Ambix

ISSN: 0002-6980 (Print) 1745-8234 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/yamb20

Chemical Combination According to Aristotle

J. E. Bolzan

To cite this article: J. E. Bolzan (1976) Chemical Combination According to Aristotle, Ambix,
23:3, 134-144, DOI: 10.1179/amb.1976.23.3.134

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/amb.1976.23.3.134

Published online: 18 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=yamb20

Download by: [University of Birmingham] Date: 09 May 2016, At: 03:31

 AMBIX Vol. 23, Part 3, November 1976

CHEMICAL COMBINATION ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE

By J. E. BOLZAN*

Contenti sumus inuentis, aliquid ueritati et posteri conferant. SENECA, Nat. Quaestiones.

THE subject of fL{~(S (mixis), or what \ve no\v call chemical combination in the work of
Aristotle does not yet seemto have attracted sufficient attention from historians of chemist-
ry. Without overlooking the very important essay by Joachim,1 Partington's erudite and
admirable summary of Aristotle's scientific ideas,2 or Stephanides' short article,3 we feel
that our observations can contribute to a better understanding of the subject. We will
concern ourselves in the first place with the concept of the "element", moving on afterwards
to Aristotle's treatment of fLl~t~ or combination between elements. We will emphasize
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

those parts of our interpretation which represent some advance over the works cited above,
avoiding as far as possible overlapping Joachim's fundamental treatment of the problem.

THE CONCEPT OF THE ELEMENT

The Aristotelian concept of the "element" is clearly a relative concept because some-
thing may be an element only insofar as it can be referred to a given complex. The follow-
ing is the focus of our interest.
We must reckon as a first principle the matter which underlies, though it is insepar-
able from, the contrary qualities. .. Therefore principle is, firstly, that which is
potentially a perceptible body (matter); secondly, the contrarieties (e.g. heat and
cold); thirdly, Fire, "Vater, and the like (GC, 329 a 29 ff).4
It follows from this text that the classical four elements are only elements of the third
order. And these for Aristotle, in contrast to Empedocles' view (GC. 329 a 36), can trans-
form themselves reciprocally into each other precisely because they are at the same time
composed of and related to each other by a common matter, the subject of the contrary
qualities. It is valid to say that an "element" is always forming part of something else,
while it itself is simple.
Element is the first component of a thing, immanent in that thing, and indivisible
according to the species (l\It, 1014 a 26). .
But generally a reference to the elements considering them insofar as they are separated
and separable from compounds is sufficient.
We give the name "element" to a body into which other bodies may be analysed,
present in them actually or potentially (which of these, is still disputable) and not
itself divisible into bodies different in nature (DC, 302 a 16).
This passage makes it clear that elements are corporeal substances and not fundamental
properties of matter, as is erroneously suggested on occasion.5 However, as we shall see,
they can be interconvertible \vith the fundamental properties that characterize them.6
It is very interesting to compare this definition with Boyle's.
I now mean by elements, as those chymists, that speak plainest, do by their principles,
certain primitive and simple, or perfectly unmingled bodies; which not being made of

• Centro de Investigaciones Filosofico-Naturales, Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina, Cangallo

1854, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Translated from the Spanish by Dr. Gerrylynn K. Roberts.
 CHEMICAL COMBINATION ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE 135

any other bodies, or of one another; are the ingredients, of which all those called
perfectly mixt bodies are ultimately resolved.7
And also with Lavoisier's:
... if we apply the term elentents, or principles of bodies, to express our idea of the
last point which analysis is capable of reaching, we must admit, as elements, all the
substances into which we are capable, by any means, to reduce bodies by decomposi-
tion.8
Comparing these three classic definitions, it is evident that both Aristotle's definition and
Boyle's have the characteristics of a truly operational definition of what an "element" is,
because both declare elements of a complex substance to be that which remains after
particular operations designed to achieve a state of simplicity have been performed upon
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

