But, in the first place, it is not correct to say that the Vital Principle is magnitude, for Timæus evidently means that this Principle of the universe is such as is the so-called mind; and, then, that Principle of the universe can resemble neither the sentient nor the concupiscent faculty, as neither of these moves in a circle. The mind is one and continuous as is cogitation, and cogitation as are thoughts, and thoughts are, by concatenation, one, in the sense, not of magnitude, but of number; and, therefore, the mind is not continuous in the sense of magnitude, but either it is without parts, or, at all events, not continuous as magnitude. How, indeed, were it magnitude, is it to think—as a whole, or by some one of its parts? But parts must be regarded either as magnitude, or as points, if, indeed, a point may be regarded as a part; and, if parts be considered as points, then, as points are innumerable, the mind, clearly, will never be able to recount them all, and if, as magnitude, the mind will have to dwell very often, or rather continuously, upon the same subject. But it is manifest that thinking may be exercised once for all. If, besides, it suffice for thinking, that there should be contact by some one of its parts, why should it move in a circle, or why be magnitude? And if necessary for thinking that there should be contact by the whole circle, then what means contact by its parts? How, besides, shall that which has parts think by that which is without parts, or that which is without by that which has parts? Thus, it follows that the mind must be that circle: for thinking is the movement of the mind, as the periphery is the movement of the circle; and, if thinking be the periphery of the mind, the mind may be regarded as the circle, of which thinking is the periphery. But then the mind will be ever thinking, and necessarily so, since the peripheral movement is unceasing. Now, there are limits to practical thoughts, (as all such are for the sake of something else,) and so equally there are to speculative thoughts, in their reasons; and every reason is either a definition or a demonstration. Thus, demonstrations set out from a principle, and are, in some way, terminated by a syllogism or a conclusion; and even though not concluded, they do not revert to their principle, but, taking up another mean and extreme, they proceed onward; but the periphery, on the contrary, does revert to its point of departure. Definitions, however, are always limited. If, moreover, the same periphery recur often, the mind will be driven to think often upon the same subject, and thinking, besides, seems rather to be a kind of rest and a halt than motion; and this applies equally to the syllogism. As every condition, besides, which is compulsory and ungenial must be unhappy, so unless movement be an essential property of that mind, it must be moving against its nature, and it cannot but be painful for it to have been so connected with the body as to be unable to free itself from it; nay more, it is a lot to have been avoided, since it is better for the mind, as is commonly said, and to many seems reasonable, not to have been connected with a body at all. The cause too, of the circular movement of the sky is obscurely stated—for the essence of the Vital Principle is not the cause of that movement, as it never does, excepting it be by chance, so move, nor can the body be the cause, as it is the Vital Principle rather which gives motion to it; neither is it explained how it is better for the Vital Principle to be so circumstanced, and yet it ought to have been shewn that God had caused it to have a circular movement, as better for it to be in motion than at rest, and to move in that rather than in any other direction. But as this is an inquiry which belongs rather to other studies, it may, for the present, be laid aside.
The same incongruity which occurs in most of the theories upon Vital Principle is met with here, in that writers join Vital Principle to and place it in a body without having first settled for what purpose the body is to receive it, or how it is fitted for the office. It would seem, however, to be necessary that this should be settled, as it is through this connexion that the one acts and the other is acted upon, that the one moves and the other is moved; and these are relations which cannot be attributed to casual associations. There are writers who content themselves with saying what Vital Principle is, without determining any thing about the body its recipient, as if it were admissible, according to Pythagorean legends, that any kind of Vital Principle might clothe itself with any kind of body; but every thing, on the contrary, seems to have its own particular character and form. Such opinions are, in fact, very much like maintaining that the builder's art may be undertaken with musical instruments; but we affirm that as each art must employ its own instruments, so each Vital Principle must employ its own body.
Notes Layout 2 Notes Layout 2 Note 1, p. 29. It is not easy, however, &c.] That is, if the Vital Principle be a first cause and an element or combination of the elements, it cannot be determined, if subject to external impulse, what its movements will be—if it be of fire, it must move upwards, if of earth, downwards, and so for intermediate movements. Plato maintains, as was said, that, as there can be nothing visible or tangible without fire or solid without earth, these were the first of created elements; and that, as there can be no enduring combination out of two elements, air and water were next created and placed between the first two.
