Book II.

CH. 1.--The Heaven has not been generated nor can it be destroyed, as some (Plato) affirm: it is one and eternal, having neither beginning nor end of the whole Æon, holding and comprehending in itself infinite time. This we may believe not merely from the foregoing reasonings, but also from the opinion of opponents who suppose the Cosmos to be generated. For, since their opinion has been shown to be inadmissible, and our doctrine is at least admissible, even thus much will have great force to determine our faith in the immortality and eternity of the Heaven. Hence we shall do well to assist in persuading ourselves that the ancient doctrines, and especially those of our own country, are true--That there is among the substances endowed with motion one immortal and divine, whose motion is such that it has itself no limit but is rather itself the limit of all other motions, limit being the attribute of the circumscribing substance. The circular motion of the Heaven, being itself perfect, circumscribes and comprehends all the imperfect motions which are subject to limit and cessation. It has itself neither beginning nor end, but is unceasing throughout infinite time: in regard to other motions, it is the initiatory cause to some, while it is the recipient of the cessation of others (ss. 1, 2).

The ancients assigned Heaven to the Gods, as the only place which was immortal, and our reasonings show that it is not merely indestructible and ungenerable, but also unsusceptible of all mortal defect or discomfort. Moreover it feels no fatigue, because it is not constrained by any extraneous force to revolve contrary to its own nature: if it were so, that would be tiresome, and all the more since the motion is eternal; it would be inconsistent with any supremely good condition. The ancients therefore were mistaken in saying that the Heaven required to be supported by a person named Atlas: the authors of this fable proceeded upon the same supposition as recent philosophers; regarding the celestial body as heavy and earthy, they placed under it, in mythical guise, an animated necessity ([Greek: a)na/gkên e)/mpsuchon]), or constraint arising from vital force. But they are wrong; and so is Empedokles, when he says that the Heaven is kept permanently in its place by extreme velocity of rotation, which counteracts its natural inclination downwards ([Greek: oi)kei/as r(opê=s]). Nor can we reasonably suppose that it is kept eternally in its place (_i.e._, contrary to its own nature) by the compulsion of a soul or vital force ([Greek: u(po\ psuchê=s a)nagkazou/sês]): it is impossible that the life of a soul thus acting can be painless or happy. The motion which it causes, being accompanied with violence and being also perpetual (as it is the nature of the First Body to cause motion continuously throughout the Kosmos), must be a tiresome duty, unrelieved by any reasonable relaxation; since this soul enjoys no repose, such as the letting down of the body during sleep affords to the soul of mortal animals, but is subjected to a fate like Ixion's--ceaseless and unyielding revolution. Now our reasonings, if admissible, respecting the First or Circular Motion ([Greek: prô/tês phora=s]) afford not merely more harmonious conceptions respecting its eternity, but also the only way of speaking in language which will be allowed as consistent with the vague impressions respecting the Deity ([Greek: tê=| mantei/a| tê=| peri\ to\n theo/n]). Enough, however, of this talk for the present (ss. 3-6).

CH. 2.--Since the Pythagoreans and others recognize a Right and Left in the Heaven, let us enquire whether such [Greek: a)rchai/] can properly be ascribed to the body of the Universe; for, if these can be ascribed, much more may the other [Greek: a)rchai/] prior to them be ascribed to it. Of [Greek: a)rchai/ kinê/seôs] (_termini a quibus_), there are three couples: (1) Upwards and Downwards; (2) Forward and Backward; (3) Right and Left. All the three exist in animals; but the first alone is found in plants. All the three are in all perfect bodies, and in all animated bodies which have in themselves a beginning of motion; but not in inanimate bodies, which have not in themselves a beginning. Each of these three [Greek: a)rchai/] or [Greek: diasta/seis] is true and appropriate as an attribute; but among the three, Upwards and Downwards comes first in the order of nature, Right and Left, last. The Pythagoreans are to be blamed for dwelling on Right and Left, and not noticing the other two pairs which are prior in the order of nature and more appropriate, and for supposing that Right and Left are to be found in every thing. Upward is the principle of length; Right, of breadth; Forward, of depth. Again, from upward movement comes growth; movement from the right is local movement; movement from before is movement of sense ([Greek: ê( kata\ tê\n ai)/sthêsin]), or the line in which sensible impressions are propagated ([Greek: e)ph' ô(=| ai)sthê/seis]). Up is the source from whence motion originates ([Greek: to\ o(/then ê( ki/nêsis]--s. 6); Right, the point from which the direction of the motion starts; Forward, the point towards which it goes ([Greek: to\ e)ph' o(/]). In inanimate bodies (which are either not moved at all, or only moved in one manner and direction, as fire only upwards, earth only downwards), we speak of above and below, right and left, only with reference to ourselves, and not as attributes really belonging to these objects; for by inverting the objects these attributes will be inverted also, right will become left, and left will become right. But in animated objects, which have in themselves an [Greek: a)rchê\ kinê/seôs], a real right and left, a real upward and downward, are to be recognized: of course therefore in the Heaven, which is an animated object of this character ([Greek: e)/mpsuchos]). For we must not make any difficulty in consequence of the spherical figure of the universe, or suppose that such a figure excludes real right and left, the parts being all alike and all in perpetual motion. We must conceive the case as like that of a person having a real right and left, distinct in attributes, but who has been enclosed in a hollow sphere: he will still have the real distinct right and left, yet to a spectator outside he will appear not to have it. In like manner, we must speak of the Heaven as having a beginning of motion; for, though its motion never did begin, yet there must be some point from which it would have taken its departure, if it ever had begun, and from which it would recommence, if it ever came to a standstill. I call the length of the Heaven, the distance between the poles--one of the poles above, the other below. Now the pole which is above us, is the lower pole; that which is invisible to us, is the upper pole. For that is called right, in each object, from whence local movement takes its departure, or where local movement begins. But the revolution of the Heaven begins on the side where the stars rise; this, therefore, is the true right, and the side on which they set, is left. If, therefore, it begins from the right, and revolves round to the right ([Greek: e)pi\ ta\ de/xia periphe/retai]), the invisible pole must be the upper pole; for, if the visible pole were the upper, the movement of the Heaven would be to the left, which we deny to be the fact. The invisible pole is therefore the upper, and those who live near it are in the upper hemisphere, and to the right ([Greek: pro\s toi=s dexi/ois]); we on the contrary are in the lower hemisphere, and to the left. The Pythagoreans are in error when they say that we are in the upper hemisphere, and to the right, and that inhabitants of the southern hemisphere are in the lower hemisphere and to the left. But, speaking with reference to the second revolution ([Greek: tê=s deute/ras periphora=s]) or that of the planets, which is in the contrary direction to the first revolution or that of the First Heaven, it is we who are in the upper hemisphere and on the right side; it is the inhabitants of the southern hemisphere, who are in the lower hemisphere and on the left side: that is, it is we who are on the side of the beginning of motion, they who are on the side of the end (ss. 1-10).

CH. 3.--I have previously laid it down, that circular movement is not opposite to circular. But, if this be the case, what is the reason that there are many different revolutions in the Heaven? This is what I shall now enquire, fully aware of the great distance from which the enquiry must be conducted ([Greek: po/r)r(ôthen])--not so much a distance in place, as owing to the small number of accompanying facts which can be observed by the senses respecting them.

The cause must be looked for in this direction. Every thing which performs a work, exists for the sake of that work. Now the work of Deity is immortality, or eternal life; so that the divine substance must of necessity be in eternal motion. The Heaven is a divine body and has for that reason the encyclical body, whose nature it is to be moved for ever in a circle. But why is not the whole body of the Heaven thus constituted (_i.e._, encyclical)? Because it is necessary that some portion of its body should remain stationary in the centre; and no portion of the encyclical body can possibly remain stationary, either in the centre or elsewhere. For, if it could, its natural motion (_i.e._, the motion of that supposed portion) would be towards the centre; whereas its natural motion is circular; and it cannot move towards the centre contrary to its nature, because on that supposition its motion would not be eternal: no motion contrary to nature can be eternal. Moreover that which is contrary to nature is posterior to that which is natural; it is a deviation therefrom arising in the course of generation (s. 1).

Hence it is necessary that earth should exist, the nature of which it is to rest in the centre (_i.e._, the divine encyclical body will not suffice alone, without adjuncts of different nature). I assume this for the present; more will be said about it anon.

But, if earth exists, fire must exist also; for of two contraries, if the one exist by nature, the other must exist by nature also. For the matter of contraries is the same, and Form (positive and affirmable) is prior by nature to Privation (for example, hot is prior to cold); now rest and gravity denote the privation of motion and lightness (s. 2--_i.e._, fire is prior in nature to earth, as having the positive essences motion and levity, while earth has for its essence the privation thereof).

Again, if fire and earth exist, the two other elements intermediate between them must also exist; for each of the four elements has its peculiar mode of contrariety with reference to each. At least let this be assumed now: I shall show it at length presently.

Now, these points being established, we see that generation must necessarily come to pass, because no one of the four elements can be eternal: they act upon each other, and suffer from each other, with contrary effects; they are destructive of each other. Besides, each of them has a mode of motion natural and appropriate to it, but this mode of motion is not eternal (because it is either to the centre or to the circumference and therefore has a natural terminus). It is not reasonable to suppose that any Mobile can be eternal, whose natural mode of motion cannot be eternal (s. 3).

Thus the four elements are not eternal, but require to be renewed by generation; therefore generation must come to pass. But, if generation be necessary, more than one revolution of the celestial body is indispensably required: two at least, if not more. For, if there were no other revolution except that of the First Heaven, that is consistent only with a perfectly uniform condition of the four elements in relation to each other (s. 4).

When the question is asked, therefore, Why there are (not one only but) several encyclical bodies? I answer: Because generation _must_ come to pass. There must be generation, if there be fire; there must be fire and the other elements, if there be earth; there must be earth, because something must remain stationary eternally in the centre, if there is to be eternal revolution (s. 5).

CH. 4.--The Heaven is by necessity spherical: this figure is at once both most akin to its essence and first in its own nature. I shall begin with some observations respecting figures generally--plane and solid, as to which among them is the first. Every plane figure is either rectilinear or curvilinear; the former is comprehended by many lines, the latter only by one. Now, since in every department one is prior to many and simple to compound, the first of all plane figures must be the circle. Moreover, since that is perfect which can receive nothing additional from without, and since addition can be made to every straight line, but none whatever to the line circumscribing a circle, it is plain that this latter is perfect; and therefore the circle is the first of all plane figures, and the sphere of all solid figures (ss. 1, 2). This doctrine appears most reasonable when we set out the different figures, each with a number belonging to it in numerical order. The circle corresponds to One, the triangle to Two, since its three angles are equal to two right angles; whereas, if we assign number One to the triangle and place that first, we can find no number fit for the circle: the circle will be no longer recognized as a figure (s. 4).

Now, since the first figure belongs to the first body, which is that in the extreme or farthest circumference, this body which revolves constantly in a circle, will be spherical in figure. That which is continuous with it even to the centre, will also be spherical; and all the interior parts are in contact and continuity with it: the parts below the sphere of the planets touch the sphere above them. So that the whole revolving current, interior and exterior, will be spherical; for all things touch and are continuous with the spheres (s. 5).

There is another reason too why the universe is spherical in figure, since it has been shown to revolve in a circle. I have proved before that there exists nothing on the outside of the universe; neither place nor vacuum. If the figure of the Kosmos, revolving as it does in a circle, were any thing else but spherical--if it were either rectilinear or elliptical--it could not possibly cover exactly the same space during all its revolutions: there must therefore be place and vacuum without it; which has been shown to be impossible (s. 6).

Farthermore, the rotation of the Heaven is the measure of motions, because it is the only one continuous and uniform and eternal. Now in every department the measure is the least, and the least motion is the quickest; accordingly the rotation of the Heaven will be the quickest of all motions (s. 7). But among all curved lines from the same back to the same, the circumference of the circle is the shortest, and motion will be quickest over the shortest distance. Accordingly, since the Heaven revolves in a circle and with the quickest of all motions, its figure must be spherical (s. 8).

We may also draw the same conclusion from the bodies fixed in the central parts of the Kosmos. The Earth in the centre is surrounded by water; the water, by air; the air, by fire. The uppermost bodies surround the fire, following the like proportion or analogy; being not continuous therewith, but in contact therewith. Now the surface of water is spherical; and that which is either continuous with the spherical or surrounds the spherical, must itself be spherical also (s. 9). That the surface of the water is truly spherical, we may infer from the fact, that it is the nature of water always to flow together into the lowest cavities, that is, into the parts nearest to the centre (s. 10).

From all the foregoing reasonings, we see plainly that the Kosmos is spherical, and moreover turned with such a degree of exact sphericity ([Greek: kata\ a)kri/beian e)/ntornos ou(/tôs]), that no piece of human workmanship nor any thing ever seen by us on earth can be compared to it. For none of the component materials here on earth is so fit for receiving perfect level and accuracy as the nature of the First or Peripheral Body; it being clear that, in the same proportion as water is more exactly spherical, the elements surrounding the water become more and more spherical in proportion as they are more and more distant from the centre (s. 11).

CH. 5.--Circular revolution may take place in two directions; from the point A on one side towards B, or on the other side towards C. That these two are not contrary to each other, I have already shown. But, since in eternal substances nothing can possibly take place by chance or spontaneity, and since both the Heaven and its circular revolution are eternal, we may enquire what is the reason why this revolution takes place in one direction and not in the other. This circumstance either depends upon some first principle, or is itself a first principle (s. 1). Perhaps some may consider it a mark either of great silliness, or great presumption, to declare any positive opinion at all upon some matters, or upon all matters whatever, leaving out nothing. But we must not censure indiscriminately all who do this: we must consider what is the motive which prompts each person to declare himself, and with what amount of confidence he affirms, whether allowing for human fallibility or setting himself above it. Whenever a man can find out exact and necessary grounds for the conclusions which he propounds, we ought to be grateful to him: here we must deliver what appears to be the truth. Nature (we know) always does what is best among all the practicable courses. Now the upper place is more divine than the lower, and accordingly among rectilinear currents, that which is directed upwards is the more honourable. In the same manner, the current forwards is more honourable than backwards; and the current towards the right more honourable than that towards the left--as was before laid down. The problem above started indicates to us that there is here a real Prius and Posterius--a better and a worse; for, when we recognize this, the difficulty is solved. The solution is that this is the best practicable arrangement, viz., that the Kosmos is moved in a motion, simple, never-ending, and in the most honourable direction ([Greek: e)pi\ to\ timiô/teron], s. 2).

CH. 6.--I have now to show that this motion of the First Heaven is uniform and not irregular ([Greek: o(malê\s kai\ ou)k a)nô/malos]): I speak only of the First Heaven and of the First Rotation; for in the substances lower than this many rotations or currents have coalesced into one. If the motion of the First Heaven be irregular, there will clearly be acceleration and remission of its motion, and an extreme point or maximum ([Greek: a)kmê/]) thereof. Now the maximum of motion must take place either at the terminus _ad quem_, as in things moved according to nature; or at the terminus _a quo_, as in things moved contrary to nature; or during the interval between, as in things thrown ([Greek: e)n toi=s r(iptoume/nois]). But in circular motion, there is neither terminus _a quo_, nor terminus _ad quem_, nor middle between the two--neither beginning, nor end, nor mean; for it is eternal in duration, compact as to length or space moved over, and unbroken ([Greek: tô=| mê/kei sunêgme/nê kai\ a)/klastos]). It thus cannot have any maximum or acceleration or remission; and of course, therefore, it cannot be irregular (s. 1).

Besides, since every thing that is moved is moved by some thing, the irregularity, if there be such, must arise either from the Movens, or the Motum, or both: the power of the Movens, or the quality of the Motum, or both, must undergo change. But nothing of the sort can happen with the Motum, being in this case the Heaven; for it has been shown to be a First, simple, ungenerable, indestructible, and in every way unchangeable. Much more then is it reasonable to believe that the Movens is such; for that which is qualified to move the First, must be itself a First ([Greek: to\ ga\r prô=ton tou= prô/tou kinêtiko/n]); that which is qualified to move the simple, must be itself simple, &c. If then the Motum, which is a body, undergoes no change, neither will the Movens, being as it is incorporeal (s. 2). Accordingly the current, or motion ([Greek: phora/]), cannot possibly be irregular. For, if it comes to pass irregularly, its irregularity either pervades the whole, the velocity becoming alternately more or less, or certain parts only. But, in regard to the parts separately, there is certainly no irregularity: if there had been, the relative distances of the stars one from the other would have varied in the course of infinite time; now no such variation in their distances has ever been observed. Neither in regard to the whole is there any irregularity. For irregularity implies relaxation, and relaxation arises in every subject from impotence. Now impotence is contrary to nature: in animals, all impotences (such as old age or decay) are contrary to nature; for all animals, perhaps, are compounds put together out of elements each of which has a different place of its own and not one of which is in its own place. In the First Bodies, on the other hand, which are simple, unmixed, in their own places, and without any contrary, there can be no impotence, and therefore neither relaxation nor intensification, which always go together ([Greek: ei) ga\r e)pi/tasis, kai\ a)/nesis], s. 3). Besides, we cannot with any reason suppose that the Movens is impotent for an infinite time, and then again potent for an infinite time; nothing contrary to nature lasts for an infinite time, and impotence is contrary to nature; nor can it be for an equal time contrary to nature and agreeable to nature--impotent and potent. If the motion relaxes, it cannot go on relaxing for an infinite time, nor go on being intensified, nor the one and the other alternately. For in that case the motion would be infinite and indeterminate; which is impossible, since every motion must be from one term to another term and also determinate (s. 4: [Greek: a)/peiros ga\r a)\n ei)/ê kai\ a)o/ristos ê( ki/nêsis. a(/pasan de/ phamen e)/k tinos ei)/s ti ei)=nai, kai\ ô(risme/nên]--_i.e._, all motion must be determined both in distance and direction).

Again, the supposition may be made that there is a minimum of time required for the revolution of the Heaven, in less than which the revolution could not be completed; just as there is a minimum of time indispensable for a man to walk or play the harp. Admitting this supposition, there cannot be perpetual increase in the intensity or velocity of the motion (the increase has an impassable limit), and therefore there cannot be perpetual relaxation; for both are on the same footing (s. 5).

It might be urged, indeed, that intensification and relaxation go on alternately; each proceeding to a certain length, and then giving place to the other. But this is altogether irrational--nothing better than a gratuitous fiction. Besides, if there were this alternation, we may reasonably assume that it could not remain concealed from us; for contrasting conditions coming in immediate sequence to each other are more easily discerned by sense. What has been said, then, is sufficient to prove--That the Heaven or Cosmos is one and only one; that it is ungenerable and eternal; that its motion is uniform (s. 6).

CH. 7.--Next in order, I have to speak of what are called the Stars ([Greek: tô=n kaloume/nôn a)/strôn]). Of what are they composed? What is their figure? What are their motions?

It is consistent with the foregoing reasonings, as well as in itself the most rational doctrine, to conceive each of the stars as composed of portions of that body in which its current of motion takes place; that is, of that body, whose nature it is to move in a circle. For those who affirm the stars to be fire say this because they believe the upper body to be fire, assuming it as reasonable that each thing should be composed of the elements in which it is; and I assume the same also (s. 1). The heat and light of the stars arises from their friction with the air in their current of motion. If it is the nature of motion to inflame pieces of wood, and stones, and iron, it is still more reasonable that what is nearest to fire (that is, air) should be so inflamed. We see that darts projected are so inflamed, that their leaden appendages are melted; and, these being thus inflamed, the air around them must be modified in the same manner. Now objects like these darts are thus violently heated, because they are carried along in the medium of the air, which through the shock given by their motion becomes fire. But each of the upper bodies or stars is carried round (not in the air, but) in its appropriate sphere, so that they themselves are not inflamed; while the air which is under the sphere of the encyclical body becomes of necessity heated by the rotation of that sphere; and most of all at the point where the Sun has happened to be fastened in ([Greek: kai\ tau/tê| ma/lista, ê(=| o( ê(/lios tetu/chêken e)ndedeme/nos]).

Let it then be understood, that the stars are neither composed of fire, nor are they carried round in the medium of the fire (s. 2).

CH. 8.--It is seen as a fact, that both the stars, and the entire Heaven, change their place ([Greek: methista/mena]). Now, in this change, we must assume either that both continue at rest, or that both are in motion, or that one is at rest, and the other is in motion. Now it is impossible that both can be at rest, at least if we assume the earth to be at rest; for the facts which we see would not have taken place, upon that supposition (s. 1). Either therefore both are in motion, or one is in motion and the other at rest. Now, if both are in motion, it is against reason that the stars and the circles in which they are fastened should have equal velocities of motion. Each one of them must, be equal in velocity to the circle or sphere in which it is carried, since all come back round along with their circles to the same position; so that in one and the same time, the star has gone round its circle, and the circle has completed its revolution. It is not reasonable to suppose that the velocities of the stars and the magnitudes of the circles should be in the same proportion. Comparing one circle with another, indeed, it is not only not absurd, but even necessary, that the velocities should be in proportion to the magnitudes; but it is not reasonable that each of the stars in these circles should be of such velocity. For, if it be necessary that what is carried round in the larger circle should have the greater velocity, the consequence would be that, if the stars in one circle were transferred to another, their motions would become accelerated or retarded; which is equivalent to saying that they have no motion of their own at all, but are carried round by the revolution of the circles (s. 2). If, on the contrary, it be not necessary, but a spontaneous coincidence ([Greek: ei)/te a)po\ tau)toma/tou sune/pesen]) that what is carried round in the greater circle has the greater velocity, neither upon this supposition is it reasonable that in all the circles without exception the circumference should be greater, and the motion of the star fastened in the greater circle quicker, in the same proportion. That this should happen with one or two of them, might be reasonably expected; but that it should happen with all alike, savours of fiction. Moreover chance has no place in matters according to nature; nor is that which occurs everywhere and belongs to all, ever the produce of chance (s. 3).

