The Vital Heat, the Inborn Pneuma and the Aether

Author(s): Friedrich Solmsen

Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 77, Part 1 (1957), pp. 119-123
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable 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 of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access 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 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

THE VITAL HEAT, THE INBORN PNEUMA AND THE AETHER

A SHORT
section of Aristotle's degenerationeanimalium'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
dv Wg aSE'povcn
UTOLXELWv

8vvatuS

Kat OELoTEPov
KaAOVPE`VWV
KEKOWVCTLKEvaC
,TC-V
.-q Tota?
T-I&a9E'pEt
v'utS.

'LtrlaToS'

at ObvxatKat.OLKE
.ETEpov
Tq7ucrq7'
TaIFt aAXA'WV, ol0w0Kai
TotEL
Ta
tvaTpXEt ovp
ErptLUaTL
yovt/a E
"
v

/oLEV yap E T
-7TrV-WV
rc)
Voiho
' Oi7Ta01
Tav7a
tTCO
IrvevLa Kal E)V
VEVE/aTt

TO KaAoV/LEvovGEp/dLv.
,vat
"pLaa,
T
Cv
KalEVTopcoS
7TE/pLa/LEavovov
orrvr7C
v'cn, a'va`Aoyovovua 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/ldvcannot 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 Parmenides.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 overpowering 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
a cosmic prinof rE~plcapK'cIv,indulges his speculative vein to the extent of making this 0EpLLdv
ciple 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'dvin 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'). Respiration 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

SvatsaEU,

aA

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.628A26,a,b (cf. Heraclitus' conception of soul
6
as fire, esp. 22B36).
Ibid. 3iA85.

7
8

de somno 3 (esp. 457b6 ff.); de iuv. 24; cf. ibid. 4 if.

de came 2 ff., 6; de nat. hom. 12 (de corde 6). The
de

victu (which is now considered late) even knows

trd tr4

bvyj4jOepldo'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.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:47:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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 considerably more attention than the OEp~Lv,some crucial points are still in doubt.1z While in its
it has yet, naturally enough,
role as vital and animating force it may strike us as a rival of the OEpLdOv,
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
I take it, by the author of raptTlEp7qS-vovdov
come to Diogenes himself and his school-represented,
-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 pneumato 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 parscholars have thought of Diogenes as 7ra-r-jp70o Ad'yovand
ticularly close to Diogenes'-some
of the pneuma doctrine,14 making allowance for some intermediate stages before
7rpc;-os
EWdpE-it reached Aristotle. There is a further similarity which may be of special interest to us: Diogenes
defined the substance of the spermaas foam (opdsc)); and so does Aristotle in a section previous to
ours of the de generationeanimalium.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 pneumais another question. In a paper which appeared in 191316Jaeger 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 influences altogether. If much is obscure, one basic fact should not be lost sight of: from Empedocles
onward through the Timaeusto Aristotle's biology, air (J-ip or vwEvl4a8) 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
. 9
nature (liqowvrov,
ivlEtwvrov)
from these sketches that the three concepts which Aristotle in our passage ties
It will be clear
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'vp~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., 93ff.; 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.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:47:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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!So0sand 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
Eumenideswhich contemporary readers find so distressing-yet when he comes to discuss the offspring's soul the spermamust 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 spermaand 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 spermathey can neither
(c) be present in it beforehand, nor (d), except for the vofk, enter the spermafrom 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 potentialitycould 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
o
pneuma and that this definition includes the statement 7-d
i4p.26 From here
rvEvEadd''re
Aristotle could move on to the conclusion that the
OEpLo
as well as the pneuma
is present and active
OEpL'dv
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
spermapoints to the same conclusion, Aristotle can feel amply justified in drawing it.
There remains the question why Aristotle here, not content with the
pneumaas such, has recourse
also to a substance in it which he describes as 'analogous' to the celestial element. If physical properties 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- 474bIo13; see also 473a4, 469bI 1-17.
22
23
I, 21. See also 20. 729alo f.
736b8-29.
24 The
significance of this sentence seems to have been
more appreciated by A. Platt (who in the Oxford translation 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
I
present).
6vtradtet

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.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:47:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

122

FRIEDRICH

SOLMSEN

communicated from parent to offspring, none of the common four elements can be regarded as
sublime enough. Something OEiovis 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 complement 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 r7pdorovlegatees 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
In the Stoic system pneuma and vital heat no longer need to borrow their
7rEvlxia.
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
distinct), sharing its divine status, and
OBoEpLv
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
as well as with
TTVE~vLa
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 apXnjis in the brain, Chrysippus had to defend his views about the
pneumaagainst 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 corporehave 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 reliquiaequas 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 motusuo. 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
(see also 762bi6 if.);
bVtXLK
somewhat different combination
yet they appear in a 0eptpduo'
(note also the difference between 762a24 ff. and 736b32).
For quotations of Thales' dictum 'slanted' toward ikvXr'
see de an. I, 5. 41IIa8; 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
Cf. Wellmann, ibid. I4 ff.,
I9oI).
20, 70, 77 ff.

32 St. V. F.
II, 897; cf. also II, 879, 885. See Wellmann, op. cit. 15, n.4. In general cf. J. Moreau, L'dme
du mondede Platon aux Stoic (Paris, 1939),
165 f.
33 Cic., de nat. deor. 2. 23 f.; cf. 3. 35.
To Aristotle's
that
fire
is
not
in their way
the
Stoics
point
procreative
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.

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:47:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

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'dvwould 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 Timaeuswhere 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 iuventutehe 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[Lodvwith the soul and attaching to it attributes of the deity remained to be made by the Stoics.
Naturam expellasfurca, tamenusque recurret.
With the aether, too, the soul retains or even strengthens its connection. Yet when in Hellenistic 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 aetheriumsensum 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
were destined to gain a
hold on the religious feeling of the Hellenistic era. As we have ELo'r-Epov
this
Aristotelian conception
said,
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.
37 depart. anim.II, 7. 652b7 ff.; de iuv. 4; 6.
Legg. 895c7
ipa
470oai9 ff.
rrpoaepoVIAeV
(CO(v
lse ptorg el'?,v arTx
38 de iuv. 24; cf. 23. 478b31 f.; see also 14. 474a25 ffat x6 azi K
; The next step
Ky%;--ov.
7TS
yldp
o
isI"re
the identification of the self-moving dp'X with soul).
and again 4, esp. 469bI3-20.
36 See above, p. I 19 and note 9.
39 Aen. 6. 747, 726 (note also 730).
35

This content downloaded from 66.77.17.54 on Thu, 12 Dec 2013 20:47:37 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions