Alexander of Aphrodisias On Stoic Physics

ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS
ON STOIC PHYSICS
PHILOSOPHIA ANTIQUA
A SERIES OF MONOGRAPHS
ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
EDITED BY
W. J. VERDENIUS .AND J. H. WASZINK

VOLUME XXVIII
ROBERT B. TODD
ON STOIC PHYSICS
LEIDEN
E. J. BRILL
1976
ON STOIC PHYSICS
A STUDY OF THE DE MIXTIONE
WITH PRELIMINARY ESSAYS,
TEXT, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY
BY
ROBERT B. TODD
LEIDEN
E. J. BRILL
1976
ISBN 90 04 04402 7
Copyright 1976 by E. /. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands

All rights reserved. No pa,1 of this book may be reproduced or
translated in any form, by print, photoprinl, microfilm, microfiche
or any other means without written permission from the publisher
PRINTED IN THB NBTHBRLANDS
To My Parents
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements . . IX
Preface XI
Note on References: Abbreviations XIV
PART ONE
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS-AN INTRODUCTION

I. Some Pre-Alexandrian Peripatetics . . . . . . . . . 2
Minor Peripatetics: Alexander of Damascus, Aristocles of
Messana . . . . . . . 4
Alexander's Teachers . II
II. The Alexandrian Corpus 12

The Commentaries . . 12
The Minor Treatises . . 16
The Mantissa and Quaestiones . 18
Alexander's Successors: His Influence 19
PART TWO
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS AND THE

STOIC THEORY OF TOTAL BLENDING
I. Alexander and Stoicism: A Preliminary Survey . . . 21
II. The Stoic Theory of Total Blending: A Reconstruction

from the Sources (apropos de mixtione 3 and 4) . . . . 29
The Primary Sources: A Preliminary Interpretation . . 30
The Secondary Sources: The Classification of Mixtures 49
A Final Reconstruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
III. "Body Going Through Body": Alexander and the Crit-
icism of the Stoic Theory of Total Blending (apropos de
mixtione 5 and 6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Peripatetic Exegesis and the Origins of the Criticism 75
Alexander and "Body going through body" (a(°;)µ.ix a~a
G6>!J.0tTO<; XWP&LV) • . • • . . . . • . . . • • • • • • 81
VIII CONTENTS
PART THREE
THE DE MIXTIONE
Introduction . . . 91
Analytical Outline . 97
Text and Translation 108
Glossary of Terms . 174
Notes on the Text. . 176
Commentary . . . . 180
Texts from the de mixtione in Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta 253
Bibliographies
I. Ancient and Modern Authors. . . . . . . . . 254
2. Alexander of Aphrodisias: A Select Bibliography 261
Indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Professor D. J. Furley for his advice and

criticism at various stages in the preparation of this work, and
Professor A. A. Long for commenting on an earlier version of
Part II. Needless to say, the final product is my responsibility
alone.
I wish to thank the Committee on Research at the University
of British Columbia for supporting my research with several sum-
mer grants.
I record with gratitude that this book has been published with
the help of a generous grant from the Humanities Research Council
of Canada, using funds provided by the Canada Council.
And finally I thank my wife Barbara who typed, edited, and
did so much else to make it all possible.
Crouch End,
February 1975.
PREFACE
The importance of Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Aristotelian

tradition in Western philosophy is well established. This reputa-
tion however rests almost exclusively on his very influential inter-
pretation of Aristotle's doctrine of the active intellect. The subject
of the present study, the de mixtione, is a treatise in which he deals
with the philosophically less important topic of the mixture of
physical bodies. My aim is to show that both as an exposition of
Aristotelian thought and as an extended discussion of Stoic physics
it offers an excellent opportunity to observe the development of
Peripatetic scholasticism in the face of ideas developed in post-
Aristotelian philosophy. In this way I shall try to establish the
largely unacknowledged importance of Alexander's contribution to
the Greek philosophical tradition.
Alexander is still unfortunately a relatively obscure author
and so I have devoted Part One of this study to a basic description
of his works and a preliminary attempt to place him in his intel-
lectual milieu. His philosophical creativity, as this essay will show,
has greater rein in his short treatises than in his monumental
commentaries, and it is from these works that his relation to other
philosophical schools can best be gauged. Like his de Jato the
de mixtione is basically an attack on the Stoics, but it also contains
a great deal of important source material and some constructive
criticisms of Stoic physics. Much of this I shall evaluate in a com-
mentary in Part Three, but these aspects of the work must also
be seen in the light of similar contributions by our other sources
for Stoic physics as well as Alexander's own overall relation to
Stoicism. For this reason in Part Two I survey the latter before
undertaking an extended examination of Alexander's exposition
and critique of the Stoic theory of total blending (xpiia~<; 8~' lSAwv),
the main subject of the de mixtione.
Part Two as a whole will, I hope, contribute something to the
almost untouched work of evaluating in detail our sources for
Stoic physical theory. Source material for much of Stoic philosophy
represents the residue of a complex and frequently polemical
tradition, and while the character of this tradition can never be
established in full some pattern can be discerned in it by the close
XII PREFACE
analysis of specific doctrines or related groups of doctrines. I shall

argue that through applying this method to the small but complex
body of evidence for the Stoic theory of total blending the accepted
interpretation of this doctrine and its place in the Stoic system
must be radically revised.
My whole discussion will naturally be limited because of the close
coherence of Stoic philosophy in which no single doctrine can be
satisfactorily interpreted in isolation. By the terms of the present
work I cannot apply, either in Part Two or in the Commentary,
the same method of detailed analysis to the evidence for all the
physical theories related to total blending as to the evidence for
that doctrine itself. Within these limitations, however, I shall aim
to provide a complete enough interpretation to set Alexander's
account of total blending in the de mixtione in clear perspective
(in Part Two, sect. ii), and also to show our author's place in the
tradition of criticism and polemic that surrounded this doctrine in
antiquity (in Part Two, sect. iii). As such this discussion can stand
as a preliminary essay for a more systematic study of the sources
for Stoic physical theory.
In Part Three I deal exclusively with the de mixtione. The trans-
lation is based on the text of Bruns' critical edition of 1892. The
Greek text that I have included at the suggestion of the editors
of "Philosophia Antigua" is designed solely as a complement to
this translation and the subsequent commentary and is no substi-
tute for the new critical edition that Elio Montanari's recent study
of the manuscripts (Accademia Toscana XXXVI [1971]) has shown
to be necessary. The commentary is designed to complement the
two preliminary essays by discussing in detail Alexander's methods
as a Peripatetic scholastic both in his treatment of Stoicism and
in his exegesis of Aristotle in the later chapters of the work. It
will probably be more convenient to read the translation, or at
least the outline, of the de mixtione before reading Part Two as this
itself serves as a commentary in several places.
This work is designed to be as accessible as possible to the
Greekless reader though of course much of the related material
remains untranslated. Apart from textual matters in Part Three
such a reader should have difficulty only with some detailed points
of language dealt with in footnotes and in a few places in the
commentary.
The manuscript was essentially completed by the autumn of
PREFACE XIII
1973. I was unable to take account of Lutz Bloos' study Probleme

der Stoischen Physik, Hamburg, 1973, nor was I aware of the 1971
New York dissertation by Bethia S. Currie, God and Matter in
Early Stoic Physics (Dissertation Abstracts 32 [1972]). Also bearing
on several of the aspects of Stoic physics that I discuss is Michael
Lapidge's article, "ixpxoc( and Mo~xei:oc: A Problem in Stoic Cos-
mology," Phronesis 18 (1973) 240-278, that also appeared after
my work was complete. There are general surveys of Stoic physics
in two recent introductory works: A. A. Long, Hellenistic Philos-
ophy, London, 1974, and F. H. Sandbach, The Stoics, London,
1975. Finally, although not related to any of the main themes of
this work, P. L. Donini's Tre Studi sull' Aristotelismo nel II secolo
d.C., Turin, 1974, contains important new contributions to the
study of Alexander of Aphrodisias, and the first volume of Professor
Moraux's Aristotelismus bei den Griechen (Berlin, 1974) has begun
the authoritative version of the history that I have sketched
briefly in Part One.
NOTE ON REFERENCES: ABBREVIATIONS
I have generally referred to books and articles in an abbreviated form;

with the exception of encyclopaedia articles, standard works, and some
items irrelevant to the main subjects of this study, this will be elucidated by a
full citation in the bibliography. Among the references to ancient works note
especially: M ant. = Alexander de anima libri mantissa, Quaest. = Alexander
Quaestiones, both works in Vol. II of Supplementum Aristotelicum. The
Aristotelian commentators are referred to by the title of the relevant Aristote-
lian work and the page and line number of the Berlin Academy edition.
Other abbreviations:
AGPh Archiv fur Geschichte def' Philosophie
AJP American Journal of Philology
BIGS Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies
CAG Commentaria in A ristotelem Gt'aeca
CP Classical Philology
CQ Classical Quarterly
DK H. Diels-W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokt'atiker
GGA Gottingen Gelehrte A nzeiger
]HP Journal of the History of Philosophy
]HS Journal of Hellenic Studies
JP Journal of Philology
]TS Journal of Theological Studies
LS] Liddel-Scott-Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon
MH Museum Helveticum
PG Patrologia Graeca
PIR 1 Prosopographia Imperii Romani (2nd ed. where available)
RE Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopiidie de,- Classischen Altertums-
wissenschaft
REG Revue des Etudes Grecques
REL Revue des Etudes Latines
RM Rheinisches Museum
SA Supplementum A ristotelicum
SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta
TAPA Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological
Association
ZNTW Zeitscht'ift fur Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft
PART ONE
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS-AN INTRODUCTION
A study of a work by Alexander of Aphrodisias must be prefaced

by some general introduction to the author, for he has not been
comprehensively studied but only surveyed in several encyclopaedia
articles. 1 This chapter will attempt to enlarge on such basic intro-
ductions by presenting Alexander in the context of the Peripatetic
school of his age. He was the holder of a chair in Peripatetic philos-
ophy at Athens 2 sometime between 198 and 209 A.D., 3 and al-
though this is our only known biographical fact, 4 we can still
probe his relation to other Peripatetics of the preceding and suc-
ceeding generations. Though this task has not been previously
attempted, and even now the necessary scholarly aids have not
been established, 5 I shall make a start on setting Alexander m
1 See Bibliography II-i for these, and other general presentations.

2 That he taught at Athens is implied (1) by the public chair he held,
almost certainly one of those established by Marcus Aurelius in 176 (p. 6 and
n. 29 below), and (2) by the reference to Aristotle's statue at Athens at Met.
415. 29-31. Though this is admittedly not a hard fact, I cannot follow Lynch
(Aristotle's School, p. 214) who seems fairly certain that Alexander was
appointed elsewhere, and is also certain (p. 193 n. 34) that he at least worked
in Rome since Athens probably lacked "the kind of library facilities" a
commentator would need. This is highly conjectural.
8 The tradition that sets the termini for Alexander's tenure as 198 and
211 on the basis of the dedication of the defato to Septimius and Antoninus
(de Jato 164. 3ff.) would seem to be in error. The earliest source to which I
have traced this is J. A. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Graeca (Hamburg, 1716), II,
274 (also IV, 63), followed by J. Brucker (Historia Critica Philosophiae
[Leipzig, 1742], II, 481), C. G. Zumpt (Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-Hist.
Klasse, Berlin, 1843, p. 98), Zeller (p. 778), Ueberweg-Praechter (p. 564),
and Gercke (RE I-i, col. 1453). Under the influence of these handbooks it
has become dogma. Yet it must be false since Geta was created Augustus
in 209 (see S. N. Miller, Cambridge Ancient History, XII, 41) and we know
of an inscription indicating that the news had reached Athens by December
209 or January 210 (A. Birley, Septimius Severus, p. 264). Is there any reason
to assume that Alexander would have omitted Geta thereafter?
' We cannot even be certain that his Aphrodisias is the major Carian
city which has been extensively excavated in recent years, though in view
of its well-developed cultural life (see L. Robert, Antiquite Classique 35
(1966] 397-432) it probably was.
6 The main requirements are (1) a collection of the fragments of the pre-
Alexandrian Peripatetics, of whom only those of Aristocles (H. Heiland,

2 INTRODUCTION
some historical perspective by offering a brief history of Peripatetic

philosophy from roughly 160 to 230 A.D. 6
I. SOME PRE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIPATETICS
The later years of the Roman Republic, as is well known, mark

a watershed in the history of Aristotle's influence in antiquity.
His school-texts-the so-called esoteric works-were at that time,
if not actually recovered after two centuries of burial, at least
made more widely available for study. 7 In this period they were
made the object of a scholarly treatment and critical discussion
with which we associate the names of Andronicus of Rhodes,
Boethus of Sidon, and later, in the early decades of the Roman
Empire, Nicolaus of Damascus and Xenarchus of Seleucia. 8 It is
solely in virtue of this work that these figures are termed Peri-
patetics. We know little about their wider philosophical beliefs,
if any, and nothing about the relation that they might have borne
to the Peripatetic school at Athens. 9 It is not until the early part
of the second century that further evidence appears of the significant
continuation of this scholarly work. To this period belong Adrastus
Aristoclis Afessenii Reliquiae) and Herminus (H. Schmidt, De Hermina Peri-

patetico) are available in the unsatisfactory form of dissertations, and (2) a
collection of the fragments of Alexander's lost works, principally from the
quotations by later commentators. Only a sample of the latter exists (P.
Moraux, Alexandre d'Aphrodise, Appendix III). Moraux's promised history
of Aristotelianism from Andronicus to Alexander will help to remedy these
deficiencies; for brief indications of its range see Moraux, "Einige Aspekte des
Aristotelismus," and D'Aristote a Bessarion, pp. 13-40.
• The period from Adrastus and Aspasius (c. 100 A.D.) to Alexander is
covered in Zeller, pp. 776-788, and Ueberweg-Praechter, pp. 556-564, and
surveyed briefly by Usener, Kleine Schriften, III, 206-209.
7 On the problem of the fortune of these texts in the period between
Theophrastus and Andronicus see Di.iring, Aristotle in the Ancient Bio-

graphical Tradition, ch. 18 with literature.
8 On this period see Zeller, pp. 619-631, Ueberweg-Praechter, pp. 556-565,
and Brink, "Peripatos," RE Suppl. Vol. VII, cols. 938-347. More recent
literature to be noted: the studies of M. Plezia on Andronicus (De Andronici
Rhodii studiis aristotelicis); Moraux, "Xenarchos (5)," RE Suppl. Vol. IXA;
and H. Drossaart-Lulofs' edition of Nicolaus' Ile:pl qn).oaoqi(cxc;. Lynch
(Aristotle's School, ch. VI) has now argued that the Peripatetics of this
period in no sense continued the work of the original Lyceum, which he
believes ended when Sulla sacked Athens in 86 B.C.
9 The evidence on Andronicus is unclear, and he may have been 8Lcx8oxoc;
at Athens (K. Brink, RE Suppl. Vol. VII, cols. 938-940); but strongly against
this is Lynch, Aristotle's School, pp. 203-204.
SOME PRE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIPATETICS 3
of Aphrodisias and Aspasius, the latter the only Aristotelian com-

mentator before Alexander of whom there are any complete works
extant. Both wrote commentaries on various logical, ethical, and
physical treatises, and Adrastus, like Andronicus, studied the
problem of the order of the Aristotelian writings. 10 Again we do
not know of any connection between them and the school at
Athens. 11
In attempting to trace further the continuity of the second-
century Peripatetic school we must turn to the polymathic figure
of Galen, for he provides evidence both of these scholars and of a
wide range of less significant figures. In his student days at Perga-
mum he appears to have heard the lectures of a student of Aspa-
sius,12 who we know from Simplicius was the teacher of Herminus, 13
who in turn was the teacher of Alexander of Aphrodisias. 14 From
an Arabic source it seems possible that Galen wrote a treatise on
the Aristotelian doctrine of a first mover directed particularly
against this Herminus. 16 This all suggests that a widely-travelled
savant such as Galen would naturally encounter either personally
or intellectually these Peripatetic scholars, a good indication of
their prominence. Also it was to be expected that with his interest
in logic Galen would naturally gravitate to philosophers who
intensively studied the Aristotelian logical works, and in general
placed logic at the forefront of their system of education. 16 Since
he died in 199 Galen's life overlapped with that of Alexander of
Aphrodisias, but in the latter's extant works there is no evidence
of anything except a limited intellectual contact between them.17
10 On their writings see below, pp. 12-13.

11 Ueberweg-Praechter (pp. 664-665) lists Xenarchus, Aspasius, and
Herminus tentatively as "successors" (8tix8oxoi). But this is pure guesswork,
since whether or not Lynch (cf. n. 8) is right, we do not know whether the
Peripatetic school had such heads in this period.
12 V. 42 K, an event to be dated to 145-147 A.D. For his study of the
commentaries of Aspasius and Adrastus on the Categories, cf. XIX. 42 K

(de libr. propr., p. 119 Mueller).
18 de caelo 430. 32-33, and 431. 10-11 imply this.
11 Simplicius de caelo 430. 32-33 ('Epµlvou ... ~xouacx).
15 The evidence is complicated (see S. Pines, Isis 52 [1961] 23).
18 Both Galen XIX. 42 K( = de libr. propr., p. 118 Mueller) and Alexander
(Top. 69. 15, Pr. An. I 16. 16, and Met. 85. 10) knew Eudemus' logical
treatise Ile:pl Ae~e:~ (for fragments see F. Wehrli, Schute des Aristoteles, VII,
frs. 25-29).
17 Top. 549. 23-24 is the only reference to Galen where he is mentioned
as an example of an intellectual authority. There are many examples of
4 INTRODUCTION
It appears, however, that Alexander criticised Galen's treatise <

the first mover in an Arabic text attributed to him. 18
Minor Peripatetics: Alexander of Damascus

and Aristocles of Messenia
The Peripatetk school of the second century did not consi

solely of scholarly commentators. In the pages of Galen we e1
counter some less influential figures. There is the Eudemus who
we know of only through Galen as the friend of his father, h
mentor, and later, on his first visit to Rome in 161, the agenc
of his entry into aristocratic circles. 19 It is in such circles that v
encounter the only Peripatetic before Alexander whom we kno
to have held a chair of philosophy at Athens. This is Alexand,
of Damascus who was present at anatomical demonstrations th,
Galen gave at the invitation of the consul Flavius Boethus in 163.
At this time Alexander was Flavius' teacher, and is described ;
knowledgeable about Platonism, but particularly inclined 1
Aristotelianism. 21 His behaviour at this event was eccentric a11
yet it may be instructive to examine it in detail. Galen planm
to demonstrate the nature of breathing and speech by conductir
anatomical experiments on goats and pigs. Beforehand he tried 1
establish a method for determining the results of these experiment
He himself would point to the evidence of the dissection ('t'a: I
Alexander dealing with the same topics as Galen (e.g. the locus of the rulin1
principle [iJytµovLx6v) of the soul, de an. 94. 7-100. 17; or the relation of tl
soul to the physical constituents of the body, de an. 2. 10-11. 13; see Donir
Atti d. Accad. di Torino 105 [1971] 61-107 at 98-107) but it is as difficult 1
determine Alexander's precise knowledge of Galen as it is to establish tl
nature of his Stoic sources (see Pt. 11-i passim).
18 S. Pines, Isis 52 (1961) 21-54 passim, and N. Rescher and M. Marmur
The Refutation by Alexander of Aphrodisias of Galen's Treatise on the Theo,
of Motion. Also cf. R. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians at pp. 48 n.
and 74 n. 2 on evidence of responses to Galen by Alexander.
19 References are most conveniently collected at PIR 2 E109. Eudemus
perhaps to be identified with the Peripatetic Euthydemus at Lucian Herm,
timus 11 (V. Nutton, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. n.s. 18 [1972] at p. 58). 0
Galen's social progress at Rome note especially XIV. 612ff. K. For Galen
biography, cf. the convenient outline in Bowersock, Greek Sophists, ch.
20 XIV. 626-629 K. On the date cf. Ilberg, Neue Jahrbucher 15 (1905) 281
who provides further evidence on the political figures present, as do1
Bowersock, Greek Sophists, pp. 62-63 and 82-83.
21 Galen XIV. 627 K.: ... 'AAt~&v8p 'l'<i°> ilcxµcxax'llvci>, yLyvwaxov'l'L µ,
'l'Ot 'l'OU IIA&n>voc;, IXAA<X 't'o!c; , ApLO'l'O'l'EAOUc; 7tpoax£Lµev µiiAAOV.
-rijt; cx.voc'C'oµijt; rpocw6µe:voc) while he hoped that Alexander, whom he

refers to as the teacher of all of them would formulate the results
(m,A}..oy(aoca8ocL 'C'oc 1te:pocw6µe:voc). 22 The position that Alexander
held in the company 23 is indicated by the agreement with which
Galen's request was met, though also, as Galen points out, it was
hoped that in this way the disputatiousness (rpL1.ove:L,doc) to which
the Peripatetic was prone would be avoided. This proved vain,
since before Galen could even begin Alexander asked whether the
doctor took it for granted "that we must rely on what appears
through the senses" (Toi:t; 8Loc 'C'WV iXLa8~ae:<uv rpiXLVO(J,&VOLt; 7tL(jWJELV
~µiit; 8e:i:v). 24 At this Galen withdrew saying only that he had not
expected to meet such "crude sceptics" (cx.ypoLxo1tuppwve:LoL). 25
Recalling the incident in more general terms in a treatise written
some years afterwards Galen refers to Alexander as at that time
dignified with the appointment of public teacher of Peripatetic
philosophy at Athens. 26
It is easier to comment on the historical than the philosophical
import of this evidence. First, we see a Peripatetic philosopher
22 aunoy(~ea6ixt ("to formulate") does not seem to be used here in the
technical Aristotelian sense of "to syllogise," so that Galen would not be

hinting at Alexander's philosophy. It simply means to relate phenomena to
a non-phenomenal event. As the eventual experiment showed (XIV. 629-
630 K) this involved establishing a causal relation between the phenomena
of the dilation and contraction of the thorax and the presence and absence
of sound. Cf. a similar usage at XV. 694 K.
13 The description of him as "teacher of all" (ix1tixv't'wv 8u~iiaxix).oc;) at XIV.
628 K could be a courtesy title. It need not imply that he was Galen's teacher
as Bowersock, Greek Sophists, p. 60 n. 50 (following PIR 2 G24) takes it.
It is certain only that he was the teacher of Flavius Boethus, and possibly
Cn. Claudius Severus (v. n. 37 below).
u XIV. 628 K.
u Cf. VIII. 711 K, where it is used similarly as a term of abuse. Galen
refers to certain sceptics and ix1top7J't'txo( who "deny that they have firm know-
ledge of their own experiences and are rightly called crude sceptics (ixypoL-
xom,pp6>vetoL)." These extreme sceptics are probably not to be associated
with any of the established schools (n. 34 below). Gercke (RE 1-i, col. 1453)
rightly points out that this incident seems to have become enmeshed in
legend among the Arabs. The Kitab Al-Fihrist (rnth cent. A.D.) reports that
Alexander of Aphrodisias called Galen "Mauleselkopf" (as translated by
A. Miiller, Die Griech. Philos. in der Arab. Oberlief., p. 23), but as Miiller
himself noted (p. 57 n. 45), there is no evidence in Greek sources of relations
between the two (cf. also nn. 17 and 18 above). On the identification of the
Aphrodisian and Damascan Alexanders in Arabic sources see also G. Stroh-
maier, Encyclopaedia of Islam, IV, fasc. 63-64 (Leiden, 1973), 129-130.
28 De A natom. A dministrat. 1-i (II. 218 K) : ... 't'ou vuv 'A6~v7)aLv ix~LOuµevou
).6youc; 8L8iiaxeLV 87Jµoa(qc.
6 INTRODUCTION
moving in those circles where the intellectual currents of the age-

philosophy, rhetoric, sophistry and medicine- blended. 27 Like
Hadrian of Tyre, who was also present at the gathering, Alexander
moved on, presumably assisted by his influential friends, to a
teaching appointment at Athens. 28 It is fairly certain that he was
the first holder of the relevant philosophical chair of the four
established by Marcus Aurelius on his visit to Athens in 176. 29
27 This blend is well described in Bowersock, Greek Sophists, especially

ch. 5, "The Prestige of Galen."
28 On Hadrian see PIR 2 H4. Philostratus (V.S. 588) shows that Hadrian
was appointed to a municipal chair of rhetoric, for at the time of Marcus

Aurelius' visit to Athens in 176 which established imperial chairs (cf. next
note "he already held (ixpo:-re µ1:v ifi87J) the chair of the sophists."
29 The evidence for the general endowment, which included a chair of
rhetoric, is at Dio Cassius LXXII. 31. On the philosophical chairs see
Philostratus V.S. 566 and Lucian Eun. 3. 8, and cf. Tertullian Apolog. 46.
I agree with H. I. Marrou (History of Education, p. 568 n. 10) that Lucian's
report does not prove that there were two chairs for each sect, nor indeed
does Porphyry Vit. Plot. 20. 39-40. Alexander of Damascus is variously said
to have held the chair in Peripatetic philosophy "around 270" (Zumpt,
Abh. d. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Berlin, 1843, p. 97; followed by
Ueberweg-Praechter, p. 665), or to have been the first holder of the imperial
chair (Christ-Schmidt-Stahlin, Gesch. der Griech. Lit. II. 2, p. 833 n. 8;
Gercke, RE I-i, col. 1452, who adds "vielleicht"). The matter can only be
discussed on the basis of the dating of Galen's works. The first reference to
Alexander being present at the anatomical demonstrations is in the "On
Prognosis" (Ilept -rou 1tpoyLyv6laxeLv, Galen XIV K), a work written in 178
(I. Ilberg, Neue Jahrbucher 15 [1905] 288 n. 2). or late 177 (V. Nutton, Proc.
Camb. Phil. Soc. n.s. 18 [1972] at p. 32 n. 1). The reference to him as professor
at Athens is in the "Inquiries into Anatomy" (' Avo:-roµLxo:l 'EmxeLpiJaeLC;,
Galen II K), a work of uncertain date. Ilberg (RM 44 [1889] 209) is no more
precise than 169-180. Though not impossible it would seem to be unlikely
that in the former work of late 177-178 Galen would refer to Alexander
without adding that he was also professor at Athens; thus the reference to
him in this capacity was probably made after this date. BLMaxeLv 87Jµoaiq;
("to teach in public," Galen II 218 K) would then have to refer to his appoint-
ment to the imperial chair probably between 178-180, and it might still have
been influenced by Herodes Atticus who died in 178 (cf. nn. 30, 31). How
these imperial appointments affected the earlier tradition of a succession of
headships is not known. The term "successor" (BLixBoxoc;) is still used after
176 (Porphyry Vit. Plot. 15. 19), and Galen XIX. 50 K seems to imply that
these were paid appointments such as Marcus endowed. Presumably the
imperial chairs supplanted the old headships where they still existed (J.
Walden, Universities of Ancient Greece, p. 102 n. 1). though recently Lynch
(Aristotle's School, pp. 169-174) has made out a good case for there being no
relation whatsoever between the two. Alexander of Aphrodisias certainly
does refer to himself as a teacher (BLMaxo:Aoc;, de Jato 164. 15), and only such
teachers are mentioned by Dio Cassius (LXXII. 31). A similar emphasis
on pedagogy can be found in Philostratus' description (V.S. 56o) of Theo-
Since Herodes Atticus perhaps had some influence over these

appointments 30 we have a further indication that Alexander's
social connections were important. 31 The philosophical difficulties
posed by this appointment are somewhat greater. What could the
Peripatetic doctrines that Alexander taught at Athens have been
if he could espouse the scepticism evinced at Galen's demonstration?
The problem might be soluble in the light of historical considera-
tions. Galen vividly describes the vicious backbiting that marked
intellectual life at Rome at the time of his first visit. 32 As a new-
comer he had entered aristocratic circles very rapidly after a sensa-
tional cure of his teacher Eudemus. 33 Conceivably the more estab-
lished Alexander resented his intrusion, and there would be no
dotus, the first holder of the imperial chair in rhetoric (1tpoi.laT7J ... -njc;
'A87Jvcxlwv ve:6T7J't'oc;), while the pedagogical role of the professors forms the
whole theme of Lucian's Eunuch; cf. also Alexander de Jato 189. 4-5 on
the Stoics as teachers. Finally in dedicating Book VIII of his Onomasticon
to Commodus, Pollux complains of the pressures of teaching (YJ auvoualcx YJ
1tpoc; 't'ouc; ve:ouc;). Whatever the relation the new chairs bore to the traditional
positions of the successors, they probably introduced a new emphasis on
public teaching, derived perhaps from the Stoic emperor's own sensitivity
to pedagogy; cf. Meditations Bk. I passim for dedications to various teachers.
80 Philostratus V.S. 566; although, as Bowersock says (Greek Sophists, p.
p. 49), this shows only that "Marcus took the advice of Herodes." Since the
latter died in 178 the system of appointment referred to by Lucian (Eun. 3. 8)
whereby a candidate was "judged by the vote of the best men" (8oxLµcxa8ev't'cx
4'7Jq>ep 't'wv cxpla'l'wv) could have been in force soon after, and was possibly the
system under which Alexander of Aphrodisias was appointed. Who these
"best men" were is not known. Lesky's description (History of Greek
Literature, English trans., p. 841) of the Eunuch as a depiction of "the
struggle over the chair of philosophy at Athens (176) in all its deplorable
details" must certainly be corrected.
31 This connection might have been the following: Favorinus of Arelate
was the teacher of Herodes (Philostratus V.S. 490). and present at Galen's
anatomical demonstration was Demetrius of Alexandria, who at that time
was giving rhetorical demonstrations in the style of Favorinus (xcxTix --riiv
t8ecxv -njc; Cl>cx(3wplvou )..e~e:wc;, Galen XIV. 627 K). Probably Favorinus was dead
by 163 (C. P. Jones, CQ 17 [1967] 312 n. 5), but presumably Demetrius knew
him in his lifetime. If he and Alexander were friends our philosopher might
thereby have known the great sophist. A firmer speculation on the reasons
for Alexander's advancement might be grounded in the fact that the enthu-
siastic Peripatetic Cn. Claudius Severus (Galen XIV. 613 K) knew Alexander
(XIV. 629 K), and was possibly also present with Marcus Aurelius at Athens
in 176 when the philosophical chairs were established (Philostratus V.S. 588).
32 XIV. 620-622 K where Galen complains ot this, and a prevailing charla-
tanry, and cf. esp. XIV. 625 K.

88 See XIV. 612-613 K for his encounter with Flavius Boethus and Sergius
Paulus (consul ordinarius for the second time in 168; see PIR 5 S377) at
Eudemus' bedside; and XIV. 625 Kon the development of his reputation.
8 INTRODUCTION
better way to scotch an anatomical experiment than at least to

suggest a sceptical pose; for among contemporary medical schools
both the Empiricists and Methodists were opposed to dissection
on precisely such sceptical principles. 34 Alexander's question is
so general that it cannot be linked with the refined forms of scep-
ticism that these schools adopted, but in the circumstances it
would have been quite sufficient to constitute a root and branch
attack on anatomical experimentation. This would leave us free
to assume that in his less malicious moments Alexander was a
more orthodox Peripatetic.
This is perhaps all that should be made of the incident. Yet it
is worth spelling out the considerations that might have led Alex-
ander to adopt scepticism as a philosophical position and not just
for ad hominem purposes. There is first the general point that a
philosopher's knowledge of Aristotle and ability to teach his works
might not have entailed a philosophical agreement with all his
doctrines. We have seen that in the first and second centuries
Peripatetics were essentially philologists and scholars. 35 Alexander
could presumably have followed in their train while being quite
free to adopt an alien philosophical stance. This suggestion of a
dichotomy between philosophy and scholarship might be more
plausible if we had some actual evidence of Alexander having
written commentaries or monographs, but apart from the citations
in Galen his name is never mentioned by later commentators or
34 On the Methodists' rejection of anatomy see L. Edelstein, "Methodiker,"
RE Suppl. VI (= Ancient Medicine, p. 180), and on that of the Empiricists

cf. Edelstein, Ancient Medicine, pp. 269-270. The best presentation of their
differing forms of scepticism can be found at Sextus Empiricus P.H. I. 236ff.
36 In general the relation between an official philosophical affiliation
and a doctrinal stance needs to be carefully measured at this period. Public

inscriptions, for example, will refer only to a single affiliation (e.g. for
ID..cx•wivtx6c; see Tod, ]HS 77 [1957) 134; or 8ui8oxoc; :E-r(J)tx6c; at I.G. III. 661
and 1441), while philosophical writers, on the other hand, will note any
eclecticism (e.g. Porphyry's description of one Trypho as "both a Stoic and
a Platonist" [Vit. Plot. 17)). This gap may have been particularly wide among
Peripatetics since there was a well-developed tradition of philosophical
scholarship that carried no clear indication of broader philosophical commit-
ment. So, for example, the Severus whom Marcus (I. 14) respected for his
liberal and essentially Stoic political views could be the Peripatetic Cn.
Claudius Severus (Hist. Aug. IV. 3. 3 and PIR 1 C8o8) father of Severus
who was also a student of Peripatetic philosophy (Galen XIV. 613 K and
cf. PIR 1 C811 and n. 31 above). There is no reason why it should be "remark-
able" (pace Farquharson on Med. I. 14) for the same man to range so widely
in the prevailing philosophical climate.
philosophers. Still, whether or not we accept this particular sug-

gestion we are still forced, if we take Galen's anecdote seriously,
to give him the epithet of "eclectic" and to determine the sense in
which it applies to him.
There are three philosophical components to Alexander of
Damascus: knowledge of the works of Plato, and of Aristotle, and
possibly some general form of scepticism. The only part of his
philosophical knowledge compatible with this scepticism would
be his Platonism. In the second century the sceptical Academy
still thrived, and Galen was quite capable of mentioning Academics
and Pyrrhonists together. 36 Indeed the famous sophist Favorinus
of Arelate seems to have combined the doctrines of both schools
while still favouring the Peripatetics. 37 Perhaps Alexander was
capable of a similar eclecticism, and there is the possibility that
he knew Favorinus personally. 38 If he did resemble the sophist
philosophically we should have to assume that his Aristotelianism
was indeed a scholarly knowledge suitable for pedagogical purposes.
Certainly if teaching of Aristotle was tending to the mechanical
form of which we have some hints in Alexander, 39 and which we
know it acquired in later centuries;10 this would be an even more
plausible suggestion.
88 E.g. V. 60 K {= I. 47 Marquardt). Earlier we know that it was the
sceptical Academy that Epictetus attacked (Arrian Diss. 1-v and II-xx).
87 • See W. Schmid, RE VI-ii, col. 2081, and Galen de opt. doctr. I {I.
41 K = pp. 82-83 Marquardt) on Favorinus' Academic scepticism. He

counted himself an Academic {Aulus Gellius XX. 1. 9 and XXI. 21, with
Galen de opt. doctr. I. 40 K = p. 82 Marquardt), though Plutarch (Quaest.
Conviv. VIII. 734F) says Favorinus was an enthusiastic Peripatetic; cf. the
description of his logical quibbling at Aulus Gellius V. 11. 8-14. Plutarch's
description of Favorinus' Peripatetic tendencies should be compared with
Galen's description of Alexander as "particularly tending towards Aristotle's
doctrines" {cf. above, n. 21). The parallels between the two grow if we can
assume that Alexander would have had to exhibit a similar enthusiasm in
his capacity as the teacher of Flavius Boethus who was, according to Galen,
a zealous Aristotelian (XIV. 612 K), like Cn. Claudius Severus (XIV 613 K),
possibly another student of his (cf. XIV. 629 K, where he is one of those
who reproach Alexander for his sceptical outburst).
88 Note 31 above.
89 Pr. An. I 8. 3f., 9. 5ff., and Top. 1. 3, and 125. 4-8. On the relation
between the exposition of a work's goal (axo7t'6~) and value (xp~<nµov) and
oral teaching in general see K. Praechter, Byz. Zeit. 18 (1901) 525-531. There
is a hint that even earlier Alexander of Aegae (first century A. D. Peripatetic)
was interested in the question of a work's goal; cf. Simplicius Cat. 10. 19ff.
and Ueberwcg-Praechter, p. 561.
,o This is true of both the Athenian and the Alexandrian commentators
IO INTRODUCTION
On the assumption then, that Alexander of Damascus' scep-

ticism can be taken seriously, we can regard him as a philosopher
sufficiently knowledgeable about Aristotle to acquire a teaching
chair in his philosophy while probably espousing a sceptical Pla-
tonism. One reason for holding to this picture is the interesting
contrast it provides with the better known character of another
second century Peripatetic, Aristocles of Messenia. 41 Here we have
a philosopher who is called a Peripatetic 42 yet has a knowledge of
a more orthodox and in particular an antisceptical Platonism that
probably has its roots in the earlier synthesis of Antiochus of
Ascalon. 43 Traditionally Aristocles has been regarded as one of the
teachers of Alexander of Aphrodisias which would conveniently
date him to the period 170-200 A.D. during which Alexander of
Damascus flourished. Recently however, Paul Moraux has thrown
doubt on the tradition of textual emendation that rendered Aristo-
cles the teacher of the great commentator. 44 It nonetheless remains
certain that Aristocles belongs to the second century A.D. The list
of his works shows that blend of philosophy and rhetoric so typical
of the era ;45 and we find him quoted extensively by Eusebius who
drew heavily on philosophers of this period. 46 It is therefore plau-
sible to contrast him with our reconstruction of the philosophy of
Alexander of Damascus. In each case we find a second century
Peripatetic turning to Plato and relating him to scepticism. Aristo-
of the fifth and sixth centuries; see Praechter, Byz. Zeit. 18 (1901) 529-533,
and on Proclus, A. J. Festugiere, M.H. 20 (1963) 77-100.
41 His fragments are collected by Reiland, diss. Giessen, 1925.
62 The Suidas s.v., and frequently by Eusebius who quotes him most
extensively; see Reiland, pp. 1-3.

48 Reiland, pp. 102-104.
44 AGPh 49 (1961) 169-182 where that tradition is copiously documented.
Aristocles has only been made Alexander's teacher by the emendation of the
'ApLa't'O't'EA'!J½ of various texts, notably Mant. 110. 4, to his name on the
ground that as a reference to the Stagirite this was unintelligible. Cf. n. 53.
46 The Suidas (s.v.) records an "Artsof Rhetoric" (TEJ(VotLp'!J't'OpLxot(} and an
"Is Homer superior to Plato?" (II6upov a1tou8ocL6T&po½ "Oµ'!)po½ -1) II).rhwv).

Both titles suggest that, rather like Favorinus, Aristocles was a rhetor and
a sophist; the latter seems to be a demonstration of the antiquarian kind
that was so typical in the Second Sophistic. See Bowie, Past and Present 46
(1970) 4-10 on the use of such themes.
41 He selected, in particular, philosophical texts of a rhetorical and polem-
ical character, like those from Aristocles' On Philosophy (II&pt cpL).oaocplot½),

or Atticus' attack on the Peripatetics, both of which present opponents in a
one-dimensional aspect; see Mras, Anz. d. Oest. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien,
Phil.-Hist. Klasse 93 (1956) 209-217.
SOME PRE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIPATETICS II
cles attacks, largely on the basis of arguments from the Theaetetus, 47

the scepticism of Protagoras as well as Pyrrhonism. 48 Whether any
of this could have been provoked by Alexander of Damascus'
possibly sceptical Platonism is a matter of conjecture, since we
cannot be certain of Aristocles' precise date. It is however clear
that his eclecticism is systematic, which is grounds enough for
our suggestion that the same might be true of his more obscure
contemporary. Like Alexander of Damascus Aristocles is not
known to have written any commentaries or scholarly works on
Aristotle. This is less surprising in his case, since if he was indeed
influenced by Antiochus he would not have approached the Aristote-
lian texts with scholastic rigour. With Alexander we must assume,
unless we are to allow for an eccentric form of pedagogy, something
of a scholastic approach; he might simply have been versed in the
Aristotelian works and have relied on the commentaries of his more
productive scholarly predecessors, such as Adrastus and Aspasius.
Alexander's Teachers
In addition to Herminus, 49 there are two other known teachers
of Alexander of Aphrodisias who must have been active in the
latter third of the second century, if the epithet "teacher" (a~-
Max.cx1,.oi;;) implies personal contact. Sosigines 50 was a wide-ranging
scholar. As a typical Peripatetic he dealt with logic, also wrote a
treatise on vision in at least eight books, 51 and was particularly
interested in astronomical problems. The other teacher has been
only recently identified. He is Aristotle of Mytilene, mentioned
by Galen as one of the most distinguished contemporary Peripatetics
in a treatise written in the 19o's. 52 This, in Moraux's view, 53 makes
47 Fr. 4 Reiland (= Eusebius P.E. XIV. 19. 766b ff.).
'8 Fr. 6 Reiland (= Eusebius P.E. XIV. 18. 758c ff.).
° Cf. p. 3, nn. 14, 15 above.
60 See Rehm, RE Zw. Rh. III (1929) u57-u59 for details, and on the
distinction between him and Julius Caesar's advisor, see Th. Martin, Annales
de la Faculte des Lettres de Bordeaux 1 (1879) 174-187. Alexander himself
refers to him as his teacher (o 3i8iiaxotAo~ ~µwv, Meteor. 143. 13).
61 Ile:p! "Oljie:(,)~, Alexander Meteor. 143. 14.
62 Cf. Ile:p! 'EOwv, Mi.iller, Script. Min., 11, II. 4-5, and see Moraux,
AGPh 49 (1967) 177. He is termed "a leading figure in Peripatetic scholar-
ship" ((XV~p 1tpwre:uaot~ tv TTI Ile:pmotTI)'nKTI 6e:(,)p(9').
63 See AGPh 49 (1967) 176-182 for the full argument. This revised Moraux's
earlier view (Alexandre d'Aphrodise, ch. 4) that the Aristotle referred to in
various Alexandrian texts was the Stagirite, which had been criticised by
F. Trabucco, Acme II (1958) u9-126.
I2 INTRODUCTION
him the Aristotle referred to as Alexander's teacher in several

texts and renders the emendation of this name to Aristocles un-
necessary. If this is correct his philosophical views are represented
by a passage of the de intellectu dealing with the doctrine of "the
external intellect" (voui; 6upa.6e:v). 54
II. THE ALEXANDRIAN CORPUS 55

The purpose of this description of the Peripatetic school in the
generation before Alexander has been to place his own contribution
in perspective. It is clear now that a strong tradition of scholarly
exegesis was established before him, and that he was linked to
it through his teachers Herminus and Sosigines. There are also
some indications of a less rigorous tradition represented by Alexan-
der of Damascus and Aristocles of Messenia in which philosophical
eclecticism was combined with an affiliation to the culture of the
Second Sophistic. Alexander's contribution was to be entirely the
continuation of the former tradition 56 and its elevation to new
heights, primarily through the composition of a series of com-
mentaries on Aristotelian works.
The Commentaries
The precise form of pre-Alexandrian philosophical commentaries
is not known to us, 57 the only extant example being the somewhat
54 Mant. no. 4-n2. 5 Bruns; cf. n. 44.

66 See Pt. II of the bibliography for additional literature on the works
and subjects discussed in this section.
69 This is another reason, quite apart from those adduced by Moraux,
why Alexander might not have been the pupil of Aristocles of Messenia.
Nothing however is known of the contribution of Aristotle of Mitylene to
the specifically scholarly tradition, and therefore his influence on Alexander
as against that of the known scholars, Herminus and Sosigines, might have
been slight.
67 Pre-Alexandrian commentators are quoted rather sparingly, both by
Alexander and later commentators. For example, Andronicus is only mention-

ed in Alexander's extant works at Pr. An. I 160. 32, and Diiring (Biographical
Tradition, p. 416) believes that he drew his knowledge about the arrangement
of Aristotle's works from Adrastus, who wrote on this subject (Simplicius
Cat. 16. 1-2). Boethus and Xenarchus are mentioned by name only at Mant.
151. 8 in a text of dubious authenticity. The very nature of textual commen-
tary makes reference to earlier authorities otiose unless an important point
arises, such as a textual reading; cf. the references to Aspasius at de sensu
10. 2 and Met. 59. 6 and 379. 3. For these reasons it is difficult to measure
the originality of a commentator, and thus while Alexander's achievement
THE ALEXANDRIAN CORPUS IJ
paraphrastic commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics by Aspasius. 68
We know that something like this technique was practiced in both
the Platonic and Aristotelian schools as early as the first generation
after their foundation, 69 but it was not developed to any extent
until the first and second centuries A.D. To this period belong
several commentaries on the Timaeus by Platonists, 60 as well as
the works of Peripatetics mentioned above. We cannot be certain
of their form. They might have been epitomes, or more elaborate
paraphrases, or text by text commentaries like most of Alexander's
works. We are rather better informed about the range of Peripatetic
commentaries, and we find that an interest in the logical works
predominated, epitomised by the celebrated description of Hermi-
nus in Lucian's Demonax. 61 There are references to commentaries
on the Physics by Aspasius and Adrastus, and one on the de caelo
by the former. 62 Both also wrote on the Nicomachean Ethics ;68
only Aspasius is known to have commented on the Metaphysics
before Alexander. 64 Sosigines seems only to have written mono-
was no doubt great we cannot afford to gauge his debt to his predecessors
solely from the indices nominum.
u CAG, XI-i. Only that on Books I-IV, part of that on Book VII, and that
on Book VIII are extant.
69 Crantor was the first of many to write a commentary on the Timaeus
(Von Arnim, RE XI, col. 1586), and Eudemus seems in effect to have
written a commentary on some of the logical works and the Physics; note
the texts at Wehrli, Schule des Aristoteles, VII, frs. 9-24 and 31-123.
• 0 These were composed by the more orthodox Platonists Taurus, Atticus,
and Severus, and there is also a record of one by the Peripatetic Adrastus.
Alexander is known to have criticised Taurus' commentary-see Praechter,
RE VI-i, col. 68.
81 Demonax 56, where he is said to deserve 3excx xcxTl)yoplcxL (ten categories
= ten indictments). Simplicius' proem to his commentary on the Categories

is a rich source of evidence on earlier studies of this work; cf. the index
nominum. For our purposes we need note that there were commentaries
by Aspasius, Adrastus, and Herminus. Alexander quotes from Herminus
on some texts in the Topics (569. 3-5, 574. 26) and Prior Analytics I (72. 27,
89. 34ff., 91. 21ff.). Aspasius appears to have commented on the de inter-
pretatione.
82 Cf. Simplicius' commentaries to these works, index nominum.
83 For Aspasius cf. n. 58; for Adrastus, Athenaeus XV. 673.
84 He is quoted by Alexander in his commentary; cf. n. 57 above. This
limited range of Aristotelian works on which commentaries were written

illustrates Diiring's point that it was "ein sehr zusammengeschrumpter
Aristoteles, fiir den man sich interessiert" (Antike und Abendland, 4 [1954]
124) in the period from Andronicus to late antiquity. The indices show that
Alexander had a knowledge of the biological and zoological works, as well
as the Ethics. It has also been shown that he had a direct acquaintance
14 INTRODUCTION
graphs on questions in logic, optics and astronomy, and perhaps

thereby to have influenced Alexander's contributions in this genre.
We know that Alexander commented on all of Aristotle's logical
treatises with the exception of the Sophistici Elenchi, 65 though only
his works on Book I of the Prior Analytics and on the Topics are
extant. Whether in this he surpassed in volume the work of his
predecessors is difficult to gauge; for, as we have seen, the work of
earlier commentators is often assimilated by their successors
without attribution. 66 Certainly Alexander exhibited very clearly
that concern for logic that was regarded as part of the vulgar
image of a Peripatetic of his age. 67
He also wrote commentaries on the four principal physical
treatises of Aristotle, the Physics, de caelo, de generatione et corrup-
tione,68 and Meteorologica. Only his commentary on the latter, a
rather paraphrastic work, is extant. Extensive remains of the first
two works are preserved by Simplicius in his commentaries on
them, while, as this study will demonstrate in part, 69 some of his
commentary on the de generatione et corruptione can be reconstructed
from Philoponus' commentary, for Alexander's de mixtione has
close affinities with the Aristotelian treatise and can therefore be
used as a guide to the Alexandrian content of Philoponus' work.
Alexander, as far as we know, is the first Peripatetic to have
dealt extensively with the psychological treatises of Aristotle.
with the esoteric works-see P. Wilpert, Hermes 68 (1940) 369-396. There

is some evidence that the range of commentaries was deliberately extended
by Michael of Ephesus, the twelfth century Byzantine scholar, at the instiga-
tion of Anna Comnena; see R. Browning, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. n.s. 8 (1962)
6-8. For Michael's works see CAG, XXII.
65 That on Soph. El. in CAG, II-iii is spurious-see Wallies, Praefatio. For
evidence of these other commentaries see Zeller, p. 790 note. For literature,
see Bibliography II-2.
68 Cf. above n. 57.
87 In addition to the description of Herminus in the Demonax (n. 61 above)
see Tertullian de praescriptione VII. 6, Justin Dialogue II. 3, and Eusebius

Hist. Eccl. V. 28. 13-14 (on which cf. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians,
pp. 76-78). The latter describes the heresy that arose from applying Peripa-
tetic logic to scripture. From an earlier period we may note the ridicule
by one of the interlocutors at Plutarch Quaest. Conviv. IX. 743D directed
against Menephylus the Peripatetic about the apparent use of the Muses
in logical exercises. Cf. also Seneca Ep. 45. 6-10, Epictetus IV. 4. 14, and
Marcus Aurelius Med. I. 17. 9 for hostility to Peripatetic logic-chopping from
a non-scholastic Stoic viewpoint.
88 For evidence see Zeller, p. 790.
89 See Comm. on de mixt. 16 passim.
THE ALEXANDRIAN CORPUS 15
He wrote a major commentary on the de anima that is lost but

quoted from principally by Philoponus, 70 and there is an extant
work on the de sensu. 71 Conceivably he was led to this area by his
teacher Sosigines who wrote an On Vision. 72
The only other extant commentary is that on the Metaphysics
of which only Books A-Dare genuine. 73
If we cannot be certain that Alexander's commentaries were
more wide-ranging than those of any single predecessor, his ex-
tensive influence on many subsequent commentaries is a strong
indication that he certainly surpassed them in quality. It is very
difficult to judge the extent to which these works sprang from his
pedagogical activity. The text by text discussions are much less
formally constructed than some of the stylised products of the later
Alexandrian school, 74 but it is still a fair presumption that these
commentaries must in some way have complemented his teaching.
We can distinguish in them roughly three elements. First, there
is the elucidation of the text and a basic gloss on it; Alexander
gives evidence of having consulted several manuscripts (ixv·.typoccpoL)
to establish a text, 71' as well as having utilised the works of his
predecessors. Second, there is a more expansive paraphrase that
is offered particularly where the meaning of the text is problematic.
Thirdly, there is the introduction of parallels from other philosoph-
ical schools, either because there is a reference to them in the text,
or because, as in the case of the Stoics, their doctrines have a
relevance to the issue under consideration. 76
70 Evidence at Zeller, pp. 790-791.

71 This is probably a later work as it is not referred to elsewhere; see
Wendland, CAG, 111-i, Praefatio, p. v. The reference to another discussion
of memory and reminiscence at de an. 69. 20 may be to a commentary on
Aristotle's de memoria-Alexander may therefore have commented on the
whole of the Parva N aturalia.
72 Above, n. 50.
78 See Moraux, Alexandre d'Aphrodise, pp. 14-19 for a summary of theories
about the authorship of the commentary on Bks. E-N.

74 Cf. above, nn. 39 and 40.
76 This is evident from Met. 75. 26, 104. 20-21, 145. 21, 356. 34; Pr. An. l
144. 5, 151. 15, 210. 30, 304. 14; de sensu 101. 4; and Meteor. 5. 29.
78 These distinctions are not rigid, and are only loosely comparable
to the glossa, commentium or expositio, and paraphrasis of mediaeval commen-
tators. Sophonias, the fourtheenth-century Byzantine commentator, has
some interesting comments on the superiority of paraphrases to running
commentaries (de an., pp. 1-2 at CAG, XXIII-i).
16 INTRODUCTION
The Minor Treatises
Clearly the commentary (u1t6µvl)µe1) is a limiting scholarly form.

In its concentration on specific texts it inhibits adequate discussion
of problematic issues, or a broad enough treatment of opposed
views. In particular it limits the exegesis of wide ranging questions
where texts from a variety of treatises have to be synthesised. It
seems that in order to meet these deficiencies Alexander composed
several monographs (croyypocµµe1"t'e1). 77 The most important is his
long essay, the de anima, an interpretative paraphrase of the
Aristotelian work. Here Alexander presented controversial views
on the formation of the soul and the nature of the intellect in a
continuous fashion that seems designed for communication to a
wider public than would have had access to the commentaries.
Two other essays seem to have been a response to pressures from
the contemporary philosophical culture, the de Jato and the lost
treatise, the de providentia, where he dealt with questions that are
not directly treated by Aristotle and that therefore required the
development of his doctrines in new directions. The defato is a long
critique of the Stoic doctrine of fate and the establishment of a
parallel Peripatetic theory, while the work on providence, as far
as we can determine from the fragments, attempted to integrate a
theory of providence with Aristotelian cosmology. Both contributed
to a long standing philosophical debate on these questions, while the
latter could have been a response to one of the standard Christian
criticisms of Peripatetic negativity about divine providence. 78
77 The complementary relation of treatises (auyypliµµot't'at) and commen-

taries (urcoµvl)µotT0t) seems to have developed among the Alexandrian com-
mentators on Homer; see R. Pfeiffer, History of Classical Scholarship,
p. 213, and cf. Schol. in Il. Vet. A, B. 111. The distinction is used by commen-
tators who refer to Alexander's critique of the Stoic theory of mixture in
both the auyyp0tµµ0t (the de mixtione) and his commentaries; cf. Themistius
Phys. 104. 18-22, and Simplicius Phys. 530. 14-16, and p. 91 below. It
seems clear that the auyyp0tµµ0t is a polished work (Alexander Top. 259. 5-6)
bearing a title, while the urcoµvl)µ0t't'0t are without titles, and can often-it
appears-be composed in haste. This was the case, for example, with Galen's
dictation of the anatomical experiments interrupted by Alexander of Da-
mascus (cf. above, p. 4-57 and Galen XIV. 630 K).
78 On this whole topic see A.-J. Festugiere, L'ideal religieux, Excursus C.
Further on the de providentia see Commentary on de mixt. 10. 223. 6-14.

Alexander followed the middle-Platonist and Christian attack on the Stoic
doctrine of fate: cf. Clement Strom. I. 83. 5, Albinus Didask. 26, 179 Her-
mann, and Alexander de Jato 26-30 passim but especially 196. 25-26, 197. 1-2
Since the de mixtione is the object of this study I shall not describe
it at any length. It seems to be a complement to Alexander's other
monographs in its critique of the physical theory that underlay
the Stoic doctrines of God, fate, providence and the soul, 79 as well
as affording the opportunity for a continuous critique of the theory
of mixture along lines we know that Alexander followed in his
commentaries on some of the physical treatises of Aristotle. It
also justified a separate discussion of two problematic Aristotelian
theories, those of mixture and organic growth.
It will be clear that there was a strong polemical element in these
treatises (<ruyypcxµ.µ.oc ..oc). 80 Alexander's main opponents are the
early Stoics, principally Chrysippus, 81 and here, as we shall see,
he joins Platonists and Christians almost to the letter in some of
his criticisms. 82 In this anti-Stoicism we can also observe his general
affinities to the contemporary philosophical culture; for while he
attacks the Stoics in the same manner as some of his contemporaries,
he also defends the Peripatetics on the very grounds on which they
were attacked by both pagan and Christian. This is true not only
of his work on providence, but in his defence of the study of logic, 83
and possibly in his explications of Aristotelian ethics. 84
206. 1, 206. 28-30 and 209. 20-210. 3 where similar wording is used, which
suggest that he shared an anti-Stoic Jons communis (see Lilla, Clement of
Alexandria, pp. 50-51, who notes the first two passages but neglects Alexan-
der). The proximity of this whole issue to contemporary philosophical
culture is indicated by the fact that the de Jato is the only work of Alexander's
that Eusebius quotes (K. Mras, Anz. d. Oest. Akad. d. Wiss. in Wien, Phil.
Hist. Klasse, 93 [1956] 215).
79 de mixt. 227. 5-10 makes this clear.
80 At Phys. 489. 20-22 Simplicius refers to Alexander's refutation of the
view that infinite body can be in place "in the work written against the
Epicurean Zenobius" {tv -roi:i; 7tpoi; 't"OV 'Emxoupe:tov Zriv6~tov civnye:ypocµµevoti;}.
If this is in fact a treatise, it is another polemic to be added to his works, but
the reference may be to a discussion in a commentary or a scholium. Alexan-
der's general critique of Epicurean physics can be traced in de mixt. 2,
Quaestiones Ill. 12, and Alexander ap. Philoponus de gen. et corr. 12. 6-25. As
for other treatises, Pr. An. I 125. 30-31 seems to refer to an independent
discussion of syllogisms, but the treatise "On Spirits" (Ile:pl 8octµ6vwv)
referred to by Michael of Ephesus Parv. Nat. 83. 27 and 84. 26 is almost
certainly spurious; see Cranz, Catalogus II, pp. 420-422.
81 See further Part 11-i on this and the general topic of Alexander's anti-
Stoicism.
88 In addition to n. 84, cf. Commentary on de mixt. 11. 225. 5-18, 226.
24-30.
83 Pr. An. I 4. 3off. and 6. 8ff. are both in effect an apologia for the study
of logic.
84 Lilla, Clement of Alexandria, pp. 68-71 shows that the idea that "virtue
2
18 INTRODUCTION
The Mantissa and Quaestiones

In addition to this balanced achievement of commentaries and
monographs, there are several works of dubious authenticity
attributed to Alexander. Most of these can be disregarded as
spurious since they are totally unrelated to his main works. 86
There are however two collections that do bear more closely on
the themes of the major treatises. The first of these is appended
to the de anima as, in effect, a second book. It consists of a series
of separate texts of which the opening five deal directly with
psychology, presumably the justification for its presence there.
The remaining twenty treat a variety of topics: the largest group
deals with questions of vision and light, while others cover problems
in physics and ethics, the final four being a contribution to the
Peripatetic doctrine of fate and providence. The collection has
been termed rather slightingly the Mantissa by its editor Bruns.
Its most important text is the de intellectu, a restatement of Alexan-
der's interpretation of the Aristotelian doctrine of intellect which
had an independent fortune in the Arabic and mediaeval worlds.
Until Moraux's study it was regarded as a complement to the
de anima, but since he has pointed up significant differences be-
tween the two, its authenticity is at least questionable, though
not all would follow him in declaring it spurious. 86 The remainder
of the texts obviously form a heterogeneous collection. They are
on the whole polemical and written in a very stylised fashion.
The main opponents are the Stoics, but more than this there is a
is self-sufficient with regard to happiness" is a commonplace in Stoicism,

middle-Platonism and Clement. The Peripatetic denial of this against the
Stoics must also have been a commonplace; cf. Aulus Gellius XVIII-i,
and Lucian Eun. 3. It is therefore interesting to note that Mant. 159. 15-
168. 26 presents arguments for the Peripatetic position. Whether this work
is Alexandrian is questionable (cf. below), but that it belongs in the context
of second and third century philosophical culture seems undeniable.
u These are: de Jebribus (Ile:pl Ilupe:-rwv), ed. J. Ideler, Physici et Medici
Graeci (2 vols., Berlin, 1841-1842), I, 81-106; and the four books of Proble-
mata, Bks. I and II at Ideler, op. cit., I, 3-80, Bks III and IV, ed. U. C.
Bussemaker, Aristoteles, Opera Omnia, IV (Paris, 1857), and ed. H. Usener
(Berlin, 1899).
ae See Moraux, Alexandre d'Aphrodise, especially ch. 3. F. Trabucco,
Acme II (1958) 117-118, follows Bruns (SA, II-i, Praef., p. xii) in regarding
it as one of the authentic treatises of the Mantissa. His view is accepted by
P. Merlan, Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness, p. 46 n. 3. Recently
B. C. Bazan, Rev. Phil. de Louvain 71 (1973) 468-487, has made an impressive
case for its authenticity.
consistent anti-materialism running through the majority of these

texts that gives them an underlying unity. Since the form of this
anti-materialism is basically that taken by Alexander's major
critique of the Stoic theory of mixture, I shall try in my discussion
of that critique in Part Two below 87 to throw some light on this
part of the collection. This will not in any sense demonstrate
authenticity, but will simply show that some of the texts bear a
systematic relation to authentic works of Alexander.
The second questionable collection is a heterogeneous group of
texts known as the Quaestiones, 88 arranged in four books. The
fourth, the 'H8Lxix IIp6~J;Y)µcxTcx ("Problems in Ethics") is the only
one that accurately reflects its title. The other three, though termed
"problems and solutions of physical questions," in fact contain
some sixty-nine items not all of which are problems, while only
some twenty-four are on physics, whereas seventeen deal with
psychology, eleven with logic and metaphysics, and six with
questions of fate and providence. Certain patterns can be discerned
in this maze. The texts on psychology seem to be a series of notes
related probably to Alexander's lost commentary on the de anima, 89
while a siinilar series deals with issues in the de generatione et
corruptione. 90 Again some have a very simplistic character which
suggests that they may be students' notes, or some form of pedagogic
device, while others show a close connection with themes from
authentic works of Alexander. 91 As with the texts of the Mantissa
this is perhaps as far as one can go in dealing with the problem of
their authenticity.
Alexander's Successors: His Influence
The attribution of these works to Alexander is obviously a
compliment to his preeminence in the Peripatetic school. We do
87 See especially p. 81 and n. 234.
88 Quaestiones, of course, became one of the major genres of mediaeval
Aristotelian scholarship, and perhaps earlier, of Arabic scholarship, since
many extant Arabic works attributed to Alexander are in this form; see
A. Dietrich, Nachr. Gott. Akad. 1964, pp. 93-100.
88 Moraux (Alexandre d'Aphrodise, pp. 22-24) thinks that this collection
may have been paralleled in the "notes on logic" (crx_6Atix )..oytxa.) which
Alexander refers to at Pr. An. I 250. 1 -2, or the collection of explanations
of readings (Ae~e:ti;) from the de sensu quoted by a scholiast on Quaest. I. 2
(see Bruns, SA, II-ii, p. ix).
90 Manifestly II. 22, and probably I. 5, I. 15, I. 19, and III. 5.
91 This is the case with Quaestiones II. 12 which I have discussed at Philo-
logus 116 (1972) 293-305.
20 INTRODUCTION
not know whether they were written directly under his influence
or in the Peripatetic school of a later generation. All that is probable
is that they did emanate from the school, as organised in Athens
or elsewhere, since they are dominated by a polemical or apologetical
tone. Alexander's claim to them might be an indication of the
extent to which he dominated his successors. Of these very little
is known, and we must be guided mainly by guess-work. An Am-
monius is referred to by Philostratus 92 as the "best-read" {1t0Auypcxµ-
µ(X-ro;) man he knew, and he and his contemporary Ptolemaeus
are described by Longinus in Porphyry's life of Plotinus as "very
learned" {cpLAoAoyw-r(X-roL) with Ammonius being the superior of
the two. 93 These qualities might imply that they carried on into
the 22o's and 23o's the scholarly work that Alexander of Aphrodisias
had so strikingly advanced. Longinus also reports 94 that neither
wrote any technical works but only "poems and show-speeches"
(MyoL !m8ELX-rLxol), which suggests a return to that coalescence
of philosophy and rhetoric of which we saw indications in Aris-
tocles' works, and that at least seemed implied by the social circles
in which Alexander of Damascus moved. 95
Alexander of Aphrodisias' major influence on later Greek philos-
ophy was to be reserved not for the Peripatetic school, of which
he is the last significant figure, but for the long tradition of Platonist
commentators on Aristotle. He was read along with Aspasius and
Adrastus by Plotinus, 96 whom he to some extent influenced. The
new tradition was inaugurated with Porphyry's introduction and
commentary on the Categories, 97 and was continued in the Platonist
schools of Athens and Alexandria in the fifth and sixth centuries.
It is from the works of these commentators that so much of Alexan-
der's lost commentaries remains to be retrieved.
92 V.S. 618. On him see RE, 1-i, cols. 1862-1863 where the guess is made
that both were disciples of Alexander.

93 Vit. Plot. 20. Ptolemaeus cannot be identified (pace A. Dihle, RE,
XXIII-ii, col. 1860) with the critic of Dionysius Thrax described by Sextus
EmpiricusA .M. I. 60-61, if Sextus is to be dated ca. 100 A.D. (see F. Kudlien,
RM 106 [1963] 251-254).
94 Ap. Porphyry Vit. Plot. 20.
15 See above, pp. 6-8. Cf. also de jato 165. 5-7 where Alexander assures the
emperors that his philosophical treatise is not designed as a demonstration

(e1rl8e:L~u;) but as an instructive inquiry (e~e"m:aL~, 8i8ixaxixi-lix) of the subject.
99 Porphyry Vit. Plot. 14. On Alexander and Plotinus see the literature
at Bibliography II-4.
17 At GAG, IV-i.
PART TWO
AND THE STOIC THEORY OF TOTAL BLENDING
I. ALEXANDER AND STOICISM: A PRELIMINARY

SURVEY
Stoics and Peripatetics had close affinities, especially in ethical

theory, in the period of philosophical eclecticism represented by
Antiochus of Ascalon and reflected in Cicero's philosophical works,1
or in Arius Didymus' ethical surveys. It is difficult to judge whether
such syncretism continued to be evident in the Peripatetic scholas-
ticism of the first two centuries of the Roman Empire described
in the preceding section. 2 In certain respects the two schools were
polarised in the standing debate on the relative merits of their
different doctrines of categories, 3 and they seem also to have
clashed over the different argument-forms recognised by their
logical systems. 4 Apart from this, and some standard debates on
ethics, 6 there is little evidence of Peripatetic attempts to criticise
or philosophically interact with Stoicism. It might then have been
unusual for Alexander of Aphrodisias to pay greater attention to
this school than any other; perhaps just as he extended Peripatetic
scholasticism beyond any of its previous achievements he may also
have been the first to take it into this particular area. But with
so little evidence of his predecessors we cannot be certain. What
1 Cf. De Fin. iv. 26. 72 and Reid's note on Acad. Post. I. iv. 17. 1. Some
recent scholarship has reemphasised these on general philosophical grounds:
see A. A. Long, BICS 15 (1968) 72-75, J. M. Rist, Stoic Philosophy, chs. 1-3.
2 See Pohlenz, Die Stoa, I, 355-357 on this and the whole topic of the
Peripatetic treatment of Stoicism.

3 L. A. Cornutus, the younger Seneca's protege, wrote a commentary on
Aristotle's Categories which was known to Simplicius (Cat. 64. 24 etc.) and
therefore may well have been known by Alexander.
4 See I. Mueller, AGPh 51 (1969) 173-185, an article based on material
in Alexander's commentaries on Pr. An. I and the Topics.

5 E.g. Plutarch's de virtute morali is an essentially Peripatetic attack on
Stoicism, possibly inspired by Andronicus. Cf. also the discussion of emotions

at Aspasius N.E. 44. 10-45. 22 where the views of the Stoics and Andronicus
are contrasted. At REL 45 (1967) 396-419 P. Grima! has discussed Seneca's
critique of Aristotle in the de vita beata.
22 THE STOIC THEORY OF TOTAL BLENDING
is obvious is that particularly in his treatises Alexander chose both

to criticise and assimilate Stoic doctrines as he sought to establish
interpretations of Aristotle's thought. This suggests at least a highly
individual response to Stoicism among members of his school, and
one which must be taken account of before analysing texts in which
he deals with a specific Stoic doctrine.
First we must consider the general form of Alexander's references
to the Stoics. In Von Amim's collection he is cited some one hundred
and fifty seven times in the two volumes of Chrysippean texts
(SVF II and III) 6 although he mentions this particular Stoic by
name in only two contexts. 7 This was justified by the editor on
the grounds that Alexander encountered that form of Chrysippean
Stoicism upheld by the scholastic Stoics in the first two centuries
of the Roman Empire. 8 Yet such an unqualified claim about a
putative Stoic source is unsatisfactory when it is not derived from
the internal perspective of the author himself. Von Amim's brief
preliminary discussion of Alexander did nothing to refine it, nor
can his device of typographical variations be said to satisfactorily
indicate the differing value of the material collected on Chrysippus
from Alexander and other sources. 9 Clearly an author's approach
8 By Von Arnim's numbered citations there are 48 from the commentaries
and 109 from all other works. This is only a rough guide since often more
than one passage is quoted in a single citation.
7 demixt. 213. 7; 216. 8, 9, 14; 218. 8, 9; and Pr. An. I. 177. 25 and 180. 36
(cf. note 12 below). Other Stoics referred to by Alexander are Antipater of

Tarsus with regard to some of his logical theories (SVF.111 24, 26, 27) and,
very briefly, Sosigenes, a pupil of Antipater, a propos his theory of mixture
at de mixt. 216. 12.
8 SVF I, Praef., p. xvii: "Nam tres illi auctores [Alexander, Plutarch,
Galen] ... scholasticos sui temporis Stoicis impugnant."

9 SVF I, p. v. Three categories are established here: (1) fragments from
Chrysippean works; (2) placita, either bearing his name or closely related
to him; (3) a very wide class of admittedly varying value termed "quae
aliquo modo ad cognoscendam Chrysippi doctrinam utilia viderentur."
The latter assumes a Chrysippean orthodoxy which is not always recognised;
see next note and cf. Galen De Plac. Hipp. et Plat. III. 4, IV. 5, pp. 279-280,
362-363, 376 Muller, where the ignorance of Chrysippus' works by con-
temporary Stoics is noted. On the other hand this evidence has to be em-
ployed where its congruence with Chrysippean doctrine can be recognised,
and Gould (Philosophy of Chrysippus, p. 1) is too drastic in excluding such
passages since they only "[purport] to convey general Stoic doctrine": a
general reference is not the same as "general doctrine"-d. A. C. Pearson,
JP 30 (1907) 219 on this. Again it is not sufficient to assume that Chrysippus'
name in a text makes a doctrine ipso facto Chrysippean; thus von Arnim's
class 2 needs careful scrutiny. Gould (loc. cit.) overlooks this in terming all
ALEXANDER AND STOICISM 23
to Stoicism will be conditioned by the sources available to him,

but when, as is the case here, these are not extant, we need to
analyse carefully that author's own treatment of this philosophy
in the different contexts of his works before speculating on his
possible sources. Again, even though Von Arnim's claim is usually
justified that Chrysippean doctrines are most in evidence in
Alexander's works, 10 we still need again to evaluate carefully his
reports and not accept their validity simply because of this very
general truth. The following is only a sketch of the prolegomenon
necessary to a selection of evidence on Stoic philosophy from the
Alexandrian corpus. It will try to identify the main categories that
such a discussion should follow and describe some of the central
problems; only in the second and third parts of this essay, and
later in the commentary on the de mixtione, do I undertake the
detailed criticism that a comprehensive inquiry should also contain.
Of fundamental importance to any account of Alexander's
relation to Stoicism is the manner in which he introduces his
references to this school. Where he refers to earlier Peripatetics
his regular practice is to add a further reference to a specific work,
presumably because he possessed a copy or had reliable knowledge
of its contents. 11 However in only one of the two contexts in which
he refers to Chrysippus by name does he follow this practice,
mentioning but not quoting from a treatise "On the Universe"
( Ile:pt x6crµou) .12 Otherwise, in all his discussions of the Stoics the
such texts "fragments"-e.g. Diog. Laert. VII. 54 ( = SVF II 105), category

2 for Von Amim, is a fragment for Gould (p. 63).
°1 Cf. however de an. 68. 15-16 where Alexander argues in general terms
that a presentation ((!)OCV't"ocaloc) cannot be an imprint in the soul because a
large number of simultaneous imprints will be indistinct. Sextus (A .M. VII.
228 = SVF II 56) reports that this was Chrysippus' criticism of Cleanthes!
If Alexander is criticising the Stoics at this point he has taken a non-Chrysip-
pean view as orthodoxy.
11 The indices to Alexander's works under Eudemus and Theophrastus
demonstrate this amply enough. Clearly references to earlier commentators

(e.g. to Herminus in the commentary on the Topics) are not attributed to a
given work since it was simply a similar commentary to that being written.
12 Pr. An. I 180. 36. The subject is the preservation of numerical identity
in a recreated cosmos after the conflagration; cf. the texts from the whole
context at SVF II 624. It is questionable whether Alexander actually posses-
sed this book, since he never quotes from it again, although it deals with the
topic of fate (see the further quotation by Stobaeus at SVF II 913) which
Alexander dealt with in the de Jato. Also in his earlier reference to Chrysippus
at Pr. An. I 177. 25 (not in SVF) on the same general topic Alexander does
not include a reference to this book title.
school is referred to collectively, in the manner of most modern

scholars, or more often still without any form of identification. By
this token it might be reasoned that Alexander did not possess any
treatises by early Stoics and was totally reliant on some form of
secondary material. But this would not be decisive, since Alexander
may have more freely paraphrased and abstracted from Stoic
treatises than from those of his own school. However it is clear that
he had access to certain doxographical reports of Stoicism, 13 and
in many of his formulaic reports of Stoic ethics could well be
drawing on the kind of Stoic handbook of definitions that we know
his contemporary Origen employed. 14 Again he may have known
the works of contemporary Stoic scholasticism best represented
for us by Hierocles' summary of ethical doctrines preserved on
papyrus. 16 It seems in fact quite probable that Alexander had a
variety of sources at his disposal that we cannot, like Von Arnim, 16
collectively characterise with any confidence: this uncertainty
not only arises from the lack of independent source material but
from the very framework in which Alexander couches his discussions
of Stoicism.
The mode of reference that we have just reviewed is one indica-
tion of this. The Stoics are frequently described collectively or
tacitly simply because they are being identified within the broader
context of a discussion of an Aristotelian subject. So, for example,
in Alexander's de anima "the Stoics" are said to believe that the
soul is a harmony since it is a pneuma composed of fire and air. 17
Now the identification of soul as pneuma is orthodox Stoicism,
18 See below, pp. 55-65.

14 R. Cadiou, REG 45 (1932) 271-285, demonstrates Origen's use of a
Stoic book of definitions by one Hierophilus, and E. Klostermann, ZNTW 37
{1938) 54-61 lists standard definitions in Origen and Clement. Alexander's
definition of -i;8ov7J at Top. 181. 4 ( = SVF III 434) corresponds to those
listed by Klostermann. Cf. also the definition of ipwt; at Top. 139. 24-25 {=
SVF III 722) with those of Diogenes Laertius (SVF III 396, 716) or Stobaeus
(SVF III 395, 717), or that of &pe't'7J at de Jato 211. 17 (= SVF III 283) with
Stobaeus (at SVF Ill 262).
16 Hierokles: Ethische Elementarlehre, ed. H. Von Amim; pp. nff. of the
introduction to this work outline its place in this scholastic movement.

See Comm. on demixt. 1. 213. 2-13 and 4. 217. 36 on its relevance to our study.
18 Also cf. Bruns, S.A., II-i, Praef. p. xvi, who dogmatically claimed that
Alexander's many tacit references to the Stoics indicated that he possessed

no original works by early Stoics at all.
17 26. 15-17. Here they are grouped with the Epicureans on the grounds
that both held that the soul was composite.
but its characterisation as a harmony is a distortion derived from

Aristotle's discussion of this theory of the soul in his de anima A4
which Alexander is drawing on here, and is designed to facilitate
criticism from an Aristotelian standpoint. 18 This random example
is very typical and could be multiplied particularly from Alexander's
commentaries where the Stoics are referred to only en passant and
entirely within the context of a discussion of a specific Aristotelian
text. This is notably the case with the numerous formulaic references
to Stoic ethical doctrines in the commentary on the Topics. 19
In principle it is difficult to decide whether such references are
the result of Alexander's own abstraction of Stoic ideas from the
works of early or contemporary Stoics, 20 or whether they are taken
from some independently developed handbook in which they
would already be presented in a formulaic fashion, particularly
when early Stoics themselves seem to have written such works. 21
Rather than continue these speculations we are better employed
for the moment in trying to characterise accurately the complexity
of Alexander's relation to Stoic philosophy as we find it in his
works.
Our best evidence here is his treatment of the Stoics in his essays
the de anima, de jato, and de mixtione. In these monographs his
Aristotelian exegesis is untrammelled by an accompanying text,
while he can deal with his major philosophical opponents in much
broader terms than in the commentaries. For example, one major
approach that he adopts is to identify the general principle of a
particular Stoic doctrine and criticise this rather than the doctrine
itself and its ramifications. An extreme case of this occurs in the
18 See e.g. SVF II 897; Alexander is also concerned to distinguish this

theory from this own theory of the soul as a form supervening on the mixture
of the elements; on this see Donini, Att. d. Accad. di Torino 105 (1971) 61-107
at 82-92.
19 SVF III 62, 67, 147, 152, 434, 594, 7u, 722. The Epicureans are treated
similarly, e.g. Top. 14. 7, 19. 13 and 139. 23. Cf. also SVF II 329 where Alexan-
der's critique of the Stoic category of -ro -rl arises from the immediate context
in the Topics.
20 As far as I know only at de jato 18 does Alexander clearly refer to con-
temporary Stoic works, but this is in such general and discursive terms that
nothing of his general practice can be gleaned.
21 E.g. Diog. Laert. VII. 199 refers to Chrysippean works of ethical
definitions (llpot). Also cf. SVF I, p. xii on the influence of a Chrysippean
summary of ethics on Diogenes Laertius. On Chrysippus' role in the tradition
of florilegia see K. Horva, RE Supplbd. 6 (1935) 80-81.
de Jato where the bulk of the treatise is a polemic against "those

who say that everything occurs according to fate," a group that
is not even once specifically identified as Stoic. 22 Again, as we shall
see, although the de mixtione contains an extensive exposition of
the Stoic theory of blending, it is at its core an attack on "those
who say that body goes through body," a group to which the Stoics
are as it were affiliated in virtue of their theory of blending. 23
The de anima contains a briefer attack on the general thesis that
soul is body, 24 while the fragmentary de providentia probably
contained a polemic against the general notion of an immanent
deity. 25
Now this technique of isolating a general thesis as the kernel
of an opponent's thought is a common enough practice in ancient
as well as modern philosophy. Alexander may have been particularly
influenced by Aristotelian historical method which rested on such
general identifications of the views of earlier thinkers largely in
terms derived from his own system. 26 But in the commentator's
case these generalisations serve only to provide a basis on which
his opponents views may be criticised: they polarise his opposition
and allow him to introduce criticisms which can equally employ
Aristotelian and more general ideas. 27 This is particularly the case
with the series of texts in the Mantissa which attack a range of
general theses on psychology, the theory of vision, and ethics. 28
Now although this method may be typical, it poses considerable
problems when we try to establish firm evidence for Stoic doctrines,
for generalisation is itself a distortion, and it is difficult to learn
much from ensuing criticisms. 29 Again this method isolates Stoic
22 A. A. Long, AGPh 52 (1970) 247-268 deals at length with this feature of
the work in its early chapters.

23 In sect. iii of this essay I try to demonstrate that this is a classification
independently developed in the Peripatetic tradition.

24 17. 15-18. IO. "The Stoics" holding this thesis are however identified
in explicitly Aristotelian terms as [o! ).eyov-re:<;] rciiv awµot, ~ !JA7)V ~ e~ !JA7)<;,
e!vott (17. 16).
26 On this see Comm. on de mixt. 11. 226. 24-30.
26 Without offering a general verdict on its merits, this is, I hope, an
indisputable result of the researches of H. Chemiss, Aristotle's Criticism of
Presocratic Philosophy, and J. MacDiarmid, HSCP 61 (1953) 85-156.
27 In the polemic against corporeal qualities at Mant. 122. 16-125. 4, for
example, 123. 36-124. 9 uses the concepts of matter and quality while 124.
9-20 presents a set of general anti-materialist arguments.
28 Some of these are discussed at nn. 234, 243 below.
29 Alexander Quaest. III. 12 which sustains the general thesis "that being
doctrines from the system to which they belong and makes the task
of reconstructing their interrelation difficult and often highly
speculative. 3°Finally, there is the encouragement that this approach
may give to the assimilation of an opponent's terminology and
ideas; when a philosopher considers only the general character
of an opponent's thought broad similarities with his own can be
more easily recognised.
This latter aspect, whatever its cause, needs special comment.
Like many of his contemporaries Alexander freely borrowed the
philosophical vocabulary of the Stoics and others to describe
concepts peculiar to his own system. In many cases this can be
quite innocuous where the alternative term simply functions as
a description without any philosophical significance. 31 However
there are cases where such borrowing involves a significant modifica-
tion in Alexander's presentation of Aristotelian thought, and
consequently affects his view of related Stoic doctrines. A good
example of this is his ready assimilation of the language of the
Stoic doctrine of common notions which, though in the com-
mentaries serving merely as a terminological variant for (contra-
dictorily) both "general assumptions" (u1toi-~lj)€~<;, ~v8o;oc) and
axioms, is used in the de mixtione and de f ato against the Stoics.
Their doctrines of fate and mixture are then said to be against
these common notions, while the corresponding Aristotelian
doctrines are said to obey them. 32 Again the very definition of fate
in "Aristotelian" terms in the de jato 6 as nature qua efficient cause
is the result of an assimilation of the broad Stoic framework 33
for dealing with this question, as were very probably some aspects
is not infinite" (lh-t µ~ &rmpov TO 8v) has a long attack, in the manner of the
texts in the Mantissa, against various theories of the infinite. At SVF II 536
Von Arnim, rather misleadingly I think, cites 101. 10-15 and 106. 10-13 from
this text when it is clear that, despite the generality of the arguments,
Alexander's opponents are Epicureans (cf. 104. 11-13 on infinite worlds,
and cf. 101. 10-16 with Epicurus Ep. ad Hdt. 41). His error is indicative of
the dangers of using these highly general polemics as evidence.
ao On this cf. pp. 72-73 below.
31 For a discussion of one such case see my article on tmT7J3e:t6T7J<; at Acta
Classica 15 (1972) 25-35.
32 Cf. de mixt. 232. 34-233. 1 and de Jato 182. 20-22. On the whole topic
of Alexander's assimilation of these terms see my discussion at Symb. Os. 48
(1973) 62 nn. 80-85.
83 On this see G. Verbeke, AGPh 50 (1968) 81. Cf. Comm. on de niixt. II.
225. 20-27.
of Alexander's complementary definition of providence.a4 These

two concepts were developed by the Stoics: the commentator then
offers a Peripatetic response.
There are other less obvious examples. In the de anima a genetic
account of the formation of universals is modelled after a Stoic
account of concept formation.as Again in the same treatise we find
an account of the relation between imagination {qiocv't'oca(oc) and
action systematised beyond anything in Aristotle.a6 Briefly the
scheme is that assent (cruyxoc't'i6e:au:;) to imagination is "in our
power" (t<p' ~µ.Lv) because assent is preceded by deliberation and
is therefore rational. Thus we follow the impulse to action (1tpoc~tc;)
freely because we may withdraw our assent if we wish. As it stands
this is a Stoicised version of Aristotle's view that choice (1tpooc(pe:atc;)
is a "deliberative impulse for the things in our power" (~ouAe:u't'ix~
llpe:~ic; 't'WV t<p' ~µ.i:v).a 7 However in the de Jato this becomes the basis
on which the Stoics are criticised, when Alexander claims that for
them all human action is determined in the sense that assent to
action and impulse are identical with "what is in our power" ('t'o
t<p' ~µ.i:v) with no deliberative process to ensure freedom by allowing
for the rejection of an action.as That is to say, the Stoic theory
of fate cannot preserve freedom as conceived of within a Peripatetic
schematisation itself based on Stoic concepts. The pertinence of
this criticism aside 39 it is in effect claiming that a Stoic doctrine
is deficient because it does not deploy its own concepts in the same
way as an assimilator who has isolated them from their own system.
In structure it is exactly the same kind of critique as that based on
the assimilation of the Stoic common notions.
This very brief sketch can do no more than suggest the complexity
34 See Comm. on de mixt. 225. 18-226. IO. Further on the de providentia see
Comm. on de mixt. IO. 223. 6-14.
35 Cf. 83. 2-8 with Aetius Plac. IV. 11. (= SVF II, p. 28. 12-19). This
was noted by Moraux (Listes Anciennes, p. 5 n. 16).

36 72. 13-73. 13. This passage deserves more detailed discussion and I hope
to return to it.
37 N.E. 3. 1113a 11-13. Cf. Long, BIGS 15 (1968) 81.
38 This is the burden of de Jato 11-14. Long has discussed it in detail
(AGPh 51 [19701 258-265), but did not note how it is in large measure either
conditioned by or reflected in the assimilation undertaken at de anima
72-73. Cf. also Quaest. III. 13, a more scholastic version of the latter. On a
broadly similar critique of the Stoics in Plotinus see Graeser, Plotinus and
the Stoics, pp. 48-49.
39 On this see Long, AGPh 51 (1970) at pp. 258-262.
of Alexander's relation to Stoicism. He is clearly an author who has

set a considerable distance between himself and his sources, what-
ever they were; for he has integrated his knowledge of Stoicism,
as we would expect, into the framework of his exegesis of Aristotle,
and often to the point where it is no longer doctrine to be rejected
but an essential part of his own philosophical contribution. He is
perhaps unique in the extent to which he has thoroughly assimilated
Stoic thought, though many of his individual criticisms and pat-
terns of assimilation can be paralleled from other authors. 40 These
parallels must also be investigated if we are to establish our source's
place in the general tradition of evidence on particular Stoic
doctrines. The next section of this essay will therefore attempt to
establish Alexander's significance as both source and critic in the
context of the variegated evidence for the Stoic theory of total
blending. Similar research could be conducted into many of our
major sources for Stoic philosophy 41 and I would hope at least to
establish the value of the method employed, if not of all the con-
clusions reached, in the following discussion.
II. THE STOIC THEORY OF TOTAL BLENDING

A Reconstruction from the Sources (apropos de mixtione 3 and 4)
The evidence for the fundamental doctrines of Stoic physics is
almost entirely provided by authors of the first and second cen-
turies A.D. The doxographical tradition, Philo, Plutarch, Galen,
Sextus Empiricus, Diogenes Laertius, and Alexander of Aphrodisias
are our major sources for such doctrines as body, place, time,
infinite division, the elements and principles, and those of pneuma
and total blending (xpii(nc; ~L' oAeuv). The attempt to reconstruct
any of these doctrines on the basis of the sources imposes two main
,o His use of the common notions is comparable to that of Plutarch in

the de communibus notitiis, though cf. my comments at Symb. Os. 48 (1973)
63 n. 88. Many other examples are collected in the Commentary; see especially
on 6. 219. 9-18 and 11. 225. 5-18, 226. 24-30.
u Recent studies such as M. Spanneut's Le Stoicisme des peres de l'Eglise
and D. Babut's Plutarque et le Stoicisme deal primarily with the influence
of Stoicism on positive philosophical activity and not the effect that such
assimilation has on an author's reports and criticisms of Stoic doctrines.
A recent article by L. Roberts, "Origen and Stoic Logic," TAPA 101 (1972)
433-444 is however a good example of how an appreciation of a non-Stoic
author's use of Stoic philosophy can materially assist the interpretation of
specific doctrines.
requirements: to determine, as far as possible, the tradition by

which our evidence is formed ;42 and, since most of these sources
are anti-Stoic, to take careful account of their biases and to analyse
their criticisms and polemics. Since the quality and quantity of
evidence varies considerably from one doctrine to another there
cannot be an invariable method for carrying out this programme.
In the present case I have chosen first to formulate an interpretation
of the theory of total blending that originates in those texts which
come closest to being fragments, and then to test it in the context
of a varied group of secondary reports. 43 Finally in section (iii)
I shall discuss the principal ancient critique of the theory of total
blending in the light of what should by then be a well-grounded
interpretation.
The Primary Sources-A Preliminary Interpretation

There are two texts which though not indubitably fragments at
least provide evidence that Chrysippus dealt with the theory of
mixture in specific works. 44 Since they are crucial to our inter-
pretation they need to be quoted in full.
42 Or, to use K.-H. Abel's expression (Gnomon 44 [1972] 645-651 at p. 646),

we must deal with "der iiberlieferungsgeschichtlicher Aspekt." Abel's whole
review touches on many of the general problems with source material raised
in the course of this essay. See also H. J. Mette's review of Pohlenz's Die
Stoa, Gnomon 23 (1951) 30-39 where two examples are given of inquiries
based on a detailed analysis of the sources.
43 I am excluding any attempt to establish an independent account of
this theory's historical background, although comparisons, particularly
with the Aristotelian theory of mixture, will be unavoidable. Such accounts,
so prevalent in the literature on Stoic physics, must be derived from the
reconstruction of doctrines from the sources. I am also excluding the use of
texts which show the influence of the theory of blending. Such material
can often assist interpretation (cf. my discussion at Symb. Os. 48 (1973]
60-63) but in the present case it is so parasitic on extant sources that we can
neglect it. It is largely to found among the Christian Fathers (see H. Wolfson,
Philosophy of the Church Fathers, I, ch. 16, pt. 3, and M. Spanneut, Le
Stoicisme des P~res de l'Eglise, index under Kpcim~ 3t' /1)..euv and µi~t~) and was
for the most part derived from the standard tripartite classification of mix-
tures discussed at pp. 49-65 below.
" Reports that Zeno held that substances and qualities are totally blended
(Galen at SVF I 92 [cf. p. 59 below]) or that body went through body
(Hippolytus at SVF II 496, Themistius at II 468) are in very general terms
and not substantiated elsewhere. Certainly the doctrine of a cosmic pneuma
was Chrysippean (cf. n. 61 below) and, as we shall show, there is no reason
to believe that total blending had any meaning except in relation to it.
A RECONSTRUCTION FROM THE SOURCES 3I
Diogenes Laertius VIL r5r (= SVF II 479).

xocl. 't'IXi; xpocae:Li; 8e 8L6AOU y(ve:a0ocL, xoc0oc (j,lJGLV o XpuaLmtoi; EV
tjj 't'pL't'7l 't'WV ct>uaLXWV, xocl. µ~ XOC't'IX 1te:pLypocq,~v xocl. 1tocpoc8e:aLV ·
xocl. yixp e:ti; 1te1.ocyoi; 01.(yoi; o!voi; ~A1J0di; E1tl 1toaov ii.v-.L1tocpe:x-.oc8~ae:-
't'OCL, e:!-.oc auµq,0ocp~GE't'OCL.
And blends occur through and through [totally] 46 as Chrysip-
pus says in the third book of his Physics 46 and not by surface
contact and juxtaposition; for a small amount of wine thrown
into the sea will be extended [through it] to a certain degree 47
and then blended with it. 48
Plutarch de communibus notitiis 37. ro78E (= SVF II 480).
xocl. 't'OCU't'OC 1tpoa8ex_e:'t'OCL Xpuam1toi; e:u0ui; EV 't'<j'> 1tp~'t'(p 't'WV ct>uaLXWV
ZlJ't'lJ(.LOC't'(l)V, "ou8ev IX7t&X,ELV cpocµe:voi;, o'lvou G't'OCAocyµov !voc xe:pocaocL
~v 00CA.oc-.-.ocv," xocl. tvoc 8~ µ~ -.ou-.o 0ocuµoc~wµe:v, "e:ti; 61.ov, cplJGL,
't'OV x6aµov 8LOC't'e:Ve:LV tjj xpocae:L 't'OV G't'OCAocyµ6v."
And Chrysippus made the following claim right at the be-
ginning of the first book of his Physical Inquiries, 49 saying
' 6 8L6Aou here is unique in a physical sense. LSJ cite it in the sense of
"altogether" but at Aristotle Poet. 1460a 8 (the only passage cited) in a
temporal sense. The commoner 8L' 6Awv might well be read here; cf. note
on the text of de mixt. 221. 33.
u This book-title is mentioned only by Diogenes, and this is the only
reference to Book III. Book I is cited as a source for central physical doctrines
(the principles [VII. 139), the elements in the cosmogony [VII. 135, 142)
and the doctrine of matter [VII. 150)) while Book II dealt with epistemology
and phychology (cf. VII. 54, 55, 57 and 157). We shall show that total
blending has at least some relation to the former set of doctrines.
' 7 Translators take 1hd 1toa6v in a temporal sense: "for a while" (Hicks,
Loeb ed.), "aliquamdiu" (Cobet, Paris [18781). However if we take the phrase
as describing the limit to which the wine is extended, the sense in which ex-
tension is a physical precondition of blending is much clearer. There are
several closely related expressions in the descriptions of extension in de
mixtione 4 that must clearly be taken in a physical sense: e1tl n e).6e:'tv µ.eye:6oc;
(217. 18), €7tL TOGOUTOV )(.&ta61XL (217. 30). de; 'n)V €7tL TOGOUTOV fKTIXGLV (217. 32).
Cf. also de mixt. 6. 220. 18 (e1tl 7tA&LOV ... xe:6µ.e:vix) and 220. 20 (TTJV e,d
7tA£0V ... )(.IJGLV).
cs Literally auµ.qi6e:lpe:a6ixL means "to be destroyed along with" and else-
where "joint-destruction" is a synonym for fusion (auyx.uaLc;), a blend in
which constituents form a new compound from which they are irretrievable
(see pp. 50-51 below). Either this is an error, or as I suspect (with Hicks,
Loeb ed.) the term in fact means a blend in which constituents do not lose
their identity; cf. p. 69 n. 188 on Plutarch's use of aune:'tv to mean "blend."
" Plutarch (Sto. Rep. 1053F, de comm. not. 1084C) quotes the same book
again. The former passage deals with the doctrine of !~Le; which is, as we shall
see, relevant to our interpretation of total blending (see pp. 36ff. below).
that there is nothing to prevent a single drop of wine blending

with [tempering] 50 the sea, and so that we may not be shocked
by this, says that in the blending the drop will extend through
the whole universe.
These are the only places in which the theory of blending is
reported in association with Chrysippus' name and a book title;
thus although Diogenes often epitomises Stoic doctrines, and
Plutarch paraphrases very loosely, both texts justify close inde-
pendent scrutiny.
Diogenes first describes blending as occurring totally (aL' OA(J)V)
rather than by juxtaposition (or, as it is often termed, chemical
combination). Now in itself this does not explain the nature of
this totality. Aristotle also distinguished blending from the juxta-
position of corpuscles, 51 but provided an account of blending as
the unification of substances into a compound in which they were
present in potentiality. 52 The only indication of a comparable
Stoic account is given by the second clause in Diogenes' description
which explains that before a wine drop is blended with the sea it is
extended through it. The particle introducing this clause (yap) is
explanatory and therefore we must conclude that a blend is total
only insofar as a small body pervades a larger one; that is, totality
is reached when the former attains the total volume of the latter.
Now such a conception is certainly compatible with other known
uses of iiv't'L1tocpex't'e:lvea8ocL, the verb used to describe this process of
extension. For example it is applied to cavalry being extended in
line with a wall, or more conceptually of a point being extended
to equal a line :53 in each case the smaller entity undergoes the
process of extension so as to become equal to the larger. In the
60 "xe:pixaaL singulariter dictum sed vix sollicitandum" (Pohlenz, ad lac.
in the Teubner ed.). "Tempering" preserves grammar but means nothing

more than "blend with."
61 de gen. et corr. Aro. 328a 5-10.
62 de gen. et corr. Aro. 327b 22-31; see Comm. on de mixt. 15 passim for
a discussion of this theory.