So much for the hypothesis, that both stars and circles are in motion. Let us now assume that one is at rest, and the other in motion; and first, let the circles be at rest, and the stars in motion. This again will lead to absurdities; for we shall still be unable to explain how it happens that the outermost stars are moved most quickly, and that their velocities are proportioned to the magnitudes of the circles.

Since then we cannot assume either that both are moved, or that the star alone is moved, we must adopt the third supposition, that the circles are moved, and that the stars, being themselves at rest, are fastened in the circles and carried round along with them. This is the only hypothesis which entails no unreasonable consequences. For it is reasonable that, of circles fastened round the same centre, the greater velocity should belong to the greatest. For, as in all the varieties of body the heavier fragment is carried with greater velocity than the lighter in its appropriate motion, so it happens with the encyclical body. When two straight lines are drawn from the centre, the segment of the greater circle intercepted between them will be greater than the segment of the smaller; and it is consistent with reason that the greater circle should be carried round in equal time. This is one reason why the Kosmos is not split into separate parts; another reason is, because the universe has been shown to be continuous (s. 4, 5).

Now we all agree that the stars are of spherical figure: and spherical bodies have two motions of their own--rolling and rotatory ([Greek: ku/lisis kai\ di/nêsis]). If they were moved of themselves, they would be moved in one or other of these two ways; but we see that they are so in neither. They do not rotate; for, if they did, they would remain always in the same place, which contradicts universal observation and belief. Besides, it is reasonable to suppose that all the stars move in the same manner, but the Sun is the only one that is seen so to move, when he rises or sets; and he too, not by any movement of his own, but through the distance of our vision, which when stretched to a great distance, rotates from weakness (s. 6). This is perhaps the reason why the stars fastened (in the outer sphere) twinkle, while the planets do not twinkle; for the planets are near to us, so that our vision reaches them while yet strong; whereas in regard to the unmoved stars it is made to quiver in consequence of the great distance from being stretched out too far, and its quivering causes the appearance of motion in the star. For there is no difference between moving the vision and moving the object seen ([Greek: ou)the\n ga\r diaphe/rei kinei=n tê\n o)/psin ê)\ to\ o(rô/menon]--s. 6).

Again, neither do the stars roll nor revolve forward. For that which rolls forward must necessarily turn round; but the same side of the moon--what is called the face of the moon--is always clearly visible to us (s. 7).

Since it is reasonable to believe, therefore, that, if the stars were moved in themselves, they would be moved in their own special variety of motion (_i.e._, rolling or rotatory), and since it has been shown that they are not moved in either of these two ways, we see plainly that they cannot be moved in themselves (but are carried round in the revolution of the Aplanês).

Besides, if they were moved in **themselves, it is unreasonable that Nature should have assigned to them no organ suitable for motion, since Nature does nothing by haphazard; and that she should have been considerate in providing for animals, while she overlooked objects so honourable as the stars. The truth rather is, that she has withheld from them, as it were by express purpose, all aids, through which it was possible for them to advance forward in themselves, and has placed them at the greatest possible distance from objects furnished with organs for motion (s. 8).

Hence it would seem to be the reasonable doctrine--That the entire Heaven is spherical, and that each of the stars (fastened in it) is also spherical. For the sphere is the most convenient of all figures for motion in the same place, so that the Heaven being spherical would be moved most rapidly and would best maintain its own place. But for forward motion the sphere is of all figures the most inconvenient; for it least resembles self-moving bodies; it has no outlying appendage or projecting end, as rectilinear figures have, and stands farthest removed from the figures of marching bodies.

Since therefore it is the function of ([Greek: dei=]) the Heaven to be moved by a motion in the same place ([Greek: kinei=sthai tê\n e)n au(tô=| ki/nêsin]), and that of the stars not to make any advance by themselves ([Greek: ta\ a)/lla d' a)/stra mê\ proi+e/nai di' au(tô=n]), it is with good reason that both of them are spherical. For thus will the Heaven best be moved, and the stars will best be at rest.

CH. 9.--From what I have said, it is plain that those who affirm that the revolving celestial bodies emit in their revolutions sounds harmonious to each other, speak cleverly and ingeniously, but not consistently with the truth. There must necessarily be sound (they say) from the revolution of such vast bodies. Since bodies near to us make sound in motion, the sun, moon, and stars, being so much larger and moving with so much greater velocity, must make an immense sound; and, since their distances and velocities are assumed to be in harmonic proportion, the sounds emitted in their revolution must also be in harmony. To the question put to them--Why do we not hear this immense sound? they reply, that we have been hearing it constantly from the moment of our birth; that we have no experience of an opposite state, or state of silence, with which to contrast it, and that sound and silence are discriminated only by relation to each other ([Greek: ô(/ste mê\ dia/dêlon ei)=nai pro\s tê\n e)nanti/an sigê/n; pro\s a)/llêla ga\r phônê=s kai\ sigê=s ei)=nai tê\n dia/gnôsin]); that men thus cease to be affected by it, just as blacksmiths from constant habit cease to be affected by the noise of their own work (s. 1).

The reasoning of these philosophers (the Pythagoreans), as I have just said, is graceful and poetical, yet nevertheless inadmissible. For they ought to explain, upon their hypothesis, not merely why we hear nothing, but why we experience no uncomfortable impressions apart from hearing. For prodigious sounds pierce through and destroy the continuity even of inanimate bodies; thus thunder splits up stones and other bodies of the greatest strength. The impression produced here by the sound of the celestial bodies must be violent beyond all endurance. But there is good reason why we neither hear nor suffer any thing from them; viz., that they make no sound. The cause thereof is one which attests the truth of my doctrine laid down above--That the stars are not moved of themselves, but carried round by and in the circle to which they are fastened. Bodies thus carried round, make no sound or shock: it is only bodies carried round of themselves that make sound and shock. Bodies which are fastened in, or form parts of, a revolving body, cannot possibly sound, any more than the parts of a ship moving, nor indeed could the whole ship sound, if carried along in a running river. Yet the Pythagoreans might urge just the same reasons to prove that bodies so large as the mast, the stern, and the entire ship, could not be moved without noise. Whatever is carried round, indeed, in a medium not itself carried round, really makes sound; but it cannot do so, if the medium itself be carried round continuously. We must therefore in this case maintain that, if the vast bodies of the stars were carried round in a medium either of air or of fire (whose motion is rectilinear), as all men say that they are, they must necessarily make a prodigious sound, which would reach here to us and would wear us out ([Greek: diaknai/ein]). Since nothing of this nature occurs, we may be sure that the stars are not carried round in a current of their own, either animated or violent. It is as if Nature had foreseen the consequence, that, unless the celestial motions were carried on in the manner in which they are carried on, nothing of what now takes place near us ([Greek: tô=n peri\ to\n deu=ro to/pon]), could have been as it is now. I have thus shown that the stars are spherical, and that they are not moved by a motion of their own (ss. 2-5).

CH. 10.--Respecting the arrangement of the stars--how each of them is placed, some anterior others posterior, and what are their distances from each other--the books on astronomy must be consulted and will explain. It consists with the principles there laid down, that the motions of the stars (planets) should be proportional to their distances, some quicker, others slower. For, since the farthest circle of the Heaven has a revolution both simple and of extreme velocity, while the revolutions of the other stars (planets) are many in number and slower, each of them being carried round in its own circle in the direction contrary to that of the first or farthest circle of the Heaven, the reasonable consequence is, that that planet which is nearest to the first and simple revolving circle takes the longest time to complete its own (counter-revolving) circle, while that which is most distant from the same circle takes the shortest time, and the remaining planets take more or less time in proportion as they are nearer or farther. For the planet nearest to the first revolving circle has its own counterrevolution most completely conquered or overpowered thereby; the planet farthest from the same, has its own counterrevolution least conquered thereby; and the intermediate planets more or less in inverse proportion to their distances from the same, as mathematicians demonstrate.

CH. 11.--We may most reasonably assume the figure of the stars to be spherical. For, since we have shown that it is not their nature to have any motion of their own, and since Nature does nothing either irrational or in vain, it is plain that she has assigned to the immovables that figure which is least fit for motion; which figure is the sphere, as having no organ for motion. Besides, what is true of one is true of all ([Greek: e)/ti d' o(moi/ôs me\n a(/panta kai\ e(/n]): now the Moon may be shown to be spherical, first, by the visible manifestations which she affords in her waxings and wanings, next, from astronomical observations of the eclipses of the Sun. Since therefore one among the stars is shown to be spherical, we may presume that the rest will be so likewise.

CH. 12.--I proceed to two other difficulties, which are well calculated to perplex every one. We must try to state what looks most like truth, considering such forwardness not to be of the nature of audacity, but rather to deserve respect, when any one, stimulated by the thirst for philosophy, contents himself with small helps and faint approximations to truth, having to deal with the gravest difficulties.

1. Why is it, that the circles farthest from the outermost circle (or Aplanês) are not always moved by a greater number of motions than those nearer to it? Why are some of the intermediate circles (neither farthest nor nearest) moved by a greater number of motions than any of the others? For it would seem reasonable, when the First Body is moved by one single rotatory current, that the one nearest to it should be moved by two, the next nearest by three, and so on in regular sequence to those which are more distant. But we find that the reverse occurs in fact: Sun and Moon have fewer movements than some of the planets, which are nevertheless farther from the centre, and nearer to the First Body. In regard to some of the planets, we know this by visual evidence; for we have seen the Moon when at half-moon passing under Mars, who was occulted by the dark part of her body, and emerged on the bright side of it. The like is attested respecting the other planets, by the Egyptians and Babylonians, the most ancient of all observers.

2. Why is it, that in the First Revolution (in the revolution of the First Heaven or First Body) there is included so vast a multitude of stars as to seem innumerable; while in each of the others there is one alone and apart, never two or more fastened in the same current?

Here are two grave difficulties, which it is well to investigate and try to understand, though our means of information are very scanty, and though we stand at so great a distance from the facts. Still, as far as we can make out from such data, these difficulties would not seem to involve any philosophical impossibility or incongruity. Now we are in the habit of considering these celestial bodies as bodies only; and as monads which have indeed regular arrangement, but are totally destitute of soul or vital principle. (When Aristotle here says _we_, he must mean the philosophers whose point of view he is discussing: for the general public certainly did not regard the Sun, Moon, and stars as [Greek: a)/psucha pa/mpan], but, on the contrary, considered this as blameable heresy, and looked upon them as Gods**.) We ought, however, to conceive them as partaking of life and action ([Greek: dei= d' ô(s metecho/ntôn u(polamba/nein pra/xeôs kai\ zôê=s]); and in this point of view the actual state of the case will appear nowise unreasonable (s. 2). For we should naturally expect that to that which is in the best possible condition, such well-being will belong without any agency at all; to that which is next best, through agency single and slight; to such as are farther removed in excellence of condition, through action more multiplied and diversified. Just so in regard to the human body: the best constituted body maintains its good condition without any training at all; there are others which will do the same at the cost of nothing more than a little walking; there are inferior bodies which require, for the same result, wrestling, running, and other motions; while there are even others which cannot by any amount of labour attain a good condition, but are obliged to be satisfied with something short of it (s. 3). Moreover it is difficult to succeed in many things, or to succeed often: you may throw one or two sixes with the dice, but you cannot throw ten thousand; and, farther, when the conditions of the problem become complicated--when one thing is to be done for the sake of another, that other for a third result, and that third for a fourth, &c.--success, which may be tolerably easy when the steps are only few, the more they are multiplied, becomes harder and harder.

Hence we must consider the agency of the stars as analogous to that of plants and animals. For here the agency of man is most multifarious, since he is capable of attaining many varieties of good, and accordingly busies himself about many things and about one thing for the sake of others. The agency of other animals on the other hand is more restricted; that of plants yet more so, being of slight force and only of one special character (s. 4). But that which exists in the best possible condition stands in no need of acting or agency; for it already possesses that for the sake of which action is undertaken. Now action always includes two elements--that for the sake of which and what is for the sake thereof--the end and the means: there is either some one end, which the agent may attain, as in the case of man; or there are many different matters all of which may be used as means towards the best possible condition. Thus one agent possesses and partakes of the best possible condition; another comes near to it with little trouble; a third, with much trouble; a fourth does not even aspire to the end, but is competent only to arrive near to the last of the means. For example, let health be the end: one man is always in health; a second becomes so, by being starved down; a third by that, combined with running exercise; a fourth is obliged to take some additional exercise, in order to qualify himself for running, so that his motions are multiplied; a fifth is incapable of arriving at health, but arrives only at the running and the being thinned down, one of which in this case serves as end. For it would be best for all, if they could attain the supreme end--health; but, if that be impossible, then the next best thing is to get as near to the best as possible (ss. 5-7).

For this reason the Earth is not moved at all, and the matters near the Earth are moved with few motions; since they do not arrive at the extreme best, but only as near as their ability permits to obtain or hit the supremely divine principle; while the First Heaven, on the contrary, obtains or hits it at once, through one single motion; and the bodies intermediate between the First Heaven and those which are last (or nearest to the Earth), obtain it or arrive at it also, but only through a greater number of motions.

There is the other difficulty also to be considered--that vast multitude of stars are put all together in the one single First Current or Revolution, but each of the other stars (planets) has its own motions singly and apart. The principal reason of this we may fairly suppose to be that it follows as a natural consequence from the vast superiority of the first, in each variety of life and in each beginning, over all posterior to the first. Here the First Current or Revolution, being one and by itself, moves many of the divine bodies, while the others (secondary or countercurrents), numerous as they are, move each only one; for each one of these wandering bodies or planets is carried by many different currents. Thus Nature establishes equalization and a sort of symmetry, by assigning, in the one case, many bodies to one current, and in the other, many currents to one body (ss. 8-10). Beside this principal reason, there is also another. The other currents have each one body only, because motion is given to many bodies by all of them prior to the last which bears the one star. For the last sphere is carried round fastened into many spheres, and each sphere is a body (ss. 11, 12. I do not clearly understand the lines that follow:--[Greek: e)kei/nês a)\n ou)=n koino\n ei)/ê to\ e)/rgon; au(/tê me\n ga\r e(ka/stê| ê( i)/dios phu/sei phora/; au(/tê de\ oi(=on proskei=tai. panto\s de\ peperasme/nou sô/matos pro\s peperasme/non ê( du/nami/s e)stin.]).[1]

[Footnote 1: [See Prantl's note on this difficult passage in his German translation of the De Coelo, p. 309 (Leipzig, 1857).]]

CH. 13.--Having thus explained, respecting the Stars and Planets which are carried round in circular motion, what is their essence, figure, current, and order of position, we now proceed to speak of the Earth: What is its position? Whether is it at rest or in motion? What is its figure?

Philosophers differ respecting the position of the Earth. Most of those who conceive the entire Kosmos as finite, declare the Earth to be in its centre. But the Italian philosophers, called Pythagoreans, are of an opposite opinion; affirming that Fire is in the centre, and that the Earth, being one of the stars revolving round the centre, makes night and day. They assume moreover another Earth opposite to this ([Greek: e)nanti/an a)/llên tau/tê|])--which other they call _Antichthon_. Herein they do not adjust their theories and look out for causes adapted to the phenomena; but, on the contrary, they distort the phenomena so as to suit their own doctrines and reasonings, and try to constitute themselves auxiliary governors of the Kosmos ([Greek: peirô/menoi sugkosmei=n]--s. 1). And, if we are to look for assurance not to the phenomena but to our own reasonings, many others might agree with them, that it is not proper ([Greek: mê\ dei=n]) to assign to the Earth the central place. They think that the most honourable place belongs to the most honourable body, and that Fire is more honourable than Earth; that the two extremes, centre and circumference, are more honourable than the parts intermediate between them. Upon these grounds they consider that Fire and not Earth is at the centre of the Universal Sphere; and they have another reason, peculiar to themselves, for this conclusion: they hold that the centre is the most important place in the universe, and that it ought as such to be the most carefully guarded; wherefore they call it the watch of Zeus ([Greek: Dio\s phulakê/n]), and regard it as occupied by Fire (s. 2).

This assumes that what is absolutely (_i.e._, without subjoining any qualifying adjunct), described as _the centre_, is at once centre of the magnitude, centre of the object, and centre of nature. But we ought rather to follow the analogy of animals, where the same point is not the centre of the animal and the centre of the body: the case is the same in the entire Kosmos. Hence the Pythagoreans need not feel any anxiety about the Universe ([Greek: ou)the\n au)tou\s dei= thorubei=sthai peri\ to\ pa=n]), nor introduce a guard at the centre. They ought rather to enquire where and of what character the middle point is; for that middle point is the true beginning and the honourable. The middle of the place occupied is rather like an end than like a beginning; for that which is limited is the middle, that which limits is the boundary: now that which comprehends and is boundary, is more honourable than that which is bounded; the former is the Essence of the entire compound, the latter is only its Matter (s. 3).

As about the place of the Earth, so also about its motion or rest, philosophers differ. The Pythagoreans and those who do not even place it at the centre, consider it to revolve in a circle, and they consider the Antichthon to revolve in like manner. Some even think it possible that there may be many other bodies carried round the centre in like manner, though invisible to us, by reason of the obstructing body of the Earth. Hence (they say) the eclipses of the moon are more frequent than those of the Sun; since not only the Earth, but also each of these unseen bodies, causes the Moon to be eclipsed. For, the Earth not being a point, we on the circumference thereof, even assuming it to occupy the centre, are distant from the centre by the entire hemisphere of the Earth; yet we do not find out that we are not in the centre, and astronomical appearances present themselves to us just as if we were so. Thus it happens (according to these philosophers), the Earth not being in the centre at all: the appearances presented to us are just the same as if we were at the centre.

Again, there are some who (like Plato in Timæus) affirm that the Earth, though situated in the centre, is packed and revolves round the axis stretched across the universe (s. 4).

About the figure of the Earth, there is no less difference of opinion. Some say that it is spherical; others, that it is flat and in shape like a tambourine ([Greek: tumpanoeidê/s]). These last adduce as proof, that the Sun, at rising and setting, exhibits a rectilinear section or eclipse of his disk and not a circular one, when partially concealed by the Earth, and becoming invisible under the horizon or visible above the horizon. They do not take proper account of the vast distance of the Sun and the magnitude of his circumference. The segment of a long circle appears from a distance like a straight line. These philosophers further add, that the flat tambourine-like shape must be inferred of necessity from the fact that the Earth remains stationary (s. 5).

Upon this disputed question, a feeling of perplexity comes unavoidably upon every one. It would argue a very irrational mind not to wonder how a small piece of the Earth, if suspended in the air, is carried downward and will not stop of itself, and the larger piece is carried downward more quickly than the smaller; while nevertheless the entire Earth, if suspended in like manner, would not be so carried. In spite of its great weight, it remains stationary (s. 6). But the solutions of this problem which some suggest are more strange and full of perplexity, and it is surprising that they have not been so considered. The Kolophonian Xenophanes affirmed that the lower depths of the Earth were rooted downwards to infinity, in order to escape the troublesome obligation of looking for a reason why it remained stationary. Others say, that the Earth rests upon water, floating thereupon like wood: this is an ancient doctrine promulgated by Thales; as if there were not as much perplexity about the water which supports the Earth, as there is about the Earth itself. For it is not the nature of water to remain suspended, but always to rest upon something (s. 7). Moreover, air is lighter than water, and water lighter than earth; how then can these men think that the substance naturally lighter can lie below the substance naturally heavier? Besides, if it were the nature of the whole Earth to remain resting on water, it must be the nature of each part of the Earth to do the same; but this does not happen: each part of the earth is carried down to the bottom, and the greater part more quickly than the less (s. 8).

All these philosophers carry their researches to a certain point, but not to the bottom of the problem. It is indeed a habit with all of us to conduct our enquiries not with reference to the problem itself, but with reference to our special opponents. If we have no opponent but are conducting our investigations alone, we pursue them as far as that point where we can make no farther objections to ourselves. Whoever therefore intends to investigate completely must take care to make objections to himself upon all the points of objection which really belong to the subject; and this he can only do after having thoroughly surveyed all the differences of opinion and doctrine (s. 9).

The reason why the Earth remains at rest, Anaximenes, Anaxagoras, and Demokritus, declare to be its breadth or flatness ([Greek: to\ pla/tos]): it does not (they say) divide the air beneath, but covers over the air like a lid ([Greek: ou) ga\r te/mnein, a)ll' e)pipômati/zein to\n a)e/ra to\n ka/tôthen]); as we see that flat and spreading bodies usually do, being difficult to be moved and making strong resistance even against the winds. The Earth does the same, through its flatness, against the air beneath, which remains at rest there (in the opinion of these philosophers) because it finds no sufficient place into which to travel, like water in a _klepsydra_: they also produce many evidences to show that air thus imprisoned, while remaining stationary, can support a heavy weight (s. 10).

Now, in the first place, these men affirm that, unless the shape of the Earth were flat, it would not remain at rest. Yet on their own showing it is not alone the flat shape of the earth which causes it to remain at rest, but rather its magnitude. For the air beneath remains _in situ_ by reason of its vast mass, finding no means of escape through the narrow passage: and the mass of the air is thus vast, because it is imprisoned inside by the great magnitude of the Earth; which effect will be produced in the same manner, even though the Earth be spherical, provided it be of its present magnitude. Moreover, philosophers who hold this opinion about the motion of the Earth, think only of its motion as a whole, and take no account of its parts. For they ought to define at the first step whether bodies have or have not one special mode of motion by nature; and, if none by nature, then whether they have any mode of motion violent or contra-natural. I have already determined this point as well as my powers admitted, and shall therefore assume the results as settled. If there be no special motion natural to bodies, neither will there be any which is contra-natural or violent; and, if there be none either natural or violent, no body will be moved at all. I have already shown that this is a necessary consequence; and, farther, that (upon that supposition) there can be no body even at rest; for rest, like motion, is either natural or contra-natural; and, if there be any special mode of motion which is natural, neither contra-natural motion, nor contra-natural rest, can stand alone (ss. 11-13).

