclples In the
Pre-Socratic sense of the term, I e real causes, but the pnnczples of
knowledge from which, accordmg to Anstotle, all other knowledge 10
every field IS denved I We must admit that such a diSCUSSion IS
umque m medlcme even m claSSical antiqUIty It was poSSible, I dare
say, only 10 the Penpatetlc school There, not only a general philo-
sophical conscIOusness of all methods of human knowledge was
developed, but It penetrated every branch of sCience and scholarship
Anstotle teaches that these first pnnclples are undemonstrable and
Immediate (avcrno21eIlCTa and Q:IJEC1a) They are arnved at m a differ-
ent way In every field In mathematics, which doubtless gave the
first Impulse to thiS development by formulatmg a number of such
aXIOms, they are reached by direct perception (aicre"C1IS) In phySICS
the pnnClples are attamed by mductlOn from expenence In ethICS
they rest on habituatIOn, I e on expenence of another sort than that
used m phySICS 1 We may term It an mner expenence, which results
10 shapmg a permanent attitude or habit
It IS In the Nzcomackean Ethzcs that Anstotle mdlcates most clearly
the way m which we attam knowledge of these prmClples and how
we should behave WIth regard to the questIOn of SCIentific method
There he states, With regard to the methodical Ideal of the Platomc
school of treatmg ethical problems m a mathematical way, that we
ought not to ask for mathematical exactness when the nature of the
object does not allow It He thmks It the Sign of true SCIentIfic culture
(lTal21ela) to know just how much we should demand m every field
of knowledge J In ethiCS and pohtlcs we must be content With a
I Ar Met B I, 995
b
7, and elsewhere, dlstIn/i(ulshes the pnnclples of beIng
and the p n n p l e ~ of knowled/i(e (apodlctlc pnnclples) The pnnclples of being
or real pnncIples (water, fire, and the hke) were the object of all the InvestIga-
tIOns of the Pre-SocratIc phIlosophers In Anstotle, therefore, the pnnclples
of knowledge are the new dIscovery We must keep that In mInd when we find
them dIscussed by Dlocles Cf my analySIS of thIS problem, DIOklu, PP 42 ff
Ar Elh Nlc I 7, I09S
b
3, and J Burnet, T:.e EthICS of Aristotle, Intro-
duction, pp XXXIV ff
J Ar op CIt I I, I094b 19 ff
422 DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS
typiCal way of descnptIon, and we must not ask for necessary conclu-
sions when we can hope to atta.m only a knowledge of what usually
happens or what IS usually nght This resembles, of course, the
situation10 medlcme DlOcles, 10 his methodological fragment, follows
the thoughts of Anstotle, and even his words, so closely that we
cannot escape the conclUSIOn that he had the pattern of the NJCO-
machean EthJCS before his eyes when he formulated his opmlOn We
have already pOInted out that he conceives the dIsclplme of dietetics
as a medical counterpart of ethics It IS, therefore, not so far-fetched
when he extends thiS analogy even to the methodological situation
of both sCiences On the contrary, after Plato and Anstotle had
referred so often 10 their ethical treatises to the parallel situatIon 10
medlcme, It was very natural for a man of Dlocles' many-sided philo-
sophical culture to take advantage for medlcme of the refinement of
ethical methods which was reached by Anstotle
Anstotle and Dlocles hkeWIse demand that we start not WIth un-
known and doubtful premises but With that which IS known to us
and agreed upon Both say that we must not ask for a cause where
the facts as such are the last eVidence WhICh We can attam Dlocles'
remarkable formulation, that the facts 10 such cases are, so to speak,
lIke pnnclples accordmg to nature, means the same as the formulation
by Anstotle expressed by the famous words m the EthJCS on the
that' and the' why' (em and 2 U ~ T I When we have attamed, he
says, certam fundamental facts by moral experience, It IS not neces-
sary to ask for the causes of these facts, for he who has the facts also
has the principles, or can grasp them eaSily I Also DIOdes' other
argument, that a knowledge of the cause IS often not needed for
medical practice, IS to be found 10 the methodical mtroductlOn of the
NJcomachean Eth,cs ~ Anstotle there warns us not to exaggerate our
methodical demands because there IS a difference between the mathe-
matiCIan and the architect Both of them want to determme 10 their
field the right angle, but the geometnclan mveshgates the nature
and the qualities of thiS mathematIcal conceptIon as such, whereas
the architect determmes It only as far as It IS wanted for hiS work
Anstotle here thmks It to be the hIgher degree of philosophIcal know-
ledge to be aware of the hmlts which are drawn by the nature of our
object, rather than to waste our time m almmg at unattamable
methodIcal Ideals We ought not to take the parergon more senously
than the ergon I t IS more phIlosophIcal for a dlsclplme lIke ethiCS to
be aware of ItS practical character than to aim at becommg an exact
theoretical SCIence ThIS Idea IS transferred to medIcme by DlOcles
And m thIS sense he conSiders medlcme as a part of the whole of
I Ar op CIt I 7. 100B" 33 and I 2, 100S
b
6
Ibid I 7, 1098" 26 fI
DlOCLES OF CARYSTUS 423
human knowledge or SCience, which the PenpatetIc school called
phIlosophy In his letter to Kmg AntIgonus Diodes dauns that title
for his medical art I The way In which he penetrates It With a phIlo-
sophical conscIOusness of method and combmes It With a unIversal
study of nature Justifies thiS name
The letter to Kmg AntIgonus, which I have given back to DIOdes.
Illustrates from still another side hiS mterest 10 the methodical prob-
lem It lIkeWise Illustrates the contnbutIon which a phIlosophically
conscIous phySICian was able to make to the PenpatetIc diSCUSSIOn
of the problem of sCientIfic method DIOdes IS go109 to wnte for hiS
royal patient a medical vade-mecum or catechism In the form of a
letter of only a few pages The old man, 10 whose hands lay at that
time the destmy of the world, was about eighty, as I have said
DlOcles wants to tell him about the best way to prevent senous illness
ThIS IS a pomt of view different from dietetics, although It also 10-
volves prescnptIons on diet ProphylaxIs IS about to develop mto
a speCial disciplIne DIOdes calls It a theory of how l s ~ s ongmate
and how we can find help agaInst them ThiS depends largely upon
our awareness of the fact that there are certam s ~ g n s mwcatmg In
advance the commg Illness and upon our abilIty to take advantage
of these sIgns Dwell'S' refined sense of comparatIve methodology
makes him observe at once the essentIal IdentIty of the nature of
such signs In pathology with those signs by which, for example.
meteorological observatIon -predicts atmosphenc changes and the
commg storm ThiS practical meteorology had up to that tIme been
developed mostly by experts of navigatIon, as DIOdes mentIons In
additIon, he mentIOns some' people of manY-Sided expenence' We
thInk of PenpatetIc sCIentists of encyclopaedic knowledge lIke Theo-
phrastus who has wntten a whole treatise on meteorologIcal SignS
which has been preserved Dwell'S himself h> a meteorolOgIst, as I
can prove by a meteorological fragment which I recently dlscO\ered
and which may belong to hiS lost book On Ftre and Atr 1 So he must
have been familIar with the meteorological use of those SignS which
had been taken over from the old nautIc tradition by the modern
PenpatetIc sCientIsts They adapted thiS method to their SCientIfic
purposes and tned to learn somethIng from It for their phIlosophical
analySIS of expenence The Penpatetics made use of the Sign, for
example, m the new dlsclplme of physlOgnomlcs about which a
treatise has been preserved under the name of Anstotle It certaInly
I Cf Ep ad Antlg I (DlOkles. P 75)
Cf Vergessene Fragmente pp 5-10 The title of D,odes book On Fire and
A,r IS hsted by Wellmann. op CIt. P 117 The new fragment deals Wlth the
process of combustlon (il<1TVpc.>alS) In the lughest regIOn of the aIr In the
universe
424 DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS
belongs to the Penpatetic school The author Investigates the rela-
tIon between physlOgnomlc Sign and character The method IS stnctly
empmcal and based on the observatIOn of slmllanties In our expen-
ence and on certam constant conJunctions from which we Infer hke
similanties and conjunctions 10 the unknown StoIcS and Epicureans
developed the concept of Sign or semewn more generally, m ItS lOgical
significance, and bUilt on thiS baSIS an epistemological theory which
they called semeIOtic, the StOICS m a ratIOnalIstIc way, the Epicureans
10 a more empmcal sense But the roots of thiS development he In
the Anstotehan school and In Greek mediCine Anstotle treats the
syllOgism from SignS at the end of the pnor Analytics He Illustrates
It by examples taken from medical prognOSIS and adds a whole chap-
ter on the speCial questIon as to whether SCientific physlOgnomlcs IS
poSSible If we had DlOcIes' lost book on prognOSIS, we would perhaps
know more about hiS methodological theones At any rate, we look
here mto Anstotle's school and see somethmg of the background of
hiS logiC ThiS logiC did not stand m a vacuum Anstotle's logiC IS
the logiC of the sCiences which were m eXistence m hiS time, and It 10
tum gave a new Impulse to the SCIences, as we learn from DlOcles
If our conduslOns are sound, as I thmk they are, we have suc-
ceeded In reconstructmg an Important but hitherto unknown part
of Anstotle's school and philosophy which had disappeared, together
With the Ideal of sClentIfic lIfe from which thiS school had sprung
Medicme was one of the most authontatlve and respected members
of the large famlly of sCiences umted 10 the Penpatos The medical
department of the Penpatetic school had In DIOdes itS greatest repre-
sentative Metrodorus belonged to It Erasistratus, lIke DIOdes one
of the greatest medical fIgures of all times, studIed m it The mfluence
of DIOdes on Praxagoras of Cos, In hIS mam theones as well as m
many detalls, was noted long ago, but It remamed unexplamed smce
almost a century lay between them Now we suddenly see that
Praxagoras was a contemporary, only a httle younger than DIOdes
Since Praxagoras was the head of the HippocratIc school, hiS depen-
dence upon DIOdes means that about twenty years after Anstotle's
death the Hippocratic school at Cos was under the dommatmg influ-
ence of the medICal department of Anstotle's school Herophilus, the
head of the new medical school at Alexandna dunng the reign of
Ptolemles I and II, was a pupil of Praxagoras He developed anatomy,
on WhiCh Diodes had wntten the first systematic work, and ennched
It by many new dlscovenes He also developed the dialectical and
logical element m mediCine, which DIOdes had mtroduced, and there-
fore was called the dlalectiClan It ~ a pupil of hiS who founded the
emplllcal school of medicme 10 the late third century
The Penpatetic bIOlogists all adhered to the theory of the pneuma,
DIOCLES OF CARYSTUS 425
WhICh was DIodes' fundamental Idea In phYSIOlogy and pathology
The fact that Theophrastus and Strato are lInked very closely With
DIOcles' medIcal theory has seemed rather strange heretofore, but
now becomes easIly understandable, as does the Important part
whIch the theory of the pneuma plays In StOIC psychologyand physlO-
logy and even In StOIC metaphYSICS It goes back to the SIcIlIan
school of mediCine and was adopted by Plato and Anstotle I In
Anstotle's school It expenenced a renaissance In Dlocles' medical
system and was blended by him With elements of Hippocratic and
Cmdean medICine, for, like Anstotle's philosophy at large, DIOcles'
mediCIne IS charactenzed by d strongly synthetIc tendency It umtes
Within Itself the hlstoncal schools of Greek medlClne and tnes to link
them mto greater umty It IS thiS new histOrIcal and synthetic con-
SCIOusness which gives DIOdes hIS key posItion m the history of Greek
medlcme Furthermore, It makes It clear why It was thiS generatIon
which produced the first history of mediCine In the work of Meno
He obVIOusly belonged to the same medical department of the Ans-
totelIan school The work was not wntten by Anstotle himself, as
traditIonally believed In claSSical antIqUity, but under hiS gUIdance,
as were Theophrastus' history of the earlier phySical systems, and
Eudemus' famous works on the hl!>tory of geometry, astronomy, and
theology When large excerpts from Meno's history of medlClne were
discovered some decades ago, the most difficult problem which
scholars had to face was the picture which he gIves of Hippocrates ~
He represents him as a pneumatIC and thiS misrepresentatIOn seemed
hardly understandable For us It no longer offers a senous problem
Meno, DIOdes, and the PenpatetIc school ObVIOusly saw the hIStOry
of medICIne III the light and perspective of their own theory They
tned to fmd the first IlldlCations of It III Hlppoclates and t ~ IS only
an eVidence of their high regard for thiS great physICian
I Cf my artJcle 'Das Pneuma 1m LykelOD' 1D Hermes, ~ o xlVIII, P 51
2 Edited by H Dlels m Supplemenlum Anstotellmm, vol Ill, p 1 (Berlm
1893) On Meno's picture of Hippocrates, cf H Dlels, Hermes, vol XXVlll,
p ,,7
APPENDIX II
ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF THE PHILOSOPHIC
IDEAL OF LIFE
THE memory of the earliest Greek thmkers lived on m the hterature
of the succeedmg centunes through the permanent assoClatIon of
theIr names WIth particular opmlOns and questlOns, whIle theIr
wntmgs, m so far as they left any, went early to destruction But
besIdes thIs doxographIcal tradItion, as It IS called, whIch was com-
mitted to wntmg and sifted m the works whICh Anstotle's school
devoted to the hIstory of philosophy, and above all In Theophrastus'
great Optnwns of the PhysfCfStS, there survived also another sort of
remembrance of them, sprung from an entIrely dIfferent source
From thIS pomt of VIew the earlIest figures III the hIstory of phIlo-
sophy were not persons who held more or less pnmltIve and long
superseded VIews on all sorts of strange questions, but the venerable
archetypes and representatIves of the form of mtellectual lIfe that IS
charactenstIc of the phIlosophIC man m all ages, and that seemed to
be Illcorporated WIth specIal punty and ImpreSSIveness III Its earliest
pIOneers ThIS tradItIon had only general and typIcal traIts to tell
of those old thmkers, and therefore found expreSSIOn charactenstIcall}
m the form of and apophthegms But, as these typical
traIts became connected WIth the names of mdlVlduals who were thus
known and Identified, there arose alongSIde the Impersonal tradItIon
of theIr opmlOns a pICture of the earlIest phIlosophers that com-
pensated the later centunes for theIr lack of all mformatIon about
theIr human personalitIes, and was often taken for genume hlstoncal
tradItion These stones are related to us by later phIlosophers, from
Plato on, WIth reverence and wonder
Ongmally, however, they certamly arose m part from a wholly
dIfferent motIve, namely the people's amazement at a new t}pe of
man, the unworldly and WIthdrawn student and scholar who expresses
hunself In these anecdotes WIth parddoxes and freakIsh peculIarItIes
Such IS Plato's story of Thales failing mto a well whIle observmg the
sky, and bemg mocked by a WItty ThraClan servant-gIrl-that IS to
say, by the most uneducated sort of person a Greek could Imagme-
because' he wants to dIscover what there IS m the sky, but he doesn't
even see what IS lymg at hIS own feet' I Herds of cattle devoured the
crops of Democntus, says Horace m hIS Letlers,z whIle hIS qUICk mmd
roved far away from hIS body In the dIVISIon of hIS nch paternal
I Plato, Theaet 174 A (Dlels, VOl'S I II, A 9)
Horat Ep I 12, 12 (and the parallel passages In Dlels, Vors 68, A IS)
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 4Z7
mhentance hIS brothers led hIm by the nose, because he wIshed to be
paId m cash In order to make long Journeys He was not gIven the
full worth of hIS share, and what he dId receIve he spent on hIS travels
to Egypt and to the Chaldees While hIS father was alIve he used to
shut hImself up m a lIttle garden-house that was sometImes also used
as a stable He entIrely faIled to notIce one day that hIS father had
tied up an ox for sacnfice there, and remamed peacefully under the
same roof with It until the beast was fetched to the slaughter and
Democntus' attention was drawn to hIS remarkable society I
That stones of thIs sort were by no means merely the expressIOn
of a deep and sympathetIc admIratIOn of unusual mtellectucll con-
centratIon, but also gIve the folk's mockmg vIew of absentnunded
scholars, IS sharply brought out m the case of Thales by the comple-
ment that Anstotle gIves us to the anecdote of the astronomer who
pitched mto the well ThIS IS the tale of a smart busmess manreuvre
that Thales earned through wIth bnllIant success m order to show
those who despIsed SCIence that one can make a lot of money wIth
meteorology If one sets one's mmd to It Expectmg an unusually
good olIve harvest, he hIred all the presses In the country round,
when the great harvest arnved and no one had a press, he leased
them to theIr owners at a hIgh pnce Anstotle, WIth hIS usual keen
cnhcal sense, remarks that thIS IS obVIOusly a typical story, attnbuted
to Thales merely because he was known to be WIse He also correctly
descnbes the purpose of the attnbutlOn to make It palpably eVIdent
that the truth IS not that sCIence IS useless but that sCIentists are not
Interested In usmg It to ennch themselves The typIcal character of
many of these stones comes out above all m the fact that they are
told of several persons Thus Anaxagoras IS also supposed to have
neglected hIS mhentance, lIke Democntus, when hiS relatives called
hIm to account, he replIed . Look after It yourselves', and WIth these
words he freely handed over to them all hIS goods and chattels, m
order to be able to lIve for study alone J Here the anecdote has taken
on a more affectmg character, mstead of the good-humoured mockery
that colours the Democntean versIOn The dIstracted phIlosopher,
absentmindedly lettmg hIS cattIe devour hiS gram, has become a
great and mdependent spmt who conscIOusly despIses external goods
and herOIcally rejects them The same spmt mforms an apophthegm
In whIch Anaxagoras, asked what he lIves for, gIves the proud answer
To observe and study the sun and the moon and the sky '4 Equally
I Demetnus.1D Men oj the Same Name, accordmg to DlOg IX 3.5-6 (VaP's I
68, A I)
Anst Pol I II, 1259" 6 (VaP's I II, A 10)
J Dlog II 7 (Vors I 59, A I)
4 DlOg II 10 (Vors I 59. A I) The utterance occurs m another {onn In
428 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
herOic are the utterances that tradItion ascnbes to him when he was
condemned by the Atheman court and when his son dIed They are
meant to show that the heart of the true student IS not 10 penshable
thmgs, not even 10 the hIghest human goods, m cIvIlIzed lIfe and WIfe
and chIld I The anecdote that Anaxagoras, when accused of not
car10g for hIS country, pomted to heaven and cned 'I care greatly
for my country', IS mtended to bear WItness to the complete with-
drawal of the phIlosopher from that pohticallde m whIch the Greek
of the claSSIcal penod was wholly absorbed 1
The time and place at which these stones arose are obscure For
those whIch, lIke the anecdote of the absentmmded astronomer,
express the feehng of the masses 1 ather than the opmIOn of an mdl-
VIdual, we have absolutely noth1Og to go on WIth the last mentioned
tales, however, the SItuation IS somewhat dIfferent These owe theIr
comage entirely to men of a defimte class, men who were themselves
full of the ethos of what was later called the' theoretic Ide', and made
themselves a sort of symbol for It 10 the stnk10g utterances of the
WIse men of old And thIS Imphes that, at the time when these
anecdotes arose, the' theoretic lIfe' was not merely bemg lIved by