Note 2, p. 30. Now, the body is moved by translation.] This passage has been the subject of much and serious controversy, both as to its meaning and its genuineness; and yet, although an argumentum ad absurdum, it is a fair conclusion from those premises. Thus, if the Vital Principle be an entity distinct from the body which it animates, and if the body be moved, by translation, from it, the Vital Principle, having also that movement, may set itself free, and if able to do this, it may re-enter and resuscitate the body which it had left. The assumption, in fact, is an evident objection to the opinion that Vital Principle moves itself as it moves the body; and seems to be necessary to the completion of the argument.
The passage, however, has been regarded as an interpolation introduced by some Christian writer, (adeo verba Christianum seculum referunt,) in order to support the doctrine of the resurrection: and Trendelenberg, while unwilling to suppress the passage, seems to question its authenticity. The subsequent paragraphs are in support of Aristotle's opinion that the Vital Principle, if self-motive, cannot be subject to motion by other impulse than its own, (just as that which is good in itself, cannot be so by or for the sake of something else,) and that, if it were so subject, its motion would be due to sentient impressions.
Note 3, p. 31. Some philosophers maintain.] This passage is a covert satire of the doctrine of Democritus that motion is transmitted through all nature by atoms in constant motion; and these are said to have been likened by Philippus, the reputed son, according to Meineke, of Aristophanes, to globules of quicksilver, which, when poured in, made a wooden figure to become moveable. It is uncertain, by the way, when this metal was first employed; it is here alluded to as a well-known substance, and is so spoken of by Theophrastus. Pliny says that "it was brought from the silver mines of Spain, in the form of cinnabar, and, when freed from its ore, used in metallurgy;" further, "that it is always fluid, and an universal poison."
Note 4, p. 31. It is in this same manner, &c.] If the Vital Principle be to the body what Plato, in the Timæus, made the great animating principle to be to the Universe, a source of intelligence and ordered motion, there must be an accordance between terrene and celestial bodies and movements; but as earthly bodies are moved by objects of sense and perception, and as their movements are not, like those of the heavenly, in a circle, their natures must be different. It would be idle to attempt to make a digest of the opinions entertained in the Timæus, the most abstruse and laboured of all Plato's works, or to trace the analogy between the constitution and motions of the supernal orbs, and the constitutions and conditions of earthly bodies. But four points seem to be evident —that the universe moves by motions communicated by the anima; that the anima is from the elements; that it has so been divided, as to have an innate sense of harmonic numbers; and that it has been made to move in the same circles as the sky. This summary is adduced by Aristotle to shew how scarcely possible it could be to adjust this speculation to his own subject of inquiry, and he may have been led to criticise it the rather, as the great principle of the universe is synonymous with his own treatise; each is, in fact, ψυχή. But to quote the learned commentator, "Platonem in Timæo quam maxime obscurum illustrare, hujus loci non est."
Note 5, p. 32. But, in the first place.] These critical objections cannot be fully realised without reference to the leading opinions and arguments of the Timæus, which, although, perhaps, at the time, regarded only as speculations and now stand self-confuted as physics, are enshrined in words which shall endure, until mankind cease to find delight and instruction in pure and abstract studies. The first objection raised by Aristotle is to the ascription of magnitude to that anima (which is to be necessarily inferred from its being divisible,) as well as to the intelligence or mind, which is identified with it; for magnitude would imply a material entity, and matter conjoined with form and essence implies parts, and whatever has parts cannot either be self-existent, or indefinite in duration. Another objection, much insisted upon, is the movement in a circle, which cannot, it is said, be the motion produced by the passions or appetites; but the chief topic is resumed, and the mind is shewn to be, like the thoughts which emanate from it, immaterial. Aristotle's subject, however, unlike that of the Timæus, was confined to the agent or principle, whatever it be, which imparts motion and other vital properties to organised matter.
