Critics Quinta e Sent I A Aristo Teli CA

The Fifth Element in Aristotle's De Philosophia: A Critical Re-Examination
Author(s): David E. Hahm

Source: The Journal of Hellenic Studies, Vol. 102 (1982), pp. 60-74
Published by: The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/631126
Accessed: 17-05-2017 21:03 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/631126?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of Hellenic Studies
This content downloaded from 200.45.170.1 on Wed, 17 May 2017 21:03:05 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Hellenic Studies cii (1982) 60-74
THE FIFTH ELEMENT IN ARISTOTLE'S DE PHILOSOPHIA:

A CRITICAL RE-EXAMINATION
TWENTY-FIVE years ago Paul Wilpert called for a thorough re-ex

knowledge of the content of Aristotle's lost work De Philosophia. Express
about the validity of our current reconstruction of the work, he wrote: 'On
fragments, we form for ourselves a picture of the content of a lost writing
turn serves to interpret new fragments as echoes of that writing. So our
growth of our collection of fragments is clouded by the thought that we ar
nearing the original character of the work, but we are entangling ourselves ever
picture we ourselves have created.' As a corrective Wilpert called for a criti
steps since 1830 to establish a more secure reconstruction of this importan
Since then there have been numerous, searching analyses of the ideas an
Philosophia, but at least one venerable old theory has escaped critical reap
theory that in De Philosophia Aristotle discussed his doctrine of a fifth element
the heavenly bodies are composed of an element distinct from the four eart
water, air, and fire. This theory has become so widely accepted that it ha
fact.2 When support is needed, most modern authors simply cite one or both
authorities on the early Aristotle, namely W. Jaeger and E. Bignone.3 The
restate the traditional evidence with complete confidence that this evidence
Wilpert's hope for a firmly grounded reconstruction of the De Philosophia is
one of the important desiderata today is a critical re-examination of the ev
element in this work.
In modern discussions of the fifth element in De Philosophia two fundam

approaches can be discerned, one based on a passage in Cicero, and the other
evidence. Let us begin with the approach based on Cicero De Natura Deoru
Phil.fr. 26 Ross). Here Velleius, an Epicurean, is attempting to refute earlier
by showing how contradictory they are. He observes that in Book Three o
Aristotle 'sometimes assigns all divinity to mind, sometimes says the cosm
sometimes places some other being in charge of the world and assigns to it such
regulate and preserve the movement of the cosmos by some kind of rolling,
says that the ardor of the heaven is god.' The crucial question is what Cic
Jaeger, who is the chief advocate of this passage as evidence for the doctrine of
comments, 'Cicero translates "ether" by Caeli ardor. This is usual, and the
divine is further evidence that what is meant is Aristotle's hypothesis of ether a
(Cf. Cic. De Natura Deorum i 14, 37; ardorem, qui aether nominetur to whic
commenting on our passage).'4
1 P. Wilpert, 'Die aristotelische Schrift "Ober die by A. H. Chroust, 'A Tentative O
reconstruction
Philosophie"', Autour d'Aristote: Receuil
for...
a A. Man-Reconstruction of Aristotle's Lost
Possible
On Philosophy',
sion (Louvain 1955) 99-116 (quotation, 102-3); cf. also AntClass xliv (1975) 553-69,
'The Fragments of Aristotle's Lost Writings',
561-3. Onein I.
authority, B. Effe, Studien zur Kosm
Duiiring and G. E. L. Owen, edd., Aristotle and
undPlato in theder aristotelischen Schrift 'Uber die P
Theologie
Mid-Fourth Century, Stud. Gr. et Lat. Goth.phie', xi (G6te- 1 (Munich 1970) 127-8, is so con
Zetemata
borg 1960) 257-64. A similar concern in of connection
the truth of this assumption that he is prepa
with specific problems has been voiced by doubt Cicero's
others, e.g., reliability as a witness to Aristot
A. Mansion, 'L'immortalite de l'^me etPhilosophia
de l'intellect
on the grounds that Cicero Nat. D. ii 4
d'apris Aristote', RPhLouvain li (1953)not 450 and P.
acknowledge the existence of the fifth elemen
Moraux, 'Quinta Essentia', RE xlvii (1963) 1219.
3 W. Jaeger, Aristotle: Fundamentals of the Hist
2 To my knowledge, the only publishedHis Development
rejections of (Oxford 1948) 139, 142-54; E
this assumption are W. D. Ross, Aristotle'snone, Physics
L'Aristotele perduto e la formazione filoso
Epicuro
(Oxford 1936) 96-7, and D.J. Furley, 'Lucretius (Florence
and the 1936).
Stoics', BICS xviii (1966) 22-3; but neither has affected
4Jaeger (n. 3) 139, n. I. Bignone (n. 3) ii 352
the state of the question. See, for example, the this
accepts recent
interpretation of the passage but do
THE FIFTH ELEMENT IN ARISTOTLE'S DE PHILOSOPHIA 61
At first glance, Jaeger's comment seems plausible; but if we trace this

Cicero's statement back to its original scholarly setting, we can see why it must b
can be accepted. Among Aristotelian scholars this interpretation goes back at
Bernays, who in 1863 laid the foundations for the reconstruction of De Phil
parallel in Nat. D. ii 41 (in ardore caelesti qui aether nominetur), Bernays translate
heavenly fire-material, the ether'.5 Bernays, trying to establish that refere
works of Aristotle to 'exoterikoi logoi' and 'enkyklia philosophemata' were really r
lost dialogs, was eager to find similarities between the fragments attributed
(like the passage from Cicero) and the extant works. Hence he had polemical
this interpretation of Cicero's statement.6 Moreover, Bernays wrote befor
suspect an evolutionary development in Aristotle's thought, and he sh
tendency to synthesize and harmonize apparent discrepancies. Consequently,
to see caeli ardor as a reference to the fifth element of De Caelo. But this int
originated by Bernays. By I850 it was already entrenched among commenta
the influential commentary of G. F. Sch6nmann shows.7 Commentators on C
and after Bernays, followed the good philological principle that an author sh
interpret himself; so they looked to Cicero's discussions of Stoicism, where
states that the ardor of the heavens is called aether (Nat. D. i 37; ii 41; cf. ii 91
reasoned (I) that ardor in i 33 translates the Greek word al07jp and (2) that this G
to Aristotle's fifth element. Following these Ciceronian commentators Aris
concluded that Aristotle promulgated the doctrine of the fifth element in D
Before we can accept this conclusion, however, we must ask whether the
correct. There can be no doubt that the Stoics believed that the cosmos con
elements and that the element of the celestial region is a subtle, fiery subst
called by various names, including heat, fire, and ether.8 Thus when Cicero
Stoics the belief that both ardor and aether are legitimate names for the element
can accept this as a correct statement of Stoic doctrine. But can we infer from
of Stoic doctrine that it is a peculiarity of Ciero's Latinity to translate the Greek
the Latin word ardor? The evidence of De Natura Deorum suggests that we can
Cicero tells us that aether, like aer, had originally been a Greek word but had
the Latin language and was being used as a Latin word. He quotes a line from
Pacuvius provided his audience with a translation, which is perhaps a sign t
unfamiliar to them. But the word had also been used by Ennius in his Euhem
I1.63) and Annales (line 472); and in the century since Ennius and Pacuvius it
increasingly more common, at least in Latin poetry, so that Lucretius coul
without any reservations to describe the celestial region.9 Since Cicero admit
use it as a proof that the fifth element was 7

