7/29/2019 628643

1/6

The Vital Heat, the Inborn Pneuma and the AetherAuthor(s): Friedrich SolmsenReviewed work(s):Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 77, Part 1 (1957), pp. 119-123

Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/628643 .

Accessed: 14/06/2012 14:21

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/628643?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/628643?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hellenic

7/29/2019 628643

2/6

THE VITAL HEAT, THE INBORN PNEUMA AND THE AETHERA SHORTection of Aristotle's degenerationenimalium'embodies his final answer to the question howthe faculties of soul are transmitted from parent to offspring. Aristotle here speaks in a tone whichis dogmatic as well as enthusiastic; he is able to announce a new discovery. There is, he sets forth,in the sperma a peculiar substance (uc4tea) which has some connection with soul and differs inquality as the souls themselves differ in worth. This substance is identical with two of the entitiesmentioned in our title and 'analogous' to the third.HcacngL&Iov-qs X 8vvatuS .ETEpov'LtrlaToS .OLKEKEKOWVCTLKEvaCat OELoTEPov,TC-VKaAOVPE`VWVUTOLXELWvv W aSE'povcn v Tq7ucrq7' at ObvxatKatTaIFt aAXA'WV, ol0w0Kai-qTota?-I&a9E'pEt v'utS.-7TrV-WVoLEV yap E Trc) ErptLUaTLvaTpXEt ovp TotELyovt/a E,vatTa ""pLaa,TOKaAoV/LEvovGEp/dLv.VoihoOi7Ta01 Tav7a Svatsa U, aA 7TE/pLa/LEavovov Cv orrvr7C KalEVTopcoSIrvevLa Kal- E)V CO VEVE/aTt v'cn, a'va`Aoyovvua c_3T _3v aurpwv orT0oXElc.The sentences which follow state that fire has no generative or procreative power, yet such apower must be present in the Sun and in the &Oppld,the vital heat of living beings. Clearly, then,this OEp/ldvcannot be identical with the fire.zNowhere else in the body of his preserved work does Aristotle establish this close connectionbetween the vital heat, the pneuma,and the element of the stars, the so-called aether. These threeconcepts differ as much in their origin and past history as in their function and place within Aristotle'sown physical or biological system.3 A brief sketch of them-skipping by necessity many significantepisodes in the history of each-will suffice to make this clear.What needs here to be said about the 'element of the stars' is indeed not much. It was Aristotlehimself who added this element to the canonic four of the Empedoclean and Platonic tradition.The dialogue On Philosophyand the First Book On the Heaven secured it its place. It is divine,un-ageing, and unchanging, and yet a material element. Like the other elements it has its specific'natural motion', to wit the circular, which makes it possible for Aristotle to explain by a physical'hypothesis' the celestial motions for which Plato had resorted to the World-Soul. The place ofthis element is the entire heavenly region, extending from the First Heaven to the moon; belowthis, in the regions occupied by the four other elements, it is never to be found.4For the concept of vital heat we may-somewhat arbitrarily-take our starting-point in Par-menides.5 His correlation of dead with the cold, alive with the warm, may not have been primarilyintended as a contribution to physiology, yet the physiological significance of this thought wasperceived by his successors; witness Empedocles, who taught that 'sleep comes about when theheat of the blood is cooled in the proper degree, death when it becomes altogether cold'.6 Thisdoctrine points forward to Aristotle, who modified it to the effect that sleep is a temporary over-powering of the inner heat by other factors in the body, death its final extinction (on the interactionof hot and cold he propounds doctrines more subtle than his precursors).7 Between Empedoclesand Aristotle we encounter the concept occasionally in the Hippocratics, one of whom, the authorof rE~plcapK'cIv,ndulges his speculative vein to the extent of making this 0EpLLdv cosmic prin-ciple and investing it with attributes of divinity.8 However, if we look for antecedents of Aristotle'stheories, the most important are probably to be found in the Timaeus. Here Plato shows in somedetail how in respiration the OEpL'dvn us is cooled by the air which enters from outside, and herelies on the cutting power of the fire, which is here identical with the 'hot', to explain the processof digestion.9 In Aristotle the OEpidAVs connected with the same functions. Its role in digestionis set forth in De partibusanimalium(where 'cooking' takes the place of Plato's 'cutting'). Respira-tion is again the cooling of our inner heat, and the De iuventute,which covers this subject, gives usin fact a little biographical sketch of the vital heat, detailing its phases from its first appearance inthe genesisof a living being to its final withering in death.Io Yet the GlEPLdvs also the 'seat' of thenutritive soul, and as nutrition and reproduction are closely linked in Aristotle's scheme we mayhere record that he correlates the greater or lesser degree of internal heat in various animal classes

