These facts themselves shew it to lie within the province of the natural philosopher to investigate the soul, either in its whole extent or with reference to the states we have described. Every such state however would be differently defined by the natural philosopher and by the transcendentalist. Take, for instance, the question-what is anger? The transcendentalist would define it as the effort after retaliation or the like, the natural philosopher would describe it as a ferment of the pericardial blood or heat. Here then the latter describes the material aspect of the phenomenon, the former states its form and its notion: for it is the notion which constitutes the form of the object, although at the same time it must in order to exist be realized in such and such a matter. Thus in the case of a house, the notion of it would be somewhat to this effect, that it is a shelter fitted to prevent our sustaining damage by winds and rains and violent heats, but the one observer will describe the stones and bricks and timbers, the other will seize upon the form and end which those materials contain. Which then among these is really the true philosopher of nature? Is it he who concerns himself simply with the material aspects and neglects the notion, or is it he who deals with the notion only? Rather, we may answer, it is he who considers the question from both these. standpoints. How then, it may be asked, are we to describe each of the enquirers whom we have named? May we not reply that there is really no one occupied only with the qualities of matter, which are inseparable from it, and so far as they are inseparable from it, but that the natural philosopher is concerned with all the functions and properties. attaching to body or matter in so far as it is of some specific kind? (When the qualities are not taken in this general way, they are dealt with by a specialist, who becomes, it may be, respecting some of them an artist, as for instance a builder or physician.) When on the other hand the qualities, though inseparable, can be treated abstractly and are not the qualities. of any particular kind of body, they fall within the province of the mathematician, and when considered as entirely independent of material substratum, they fall within the province of the metaphysician. δι ἐλέγομεν δ ̓ ὅτι τὰ πάθη τῆς ψυχῆς ἀχώριστα τῆς φυσικῆς ὕλης τῶν ζῴων, ᾗ δὴ τοιαῦθ ̓ ὑπάρχει θυμὸς καὶ φόβος, καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ γραμμὴ καὶ ἐπίπεδον. ΙΙ. Επισκοποῦντας δὲ περὶ ψυχῆς ἀναγκαῖον ἅμα διαπο- 10 ροῦντας περὶ ὧν εὐπορεῖν δεῖ, προελθόντας τὰς τῶν προτέρων δόξας συμπαραλαμβάνειν ὅσοι τι περὶ αὐτῆς ἀπεφήναντο, ὅπως τὰ μὲν καλῶς εἰρημένα λάβωμεν, εἰ δέ τι μὴ και § 2 λῶς, τοῦτ ̓ εὐλαβηθῶμεν. ἀρχὴ δὲ τῆς ζητήσεως προθέσθαι τὰ μάλιστα δοκοῦνθ ̓ ὑπάρχειν αὐτῇ κατὰ φύσιν· τὸ ἔμψυ- 2: χον δὴ τοῦ ἀψύχου δυοῖν μάλιστα διαφέρειν δοκεῖ, κινήσει τε καὶ τῷ αἰσθάνεσθαι. παρειλήφαμεν δὲ καὶ παρὰ τῶν προγενεστέρων σχεδὸν δύο ταῦτα περὶ ψυχῆς. φασὶ γὰρ ἔνιοι καὶ μάλιστα καὶ πρώτως ψυχὴν εἶναι τὸ κινοῦν. οἰηθέντες δὲ τὸ μὴ κινούμενον αὐτὸ μὴ ἐνδέχεσθαι κινεῖν ἕτερον, τῶν 30 § 3 κινουμένων τι τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπέλαβον εἶναι. ὅθεν Δημόκριτος μὲν πῦρ τι καὶ θερμόν φησιν αὐτὴν εἶναι· ἀπείρων γὰρ ὄντων 4043 σχημάτων καὶ ἀτόμων, τὰ σφαιροειδῆ πῦρ καὶ ψυχὴν λέγει, οἷον ἐν τῷ ἀέρι τὰ καλούμενα ξύσματα, ἃ φαίνεται ἐν ταῖς διὰ τῶν θυρίδων ἀκτῖσιν, ὧν τὴν πανσπερμίαν στοιχεία λέγει τῆς ὅλης φύσεως ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Λεύκιππος· τούτων 5 δὲ τὰ σφαιροειδῆ ψυχήν, διὰ τὸ μάλιστα διὰ παντὸς δύνασθαι διαδύνειν τοὺς τοιούτους ῥυσμούς, καὶ κινεῖν τὰ λοιπὰ κινούμενα καὶ αὐτά, ὑπολαμβάνοντες τὴν ψυχὴν εἶναι τὸ We must return however to our original argument. Our position is that the feelings of the soul are inseparable from the physical substratum of animal life. It is in this way then that anger and fear are related to the material: they cannot like lines and surfaces be treated in complete abstraction from it. CHAPTER II. The investigation of the nature of the soul requires that we should not only raise difficulties on questions that require settlement; we should also, after we have gone so far, collect the views of those who have previously stated their opinions on the subject: and this in order that we may at once adopt whatever is correctly stated, and also be on our guard against anything that may be the reverse. The beginning of such an enquiry must be to set forth those characteristics which are generally regarded as the natural attributes of the soul. Now there are two points particularly in which the animate or soul-endowed is