discussed in
G. F. Sch6nmann, ed., De Natura Deorum (Lei
De Philosophia. This approach is adopted as proof by a
1850, 1857, 1865, 1876) notes on i 13.33. It shou
noted
number of more recent writers, e.g., E. Berti, that Jaeger cites Plasberg, a commentat
Lafilosofia
del primo Aristotele (Padua 1962) 369; A.Cicero,
H. Chroust,
to support his interpretation. The other m
Aristotle: New Light on his Life and on Some of his Lost
commentators on this work concur; cf. J. B. M
Works (London 1973) ii 183-4 (originally (Cambridge
published as1891) i 122; and A. S. Pease (Cambr
'The concept of God in Aristotle's On Mass.
Philosophy
1955) i 242.
[Cicero, De Natura Deorum I.I3-33]', Emerita
8 Cf.xxxiii
H. von Arnim, Sto. Vet. Fr. (Leipzig 1903-
[1965] 205-28); P. Moraux (n. I) 1196-1209; J. Pepin,
frr. 413,
'ether'
ThIologie cosmique et thiologie chritienne (Paris 527,
as1964) 555, 558,
alternative 580,for
names cf. the
434.celestial
The useelem
of'f
151-2; and W. P6tscher, Strukturproblemestated
der aristotel-
explicitly by Diog. Laert. vii 137 (= von Arni
fr. Philosophia
ischen und theophrastischen Gottesvorstellung, 580). In general, Stoic texts use 'fire' and 'e
Antiqua xix (Leiden 1970) 34, 41. interchangeably.
s J. Bernays, Die Dialoge des Aristoteles9 in
Cfihrem
J. Paulson, Index Lucretianus (G6teborg 19
Verhdiltnis zu seinen iibrigen Werken s.v.(Berlin 1863)
'Aether'. The meaning of the term in Lucretius
99-100oo.
completely clear, perhaps because the traditional
6 For the polemical purpose of his work,ments
see Bernays
play only a small part in the Epicurean system
(n. 5) 30-42; cf. also Berti (n. 4) 19-21. C. Bailey's edition [Oxford 19471 iii 1393-4). O
62 DAVID E. HAHM
can be simply transliterated to

established Latin philosophical
could ever translate the Greek t
associated with heat and burni
translation for aWl7p cannot b
We might try to escape this c
language of Stoicism that it ma
ardor or aether. But if his transla
was translating alO'p than that

that we cannot really prove tha
the first step in the line of rea
must be considered pure conjec
Nevertheless, let us temporari
Does the presence of the term a
In Cael. i 3.270b20-4 and Meteor
the celestial element because
movement, but he himself does
aroLXELov), 78 ~ vw cdoTLa (or ar
its position or movement. As a
term aW'hip except when spea
exception is Phys. iv 5.212b20-
earth is within the water; the wa
the heaven; but the heaven is n
does not use it of the fifth eleme
in Cael. i 3.270b24-5; iii 3.302
the fifth element, he refrained
with fire. In any case the occur
is no guarantee whatsoever t
Philosophia.
To be sure, nothing prevents us from conjecturing that Cicero's Epicurean source read
Aristotle's exposition of his newly discovered fifth element, perhaps without a name attached to
it (just as in De Caelo), and then gave to it the name that had subsequently become common for
this element. But this is no more likely than that this Epicurean reader saw Aristotle's enraptured
discussion of celestial fire and gave to this the name 'ether'. We could, if we like, even imagine
that Aristotle himself called this fire 'ether'. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we are left
without evidence that in De Philosophia the element of the stars is a fifth element, distinct from
fire, air, water, and earth.
Jaeger's proof for the fifth element in De Philosophia rested primarily on the words ardor caeli,
but he found further evidence in Cicero's characterization of this element as divine (deum), and
we may yet be able to discover in this description a proof for the presence of the fifth element in
development of the Latin philosophical vocabulary consisting of the spheres of the heavenly bodies, as a
before Cicero and Cicero's attitude toward and use of parallel passage in Cael. ii 4.287a32-b4 suggests. If
this vocabulary see 0. Gigon, 'Cicero und die grie- o3pavod means the universe as a whole, the passage
chische Philosophie' in Aufstieg u. Niedergang d. rom. would seem to presuppose a four-element cosmology
(cf. F. Solmsen, Aristotle's System of the Physical World
Welt ed. H. Temporini, Sect. I, iv i (Berlin 1973)
250-4. [Ithaca I960] 301), and 'ether' then refers to the celestial
10 The statement in the Physics presents some
fire. If, on the other hand, oipav6o' means the heavenly
problems. It occurs in a chapter whose authenticity has the region of the celestial element, it probably
region,
been questioned (cf. P. H. Wicksteed andpresupposes
F. M. Aristotle's standard five-element cosmo-
logy (cf. H. J. Drossaart-Lulofs [n. 33] 127). In that
Cornford, Aristotle: The Physics [Loeb 1963] 314-19).
case 'ether' refers to the sublunar element, fire. In either
Furthermore, it is unclear whether by ovpavo's Aristotle
means the universe as a whole, as the previous lines
case, the word 'ether' refers to fire, not to the fifth
suggest (Phys. iv 5.212bi7-20), or the heavenlyelement.
region
De Philosophia.11 To do so, however, requires the supposition that whereas Aristotle cou
the fifth element 'divine', he could not, or at least would be unlikely to, make that claim
the fire that constitutes the heavenly bodies in a four-element cosmology. That he could c
fifth element 'divine' is clear enough, for he says that there is a substance 'different from
here, more divine and prior to all these' (Cael. i 2.269a30-2), and he calls the heaven a 'di
body' (Cael. ii 3.286aio-12); but it is not so clear that he would have refrained from using
term 'divine' of the celestial fire at an earlier time when he still agreed with the rest of mankin
that the heavenly bodies are made of fire. The very fact that he called his newly discovered fift
element 'more divine' (OELOTE'pa) suggests that he could admit at least some lesser degr
divinity to the other elements. Moreover, he claims that all parts of the cosmos, includin
lowest part, earth, share in the divine principle as far as they are able, though less directly than
first heaven (Cael. ii 12.292b2I-5). For Aristotle to call the element of the heavens 'divine',
if he believed the heavens were composed of fire, does not seem to be incompatible
Aristotle's view of the role of divinity in the cosmos.
Furthermore, it was not unheard of to distinguish sharply between the creative heat of
heavens and ordinary fire. Xenophon deplores the insanity Anaxagoras showed in attempt
explain the phenomena of the heavens and in claiming that the sun is fire. He accuses Anax
of utter ignorance in failing to observe the vast difference between fire and sunlight (Me
7.6-7). Xenophon clearly implies that the heat of the heavenly bodies is far superior to f
Euripides had earlier gone so far as to use the term god (OEO's) of the bright, celestial subs
the aither (fr. 941 Nauck). Aristotle himself, like Xenophon, distinguished two types of
when he claimed that the heat in living things is more akin to the element of the stars and the
of the sun than to ordinary fire (Gen. An. ii 3.736b33-737a7). Obviously, in talking o
celestial fire, Aristotle was not bound to treat it in the same way as ordinary fire. He could easi
have assigned it a dignity far above that of the material substances we encounter in
immediate environment. Moreover, Plato was quite explicit in calling the fiery heavenly b
'gods', even though he could not refer to their constituent fire itself as 'god' (Tim. 39e-40
Leg. vii 821b-c; x 886d, 899a-b).
If in De Philosophia Aristotle distinguished the heat of the heavens from ordinary fir
talked of celestial heat as the material of the celestial gods, it is at least possible that he use
term 'divine' of the celestial heat. Moreover, even if Aristotle himself did not call this ele
'divine', but showed the same care as Plato and used the term 'divine' only of the heavenly b
composed of celestial heat, we cannot rule out the possibility that Cicero or his Epicurean s
might have misquoted him slightly. Thus, although the characterization of the cele
substance as divine might at first glance seem to point more strongly to the fifth element than
fire as the substance of the stars, there are too many other possibilities for us to feel any secur
resting a proof on Cicero's statement alone; and we are left without firm ground for the t
that Aristotle mentioned the fifth element in De Philosophia.
The alternative approach to the theory that Aristotle's De Philosophia discussed the f
element is based on doxographic evidence. This approach occurs in so many variations th
single author will serve as spokesman. In modern times Bignone gave this approach its big
impetus, but it goes back at least as far as E. Heitz, who made the second big advan
reconstructing De Philosophia just two years after Bernays published his work.'2 U
Bernays, Heitz had no preconception that De Philosophia was doctrinally similar to
Aristotelian treatises. In an adumbration ofJaeger's evolutionary hypothesis, Heitz sugge
Aristotle's early philosophy was still under Platonic influence. Hence he saw no justificatio
the attempts to explain away apparent differences between De Philosophia and the later wor
fact, he exploited these differences to add to our knowledge of the early works. His metho
approximately as follows: If a later writer attributes to Aristotle any doctrine that cann
'" In thisJaeger is followed by Chroust (n. 4) ii 403-4
12 Bignone (n. 3); E. Heitz, Die verlorenen Schriften
n. 78. des Aristoteles (Leipzig 1865) 179-89.
64 DAVID E. HAHM
found in the extant works, this w