Note 6, p. 33. Now, there are limits to practical thoughts.] The origin of whatever is original is in the maker or creator, whether it be mind, or art, or a special faculty—it is an abstraction that is; but, whatever is practical is dependent only on an agent, or his choice, for the act is identical with what is chosen. Thus, practical thoughts are confined to the particular faculties and organs which are required for securing what may have been chosen.
Note 7, p. 33. Terminated by a syllogism.] The syllogism is an argument, in which, from given premises, something different from the terms laid down results, necessarily, from their admission. Modern definition is much like this—the syllogism is said to be an argument of three propositions, having the property, that the conclusion necessarily follows from the two premises; so that if the premises be true, the conclusion must be true; and a conclusion is the proposition which is inferred from certain former propositions, termed the premises of the argument.
Note 8, p. 34. The same incongruity.] This is an objection by Aristotle to the doctrine of metempsychosis, adopted by the Pythagoreans, and, being placed upon obvious physical relations, it may be considered as irrefragable. Thus, philosophers held numbers to be elements, and perceived in them and their combinations resemblances to, or types of faculties and sentient properties, as has been observed. Their doctrine was, "that man consists of an elementary nature, and a rational or divine principle, and that of this last, the divine is seated in the brain, the passions and appetites in the liver and heart; that the rational part is immortal, the sentient principle perishable." They further taught, that the imperishable part, freed from the chains of the body, assumes a new form, passes to the centre of the earth for judgment, and, if not deemed worthy of associating with perfect spirits, is returned to earth to inhabit another body, of higher or lower nature, according to its former deserts. This doctrine has been so developed and exemplified in the final teaching of Socrates, before his death, that that dialogue may be regarded as a faithful exposition of the argument and its merits. Aristotle, overlooking every supernal cause or agency, objects to the doctrine, not on its own grounds but, by reasonings, which are purely deductive; and the doctrine is, no doubt, when tested by physical science, incongruous.
Note 9, p. 35. Such opinions are, in fact, &c.] This passage is apparently abstruse and ambiguous, owing to the terms being applicable to more than one art or implement; and yet, " as it involves a kind of antithesis between the art and the implements, the Vital Principle and the body," the general sense can be made sufficiently obvious. The purport of the phrase is well given in the Latin version: Perinde igitur dicunt atqui si quispiam artem fabrilem fistulas ingredi dicat; etenim ars quidam instrumentis, anima vero corpore utatur oportet. The French version is less definite: "C'est absolument comme si l'on pretendoit que l'architecture peut se mêler de fabriquer des instruments de musique."
PRELUDE TO CHAPTER IV.
This chapter opens with a definition of harmony, and proceeds to shew that the then prevailing opinion concerning the Vital Principle, as related to harmony, is not maintainable; it is not quite agreed upon whether the popular disquisitions here alluded to are Aristotle's commentary upon the Phædo; or his dialogue of Endemus; or a digest of his own oral teachings. The words in the original (λόγους ὥσπερ εὐθύνας, κ.τ.λ.), which are rendered "found to be wanting" (Gallicè, dont nous avons déjà fait justice), signify strictly the scrutiny or passing of the accounts of magistrates at the close of their period of service, and while the result was yet on the balance; but, to judge by the context, they seem here to imply rather an unfavourable issue, and this is the purport of other versions—"alia quædam opinio de anima tradita reprobata tamen, et his rationibus quae in communibus sermonibus fiunt" The chapter closes with a confutation of the opinion of Xenocrates, that the Vital Principle is a number with self-motion.
CHAPTER IV.
