IX.

Notwithstanding the radical error of Aristotle’s philosophy—the false abstraction and isolation of the intellectual from the material sphere in Nature and in human life—it may furnish a useful corrective to the much falser philosophy insinuated, if not inculcated, by some moralists of our own age and country. Taken altogether, the teaching of these writers seems to be that the industry which addresses itself to the satisfaction of our material wants is much more meritorious than the artistic work which gives us direct aesthetic enjoyment, or the literary work which stimulates and gratifies our intellectual cravings; while within the artistic sphere fidelity of portraiture is preferred to the creation of ideal beauty; and within the intellectual sphere, mere observation of facts is set above the theorising power by which facts are unified and explained. Some of the school to whom we allude are great enemies of materialism; but teaching like theirs is materialism of the worst description. Consistently carriedout, it would first reduce Europe to the level of China, and then reduce the whole human race to the level of bees or beavers. They forget that when we were all comfortably clothed, housed, and fed, our true lives would have only just begun. The choice would then remain between some new refinement of animal appetite and the theorising activity which, according to Aristotle, is the absolute end, every other activity being only a means for its attainment. There is not, indeed, such a fundamental distinction as he supposed, for activities of every order are connected by a continual reciprocity of services; but this only amounts to saying that the highest knowledge is a means to every other end no less than an end in itself. Aristotle is also fully justified in urging the necessity of leisure as a condition of intellectual progress. We may add that it is a leisure which is amply earned, for without it industrial production could not be maintained at its present height. Nor should the same standard of perfection be imposed on spiritual as on material labour. The latter could not be carried on at all unless success, and not failure, were the rule. It is otherwise in the ideal sphere. There the proportions are necessarily reversed. We must be content if out of a thousand guesses and trials one should contribute something to the immortal heritage of truth. Yet we may hope that this will not always be so, that the great discoveries and creations wrought out through the waste of innumerable lives are not only the expiation of all error and suffering in the past, but are also the pledge of a future when such sacrifices shall no longer be required.

The two elements of error and achievement are so intimately blended and mutually conditioned in the philosophy which we have been reviewing, that to decide on their respective importance is impossible without first deciding on a still larger question—the value of systematic thought as such, and apart from its actual content. For Aristotle was perhaps the greatest master of systematisation that ever lived. Theframework and language of science are still, to a great extent, what he made them; and it remains to be seen whether they will ever be completely remodelled. Yet even this gift has not been an unmixed benefit, for it was long used in the service of false doctrines, and it still induces critics to read into the Aristotelian forms truths which they do not really contain. Let us conclude by observing that of all the ancients, or even of all thinkers before the eighteenth century, there is none to whom the methods and results of modern science could so easily be explained. While finding that they reversed his own most cherished convictions on every point, he would still be prepared by his logical studies to appreciate the evidence on which they rest, and by his ardent love of truth to accept them without reserve. Most of all would he welcome our astronomy and our biology with wonder and delight, while viewing the development of modern machinery with much more qualified admiration, and the progress of democracy perhaps with suspicious fear. He who thought that the mind and body of an artisan were alike debased by the exercise of some simple handicraft under the pure bright sky of Greece, what would he have said to the effect wrought on human beings by the noisome, grinding, sunless, soulless drudgery of our factories and mines! How profoundly unfitted would he have deemed its victims to influence those political issues with which the interests of science are every day becoming more vitally connected! Yet slowly, perhaps, and unwillingly, he might be brought to perceive that our industry has been the indispensable basis of our knowledge, as supplying both the material means and the moral ends of its cultivation. He might also learn that there is an even closer relationship between the two: that while the supporters of privilege are leagued for the maintenance of superstition, the workers, and those who advocate their claims to political equality, are leagued for its restraint and overthrow. And ifhe still shrank back from the heat and smoke and turmoil amid which the genius of our age stands, like another Heracleitus, in feverish excitement, by the steam-furnace whence its powers of revolutionary transmutation are derived, we too might reapply the words of the old Ephesian prophet, bidding him enter boldly, for here also there are gods.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