derived the doctrine from one o
misunderstanding decreases, the pr
to the lost Aristotle. Since we can m
of the reliability of the doxograph
witnesses, we can add somewhat
doxographic approach initiated by H
been widely accepted because it has
iii, where the general content (cosm
few.
Let us look specifically at the application of this approach to the fifth element. In the first
place, there are a large number of references in later literature to a 'fifth body' (7Trip'7Trov acpa)
or a 'body moving in a circle' (KvKAoqOptKbV or KVUKAOqOp7T.LKv uodLa). A number of these
are assigned to Aristotle, but not to any specific work; and a few say explicitly that Aristotle
called this element the 'fifth body' (Aet. i 7.32; ii 30.6). Our first thought, of course, will be that
all such references are derived from De Caelo. But closer examination shows that in De Caelo
Aristotle never speaks of a fifth body and never uses the adjectives KVKAO9OPLKdV or
KUKAO9Op7TLtKdv. Hence some scholars conclude that these doxographies must derive from
some lost discussions which did use these terms.13 Moreover, Cicero and the Clementine
Recognitions say that Aristotle added to the traditional four elements a 'fifth nature' or 'class'
(quinta natura, quintum genus), which constitutes the heavenly bodies and human souls (fr.
27= Cic. Acad. i 26; Tusc. i 22, 41, 65-6; Clem. Rom. Recog. 8.15). This fifth nature is 'without
name' (dKaT-ovdia-Tov). In the extant works Aristotle neither says it is without name, nor does
he say it is the substance of the soul. Therefore some conclude that these reports too go back to
De Philosophia.14
Further confirmation for the presence of the fifth element in De Philosophia may be garnered
by the same method. Cicero says, 'Since some living beings are born on earth, some in water,
and some in the air, it seems absurd to Aristotle to think that no living being is born in that
element which is most fit for giving birth to living things. Moreover, the celestial bodies occupy
the region of the ether. Since this is most subtle and is always lively and in motion, it is necessary
that the living being which is born in it be endowed with the keenest sense and swiftest mobility.
Therefore since the heavenly bodies are born in the ether, it is reasonable that sensation and
intelligence be present in them' (Nat. D. ii 42). Though this passage mentions ether, the presence
of the word itself does not point to the fifth element, for the argument offers a series of only four
elements. However, some of the variations of this argument preserve the same analogical
reasoning and also make use of a series of five elements."5 Taking all of these together, some
have inferred that originally Aristotle used an analogical argument to prove that since there are
living things in each of the four elements, there must be living things in the fifth, i.e. the
heavenly bodies.16 Since this argument is not found in the extant writings, it too must be from
De Philosophia.
Once we are convinced that this method has proven the presence of the fifth element in De
13 Cf., e.g. Heitz (n. 12) 185-6 and J. Pepin (n. 4) uses the doxography only as evidence for Aristotle's
222-3. I have presented the proof in its bluntest form. It terminology, since he has already accepted the presence
is usually toned down somewhat and qualified with a of this element on the basis of the text of Cicero.
word like 'probably'. For example, Pepin, after admit- 14 Cf., e.g. Heitz (n. 12) i86-8; and Pepin (n. 4) 223
ting these expressions could be derived from De Caelo and n. 2, for explicit discussion of attribution. Most
by an imprecise doxographer, continues, 'But nothing writers, however, simply accept the attribution without
prevents us from supposing that these expressions in discussion.
reality belong to an earlier state of his terminology'. He "5 Philo, De Gig. 2.7-8; De Plant. 3.12; Aet. Mund.
then chooses the latter interpretation because Cicero's 14-45 (collected by R. Walzer, Aristotelis Dialogorum
divergence from the extant treatises has convinced him Fragmenta [Florence 1934] 87-8 as De Phil.fr. 22). Cf.
that the doxographic tradition is inspired by De also Plato, Epin. 984d-5b.
Philosophia as well as De Caelo. Jaeger (n. 3) 144, n. 2, 16 Jaeger (n. 3) 143-6.
Philosophia, we may use it to add almost any reference to the ether or the fifth element, if not as a
fragment, at least as an echo of Aristotle. As some writers have observed, either all th
doxographies regarding the fifth element already assigned to De Philosophia can be considered
misinterpretations of De Caelo or else all the remaining references to a fifth element will have to
be considered, at least hypothetically, echoes of De Philosophia.17 Every one that diverges from
De Caelo may be adding to our stock of information on De Philosophia. This line of reasoning ha
produced a flood of alleged echoes.18 Even the apparently generalized polemics of Epicurus as
found in Lucretius v and elsewhere may be interpreted as directed against De Philosophia.19
In spite of the dangers of circular reasoning inherent in the doxographic approach, the
method is valid if it is carefully applied. The key to its application is the careful and critical
assessment of the accuracy of the doxographic accounts. Only when accuracy can be confirmed
can a doxographic account that deviates from the doctrine of the treatises be enlisted as evidenc
for Aristotle's lost works. Finally, after the reference has been reliably established as evidence for
a lost work, we may attempt to identify the specific work to which it refers. This identificatio
requires further careful analysis and rigorous demonstration of close logical affinity between th
reference in question and a fragment explicitly attributed to that work by a reliable ancient
witness.20 Clearly, then, the entire process depends for its success on the evaluation of the
accuracy of the doxographic accounts and of their relation to the extant treatises.
To test the validity of the doxographic approach to the theory that De Philosophia discussed
the fifth element, we may begin with the terminology for the fifth element. The most important
term in question is 'fifth body', a term obviously different from the one Aristotle uses in De
Caelo, namely 'first body'. This discrepancy, at first sight, suggests that the doxographies were
derived from a lost work, not from De Caelo. Yet, if we consider the question a little further, we
cannot avoid backing off somewhat from our initial impression. The term 'first body' implies
value judgment and is appropriate only for one who believes in the exalted value of this body, a
Aristotle indeed did (cf. Cael. i 2.269ai8-32, bI3-I7). The term 'fifth body' is an objective term;
and, though it could be used by one who believes that the fifth element is best, in itself it merely
describes an element of a cosmological system without judging it. This is precisely the term that
one would expect to find preferred by a doxographer who grew up in a world that had to a grea
extent come to accept as canonical the four elements of Empedocles, Plato, and the very popular
Stoics. Consequently, it is just as easy, if not easier, to explain the term 'fifth body' as
doxographer's term rather than a term taken from a lost work of the young Aristotle.21 Even
Aetius' allegation that Aristotle himself called it 'the fifth body' (Stobaeus, Ecl. i 502) i
insufficient evidence to establish the presence of the fifth element in a lost work, for the term
'fifth element' was eventually accepted not only by doxographers and late commentators, bu
even by Aristotelians as a suitable term for the celestial element in De Caelo (cf. Xenarchus o
Seleucia and Nicolaus of Damascus apud Simpl. Cael. 13.18; 20.12; 21.33 Heiberg). Confusion in
the doxographic terminology is quite understandable.
Furthermore, even if the doxography is not in error, the most it can prove is that Aristotle
used the term at some time in some work; the specific work cannot be determined.22 In fact, if
17 S. Mariotti, 'Nuove testimonianze ed echi dell' Philosophia. He apparently has not noticed that in Lucr.
Aristotele giovanile', Atene e Roma xlii (1940) 56 n.v22;
143 it occurs in a series consisting of earth, fire, water,
Pepin (n. 4) 223. and ether, and therefore more likely designates air than
18 Cf. the list of the books and articles in Moraux Aristotle's
(n. fifth element.
I) 1215 and Berti (n. 4) o103-7. The book by Pepin (n. 4)20 Cf. Wilpert, 'Lost Writings' (n. I) 262-3.
is another work in this vein. The method has even been
21 Cf. H.J. Easterling, 'Quinta Natura', MusHelv xxi
applied to Aristotle himself to attribute Cael. i 79-80.
(1964)
22 The doxographic tradition as a whole is drawn
3.270bl6-25 and Meteor. i 3.339bI9-30 to De Philoso-
phia because these passages do not fit into their contexts
from too many Aristotelian sources to allow us to trace
very well (Effe [n. 21 39-41). a given placitum back to a single work. H. Diels,
19 Cf. Bignone (n. 3)11i 406-503. Bignone, 425 and Doxographi
n. Graeci (Berlin 1929) 215 lists some of the
references to extant treatises.
3, takes the term 'ether' in Lucr. v 128 and 143 as further
confirmation of the presence of the fifth element in De
66 DAVID E. HAHM
we had only the doxographies