Isolated exceptional men followmg their natural mstmct, but had
already become a conscIOUS phIlosophical Ideal But thiS can cer-
taInly not be saId of the earlIer Pre-Socratic phIlosophers of nature
The Ideal of the 'lIfe' dedIcated to knowledge was created by Plato,
whose ethICS descnbes several opposed types of 'hfe' and culmmates
m the' chOIce of the best hfe' J In Itself, mdeed, It IS perfectly pos-
Sible that a student lIke Anaxagoras, hvmg m such an exclUSively
polItical society as the Athens of Pencles, should come to realIze the
Anst Elh Eud I .5, 1216" II We are to understand m the same way the
purposely obscure answer of n x g o r ~ to the questIOn Who IS the happIest
ma.n / 'None of those whom you suppose, but someone who would seem
absurd to you' Cf Anst Elk Eud I 4 1215
b
6 (VOf'S & 59, A 30)
I DJOg II 13 (l'ors & 59, A I)
DJOg II 7 (Vors 1
59
, A I)
J In an Academy address that IS chanmng and full of feelIng (VIla Con-
lemplalllJa, Ber Heldelb Akad 1920, 8) Franz Boll has set down a senes of
representatIves of tlus Me', begmnIng "Ith Thales, Herachtu., and Anaxa-
goras Plato and Anstotle are merely touched on Their Influence on later
men receIves more of ItS due Boll was far removed from the questIon that
forms the startmg pOInt of our examinatIOn How far are our reports of the
earlIer thmkers and theIr' hfe' a real hlstoncal tradItIon 1 When they ascnbe
the conscIous Ideal of the 'theoretIc hfe' to Pre-SocratIc phIlosophers, IS that
bJstoncally credIble or IS It a mere reflectIOn of a later hfe ethICS 1 The whole
tradItIon needs to be re-examIned from thIs pomt of VIew, now that the develop-
ment of phIlosophIcal ethICS and' hfe' doctnne from Plato to Anstotle and hIS
pupIls has been put In the nght hght ThIS gIves us a fixed pomt that 15 also a
focus for the hIstory of the ongm of the tradItIon concernIng the hIstory of
plulosophy ThIs, then, must be our startlng-pomt
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 4
2
9
separateness of hiS detached eXistence Eunpldes already com-
mended the qUiet hfe of the student of nature, removed from the
pohtIcal machmery,' and depicted m hIS Antlope the tragIc conflIct
between the' musical' and the practIcal man Z But Plato was the
first to mtroduce the theoretical man as an ethical problem mto
philosophy and to Justify and glonfy hi'> hfe Seen from Plato's
position, the eXistence of thiS type m earher times either had to
appear as a mere paradox, a cunoslty of human nature lackmg all
moral baSIS, or else the early representatives of thiS type. hke Thales
and Anaxagoras, had to be posthumously provided with Plato's
legitimatIon and Plato's morell and emotIonal views of the' theoretIc
hfe' The latter can be shown to have been what occurred All stones
that make the older philosophers conscIOUS followers of the Ideal of
the' theoretic hfe' either come directly from Plato's school or arose
soon afterwards under the mfluence of the Platomc Ideal The effect
of the Platomc philosophy m formmg tradition, and of ItS direct heir
the PenpatetIc school, would repay a connected exammatIon But
the result IS a foregone conclUSIOn the whole picture that has come
down to us of the history of early philosophy was fashIOned dunng
the two or three generatIOns from Plato to the ImmedIate pupils of
Anstotle Along With the phIlosophy of these two schools It has
remamed a foundatIOn-stone m the hl,>toncal structure of our culture
And one of the most mstructlve examples of thiS rule IS the reflectIon
of the Ideal of hfe as conceived dunng thiS flowenng of Greek philo-
sophy m the picture of the old Pre-SocratIC thmkers and their' hfe'
We are even stIll m a posItIon to see that the great and apparently
IrreconCilable contradictIOns m the traditional account of the early
thmkers are a necessary consequence of the f1uctudtIons to which
men's views of the' best hfe' were subjected m the tIme from Plato
to Anstotle and hiS pupils To understand the development of the
ethical problem, and of the' lIfe' problem m partIcular, dunng t h ~
penod, IS to clear up the creatIOn of our traditIon concemmg the
hves of the earlIest phIlosophers The present mquuy must therefore
begm WIth the sIgmficance of the 'hfe' problem for the PlatOnIC
philosophy, and follow ItS development m some detail Fust I must
recall certam fundamental pomts from my Aristotle and carry them
farther
lEur frg 910 Nauck
1 Plato In Gorg.as, 484 F and 485 E ff make" CallIcles quote hnes from
Anhope as part of hIS campaIgn ~ l l s t a onesldedly phIlosophIcal lIfe It IS
true that Eunpldes depIcts Amphlon a" a musIcal rather than as a SCIentIfic
md.n But the slmIlanty lIe" 1Il their bemg both unpolItIcal, and so Plato could
make CallIcles uoe agalIl"t Socrates the lInes of Zethus agamst AmphlOn (Plato,
although he belIeved 1Il the polItIcal mISSIOn of Socrates, never demed that lus
teacher was an unpolItical man 111 the sense of ordmary party pohncs )
EC
430 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
The pure 6E<..>pl" or ' theory' of the early physlclSts arose 10 Ioma
It was one of the most remarkable flowers of that late IOnIan culture
which was rendered mcreasmgly unpobtIcal by the predomInance
of the mercantile atmosphere and later by foreIgn rule, and whIch
by Its great mdIVldual freedom faCIlItated the appearance of the type
WIthm the CIVIC commumty of the POllS The down-to-earth AttiC
mentalIty with Its tight polItical organIZation of lIfe left no room for
such speCIal actIvlties of mdlvlduals Down to Plato's day and beyond
It remamed as unfnendl} and reserved towards pure sCience as did
later the Roman senatonal class ThiS hard earth was bound to gIVe
nse to the SOCIal tragedy of the' unpolItical person', WhICh Eunpldes
first brought to lIght The tensIOn between the duties of a CItizen and
the leisure of a student, between actIOn and knowledge, was here
logIcally bound to mcrease mto an enmity towards sCience on the
part of the pure political man and a flight from politics on the part
of the philosopher Here alone, too, on AttiC SOlI could Plato venture
hIS profound attempt to reconcile the theoretic lIfe and the polItical
life WIthout compromIse, by gIvmg sCience and philosophy a new
subject, namely the state, and by makmg the highest norms and laws
of SOCial action their chief problem, on whose solutIOn hung the
welfare of the' state Itself' In hIS earhest wntmgs, where he pre-
sented Socrates to hiS contemporanes as the one true statesman
whom they needed, because he had turned their eyes to the deCISive
questIon of the knowledge of the highest norm,l we find admIttedly
as yet no trace of the Ideal of the theoretic life as Plato later pro-
claimed It In those days hiS Ideal both of logos and of . hfe' was still
embodIed exclUSively m Socrates. and there IS the most obVIOUS
contrast between Socrates and the type of the unworldly pure
SCientist, the' mmd astronomlzmg and geometnzmg', as set up for
model Ul the famous digreSSIOn In Plato's Theaetetus Z But Socrates'
moral problem was for Plato a problem of knowledge from the begm-
mng Wlthm the questIOn of the nght moral InSIght, of phronesH as
Socrates had saId m accordance With the prevaIlmg Greek usage, was
hidden the stIll deeper question of the essence of knowledge 10
general and of the true nature of bemg, and the detour through these
fundamental questIOns, which Plato belIeved he must take 10 order
I See my Platos Stellullg lm Aufbau del' grlechlschen Blldung (Berlm, 1918),
p 40 of the separate edition
Socrates IS by no means laclang In theoretIcal' traits, although he lIkes
most to be where people are throngmg, 10 the wrestlIng-school or the market-
place But though Boll, op Cit, P 9 refers to Ius neglect of hls domestIc affairs
and hiS WIthdrawal from common politics or to his' I shall not cease from
pbJIosophlz1Og' 10 the Apology (29 D), there IS a great gulf between Socrates'
sort of reflective concentration and the type of scholar depicted ID Theaetetus
(173 IL) See above, p 15
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 431
to answer the Socratic question, led hIm more and more mto a general
doctnne of knowledge and belOg, and compelled hIm to add to
structure of theoretical sCIence even the branches of mathematIcs and
astronomy that he found eXlstlOg So phroneszs was filled wIth the
contents of thIS sophza, and out of the SocratIc apona and
there grew a 'theoretIc hfe' devoted to the purest research In
Theaetetus, where the alhance between philosophy and mathematics
IS specIally promment, Socrates SlOgS a ventable hymn to the hfe of
the student, and palOts an Ideal pIcture of thIS hfe 10 colours bor-
rowed from the type of the astronomer and mathematiCIan That IS
the context 10 whIch Thales IS CIted as the perfect example of a
phIlosopher unconcerned about practical and pohtIcal lIfe, and the
story IS told how he fell 10 the well whIle observ1Og the stars It IS
strange that thIS praIse of geometry and astronomy IS here sung by
Socrate'i, whom Plato had once 10 the Apology madr to say that of
hIgh matters he understood neIther much nor httle but Just
preCIsely noth1Og I It IS clear that Plato himself was aware that WIth
thIS latest pICture of Socrates 10 he had rea:hed the hmlt
of what artistIC freedom could Justify 10 the way of transfonn1Og the
hIstOrIcal Socrates The new Ideal of the theoretIc hfe, and the type
of pure speculatIve suence on whlch It was based, demanded some
other symbol, some other archegete than Socrates, who had hItherto
been the lead10g figure 10 Plato's dIalogues And so 10 the Sophzst
and the Statesman, the two works wntten after Theaeletus and hnked
thereWIth, the leaders of the dlSCUS'ilon are the two venerable repre-
sentatives of Eleatlc dIalectIc, Parmemdes and Zeno, and Socrates
has to be content WIth a subordInate role SImIlarly 10 Tzmaeus the
figure of the Pythagorean of that name IS made the spokesman of
Plato's cosmology The Ideal of the theoretIC hfe, as reahzed 10
Plato's Academy at that time, wa., proclaImed m a work by the
young Anstotle, the which I have asse'ised m detaIl 10 d
prevIOus chapter z It shows the changed attitude (,f the Academy to
Socrates and hIS problems, that 'metaphysICs', whIch was then for
Plato's school the central questIOn, and which had not yet obtamed
a preCise name of ItS own, IS 10dlcated 10 the Protreptzcus by the
followmg cIrcumlocutIOn 'the SCIence of truth, as 1Otroduced by
Anaxagoras and Parmemdes' EVIdently the names of the old
th10kers are here used SImply as a substItute for pure theoretical
phIlosophy, as whose representatIves they were reckoned m thIS
Circle J As I showed, too, the Academy also gave nse to that pIcture
of Pythagoras, so determmatIve for later antIquIty, whIch first takes
J Plato Apol 19 D
2 See the chapter on the Prolreplleus, above pp 80 ff
J Anst frg 52 (p 59, 3 Rose)
432 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
fonn for us In the well known story told by Plato's pupil Herachdes
of Pontus. He said that Pythagoras was the first to use the words
philosophy' and . phJlosopher' and to explain the nature of the
phIlosopher by means of the famous companson with the 'pure'
spectators of the games at Olympia The companson depends on the
ambIguIty of the word 6Ec.)peTv, which means both watching a
spectacle and contemplation and research In the' theoretical' sense
Smce Anstotle In the Protreptfcus also compares the activity of the
student absorbed In pure sCience to the gaze of the 6eU)pol or on-
lookers at Olympia, It IS clear that thiS analogy for the theoretical
hfe had become claSSical In the Academy The retroactive attnbu-
tIOn of thiS Ideal of philosophIChfe to Pythagoras as Its founder IS con-
nected with the hIgh esteem In whIch the AcademicIans held thiS man
and the Pythagoreans, for they came more and more to see m them
the real hlstoncal pattern of their own mathematlClzmg phIlosophy
It IS a useless labour of love to want to save thiS pleasant story for
the hlstoncal Pythagoras, to whom at Just thiS time an abundance
of apocryphal traits and anecdotes was attnbuted, and about whose
hfe and utterances a whole literature of a purely legendary character
arose m a short penod I We do better to follow the example of Ans-
I See my Arts/o/le, above p 98 Burnet, Larlv Greek PhzlosoPhy' p 98,
seems mchned to conSIder Herachdes' story hlstoncal, and to carry back to
Pythagoras the doctnne of the three' hve5 (the apolau9tlc, the' pohhcal',
and the theoretIc ') which It presuppo5e" and WlllCh we find 10 Anstotle's two
EthiCS But neither the name of Herachde9, who was a byword for romancmg
nor the story Itself speaks m favour of thl9 The doctnne of the hves' 19 found
m An5totle as well as Herachde5 and they both owe It to the Academy (see
Plato's Republtc IX 581 Cff) Nor doe5 the tale contam any other' Pytha-
gorean' element that pOInts at all beyond the PlatOnIC doctnne When Cicero
(Tusc V 9, other accounts 10 DlOg VIII 8, Iambl VI/ Pythag, P 58) tells us
that Herachdes' account mcluded the feature that, a5 celebrants come from
vanous CitIes to take part III the great Greek panegyn<" so men have wandered
mto thiS hfe from another one, that IS nothmg but Plato s well known doctnne
of the soul We cannot lOfer from It that the doctnne of the three' hves' was
Pythagorean, on the ground that the transmIgratIOn of souls IS a demonstrably
Pythagorean View Certamly there was a Pythagorean way of hfe', 10 the
same sense as there was an 'OrphIc way of hfe' , but that IS 50methmg qUIte
different from a dIVISIOn and claSSificatIOn of hves' such as we find 10 Plato
and Anstotle The' hves' are three because there are three TtA'l or purposes
In hfe In whIch accordmg to Plato and Anstotle Vanou9 men placf' theIr happI-
ness, namely eIther pleasure or virtue or phrones1S It IS therefore not an accI-
dent that they are three, and not an aCCident that they are preCIsely these
three They correspond to the three systemahc foundatIOn-pIllars of PlatoDlc-
AnstotelIan ethIcs ThIs IS very clearly expressed In E ..
I I, J2148 30 . HapplDess and blessed hVlng would reSIde m three thmgs
most, the three that seem to be most For some say that phrones1S IS
the greatest good some VIrtue, and some pleasure' (The same In Anstotle's
P"ot"epllcus In Iambl Protr ,c vu ff ,see my A rIstotle, above, pp 65 ff) On thIS
tnmty of the oblects of chOIce Anstotle then expressly proceeds to construct
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 433
totle, who aVOIds usmg the name of Pythagoras and prefers merely
to speak of the contemporary' so called Pythagoreans', because he
belIeves that It IS no longer possIble to obtaIn trustworthy mfonna-
tlOn about the real Pythagoras On the other hand, he hImself, In hIS
dIalogue On Phtlosophy, made use of the seven sages for the prehistory
of philosophy-for we can hardlv mterpret otherwise the report that
he there regarded them as 'SOphiStS', naturally 10 the good sense of
the word I Indeed, the Academy even extended the conceptIon of
the' theoretic hfe' to the EgyptIan pnests Anstotlc says 10 the early
first book of hIS Mdaphystcs that they were the first to devote them-
selves to pure SCience, because their professIOn gave them leIsure
And the EptnomtS of the Platomst PhIhp of Opus, which undertakes
to fit the' theoretIc lIfe' a" an appendIX mto the pohtIcal structure
of the Laws, sees the dIrect predecessors of thIS Ideal 10 the astrologers
of the Chaldees Thus (lId the Aradrmy dunng Plato's last decades
create the hlstoncal framework that fitted ItS' hfe' Z
There runs through the EptnOmH a deep resignatIon that thiS
. hfe' IS reserved for a very few exceptIOnal persons The same mood
mforms the but httle earher 5eventh letter of Plato, that great mam-
festo of hiS old age 10 which he for the la"t tIme took a stand on the
questIon that had concerned hIm all hIS hfe, the questIon of the
relatIOn between pohtlcs and phll050phlcal knowledge The funda-
mental mner readmess to wnvert tht, thoughts of philosophy mto
creative actIOn, and to take part 10 the hfe of the .,tate, remamed even
10 these last years of Plato's the same as It had been at the begmmng
of hIS mtellectual cour"e, notwlthstandmg the shipwreck that hiS
favounte pupil DlOn had suffered m Syracuse 10 the first senous
attempt to realIze the Platomc But It was now Impos"lble not
to notice a strong tensIOn between thIS ongmally all-controlhng aIm
thethree'lIves'(Elh Lud 121215"35) fhetnmtynfpleasure,vlrtue ,nd
phl'OneSH IS In him connected With Plato's doctnne that the soul has three
parts, from which he denves the three hves and the t!'ree sorts of pleasure
(Repubhc IX, 580 D ff) Apocryphal Pythagorean hteraturp later naturally
attnbuted the tnchotomy of the "oul al"o to Pythagoras or the Pythagoreans
(along With nearl} everythmg and even people like PosidoDIUS Dot to
mentIOn behevers hke Iambhchu" or Porphyry, took ,uch forgenes
for genume Had I a complete view of thiS sort of hterature when
I wrote my Nemu/us (pp 63 ff) I should have treated these 'testlmomes' to
the Pythagorean ongm of the tnchotom} of the With ceremony I am
I':lad, however, that even then I did not blindly trust them Recently A E
Taylor, m h", commentary on Plato's T,ma,us p 497 has come out al':am for
a Pythagorean ancestry of thiS doctnne
I Accordmg to Anst frg 3 the "even sages occurred m the dialogue
On Phtlosophy Ro"e IS therefore probably nght In refernng to the same
dialogue the statement, In Etymol M s v that Anstotle called the
Ileven sage" 'Iloph"'ts'
2 Anst Metaph A I, 981b 23, Eptn 986 E
434 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
of hIS phtlosophlzmg
l
and the actual dedIcatIon of hIs old age entirely
to pure theoretical study Thus gradually arose a set of problems
whIch were 10hented by Anstotle m theIr full gravIty, and whIch
threatened the essentIal umty of SCIentIfic knowledge and practIcal
actIOn that had been smce Plato's Socratic penod the presupposItIon
of hIS research and therefore a foundatIon-pillar of hIS Idea of the
theoretIc hfe' Plato's personal development and the mner tendency
of Platomc SCIence worked 10 the same dIrectIon The passIOnate
SocratIc dnve for knowledge was aImed, to speak Platomcally, purely
at the 'vISIOn of the Idea of the Good' , and actIon was to Socrates
Identical WIth the knowledge of the Good Plato's early phtlosophy
had then pressed still more detenn10edly towards partICIpatIon m
actual hfe and 10 the state Rut m the course of Plato's development
the dnve towards knowledge had Immeasurably extended Its range
Late Platomc sCIence dId mdeed appear to have developed qUIte
organIcally out of the Socratic seed, by a process of constantly mcor-
poratmg ncher theoretIcal content, but Its field was no longer
exclusIvely pohtIcal ethIcs as It had been m the wntmgs down to the
Repubhc EthIcs had become a mere' part' of phIlosophy, co-ordmate
WIth logIC and phYSICS " and when Plato m hIS old age lectured' on
the Good', he understood by that mathematics and metaphYSICS and
heaven knows what else, but defimtely not a doctnne of the goods of
human hfe, as Anstotle used afterwards to tell hIS students, accord-
mg to the well known report of Anstoxenus, who heard hIm That
Plato's phllosophy, ongmally very close to hfe, had changed mto
pure theory IS symbohzed by the story that the announcement of the
old subJect' On the Good' attracted great crowds of hearers, but that
general dlsappomtment reIgned as soon as Plato began to lecture on
numbers and hnes and the hIghest One whIch IS the Good J
The Ideal of the theoretIc hfe dId not at first appear to be threatened
by thIS development On the contrary, It seemed that pure SCIence,
as the late Plato understood It, was tnumphmg over the onesldedly
I See my address' Die gnechlsche ~ t t s t h l k 1m Zeltalter des Plato', in
Humanut..che Reden und Vortrage, p 105 and' Platos Stellung 1m Aufbau
der gnechlschen BIldung', op Cit, P 158
It was so In Xenocrates' well known diVISIOn of phIlosophy (frg I Heinze).