that substance. Lavoisier's definition on the contrary is completely empirical9 and inferior
to the others. Aristotle's priority is clear because not only did he anticipate Boyle by
twenty centuries, but especially because his general definition (Mt, 1014 a 26) is valid under
any circumstances (e.g., in present day atomic theory with its "elementary particles") and
not only "(according to) those chymists that speak plainest". There is even more to arouse
our admiration of Aristotle, because although he was mistaken in making Earth, Air, Fire,
and Water his "elements"lO he nevertheless came to realize that defining what an element
is, is not the same as differentiating those which exist in nature:
... In fact, however, fire and air, and each of the bodies we have mentioned, are
not simple but complex. The simple bodies are indeed similar in nature to them but
not identical with them. Thus the simple body corresponding to fire is igneous,
not fire; that which corresponds to air is aeriform; and so on. (GC, 330 b 22).
Here Aristotle shows his shrewdness by distinguishing behveen \vhat we may call "theoreti-
cal elements" and Hpractical elements", effectively reconciling metaphysics and em-
piricism.ll

THE THEORY OF CHEMICAL COMBINATION

In the tract De generatione et corruptione, Book I, Chapter 10, Aristotle briefly explains
what we might call his Htheory of combination"; it is on this chapter that Joachim has
primarily concentrated in his well-known essay. After referring to these texts, we will
concentrate on Book II, Chapter 7, because it is there that one finds evidence which is
extremely illuminating for a full understanding of the problem. Aristotle locates the
problem of JLl~LS in Book I, Chapter 10 with his usual dialectical heading in this manner:
We must now inquire what is combination, and what are the combinables; of what
things and under what conditions is combination predicated; and, further, does
combination exist in fact, or is it false to assert its existence? (GC, 327 a 32).
The question is very pertinent and the context in which it is asked is significant.
For, according to some thinkers, it is impossible for one thing to be combined with
another. They argue that if both things persist unaltered, then they are not more
combined now that they were before but are each in its primitive condition; while
if one has been destroyed, then there is not combination at all: on the contrary, one
remains but not the other. Whereas combination demands uniformity of conditions
in them both. On the same principle, even if both things have been destroyed
following their coalescence, there would be not combination since they have no being
at all. (GC, 327 a 34 ff).
 J. E. BOLZAN

The p,{~t~ requires that the elem~nts that have combined with each other exist under
"uniformity of condition". Aristotle explains this by using his well-known notions of
being-in-act ("actuality") and being-in-potency (llpotentiality").
The compound may be actually other than the components from which it has
resulted; nevertheless each of them may still be potentially what it was (actually)
before they were combined, without having disappeared of necessity. (GC, 327 b 24)
And this occurs precisely because the constituents persist in some manner in the com-
pound. This is what differentiates p,{~t~ (chemical combination) from generation and
corruption (this is exactly the title of the treatise: 7T€p{ Y€VEa€W~ TJcx{ 4>eopa~). In this last
case the result of the process is a new substance from the analysis of which one does not
necessarily obtain the original substances because these, by corruption, have turned into
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

pure potentiality of matter. And from pure potentiality any substance can be actualized,
not necessarily the original substances. But in the substance resulting from a process of
p,{~t~ the llcombinables" ('TWV p,LKTWV) or reactants are in a special state. They are neither
totally in-act ("actually-persistent") because in such a case there would not have been the
production of a new substance, nor totally in-potency ("potentially-persistent") because if
they were, it would have been a process of generation and corruption rather than P.{'L~.
Instead, what is under discussion here is an intermediate state (327 b2g), what scholasticism
would later designate a llvirtual state". This term means precisely the recoverability
of the reactants without diminution of the unity that characterizes the substance, so long
as the substance does not decompose into those original reactants. Note that what
Aristotle allo\vs for in the long tenn with this idea is the ultimate justification for the
possibility of analytical chemistry. As we shall see, he will provide a similar justification
for chemical synthe!;is.
Aristotle then proceeds to define combination as the:
unification of the combinables, which have suffered (mutual) alteration. (GC, 328 b
22).
These combinables or reactants interact reciprocally (328 b 20), because they possess a
"certain contrariety" (328 a 32). This allows them to make \vay for the appearance of a
genuinely new substance, in which the components are not in mere juxtaposition (such as
occurs in a O'VVB€O'L~ or mixture), but which is a compound of uniform texture throughout
with each of its parts being the same as the whole (328 a 10). There is therefore a real
uunification" of the reactants into a homogeneous substance, all of which is that substance.
It is worth pointing out a practical aspect of Aristotle's observations: the more sub-
divided the reactants are, the more easily the process of combination takes place (328 a 33).
For this reason, liquids are the most llcombinable" of all bodies-because, of all divisible
materials the liquid is most readily adaptable in shape, llunless it be viscous" (328 b 3).
With these astute practical observations \ve must close our brief summary of Book I,
Chapter 10. Before examining Book II, Chapter 7, it is very important that we refer to
Aristotle's ideas about the transformations that the four elements undergo. Since these
form all other substances, it is logical that whatever happens to them will have repercussions
on the rest; indeed, their behaviour will be normative.
Consequently, we must explain what is the manner of that reciprocal transfornlation
(of the elements); whether all of them can come-to-be out of all of theIn, or whether
some can do so, but not others. (Ge, 331 a 10).
 CHEMICAL COMBINATION ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE 137

