THE GREEK ATTITUDE 



that organic bodies evolved from inorganic matter. 

 He, of course, knew that the material parts of ani- 

 mals are made of inorganic matter, but that life was 

 but an evolution of the physical elements and forces 

 is quite contrary to his thought: "But if men and 

 animals and their several parts are natural phenom- 

 c?m, then the natural philosopher must take into con- 

 sideration not merely the ultimate substances of 

 which they are made, but also flesh, bone, blood, and 

 all the other homogeneous parts; not only these, but 

 also the heterogeneous parts, such as face, hand, foot; 

 and must examine how each of these comes to be what 

 it is, and in virtue of what force. For to say what are 

 the ultimate substances out of which animal is formed, 

 to state, for instance, that it is made of fire or earth, 

 is no more sufficient than would be a similar ac- 

 count in the case of a couch or the like. For we should 

 not be content with saying that the couch was made 

 of bronze or wood or whatever it might be, but 

 should try to describe its design or mode of composi- 

 tion in preference to the material.""'^ He then answers 

 Democritus, who thought that form and colour con- 

 stitute the essence of the various animals by saying: 

 "And yet a dead body has exactly the same configura- 

 tion as a living one; but for all that is not a man."^^ 

 We may conclude this discussion of Aristotle's 



20 640 b. 



21 640 b. 



1:633 