which held for the later Plato too Anstotle was not the first to differentiate
philosophy m thiS way
] Anstoxenus Ha"mon JO Melbom (p 44. 5 Marq) 'as Anstotle always used
to tell happened to most of those who heard Plato give hiS lecture on the Good
everyone came expectmg to learn something about those recogmzed human
goods such as wealth, health, strength and m general some wonderful happi-
ness, but when It became plam that hiS dlscusslOn was about mathematics and
numbers and geometry and astronomy and finally that Good IS One, I tlunk It
seemed an absolute paradox to them Thereupon some of them despised the
matter and others condemned It '
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 435
practical tendency of Socrates Anstotle was the first to bnng thIs
tendency to complete victory. he enlarged Plato's' doctnne of Ideas
IOta a umversal SCIence of bemg founded on expenence In a certam
sense he IS an even purer representative of the theoretic lIfe than
Plato The dIfficulty for thIs new SCIence was to take care that It dId
not, 10 the course of ItS ummpeded development on the theoretical
sIde, lose ItS root conneXIOn WIth SocratIc-Platomc ethics, for It was
precIsely ItS serVIces to actual hvmg that had gIVen the theoretIc hfe
accordmg to Plato ItS moral digmty and ItS sacred nghts Anstotle's
phIlosophIc bemg was rooted, even after he had gIven up the doctnne
of Ideas, far too firmly In the ethos In whIch he had grown up In the
Academy for him to sacnfice one Jot or tIttle of Plato's belIef In the
educatIOnal and moral mission of SCience, and he had hImself pro-
claImed It In the Protrepttcus Though he separates ethIcs from
metaphysIcs and makes It a speCIal dISCIpline, at the deCISIve pomt
he connects the two together as Plato dId he holds fast to the sIgm-
ficance of mtellectual cultIvatIOn and knowledge for the moral culture
of the personality He aSSIgns the theoretic life the hIghest rank both
m the state
l
and m the orders of the moral world, and the mdivIdual
human bemg's happmess, the aIm of human stnvmg, IS achIeved on
hIS VIew not m moral perfectIOn or at any rate not 10 that alone, but
only m the full development of the mtellectual powers of human
nature 2 In the end, mdeed, exactly like Plato, he makes speCifically
moral mSIght dependent on the knowledge of the ultImate source of
reality The pnmacy of the theoretIcal over the practIcal reason I!>
hiS endunng Platomc conVIctIon And thIS IS not only because mtel-
lectual actIVIty (voii MpYEIO) IS mdependent of the sensuous SIde
of human nature and of our l'xternal needs, and constItutes a portIOn
of the eternal blessedness of God carned withm ourselVl's, of the
ommSCIence that timelessly knows Itself, It is also because m0ral
knowledge IS also poSItively Imbued and coloured WIth the meta-
phySical world-VIew of the SCIentIfically thmkmg dIan J
I Anstotle, Pol VII 2-3 dlscus'ieS the aIm of the ~ t state and the educa-
tion of Its cItizens and adopts a posItion on the question whether the best hfe
IS the political and practical or another (meanmg the theoretic hfe) He reJeLts
each of the x t r m ~ both the view that only the pohtlcal hfe IS manly and free,
and also the Withdrawal from pohtlcs on pnnclple and the complet.. rejectIOn of
every sort of rule as mere tyranny To him the theoretic hfe' IS by no means
synonymous WIth the' xemc hfe' or hfe of the ahen but IS at the same time
practlca1 ' In the hIghest sense PhIlosophers and men of knowledge are creatIve,
for hIm, 10 that they are' architects With their thoughh' ('lee ~ p I32Sb 14-
2
3)
2 Happmess In the highest seDse IS secured only by the theoretIc hfe accord-
mg to Eth Nlc X 7,' and 10 secondary degree the hfe accordmg to the other
sort of VIrtue' In the next chapter thIs subordmatlon of ethIcal to 10tellectual
vutue IS estabhshed In more detaIl
J The mdependence of the mind from man's sensuous nature, 10 contrast to
ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
But at this pomt there anses for Anstotle a problem that did not
eXist for Plato 10 such sharpness It throws an abrupt lIght on the
mner dIfficulties that Anstotehan Platomsm has to contend Wlth
here Although the moral and sCientific spheres touch each other,
and the latter leads mto the moral, thiS happens only at one pomt,
whereas m Plato the moral was still completely cantamed 10 the
sCientific SCIence has now separated Itself mto numerous dlsclplmes,
and each one of them IS stnvmg for mdependence from the whole
MetaphySICS or ontology has also separated Itself, once 10 Plato the
totality of the phJlosophlC consideratIOn of the world, but now only
the queen of the SCIences, also called' theology' And It IS thiS SCIence
that IS pre-emmently mtended, SCIence as world-View, wherever Ans-
totle lets the ethical sphere come mto contact With the theoretical
Nowhere else IS thiS so clearly expressed as m the earhest form that
we possess of Aristotle's the versIOn edited by Eudemus, at
the end of which we read that the natural goods of hfe are moral
goods for man only so far as they help him to serve and know God
The knowledge of God IS thus the way to the true !>erVlCe of God and
the cntenon of earthly values, which hold their, alue m fee from Its
value I But now does thiS mean that the whole gIgantic structure of
particular theoretical knowledge, bUIlt up by Anstotle In hiS system
and culm10atmg 10 theology, IS presupposed here and IS therefore an
mdlspensable condItion of the correct moral conduct of hfe' To put
the questIOn IS to perceive that, while thIS 15 In a certam sense so for
the philosopher, who In hIS metaphySIcal survey of the whole can fit
the totalIty of knowledge mto a umty, It can hardly be so for the
mere speCiahst With hiS gaze fixed only on a hmlted area, and the
man morally actIve m the affairs of life can absolutely not be thought
of as depend10g on such a condItion 10 hiS deCISIOns Every attempt
to determme the power of theoretical reason over moral mSlght, of
over more exactly m detail than IS done m that
declSlve passage of the must mevltably lead to a
weakenmg of thiS power and a strengthemng of the relative mdepen-
dence of the moral sphere from theory'
ethJcal vIrtue whose whole sphere IS nothmg but the relation of the Impulses
to reason IS emphaSIZed In AnstotIe Eth NIC X 8, 1178" 16-22 from thIS
It follows that the theoretIc hfe IS also less dependent on external provISIon'
than the practical, see from 1178" 24 to the end of the chapter WIth regard
to practical and moral thought and actIon beIng shot through WIth sophJa and
'theory' compare the dIfferences between the two EthICS In what follows
I Eth Eud VIII 3, 1249b 16 'Therefore whIchever chOIce and
of natural goods wIll produce the most contemplatIOn of God,
goods of the body or wealth or fnends or any other, that IS the best and thIS IS
the finest standard, and whIchever eIther by defect or by excess prevents one
from servIng and contemplatIng God that IS bad' See my ArIStotle, above,
p 243 a.nd the whole precedmg section
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 437
Plato had attached morallJlslght, the phronesls of Socrates, to the
contemplatIOn of the Idea of the Good They were conflated to such
a degree that the concept of phronesls, whIch In ordinary usage was
purely ethIcal and practICal, came In Plato always to Include the
theoretical knowledge of the Idea, became, m fact, finally synonymous
wIth expressIons that had long meant nothing but pure knOWIng
and contamed no relation to the practical, such as sophla, nus,
epHteme, theory, and the hke ThIS Platomc sense of the word
phronesls IS stilI to be found m the early Anstotle I t appears m hIS
Protreptzeus, where It means the theorehcal sCIence of bemg, or meta-
phySICS, and where Anaxagoras and Parmemdes are named as typIcal
representatives of' thIS phronesls' I In the EudemlanEthles, phronens
IS stIll often the name for the mtellectual organ of the theoretic hfe ,
and Anaxagoras IS CIted as the prototype of a hfe of pure phronesH
because he devoted hImself entirely to the study of the
sky Z On the other hand, m the sIxth book of the Nzcomachean
Ethtcs, the later verSIOn of Anstotle's ethICs, we find thIS PlatOnIC
conception of phroneHs cntlcally broken up mto Its onglnal elements,
the expressIOn IS narrowed to mean only practical moral mSlght, and
all theoretical content IS removed from It Anstotle now recommends
sophIa as the proper word to mdlcate theoretical knowledge of reason,
he explams that phronesls concerns only human affaIrs, but sophla
abo d1Vme affaIrs and the whole cosmos, that IS why we call Anaxa-
goras, Thales, and such people, SOphOl, but Pencles and people of hIS
sort phrommOi J SophIa, he says, studIes only the general, lIke all
true !>Clence Phronests, on the other hand, concerns Itsf'lf abo wIth
the applIcatIOn of general moral knowledge to the partICular practical
case 4 Thus pohtlcs, "hlch once m Plato had not merely been the
On the development of the conception of phronesI5 see my Aristotle, above,
pp 83 ff
Z See Eth Eud I 4 121Sb 1 and 6, I S 1216" II ff On the conception of
phroneszs and Its SignIficance m the Eudemlan E.th", "ee my Arlstolle, above,
PP 236 ff , 239 ff
J Eth NlC VI 7 114Ib 2 From what has been sald.t.s clear that sophta
IS both SCIence and mtUltlOn of the that are valuable by nature
Hence men that Anaxagoras and Thales and such persons are SOPhOl but
not phrommol, when they see them Ignorant of theIr own advantage, and they
say that the thmgs whIch men know are exceedmglv mdIVellous and
difficult and dlvme, but useless, and that they do not seek human But
plltonesls concerns human affaIrS and matters that can be dehberated For
good deliberatIOn IS, we say, the most functIOn of the phrommos '
1I40b 7 Hence we thmk that Pencles and men are phrommOl, because
they can see what IS good for themselves and for men, and we thmk that
household-managers and are persons of thIS Clearly An_totIe
IS here argumg hIS own earher and purely PlatOnIC statements In
the Prolrept1cus and the Eudemlan Eth"s
Eth NlC VI 7, 1141" 9 ff , and 5, 1140" 24 ff
438 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
rulmg sCience but also mcluded all human knowledge Wlthm Itself,
IS relegated to a lower level, together with ItS subordmate ethics, for
ItS organ IS phronesJS, as much m legIslation as 10 polItics 10 the
narrower sense Smce man IS by no means the highest bemg 10 the
world, ethiCS and pohtlcs are by no means equivalent to the highest
SCIf'nce I The separatIOn of metaphysIcs from ethiCS that Anstotle
carned through IS here dearly observable That IS not lOdeed any
devaluation of the theoretic lIfe, rather a helghtemng of ItS lOtel-
lectual rank, but the higher the sky the less It touches the earth, and
that IS why 10 the Ethus It IS not easy to discover what
preCisely, apart from the mtellectual precedence of the theoretic over
the practical hfe, the lOner dependence of moral virtue on sCientific
knowledge consists lo' Modern scholars have made acute mqmnes
IOto thiS matter But the result IS negative, and the mere fact that
Anstotle falls to make any posItive utterance on the question IS
slgmficant of the weakness of the connexlOn between the doctnne of
virtue and character proper and the pICture of the happlOess of the
theoretic hfe that crowns the whole at the end 3 The whole of the
contams no sentence hke that which, at the end
of the Ethtcs, makes knowledge of God the measure of all
moral evaluatIOn 4 The po5>ltlon IS perfectly clear The preferred
status of the speculative hfe IS mdeed preserved unchanged 10 the
Ethzcs , ever smce Anstotle's young days, when he had
sent hiS Protrepttcus lOto the world whIle stilI a pupil of Plato, that
had remamed the unmovlOg pole of hiS philosophICal hfe But the
dependence, also taken over from Plato, of the doctnne of character
and virtue upon theoretical phIlosophy and theology, has progres-
Sively disappeared The tendency of Anstotle's own development IS,
on the contrary, always to mcrease the diVISIOn between the practical
and the theoretICal spheres, and the weight of hiS own SCientific con-
I Eth NtC VI 7. 1141" 21 'It IS absurd to thmk that polItIcs or phroneSis
IS the best, smce man IS not the best thmg m the cosmos'
See my Anstotle above, pp '239 fI
3 L H G Greenwood Arzstotle, NIComachean EthICS, Book Sax (Cambndge,
190(1) pp 82 if after a very subtle exammatlOn of all utterances beanng on
thIS pomt m the Nzcomache'ln EthICS, came to the correct conclUSIOn that we
remain condemned to mere conjectures about It
Greenwood's statement ActIons are .'(ood. accordmg to Anstotle. In pro-
portIOn as they lead to the 81"'P'1T1"05 as the end' (op CIt, P 82). only
fits the relatIon of moral virtue to the contemplation of God as formulated In
the final sentences of the Eudem,an EthICS To the Nuomachean EthICS, on the
other hand, applIes what he says on page 83 He probably followed to
extent the feelm!,:s of the ordmary man In attnbutrng to moral actrons an
mdependent goodness of theIr own and would allow the 1To>.ITIKO; to
possess a certam ratIonalIty and value even though It should Ignore or contemn
the 9t"'P'lTI"Os altogether'
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 439
tnbutlOn to ethics hes m his gemal development of that part of It
whose preponderance has given the whole ItS name, to WIt, the dOL-
tnne of character and the system of the moral VIrtues I It IS true
that he also still recogmzes the mtellectual virtues', that 15, the
spmtual and mtellectual educatIOn of man, as the second pillar of
the value of the personahty, he even gives m the Sixth book of the
Nzcomachean Ethzcs a detaIled analySiS of these purely mtellectual
powers and capaCities of man Z But thIs analysis IS connected with
the very mql1lry that led him to separate the mtellectual Side from
the speCifically ethICal Rather than aimmg at pOSItively preparmg
for, and connectmg to the doctnne of vutue, the doctnne of the
I See my Arts/olle, above, p 396 and frequentl}
The dlstlnLbon between moral and mtellectual virtues In Anstotle's ethiCS
had already been made by Plato, so that what we have here IS an AcademiC
doctnn<ll traditIOn This has apparently not yet been noticed, and I did not
notice It myself until, dunng a semmar on Cratylu.l m the .... lnter term
of 1926-7, I discovered that there IS a defimte pnnclple m the ordenng of the
etymologies of the techmcal terms that come after the names of the gods and of
phySical conceptIOns (such as 'sun, 'moon', , 'hghtmng', 'fire, aIr',
'ether', and so on) FITst come phronesls noeSIS, ,plSteme syneslS, sophIa
After the mentIOn of the' good there follow' Justice' and courage Tem-
perance , the third virtue usually lIsted as a typical example of the' ethical
Virtues, IS Ill.erted after phronens and noesIs as a sort of annotatlOn, because
It IS mterpreted as meaning the preservation of phronesls (a,,:rT'lpla
and could therefore be dealt With In pa,smg here The conception<> as
phronesls, noeSIS, sophia, synesls, and so on, are very Llosely connecled With
Justice, 'temperance', and' courage' Both sets faU under the common con-
ception of 'vutue Whereas the latter are the 'moral vutue,' III Anstotle s
,en,e, the former correspond preCisely to the mtellectual virtues' of the Sixth
book of the Nlcomachean Eth.cs It follows that Plato had already analysed
the conceptIOn of vIrtue mto a phronetle and an ethICal element and determmed
the vaTJous kinds of the virtues of phrones.s and 01 ethos by hiS method of
ThiS IS an Important pomt for our view of the development of
totle's ethiCS, which m otherrf'spects too, operates at every step With
AC<ldemiC anu !O>lgmficantly however Plato, unhke
Vlcomachean EthICS VI, Uld not yet regard phrones" as a mere species of mtel-
lectual virtue but as the genus of thiS whole class [hat IS proved by Phllehus
19 .... where .... e re<ld that one must grasp phroneslS (and not merely
.1S one but also many m Ito form. , and thiS IS presented as the great
achievement of the method of dlvIOlOn that Just been descnbed T},ere
follow III PhlZehus 19 D the 5ame species of phronesls as m Craty/us 4lJ D ff
and Nlcomachean EthICS VI ThiS corresponds exactly to the VieW and termmo-
logy of the early Anstotle In the Protreptzcus and the Eudem.an FtJlIcs (see mv
Aristotle, above, pp 82 and 239) ThiS whole PlatOniC and early Anstotellan
termmology and determmatlOn of the place of phroneszs among the mtellectual
virtues IS bemg attacked by In the Sixth book of thf' Nlcvmachean
E.thlcs The early date which at present favoured for Cratylus seems to me
hard to reconcde wzth ItS differentiated doctnne of virtue, but th<lt IS only one'
of many that cannot be discussed here A thorough re-examInatIOn
of tlus difficult dialogue from the standpomt of our present knowledge of Plato
IS an urgent need and IS belDg undertaken
440 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
theoretical hfe which we read at the end of the Nzcomachean Ethzcs,
It enlarges the gulf between thiS ongmally central part of Anstotle's
ethics and the doctrme of virtue proper Thus It provides a stnkmg
confinnahon of our proof of the progressive loosenmg of the he con-
nectIng the theoretIc lIfe with the kernel of ArIStotle's ethiCS
The picture here drawn of the development of ArIstotle's ethiCS IS
confirmed by the further transformatIons of the problem In the
PenpatetIc sLhool Unfortunately the ethIcal WrItIngs of ArIStotle's
chief pupIls are lost to us Our most Important source, the sole
ethIcal work of the perIod that survIves nearly complete, IS the so
called Great handed down under ArIstotle's name, the work
of some PerIpatetIc who lIved not before the scholarchate of Theo-
phrastus I The way In which the author reproduces the Ideas of
I Tlus the establIshed VIew Since Spengel's famous of the three
EthiCS In the Mumch Academy After Kapp and I had shown the genuineness
of the Eudem.an Eth,cs, Han, von Armm In a whole of writIngs has
recently defended the genuineness of the so called Great ElhlCS (willch, of cour,e,
IS the smalle,t) and Interpreted It as the earlIest and most ongmal of the
Anstotehan EthiCS, Without, however, producmg the smallest convictIon I
must entIrely associate my.elf WIth the cntIcal rejectIOn of hiS view by two
such proven experts In the study of Anstotle s ethiCS as Professor E Kapp In
hi, two artuJes (Gnomon 1927) and Profe.,or J L Stocks In Manchester
(Deutsche Llteratlfr-Zellung, 1927) It IS. after all, not the fir.t time that learned
experts III old masters have confused the copy and the ongmal Armm's only
partIsan that he Will "dlue IS Schlelermacher In h,s BerlIn Academy lecture
Schlelermacher was certalDly a high and ,ensltJve mmd, but hiS serVIces con-
cermng Plato were due to phIlosophical and arthtlc congemahty not to hIS-
toncal VISIOn, on the contrary, a pupil of the Halle ratlOnah,ts he had no
eye for Plato's development, and hIS authonty our hlstoncal know-
ledge of It for decades He succeeded no better With the G>eat Eth,cs He
strangely thought It the only genume one, rejectIng the two genume one.
because only the Great Tlh,cs came up to hiS KdntIan Ideal of a true ethiC' He
thought that It did not lIke the other two LlhlCS, mdke moralIty depend on
theoretical reason but left the theoretic hfe aSide But that IS preCIsely the
mdlll argument for Its spunousness Now that we can clearly survey the
development from Plato through Anstotle to the latter's puptls m ItS particular
stage. and grasp the strict Inner nece,slty of thiS Intellectual process, It ought
not to be hard to see that the Greal J:l/l1CS fit. m only here (after the Nlco-
machean). and neces,anly here The fact that Armm ha. Simply not enterel1
Illto the new way of companng different stages 1D the hl.tory of a problem
Stocks nghtly emphalllzed Let It be here extended to the Greal EthICS for the
present problem a. a substitute for any further refutatIOn of Armm argu-
ments For Ius method seems to me to strdlll out gnats and swallow
ThiS way of approach wIll be carned out for the whole of the Great l:.th<cs by
my pupil RIchard Walzer III hiS forthcomlllg book (Volume VI of Neue Phllo-
logzsche Untersuchungen), whl<..h I must naturally touch on III the .mgle POint
that I am here discu.slllg That the Great EthICS dates Itself by example
Neleus, the faVOUrIte pupil of Theophrastus and mhentor of hi, library III the
same way as Anstotle In hiS wntmgs had used Neleus father, hi. fnend and
fellow-scholar Conscus, escaped Armm's notIce WIIamowitz acquaInted lum
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 44
1
Anstotle's ethIcS abbreviated and clanfied, mostly In close depen-
dence on the Eudemlan but also USing the Nlcomachean verSion,
with It m Hel'mes for 1927, and drew the correct that the Great
EthiCS IS not to be placed before the tIme of Armm's objechon
(m Hel'mes for 1928) that Neleus heard AnstotJe (the late I) and there-
fore did not enter the School under Theophrastus, misses the mam difficulty
as I have shown m Entstehungsgesch>ehte. &c, p 34, and m Arzstollp (above,
p 256), Anstotle's habit of cltmg C'onscus as an example obvIOusly goes back
to the hme when Conscus himself present at the lecture, which soon
after Plato's death and m Assos and Scepsls whIther Conscus had returned
accordmg to Plato s letter a conSiderable time Particularly
do the witty of the Eudnman Ethtcs to Conscus give the
vIvid of actuahty and presuppose that the lrsteners have personal
acquamtance With the man That m a still earher lecture on etmcs, which
the Great Ethtcs would be. accordmg to Armm Anstotle would have men-
honed the ungrown son of (onscus (who presumably was attendmg the
lecture ,) and only later come to make the father, the old fnend of hiS youth
hiS standmg example. ami chronologIcally On the con-
trary the Isolated mentIOn of can be explaIned only by the assumptIOn
that the u,>e of father Conscus as example had at some earher tIme been
common form 111 And thdt fits mto the post-Anstotehan
penod only The post Anstotehan ongm of the Great Ethtcs IS also II1dlCdted
by techmcal terms foreign to Anstotle and mtroduced by Theo-
"hlch Walzer wIll collect As an eXdmpk of the of thmg one can
pOInt to the un books of the HtStorv of Ammals, whose
ongm m particular can be Illummated more by study
of worth Hut, .ipart from all prooh the non-Anstotehan ongm of the
&reat Etlncs Indicated above all by Ib langu.ige at every It IS of
hke all PenpatetIc prose dependent on the dIctIon of Anstotle, bu t It
Itself as later by a multItude of Hellem,>hc symptoms of shall be
hsted here [hey offer themselves to every of
language 1 he Great Lth,c> u,es forms wluch dunng Athc hmes and 111 Anstotle
are not yet or at any rate appear only qUIte I,olated exceptions Thus
we have the future once In Top I I tl, loB" 28, otherwl,e only m the
spunous Rllet ad Al 3b, I441b 29, but In the Great Ethtcs Ilil2
a
4
1208" 26 ,11."aw, I IH3" I band 17 ,11.",,.., the aonst E11.ijaa, onlv In Gr Eth
I I, II 82" 5, 8, I I tlo
a
lO II 10, 1208" 35, ,11."aa<; 1208" 3 I but nowhere m
Anstotle except for one place In the spunous Probl (XIX 42 92Ib 20) which
are of later OTlKIn olAalJoEv only once III the whole Ansto-
tehan (Anal IV 8 <)3" 25). but III the Gr Fth at II99" 32 and 35. Ie
tWIce In a smaller spdce ol2.aal, I 190b 24 otherWise only once In the spunuus
On Alarvellolts Reports Ill}, 842" 2 ,12.0lJoEv used as a present = 6pWIJoEv (WIth
subordmate clause 6TQII 1213" 21, vy,ij I20I
b
28 (An.t "yla)
and more of the like It IS known that the of \/TTtp for 1TEpl, whIch IS common
In Hellemstlc (.reek In Anstotle only III vamshll1gly few places. but
m the &reat Eth,cs It IS the rule For the author to come fOTWdrd WIth I
un-Anstotehan, but common 111 other learned hterat11.re, e g In the HIppo-
cratIc corpus. In the GI' E.th I I81
b
28 Tf)V t1T",vwIQII 2.01<1 &v j,l01 lXElv,
116gb 9 6J\A tp'l j,lOI, TQ nola 2.,aaa'P'laov, &C Charactenstlc IS also the lively.
dIrect more lIke the dlatnbe where the opponent Imagmed by
the speaker says' you' Wlth thIS compare the constantly occurnng 'be says'
as a means of Introducmg the adversary's ob]ectrons. I I9Bb I I. 1200" 19, 21,
442 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
agrees entirely wIth the usual method of handIng down doctnnes In
the close-kmt Greek schools of phIlosophy, even to the pecuhar mlX-
ture of dependence and freedom towards the doctnne of the founder
We cannot doubt that the method of the later Penpatetlc com-
mentators IS ultimately derived from those ways of handmg on the
I20S" 25, 27, I2I2
b
3S, 1213" 1,6 &c A particularly VIVid Imagmary dialogue
of this sort In the' you' and' I' style IS for example, 120S" 20 'But perhaps
someone would say "W'hcn the passIOns are In what state (lrrav !XWO',I)
do they not prevent It, and when are they In that state For I don't know"
That sort of thIng IS not easy to say, the phySICian cannot say It either, when
he tells you to give barley-gruel to the fevensh person ' How shall I recognIze
fever (Read When, he says, you him looking pale "And
how shall I know pallor I" There the phySICIan must use hIs ludgement For
If, he says, you don't have In the powf'r to perceIve such things, yl.. 1
can't know There IS nothing like thIs regular In the whole of
Anstotle The stnvlng for palpable sensual clanty does not fit
reserved and objectIve manner It occurs throughout the Great Ethus Charac-
tenstIc of the work IS also the author's favounte tnck of interrupting himself
WIth an IDslstf'ntly didactic' V,hy /', 118z
b
32, I 183b II, and often Similar are
someone "Ill say', 1185"23, II90"37 1208"20 Very
commonly the author uses a subject In the neuter plural With a verb In the
plural, 1194
b
32 1197" 37 b 33, I200
b
26-7, 120r" 3, I206
b
12, and often The
termmology of the school IS already sprawled out In him, he
says not only' the or 'the good, but also the best good', as well 'the
final end' and the hke He un-Anstotehan also In slovenly habIt of
redundantly repeatmg words especIal!} after a parenthetIc subordmate clause
as In 1183" 29 Yet they thInk they must, when they speak about the good,
must speak about the Idea', or Immelllately thereafter, "33 'Not that the
pohbcal sCience or facult}, about "hlch we are now speakIng, It not In-
qUIre about thiS good' , 1196" I 'And If the pen,on towards whom It hIm
act,rf he does not act towards thIs person, he wrongs hIm' , 1198" 8 'Nor IS the
reason and nor IS the chOIce qUIte completed', 1204b 21 Nor are these
pleasures are not processes' , 1206
b
26 'But the paSSions do not, If they receive
a start from teason towards noble things, they do not follow',
SImilarly 111\ 0Vl< 1195" I Instead of OUK OUK The use of 'you' = 'one',
whIch IS not In though common In the of SCientific IIterd.ture,
occurs 1197
b
16 'for you would not separate, With whIch only the you WIll
find' In the Calegortes IS comparable I 18'j 30 'Whatever you throw
In If you do not thro" In for If you throw In If you do not throw In The
regular use of 1')v = for Icrrlv = 'IS' IS charactenstIc, 1I!l2
b
29, 1I8S" 13,
1194" 20, and often, even In the form 1196" G 'But perhaps was not true
and It IS for a man to wrong (where 1')v should not be
emended to 1')) also the regular 0",,"' = 'no longer' Instead of QUI( = 'not'
Redundance also In 1203" 1I 'to whom nothing of any good sort belongs',
and In I204b 21 the addItion of the demonstrative pronoun aV'ral, whIch comes
several times, and 1204" 1 IItv oiN 6pa lIst could be substantially in-
creased I see no trace of an attempt by von Armm to explam the lingUistic
pecuhaTltIes of the Great Elhtes, or even to face the fact that the author wntes
such an abnormal Greek Even If the train of thought In the Great ElJncs did
not betray the same etiolated and deadness, ItS lingUIstIc conditIon
would be enough to exclude all serIOUS of Its genumeness among
phIlolOgIsts
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 443
doctnnes of the school that estabhshed themselves m the very first
generations after ArIstotle This can stIll be made plam by tht.
