tfriedrich solmsen friedrich solmsen, the vital heat, the inborn pneuma and the aether

The Vital Heat, the Inborn Pneuma and the AetherAuthor(s): Friedrich SolmsenSource: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 77, Part 1 (1957), pp. 119-123Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/628643 .Accessed: 12/12/2013 20:47

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

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

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:47:37 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE VITAL HEAT, THE INBORN PNEUMA AND THE AETHER A SHORT section of Aristotle's de generatione animalium' embodies his final answer to the question how

the faculties of soul are transmitted from parent to offspring. Aristotle here speaks in a tone which is 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 in quality as the souls themselves differ in worth. This substance is identical with two of the entities mentioned in our title and 'analogous' to the third.

Hcacng tL&I v ov-qs X 8vvatuS

.ETEpov 'LtrlaToS .OLKE KEKOWVCTLKEvaC Kat OELoTEPov

,TC-V KaAOVPE`VWV

UTOLXELWv dv W g aSE'povcn v Tq7ucrq7' at Obvxat Kat '

TaIFt aAXA'WV, ol0w0 Kai .- q Tota? T-I&a9E'pEt v'utS. -7TrV-WV /oLEV yap E T

rc) ErptLUaTL tvaTpXEt ovp TotEL yovt/a E ,vat Ta

" "pLaa,

TO KaAoV/LEvov GEp/dLv. Voiho ' Oi 7Ta 01 Tav7a Svatsa EU, aA

7TE/pLa/LEavovov Cv T

orrvr7C Kal E V TopcoS

IrvevLa Kal t- E)V TCO VEVE/aTt v'cn, a'va`Aoyov ovua c_3T _3v aurpwv orT0oXElc. The sentences which follow state that fire has no generative or procreative power, yet such a

power must be present in the Sun and in the &Oppld, the vital heat of living beings. Clearly, then, this OEp/ldv cannot be identical with the fire.z

Nowhere else in the body of his preserved work does Aristotle establish this close connection between the vital heat, the pneuma, and the element of the stars, the so-called aether. These three concepts differ as much in their origin and past history as in their function and place within Aristotle's own physical or biological system.3 A brief sketch of them-skipping by necessity many significant episodes 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 Aristotle himself who added this element to the canonic four of the Empedoclean and Platonic tradition. The dialogue On Philosophy and 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 of this element is the entire heavenly region, extending from the First Heaven to the moon; below this, in the regions occupied by the four other elements, it is never to be found.4

For 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 primarily intended as a contribution to physiology, yet the physiological significance of this thought was perceived by his successors; witness Empedocles, who taught that 'sleep comes about when the heat of the blood is cooled in the proper degree, death when it becomes altogether cold'.6 This doctrine 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 interaction of hot and cold he propounds doctrines more subtle than his precursors).7 Between Empedocles and Aristotle we encounter the concept occasionally in the Hippocratics, one of whom, the author of rE~pl capK'cIv, indulges his speculative vein to the extent of making this 0EpLLdv a cosmic principle and investing it with attributes of divinity.8 However, if we look for antecedents of Aristotle's theories, the most important are probably to be found in the Timaeus. Here Plato shows in some detail how in respiration the OEpL'dv in us is cooled by the air which enters from outside, and he relies on the cutting power of the fire, which is here identical with the 'hot', to explain the process of digestion.9 In Aristotle the OEpidAV is connected with the same functions. Its role in digestion is set forth in De partibus animalium (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 us in fact a little biographical sketch of the vital heat, detailing its phases from its first appearance in the genesis of a living being to its final withering in death.Io Yet the GlEPLdv is also the 'seat' of the nutritive soul, and as nutrition and reproduction are closely linked in Aristotle's scheme we may here 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, Aristotle Parva Naturalia 40-3. 4 Cf. de philos. 26 f., 29 (Walzer); de caelo I, 2 f. and

pass.; 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.6 28A26,a,b (cf. Heraclitus' conception of soul as fire, esp. 22B36). 6 Ibid. 3iA85.

