' Hippo, who was a great naturalist, was a native of Rhegium, an i follower of Pythagoras. He was sumamed &Otos, or the Atheist. There are two other contemporary Pythagoreans mentioned here by Aristotle, — namely, Hippasus of Mejbapon turn, and Alcmaeon of Crotona. Vide Tenneman's Histoi*y of Philosophy, Sect. 95, translated in ** Bohn'a Philological Library; " also Clemens, Adhortatio ad Oentes.
^ Anaximenes flourished about 557 years B.o. He was a pupil of Anaximander, or, as some think, of Parmenides; he was the son of Eurystratus, a Milesian. Vide Plutarch, de Placitis, I. 3. Sextus Empiri- cus, Inst. Pyrrh. III. 30. Diogenes of ApoUonia flourished about 472 years B. c.; he was an admirer of the philosophy of Anaximenes. Diogenes united the systems of Anaximenes and Anaxftgoras, and was a con- temporary at Athens with Archelaus, — the proximate cause of the rise of the Socratic schooL Cicero, De Naturft, lib. I.; Eusebius, Prsep. Evang. lib. XV; Diogenes Laertius, lib. IX. ^ ^ Heraclitus of ^^esus is thought to have belonged to the loniaD school, and flourishedv^bout 500 years B.C. He was inclined towards scepticism; and is believed to have been a disciple of Xenophanes. Vide, for Empedocles, note further on.
* Anaxagoras, who belonged to the Ionic school, was a disciple of Hermotimus, afterwards mentioned by Aristotle, and flourished about the year 500 B. c. at Clazomense, where he was bom. He settled, how- ever, at Athens, and was the friend there of Pericles. He was famous for his doctrine of a voOs, or " mens," which he invested with the attri* bute of the Infinite, and with creative energies. Aristotle, however, further on endeavours to strip him of his fame in this respect, by saying that he employed the mental principle in his cosmogony merely &s a machine.
^ Aristotle remarks of Anaxagoras that he was subsequent in his works to Empedocles, though prior in age, because the latter generates the universe from finite principles, whereas the former from the infinite. Now the position of Empedocles, Aristotle conceives to be the le^ult ji more moiern and improved observation.
16 THB METAPHTSIOB OF iBIBTOTLE. (^BOOS V though roem- & ibsequent to him — ^maintains that first principles ISSit^purfor" ^6 infinite. For he asserts that almost all things ward by Anaxar being b omogeneouB — as water or fire— in this way ^**"*' are product and destroyed by concretion and dissolution merely; bat that, in other respects, no entities were either brought into existence, or caused to cease to exist, but continued as things that are eywlasting.
From these things, indeed, therefore^ one would suppose that the only cause with these philosophers was that said to exist in a form of matter.*^ 9. Cdnsidera. ^^^ ^ thesc Speculators advanced in this way, tionofthceffi- the thiuiT itself guided them, and constrained «ientc«.e. ^^^^ to investigate further; for though every possible corruption and generation is from something sul>- sisting, as one or more, yet why does this happen, and what is the cause of this, — for undoubtedly the subject, at least, itself is in no wise instrumental in making itself undergo a change? Now, I say, for example, that neither the wood nor the brass is the cause of either of these bodies under- going a change; neither does the wood, indeed, produce a bed, and the brass a statue; but there is something else that is a cause of change. But the investigation of this is the in- vestigation of a different principle, that is, the second cause, — as we have stated, — the principle of the origin of motion. 10 I ored b Thosc, indeed, therefore, who from the earliest theeariy?pecu- times have altogether adopted such a method as ParmeSdSL* *^^ ^^^ afl&rm the subject to be one, have created no difi&culty for themselves; but some of these, at least, who say that it is one, as if overpowered by this investigation, assert that the one is immoveable, and the entire of nature, not only according to generation and corruption,— for this is an ancient dogma, and one which all acknowledge, — but also according to every other change, whatever; and this a tenet peculiar to themselves. Of those, indeed, therefore, who affirm the universe to be one merely, to none has it occurred to see clearly into a cause of such a kind, unless, perhaps, to Parmenides,^ and to him so far as * Aristotle having now considered the treatment of the material cause in the hands of the early philosophers, next proceeds to review Ihe same subject in the case of the efficient cause. ' Parmenides was a native of Elea — a pupil of Xenoph anes, or as somt C?H,1II.] THE EFFICIENT OAUBIL 17 that he lays down not one merely, but, somehow, even two Ciiuses to exist. And for those, truly, who make them mere numerous is it allowable rather to assert the existence o! such a cause as the efficient cause, — I mean those who make causes to be the hot and the cold or fire and earth: for they employ the fire as possessing a motive nature, but water and earth, and such like, as something that is contrary to this.