example of Theophrastus' fragment on metaphysIcs, or of Eudemus'
physIcs, and we have recently become able to do so even for so
obscure a penod of the Penpatos as the late second century Be, for
the excerpts of the Pseudo-Ocellus have preserved pieces of a Pen-
patehc lecture of this tUlle, actually a paraphrasmg reproductIOn of
Anstotle's work On Comtng to be and Passmg away I In glvmg
personal nuance to the fixed doctrmes of the school which he mhents,
the author of the (Jreat EthicS often uses the form of the apona, as
Anstotle before him had done With regard to the traditional doctnne
of the Academy, whICh hiS own exposItion often followed %
HIS omiSSIOns and hiS emphases, however, also frequently reveal hiS
own attItude to the questIOns he deals WIth, questIOns whIch he often
completely fads to understand m the sense they ongmal1y had for
Anstotle ThiS appears partIcularly m the pecuhar dIfficultJes that
Anstotle Incurred because hIS mtellectual progress compelled him to
be perpetually settlmg accounts WIth Plato The ancrormg of eth/{ s
m the theoretIc hfe was precisely such a Platomr legacy that caused
no slIght dIfficulty to the author of the Great EthiCS
The end of the Great EthiCS IS unfortunately lost It breaks off m
the middle of the treatment of fnendshlp, to whICh, as we know, the
Nlcomachean EthiCS adds as tenth book a (second) diSCUSSIOn of
pleasure and the doctnne of the theoretIChie We cannot -;aj whether
the (,reat EthiCS once ended m the same WdY , It IS not at all nece-;sary,
for particularly III It leans more on the Eudemlan EthiCS,
I The rem,iIll' of the ph} 'In of Eudemus are brought 1]1 the colJec-
hon of hiS fragment., U} Leonhard [he nwtaphyslcal fragment of
Theophrastus last edited by [now by Ross and Fobes, Oxford,
1929 - Tr] On P"eudo-Ocellus' use of pre-Andromcan Penpottebc. mterpreta-
hon of Anstotle's On Coming to be and Passing away, R Haruer, Orellus
Luwnus, Text und hommonlar, Berhn, 1926, pp 07-111 (\ Jlume I of my Neue
l'h'lolog>sche Untersuchungen)
2 one example of thIS In Elk N,c VI I, I 138b 20-34 Aristotle says
that the' nght mean', of which he had spoken In determlmng the essence Gf
ethical Virtue, IS as the nght logos but determInottIon IS not cIL.!r
enough and needs to be made more precise In II 2 II03b 31, we leam that
the defimtlon of the morally good habit as 'm accord "Ith the nght logos IS
umver,ally admitted (KOIV6v) and can be Immediately a;.,umed, but will later
reqUire more precI,e determmatlOn Fmally, we hear m VI ll, I144b 21, that
'now everybody, when he define' virtue adds the phrase In accord With the
nght logos', whIch naturally refers to the Academy, whose often ulverged
on such questIOns The Ideal task of research, no longer pO',Slble In detail, IS to
separate thE' AcademIC baSIS of every Aristotelian conceptIOn and doctnne
sharply from the mdlVldual modIficatIOn that Aristotle made In It The same
holds tor the relatwtl of the Great rlll/.s to AnstotJe except that here both
onglDals are to us
444 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
and It reproduces the end of that This end, the sectIOns on the rela-
tIon between happmess and good fortune, and on true caJocagatky,
IS a sort of parallel to the doctnne of happmess at the end of the
Nzcomachean Ethzcs, but It IS also charactenstIcally different there-
from For thiS reason It IS not probable that the Great Ethtcs, which
adopts thiS end of the Eudemzan Ethus (though It transfers It to
before the treatment of fnendshIp), ongmally also adopted the end
of the Ntcoma,hean Ethzcs, the descnptIon of the theoretic hfe I
That would not correspond to ItS attitude to contemplatIOn and the
mtellectual vutues, which IS III other reo;;peds also lalrly negative
In reproducmg the end of the Eudemtan Ethtcs, the doctnne of good
fortune, the author of the Great Ethus slgmficantly omItted the
metaphySICal element, the . dwzne good fortune', whIch was so
thoroughly essential to the late-Platomc attItude of the Eudemtan
Ethtcs Z Similarly from the treatment of calocagathy, abo borrowed
from the end of the Eudemlan Ethtcs, he omitted the relation to the
contemplatIOn of God and to the theoretIc hfe The startmg-pomt
of the Eudemwn EthIn has also dropped out, the questIOn of happI-
ness and the chOIce of a hfe', where the theoretIc hfe IS descnbed as
one of those open to chOIce, and the solutIOn of thr problem of happI-
ness by thIS means IS thus prepared from the brgmmng In VIew of
what we have ascertamed about the weakemng of the connexlOn
between the theoretIC hfe and the central part of ethICS m the NICO-
machean Ethtcs, It cannot astOnIsh us that thiS process, which \\e can
follow from Plato and Anstotle's early Protreptzeus on through the
Eudelman to the Ntcomachean EthtCs, should reveal Itself m the
Great EthtCs m ItS most advanced stage It IS the process of the
IncreasIng dIspossessIOn of the metaphySIcal and Intellectual element
speakmg, the PlatOnIC element) from ethICS
Anstotle hImself never went so far as to abandon thIS PlatOnIC legacy
that had been so dcclSlve for hiS attItude of research and hiS Ideal of
sCIence But hIS were somehmrs more Anstotehan than Ans-
r Gr Eth II 8 on good fortune and II 9 on calocagathy are attached to the
doctnne of plea.'oure dnd Its slgmficance for (II 7) The two chapters
are exactly parallel to "III l and VIII 3 of the Eudem.an Lth,cs
[he parallehsm of these two to the book of the N,comachean
Eth,cs strengthened when we make them folIo" the sectIOn on as
they do In the Great Ethus, for the tenth book of the Nrcomachean Eth,cs also
hegms WIth a dISCUSSion of pleasure A dlscus.lOn of the theoretic hfe
need not havE' followed even lD the Eudemlan /.th,CS, for whIch that hfe IS the
centre of mobon It IS practically out of the questIOn In the Great Ethus owmg
to the removal of thIS whole part II 7-9 from the end of the whole to before
the of the mtellectual
The late-PlatoDlc doctrine of dlvme fortune urRently needs a separate
exaDllnabon, before It can be Its nght place In the hIstory of the
problem of tyche or fortune among the Greeks
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 445
totle, and the dIstance of the phtlosophlcal sItuatIon of the Great
Ethtcs from Plato Impresses Itself very sharply m that work from the
first page on WIth thIs IS connected the fact that the emanCIpation
of ethIcs from the theory of Ideas, to whIch the two genume Ethtcs
of Anstotle devote so much space and on whIch they found It neces-
sary to spend such great pams, IS assumed as an establIshed fact by
the Great Ethtcs nght from the begmnIng, m the short hIstorIcal
retrospect wIth whICh It opens There Pythagoras and Plato are
blamed because neIther of them understood how to keep ethICs mde-
pendent of metaphyslLal speculatIOns one confounded the question
of vIrtue wIth number-metaphysIcs, the other wIth the theory of
Ideas and ontology Socrates IS praIsed because he kept hImself free
from thIs mtermmglIng I
The absolute selfevldence of the emancIpation of ethIcs from
metaphysIC5> for the al.1thor of the Great EthtCS from Its openmg
sentences on must naturally reveal Itself especIally m hIS treatment
of the so called mtellectual vIrtues, and of the questIon of the relation
between sophta and phronesis In the early Anstotle (Protrepttcus,
Etldemtan EthiCS) sophza and phronests were, m full dc.::ord wIth
Plato's VIew, not yet dIstingUIshed, becau5>e moral mSIght
wa., rooted m the knowledge of the hIghest good and the latteI was
Immedlatel1 deCISIve for moral actIOn In the SIxth book of the
Nicomachean EthiCS a sharp Ime was drawn between the two, as we
have shown above The Great goes one step farther Although
It adopts no radIcally dIvergent pomt of VIew, but here, too, gIves the
problem In a form externally true to ArIstotle's ethICS, yet that It
goes be)ond the Nteomachean EthiCS IS clear In that work there I'>
assumed from the begmnmg a perfect equalItv between the mtel-
lectual and the moral vIrtues, whIch IS what makes It necessary
to gIVe an mtensIve argument for theIr explICIt separatIOn The
thoroughne5>s WIth whICh phronesls, as speCIfically moral and prachral
reason, IS there separated from pure theoretical sophta, the know-
ledge of the hIghest and most general pnnCIples, IS due to the fart
that thIS dlvmon of the realms was to Anstotle as a PlatOnIst even U1
the last phase of hIS development by no means yet selfevldent It
was he who had to achIeve It, and the partIcular mqUIry that was
needed m order to separate the mtellectual virtues and sophta from
the doctnne of charaettlr Itself mdlrectly gave them a new claim to
be treated In ethiCS ThIS hybnd posItion of theirs had a certam mner
Justification to Anstotle because of the course of hIS development
The author of the &reat Ethtcs finds It, m spite of hIS loyalty to the
tradition, fundamentallymcomprehenslble and uncomfortable When
In the dISCUSSIon of phTonesls (I 34), which corresponds to the Sixth
I Gr, EthlC< I T, II82" 10-30
Ff
446 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
book of the N1comachean Eth1CS, he from the very first divides the
ratIOnal part of the soul (AoylI'v) mto a practically deliberative and
a sCIentifically apprehendmg part (j30VAEVTIK6v and
he IS assummg as fixed and solIdified that essenhal dlstmctIon between
phronests and sophta which was first achieved m the correspondmg
section of the N1comachean Eth1CS In this he was followmg some
earlIer PenpatetIc who taught the same divIsIOn, as IS shown by the
excerpts from the ethical lIterature of the PenpatetIc school m
Stobaeus (II IIJ, 14 W) He drawc; much farther-reachmg conse-
quences from this sharp distinction between phrones1s and soph1a
than AnstotIe had It means to him the complete emanCipatIon of
phrones1s from sophta Yet he IS m a sense only followmg logically
m the directIOn IDltIated by AnstotIe when he expresses his wonder
that sophza, whICh he dlstmgUlshes from phronesH as bemg purely
theoretical knowledge, IS not completely excluded from ethiCS 'One
might puzzle and wonder why, when we dre speakmg of morals and
of some pohhcal mqUIry, we mentIOn soph1a 'I SO speaks a man
when confronted With an establIshed tradition to which he externdlly
submits although he no longer really understands It ThiS IS no great
phIlosophical wonder such as that which accordmg to Plato I!> the
begmnmg of all Wisdom It IS the schoolman's 'I wonder', at pecu-
hantIes of the traditIon that are no longer grasped For thiS author
the questIon of has lo!>t the actualIty that It possec;sed for
AnstotIe ac; a Platomst To explam Its mtroductIon he hac; to thmk
up all sorts of scholastIc subtletIes He comforts Illmself With the
refiectlOn that It I!> really a sign of Wide philosophical VlSlOn to take
notice of such secondary questIOns which do not stnctly belong to
the subJect, furthermore, ethiCS concerns the soul, and to the !>oul
belongs theoretIcal sCience also-and the rest of the foolIsh (hatter IZ
At the tIme when the Great Eth1CS was wntten, the Penpatas was
actually welghmg the doctnne that practIcal reason has the pnmacy
over the theoretIcal, and some were defendmg It The Great Ethus
Itself raises at the end of Book I the questIon whether phronesH be
not the real ruling force m the soul, 'a!> It seems and as IS debated'
That thiS refers to a real opponent of the Anstotelian view and IS not
a mere mvented apona IS also shown by the' he says' which IS used
to mtroduce an argument of the representative of thiS theSIS How-
ever, the Great Eth1CS does not tum so far away from AnstotIe as to
subordmate soph1a to phrones1s and throw It completely out of ethiCS
It IS charactenstIc of the mtermedlate mtellectual posItion of ItS
author that he does not draw thlc; consequence to which his own
thought really presses, but holds fast to the tradition of the school
although he can no longer mamtam It Without reserve He tnes to
I Gr Eth I 3i, 1197
b
28-30 a IbId 1197
b
30-5
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 447
defend the orthodox Penpatetic VIew agamst the danng heresy of
the pre-emmence of practical reason by means of a pIcture, and com-
pares phroneSfS to the steward, whose poSItIOn IS that of a servant,
whereas sophfa corresponds m the Intellectual eLOnomy of the soul
to the master I How much even m the Great EthlCs the mterest m
logos or reason has m fact yIelded to the Importance of character and
the emotions IS shown by a sentence lIke the follOWing, In whIch the
author IS summmg up hIS VIew m conclUSIOn . In general, not logos,
as others thmk, IS the begmnmg and gUIde to VIrtue, but rather the
emotions '. The . others' to whom he here objects are of
pnmanly the creators of Greek ethICS, Socrates and Plato, but Am-
totle must here be reckoned as a Platomst too, he, too, IS hable to th!:'
reproach of the Great Ethfcs that he assIgned to the mtellect a hIgh
slgmficance m moral trammg To gIve the passIOns theIr nghts
agamst logos means nothmg elc;e than that ethICS, both theoretIcally
and practIcally, must concern Itself above all WIth ethos or character
The determmatlon WIth which the author emphaSizes thIS agamst
Anstotle from the hnes onwards IS connected WIth hIS syste-
matic suppressIOn of and the' ratIOnal part of the SOUl'
The chIef argument of the Nfcomachean Ethfcs for the pre-emmence
I IbId II9Sb 9 ff , 'he says' IbId 1I9S
b
I I At first one mIght thmk
that thlb aporia meant the same as Eth NI" VI 7, II4I" 2 I . For It IS
to thmk that or phronesls the ,mce man IS not the
thm/( m the But that IS merely a rejectIOn of the Socratlc-
PlatOnIC notIOn of phronesIs m ambIgUity the word phronelts ongm-
ally referred only to human <\nstotle could not adopt It a deSignatIOn
for the highest mtellectual faculty even m the extended sense \Deludmg sophIa
that the later Plato had gIven It He wa, compelled to lLstore sophIa to ItS
nghts, ab bemg the highest form of ratlOn...1 knowledge because ItS IS
the dlvme But that mstallatlOn of phroneSIs as of the hIghest Importance
whIch G.. Fth I 34, 1198b 9 attacks IS m Its turn a polemIC dIrected
thIS Anstotehan of sophia That It l' not Plato's conception 8f
phroneSls that Ib here meant follows from the fact that one can never say of
Plato thdt he questioned the pnmacy of sophIa and declared that ph,oneSIs
IS the ruhng element m the boul On the other hand, what Eth NIc
says \D the place mentIOned him exactly he beheved pohtlcs or phronesls
to be the not mdeed because he thought man the best thmg m the cosmo,'
ab Anstotle there expresbes It but the subject of politiCS and pMoneslS
the Idea of the Good to him defimtely the highest thmg both In the human
world and In the 1 he between phroflfSIs and sophia for first
place could not begm untIl Anstotle had separated them agam, and pohtlcs
was no longer one WIth metaphySICS ab m Plato Wlule An.,totle decides for
sophIa because Its object the higher, hiS adversary agamst whom the Great
Ethus IS drgumg phroneslS because It cares for all' that IS, has the
,upreme authonty In practice whereas sophIa merely wI,heb to remaIn In Its
study as undl,turbed as pOSSible But precisely thl' to the author of the
Great Eth,cs the more To him, therefore, phrOnfSlS I' merely
the housekeeper and not the mIstress of the soul
Z Gr Eth II 7. I206
b
17
448 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
of sophia and the theoretIc hfe over the hfe of practIcal activity,
namely the mference from the mtellectual actIvIty of the dIVIne
mmd to the highest and most valuable fonn of human eXIstence, IS
also dropped by the Great EthICS That agrees With the effort to keep
aloof from everythmg metaphysical But ObvlOusly It also represents
a concessIOn to some opponent who mamtamed that the actIVity of
Anstotle's God, coptemplatmg only himself, IS emphatically not the
highest conceivable, any more than such a contemplatIon of self
would be the highest and most valuable state for a man That the
author of the Great took the objectIon senously IS shown by
his, himself applymg the argument to the question of the selfciUffi-
Clency of the happy man, and warnmg liS to beware of a hasty
analogIcal mference from the selfsufficiency of God to what IS
worthy of mortal man's endeavour I
If, then, our author found the seat of human virtue so deCIdedly
and exclUSively m character, we must ask ourselves whether he could
still speak of mtellectual VIrtue at all m addition to ethIcal virtue
Would not the concept of arete have to take on for him the meamng,
ongmally strange to a Greek, of our word' moralIty' One would
expect It In fact, however, we find, here as 10 hiS relatIOn to the
questIOn of rather doubt and heSItation than sharp finalIty 10
thought We even meet With direct contradictIOns m hiS statements
on the pomt Anstotle had handed down to him the doctnne that
It IS a mark of the conception of areti that an action or habit IS
'pral!>ed' So, when he mtroduces the dlvlslOn of the soul mto the
rational and the IrratIOnal part, and attaches to thiS the dlstmctIon
between the ethical VIrtues (as courage and temperance) and the
mtellectual vutues (as mtmhon, WIsdom, memory, &c), he firmly
sets aSide the mtellectual virtues as only mCldental to ethiCS, m
I Eth N" X 8, I 178b 7-23 man believes that God enJoys perfect happmess
Yet It IS not credIble that God IS active m affaIrs or any kmd of moral
actIVlty, be It courage or generoSIty or Justice or prudence All that IS com-
pletely unworthy of God If we remove achon of sort from a Ide, there
clearly remams as content nothmg but pure thought God's actIVIty and
blessedness IS therefore to be conceIved as theoretical actIVIty (e''''P'l"TlKI)
MpY'la) Hence for man too, the happiest way of hfe IS that which most
resembles thIS dlvme IIxistence (cf Metaph 1\ 7, 107Z
b
Z5) The Great Eth.cs IS
concerned WIth an opponent of argument m II 15, I21Z
b
37 It appears
to take no stand towards hiS obJection, so far as concerns the actiVIty of God
(see 12 13" 7 'let us put aSIde the questIOn what God WIll contemplate 'j but
that the author admIts It so far as concerns the mference from God to man
follows from 1ZI2b 33 'The analogy customanly drawn from God m the dIS-
CUSSIOns IS neIther nght there nor would It be useful here' Thus he rejects the
doctnne of the selfsufficiency of the happy man, and WIth It the Identification
of human happmess WIth the temporal enjoyment of the thought-actiVIty that
God enjoys eternally
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 449
accordance WIth his high estimate of ethical virtue Our action
receives praise, he says, only when It concerns ethIcal quahtles, no
one IS praised on account of the supenonty of his mmd, as bemg WIse
or penetrahng or anythmg of that sort I That IS the opposite of what
Anstotle teaches In the parallel passage of the Ntcomachean and the
Eudemtan Ethtcs We are told there that man IS praIsed on account
of the quahtles of hIS mmd as well as those of hIS character Z
To Anstotle the conception of arete was not yet narrowed to the
meamng 'Virtue', as It was for common speech and for the way of
thmkmg natural to the author of the Great Ethtcs, who IS here
directly controvertmg Anstotle] The only strange thmg IS that he
IS not so consistent as entirely to deny the character of virtue to
mtellectual qualities such as phronests and sophta, but, the farther
he advances and the deeper he thmks himself IOta his model, the
more confused he becomes about the demal he had so energetically
announced Not only does he calmly retam the traditIOnal classifica-
tion of phronests, sophta, understandmg, &c , as virtues He plamly
contradicts himself 10 his detailed diSCUSSion of them (I 34) 10 refer-
ence to the Sixth book of the NtcomacheanEthtcs For he there aS5erts
repeatedly, and even seeks to prove m form, that one IS also praIsed
for valuable mtellectual quahtles, and why 4 Even stranger tv him
I Gr Eth I 5, I 185b 5 In the ratIOnal [part of the soul] anse phronests,
shrewdness, sophIa In learnIng, memory and the hke In the Irra-
banal part anse the Virtues, as they are called, temperance, Justice, courage
and whatever other aspects of character seem praiseworthy For we are called
praiseworthy on account of these But no one IS pra"ed on account of those
belongmg to the rabonal part No one IS pralbed he IS wise or because
he IS prudent or because of any quality'
Eth NtC I 13, 1103' 4 Virtue also diVided by thlb dlstmctlOn [of the
rabonal and IrratIOnal parts of the boul] For we call some of them Intellectual
and some moral-sophIa and understandmg and phroneSts mtellectual hberaiJtv
and temperance moral When we are talkmg of character we do not call a man
Wlse or understandmg but gentle or temperate, but .... e pralbe the Wlse man also
for hiS habit Praiseworthy habits we call vIrtues Similarly Fth Eud II 1
1220' 5 There are two kmds of virtue the moral and the mtellectual For we
praise not only the Just but also the understandmg and the wise'
3 In Gr Eth I 5 1I85b 5 he makes the distInctIOn m the ratIOnal part of
the soul anse phronesIs, sophta, and the hke (obvloubly bpeaklng vaguely on
purpose) , m the IrratIOnal part anse 'the vlrtueb, as they are called' Though
he Immediately afterwards relapses mto the Anstotehan usage and speaks of
Virtues of the ratIonal part', It IS qUite clear that thIS pOInt of View IS really
strange to tum That IS why he tnes to dIstingUIsh them from the real Virtues,
the ethical ones, at least by thiS mark, that they do not receive praise
It IS probably ImpOSSIble to explam thIS contradIctIOn as long as we assume
that both SIdes of It arose from the mdependent thmkmg of the author Just
as In I 34 he IS takmg the SIxth book of the N.comachean EthICS ab hIS model,
so III the contradIctory passage I 5, 1185b 5 II , he has obVIOusly copIed some
other PenpatetIc who rejected the hypothesIs of mtellectual vIrtues or at any
450 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
than the conceptIon of mtellectual 'vIrtues' IS naturally Anstotle's
VIew that there are' vIrtues' not only of the ratIOnal and IrratIonal
parts of the soul but even of the' nutntJve' part The tradItIon of
the school and the wordmg of Anstotle's compel him to men-
tIon this pecuhar vIew, but he obvIously expects no sympathy for It
from hiS hearers or reader." and declares that the question whether
such a kmd of vutue IS to be assumed had best be dropped from
ethiCS 1 As httle as he grasps the culmmatlOn of AnstotIe's ethiCS m
metaphySICS when he asks what IS domg In morals, does he
understand ItS anchonng m the teleological S} stem of nature when
he can no longer grasp human virtue the next level above the
virtue of plants and ammals
One gets defimtel}' the ImpreSSIOn that the Great IS tackmg
apprehenSIvely between the steep contradIctIOns that rent the Pen-
patetIc asunder dunng the generatIon of Anstotle's earliest
pupIls They concerned preCIsely the pomt on whIch we have found
the author vaClllatmg between mdependent CtltJusm and pupillary
fidelity to the traditIon, namely the detrrmmdtlOn of the value of
the theoretIc hfe and the' mtellectual vIrtues' In elevatIng human
lIfe, and theIr place m ethiC" We stili know the name of the enemy
WIthIn the gates who attacked Anstotle and relected hIS
hIgh estimatIon of the theoretical hfe , It was Dlc aearchus of Messene
TrddltJon makes lum In matter the polar opposIte of Theo-
phrastus, who, as AnstotIe's successor In the directIOn of the school
and hIS adherent, but also undoubtedly Ollt of hIS mnermo.,t
convIctIon., as d researcher, held fast to the doctrme of the pnmacy
of the theoretIc hfe The controversy between lum and Dlcaearchus
mllst have been celebrated, for m CIcero's tIme the contentIOn
rate demed that they were pralc,cworthy It believed that the Influence ot
thIS man IS abo to be traced In the aVOIdance 01 the Anstotehall techmcal term
Intelledual In the Great EthiCS (cf the Penpatebc v. nters on
In Stob II 137,19. but to the contrary lIB, I, and 145, 17) Later Penpatetle
ethlcc" of course the Intellectual vIrtues' as not properly and the
ethIcal' vIrtues' a., properly called ThiS departure from begInS In
the G"eat FlhlCS , or at that where we can fiTSt demonstrate It
I G" Etk I 4, II Ms" 23 . What, tben, someone may say, part of
the soul also have a vIrtue" And" 26 . Whether or not there IS a vIrtue of
part IS another On the contrary, Elh NIC I 13. 1l02
b
2 ff The
vIrtue of thIS part [I e of the nutntlve faculty of the soul] seems to be not
human but common' Etk Eud II J 121g
b
38 . Hence the vlrtucs of the nutn-
tlve and groWIng part are not of man' In both places Anstotle IS
"orkmg on the that the VIew that the nutntIve part has ItS own
pecuhar vIrtue IS perfectly current The astom"hed questIOn of the Cs"eat l:.thlCS
remInd, one In ItS Epigomc nature of the author s astol1lshment at the 1Otro-
ductIon of soph,a mto ethICS (f 34, 1197
b
28) HIS way of puttIng the questIon
aSIde IS ,Imllar to hIS way of puttmg aSIde the problem whether God thmks (,1
hImself, II J5, 1213" 7
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE .5
1
between the theoretical and the practical hves for the first rank was
shll attached to these two names I
Dlcaearchus was the PenpatetIc who declared that not but
IS the ruling power 10 the human soul, that follows neces-
sanly from the fact that he found the essence of man m actIOn, not