Another opinion upon the Vital Principle has been handed down, which to many is not less acceptable than any one of those already alluded to, but which, having been scrutinized in our popular disquisitions, has been found to be wanting. The supporters of this opinion say, that the Vital Principle is some kind of harmony; that harmony is a mixture and compound of contraries, and that the body is constituted of contraries. But although harmony is a certain proportion or compound of particles mixed together, it is not possible that the Vital Principle should be the one or the other; for it forms no part of harmony to produce motion, but all writers agree in assigning motive power to the Vital Principle as its most characteristic property. The term harmony, besides, is applicable rather to health and the corporeal powers in general, than to the Vital Principle, as would be very manifest to any one who should undertake to account, by any harmony, for the emotions and functions of the Vital Principle; for it would be scarcely possible to reconcile them to one another. If harmony, besides, may be spoken of with reference to two points—as applicable, most especially, to the composition of particles in masses which have motion and proportion, whenever they may so coalesce as not to admit of any which are homogeneous, and then as applicable to the proportion of the commingled particles, yet in neither sense can it be reasonable to regard Vital Principle as harmony, nor can the Vital Principle be the composition of the parts of the body: for the composition of the parts (and many and various are the compositions of the parts) is quite open to examination—but of what can we suppose that the mind, or the sentient, or the appetitive faculty is a composition? or how is any one of them to be composed? It is equally absurd to think that the Vital Principle can be the proportion of the mixture, since the mixture of the elements which forms flesh is differently proportioned from that which forms bone. It will happen, too, from this theory, that there are many Vital Principles, and many in every body, if all bodies are from the elements in combination, and if the proportion of the combination is harmony and Vital Principle. We might inquire too of Empedocles, who maintains that each of those bodies exists in a certain proportion, whether Vital Principle is the proportion? or whether rather is it present in the members, as something different from proportion? Is affinity, besides, the cause of a fortuitous or a definite combination of parts? And then, again, is affinity the proportion, or something besides the proportion?
Such are the difficulties which present themselves; but if the Vital Principle is something different from the composition, what is that which is simultaneously destroyed with the life, in the flesh, and other parts of an animal? Besides these questions, since each of the parts of the body has not Vital Principle, unless the Vital Principle is the proportion of the composition in the parts, what is that which is destroyed when the Vital Principle has forsaken the body? It is then clear, from what has been adduced, that Vital Principle can neither be any kind of harmony, nor be moving in a circle.
But to maintain that the Vital Principle is moved by accident is to maintain, as we have said, that it moves itself as it is moved in that in which it is, and which is moved by it; and that it cannot possibly have locomotion in any other way. It might, however, with greater probability be doubted, and for the following considerations, whether it moves at all—for we are accustomed to say that the Vital Principle is daring or afraid, is angry too, and both feels and thinks, and as all these seem to be motions, it might be supposed that the Vital Principle does move. But yet this is no necessary consequence—for if to grieve, to rejoice or think are motions, in the fullest sense, then each of them is motion, and motion may be said to emanate from the Vital Principle, as anger or fear is produced by the heart being moved in this or that manner, and thinking may be some analogous or different kind of motion; but some of these phænomena are produced by the displacement of certain particles in motion, and others by change, the explanation of the quality and manner of which is foreign to the present inquiry.
Now to maintain that the Vital Principle is angry is very much like saying that it weaves or builds, and thus it would, perhaps, be better to say, not that Vital Principle pities, learns or thinks, but that the man, by his Vital Principle, is so affected or so engaged. It is not, however, hereby implied that motion is in the Vital Principle, but, on the contrary, that sometimes it proceeds to, and sometimes comes from it; as sentient impression is from external objects, and recollection comes from it to the movements or impressions abiding in the sentient organs. The mind seems to be a peculiar innate essence, and to be indestructible; were it destructible, however, it would, in an especial sense, be so by the dulness attendant upon age, when probably that happens to the mind which takes place in the sentient organs; for if an aged person could take an eye of a certain character, he would see as well as a young man. Thus, the infirmities of age are attributable, not to the Vital Principle having been in aught affected, but to its recipient suffering, as it does from drunkenness or maladies. Thus, too, thought and reflexion languish when any thing within the body has been destroyed, but that which thinks is impassive. The properties, therefore, of thought, love and hatred belong, not to it, but to that which contains it, and as it contains it; so that when this recipient is destroyed, it can either recollect nor love, as those emotions emanate not from it, but from that which was in common with it, and which has perished. But the mind is probably something more divine, and it is impassive.
It is, then, manifest from what has been adduced, that Vital Principle cannot be in motion; and if altogether without motion, it cannot clearly be self-moved.
