26. ot ... viv, evidently the Platonists. Alexander unjustifiably considers the doctrine referred to non-Platonic, but cannot suggest any other definite school which could be meant.
28. 81a 7d AoyiKds Lyretv. For the use of Aoyixds cf. T. 1005) 22, Z. 1029» 13, and for similar expressions-_referring to Socrates, Plato, and the Platonists cf. A. 9873, @. 1050» 35,.\N. 1087) 21.
29. GAN of 7d Kowdy, cdpa, There is no xowdv cdpa (De Gen. ef Corr. 320» 23), i.e. no kind of body which is the basis of all the elements. It is better therefore to place a comma after xowev and in- terpret ‘but not that which is common to them, viz. body’.
34-36. twes, Plato and his school. ot pév, Plato, cf. Z. 1028? 19. ot 8é, Xenocrates, cf. Z. 102824 n. ot 8€, Speusippus, cf. M. 1076 20-21 n.
b 1. ary S€ étépas. Aristotle discusses unchangeable substance in chs. 6-10,
5. 00 Aeukdv yap % pwvy, i.e. voice is an opposite, in one sense, of ‘white’. Being not white it is contradictorily opposed to white, Yet there is no change from voice to white or vice versa. Hence change is not between contradictories but between contraries, which belong to the same genus as one another (I. 7).
6. ob yap Ta évaytia petaBddder, cf. H. 1044) 25 n.
18, katd cupPeBnkds évdéxetar ylyveoar éx ph dvros, i.e. a thing comes to be out ofwhat incidentally, or in virtue of a concomitant, is not. Y comes out of an X of which not-Y can incidentally be predicated,
This reading, as Prof. Jackson has pointed out (/. of P. xxix. 139 f.),
presents the following difficulties. (a) Why does Aristotle, who in A. 989 17 identifies Anaxagoras’ vods with 76 & in the Platonic sense of that term, and his ravo7eppta with Oarepov, here assert that é is a better description of the zavo7epyia than 600 wdvra? (0) By what right does Aristotle use ptyya to describe the material principle of Anaxi- mander, who was a monist? (c) What does Aristotle mean by ascribing to Democritus the doctrine that jy duod mavra duvdmer, éevepyeta 8 ob ? (d) Is not the addition of duvdpet, evepyeia 8 ov just what ought to reconcile Aristotle to Anaxagoras’ theory of the material cause?
To find the material principle of Anaxagoras described as 76 & and that of Anaximander as 76 piyya is certainly somewhat surprising, and Liitze proposed accordingly to transpose ’Avagaydpov and ’Avagipav- dpov. He also renewed Karsten’s proposal to excise BéAriv yap 7) épod ravra. This, however, isan unnecessary tampering with the text. Jackson adopts the less violent remedy of reading ov for ev and alter- ing the - Punctuation so that the sentence reads kal rovr’ é core 70 “Avaga- yopov ov* BéArov yap }) 6pod mdvra (Kat Epredoxdéous, 70 pty, Kat “Avagydvdpov, Kat os Anpdxpitds pnow) jv dpod wavra Suvdper evepyeia 5 ov. On his interpretation (1) the subject of BeArvov yup 7 dod mévra. is “ Hv dod ravra Suvdper é evepyela. 8 od”, (2) EpredoxAcous and *Avaéuadvdpov depend on 76 dy, and 76 prypa is parenthetical and refers to Empedocles alone, (3) the words kai "EymedoxAéous . . . pyow in- dicate that the doctrines of Empedocles, Anaximander, and Democritus should, like that of Anaxagoras, be amended by the admission that the material principle in its elemental state is only potentially existent. For the phrase cai ds Anpoxpités pnow he compares A. 1071» 26, De Gen. e¢ Corr. 329213, %1, and for the order of the words BéArvov yap 7) 6u0d wavta.. . hv duod wavra Svvdper evepyeia 8 od he compares De An. 435° 5 810 kal rept dvax\dcews, BéATLov 7 tiv ow éfvotoay dvaxhao bau, TOV dépa TaTXEW UTd TOD aXHWaTOS Kal XpwpaTos pexpe tep ov dy eis 7.