conjecture the theory occurred in
that mentions a source for the d
works. Hence, we can only concl
term used by Aristotle himself; and
lost work.
If the term 'fifth body' cannot be
the terms KUKAOqOpLKdv and KV
calls the celestial body Tr ' yKKA
(Ca. ii .8a) and even K EPEV
doxographers were passing down
terminology is no satisfactory in
evidence for the source of the d
The references of Cicero and th
fifth, nameless nature, which ser
souls, or at least of the intellectiv
Here it is not only the termin
treatises, but the very idea itself, t
of the celestial bodies.23 If Aristotl
virtually assures its presence in a
view of the soul with Aristotl
development. Aristotle's earliest
was an incorporeal form (fr. 8 Ro
views changed, but nowhere is ther
Platonic position that the soul is
some lost work, we shall be face
evolution of his theory of the s
materialist and back to immate
incorporeal, and risk the problem
accounting for a change to the m
considered corporeal?25
Such questions have caused a co
Cicero's statements can be taken to
alternative interpretation is that C
constituting the souls of both me
have no value for establishing th
doctrine
23 The term 'nameless' of the natur
(dKarov'pLaUTo
doxographic accounts claim
24 Cf. is Aristotle
F. Nuyens, L'e'
the substance of totethe (Louvain/Paris
heavens (cf., e. 1
Recogn. 8.14 [=De Phil. fr. 27
psychology hasRoss]
been
Omnifaria Doctrina 131 [p.
Nuyens. 69 aWesteri
For brief su
inadequate as the term 'fifth body'
Scholarship on the forP
hypothesis that the (1967)
fifth 318-20.
element was d
work. Aristotle's non-commital account
25 These suggestions
tional name 'ether' andCicero's
save his explicit crit
credibil
goras' use of this etterm (Cael. i 3.270b1
psychologie aristot
with his own preference for descript
5-43, accepts the dou
rather than a single name,
245-7 is sufficient
suggests to
that Ar
doxographical term. as Furthermore,
incorporeal. it Pepin
occ
later doxographies and may
proven for well be in
De Philoso
doxographies regarding
3, seems the
tosubstance
be an ac
that event, the term loses its value
reputation.
evidence for Aristotle's
26 Cf,cosmological doc
e.g., Moraux
be taken as part of the doxography
21) 73-85.
Cicero's references may reflect a misunderstanding of something in the extant treatis
therefore cannot be used as evidence for a lost work.27 The much disputed question of C
reliability and interpretation is too complex to be discussed here and need not be.28 For ev
possibility of alternative interpretations or of some form of misunderstanding underm
Cicero's value as a witness to the presence of the fifth element in De Philosophia. For C
reference these possibilities are too many and too likely to be ignored. Finally, regardl
Cicero's reliability or the interpretation one gives his statements, there are no ground
assuming this doctrine on the nature of the soul occurred in De Philosophia, rather th
another lost work.29 The net result is that the testimony of Cicero and the Clem
Recognitions is all but useless as evidence for the presence of the theory of a fifth element in
lost De Philosophia.
The only way still to find a path from Cicero's testimony to the hypothesis that the
element occurred in De Philosophia is to claim that Cicero's knowledge of Aristotle
primarily from the lost published works. Then, regardless of the accuracy of the repo
information, the mere mention of a fifth element, or perhaps even of a fifth 'nature
become evidence for the hypothesis that Aristotle presented the doctrine of the fifth elem
some lost work like De Philosophia. This claim is based on the observation that Cice
familiar with Aristotle's early published works and quoted them freely, but knew relatively li
about Aristotle's treatises. It can also be buttressed by the once common hypothes
Aristotle's treatises were virtually unknown up to Cicero's time. According to Strabo x
(608-9 C) and Plutarch, Sulla 26.1-2, Aristotle's treatises were willed by Theophrastus to
student Neleus of Skepsis in Asia Minor. Neleus' descendants hid them in a cellar or cave t
them from the book-collecting kings of Pergamum, until they were sold to Apellicon of
book collector who took them to Athens and perhaps tried to copy the mutilated text ea
the first century B.C. When Sulla returned from his capture of Athens, he brought them back
Rome and added them to the growing book collections there.30 These manuscripts may
27 One possible ground for misunderstanding is