53 Respectively, Josephus B.J. 3. 7, and Sext. Emp. A.M. III. 32-33
and IX. 384-385. Cf. also A.M. IX. 260 where a part is said to extend to
equal a whole; Iambl. In Nie. Arithm. Introd. p. 13. 17 Pistelli apropos the
division of a monad which would be extended (&v·n1tocpe:x-re:lve:a6aL) to infinity;
infinite division of a monad where iJ t1t' &1te:Lpov ail~7JaL<; ixv-rmape:x-re:lv7J-raL;
and Greg. Naz. Or. 43, p. 852e which refers to a human ixv-rLmxpbt-rocaL<;
towards God. In all these cases the emphasis is on a single entity's extension
in relation to a larger one.
A RECONSTRUCTION FROM THE SOURCES 33
description of total blending this usage is enlarged 54 to include

the case of a small volume of liquid extending through (8L6Aou),
rather than alongside, a larger volume, and similarly becoming
equal to it.
Now just on the basis of this text, and the complementary
description in Plutarch, 55 we can uncover some of the logic behind
this theory. Blending occurs only if there is an equality in volume
between the two constituents, but such equality is the result of a
process-&.vTL1tocpexTounc;-undergone by one of the constituents and
not an inherent property of both prior to their blending. In this
way the theory maintains the traditional principle taken over by
Aristotle that blending can only occur between equal volumes, 56
while denying Aristotle's claim that if there is initially a significant
inequality the larger will supervene on the smaller. Chrysippus
in fact seems to have deliberately reversed the example by which
this claim was expressed, that "a drop of water will not mix with
innumerable measures of water, for its form is dispersed and changes
into the mass of water." 57
The compound finally formed by a total blend is clearly one in
which the constituents will be actually present together. No
allowance is made, as in Aristotle's theory, for the emergence of
a separate compound over and above the constituents and in
which they will be present in potentiality. 58 Instead equal volumes
must retain their identity while occupying one another's volume;
or, put simply, two bodies must be in the same place.
So we begin to arrive at the paradoxicality of this theory which
our ancient sources ridicule at length. 59 Certainly they were justified
54 This is the only case in which it describes an interrelation between
physical bodies, a good indication that it is a Stoic technical term.

65 The quotation comes at the end of a polemic against total blending
which deals almost entirely with the blend of unequals; further on its whole
context see pp. 66-67 below.
u See de gen. et corr. Arn. 328a 29-33, and cf. Comm. on de mixt. 14. 231. 3.
On the Presocratic tradition of "equalitarian physics" followed by Aristotle
see G. Vlastos, CP 62 (1947) 175. As far as the term xpiicn~ goes this is a
natural requirement, for it means the tempering or evening-out of one thing
by another; cf. LSJ, xe:pciwuµL I. 3, II, and III.
57 de gen. et corr. Aro. 328a 27-28.
58 See de gen. et corr. Aro. 327b 22-27, and 328a 10-1 I. On the uniformity
(6µoLoµe:pe~) of a blend see Comm. on de mixt. 7. 221. 9-10, and on the con-
stituents being in potentiality cf. on de mixt. 15. 231. 16-19. In this account
constituents do not, of course, occupy one another's place.
59 See sect. III passim for a detailed discussion of this critique.
3
if it is correct to take this theory in isolation from the Stoic physical

system. But as with so many Stoic doctrines we can advance our
understanding by attempting to establish the relation of this
theory to other theories in the same area. Scholars have recognised
this, and the most widely held view is that total blending is closely
related to the Stoic theory of pneuma. 60 I believe this to be essen-
tially correct, but since the thesis has not been worked out in detail
in the light of all relevant texts it remains a rather vague intuition.
In the following reconstruction I shall attempt to ground it more
securely in the evidence, and fully explore its implications.
The theory of pneuma is the linchpin of Stoic physical theory as

it was formulated by Chrysippus. 61 In recent years it has been
subject to some elaborate interpretations through analogies with
modern physical theories by Sambursky and Christensen. 62 I shall
not try to evaluate these, nor attempt a complete interpretation of
the doctrine. 63 I shall merely seek to establish its general character
and then look closely at those aspects of it that are particularly
relevant to the theory of total blending. 64
The concept of pneuma must be seen in the context of the Stoic
theory of principles (ocp:x,oc(). This held that an active principle
totally pervaded a passive principle as the passage of body through
body; 66 this relation was non-reciprocal, for the passive principle
80 The point is made in very general terms by P. Duhem (Systeme de
Monde, I, 305), E. Brehier (Chrysippe, pp. 128-129), G. Verbeke (La Doctrine

du Pneuma, pp. 70-71), and S. Sambursky (Physics of the Stoics, pp. 15-16).
Cf. also n. 88 below.
81 Chrysippus' authorship seems clear from de mixt. 3. 216. 14ff., and Ar.
Did. fr. 28 (Stob. Eel. I. xvii. 4 W.); see pp. 52-65 on these texts. He probably
developed it from the Zenonian concept of the soul as "innate heat" (!µ<puTov
1tve:iiµix); see Solmsen, Meded. Nederl. Akad. (1961) 286, with n. 79.
82 S. Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics, ch. 2 passim; J. Christensen,
Essay on the Unity of Stoic Philosophy, pp. 33-35.

83 See Comm. on de mixt. 10, a major source for our knowledge of this
doctrine, for further discussion.
st The supporting evidence for this account cannot therefore be scrutinised
in detail: I shall simply quote the major source for my statements from SVF
with the caveat that none of this evidence is primary and that it all deserves
the close attention that I only give to the texts dealing with total blending
in the course of this essay. I hope that my comments at sect. i, n. 9 above
are sufficient justification for the use of this evidence at all.
85 For the basic account see Diog. Laert. VII. 134 (SVF II 300); other
material is gathered at SVF II 299-328. Cf. also the Comm. on de mixt. 224.
34, 225. 3 and 225. 5-18. In the latter note and elsewhere in the commentary
could not interact with the active but merely served as its medium. 66
It is thus often described also as substance (ouo-(oc) or qualityless
matter (5):'l) from which bodies evolve. 67 The result of this physical
relation between the principles is a rational cosmos, for the active
principle can also be regarded as Reason (the Myoc;;) or God. 68
The actual physical process by which the active principle pervades
matter is explained in terms of the four elements. Probably by
developing an Aristotelian distinction 69 Chrysippus identified
Hot and Cold as active qualities, and Wet and Dry as passive. 70
In a monoqualitative theory of elements this suggests that the
passive principle could be identified with Earth and Water, and
the active with Fire and Air. 71 The latter identification seems to
on chs. 10 and II I survey some of the major ancient criticisms of this

doctrine. A more positive characterisation of the Stoic principles, which I
do not attempt to offer here, would have to be based on an analysis of such
material.
11 That is, 1tote:rv and miaxe:tv ("Action" and "Suffering") did not describe
physical interaction as they did for Aristotle, though at de mixt. I 1. 226.
30-33a ( + 227. 23-25) Alexander attempts to impose this alien meaning on
the Stoics-see Comm. ad loc.
87 E.g. Diog. Laert. VII. 134 (SVF II 300): -ro µiv oi5v miaxov dvou 'TTJV
&1totov oualotv, -r~v 0Al)V. Also cf. Diog. Laert. VII. 150 for matter as that from
which things come to be. At Diog. Laert. VII. 134 (SVF II 299) there is a
perplexing and unparalleled report that the Stoics distinguished between
principles and elements in that the former were incorporeal and shapeless
(liaooµa.-rouc; ... liµ6p<pouc;). The reading liaooµa.-rouc; is however suspect since
it is preserved only in the Suidas and not the manuscript tradition. If this
were correct, it would be difficult to make sense of the theory of pneuma
in which both principles are given physical properties. It is best, I believe,
to follow the manuscript reading and accept, as Alexander for example
does (de mixt. 11. 224. 31-225. 5) or Aristocles (ap. Euseb. P.E. XIV. 816d),
that the principles are bodies; this view is defended with closer reference
to the literature by H.-J. Kramer, Platonismus und Hellenistische Philosophie,
p. 108 n. 3. To argue this, it should be noted, is not eo ipso to offer an inter-
pretation of the basic doctrine of principles; cf. n. 65.
88 E.g. Diog. Laert. VII. 134, Alex. de mixt. 11. 224. 34.
89 See de gen. et corr. B2. 329b 25-33, and Joachim ad Zoe. Elsewhere he
brings out well the extent to which this can be regarded as an anticipation
of the Stoic theory: "The Hot and the Cold in combination 'work on' the
Moist and Dry with an 'immanent action' like that of Form on Matter in the
seed of a plant or animal. It is this 'immanent' operation which plays the
chief part in the production of the µtxOtv .... " (J.P. 29 [1904] 84).
70 E.g. SVF II 444 and cf. de mixt. 218. 2-6 with Comm. ad Zoe.
71 See SVF II 413 which describes the evolution of the elements from Fire.
As Gould says (Philosophy of Chrysippus, p. 102) there is no explicit identifi-

cation of pneuma with the active principle. But at the very least we can
term the relation of pneuma to the passive elements an alternative descrip-
tion of the relation between the active and passive principles, which it _very
THE STOIC THEORY OF TOTAL BLENDING
be crystallised in the doctrine of pneuma which was a compound

formed of these two elements 72 and so a body that pervaded matter
which possessed the passive qualities necessary to receive it. The
result of this process was the formation of a structured cosmos. 73
Thus the theory as a whole provided an explanation in qualitative
physical terms of the unity and continuity of the cosmos.
The central feature of the theory of pneuma, then, is the motion
of a body through a body. This in itself is not directly proved,
although it is described in elaborate and suggestive terms. For
example, pneuma is said to extend through matter (or the passive
elements) 74 with a motion described as "tensional" (~ Tov~x~
xlvYJaLc;). 75 This seems to be because it has its own "tension" (T6voc;)
or elasticity as a compound body 76 which gives it the capacity to
move within matter, and to endow it and its individual parts with
a similar tension. 77 In this way it creates a structured cosmos
composed of individually structured parts, "structure" here meaning
a continuity which it creates by (literally) "holding together"
(auvex_&Lv) bodies and by creating a sympathy between the parts
of the cosmos. 78 In this process individual bodies acquire a "ten-
sion" that makes them continuous (auvex't'Lxoc; T6voc;), 79 or are said
to be endowed with a "state" (!~Le;), or a principle of their struc-
obviously complements. On the relation between the active and passive

elements and the four elements involved in cosmogony see Comm. on de
mixt. IO. 224. 14-22, and 11. 225. 5-18.
72 SVF II 444. Alexander's argument against the compound character
of pneuma (de mixt. 224. 14-22 with Comm. ad loc.--cf. 225. 5-10) is a good
indication that the Stoics claimed that it did have a compound character;
cf. also Galen's criticism of it being a self-sustaining compound at SVF II 440.
73 See SVF II 448 (Alex. Mant. 131. 5-10) which refers to pneuma's
"holding together" (cruvExe:tv) the cosmos and bodies in it.

74 Hereafter I shall generally refer to the medium of pneuma's motion
as "matter," leaving it understood that it was qualified as Wet and Dry.
Indeed at SVF II 439 (Galen) Earth and Water are referred to as uAtx-lJ oucrlcx
("material substance").
76 E.g. SVF II 448 (Alex. Mant. 131. 5-10).
78 See SVF II 447 for the expression "pneumatic tension" (me:uµcxnxo~
-r6vo~). See also Comm. on de mixt. IO. 223. 34-36 on pneuma's transmission
of tension.
77 At lvfant. n5. 9-10 Alexander describes tension as a "particular form"
(e:t8o~ t8wv).
78 See de mixt. 216. 15-16 (= 223. 8-9). See Comm. ad lac.
79 See SVF II 407 (Plutarch) in a discussion of the elements: also cf.
SVF II 440 (p. 144. 31, 35) where Galen uses the expression cruve:x-rtx-lJ cxt-rlcx
("cause that binds together").
ture. 80 This very basic description leaves aside many difficult

philological and philosophical problems ;81 for the moment I shall
only raise the limited issue of the relation between total blending
and certain aspects of this intricate physical theory.
There are at the very least obvious parallels between the phe-
nomenon of pneuma pervading matter and the blending of a wine
drop with the sea. In each case one body totally pervades another:
blending, as we saw, is not complete unless the wine drop becomes
equal to the whole sea, and the cosmos-or an individual body-is
not structured unless pneuma completely pervades matter. 82
Again verbs of extension are used to describe the process in both
cases, 83 and here we may draw the parallels much closer, for as we
have seen 84 the verb "to be extended by, or in line with" (ocv·n-
1totpe:x.Te:lve:a6ocL) is used to describe the expansion of a wine drop
through the sea so as to become equal to and thus totally blended
with it.
Now pneuma is extended through matter because of its "ten-
sional motion" (Tovtx~ xlv"l)m~) which is characterised as a form of
oscillation in which it "moves itself from itself and into itself" or
"backwards and forwards," 85 a process that some sources report
as a simultaneous motion in opposite directions. 86 With this con-
°
8 Cf. the standard definition of !!;Le; as "pneuma containing body"
(1tV&uµix awµix·roc; OU\l&X'l'LX6v) at SVF II 368. Cf. pp. 40-41 below.
81 Apart from the discussions of this doctrine by Sambursky and Christen-
sen (n. 62 above) see G. Verbeke, La Doctrine du Pneuma, pp. 61-90, and
J. Gould, The Philosophy of Chrysippus, pp. 99-102.
82 8ux rrocnwv 8L'ijxov is an almost formulaic description of pneuma's motion
-e.g. see SVF II, p. 137. 30, p. 307. 8, and cf. de mixt. 216. 15.
83 Mostly simple verbs of motion are used to characterise pneuma's
movement-e.g. :xwpe:i:11 (SVF II, p. 307. 8), or 8Lepze:a8ixt (SVF II, p. 116. 12-
13); but verbs of extension do describe the motion of sensory pneumata-e.g.
8Lix-rdvm (SVF II, p. 226. 8-9), tx-rdve:a8ixL (SVF II, p. 227. 25-26). On the
relation between this form of pneumatic motion and the cosmic pneuma see
my article ":Euvev-rixaLc; and the Stoic theory of Perception," Grazer Beitriige
II (1974) 251-261. In view of the nature of the "tensional motion" it is
reasonable to assume that such language was employed to describe all
aspects of the theory of pneuma.
8 ' Pp. 32-33 above.
86 Stab. Eel. I. 154. 1-2 W (= SVF II 471); also cf. note on the text of
de mixt. 224. 24-25.

88 Alex. de mixt. 10. 224. 25 (cf. Mant. 131. 10, 16, 19-20). Both these
texts are polemical and the notion of simultaneous motion may have been
an accretion to the description that we find in the doxography (cf. p. 52).
It is only reported elsewhere by Nemesius (at SVF II 451).
tinuous expansion and contraction pneuma maintains the con-

tinuity of matter and the structure of individual bodies. 87 There
would seem to be a very close parallel between this expansive stage
of its motion and the passage of the wine drop through the sea
which the term cx.v-rmocpex-roc(nc; (extension-through) is particularly
apposite to describe. Apart from its general linguistic affinities to
"tensional motion," it specifically describes the motion of a small
body through a larger which must also be the character of pneuma's
expansion "from itself" through matter. Transposed from the case
of blending to that of pneumatic motion, cx.v-rmocpex-roccm; thus
becomes associated with a physical theory in which the process that
it describes is, if not logically demonstrated, at least made plausible
by a set of specific physical concepts; whereas when applied to the
case of a wine drop's motion through the sea, the term has a purely
descriptive content with no theoretical significance.
Clearly if such a relation holds then the connection between
total blending and the theory of pneuma is more than a parallel.
Scholars who have attempted to be precise about such an inter-
relation have taken the view that total blending is either in some
sense a support for the theory of pneuma, or that it is causally
dependent on pneuma. 88 The debate, if it can be called that, seems
sterile in that close attention has not been paid to de mixtione 4,
the one text which presents us with a series of proofs for the exten-
sion (cx.v-.mocpex-roccni;) of one body through another.
The proofs (or suasions, 1tlcm:L(;) listed by Alexander in this
chapter (at 217. 13-26) are an example of a Stoic argument for
total blending on the basis of the common notions. 89 They begin
87 At SVF II 451, 452 pneuma's motion within a body is described as an

extension to and from its limits, the former motion creating its unity, the
latter its qualities. If this is an accurate report it would not apply to pneuma's
motion through matter as a whole, but a species of this motion.
88 K. Reinhardt was the clearest exponent of the latter view: "Chrysipp
entwickelt seine Lehre von der Mischungen im Hinblick auf die Grundthese
seiner Physik, im Hinblick auf den Satz von der Durchdringung der Materie
durch das Pneuma" (Kosmos und Sympathie, p. So; cf. RE, XXII-i [1953]
col. 654). Sambursky's view (Physics of the Stoics, pp. 15-16) is along similar
lines. Rex (Chrysipps Mischungslehre, p. 50) however argues that total
blending is dependent on the passage of pneuma through matter, but, as
far as I can see, this is (like Reinhardt's view) based on an interpretation
of the relation between pneuma and the tripartite classification of mixtures
in de mixtione 3. I argue against all such interpretations at pp. 60-65 below.
89 ,tla-re:i; ("suasions," 217. 13) picks up ma-roua6ou ("to persuade," 217. 2),
the verb used to describe proofs from the common notions for the differences
by offering a list of commonplace examples of bodies preserving
their qualities when expanded (217. 14-17), and, more importantly,
of bodies that are "helped" by other bodies to extend themselves
in various ways (217. 17-26). This latter causal relation is clearly
that classified elsewhere by the Stoics as a case of "cooperant
causes" (cnm:pyoc ocl·noc) where one thing can easily contribute to
produce an effect, as for example an additional hand can help
men to lift a weight. 90 The inference that Alexander (at 217. 26-32)
reports was drawn from these examples is as follows:
Since this is the case, they say that there is nothing remarkable
in the fact that certain bodies when helped by one another
are in this way united together in their entirety so that being
preserved along with their own qualities they have a complete
mutual coextension through one another (ocv·mtocpe;x-rdvea6ocL
octJ..~AoLc; 8L' /51,.c.uv /51,.oc), even if some of them are rather small
in bulk and in themselves unable both to be spread to such an
extent, and to preserve their own qualities; for in this way
also the cup of wine is mixed with a large amount of water
and helped by it to such a great extension.
The first clause presents a general inference that if bodies can be
subject to cooperative causation, then they can extend through
one another although one may be smaller than the other. The
second clause on which I shall concentrate here 91 refers to the
specific case of a wine drop being extended through water which
we have seen described by Diogenes Laertius and Plutarch. 92
It is now presented as being entailed by the various commonplace
between mixtures (cf. Comm. on de mixt. 217. 2-13). For further discussion
of this passage see my article at Symb. Os. 48 (1973) at 48-55.
90 Cf. the definition at Sext. Emp. P.H. III. 15, which refers to this par-
ticular case, with 217. 23-25, " ... and along with others we bear certain
weights of which, when left alone, we could not bear the part that befalls
us." Further on cooperant causes cf. Cicero de jato 41 (SVF II 974). Clement
Strom. VIII. ix (atSVFII 346), and cf. Sext. Emp. A .M. IX. 243 (on which see
0. Rieth, Grundbegriffe der Stoischen Ethik, p. 153).
91 Clearly the idea of mutual coextension is incompatible with the pre-
ceding description of cooperative causation. For there bodies were helped

by others (,'.m' &nwv ~07J8ouµe:voc, 217. 18) from which it does not follow that
they are helped by one another (~07J8ouµe:voc u1t' &n1j)..wv, 217. 27). Only the
case of the extension of wine through water, where it is helped by its medium
(~07J8ouµe:vov u1t' ocuTou, 217. 32). is parallel to cooperative causation. On the
reasons for this conflict see below, pp. 66-69.
92 Above, pp. 31-33.
examples of cooperation, so that the large volume of water is the

aid which causes the wine to extend through it. If this were just a
theory of the mixture of liquids this argument would be nothing
more than a rather weak analogy supporting an idiosyncratic
theory. There are however clear indications that there is a further
stage to this argument.
We have already seen that the extension (ocv·mtocpex-rocatc;) of
the wine drop through water could be a precise description of the
motion of pneuma through the passive elements. Now immediately
following the passage we have quoted Alexander lists (at 217. 32-
218. 9) some "clear evidence" (evocpy~ µocp-ruptoc) that one body
extends through another.
I. They employ as clear evidence [evocpy~ µocp-ruptoc] that this is the
case the fact that the soul which has its own substantiality,
just like the body that receives it, pervades [8t~xe:tv] the whole
of the body while preserving its own substantiality in the
mixture with it (for there is nothing in the body possessing the
soul that does not partake of the soul); and the same holds for
the Nature [qiuatc;] of plants, as also the State [f~tc;] in bodies
held together by their State. (217. 33-218. 1)
2. Also they say that fire passes [xwpe:~v] completely through iron
with each of them preserving its own substance. (218. 1-2)
3. And they say that two of the four elements, Fire and Air, being
rare, light, and having tension, completely pervade [8tocree:qiotni-
xevoct] Earth and Water which are tense, heavy, and lack tension;
and that each pair preserves its own nature and continuity.
(218. 2-6)
4. They think that drugs that are deleterious, and all such odours,
are blended with the bodies affected by them in a total juxta-
position. (218. 6-8)
5. Chrysippus also thinks that light is mixed with air. (218. 8-9)
The list is slightly confused, 93 but its principal items are the
83 Pts. z and 4 scarcely belong in the same group; neither convincingly

illustrates the blend of a small volume with a large one. Their relation to
total blending must be as some looser form of empirical proof. 4 is un-
precedented, but 2 is cited by Ar. Did. fr. 28 (SVF II, p. 153. 8) as an example
of the total intermingling of bodies. Because of the terminological peculiarities
of this doxographical text, on which Alexander was probably dependent,
it may have been shifted to its present place in the exposition; see n. 141
below.
A RECONSTRUCTION FROM THE SOURCES
pervasion of the passive elements by the active (218. 2-6), and

the motion of soul through body, nature through plants, and l~~c;
(State) through the inanimate things that it holds together (217. 33-
218. 1). The latter triad is a classification of the intracosmic man-
ifestations of pneuma's action, 94 and the former dichotomy an
alternative description of pneuma's motion through matter. 95 Now
in itself this text is simply described as an additional set of proofs
logically unrelated to the preceding proof for the extension of the
wine drop through water. Yet since both are said to involve the
motion, if not extension, of body through body 96 can we not regard
the references to pneuma' s motion in this list as in fact an inference
from the preceding analogical argument?
That is, rather than taking items 1 and 3 as "proofs" for the
blending of the wine drop with water we should, I suggest, take
the latter as the premise from which they could be in turn anal-
ogically inferred. There is no discernible reason why the Stoics
should use the theory of pneuma to demonstrate an idiosyncratic
account of the blending of liquids, but a clear reason why such
blending, itself derived by analogy, might then be used as a basis
from which the relation between pneuma and matter could be
derived. Also the term which describes the relation involved-
ix.vTmixpex't'ourn;-is, as we have seen, particularly apposite to describe
the case of pneuma's motion and, in that context, assumes a
theoretically more significant role. 97 Indeed, in de mixtione 12
Alexander claims that the related doctrines of the unification of
the cosmos, sympathy, fate, providence, the active and passive
principles, and that of the soul are all dependent on total blending
as body going through body, a clear statement of the principle
which his own exposition in chapter four somewhat obscures. 98
Such a reading of de mixtione 4 has important implications for
the interpretation of total blending; these can be seen more clearly
if we set out our reconstruction in a schematic form. 99
84 SVF II 366, 714-716, 1013, and III 160. This valuable evidence from
Alexander is largely overlooked in discussions of this classification; it places
the doctrine squarely in the context of orthodox Chrysippean physical theory
(cf. p. 69, n. 189 below).
85 See above, p. 35.
88 These are interchangeable terms-cf. n. 83.
87 See above, pp. 37-38.
88 227. 5-10; see Comm. on 12. 227. 9-10.
99 At Symb. Os. 48 (1973) 53-54 I argue that the relation of (1) to (2) is
(1) cases of bodies aiding other bodies to produce effects-i.e.

cooperative causes (auve:pya: othLot) (de mixtione 4. 217. 13-26)
by analogy
(2) the extension of body through body, as in the extension of
a wine drop through a large volume of water-the water being
the cooperative cause (de mixtione 4. 217. 26-32)
by analogy
(3) the extension of pneuma through the passive elements.
The inference of (2) from (1) is described in the text of de mixtione 4,

while that of (3) from (2) is, I hope to have shown, a plausible
interpretation of the text. If this pattern of reasoning represents
Chrysippus' thought, 100 then the theory of total blending is simply
a stage in an argument and not an independent theory of mixture.
It is an analogically formed conception of a causal relation from
that of presentations (cp1:tv-r1:tal1:tt) to preconceptions (1tpo):r)'ji&t,;) or natural

notions (cpuaLXIXL fvvoL1:tL), an interchangeable term. I then suggest that the
common notions (1:tl x0Lv1:t! lvvoL1:tL) be regarded as the general notions formed
from the example in (1)-note the generalisations at 217. 14-15, 17-19-and
that from these an independent theory of total blending (here expressed
in [2]) could be derived. This I suggest, in very general terms, would serve
as the physical basis for the theory of pneuma (p. 33 with n. 54). This earlier
paper was an attempt to establish the interrelation of these epistemological
terms, and to provide an interpretation of the doctrine of common notions,
rather than to interpret the theory of total blending. Among other things
(also cf. Comm. on de mixt. 3. 217. 2-13) I did not then recognise the case
of cooperative causation expressed at (1) and (2), and so did not argue for
as close a chain of reasoning between the specific examples at 217. 13-26,
the conception of wine blending with water, and the related motion of pneuma
through matter. However I still think that the generalisations of the cases
grouped in (1) are specimens of the common notions; it is clearly not even
necessary that there be any intermediary stage between (1) and (3), and so
the common notion of cooperative causation could be the basis from which,
by analogy, the motion of pneuma through matter could be directly inferred.
Stage (2)-total blending-makes this a much clearer argument, but it is
entirely dependent on the notion formed in (1), and thus this common notion,
as the name suggests, would be the more fundamental of the two.
100 At 217. 13-14 the whole argument in de mixt. 4 is simply attributed to
proponents of the doctrine of total blending (o! 1tpota-rixµ.£VoL 'l"lja8& 'l"lj,; 86~'1),;).
But the presence of the case of the wine drop blending with water, which
we know to be Chrysippean, at the core of the argument, and the fact that
after chapter four Alexander always refers to the Stoics collectively, make
it reasonable for us to attempt to integrate this text with Chrysippus'
thought.
which, by a further analogy, the central relation of the Stoic physical

system, that of pneuma to matter, can be inferred.
It should be stressed here that in each case what is inferred is a
certain relation between bodies and nothing about their internal
properties. So at (3) only the motion of pneuma through matter
is implied-the -rovLx~ xlv'YJO"Lc;;-and not the elaborate qualitative
physics on which this concept depends. The argument addresses
itself to the physical principle involved in this motion rather than
the whole physical theory of which it is a part: that would have to
be demonstrated on other more elaborate grounds. 101
We can now also speculate that the relation expressed at (3)
was like those at (1) and (2) regarded as a case of cooperative
causation, with matter qua the passive elements being, like the
water, the agent which makes it possible for pneuma to pervade
it as the wine can extend through the water. The concept of coopera-
tion is a way of expressing the limited dependency of the pervading
(or blending) body on its medium; although the passive elements
do not interact with pneuma 102 they are still a necessary condition
for its action, as presumably is the water which does not extend
through the wine as the wine extends through it. The relation of
extension or motion-through that holds between pneuma (or the
wine drop) and the passive elements (or the water) is not reciprocal,
but merely involves one body cooperating with another so that this
other body can produce an effect on it.
The overall effect of the argument as reconstructed here is to
show that a causal relation embodied in a physical theory can be
derived from sense experience. That is, the same relation of "coop-
181 So, for example, in addition to establishing the relation between

pneuma and the elements, sketched in above (p. 35; cf. Comm. on IO. 224.
14-22), we would need to determine its relation to the theory of infinite
division, which is itself the foundation of the Stoic continuum (I have dis-
cussed some aspects of this relation at Apeiron VIl-i [1973] 21-29). For by
its motion pneuma creates a material continuum, whereas such a continuum
is a theoretical consequence of infinite division. The suggestions that have
been made about the relation between infinite division and total blending
(cf. n. II6 below) may therefore be relevant only to the doctrine of pneuma
which we argue it supports. This might also be true of the Stoic theory of
surfaces reported by Plutarch de comm. not. 40; the references to total
blending there (1080F-1081A) seem to be polemical (cf. the conditional at
p. no. 18 Teubner ed.) and not grounds for suggesting that the doctrine
of surfaces is the theoretical basis of total blending pace Sambursky (Physics
of the Stoics, p. 96----cf. also E. Brehier, Theorie des Incorporels, p. 40).
102 Above, p. 35, n. 66.
eration" is exemplified by commonplace phenomena, and can be

analogically transposed into a single clear conception, from which
a theory also embodying this relation can be similarly derived. But
since, as we have noted, 103 the theory of pneuma would have to be
demonstrable independently of this argument, this chain of rea-
soning would appear to be circular. However this would be true
only if it followed a pattern in which premise entailed conclusion
by necessity, rather than by analogy; for analogies merely suggest 104
a conclusion already independently established rather than leading
to one as yet undemonstrated. 105
The importance of such reasoning for the Stoics must have been
that since, for them, nature (in the sense of the empirical world)
was a result of Nature (in the sense of the world order, which
pneuma's motion through matter serves to establish), then the
character of the latter would have to be demonstrable in terms of
experience: the fundamental laws of nature had to be manifested
in and discernible through experience. Such discernment did not
take the form of inductive reasoning, but as this argument shows,
is achieved through the recognition of a pattern of similar causality
linking ordinary experience and fundamental physical theory.
The simple pattern of analogical argument that expresses this is
therefore an a posteriori confirmation of the world order. 106
In the light of this interpretation the texts from Diogenes Laertius
and Plutarch that were examined earlier must be regarded as
incomplete representations of total blending. They report only
108 N. IOI.
104 Hence, even if it is Alexander's own term, the examples introduced at
217. 14-26 are well described as "suasions" (,t!a-re:u;); cf. Comm. on 217. 13.
°
111 For this reason in particular I would reject 0. Rieth's attempt (Grund-
begriffe der Stoischen Ethik, pp. 188-189) to ground this argument (at least
to 217. 14-32) in the Stoic theory of "demonstrative sign" (ev8e:txTtxov
O"Y)µe:fov) as reported e.g. at Sext. Emp. P.H. II. 97-103. Rieth's interpreta-
tion is developed without attention to the overall context of Alexander's,
and I shall not attempt to refute it in detail.
108 At Symb. Os. 48 (1973) 58-60 I develop the thesis of this paragraph
at greater length, and suggest that by the common notions (xotv11t lvvot11t)
the Stoics meant to establish simply conceptions that would demonstrate
the nature of the world-order. On some aspects of this thesis see Comm. on
de mixt. 3. 217. 2-13. This whole form of argumentation is comparable to
the allegorical interpretation of poetry that was widely practised by Stoics,
where for example poetic descriptions of relations between gods were inter-
preted as relations between natural phenomena; see the useful account given
by P. de Lacy, AJP 69 (1948) at 256-263.
stage (2) of our reconstructed argument as though it were an

independent account of mixture, rather than as an intermediary
stage in an analogical argument. If the conception of a small
volume of liquid extending through a much larger one had referred
to an actual process, critics like Plutarch could have justifiably
extracted it from its context and ridiculed it as a highly paradoxical
notion. However it seems clear that this process should be thought
of as having only conceptual status; that is, it is a fiction, and not
a conception representing an actual state of affairs.
To support this interpretation we can invoke a text which the
Stoics are said to have allowed for the formation of mental concep-
tions (voouµ.evcx) by analogies such as that contained in the transition
from stage (1) to stage (2) of our reconstructed argument. 107 The
cases listed in this text cover conceptions formed of either some-
thing not immediately perceptible (e.g. Socrates from his picture);
or something contingently imperceptible (e.g. the centre of the earth
by analogy with smaller spheres); or complete fictions (e.g. the
Cyclops, formed "by analogy through a process of increase").
The case of the conception of a wine drop pervading water could
be grouped in this last class; it is in principle imperceptible, and thus
not seen to happen. Unless the Stoics wanted to offend common
sense they would then best be understood to have regarded this
conception as a fiction which clarifies the relation of cooperative
causation that occurs between bodies but is not itself a direct
example of it. As such it links the actual cases of cooperative
causation listed at stage (1) of our argument with the theory of
pneuma's motion through matter-stage (3)-without itself being
an actual physical process.
Such an interpretation is not solely designed to free the Stoics
from apparent embarrassment; it makes greater sense of the
analogical argument which we have reconstructed by establishing
the case of total blending as an intermediary stage between actual
physical processes available to sense experience and an analogically
related physical theory, rather than as a paradoxical duplication of
perfectly normal physical processes entirely unsupported by any
107 Diodes Magnes ap. Diog. Laert VII. 52 ( = SVF II 87). See Symb. Os.
48 (1973) 51-53 where I accept Sandbach's association of this passage with

the account of concept-formation at Aet. IV. II ( = SVF II 83) (see CQ 24
(1930) 46) and argue that these conceptions are what the Stoics described
as natural notions (cpucnxixt lvvmixL) or preconceptions (1tpo).ipjieL1;).
physical theory. The importance of the economy thus introduced

into our picture of the argument reconstructed from de mixtione 4
can be seen if we examine some traditional interpretations of total
blending.
Ancient critics, for example, took the idea of total blending to
mean that two bodies occupied the same place, a reasonable con-
struction perhaps to put on the isolated case of a wine drop per-
vading the sea. 108 However if this phenomenon is an analogically
formed conception it cannot be taken literally and subjected to
analysis as a physical theory. Only the theory of pneuma's motion
through matter which it serves to illustrate can be treated in this
way; 109 for here it is correct to claim that body pervades body,
and that two bodies occupy the same place, because this is explained,
as we have seen, by an elaborate qualitative physics. 110 On analysis,
we might find this an unsatisfactory physical theory, m but it is
not inherently paradoxical as is the bald claim attributed to the
Stoics by their ancient critics that a small volume of liquid moves
through and occupies the place of a larger one. This theory is not
based on an account of the intrinsic properties of these liquids
which might explain this motion; such an account is only given in
the case of pneuma's motion through matter. Should not the latter
then, as I have suggested, be regarded as illustrated by the case
of the blend of unequal volumes to which it is so precise a parallel?
This would relieve the Stoics of the absurdity of having claimed
that initially unequal volumes of liquid could occupy the same
place, when they meant such a case simply as a conception crystal-
lising a relation explicable in terms of a more elaborate physical
theory.
The same point can be sustained if we consider suggestions made
by modern scholars that total blending, as it applies to liquids,
meant that the Stoics employed a special definition of body as
peculiarly fluid. 112 Certainly such a definition is required and is
108 On this whole pattern of criticism see further below, sect. III passim.
109 Although in the structure of our reconstructed argument the motion
of pneuma through matter is derived from the blending of the wine drop with
water, it can also be said to be "illustrated" by it inasmuch as this reasoning
is a posteriori.
no See above, pp. 34-37.
111 Cf. Comm. on de mixt. r. 213. 2-13.
112 E.g. E. Oegereau, Essai sur le Systeme Sto'icien, p. 44 and G. Rodier,
Etudes de Philosophie Grecque, p. 258. Cf. next note.

given for the case of pneuma's motion through the passive elements;
but for the case of a wine drop blending with the sea no such defini-
tion is necessary since this would not be a description of the be-
haviour of physical bodies, but a mental conception analogically
formed from relations between such bodies. Thus in terms of our
reconstructed argument, there would be two operative definitions
of body: at stage (1) in the commonplace examples of cooperative
causation body meets the standard definition of a three-dimensional
solid, and the Stoic endorsement of this 113 could then be taken
to apply at this level of sense experience. At stage (3), where
pneuma's motion through matter is involved, a totally different
definition of body is required, and is given, in the different qual-
itative features assigned to these bodies. 114
These two definitions correspond to the two aspects of Nature-
113 It is attributed to Apollodorus at Diog. Laert. VII. 135 (cf. also SVF II
357, 501). Baeumker suggested that such solidity was only a relative concept
that could accommodate the relation that occurs in total blending (Das
Problem der Materie, p. 335). However E. Weil (Melanges A. Koyre, II, 565)
has argued that this definition was only designed as a contrast with the
definition required to explain the relation between the active and passive
principles described at Diog. Laert. VII. 134, which he describes as "corps-
energie" (p. 565 n. 23). This view is, I believe, essentially correct, if we will
also allow that the Stoics recognised an area in which the ordinary definition
of body applied, represented here by stage (1) of our argument. Also cf.
Appollodorus' view reported at Diog. Laert. VII. 150 where he defines
substance (oualoc) as a body that is acted-on (1toc67J-r6i:;), which supports the
view that there was this dual conception of body. (I have drawn here on
M. Reesor's suggestions at AJP 75 [1954] 56-57.) The case of fire pervading
iron (cf. n. 93 above) perhaps appealed to the Stoics as a good empirical
illustration of body pervading body, where one body, at least, could not be
conventionally described as three-dimensional.
We might also contrast the Stoic theory of tensional motion with their
general doctrine of motion as simple change of place (e.g. SVF II 492); the
former characterises the motion of pneuma, while the latter, as far as we
can judge from the scanty evidence, can only apply to the behaviour of in-
tracosmic bodies. This distinction might be derived from the two senses
of body that I have attempted to distinguish.
114 Thus scholars who claim that the Stoics did hold that two bodies
occupied the same place (e.g. Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics, pp. 15-16,
L. Edelstein, The Meaning of Stoicism, pp. 23-24) ought, I believe, to make
this distinction more firmly. Otherwise the extent to which the ancient critics
misrepresented the Stoics by taking the case of total blending as a description
of the behaviour of random three-dimensional bodies can hardly be appre-
ciated (see further below, pp. 72, 83). Needless to say, the two senses of
"body" that I advocate here do not constitute a complete interpretation of
the Stoic concept of body; that too would require a separate analysis of the
sources.
THE STOIC THEORY OF TOT AL BLENDING
as the intracosmic world confronted in sense experience, and as

the constitutive processes of the natural order. The former depends
on the latter, and reflects its character, as our reconstructed argu-
ment shows, but does not directly correspond to it. If it did there
would be no need to argue that body pervades body, for this would
be exemplified in our experience. The case of the wine drop blending
with water links the two parts of this dichotomy as a conception
which crystallises the essential features of a causal relation evident
to sense experience, and thereby provides a bridge to the same
kind of causal relation occurring at the level of basic physical
theory. It does not offend common sense because as a mental
conception it does not involve a relation between three-dimensional
solids; nor on the other hand does it assert a relation between
peculiarly fluid bodies, because it is not part of a physical theory.
The Stoics' opponents in antiquity could then be said to have erred
in failing to see that total blending is the kind of relation possible
only between pneuma and matter, while insisting that it occur
between three-dimensional solids, hence forcing on the Stoics the
unsupported claim that two bodies can occupy the same place. 116
Finally, if total blending has this very circumscribed role as a
mental conception in a chain of reasoning linking two levels of
physical reality, there is no point in treating it as a theory which
can be explained in terms of other physical theories. So, for example,
attempts to ground total blending in the Stoic theory of infinite
division, 116 or in their theory of the continuum, 117 are irrelevant to
115 See sect. iii below passim, and Comm. on de mixt. 6. 219. II-12.
116 Both Pohlenz (Die Stoa, I. 73) and V. Goldschmidt (Le Systeme Sto'icien
et l'ldee du Temps, p. 45) seem to regard the totality of a blend as an inte-
gration of bodies at an infinite number of points to form thereby a continuous
whole (cf. also H. Dorrie, Porphyrios' "Symmikta Zetemata", p. 25 for a
closely related view). This ignores, erroneously in my opinion, the fact that
total blending specifically occurs between a small and a large body and
that its totality is the extension of the former through the latter (cf. p. 32
above). Also see H. Wolfson (Philosophy of the Church Fathers, I2 382) who
finds a connection between total blending and infinite division at Nemesius
de nat. hom. 3. 128 Matth. although the text only refers to blending escaping
notice "because of the fineness of the bodies that are blended" (3ux -ro
Ae:1t-roµe:pec; -rwv xe:xpcxµevwv). Alexander's own discussion in de mixt. 8 of infi-
nite division in relation to total blending is, as the Commentary will show, a
scholastic exercise and not a reflection of Stoic doctrine.
117 See Sambursky, Physics of the Stoics, p. 14, where total blending is
said to be a "consequence of their idea of continuity." Since continuity was

grounded in the theory of infinite divisibility (as Sambursky, p. 98, allows)
the kind of conception that we have argued it is. These suggestions
have perhaps some validity if restricted to the case of pneuma's
motion through matter 118 which total blending serves to illustrate,
but none if directly applied to the case of blending itself.
These revisionary implications of our interpretation of total
blending cannot be fully justified until a further set of texts is
carefully examined. So far a reconstruction has been established
on the view, grounded in our primary sources, that total blending
was solely a phenomenon occurring between a small and a large
volume of liquid. We must now confront texts in which this process
is presented as the interpenetration of unspecified volumes, is
classified along with other types of mixture, and, as such, appears
to be placed in a relation of causal dependency on the theory of
pneuma.
The Secondary Sources-The Classification of Mixtures

Aristotle distinguished two principal types of mixture (µi:~tc;)-
the juxtaposition of corpuscles (auv0e:atc; "composition"), and
blending (xpiiatc;) .119 The crucial difference between them was the
degree of unification attained: juxtaposed constituents were not
really mixed, though in some cases they might appear to form a
unity, 120 but when bodies were blended they were unified to form
a homogeneous compound over and above their individual qual-
ities.121 At the same time these constituents were not destroyed but
preserved in potentiality, so that it was possible for them to be
separated out again. 122 The additional case of constituents being
so mixed that they formed a new compound from which they were
this suggestion can be criticised along the same lines as the views discussed
in the preceding note. In general it would have been helpful if Sambursky
had clarified somewhere the relation between his separate claims that total
blending (1) gives "a firm foundation for [the] conception of hexis" (Physics
of the Stoics, p. 16), (2) is explained by the Stoic theory of surfaces (p. 96,
cf. n. 101 above), and (3) follows from their theory of continuity. All these
suggestions are probably relevant to a full interpretation of the theory of
pneuma, but only if we admit from the outset that there was some internal
structure to the Stoic physical system.
11 9 Cf. note 101 above.
119 de gen. et corr. A10 327b 31-328a 18. Alexander de mixt. 13. 228. 25-
229. 3 has a more elaborate taxonomy.
120 de gen. et corr. Arn 328a 12-15; cf. Comm. on de mixt. 2. 214. 18-28.
121 See above, p. 33 n. 58.
122 de gen. et corr. Arn 327b 23-28. Cf. Comm. on de mixt. 1. 213. 7-8, and
15. 231. 12-29.

4
irretrievable was recognised in theory by Aristotle but not given

any significant place in his discussion of mixture. 123
So far we have seen one text (Diogenes Laertius VII. 151) in
which Chrysippus is said to have distinguished total blends (xp&.ae:Lc;
8L' 81.Cuv) from surface juxtaposition. This appeared to be simply
a contrast designed to clarify the nature of a complete blend as the
passage of one body through another. In other texts, however,
this contrast is embodied in a tripartite classification of mixtures
attributed to the Stoics: total blends are grouped along with
juxtapositions (mtpot8eae:Lc;) and a third limiting case termed
"fusion" (O"Urxuo-Lc;) or "joint-destruction" (O"Uµ.cp8otpo-Lc;), in which
bodies completely and inseparably mixed to form a new compound.
Total blending is then defined as a process from which the con-
stituents can be separated, thus distinguishing it from fusion. This
also entails that the bodies that are blended are actually present in
the blend and that it is not a homogeneous unity as it was for
Aristotle.
We find this trichotomy 124 in Philo who employs it quite in-
dependently of any other aspect of Stoic physical theory in a
passage in which he is attempting to define fusion (O"UrxuaLc;) as
applied to the biblical confusion of tongues. 125
Now mixture is held to occur among dry substances, blending
among moist.
Mixture [µ.!~Le;] is the juxtaposition [1totp&.8e:o-Lc;] of different
bodies in no orderly fashion, as if one were to make a heap of
barley, wheat, and vetch and other kinds of grain and pile
them together.
Blending [xpiio-Lc;] is not juxtaposition but the complete
mutual coextension [8L' 81.Cuv cx.v't'L1totpex't'oto-Lc;] of dissimilar parts
interpenetrating one another, though their qualities can still
be separated by some device as they say happens in the case
of wine and water. When these substances come together they
produce a blend, while the product of the blend can nonetheless
128 de gen. et corr. A10 327b 4-6; cf. 327b 30.

114 The tripartite classification attributed to Plato at Anonymus Londi-
niensis XIV. 15-26 Diels of auvqi6ixpcrn; (or aurx.um~), µ°L~t~ (or 1tixpa.6e:at~), and
Bta.xpixat~ is also to be regarded as Stoic rather than an original part of Menon's
'lix-rptxa. reported in this papyrus. See W. H. S. Jones, The Medical Writings
of Anonymus Londiniensis, pp. 3 and 61.
m de conj. ling. 184, II, p. 264 Wendland (= SVF II 472).
A RECONSTRUCTION FROM THE SOURCES SI
be resolved into the qualities from which it was composed, for
the water is absorbed by an oil-filled sponge while the wine
is left behind; probably because the sponge is produced from
water it tends to absorb water, the substance kindred to it,
while the alien substance, wine, is left as a residue.
Fusion [aurx,uo-Lc;] is the destruction of the original qualities
which are coextended [ocv-rL1totpe:xTe:Lvoµ.evwv] with all the parts
[of the constituents] to produce a single different quality, as
occurs with the quadruple drug in medicine; for wax and
tallow and pitch and resin, I believe, come together to produce
this, and when it is compounded it is impossible for the qualities
from which it was composed to be separated, but each of them
is annihilated and the destruction of them all produces a
single distinct peculiar quality.
The illustration of juxtaposition in this text goes back to Aristotle 126

although the term for it-notpcx.8e:o-Lc;-is new. The case of fusion is
illustrated here, and in many other places, by the combination of
substances to form the quadruple drug. 127 Most noticeable in the
light of our earlier discussion is the use of terms for "extension"
(ocvTmotptxTotaLc;, ix.vTmotpe:xTe:lve:a8otL) to describe the interrelation of
constituents in blending, 128 for as that discussion showed these
terms were uniquely fitted to describe the relation of a smaller
entity to a larger one and the process by which it attained its
magnitude. 129 Indeed they are only used to mean a process of mutual
coextension-or a reciprocal interpenetration-in this passage
from Philo and in other secondary reports of the tripartite classifi-
cation of mixture. 130
On the face of it, then, we are presented with two conflicting
descriptions of total blending, and the conflict is heightened by
the fact that two texts describe the three types of mixture classified
118 de gen. et corr. Arn 328a 2-3.

127 Celsus V. 19. 9, Anon. Lond. XIV. 19 Diels, Galen de canst. art. med. I.
242 K, In Hippocr. de nat. ham. II. 18 K; cf. de el. sec. Hippocr. I. 452 K.
128 Its use to describe the case of fusion in this passage must be a mis-
understanding-see below, n. 143.
m See above, pp. 32-33.
130 Apart from those in the two texts quoted below see Hippolytus (at
SVF II 469) if Diels' conjecture (Dax. Graec., p. 571. 24) is correct; for
1tcxpe:xnlve:o-61:u in this sense see Alexander Mant. 140. 9, 141. 22-23 (cf. de
mixt. 218. 6, 220. 5), and Sextus Empiricus P.H. III. 60, and Ex-re:lve:o-6cxt at
Mant. 141. 16, and l:m-rdve:o-6cxt at Mant. 141. 24.
by Philo as causally dependent on the motion of pneuma through

matter. Since our preliminary interpretation established a quite
specific relation between total blending and the process of pneumatic
motion it can only be sustained if this additional evidence can be
shown to be erroneous or in some sense complementary to that
earlier thesis. The two relevant texts are closely related and need
to be examined in detail; I quote them in parallel.
Stobaeus Eel. I. xvii. 4. 153. 24-155. Alexander de mixt. 3. 216. 14-217. 2

14 Wachsmuth ( = Arius Didymus (= SVF II 473)
Fr. Phys. 28 = SVF II 471)
Ia. Xpuam1toc; 81: '\'OLOu-r6v n 8L- I. fo-rL 81: ~ Xpual1t1tou 86~ot 1te:pt
e:~e:~OtLOU'\'O. e:IvcXL '\'O <>V TtVe:uµot XLVOUV xpliae:ooc; ~8e:' ~VW0'8otL µev \l7tO'\'l8e:-rotL
e:otu-ro 1tpoc; e:otu-ro l(O(L E~ O(\l'\'OU, YI 'n)V 0'1Jµ1totO'otV OUO'(otv, 7tV&IJµot-r6c; '\'LVO<;
TtVe:uµot e:otu-ro XLVOUV 1tp6aw l(O(L lmlaw · 8Lix 7t1X0'7J<; O(\l~c; 8t~xov-roc;, ucp' OU
1b. TtVe:uµot 81: e:0,7l1t-rotL 8tix -ro auvexe:-rot( -re: l(O(L auµµeve:L l(O(L auµrcot8ec;
).eye:a8otL O(\l'\'O &.epot e:IvotL XLVOUµe:vov · fo-rtv otu-riji '\'O rciiv,
&.vli).oyov 81: y(ve:a8otL x&.1tt '\'OU ot!8epoc;,
&a-re: xott e:tc; xotvov Myov 1te:adv otu-rli.
IC. ~ '\'OLot\l'\'7l 8e X(V7lO'L<; Xot'\'IX
µ6vouc; y(V&'\'otL '\'OU<; voµ(~OV'rot<; 'n)V
oua(otv 7tCXO'O(V µe:-rot~OAlJV em8exe:a8otL
l(O(L O'IJY)(UO'LV l(O(L O'IJO''\'O(O'LV l(O(L auµµL~LV
l(O(L auµcpuaLV l(O(L '\'IX '\'OIJ'\'OL<; 7totpot7tA~-
O'LO(,
2a. ~Lotcpepe:LV yixp a.peaxe:L '\'Ot<; a.1to 2a. '\'WV 81: µtyvuµevwv EV O(\l'\'TI
-r~c; ~'\'WLX~<; otlpeae:ooc; 1totp1X8e:O'LV, µt~LV, awµli-rwv,
xpiiO'LV, O'IJY)(UO'LV,
2b. 1totp1X8e:O'LV µev yixp e:IvotL O'(I)· 2 b. TIX<; µev 7totpot8£0'e:L µ(~e:L<; y(ve:-
µli-rwv auvotcpl)V xot-rix -rixc; Emcpotvdotc;, a8otL ).eye:L, Mo '\'LVWV YI l(O(L 1tAdovwv
we; €7tL '\'WV O'Wpwv opwµe:v, EV oti; 1tupo( ouatwv e:tc; -rotu-rov O'UV're:8e:lµe:vwv xott
-re: xotl xpt8ott xott cpotxot xott e:t -rLVot rcotpot-rt8e:µevwv a.AA~AotLc;, C>c; tp'l)O'LV,
'\'OIJ'\'OL<; rx.llot 7totpot7tA~O'LO( 7t&pL€)(E:'\'otL xot8' &pµ~v. aw~ou0"7Jc; e:xlia'r7lc; otU'rwv
xott -rwv E7tL -rwv otlytotAWV lji~cpwv xott EV -rji 'rOLotu-rri rcotpot8eae:L xot-rix ..-lJv
&µµwv. 1te:ptypotcp'1)V 'n)V olxe:lotv oua(otv -re: l(O(L
7tOL6'r7l-rot, we; E7tL xuliµwv cpepe: e:trce:'tv
l(O(L 1tupwv ev -rji rcotp' &.ll~).ouc; 8eae:L •
(216. 17-22)
2C. µt~LV 8' e:IvotL 8uo YI l(O(L 7tAe:L6vwv 2C. -rixc; 8c!: '\'LVotc; y(ve:a8otL µ(~e:Lc;
awµli-rwv &.v-rmotpex-rotaLv 8t' /1).wv, ).eye:L, 8t' /1).wv '\'LVWV OUO'LWV -re: l(O(L
u1toµe:vouawv -rwv auµcpuwv 1te:pt otu-rix '\'WV '\'OIJ'\'(l)V rtOLO'\'~'\'(l)V &.v-rmotp&X'\'ELVO-
7t0LO'\'~'\'(l)V, we; E7tL '\'OU 1tupoc; ~)(e:L l(O(L µevwv a,).).~AotLc; µe:-rix '\'OU -rixc; E~ &.p)(~c;
'\'OU 7t&7tUpotx-rwµevou O'L8~pou, E7tL '\'OIJ- oua(otc; -re: l(O(L 1"COL6'r7l-rotc; acfi~e:LV EV -rji
'\'(l)V yixp <8t'> /1).wv y(yve:a8otL '\'WV µ(~e:L -rji '\'OL~8e:, ~V'\'LVO( '\'WV µ(~e:wv
O'WµIX'r(l)V 'n)V a.V'\'Lrtotp€X'\'otO'LV. oµo(ooc; xpiiO'LV t8Ewc; e:IvotL ).eye:L. 'n)V yixp 8uo
81: x&.1tt -rwv EV ~µ'tv IJiuxwv ~)(ELV · 8t' YI xott rc).dovwv -rtvwv awµli-rwv /1).wv
/1).wv yixp -rwv awµli-rwv ~µwv &.v-rL- 8t' /1).wv &.v'rmotpex-rotaLv a,).).~).otc;
1totpe:x-re:lvouaLV, &.pfoxe:L yixp otu-ro'tc; oil-rwc;, we; O'W~e:Lv fxota-rov O(\l'\'WV EV -r7i
awµo,; 8La awµo,;-roc; IXV'rL7t'O(piJxe:LV. µll:e:L 'rTI 'r0LO(U'r7) 'r'JV -re: obce:(o,;v oua(o,;v
xpiiaLV 81: dvo,;L AeyouaL Mo 'i) xo,;l xo,;l -rac; ev o,;u-r'ij TtOL6'0)'rO(c;, Mye:L
TtAe:L6vrov aroµii-rrov uypwv 8L' /1).rov xpiiaLv e:!vo,;L µ6vl)v -rwv µll:e:rov · dvo,;L
IXV'rL7t'O(pex-rcxaLV 'rWV 1te:pt o,;u-ra TtOL6'0)- yap f8LOV 'rWV xe:xpo,;µevrov 'rO 3uvo,;a6o,;i
-rrov urtoµe:voua&v · [omitting 154. 24- xrop(l:e:a6o,;i TtiiALV ixrt' IXAA'JAOOV, 6
155. 31 auve:xqio,;(ve:a6o,;L yap EX rijc; µ6vroc; y(ve:a6o,;L -r<T> G<J>l:e:LV EV 'rTI µ(l:e:L
xpifae:roc; 'TT)V i!:xifa-rou 'rWV auyxpo,;6ev- -ra xe:xpcxµevo,; -rac; O(U'rWV qiuae:Lc;.
'rOOV uypwv TtOL6'0)-ro,;, ofov ofvou, (216. 25-217. 2)
µeAL-roc;, iJ8o,;-roc;, ll~ouc;, 'rWV Tto,;po;TtAl)-
a(rov. /1-rL 8' ETtL 'rOLO\l'rOOV Xpifae:roV 8Lo,;-
µevoUGLV o,;[ TtOL6'0)-re:c; 'rWV auyxpo,;6ev-
'rOOV, 1tp687)AOV ex -rou TtOAAiixLc; e~
emµl)XO,:V1)ae:roc; 1X1toxrop(l:e:a6o,;L 'rO(U'rO(
ixrt' 1XAA1JArov. Mv youv a1t6yyov l)Ao;Lro-
µevov xo,;6'ij -rLc; e:tc; o!vov iJ8o,;-rL xe:xpo,;-
µevov, IXTtoxrop(ae:L -ro iJ8rop -roii o(vou,
ixvcx8po,;µ6v-roc; -rou iJ8o,;-roc; e:tc; -rov
a1t6yyov.
2d. 'TT)V 81: aurxuaLV Mo <'i\> xo,;l 2d. y(ve:a6o,;L -rac; 8e 'rLVo;c; aurxuae:L
TtAe:t6vrov TtOLO'r'J'rOOV 1te:p! -ra awµcx-ro,; 8L' /1).rov -r&v -re: ouaLwv o,;u-rwv xo,;l -rwv
µe:-ro,;~OAY)V e:tc; i!:-repo,;c; 8Lo,;qie:poUGl)c; -rou- EV O(U'rO(ic; TtOLO'r'J'rOOV auµqi6e:LpoµevroV
-rrov TtOL6'0)'rOc; yeve:aLV, we; ETtL '1-'ijc; IXAA'JAO,:Lc;, we; ylve:a6o,;( (fll)GLV ert! 'rWV
auv6foe:roc; 'rWV µuprov xo,;l 'rWV [o,;-rpLXWV [o,;-rpLXWV qio,;pµocxrov xo,;-ra auµqi6o,;paLV
qio,;pµiixrov. 'rWV µLyvuµevrov, &AAou 'rLVOc; e~ O(U'rWV
ye:vvroµevou awµo,;-roc;. (216. 22-25)
Translation
(ia) Chrysippus emphasised the (1) Chrysippus' theory of blend-

following sort of view: that there is ing is as follows: he holds that while
that which is pneuma moving itself the whole of substance is unified be-
to itself and from itself, or pneuma cause it is totally pervaded by a
moving itself backwards and for- pneuma through which the whole is
wards; held together, is stable, and is sym-
{1b) it is conceived of as pneuma pathetic with itself,
because it is described as being air
in motion; this occurs similarly also
with the aether, so that it even
shares its definition.
(1c) Such motion occurs only
according to those who think that
the whole of substance receives
change and fusion and combination
and comixture and cohesion and
similar effects.
(2a) For in the opinion of mem- (2a) yet some of the mixtures of
bers of the Stoic sect juxtaposition bodies mixed in this substance
mixture blending and fusion differ.
(2b) For juxtaposition is the (2b) occur by juxtaposition,
contact of bodies at their surfaces as through two or more substances
we see with heaps in which com and being composed into the same mass
barley and figs and other such things and juxtaposed with one another
are combined and with heaps of "by juncture" as he says, and with
stones along the shores and sand- each of them preserving the surface
grains. of their own substance and quality
in such a juxtaposition, as, one will
grant, happens with beans and wheat-
grains in their juxtaposition;
(2c) Mixture is the complete co- (2c) the third type of mixture he
extension of two or more bodies while says occurs through certain sub-
their inherent qualities remain sta- stances and their qualities being
ble, as in the case of fire and heated mutually coextended in their en-
iron, for here complete coextension tirety and preserving their original
of bodies occurs. Similarly with our substance and qualities in such a
souls; for they extend through the mixture: this mixture is blending
whole of our bodies-for it is their in the strict sense of the term. The
opinion that body extends through mutual coextension of some two or
body. even more bodies in their entirety
Blending they describe as the with one another so that each of
complete coextension of two or even them preserves their own substance
more moist bodies and their qualities and its qualities in such a mixture
[154. 24-155. 3] for they say that the -this, he says, alone of the mixtures
quality of each of the moist bodies is blending; for it is a peculiarity of
blended together appears together bodies that have been blended that
from the blend, as with wine, honey, they can be separated again from
water, vinegar, and the like. It is one another, and this only occurs
clear that with such blends the quali- through the blended bodies preserv-
ties of the bodies blended together ing their own natures in the mixture.
remain stable from the fact that they
can often be separated from one
another by an artificial device.
Certainly if one places an oil-
drenched sponge in wine blended
with water it will separate the water
from the wine as the water retreats
into the sponge.
(2d) Fusion is the alteration of (2d) Other mixtures occur by
two or even more qualities that be- total fusion with both the substances
long to bodies to create another and their qualities being destroyed
quality differing from these, as in together, as he says happens with
the composition of perfumes and medical drugs in the joint-destruction
medical drugs. of the constituents and the produc-
tion of some other body from them.
Both these texts are clearly the product of a long tradition.

They each paraphrase some source; rb of the doxographical passage,
for example, is the rationalisation of pneuma's motion rather than
a direct description, 181 while 2c of Alexander's report excludes the
181 Cf. Alexander de mixt. IO. 223. 34-224. 6 where another kind of attempt
to rationalise the motion of pneuma through body is made. The words
illustration of mechanical separation found in the parallel text only
for its author to employ it independently in his account of the
Aristotelian theory of blending later in the de mixtione. 132 Now
both passages could be dependent on a similar source which they
have used in their own way; on the other hand, it is plausible to
suggest in principle that Alexander could have relied on a doxo-
graphic report such as that preserved by Stobaeus. We know of his
acquaintance with doxographical material in Aetius 133 and, of
course, of his use of the Peripatetic source of the doxography,
Theophrastus' Opinions of the Physicists. 134 By examining separately
the details of the two texts quoted here I shall try to show that
all the significant differences between Alexander's report and the
fragment of Arius Didymus can be explained as independent
systematisations by the Peripatetic exegete, so that it is entirely
possible that he employed this text as his source. More importantly
this analysis will draw attention to the numerous difficulties in-
volved in regarding either text as direct evidence for our knowledge
of the theory of total blending, and so prepare the way for an
attempt to integrate this evidence with the interpretation of total
blending already reached on the basis of the primary sources.
(r) The classification of mixtures (2b, 2c, 2d).

Both texts are very similar in their descriptions of juxtaposition
and fusion. 185 The only important difference is Alexander's use
of the expression "by juncture" (x<X0' &:pµ~v) to describe juxta-
position. This is unparalleled and may emanate from contemporary
-rmou-rov -rL at 1 -a of the doxographical passage also suggest that only an

approximate paraphrase is being offered.
132 15. 232. 2-3.
133 Cf. de an. 83. 2-8 with Aetius IV. 11. 1-2 (= SVF II 83) and see
above, p. 28, n. 35; and Mant. 130. 14-17 with Aetius IV. 15. 3 (= SVF II
866).
134 See Diels, Dox. Graec., 481. 9, 482. 5, 483. 8, 485. 4, 492. 2, 494. 4, and
cf. E. Rowald, Hermes 55 (1920) 86-87. A detailed investigation of Alexan-

der's reports on the Presocratics would be helpful. Cf. also the doxographic
presentation of theories of matter at de mixt. 1. 213. 18-214. 6 (with Comm.
ad loc.), and on 213. 23-214. 2 see Diels, Dox. Graec., p. 174.
13 fi Neither seems aware of the illustration of this by the quadruple drug
(cf. n. 127). Cf. also Pseudo-Galen de qual. incorp. XIX. 471 K (= p. 7. 20-25
Westenberger) who similarly draws a very general connection between fusion
and the formation of drugs from blends. Alexander's ignorance here is prob-
ably also reflected at de an. 24. 24-25.
Stoicism. 136 There is however a major difference in the accounts

of blending (xp~o-L<:;): for Alexander, as for Philo, this is simply
the mutual coextension of moist bodies, but the doxographical
report (at 2c) attempts to distinguish it from "mixture" (µ.i:~L<:;)
as the complete coextension of dry bodies. The restriction of this
term to dry bodies is found in Philo's classification, but there it is
more naturally associated with juxtaposition, a usage that Alex-
ander himself slips into at one point, 137 though he normally employs
"mixture" in a generic sense. The doxographer's examples of
"mixture" as the passage of iron through fire is a standard Stoic
illustration of total blending, 138 while the case of soul pervading
body is often presented as a case of body going through body. 139
But the isolation of these cases as the total mixture of dry bodies,
and the consequently unusual use of the term "mixture," must be
regarded as doxographic pedantry. 140 If Alexander was dependent
on this source it would be natural for him to eliminate this case
and to group its examples as cases of total blending, as seems to
have happened in de mixtione 4; 141 the term "mixture" could then
be used generically, in an Aristotelian fashion. 142
Both texts use the term "extension through" (cx.v-rmcxpex-rcxo-L<:;)
to describe the mutual coextension of constituents of blends;
hence the relative initial volumes being blended are not specified,
and, as we have seen, this case differs radically from the form of
total blending described in our primary sources. It is left entirely
unclear why such coextension should not also occur in fusion.
138 The expression is discussed in detail by Rex, Chrysipps Mischungs-
lehre, pp. 31-33.