It is known that for Aristotle, all of the ~lements are naturally transformable into each
other (GC, 331 a 12), but
... both the speed and the facility (of the processes) will differ: the transformation
is quicker between those (elements) which are in agreement (according to some
quality) than between those that are not. The reason is that it is easier to change
only one quality than many. (GC, 331 a 22).12

This association of elements according to a quality that they have in common, establishes a
"cycle of transformation". (Fig. I)

-=:::::::::: )
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

Fire

hot
Air -=:::::::
Water ---:::::)
_

COld)
cold
Earth -=::::::: dry

Fig. I Fig. 2

But if one considers elements that do not share any of their characteristic qualities, the
difficulty of transformation is greater, e.g.
If Fire is to result from Water, both the cold and the moist must pass-away. (GC,
331 b 7).
In this case of transformations that proceed along a diagonal (Fig. 2), we require more
drastic conditions of operation. But there is also another possibility, what we would now
call a "double decomposition reaction".
But if one (quality) in each of two elements pass-away, the transformation, though
easier, is not reciprocal: from Fire plus Water there will result Earth and Air, and
from Air plus Earth Fire and Water. For there will be Air, when the cold of the
Water and the dry of the Fire have passed-a\vay, since the hot of the latter and the
moist of the former are left; whereas, when the hot of the Fire and the moist of the
Water have passed away, there will be Earth, owing to the survival of the dry of the
Fire and the cold of the Water. (GC, 331 b 12).
The reaction which can be represented by analogy to present day chemistry as below
is also a "diagonal transformation".

Fire + Water ~ Earth Air +

(dry, hot) +(cold, moist) ~ (dry, cold) + (hot, moist)

As experience confirms, the difficulty of this double transformation is immediate

between that of the hvo previous cases.
 J. E. BOLZAN

This mode of Fire's coming~.to-be is confirmed by perception. For flame is par

excellence Fire: but flame is also burning smoke (Ka1TvoS' KaLCJp.EvoS') and smoke
consists of Air and Earth. (Ge, 331 b 24).
This specific example leaves much to be desired today as does the theory on which it
is based. But it does indicate in the first place that Aristotle always had in view the necessity
of giving his theories an empirical foundation wherever possible. In the second place,
this example shows that "element" is a fundamental concept that underlies any more or
less simple body that really exists. Thus flame, which is "par-excellence Fire" only arises
as the result of a complex process of combustion or combination of a combustible (earth
matter) and of Air. The combustible (e.g., a log) contributes the dryness and the Air
contributes the heat. Cold is lost from the Earth and moisture from the Air in order to
make way for the Fire (hot and dry) manifested in the flame; this is materialized as "burn-
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

ing smoke" .13

But there are also some impossible combinations:

When (the elements) are taken in their consecutive order, no transformation into
any body can result from the passing-away of one or both (qualities) of each of two
elements, because either identical or contrary qualities are left in both (elements):
but no body can be formed either out of identical, or out of contrary qualities. (Ge,
331 b 26).
The fundamental requirement of harmony between active and passive qualities in any
one element still operates; there cannot be an element which is only "hot", nor can there be
one that is "dry-moist":

and this would be the case if the dry of fire and the moist of air were to pass-away:
for the hot is left in both. On the other hand, if the hot pass-away out of both,
the contraries-dry and moist-are left. (GC, 331 b 30).

