phrase and fix its meaning. I will now add another, Plotin. Ennead. 3. 8. 1, παίζοντες δὴ τὴν πρώτην πρὶν ἐπιχειρεῖν σπουδάζειν εἰ λέγοιμεν πάντα θεωρίας ἐφίεσθαι καὶ εἰς τέλος τοῦτο βλέπειν, οὐ μόνον ἔλλογα ἀλλὰ καὶ ἄλλογα ζῷα καὶ τὴν ἐν τοῖς φυτοῖς φύσιν καὶ τὴν ταῦτα γεννῶσαν γῆν κτλ. Thus ἡ ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ φύσις ἡ τοῦ κόσμου φύσις. In Plotinus there is probably a suggestion of the common, universal pois as manifesting itself in plant-life; but all these passages alike prove that the phrase does not mean "bei der Weltordnung." = V2 240, 5. Fr. 2, δηλοῖ δὲ καὶ τὰ ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις. Since Diels has now (V3) adopted my interpretation of these words, I might allow the matter to rest there; but the observation that this and similar phrases have been unduly pressed in other contexts leads me to illustrate it further. Nestle, in Philol., 67, 544, writing as it seems in ignorance both of Newbold's article and of mine, arrived at substantially the same conclusion with myself. It would carry us too far afield to consider in detail the passages which I have studied; hence I will give a list of those only which serve to illustrate Greek usage. It will be seen that ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις and ἐπὶ τῶν ἔργων are generally used when appeal is made to facts of common observation or knowledge, as opposed to theory, argument, or unsupported statement. As a matter of fact, these references are usually so general that they amount to nothing but the bald assertion that observation or knowledge confirms or contradicts the proposition in question. In very few cases which I have noted does the context suffice to enable one to specify the particular facts to which the writer affects to appeal: many passages are open to different interpretations and competent scholars find it difficult to agree about them. They are therefore especially valuable for our purposes. See Plato, Protag. 352 A, Soph. 234 E, Gorg. 461 D, Repub. 396 A, 599 B, Phaedo 110 A, Tim. 19 E, Legg. 679 D, Axiochus 369 A; Xenoph. Hiero 9. 3; Bonitz, Index Arist. 286a 27 sq., 40 sq.; Bywater, on Arist. Poet. 1453a 17. Cp. Arist. De Gen. Animal. 3. 11. 762 15, οὐθὲν γὰρ ἐκ παντὸς γίνεται, καθάπερ οὐδ ̓ ἐν τοῖς ὑπὸ τῆς τέχνης δημιουργουμένοις. Meteor. 4. 3. 381 10, καὶ οὐδὲν διαφέρει ἐν ὀργάνοις τεχνικοῖς ἢ φυσικοῖς, ἐὰν γίγνηται· διὰ τὴν αὐτὴν γὰρ airiav návтa čoral. Such general references to the similarity of products of art and of nature abound in certain works of the Corpus Hippocrateum. See also Hippocr. Hepi ovoéwv, 5 (where, after stating his theory, the writer says), περὶ μὲν οὖν ὅλου τοῦ πρήγματος ἀρκεῖ μοι ταῦτα· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα πρὸς αὐτὰ τὰ ἔργα τῷ αὐτῷ λόγῳ πορευθεὶς ἐπιδείξω τὰ νοσήματα τούτου ἔκγονα πάντα ἐόντα. In this instance the particular "facts" to which he appeals are mentioned. It is interesting to hear his conclusion, c. 15, ὑπεσχόμην δὲ τῶν νούσων τὸ αἴτιον φράσειν· ἐπέδειξα