187 de mixt. 7. 221. 7.
188 Cf. Comm. on de mixt. 4. 218. 1-2.
189 This is clear even from polemics against the Stoic theory of corporeal
soul; cf. the texts cited at p. 84, n. 243 below
uo It recurs only at Aetius I. 24. 3; cf. pp. 61-62 below.
ui At 218. 1-2 the case of fire pervading iron obtrudes into the group of
illustrations of total blending (cf. p. 40, n. 93); it may owe its presence here
to Alexander's revision of his doxographic source. The case of soul pervading
body is dealt with at 217. 33-36 in relation to the cases of qiocrn; (Nature) and
~~~~ (State).
142 Cf. also the use of -ro 1tav (literally "The All") at de mixt. 3. 216. 15-16
(cf. 10. 223. 8) to describe the medium of pneuma's action. Conventionally
(SVF II 522-525) Stoics distinguished this from -ro /1)..ov (literally "the whole")
as comprising -ro /1)..ov (the material universe) along with the infinite external
void. Alexander, I suspect, has simply fallen back on the Aristotelian usage
of -ro 1tav to mean the universe; cf. Bekker, Ind. Ar. 571b 54-59.
There would seem to be nothing in the intrinsic properties of wine
and water to explain their extending through one another and
occupying the same volume while certain chemicals blend without
such interpenetration. 143 Fusion therefore only provides a contrast
with blending insofar as it is irreversible, and the difference between
the two processes is indicated, but not explained, by the use of
&.v-rmocpe:x-re:(ve:cr8ocL to describe blending. It would be purely specu-
lative in this context to try to explain this term by reference to the
motion of pneuma as described in part I of both passages. It is
clear from 2a that this motion is supposed to cause all three kinds
of mixture; but if, as we shall argue, 144 this is an inaccurate report
there can be no reason for segregating total blending from the
tripartite classification in this way.
Both texts also see blending as a reversible process-the con-
stituents are separable because they are actually present together
in the blend. In the doxographical passage this is described as their
"being manifest together" (m,ve:xcpoc(ve:cr8ocL) 145 while Alexander
terms it their "preserving their own substances and qualities," or
their own "natures," or elsewhere, their own "surfaces." This
language is unique to Alexander and, as I argue in the Commentary,
can be regarded as his own essentially polemical redescription of
this aspect of total blending. 146 It makes explicit the requirement
that constituents be actually present in the blend which, as we saw,
was implicit in the description of the blending of a wine drop with
the sea in the primary sources. 147 More generally, this would seem
to be required by the Stoic avoidance, if not rejection, of the concept
of potential being, the state which the constituents of a blend
attained in Aristotle's theory. 148
143 This may be the rationale behind Philo's use of av"t"mcxpe:x"l'e:lve:a6cxt

("extension-through") to describe the relation of constituents in fusion (cf.
n. 128). In a less technical presentation these two cases could easily be assimi-
lated.
1u Pp. 60-65 below.
145 The closest parallel is Alexander de an. 19. 32-33, referring to the
general principle that constituents are preserved in a blend: d ye: 3e:r µev
eµq1cxEve:a6cxt "l'cj> ex "l''ij,; µl~e:w,; "t'LVL ClV"t'L 1t1focx,; "!'IX,; 3uv<iµe:L,; "!'IX,; exe:lvwv, e~ WV
µtµLX"t'CXL.
148 Cf. on de mixt. I. 213. 2-13.
147 See pp. 32-33 above. Such actual copresence of constituents is also, of
course, required by the theory of pneuma's motion through matter which
such blending, we have argued, illustrated.
148 It is not explicitly employed by the Stoics, and its absence is criticised
As a whole the tripartite classification of mixtures is entirely

descriptive. While the cases of juxtaposition and fusion are exem-
plified by commonplace examples, the process of mutual coextension
involved in total blending is left mysteriously unexplained. The
fact that blending is neither of the other two limiting cases does
nothing to demonstrate exactly what sort of physical process it is.
We shall shortly try to assess the significance of this clearly rather
circumscribed account.
(2) The identification of the constituents (2b, 2c, 2d).

In Alexander's report of the tripartite classification the con-
stituents of the various mixtures are characterised as substances
with qualities. A looser version of this description is also given in
Philo's report, while the doxographic account conceives of con-
stituents as bodies with qualities. It might seem necessary to link
these descriptions with the Stoic theory of substance and quality,
which held that the whole of substance was qualified in its parts,
so that the substance of all bodies broke down, as it were, into
particular substances with their individual qualities. 149 I believe
that this would be a mistaken systematisation of Stoic thinking.
As the examples of blending and fusion show, it is not really sub-
stances that interact but unspecified masses. Since a doctrine of
substance is normally directed towards an account of the individ-
uality of a body it is doubtful that such masses would qualify as
substances. 16° Certainly the Stoic doctrine of the t8(wi; 1tot6v ("par-
ticularising quality") is an attempt to establish a theory of uniquely
individuating qualities for bodies that could hardly include random
volumes of water and wine. 161 Another point is that although the
Stoic account of substance and quality allowed for qualitative
by Plotinus Enn. VI. I. 26 (= SVF II 315). Cf. my comments at Apeiron

VII-i (1973) 23, n. 14 on the supposed potentiality of the Stoic infinite.
149 Diog. Laert. VII. 150 (= SVF II 316).
160 At Met. Z16. 1040b 5-10 Aristotle suggests that the elements-the
primary constituents of blends-are not strictly speaking substances, but
"like a heap" (otov crcop6½)- This makes it difficult to see in his case too in
what strict metaphysical sense substances could blend: cf. R. Sokolowski,
]HP 7 (1970) 271-272 on this and Comm. on de mixt. 13. 229. 18-30.
161 Presumably this doctrine deals only with what the Stoics termed
"unified" bodies (~vcoµtvix), or bodies that can be specified as having a !~L½

(SVF II 366, 368). On the whole doctrine of categories see Rist, Stoic Philos-
ophy, pp. 152-172 where the major literature is discussed.
change, there is no evidence that it allowed for the interaction of

substance with substance, as in blending, or the loss by substances
of their qualities and identity, as in fusion. 152 In Aristotelian terms,
the Stoics do not seem to have had a theory of "simple change"
(yfve1rn;; oc1tA~) or change in the category of substance; their meta-
physics concentrated on an explanation of the relation between
individual substances and substance as a whole (the part-whole
relation) rather than the interrelations between these quasi-
independent substances. 168
For these reasons the manner in which our texts characterise the
constituents of mixtures is not, I believe, indicative of an underlying
metaphysical theory. Alexander's description in particular can
almost certainly be traced to a standard report of total blending
in which the Peripatetics and Stoics are contrasted, the former said
to hold that only qualities are totally blended, while for the latter
both substances and qualities are involved. Found explicitly in
Galen 164 and in a vestigial form in Sextus Empiricus and Ploti-
nus,166 this report seems to be a piece of syncretistic doxography.
The basic categories of substance and quality are applied to two
schools whose doctrine in this area differed considerably, and are
in all probability derived from Aristotelian sources. 166 Then the
Stoic concept of total blending is again applied to both schools, and
so entirely misrepresents Aristotle who denied that qualities could
blend by themselves and insisted that bodies (if not substances)
be the constituents of blends. 167 This inherently untrustworthy
152 I disagree with Rist. (Stoic Philosophy, pp. 158-159) that SVF l 92
(Galen In Hippocr. de hum. XVI. 32 K, cf. Nat. Fae. I. 2, II. 5K) shows that
Zeno held that substances and qualities were capable of change. The texts
attributed to Zeno the thesis that total blends occur between such entities. As
I have argued, this is implausible (see above, p. 30, n. 44; cf. n. 154 below);
in the rest of this section I shall argue that the thesis itself is a misleading
systematisation of Stoic doctrine.
m The evolution of elements from Fire (SVF II 579-581) and the combi-
nation of elements to form compounds (SVF II 413) do not constitute an
exception. The process here is not strictly coming-to-be but the manifesta-
tion of a single physical principle in a variety of roles.
iu In Hippocr. de nat. hom. I XV. 32 K (= SVF II 463); cf. de el. sec.
Hippocr. I. 9, I. 489 K (= SVF II 464).
166 Respectively P.H. III. 57-62 andEnn. II. 7. r. 8-12.
168 We know that Galen was prejudiced towards the "Peripatetic" view
that blends occurred between qualities (cf. IV. 762 Kand X. 16 K).
167 de gen. et corr. A ro 327b 15-22. The term "substances" (oual1XL) is not
used, but only the expression "separables" (x_<slptaT&). It is left to Alexander
doxa is, I suggest, the source of Alexander's report in 2c where

total blending is defined as the complete coextension of sub-
stances and qualities, and of his general characterisation of the
constituents of all three types of mixtures as substances. Such a
description would provide a clear coordination between the pre-
liminary description of pneuma pervading the whole of substance
(1t(Xcr1) oucr(<X) and a causally dependent trichotomy of mixtures
between substances. As we shall see, it was in Alexander's interests
to establish such a relation, and I suspect that his identification of
constituents as substances with qualities was a stage in its attain-
ment, rather than a genuine Stoic attempt to establish a relation
between the whole of substance and its parts. 158
(3) Pneuma's motion through substance: its relation to the tri-

partite classification (1, 2a).
On a superficial reading both these texts could be interpreted to
mean that pneuma is the cause of the three kinds of mixture. 159
I shall argue that on close analysis neither yield such a meaning,
and that the presence of a description of pneuma's motion through
matter along with the tripartite classification of mixtures does not
indicate any relation of physical causation.
Part I of the doxographic report first describes Chrysippus'
doctrine of tensional motion in standard terms (ia), then provides
a rationalisation of this by suggesting the physical properties
pneuma must possess (ib), 160 and finally says that such motion
can only occur if substance (or matter) can be altered by entering
into various relations of compounding (ic). 161 The three types of
(de mixt. 13. 228. 13-25) to emphasise that substances are the constituents of
blends, though whether or not without difficulty is questionable; see Comm.
on 13. 228. 10-25.
1 &8 There is no other text in Alexander that shows any awareness of the
Stoic doctrine of substance.

m H. Leisegang, Art. "Physik," RE XX-i (1960), col. 1052 flatly describes,
SVF II 47Iff. as showing "pneuma als Ursache der mxpix0,;;trn;, µi:~L,;, xpiicn,;,
auyxum,; ... "
16 ° Cf. above, p. 36, and for Alexander's similar attempt to equate pneuma
with the Aristotelian aether (presumably what the doxographer has in mind
here) see de mixt. 10. 223. 9-17, 30-34.
161 The list of auv-compounds here is unparalleled. The only comparable
text seems to be Arius Didymus fr. 20 ( = Stobaeus Eel. I. xi. 58 , p. 133 W)
where Chrysippus is said to hold that matter (uA7)) can receive "division and
fusion in its parts" (8Lodpeaw iU xat crurxuaw ... xaTix µtp7)) and fusion is
said to be that kind of change by which destruction (tp0opix,;) occurs.
mixture are then said to differ because of this situation (za). The
initial difficulty is to see whether it is all or part of the preceding
paragraph (r) that is regarded as explaining these processes. If we
assume that the whole phenomenon of pneuma's motion through
matter explains the three mixtures, the causal connection is very
unclear. Are these mixtures processes that occur between pneuma
and matter, as the presence of c;u-yxucrn;; (fusion) in both the descrip-
tion of matter's flexibility and the tripartite classification might
suggest? 162 If so this would be an unprecedented account of
pneuma's motion, and highly implausible as far as the case of
juxtaposition is concerned. On the other hand, could these mixtures
occur after pneuma has pervaded matter and so be processes for
which it provides the physical precondition? This, as we shall see, is
Alexander's interpretation, but it is still unsatisfactory in that there
is no reason why these particular processes should necessarily occur
as a result of pneuma's motion: as we have noted (pp. 56-57 above),
no special connection is drawn in these texts between the extension
of bodies through bodies in blending and the pneumatic motion.
It is, I believe, more informative to look at the relation between
the third sentence of part one of the doxographic report (re) and
the opening sentence of part two. Here a description of the af-
fectability of matter is immediately followed by an account of the
three types of mixture with the claim that the latter depends on
the former. We find an almost identical relation expressed in
another doxographic text at Aetius I. 24. 3. 163
Ilu0ocy6poc,:; xoct 1tocv-re:,:; /Sc;oL 1tot6YJTIJV TIJV lJA'YJV u1to-rl0e:v1"otL, xup(w,:;
ye:vfoe:L,:; xoct cp0opa:,:; ylve:c;0ocL · ex ya:p cx.MoLwc;e:w,:; Twv c;ToLxdwv
xoct 1'p01t~,:; xoct cxvocMc;e:w,:; 164 [ ye:vfoe:w,:; xoct cp0opii,:;] 165 7totpoc0e:c;LV
Xott Xpocc;(v 1'E: Xott c;uyxuc;LV y(yve:c;0otL.
(Pythagoras and all who posit matter as affectable [say] that

coming to be and passing away occur in a strict sense; for
from the qualitative change of the elements and their modifica-
tion and dissolution juxtaposition and mixture, and blending
and fusion occur.)
162 On the various contexts in which fusion occurs cf. n. 186 below.
163 Diels, Dox. Graec., p. 320. 29-35.
164 From here to the end I cite Stobaeus Eel. I. xx. 1d3 , p. 170 24-25 W;
Pseudo-Plutarch Epit. I. 24 has only the words 'l'Ot.U'l'Ot. y!ve:cr60t.L after &v0t.Mcre:wi;.
165 Heeren regarded this as a gloss, and it is so recorded by Diels.
Here the three types of mixture are said to be directly dependent

on the "affectability" of matter once the evolution of the elements
has occurred; that is, because matter has the capacity to undergo
change, then certain specific types of change can occur. If we
isolate re and 2a of the text from Stobaeus a similar type of reason-
ing can be detected; that because matter can receive various
changes, then the specific changes described in the tripartite
classification can occur. Only the reference to the elements is
omitted. 188
In the text from Aetius the connection drawn between matter's
affectability and the various mixtures is attributed to a wide
range of thinkers, 187 while in the text from Stobaeus it is narrowed
down to the Stoics. But we can still detect the doxographical
organisation of this evidence, for re is a very general description
of matter's capacity for change, and the Chrysippean theory of
pneumatic motion is said to justify including the Stoics among
"those who hold" (ot voµ(~ovn;) this theory. That is, a specific
doctrine of Chrysippus (ra) leads to the association of the Stoics
with a general doxographical description of matter's affectability
(re) which we have seen has elsewhere (at Aetius I. 24. 3) a causal
relation to the view that change occurs by the specific processes of
juxtaposition, blending and fusion. Although the classification of
these mixtures may have been Stoic in origin (but perhaps not
Chrysippean) 188 it is enmeshed in both texts in a doxographic
thought-pattern that seems to have a validity independent of the
specific description of Stoic doctrine.
This criticism removes the possibility that Arius Didymus fr. 28
describes a causal relation between pneuma and the tripartite
classification of mixtures; for the latter is now seen to be dependent
on a description of matter (re) couched in the general terms of a
doxographer's explanation of pneuma's motion, rather than on an
166 This need not be significant. In the doxography the active and passive
principles were grouped along with the four elements as the principles (iip)(td)
of the Stoic system; cf. Comm. on de mixt. II. 225. 5-18.
167 Cf. Aetius Plac. I. 9. 2 ( = SVF II 324) where the Stoics are grouped
with Thales, Pythagoras, and Heraclitus with respect to their belief in the
affectability of matter {-rpe:7tnJV xoct ii,J.otwniv xoct µe:-roc(3).7lnJV xoct ~e:ucrniv
6).7)v 8t' /1).7)~ -r~v u).·'lv); also cf. SVF II 305.
168 At 2a it is only attributed to the school collectively, and its apparent
attribution to Chrysippus by Alexander is questionable (cf. n. 175). It may,

therefore, have been developed by later Stoics (seep. 6g below).
integral part of Chrysippus' account. In this context it would be

wrong to expect that there was a precise physical theory in Stoicism
prescribing the relation between pneuma and the three types of
mixture. The chain of reasoning in the first four sentences of the
text preserved by Stobaeus (r, 2a) is that of a doxographer, not a
philosopher. Taken separately each sentence expresses a certain
truth about Stoic physics, but in their interrelation they express
reasoning established by the doxography and not emanating from
Chrysippean physical theory.
Much the same criticism can be made of Alexander, despite a
superficially more satisfactory account. He characterises pneuma's
motion in very general terms and concentrates, unlike the doxo-
grapher, on describing its effects. These are that substance is
unified, and this unity involves continuity, stability, and sympathy
with itself. This formulaic description is an accurate account of
pneuma's activity, 169 but it is not clear what relevance it has to the
tripartite classification. As Alexander reports it, the constituents
of mixtures (..ex µ.Lyvuµ.&vix) are bodies that are "in" the whole of
substance that has been unified. Being in such a physical context
should mean that they are all interrelated,17° yet what we find
described are a series of physical interactions that seem to have
no connection at all with this basic situation. 171 There is simply
the assertion that a unified substance is a necessary condition of
there being mixtures of bodies, but no indication is given of why
these particular mixtures should occur. As in the doxographic report
neither the identification of the constituents nor their interaction
is related to pneuma's motion. We might for example expect that
if these three mixtures are somehow caused by pneuma, then
constituents, as inanimate bodies, might be identified by their
possession of a ~~Le; (a state), 172 or that the extension of body
through body (2c) might be grounded in pneuma's motion. As it is,
the sole indication of a relation between pneuma and the tripartite
classification is the very vague description in 2a.
Since Alexander's report is part of a treatise on mixture we can,
189 Cf. Comm. on de mixt. 3. 216. 15-16.
170 As Alexander himself assumes in one of his arguments against the
theory of pneuma, at de mixt. IO. 223. 27-29.
171 At pp. 58-60 above we have ruled out any correlation in the Stoic
theory between the individual substances that Alexander describes as being
mixed, and the whole of substance (mi<TIJ oual1X) in which this occurs.
m On this see above, p. 37.
I think, appreciate its character by setting it in context. In the

opening chapter of the de mixtione Alexander asserts that theories
of mixture depend on theories of matter, and proceeds to divide
the latter into the corpuscular theory and the theory that matter
is unified. 173 At the outset of chapter three he announces his return
to proponents of the latter theory after a discussion of the Atomists
and Epicurus in chapter two. 174 We can therefore, I think, take the
description of the whole of substance being unified by pneuma
(216. 14-15) as Alexander's deliberate description of the theory of
pneuma to fit his general programme in the de mixtione. This could
also explain his deviation from a source like the doxography which
offers a much more diffuse account of pneuma's motion. Then after
classifying the Stoics with those who believe that matter is unified
Alexander has to show that their theory of mixture is derived from
this theory of matter. This he does rather vaguely, as we have seen,
by saying that the constituents of mixtures are bodies interacting
within the unified material matrix created by pneuma's motion.
But the vagueness of this derivation, its absence from any other
source, and the manner in which it fulfills the broader programme
of the de mixtione prove, I believe, that at 216. 17 it is Alexander
himself who has provided a link between the motion of pneuma
through matter and the tripartite classification of mixtures. 175
There are other considerations supporting this conclusion. In
chapter two of the de mixtione-as the Commentary will show in
detail-Alexander provides a similar correlation between Atomist
and Epicurean theories of mixture and theories of matter only by
the totally ahistorical approach of arbitrarily attributing to them
theories of blending derived from Aristotle's discussion in de
generatione et corruptione Arn. 176 Though the correlation has a
greater inherent plausibility than that asserted for the case of
Chrysippus, it is still formulated solely to fulfill the general or-
ganisational principle of the treatise that theories of mixture be
1 7a de mixt. 1. 213. 15-18, 214. 6-rn.

174 de mixt. 3. 216. 1-2 (µe:dA6wµe:11 8'1: ,bd -rou,; XOLIIW,; ~\lwcr6cxL 't"lJII GA7)\I
Aeyov-rcx,; ... ). On this whole conception see Comm. on 3. 216. 1-4.
176 In doing so he could also have followed the doxographer in attributing
the authorship of the tripartite classification to Chrysippus rather than
to the school collectively: cf. the grammar of parts I and 2a of the parallel
passages. Further on the Chrysippean authorship of the doctrines described
in de mixt. 3 and 4 see Comm. on 3. 217. 2-13, and 4. 217. 14 and 218. 8-9.
178 See especially Comm. on 214. 18-28 and 214. 28-215. 8.
derivable from theories of matter. We have also seen in section (I)

that Alexander is frequently capable of arbitrarily assimilating
Stoic ideas and terminology for his own philosophical purposes.
Here, I believe, he is simply carrying out the same kind of re-
structuring of his opponents' ideas, much in the manner of Aristotle,
to conform with his methods of writing the history of philosophy.
From this final discussion we can conclude that the two sources
separately analysed here are indeed the product of a complex
process of transmission. They place a description of pneuma's
motion through matter in a causal relation to a tripartite classifica-
tion of mixtures when these are clearly independent doctrines.
At the same time the details of each of our two sources are affected
both by the doxographical tradition, and, in Alexander's case, by
an apparent attempt to systematise arbitrarily a doxographic
source. The value of these texts as evidence for the Stoic theory
of total blending is therefore severely circumscribed.
As for their interrelation, enough evidence has, I think, been
produced to claim confidently that Alexander is at least dependent
on the classification of mixtures at Arius Didymus fr. 28. Whether
his attempt to systematise the relation between pneuma's motion
through matter and this classification (Alexander, I, 2a) in order
to meet the general framework of the de mixtione was a reformula-
tion of the more diffuse account in the same source is less certain.
There are other cases where he radically systematises doxographic
material to fit his needs, and so in the present instance it is entirely
possible that he followed the same practice.
A Final Reconstruction
On turning back to the preliminary interpretation of the theory
of total blending, the results of the preceding discussion seem at
first sight unpromising. In our major secondary sources total
blending is a process of mutual coextension, contrasted with two
other kinds of mixture, and yet causally unrelated to the theory of
pneuma. Earlier, on the basis of the primary sources, we agreed
that it was the extension of a small volume through a large one,
but such only as a conception analogically formed from empirical
data and thence the basis for a further analogical derivation of
pneuma's motion through matter. Yet because the latter account
s
is challenged by texts in which we have found certain inherent

deficiencies as a result of a doxographic tradition we are justified
in attempting to retain it in the face of such clearly unreliable
secondary evidence. This, I believe, can be done principally by
examining carefully the structure of de mixtione 3 and 4, for this
is the one text in which both these conflicting accounts of total
blending can be found in an unreconciled form.
In chapter four, when presenting the analogical argument for
the conception of a small volume of liquid extending through a
larger one, Alexander makes this process a special case of the general
relation of the mutual coextension of bodies (217. 26-32). Yet the
various phenomena illustrating cooperative causation (at 217. 13-
26), from which this conception is analogically formed, can only
be reformulated as a non-reciprocal relation between bodies; that
is, in this context, if A is helped by B to extend itself, it does not
follow that B is helped by A; so the water helps the wine drop to
extend through it, but not vice versa. 177 The attempt that Alex-
ander makes to import into this context the case of the mutual
coextension of bodies would seem to be a result of the description
of total blending in these terms in the tripartite classification in
de mixtione 3 (our 2c). 17 S
One text which does suggest an entirely compatible relation
between these apparently conflicting conceptions of blending is
chapter 37 of Plutarch's de communibus notitiis. This is almost
entirely a polemic against total blending, but with primary emphasis
on the paradoxicality of a small body pervading or being blended
with a larger one. It is however striking that after an argument
dealing with this specific relation 179 Plutarch makes the following
claim:
177 See p. 39 n. 91 above.

178 Cf. also de mixt. 3. 217. 2-9 where Alexander reports that Chrysippus
claimed that the difference between the three types of mixture was recogni-
sable by means of the common notions. In the Comm. on 3. 217. 2-13.
I argue that this too is a rationalisation of the tripartite classification of
mixture in the face of the argument in chapter four which shows that the
common notions were only used to prove that a body could extend through
a body. This indicates that Alexander is attempting to coordinate the doxo-
graphic account of the three mixtures with a proof for total blending probably
derived from contemporary Stoic sources (see Comm. on de mixt. 4. 217. 36).
171 1078A (Teubner, p. 104. 8-20); this involves assigning unit value to
unequal volumes. I discuss it further at pp. 86-87 below.
And this is the wonderful result for those who force bodies
into a body, and this the inconceivability of their containing
one another. For it is necessary that when bodies go into one
another [e:lc; &tJ...YJ"Aa. :x,wpouv-rwv] in blending, one does not sur-
round the other while the other is surrounded, and one receive
while the other inheres (for in this way there will not be
blending but the contact and touching of surfaces, with the
inner surface enclosed while the outer surface surrounds, while
the other parts are differentiated as unmixed and pure); but
it is necessary that when the blending that they uphold occurs,
the constituents should come to be in one another [ev cxtJ...~"AoLc;
... ylveo-8a.L] and that the same body should, in a single mass,
be surrounded by its inherence [in the other body] and sur-
round the other body by receiving it, and neither of them
should again be capable of existing [independently], when
blending forces both to go through one another [8L' cxtJ...~"Awv
8LLeva.L], and absolutely nothing be left behind but both to be
completely filled up with another. 180
Plutarch then goes on to describe Arcesilaus' argument against

a small body blending with a larger one, 181 and to quote Chry-
sippus' description of the wine drop blending with the sea that
we discussed earlier, 182 but with no sense of incompatibility be-
tween this very general attack on intermingling, where the relative
volumes of the constituents are unimportant, and a set of arguments
directed exclusively against the paradox of a small volume ex-
tending through a much larger one. 183 In fact the argument that
we have quoted seems to be based on the same kind of general
distinction between total blending and juxtaposition made by
Diogenes Laertius at VII. 151 before he also describes the case of
180 1078B-C (Teubner, pp. 104. 20-105. 5). Cf. de mixt. 7. 221. 7-20 for a
more definite polemic against the idea that constituents of a total blend lose
their identity; cf. Comm. ad loc.
181 1078C-D (Teubner, p. 105. 5-23).
182 1078E (Teubner, p. 165. 23-28 = SVF II 480); see above, pp. 31-33.
183 Cf. also de comm. not. 37. 1078C (Teubner, p. 105. 7) where the premise
of Arcesilaus' argument against a small body blending with a larger is el
y(ip e:lcrtv a:l xp(icre:t1; 3t' 11:Awv, again an apparently general characterisation
of intermingling; and 37. 1077E-F (Teubner, pp. 103. 29-104. 3) where a
description of the extension of a small volume through a large one is said
to be propounded by "those who blend bodies with bodies as wholes with
wholes" ('t'ouc; 'l'IX crwµomx 'l'OLc; crwµa:crtv IIAoLc; IIAa: xe:pa:VVUV't'a:c;).
a wine drop extending through the sea. Even Alexander draws a

similar contrast at the end of de mixtione 3 before he proceeds in
chapter four to describe the argument which primarily demonstrates
the blend of a small volume with a larger. 184 Yet while both Plutarch
and Diogenes supplement this general contrast with a description
of total blending as uniquely the blend of a small volume with a
larger, Alexander offers a tripartite classification of mixtures and,
as we have just seen, attempts to subordinate the case of the blend
of a small with a large volume to the case of mutual coextension
described in that classification. There are, I believe, reasons why
his evidence takes this form, and these yield a reading of de mixtione
3 and 4 that makes it a basically consistent account of total blending
which Alexander himself has cast into a conflicting form.
As we saw earlier, 185 the tripartite classification of mixtures
seemed to be designed to clarify the unique status of total blending
by contrasting it with juxtaposition and fusion. As such it ad-
dressed itself only to the general characteristics of a total blend-
the complete coextension of constituents and their separability-
and not to the nature of the process by which such a blend was
achieved. It resembled the simple contrast between juxtaposition
and fusion found in Plutarch and Diogenes Laertius, with only
the addition of fusion which serves to illustrate Stoic physical
theories in several other doxographical texts. 186 Now just as the
description of blending in that bipartite contrast did not prevent
its authors giving an account of total blending as uniquely the
blend of a small with a large volume, neither need the tripartite
classification conflict with such an account. Blending as mutual
coextension is entirely neutral as to the relative initial volumes of
constituents of a blend, and can easily complement a description
of the blend of unequals or a proof of such a process as offered
by Alexander in de mixtione 4. In the tripartite classification total
blending is a case of mutual coextension because it is presented in
general terms: in de mixtione 4 it is the extension of a small volume
184 de mixt. 217. 9-13.

m Pp. 55-58.
188 At de aet. mund. 16. Philo lists fusion as one of four types of destruction
(-rp61tot qi6opiic;) apparently invoked by the Stoics in discussing the conflagra-
tion of the universe. Cf. also Arius Didymus fr. 20 where it is said to be one
of the effects that matter can receive, and cf. fr. 27 where it is listed as one
of the types of change recognised by Posidonius.
through a larger one because it occurs in an argument establishing

its precise relation to central doctrines of Stoic physics. There are
not therefore two conflicting senses of the verb "to extend through"
(cxv-mtotpe:x-re:(ve:Lv); rather there are two interdependent and com-
plementing descriptions of total blending that this verb is called
upon to characterise.
The description of blending in the tripartite classification should
then be regarded as part of a systematic clarification of the more
complex doctrine which we have argued underlay the Stoic theory
of pneuma. Conceivably it was developed in Stoic scholasticism as
a pedagogic effort to elucidate its complexities after Chrysippus
had formulated the theory that we reconstructed earlier. 187 Cer-
tainly Plutarch who knew this Stoic's works seems to have had no
knowledge of a special sense of fusion (auyx.ucm;) and uses the term
synonymously with blending (xpiicrn;). 188
This whole classification of mixtures is indeed closely comparable
to another Stoic classification in which bodies are said to be either
unified (~vwµevoc), divided (ex 8Le:O"t'6>TWv), or "interconnected"
(ex m>vot1t-roµevwv). 189 This is designed to demonstrate, through a
simple contrast, the nature of the class of unified bodies which
are held together by pneuma, 190 without however specifying the
details of that physical theory. Equally the classification of mixtures
simply clarifies the nature of a physical relation ultimately central
to Stoic physics but without proving how it occurs. 191 Both accounts
187 Since Chrysippus' authorship of this classification is anyway in some

doubt (cf. n. 175 above), it is possible that it was formulated by a later
generation of Stoic scholastics. Such triadic systematisations of doctrines
are certainly very common in Stoicism: see M. Fuhrmann, Das Systematische
Lehrbuch, pp. 147-148, especially the references at p. 148 n. 1.
188 de comm. not. 40. 1081A (Teubner, p. 110. 27). Cf. 37. 1078A (Teubner,
p. 104. 17) for the use of Buxxucni; = xpiiati;. See note 48 above for Diogenes
Laertius' probable use of rn>µcp6e:!pEo-6a:t to mean "blending."
189 SVF II 366 (Plutarch), II 368 (Achilles), and cf. II 1013 and III 160.
This rather simple classification has been subjected to a great deal of elabo-
rate speculation. I share Graeser's view (Plotinus and the Stoics, p. 73, where
earlier literature is summarised) that SVF II 367 clearly shows that in author-
ship it is Chrysippean. On its possible relation to the tripartite classification
of mixtures, and the triad State/Soul/Nature see H. Dorrie's speculations
(they are no more) at Porphyrios' "Symmikta Zetemata", pp. 27-28.
190 Made clear by Achilles (SVF II 368) where unified bodies are described
as those controlled by a !!~ti; (State) which is ltVEiiµa: o-uvEXTtxov o-c:iµa:To,;

("pneuma capable of containing a body").
191 Thus E. Brehier's point (Theorie des Incorporels, p. 42) that juxta-
position is "une concession aux apparences" is correct. The classification

are illustrative descriptions parasitic upon independently demon-

strable theories.
There is therefore no reason to find an inherent incompatibility
between the account of blending as mutual coextension in de
mixtione 3, or its doxographical source, and its description as the
extension of a small volume through a large one conveyed by our
primary sources, and by de mixtione 4. Since we have also shown
that the tripartite classification of mixtures is not causally depen-
dent on the motion of pneuma through matter we can now restate
our preliminary interpretation of total blending in the light of the
analysis of sources undertaken in this section. The relevant texts
have contained three main components:
I. The motion of pneuma through matter.

II. The tripartite classification of mixtures in which total blending
is the mutual coextension of bodies.
III. The proof by analogy that total blending is the extension of
a small volume through a large one.
Two of our sources (Arius Didymus fr. 28 and Alexander de mixtione

3. 216. 16-217. 2) describe I and II, and, as we have argued, do
not show, despite appearances, that I is the cause of II. In addition
we have just seen that II can be regarded as an independent illustra-
tion of total blending rather than a comprehensive classification
of mixtures that occur in the empirical world. III is reported by
Alexander in de mixtione 4 and accords with the conception of total
blending expressed in our primary sources, Diogenes Laertius and
Plutarch. As we have argued, 193 the case of a small volume extending
through a larger one should be taken as a conception from which
the relation of pneuma to matter is analogically derived. This, in
effect, means that I is to be derived from III, leaving II, as we
have suggested on independent grounds, as an adjunct to the whole
theory illustrating only the general characteristics of the process
described in III.
We can now suggest an account of the genesis of Alexander's
of mixtures is not a complete account of the material continuum, in which

juxtaposition is impossible; rather it is an attempt to clarify that relation
(total blending) which helps to explain the formation of the continuum by
the motion of pneuma through matter by contrasting it with juxtaposition.
192 Above, pp. 38-45.
evidence in de mixtione 3 and 4. 193 As we have argued, his attempt
in chapter three to establish a causal relation between I and II
is a systematisation, probably based on his doxographic source,
and certainly formulated to meet the general programme of the
de mixtione. However in chapter four he presents us with III. This
places him in the difficult position of asserting two quite different
conceptions of total blending which he attempts to reconcile only
with some strain. At the same time he introduces the case of
pneuma's motion through the passive elements as a "clear proof"
that a wine drop extends through water. 194 Thus in a single ex-
position of the Stoic theory of total blending he asserts two different
relations between pneuma and total blending, one in which it is
the cause of a mutual coextension of bodies (the relation between
I and II in chapter three) and another in which it somehow il-
lustrates the extension of a small volume of wine through a large
volume of water (the relation between I and III in chapter four).
I have suggested a number of reasons why the first of these is
Alexander's own creation, probably based on his doxographic
source, and not a part of Stoic physics; the second I argued earlier
should be taken as the derivation of pneuma's motion through
matter from the analogically formed conception of a wine drop's
extension through water.
If these conclusions are correct then as a whole de mixtione 3
and 4 is an attempt on the part of its author to coordinate the first
of these relations with an argument that partly conceals the second.
As evidence it does not therefore challenge the thesis argued
earlier that the second of these relations represents a correct account
of the role of total blending in Stoic physical theory.
To sum up, the overall interpretation advanced in this essay is

that the so-called Stoic theory of total blending had a limited
but important role in their physical system. It was an analogically
193 More tentatively we can also speculate on the genesis of the doxographi-
cal report at Arius Didymus fr. 28. II, as a systematic description, would
gain a place in the doxography more readily than the complex argument in
III. At the same time, its relation to I had to be acknowledged, and so I and
II were juxtaposed and, as we have argued, placed in a causal relation by a
doxographic rationale. III would probably be preserved only by Stoics, and
it is from such sources that Alexander may have directly derived it; cf.
Comm. on de mixt. 4. 217. 36.
194 de mixt. 4. 218. 2-6.
formed conception of the blending of a small volume with a large

one designed, not as a representation of physical reality, but as a
purely mental conception which could serve as the illustrative
prefigurement of the theory of pneuma's motion through matter.
As such it was only part of an analogical demonstration of this
physical relation and could not have been the sole proof of this
intricate physical theory. Its importance was that it made a complex
central doctrine of Stoic physics readily comprehensible, and this
is probably why it is quite widely reported, extensively criticised,
and often influential as the model for the description of other
relations.
If this interpretation is correct, it is perhaps not surprising that
the ancient critics of Stoicism failed to appreciate its complex and
circumscribed character. They saw total blending simply as a
factual claim that two bodies went through one another and
occupied the same place, and none of them discussed the doctrine
in the context of the Stoic physical system. 195 Their polemics in
effect amount to a detachment of the case of total blending, whether
as the extension of a small volume through a larger one or as the
coextension of two random volumes, either from the place that we
have argued it occupied in the proof for the motion of pneuma
through matter, or from its place in the tripartite classification of
mixtures. Thus isolated it could be easily ridiculed as the theory
that two bodies occupied the same place simpliciter, or that a
random body could somehow expand to occupy the place of an-
other.198
This segregation of Stoic doctrines from the relevant part of the
system which gave them meaning is fairly typical among ancient
authors whether for the purposes of criticism, assimilation or
description. 197 Were our sources more complete, or works by early
Stoics extant, this phenomenon would be little more than a minor
196 The references to body going through body at de mixt. IO. 223. 18 and
I 1. 225. 4-5 in the discussion of pneuma and the Stoic deity do not constitute
an exception-see introductory note to chapters ten and eleven.
198 In Alexander's case in the de mixtione the description in the tripartite
classification influences his conception of blending as a reciprocal process
of "body going through body" (crwµcx 8L(X crooµcxToc; zwpe:i:v). He only refers
to the extension of a small volume through a larger one once in the de mix-
tione at 220. 13-23: cf. Comm. ad lac. Note also Calcidius In Tim. 221 where
total blending (concretio) is said to involve two bodies being in the same place.
197 See my discussion at Symb. Os. 48 (1973) 60-63 of the assimilation of
the terminology of the language of the Stoic theory of common notions.
episode in the history of ancient philosophical scholasticism. But

when the authors responsible for this maltreatment of Stoic doctrine
are also among our major sources their methods must be appreciated
in all their detail. Only in this way can interpretation avoid mis-
taking criticism for direct reports of doctrines, or hope to fully
grasp the significance of given doctrines in the overall context of
the Stoic system. For this reason the next section of this essay
presents a detailed analysis of the form and sources of some of the
major arguments brought against the theory of total blending by
ancient critics.
III. "BODY GOING THROUGH BODY"

Alexander and the Criticism of the Stoic Theory of Total Blending
(apropos de mixtione 5 and 6) 198
The earliest criticism of the notion of total blending was an
attack delivered, according to Plutarch, by Chrysippus' former
teacher, 199 the sceptical Platonist Arcesilaus. The mixture of a
small body with a much larger one meant, he claimed, that a leg
could be cut off, thrown into the sea and expand to the point where
Xerxes and the Greeks could fight a sea battle in it. 200 Although
198 The general topic of ancient criticisms of total blending has been dealt
with by H. Dorrie, Porphyrios' "Symmikta Zetemata", pp. 24-35, but mainly
with reference to the Neoplatonic tradition. His discussion is also not accom-
panied by a full interpretation of the theory of total blending, nor is the
Peripatetic tradition-the importance of which he is aware (cf. p. 29 n. 1)-
examined in detail. The argument of this section, if correct, will necessitate
some revision in his views of at least the background to the later critique of
total blending; see nn. 200, 211 below. I have also discussed the topic of
"body going through body" in the Peripatetic and exegetical tradition in a
more limited context in an article on Pseudo-Alexander Quaest. II. 12 at
Philologus 116 (1972) 293-305.
188 See Diogenes Laertius VII. 184. It is plausible on chronological grounds:
Arcesilaus' dates are 316/15 to 214/40 (v. Von Arnim, RE II, col. 1164), and
Chrysippus' 281/277 to 208/204 (idem, RE III, col. 2502). The tradition that
made Arcesilaus an opponent of Zeno (Cicero A cad. I. 12. 44) is dubious, and
the text from Plutarch referred to in the next note cannot be taken as evi-
dence that Zeno propounded the theory of total blending, as some of the older
literature claimed (see K. Troost, Zenonis Citiensis de rebus physicis doctrinae,
p. 52 n. 2).
200 Plutarch de comm. not. 37. 1078C-D. There is no evidence of Carneades'
critique of total blending, and though Dorrie (Porphyrios' "Symmikta Zete-
mata", p. 29 n. 1) may be right to speculate that he did deal with it, he was
certainly not "der Ahnherr dieser Kritik." Conceivably Sextus Empiricus
P.H. III. 56-62 is derived from him; cf. n. 251 below.
the tone of ridicule was to be maintained, later criticism was some-

what more intricate, mainly stressing the paradoxical idea that
one body could go completely through another, expressed in the
phrase a&µ(X 8ux 0'6>1J.(XTO,; x_wpei:v. In some texts this appears as an
actual description of total blending 201 and perhaps for this reason
Von Arnim employed it as a subtitle to his collection of texts on
the topic. 202
It is not however used by Stoics in any primary sources and it is
most unlikely that it could ever have served them as a genuinely
informative description of total blending. 203 The verb "to go"
(x.wpei:v) conceals the complexity of the relation of extension
(ixvTm(XptX't'(Xaii;) which is central to this process; for it suggests
that it was reciprocal when, if we have reasoned correctly, it could
only have involved the extension of a small volume through a
large one. 204 Again, apart from the fact that body going through
body is principally treated as a paradoxical relation occurring
between three-dimensional solids by critics of Stoicism, 206 there are
a number of texts in which it is discussed and elaborated without
any reference whatsoever to Stoic physical theory. All of these
occur in the works of the Aristotelian commentators and yet none
of this material has ever been recognised or investigated in relation
to the critique of the Stoic theory of blending. I hope to establish
181 Hippolytus Philos. 21 (at SVF II 469), Themistius Phys. 104. 14-18
(SVF II 468), both very general accounts. On Plutarch de comm. not. 37.
1077E (SVF II 46.5) cf. the Philolo1;us article cited above (n. 198) at p. 296,
and n. 220 below. Oddly Dorrie (Porphyrios' "Symmikta Zetemata", p. 2.5
nn . .5 and 7) attributes the doctrine of body going through body to Zeno
and Chrysippus on the basis respectively of Arius Didymus fr. 38 (Dox.
Graec., p. 270. 4) and fr. 28 (Dox. Graec., p. 463. 2off. = SVF II 471; quoted
at pp . .52-.53 above). Yet neither of these texts does more than use verbs
of motion to describe the blending of the elements in the first case, and of
soul and body in the second, without even employing the expression o-wµix
3tiX O"©µIXTO~ )'.<ilpE:LV.
282 SVF II, p. 1.51. 7.
288 Decisive on this score is de mixt. 12. 227. 2 where Alexander says that
"body going through body" was not appreciated by the Stoics themselves
as the fundamental notion in their doctrines of God, fate, the soul, etc. Cf.
Comm. ad Toe.
284 Cf. pp. 32-33, 6.5-71 above. In de mixt . .5 and 6 it is clearly irrelevant
which of the two bodies goes through which, and even if a one-way process
is described in a given text it is clearly reversible. This is made quite explicit
in other arguments against the extension of a small body through a large one
which critics explicitly regarded as reversible; cf. pp. 87-88 below.
285 Comm. on de mixt. 6. 219. 11-12; cf. p. 83 below.
"BODY GOING THROUGH BODY" 75
here that this evidence is so extensive and so closely dependent on
Aristotelian texts as to leave no doubt that it was this exegetical
tradition that developed most of the arguments and paradoxes
centred around body going through body that are employed by the
ancient critics of total blending, and moreover that it is this tradi-
tion that Alexander has inherited in his critique of this theory in
the de mixtione and elsewhere.
Peripatetic Exegesis and the Origins of the Criticism

After the detailed exposition of the Stoic theory of mixture in
de mixtione 3 and 4, the very general argument inaugurated in
chapter 5 seems rather abrupt. Instead of attacking the details of
the theory just described Alexander isolates the general principle
that body goes through body, 206 and sets out to show that this is
impossible either between solids (in chapter 6) 207 or if there are
void pores in bodies (chapter 5). Now this whole disjunction seems
unnecessary when the Stoics would never have posited the latter
theory 208 , and to discover its roots we shall need to analyse
texts from Aristotelian commentators for whom, as we shall show,
it became in the process of exegesis a natural disjunction. Alexander
himself will not be represented, except indirectly, since none of his
commentaries on the relevant Aristotelian works are extant;
nonetheless as these commentators themselves indicate they
inherit a tradition detectable in his works.
The exegetical technique that we shall observe in this section
is a special case of the methodology described earlier 209 whereby a
commentator can exceed the Aristotelian text through various
forms of interpretative paraphrase. We shall see an issue of minor
significance in Aristotle converted in the exegetical tradition into
a philosophical principle by the synthesis of some loosely-related
texts. Since these texts served Aristotle in his criticism of various
doctrines, once it can be shown that any part of the principle
developed from them is entailed by a Stoic doctrine, that doctrine
can be accordingly redescribed and criticised. The basic framework
is the result of reflection on the Aristotelian text, its use against
the Stoics a subsequent development.
208 219. 11-220. 6.
207 218. 24-219. 9.
208As Alexander implies in this context at de mixt. 5. 218. 25-26.
208See above, Pt. I, p. 15 and cf. Pt. II pp. 25-26 on the attribution of
general theses to opponents.
In de mixtione 5 it is clear that Alexander uses the expression

"body going through body" (awµoc 8ux a&>µoc-roc; xwpei:v) simply to
mean that two bodies are in the same place. 210 This redescription
is not to be found in Aristotle's numerous references to the paradox
of two bodies being in the same place (Mo awµoc-roc ev -rocu-rcji), but
these texts form the natural starting place for our enquiry. For
Aristotle this paradox is held to be entailed by a variety of views
and is used to justify their summary dismissal. These are (1) that
place is body (Phys. 209a 4-7), (2) that growth occurs by body
(Phys. 214b 6, de gen. et corr. 32ra 5-ro), (3) that light is a body
(de an. 418b 13-18), 211 (4) that soul is a body (de an. 40gb 3), and
(S) that the elements are generated from body (de caelo 305a 19-20).
In each case Aristotle's argument is entirely ad hominem, and he
makes no attempt to systematise his dismissals of these various
doctrines, though taken together they might loosely be said to
constitute a thesis of anti-materialism; 212 for in each of the first
four cases Aristotle's own doctrine involved the use of a non-
material concept. 213 His commentators however did recognise
similarities between these arguments.
It is clear that the argument that if place is a body then two
bodies will occupy the same place is fundamental to this pattern,
and that the other four are simply special cases of it. The com-
mentators' treatment of the text from Physics ~1 in which this
occurs (209a 4-7) therefore provides some guide to their treatment
of the other arguments.
In the most extensive comment on this text Simplicius 214
presents a capsule of the argument of de mixtione 5 and 6. He
describes the paradox of two bodies in the same place as "body
21 ° Cf.
218. 15-16 with 218. 18-21.
211 This is the only one of these closely related passages noted by Dorrie
(Porphyrios' "Symmikta Zetemata", p. 25 n. 6) who, erroneously I believe
(cf. n. 198), regards "body going through body" as the Stoic contradiction
of this Aristotelian principle. This is a good example of speculative reasoning
establishing historical relations without close attention to the quality of the
sources.
212 It might be added to the "presuppositions of Aristotle's physics"
collected by G Boas, AJP 57 (1936) 24-36.

213 Although Aristotle does not use this language, clearly place as the limit
of surrounding body is incorporeal (Phys. t:,. 4), as is soul qua form (de an.
B1-2), the form and not matter in which growth occurs (de gen. et corr. A5),
and light as the actualisation of the transparent medium (de an. B7).
2 u Cf. also the article cited at n. 198, at p. 296£.
going through body" (ac7>µix 8Loc awµix't'o~ :x,wpe:'i:v), 216 points out
that it is entailed by Stoic materialism, and finally refers to Alex-
ander's arguments against this paradox "in a separate treatise
and in his commentaries." 216 He then quotes a long passage from
Alexander, presumably from the latter's note on Physics ~I 209a
4-7, in which an argument against bodily interpenetration through
pores is included. 217 This would seem to confirm that the roots of
the argument in de mixtione 5 and 6 do rest in the exegesis of this
Aristotelian argument. Elsewhere among the commentators The-
mistius 218 refers explicitly to the anti-Stoicism of the de mixtione
in his comment on this same text, and Philoponus 219 uses the
expression "body going through body" in the same context. Finally,
passing to a pre-Alexandrian author, we find Plutarch identifying
bodily interpenetration with the theory that body is place, an
equation that he may have derived from a Peripatetic source. 220
Before these connections can be elaborated any further we need
to establish the Aristotelian roots of the whole disjunctive argument
in de mixtione 5 and 6. For although the alternative of bodily
interpenetration through pores is broached in some of the texts just
reviewed its source is still not clear.
215 Phys. 530. 9-30: lines 9-14 = SVF II 467.

218 Phys. 530. 15-16 (8L' &.,pwpu1µtvou auyypiiµµ0t-roc; ... x0tl EV -rorc; {moµv~-
µ0taLv).
217 Phys. 530. 21-22. This corresponds to Alexander Mant. 139. 33-34
which is part of a general critique of bodily interpenetration. There are loose

parallels between Simplicius Phys. 530. 16-19 and Mant. 140. 6-8, Phys. 530.
24-26 and Mant. 140. 4-5, and Phys. 530. 26-30 and Mant. 140. 10-20. This
suggests that the whole of this Alexandrian text (,'14 ant. 139. 29-141. 28) is
an abstract of Alexander's note on Phys. 209a 4-7. Cf. Mant. 127. 27-130. 12,
a critique of vision through light-rays, which has many parallels with texts
in Alexander's commentary on the de sensu; see Bruns's apparatus criticus
where they are collected.
118 Phys. 104. 18-22 (= SVF II 468). Cf. also p. 30, n. 44 above.
219 Phys. 505. 22-23.
220 de comm. not. 37. 1077E: 71'0tpcx -riJv fvvoLiiv ea-rL awµ0t awµ0t-roc; e:Iv0tL -r67t'ov
XIXl awµIX xwperv 8Lcx awµ0t-roc;, xevov µ7J8e-rtpou 7t'epLE)(OV'rOc;-&.AACX -rou 7\'A~pouc;
e!c; -ro 7\'Aljpec; bJ8uoµtvou XIX! 8exoµtvou -ro emµLyvuµevov -rou 8LIXO'rlXO'LV OU)( ~xov-roc;
ou8e )(WplXV ev IXO-rcii 8Lcx 'r~V O'UVE)(ELIXV, ("It is contrary to the general conception
for body to be the place of body and body to go through body with neither
containing void but solid sinking into solid and receiving the body admixed
with it as one without any interval or space in itself because of its conti-
nuity.") Cf. Alexander de mixt. 5. 218. 15-18 and 21-24, both of which
resemble the above and seem to confirm that Plutarch is offering a polemical
redescription of the Stoic theory rather than (as M. Pohlenz, Hermes 74
[1939] 30 implies) a direct report.
Here we need first to examine the second case in which Aristotle

held that a theory entailed that two bodies were in the same place,
that of growth occurring by body. At Physics t:J..7 214b 5-9 he points
out that the void is not necessary for the explanation of growth;
for either two bodies will be in the same place, or the whole of the
body that grows will be void, if indeed growth is through the body
and through void (8ux xe:vou}. 221 Then at de generatione et corruptione
As 321a 6-9 he argues that if growth is either by body or by the
incorporeal, then in the first case there will be two bodies in the
same place, and in the second there will be a separable void. 222
These texts are, I believe, another source of the general disjunction
that we find in de mixtione 5 and 6. In Philoponus' note on the
passage from de generatione et corruptione the argument from
Physics t:J..7 214b 5-9 is used although it is not in the Aristotelian
text, 223 and again, both here and in Alexander's discussion of
growth in de mixtione 16, the void through which growth might
occur is referred to as a pore or a set of void spaces (xe:vcx.). 224 We
can therefore see how by interpreting these Aristotelian texts,
quite naturally, as posing the alternative between growth through
bodily interpenetration or through interstitial pores, 226 com-
281 "For either bodies are not increased at all, or not by body, or it is
possible for two bodies to be in the same place (then they claim to solve a
general difficulty, but do not show that void exists) or the whole body must
be void if it is increased in every part and increased by void." This answers
the earlier argument of proponents of the void that growth occurs through
void as in the case of ash absorbing water (Phys. 213b 18-22), otherwise two
bodies will be in the same place. Cf. de mixt. 220. IO where Alexander, in a
critique of body going through body, refers to the case of ash as one which
does not prove this thesis.
222 "If [it grows] by the incorporeal there will be separable void; but it is
impossible that there be separable matter for a magnitude, as was said ear-
lier." The reference is to 320b 17-25.
223 Cf. Phys. 214b 6-9 ("Either two bodies can be in the same place ...
or the whole body must be void, if it grows throughout and grows through
void.") with Philoponus de gen. et corr. 90. 12-15 (" ... the whole body
that grows [must be] assumed to be a pore, or body [must] pervade body.").
We find the same basic alternative in Alexander's discussion of growth at
de mixt. 16. 234. 23-32.
2 2' See preceding note, and for the expression "void spaces" (xe:vci) see
de mixt. 16. 234. 29. I have discussed elsewhere the extent to which the
discussion of pores both here, and especially in dealing with the theory that
light is a body (see note 246 below), might also have been provoked by
Strato of Lampsacus' theory of interstitial xe:vci; see the Appendix to the
article on Quaest. II. 12 cited above, n. 198.
zu Joachim-presumably relying on the commentators-actually uses this
mentators might be led to generalise the alternatives, and to use

them in other contexts. In de mixtione 5 and 6 they are transferred
to a context in which bodily interpenetration is criticised in com-
pletely general terms, and one which, as we saw, has other roots in
the Aristotelian attack on the theory that body is place. 226
There is one more Aristotelian text to be reviewed before we can
understand fully the origins of the notion of bodily interpenetration
through pores. This is the argument against Empedocles and the
Atomists in de generatione et corruptione AB (at 325b 5-9 and 326b
6-14) 227 that physical interaction (1t0Le;~v and 1tixax,e;Lv) is impossible
through void pores. This complements the alternative of inter-
penetration through the void posed briefly in the two Aristotelian
texts on growth discussed above by providing arguments against
the general notion of bodily interaction through void spaces. These
can be very easily transferred to a context in which simple motion
(xwpe;~v) of body through body is under consideration. Not sur-
prisingly then we find that the arguments against bodily inter-
penetration through pores in de mixtione 5 are clearly dependent
on those from de generatione et corruptione AB, and that in the one
extant commentary on this work Philoponus restates Aristotle's
arguments in this text in terms of a disjunction resembling that of
de mixtione 5 between bodily interpenetration through solids or
through pores. 228
So we see the formation of a scholastic synthesis. Aristotle
occasionally uses the paradox of two bodies occupying the same
place in ad hominem and unsystematically related arguments.
Then in one case, because he is arguing against a specific aspect of
alternative (on de gen. et corr. 321a 5-9). Perhaps Aristotle did imply a theory
of interstitial void in this argument, but of an entirely undefined sort.
228 That such a concept of place is implicit in these texts is clear from de
mixt. 5. 218. 18-21; 6. 219. 22-27.

227 These are, briefly, (a) that pores must be spaces in indivisible bodies
(325b 5-7), since (b) if bodies were completely divisible then there would
only be pores and no intervening solids (325b 7-9); (c) if pores are filled then
they are superfluous (326b 6-10), whereas if they are empty they must con-
tain body since pores so small as to be unable to receive body are incon-
ceivable. (a) and (b) equate Empedocles with Atomism, while (c) is directed
just against the former.
228 This can be shown by comparing (1) de mixt. 218. 33-219. 1 with 326b
6-10; (2) 219. 1-3 with 325b 5-7; and (3) 219. 3-5 with 325b 7-9. Also cf.
the texts in (3) with Phys. 214b 8-9 and Philoponus de gen. et corr. 178. 5-20
(on 326b 6) which is relevant although the commentator does not particu-
larly emphasise here that the pores are void.
the theory of the void, he states the alternative of growth through

body or through the void. In the commentators this becomes a
disjunction between a phenomenon described, in non-Aristotelian
terms, as "body going through body" (o-&µrx ~ux o-wµrxTo<; :x,wp&Lv),
and its occurrence through void pores. This can then be used in
paraphrasing an Aristotelian text, even if Aristotle himself does
not pose the alternative explicitly, as in his discussion of growth, 229
or even hint at it, as in his arguments against interaction ('rtoLeLv /
7t<X.O'X,&LV) through void pores, or in his argument against the view
that light, or soul, is a body. 230 In this way the commentators build
on an Aristotelian foundation to develop a synthesis which allows
for the elaborate paraphrase of Aristotelian texts without serious
distortion. We see, in effect, one technique by which a faithful
exegete can express his originality, even if in a very limited form.
Finally, for future reference, we need to note a further elaboration
that the commentators brought to the paradox of bodily inter-
penetration. This involved two minor additions both based very
probably on the same Aristotelian text, Physics ~6 213b 5-12.
This text cites an argument by proponents of the void that if there
were motion without void then (1) two bodies, or any number of
bodies, could occupy the same place, and (2) a very large body
could occupy the place of a smaller one by being divided into parts
equal to it and, by the first paradox, occupying their place. In
view of the technique of textual synthesis that we have observed
it is not surprising that the commentators use both of these argu-
ments, and particularly the second, to further emphasise the
paradoxicality of two bodies being in the same place. 231 To illustrate
the second paradox they regularly invoke the image of "heaven
being in a millet-seed" that Aristotle used (at Physics ~12 22ra 22)
in a somewhat different argument in his discussion of time, where
2 29 See nn. 221 and 222 above.

230 On light, cf. Philoponus de an. 344. 4-8 and several passages from the
Mantissa (see below, n. 246). This might have been derived from de gen. et
corr. AS 326b 10-14 which transposes the arguments at 326b 5-10 (cf. n. 227
above) to the case of vision; cf. Philoponus ad loc. (de gen. et corr. 179.
15-18) where the expression "body going through body" (awµ(X 3tix awµ(X'l'O\;
xwperv) is used. See also Philoponus de an. 173. 21-26 (on the soul), or Sim-
plicius de caelo 269. 3 (a propos Aristotle on the motion of the elements)
where interpenetration through void is mentioned.
231 See Simplicius Phys. 530. 22-24, de caelo 629. 29-30; Philoponus Phys.
505. 23-27, de an. 343. 34-344. 4. Cf. Alexander de an. 20. 14-15.
he claimed that two things existing contemporaneously are not

"in" one another, otherwise everything would be in anything.
This was a sufficiently similar point for this vivid illustration to
be used of bodies of unequal size being in one another. 232 Its poten-
tial relevance to the Stoic idea that unequal volumes could blend
is very clear and will be demonstrated in detail below.
I hope for the moment to have established that the arguments
of de mixtione 5 and 6 must be regarded as an outgrowth of the
Peripatetic exegetical tradition. Since the same disjunction be-
tween body going through body or through void is to be found in
Alexander's predecessors Plutarch and Sextus Empiricus, 233 we
can assume that this tradition had been established prior to Alex-
ander. Whether it originated after Andronicus' "edition," or in an
earlier period, cannot be determined. Alexander's contribution, at
any rate, must be considered the scholastic achievement of main-
taining this tradition rather than an independent achievement in
Aristotelian scholarship.
Alexander and "Body going through body" (awµ.oc 8Loc awµ.ix-roc; x_wpe~v)
Simplicius, as we saw, reported (at Physics 530. 9-30) that
Alexander dealt independently with the topic of "body going
through body" and considered Stoic materialism in terms of this
paradox. Since all the relevant commentaries of Alexander on the
Aristotelian works in which the paradox of two bodies being in
the same place occurs are lost, his contribution to its elaboration
must be gleaned from his treatises and schooltexts, principally the
Mantissa. 234 The following Alexandrian texts all contain a similar
m On this and the conjoint use of Stoic imagery in such texts see below,
pp. 87-88.
238 Plutarch de comm. not. 37. 1077 E (cf. n. 220 above); Sextus Empiricus
A.M. IX 256-257 (on his date v. Part I, n. 93). Cf. also Pseudo-Galen de qual.
incorp. XIX. 474 K ( = p. 10 Westenberger), a work of uncertain date,
though in view of its general similarities to texts by Alexander and Albinus
(cf. n. 247 below) probably to be dated to the second or early third century
A.D. Its authorship by Albinus, on the basis of a Syrian testimonium, is
argued by E. Orth, Ant. Class. 16 (1947) 113-114.
zu There are problems about the authenticity of this collection as a whole
(cf. above, Pt. I, pp. 18-19). I shall draw evidence from four texts all of
which attack various materialistic theses: (1) "that soul is incorporeal"
(113. 25-u8. 4); (2) "that qualities are not bodies" (122. 16-125. 4); (3)
"that light is not a body" (138. 4-139. 28); (4) "that body cannot pervade
body" (15-rL awµOt 8Lcx awµ0t-ro<; ci8u110t't'O\I 8L"fpmv, 139. 9-141. 28). Of these (4)
is probably derived from Alexander's lost commentary on the Physics (above,
6
set of arguments or assertions employing either the notion that

body goes through body, or that two bodies are in the same place.
(1) de mixtione 5 and 6, Mantissa 139. 29-141. 28, and Quaestiones
II. 12 attack the general notion of body going through body.
(2) de mixtione 16. 234. 24-32 attacks the view that growth occurs
by body, and can thus be considered a gloss on Aristotle Physics
87 214b 3-9, and de generatione et corruptione A5 321a 5-10.
(3) Mantissa II5. 35-II6. 1 and de anima 20. 6-19 (cf. Topics 173.
14-16) deal with the theory that soul is body (cf. Aristotle de
anima 409b 3).
(4) Mantissa 138. 4-139. 28 attacks the view that light is a body
(cf. de anima 418b 13-18).
(5) Mantissa 124. 13-20 (cf. 123. 12-13) attacks the doctrine that
qualities are bodies, a specifically Stoic theory (cf. SVF II 377,
380).
In most of these texts we find the same pattern of argument
that we traced in the preceding section: a given theory is held to
entail that body goes through body, with, in some cases, the added
rider that this interpenetration is impossible through pores. In the
texts previously examined commentators were elucidating Aristote-
lian texts; here however Alexander is dealing with what appear to
be Stoic doctrines cast in the same mould as the materialistic
doctrines Aristotle attacked. We need to measure the effect of a
critique so obviously rooted in different philosophical assumptions
on the presentation of Stoic doctrine.
(1) As we have shown, the arguments in de mixtione 5 and 6 and
some sections of the texts from the Mantissa are clearly derived
from a tradition of Aristotelian scholarship. The argument at
Quaestiones II. 12 against body going through body by compression
(aucrreJJ..r::a6otL) can similarly be shown to be derived from Aristote-
lian sources, with the Stoic theory of total blending entirely con-
tained by its Peripatetic redescription. 235 In none of these texts is
n. 217); (3) has parallels in Philoponus de an., suggesting a source in Alexan-

der's commentary on this work (below, n. 246), and (1) could be related to
the same commentary. (2) is perhaps the most questionable, but it has
parallels within the Mantissa (cf. for example 124. 9-7 with 141. 1-4). Given
the evident unity of theme in these four texts and the above evidence, we
can confidently employ them pending further research on the Mantissa.
235 See my article cited inn. 198 above for the full argument.
"BODY GOING THROUGH BODY"
there any attempt to argue that the Stoic theory must be reducible
to a case of body going through body; it is simply assumed that
this is its essential thesis. As we noted at the end of the preceding
section the basic trend of the ancient criticism of total blending is
to detach it from its place in the Stoic physical system and treat
it as an isolated assertion of a physical paradox. Thus the expression
"body going through body" retains very little of the dynamic
character of the relation between bodies conveyed by the verb "to
extend through" (&v·mtocpe:x-re:lv1m) and related terms, when trans-
posed from the blend of liquids to the case of pneuma's motion
through matter. 236 Among the Aristotelian commentators "body
going through body" means nothing more than that there are
two bodies in the same place, while in Alexander we can find the
verb of going (xwpe:~v) used interchangeably with such verbs as
"to receive" (~exe:0"8ocL) or "to come to be in" (y(ve:0"8ocL ev) 237 that
convey only a minimal sense of motion.
Again, the conception of body on which these polemics rely is
the traditional one of a body as a three-dimensional solid; 238 if
our interpretation is correct, then for the Stoics the total blending
of liquids as an analogically formed conception and not an actual
case of mixture was independent of any theory of body. They could
therefore have invoked the traditional definition of body in char-
acterising relations between intracosmic bodies, while explaining
the motion of body through body in the case of pneuma's motion
through matter in terms of a set of qualitative physical concepts. 239
(2) Alexander's arguments against the view that growth is by
body occur in de mixtione 16. Since this treatise is predominantly
anti-Stoic these might also be considered part of the polemic.
However as they follow the standard pattern of a disjunction
between bodily interpenetration or motion through pores as a gloss
on de generatione et corruptione 321a 6, 240 and since de mixtione 16
238 In the course of de mixt. 5 and 6, at 218. 18 and 219. 23 for example.
Cf. also the use of verbs of motion and extension interchangeably at de mixt.
5. 218. 15-16; see Comm. ad Zoe.
237 See Comm. on de mixt. 5. 218. 17-18 on 8exe:a61xt and for ylve:a60ti iv
Comm. on 6. 219. 23.

238 See de mixt. 6. 219. 16-19 and Comm. on 6. 219. 11-12. This assumption
is of course implicit in the Aristotelian commentators given the nature of
the texts being discussed.
239 Cf. above pp. 47-48.
240 See Comm. on de mixt. 16. 234. 23-32.
as a whole is a restatement of the Aristotelian theory of growth, it

is unlikely that this is so. This chapter is directed against "those
who explain growth by bodily interpenetration" (de mixtione 16.
238. 23), but there is clear evidence to indicate that these could not
have been the Stoics. 241 What we have is a restatement of the
Aristotelian theory of growth in the face of an assumed mate-
rialistic theory, just as de mixtione 13-15 is a restatement of the
Aristotelian theory of mixture in the face of a similar materialist
account of blending. The fact that the latter is clearly Stoic does
not entail that the former is also; for the basic arguments against
bodily interpenetration in de mixtione 5 and 6 are in entirely general
terms, and are reproduced more briefly in similar terms in chapter
16. We have to accept that the de mixtione is a generalised attack
on the notion of "body going through body," one case of which
(total blending) is Stoic, while another (growth by body) is not.
This would be entirely consistent with Alexander's tendency, much
clearer in the ostensibly anti-Stoic de jato, to attack general theses
rather than engage in detailed criticism of the specific doctrines
of an opponent. 242
In the three other cases, (3), (4), and (S) above, where Alexander
introduces the paradox of "body going through body" the Stoics
are clearly the main quarry of his arguments. 243 However there
241 Plutarch (de comm. not. 44. 1083C-D = SVF II 762) describes Chrysip-
pus' solution of the problem of how the identity of an individual is main-

tained throughout growth and diminution-that these processes occur in
a stable quality, while matter is continually unstable. This is comparable
to the Aristotelian doctrine (de gen. et corr. A5) that growth occurs in form
and not matter expounded in de mixt. 16. A. C. Pearson, JP 30 (1907) 2II-
214, who has an excellent discussion of this whole passage, compares the
Alexandrian Quaestiones I. 5, a basic statement of the Aristotelian position
(cf. introductory note to de mixt. 16).
242 On this see also Comm. on de mixt. 16, introductory note.
243 Cf. Mant. n7. 9-10, 21-22 with SVF I 518 and II 790 respectively (on
corporeal soul). Mant. 139. IO-II (on corporeal light) refers to the Stoic
rejection of intra-cosmic void (cf. SVF II 522-524). The attack on the doctrine
of a corporeal soul in terms of the paradox of two bodies being in the same
place, or with reference to the classification of mixtures, or both, can be
widely documented from the Neoplatonist tradition; cf. Calcidius In Tim.
221 ( = pp. 234-5 Waszink), with Waszink's note on 234. 5-6 where references
are gathered and the importance of Alexander's contribution noted. All this
does not mean that total blending was primarily designed as an explanation
of the relation of soul to body (pace Gould, Philosophy of Chrysippus, p. II2
n. 4), only that that relation was generally regarded as the philosophically
are indications of the independent character of his polemic. For

example, the claim that if soul is a body then two bodies will be
in the same place is reproduced and elaborated at de anima 20. 6-19.
But this is certainly no more than a restatement of the point that
Alexander would have made in discussing de anima A5 409b 3,
where Aristotle introduces this paradox. The fact that it could be
used against the Stoics does not make it anti-Stoic in this context.
Much clearer in this regard are the cases where Alexander derives
the paradox of body going through body from the thesis that light
is a body. In one text of the Mantissa this is obviously anti-Stoic, 244
but in another he applies it to the manifestly non-Stoic theory of
vision by light-rays. 246 The fact that Philoponus reproduces several
of these Alexandrian arguments as his commentary on de anima B7
(where Aristotle argues that light is not body), without any anti-
Stoic emphasis, is further indication of their very general char-
acter. 246
Finally (S), the attack on the theory that bodies are qualities
gives us a good insight into the scholastic nature of Alexander's
anti-Stoicism. This text is essentially a Peripatetic version of a
standard critique of the Stoics, other traces of which can be found
in the Pseudo-Galen de qualitatibus incorporeis and Albinos. In
all three the paradox of several bodies being in the same place is
introduced in basically the same way. 247 The autonomy of this
most challenging aspect of the Stoic doctrine of pneuma's motion through

the whole of matter.
244 That explicitly entitled "that light is not body" at Mant. 138. 3-139.
28, part of which is rightly quoted by Von Arnim at SVF II 432.
245 See ]l,fant. 128. 34-129. 1 and 129. 24-32.
246 Two parallels are worth noting: (1) the argument that if light travels
through void pores then there will be a separable void (Mant. 129. 25-26,
139. 9-II, and Philoponus de an. 344. 7-8); (2) if light moves through pores
then there will be a discontinuous pattern of light and dark (Mant. 129. 29-
32, 139. 14-17 and Philoponus de an. 326. 20-26). Both are particular appli-
cations of general arguments against void pores: cf. (1) with de mixt. 5. 218.
24-26 and (2) with de mixt. 5. 219. 1-3, where interpretation through pores is
said ~o result in juxtaposition (mxp&6e:cn~), i.e. a discontinuous series of
bodies.
947 See Mant. 123. 12-13 and Albinus Didask. II, p. 65 Louis; cf. Pseudo-
Galen de qua!. incorp. XIX. 470-471 K (= pp. 7-8 Westenberger). The latter
passage examines the problem of the copresence of several corporeal qualities
in a single body in terms of the tripartite classification of mixtures (juxta-
position, fusion, blending-cf. pp. 49-65 above), and concludes that they
must be fused together in the same place. This seems to be an entirely polem-
notion and its mechanical application to a Stoic doctrine for

polemical purposes is very clear; for neither this theory nor the
theories that soul and light are bodies, could have been formulated
in this completely generalised fashion. Such a presentation over-
looks their systematic relation to other central doctrines of Stoic
physics, principally the doctrine of pneuma. Soul and qualities were
produced by the action of pneuma on passive matter, 248 while
light was almost certainly a case of tensional motion in air, probably
similar to the wave motions that accompanies vision and hearing. 248
It may not be unreasonable for a critic to reduce these theories
to their general characteristics, given the Peripatetic background
we have sketched in, and if, as is quite likely, Stoics themselves
had argued for some of them in highly general terms. 250 But we
must also appreciate how this reduction facilitates the preordained
arguments of their Peripatetic critic, and those of critics outside
the Peripatetic school; and these criticisms must not be confused
with direct reports.
To put this more generally: we need to recognise that just as the
doxographical tradition in ancient philosophy has distorted theories
by cataloguing them under simplified headings, so many of the
ancient opponents of Stoicism (who are unfortunately so often our
sources) employ what we may term a method of hostile doxography
by which simplified versions of Stoic doctrines are made the object
of polemics. It is one example of the operation of this method that
this section has uncovered.
Finally both in Alexander and other critics the reduction of
total blending to the general notion of bodily interpenetration had
ical exercise, and would not sustain Pohlenz' general claim (Die Stoa, I,
72) that the particular purpose of the theory of total blending was to explain
how many qualities would be in one body. All three of the texts cited here
deserve close analysis in the context of a reconstruction of the Stoic doctrine
of quality; the general doctrine "that qualities are bodies," against which
they argue, may well have emerged, like "body going through body," solely
within an anti-Stoic tradition.
m Cf. above, p. 41.
m A vestigium from Plutarch (SVF II 433) refers to air being illuminated
xcn·cx vu~Lv ~ ljiocuaLv ("by agitation or contact"). vu~LC; ("agitation") recalls
the use of vu-r-rea8ocL to describe the agitation of the air in vision (SVF II 866,
p. 233. 29-30).
no Cf. for example the very general arguments for the corporeality of the
soul at SVF II 790, 791, and I. 518. There is, however, no clear evidence of
such arguments for the case of body going through body.
its effect on polemics against the view that mixture could involve
the extension of a small volume through a very large one; for if
mixture is regarded as interpenetration, then the paradox of this
process would be its reversibility. It is exactly this argument that
we find used against the Stoics by Alexander in the Mantissa,
where he reiterates an argument found also in Sextus, and partly
echoed by Plutarch, that ridicules this reciprocal mixture of
unequal quantities by giving them a unit value, so that a small
quantity can be said to be equal to a larger, and vice-versa. 251
The Aristotelian roots of this argument would seem to be evident
from the commentators' use of the argument (attributed to pro-
ponents of the void at Physics Ll6 213b 5-12) that if solids inter-
penetrate then a very large body will occupy the place of a very
small one. 252 This could easily be adapted to meet the Stoic claim
that mixture was in fact the opposite process, and converted into
a new counter-claim that Stoic mixture involved both processes.
Later commentators, probably copying Alexander, certainly used
the example of the mixture of liquids to illustrate the mixture of
a very large with a very small body, taking the image of wine
pervading the sea used by the Stoics and making it part of their own
general arguments against body going through body. 253 Philoponus
actually employs this originally anti-Stoic argument that a recip-
rocal mixture of liquids will occur between unequal quantities if
m Cf. 1\fant. 141. 9-16 with Sextus Empiricus P.H. III. 60-61 and
Plutarch de comm. not. 37. rn78A-B. The latter deals only with the blending
of a small with a large volume, although at rn78E-F he refers in general
terms to the opposite process, the compression of many bodies into one.
Alexander's critique also shows signs of being influenced by more abstract
arguments against the contact of part with whole: cf. Mant. 141. 16-19 with
Sextus Empiricus A.M. IX. 261. Mant. 140. I0-24 and 141. 19-22 are more
general arguments against "reciprocal" blending. These particular argu-
ments could well have originated in the sceptical tradition (cf. n. 200 above)
and have been grafted onto the Peripatetic arguments against "body going
through body."
252 Discussed at pp. 80-81 above.
263 At Mant. 140. 22-23 the image of a cup of wine mixing with the sea
is used. In the commentators this image is so common that the expression

"the sea in a cup" (~ 8ixA0taa0t EV xuix0<t>) is used along with that of "heaven
in a millet seed" (o oupocvo~ EV -iii xenp<t>), derived from Aristotle Phys . .:l12
221a 22 (cf. above, p. So); see Simplicius Phys. 530. 24, de caelo 629. 30,