m contemplatIOn l He must have severed the connexlOns that Ans-
totle, following Plato, had held to eXIst between moral actIon and the
knowledge of the highest questIons, and reached the logIcal conclu-
sion of which we hear the echo In the author of the Great 'One
must wonder what has to do With ethics'. SInce the latter
concerns character and actIOn J He must have put logos after charac-
ter m slgmficance, and we can also be confident that he completely
demed the qualIty of virtue to the Intellectual powers and confined
thIS conceptIOn to ethical and political actIOn And who but he can
have been capable of that argument, most heretIcal for a PenpatetIc,
which the author of the Great cites as very remarkable the
famous conclUSIOn (of Anstotle) must be false, to the effect that God
can have no other obJert of thought than himself, because he can
thmk only the most perfect and there IS nothmg more perfect than
he Smce even d man who was entirely occupIed In the contemplation
of himself would be blamed as a heartless bemg, the Idea of a God
who contemplates himself IS absurd 4
The dissolutIon here proclaimed of Anstotle's conceptIon of the
world and of God IS based on an argument at the bottom of whIch
I CIC Ep ad All II 16 Now I have defimtely deCided that sIDce there IS
such a controversy between your associate Dlcaearchus and my fnend Theo
phrastus, yours far prefernng the practical hfe to everytlung and mme the
theoretical, I wIll appear as havlOg paid my dues to both of them I thmk I
have adequately sah.lied Dlcaearchus and I am !lOW turnmg to the school
that not only allows me to rest but rebukes me for not always resting So let
me address my.elf, dear Titus, to those famous studies, and return at l<.'st to
what I ,hould never have left '
J\ bove, pp 446-8
J Above, p 446
Theophrastns, of whom one might thmk m thiS conneXIOn, appears, how-
ever, to be out of the questIOn In ius metaphySIcal fragment he obVIously
regards C.od s activity and hI> mfluence on nature and on the motIOn, u[ the
spheres m particular, exactly as ATI,totie does In Melaph II 7 The highest
pnnclple IS 'Immovable m It.elf' , It causes the motIOn of other belOgs through
another sort of Influence, namely their' appetite' for the best For thIS they
need soul and thought, from which appetite take, Its start All the more,
therefore, IS the pnmary bemg to be conceIved as mmd, and as the thought and
WIll for the most perfect, WhiCh, however, It Itself IS 10 Its perfettIon The
expreSSIOn, 'the pnmary and most dlvme bemg, desITlng all the best thmgs',
does not m my 0plOlOn contam anythmg that goe. beyond Anstotle's doctnoe
God thmks himself as the best there IS and he must also W1U thIS goodness of
hiS On the other hand If We do away With God s thought of hImself we alter
the object of the dJvme will also a.nd gIve It another dIrectIOn
452 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
lIes the ultimately mdemonstrable value-equatlOn LIfe IS action
The selfcontemplatlon of the AnstotelIan Nus had to cease bemg
the most sublIme Ideal of human and dIvme lIfe as soon as Its earthly
model, the theoretic lIfe of the philosopher, was no longer capable,
In the actual feelIng of contemporary persons, of lustlfyIng this high
claim agamst other ways of hfe Anstotle himself had already taught
that the theoretical hfe has pre-emInence over the practIcal only
because the philosopher at the same time occupIes the hIghest level
of creative actIvIty he IS the' architect' of the Intellectual and SOCIal
world I
The more theoretical, m our sense of the word, sCience became In
the course of thiS development, the more It turned away from lIfe,
the less could It wholly appropnate Anstotle's Ideal of the theoretic
Me Through ItS onesldedness It gave prommence to the antitheSIS,
the Ideal of the practical lIfe Dlcaearchus showed the followers of
Anstotle that they were defimtely not the highest flowenng of
humamty, and that history nowhere offers us such a supremacy of
mere IntellIgence above creative actlOn
At thIS POInt our mqUlry turns back to ItS begInnmg, the anCIent
tradition about the' hfe' of the earbest phdosophers Owmg to the
radIcal change In the philosophIC Ideal of lIfe they suddenly appeared
In a wholly hew lIght DlCaearchus hImself wrote Lwes of the Phllo-
sophers Isolated fragments of them are preserved, concernmg pre-
Cisely the earber thInkers, and they show clearly how the author's
ethIcal vIew IS everywhere reflected In hiS vIew of the past The
earlIest representatives of phIlosophy are obvlOusly for hIm, too, the
representatives of an Ideal by whIch to mea.,ure the phIlosophers of
hIS own time Whoever, hke Dlcaearchus, saw the end In active bVIng
for human SOCIety would mevltably come eIther to despIse all study
altogether, or to oppose to the oneslded hfe of contemporary phIlo-
sophy the picture of a greater past In which thought had really still
possessed the power of constructive action When one looked at the
scanty accounts of the earher thmkers from thIS pomt of VIew, there
appeared, In addItion to that devotlOn to pure contemplatIon
whIch Plato and Anstotle had emphaSIZed exclUSIvely, a close con-
neXlOn With pubbc lIfe, which was strange to contemporary thInkers
and hdd not been called attention to These men had really fulfilled
III their' hves' the Ideal of Anstotle that the bearers of the highest
thought should be at the same time the' architects' of active lIfe
It was clearly mcorrect of Anstotle III the dialogue On Phllosophy to
mterpret the seven sages In modem gUIse as . sophIsts' PreCIsely
these revered personages, who had contInued to hve In the mInd
of the Greek folk down to the present time, Incorporated the most
I Pol VII 3, I32jb 23
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 453
complete umty of thought and actIon They were lawgivers and men
of pohtIcs, so Dlcaearchus declared, [ and he must have found hiS view
confirmed not merely by Solon and Plttacus, but also by Thales, for
example, whom Plato had made a pure representatIve of the theo-
retical hfe EVidence for hiS VIew was easy to collect from the best
hlstoncal sources, and also from the realm of anecdotes Tradition
connected Thales with the greatest techmcal achievements of navIga-
tion and astronomy Accordmg to a report preserved In Herodotus,
he was an engmeer In the serVICe of Kmg Croesus when the latter led
hiS army agamst the Medes , and by a special deVice was able to show
how to divert the nver Halys and lower ItS level, In order to put the
Lydldn army across It without bndge or boat 1
Though Herodotus as a ratlOnahstIc cntIc doubted the trust-
worthmess of the report, Thales obvIOusly was to the Greek people
In general a practical man rather than an otherworldly scholar As
statesman, too, he had taken part In the hfe of the loman cIties, for
Herodotus has heard of hiS adVICe to the Iomans to make a common
parhament and place It on the Island of Teas, which la) In the middle
of the loman Cities, and to subordInate the preVIOusly Independent
CItIes to thiS central control as members of a umfied state ThiS
tradition gives him a pohtIcal reputation reachIng far beyond hIS
own uty , and It IS certaIn, though not expressly handed down to us,
that Dlcaearchus did not let thiS and Similar traits escape him J
In the tradition of late antiqUIty concernIng the earher thInkers
we find reports of thiS kmd, and completely opposite traits mtended
to prove that the great sages were absorbed In <;Clence and umnter-
ested In practice, occurnng Side by Side, for the most part qUIte
peacefully, as befits the compIlatory character of DlOgenes and the
sources akIn to him 4
I Fragm H,st Graee vol II, p 243 Mueller (frg 28) DlOg I 40 D[caearcl!us
says they were neIther WIse men nor phIlosophers, but lawgIvers and men of
understandmg ,
Z The crossmg of the Halys, Herod I 75 (VOl'S' IT. A 6) That the Penpato.
adopted the tradItIon of Thales' astronomy [S sho"n by Eudemus frg 94
Spengel It occurs already m Herod I 74
J Herod I I70(VOl'S'IT,A4) DlOg I 25(l'ors'rr AI)ascnbestofhale'
abo the polItIcal adVIce to the MIlesIans to reject the allIance offered to them
by Croesus, WhICh saved them later when Cyrus was at war WIth Croesus
4 fhus ImmedIately after the story of 1 hales' polItIcal adVIce (see the pre-
VIOUS note) we read that Heraciides of Pontus (frg 47 Voss) made Thale',
ObVIOU,ly 10 the same sort of way as he made Pythagoras hlm,elf tell of hIS
prevIOUS mcamabons (DIOg VIII 4), ,ay of hImself that Ite was an mdlvIduahst
and lIved for himself Kal That, of course, fits only the
theoretIc lIfe One IS remmded of Anstotle's desLnptIon of hImself as 'bolItary
and Isolated' (avTh'lS Kal 1l0VCoJT'lS frg 668 Rose), on whIch Demetnus re-
marks In mterpretabon the IsolatIOn mdlcates a more mdlvIdualIstic habit'
&c (TO yap Ilovw-n,s 11.."mKc.lTtpou !6ous f)21'l !errl KTA) That explams the
454 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
We may WIth great probablhty suppose, what we can still directly
prove m the case of the seven sages, that the reports whICh make the
early philosophers lawgivers, pohtlCIans, and practical men, were
first mtroduced mto the stream of the tradition by Dlcaearchus
Such are the accounts emphaslzmg the active part taken m pohtlcal
hfe by Anaxlmander, Parmemdes, Zeno, Mehssus, and especially
Empedocles I
Thmker'> of the type of Anaxagoras and Democntus naturally fell
mto the background for Dlcaearchus as defimtely as they had occu-
pied the middle posItion for the adherents of the contemplative hfe
Their practical cosmopohtamsm made them necessanly unattractive
to him For Herachtus It was not difficult to reveal the pohtIcal Side
association of With ID Herachdes Perhaps AnstoUe actually
had the latter m mmd To Herachdes Thales was Just selfevldently a
typical representative of the theoretic llfe as was Pythagoras, of whom he
relates the conversatIOn With the tyrant Leon of PhlIus (see above, p 432)
I AnaXlmander led a colony from to Apolloma on the (Von 6
12, A 3) Parmemdes gave to hiS fellOW-CItizens (Ibid 28, A 1 = Dlog IX
23) Zeno was a fanatical partisan of freedom and a member of the conspiracy
agamst the tyrant Nearchus (others give the name as 'DlOmedon' or 'Demy-
Ius '), he mamtamed pohtJcal attItude on the rack (VOTS 6 29 A 1 =DlOg IX
26, 29 A Mehssus was a and led the m the war
Pencles as naval commander (VOTS 6 30, A 1-2) The tradition IS particularly
detailed about Empedocles' polItical activity (Ibid 31, A 1 DlOg VIII 63 ff )
ThiS goes back to the aCtiVIty of whom we shall meet below
the transmitter of the Dlcaearchan traditIOn about the pohtlCal activity of
Pythagoras The accounts themselves are certainly In part older than Dlcae-
archus the one about Parmemdes' lawglvmg quoted from the On
Ph.losopheTs of who was probably lookmg for a precedent for
Plato s Similar efforts But there must once have been some mdlvldual hls-
tonan of phIlosophy who presented the thinkers m the hght of
theIr pohtical and practical lIfe and collected the of thiS kind and such
an Interest In the prdctical lIfe of the phJ1osophers m particular IS not lIkely to
have eXisted In anyone but the man who found the greatness of the earher
thmkers In their pracbcallntluence above all, and dealt With them only for thiS
reason-DIcaearchus It IS not for nothmg that we find thiS member of the
earlIest Penpatos not, I1ke Theophrastus, Eudemus, and Meno, among the
doxographers but mterested only In the lIves of the But what
IS called 'bIOgraphy' did not anse out of mere In indiVidualIty as such
It sought ID the lIfe of the indiVidual representatives the expressIOn of the type,
of that which phIlosophical ethiCS understood by or 'lIfe', and the vanebes
of which It developed Whether, and how far, the collectIOn of polItically active
phIlosophers and thelf deeds m Plutarch, A dv Colot C 32, goes back dlfectly or
mdlrectly to D,caearchus cannot be determmed The hst embraces the phIlo-
sophers down to Anstotle and Theophrastus, but It lacks preCisely the seven
sages and who are known to have been Important for Dlcaearchus
And that he would have mentioned Theophrastus as a representative of the
pohbcal lIfe IS Improbable, espeCially as the reason that Plutarch gives for hun
as for Anstotle lIttle, and both of them seem to be added more for the
sake of completeness
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 455
In his thought, and to show that he was not a pure physlC'1st, although
he felt hImself detached from the polItH.al hfe of his own Cit} Tile
philosophy of Socrates and Plato had a directly political mtention
Dlcaearchus seems, however, to have regarded the Ideal type of
philosophical reformer and lawgiver as bemg reahzed m Pythagoras
rather than m Plato Through the work of the PenpatetIc.s and of
the Academy Pythagoras had long been In the centre of
mterest, and concemmg him there flared up now an all the more
VIVId stnfe of opmIOns, the more vaguely and hiS Image
flICkered In the oral tradItion
In the middle and the second half of the fourth century Be the
name' Pythagorean' referred to two entirely different groups of men
When Anstotle speaks repeatedly of the' so called
he means the sClentilic CIrcle of Arch) tas of Tarentum, With whom
Plato had had personal mtercourse He seems, however, to have
possessed no defimte mdlcatIOns as to how far back thiS traditIOn
went In southern Italy, still less to have considered It permlsslblr to
refer ItS begmmngs to Pythagoras hImself, after whom the Circle
named Itself But another sort of men also called , Pytha-
goreans', men whose peculiar way of hVIng IS often mocked m the
MIddle Comedy, and must therefore have been known to the people
at that time ThIS was a stnctly ascetic and pIOUS order that denved
Its relIgIOUS symbols and Ideas from and honoured him
the founder of a relIgIOn and a worker of I
QUite early, III the fourth century at late!>t, we find these two con-
ceptIOns of Pythagoras at war WIth each other, and naturally the
two groups, which then, at any rate, had nothmg In LOmmon and
therefore mIght have eXisted peaceably Side by were dnven by
theIr descnptIon .I.e, 'Pythagoreans' or 'Pythagonsts' lI.to contro-
versy to whic h were the dl:'scendants of the genume Pythal!oras
and whoe,e attitude the truly Pythagorean one Arch} LiS'
mathematical and astronomlLal school appears r,ot to have folluwed
that C'ommandment to ab!>tam from meat and some Clther foods that
was sacred to the other party, and presumably It was they who mtro-
duced the verSIOn accordmg to which Pythagoras did not preach
abstmenC'e To them also must be due the assignment of certam of
then fundamental SClentIfic notIons and of particular mathematical
and phySIcal propoSItIons to the person of z
I See the fundamental dISCUSSIOns of ErwIn Rohde In hIS artIcle' DIe
Quellen des Iambhchus m semer DlOgtaphle des (Kletne Schnjlen,
vol II, pp 102 ff) Rohde explaInS the eXIstence of the two movements as due
to a split In the school, and thus makes them to have been both UnIted In the
personality of Pythagoras Similarly J Burnet, Early Greek PhIlosophy', p 86
The eVIdence of the ComIc poets collected In Dlels s , 58, E, P '47
8
The representative of thiS worldly conceptIOn of IS Anstoxenus,
456 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
These sCientIfic students could not but find It distasteful to thmk
of their founder as a wandenng medlcme-man and miracle-worker
Their conception was best SUIted by the picture of Pythagoras as the
founder of the theoretic life, a picture which we first came across m
Heraclides of Pontus But howwas one to explam the fact that men of
such different types denved their Ideals of life from one and the same
founder TIus problem was by no means solved by the two confhct-
mg conceptions of Pythagoras' personality Not until Dlcaearchus
put forward hiS pomt of view did It seem to clear up To Dlcaearchus
It was easy to see m the archaic thmker not a mere theonst m the
modem style, but a lawgiver and founder of states, who made both
rehglOn and knowledge serve creatively m the establishment of hfe
We do actually find m our late and entuely legendary tradition
about the life of Pythagoras, whose chief representatives, the Neo-
Platomsts Iamblichus and Porphyry, reproduce at second or third
hand old sources hke Anstoxenus, Heraclides, and Dlcaearchus, a
third picture m addition to those of the student and the mlracle-
monger, namely that of the lawgiver and founder of states Although
It IS qUIte uncntlcally mtermmgled With the other two, some
thoroughly charactenstlc traits are expressly referred to DlCaearchus,
and they confinn Erwm Rohde's conjecture that Dlcaearchus made
Pythagoras mto an Ideal picture of the practical hfe as he himself
taught It and tned to realize It m hiS own person I In domg thiS he
must have been especially encouraged by the example of the Pytha-
gorean Archytas, who was also statesman and student both 2
From DlCaearchus comes our traditIon that when Pythagoras
arrived at Croton m South Italy he was commissIOned by the counCIl
to give educatIOnal politIcal addresses to the men, the women, and
the children, of the city And although Anstoxenus preceded DlCae-
archus m declanng that Pythagorean Ideas had had a great mfluence
on political relatIOns m southern Italy and SICily, we can show that
Dlcaearchus adopted thiS view and tned to establish It more exactly
m detail The politIcal conception of the mfluence of Pythagoras
found espeCially welcome fuel m the traditIon that the order suffered
a VIOlent catastrophe because of It<; growmg politIcal unpopulanty
and the master fled to Metapontum] But now the politIcal mter-
and In thiS he was followmg accordmg to Gell IV J J 7 (Fragm Hist Graec,
vol II p 273 Mueller=Anstox frg 7), the view of hiS Pythagorean SCientific
fnends (et Rohde, op Cit P lOB)
I !>ee Rohde op Cit, P J 10 In modern times Dlcaearchus view has been
reVived by Knsche, De SOC1etatls a Pvthagora condltae scopo pOlttlCO, 1830
, See George Grote HIstory of Greece vol IV, p 405
3 For Dlcaearchus on the vanous bpeeches of Pythagoras at Croton, see
Porphyry's Vlt Pyth, 18, 19 The wording of the speeches IS gIven by
Iambhchus, Vlt Pyth, 37-57, from another source In which these speeches
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 457
ventIOn of Pythagoras ill Croton on hIS arnval In southern Italy
would have come wIthout any transItion after the mIracle-hungry
were freely Invented from the indIcatIons gIven by Dlcaearchus (see Rohde,
op cit. P 132, who mfers that Tlmaeus ongInated the speeches) Dlcaearchus
frg 31, Mueller also presupposes that Pythagoras mtended polItIcal reforms,
for It says that, when Pythagoras 10 hIS fhght from Croton came to Locn, the
Locnans sent to the frontIer to tell illm that they valued hIS wIsdom,
but they hd.d no objectIOn to theIr and no mtentlOn of altenng the eXlsong
condItIon of the state, so would he please dIrect hIS steps plsewhere The
account of the leglslaove mfluence of the Pythagoreans on the cloes of
and southern Ital} dIffers In Porphyry, 21, and 130 (the latter
repeated 172 wIth only mmor vanatIons) an mtermedlary source for what
Dlcaearchus had saul about the addresses to the Crotornates, Porphyry used
Nlcomachus 20), and obVIOusly borrowed from hIm also the sectIon on the
leglslatwn of the Pythagoreans m the CIties of SIcIly and Magna Graecla, whIch
follows ImmedIately and IS very connected wIth the precedIng both
logically and verbally Nlcomachus got thl' sectIOn ( 21) not from Dlcaearchus
but from I e from a source of equd.l age and value Porphyry
hImself says thiS 10 22, so far as concerns the poIJtlcal mfluence exerted on the
Lucamans, Messaplans PeuLeoans, and Romans, that the surroundIng
barbanans, from whIch It follows that It IS also true of the prevIOusly listed
Greek cItIes of Magna (,raecla and SIcIly Now Porphyry, followmg Anstoxenus
tells us that the gave laws to Croton, Sybans, Catana, Rheglum,
Hlmera Acraga,,1auromemum and other Lltles, and he ascnbes all of the>e
laws to two Pythagorean persons Charondas and Zaleucus
Iambhchus, on the other hand, reports 130) that Charondas gave laws to
latana, for Locn he names a certam (or Tlmaratu, 172) In addItIon
to ZaJeucus, for Rheglum, obVIOusly baSing on l.OplOUS local tradltJons.
he begm, WIth the or founder ThucJes Thuc VI 3. 3), and name,
a whole lIst of persons who were connected WIth changes In the constitutIOn,
130 PhytlUs, Hehcaon, and 10 172 (where Thucles I' mlssmg)
Theaetetus also It cannot be that Anstoxenus' ongInal versIOn contained
these same detads and Porphyry (or hIS 10termedlary Nlcomachus) merely
made careless excerpts IamblIchus mu,t be here foUowmg ,orne other
than Anstoxenus and Porphyry That version was olJ and Intact
eVIdenced by Anstotle's catalogue of lawgIvers, willch, I have prevlUl<sly
shown (Entsteh d Metaph, P 45 and Anstotle, above, p 285) a subsequent
appendiX to the becond book of the Pol,tus We read there (1274" 22) that
Zaleucus was lawglver to Ioen, and Charondas was IdwgIver to Catana 'and
the other Chalcldlan Lltles In Italy and SiCily' (Porphyry's language IS less
precIse, but he obVIOusly means the bame when he designates and
lharondas together as the ongmators of all lawgIVing 10 SICily and
Italy) For IamblIchus local traditIon about the lawgivers of RheglUm we
must therefore ,eek some other source than An,toJtenus, and 10 the Circum-
stances that can only be an author as wellmformed about the nelghbounng City
as the Messeman Dlcaearchus, who IS one of Iambhchus' sources and also as
was shown above, often one of Porphyry's 10 addItion to Anstoxenus The
erudItion of An,totle , catalo,::ue of lawgIvers about and Ch,orondas,
whIch gIves them so much WIder an mfluence than do Dlcaearchus and IamblI-
chus, IS certainly drawn from Anstoxenus, for he wrote early willie thiS appen-
diX was added to the book qUIte late He tells us In Iambl 233 that he
heard the btory of the devotIOn of the two Pythagoreans, Damon and Phlntlas
(known to us from Schdler's balldd Die Burgschaft). from the mouth of the
458 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
account of hIS study-travel m Egypt and the East, and would have
lacked all motIve m the hIstory of his youth and educatIon, had not
Iambhchus and Pompems Tragus mserted between hIs return from
these long lourneys and his arrIval In southern Italy a furthefJourney
to Crete and Sparta, wIth the oblect of StudylOg the laws of Mmos
and Lycurgus I
ThIS verSIOn, whIch IS obVIOusly a subsequent attempt to make a
place for the politIcal element ill the course of Pythagoras' educatIon,
denves hiS socIal pedagogical Ideals from the model of the two claSSIcal
Donan constItutIons Smce It IS a necessary presuppOSItIOn of the
mterventIon of Pythagord.s 10 Croton as depIcted 10 DlCaearchus'
account of hiS addresses there, we are compelled to a!.sume that the
Journey to Crete and Sparta also comes from DlCaearchu!. And thiS IS
rendered the more probable by the analogy of hIS conceptIOn of Plato
In a passage of Plutarch which, I tlunk. IS usually mcorrectly under-
stood, we read that Plato obVIously amalgamated Lycurgus no less
than Pythagoras WIth the teachmg of Socrates, d.S Dlcaearchus
belIeved 2 ThiS mterpretatlOn of Plutarch's word!. assumes only a
tyrant DlOnyslUs himself, 'when he had hiS throne and teachmg letters
m Connth' (He was dnven out of Syracuse by DlOn m 354) The tale IS per-
fectly credible and thoroughly In the manner of An;toxenus, elsewhere too he
takes pleasure In such personal (;ee above, p 434, n 3, and
also hiS story of hiS lather Spmtharus charmmg of Archytas,
Iambl ,op Cit, 197) For the rest, the present case teaches u, that Dlcae-
archus, a learned PenpatetIc, did not ;Imply pick h., pohtIcal conceptIOn of
the earher thmker; out of the air, but eveT}where dre.... from good sourceb
Thus, m regard to Pythagora" he was obVIOusly preceded by An;toxenu" WIth
whom he had tIes of fnendshlp and to whom he was probably Indebted for
sugge;tlOn; In pohtIcal theory too (Similarly by 5peuslppus m regard to the
pohtJcal actIvity of Parmemdes ,ee above p 454)
I lambhchu" op Cit z5 mentIOns the Journey to Crete and Sparta only
bnefly after hIS long account of tho,e m hgypt and the East, but that It wa;
e<jually firmly rooted In the earlier traditIOn IS shown by 1-'ompem, 1rogus
(JustIn, f.fJItome, X),. 4) Returnmg thence he out Crete and 1 ace-
daemon, m order to ascertam the laws of Mmos and Lycurgus, whIch were
famous at that tIme Havmg learned all the'e thmg" he came to Croton '
There follow the to the CrotoDlates a; accordIng to Dlcaearchu, (cf
Porph, 18) But ]u,tm obVIOusly knows theIT content already and repro-
duces It m catchword style The decoratIve development of Dlcaearchu;'
account and the free composItIon of the addresses must therefore have already
eXIsted In the source of Pompem,-]ustm Rohde showed that ItS ongInator
wa; Tlmaeus, who therefore made of (Kleme Schnften vol u,
p ThIS IS al,o eVIdent because as an hlstonan, was positively
obliged by the ;tyle of genre to Invent speeches freely 11maeus much
by PompeJUs Trogus That the at the end of the chapter on p} tha-
goras (the conversIOn of Pythagoras' house mto a temple ]ustm, XX 4 18)
goes back to T,maeus lS shown by Porphyry, op CIt 4, and IS the most Impor-
tant eVidence for Rohde s hypothe,..