Let us then assume (reasoning on the hypothesis of these philosophers) that the Earth now remains in its present place contrary to nature, and that it was carried into aggregation at the centre by the revolution of the Kosmos (also contrary to nature--[Greek: kai\ sunê=lthen e)pi\ to\ me/son pherome/nê dia\ tê\n di/nêsin]--s. 14). For all those who recognize a generation of the Kosmos assign this revolution as the cause which determined the aggregation of the Earth at the centre, upon the analogy of particles carried round in liquids or in air, where the larger and heavier particles are always carried to the centre of the revolution. They profess thus to know the cause which determined the Earth to _come to_ the centre; but what they seek to find out is the cause which determines it to remain there, and upon that they differ: some saying, as has been stated just now, that its breadth and magnitude is the cause; others, with Empedokles, ascribing the fact to the revolution of the Heaven, the extreme velocity of which checks the fall of the Earth downward, just as water in a cup may be whirled rapidly round without falling to the ground. But suppose absence of these two causes: in which direction will the Earth be naturally carried? Not to the centre; for (upon the doctrine which we are now criticising) its motion to the centre, and its remaining at the centre, are both of them contra-natural; but some special mode of motion, natural to the Earth, there must necessarily be. Is this upward, or downward, or in what other direction? If there be no greater tendency downward than upward, and if the air above does not hinder the Earth from tending upward, neither will the air beneath hinder it from tending downwards: the same causes produce the same effects, operating on the same matter (ss. 14, 15).

A farther argument becomes applicable, when we are reasoning against Empedokles. When the four elements were first separated out of their confused huddle by the influence of Contention, what was the cause for the Earth to remain still and _in situ_? Empedokles cannot claim to introduce then the agency of the cosmical revolution. Moreover, it is strange that he should not have reflected that in the first instance the particles and fragments of the Earth were carried to the centre. But what is the cause now that every thing having weight is carried towards the Earth? It cannot be the revolution of the Heaven which brings these things nearer to us (s. 16).

Again, Fire is carried upward. What is the cause of this? The revolution of the Heaven cannot cause it. But, if it be the nature of fire to be carried in one certain direction, it must be equally the nature of Earth to be carried in one certain direction. Light and heavy, also, are not discriminated by the heavenly revolution. There are matters originally heavy, and matters originally light: the former are carried to the centre, the latter to the circumference, each by its own special motion. Even prior to the heavenly revolution there existed things intrinsically light and intrinsically heavy; which are discriminated by certain attributes--a certain natural mode of motion and a certain place. In infinite space, there can be no upward and downward; and it is by this (local distinction) that light and heavy are discriminated (ss. 17, 18).

While most philosophers insist upon the causes just noticed why the Earth remains stationary where it is, there are others, like Anaximander, among the ancients, who say that it remains so because of its likeness or equality ([Greek: dia\ tê\n o(moio/tera]--equal tendency in all directions). That which is situated in the centre (they say) and which has like relation to the extreme parts (_i.e._, like to _all_ the extreme parts) ought not to be carried any more upward or downward or sideways; and it cannot be moved in opposite directions at once; so that it remains stationary by necessity (s. 19).

This doctrine is ingenious, but not true. For the property affirmed is noway peculiar to the Earth: the affirmation is, that every thing which is placed at the centre must of necessity remain there; so that Fire also would remain there at rest, as well as Earth. But this necessity must be denied. For it is shown by observation that the Earth not only remains at the centre, but is carried to the centre; since each part of it is carried thither, and, whithersoever the parts are carried, the whole is carried necessarily to the same point. The peculiar property of the earth therefore is, not (as this hypothesis declares) to have like relation to all the extreme parts--for that is common to all the elements--but to be carried towards the centre (ss. 20, 21).

Moreover, it is absurd to investigate why the Earth remains at the centre, and not to investigate equally why Fire remains at the extremity. For, if you explain this last by saying that Fire has its natural place at the extremity, the Earth must have its natural place somewhere else. If the centre be not the natural place of the Earth, and if the Earth remains there through like tendency in all directions, like the hair in equal tension or the man both hungry and thirsty between food and drink, you must equally assign the reason why Fire remains at the extremity. It is singular too that you should try to explain only the _remaining at rest_ ([Greek: monê=s]) of the Earth, and not also seek to explain the natural current ([Greek: phora/])--why Earth is carried downward, and Fire upward, when there is no opposing force (s. 22).

Nor can it be admitted that the doctrine is true. Thus much indeed is true by accident--that every thing which has no greater obligation to be moved in this direction than in that, must necessarily remain at the centre. But this is true only so long as it remains a compact whole; for, according to the theory which we are discussing, it will not remain stationary, but will be moved: not indeed as a whole, but dispersed into parts (s. 23: [Greek: a)lla\ mê\n ou)de\ a)lêthe/s e)sti to\ lego/menon. kata\ sumbebêko\s me/ntoi tou=to/ ge a)lêthe/s, ô(s a)nagkai=on me/nein e)pi\ tou= me/sou pa=n, ô(=| mêthe\n ma=llon deu=ro ê( deu=ro kinei=sthai prosê/kei. a)lla\ dia/ ge tou=ton to\n lo/gon ou) menei= a)lla\ kinêthê/setai; ou) me/ntoi o(/lon, a)lla\ diespasme/non.]--I understand [Greek: kata\ sumbebêko/s] to mean, subject to the condition of its remaining a compact whole). For the same reasoning would apply to Fire as well as to Earth: it would prove that Fire, if placed at the centre, will remain there just as much as Earth, because Fire will have like relation to each point of the extreme periphery. Yet nevertheless it will (not remain at the centre, but will) be carried away, if not impeded, as we observe that it is carried in fact, to the periphery; only not all to one and the same point of the periphery, but corresponding portions of the Fire to corresponding portions of the periphery: I mean, that the fourth part (_e.g._) of the Fire will be carried to the fourth part of the periphery; for a point is no real part of bodies ([Greek: ou)the\n ga\r stigmê\ tô=n sôma/tôn e)sti/n]). This is the only necessary consequence flowing from the principle of likeness of relation. As, if supposed to be put all together at the centre, it would contract from a larger area into a smaller, so, when carried away from the centre to the different parts of the periphery, it would become rarer and would expand from a smaller area into a larger. In like manner the Earth also would be moved away from the centre, if you reason upon this principle of likeness of relation, and if the centre were not the place belonging to it by nature (s. 24).

CH. 14.--Having thus reported the suppositions of others respecting the figure, place, rest and motion, of the Earth, I shall now deliver my own opinion, first, whether it is in motion or at rest; for some philosophers, as I have said, regard it as one of the stars (and therefore not in the centre, but moving round the centre--the Pythagorean theory); others (as Plato), though they place it in the centre, consider it to be packed and moved round the middle of the axis of the Kosmos ([Greek: oi( de\ e)pi\ tou= me/sou the/ntes, ei)lei=sthai kai\ kinei=sthai/ phasi peri\ to\n me/son po/lon]).

That neither of these hypotheses is possible, we shall perceive if we take as our point of departure--That, if the Earth be carried round, whether in the centre or apart from the centre, such motion must necessarily be violent or contra-natural. Such motion does not belong naturally to the Earth itself; for, if such were the fact, it would belong equally to each portion of the Earth, whereas we see that all these portions are carried in a straight line to the centre. Being thus violent or contra-natural, it cannot possibly be eternal. But the order of the Kosmos is eternal. Besides, all the bodies which are carried round in a circular revolution (all except the First or Outermost Sphere--the Aplanês) appear to observation as lagging behind and as being moved in more than one current. The like ought to happen with the Earth, if moved round, whether on the centre or apart from the centre: it ought to be moved in two currents; and, as a consequence thereof, there ought to be side-motions and back-turnings of the stars fastened in their sphere. But we see by observation that this does not happen; and that the same stars always rise and set at the same places of the Earth (s. 1).

Farthermore, the natural current both of the entire Earth and of each of its parts is towards the middle of the universe: this is the reason why it is at the centre, even though it happens to be actually there at present ([Greek: dia\ tou=to ga\r, ka)\n ei) tugcha/nei keime/nê nu=n e)pi\ tou= ke/ntrou]--he means that though actually there, it remains there not through any force of inertia or other cause, but because it has a natural current towards the centre). You might start a doubt, indeed, since the centre of the Universe coincides with the centre of the Earth, to which of the two it is that the current of heavy bodies naturally tends: whether they tend thereto because it is the centre of the Universe, or because it is the centre of the Earth. We must however necessarily suppose the former; since Fire and light bodies, whose current is the contrary of the current of heavy bodies, are carried to the extreme periphery of the Universe, or of that place which comprehends and surrounds the centre of the Universe (ss. 2, 3). But it happens ([Greek: sumbe/bêke]: it is an accompanying fact) that the same point is centre of the Universe and centre of the Earth; accordingly heavy bodies are carried by accident ([Greek: kata\ sumbebêko/s]--by virtue of this accompanying fact) to the centre of the Earth; and the proof that they are carried to this same point is, that their lines of direction are not parallel but according to similar angles (s. 4). That the Earth therefore is at the centre, and that it is at rest, we may see by the foregoing reasons, as well as by the fact, that stones thrown upwards to ever so great a height, are carried back in the same line of direction to the same point (s. 5).

We may see farther the cause why the Earth remains at rest. For, if its natural current be from all directions towards the centre, as observation shows, and that of Fire from the centre to the periphery,--no portion of it can possibly be carried away from the centre, except by violence. For to one body belongs one current of motion, and to a simple body a simple current--not the two opposite currents; and the current _from_ the centre is opposite to the current _to_ the centre. If, therefore, it be impossible for any portion of the Earth to be carried in a direction away from the centre, it is yet more impossible for the whole Earth to be so; for the natural current of each part is the same as that of the whole. Accordingly, since the Earth cannot be moved except by a superior force or violence, it must necessarily remain stationary at the centre (s. 6). The same conclusion is confirmed by what we learn from geometers respecting astronomy; for all the phenomena of the Heavens--the changes in figure, order, and arrangement of the stars--take place as if the Earth were in the centre (s. 7).

The figure of the Earth is necessarily spherical. For each of its parts has gravity, until it reaches the centre; and the lesser part, pushed forward by the greater, cannot escape laterally, but must become more and more squeezed together, one part giving place to the other, until the centre itself is reached. We must conceive what is here affirmed as occurring in a manner like what some of the ancient physical philosophers tell us, except that _they_ ascribe the downward current to an extraneous force; whereas we think it better to state the truth, and to say that it occurs because _by nature_ all heavy bodies are carried towards the centre. Since, therefore, the preliminary Chaos or hotchpotch existed in power (or with its inherent powers existing though not exercised), the elements (those which had gravity), were carried from all sides equally towards the centre ([Greek: e)n duna/mei ou)=n o)/ntos tou= mi/gmatos, ta\ diakrino/mena e)phe/reto o(moi/ôs pa/ntothen pro\s to\ me/son]--this is an allusion to the doctrine of Anaxagoras); indeed, whether brought together at the centre equally from all the periphery or in any other manner, the result will be the same. If we suppose particles to be brought together at the centre equally from all sides, it is plain that the mass so formed will be regular and spherical; and, even if not equally from all sides, this will make no difference in the reasoning; for, since all portions of the mass have weight or tend to the centre, the larger portions will necessarily push the lesser before them as far as the centre (ss. 8, 9).

A difficulty here presents itself, which may be solved upon the same principles. The Earth being spherical, and at the centre, suppose that a vast additional weight were applied to either of its hemispheres. In that case, the centre of the Universe, and the centre of the Earth, would cease to coincide: either, therefore, the Earth will not remain at the centre; or, if it would still remain at rest, while not occupying the centre, it is in its nature to be moved even now (s. 10: [Greek: ô(/ste ê)\ ou) menei= e)pi\ tou= me/sou, ê)\ ei)/per ê)remê/sei ge kai\ mê\ to\ me/son e)/chousa ê)=|, pe/phuke kinei=sthai kai\ nu=n])--_i.e._, if the Earth _can_ be at rest when not at the centre, we must infer that the centre is not its natural place, and therefore that its nature will be to be moved from the centre towards that natural place wherever situated).

Such is a statement of the difficulty; but we shall see that it may be cleared up with a little attention. We must distinguish what we mean when we affirm that every particle having weight is carried towards the centre. We clearly do not mean that it will be so carried until the particles farthest from the centre shall touch the centre. We mean that the greater mass must press with preponderating force ([Greek: dei= kratei=n to\ plei=on e(/ôs a)\n la/bê| tô=| au(tou= me/sô| to\ me/son]) until its centre grasps the centre of the universe; up to this point its gravity will last; and this is equally true about any clod of earth as about the whole earth: large or small size makes no difference. Whether the whole Earth were carried in a mass from any given position, or whether it were carried in separate particles, in either case it would be carried onward until it embraced the centre equally on all sides; the smaller parts being equalized to the greater in gravitating tendency because they are pushed forward by the greater ([Greek: a)nisazome/nôn tô=n e)latto/nôn u(po\ tô=n meizo/nôn tê=| proô/sei]--s. 11). If, therefore, the Earth was ever generated, it must have been generated in this manner, and must thus acquire a spherical figure; and, even if it be ungenerable and stationary from everlasting, we must conceive its figure to be that which it would have acquired, if it had been generable and generated from the first ([Greek: ei)/te a)ge/nnêtos a)ei\ me/nousa, to\n au)to\n tro/pon e)/chein, o(/nper ka)\n ei) gignome/nê to\ prô=ton e)ge/neto]). That it must be spherical, we see not only from this reasoning, but also because all heavy bodies are carried towards it, not in parallel lines but, in equal angles. This is what naturally happens with what is either actually spherical, or by nature spherical. Now we ought to call every thing such as it by nature wishes to become and to be: we ought not to call it such as it is by force and contrary to nature (s. 12).

The same conclusion is established by the sensible facts within our observation. If the Earth had been of any other than spherical figure, the eclipses of the Moon would not have projected on the Sun the outlines which we now see. The moon in her configurations throughout the month takes on every variety of outline--rectilinear, double convex, and hollow. But in her eclipses the distinguishing line is always convex. Now this must necessarily be occasioned by the circumference of the Earth being spherical, since the eclipses of the Moon arise from the interposition of the Earth (s. 13).

Farthermore, we see from the visible phenomena of the stars not only that the Earth is spherical, but also that its magnitude is not great. For, when we change our position a little as observers, either to the north or to the south, we find the celestial horizon to be manifestly different. The stars at the zenith are greatly changed, and the same stars do not appear: some stars are visible in Egypt and Cyprus, but become invisible when we proceed farther north; and those which are constantly visible in the northern regions, are found to be not constantly visible, but to set, when the observer is in Egypt or Cyprus. The bulk of the Earth must therefore be small, when a small change of position is made so soon manifest to us (s. 14). Hence those who hold that the regions near the pillars of Herakles join on with India and that the ocean eastward and westward is one and the same, must not be supposed to talk extravagantly ([Greek: mê\ li/an u(polamba/nein a)/pista dokei=n]): they infer this from the presence of elephants alike at both extremities. Geometers who try to calculate the magnitude of the Earth, affirm that its circumference is 400,000 stadia.

It follows necessarily from all these reasonings, that the body of the Earth is not only of spherical form, but also not large compared with the magnitude of the other Stars (ss. 15, 16).

[The remaining two books of the treatise known by the title 'De Coelo,' while connected with the foregoing, are still more closely connected with the two Books composing the treatise entitled 'De Generatione et Corruptione.' The discussion carried on throughout the two treatises is in truth one; but, if anywhere broken, it is at the end of Book II. De Coelo, as above. From this point Aristotle proceeds to consider (in four Books) the particular phenomena presented by natural bodies--phenomena of Generation and Destruction (in the widest sense of these words)--dependent on the opposition of the upward and downward motions; bodies, thus light or heavy, being thence seen to be ultimately reducible to four elements variously combined. Treating of the Kosmos in its larger aspects, the first two Books of De Coelo, here abstracted, are obviously those that alone correspond strictly to the name of the treatise.]

V.

EPIKURUS

Our information from Epikurean writers respecting the doctrines of their sect is much less copious than that which we possess from Stoic writers in regard to Stoic opinions. We have no Epikurean writer on philosophy except Lucretius; whereas respecting the Stoical creed under the Roman Empire, the important writings of Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Antoninus, afford most valuable evidence.

The standard of Virtue and Vice is referred by Epikurus to Pleasure and Pain. Pain is the only evil, Pleasure is the only good. Virtue is no end in itself, to be sought; vice is no end in itself, to be avoided. The motive for cultivating virtue and banishing vice arises from the consequences of each, as the means of multiplying pleasures and averting or lessening pains. But to the attainment of this purpose, the complete supremacy of Reason is indispensable; in order that we may take a right comparative measure of the varieties of pleasure and pain, and pursue the course that promises the least amount of suffering.

This theory (taken in its most general sense, and apart from differences in the estimation of particular pleasures and pains), had been proclaimed long before the time of Epikurus. It is one of the various theories of Plato; for in his dialogue called Protagoras (though in other dialogues he reasons differently) we find it explicitly set forth and elaborately vindicated by his principal spokesman, Sokrates, against the Sophist Protagoras. It was also held by Aristippus (companion of Sokrates along with Plato) and by his followers after him, called the Kyrenaics. Lastly, it was maintained by Eudoxus, one of the most estimable philosophers contemporary with Aristotle. Epikurus was thus in no way the originator of the theory; but he had his own way of conceiving it, his own body of doctrine physical, cosmological, and theological, with which it was implicated, and his own comparative valuation of pleasures and pains.

Bodily feeling, in the Epikurean psychology, is prior in order of time to the mental element; the former is primordial, while the latter is derived from it by repeated processes of memory and association. But, though such is the order of sequence and generation, yet when we compare the two as constituents of happiness to the formed man, the mental element much outweighs the bodily, both as pain and as pleasure. Bodily pain or pleasure exists only in the present; when not felt, it is nothing. But mental feelings involve memory and hope, embrace the past as well as the future, endure for a long time, and may be recalled or put out of sight, to a great degree, at our discretion.

This last point is one of the most remarkable features of the Epikurean mental discipline. Epikurus deprecated the general habit of mankind in always hankering after some new satisfaction to come; always discontented with the present, and oblivious of past comforts as if they had never been. These past comforts ought to be treasured up by memory and reflection, so that they might become as it were matter for rumination, and might serve, in trying moments, even to counterbalance extreme physical suffering. The health of Epikurus himself was very bad during the closing years of his life. There remains a fragment of his last letter, to an intimate friend and companion, Idomeneus:--"I write this to you on the last day of my life, which, in spite of the severest internal bodily pains, is still a happy day, because I set against them in the balance all the mental pleasure felt in the recollection of my past conversations with you. Take care of the children left by Metrodorus, in a manner worthy of your demeanour from boyhood towards me and towards philosophy." Bodily pain might thus be alleviated, when it occurred; it might be greatly lessened in occurrence, by prudent and moderate habits; lastly, even at the worst, if violent, it never lasted long; if not violent, it might be patiently borne, and was at any rate terminated, or terminable at pleasure, by death.

In the view of Epikurus, the chief miseries of life arose, not from bodily pains, but partly from delusions of hope and exaggerated aspirations for wealth, honours, power, &c., in all which the objects appeared most seductive from a distance, inciting man to lawless violence and treachery, while in the reality they were always disappointments and generally something worse; partly, and still more, from the delusions of fear. Of this last sort, were the two greatest torments of human existence--fear of Death and of eternal suffering after death, as announced by prophets and poets, and fear of the Gods. Epikurus, who did not believe in the continued existence of the soul separate from the body, declared that there could never be any rational ground for fearing death, since it was simply a permanent extinction of consciousness. Death was nothing to us (he said): when death comes, _we_ are no more, either to suffer or to enjoy. Yet it was the groundless fear of this nothing that poisoned all the tranquillity of life, and held men imprisoned even when existence was a torment. Whoever had surmounted that fear was armed at once against cruel tyranny and against all the gravest misfortunes. Next, the fear of the gods was not less delusive, and hardly less tormenting, than the fear of death. It was a capital error (Epikurus declared) to suppose that the gods employed themselves as agents in working or superintending the march of the Kosmos; or in conferring favour on some men, and administering chastisement to others. The vulgar religious tales, which represented them in this character, were untrue and insulting as regards the gods themselves, and pregnant with perversion and misery as regards the hopes and fears of mankind. Epikurus believed sincerely in the gods; reverenced them as beings at once perfectly happy, immortal, and unchangeable; and took delight in the public religious festivals and ceremonies. But it was inconsistent with these attributes, and repulsive to his feelings of reverence, to conceive them as agents. The idea of agency is derived from human experience: we, as agents, act with a view to supply some want, to fulfil some obligation, to acquire some pleasure, to accomplish some object desired but not yet attained--in short, to fill up one or other of the many gaps in our imperfect happiness: the gods already _have_ all that agents strive to get, and more than agents ever do get; their condition is one not of agency, but of tranquil, self-sustaining, fruition. Accordingly, Epikurus thought (as Aristotle[1] had thought before him) that the perfect, eternal, and imperturbable well-being and felicity of the gods excluded the supposition of their being agents. He looked upon them as types of that unmolested safety and unalloyed satisfaction which was what he understood by pleasure or happiness, as objects of reverential envy, whose sympathy he was likely to obtain by assimilating his own temper and condition to theirs as far as human circumstances allowed.