thought to differ from the inanimate or soulless-viz. motion and sensation. And these are in fact about the two characteristics of soul which our predecessors have handed down to us. There are some who maintain that fundamentally and primarily the soul is the principle of movement. They reasoned that that which is not itself in motion cannot move anything else, and thus they regarded the soul as one of those objects which were in motion. Democritus, whose view agrees with that of Leucippus, consequently maintained soul to be a sort of fire and heat. For as the forms of the atoms are as the atoms themselves unlimited, he declares that those which are spherical in shape constitute fire and soul, these atoms being like the so-called motes which are seen in the sunbeams that enter through doorways, and it is in such a mixed heap of seeds that he finds the elements of the whole natural world. The reason why they maintain that the spherical atoms constitute the soul, is that atoms of such configuration are best able to penetrate through everything, and to set the other things in motion at the same time as they are moved themselves, the assumption here being that 10 παρέχον τοῖς ζῴοις τὴν κίνησιν. διὸ καὶ τοῦ ζῆν ὅρον εἶναι τὴν ἀναπνοήν· συνάγοντος γὰρ τοῦ περιέχοντος τὰ σώματα, καὶ ἐκθλίβοντος τῶν σχημάτων τὰ παρέχοντα τοῖς ζῴοις τὴν κίνησιν διὰ τὸ μηδ' αὐτὰ ἠρεμεῖν μηδέποτε, βοήθειαν γίγνεσθαι θύραθεν ἐπεισιόντων ἄλλων τοιούτων ἐν τῷ ἀναπνεῖν· κωλύειν γὰρ αὐτὰ καὶ τὰ ἐνυπάρχοντα ἐν τοῖς ζῴοις ἐκκρίνεσθαι, συνανείργοντα τὸ συνάγον καὶ πηγνύον· καὶ ζῆν 15 § 4 δὲ ἕως ἂν δύνωνται τοῦτο ποιεῖν. ἔοικε δὲ καὶ τὸ παρὰ τῶν Πυθαγορείων λεγόμενον τὴν αὐτὴν ἔχειν διάνοιαν· ἔφασαν γάρ τινες αὐτῶν ψυχὴν εἶναι τὰ ἐν τῷ ἀέρι ξύσματα, οἱ δὲ τὸ ταῦτα κινοῦν. περὶ δὲ τούτων εἴρηται, διότι συνεχῶς φαίνεται κινούμενα, κἂν ᾖ νηνεμία παντελής. ἐπὶ ταὐτὸ δὲ 10 φέρονται καὶ ὅσοι λέγουσι τὴν ψυχὴν τὸ αὐτὸ κινοῦν· ἐοίκασι γὰρ οὗτοι πάντες ὑπειληφέναι τὴν κίνησιν οἰκειότατον εἶναι τῇ ψυχῇ, καὶ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα πάντα κινεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν ψυχήν, ταύτην δ ̓ ὑφ ̓ ἑαυτῆς, διὰ τὸ μηθὲν ὁρᾶν κινοῦν ὃ § 5 μὴ καὶ αὐτὸ κινεῖται. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ̓Αναξαγόρας ψυχὴν 25 εἶναι λέγει τὴν κινοῦσαν, καὶ εἴ τις ἄλλος εἴρηκεν ὡς τὸ πᾶν ἐκίνησε νοῦς, οὐ μὴν παντελῶς γ ̓ ὥσπερ Δημόκριτος. ἐκεῖνος μὲν γὰρ ἁπλῶς ταὐτὸν ψυχὴν καὶ νοῦν· τὸ γὰρ ἀληθὲς εἶναι τὸ φαινόμενον· διὸ καλῶς ποιῆσαι τὸν Ομηρον ὡς 13. οὐρανόθεν Τ. Η εἴτ ̓ εἰσιόντων Ε. τὴν UW. 19. συχνῶς W. 28. ταὐτὸ the soul is that which supplies animals with motion. This same assumption led them to regard respiration as the boundary with which life was coterminous. It was, they held, the tendency of the encircling atmosphere to cause contraction in the animal body and to expel those atomic forms, which, from never being at rest themselves, supply animals with mcvement. This tendency however was counteracted by the reinforcement derived from the entrance from outside in the act of respiration of new atoms of a similar kind. These last in fact—such was their theory-as they united to repel the compressing and solidifying forces prevented those atoms already existing in animals from being expelled from them and life, they thought, continued so long as there was strength to carry on this process. The doctrine ascribed to the Pythagoreans seems also to have this same meaning. Some of them maintained that the soul was the motes within the air, others held that it was what put them in motion. Such motes have been employed to describe the soul, because they present the appearance of continual movement, even though there be a perfect calm. Similar to the opinion which has just been stated is that which describes the soul as something which sets itself int motion this and all other like definitions seeming to regard movement as the most distinctive characteristic of the soul. All other things, the supporters of these views imply, are moved in virtue of their soul, but soul is moved by itself: a conclusion which is explained by the observation that nothing is found to produce movement without at the same time moving itself. Anaxagoras, in like manner, describes mind as the principle of movement: and this indeed must be the account given of it also by any other philosopher who maintains that reason set the universe in motion. Anaxagoras, however, did not regard soul in this light so completely as did Democritus. The latter absolutely identified soul and reason, holding as he did that that which presented itself to sense was real truth so that (he observed) Homer had well sung of Hector |