The sequence in Figure I makes Aristotle's meaning quite clear. In the cycle of trans-
formations, it is not possible to pass from one element to the next by eliminating only one
of the qualities belonging to each of them.

Hence, too, it clearly follows that, when one (of the consecutive elements) is trans-
formed into another, the coming-to-be is effected by the passing-away of a single
(quality): whereas, ,vhen two (of those elements) are transformed into a third,
coming-to-be is attained (through passing-away) of more than one (quality). (GC,
331b 35)·
This then explains:

that all (the elements) come-to-be out of anyone of them: and the manner in which
their mutual conversion takes place. (GC, 331 b 36).

We are now ready to examine the classic passage in Book II, Chapter 7 in order to
determine how, according to Aristotle, complex homogeneous substances (homeomers) can
be generated from the four elements. In the first place:

The theories that assert, on the one hand, that there is something common to all
the elements and admit, on the other hand, their reciprocal transformation, are
so related that in accepting either one is bound to accept the other as well. (GC,
334 a 16).
 CHEMICAL COMBINATION ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE 139

This is precisely what Aristotle himself has argued in-previous chapters (4 and 5) of this
same work. If the elements have a common substrate, they can transform themselves into
each other reciprocally; if the elements can transform themselves reciprocally into each
other, they ought to possess a common substrate.
On the other hand, those who (like Empedocles) do not make either the coming-to-be
reciprocal nor from anyone (of the elements), except in the sense in which bricks
come-ta-be out of a wall, are faced with a paradox: how are flesh and bones (or any
other compound) to result from the plurality of elements? (GC, 334 a 18).
This is also a problem for those who allow reciprocal generation of the elements, because:
In what manner does anything other than, and beside, the elements come-to-be out
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

of them? (GC, 334 a 22).

That is to say, how does one explain not only the generation of one element from another,
but also the production of complex substances-the homeomers-from the same four ele-
ments? One must remember that a homeomeric substance is not just a more or less homo-
geneous mass of elements associated by simple addition, but a permanent reality with its
own special mode of existence and behaviour. Given the Aristotelian theory then, it is
possible to explain that:
Water can come-to-be out of Fire, and Fire out of Water; for their substratum is
something common (to them both). (GC, 334 a 23).
But how can one explain the origin of complex substances such as flesh and marrow
(334 a 25)?.. It is not relevant to refer here to an underlying substrate, since we are con-
cerned with a compound of elemerits.
Those who maintain the theory of Empedocles must conceive composition just as
a wall comes-to-be out of bricks and stones; and the mixture, of which they speak,
,vill be composed of the elements, these being preserved in it unaltered but with
their small particles juxtaposed each to each. (GC, 334 a 26).
But this is equivalent to admitting that there is not a true case of P.l~LS under
consideration here, but rather a simple mixture (UVVO€ULS). The elements will actually
subsist in the compound and this will not be a true unity per se, but rather an 'unum per
accidens, with which:
It follows that Fire and Water do not come-to-be out of any and every part of flesh
(or from other elements). (GC, 334 a 31).
On the contrary, from one part Fire will come, and from another part Water will come.
This is against the opinion of Aristotle, for whom it is experience itself that indicate's that
every mixture or combination is op.otol-'-€pES. Consequently, elements can be generated
from any of its parts. For example:
... although a sphere might come-to-be out of this part of a lump of wax and a
pyramid out of some other part, it was nevertheless possible for either figure to have
come-to-be out of either part (indifferently). (GC, 334 a 32).
But in reality, it does happen that way. Regardless of what one has said, not all of the
difficulties are on the side of Empedocles and his partisans .
. . . Even for those who postulate a single matter (of their elements) there is a certain
difficulty in explaining how anything is to result from the sum of two elements~.g.
from 'cold' and 'hot', or from Fire and Earth. (GC, 334 b 2).
 J. E. BOLZAN