Z Plut QuaeSI ConVJV Vlll 2, z (frg 27 Mueller) aAA Tl 0"01
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 459
small change In the text, without which It would mean Plato mixed
Socrates With Lycurgus, and not merely, as Dlcaearchus belIeved,
with Pythagoras The speaker In Plutarch's dialogue would then be
expressIng thiS as hiS own view and as an additIon to that of Dlcae-
archus Mere fiddlIng With the constructIon of the sentence Will
hardly get us near the truth, but what the sense demands seems to
me clear Dlcaearchus was precisely the hlstonan of philosophy who
had everywhere brought the polItical Side mto prommence There
was no need to quote him for the opInIOn common throughout anti-
qUity that Plato's philosophy was a mixture of Socratic and Pytha-
goreanlsm That was m ArIstotle, and had been the unIversal
convictIon of the PlatoDlC and PenpatetIc school from the begmnmg I
The special nuance that Dlcaearchus added to thiS conventional view
can only he m the asserted relatIOn of the theoretIcal philosopher to
the practical statesman and lawgiver, 10 which naturally he was
thmkmg espeCially of Plato's Laws That the great pohtIcal thmker
'>hould find hiS model m Lycurgu'>' expert creatIOn IS charactenstIc
of Dlcaearchus' mmd In two ways He regarded Sparta as realIZing
that mixed constitutIOn In whICh he saw the Ideal (That
Plutarch IS referrmg to the mixed constItution seems to Die to be
clearly revealed by hiS next sentence, and to confirm the present
mterpretatlOn of the passage)1 But especially Dlcaearchlc I'> the
6 [lAch"w Kal oh<lo. al.lnOIJ.OO; AtA'l8V, ciTE 111) "Ta. :rWKpO:TE1 "TO. t\UI<oupyo. OvC1\.lIyvv\"
oux i'}nov " "TO. nveayopav, (<0><;) OJE"tO lllKalapxoo; 'But don't you thmk that
Plato IS hinting at somethmg that you nearly and you have over-
looked It, when be ll1JXes v.lth Socrates not merely Pythagoras but also
as Dlcaearchus thought' The 1OsertlOn of IS due to the
only one who has looked at textual questIOn correctly 10 ItS Intellectual
conneXlOn With Dlcaearchus' view as a whole In the reconstructIOn of which
he has acquIred the highest ment Bernardakls adapted mto the text
Mueller declares that he cannot see why WS IS necessary, which natUlally
abohshes the reference of Dlcaear<.hus to Lycurgus So 1\1 Fuhr before him,
DtcaearchJ Mess quae supersunt, Darmstadt, 11138, p 58
I In.,tead of further I Will quote for thiS merely Anstotle, Metaph
A 6, 987" 29 'After the above phIlosophies came the work of Plato, wluch In
most agreed WIth these men but also had some pecuhantIes dlstmct
from the of the Particularly close v.a5 the relatlOn of the
other Platomsts to the especially SpeuSlppuS, Xenocrates,
Herachdes, and Philip of Opus In sa}'lng that Plato made U5e of Pythagoras,
D,caearchus, of course, mu,t have meant that he made use of the Pythagorean
school, since there were no wntlngs by Pythagoras HIS assertIOn IS therefore
none other than the prevallmg opmlOn In the Academy and the Penpatos
Plutarch could never have fallen mto quoting thiS particular man for that
purpose, especially With the cautions expression Dlcaearchus thought, as If It
were a conJecture and not the most well known hlstoncal fact Plato's r('labon
to the Pythagoreans has recently been exammed by E Frank and 5hown to be
very posItive (Plato 'lmd dIe sogenannten Pythagorur, Halle 19
2
3)
2 Dlcaearchu5, frgs 21-3 Mueller Cf Fuhr, op Cit P 29 PoJyblUS adopted
460 ON THE ORIGIN AND CYCLE OF
VIew that the nonns and arrangements of human hfe are never and
nowhere ongmally created by theoretical phuosophy, but have
always been the work of the states and theIr lawgIvers, and that all
phIlosophers have drawn theu Ideas from thIS hlstoncal reahty We
read these VIews 10 the mtroductIon to CIcero's malO work of pohtIcal
phuosophy, 10 whIch Dlcaearchus' opmlOns contmue to exerClse an
mfluence 10 numerous other ways too I
ThIS IS the background that teaches us how to understand Dlcae-
archus' effort to brmg Plato close to Lycurgus, and It makes It as
good as certam that the relatIOn whIch the tradItion m Iambhchus
and PompelUs Trogus sets up between Pythagoras and the laws of
Mmos and Lycurgus IS also denved from Dlcaearchus' VIew
Here we conclude The pecuhar phenomenon from whIch our
dISCUSSIOn began, the contradIctory hghts m whIch the tradItion puts
the hfe of the earher phIlosophers, now as theoretIcal and now as
practIcal, has revealed Itself as a reflectIOn of the development of the
Ideal of the phIlosophIc hfe from Plato to Dlcaearchus ThIS develop-
ment WIth ItS vanous stages was mIrrored m men's VIew of the past
It IS no new dIscovery that all genume hIstory, If It IS not mere raw
matenal but a fonned mtellectual pIcture of the past, receIves the
deCISIve stImuh for ItS shapmg and ItS selectIOn of facts from the
effectIve mner centre of the hfe of the beholder The pIcture of
hIstory IS therefore shaped anew by every new age That IS doubly
true of the Greeks, to whom hIstory was never the mere ascertam-
ment of what had once happened, but always took shape m the mmd
of the histonan through some Ideal that mformed hIm or some great
both Dlcaearchus' doctnne of the rmxed constitutIOn and the Lycurgan state
its claSSIC example VI 3. 8, and VI 10 Plut Quaesl Convzv VIn 2, 2
(p 719 B) charactenzes the Lycurgan state qUIte clearly rn accordance WIth
Dicaearchus conceptIOn of Sparta a constitutIOn cpmpounded of democracy,
anstocracy and krngshIp, so that It IS perfectly clear that thiS was the ground
on whrch Dicaearchus had asserted that Lycurgus mfluenced Plato They
wanted to make a constltutron that took as Its baSIS not the external mechanrcal
equalIty but the proportIOnal equalrty (suum curque) of men, whIch alone fits
a 'temperate olIgarchy' and a 'constitutIOnal Srnce equalIty rn
whatever form constItutes the democratic element we have here the three
elements of Dicaearchus' Ideal state
I CIC De Rep I 2, 2 'Everythmg that phIlosophers have saId, If It IS well
and truly said. was begotten and confirmed by who have given laws to
states' That thiS and the followmg sentences denve from Dicaearchus can
only be asserted here WIthout further proof I hope soon to be able to give the
proof In another conneXIon, but the thing IS really eVIdent enough In Itself
For the supenonty of polrtrcal to phIlosophIcal actrvlty Cicero op Cit I 7, 12,
quotes the example of the greatest phrlosophers. who-lIke Plato-devoted
themselves at any rate to the problem of the state, and espeCially of the seven
sages, who, he says, were almost all Immersed In polrtlcallrfe Here, too, he IS
draWing on Dlcaearchus (et frg 28 Mueller)
THE PHILOSOPHIC IDEAL OF LIFE 4
61
and general mSlght that it revealed to him The trawtIon concernmg
the personalIties and ways of livIng of the earlier thmkers, largely
anecdotal and legendary, often purely oral, prOVided a plastic
matenal almost waxy soft for the expresslOn of the changmg Wlsh-
pictures of philosophical ethiCS If the whole value of this traditIon
lay only m Its store of so called hlstoncal facts, we should have to
resign ourselves to Its bemg slight, as our own exammatIon of Its
ViCIssItudes has shown, but it remams Important for all times because
of the store of Ideas that itS varIOus creators have Immortahzed m It
The philosophical movement, whose reflectlOns In the traditIons
about the earliest thmkers we have followed, presents a tram of
thought possessmg remarkable necessity Each step of the way
follows mevltably from the precedmg, and their order could not be
changed Without dlstortmg the direction of motlOn mto a zigzag
The sequence constitutes an mdependent sectIon of the development
of Greek culture We do ItS Importance less than Justice If we regard
It only as a piece of more or less Inslgmficant history of the philo-
sophIcal schools It IS necessary not merely m that the mdIVldual
vlewpomts follow logically one from the other, but also m that the
poSSibilities mherent m the human mmd are exhaustively revealed
m them At first we find Socrates and Plato lmkmg the moral world
to the philosophical knowledge of bemg Then m Dlcaearchus'
practical Ideal, Ide and ethiCS are entirely Withdrawn agam from the
rule of hIgh philosophical speculation and restored to mdependence,
and the danng wmg of speculative thought IS pmlOned With It
fades the power of the Ideal of theoretic hfe When we meet It there-
after It IS always the world of . pure sCience' and contrasted as such
With the hfe of practice Or else we find lame compromises such as
the so called' synthetic hfe' or I3los aVv6Fros, whIch IS actually a
mere external JuxtapoSItIon of the theoretical and practical livf''<
Not until the destructIOn of SCIentific philosophy and metaphySICS
by sceptiCIsm could the theoretic hfe achieve ren,'wal. now m the
religIOUS form of the contemplative hfe, whIch has been the monastic
Ideal smce Philo's work of that name It is worth notlcmg that the
Romans, when they mcorporated claSSical Greek phl1osophy mto
their culture,left the Ideal of the phl1osophlc hfe behmd There were
mdeed always mdlvidual personal behevers who Jomed m the poet's
praise
Fehx qUI potmt rerum cognoscere causas
But, when CIcero m hiS books On the State und,ertook to gIve Greek
phl1osophy a fixed place m the whole of Roman culture, he could
combme the polItical SpInt of hiS people With Greek sCience only by
wsregardmg hiS deep reverence for Plato and AnstotIe and adoptmg
Dicaearchus' ideal of the pohtIcal hfe
Gg
INDEXES
SUBJECTS
Academy, II, 13 If , 95 f, 113, 172,
178 190 216 226, 242 n 1, 296,
306 ff 315,316 f , 330, 336 f, 373
376, 394 f , mterest m the CyzI-
ceman school, 17, 'orgamzatlOn of
sciences' m, 18, classl1icabons 10,
19, an ethical society, 23, wntmg
of dialogues In 27, and the school
of Isocrates, 37, pohtlcal actiVIbes
of, 54, tnpartlte diVISIOn of phtlo-
sophy, 84, 216, and the theory of
Forms, 93, and Socrates, 96 f , cult
of Pythagoras 97 455, Speuslppus'
succesSIOn In, 110 f , mterest 10 the
anent, 131 f , and the begmwngs
of the phIlosophy of reiIglOn, 157,
rehglOus attitude of 161, pro-
gramme for rehglOus reform, 165,
diSCUSSIOns 01 Spartan and Cretan
msbtubons, 286, diSCUSSIOns of
cosmology, 300 f , estranged from
Anstotle, 312, and the Ideal of the
theoretIc lIfe 431 ff
ActIOn, moral, 83 f
A mor De, see Eros
Analogy, mlerence from, 147 f
AnalytIcal thought 369 ff
Ananke, 48, 122, 153 n 2
Angels see Spmts of the air
Antioch, 4II
Apolhnlsm, 131
A rei! &pn1\, II 8, 448 1 (See IJlso
Virtue)
Anstotehamsm Onental and OCCI-
dental charactenzed 5
Art, 371 , between nature
and 74 75 n I, 76, ambigUity 01
the word, 262 n 3
AscetICism 40 99, J94
ASSOS,III,1I4f 172f 189190,256,
258,286 287 288 290 318,3241,
440 n I
Astrahsm, Onental, 165
Astronomy 17 20 IJ2, 140, 155,
33
6
f , 345, 350, 43
1
Atarneus, 288 If
Athens, 3II ff
Becommg, 48 f, 141, 151 190, 200
Bemg, 19, 22, 48 1, 82 1, 84 n I, 177,
185, 202 If , 215 f, 372, 430 f (See
tJlso cM:rIat )
Birds, 146 n I
Catastrophes, Plato's theory of, 71 f'
137
Categones, Anstotle's doctnne of, 41,
420 4
6
375
Causes, Anstotle's doctnne 01, 173,
295
1
Cebes' TlJblet, 55
Chalels, 319 f 323
Character, "80'1. 84
Classl1icaLon, In the Academy, 19 f
contlnUlty 01, 51
Contemplation, 731, 75, 78, 81, 239
Contemplative life, see Theoretic hie
Contranes, 42
IJ9, 1401, 153 n 2, 154
Creation Plato's story 01, m the
T,mlJeus 18 140, MosaiC account
01 134 n I
Cycles of truth IJO, 133, 137
Cyzlceman school 17
DehberatlOn 1')2
Delphi J20, 325
Dialectic, 47, 8J, 84 n 2, 216
Dialogue as a form 27 ff
Disharmony, 40 ff
DtSsectlOns 336
Dithyramb, 13
DIVInatIOn, 159 n I, 161 f, 2401,
JJ3
1
Dlvme, the, 1')8, 164, 235 346
Doxographlcal tradition, 426 ff ,
452 If , 460 f
Duahsm, 133, 136, 174, 226
EducatIOn Isocratean method ai, 56,
581 , m detatled research, 337 ff
Elements 20 f , 44 n I, 94, 143 ff , 191
Ens perfectlSSJmum, 190, 222
Entelechy, 45, 383 ff
Epicureans Epicurean school, EpI-
cureamsm, 128 137 f, 318, 373,
400, 404, 424
Eros, IJ, 108 n 2
Erythrae, treaty With Hermlas, 112
Essence, 94, 202, 345 1 (See tJlso
oualat )
Ether theory of 137, 140, 14] ff ,
153, 301, 348, defined as God,
IJ8 f theologlcal use 01. 14311 In
the EpmomlS 144, the filth or the
first body I 144, A 's reasons lor.
153, A's development of, 154, ID
the Academy, 300 1
Idea Ideas theory of fonn and
matter, 13, 301 f. 382 fI ,dIscussed
10 the Academy, 14 16 95. 128.
358 n I, obJecbons to, ID the Par-
menIdes, 16, Eudoxus' suggested
alteratIOn m, 17, Plato's notIon of
the mdlvldual as the lowest form,
19, A 's cnbclsm of, 33, 35, 86
125 ff, 138 ff 171 ff 2IJ ff, 234
255, 377 ff , by Cephlso-
dorus, 37, the !>oul an Idea 45 f
mamtamed by A 52, go ff , the
apprehensIon of the Forms, 80,
Plato's theory of 115. beIng
and value 10 the theory of the
Forms, 8J. mathemabcal stage of
the theory 87, 132 261, the world
of Forms as detemlloate, 87, ter-
minology 91 172, the Idea as
nature Itself, 93, final form of the
theory 9,.. the dlvme Form of
human VIrtue, 109, SpeUSlppUS'
attitude towards the theory. lIT.
the theory at Assos, 1I5, 172. as
Ideals, 118, A s unmoved mover as
pUre Form, I'll f . the longlng of
senSIble thlOgs for the Idea, 142
nature as a realm of graded Forms.
158, a dead problem, 177, do the
Ideas truly eXISt? 195, 392. and
A 's philosophy of fnendshIp.
ff. and A's VIew that the
Form IS Immanent, 301 n I.
totahty of the Form the obJect of
natural phIlosophy, 339, A 's con-
cepbon of 'unmattered form'.
340 fA's' form' as the Idea Intel-
lectualIZed 372, the nouon of form
the cenmJ pomt of A s phIlosophy.
43
Ideal numbers. doctnne of, 126. 191 f
HapplDess, ,.8, 78. 232. 234 f. 2H f
277 II , 28,. n 2. 375 f
Harmony. 40 11
HIppocratic school, HIppocratIc wnt-
lOgs. 44 n I. 408, "16 "17. 419.
"24
HIstory A's concepbon of hIs own
hlstoncal pOSItIon, 3, the hiStory
of WIsdom, 128, the Great Year,
130 136, the hIstory ofthe SCIences,
335, ItS anglO 10 systematic con-
slderabons, 402, the umverse has
no hIstory, 389
Humamsts, Humamsm. 5. 6, 267
Fire 143 154
Fue-ammals, 144 ff
'Fust thmgs', see 1TpC>Ta
Form, Forms. theory of see Idea.
Ideas, theory of
Fonn hterary Anstotle's,6 78, 170,
Plato s, 6, 78 Hellemsbc rheton-
clans' concept of, 6
Free wIll, 152 153
Fnendshlp, 243 fi, 376 (Seo also
Phlha. 1Tp<JTTl ,.>.la)
Galaua. 412
Gnosls. 164
God, 221, 346 A 's conception of. 84
n J, IJ8 fl 239 ff , the measure
of all thmgs, 88, 242 f , A 's con-
centration on the problem of, IS6 n
I, arguments for the eXlstence
of, 157 ff , knowledge and contem-
platlon of, 2"2 ff, f]6, the umty
of the world, 385, the object of
hIS own thought, 448. 451
Good, the. 87 f , 13", 190 260 f , 393,
434
Good the hIghest, ,.8, 8,. n I 190
23
6
24
2
, 255. 393
464 INDEXES
EUucs Anstotehan, 83 ff, ch IX Goods dIVISIOn of. 2,.7 f, 277. doc-
pfUn"., 332 f, 390 II , of the early mne of. 57. 73. 8,., 99 234. 217
A , 85, Plato's Ideal of geometncal, Gradation, pnnClple of, 67, IS8
85 ff A 's early ethIcs In relation Great Year. I5S, 389
to the Plnlebus 87 II . amalgama-
tion of WIth ontology, 94, Apolhn-
Ism and Socratlclsm the two foclof.
131, InteJIDedlate posItIOn of the
Eude".lan El1llcs 2J2 II, the
change of method, 233, structure
of A 's early ethICS developed from
the Prolrep'lCus. 236 f . theonomlc.
240 , self-love. 245 ,A S dlilerenba-
tlon 01, from polItiCS, 276, Its mde-
pendence In the Academy, 373,
395, A 's unIfication of the prob-
lems of, 375 f . the Greek obJecti-
ficatIOn of 390 fl. ethIcal and
mteUectuahstlc ethICS, 396, Plato
renders the state ethIcal 398 f
becomes a mere 'part' of philo-
sophY.434 A 's separatIOn of, from
metaphysIcs, 435. 438 and the
theoretic Me, 438 ff
Etruscan pirates Slml1e of the, 100
Exactitude, 47, 88 n 4, 89, 261.
demand for 10 the ProlrepllcuS, 71 ,
as an Ideal 10 A s early Hhlcs and
pohtlcs 76, 85 ff afterwards re-
Jected, 232 ff , In the MetaphYSICS
339, 35
0
ExhortatIOn, 55 if 72 n 1
INDEXES
220 n 3, 234, 297 n 2 (See also
Numbers)
Ideal state, ch x pass,m
Imitation, 91 ff
Immanent forms, doctnne of, 222
ImmortalIty iO II 49 ff 162, 333
Indian philosophy, 134
IndiVIdual, the, 19
IntellectuahzatlOn, 370 if
IntUition, 21,67 (See also 6t!c.>pla)
Isles of the blest, 73, 74, 96, 280, 282
n 3
JeSUits, 5
Knowledge Plato's distinctIOns of
23, the life of, 68 ff , 80 f , and the
contemplation of the Borms, 83 f ,
theory of. m the Protrept,clls
Plato's theory of 372, 430 f
Levels, doctnne of, see GradatIOn
Limit, pnnc.ple of 87 (See also )
LogiC Plato's later logiC, 14 if , early
anglO of A ''i 40 II, categones
early, 46 f , d.alectIc In the dia-
logues 47 Socrates logiC, 97
analogy, 143, 147, analytical thlllk-
mg, 369 II abstractness, 370
Logos, 233
Lyceum, the, ,,\6, 117 n I, 190, 299,
312 314 II ,336,343 n 1 (See also
PenpatetIcs)
Macedon, 117
Mag., 128 f, 131 II
Mathematics, 20 89, 177 II, 192, 215,
216 f, 431, Pythagorean, "\3
Egyptian, 72 128
Mean, the Anstotehan 44 n I, 417
Measurable the, 87
Measure (see also Norm) m Plato, i3 ,
and the mean 44, problem of
measurement m ethiCS 87 II , III
Plato's theory of Ideas, 261
MedICine, 43 2i 2, 336 f , i02 f 45,
App I passIm
Memory 51,52
Metaphy'ilcs Weltanschauung ....