[Footnote 1: Aristot. De Coelo, II. xii. p. 292, a. 22-b. 7: [Greek: e)/oike ga\r tô=| me\n a)/rista e)/chonti u(pa/rchein to\ eu)= a)/neu pra/xeôs, tô=| d' e)ggu/tata dia\ o)li/gês kai\ mia=s, toi=s de\ por)r(ôta/tô dia\ pleio/nôn,--tô=| d' ô(s a)/rista e)/chonti ou)the\n dei= pra/xeôs; e)/sti ga\r au)to\ to\ ou(= e(/neka, ê( de\ pra=xis a)ei/ e)stin e)n dusi/n, o(/tan kai\ ou(= e(/neka ê)=| kai\ to\ tou/tou e(/neka.] &c. Ibid. iii. p. 286, a. 9: [Greek: theou= d' e)ne/rgeia a)thanasi/a; tou=to d' e)sti\ zôê\ a)i+/dos], &c.

In the Ethica, Aristotle assigns theorizing contemplation to the gods, as the only process worthy of their exalted dignity and supreme felicity.]

These theological views were placed by Epikurus in the foreground of his ethical philosophy, as the only means of dispelling **those fears of the gods that the current fables instilled into every one, and that did so much to destroy human comfort and security. He proclaimed that beings in immortal felicity neither suffered vexation in themselves nor caused vexation to others; neither showed anger nor favour to particular persons. The doctrine that they were the working managers in the affairs of the Kosmos, celestial and terrestrial, human and extra-human, he not only repudiated as incompatible with their attributes, but declared to be impious, considering the disorder, sufferings, and violence, everywhere visible. He disallowed all prophecy, divination, and oracular inspiration, by which the public around him believed that the gods were perpetually communicating special revelations to individuals, and for which Sokrates had felt so peculiarly thankful.

It is remarkable that Stoics and Epikureans, in spite of their marked opposition in dogma or theory, agreed so far in practical results, that both declared these two modes of uneasiness (fear of the gods and fear of death) to be the great torments of human existence, and both strove to remove or counterbalance them.

So far the teaching of Epikurus appears confined to the separate happiness of each individual, as dependent upon his own prudence, sobriety, and correct views of Nature. But this is not the whole of the Epikurean Ethics. The system also considered each man as in companionship with others: the precepts were shaped accordingly, first as to Justice, next as to Friendship. In both, these, the foundation whereon Epikurus built was Reciprocity--not pure sacrifice to others, but partnership with others, beneficial to all. He kept the ideas of self and of others inseparably knit together in one complex association: he did not expel or degrade either, in order to give exclusive ascendancy to the other. The dictate of Natural Justice was, that no man should hurt another: each was bound to abstain from doing harm to others; each, on this condition, was entitled to count on security and relief from the fear that others would do harm to him. Such double aspect, or reciprocity, was essential to social companionship: those that could not, or would not, accept this covenant, were unfit for society. If a man does not behave justly towards others, he cannot expect that they will behave justly towards him; to live a life of injustice, and expect that others will not find it out, is idle. The unjust man cannot enjoy a moment of security. Epikurus laid it down explicitly, that just and righteous dealing was the indispensable condition to every one's comfort, and was the best means of attaining it.

The reciprocity of Justice was valid towards all the world; the reciprocity of Friendship went much farther: it involved indefinite and active beneficence, but could reach only to a select few. Epikurus insisted emphatically on the value of friendship, as a means of happiness to both the persons so united. He declared that a good friend was another self, and that friends ought to be prepared, in case of need, to die for each other. Yet he declined to recommend an established community of goods among the members of his fraternity, as prevailed in the Pythagorean brotherhood: for such an institution (he said) implied mistrust. He recommended efforts to please and to serve, and a forwardness to give, for the purpose of gaining and benefiting a friend, and he even declared that there was more pleasure in conferring favours than in receiving them; but he was no less strenuous in inculcating an intelligent gratitude on the receiver. No one except a wise man (he said) knew how to return a favour properly.[2]

[Footnote 2: Seneca, Epist. p. 81.]

These exhortations to active friendship were not unfruitful. We know, even by the admission of witnesses adverse to the Epikurean doctrines, that the harmony among the members of the sect, with common veneration for the founder, was more marked and more enduring than that exhibited by any of the other philosophical sects. Epikurus himself was a man of amiable personal qualities: his testament, still remaining, shows an affectionate regard both for his surviving friends, and for the permanent attachment of each to the others as well as of all to the school. Diogenes Laertius tells us--nearly 200 years after Christ, and 450 years after the death of Epikurus--that the Epikurean sect still continued its numbers and dignity, having outlasted its contemporaries and rivals. The harmony among the Epikureans may be explained, not merely from the temper of the master, but partly from the doctrines and plan of life that he recommended. Ambition and love of power were discouraged; rivalry among the members for success, either political or rhetorical, was at any rate a rare exception; all were taught to confine themselves to that privacy of life and love of philosophical communion which alike required and nourished the mutual sympathies of the brotherhood. In regard to politics, Epikurus advised quiet submission to established authority, without active meddling beyond what necessity required.

Virtue and happiness, in the theory of Epikurus, were inseparable. A man could not be happy until he had surmounted the fear of death and the fear of gods instilled by the current fables, which disturbed all tranquillity of mind; until he had banished those factitious desires that pushed him into contention for wealth, power, or celebrity; nor unless he behaved with justice to all, and with active devoted friendship towards a few. Such a mental condition, which he thought it was in every man's power to acquire by appropriate teaching and companionship, constituted virtue; and was the sure as well as the only precursor of genuine happiness. A mind thus undisturbed and purified was sufficient to itself. The mere satisfaction of the wants of life, and the conversation of friends, became then felt pleasures: if more could be had without preponderant mischief, so much the better; but Nature, disburthened of her corruptions and prejudices, required no more to be happy. This at least was as much as the conditions of humanity admitted: a tranquil, undisturbed, innocuous, non-competitive fruition, which approached most nearly to the perfect happiness of the Gods.

When we read the explanations given by Epikurus and Lucretius of what the Epikurean theory really was, and compare them with the numerous attacks upon it made by opponents, we cannot but remark that the title and formula of the theory was ill-chosen, and really a misnomer. What Epikurus meant by Pleasure was not what most people meant by it, but something very different--a tranquil and comfortable state of mind and body; much the same as what Demokritus had expressed before him by the phrase [Greek: eu)thumi/a]. This last phrase would have expressed what Epikurus aimed at, neither more nor less. It would at least have preserved his theory from much misplaced sarcasm and aggressive rhetoric.

The Physics of Epikurus was borrowed in the main from the atomic theory of Demokritus, but modified by him in a manner subservient and contributory to his ethical scheme. To that scheme it was essential that those celestial, atmospheric, or terrestrial phenomena which the public around him ascribed to agency and purposes of the gods, should be understood as being produced by physical causes. An eclipse, an earthquake, a storm, a shipwreck, unusual rain or drought, a good or a bad harvest--and not merely these, but many other occurrences far smaller and more unimportant, as we may see by the eighteenth chapter of the 'Characters' of Theophrastus--were then regarded as visitations of the gods, requiring to be interpreted by recognized prophets, and to be appeased by ceremonial expiations. When once a man became convinced that all these phenomena proceeded from physical agencies, a host of terrors and anxieties would disappear from the mind; and this Epikurus asserted to be the beneficent effect and real recommendation of physical philosophy. He took little or no thought for scientific curiosity as a motive _per se_, which both Demokritus and Aristotle put so much in the foreground.

He composed a treatise called 'Kanonicon' (now lost), which seems to have been a sort of Logic of Physics--a summary of the principles of evidence. In his system, Psychology was to a great extent a branch--though a peculiar and distinct branch--of Physics, since the soul was regarded as a subtle but energetic material compound (air, vapour, heat, and another nameless ingredient), with its best parts concentrated in the chest, yet pervading and sustaining the whole body--still, however, depending for its support on the body, and incapable of separate or disembodied continuance.

Epikurus recognized, as the primordial basis of the universe, Atoms, Vacuum, and Motion. The atoms were material solid _minima_, each too small to be apprehended separately by sense; they had figure, magnitude, and gravity, but no other qualities. They were infinite in number, and ever moving in an infinite vacuum. Their motions brought them into various coalitions and compounds, resulting in the perceptible bodies of nature; each of which in its combined state acquired new, specific, different qualities. In regard to the primordial movements of the atoms, out of which these endowed compounds grew, Epikurus differed from Demokritus who supposed the atoms originally to move with an indefinite variety of directions and velocities, rotatory as well as rectilineal; whereas Epikurus maintained that the only original movement common to all atoms was one and the same--in the direction of gravity straight down, and all with equal velocity in the infinite void. But it occurred to him that, upon this hypothesis only, there could never occur any collisions or combinations of the atoms--nothing but continued and unchangeable parallel lines. Accordingly he modified it by saying that the line of descent was not strictly rectilinear, but that each atom deflected a little from the straight line, each in its own direction and degree; so that it became possible to assume collisions, resiliences, adhesions, combinations, among them, as it had been possible under the variety of original movements ascribed to them by Demokritus. The opponents of Epikurus derided this auxiliary hypothesis, affirming that he invented the individual deflection of each atom without assigning any cause, and only because he was perplexed by the mystery of man's freewill. But Epikurus was not more open to attack on this ground than other physical philosophers. Most of them (except perhaps the most consistent of the Stoic fatalists) believed that some among the phenomena of the universe occurred in regular and predictable sequence, while others were essentially irregular and unpredictable: each philosopher devised his hypothesis, and recognized some fundamental principle, to explain the latter class of phenomena as well as the former; thus, Plato admitted an invincible erratic necessity, Aristotle introduced Chance and Spontaneity, Demokritus multiplied indefinitely the varieties of atomic movements. The hypothetical deflection alleged by Epikurus was his way, not more unwarranted than the others, of providing a fundamental principle for the unpredictable phenomena of the universe. Among these are the volitional manifestations of men and animals; but there are many others besides, and there is no ground for believing that what is called the mystery of Free-Will (_i. e._, the question whether volition is governed by motives, acting upon a given state of the mind and body) was at all peculiarly present to his mind. Whatever theory may be adopted on this point, it is certain that the movements of an individual man or animal are not exclusively determined by the general law of gravitation, or by another cause extrinsic to himself; but to a great degree by his own separate volition, which is often imperfectly knowable beforehand and therefore not predictable. For these and many other phenomena, Epikurus provided a fundamental principle in his supplementary hypothesis of atomic deflection; and indeed not for these only, but also for the questions of opponents, how there could ever be any coalition between the atoms, if all followed only one single law of movement--rectilineal descent with equal velocity. Epikurus rejected the inexorable and all-comprehensive fatalism contained in the theories of some Stoics, though seemingly not construed in its full application even by them. He admitted a limited range of empire to Chance, or phenomena essentially irregular. But he maintained that the will, far from being among the phenomena essentially irregular, is under the influence of motives; for no man can insist more strenuously than he does (see the letter to Menoekeus) on the complete power of philosophy--if the student could be made to feel its necessity and desire the attainment of it, so as to meditate and engrain within himself sound views about the gods, death, and human life generally--to mould our volitions and character in a manner conformable to the exigencies of virtue and happiness.

All true belief, according to Epikurus, rested ultimately upon the impressions of sense, upon our internal feelings, and upon our correct apprehension of the meaning of terms. He did not suppose the significance of language to come by convention, but to be an inspiration of Nature, different among different people. The facts of sense were in themselves beyond all question. But truth, though founded upon these evidences, included various inferences, more than sense could directly testify. Even the two capital points of the Epikurean physical philosophy--Atoms and Void--were inferences from sense, and not capable of direct attestation. It was in these inferences, and in the superstructure built upon sense, that error was so frequently imposed upon us. We ought to test all affirmations or dogmas by the evidence of sensible phenomena; looking therein, if possible, for some positive grounds in support of them, but at any rate assuring ourselves that there were no grounds in contradiction of them, or, if there were such, rejecting the dogmas at once. Out of the particular impressions of sense, when often repeated, remembered, and compared, there grew certain general notions or anticipations ([Greek: prolê/pseis]), which were applied to interpret or illustrate any new case when it arose. These general notions were not inborn or intuitive, but gradually formed (as Aristotle and the Stoics also conceived them) out of frequent remembrances and association.

Besides those conclusions which could be fully proved by the evidentiary data just enumerated, Epikurus recognized admissible hypotheses, which awaited farther evidence confirmative or refutative ([Greek: to\ pro/smenon]), and also other matters occult or as yet unexplained ([Greek: ta\ a)/dêla]). Along with the intermediate or half-explained class, he reckoned those in which plurality of causes was to be invoked. A given effect might result from any one out of two, three, or more different causes, and there was often no counter-evidence of sense to exclude either of them in any particular case. This plural explanation ([Greek: to\ pleonachô=s]) was not so complete or satisfactory as the singular ([Greek: to\ monachô=s]); but it was often the best that we could obtain, and was quite sufficient, by showing a possible physical agency, to rescue the mind from those terrors of ignorance, which drove men to imagine visitations of the gods.

Epikurus agreed with Demokritus in believing that external objects produced their impressions on our senses by projecting thin images, outlines of their own shapes. He thought that the air was peopled with such images, which passed through it and still more through the infinite vacuum beyond it with prodigious velocity. Many of them became commingled, dissipated, recombined, during the transit, so that, when they reached us, the impressions produced were not conformable to any real object; hence the phenomena of dreams, madness, and the various delusions of waking men.

In setting forth the criterion of truth, Epikurus insisted chiefly upon the fundamental groundwork--particular facts of sense, as the data for proving or disproving general affirmations; and he had the merit of calling attention to refutative data as well as to probative. But, respecting the process of passing from these particulars to true generalities and avoiding the untrue, we can make out no clear idea from his writings that remain: his great work on Physical Philosophy is lost. It is certain that he disregarded the logical part of the process--the systematic study of propositions, and their relations of consistency with one another--which had made so prodigious a stride during his early years under Aristotle and Theophrastus. We can, indeed, detect in his remaining sentences one or two of those terms which Aristotle had stamped as technical in Logic; but he discouraged as useless all the verbal teaching and discussion of his day--all grammar, rhetoric, and dialectic, beyond the lowest minimum. He disapproved of the poets as promulgators of mischievous fables and prejudices, the rhetoricians as furnishing weapons for the misleading career of political ambition, the dialecticians as wasting their time in useless puzzles. None of them were serviceable in promoting either the tranquillity of the mind, or the happiness of life, or the acquisition of truth. He himself composed a great number of treatises and epistles, on subjects of ethics and philosophy; but he is said to have written in haste, without taking time or trouble to correct his compositions. By the Alexandrine critic, Aristophanes of Byzantium, his style was censured as unpolished; yet it is declared to have been simple, unaffected, and easily understood. This last predicate is hardly applicable to the three epistles which alone remain from his pen; but those epistles are intended as brief abstracts of doctrine, on topics which he had already treated at length in formal works; and it is not easy to combine clearness with brevity.

VI.

THE STOICS--A FRAGMENT.

The Stoics were one of the four sects of philosophy recognized and conspicuous at Athens during the three centuries preceding the Christian era and during the century or more following. Among these four sects, the most marked antithesis of ethical dogma was between the Stoics and the Epikureans.

The Stoics agreed with the Peripatetics (anterior to Epikurus, not specially against _him_) that the first principle of nature is (not pleasure or relief from pain, but) Self-preservation or Self-love; in other words, the natural appetite or tendency of all creatures is, to preserve their existing condition with its inherent capacities, and to keep clear of destruction or disablement. This appetite (they said) manifests itself in little children before any pleasure or pain is felt, and is moreover a fundamental postulate, pre-supposed in all desires of particular pleasures, as well as in all aversions to particular pains. We begin by loving our own vitality; and we come, by association, to love what promotes or strengthens our vitality; we hate destruction or disablement, and come (by secondary association) to hate whatever produces that effect.

This doctrine associated, and brought under one view, what was common to man not merely with the animal, but also with the vegetable world; a plant was declared to have an impulse or tendency to maintain itself, without feeling pain or pleasure. Aristotle (in the tenth Book of the Ethica) says that he will not determine whether we love life for the sake of pleasure, or pleasure for the sake of life; for he affirms the two to be essentially yoked together and inseparable: pleasure is the consummation of our vital manifestations. The Peripatetics, after him, put pleasure down to a lower level, as derivative and accidental. The Stoics went farther in the same direction--possibly from antithesis against the growing school of Epikurus.

The primary _officium_ (in a larger sense than our word duty) of man is (they said) to keep himself in the State of Nature; the second or derivative _officium_ is to keep to such things as are according to nature, and to avert those that are contrary to nature; our gradually increasing experience enables as to discriminate the two. The youth learns, as he grows up, to value bodily accomplishments, mental cognitions and judgments, good conduct towards those around him,--as powerful aids towards keeping up that state of nature. When his experience is so far enlarged as to make him aware of the order and harmony of nature and human society, and to impress upon him the comprehension of this great _idéal_, his emotions as well as his reason becomes absorbed by it. He recognizes this as the only true Bonum or Honestum, to which all other desirable things are referable; as the only thing desirable for itself and in its own nature. He drops or dismisses all these _prima naturæ_ that he had begun by desiring. He no longer considers any of them as worthy of being desired in itself, or for its own sake.

While, therefore, (according to Peripatetics as well as Stoics) the love of self and of preserving one's own vitality and activity is the primary element, intuitive and connate, to which all rational preference (_officium_) was at first referred, they thought it not the less true that in process of time, by experience, association, and reflection, there grows up in the mind a grand acquired sentiment or notion, a new and later light, which extinguishes and puts out of sight the early beginning. It was important to distinguish the feeble and obscure elements from the powerful and brilliant after-growth; which indeed was fully realized only in chosen minds, and in them hardly before old age. This idea, when once formed in the mind, was The Good--the only thing worthy of desire for its own sake. The Stoics called it the only good, being sufficient in itself for happiness; other things being not good, nor necessary to happiness, but simply preferable or advantageous when they could be had: the Peripatetics recognized it as the first and greatest good, but said also that it was not sufficient in itself; there were two other inferior varieties of good, of which something must be had as complementary (what the Stoics called _præposita_ or _sumenda_).[1] Thus the Stoics said about the origin of the Idea of Bonum or Honestum, much the same as what Aristotle says about ethical Virtue. It is not implanted in us by nature; but we have at birth certain initial tendencies and capacities, which, if aided by association and training, enable us (and that not in all cases) to acquire it.

[Footnote 1: Aristotle and the Peripatetics held that there were _tria genera bonorum_: (1) Those of the mind (_mens sana_); (2) Those of the body; and (3) External advantages. The Stoics altered this theory by saying that only the first of the three was _bonum_; the others were merely _præposita_ or _sumenda_. The opponents of the Stoics contended that this was an alteration in words rather than in substance.

The earlier Stoics laid it down that there were no graduating marks below the level of wisdom: all shortcomings were on a par. Good was a point, Evil was a point; there were gradations in the _præposita_ or _sumenda_ (none of which were good), and in the _rejecta_ or _rejicienda_ (none of which were evil), but there was no more or less good.]

A distinction was made by Epictetus and other Stoics between things in our power and things not in our power. In our power are our opinions and notions about objects, and all our affections, desires, and aversions: not in our power are our bodies, wealth, honour, rank, authority, &c., and their opposites; though, in regard to these last, it is in our power to _think_ of them as unimportant. With this distinction we may connect the arguments between the Stoics and their opponents as to what is now called the Freedom of the Will. But we must first begin by distinguishing the two questions. By things in our power, the Stoics meant things that we could do or acquire if we willed: by things not in our power, they meant things that we could not do or acquire if we willed. In both cases, the volition was assumed as a fact: the question what determined it, or whether it was non-determined, _i. e._, self-determining, was not raised in the antithesis. But it was raised in other discussions between the Stoic theorist Chrysippus, and various opponents. These opponents denied that volition was determined by motives, and cited the cases of equal conflicting motives (what is known as the Ass of Buridan) as proving that the soul includes in itself, and exerts, a special supervenient power of deciding action in one way or the other--a power not determined by any causal antecedent, but self-originating, and belonging to the class of agency that Aristotle recognizes under the denomination of automatic, spontaneous (or essentially irregular and unpredictable). Chrysippus replied by denying not only the reality of this supervenient force said to be inherent in the soul, but also the reality of all that Aristotle called automatic or spontaneous agency generally. Chrysippus said that every movement was determined by antecedent motives; that in cases of equal conflict the exact equality did not long continue, because some new but slight motive slipped in unperceived and turned the scale on one side or the other.[2] Here, we see, the question now known as the Freedom of the Will is discussed, and Chrysippus declares against freedom, affirming that volition is always determined by motives.

[Footnote 2: See Plutarch, De Stoicorum Repugnantiis, xxiii. p. 1045.]

