126 PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY. 



obtain the clearest view of them." Quite apart from the obvious debt 

 of Aristotle in this matter to Plato 178 and Hippocrates, it must be 

 clear that this method of procedure has no relevancy to the distinct- 

 ively Socratic doctrine of definition in terms of the end or purpose ; it 

 is a survival from the naturalistic or mechanical mode of thought, de- 

 veloped in the pre-Socratic age, which explains things in terms of their 

 origin and physical constituents. 



Socrates, the originator of the teleological method, could not under- 

 stand this procedure. To his mind it belonged not to theory, but to 

 the sphere of the practical arts. There is an extremely interesting 

 passage touching this matter in Xenophon's Memorabilia. 119 "Nor 

 did he (Socrates) converse," we are told, "about the constitution of 

 the world (7repi 7-779 iw ttwtwv Screws), as the majority of the philoso- 

 phers do, inquiring how that which the philosophers call the cosmos 

 originated 180 and by what mechanical forces 181 (dvayKcu?) the phe- 

 nomena of the heavens are brought about, but he even declared that 

 they who worry their heads about such matters are fools." ..." He 

 inquired also concerning the philosophers, asking whether, in like man- 

 ner as they who learn the human arts 182 think that they shall be able 

 to make what they may learn either for themselves or for whomsoever 

 they please, so also they who study things divine think that when they 

 have learned by what mechanical forces they severally come about, they 

 shall at their pleasure make winds and rains 183 and whatever of the 



178 Especially Repub. 368 D foil., Phaedr. 270 C foil. Cp. Plato's summary of 

 the Republic in Tim. 17 C x^ s irov T ^" / 1 -" r ' ^/J-ov pr/divTuv \bywv irepl iroMrelas r)v rb 

 Ke<p&\aiov o'ia re Kal ei; o'iwv dvbpQiv dpiurt] KaTefiaiver' &v fxoi yevicrdai. For the 

 thought that to understand a thing one should see it put together, cp. Tim. 27 C, 

 28 B, 90 E, etc. 



179 i. 1, 11 and 15. 



180 The MSS vary between ?<pv and ?x ft - The former emphasizes the process of 

 origination ; the latter implies it in the question as to the truth about phenomena 

 (7Tws ?x e 0- Cp. Parmen. fr. 10. In Hippocrates <Ls ?x e ' is often used in relation to 

 <pvcns = constitution. 



181 Where the physical philosopher inquired rl<riv (<£wt«us) avdyKais ylyverai, 

 Socrates asked, if at all, ij ^Kaara 6 debs nrjxa.va.Tac, Xen. Mem. IV. 7, 6. Cp. ibid. 

 I. 4, 14 where <pvaei = deov irpovolq: (ptiais has become the mechanism of God's 

 providence. 



182 Cp. Aristoxenus, fr. 31 (Miiller, F. H. G., II. 281) <pr)<j\ 5' 'A. 6 nov<ni<bs 

 1v5loi> elvai rbv \6yov rbvbe ' ' Xdijvqai. yhp ivTvye^v XtoKparei. twv dvSpQv iKelvccv '4va 

 Tiva, K&ireiTa at/Tod irvvddvea$ai, tL ttoiuiv (piXoaocpoirj ' rod 5' eiirbvTos, on ^tjtwv irepl rod 

 avdpomlvov (3lov, KarayeXdacu tov 'Yvbbv, Xiyovra p.rj bfoaadai riva to. dvOpuiriva Kanbeiv 

 ayvoovvra ye to. 8e?a. Compare the opinion of those who held that one cannot know 

 the <pvcris of man without knowing the (pvcns rod 6Xov. 



183 One is tempted to regard this as a hit at Empedocles ; cp. fr. 111. Because 

 of this expression Empedocles has been set down as a charlatan ; but in the present 