But after these philosophers, and after the n. unconaci- assertion of principles of this sort, — as if on the ousiy broached grounds of their insufficiency to generate the ^* ®™' nature of entities, — again constrained by actual truth, as we Have said, they investigated the principle next following, in the way of a consequence. For of the excellent arid beautiful order of some things, and of the production of others of the entities, it is not natural to assign, perhaps, either earth or anything of this kind as a cause; nor is it natural that they should think that it is; nor was it seemly, on the other hand, attribute so important a part to chance and fortune.
Now, whosoever affirmed mind, as in animals ^ ^ ^ 80 also in nature, to be the cause of the system cause put for- of the world, and of the entire harmony of it, go'l^sl'lr^a"*' the same appeared, as it were, of sober tempera- others say. by ment, in comparison with the vain theorists of ®'°*°'"""'* the earlier ages. Indeed, then, we know that Anaxagbras openly adopted these principles. Hermotimus of Clazomense, however, has the credit assigned him of having put forward a similar theory of causation at an earlier period.
Those, indeed, therefore, who have entertained these opinions have laid down as a first principle of entities, at the same time the cause of their orderly arrangement, with such a one as that of the origin of motion in things.
Bay, of Anaximandor. He removed to Athena about the year 460 b. c, along with Zeno. Parmenides was the gteat patron of the idealistic philosophy. He explained his system in his poetry; which, however, liajs not come down to ub, except in a few fragments collected by H. Stephdns. Compare Sextus Empiricus, ji his Booka Contra Mathem. VIL 6 sqq.j Plutarch, De Pladtis, I. 24, 18 THE XBTAIHTSICS Of /LB|8T0TLE. [BOOKi.
CHAPTER IV, I. Rflsognition SoMB one, however, might indulge in the sur- ifemMSeby ^^ ^^^ Hesiod^ was the first to broach such Hetiod— as a description of cause as the above; and that this thSk-and w t^© <»s© ^th whatsoever other speculator, if Parmenides. ajjy^ that may have placed love or desire as a first principle in entities; as, for instance, also Parmenides: for this philosopher, likewise, in drawing up his scheme of the generation of the universe, says, — « The fint thing of all the gocU, indeed^ plann'd he Love."
But Hesiod's words are, — " First) indeed, of all was Chaos; ' but next in order. Earth with her spacious bosom. Then Love, who is pre-eminent amongst all tlio Immortals;" just as if it were necessary that in entities there should sub- sist some cause which will impart motion, and hold bodies in union together. How, iudeed, then, in regard of these, one ought to distribute them, as to their order of priority, can be decided afterwards.
^ Aristotle has suggested to others the opinion that the existence of an eS&cient cause is recognised in the writings of Hesiod. It is quite in this spirit that Cudworth strives to make the old Theogonies systems of pure theology. It may, however, be remarked that '* the good " mentioned in the theories of these oosmogoni*^ upon which is grounded this particular view of the Hesiodio writings, may, in reality, prove nothing towards settling the question how far an efficient cause was discovered by the ancients. For " the good" may be regarded in the light of a cause in two ways; either as physically producing good things, or producing them for som(> purpose — and then it is a final cause, in the latter ueuse it is not certainly found in the writings of the early Physicints; and in the former, it is nothing more than a material cause, and appears to be the point of view from which the ancients regarded the nature of the good.