> LONDON: PRINTED BYSPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUAREAND PARLIAMENT STREET

FOOTNOTES:1Die Philosophie der Griechen, III., a, pp. 5 f.2If I remember rightly, Polybius makes the same observation, but I cannot recall the exact reference.3Sophist, 243, A.4See especially the interesting note on the subject in his recent work,Die wirkliche und die scheinbare Welt, Vorrede, pp x. ff.5Plato,Rep.IV., 435,E; Aristotle,Pol.VII., 1327, b., 29.6Nem.III. 40-42. (Donaldson.)7Nem.VI.sub in.8The word differentiation (ἑτεροίωσις) seems to have been first used by Diogenes Apolloniates. Simpl.Phys.fol. 326 ff., quoted by Ritter and Preller,Hist. Phil., p. 126 (6th ed.)9Ritter and Preller, p. 112.10Ritter and Preller p. 8.11Die Philosophie der Griechen, I. p. 401 (3rd ed.)12Ritter and Preller, p. 54.13Ritter and Preller, p. 54.14Ib.15Metaph.I. v.16Ritter and Preller, p. 63.17Op. cit.p. 475.18The tendency which it has been attempted to characterise as a fundamental moment of Greek thought can only be called analytical in default of a better word. It is a process by which two related terms are at once parted and joined together by the insertion of one or more intermediary links; as, for instance, when a capital is inserted between column and architrave, or when a proposition is demonstrated by the interposition of a middle term between its subject and predicate. The German words Vermitteln and Vermittelung express what is meant with sufficient exactitude. They play a great part in Hegel’s philosophy, and it will be remembered that Hegel was the most Hellenic of modern thinkers. So understood, there will cease to be any contradiction between the Eleates and Greek thought generally, at least from one point of view, as their object was to fill up the vacant spaces supposed to separate one mode of existence from another.19Ritter and Preller, p. 62.20For the originals of this and the succeeding quotations from Heracleitus, see Ritter and Preller, pp. 14-23.21Τῇ μὲν ἡλικίᾳ πρότερος ὢν, τοῖς δ’ ἔργοις ὕστερος.Metaph.I. iii.22Ritter and Preller, p. 90.23Prantl,Aristoteles’ Physik, p. 484.24Ritter and Preller, p. 11.25Since the above remarks were first published, Mr. Wallace, in his work on Epicureanism, has stated that, according to Epicurus, ‘the very animals which are found upon the earth have been made what they are by slow processes of selection and adaptation through the experience of life;’ and he proceeds to call the theory in question, ‘ultra-Darwinian’ (Epicureanism, p. 114). Lucretius—the authority quoted—says nothing about ‘slow processes of adaptation,’ nor yet does he say that the animals were ‘made what they are’ by ‘selection,’ but by the procreative power of the earth herself. Picking out a ready-made pair of boots from among a number which do not fit is a very different process from manufacturing the same pair by measure, or wearing it into shape. To call the Empedoclean theory ultra-Darwinian, is like calling the Democritean or Epicurean theory of gravitation ultra-Newtonian. And Mr. Wallace seems to admit as much, when he proceeds to say on the very same page, ‘Of course in this there is no implication of the peculiarly Darwinian doctrine of descent or development of kind from kind with structure modified and complicated to meet changing circumstances.’ (By the way, this isnota peculiarly Darwinian doctrine, for it originated with Lamarck, spontaneous variation and selection being the additions made by the English naturalists). But what becomes then of the ‘slow processes of adaptation’ and the ‘ultra-Darwinian theory’ spoken of just before?26By a curious coincidence, the atomic constitution of matter still finds its strongest proof in optical phenomena. Light is propagated by transverse waves, and such waves are only possible in a discontinuous medium. But if the luminiferous ether is composed of discrete particles, so also must be the matter which it penetrates in all directions.27Ar.De Gen. et Corr., I., viii., 325, b, 5.28Eurip.Frag. Incert. Fab., CXXXVI. Didot, p. 850. [I am indebted for this version to Miss A. M. F. Robinson, the translator of theCrowned Hippolytus.]29Curtius,Griechische Geschichte, 342-5 (3rd ed.).30Zeller,op. cit., p. 791.31Ar.De Coelo, III., iii., 302, a, 28.32M. Antoninus, XII., 28.33Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., b, p. 669.34Even regulating the calendar by the sun instead of by the moon seems to have been regarded as a dangerous and impious innovation by the more conservative Athenians—at least judging from the half-serious pleasantry of Aristophanes,Nub., 608-26. (Dindorf.)35σύμβολον δ’ οὔ πώ τις ἐπιχθονίων πιστὸν ἀμφὶ πράξιος ἐσσομένας εὗρεν θεόθεν.—Ol., XII., 8-9.36Frag., 102.37Griechische Geschichte, ii., 112-3 (3rd ed.).38Aristophanes,Vesp., 1176.39Herod., VII., 204; IX., 64.40Agam., 750-71.41Ib., 311.42Ol., XIII., 17 (Donaldson).43‘Thou shalt not take that which is mine, and may I do to others as I would that they should do to me’ (Plato,Legg., 913, A. Jowett’s Transl., vol. V., p. 483). Isocrates makes a king addressing his governors say: ‘You should be to others what you think I should be to you’ (Nicocles, 49). And again: ‘Do not to others what it makes you angry to suffer yourselves’ (Ibid., 61). A similar observation is attributed to Thales, doubtless by an anachronism (Diogenes Laertius, I., i., 36).44We gladly avail ourselves of the masterly translation given by Prof. Jebb. The whole of this splendid passage will be found in hisAttic Orators, vol. II., pp. 78-79.45Symposium, 211, C; Jowett’s Transl., vol. II.46Aesch.,Sep. con. Theb., 592.47Legg., 727, E; Jowett’s Transl., V, 299.48See Plato’sCharmides; and Euripides’Medea, 635 (Dindorf).49Pindar uses καιρός and μέτρον as synonymous terms.50Opp. et D., 271.51Hom.Il., IV., 160, 235; VII., 76, 411; XVI., 386. Hes.,Opp. et D., 265. These references are copied from Welcker,Griechische Götterlehre, I., p. 178, q. v.52See Maine’sAncient Law, chap. X.,The Early History of Delict and Crime.53Preller,Griechische Mythologie, I., p. 523 (3rd ed.), with which cf. Welcker,op. cit., I., 234; and Mr. Walter Pater’sDemeter and Persephone, andA Study of Dionysus, in theFortnightly Reviewfor Jan., Feb., and Dec. 1876. From their popular character, the country gods were favoured by the despots (Curtius,Gr. Gesch., I., p. 338).54Cf. Wordsworth—‘Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong,And the most ancient heavens through thee are fresh and strong.’Ode to Duty.55Pindar,Olymp., II., 57 ff.; andFragm., 1-4 (Donaldson).56Sep. con. Theb., 662-71.57Phoenissae, 503-23.[58]Οὐ γὰρ ἄλλῳ γ’ ὑπακούσαιμεν τῶν νῦν μετεωροσοφιστῶνπλὴν η Προδίκῳ, τῷ μὲν σοφίας καὶ γνώμης οὕνεκα κ.τ.λ.—Nub., 361-2. Cf.Av., 692.59Plato,Protagoras, 337, D; Jowett’s Transl., vol. I., p. 152.60Nem., VI.,sub. in.61Prom., 518.62Phoenissae, 536-47. There is a delicious parody of this method in theClouds. A creditor asks Strepsiades, who has been taking lessons in philosophy, to pay him the interest on a loan. Strepsiades begs to know whether the sea is any fuller now than it used to be. ‘No,’ replies the other, ‘for it would not be just,’ (οὐ γὰρ δίκαιον πλείον εἶναι). ‘Then, you wretch,’ rejoins his debtor, ‘do you suppose that the sea is not to get any fuller although all the rivers are flowing into it, and that your money is to go on increasing?’ (1290-95.)63Xenophon,Memor., IV., iv., 19.64Pol., I., ii.65TheHippias Minor.66Diog. L., IX., viii., 54.67Diog. L., IX., viii., 51.68Plato,Protagoras, 327; Jowett’s Transl., vol. I., p. 140. On the superior morality which accompanies advancing civilisation, as evinced by the great increase of mutual trust, see Maine’sAncient Law, pp. 306-7.69This point is noticed by Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., II., 22.70This phase of Greek life is well illustrated by the addresses of Theognis to Cyrnus.71Eristicism had also points of contact with the philosophies of Parmenides and Socrates which will be indicated in a future chapter.72Ph. d. Gr., I., 903 (3rd ed.).73See Plato’sMeno,sub. in.74Lord Beaconsfield recently [written in February 1880] spoke of the Balkans as forming an ‘intelligible’ frontier for Turkey. Continental telegrams substituted ‘natural frontier.’ The change was characteristic and significant.75Aristoph.,Pax, 697.76‘As Mr. Grote remarks, there is no reason to suspect any greater moral corruption in the age of Demosthenes than in the age of Pericles.’ (The Dialogues of Plato, vol. IV., p. 380.) We do not remember that Grote commits himself to such a sweeping statement, nor was it necessary for his purpose to do so. No one would have been more surprised than Demosthenes himself to hear that the Athenians of his generation equalled the contemporaries of Pericles in public virtue. (Cf. Grote’sPlato, II., 148.)77Geschichte der Entwickelung der Griechischen Philosophie, I., p. 204.78Philosophie d. Gr., I., p. 943 (3rd ed.).79The invention of memoir-writing is claimed by Prof. Mahaffy (Hist. Gr. Lit., II., 42) for Ion of Chios and his contemporary Stesimbrotus. But—apart from their questionable authenticity—the sketches attributed to these two writers do not seem to have aimed at presenting a complete picture of a single individual, which is what was attempted with considerable success in Xenophon’sMemorabilia.80Cf. Havet,Le Christianisme et ses Origines, I., 167.81Gesch. d. Phil., II., 47.82The oracle quoted in theApologia Socratisattributed to Xenophon praises Socrates not for wisdom but for independence, justice, and temperance. Moreover, the work in question is held to be spurious by nearly every critic.83Mem., IV., vi., 1.84Mem., IV., iv., 10.85Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., II., a, 103, note 3sub fin.86It may possibly be asked, Why, if Plato gave only an ideal picture of Socrates, are we to accept his versions of the Sophistic teaching as literally exact? The answer is that he was compelled, by the nature of the case, to create an imaginary Socrates, while he could have no conceivable object in ascribing views which he did not himself hold to well-known historical personages. Assuming an unlimited right of making fictitious statements for the public good, his principles would surely not have permitted him wantonly to calumniate his innocent contemporaries by foisting on them odious theories for which they were not responsible. Had nobody held such opinions as those attributed to Thrasymachus in theRepublicthere would have been no object in attacking them; and if anybody held them, why not Thrasymachus as well as another? With regard to the veracity of theApologia, Grote, in his work on Plato (I. 291), quotes a passage from Aristeides the rhetor, stating that all the companions of Socrates agreed about the Delphic oracle, and the Socratic disclaimer of knowledge. This, however, proves too much, for it shows that Aristeides quite overlooked the absence of any reference to either point in Xenophon, and therefore cannot be trusted to give an accurate report of the other authorities.87Ph. d. Gr., II., a, 93 ff.88In the conversation with Hippias already referred to.89Mem., III., ix., 4.90Mem., III., vi.91Mem., IV., ii.92Mem., IV., iii.93Mem., III., ix., 10.94Mem., IV., vi., 14.95Xenophon,Mem., III., vii. We may incidentally notice that this passage is well worth the attention of those who look on the Athenian Dêmos as an idle and aristocratic body, supported by slave labour.96Metaph., XIII., iv.97Mem., I., iv.98‘Il sait que, dans l’intérêt même du bien, il ne faut pas imposer le bien d’une manière trop absolue, le jeu libre de la liberté étant la condition de la vie humaine.... poursuite en toutes choses du bien public, non des applaudissements.’