Philoponus Phys. 505. 24-25, de an. 344. 4; cf. Pseudo-Galen de qual. incorp.
XIX. 473 K (p. 9. 14-15 Westenberger), and Calcidius In Tim. 221 (p. 235.
3-4 Waszink).
body goes through body, 254 but presents it as a support for the
Aristotelian text (Physics 209a 4-7) in which the paradox of two
bodies being in the same place is said to be entailed by the theory
that place is body. The Stoics have been forgotten, but a polemic
against them continues latent in Aristotelian exegesis. 255
254 Phys. 506. 2-14. That is, it employs the standard arguments referred
to in n. 251 above.
116 Another example of this is the reappearance of Alexander's general
critique of the Stoic theory of presentation (cpixv't'ixa(ix) at de an. 68. 12-18 in
Byzantine commentaries-cf. Michael Parv. Nat. (CAG XXIl-1) 3. 7-16,
and Sophonias (Ps.-Themistius) Paro. Nat. (CAG V-6) 4. 25-31.
PART THREE
THE DE MIXTIONE
INTRODUCTION
The de mixtione is undoubtedly an authentic work by Alexander

of Aphrodisias. Themistius refers to it by title in his commentary
on Aristotle's Physics as a work which attacks the notion of body
going through body (o-wµex 8ux o-wµex-roc; XCupe:!v), 1 and Simplicius,
as we have seen, must also have been referring to it in mentioning
a "separate treatise" in which Alexander dealt with this topic. 9
Alexander himself may have had it in mind when in a text in
Simplicius' commentary on the de caelo he refers to a more extensive
critique of the Stoic doctrine of pneuma, possibly de mixtione 10. 3
Detailed evidence of its relation to other Alexandrian works, both
in its content and in the use of certain terms and expressions, will
emerge in the commentary.
In its superficial structure our treatise is similar to those Aristote-
lian works or portions of works in which predecessors' views are
described and criticised before a theory is stated. Thus after an
introductory chapter in which the anti-Stoicism of the work is
announced and theories of mixture are related to theories of matter,
it passes to an exposition and critique of the Atomist and Epicurean
theories of blending (2), a description of the Stoic theory and its
supporting proof (3-4), a lengthy critique of this theory (5-12)
including a digression on its ramifications in the theories of pneuma
and God (10-u), and finally an exposition of the Aristotelian
theory of blending (13-15). The final chapter sixteen on the Aristote-
lian theory of organic growth is by way of an appendix.
Commentary. The underlying complexity of this structure will

be examined in the commentary; the outline preceding the trans-
lation is only intended to help the reader follow the general argu-
ment of the treatise. The other main object of the commentary will
be to provide a complement to the two preliminary essays. In the
case of chapters three to twelve this means reinforcing the analysis
of Alexander's presentation and critique of the Stoic theory of
total blending offered in sections ii and iii of Part II by examining
1 Phys. rn4. 18-22.
2 Phys. 530. 14-16; see above, p. 77.
3 de caelo 286. 23.
92 DE MIXTIONE
the numerous detailed issues irrelevant to the main themes of that

essay. In particular I have tried to set this text in the perspectives
of the Aristotelian works that were Alexander's ultimate authorities,
of the contribution of other authors-especially critics of Stoicism-
who dealt with the same topics, and finally of other works in the
Alexandrian corpus. This is designed to be a contribution more to
our knowledge of the source material for Stoic physics than to the
full interpretation of the doctrines discussed in these chapters.
This is particularly true of the commentary on chapters ten and
eleven which would anyway not be the place to reconstruct such
complex doctrines as the Stoic theories of principles, elements,
God, and pneuma. With a few exceptions it does not elaborate the
reconstruction of the Stoic theory of mixture offered in Part II.
Finally, in dealing with chapters thirteen to sixteen I try to indicate
the methods by which Alexander's scholasticism operated in the
exposition of Aristotelian doctrine: this will provide some detailed
support for the general picture of his scholastic achievement
offered in Part I.
In preparing this part of the work I have been greatly assisted
by Dr. Rex's dissertation, the first part of which analyses the de
mixtione in detail. However, since he explicitly disavows any
attempt to set this treatise in the context of other source material
for Stoic physics,' and neglects other Alexandrian material, I have
not found it helpful to refer to it extensively in a commentary
founded on such different principles.
Translation. This is, I believe, the first complete translation of

the de mixtione into English; Sambursky (Physics of the Stoics,
pp. 120-122) translated only a few passages. Part of chapter
fourteen was put into French by Moraux (Alexandre d'Aphrodise,
pp. 40-41), and the first complete translation into a modern lan-
guage was into German by Friedemann Rex in his Frankfurt
dissertation of 1966. There were three translations into Latin in
the sixteenth century. The most widely circulated was that by
Angelus Caninius, first published at Venice in 1546; I have con-
sulted a copy of the third edition of 1555. 6 All these translations
4 Chrysipps Mischungslehre, p. 22.

5 See F. E. Cranz, Catalogus Translationum, I, 113-n4 on these transla-
tions. He lists one other published translation by Jacob Schegck (Tiibingen,
1540), which was also known to Bruns, and one available only in manuscript
INTRODUCTION 93
appear to have been based on the Aldine edition of 1527 or a closely

related manuscript. 6
It would be too much to hope that a translation of a work such
as the de mixtione could be entirely readable, but I have tried, as
far as possible, to achieve an accuracy that is not directly literal.
The major constraint that I have placed on myself has been to
translate the considerable amount of technical or specialised
terminology in the treatise in a consistent form. The glossary of
terms indicates the equivalents that, with a few unavoidable
exceptions, have been adopted.
Texts and Editions. The following manuscripts contain the

complete text of the de mixtione; I cite them with Bruns's sigla.
A = Venetus Marcianus Gr. 257 Zanetti, 13th-14th century

B = Taurinensis C. I. 15, 16th century
C = Vaticanus Gr. 1302, 16th century
L = Escoraliensis X. I. 11, 16th century
P = Parisinus Gr. 2028, 16th century
R = Parisinus Gr. 1848, 16th century
S = Parisinus Gr. 2540, 16th century
Before Bruns' critical edition of 1892 there had been two printed
editions of the de mixtione. The Aldine edition of 1527 (abbreviated
"a" in the apparatus) appears to have been based on the same
source as R, 7 and it in turn served as the sole basis of J. Ideler's
text of 1836 8 which did, however, include a number of valuable
emendations. For his critical edition Bruns personally collated
only A, B, P and C, and depended on A. Elter's reports of Rand S.
He also had a report of the beginning of L. His brief analysis of
this material led him to posit A as the archetype although he did
form by Gaspar Gabriel of Padua made between 1541 and 1543. Also cf.
Cranz's interesting discussion of the weltanschauung of some of these Re-
naissance translators at Amer. Philos. Soc. 102 (1958) 510-546. It should be
noted that Schegck's translation occurs as a complement to an essay entitled
de causa continente in which Alexander's critique of the Stoics is discussed
with reference to Galen's treatment of their theory of causes. It is perhaps
the earliest piece of scholarship on the de mixtione.
8 See Bruns, SA II-ii, Praef. p. xxxviii and Montanari, Atti dell'Accademia
Toscana 36 (1971) 29-30.

7 ) See Montanari, op. cit., pp. 33-35, 50.
8 ) In Aristotelis Meteorologica Vol. II, Leipzig 1836, at pp. 589-624.
94 DE MIXTIONE
not develop a detailed stemma. 9 In particular he did not define

clearly the relation between A and R; while recognising that the
latter showed signs of independence he still thought that it was
probably a copy of A. 10 Only recently have all the manuscripts
been described and thoroughly collated by Elio Montanari who has
severely criticised Bruns' analysis and has formulated a stemma
in which A represents a subordinate part of the tradition. 11 Briefly,
Montanari shows that both A and L on the one hand, and R and a
on the other, are separately derived from different sources each
of which are in turn separately derived from the common source
of all our manuscripts. Montanari also introduces for the first time
a fourteenth century manuscript containing most of the last four
chapters of the de mixtione, 229. 13-238. 23, Riccardianus Gr. 63
(his F). This was first described by H. Vitelli after the publication
of Bruns' edition, 12 and is of particular importance as the only
direct copy of the common source of our manuscripts.
The new critical edition to which Montanari's paper looks for-
ward will not be published for some time and my translation and
commentary must therefore be founded on Bruns' edition. His text
naturally followed A for the most part; I have counted only about
thirty places where he accepts the reading in R or other manuscripts.
On the basis of Bruns' admittedly second-hand reports I disagree
with his adjudications at 233. 1718 and 235. 24. He also incor-
porated over eighty emendations in his text and in preparing my
translation and commentary I have found it necessary to increase
this number to over two hundred: In the circumstances I have
decided that the most useful apparatus to accompany my text
would be one listing all these changes; this will enable the reader
to see where I have deviated from what is still the standard text,
and to see where the text as a whole deviates from readings in the
manuscripts.
Apart then from the places where I have altered Bruns' text in
the light of Montanari's reports of the previously neglected F, and
9 Bruns, Praef. pp. xxxvi-xxxviii.

1o Bruns, Praef. p. xxxviii.
11 Op. cit. note 6 above; see especially pp. 50 and 55-58.
12 See Montanari, op. cit. note 6 above, pp. 26-28, and Vitelli at Studi
Italiani di Filologia Classica 3 (1895) 379-381.

18 See note on the text ad loc. For examples of the deficiencies in Bruns'
knowledge of R see Montanari, op. cit. p. 44.
INTRODUCTION 95
a few other special cases, my apparatus will contain the emendations

of various scholars. Apart from my own contributions I have, like
Bruns, included some by Ideler, H. Diels, E. Schwartz, and
notably 0. Apelt. 14 In several places I have preferred conjectures
made by Bruns himself or these other scholars that are reported
in his apparatus but not included in the text; these are all specifical-
ly introduced by "coni." In addition I have drawn on subsequent
discussions of the text by Rodier, who offered a number of correc-
tions to Ideler's edition, 15 Von Arnim in Stoicorum Veterum Frag-
menta Volume II, 16 A. Brinkmann,1 7 and by Dr. Rex and Dr.
Matthias Schramm in the former's recent dissertation. Unless
otherwise indicated, it may be assumed that an emendation listed
is included in Bruns's text. I have not, it should be noted, attempted
to compile a complete repertorium of alternative emendations,
except for most of the editor's own. Those changes that seemed
to require a more detailed defence or explanation than could be
provided in the apparatus are discussed in a separate set of notes;
it is to these that "v. infra" in the apparatus will refer. Inevitably
I have been selective in compiling these since it has not been
my overall purpose to provide a full linguistic commentary.
All this is naturally no substitute for the new critical edition
that Montanari has shown to be necessary. I hope nonetheless that
this interim presentation of the text may be some contribution
to the criticism of a text that abounds in minor difficulties. Many
of my emendations are naturally an off-shoot of my commentary
and the preliminary studies, and reveal the importance of reading
Alexander's text in the light of his Aristotelian and other sources,
of other works in his corpus, and of course of the internal char-
acteristics of the de mixtione. No text of the de mixtione can fail to
be illuminated from these sources and I shall be satisfied to have
brought some of them to the forefront. 18
u Most of Apelt's were published at Philologus 45 (1886) 82-99; those of

the others were communicated privately to Bruns.
a Revue de Philologie 17 n.s. 1 (1893) 10-13.
18 See the list of quotations of the de mixtione in SVF at p. 253 below.
17 RM 57 (1902) 488-491. See the apparatus at 226. 33a-34.
18 For emendations based on Aristotelian precedents see 219. 30, 222. 9,
234. 20 (F's reading), 235. 30, 237. 1-2, 11; for others supported by parallels
in the Alexandrian corpus see 215. 22, 218. 15, 219. 10-11, 224. 25, 226. 13,
235. 30; and for some derived from internal considerations see 213. 4, 216. 3,
218. 28,222.9, 228. 3, 23~ I~ 234. 2~ 237. 24.
96 DE MIXTIONE
Finally I would note the following abbreviations used in the

apparatus: "codd." will refer only to those manuscripts that
Bruns used, his "libri," and thus excludes both L and F; "A 1 "
used in a few places refers to A as corrected by the original scribe,
and "A2" to this manuscript as corrected by a later hand; "Br."
abbreviates Bruns himself. It should also be noted that as a result of
emendation my page and line numbers do not correspond exactly to
those of Bruns in some places; see 213. 14-15, 222. 18-19, 224. 14-27,
226. 33-34, 229. 21-22, 231. 28-232. 15, 233. 16-234. 1, and 234.
20-24.
ANALYTICAL OUTLINE
1. Introduction: The problem of blending

213. 2-13. Total blending involves bodies preserving their own
character and being separable; this is much more paradoxical than
saying that bodies are separable but not totally mixed.
213. 13-214. ro. Hence the notion of body going through body is
as problematic as any theory of blending. For not only is there
disagreement on this point between those who hold that matter is
unified and those who believe that it is composed of separate
bodies (the latter's views are summarised [213. 18-214. 6]) but also
among proponents of each theory.
214. ro-16. This is because of the inherent difficulty in formulating
a satisfactory explanation of the simple fact of mixture.
2. Democritus' and Epicurus' theory of blending

214. 16-18. The review of the more significant theories of mixture
begins.
214. 18-28. Democritus, like those who make the uniform bodies
principles, thinks that mixture is really the juxtaposition of cor-
puscles; only through the weakness of our perception does it seem
to be a homogeneous blend.
214. 28-215. 8. Epicurus avoided this by holding that mixture is
the juxtaposition of the atoms of which compounds are formed,
thus conflating mixture with passing-away (of bodies into atoms)
and coming-to-be (of atoms into the blend).
215. 8-22. These theories offend the two main assumptions about
mixture-homogeneity, and the preservation of their character by
the constituents. Juxtaposition does not create a homogeneous
blend, and a reduction of constituents to qualityless atoms means
that they lack an identifiable character.
215. 22-23. Those who hold that bodies are composed of planes
follow the Epicurean theory of blending.
7
98 DE MIXTIONE
215. 23-32. The worthlessness of theories of mixture as juxta-

position makes further examination of their various forms un-
necessary. The object of this work is not a detailed disquisition,
but an attempt to discover what theory of mixture conforms with
our "perceptions and common preconceptions."
3. The Stoic theory of total blending
216. 1-4. The theories of mixture held by those who believe that
matter is unified are taken up.
216. 5-14. Of these, the Stoics are the principal theorists. Despite
doctrinal differences as a result of Aristotle's influence, Chrysippus'
theory of mixture is the most widely accepted.
216. 14-217. 2. Chrysippus' theory is that pneuma unifies sub-

stance by totally pervading it, and that in it mixtures can be
classified as juxtaposition, fusion, or blending.
217. 2-9. This classification depends on the common notions which

are the natural standards of truth. The product of each mixture
has a different sense-presentation which indicates that they result
from a different process.
217. 9-13. Blending is the complete mutual coextension of con-

stituents, not their juxtaposition.
4. Proofs for the Stoic theory of total blending
217. 13-32. The theory of total blending relies on commonplace

observations that through a cooperative agency bodies may behave
in a manner that would be impossible for them when alone. This
supports the theory that bodies of disparate magnitudes may be
totally mixed while preserving their own qualities, and the phe-
nomenon of the measure of wine mixing with a large amount of
water.
217. 32-218. IO. Clear evidence of this can be seen in the soul-
body relation, and parallel relations among plants and inanimate
bodies; in the relation between elements of differing density;
and in the presence of fire in iron, light in air, and drugs in
bodies.
ANALYTICAL OUTLINE 99
5. Total blending and "body going through body":

(i) interpenetration through pores
218. ro-15. Though the Stoics claim to base their theories on general
conceptions they neglect them completely, particularly in the case
of their theory of total mixture.
218. 15-24. That theory offends the natural conception that one
solid cannot receive another in it. Since this could only occur if
there were place and a solid has no place in it, it is ludicrous.
218. 24-219. 9. Nor can this penetration be through pores or empty
spaces. If they are filled with another body either (1) it will be
displaced, in which case penetration will not occur (218. 26-29);
or (2) it will be an immovable body unable to receive another body
in it (218. 29-33); but (3) if penetration occurred through filled
pores, this would make them superfluous (218. 33-219. 1). In
general mixture through pores does not produce a blend but only
a juxtaposition of bodies, unless the whole body penetrated were
a pore. But this is ludicrous, since a pore is a void interval in a
continuous body, and body that is a total pore would be non-
existent (219. 1-9).
6. Total blending and "body going through body":

(ii) interpenetration through solids
219. 9-22. Bodily interpenetration contravenes the principle that
when two bodies are compounded an increase occurs.
219. 22-220. II. (1) If two bodies interpenetrate then the place
occupied by the penetrating body will be left void (219. 22-28).
(2) The penetrating body is not even a body if it is not in its own
place, nor in that of the receiving body (219. 28-32). (3) The
receiving body is not a body because it can only receive a body in
the spaces between divisions in it, and these are not corporeal
(219. 32-220. 3). So the receptivity of body by body entails no
increase in the size of the receptive body; but this never occurs
in the case of the mixture of bodies. Where there is no increase on
compounding, two bodies are not involved, as in the case of
matter and form (e.g. soul and body), or quality and body
(220. 3-II).
100 DE MIXTIONE
220. n-13. Again, if body penetrates body, there is no longer need

of mutual replacement.
220. 13-23. The total blending of bodies of unequal volume is
absurd, and is not supported by the phenomenon of heated
incense.
7. Total blending as either juxtaposition or fusion
220. 23-29. While bodily interpenetration offends general concep-

tions, even more so does the claim that in a mixture bodies preserve
their original qualities while being totally mixed.
220. 29-35. This claim is the basis of the distinction between
blending and fusion; on it depend the notions of total blending
and of the separability of the constituents.
220. 35-221. 15. But there is no alternative between juxtaposition
and fusion for the Stoic theory: either the constituents of a blend
are preserved in their original condition and therefore juxtaposed
(220. 25-221. 7); or they are totally destroyed, and thus blended
and fused (221. 7-n). And if they are fused they cannot be sep-
arated from the blend (221. n-15).
221. 15-25. So if total mixture is to result in a unified blend, the
constituents cannot be preserved; for a unified body has a single
State, and the constituents forming it must be inseparable; yet we
see that constituents are separable, and so this consequence too is
unacceptable.
8. Total blending and the divisibility of bodies
221. 25-222. 3. If blending occurs through the constituents dividing

one another, then if any bodies are left over in the division they
will not be totally blended but once again juxtaposed (221. 28-34),
while if nothing is left undivided division will have terminated in
incorporeal divisions from which the constituents cannot be com-
posed (221. 34-222.3).
222. 4-6. But if they say that bodies are divided to infinity, then as
a complete and actual division of a body this cannot explain total
mixture through bodies being divided into actual sets of infinite
parts.
ANALYTICAL OUTLINE IOI
222. 6-13. For if they claim that infinite division is simply an

unending process this will not explain total mixture, since there will
always be a residue of undivided bodies,
222. 13-17 but rather to explain total mixture bodies must be
completely divided into actual infinite sets of parts,
222. 17-22 and if these parts have physical size each constituent
will be infinitely large, since the sum of an infinite number of bodies
is an infinite body-and each of these parts will also be infinitely
large,
222. 22-26 unless the parts of the completely divided bodies are
not bodies (they cannot be indivisible bodies), in which case the
constituents will be bodies that are not composed of bodies.
9. Total blending and the relation between matter and form

222. 26-222. 35. Our preconception of mixture-that the con-
stituents be separable as self-subsistent bodies-cannot be applied
to relations such as those of soul and body, light and air, Nature
and plants, State and inanimate bodies; for enmattered form can-
not be separated from matter and bodies.
222. 35-223. 6. Fire is not mixed with iron or any material; for
since primary matter is not mixed with form, only matter, qua
material of the fire, is destroyed by it and loses its form, while
primary matter is indestructible.
ro. The Stoic doctrine of pneuma

223. 6-17. By failing to recognise the ordering power of the fifth
body on the cosmos, the Stoics attribute its unity to the pervasion
of it by a material force, pneuma.
223. 17-19. Now the doctrine of pneuma employs the doctrine of
body going through body, but more importantly is false for other
reasons:
223. 20-27. No actual pneuma (air) could be contained within
bodies; if it were, it would soon be expelled.
223. 27-30. Pneuma only unifies, while bodies are both continuous
and discontinuous.
102 DE MIXTIONE
223. 30-34. Pneuma's function of unifying individual bodies, and

causing sympathy between them, is best divided between form on
the one hand, and primary matter and the action of the heavenly
bodies on the other.
223. 34-224. 6. What is pneuma's unifying tension, when it is itself
so materially tenuous that it acquires force only by being acted
on by another body?
224. 6-14. The notion of a single unifying force is ludicrous when
some bodies can be decomposed and divided.
224. 14-22. If composed of fire and air, pneuma is neither a simple
body, nor composite if its constituents depend for their existence
on it.
224. 23-24. How can pneuma be a compound of the Hot and the
Cold?
224. 24-27. The tensional motion of pneuma as a simultaneous
motion in opposite directions is inconceivable.
II. The Stoic doctrine of God

224. 27-32. The Stoics do not distinguish form and matter, but
conflate the roles of both in their doctrine of pneuma.
224. 32-225. 4. Also for the Stoics, God and matter are both material
principles, the former totally mixing with the latter and structuring
it. The following criticisms thus apply:
225. 4-5. This involves body going through body.
225. 5-18. God must either be a simple body, or compound, or a
fifth body. If a simple body or a compound He would have to
pervade matter before being created in order to create Himself.
But as such He would also have to be dependent on matter; being
so created God would only be eternal in name.
225. 19-226. IO. The Stoic argument that God pervades matter
because natural bodies have an internal structure (225. 19-27) can
be shown to be invalid by a review of the main examples of natural
causation, where a creator is always external (225. 28-226. 10).
226. 10-16. If God is the form of matter, then matter cannot be
formless.
226. 16-24. If God is the form of matter at the time of the con-
flagration then his form will change when fire changes into other
bodies. And if this change is caused by God, he will be self-destruc-
tive, which is ludicrous.
226. 24-30. The picture of God as an active creator of the most
insignificant bodies is unworthy of our preconception of him.
226. 30-33b (+ 227. 23-25). Ifbodiesthataremixedarereciprocally
active and passive, then God will be acted on by matter.
12. "Body going through body": concluding criticisms

226. 34-227. 10. The preceding critique dealt with a challenge to
the Aristotelian doctrine of the fifth body. The Stoics do not
understand that the origin of their most important doctrines is
in the notion of body going through body; it underlies all the
aspects of their doctrine of God-fate, providence, the active and
passive principles, and the unity and interrelatedness of the cosmos.
227. 10-17. The theory of body going through body takes its sup-
port from an apparently obvious phenomenon like the heating of
iron by fire, which the Stoics describe as the penetration of one
body by another.
227. 17-228. 4. This explanation of the phenomenon can be criticised
on the following grounds: (1) How can the fire be present in the
iron if it has no support? (227. 17-22). (2) It cannot be supported
by its own matter, because no ashes are found in the iron (227. 22-
30). (3) It must be separated from its own matter, and supported
by the moisture present in the iron itself, until that runs out (227.
30-228. 4).
13. The Aristotelian theory of blending:
(i) constituents of blends, types of mixture, conditions for blending,
the interaction of the elements
228. 5-10. Only the Aristotelian theory of mixture can provide an
adequate response to the illogical theories previously discussed.
228. 10-25. The constituents of any mixture must be substances,
and for this reason they are separable. Qualities, and forms, are
inseparable from substances, and therefore not mixed. These sub-
stances are physical bodies.
DE MIXTIONE
228. 25-229. 3. The terminology of mixture is applied according to

the following di/f erentiae:
Mixture
Compounding Blending
of unlikes; but the compoun- the unification of malleable,
ding of like with like is not wet, and dissimilar bodies; the
mixture. blending of like with like or of
dissimilar incompatibles is not
mixture.
229. 3-21. Blending only occurs among bodies that can act and
be acted on by one another. This requires that they share in the
same matter, and be mutual opposites.
229. 21-30. Opposites act and are acted on not only at their ex-
tremes, but at points between the extremes, for they have the same
form as the extremes. In general, all such interaction of opposites
depends on their sharing in the same matter, while differing only
in forms and accidental qualities.
229. 30-230. 13. The differing qualities of the four elements make
it possible for them to change into one another. A change occurs
when one opposite dominates another, and its form supervenes on it.

(ii) the difference between blending and coming-to-be and passing-
away
230. 14-20. Since blending is a form of dissolution different from
coming-to-be and passing-away (for the constituents are preserved
throughout the process), this difference needs to be explained.
230. 20-26. Though both occur with matter as a base, in blending
there is not total change from one contrary to another, as in coming-
to-be and passing-away.
230. 26-34. In blending neither constituent supervenes on the
other, but there is a balance in their powers, which leads to the
unification of their matter, and the creation of a single quality
from these powers.
230. 34-231. r. Blending only occurs among moist bodies, or
bodies accompanied by moisture; these lose their shape and are
easily unified.
231. 1-231. IO. Blending therefore requires bodies (1) to be unified

in matter, (2) juxtaposed because of their moistness, and (3) have
equally balanced powers. Under these conditions, neither constit-
uent will supervene, and only blending will occur.
231. 10-12. Blending may be defined as the unification of juxta-

posed bodies that are altered but not destroyed.
(iii) the separability of constituents from a blend
231. 12-29. Moist bodies are easily mixed, since they are easily
divisible, and the blend is a single body with the constituents
present in it in potentiality. Therefore the recovery of the con-
stituents is an easily effected change, being neither absolute coming-
to-be, nor the recovery of the original constituents (in that case
they would only have been juxtaposed).
231. 29-232. 18. Such recovery of the constituents of a blend is

illustrated as follows: As cheese and whey are recovered from the
uniform compound milk when a heated stone is immersed in it,
so is water from wine by a sponge dipped into the mixture; the
constituents are not separate parts of the mixture, but are recovered
from the whole of it (231. 29-232. 5). Similarly as, on fermentation,
sugar can be decomposed into air and wine, though air could not
be actually present in any liquid, so this sort of change occurs
when constituents are separated from a blend (232. 5-13). Thus,
as in these cases there is only a slight change when the constitu-
ents are separated from the blend with the help of some small
factor, and not a change into an opposite state, so this is the
type of change that occurs with the constituents of any blend
(232. 13-18).
232. 18-31. The separation of constituents from a blend can be

distinguished from both the separation of juxtaposed bodies and
the separation that occurs when there is coming-to-be and passing-
away, as when air is separated from water. It falls between these
cases, for the constituents are in potentiality in a blend, and regain
the actuality they lost when they cancelled each other out on being
blended.
106 DE MIXTIONE
232. 31-233. 2. If this is true, and if the previous arguments con-

form with the facts and general assumptions about blending,
Aristotle's theory will be the only correct one.
233. 2-14. The process of blending can be perceived when con-
stituents differ in colour and in density.
16. The Aristotelian theory of organic growth and "body going

through body"
233. 14-24. The Aristotelian doctrine of growth and nutrition needs
to be described, since some have tried to explain growth by the
theory of body going through body.
233. 24-30. The discussion will be confined to organisms with a
nutritive faculty. Their characteristics must be described as a basis
for the discussion.
233. 30-234. 15. The candidates for growth are bodies which absorb
food from outside themselves proportionately in all their parts,
and remain stable throughout the process. This rules out both
mixture, and coming-to-be and destruction as examples of growth.
The body that grows must be stable and must retain its nutritive
faculty; thus the food that causes growth does not itself grow.
234. 15-32. Growth must either occur by a corporeal or incorporeal
addition to a body. But both are impossible; the incorporeal,
because growth cannot occur through something that does not
occupy place; body, because this involves a complete bodily inter-
penetration. The latter cannot be saved by claiming that penetra-
tion occurs through empty spaces in the body that grows unless
the whole of the body, which must grow in all its parts, is held to
be empty.
234. 32-235. 14. The bodies that grow must be precisely defined:
they are the uniform parts of bodies, and all growth in the non-
uniform parts is dependent on their growth. Since growth only
occurs in stable bodies, the uniform parts must be stable.
235. 14-236. 5. A uniform part is a compound of matter and form.
If it grows to the extent that it is stable, it must grow with respect
to its form, which remains numerically the same, while its matter is
different on different occasions.
236. 6-236. 26. The actual process of growth involves nutriment

being assimilated by pre-existent flesh, and preserving the body
when it is less than, or equal to, the deteriorating matter of the
flesh, but increasing it when it is greater than this.
236. 26-237. 5. The central factor in the process of growth is that
the body receiving food preserves its shape intact throughout,
even though the space occupied by the body is different as a result
of the even distribution of nutriment through its parts.
237. 5-238. 10. Illustrations of this: As the earth preserves its
spherical shape and central position after the addition of a larger
body, because that body is distributed throughout its mass, so do
uniform parts maintain their shape through the even distribution
of nutriment (237. 5-20). The non-uniform parts have their shapes
preserved in exactly the same way as those of the uniform parts
(237. 20-25). This process can be compared with the case of liquid
moving along a channel and preserving its shape, though its
quantity may vary from time to time; it is the stable form (the
shape of the channel) that can be said to increase and decrease,
while the matter (the varying quantities of liquid) is different on
different occasions (237. 25-238. 10).
238. 10-17. Nourishment is not the assimilation of food followed
by its absorption: the two occur simultaneously.
238. 17-20. Nourishment is like water being made into wine as it
is poured in, or like fire acting on combustible bodies.
238. 20-23. Thus the theory of growth outlined here does not
support the absurd doctrine of body going through body.
213 AAEEANaPOY A<llPOaU:IEQ~ IIEPI KPA~En~ KAI
AYEH~EQ~
r * * * 1twc; o' ocv 1tocpocoe~ocL"C'6 "t'Lc; "C'o ev TTi "C'OLotUTfl x.pocGe:L "t'wv Gwµ.oc"t'wv
EX.otG"C'OV "C'WV X.LpvotFVWV !pUl\ot"C'"C'&LV oUVotGeotL TI)V OLX.ELotV E7tL!potVELotV,
d - ,./. "). I '1-1 I > / > / <
we;
oµ.ou µ.e:v (L'YjOE: "C'O "C'U"/.OV otU"C'WV µ.6pLOV e:!votL ["C'E] x.oc0' otU"C'O x.e:y_wpLGµ.evov
5 0ot"C'epou, oµ.ou oe: !pUAIX"C"'C'ELV &X.otG"C'OV otU"C'WV "C'YJV E7tL!plXVELotV "C'YJV &otU"C'OU,
~v e:!xe: x.ocl. 1tpo -rijc; x.poc<1e:wc;; "C'OU"C'O ycxp U7tEpotLpEL x.otl. "t'CXc; ev "C'OLc; µ.u0oLc;
7totpotOO~OAOytotc;, 8 "C'L0'YjGL XpuGL7t7tOc; l>GOV ev "C'OU"C'CJ) ["C'O] OUVotG0otL "C'CX X.E-
x.potµ.evot xwpL~EG0otL 7tlXALV, "C'OU "C'E ycxp A&YELV ouvotG0otL xwpL~e:G0otL "C'CX
x.e:x.potµ.evot, <XAACX x.ocl. "C'OU (L'YjO' l>Awc; X.LpviiG0otL "C'LVot OUVotG0otL A£YELV µ.ot-
10 x.pij> 7totpotoo~6"t'e:pov x.ocl. 7totpcx "t'cxc; OC7tlXV"C'WV EVVOLotc; "C'O A&yELV oµ.ou µ.e:v
OL' l>AWV (XAA~AWV xwpe:'i:v "C'LVot GW(Lot"C'ot, we; (L'YjOE:V otU"C'WV µ.6pLOV e:lvotL x.ot0'
otU"C'6, oµ.ou o' &X.otG"C'OV otU"C'WV U7t0 -rijc; otx.e:lotc; emi:potVELotc; 7tEpLey_e:G0otL,
ui:p' ~c; 7tEpLELXE"t'O x.ocl. 1tpo -rijc; µ.t~e:wc;.
T6 TE o;5v ac7lµa. 8uX. a6lµcx.Toc;

<y_wpe:'i:v> ouoe:µ.wc; EAIX"C"'C'W OLoti:popcxv ey_e:Lv GU(L~€~'YjX.E "C'WV X.ot"C'CX !pLAOGO!pLotV
15 ooyµ.oc"C'WV x.otl. "C'WV 1te:pl. µ.(~e:wc; "C'E x.otl. x.poc<1e:wc; Mywv. OU ycxp µ.6vov OL'YjV&-
x0'YjGotV 1tpoc; <XAA~AOUc; 1te:pl. "C'OUOE "C'OU o6yµ.ot"t'Oc; OL µ.tocv UA'YjV U7tOX.e:'i:G0otL
7t0CGL "C'o'i:c; ev ye:vfoe:L GW(LotGLV A&)'OV"t'Ec; 7tpoc; "C'ot>c; ex. OLWpLGµ.evwv "C'E x.otl.
x.e:xwpLG(J.&VWV GW(LIX"C'WV 7t0LOUV"t'otc; otU~V
(Cilv ot µe:v &"t'oµ.oc GW(Lot"t'ot &1te:Lpot
"C'cj> 7tA~0e:L, X.ot"C'CX <;y_'Yjµot x.otl. µ.eye:0oc; µ.6vov "C'YJV 1tpoc; lY.AA'YjAot OLoti:popcxv
20 exov"C'ot, "t'CXc; &.py_cxc; x.otl. "C'CX G"C'OLXELIX i:potGLV e:lvotL, x.otl. -tjj "C'OU"C'WV GUv0foe:L
"C'E x.otl. 7t0L~ 1te:pmAox.7i E"C'L 'C'S: "C'IX~EL x.ocl. 0foe:L "t'lAAot ylve:G0otL. ei:p' ~c; 06-
~'Yjc; 7tpW"C'OL µ.e:v Ae:ux.m1t6c; n x.otl. a'Yjµ.6x.pL"t'Oc; ye:vfo0otL OOX.OUGLV, UG"t'EpOL

oe: 'E1t£x.oup6c; 'C'S: x.ocl. OL "C'YJV otU"C'YjV "C'OU"C'CJ) "t'pot7t€V"C'e:c; • OL oe: otU"C'WV,
213. l 1tept Kpcxo-ewc; KIXt µ(~e:wc; B: 1te:pt µ(~ewe; Ra: cf. Montanari p. 17 n. 2
213. 4 µ"1)8t Br.: µ~-re; codd. ixu-rwv Rex, cf. 213. 5, II, 12: ixu-rou codd.
n secl. Br.
213. 7 -ro seclusi, v. infra
213. 14 xwpe:rv supplevi, cf. 213. II et passim
213. 14 ou8e:µwc; scripsi: ou8e:µtiic; ABCPS, obelo not. Br.: µ"1)8e:µtiic; Ra
TRANSLATION
213. I Alexander of Aphrodisias on Blending and Growth

213. 2 I . . . how could one grant that in such a blend each of the
constituents could maintain its own surface so that in a uniform
body no random part of them is in itself separate from another,
while each constituent maintains its own surface which it had even
before the blend? This transcends even the marvels of the myths,
inasmuch as Chrysippus claims that in this case bodies that have
been blended can be separated again. For compared with saying
that bodies that have been blended can be separated, but also
saying that certain bodies cannot be completely blended, it is
much more remarkable and against universally held notions to
say that in a uniform body some bodies can go through one another
completely so that no part of them exists independently, yet each
of them is surrounded by its own surface by which it was surrounded
even before the mixture.
213. 13 It follows, then, that the notion of body < going > 1 through body
causes no less disagreement than do philosophical principles and
theories of mixture and blending; for not only do those who hold
that a single matter underlies all bodies that come to be disagree
on this question with those who create matter from discrete and
separate bodies
213. 18 (some of the latter say that the first-principles and
elements are infinitely numerous indivisible bodies only distin-
guished from one another by size and shape, and that other things
come to be by the composition and particular interlinking of these
things as also by their position and order; Leucippus and Demo-
critus seem to have been the first to take this view, and later
Epicurus and those of the same persuasion; others [214] say that
1 This indicates an addition to the Greek text; I have only noted the more
significant of these. Square brackets carry my own explanatory addenda.
IIO DE MIXTIONE
214 oux ,i-t·6µ.ouc;, O(J,OLO(J,e:p-ij 8e ·twoc ipocow &1mpoc e:!vocL GW(J,ot't'ot, E~ WV ~ TWV
octa6l)TWV yeve:aLc; GW(J,OCT(J)V YLVO(J,&Vl) XotTIX cruyxpLGLV XIXL cruv8e:aLV, dip'> ~c;
86~l)c; 'Avot~ocy6potc; -re: XotL 'ApyJ>..ococ; 8oxouaL ye:yovevocL • ~81) 8e nve:c; XotL
<iµ.e:p-ij TLVIX awµ.ot-rot -rixc; <ipxixc; XIXL GTOL:(E:LIX 't'WV 7tOCVT(J)V 1tpo~x8lJGIXV
5 e:L7tE:LV • eGTL 8e TLc; 86~ot XotL E~ em1te8wv nJV yeve:aLV 7tOLOUO'IX TWV GW(J,IXT(J)V
XIXL E~ <ipL8µ.wv TLc; aMl)),
OU 8~ 1tpoc; <XAA~Aouc; µ.6vov, we; iipl)V, OUTOL

8Ll)Vt:(8l)aotv XIXTIX nJV 1tpoc; -rixc; <ipxixc; 8Locip6pouc; ouaocc; /XXOAou8(ocv XotL 't'IXc;
xpocae:Lc; 8Lotip6pwc; y(ve:a6ocL Atyov-re:c;, <XAAIX XIXL IXUTWV TWV ~V(J)(J,£Vl)V nJV
\JAl)V t..e:y6v-rwv XIXL 7t0CALV otU TWV 8LwpLG(J,£Vl)V -re: XIXL xe:xwpLO'(J,£Vl)V ea-r( TLc;
IO 1tpoc; <XAA~Aouc; 8Lotipwv(oc.
ocMoc 8' ocu-.otc; -rijc; 8Lota-roco-e:wc; -rijc; -roa-ija8e: ~

:(IXAE:7t6Tl)c; TOU 86yµ.oc-roc;. <-rcj» (J,&V yixp evocpyec; e:LVIXL XLpviia8oc(
TLVot TWV O'W(J,OCT(J)V 1tpoc; OCAAl)Aot 1tocv-re:c; o-xe:8ov ol 1te:pt ipuae:wc; -re: XIXL
TWV ywoµ.ivwv ipuae:L !pLAOaoipouv-re:c; ~A8ov E7tL TO ~l)TE:LV nJV IXLTLIXV ocu-
TOU, -r<i'> 8' e:!vocL xocAe:1t~v -re: ocu-rou niv e:upe:o-Lv xoct e:xocaT?J -rwv &1to-
15 8L80µ.&VWV oct-rLWV otxe:locc; TLVocc; foe:a6otL 8uo-xe:pe:locc; OCAAOc; OCAA1) <X7te:-rpoc-
7tE:TO.
II ~LO OU xe:tpov XIXL ~µ.iic; 1te:pt otutjc; 8LotAot~e:Lv XotL (J,l)VUGIXL TIX 80-
XOUVTIX ~(J,LV e:ut..oyw-re:poc Aiye:a6otL TWV 1te:pt xpixae:wc; e:tpl)(J,£V(J)V TOU 8oxe:Lv
ou-rwc; ixe:w 7tocpe:x_6µ.e:vouc; 't'IXc; otl't'Lotc;. ~l)(J,6XpL't'Oc; (J,&V oov ~youµ.e:voc; nJV
Ae:yoµ.tVl)V xpiiaLV y(ve:a8ocL XIXTIX 7tocpoc8e:aLV awµ.oc-rwv, 8LocLpouµ.eveuv TWV
20 xLpvocµ.&Vwv e:tc; (J,LXpix xoct -tjj 1tocp' OCAAl)AIX 8foe:L niv (J,L~Lv 1t0Louµ.evwv,
ou8e nJV <ipx~v !pl)GLV e:!votL 1tpoc; /XA~8e:LOCV TLVIX xe:xpocµ.evoc, rJ.AA' e:!votL nJV
8oxouaocv xpiiaLv 1tocpix8e:aLv awµ.oc-rwv <XAA~AoLc; xoc-rix (J,Lxpix aw~6v-reuv ocu-
-rwv EXOCGTOU 'OJV otxe:LotV !pUGLV, ~V E:L:(OV XIXL 7tp0 tjc; (J,(~e:Wc; • 8oxe:LV 8'
otU't'IX xe:xpiia8ocL -rcj'l niv oc!a6l)aLv 8Lix (J,Lxp6Tl)TIX -rwv 1tocpotxe:Lµ.evwv (J,l)8e:-
25 voe; ot\JTWV octa6ocve:a6ocL 8uvoca6ocL µ.6vou. !pLAIXA~8wc; -re: XotL !pLAoa6ipwc;
oux c:'>XVl)O'E:V d1te:Lv TO e:1t6µ.e:vov -rote; OUT(J) -.ixc; xpocae:Lc; AtyouaL y(ve:a8otL.
1tocpoc8foe:L 8e 't'OLIXU't'"(l -rixc; xpoco-e:LC /XVOC7tTOUO'L XIXL ol -rixc; O(J,OLO(J,E:pe:lotc; UAl)V
e:!votL -rwv ywoµ.ivwv Myov-re:c;.
214. I oux &-r6µou,; Diels Apelt: ou xix-r' ,i:,,.Aou,; codd.

214. 2 d<p'> coni. Br., cf. 213. 21
214. 9 otiS -rwv Diels: ixu-rwv codd.
214, II <-r> µev Br.: ()'t'L µev BPS: µev ARa
214. 14 :;cixAe:1t1Jv -re: Diels: xixAe:ltlJV (xixAe:1tov SP) 8, ABSCP: xixAe:ltlJv Ra
214. 19-20 -rwv xtpvixµtvwv secl. Kranz, DK II, 100. 28 ad loc.
214. 26 &xV7jae:v Schwartz: &xv7Jaixv codd.
TEXT AND TRANSLATION III
there are not atoms but certain uniform and infinitely numerous
bodies from which the coming-to-be of perceptible bodies occurs
by compounding and composition, a theory that Anaxagoras and
Archelaus seem to have held; some were inspired to say that the
first-principles and elements of everything were actually certain
partless bodies, and there is one theory which makes bodies come
to be from planes, and yet another from numbers)
214. 6 now these
thinkers, as I said, not only disagree in saying that blends occur
in different ways through the implications of their different first-
principles, but there is also an internal discord among the very
ones who say that matter is unified and again among those who
say that it is divided and discrete.
214. IO The reason for such a great disagreement among them is the
difficulty of the doctrine; for given that it was clear that certain
bodies blended with one another almost all philosophers of nature
and natural change went in search of its explanation, yet since this
proved difficult to discover, and as peculiar difficulties were entailed
by each of the explanations offered, divergent theories arose.
214. 16 II So it is no less important that we too should deal with the
subject, and uncover what seem to us the more reasonable theories
expressed on blending, and explain the reasons why they seem so.
214. 18 Democritus, then, thinks that what is termed blending occurs
by juxtaposition of bodies, with the constituents being divided
into corpuscles and forming themselves into a mixture by their
positioning beside one another; he says that they are not at all
blended in reality, but that the apparent blend is a juxtaposition
of bodies with one another where each preserves in corpuscular form
its own nature, which they had even before the mixture. These
bodies seem to be blended since perception is unable to grasp a
single one of them because of the minuteness of the juxtaposed
bodies. A lover of truth and a philosopher, he did not shrink from
stating the consequence for those who say that blends occur in this
way. (It is to such a juxtaposition that those who hold that uniform
bodies are matter for what comes to be also reduce blends.)
II2 DE MIXTIONE
'E,dxoupoc; 8e: cpe:uye:Lv ~ouMµ.e:voc; 't'O u1to

~l)(l,OXpL't'OU pl)0E:v E1te:a80tL [~oUAE't'OtL] 't'OL<; 1t0tp0t8foe:L 't'WV XLpv0tµ.evwv 't'YjV
30 xpiiaLV ylve:a80tL AeyouaL 1t0tp0t8eaEL (J1v 't'LVWV O'W(l,11't'(J)V XOtL OtU't'Oc; 't'Ot<;
xp&.ae:L<; ylve:a80tL A&ye:L, a.AA' oux OtU't'WV 't'WV µ.Lyvuµ.evwv O'W(l,11.'t'(J)V O'(J)~O-
i--VWV
215 J.
.. e:v - oLOtLpi::O'EL,
' 't'7) ~ L OtN\
·~~· OtVotl\UO(l,EV(J)V
' ~ I EL<;
' 't'Ot' O''t'OLXELot
- XOtL' 't'Otc;
' Ot't'
, 6-
µ.ouc;, &~ 6)V EXOtO''t'OV OtU't'WV auyxe:lµ.Ev6v 1twc; 't'O µ.e:v olvoc; ~v. 't'O 8e: u8wp,
't'O 8e: µ.eAL, 't'O 8e: 11.tJ...o 't'L, E7tEL't'Ot 7tOL~ 't'OU't'(J)V 't'WV O'W(l,11.'t'WV, &~ WV ~v
't'Ot XLpv&.µ.e:vOt 1tpoc; rl..tJ...l)Aot, auv0eaEL YEVVWV't'(J)V 't'O XEXp0tµ.evov O'W(l,Ot,
5 auµ.µ.tyvuµ.evwv <oux> u80t't'6c; 't'E XOtL OLVOU, a.tJ...Ot 't'WV u8po7tOLWV h6µ.wv,
we; &v e:!1tOL 't'L<;, 't'OtL<; otvo1t0Loi:c;, cp0op~ 't'E )(OtL ye:vfoe:L 't'LVWV 't'YjV xpiiaLV
ylve:a80tL Aeywv. <~> yocp e:tc; 't'Ot O''t'OLXELOt a.va.AUO'L<; &XIJ.O'"C"OU XOtL ~ ex 't'WV
O''t'OLXELWV auv0Em<; OtU't'WV ('t'O µ.e:v yeve:atc;>, 't'O 8e: cp0op&..
't'OU't'WV µ.e:v ouv

0\)'t'E ot 't'YjV 1t0tp&.8e:aLV 0tL't'LW(l,EVOL -rijc; xpa.aEwc; ou0' ot 't'YjV e:tc; 't'Ot O''t'OL-
1O xe:i:0t a.v&.Auatv 't'YjV 1tEpt 't'Yjc; xpa.aEwc; aw~ouaL 1tp6Al)41Lv, EL ye: ~ µ.e:v xpii-
atc; e:LVOtL 8oxe:i: ev &VWO'EL 't'WV XEXp0tµ.evwv, c:ic; µ.l)8e:v µ.6pLOV -rou xp&.µ.0t't'oc;
11.µ.LX't'OV e:LVOtL 't'LVO<; 't'WV O'W(l,IX't'WV, &~ 6)V 't'O XEXp0tµ.evov, 0\)'t'E 8e: ~ 1t0tpoc-
8EO'L<; EVWO'L<;, OU't'& ~ cp0op&. n XOtL rJ..VOCO''rOLXELWO'L<; µ.i:~lc; &a't'L • ~ yocp µ.i:~L<;
O'W~oµ.evwv yEvea80tL 8oxe:i:. OU yocp OCU't'OC µ.tyvuoUO'LV ot 't'OU't'OV 't'OV 't'p61tov
15 't'YjV xpiiaLV ylvEa80tL Aeyovnc;, w' E~ WV EO''t'L 't'OtU'rOt EXELVOt µ.tyvuoUO'LV.
EL 8e: EX 't'WV OtU't'WV O''t'OLXELWV ot6v 't'E XOtL u8wp XOtL OLVOV ye:vfo80tL -tjj
7t0L~ auv0eaEL 't'E XOtL 1te:pmAox7i -rijc; 't'WV ywoµ.evwv E~ otU't'WV 8toccpopiic;
ye:vvwµ.evl)C:, ou8' l>Awc; &v ht xpiiatc; 'rO\J't'(J)V ylvoL't'O 't'cj> -tjj a.VOtO''t'OLXELWO'EL
cp8e:lpEa80tL 't'OtU't'Ot, xoc0' & ~ xpiiaL<; -rwv XLpVOt(J£VWV YLVE't'OtL. ylve:'t'OtL µ.e:v
20 yocp ~ xpiiaL<; 8t0tcpEp6v't'WV 't'LVWV Xot't'Ot 7tOL6't'l)'t'Ot, rJ..VOtLpEL't'OCL 8e: ~ XOt't'OC
't'OU't'O 8t0tcpop0t 't'OLt:; ~xouatv OtU't'YjV EV -tjj 't'WV OtU't'WV 7tOL~ auv0eaEL -rijc;
auv0foEWc; OtU't'WV rJ..V0tLpe:8dO"l)C:, oµ.olwc; 8e: XOtL 't'OL<; &~ Em1te8wv YEVVWO'L
't'Ot awµ.0t't'0t ~ xpiiatc; ylve:-r0tL XOt't'Ot a.v0ta't'otxe:lwalv nv0t.
214. 29 ~ouA&TIXL secl. Br., om. A1 : ~ouA'ij~ CP: 81: coni. Br.
215. 3 !!m:LTIX 1toL~ Usener, Epicurea p. 207: e1tt -ra 1tota codd.
215. 5 oux suppl. Usener
215. 6 ip6op~ Te: Usener: ip6opixr~ codd.
215. 7 ri suppl. Usener iivcxAuaL~ Usener: iivixMae:L~ codd.
215. 8 TO µ&V yeve:aL~ suppl. Usener ip6opcx Usener: ip6e:ipix ACRa: ip6e:ip01L
BP: ip6e:ipix~ S
215. 9 ou6' ol Ideler: ooToL codd.
215. 10 iivcxAuaLv Ideler: ixva codd.
215. 12 81: Br.: 8~ codd.
215. 22 oµolw~ coni. Diels, cf. Alex. de an. 83. 10: 8 fow~ codd., obelonot. Br.:
fow~ ldeler Rex v. infra
TEXT AND TRANSLATION IIJ
214. 28 Epicurus, wanting to evade the consequence described by Demo-

critus for those who say that blending occurs by juxtaposition of
the constituents, says that blends occur by juxtaposition of certain
bodies, but not of the bodies that are actually mixed and [215]
preserved in the division, but of bodies which are dissolved into the
elements and atoms from which each of them is somehow composed
to be variously wine, water, honey or something else; then by a
particular composition of these bodies-the source of the related
constituents-to form the blended product, it is not water and
wine that are mixed together but water-producing atoms, so to
speak, with wine-producing ones; thus he describes blends as
occuring by the passing-away and coming-to-be of certain bodies,
for the dissolution of each constituent into its elements and its
composition from the elements is< coming-to-be> and passing-away
respectively.
215. 8 Now neither those who offer juxtaposition as an explanation of
blending, nor those who explain it by a process of reduction-to-
the-elements preserve our preconception about blending-if indeed
blending is thought to lie in the unification of the bodies that have
been blended so that no part of the blend is unmixed with any of
the bodies from which the blended product is formed-when neither
is juxtaposition unification, nor passing-away and reduction-to-
the-elements mixture; for mixture should occur between bodies
that are preserved. Those who say that blending occurs in this way
do not mix the bodies themselves but rather mix the bodies from
which they are formed. If both water and wine can come from the
same elements, with the difference in the things that come to be
from them caused by their particular composition and interlinking,
then the bodies by which the blending of constituents occurs would
really no longer be blended when they are dissolved in their reduc-
tion-to-the-elements. Blending occurs among specific bodies dif-
fering in quality, and this particular difference is abolished for
those who locate it in a specific composition of identical bodies
after the composition [of the constituents] has been dissolved.
(And similarly for those who create bodies from planes blending
occurs by some kind of reduction-to-the-elements.)
8
DE MIXTIONE
e:t (.LEV ouv ~v

~:X,OUO'IX 't'L ~8e: ~ 1te:pl. 't'WV &p:x,wv 86/;oc e:uAoyov, LO'W<;; E7tL 7tAtov t8e:L TYJV
25 E/;sn:O'LV 7tOLe:i:cr6cXL -rij<;; 't'OU't'OV 't'OV -rp61tov y(ve:cr6ocL AEYO(.LSVYJ<;; xpocae:wc;,
EAEYX,O(.LSVYJ<;; 8E Exdv'Yjc; 1te:pL't"t'OV 't'O ~'YJ't'ELV i-rL, e:E )((X't'(X 1tocpoc8e:O'LV µ.e:pwv
~ (.LL/;Lv IX.'t'O(.LWV ~ Em1te8wv ~ &µ.e:pwv 't'LV(l)V O"W(.LOC't'WV ~ xp&o-L<;; y(ve:'t'IXL.
8Lo 1te:pl. (.LEV -rij<;; 't'WV 't'OLOCU't'OCL<;; &p:x,oci:<;; :x,pwµ.evwv 8Loccpwv(occ; n 1tpo<;; IX.A-
A~Aouc; xocl. 86/;YJ<;; 1te:pl. xpocae:wc; ou8Ev 8e:i: (.L'YJXUVELV 't'OV Myov. O\J ycxp
30 E1tl8e:L/;L<;; ~µ.i:v ta-rop(oc<;; xocl. 1toAA'Yjc; yvwae:wc; -ro 1tpoxdµ.e:vov, &;,_;,_' E/;e-roca(c;
't'E xocl. ~~'t"YJO'L<;; 't'OU, 7tW<;; /lv 't'L<;; Aeywv y(ve:cr6ocL -rcxc; xpocae:Lc; 't'WV O"W(.LOC't'WV
auµ.cpwvwc; AeyoL 't'IXL<;; 7te:pl. IXIJ't'WV octcr6~ae:o-l 't'E xocl. XOLVIXL<;; 1tpoA~4IEO'L.
216 III Me:-r&A8wµ.e:v 8E E7tL -rouc; XOLVW<;; ~vwcr6ocL 't"YjV \JA'YjV Aeyov-rocc; xocl. (.LLIXV 1t&O'L
-ro'i:c; yLvoµ.evoLc; xoct 't"YjV IXU't"YjV t11to8Moc<;;, 6lv xocl. ocu-rwv 1tocp1XL't"YJO'OC(.LEVOL
't'CX E7tL7tOAIXLO't'e:p6v n xocl. 7tpo:x_e:Lp6-re:pov e:tp'YJ(.LSVOC -rcxc; (.LIXALO''t'IX 8oxouaoc<;;
l:x,e:cr6oc( -rwoc; Myou 86/;occ; E/;e:-roco-wµ.e:v 1tpo:x,e:LpLo-ocµ.e:voL. -rwv 8~ ~vwcr6ocL
5 't'YJV 5AYJV Ae:y6v-rwv 8oxouaL µ.ocALa-roc -re: xocl. 1te:pLxpoc-rwc; ot &1to -rijc; I:-ro&<;;
1te:pl. xpocae:<u<;; 8LOCAOC(.L~OCVELV. OUO"'Yj<;; 8E xocl. EV 't'OU't'OL<;; 7tOAUCf>WVLOC<;; (1.t.AAOL
ycxp l.t.AAw<;; IX\J't'WV -rcxc; xpoco-e:L<;; ylve:a8ocL ASYOUO'LV), ~ (.LOCALO''t'IX 8oxouaoc 86-
/;oc e:MoXL(.LELV 1tocp' IX\J't'OL<;; 1te:pl. xpoco-e:wc; EO''t'LV ~ U7t0 XpuO'L7t7tOU Ae:yoµ.e-
V'YJ, 't'WV ycxp µ.e:-r' IX\J't'OV OL (.LEV XpuO'L7t7t<il o-uµ.cpepoVTIXL, OL 8e 't'Lve:c; (XIJ-
IO 't'WV -rij<;; 'ApLO"'t'OffAOU<;; 86/;YJ<;; t)O''t'Epov IX.XOUO'IXL 8uv'Yj8evnc; 7t0AACX 't'WV e:t-
• • J,. , , , , \ , , , , "\., T T ' '
P'YJi-VWV U7t EXELVOU 7tEpL xpocae:wc; )((XL IXU't'OL I\EYOUO"LV. (l)V e:~c; EO''t'L XIXL
I:wo-Lyev'Yjc;, e:-roci:po<;; 'Av-rmoc-rpou. otc; O\J 8uvocµ.e:voL 7t!XV't'7) auµ.cpepe:cr6ocL
8Lcx 't"YjV EV -roi:c; l.t.AAOL<;; 8Loccpwvfocv EV 7tOAAoi:c; IXU't'OL<;; Myovnc; e:upLGXOV't'IXL
(.LIX:X,0(.LEVIX.
&O''t'L 8E ~ XpuO"L7t7tOU 86/;oc 1te:pl. xpoco-e:wc; ~8e: • ~vwcr6ocL (.LEV

15 U7tO't'L8£'t'IXL 't"YjV O"U(.L7t1XO'IXV 0\JO"LIXV, 7tVEU(.LIX't'O<;; 't'Lvoc; 8Lcx 7tlXO"'YJ<;; ocu-rijc; 8L~-
XOV't'O<;;, ucp' OU auve:x,e:-roc( 't'E xocl. O'U(.L(.L&VEL xocl. O"U(.L1t1X8ec; EO''t'LV IXU't'ij> 't'O
1t&v, 't'WV 8E (.LLyvuµ.evwv EV ocu-tji O'W(.LIX't'(l)V TIX<; (.LEV 1tocpoc8eo-e:L µ.(/;e:Lc; y(-
ve:a8ocL Aeye:L, Mo 't'LVWV ~ xocl. 7tAELOVWV O\JO'LWV de; 't'IXIJ't'OV O'UV't'E8&L(.LSVWV
xocl. 1tocpoc-rL8e:µ.evwv IX.AA~AocL<;;, &<;; cpYJaLv, xoc8' &:pµ.~v, aw~ouO"'Yjc; e:xoca't"Yjc;
215. 32 1tpOA'IJ4'ECJt Rex: 1tpoaA1Jljie:at codd.

216. 2 u1to6ev-r0tc; Ideler: u1to6t-rcxc; ABC?S?Ra: u1to6foewc; P
216. 3 -rix .•• e:tpl)µtv0t scripsi: -rixc; ... etpl)µtv0tc; codd. Cf. 232. 32-33
216. 4 86~0tc; coni. Diels: 0tu-rixc; codd. Br.
216. 5 m:ptxp0t-r&c; Rex: m:pt xpixae:wc; codd. Br.: 1tpo 1tixv-rwv coni. Br.
216. 16-17 -ro 1tiiv, -r&v Apelt Rodier: -ro 1tixv-rwv A 1 Ra: -r&v 1tixv-rwv A 2 BCPS
216. 17 1t0tp0t6foe:t µl~e:tc; Ideler: 1t0tp0t6foe:Lc; µl~e:tc; codd.
216. 19 iipµ~v Br., cf. 219. 3: opµ1Jv ABCPS: opµ'ijc; Ra
TEXT AND TRANSLATION IIS
215. 23 Now if this theory of principles had anything reasonable to it
perhaps we would have to make a more extensive examination of
the blending said to occur in this manner. But since the theory has
been refuted, it is superfluous to investigate still further whether
blending occurs by juxtaposition of parts, or by the mixture of
atoms, or planes, or certain partless bodies. There is then no need
to lengthen the discussion of the dispute existing among those who
employ such principles and of their theory of blending. For our
object is not a demonstration of great learning through a long
exposition but a critical inquiry as to how an account of the blends
of bodies can be given consistent with our perceptions of them and
our common preconceptions.
216. 1 III [216] Let us return to those who say that matter is entirely
unified and who posit it as one and the same for everything that
comes to be, and excusing ourselves from their more superficial
and basic statements too, take up the task of examining their
opinions that are thought to be particularly significant.
216. 4 Of those who say that matter is unified the Stoics seem partic-
ularly and preeminently to discuss blending. They also show a
diversity (for they have various views on how blending occurs)
but Chrysippus' theory of blending has the best reputation with
them. While some of his successors agree with Chrysippus, other
who were later able to hear Aristotle's theory actually express
many of his views on blending (one such is Sosigenes, a student of
Antipater), but being unable to completely conform to them
because of their disagreement with him on other points they are
found stating views in many respects inconsistent.
216. 14 Chrysippus' theory of blending is as follows: he holds that while
the whole of substance is unified because it is totally pervaded by
a pneuma through which the whole is held together, is stable, and
is sympathetic with itself, yet some of the mixtures of bodies mixed
in this substance occur by juxtaposition, through two or more
substances being composed into the same mass and juxtaposed
with one another "by juncture" as he says, and with each of them
n6 DE MIXTIONE
20 OCUTWV EV -tjj TOLOCUT"() 1tocpoc6e<m XOCTIX TI)V m:pLypoc<p~v TI)V otxdocv OUO'locv
T& XOCL 1t0L6t7JTOC, we;
€7tL XUIXfLWV <pep& &L7t&LV XOCL 1tupwv EV -tjj 7tocp' OCAA~-
Aouc; 6fo&L • ylveo-6ocL TIXc; 8e TLvocc; O'UY)'..UO'&L 8L' OAWV TWV T& OUO'LWV OCUTWV
XOCL TWV EV OCUTOCLc; 7t0LO~TWV O'UfL<p6&LpOfL€VWV OCAA~AocLc;, we;
y(veo-6ocl !pljO'LV
e:1tt Twv tocTpLxwv cpocpfL!XX<uv XOCTIX O"UfLcp6ocpow Twv fLLyvufL&vwv, &Mou TL-
25 voe; €~ OCUTWV y&VVWfLEVOU O'WfLOCToc;. TIXc; 8& TLvocc; ylveo-6ocL fLL~&Lc; A&Y&L 8L'
OAWV TLVWV OUO'LWV T& XOCL TWV TOUTWV 7t0LO~TWV OCVTL7tOCp&XT&LVOfL&VWV OCA-
A~AocLc; fl.&TIX TOU TIXc; €~ ocpx~c; OUO'tocc; T& XOCL 7tOL6nJTOCc; O"W~&LV EV -tjj fLt-
~&L -tjj TOL~8&, ~VTLVOC TWV fLL~&WV xpio"LV t8(wc; &LVOCL A&Y&L. TI)V YIXP Mo
~ xoct 7tA&L6vwv TLvwv O'Wfl.lXT<uv oAwv 8L' oAwv ocvTL7tocp&XTOCO'LV oc'M~AoLc;
30 oihwc;, we;O"W~&LV EXOCO'TOV OCUTWV EV -tjj fLL~&L -tjj TOLOCU't"fl ~v T& otxdocv
OUO'tOCV XOCL TIXc; EV ocu-tjj 7tOL6nJTOCc;, A&y&L xpio-LV &LVOCL fL6V1jV TWV fLL~&WV.
&LVOCL YIXP !8wv TWV X&XpOCfL&VWV TO 8uvoco-6ocL xwpl~eo-6ocL 7t1XALV oc1t' OCAA~-
217 AWV, 8 fL6vwc; ylv&TOCL T<j'l O'W~&LV EV -tjj fLt~&L TIX X&XpOCfL&VOC TIXc; OCUTWV
<pUO'&Lc;.
TO 8E TOCUTocc; TIXc; 8Loc<pop1Xc; &LVOCL tjc; fLL~&wc; 7t&LpiTOCL 7tLO'TOUo-60CL

8LIX TWV XOLVWV EVVOLWV, fl.lXALO'TOC 8e xpL~pLoc tjc; OCA1j6&(occ; <pljO'LV ~fLic;
7t0Cp1X tjc; <pUO'&Wc; AOC~&LV TOCUTOCc;. OCAAljV yoi:iv <pOCVTOCO'tOCV ~X&LV ~!Lie; TWV
5 xoc6' ix:pfL~V o-uyx&Lfl.&V<uv, xoct OCAAljV Twv o-uyxexufl.&v<uv T& xoct o-uv&<p6ocp-
fl.&V<uv, XOCL OCAAljV TWV X&XpOCfL&VWV T& XOCL OCAA~AoLc; 8L' OAWV OCVTL7tOCp&XT&L-
VOfL&VWV OUT<uc;, we;O"W~&LV EXOCO'TOV OCUTWV TI)V otxelocv <pUO'LV. ~v 8Loc<pop1Xv
<pOCVTOCO'LWV oux &v etxofL&V, &L 7tlXVTOC TIX 07tWO'OUV fLLyvUfL&VOC 1tocpex&LTO
OC/\A~AOLc; xoc6' ix:pfL~V. TI)V 8e TOLOCUnJV OCVTL7t0Cp&XTOCO"LV TWV XLpVOCfL&VWV U7tO-
IO AOCfL~IXV&L ylveo-6ocL xwpOUVTWV 8L' OC/\A~AWV TWV XLpVOCfL&VWV O'Wfl.lXTWV, we;
fl.1j8Ev fL6pLOV EV OCUTOLc; &LVOCL fl.~ fL&T&)(.OV 7t!XVTWV TWV EV T<j'l TOLOUT(p xexpoc-
fL&V(p fLtYfLOCTL. OUX&TL YIXP ocv, el 1-L~ TOUTO &t'Y), xpio-Lv, OCAAIX 1tocpix6&0'LV TO
YLV6fL&VOV &LVOCL.
IV Tou 8e TOUTO oteo-6ocL ylveo-6ocL 7ttO'T&Lc; <p&pOUO'LV ot 1tpoi:-

O'TIXfL&VOL tja8e nic; 86~1Jc; T6 T& 1to"Mcx Twv o-wfLixTwv o-c:i~eLv Tcxc; eocuTwv
15 7tOL6nJTOCc; €7tL T1 EAOC-r-r6vwv e:vocpywv ISyxwv XOCL €7tL fl.&L~6vwv ISv-roc (we;
216. 22 Oe:ae:t· y(ve:aOou (codd.) -roc~ Apelt: Oecm y(ve:TixL, -roc~ Br.
Ideler: auyxuae:L~ ABCSRa: aunuae:L~ p
217. 4 Acx~e:rv -rixuTix~ coni. Br.: A1X~611-rix~ codd.
217. 5 &.pµ1)v Br. : cipµ1)v codd.
217. 6 a.AA7JAOL~ Apelt: ill71Aou~ codd.
217. 9 &.pµ1)v Br.: cipµ1)v codd.
TEXT AND TRANSLATION n7
preserving the surface of their own substance and quality in such
a juxtaposition, as, one will grant, happens with beans and wheat-
grains in their juxtaposition; other mixtures occur by total fusion
with both the substances and their qualities being destroyed to-
gether, as he says happens with medical drugs in the joint-destruc-
tion of the constituents and the production of some other body from
them; the third type of mixture he says occurs through certain
substances and their qualities being mutually coextended in their
entirety and preserving their original substance and qualities in
such a mixture: this mixture is blending in the strict sense of the
term. The mutual coextension of some two or even more bodies
in their entirety with one another so that each of them preserves
their own substance and its qualities in such a mixture-this, he
says, alone of the mixtures is blending; for it is a peculiarity of
bodies that have been blended that they can be separated again
[217] from one another, and this only occurs through the blended
bodies preserving their own natures in the mixture.
217. 2 He tries to establish that these differences in mixture exist by
means of the common notions, and says that we take these above
all as the standards of truth from nature; at least we have one
[sense-] presentation for the bodies that are juxtaposed by juncture,
another for those that are fused and destroyed together, and a
third for those that are blended and mutually coextended in their
entirety so that each of them preserves its own nature. We would
not have this difference in presentations if bodies had been juxta-
posed by juncture whatever way they were mixed. He assumes
that such a mutual coextension of constituents [of blends] occurs
as constituent bodies go through one another, so that there is no
part of them that does not partake of everything in such a product
of mixture through blending; otherwise the result would no longer
be blending but juxtaposition.
217. 13 IV The proponents of this theory forward as suasions of their
belief that this occurs the fact that many bodies preserve their
own qualities in manifestly smaller and larger masses (as can be
n8 DE MIXTIONE
16 opcxv fo'TLV E7tL 'TOU AL~(XV(l)'t'OU, oc; EV -rcj> 6uµtoca6cxL 1.e1t..-uv6µevoc; E7tL
1t1.e'i:o--rov niv cxu-rou q:mM.o-o-eL 1tot6-.ri-rcx), ht -re ..-o 7tOAAIX e!vcxL, & xcx6'
E:CXU't'IX µ~ o!cx. -re OV'TCX E7tl 't'L Et.6e°Lv µeye6oc; u1t' (1.AA(l)V ~O"l)8ouµEvcx E7t'
CXU't'O 1tp6ELO'L. 't'OV youv XPUO'OV u1t6 't'LVWV µtyvuµevwv cpcxpµcx.xwv E7tL
20 7tAELO''t'OV ):EL0"8cx( TE XIXL AE7t't'UVea6cxL, E<p' 60-ov xix8' IXU't'OV EAcxuv6µEvoc;
oux E8uVIX'TO. xcxl. ~µEL<:; 8e, & xix8' cxu-rouc; OVTE<:; oux foµev o!o( 't'E EVEp-
"(ELV, O'UV OCAAOL<:; EVEpyouµev. -rouc; TE yixp 7t0'TIXµouc; 8LCX~IXLVO!,LEV OCAA~A(l)V
ECj)CX7tTOµevoL, oOc; oux o!o( -re foµev 8LIX~IX(VELV xix8' cxu..-ouc;. xcxl. ~CX.P"IJ
't'LVIX cpepoµev µE-r' OCAAWV, 6)V 't'O Em~CX.AAOV ~µLv µepoc; µ6voL "(Ev6µevoL
25 cpepeLV OU 8uvcx.µe8ix. xcxl. ocµ1tEAOL 8e: xix8' IXU't'IX<:; fo..-cxa61XL µ~ 8uvcx.µevcxL
OCVLO''TCXV't'IXL OCAA~ACXL<:; Eµ1t1.Ex6µev1XL.
WV oihwc; E):6V't'(l)V ou8ev Cj)IXO'L 8ixu-

µixo-..-ov 't'O xixl o-wµix-rcx. 't'LVCX ~O"l)8ouµEVIX u1t' CI.AA~AWV oihwc; OCAA~AOL<:;
e:vouo-8cxL 8t' 61.wv, we;IXU't'IX O'W~6µEVIX µETIX 't'WV OLXELWV 7tOLO~'t'(l)V &.v-rL-
7t<XpEXTELVE0'8CXL CI.AA~AOL<:; 8L' 61.wv ilAIX, x&v ~ 't'LVIX EAOC't''T(l) 't'OV oyxov XIXL
30 µ~ 8uvcx.µEv1X xix8' cxu-rlX E1tl. -roo-ou-rov ):ELa6cx( 'TE xixl. o-w~eLv 'TIX<:; otxE(cxc;
7tOL6nJ-r1Xc;. o(hw "(IXp XIXL 't'OV xuix8ov 'TOU o!vou XLpvoca6cxL ..-<j> u81X'TL -r<j>
7t0AA<j> ~O"l)8ouµEvov u1t' IXU't'OU etc; TI)V E7tL 't'OO'OU't'OV lx't'CXO'LV.
't'OU 8e:
-rou8' ou..-wc; &):eLv we; Evcxpyeo-L XPWV't'CXL µixp..-up(oLc; ..-4> TE TI)V t!iux~v t8(cxv
U7t00''t'IXO'LV txoUO'IXV, W0'7tep XIXL 't'O 8Ex6µEvov IXUTI)V o-wµix, 8L' 61.ou 't'OU
35 o-wµcx-roc; 8L~l<.eLV EV TTI µ(~eL -tjj 1tpoc; IXU't'O O'W~OUO'IXV TI)V otxEllXV OUO'LIXV
(ou8e:v "(IXp tJiux'Yjc; &µoLpov 't'OU TI)V tJiux~v lxov-roc; o-wµix-roc;), oµolwc; 8e:
&):eLv XIXL TI)V 't'WV Cj)U't'WV Cj)UO'LV, Cl.At.IX XIXL TI)V &~LV EV 't'OL<:; o-uvexoµevoLc;
218 u1to T'Yjc; i~ewc;. Cl.At.IX xixl. -ro 1tup 01.ov 8L' 61.ou xwpELv -rou o-L8~pou
At"(OUO'L, O'W~OV't'O<:; CXU't'WV e:xcx-repou TI)V OLXELIXV OUO'LIXV. xixl 'TWV O''t'OL):eLWV
8e Cj)CXO'L 't'WV 't'EO'O'CX.pwv TIX Mo, 't'O TE 1tup xcxl. 'TOV &.epcx, AE7tTOµEp'Yj 'TE
xcxl. xoucpix xixl. EU't'OVCX OV't'CX, 8LIX 't'WV Mo, y'Yjc; TE xcxl. u8ix-roc;, 7tlX):UµEpwv
5 xixl. ~cxpewv xcxl. OC't'OV(l)V OV't'(l)V 8LIX7tECj)OL'")XtVIXL /St.ix 8L' 61.wv, O'W~OV'TIX TI)V
otxdcxv cpuo-Lv xcxl. O'UVt):ELcxv cxu-rcx. 'TE xcxl. EXELVIX. 8"/JA"IJ~pux. TE 'TIX cpcx.pµixxix
XIXL TIX<:; oo-µcx.c;, ()O'IXL 't'OLIXU't'IXL, ~"(OUV't'IXL XLpvoca61XL 't'OL<:; u1t' CXU't'WV
7tCX.O'):OUO'LV, ()ACX 8L' 61.wv 7t1Xp1X't'L8eµEvcx. XIXL 't'O cpwc; 8e: ..-<j> &.epL o Xpu-
O'L1t1toc; XLpvoca61XL At"(EL. XIXL <XU'") µe:v ~ 1tepl. xpcx.o-Ec; 86~cx XpUO'L7t7tOU
10 TE xixl. ..-wv xcx..-' ixu-rov <pLt.oo-ocpouv-rwv.
218. 1 Tij~ Ra, cf. Montanari p. 44: om. cett.

218. 6-7 cpapµotxoddeler, cf. Galen Nat. Fae. III. 7 (II. 161 K): cp6e:Lpo11-rot codd.
TEXT AND TRANSLATION n9
seen in the case of incense which, though attenuated when in-

cinerated, preserves its own quality over a very large expanse),
and again the fact that many bodies which in themselves are
unable to advance to a certain magnitude attain it with the help
of other bodies. Certainly gold can, through the admixture of
certain chemicals, be melted and spread to an extent that it could
not reach when simply hammered. And we perform with others
activities which we are unable to do by ourselves; for in contact
with one another we cross rivers which we are unable to cross by
ourselves, and along with others bear certain weights of which we
could not when left alone bear the part that befalls us. And vines
which are unable to stand up by themselves stand up when linked
to one another.
217. 26 Since this is the case, they say that there is nothing remarkable
in the fact that certain bodies when helped by one another are in
this way united together in their entirety so that being preserved
along with their own qualities they have a complete mutual co-
extension through one another, even if some of them are rather
small in bulk and in themselves unable both to be spread to such
an extent and to preserve their own qualities; for in this way also
the cup of wine is mixed with a large amount of water and helped
by it to such a great extension.
217. 32 They employ as clear evidence that this is the case the fact that
the soul which has its own substantiality, just like the body that
receives it, pervades the whole of the body while preserving its
own substantiality in the mixture with it (for there is nothing in
the body possessing the soul that does not partake of the soul);
and the same holds for the Nature of plants, as also the State in
bodies held together [218] by their State. Also they say that fire
passes completely through iron with each of them preserving its
own substance. And they say that two of the four elements, Fire
and Air, being rare, light, and having tension, completely pervade
Earth and Water which are dense, heavy, and lack tension; and
that each pair preserves its own nature and continuity. They think
that drugs that are deleterious, and all such odours, are blended
with the bodies affected by them in a total juxtaposition. Chrysip-
pus also thinks that light is mixed with air. This is Chrysippus'
218. IO theory of blending and that of the philosophers who follow him.
120 DE MIXTIONE
V 0cwµa.<11XL 8' llv ·rn; IXU'TWV, 1twc;

'TIXLc; XOLVIXLc; EVVOLIXLc; 8e:°Lv xp~a6ixL Aeyovnc; 1tpoc; TIXc; 'TWV TL6e:µevwv CX7t0-
8d~e:Lc;, we; ouaixLc; cpuaLxo°Lc; tjc; CXA'Yj6dixc; xpLTl)pLoLc;, 1ta.aixLc; µiitJ..ov ~
'TIXU'TIXLc; XPWV'TIXL 1tpoc; 'TIXc; 6foe:Lc; 'TWV OLXe:LWV 8oyµ&.-rwv. 'TIX youv 1te:pl.
xp&.ae:wc; {m' IXU'TWV Ae:y6µe:vix OU µ6vov OU 1tpoazp~'TIXL 'TIXLc; cpuaLXIXLc; EV-
15 VOLIXLc;, CXAAIX xixl. 7tAE:L<1'TOV oaov CX1to8d. -r6 'TE: YIXP awµix 8LIX awµix-roc;
xwpdv <lAOV OACp 1tixpe:XTE:Lv6µe:vov OU µ6vov <OU) 1tp0<11tL1t'TE:L XIX'TIX 'TIXc; XOL-
VIXc; EVVOLIXc;, CXAAIX xixl. cx8uvix-rov e:LVIXL 1tpoe:LA'Yj7t'TIXL. cpuaLXlj YIXP €VVOLIX 'TO
'TO 7tA~pe:c; µl)XE'T' EV IXt.l'T<j) 8uvixa6ixL 8eze:a6ix[ 'TL. µlj YIXP €'TL 7tA~pe:c;
e:LVIXL 8uvixa6ixL 'TO xwpixv exov EV IXU'Tci> 8e:xTLXl)V oµo(ou 'TLV6c; aixcp~ve:LIXV
20 exe:L, 8L' ~v (j)U<1LX~V 'TE: xixl. XOLVljV 1tp6A'Yj4ILV ~8'Yj 8oxe:L 'TL<1LV e:uAoyov,
e:LVIXL 'TL 'TWV awµ&.-rwv 8&X'TLX6v, 6 XIXAouµev -r61tov. 1twc; YIXP llv 'TLc; µlj
cpwv1Xc; xe:v1Xc; ~ouMµevoc; AeyeLv Emvo~aixL awµ&. TL 7tA~pec; ixu-rou xixl. µ'Yj-
8ev ezov EV IXU'Tci> XEVOV 8LCX.<1Tl)fl,IX, 8ez6µevov EV IXU'Tci> llAAO awµix oµolwc;
7tA~pe:c; IXU'TOU;
EL µev YIXP 8LIX 1t6pwv 'TLVWV xwpe:°Lv IXU'TIX 8L' CXAA~AWV Ae-
25 ye:L, ~ xevouc; Epe:L -rouc; 1t6pouc; -rouc; 8ezoµevouc; 'TO awµix <~> lltJ..ix 'TIX
EV Tei> awµIXTL XEVCX.. e:t 8e 7tA~pELc; llAAOU 'TLVoc; awµix-roc;, EL µev U7tE~L-
6v-roc; 'TOU'TOU XIXL 7t1Xpixxwpouv-roc; tjc; xwpixc; Tei> E7te:Laxpwoµevep awµix-rL,
ou8' o(hwc; €<1'TIXL 'TO awµix, xix6o awµix, 8e:z6µe:v6v 'TL awµix EV IXU'Tci>, d
ye U7tOXWPEL 6&.-repov 6ix-repep, EL 8e u1toµevov-roc;, 1twc; o!6v n -rouc; 7tE:7tA'Yj-
30 pwµevouc; 1t6pouc; awµix-roc; EV IXU'TOLc; lltJ..o 'TL 8eze:a61XL awµix; XIXL YIXP 8ux
tjc; ixta6~aewc; yvwpLµov, O'TL µ'Yj8£ 'TIX AE1t'T6'T1X'TIX 'TOU awµix-roc; cxyydix 7tE-
7tA'Yjpwµevix o!&. 'TE £(TTL 8e~ixa6ixL awµix EV IXU'TOLc; Tei> XEXWAUa61XL xixl. E1tL-
1te:cpp&.z6ixL 'TIXc; tjc; µe:TIX<1'TCX.<1EWc; IXU'TWV o8ouc;. €'TL 8' EL 8LIX 7tE:7tA'Yj-
pwµevwv 'TWV 1t6pwv ~ 1ta.po8oc; 'TOLc; awµixaL, 1te:pLn6v EG'TL 'TO 1t6pouc; e:t-
219 VIXL AeyELV. 8exoLV'TO YIXP &v lltJ..ix awµix-rix xixl. xwpl.c; 'TWV 1t6pwv. xix66-
AOU y1Xp ~ 8LIX -rwv 1t6pwv 1ta.po8oc; ou xpiia(c; £GTLV, o!ixv CX~LOUaLv, CXAAIX
1tixp&.6eaLc;, we; IXU'TOL AeyouaL xix6' &pµ~v. e:t µ~ 'TLc; 1tiiv 'TO awµix 1t6pouc;
1toLOLlJ. oihwc; y1Xp µ6vwc; fo-rixL -ro 8LIX -rwv 1t6pwv 8Lepz6µevov 8L1X 1tixv-roc;
5 Epz6µe:vov 'TOU awµix-roc;, e:t 1tiiv e:t'Yj 1t6poc; • CXAAIX f-Ll)V ll-ro1tov 'TOU'TO. 'TLVOc;
218. 12-13 1tciacw; µiiXAov ~ T0tUT0tL<; scripsi: ou 1tcia0tL<; µ.~.-r. Br.: O\laatL<; µiiXAov
~ [ii Bruns] Tatu-ratL<; ABCPS v. infra
218. 15 a.1to8e:'t Apelt, cf. Alex. de an. 9. I, 5: 1b0tv 8e:i codd.
218. 16 ou suppl. Apelt
218. 19-20 aatip~ve:LCXV lxeL, 8L' ~V DieJs: &.ip81)a0tv E:XELV 8e:i ~V codd., obelo
not. Br. v. infra
218. 21 TL Apelt: TO codd. 6 Br.: av codd.
218. 25 ~ codd. Rex: ou Br. <~> Rex &.nix -rix codd. Rex: &.n'
ouTw Br.
218. 28 OtUTcjl scripsi, cf. 218. 18, 23: OtUTcjl codd.
219. 3 &:pµ1)v ABCS: &.pµ1)v PR: xcxTix &:pµ~v (Br.) correxi
TEXT AND TRANSLATION 121
218. IO V One might wonder how they could say that the common
notions, as the natural standards of truth, should be used in dem-
onstrating theories, and yet use every notion but these in estab-
lishing their own doctrines. Certainly their statements on blending
not only fail to be based on natural notions but are in fact as far
removed from them as it is possible to be. For bodily interpenetra-
tion with full coextension not only fails to strike us as in accord
with the common notions but is also preconceived to be impossible.
It is, indeed, a natural notion that what is full can no longer receive
anything in itself; for it is obvious that that which has space in it
capable of receiving another body cannot yet be full, and on account
of this natural and common preconception some think it reasonable
that there be something receptive of bodies which we call place.
For how could someone who did not wish to talk nonsense think
that any body, full of itself and with no empty interval in it, received
in itself another similarly full body?
218. 24 For if he says that they go through one another by means of
pores he will either say that the pores which receive the body are
empty, or that there are some other empty spaces in the body.
Now if [the pores] are full of some other body, but if this body
departs and provides space for the body that is blended in, then
the body qua body will not even in this way be receiving body in
itself, if one of the bodies withdraws before the other; but if the
body remains, how could the pores that are filled with body receive
some other body in themselves? For it is known through perception
that not even the narrowest vessels of the body can receive a body
in them when they are filled because their paths for displacement
are impeded and blocked. But again if the entrance into bodies is
through filled pores it is superfluous to say that pores [219] exist;
for bodies could then receive other bodies even without the pores.
For, in general, entrance through pores is not blending of the
kind they uphold but juxtaposition "by juncture," to use their
precise term-unless one made the whole body into pores. For only
if all of it were a pore would the body passing right through the
pores go through the whole body. But that is ridiculous, for the
122 DE MIXTIONE
6 yocp o1t6poc; (xod lx.tJ...o 't'O tx.ov xoct 't'O EX,6µ.&vov), &L y& a 1t6poc; 8Locaniµ.oc
't'L €a't'L X&VOV 't'OU ex_ov-roc; -rouc; 1t6pouc; awµ.oc-roc;. &a-r' &t 1tiiv &Ll) <1t6poc;>,
oihwc; 8' (XV oux ov &Ll) 't'L • µ.~ ov 8' ou-r' (XV XLpvcjl-ro &'t'L ou-r' (XV 1t6pouc;
<&X,OL>.
VI Et 8' oihw µ.e:v OU qiocaL 't'OC awµ.oc-roc lx.AAl)AOC 8ex_&a8ocL, xoc8o 8e:
10 µ.ea-roc &cr't'L ocu-roc, x_wp&i:v 8L' octJ...~1.wv ocu-roc qiocmv, 1tpw-rov µ.e:v Em~l)~-
aocL 't'Lc; &.v, 't'L 8~7t0't'& OU 't'O 't'U)'._OV awµ.oc [ 't'O 't'UX,OV] 7t0CV't""(l auvcxU~l)'t'LXOV 't'OU
oµ.o
t (
OU. 't'OC\ yocp
\
1toaoc\ [ 't'OC\ ] XOC't'CX\ TIJV
\
1tpoc;
\
CX/\1\l)I\CX
~"). "). ").
auv
I e \
&aLV TIJV 't'OLCXUTIJV
I
't'O E~ OCU't'WV µ.&i:~ov EXOC't'epou 7t0L&L 't'WV auyx&Lµ.evwv. ypcxµ.µ.oc( 't'& yocp
XCX't'OC <1l)µ.&'i:ov OCAA~AOCLc; auv-r&8&i:aocL 't'O µ.ijxoc; CXU~OUaLV (ou-rwc; yocp <1UV't'L-
I 5 8eµ.&vcxL E~ ocvocyxl)c; E~oua( 't'L 1tocpoc ~v OC(j)~V), E7tL7t&8oc 't'& 't'O OCU't'O 7tOL&L,
<iv xoc-roc ~v ypocµ.µ.~v auv-r&87i, -r6 <T&> awµ.oc, -rcjl-rpLX,TI 't'& xoct 7t1XV't""(l 8L&a-roc-
VCXL, xcx O e'
~ > \ ~"). ").
&OCV CXl\l\{p oµ.oLwc;
t I > - '[\
CXU't'Cp -
oL&a't'W't'L A,:: J t:- I I
<1UV't'&v I t;
fl, &c;,, ocvocyxl)c; auvcxuc;,,&L
't'OU't'O. &L 8~ 't'OU't'O µ.e:v otx&i:ov -roi:c; awµ.ocaLV xoct rnLoV OCU't'WV, ot 8e: U-
yov-r&c; awµ.oc 't'L 8Loc awµ.oc-roc; X,Wp&LV xoc1 &AOC't"t'6v 7t0't'& xoct foov 't'O E~ ocµ.-
20 (j)OLV 7tOL&LV OCVOCLpouaL 't'OU't'O, OCVOCLpoi:&v (XV ~v 't'OU awµ.oc-roc; (j)U<1LV.
auvocvcxLp&L't'OCL yocp OCVCXLpouµ.evep -rcjl £8(ep 't'LVOc; 't'O 1tpiiyµ.oc, 00 ~v t8LOV 't'O
OCVOCLpouµ.&vov.
(.I_ 'l\l > 1 6

auµ.t-'l)<1&'t'OCL oi:; XOC't' cxu-rouc; XOCL X&VoV YLV&a IXL 't'OV XOC't'&-
I I \ \ I \
x.6µ.&vov -rewc; -r61tov U7t0 't'OU OU't'Wc; ev 't'LVL ywoµ.evou awµ.oc-roc;, we;
µ.l)8evoc
1tpoa&1tLI\OCµ.t-'ocv&LV
"). (.I_ I
CXI\I\OV
~">.">.
't'67tOV 't'O1 awµ.oc,
- '
&V T
-,.-,., ocpx&L-
OCI\I\ ' -
25 a8ocL -rcjl xoct 1tpo tjc; 't'OU't'OU µ.(~&we; u1t' exdvou 7t&7tAl)pwµ.evep. 0 yocp
u1t' CXU't'OU xocnx.6µ.&voc; -r61toc; fo-rocL X&voc; 't'WV Mo awµ.oc-rwv &tc; 't'OV 8oc-
-repou X,Wpl)<11XV't'WV -r61tov. 't'L yocp fo-rocL 't'O E~ ocvocyxl)c; yLv6µ.&vov EV -rcjl
't'OU &tc; 't'O awµ.cx µ.e-rcxa't'OCV't'Oc; -r61tep; oaoc 8' cxo 7t0CALV EV -r7i 1tpoc; lx.AAl)AOC
µ.(~&L 't'WV XLpviia8ocL A&yoµ.evwv OCU~&'t'OCL, ocu-r68&v ~8l) 7tpOa7tL7t't'&L 't'O µ.l)8E:
219. 7 lacunam post &t"I) Br.: 1t6pot; supplevi: <1t6pot;, 8ttxa'n)µtt 1tiiv &v Eh)>
coni. Br.
219. 8 pr. !Iv coni. Br.: av codd. alt. ou-r' Schwartz: 8' ou8 codd.
219. 9 ~x_ot suppl. Schwartz
219. 10-II em~lJ-r~acxt -rtt; ll.v scripsi, cf. 225. 18, Alex. de an. 60. 22, Quaest.
72. 17, Metaph. 59. 28: em~lJ~OClt 'rtt; Apelt Br.: em~"l)rijacxv codd.
219. II [-ro -rux_ov] coni. ldeler Rex: -rou -rux_6v-rot; coni. Br.
2 I 9. I 2 -rix sec!. Schwartz
219. 16 <-re> Rex -rci> coni. Br.: -ro awµcx, -ro codd.
219. 29 µ"1)8t coni. Br.: µ-IJ -ro codd.
pore belongs to something (both the container and the contained

are distinct), if, that is, the pore is an empty interval of the body
that has the pores. So if it were completely< a pore> then it would
not be anything, and as nonexistent it would no longer be blended
or< have> pores.
219. 9 VI If they deny that bodies receive one another in this way,
but say that insofar as they are full they go through one another,
one might first inquire why any given body does not contribute
to an increase in the size of a similar body in all dimensions; for by
such a mutual composition quanta make their compound greater
than each of the components. Lines, for example, increase their
length when compounded with one another at their points (for in
such a compound they will necessarily have something beyond
contact), and planes will do the same if they are compounded line
by line, as will body by its three complete dimensions necessarily
contribute to increasing the size of another body of similar dimen-
sions with which it may be compounded. If this is peculiar to, and
a proprium of, bodies, and if those who say that a body goes through
body and makes the compound both less somehow and equal [to
the constituents] abolish this, they would abolish the nature of
body; for the subject of which the abolished property was a pro-
prium is abolished along with its abolished proprium.
219. 22 It will follow according to them* that the place [p2] until then
occupied by the body [BJ which comes to be in some body [A] in
this way also becomes void, so that the body [A] in which it [BJ
comes to be occupies no additional place but is sufficed by the
place [pr] filled by it [A] even before its mixture with this body [BJ.
For the place [p2] occupied by it [BJ will be void when the two
bodies have moved into the place of one. For what is there that
will necessarily come to be in the place [p2] of the body [BJ which is
transferred into the body [A]?
219. 28 When again an increase occurs in the intermixture of the bodies
said to be blended, it thereupon strikes us that the body [BJ
• In the next three paragraphs assume that body A in one place (p 1) is

to receive body B initially occupying another place (p 2).
124 DE MIXTIONE
30a&µix e:!vixL 't'O a&µix 8e:8e:yµevov EV 't'IXU't'cj>, e:t ye: lx.AAYJV 't'LVOC xwpixv 1tpoa-
e;(,-Yjcpe: XIXL oux ~pxita8Yj -tjj xwp~ -tjj 't'OU t.e:yoµevou IXU't'O EV IXU't'cj> 8e-
xe:a81XL awµix't'oc;. l>'t'L 8e µ~ a&µoc EO''t'L 't'O 8e:unpov EV IXU't'c°j) 't'O 7tpW't'OV
8e:x6µe:vov ['t'O] a&µix, 8YJAOL XIXL fi ye:voµitVYj 8L1XLpe:aLc; u1t' a.AA~A(J)V 't'WV
220 XLpvixµevwv O'WµOC't'WV. IXU't'OC yocp 8L1XLpOUV't'IX 8Lt0"'t'IXV't'IXL. 8L1XLpouµe:vix 8e
xwpixv EIXU't'OLc; 7t1Xpixaxe:uoc~e:L, we; µ~ 8uvocµe:vix 8Loc auve:xouc; XIXL a.8L1XLpit't'OU
't'OU U7tOXe:Lµevou awµix't'o<; e:tc; 't'L 7tpoae:t.8dv.
xix86t.ou 8e [ e:£] t8e:L µev 't'O

8e:x6µe:vov a&µix EV ixu't'cj> &tJ...o a&µix, µY)8itv 't'L µe:L~ov y(ve:a8ixL • 't'OU't'O
5 yocp EO''t'L 't'O 8e~ixa8ixL EV IXU't'c°j) 't'L. E7tL µYj8e:v6c; 't'LVOc; O'Wµ1hoc; -ri µL~Lc;
't'WV awµoc't'WV foov 't'YJPEL 't'OV i>yxov evt 't'WV µLyvuµevwv. Ecp' 6)V yocp
foov 8oxd µeve:Lv, E7t1 Exe:(vwv OU awµIX't'(J)V µL~(c; EO''t'L, a.tJ...' ~ e:!86c; EO''t'L
XIXL \JAY) 't'OC AIXµ~ixv6µe:vix, we; fi tJiux~ XIXL 't'O a&µix, ~ a&µix xixt 1toc8oc;,
we; o a(8Yjpoc; XIXL fi 8e:pµ6't'Yjc;, ~ µe:'t'IX~OA~ 't'LVOc; y(ve:'t'IXL o!ov tc; 't'L &tJ...o,
IO we; E1tl -rijc; 't'itcppixc;. Otl't'E 8e 't'OC 7tOC8Yj Otl't'E 't'OC e:t8Yj awµIX't'IX, ou8' &v
&tJ...o a&µix EV IXU't'OLc; 8exoL't'O.
xixt yocp e:£ o!oc 't'E e:tYJ 't'OC awµIX't'IX &tJ...YjAIX
8exe:a8ixL, ou8' &v -rijc; a.V't'L7te:pLO''t'IXO'EWc; t't'L 8eoL 1tpoc; ~v XLVYJO'LV IXU't'OLc; •
OU yocp 8~ XWpLc; XLV~O'e:Wc; awµix 8[e:LO'L 8Loc O'WµIX't'O<;. 1tpoc; 8e 't'Oll't'OL<;,
1t&c; oux (l.AO"(OV xixt 't'O Ait"(ELV µev ~PIXXll't'IX't'OV a&µix 1t1XpLO'OUa81Xl 't'E XIXL
15 1tixpe:x't'e:(ve:a81XL 't'cj> µe:y(a't'ep, we; 't'OV xuix8ov 't'OU o(vou 7tOAAOLc; i,8ix't'oc;
µe't'poLc; foov "(Lvoµe:vov XIX't'OC µeye:8oc; IXU't'cj>; 1t&c; 8' oux 1ho1tov 't'O 1te:Lpii-
a81XL XIX't'IXO'XEUIX~ELV 8Loc 't'OU 't'OV AL~IXVW't'OV XIXL 't'OC lx.tJ...ix 't'OC 8uµLwµe:vix EV -tjj
8uµLOCO'EL E7tL 7tAELOV opiia8ixL xe:6µe:vix; o µev yocp AL~IXVW't'Oc; xixt 't'OC
oµolwc; 't'Oll't'Cp 8uµLwµe:vix xixt e:lc; !ltJ...o 't'L a&µix µe:'t'IX~IXAAOV't'IX AE7t't'O't'e:pov,
219. 30 't'IXu'l'cj> scripsi, cf. Aristot. Phys. 209a 6-7 (tv 'l'IXU'l'cj> [sc. 't'6mi>J): ixu'l'cj>
codd.
219. 31 ixu'l'cj> scripsi: ixu'l'cj> codd.
219. 32 ixu't'cj> scripsi: ixu't'cj> codd.
219. 33 [To] coni. Br.
220. 1 ixu't'ix coni. Br., cf. tixu't'oii; (220. 2): '!'ix codd.
220. 3 't'L scripsi: 't'0 codd. 1tpoae:t..6eiv] obelo not. Br. qui 1tp6aw tt..6e:!v
coni. [e:!J coni. Ideler Rex
220. 4 a<7iµix, µri8ev obelo not. Br.; [d] l8e:L, <d> ev 't'L 8e:x6µe:vov a<7iµix tV
ixu'l'cj> &llo a<7iµix <µri8ev µe:i~ov y[ve:'t'ixt> coni. Br.
220. 9 li; 't'L Apelt: t<r'l'iv codd.
220. IO ou8' !v obelo not. Br.
220. 11 ixu't'oi:i; scripsi, cf. 218. 32: ixu't'cj> codd.
220. 14 µev codd. Rex: Iv Diels Br.
220. 16 1t<7li; 8' 0\J)( Diels: O~'t'Wi; 8' av codd.
220. 18 xe:6µe:vix Diels: Kixt6µe:vix codd.
received in the same place [as A, pr] is not even body, if indeed it
[BJ has occupied some other place and is not sufficed by the place
[pr] of the body [A] said to receive it [BJ in itself.
219. 32 And that the second body [BJ which receives the first body [A]
in itself is not even body is clear from the mutual division of con-
stituents; [220] for in dividing one another they create a cleavage,
and in being divided provide space for themselves because they
cannot make any advance through the underlying body that is
continuous and undivided.
220. 3 In general a body that receives another body in itself must be-
come no greater; for that is what "to receive something in itself"
means. There is no body for which the mixture of bodies preserves
a mass equal to one of the constituents; for where it seems to
remain equal there is no mixture of bodies but the cases involve
either form and matter (as soul and body) or body and quality
(as iron and heat) or a given change occurs into some other thing,
as happens with ash. But neither qualities nor forms are bodies
and certainly would not receive another body in themselves.
220. II Again if bodies were able to receive one another there would no
longer be any need of mutual-replacement for their motion; for
certainly body will not pervade body without motion.
220. 13 Furthermore, how irrational also to say that a minute body
would be made equal to and be extended with a very large one,
as when the pitcher of wine becomes equal to many measures of
water in its quantity. How absurd to attempt to establish this
through the fact that incense and bodies that are similarly in-
cinerated are seen to be melted over a considerable expanse in the
incineration; for while incense, and bodies that are similarly in-
cinerated and change into some other more attenuated body, in
126 DE MIXTIONE
20 oihwc; 'TTJV E7tL 1tMov 8qe:-r1XL x.uenv, 'rot 8e XLpvcx.µ.e:vcx. n xixl. µ.Lyvuµ.e:vix
xixl. xix-r' ixu-rouc; aw~ov-rix 'TTJV otxdixv qiuaLV XLf)VOC'rlXL, we; XIXL x.wpLa67jvixL
8uvixa61XL 7tCX.ALV. Clan ou8ev IXU'rOLt; de; 1t1Xp1Xµ.u6(ixv -rwv e1toµ.evwv ch61twv
'rOLt; xe:vwc; Ae:yoµ.evoLc; ~ -rou-rwv auvnAe:L 1tixpcx.6e:aLc;.
VII T6 n o?iv awµ.ix 8Lot

awµ.ix-roc; x.wpdv, cj'> X.PWV'rlXL 1tpoc; 'TTJV -rljc; xpcx.ae:wc; cx.1t68oaw, 41e:u86c; n
, , , , i , ,1i , , , , , , - ,... e,
25 XIXL 7t1Xp1X -rixc; XOLVIX<; 1tpO/\l)-rELc; XIXL 'rlX qiuaLXIX XIX'r ixu-rouc; 'rl)<; IX/\l) ELIX<;
xpLnJf)LIX, xixl. 7t0AU µ.ocAAOV l-rL -rou-rou 'rOLOU'rOV -ro awµ.ix-rcx. 'rLVIX Mye:LV,
auo ~ xixl. 1t1.dw, 8uvixa61XL 7tCX.V't7J 7t1Xpex-re:Lv6µ.e:vix IXU'rOL<; xixl. µ.Lyvuµ.e:vix 8L'
61.wv IXU'rCX. -re: aw~e:a8ixt 'rot E~ ocpx_ljc; µ.evov-rix, xixl. aw~e:LV -rote; otxe:lixc; 7tOL-
6'rl)-rlXc;. 'rOU'r<f) yotp ~ xpocatc; IXU'rOLt; -rljc; auyx.uae:wc; 8Lixqiepe:L, 6-rL E7tL µ.ev
30 -rljc; auyx.uae:wc; lv 'rL -ro EX -rwv auyx.e:oµ.evwv ylve:-rlXL, µ.l)8e:voc; -rwv EV -tjj
<1UYX,U<1EL µ.~-re; XIX'rot 'TT)V OU<1LIXV (1(1)~0(J.ltVOU, µ.~-re; XIX'rot -rote; 7tOL6-rl)'rlXt;, E7tL
8e -rljc; xpcx.ae:wc; excx.-re:pov -rwv EV -rcj'> xe:xpixµ.ivci> awµ.cx.-rwv l-rL aw~E'rlXL xixl.
XIX'rot -ro l'.moxdµ.e:vov xixl. XIX'rot -rote; 7tOL6-rl)-rlXc;, XIXL'rOL 8L' 61.wv <X.AA~AOL<;
xe:xpixµ.evwv -rwv awµ.cx.-rwv. o1.eyouaL µ.ev ~ouMµ.e:voL aw~&LV -ro 8uvixa6ixL
35 xixl. 'rot xe:xpixµ.evix x_wpl~e:a6ixL 7t<XALV <X.AA~A(l)V. cx.8uvchou 8' ov-roc; -rou
Ae:yoµ.evou, cx.8uvix-rov !XV e:tl) xix-r' ixu-rouc; ~ -ro 'TTJV xpocaw 8Lot 7tCX.V'r(l)V e:!-
VIXL ~ 'rO 8uv1Xa81XL x_wp[~e:a61XL 'rot XEXf)IX(J.ltVIX,
EL µ.ev yotp /)).ix 8L' /5).wv

221 'rot xe:xpixµ.evix µ.eµ.LX'rlXL XIXL µ.~ !-re:pov IXU'rWV EV -rcj'> µ.(yµ.ix-rL IX(J.LX'rOV 6ix-
-repou µ.6pLOV lx_e:L, cx.8uvix-rov IXU'rWV excx.-re:pov U7t0 t8(ixc; Emqiixve:(ixc; 1te:pL-
ex_e:a61XL • 7tOCV yotp µ.6pLOV IXU'rWV, -ro U7t0 otxe:(ixc; Emqiixve:(ixc; 1te:pLe:x_6µ.e:vov,
IX(J.LX'rOV fo-rlXL 6ix-repou. OU yotp o!6v n 'TTJV -rou otvou Em(j)<XVELIXV u8ix-roc;
5 e:!VIXL, ~ 'TT)V 'rOU u8ix-roc; otvou, c'J>an OU'rWt; OUX fo-rlXL 8L' /)).wv (J.L~Lt; ~
xpocaLc;, ex.AA' de:v !XV 7t1Xpcx.6e:aw 'TTJV xpocaLV µ.op(wv µ.oploLc; 1.eyov-re:c; • o
(j)UA1Xaa6µ.e:voL IXAAO qiixal. (J.L~LV xixl. IXAAO xpocaLV e:!vixL.
e:t 8e µ.'1)8ev µ.6pwv

XIX-r' OLXELIXV 7tEflLYfl1X(j)~V -re; XIXL Em(j)CX.VELIXV e:t'I) 'rWV µ.e:µ.Lyµ.evwv, ex.AA' e;('I)
7tOCV oµ.oLoµ.e:pec; ye:yovoc; -ro awµ.ix, ouxe-rL µ.ev !XV e;('I) 1tixpcx.6e:aLc;, <X.AAot 8L'
220. 27 ixu-roic; scripsi: ixu-roic; codd. v. infra

220. 29 -rou-r Rodier, coni. Br., cf. 221. 12: -rou-ro codd.
221. 5 wa-re Apelt: we; 6 codd.
221. 6 & Apelt: ol codd.
this way undergo melting that leads to expansion, the constituents

of blends and mixtures are also, according to them, blended while
preserving their own character so that they can also be separated
again. Hence the association of these examples in no way contrib-
utes to diverting us from the ridiculous consequences of their
meaningless statements.
220. 23 VII So the theory of body going through body which they
employ in establishing blending is both an error and against com-
mon preconceptions and what according to them are the natural
standards of truth; yet much more so than this is the view that
certain bodies, two or even more, while being mutually coextensive
in all dimensions and totally mixed can themselves be preserved
in their original character and retain their own qualities.
220. 29 For they say that blending and fusion differ in that with fusion
a unity emerges from the bodies that are fused, while none of the
bodies in the fusion is preserved either in substance or in qualities,
while with blending each of the bodies in the mixture is preserved
both in substance and qualities, though the bodies have been