* There is a current, but erroneous, translation of the words quoted in the above from Hesiod, which Cudworth adopts, in his over-anxiety to establish his favourite hypothesis in regard of the religious element, which he affirms to be mixed up in the entire philosophy of the ancients. Cudworth makes " chaos ** to be produced, and presupposes a superior producing cause, and grounds his assertion on this pasnaga from Hesiod, but upon a mistranslation of it. It merely states tue existence of chaos — " chaos waoL* Oir. IV.] OONSn>EBED AS TWOFOLD. 19 But, also, smw things contrary^ to those that j. The efficient are good appeared inherent in Nature, and not cause twofold, only order and the beautiful, but also disorder *° ^ y* and what is base; and since the evil things were more nume- rous than the good, and the worthless than the &ir, accord- ingly, some one else introduced harmony and discord, as a cause peverally of each of these. For if any one would follow the subject up, and form his opinion according to the ^ulty of thought, and not according to the obscure assertions of Empedocles,^ he will find harmony, indeed, to be a cause of the things that are good, and discord of those that are evil. Wherefore, if any should say that Empedocles both, in a cei-tain sense, affirms, and that he was the first to affirm, that the evil and the good are first principles, perhaps he would make such an assertion correctly, if the cause of all things that are good be the good itself, and of those that are evil the evil.
These persons, indeed, therefore, as we have 3, xheimper- Baid, even thus far have adopted into their sys- f^ct treatment tems two causes, as we have defined them in an efficient'^ ° our Physics,— I mean the material cause, and the *'*"*®* ^ piinciple of the origin of motion; that is, the efficient cause: obscurely, no doubt, and by no means clearly, but, in a manner, like the conduct of those who are unexercised in battles; for these latter, also, advancing forwards against their adversaries, strike frequently skilful blows: but neither do those combatants act thus from a scientific system, nor do these early speculators appear like men who undei-stand that they are making the asser- tions which they actually are; for in no respect, almost, do they appear to employ these first principles, save to a small extent, ^ Aristotle now brings a new element into these eetiological dis- cussions, namely, contrariety; and sets forth Empedocles as the great patron of this school. Tenets borrowed from this philosophy have disappeared and reappeared again, in some mure subtle disguise, from that period downwards to the present age of philosophy.
3 Empedocles, who flourished about the year 442 or 460 B.O., was a native of Agrigentum, and the son of Meton. He was a pupil of Pythagoras or Anaxagoras, or, as others say, of Parmenides; Plutarch, De Placitis, I. 3; Stanley, part YIII. Clemens Alezandrinus, at well as Diogenes Laertius, mentions the ascription of miraculous powers to Empedocles: Clemens Stromst. lib. vi, and Diogenes Ijaert. book YIIL Aristotle treats of the systc u of Empedocles in the fourtb bock of the Phyaicik ei 4. Shown in ^^^ Anaxagoras, also, employs mind as a the case of machine^ for the production of the orderly sy»- naxagoras. ^^^ ^^ ^^^ world; and when he finds himself in perplexity as to the cause of its being necessarily so, he then di-ags it in by force to his assistance; but, in the other instances, he assigns, as a cause of the things that are being produced, everything else in preference to mind 6. And in the ^^^ Empedoclcs, to an extent further than f ise of Empe- this last-uamed philosopher, employs his causes, ^**' however, neither adequately, nor does he discover in them that which confessedly is involved in them. Frequently, at least, in his system the harmony indeed sepa- rates, and the discord unites things together. For when the universe may be dissolved into its component elements, by reason of discord, then fire is commingled into one and each of the rest of the elements; but when all things, by reason of harmony, may unite into one, it is necessary that the parts from each undergo separation again.
^Impedocles then, indeed, — in contradistinction p'edociesinhu to^he early speculators, — first introduced this theory. causc, having divided it, not having constituted, as single, the first principle of motion, but first principles thereof which are difierent and opposite. But, moreover, the reputed elements, in form of matter, he was the first to assert the existence of as being four in number; he did not, doubtless, employ at least four, but regarded them as if there were only two; fire by itself, and those things that are opposed to this, as one nature, — namely, both earth, and air, and water. But one may acquire this information by drawing the specu- lation itself from his poetry. This philosopher, indeed, therefore, as we have stated, enumerated his first principles in this way, and affirmed them to be so many in numbe^ 7. ohscure But Leucippus, and his companion JJemo- ffitioiogy— Leu- critus,^ assert that the full and the empty are * ** Employs mind as a machine;" compare the note, supra. The Laurentian MS. has the following words, which are omitted in Bekker^s text: — "As is done by the poete in their tragedies, when they bring the gods upon the stage to assist them in difficult circumstances; for instance, take the case of the Hippolytus, where we have Diana appear- ing to Theseus."