But we also see that, while declaring this opinion, Chrysippus does not employ the terms Necessity or Freedom of the Will; neither did his opponents, so far as we can see: they had a different and less misleading phrase. By freedom, Chrysippus and the Stoics meant the freedom of doing what a man willed, if he willed it. A man is free as to the thing that is in his power, when he wills it: he is not free as to what is not in his power, under the same supposition. The Stoics laid great stress on this distinction. They pointed out how much it is really in a man's power to transform or discipline his own mind--in the way of controlling or suppressing some emotions, generating or encouraging others, forming new intellectual associations, &c.; how much a man could do in these ways, if he willed it, and if he went through the lessons, habits of conduct, and **meditations, suitable to produce such an effect. The Stoics strove to create in a man's mind the volitions appropriate for such mental discipline, by depicting the beneficial consequences resulting from it, and the misfortune and shame inevitable, if the mind were not so disciplined. Their purpose was to strengthen the governing reason of his mind, and to enthrone it as a fixed habit and character, which would control by counter suggestions the impulse arising at each special moment--particularly all disturbing terrors or allurements. This, in their view, is a free mind; not one wherein volition is independent of all motive, but one wherein the susceptibility to different motives is tempered by an ascendant reason, so as to give predominance to the better motive against the worse. One of the strongest motives that they endeavoured to enforce, was the prudence and dignity of bringing our volitions into harmony with the schemes of Providence; which (they said) were always arranged with a view to the happiness of the Kosmos on the whole. The bad man, whose volitions conflict with these schemes, is always baulked of his expectations, and brought at last against his will to see things carried by an over-ruling force, with aggravated pain and humiliation to himself: while the good man, who resigns himself to them from the first, always escapes with less pain, and often without any at all. As a portion of their view concerning Providence it may here be mentioned that the earlier Stoics, Zeno and Chrysippus, entertained high reverence for the divination, prophecy, and omens that were generally current in the ancient world. They considered that these were the methods whereby the gods were graciously pleased to make known beforehand revelations of their foreordained purposes. Herein lay one among the marked points of contrast between Stoics and Epikureans.

We have thus seen that in regard to the doctrine called in modern times the Freedom of the Will (_i.e._, that volitions are self-originating and unpredictable), the Stoic theorists not only denied it, but framed all their Ethics upon the assumption of the contrary. This same assumption of the contrary, indeed, was made also by Sokrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Epikurus; in short, by all the ethical teachers of antiquity. All of them believed that volitions depended on causes; that, under the ordinary conditions of men's minds, the causes that volitions generally depended upon are often misleading and sometimes ruinous; but that, by proper stimulation from without and meditation within, the rational causes of volition might be made to overrule the impulsive. Plato, Aristotle, Epikurus, not less than the Stoics, wished to create new fixed habits and a new type of character. They differed, indeed, on the question what the proper type of character was; but each of them aimed at the same general end--a new type of character, regulating the grades of susceptibility to different motives. And the purpose of all and each of these moralists precludes the theory of free-will, _i.e._, the theory that our volitions are self-originating and unpredictable.

While the Epikureans declined, as much as possible, interference in public affairs, the Stoic philosophers urged men to the duties of active citizenship.[3] Chrysippus even said that the life of philosophical contemplation (such as Aristotle preferred and accounted godlike) was to be placed on the same level with the life of pleasure; though Plutarch observes that neither Chrysippus nor Zeno ever meddled personally with any public duty: both of them passed their lives in lecturing and writing. The truth is that both of them were foreigners residing at Athens, and at a time when Athens was dependent on foreign princes. Accordingly, neither Zeno nor Chrysippus had any sphere of political action open to them: they were, in this respect, like Epictetus afterwards, but in a position quite different from Seneca, the preceptor of Nero, who might hope to influence the great imperial power of Rome, and from Marcus Antoninus, who held that imperial power in his own hands.

[Footnote 3: Tacitus says of the Stoics (Ann. xiv. 57): 'Stoicorum secta, quæ turbidos et negotiorum appetentes facit.']

Marcus Antoninus--not only a powerful emperor, but also the most gentle and amiable man of his day--talks of active beneficence both as a duty and a satisfaction. But in the creed of the Stoics generally, active beneficence did not occupy a prominent place. They adopted the four Cardinal Virtues--Wisdom, or the Knowledge of Good and Evil, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance--as part of their plan of the virtuous life, the life according to Nature. Justice, as the social virtue, was placed above all the rest. But the Stoics were not strenuous in requiring more than Justice, for the benefit of others beside the agent. They even reckoned compassion for the sufferings of others as a weakness, analogous to envy for the good fortune of others.

The Stoic recognised the gods (or Universal Nature, equivalent expressions in his creed) as managing the affairs of the world, with a view to producing as much happiness as was attainable on the whole. Towards this end the gods did not want any positive assistance from him; but it was his duty and his strongest interest, to resign himself to their plans, and to abstain from all conduct tending to frustrate them. Such refractory tendencies were perpetually suggested to him by the unreasonable appetites, emotions, fears, antipathies, &c., of daily life; all claiming satisfaction at the expense of future mischief to himself and others. To countervail these misleading forces by means of a fixed rational character built up through meditation and philosophical teaching, was the grand purpose of the Stoic ethical creed. The emotional or appetitive self was to be starved or curbed, and retained only as an appendage to the rational self; an idea proclaimed before in general terms by Plato, but carried out into a system by the Stoics, though to a great extent also by the Epikureans.

The Stoic was taught to reflect how much that appears to be desirable, terror-striking, provocative, &c., is not really so, but is made to appear so by false and curable associations. And, while he thus discouraged those self-regarding emotions that placed him in hostility with others, he learnt to respect the self of another man as well as his own. Epictetus advises to deal mildly with a man that hurts us either by word or deed; and advises it upon the following very remarkable ground:--"Recollect that in what he says or does, he follows his own sense of propriety, not yours. He must do what appears to him right, not what appears to you: if he judges wrongly, it is he that is hurt, for he is the person deceived. Always repeat to yourself, in such a case: The man has acted on his own opinion."

The reason here given by Epictetus is an instance, memorable in ethical theory, of respect for individual dissenting conviction, even in an extreme case; and it must be taken in conjunction with his other doctrine, that damage thus done to us unjustly is really little or no damage, except so far as we ourselves give pungency to it by our irrational susceptibilities and associations. We see that the Stoic submerges, as much as he can, the pre-eminence of his own individual self, and contemplates himself from the point of view of another, as only one among many. But he does not erect the happiness of others into a direct object of his own positive pursuit, beyond the reciprocities of family, citizenship, and common humanity. The Stoic theorists agreed with Epikurus in inculcating the reciprocities of Justice between all fellow-citizens; and they even went farther than he did, by extending the sphere of such duties beyond the limits of city, so as to comprehend all mankind. But as to the reciprocities of individual Friendship, Epikurus went beyond the Stoics in the amount of self-sacrifice and devotion that he enjoined for the benefit of a friend.

INDEX.

A.

Abduction (_Apagoge_), 202.

Abstract, and Concrete, appellatives not used by Aristotle, 64.

Abstraction, belongs to the Noëtic function, 486, 487, 492.

_Absurdum_, _Reductio ad_, _see_ _Reductio_.

Accentuation, Fallacy of 385; rare, 408.

_Accidens_, Ens _per_ &c., _see_ Accident, Ens.

_Accidentis Fallacia_, 386; not understood among Aristotle's scientific contemporaries, 390; how to solve, 410.

Accident, Ens by, 60, 424, 561, 593; modern definition of 62; an individual, allowed by Aristotle, 63; no science of, 98; one of the Predicables, 276; thesis of, easiest to defend, hardest to upset, 284, 353; thirty-seven dialectical _Loci_ bearing on, 285 seq.; why no science of, 425, 593, 594; one, cannot be accident of another, 586; opposed to the constant and the usual, 594; Chance, principle or cause of, 594; _see_ Concomitants.

Action (_Agere_), Category, 65, 73.

Actuality, as opposed to Potentiality, 128, 456, 615 seq.

_Adoxa_, opposed to _Endoxa_, 269.

Æon, of the Heaven, 636.

Æther, derivation of the name, 632.

Affirmation, conjunction of predicate with subject, 111; constituents of, 118; [Greek: e)k metathe/seôs] (Theophrastus), 122, 169.

Akroamatic books, opposed to Exoteric, 50.

Alcuin, followed Aristotle on Universals, 563.

Alexander of Macedon, taught by Aristotle from boyhood, 5; came to the throne, and went on his first Persian expedition, 6; his action towards Athens, 8; correspondent, protector, patron, of Aristotle at Athens, 7, 8; later change in his character and alienation from Aristotle, 9; his order for the recall of exiles throughout Greece, 10; his death, 7, 12.

Alexandrine, _literati_, their knowledge of Aristotle, 34, 38, 40, 42.

_Aliquid_, _Ad_, _see_ Relation; _Hoc_, or the definite individual, _see_ Essence.

Alkmæon, his view of the soul, 449.

Ammonius, put Relation above all the Categories, 84; his opinion on last paragraph of De Interpretatione, 134.

Amphiboly, Fallacy of, 385; how to solve, 407.

Amyntas, king of Macedon, 2.

Analytica, referred to in Topica, 56; presuppose contents of Categoriæ and De Interpretatione, 56; terminology of, differs from that of De Interpretatione, 141; purpose of, 141.

Analytica Priora, different sections of Book I., 157, 163; relation of the two books of, 171.

Analytica Posteriora, applies Syllogism to Demonstration, 142, 207; relation of, to the Metaphysica, 422.

Anaxagoras, doctrine of, inconsistent with Maxim of Contradiction, 429, 592; disregarded data of experience, 436; his view of the soul, 449; Maxim of Excluded Middle defended by Aristotle specially against, 581; made intelligence dependent on sense, 588; doctrine of, makes all propositions false, 592; must yet admit an infinite number of true propositions, 592; meant by his Unum--Ens Potentiâ, and thus got partial hold of the idea of Matter, 620; in his doctrine of the Noûs, makes Actuality prior to Potentiality, 623; declares Good to be the principle as Movent, 628; called fire Æther, 632; his reason for the stationariness of the Earth, 649.

Anaximander, his reason for stationariness of the Earth, 650.

Anaximenes, his reason for stationariness of the Earth, 649.

Andronikus of Rhodes, source of our Aristotle, 35; sorted and corrected the Aristotelian MSS. at Rome, 37, 39; Peripatetic Scholarch, 39; difficulties of his task--the result appreciated, 43; placed theological treatises first, 55; put Relation above all the Categories, 84.

Animâ, Treatise de, referred to in the De Interpretatione, 109.

Anonymus, his catalogue of Aristotle's works, compared with that of Diogenes and with the extant works, 29 seq.

Antipater, friend and correspondent of Aristotle, 7, 8; victor in the Lamian war, occupied Athens, 12; letter to, from Aristotle at Chalkis, 16; letter of, in praise of Aristotle, 16; executor under Aristotle's Will, 17.

_Antiphasis_, pair of contradictory opposites, 111; rule of, as regards truth and falsity, 112, 113; made up of one affirmation and one negation corresponding, 113; does not hold for events particular and future, because of irregularity in the Kosmos, 113 seq.; quaternions exhibiting each two related cases of, 118 seq., 170; forms of, in Modals, 127; involves determination of quantity, 135; not understood before Aristotle, 136; the two members of, can neither be both true nor both false, argued at length by Aristotle in Metaph**. [Greek: G]., ii. 586-92.

Antisthenes, declared contradiction impossible, 136, 137; allowed definition only of compounds, 611.

Antonius, Marcus, authority for Stoical creed, 654; on active beneficence, 662.

_Apagoge_ (Abduction), 202.

Apellikon, of Teos, a Peripatetic, bought Aristotle's MSS., &c., from heirs of Neleus, 36; exposed them at Athens and had copies taken, 36; wrote a biography of Aristotle, 37; library of, composite, 43.

_Aplanês_, exterior sphere of the Kosmos, 114, 623.

[Greek: A)po/phansis], Enunciation, name for Proposition in De Interpretatione, 141.

Appetite, the direct producing cause of movement in animals, 492.

Archytas, made _Habere_ fifth Category, 80.

Arguments, how to find, for different theses, 157.

Arimnestus, brother of Aristotle, 19.

Aristippus, anticipated Epikurus, 654.

Aristomenes, friend of Aristotle, 17.

Aristophanes, of Byzantium, arranged dialogues of Plato, 34; on the style of Epikurus, 658.

'_Aristoteles Pseudepigraphus_,' work by V. Rose, 32.

Aristotle, birth and parentage, 1, 2; opportunities for physiological study, 2; an orphan in youth, became ward of Proxenus, 8; discrepant accounts as to his early life, 3; medical practice, 3; under Plato at Athens, 4; went to Atarneus, on Plato's death, 4; married Pythias, 5; driven out to Mitylene, 5; invited by Philip of Macedon to become tutor to Alexander, 5; life in Macedon, 5; re-founded Stageira, 6; taught in the Nymphæum of Mieza, 6; returned to Athens, and set up his school in the Lykeium, 7; lecturing and writing, 7, 25; correspondence, 7; relation to Athenian polities, 8; protected and patronized at Athens by Alexander and Antipater, 8; in spite of estrangement between him and Alexander, regarded always as unfriendly to Athenian liberty, 9, 10; his relation to Nikanor, bearer of Alexander's rescript to the Greek cities, 11; indicted for impiety in his doctrines and his commemoration of the eunuch Hermeias, 12, 13; retired to Chalkis, 14; died there, before he could return to Athens, 15; wrote a defence against the charge of impiety, 15; his judgment on Athens and Athenians, 16; his person, habits, manners, &c., 16; his second wife, son, and daughter, 17; last testament, 17-19; his character as therein exhibited, 19; reproaches against, 20; his opposition to Plato misrepresented by **Platonists, 20, 21; a student and teacher of rhetoric, 22; attacked Isokrates, 24; assailed by three sets of enemies, 26; difficulty in determining the Canon of his works as compared with Plato's, 27; extant works ascribed to, 27; ancient authorities for his works, 28; catalogue and extent of his works, according to Diogenes, 29; according to Anonymus, 29; the catalogues compared with each other, and with list of his extant works, 29, 30; ancient encomiums on his style, 30; his principal works unknown to Cicero and others, 31, 40; dialogues and other works of, lost to us, 31; works in the catalogue are declared by V. Rose not to belong to, 32; different opinion of E. Heitz, 32; allowance to be made for diversity of style, subject, &c., in the works of, 33; works in the catalogue to be held as really composed by, 34; extant works of, whence derived, 35; fate of his library and MSS. on his death, till brought to Rome and cared for by Andronikus, 35 seq.; through Andronikus, became known as we know him, 40; not thus known to the Alexandrine librarians, 42; so-called Exoteric works of, 44; his own use of the phrase "exoteric discourses," 46 seq.; had not two doctrines--the Exoteric and Esoteric, 52; the order of his extant works uncertain, 54; his merit in noting equivocation of terms, 57; not free from fascination by particular numbers, 74; first made logical analysis of Ens, 97; first to treat Logic scientifically, 130; what he did for theory of Proposition, 136, 139; claimed the theory of Syllogism as his own work, 140, 153, 259, 420; his expository manner, novel and peculiar, 141; specialized the meaning of Syllogism, 143; first to ask if a proposition could be converted, 144; first used letters as symbols in exposition, 148; proceeded upon, but modified, Platonic antithesis of Science and Opinion, 207, 264; specially claimed to be original in his theory of Dialectic, 262, 418; attended to current opinion, drew up list of proverbs, 272, 440; started in his philosophy from the common habit of speech, 434, 440; continued the work of Sokrates, 439, 441; devised a First Philosophy conformable to the habits of common speech, starting from the definite individual or _Hoc Aliquid_, 445; psychology of, must be compared with that of his predecessors, 446; rejected all previous theories on Soul, 452; advance made in the Ontology of, 561; his view of pleasure, 660; ethical purpose of, 662.

Arithmetic, _præcognita_ required in, 212; abstracted from material conditions, 234; simpler, and therefore more accurate, than geometry, 234.

Art, Generation from, 598, 620.

Asklepiads, traditional training of, 2.

Association of Ideas, principles of, 477; Aristotle's account of, perplexed by his sharp distinction of Memory and Reminiscence, 478.

Astronomy, the mathematical science most akin to First Philosophy, 626.

Atarneus, Aristotle there, 4.

Attalid kings of Pergamus, Aristotle's library at Skepsis buried, to be kept hidden from, 36.

Axioms, assumed in Demonstration, 212, 215, 220; a part of Demonstration, 219; not always formally enunciated, 221; those common to all sciences, scrutinized by Dialectic, 221, 575; and by First Philosophy, 221, 425, 575, 584; the common, not alone sufficient for Demonstration in the special sciences, 236; use of the word before, and by, Aristotle, 566, 575, 584.

B.

Bees, partake in Noûs, 483, 576.

Belief, at variance with Knowledge, 182; founded on evidence either syllogistic or inductive, 187.

Berlin edition of Aristotle, 27, 30.

Bernays, his view of "exoteric discourses," 49, 52.

Body, animate and inanimate, 456; Matter with Aristotle may be, but is not necessarily, 456; thorough-going implication of Soul with, in animated subject, 458 seq.; has three and only three dimensions, 630; no infinite, 633.

Boëthius, translated Aristotle's Categoriæ and defended its position, 563.

Boêthus the Sidonian, student of Aristotle, 38; his recommendation as to order of studying the works, 55.

Bonitz, his view of the canon of the Metaphysica, 583.

Brain, specially connected with the olfactory organ, 470; function of the, 480.

Brandis, refers catalogue of Diogenes to Alexandrine _literati_, 34, 40; his view of the canon of the Metaphysica, 583.

Bryson, his quadrature of the circle, 381.

C.

Canon, Aristotelian, _see_ Aristotle.

Categoriæ, the treatise, not mentioned in Analytica or Topica, 56; subject of, how related to that of De Interpretatione, 57, 59, 108, 109; deals with Ens in a sense that blends Logic and Ontology, 62, 108; difference of Aristotle's procedure in, compared with Physica and Metaphysica, 65, 103; probably an early composition, 80; remained known, when other works of Aristotle were unknown or neglected, 563.

Categories, Ten, assumed in Analytica and Topica, 56; led up to by a distinction of Entia (Enunciata), 59; blending together Logic and Ontology, 62; Ens according to the, 61, 425, 594 seq. (Metaph. Z., [Greek: Ê].); enumerated, 65; all embodied in First or Complete Ens, 66, 595; each a Summum Genus, and some wider still, 66; not all mutually exclusive, 66, 73, 81, 89; may be exemplified, not defined, 66; how arrived at, 66, 76 seq.; joined by later logicians with the Predicables, 73; stress laid by Aristotle upon the first four, 74; why Ten in number--might have been more, 74 seq.; obtained by logical, not metaphysical, analysis, 76; heads of information or answers respecting an individual, 77; inference **as to true character of, from case of _Habere_ and _Jacere_, 79; all, even **the first, involve Relativity, 80 seq.; Mr. J. S. Mill on, 90 n.; capital distinction between the first and all the rest, 91 seq., 563, 594; Trendelenburg's view of their origin, 99, likely and plausible, 99; compared with Categories of the Stoics, 100, 563, of Plotinus, 102, 563, of Galen, 103.

Cause, Knowledge of, distinguished from knowledge of Fact, 223; knowledge of, the perfection of cognition, 224, 235; one of the four heads of Investigation, 238; nature of the question as to, 239, 608; substantially the same enquiry with _Cur_, _Quid_, and the Middle Term, 240, 246; four varieties of, 245, 611, 621; relation among the varieties of, 246; how far reciprocal with the _causatum_, 247, 254; has an effect only one? 254; the General Notion viewed by Aristotle as a, 422.

Chance, source of irregularity in the Kosmos, 114, 206; affects the rule of Antiphasis, 115; Aristotle's doctrine of, challenged, 116; objective correlate to the Problematical Proposition, 133, 205; principle or cause of Accidents, 594; Generations and Constructions proceeding from, 598, 620.

Change, four varieties of, 609.

Chrysippus, on the determination of will by motives, 661; his reverence for divination, &c., 662; a foreigner at Athens, without a sphere of political action, 662.

Cicero, his encomium on Aristotle's style, 30, 41; how far he knew Aristotle's works, 30, 31, 33, 40, 50; his use of the word "exoteric," 44, 51.

Claudian, referred to, 13.

Coelo, Treatise de, connected with what other works, 54, 653.

Colour, object of vision, action of, 466; varieties of, proceeding all from white and black, 467.

Common Sense, or Opinion, opposed to Science in Plato and Aristotle, 207; Sir W. Hamilton on, 565; legitimate meaning of, 567; authoritative character of, in one place allowed by Aristotle, 569; Aristotle's conception of, as devoid of scientific authority, 573, 574.

Compound, The ([Greek: to\ su/nolon]), of Form and Matter, or the Individual, 445, 456, 599 seq.

Concealment, how to be practised by dialectical questioner, 356.

Conclusion, of Syllogism, indicates Figure, 152, 164, 167; when more than one, 171; true, from false premisses, 172 use to demonstrate premisses, 173; reversed to refute premisses, 174; kinds of, in Demonstration, compared, 231.

Concomitants, non-essential, no demonstration of, 219; no definition of, 220; near to Non-Entia, 561; little more than a name, 593; _see_ Accident.

Concrete, and Abstract, appellatives not used by Aristotle, 65; the, as compound of Form and Matter, 456 seq.; _see_ Compound.

Conjunction, Fallacy of, 385; how to solve, 408.

_Consequentis Fallacia_, 388; not understood before Aristotle, 390; how to solve, 412.

Construction, kind of Generation, 598.

Contradiction, Maxim or Axiom of, depends upon knowledge of quantity and quality of propositions, 137, 441; not self-evident, 144; among the _præcognita_ of Demonstration, 212, 427; not formally enunciated in any special science, 221; discussion of, belongs to First Philosophy, 422, 425, why, 426, 579; enunciated, as highest and firmest of all principles, 425, 585; controverted by Aristotle's predecessors, Herakleitus, Anaxagoras, &c., 427, 429, 441; Aristotle's indirect proof of, 427 seq., 585 seq.; applied in the Sokratic Elenchus, 441; remarks on Aristotle's defence of, 442; can be supported only by an induction of particular instances, 443; enunciated both as a logical and as an ontological formula, 579; defended by Aristotle specially against Herakleitus, 579.