Here is a real problem for Aristotle; he himself has argued that the elements transform
themselves into each other precisely because there is
some (common) matter (... ) out of which the so-called elements come-to-be. (GC,
329 a 25);
and that
We must reckon (that matter) as a first principle, though it is inseparable and
underlying to the contraries. (Ge, 329 a 29).
In these conditions:
if flesh consists of both and is neither of them, nor is a composition in which (the
elements) are preserved unaltered, \vhat alternative is left except to identify the
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

resultant of both elements with their matter? For the passing-away of either
(element) produces either the other or the 11latter. (GC, 334 b 4).
Up to this point, the theory of the four elements has enabled us to accept: (I) the reality
of the substrate or common matter of the tetrad; and (2) the consequent possibility of
reciprocal transformation between the elements or between them and the substrate.
Therefore, there does not seem to be any way out for Aristotle, because if flesh is not the
sum of the elements, this means that the elements do not retain their identity as such in it.
If they do not retain their identity thus, they ought to have undergone a transformation.
But if they have undergone a transformation, only some of them would be able to remain as
a result. However, we have already accepted that flesh is flesh and not Water or Fire (or
indeed common matter, but it is absurd to suggest that this might have a separate
existence). Ergo:
Perhaps we may suggest the follo\ving solution: there are differences of degree in
hot and cold; \vhen either is fully in act, the other will exist potentially; yet, when
neither exists in the full completeness of its being because both by combining destroy
one another's excesses so that there exist instead a hot which is (relatively) cold,
and a cold which is (relatively) hot, what results from these two contraries will be
neither the matter nor .either of them existing in pure act, but there will result an
intermediate (fL€Ta~v): and this intermediate, according as it is potentially more hot
than cold or vice versa, \vill possess a po\ver of heating that is double or triple its
power of cooling, or some similar ratio of this genus. (GC, 334 b 8).
The solution is ingenious and important. The primary qualities of the elements are
capable of undergoing intension and remission-of undergoing increases and decrease-in
as much as experience shows that bodies are susceptible to being more or less hot, or dry,
etc. Therefore it follows that not only is the direct transmutation of one element into
another by corruption and generation possible (which case would always necessarily give
rise to one of the pairs of primary qualities) ; but there is also possible a state intermediate
between those pairs (of qualities) of those elements.14 The elements \vould no longer be
fully actualized, but would exist in a "virtual state" .15
Here again Aristotle is respectful towards experience, and to some degree, given his
"qualititativism" (about which there is much exaggeration) he does not disdain quantitative
expression, even though his application of it might seem somewhat rudimentary. From the
information that we have now, it is quite possible to convert Aristotle's verbal expressions
into a synlbolic language more in keeping with present day chemistry. Joachim does this,16
referring to "quaternary compounds" and formulae with subscripts which help to express
 CHEMICAL COMBINATION ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE

the quantitativism outlined by Aristotle. In this way, ~ complex homeomer such as flesh-
to use Joachim's example-could be represented symbolically as E6A4F3W2,in the same way
that we now refer to water as H20.
That is to say, in contrast to what Ogle argues,17 Aristotle not only knew how to dis-
tinguish between mixture and combination (that much Ogle concedes), but he also upheld a
form of "Law of definite proportions" (which Ogle denies), a AOYOS' 7fjS' JLl~€WS'.18 This is
clear although there may be nothing more than the negative of affirming that a mere
juxtaposition of atoms
will be a mixture instead of a combination: and the \\Thole and its parts will not
exhibit the same ratio (between its constituents) (... ). (In a combination) any
part of it must be of the same nature (as the whole) just as any part of water is
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

water. (Ge, 328 a 8).