blended with one another in their entirety. They say this because
they also want to preserve the capacity of the blended bodies to
be separated again from one another. Were this account impossible,
it would be impossible, according to them, for blending to be com-
plete, or for the bodies that have been blended to be capable of
separation.
220. 37 Now if the blended bodies are totally mixed [221] and neither
of them has a part unmixed with the other, it is impossible for
either to be contained by its own surface; for each of their parts,
insofar as it is surrounded by its own surface, will be unmixed with
the other; for it is impossible that the surface of wine should be
that of water, or the surface of water that of wine, so that blending
will not be total mixture but they would turn out to be describing
as juxtaposition the blending of parts with parts. They avoid this
and say that mixture and blending are distinct.
221. 7 But if no part of the bodies that had been mixed existed with
its own shape and surface but the compound had become totally
uniform there would no longer be juxtaposition but total blending,
128 DE MIXTIONE
IO 61-wv x.piiaLc; • OU µ.~v €TL O'W~OL't'O IXV 't'OC E~ ocpx_'Yjc; O'WfLIX't'IX 't'WV µ.eµ.Lyµ.e-
vwv, ocM' E!'Y) IXV O'U"(XEX,Uµ.evoc 't'E x.ocl. auvecp8ocpµ.evoc. d 8~ ~8EL 't'OC x.w-
pLcr81J0"6µ.evoc O'W~Ecr8ocL x.ocl. µ.~ O'U"(XEX,U0"8ocL ('t'OU't'Cp yocp ~ x.piimc; X.OC't' ocu-
't'OUc; tjc; O'U"(XUO'EWc; 8LoccpepEL), ocvocyx.oci:ov 8e 't'oi:c; 8L' 61-wv µ.eµ.Lyµ.evoLc;
O'U"(XEX,U0"8ocL, oc8uvoc't'OV 't'OC 8L' 61-wv µ.eµ.iyµ.evoc X.OC't' OCU't'OUc; x.wpL~E0'60CL
15 8uvoccr8ocL.
~'t'L 8e, EL OCVIX"(X'Y) µ.ev 't'OC x.ex.pocµ.evoc 8i' 61-wv µ.eµ.i:x.8ocL, 't'OC 8e
8L' 61-wv µ.eµ.Lyµ.evoc ocMvoc't'OV µ.~ O'U"(XEX,U0"8ocL, 't'OC 8e auyx.ex.uµ.evoc n x.ocl.
O'UVEcp8ocpµ.evoc oux o!6v 't'E IXU't'OC O'W~Ecr80CL, ou8' IXV ~~ELc; O'W~OLV't'O OCU't'WV,
et ye iv µ.ev 't'L 't'O yeyovoc; EX 't'WV auyx.ex.uµ.evwv 't'E x.ocl. O'UVEcp6ocpµ.evwv.
OCVIX"(X'Y) 8e 't'O iv awµ.oc U7t:O µ.Liic;, &c; cpocmv, ~~ewe; auvex.ea6ocL, &an x.ocl.
20 X.OC't'OC 't'OU't'O !XV ocx.wpLO"t'IX OCAA~AWV d1J 't'OC x.ex.pocµ.evoc X.OC't' OCU't'OUc;.
EL ae
X.IX't'OC µ.ev 't'OC Aey6µ.evoc un:' OCU't'WV ocx_wpLO''t'OC OCAA~AWV ocvocyx.oci:ov ELVOCL 't'OC
X.EX.pocµ.evoc (ou yocp 8~ o!6v 't'E ~V 8L' 61-euv XpOCO'LV yevecr8ocL x_eupl.c; O'Ufl,-
cp8ocpO'EWc;, ocx_wpLO''t'IX 8e Cj)OCO'LV ELVOCL 't'OC O'UVEcp8ocpµ.evoc), opwµ.ev 8e en:' EVLWV
):(l)pt.~6µ.e:vcx, 3~Aov 6.l~ oUx &v ~ xpicnc; yivoL~O xcxT<i T0v U1t' ocU'TWv e:L-
25 p'Y)µ.evov 't'p6n:ov.
VIII Ilpoc; 8e 't'OU't'OLc;, d 8LocLpOUV't'CuV fl.AA'Y)AOC 't'WV X.Lpvocµ.evwv

~x.piiaLc; y(voL't'O (8Loc 't'OU't'O yocp EV 't'o'i:c; uypo"r:c; ~ x.piimc; µ.ocALO''t'OC, 6't'L EO''t'LV
eMLoclpE't'OC 't'OCU't'OC x.ocl. pqc8(wc; 8oc't'Epov 8Loc 8oc't'epou 8LELO'L 8Locipouv OCU't'6, we;
opii't'IXL x.ocl. o o!voc; o de; 't'O u8wp emx.e6µ.evoc;, X.Lpvocµ.evoc; IXU't'<j}), d µev
oov 8LocLpoUV't'IX fl.AA'Y)AIX oc8LoclpE't'IX OCAA~AWV X.IX't'OCAEL7t:EL 't'LVOC µ.ep'Y), oux.h' IXV
30 E('Y) ex.e'i:voc 't'OC µ.ep'Y) x.ex.pocµ.evoc (ocµ.Ly'Yj yocp x.ocl. &µ.LX't'IX ocvocyx.oci:ov e!vocL 't'OC
µ.~ 8LTip'Y)µ.evoc µ.ep'Y), et ye ~ x.piiaLc; x.ocl. ~ X.IX't' IXU~V µ.i:~Lc; X.IX't'OC ~v
8Loc(peaLV y(ve't'OCL x.ocl. 't'IXU't"YJV 6pov tx_eL • ou't'w 't'E n:ocALv y(yvoL't'O ocv ~ x.pii-
mc; [yLvoµ.ev'Y)] n:ocpoc8foeL, ocM' OU 8L' 61-wv OCAA~AWV 't'WV x.ex.pocµ.eveuv
8L1JX.6V't'WV), EL 8e µ.1)8ev oc8LocLpE't'OV OCAA~AWV ev -tjj x.pOCO'EL X.IX't'IXAEAOL7t:IXO'LV,
35 E('Y) !XV 7t:IXV't'TI 8LTIP'YJ!LevOC x.ocl. oux. ELc; µep'Y), ocM' de; 8LocLpeO'ELc; ~ 't'OfL~ ye-
221. 19 auvexe:a6ocL Apelt: auve:"Aea6ocL (auve:Mx60tL B) codd.

221. 22 OU yixp a~ Br.: e:l yixp µ.~ codd.
221. 25 e:l Ideler: ~ codd.
221. 29 a.8Loc(pnoc ldeler: 8LocLpe:-rix codd.
221. 33 yL110µ.ev7j seclusi 8L' o"Awv a."A"A~"Awv scripsi: o"Awv a."A"A~"Awv 8L' o"Aou
codd. v. infra
as the original bodies that had been mixed would no longer be

preserved but would be fused and destroyed together.
221. II Now if the bodies that were to be separated had to be preserved
and not fused (this is how they distinguish between blending and
fusion), while it is necessary for the bodies that are totally mixed
to be fused, then it is impossible, by their theory, for bodies that
are totally mixed to be separated.
221. 15 And further if it is necessary that the blended bodies be totally
mixed, while it remains impossible for bodies that are totally
mixed not to be fused, and for bodies that are fused and destroyed
together to be themselves preserved, then not even their States
would be preserved, if, that is, a single thing is created from the
bodies that are fused and destroyed together. A unified body must
be held together by one State (to use their term) so that in this
respect also the bodies that have been blended would be inseparable
from one another.
221. 20 Now if it necessarily follows from their statements that bodies
that have been blended be inseparable from one another (for it
is impossible that the total blend should occur without their joint
destruction, and they say that the bodies destroyed together are
inseparable), but we do see that in some cases they are separated,
clearly blending would not occur in the manner described by
them.
221. 25 VIII Furthermore, if blending occurred through the constitu-
ents dividing one another (for blending occurs this way particularly
in liquids because they are easily divisible and one [constituent]
will easily pervade the other and divide it, as we see in the case of
221. 28 wine poured into water and blended with it), then if the bodies
dividing one another leave behind some mutually undivided parts,
those parts would not be blended (for the undivided parts must be
unmixable and unmixed-if, that is, blending and mixture qua
blending occur by division and have this as their defining char-
acteristic; thus blending would again occur by juxtaposition and
certainly not through the bodies that have been blended pervading
221. 34 one another totally). On the other hand, if the constituents leave
no undivided remainder in the blend they would be divided through
and through, and not into parts but into divisions, if no particle
9
r30 DE MIXTIONE
yovuLcc, e:t ye: µ.'Y)8&v CCUTWV µ.opLOV 1tccpoc TIJV 8Lcctpe:ow XCCTCCAeAEL7tT(XL. xcct
222 lTL d E:XCCO'TOV, de; & 8L-fip'YJTCCL E:XCCO'TOV, e:x TOUT(t)V O'UVTL8e:µ.ev(t)V 7tOCALV
ytve:TCCL, EL'YJ <XV TOC OUT(t)<; 8L7Jp'Y)µ.evcc EX 8LccLptae:(t)V, oux e:x µ.e:pwv ou8e: e:x
O'(t)fJ.OCT(t)V O'Uyxdµ.e:vcc. ~ yocp 8Lcctpe:aLc; OU O'WfJ.CC, OCAAOC 1toc8oc; O'WfJ.CCTOc;.
E:7t€TCCL 8e: TOL<; Akyoumv e:1t' IX7t€Lpov TIJV TOfJ.~V xcct TO [~] &.MvccTOV Aeye:Lv
5 7tOCV't'7J 3L7Jp~a8cc( TL awµ.cc e:ve:pyd~, ouT(t)c; 8e: xcct µ.(yvua8ccL 8L' OA(t)V Tei>
de; oc1mpcc e:ve:pyd~ 8L7Jp~a8ccL TOC O'WfJ.CCTCC.
' yccp "')./-.,
EL' µ.e:v /\<, l OUO'LV €7t
\ ,,
, , (X7t£L-
pov ELVCCL 8LCCLpETOC TOC O'WfJ.CCT(X Tei> µ.'Y)8e1t0Te: e:mAEL7t€LV TIJV TOfJ.~V, oc),),'
&.e:t e:x TWV TEfJ.VOfJ.£V(t)V 1te:pLAe:t1te:a8cc( TL Teµ.ve:a8ccL 3uvocµ.e:vov, oux o!ov n
e:O"TCCL awµ.oc TL 7t0CV't'7J 8L7Jp~a8ccL we; µ.'Y)xeTL U7tOAEL7tE0"8cc( TL e:~ CCUTOU TOfJ.~V
10 &.vcc8e~cc0'8ccL 8uvocµ.e:vov. d 8e: TOUTO, ou8e1ton <XV EL'YJ TOC XLpvocµ.e:vcc 8L'
QA.(t)V xe:xpccµ.evcc, e:t ye: x(pvCCTCCL µ.e:v OCAA~AoLc;, xcct 1tccpe:XTELV€T(XL 8LccLpouv-
TCC IXAA'YJACC <oc8uvccTOV 8e: OUT(t)c; IXAA'YJACC> 8L7Jp'Y)xevccL, we; µ.~ U1t0Ae:t1te:-
(j8(XL TLV(X CCUTWV µep'Y) µ.~ 8L7Jp'Y)µ.evcc. XCCTOC yocp TOC µ.~ 8L7Jp'Y)µevcc ou8e1t(t)
&v OCAA~AoLc; EL'YJ xe:xpccµevcc.
d 8e: AkyoLe:v e:1t' oc1te:Lpov dvccL TOC awµ.ccTcc

15 3LccLpe:Toc, Tei> de; oc1te:Lpov Mvcca8ccL 8L7Jp~a8ccL [TO] 1tiiv 8L7Jp'Y)µ.evov awµ.cc,
XCCT , ();.1JTOU<;
, '
EL'• YJ (XV
.,. •
e:Lc; !!
~mnpcc • ,
e:ve:pye:L~ '!> L
OL7lp'Y)µ.i:;vl1 T(X' xe:xpccl""V(X
.,/.. ·~~ ,~
CC/\/\'Y)/\OLc;.
e:t yocp 7t0CV't'7J xexpccTCCL, 7tOCV't'7J 8LTIP'YJTCCL. 7tOCV't'7J 8e: 8L7Jp'Y)µ.evcc <TIX µ.Lyvu-
µ.e:vcc de; oc1te:Lpcc 8LTIP'YJTCCL> xcct d µ.e:v TOC e:tc; & 8L7lP'YJTCCL µ.e:ye8'YJ xcct
18a (XUTOC, EL'YJ <XV E:XCCO'TOV TWV OUT(t)c; µ.Lyvuµ.ev(t)V 1X1te:Lpov (To yocp e:~
OC7te:Lp(t)V µ.eye:86c; TL xcct 8LOCO'T(XO'LV EXOV't'(t)V auyxe:(µ.e:vov IX7t€Lpov • y(-
20 VET(XL yocp EXocnpov TWV xe:xpccµeV(t)V e:~ oc1tdpwv µ.eye:86c; TL EXOVT(t)V, EL ye:
de; & -reµ.ve:TCCL TL xcct O'Uyxe:La8CCL (XUTO e:x TOUT(t)V &.vccyxccLOV, auµ.~cc(voLTO
<8' > <XV OUT(t) xcct 7tA.€L(t) <XV e:!vccL O'WfJ.CCTCC IXAA(X IX7t€Lpcc), d 8e: µ.~ µ.e:ye8'Y) TOC
U7tOAe:m6µ.e:vcc de; & ~ Toµ.~ TWV 7tOCV't'7J 8L7Jp'Y)µ.ev(t)V (ou yocp 3~ EAIXXLO"TOC
222. 1 8rflpl)-rcxt scripsi: 8tcxtpe:i:-rcxt codd.

222. 4 [~] coni. Ideler,
222. 5-6 8t71pija6cxt bis scripsi: 8tcxtpe:fo6cxt codd. v. infra -r<T> Apelt: -ro
codd. tve:pyd~ (oi.1-rwt; ... 5AWV) <~> -ro Br.
222. 9 awµix -rt scripsi, cf. 222. 5: awµcx-rt codd. 1tixv-r71 coni. Br., cf. 222. 5,
17, Aristot. de gen. et. corr. 316a 15, 23, 25: 1t1Xv-rt codd. 8t71pija6cxt
scripsi: 8tcxtpe:!a6cxt codd.
222. 11 ye: Rex: 8t codd. Br. xlpvcx-rcxt B, xlpvcxv-rcxt cett.: e:l ye xlpvcx-rcxt µ6vcx,
<,b ix).).~).ott; xcxl 1tcxpe:x-r. coni. Br. qui loc. obelo not.
222. 12 <ix8uvcx-rov 8t oi.1-rwi; ei.AAl)ACX> coni. Br. qui lacunam indicavit
222. 15 8t'!)pija6cxt scripsi: 8tcxtpe:i:a6cxt codd. v. infra -ro secl. Schwartz
222. 17 -rclt µtyvuµe:vcx di; &1te:tpcx 8tflpl)-rcxt supplevi: lacunam ind. ldeler Br.
222. 22 <8'> Br.
of them remains beyond the division. [222] Then if each body is

reconstituted through the composition of the bodies into which it
has been divided, the bodies that have been divided in this way
would be composed neither of parts nor bodies, but divisions; for
a division is not a body but an attribute of a body.
222. 4 The consequence for those who describe division as continuing
to infinity is that it is impossible to speak of a body being in ac-
tuality divided* through and through and of bodies being in this
way also totally mixed by being in actuality divided into infinites. 1
222. 6 For if they say that bodies are divisible to infinity through the
division never letting up, but there always being a residue from
what is undergoing division capable of being divided, then it will
be impossible for a body to be divided* through and through so
that it leaves no remainder able to undergo division. But if this is
so, the constituents would never be totally blended, if they are
blended with one another and extended in dividing one another,
< yet incapable of so dividing one another> that no undivided parts
are left as a remainder; for they would remain unmixed with one
another with respect to the undivided parts.
222. 14 But if they claimed that bodies were divisible to infinity in that
every body that has been divided can be actually divided* to
infinity, then according to them the bodies that have been blended
with one another would be actually divided* into infinites; for if
there is blending through and through there must be division
through and through.
222. 17 But < constituents > that are divided* through and through
< are divided* into infinites>, and if the things into which they
are divided are also themselves magnitudes, each of the things
being mixed in this way would be infinite (for the sum of infinites
with size and extension is infinite; for each of the bodies that have
been blended is formed of infinite bodies that have some size, if
something must be composed of just the things into which it is
divided, and this would result in there being still further additional
infinites).
222. 22 But if the remainder produced by the division of the bodies
divided* through and through are not magnitudes (for they cer-
1 The Greekless reader should realise that at 222. 1, 5, 6 here, and below
at lines 9, and 15 I have emended the text to read the perfect passive
tense of "divide" where the manuscripts read the present passive. Those
apparent English present passives marked with an asterisk are in fact present
perfects; they refer to a completed state of division.
132 DE MIXTIONE
·twlX EpOUO"LV dvocL xixl. ix8L1XLpE:TIX crwµix-.ix), ELlj IXV IXUTOLc;; TO µeye:6oc;; oux
25 EX µe;ye:6wv cruyxelµevov, 8 E7tETIXL -.cj> xixl. --~c;; ypixµµ~c;; µep-ri Aeym Tot
O"l)µei:ix.
IX Tiwc;; 8e crw~6v·nuv fo-.l. 'TT)V 1tepl. xprfoewc; XOLV~V 1tp6Al)o/LV TO M-

yeLV xixl. 'TT)V E~LV -.oi:c;; EXOUO"LV IXU'TT)V µeµi:x6ixL, xixl. 'TT)V rpOcrLV -.oi:c;; rpu-.oi:c;;
xixl. TO rpwc;; Tcj> !XEpL xixl. 'TT)V ljlux~v -.cj> crwµix-.L, e'£ ye XLpviicr61XL µev 1tpoel-
Alj7tTIXL <Tot> xix-.' t8lixv 1tpo ~c;; xpoccrewc;; UipEO"'t'IXVIXL 8uvocµevix; 8Lot 't'OUTO
30 youv xixl. IXUTOL (j)IXO"L 't'ot xexpixµevix xwp[~ecr61XL 7t1XAL\I Mvixcr61XL, xixl. TIXOT'{l
8LixrpepeLV xpiicrLV cruyxocrewc;; TE xixl. rp6ocpcrewc;;. oun E~Lc;; 't'Lc;; xwpLO"'TTJ 't'OU
exov-.oc;; IXU'TTjV, we;; xix6' IXU'TT)V dvixL Mvixcr61XL, oun ~ 't'WV rpu-.wv rpOO"Lc;;
xwpl.c;; rpu-.wv U7tOO"TIXLlj 1to-.' &v. -.6 TE rpwc;; 1twc;; o'C6v n E7tLVO~O"IXL xexw-
pLcrµevov TWV 8LIX(j)IXVWV crwµoc-.wv; ix)..)..' oM' ~ ljlux~ TOLOUTOV, we;; ofov-
35 TIXL, et ye d8oc;; EVUAOV oux o'C6v TE ELVIXL xwpl.c;; UAljc;; Te xixl. crwµix-.oc;;.
ix)..)..'
ou8e TO 1tup -.cj> O"L8~pep, xix6oc (j)IXO"L, µlyvuTIXL, W0"7tep ou8& 't'OLc;; xuµoi:c;;
223 ou8e -.oi:c;; ~OAoLc;;. OA<uc;; yotp OCT07tOV 'TT)V UAljV -.cj> e'£8eL µtyvucr61XL MyeLV.
UAlj 8e 1tupoc;; Tot XIXL6µe;voc TE xixl. 1te1tupwµ&v1X 7t!X.VTIX, IXM' ~ µev &rp6ixp-
Toc;, ~ 8' 0\). 8Lo xixl. µexpL 7t0MOU O"~evvoµevoc TLVIX 't'IXUTO d8o~ -.cj> E~
ixpx~c;; 80VIXTIXL (j)UAIXTTELV, OU µ~v &.µdw-.oc. 7tlXVT'{l • xixl. yotp TOOTWV U7t0
5 't'OU 7tUpoc;; IXVIXALO"XETIXL TL xixl. rp6dpe't'IXL. 8Lo xixl. TIXUTIX XPOVL~OVTIX EV IXU-
-.cj> 1tAeov ix.1t6MU't'1XL -.e xixl. -.ou otxelou e'r'.8ouc;; E~LO"'t'IXTIXL.
X Tiwc;; 8' oux

1x.'t'07tOV xixl. TO Myew ~vwcr61XL 'TT)V cr6µ1t1XO"IXV OUO"LIXV 1tveoµixT6c;; nvoc;; 8Lot
7tOCO"ljc;; IXU~c;; 8L~xov-.oc;;, urp' OU O"UVEXETIXL n xixl. cruµµeveL TO 1tiiv xixl. cruµ-
1tix6ec;; EO"TLV IXUTcj>; 'TT)V yotp xupLWTIX't'ljV IXLTLIXV ~c;; TOU 7tlXV't'Oc; EVWO"e<uc;;
- 6 I
IO oux>
S:Loo-.ec;;
·~ I (
IXU't'lj
,1
O EO"TLV lj TOU ELOU 't'E XIXL XUX/\O(j)OpljTLXOU XIXL IXL-
~· > \ < \ ~ - \ >
6ep[ou crwµix-.oc;; rpOO"Lc;;, ~--Le;; 1tepL&XOUO"IX 7t<XO"IXV 'TT)V tvuMv TE xixl. 1t1X6lj'TT)V
xocl. µe-.oc~Alj'TTJV oucrlocv -tjj cruvexei: -.e xocl. 8L-rivexei: xLv~creL xocl. !x.AAon IXA-
Aol~ crxecreL 1tpoc;; IXUTot 't'ot~ de;; !x.AAljAIX 't'WV EV yevecreL crwµoc-.wv µe-.ix-
222. 25 o ... -r<j> scripsi: cj'> ••• -ro codd. Br. v. infra
222. 29 -roc suppl. Schwartz
222. 34 ofov-rru coni. Br.: o£6v -re: codd.
223. 4 &.µdw-rix Ideler: &.µe:lw -roc codd.
223. 10 <X~TIJ Ideler: ixu-ni codd.
tainly will not say that there are some minimal and indivisible
bodies) then their magnitude would not be composed of magni-
tudes-also a consequence of the theory that points are parts of
the line.
222. 26 IX How can they maintain the common preconception about
blending and say that even the State itself is mixed with the things
that have it, and that their Nature is mixed with plants, light with
air, and the soul with the body, if, that is, it is preconceived that
bodies capable of existing individually before the blend are blended?
Certainly it is for this reason that they themselves say that bodies
that have been blended can be separated again, and that they can
thereby distinguish blending from fusion and destruction. But no
State is separable from what has it so as to be capable of indepen-
dent existence, nor could the nature of plants exist apart from
them. How could one conceive of light as separable from transparent
bodies? Neither could soul be like this, as they think, if enmattered
form cannot exist apart from matter and body.
222. 35 Nor is fire mixed with iron, as they say, as not even with fluids
[223] or wood. For it is in general absurd to say that matter is
mixed with form; everything that is burnt and heated by fire is
the matter of fire, but while the former kind [of matter] is in-
destructible, this kind is not. So things that have quite considerably
deteriorated can preserve the same form that they originally had,
though they are in every respect diminished; for they are somewhat
expended and destroyed by the fire. Thus only after remaining
in [the fire] for a long time are these bodies too finally destroyed
and expelled from their own form.
223. 6 X Surely it is absurd also to claim that the whole of substance
is unified by a pneuma which pervades it completely, and through
which the whole is held together, is stable and is sympathetic with
itself? For they do not know the fundamental explanation for the
unification of the whole (this is the nature of the divine body, in
circular motion and composed of aether, which holds together and
preserves the whole by surrounding the whole enmattered, af-
fectable and alterable substance with continuous and everlasting
motion, and by causing in a fixed order the interchange of bodies
that come to be by its different states towards them at different
1 34 DE MIXTIONE
~OACX<.; EV wpLo-µev-n -r&.~e:L 7tOLouµtVi'j o-uvex_e:L xixl. O"W~e:L 't'O 7t0C\I)' 't'IXU't'i'j\l
15 µ~ ...• t86v-re:e.; EIXU't'OL<.;, µ~-re: -roi:e.; t8ouO"L\I IXXOAOU8-rjo-lXL 8uvi'j8tv-re:e.;, 8Lcx 't'O
U7t0 7t0AAW\I 't'L\l(u\l 8o~wv 1tpoe:Lt.-rjcp81XL 8e:o-µoi:e.; 't'LO"L xixl. I.JALXIXL<.; ixMixL<.; XIXL
't'LVL 1tve:uµix-rL 8Lcx 7tCX.O"i'j<.; -rije.; OUO"LIX<.; 8L~XO\l't'L IX\IIX't'L8tOtO"L\I IXU't'OU 'TT)\/ ev<uO"L\I,
~'t'L<.; 86~1X, 7tp0<.; 't'C:) xe:x_p-rjo-81XL 't'C:) 41e:u8e:i: o-wµoc 't'L 8Lcx O"WµIX't'O<.; 8L~XELV,
xixl. 8Lcx 't'W\I OCAAWV, O't'L EO"'t'L 41e:u8~e.;, ~8i'j EASYXE't'IXL • cpixve:pwe.; ycxp E\ILIX 't'W\I
20 o-wµcx.-rwv oux. otoc -re: Eve:pyd~ 't'L ()\I EX.EL\/ 7tVe:uµix EV IXU't'OL<.; • 't'O youv
u8wp 't'OO"OU't'O\I 1X1to8e:i: 't'OU E)'._EL\I 8Lcx 7tlXV't'O<.; IXU't'OU µe:µLyµevov 1tve:uµ&. 't'L,
we.; µYj8' OC\I 't'O 't'U)'._0\1 EV IXU't'C:) ytVi'j't'IXL 7tO't'E, ~ IX7t07tVLytv-roe.; EV IXU't'C:)
~ci>ou -rLvoe.; -rwv IXVl):.7tVEUO"'t'Lxwv ~ xixl. 8L' OCAAYJV oct-r(ocv 't'LVCX ye:v6µ~ov,
µYj8' E7t' o}.(yov EV IXU't'C:) 8uvoco-81XL µeve:Lv, IXAACX 7t1Xpixx_p-rjµix µe:-rcx ~LIX<.;
25 IXVIX!ptpe:o-8oc( -re: xixl. exxp(ve:o-8ixL, xocv EV ~u80 ye:v6µe:vov 't'UX.TI· 't'OU't'OU 8'
OU't'W<.; E)'._0\l't'O<.;, 7tW<.; ocv E't'L IXAi'j8e:e.; e:(i'j 't'O 7t0C\I ~vwo-8oc( -re: xixl. o-uvex_e:o-81XL,
7tVe:uµoc-r6e.; 't'LVO<.; 8Lcx 7tlX\l't'O<.; 8L~XO\l't'O<.; IXU't'OU;
E7tEL't'IX 8' e:ut.oyov µe:v ~v,

07tOLIX\I 'TT)\/ IX7t0 't'OU 1tve:uµoc-roe.; O"U\10)'._~V YLVOµ&Vi'j\l EV 7t0CGL\I e:tvocL -roi:e.; O"W-
µoco-LV • oux. OU't'W<.; 8' EX.EL. 't'W\I ycxp o-wµ&.-rwv 't'CX µev EO"'t'L o-uve:x_-rj, 't'CX
30 8e: 8L<upLo-µevoc. 8Lo e:ut.oyw-re:pov, ex<XO"'t'O\I IXU't'W\I U7t0 't'OU otxdou e:(8oue.;
o-uvex_e:o-8oc( -re: xocl. ~vwo-81XL Atye:w 1tpoe.; EIXU't'6, xix86 EO"'t'L\I IXU't'W\I EXIXO"'t'(p
't'O e:tvocL, 'TT)\/ <8e:> o-uµ1toc8e:L1X\I IXU't'W\I O"W~e:o-80tL 'TT)\/ 1tpoe.; OCAAYJAIX 8L&. 't'& 'TT)\/
-rije.; UAi'j<.; XOL\IW\ILOt\l XIXL 'TT)\/ 't'OU 1te:pLXELµtVOU 8dou o-wµoc-roe.; IXU't'C:) cpumv,
~ 't'C:) 8Lcx 't'OU 1tve:uµoc-roe.; 8e:o-µ0 • -r(e.; ycxp xocl. o-r6voe.; 't'OU 7tVe:uµoc-roe.;, ucp'
> - .,/,
- '
35 OU O"UVoouµe:voc 't'i'j\l -re: O"U\li:;)'._ELIX\I i::x_e:L 't'i'j\l 1tpue.; 't'Ot OLXELOt i-P'1l XIXL O"UVi'j-
T ~ I / L ,! ' l \
7t't'OtL -roi:e.; 7t1Xp<Xxe:LµtvOL<.;, ~LIX~6µe:vov µe:v ycxp u1t6 't'L\10(; 't'O 1tve:uµoc, 8Lcx
224 'TT)\/ 1tpoe.; 't'OU't'O e:ucputocv. -rij> µi'j8e:µ(ocv IX\l't'L~IXO"L\I E)'._EL\I -rij> XL\IOU\l't'L 8L' e:u-
1t&.8e:L1X\I 8uvoco-81XL, U7t0 -rije.; &.8p6oce.; XL\l~O"e:<ue.; LO")'._UV 't'L\/Ot A0tµ~&.ve:L, e:u1toc8e:e.;
8e: ()\I XIX't'CX 'TT)\/ OLXe:LIX\I ipUO"LV. uypov 8' EO"'t'L xocl. e:u8Loc(pe:-rov, we.; xocl.
't'W\I OCAAWV, EV ote.; &v TI 't'OU't'O µe:µLyµevov, XIX't'CX 't'OU't'O µ&.t.LO"'t'IX 't'& xocl.
5 &.p(O"'t'i'j\l y(ve:o-81XL 'TT)\/ 8Loc(pe:o-LV. 8Lcx 't'OU't'O youv ot µe:v xe:v6v 't'L IXU't'O ~-
A... T L I , > - < ~l. -,. -,. , ,! ,
v,,O"IX\I EL\IIXL XIX ipUO"L\I 't'L\IIX IXVIX!plj, OL oi:; 7t0/\/\IX i::x_e:LV e:v IXU't'<p xe:voc.
, _ 1
223. 18 Tcji (bis?) Br.: TO codd.

223. 22 1t0Te: Ideler: T6n codd.
223. 23 ye:v6µe:vov scripsi, cf. 223. 25: ye:voµevou codd.
223. 32 8e suppl. Br. alt. 'TTJV Apelt: 't"'ij codd.
223. 34 Tci> ... 8e:aµ4'l; Tlt; Von Arnim: TO ... me:uµcxTot; 8e:aµ@'t"l)t; codd. Br.
224. 1 81' Br.: 8' codd.
224. 2 e:tmcx6et; coni. Schwartz, cf. e:uqiutcx (224. I) et v. 233. 4: IX7tCX6et; codd. Br.
224. 5 ixpla't"l)v coni. Diels Rodier: ixpfo't"l)v codd. Br.
TEXT AND TRANSLATION 1 35
223. 14 times)-not being aware of this for themselves nor, because of their
many dogmatic preconceptions about it, capable of following those
who are aware of it, they instead attribute its unity to certain bonds
and material causes, and a pneuma which pervades the whole of
substance.
223. 18 In addition to relying on the false notion that body goes through
body this theory stands refuted for other reasons, since it is false.
223. 19 Clearly some bodies are incapable of having "pneuma"* actually
present in them. Water is so far from having some "pneuma"
completely mixed with it that no "pneuma" at all would ever arise
in it, either when some animal capable of respiration was choked
within it, or when it occurred for some other reason; nor could
any "pneuma" remain in it to even a slight degree without being
immediately removed and separated by force, even if it should
chance to occur in its depths. Since this is true, how could it still
be true that the whole is unified and held together through a
"pneuma" pervading the whole of it?
223. 27 Further, it would be reasonable that whatever sort of continuity
results from pneuma should exist in all bodies. But this is not the
223. 30 case; for some bodies are continuous, others discrete. It is more
reasonable, then, to describe each as unified with itself and held
together by its own form, insofar as each has being, while their
mutual sympathy is preserved because of their participation in
matter, and because of the nature of the surrounding divine body,
rather than through the bond of pneuma.
223. 34 For what is the tension of pneuma through which things are
bound together and have continuity with their related parts, and
are connected with juxtaposed bodies? Pneuma is forced by some-
thing [224] because of its good disposition towards it to assume
some power through its motion in a mass, in that it has not capacity
to resist its mover because of its malleability, being malleable in its
own nature. 1t:is moist and easily-divided, so that with other things
with which it has been mixed division is therefore especially viable.
Hence some have thought that it was something void and of an
intangible nature, while others that there were many empty spaces
in it.
* I.e. pneuma in its literal sense of "breath"; see Comm. on 223. 19-27.
DE MIXTIONE
Xctt'
yocp et 't'OU µ~ 8tct7tL7t't'EtV, IXAAOC cruµµevetv 't'OC (jWµct-rct, ctfrrnv 't'O cruvexov
ctU't'OC 1tveuµct, 't'OC 8tct7tL7t't'OV't'ct 't'WV (jCiJ!,LOC't'CiJV 8~AOV wi; oux OCV gxot 't'O
1tveuµct 't'O cruv8eov. 1twi; 8' ocv ~v ocpx~v ~ 8tctLpemc; (jW~Ot't'O 't'WV (jCiJ!,LOC't'CiJV,
10 et ye ~ µe:v 8tcttpe(jtc; xwpt(jµ6c; EG't't 't'W'J ~vwµevwv, µevet 8e: Xct't'' ctU't'OUc;
't'OC ~vwµevct [oµo£wc; IXAA~Aotc;] 7t0CV't'ct, xocv 8tcttpe6yj; 1twi; 8' oux !XV 7t0CV't'ct
(j)ctLVOt't'O 't'OC 7tctpctxdµevct IXAA~Aoti; xctl p~8(wi; IXAA~ACiJV xwpl~e(j6ctt 8uvoc-
µevct <cruvexeG8ctt> tm' ~U't'OU xctl oµo(wi; IXAA~Aoti; ~vwG8ctt [1.eyetv]
-roi:i; cruvexfot 't'e oifot xctl xwpli; 8tcttpfoewi; µ~ 8uvctµevoti; 't'tvoi; IXAA~ACiJV
14a xwpt~VctL 1ton;
1tpoi; 8e: 't'OU"t'Otc;, et 't'O 7tVeuµct yeyovoi; EX 1tup6i;

15 -re Xctl &:epoi; 8toc 7tOCV't'CiJV 7te(j)OL"t"YjXe 't'WV (jCiJ!,LOC't'CiJV <-rcj>> 7tOC(jtV ctu-roi:c;
xexpi(j6ctt xctl ~XOC(j"t'(p ctU't'WV EX 't'OU't'OU ~ptj(j6ctt 't'O e!vctt, 1twc; OCV
~'t't OC7tAOUV 't't e(Yj (jWµct; 1twi; 8' &v, d IJ(j't'epov 't'O ~x 't'tVCiJV (jUyxd-
µevov 't'WV OC7tAWV, 't'O 1tup OCV xctl o &:~p e(Yj, E~ G)V µtyvuµevwv 't'O 1tveuµct
ylve-rctt, 00 xwpli; &:Mvct't'OV e!vct( 't't (jWµct; d yocp E~ EXELVCiJV µe:v ~
20 yeve:(jti; -rcj> 7tVeuµct-rt, &.Mvct"t'OV 8e: EXeLVCiJV e!vctl 't't xwplc; 1tveuµct-roi;,
ou-r' ocv EXELVCiJV 't't e(Yj 7tp0 tji; 't'OU 7tVe:Uµct-roi; yevfoe:wc;, ou-r' OCV 't'O
7tVeuµct y(vot't'O, oux ISv"t'CiJV, E~ G>V ~ yeve(jti; ctu-rcj>. 1twi; 8' &v -rte; EV
-rcj> tliuxpci> Evepye(~ 't't 6epµov e!vctt 1.eyot; -rli; 8e: xctl ~ etc; 't'O EVctV"t'LOV
&µct XLVYj(jti; ctu-rou, xct6' ~v cruvex,_et -.ix EV oti; ocv fl, ov C>i; qict(jt, 1tVeuµct
25 Xtvouµevov
' o,;µct
~ e.,
'!:' ctU't'OU
• - -re XctL\ eti;
' ctU't'O;
• ' Xctt' Xct"t'ct' 't't' e!~ooi; XtVYj(jeCili;
'
ylve-rctt ; Xct't'' ou8e:v yocp O!6v -.· EG't'L VO~(jctL 't't &µct eti; 't'OC EVctV't'Lct
27a xtvouµe:vov xct6' ctu-r6.
XI 'AMoc yocp EOLXct(jtV, &i; e!7tov, ot OU't'Cil Myov-

-rei; -rcj> µ~ 8uv1j6~vctt 8totAct~e:i:v "t'cj> My<p tji; UAYJi; -.o e!8oc;, xct6o e!8oi;
ixct(j't'()V -.· EG't'L 't'WV ()V't'CiJV 6 EG't't, xctl 1tpoi; -rlMct 8tctqiopocv gxe:t, Xct't'OC
30 ~v i'JAYjV ou8e:v IXAA~ACiJV 8tctqiepov-rct, xct6o e:!8oi; gxet, xctl -rcj> (jW~e-
224. 11 oµolw; ixn~Aot; seclusi -rcx ~vwµevcx 1tixv-rcx scripsi: -rwv ~vwµtvwv 6µ.
ixn. 1tixv-rcx codd.: mxv-rwv ~vwµtvwv, 6µ. IXAA., rrixv-rcx, ><.'t'.A. Br. v.
infra
224. 13 auvtxe:a6cxt supplevi, v. infra [Mye:tv] coni. Ideler
224. 15 -rij> suppl. Ideler
224. 24 IXU't'OU A pelt: cxu-roi:;; OU codd. auvexe:t ldeler: aUVt)(E:LV codd.
224. 25 Ktvouµe:vov Apelt: Ktvouµtvou codd. IX\J't'OU ... cxu-r6 scripsi: IXU't'OU ... cxu-r6
codd. v. infra
224. 6 Now if the pneuma that binds them together explains why
bodies do not fall apart but remain together, clearly those bodies
which do fall apart will not have pneuma as their binding agency.
And how would the division of bodies be at all preserved if division
is a separation of bodies that are unified, yet according to them all
of the bodies that are unified are stable even if they have been
divided? And would not all the bodies that are juxtaposed with one
another and easily separable from one another appear < to be held
together > by it and unified with one another in the same way as
continuous bodies that are incapable of ever being separated from
one another without some division?
224. 14a Another point: if pneuma is a product of fire and air and pervades
all bodies by being mixed with all of them, and by each being
dependent on it for its existence, how could it still be an uncom-
pounded body? How, if the product of uncompounded bodies
is secondary, could it be Fire and Air from the mixture of which
evolves the pneuma without which it is impossible for any body
to exist? For if pneuma comes to be from these bodies, but none
of them can exist without it, no part of them would exist before
pneuma comes to be, nor would pneuma come to be without
the existence of the bodies from which it takes its coming-to-be.
224. 22 And how could anyone say that there is something actually hot
in what is cold?
224. 23 Also, what is its [pneuma's] motion in opposite directions at
the same time, by which it holds together the bodies in which it is
present, being, as they say, pneuma simultaneously moved into
and out of itself? Now by what kind of motion does this occur,
when it is impossible to conceive of any by which something is in
itself in motion in opposite directions at the same time?
224. 27 XI Now, as I said, with this doctrine they seem, by their
inability to distinguish in theory between form and matter-in that
everything that exists has its identity in its form and differs with
respect to other things which in themselves are indistinguishable
in matter, insofar as it has form, and in that these things are pre-
138 DE MIXTIONE
31 a8otL 't'E xotl. µ.eve:Lv 't'(XU't'ot, & Ea't'L, 1tve:uµ.ot't'L we; 8toc 7tOCV't'(l)V 8t~XOV't'L <X.VOC-
7t't'ELV 't'6 't'E e:!votL EXOCG't'OU xotl. 't'O aw~e:a8otL 't'E xotl. auµ.µ.eve:LV.
otL' 't'Lot<rotL
' 't'O
8' a.v 't'Lc; e:uMywc; (XU't'WV EV't'otU8ot 't'OU Myou ye:v6µ.e:voc; xotl. 't'O Mo &.p:x,occ;
't'WV 7t0CV't'WV Myov't'otc; e:tvotL UA'YjV 't'E xotl. 8e:6v, WV 't'OV µ.ev 7t0LOUV't'ot e:!votL
225 TY)V 8e 1toca:x,ouaotv, µ.e:µ.i::x,8ott -tjj UATI A&ym 't'OV 8e:6v, 8toc 7tOC<rljc; otu-rijc;
8t~xov't'ot xocl. a:x,l)µ.ot't'L~OV't'ot ocuniv, xocl. µ.opqiouv't'ot xocl. xoaµ.01totouv't'ot 't'ou-
't'Cp 't'<j> 't'p61tep. e:t yocp 8e:oc; Xot't'' otU't'OUc; awµ.ot, 1tve:uµ.ot WV voe:p6v 't'E xotl.
&.t8tov, xotl. ~ UA'Yj 8e awµ.ot, 1tpW't'OV µ.ev fo't'otL 7tOCALV 8t~XOV awµ.ot 8toc
5 awµ.ot't'oc;, &7tEL't'ot 't'O 1tve:uµ.ot 't'OU't'O ~'t'OL 't'L 't'WV 't'Eaaocpwv 't'WV OC7tAWV fo't'otL
'
awµ.ot't'WV, ot~ XotL' <r't'OL:X,ELot
- ' <potaLV, '..Yj EX
' 't'OU't'WV
, ,
auyxptµ.ot ("·
we; 7t0U )((Xl. (XU- '
't'O l. -.L
/\l>YOUGLV. XotL' yotp ' ot1>poc;
•L XOtL' 1tupoc;' U<pL<r'
• ' t'otV't'otL ~
• ,,v ouatotV
' ' 1>:X,ELV
II. 't'Ul
7t\le:uµ.ot), ~. <e:£> 11.AAo 't'L Ell), fo't'otL 't'O 8e:i:ov (Xl)'t'Oi:c; awµ.ot 1teµ.1t't"Yj 't'Lc; ou-
a(ot :x,wpl.c; <X.1to8e:(~e:wc; 't'LVOc; xotl. 7totpotµ.u8lotc; AEyoµ.&V'Yj 't'oi:c; 1tpoc; 't'OV µ.e:'t'OC
IO 't'WV otxdwv 't't8eµ.e:vov 't'OU't'O <X.V't'LA&youaLV we; }..eyov't'ot 7totpcx.8o~ot. e:t 8e ~
't'WV 't'Eaaocpwv 't'L Ell) ~ 't'L t~ exdvwv auyxptµ.ot, fo't'otL 't'O ex -rijc; UA'Yjc;
yevvwµ.e:vov awµ.ot 1tpo 't'OU yevfo8ott 7tE<pOL't"YjXOc; 8t' otu-rijc; xotl. 't'EXVOUV
t~ txELV'Yjc; oµ.o(wc; 't'oi:c; 11.AAoLc; xotl. EotU't'6. &'t'L 't'E U<r't'Epov av o 8eoc; -rijc;
UA'Yjc; Ell), e:l ye 7t<XV µ.ev 't'O &VUAOV awµ.ot -rijc; UA'Yjc; Ua't'e:pov. 't'O yocp tX
15 -rijc; &.p:x,~c; Ua't'Epov, 0 8e 8eoc; 't'OLOU't'OV awµ.ot· OU yocp 8"1j 't'TI UATI O (Xl)-
't'6c;. 't'OLOU't'Oc; 8e WV e:l'Yj &v µ.qpt qiwv~c; &.t8toc; OtU't'OLc; µ.6v'Yjc; • EL yocp
yeyove (yeyove 8e ex -rijc; UA'Yjc;), ehe 't'L 't'6)V IX7tAWV Ea't'L awµ.oc't'WV, eln ex
't'OU't'WV auyxptµ.ot.
1tpoc; 8e 't'OU't'OLc; e7tL~'YjTij!rotL 't'Lc; &.v, e:t 't'WV ex -rijc; UA'Yjc;

yevoµ.evwv ot6v n 8'Yjµ.toupyov Myetv 't'OV 8tot7tE<pOL't"YjX6't'a.-rijc; UA'Yjc; xotl. OV't'ot
20 tV otu-tjj 8e6v. <pepouaL µ.ev yocp etc; TY)V Xot't'otaKEU"fjV 't'OU8E 't'O µ."1) oµ.o(wc;
224. 34 rroLOuv-rct Br.: rroLouv codd.

225. l )..eyeLV Apelt: )..eyeL codd.
225. 8 et suppl. Apelt
225. 9 )..eyofJ-£VlJ Apelt: )..eyofJ-&V'l)c; codd.
225. IO )..eyov-rct Ideler: Myov-rL codd.
225. 12 -rexvouv Apelt: dxvwv codd.
225. 13 £ctu-r6 Apelt: ictu-r<j, codd.
225. 16 fJ-EXPL cpwv'ijc; iit8LOc; ctu-roi:c; Schwartz: fJ-£XPL cpwv'ijc; ct1.8oi:oc; ctu-roi:c; A:
fJ-EXPL cpwv'ijcrctL 8uo ctu-roi:c; Ra: fJ-EXPL cpwv'ijcrctL a· Gt\J't"OL<; BCLPS V.
Montanari pp. 45-46
served and stable as they are- to attribute the preservation, being,

and stability of each [of the latter] to a pneuma which allegedly
pervades everything.
224. 32 Entering the argument at this point one might reasonably
challenge them with also claiming the existence of two universal
principles, matter and God, of which the latter is active, [225] the
former passive; and with saying that God is mixed with matter
and pervades the whole of it, in this way shaping and forming it
and creating the universe. For if God is on their view body-an
intelligent and eternal pneuma-and matter is body, first there
225. 5 will again be body going through body; then this pneuma will
certainly be either one of the four uncompounded bodies which
they say are also elements, or a compound of them (as of course
they themselves say; for they certainly suppose that pneuma has
the substance of air and fire), or, if it is something else, the divine
body will be a fifth substance for them here presented without
proof or support for opponents who claim that the philosopher
who established this theory with appropriate support offered an
incredible doctrine. But if it were one of the four bodies or a com-
pound of them, then the body that is produced from matter will
have pervaded it before it comes to be and will generate itself too from
it just like other things. Again, God would be secondary to matter
if all enmattered body is secondary to matter; for what is derived
from a principle is secondary to it, and God is such a body since he
is not identical with matter. Were he so he would be eternal for
them in name alone; for if he has come to be (and he has come to
be from matter) he is either one of the uncompounded bodies or
a compound of them.
225. 18 Again one might enquire if it is possible to describe the God that
has gone through matter and exists in it as a craftsman of what
comes to be from matter. For they offer in support of this the fact
DE MIXTIONE
't'OLc; cpucreL "(LVOµ.&VOLc; y(vecr6ocL 't'IX XOC't'IX -rcx:c; -rf:xvocc;. 't'IX µev ycx:p CX7t0 -rijc;
cpucrewc; CX7tO't'eAeG(.LOC't'OC oux E7tL7tOA~c;, ex.Mex: 8L' OA(J)V eE801tOLeL't'OC( 't'S: xocl
8LOC7tAIX't"t'S:'t'OCL, xoc1 't'IX ev8ov OCU't'WV y1,,occpupw't'OC't'IX 7tS:<'f'LAO't'&)(V"fJ't'OCL, 't'IX 8& 't'WV
't'S:)(VWV 8Locµeµ6pcpw-rocL, we; E7tL 't'WV cxv8pL1XV't'(J)V E)(S:L • 't'IX ycx:p ev8ov 't'OU't'WV
25 cx8LCX7tAOCG't'OC. 8Lcx: 8~ 't'OU't'O E<'f'"IJGOCV 't'WV µev ywoµevwv XOC't'IX 't'&)(V"IJV e~-
w6ev dvocL xoc1 xexwpLcrµevov 't'O 7t0LOUV, E7tL 8& 't'WV "(LVO(.L&VWV cpucreL EV
't'TI UA7) dvocL ~v Mvocµw ~v µopcpoucrcxv 't'S: XOCL yevvwcrocv OCU't'IX.
't'OCU't'OC
8& OU)( opwµev 't'OL<; "(LVO(.L&VOLc; cruv48ov-roc. E7tL ycx:p 7t!XV't'(J)V 't'WV "(LVO(.L&VWV
cpucreL e~w6ev 't'L Ecr't'L 't'O ~v cxpx~v 't'~c; yevfoewc; OCU't'WV E)(OV xoc1 -rijc;
30 1tpw't'"fJc; EV T7i UA7) µe't'oc~oA~c; ocfoov. 't'CX 't'e ycx:p oc1tAoc crwµoc't'oc -rijc; 't'e
etc; IXM"IJAOC µe't'oc~oA~c; e~w6ev E)(S:L ~v ocMocv. 41u~Lc; ycx:p xoc1 6epµ6't'"fJc;
"fJ< "(LVOt'.,-"'J,.V"IJ OLOC
'I> '
't'"IJV
'
'C'W-
V oupocv~wv
> I
GW(.LOC'
'
t'WV ~1\/\0't'S:
.!!~ ~
OC/\/\OLOCV
'~ ~ '
1tpoc;
l
OCU'' t'O'C
crzerm -rijc; yevfoewc; OCU't'OLc; xoc1 -rijc; cp6opiic; x.oc1 -rijc; de; IXM"IJAOC (.LS:'t'OC~O-
A~c; ochLoc. CXMIX X.IXL 'C'WV (f)U't'WV XIXL 'C'WV ~cflwv lx.occr't'OV u1t6 't'Lvoc; e~w6ev
226 OV't'oc; xexwpurµevou -rijc; UA"f)c;, E~ ~c; lx.occr't'OV IXU'C'WV "(LVS:'C'IXL, ~v cxpx~v 'C'S:
-rijc; yevfoewc; AOC(.L~IXVS:L XIXL 't'IX XIX't'IX y~c; 7t"1Jyvuµevoc 7t!XV't'IX x.oc1 't'IX EV
't'OLc; (.LS:'t'ewpoLc; cruvLG't'OCµ.&VIX [xezwpLcrµevoc] XS:)(c.>pLcrµevov E)(EL 't'O 7t0LOUV.
OU'" t'S: yocp\ 't'Ol 6epµocwoµevov ' X.OCL\ oLIX
~ \ 't'OU't'O
- (.LS:'t'IXl-' IXI\/\OV OCU'
(J. ·~ ~ ,
Cl'o 6epµocLVS:L.
'
5 41uzpov 8& xoc6o 6epµoc(ve't'OCL. ex.Mex: XIXL o!c; ~ "(&VV"fJGLc; CX7t0 G7t&pµoc-roc;,
e~w6ev 't'O yevvwv 8Lcx: -rijc; 1tpofoewc; 'C'OU G7t&pµoc't'oc;. et 8' ou-rwc; 't'IX EX -rijc;
UA"f)c; yLvoµevoc y(ve't'OCL, 1t&c; (XV E't'L o 6eoc; ocfooc; e!"f) 8Lcx: 't'OU T7i UA7)
µeµ°Lz6oc( 'C'S: x.oc1 xexpiicr6ocL; 't'ou ycx:p ou-rwc; Ev 't'o°Lc; yLvoµ.evmc; cpu<reL 1tm-
ouv't'oc; IXMO 't'L 7tpW't'OV Ecr't'LV ochLOV e~w6ev ov. oMev 8& 7t0L"IJ't'LXOV 1tp&-
IO 't'OV 't'OU 6eou.
fo(xoccrL 8e 8L' wv MyoucrLv d8oc; 't'~c; UA"f)c; MyeLv 't'OV 6e6v.

et ycx:p OU't'Wc; o 6eoc; µeµLX't'IXL T7i UA7) xoc-r' IXU't'OUc;, &c; EV 't'OLc; ~cfloLc; ~
4IU)(~ 't'ci> GW(.LOC't'L, X.IXL ~ MvocµLc; -rijc; UA"f)c; Ecr't'L o 6eoc; (cpoccrl ycx:p ~v
UA"IJV 7t0LIXV 't'TI EV ocu-rn 8uvcxµeL)' d86c; 7tc.>c; (XV AE"(OLS:V ocu-rijc; 'C'OV 6e6v'
we; ~v 4iU)(~V 't'OU GW(.LIX't'Oc; xoc1 ~v MvocµLv 'C'OU 8uvcxµeL. cx.M' et 't'OU't'O,
225. 25 lqrljaixv coni. Apelt Rodier: lj)l)a<iv-rwv codd.: lj)MLV Br.

226. 2 xcx-ra yijc; coni. A pelt: xcx-r' cxurijc; codd. post AIXµ~cive:i lacunam Br.
226. 3 xe:xwptaµevcx seclusi; susp. Br.
226. 6 1tpofoe:wc; Apelt: 1tpo6foe:wc; codd.
226. 7 cxt-rioc; Rodier: cxu-rwv codd. ixt-rioc; post &v suppl. Diels Br.
226. 13 1toiav scripsi, v. Hermes IOI (1973) 278-282: 1tOLEL codd.: 1tote:1'v Ideler
Br. -r'/i A pelt: -r~v codd. 1t&c; A pelt: c:ic; codd.
TEXT AND TRANSLATION
that artistic products do not come to be in the same way as what

comes to be by nature; for the products of nature are not superficial
but are completely formed and moulded and their interior parts
are precisely crafted with care, while those of the arts are formed
as in the case of statues where the inner parts are not moulded.
Therefore they claimed that what creates artistic products was
external and separate, while with things that come to be by nature
the power that forms and generates them was present in the matter.
225. 27 But we see that this does not accord with what happens; for
with everything that comes to be through nature there is something
external containing the principle of its coming to be and the cause
of the first change in matter. The uncompounded bodies have the
cause of their change into one another outside them, for cooling
and heating which occur on account of the varying state of the
heavenly bodies towards them are the cause of their coming to
be, destruction, and change into one another. Each plant and
animal derives [226] the source of its coming to be from something
external and separate from the matter from which each of them
comes to be, and bodies that are frozen on the earth and that are
compounded in the upper air have their creator separate. Neither
does something that is heated, and thereby changed, itself heat; it
is cold insofar as it is heated. Also with what is brought to birth
from semen the begetter is external because of his emission of
semen. If things that come to be from matter come to be in this
way, how could God still be the cause through being mixed and
blended with matter? For among things that come to be by nature
there is another external cause prior to what creates in this way;
yet there is nothing creative that is prior to God.
226. ro The implication of their statements seems to be that God is
the form of matter; for if, according to them, God is mixed with
matter as the soul is with the body among animals, and God is
the power of matter (for they say that matter is characterised by
the power in it), they would in a sense mean that God is its form,
as the soul is of the body and the power of what is in potentiality.
DE MIXTIONE
15 1twi; div ~-n ~ UAl) ocve:(8e:oi; dl) XCl'C'IX 'C'OV cxunji; Myov, e:( ye: 'C'O m.,µµe-
VELV cxu-tjj xcxl. dvcxL UATI 7tcxpix nji; OUCTY)t; EV cxu-tjj 8uvixµe:eui;;
(J.IXALO''C'Cl 8'
EV -tjj EX7tUpWO'EL cpcxlve:'t'CXL X.Cl'C' OCU'C'OUt; o8e:oi; nji; UAl)t; d8oi; ll:,v, e:( ye: EV
't'c'j> 1tup(, o µ6vov EO''C'L X.Cl'C' ClU'C'OUt; 'C'O'C'E, ~ UAl) x.ocl. o 8e:oi; [nji; UAl)t;]
O'W~OV'C'ClL µ6vot. &(l) yixp div o 8e:oi; 'C'O'C'E d8oi; 'C'O E7tl. -tjj UATI 'C'OU 1tup6i;.
20 d 8e 'C'OU'C'O, (J.E't'OC~IXAAEL 8e 'C'O 1tup di; OCAAOC 'C'LVIX O'W(J.OC'C'Cl, 'C'O d8oi; IXAAIXO"-
O'OV &(l) div o 8e:oi; cp8e:tp6µe:voi; 'C'O'C'E, e:( ye: X.Cl'C'IX cp8opixv 'C'OU 1tpou1tixp-
):OV't'Ot; e:(8oui; ~ µe:'t'oc~o)..~ e:ti; fx.)..)..o awµcx -tjj u)..TI ylve:'t'cxt. x.ocl. EL nji;
I (.I.-,- 0'
'C'OLClU't'l)t; µe:'C'Cll-'01\l)t; a
e:ui;
l
ClL'
>I
C'Loi;, ELl)
"
CXV
..
O
• 8e:ui;
l
X.Cl'C' > ClU'> C'OUt; (p 8e:tpeuv
I I
&CXU't'OV, ou 't'L div oc't'o1tw't'e:pov pl)8&(l) 1to't'' /lv ;
1twi; 8' oux. IXVIX~L(l nji; 8e:£cxi;

25 1tpo)..~ljle:eui; 'C'O 'C'E 'C'OV 8e:ov 8tix 7t!XaYjt; nji; U7tOX.e:tµevl)i; 7t0CO'LV UAl)t; xe:xeu-
pl)X.£VCXL )..eye:tv x.cxl. µeve:tv EV cxu-tjj, 07tOLCl 7t0'C'' div TI, x.ocl. 'C'O 1tpol)youµe:vov
~XELV ~pyov, 'C'O oce:l 'C'L ye:wocv 'C'E xocl. 8tCX7tAIXO'O'ELV 'C'WV E~ cxunji; ye:vfo8cxt
8uvixµeveuv, xcxl. 7tOLELV 'C'OV 8e:ov 8l)µtoupyov O'XCuA~X.CuV 'C'E xocl. Eµ1tl8euv, che-
xvwi; W0'7t&p xop61tAcx86v 'C'LV(l 'C'c'j> 7tl)Ac'j> O'):OAIX~OV'C'IX x.cxl. 7t0CV 'C'O 8uvixµe:vov
30 E~ CXU't'OU ye:vfo8ixt 't'OU't'O 1totouv't'cx;
1tpoi; 8e 'C'OU'C'OLt; d 'C'IX x.tpvixµe:vix IXAA~-
AOLt; O'W(J.OC't'Cl IXV'C'L7t1XO'):ELV u1t' IXAA~A(l)V ocvixyxl) (8tix 't'OU'C'O yixp ou8he:pov
OCU'C'WV cp8e:lpe:'t'CXL, O'C'L EXIX't'&pov OCU'C'WV 7t1XO'):OV ucp' EXCX't'epou EV 't'c'j> 7t1XO'):ELV
IXV'C'L7tOL&'i:), 'C'IX 8e 8t' IXAA~ACuV xeupoUV'C'Cl O'W(J.Cl't'IX XLpVOC'C'OCL IXAA~Ami;, dl)
33a 't'' div [llAAl)ACX] x.ocl. o8e:oi; Xtpvixµe:voi; -tjj UATI, EL 8e 'C'OU'C'O, x.cxl. IXV'C'L7tlXO'):CuV
33b u1t' ocunji;. o!i; E7tE'C'ClL 'C'O 'C'E 't'OV 8e:ov 7t1XO'):ELV X.IXL 'C'O ~v UAl)V 7t0LELV.
[IXAAIX 'C'IXU'C'IX]
XII 'AMix 'C'ClU'C'Cl µev e:t1te:'i:v 1tpo~x8lJV 8tix 'C'OUt; IXV'C'LAeYOV't'Clt; µev
35 'Apta't'O't'£Ae:L 1te:pl. 't'OU 7t£(J.7t't'OU awµcx't'oi; xixl. 't'o'i:i; µ6voti; x.cx't'' oc~lcxv 't'WV
227 8e:(euv e:tpl)µevoti; EVLO''C'1X0'81XL 7t&Lpeuµevoui; 8tix (pLAO't'L(J.LIXV' nji; 8e IX'C'07tLClt;
'C'WV ucp' ClU'C'WV )..e:yoµeveuv µl)8& ~v ocpx~v O'UVL£V't'Clt;, o!i; x.cxl. 'C'IX xuptw-
'C'Cl'C'Cl x.cxl. µeyta'C'OC 'C'WV X.Cl'C'IX (pLAOO'O(pLClV 8oyµoc'C'CuV ~p't'l)'t'OCL x.ixl. ~v X.Cl'C'IX-
O'XEU~V IX7t0 'C'OU 8cxuµcxa't'OU 86yµcx't'Ot; ~):EL 'C'OU 'awµcx xeupe:'i:v 8tix O'W(J.IX't'Ot;' •
5 g 'C'E yixp 1te:pl. x.pixae:eui:; ClU'C'OL,:; Myoi:; aux. EV OCAACf) 't'LVL, IXAAIX x.cxl. 'C'IX 7te:pl.
ljlux~i:; u1t' ClU'C'WV )..e:y6µe:vcx EV't'e:u8e:v ~P't"fJ't'ClL ~ 't'E 7tOAU8puAAl)'t'Ot; ClU'C'OL,:;
226. 18 'njt; (i).'ll, del. A: om. a

226. 33a-34 xot! o 6tot; ... «nix 't'otu-rot = 227. 23-24; locos coniunxit Brink-
mann RM 57 (1902) 448-491; lacunas post &n7lA0t et «nix 't'otU't'ot
ind. Br. v. infra
226. 34: 'AA).ix 't'otU't'ot Brinkmann: 't'otU't'ot codd.
226. 35 µ6votc; Schwartz: v6µott; codd.
But if this is so, how could matter still be formless in its own essence,
if its being and stability is derived from the power present in it?
226. 16 Particularly in the conflagration does God appear, according to
them, to be the form of matter, if matter and God are the only
things preserved in the fire which at that time is, on their view,
the only thing existing; for God would then be the form belonging
to the matter of fire. If this is so, and if Fire changes into some
other bodies, God would be the alternating form through being
destroyed at that time, if, that is, change into another body occurs
for matter by the destruction of the preexistent form. If God is the
cause of such change he would, according to them, be self-destruc-
tive-and what view could be more absurd than this?
226. 24 Surely it demeans our preconception of the deity to say that
God pervades the whole of the matter underlying everything and
remains in it, whatever it may be like, and has as his premeditated
task the perpetual generation and moulding of anything that can
come to be from it; and for them to make God a craftsman of grubs
and gnats, simply devoting himself like a modeler to clay, and
making everything that can be created from it?
226. 30 Again, if the bodies that are being blended with one another
must be reciprocally acted on by one another (this is why neither
is destroyed, since the one acted on by the other reacts in the
process of being acted on) and if the bodies that go through one
one another are blended together, then God too would be blended
with matter, and thereby also acted on by it-from which it follows
that God is acted on while matter acts.
226. 34 XII I was provoked into this argument by denials of Aristotle's
theory of the fifth body, and ambitious attempts to resist the only
theories worthy [227] of divine things, made by opponents unaware
of even the source of the stupidity of their statements, when their
central and major philosophical beliefs depend on and take their
support from the remarkable belief that body goes through body.
For their theory of blending does not rely on something else, but
their views on the soul depend on it, and their notorious Fate and
r44 DE MIXTIONE
7 elµ.ocpµ.ev'Yj X<X.L ~ 't'WV 7t<XV't'WV 1tp6voL<X. -tjj8e 7tLG't'LV A<X.fl-~IXVOUGLV, EE ye o

7tEpL ocpxfav 't'E X<X.L 6eou <Myor:,> X<X.L ~ 't'OU 7t<X.V't'O(, EVWaLr:, 't'E X<X.L auµ.-
1toc6EL<X. 1tpor:, ocu-r6. 7t<XV't'<X. ycx.p ocu-roi:r:, 't'OCU't'' Ea't'LV o 8Lcx. -njr:, UA'Yjr:, 8L~X(.o)V
IO 6e6r:,.
't'O\J't'OU 8e 't'OU awµ.cx. x.wpei:v 8Lcx. awµ.cx.-ror:,, E~ OU ax.e8ov 7t<XG'Yj(, -njr:, cpu-
GLOAoytocr:, <X.U't'OL(, ocv~p't"YJ't'OCL 't'CX. m:taµ.oc-roc, 7t<X.poc 't'E 't'CX.(, XOLVCX.(, 1tpOA~~ELr:,
AEyoµ.evou X<X.L 7t<X.pcx. -rcx.r:, OC7t<XV't'WV 86~ocr:, 't'WV (j)LAoa6cpwv, 'TT)V 7tLG't'LV xoc-r'
<X.U't'OU(, A<X.fl-~OCVEL wr:, OCV OC7t0 Evocpyour:, 't'OU 't'OV al81jpov, O't'<X.V 11 7tE7tupw-
µ.evor:, [µ.ev] µ.~ <X.U't'OV E~IX7t't'Ea6oc( -re: X<X.L 1tupoua6cx.L t.eyELV oµ.otwr:, -roi:r:,
15 o!r:, UA'YJ -rcj> 1tupL, ocMcx. 8Lcx. 1tocv-ror:, ocu-rou x.wpei:v -ro 1ttip u1toAocµ.~ocvELV µ.e-rcx.
-njr:, UA'Yjr:, EXELV'Yj(,, Ecp' ~r:, ov YEL't'VLCXG<X.V -rcj> aL8~pep E6epµ.cx.Lve 't'E X<X.L E~'Yj-
~EV <X.U't'6V.
XOCL't'OL 1twr:, OU 1tpor:, -roi:r:, &AAOLr:, X<X.L 't'OU't'O 7t<X.V't'OC7t<X.aLV &-ro1tov

't'O 'TT)V -r'Yjr:, cpAoyor:, UA'YJV, µ.~ X<X.'t'&)(.OUG<X.V 'TT)V E~W6Ev )(.OP'YJYL<X.V, µ.~ XOC't'<X.-
V<X.ALaxEa6ocL, aw~ea6ocL 8e E7tL 't'OGOU't'OV Aeyew EV -rcj> 1tupt -rcj> µ.e:µ.Lyµ.evep
20 -rcj> aL8~pep, ewr:, ocv O aL81jpor:, 7tE7tupwµ.evor:, fl-&VYJ, Evocpyour:, ov-ror:, 't'OU 'TT)V
cpMyoc auvex.our:, 8e:fo6cx.L -njr:, XOC't'CX. 'TT)V UAlJV )(.OP'YJYL<X.(,, wr:, ~x.ouaocv EV -rcj>
22 y(ve:a6cx.L 't'O ELV<X.L 8Lcx. 'TT)V -njr:, U7tO~e:~A1J!J,&V1J(, UA1J(, ocu-tjj 't'<X.)(.ELOCV cp6opocv.
25 [om.] EE ycx.p µ.~ o al81Jpor:, UA'YJ 1to-re -rcj> 1tup(, -rlvoc X.P~ 'TTJV xcx.Loµ.e-
VlJV UAlJV A&YELV ELV<X.L; OAW(, 8e E7tEL o aL81JpOr:, u1t6 'tWO(, E~OC7t't'E't'<X.L 1tupor:,
ov-ror:, Ecp' UA1Jr:, -rLv6r:,, EL 8Lcx. -rou aL8~pou 8(e:LaL -ro 1ttip, 8ei: cpuMaaov ocu-ro
'TT)V UA'YJV, Ecp' ~r:, ov E7tA1JGL<X.GE -rcj> aL8~p<p, x.wpei:v 8L' <X.U't'OU, &.tJ..' OU't'E
-rcx. ~UA<X. ou-re ol &v6pocxer:, ou-re -rLr:, &M1J -rwv u1toxeLµ.evwv UA'YJ -rcj> 1tupt
30 -rcj> 1tupouv-rL 't'OV aL81jpov, EV -rcj> aL8~p. ocM' EL x.wpL~OL't'O, ocvocyxoci:ov <X.U't'O EV
't'1J- fl-E't'<X.1-'p_<X.GEL
I
U/\lJV
,1~ ~ p_ I
't'LV<X.I !J,E't'<X./\<X.jJ,1-' ,I
0CVELV, XOCLI i:;G't'LV OUX
J r
CX/\1\'~.YJ 't'L(, 1J.,_ O
~~
GLo'Yj-
I~
por:, ocu-r6r:,. xcx.66aov ycx.p ~ uyp6'"Jr:, Ea't'LV EV ocu-rcj>, X<X.'t'CX. 't'OGOU't'OV UA'YJ -rcj>
228 1tupt YLVE't'<X.L, ax.A1Jp6-repor:, youv O1tupouµ.evor:, aL81jpor:, !J,E't'CX. 'TT)V a~&GLV 't'OU
227. 7 -r7i8e: Rex: 8e TIJV codd.: -rfiv8e: coni. Br.

227. 8 e:tye:coni.Apelt:d-re:Ra:i-ri-re:cett.Br. ocodd.: -ro Br. o ...
<Myoc;> Von Arnim: o <Myoc;> Apelt
227. 10 -rou Br.: -ro codd.
227. 13 civ Apelt: otl codd.
227. 14 µev secl. Br.
227. 15 -r<j) 1tupi scripsi, cf. 227. 25, 29, 227. 33-228. 1: -ro 1tup codd.
227, 23-24 V. 226. 33-34
227. 27 el Apelt: -r) codd.
227. 28-29 ~,; av Schwartz: llaov codd. o!in -ra Br.: ou d -re: codd.
227. 29 pr. o!i-re: Br.: ou8t codd.
227. 30 81), xwpi~6µe:vov Br.: 8iotxwpi~6µe:vov codd.
227. 33 otu-ro,; Ideler: otutj codd.
their universal Providence gain conviction in this way if indeed
their < theory> of principles and God, as well as the unification
and sympathy of everything depend on it; for the God that
pervades matter is all of these things for them.
227. IO Now while this notion of body going through body, on which
the credibility of their whole theory of nature depends, is offered
contrary to common preconceptions and the views of all philos-
ophers, it gains conviction, according to them, from it being al-
legedly clear that when iron is heated by fire it is not itself kindled
and burnt, as in the cases where there is matter for the fire, but
the fire is understood to pervade the whole of it, along with that
matter to which it belonged when, adjacent to the iron, it burnt
and kindled it.
227. 17 Now, other reasons aside, surely it is also completely absurd
that the matter of the flame which does not possess outside support
is not used up, but is said to be preserved in the fire that is mixed
with the iron, as long as the iron is stable in its heated state, al-
though it is clear that the flame needs continuous support from
its matter, because its being rests in its coming-to-be through the
rapid destruction of its supporting matter. [227. 23-25] For unless
at some stage the iron were matter for the fire what should one
describe as the burnt matter?
227. 26 In general, since the iron is kindled by a particular fire which
depends on specific matter, then, if the fire goes through the iron,
it must go through it whilst protecting the matter on which it
depended when it was adjacent to the iron; but neither pieces of
wood, nor coal, nor any other matter supporting the fire which
burns the iron come to be within the iron. So we are left with the
fact that fire must come to be in the iron when separated from its
matter. But if it is separated, it must acquire new matter in the
change, and there is none except the iron itself. For to the
extent that there is moisture in it, [228] it becomes matter for the
fire; certainly the iron that is heated becomes harder after its ex-
IO
DE MIXTIONE
2 1tpw-rou ytve:-rocL, we; OCVIXALcrxoµev'l)c; U7t0 't'OU 1tupoc; -rijc; uypO't"l)'t'O<; -rijc; EV
ocu-rcj>, xoct E~IX7t't'E:'t'IXL 't'L µex_pLc; ocv uypo't"l)c; TI 't'L<; EV ocu-rcj>, i:>ITTte:p ouv xoct
~UAIX. OCAAIX 't'OU't'WV µev &ALc;.
5 XIII 'E1tocvlwµe:v 8e E1tl -rov E~ ocpx_~c; Myov. et yixp -rix e:lp'l)µevoc o/5-rwc;
1te:pt xpocae:wc; 7tlXV't'e:Awc; &-ro1t1X, ocvocyxoci:ov &AAwc; moc; -rixc; xpocae:Lc; y(ve:a0ocL
Mye:Lv. Ae:L7t€'t'IXL 8e 7t1Xp1X 't'IXU't'IX<;, WV &~LOV 7tOLe:La01XL Myov 't'LVIX, <~> u1t'
'ApL(J't'o-reAouc; dp'l)µeV'l] 86~oc. e:(1rwµe:v 8~ xoct 1te:pt -rocu't"l)c;, xocl. 8e:l~wµe:v
-r(c; 1to-r' Ea't'LV, E1te:l. µ'l]8e yvwpLµoc; Ea't'L 't'OL<; 7t0AAOL<; 't'WV <pLAOaO<pOUV't'(J)V
rn 8LIX auv-roµ(ocv 't'WV 1te:pl. ocu-rijc; E:Lp'l)µevwv U7t0 't'OU <pLAoao<pou.
1tpw-rov µev
oplawµe:v, 't'LVIX fo-rl.v OCAA~AOL<; XLpvifo6ocL Ae:yoµe:voc -re: xocl. 8uvocµe:voc. opL-
a0ev yixp ~(LLV 't'OU't'O cx:1tocrxe:uocae:-rocL 7tOAAIX 't'WV EVO)'._AOUV't'WV 't'OV 1te:pl.
xpocae:wc; Myov. fo-rL 8~ ~ µ"L~(c; -re: xoct ~ xpiiaLc; Ev -ro°Lc; xoc6' ocu-rix u<pe:-
a-rocvocL <pUaLV ex_ouaL. 8Lo xocl. 8oxe:L 8uvixa0ocL x.wp(~e:a0ocL 7t1XALV cx:AA~AWV
15 't'IX µe:µLyµevix ()'t'L EX 't'OU't'WV auv~A6e:v. e:t 8e µ'l)8ev &AAo x.wpLa-rov 7t1Xp1X
~v oua(ixv, OUaLWV OCV ~ (LL~Lc; -re: XIXL ~ xpiimc; e;('l). e:t 8e 't'OU't'O, oux
OCV 'Avix~ocyopocc; e:('l) XIXAwc; Aeywv, 7t0CV't'IX EV 1tiiaLV µe:µ°Lx_6ocL. OU't'E: yixp
't'IX 7tOC6'l) x.wpLa-roc, we;
xoc6' OCU't'IX e:LVOCL 8uvoca0ocL (8Lo ou8e (LL~Lc; -re: xocl.
xpocaLc; OCV e;('l) 1toc6wv 1tpoc; &AA'l)AIX, ~ 1toc6wv 1tpoc; 't'IX WV Ea't'L 1toc6'l)),
20 OCAA' ou8e 't'IX e:(8'l) 't'WV oumwv. XIXL yixp e:t OU(JLOCL xoct 't'IXU't'', ex:)..)..' OU xoc6'
IXU't'IX auvu<pL(J't'IXV't'OCL. OU yixp o!ov -re: x.wptc; \JA'l)c; e:!voct 't'L OCU't'WV. ex:)..)..'
ou8e ~ \JA'l) (LLX~. ou8e yixp OC\J't"l) x.wptc; e:(8ouc; Eve:pye:l~ 7t0't'' Ea't'LV. ou-r'
ouv EV &AAoLc; 't'L(JLV, ~ EV QU(JLOCL<; ~ (LL~Lc; 't'E: XOCL xpocaLc;, OU't'E: &AAocL 't'Lvec;
't'WV OUaLWV e:tat (LLX't'OCL 1tocpix -rixc; x.wpLa-rocc; -re: XOCL xix-r' t8(ocv u<pe:a't'OCVOCL
25 8uvocµevixc; xocl. XIX't'E:)'._OU(j0tc; 't'07tOV. 't'OLOCU't'IX 8e 't'IX awµoc-roc.
't'OU't'OU 't'OLVUV
8LwpLaµevou µe:-rix 't'IXU't'IX &~LOV Ema-rijaocL, 7t0't'E:pov 't'OCU't'OV Ea't'L (LL~Lc; -re: xocl.
xpocaLc;, ~ 8Loc<popixv ex_e:L 't'LVIX. &OLXE: 8~ 8Loc<pepe:LV, fl 't'O µev XOLVO't'E:pov
Ea't'LV ~ (LL~Lc;, ~ 8e xpocmc; [8Lxw-re:pov. 7tOLIX yocp (LL~Lc; ~ xpocaLc;. 't'WV
yocp µ(~e:wv ~ µev 't'L<; XIX't'IX 1tocpoc6e:aLV 't'WV QU(JLWV xocl. OC<p~V y(ve:-rocL, ~v
228. 3 'l'L scripsi, cf. 223. 5: -re codd.

228. 7 ~ suppl. Ideler
228. 12 ix1toaxe:uixae:'t'rtL Diels: ix1toaxe:uixaaL 'I'£ codd.
228. 15 xwpta't'ov Apelt, Rodier: xwpl<; Twv codd.
228. 23 oihe: Br.: ou3e codd.
tinction than before, since the moisture in it is expended by the

fire, and it is kindled as long as there is some moisture in it-as
228. 4 also with pieces of wood. But enough of this.
228. 5 XIII Let us return to our original statement; for if the accounts of
blending so far described are completely absurd, some other ex-
planation of how blends occur must be given. Apart from the
preceding theories the one worth expounding is that held by
Aristotle. Let us also describe it and explain its character, since it
is not known to the majority of philosophers on account of the
brevity of its treatment by the philosopher himself.
228. ro First, let us define what things are termed capable of blending
together, for with such a definition we will disperse many of the
issues that confuse the theory of blending. Now mixture and
blending occur among things that are naturally independent sub-
stances; and bodies that have been blended are considered capable
of being separated from one another because they are combined
from this source. If there is nothing else separable except sub-
stance, mixture and blending will be of substances. So Anaxagoras
was wrong to say that everything is mixed with everything, for
neither are qualities separable so that they can be independent
(hence there is not even mixture and blending of qualities with one
another, nor of qualities with the things of which they are the
qualities) nor are forms [separable] from substances. For even if
they are also substances they do not exist with equal independence,
as it is not possible for any Df them to exist without matter. Yet
neither is matter mixed, for it does not exist in actuality apart
from form. So neither among things other than substances is there
mixture and blending, nor are any other substances mixed beyond
those that are separable and capable of existing individually and
that occupy place-namely physical bodies.
228. 25 Given this definition, it is next worth establishing whether
mixture and blending are the same or whether they are different.
They certainly seem to be different in that mixture is the more
generic, blending the more specific; for blending is a kind of mix-
ture. Among mixtures one type occurs by the juxtaposition and
DE MIXTIONE
30 Myoµev [-rij½ µ(~ew½] y(veo-8ocL Xot't'a cruv8EO'LV (OU 1tao-oc µev yap cruv8em½
µ'i:~L½ • cruv8eo-L½ µev yap xocl 't'WV oµolwv 't'E xocl oµoeu~wv YLVE't'OCL, ~ 8e
µ'i:~L½ ix 8Loccpepov't'WV 't'E xocl ev 8LoccpepouO'L • 8Lo o µev 't'WV 1tupwv o-wpo½
Xot't'a µoV'YjV cruv8EO'LV, 0 8e 't'WV 7tUpwv 't'E Xotl xuocµ<uv ~8'1j -tjj O'UV8£aeL
xocl 't"YJV µ'i:~LV 1tpoo-elA'YjcpEv), ~ 8e w½ xpam½ µ'i:~L½ y(ve't'OCL, OU O"<u~oµevwv
35 €'t'L 't'WV µLyvuµevwv xocl OU't'W½ IX./\/\~AOL½ 7totpocxeLµevwv, IX.I\/\' evouµevwv
Xot't'a 't'O imoxe(µevov. 8Lo ev 't'OL½ euop(O''t'OL½ 't'E xocl uypo'i:½ ~ w½
xpam½
µ'i:~(½ EO"'t'LV. c1i0"7tep 8e OU)'., ~ 't'WV 't'U)'._OV't'WV cruv8EO"L½ µ'i:~L½ ~v. OU't'W½ ou8e
229 ~ 't'WV 't'U)'.,OV't'WV uypwv &v<um½ xpao-(½ 't'E xocl µ'i:~L½- OU yap u8wp u8ot't'L
XLpva't'ocL, xoc('t'OL evouµevov OCU't'cj'>, ou8e €/\OCLOV EAotlep, IX.I\/\' ou8e €/\OCLOV Mot't'L •
(X./\/\a 't'OU't'O µev 8La YALO")'..PO't"YJ't'OC.
lhocv 8e 71 't'OLOCU't'OC 't'a evouµevoc, w½

€)'._ELV 7t0LO't"Yj't'OC½, xoc8' &½ 't'a µLyvuµevoc 7t0LELV 't'E xocl. 7tlXO")'._ELV u1t' IX./\/\~-
5 /\WV EO"'t'lV o!oc 't'E (~ yap xpao-L½ EV 't'OL½ 7t0LELV 't'E XOCL 7tlXO")'._ELV U7t' IX./\/\~-
AWV 8uvocµevm½), 't'O't'E xocl 't'OU't'WV xpao-L½ y(vnocL. 8La 't'OU't'O yap &µLX't'OV
1tav 't'O 8e'i:ov o-wµoc 't'O 7tOL'Yj't'LXOV OV µ'YjX&'t'' IX.V't'L7tlXO")'._ELV U7t0 't'OU 7tlXO")'._OV-
't'O½ u1t' OCU't'OU Mvot't'OCL. µovoc yap 't'a €VU/\OC 7tlXO")'._EL. 8Lo 't'OCU't'OC µovoc 't'WV
7t0LOUV't'WV IX.V't'L7tlXO")'._EL 60-oc -rii½ ocu-rij½ XEXOLVWV'YjXEV UA'YJ½• 't'OCU't'OC 8e 't'WV
10 -rii½ ocu-rij½ UA'YJ½ XEXOLVWV'YjXO't'WV u1t' (X./\/\~/\WV IX.V't'L7t1XO")'._ELV o!ix 't'E, 60-oc
evocv't'lwo-Lv ex.eL 't'wa 1tpo½ &/\/\'YjAOC. ou yap 't'o 't'ux.ov u1to 't'ou 't'Ux.ov't'o½
o!ov 't'E 7tlXO")'._ELV • ou8e yap 't'O ISµoLOV U7t0 't'OU oµolou. IX.1tot8~ yap u1t'
IX./\/\~/\WV 't'a 6µoLOC. ev 8LoccpepoUO"L yap xocl. U7t0 8Loccpepov't'WV 't'O 7t0LELV 't'E
xocl. 7t1XO")'.,ELV YLVE't'OCL. IX.I\/\' ou8e 't'a E't'Epot 7t1XV't'TJ 7t1XO")'._ELV 't'L u1t' IX./\/\~AWV.
15 ou8e yap 1toc8e'i:v o!ov 't'E cpwv~v U7t0 ypocµµ~½, 't'cj> µ'Yj8ev u1t' IX./\/\~/\WV
IX.V't'L7t1XO")'._ELV, <et µ~ 8La 't'O> XOL~V u1toxe:'i:0"8oc( 't'LVOC cpumv 't'WV EXOC't'&pwv
1toc8wv em8e:X't'LX~V. 8Lo EO''t'LV ev 't'OU't'OL½ 't'O 7t0LELV 't'E xocl. 7tlXO")'._ELV,
60-oc 't"YJV OCU't"YJV UA'YJV u1toxe:Lµ&V'YJV ex.ov't'oc evocv't'Lwo-(v 't'LVOC &):EL 1tpo½
~'YjAOC. OU't'E yap U7t0 x.pwµot't'O½ 't'O y).uxu, xoc8o y).uxu, 1tix80L 7t0't'' &v,
20 Ot>'t'E U7t0 8e:pµou 't'O ~'Yjpov, IX.I\/\' ou8e U7t0 41ux.pou 't'O uypov xoc8o uyp6v, 6't'L
228. 30 'r'ijc; µ!~ewe; seclusi

229. 8 8uvot-rott Ideler: 8uvota6ott codd.
229. 12 ou8t Br.: o!J-re codd.
229. 16 <elµ~ 8ttx -ro> coni. Br. qui post &.v-rmixaxetv lacunam ind.: &.v-rmixO")(etv
<µ7J8h Ideler
229. 19 o!J-re: Br.: ou8t codd.
TEXT AND TRANSLATION r49
contact of substances, and we say that this occurs by composition

(not all composition is mixture, for composition occurs among
bodies that are similar and have similar forms while mixture occurs
from and among different bodies-so the pile of grains is a mere
composition, while the pile of grains and beans has also added
mixture to what is already composition), while a second type of
mixture occurs as blending when the constituents are no longer
preserved and juxtaposed together in this way but unified in
substrate. Hence mixture qua blending occurs among very
malleable and moist bodies, and just as the composition of random
bodies was not mixture [229] so the unification of random moist
bodies is not blending and mixture; for water is not blended with
water, although unified with it, nor oil with oil, but not even oil
with water, in this latter case because of its viscosity.
229. 3 Whenever the bodies that are unified are of the kind that have
qualities by which constituents can reciprocally interact (for
blending occurs among bodies that can reciprocally interact) then
their blending also occurs. For this reason the whole divine body,
which is active, is unmixed and unable to be reciprocally acted on
by the body acted on by it; for only enmattered bodies can be
acted on. Hence only where active bodies share in the same matter
are they reciprocally acted on. Of bodies that do share in the same
matter it is only those that have some mutual contrariety that can
interact; for one random body cannot be acted on by another,
nor can similar bodies be acted on by one another because similar
bodies are mutually unaffected. Interaction in fact occurs among
different bodies and through the agency of different bodies but
not even in all cases do these interact; sound, for example, cannot
be acted on by line, since they cannot interact< except through>
having a common underlying nature that can receive the qualities
of each of them. Interaction, then, occurs among bodies with the
same underlying matter and a mutual contrariety; for Sweet would
never be acted on by Colour, insofar as it is sweet, nor Dry by Hot,
nor Moist, insofar as it is moist, by Cold, because these are not
150 DE MIXTIONE
µ.~ &G't'L -rcxu-rcx &.JJ,:fiAoLc; ivcxv-r(cx, a.AA' fo-rL -ro 1t0Le:Lv -re: xcxl.
2Ia mx.ax,e:LV 't'OLc; ivcxV't'LOLc; -re: xcxl. 't'OLc; µ.e:-rcx~u. OU y<ip µ.6vov 't'O 6e:pµ.ov
U7t0 't'OU 41uxpou xcxl. 't'O 41uxpov U7t0 't'OU 6e:pµ.ou µ.e:-rlX~OCAAE:'t'CXL -re: xcxl.
7t0CCJXE:L, oMe: 't'O uypov U7t0 't'OU ~l)pOu xcxl. 't'O ~l)pOv U7t0 't'OU uypou, a.AA<X
xcxl. 't'IX µ.e:-rcx~u excx-repou 't'WV ocxpeuv, ()'t'L XIX't'(X µ.L~LV EO''t'L -rcjl 1tpoc; EXOC-
25 -re:pov 't'WV ivcxv-r(euv [-ro] µ.e:-rcx~u 't'OV 6cx-repou 't'WV ivcxv-r(euv O'W~E:LV Myov.
't'OLc; y<ip 1tpoe:Lpl)µ.ev0Lc; o-uµ.~e~l)XE: ~v (XU~V l)Al)V &):OUO'LV xcxl. ivcxv't'LCuO'LV
XIX't'IX 't'O e:!8oc; &):E:LV 1tpoc; &AAl)AIX. -njc; y<ip l)Aljc; (8LOv 't'O ~v (XU~V e:!-
VCXL -rwv ivcxv-rleuv im8e:x-rLx~v. 1tocv-rcx y<ip -roc iv ye:vfoe:t -re: xcxl. cp6op~
o-wµ.cx-rcx inl. -njc; cxu-njc; a.AA~AoLc; &O''t'LV l)Aljc;, ~ ae: 8Lcxcpopa; IXU't'OLc; XIX't'OC -re:
30 e:!8") xcxl. o-uµ.~e:~l)XO't'IX 1tix.6lj.
't'IX youv 't'e0"0'1Xp1X o-wµ.cx-rcx, & O''t'OL):E:L(X Akye:-

't'CXL, fo-rL -r0tu-r0t · yij xcxl. 1'.S8eup, &.~p -re: xcxl. nup, & 1'.SAl)V ~v cxu~v a.AA~Aotc;
&):OV't'(X X(X't'(X 't'IX e:(8") ~v 1tpoc; OCAAljACX O'W~E:L 8tcxcpopocv. 8LcxcpepouO"L yocp
a.AA~Aeuv -rcjl -ro µ.e:v cxu-rwv 6e:pµ.6v -r' e:!vcxL xcxl. ~l)p6v (iv y<ip -rou-roLc; -ro
e:!vixL -rcjl nup( nup( • fo-rl. µ.e:v y<ip xcxl. iv -tji iSATI cxu-rcjl -ro e:!vcxL -tji -r0tu-rcx
230 8e:8e:yµ.ev7l, a.AA' iv 't'OU't'OLc; we; 1tup EO''t'L xcxl. 't'WV OCAACuV 8tcxcpepov 't'L. XCX't'OC
> - > •
ycxp\
't'l)V
\
U/\l)V
d-,..
't'(X\ (XU'• t'(X\ CXl\l\lj/\OLc;
•-,.-,. I-,. L
't'(X\ 't'l>O'O'CXpcx ) , 't'Ul Of:;
~L
't'L IXU't'CuV E:O''t'LV uypov
I
-re: XIXL 6e:pµ.6v (iv 'C'OU't'OLc; y<ip 7t0CALV 't'O e:!vcxL -rcjl &.epL), 't'O 8e: 41uxpov -re:
xcxl. uypov (-rcjl y<ip iS8cx-rL iv 't'OU't'OLc; 't'O e:!vcxL), 't'O ae: ~l)pOv -re: xcxl. 41uxpov
5 (-roLOU't'OV y<ip ~ y~). &c; &):OV't'(X 8Lcxcpopocc; -re: xcxl. ivcxV't'LWO'e:Lc; 1tpoc; OCAAljACX,
1t0Louv-roc -re: xcxl. nocax,ov-rcx e:tc; OCAAl)AIX 1t0Le:L -r<ic; µ.e:-r0t~0Mc;, -njc; iSAl)c; µ.e:-
-rcx~cxAAOUO'l)c; e:tc; 't'O 't'WV 7tOLOUV't'CuV xpcx-rouv. ()'t'IXV yocp 't'L (XU't'WV 7tAE:OVOC-
O'(XV 't'Lvoc; 't'WV ivcxv-r(CuO'LV E):OV't'CuV 1tpoc; (XU't'O XCX't'LCJXUTI 't'CXLc; ivcxV't'LWO'E:O'L
't'CXLc; iv cxu-rcjl inl. 't'OO'OU't'OV, we; (J.7t0~0CAAOUO'IXV ~v U7tOXe:Lµ.evl)V l)Al)V, ~v
IO 1tp6-re:pov e:!xe: 7t0LO't'l)'t'IX µ.e:-rcxAcx~e:LV 't'O 't'OU XpiX~O'IXV't'Oc; e:!8oc;, 't'O't'e: y(ve:'t'CXL
't'OU µ.e:v 0\)'t'(u µ.e:-rcx~OCAAOV't'Oc; cp6opoc, yeve:o-Lc; 8e: <'t'OU> e:tc; 0 yevove:v ~ µ.e:-rix-
t-'01\lj. (XL' µ.i;;v
(J, ">' .I.
ouvT
ye:v1>0"e:Lc;
L e \ -
XCXL\ cp opcxL 't'CuV o-euµ.ix-reuv I
(XL' YLV () µ.e:VIXL X(X't'(X\
µ.e:-rix~oA~v ~v xcx-r<i -ro 1t0Le:Lv -re: x0tl. nocax,e:Lv -rou-rov y(vov-r0tL -rov -rp61tov.
229. 2 Ia ante i!:v0tvTlotc; lacuna 15 litterarum A: 20 litterarum BC foTL

TO 1totdv n xatl mxaxew Toic; F, Montanari p. 38: daTL TO &.vTmixaxew
µ6vov i!:v Toic;> coni. Br.
229. 25 TO seclusi
229. 29 atuToic; F, Montanari p. 38: atu-njc; codd. Br.
230. I we; 1ti:ip i!:an ... 8t0tcpepov TL coni. A pelt: we; 1tup( TE: ••• 8tatcpepoVTL Br.:
i:iam:p e[-re; ... 8tat<pEpOVTL Codd.
230. 6 7t0LE:i TIXc; Apelt: 7tOLE:iTIXL codd.
230. 8 1tpoc; IXUTO (Br.) XIXTLCJ)CU7l (A pelt): 1tpoc; IXIJTOV Xatl !axue:L codd.: IXIJTO XIXL
!axuov F, Montanari p. 37 v. infra
230. 11 <Toti> coni. Br.
229. 21 mutually opposite, but reciprocal interaction occurs among op-

posites and also their intermediaries. That is, not only is Hot
changed and acted on by Cold, and Cold by Hot, and Wet by
Dry and vice versa, but also the points between each of the ex-
tremes, because in mixture the intermediary with respect to one
of the opposites can preserve the character of the other opposite.
It follows then that the bodies described here have the same matter
and a mutual contrariety in form, as it is a proprium of matter that
it can remain identical in receiving both of a pair of opposites,
since all bodies that come to be and pass away belong to the same
matter as one another, while they are differentiated by forms and
accidental qualities.
229. 30 Certainly the four bodies known as elements are of this sort;
Earth and Water, Air and Fire, have the same matter and are
differentiated by their forms. They differ in that one is hot and
dry (these are what Fire is, for while its being rests in the matter
which has received them [230] yet in these qualities lies its dif-
ference as Fire from the other elements too; for in matter the four
elements are identical), another is moist and hot (these, again,
are what Air is), another cold and moist (these are what Water is)
and a fourth is dry and cold (such is Earth). Having these mutual
differences and contrarieties they produce changes by reciprocal
interaction, with the matter changing into the dominant agent.
When one of them overpowers one of the bodies that has a property
opposite to its own, and prevails by its inherent contrarieties to
the point where the underlying matter loses its former quality in
exchange for the form of the dominant body, then the body that
changes in this fashion passes away, while the body into which
the change has occurred comes to be. In this way bodies that come
230. 13 to be by change involving interaction come to be and pass away.
DE MIXTIONE
XIV 'Em:l. 8e &).J..o yeve:<rn; x.otl. <p8opix, x.otl. l}.))..o x.piiO'L~ (~ "(IXP x.piiO'L~ O'Cu~oµe-
15 vwv TLVWV <p8op1X e:!votL 8ox.e:i: • oun "(IXP U7t0 TOU hepou <p8otpev-.o~ x.otl. µe:-
Tot~IXA.AOVTO~ e:£~ TO x.pot't"YjO'otV x.piiO'L~, CX.A.AIX <x.otl.> TOU µev otU~l)O'L~, TOU 8e
<p8opix - 8LO ou8e ~ TpO<p~ A&ye:TotL KLpviia8otL KotL Tcj> Tpe:<pOIJ.&VCf> - OUT', e:£
cx.µ<p6-.e:pot 7totVTIX7totO'LV <p8otpe:Llj TIX µLyvuµe:vot, TWV µe:µLyµevwv x.piiO'L~ ~--L •
O'W~O!J.&VWV yixp TLVWV <p8op1X ~ x.piiO'L~), cx.x.6Aou8ov <iv e:llj ~V -rij~ Kp!XO'EW~
20 1tpo~ ~v yeve:O"LV n x.otl. <p8opocv e:!1te:i:v 7totpot~OA~V.
KOLVOV µev "(1Xp otUTot"i:~ ~

-.e: KotTIX ~v UAl)V KOLVWVLot, x.ot8' ~v C>o-1te:p <p8e:lpe:TotL TL, ou-.w~ xotl. KLpviiTotL,
t- '
KotL' lj• oLot
t' ' > I
e:votVTLWO'LV oLot TOU- 7tOLe:LV- r
Te: KotLI 7totO-XELV (.l. \ r ~t'
µe:Tott-'0/\lj. t-.1.
LoLOV oi:; r
x.pot-
O'EW~ 1tpo~ ~v yeve:O'LV Te: x.otl. <p8op1XV TO E7tL µev TOUTWV T&A.e:ov 8oc-.e:pov
e:£~ 8ix-.e:pov µe:8(a-.ota8otL x.otl. µe:TotAotµ~ocve:tv TIX~ EVotVTLWO'e:L~, x.ot8' &~ 1tot-
25 8ov CX.7t&~ot/l.e: T&Ae:ov, &~ e:!x.e: 1tpo TOUTOU, E7tL 8e TWV KLpvotµevwv OU TOU-
TOV ~--L y(ve:TotL TOV -.p61tov. ex.A.A' lhotv 7tAELW awµotTot TOU 7tOLe:i:v x.otl. 7tlX-
O-XELV u1t' CX.AA~/1.WV ~x.ov-.a. 8uvotµLv CX.AA~AOL~ GUV&A.8TI, ~X.TI 8e OUTW~, w~
µ~ U7te:pex_e:Lv KotTIX TIX~ EVotVTLWO'EL~ &).J..o /1Uou 8uvoto-8otL w~ <p8e:"i:potv otU-
TO e:t~ ~v EotUTOU µe:TotO'-rijO'otL (j)UO'LV, -.6-.e: Trt.UTot 8LIX ~v TWV 8uvotµevwv
30 L0'6Tl)Tot, x.ot8' &~ 7tOLe:i: x.otl. 7t1XO"X,EL, oµo(w~ u1t' CX.AA~AWV CX.VTL7tlXO"XOVTot
L 6 ,, > (.l. , , I , , r
µi:;x_pL TOUTOU 7tp ELO'LV, e:w~ ot7tOt-'ot/\OVTot KotTot Tot~ e:votVTLWO'EL~ Tot~ U1te:po-
f I ,
X,1X~, 8L' &~ l-.e:poc -.e: ~v CX./1.A~AWV x.otl. EVotVTLot, IJ,LotV E~ IX7totO'WV TWV 8uvixµe:wv
ye:vv~O'e:L 7tOL6Tl)Tot, Evw8e:L<rlj~ x.otl. IJ,Lii~ ye:voµ&Vlj~ -rii~ cx.µ<po-.epOL~ ~ 7t0CO'LV
ot\JTO"i:~ UAlj~ U7tOKEL!J.&Vlj~-
y(ve:TotL 8e ~ TOLotUT'Y) µi:~L~, ~v x.piiO'LV KotAouµe:v,

35 EV -.or:~ uypoi:~ TWV O'WIJ.IXTWV. x.otl. "(1Xp ~ EV -.or:~ ~l)poi:~ y(ve:o-8otL 8oxouO'ot
230. 15ip6opcx Montanari p. 39: µr~Lc; codd. Br. v. infra

230. 16xixl supplevi, cf. 213. 8-9, 218. 15-17, 234.1-2.
230. 17
-r<jl -rpe:ipoµe11 codd. Rex: -ro -rpe:ip6µe:vo11 Br.
230. 18
-rw11 µe:µtyµb.iw11 scripsi: -rcx µe:µtyµb.icx Apelt Br.: µ~ µ1yvuµe:11ix codd.
230. 19
ip6opcx Montanari, V. 230. 15: µr~tc; codd. Br.
230. 20
e:hte:1'11 1tixpix~o)..~11 F, Montanari p. 40: Mye:L11 8Lixipopix11 post ip6opix11
suppl. Br.
230. 27 lxTI Br.: lxe:i codd.
230. 31 )(IX'rCX -rcxc; tlllXll'rLW<rE:L<; -rcxc; U7tE:p0)(1X<; F, Montanari p. 37: -rcxc; KIX'tCX &IIIXll-
'rtwae:L<; U7tE:p0)(1X<; Apelt Br.: KIX'rCX de; &IIIXll'rLW<r&L<; IJ7t&poxixc; codd.
230. 14 XIV Since coming-to-be and passing-away differ from blending

(for blending is held to be the passing away of bodies that are
preserved; for neither is there blending through the destruction
of one of the bodies and its change into the dominant constituent
but in fact the one increases while the other passes away-hence
nutriment is not even said to be blended with the thing that is
nourished-nor are the bodies that have been mixed blended if
both constituents are completely destroyed, since blending is the
passing away of bodies that are preserved) we should next make a
comparison between blending and both coming-to-be and passing-
away.
230. 20 Now common to both processes is their participation in matter,
in respect to which both passing-away and blending similarly
occur, as well as alteration caused by interaction through con-
trariety. Peculiar to' blending in relation to coming-to-be and
passing-away is that with the latter one thing completely changes
into another and takes in exchange the contrarieties by which it
was acted on in completely losing its former properties, while
with the constituents of blends there is a different process. When
several bodies with the potentiality for reciprocal interaction are
compounded with one another and are in the state where one can-
not exceed the other by its contrariety so as to destroy it and
change it into its own nature, then by the equality of the powers by
which they interact these bodies are in turn acted on by one an-
other in the same way, and advance to the point where they lose
that superiority in their contrarieties by which they differed and
were opposite, and create one quality from all the powers, while
the matter underlying both or all of them is unified and becomes
one.
230. 34 The type of mixture that we term blending involves moist bodies.
Certainly the apparent blending that occurs among dry bodies
1 54 DE MIXTIONE
xpii(nc; OU YLVE:'t'(XL xwpL<:; uyponi't'oc:;. EVOU't'(XL yix.p 't'IX. uypoc GUV't'L8eµe:voc )((Xt
231 ou <pu"Aocmm 't'IX.<:; otxe:locc:; Em<pocve:lixc:;, Mv µ~ TI y"ALa-x_p6v. ll't'ocv 8~ 't'o'i:c:;
)((X't'OC ~v UAYJV 8Loc ~v uyponi't'(X XIX't'IX. ~v 1tocpoc8e:ow evouµevoLc:; 0'6>(.L(X(JLV
1tpooij )((XL 't'O EV(XV't'LWO'LV exe:LV taoxpoc-rij 1tpoc:; &A"AYJAOC, YLVE:'t'(XL (XU't'OL<:; )((X't'IX
't'IX.<:; 7tOL6'"l't'OC<:; 't'E: )((XL 8uvocµe:tc:; EVWO'L<:;, 61te:p EO''t'LV ~ xpiiaLc:;. EXOC't'e:pov yix.p
5 't'WV OU't'W<:; EXOV't'WV 8Loc µev ~v EVU7tocpxouaocv EV (XU't'OL<:; EVOCV't'LWO'LV )((XL
~v -rijc:; UAlj<:; XOLVWVL(XV (.LE:'t'(X~OCAAE:L 't'e: )((XL 1toca-x_e:L, 8tix. 8& ~v taoni't'(X 't'WV
E:V(XV't'LC.UO'E:WV
' ' OUK
' E:7tL
' ' 't'OO'OU't'OV
- 7t0LE:L- niv
' (.LE:'t'OCt,-0/\ljV,
A , ' we:;
' 't'(XU't'UV
' l ye:vi;;avlXL
L-D.
8oc't'ep<f> 8oc't'e:pov. CX.V't'LTtOCa-x_ov yix.p 't'O 7tOLOUV U7t0 't'OU TtOCa-x_OV't'O<:; 1tpoc:; (XU-
't'OU )((XL µ~ µevov 0(.LOLOV (XU't'<j'>, 7t(XUE:'t'(XL 't'OU 7t0LE:LV &'t'L 8uvoca8ocL 1tpo 't'OU
ro xpoc-rijaocL 1'i"Ae:ov ocu't'ou.
xcxt 't'OU't'' EaTLv ~ xpOCcrLc; · ~ y(Xp 8tlX ToU 7tOL&iv

)((XL 1toca-x_e:LV 't'WV 1tocpocxe:Lµevwv CX.AA~AOL<:; O'W(.LOC't'WV 8Loc (.LE:'t'IX~OA~c:; xwpLc:;
<p8opiic:; ocu't'wv 't'Lvoc:; evwatc:;.
xv :Euve:pye:'i: 8e 't'OL<:; uypo'i:c:; 1tpoc:; ~v 80C't''t'W µe:-
't'(X~OA~V 't'e: XIXL xpiiaLV )((XL 't'O e:u8LocLpe:'t'OV. 8LocLpOUV't'IX yix.p tJl.J..YjAOC 1tpo
-rijc:; evwae:wc:; )(.(XL )((X't'IX. (.LLXpiX. 7tOCpOC't'L8eµe:vix CX.AA~AOL<:;, pq.ov XIXL 8iinov &.v-
15 't'LTtOCa-x_OV't'(X u1t' CX.AA~AWV, 't'ocxewc:; ev 't'L ylve:'t'IXL O'W(.LOC )((XL )((X't'IX. 't'O U7tO-
xe:lµe:vov )(.(XL )(.(X't'OC ~v 7tOL0't'll1'0C, EVe:pye:f.qt µev ou8ev OV 't'WV µe:µtyµevwv,
8uvocµe:L 8e 7t0CV't'(X, 't'OO'OU't'OV cx.1to"Ae:m6µe:vov 't'OU )(.(XL Eve:pye:lqt O'W~e:LV 't'IX.
EV (XU't'<j'> µe:µLyµevoc, OO'OV 8Loc 't'OU 7t0Le:LV 't'E: )((XL 1toca-x_e:Lv CX.(j)7)plj't'(XL 8LIX.
-rijc:; 8uvocµe:wc:; (XU't'WV EXOCO''t'OU. 8to )((XL OALYYJ<:; 8e:L't'(XL ~Olj8e:f.occ:; [-rijc:;] 1tpoc:;
20 IXU ~v e:tc:; 't'e:AE:LO'"l't'(X (.LE:'t'(X~OA~V ()(j(X 8L' (XU't'WV 't'OL(XU't'(X xwpe:'i: µ~ 7t0CV't'"fl
cx.xwpLO''t'(X 't'OC xe:xpocµevoc. 1tpoa6~Xlj<:; yocp 8e:'i:'t'OCL 't'LVO<:; e:tc:; 't'E:AE:LO'"l't'OC, cx."A"A'
OU 7t(XV't'E:AOU<:; ye:vfoe:wc:; 't'e: )((XL (.LE:'t'(X~OA~c:;.
8Lo )((XL 1tpo<pe:poµevwv (XU't'OL<:;

't'LVWV, & 1tpoc:; ~v 't'OL(XU'"lV 't'E:Ae:L6'"l't'(X auve:pye:'i:v EO''t'LV or& 't'e:, pqt8Lwc:; E7tL
231. 3 1tpoa'ji x,xl F, Montanari p. 38: 1tpoa~x7i Br.: 1tpoaijxe: codd.

231. 17 mxv'l'0t Rodier: 1tii11 ·n ldeler Br.: 1t0tvTl codd. Tou Apelt: TO codd.
231. 19 riji; seclusi
231. 20-21 v. infra
231. 20 ,xo 'TTl" Apelt: 0tuni11 codd., obelo not. Br. nAet6"1)T0t scripsi, cf.
231. 21, 232. 29: TOtU"1JII codd. Br. 8a0t 3t' 0tuTw11 scripsi, cf. 8a0tt
TOLIXUTIXL 2 l 8. 7: oi; '1)11 ye: Ot\lTW\I codd. Br.
231. 21 1t1Xll'l'7l &xc:iptaT0t Apelt: 1tcx11'!'0t xwptaTIX codd. Br. '!'IX xcxp0tµt110t coni.
Br. : TIX 1te:1tp0tyµt110t codd.
does not occur without moistness, as moist bodies are unified and
compounded [231] and do not retain their own surfaces unless they
are viscous. Whenever bodies that are materially unified in juxta-
position because of their moistness have in addition a mutual
contrariety of equal power the unification of their qualities and
powers occurs, and this is blending. Each of the bodies in such a
state changes and is acted on because of its inherent contrariety
and its participation in matter, and because of the equality of the
opposites they do not cause such an extensive change that one
becomes identical with the other. The agent, when acted on in
turn by the body affected by it, and not remaining like itself, loses
its capacity to act before it can completely overpower it.
23r. IO Blending, then, can be defined as the unification through inter-
action of bodies juxtaposed with one another by means of an
alteration that excludes their passing-away.
23r. 12 XV Contributing to the rapid alteration and blending of moist
bodies is their easy divisibility; for they divide one another before
being unified, and are juxtaposed together as corpuscles, thus
interacting more easily and more quickly, and they rapidly be-
come one body both in substrate and quality-a body not in actu-
ality any of the bodies that have been mixed, but in potentiality
all of them, and deprived from preserving in actuality the bodies
mixed in it only to the extent that it is removed from them by the
interaction caused by their individual powers. For this reason
just slight assistance is required for a change into < actuality>
where bodies that have been blended are of the kind that go through
one another without being completely inseparable; for they do
require some addition to be actualised but not absolute coming-to-
be and change.
23r. 22 Thus when certain things are added to them which can contribute
to such an actualisation they easily recede to their own nature,
DE MIXTIONE
TYJV OLXe:LIXV OCVIX't'ptxEL q,uaw, OU 't'OU 1tp6't'Epov ClV't'O<; 158ix't'oc; ~ otvou [ 't'OU]
25 EXXpLvoµevou 7tlXALV (ou8e yotp TYJV ocpx~v fow~E't'O EV 't'cj> µ(yµix't'L, 7t1Xpoc-
6E(nc; yotp &v, OU xpii(nc; ~v • EV yotp 't'OL<; XExpixµevoLc; ~v n xixt oµoLoµE-
pec; 1tiiv 't'O YEYOVO<; EX -rijc; xpoccrEwc;), oc"'>J..ot 8uvixµevou [ OC7t0] 't'OU 't'OLOU't'OU
xplX(l,IX't'O<;
' EL<;
' uowp
~~
<"fl"" owov>
T [ µEv
I ]
pqtoLwc;
' ~·
µE't'IXi--lXI\/\ELV
A ,-,. .,. <XIXL>
I
µE't'IX-
(.1. 1-,.-,. > l > 61 > > I I
1-'IXI\/\OV't'O<; EL<; 't'o 't'"IJV IXPX"IJV µl) µLX t;V EX 't'OLOU't'WV Em 't'OLIXU't'"fl<; 7t0LO't'"IJ't'O<;.
I I I I I
30 we; yotp E7tt 't'OU YIXAIXX't'O<; ClV't'O<; oµoLOµEpouc; crwµix't'oc;, EXOV't'O<; 8e

EV IXU't'cj'> ['t'L] 8uvocµEL xixt uyp6v 't'L xixt (J't'EpE6v, o 7tE7tupwµevoc; Eµ~Al)6Etc;
Al6oc; e:xocnpov IXU't'WV E~ IXU't'OU 8LtXpLVE YEVV~cr1Xc; 't'p61tov 't'LVIX, xixt
't'O µev IXU't'OU 't'Upov E7tOl"fJO'E, 't'O 8e opp6v, OU µepoc; 't'L EVU1tocpxov IXU't'cj'>
232 EVEpydqt xwplcrixc;, octJ..' OC7t0 7tlXV't'O<; µoplou YEVV~O'IX<; IXU't'WV e:XOC't'Epov,
oiJ't'wc; U7tOA"fJ7t't'toV 7t0LE:LV xixt TYJV xix6LE(l,tvl)V (l'7tOyy(ixv de; 't'O ocyyELOV
't'O exov EV IXU't'cj'> XExpixµevov o!vov iJ81X't'L. -tjj yotp otxdqt 7tOL6't'"fJ't'L OC7t0
7tlXV't'O<; 't'OU µlyµix't'oc; YEVVW(JIX 't'O 8uvocµEvov pqt8(wc; 158wp xix6ixpov u1t'
5 IXU't'OU yEvtcr61XL U7t0 't'O(l'IXU't'"IJ<; 't'E xixt 't'OLIXU't'"IJ<; 8uvocµEwc; xwpL~6µEvov
ocvixq,epe:L. we; yotp E7tt 't'OU YAEuxouc;, oµoLoµEpouc; ClV't'Oc; awµix't'oc;, ~
oA(Y"IJ 1tt41Lc; 1tpocrEA6oucr1X E~ &1t1XV't'O<; IXU't'OU YEVV<f. 't'E xixt 8Lixxp(ve:L
7tVEU(l,OC 't'E xixt o!vov (IS't'L yotp µ~ 1tp6't'Epov ~v EV IXU't'cj'> 't'IXU't'IX EVEpyE(qt,
81jAov EX 't'OU µ~ 8uvixcr6ixL µev oiJ't'wc; uypcj> XIX't'tXEcr61XL EVEPYELqt 7tVEuµix,
9a we; E!p"fJ't'IXL xixt 1tpo oAlyou, oc"'>J..ot 't'O yEv6µEvov EXXpLvEcr61XL 7t1Xpixxp~µix
IO 1tiiv E7tt -rijc; 1tt41Ewc;), oiJ't'wc; U7tOA"fJ7t't'toV xixt 't'ot <cx.1to>xwp(~OV't'IX 't'ot
XLpvocµEVIX, E~ WV xtx.plX't'IXL 't'LVIX, oux EVU1tocpxov't'1X EVEpyElqt xwpl~ELV,
oc"'>J..ot µe:TIX~IXAAOV't'IX 8uvocµe:L 't'Lvt xixt 't'S:AELOUV't'IX 't'ot 8uvocµEL 8Lot TYJV xpiimv
EVU7t1XPXOV't'IX IXU't'OL<;. we; yotp E1t' EXe:LVWV Em1t6A1XL6c; 't'Lvoc; ytvEO'L<; y[-
VE't'IXL (ou yotp 't'OU yocAIXX't'O<; EL<; EVIXV't'LIX<; 't'LVIX<;, ixrc; EXEL, µE't'IX~IXA6V't'O<;
15 7tOL6't'"fJ't'IX<; 't'O µev oppoc; 't'O 8e 't'Upoc; ylve:'t'IXL, oc"'>J..ot 't'ot U1tocpxov't'1X IXU't'cj'> 8uvoc-
µEL oiJ't'wc;, we; OALY"IJ<; 't'LVO<; 1tpoc; 't'O EVEPYELqt E:LVIXL 8dcr6ixL ~Ol)6dixc;, EL<;
't'Ol 'EVEPYELqt I T
ELVIXL YLVE't'IXL
I )
, OU't'W<;
,, f.l."'''l)Yl)'t'EOV
µE't'IXi--0/\l)V ' YLVECJVIXL
, .-£1 XIXL, ,Em' 't'WV -
XExpixµevwv.
231. 24 '\'Ou secl. Br.

231. 27 1bo sec!. Br.
231. 28-29 71 oivov supplevi, cf. 231. 24 µev seclusi xixl supplevi
µe:'l'ix~&nov't'o~ [sc. '\'Ou xpixµix'l'o~] d~ 'l'O 'l'll" ocpxl)v (cf. 232. 19) µ-ri
µLx6ev Diels: µt'l'IX~IXA6\l't'O~ d~ '\'OU'\'O ocpx~v codd., obelo not. Br.
231. 31 'l'L secl. Br., om. F, Montanari p. 36
232. 5 xoopL~6µe:vov coni. Apelt: xoop(~ov codd. Br.
232. 7 ye:WCf 'l'E: F, Montanari p. 36, Apelt Br.: ye:wiiTIXL codd.
232. 10 'l'IX <ocrt'o>xoop(~ov'l'IX TIX xLpvixµe:vix scripsi: 'l'IX xoopl~ov'l'ix ocrt'o (irt"l coni.
Br.) 'l'WV xe:xpixµivoov codd. Br.
232. 15 TIX umxpxov'l'ix Schramm: 'l'wv imixpx6v't'oov codd. Br.
not because the original water and wine is separated out again
(they were not, that is, preserved in their original state in the
mixture, since that would just be juxtaposition and not blending;
for where bodies have been blended the whole product of the blend
is one and uniform) but through such a blend being easily able to
change into water < or wine>, < and> changing into what was
not originally mixed from such [constituents] with such a quality.
231. 30 For just as a heated stone cast into milk, a uniform body con-
taining in potentiality something both moist and solid, separates
each of them from it, and in some way creates them, making the
one into cheese, the other into whey, not through separating a
part actually inherent in the milk but by creating each of them
[232] from every part, so must the action of the sponge dipped into
the pitcher holding wine blended with water be understood; for
by its own quality it creates from the whole mixture the water
that can be easily purified by it, and reconstitutes it as separate
through the extent and nature of its power.
232. 6 For as the onset of a slight fermentation in must, which
is a uniform body, creates and separates from the whole of it both
air and wine (clearly these bodies were not in it in actuality before-
hand, since it is impossible that air should actually be contained
by water, as we said just above, but the product is separated out
as a whole just when the fermentation takes place); so must it
be understood that agents which separate constituents from which
blends have been formed also do not separate what is actually
inherent in [blends] but cause an alteration by a specific force,
and actualise bodies that as a result of blending are present in
them in potentiality.
232. 13 Just as in the preceding cases there is a superficial coming-to-be
of something (for it is not through the milk changing into qualities
opposite to its own that it becomes one part whey one part cheese,
but rather the bodies present in potentiality in it in such a way
that they require slight assistance to reach actual being, come into
actual being), so must the change that also occurs in the case of
bodies that have been blended be understood.
DE MIXTIONE
&1te:'t'0tL 8e: -tjj E7tL 't'WV xe:xpetµevwv 't'OLOtU't"() µe:-r0t~o"A7i [~] 't'O
8L0txp(ve:a80tL 8uv0ta80tL 8oxe:i:v OtU't'OC, O't'L xetl. niv &p:x,~v EX µ(~e:wc; -roLou-rwv
20 ~ yeve:(nc; -ri;> 't'OtU't'Ot 7tOC!1X,OV't'L awµet't'L. xetl. Ea't'LV O :x,wpLaµoc; "Ae:y6µe:voc;
't'WV xe:xpetµevwv ou-re: oµowc; -ri;> E7tL 't'WV &.tJ..~"Amc; 1t0tp0txe:Lµ&vwv, oih'
OtO -ri;> 7t0CALV 't'WV XOt't'OC q:i6opocv xetl. yeve:mv xetl. TYJV de; 't'OUVOtV't'LOV µe:-ret~O-
A~V <X.7tOXpLVoµevwv, we; E~ u80t-roc; opwµe:v de; 1X&p0t yLvoµev-riv 1X1t6xpLaLV,
&tJ..' Ea't'L 't'O yLv6µevov µe:-ret~U 't'OU't'WV. oihe: yocp Eve:pye:(~ EVU1tocp:x,ov-r0t
25 8L0tXptve:'t'0tL OUT€ de; 't'OUVOtV't'LOV -ri;> U7tOXe:Lµ&v 1tpo 't'OU, µ6vov XOt't'IX 1toaov EAOt't"t'OUµe:vov, E7tL 8e: 't'WV xe:xpet-
µevwv ou:x. oµo(wc;, -ri;> gXOta't'OV 't'WV ()V't'WV 8uvocµe:L EV -ri;> EX 't'OU xpocµet-
'
-roe; ye:yov6't'L awµet-rL ' ' 6OtL, µe:-retr'<M\/\OV
e:xxpLVOt(j A.l-.-. e:Lc;
' TYJV
' 't'e:I\ELOTYJ't'Ot,
-. ' .J''jc;
.. 0tq:>7l-
'
30 pe6Yj 8Loc 't'OU E7t' '£a-ric; OtU't'OC IXV't'L1t0t6e:i:v u1t' IXAA~AWV, 8L' 8 1toc6oc; xetl.
E7tl. -rou-rwv -ro :x,wp(~e:a80tL X0t't'Y)yope:i:-r0tL.
d oov -.& -re: 8Loc -riic; -roLOtUTYJc;

µe:-ret~o"Aljc; -re:"Ae:Louµe:vOt OU ye:vea80tL, &tJ..oc :x,wp(~e:a60tL "Aeye:Lv e:u"Aoyov, 't'OC
-re: 1l.tJ..0t 1te:pl. -rijc; ye:vfoe:wc; -rijc; xpocae:wc; e:lp-riµevet &x6"Aou6oc -re: 't'OtLc; U7tO-
xe:LµevetLc; &p:x,0ti:c; xetl. auvep8oc 't'OtLc; µe:-r0t~o"A0ti:c; -re: xetl. ye:vfoe:aL 't'WV awµix-
233 't'WV xetl. aw~OV't'Ot -rocc; 1te:pl. -rijc; xpocae:wc; XOLV<Xc; 1tpo"A~ljie:Lc;, µ6voc; 'ApLa't'O-
't'&AYJc; ELYJ &v -rov &"AYJ6"Yj 1te:pl. Tljc; xpixae:wc; &.1to8e:8wxwc; Myov.
O't'L 8e:
<Tex> XLpvocµe:vOt 8L0tLpOUV't'OC -re: 7tpW't'OV &tJ..l)AOt XOtL -tjj XOt't'<X µLxpoc 1t0tp0t-
6foe:L e:u1t0t6fo-re:p0t yLV6µe:v0t EVOU't'OtL -re: XOtL oµoLOU't'OtL XOt't'OC 't'O d8oc; xetl. Toce;
• 6't'YJ't'Otc;, XOtL'XOt'
5 oµoL ' t~ "6l)(;LV
'Ot , 'jv OtL(j , ,e:a't'L yvwpLµov.
' e:wc;
o yetp
'11.t;'t'L µi:;ve:L
L 't'WV
-
XLpvetµevwv e:xix-re:pov E7tL -rijc; olxdetc; ouatetc;, ~ u1t' &.tJ..~"Awv yLvoµ&vl) 8Loc-
xpLaLc; OtU't'WV xetl. IX7t0 -rijc; 't'WV :x,pwµoc-rwv 8L0tq:>opiic; y(ve:'t'OtL yvwpLµoc; •
uypoc yocp ()V't'Ot xetl. e:u8L0tlpe:-r0t xetl. &v6µoLOt U7t0 Tljc; 7tAl)y"Yjc; -rijc; XOt't'OC TYJV
E1tt:x,umv 60t-r&p<p 6ix-re:pov &.p:x,~v "A0t~6v-r0t -rou 8L0tLpe:i:v &"A"Al)"A0t, /Sv-ret xetl. IXVL-
10 a6ppo1t0t, e:1 ou-rwc; 't'U:X,OL, 't'O µe:v ~0tpu-re:pov OtU't'WV 8L0tLpouv q:iepe:'t'OtL XIX't'W,
't'OU 8e: xouq:io-repou 't'OC µ6pL0t U7t0:X,WPOUV't'Ot -roi:c; ~0tpu-rep0Lc; Em1to"A"Yjc; OtU-
't'WV a7te:u8e:L ye:vea80tL. ~v -romx~v µe:-roc~MLV OtU't'WV fo't'YjaL q:i6ixvoua0tv ~
XOt't'OC 1t1X6'1) µe:-ret~OA~, e:vouaOt OtU't'OC -tjj XOt't'OC 7t0CV't'Ot oµoL6TYJ't'L, 8 xetl. OtU't'O
't'TI /Sljie:L y(ve:'t'OtL yvwpLµov.
232. 18 fi secl. Apelt Br., om. F, Montanari p. 36
233. 3 't'IX suppl. Br. 8uxipouv-ra Schwartz: 8tatpti-ra! codd.
233. 4 tu1tcx6£G't'tpcx F, Montanari p. 37, Apelt Br.: ix1ta6fonpa codd., cf. 224. 2
233. 8 yixp F, Montanari p. 37, coni. Br.
232. 18 Such an alteration in these bodies entails that they be held

capable of dissociation, because in fact the body that was affected
by them originally came to be from their mixture. And what is
termed the separation of blended bodies neither resembles that
involving bodies juxtaposed together, nor again that involving
bodies dissociated in passing-away and coming-to-be and the
change into an opposite (as we see when Air is separated from
Water), but the process lies between these. For neither are bodies
present in actuality dissociated, nor by changing to the opposite
of the substrate are they separated. In these cases the residue after
the dissociation stays the same in form as before and is only de-
creased in quantity, but with the bodies that have been blended
the difference is that each of the things in potentiality in the body
produced from the blend is separated out, changing into the ac-
tuality of which it was deprived through the process of balanced
reciprocal interaction; and because of this characteristic "being
separated" is also predicated of these bodies.
232. 31 So if it is reasonable to describe the bodies actualised by such a
change not as coming to be but as being separated, and if the other
statements made about the process of blending follow our basic
principles, are consonant with how bodies change and come to be,
[233] and preserve the common preconceptions about blending,
only Aristotle will have propounded the true theory of blending.
233. 2 Also it is known by perception that the constituents first divide
one another, and by their juxtapositon as corpuscles become
malleable and are unified and assimilated in form and likeness.
For as long as each constituent still remains with its own substance,
their subsequent dissociation can also be recognised by their dif-
ference in colour; for as moist, easily-divided, and dissimilar bodies
their division of one another starts from the pressure caused by
one overflowing on the other, and if they should also happen to
be unequally balanced the heavier moves downward in dividing,
while the parts of the lighter body yield to the heavier one and
readily cover their surface. The change in qualities which unifies
