^{page 27 note 1} Anaxagoras and the Parts, C.Q. XX. (1926), pp. 57 sqq.

^{page 27 note 2} The Greek Atomists and Epicurus, App. I.

^{page 27 note 3} C.Q. XXIV. (1930), pp. 14 sqq., 83 sqq.

^{page 27 note 4} C.Q. XXIV. 20.

^{page 27 note 5} It does not affect my position, however.

^{page 27 note 6} C.Q. XXIV. 17.

^{page 28 note 1} There is no conclusive evidence that Aristotle included Fire, Air, Earth, and Water under ὰὁμoιμερῆ.

^{page 28 note 2} Though no doubt this is true. But if they were divisble at all, then, being elements, it follows ex hypothesi that the pieces are like the whole.

^{page 29 note 1} An additional indication that (as usual) Aristotle is is speaking his own language when discussing the philosophy of others is that at the end of passage (b) above (p. 28) he adds a little note to justify himself in using πcomflex;ρ where Anaxagoras had used αlθἠρ.

^{page 29 note 2} Note that—regarded as ‘composed’ of Earth Air Fire Water Flesh etc. are σίνθεα (hist. an. 486a 5, seep. 34, infra).

^{page 29 note 3} It will be senn that this, too, is one of Aristotle's regular criticisms from his own point of view, and in his own language, of another philosopher, and we are not to take his suggestion of how Anax. Came to hold the view he did as intended to be an historically accurate account. Thus, e.g., we are not entitled to argue from his words that Anax, thought, e.g., any actual lump of flesh consisted of flesh in an elementary state and nothing else (see below, p. 36), or even that Aristotle supposed he thought so. Similarly, we cannot argue from this passage that Anax. used the word ὸμoιoμερἠςor the phrase είς ομoιoμερῆ. Any one of us can see that stone can be broken and wood can be sawn into pieces which are still stone or wood; and without the advantage of modern knowledge we might even say that for that reason stone and wood are elemental. That does not prove that we call them ‘homoeomerous.’ Cf. Stocks' note ad loc. in the Oxford translation.

^{page 29 note 4} Contrast however σχεδὸν γὰρ ἄπανα ὰ ὸμoιoμερῆ Met. 984a 13, and his instancing of anima ομoιoμερῆ (ὰ oιαcirxomflex;α ῶν ὸμoιoμερῶν) in the passages quoted on page 28 above.

^{page 30 note 1} See de part. an. 647b 10.

^{page 30 note 2} As has been pointed out (p. 29), these substances are cited by Aristotle as instances of μικὰ σώμαα which will divide up εἰς ομoιoμερ, not explicitly as instances of Anaxagorean elements.

^{page 30 note 3} This assumption is the only evidence brought forward by . MrCornford, (C.Q. XXIV. 19Google Scholar, 20) against the straightforward interpretation of ἑνπανὶ πανὀς μoῖρα νεσι.

^{page 30 note 4} See p.28.

^{page 30 note 5} In frag. 15, preserved by Simplicius.

^{page 30 note 6} Cf. the version given by Simplicius (phys. 460): Fire, Air, Water, Earth, Stones; Fire again. Nεφἑλαι in fr. 16 stand for άἠρ, which in the philosophy of this and earlier date meant Mist (thick air) as against αlθρ (bright air, fire).

^{page 31 note 1} For a discussion of this matter, I may refer the reader to my article in C.Q. XX., especially pp. 59, 60, 63, 67, where this same conclusion is reached (p. 70).

^{page 31 note 2} This process will be fully examined later.

^{page 31 note 3} Simplic, . phys. 27Google Scholar. 11; Lucr. I. 834 sqq. These passages will be examined later.

^{page 31 note 4} It may be remarked in passing that the passage in Plato's, Protagoras 329dGoogle Scholar, which is sometimes cited in support of the hypotheses (a) that ὁμoιoμερἠς=simple (i.e. which will always be found similar in substance throughout, however far divided), and (b) that in Anax. gold was ὁμoιoμερἡς in this sense, lends no support whatever to either of them. Neither the name of Anax. nor the word ὁμoιoμερἠς appears in the passage or its context.

^{page 31 note 5} Frags. 4, 12, 15.

^{page 31 note 6} That is, what are commonly known as ‘the Opposites.’

^{page 31 note 7} E.g. in π. ὸρχ. ηρικς, π. διαίης; see too Plato's Timaeus and elsewhere. In these works the ones they mention are called δνάμεις, ‘strong substances.’

^{page 31 note 8} There is, so far as I known, no evidence in favour of the ‘collective’ meaning of these names—e.g. ὸ θερμ,ν=‘the sum of hot (or comparatively hot) things, which things may have any number of other properties, and agree only in being hot’ (. MrCornford, , C.Q. XXIV. 84; cf. ib. 25, 30)Google Scholar.

^{page 31 note 9} Notably by Burnet (following Tannery; see ed. ii. [1930], pp. 296 ff.) and virtually by Mr. Cornford.

^{page 32 note 1} σιχε10ν must be used of Empedocles and Anaxagoras in the same sense in de caelo 302a, b.

^{page 32 note 2} Schol. in Greg. XXXVI. 911 (Diels B 10). Cf. Achill, . Isag. 30Google Scholar. 2 (Diels A 77) and Philoponus 87. 12.