Therefore the product of a combination is a specific substance. From this follows that-
much as Dalton would repeat it centuries later19-every particle separated from water is
water. In another passage, he insists that:
The ratio between the elements as combined (AOyOV ~ fJ-t~tS') is different in making
flesh arid in making bone. (DA, 408 a 14).
That is to say:
Every compound consists not of the (four) elements taken anyhow r but only those
which are united in a given proportion or combination. (DA, 410 a I)
All of which does not occur without the application to this concrete case of what we may
call the "Principle of ontological harmony", according to which:
To be means, precisely, to be disposed in S01ne manner; and to be ice, (means) to be
condensed in SOl1te11tanner. (l\1t, 1042 b 25)
For Aristotle, bodies compounded of and resulting from a combination of elements-
these now in this case meaning the same as their primary qualities-become substances
with a sort of intermediate existence between the four extremes that those qualities, pertain-
ing first and properly to the elements, indicate:
Among the combined, all the other (h0111eOmers)will result from the contraries, or
rather from the elements (in so far as these have been combined); while the elements
will result from the contraries that exist potentially (in a special sense): not as
matter, but in the sense explained above. (GC, 334 b 17)
This is equivalent to saying that \vhile combination originates in the elements as from its
own matter, elements can be originated from a mixture only by resolving it. In doing so,
they actualize their respective virtual states in which the elements are underlying in the
compound, "not as matter exists" -purely potentially (for this is not capable of having
qualities), but in the said intermediate state, as modified in its intensity.
In sum:
The contraries suffer action in accordance with the manner established in the early
part of this work; and then the actually hot is potentially cold, and the actually cold
is potentially hot; so that hot and cold, unless they are (energetically) balanced, are
transformed into one another. All this is valid for the other contraries (e.g.,
moist-dry). It is in this way, then, that in the first place the elements are trans-
formed; and that out of them (there come-to-be) flesh and bones and the like, the
 J. E. BOLZAN

hot becoming cold and the c.old becoming hot when they have been brought to a
mean that is neither one nor another. (GC, 334 b 20)
The manner established in the early part of this work refers to Aristotle's exposition in
Book I, Chapters 7 and 8. There every transformation is explained by means of actuality
and potentiality sometimes focusing on the prevalence of one of the contrarieties over
another making itself thus dominant (cf. 328 b 28), and sometimes focusing on the harmony
between these same contrarieties, in order to allow for the appearance of a stable hOl1teOmer
-the "mean":
but this mean is not single and it is not indivisible (GC, 334 b 28).
Clearly the doctrine of the mean allows for a great scale of intermediate values depend-
ing, as may be, on the results that a calculation, on the one hand, of the combinations that a
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

varied ratio between the four elements would give, or on the other hand, that a calculation
of the effect of very diverse degrees of hot-cold-dry-moist on those elements would give
(cf. 334 b 8). Thus it is possible to explain the great diversity of homeomeric and an-
homeomeric substances and also to explain the complex bodies which living beings are, by
means of what we might call (in the manner of Aristotle) a "Scale of degrees of composition".
Now, given that there are three degrees of composition, the first in order is com-
bination out of what is called the elements: earth, water, air, fire. Perhaps, however,
it would be more accurate to say conlbination out of the (elementary) forces; nor
indeed out of all of these, but out of that previously defined. For moist and dry,
hot and cold forms the matter of the composite bodies; all the other differences are
derived from them, e.g. heaviness, lightness (... ). The second degree of composition
of those elements is that by which the homeomerous parts of living beings are
constituted, such as bone, flesh and the remaining tissues.
The third and last stage in order is the composition which forms the anhome-
omerous parts, such as face, hand, and the rest. (PA, 646 a 13)
In conclusion, every homogeneous body represents, as a result of a combination, a sort
of "aurea mediocritas", an exact point of equilibrium between the elements, or better yet,
between the elementary forces, properly proportioned.

In order to complete this exposition, we regard it necessary to justify somewhat our

translation of the text GC. 334 b 28. The Greek text says:
70 8~ P.€UO'J 7TOAV Kat OUT] dS"Klperov.
Translators are generally in agreement about referring to piuo'J (the mean) as being "of
considerable extent" ;20however, Joachim accepts in his commentary21 that, in this case, it
is better understood as something variable and multiple, more like Mugler's22 literal transla-
tion which Tracy23 accepts nonetheless giving his own translation; and even Seek accepts
this view indirectly, although he does not cite the passage explicitly.24 Those who are
closest to our interpretation are Verdenius and Waszink,25 for although the following
appears in their work: "It is a mean stretch that the dry and the moist, etc. produce flesh
and bone", they maintain that the mean ought to be considered more properly "in a local
sense" -with which we do not agree-and they take as their motive line 27: o7a'J 7TPOS 70
piuo'J EA(JU ("by reduction to a mean term"), harmonizing it with a syntactical correction
of Kat in line 28.26
A final point: the grammatical construction "and it is not indivisible" emphasizes the
 CHEMICAL COMBINATION ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE 143

secondary meaning which we believe that Aristotle give~ to this clarifying line, making it
possible for one to say in an explanatory paraphrase but this mean is neither single nor
It •••