de gen. anim. II, 3.736b3o-737a1.Ibid. 737ai-8.3 See now Sir David Ross, AristotleParva Naturalia 40-3.4 Cf. de philos. 26 f., 29 (Walzer); de caelo I, 2 f. andpass.; Meteor. I,2.34ob6 ff. E. Bignone (L'Aristot.Perduto I, 227 ff.) thinks that in rept' tAooroac the'aether' formed the substance of the human voVi.5 Vorsokr.628A26,a,b (cf. Heraclitus' conception of soulas fire, esp. 22B36). 6 Ibid. 3iA85.

7 desomno3 (esp. 457b6 ff.); de iuv. 24; cf. ibid. 4 if.de came 2 ff., 6; de nat. hom. 12 (de corde6). The devictu (which is now considered late) even knows trdtr4bvyj4jOepldo'v2,60.62).9 Tim. 78b-79e (note 79d2 ff.). On Tim. 79e see mypaper Stud. It. 27 (1956), 544 if.o10 See esp. de part. an. 11, 3. 65oa3 ff (cf. de an. II, 4.416b28 f. and Ross op. cit. 4q and n. 2); de iuv. pass.,esp. 4 ff., 19, 21, 24.

7/29/2019 628643

3/6

120 FRIEDRICH SOLMSENwith their capacity of producing offspring in varying degrees of perfection. Only animals thatpossess a great deal of heat can produce living young, whereas the others lay eggs, produce larvae,and so forth."

Very different is the history of the third concept, the pneuma; yet, though it has received con-siderably more attention than the OEp~Lv,some crucial points are still in doubt.1z While in itsrole as vital and animating force it may strike us as a rival of the OEpLdOv,t has yet, naturally enough,no concern with nutrition. Rather, being from the beginning a somewhat more 'spiritual' principle,it tends to associate with what Aristotle would regard as 'higher' functions. We need not here goback to Anaximenes or trace connections between him and Diogenes of Apollonia. When wecome to Diogenes himself and his school-represented, I take it, by the author of raptTEp7qS-vovdov-we find the mobile air in our body recognised as the agent of our sensations and as the centralanimating force which accounts, among other things, for the movement of our limbs.13 Aristotletoo needs the pneumato explain the movement of animals and with him, too, it is the physical agentof some sensations (smell and audition in particular). Yet for him it is an 'inborn' (aotrwvrov)pneuma. In spite of this-and in spite also of the fact that the details of his doctrines are not par-ticularly close to Diogenes'-some scholars have thought of Diogenes as 7ra-r-jp70o Ad'yovand7rpc;-osWdpE-- of the pneuma doctrine,14 making allowance for some intermediate stages beforeit reached Aristotle. There is a further similarity which may be of special interest to us: Diogenesdefined the substance of the spermaas foam (opdsc)); and so does Aristotle in a section previous toours of the degeneratione nimalium.I5 It is indeed possible that Aristotle came to appreciate Diogenes'position on a number of these subjects; yet whether this is all that need or can be said about theorigin of his pneuma s another question. In a paper which appeared in 191316Jaeger put forwardstrong reasons for thinking that Aristotle had received his pneuma concept along with other andrelated doctrines from the Sicilian school of physicians-men like Philistion and Diocles, who wereworking in the tradition of Empedocles. It may be argued that in the meantime Jaeger has himselfremoved the strongest pillar on which his theory originally rested; for if Diocles, as Jaeger has sinceshown,I7 was actually a pupil and younger associate of Aristotle, his views concerning the functionsof the pneumaare no longer good evidence for the 'Sicilian' tradition. Even so, however, we canhardly in our present state of ignorance and uncertainty afford to dismiss the idea of Sicilian influ-ences altogether. If much is obscure, one basic fact should not be lost sight of: from Empedoclesonward through the Timaeus to Aristotle's biology, air (J-ip or vwEvl4a8) is one of the four elementsof which all living beings are 'compacted'. In this cardinal point the tradition is constant; andif both Plato and Aristotle actually need the air for the composition of very few organs or tissues,it still must be present in the constitution of man and animals; in fact, it must be a part of theirnature (liqowvrov, ivlEtwvrov). 9It will be clear from these sketches that the three concepts which Aristotle in our passage tiestogether-actually identifying two and almost identifying the third with both of them- are normallydistinct and would be more inclined to respect one another's sphere than to mix and coalesce.Special reasons must account for Aristotle's decision to bring them here for once together, yetbefore we turn to them we may note that our section has also other singularities and peculiarities.Only here does Aristotle teach that every kind of soul is connected with an element'different from and more divine than' the four sublunary. Only here does he allow theaether-or something like it-a place in his biology and a function in the phenomena andsubstances EpE'7'o'vp~e'iov Td&Tov. Barely two pages before this section he has marshalled allresources for a most painstaking 'chemical' inquiry about the nature of the sperma,with the resultthat it must be a compound of pneuma and water; yet pneuma as there understood is simply 'air'-hot air, nothing more peculiar or more precious.zo Again Aristotle nowhere else expresses sofirm a conviction that the vital heat cannot be identical with fire; on the contrary, there are passages