^{page 32 note 3} Sext, . pyrrh. hyptt. I. 33 (Diels A 97)Google Scholar.

^{page 32 note 4} Arist, . phys. 187–8Google Scholar. Cf. π. άρχ. lηρ., ch. 14.

^{page 32 note 5} See also for these substances Theopher, . 1de sensu 28Google Scholar, where he says that ὀ θ7epsiv;ρμον, ὀψρον, ὸ γλκὺ, ὸ ὀξὺ, etc., are in animal bodies.

^{page 32 note 6} Cf. ibid. 188a 5 sqq.

^{page 32 note 7} E.G.P., ed. iii., p. 263. Burnet himself does not admit what he calls the ‘homoeomeries’ as first principles.

^{page 33 note 1} Cf. p. 32, note 4.

^{page 33 note 2} Ch. 20.

^{page 33 note 3} Ch. 13.

^{page 33 note 4} Cf. those incorporated by Democritus, , Theophr, . de sensu 61 sqqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 33 note 5} Frags. 96, 98.

^{page 33 note 6} For all practical purposes this is the hypo the thesis maintained by Burnet and Mr. Cornford (see p. 36, note 4).

^{page 33 note 7} Cf. Mr. Bailey's version: (i.) All things (inseparable) in all the kinds of Seeds (ii.) All the kinds of Seeds (separable, pp. 545, 548) in all objects. Burnet's first stage coincides with Mr. Cornford's, but he does not seem to get as far as the second. The difficulty in all these interpretations is caused by their reluctance to admit inseparability.

^{page 33 note 8} A further objection might be brought against this hypothesis, viz. that it does not allow for variation (e.g.) of temperature. For it ‘the nature of the tissue depends on the balance or proporation of the mixture’p(C.Q. XXIV.94), as it must, then if flesh is raised from 97 F. to 98 F.it must cease to be flesh, for the proporation on which the existence of flesh depends is altered. There is more of ‘the hot” in it. The theory which I hope to put forward below is not open to this objection.

^{page 34 note 1} Arist, . de gen. an. 715aGoogle Scholar 10; 734b 27 and de part. an, 646a 12 sqq., 647b 22 sqq.

^{page 34 note 2} See hist. an. 486a 5, infra.

^{page 34 note 3} Cf. p. 29, note 2.

^{page 35 note 1} C.Q. XXIV., p. 16.

^{page 35 note 2} ‘Simple’ . MrCornford, explains to mean that, ‘like Aristotle’s “simple bodies,” they cannot be actually divided into any substances of a prior order, but are themselves “elements”’ (p. 17Google Scholar, note 4).

^{page 35 note 3} P. 17.

^{page 35 note 4} Cf. p. 29, note 2.

^{page 35 note 5} De caelo 302b 15 sqq. (quoted on p. 29).

^{page 35 note 6} The distinction on which I am here insisting may be expressed by contrasting ‘division’ or ‘section’ with ‘analysis.’ In Aristotle's usage ὁμoιoμερἠς will then be concerned with ‘section’ only, and not with ‘analysis.’

^{page 35 note 7} I am not here calling into question . MrCornford, 's assertion that in Anaxagoras ‘every natural substance is a simple body and an element’ (p. 17)Google Scholar, but it seems to me that, even if the premisses were correct, the argument by which that conclusion is reached must be fallacious. The argument is difficult to follow, but it seems to be this: Anaxagoras, had a class of substances called ὁμoιoμερῆ. ‘Oμoιoμερἠς means ‘divisble into parts that are like the whole’ (p. 16)Google Scholar. ‘Oμoιoμερ with ‘simple natural substances,’ which Aristotle would never have agreed to.

^{page 36 ntoe 1} This hypothesis seems to have its origin in Lucretius' description of the ‘like-to-like’ process under the name of ‘rrum homoeomeria,’ and a failure to apply to it the necessary complement mentioned by Aristotle, (see phys. 187aGoogle Scholar 36 sqq., p. 32 above), Simplicius(Diels A 41, to be quoted later), and by Lucretius himself (I. 861–866).

^{page 36 ntoe 2} Frags. 8, 12.

^{page 36 note 3} As . MrCornford, does (C.Q. XXIV. 20Google Scholar, 21).

^{page 36 note 4} It is upon this axiom that . MrCornford's, view that, e.g., Flesh is ‘actually…composed of portions of’ the Opposites (C.Q. XXIV. 92)Google Scholar really depends. This leads on to the conclusion (see C.Q. XXIV. 95) that, just as Aristotle's ‘simple bodies’ consisted of our fundamental opposites unable to exist except in a substrate ‘matter,’ so Anaxagoras’ ‘simple bodies’ consisted of the fundamental opposites unable to exist except in a substrate ‘matter.’ But we cannot transplant Aristotle bodily back into Anaxagoras. Besides, if such were Anaxagoras' meaning, we should expect Aristotle to draw attention to so remarkable an anticipation of his own position.

^{page 36 note 5} Arist, Cf.. Met. 1014aGoogle Scholar 26, σιχεῖν …ᾶδιαἱρενῷ εἴδει εἰς ἔερoν εἷδoς; 1014b 14, ὰπάνων δὲ κoινὸν εἷναι σιχεῖoν ὲκάσπρῶγoν ἐνπάρχoν ὲκάσῳ.