^ Aristotle now proceed r to an isxamination of tbe philosophers who €r8t put forward causes of a mora recondite natui^e than any of the ' SH. i7.J ITS TREATMENT BT ANAZAOORAS, ETC. 21 elements; termiug, for instance, the one, indeed, cippus and d». an entity, and the other a nonentity; and of ™°*'"*"** these, the full and solid they call an entity, and the empty and the attenuated, a nonentity. Wherefore, they say that entity, in no respect less than nonentity, has, an existence, because neither has the vacuum a being more than corporeity, and that these are the causes of entities as material causes.
And as they who make the substance, which is g. Their agree, the subject, one, generate all things else by means ™ent with the sarlv speculaof the passive conditions of this substance, assign- tors in point of ing the rare and the dense as first principles of o^*curity. these affections, in the same manner these also affirm that dif- ferences are causes of the other things. They, indeed, say that these are three, even figure, and order, and position; for they affirm that entity differs merely in rhythm, and diathege, and trope;^ out of these the rhythm is figure, and the diathege order, and the trope position. For, indeed, the letter A diflFers from the letter N in figure, and AN from NA in order, and Z from N in position. But respecting motion, whence or how it exists in entities, in like manner, with the rest of the early speculators, have these carelessly neglected such inquiries.
Respecting, tiien, two causes of the four, according to the statements we have just made, so far has it appeared that an inquiry has been prosecuted by our predecessors.
foregoing, which were but obviouB in the ordinary course of Nature. The great patrons of this school he sets down as Democritus and Leucippus.
LeucippuB, who JSourished about the year 600 b. c, is believed to have been a disciple of Parmenides, whose system he opposed. His birth- place is thought to have been MUetus. He, and not Democritus, was the author of the Atomic theory.
Democritus was bom about the year 490 B.C., and was a native of Abdera in Thrace. He was a disciple of Leucippus, and brought for- ward his master's opinions, with certain amplifications of his own. Aristotle examines both the systems of Leucippus and Democritus, in book I. of the De Generat et Corrupt., in the first and third books of the De C03I0, and in the eighth book of the Physics. The eai-ly part of the Commentaiy of Simplicius upon the Physics may be consulted Cudworth discusses the relation which the system of Leucippus bears to the Atomic theory, in the first volume of the Litellectual System; Kd Harrison.
' These words are idiomatic to the language of Abdera, the nativ< place of Democritus. — AsdepiMn, 92 THE METAFBT8ICS OF ARISTOTLS [fiOOK I.
CHAPTER V.i I The num- ^^^ amoDgst theso, and prior to them, those bers of the Py- Called Pythagoreans, applying themselves to the tha^oieani. gtudy of the mathematical sciences, first advanced these views; and having been nurtured therein, they consi- dered the first principles of these to be the first principles oi all entities. But sinoe^ among these, numbers by nature are the first, and in numbers they fisincied they beheld many resemblances for entities and things that are being pro- duced, rather than in fire^ and earth, and water; because, to give an instance, such a particular property of numbers is justice, and such soul and mind; and another different one is opportunity; and it is the case, so to speak, in like manner with each of the other things;^ 2. Pytha^oric Morcovcr, also, in numbers discerning the pas- inrs^ubsunce ^^® Conditions and reasons of harmonies, since in conformity' it was apparent that, indeed, other things in their v?ews about uaturc wcrc in all points assimilated unto num- nurabers. bers, and that the numbers were the first of the entire of Nature, hence they supposed the elements of numbefs to be the elements of all entities, and the whole heaven to be an harmony and number. And as many phenomena as they could demonstrate to be conformable, both in their numbers and harmonies, with the passive conditions and pai-ts of the heaven, and with its entire arrangement, these they collected and adapted to their philosophy: and if there was any interval loft anywhere, they supplied the deficiency, in order that there ^ As to the tenets of the Pythagoreans, noticed by Aristotle in this portion of the Metaphysics, Alexander and Asclepius have long dissert- ations, from which Brandis has made apparently judicious selections. The chief source of information, as regards the speculations of this school, must be drawn from the Life of Pythagoras by Jamblichus, and another, by Porphyry, from the (Jolden Verses of Hierocles, Bentley's Dissertation on the Epistles of Phalaris, and Stanley in hia History of Philosophy. As to the information to be drawn from the L?crian Timaeus, and from Ocellus Lucanus, we must bear in mind the alleged spuriousness ^f their writings.