The first and the third point of Jackson’s interpretation seem to be right, but in two respects a view different from his seems preferable. (1) 10 "Avagayopov é& can be defended. It is true that 75 & does not seem to have been used by.'!Anaxagoras as a technical name for his material principle. But that principle is called a prypya (Phys. 187% 23, A. 1012 28), and 76 piypa ev Bovderau civar (De Sensu 447” 10), so that zo &v iS not an inappropriate name for it, and in PAys, 187% 21 it is actually called é&. It is true that in contrast with vots it may be opposed to ‘the one’; but in contrast with the various substances that come out of it it is properly called one.
(2) It is not necessary to take ’EyzedoxAéovs 76 prypa kal’ Avasiyavdpov in the awkward way in which Jackson takesit. It has commonly been thought necessary to apologize for, or explain away, the description of Anaximander’s dzeipoy as a piypa. Thus Zeller supposes that it is by an ‘easy zeugma’ that piyya, which is strictly applicable to Empe- docles, is applied to Anaximander (i? 279n. 1), and Prof. Burnet at one time (Z. G. P.? 59) regarded kat "Epzedoxhéous 70 piypa as an
352 Commentary
afterthought and held that “Avagiudvdpov depended on 76 & (he now, ed. 3, p. 56, takes “Avagimavdpou to depend on 76 piypa).
Zeller has little difficulty in refuting (i.6 277-283) Ritter’s view that Anaximander’s dzreipoy was a mechanical compound in which the elements were actually present, and he-therefore thinks it can only loosely be called a ptyya. But the fact is that in Aristotle’s terminology
“the word piyya (a complete fusion) is more appropriate to Anaxi- mander’s dzepov in which the elements were only potentially present than to the original matter of Empedocles and Anaxagoras in which they were actually present. The latter isa mechanical ovvOerov rather than a genuine piyya. It is true that Aristotle nowhere else calls Anaximander’s deipov a piywa. But then he mentions Anaximander by name only five times; and further he may have avoided the ex- pression elsewhere because Anaximander himself had not used it, while he uses it of Empedocles probably because Empedocles used it himself, in a natural though non-Aristotelian sense.
25. Bz.’s conjectural insertion of érepa appears not to be necessary. Schwegler’s parallels for aAN’ érépay, A. gg1» 10, H. 1044230, I. 1058) 15, are not sound, but the use of &\Ao for dAXo a\Aov in 10718 28 seems to be a good parallel.
26. GAN ov yernthy GANG moOEv ol, i.e. not the matter presupposed by generation but that presupposed by spatial motion, the ‘local matter’ of H. 1042 6.
26-28. dmopycee 8 Gv... ov refers to x pi) dvros |. 20, the historical discussion being parenthetical.
28. ei 84 Ti gore Suvdper, GAN’ Spas of Tod TuXdvTOs, ‘if a thing exists by virtue of a potentiality, still it is not by virtue of a potentiality for anything and everything ’.
29. duod mavta and gr. 6... vods show that Aristotle is thinking primarily of Anaxagoras, but his remarks apply also to the other thinkers mentioned in Il. 21, 22.
32. eketvo, ie. éxelvo povor.
ot is explicable in the same way as rod tvxévTos, |. 28, so that Schwegler’s conjecture 6 is unnecessary.
32-34. tpia 8)...dAn. For this list of the implications of change cf. Phys. i. 6, 7. In view of the stress laid on orépyous A stands closer to the PAysics than to Z, which works for the most part with the simple opposition of tA and ides.
Generation considered. If form ever exists apart from the concrete individual, tt ts in the case of naturag objects (ch. 3).
1069» 35. Neither proximate matter nor proximate form is gene- rated. For in all change something (matter) is changed by something (proximate mover) into something (form). If not only the bronze came to be round but also the round or the bronze came to be, this would involve an infinite regress.
1070? 4. Every substance comes from another of the same kind,
(A) by art (where the principle of becoming is in something else),
(B) by nature (where the principle of becoming is in the thing itself),
(C) by luck (which means the absence of art), or
(D) by spontaneity (which means the absence of natural process).
g. There are three kinds of substance—
(A) matter, which is af¢arenily an individual something but coheres merely by contact, not organically,
(B) the individual nature and positive state of a thing,
(C) the resulting individual.