them in total similarity stops the preceding change of place-a fact
also known by sight.
160 DE MIXTIONE
XVI 'Em:t 8e 1tpoc; XIX'TIXcrxeu~v 'TOU awµix 8LIX O'W-

15 µoi:-roc; xwpeLV XPWV'TIXL XIXL 'TIXL<; 'TWV ~cf>wv 8LIX -njc; 'Tf)O(fl'Y)c; IXU~~O'eO'LV (~
YIXP IXU~ljO'L<; -tjj 1tpoa8~XTI -njc; -rpocp'Y)c; <ylve'TIXL (j)Q"Te et> 1tocv-r-n XIXL
IXU~e'TotL 'TIX IXU~IXVOµevix, 1tocv-r-n <XV ~ -rpocp~ 1tpocrxp(voL'TO -rcj> 1tpoU1tocp-
')(OV'TL awµix-rL • OU')( orov -re 8e 1tocv-r-n 1tpocrxpL6'Y)VIXL ~v µ~ 8LIX 1tlXV'T6c;
-re XIXL 1tpoc; 1tiv Evex6efoixv • oc)J,.' el 8LIX 1tlXV'TO<; ~ -rpocp~ 'TOU awµix-roc;
20 cpepe'TIXL, awµix oifoix, OCVIXy><.IXLOV e!vixL M~eL, awµix 8LIX awµix-roc; xwpdv,
e( ye µ6vwc; oihwc; o!6v -re ~v EX -njc; -rpocp'Y)c; 1tpoa8~><.ljV 1tixv-rt -rcj>
-rpecpoµevep y(vea61XL O'W!LIX'TL), O'TL oov µ~ oihwc; 'TO -rpecpea8ix( -re xixl.
IXU~ea8otL y(ve'TIXL ( ou8ev YIXP 'TWV oc8uvoc-rwv y(ve'TIXL) cpep' efow ex6e-
µevoc; ~v 'ApLO''TO'TtAouc; 8o~IXV ~v 1tept IXU~~O'ewc; -re XIXL 'TflO(j)'Y)c;.
24a 1tOL~O'O!LIXL 8e 'TOV Myov E1tL 'TWV xup(wc; IXU~ea61XL Aeyoµevwv' E1tL
25 'TOU'T(J)V YIXP xixl. ~ oc1top(ix 1tp6eLO'LV. fo-rL 8e 'TIXU'TIX 'TIX 8LIX 'TOU -rpecpea81XL
~V 1tpoa6~X'YjV AIXµ~ocVOV'TIX. -rpecpe'TIXL 8e <lO'IX ~V 6pe1t'TLX~V f:')(eL MvotµLV
EV IXU'TOL<;, 'TOLIXU'TIX 8e 'TIX (j)U'TIX xixl. 'TIX ~cj>IX. OO'IX 8~ 'TOL<; oihwc; IXU~IXVO-
• , , !:', -,. /....,
L.
µi:;voLc; U1t1Xp')(eL XIXL' UO'IX
l!
oeL
~ ~ -,. ,
(flU/\IX'T'TeLV '
-rouc; 1tepL' IXU<,ljO'ewc; /\v r OV'TIX<;,
ocvocyxlj 'TIXU'TIX 1tpw-rov Ex6fo61XL • 'TIXU'TIX YIXP ~µLv l>V'TIX yvwpLµIX O'UV'Te-
30 A&O"eL 1tpoc; ~v 'TWV plj6'YjO"Oµevwv XpLO'LV.
'TIX 8~ ixu~ixvoµevix 1tocv-rix 1tpoa-

L6v-roc; ye 'TLVO<; IXU'TOLc; e~w6ev IXU~e'TIXL, d ye 8LIX 'TOU -rpecpea61XL 'TO IXU~e-
a8ixL y(ve'TIXL, e'TL 'Te <OU> XIX'TIX µopLOv ~v E1t£800'LV AIXµ~ocveL. OU YIXP <xix6' >
iv 'TL ~ IXU~ljO'L<; 'TOL<; IXU~1Xvoµev0Lc; XIX'TIX (j)UO'LV, (j)O'ltep o!c; e~w6ev 'TL 1tpoa-
234 1tAOCO'O'e'TotL (OU YIXP 'TWV IXU~oµevwv 'TLVO<; a
1touc; IXU~e'TIXL µ6voc;), oc)J,.IX
XIXL 1tOCV'T(J)V 'TWV µop(wv E1tL800'L<; XIX'T' OCVIXAoy(ixv y(ve'TIXL. xixl. YIXP 'TIXU'TOV
U1toµevov -re xixl. O'W~OV ~v otxe(ixv (flUO'LV 'TO IXU~oµevov ~v 1tpoa8~X'YjV
AIXµ~ocveL. ou-re YIXP µ~ U1toµevov-roc; 'TOU IXU~ea8otL Aeyoµevou IXU~ljO'L<; 'TO
233. 15
YJ codd. Von Arnim: et Br.
233. 16
oti1~7Jatc; secl. Br. <y!vETott &>au El> Von Arnim
233. rrpoUrrcxpx_ov-rt A 2Ra: urrcxpx_ov-rt A1BPSC Br. v. infra
17
233. 18
µ-IJ Br.: µ!otv codd.
233. 23
cpEp' Efaw Schramm: cptpE xot! wv codd.: xot! wv obelo not. Br. qui
cpEp' EfowµEV coni.
233. 28 udp)(.Et Br.: urrcxp)(.Etv codd. 8Ei Ideler: 8-IJ codd.
233. 32 ou suppl. Br.; fortasse <ou> XIXTIX µ6ptov <Tt> <xot6'> coni. Br., cf.
XIXT!l lTciV 234. 26
234. 2 -rotu-rov Apelt: -rp!-rov codd.
233. 14 XVI As they support the notion of body going through body
by also invoking the growth of animals through nutriment (for
growth does< occur> by the addition of nutriment in every part,
< so that if> things that grow do grow in all parts, nutriment
would be assimilated by the preexisting body in all its parts; but
it is impossible for the implanted [nutriment] to be totally assim-
ilated except throughout the whole body and in every part; yet
if the nutriment pervades the whole body as a body, it will be
held necessary that body go through body if only in this way can
growth through nutriment occur throughout the whole of the body
that is nourished), yet because nourishment and growth do not
occur in this way (for nothing impossible happens), let me then
state and explain Aristotle's doctrine of growth and nutriment.
233. 24a I shall devote the discussion to those things that are strictly
speaking said to grow, for with them we shall certainly make
progress with our problem. Now these are bodies that grow through
being nourished, and only bodies with their own nutritive faculty
are nourished, namely plants and animals. First, then, we must
describe the character of things that grow in this way, and what
must be retained by a theory of growth; for since these [facts] are
known to us they will contribute to our assessment of the theory
to be forwarded.
233. 30 Everything that grows grows only when something enters it
from outside, if indeed it grows through being nourished, and
furthermore is < not> added to in part. For growth is not in an
individual [feature] for bodies that grow by nature, as it is with
things to which something is affixed externally [234] (when some-
thing grows its foot will not grow by itself!), but there is in fact
proportional addition to all parts. Now the body that grows remains
the same and preserves its own nature when added to; for if what
is said to grow is not stable the result will not be growth < even
II
162 DE MIXTIONE
5 yLv6µ.evov <et X(XL> de; /lyxov µ.e-r(X~IXAJ.&L µ.el~ov(X (8Lix -rou-ro yixp ou-re -rwv
xLpv(XµkV(J)V 't'L (XU~ecr8(XL A&"(&'t'(XL <ou-re -rwv > µ.e-roc~octJ..6v-r(J)v de; /1,J..o 't'L
awµ.(X ov E7t' /lyxou µ.el~ovoc;, we; opwµ.ev yLv6µ.evov E7tL -rijc; E~ u8oc-roc; de;
ixepot µ.e-rot~OAljc;, w' EV't'(XU6ot µ.ev yeveaLc; xoct cp6opoc, u8oc-roc; µ.ev cp6opoc,
yeveaLc; 8e cx.epoc;, EXEL 8e µ.°L~lc; 't'€ xoct xpiiaLc;), OU't'€ 't'O -rux_ov 't'WV etc; TYJV
IO (XU~l)GLV GUV't'&AOUV't'(J)V (XU~€'t'otL, cx.tJ..ix 't'O G(J)~6µ.ev6v 't'€ ot\.l't'WV X(Xt u1toµ.evov,
X(Xt l-rL TY)V otU~'l)'t'LX~v n X(Xt 6pe1t't'LXl)V lx_ov Mvocµ.Lv EV (XU't'cj>. 8Lix 't'(XU't'(X
yixp oux_ ~ -rpoq:>l) (XU~(Xv6µ.evov, xoc(-roL X(Xt (XUTYj awµ.(X X(Xt yLvoµ.ev"l -rijc;
(XU~~ae(J)c; (XL't'L(X, cx.tJ..' 4> ~ -rpOq:>l) 1tpoaxpLV€'t'(XL, ~ µ.ev yixp (l,€'t'(X~OCAML,
't'O 8e aW~€'t'(XL • X(Xt ~ 6pe7t't'LXl) 8uv(Xµ.Lc;, ~ (l,€'t'(X~A'l)'t'LXl) 81) X(Xt 1tpoaxpL-
15 't'LXl) -rijc; -rpocpljc;, fo-rtv EV 't'OU't'Cf>.
('t'OU't'(J)V) 't'OLVUV 't'OLc; (XU~(Xvoµ.evoLc;

1J7t(Xpx_6v-rwv ~'l)'t'&L't'(XL, E7tet ~ (XU~l)aLc; 1tpoa-rL6eµ.evci> ylv&'t'(XL, 't'L EO''t'L <'t'O>
1tpoa-rL6eµ.evov; ~ yixp awµ.(X ~ CX.GW(l,(X't'OV dv(XL 8e°L 't'O 1tpoa-rL6eµ.evov. OU't'&
8e cx.awµ.oc-rci> TYJV (XU~l)GLV dv(XL AS"(&LV €UAoyov, oi>n GCil(l,(X't'L dvotL 8oxeL.
CX.G(J)(l,OC't'Cf) µ.ev <OU>, lS-rL oux cx.awµ.oc-roc; ~ -rpoq:>~. CX.XOAOU6~a&L 't'€ 't'OLc; X(X't'IX
20 CX.G(J)(l,OC't'OU 't'LVOc; 1tpocr8~X'l)V TY)V (XU~l)GLV dv(XL MyouaL xevov 't'L 7t0L€LV
2Oa CX.q:>(J)pLaµkvov, et ye 't'O µ.ev (XU~l)6ev µ.e(~OV(X X(X't'SX.€L -r61tov. OU X(X't'&LX.€
8e -r61tov 't'O (XU~lja(XV (XU't'6 • av yixp E7tLA(X(l,~OCV€L 't'O otU~(Xv6µ.evov, ou-r6c;
EO''t'L 1tpo -rijc; (XU~~ae(J)c; (XU't'OU xev6c;, et ye µ.6v(J)V awµ.oc-rwv 't'O X(X't'S-
x_eLV 't'LVIX -r61tov. et 8e GW(l,(X't'L ASYOL't'O ~ (XU~l)aLc; ylvecr8(XL 7tpoa-rL6&µ.evCf),
la-r(XL awµ.oc n 8LIX GW(l,(X't'Oc; x_wpouv X(Xt yLv6µ.evov <EV> GW(l,(X't'L, et ye
2 5 X(X60 µ.ev (XU~€'t'(XL 't'L, X(X't'IX 't'OU't'O TYJV 1tpocr8~X'l)V A(X(l,~OCV€L, X(X't'IX 7tOCV't'(X
8e 't'O (XU~6µ.evov (XU~€'t'(XL, c'J>a-re X(X't'IX 1tiiv X(Xt 1tpocr8~X'l)V A~tjl&'t'(XL, cx.tJ..'
et awµ.(X ov X(X't'IX 1tiiv e:(Xu-ro TYJV 1tpo~X'IJV t..(Xµ.~ocveL, 8e~aeL 8Lix 1t(Xv-roc;
(XU't'O x.(J)pouv 't'O 1tpoa-rL6eµ.evov (XU't'cj> (-rou-ro 8' fo-rtv ~ -rpocp~) TY)V (XU~'l)-
aLV (XU't'OU 7t0L&Lcr8(XL. et yixp Aey€L 't'Lc; 8Loc 't'LV(J)V xevwv yevecr8(XL TY)V 8(0-
234. 5 <e:l x0tb coni. Br. qui lacunam posuit µe-r0t~&lle:L coni. Br.:
µe:TIX~!XAAE:LV codd.
234. 6 <oil-re Twv> coni. Apelt Rodier
234. 7 hL"l coni. Br.: ix codd.
234. IO u1toµevov Br., cf. 236. 1, 5: u1toxe:lµevov codd.
234. 14 31) Br.: 3e codd.
234. TouTrov suppl. Br.
15
234. rrpoaTL6e:µevci> Br.: rrpoaTL6e:µevou codd.
16 TO suppl. Diels
234. <ou> coni. Apelt
19
234. )..eyouaL xe:vov TL ltOLELV ixcpropLaµevov (-rov Montanari) e:l ye: TO µcv
20
1XU~7l6£v µe:l~ov0t XIXTEJ(EL T61tov F, Montanari p. 39, cf. Aristot. de gen.
et corr. 32m 6: )..eyouaL XIXTEJ(&Lv T6rrov codd., obelo not. Br.: )..eyouaL
<To 0tu~'ija0tv 0tuTo µl) )..eye:Lv> XIXTEJ(e:Lv T61tov · [ ou] coni. Br.
234. 24 3e A pelt: Te codd. iv supplevi, cf. 219. 23, 24, 27: yw6µe:vov awµIXTL
codd., obelo not. Br.: 3e:x6µevov awµ& TL coni. Br.: rrpoayLv6µevov
awµIXTL Schramm
if it > changes into a larger volume (hence none of the constituents

of a blend is said to grow, nor anything that changes into a body
of greater volume, as we see in the case of the change from Water
to Air; in the latter instance there is coming-to-be and passing-
away of Air and Water respectively, in the former mixture and
blending), nor does any of the [bodies] contributing to growth
grow, but only that which is preserved and stable and also has
its own faculty for growth and nourishment. Hence nutriment is
not increased, though it is itself body and acts as the cause of
growth, but rather that by which the nutriment is assimilated; for
this is preserved while the nutriment changes, and it has the
nutritive faculty which is able to transform and assimilate nutriment.
234. 15 Since this is the character of bodies that grow we must deter-
mine, since growth occurs through an addition being made to a
body, what it is that is added. The addition must be corporeal or
incorporeal, but it does not seem reasonable to say that there is
growth either by the incorporeal or by body.
234. 19 It is not by the incorporeal because nutriment is not incorporeal,
and because to say that growth is an addition of something in-
corporeal will entail claiming that it creates a separate void, if
indeed what has grown occupies a larger place; but the cause of
its growth does not occupy place, for the place occupied by the
body that grows is empty prior to its growth, if the occupancy of
place is a unique property of bodies.
234. 23 But if growth were said to occur by the addition of body, then
there will be body going through body and coming to be < in >
body, if something grows insofar as it is added to, and if the body
that grows does so in all its parts so that it is also added to every-
where. But if, being itself a body, it is added to in its entirety,
then the thing added to it (the nutriment, that is) goes through
the whole of it and causes its increase. For to someone who says
that the nutriment passes through certain empty spaces we must
DE MIXTIONE
30 8ov -rijc; -rpoqiijc;, cxvocyxl) -rou-rep Myetv, 1tocv -ro -rpeqi6µevov awµot elvotL xe-
v6v, et xot6' 8 µev ~ 1tocpo8oc; -rijc; -rpoqiljc;, xevov Xllt't'OC 't'OU't'O, Xllt't'OC 7tOCV't'llt
8' IXU't'OU ~ 1tocpo8oc; -rijc; -rpoqi~c;. et 8~ Xllt't'OC 7t0CV't'llt lltt>~e't'otL.
-rcj> 8~ µe1.-
1.ov-rL (j)UAOC't"t'eLV -re 't'OC -roi:c; IXU~otvoµevoLc; U7tocpx_ov't'ot xotl. MaeLV 't'OC CX.7t0-
pouµevot IXVIX'(KIXLOV 1tpw-rov, -.( 7tO't't Ea't'L 't'O IXU~oµevov Aot~ei:v, xotl. Xllt't'OC
235 7t0Lllt µ6ptot 't'WV IXU~oµevwv -rijc; 1tpoa6~Xl)c; '(LVO(.LtVl)c; 't'OC 61.ot lltt>~e't'otL. e1tel.
-ro(vuv ev -roi:c; IXU~O(.LtvOLc; Ea't'L 't'WV µepwv 't'OC µev ocvoµotoµeplj, 't'OC 8e
oµotoµep~ {xotl. cxvoµotoµep~ µev -roc ex 8totqiep6v-rwv µepwv auvea-rw-rot, we;
1tp6aw1tov xotl. x_elp, oµotoµeplj 8e aocp~ -re: xotl. oa-roc, µuc; xotl. ot!µot xotl.
5 (j)Atlji, xotl. 61.wc; WV 't'OC µ6pLot -roi:c; 6AoLc; fo-.l. auvwvuµot), xotl. <ruyxeL't'IXL ex
't'WV oµotoµe:pwv 't'OC IXVO(.LOLO(.Le:p~. ocAA' OUK CXVOC7tlltALV (ou yocp ex
1tpoaw-
7tOU ~ aocp~. ocAA' ex aotpxwv -re xotl. 0<1't'WV 't'O 1tp6ac.mov), ~ lltt>~l)<1Lc; Xllt't'OC
~v -roi:c; oµotoµeptaL 1tpoa6~Xl)V y(ve-rotL. 't'OU't'OLc; yocp IXU~oµevoLc; fae-rotL
xotl. ~ 't'WV IXVO(.LOLO(.Lepwv e1t(8oaLc;. OU yocp ~ 1tpoaxpLVO(.LtVl) -rpoqi~. 1tp6-
IO (1(J)7t0V ~ x_el.p '(LVO(.LtVl), 1tpoaxp(ve-rotL, ocAA' etc; aocpxot xotl. 0<1't'OUV xotl. 't'WV
&AAwv oµotoµepwv ~Xllta't'OV µe-rot~OCAAOU<10C Te xotl. 1tpoaxpLVO(.LtVl) 't'OU-
't'OLc; -rijc; 't'OU 7tlltV't'Oc; IXU~~ae:wc; awµot-roc; ott-.lot y(ve-rotL. et -ro(vuv ~ µev
lltt>~l)<1Lc; 't'OU IXU~otvoµevou a<u~oµevou -re xotl. µevov-roc;, llt\J~E:'t'IXL 8e 't'OC O(.LOL-
oµe:plj, 8~AOV 6-rL 't'IXU't'llt aw~e:a6ot( -re: xotl. µeveLV 8ei:.
ocx61.ou6ov -rolvuv
15 't'OU't'OLc; t8ei:v, 1twc; 't'Lc; Mywv u1toµevew 't'IXU't'Cl IXAl)6euaeL. xot6o yocp U7tO-
µeveLV ot6v -re 't'IXU't'ot, Xllt't'OC -rou-r' IXU't'WV XIXL ~v llt\J~l)<1LV IXVIX'(KIXLOV e!votL
Mye:w. 7tOCV 8~ 't'O e~ 1)Al)c; -re: xotl. e:!8ouc; auyxelµevov xot6' exoc-repov 't'WV
e~ WV Ea't'LV e:lvotL Atye-rotL • xotl. yocp Xllt't'OC ~v 1)AljV xotl. Xllt't'OC 't'O e!8oc;.
ex 't'OU't'(J}V 8e xotl. 't'OC oµotoµeplj, xot6' & Atyoµe:v ~v 't'WV ~ci>wv lltt>~l)aLV
20 y(vea6otL. 8to xotl. 't'IXU't'' ~x_eL 't'O 8tn6v. xotl. Atye:-rotL ~Xllt<1't'OV IXU't'WV 7t0't'£
µev Xllt't'OC ~v 1)Al)V, 7t0't'£ 8e Xllt't'OC 't'O e:t8oc;. 6-rotv µev yocp Atywµev ~v
aocpxot pe:i:v xotl. e:lvotL ev auvex_e:i: IX7tOXp(aeL -re xotl. 1tpoaxp(aeL, Xllt't'OC ~v
1)Al)V ~v aocpxot 't'IXU't'llt 7tOC(1)'_eLV Atyoµe:v, 6-rotv 8' ot?i 7t<X.ALV Atywµev ~v
aocpxot ~v IXU~V µeveLV, IXU't'O 't'O e!8oc; xotl. ~v Xllt't'OC 't'O e!8oc; aocpxot
25 Aot~6v-rec; 't'IXU't'llt otu'tjj µotp-rupouµev. 7t0CV't'llt yocp 't'OC ev 1)ATI 't'O elvotL ~x.ov-
't'llt Xllt't'OC µev ~v 1)AljV fJ.AAO't'e &Al.ct y(ve't'otL, 8toc 't'O µ~ µeveLV 't'IXU't'l)V
Xllt't'llt' 't'UV
l otpL
• 6µuv
l (.LLIXV,
I auvex_wc;
- Xllt't'llt' 't'llt' µ 6pLot µe-rott'tl.JV\OU<11XV
(.I.L"\ "\ 1
-re XIXL'
234. 30 't'OU't'(t> Br.: 't'OU't'o codd.

235. 6-7 ix 1tpoaw1tou Rex: tic; 1tp6aw1tov Br.: ix 1tpaw1twv codd.: fo't'L 1tp6aw1tov
sive ix 1tpoaw1tou Apelt
235. 14 8e:! Diels: 8Lix codd.
235. 24 cxu't'o 't'o e:I8oc; Ra Rodier: 1bo 't'ou d8ouc; cett. Br.
respond that the whole body that is nourished is void, if the passage
of the nutriment occurs only where it is void and if this passage
is over all [parts], given that it grows in all [parts].
234. 32 If we would retain the character of bodies that grow and also
solve these difficulties, we must first consider the nature of the body
that grows, [235] and in what parts of growing bodies whole units
235. 1 grow when an addition is made. Since some of the parts of bodies
that grow are non-uniform, like face and hand, while flesh and
bones are uniform, and marrow, blood, and vein, and in general
things whose parts bear the same name as the whole), and the
non-uniform parts are composed from the uniform, while the con-
verse is not true (for flesh is not composed of the face, but the face
of flesh and bones) then growth occurs by an addition to the uniform
parts. For when these grow, an addition to the non-uniform parts
also follows, since the nutriment that is assimilated is not assimi-
lated by becoming face or hand but by changing into flesh and
bone and each of the uniform parts, and through being assimilated
by them causes the growth of the whole body. If, then, growth is a
characteristic of a body that is preserved and stable as it grows,
and if it is the uniform parts that grow, clearly they must be
preserved and stable.
235. 14 We must next see how it could be true to describe them as stable
when it must be granted that they can only grow insofar as they
can be stable. Now the whole compound of form and matter is said
to be with respect to each of the things of which it is composed-
matter and form, that is. These are also the components of the
uniform parts by which we say that growth occurs in animals, 'SO
that also have this dual aspect. Now each uniform part is described
variously by its matter and by its form. When we describe flesh as
fluid and in a state of continual dispersal and assimilation, we say
that the flesh is affected in this way with respect to its matter.
Again when we describe flesh as remaining the same, we base this
attribution on the form itself and the flesh qua form. Indeed every-
166 DE MIXTIONE
YLVOµevrJV &llo-re: &llYJV, XOt't'ot 8e: 't'O e:Woc; EV 0tu-r X0t-r' cxpL8µ.ov Ex0ta't'OV
µ.eve:L. XOt't'ot yotp 't'O e:'!:8oc; ii aotp~ ii OtUTYj X0t-r' cxpL8µ.ov µ.eve:L. xocv 't'O µ.e:v
30 cx1toppqj njc; U7tO~e:~AYj(J,tvYjc; UAYjc; OtU't], 't'O 8e: Emppqi, fo-r' &v 't'L !W'TI
0tunjc; EV 0tu-r, <pUAcx.aae:L 't'O njc; aetpxoc; e:'!:8oc;, -tjj XOt't'ot 8ux8oaw µ.ovn
xwAuov 0tu-rou niv 1t0tv-re:Aij ip8opixv. ou yotp -ro dvetL -tjj aetpxt Ev -r -r6-
a8e: µ.e:yt8e:L, o OU 't'OtU't'O µ.eve:L 8Lot TY)V njc; UAYjc; puaw, cxll' EV -r d8e:L
-r -roL8e:, o-retu-rov µ.tve:L, fo-r' ocv aw~YJ't'OtL 't'L njc; a0tpx6c;.
ou-rwc; 't'OLVUV
236 't'OU't'WV Ex_6v-rwv, xe:Lµ.evou 8e: XOtL 't'OU 't'O 0tU~0tv6µ.e:vov 8e:rv U7tO!WJE:LV, OCV
µ.i:;v
J..
XOt't'O' t 't'Y' jV UI\YjV
d~
't'Lc; ~J...-f ...D, \ - ' >!I:' >
I\C. f fj YLVE:cruOtL 't'YJV 't'Yjc; aetpxoc; OtU<,YJGLV, OtVOtLpYJaE:L
f
't'O 't'O OtU~6µ.e:vov 't'O OtU't'O aw~6µ.e:vov X0t-r' cxpL8µ.ov OtU~e:a80tL (OtUTYj yotp
&llo-re: &AAYJ), e:t 8t -rLc; XOt't'ot -ro e:1:8oc; AtyoL niv OtU~YJaLv y(ve:a80tL, ouxt't'L
5 OCV O Myoc; E(J,1t08L~OL't'O. 't'OU't'O yotp U1toµ.eve:L, 't'OU 8e: tmoµ.evov-roc; ~v.
xe:Lµ.evou 8e: 't'OU 't'ot OtU~0tv6µ.e:v0t XOt't'ot 't'O e:1:8oc; OtU~e:a80tL, E7tL 't'OU't'OLc; !~LOV
t8e:i:v, 1tc7>c; njc; -rou 0tu~ov-roc; 0tu-r0t 1tpoaxp(ae:wc; 0tu-rorc; ywoµ.tvYjc; 0tu~e:'t'0tL.
e:t µ.e:v oov XOt't'ot TYJV UAYJV ii OtU~YJaLc; -re: XOtL ii 1tp6axpLaLc; Ey(ve:-ro, cxvety-
XOtLOV ocv ~v Atye:w -r XOt't'ot 1tciv µ.6pLov 0tu~e:a80tL -rot 0tu~0tv6µ.e:v0t AtyOV't'L,
10 XOt't'ot 1tcia0tv niv UAYJV ye:vta80tL niv 1tpoa6-JixYJV niv cx1to njc; -rpoipijc;, ~-rLc;
oux &llwc; E8uV0t't'O ytve:a80tL (njc; ye: UAYjc; njc; 0tunjc; U7tO(J,E:VOUaYJc;),
<~> awµ.0t-roc; x_wpouv't'oc; 8Lot GW(J,Ot't'oc;, e:! ye: ac7>µ.0t ii -rpoip~ • E7te:l 8e: XOt't'ot
-ro e:1:8oc; ii OtU~YJaLc;, ouxt't'L cxv0tyx0tiov, e:t xett x0t-r0t 1tciv -ro e:1:8oc; 0tu~e:-
-r0tL, 't'OU't'O y(ve:a80tL GW(J,Ot't'Oc; x_wpouv-roc; 8Lot GW(J,Ot't'Oc;. oMe: yotp TY)V
15 cxpx_~v 1tpo01tixpx_ov U1toµ.eve:L, i:>a-re: y(ve:a80tL -r OtU~OV't'L awµ.0t-rL 8L' OtU't'OU
TY)V o86v, cxllot y(ve:'t'OtL µ.e:v "1j -rpoip~ njc; aetpxoc; UAYJ, 1tpoaxpLVO!WJYJ 8e:
XOt't'ot !UPYJ 't'LV0t -tjj njc; 1tpoU1t0tpx_ou(JYjc; l-rL, µ.e:vOU(JYjc; -re: XOtL 't'O e:1:8oc; ipe:-
pou(JY)c;, e:t µ.e:v e:!Yj EAIX't"t'WV ~ ((J'tj njc; cx1toppe:0U(JY)c;, aw~e:L [OU] µ.6vov -r6,
235. 30 ia-r' &v -rt µtv7l coni. Br., cf. 235. 34, Alex. Quaest. 13. 32, Aristot. de
gen. et cOYr. 322a 24: fo-rt µevov codd., obelo not. Br.
235. 32 au-roii Apelt: au-ro codd.
235. 32-33 EV -ri;i -roo-i;i3e: F, Montanari p. 37, Apelt Br. Rodier: cv-ro~ -r6o- 3e
codd.
235. 33 8 ou Apelt: ou codd.
235. 34 8 Apelt Rodier: ou codd.
236. 9 -ri;i Apelt: -ro codd.
236. 12 71 suppl. Ideler
236. 13 e:l xal Ideler: dvat codd.
236. 17 -re: Rex: 3e codd. Br.
236. 18 ac!i~e:t ldeler: ac!i~EtV codd. ou om. F, Montanari p. 37, Rex, cf.
µ6vov ac!i~e:t, 236. 25
thing that has its being in matter undergoes various changes in its
matter because it does not remain one in number, but continually
changes its parts and assumes varying states, while in form every-
thing is stable in number; for as regards the form flesh remains the
same in number, and if one part of its supporting matter disperses
while another accedes then, as long as some matter remains in it,
it preserves the form of the flesh and prevents its total destruction
by the stability of its distribution. For the being of flesh does not
lie in the extent of its magnitude which does not remain the same
on account of the fluidity of the matter, but in the sort of form it
has, which remains the same as long as any flesh is preserved.
235. 34 If this is so, [236] and if it is established that the body that grows
must be stable, then to say that the growth of flesh occurred with
respect to the matter would abolish the principle that what grows
will grow while remaining the same in number (for matter is dif-
ferent at different times); but our theory would no longer be hin-
dered by the claim that growth occurred with respect to the form, for
form is stable and [growth], as we saw, indeed involves that which
is stable.
236. 6 Since it has been established that things that grow grow in their form
it is worth seeing how in this case they grow through assimilating
the body that causes their growth. Now if growth and assimilation
occurred with respect to matter one would have to say to the view
that things that grow grow in every part, that addition from nutri-
ment occurs in the whole of matter, and at least while the matter
remains stable, it could only occur by body going through body, if
nutriment is body. But since growth occurs with respect to form it
cannot occur by body going through body, even if body grows with
respect to the whole form.
236. 14 For matter is not at all stable in a preexistent state so that the
body causing growth passes through it, but nutriment becomes mat-
ter for flesh and by being mixed in specific parts with the [matter]
of the still preexistent flesh which is both stable and contains the
form, then (r): when the nutriment is less than or equal to the
deteriorating flesh it preserves only the thing by which it is assimi-
168 DE MIXTIONE
cj> 1tpocrxp(ve-r0tL, -rpecpoucror. or.u-ro xor.l. xwMoucroc 1tiiv 8Loc<popl)8°YjvocL -re xocl.
20 cp8ocp'YjvocL 8Loc TI)V cruvi::x.'Yj pucrLV, 6-rocv 8e 7t}.e(wv ~ U7t0 njc; 8p&7t't'LX°Yjc; 8u-
vocµ.i::wc; XOt't'&pyoc~oµ.ev1) -re xor.l. 1tpocrxpLvoµ.tvl) 1JA1) njc; €7tlXVIXALcrxoµ.tv1jc; -re
xocl. <X.1topp&OUCJ'l)c;, 't'O't'& 1tpoc; -rcj> -rpecp1::cr80tL 't'O U7tox&tµ.i::vov xor.l. IXU~&'t'IXL, njc;
µ.ev oucr(occ; 't'OU crw~ov-roc; etc; 't'O dvoc( 't'& xocl. crw~i::cr8ocL Cl'UV't'&AOUCJ'l)c; -rcj>
-rpecpoµ.evep, njc; 8e 7t0Cl'O't'l)'t'Oc; etc; IXU~l)Cl'(V -re xocl. µ.eyi::8oc;. 8Lo 6-rocv µ.ev
25 evepY7i xor.80 -rpocp~, 't'O't'e µ.6vov Cl'W~&L 't'O U1toxdµ.1::vov, 6-ror.v 8e xocl. we;
7t0~, 1tpoc; -rcj> crw~eLV xor.l. cruvocu~eL.
[µ.~] 1t1XV't'7l 8e njc; 1tpocrxp(crewc;

yLvoµ.tv1)c;, IXU~&'t'IXL 7tlXV't'Wc;, 6-rL njc; 8p&7t't'LX°Yjc; 8uvocµ.i::wc; njc; <X.AAOLOUCJ'l)c;
-re TI)V -rpocp~v xocl. e~oµ.oLouCl'l)c; xor.l. 1tpocrxpwouCl'l)c; -rcj> -rpecpoµ.evep (8Lov
c'Jlcr7tep 't'O Cl'W~&LV 't'O u1t' IXU't'OU -rpi::cp6µ.i::vov, OU't'W 8e xocl. (l,&'t'OC 't'OU t8(ou
30 IXU't'O 't'l)p&i:v crx.~µ.oc-roc;. µ.iiAAov 8e E7t&'t'IXL xocl. 't'OU't'(p 't'O crw~eLV. 't'OT& yocp
xup[wc; Cl'W~&'t'IXL 't'L, 6-rocv 't'l)p°Yj't'IXL (l,&'t'OC 7tlXV't'Oc; 't'OU XOt't'OC <pUCl'LV U7tocpx.ov-roc;
ocu-rcj>, WV ECJ''t'L xocl. 't'O crx.'Yjµ.oc. 7tOCV yocp ~µ.~ux.ov IXIJ't'O -re µ.e-roc nv6c; ECJ''t'L
oExelou crx.~µ.oc-roc; xocl. 't'WV µ.epwv EXIXCl''t'OV OtlJ't'OU, o cpuAoccrcre-rocL 't'O't'e
crx.'Yjµ.or., 6-rocv 1tpocrxptv6µ.1::vov ex
njc; -rpocp'Yjc; µ.~ µ.ev7l TI)V xoc8o 1tpocre-re81J
237 x.wpor.v cpuMcrcrov xor.l. XOt't'OC 't'OU't'O 1tpocrxelµ.evov, <X.AAOC 1tpow87i 't'O 1tpo OtU-
't'OU, xocxei:vo 't'O 7tp0 IXU't'OU 7tiXALV, µ.ex_pL 't'OGOU't'OU, ewe; OCV EXIXCl''t'OV 't'WV
µ.op(wv IXU't'OU XOt't'OC (XVIXAOYLOtV 1tpo-rL8eµ.evou 't'OU -rpecpov-r6c; 't'& xocl. ocu~ov-roc;
(Cl'l)v t1tl8ocrLv AOt~ov -rocu-rov ~x.ov -ro crx.'Yjµ.or. µ.1::Lv7l, oi::lx.e xocl. 1tpo njc; 1tpocr-
5 xp (crewc; 't'OU -rpecpov-roc;.
we; yocp njc; y'Yjc; ~Otpeoc; l>v-roc; crwµ.or.-roc; xor.l. XIX't'W

-re XOtL' em
' ' 't'O
l µ.i:;crov
L <p&pol""'vou
.,/.. XIXL' XIX't'IX' 't'l)V
' OtU't'OU
• - cpumv
• XIXL' 't'(p
- Lot<p
•N
µ.foep 't'O 't'OU 7tlXV't'Oc; xoc-rex.ov-roc; µ.foov -re xor.l. xev-rpov, &v ~ocpoc; e1t' ocu-
't'TI 't'L
µ.ei:~ov -re8-,j XIX't'OC 8oc-repov ~µ.Lcr<patLpLOV, OU 8toc njc; 1tpoU1tocpx_oUCl'l)c;
y'Yjc; 8Loc8ue-rocL 't'OU't'O njc; EV -rcj> µ.foep (l,&VOUCJ'l)~. we;
njc; t8(occ; po7t'Yjc; 't'O
rn xev-rpov ~X,eLV XIX't'OC 't'O 't'OU 7tlXV't'Oc; µ.ecrov, CT.AA' &vw8i::v <EV> -r7i 1tpoU1t0tp-
236. 19 8totq>op')J67jvoct F, Montanari p. 38: 8totq>6otp'qvott codd. Br.

236. 26 µ-lj secl. Ideler
237. 1-2 1tpo ocu-rou bis scripsi, cf. Aristot. de caelo 297a 27, v. infra Comm.
237. 5-15: 1tpo otu-rou codd.
237. 4 lxov -ro axljµoc coni. Ideler Rex: lxovTot axljµoc codd. Br. dxe coni.
Ideler, cf. 213. 6, 237. 5: ixet codd. Br.
237. 8 -rt Diels: ~ codd.
237. 9 -rou-ro Apelt: -ro u1to codd.
237. IO dv> coni. Schwartz
lated, nourishing it and preventing it from being totally dispersed

and corrupted through continual deterioration; but (2): if the mat-
ter which is digested and assimilated by the nutritive faculty is
greater than the matter which is used up and deteriorates, then in
addition to being nourished the substrate also grows, while the sub-
stance of the body that preserves [i.e. the nutriment] produces being
and stability for the body being nourished, as its quantity achieves
growth and magnitude. Nutriment, then, only preserves the sub-
strate when it acts qua nutriment, but when it also acts as quantity
it contributes to growth as well as preservation.
236. 26 When assimilation occurs in all parts of a body so does growth,
because it is peculiar to the nutritive faculty which transforms and
assimilates food and absorbs it for the body being nourished that
just as it preserves the body that is nourished by it so it maintains
it along with its own shape; indeed the preservation results from
this. In a strict sense the body that is nourished is only preserved
when it is maintained along with the whole of its natural endowment
236. 32 which also includes shape. Indeed every living creature is in itself
endowed with its own particular shape as is each of its parts, and it
protects this shape when on the assimilation of nutriment it is not
stable in retaining the area where the addition is made [237] and in
being added to at this point, but rather thrusts forward the part in
front of it, and again that part the part in front of it, and this just
until each part of the body to which a proportional addition is made
retains the same shape that it had before assimilating nutriment by
taking an equal addition from what nourishes and causes its growth.
237. S Take the earth, a heavy body that moves downward and towards
the middle, and both in its own nature and by its own middle oc-
cupies the middle and centre of the universe-if a weight greater
[than it] were added to it in one hemisphere this would not sink
through the preexisting earth that remains in the middle so that it has
the centre of its own impulse aligned with the centre of the universe,
but rather in the preexisting earth it thrusts forward from above
170 DE MIXTIONE
11xoucrn in (.L&XPL TOO'OIJTOU TO 1tpo (XUTOU µ.6pLO\I -rijc; yijc; 1tpow8e:i:, ewe; (X\I TO
ye:v6µ.e:vov Tou -rijc; yijc; ~cx.pouc; x.tvTpov 3Loc '"l" 1tpoa81ptljV Tou ~cx.pouc; ytv'1)-
TOCL X.IXTOC <TO> TOU 7t(X\ITOc; µ.taov (TOUTO yocp X.IXTOC q>UO'LV TOLc; ~IXptO"L TE: x.oct
X.CX.TW ipe:poµ.tvoLc; O'W(J.OCO'LV • 00 yLvoµ.evou x.ixt TO ax'Yjµ.oc &µ.ix ~ yij q>U-
15 ACX.O'O'E:L TO O'q)OCLpLx.6v, 8 dxe: )(.(XL 1tpo Tou}, oihwc; U7tOAlj7tTtoV X.IXL &7tL TW\I
oµ.oLoµ.e:pwv [ytve:a8ocL], TWV (XU~oµ.evwv 3Loc TYJV CX.7t0 -rijc; Tpoq>'Yjc; 1tp6ax.pL-
O'LV, e:u8u T7i 1tpoax.ptae:L TE: )(.(XL e~O(J.OLWO'E:L 1tpoc; TO Tpe:ip6µ.e:vov -rijc; Tpoq>'Yjc;
1tocp' IXUTWV TWV µ.e:pwv TOU Tpe:q>oµ.evou 1tp6ao86v TL\l(X ytve:a8ocL )(.(XL (J.E:TCX.-
O'T(XO'L\I &AAou 1tpow8ouvToc; &>.Ao, ewe; (XV TO 7tOCV, ev <t> 1tp0Te:pov ~\I ax~-
20 (J.OCTL, ev TOUTUACX.O'O'E:TIXL TOC TW\I oµ.oLoµ.e:pwv TOU Tpe:q>oµ.tvou ax~-
(J.OCT(X ev TTI TW\I oµ.oLoµ.e:pwv (XU~~O'E:t, oihwc; KIXL TOC TWV cx.voµ.otoµ.e:pwv
U7tOAlj7tTtov ipuAcx.aae:a8ocL 0-X~(J.OCTIX -rijc; KIXTOC µ.6pLoc 1tpoax.ptvoµ.tvljc; ocuToi:c;
Tpoq>'Yjc; u1to -rijc; ev ocuToi:c; 8pe:1tTLK'Yjc; 3uvcx.µ.e:wc; etc; 7tCX.VTOC IXUTOC cx.yoµ.tvljc;
25 cx.v1XA6ywc;. x.oc8' ~\I CX.VIXAoytocv (J.E:TCX -rijc; TOU O'W(J.IXTOc; O'WT'1jp(occ; eX.OCO'TOV
(XUTWV 7t(X\I (XU~E:T(XL, )(.(XL 3e:i: TO yLv6µ.e:vov U7t0 -rijc; ipuae:wc; TE: KIXL 8pe:7tTL-
x.'Yjc; 3uvcx.µ.e:wc; Toi:c; 3Loc -rijc; Tpoq>'Yjc; ocu~ocvoµ.evotc; u1t0Aoc~e:i:v 6µ.otov dvoct,
we; (XV et <iS3wp ~> o!v6v TLc; £7tt\10~0'1Xt 3tcx. Ttvoc; O'WA'Yjvoc; q>e:p6µ.e:vov, q>UACX.O'-
O'OVTOc; µ.ev TO ax'Yjµ.oc TOCUT6v, 3t' uyp6T'1)T(X 3e )(.(XL (J.OCAIXK6T'1)TOC, gT(X\I µ.ev
30 fAOCTTO\I 1l TO 3t' (XUTOU ipe:p6µ.e:vov uyp6v, O'UO'TE:AAoµ.tvou TE: )(.(XL TO ax'Yjµ.oc
£7tL £Acx.TTO\lt O'W~OVTOc; l>yx.ep, lhixv 3e 7tAE:LO\I fl TOUTO, cx.ve:upuvoµ.evou TE:
7tCX.VT1) )(.(XL µ.E:L~O\IIX TO\/ />yx.ov Aocµ.~cx.\10\/TOc;. we; yocp &7tL TOU O'WA'Yjvoc; TOU
TOtOUTOU OU TO iS3wp TO IXU~(Xv6µ.e:v6v EO'TLV, g ye TYJV cx.px.~v ou3e u1toµ.tve:t,
238 cx.AAoc &>.Ao Tt y(ve:TIXt, )(.(XL 7t0T£ µ.ev 7tAtOV, 7tOT£ 3e lAIXTTOV, TO 3' &7tL
T<j> iS3ocTt ax'Yjµ.cx. £0'TL TO µ.tvov x.ocL '"l" e1t(3oa(v -re: KIXL '"l" O"UO"TOA~v Aocµ.-
~cx.vov, oiSTwc; U7tOAlj7tTtov y(ve:a8ixt KOCL £7tL TWV ixu~ocvoµ.evwv ipuae:t • '"l"
µ.ev iSAljV, eip' fie; TO (XU~oµ.e:vov e:!3oc;, &AAoTe: &AAljV E:LVIXt 3e:i:v 3toc Toce;
237. II 7tpo Cl\l't"OU scripsi, cf. 237. 1-2: 7tp0 Cl\l't"OU Apelt: 7tpoc; ClU't"O codd. Br.
237. 13 <To> coni. Br.
237. 16 ylvca8cx1 sec!. Br.
237. 19 &llou 1tporo8oiivToc; F, Montanari p. 37, Apelt Br.: ix).).' ou 7tpoo8oiivToc;
codd.
237. 21 6µ01aµepwv A pelt: ixvoµo,oµcpwv codd.
237. 24 cxuTo!c; [sc. µoploic;) scripsi, cf. 234. 14-15: cxu-tjj [sc. Tpocp"ij] codd. Br.
237. 26 8c! Apelt Rodier: 8ux codd.
237. 28 <IS8rop -i\> coni. Diels, cf. uyp6v 237. 30
237. 31 't"OUTO Rex: TOOTC!lV codd. Br.
238. 4 8c!v coni. Br.: 8c! codd.
the part in front of it just until the centre of the weight of the earth
produced by the additional weight is aligned with the middle of the
universe; {for this is natural with heavy bodies that move down-
ward, and when it occurs the earth preserves the spherical shape
237. 15 that it also had previously). Now just the same must be understood
to apply to the uniform parts that grow through the assimi-
lation of food, where the absorption and assimilation of nutriment
by the body that is nourished immediately causes a forward move-
ment from the actual parts of the body that is nourished and a
change of position, with various forward motions until after the
addition of nutriment the whole body has the same shape that it
formerly had.
237. 20 Indeed just as the shapes of the uniform parts of the body that
is nourished grow and are maintained by growth in these parts, so
must it be understood that the shapes of the non-uniform parts are
maintained when nutriment is assimilated part by part and distrib-
uted to all of them proportionately by their nutritive faculty. Each
of them grows as a whole by this proportion, while they preserve
the body that they are in, and we must understand that the case
of bodies that grow through nutriment by the agency of nature and
237. 28 the nutritive faculty is like conceiving of <water or> wine moving
along a channel which maintains the same shape, but because of its
elasticity and pliancy is compressed and maintains its shape in a
smaller volume when the water moving along it is less than its
volume, but when this is greater, it expands in every direction and
assumes a larger volume. As with such a channel the water is not
what grows, as it does not remain at all stable [238] but assumes
varying volumes, but the shape containing the liquid is what is
stable and what assumes expansion and contraction-so too must
the process involved in natural growth be understood: that while
the matter to which the growing form belongs must vary at different
172 DE MIXTIONE
5 O"Uvexei:i:; cbtoxpl<mi:;, 't'o 8e e!8oi:; 't'o µevov e1tl. -tjj i>).:n -tjj peoua-n ocvoc).6ywi:;
't'cj> O"<s>A:Yjvoi:; o-x~µom µetouo-8oct µev, O't'(XV EAIX't''t'(l)V ~ i>AYJ ytVYj't'OCL, (XU~e-
o-8oct 8e, 7tA.e(ovoi:; tji:; )((X't'IX 't'YJ" i>AYJV 1tpoo-xp(o-ewi:; YLVOµtVYji:;, !J.e't'IX tji:;
't'Ou o£xe£ou 0-X~!J.OC't'oi:; O"<s>'t'Yjp(oci:;. 't'O yixp E7tL 1tA.efovt i>ATI 't'OCU't'OV e!8oi:;
µe'i:~ov 't'OU e1t' EAIX't''t'OVL, wi:; )((XL 't'O o-x-Yjµoc 't'OU O"<s>A'Yjvoi:;, 't'OU 8t' uyp6't'Yj't'(X
10 O"Uµµe't'OC7tL7t't'OV't'oi:; 't'cj> 8t' ocu't'ou peov't'L.
~ 8e 1tp6o-xptmi:; ~ tji:; 't'poq>-Yji:;

't'o'i:i:; 't'peq>oµevoti:; y(ve't'(XL µev )((X't'IX µe't'(X~OA~V E~oµmouµtVYji:; ocutji:; 't'cj> 't'pe-
q>oµevep, OU yevoµtVYj 8e 7tpW't'OV ~ (XU't'Yj 't'cj> 't'peq>oµevep, ~7tet't'' (XU't'cj>
1tpoo-xp(ve't'OCL. yeveo-Li:; yixp 't'OU't'O o-ocpx6i:;, oc).).' OU 't'poq>~. oc).).' ~ EO-XOC't'YJ
't'pOq>~. 01tep EO"'t'LV E7tL 't'WV evoc(µwv 't'O octµoc, E7tL 8e 't'WV /}.).).wv 't'O &voc-
15 ).oyov, &XOCO"'t'Cp 't'cj> 't'peq>oµevep 8tix 't'WV &yye(wv q>epoµtVYj 't'WV xoc8ljx6v't'<s>V
• • • \ 
e1t ocu't'oc xocL' e1ttppc:ouo-oc
• L • l
u1tu -
't'Yji:; •
ev exocO"'t'Cp ouvocµewi:;,
~ (.l..l"'.1 "\ _
µe't'oct-'~'t'OCt I
't'e
)((XL E~oµOLOU't'(XL 't'cj> 't'peq>oµevep. xocl. 8eL 't'O ytv6µevov emvo-Yjo-ocL, wi:; e£
otvep emxeoµevou i>8oc't'oi:; ~ EV 't'cj> otvep 8uvocµti:; &el. 't'O eµ1tL7t't'OV di:;
(XU't'OV i>8wp o!vov 7t0LOUO"(X, O"W~eL 't'e )((XL (XIJ~eL 't'OV o!vov. 01tep opii't'ocL
20 xocl. 't'O 7tUp 1totouv, e1tet8ixv ocu't'cj> yet't'VLIX.0"7) 't'L 't'WV xocuo-'t'wv.
oi>'t'<ui:; 8e
ywoµtvYji:; tji:; (XU~~O"e<ui:; o!µoct qiocvepov eLV(XL 't'O µYj8e 't'YJ" (XU~YJO"LV O'UV-
't'eAeLV 't'o'i:i:; o-wµoc 8tix o-wµoc't'oi:; xwpe'i:v Myouo-w 1tpoi:; 't'YJ" )((X't'(XO"Xeu~v 't'OU
1tocpoc86~ou n xocL 8ocuµoco-'t'ou 86yµoc't'oi:;.
238. 5 -ro µtvov Rex: -ro µtv codd. Br.

238. 13 ~ Ideler: i\ codd.
238. 14 -rpoqrlJ] -rpo1t~ Montanari pp. 46-47
238. 18 otv(i) imxe:oµtvou A pelt: o!vov, <T> lmxtov ou codd.
238. 19 aw~e:t -re: A pelt: aw~e:TIXt codd.
times on account of its continual deterioration, the form, on the

other hand, that remains proportionately with the fluid matter like
the shape of the channel, diminishes when the matter decreases, but
grows when the assimilation of matter increases, maintaining all
along the body's individual shape. For an identical form belonging
to a larger amount of matter is larger than one which belongs to a
smaller amount, just like the shape of the channel that because of
its elasticity adjusts to what flows through it.
238. IO The absorption of nutriment by bodies that are nourished occurs
by a process of alteration involving the assimilation of nutriment
by the body that is nourished; the nutriment does not first become
the same as the thing that is nourished and then absorbed by it.
That would be the coming-to-be of flesh, not nutrition. But the
ultimate nutriment, blood in redblooded creatures, and its analogue
in other things, by passing through the vessels that belong to them
in each body that is being nourished and flowing in, is altered and
assimilated by the body that is nourished through the [nutritive]
faculty that each possesses.
238. 17 And we must conceive of the process as like that of water being
poured into wine, where the power in the wine continually makes
wine of the water poured in and so preserves and increases the wine.
This [process] can also be seen in the activity of fire when something
combustible is in its vicinity.
238. 20 Since growth occurs in this way I think that it is clear that it
does not help to support the remarkable and outlandish theory of
those who say that body goes through body.
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
actualisation, actuality 't'EAE t6ni c;

assimilation 1tp6axpunc;, 1tpoaxplve:a8oct
blend (total blending) xtpvoca8oct (xpocatc; 8t' OAWV)
body going through body awµ.oc 8toc awµ.oc't'oc; x.wpouv
coming-to-be yeve:atc;
complete mutual coextension ot..oc 8t' ot..wv w~Aotc; cxvnnocpex-
't'ocatc; (CXV't'L1tocpe:xn(ve:a8oct)
composition auv8e:atc;
constituents 't'OC µ.tyvuµ.e:voc, Xtpvixµ.e:voc
contrariety (opposites) &vocv't'(watc; ('t'OC &vocv't'(oc)
dissolution 8tixxptaLc; {8Locxp(ve:a8ocL)
be divided through and through 1tixv't'7l 8r,ip'Yja8ocL
elasticity uyp6nic;
enmattered form lvut..ov e:?8oc;
exist independently (individ- u<pe:a't'ixvoct xoc8' ocu't'ix (xoc't'' t8locv)
ually)
fusion
growth oc();l)aLc;
joint-destruction auµ.qi8ocpaLc;
by juncture xoc8' ocpµ.~v
juxtaposition 1tocpix8e:aLc;, 1tocpoc't'l8e:a8oct
magnitude µ.eye:8oc;
malleable e:.'.moc8~c;
matter /form ut..l)/e:!8oc;
mixture µ.i:;tc;, µ.(yvua8oct
nature <puatc;
[process of] nourishment, (thing ..o't'pt<pe:a8oct (..oTpe:<p6µ.e:vov)
that is nourished)
notion (common, natural) lvvotoc (xoLv~, qiuaLx~)
nutriment, nutrition 't'pO(j)~
nutritive faculty 8pe:1t't'LX~ 8uvocµ.tc;
GLOSSARY OF TERMS 175
passing-away cp8opoc
preconception 1tpOAYJljlL<;
preexist 1tpou1t1Xp):E:LV
sense-presentation (after Sand- <potV't'ot(J(ot
bach, in Long ed. Problems
in Stoicism, p. 10)
reduction-to-the-elements OCV0t(1't'OLxe:twaL<;
standards of truth xpLTI)pLot -rij<; OCA.Yj8e:lot<;
State l~L<;
substantiality U1t0(1't'0t(1L<;
tension 't'OVO<;
(reciprocal) interaction, 1tOLE:LV 't'E: xotl. 1tlXC1):E:LV (u1t' OCA.-
(be acted on) A.~A.(J)V), (1t1XC1):E:LV)
uncompounded bodies <X1tA.ii awµ.ot't'ot

uniform (non-uniform) parts 't'IX oµ.oLoµ.e:p'Yj (ocvoµ.oLoµ.e:p'Yj)
(after Peck; see Aristotle,
Parts of Animals[Loebed.],
p.28)
whole
NOTES ON THE TEXT
213. 7-8. I have deleted -ro so that Mvota8ou depends directly on

oaov. Cf. the common oaov µ' d8evotL. The -ro could have originated
in a repetition of the last two letters of the preceding -rou-rep as
appears to have happened in the Aldine edition.
215. 22. oµolwc; 8e xott is convincing here, for why should Alexander
be tentative? At 214. 27-28 he readily enough associates the theory
of matter as oµoLoµe:ptotL with the Democritean theory of mixture,
and he now completes his programme by marshalling the theory
that matter is composed of planes (cf. 214. 5) behind the Epicurean
theory.
218. 12. The claim that the Stoics use every notion but the common
notions is certainly borne out elsewhere in the work; cf. 220. 23-29,
222. 26-29.
218. 19-20. I have translated Diels' crotq:i~ve:Lotv lx_e:L 8L' Jaute de

mieux. Clearly some expression similar to 8Loc Tijc; otta6~ae:wc; yvwpLµov
(218. 30-31) is intended. Ideler, for example, suggested orp6oti.µo!c;
lO"t'LV t8e:!v. ~v ...
220. 27. I read otu-ro'r:c; since two or more bodies must be extended
"through one another" (cf. 216. 16, 217. 29) or as "whole through
whole" (cf. 218. 16 and Mant. 140. ro). For otu-ro'r:c; = ixi.A~i.oLc; cf.
220. 2 above, and cf. 220. l (otu-roc) and 220. II (otu-ro!c;) where by
emendation the same sense is achieved in a context similarly dealing
with bodily interpenetraJ:ion.
221. 33. This independent use of ocll~i.wv is suspect and 8L' oi.ou is
unparalleled in Alexander in this sense. xpocae:Lc; 8Loi.ou at Diog.
Laert. VII. 151 is also questionable, as we have seen (p. 31 n. 45).
222. 5-6. For 8LotLpe:'r:a8otL in 222. 4 and 5 I read 8L'rJp'Yja8otL since a

process of division cannot be in actuality, only its product. Hence
we need a present perfect tense; cf. 222. 12-13, 15-17 and Comm.
on 222. 4-13. Similarly at 222. 9 the change to BL7Jplja80tL is necessary
since as 9-ro show the division in question must be complete.
Bruns' attempt at 222. 5 to establish a disjunction with a second
NOTES ON THE TEXT 177
'Yi falls foul of the eve:pye:l~ in both clauses which indicates that they
must be parallel. This parallelism moreover begins at oUT(l)t:; 8e
xixt x.T.A., which should not be bracketed as it is by Bruns, and
lies between the actual division of any body (-n c;wµix) and the total
mixture of bodies (c;wµixTix) so divided. This connection is reas-
serted at 222. 17 when the inquiry into this aspect of the relation
between mixture and division is resumed after the only alternative
to it, that of an uncompleted infinite division, has been dismissed
at 222. 6-13.
222. 15. As with the argument discussed in the preceding note the
present argument can only be valid if we read 8rnp'Yja6ixL for 8LixL-
pe:i:a6ixL. The reading in the manuscripts says that constituents form
an infinite number of completely divided bodies by being able to
undergo a process of division (8LixLpe:fo6ixL) rather than, as we would
expect from the conclusion (xixT' ixuTouc;; etc.) and from OL7Jp'1)µtvov
(line 15), by being able to reach a state of complete division. With
this reading e:t oe MyoLe:v (222. 14) introduces exactly the opposite
hypothesis to that of an uncompleted infinite division furnished by
e:t µev yixp Atyouc;Lv X.'t'.A. at 222. 6ff.
The palaeographical possibility of the change proposed in this
and the preceding note rests on the standard confusion of H and EI.
This could have resulted in a corruption to 8L'1)pe:Lc;8ixL and its sim-
plifying emendation to 0LixLpe:La61XL.
222. 25. Aristotle, de gen. et corr. A2 316a 29-30 suggests that it
follows from points being parts of the line that a magnitude is
composed of non-magnitudes, and not vice-versa.
224. II. oµo(wc;; cxAA~AoLc;; needs to be qualified as at 224. 13 by Toi:i:;
(jl)Ve:"J_eaL x.T.A. Here it is gratuitous. For the word order of my
emended Tix ~vwµevoc 1tix.vTix cf. 233. 31.
224. 13. It would be contradictory in this argument to say that
pneuma separated bodies and hence I add c;uvexe:c;8ixL. For the
conjunction of c;uvexe:a6ocL and ~vc7ia6ocL cf. 223. 31.
224. 24-25. Cf. Von Arnim (SVF II, p. 146. 10) where the change to
ixuTou and ixuTo is made tacitly. lSv too must agree with pneuma
rather than being followed by a comma as Rodier suggested. The
12
178 DE MIXTIONE
whole expression may well be modelled after Arius Didymus Fr. 28

(Stob. Eel. I. xvii. 4, p. 154. 1W = SVF II, p. 152. 32-33). As we
saw (pp. 54ff. above) this text was probably Alexander's source in
de mixtione 3.
226. 33a-34. Bruns was the first to recognise that 227. 23-24 was
in some sense the continuation of 226. 34, but it was Brinkmann
(art. cit.) who demonstrated on palaeographical grounds the
link between the passages. It is his reconstruction that I have
followed.
230. 8. Montanari (p. 37), who mistakenly refers to this locus as
238. 8, endorses the reading in F. He says that this coincides partly
with Bruns' emendation which in fact is r:,.u-r6. He recommends xr:,.t
taxuo\l as maintaining a symmetry with 1tAe:o\loccr<Y.\I. This may be
right although it involves postponing the one remaining finite
verb, yl'-'e:T<Y.L, very late in the sentence.
230. 15. I agree with Montanari (p. 39) that the contrast in 230.
14-19 is between blending and passing-away, whether the latter is
the standard reciprocal process of coming to be and passing away,
or the hypothetical case of complete destruction. Alexander's point
is that blending is a unique type of passing-away in which con-
stituents are preserved in a sense. cp8opix crw~oµ.e\lwv -rtvwvis a more
precise formulation of the definition at 13. 228. 34-35 that ~ we;
xpiicrtc; µ.i:~Lc; occurs ou crw~oµ.e\lwv e-rL -rwv µ.t"('-'uµ.evw'-'. Its clarification
in the course of ch. 14 allows Alexander to say at the end (231. 10-
12) that blending is unification without any of the initially juxta-
posed constituents passing away. The passing away excluded here
is described at 230. 15-16 (cf. 13. 230. 5-13). Thus a specific theory
is developed from the general intuition that constituents are
preserved; see 215. 13-14 and cf. Aristotle de gen. et corr. Arn 327b
30-31. The reading of cp8opoc for µ.i:~tc; at 230. 15 and 19 is, I think,
justified.
231. 20-21. The reconstruction of these lines that I have offered
may be compared with Bruns' suggestion in his apparatus: 8to xr:,.t
oAlY1Jc; 8e:i:-r<Y.L ~07J8e:lr:,.c; [-rijc;] 1tpoc; ('t'1)\I) <Y.\J'tW\I e:tc; 't<Y.U't'Y)V (scil. 8uv<Y.µ.L\I)
µ.e:-r<Y.~OA~\I, lScrr:,. ye: <Y.IJTWV 'tOLOU'tO x.wpe:i:, <E7te:L> µ.~ 1tOC\l't'7l cx.x_wpLcrT<Y. 'tlX
xe:xpr:,.µ.evr:,.. Rodi er altered 1tpoc; <Y.U't'1J'-' e:tc; -rr:,.univ µ.e:-rr:,.~oA~'-' (codd.)
to 1tpoc; r:,.u-rou e:tc; -rr:,.u-rr:,. µ.e:-rr:,.~oA~'-'· Rex offers the following: 8to xr:,.t
oAlY1Jc; TL\I0c; (Apelt) 8e:L't<Y.L ~07J8e:(r:,.c; -rijc; 1tpoc; <Y.\J't'1)\I e:tc; 't<Y.tlt'l)V (scil.
NOTES ON THE TEXT 1 79
evepye:tocv) fLE:'t'OC~OA.~V, 5aoc ye: OCU't'WV (Br.) 't'OLOCU't'OC xwpe:"i: µ.~ 1t(XV't'TI
xwpLG't'OC -re: xoct 1te:1te:pocaµ.evoc (Schramm).
233. 17. -ro u1t&pxov awµ.oc is unusual. The normal equivalents for
-ro ocu~6µ.e:vov are -ro u1toxe:tµ.e:vov (e.g. 236. 22) or 1tpo01t(Xpxe:w in the
present participle qualifying a relevant noun (e.g. UAYJ at 236. 17,
or µ.eye:8oc; at Philop. de gen. et corr. 87. 6) or in the form -ro 1tpo01tocp-
xov (Philop. rr8. 23). It may be best to follow A2 and Ra.
COMMENTARY
Chapters I and 2. After a statement of the central paradoxes in

the Stoic theory of blending (213. 2-13), the opening chapter
describes the main differences in theories of blending resulting
from differences in theories of matter (213. 13-214. 16). Those
based on a corpuscular theory of matter-principally the Atomist
and Epicurean theories-are then expounded and criticised in
chapter 2. Although the Stoic theory of blending is described in
chapter 3 with some reference to the theory that matter is unified,
none of the subsequent criticisms take this into account, nor is
the Aristotelian theory of blending closely related to a theory of
matter as unified, nor, finally, are these two theories critically
contrasted (cf. note on 3. 216. 1-4). The polemical remarks on total
blending at I. 213. 2-13 are taken up and elaborated in chapter 7,
while the reference to "body going through body" at 213. 13 sur-
faces again in chapters S and 6.
Chapter 1
213. 2. The opening of the treatise is missing. It probably contained

some general discussion of blending and possibly some program-
matic statement of the superiority of the Aristotelian theory. At
13. 228. 5 Alexander says that he is returning to "the original
statement" ('rov ti; ii.px~c; Myov) which 228. 5-7 suggests involved
some decision to demonstrate the absurdity of other theories before
expounding Aristotle's. There is nothing in the de mixtione really
corresponding to this and it may well have been conveyed by the
lost portion of this chapter.
213. 2-13. Right at the outset (2-6) Alexander asserts a bald contra-
diction in the Stoic theory between (a) the totality of blending,
and (b) the preservation of their surfaces by the constituents. The
former requires that constituents lose their identity, the latter that
they retain it, so that they can be separated (7-8). This contra-
dictory theory is then contrasted (10-13) with the Aristotelian
theory (8-10) that constituents are separable from a blend in which
they are not completely mixed.
This contradiction at the heart of the notion of "body going
COMMENTARY 181
through body" (13-14) is not exploited until ch. 7 when total

blending is shown to be either a case of juxtaposition (where
constituents are not totally blended) or fusion (where they are
completely blended but inseparable); see on ch. 7, 220. 23-29. The
topic surfaces again in ch. 15 where Alexander shows that con-
stituents are separable from a homoiomerous blend in such a way
that they can be regarded as not being "wholly blended," i.e. being
in potentiality; see on 15. 231. 12-29. Alexander could have derived
this contradiction from the Stoic classification of mixtures where
both the constituents of juxtapositions and blends are said to
preserve their own substances (cf. 3. 216. 19-20 and 216. 30-31)
while in the former case this is "with respect to their surface"
(xocTa: niv 1te:ptypocq>~v, 3. 216. 20). From this it would follow that
what constituents preserve in a blend also are their surfaces (213. 3,
5, 12), while the blend would only be total if they lost this individ-
uality (213. 4, II-12); yet the Stoics seem to want both of these
to occur in total blending. Whether or not the passage was known
to Alexander (cf. on 4. 217. 36), Hierocles' description of the rela-
tion between soul and body (IV. 4-10 Von Arnim) could certainly
also encourage such criticism: ". . . [the soul] is totally blended
with it, so that not even the smallest part of the mixture does not
share in their mutual participation (&,; µ1)8~ TouMxunov Tou µEyµoc-
To,; µepoi; nji; 07t0Ttpou OCUTWV &µotpe:!v µe:Tox:;ji; [cf. 3. 217. IO-II]);
for the blending is very similar to what occurs with heated iron;
for in each of these cases alike the juxtaposition is complete {8t'
/S)..(l)v foTlv ~ 1tocpix6e:cni;; [cf. on 4. 218. 8])." A Stoic might argue
that such complete juxtaposition was not paradoxical because it
only occurred between bodies of complementary physical properties
of activity and passivity, such as pneuma and matter (cf. pp. 35-
36 above). Even so, as long as the passive principle is defined as
body it is difficult to see any reason in physics why it could be
occupied by another body with which it is also juxtaposed. This is
certainly what the Stoic doctrine of pneuma's presence in matter
has to mean (cf. p. 35 n. 67 above), but it is difficult to accept it
as a satisfactory conception, and Alexander's response seems quite
justified.
213. 4-5. "in a uniform body" (oµou µ~v ... oµou 8e). Cf. 213. 10-
12, Plutarch de comm. not. 37. 1078B (p. 104. 29 Teubner), and
note on 7. 221. 9-10 where Alexander reduces total blending to a
DE MIXTIONE
case in which bodies fuse to form a "uniform" (oµotoµi::pei;) com-

pound.
213. 7-8. "bodies that have been blended can be separated again"
(-ro Mvoca8oct -roc xi::xpixµi::voc xwp(~i::a8oct 1tixAtv). Cf. Aristotle de gen. et
corr. Aro 327b 29, and here at 213. 8-9, 216. 32 (again with refer-
ence to the Stoics), 222. 30, 224. 12-13, and 228. 14-15.
213. IO. "universally held notions" (-roc<; oc1tixv-rwv lvvoloci;); an alter-
native expression for "common notions" (xotvoct ~vvotoct). On Alex-
ander's use of this terminology see on 5. 218. II.
213. 13. "the notion of body <going> through body" {-ro -ri:: ouv awµoc
8toc awµoc-ro<; <xwpELV>). This important expression first enters the
de mixtione as a general characterisation of total blending. It is
anticipated by 213. II (8L' i>Ac.>V <XAA~AWV XWPELV 't'LV<X awµoc-roc; cf.
217. IO). Alexander seems to regard it as an accepted redescription
of total blending, as he does not justify its introduction here;
presumably an earlier polemical tradition had ensured its close
association with the Stoic doctrine, so that this redescription could
be taken for granted (cf. Pt. II-iii, passim). Cf. on 7. 220. 23-29.
213. 14-15. "philosophical principles" (-roc xoc-roc rptAoaoqilocv 86yµoc-roc).
These are the theories of matter on which different theories of
mixture are founded; see next note. Cf. 12. 227. 3 where the same
expression occurs; by that stage however Alexander's analysis of
bodily interpenetration has led him to claim that the doctrines
making up the Stoic theory of a unified cosmos are derived from
such a form of mixture rather than total blending being derived
from a theory of continuous matter, as claimed here and in ch. 3.
As I argue above (p. 38ff.) this accords more closely with Stoic
thinking than the present systematisation.
213. 15-18. For a categorisation of theories of matter in these terms
see also Galen, Quad. mor. an. 5 (IV. 785K Script. Min. II p. 46.
13-15) and De Nat. Fae. I. 12 (II. 27K). While the grouping of
corpuscular theories is legitimate enough since mixture involves
the combination of such primary bodies, no indication is given here
or later as to precisely why the theory of a single unified matter
should be relevant to any theory of mixture. This is a particularly
COMMENTARY
ahistorical presentation, for Aristotle's theory of mixture was

clearly a reaction against the Empedoclean theory of the mixture
of four elements in a corpuscular form (see de gen. et corr. B7 334a
27-30; cf. Aetius I. 17. 3), yet the latter is not referred to here,
perhaps in order to establish a more definite polarisation between
the two theories of matter. On the Presocratic background to
Aristotle's theory of mixture see F. Solmsen, Aristotle's System of
the Physical World, ch. 19, and on its relation to the Stoic theory
cf. pp. 49-50 above.
213. 20. " ... other things come to be by the composition and
particular interlinking ... " "Composition (m'.iv8eO"L<;) here describes
the formation of secondary bodies, and even with the standard ad
ditionsof m:pmAox-fi (interlinking), 't'OC~L<; (order), and 8foL<; (position)
the Atomist-Epicurean theory is distinguished only slightly from
that of Anaxagoras where bodies are formed xoc't'oc O't>'(XpLO'Lv xoct
O't>v8eO"Lv ("by compounding and composition"). This accords with
the doxographical account (at Aetius I. 17. 2) that Anaxagoras and
Democritus thought that mixtures occurred by juxtaposition
(1tocpoc8eO"L<;), but as we see in ch. 2 Alexander requires separate
doctrines of mixture and coming-to-be of these thinkers, and
obtains them by rather forced means (see on 214. 18-28, 214. 26-28,
and 214. 28-215. 8).
214. 3-6. "Anaxagoras and Archelaus ... " Archelaus is just as
closely bracketed with Anaxagoras at DK 6oA 4, 5. The precise
formulation of this theory of matter is of course Aristotelian.
Anaxagoras probably did not use the word "uniform" (oµ.otoµ.ep-fi<;)
to describe his principles; see W. K. C. Guthrie, A History of Greek
Philosophy, II, 325-236.
The theory of partless bodies was held by Diodorus Cronus
(fl. c. 300 B.C.), to whom Alexander attributes it explicitly at de
sensu 122. 23 and 172. 29, and presumably by some of his fol-
lowers. On this theory and its relation to Epicureanism see D. J.
Furley, Two Studies in Greek Atomism, I. ch. 9.
On the Platonic doctrine of planes see Aristotle de caelo r1 299a
3-3ooa 19. Alexander Quaest. II. 13 attacks the doctrine, as does
Alex. ap. Philop. de gen. et corr. 81. 28-31. Cf. on 2. 214.
27-28 below.
On the Pythagorean doctrine of numbers see Aristotle Met. A5
passim and cf. de caelo 300a 14-19.
DE MIXTIONE
214. ro-16. Cf. de Jato 165. 25-27 for a similar formulaic description
of prevailing dissension at the opening of a work.
Chapter 2
214. 18-28. (214. 18-25 = DK 68A 64). This "Democritean" theory
would seem to be based on the unattributed theory that blending
is relative to perception mentioned by Aristotle at de gen. et corr.
Aro 328a 8-16. Cf. especially 214. 19-20, 22-23 with 328a 7-8, and
see Joachim on 328a 1-2. There is no record of it being propounded
by Democritus, and since its presence here is simply to fulfill
Alexander's programme (213. 15-17) that theories of matter have
corresponding theories of mixture, this is not good evidence for
attributing it to him.
214. 23. " ... its own nature, which they had even before the mix-
ture" (tpoow, ~v e:!zov x<Xt rtpo -rij~ µ.[~e:w~). Cf. exactly the same
expression used of constituents' surfaces at 213. 6, 13 in the descrip-
tion of the presence of constituents in a "Stoic" blend. Here the
preservation of "natures" is an aspect of juxtaposition; the earlier
text would seem, as we have said (on 213. 2-6), to be setting up the
Stoic theory of blending for the argument reducing it to juxta-
position that we eventually find at 7. 220. 35-221. 7.
214. 26. "the consequence" (',o Ertoµ.e:vov) simply being that mixture
is relative to perception. Epicurus tried to evade it (28-29) by
making mixture the juxtaposition of atoms which, presumably,
necessarily escape perception (cf. Alex. Quaest. III. 12, 105. 13)
whereas the Democritean corpuscles just happen to be imper-
ceptible, but might be accessible to the proverbial Lynceus (de gen.
et corr. Aro 328a 15).
214. 27-28. It is not clear whether the juxtaposition of homoio-
merous bodies is blending, or, as at 214. 2, coming-to-be. If the
former, then we would need evidence that Anaxagoras believed
that corpuscles were juxtaposed in blending in some different way
from the composition (m.Jv8e:cn~) by which they formed compounds.
Similarly with the attempt to line up the theory that matter is
composed of partless bodies behind the "Epicurean" theory of
blending at 215. 22-23. The whole distinction between coming-to-be
and blending is, as we have seen (on r. 213. 20), unprecedented for
the proponents of this theory of matter.
COMMENTARY r85
2r4. 28-215. 8. (= Usener, Epicurea, No. 290). This, as Joachim

(on de gen. et corr. 328a r-2) saw, is an attribution to Epicurus of
the theory of the mixture of indivisibles described at de gen. et corr.
Aro 328a r6-r7. Sambursky's elaborate speculations on the meaning
of this text (Archiv. Int. d'Hist. des Sciences 2 [r958] 254-255)
therefore seem unnecessary. Philoponus (de gen. et corr. r93. 20-24)
thought that this theory had to be Democritean, and if Alexander
did not perversely distinguish blending from the combination that
created compounds, his description at 2r3. 18-23 would have
entailed that both the Atomists and Epicurus held the same theory
of blending qua coming-to-be described here and would have made
the attempt to distinguish between them unnecessary.
This interpretation also makes redundant speculation such as
Kerferd's (Phronesis 16 [1971] 90) on whether or not the reference
(at 215. 5-6) to "wine-producing" {olvo1tou'ii:;} and "water-produc-
ing" (u8po1tot6i:;} atoms implies an Epicurean molecular theory. For
a complementary example of Alexander's confusion over the
differences between Epicurus and the Atomists see Met. 36. 25-27
where he attributes the theory of partless parts of atoms to both
when it is, as the doctrine of minimal parts, only Epicurean; see
Furley, Two Studies, pp. 98-99.
215. r. "in the division" {ev -tjj 8toctpecm}. Juxtaposition involves
the division of initially continuous bodies into indivisible particles.
215. ro. "preconception" (1tp6A1J4JLi:;}. Alexander uses this in the
same sense as "common notion" {xow~ evvotoc} or "natural notion"
(cpucrtx~ ewotoc), and often uses the expression "common preconcep-
tions" (xotvoct 1tpoA~41eti:;, 215. 32, 220. 25). Further on Alexander's
use of this Stoic terminology see my discussion at Symb. Os. 48
(r973) 61-62 and on 5. 218. rr.
215. II. "in the unification of the bodies that have been blended"
(ev ev@creL -rwv xexpocµ.evwv). "Unification" (lvwcrti:;} terminates
blending for Aristotle (de gen. et corr. Aro 328b 22) as is constantly
emphasised by Alexander in his restatement of the Aristotelian
theory (228. 35, 229. r, 230. 33, 230. 36, 23r. 4, 12, r5-16, 26-27).
Cf. Alex. ap. Simplic. de caelo 659. 23-26 for an argument that
neither planes nor atoms can form a continuous body.
215. r3. "Reduction-to-the-elements" (&.voccr't'mxe(wmi:;} (also at
215. r8, 23) is a rare word. LS] does not record these instances nor
186 DE MIXTIONE
Philop. de gen. et corr. 193. 28-29 (on 327b 31££., and probably
derived from Alex. ad loc.-possibly itself a source of the present
passage). Philo (at SVF II, p. 188. 6) reports Chrysippus as using
the expression "fire that reduces the order of the universe to itself"
(To (X.V(XO"t"OLX&LW(JCXV 'TT)V 8Lcxx6aµ."l)(JLV &Le; CXUTO 1tup), and it may well be
a Stoic technical term.
215. 13-14. "for mixture should occur between bodies that are
preserved" (~ yocp µ.i:~Lc; aw~oµ.evwv ye:vfo8cxL 8oxe:i:). In an Aristotelian
blend constituents were present in potentiality but "their power is
preserved" (aw~&TcxL ... ~ Mvcxµ.Lc; cxuTwv, de gen. et corr. Aro 327b
30-31). Cf. also on 230. 14-15.
215. 16-17. "by their particular composition and interlinking (-tjj
I. 213. 20-21 where this ex-
1toL~ (J1Jv8fo&L TE xcxl. 1t&pm1,.ox7i); cf.
pression describes, in part, the coming-to-be of secondary bodies
from atoms for both the Atomists and Epicurus. It shows again
how forced is the attempt to distinguish between their respective
theories of mixture in this chapter.
215. 26-27. "By juxtaposition of parts" (xcx-roc 1tcxpoc8&aLv µ.e:pwv)
refers to the "Democritean" theory at 214. 18-28, and "by mixture
of atoms" (µ.i:~Lv h6µ.wv) to the "Epicurean" (214. 28-215. 8). There
is no evidence that there was also a separate theory of mixture qua
juxtaposition of planes, or partless bodies, to complement the
explanation of coming-to-be (yeve:mc;) in terms of these principles
at 214. 1-5. Alexander would have had to be as arbitrary as he is
in the cases of Democritus and Epicurus (cf. on 214. 18-28 and 214.
28-215. 8) if this were to be established.
215. 30. "not a demonstration of great learning" {e1tl8e:L~Lc; taTop(cxc;).
This perhaps means that the erudition of a commentary is not to
be expected; but cf. de jato 165. 5-7 and p. 20 n. 95.
Chapters 3 and 4. The commentary on these chapters has been
largely preempted by the discussion in Pt. II-ii. On 3. 216. 14-217. 2
see especially pp. 54-65, and on chapter 4, pp. 68-71; for a general
analysis of this whole text see pp. 54-65.
Chapter 3
216. 1-4. "matter is entirely unified" (xowwc; ~vwa8cxL niv /J).."l)v). That
is "matter is unified as common to [or shared in by] all the bodies
COMMENTARY
for which it is a substrate" (cf. u1toxe:"i:a6ixL at r. 213. 16; 13. 229. 16).
This language may derive from Aristotle de gen. et corr. B5 332a 18
where the elements are said to have a UA'YJ xoLv~ ("common matter").
At Quaest. II. 28 there is an interesting discussion of the sense in
which matter is "common" to forms as compared to the sense in
which genus is common to species. For UA'YJ described as xoLvov
u1toxe:L-rou 1tiiaw in an Aristotelian context see Ps.-Ocellus 16. 23
Harder.
In the de mixtione Alexander initially attempts to group the
Stoic and Aristotelian theories of blending as both being dependent
on a theory of unified matter; r. 213. 15-18 and 214. 8-IO refer back
to the general description of the main difference between these two
theories at 213. 2-15. In the present chapter the description of
matter being unified by pneuma at 216. 14-15 picks up 216. 1 and
4-5. However this glosses over the important difference in the sense
of "unified" (~vwa6ocL) in each of these cases. In the former unifica-
tion is the result of a physical force pervading matter, whereas in
the more general description unification is an inherent property
of matter. It is the latter sense which emerges clearly in Alexander's
description of matter's relation to the constituents of blends in
ch. 13 (229. 9, IO, 16; cf. 14. 230. 20-21, 231. 6) where bodies are
said to share in (xoLvwve:i:v) the same matter; matter's unity is
simply its being the identical substrate for different forms. Hence at
IO. 223. 32-34 Alexander can suggest that pneuma's function of
unifying matter (he mentions its creation of sympathy between
bodies-cf. 216. 16-17 below) is best explained by "the sharing of
bodies in matter" (oLix niv TYj~ UA'YJ~ xowwvlixv) ; here the Aristotelian
sense of matter as a common substrate is opposed to the Stoic
notion of matter being unified by something. This establishes the
distinction implicit in the present text, and may explain why in
ch. 13-15 in the exposition of the Aristotelian theory of blending
no mention is made of the Stoics, and of the conflict between those
who held the same theory of unified matter referred to at 1.
214. 8-9.
Marcus Aurelius does refer to "one common substance" (µ[ix
oidix xow~) at XII. 30, and xoLvo~ is widely used by the Stoics to
describe the Myo~ or principle of universal order (SVF IV, Index
s.v.). However it is always implied that this common factor is a
result of a force creating a relation between things rather than, as
in Alexander's Aristotelian usage, a common substrate for bodies.
188 DE MIXTIONE
216. 6-14. This is not a very convincing description of dissent

among the Stoics. In physics Antipater of Tarsus was a conven-
tional Stoic (cf. SVF III, pp. 249-251) and Sosigenes is only referred
to in this text. Alexander must be speculating that there was
Aristotelian influence on the Stoic theory of mixture; for short of
forcing a total reconstruction, this could only have been minimal.
The passage is best regarded as further elaborating the conventional
description of the dispute in ch. I; cf. on r. 214. I0-16.
216. 15-16. "through which the whole is held together and is stable
and sympathetic with itself" (oq:i' OU O"UV£X£'t'Ot( 't'E: xocl O"Uµµeve:L xocl
mJµ1toc8ec; t(mv 0tO't'ci> 't'O 1tiiv). This use of 't'O 1tiiv overlooks the Stoic
distinction between the whole ('t'o /5).ov) and the all ('t'o 1tiiv) where
the latter includes the cosmos and the infinite external void; cf.
p. 56 n. 142 above, and Alex. Quaest. III. 12, IOI. 22-I02. 19, an
argument that turns on an equation of /5).ov and 1tiiv. The triad is
typical of Alexander's characterisations of Stoic doctrines: cf. 4.
218. 2-6, ro. 223. 8-9 = the present text, II. 225. 2; and de Jato
178. 8-9 {1tpOXOt't'0t~e:~}:1jµtv0tLc; xocl wpurµev0tLc; X0tl 1tpoU1t0tpxoucr0tLc;
't'tcrlv ocMoctc;). He also employs it to describe Peripatetic doctrines-
cf. below, IO. 223. I0-12, r6. 236. 27-28, and Met. 358. 36-as well
as in non-philosophical contexts (e.g. de Jato 204. 20-21). Though
a somewhat rhetorical device, in the present case all the components
are significant, though elsewhere terms seem to be added for effect
(see notes on 4. 218. 2-6 and 16. 236. 27-28). O"UV£XE:'t'OtL refers to the
"force creating continuity", the O"UVEX't'LX~ 8uvocµtc; of pneuma (cf.
above p. 36); for O"Uµµov~ ("stability") as an effect of pneuma cf.
SVF II 550. As for O"Uµ1toc8e:t0t, there is no reason to deprive early
Stoicism of this doctrine as K. Reinhardt (Kosmos und Sympathie,
p. 54 n. 2) wished; see the criticisms of M. Pohlenz,GGA (1926) 277,
followed by many since.
216. 18. "two or more" (Mo~ xocl 1t1.e:(w). Cf. 216. 28-29; 220. 27;
and Stob. Eel. I. 17, p. 154. 15, 22 and p. 155. II (= SVF II, p. 153.
6, 12).
216. 19. " 'by juncture' as he says." Cf. 22r. 19 (01to µtiic;, Cle; q:ioccrtv,
f~e:wc;), and Mant. II5, IO, 13r. 4, for similar disclaimers when a
Stoic technical term is employed.
217. 2-13. This text links the description of the tripartite classifica-
tion of mixtures (216. 14-217. 2) and the account of the proof for
COMMENTARY 189
total blending in ch. 4. There is, as we have seen, a conflict between

the notions of total blending expressed in these two texts which
can only be reconciled by recognising their distinct purposes (pp.
65-71 above passim). But for Alexander they almost certainly
represented simply the evidence of two different sources; 216. 14-
217. 2 probably being based on a doxographical source (see pp.
54-65), and ch. 4 perhaps emanating from a Stoic scholastic
source (see on 217. 36). In the text under consideration he is at-
tempting to provide a logical transition from the one to the other.
He was evidently aware that the argument in ch. 4 was based on
the common notions; at 217. 13 he describes the 1tla-mc; ("sua-
sions") that prove that body completely extends through body,
picking up the claim at 217. 2-4 that the differences between the
three kinds of mixture are ''established'' (mo-Touo-6ocL) by the common
notions. However he only has available the analogical argument for
total blending given in ch. 4 and therefore has to correlate the use
of the common notions there with the existence of three types of
mixture in the classification in ch. 3. This he partly achieves by
claiming that Chrysippus said that we '' at least'' (youv, 217. 4) have
a different "presentation" (cpocvTocaloc) of the product of each type of
mixture (note the perfects O"Uyxe:Lµtv<.uv, o-uyxe:x_uµev<.uv, Xe:xpocµev<.uv
at 217. 5-6) which would not be possible if all the processes of mix-
ture (1tocvTix TIX 01t<.uo-ouv µLyvuµe:voc 217. 8, cf. 216. 17) were alike
He then emphasises this by repeating (217. 9-13) the distinction
between the processes of juxtaposition and blending from the
earlier tripartite classification. However the fact that such different
processes result in different presentations (cpocvTocalocL) does not
constitute proof of how these processes occur, and Alexander has
certainly not explained why in ch. 4 only total blending can be
proved from the common notions. However at the same time he
has introduced the Stoic concept of presentation (cpocvToca(oc) in
addition to that of the common notions and has to establish their
relation. The standard Chrysippean doctrine is that the "appre-
hensive presentation" (xocTOCAlJ7tTLX~ cpocvTOCO"Loc) is the "standard of
truth" (xpL"TT)pLov -rijc; 1X.A1J6e:(occ;); cf. Diog. Laert. VII. 54 = SVF II
105, and see F. Sandbach in A. A. Long, ed., Problems of Stoicism,
pp. 9-21, for further discussion of the doctrine. Alexander was
presumably aware of this; at de an. 71. 10-15 he assimilates into
his account of the Aristotelian doctrine of the imagination (cpocvTocatoc)
the Stoic distinction between apprehensive and non-apprehensive
190 DE MIXTIONE
(&xot't'OCA'1)1t't'oc;} presentations (this text is at SVF II 70, but is clearly

a vestigium). However since the presentations of the products of
the mixtures only provide, as we have seen, a limited proof that
the corresponding processes occur, they cannot be the highest
standards of truth; this title must be reserved for the common
notions which in ch. 4 show how at least one of these processes,
total blending, occurs. Hence, the description at 217. 2-4 (cf. 218.
12, 220. 25-26) of these notions as µixALa't'ot 8e xpL-r-fipLot -rijc; <XA'1)6e(occ;
("above all the standards of truth"). Apart from the fact that this
is unparalleled, we could doubt its veracity simply because in-
dependent proofs from the common notions for all three types of
mixture are not provided, and, if we read chapter 4 as I have
suggested (see pp. 68-71 above), need not be provided since only
total blending is of any significance to Stoic physics. Hence 217.
2-4 must be regarded as Alexander's own rather weak rationalisa-
tion of the relation between the tripartite classification of mixtures
and the proof in ch. 4 of only total blending; this text can therefore
scarcely serve as evidence that the common notions are products
of similar presentations which act as a second standard of truth
after individual presentations, as Gould (Philosophy of Chrysippus,
pp. 6r-62) has argued. Cf. also K. Abel, Gnomon 44 (1972) 650 with
n. 25, and my criticisms at Symb. Os. 48 (1973) 56-57. There how-
ever I did argue (pp. 57-59) that the common notions are principal
standards of truth in that they serve, as chapter 4 shows, as a basis
from which a central theory of Stoic physics can be derived (see
also above, pp. 41-44 with n. ro6). This suggestion was an
attempt to make sense of de mixt. 3. 217. 2-4 on the assumption
that it represented Chrysippean doctrine. Since it now appears
to be Alexander's independent rationalisation, that interpretation
must be modified. I still think that the common notions are, as
ch. 4 shows, general concepts from which central doctrines of Stoic
philosophy can be inferred (cf. p. 41 with n. 99 above), but now
doubt that this view can be grounded in the actual expression
"highest standards of truth," taken as authentic Stoic terminology.
At the same time I do not think that Alexander can be acquitted
of having tried to impose a hierarchical structure on Stoic epis-
temology by our translating µixALO"t'ot xpL't'Y)pLot (217. 3) as "excellent
standards" with Sandbach (Problems of Stoicism, p. 23); the context
shows that he obviously regards them as "excellent" vis a vis
!plXV't'IXO'LIXL.
COMMENTARY 191
217. 2 "their own natures" (q,ucmc;); cf. 217. 7. This use of q,uau:;
in the sense of form is Aristotelian; cf. Met. Z6 1031a 30, 1031b 1;
also 16. 234. 3 where a body undergoing growth is said to preserve
its OLXE:L(X q,uo-u:;.
217. 11-12. "in such a product of mixture through blending" (e:v
-rcj) -roLou-rep xe:xp(Xµ.evep µ.lyµ.(X-rL). An odd expression, but logical if we
recall that mixture (µ.~~Le;) is presented in this chapter as a generic
notion so that the result of a blend can be termed a blended mixture.
Chapter 4
217. 13. "suasions" (1tla-re:Lc;); cf. 217. 2. That is, these are not
formal proofs, but like the non-demonstrative rhetorical arguments
to which the term applies very often in Aristotle, e.g. Rhet. 1355b 35.
It is not a Stoic term and has almost certainly been imposed by
their Peripatetic critic. Cf. its use at de Jato 202. 2. This is a slight
revision of my suggestion at Symb. Os. 48 (1973) 50 n. 18.
217. 14. "the proponents of this doctrine" (ot 1tpo'CO"t'ocµ.e:voL -rijo-8e:
-rijc; 86~l'Jc;). At 3. 217. 2-13 Chrysippus was the subject carried over
from 3. 216. 14-15, where he was, arbitrarily I believe (see p. 64
n. 175), made the author of the whole tripartite classification of
mixtures. The switch here is almost certainly due to Alexander's
use of a new source-see on 217. 36-the later reference to Chrysip-
pus at 218. 8-9 notwithstanding (cf. note ad lac.).
217. 24. "the part that befalls us" (-ro e:m~ocAAov ~µ.~v µ.epoc;). Farqu-
harson (II, p. 722) compares this with Marcus Aurelius VII. 7
where -ro e:m~ocAAov is used more generally than here. Like Marcus
II. 1 and VI. 14 this seems to be an ethical version of the notion
of cooperative causation that we have located in this argument;
cf. above, pp. 39ff.
217. 33. "clear evidence" (e;v(Xprij µ.(Xp-rupL(X) is probably Alexander's
expression; cf. defato 186. 23. It is vague in meaning and conceals
the precise logical relation of 217. 34-218. IO to the preceding
analogical argument. As I suggest above (pp. 41-44), this
evidence is, for the most part, to be regarded as a set of inferences
from the case of a wine drop's extension through water.
217. 33-218. 1. "soul ... Nature ... State" (41ux_~, q,uo-Lc;, !~Le;). On
this tripartite classification see above, p. 41 n. 94. It is criticised
at 9. 222. 26-34.
DE MIXTIONE
217. 33-34. "its own substantiality" (t8l0t u1t6cr-r-0tcrn;). This expres-

sion is related to x0t-r-' t8l0tv [tm6cr-r-0tcrLv understood] ucpecr-r-ocv0tL that
we find at 9. 222. 29 and 13. 228. 24 (cf. x0t6' 0tu-r-oc ucpecr-r-ocv0tL at 228.
13-14) used in an Aristotelian sense to mean "exist individually or
independently." Cf. also on 13. 228. 13-14. This shows that the
present text reflects Alexander's assimilation of this originally
Stoic terminology rather than its use in an authentically Stoic
fashion. I translate the noun "substantiality" since it is only used
in the singular as an abstract noun to mean "property of indepen-
dent existence." The evidence for the use of u1t6cr-r-0tcrL<:; by Stoics
is complicated: see the discussion by H. Dorrie, Nachr. Akad. Gott.
(1955) 49-58, and for the debate about the relative meanings of
u1tocpx_ew and ucpecr-rocv0tL in Stoicism, the articles by P. Hadot, Arch.
fur Begriffsgesch. 13 (1969) II5-127, A. Graeser, ibid. 15 (1971) 299-
305, and V. Goldschmidt, REG 85 (1972) 331-344. I would only
note here that there is a very extensive usage of u1t6cr-r0tcrL<:;/utpEcr'rOCV0tL
and u1t0tp~Li:;/umxpx_ew in Alexander and the later commentators that
deserves to be analysed in detail; conceivably it would throw some
light on the vexed question of the relation of these terms in Stoicism.
H. Dorrie, op. cit., pp. 59-60 gives only a brief sketch of Alexander's
usage of u1t60--r0to-L<:;. For other examples of his use of x0t6' 0tu-r-o
ucpecr-r-ocv0tL see de an. 19. 7, 20, and for x0t-r' t8£0tv ucpeo--r-w<:; see Met. 84.
28. Two texts which use u1t60--r0tcrL<:; and u1t0tp~L<:; in single contexts
are de an. 90. 1-9 and Top. 355. II-16, where there seems very little
difference between them, the former specifying something's exist-
ence as a substance, while the latter refers to its existence in general.
Further on u1t0tp~L<:; see C. Kahn in Islamic Philosophy and the
Classical Tradition, pp. 151-155.
217. 36. "for there is nothing in the body possessing the soul that
does not partake of the soul" (ou8e:v yocp tjiux_~<:; &µ.mpov -r-ou niv
tJiux.~v ex_ov-r-oi:; crwµ.0t-r-oi:;). Cf. Hierocles IV. 6-8 Von Amim on the
relation between soul and body: w<:; µ.'1j8e: -r-ouMx_LO"t'ov -r-ou µ.(yµ.0t-r-oc;
µ.epo<:; ~<:; 01to-r-epou 0tu-r-wv cxµ.oLpe'Lv µ.e-r-ox_~<:; (trans. above, on I. 213.
2-13). In view of this general similarity of expression (cf. 217. IO-
II and note on 218. 8 below; also cf. Hier. IV. 4-5 with Alex. de an.
13. 19, 14. 23, and IV. IO-II with Alex. Mant. II7. 9-II), and of
the general relevance of Hierocles' description of total blending at
IV. 5-IO Von Amim to Alexander's critique (see on 213. 2-13), it
is quite likely that Alexander's source for ch. 4 was a Stoic scholastic
COMMENTARY 1 93
of the type represented by Hierocles. Possibly this is why the whole

argument in ch. 4 is attributed to "proponents" of the doctrine of
total blending (217. 13-14) rather than Chrysippus who is not
referred to until 218. 8-10. Cf. also the reference to Chrysippus'
"followers" (ol XIX'r IXUTO'\I (j)LAOGO(j)OU'\/Titc;) at 218. IO.
218. 1-2. "that fire passes completely through the iron." Cf. above,
p. 40 n. 93 and p. 56 n. 141 on the reasons for the presence of this
example here. It is used as an illustration of the blending of soul
with body at Hier. IV. 8-9 Von Arnim, and is adapted to the case
of the incarnation at Origen Contr. Cels. III. 41 and De Prine. II.
6. 6. It is subjected to a detailed empirical analysis at 12. 227. 13-
228. 4.
218. 2-6. Two triads of adjectives describing the two pairs of
elements: "rare" /"dense" (Ae1t-.oµep~c;/1tocx_uµep~c;) are Aristotelian
(e.g. de caelo 304a 30-31); "having/lacking tension" (eu-.ovoc/chovoc)
are Stoic (cf. SVF II 444); "light" j"heavy" (xoucpoc/~ocp'Yj) seem to
make up a redundant completion of the triad (cf. on 3. 216. 15-16).
This whole text serves as an alternative description of the relation
between pneuma and matter in terms of the active and passive
elements (cf. p. 35 above), yet Alexander does not discuss it in his
critique of the theory of pneuma in chapter IO. It would be partic-
ularly relevant to his comments on the relations between pneuma
and the elements; see notes on IO. 224. 14a-22, and II. 225. 5-18.
It is hard to believe that Alexander did not see the relation between
this description of the two pairs of elements and the description of
pneuma at 3. 216. 15-16. He could not however have acknowledged
it without adopting the critical approach to source material totally
absent from ancient philosophical polemics.
218. 6. "continuity" (mJvex_eLoc). Literally: "the state of being held
together." This is not entirely accurate. Pneuma, qua the two active
elements Fire and Air, has an internal coherency in its own tension
(see SVF II 447), while the passive elements are held together by
it. Each pair does not have its own separate "continuity" (cf. SVF
II 439, 440, 444).
218. 6-8. "poisons that are destructive ... " There is no parallel,
as far as I know, to this rather vague example of total blending.
It does not self-evidently illustrate the blend of a small volume
with a larger. Perhaps it was displaced here by a process similar to
13
1 94 DE MIXTIONE
that probably involved in the location of the case of fire pervading

iron at 218. 1-2.
218. 8. "in a total juxtaposition" (ot-.ix 8t' ot-.wv 1tixpix·n6eµe:vix) seems
to contradict "blended" (xtpviicr6ixt) in 218. 7, and in view of the
tripartite classification is completely contradictory. We do find
~t' ot-.wv ... ~ 1tixpoc6e:crtc; ("complete juxtaposition") at Hier. IV.
9-10 Von Arnim (cf. on 1. 213. 2-13) and Alexander may have
slipped into this authentic Stoic terminology; cf. on 3. 217. 36.
218. 8-9. The thesis that light is a body is attacked as a case of
body going through body at Mant. 139. 1-17; cf. above, p. 85
n. 246 and also 9. 222. 33-34. The reference to Chrysippus may
indicate that Alexander has added this additional example of total
blending from a source other than that from which bulk of chapter 4
is derived.
Chapters 5 to 9. These chapters constitute Alexander's critique of
total blending taken in isolation from the Stoic physical system,
while IO and II, as we shall see, deal with its ramifications in the
theories of pneuma and God. Despite Alexander's acknowledgement
at the opening of chapter 12 (227. I-II) that total blending is the
basis for these and related doctrines (fate, providence, sympathy,
the soul, etc.) he never criticises this relationship as such, but takes
each of the terms in it separately: total blending in chapters 5 to 9,
pneuma and God in chapters IO and 11. See further on this the
introductory note to chapters IO and 11.
The general Peripatetic background to the arguments against
body going through body in chapters 5 and 6 (to 220. 3) has been
traced at Pt. III-iii above. Chapters 7 and 8 are independent attacks
on the notion of total blending; in the first case in the light of the
tripartite classification of mixtures, and in the second, that of the
requirement that constituents be divisible. Chapter 9 considers
total blending with reference to the doctrine of form and matter,
a critique anticipated at 6. 220. 6-II, and later included in the
polemics against the doctrines of pneuma (see IO. 223. 30-34) and
God (see II. 224. 27-32 and 226. 10-24). After the digression in
these two chapters, chapter 12 returns to the theme of chapters 5-9
by offering a final detailed critique of one of the illustrations of
body going through body (227. 10-228. 4)-a notion which IO and
II have shown to be at the root of two major doctrines of Stoic
physics (cf. IO. 223. 18, II. 225. 4-5, and 12. 226. 34-227. ro).
COMMENTARY 1 95
Chapter 5
218. II. "the common notions." Alexander's implication (by our
reading of the text) is that the notions employed by the Stoics are
not in fact "common," since bodily interpenetration is not con-
ceivable {1tpoElA'l)1t't'0tL, 218. 17). For a notion to be common or
natural for Alexander it must be a direct reflection of experience;
he demands, in effect, that the common notions be principles of
common sense, and uses the Stoic terminology in this way in several
other places (e.g. de jato 165. 15-see further Symb. Os. 48 [1973]
62 nn. 83, 84). This completely rejects the analogical argument in
chapter 4 in which the notion of a body extending over another
body was not formed directly from experience, but by analogy
from certain causal relations manifest in experience. If my inter-
pretation is correct (see p. 41 n. 99 above) the common notions
serve as a synthesis of experience (in this sense they are natural)
from which the theory of extension of body through body can be
derived. It is in principle impossible for such analogical argumenta-
tion to directly reflect experience as Alexander demands. As we
see in ch. 15, Alexander himself has the problem of explaining the
sense in which constituents are in potentiality in a blend by analogy
with the fact that they are easily separable; he leaves exactly the
same gap between experience and theory that here he refuses to
allow the Stoics in insisting that bodily interpenetration be based
on naive common sense (see notes on 15. 231. 12-29, and 232. 32-
233. 2). Also important is Alexander's use of the terms "common
notions," "preconception" {1tp6A'IJ'f/L<;), "common preconception,"
"natural notion" as precise equivalents-cf. 2. 215. IO, 32; here at
218. 14-15, 17; 7. 220. 25; 9. 222. 26; II. 227. II; 13. 233. r. I have
argued (Symb. Os. 48 [1973] 51-54) that the common notions are
distinct from the two equivalent terms "preconception" and
"natural notion," and that this difference can be gleaned in part
from ch. 4 (cf. p. 45 n. 107 above).
218. 15-16. " ... bodily interpenetration with full coextension" {',6
n yixp awµ.oc 8Lix O'Wfl-Ot't'O<; x_eupEL'V oAov OA<p 1t0tpEX't'EL'V6µ.Evov ••. ) • A
clear illustration of how the theoretically rich notion in the verb
describing extension is simplified by the general verb of motion;
cf. 217. 9-10 for a similar juxtaposition.
218. 16. "fails to strike us" {<ou> 1tpo0"1t(1t't'EL). For 1tpo0"1tl1tnLv used
particularly of sense-presentations (q>0t'V't'0tal0tL) of states of affairs
196 DE MIXTIONE
being encountered see Epictetus II. 28. 8 and Marcus Aurelius

III. 2. This Stoic usage can be found in Alexander's discussion of
the relation between cpocvTocc;toc and action in the de Jato; e.g. 184. 3
or 186. 6-7. Cf. also Quaest. III. 12, ror. 12. I have only found the
usage earlier at Philo De Ebr. 47 (II. 208. 7-8 Cohn-Wendland)
apart from the doxographic definition of TO e:t8Lx6v as 1tpomt~1tTov
~a'Yl octc;6l)T6v (Aet. IV. 9. 13 = SVF II. 81); it is difficult therefore
to determine whether it is an early Stoic term. At any rate for
Alexander its association with cpocvTocc;toc could be taken for granted
and implicit in this sentence therefore is a continuation of the criti-
que of the Stoic employment of their doctrine of common notions,
for they, as we have seen (on 217. 2-13) are derived from cpocvTMLOCL.
The reference to preconception at 218. 17 (&Mix xoct ... ) shows that
Alexander saw that it was a stage beyond presentation although
he did not distinguish between it and the formation of common
notions; see preceding note.
218. 17-24. "It is, indeed, a natural notion ... " The general claim
is that if body cannot be received by body then it is received by
place, which is defined as "receptive of body" (c;wµoc-.oc; 8e:,mx6v,
218. 21). It might appear that Alexander is somehow endorsing
the interval theory of place, especially when he refers in 218. 23
to "empty interval" (xe:110-v 8ufo"t"Y)µoc). This cannot be so; this
theory is refuted by Aristotle at Phys. ~4 2IIb 18-212a 4 before