inthat
the transmission of psychic faculties is analogous to
Cicero or his source learned that Aristotle considered
the element of the stars. It would not be too difficult for
the soul to be of a nature totally distinct from thata of
reader
the of this text to identify the soul with this
four corporeal elements of the body (whether the view
unnamed substance in the pneuma and then go on to
of the Eudemus or the view of the extant treatises that the
identify this substance with the fifth element that
soul is the first actuality of the body) and constitutes
then the heavenly bodies.
mistakenly identified this nature with that of28the
For a summary of the controversy with relevant
element of the celestial bodies, which in the treatises is
bibliography see Berti (n. 4) 395-9 and Chroust,
regarded as a fifth corporeal element distinct from the
Aristotle (n. 4) ii 194-205. To the works cited there add
earthly four. If this misunderstanding did not Pepin afflict (n. 4) 226-34; P. Moraux, Aristote: Du Ciel
(Bude, 1965) li-lvi; E. Berti, 'Studi recenti sul Peri
Cicero, it certainly did later writers. (For full discussion
see Easterling [n. 21] 73-85; cf. also Effe [n. 2] Philosophia
148-55; di Aristotele', Giorn. Metafisica xx (1965)
and Moraux [n. I] 1213-24.) 3 Io-I I; A. P. Bos, On the Elements: Aristotle's Early
Another possibility is that Cicero's statement reflects
Cosmology, Bijdragen tot de Filosofie iii (Assen 1973)
a distortion of the unique account of how faculties138-40;
of Lefevre (n. 25); and A. H. Chroust, 'The
soul are passed on to offspring (Gen. Akatonomaston
An. ii in Aristotle's "On Philosophy" ', Emer-
ita xl (1972) 461-8.
3.736b29-737aI; on this passage cf. F. Solmsen, 'The
Vital Heat, the Inborn Pneuma and the Aether',29 JHS
The Eudemus has frequently been suggested, e.g.,
lxxvii [1957 I119-23). Here Aristotle claims that the
by S. Mariotti, 'La "quinta essentia" nell'Aristotele
perduto
faculty of soul is 'associated with (KEKOLVowvrKEvaL) a e nell'Accademia', RFIC xviii (1940) 179-89;
body that is different from and more divine than the
O. Gigon, 'Cicero und Aristoteles', Hermes lxxxvii
so-called [four] elements', a body that he goes on to143-62, esp. 153, 156 (=Studien zur antiken
(1959)
identify as 'the pneuma ... and the natural substance
Philosophie [Berlin 1972] 305-25, esp. 315, 318-I9);
within the pneuma that is analogous to the element of
'Prolegomena to an Edition of the Eudemus' in Diiring
the stars'. He does not actually claim that the andsoul
Owen (n. 1) 32; and A. Grilli, 'Cicerone e l'Eudemo',
consists of pneuma or of the unnamed substance Par.
in the
Passato xvii (1962) 98-oo00.
pneuma, but he does bring the soul into close association
30 On the history of Aristotle's books see I. Diiring,
with it by saying it shares in (KEKoLVWVr7KEvaL) this
Aristotle in the Biographical Tradition (Gbteborg 1957)
corporeal substance, and he clearly states that theA. H. Chroust, 'The Miraculous Disappearance
393-5;
unnamed component of the pneuma that is significant
and Recovery of the Corpus Aristotelicum', Class. et
68 DAVID E. HAHM
contributed to a renaissance of A
renaissance was Andronicus of R
into the logical order and conten
There can be no doubt that afte
well known in scholarly circles. D
wrote a refutation of the doctrin
Nicolaus of Damascus, the phi
Palestine, and the Emperor Au
consumption in his compendium On
philosopher, discussed and som
Augustan or post-Augustan sourc
term 'fifth substance' or 'fifth b
for lack of knowledge of De Cae
Prior to Andronicus, however,
Though we now know that Strab
unknown before Andronicus are e
the holdings either of the library
century B.c., omits most of the
this should be taken as evidence
certain.36 We do know, however,
interest in physical subjects until t
even if Aristotle's books were av
Still it would be rash to conclud
the second and early first centu
available even at Rome for those
went out of his way to read at l
Med. xxiii (1962) 50-67;

view that they consist of and the
a fifth element. For full th
documented discussion by Philo
discussion see J. Drummond, P. Moraux,
Judaeus: The Jewish
ismus bei den Griechen
and AlexandrianiPhilosophy
(Berlin 1973)
in its Development and 3-
of AristotelianismCompletion
in the (Londonfirst
1888) i 273-9,century
and Moraux (n. I) B
discussed by Moraux,
1235-6. Aristotelismu
summary cf J. Moreau, Aristote
35 P. Moraux, Les et d'Aris-
listes anciennes des ouvrages son 6
279-83. tote (Louvain 1951) has shown that the catalog of Diog.
31' Cf M. Plezia,Laert. v 'De Andronici
22-7 goes back to the Hellenistic period. He Rh
Aristotelicis', Polska Ak.
conjectures that Archivum
it represents the holdings of the F
(Krakow 1946); Diiring (n.
Peripatetic library about 30)
200 B.c. 420-5;
I. Diiring, 'Ariston or a
30) 45-94. Whether Andronicus
Hermippus?', Class. et Med. xvii (1956) worked
11-21; Biog.
Athens and whether before or after the
Trad. (n. 30) 67-9, 9o-2 has pointed out weaknesses in
are matters of Moraux's conjecturedebate
current and argues again for the traditional
(cf. Mor
32 See P. Moraux, ascription'Xenarchos
to Hermippus (third century(5)', B.C.). The RE
1423-6; Aristotelismus
question remains (n.
unsettled 30) 198-206.
(cf. Moraux, Aristotelismus
33 This summary In. 30] 4,has
n. 2). been preserve
translation, ed. with36 Cf. English
Moraux, Listes (n. 35) trans. and
313-20; Diiring (n. 35)
Drossaart-Lulofs, 2o--I;
Nicolaus Damascenus:
and Notes on the History of the Transmission of
phy of Aristotle Aristotle's
(Leiden 1965). For
Writings, Acta U. Got. Ivi (1950) Pt 3, pp.the
sophical activity 35-70,
ofesp.Nicolaus
57-70. see Drossa
20-3 and Moraux,37 Aristotelismus
Cf Moreau (n. 30) 272-8, esp. 272; or K. O. (n.
his summary of Brink,
De Caelo
'Peripatos' RE Suppl.see
vii (1940)Drossaa
931-8 for a
and comm. 152-65,
survey and Moraux
of the Peripatos in this period. The475-6.
problem of
his summary of Cael. i Peripatos
the decline of the I-iiis discussed
1 is missing
by J. P. Lynch,
MS.
Aristotle's School: A Study of a Greek Educational
34 Quis Heres 283; De Plantat. 3, cJ. 12; Quaest. Gen.
Institution (Berkeley 1972) 135-62.
3.6; 4.8; Quaest. Ex. 2.73. Philo himself seems to 38 The case for the availability of Aristotle's treatises
consider the question of the nature of the heavenly apart from the manuscripts from Skepsis is convincingly
bodies insoluble (De Somm. 1.21-4). He uses bothpresented
the by Moraux, Aristotelismus (n. 30) 3-44. The
evidence
Stoic view that the heavens consist of a special kind of for Cicero's access to the treatises is also
fire (Quis Heres 133-6; Mos. 2.148) and the Peripatetic
collected and discussed by Moraux 33-41.
fifth substance might even be interpreted as evidence that De Caelo was not totally
his day. Moreover, Cicero's source for his knowledge of the fifth element ma
Antiochus of Ascalon, head of the Academy when Cicero visited Athens in
Posidonius, whom Cicero must have met in Rhodes on the same journey.39 The tr
have been available in both places all along. In fact, by this time Apellicon had alrea
the treatises from Skepsis to Athens, and it is not impossible that some scholars h
manuscripts themselves or a copy of them before Sulla carried them off. Furthermo
not forget that the history of philosophy, a subject begun by Aristotle and carri
heights by Theophrastus and Eudemus, was never abandoned in the Hellenistic per
pursued with less understanding than Theophrastus had shown, this subject produ
biographies of philosophers, now known only by title, and also doxographies, of whi
authors and titles have been forgotten. That these doxographies existed can be deduc
fact that this doxographical information survived into the early centuries of our era to b
Diogenes Laertius and Aitius. Hence, regardless whether Aristotle's treatises w
available or inaccessible and regardless whether the Peripatetic school was interested
questions or not, it is likely that the main outlines of Aristotle's doctrine survived throu
Hellenistic period and could find literary expression at any time. In fact, it appears
Cicero's information on Aristotle's physical philosophy comes from such handbooks,
personal reading of Aristotle's works.40 Since Cicero made use of Hellenistic
containing Aristotle's mature philosophy and also sought out Aristotle's unpublished
Rome, his knowledge of Aristotle's doctrine of the fifth element is no proof that th
was found in De Philosophia.41
One major doxographical reference remains, namely Cicero Nat. D. ii 42 (De Ph
Ross), where the Stoic Balbus appears to attribute to Aristotle the argument that
water, and air are filled with living things, the occupants of the ether, that is, the celest
must likewise be living and endowed with swift movement and keen senses. Since
analogical argument occurs with a series of five elements, it has been claimed that in
in De Philosophia the celestial bodies consisted of the fifth element. On this theory the v
Cicero is a Stoic remodeling of Aristotle's version to bring it into line with the Sto
four elements.42
A careful analysis of the surviving versions, however, shows that the same argument
used for three different purposes. One set proves the divinity of the celestial bodie
assumes that the celestial bodies are the living things in the ether and tries to prove
must be present in the air; and the third proves that the universe is eternal. There is also
attempting to prove both the divinity of the stars and the existence of demons in the air
confused Aristotle's view with that of Critolaus.

