GENERATION OF ANIMALS, 11. i. 



that which is not eternal admits of being (and not- 

 being), and of acquiring a share both in the better 

 and in the worse ; also. Soul is better than body, 

 and a tiling which has Soul in it is better than one 

 which has not, in virtue of that Soul ; and being is 

 better than not-being, and U\ing than not li\ing. 

 These are the causes on account of which generation 

 of animals takes place," because since the nature of 

 a class of this sort is unable to be eternal, that which 

 comes into being is eternal in the manner that is 

 open to it. Now it is impossible for it to be so 

 numerically, since the " being " of things is to be 

 found in the particular, and if it really were so, then 

 it would be eternal ** ; it is, however, open to it to 

 be so specifically. That is why there is alwavs a 

 class of men, of animals, of plants ; and since the 

 principle of these is " the male " and " the female," 

 it will surely be for the sake of generation that 

 " the male " and " the female " are present in the 

 individuals which are male and female. And as the 



form). Hence, in the present sentence roioOrov means dpidfiw 

 tuSiov ; and the sense of the statement is that if an animal 

 really were dpidful> di'Siov, its oiaia would be dt'Scos-, i.e., 

 a(f>6apTos ; in other words, it would no longer be a <f>dapr6v 

 or a yiyvd/xevoi'. The translation might be expanded as 

 follows to bring out the meaning : " Now it is impossible 

 for it to be so mimerically, since the " being " of things is in 

 the particular <:i.e., in the individual concrete object consisting 

 of matter and form ; and obviously no such particular <f>6apT6v 

 — animal or plant — can be numerically eternab ; and if it 

 really were so, then it would be eternal <in the full and proper 

 sense of the term, viz., it would be d<f>dapTov, and no longer a 

 yiyvofioov at all> ; it is, however, open to it to be eternal 

 specifically."' It is useful to note that at Met. 999 b 33 

 Aristotle states that there is no difference between the terms 

 dpddyiu) €v and Kad' CKaarov (to dpidfuu ev rj to KaO' eKoorov Xeyeiv 

 8ia<f€p€i ovBev). — See further, App. A ^§ 15-lB. 



131 