Contradictory Opposites, pair of, make Antiphasis, 111; distinguished from Contrary Opposites, 111, 124, 134; rule of, as to truth and falsity, 112; related pairs of, set forth in quaternions, 118 seq., 170; distinction of from Contrary, fundamental in Logic, 137; _see_ _Antiphasis_.

_Contrariorum_, _Petitio_, in Dialectic, 372.

Contrary Opposites (terms), 104; Opposites (propositions), distinguished from Contradictory, 111, 124, 134; rule of as to truth and falsity, 112.

Conversion (1) of Propositions, import of, 144; rules for, with Aristotle's defective proof thereof, 144 seq.; can be proved only by Induction, 146, 147; (2) of Syllogism, 174.

Copula, _Est_ as, 127, 591.

Courage, definition of, 525.

D.

Debate, four species of, 377.

Definition, among the _præcognita_ assumed in Demonstration, 212, 214, 220, 221; propositions declaring, attained only in First figure, 224; of Essence that depends on extraneous cause, 240-44; of Essence without such middle Term, 245; three varieties of, 245; how to frame a, 249; as sought through logical Division, 250; to exclude equivocation, 251; one of the Predicates, according to Aristotle, 276; thesis of, easiest to attack, hardest to defend, 285, 353; dialectical Loci bearing on, 329 seq.; how open to attack or defence, 330; defects in the setting out of, 330; faults in the substance of, 332-48; the genuine and perfect, 333; general rule for dialectically testing, 349; is primarily of Essences, of the other Categories not directly, 597; none, of particular Concretes, 602, 606; is of the Universal or Form, 603; whence the unity of the, 604, 612; none, of eternal Essences, 607; analogy of, to Number, 611.

Delboeuf, Prof., on indemonstrable truths, 229 n.

Demades, with Phokion at the head of the Athenian administration under Alexander, 12.

Demochares, nephew of Demosthenes, accuser of Aristotle, 14.

Demokritus, disregarded experience, 436; his view of the soul, 449; made intelligence dependent on sense, which is ever varying, 588; recognized one primordial body with three differences--figure, position, arrangement, 609; got partial hold of the idea of Ens Potentiâ or Matter, 620; atomic doctrine of, 634; his reason for the stationariness of the Earth, 649; how followed by Epikurus, 656-58.

Demonstrative Science, _see_ Demonstration.

Demonstration, ultimately reducible to two first modes of First figure, 155; circular, 173, 215; subject of Analyt. Post. 207; how opposed to Dialectic, 209, 573; is teaching from _præcognita_ assumed, 211, 214; undemonstrable principles of, 215; two doctrines of, opposed by Aristotle, 215, 228; necessary premisses of, 216; conclusion of, must be necessary, 218; none, of nonessential concomitants, 219; the parts of, 219; premisses of, must be essential and appropriate, 220; requires admission of universal predicates, 221; premisses for, obtained only from Induction, 226, 258, 260, 576; implies some truths primary or ultimate, 227, 230; the unit in, 231; of the Universal better than of the Particular, 231; Affirmative better than Negative, 233; Direct better than Indirect, 234; is of the necessary or customary, not of the fortuitous, 235, 606; none, through sensible perception, 235; in default of direct observation, 230; relation of, to Definition, 240; _principia_ of, not innate, 256; _principia_ of, how developed upon sensible perception, 256, 575.

Demophilus, joined in indicting Aristotle for impiety, 12.

Demosthenes, reproached for conversing with the bearer of Alexander's rescript to the Greek cities, 11; suicide of, 12.

Desire, _see_ Appetite.

Dexippus, vindicated Aristotle's Categories,103, 563.

Dialectic, how related to Science or Philosophy, 47, 210, 272, 273; form of putting questions in, 125, 275; theses in, variously liable to attack and defence, 156, 285, 352; as conceived by Plato, 208, 263; by Aristotle placed with Rhetoric in the region of Opinion, 208, 266, 573; opposed to Demonstrative Science and Necessary Truth, 209, 573; concerned about the Common Axioms of all Science, 221, 272, 574, 584; Aristotle claims to be specially original in his theory of, 262, 418; as conceived and practised by Sokrates, 263, 436; opposed by Aristotle to Didactic, 264, 377; province of, 266, 573; essentially contentious, 266, 378, 397; uses of, 271, 574; propositions, how classified in, 276; procedure of, in contrast with that of Philosophy, 353, 584; conditions and aims of the practice of, 354, 361, 378; to be practised as a partnership for common intellectual profit, 355, 367; part of the questioner in, 355 seq.; part of the respondent in, 361 seq.; respondent at fault in, 366; questioner at fault in, 367; four kinds of false argument in, 370; outfit for practice of, 372; one of four species of debate, 377; when and why called eristic or sophistic by Aristotle, 379; Aristotle's distinction of Sophistic from, contested, 382, 393 seq.

Dialogues of Aristotle lost, 30, 32, 49.

Diaphanous, action of the, in vision, 466.

_Dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter_,_Fallacia a_, 386; how to solve, 412.

Didactic, confounded by Plato with Dialectic, 264; distinguished from Dialectic by Aristotle, 264, 377; species of Debate, 377; scope and conditions. Of, 377; _see_ also Demonstration.

Differences, study of, an organon of debate, 280.

Differentia, not _in_, but _predicated of_, a Subject, 68; ranked with Genus in Aristotle's list of Predicables, 276; discriminated from Genus, 313; definition of Species through Genus and, 333, 601; is Form in the definition, 604; logically prior to the Species, 607.

Diogenes of Apollonia, his view of the soul, 449.

Diogenes Laertius, his catalogue of Aristotle's works, 28, compared with that of Anonymus, 29; ignorant of the principal works of Aristotle known to us, 31; catalogue of, probably of Alexandrine origin, 34, 41.

Dionysius, younger of Syracuse, visited by Plato, 4; corresponded with Plato, 7.

Dionysodorus, the Sophist, 383.

Dioteles, friend of Aristotle, 17.

[Greek: Dio/ti, To/], the _Why_, knowledge of, 223, one of the four heads of Investigation, 238; in search for a middle term, 239; relation of, to the question _Quid_, 239; _see_ Cause.

Disjunction, Fallacy of, 385; how to solve, 408.

Division Logical, weakness of, 163, 242; use of, to obtain a definition, 250.

E.

Ear, structure of the, 468.

Earth, opinions as to positions of, 648; opinions as to its state of motion or rest, figure, &c., 649 seq.; at rest in the centre of the Kosmos, 652; necessarily spherical, 652. 653; size of, 653.

Eclipse, lunar, illustration of Causation from, 254, 611.

Education of the citizen, 543.

Efficient Cause, 245.

Elenchus, of Sokrates, 263, 437; in general, 376; the Sophistical, 376, 404 directions for solving the Sophistical, 404.

Emotions, not systematically treated by Aristotle as part of Psychology, but in Ethics and Rhetoric, 492.

Empedokles, his disregard of experience, 436; his view of the soul, 449; criticized by Aristotle, 451; made intelligence dependent on sense, 588; got partial hold of the idea of Ens Potentiâ or Matter, 620; his principle of Friendship, 623, 628; held the Kosmos to be generated and destroyed alternately, 637; held the Heaven to be kept in its place by extreme velocity of rotation, 639, 650.

End, _see_ Final Cause.

_Endoxa_, premisses of Dialectic, 269; not equivalent to the Probable, 270; collections to be made of, 275, as an _organon_ of debate, 278.

Energy, _see_ Entelechy.

Ens, four kinds of, viewed with reference to Proposition, and as introductory to the Categories, 59; _quatenus_ Ens, subject of First Philosophy, 59, 422, 583; a homonymous, equivocal, or multivocal word, 60, 424, 594; not a _Summum Genus_, but a _Summum Analogon_, 60, 584; four main aspects of, in Ontology, 60, 424; (1) _Per Accidens_, 593; (2) in the sense of Truth, 108, 594, 618; (3) Potential and Actual, 614-18 (Metaph. [Greek: Th]); (4) according to the Categories, 594 seq. (Metaph. Z, [Greek: Ê]; relation among the various aspects of, 61, 424; aspects (1) and (2) lightly treated in Metaphysica, belonging more to Logic, 61; in aspect (4) Logic and Ontology blended, 62; in the fullest sense, 66, 67, 96; first analyzed in its logical aspect by Aristotle, 97; as conceived in earliest Greek thought, 97, 436; Plato's doctrine of, 552 seq.; Aristotle's doctrine of, 561.

_Enstasis_ (Objection), 202.

Entelechy, Soul the first, of a natural organized body, 458; _see_ Actuality.

Enthymeme, The, 202.

Enunciative speech, 109; _see_ Proposition.

Epictetus, authority for Stoical creed, 654; his distinction of things in, and not in, our power, 661; his respect for dissenting conviction, 663.

Epikurus, doctrine of, imperfectly reported, 654; his standard of Virtue and Vice, 654; ethical theory of, anticipated, 654; subordinated bodily pain and pleasure to mental, 654; fragment of his last letter, 654; his views on Death and the Gods, 655, 657; founded Justice and Friendship upon Reciprocity, 655; specially inculcated Friendship, 656; duration and character of his sect, 656; his theory misnamed, and hence misunderstood, 656; modified atomic theory of Demokritus with an ethical purpose, 657; his writings, 657, 658; provided by atomic deflection (not for Freedom of Will but) for the unpredictable phenomena of nature, 658; his view of the nature of Truth, 658; disregarded logical theory, 658.

Equivocation, of terms, 57; detection of, an organon of debate, 279; Fallacy of, 385; how to solve Fallacy of, 407; perhaps most frequent of all fallacies, 414.

Eric, of Auxerre, followed Aristotle on Universals, 563.

Eristic, given as one of the four Species of Debate, 377; really a variety or aspect of Dialectic, 377, 379.

Error, liabilities to, in (the form of) Syllogism, 176; in the matter of premisses, 181; particular, within knowledge of the universal, 183; three modes of, 184, modes of, in regard to propositions as Immediate or Mediate, 225.

Esoteric doctrine, as opposed to Exoteric, 52.

Essence (Substance), degrees of, 63, 561; first and fundamental Category, 65, 67; First, or Hoc Aliquid, subject, never predicate, 67, 18, 561; Second, _predicated of_, not _in_, First, 68; Third, 68; has itself no contrary, but receives alternately contrary accidents, 69, 83; relativity of, as a subject for predicates, 83, 91 seq.; First, shades through Second into quality, 91; priority of, as subject over predicate, logical, not real, 93; treated in Metaphys. Z, 595 seq.

Essence (Quiddity), propositions declaring, attained only in First figure of Syllogism, 224; one of the four _quæsita_ in Science, 238; nature of the question as to, 239; how related to the question _Cur_, 240; in all cases undemonstrable, but declared through syllogism, where it has an extraneous cause, 244; variously given in the Definition, 245; a variety of Cause (Formal) 245, 611; treated in Metaphys. Z, 595 seq.

Essential predication, how distinguished by Aristotle from Non-Essential, 65.

_Est_, double meaning of, 126.

Ethics, Aristotle's treatise on, analyzed, 495 seq.; uncertainty and obscurity of the subject, 497; Ethical science the supreme good of the individual citizen, 500; fundamental defect in Aristotle's theory, 514, 519; first principles how acquired in, 578.

Eubulides, wrote in reproach of Aristotle, 20.

'Eudêmus,' Dialogue of Aristotle's, 52.

Eudêmus, disciple of Aristotle, knew logical works of his now lost, 56; wrote on logic, 56; followed Aristotle in treating Modals, 144; his proof of the convertibility of Universal Negative, 146; on the negative function of Dialectic, 284.

Eudoxus, anticipated ethical theory of Epikurus, 654.

Eumêlus, asserted that Aristotle took poison, 15.

Eurymedon, the Hierophant, indicted Aristotle for impiety, 12.

Euthydemus, the Sophist, 383.

Example, the Syllogism from, 191; Induction an exaltation of, 197; results in Experience, 198.

Excluded Middle, Maxim of, not self-evident, 144; among the _præcognita_ of Demonstration, 212; supplement or correlative of Maxim of Contradiction, 426; enunciated both as a logical, and as an ontological, formula, 579; vindicated by Aristotle specially against Anaxagoras, 581, 590 seq.

Existence, one of the four heads of Investigation, 238.

Exoteric, the works so called, how understood by Cicero, 44; how by the critics, 45; "discourse," meaning of in Aristotle himself, 46 seq.; opposed to Akroamatic, 50; doctrine, as opposed to Esoteric, 52.

[Greek: E)xôterikoi\ lo/goi], allusions to, in Aristotle, 46 seq.

Experience, inference from Example results in, 198; place of, in Mr. J. S. Mill's theory of Ratiocination, 199; basis of science, 199; is of particular facts, 576.

_Expetenda_, dialectical _Loci_ bearing on, 296 seq.

Eye, structure of the, 466.

F.

Fact, knowledge of, distinguished from knowledge of Cause, 223, 235; one of the four heads of Investigation, 238; nature of question as to, 239; assumed in question as to Cause, 239, 608.

Fallacies, subject of Sophistici Elenchi, 377; incidental to the human **intellect, often hard to detect, not mere traps, 383, 395, 404; operated through language, 384; classified, 385; (1) _Dictionis_ or _In Dictione_, 385; (2) _Extra Dictionem_ 385 seq.; may all be brought to _Ignoratio Elenchi_, 390; current among Aristotle's contemporaries, 391; _In Dictione_, how to solve, 409 seq. _Extra Dictionem_, how to solve, 410 seq.

Falsehood, Non-Ens in the sense of, 60; &c.; _see_ Truth and Ens.

Favorinus, 35.

_Figura Dictionis_, Fallacy of, 385; how to solve, 408.

Figure of Syllogism, 148; First, 148; alternative ways of enunciating, 148; Modes of, 149; valid modes of First, 149; invalid modes of First, how set forth by Aristotle, 150; Second and its modes, 151; Third and its modes, 152; superiority of First, 152, 153, 224; indicated by the Conclusion, 153, 164, 167; all Demonstration ultimately reducible to two first modes of First, 154; Reduction of Second and Third, 168; in Second and Third, conclusion possible from contradictory premisses, 175; knowledge of Cause, also propositions declaring Essence and Definition, attained in the first, 224.

Final Cause, 246, 611.

Forchhammer, his view of "exoteric discourse," 49.

Form, joint-factor with Matter, a variety of Cause, 245, 611; in the intellectual generation of the Individual, 445, 598 seq.; and Matter, distinction of, a capital feature in Aristotle's First Philosophy, 454, 594 seq. (from Metaph. Book Z onwards); relation of, to Matter, 455; as the Actual, 455, 616; the Soul is, 457, 460; the Celestial Body, the region of, 480.

_Fugienda_, dialectical _Loci_ bearing on, 296 seq.

G.

Galen, his list of Categories, 103.

Gellius, A., his distinction of Exoteric and Akroamatic books, 50.

Generable, the senses of, 637.

Generation, the doctrine of, 598 seq., 620.

Generatione et Corruptione, Treatise de, connected with what other works, 54, 653 n.

Genus, is Second Essence, 63; or more strictly Third Essence, 67; in a Demonstration, 219; division of a, 250; one of the Predicables, 276, 284; dialectical _Loci_ bearing on, 302 seq.; not often made subject of debate, but important for Definition, 302; distinguished from Differentia, 312; perfect definition through, and Differentiæ, 333; easier to attack than to defend, 352; is Matter in a definition, 604; logically prior to the Species, 607.

Geometry, use of diagrams in, 167, 618; _præcognita_ required in, 212.

Gorgias, style of, 22.

Gryllion, sculptor named in Aristotle's will, 19.

Gymnastics, as part of education, 544.

H.

_Habere_, Category, 66, 73; sometimes dropt by Aristotle, 74, 80; entitled with the others to a place, 78; refers primarily to a Man, 79; is also understood more widely by Aristotle, 79, 103; exclusively so by some Aristotelians, 80; ranked fifth by Archytas, 80.

_Habitus_ and _Privatio_, case of _Opposita_, 104, 105.

Hamilton, Sir W., on Modals in Logic, 130, 200; wavers in his use of the term Common Sense, 565; points on which he misrepresents Aristotle, 565, 566; real question between, and the Inductive School, 567; the passages upon the strength of which he numbers Aristotle among the champions of authoritative Common Sense, examined _seriatim_, 568 seq.

Happiness, Aristotle's definition of, examined, 501 seq.; happiness of the individual and of society distinct, 517.

Hearing, operated through a medium, 167.

Heart, organ of Sensation generally, 464, 472, 474, specially of Touch, 472.

Heaven (Kosmos), always in action, 617; uppermost place in, assigned to the Gods, 632; revolving in a circle, cannot be infinite, 633; no body outside of, 634, 636; there cannot be more than one, 634; different senses of, 636; ungenerated and indestructible, 637-39; directions in the, 640; whence the number of revolutions in, 641; necessarily spherical, 611, 645; motion of, uniform, 642.

Heavy, distinguished from Light, 631.

Heitz, Emil, takes ground against V. Rose on the catalogue of Diogenes, 32; refers it to Alexandrine _literati_, 34, 40.

Herakleitus, philosophy of, inconsistent with the Maxim of Contradiction, 427, 429, 592; disregarded data of experience, 436, 444; position of, inexpugnable by general argument, 443; his view of the soul, 449; his view of the world of sense and particulars, 551; not a dialectician, 551; Maxim of Contradiction defended by Aristotle specially against, 579; the doctrine of, makes all propositions true, 592; must yet admit an infinite number of false propositions, 592; held the Kosmos to be generated and destroyed alternately, 636.

Hermeias, despot of Atarneus and Assos, friend of Aristotle, 4; commemorated after death by Aristotle in a hymn and epigram, 5, 12, 13.

Hermippus, drew up catalogue of pupils of Isokrates, 21; probable author of the catalogue in Diogenes, 34, 35.

Herpyllis, second wife of Aristotle, 17, 18.

Hipparchus, friend of Aristotle, 17.

Hippokrates, his quadrature of the circle, 381.

Hobbes, his definition of Accident, 62.

Homer, made intelligence dependent on sense, 588.

_Homo Mensura_, doctrine of Protagoras, held by Aristotle to be at variance with Maxim of Contradiction, 430 seq., 580, 587 seq.

Homonymous things, 57.

Homonymy (Equivocation), Fallacy of, 385; how to solve, 407.

Hypereides, executed, 12.

Hypothesis, Syllogisms from, 160, 168; as a principle of Demonstration, 215, 221.

I.

Iamblichus, defended Aristotle's Categories, 563.

Ideas, Platonic Theory of, not required for Demonstration, 221; as set forth by Plato himself, 553; psychological ground for, 554; objections urged against, in Sophistes and Parmenides, 556 seq.; objections urged by Aristotle against, 558; allusions to in books of the Metaphysica, 595, 598, 600, 603, 606, 607, 612, 617, 619, 620.

_Idem_, three senses of, 277, 350; a topic in First Philosophy, 584.

Identity, Maxim of, among the _præcognita_ of Demonstration, 212.

Idomeneus, letter to, from Epikurus, 654.

_Ignoratio Elenchi_, Fallacy of, 387; all fallacies may be brought to, 390; how to solve, 412.

Immortality, not of the individual, 462, 489, 490.

Immoveable, essence, subject of Ontology, also of Mathematics, 423, 593, 619; Prime Movent, 624.

_Impossibile_, _Reductio ad_, _see_ _Reductio_.

Impossible, The, senses of, 638; differs from the False, 638.

Induction, sole proof of the rules for converting propositions, 146, 147; everything believed through Syllogism or upon, 187, 194, 226; the Syllogism from or out of, 187 seq.; the opposite of genuine Syllogism, 190; plainer and clearer to us, than Syllogism, 191; Aristotle's attempt to reduce, to syllogistic form, 192, 193; wanting in the first requisite of Syllogism--necessity of sequence, 193, 197; presupposed in Syllogism, 194; the antithesis of, to Syllogism, obscured by Aristotle's treatment, 198, 199; as part of the whole process of Scientific Inference, 199, 201; true character of, apprehended by Aristotle, but not followed out, 199, 200; Logic of, neglected by the expositors after Aristotle till modern times, 200; requisites to a Logic of, 201; supplies the premisses of Demonstration, starting from particulars of sense, 226, 258, 259, 562, 576; repeated and uncontradicted, gives maximum of certainty, 260; process of, culminates in the infallible Noûs, 259-61; procedure by way of, in Dialectic, 358; most suitable to a young beginner in Dialectic, 374.

Inductive School, exact question between the, and Sir W. Hamilton, 567.

Infinite, the, exists only potentially, not actually except in a certain way for our cognition, 615; no body is, 632 seq.

Intellect, _see_ Noûs.

_Intellectus Agens_, relation of, to the _Patiens_, 488, 489; eternal and immortal, but not in the individual, 488, 489.

_Intellectus Patiens_, relation to the _Agens_, 488, 489; belongs to and perishes with the individual, 488, 489.

Interpretatione, Treatise de, not named, but its contents presupposed, in Analytica and Topica, 56; subject of, how related to subject of Categoriæ, 57, 59, 108, 109; last section of, out of connection, 134; contains first positive theory of Proposition, 136; summary of, 139.

Interrogation in Dialectic and in Science, 222.

Irregularity, principle of, in the Kosmos, _see_ Chance.

Isokrates, corresponded with Nikokles, 7, 23; his rhetorical school, 21; his style of composition and teaching, 22; attacked by Aristotle, 24; defended by Kephisodorus, 24.

J.