13. In the case of the products of art, the individual form does not exist apart from the concrete result, except in so far.as the arf is the form; nor do the forms of such things come into being or pass out of being ; if the form ever exists apart, it is in the case of natural objects. Plato was not far wrong when he said that there are Forms of xafural objects, if there ave Forms distinct from sensible things. *Such as fire, flesh, head, which form a series of materials progressively approaching the complete substance * (these words should probably be transferred to 1. rr).
21. Motive causes precede, formal causes are simultaneous with, the thing they produce. It is a further question whether the form ever survives the thing. E.g. the reasonable part of the soul may survive the body.
26. So far, there is no need for Ideas. The individual produces the individual of the same class, and each specific art is the cause of its specific result.
2578-2 Aa
354 Commentary
1069” 35. peta taita Sr, ‘next we must observe that’. This phrase (repeated 1070 4) is one of the clearest indications of the fact, apparent throughout chs. 1-5, that Aristotle is jotting down notes for a treatise (or lecture), not writing a treatise in its finished form; cf. 107122n. Alexander remarks on the ‘confused and disordered’ form of the book (673. 34).
36. Aéyw Sé 7a ecyata, Alexander takes Aristotle to mean the ulti- mate matter, that which is farthest from the individual yryvopevor, and the proximate form, that which is nearest to it (‘ Socrates’ as opposed to ‘flesh’). But it is impossible that éxxaros should have opposite meanings in the two cases. If the éoydry vAn is dveideos tAy the éoxa- tov eidos should be diAov efdos, and this is what ra éoyata means in Meteor. 390*5. The instances Aristotle gives, however, are roundness and bronze (1070 3), which are instances of the proximate matter and form, those immediately involved in the yéveous, and it is of these that in Z.-8 Aristotle has shown that they are not generated (1033 29), i.e. are not generated in the process of generating the bronze sphere. The bronze has been generated by previous processes, but that is beside the question. In saying A€yw de ra éoxara Aristotle does not mean that ultimate matter and form ave generated, but merely that he is not speaking of them. For éoxaros in the sense of ‘ proximate’ cf. Bz. Index 289” 85—290%2. Cf. also reXevraia tAy 1070* 20.
1070" I, mpdérou also must mean ‘immediate’ or ‘ proximate’. For this sense of rp&rov xwoiv cf. Phys. 243° 3, 14, 24528, 25, Pr. It is awkward that while éoyarov means ‘last, counting from the original state of things’, zpGrov means ‘first, counting from the yryvdpevor’, but Aristotle is indifferent to such inconsistencies.
4. peta taita dtu, cf. 1069) 35n.
Exdoty €k ouvwydpou ylyvetat ovcta. éx here refers not to origin but to agency. It is the agent of production, not the material, that is ovvevepov With the product.
5. Ta yap cet otciat kal Ta aAda, a note to show that substance is being taken to include not only natural substances such as the word primarily suggests (cf, A. 1017 10, Z. 10289, H. 10427 7 duoAoyov- pevar piv at pvorxai), but also products of art, chance, or spontaneity.
6-g. Aristotle holds that, in natural and artistic production alike, A produces an actual B out of a potential B by virtue of the fact that A has the form of B in it. The male parent produces the offspring out of the matter contributed by the female parent, by impressing on the matter the form which is the form alike of the male parent and of the offspring. The artist produces the work of art out of the raw material by impressing on the latter the form of the product, which he ‘has’ by virtue of knowing the art in question. The difference is that in the first case the producer ‘ has’ the form in the same sense in which the offspring will have it, and is therefore called by the same name, while in the second case the producer ‘ has’ the form only in the sense of knowing it, and is therefore not called by the same name. Thus a house is not produced by a house but by the ‘form of house’ in the
builder’s mind, and is therefore not produced strictly éx cvvwvtmov (or e€ duwvdpov, used loosely in Z. 1034* 22 in the sense of éx cvvwvdpov) but é« pepovs duwvdpov, from a part of itself which shares its name (Z. 10347 23).