11 See de iuv. 14. 474bI4 ff. et al., de gen. anim. II, I.732b28 f., 733a34 f.f12 Besides Jaeger's studies (presently to be cited) see inparticular J. I. Beare, Greek Theories of Elem. Cognition(Oxford, I906), 333 ff.; Sir David Ross (see Note 3).For the later history of the concept see e.g. G. Verbeke,L'evolution de la doctr.du pneuma (Paris-Louvain, 1945) andJ. H. Waszink, Tertullian, De anima (Amsterdam, 1947),342 ff. See also W. Wiersma, Mnemos. ser. 3, II (1943),102 ftf.13 For Diogenes see Vorsokr. 64aAI9 f., B4 f.; on therelation to him of 'Hipp'. de morbo sacro, cf. Harold W.Miller, T.A.P.A. 79 (I948), 168 ff.14 See de an. motu Io; de an. II, 8.42oa9 if.; de gen. anim.II, 6. 744a2 ff. and (out of context though this passageis) V, 2. 78Ia2I ff. For Diogenes as ultimate source cf.

Pohlenz, Hip[okrates (Berlin 1938), 39 f., 93 f.; ErnaLesky, Abhd. Mainzer Akad., 1950, 19, 123 f.'5 Vorsokr.64A24; de gen. anim. II, 2. 735b8 ff. (f. bi9;736a13 with Peck's note on this passage and aI9 ff.).16 'The Pneuma in the Lyceum', Hermes 48, 29 ff.,esp. 51-7.'7 Diokles von Karystos (Berlin, 1938); see also Abh. Pr.Akad. (phil.-hist. K1.) 1939-3.is See Plato Phileb. 29aIo.'9 This may account, e.g. for the pneuma n the organismof non-breathers (de iuv. 15. 475a6 ff.; de part. an. III, 6.669a2) and in the ear and its Tadpotdean. II, 8. 420a3-I 2 ;cf. III, I. 425a4; de part. anim. II, io. 656bi7; de gen.anim. II, 6. 744a3 f., V, 2. 781a23).

o20II, 2. 735a3o ff., b8 ff., b32 ff., 736ai f.