(obviously) indivisible", since what are under consideration are corporeal stlbstances.

REFERENCES

I. H. H. Joachim, "Aristotle's conception of chemical combination", J. Philology, 29, 72, 1903.

2. J. R. Partington, A history of chemistry, vol. I, Part I, London, 1970, chap. 4. Note also: Andrew
G. Van Melsen, From atom os to atom, New York, 1960,30-44; E. J. Dijksterhuis, The mechanisation
of the world picture, Oxford, 1961, 22-4, 200-4.
3. M. Stephanides, "Une theorie chimique d'Aristote. Contact et affinite", La Rev. Scientifique, 62,
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

626, 1924.
4. In order not to burden this essay unnecessarily with footnotes, Aristotelian texts are cited in the body
of the paper using the following abbreviations:
DC (De caelo), GC (De generatione et corruptione), DA (De anima), PA (De partibus animalium),
Mt (Metaphysica), Mtg (Meteorologica), DS (De sensu).
Unless otherwise noted, all texts are translated from the author's own Spanish version from the
Greek. The author acknowledges the valuable help of Prof. Azucena A. Fraboschi in discussing
Greek texts.
5. Cf. R. Taton (ed.), Histoire generale des sciences, vol. I, livre I: "La science hellene" (P.H. Michael),
Paris, 1957; M. Stillman, The story of alchemy and early chemistry, New York, 1960, p. 125; M.E.
Weeks, The discovery of elements, Easton, 1960, p. 4; etc.
6. See below, PA, 646 a 13.
7. R. Boyle, The sceptical chymist, in The Works, ed. Thomas Birch, vol. I, p. 562, London, 1772
(reprod. Hi1desheim, 1965). For Partington, op. cit., vol. II, p. 501, London, 1961, "Boyle's
definition is practically identical with the Stoic doctrine", and nothing more.
8. A. .L. Lavoisier, Elements of chemistry, trans!. R. Kerr, 1790 (reprod. New York, 1965, p. XXIV).
9. "All we dare venture to affirm of any substance is, that it must be considered as simple in the present
state of our knowledge, and so far as chemical analysis has hitherto been able to show", Lavoisier,
op. cit., p. 177.
10. But note that Boyle did not venture to indicate which were true elements; and Lavoisier wound up
including heat and light in his Table of Simple Substances.
11. That this distinction of Aristotle's signifies an important advance is made very clear in Paneth's
article of 1931,which it was still necessary to reprint in 1962given the scarcity of studies about this
subject. F. A. Paneth, "The epistemological status of the chemical concept of element", British J.
Philos. Science, 13, I, 144, 1962.
12. oaa ""(1/ 'Yap EXEt ao,...fJo~a Trp6S a~~17~a (line 24) is what Aristotle says literally. "Symbola"
(originally a tally-stick). This signifies possessing a common quality (a common factor, rather
than "facteurs complementaires" as Tricot translates it) showing "convenientiam in aliquaqualitate",
following what is correctly said by S. Thomas, In II De generatione et corruptione, lectio 4, no. 210
(ed. Marietti); S. Mauro, Aristotelis Opera Omnia ... ,.t. III, p. 454, Paris, 1886is not correct when
he explains "Elementa quae in una qualitate conveniunt, dicuntur symbola", because it is not the
elements that are so denominated here, but rather the qualities that in a given case may be common
to two elements: "Qualitates symbola vocamus aes, in quibus duo elementa in se conveniunt", F.
Toledo, Comm. in Lib. de gen. et corr. Aristotelis, Venetiis, 1602, L. II, c, 3, q.7.
13. "That (the exhalation) which rises from the moisture contained in the earth and on its surface (due
to water and air) is vapour (aTfltSa) while that rising from the earth itself, which is dry, is like smoke
(KaTrl/wS17)" (Mtg, 341 b 9); " ... but fumid (exhalation) is composed of Air and Earth." (DC, 443 a
27). We have studied these exhalations insofar as they are applied to the origin of minerals in our
essay "Aristoteles y la formacion de minerales y metales", Anuario Humanitas, (Universidad de
Nuevo Leon, l\fexico), 14, 218, 1973.
14. For a general development of the doctrine of the mean, see,T. J. Tracy, Physiological doctrine and the
doctrine of the mean in Plato and A ristotie, The Hague-Paris, 1969.
 144 .r. E. BOLZAN

