BOOK I CH. x1 § 33. 121

identifying it with the books referred to by Arist. An. 12 in the phrase év trois mept Pircocodias Aeyouevors. Bernays gives a full account of it in his Die Dialoge d. Aristoteles pp. 95—114. From this it appears that the 1st book was concerned with the prae-philosophic speculations of the East and of Greece: the discussion respecting Orpheus WV. D. 1107 is supposed to have belonged to this. The 2nd book dealt with the earlier philo- sophers, including Plato; the quotation in Zusc. 111 68 is probably taken from it. The 3rd book, in which Aristotle gave his own view, is largely quoted from in the speech of Balbus, WV. D. 1 42, 44, 95 and without reference in §§ 37, 51, cf. Bywater in Journal of Philology vol. vil pp. 64— 87, and the fragments as they are given by Heitz in the Paris, or Rose in the Berlin, edition of Aristotle. ;
non dissentiens. Colotes is attacked by Plutarch Jf, 1115 for identi- fying the doctrines of Plato and the Peripatetics. It was the view of Antiochus and the eclectics, and is often propounded by C. as his own, cf. Fin. tv 5, Ac. 117, Leg. 1 38.
menti tribuit divinitatem. In Jet. x11 6,7 foll. God is defined as (gov aidiov dpioroy, pure incorporeal reason, vonots vonoews, ever engaged in con- templation of himself, who himself unmoved has from all eternity moved all other things by a divine attraction (kwei ds épwpevor, cf. Gen. et Corr. 11 10 év Gmaow det Tov BeXriovos dpéyerat n dios). Noble as this view is, it yet presents some points of contact with the Epicurean theology, which might have been taken advantage of, if the critic had had any other object beyond that of depreciating all who preceded his master,
mundumipsumdeum. Compare £th. Nic. vit 14 ravra yap pice exee re Geiov; Cael. 11 1, where 6 mas ovpavos is said to be dOavarov kai Beiov, and just below ‘we shall speak most suitably about it if we regard it as God’; again ¢. 3, Oeod évépyeta dBavacia’ dar’ avayKn TO Oeig kivnow aidiov Urapxew" erect & 6 ovpavds Tovodtos (capa yap te Ociov) did TodTO...KUKAw del KuvEtTaL; also Met, x11 8 ‘it has been handed down in mythical form from ancient times that the first mover, and the world which it sets in motion, are Gods, and that all nature is encircled with divinity: but this high doctrine was mixed up with anthropomorphic conceptions. Eliminating these, we shall hold that it was a divine inspiration which led our ancestors to the con- clusion Oeots tas mpwras ovcias eivar’. These expressions however are not to be understood in a Stoic sense as though Aristotle identified the world and God. Transcendence is a distinct feature of the Platonic and Aristotelian theology as opposed to the Stoic Immanence.
alium quendam: Sch. understands this of the guinta natura, the aether of which the heaven itself and the heavenly bodies are composed, but this is the ardor of the next clause: besides, Aristotle never represents it as presiding over the universe or setting it in motion. - Krische is, I believe, right in taking it of the one supreme God, who has been already referred to as mens, but now appears in another character as the First-mover, cf. Arist. Met. x11 6 p. 1071 foll. Phys. vit 5 610 cai ’Avakaycpas dpOds déyet,
122 BOOK I CH. XHI § 33.
Tov voov arab ackwv Kai dpuryf etvat, ered mEp KunoEws apxnV avTov TroLEet elvat’ oUtTw yap av povws Kivoin akivntos dy Kal Kpatoin apyns ov, and c. 10, Bonitz Ind. Arist. ro wperov kwodv 8. v. Kwweiv, Stob. Lel. 64, A. tov pev avo- Tatw Gedy ywpiorov Eidos, dpoiws Wharton, é7y3e3nxora TH opaipa Tov TavTos, Zeller ur’ p. 858 foll.
replicatione: identified with conversio by Sch. but Krische is, I think, again right in regarding it as a translation of the term dvei\récg used of the retrograde movement of the planets: see Met. x11 8 where Aristotle explains the apparent irregularity in the planetary movements by assigning to them distinct ‘spheres’ for the forward and retrograde movements, the latter being called oatpat dveXirrovoa ‘the reversing spheres’ (Lewis Astronomy of the Ancients p. 163 foll.). The same word is used by Plato of the counter-rotation of the Kosmos in the Politicus 270 D. Evvemopevoe TH TOD mavros aveiNi&et TOTE OTav 7 THs viv KaOEeaTNHKLias evavTia ylyynta tpory. Of course it is an absurd blunder in C. or his authority to make the motion of the entire universe depend upon this partial subordinate movement, but we have seen too much of the critic to be surprised at any blunders, and the word replicatio does not seem to admit of any other interpretation; it means ‘folding back’, ‘rolling back’, ‘inverse rotatory movement’. Freund (Andrews), it is true, translates ‘winding up,’ which to us, familiar with watches, might be suggestive of the action of the First-mover, but could hardly be so to the ancients: moreover a periodical winding up is not con- sistent with the constant unchanging attraction ascribed to the First- mover by Aristotle. The addition of guaedam is perhaps a sign that C. had no very clear idea of what he was talking about.
caeli ardorem: cf. § 37 omnia cingentem ardorem qui aether nominatur, also 11 41, 64, 91,92. The proof of its existence is given Arist. Cael. 12 (cf. WV. D. 11 44) where it is argued that ‘as it is the nature of earth to move towards the centre and of fire to move to the circumference, so there must be a body which has by nature a circular movement, and that this body must be @etorépa kai mpotépa than the others because its motion is more perfect. To this eternal celestial substance the ancients gave the name aié)p dd rod det Oeiv, but Anaxagoras wrongly identified it with fire and derived it from aid’. (C’s translation ardor shows that he followed Anax.) The divinity of Aether is proclaimed by Euripides in the verses quoted WV. D. 11 65. Elsewhere C. speaks of it as a quintum genus e quo essent astra mentesque Ac. 1 26 and Tusc. 1 65 sin est quinta quaedam natura, ab Aristotle inducta primum, haec et deoruin est et animorum: but Aristotle (Gen. Anim. U 3), while he allows that in the generation of soul there enters in an element akin to that of the stars, finer and more divine than the other four, adds Aeimerat tov votdv povov Oipaber erecorevat kat Ocioy eivae povov’ ovbev yap avrov TH evepyeia KolWwvel TwpaTiK) evépyera. If we take mundus above to represent odpavos, we may understand ardor caeli here to represent some such original as 6 te aiOnp cat Ta dvw oodparta, of which Arist. says £th. vi 7 that ‘there are many things of a diviner