7/29/2019 628643

4/6

THE VITAL HEAT, THE INBORN PNEUMA AND THE AETHER 121where he seems to have no qualms at all about their identity.2I If Aristotle always knew thisaffinity of the vital heat with the aether (or of pneuma and aether) he must have been biding histime with extraordinary patience and reticence, waiting for a suitable occasion when he wouldflash forth this startling doctrine upon the astonished world. Finally, as regards the subject ofreproduction, Book I has assured us that the male parent contributes nothing material to the foetusbut only E!So0snd JdpX-Kv'YJcEo.22 To be sure, this question is reopened in Book II, where theorigin of the soul functions in the foetus must be accounted for. It looks as though Aristotle, aslong as he deals with the offspring's body, does not need any material contribution on the part of themale parent-here his position is practically the opposite of the 'biological argument' in theEumenideswhich contemporary readers find so distressing-yet when he comes to discuss the off-spring's soul the spermamust contribute something material, albeit the finest and noblest material, abrt&vsnalogous to the aether.We cannot go into every aspect of these problems. I think, however, we should firmly holdto the view that our section gives us Aristotle's answer to the question how the soul functions cometo be present in the foetus. The preceding section has ended in an impasse (even if this is notclearly seen by all interpreters).23 The assumption there made is that the soul functions shouldbe present 'potentially' in spermaand foetation; yet when this idea is translated into concrete termsnone of the various possibilities will work. These functions cannot (a) all be present beforehandin the material supplied by the female, nor can they (b) all develop in this material without thehelp of the male partner; on the other hand, if they come by way of the spermathey can neither(c) be present in it beforehand, nor (d), except for the vofk, enter the sperma rom an outside source.The last sentence of that section puts a brutal end to lingering hopes that they might after all enterin the sperma. The sperma,it says in conformity with the doctrines of Book I, is '(only) a residueof the nourishment'. Thus it is surely not a suitable vehicle for the soul functions.24 An agonisingpredicament. We are past the point where the devices in which Aristotle is generally so resourceful-a more precise definition, the discovery of one more nuance in, say, the concept of potentiality-could save the situation. Only by a fresh start, and if necessary by abandoning some of the premisesso far used, can the deadlock be broken; and our section, which opens up new vistas and treats thespermanot as residue of nourishment but as including a physis comparable to 'the element of thestars', embodies Aristotle's final and satisfactory solution. This solution may well be the resultof a long and intense search; that it is his final word is also suggested by the fact that no othersection of our Book 'follows up' the ideas here put forward or operates on the level of the newdiscovery.25If we now look for specific reasons why each of our three concepts figures in this final answer,we should remember that the spermahas previously been defined as a compound of water andpneumaand that this definition includes the statement 7-d rvEvEadd''re OEpLo i4p.26 From hereAristotle could move on to the conclusion that the OEpL'dvs well as the pneuma s present and activein the seed. Moreover, the 0Ep1LOdvad in any case a strong claim to being regarded as operative,since it is the agent or instrument of the nutritive soul and reproduction is in Aristotle's scheme asideline, as it were, of nutrition. It is the 'hot power' in us which by concocting the nourishmentproduces blood as well as sperma; and the same hot power remains active in every later phase ofreproduction and embryonic growth.27 The pneuma, on the other hand, is as we know associatedwith psychic functions like locomotion and some of the sensations; hence it may logically play apart also in the transmission of such functions to the offspring. As the 'chemical' study of thespermapoints to the same conclusion, Aristotle can feel amply justified in drawing it.

There remains the question why Aristotle here, not content with the pneumaas such, has recoursealso to a substance in it which he describes as 'analogous' to the celestial element. If physical pro-perties of the spermaare relevant, its 'whiteness' (the AEvKdv)may be mentioned;28 yet whateverallowance we make for physical or 'empirical' reasons, the point of principal interest is that theaether here substantiates, and gives concrete form to, the conviction formulated in our first sentence:the 8&vaCLcsf every soul appears to be connected with a body of a higher order, and 'more divine'than the familiar elements. If there is to be a material vehicle by which the soul functions are21 E.g. depart. anim. II, 7. 652b7-I I; de iuv. 14- 474bIo-13; see also 473a4, 469bI 1-17.22 I, 21. See also 20. 729alo f. 23 736b8-29.24 The significance of this sentence seems to have beenmore appreciated by A. Platt (who in the Oxford transla-tion adds the 'only') than by Peck, who in vain scansAristotle's alternatives for hints of a solution (on 736b2 i).On the other hand, Platt's assumption of a lacuna at737a8 and his doubts about aI7 fif. are gratuitous (forour section has settled-not only 'more or less settled'-how the soul functions can be 6vtradtet present). I

accept Aubert-Wimmer's corrections in 737a8 f. and 12.It may be necessary to change rrpoi3rrdprovaat736b 17to 'Tpoi'TdpXetv.25 II, 6. 742aI5 f. indicates a different origin of thepneuma which differentiates the parts of the foetus.26 II, 2. 735a3o-b38. See also p. I2o. Note 736ai f.and also 735b34.27 Cf. de part. an. II, 3. 65oa2 ff.; de iuv. 4. 469bi ff.,14- 474a25 ff. See also above (p. I2o) and de gen. anim.I, I9.28 II, 2. 735a32.