7 de somno 3 (esp. 457b6 ff.); de iuv. 24; cf. ibid. 4 if. 8 de came 2 ff., 6; de nat. hom. 12 (de corde 6). The de victu (which is now considered late) even knows trd tr4 bvyj4j Oepldo'v (2,60.62). 9 Tim. 78b-79e (note 79d2 ff.). On Tim. 79e see my

paper 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.


120 FRIEDRICH SOLMSEN with their capacity of producing offspring in varying degrees of perfection. Only animals that possess 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 its role as vital and animating force it may strike us as a rival of the OEpLdOv, it 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 go back to Anaximenes or trace connections between him and Diogenes of Apollonia. When we come to Diogenes himself and his school-represented, I take it, by the author of raptT lEp7qS- vovdov -we find the mobile air in our body recognised as the agent of our sensations and as the central animating force which accounts, among other things, for the movement of our limbs.13 Aristotle too needs the pneuma to explain the movement of animals and with him, too, it is the physical agent of 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-jp 70o Ad'yov and 7rpc;-os EWdpE-- of the pneuma doctrine,14 making allowance for some intermediate stages before it reached Aristotle. There is a further similarity which may be of special interest to us: Diogenes defined the substance of the sperma as foam (opdsc)); and so does Aristotle in a section previous to ours of the de generatione animalium.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 the origin of his pneuma is another question. In a paper which appeared in 191316 Jaeger put forward strong reasons for thinking that Aristotle had received his pneuma concept along with other and related doctrines from the Sicilian school of physicians-men like Philistion and Diocles, who were working in the tradition of Empedocles. It may be argued that in the meantime Jaeger has himself removed the strongest pillar on which his theory originally rested; for if Diocles, as Jaeger has since shown,I7 was actually a pupil and younger associate of Aristotle, his views concerning the functions of the pneuma are no longer good evidence for the 'Sicilian' tradition. Even so, however, we can hardly 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 Empedocles onward through the Timaeus to Aristotle's biology, air (J-ip or vwEvl4a 8) is one of the four elements of which all living beings are 'compacted'. In this cardinal point the tradition is constant; and if 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 their nature (liqowvrov, ivlEtwvrov) . 9 It will be clear from these sketches that the three concepts which Aristotle in our passage ties together-actually identifying two and almost identifying the third with both of them- are normally distinct 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, yet before 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 the aether-or something like it-a place in his biology and a function in the phenomena and substances EpE' 7'o'v p~e'iov Td&Tov. Barely two pages before this section he has marshalled all resources for a most painstaking 'chemical' inquiry about the nature of the sperma, with the result that 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 so firm 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.f 12 Besides Jaeger's studies (presently to be cited) see in particular 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) and J. 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 the relation 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 passage is) V, 2. 78Ia2I ff. For Diogenes as ultimate source cf.

Pohlenz, Hip[okrates (Berlin 1938), 39 f., 93 ff.; Erna Lesky, 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 in the organism

of non-breathers (de iuv. 15. 475a6 ff.; de part. an. III, 6. 669a2) and in the ear and its Tadpot (de an. 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).

o20 II, 2. 735a3o ff., b8 ff., b32 ff., 736ai f.


THE VITAL HEAT, THE INBORN PNEUMA AND THE AETHER 121 where he seems to have no qualms at all about their identity.2I If Aristotle always knew this affinity of the vital heat with the aether (or of pneuma and aether) he must have been biding his time with extraordinary patience and reticence, waiting for a suitable occasion when he would flash forth this startling doctrine upon the astonished world. Finally, as regards the subject of reproduction, Book I has assured us that the male parent contributes nothing material to the foetus but only E!So0s and JdpX- Kv'YJcEo 0.22 To be sure, this question is reopened in Book II, where the origin of the soul functions in the foetus must be accounted for. It looks as though Aristotle, as long as he deals with the offspring's body, does not need any material contribution on the part of the male parent-here his position is practically the opposite of the 'biological argument' in the Eumenides which contemporary readers find so distressing-yet when he comes to discuss the offspring's soul the sperma must contribute something material, albeit the finest and noblest material, a brt&vs analogous to the aether.