—Renan,Marc-Aurèle, pp. 18, 19.99Il., IX., 337.100Ib., XXI., 106.101In the preface to theData of Ethics.102Mem., III., x.103Curtius,Griechische Geschichte, III., 526-30 (3rd ed.), where, however, the revolution in art is attributed to the influence of the Sophists.104Xenoph.,Oeconom., iii., 12.105Mure,History of Grecian Literature, IV., 451.106Mem., III., xi.107Oeconom., vii., 4 ff.108Mem., II., i.109Gesch. d. Ph., II., 100 ff.110Written in the spring of 1880. The allusion is to Father Didon, who was at that time rusticated in Corsica.111Ph. d. Gr., II., a, 192.112In theApologia, attributed to Xenophon.113Hist. of Gr. Lit., IV., App. A.114The Dialogues of Plato translated into English.By B. Jowett, M. A. 2nd ed., 1875. Zeller,Die Philosophie der Griechen. Zweiter Theil, erste Abtheilung.Plato und die alte Academie, 3rd ed., 1875.115Krohn,Der Platonische Staat, Halle 1876. [I know this work only through Chiapelli,Della Interpretazione panteistica di Platone, Florence, 1881.]116III., 418.117Phaedr., p. 274 B ff.118See Zeller’s note on the θεία μοῖρα,op. cit.p. 497.119TheCharmides,Laches,Euthyphro, andLysis.120P. 49, A ff. Zeller, 142.121Charmides, 161 E;Lysis, 212 C.122Pensieri, lxxxiv and lxxxv.123Repub., 586, A. Jowett, III, p. 481.124Zeller,op. cit., 777-8.125Repub., VIII. and IX.126Xenophon,Mem., III., v., 18.127Gorgias, 515, C., ff. Jowett, II., 396-400.128Theaetêtus, 173, A. Jowett, IV., 322.129The lecture on Plato inRepresentative Man.130Legg.819, D. Jowett, V., 390.131Theaet., 144. Jowett’s Transl.132This expression is borrowed from Prof. Bain. See the chapter on Association by Resemblance inThe Senses and the Intellect.133Legg.716, C.134See the chapter on the Metaphysics of Sexual Love in Schopenhauer’sWelt als Wille und Vorstellung.135Cf. for the whole following passage Havet,Le Christianisme et ses Origines, I., 286-8. It was, however, written before the author had become acquainted with M. Havet’s work.136In order to avoid misconception it may be as well to mention that the above remarks apply only to mystical passion assuming the form of religion; they have nothing to do with intellectual and moral convictions.137Phaedr., 266, B. Jowett, II., 144. According to Teichmüller (Literarische Fehden im vierten Jahrhundert vor Chr., p. 135)—the god here spoken of is no other than Plato himself. Even granting the pantheistic interpretation of Platonism to be true, this seems a somewhat strained application of it.138Adapting Plato’s formula to modern ideas we might say: A literary education: knowledge of the world: mathematics: physical science.139Phaedo, 69, A. Jowett, I., 442.140Repub., I., 348, B ff.; Zeller,op. cit., 507-8.141See especially the argument with Callicles in theGorgias.142Repub., II., 379, A; 380, D.143Zeller, 678-8.144‘Un monde qui est l’injustice même.’—Ernest Renan,L’Église Chrétienne, p. 139.145Cf.Lysis, 210, E. Jowett, I., 54.146Meno, 71, E. Jowett, I., 270.147Gesch. d. Ph., II., 272.148Op. cit., p. 777.149Timaeus, 24, A. Jowett, III., 608.150Cf. the excellent remarks of Teichmüller,Lit. Fehden, p. 107.151Repub., V., 471, D.152He mentions as one of the worst effects of a democracy that it made them assume airs of equality with men.Repub., 563, B.; cf. 569, E.Timaeus, 90, E. It is to be feared that Plato regarded woman as the missing link.153In hisVorträge und Abhandlungen, first series, p. 68.154Legg., 739, B. Jowett, V., 311.155[Since the above was first published, Teichmüller has brought forward new arguments to prove that it was Plato’s scheme of Communism which Aristophanes intended to satirise (Lit. Fehden, pp. 14, ff.); but I do not think that even the first half of theRepubliccould possibly have been composed at such an early date as that assigned to it by this learned and ingenious critic.]156[Here, also, the recent arguments of Teichmüller (Lit. Fehden, p. 51) deserve attention, but they have failed to convince me that an earlier date should be assigned to theEuthydêmus.]157We may even say that they are reduced to two; for Existence is a product of Sameness and Difference.158Gesch. d. Ph., II., 175.159In the work already referred to, Teichmüller advances the startling theory that Aristotle’sNicomachean Ethicswas published before the completion of theLaws, and that Plato took the opportunity thus offered him for replying to the criticisms of his former pupil. (Lit. Fehden, pp. 194-226).160Legg., 887-8. Jowett, V., 456.161Aristotelis Opera.Edidit Academia Regia Borussica. Berlin. 1831-70.162Die Philosophie der Griechen.Zweiter Theil, Zweite Abtheilung:Aristoteles u. d. alten Peripatetiker. By Dr. Eduard Zeller. Leipzig. 1879.163Aristoteles.By Christian Aug. Brandis. Berlin. 1853-57.164Aristotle.By Sir Alexander Grant, Bart., LL.D. Edinburgh and London. 1877.165Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle.Compiled by Edwin Wallace, M.A. Oxford and London. 1880.166De la Métaphysique: Introduction à la Métaphysique d’ Aristote.By Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire. Paris. 1879.167Wallace’sOutlines, preface, pp. vi-viii.168As will be shown in the next chapter.169Outlines, pp. 29 and 38.170Zeller,op. cit., p. 513.171Ibid., p. 407.172Written before the appearance of Teichmüller’sLit. Fehden(already referred to in the preceding chapter).173Zeller’s opinion that all the Platonic Dialogues except theLawswere composed before Aristotle’s arrival in Athens, does not seem to be supported by any satisfactory evidence. [Since the above was first published I have found that a similar view of theParmenideshad already been maintained by Tocco (Ricerche Platoniche, p. 105); and afterwards, but independently, by Teichmüller (Neue Studien, III. 363). See Chiapelli,Della Interpretazione panteistica di Platone, p. 152.]174Teichmüller infers, from certain expressions in thePanathenaicusof Isocrates, that Aristotle had returned from Mitylênê to Athens and resumed his former position as a teacher of rhetoric when the summons to Pella reached him. (Lit. Fehden, 261.)175Gesch. d. Phil., II., 302.176Zeller,op. cit., p. 25.177Cf. Teichmüller,Lit. Fehden, 192.178Zeller, p. 38.179Ritter and Preller,Hist. Ph., p. 329.180Zeller, p. 41,note2.181Diog. L., V., 17-21.182Grant’sAristotle, p. 7.183We think, however, that Mr. Edwin Wallace has overstated the case, when he makes Aristotle say that ‘democracy is not unlikely with the spread of population to become the ultimate form of government; and may be anticipated without dread by considering that thecollectivevoice of a people is as likely to be sound in state administration as in criticisms on art,’ pp. 57-8. In the first place, the expressions of opinion which are brought together in Mr. Wallace’s summary are separated in the original text by a considerable interval—an important circumstance when we are dealing with so inconsistent a writer; then what Aristotle says about the collective wisdom of the people, besides being advanced with extreme hesitation, is not a reassurance against any danger to be dreaded from their supremacy, but an answer to the argument that the few had a natural right to political power from their greater wealth and better education; the whole question being, in this connexion, one of political justice, not of political expediency; finally, not only is ‘ultimate form of government’ a very strong rendering of the Greek words, but what Aristotle says on the subject in his third book is virtually retracted in the fifth, where oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny are regarded as succeeding each other in any order indifferently, and Plato (or the Platonic Socrates) is censured for assuming a constant sequence of revolutions. The explanation of this change seems to be that when Aristotle wrote his third book he was only acquainted with the history of Athens and a few other of the greater states, but that subsequently a vast collection of facts bearing on the subject came to his knowledge, showing that each form of government embraced more varieties and admitted of more mutations than he had been originally aware of; and this led to a complete recast of his opinions.184Many of the topics noted are not only trite enough, but have no possible bearing on the subject under which they stand. For instance, in discussing judicial eloquence Aristotle goes into the motives for committing crime; among these are pleasurable feelings of every kind, including the remembrance of past trouble. Even the hero of a spasmodic tragedy would hardly have committed an offence for the purpose of procuring himself this form of experience.185Poet., xv., p. 1454, a, 20.[186]Μάτην ἄρ’ εἰς γυναῖκας ἐξ ἀνδρῶν ψόγοςΨάλλει κενὸν τόξευμα καὶ κακῶς λέγει.αἱ δ’ εἴς’ ἀμείνους ἀρσένων, ἐγω λέγω.Euripides,Frag.512. (Didot.)187Poet., xiii., p. 1453, a, 8.188Pol., VIII., vii., p. 1342, a, 10.189Zeller, p. 780.190As an illustration of the stimulating effect produced by the study of Aristotle’s logic, we quote the following anecdote from the notes to Whately’s edition of Bacon’sEssays:—‘The late Sir Alexander Johnstone, when acting as temporary Governor of Ceylon (soon after its cession), sat once as judge in a trial of a prisoner for a robbery and murder; and the evidence seemed to him so conclusive, that he was about to charge the jury (who were native Cingalese) to find a verdict of guilty. But one of the jurors asked and obtained permission to examine the witnesses himself. He had them brought in one by one, and cross-examined them so ably as to elicit the fact that they werethemselvesthe perpetrators of the crime, which they afterwards had conspired to impute to the prisoner. And they were accordingly put on their trial and convicted. Sir Alexander Johnstone was greatly struck by the intelligence displayed by this juror, the more so as he was only a small farmer, who was not known to have had any remarkable advantages of education. He sent for him, and after commending the wonderful sagacity he had shown, inquired eagerly what his studies had been. The man replied that he had never read but one book, the only one he possessed, which had long been in his family, and which he delighted to study in his leisure hours. This book he was prevailed on to show to Sir Alexander Johnstone, who put it into the hands of one who knew the Cingalese language. It turned out to be a translation into that language of a large portion of Aristotle’sOrganon. It appears that the Portuguese, when they first settled in Ceylon and other parts of the East, translated into the native languages several of the works then studied in the European Universities, among which were the Latin versions of Aristotle. The Cingalese in question said that if his understanding had been in any degree cultivated and improved, it was to that book that he owed it. It is likely, however (as was observed to me [Whately] by the late Bishop Copleston), that any other book, containing an equal amount of close reasoning and accurate definition, might have answered the same purpose in sharpening the intellect of the Cingalese.’ Possibly, but not to the same effect. What the Cingalese got into his hands was a triple-distilled essence of Athenian legal procedure. The cross-examining elenchus was first borrowed by Socrates from the Athenian courts and applied to philosophical purposes; it was still further elaborated by Plato, and finally reduced to abstract rules by Aristotle; so that in using it as he did the juror was only restoring it to its original purposes.191Metaph., XII., vii., p. 1072, b, 13.192Eth. Nic., X., vii. (somewhat condensed).193It is perfectly possible that Aristotle was not acquainted at first hand with human anatomy. But Sir A. Grant is hardly justified in observing that the words quoted above ‘do not show the hardihood of the practised dissecter’ (Aristotle, p 3). Aristotle simply takes the popular point of view in order to prove that the internal structure of the lower animals is no more offensive to the eye than that of man. And, as he took so much delight in the former, nothing but want of opportunity is likely to have prevented him from extending his researches to the latter.194De Part. An., I. v.195Compare the arguments inPhys., IV., ix.196The hypothesis of the earth’s diurnal rotation had clearly been suggested by a celebrated passage in Plato’sTimaeus, though whether Plato himself held it is still doubtful. That he accepted the revolution of the celestial spheres is absolutely certain; but while to our minds the two beliefs are mutually exclusive, Grote thinks that Plato overlooked the inconsistency. It seems probable that the one was at first actually a generalisation from the other; it was thought that the earth must revolvebecausethe crystal spheres revolved; then the new doctrine, thus accidentally struck out, was used to destroy the old one.197De Coel., II., viii., 290, a, 26.198Zeller, p. 469.199De Sens., vi., 446, a, 26.200De Coel., I., viii., 277, b, 2.201De Respir., i. and ii.202De Gen. An., I., xvii.203Outlines, p. 30.204There is a passage in thePolitics(I., ii.,sub. in.) in which Aristotle distinctly inculcates the method of studying things by observing how they are first produced, and how they grow; but this is quite inconsistent with the more deliberate opinion referred to in the text (De Part. An., I., i., p. 640, a, 10). Perhaps, in writing the first book of thePoliticshe was more immediately under the influence of Plato, who preferred the old genetic method in practice, though not in theory.205Meteor., II., iii., 357, a, 15 ff.206Hist. An., IX., xxxix.,sub fin.207De Part. An., III., iv.,sub in.208This characterisation applies neither to theAntigonenor to theOedipus in Colônus, the first and the last extant dramas of Sophocles. The reason is that the one is still half Aeschylean, and the other distinctly an imitation of Euripides.209Cf. the memorable declaration of Mr. F. Pollock: ‘To me it amounts to a contradiction in terms to speak of unknowable existence or unknowable reality in an absolute sense. I cannot tell what existence means if not the possibility of being known or perceived.’—Spinoza, p. 163.210Aristoteles von d. Zeugung u. Entwickelung d. Thiere.Aubert u. Wimmer, Einleitung, p. 15.211De Gen. An., II., iii., 736, b, 1.212Ibid., I., xviii., 725, b, 25.213De Respir., 477, a, 18.214De Part. An., I., vii.,sub. in.215Ibid., II., x., 656, a, 4.216Ibid., IV., vi., 683, a, 25.217Ibid., II., i.218Ibid., IV., v., 682, a, 8;De Long., vi., 467, a, 18;De Ingr. An., vii., 707, a, 24.219De Part. An., II., ix., 664, b, 11; Zeller, p. 522.220Hist. An., VIII., i.,sub in.221Zeller, p. 553.222Phys., II., viii., p. 198, b, 24.223The late Father Secchi, for example.224Phys., II., iv., p. 196, a, 28;De Coel., II., xii.225Phys., II., viii., p. 199, b, 14.226Metaph., I., iii.,sub in.;Anal. Post., II., xi.,sub in.Bekker. (cap. x., in the Tauchnitz ed.);Phys.II., iii.;De Gen. An., I., i.sub in.227Metaph., VIII., iv., p. 1044, b, 1;De Gen. An., I., i., p, 715, a, 6;ib.II., i., 732, a, 4;Phys., II., vii., p. 198, a, 24 ff.228Phys., II., iii., p. 195, a, 32 ff.;Metaph., IX., viii., p. 1049, b, 24.229That is, according to the traditional view, which, however, will have to be considerably modified if we accept the conclusions embodied in Teichmüller’sLiterarische Fehden.230Parmen., 130, A ff.;Tim., 28, A.231As we may infer from a passage in theRhetoric(II., ii., p. 1379, a, 35), where partisans of the Idea are said to be exasperated by any slight thrown on their favourite doctrine.232Repeated in theMetaphysics, I., ix., p. 993, a, 1.233This may seem inconsistent with our former assertion, that Hegel holds in German philosophy a place analogous to that held by Aristotle in Greek philosophy. Such analogies, however, are always more or less incomplete; and, so far as he attributes a self-moving power to ideas, Hegel is a Platonist rather than an Aristotelian. Similarly, as an evolutionist, Mr. Herbert Spencer stands much nearer to early Greek thought than to Aristotle, whom, in other respects, he so much resembles.234Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., II., b, 297 f.235Metaph.IV., iii. and viii.236Ibid.VI., ii., p. 1026, b, 21.237Metaph., VI., iv., p. 1027, b, 29.238Ibid., VI., iv.239Ibid., VI., ii.,sub in.; VII., i.,sub in.;Topic., I., ix.240These are τί, ποιόν, ποσόν, ποῦ, ποτέ, and πῶς. Τί is associated with πρός in the question πρὸς τί, which has no simple English equivalent. Apparently it was suggested to Aristotle by ποσόν, how much? in connexion with which it means, in relation to what standard? If we were told that a thing was double, we should ask, double what? Again, the Greeks had a simply compound question, τί παθών, meaning, what was the matter with him? or, what made him do it? From this Aristotle extracted πάσχειν, a wider notion than our passion, meaning whatever is done or happens to anything; which again would suggest ποιεῖν, what it does. Finally, πῶς, taken alone, is too vague a question for any answer, but must be taken in its simplest compounds πῶς διακείμενον and πῶς ἔχον, which give the two rarely-occurring categories ἔχειν and κεῖσθαι, for which it is on one occasion substituted (Soph. El., xxii., p. 178, b, 39). Διὰ τί does not figure among the categories, because it is reserved for the special analysis of οὐσία.241As Grote has shown in his chapter on the Categories.242Eth. Nic., I., iv., p. 1096, a, 24, where six are enumerated.243Metaph., VII.passim.244Metaph., VII., vi., p. 1031, b, 18 ff.245Zeller,Phil. d. Gr., II., b, 309.246For the general theory of Actuality and Possibility, seeMetaph., VIII.247Grant’sAristotle, p. 176.248Metaph., XII., viii., p. 1074, a, 36.249Grant’sAristotle, p. 176.250‘The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural, whether in natural or revealed religion, is that of scepticism, as distinguished from belief on the one hand and atheism on the other.’—Mill’sEssays on Religion, p. 242.251Grant’sAristotle, p. 177.252τὸ δ’ εἶναι οὐκ οὐσία οὐδενί· οὐ γὰρ γένος τὸ ὄν.—An. Post., II., vii., p. 92, b, 13.253Metaph., XIII., x.254‘Non pensar oltre lei [la terra] essere un corpo senza alma e vita et anche feccia tra le sustanze corporali.’ Giordano Bruno,Cena de le Ceneri, p. 130 (Opere, ed. Wagner). ‘Non dovete stimar ... che il corpo terreno sia vile e più degli altri ignobile.’—De l’Infinito Universo e Mondi, p. 54 (ib.).255This conjecture of Empedocles deserves more attention than it has as yet received. It illustrates once more the superior insight of the early thinkers as compared with Aristotle.256De Coelo, II., 1.257Lewes, quoted by Zeller, p. 524.258So Trendelenburg, Brandis, Kampe, and apparently also Zeller. Grote speaks of it rather vaguely as an intelligence pervading the celestial sphere. Schwegler vacillates between the theological and the psychological explanation.259The last chapter of thePosterior Analyticssets forth a much more developed and definite theory of the process by which general ideas are formed. We think that it was composed at a considerably later date than the rest of the work, and probably after the treatise on the Soul, to which we should almost suspect an allusion in the word πάλαι (p. 100, a, 14), did philology permit. The reference can hardly be to the first part of the chapter (as is generally supposed); nor has the subject under discussion been touched on in any other part of theAnalytics.260Grote and Kampe think that Aristotle assigns a portion of aether as an extended, if not precisely a material, substratum to the rational soul; but the arguments of Zeller (p. 569) seem decisive against this view.261De Gen. An., II., iii., p. 736, b, 15.262Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle, p. 45.263The word θεῖον, at any rate, does not mean ‘almost God,’ for Aristotle applies it to the intelligence of bees, and also to the heavenly bodies (De Gen. An., III., x., p. 761, a, 5;De Coelo, II., xii., p. 292, b, 32).264Principal Caird.265Outlines, Preface, p. viii.266Metaph., VII., xiii., p. 1039, a, 4.267De An., III., ii., p. 426, a, 20; 425, b, 25 ff. What Aristotle means by saying that the εἶναι of object and sensation is not the same, appears from a passage in his tract on Memory (p. 450, b, 20), where he employs the illustration of a portrait and its original, which are the same, although their εἶναι is different.268Metaph., IV., v.,sub fin.269De An., III., iv.,sub fin.270De An., II., ii., p. 414, a, 20.271De An., III., i., p. 425, a, 13.272See Zeller pp. 602-606, where the whole subject is thoroughly discussed.273Anal. Pr., I., i.,sub in.; ii.,sub in.;Top., I., viii., Bekker (in the Tauchnitz ed., vi.).274Anal. Pr., I., xxiii., 41, a, 11 (in the Tauchnitz ed., xxii., 8).275This point is well brought out in F. A. Lange’sLogische Untersuchungen.276Anal. Pr., I., xxxi.;Anal. Post., II., v.277Metaph., IV., iii.,sub in.278Anal. Post., I., x.279‘Die Wissenschaft soll die Erscheinungen aus ihren Gründen erklären, welche näher in den allgemeinen Ursachen und Gesetzen zu suchen sind’ (Zeller, p. 203). ‘Induction is the method of proceeding from particular instances to general laws’ (Wallace, p. 13). ‘It seems to have been his [Aristotle’s] idea that after gathering facts up to a certain point, a flash of intuition would supervene, telling us “This is a law”’ (Grant, p. 68).Aproposof the discussion whence this last passage is extracted, we may observe that Sir A. Grant is quite mistaken in saying that Aristotle ‘omits to provide for verification.’ Aristotle is, on the contrary, most anxious to show that his theories agree with all the known facts. See in particular his memorable declaration (De Gen. An., III., x., p. 760, b, 27), that facts are more to be trusted than reasonings.The emphasis laid by Aristotle on concepts as distinguished from laws is noticed by J. H. v. Kirchmann, in his German translation of theMetaphysics, p. 13.280De An., III., vi.,sub in., taken together withAnal. Post., I., vi.281Anal. Post., I., xxxiv.; II., ii.282Anal. Post., II., xii., p. 95, a, 36.283Wallace’sOutlines, p. 14.284Ibid., Preface, pp. viii.-ix.285As if Mill wrote exclusively for Oxford tutors, and as if other philosophers had not constantly elucidated their arguments by concrete examples. One does not see why the village matron should be more deserving of contempt than Aristotle’s Thebans and Phocians.286That is, knowledge which has never been actualised.287It is a mistake to translate νόησις, as the Germans do, by Anschauung. The Nous does not intuite ideas, but is converted into and consists of them.288For Analogy, seeTop., II., x.,sub in.; Disjunction, II., vi.,sub in.; Hypothetical Reasoning, II., x., p. 115, a, 15; Method of Differences, II., xi.,sub in.; Method of Residues, VI., xi.,sub in.; Concomitant Variations, II., x., p. 114, b, 37; V., viii.,sub in.; VI., vii.,sub in.The Method of Agreement occursAn. Prior., II., xxvii.,sub fin.; andAn. Post., II., xiii., p. 97, b, 7.289It may possibly be urged that the fifth book of theNicomachean Ethicsis of doubtful authenticity. Still the dilemma remains that Aristotle either omitted the most important of all moral questions from his ethics, or that he treated it in a miserably inadequate manner.290Eth. Nic., V., iii.;Rhet., I., vi., p. 1362, b, 28; ix., p. 1366, b, 4.291P. 753.