The most unreasonable by far of all the opinions upon Vital Principle is that which holds it to be a number with self-motion, for it is beset with insuperable objections; those, in the first place, which result from the idea of motion, and then those more particular objections to speaking of it as a number. How, indeed, is it possible to think of an unit in motion? by what or how, being indivisible and homogeneous, is it to be moved? If said to be both motor and moved, it must have distinction of some kind. Since, besides, they say that a line in motion forms a surface, and a point in line, then units in motion will form lines, as the point is distinguished from the unit only by position; and thus the number of Vital Principle has already locality and position. If, again, from any number there be subtracted a number or an unit, there remains a different number; but plants and many creatures, after having been divided, live on, and appear still, in a specific sense, to possess the same Vital Principle. It might also be supposed to make no difference whether we speak of the Vital Principle as formed of units or corpuscles; for if points are substituted for the spherules of Democritus and quantity alone remains, there will still be in that quantity, as in all continuity, a motor and a moved; for the theory takes account neither of greatness or smallness, but only of quantity. Thus, there must of necessity be something to impart motion to the units. But if the Vital Principle is the motor in an animal, so must it be in the number, and thus the Vital Principle, being no longer motor and moved, is the motor only. Even admitting that the Vital Principle may, in some way, be an unit, there must still be some distinction between it and other units; but what distinction, save that of position, can there be between one unit and another? If then the units and points which are in the body are different, the units will be on the same spot as the points, for the unit will occupy the place of the point; but what then is there to prevent them from being infinite in number on the same spot, even if there be only two, as things are indivisible of which the locality is indivisible? But if the points in the body are the number of the Vital Principle, or if the number formed from the points in the body is the Vital Principle, why have not all bodies Vital Principle? Now there seem to be points in all bodies, and those infinite in number. How besides is it possible for the Vital Principles to be separated and set free from bodies, since lines are not divisible into points?
Notes Note 1, p. 38. It is equally absurd to think, &c.] This is an unanswerable objection to Empedocles and his followers who made all bodies to be combinations, in differing proportions, of the elements—for whether the Vital Principle be harmony or a combination of particles, there must, as combinations are various, (since that which forms bone is not that which forms flesh,) be several principles in each member of the body; and if it be not proportion, there must then be a second Vital Principle to maintain that relation. The succeeding passages are, necessarily, from the absence of precise knowledge concerning atomic proportion and relation, obscure; but they point to opinions which, although not based on experimental science, anticipate, when closely looked into, much that is now admitted.
Note 2, p. 40. Now, to maintain that Vital Principle, &c.] The argument reverts to the question whether the Vital Principle can be subjected to motion casually produced—be subject, that is, to motion through the body which is moved by it, and thus partake of locomotion; but the Vital Principle, being an essence, cannot be subject to casual motion; and then it has been shewn that a motor is not, necessarily, itself in motion. There seems, however, to have been some difficulty in refusing all motion to the Vital Principle, since the emotions and passions which emanate from it seem to be motions, or combined with motions,—as passion excites and fear depresses the motions of the heart, and deep thought furrows the brow; but Aristotle, in order to reconcile these with his own opinion, has recourse to an hypothesis which is left for future inquiry. It is well said, however, that the man rather than the Vital Principle is moved by passions and emotions; and thus motion may descend from it, as the first motor, and at rest, to the several organs, (act, that is, upon the temperament,) or ascend to it, by perception of the external world, for memory. Philoponus, commenting upon this passage, observes, as proof that recollection originates in the Vital Principle and thence permeates to the body, that, "when reminded of any fearful incident we turn pale, and when recalling a voyage we become qualmish."
Note 3, p. 40. The mind seems to be a peculiar innate essence, &c.] Aristotle has nowhere denned this great faculty, to which he attributed so high a destiny and such lofty privileges—"intellectus nihil patitur; est atque manet;" but the opinion was not exclusively his, nor did it originate with him, for Anaxagoras, and before him, Hermoticus made the "mind to be the cause as well of existence in animals as of the universe and universal order." There is, evidently, here a want of distinction between mind and Vital Principle; and it may be that, in order to avoid the obvious objection of two bodies in one, Aristotle has always delineated this faculty as homogeneous and pure; that is, as immaterial.