We cannot go into every aspect of these problems. I think, however, we should firmly hold to the view that our section gives us Aristotle's answer to the question how the soul functions come to be present in the foetus. The preceding section has ended in an impasse (even if this is not clearly seen by all interpreters).23 The assumption there made is that the soul functions should be present 'potentially' in sperma and foetation; yet when this idea is translated into concrete terms none of the various possibilities will work. These functions cannot (a) all be present beforehand in the material supplied by the female, nor can they (b) all develop in this material without the help of the male partner; on the other hand, if they come by way of the sperma they can neither (c) be present in it beforehand, nor (d), except for the vofk, enter the sperma from an outside source. The last sentence of that section puts a brutal end to lingering hopes that they might after all enter in the sperma. The sperma, it says in conformity with the doctrines of Book I, is '(only) a residue of the nourishment'. Thus it is surely not a suitable vehicle for the soul functions.24 An agonising predicament. 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 premises so far used, can the deadlock be broken; and our section, which opens up new vistas and treats the sperma not as residue of nourishment but as including a physis comparable to 'the element of the stars', embodies Aristotle's final and satisfactory solution. This solution may well be the result of a long and intense search; that it is his final word is also suggested by the fact that no other section of our Book 'follows up' the ideas here put forward or operates on the level of the new discovery.25

If we now look for specific reasons why each of our three concepts figures in this final answer, we should remember that the sperma has previously been defined as a compound of water and pneuma and that this definition includes the statement 7-d o rvEvEad d''re

OEpLo i4p.26 From here Aristotle could move on to the conclusion that the OEpL'dv as well as the pneuma is present and active in the seed. Moreover, the 0Ep1LOdv had 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 a sideline, as it were, of nutrition. It is the 'hot power' in us which by concocting the nourishment produces blood as well as sperma; and the same hot power remains active in every later phase of reproduction and embryonic growth.27 The pneuma, on the other hand, is as we know associated with psychic functions like locomotion and some of the sensations; hence it may logically play a part also in the transmission of such functions to the offspring. As the 'chemical' study of the sperma points to the same conclusion, Aristotle can feel amply justified in drawing it. There remains the question why Aristotle here, not content with the pneuma as such, has recourse also to a substance in it which he describes as 'analogous' to the celestial element. If physical pro- perties of the sperma are relevant, its 'whiteness' (the AEvKdv) may be mentioned;28 yet whatever allowance we make for physical or 'empirical' reasons, the point of principal interest is that the aether here substantiates, and gives concrete form to, the conviction formulated in our first sentence: the 8&vaCLcs of 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 are

21 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 been more appreciated by A. Platt (who in the Oxford transla- tion adds the 'only') than by Peck, who in vain scans Aristotle's alternatives for hints of a solution (on 736b2 i). On the other hand, Platt's assumption of a lacuna at 737a8 and his doubts about aI7 fif. are gratuitous (for our 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 rrpoi3rrdprovaat 736b 17 to

'Tpoi'TdpXetv. 25 II, 6. 742aI5 f. indicates a different origin of the pneuma 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.


122 FRIEDRICH SOLMSEN communicated from parent to offspring, none of the common four elements can be regarded as sublime enough. Something OEiov is needed (even though, we may once more remember, the antecedent inquiry into the nature of the sperma has found no evidence in it of substances other than water and air). To be sure, Aristotle has often established a connection or co-operation between soul and body; he knows that soul needs physical iopyava. Yet only here, where he is dealing 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 If he 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 concepts clearly reflect the cosmological approach to the deity and keep the divine principle closely associated with the perfect movements of the Heaven. Both are Ka-d r7pdorov legatees of the Platonic World-Soul. With soul, life, and biological processes they have no obvious connection. Nor could one easily imagine that the discovery of a divine ingredient in such a process should suggest to Aristotle a revision of his theological tenets. Yet if for Aristotle himself the discovery has no further 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 OEptPdv as well as in the

7rEvlxia. In the Stoic system pneuma and vital heat no longer need to borrow their

divine quality from the aether. Both of them are now substantially connected with the fire (from which Aristotle in our section is so anxious to keep his OBoEpLv distinct), sharing its divine status, and both are cosmic as well as psychic principles.