1Die Philosophie der Griechen, III., a, pp. 5 f.

2If I remember rightly, Polybius makes the same observation, but I cannot recall the exact reference.

3Sophist, 243, A.

4See especially the interesting note on the subject in his recent work,Die wirkliche und die scheinbare Welt, Vorrede, pp x. ff.

5Plato,Rep.IV., 435,E; Aristotle,Pol.VII., 1327, b., 29.

6Nem.III. 40-42. (Donaldson.)

7Nem.VI.sub in.

8The word differentiation (ἑτεροίωσις) seems to have been first used by Diogenes Apolloniates. Simpl.Phys.fol. 326 ff., quoted by Ritter and Preller,Hist. Phil., p. 126 (6th ed.)

9Ritter and Preller, p. 112.

10Ritter and Preller p. 8.

11Die Philosophie der Griechen, I. p. 401 (3rd ed.)

12Ritter and Preller, p. 54.

13Ritter and Preller, p. 54.

14Ib.

15Metaph.I. v.

16Ritter and Preller, p. 63.

17Op. cit.p. 475.

18The tendency which it has been attempted to characterise as a fundamental moment of Greek thought can only be called analytical in default of a better word. It is a process by which two related terms are at once parted and joined together by the insertion of one or more intermediary links; as, for instance, when a capital is inserted between column and architrave, or when a proposition is demonstrated by the interposition of a middle term between its subject and predicate. The German words Vermitteln and Vermittelung express what is meant with sufficient exactitude. They play a great part in Hegel’s philosophy, and it will be remembered that Hegel was the most Hellenic of modern thinkers. So understood, there will cease to be any contradiction between the Eleates and Greek thought generally, at least from one point of view, as their object was to fill up the vacant spaces supposed to separate one mode of existence from another.

19Ritter and Preller, p. 62.

20For the originals of this and the succeeding quotations from Heracleitus, see Ritter and Preller, pp. 14-23.

21Τῇ μὲν ἡλικίᾳ πρότερος ὢν, τοῖς δ’ ἔργοις ὕστερος.Metaph.I. iii.

22Ritter and Preller, p. 90.

23Prantl,Aristoteles’ Physik, p. 484.

24Ritter and Preller, p. 11.

25Since the above remarks were first published, Mr. Wallace, in his work on Epicureanism, has stated that, according to Epicurus, ‘the very animals which are found upon the earth have been made what they are by slow processes of selection and adaptation through the experience of life;’ and he proceeds to call the theory in question, ‘ultra-Darwinian’ (Epicureanism, p. 114). Lucretius—the authority quoted—says nothing about ‘slow processes of adaptation,’ nor yet does he say that the animals were ‘made what they are’ by ‘selection,’ but by the procreative power of the earth herself. Picking out a ready-made pair of boots from among a number which do not fit is a very different process from manufacturing the same pair by measure, or wearing it into shape. To call the Empedoclean theory ultra-Darwinian, is like calling the Democritean or Epicurean theory of gravitation ultra-Newtonian. And Mr. Wallace seems to admit as much, when he proceeds to say on the very same page, ‘Of course in this there is no implication of the peculiarly Darwinian doctrine of descent or development of kind from kind with structure modified and complicated to meet changing circumstances.’ (By the way, this isnota peculiarly Darwinian doctrine, for it originated with Lamarck, spontaneous variation and selection being the additions made by the English naturalists). But what becomes then of the ‘slow processes of adaptation’ and the ‘ultra-Darwinian theory’ spoken of just before?

26By a curious coincidence, the atomic constitution of matter still finds its strongest proof in optical phenomena. Light is propagated by transverse waves, and such waves are only possible in a discontinuous medium. But if the luminiferous ether is composed of discrete particles, so also must be the matter which it penetrates in all directions.

27Ar.De Gen. et Corr., I., viii., 325, b, 5.

28Eurip.Frag. Incert. Fab., CXXXVI. Didot, p. 850. [I am indebted for this version to Miss A. M. F. Robinson, the translator of theCrowned Hippolytus.]

29Curtius,Griechische Geschichte, 342-5 (3rd ed.).

30Zeller,op. cit., p. 791.

31Ar.De Coelo, III., iii., 302, a, 28.

32M. Antoninus, XII., 28.

33Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., III., b, p. 669.

34Even regulating the calendar by the sun instead of by the moon seems to have been regarded as a dangerous and impious innovation by the more conservative Athenians—at least judging from the half-serious pleasantry of Aristophanes,Nub., 608-26. (Dindorf.)

35σύμβολον δ’ οὔ πώ τις ἐπιχθονίων πιστὸν ἀμφὶ πράξιος ἐσσομένας εὗρεν θεόθεν.—Ol., XII., 8-9.

36Frag., 102.

37Griechische Geschichte, ii., 112-3 (3rd ed.).

38Aristophanes,Vesp., 1176.

39Herod., VII., 204; IX., 64.

40Agam., 750-71.

41Ib., 311.

42Ol., XIII., 17 (Donaldson).

43‘Thou shalt not take that which is mine, and may I do to others as I would that they should do to me’ (Plato,Legg., 913, A. Jowett’s Transl., vol. V., p. 483). Isocrates makes a king addressing his governors say: ‘You should be to others what you think I should be to you’ (Nicocles, 49). And again: ‘Do not to others what it makes you angry to suffer yourselves’ (Ibid., 61). A similar observation is attributed to Thales, doubtless by an anachronism (Diogenes Laertius, I., i., 36).

44We gladly avail ourselves of the masterly translation given by Prof. Jebb. The whole of this splendid passage will be found in hisAttic Orators, vol. II., pp. 78-79.

45Symposium, 211, C; Jowett’s Transl., vol. II.

46Aesch.,Sep. con. Theb., 592.

47Legg., 727, E; Jowett’s Transl., V, 299.

48See Plato’sCharmides; and Euripides’Medea, 635 (Dindorf).

49Pindar uses καιρός and μέτρον as synonymous terms.

50Opp. et D., 271.

51Hom.Il., IV., 160, 235; VII., 76, 411; XVI., 386. Hes.,Opp. et D., 265. These references are copied from Welcker,Griechische Götterlehre, I., p. 178, q. v.

52See Maine’sAncient Law, chap. X.,The Early History of Delict and Crime.

53Preller,Griechische Mythologie, I., p. 523 (3rd ed.), with which cf. Welcker,op. cit., I., 234; and Mr. Walter Pater’sDemeter and Persephone, andA Study of Dionysus, in theFortnightly Reviewfor Jan., Feb., and Dec. 1876. From their popular character, the country gods were favoured by the despots (Curtius,Gr. Gesch., I., p. 338).

54Cf. Wordsworth—‘Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong,And the most ancient heavens through thee are fresh and strong.’Ode to Duty.

54Cf. Wordsworth—

‘Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong,And the most ancient heavens through thee are fresh and strong.’Ode to Duty.

‘Thou dost preserve the stars from wrong,

And the most ancient heavens through thee are fresh and strong.’

Ode to Duty.

55Pindar,Olymp., II., 57 ff.; andFragm., 1-4 (Donaldson).

56Sep. con. Theb., 662-71.

57Phoenissae, 503-23.

[58]Οὐ γὰρ ἄλλῳ γ’ ὑπακούσαιμεν τῶν νῦν μετεωροσοφιστῶνπλὴν η Προδίκῳ, τῷ μὲν σοφίας καὶ γνώμης οὕνεκα κ.τ.λ.—Nub., 361-2. Cf.Av., 692.

[58]

Οὐ γὰρ ἄλλῳ γ’ ὑπακούσαιμεν τῶν νῦν μετεωροσοφιστῶνπλὴν η Προδίκῳ, τῷ μὲν σοφίας καὶ γνώμης οὕνεκα κ.τ.λ.—Nub., 361-2. Cf.Av., 692.

Οὐ γὰρ ἄλλῳ γ’ ὑπακούσαιμεν τῶν νῦν μετεωροσοφιστῶν

πλὴν η Προδίκῳ, τῷ μὲν σοφίας καὶ γνώμης οὕνεκα κ.τ.λ.—

Nub., 361-2. Cf.Av., 692.

59Plato,Protagoras, 337, D; Jowett’s Transl., vol. I., p. 152.

60Nem., VI.,sub. in.

61Prom., 518.

62Phoenissae, 536-47. There is a delicious parody of this method in theClouds. A creditor asks Strepsiades, who has been taking lessons in philosophy, to pay him the interest on a loan. Strepsiades begs to know whether the sea is any fuller now than it used to be. ‘No,’ replies the other, ‘for it would not be just,’ (οὐ γὰρ δίκαιον πλείον εἶναι). ‘Then, you wretch,’ rejoins his debtor, ‘do you suppose that the sea is not to get any fuller although all the rivers are flowing into it, and that your money is to go on increasing?’ (1290-95.)

63Xenophon,Memor., IV., iv., 19.

64Pol., I., ii.