δὲ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ ἐν τοῖς ὅλοις πρήγμασι δυναστεῖον καὶ ἐν τοῖς σώμασι τῶν ζῴων· ἤγαγον δὲ τὸν λόγον ἐπὶ τὰ γνώριμα τῶν ἀρρωστημάτων, ἐν οἷς ἀληθὴς ἡ ὑπόσχεσις (v. 1. ὑπόθεσις) ἐφάνη· εἰ γὰρ περὶ πάντων τῶν ἀρρωστημάτων λέγοιμι, μακρότερος μὲν ὁ λόγος ἂν γένοιτο, ἀτρεκέστερος δὲ οὐδαμῶς οὐδὲ πιστότερος. Diels has now adopted my emendation ἰσοταγῆ for MS. ισοταχῆ. When I proposed it, I ventured the suggestion relying on the analogy of ὁμοταγής, not knowing that ἰσοταγής itself was attested. I now observe, however, that Sophocles, Greek Lexicon, s. v. cites it from Nicom. 51. c. 46. Anaxagoras. V2 319, 19. Fr. 13, καὶ ἐπεὶ ἤρξατο ὁ νοῦς κινεῖν, ἀπὸ τοῦ κινουμένου παντὸς ἀπεκρίνετο, καὶ ὅσον ἐκίνησεν ὁ νοῦς, πᾶν τοῦτο διεκρίθη· κινουμένων δὲ καὶ διακρινομένων ἡ περιχώρησις πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐποίει διακρίνεσθαι. It seems to me clear that ὁ νοῦς is the subject of ἀπεκρίνετο in the second clause. "After the vous gave the initial impulse to the motion of the world, it began to withdraw from all that was set in motion; and all that to which the movement initiated by the vous extended, was segregated. As this motion and segregation continued, the revolution greatly increased the segregation." The vous gives the first impulse only, then withdraws to its condition of isolation; the revolution, once started, of itself accelerates and its effects in the segregation of like to like in the πάντα ὁμοῦ increase. Cp. ἡ περιχώρησις αὐτή, fr. 12, V2 319, 4 sq. c. 51. Diogenes of Apollonia. γ2 334, 2. Fr. 1, λόγου παντὸς ἀρχόμενον δοκεῖ μοι χρεὼν εἶναι τὴν ἀρχὴν ἀναμφισβήτητον παρέχεσθαι. With this statement compare Hippocr. Περὶ σαρκῶν, 1 (8. 584 L.), Ἐγὼ τὰ μέχρι τοῦ λόγου τούτου κοινῇσι γνώμῃσι χρέομαι ἑτέρων τε τῶν ἔμπροσθεν, ἀτὰρ καὶ ἐμεωυτοῦ· ἀναγκαίως γὰρ ἔχει κοινὴν ἀρχὴν ὑποθέσθαι τῇσι γνώμῃσι βουλόμενον ξυνθεῖναι τὸν λόγον τόνδε περὶ τῆς τέχνης τῆς ἰητρικῆς. Περὶ τέχνης, 4 (6. 6 L.), ἐστὶ μὲν οὖν μοι ἀρχὴ τοῦ λόγου, ἢ καὶ ὁμολογηθήσεται παρὰ πᾶσιν. Περὶ τόπων τῶν κατὰ ἄνθρωπον, 2 (6. 278 L.), φύσις τοῦ σώματος, ἀρχὴ τοῦ ἐν ἰητρικῇ λόγου. Ion of Chios, fr. 1 (V2 222, 1 sq.), ἀρχὴ δέ μοι τοῦ λόγου· πάντα τρία καὶ οὐδὲν πλέον ἢ ἔλασσον τούτων τῶν τριῶν· ἑνὸς ἑκάστου ἀρετὴ τρίας· σύνεσις καὶ κράτος καὶ τύχη. c. 54. Leucippus. γ' 343, 1. τὸ μὲν πᾶν ἄπειρόν φησιν, ὡς προείρηται· τούτου δὲ τὸ μὲν πλῆρες εἶναι, τὸ δὲ κενόν, <ἂ> καὶ στοιχεῖά φησι, κόσμους τε ἐκ τούτων ἀπείρους εἶναι καὶ διαλύεσθαι εἰς ταῦτα. For some time I have felt that there was some confusion and corruption in the text, and that the last sentence must refer to the rise of the worlds out of the åπeɩρov and their return into it at dissolution. The well-known difficulties of the text of Diogenes alone deterred me from proposing a change. Now Diels, apparently from the MSS., restores ἐκ τούτου for ἐκ τούτων. That is obviously the correct reading, whatever its source; but with it should of course go the complementary reading εἰς τοῦτο for εἰς ταῦτα. The preceding sentence, however, has likewise