53 377, In the Eudemus 48, dIS-
like of the earlier Greeks for, 72,
164, III the Protreptleus 83 f, 431.
an earlier name for It, 97, the
onglnal nucleus of A s, 139 ongln
of the pnme mover', I'll, A s
early, 167 II , theological character
of A 's earhest, 192, 195 ff , en-
larged mto a doctnne of substance,
203 f and sen'i.ble substance 206,
22011 ,contradlcbonsm,214ff ,and
the doctnne of Nus. 332 1JI the
Penpatetlc school, 339, cntical
character of A's, 376 if. also
called' theology', 436
Method, 14, 26, 71, 85 II, 93, 180
198, 232 f, 261, 265, 290 II, 308,
337 if , 3
8
7
Mmd 138 (See also Nus)
Mixed constitution. 459
Monad,88
Monothe.sm, 139
'More or less', 42, 420
Motion, 296 II, 355 ff, 380 382 f
theories of heavenly motIon, 142 f,
15
1
f 345
Mystenes verbal echoes of, 100,
160 f religIOn as expenence, 161
MyslLclsm, 15 (See also Orphlcs )
Myth, Myths III A 5 d.alogues. 48,
of Midas and SIienus 48 mythical
thmkmg ID Plato, 50, 52, 150, 155,
m Anstotle, 52, of recollectIon, 52,
of the soul's progress, 53, rational-
IstIcally mterpreted, 137. 356 of
Phaethon 137 of the flood, 137,
of the cave m Plato's Republtc,
163 f, 387 A s love of myth 321.
of AHas 355 n 2 356
MytIlene, 11 5 II , 286
Nature and art 74, 75 n I 76,
loman concept of, 157 f
NeceSSity, see Ananke
Neo-Platomsts Neo-Platomsm, 31,
32, 34, 40, 49 60 ff 100 n I, 106,
107 (See also Iamblichus Plotlous.
Porphyry Preelus)
Neo-Pythagoreamsm, 33
Norm, Norms, 76 83, 85 fI 90 93,
2"\1 11,261 286 (See also Measure)
Numbers, theory of, 94, 1.6 176 ff
297 n 2 (See also Ideal numLers )
Nummous, the 157
Nus 171,339,351,362,371,375 3
8
9
397, 40 5, mdependent of the body
and Immortal, 49 ff , 240, = phro-
neslS 82 236, 239 n I, doctnne of
circular molLon of, 153 n 2. = God,
160 346, self-contemplation of,
165 n I, 452 knowledge of <"00
enters through, 166 Plato's theory
of 245 f , 251 , doctnne of In 0" the
Soul, 332 II , watered down Into
'theoretical reason , 396
Occult phenomena, 161
Olympus, 139, IiI
071 the Sub}'me 34 n I
Ontology, 94
Oparu01ls of the PhYSICiSts, 335
Optimism, metaphySical. 48, 99 II ,
394
0"'%1$, 142
INDEXES
OrganIzatIOn of SCiences, IB, 324 ff ,
401 ff
Onent, Interest of the Academy In,
1]1 If
Orphlcs, Orphic poems, 100, 129, 131,
229 n 2
Pam. 17
ParticipatIOn 17 n I
Penpatetlcs Penpatetlc school Pen-
patos, 5, 169 n I, 178, 229, 260,
407, 4
10
41I, 4
12
, 4
1
3 417, 4
20
,
4' [ 429, commentanes on A 's
treatiseS,]2 the founded by
An,toUe 124, biased on the ques-
tIOn of A '5 development, 176,
foundatIOn, 3I , , pohtlcal posItion
313 f , instructIOn and splnt of,
315 ff 324. 329, 337 ff ,
and the schools of mediCIne 336,
424, diSCUSSIOn of the problem of
the spheres ]43, 349 354, 35
8
,
364 ff development after A , 404,
and the problem of sCientific
method 423, and the problem of
ethiCS, 440 ff ,446 and Pythagoras,
455 (See also Lyceum)
Personality Plato's, 2I, 107 ff , Ans-
totle s, 320 ff personal expenence,
12 40, Q6 100, 118 (See also
Rellf::lOn)
Pesslml,m, 48, 99 ff , 394
Phlha loB (See also Fnendshlp,
"P='l 'I'.Ma)
Philosopher, ongIn of the word, 98
Philosophic Ideal of hfe, App II
pasH'"
Philosophy 79 ff, 128 ff 216 f,
372 f, as the umvenal SCience,
401 ff
Ph,otle5ls, 'l'PClV'l"'S, 'I'poVElv, 65 f! , 98,
166, 234 ff 247, 251, 262 n 2
277 ff , 375 f, 430 f , 432 n I, one
of the out of which
work arose 2I, pure reason' 67,
and plea,ure 77 f , defimtlon and
development of, 81 ff, 239 ff ,
371 f, contrasted With soph,a,
436 If 445 If
Ph}slclsts, 140, 377 381, 4]0
conceptIOn of nature, 74, 92
Importance for theology, 141, 36,
traces of Its development, 142 ff ,
152 fI , early In ItS cosmology 154
299 ff a theoretical SCience, 216 I
and the kinds of being, 220 f , to
be completed by a transcendent
'end', 222 early 10 anglO, 296,
conceptual In character, 299, the
u'e of On Ph,losophy In De Caelo
302 fI Platomc In Its problems,
307, distingUished from the study
of the Ideas, 373, pnme task of.
380 metaph}slcs based on )80 if ,
mechanIsm and teleology, 386
PlSlstratlds, 129
PlatOnIsm, 12, 128, 172,238, religIOUS
element In, 161
Pleasure 17, 77 f 234 ff, 247. 278
375 f, 432 n I
P'tellma, theory of the, 409, 424 f
Pohtlcs needs a philosophical founda-
tion 76 f seeks for absolute norms.
85 ff , early pohtlcs, 259 ff
stages In the development of hiS
pohbcs, 269 If , ethical nature of
hiS Ideal for the state, 275 397 ff ,
Influence of actual pohtics upon A s
politiCS, 288, Its method, 290, not
eqUIvalent to the highest SCience,
437 f
Prayer, 160
Pre-eXistence, 5 I I
Presocratics 206, 377 421, 428 f
Pnme mover theory of, ch XIV pas-
Hm, 380, 387 (See also Unmoved
mover)
Protreptlc form, 55 57 ff
Proverbial Wisdom 129 f
Psychology, 331 (S" also Soul)
Psycho-phYSical umty 49
Pythagoreans, Pythagoreamsm, 17
61, 97 n I, 162 n 2, 179, 223 300,
306 f , 308 432 f , 455 ff
Rabonahsm 21,
Realpoltl1k, 1I3, 120 122
Reason 221 242 (See also Nus.
PhYotles,s)
RecollectIOn theory of, 51 f, 333
RehglOn OrphiC, 50, IranIan, 133 f ,
cosmiC, 138 astral 138 ff , philo-
sophy of 156 ff , the effect of A 's
philosophy on the history of, 156
and SCience, 157, proofs of the
eXistence of God, 158 as expen-
ence, I5Q ff , ongm of the belLeI III
God, 16/, 'knowledge of God " 164,
DelphiC, 165 and metaphySICS,
377 f (Sn also God)
4 f , 155,368,373 378
SCience relatIon between emplncal
and pure, 68 ff 89, 434 tf , pro-
gress of, 96, hIstory of, 334, and
metaphySICS (Weltanschauung), 339,
376 ff , 43, foundatIOn of SCientific
philosophy, 37' f , 403 ff
Self-love, 245 f
Seven Wise Men, 129, 130, 430, 452,
454, 460 n I
Similar, the, 419 f
INDEXES
Socrabclsm, 131
Solsbce, 150 n 3
Soplna, 82, 278, 436 f , contrasted
wIth phrrmeslS, 437, 445 fI
SophIsts 21, 55, 56, 129, 156, 433,
Presocrabc, 74 n 2
Soul OrphIc myth of, 22, A 's con-
ceptIOn of, 40 f1, 70 n I, as sub-
stance 41 f, 44 f, 361 Plato's
descnptIon of, 41, 432 n I, a form,
45 development of A 's conceptIOn
of, 45 , not an entelechy (Plotmus),
45, PlatonIc belIef m permanence
of, 49 f , Its normal state, 51, as a
pnnclple of spontaneous move-
ment, 142, the chIef pnnclple of
becommg, 151, alterabon of A s
Ideas of 251 f, psycho-physIcal
theory of, 332 ff
Sphere-gods, 139
Spheres doctnne of the movers of,
137, 141 f, 299. 300n 2, A's
stImulus to work out the doctrIne,
343, number of the spheres, 345,
late 348 ff ,cntIclzed by Theophras-
tus and Plotmus, 349 fI ,contradlc-
bons m, 352
Spmts of the aIr, 145 f
StaglTa, 311, 320, 323
Star-gods, 139, 15<1, 156 n I
Stars hypotheses about thelT mobon,
142 doctnne of 142 fI ,
155, 168, 300, 361, 384 f , theIr free
wdls 152, mfluence of the astro-
nomers 155, theory of the movers
of the spheres, 345 ff , metaphySICS
and astronomy 354
StOICS, StOIC school StoICIsm, 128,
143, 147, 150, 156 n I, 162 f , 318,
373 fI , 388, 400, 44, 424 f
Substance, 19, 22 41, 42, 94, 167,
185 ff , 195 f , 203 f, 221, 345, 347
381, A 's doctnne of, 46 n 3 (See
also ovcrla )
Supersenslble, the, 195 ff
System, 373 ff
Teleology, 66 f, 74 f 383 ff
Theogony, 141
Theolol'{lans, 129
Theology OrIgIn of HellenIstic, 13B if ,
156 162 f , atheIsm, 139, fUSIOn of
WIth astronomy, 140, 164 f , prot>-
lem of the knowledge of God 164,
OrIental 165 229 n 2, UnIversal-
Ism, 166, m the dialogue On Philo-
sophy, 168, 219, 220 n 3, earlIest
form of A's, 222 alteration of
A's, ch XIV pass,m (See also Meta-
phySICS, RelIgion, Stars, for' theo-
nomy , see EthIcs)
TheoretIc life, the, 62 ff , 78, 80 ff <)6,
97, 243, 25
1
, 3
21
, 39
2
if , 397, 4
00
,
428 ff
Tragedy, 13
195
Truth, 130, 133, 137, 204 f
UnIversal, UnIversals, 91 f
UnIversalIsm, 166
UnIverse A 's conception of 3BB ff
Unmoved mover 139,141 f, 167 217,
220, 240, 300, ch XIV pass,m (See
also Pnme mover)
139
"Value B3, 84 n I 15B, 222, 244, 247,
27
6
V.rtue, VIrtues a of the
soul 43 the four PlatOnIC, 43
44 n I B5, 132, 278, ongm of the
doctnne of the mean, 44, B8 n I,
one of the three lIves, 65 f, 78,
98 234 f ,431 n I and functIOn 66,
subordmate to contemplatIOn, 'JB,
100 239 If 'the Hrtue of Hermlas
108 f, lIymn to, 118, a Greek
pnnclple 118 f ,dIstinctIon between
moral and mtellectual, 237, 43911 2,
445 ff deJimtlOn of, 241 417, In
the Ludemwn Elh,cs, 333 n I,
A 's conceptIOn of, 395 f
Vila beala 79 2Bo
Vila Marc,ana, 107 n 2
Way of hfe', 432 n I
Weltanschauung, 53, 98 f1, 125, 155,
190, 377, 403 (See also Meta-
physIcs)
WIsdom, 65, 77 f , 371, 396
WOrld,138f as eternal, 140, A's
general attitude towards 3BB H
World-soul, 133, 348, 360
World VIew, see Weltanschauung
INDEXES
2 PERSONS
27 f, 31 fI' 94 f, 105 fI', 136. hJ.a
Intellectual development, II, 36.
cnbclsm of Plato 12, 33. 35 fi
94 f. 128. 138 ff , 171 ff descnber
of poetlc and prophebc elements In
Plato, 12, and Eudoxus. 17, Dotlon
of reahty. 20, and mathematics.
21, early works (dialogues). ch II
pasnm, and the dialogue fonn.
27 ff , hiS Ideal of style. 30, phtlo-
sophlcal relabon to Plato In the
dialogues. 31-53, . exotenc' and
'esotenc' wnttngs. 32. .5.5. 246ft ,
relatIon between the dialogues aDd
the treatises, 32. the treatises re-
garded as a urnty In aDtJqUlty, 34
PlatoDlc' works, 36. IDtroduces
the study of rhetonc Into the
Academy. 37, early Vlew of the
soul 40 ff , dependent on Plato In
hiS early metaphySICS. 44 Indepen-
dent of Plato 10 logiC and methodo-
logy, 46, the father of logiC, 47,
defimtlon of dlalec ttc 17, diS-
coverer of psycho-physical rela-
tions 19, enlarges Plato's theory
of recollection, 51. extent of hiS
PlatoDlc penod, 52 f , and the pro-
treptJc fonn, 55 fI and the con-
ceptIOn of phromsJS. 82 f hiS early
ethiCS, 87, conception of nature.
92 early attJtude towards hfe and
rehglOn, 98 ff leaves Athens for
Asses, 105, motives for hiS depar-
ture, lOS f, IIO f real attitude
towards Plato, 106 f ,deDles Plato's
doctnne of man's happIness, 110.
hiS relation to Hermlas lIS.
foundation of A 's school latd at
Assos 1I5, settles 10 Mytllene,
lIS ff , hiS marnage II6 f goes
to Macedon as Alexander's tutor,
II 7. the court of Phlhp. 120, aDd
Macedoman affalTll, ]20 f, and
Alexander, 121, departure from
Athens not a break With the
Academy 124 pubhc and pohtlcal
hfe, 125, 311. hiS transltloDal
pened, 125 ft, development of
cntlcal attitude towards Plato.
126 f, 171. the first pubhc cntJ-
clsm of Plato. 128. doctnne of the
reappearance of tI'l.1ths 130, 136.
Interest In the Magi. 133 ff theo-
logrcal tendency of A 's early penod,
I3B fI, representahon of Plato 10
0" PllIlosoplay, 138. additions to
Plato's cosmology. 140. theory
of ether. 143 f. 1.53. doctnne of
AcIulles. lIB, 1I9. 122
ACUSllauS, 229 n 2
Aeschlne8. 31] f , 328
Agamemnon. 219
Agonaces. 1]6
Ahoman, 133 ff
Ajax, II8
Albert the Great 175
Alclblades, 99
Alexander of Aphrodlslas. 32 45. 93,
172 175 f, 213 n 1,297 n 2,361
Alexander of Macedon, :014, 86. 108.
II.5n I. 1l9ff, 13
1
, 133, 259.
2B6 n 3. 307 n I. 311 fi, 318 fI .
325. 330, 410 f
Alexander of Pherae, 39
Alexander the Molosslan, 328
Ammomus, 169 n I, LIfe of Anstotle
accordIng /0 Ammon.us. 106 D 2,
107 n 2
Amyntas 120
Anaxagoras, 50, 75 f , Bo, 83. 96 97,
235.
2
39 253 3
8
3.4
06
127 ff. 131.
437, 454
An8XlTnander, 451
Anaxlmenes, I I 4 n I
Andreas. Fr . 136 n I
Andromcus, 5 31, 3:01 n I. 128, 297
n I, 378
Antlgonus I, 413
Anttgonus Gonatas, 413 n 2
Antlpater. 123.313,319,322 f ,po f
Antlsthenes, S5
Apelt, 229 342 n 5
Aplon, 135
ApulelUs, I4S ff
Arch..lmedes 405
Archytas, 17, 455. 15
6
Anmnestus, 320, 323
Anstarchus, 32B, 105
Anstocles of e s ~ a n a 106 107 n 2
Anstophanes 105
Anstotle philosophical conception of
himself, 3, Inventor of the Dotlon
of IOtellectual development In time,
3 standard for Judgmg hiS achieve-
ment 3, fundamental conceptlon
of hiS phtlosophy, .. ' our Ignorance
of the stages of hiS development, .. '
scholastic nobon of hiS philosophy,
... hiS commentators, 5. 32. 3 I 7
pnnce of medieval scholastICism. .5
has never had a Renascence .5
and the philologiSts 6, 'style' of
hiS treatises. 6. prOVISional form of
hiS ph..llosophy, 6. traces of Ius
evolution 1D the extant WTItJngs. 7.
aDd the Academy, II fl. 16 n I.
Ius relabonsIup to Plato. I I fi ,21 fI
INDEXES
'fire-born lLDJmals', 145 f , hIS cos-
mll;phy81CS, 1S4.andrel1glon,I,6if ,
pnnclple of gradabon, 67, ISS,
sublectlve convtctlon of God's eXIs-
tence, 161 if , and the doctnnes of
SpeUSlppUS and Xenocrates. 177 if ,
earllest form of hIS theology, 222,
development of his ethics, 231 ff ,
change In attitude towards phro-
236, cntlclsm of Plato's
and Laws, 287 f, hIs
speculative phySICS and cosmology,
ch XI passIm penocl of matunty
at Athens, 3II II , as Plato's suc-
cessor, 312, a teacher, not a wnter,
317, later relatIOns Wlth Alexander,
318 f , hiS human personality and
surroundings 320, hiS Will, 320,
322 f , hiS loneliness, 32 I the bust
of him, 322, orgamzatIon of Ius
research, ch XIII passIm, the
creator of philology, 328 founder
of the hIStOry of phIlosophy and
SCIence, 334 f , and medIcal htera-
ture 336, and the conception of
'Immattered form, 337 ff rela-
tions With Calhppus 342 f, hiS
place In history ch xv pasSIm
hiS analytical thinking 369 11 , the
founder of SCIentific philosophy
372 f ,hIS sCience and metaphySICS
376 ff and the analySIS of man
390 II, and pohtlcs, 399 f, hIS
Intellectual Tange, 405, hiS obJec-
tiVity, 46, and the doctnne of
Virtue, 439 f
AsdeplUs 169 n I
AspaslUS, 229 n 4
Athenaeus, 17
Augustme 5t, 31, 62, 65, 378
Autophradates, 289
Beloch,4IO
Bendlxen,23In I,283n I
Hemays, J 33 f ,35 44 n 2,46 n I,
52n I,60,75n I,79n 2,I06n 3,
I25n I, I52n 4, I53n 2, I77n I
246 n 2, 248 f, 254 n I, 276 277
n I, 303, 324 n I
Boeckh, II2, 342 n 6
Boetruus, 3I, 62, 65
Boll, Fr , 428 n 3, 430 n 2
Bomtz 186 f , 194, 199,218 n 1.219.
223, 342 353 n I
BrandIS 332 n I
Bretzl. M , 330
Bnnckmann III, II3 n 2
Bruno, G, 25
Burnet, J ' 229 421 n 2, 432 n I,
455 n I
Bywater, I, 00 ff , 137
135, 229, 328
299, 342 f. 345, 351, 354
n I, 356
Call1Sthenes, II4, 115, JI8. 123, .116
n 3, 318 f , 325 f
CaDlpbell, LeWlS. IS n I
Cassauder, 410 f
Celsus, 408
Cephlsodorus, 37
Charondas. 456 n 3
Chllon, 129
Chnst, 187 f
ChrySlppUS, 31, 36 143
Cicero, 28, 29 n 2, 30, 31, 3z n 1,39,
62 f, 65, 73 f, 127, 230, 254, 259
n 3, z80, 432 n I,
30, 261, 460 f , Hortensues, 31 55.
6z f, 65, 101 n I, ISS n I. Tus-
culan DIsputations 98, Natuf'a
DeOf'um, 138 If. 143 If, 149 if
163 n I, De Doumatlont, 162 n 2
Cleanthes, 31, 143, IS0, 163
Clearchus, 116
Conscus, 46 n 3 III, liZ f. lIS 1,
173 256n 3,44on I
Crates the Cymc, 3 I
Cntl&S, loB n I
Cntolaus, 147
Cumont, F , 134 n I
Cuvler, 307 n I
Demetnu. of Phalerum, 314 f, 328,
,P7 n I, 451 n 4
Demetnu. the Besieger, 314 n I
Demochares, 314 n I
Democntus, 19,36 75n 1,80 97n I,
163, 307 n I, 108, 328 381 f, 386,
404 406, 4
26
f , 454
Demosthene. II2, II7, 119 f, 288,
3II f, 313 f
Dlcaearchus of Messene, 450 11
Dldymus, 1I2 II4, lIS, 117 n I, II9
120 n I, 124
Dlels, H 77 79 n 2,99 n 3, 146 n I,
248 n 4, 27b f , 365 n I, 425 n 2
DIOdes of Carystus 18, J36. App I
passIm, hIS fragments, 407 f , Ius
florult, 408 If , hIS style and lan-
guage, 409 f , Letter to A"tlgonuS,
413, 423, a follower of Anstotel1an
teleology, ,p6, hIS picture of dally
hfe, 417, hiS dIetetiCs, 4 I 7 f , as an
Anstotehan, 4I 9 ff IDS posItion ID
the hIStOry of Greek medICIne.
4
2
5
DlOgenes ot Apolloma, 41 I n 4, 416
DlOgenes the Cynic. 107 D I
DlOgenes Laertlus, 33, 55 n 2, 135
n I, 136, 2JO n 1,453
DlOn, 39, II4. 433
DlOnysJUs, II] 120
INDEXES
47
Dloscun, the, 1I8
Dyroff, 33 n 2, 125 D I
Elias, 32 n I
Empedocles, 21, 56, 305,419, 454
Ephorus 286
Eplcharmus, 164 n I, 180
Eplcrates, 18 n I, 19
Eplcurus, 75 n I, 108,404
229 0 2
Eraslstratus, 336, 408, 412, 413 0 2.
4
2
4
Erastus of Scepsls, I II II 2 f, II 5
173
Eratosthenes 259 0 2, 405
Eubulus, 289 f
Euclld,42o
Eudemus of Cyprus, 39, 54, 106, 107.
1620 2
Eudemus of Rhodes, 107, log n 2,
169, 228 fI , 238, 243, 246, 248 283
29'1 n I, 316 335, 343 0 I, 354.