he establishes his theory that place is the limit of the surrounding
body, and we find the argument at 2IIb 19-25 repeated at Alex.
Quaest. III. 12. 106. 10-13 (anti-Epicurean in this context rather
than anti-Stoic as implied by SVF II 536). It is rather that the
logic of the present argument leads him to suggest that if a body
cannot go through a body then it must enter spaces or intervals
which in the opinion of some (8oxe:i: TLc;Lv, 218. 20) can be defined
as place qua receptacle. This then demands an analysis of what
possible receptacles could explain bodily interpenetration which
218. 24-219. 9 provides. Alexander is simply following a general
notion to its logical limits and can therefore introduce ideas required
by the argument rather than ones he, or for that matter his op-
ponents, would endorse. Thus while the Stoics defined place as
occupied interval (e.g. SVF II 503, 504) this is irrelevant to the
present argument since they could not have considered the pos-
sibility of bodily interpenetration through pores. It is probably
COMMENTARY 1 97
because the present text is so influenced by Aristotelian texts in

which Atomism was criticised (see next note), that Alexander is
led to introduce the Atomists' definition of place, and they are the
likeliest "some" referred to in 218. 20.
218. 17-18. " ... a natural notion that what is full can no longer
receive anything in itself" (cpucnx~ yixp ~vvoLoc To To 1tA~pe:i; µ-rixeT' ev
OCUTcj"> Mvoc(j00CL aexe:(j00CL TL). This very closely reflects Aristot. Phys.
~6 213b 6-7, which is part of an argument for the void which goes
on (213b 7-12) to claim that without the existence of the void two
solids will occupy the same place, and a fortiori a large body will
occupy the place of a small one. On the significance of this for the
cluster of arguments surrounding the notion of body going through
body, see above pp. 80, 87-88. The use of "receive" (aexe:(j0ocL)
reduces the relation of bodily interpenetration to a case of two
bodies simply being in the same place. Any hint of the dynamic
physics involved in the relation in the context of the theory of
pneuma is removed. Cf. also 218. 28; 219. 9, 30, 33; 220. 4, 5, II,
12, and de an. 20. 9-15 for a similar usage.
218. 21-24. "full of itself" (1tA~pe:i; ocuTou). Cf. de an. 20. IO, II; and
for the equivalent µe:(jTov ocu-rou, de an. 20. 9, IO and M ant. 139. 34-
35.
218. 24-219. 9. This is one of three sets of arguments in utramque
partem employed in the de mixtione; cf. chapters 7 and 8 in toto.
I have argued elsewhere (Philologus n6 [1972] 300-305) that 218.
33-219. 5 is an outgrowth of Aristotle's argument against the
"Empedoclean" theory of pores at de gen. et corr. AB. Cf. 326b 6-10
with 218. 33-219. 1, and 325b 5-9 with 219. 1-5. This seems con-
firmed by Philoponus on de gen. et corr. 326b 6-IO (178. 5-20) which
basically parallels 218. 24-219. 5. Cf. further pp. 78-79 above on
the background to these arguments and for further parallels. In the
article cited I have also discussed the extent to which this and
related texts could be directed against Strata of Lampsacus' theory
of interstitial pores. It may be this passage which led Plotinus to
say that those who believe in total blending give their opponents
the chance to suggest "exits of air" (&epwv e!;6aoui;) as an explana-
tion; see II. vii. r. 34 (cf. 20-21).
218. 3r. "the narrowest vessels (&yye:i:oc) of the body." Alexander
may have had in mind a case such as that described by Aristotle
DE MIXTIONE
at de gen. an. B4 738a ro-16 where nutriment blocks "very fine

blood-vessels" (Ae1t-ro-roc-roct ipAe~ec:;) and leads to a haemorrhage. For
&yyei:oc = ipAe~ec:; see Bekker, Index, 5a 22-24.
219. 3-9. Cf. 16. 234. 29-32 and see note on 16. 234. 23-32.
Chapter 6
219. 9-22. This argument is the corollary of 5. 218. 17-18. If a solid
cannot receive a solid in itself, then when compounded with one
an increase must occur. Alexander now proves this in detail in the
face of the possibility, presented by the notion of bodily inter-
penetration, that there is no such increase. The cases in which this
happens are then seen not to involve relations between bodies; see
220. 6-II.
219. II-12. "why any given body does not contribute to an in-
crease in the size of a similar body in all dimensions" (-r£ 8~1to-re ou
't'O 't'U"J..OV O'W(.LOC [-ro 't'U"J..OV] 7t0CV't"(l O'UVOCU~1J't'LX6v 't'OU OfLOLOU). This is the
general form of an argument we find particularly applied to the
theory that light is a body to yield the paradox that light should
increase the size of its medium: see Mant. 124. 13-14, 16-20, 123.
12-20 and cf. Ps.-Galen de qual. incorp. (XIX. 473 K = Westen-
berger, p. 9. ro-16); see also Mant. II6. 1-2 (with reference to the
thesis that the soul is a body), and II6. 13-15 (regarding corporeal
virtues).
The definition of body as a three-dimensional solid (here at 219.
16-17) on which the arguments of this chapter depend is assumed
in these other texts, and occasionally made explicit (cf. Nemes. de
nat. hom. 2. 71 Matth., and Plot. VI. 1. 26 [ = SVF II 315]). It was,
of course, standard: see Aristot. Top. 142b 25, Phys. 204b 20, and
de caelo 268a 2, 268b 14, and 298b 3 where body and magnitude
are equated; cf. also Aetius I. II. 1, Ar. Did. at Dox. Graec., 449. 6-
II, and the Stoic definitions at SVF II 357, and III, p. 259. 24-26
(Apollodorus). As we have argued (above, pp. 47-48) the Stoics
could accommodate this definition insofar as it applies to intra-
cosmic bodies; indeed, they must have, or else there would have
been no need to prove the extension of body through body by
analogy with actual phenomena, as in de mixt. 4; it would have had
actual exemplifications, as Alexander demanded (see note on
5. 218. II). An alternative Stoic definition of body was only neces-
COMMENTARY 1 99
sary, we have argued, for the relation between pneuma and matter,
and this was provided by appropriate characterisations in terms of
a qualitative physics.
219. 15. "they will necessarily have something beyond contact"

(e~ IXVOCj'X'f)c; e~OUO'L 't"L mxpoc TYJV cxcp~v). Beyond contact is continuity;
the two lines will therefore be continuous (cruve:xJc;). Cf. Aristot.
Phys. 231a 21-23. Plotinus (II. 7. I. 44-48) may have borrowed
and developed this text in this comparison of total blending to a
case where lines, instead of being in contact and causing an increase,
as here, would be superimposed on one another and produce no
increase (we; ocv ypocµµ~ ypocµµ?j ecpocpµocr0d'f), &crn oci,~'f)v µ~ y(ve:cr8ocL).
II. 7. I. 55-56, a few lines later, is almost certainly Alexandrian;
Theiler and Beutler rightly refer to de mixt. 16. 234. 7-8.
219. 19. "makes the compound both less somehow and equal. .. "
(e1-ocn6v 1to't"e: xoct foov TO e~ &.[i.cpoi:v 1tme:i:v). Less than and equal to
the constituents, that is. If A goes through B, and occupies its
place, then the compound AB is less than A + B, but equal to B
in this case, and to A if the process is reciprocated, and if we assume
A and B to be of different size. If they are of equal size, AB would
anyway be equal to A or B taken separately. Alexander develops
paradoxes of such reciprocal equalisation in ridiculing the Stoic
view that in total mixture a small body is blended with a large one;
see M ant. 140. 10-25, 141. 6-22. Particularly relevant to the present
passage is 140. 15-18.
219. 20-22. "for the subject ... is abolished along with its abolished
proprium." This applies the principle of "joint abolition" (cruvocvoc(-
pe:crLc;) : when something definitionally prior to something else is
abolished it leads to the accompanying abolition of that thing; see
Aristot. Top. 123a 14, 141b 28-29, and cf. Alex. Top. 127,
23-26 and 236. 20-21. The de Jato contains a number of uses of the
principle; e.g. 180. 3-4, 184. 20, 196. 3-7, 206. 30, 209. 8-9, 209. 30-
31, 211. 22-28.
219. 23. "which comes to be in some body." ylve:cr0ocL ev ("comes

to be in"), like 8exe:cr0ocL ("receive") (see on 218. 17-18), is a term
that eliminates the dynamic element involved in the Stoic account
of body extending through body by means of the tensional motion
(cf. p. 37 nn. 85, 86 above). It occurs also here at 219. 24, 27;
200 DE MIXTIONE
12. 227. 30; and at de an. 20. 14-15; cf. also Plut. de comm. not. 37.
1078B.
219. 24. "occupies no additional place ... " (µ'1)8ev0t 1tpocre:mA0tµ~ocve:w
rlAAov -.61tov). Cf. Simplic. Phys. 591. 21-22 for a similar expression
used of a body in motion. There is no parallel in Aristotle for this
or the EmAocµ~ocve:LV at 16. 234. 2I.
219. 22-28. Cf. Philop. de gen. et corr. 90. 17-20 for an identical
argument. At M ant. 141. 4-8 Alexander argues that if soul and body
occupy the same place, and soul is separated from body, then it
will either occupy void (xe:v6v) or always be in a body; the first
alternative implies that it has left a place empty.
219. 28-32. This argument seems to rest on a paradox expressed in
rather compressed terms. I think it can be rationalised as follows.
If A and B are totally blended then they occupy the same place;
but if, per impossibile, an increase occurs when they are so blended
then B cannot be in A's place but must occupy another place.
However by the definition of total blending it can only occupy A's
place. Therefore nothing (no body) occupies this other place. This
amounts to an elaborate way of saying that the total blending of
bodies is incompatible with their being aggregated into a larger
compound (cf. 219. 19-20). If that occurred then the increase in
size would not be evident; the body causing it would not be body.
219. 32-220. 3. This argument may be clarified by this diagram:
A A
B B B
d1 d2
If A is being blended with B and is received at d 1 and d 2 , then
insofar as B receives A it does not do so qua body. For a division
is not a body; cf. 8. 222. 3 for this point in a different context.
220. 3-11. This anticipates the argument in ch. 9 that the total
mixture of bodies is in fact explaining what must be seen as the
relation between form and matter; cf. 222. 35-223. 6. For the
example of the ash (220. 10) see Aristot. Phys. ~6 213b 21. Propo-
nents of the void argued that growth occurs as water sinks into ash
because it contains interstitial void, and it is impossible for two
COMMENTARY 201
bodies to be in the same place (213b 18-22). Simplic. ad lac. (Phys.

651. 4-7) uses the expression "body going through body," and it
is presumably because of the example's association with this topic
that Alexander finds it necessary to stress that what occurs here
is change and not the passage of body through body.
220. 12. "mutual replacement." Alexander considers mutual re-

placement (&.v-rme:plcr-rotcrL<;) as an alternative to bodily interpenetra-
tion also at Mant. 129. 1-2 and de sensu 29. 12-30. I. He is un-
doubtedly thinking of Aristotle's reference to it as an explanation
of the motion of projectiles at Phys. 0m 267a 15-20; on this see
Solmsen, Aristotle's System of the Physical World, pp. 136-137. The
Stoic alternative is not simple bodily interpenetration but the
motion of pneuma, the "tensional motion" (~ -rovLx~ xlv'Y)crL<;}; see
note on IO. 224. 23-27. Conceivably the term &.v-rmotpex-rotm<; ("ex-
tension-through"), which we have seen (pp. 37-38) describes
this motion in its most significant aspect, was formulated by
Chrysippus as a deliberate response to &.v-rme:plcr-rotcrL<;.
220. 13-23. This is a rather offhand treatment of the blending of

a small body with a larger one (cf. 217. 31-32), the central feature
of the argument in ch. 4. Except for this text Alexander offers no
justification for ignoring it and only discussing the general notion
of body going through body. At M ant. 140. 10-25 and 141. 9-25
there are more extensive arguments against the blending of unequal
volumes (see pp. 87-88 above). Cf. also Plot. II. 7. I. 49-56
(especially 53-55 with Mant. 141. 16-17), and IV. 7. 82 • 13-15. On
the relation between this aspect of blending and the theory of
pneuma, see pp. 37-38 above.
220. 17-18. "the fact that incense and bodies that are similarly in-
cinerated." This strictly empirical analysis of the example of heated
incense cited from the Stoic argument at ch. 4 (217. 15-17) tries to
establish its irrelevance as a foundation for the notion that a body
can preserve its qualities when extended. This is an ad hominem
point; several other illustrations of a less questionable nature were
provided in ch. 4 (217. 19-26), and only if Alexander showed that
the notion of a body in some way extending itself is inconceivable
under any conditions would the basis for the whole analogy drawn
in that argument be undermined.
202 DE MIXTIONE
220. 18. "over a considerable expanse" (e:1tl 1tAe'i:ov). Cf. e:1tl 1tA&ov at
220. 20, and e:1tl -roaou-rov at 4. 217. 30; see p. 31 n. 47 above.
220. 23. "association" (1tocpcx6emc;). For 1tocpoc-rl8ea6ocL in this sense
cf. Plato Phaedo 65e 8, and Plut. de comm. not. 1081C.
Chapter 7
220. 23-29. This reintroduces the notion, ridiculed in ch. 1 (213.
2-8), that constituents can be totally blended yet maintain their
original qualities, and be separated from the blend. It was later
repeated without critical comment in the definition of total blending
at 3. 216. 25-217. 2 (cf. 217. 9-12, 27-31); now Alexander returns to
it in the light of the tripartite classification of mixtures offered in
ch. 3 and shows that blending must in fact be one of its limiting
cases, juxtaposition (220. 37-221. 7), or fusion (221. 7-25). Only the
former ensures that constituents preserve their original character,
while only in the latter process are they totally mixed; yet juxta-
position is not total blending, and bodies cannot be separated from
a fusion as must be the case with constituents of a blend.
This sentence shows very clearly how the polemic against "body
going through body" is separate from that directed against total
blending, as defined in chs. 3 and 4. 220. 23-26 summarises the
successful critique in chs. 5 and 6, while 26-29 begins an attack on
the specific details of the theory of total blending. Again (cf. on
1. 213. 13) we see the use of "body going through body" as an
independent notion entailed by total blending rather than an
integral part of the theory. See also on 227. 2.
220. 37-221. 7. The earlier emphasis (cf. on 1. 213. 2-13) on the
preservation by constituents of their surfaces now pays dividends;
for when juxtaposition is defined as surface contact (216. 20), and
total blending is said to involve the preservation of surfaces (213. 5,
12), it necessarily follows that such blending is juxtaposition. If
the particular expression "preserving surfaces" were Stoic it is
strange that it is omitted in the formal exposition of the classifica-
tion of mixtures in ch. 3, and only used in these two polemical
contexts.
221. 7. " ... that mixture and blending are distinct" (&no qiocal
µ'i:~Lv xocl &">J.o xpiiaLV e!vocL). "Mixture" here is used where we would
expect "juxtaposition," and we can only assume that Alexander
COMMENTARY 203
has slipped into the usage we find in both Menon (Anon. Lond.
XIV. 20-23 Diels), and Philo (at SVF II, p. 153. 29). Elsewhere
(at 228. 27-28) i.r.i:~tc; is a generic term for Alexander; cf. p. 56 n. 142
above. This text probably refers back in particular to 3. 217. 7-13
where emphasis is laid on the difference in the Stoic theory between
blending and juxtaposition.
221. 7-20. This argument reduces total blending to fusion; for since
the constituents of a total blend have now been shown to be pre-
served only if they are juxtaposed (i.e. not blending) then they are
blended only if they are destroyed. Both Plutarch (de comm. not.
37. ro78B-C [cf. p. 69] and 40. ro80F-ro81A) and Ps.-Galen (de
qual. incorp. 471 K [pp. 7. 20-8. 7 Westenberger]), though with
much less explicit argumentation, regard the only form of total
blending beyond juxtaposition as fusion. They may have been
drawing on an argument, such as the present one, in which the
stages of this reduction were made clear.
221. 9-ro. "totally uniform" {1tocv oi.r.otoi.r.e:pec;). Alexander slips into

Aristotelian language (cf. 231. 15-16, 26-27) to emphasise that
blending is not juxtaposition. When he goes on to say that such a
homoiomerous compound will not be in juxtaposition but a total
blend {xpoc<nc; 8t' 15Awv) he has therefore already altered the sense of
"total" to mean a process that is complete and results in a unified
body, rather than, as the Stoics I believe held (see pp. 32-33
above), one which is total because one body pervades the whole
volume of another. Hence elsewhere Alexander could use 8t' 15Awv
i.r.lyvuo-8oct etc. to describe the completeness of a blend in Aristotelian
context: cf. de sensu 63. 23, 64. 15, 25, and similarly Galen de tempr.
I. 9, and passim.
221. 17. "then not even their States would be preserved." When
bodies are totally blended and fused they lose their "states" (~~e:tc;),
and the product of this blend is a unified body with a specific
"state" (i~ic;). Alexander's ad hominem point here rests on a standard
definition of i~tc; as that by which a body is held together, e.g.
SVF II, p. 124. 19-21. It is paradoxical, he is saying, for a body to
lose this in a blend, but necessary that a blend with a "state" be
indissoluble and its constituents inseparable.
The argument shows very clearly the effect of taking the tri-
partite classification of mixtures in ch. 3 as a description of the
204 DE MIXTIONE
behaviour of intracosmic bodies. If Alexander had taken account

of his own description of e~L~ at 217. 37-218. 1 he would have seen
that it itself was a constituent that extended through the bodies
held together by it, and that the theory of total blending was
designed to explain this relation and not that between bodies with
e~EL~, as the present argument assumes. 9. 222. 27 and 31-32 does
in fact argue against e~L~ in this capacity, but that critique is dis-
sociated from the present ad hominem argument-piecemeal critic-
ism being Alexander's method throughout-cf. on 220. 23-29
above, and on 6. 220. 13-23 and 220. 17-18.
221. 23-24. "we do see that in some cases they are separated." This
looks ahead to ch. 15, especially 231. 30-232. 31 where the sep-
arability of constituents is illustrated and made the basis on which
the nature of their presence in potentiality in a blend is explained.
Chapter 8
221. 25-28. This chapter is derived from Aristotle's claim (de gen.
et corr. Aro 328a 24, 328b 17) that only moist and easily divided
bodies (eu8uxtpe-rix) can be blended; cf. below 13. 228. 36 and 14. 231.
12-13. As a result, before bodies are fully blended they are juxta-
posed as corpuscles (328a 33-328b 2; cf. 14. 231. 13-14), and their
divisibility facilitates the blending in which a single unified body
is formed. Here this causal relation between bodily division and
blending is applied to the Stoic theory of total blending, and an
exhaustive survey is made of all possible types of division in order
to show that this theory is not satisfactorily explained by any of
them. The discussion assumes, as was argued in the second part of
ch. 7 (221. 7-25), that a total blend for the Stoics must be a unity,
much as it was for Aristotle (hence the significance of 221. 9; cf.
note ad lac.); for the whole chapter neglects the Stoic claim (216.
3-31) that the constituents are preserved in a blend, presumably on
the basis of the argument at 7. 220. 37-221. 7.
221. 26. "particularly in liquids" (ev 't"OL~ uypoL~ .•. µiALCJ't"IX). Cf.
de gen. et corr. Aro 328b 3, and 13. 230. 34-36 below.
221. 32-33. "thus blending would again occur by juxtaposition."
Cf. the earlier arguments leading to this conclusion at 7. 221. 5-6
and 5. 219. 1-3.
221. 34-222. 3. This idea that bodies can be divided into incor-
COMMENTARY 205
poreal divisions is part of an argument for indivisible bodies quoted

in de gen. et corr. A2 by Aristotle; see 316a 23-30 and 316b 12-14,
cf. note on 222. 22-26 below. "Division" (oLoclpemc;) seems to be a
more generic term than "point" (crnyµ~, 222. 25-26): cf. Aristot.
de an. 430b 20-21, Met. ro6ob 18-19. Its incorporeality is also
emphasised in Alexander's argument at 6. 219. 32-220. 3. On divi-
sion as an attribute (1t~6oc;) of body see Alex. Met. 230. 29-30. For
this notion of exhaustive division also note Plot. II. 7. r. 31-32,
and IV. 7. 8 2• 15-18 where division into points is mentioned and
contrasted with juxtaposition.
222. 4-13. The general reasoning of this passage I take as follows;

since bodies are totally blended insofar as they are divided, and
since the previous argument has shown that such division can
neither be limited nor exhaustive, then the only alternative is that
constituents be divided to infinity. This must involve division into
an actual infinite set of parts, since infinite division as an in-
completed process would not explain total blending (6-13). How-
ever once one admits that total blending can only be explained by
division into actual infinite sets (14-17), and says that these are
composed of bodies, various paradoxes ensue (17-22), which, given
that these bodies are not atoms, cannot be evaded by saying that
the infinite sets are composed of incorporeal entities which cannot
be the parts of a body (22-26).
222. 4-6 is thus a bald assertion that the one notion of infinite
division open to the Stoics is impossible. But why this notion? First,
division has to be complete (1t~v-rri [222. 5] "in all places" or "through
and through") if mixture is to be total (oL' oA<.uv). Secondly, it has
to be "in actuality" (evepydCf), since again the mixture has to be
complete and a division which was only potentially infinite could
not achieve this. By these criteria the division can therefore only
be "into actual infinite sets" (de; oc1teLpoc evepyelCf [cf. Plot. IV. 7. 8 2 •
18-20]); that is, since the division is complete, actual, and infinite
it must necessarily terminate in an actual infinite set of parts.
This is why I believe we should read OL'(lp~cr6ocL at 222. 5-6 which is
the perfect passive infinitive with a present sense-lit. "is in a state
of having been divided." This is the only conclusion to which the
Stoics can be led if they are to explain total blending in terms of
infinite division, given that there is a causal relation between
division and blending (221. 31-32).
206 DE MIXTIONE
There is an illuminating discussion of the broad distinction

between the process of infinite division and a complete division
into infinites (which, as 6-17 now shows, the Stoics are not allowed
to draw) at Simplic. Phys. 141. 16-142. 3.
222. 6-13, then, simply reemphasises that the concept of infinite
division applicable in this case must be that just described, and not
the alternative raised here-that division be an unterminated
process. This is, in an unrefined form, the theory held by both
Aristotle and the Stoics (see on 222. 7), but Alexander only reaches
it as an alternative to be excluded once it is established that only
an actual complete infinite division can explain total mixture. In
effect this argument is that at 221. 29-34, where it was said that
if there was any remainder to a division then bodies would be un-
mixed (221. 30-31 and 222. 13), placed in the context of infinite
division.
222. 7. "through the division never letting up ... " (Tei'> µ.'1)8e1to't"&
emA&L7t&Lv niv Toµ.~v). The Stoic and Aristotelian theories of infinite
division were very close, and 222. 6-8 expresses a general view
compatible with both. For the Stoics see for example SVF II 482.
The only difference was that for Aristotle (Phys. r6 passim) the
infinite was in potentiality, a concept not invoked by the Stoics
(see my discussion at Apeiron 7 [1973] 23 nn. 13, 14). If Alexander
were arguing explicitly against the Stoics at this point rather than
against one of the theoretically possible forms of infinite division
he would presumably reject it for this reason; this appears to happen
in some of the commentators' arguments against other theories of
infinite division (see on 222. 17-22 below).
222. 14-17. By reading 8LTip~o-6ocL (the present perfect) at 222. 15

(see note on the text) this sentence spells out the consequences of
infinite division which 222. 4-6 has implied that the Stoics would
have to accept if they wished to explain the totality of blending;
it also introduces the arguments (222. 17-22) which sustain the
earlier claim that this is impossible (cx8uvoc't"ov, 222. 4).
222. 17-26. For the broad alternative of infinite division into

magnitudes or non-magnitudes posed here, see also Simplic. Phys.
142. 3-15 (continuing the passage referred to on 222. 3-13 above,
and so suggesting that Alexander's critique here may have originated
COMMENTARY 207
in a similar discussion in his lost commentary on the Physics).

Cf. also Philop. de gen. et corr. 35. 13-36. 30.
222. 17-22. If the constituents are divided to infinity so that they
each have a set of actual infinite parts, then, by this argument, they
will each be infinitely large, since the sum of an infinite set of parts
with size is an infinite body; for they must be composed of the
things into which they are divided. The general principle that the
sum of an infinite number of bodies is an infinite body seems to
have been clearly formulated first by Eudemus (ap. Simplic. Phys.
459. 22-26) in commenting on Aristotle's theory of the infinite.
Certainly elsewhere (Phys. 492. 14-21) Simplicius makes it clear
that Aristotle's theory of the infinite as being in potentiality evaded
this paradox. For Epicurus (Ep. ad Hdt. 57) it was a reason for
positing minimal parts in the atom (see Furley, Two Studies, pp.
14-15), and is, I have argued, an influence on Chrysippus' theory
of infinite divisibility (see Apeiron 7 [1973] 21-29). It may also have
been a presupposition of Zeno's major argument against plurality
(DK frs. 1 and 2); see Vlastos, Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, VIII,
370-371. It occurs in a variety of contexts in Simplicius' com-
mentaries (Phys. 168. 34-169. 1, 172. 28-31, 459. 22-26, and de
caelo 608. 12-17 and 635. 16-17) but was also known to Alexander
(ap. Simplic. Phys. 173. 22-23 and Quaest. III. 12. 103. 34-36) and
Philoponus (see on 222. 21-22 below). Cf. also Sext. Emp. P.H.
III. 44·
As the present passage shows, this principle rests on the assump-
tion that there is a complete infinite set of parts existing in actuality.
This is required by the Stoic notion of total blending, but elsewhere
we find it imposed on the notion of an infinite number of atoms in
Epicureanism (Alex. Quaest. 103. 34-36) and on Anaxagoras'
theory of an infinite number of homoiomerous bodies (Simplic.
Phys. 172. 28-29). In none of these cases does the opponent assert
that an infinite set can be complete, and this principle seems to
refute their theories of the infinite only because they do not like
Aristotle allow for a potential infinite, and can therefore be assumed
to be positing an actual or complete infinite. The paradox thus
offends our intuitive conception of the infinite as incomplete, and
serves as a reductio of these doctrines. Further on the general logic
of this principle, see Vlastos, loc. cit.
222. 20-21. "if something must be composed of just the things into
208 DE MIXTIONE
which it is divided" (el ye di; & -reµve-roct -rL xoc1 auyxefo0ocL ocu-ro ex
-rou-rwv &vocyxociov). Cf. 222. 1-2, and 222. 24-25. This principle of
simple addition is thus applied to an infinite series just as it might
be to a finite series. Cf. Jackob Bernoulli (quoted by Vlastos,
Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, VIII, 371): "If ro members are
present [in an infinite progression] the roth necessarily exists, if
roo then necessarily the rooth, ... if therefore their number is
infinite then the infinitieth member must exist." So by the principle
that Alexander cites, a body is as large as its constitutive units;
if these are infinitely numerous, it is infinitely large.
222. 21-22. "and this would result in there being still further
additional infinites" (auµ~octvoL-ro <Ir> cx.v o{hw xoc1 7tAELw ocv dvocL
awµocToc &AA.oc !11teLpoc). If the sum of an actual infinite set of bodies is
an infinite body, why should there be further infinite bodies, when
the original set of which the first body is the sum is, by definition,
complete? For Alexander must mean not that these additional
infinite bodies will simply be further constituents in a blend, but
that they are the logical consequence of there being a single infinite
body.
A possible Aristotelian source is Phys. rs 204a 20-28 where it
is argued that an infinite body will be divided into infinites, so that
the same body will be many infinites-which is impossible (1toAA.a
8' !11teLpoc dvocL -ro ocu-ro &ouvoc-rov, 204a 25-26). The logic behind this
is not developed; Aristotle simply says that if air is part of air,
so infinite is part of infinite. As far as the present text goes, nothing
more profound may be implied. There are however arguments
against Anaxagoras by Simplicius (Phys. 172. 28-31) and Alexander
(ap. Simplic. Phys. 173. 20-27) that there will be additional infinites
(and indeed an infinite number) if each of the infinitely numerous
homoiomerous bodies is itself infinitely divisible. Thus a theory of
infinite divisibility is criticised because it entails both that a body
is infinitely large (as the sum of an infinite number of parts), and
that these can also be infinitely divided (ex hypothesi) to produce
further infinites, and eventually an infinite number of infinites.
This reasoning would be inappropriate to the present text with-
out attributing to the Stoics the theory of infinite division as an
unending process ruled out at 222. 6-13. For only this could serve
as the premise for the conclusion that there are additional infinites.
Yet if Alexander is not adding this further paradox because it was
COMMENTARY 209
conventionally attached to that of infinite body (perhaps by the

naive argument at Aristot. Phys. rs) he must be relying on such
logic. For in general this argument could only succeed if someone
made the contradictory assertions that (1) there is infinite division
of body, and (2) that body is divided into a complete infinite set.
(2) would entail that there was an infinite body, and (1) that there
were further infinites. No one ever made these assertions (though,
according to Vlastos, Encyl. Philos., VIII, 370-371 Zeno did, at
least tacitly), and so the arguments derived from them in the com-
mentators are an illicit imposition, and the major flaw is in the
critics' paradox itself. This is a limitation that can perhaps also
be found in Lucretius' argument at I. 615-622.
Elsewhere we find this argument used against the Epicureans
whose (alleged) belief in an infinite number of worlds each being
composed of an infinite number of atoms is said to entail that there
are an infinite number of infinites (chmpocxLi; ix1te:Lpcx), since sep-
arately each world is an infinitely large body: see Alex. Quaest.
III. 12. 104. 4-12 and cf. a related polemic of his ap. Philop. de gen.
et corr. 12. 9-10, 18-22 against the theory that each atomic shape
has an infinite number of instantiations. Also note Quaest. III. 12.
103. 12-34 where Alexander has a very general argument that if
there are numerous infinites then one infinite must be greater
than another.
In view of the use of these arguments by Alexander and Simpli-
cius from an Aristotelian standpoint, it is interesting to see Philo-
ponus' rather crude attempts to turn them back on Aristotle by
claiming, without any justification, that the infinite cannot be in
potentiality, but must be actualised. So, in the context of a universe
that has existed from infinite time-a notion Philoponus is con-
cerned to deny by these polemics-it will follow that any infinite
series that is actualised at a given point in time will be exceeded as
that series continues; there could therefore be up to an infinite
times infinite number of human beings created (Phys. 428. 25-429.
20). For other examples see S. Sambursky in Islamic Philosophy
and the Classical Tradition, pp. 351-353, who seems unaware of their
long history in the exegetical tradition.
222. 22-26. This returns to the earlier argument (221. 34-223. 3)

that an exhaustive division will terminate in incorporeal divisions.
The reference to points connects it closely with de gen. et corr. A2
14
210 DE MIXTIONE
316a 30-34 (cf. Simplic. Phys. 142. 6-rn), as probably does the
reference to indivisible bodies (222. 23-24); for the whole argument
quoted at de gen. et corr. A2 316a 14-316b 14 is designed to dem-
onstrate the necessity of such bodies (see Furley, Two Studies,
pp. 90-94).
Chapter 9
222. 27-28. "State ... Nature ... soul." On this triad see p. 41
with n. 94 above. Cf. its description at 4. 217. 33-218. 1, the text
against which the first part of this chapter (26-35) is directed in
the light of the general principle that constituents are separable
from a blend (cf. I. 213. 7-8; 3. 216. 32-217. 2; 7. 220. 34ff.).
222. 31-32. "But no State is separable from what has it." Cf.
Dexippus Cat. 50. 31-32 (= SVF II 46!) for the same point. In
Alexander's case it may simply reflect de gen. et corr. Arn 327b 16-
17: "nor in general are qualities and states capable of being mixed
with things" (ou8' /S)..wc; -rix 1toc0'YJ xoct -rixc; l~etc; o!6v -re µeµ'i:x6oct -ro'i:c;
1tp&.yµoccnv).
222. 32. "capable of independent existence" (xoc6' ott>'TTjV dvocL
8uvoca6oct). Here used synonymously with xoc-r' t8locv U'f'E<r't'a.voct (222.
29), just as 13. 228. 18 (xoc6' ocu-rix dvocL Mvoca0oct) is with 228. 14-15
(xoc6' ocu-rix U'f'EO"-ra.vocL). This shows clearly the sense in which U'f'EO"-ra.voct
refers to the being of substances. Cf. on 4. 217. 33-34.
222. 35. "enmattered form" (!vu)..ov d8oc;). This expression is
widely used by Alexander to characterise form in its individuating
aspect. Cf. de an. 16. 2 where soul is described as here; also Met.
373. 22-24. (On form, on the other hand, as universal, and hence
immaterial [&.U)..oc;] see de an. 87. 5-23, where this universality is
grounded in the activity of the intellect; cf. J. Owens, Amer. Philos.
Quart. 3 [1966] 167-169, who discusses this topic in Aristotle).
Enmattered form complements Alexander's notion of matter as a
common factor shared by all individual bodies: see on IO. 223. 30-
34, and cf. Quaest. II. 28. 78. 1-3. There are useful discussions of it
by C. Baeumker, Problem der Materie, pp. 296-297, and by P.
Merlan, Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness, pp. 16-17.
222. 36-223. 6. This is a theoretical analysis of the illustration of
fire totally pervading iron at 4. 218. 1-2, complementing the strictly
empirical analysis at 12. 227. 13-228. 4. It applies the concepts of
COMMENTARY 2II
form and matter to the proof for total blending that in ch. 4 im-
mediately succeeds those discussed in the same terms in the first
part of the present chapter (26-35).
The train of thought in this passage is slightly difficult to follow.
After saying that fire is not mixed with bodies, Alexander states
that in general matter is not mixed with form (cf. also 13. 228. 21-
22). Now the relation of fire to iron is not that of form to matter
but of quality to body, and for that reason cannot be mixed with it
as 6. 220. 8-9 shows. 223. 2-3 is then rather perplexing. Fire is said
to have matter in the sense that bodies that are burnt are its
matter, but what does the further claim &.tJ...' ~ µ.ev oc,:p8cxpToc;;, ~ 8' ou
("the one is indestructible, the other not") mean? It must, I think,
refer to two kinds of matter, both matter in general and the matter
of fire just described to us. Alexander must then be saying that
matter in its relation to form cannot be destroyed except where,
as when being burnt, it is a material body. That is, he is drawing the
simple "classical" distinction between primary and proximate
matter, which we find more explicitly established elsewhere; see
de an. 2. 25-7. 8, and cf. especially the distinction between~ xup[euc;;
UAY) (matter in the strict sense) and ~ 1tpoo-ex.~c;; UAY) (proximate
matter) at de an. 4. 22-27. 223. 3-6 then simply describes how such
proximate matter is destroyed and eventually loses its form, sup-
porting 223. 1-3. If this happens fire cannot be mixed with a body;
it can simply destroy proximate matter, without affecting the
fundamental metaphysical relation between matter (qua primary
matter) and form.
223. 6. " ... and expelled from their own form" (Tou otxdou d8ouc;;
e~LO'TIXTIXL). Cf. Alex. Quaest. 53. 5. This is probably derived from
expressions such as e~to-Tcxo-8cxL ex -njc;; ,:puo-eeuc;; (e.g. Aristot. Phys.
07 261a 20) or -njc;; ouo-[ixc;; (Top. 145a 4, IO), though it has no precise
Aristotelian parallel. For a general survey of such language in
Aristotle see G. Else, Aristotle's Poetics-The Argument, p. 496 n. 30.
Chapters IO and II. The discussion of the Stoic doctrines of pneuma
and God in these chapters seems to constitute a digression from
the main object of the work, the search for a theory of blending
that accords with our natural intuitions (2. 215. 30-32). It is not
clearly justified until the beginning of chapter 12 (226. 34-227. 1)
where Alexander says that it was provoked by denials of Aristotle's
doctrine of aether, the substance of the heavenly bodies, which is
212 DE MIXTIONE
referred to at 223. 10-14 and 223. 33 as an alternative to pneuma,

and at 225. 9-10 and 225. 30-34 in relation to the Stoic theory of
God; see further on 223. 6-14 below. Alexander then (227. 2-10)
attempts to integrate these two chapters with the critique of
"body going through body" by saying that the Stoic doctrines of
soul, fate, providence, the principles {ix.pxcxt), God, and the whole
concept of the unification and sympathy of the universe are depen-
dent on this single notion; for all these doctrines, he claims, are
simply cases of God going through matter. This enlarges the two
very brief arguments that both the theories of pneuma and God
are cases of body going through body at IO. 223. 18 and II. 225.
4-5. This is a revealing explanation; for if these central Stoic
doctrines are indeed dependent on the notion of body going through
body, and this notion is at the core of the theory of total blending,
as ch. 5 suggests, and as 12. 227. 4-5 states, then total blending, as
we have argued (at pp. 34-49), must be the foundation of the
theory of pneuma and its associated doctrines (sympathy, fate,
providence, etc.). That is, Alexander here allows, at least implicitly,
that the Stoic argument presented in ch. 4 shows the theory of
pneuma to be dependent on the notion of total blending, a point
rather obscured in that text (cf. on 4. 217. 33 and see also on 12.
227. 9-10); he does not however actually criticise the structure of
that argument, but only the notion of blending itself, either as a
case of body going through body {chs. 5, 6, and 12) or as total
blending (chs. 7-9).
Chapter ro
223. 6-14. The critical contrast drawn here between the motion
of pneuma (or God) through matter and the action of the fifth body
on the sublunar elements is repeated with variations at 223. 30-34
below, at II. 225. 18-226. IO (cf. esp. 225. 30-34) and summed up
at 12. 226. 34-227. I, where Alexander tries to justify the whole
argument of chs. ro and II as an attempt to ward off a Stoic chal-
lenge to the doctrine of the fifth body.
Now the general conception of the heavenly bodies as preserving
a process of continuous coming-to-be (yeve<rn;) in the sublunar
world, as a result of their continuous motion, is an orthodox Aris-
totelian doctrine: see especially de gen. et corr. Bro. For a descrip-
tion of the general doctrine of the relation between the heavenly
bodies and the interchange of the four elements, see A. L. Peck,
COMMENTARY 213
Aristotle: Generation of Animals (Loeb ed.), App. A, and H. Happ,

Hyle, pp. 503-512.
Alexander we know elaborated this predominantly physical
theory into a doctrine of providence in a special treatise, the Ilept
Ilpovolixi:; (De Providentia), almost certainly as a response to the
Stoic theory of "total" providence, where a material deity totally
pervades the universe. Our main sources are unfortunately very
disparate: three texts in the Quaestiones-1. 25, II. 21, II. 3 (on
this see Moraux, Hermes 95 [1967] 159-169)-which in the case of
the latter two deal with problems in the theory of providence rather
than systematically expound the doctrine; some six short dogmatic
quotations in Cyril of Alexandria's Adversus ]ulianum (PG 76,
596B, 621C, 625C, 628D-629A, 704B, 741AB), translated and
briefly discussed by R. M. Grant, ]TS 15 (1964) 265-269; and an
Arabic text (see A. Dietrich, Nachr. Gott. Akad. [1964] 97-98 on the
manuscripts) discussed and paraphrased (being too fragmentary to
be translated) by P. Thillet, Actes du Premier Congres International
de Philosophie Medievale (1960) 313-324; there is a briefer summary
of a different ms. by S. Pines at Archives d' histoire doctrinale et
litteraire du moyen age 34 (1959) 295-299. P. Moraux has given two
general accounts of the doctrine, largely on the basis of the texts
from the Quaestiones at Alexandre d'Aphrodise, App. II, and, more
briefly, at D'Aristote a Bessarion, pp. 58-64. See also H. Happ,
Antike und Abendland 14 (1968) 82-83, who comments on the
Arabic text and sets the doctrine in historical perspective.
Briefly, Alexander held that the providential influence of the
heavenly bodies extended into the sublunar world, but not to the
level of the individual, as the Stoics believed (cf. 226. 24-30), but
only to the level of the infimae species; the heavenly bodies them-
selves were not in need of providence. This excluded an earlier
Peripatetic theory (see e.g. Diog. Laert. V. 32, and cf. Festugiere,
L'ideal religieux, Excursus C) which held that God's providence
had only extended to these bodies (cf. Moraux, Rev. Phil. de
Louvain 47 (1949) 33-34).
An attempt to reconstruct the de providentia would be most
welcome. Here I shall only try to show that at several places in
de mixt. ro and II we can detect traces of Alexander's theory of
providence, and that these previously neglected texts should be
taken into account in future work. They are certainly the best
evidence in Greek of Alexander's thoughts on providence in the
214 DE MIXTIONE
light of the alternative Stoic doctrine; see further notes to 223. 30-
34, and 11. 224. 30-32, 225. 18-226. IO, 226. 24-30, 226. 30-34. En
route I shall also try to indicate the significance of the de mundo
for Alexander's conception of providence. He seems to have known
this work, and probably regarded it as authentic-see Moraux,
Hermes 95 (1967) 160 n. 2.
223. 7-9. "that the whole of substance is unified by a pneuma ... "
cf. 3. 216. 14-17. A genuinely historical critique of pneuma's rela-
tion to matter would perhaps deal with the sense in which it creates
a unified substance "in which" bodies can be mixed together (see
3. 216. 17), instead of simply comparing it with the fifth body.
223. 10-14. The broad duality established here between the fifth
body and matter seems to reflect the doxographic presentation of
Aristotelian principles (cx.pzixl). Cf. Aet. I. 3. 22, Epiphanus (Dox.
Graec., p. 592. 10-14), and Hermias (Dox. Graec., p. 653. 31); in
the latter the aether and the four elements are contrasted, in Stoic
terms, as active and passive principles. See also Sext. Emp. P.H.
III. 31 and A .M. X. 316 where the four elements and the xuxAocpop"Y)-
TLxov o-wµix (circular-moving body) are described as principles.
Although Alexander was aware of the more orthodox descriptions
of the relation of the heavenly bodies to the four elements (see 11.
225. 30-35 with note) he might find it convenient in a popular
treatise such as the de mixtione to present Aristotelian doctrine
in these simplified terms, particularly in order to point up a contrast
with the Stoics (see on 223. 11-12). Cf. his use of the sculptor-
statue example at defato 3 to illustrate the four causes; although
misleading as an exposition of Aristotle (see R. Sprague, The
Monist 52 [1968] 298-300) it was a convenient illustrative device
in an admittedly pedagogical work. Probably drawn from some
doxographical source (cf. Sen. Ep. 65. 2-10, Clem. Alex. Strom.
VIII. 9 [ = Stahlin-Freuchtel, III, p. 98. 3-5]), it no more rep-
resented his considered analysis of Aristotle's text than the present
description.
223. 11-12. "by surrounding the whole enmattered, affectable and

alterable substance ... " This almost parrots the description of
pneuma's action. "Affectable" and "alterable" (1tix6-YjT6c;, µe:Tix~A"YJ-
Toc;) are indeed elsewhere applied to matter qua passive principle
in accounts of Stoic doctrine: see SVF II, pp. 158. 21, 115. 7,
COMMENTARY 2r5
II6. 2r. ~vu)..oc; ("enmattered") is an authentically Peripatetic term

most frequently applied to form (see note on 9. 222. 35), but also
used, as in this text, in a general characterisation of the sub-lunar
world atQuaest. I. 25. 4r. ro-II. Cf. also Met. 223. 5 where Alexan-
der describes matter as 1tix8YJTfi and Aet. Plac. II. 4. r2 where
Aristotle is said to have regarded the sublunar world as 1t1X8YJ-r6v.
Note also the Stoicising language at de mundo 2 392a 34 where
sublunar matter is termed 8t' 61,.wv 1t1X8YJTfi -re: xixl -rpe:1tTfi.
223. r3-r4- "holds together and preserves the whole ... by causing
in a fixed order the interchange of bodies" (µe:-rix~oM:c; ev wpto-µev-n
't'OC~e:L 7tOLouµevY) cruvexe:L )(IXL O"fu~E:L 't'O 7t0CV). For 't'OC~Lc; wptcrµevY) used in
a description of seasonal order caused by the heavenly bodies see
Quaest. 89. 9. Cf. a more general use at de Jato r68. 3-5 where things
that have nature as the cause of their coming-to-be are said to
achieve their end XIX't'IX 't'LVIXc; cx.pt8µouc; XIXL 't'OC~LV wptcrµeVYJV. cruvexe:L
seems to parrot cruvexe:-rixL (223. 8) in the description of pneuma's
action on matter; such assimilation could have been encouraged by
the Stoic expression cruve:x-rLXY) ixMix at de mundo 6 397b 9.
For the providential import of crfu~e:L here see note on II. 224.
30-32.
223. r6. "to certain bonds" {8e:crµo'i:c; -rtcrt); see 223. 34 below. Philo
(at SVF I ro6, p. 30. 35) uses the term "bond" to describe the
tension of pneuma, and one must assume that it was a technical
term for the Stoics.
223. r9-27. This very literal-minded argument takes pneuma in its
basic sense of "breath" and points out that, as such, it cannot be
actually present in every body; how then can it unify the universe
(-ro 1tiiv, lit. "the all")? I have translated the word "pneuma" in
inverted commas where it is used in the literal sense to clarify the
argument. For a closely related critique of the soul as air see Mant.
II5- r6-20.
223. 27-30. "for some bodies are continuous, others discrete." This
is another common-sense argument which could be provoked by
a literal reading of the distinction Stoics drew between total
blending and juxtaposition, or between unified bodies and those
composed of divided parts (see above, p. 69 n. r89). It is included
with other arguments against the notion that pneuma holds the
cosmos together by Alex. ap. Simplic. de caelo 286. r5-2r (not in
216 DE MIXTIONE
SVF). In the present chapter it is complemented by the arguments

at 224. 6-14 below. For a general argument against pneuma's
capacity to hold the cosmos together, see Alex. ap. Simplic. Phys.
671. 8-12 (SVF II 552).
The Stoic answer to this literal-minded critique would presumably
be that the unity caused by pneuma's motion through matter is
not reflected directly in phenomena, any more than that motion
itself which, as the argument in ch. 4 shows (see pp. 40-43 above),
has to be demonstrated analogically. Such a position is implied by
the general doctrine of pneuma, though we have to turn to later
authors for a clear statement of it-e.g. Marcus Aurelius IV. 40,
VI. 25, XII. 30.
223. 30-34. Alexander divides pneuma's effects into two classes:

(1) the internal unification and containment of a body, and (2)
its sympathy with other bodies. (1) he says can be better explained
by form (cf. Mant. 115. 9-10 where pneuma's "tension" is compared
to form), and (2) by matter, in which all bodies share, and by the
action of the heavenly body. He does not attribute any independent
significance to matter in the Stoic theory, although the passive
elements are the complementary physical field of pneuma's motion
(cf. p. 35 above). This contrasts somewhat with the arguments at
6. 220. 6-11 and ch. 9 passim where the two elements in a blend
(e.g. soul and body) were compared with form and matter. Some of
the arguments in ch. 11 show why Alexander would have difficulty
in acknowledging that matter was independently significant in
Stoic physics-see on 225. 5-18 and 226. 10-16. Several modern
scholars, it should be noted, regard the Stoic principles as a ma-
terialistic version of the form-matter distinction: see Christensen,
Essay on the Unity of Stoic Philosophy, p. 12; Hunt, Apeiron 1
(1967) 9; and Furley, BICS 13 (1966) 32. This view is closer to
Alexander's in ch. 9 than here or at 11. 224. 27-32.
By otxr::Lov d8oc; ("its own form") Alexander must mean lvuAov
d8oc; ("enmattered form," cf. on 9. 222. 35), where form individuates
matter. For matter as that in which bodies share (xotvwvr::Lv) see on
3. 216. 1-4. Alexander does not elsewhere describe matter as causing
sympathy between bodies; cf. however, Philop. de gen. et corr. 41.
25-26 who says that if atoms exist "continuity and sympathy
[presumably in matter] will be destroyed" (~ auvex.i::ux xa.1 ~ o-uµ.1toc-
8i::toc ocvoctpi::8~0-1::Toct). Like much else in this commentary (see ch. 16,
COMMENTARY 217
introductory note) this could be Alexandrian. Neither, as far as we

know, does Alexander use such language elsewhere to describe the
effect of the heavenly bodies on the sublunar world. We know that
for Alexander (see note on 223. 6-14) these bodies influenced
individual form, insofar as they ensured the preservation of the
species, and unless this can be thought of as creating sympathy,
we should not assume that Alexander used the Stoic term in his
own doctrine of providence. Still the contrast between its Stoic
sense here, and its sense in the Peripatetic theory described at Diog.
Laert. V. 32 remains notable. There terrestial bodies are said to be
governed "by their sympathy with the [heavenly bodies]" {xoc-roc 'TTJV
1tpoi:; -rocu-roc (j\)µ1toc6r::tocv). Conceivably Alexander could have revised
this relational sense of sympathy to establish a concept of a sym-
pathetic interrelation between bodies caused by the aether.
Whether or not Philoponus' description of a sympathy between
natural bodies (the elements) in blending (Phys. n3. 8-9) is to be
connected with this text is unclear. Alexander certainly does not
connect blending with sympathy in the later discussion in chs. 13
and 14 except perhaps by a very general implication at 14. 231. 3
(see note ad loc.).
223. 34-36. "the tension of pneuma" (o -r6voi:; -rou 1tvr::oµoc-roi:;} is in
itself an ambiguous expression. It may mean pneuma's own internal
principle of coherency (the 1tVr::uµoc-rtxoi:; -.6voi:;: see SVF II 447),
or it may refer to the tension which pneuma transmits to other
bodies (see e.g. SVF II 444). In its former aspect it is criticised at
Mant. 114. 28-29 (cf. Galen at SVF II, p. 144. 37-39) in its role as
soul for being a "self cohering" agent {ocu-ro (11.)vexov}, regarded as an
absurd notion since whatever "binds together" has itself to be
"bound together" and so on ad infinitum. In this chapter no atten-
tion is paid to this aspect of pneuma, and in this text Alexander is
only thinking of the tension transmitted to bodies internally {1tpoi:;
-roc oExr::i:oc µep'1)) and in their relation to other bodies, i.e. in their
universal sympathy.
223. 36. "pneuma is forced by something" (~toc~6µr::vov ... u1t6 -rwoi:;
-ro 1tVr::uµoc}. This is a Peripatetic rationalisation of pneuma's motion.
Pneuma, like any body, must be either self-moving or moved by
something else (see Aristot. Phys. 04). For the Stoics it was by
definition self-moving, but since this would be unintelligible to a
Peripatetic a speculative version of the second alternative had to
218 DE MIXTIONE
be provided. Cf. the comparison between pneuma and aether at

Ar. Did. fr. 28 (SVF II 471, p. 152. 33-35-quoted at p. 52 above).
Also cf. 224. 2 ("through motion in a mass it acquires strength"
[{mo TYjc; oc8p6occ; XLV~O'E(l)c; to-xuv 't'LVOC Aocµ~ixveL]) with Aristot. Meteor.
367a 30-31 where wind is said to make earthquakes more severe
when moving in a mass (oc8po(l)c; <pepoµevov). The terms "moist" and
"easily-divisible" (224. 3) recall the qualities that Aristotle claimed
necessary for the constituents of a blend: cf. note on 8. 221. 25-28.
They are not essential to the Stoic theory.
224. 5-6. "something void and of an intangible nature." This

speculation would offend the basic conception of pneuma as an
inherently active force; it was presumably forwarded by opponents
of the Stoics.
224. 6-14a. There are, I think, three separate points here, developing
the argument at 223. 27-30. (1) (6-9) Pneuma, by definition,
causes the stability of bodies (cruµµeveLV, cf. 223. 8, 216. 16), but
as a matter of fact some collapse and therefore cannot be held
together by it. (2) (9-n) Unified bodies are in fact divided, but
this would be impossible if they were all similarly unified. (3) (n-14)
If all bodies are similarly unified, then it would be impossible to
distinguish those that are, in fact, divisible (juxtaposed bodies)
from those that are not. Conceivably (3) was derived from the Stoic
distinction between juxtaposed bodies formed e:x 8Leo--rw-r(l)v, and
~v(l)µevoc (see pp. 69-70 above), but could have been arrived at
simply on general grounds. Like 223. 27-30 this whole argument
criticises pneuma in the same general common-sense manner as the
arguments against body going through body in chs. 5 and 6.
224. 14a-22. If the Stoics asserted (a) that pneuma is composed of

fire and air, and (b) that fire and air are created by pneuma, they
would fall victim to this argument. Where, I think, Alexander's
argument breaks down is that, for the Stoics, the elements referred
to in each case differ. That is, the active elements in (a) in virtue of
which pneuma acts on the passive elements (see above on 4. 218.
2-6) cannot be the same as the four elements generated in this
action and from which the cosmos is formed. Such a distinction is
not explicitly drawn in our texts, but is implied by the general
distinctions between principles and elements drawn at SVF II 299,
408. If pneuma is the active principle, its qualities cannot be those
COMMENTARY 219
of the elements evolving from fire and engaged in cosmogony

(cf. SVF II 413). Only by neglecting this distinction does it become
reasonable to ask-as Alexander does-how pneuma can be a
compound formed from two elements, while at the same time
functioning as the force that generates these same elements.
This is a special case of a wider range of arguments against the
whole relation of God to matter in ch. II (see note on II. 225. 5-18
below) where this problem of a principle's apparent dependency
on the matter supposedly dependent on it is further exploited.
Cf. also Alex. de an. 19. 21-30 for an argument that if the soul is
a single element generated from other elements it is not uncom-
pounded. Possible Aristotelian sources are Metaph. Arn 1075b 1-6
and de gen. et corr. Ar 315a 19-25. Cf. also Plot. II. 9. 5. 21 on the
dependency of soul on its constituent elements.
224. 22-23. If pneuma is a compound of Fire and Air, and these
constituents are present in actuality (as they would be in a Stoic
total blend), then Hot and Cold are actually present together. A
possible Aristotelian source for this argument is de gen. et corr. B5
332a 12-17 where it is argued that if Air is directly produced from
Fire, then it would have to be both hot and cold; hence they must
share in a common matter. Also cf. Alex. de an. 19. 34-36 where the
impossibility of coexistent opposites in a blend is said to show that
one could not come to be from any of the others. In Stoic physics
it would seem that the property of being active which Hot and
Cold share outweighs their contrariety, and so makes it plausible
that they be compounded.
224. 23-27. There is a more extensive critique of the concept of
pneuma's motion at Mant. 131. 5-22 in a discussion of the extension
of the air in perception (cruvenCio-Lc;); see my article on this concept,
Grazer Beitriige II (1974) 251-261. Here the thrust of the argument
seems to be that it is not one of the five regular motions, nor,
Alexander might have added, a case of mutual-replacement, which at
6. 220. II-13 he stressed was ruled out by body going through body.
Chapter II
224. 27. "as I said." I.e. at 10. 223. 30-34.
224. 30-32. "and in that these things are preserved and stable, as
they are, [they seem] to attribute the preservation, being, and
220 DE MIXTIONE
stability of each of them (-r6 -re: e:!v1u exoccr-rou xocl. -ro crw~e:cr6oct -re: xixl.
cruµµeve:Lv) to a pneuma which allegedly pervades everything."
The language used here to describe individual identity is Alexander's
own. Although cruµµeve:Lv ("stability") perhaps has a technical sense
for the Stoics (see on 216. 15-16) Alexander uses it himself (at de
an. 15. 21, 21. 20) to describe individual substantiality (Aristot.
Met. M2 1077a 24 is only loosely comparable). For the combination
of crw~e:cr0ocL and e:!vocL ("stability" and "being") see de an. 75. 31,
and for crw~e:cr0ocL and cruµµevm Alex. ap. Simplic. de caelo 83. 30-32.
The notion of preservation strongly suggests the idea of providence,
and its usage here may be intended to reflect such texts as de mundo
(genuine for Alexander) 399b 9-n or 400a 4 where God is said to
cause the preservation (cr(J)niptoc) of the universe. See the fragment
of Alexander's de providentia at Cyril Adv. Jul. (PG 76 625c) where
divine providence is said to be responsible for the preservation and
coming-to-be (cr(J)nip[oc and yeve:crL,:;) of terrestial bodies, and their
eternal continuation in form (xoc-r' e:!80,:; &.(8Lov 8Locµov~v). Preserva-
tion and stability are elsewhere connected in contexts where some
form of providential control of the universe is being described: see
Ps.-Ocell., p. 13. II, 16 Harder; Cleomedes I. 3, p. 28. 20 Ziegler;
Clem. Alex. Strom. VII. rr. 12-13; and cf. Alex. Meteor. 6. 15-17
where the heavenly bodies are said to be the cause of the universe's
being and eternal stability (-rou -re: e:!vocL xixl. nji:; ocL8tou 8Locµov'Yji:;).
The present text would therefore seem to continue the pre-
occupation with the issue of the providentially guaranteed status
of bodies clearly raised in the earlier comments on matter and form
as alternatives to pneuma at ro. 223. 30-34; cf. also on 16. 235. 12-
14.
224. 33. "reasonably." This because the Stoic doctrine of active
and passive principles, God and matter, described here at 224. 33-
225. 3, precisely embodies the error expressed in Aristotelian terms
in the preceding sentence (224. 27-32). Two of the subsequent
arguments in this chapter (226. ro-24) take up the critique of God's
relation to matter in its terms.
224. 34. "two universal principles matter and God" (-ro Mo ocpxcx.i:;
-r&v 1tocv-r(J)v . . . e:!vocL UA'1)V -re: xocl. 0e:6v). For similar testimonia see
SVF II 300, 301, 304, and cf. p. 35 nn. 65-67 above. For a recent
discussion of the whole doctrine of principles which argues that it
originates in the physical theory of the early Academy, see H.- J.
COMMENTARY 221
Kramer, Platonismus und Hellenistische Philosophie, pp. 108-130.

Although all the arguments of this chapter are directed against
various aspects of this theory of principles it is not criticised directly
until the very end, at 226. 30-33b (+ 227. 23-25).
225. 3. "intelligent pneuma" (1tve:uµoc voe:pov). Cf. SVF II, p. n3. 17
and II, p. 146. 17-18 for similar expressions. This identification is
particularly important for the argument at 225. 5-18 where the
relation between God and matter qua four elements is discussed;
it justifies treating God's relation to matter as problematic in just
the same way as pneuma's relation to the elements in the argument
at IO. 224. 14-22.
225. 5-18. Gibbon (Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. 2)
remarked that "as it was impossible for [the Stoics] to conceive the
creation of matter, the workman in the Stoic philosophy was not
sufficiently distinguished from the work." He was echoing the
criticism of several Christian fathers-see H. Wolfson, in The
Classical Tradition, Studies in Honour of H. Caplan, pp. 409-410,
and Philosophy of the Church Fathers, I, 87-88. Alexander's criticisms
in these terms probably spring more directly from the Platonist
tradition in which God is said to be identical with matter, often
as either one of the elements or a compound (see Plut. de comm. not.
ro85B [ = SVF II 313]; Albin. Didask ro.8; Sext. Emp. A.M. IX.
r8o-r8r; with reference to the theory of soul as pneuma, Alex.
Mant. n5. 6-9, Top. 173. 14-16; cf. Ps.-Galen de qual. incorp.
XIX. 478-479 K [ = SVF II 323a]; and for Plotinus see Graeser,
Plotinus and the Stoics, p. 37). An ancestor of this may be Aristotle's
critique of Empedocles' four elements (de gen. et corr. Ar 315a 19-
25), or of the theory of soul as harmony (de an. 408a 18-28, cf.
Phaedo 93a 6-7) where an epiphenomenon is claimed to be identical
with its formative parts; cf. also Plotinus II. 9. 5. 19-23.
This argument could be applied to the Stoics for two reasons.
First critics found it difficult to grasp the general relation between
the active and passive principles, where matter was qualityless
and passive before an entirely active principle, yet neither was
distinguishable except in theory. It was all too easy to argue, as
did Sextus Empiricus (A.M. IX. 240) that these were two names
for the same thing, or that God was identical with matter (as here),
or that matter was not qualityless and independent (as below at
226. ro-r6; cf. Plut. de comm. not. ro85B).
222 DE MIXTIONE
Secondly the relation between the four elements and the two
principles was not always clear. In the doxography, for example,
they are listed in parallel (Aet. I. 3. 25), and Sextus Empiricus
(P.H. III. 31) merely lists the elements as principles and dismisses
"the mysterious qualityless matter." Though elsewhere the elements
are said to be generated from matter when it is acted on (e.g. Sext.
Emp. A.M. X. 312 [ = SVF II 309], cf. SVF II 316) it would be
easy to confuse matter itself with the elements (as Alexander does)
and to argue that God is simply composed of them. This problem
would be compounded by the doctrine of pneuma in which a distinc-
tion was drawn between active and passive elements. In the note
on IO. 224. 14-22 we argue that these were not the elements gen-
erated from matter and serving as constituents in the cosmogony.
But it would be easy and natural for a critic to take the elements in
only one sense, and thus see pneuma as composed of matter like
any other compound.
Our text is the product of both kinds of misunderstanding.
At 225. 5-10 God's relation to the elements is seen much as pneuma's
at 224. 14-22 (cf. 225. 6-8 for the comparison with pneuma). At
225. u-17 the general relation between God and matter is criticised
(as later at 226. 10-16) as it is conveyed by the description of the
principles at 224. 34-225. 1; the references to the elements at 225.
IO-II and 17-18 are not important for this main point, and merely
repeat 225. 5-6.
225. 8-ro. "the divine body will be a fifth substance for them."
An ironic consequence in view of the claim that the Stoics in fact
ought to invoke this concept-see ro. 223. 30-34. Cf. Plot. VI. r.
26. 20-22 for a general argument that if God is a body, composite
in substance but without matter, the Stoics will have to introduce
another matter, that of God. Since the overall context employs
the concepts of form and matter, this particular argument may
have emanated from Peripatetic sources. See further Graeser,
Plotinus and the Stoics, pp. 91-93.
225. IO. "with appropriate support" (µe:Toc Twv otxdwv). Von
Arnim's addition of oc1to8d~e:wv (SVF II, p. u2. 38) is unnecessary.
Rex's "im Zusammenhang mit seinen eigenen System" is loose,
but conveys the essential meaning.
225. 16-18. "he would be eternal for them in name alone." That
is, God would not be independently eternal (cf. 225. 4), but only
COMMENTARY 223
as eternal as matter or its compounds on which he is dependent for

his being. The next sentence explains this by again (see 225. 5-6.
10-n) referring to the fact that God must be an element or a
compound if he is material. For basically the same argument see
Cic. de nat. deor. III. 14. 34, where it is attributed to Carneades,
and Sext. Emp. A .M. IX. 180. Cicero stresses the fact that matter
will decompose and therefore a material being cannot be eternal.
Perhaps this is implicit in Alexander's argument. These parallels
may also help to justify Schwartz's reading cx.t8Lo<; for ixt8o'i:o<; in
line 16.
225. 18-226. IO. It is clear that early Stoic physics developed

Aristotle's concept of nature as exhibiting an immanent teleology
like that of an art (·dx.v'r)) without an artist (Phys. BB-cf. esp. 19gb
26-32) in its doctrine of "artistic fire" {1tup nx_vLx6v); cf. F. Solmsen,
Aristotle's System of the Physical World, p. n5 n. gr. At 225. 20-27
we see another use of the cpucni;/·re:x_vYj (Nature/Art) contrast to
show that nature acts as an internal force in matter and is therefore
a superior craftsman to one who works only on the exterior of his
material. That is, nature is like art in its rationality, but differs in
its total effect on matter; cf. also Ps.-Gal. de qual. incorp. XIX.
478 K (p. 14. 6-8 Westenberger = SVF II, p. n6. n-13) for the
same contrast between divine and human craftsmanship.
Alexander's response to this is to simply state the basic principles
of Aristotelian cosmology. Natural change occurs in the sublunar
world as a result of the varying motions of the heavenly bodies,
which are dependent on an external mover (225. 30-34). 226. 6-10
(esp. 9-ro) implicitly refers to God as the first mover of these
bodies. 225. 34-226. 3 simply adds a series of natural changes also
dependent on the motion of the heavenly bodies, while 226. 4-6
adds some examples from intracosmic processes.
Now this response must be seen in the context of Alexander's
general theory of nature. For him nature had two dimensions.
(1) It was subject to providence by the action of the heavenly
bodies in ensuring the continuity of species. Cf. note on ro. 223.
6-14, and see de Jato 169. 23-26 (cf. ro. 223. 12-13) where the motion
of the heavenly bodies is described as the first cause of natural
change as here it is described at 225. 29-30 as the "cause of the
first change in matter." (2) Within this matrix Alexander saw the
processes of nature as self-propelled motions towards an end, but
224 DE MIXTIONE
not as closely resembling the action of an art {-rexv1l) as Aristotle

had argued in Phys. B8. In fact he drew a sharp distinction between
the rational processes of art which involve choice {1tpoixlpe:o-Lc;), and
therefore the capacity equally to do or not do something, and
those of nature in which barring any impediment an end will be
reached (de jato 168. 3-18; cf. Mant. 153. 19-20). For this reason he
could identify fate (dµ.ixpµ.ev1l) and nature (de Jato 5 passim) without
compromising freedom, a difficulty entailed, he thought, by the
"Stoic" view that everything occurred by fate (attacked at length
in the de jato, esp. chs. n-20). This is complemented by Alex. ap.
Simplic. Phys. 310. 31-3n. 37, where it is said that because nature
does not possess the faculty of choice it is irrational {&t-oyoc;-3n. 1).
It is also said to be a mechanical process towards an end proceeding
from "the first source established in receptive matter" (ocpx.'Yjc;
xix-rix~A1j6d0"1jc; tjc; 1tpw"t'ljc; ev UAT) -tjj 8e:x-rLx7i-3n. 1-2, cf. 311. 7,
and here 225. 29-30). This source is not specified but presumably
is the motion of the heavenly bodies described here at 225. 30-34.
Thus Alexander's view of nature as irrational vis-a-vis art (and
hence definable as fate) dovetails into his view of nature as a
providentially governed process; cf. Moraux, Alexandre d'Aphrodise,
p. 198. Fate and nature, on the one hand, and providence on the
other, are related without resulting in the pan-providential and also
completely determined cosmos of Stoicism; cf. G. Verbeke, AGPh 50
(1968) 80 n. r. Alexander's critique of the Stoic God as an internal
creative force in the present text is, I believe, an offshoot of this
more systematic reaction to Stoicism; cf. also pp. 25-26 above.
I have only given the briefest indication of its character. It merits
further study both in Greek and Arabic sources; for some indica-
tions of the latter see H. V. B. Brown in Islamic Philosophy and
the Classical Tradition, p. 41.
225. 22. "are completely formed" {8t' ot-c.uv e:t801t0Le:i:-rixt). Elsewhere
Alexander uses e:£801toLe:i:o-6ixL in an Aristotelian sense (e.g. de an.
20. 23, de sensu 73. 24) and this must be regarded as his rephrasing
of the Stoic argument. Cf. also the reference to statues at 225. 24,
a standard Aristotelian illustration (cf. Alex. de an. 3. 7-13).
225. 31. "cooling and heating" (lflu~tc;, 6e:pµ.6"t'1jc;). Cf. Aristot. de gen.
an. Llro 777b 29-33 where these processes are linked with coming-
to-be and passing-away and said to be dependent on the motion
of the stars. Cf. also Meteor. A2 339a 21-33 for a similar program-
COMMENTARY 225
matic statement which is paraphrased in language very similar

to that of the present passage by Alexander, Meteor. 6. 9-20 (cf.
also 7. 9-r4).
226. 2-3. "bodies that are frozen on the earth and compounded
in the upper air have their creator separate." See Meteor. B5 36rb
36-362a II where the causative power of the sun on frozen earth is
described, and see ibid. A9 on the sun's influence on rain and winds.
226. 8-9. "there is another cause prior to what creates in this way."
For 1tpw-roc; = 1tp6-repoc; see Alex. Met. ro5. 8. If God is totally
blended with matter he is part of the process of natural change
which by definition (see 225. 28-30) must have an external cause.
The consequences of this close identification of God with matter
have been explored at 225. 5-r8.
226. ro-r6. The comparison of the relation between God and matter
to that between form and matter develops the similar critical
comparisons made with reference to pneuma at 223. 30-34 and
224. 27-32 above. The difficulty now emphasised is how matter
can be in itself qualityless if it is dependent on form (qua God) for
its individuality (cruµµevew, e!vocL; cf. note on 224. 30-32 above);
cf. de an. r7. 2r-r8. 3 for this point in more general terms. This, in
effect, complements the whole argument at 225. ro-r8 where God
was shown to be dependent for his existence on matter; for such
criticism of the Stoic God explicitly in terms of the form-matter
relation see Alex. Met. r78. r7-r9 (SVF II 306). This argument
again raises the problem of how the Stoic principles can be described
as two inseparable bodies that can each be conceived of indepen-
dently. Only if, like matter and form, they were not bodies that had
interpenetrated (cf. 220. 6-8) would their separability in theory
(vo~(m or emvo(~ as Alexander says of form and matter at de an.
4. 9-ro, 6. 17-19) be acceptable to a Peripatetic. See also my note
on this text at Hermes IOI (r973) 278-282.
226. r2. " ... and God is the power of matter" {xocl. ~ MvocµLc; njc;
,'.J).;Y)c; fo-.l. 8e6c;). The "divine power" (8e'i:oc MvocµLc;) is a Stoic term
(cf. 225. 27 above) that Alexander used at Quaest. II. 3. 49. 30-34
in an account of the providential relation of the heavenly bodies to
matter; see Moraux, Hermes 95 (r967) r6o n. 2.
226. 16-24- Alexander assumes {et ye, 226. r7) that in the primal
Fire God and matter are copresent. This cannot be regarded, as it
15
226 DE MIXTIONE
is by Kramer (Platonismus und H ellenistische Philosophie, p. 109

n. 9), as evidence that the two Stoic principles were maintained in
the conflagration. It is simply a premise expressed in Aristotelian
terms from which the consequence of a form changing itself can be
asserted as a paradoxical redescription of the evolution of bodies
from Fire. The paradox arises in the light of the principle that if a
body loses its form it is destroyed (cf. 9. 226. 21-22, and 13. 230.
7-12).
For a more general criticism of God as fire undergoing change see
Plut. de def. or. 426B (SVF II 1055), and cf. Ps.-Gal. de qual. incorp.
XIX. 479 K (SVF II 1056). Also cf. Philo de aet. mund. 16, on the
difficulties inherent in the theory of conflagration.
There is no clear evidence on whether or not the active and
passive principles were maintained in the primal fire. This would
be unlikely, since the very purpose of this dualism is to explain
the activity of the active principle (God) on matter from which
everyth,ing comes to be. Such a process is necessarily not envisaged
in the conflagration.
226. 24-30. It was an old criticism of the Stoics that they made
God a meddler in details; see e.g. Cic. de nat. dear. I. 52-56. Christian
authors emphasised the indignity that this imposed: Justin (at
SVF II 926) and Clem. Alex. (at SVF II 1040); cf. also Mant. n3.
12-15, Ps.-Galen de qual. incorp. XIX. 479-480 K who argues that
for the Stoics God becomes the disgusting things he makes, and
Sext. Emp. P.H. III. 218. Almost certainly the present argument
was connected with Alexander's critique of the Stoic theory of
providence. The use of 1tpo"1)youµ.e:vov ("pre-meditated") at 26 sug-
gests this in itself; on such language see Moraux, Alexandre d'Aphro-
dise, p. 196 n. 2. Again the Arabic fragment of the de providentia
refers to a critique of the view that God is occupied with particulars
(Thillet, p. 319). Cf. also de Jato 203. 10-12 where in a reaction to
the behaviour of the oracle in the story of Oedipus Alexander
remarks that the Epicurean theory of "absence of providence"
(&1tpovo"1)<1tix) would be more pious (e:uae:~fo-re:pov) than to have God
responsible for such evil. For the connection between piety (e:uae-
~e:Llx} and providence cf. also Alex. de prov. ap. Cyril Adv. Jul., PG
76 628D, 741AB, and cf. de mundo 398b 3-7 where it is said to be
unfitting for God (&1tpe:1tec; 0e:cj>) to administer details in the world.
226. 24-25. " ... demeans our preconception of the deity" (&vcx~ux
COMMENTARY 227
rijc; 6e:lcxc; 1tpot-~41e:wc;). Cf. de Jato 202. 25-26 where, with reference to
the Oedipus story, Alexander asks who, by telling this, 1te:pt 6e:w-J
e:uae:~e:i:c; 8tMmm 1tpot-~41e:tc;. Cf. also Quaest. II. 21. 69. 30-31.
1tp6t-7J41tc; is undoubtedly used here in the sense of common notion;
cf. above on 2. 215. ro.
226. 29. "of grubs and gnats" (crxwA~XW'J n xcxt eµ1tl8w-J). These are
the lowest form of animal life, spontaneously generated from matter
(e.g. Aristot. Hist. An. Ar 487b 5). Cf. their employment in an
argument against Platonic ideas by Alexander at Met. ro4. r6-r8.
Like xopcmt-cx6oc; (lit. "maker of small-puppets" [x6pot]) this sym-
bolises the extreme level of detail to which God's influence extends
in the Stoic doctrine.
226. 30-33b (+ 227. 23-25; see the apparatus). There must (cx.-JOC"'(Xl),
226. 3r) be interaction between constituents of a blend only because
for Alexander, like Aristotle, "action" and "being acted on"
(1tote:i:-J, 1tocax_e:L-J) are reciprocal relations; cf. further 229. 3-6 where
this is described as part of the Aristotelian theory of mixture. In
Alexander's own description of the active and passive principles
at 224. 34-225. 3 it was evident that this relation was non-reciprocal
(cf. also above p. 35 with n. 66), so that the whole argument here
is an illegitimate restatement of the Stoic doctrine in Aristotelian
terms. Cf. also Sext. Emp. A.M. IX. 254 for a general argument
that the copresence of the active and passive principles means that
they will interact. This argument could well be one form of a more
general critique of the Stoic theory of providence, that it would
involve God being dependent on mortals: see Quaest. II. 2r. 68. 19-35,
and cf. the Arabic ms., Thillet, p. 319. Note de prov. ap. Cyril Adv.
Jul., PG 76 596B for a general statement that God will be providen-
tial only because he can be so. Presumably in this way Alex-
ander's final theory evaded the danger of a reciprocity between
God and the lower world leading to his dependence on it, as envis-
aged by the present argument.
Chapter r2
226. 35-227. 1. "the only theories worthy of divine things." Cf.
Alex. de providentia at Cyril Adv. Jul., PG 76 628D-629A, and
74rAB for expressions of the value of revering "the divine" (Tix
6e:i:cx, TO 6e:i:o-J), and attaining happiness by contemplation of "divine
things."
228 DE MIXTIONE
227. r. "ambitious attempts" (m:tpwµevouc; otoc rpLAOTLµlotv}. Cf. de

Jato 189. 9.
227. 2. "unaware of even the source of the stupidity of their state-
ments." If "body going through body" is at the root of these various
Stoic doctrines, but their proponents are unaware of it, then it
must be, as we have argued at length (see Pt. II-iii passim), an
independent notion imposed on them rather than an actual doctrine
of theirs; cf. also introductory note to chs. IO and Ir.
227. 9-10. "for the God that pervades matter is all of these things
for them." This suggests that the theory of total blending referred
to at 227. 5 is that implied by the description of the principles at
11. 225. 1-2. Alexander has not related it closely to the discussion
of total blending in ch. 4 where its relation to the theories of pneuma
and soul is somewhat obscure (see pp. 40-43 above). Even so 227.
5-10 provides good evidence that that earlier argument is to be
interpreted as showing the derivation of these theories from total
blending, as we argue above. Cf. note on 213. 14-15.
227. 13-17. "it gains conviction (1tlcmc;} from it being allegedly
clear ... " At 4. 218. 1-2 the case of fire pervading iron is listed as
part of the "clear evidence" (evocpy-Yj µocpTuptoc) that body goes
through body. Cf. note ad loc.
227. 17. "other reasons aside" (1tpoc; To'i:c; ocAAotc;). This must refer
to 9. 222. 35-223. 6 where the case of "fire in iron" (222. 36) is said
not to be a case of mixture since this involves matter being un-
mixed with form (see note ad loc.). Alexander is now going to deal
with this phenomenon in strictly empirical terms; cf. 6. 220. 16-22
for a similar kind of analysis of the case of heated incense which was
one of the proofs that bodies could extend themselves.
227. 29. "nor any other matter supporting the fire" (oike TL<; OCAA.1)
Twv u1toimµevwv UA'Y) Tcj> 1tupl). For a demonstration that fire cannot
be in such bodies as wood or coal "as in a substrate" (we; ev u1toxc:L-
µevep) see M ant. 120. 17-33.
227. 33. "to the extent that there is moisture in it." On the relation
between the moisture in a body and the different effects produced
by fire see Aristot. Meteor. 387b 23-388a 9, and cf. Mant. 149. 10-
13. For the general principle that moisture is nutriment for fire
see Aristot. de an. B4 416a 26 with Hicks' note ad loc.
COMMENTARY 229
Chapters IJ to r5. These three chapters are a restatement of Aris-

totle's theory of blending, based mainly on the account given in
de gen. et corr. Arn, but also from a standpoint dictated by some of
the themes of the de mixtione. Thus although this whole text may
have been excerpted from Alexander's lost commentary on the
de generatione et corruptione (on this see note at the end of Comm.
on ch. 16), as parallels with Philoponus' commentary suggest, it
has almost certainly been restructured to fit the present treatise.
It is this aspect that the following commentary will particularly
emphasise. Aristotle's theory of mixture can best be approached
independently through Joachim's commentary on the de generatione
et corruptione and his still valuable article at JP 29 (1904) 72-86.
There are more recent accounts in Solmsen, Aristotle's System of the
Physical World, ch. 19, G. A. Seeck, Ober die Elemente in der Kos-
mologie des Aristoteles, pp. 50-59, and R. A. Horne, Chymia II (1960)
21-27; see also the notes in W. J. Verdenius and J. H. Waszink,
Aristotle on Coming-to-be and Passing-away (2nd ed., 1966).
Chapter 13 is a straightforward account of the types of mixture,
the candidates for blends, the conditions under which these can
occur, and finally a description of the interaction of the four
elements. In the remainder of his discussion Alexander does not
go on to examine the blending of the elements, but rather discusses
the essential differences between blending and coming-to-be (in
ch. 14), and the separability of constituents from a blend (in ch. 15).
The latter topic picks up a recurring theme in the earlier critique
of the Stoics (see I. 213. 2-13, cf. 7. 221. 14-15, 9. 222. 29-35) and
is Alexander's main answer to their theory. For by showing how
constituents are separable he hopes to show in what sense they are
present in a blend; in this way he offers the Aristotelian response to
the notion of body going through body, which had seemed so
absurdly linked to the idea that bodies were present in and separable
from a blend (see on 1. 213. 2-13).
Chapter 13
228. 5. "our original statement." See on I. 213. 2.
228. 10-25. This general account of the constituents of blending
is derived from de gen. et corr. Arn 327b 12-23. The constituents of
mixtures must be substances, Alexander sees, if they are to be
separable from one another (228. 14-15). There is almost a play
230 DE MIXTIONE
on words (reflecting de gen. et corr. 327b 27-29) in the claim that

only what is separable (xwpta-rov, 228. 15) can be separated from
a blend. Cf. also Philop. de gen. et corr. 192. 2-4 for a similar state-
ment.
In theory this requirement is reasonable enough. If blending is
to involve the unification of bodies without their complete destruc-
tion (see de gen. et corr. Aro 327a 35-327b ro) it must occur between
bodies that have some independent status. However this creates
difficulties for Aristotle's account in three areas. (1) If substances
are not destroyed but exist in a unified blend in potentiality, what
exactly is their ontological status? Can a form be diminished in
this way? Alexander simply assumes that there is no difficulty
here; he regards the arguments in ch. 15 as proving that such a
diminished existence is possible, and in ch. 14 sees no difficulties
in distinguishing this form of change from coming-to-be and passing-
away. See further on 14. 230. 14-24, 15. 231. 16-19, and 232. 29.
(2) If the theory of blending is intended to explain the combination
of the four elements to form homoiomerous bodies (as de gen. et
corr. B7 334b 8-30 indicates), then the elements must be substances.
But if blending is primarily the interaction of opposites (see 229.
17-18), are not these "powers" rather than the elements themselves
the basic constituents of blends; and if this is the case, is it really
substances that are interacting? See also on 229. 18-30. (3) The
specific examples of blending given by Aristotle and Alexander are
not of substances but of "masses," i.e. random volumes of matter:
tin and copper (de gen. et corr. Aro 328b 9), milk (= cheese and
whey) (15. 231. 29), wine and water (232. 2), mead (232. 5), and
some unspecified liquids (233. 2-14). Such masses (awpo() are not
substances at least according to one statement of Aristotle (Met.
Z16 ro4ob 5-ro; cf. p. 58 n. 150 above), and if they are merely
meant to be illustrations of a fundamental form of blending occur-
ring between the elements (or powers) they do not directly establish
that theory; for in the examples given they are not opposites, as
constituents of blends must be. See on 229. 21-25.
228. 13-14. "now mixture and blending occur among things that
are naturally independent substances" (ev -roii;; xix6' ixu-rcx uq>ea-rcxvixt
q>uaw txouat). Cf. 228. 24-25 and on 4. 217. 33-34 above. The present
translation is clearly justified by the conclusion of this section,
228. 22-25.
COMMENTARY 231
228. 17. "Anaxagoras." Cf. de gen. et corr. Aro 327b 19-20 where
there is a general reference to the doctrine of everything being mixed
with everything.
228. 20-21. "For even if they are also substances, they do not exist
with equal independence" (xocl. ycxp et oucrloct xocl. 't"OCU't' , &AA.' ou xoc6'
