Page:The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, Volume 1, 1854.djvu/266

 256 Journal of Philology. on this subject from Aristotle and his followers, owing to the relentless warfare which they wage against the theory in ques- tion ; and there are abundant passages in their writings to prove that they saw a close analogy between it and the doctrines of Democritus, blaming both in terms almost identical for seeking to derive weight and extension from an immaterial element. I will cite only a few of the most striking of these. Aristotle (Metaph. M. (xm.) 6. p. 1080 b. 16) has these words : Kal ol Uv6a- yopeioi 8' cva (dpidpov), tov padr/partKov, nXr)v ov Kcxcopio-pevov dXX' k tovtov ras ala-drjTas ovaias (rvvearavai (paalv tov yap SXov ovpavbv Kara- o-Kevafavaiv <? dpidp&v, -jtXtjv ov povabiK&v (i. e. abstract arithmetical number), dXXa ras povdbas viroXapfidvovaiv e^etv pcyedos' onus be to trpStrov ev o~vvo~tt) e%ov peyeOos, diropelv coiKao~iv. And line 30, pova- btKovs be tovs dpidpovs elvai navres TiOeaai, nXfjv rav Hvdayopelav, oo~ot to ev orot^ftov Kal dpr)v (paaiv eivat t5>v ovrav eelvoi 8' eovras peyt6os, naOcmep ctprjTat irporepov. Upon which Alexander, or the Pseudo- Alexander, (p. 723. 1) thus comments: Kal oi UvBayopetot be eva dpiOpbv eivai vopl^ovat, Kal Tiva tovtov; tov padrjpaTiKov, ttXtjv ov Kexcopi- apevov tg>v alo-drjTCiVy as ol irepl EevoKpdrrjv, ovbe povabiKov, rovreoriv dpeprj Kal daaparoVy (povabiKov yap to dpepes Kal dadparov evravda brjXot,) dXXa Tas povdbas Kal brjXovbrt Kal tovs dpidpovs xmoXap^dvovres oi Hv6ay6peioi peyeOos e%eiv '* tvto>v ras aladrjTas ova-las Kal tov dtravra ovpavbv eivai Xtyovaiv, with much more to the same effect. Bonitz in his commentary (p. 545), and Zeller (Phil. d. Gr. I. p. 100) say that this notion of the monads having magnitude does not come from the Pythagoreans, but is an inference of Aristotle's own. But he had surely better means of judging of this, than they can have; and even supposing them to be right, Democritus may well have looked upon the matter in the same point of view as Aristotle. But in another part of the same book of his Metaphysics (ch. 8. p. 1083 b. 11) Aristotle brings this theory into closer connexion with the atomic : to to adpara, he says, dptdpoiv elvai avyKelpeva Kal tov dpiBpbv tovtov elvai paOr/pariKov dbvvarov e'crriv. ovre yap a to pa peyedrj Xeyeiv dXrjOes' (iff on pdXiara tovtov e%ei tov Tpoirov, ov% at ye povdbes peyedos e^ovaiv' peyedos 8* ' dbiaiperav ovyKelo~- 6at rrus 8wot6v; On which Alexander (p. 745. 4) remarks: diXXa rb Xiycw axopa ptyi.Br) tyevbos' noXXas yap evOvvas bebcoKcv r) Ta aropa peyedrj tladyovaa b6a, yes, from its Peripatetic persecutors. In two other passages, (de Cod. in. 1. p. 300 a. 17) rh pev (pvaiKa acopara (paiverai /Sapos fyovra Kal Kov<poTT)Ta, ras be povdbas ovre awpa