suffered. The areрov is clearly conceived as the Aristotelian ἀρχὴ καὶ στοιχεῖον by the interpolator or epitomator who supplied the clause <ἂ> καὶ στοιχεῖά φησι; for to his mind the words τούτου τὸ μέν πλῆρες, τὸ δὲ κενόν do not suggest spatial regions of the extended ἄπειρον, but ontological γένη of the metaphysical ἀρχή. His addition was absurdly misplaced, as were many in the text of Diogenes; but once there, it corrupted the following sentence. See above, p. 691, on V2 17, 37. γ' 344, 14. Arist. De Gen. et Corr. 1. 8. 324 35, ὁδῷ δὲ μάλιστα καὶ περὶ πάντων ἑνὶ λόγῳ διωρίκασι Λεύκιππος καὶ Δημόκριτος. The meaning of the phrase évi Xóyw has here been strangely misconceived. Prantl renders it "in einer Begründung"; Zeller, 1 847, n. 1, "aus den gleichen Principien"; Döring, Gesch. der gr. Philos., I. 238, "die von einem Princip ausgehende Lösung"; Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy2, 385, "on the same theory." I have failed to find this passage noted in Kranz's Wortindex, but in a similar one (V2 83, 8, ἐνὶ δὲ λόγῳ πάντα κτλ.), omitting to quote πάντα, he gives the meaning of λόγος as “Vernunft” (V2 II. 2, 357, 30)! Similarly Burnet, in his note on Plato, Phaedo 65 D, gives a false emphasis and in effect a false interpretation, because he overlooks, what is obvious, that in the phrase καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἑνὶ λόγῳ ἁπάντων, the phrase évi Xoy is to be taken as emphasizing ȧrávтwv; and Capps, on Menander, Epitrep. 197 sq. καταμενῶ, αὔριον ὅτῳ βούλεσθ ̓ ἐπιτρέπειν ἑνὶ λόγῳ wrongly takes ἑνὶ λόγῳ with ἕτοιμος instead of ὅτῳ βούλεσθ'. Curiosity, awakened by the false points made by scholars in connection with the Aristotelian passage we are considering, led me to make a collection of cases of évi Xóyw, which grew to considerable proportions. I will not print a list here, since such collections possess no value in my sight except as an examination of the context serves to determine the sense of the locution in question. Suffice it to say that in almost every instance the immediate context contained a comprehensive or universal expression, such as πâv, ovdév, μvpía, etc. But évi Móy does not stand alone, for there is a considerable number of phrases similarly used; of these I give a few which should serve to illustrate the construction. Aeschyl. P. V. 46, as άπλ λóyw... οὐδὲν; ibid. 505, βραχεῖ δὲ μύθῳ πάντα συλλήβδην μαθέ; ibid. 975, ἁπλῷ λόγῳ πάντας έχθαίρω θεούς; Herod. 2. 24, ὡς μέν νυν ἐν ἐλαχίστῳ δηλώσαι, πᾶν εἴρηται; ibid. 225, ὡς δὲ ἐν πλέονι λόγῳ δηλῶσαι, ὧδε ἔχει; ibid. 2. 37, μυρίας ὡς εἰπεῖν λόγῳ; ibid. 3. 6, ἓν κεράμιον οἰνηρὸν ἀριθμῷ κεινὸν οὐκ ἔστι ὡς λόγῳ εἰπεῖν ἰδέσθαι; ibid. 3. 82, ἑνὶ δὲ ἔπεϊ πάντα συλλαβόντα εἰπεῖν; Plato Apol. 22 Β, ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν ὀλίγου αὐτῶν ἅπαντας; Xenoph. Μem. 4. 3. 