There is no reason to suppose that the Stoics learned much about the remarkable 'powers' of either of these principles by studying the 'esoteric' treatises of Aristotle.3o Interest in these principles was continuous and was kept up by those whose primary concern they were, the medical schools. Diocles of Carystus shares Aristotle's conviction that the pneuma is concentrated in the heart; there is evidence that he operated with the concept of the IVXLtKV TTVE~vLa as well as with that of vital heat.31 At the other end of the development we find Chrysippus appealing to one medical authority-Praxagoras of Cos-against others in his effort to retain the heart as seat of the vital pneuma. The nerves had in the meantime been discovered, and were now considered the carriers of the pneuma. As their apXnj is in the brain, Chrysippus had to defend his views about the pneuma against 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 the senses the uses were not actually very different). As for the Stoic 7rTp or OEpLd'v, the medical tradition about the vital heat need not be more than one component of this concept, and we are hardly in a position to decide whether this scientific 'substratum' or their interest in Heraclitus' fire contributed more to its formation. Some physiological arguments which the Stoics-in particular Cleanthes-used to show quanta vis insit caloris in omni corpore have a familiar ring to students of Aristotle's biology. They include the function of the calor (n.b. the Opopvd, not in this case the 7r-p) in nutrition, in digestion, in the reliquiae quas natura respuit, yet they also include life itself as being dependent on this calor.33 One point is new and could not have been made by Aristotle in this form: the hot moves motu suo. It is a self-mover. This predicate of the deity which characterised Plato's World-Soul now attaches to the vital heat which Plato too had known but which he had been 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 the elements also the traditional 'powers' (hot and cold, moist and dry).34 Nothing so material, so lacking in vois and -i'Xv' as the 'hot' could for him be a physical principle. Only Soul can initiate

29 III, ii. 762a19-22. Here, too, Aristotle makes use of

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 Ia8; PI., Legg. Io. 899b9; Epin. 99IdI ff.

30 On the relation of 7Tvegia and uirp in early Stoicism see Pohlenz, Die Stoa (Berlin, I948), I, 73 f.; of 7Tveipa and Oeppudv Jaeger, Hermes 48, 50, n. I.

3' Frgs...44, 59; 8, 15 in M. Wellmann, Die Fragmente d. 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'dme du monde de Platon aux Stoic (Paris, 1939), 165 f. 33 Cic., de nat. deor. 2. 23 f.; cf. 3. 35. To Aristotle's point that fire is not procreative the Stoics in their way do justice by distinguishing two kinds of fire, one consuming and destructive, the other constructive and procreative (St. V. F. I, I20; 504). For the reliquiae (Trept-xcwTaTza) see 737a4 in our section.

34 Legg. Io, 889b.


THE VITAL HEAT, THE INBORN PNEUMA AND THE AETHER 123 movement, and the primacy in the physical world must be assigned to her. Yet if 'life' is a criterion for primacy35 the OEpL'dv would seem to have claims for consideration; as we know, its crucial role in the life process was understood at the time. In the physiology of the Timaeus where Plato cannot dispense with the vital heat, he treats it like nutrition and respiration as a necessary condition for the functioning of the organism, yet allows it no determining influence on life and death, or growth and decline. It is never permitted to come near the sphere of psyche.36 We need not hesitate to say that Plato has deliberately reduced its importance. Aristotle too is opposed to the thought of identifying soul and vital heat, yet he does not feel that Soul is contaminated if it has its seat in the OEp!_Ldv or uses it as an instrument.37 In the de iuventute he makes the phases of life depend on the changing conditions of the vital heat in us.38 Finally he even, if only once, grants it a share in the nature and divine quality of his aether. Yet the last step-still a large one-of identifying the tEp[Lodv with the soul and attaching to it attributes of the deity remained to be made by the Stoics. Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret.