^ The learned Brucker has a dis&artation on the numbers of Pytha- goras, entitled, *' Convenientia Pxihagorv sumerorum cum ideia Platonifi."
OH. y.] SYSTEM OF THB PYTHAGOREANS. 23 might be a chain of oonnexion running through their entire system.^ Now, I say, as an illustration, since the decade .seems to be a thing that is perfect, and to have comprised the entire nature of numbers, hence they also assert that the bodies that are borne through the heaven are truly ten in number; and whereas nine only are apparent, on this account they constitute the confronting earth tenth. But respecting these theorists, we have arrived at more accurate decisions in other parts of our works.
But the reason why we have gone in review through these philosophers is this, in order that oir thePythag> we may receive also from them what they have J^tncipiil^*' already laid down as being first principles, and in what manner they &.11 in with the causes just enumerated. Undoubtedly do these appear to consider number to be a first principle, and, as it were, a material cause of entities, and as both their passive conditions and habits, and that the even and the odd are elements of number; and of these, that the one is finite and the other infinite, and that unity, doubtless, is com- posed of both of these, for that it is both even and odd, and that number is composed of unity, and that, as has been stated, the entire heaven is composed of numbers. 4 Another Py- But others of these very philosophers affirm thagoric opi- that first principles are ten in number, denomi- Sudng contra- nated in accordance with the following co-ordinate ^^^y therein, series, namely: — Bound.
Infinity.
Rest Motion.
Odd.
Even.
Straight.
Crooked.
Unity.
Plurality.
Light.
Darkness.
Right.
Left.
Good.
Bad.
Male.
Female.
Sqnare.
Oblong.
In the same manner seems Alcmseon of Crotona 5. a third to have formed his opinion; and this philosopher S^Sm^'om'"* certainly, either from those just named, or they and »kin to the from this person, have derived this their theory; ^^^^' ' for Alcmoeon had reached the age of manhood when Pytha- goras was an old man; but he enumerated his sentiments in * As to the physical theories of the Pythagoreans, involved in theii systems of astronomy, the curious student, if desirous, may learn much from the i*emarks of Alexander, and especially of Asclepius, upon this section of the Metaphysics. Vid£ Brando's Scholia, p. 540 sqq.
24 TH i METAPHTSIC8 OF ARISTOTLE. [BOOK 1.
a manner similar with the Pythagoreans. For he affirms that the greater portion of things human may be reduced to two classes, calling them contrarieties; not distinguished as these had distinguished them, but such as were of any casual sort whatever, as for example: — White. Black.
Sweet. Bitter.
Good. Bad.
Small. Great.
This philosopher, indeed, then, has indefinitely thrown out his opinions about the rest; but the Pythagoreans have declared both how numerous, and which these contrarieties are.
6. The reduc- From both of these, therefore, it is postdble to lion of these acquire thus much information, — that contraries speculations to ^«,.., «...i.v a certain genus are first principles of entities; but how numerous, of cause. ^^^^ which these are, may be ascertained only from other speculators. How, indeed, in respect of the causes enumerated, it is possible to draw up a compendious appli- cation of their principles has not, in distinct terms, been clearly declared by them; but they seem to arrange the elements as in a form of matter: for of these, as inherent, they say that the substance consists, and has been moulded.
Of the ancients, therefore, indeed, — even of those who assert the elements of Nature to be many, — it is sufficient from these statements to examine into their intention.