39 G. Luck, Der Akademiker Antiochos (Bern/Stutt-
gart 1953) 36-40 finds Antiochus behind Finally,
Cicero'sthe doxography may have misinterpreted
statements about the fifth nature as the substance of the
Critolaus in the same way it did Aristotle.
soul; and Diiring, Notes (n. 36) 6o suggests that42Jaeger
Cicero (n. 3) 143-6 cf. Chroust (n. 4)ii 186-7.
may have learned about Aristotle in general from himself does not use this as proof or even
ThoughJaeger
Posidonius and could have seen Aristotle's works in a confirmation for the presence of the fifth element in De
library at Rhodes. Philosophia, his theory has become part of the overall
40 See O. Gigon, 'Cic. u. Arist.' (n. 29); 'Cic. u. gr. reconstruction of the position of the fifth element in De
Phil.' (n. 9) 240-5o; and Moraux, Aristotelismus (n. 30) Philosophia and must be dealt with in this context. On
41-3. the possible source of the Stoic remodeling see D.
41 Cf Easterling (n. 21) 73-85. Cicero's statements Hahm, The Origins ofStoic Cosmology (Columbus, Ohio
that the human soul or mind consists of some fifth 1977) 144, 176 n. 18, 267-73.
substance embody an idea also attributed to Critolaus, a 43 Proof for divinity of celestial bodies: Cic. Nat.D. ii
Peripatetic of the second century B.c. (Aet. i 7.21; Tert.
42; Sext. Emp. Adv. Phys. i 49; cf. AEt. v 20.I. Proof for
De An. 5.2; Macrobius In Somn. Scip. i 14.20). This fact
spirits: Philo De Somn. 1.135; De Gig. 2.7-8; De Plantat.
only compounds the problem. If this doxography3.12; is Apuleius De Deo Socr. 8.137; Plato Epin. 984d-5b.
reliable, Critolaus could be the source, directly Proofor for eternity of cosmos: Philo Aet. Mund. 14.45.
Hybrid proof: Sext. Emp. Adv. Phys. i 86. Cf the
indirectly, of the misinterpretation of Aristotle (Cicero
knew and approved Critolaus' views on the virtuediscussion
of of K. Reinhardt, Kosmos und Sympathie
the soul [Tusc. v 5s]). Or the doxographies could have(Munich 1926) 62-4.
70 DAVID E. HAHM
the proof for spirits in the air and the
conclusion of the proof that the heave
assign the origin of the 'spirit' proof an
divinity of the stars. The five elements
not in the presumably earlier proof of th
a four-element proof for the existence
who believed in the five elements. Such
the four-element 'god' proof, the four
'eternity' proof were all remodeled fr
exceedingly arbitrary choice of elemen
pretend to reconstruct Aristotle's origin
Aristotle actually used a loose four-ele
altogether of reconstructing Aristotle's
value as proof for Aristotle's theory of
In the last analysis all the doxographic
fifth element in De Philosophia fail to
misunderstanding, contamination by do
too high to recommend any of them as
the doxographic reports, taken singly
proof for the theory that Aristotle dis
evidence is discovered, this venerab
conjecture.
The evidence on the other side has no

D. ii 42 (=De Phil.fr. 2Ia), if it be taken
four elements, with the heavenly bodies m
Nat. D. i 33 (=De Phil. fr. 26), the fu
Philosophia, cannot be taken as evidenc
literally means 'heat' and otherwise refe
lightning, comets, and stars). If this re
word like OEp~pdtr) L or OEppLdv in the
yet come to the conclusion that the ele
Slightly more valuable may be severa
Philosophia on the basis of their conte
with awe the works of the cosmos com
Alleg. 3.97-9 [= De Phil.fr. 131). Cicero
existence to Aristotle. Philo's account
water, the air, and the heavens-a serie
several proofs for the eternity of the
16]) suggests was included in De Philoso
elements of men are borrowed from the c
the cosmos all four elements are already
over the earth, air in the region betwe
(dvw-radrw, Aet. Mund. 33 [= De Phil.