365 ff , 4I 3, 4
2
5, 443, 4.H D I
Eudoxus of CyZICUS, 16 f , 19,22, 113
13
1
,13
2
ff 142,154 3
08
'43,345,
34
8
356, 3
80
, 383, 4
06
Euphraeus, II3
EUnpldes, 1640 I, 322, 429, 430
EuseblUs 3.7, 1060 2, 408
Evagoras 54
Evenus, 108 n I
FabnclUs 1, 409 n 3,413 n 2
FIChte, 385
Fraenkel Ed, 136 n 2
Frank, E , 459 n I
Frednch, C , 409
Fnedlander, 1650 I
Fntzsche, 229
Fuhr, M 458 n 2, 459 D 2
Galen, 48, 413 n 2 414, 418
Gercke, 117 0 I, 229 n 3 296 n 3
Gerhard, G A, 414
Gerhliusser 76 n I, 137 n I
Glsmger, 134 n I, 136 n 2
Goethe, 4
Gomperz, Th 107 n I
Grant, A , 229
Greenwood L 2370 I, 438 nn 3, 4
Grote, G 456 n 2
Gyges, 73
Hades, 133, 135
Hambruch, E , 46 n 3
Hammer-Jensen, J , 386 n I
Harder, R , 443 n I
Hartlleh, P tlI f , 79 D I
Hecataeus of Mlletus, 307 D I, 406
Hegel, 20, 370
Heitz, 125 n I 259 n 2,265 n 2
Helicon, 17
Hehos, 153 II 2
Heracles, II 8 122
Herachdes of Pontus, 98, 127 n 3,
162 n 2, 432, 453 n 4, 456, 459 D I
Herachtus, 75 n I, 185,221,338,388,
428 n 3 454 f
Hermlas, 108 f, II Iff, 116 ff, 173,
288 fl , 313, 318
Hermlppus, 114 n I, 135 f, 229,
230 n I
Hermodorus 132, 133, 135 n I
Herodotus, 307 0 I, 406, 453
Herophllus of ChalcedoD, 408, 411,
412, 413 n 2, 424
Herp}lhs, 320, 322 f
HeslOd 56, 129, 229 n 2
HesychlUs, 55 0 2, 230 0 I
Hlpparchus, 405
Hlpplas of Ehs, 327
Hippocrates, 47, 408, 409, 413 n 2,
4
1
5, 419 n 4, 425
Hirzel R, 27 n I, 61 f, 77, 79 0 2,
900 2
Hoffmann, E 44 n I, 297 0 I
Homer 119, 122, 2290 2, 356
Homolle 326 n I
Horace, 426
73
Humboldt, A von, 307 n I
lambhchus, 49, 4320 I, 4'i6 ff , PTO-
ITepllcus, 60-79 paSSim, 100 0 I,
246, 2')1
ldeler J L, 307 0 I, 347, 348 n I,
4090 3,4130 2
106 00 2 3, 107 no I 2,
1080 I, 1100 I
!socrates, 37, 54. 55 fl, 77, 117 n I,
119, 1440 2, Ad Nlcoclem, 54, 56,
259 0 3, 41 I 0 I, Ps -!soc Ad
DemonIcum, 57, 58 f 720 I
Jaehmann 3260 2
Jackson, 134 n I
Jacoby, F 160 I
Jaeger W 'Anstotle s Verses 1D
PraIse of Plato', 1090 I, 134 n 2,
DlOkles von KaTyS/OS, App 1 pas-
Slm, Enls/ehungsgeschlchte deT M ela-
physIk, 79 n 2, 1110 2, 117 D I.
128 0 I 168 f , 180, 184 0 2, 195
n I, 201 n I, 204 f, 210 n I.
212 n ],213 n 2,2]7 n 3,277 n I,
285D 1,]170 1,34205,4400 I,
4560 3, Humamsllsche Reden und
VOT/Tage, 434 0 I, Nemeslos von
Emesa, 137 0 I, 4]2 D I, Plalos
Siellung 1m Aufbau deT gTlechlSchen
BIldung 430 n I, 'Das Pneuma
1m Lykelon', 18 n I, 295 n 1.
INDEXES
47
1
332 n I, 355 n I, 425 n I, 'Ver-
gessene Fragmente des Penpate-
tlkers DlOkles von Ka,rystos', App
I paJnm
Josephus, II6
Kalbel. G , 277 n I
Kall, A , 33 n 2
Kant, 6, II, 160, 161 f, 377, 379 f ,
397
Kapp, E 230 f , 233 n I, 237 n I.
440 n I
Knsche, 456 n I
Lachesis 48
Lambmlls, 140 n 2
Lang, P , 19 n I
Lasson, A , 347
Lelbwz,20
LeUClppUS, 307 n I
Lucretius, 75 n I
Luther 5
Lyco, 315, 412
Lycurgus, 314, )26,458 fI
Lynceus,99
Lysander 108
Machiavelli, 5
Maler, H , 97 n I, 391 n I
Manutms, 140 n 2
Melanchthon, 5
Mehssus 454
Menon, 335, 425. 454 n I
Mentor, II7
Metrodorus, 336 424
Meyer, J B, 330 n 2
Midas 48
Mueller 458 n 2
Natorp, 209 f, 2II D I, 212 n 3,
213 n 2, 214
Neleus, I IS f 440 n I
Newman, W L, 266 n I, 273 n I,
286 n I
Nlcanor, 320, 322 f
NIcocles, 54, 4II n I
Nlcomachu9, father of Anstotle, 120
Nlcomachus, son of Anstotle, 230,
268, 320, 322 f
Nlcomachu9 of Gerasa, 456 n 3
Norsa, Medea, 39 n I
Numewus,37
OlymplOdorus, 44
Oncken, 286 n I
Onomacntus, 129
Ormuzd, 133 ff
Osann, 458 n 2
ParmeDldes, 83,96,97,431,437.454
Partsch 331 n 2
Paslcles, I6g
Patntius, F , 105 n I
Perdlccas, I 13
Phaethon, 137
Phalaecus, 286
Phaleas, 289
Phamas, 172 n 3
Pherecydes, 133, 229 n 2
Phlhp of Macedon, II, 105, 117,
II9 ff , 266, 296 n 3, 313, 4II n I
Philip of Opus, loB n 2 132, 459 n I.
Epmomu, 82, 138, 139, I.p, 144,
146 n 1, 150 ff, 153 n 2, ISS.
164 ff. 300 n I, 433
Phlhscus the cobbler, 31
Phllishon, 17 f , 336, 409
Philo, 31, 145 f, 461, Ps -PhJ.!o, On
the E.ternity of the World, 139, 141.
143, 147 f
138
Phlloponus. 45, 137 n I
PJd.t C 229 n 3
Pmdar,16
Plstelh 62
Plttacus, 453
Plasberg 139 n I
Plato A '5 explanation of hiS place
m hIstory, 3 history of hIS develop-
ment, 4, admlIatlOn for hiS
dialogues, 6, Importance of form
for understandmg of hiS thought,
6, A s relatIOnship to him II ff
22f,27f,3Iff,I05f1 I36 ,A's
cntlcIsm of hIm, 12, 33, 35 if, 94 f,
128 138 if 171 fI, poetic and
prophetic elements m, 12, hIS
spmtual umty 13, development of
hiS later dialectIc, 14 f , relatIOns
to mathematiCians, 16. "od Pluhs-
tron 18, 49, concerned WIth
, Bemg , 19, and the method of
diVISIOn, 19, 26, understandmg of
mathematIcs, 20, mterest III astro-
nomy, 20, mterest ID ethiCS and
politics, 21, and contemporary
medlcme 21, 43, plulosophtcal
personahty, 21 if , elements out of
whIch hIS work arose, 21 f , Lalled
a mystIc, 22, aim 10 foundmg
the Academy, 23, relatIon between
hiS philosophy and the history of
hiS hterary form 24 ff purpOIle In
wntmg 24 f , ShIft of phIlosophIcal
Interests, 25, the later dialogues,
25 fI, 3"l4 f doctnne of Immor-
tahty, 40 hIS anthropology, 43,
and the pnmacy of creative mtel-
lect, 81, and phronesu. 82. and
knowledge, 87 93, and A '5 altar-
elegy, 10611 , hIs fnend8htp the
bond of the Academy, log, hiS
47
2 INDEXES
successor. 110 1 doctnne of man's
bAppmess. 110. compared with
Zarathustra, 133 ff. theones of
heavenly monons, 142 I aDd reh-
glOn, 157, denvatlon 01 the behef
In God. 161. theory of happiness
In the Phllebus 234. puts reason
above . enthuSllLSm '. 241, theono-
mlc ethiCS. 243. and polItics. 260 I .
398 I and the Good. 393. and the
theoretic IIle. 429 11 , and the rela-
tIon between pohbcs and phtlo-
sophy, 434 I . and Lycurgus, 458 11
Phny, 131, 133 135 1,408,413 n 2
PlISotarchus, 410 I
PlotInus. 44 f. 351 f. 389
Plutarch. 33. 35 36,52 n 1.126.1]0
133. 259 n 2. 454 n I, 458 I
Polemarchus, ]43 n 2
PoIyblUS. 459 n 2
Polyxenus 172
POdl.pelUS Trogus. 458. 460
Porphyry, 61, 62, 432 n I, 456, 458
n I
POSldonlUs 31,76, 146 n I, 148, 162.
432 n I
Prant!. 297 n 3
Praxagoras of Cos. 48, 410, 41 1.412.
4
2
4
Proclus, 33. 35. 52, 62, 63. 64. 126.
127 n 3
Prodlcus. 163
Protagoras 88
Proxenus. 320. 323
Pseudo-Alexander. 1861, 354 n I
Pseudo-Ocellus. 443
Ptolemy, 55 n 2
Pythagoras, 75. 10. 96. 97 f 431 fi
445, 453 n 4, 454 n I. 455 fI
Pythla9. daughter 01 Anstotle. 320.
322 f. 336
Pythlas. Wile 01 Anstotle. 116. 320,
3
2
3
Rathke. A 146 n 1
Remhardt, K , 146 n I
Reltzenstem 136 n 1
Rohde E, 455 n I, 456. 458 n I
Rose, V. 34 6]. 71. 135. 140 n 2,
147. 155 n I. 165 n I, 254 n I,
347 353 nn I. 2. 354 n I, 40C} n 3,
433 n I
Ross. W D. 177 n I, 173 n I
Sachs, E , 15 n I, 16 n I, 300 n I
Sa.rdanapallus. 253 fI
Seahger, 328
5ehlelermacher. 160. 440 n I
Schopenhauer 25. 134
Schwegler. 180,205.217 n 1,353 n I
Selene. 153 n 2
Seneca. 76
Sextus Emplncus. 143. 145, 162 n 2,
374 n I
Stlenus, 48
SlmplIcluli. 46 n I, 297 nn I, 2. ]0],
343 n 2. 346 I , 361 f , 365
Smmdyndes the SybarIte, 254
Socrates. 14 15. 16, 21. 2], 26 I, 55,
56. 80. 81. 96 f 106, 107 n I. 1]0,
165. 174. 185, 390 ff . 398. 429 n 2.
430 f , 445, 447. 458 I
Solmsen Fr. 15 n 2
Solon. 453
Soslgenes, 343 n 2, 347 354 n I
Sobon, 133 135 n I
Spengel,228.28]n 1. 294n I,440n I
SpeUSlppUS. IIO I 126. 177 ff , 190 ff ,
196, 223 ff. 312. 316, 456 n 3.
459 n I. On PleQSure, 17, Resem-
bllJnces. 19. 330 On FTlendshJp.
108 n 2. On Phllosophers, 454 n 1
Staehelm. F, 412 n 3
Stahr. 105 n I, 106 n 2
Stenzel J 15 n I, 25 n I
~ t e w r t 229
Stobaeus. 446
Stocks, J L 440 n I
Strabo. 113 n 2, II 7
Strato. 5, 315 339 386. 404. 412 I,
4
2
5
Stroux. J . 30 n 2
Studlllczka 322 n I
Susemlhl 229 256 n 4, 273 n I
Synan. 87. 126. 175
TaCitus 155 n I
Tannery 16 n 2
Taylor. A E, 432 n 1
Thales. 80. 128, 401. 426 f , 428 n 3.
4
2
9. 43
1
, 453
Theaetetus. 15. 17, 18. 22
Theiler, W. 416 n 2
Themlson 01 Cyprus. 54 I. 86, 113.
411 n I
Themlsuus. 49 f
Theodorus, 18
Theogllls, 56
Theophrastus, 5, 30 n 2, IOC} n 2.
115 f 127 n ]. 147. 175 268, ]11
n 2, 312, 314 ff. 322 f, 330 f ,
335 I .349 fI, 354, 357 f 4
10
.4
II
,
412 I . 415. 416, 423. 425. 426 440.
443, 45
0
I . 45
1
n 4, 454 n I
Theopompus 112, 114. 134
Thecsltes, 43
Thlbron. 286 n 3
Thompson. D .412 n 4.413 n 2.414 n I
Thucydldes, 398, 406
Tlmaeus. 454 n I. 456 n 3. 458 n I
Tlmares. Tlmaratus, 456 n 3
TOrI 327 n I
INDEXES
473
Vener. H . 18 n 2. 65 n I
Vahlen. 140 n 2. 277 n I
Von der MUhll. p. 230 n 2. 231.
233 n I. 283 n I
Walzer R. 440 n I
WellmaDD M, 18 n I. 407 n 4.
40811 411 D 4. 423 n 2
Wendland. P 56 n I. 59 nD I. 2
WI1amowltz. V von, 106 n 3. 108
Dn 1.3,266 nn 1,3,267,285 n I.
286n 3,316D I,327n 1.3430 I.
408 D I, 409 n 2, 440 n I
Wilson. 256 n 4
Xanthus. 133
Xenocrates, III. 114 n 2. 173.
177 11. 190 f 307. 312. 3
1
6. 373,
394, 434 n 2. 459 n I. Oft
Pleasure. 17. On Frlendsh.p. 108
n 2
XenophoD. 143 157, MemoralnJ.a.
74 n 2
Xerxes. 133
Zaleucus. 456 n 3
Zarathustra, 132 fi
Zeller, E , 15 n I. 153 n 2.229 nn I.
2. 248. 266 n 2. 294. 324. 357 n I.
413 n 2
Zeno, 31. 43
1
454
Zeus. 133. 135,356
Zoroaster, see Zarathustra
3 THE WRITINGS OF ARISTOTLE AND PLATO
1 ARISTOTLE
Altar-elegy 106 fI 134 n 2
Ana/yt.cs. 91, 294, 296 n 3, 369, 373
4
2
4
Barbar.an Customs, 328
Categor.es, 46 n 3 369
ConsMut.ons, 24. 260, 265 f, 286,
327 fI, 335, 340 42, used In
Poltl.cs IV-VI 265, date 327
De An.mal.um Genera/lone. 308.
3
2
9
De Ammallum Motu, 295 n 1. 355
357
De Amma"um Partobus. 74 n 2, 277
n 2, 308. 329 330 n 2. 337
De Cado 153 159 n I 293, 294, 298
300 11 329, 347, 348 n 2 3530 I.
early, 154. 299 f , uses On PJ..lo-
sophy. 303
De DIV.na/.one per Som"14m, 162.
333 f
Dialogues. 5, 24, 125 n I. 127, 130
176 276 f. 316 f. 393 develop-
ment of theIr fonn, 26 fI theIr
effect on antiquIty. 3I. therr
PlatoDlc pomt of vIew. 31. theIr
relation to the treatIses. 32.
'exotenc diSCOUrseS', ~ 2. 246 ff
therr poleDllc agarnst Plato. 35.
Aleza..der or On Co/onva/.on. 24.
259, 318. Eudemus or On the Soul,
29 30. 33 n 2. ch III pass.... 62,
70. 98 f. 100 0 I. 127 0 3, 162
171 n 3, 333. 370, Gryllus or On
Rhelonc. 29. 30. Mmezenus. 3.31
Nw"l/hus 23, 254 D I. 276. 0 ..
Jushu. 29 D 2. ]0, 259 ff 0 ..
Ph.losophy. 29, 33 n 2. 35. 36 n I,
74 n I, 95, ch VI pass..... 167.
173 f 178, 190 n 2. 193, 201. 219.
220 n 3 222. 229 n 2 240 258.
269, 293, 300. 302 f 3
6
, 333 348.
361, 387, 433 452 date aod form.
125 fI, used ID the Eude....an
Eth.cs. 256 aod In the De Cado,
30) , 0 .. Poets 326. SophISt 30. 31
Statesman, 29, 30. 31 87. 127
259 ff 266, Sympos.um, 30 31
Dldascallae, 326 340
D.onySlQC V.ctor.es, 326 n 2
ElJncs.6 33.35.85, 110 ch IxpasSl ....
260 f 275. 276, 280 282 ff, 294 f
298, 371, 400, .P7, 432 0 I. 440
n I. Eude....an EthICS. 67 f , 75 f,
78 ch IX pass."., 277. 279. 283 fI
333 n I 436 fI, the tItle, 230.
Eudemus not the author 238, A 's
first Independent ethICS. 238, use
of the Protreptocus 10, 246 11 date
of 256 used lD A 's first Independent
pohtrcs. 283 Nlco...achean EtJllcs.
73, 78. 85 f, 88, 180. 201, ch IX
pass..... 262 0 2, 264 ff. 280. 283
fI, 3330 1,371 376,397. ,412 f.
437 fI, late. 82 f. ~ 11. 238.
composltron of. 236 11
'Exotenc dIscourses' see Dialogues
HlStorla Am...allum 144
11
294. 307
n I. 329 ff , 340, 374. 384. 440 n I
Homer.c Proble'71s. 328
Hymn to Herml8.!l. 108. 117 f
Letters. 5. II D I. 259 D 2.]II
474
INDEXES
Melaphyncs. 5. 7. 33, '19. 68 if. 77.
82. 91. 94, 95. 97. Its. 127 f. 129
n 2. 133 137, 164. ch VII passIm.
ch VIII pasSim. 238 f. 2'10. 246.
256. 260. 265 n 2, 269, 275. 282.
294 if 335. 374, 37
6
, 378 f . 387 f.
41, 419 f, 433. state of the text.
167. the result of a development of
A's thought. 171. A 's first LDde-
pendent metaphysIcs. 171 if . Its
date. 172. I8S f IDserhon of the
central books. 197. Books K and
II old. 208. 221,118 a later addition,
3'12 if
MeteOf'ologlCa, 137.294, 295 n I, 307
n I, 331. 386
On Comsng to be and PasSing away,
35 n I, 294, 298, 299. 307 n I. 308,
3
2
9, 357 n t. 443
On Ideas. 93 172
259. 3II n I. 'III n I
On 160, 240
On the SOLll, 269. 29'1. 331 if
0 .. the Source of the Nole. 33 I
On the Various Senses of Words, 203
Paroa 332. 334
PhysICS, 33, 35, 44 n I. 74 170, 173,
206 f, 294 fl 308. 329 347. 352
357 if, 376. 377. 3
8
7 early, 29
6
,
Book VII. 297. reVI5.lon of VIII 6
358 if , a correction Introduced by
Eudemus 366
Pleas of Ihe Cthes. 328
Poehcs.6
PoIIIICS, 4. 6. 21. 77. 85. 120.23
1

2
45.
247 f , ch X pass,m, 294. 329. 374.
400, composItion of and rearrange-
ment of the books of. 263 if , pro-
gramme at the end of the EthICS.
265, later reVISion, 265 ff. the
levels. 26g, Book I, 271. IDtemal
references. 273, date of A 's first
mdependent pohtlcs, 275 if . uses
the Protrep/,eLls and the Eudemla"
Eth,es, 276. 283
Problemata, 329, 414
Protrep/ICLls, 30. 31,44 n I 49. ch IV
pa's,m, 125 n I, 151 155 n I,
165 n I. 171 n 3. 173. 178. 231 if
246 249 11 259 n 3. 260 if 266.
275 ff 286.332,333 n 1,358 n I,
393 f 'III n I, 431 f. 435. 437 f.
444 445 form and model. 54 ff ,
excerpted by Iambhchus. 61 if
Pythlan 325. 327. 340
296 n 3
Soph,sheal Refutahons, 180
Toplea. 44 n I '16 n 3. 84. 330 n 2.
3
6
9
Ps -Anst De Mundo 75 n I
Anst Magleus 135 165 n I
P, MagnaMoralta,228.4401l
Ps -An,t RhetoTlca ad AleKandrum.
23
2 PLATO
Apology. 15, 131. 430 n 2, 431
96
439 n 2
erdo 398
Eu/hydemus. 30. 55. 62 f
Gorgtas, 14. 23. 25, 29, 30, 57. 398.
416. 429 n 2
Laws. 21, 26, 27. 74 n I 82, 88. 132.
137. 140 142, 144 n 2, IS0 f 153
n 2, 161. 165, 187 264, 286 f ,
290 f , 300 n 2. 433, 459
Let/ers n, 409, VI I II, II2 f. lIS.
173 440 n I VII 23,433
Lys,s 96. 244
MeneKenus, 30
Meno, 52
14. 16, 172
Phaedo 14. 16. 29 30. '10 if. 49 if ,
57, 62, 99
Phaed,us 28. 317
Pholebus, 14. 17.26.27.44.48.78.82,
87 ff, 95. 234, 236, 238. 276. 278,
373 375 f, 39'1 '139 n 2
RepublIC, 14, 16 30 48.73.78.87.92.
163, 260 f , 264, 272. 287 290. 398.
4
16
Soph,st 14 15,16.19,26.27.3.187,
330, '13
1
Statesman, I,! 15, 16. 26. 30. 92 n I.
262, 290. 330, 431
SympoSIum 13. 14 30
Theaete/us I,! if ,25.26 n 1,29 n I.
430 f
T,maeus 18, 26, 82. 137. 1'1, I'll.
144, 153 n 2, 245. 300. 303. 308.
33
6
.409
Ps -Plato A1Clb,ades I. 131 n I. 13:10.
165 n I
Ps -Plato Ep,nom,s. see unl1M Philip
of Opus
Pa -Plato Minos. 286
INDEXES
4 GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES
475
ayallov, 222, "TO av6p<o>1TIVOV, 48, <lli'To "TO,
1<)0 244
69 f
6Kplll.,a, see Exactitude
(nTElpov, 19, 42, 87, 381
ap.O""Tov, TO, 1<]0 222 (See also Good,
the hIghest)
DlTTpoeUT'lI, 132
,ee IndIvIdual
I3cv,.aeal "Iye.v, of the IdIOm
186 ff
E12.cl, see Idea, Ideas
"",e" of, m Anstotle, 415
Ivtpy"a, 67
fw"cv 205, 211, 381
TfpCD<T'K'I\, 83
11TIO""T'liJ'l ElTIaT;jiJal, 71, 381
fpyov, 61) f
,v2.aliJcvla see Happmess
84
e''''pla, e,"'pcl, 8''''pElv, 67, 74, 98
2i9 n I, 4jO, 432 (See also IntUI-
tIon)
KIJTO <pva,v, 5I 4I 5
370
lIaS,;v and Tfa8<Tv, 16o
see Mean
iJ<rOTle,aeo, techmcal term 36
iJhpov, see l\leasun::
'ee hmtabon
OiJC10iJ'p;j, 43
OIJOlOV, 420
6v, 20, 370, i'J 6v, 108, 214 216,
93
OpCI, see Norm, Norms
OVK laT' "aI3"v, use of m Anstotle, 109
n 2
cvala, 1<), 22 41,4 z 45, <)4 177,185 ff ,
1<)5 f 202 f , 222, 345 f 161,
a1ae'l"Tf), H)5, 20'j (')ee also Sub-
stance Beml'(, E",ence )
9 J
see ExhortatIon
42, 87, 279
TfpWTO, TO, 70 91 auTO TO, 91, 92
1Tp"'T'l <P''''o, 1TpW"TOV 'I""cv, 244
1Tvplycva, iee FIre aUlmals
lTTc1X,io, see rlement;
lTTCX"J,aeo" 417
O"ViJiJE"Tpov, see Measurable
66 74 n 2 ZZ2
"TIXVTJ, 74 n I, 2DZ n 3
<pl"OVTla, see
"vall, 74 n I, L62
Ta, 93
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD
BV VIVIAN RIDLER
PRINTER TO THE UNIVERSITY