_Jacere_, Category, 66, 73; sometimes dropt by Aristotle, 74, 80; entitled with the others to a place, 78; refers primarily to a Man, 79.

Justice, definition of, 531; view of the Pythagoreans respecting, 533.

K.

Kallimachus of Alexandria, drew up tables of authors and their works, 34.

Kallisthenes, recommended by Aristotle to Alexander, 9.

Kallistratus, his skolion on Harmodius and Aristogeiton, 13.

Kassander, pupil of Aristotle, 9.

Kephisodorus, defended Isokrates against Aristotle, 24, 272 n.

Knowledge, of the Universal with error in particulars, 182; three modes of, 184; two grades of--Absolute, Qualified, 212; of Fact, of Cause, 223; proper, is of the Universal, 235; versus Opinion, 236, 573.

Kosmos, principles of regularity and irregularity in, 114; _see_ Heaven.

Kratylus refrained from predication, and pointed only with the finger, 429 n., 580, 590.

L.

La Mennais, on Common Sense, 567.

Lamian War, 12.

Language, significant by convention only, 109; as subservient to the growth of intellect, 484, 576.

Leukippus, affirmed motion to be eternal, 623; atomic doctrine of, 634.

Life, defined, 453; _see_ Soul.

Light, distinguished from Heavy, 631.

Light, takes no time to travel, 466.

_Loci_, in Dialectic, nature of, 283; distribution of, according to the four Predicables, 284; bearing on Accident, 285 seq.; bearing on _Expetenda_ and _Fugienda_ as cases of Accident, 296 seq.; bearing on Genus, 302 seq.; bearing on Proprium, 313 seq.; bearing on Definition, 329 seq.; belonging to Sophistic, 382, 403.

Locomotion, Animal, produced by Noûs and Appetite, 493.

Logic, importance of Aristotle's distinction of the Equivocal in, 57; deals with Ens in what senses, 61; blended with Ontology in the Categories, 62; connection of, with Psychology, 110; deals with speech as Enunciative, 111; first presented scientifically by Aristotle, 130; properly includes discussion of Modals, 130 seq.; distinction of Contradictory and Contrary fundamental in, 136; use of examples in, 167; Aristotle's one-sided treatment of, in subordinating Induction, 200; as combining Induction and Deduction, 201; Mr. J. S. Mill's system of, in relation to Aristotle's, 201; Aristotle's claim to originality in respect of, 420; line between, and Ontology, not clearly marked by Aristotle, 422; Sokrates first broke ground for, 426; subjective point of view chiefly taken by Aristotle in, 578.

Lucian, uses word "esoteric," 52.

Lucretius, only extant Epikurean writer, 654.

M.

Madvig, his view of "exoteric discourse," 49.

Mathematics, theoretical science, subject of, 423, 593.

Matter, a variety of Cause, 246, 611; joint-factor with Form in the intellectual generation of the Individual, 445, 598 seq.; and Form, distinction, of, a capital feature in Aristotle's First Philosophy, 454, 595 seq. (from Metaph. Book Z onwards); relation of, to Form, 455, 456; as the Potential, 455, 615 seq.; various grades of, 456.

Mechanics, place of, in Aristotle's philosophy, 54.

Megarics, allowed no power not in actual exercise, 614.

Memory, Tract on, and Reminiscence, 475; nature of, as distinguished from Phantasy, 475; distinguished from Reminiscence, 476; phenomena of, 477.

Menedêmus, disallowed negative propositions, 136.

Meno, Platonic, question as to possibility of learning in, 212.

Menoekeus, letter to, from Epikurus, 654.

Mentor, Persian general, drove Aristotle from Mitylene, 5.

Metaphysics, in modern sense, covers Aristotle's Physica and Metaphysica, 422.

Metaphysica, name not used by Aristotle, 54, 59; relation of the, to the Physica, 54, 422; characteristic distinction of the, 422.

Meteorologica, connected with what other works, 54.

Metrodorus, third husband of Aristotle's daughter, 20.

Middle term in Syllogism, literal signification of, 148; how to find a, 157 seq.; the _Why_ of the conclusion in Demonstration, 219; power of swiftly divining a, 237; fourfold question as to, in Science, 239; as Cause, 246.

Mieza, school of Aristotle there, 6.

Mill, Mr. J. S., on the Ten Categories, 90 n.; his system of Logic, in relation to Aristotle's, 198-201; on indemonstrable truths, 229 n.

Milton, his description of Realism, 552.

Mitylene, Aristotle spent some time there, 4.

Modal Propositions, form of Antiphasis in, 127; excluded by Hamilton and others from Logic, 130; place of, in Formal Logic vindicated, 131; Aristotle's treatment of, not satisfactory, 133, 138; doctrine of, related to Aristotle's Ontology and Physics, 133; disadvantageously mixed up with the Assertory, 138, 143, 154; in Syllogism, 204.

Modes of Figure, 149; _see_ Figure.

Moon, spherical, 646; motions of, 647.

Motion, Zeno's argument against, paradoxical, 365; the kinds of local, 593.

_Motus_, under _Opposita_, 104.

Movent, The Immovable Prime, 624 seq.

Music, necessary part of education, 545.

Myrmex, slave or pupil of Aristotle, 19.

N.

Nature, sum of the constant tendencies and sequences within the Kosmos, 114, 117; objective correlate to the Necessary Proposition in Logic, 133; Generation from, 598.

Naturalia Parva, complementary to the De Animâ, 54.

Necessary, The, as a mode affecting Antiphasis, 126 seq.; relation of, to the Possible, 127, 205; a formal mode of Proposition, 131; why it may be given up as a Mode, 206.

Necessity, in what sense Aristotle denies that all events happen by, 116.

Negation, disjunction of subject and predicate, 111; through what collocations of the negative particle obtained strictly, 118 seq., 169; real and apparent, 122; _see_ Contradictory, _Antiphasis_.

Neleus, inherited library of Theophrastus, and carried it away to Skêpsis, 36; heirs of, buried his library for safety, 36.

Nikanor, son of Proxenus, ward and friend of Aristotle, bore Alexander's rescript to the Greek cities, 11; executor, and chief beneficiary, under Aristotle's will, 17-20; married Aristotle's daughter, 20.

Nikokles, correspondent of Isokrates, 7.

Nikomachus, father of Aristotle, medical author and physician to Amyntas, 2; son of Aristotle, 17, 18.

Nominalism, main position of, clearly enunciated by Aristotle, 481 n.; scholastic formula of, 555.

_Non Causa pro Causâ_, 388; how to solve, 413.

_Non-Ens_, in the sense of Falsehood, 60, 108; Accident borders on, 98, 593.

_Non per Hoc_, the argument so called, 179; Fallacy of, 388.

Notion, the general, as a cause and creative force, 422.

_Notiora, nobis_ v. _naturâ_, 197, 215, 239, 332.

Noun, function of the, 109, 110, 130; the indefinite, 118, 124.

Noûs, the unit of Demonstration or Science, 231; the _principium_ of Science or scientific Cognition, 236, 259; unerring, more so even than Science, 259, 491, 577; stands with Aristotle as terminus and correlate to the process of Induction, 260, 578; (Noëtic soul) distinct from, but implying, the lower mental functions, 461, 479; independent of special bodily organs, 479, 481, 487; how related to the Celestial Body, 481, 487; the form or correlate of all cogitables--Form of Forms, 482, 486; limited in its function, as joined with sentient and nutritive souls, 482, 484; differently partaken of by man and animals, 483; growth of, 484; not clearly separated by Aristotle from Phantasy, with which it is in its exercise bound up, 485; distinguished from Sense, 486; of the Soul, an unlimited cogitative potentiality, like a tablet not yet written on, 487, 491; function of, in apprehending the Abstract, 488, 490; has a formal aspect (_Intellectus Agens_) and a material (_Patiens_), 489; in what sense immortal, 489; in what sense the _principia_ of Science belong to, 491; analysis, selection, and concentration of attention, the real characteristics of, 492; Theoretical, Practical, 493; cogitation and _cogitatum_ are identical in, 627.

Number, analogy of Definition to, 611.

Nutritive soul, functions of, 461; origin of, 480.

O.

Objection (_Enstasis_), 202; response to false, in Dialectic, 366.

Ontology, starts from classification of Entia, 59, 61; Science of Ens _quatenus_ Ens, how named by Aristotle, 59; opposed as the universal science to particular sciences, not to Phenomenology, 59; blended with Logic in the Categories, 62; logical aspect of, as set forth by Aristotle, 127; of Aristotle's predecessors, 97, 108, 551 seq.; has Dialectic as a tentative companion, 273; not clearly distinguished from Logic and Physics by Aristotle, 422; highest of Theoretical Sciences, subject of, 423, 593; treats of Ens in two senses specially, 424, 425; also critically examines highest generalities of Demonstration, 425, 579; Aristotle's advance in, upon Plato, 445, 561; an objective science, 579.

Opinion, opposed to Science, in Plato, 207; in Aristotle, 207, 236, 573; wanting to animals, 475.

_Opposita_, four modes of, 104; included under, rather than including, _Relativa_, 104; should be called _Opposite-Relativa_, 105.

Opposition, Contradictory and Contrary, 111; squares of, Scholastic and Aristotelian, 137 n.

Oppositis, Treatise de, by Aristotle, lost, 134.

Organon, The, meaning of, as applied to Aristotle's logical treatises, 55; what it includes, 56; not so specified by Aristotle, 56; Aristotle's point of view throughout, 578.

_Organa_, or Helps to command of syllogisms in dialectical debate, 278; use of the, 282; relation of the, to the _Loci_, 283.

[Greek: O(/ros], Term, applied both to subject and to Predicate in Analytica, 141.

[Greek: O(/ti, To/], _see_ Fact.

[Greek: Ou)si/a], 67, _see_ Essence.

P.

Paradeigmatic inference, 198; _see_ Example.

_Paradoxa_, a variety of _Adoxa_, 269.

Paralogisms, Scientific, 267, 380; _see_ Fallacies.

Parmenides, eliminated Non-Ens, 136; uses equivocal names as univocal, 414; his doctrine of Absolute Ens, 436, 551; not a dialectician, 551; made intelligence vary with sense, 588.

Paronymous things, 57.

Part, relation of, to Whole, with a view to Definition, 601.

Particular, The, _notius nobis_ compared with the Universal, 196; inferiority of, to the Universal, 231.

Passion, _Pati_, Category, 65, 73.

Peirastic, given as one of the four species of debate, 377; really a variety or aspect of Dialectic, 377, 379.

'Peplus,' work of Aristotle's, 32.

Perception, sensible, _see_ Sensation.

Pergamus, kings of, their library, 36.

Peripatetics, origin of the title, 7.

Phæstis, mother of Aristotle, 2; directions for a bust to, in Aristotle's will, 19.

Phanias, disciple of Aristotle, knew logical works of his now lost, 56; wrote on Logic, 56.

Phantasy, nature of, 475; distinguished from Memory, 475; indispensable to, and passes by insensible degrees into, Cogitation, 479, 484, 485.

Philip of Macedon, chose Aristotle as tutor to Alexander, 5; destroyed Stageira, 6.

Philosopher, The, distinguished from the Dialectician, 354, 584; also from the Sophist, 584.

Philosophy, First, usual name for Science of Ens _quatenus_ Ens, 59, 422, 584; _see_ Ontology.

Phokion, at the head of the Athenian administration under Alexander, 12; ineffectually opposed anti-Macedonian sentiment after Alexander's death, 12.

Physica, relation of the, to the Metaphysica, 54, 422.

Physics, theoretical science, subject of, 423, 593, 630.

Pindar, subject of his Odes, 13.

Place, in Dialectic, 283; none outside of the Heaven, 636.

Planets, number of the spheres of, 626; do not twinkle, why, 645; _see_ Stars.

Plato, much absent from Athens, between 367-60 B.C., 4; died, 347 B.C., 4; corresponded with Dionysius, 7; Aristotle charged with ingratitude to, 20; attacked with Aristotle by Kephisodorus, 24; ancients nearly unanimous as to the list of his works, 27, 42; his exposure of equivocal phraseology, 58; fascinated by particular numbers, 74; on Relativity, 84; his theory of Proposition and Negation, 135, 427; called for, but did not supply, definitions, 141; his use of the word Syllogism, 143; relied upon logical Division for science, 162; opposed Science (Dialectic) to Opinion (Rhetoric), 208, 263; explained learning from Reminiscence, 212; his view of Noûs as infallible, 260; character of his dialogues, 264; recognized Didactic, but as absorbed into Dialectic, 264; his use of the word Sophist, 376; his psychology (in the Timæus), 446-9, 451, 461; first affirmed Realism, 552; his Ontology and theory of Ideas, 553 seq., _see_ Ideas; held Sophistic to be busied about Non-Ens, 593; his scale of Essences, 595, 620; his assumption of a self-movent as _principium_, 623; held that the non-generable may be destroyed, 637, 639; on the position of the Earth, 649; in his Protagoras anticipated Epikurus, 654; admitted an invincible erratic necessity in Nature, 657; ethical purpose of, 662.

'Plato and the other Companions of Sokrates,' subject of the work, 1; referred to, on subject of the Platonic Canon, 27.

Platonists, their view of Essences as Numbers, 611; _see_ Ideas.

Plotinus, censured Categories of the Stoics, 100, 563; his list of Categories, 102, 563.

_Plurium Interrogationum ut Unius_, _Fallacia_, 389; how to solve, 413.

Plutarch does not appear to have known the chief Aristotelian works, 31; authority for story of the fate of Aristotle's library, 35.

Poetic, place of, in Aristotle's philosophy, 54; modes of speech entering into, 111, 130.

[Greek: Poio/n], _see_ Quality.

Political Science, the Supreme Science, 449.

Politics, place of in Aristotle's philosophy, 54; Aristotle's Treatise on, 539; founded on the Republic of Plato, 539; his conception of a republic, 539.

Porphyry, disposed works of Plotinus in Enneads, 44; his Eisagoge, 73, 101, 552; rejected last paragraph of De Interpretatione, 134; his statement of the question as to Universals, 552, 564; defended Aristotle's Categories against Plotinus, 563.

[Greek: Poso/n], _see_ Quantity.

Possible, The, as a Mode affecting Antiphasis, 127; relation of, to the Necessary, 127, 205; three meanings of, given by Aristotle, 128; effective sense of, 129, 133, 205, 617, 638; truly a Formal Mode of Proposition, 131; gradations in, 205.

Poste, Mr., upon Aristotle's proof that Demonstration implies indemonstrable truths, 229; on the Theory of Fallacies, 383.

_Posterius_, different senses of, 105; as between parts and whole, 601-603.

Post-prædicamenta, 79, 80, 104.

Postulate, as a principle of Demonstration, 220.

Potentiality (Power) as opposed to Actuality, 128, 456, 615 seq.; varieties of, 613.

Prædicament, _see_ Categories.

Predicables, four in Aristotle, five in later logicians, 276; quadruple classification of, how exhaustive, 276; come each under one or other of the Categories, 277.

Predicate, in a proposition, 109; to be One, 120; called Term in Analytica, 141.

Predication, essential and non-essential, Aristotle's mode of distinguishing, 63, 64.

Premisses of Syllogism, 148; how to disengage for Reduction, 164; involving qualification, 166; false, yielding true conclusion, 172; contradictory, yielding a conclusion in Second and Third figures, 175; necessary character of, in Demonstration, 215; in Dialectic, 227.

Principles of Science, furnished only by Experience, 162, 257; knowable in themselves, but not therefore innate, 178, 256; what, common to all, 212, 215; maintained by Aristotle to be indemonstrable, 215, 228; general and special, 236, 578; development of, 256; known by Noûs upon Induction from particulars, 259, 562, 577; discussed by First Philosopher, and by Dialectician, 575.

_Principii Petitio_, Fallacy of, 156, 176; in Dialectic, 367, 371; in Sophistic, 388; how to solve, 412.

_Prius_, different senses of, in Post-præedicamenta, 105; in Metaphysica [Greek: D], 106; Aristotle often confounds the meanings of, 106; as between parts and whole, 601-603.

_Privatio_ and _Habitus_, case of _Opposita_, 104, 105.

[Greek: Proai/resis], definition of, 526.

Probabilities, Syllogism from, 202.

Probable, The, true meaning of, in Aristotle, 269.

Problematical proposition, The, a truly formal mode, 131.

Problems, for scientific investigation, 238; identical, 253; in Dialectic, 273.

Prokles, second husband of Aristotle's daughter, 20.

Proof ([Greek: tekmê/rion]) distinguished from Sign, 203.

Propositions, subject of De Interpretatione, 57, 109; Terms treated by Aristotle with reference to, 59; Ens divided with reference to, 59; defined, 109; distinguished in signification from Terms, 109, 110, also from other modes of significant speech, 111, 130; Simple, Complex, 111; Affirmative, Negative, 111, 122; Contradictory (pair of, making Antiphasis), Contrary, 111, 124, 134; Universal, Singular, 111; about matters particular and future, 113; in quaternions illustrative of real Antiphasis, 118 seq.; subject of, and predicate of, to be each One, 125; function of copula in, 126; Simple Assertory, Modal (Possible or Problematical and Necessary), 127 seq.; subjective and objective aspects of, 131; Aristotle's theory of, compared with views of Plato and others, 135; summarized, 139; how named in Analytica, 141; named either as declaring, or as generating, truth, 141; formally classified according to Quantity in Analytica, 142; Universal, double account of, 142; Conversion of, taken singly, 144; rules for Conversion of Universal Negative, Affirmative, &c., 144 seq.; comparison of, as subjects of attack and defence, 156; Indivisible or Immediate, and Mediate--modes of error with regard to, 224 seq.; as subject-matter of Dialectic, 273; classified for purposes of Dialectic, 276.

Proprium, one of the Predicables, 276; thesis of, hardest, after Definition, to defend, 285, 353; dialectical _Loci_ bearing on, 313 seq.; ten different modes of, 321.

[Greek: Pro/s ti], _see_ Relation.

Protagoras, his doctrine, "Homo Mensura" impugned by Aristotle as adverse to the Maxim of Contradiction, 430 seq., 587 seq.; true force of his doctrine, 431; misapprehended by Aristotle and Plato, 432.

[Greek: Pro/tasis], name for Proposition in Analytica, 141.

Proxenus, of Atarneus, guardian of Aristotle at Stageira, 3; mentioned in Aristotle's will, 19.

Pseudographeme or Scientific Paralogism, 267; or pseudographic syllogism, 380.

Psychology, relation of, to Logic, 110; summary of Aristotle's, 493.

Pythagoras, disregarded experience, 436; _see_ Pythagoreans.

Pythagoreans had a two-fold doctrine--exoteric and esoteric, 52; fascinated by particular numbers, 74; their view of the soul, 449; went astray in defining from numbers, 603; ascribed perfection and beauty to results, not to their originating principles, 625; said the Universe and all things are determined by Three, 630; recognized Right and Left in the Heaven, 610; erred in calling ours the upper hemisphere and to the right, 640; affirmed harmony of the spheres, 646; placed Fire, not Earth, at the centre of the Kosmos, 648; made the Earth and Antichthon revolve each in a circle, 648.

Pythias, wife of Aristotle, 5, 17, 20; daughter of Aristotle, 17-19.

Q.

_Quæsita_, in science, four heads of, 238; order of, 239; the four, compared, 240.

Quality (_Quale_)**, third Category, treated fourth, 65, 72; varieties of, 72; admits in some cases, contrariety and graduation, 72; foundation of Similarity and Dissimilarity, 73; illustrated from _Relata_, 73; First Essence shades through Second into, 91; to Aristotle a mere predicate, highest of substances to Plato, 503; is hardly Ens at all, 593.

Quantity (_Quantum_), second. Category, 65; Continual, Discrete, 70; has no contrary, 70; a mere appendage to Essence, 595, 596.

Quiddity, _see_ Essence.

R.

Realism, first affirmed by Plato, 552, 555; problems of, as set out by Porphyry, and discussed before and after, 552; scholastic formula of, 555; objections, urged against, by Plato himself in Sophistes and Parmenides, 550 seq.; peculiarity in Plato's doctrine of, 557; impugned by Aristotle, 558 seq.; character of Aristotle's objections to, 500; counter-theory to, set up by Aristotle, 500, 501; standard against, raised by Aristotle in his First **Category, 502; of Plotinus, 563; of J. Scotus Erigena, 564; of Remigius, 564.

Reciprocation, among Terms of Syllogism, 185.

Reduction, in Syllogism, 153; object and process of, 164 seq.

_Reductio ad Impossibile_ or _Absurdum_, used in proving modes of Second figure, 152; nature of, 155, 160, 168; a case of Reversal of Conclusion for refutation, 175; abuse of, guarded against by the argument _Non per Hoc_, 179.

Regularity, principle of, in the Kosmos, _see_ Nature.

_Relata_, defined, 70.

Relation, fourth Category, treated third, 65, 70; admits, in some cases, contrariety and graduation, 71; too narrowly conceived by Aristotle, 80; covers all predicates, 82; covers even Essence as Subject, 83; an Universal comprehending and pervading all the Categories, rather than a Category itself, 84; understood at the widest by some of the ancients, 84; comprehensiveness of, conceded by Aristotle himself, 84, 88.

_Relative-Opposita_, should rather stand _Opposite-Relativa_, 104, 105.

Relativity, or Relation, _see_ Relation; of knowledge, universal (in the sense of Protagoras), impugned by Aristotle, 430 seq., 589 seq.; allowed by Aristotle to pervade all mind, 493.

Remigius of Auxerre, went as far as Plato in Realism, 564.

Reminiscence, Plato's doctrine of, 212, 554; Aristotle's Tract on Memory and, 475; nature of, as distinguished from Memory, 470; phenomena of, 476.