7, ὡς γὰρ συνελόντι εἰπεῖν, οὐδέν κτλ.; Amphis, fr. 30, 7 Kock, ἅπαντες ἀνδροφόνοι γάρ εἰσιν ἐνὶ λόγῳ. Adverbs like Eußaxu are similarly employed. After reciting this list of passages I think we may be sure that in the passage we are considering Aristotle merely meant to say that the procedure of Leucippus and Democritus was not only exceedingly methodical (ôô μáλora), but also comprehensive (Tepi távtwv ¿vì Xóy). Possibly those who have been reading something more into Aristotle's words might receive some comfort from Hippocr. Περὶ ἑπταμήνου, 3 (7. 438 L.), χρῶνται δὲ πᾶσαι ἑνὶ λόγῳ περὶ τουτέου· φασὶ γάρ κτλ. But the context shows that ἑνὶ λόγῳ means one formula of expression." Even if one should insist on taking Aristotle's words as a parallel to this, it would greatly affect the traditional interpretations of the passage. 66 ν' 344, 21. Arist. De Gen. et Corr. 1. 8. 325 25, όμολογήσας δὲ ταῦτα μὲν τοῖς φαινομένοις, τοῖς δὲ τὸ ἓν κατασκευάζουσιν ὡς οὐκ ἂν κίνησιν οὖσαν ἄνευ κενοῦ, τό τε κενὸν μὴ ὂν καὶ τοῦ ὄντος οὐθὲν μὴ ὄν φησιν εἶναι. τὸ γὰρ κυρίως ὂν παμπλῆρες ὄν. I cannot understand how scholars have been so long content to retain this text, which yields no sense and so clearly suggests the true reading. With it we must compare other passages in which the same matter is under consideration. Arist. Met. 1. 4. 985b 4 (V2 343, 44), Λεύκιππος δὲ καὶ ὁ ἑταῖρος αὐτοῦ Δημόκριτος στοιχεῖα μὲν τὸ πλῆρες καὶ τὸ κενὸν εἶναί φασι, λέγοντες τὸ μὲν ὂν τὸ δὲ μὴ ὄν, τούτων δὲ τὸ μὲν πλῆρες καὶ στερεὸν τὸ ὄν, τὸ δὲ κενὸν καὶ μανὸν τὸ μὴ ὂν (διὰ καὶ οὐθὲν μᾶλλον τὸ ὄν τοῦ μὴ ὄντος εἶναί φασιν, ὅτε οὐδὲ τὸ κενὸν <ἔλαττον Diels> τοῦ σώματος), αἴτια δὲ τῶν ὄντων ταῦτα ὡς ὕλην. Whether Diels was right in proposing to insert ἔλαττον we shall have presently to inquire. Simpl. Phys. 28, 11 (V2345, 5), ἔτι δὲ οὐδὲν μᾶλλον τὸ ὂν ἢ τὸ μὴ ὂν ὑπάρχειν, καὶ αἴτια ὁμοίως εἶναι τοῖς γινομένοις ἄμφω. τὴν μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἀτόμων οὐσίαν ναστὴν καὶ πλήρη ὑποθέμενος ὃν ἔλεγεν εἶναι καὶ ἐν τῷ κενῷ φέρεσθαι, ὅπερ μὴ ὂν ἐκάλει καὶ οὐκ ἔλαττον τοῦ ὄντος εἶναί φησι. We are familiar with the pun which Democritus employed to enforce this point of doctrine, fr. 156 (V2 413, 11), μὴ μᾶλλον τὸ δὲν ἢ τὸ μηδὲν εἶναι. It seems to me obvious that in the passage under consideration μὴ ὄν is a corruption by itacism for μενόν. Indeed, I am inclined to think that the pun τό τε κενὸν μὴ ὂν καὶ τοῦ ὄντος οὐθὲν μεῖον derives from the same fertile brain as μὴ μᾶλλον τὸ δὲν ἢ τὸ μηδέν, and that we have thus found another fragment of Democritus partially converted into the Attic dialect. If this be conceded, it seems more probable that we should supply μεῖον than ἔλαττον (with Diels in Met. 985 9. Aristotle used the word, Eth. Nic. 5. 1. 11295 8, δοκεῖ καὶ τὸ μεῖον κακὸν ἀγαθόν πως είναι, where the true reading, corrupted in the MSS., had to be recovered from the commentaries and versions. Aeschyl. Ρ. V. 508, ὡς ἐγὼ | εὔελπίς εἰμι τῶνδέ σ ̓ ἐκ δεσμῶν ἔτι λυθέντα μηδὲν μεῖον ἰσχύσειν Διός; Xenoph. Ages. 6. 3, τρόπαια μὴν ̓Αγεσιλάου οὐχ ὅσα ἐστήσατο ἀλλ ̓ ὅσα ἐστρατεύσατο δίκαιον νομίζειν. μεῖον μὲν γὰρ οἱ δὲν ἐκράτει κτλ.; Herondas 3, 59, ἕξει γὰρ οὐδὲν μεῖον; ibid. 15, 2, ὃς δ ̓ ἔχει μεῖον ἡ τούτου τι. MIDDLETOWN, CONN., Cp. |