7/29/2019 628643

5/6

122 FRIEDRICH SOLMSENcommunicated from parent to offspring, none of the common four elements can be regarded assublime enough. Something OEiovs needed (even though, we may once more remember, theantecedent inquiry into the nature of the spermahas found no evidence in it of substances otherthan water and air). To be sure, Aristotle has often established a connection or co-operationbetween soul and body; he knows that soul needs physical iopyava. Yet only here, where he isdealing with the transmission of life, does he feel the need to counterbalance this 'materialisation'by postulating for the material itself a divine ingredient. 'In a way all things are full of Soul',Aristotle declares when explaining the process of spontaneous generation in earth and water.29 Ifhe has Thales' famous dictum in mind the substitution of 'soul' for 'the gods' is certainly significant.Our passage remains the only one where something divine-or 'nearer to the divine' (OEL-rEpov)-is found operating in the biological phenomena.As everybody knows, the place of the divinity is in a very different phase of Aristotle's system.Whatever the relation between the Unmoved Mover and the divine aether-whether they com-plement one another or represent different stages of Aristotle's search for the divine-both conceptsclearly reflect the cosmological approach to the deity and keep the divine principle closely asso-ciated with the perfect movements of the Heaven. Both are Ka-d r7pdorovegatees of the PlatonicWorld-Soul. With soul, life, and biological processes they have no obvious connection. Norcould one easily imagine that the discovery of a divine ingredient in such a process should suggestto Aristotle a revision of his theological tenets. Yet if for Aristotle himself the discovery has nofurther significance, historically it is noteworthy as a harbinger of developments in the near future.It was not long before leading philosophers were ready to find a divine presence in the OEptPdvswell as in the 7rEvlxia. In the Stoic system pneumaand vital heat no longer need to borrow theirdivine quality from the aether. Both of them are now substantially connected with the fire (fromwhich Aristotle in our section is so anxious to keep his OBoEpLvistinct), sharing its divine status, andboth are cosmic as well as psychic principles.There is no reason to suppose that the Stoics learned much about the remarkable 'powers' ofeither of these principles by studying the 'esoteric' treatises of Aristotle.3o Interest in these prin-ciples was continuous and was kept up by those whose primary concern they were, the medicalschools. Diocles of Carystus shares Aristotle's conviction that the pneuma is concentrated in theheart; there is evidence that he operated with the concept of the IVXLtKVTTVE~vLaas well as withthat of vital heat.31 At the other end of the development we find Chrysippus appealing to onemedical authority-Praxagoras of Cos-against others in his effort to retain the heart as seat of thevital pneuma. The nerves had in the meantime been discovered, and were now considered thecarriers of the pneuma. As their apXnjs in the brain, Chrysippus had to defend his views about thepneumaagainst the leading physicians of Alexandria.32 Surely this was not a fight about 'synonyms',but a philosopher's struggle to adapt a medical concept to his own uses (in the physiology of thesenses the uses were not actually very different). As for the Stoic 7rTp or OEpLd'v,he medicaltradition about the vital heat need not be more than one component of this concept, and we arehardly in a position to decide whether this scientific 'substratum' or their interest in Heraclitus' firecontributed more to its formation. Some physiological arguments which the Stoics-in particularCleanthes-used to show quanta vis insit caloris in omni corporehave a familiar ring to students ofAristotle's biology. They include the function of the calor (n.b. the Opopvd, ot in this case the 7r-p)in nutrition, in digestion, in the reliquiae quas naturarespuit, yet they also include life itself as beingdependent on this calor.33 One point is new and could not have been made by Aristotle in thisform: the hot moves motusuo. It is a self-mover. This predicate of the deity which characterisedPlato's World-Soul now attaches to the vital heat which Plato too had known but which he hadbeen careful to keep at a safe distance from his soul principle.When Plato in Laws X condemns the Presocratic systems on the ground that their 'materialistic'principles, being devoid of life, cannot initiate movement and genesis, he disqualifies along with theelements also the traditional 'powers' (hot and cold, moist and dry).34 Nothing so material, solacking in vois and -i'Xv' as the 'hot' could for him be a physical principle. Only Soul can initiate