Resemblances, study of, an organon of debate, 280.

Respiration, organ and function of, 408.

Reversal of Conclusion, 174.

Rhabanus Maurus, followed Aristotle on Universals, 503.

Rhetoric, place of, in Aristotle's philosophy, 54; modes of speech dealt with in, 111, 131; opposed by Plato to Dialectic, 208, 203; opposed with Dialectic to Science by Aristotle, 208, 265, 266; developed before Aristotle, 419.

Rose, Valentine, his view of the catalogue of Diogenes, 32.

S.

Sagacity, in divining Middle Term, 237.

Sameness, three senses of, 277, 349.

Scholarchs, Peripatetic, their limited knowledge of Aristotle before Andronikus, 30, 38.

Science, _see_ Knowledge.

Sciences, some prior and more accurate than others, 210, 234, 578; classified as Theoretical, Practical, Constructive, 423, 593; Theoretical subdivided, 423, 593.

Seneca, authority for Stoical creed, 654; a Stoic engaged in active politics, 662.

Sensation, knowledge begins from the natural process of, 256, 483, 492; consciousness of, explained, 473.

Senses, the five, 465 seq.; cannot be more than five, 472.

Sentient soul, involves functions of the Nutritive with sensible perception besides, 461; distinguishes animals from plants, 462; receives the form of the _perceptum_ without the matter, as wax an impression from the signet; 462; communicated by male in generation, and is complete from birth, 463: differs from the Noëtic, in communing with particulars and being dependent on stimulus from without, 463 seq., 486; grades of, 463; has a faculty of discrimination and comparison, 464, 483; heart, the organ of, 464; cannot perceive two distinct sensations at once, 473; at the lowest, subject to pleasure and pain, appetite and aversion, 473; Phantasy belongs to the, 475; Memory belongs to the, 475.

Sepulveda, his use of "exoteric," 45.

Signs, Syllogism from, 202; distinguished from Proof ([Greek: tekmê/rion]), 203; in Physiognomy, 204.

Simplikius, defended Aristotle's Categories, 563.

_Simul_, meaning of, 105; as between parts and whole, 602.

Skêpsis, Aristotle's books and manuscripts long kept buried there, 36.

Smell, operated through a medium, 467; stands below sight and hearing, 468; action of, 469; organ of, 470.

Sokrates, reference to his fate by Aristotle, 16; his exposure of equivocal phraseology, 58; called for, but did not supply, definitions, 141; his conception and practice of Dialectic, to the neglect of Didactic, 263; Elenchus of, 263, 437, 441; did nothing but question, 418; Greek philosophy before, 426; first broke ground for Logic, 426; his part in the development of Greek Philosophy, 436 seq.; peculiarities of, according to Aristotle, 437; first inquired into the meaning of universal terms, 551, 552.

Sokrates, the younger, false analogy of, in defining animal, 604.

Solecism, sophistic charge of, 385; how to repel, 413.

Sophist, the, as understood by Aristotle, 376, 377, 381; as understood by Plato, 376; five ends ascribed to, 384; not really distinguished by Aristotle from the Dialectician, 382, 393 seq.

Sophistes of Plato, theory of Proposition in, 135.

Sophistic, busied about accidents, 98, 593; as understood by Aristotle, 376, 382; given as one of four species of debate, 377; Aristotle's conception of, both as to purpose and subject matter, disallowed, 382, 393 seq.; _Loci_ bearing on, 408; debate, difficulties in, 416; borders on Dialectic, 417.

Sophistici Elenchi, last book of Topica, 56, 262; subject of, 376; last chapter of, 417 seq.

Sorites, what was afterwards so called, 156.

Soul, according to Plato, 446, 449, 451, 461; Alkmæon, 449; Herakleitus, 449; Diogenes of Apollonia, 449; Anaxagoras, 449; Empedokles, 449; Pythagoreans, 450; Xenokrates, criticized by Aristotle, 450; theory of Empedokles criticized, 451; theory of, as pervading the whole Kosmos, 451; all the foregoing theories of, rejected by Aristotle, 452; requisites of a good theory of, 452; Aristotle's point of view with regard to, 453; the problem of, stated to cover all forms of Life, 453; resolved by metaphysical distinction of Form and Matter, 454-7; defined accordingly, 458; not a separate entity in itself, 458; not really, but only logically, separable from body, 458; thoroughgoing implication of, with Matter, 459, 478; is Form, Movent, and Final Cause, of the body as Matter, 460, 480; makes with body the Living or Animated Body, 460, 480; varieties of, in an ascending scale, 460, 481; the lowest or Nutritive, 461; the Sentient (also nutritive), 462-74, _see_ Sentient; higher functions of, conditioned by lower, 474; Phantastic department of, 474; the Noëtic or Cogitant, 478, _see_ Noûs, Noëtic; all varieties of, proceed from the region of Form or the Celestial Body, 480; Noûs of the, 487; not immortal, even the Noëtic, in the individual, 489; is, in a certain way, all existent things, 493; two parts of, the rational and the irrational, 521.

Sound, cause of, 467.

Species, is Second Essence, 63, 68; one of the Predicables in Porphyry's, not in Aristotle's, list, 276; logically posterior to Genus and to Differentiæ, 607.

Speech, significant by convention only, 109, 111; Enunciative, and other modes of, 111.

Speusippus, succeeded Plato in the Academy, 7, 21; books of, at his death, bought by Aristotle, 35; held it impossible to define anything without knowing everything, 249; his enumeration of Essences, 595, 629; ascribed beauty and perfection to results, not to their originating principles, 625.

Spinoza, his definition of Substance contrasted with Aristotle's, 93.

Spontaneity, source of irregularity in the Kosmos, 115, 205; affects the rule of Antiphasis, 115; objective correlate to the Problematical Proposition, 133, 205; Generations and Constructions from, 598, 620.

Stageira, birthplace of Aristotle, 2; destroyed by Philip, restored by Aristotle, 6.

Stars, in their nature eternal Essences, 626; whence the heat and light of, 644; themselves at rest, are carried round in their circles, 644; spherical in figure, 645, 646; (not planets) twinkle, why, 645; rates of motion of (planets), as determined by their position, 646; irregular sequence of (planets), in respect of complexity of motions, 646; partakers of life and action, 647; why so many, in the one single First Current, 648.

Stilpon, merely disputed on Proposition, 136.

Stoics, Categories of the, 100, 563; their doctrine copiously reported, 654; points in which they agreed with the Epikureans, 655, 663; fatalism of, 657; held Self-preservation to be the first principle of Nature, 660; inculcated as primary _officium_, to keep in the State of Nature, 660; their idea of the Good, 660; their distinction of things in our power, and not in our power, 661; held the will to be always determined by motives, 661; their view of a free mind, 661; allowed an interposing Providence, 661; ethical purpose of,662; urged to active life, 662; subordinated beneficence, put justice highest, 662, 663; their respect for individual conviction, 663.

Strabo, authority for story of the fate of Aristotle's library, 35, 38.

Subject, to be _predicated of_ a, distinguished from to be _in_ a, 59, 62, 64; which is never employed as predicate, 63, 68, 157; which may also be predicate, 63, 157; called Term in Analytica, 141.

Substance, _see_ Essence.

Substratum, 67, 595; _see_ Essence.

Sun, ever at work, 617; whence the heat and light of, 644; why seen to move at rising and setting, 644; motions of, 646.

Sylla, carried library of Apellikon to Rome, 37.

Syllogism, principle of, indicated in Categoriæ, 65; theory of, claimed by Aristotle as his own work, 140, 153; defined, 143, 426; Perfect and Imperfect, 143; meaning of, in Plato, specialized in Aristotle, 143; conditions of valid, 148, 155; Premisses, Terms, Figures, &c., of, 148 seq.; Reduction of, 153; mediaeval abuse of, 153; Direct or Ostensive, and Indirect, 155; has two (even number of) propositions, and three (odd number of) terms, 156; how to construct a, 157; method of, superior to logical Division, 162; from an Hypothesis, 168; plurality of conclusions from, 171; inversion of, 173; conversion of, 174; liabilities to error in the use of, 176; cases of Reciprocation among terms of, 185; antithesis among terms of, 185 seq.; canons of, common to Demonstration, Dialectic, Rhetoric, 186, 210, 265; the, from Induction, 187; prior and more effective as to cognition, than Induction, 191; the, from Example, 191; relation of, to Induction, 192 seq.; varieties of Abduction, Objection, Enthymeme, &c., 202 seq.; Modal, 204; theory of, applicable both to Demonstration and Dialectic, 207, 265; the Demonstrative or Scientific, 215, 219, 265; of [Greek: o(/ti], and of [Greek: dio/ti], 223; the unit in, 231; scope and matter of the Dialectical, 265, 267; the Eristic, 268, 380; the Elenchus, or Refutative, 376; the Pseudographic, 380; inquiry into Axioms of, falls to First Philosophy, 426.

Synonymous things, 57.

T.

Taste, operates through contact, 469; a variety of Touch, 471; organ of, 471.

Tautology, sophistic charge of, 385; how to repel, 413.

Temperance, definition of, 531.

[Greek: Tekmê/rion] (Proof), distinguished from Sign, 203.

Terms, as such, subject of Categoriæ, 57; things denoted by, distinguished as Homonymous (Equivocal), Synonymous (Univocal), Paronymous--importance of the distinction, 57; viewed by Aristotle, as constituents of a Proposition, 59; distinguished from Proposition in signification, 109, 110; the word, used instead of Noun and Verb in Analytica, 141; Major, Middle, and Minor, in Syllogism, 148; in Syllogism, are often masked, 165; reciprocation of, in Syllogism, 185; equivocation of, to be attended to in Dialectic, 278.

Thales, character of his philosophy, 435; supposed the Earth to float at rest on water, 649.

Themison, correspondent of Aristotle, 7.

Themistius, speaks of an "army of assailants" of Aristotle, 26; on the order of the _Quæsita_ in science, 238.

Theodoras, developed Rhetoric, 419.

Theology, alternative name for First Philosophy or Ontology, 59, 423.

Theophrastus, left in charge of Aristotle's school and library, 15, 35; directions to, in Aristotle's will, 17, 18; bought as well as composed books, 35; disposition of his library, 35, 42; wrote on Logic, 56; distinguished Affirmation [Greek: e)k metathe/seôs], 122, 169; followed Aristotle in treating of Modals, 144; assumed convertibility of Universal Negative, 146.

Theses, how to find arguments for, 157; art of impugning and defending, 180; in Dialectic, how open to be impugned, 284; chiefly Universal Affirmative, 281; comparison of, as subjects of attack and defence, 285, 352, 300.

Thrasyllus, canon of, 27, 41; tetralogies of, 44.

Thrasymachus, developed Rhetoric, 419.

Thomas Aquinas, his use of "exoteric," 45.

[Greek: Ti/ ê)=n ei)=nai, To/], _see_ Essence (Quiddity).

Timæus, Platonic, summary of the psychological doctrine in the, 446-9.

Timarchus, friend of Aristotle, 17.

Time, none, outside of the Heaven, 277.

Tisias, first writer on Rhetoric, 419.

Topica, referred to in Analytica, 56; presupposes contents of Categoriæ and De Interpretatione, 56; part of one scheme with Analytica, 142; design of, specially claimed by Aristotle as original, 262; subject of, 262, 265; First Book of, preliminary to the _Loci_, 283; distribution of, 284.

Torstrick, his view of "exoteric discourse," 49.

Touch, most wisely diffused sense, 464; operated through contact, 468; _i.e._, apparently, 472; most developed in man, 471; an aggregate of several senses, 471; organ of, 471.

Trans-Olfacient, action of the, in Smell, 467.

Trans-Sonant, action of the, in Hearing, 467.

Trendelenburg, brings the Categories into relation with parts of speech, 99.

Truth, Ens in the sense of, 60, &c., _see_ Ens; a mental conjunction or disjunction of terms in conformity with fact, 60, 111, 591, 594, 618; embodied in the Proposition or Enunciative Speech, 109, 130.

Tyrannion studied Aristotle's MSS. At Rome, 37-39, 43.

U.

Universal, The, knowledge of, with error as to particulars, 183; knowledge of, better than of the Particular, 231; not perceivable by sense, 235; but cf. 258; reveals the Cause, 235; generated by a process of Induction from particulars, 260; controversy about, began with Sokrates and Plato, 551; questions as to, set out by Porphyry, 552; Plato's statements as to, collected, 553 seq.; scholastic formulae of the different theories of, 555; Aristotle's objection to Plato's Realistic theory of, 558 seq.; Aristotle's counter-theory as to, 560; is to Aristotle a predicate in or along with the Particular, 561, 605; later history of the question of, till launched in the schools of the Middle Age, 562-4; given as one of the varieties of Essence, 595; arguments against its being Essence, 605.

_Universalia Prima_, as premisses in Demonstrative Science, 216.

Universe, extends every way, 630.

Univocal terms, 57.

V.

Vacuum, exists potentially only, 615; none, outside of the Heaven, 636.

Verb, function of the, 109, 110, 130; the indefinite, 118, 124.

Virtue, Aristotle's definition of, examined, 521 seq.; intellectual and ethical, 521; is a medium between two extremes. 524.

Vision, most perfect sense, 465; colours, the object of, 465; effected through media having diaphanous agency, 466.

Voice, The, 468.

Voluntary and Involuntary actions, 525.

W.

Waitz, prints Sophistici Elenchi as last Book of Topica, 56.

When, _Quando_, Category, 65, 73.

Where, _Ubi_, Category, 65, 73.

Words, subjective and objective aspects of, 109.

Works of Aristotle, dates of, uncertain, 54; in what order to be studied, 55; cross-references in the logical, 56.

Wyttenbach, started doubts as to Platonic Canon, 27.

X.

Xenokrates, fellow-pupil of Aristotle, accompanied him to Atarneus, 4; head of the Academy, 7; attached to Athenian democracy, 10; character of, 25; his view of the soul, 450.

Xenophanes, improved on by Parmenides, 551; his reason for the stationariness of the Earth, 649.

Z.

Zeller, his view of "exoteric discourse," 49.

Zeno, the Eleatic, argument of, against Motion, paradoxical, 365; uses equivocal names as univocal, 414; defended the Parmenidean theory dialectically, 551.

Zeno, the Stoic, a foreigner at Athens, without a sphere of political action, 662.

Zoological Treatises, place of the, among the other works of Aristotle, 54.

LONDON:

PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS,

STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

************************************* Transcriber's Note

There are several references in this text to Grote's previous book on Plato, 'Plato and the Other companions of Sokrates'. The 4-volume version of this book is available in Project Gutenberg: Vol. 1 - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40435 Vol. 2 - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40436 Vol. 3 - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40437 Vol. 4 - https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/40438.

Unfortunately references in this text are to the 3-volume edition, so page numbers differ and in almost all cases chapter numbers are 2 less than in the 4-volume version--as the advertisement says "In the present Edition, with a view to the distribution into four volumes, there is a slight transposition of the author's arrangement. His concluding chapters (XXXVIII., XXXIX.), entitled "Other Companions of Sokrates," and "Xenophon," are placed in the First Volume, as chapters III. and IV."

The text is based on versions made available by the Internet Archive.

For the Greek transcriptions the following conventions have been used: ) is for smooth breathing; ( for hard; + for diaeresis; / for acute accent; \ for grave; = for circumflex; | for iota subscript. ch is used for chi, ph for phi, ps for psi, th for theta; ê for eta and ô for omega; u is used for upsilon in all cases.

Corrections to the text, indicated in text with **:

Location Text of scan of 2nd edition Correction Preface, after fn. 4 dialetical dialectical Ch. 1 fn 5 ad. ad Ch. 1 fn 10 mge/an me/gan Ch. 1 fn 46 a)lla) a)lla\ Ch. 1 fn 61 Quintillian Quintilian Ch. 2 fn 15 Art Ar. Ch. 2 before fn. 22 Theopharstus Theophrastus Ch. 2 fn 40 a)utô=n au)tôn Ch. 2 fn 40 dia lektikô=s dialektikô=s Ch. 2 fn 40 tô=n. tô=n Ch. 2 fn 41 la\r ga\r Ch. 3 after fn 49 e(te/rô/n e(te/rôn Ch. 3 fn 54 e)pistê\mê e)pistê/mê Ch. 3 fn 101 tê=n tê\n Ch. 3 before fn 111 Subiect Subject Ch. 3 fn 112 ou où Ch. 3 fn 112 déja déjà Ch. 3 fn 112 Voila dont Voilà donc Ch. 3 fn 121 ad. ad Ch. 3 fn 131 le/nos ge/nos Ch. 3 fn 131 Stoic Stoics Ch. 3 fn 132 deu/te/ron deu/teron Ch. 3 fn 132 . , Ch. 3 fn 142 a)ntikei/me/na a)ntikei/mena Ch. 3 fn 142 o(\then o(/then Ch. 3 after fn 146 if of Ch. 4 fn 9 Scholian Scholion Ch. 4 after fn 25 justis justus Ch. 4 fn 28 . , Ch. 4 before fn 38 Nons-Ens Non-Ens Ch. 4 fn 48 lxii-lxviii. lxii.-lxviii. Ch. 4 fn 52 no superscript Ch. 5 fn 37 ad. ad Ch. 5 fn 60 completély completely Ch. 5 fn 63-65 ; : Ch. 5 before fn 81 faciliate facilitate Ch. 6 before fn 4 the the the Ch. 6 fn 14, 24 no superscript Ch. 6 after fn 39 suscessively successively Ch. 6 fn 42 ad. ad Ch. 6 fn 55 xxxiii. xxiii. Ch. 6 fn 55 Sir. Sir Ch. 6 fn 58 . Ch. 6 fn 59 Lokik Logik Ch. 6 fn 60 e)pogôlê=s e)pagôgê=s Ch. 6 fn 60 e)/st e)/sti Ch. 6 fn 61 . , Ch. 6 fn 65 Sir. Sir Ch. 6 fn 67 (twice) , . Ch. 6 fn 67 : ; Ch. 6 fn 71 seq seq. Ch. 6 fn 74 Induction "Induction Ch. 7 fn 13 maximum maxim Ch. 7 fn 19 tro\pon tro/pon Ch. 7 fn 35 . , Ch. 7 fn 39 . , Ch. 7 before fn 71 dialetical dialectical Ch. 7 fn 75 . , ch. 7 fn 80 . , Ch. 8 fn 2 Schl. Schol. Ch. 8 fn 2 attibute attribute Ch. 8 fn 12 jusqu' à jusqu'à Ch. 8 fn 18 ou)de ou)de\ Ch. 8 fn 34 a a. Ch. 8 fn 49 lanthanousi lantha/nousi Ch. 8 fn 52 . , Ch. 8 fn 56 . , Ch. 8 fn 62 de de\ Ch. 8 fn 70 primilibri primi libri Ch. 9 fn 27 plei/on' plei/on Ch. 9 fn 39 vii.. viii. Ch. 9 before fn 44 analgous analogous Ch. 9 fn 71 to to\ Ch. 9 before fn 113 usuage usage Ch. 9 before fn 158 is respecting is) respecting Ch. 9 before fn 161 more more more Ch. 9 fn 210 la\r ga\r Ch. 9 fn 211 la\r ga\r Ch. 9 fn 211 dto\ to\ Ch. 9 fn 229 ei)rêmenon ei)rême/non Ch. 9 before fn 283 impunging impugning Ch. 9 before fn 298 defininition definition Ch. 9 fn 367 poi=oume/nois poioume/nois Ch. 9 fn 367 diê\rthrôtai/ diê/rthrôtai/ Ch. 9 fn 408 sugkrisin su/gkrisin Ch. 9 before fn 436 revelant relevant Ch. 9 before fn 444 you you you Ch. 9 fn 464 gar ga\r Ch. 9 fn 464 proteinomenôn proteinome/nôn Ch. 10 before fn 9 predominence predominance Ch. 10 fn 85 Topic, Topica, Ch. 10 fn 98 xxii. xvii. Ch. 10 fn 98 Firman Firmin Ch. 10 fn 112 b. 17; b. 17); Ch. 10 fn 112 a. 10,. a. 10). Ch. 10 before fn 129 philosphers philosophers Ch. 10 before fn 138 tell tells Ch. 11 after fn 9 confides confines Ch. 11 after fn 28 that that, Ch. 12 after fn 5 sperical spherical Ch. 12 after fn 27 most most most Ch. 12 fn 36 ad. ad Ch. 12 fn 69 . , Ch. 12 before fn 75 accept except Ch. 12 fn 129 and ad Ch. 12 fn 139 tên tê\n Ch. 12 after fn 144 thoraic thoracic Ch. 12 fn 156 88 18 Ch. 13 endæmonise eudæmonise Ch. 13 perforance performance Ch. 13 (5 times) ii. iii. Ch. 14 commonweath commonwealth Ch. 14 indulgencies indulgences App. I preceptions perceptions App. I fn 8 370-395 320-395 App. II fn 6 ê| ê(=| App. III ). .). App. III .) ). App. III ). .) App. III . .) App. III According (According App. III ). .) App. III ). .). App. III tni/as e)ni/as App. III parts parts parts App. III du/na/mis du/namis App. III duna/neis duna/meis App. III .) .). App. III 2-025 20-25 App. III ). .). App. III ga\r ga/r App. IV [stop omitted] . App. IV from from from App. Iv contrifugal centrifugal App. IV their there App. IV a)ei= a)ei\ App. IV ; : App. IV them-themselves themselves App. IV ). .) App. V the fears of those gods those fears of the gods App. VI medita-tations meditations Index Metaph Metaph. Index Platonist Platonists Index as as as Index the the the Index inteltellect intellect Index ) ), Index Categorie Category