because Aristotle is basing his argument
natural place. His argument would be in
44 Cf Reinhardt (n. 43)

he did62-86, esp.
not have 62-8.
first-hand
45 For a full discussion of Cherniss,
Cf. H. the attribution of
Aristotl
proofs to Aristotle see Effe (n. (Baltimore
Academy 2) 7-17. 194
46 Simpl. In Cael. 289.1-15 (=De Phil.fr.
587; Gnomon 16
xxxix (195
Simplicius' evidence must be used
lxxxvii with
(1966) 467.caution
one of the elements, the element of the stars. Hence we can only conclude that th
stars is fire.47
Philo's evidence is important because Philo himself was undecided wh
consists of four or five elements and so seems to follow his source, with th
sometimes speaks in terms of a five-element cosmos and sometimes (more oft
Stoic four-element cosmos.48 Hence we can be reasonably sure Philo has not
on this point. Nor is there any evidence of Stoicism in his arguments to mak
Panaetius, one of the few Stoics who believed the cosmos to be eternal, was an
this argument. Both arguments sound Aristotelian and the second one with it
natural places and four elements is very close to De Caelo iii-iv. Hence if th
from De Philosophia, we have some grounds for suspecting Aristotle in this
come to the conclusion that the heavens consisted of an element different fr
In sum, it is surely significant that a critical analysis of the fragments
Philosophia is able to turn up several references to a four-element cosmology
periphery), but not a single allusion to a five-element cosmology. Though it
explain away the references to a four-element cosmology as later, possibly
such a procedure requires at least one indisputable reference to the presence of
in De Philosophia. Since no reference of this kind has yet been found, any
away the references to a four-element cosmology must be deemed arbitrary
We are left, then, in the position of weighing what amounts to a very
evidence. The absence of any defensible evidence in favor of a five-elem
combined with some hints of the presence of a four-element cosmology, lead
that Aristotle probably did not introduce the fifth element into the co
Philosophia. Though certainty on this question still remains beyond our gra
evidence inclines in favor of the hypothesis that in De Philosophia Aristotl
heavenly bodies to be composed of fire.
The consequences of this conclusion cannot be explored here in detail, bu

some of the subjects that will be affected. First of all, the fragments or w
reconstructing De Philosophia will have to be reconsidered. Cicero's reference
or substance serving as the substance of souls and stars (= De Phil.fr. 27 Ross
safely be discarded. Even if some true, early Aristotelian content may yet be
references, the sole justification for attributing this material specifically t
namely the mention of the fifth element as the substance of the heavens, ca
Similarly, the many alleged echoes of the early Aristotle, based on mentions of th
may also be discarded.49 On the other hand, Cicero's references to Aristotle
44 may find their position as witnesses to De Philosophia somewhat more s
major problems of interpreting them as references to De Philosophia was harm
the five-element cosmology assumed for De Philosophia. If in De Philosophi
four-element cosmology, some of these problems disappear. There is still, o
real problem of Stoic contamination in these passages, but at least one area
contamination, the four-element cosmology in Nat D. ii 42, may now be giv
interpretation.50 Rather than a Stoic modification of Aristotle, it may wel
49 Cf. above,
47 Effe (n. 2) 19-20o tries to escape this conclusion by nn. 17, I8.
suggesting that Philo's version might here50 beOn
assimi-
the problem of Stoic contamination a
lated to the Platonic and Stoic view or else that Philo
Ciceronian distortion in these passages see K. Reinh
might have drawn from a section of Aristotle that Cherniss (n. 46) 592, 595-602; Mo
(n. 43) 61-92;
focused on the human body and simply
(n. failed to1223-4; A. H. Chroust, 'Some Comm
I) 1213,
mention the celestial fifth element. Effe would treat this
on Cicero, De Natura Deorum II.15.42-16.44: A
fragment like Cic. Nat.D. ii 42 (=De Phil.
ment2Ia)
ofand
Aristotle's On Philosophy', Class. Folia
explain away its four-element cosmology.
(I975) 103-13; and Hahm (n. 42) 176, n. 18.
48 See above, n. 34.
72 DAVID E. HAHM
grounds for the attraction the Stoi

interpretation which may be given t
Caelo and thereby increases the proba
This brings us to the interpretiv
Philosophia. Nat. D. ii 44 is probably
four-element cosmology. In this passag
things that are moved are moved eith
celestial bodies is not due to nature, b
upward by lightness. Nor is this circu
that could move them contrary to the
past the apparent denial of natural m
interpreters who assumed a five-elem
around for an explanation for the origin
deduced directly from the theory of
statement with the celestial mechani
natural movements to a denial only o
simple, straightforward interpretatio
that the cosmos consists of only fou
natural movements that is developed
According to this theory, there are
displaced from their natural place wi
natural place, where by nature they will
rest. It is possible that some things w
either contrary to nature out of their n
to nature within their natural place
possibility, exemplified by a man wal
as a heavy, earthy thing the natural m
and would occur only if he were to f
movement of a man riding in a truck
voluntary, due to his own free will. So,
movement would be upward toward t
fact that they are moving within their
other than nature. Since no external f
beings, we must conclude their m
51 For some of thethe

attempts
contexttooffind an alt
a four-ele
ground for postulating the existence
Mund. of a fift
28-34, a passage w
see Jaeger Philosophia
(n. 3) 139 on other
and n. I, cf. gro
143, 153;
Seeck, 'U ber die n. 45).
Elemente If Kosmologie
in der this referenc
des
Zetemata xxxiv
(Munich 1964) 122.
Philosophia, we have fu
52 This is done by Berti (n. 4) 368-70;
Philosophia A. Gr
Aristotle he
Aristoteles 7rEptc, presented
tAoool'as in De Caelo
(Cicero, ii
Nat. de
44)', MusHelv xxvii (1970) 16-27; 'Aristotele
54Presumably this vo
"Ober die Philosophie"heavenly
und diebodies is ana
zweifache B
der "causa finalis" ', MusHelv
human xxix
beings (1972) 4
discussed
61; Effe (n. 2) 132-6,As
and Bosneed
men (n. 27) 48-9, 62
sensation a
n. 34 (cf. 61, n. 90). and move
Though toward
each has it,
a slightly
interpretation of Aristotle's view,
endowed with all min
sensation
difference thebetween
42 [= celestial
De Philmechanics fr. 2Ia]; cf o
use
and ofCic. Nat.D. ii 44. for the same
Proponents of this purp
app
to notice that the closer
whether the the celestial
Prime Mover is involved cannotmechan
be
Nat.D. ii 44 approachesdiscussedthat of
here; cf. Jaeger (n. De
3) 14o-5;Caelo,
H. von Arnim, the
there is to attribute 'Die
the Entstehung der Gotteslehre des
reference to Aristoteles',
De Philos
and the more likelySBWien,it is phil.-hist.
to K1. be ccxii
a 5 Stoic
(1931) 7-9 (=F. P.
adapta
Caelo.
Hager, ed., Metaphysik und Theologie des Aristoteles,
s3 The theory of natural movements
Wege der Forschung is W.
ccvi [Darmstadt 19691 1.15); also f
interpretation, which is possible on the assumption that the stars are made of fire, is both
simpler, more natural interpretation of Cicero's words, and as we noted above, different enoug
from the theory of De Caelo tojustify the claim that Cicero's words are a witness to a lost work
Finally, a four-element cosmology in De Philosophia has significant consequences for the
interpretation of the role of De Philosophia in Aristotle's philosophical career. Though there is
not yet complete agreement on the chronological ordering of the various cosmological account
in the treatises, the evidence suggests three phases in Aristotle's cosmological thought.55 (i) Th
first phase is exemplified by De Caelo iii-iv in which Aristotle constructed the universe of fou
elements, earth, water, air, and fire, and worked out his theory of natural movements for thes
elements. At this time it seems he had not yet postulated the fifth element. (2) The second phase is
defined by his extension of the system of natural movements to the heavens and the postulatio
of a fifth element which moves by nature in a circle and serves as the substance of the heavenl
bodies (De Caelo i-ii). (3) Finally a third phase is marked by a redirection of attention from th
physical movement of the elements and heavenly bodies to atmospheric phenomena. Th
required a reinterpretation of the spheres of air and fire, which formerly found a place below the
sphere of the fifth, celestial element. In Meteorologica these two spheres became a region occupied
by a mixture of two exhalations (not elements) whose proportions vary with altitude in such a
way as to approximate the spheres of air and fire without actually constituting separate elemental
spheres. In this phase the heavenly bodies continue to be composed of the unique celestia
element that we have been calling the fifth element.
As long as De Philosophia was believed to contain an account of the fifth element, it was
extremely difficult to place it comfortably into this scheme. It had to follow the first phas
because it already recognized the fifth element. But Nat. D. ii 44 implied significant difference
from the view of phase (2). Regardless whether one opted for placing De Philosophia between
phase (i) and phase (2) or for harmonizing the differences between it and the view of phase (2)
some special pleading was necessary.56 If, however, Aristotle still held a four-elemen
cosmology in De Philosophia, the work fits comfortably into phase (i). We may conclude that a
this time he still accepted the Platonic scheme of four elements, but he was already developing
his theory of natural movement to explain the movement of the elements to their natural place
the movement associated with the phenomena of weight and lightness. This he worked out i
De Caelo iii-iv. About this same time, he considered the movement of the heavenly bodies in D
Philosophia. Here he presupposed his theory of natural movements; but, thinking only in term
of the linear movement of weight and lightness, he had to attribute the circular movement of the
K. C. Guthrie, 'The Development of Aristotle's Theo-