29III, ii. 762a19-22. Here, too, Aristotle makes useof urvegiua and bVtXLK 0eptpduo' (see also 762bi6 if.);yet they appear in a somewhat different combination(note also the difference between 762a24 ff. and 736b32).For quotations of Thales' dictum 'slanted' toward ikvXr'see de an. I, 5. 41I a8; PI., Legg. Io. 899b9; Epin. 99IdI ff.30 On the relation of 7Tvegia and uirp in early Stoicismsee Pohlenz, Die Stoa (Berlin, I948), I, 73 f.; of 7Tveipaand Oeppudvaeger, Hermes 48, 50, n. I.3' Frgs...44, 59; 8, 15 in M. Wellmann, Die Fragmented. sizil. Arzte (Berlin I9oI). Cf. Wellmann, ibid. I4 ff.,20, 70, 77 ff.

32 St. V. F. II, 897; cf. also II, 879, 885. See Well-mann, op. cit. 15, n.4. In general cf. J. Moreau, L'dmedu monde de Platon aux Stoic (Paris, 1939), 165 f.33 Cic., de nat. deor. 2. 23 f.; cf. 3. 35. To Aristotle'spoint that fire is not procreative the Stoics in their waydo justice by distinguishing two kinds of fire, one consumingand destructive, the other constructive and procreative(St. V. F. I, I20; 504). For the reliquiae (Trept-xcwTaTza)ee 737a4 in our section.34 Legg. Io, 889b.

7/29/2019 628643

6/6

THE VITAL HEAT, THE INBORN PNEUMA AND THE AETHER 123movement, and the primacy in the physical world must be assigned to her. Yet if 'life' is a criterionfor primacy35 the OEpL'dv ould seem to have claims for consideration; as we know, its crucial rolein the life process was understood at the time. In the physiology of the Timaeuswhere Plato cannotdispense with the vital heat, he treats it like nutrition and respiration as a necessary condition forthe functioning of the organism, yet allows it no determining influence on life and death, or growthand decline. It is never permitted to come near the sphere of psyche.36 We need not hesitate tosay that Plato has deliberately reduced its importance. Aristotle too is opposed to the thoughtof identifying soul and vital heat, yet he does not feel that Soul is contaminated if it has its seat inthe OEp!_Ldvr uses it as an instrument.37 In the de iuventutehe makes the phases of life depend onthe changing conditions of the vital heat in us.38 Finally he even, if only once, grants it a share inthe nature and divine quality of his aether. Yet the last step-still a large one-of identifying thetEp[Lodvwith the soul and attaching to it attributes of the deity remained to be made by the Stoics.Naturam expellas urca, tamenusquerecurret.With the aether, too, the soul retains or even strengthens its connection. Yet when in Hellen-istic texts the aether is spoken of as the home or essence of the soul, our other two concepts are notlikely to reappear along with it. In its original form Aristotle's synthesis did not survive, and ifall three concepts find themselves again together it is in poetry rather than in technical discourse.In one and the same line of Aeneid VI Vergil endows the souls with aetherium ensumatque auraisimplicis ignem (where aura = rvTEila;cf. spiritusintus alit earlier in this section).39 Here we wouldnot look for scientific precision or systematic consistency. As the poet glides easily from souls tosemina-both significant in our perspective-so he also employs freely one or the other of our conceptsas a symbol of man's divine origin. It is in this sense, as links between man and the divine, thatall three entities which Aristotle had brought together in his ELo'r-Epovwere destined to gain ahold on the religious feeling of the Hellenistic era. As we have said, this Aristotelian conceptionpoints to the future, to the thought of the next generations and centuries; whereas the UnmovedMover, transcendent, remote, and towering in self-sufficient contemplation above the system, wouldbe more visible to distant ages. FRIEDRICH SOLMSEN.CornellUniversity.

35 Legg. 895c7 (CO(v ipa lse ptorg el'?,v arTxrrpoaepoVIAeVI"re t x6 azi KKy%;--ov. 7TS yldp o ; The next stepis the identification of the self-moving dp'X with soul).36 See above, p. I 19 and note 9.37 depart.anim.II, 7. 652b7 ff.; deiuv.4; 6. 470oai9 ff.38 de iuv. 24; cf. 23. 478b31 f.; see also 14. 474a25 ff-and again 4, esp. 469bI3-20.39 Aen.6. 747, 726 (note also 730).