65TheHippias Minor.

66Diog. L., IX., viii., 54.

67Diog. L., IX., viii., 51.

68Plato,Protagoras, 327; Jowett’s Transl., vol. I., p. 140. On the superior morality which accompanies advancing civilisation, as evinced by the great increase of mutual trust, see Maine’sAncient Law, pp. 306-7.

69This point is noticed by Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., II., 22.

70This phase of Greek life is well illustrated by the addresses of Theognis to Cyrnus.

71Eristicism had also points of contact with the philosophies of Parmenides and Socrates which will be indicated in a future chapter.

72Ph. d. Gr., I., 903 (3rd ed.).

73See Plato’sMeno,sub. in.

74Lord Beaconsfield recently [written in February 1880] spoke of the Balkans as forming an ‘intelligible’ frontier for Turkey. Continental telegrams substituted ‘natural frontier.’ The change was characteristic and significant.

75Aristoph.,Pax, 697.

76‘As Mr. Grote remarks, there is no reason to suspect any greater moral corruption in the age of Demosthenes than in the age of Pericles.’ (The Dialogues of Plato, vol. IV., p. 380.) We do not remember that Grote commits himself to such a sweeping statement, nor was it necessary for his purpose to do so. No one would have been more surprised than Demosthenes himself to hear that the Athenians of his generation equalled the contemporaries of Pericles in public virtue. (Cf. Grote’sPlato, II., 148.)

77Geschichte der Entwickelung der Griechischen Philosophie, I., p. 204.

78Philosophie d. Gr., I., p. 943 (3rd ed.).

79The invention of memoir-writing is claimed by Prof. Mahaffy (Hist. Gr. Lit., II., 42) for Ion of Chios and his contemporary Stesimbrotus. But—apart from their questionable authenticity—the sketches attributed to these two writers do not seem to have aimed at presenting a complete picture of a single individual, which is what was attempted with considerable success in Xenophon’sMemorabilia.

80Cf. Havet,Le Christianisme et ses Origines, I., 167.

81Gesch. d. Phil., II., 47.

82The oracle quoted in theApologia Socratisattributed to Xenophon praises Socrates not for wisdom but for independence, justice, and temperance. Moreover, the work in question is held to be spurious by nearly every critic.

83Mem., IV., vi., 1.

84Mem., IV., iv., 10.

85Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., II., a, 103, note 3sub fin.

86It may possibly be asked, Why, if Plato gave only an ideal picture of Socrates, are we to accept his versions of the Sophistic teaching as literally exact? The answer is that he was compelled, by the nature of the case, to create an imaginary Socrates, while he could have no conceivable object in ascribing views which he did not himself hold to well-known historical personages. Assuming an unlimited right of making fictitious statements for the public good, his principles would surely not have permitted him wantonly to calumniate his innocent contemporaries by foisting on them odious theories for which they were not responsible. Had nobody held such opinions as those attributed to Thrasymachus in theRepublicthere would have been no object in attacking them; and if anybody held them, why not Thrasymachus as well as another? With regard to the veracity of theApologia, Grote, in his work on Plato (I. 291), quotes a passage from Aristeides the rhetor, stating that all the companions of Socrates agreed about the Delphic oracle, and the Socratic disclaimer of knowledge. This, however, proves too much, for it shows that Aristeides quite overlooked the absence of any reference to either point in Xenophon, and therefore cannot be trusted to give an accurate report of the other authorities.

87Ph. d. Gr., II., a, 93 ff.

88In the conversation with Hippias already referred to.

89Mem., III., ix., 4.

90Mem., III., vi.

91Mem., IV., ii.

92Mem., IV., iii.

93Mem., III., ix., 10.

94Mem., IV., vi., 14.

95Xenophon,Mem., III., vii. We may incidentally notice that this passage is well worth the attention of those who look on the Athenian Dêmos as an idle and aristocratic body, supported by slave labour.

96Metaph., XIII., iv.

97Mem., I., iv.

98‘Il sait que, dans l’intérêt même du bien, il ne faut pas imposer le bien d’une manière trop absolue, le jeu libre de la liberté étant la condition de la vie humaine.... poursuite en toutes choses du bien public, non des applaudissements.’—Renan,Marc-Aurèle, pp. 18, 19.

99Il., IX., 337.

100Ib., XXI., 106.

101In the preface to theData of Ethics.

102Mem., III., x.

103Curtius,Griechische Geschichte, III., 526-30 (3rd ed.), where, however, the revolution in art is attributed to the influence of the Sophists.

104Xenoph.,Oeconom., iii., 12.

105Mure,History of Grecian Literature, IV., 451.

106Mem., III., xi.

107Oeconom., vii., 4 ff.

108Mem., II., i.

109Gesch. d. Ph., II., 100 ff.

110Written in the spring of 1880. The allusion is to Father Didon, who was at that time rusticated in Corsica.

111Ph. d. Gr., II., a, 192.

112In theApologia, attributed to Xenophon.

113Hist. of Gr. Lit., IV., App. A.

114The Dialogues of Plato translated into English.By B. Jowett, M. A. 2nd ed., 1875. Zeller,Die Philosophie der Griechen. Zweiter Theil, erste Abtheilung.Plato und die alte Academie, 3rd ed., 1875.

115Krohn,Der Platonische Staat, Halle 1876. [I know this work only through Chiapelli,Della Interpretazione panteistica di Platone, Florence, 1881.]

116III., 418.

117Phaedr., p. 274 B ff.

118See Zeller’s note on the θεία μοῖρα,op. cit.p. 497.

119TheCharmides,Laches,Euthyphro, andLysis.

120P. 49, A ff. Zeller, 142.

121Charmides, 161 E;Lysis, 212 C.

122Pensieri, lxxxiv and lxxxv.

123Repub., 586, A. Jowett, III, p. 481.

124Zeller,op. cit., 777-8.

125Repub., VIII. and IX.

126Xenophon,Mem., III., v., 18.

127Gorgias, 515, C., ff. Jowett, II., 396-400.

128Theaetêtus, 173, A. Jowett, IV., 322.

129The lecture on Plato inRepresentative Man.

130Legg.819, D. Jowett, V., 390.

131Theaet., 144. Jowett’s Transl.

132This expression is borrowed from Prof. Bain. See the chapter on Association by Resemblance inThe Senses and the Intellect.

133Legg.716, C.

134See the chapter on the Metaphysics of Sexual Love in Schopenhauer’sWelt als Wille und Vorstellung.

135Cf. for the whole following passage Havet,Le Christianisme et ses Origines, I., 286-8. It was, however, written before the author had become acquainted with M. Havet’s work.

136In order to avoid misconception it may be as well to mention that the above remarks apply only to mystical passion assuming the form of religion; they have nothing to do with intellectual and moral convictions.

137Phaedr., 266, B. Jowett, II., 144. According to Teichmüller (Literarische Fehden im vierten Jahrhundert vor Chr., p. 135)—the god here spoken of is no other than Plato himself. Even granting the pantheistic interpretation of Platonism to be true, this seems a somewhat strained application of it.

138Adapting Plato’s formula to modern ideas we might say: A literary education: knowledge of the world: mathematics: physical science.

139Phaedo, 69, A. Jowett, I., 442.

140Repub., I., 348, B ff.; Zeller,op. cit., 507-8.

141See especially the argument with Callicles in theGorgias.

142Repub., II., 379, A; 380, D.

143Zeller, 678-8.

144‘Un monde qui est l’injustice même.’—Ernest Renan,L’Église Chrétienne, p. 139.

145Cf.Lysis, 210, E. Jowett, I., 54.

146Meno, 71, E. Jowett, I., 270.

147Gesch. d. Ph., II., 272.

148Op. cit., p. 777.

149Timaeus, 24, A. Jowett, III., 608.

150Cf. the excellent remarks of Teichmüller,Lit. Fehden, p. 107.

151Repub., V., 471, D.

152He mentions as one of the worst effects of a democracy that it made them assume airs of equality with men.Repub., 563, B.; cf. 569, E.Timaeus, 90, E. It is to be feared that Plato regarded woman as the missing link.

153In hisVorträge und Abhandlungen, first series, p. 68.

154Legg., 739, B. Jowett, V., 311.

155[Since the above was first published, Teichmüller has brought forward new arguments to prove that it was Plato’s scheme of Communism which Aristophanes intended to satirise (Lit. Fehden, pp. 14, ff.); but I do not think that even the first half of theRepubliccould possibly have been composed at such an early date as that assigned to it by this learned and ingenious critic.]

156[Here, also, the recent arguments of Teichmüller (Lit. Fehden, p. 51) deserve attention, but they have failed to convince me that an earlier date should be assigned to theEuthydêmus.]

157We may even say that they are reduced to two; for Existence is a product of Sameness and Difference.

158Gesch. d. Ph., II., 175.

159In the work already referred to, Teichmüller advances the startling theory that Aristotle’sNicomachean Ethicswas published before the completion of theLaws, and that Plato took the opportunity thus offered him for replying to the criticisms of his former pupil. (Lit. Fehden, pp. 194-226).

160Legg., 887-8. Jowett, V., 456.

161Aristotelis Opera.Edidit Academia Regia Borussica. Berlin. 1831-70.

162Die Philosophie der Griechen.Zweiter Theil, Zweite Abtheilung:Aristoteles u. d. alten Peripatetiker. By Dr. Eduard Zeller. Leipzig. 1879.

163Aristoteles.By Christian Aug. Brandis. Berlin. 1853-57.

164Aristotle.By Sir Alexander Grant, Bart., LL.D. Edinburgh and London. 1877.

165Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle.Compiled by Edwin Wallace, M.A. Oxford and London. 1880.