and appear to preclude the existence of the fifth element
logy', CQ xxvii (1933) 162-71 (=Hager [above]
(cf. e.g., Moraux, Du Ciel [n. 28] xxxviii and n. 4, cxxxv
75-95); Aristotle: On the Heavens (Loeb 1939) xxv-
and n. 3; and Bos [n. 28] 70). If the latter view is correct,
xxvii; W. D. Ross, Aristotle's Physics (Oxford 1936)
the first phase will be reflected only in De Philosophia,
95-6; Cherniss (n. 46) 591-602; Griser, 'Aristoteles
rather than in both De Philosophia and De Caelo iii-iv;
Schrift ... "causa finalis"' (n. 52) 44-61; Chroust,
the ultimate reconstruction of the evolution of Aristo-
Aristotle (n. 4) ii 180-4; and H. J. Easterling, 'The
tle's cosmological thought will be unaffected.
Unmoved Mover in early Aristotle', Phronesis xxi It should be noted that on the basis of a subtle and
(1976) 252-65. painstaking analysis of the various discussions of
5 Cf., e.g., Solmsen (n. 10) 287-303, 397-8. Theelements in Gen. Corr. and Cael. Seeck has questioned
main point still at issue is whether De Caelo iii-iv
whether the evolutionary model is a complete and
represents a view different from, and therefore earlier
sufficient explanation for the great variety of theories of
elements he claims to have discovered in these two
than, the view of De Caelo i. Solmsen (n. 10) 293-303,
and Seeck (n. 51) 97-8, 123-6, have argued convinc-works. His chief grounds for doubt are some subtle
ingly that in De Caelo iii-iv Aristotle showsproblemsno he sees in the relation between the fifth
knowledge of the fifth element and that these books, or
element and the various theories of elements that he has
identified in De Caeli iii-iv. Nevertheless, Seeck has no
at least the theories reflected in them, were originally
conceived before De Caelo i. There is still, however,
doubt whatsoever that the fifth element is later than the
some support for the traditional view that De Caelo theories of De Caelo iv (cf. esp. 97-8, 123-6, 157). Hence
iii-iv were written at the same time as De Caelo i, his
butconcerns about the theoretical sufficiency of the
with attention focused so rigidly on the sub-lunar world
evolutionary model need not trouble us here.
that these books make statements that are misleading 56 See the attempts cited in nn. 5I and 52.
74 DAVID E. HAHM
heavenly bodies to the free will that t

until some time later, that is, in ph
possible to extend the theory of nat
grounding the whole theory in geo
could then serve as models for two b
forced him to abandon his four-e
element, distinct from the other f
Philosophia can be securely dated
cosmological thought.
Furthermore, if De Caelo was inde
another piece of evidence that De P
works.57 Moreover, the four-elemen
and even if a small item like this c
became less Platonic or more so as
considered in evaluating Aristotle's d
This has been no more than a sketc
that the fifth element did not make
content and significance of De Philos
for the work still remains a major d
DAVID E. HAHM
The Ohio State University,

Columbus, Ohio
57 For a discussion of the absolute date of De support for an earlier, rather than a later, date within the
Philosophia see A. H. Chroust, 'The Probable Dateperiod of of c. 360 to 347 B.C.
Aristotle's Lost Dialogue On Philosophy', JHistPhilos iv58 Some of the significant contributions to this
(1966) 283-91 (=Aristotle [n. 4] ii 145-58). Chroust controversy are: Jaeger (n. 3) passim; P. Wilpert, 'Die
concludes that it was most likely published before 347 Stellung der Schrift "Ober die Philosophie" in der
Gedankenentwicklung des Aristoteles', JHS lxxvii
B.C. He also conjectures it is later than the Protrepticus,
(1957)
therefore after 350 B.c. I. Diiring, Aristoteles: Darstellung 155-62; C. J. DeVogel, 'The Legend of the
und Interpretation seines Denkens (Heidelberg 1966) Platonizing Aristotle', in Diiring and Owen (n. i)
49-50, on the other hand, prefers an earlier date, i.e. 248-52;
c. and Diiring, Aristoteles (n. 55) passim.
360-55 B.c. Since the relative order of De Philosophia 59 I would like to thank Friedrich Solmsen, George
and other early works is still an open question, itKerferd,
is and David Furley for reading and commenting
preferable to set Plato's Timaeus (i.e. c. 360 B.C.) as the
on an earlier version of this paper. I have benefited
terminus post quem, and consider any reinterpretation
greatly from their criticisms and encouragement.
that brings De Philosophia closer to the Timaeus as

Critics Quinta e Sent I A Aristo Teli CA

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Critics Quinta e Sent I A Aristo Teli CA

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Fifth Element in Aristotle's De Philosophia: A Critical Re-Examination

Author(s): David E. Hahm

THE FIFTH ELEMENT IN ARISTOTLE'S DE PHILOSOPHIA:

TWENTY-FIVE years ago Paul Wilpert called for a thorough re-ex

In modern discussions of the fifth element in De Philosophia two fundam

At first glance, Jaeger's comment seems plausible; but if we trace this

use it as a proof that the fifth element was 7

can be simply transliterated to

was translating alO'p than that

found in the extant works, this w

we had only the doxographies

27 One possible ground for misunderstanding is

Med. xxiii (1962) 50-67;

confused Aristotle's view with that of Critolaus.

The evidence on the other side has no

(dvw-radrw, Aet. Mund. 33 [= De Phil.

44 Cf Reinhardt (n. 43)

The consequences of this conclusion cannot be explored here in detail, bu

grounds for the attraction the Stoi

51 For some of thethe

K. C. Guthrie, 'The Development of Aristotle's Theo-

heavenly bodies to the free will that t

The Ohio State University,

S-ar putea să vă placă și