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 not likely to reappear along with it. In its original form Aristotle's synthesis did not survive, and if all 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 sensum atque aurai simplicis ignem (where aura = rvTEila; cf. spiritus intus alit earlier in this section).39 Here we would not look for scientific precision or systematic consistency. As the poet glides easily from souls to semina-both significant in our perspective-so he also employs freely one or the other of our concepts as a symbol of man's divine origin. It is in this sense, as links between man and the divine, that all three entities which Aristotle had brought together in his ELo'r-Epov

were destined to gain a hold on the religious feeling of the Hellenistic era. As we have said, this Aristotelian conception points to the future, to the thought of the next generations and centuries; whereas the Unmoved Mover, transcendent, remote, and towering in self-sufficient contemplation above the system, would be more visible to distant ages.

FRIEDRICH SOLMSEN. Cornell University.

35 Legg. 895c7 (CO(v ipa lse ptorg el '?,v arTx rrpoaepoVIAeV I"re at

x6 azi K Ky%;--ov. 7TS yldp o ; The next step is the identification of the self-moving dp'X with soul). 36 See above, p. I 19 and note 9.

37 de part. anim. II, 7. 652b7 ff.; de iuv. 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).


Article Contentsp. [119]p. 120p. 121p. 122p. 123

Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 77, Part 1 (1957), pp. 1-176Front MatterPlato and the Copula: Sophist 251-259 [pp. 1-6]Magna Moralia and Nicomachean Ethics [pp. 7-11]Gorgias and the Socratic Principle Nemo Sua Sponte Peccat [pp. 12-17]Timaeus 38A8-B5 [pp. 18-23]Notes on Some Manuscripts of Plato [pp. 24-30]Empedocles and the Clepsydra [pp. 31-34]Aristotle as a Historian of Philosophy: Some Preliminaries [pp. 35-41]Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, and the Law of Athens [pp. 42-47]Knowledge and Forms in Plato's Theaetetus [pp. 48-53]Aristotle's Use of Medicine as Model of Method in His Ethics [pp. 54-61]Aristotle and the Consequentia Mirabilis [pp. 62-66]The Philosophy of Ammonius Saccas [pp. 67-74]Aristotle's [pp. 75-80]Le Texte D'Aristote Physique H, 1-3 Dans les Versions Arabo-Latines [pp. 81-86]Metaphysik: Name und Gegenstand [pp. 87-92]A Latin Commentary (? Translated by Boethius) on the Prior Analytics, and Its Greek Sources [pp. 93-102]A Proof in the [pp. 103-111]Bipartition of the Soul in the Early Academy [pp. 112-118]The Vital Heat, the Inborn Pneuma and the Aether [pp. 119-123]Plato, Phaedo 74 A-B [pp. 124-126]Ein Vergessenes Aristoteleszeugnis [pp. 127-131]Sidelights on Greek Philosophers [pp. 132-141]Al-Frb's Theory of Prophecy and Divination [pp. 142-148]Some Psychological Terms in Greek Tragedy [pp. 149-154]Die Stellung der Schrift 'ber Die Philosophie' in der Gedankenentwicklung des Aristoteles [pp. 155-162]Notices of BooksReview: untitled [pp. 163-164]Review: untitled [pp. 164-165]Review: untitled [p. 165]Review: untitled [pp. 165-166]Review: untitled [p. 166]Review: untitled [pp. 166-167]Review: untitled [pp. 167-168]Review: untitled [pp. 168-169]Review: untitled [pp. 169-170]Review: untitled [p. 170]Review: untitled [pp. 170-171]Review: untitled [pp. 171-172]Review: untitled [p. 172]Review: untitled [p. 172]Review: untitled [pp. 172-173]Review: untitled [p. 173]Review: untitled [pp. 173-174]

Back Matter [pp. 174-176]

tfriedrich solmsen friedrich solmsen, the vital heat, the inborn pneuma and the aether

Documents