166De la Métaphysique: Introduction à la Métaphysique d’ Aristote.By Barthélemy Saint-Hilaire. Paris. 1879.

167Wallace’sOutlines, preface, pp. vi-viii.

168As will be shown in the next chapter.

169Outlines, pp. 29 and 38.

170Zeller,op. cit., p. 513.

171Ibid., p. 407.

172Written before the appearance of Teichmüller’sLit. Fehden(already referred to in the preceding chapter).

173Zeller’s opinion that all the Platonic Dialogues except theLawswere composed before Aristotle’s arrival in Athens, does not seem to be supported by any satisfactory evidence. [Since the above was first published I have found that a similar view of theParmenideshad already been maintained by Tocco (Ricerche Platoniche, p. 105); and afterwards, but independently, by Teichmüller (Neue Studien, III. 363). See Chiapelli,Della Interpretazione panteistica di Platone, p. 152.]

174Teichmüller infers, from certain expressions in thePanathenaicusof Isocrates, that Aristotle had returned from Mitylênê to Athens and resumed his former position as a teacher of rhetoric when the summons to Pella reached him. (Lit. Fehden, 261.)

175Gesch. d. Phil., II., 302.

176Zeller,op. cit., p. 25.

177Cf. Teichmüller,Lit. Fehden, 192.

178Zeller, p. 38.

179Ritter and Preller,Hist. Ph., p. 329.

180Zeller, p. 41,note2.

181Diog. L., V., 17-21.

182Grant’sAristotle, p. 7.

183We think, however, that Mr. Edwin Wallace has overstated the case, when he makes Aristotle say that ‘democracy is not unlikely with the spread of population to become the ultimate form of government; and may be anticipated without dread by considering that thecollectivevoice of a people is as likely to be sound in state administration as in criticisms on art,’ pp. 57-8. In the first place, the expressions of opinion which are brought together in Mr. Wallace’s summary are separated in the original text by a considerable interval—an important circumstance when we are dealing with so inconsistent a writer; then what Aristotle says about the collective wisdom of the people, besides being advanced with extreme hesitation, is not a reassurance against any danger to be dreaded from their supremacy, but an answer to the argument that the few had a natural right to political power from their greater wealth and better education; the whole question being, in this connexion, one of political justice, not of political expediency; finally, not only is ‘ultimate form of government’ a very strong rendering of the Greek words, but what Aristotle says on the subject in his third book is virtually retracted in the fifth, where oligarchy, democracy, and tyranny are regarded as succeeding each other in any order indifferently, and Plato (or the Platonic Socrates) is censured for assuming a constant sequence of revolutions. The explanation of this change seems to be that when Aristotle wrote his third book he was only acquainted with the history of Athens and a few other of the greater states, but that subsequently a vast collection of facts bearing on the subject came to his knowledge, showing that each form of government embraced more varieties and admitted of more mutations than he had been originally aware of; and this led to a complete recast of his opinions.

184Many of the topics noted are not only trite enough, but have no possible bearing on the subject under which they stand. For instance, in discussing judicial eloquence Aristotle goes into the motives for committing crime; among these are pleasurable feelings of every kind, including the remembrance of past trouble. Even the hero of a spasmodic tragedy would hardly have committed an offence for the purpose of procuring himself this form of experience.

185Poet., xv., p. 1454, a, 20.

[186]Μάτην ἄρ’ εἰς γυναῖκας ἐξ ἀνδρῶν ψόγοςΨάλλει κενὸν τόξευμα καὶ κακῶς λέγει.αἱ δ’ εἴς’ ἀμείνους ἀρσένων, ἐγω λέγω.Euripides,Frag.512. (Didot.)

[186]

Μάτην ἄρ’ εἰς γυναῖκας ἐξ ἀνδρῶν ψόγοςΨάλλει κενὸν τόξευμα καὶ κακῶς λέγει.αἱ δ’ εἴς’ ἀμείνους ἀρσένων, ἐγω λέγω.Euripides,Frag.512. (Didot.)

Μάτην ἄρ’ εἰς γυναῖκας ἐξ ἀνδρῶν ψόγος

Ψάλλει κενὸν τόξευμα καὶ κακῶς λέγει.

αἱ δ’ εἴς’ ἀμείνους ἀρσένων, ἐγω λέγω.

Euripides,Frag.512. (Didot.)

187Poet., xiii., p. 1453, a, 8.

188Pol., VIII., vii., p. 1342, a, 10.

189Zeller, p. 780.

190As an illustration of the stimulating effect produced by the study of Aristotle’s logic, we quote the following anecdote from the notes to Whately’s edition of Bacon’sEssays:—‘The late Sir Alexander Johnstone, when acting as temporary Governor of Ceylon (soon after its cession), sat once as judge in a trial of a prisoner for a robbery and murder; and the evidence seemed to him so conclusive, that he was about to charge the jury (who were native Cingalese) to find a verdict of guilty. But one of the jurors asked and obtained permission to examine the witnesses himself. He had them brought in one by one, and cross-examined them so ably as to elicit the fact that they werethemselvesthe perpetrators of the crime, which they afterwards had conspired to impute to the prisoner. And they were accordingly put on their trial and convicted. Sir Alexander Johnstone was greatly struck by the intelligence displayed by this juror, the more so as he was only a small farmer, who was not known to have had any remarkable advantages of education. He sent for him, and after commending the wonderful sagacity he had shown, inquired eagerly what his studies had been. The man replied that he had never read but one book, the only one he possessed, which had long been in his family, and which he delighted to study in his leisure hours. This book he was prevailed on to show to Sir Alexander Johnstone, who put it into the hands of one who knew the Cingalese language. It turned out to be a translation into that language of a large portion of Aristotle’sOrganon. It appears that the Portuguese, when they first settled in Ceylon and other parts of the East, translated into the native languages several of the works then studied in the European Universities, among which were the Latin versions of Aristotle. The Cingalese in question said that if his understanding had been in any degree cultivated and improved, it was to that book that he owed it. It is likely, however (as was observed to me [Whately] by the late Bishop Copleston), that any other book, containing an equal amount of close reasoning and accurate definition, might have answered the same purpose in sharpening the intellect of the Cingalese.’ Possibly, but not to the same effect. What the Cingalese got into his hands was a triple-distilled essence of Athenian legal procedure. The cross-examining elenchus was first borrowed by Socrates from the Athenian courts and applied to philosophical purposes; it was still further elaborated by Plato, and finally reduced to abstract rules by Aristotle; so that in using it as he did the juror was only restoring it to its original purposes.

191Metaph., XII., vii., p. 1072, b, 13.

192Eth. Nic., X., vii. (somewhat condensed).

193It is perfectly possible that Aristotle was not acquainted at first hand with human anatomy. But Sir A. Grant is hardly justified in observing that the words quoted above ‘do not show the hardihood of the practised dissecter’ (Aristotle, p 3). Aristotle simply takes the popular point of view in order to prove that the internal structure of the lower animals is no more offensive to the eye than that of man. And, as he took so much delight in the former, nothing but want of opportunity is likely to have prevented him from extending his researches to the latter.

194De Part. An., I. v.

195Compare the arguments inPhys., IV., ix.

196The hypothesis of the earth’s diurnal rotation had clearly been suggested by a celebrated passage in Plato’sTimaeus, though whether Plato himself held it is still doubtful. That he accepted the revolution of the celestial spheres is absolutely certain; but while to our minds the two beliefs are mutually exclusive, Grote thinks that Plato overlooked the inconsistency. It seems probable that the one was at first actually a generalisation from the other; it was thought that the earth must revolvebecausethe crystal spheres revolved; then the new doctrine, thus accidentally struck out, was used to destroy the old one.

197De Coel., II., viii., 290, a, 26.

198Zeller, p. 469.

199De Sens., vi., 446, a, 26.

200De Coel., I., viii., 277, b, 2.

201De Respir., i. and ii.

202De Gen. An., I., xvii.

203Outlines, p. 30.

204There is a passage in thePolitics(I., ii.,sub. in.) in which Aristotle distinctly inculcates the method of studying things by observing how they are first produced, and how they grow; but this is quite inconsistent with the more deliberate opinion referred to in the text (De Part. An., I., i., p. 640, a, 10). Perhaps, in writing the first book of thePoliticshe was more immediately under the influence of Plato, who preferred the old genetic method in practice, though not in theory.

205Meteor., II., iii., 357, a, 15 ff.

206Hist. An., IX., xxxix.,sub fin.

207De Part. An., III., iv.,sub in.

208This characterisation applies neither to theAntigonenor to theOedipus in Colônus, the first and the last extant dramas of Sophocles. The reason is that the one is still half Aeschylean, and the other distinctly an imitation of Euripides.

209Cf. the memorable declaration of Mr. F. Pollock: ‘To me it amounts to a contradiction in terms to speak of unknowable existence or unknowable reality in an absolute sense. I cannot tell what existence means if not the possibility of being known or perceived.’—Spinoza, p. 163.

210Aristoteles von d. Zeugung u. Entwickelung d. Thiere.Aubert u. Wimmer, Einleitung, p. 15.

211De Gen. An., II., iii., 736, b, 1.

212Ibid., I., xviii., 725, b, 25.

213De Respir., 477, a, 18.

214De Part. An., I., vii.,sub. in.

215Ibid., II., x., 656, a, 4.

216Ibid., IV., vi., 683, a, 25.

217Ibid., II., i.

218Ibid., IV., v., 682, a, 8;De Long., vi., 467, a, 18;De Ingr. An., vii., 707, a, 24.

219De Part. An., II., ix., 664, b, 11; Zeller, p. 522.