Note 4, p. 40. For if an aged person.] This allusion to diminished perception, by changes, from the influence of time, in the sentient organs, implies all that can now be said; for could the organ be restored to its pristine form, and its energies be, so to say, revived, the aged person would see or hear as he did when young. The body is modified, in fact, by age, just as it is, to use Aristotle's apposite reflexion, by maladies and rioting, which anticipate the otherwise slower processes of time; "Senectus non eo existat, quod anima sed quod id patitur in quo inest, i. e. corpus, sicut in ebrietate et morbis."
Note 5, p. 41. Thus, too, thought and reflexion languish.] Quid sit, quod intus perire dicatur, commentatores quærunt; sed nihil definiendum, nisi quod oculi similitudini respondeat; but Philoponus, who is here cited, clearly perceived that the passage pointed to the destruction of a corporeal organ, and not to a mere change of form. Whenever, in fact, there is destruction, however brought about, of a corporeal organ, there is almost universally mental disturbance and delirium.
Note 6, p. 41. The most unreasonable by far of all the opinions, &c.] These passages are so associated with the peculiar doctrines of the Pythagoreans, that they can hardly, within the compass of a note, be made intelligible to the general reader. These held the unit, it may be said, to be the origin of number, and the point to be the origin of the line; and so they made unit and point to belong to one common genus. But the unit was said to be a point without position, and, therefore, an abstract entity, which, being without parts or distinctions, cannot be either motor or moved, and, therefore, cannot represent the principle of all motion. Thus, the opinion is objected to as making the Vital Principle a number, which deprives it of locality or position, and then as attributing motion to it which, as a number, it is not susceptible of. The following passages, which treat of the division of plants and insects, further prove, by analogy, that the Vital Principle cannot be a number, as, unlike a number, each part seems to have, after division, all the properties which it had while yet conjoined with the whole. The argument is then turned against the doctrine of Democritus, if the corpuscles be regarded as points, there must still be in each point, as quantity, a motor and a moved; and the theory depended for support upon quantity, rather than relations of size. Unless, then, the Vital Principle be both motor and moved, which it evidently cannot be, there must be a motor power for those corpuscles.
Note 7, p. 41. How, indeed, is it possible.] This passage is very elliptical and obscure, but its purport seems to be an objection to the doctrine of Xenocrates, a follower of Plato, who maintained that the Vital Principle might be separate from the body. The argument runs thus: if the Vital Principle be a number, and if each unit be a point, how, as the point is not separable from the line, can the Vital Principle be separate from the body? Although the point may be, abstractedly, apart from the line, yet as the line is not divisible into points, (since points are but the termination of the line) it follows that the Vital Principle, when regarded as a point, cannot be, actually, separate from the body. The Latin paraphrase is, "Insuper qui fieri potest ut separentur et absolvantur a corporibus, ipsa puncta? siquidem lineae non dividuntur in puncta;" the French is, "Comment est-il possible que les âmes se séparent et se délivrent des corps, puisque les lignes ne se divisent pas en points?"
Layout 2 PRELUDE TO CHAPTER V.
The argument against the opinion of Xenocrates that the Vital Principle is "a number with self-motion" is continued, and Aristotle, having already objected to it as number, proceeds here, after a brief allusion to what had been advanced, to object to it as being motive. If the Vital Principle be some kind of body, then however attenuated its parts, there must be two bodies in one; if it be a number, then as the unit is a point, unless that number be innate and peculiar, every kind of body must have Vital Principle, and this cannot be admitted. With respect to its motion, it had been shewn that the unit, being homogeneous, that is without parts, cannot be so acted upon as to move; if it be motor and moved, it must, as entity, have some distinction, and then it is no longer to be regarded as an unit. The resemblance between this theory and that of Democritus is again alluded to, as the same objection is applicable to both; for it matters not whether the motor be a monad, or point, or corpuscle in motion, since their motion is the cause of motion in other things; thus, both systems maintain a blind force, and ignore the influences of sensibility and will. It will probably be said that the topic has been too long dwelt upon, but it should be recollected what an important part was assigned by the Pythagoreans to number, which they derived from the monad or unit, and regarded as the origin, the matter, and the essential properties of beings, and as constitutive of the heavens. It has already been said how, as numbers were the first entities in nature, they perceived resemblances to beings and qualities in them rather than in the elements fire, &c.; and hence made one combination to be justice, another mind, and so on.