15. This much debated and ill understood theme of the "virtual state" will be considered in another
article.
16. joachim, Ope cit. (I), 75 and 76, note 4.
17. W. Ogle, De Pal'tibus animalium, in W. D. Ross (ed.) "The works of Aristotle trans. into English",
Vol. V, note to 646 a 18: "But though Aristotle thus distinguished chemical combination from
mechanical mixture, he had no notion of preferential affinities, nor, of course, of combination in
definite proportions. The elementary bodies combined with each other with perfect indifference,
and in any chance proportions. There was thus no such thing as definite composition, and conse-
quently no such thing as definite properties, in substances."
18. Aristotle, De anima, 408 a 14. .
19. j. Dalton, A new system of chemical philosoPhy, vol. I, p. 143, Manchester, 1803: "Therefore we may
conclude that the ultimate particles of all homogenous bodies are perfectly alike in weight, figure,
etc. In other words, every particle of water is like every other particle of water ... ".
20. " ... of considerable extent" (Joachim, Aristotle: De generatione et corruptione, "The Works of
Downloaded by [University of Birmingham] at 03:31 09 May 2016

Aristotle transl. into English"); " ... de grande etendue" (J. Tricot, A ristote : De la generation et de
la corruption, Paris, 2a., 1951); fl ••• has considerable extention" (E. S. Foster, Aristotle on coming-to-
be and passing-away, Loeb Class. Lib., London, 1965).
21. H. H. joachim, Aristotle on coming-to-be and passing-away. A revised text with intr. and comm.,
Oxford, 1922; p. 244: "the mean is a 'strecht' or a 'scale', not 'punctual' or a 'point' ", and he agrees
that ,.,.I.aov "is capable of fluctuations within certain defined limits".
22. C. :Mugler, Aristote, De lageneration et de la corruption, texte etabli et traduit, Paris, 1966: " ... mais
ce millieu est multiple."
23. Tracy, Ope cit. (14), 172-3: "This mean is not the same for all compounds but is of considerable
extent."
24. G. A. Seek, Ueber die Elemente in der Kosmologie des Aristoteles. Untersuchungen zu 'De generatione
et corruptione' and 'De caeIo', Munchen, 1954; vide especially p. 54 fi.
25. W. J. Verdenius-J. H. Waszink, Aristotle on coming-to-be and passing-away. Some comments,
Leiden, 1966, p. 65. The "local sense" they support by reference to, e.g., a Cat., I4a 3-4, and De
anima, 424 a 4. To these passages we can add Ethica Nic., 1106 a 26:
"In everything that is continuous and divisible it is possible to take the more, the less, or the equal,
and that either in terms of the thing itself or relatively to us; and the equal is an intermediate be-
tween excess and defect. By the intermediate in the object I mean that which is equidistant from
each of the extremes ... " But it is our opinion that this is not properly applied here as it is really
more qualitative in intention.
26. For Alexander: " ... a body is formed not only according to the substrate but as well to the quality;
that body is some whole in potency, and not in full actuality any of the bodies which have entered
into combination in the sense that there exist not in actuality any of the combined bodies as they
have annuled themselves through the activity of each"; Alexander of Aphrodisias, De mixtione, ed. 1.
Brun in Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca, vol. II, part III, Berolini 1891.