HEIDEL. — Ilep! Screws. 99 



law, principle, or force. As we have seen, <jSu'o-is and <pveiv seemed to 

 imply a growth from within, directed not by an external force or power, 

 but obedient to its own laws. The importance of this conception can- 

 not easily be measured. It expresses succinctly the opposition of lo-ropta 

 irepl Screws and juvflos irepl dewv. As Aristotle well puts it, Phys. 192 b 

 8 : tci fxiv Icttl cpvaru, to. 8e 8l aAAas aiTtas. That which is (pvact is auto- 

 nomous, or, as the Socratics would say, avTofj-arov. The pre-Socratics, 

 when they use to airoparov strictly, deny its existence in nature, since 

 every thing has its cause, though we may be ignorant of it. The law 

 of nature is an inner constraint or dvay/07. 76 Hence <£t'cm, besides be- 

 ing the embodiment of all natural laws, is also the mode 77 of operation, 

 or TpoVos, and so comes to mean the customary. 78 Indeed habit becomes 

 a " second-nature," 79 and thus approaches vcyxo?. 80 It was apparently 



kclI <pv<nv. Probably the last (= lineage) should be classed under III. A, 2, but 

 many cases present difficulties. 



76 Eurip. Troad. 886 Zetfs, eh' dvdyK-q <pv<reos ehe vovs pporQv. Here, as often, 

 it is difficult to distinguish whethei it is the mode or the force which predominates in 

 the conception of law. The conception of <pvais as comparable to dvdyKT) is neatly 

 shown in Hippocr. II. dialrrjs, A, 28 (6, 502 Littre) ^vxh pev oOv alel bpolr) Kal kv pi^ovi 

 Kal iv eXdcraovi • ov yap aXXoiovrai ovre 5td <pvo~iv oiJre oY dvdy ktjv • aQ/xa 5e ovde- 

 Kore twuto ovre Kara <pv<riv ov0' vir' dvdyK-qs. As has been already said, the 

 Socratics did not really understand what the pre-Socratics meant by saying that a 

 phenomenon occurs dvdyKy ; as it was opposed to what occurs according to design, it 

 was rashly described almost indifferently as due to no cause at all, to tvxv, or to 

 to avroparov. Cp. such popular phrases as 7/ avayitaia tvxv> Soph., Ai. 485. 



77 Hippocrates, II. 6<tt4wv (pvcrios, 18 (9, 194 Littre') 7; de €k tQv dpto-repCiv <pXe\[/ . . . 

 TTjf ai>Tr)v (pvaiv eppifarat. rfj iv rolai de^ioiaiv. If one compares the analogous use of 

 5vvap.iv, e.g. Hippocrates, II. dialr-qs, A, 10 (6, 484 Littre) daXdao-qs Svvap.iv, and the 

 common adverbial use of 51ktjv, one is naturally struck by the circle of ideas from 

 which the usage springs. The comparison shows the need of caution in inferring 

 etymology from particular senses of a word. Cp. Soph., Phil., 164 f. piorrjs <pwiv 



{= TpOTTOv). 



78 The association of <pv<jL<s with rb elw66s is common ; see, e.g. Hippocrates, II. leprjs 

 vovaov, 14 (6, 388 Littre) 17 ti &XXo Treirbvd-q nddos wapa t/jc <pvcnv 8 p.r) iudei. Ilpo- 

 yvwo-TiKov, 2 (2, 112 ff. Littre). It is the best sign in regard to the symptom, el opoibv 

 iffri roicri tCiv vyiaivovrwv, pdXiara 5e el avrb ewvrew. ovtui yap av ei'77 dpicrrov, to Se 

 evavTiurarov rod bp.olov, beivbrarov. (For rb (pvaei in relation to likeness, see Proclus 

 in Platon. Crat., pp. 7, 18 ff., Pasquali.) Ibid, passim rb £iV>?0es is regarded as Kara 

 <pv<nv. [Arist.] Probl. 949 a 31 to ird\iv eh t<x elwObra iXdelv awT-qpla yiverat avroh 

 wff-wep els (pvtreois KardiTTacnv. Thiccyd. II. 45, 2 (advice to women) ttjs re yap virap- 

 XOv<tt]S (pticrews prj x €l P 0<TL yeveadai vp.lv peydXrj 7) 56£a. 



79 Democritus, fr. 33 17 <pvms /cat 77 dtdaxv TrapairX-qaibv eaTi. Kal yap 77 diSax'ri 

 perapvcrp-ol rbv dvOpwrrov, pLerapvapovcra 5e <pv<noTroie?. [Arist.] Probl. 949 a 27 peya 

 p.k> ti Kal rb ZOos iarlv eKaffTois ■ <pv<ris yap tj5tj ylverai. Theo])hrastus, C. P. II. 5, 5 

 to yap idos (referring to plant life) wairep <pv<ris ydyove. Cp. Nauck, Poet. Trag. Fr. 

 Adespota, 516 ; Xen. Lacon. 3, 4. 



80 The fact that the pre-Socratics contrasted <p6<ns and vbp.o% is instructive. They 