220Hist. An., VIII., i.,sub in.

221Zeller, p. 553.

222Phys., II., viii., p. 198, b, 24.

223The late Father Secchi, for example.

224Phys., II., iv., p. 196, a, 28;De Coel., II., xii.

225Phys., II., viii., p. 199, b, 14.

226Metaph., I., iii.,sub in.;Anal. Post., II., xi.,sub in.Bekker. (cap. x., in the Tauchnitz ed.);Phys.II., iii.;De Gen. An., I., i.sub in.

227Metaph., VIII., iv., p. 1044, b, 1;De Gen. An., I., i., p, 715, a, 6;ib.II., i., 732, a, 4;Phys., II., vii., p. 198, a, 24 ff.

228Phys., II., iii., p. 195, a, 32 ff.;Metaph., IX., viii., p. 1049, b, 24.

229That is, according to the traditional view, which, however, will have to be considerably modified if we accept the conclusions embodied in Teichmüller’sLiterarische Fehden.

230Parmen., 130, A ff.;Tim., 28, A.

231As we may infer from a passage in theRhetoric(II., ii., p. 1379, a, 35), where partisans of the Idea are said to be exasperated by any slight thrown on their favourite doctrine.

232Repeated in theMetaphysics, I., ix., p. 993, a, 1.

233This may seem inconsistent with our former assertion, that Hegel holds in German philosophy a place analogous to that held by Aristotle in Greek philosophy. Such analogies, however, are always more or less incomplete; and, so far as he attributes a self-moving power to ideas, Hegel is a Platonist rather than an Aristotelian. Similarly, as an evolutionist, Mr. Herbert Spencer stands much nearer to early Greek thought than to Aristotle, whom, in other respects, he so much resembles.

234Zeller,Ph. d. Gr., II., b, 297 f.

235Metaph.IV., iii. and viii.

236Ibid.VI., ii., p. 1026, b, 21.

237Metaph., VI., iv., p. 1027, b, 29.

238Ibid., VI., iv.

239Ibid., VI., ii.,sub in.; VII., i.,sub in.;Topic., I., ix.

240These are τί, ποιόν, ποσόν, ποῦ, ποτέ, and πῶς. Τί is associated with πρός in the question πρὸς τί, which has no simple English equivalent. Apparently it was suggested to Aristotle by ποσόν, how much? in connexion with which it means, in relation to what standard? If we were told that a thing was double, we should ask, double what? Again, the Greeks had a simply compound question, τί παθών, meaning, what was the matter with him? or, what made him do it? From this Aristotle extracted πάσχειν, a wider notion than our passion, meaning whatever is done or happens to anything; which again would suggest ποιεῖν, what it does. Finally, πῶς, taken alone, is too vague a question for any answer, but must be taken in its simplest compounds πῶς διακείμενον and πῶς ἔχον, which give the two rarely-occurring categories ἔχειν and κεῖσθαι, for which it is on one occasion substituted (Soph. El., xxii., p. 178, b, 39). Διὰ τί does not figure among the categories, because it is reserved for the special analysis of οὐσία.

241As Grote has shown in his chapter on the Categories.

242Eth. Nic., I., iv., p. 1096, a, 24, where six are enumerated.

243Metaph., VII.passim.

244Metaph., VII., vi., p. 1031, b, 18 ff.

245Zeller,Phil. d. Gr., II., b, 309.

246For the general theory of Actuality and Possibility, seeMetaph., VIII.

247Grant’sAristotle, p. 176.

248Metaph., XII., viii., p. 1074, a, 36.

249Grant’sAristotle, p. 176.

250‘The rational attitude of a thinking mind towards the supernatural, whether in natural or revealed religion, is that of scepticism, as distinguished from belief on the one hand and atheism on the other.’—Mill’sEssays on Religion, p. 242.

251Grant’sAristotle, p. 177.

252τὸ δ’ εἶναι οὐκ οὐσία οὐδενί· οὐ γὰρ γένος τὸ ὄν.—An. Post., II., vii., p. 92, b, 13.

253Metaph., XIII., x.

254‘Non pensar oltre lei [la terra] essere un corpo senza alma e vita et anche feccia tra le sustanze corporali.’ Giordano Bruno,Cena de le Ceneri, p. 130 (Opere, ed. Wagner). ‘Non dovete stimar ... che il corpo terreno sia vile e più degli altri ignobile.’—De l’Infinito Universo e Mondi, p. 54 (ib.).

255This conjecture of Empedocles deserves more attention than it has as yet received. It illustrates once more the superior insight of the early thinkers as compared with Aristotle.

256De Coelo, II., 1.

257Lewes, quoted by Zeller, p. 524.

258So Trendelenburg, Brandis, Kampe, and apparently also Zeller. Grote speaks of it rather vaguely as an intelligence pervading the celestial sphere. Schwegler vacillates between the theological and the psychological explanation.

259The last chapter of thePosterior Analyticssets forth a much more developed and definite theory of the process by which general ideas are formed. We think that it was composed at a considerably later date than the rest of the work, and probably after the treatise on the Soul, to which we should almost suspect an allusion in the word πάλαι (p. 100, a, 14), did philology permit. The reference can hardly be to the first part of the chapter (as is generally supposed); nor has the subject under discussion been touched on in any other part of theAnalytics.

260Grote and Kampe think that Aristotle assigns a portion of aether as an extended, if not precisely a material, substratum to the rational soul; but the arguments of Zeller (p. 569) seem decisive against this view.

261De Gen. An., II., iii., p. 736, b, 15.

262Outlines of the Philosophy of Aristotle, p. 45.

263The word θεῖον, at any rate, does not mean ‘almost God,’ for Aristotle applies it to the intelligence of bees, and also to the heavenly bodies (De Gen. An., III., x., p. 761, a, 5;De Coelo, II., xii., p. 292, b, 32).

264Principal Caird.

265Outlines, Preface, p. viii.

266Metaph., VII., xiii., p. 1039, a, 4.

267De An., III., ii., p. 426, a, 20; 425, b, 25 ff. What Aristotle means by saying that the εἶναι of object and sensation is not the same, appears from a passage in his tract on Memory (p. 450, b, 20), where he employs the illustration of a portrait and its original, which are the same, although their εἶναι is different.

268Metaph., IV., v.,sub fin.

269De An., III., iv.,sub fin.

270De An., II., ii., p. 414, a, 20.

271De An., III., i., p. 425, a, 13.

272See Zeller pp. 602-606, where the whole subject is thoroughly discussed.

273Anal. Pr., I., i.,sub in.; ii.,sub in.;Top., I., viii., Bekker (in the Tauchnitz ed., vi.).

274Anal. Pr., I., xxiii., 41, a, 11 (in the Tauchnitz ed., xxii., 8).

275This point is well brought out in F. A. Lange’sLogische Untersuchungen.

276Anal. Pr., I., xxxi.;Anal. Post., II., v.

277Metaph., IV., iii.,sub in.

278Anal. Post., I., x.

279‘Die Wissenschaft soll die Erscheinungen aus ihren Gründen erklären, welche näher in den allgemeinen Ursachen und Gesetzen zu suchen sind’ (Zeller, p. 203). ‘Induction is the method of proceeding from particular instances to general laws’ (Wallace, p. 13). ‘It seems to have been his [Aristotle’s] idea that after gathering facts up to a certain point, a flash of intuition would supervene, telling us “This is a law”’ (Grant, p. 68).Aproposof the discussion whence this last passage is extracted, we may observe that Sir A. Grant is quite mistaken in saying that Aristotle ‘omits to provide for verification.’ Aristotle is, on the contrary, most anxious to show that his theories agree with all the known facts. See in particular his memorable declaration (De Gen. An., III., x., p. 760, b, 27), that facts are more to be trusted than reasonings.The emphasis laid by Aristotle on concepts as distinguished from laws is noticed by J. H. v. Kirchmann, in his German translation of theMetaphysics, p. 13.

The emphasis laid by Aristotle on concepts as distinguished from laws is noticed by J. H. v. Kirchmann, in his German translation of theMetaphysics, p. 13.

280De An., III., vi.,sub in., taken together withAnal. Post., I., vi.

281Anal. Post., I., xxxiv.; II., ii.

282Anal. Post., II., xii., p. 95, a, 36.

283Wallace’sOutlines, p. 14.

284Ibid., Preface, pp. viii.-ix.

285As if Mill wrote exclusively for Oxford tutors, and as if other philosophers had not constantly elucidated their arguments by concrete examples. One does not see why the village matron should be more deserving of contempt than Aristotle’s Thebans and Phocians.

286That is, knowledge which has never been actualised.

287It is a mistake to translate νόησις, as the Germans do, by Anschauung. The Nous does not intuite ideas, but is converted into and consists of them.

288For Analogy, seeTop., II., x.,sub in.; Disjunction, II., vi.,sub in.; Hypothetical Reasoning, II., x., p. 115, a, 15; Method of Differences, II., xi.,sub in.; Method of Residues, VI., xi.,sub in.; Concomitant Variations, II., x., p. 114, b, 37; V., viii.,sub in.; VI., vii.,sub in.The Method of Agreement occursAn. Prior., II., xxvii.,sub fin.; andAn. Post., II., xiii., p. 97, b, 7.

289It may possibly be urged that the fifth book of theNicomachean Ethicsis of doubtful authenticity. Still the dilemma remains that Aristotle either omitted the most important of all moral questions from his ethics, or that he treated it in a miserably inadequate manner.

290Eth. Nic., V., iii.;Rhet., I., vi., p. 1362, b, 28; ix., p. 1366, b, 4.

291P. 753.

Back to Index Next