7. The theory But there are some who have declared their MoSepMUy** <5pi^i<5^8 about the universe as though it were irrelevant to one Nature;* but all have not put forward their vestSStfo^wand theories in the same manner, either in regard partly not so. of that which is Constituted in an orderly way, or of that which is in accordance with the course of Nature. With, indeed, then, the present investigation of causes does this theory regarding them by no means adapt itself. For they do not, — as some of the physiologers who supposed entity to be one, — nevertheless, generate them from unity as from matter; but these, who say that entity and unity are the same, assert their production to take place after a dif- ferent manner; for those, indeed, have added motion, at ^ Aristo'.le now enters upon a consideration of the Eleatic school, ^hich ke has already examined more systematically in his treatise De Xenophane. The tenets of the Eleatics are examined by Sextug Empiricus, in his remarks on Xenopnaues in the fii'st book of ths Pyrrh. Instit.
OU. VlJ ELEATIO PHIL060PHT. 25 least, in tl.eii generation of the universe; but these say that it is immoval le.
Of a truth, however, so for at least the theory of this ichool is akin to our present investigation; for Parmenides, indeed, appears to adopt a system of unity in accordance with reason: whereas Melissus, a theory of it according to matter. Wherefore, also, indeed, one says that the universe is finite, and the other that it is infinite. Xenophanes, The originator first of these, however, having introduced this »' **"• ^y*^""* system of unity, (for Parmer)ides is said to have been his pupil,) made nothing plain, neither did he seem to have appre- hended the nature of either of these; but looking wistfully upon the whole heaven, he affirms that unity is God.
These, indeed, therefore, as we have stated, g. how the must be omitted in regard of our present investi- t^eo^y <>' Pa^- gation/ — two of them entirely, — even as bemg a on the point in little too uncivilized; namely, Xenophanes and Q^^^o^* Melissus.2 Parmenides, however, appears to express himself, in some passages, with more circumspection; for, with the exception of entity — considering nonentity to have no ex- istence— he thinks entity to be necessarily one, and nothing else. Concerning which philosopher, we have spoken with more clearness in our Physics. Yet, compelled to follow the phenomena, and supposing unity to subsist according to reason, but plurality according to sense, he again lays down two causes, and two first principles, — heat and cold; as, for ^ If the student is anxious to have clear ideas as regards the bearing of the Eleatic philosophy upon the inquiry undertaken by Aristotle, and in respect of Aristotle's criticisms upon the systems of Parmenides and Melissus, separately as well as compared with each other, he will consult the commentaiy of Thomas Aquinas, who certainly, with vast ability, strives to disentangle the intricacies of the exposition of the Stagyrite.
^ Melissus flourished about B. c. 414; he was a native of Samoa, and a distinguished naval commander. He adopted his system from Par- menides and Xenophanes: Plutarch, I. 24. Aristotle notices hia By stem more at large in his Physics, book I. chaps. 2, 3, 4; book III. chap. 9. Simpliciu8 on this passage is worth consulting.
Xenophanes was a native of Colophon, and flourished about the year B. c. 536. He was contemporary with Epicharmus the poet. Clemeiu Alexandrinus, in the first book of the Stromata, assigns to him th« •;redit of being the founder of the Eleatic school. After him came hi» disciple Parmenides, next to him Zeno, tl en Leucippus, and after hiis Uemocritus.
36 THE METAFHTSIOS OF ARISTOTLE. [bOOK L example, in other words, he means fire aiid earth; but of these he arranges the one under the category of entity, that is, the hot, and the other under that of nonentity, viz. the cold.
9. sumraary of From the statements, indeed, therefore, that *^* *?' d*?***" ^^^® been made, and from those who have already devoted themselves to rational speculations, and are wise men, we have derived these views; from the earliest philosophers have we appropriated, indeed, both the corporeal first principle, (for water and fire, and such like, are bodies,) and from some of these one such, and from others many corporeal principles; both, however, agreeing in classing them as foi^ms of matter. But from certain amongst these early speculators, — who at the same time establish both this cause, and along with this that of the origin of motion, — we have appropriated even this very efficient cause; from some, indeed, as a single principle, but from others, as one that is twofold. Up to the period of the Italic sects,^ and independent of them, the rest of the investigators have spoken with more moderation re- garding these first principles, except, as we have said, in the case of those who happen to have employed two causes; and one of these, the second cause — ^namely, the origin of motion — some, indeed, make single, and others twofold.