ocu't'cx cruvuq>lo-Tocv't'oct). Here, I think, Alexander is pointing out that
although substance may be defined as form (cf. Aristot. Met. Z17)
this does not mean that forms are independent of substances, for
there is still, as the next sentence (228. 21-22) makes clear, a
dependency of form on matter. Thus to say that form is substance
is not to say that there is "an independent substance along with"
(cruv-) substance itself. This usage differs from the simple sense of
"coexist" that we find, for example, at Philop. de gen. et corr. 301.
27-28 where place is said to coexist with the body occupying it
('t'c°j) crwµ.oc't't cruvuq>lcr't'oc't'oct) and not to be independent (~xet xoc6'
eocu..ov 61tocp~tv) ; for in this case coexistence is exactly the sort of
interdependency that Alexander claims for form and substance by
denying their joint independence in the present text.
228. 27-28. "mixture is the more generic, blending the more spe-
cific." Cf. Aristot. Top. 122b 25ff. for this distinction. On Aristotle's
terminology in general see Joachim, JP (1904) 73-74, and on his
use of classifications of mixtures in other contexts see M. J. Aubon-
net, Actes du VIJe Congres de l'Assoc. G. Bude, Paris (1964), p. 300.
The distinction between composition and mixture (30-34) cor-
responds to that drawn between composition and juxtaposition by
Galen de const. art. med. I. 241-242 K. Alexander also uses µ.~~tc;
(mixture) for juxtaposition at 7. 221. 7, though if it is a generic
term (as here and in ch. 3) it should not have been used in such a
subordinate classification. Cf. p. 56 above.
228. 36. " ... among easily-bounded and moist bodies." In addition
to being easily-divided (see note on 8. 221. 25-28) constituents of
a mixture must have fluid surfaces. Cf. Aristot. de gen. et corr. 328b
3 where this type of substance is regarded as a species of divisible
bodies; cf. also 328a 17, and 14. 231. 12-13 below.
229. 3-21. For the main theme of this paragraph see Aristot. de gen.
et corr. Aro 328a 18-28.
229. 3. "because of its viscosity" (8tcx yAtcrxponi't'oc). Cf. 231. 1, and
Aristot. de gen. et corr. Aro 328b 4-5 where however no examples
232 DE MIXTIONE
of viscous substances are given. On oil as viscous see Meteor. 1),,.6-7

383b 34-384a 2.
229. 6-8. "the whole divine body, which is active, is unmixed."
This special emphasis on the fifth element, the aether, being free
from blending seems to pick up the argument at 226. 30-33b where
the Stoic God, it was claimed, was involved in the same reciprocal
interaction as is now attributed to constituents of blends; see note
ad loc. For aether as "unaffected" see de caelo A3 270b 2. An aporia
as to whether or not the divine body is unaffected can be found
at Alex. Meteor. 18. 8-19. 19 (= Philop. Meteor. 47. 27-48. 13). See
E. Evrard, REG 78 (1965) 593-594 on both texts.
229. 8-II. "of bodies that do share in (xoLV(l)ve:i:v) the same matter."
On this language see on 3. 216. 1-4.
229. 15. "sound ... cannot be acted on by line." Simplicius (Phys.

516. 27-28) remarks that sound cannot be in contact with line
apropos Phys. 208a II-14 where Aristotle points out that random
bodies cannot be in contact. This provides another example of a
simple illustration applied by commentators to only broadly
similar points; cf. above, p. 80 and p. 87 n. 253.
229. 17. " ... a common underlying nature that can receive the
qualities of each" (xow~v U7toxe:i:cr0ocl 't'LVOC <pUCJLV -rwv exoc-rep(l)V 7tot0wv
em8e:x-rLx~v). Aristotle uses 8e:x-rLxoi; ("receptive") of matter at
Met. 1055a 29-30, and de gen. et corr. 320a 2-4, and the same term
analogically at ibid. 328b II and de an. 414a IO. For Alexander's
derivative use of em8e:x-rLxoi; see de an. 5. 7-8, Met. 157. 23-24.
229. 18-30. "interaction, then, occurs among bodies with . . . a
mutual contrariety." Blending occurs between opposites, and the
only genuine opposites in Aristotelian physics are the four primary
qualities considered here. However at de gen. et corr. B7 334b 8-31
blending is discussed only in terms of these qualities and not their
pairings as elemental qualities with forms described by Alexander
at 229. 30-230. 5. While it is questionable whether or not Alexan-
der's criterion that only substances blend (228. 10-25) is in fact
fulfilled by Aristotle's account (on this see Sokolowski, ]HP 7
[1970] 271-272; also cf. 229. 29-30 and on 15. 232. 29), Alexander
himself seems to have no difficulty in seeing elements as substances
with forms: cf. esp. de an. 7. 9-11. 13 where the forms of the elements
COMMENTARY 233
are conceived of as the primary forms of all bodies compounded

from them. This systematisation roughly corresponds with Joa-
chim's claim (JP 29 [1904] 75-76) that for Aristotle all chemical
compounds are au fond "quaternary"-i.e. the product of the four
elements. It is, however, not significant in the present discussion
where the role of elements in blending is for various reasons (see
on 229. 30-230. 14) neglected.
229. 21a-25. "and also their intermediaries." Cf. Aristot. de gen. et

corr. B7 334b 8-30 where the blend of pure opposites is rejected
and allowance is made for varying degrees of hot and cold in blends.
The mean (-ro µfoov) along which such degrees can be found is
"extensive and not divisible" (1toM xcxl. oux &.aLcxLpe:-rov, 334b 28-29).
This view assumes that only the powers and not the elements are
significant constituents of blends. It is also irrelevant, as Seeck
(Die Elemente, pp. 56-57) notes, to the discussion in de gen. et corr.
Aro of the blending of substances such as wine and water (328a
27-28), or metals (328b 10-14).
229. 29-30. "they are differentiated by forms and accidental

qualities." At de an. 7. 13-14 Alexander makes it clearer that the
elements interact to form compounds by their incorporeal qualities
(xcx-rcx' -rcx
'' '
cxawµcx-rcx ~ -re xcxL'1tcxr:;zs:Lv
1t0Le:Lv ' • owever de sensu 73.
)Cfh
.
19-21 where this view is termed Platonic-a description confirmed
by Albinus Didask. II (p. 22 Hermann = p. 65 Louis). This only
shows the extent to which he is trying to systematise Aristotle's
often confusing comments on the interaction of the elements,
where regularly the greatest emphasis is laid on the "powers"
rather than the elements themselves-cf. esp. de part. an. Br 646a
13-21 and see F. Solmsen, Aristotle's System of the Physical World,
pp. 345-352. Alexander may also have been provoked by the
doctrine that qualities are bodies, attributed to the Stoics (cf. p. 85
n. 247 above); Alex. Mant. 122. 16-125. 4, like Albinus Didask. II
and Ps.-Galen de qual. incorp., attacks this doctrine at length.
229. 30-230. 14. The principal Aristotelian source of this description

of elemental qualities and interchange is de gen. et corr. B4. Alex-
ander is justified in introducing the elements into his account
since they are the primary constituents of blends for Aristotle, as
de gen. et corr. B7 makes clear. However their significance is not
really explained here: they are simply said to be bodies sharing
234 DE MIXTIONE
the same matter, differing in form, and interacting to produce

coming-to-be and passing-away. Their role as the constituents of
the homoiomerous bodies is not explained, and thus their impor-
tance to Aristotelian chemistry goes unrecognised. They merely
exemplify the general account that has so far been given, and are
shown to be engaged in a kind of process which in ch. 14 has to be
distinguished from blending. This seems to be because Alexander is
interested primarily in the process of blending and not the precise
character of its end products (see the descriptions at 14. 231. 1-12
and 15. 233. 2-14). His aim is not to describe its place in the
Aristotelian physical system as much as to point up those aspects
in which it particularly contrasts with the Stoic theory. For this
he needs to show only how mixture occurs and in what sense bodies
are present in, and separable from, a blend.
Chapter 14
230. 14-24. This general distinction between blending and coming-

to-be is an expansion of Aristotle's remarks at de gen. et corr. Arn
328a 23-31 (cf. 327b 28-31). Its success depends on the validity of
the account of blending as a transformation that does not involve
the constituents completely changing into another body (see ch. 15
passim). Aristotle, for example, speaks of the elements "changing"
(µe-rix~ixAAeL) to form homoiomerous compounds (334b 25), and of
constituents "changing into one another" without losing their own
nature (328a 29-30). Again he defines mixture as "the unification
of bodies that have undergone qualitative change" (-rwv µLx-rwv
cx,J.otw6ev-rwv lvwaL~-328b 22). Now qualitative change (cx,J.o(wat~)
is not blending, for it can only occur in the qualities of a given
substance (e.g. de gen. et corr. A2 317a 27). Blending must then fall
between this and the case of absolute coming-to-be (yeveaL~ cx1tA~)
where one substance completely overpowers another (cf. 13. 230.
5-13). But this is awkward, since the distinction between coming-to-
be and qualitative change is grounded in the metaphysical and
logical distinction between substance and quality. (On the problems
that this entails for Aristotle's general physical theory see G. Mor-
row, "Qualitative Change in Aristotle's Physics," in the Verhand-
lungen des 4.Symposium Aristotelicum, pp. 154-167.) Since there is
no intermediate category it is hard to see how there can be an inter-
mediate process. Note the omission of mixture from the lists of
COMMENTARY 235
changes in the categories at de gen. et corr. A1 314b 26-315a 2, and

A4 319b 31-32oa 5, although it shares a broad similarity to these
changes because its components share in the same matter (cf. de
gen. et corr. Arn 328a 18-23). The difficulty in our text can be seen
from the common terminology that Alexander employs to describe
coming-to-be and blending. Both, for example, are said to cause
a change (µ.e-roc~oA~)-cf. 230. 6 with 231. 7, 11-and are described
as changes (µ.noc~oA~, µ.e-roc~ixAA&Lv)-cf. 230. 11-13, 22 (describing
coming-to-be) with 231. 20, 22; also see 232. 14, 17, 29, 32 and
233. 13 where this language describes the formation of a blend and
the reconstruction of the bodies that have been blended.
In general this difficulty is a result of Aristotle's theoretical
demand that bodies be separable from a blend yet not be actually
present in it (cf. 327a 35-327b 12 with 327b 26-28). To solve it he
was forced to strain his categories for the description of physical
change by establishing a theory which claimed that bodies were
only potentially present in a blend. In this way he met his demand,
but only at the expense of creating these further difficulties as
Alexander's account in ch. 15 also shows; see further on 231. 16-19,
232. 20.
230. 14-24 is translated by Moraux (Alexandre d'Aphrodise,
pp. 40-41). He argues that the distinction upheld here contradicts
Alexander's view in the de anima (e.g. 8. 22-9. 3) that the soul is
produced by the blending of the elements. On the whole question
of this apparently unorthodox interpretation see the more extensive
discussion by P. Donini, Atti del Accad. delle Scienze di Torino 105
(1971) 61-107. Certainly, as we have seen (on 13. 229. 18-30) the
discussion of mixture in this treatise has no relevance to the evolu-
tion of forms through the blending of the elements.
230. 14-15. "blending is held to be the passing-away of bodies that

are preserved" (aw~oµ.evwv -rwwv). Cf. 2. 215. 13-14 and de gen. et
corr. Aro 327b 30-31. Cf. note on the text at 230. 15.
230. 16. "the one increasing and the other passing-away." Cf. de
gen. et corr. Aro 328a 24-26 where such increase is said to occur
only when vastly unequal quantities are mixed. The illustration of
this at 328a 26-28 as the submersion of a wine drop in innumerable
measures of water is apparently directly contradicted by the Stoic
theory of total blending (see above, p. 33).
236 DE MIXTIONE
230. 17. "nutriment is not even said to be blended." This probably

picks up de gen. et corr. Arn 327b 14, a text that may have, at least
in part, justified the discussion of organic growth in ch. 16.
230. 18. "if both constituents are totally destroyed." Cf. de gen. et
corr. Arn 327b 4-6 where this is one of Aristotle's initial aporiai
in his discussion of blending.
230. 31. " .. .lose that superiority in their contrarieties" (cx.1to~ocAOv't"ot
't"IXc;; XIX't"IX &VIXV't"LW(mc;; 't"IXc;; um:pox_occ;;). Cf. Alex. de sensu 64. 22 and
Quaest. II. 24. 75. 20-21 for cx.1to~octJ-e:tv in this sense; also Quaest.
II. 15. 60. 7. It is not an Aristotelian term.
231. 1. "retain their own surfaces." "Preservation of surfaces" was,
we argued (on 1. 213. 2-13), Alexander's particular way of empha-
sising the sense in which constituents had to be present in a blend
for the Stoics. Cf. on 7. 220. 37-221. 7.
231. 2. "in juxtaposition" (xot't"IX TYJV 1totpoc6e:atv). Cf. 231. 11, 14;
15. 233. 2-5; and Aristot. de gen. et corr. 328a 33, 328b 2. This juxta-
position is simply a consequence of constituents of a blend being
easily-divided (see note on 8. 221. 25-28) and is only a preliminary
to unification. Aristotle's objections to it as a complete explanation
of blending are integrated into Alexander's critique of Democritus
and Epicurus in ch. 2, as we have seen (notes on 214. 18-28 and
214. 28-215. 8). For an elaboration of this principle see Aristot. de
sensu 440a 3Iff. where bodies divisible into minima (e.g. the in-
dividual in a species) are distinguished from infinitely divisible
bodies, and it is claimed that while the former could only be juxta-
posed the latter could be blended. Alexander (de sensu 64. 2-15)
expresses this as a distinction between solid anomoiomerous bodies
and moist homoiomerous ones, thus integrating it more closely
with the general theory of blending. The relevance of infinite
divisibility to blending was however limited for an Aristotelian by
the fact that a mixture had to be a unity, and constituents could
not be said to be blended in their undivided parts (cf. 8. 222.
13-14).
Simplicius (de caelo 660. 18-661. 14) holds a Platonic view that
bodies remain juxtaposed while only their qualities are fully
blended; cf. Zabarella, de mistione 2 for its elaboration by Avicenna.
On the attempts of later scholasticism to base Aristotle's theory of
blending on a doctrine of corpuscles (minima naturalia) see E. J.
COMMENTARY 237
Dijksterhuis, The Mechanization of the World Picture, pp. 24, 200-

206, 277-279.
231. 3. ". . . a mutual contrariety of equal power" (-ro &vocv-rlwcnv

exew LO'oxpoc-rij 1tpoi; &AAlJAot). Cf. 231. 6 and Aristot. de gen. et corr.
Aro 328a 29-31. This common-sense notion (cf. p. 33 n. 56 above)
may have also held broader implications for Alexander at the level
of elemental blending. Simplicius (de caelo 83. 30-32) quotes him
as saying that "the reason for the preservation and stability
(O'w~e0'0otL xocl. O"uµµevm) of the elements, and their not being
destroyed, was the equality of their powers ('TT)v -rwv 8uvcxµewv
t0"6'r"l)-rot)." We know that "preservation" and "stability" were terms
particularly applied to bodies in prescriptions of providential power
over the cosmos (note on II. 224. 30-32), and the present text may
reflect such an account, perhaps apropos de caelo A3 where Simpli-
cius quotes him. Note also de mundo 396b 34-397a 1 where the
preservation (O'W'r"IJp(oc) of the cosmos is said to be due to the
"agreement" (0µ01.oyloc) between the elements not to exceed one
another.
231. ro. "Blending, then, can be defined ... " This provisional defi-
nition of the process of blending omits to describe either the precise
nature of the product or to explain in what sense the constituents
are present in the blend. The latter point is taken up in ch. 15 but
the former is never explored. It is simply assumed that the unified
bodies created by blending are uniform (homoiomerous)-see 15.
231. 26-27-without the question of the formation of the homoiom-
erous bodies (flesh, blood, bone, etc.-cf. de gen. et corr. B7) being
explored (cf. on 13. 229. 30-230. 14).
Chapter 15
231. 12-29. The separability of constituents from a blend was not
discussed by Aristotle, but merely asserted as a consequence of
the candidates for blending being substances-see note on 13. 228.
10-25. Alexander is forced to deal with it because of his critique of
the Stoics. At I. 213. 6-13 he claimed that a theory of blending
which held that constituents were separable but not completely
mixed was superior to the Stoic view that they were totally mixed
and separable. Again in ch. 7 he argued that for the Stoics blending
must be fusion if it is to be total blending, and will therefore make
238 DE MIXTIONE
constituents inseparable (221. 7-20), but went on to say that if we see

that they are separable this theory will be disproved-see 221. 20-
25. These hints are now brought to a point as Alexander argues that
just as bodies are easily mixed (231. 12-19; cf. 8. 221. 25-28), so
they are easily separated (231. 19-29). This establishes a physical
criterion for the notion of being in potentiality; it is simply a state
both easily achieved and easily lost. Yet it still needs to be char-
acterised more positively and this Alexander attempts with some
difficulty at 231. 27-29 (see note on 231. 16-19).
Since this idea of constituents being easily separated is not
Aristotelian it needs special attention. Alexander emphasises that
"slight assistance" (oALY1) ~o~6ELot, 231. 19, 232. 16; cf. oALY1) 1te\jlL<;
[slight fermentation], 232. 6) is required to produce this change,
which necessarily occurs easily (cf. p~8(wc;, 231. 23, 28). Cf. Galen
de tempr. I. 9 (p. 32. 16-19 Helmreich) where a broadly similar con-
nection is drawn between the presence of constituents in poten-
tiality in a blend and their easy removal.
Now this agent of assistance is some physical addition to a
homoiomerous substance that actualises the bodies that have been
blended. The resulting causal process is comparable to that which
the Stoics thought occurred when some form of assistance helped
bodies to extend themselves in various ways; cf. the argument
reported in 4. 217. 17-26. As we saw (pp. 39-40 above) these
processes were a species of what the Stoics called "cooperant
causes" (cruv&pyoc otL't'Lot), and it would seem certain that Alexander
has derived his reasoning in this chapter from that text. For the
Stoics certain agents help to extend bodies and so explain, by
analogy, the extension of body through body in a blend (see 217.
26-32), while Alexander argues (231. 19-29) that given agents
wi_ll aid a compound in readily dissolving into its constituents. The
same notion of "assistance" is employed, and rather significantly
even the verb cruv&py&iv ("to cooperate") is used at 231. 23 (cf. 231.
12) though it does not occur in ch. 4. Also cf. Sext. Emp. P.H. III.
15 where a Stoic cooperant cause is said to "contribute a slight force
to the easy production of an effect" with 231. 22-24.
This assimilation of a Stoic thought-pattern is a minor example
of a common feature of Alexander's relation to the Stoics (see
above, pp. 27-28 and on 232. 1-5 below). He grasps the general
principle of a Stoic idea and either criticises it or assimilates it, or
as in the present case, does both; for at 5. 218. 10-5 he criticises
COMMENTARY 239
the analogical argument from the common notions reported in

ch. 4, while here he has in essence copied it. It is also typical that
this assimilation is entirely implicit.
As for the validity of his reasoning, it is neither weaker nor
stronger than the Stoic argument in ch. 4. An analogy is drawn
between cases where constituents of blends are easily separated and
the general theory that bodies are reconstituted from a blend
without coming-to-be, because they are present in it in potentiality,
and yet when reconstituted are not identical with the bodies that
had been present in the blend. Like the Stoic examples of exten-
sion in ch. 4 Alexander's various cases of separation at 23r. 29-
232. 7 are "suasions" (1do-ntc;); only if we accept the independent
validity of the analysis of blending in chs. 13 and 14, and the
intelligibility of the notion of being in potentiality, can we be
persuaded that the present account elucidates its nature. This is
quite apart from the irrelevance of these examples to the blending
of opposites which at 13. 229. 17-18 is said to be an essential part
of the process.
The argument of this chapter is not in itself, then, adequate to
prove its thesis, just as Stoic arguments from the common notions
were, I believe, similarly deficient and only intended to support
theories established independently on more rigorous grounds (see
Symb. Os. 48 [1973] 58-60, and above at p. 41, n. 99). Alexander's
argument is not as rigorous as some of the analogical reasoning
that we find in Aristotle (on this see M. Hesse, Phil. Quart. 15 [1965]
328-340). Nor, indeed, is it as informative as analogies that we
find elsewhere in Alexander's works; cf. de an. 6. 16-20, 9. 14-23,
which relate parts of a theory rather than attempting to prove a
preestablished theory. The closest parallel to the present text is
de an. 4. u-18 which compares the relation of matter and form to
imprint and wax (cf. Aristot. de an. BI 412b 7). Similar analogical
arguments are used at 16. 237. 5-218. IO; cf. notes ad loc.
23r. 16-19. "a body not in actuality any of the bodies that
have been mixed ... " This describes in metaphysical terms the
product of blending characterised in physical terms at lines 13-16,
It is the basis for a similar description of the separation of con-
stituents at 23r. 24-29, where it is inferred that the bodies separated
are not the original constituents but the product of an easily-
achieved change into a similar body not identical with them. The
DE MIXTIONE
inherent obscurity of this point is unfortunately increased by the

unsatisfactory text at 23r. 27-29.
While we can grant the evident ease of the physical process by
which constituents blend and are separated, it is not clear that this
in itself explains the ontological status of constituents throughout
the change. Their being in potentiality in a blend fulfills the require-
ment that constituents be neither destroyed nor juxtaposed (cf.
also 232. 20-31), but this state is not given any clear independent
characterisation. Philoponus, for example, compared it to the state
of a geometer, who in potentiality could do geometry, but had this
power in a diminished form through being drunk (de gen. et corr.
188. 21-26). Some such account is required because the sense in
which constituents are in potentiality in a blend is quite novel. It
is neither like the case where a student is potentially a geometer,
or where an inactive geometer is potentially one; for the first would
mean that the constituents did not exist at all, and the second that
they had not fully merged their identity in the blend. See further
Joachim on de gen. et corr. Arn 327b 22-31. None of this is explored
by Alexander, although it became a major topic in later scholastic-
ism as Zabarella's de mistione shows. He is content to offer a set of
analogies with actual physical processes (23r. 30-232. 18) without
independently explaining the concepts which these analogies
clarify. A similar conceptual weakness occurs in his general distinc-
tion between blending and coming-to-be (see on 14. 230. 14-24),
and in his uncritical claim that the constituents of blends are sub-
stances with forms (see on 232. 29 below).
23r. 21-22. "for they do require some addition to be· actualised,

but not absolute coming-to-be and change" (1tpoa8~xl)c; yocp 8e:~-r0tl
-rLvoc; etc; Te:AELO't'l)'t"IX, a.AA' ou 1t0tv-re:Aouc; ye:vfoe:wc; n xotl. µe:-r0t~oA~c;).
When the bodies are reconstituted they reach a -re:Ae:L6't'l)c; (lit. a
"completeness"; "Vollendung" [Rex]). Now this could be taken in
a strictly physical sense as when Aristotle says at Meteor. 379b 20
that a body "is completed" (-re:-re:Ae:lw-rotL} by fermentation. Interest-
ingly Alexander ad loc. (Meteor. 186. 34-35) describes this as a body
coming to be in actuality, exactly the phenomenon both here and
in the other cases where similar language is used (232. 29, 32, and
cf. 232. 12 where agents are said to bring bodies in potentiality to
completion [-re:Ae:wuv-r0t]) . This means that -re:Ae:L6't'l)c; carries a meta-
physical sense, and indeed we find it used by Alexander to mean
COMMENTARY
form (e.g. de an. 23. 17-18) and actuality-evepye:L0t (de an. 43. 7-8).
Hence 't'tAe:oi; ("complete") at 14. 230. 23, 25 and 231. IO would
mean both physical and metaphysical completeness. But cf. further
on 232. 29.
231. 29-33. "a heated stone cast into milk." For this case cf. Aristot.
Meteor. 38ra 7 and 384a 21-25 with Alexander ad loc. Also see
Galen nat. Jae. I. 15 (II. 58K) where it is used as an analogy in a dis-
cussion of the passage of blood through the kidneys. It is probably
copied from Galen by Athenagoras de ress. 6; see L. Barnard,
Latomus 31 (1972) 426.
232. 2-5. "the action of the sponge." This example would seem to
be borrowed from an account of the Stoic tripartition of blends:
see Stob. Eel. I. 17, p. 154. 8-II W (= SVF II, p. 153. 21-23), and
Philo de conj. ling. 184 (= SVF II, p. 153. 36-39). Sambursky, Isis
49 (1958) 332-333 has a brief discussion of it. It is one example of
Alexander's dependency on, and transformation of, the former text
(see above pp. 55-65). Cf. also Nemesius de nat. hom. 3, p. 128
Matth. where this example serves to illustrate the preservation of
constituents in a blend below the level of perception, a theory
attributed to Democritus by Alexander at 2. 214. 18-28.
232. 6-IO. "the onset of a slight fermentation in must." There
is a general reference to the heating of must (yAe:uxoi;) at Aristot.
Meteor. 380b 31-32.
232. 9a. "just above." I.e. at IO. 223. 20-25. Here (at 232. 8 and 9)
I translate 1tve:uµ0t (pneuma) as "air", its meaning in that earlier
"realistic" argument where in the context of the general polemic
against pneuma I transliterated it (with inverted commas) "pneu-
ma"; see note on ro. 223. 19-27.
232. 20. "the body that was affected by them ... came to be" (~
yeve:cni; Tei> 't'0tu't'0t 1tixo-:x,ov't'L o-wµ0tTL). That is, the compound is created
by the interaction of the constituents and can therefore be described,
albeit loosely, as coming-to-be by being acted on by them.
Similar language is used to describe the formation of pneuma as
a compound from fire and air at IO. 224. 20; see also 232. 13 where
Alexander speaks of the process (yeve:o-Li;) of separation, and cf. de an.
19. 27, 29, 32. This usage reflects the fact that blending has to be
described as a form of change, yet all the relevant vocabulary
16
DE MIXTIONE
(ylyvea8(XL, µe-r(X~OA~) is appropriated by the Aristotelian doctrine

of absolute change; see further on 14. 230. 14-24.
232. 23. "as we see when Air is separated from Water." Water
(Moist and Cold) changes into Air (Moist and Hot) when the Hot
overcomes the Cold; see de gen. et corr. B4 331a 19-20 and 29-31
for the reverse change. Cf. on 16. 234. 7 below.
232. 24-25. "neither are bodies present in actuality dissociated ... '
{ou-re ycxp &vepyd~ EVU1tcx.pxoV'T(X 8L(XXpLV&'T(XL). That is, if bodies are
juxtaposed then they are present in actuality. Cf. Aristot. Phys. A4
212b 3-6 which distinguishes parts in a whole being (a) "in actuality,
as with a heap" (x(X-r' evepyeL(XV wcrnep o-wp6c;), from (b) those in
potentiality (x(XTCX 8uv(XµLV) in a homoiomerous body.
232. 26-27. "in these cases." When a mass of juxtaposed bodies is
reduced it remains the same in form although diminished, and Water,
part of which is converted into Air, still retains its identity as Water.
232. 29. "changing into the actuality of which it was deprived ... "
{µe'T(X~CX.AAOV etc; TI)V 'T&AeL6Tij'T(X, ~c; &.qrnpe61)). 'T&AeL6Tijc;, which is
translated as "actuality," is, as we saw (note on 231. 21-22) a
complex term. If it means form here, as it sometimes can, then
Alexander could be implying that constituents lose their forms in
a blend, a process usually described as passing away (cf. 9. 223.
5-6). It must, then, mean actuality {evepyeL(X) or physical
completeness, so that this statement would be compatible with
the idea that forms are retained in the blend. As we have seen (on
13. 229. 18-30) by neglecting the question of the ontological status
of constituents, qua substances with forms, in a blend, Alexander
does not probe further the character of a form in this diminished
state. For such discussion we have to turn to a later scholasticism-
concisely summarised in Zabarella's de mistione.
It is notable that in ch. 16 Alexander has a great deal to say
about the preservation of form throughout the process of growth.
This is presumably because Aristotle had explicitly solved the
problem of how a substance preserves its identity throughout this
particular form of change in terms of the concept of form in de gen.
et corr. A5. In Aro, the chapter on mixture, form gives way to being
in potentiality in the account of a substance's retention of identity.
Alexander is therefore only as precise as his authority allows him
to be. Cf. also on 16. 235. 14-236. 5.
COMMENTARY 243
232. 31-233. 2. The theory of blending must accord with (r) the
basic principles of Aristotelian physics-presumably the theory of
the elements and powers, the concepts of matter and form, and
actuality and potentiality; (2) "how bodies change and come to
be," referring presumably to the distinction drawn in ch. 14 between
absolute coming-to-be and the particular change involved in
blending; and (3) the common preconceptions about blending-
cf. 215. 31-32 where these were invoked as a general criterion for
any theory of blending. (3) ought also to apply to the analogical
arguments at 231. 29-232. 18, given the relation that they have to
Stoic argument from the common notions in ch. 4 (see note to
231. 12-29). Alexander however is probably only referring to
general principles such as the preconceptions that a mixture be
unified (215. IO-II), and the natural notion that body does not go
through body (218. 17-18). As ch. 4 itself shows he does not seem
to have appreciated the role of the common notions in an argument,
and is content to take them over in the loose sense of general
principles-see on 5. 218. 11. It is also, as we have seen, questionable
how far Alexander's account is satisfactorily related to (r) and (2);
on the former see notes on 13. 228. 10-25, 229. 18-30, and 15. 231.
16-19, and on the latter on 14. 230. 14-24.
233. 2-14. This text is rather irrelevant here. It simply points
to the empirical verifiability of blending in its initial stage when
bodies divide one another, and belongs with the general comments
on this at the beginning of ch. 15-231. 12-18. It adds nothing new,
though it reemphasises Alexander's concern to establish an em-
pirically based theory, evident also from the analogical argument
for the nature of constituents' presence in a blend at 231. 30-232. 18.
Cf. the reference to surface contact at 233. II-12 with the general
principle that constituents are juxtaposed, i.e. in surface contact,
before being fully blended; see 14. 231. 1-2, II and note on 231. 2.
Chapter 16
The principal justification for this long chapter being in the de
mixtione is that it deals with the paradox of body going through
body. Alexander says that some thinkers have tried to explain
organic growth in this way (233. 14-24) and must be refuted. This
he does very briefly at 234. 23-32 in an argument that elaborates
Aristotle's point (at de gen. et corr. A5 321b 15-16) that growth
244 DE MIXTIONE
cannot occur by body since this will mean that two bodies occupy
the same place (cf. also de gen. et corr. Arn 327b 14 where Aristotle
makes the very general point that nutriment is not mixed with a
body). The remainder of the chapter is a long paraphrase of Aris-
totle's discussion of growth in A5 with only two further brief
references to the notion of body going through body at 236. 12-14,
238. 20-23. There is also a brief reference to the fact that growth is
not blending or coming-to-be (234. 5-9) which links it to the
discussion in ch. 14 (cf. 230. 17), and the analogical arguments of
ch. 15 (231. 30-232. 18) are closely followed in form at 237. 5-
238. IO. Apart from this, the present chapter must be considered an
appendix to the de mixtione. As we have argued above (pp. 83-84)
it is certainly not anti-Stoic, and in view of the independent discus-
sion of "body going through body" in the exegetical tradition must
owe its place here to Peripatetic concerns.
The commentary, as with chs. 13-15, will deal principally with
Alexander's contribution rather than the Aristotelian theory of
growth itself on which Joachim's commentary on de gen. et corr. A5
goes into great detail. See also the notes in W. J. Verdenius and
J. H. Waszink, Aristotle on Coming-to-be and Passing-away. Like
chs. 13-15 this discussion is undoubtedly closely related to Alex-
ander's lost commentary on the de generatione et corruptione (see
Additional Note at the end of this chapter). In a long paraphrastic
note on A5 of the Aristotelian work Philoponus includes all the
salient points of our text in roughly the same order (de gen. et corr.
102. 31-108. 17); some parallels are noted in the commentary,
though I have not made a detailed comparison. Like much of that
work it was undoubtedly derived from Alexander (see Kroll, RE,
IX-ii, col. 178).
Other relevant Alexandrian texts are the discussion of the
nutritive soul in de anima 33. 13-38. II apropos Aristot. de an. B4;
Quaest. I. 5, a more abstract discussion than that offered here at
235. 14-238. IO of why growth occurs in the form and not the matter;
the so-called de augmento, a Latin text translated from the Arabic
by Gerard of Cremona (see Cranz, Catalogus, I, 88-89), which
provides an orthodox defence of Aristotle's theory. It is ultimately
derived from Alex. Quaest. I. 5. On the relevant Arabic manuscripts
see A. Dietrich, Nachr. Gott. Akad. (1964), p. 98, and A. Badawi,
La Transmission de la philosophie grecque au monde arabe, p. 96.
The heterodox theory of growth attributed to Alexander by
COMMENTARY 2 45
Averroes (Middle Commentary on the de generatione et corruptione,

tr. S. Kurland, p. 38) must be based on a misunderstanding.
233. 15-22. The contrived nature of this polemic is further evident

if we compare the link established here between nutriment's being
assimilated throughout the whole of a body and bodily inter-
penetration, and that established in ch. 8 between total mixture
and complete division. In the present case Alexander himself admits
that growth occurs in all parts and uses this to attract, as it were,
the theory of bodily interpenetration (cf. also 234. 23-29 and 236.
12), whereas in ch. 8 he compels the theory of total blending to
admit a compatibility with the paradox of a complete division of
constituents.
233. 25. "our problem." I.e. the claim that growth involves body
going through body. Cf. 234. 33-34 where Alexander also seems to
be justifying the relevance of his lengthy exposition by referring
to this topic.
233. 26-27. "only bodies with their own nutritive faculty are
nourished ... " (-rpecp&'t'CXL ~e <)O'(X 't'YjV 8p&7t't'LX~V ~XEL Mvcxµ.tv EV cxu-rotc;).
This nutritive faculty is not mentioned in de gen. et corr. A5, though
it is implied (see Joachim on 322 31-33). It is that basic faculty
of the soul possessed by all animals (see de an. B4 415a 23-24, cf.
de gen. an. 7 40b 34). In his discussion of de gen. et corr. A5 Philoponus
deals with it at length-see 107. 32-108. 3, IIJ. 22-23, 29-32. See
also below 234. II, 14; 236. 20-21, 26; 237. 24. At de an. 35. 9-17
Alexander draws a distinction between the nutritive faculty and
the faculty of growth within the vegetative soul (-ro cpu-rtx6v)-e.g.
the old are nourished but do not grow (35. 12-13). This is not of
central importance for the general theory of growth enunciated in
this chapter; the two are linked at 234. II (cf. also 233. 22, 24-25)
and distinguished in very general terms at 236. 18-26.
233. 30-234. 15. This is based on de gen. et corr. A5 321a 17-321b 10,
though without the aporetic character of the Aristotelian text.
234. 7. "the change from Water to Air." For this example see
de gen. et corr. A5 321a 10-17. Alexander has added the case of
blending (234. 9) because of its relevance to the main theme of
this treatise; cf. also 15. 232. 20-31 where it is distinguished from
this process of change.
DE MIXTIONE
234. 17-23. "It is not by the incorporeal." This is derived from the
brief Aristotelian argument against growth by the incorporeal at
de gen. et corr. A5 321a 6-7: "If then by the incorporeal there will
be separable void (xwptcrTov xev6v )- but it is impossible that there
be separable matter for a magnitude." Taking only the first clause
Alexander has interpreted "separable void" to mean the non-
occupancy of place by the cause of growth. Although this argument
is only applied to the body that causes growth (To ocu~"ijcrocv, 234. 21)
it would equally apply to the body that grows, if it were said to be
incorporeal.
234. 23-32. At de gen. et corr. A5 321b 15-16 Aristotle places three

restrictions on any theory of growth: (1) that the body [that grows]
is not void; (2) that there are not two bodies in the same place;
and (3) that growth does not occur through something incorporeal.
(2) is dealt with here by referring to the familiar paradox of body
going through body (234. 23-29); cf. Philop. de gen. et corr. 103. 10,
15. On (1) see 234. 29-32 where the body that is void is clearly the
one that is nurtured (To Tpeqi6µevov, 234. 30). (1) is also expressed
in more general terms at 5. 219. 3-9, and can be derived from
Aristot. Phys. 214b 8-9 where the view that growth requires the
void is refuted. See also Philop. de gen. et corr. 104. 14-17 and cf.
above, pp. 78-79. (3) is the correlative of (1), and is paraphrased
by Alexander at 234. 17-23 above (see note ad lac.). Philoponus
(de gen. et corr. 103. 10-15) groups both (1) and (3) together as
entailing the introduction of the void.
Joachim's note on de gen. et corr. 321a 5-9 goes into more detail
on this topic, and I have drawn on it here.
235. 1-12. This is a more elementary version of de gen. et corr. A5

321b 16-19.
235. I. "whole units" (Toc o).oc). Growth is in all parts (see 233. 16,
19-21, 234. 1-2); therefore whatever grows must grow as a whole.
235. 12-14. "preserved and stable" (crw~ecr6oct T& xoct µevew). Cf.
234. IO and 236. 23, and see note on II. 224. 30-32 where we show
that this language is particularly applied to a body's form, and
probably carries providential overtones. I ts use in the present text
anticipates the argument beginning at 235. 17 which shows that
growth must be in the form.
COMMENTARY 247
235. 14-236. 5. Cf. de gen. et corr. A5 321b 19-28. At Met. Z16 1040a
5-16 the parts of animals are ruled out as substances. Joachim
(on de gen. et corr. 321b 19-22) accuses Alexander of interpreting
Aristotle as talking about form and matter in abstraction from the
living organism. Yet_ he does make references to the nutritive
faculty of organisms (cf. on 233. 26-27), which is more than Aristotle
does in de gen. et corr. A5. Joachim (on 322a 31-33), wrongly I
believe, takes the term MvixµLc; (322a 28-29) to refer to the nutritive
soul, but in the context it is only an alternative for d8oc; (cf. de
gen. et corr. Arn 327b 31) and used as it is with reference to the
analogy of an expanding duct (cf. on 237. 28-238. 10) has no
biological connotation. The abstractness of Alexander's account is
no greater than Aristotle's and, like his authority, he treats form
throughout this chapter as the form of a given quantity and not
as the nutritive soul of an organism, the view for which Joachim
(on 321b 16-17) argues speculatively.
235. 33. "prevents its total destruction." Cf. Alex. Quaest. I. 5. 13.
11-16 and Philop. de gen. et corr. 106. 3-11 for the aporia that if
growth is in form then it is conceivable that all the matter will be
dispersed and a separate form left behind. Both solve it by stating
essentially the same theory of controlled dispersal outlined here at
lines 29-33.
236. 2. "would abolish the principle" (ix.vixLp~o-EL). Cf. on 6. 219.

20-22.
236. 14-26. This should be compared with de gen. et corr. A5 322a

25-28 where Aristotle distinguishes nutriment from growth in its
being because it produces growth only in so far as it is in poten-
tiality "so much flesh" (1tocrY) o-ocp~), but is nutriment where it is
only potentially flesh. Alexander has simplified this point. For the
general distinction between the processes of growth and nutrition
see also de an. B4 416b 11-17, and de gen. an. B4 744b 33-36.
236. 14-15. "For matter is not at all stable in a preexistent state ... "
(ou8e yixp 'TT)V ix.px~v 1tpoU1tocpxov {moµevEL). 1tpoU1tOCPXELV ("preexist")
seems to have been a quasitechnical term to describe the state of
the substrate to which nutriment is added. See 236. 17, Philop. de
gen. et corr. 118. 23, and cf. on 237. 8-9. The only precise Aristote-
lian precedent would seem to be Rhet. 1419b 22 (~ -rwv o-wµoc-rwv
DE MIXTIONE
ocu~-rio-L<; ex. 1tpoi}'1tocpx6v-rwv fo-rlv),

though the verb is used in a more
general discussion of change at de gen. et corr. A3 317b 17.
236. 27-28. " ... which transforms and assimilates food and absorbs
it for the body being nourished" (-rij<; &i-AoLot>O'"')<; -re niv -rpocp~v x.ocl.
e~oµ.oLot>O'"')<; x.ocl. 1tpoo-x.pLvouO'"')<; -r<j> -rpecpoµ.ev). As a result of this
repetitious triad (for other examples see on 3. 216. 15-16) we are
forced here and at 237. 17 and 238. II-13 to distinguish e~oµ.olwo-L<;
(literally "making like," and therefore rendered "assimilation")
from 1tp6crxpLo-L<; otherwise translated as "assimilation" but which
has a root-meaning of "separating towards" or "dispersing in."
There is no difference in the processes envisaged: at 238. II-13
they define one another, and are used together at Alex. de an. 35. r.
236. 32-237. 5. This description of proportional growth and the
subsequent illustration is based on de gen. et corr. A5 321b 23-322a 4.
The details of the forward shift of parts (1tpow0e°Lv) that occurs in
order to preserve the same shape (237. 1-5, anticipating the analogy
at 237. 5-15) is a scholastic addition. We find this description
throughout Philoponus' account-see de gen. et corr. 107. 29-30,
108. 6, 30, 33, 109. 4, and in a biological version of the present text
at II7. 22-u8. 2. (On the general process of assimilating nutriment
see also Alex. de an. 33. 16-34. 26.) It seems to have developed
under the influence of the passage from the de caelo B14 on the
sphericity of the earth used to illustrate proportional growth in the
next passage (237. 5-15) where 1tpow0e°Lv ("push-forward") occurs
(see 297a 28, cf. 297b 13). See note on 237. 5-15.
236. 29-30. "so it maintains it along with its own shape." Shape is
the physical manifestation of a body's form. Although the form of
the homoiomerous bodies will not be specifiable as a particular
shape, the total effect of growth can be measured by reference to
an animal's shape. Form and shape (crx~µ.oc, µ.opcp~) are often closely
related by Aristotle (e.g. de gen. et corr. A5 321b 27-28) though in
his discussion of growth he does not emphasize the preservation of
shape as do his commentators; cf. also Philop. de gen. et corr. 105.
15-16.
237. 4. "an equal addition." That is, an equally distributed addition
and not the additional nutriment referred to at 236. 18 which is
equal to the dispersed flesh and therefore only nourishes without
causing the very growth under discussion in the present passage.
COMMENTARY 249
237. 5-238. 10. On this analogical reasoning see note on 15. 231.
12-29. Though not derived from Stoic sources like those at 15. 231.
30-232. 18 the validity of these analogies is again no greater than
that of the Stoic argument from the common notions in ch. 4. They
merely sustain a theory already established in abstract terms (at
235. 17-236. 5) by clarifying the particular process of growth
prescribed by that theory. They are a posteriori suasions rather
than directly informative analogies.
237. 5-15. Alexander's illustration here is based on part of Aristotle's

discussion of the sphericity of the earth at de caelo B14 297a 8-297b
17. There it was argued that if we conceived of the earth being
generated the heavy particles would all move towards the centre
of the universe and so all be at a constant distance from it (297a
8-21). This would apply even to the case of particles of different
size, since they would all have the same impulse to the centre and
the larger would drive the smaller ahead of it (..o yocp 1ti.e:i:ov &.e:t "t'O
7tp0 OCU"t'OU €/\OC"t"'t'OV 1tpow6e:tv ocvocyxoctov µezpL "t'OU µfoou TIJV p07tYJV
EXOV"t'Wv ocµcpo°Lv-297a 27-29; cf. 237. 10-13). There would be no
difficulty even if a heavier weight than the earth were added to it
in one hemisphere (cf. 237. 5-9), for by the same principle of impul-
sion towards the centre the sphericity of the earth would be main-
tained and the centre of the earth would not be displaced from the
centre of the universe (297a 30-297b 14). For other examples of a
commentator reworking Aristotelian illustrations, see above, p. 80;
also on 13. 229. 3, 15; 232. 1-5.
237. 6-7. "both in its own nature and by its own middle" (..cj>
t8£ µfoci>)- The first expression is explained at 237. 13-14 (cf.
Aristot. de caelo 297a 16-17 and Alex. de jato 185. 28-31). The second
may refer to the fact that because of its particular composition a
given mass of earth will not move to the exact centre of the universe
but to the centre peculiar (t8Lo~) to it. This is the explanation
forwarded by Alex. ap. Simplic. de caelo 546. 15-23 for the earth
not being exactly spherical. Earth is "non-uniform" (ocvoµowµep-ri~)
and therefore different quantities of it will have impulses towards
slightly different centres: "heavy bodies aim to occupy the middle
by the middle of their individual impulse ("t'ij> nj~ po1t~~ nj~ otxe:(oc~
µfoci>) not by the centre of the magnitude [of the earth]" (546.
20-21).
DE MIXTIONE
237. 8-9. "this would not sink through the preexisting earth" (ou
8ta: -rijt; npoUnixpx_ou(TYJ<; yijt; 8tix8ueTixL). The use of npoUmxpx_eLV here
and at line ro is influenced by the earlier account of growth; see
above on 236. 14-15. For the contrast between "sinking-through"
and proportional growth made in the context of a general descrip-
tion of growth see Philop. de gen. et corr. rr7. 24-rrS. 2. 8tix8ueG6ixt
is the commentator's term for the process that would lead to an
additional weight displacing the earth from the centre of the uni-
verse and not combining with it to form a single body with one
centre; it has no Aristotelian precedent.
237. 26-27. "by the agency of nature and the nutritive faculty"
(uno -rijt; IPUO'E6><; "t'E xixl -rijt; 6pE7t"t'LX!/j<; 8uvixµewt;). Cf. Philop. de gen.
et corr. ro8. 8-12 where the assimilative power of the nutritive
faculty is explained as the action of nature in maintaining the
shapes of an organism's parts by effecting a proportional distribu-
tion of nutriment.
237. 28-238. ro. "wine moving along a channel." This example is
almost certainly a supplement to de gen. et corr. A5 32rb 24-25
where the absorption of water in a measure that retains its shape
is offered as an analogy for the proportionality of growth. This must
also be true of Philoponus' more elaborate example of a duct of
skin (a@A'Y)V 8epµixTtvot;) expanding and contracting when different
amounts of water are present in it but always maintaining the same
shape; see de gen. et corr. 105. 22-26, 107. 27-31, and ro8. 12-14.
At Aristotle de gen. et corr. A5 322a 27-31 we have the case of a
duct (ixuMi;) absorbing liquid only in virtue of Joachim's emenda-
tion of the &U).oi; ("immaterial") of the manuscripts. The word tibia
occurs in a sixteenth-century translation, but &U).oi; was the reading
in the manuscripts known to Alexander and Philoponus; see the
latte::- ad loc.
Phloponus (de gen. et corr. ro6. 12-17) offers a further illustration
of g owth in form by referring to the way that a shadow thrown
1
acre--~ a moving river preserves its shape while the water flows.
237. Jg. "because of its elasticity and pliancy" (8t' uyp6"t"YJTIX xixl
µix).cc,:6"t"YJT1X). As Philoponus emphasises (de gen. et corr. ro8. 3-9,
rr7. 27-29) it is through their moistness (uyp6"t"Y)t;) that organic
bodies assimilate food. Perhaps in Alexander's commentary this
was also stressed when the present example was used. However in
COMMENTARY 25r
the analogy here uyp6TIJ<; describes not only the composition of

the channel but its flexibility in absorbing nutriment.
238. 14-15. "the ultimate nutriment-blood in redblooded creatures

and its analogue in other things ... " (~ foxcx.TIJ Tpo<p~, /Sm:p foTlv
&TTL TWV S:V(XLfLW'V TO (X~l,L(X,
' \ - ' I I T &TTL ~l. TW'V
' \ 01:: - rT../V\W'V
•h ~ TO\ (X'V(Xr,.Oyov
,
1 ~ )
• Th"IS cou ld b e
based on Aristot. de somn. 3. 456a 34-35; also cf. de gen. an. B4
740a 21-22. The "other things" are bloodless creatures (Toc 1X'V(XLl,L(X).
On "ultimate nutriment" cf. also part. an. ~4 678a 7-9, and Alex.
de an. 94. 26-95. 6.
238. 15-16. "by passing through the vessels that belong to them"
(8Loc TW'V &.yye:lwv tpe:poµt'VYJ TW'V X(X8YJXO'VTW'V ETT' (Xl)TCX.). For X(X8~xe:L'V
ETTL TL in this sense see Alex. de sensu 41. 2-5. For &yye:t(X = qiM~e:<;
("blood-vessels") see on 5. 218. 31.
238. 17-20. "and we must conceive of the process ... " For these
two examples see de gen. et corr. A5 322a 9-11. Alexander separates
the example of fire from the point that Aristotle derives from it
(322a rr-16)-that nutriment and the growing flesh must be to-
gether, because if they were apart new flesh would grow, and this
would be coming-to-be, just as an already existing fire may either
be kindled (growth) or logs may be set on fire (coming-to-be).
Alexander only makes this point in general terms at lines ro-13.
238. 24. "remarkable theory" (8(Xuµo:o-Tov 86yµix). Cf. 227. 4 and

213. 6-7.
Additional Note: Alexander's lost commentary on the de generatione

et corruptione. The evidence for this work's survival in the Greek
tradition is gathered by Zeller, p. 790 n. The principal source is
Philoponus whose commentary is the only one on this Aristotelian
treatise extant in Greek; he cites it 35 times. Cf. also the title to
Alex. Quaest. II. 22.
A. Wartelle (Inventaire des manuscrits Crees d'Aristote et ses
commentateurs, 1963) reports the existence of three manuscripts of
this work: Athens, National Library, Nos. rr73 and 1301 (Wartelle
Nos. 38 and 43), and Athos, Library of Vatopedi, No. 20 (Wartelle
No. 173). I have been informed by the Athens library that the
description of the first two mss. is incorrect, and I would assume
that the third, an eighteenth century ms., is similarly misreported.
DE MIXTIONE
The only extant part of this commentary is the Arabic fragment

at Chester Beatty ms. 3702 fol. 168b (see Peters, Aristoteles Arabus,
p. 38 n. e); for the text and an English translation see A. A. Ghorab,
Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition pp. 81-82. This
material is not related to any of the themes of the present study.
TEXTS FROM THE DE MIXTIONE IN
STOICORUM VETERUM FRAGMENTA
de mixtione SVF
I. 213. 2-8 II. 481
3. 216. I-I4 II. 470
3. 216. 8-14 III. p. 258 (Sosigenes)
3/4. 2I6. 14-218. IO II. 473
6. 219. 16-20 II. 466
7. 220. 37-221. 3 II. 481
8. 221. 16-19 II. 474
IO. 223, 25-224. 4 II. 441
IO. 224, 14-26 II. 442
II. 224, 32-225. IO II. 3ro
II. 225, 18-27 II. 1044
II. 226. I0-2I II. ro47
II. 226. 24-30 II. ro48
12. 226. 34-227. I7 II. 475
16. 233. 14-24 II. 735
16. 234. 23-32 II. 735 2
BIBLIOGRAPHY I
1. ANCIENT AUTHORS
(a) Collections
Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca. 23 vols. Berlin, 1883-1907. (CAG).

Doxographi Graeci. H. Diels, ed. Berlin, 1879 (reprinted 1958).
Epicurea. H. Usener, ed. Leipzig, 1887 (reprinted 1966).
Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. H. Diels and W. Kranz, eds. 3 vols. 6th ed.,
Berlin, 1951-2 (reprinted 1968).
Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta. H. von Arnim, ed. 3 vols. Stuttgart, 1903
(reprinted 1964).
Vol. IV, Indices. M. Adler. Stuttgart, 1924 (reprinted 1964).
Supplementum Aristotelicum. 3 vols. Berlin, 1885-1903. (SA).
(b) Texts and Editions of Individual Authors
Albinos. Epitome (ed. P. Louis). Paris, 1945.

Alexander of Aphrodisias. In Analytica Priora (ed. M. Wallies). CAG 11-i
(1883).
In Metaphysica (ed. M. Hayduck). CAG I (1891).
In Meteorologica (ed. M. Hayduck). CAG III-ii (1890).
In De Sensu (ed. P. Wendland). CAG 111-i (1901).
In De Sophisticis Elenchis (ed. M. Wallies). CAG II-iii (1898).
In Topica (ed. M. Wallies). CAG II-ii (1891).
De anima liber cum mantissa (ed. I. Bruns). SA 11-i (1887).
De anima liber secundus una cum commentario de Mistione (trans. A.
Caninius). 3rd ed. Venice, 1555.
- - . Scripta minora reliqua (Quaestiones, de jato, de mixtione) (ed. I. Bruns).
SA II-ii (1892).
- - . The Refutation by Alexander of Aphrodisias of Galen's Treatise on the
Theory of Motion (trans. with introduction, notes and an edition of the
Arabic text by N. Rescher and M. Marmurra). Islamabad, 1965.
Anonymus Londiniensis. Ed. H. Diels. SA 111-i (1893).
Aristoclis Messenii Reliquiae (ed. H. Heiland). Diss., Giessen, 1925.
Aristotle. De Anima (ed. R. D. Hicks). Cambridge, 1907 (reprinted Amster-
dam, 1965).
- - . Aristotle on Coming-to-be and Passing-away (ed. H. H. Joachim).
Oxford, 1922.
- - . Aristotle on Coming-to-be and Passing-away: Some Comments (W. J.
Verdenius and J. H. Waszink). 2nd ed. Leiden, 1968.
- - . Generation of Animals (with an English translation by A. L. Peck).
London-Cambridge, Mass., 1953.
- - . Metaphysics (ed. Sir D. Ross). Oxford, 1924.
- - . Meteorologica (with an English translation by H. D. P. Lee). London-
Cambridge, Mass., 1952.
Meteorologica (ed. J. L. Ideler). 2 vols. Leipzig, 1836.
Parva Naturalia (ed. Sir D. Ross). Oxford, 1955.
Physics (ed. Sir D. Ross). Oxford, 1936.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 255
Atticus. Fragments (ed. J. Baudry). Paris, 1931.
Averroes. Aristotle's de generatione et corruptione, Middle Commentary and
Epitome (trans. S. Kurland). Cambridge, Mass., 1958.
Calcidius. Commentaria in Platonis Timaeum (ed. J. H. Waszink), Plato
Latinus IV. London-Leiden, 1962.
Cicero. Academica (ed. J. S. Reid). London, 1885.
Diogenes Laertius. Lives of Eminent Philosophers (with an English translation
by R. D. Hicks). 2 vols. London-New York, 1925.
- - . Vitae Philosophorum (ed. H. S. Long). Oxford, 1964.
Eudemus. Ed. F. Wehrli, in Vol. VII of Die Schule des Aristoteles. 2nd ed.
Basel, 1969.
Galen. De tempramentis (ed. G. Helmreich). Stuttgart, 1904 (reprinted 1909).
- - . Scripta Minora (edd. I. Marquardt, I. Mueller, G. Helmreich). 2 vols.
Leipzig, 1884, 1891.
Ps.-Galen. De qualitatibus incorporeis (ed. J. Westenberger). Diss., Marburg,
1906.
Hierokles. Ethische Elementarlehre (Pap. 9780) (ed. H. Von Arnim), Berliner
Klassikertexte IV. Berlin, 1906.
Marcus Aurelius. The Meditations (ed. A. S. L. Farquharson). 2 vols. Oxford,
1948.
Nemesius of Emesa. De Natura Hominis (ed. C. F. Matthaei). Halle, 1802
(reprinted Hildesheim, 1967).
"Ocellus Lucanus." Ed. R. Harder, Neue Philologische Untersuchungen I.
Berlin, 1926.
Philoponus. In de anima (ed. M. Hayduck). CAG XV (1897).
- - . In·de generatione et corruptione (ed. H. Vitelli). CAG XIV-ii (1897).
- - . In Physica (ed. H. Vitelli). CAG XVII-XVIII (1888).
Philostratus. Lives of the Sophists (with an English translation by W. C.
Wright). London-New York, 1922.
Plotinus. Schriften (trans. R. Harder, ed. R. Beutler and W. Theiler). 6 vols.
Hamburg, 1956-1970.
Plutarch. Moralia (ed. M. Pohlenz, rev. R. Westman). Vol. VI, Fasc. 2.
Leipzig, 1959.
Sextus Empiricus. Opera (ed. H. Mutschman, rev. J. Mau). 3 vols. Leipzig,
1958-1961.
- - . Sextus Empiricus (with an English translation by R. G. Bury). 4 vols.
London-Cambridge, 1933-1949.
Simplicius. In de anima (ed. M. Hayduck). CAG XI (1882).
- - . In de caelo (ed. I. L. Heiberg). CAG VII (1894).
- - . In Categorias (ed. C. Kalbfleisch). CAG VIII (1907).
- - . In Physica (ed. H. Diels). CAG IX-X (1882).
Stobaeus. Eclogae Physicae et Ethicae (ed. C. Wachsmuth). 4 vols. Berlin,
1908 (reprinted 1958).
Themistius. In de anima (ed. R. Heinze). CAG V-iii (1890).
In de caelo (ed. S. Landauer). CAG V-v (1902).
- - . In Physica (ed. H. Schenkl). CAG V-ii (1900).
2. MODERN AUTHORS
Abel, K.-H. Review of J. Gould, The Philosophy of Chrysippus, Gnomon 44
(1972) 645-651.
Apelt, 0. "Die schrift des Alexander von Aphrodisias iiber die mischung,"
Philologus 45 (1886) 82-99.
Au bonnet, M. J. See under Galperine.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Babut, D. Plutarque et le Stoicisme. Lyons, 1969.

Badawi, A. La Transmission de la Philosophie Grecque au M onde A rabe. Paris,
1968.
Baeumker, C. Das Problem der Materie in der Griechischen Philosophie.
Munster, 1890 (reprinted Frankfurt, 1963).
Barth, P. Die Stoa. 6th ed. rev. by A. Goedeckemeyer. Stuttgart, 1946.
Bazan, B. C. "Le 'De Intellectu' attribue a Alexandre d'Aphrodise," Revue
Philosophique de Louvain 71 (1973) 468-487.
Birley, A. Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. London, 1971.
Bowersock, G. W. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford, 1969.
Bowie, E. L. "Greeks and their past in the second sophistic," Past and Pres-
ent 46 (1970) 3-41.
Brehier, E. Chrysippe et l'Ancien Stoicisme. Rev. ed. Paris, 1951.
- - . La Theorie des Incorporels dans l'Ancien Stotcisme. 3rd ed. Paris, 1962.
Brinkmann, A. "Ein Schreibgebrauch und seine Bedeutung fiir die Text-
kritik," RM 57 (1902) 481-497.
Brown, H. V. B. ''Avicenna and the Christian Philosophers in Baghdad,"
pp. 35-48 in Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. Ed. S. M.
Stern, et al. Oxford, 1972.
Browning, R. "An Unpublished Funeral Oration on Anna Comnena," Pro-
ceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society n.s. 8 (1962) 1-12.
Chemiss, H. Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy. Baltimore, 1935
(reprinted New York, 1964).
Christensen, J. An Essay on the Unity of Stoic Philosophy. Copenhagen, 1962.
Cranz, F. E. "Alexander of Aphrodisias" in Catalogus Translationum et Com-
mentarium. Ed. P. Kristeller. Vol. I. Washington, D.C., 1961; II, 1971.
- - . "The Prefaces to the Greek Editions and Latin Translations of Alexan-
der of Aphrodisias, 1450-1575," American Philosophical Society Pro-
ceedings 102 (1958) 510-546.
DeLacy, P.H. "Stoic Views of Poetry," AJP 69 (1948) 269-280.
Dietrich, A. "Die Arabische Version einer unbekannten Schrift des Alexan<ler
von Aphrodisias," Nachr. der Gott. Akad. (1962) 90-104.
Dijksterhuis, E. J. The Mechanisation of the World Picture. Trans. C. Dik-
shoom. Oxford, 1961.
Donini, P. L. "L'anima e gli elementi nel de anima di Alessandro di Afrodi-
sia," Atti dell'Accademia delle Scienze de Torino 105 (1970-1971) 61-107.
Dorrie, H. Porphyrios' "Symmikta Zetemata". (Zetemata 20) Munich, 1959.
- - . "'l'1t6aTcxat,;;,Wort- und Bedeutungsgeschichte," Nachr. der Gott. Akad.
(1955) 36-83.
Duhem, P. Systeme du Monde. Vol. I. Paris, 1913 (reprinted Paris, 1954).
During, I. Aristotle in the Ancient Biographical Tradition. Goteborg, 1957.
- - . "Von Aristoteles bis Leibniz: einige Hauptlinien in der Geschichte des
Aristotelismus," Antike und Abendland 4 (1954) n8-154.
Edelstein, L. Ancient Medicine: Selected Papers of Ludwig Edelstein. Edd. 0.
Temkin and C. L. Temkin. Baltimore, 1967.
- - . The Meaning of Stoicism. Cambridge, Mass., 1966.
- - . "The Philosophical System of Posidonius," AJP 57 (1936) 286-325.
Evrard, E. "Jean Philopon, Son 'Commentaire sur Nicomaque' et ses Rap-
ports avec Ammonius," REG 78 (1965) 592-598.
Festugiere, A. J. L'Ideal religieux des Grecs et l'Evangile. Paris, 1932.
- - . "Modes de composition des commentaries de Proclus," MH 20 (1963)
77-100.
Fuhrmann, M. Das Systematische Lehrbuch. Gottingen, 1960.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 257
Furley, D. J. "Lucretius and the Stoics," Bulletin of the Institute of Classical
Studies, U. of London no. 13 (1966) 13-33.
- - . Two Studies in Greek Atomism. Princeton, 1967.
Galperine, M. "Le Theme du melange dans le Stoi:cisme et le Neo-plato-
nisme," Actes du vne Congres de l'Association Guillaume Bude (Paris,
1964), pp. 298-300. Comment by M. J. Aubonnet, ibid.
Ghorab, A. A. "The Greek Commentators on Aristotle," pp. 77-88 in Islamic
Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. Ed. S. M. Stern, et al. Oxford,
1972.
Goldschmidt, V. Le Systeme Sto'icien et l'Idee de Temps. Paris, 1953.
- - . "'TITAPXEIN et 'T!l>I:ETANAI dans la philosophie Stoicienne," REG
85 (1972) 331-344.
Gould, J.B. The Philosophy of Chrysippus. ("Philosophia Antiqua," Vol.
XVII.) Leiden, 1970.
Grant, R. M. "Greek Literature in the Treatise De Trinitate and Cyril Contra
Julianum," ]TS 15 (1964) 265-279.
Graeser, A. "Apropos 'TITAPXEIN bei den Stoikern," Archiv fur Begriffs-
geschichte 15 (1971) 299-305.
- - . Plotinus and the Stoics: A Preliminary Study. ("Philosophia Antiqua,"
Vol. XXII.) Leiden, 1972.
Grima!, P. "La critique de l'Aristotelisme dans le de vita beata," REL 45
(1967) 396-419.
Guthrie, W. K. C. A History of Greek Philosophy. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1962-
1969.
Hadot, P. "Zur Vorgeschichte des Begriffes 'Existenz,' bei den Stoikern,"
Archiv fur Begriffsgeschichte 13 (1969) 115-127.
Happ, H. Hyle: Studien zur Aristotelischen Materie-Begriffe. Berlin-New
York, 1971.
- - . "Weltbild und Seinslehre bei Aristoteles," Antike und Abendland 14
(1968) 72-91.
Hesse, M. "Aristotle's logic of analogy," Phil. Quart. 15 (1965) 328-340.
Horne, R. A. "Aristotelian Chemistry," Chymia II (1966) 21-27.
Rowald, E. "Das philosophiegeschichtliche Compendium des Areios Didy-
mos," Hermes 55 (1920) 68-98.
Hunt, H. K. "The importance of Zeno's physics for an understanding of
Stoicism during the later Roman Republic," Apeiron 1 (1967) 5-14.
Ilberg, J. "Ueber die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios Galenos," RM 44 (1889)
207-239, 47 (1892) 489-514.
- - . "Aus Galens Praxis. Ein Kulturbild aus der Romischen Kaiserzeit,"
Neue Jahrbucher 15 (1905) 276-312.
Jannone, A. "Aristote et la physique stoicienne," Actes du VIJe Congres de
l'Association Guillaume Bude (Paris, 1964), pp. 284-287.
Joachim, H. H. "Aristotle's Conception of Chemical Combination," JP 29
(1904) 72-86.
Jones, W. H. S. The Medical Writings of Anonymus Londiniensis.Cambridge,
1947.
Kahn, C. "On the Terminology for Copula and Existence," pp. 141-158 in
Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. Ed. S. M. Stern et al.
Oxford, 1972.
Kramer, H. J. Platonismus und Hellenistische Philosophie. Berlin-New York,
1971.
Lilla, S. R. C. Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and
Gnosticism. Oxford, 1971.
17
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Long, A. A. "Aristotle's Legacy to Stoic Ethics," BICS 15 (1968) 72-85.

- - . Ed. Problems in Stoicism. London, 1971.
- - . "Stoic Determinism and Alexander of Aphrodisias' De Fata (I-XIV),"
AGPh 52 (1970) 247-268.
Lynch, J. P. Aristotle's School: A Study of a Greek Educational Institution.
Berkeley-Los Angeles-London, 1972.
MacDiarmid, J. "Theophrastus on the Presocratic Causes," HSCP 61 (1953)
85-156.
Martin, Th.-H. "Questions connexes sur deux Sosigenes, l'un astronome et
l'autre peripateticien, et sur deux peripateticiens Alexandre, l'un d'Egee
et l'autre d'Aphrodisias," Annales de la Faculte des Lettres de Bordeaux
I (1879) 174-187.
Marrou, H. I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Trans. G. Lamb. New
York, 1964.
Martorana, A. L. "11 Maestro di Alessandro di Afrodisia," Sophia 36 (1968)
365-367.
Merlan, P. Monopsychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness: Problems of the
Soul in the Neoaristotelian and Neoplatonic Tradition. The Hague, 1963.
Mette, H. J. Review of M. Pohlenz, Die Stoa, Gnomon 23 (1951) 27-39.
Montanari, E. "Per un'edizione del Ile:pt Kpixae:c.>c; di Alessandro di Afrodisia,"
Accademia Toscana di Scienze e Lettere "La Colombaria" (Florence, 1971),
Vol. 36, pp. 17-58.
Moraux, P. Alexandre d'Aphrodise, Exegete de la Noetique d'Aristote. Liege-
Paris, 1942.
- - . "Alexander von Aphrodisias Quaest. 2. 3," Hermes 95 (1967) 159-169.
- - . D'Aristote a Bessarion: Trois exposes sur l' histoire et la transmission de
l'aristotilisme grec. Laval, 1970.
- - . "Aristoteles, der Lehrer Alexanders von Aphrodisias," AG Ph 49 (1967)
169-182.
- - . "Einige Aspekte des Aristotelismus von Andronikos bis Alexander von
Aphrodisias," pp. 203-208 in Antiquitas Graeco-Romana ac tempora
nostra (Acta congressus internationalis habiti Brunae 1966). Prague,
1968.
- - . "L'expose de la philosophie d'Aristote chez Diogene Laerce (V. 28-
34)," Revue Philosophique de Louvain 47 (1949) 5-43.
- - . Les Listes Anciennes des Ouvrages d'Aristote. Louvain, 1951.
Morrow, G. "Qualitative Change in Aristotle's Physics," pp. 154-167 in
Naturphilosophie bei Aristoteles und Theophrast. Ed. I. Diiring. Heidel-
berg, 1969.
Mueller, I. "Stoic and Peripatetic Logic," AGPh 51 (1969) 173-187.
Miiller, A. Die Griechischen Philosophen in der Arabischen Oberlieferung.
Halle, 1873.
Nutton, V. "Galen and Medical Autobiography," Proceedings of the Cambridge
Philological Society n.s. 18 (1972) 50-62.
Ogereau, F. Essai sur le Systeme Philosophique des Stoiciens. Paris, 1885.
Orth, E. "Les Oeuvres d'Albinos," Antiquiti Classique 16 (1947) n3-n4.
Owens, J. "The Grounds of Universality in Aristotle," American Philosophi-
cal Quarterly 3 (1966) 162-170.
Pearson, A. C. "Stoica Frustula," JP 30 (1907) 2n-222.
Peters, F. E. Aristoteles Arabus: The Oriental Translations and Commentaries
on the Aristotelian Corpus. ("New York University, Department of
Classics: Monographs on Mediterranean Antiquity," Vol. II.) Leiden,
1968.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 259
Pines, S. "Omne quod movetur necesse est ab aliquo moveri: A Refutation
of Galen by Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Theory of Motion," Isis
52 (1961) 21-54.
- - . "Un Texte Inconnu d'Aristote en Version Arabe," Archives d'histoire
doctrinal et litteraire du moyen dge 34 (1959) 295-299.
Plezia, M. De A ndronici Rhodii studiis aristotelicis. Krakow, 1946.
Pohlenz, M. Kleine Schriften. Ed. H. Dorrie. 2 vols. Hildesheim, 1965.
- - . Review of K. Reinhardt, Kosmos und Sympathie, GGA 184 (1922) 161-
187 ( = Kleine Schriften, I, 199-232).
- - . "Plutarchs Schriften gegen die Stoiker," Hermes 74 (1939) 1-33
(= Kleine Schriften, I, 448-479).
- - . Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. 2 vols. Gottingen,
1948.
Praechter, K. Review of CAG, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 18 (1909) 516-538.
Reesor, M. "The Stoic Concept of Quality," AJP 75 (1954) 40-58.
Reinhardt, K. Kosmos und Sympathie: Neue Untersuchungen uber Poseido-
nios. Munich, 1926.
Rex, F. Chrysipps Mischungslehre und die an ihr geubte Kritik in Alexander
von Aphrodisias de mixtione. Diss., Frankfurt, 1966.
Reith, 0. Grundbegriffe der Stoischen Ethik. (Problemata 9.) Berlin, 1933.
Rist, J. M. Stoic Philosophy. Cambridge, 1969.
Robert, L. "Inscriptions d'Aphrodisias," Antiquite Classique 35 (1966) 397-
432·
Rodier, G. "Corrections au texte du n-e:pt µl~e:wc; d'Alexandre d'Aphrodisias,"
Revue de Philologie 17 (1893) 10-13.
- - . Etudes de Philosophie Grecque. Paris, 1957.
Sambursky, S. "Conceptual Developments in Greek Atomism," Archives
Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences II (1958) 251-261.
- - . "Note on John Philoponus' Rejection of the Infinite," pp. 351-353 in
Islamic Philosophy and the Classical Tradition. Ed. S. M. Stem, et al.
Oxford, 1972.
- - . "On Some References to Experience in Stoic Physics," Isis 49 (1958)
331-335.
- - . The Physical World of the Greeks. London, 1956.
- - . Physics of the Stoics. London, 1959.
Sandbach, F. H. "ENNOIA and IIPOAH'YI~ in the Stoic Theory of Know-
ledge," CQ 24 (1930) 44-51 (= pp. 22-37 in Problems in Stoicism. Ed.
A. A. Long).
- - . "Phantasia Kataleptike," pp. 9-21 in Problems in Stoicism. Ed. A. A.
Long.
- - . "Plutarch on the Stoics," CQ 34 (1940) 20-25.
Schmidt, H. Der Hermino Peripatetico. Diss., Marburg, 1907.
Seeck, G. A. Ober die Elemente in der Kosmologie des Aristoteles: Untersuchun-
gen zu "de generatione et corruptione" und "de caelo." (Zetemata 34.)
Munich, 1964.
Simon, H. and M. Die Alte Stoa und Ihr Naturbegriff. Berlin, 1956.
Solmsen, F. Aristotle's System of the Physical World: A Comparison with his
Predecessors. Ithaca, N. Y., 1960.
- - . Cleanthes or Posidonius? The Basis of Stoic Physics. ("Mededelingen
der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Afd.
Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks," Vol. XXIV, No. 8.) Amsterdam, 1961.
(= Kleine Schriften, I, 436-460.)
- - . Kleine Schriften. Vol. I. Hildesheim, 1968.
260 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sokolowski, R. "Matter, Elements and Substance in Aristotle," ]HP 7 (1970)

263-288.
Spanneut, M. Le Stoicisme des Peres de l'Eglise. Paris, 1957.
Thery, G. Autour du Decret du I2IO: II. Alexandre d'Aphrodise. Le Saulchoir
Kain, 1926.
Thillet, P. "Une traite inconnu d'Alexandre d'Aphrodise sur la Providence
dans une version inedite," Actes du Premier Congres International de
Philosophie Medievale: L'Homme et son destin (Louvain, 1960), pp. 313-
324·
Todd, R. B. "Alexander of Aphrodisias and the Alexandrian Quaestiones II.
12," Philologus u6 (1972) 293-305.
- - . "Alexander of Aphrodisias de mixtione 11. 226. 13: An Emendation,"
Hermes 101 (1973) 278-282.
- - . "Chrysippus on Infinite Divisibility (Diogenes Laertius VII. 150),"
Apeiron 7 (1973) 21-29.
- - . "Epitedeiotes in Philosophical Literature: Towards an Analysis," Acta
Classica 15 (1972) 25-35.
- - . "The Stoic Common Notions: A Reexamination and Reinterpreta-
tion," Symbolae Osloenses 48 (1973) 47-75.
- - . "l:l'NENTAl:Il: and the Stoic Theory of Perception," Grazer Beitriige
2 (1974) 251-261.
Trabucco, F. "Il Problema del De Philosophia di Aristocle di Messene e la
sua dottrina," Acme II (1958) 97-150.
Troost, K. Zenonis Citiensis de rebus physicis doctrinae fundamentum ex adiec-
tis fragmentis. Berlin, 1891.
Ueberweg, F. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie. Revised K. Praechter.
13th ed. Tiibingen, 1953. (Cited "Ueberweg-Praechter.")
- - . Die Philosophie des Altertums. Pt. I of Grundriss der Geschichte der
Philosophie.
Usener, H. Review of CAG, GGA 26 (1892) 1001-1022 (= Kleine Schriften,
III [Leipzig, 1914], 193-214).
Verbeke, G. ••Aristotelisme et Stoicisme dans le De F ato d' Alexandre d' A phro-
disias," AGPh 50 (1968) 73-100.
- - . La Doctrine du Pneuma du Stoicisme aS. Augustine. Paris-Lou vain, 1945.
Vlastos, G. "Equality and Justice in Early Greek Cosmologies," CP 62 (1947)
156-178.
- - . "Zeno of Elea," Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (New York, 1967), VIII,
369-379.
Walden, J. H. The Universities of Ancient Greece. New York, 1909.
Walzer, R. Galen on Jews and Christians. Oxford, 1948.
Weil, E. "Remarques sur le 'materialisme' des Stoiciens," Melanges A. Koyre
(Paris, 1964), II, 556-572.
Wolfson, H. A. The Philosophy of the Church Fathers. Vol. I: Faith, Trinity,
Incarnation. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass., 1964.
- - . "Plato's Pre-existent Matter in Patristic Philosophy," pp. 409-420 in
The Classical Tradition: Essays in Honor of H. Caplan. Ithaca, 1966.
Zabarella, J. de rebus naturalibus libri xxx. Frankfurt, 16o7 (reprinted Frank- ·
furt, 1966).
Zeller, E. Die Philosophie der Griechen in Ihrer Geschichtlichen Entwicklung.
3 vols in 5. 3rd ed. Leipzig, 1876-1889. (Vol. III-i [1880] cited "Zeller.")
Zumpt, C. G. "Ueber den Bestand der philosophischen Schulen in Athen und
die Succession der Scholarchen," Abhandlungen der Akademie, Berlin
(1843), pp. 27-123.
BIBLIOGRAPHY II
ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS:
A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
This listing is designed primarily as a supplement to the general introduc-
tion to Alexander in Part One and to Pt. I of the Bibliography. It is not
exhaustive but I hope complete enough to serve as a useful guide.
1. General Studies
Major encyclopaedia articles are: A. Gercke, RE I-ii (1894) 1453-1455; A.

C. Lloyd in Encyclopaedia of Philosophy (New York, 1967) I, 73; and P.
Merlan in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York, 1970), I, II7-120.
Among the histories of philosophy see Zeller, III-i 3 , 789-801; Ueberweg-
Praechter, pp. 564-565 and p. 179 of the supplement; and P. Merlan in The
Cambridge History of Later G,,eek and Early Medieval Philosophy (reprinted
Cambridge, 1970), pp. II7-123. See also F. Cranz's articles in the Catalogus
Translationum (listed in Bibliography I) on the Latin translations of Alexan-
der. There is some general material also in G. Movia, Alessandro di Afrodisias
tra naturalismo e misticismo (Padua, 1970), as well as Moraux, Alexandre
d'Aphrodise and G. Thery, Dtfcret du I2IO (both in Bibliography I). Movia's
work also contains an extensive bibliography.
2. Treatises and Commentaries
de anima. P. L. Donini, "Il De Anima di Alessandro di Afrodisia e Michele

Efesio," Rivista di Filologia e di Instruzione Classica 96 (1968) 316-323, and
his article cited in Bibliography I; J. Zahlfleisch, "Die Polemik Alexanders
von Aphrodisias gegen die Verschiedenen Theorien des Sehens," AGPh 8
(1895) 373-386, 498-509, 9 (1896) 149-162. See also Movia, Sect. 1 above, and
Moraux, Alexandre d'Aphrodise, in Bibliography I.
Quaestiones. I. Bruns, "Studien zu Alexander von Aphrodisias II, Quaestiones
II. 3," RM 45 (1890) 138-145, and "Studien zu Alexander von Aphrodisias
III, Lehre der Vorsehung," RM 45 (1890) 223-235; P. Merlan, "Zwei Unter-
schuchungen zu Alexander von Aphrodisias II, Der Platoniker bei Alexander
von Aphrodisias Quaestiones II. 21, p. 65. 17-71. 2 Bruns," Philologus II3
(1969) 88-91. Also see Bibliography I under Moraux, Hermes 95 (1967).
de Jato. Translations: J. G. Schulthess, Abhandlungen von dem Schicksal und
von der Freiheit des Willens (Z0rich, 1872); J. F. Nourrisson, De la liberttf et
du hasard. Essai sur Alexandre d'Aphrodisias suivi du Traittf du destin et du
libre pouvoir aux empereurs (Paris, 1870); A. Fitzgerald, Alexander of Aphro-
disias On Destiny (London, 1931).
Textual Studies: 0. Apelt, "Die Kleinen Schriften des Alexander von
Aphrodisias," RM 49 (1894) 59-71; H. Von Arnim, "Textkritik zu Alexander
von Aphrodisias," Wiener Studien 22 (1900) 1-10; G. Rodier, "Conjectures
sur le texte du De Fato," Revue de Philologie 25 (1901) 66-71; H. Langerbeck,
"Zu Alexander von Aphrodisias de Jato X," Hermes 64 (1936) 473-474; R.
Hackforth, "Notes on Some Passages of Alexander Aphrodisiensis de Jato,"
CQ 40 (1946) 37-44; P. L. Donini, "Note al Peri Heimarmentfs di Alessandro
di Afrodisia," Rivista di Filologia e di Instruzione Classica 97 (1969) 298-313.
262 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Special Studies: I. Bruns, "Studien zu Alexander von Aphrodisias I, Der

Begriff des Moglichen und die Stoa," RM 44 (1890) 613-630; R. A. Pack,
"A Passage in Alexander of Aphrodisias relating to the theory of tragedy,"
AJP 58 (1937) 418-436; P. Merlan, "Zwei Untersuchungen zu Alexander von
Aphrodisias I, Eine eigenartige Erklarung des eph hemin," Philologus 113
(1969) 85-88. See Bibliography I under Verbeke, AGPh 50 (1968) and Long,
AGPh 52 (1970).
Commentaries. P. Wilpert, "Reste verlorener Aristotelesschriften bei Alexan-
der von Aphrodisias," Hermes 68 (1940) 369-396; G. Volait, Die Stellung des
Alexander von Aphrodisias zur Aristotelischen Schlusslehre (diss., Bonn, 1907);
V. C. Coutant, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Commentary on Bk. IV of Aristotle's
Meteorologica (diss., Columbia, 1936).
Fragments. E.G. Schmidt, "Alexander von Aphrodisias in einem altarme-
nischen Kategorien-Kommentar," Philologus no (1966) 277-286. See Biblio-
graphy I under Grant and Thillet.
3. Alexander's Interpretation of Aristotle's Doctrine of the Intellect
A. Gunsz, Die Abhandlung Alexanders von Aphrodisias uber den Intellekt
(diss., Berlin 1887); A. Elfes, Aristotelis doctrina de mente humana ex commen-
tariorum Graecorum sententiis eruta: I. Alexandri Aphrodisiensis et Joannis
Grammatici Philoponi commentationes (diss., Bonn, 1887); H. Kurfess, Zur
Geschichte der Erklarung der aristotelischen Lehre vom sogennanten vouc; 1tOL'l)-
TLK6c; und mx6'l)'rtK6c; (diss., Tiibingen, 19n); 0. Hamelin, La Thlorie de l'Intel-
lect d'apres Aristote et ses commentateurs (Paris, 1953); P. Merlan, Mono-
psychism, Mysticism, Metaconsciousness (in Bibliography I), ch, 2 passim.
On the later history of Alexander's interpretation: P. Wilpert, "Die Aus-
gestaltung der aristotelischen Lehre vom Intellectus agens bei griechischen
Kommentatoren und in der Scholastik des 13. Jahrhunderts," Beitrage zur
Gesch. der Phil. und Theol. des Mittelalt., Supplband III-i (1935) 447-462;
E. P. Mahoney, "Nicoletto Vernia and Agostino Nifo on Alexander of Aphro-
disias: An Unnoticed Dispute," Rivista critica di storia delta filosofia 23 (1968)
268-296. See also Bibliography I under Moraux, Alexandre d'Aphrodise, and
Bazan.
4. Alexander and Plotinus
P. Merlan, "Plotinus Enneads 2.2.," TAPA 74 (1943) 179-191; H. R.
Schwyzer, "Plotinos," in RE 21 (1951) cols. 573-574; P. Henry, "Une Com-
paraison chez Aristote, Alexandre, et Plotin," Les Sources de Plotin (Fondation
Hardt, "Entretiens," V: Vandoeuvres-Geneve, 1960), pp. 427-449; A. H.
Armstrong, "The Background of the Doctrine 'That the Intelligibles are not
outside the Intellect'," Les Sources de Plotin (Fondation Hardt, "Entretiens,"
V), pp. 414-425; J.M. Rist, "On Tracking Alexander of Aphrodisias," AGPh
48 (1966) 82-90; H. J. Blumenthal, "Plotinus Ennead IV. 3. 20-21 and its
Sources-Alexander, Aristotle and Others," AG Ph 50 (1968) 254-261; F. P.
Hager, "Die Aristotelesinterpretation des Alexanders von Aphrodisias und
die Aristoteleskritik Plotins beziiglich der Lehre von Geist," AGPh 46 (1964)
174-187.
5. Alexander A rabus
Two recent works of reference (fully cited in Bibliography I) are F. E.
Peters, Aristoteles Arabus, and A. Badawl, La Transmission de la philosophie
grecque au monde arabe at pp. 94-99 and 121-165.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Special studies: J. Finnegan, "Texte arabe du Ile:pt Nou d'Alexandre

d'Aphrodise," Melanges de l'Universite Saint Joseph (Beyrouth) 33-2 (1956)
157-202; J. Van Ess, "-Ober einige neue Fragmente des Alexander von Aphro-
disias und des Proklos in arabischer -Obersetzung," Der Islam 42 (1966) 148-
168; H. Gaetje, "Zur Arabischen -Oberlieferung des Alexander von Aphro-
disias," Zeitschrift des Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft 106 (1966)
255-278; idem, "Die Arabische -Obersetzung der Schrift des Alexander von
Aphrodisias i.iber die Farbe," Nachr. der Gott. Akad. (1967) 341-382; idem,
Studien zur Oberlieferung der aristotelischen Psychologie im Islam (Annales
Universitatis Saraviensis, Bd. II, Heidelberg, 1971). See also Bibliography I
under Dietrich, Pines, and Thillet.
INDICES
1. INDEX OF NAMES
(a) Ancient Authors

Adrastus, 2, 13n60 Herminus, 3nm3-15
Albinus, 16n78, 8m233, 85n247, Herodes Atticus, 7n30
221 Hierocles (Stoicus), 24m5, 181, 192-
Alexander of Damascus, 4-11 194
Ammonius (Peripateticus), 20
Anaxagoras, 183, 208 Iamblichus, 32n53
Andronicus of Rhodes, 2
Antiochus of Ascalon, 10, 21
Longinus (ap. Porphyry), 2on93
Antipater of Tarsus, 22n7, 188
Lucian, 4m9, 6n29, 7n30, 13n61
Arcesilaus, 67m81, 73m99 Lucretius, 209
Archelaus, 183
Aristocles of Messana, 10-11, 35n67
Aristotle (of Mitylene), 1 m52 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, 6n28,
Arius Didymus, 21, 52-55 (ap. n29, 7n30,n31, 8n35, 187,191,216
Stob.), 62, 65 Michael of Ephesus, 13n64, 17n80,
Aspasius, 3, 13n58 88n255
Atticus, 46
Nemesius of Emesa, 48n116, 198,
Calcidius, 72m96, 84n243, 87n253 241
Cameades, 73n200 Nicolaus of Damascus, 2n8
Clement of Alexandria, 16n78, 214
Cn. Claudius Severus, 52n23, 9n37 Origen, 193
Cyril of Alexandria, 213, 220, 226,
227
Philo Judaeus, 50-51, 68m86, 241
Demetrius of Alexandria, 7n31 Philoponus, 14
Democritus, 64, 183-186, 236, 241 Plotinus, 20, 57n148, 59m55, 197,
Dexippus, 210 198, 199, 201, 205, 219, 221, 222
Diodorus Cronus, 183 Pollux, Julius, 7n29
Porphyry, 20
Epictetus, 9n36, 14n67 Ptolemaeus (Peripateticus), 20
Epicurus, 17n80, 24m7, 26n29, 64,
183-186, 207, 236 Seneca, L. Annaeus, 14n67, 21n3,
Eudemus of Rhodes, 3m6, 13n59, 214
23n11, 207 Sophonias, 15n76, 88n255
Eudemus (teacher of Galen), 4m9 Sosigenes (Peripateticus), 1 m50
Eusebius, 1on42, n46 Sosigenes (Stoicus), 22n7
Strato of Lampsacus, 78n224, 197
Favorinus of Arelate, 7n31, 9n37
Flavius Boethus, 4, 9n37
Themistius, 16n77, 3on44, 74n201,
Galen, 3-8, 22n9, 36n74,n79, 5m127, 91n1
118n, 182, 203, 217, 238, 241 Theophrastus, 23n11, 55
Ps.-Galen, 55m35, 8m233, 85n247,
87n253, 198, 203, 221 Xenarchus, 2, 12n57
INDICES
(b) Modern Authors (Select)

Abel, K.-H., 3on42, 190 Moraux, P., 2n5,n8, 10n44, un53,
Apelt, 0., 95 15n73, 18n86, 19n89, 28n35, 92,
213, 214, 224, 225, 226, 235
Baeumker, C., 47n113, 210 Mras, K, 1on46, 16n78
Bowersock, G., 4m9, 5n23, 6n27,
7n30 Nutton, V., 4m9, 6n29
Brehier, E., 34n60, 6gm91
Bruns, I., 24m6, 93-95 Oegereau, F., 46n112
Christensen, J ., 34n62, 216 Pearson, A. C., 22n9,
Cranz, F. E. 17n80, 92n5 Pohlenz, M., 21n2, 32n50,
77n220, 85n247, 188
Donini, P. L., 3m7, 25m8, 235 Praechter, K., 9n39,n40
Dorrie, H., 6gnr89, 73m98, 74n201,
76n2II, 192 Reesor, M., 47n113
Duhem, P., 34n60 Reinhardt, K., 38n88, 188
Diiring, I., 12n57, 13n64 Rex, F., 38n88, 56nr36, 92, 95, 222,
240
Edelstein, L., 8n34, 47nr 14 Rieth, 0., 39n90, 44nro5
Rist, J.M., 2m1, 58m51, 59nr52
Festugiere, A. J ., 9n40, 16n78, 213 Rodier, G., 46n112, 95nr5
Furley, D. J., 183, 185, 207, 210, 216
Sambursky, S., 34n60,n62, 38n88,
Goldschmidt, V., 48nu6 43nro1, 47m14, 48mr7, 92, 185,
Graeser, A., 28n38, 6gnr89, 192, 221, 209, 241
222 Sandbach, F. H., 45mo7, 189-190
Happ, H., 213 Seeck, G., 229, 233
Reiland, H., rn5, 10n41,n42, 1m47, Sokolowski, R., 58nr50, 232
n48 Solmsen, F., 34n61, 183, 201, 223,
229, 233
Joachim, H., 35n69, 78n225, 184- Sprague, R., 214
185, 229, 231, 233, 240, 244-245,
246, 247, 250 Verbeke, G., 34n60, 224
Vitelli, H., 94m2
Kramer, H.-J., 35n67, 220, 226 Vlastos, G., 33n56, 207-209
Von Arnim, H., 22n6,n8,n9, 99nr6
Long, A. A., 2m1, 26n22, 28n37,n39
Lynch, J. P., m2, 2n8, 6n29 Walzer, R., 4m8, 14n67
Weil, E., 47n113
Merlan, P., 18n86, 210 Wolfson, H., 3on43, 48n116, 221
Mette, H. J ., 3on42
Montanari, E., xii, 94-95 Zabarella, J ., 236, 240
2. INDEX OF GREEK TERMS

iiypmxortUppwve:toc;, 5n25 ixpxotl (Stoic), 34-36, 220-223, 225-
iiUo(watc;, 234 227
IXVot<J't"OLJ(ElO"Lc;, 185-186 otu;l)atc; 83-84, 243-251 passim
iiv-.motptx't"otO"Lc; (iiv-.motpe:xnlve:a0ott),
32-33, 37-38, 40-41, 56-57
iiv-.me:pla-.ota1c;, 201 yeve:atc; ixrtA'ij, 59, 234
IX7t0~1XAAE:LV, 236 y(ve:a0ott ev, 83n237, 199
266 INDICES
3e:X'nx6c;, 232 1to1e:rv/1tix.axe:1v, Stoic 34-35, Aristote-

3exe:a6tu, 83n237, 199 lian 79-80, 233
3ux!pe:atc;, 200, 205 1tp6A7Jq,1c;, 4m99, 45n107, 185, 195,
3t~xe:tv, 37n82 227
31' /1).ou (3t' /1).wv), 3m45, 176 1tp6vo1a, 213-214, 220, 223-227
1tpo01t1X.pJ(EIV, 179, 247, 250
e:IB01tme:ra6a1, 224 7tpow6e:rv, 248-249
ex1tupwa1c;, 225-226
£X're:[ve:a6at, 51n130 auy:xa't'ix.6e:a1c;, 28
evepye:1a, s. V. 'l'E:Ae:16'1'7lc; aunumc;, 50, 5m127, 6gm88
!vuAOV d3oc;, 2IO, 216 auµµbmv (auµµov~). 188, 225
ff;1c;, 3m49, 37n80, 40, 4m94, 58m51, auAAoy£~e:a6at, 5n22
203-204, 210 auµq,6e:(pe:a6at (auµq,6apatc;), 3 m48,
i1t(3e:1f;tc;, 2on95 5om24
l:m't'e:£ve:a6a1, 51n130 auµ1tix.6e:1a, Stoic I 88, Peripatetic 216-
e:u31a[pe:'t'oc;, 204, 231 217
auvava£pe:atc;, 199, 247
6pe:1t'l'IX7J Mvaµ1c;, 245, 250 auvuq,e:a't'ix.Vttt, 2 3 I
CfUVE:X'l'tX'lj 3uvaµtc;, 36, 188, 193, 214-
:xa6' cipµ~v, 55-56 215
:xo1val !vvo1ix1, 41n99, 44n106, 182, auvev't'ttatc;, 37n83, 219
185, 190, 195, 243 auve:pya; ttf'l'ttt, 39-40, 42, 238
:XOIV'lj oua£a, 187 CfUV&J(Ettt, 193, 216
xpiia1c;, 33n56, 49, 69, 188 awµa (Stoic), 46-47, 198-199
:xpiiatc; 31' /1).wv, 31-32 CfW(J,tt 3ta; CfW(J,tt't'Oc; J(WpELV, 73-78
passim, 180-182, 195, 202, 212,
(J,E't'tt~OA~, 235 229, 244
µr~1c;, 49, 5om24, 56m37, 191, 231
nAe:t6'1'7lc;, 240-241, 242
vuf;1c; (vu'l"t'e:a6a1), 86n249 't'OVtX'lj x£v7Jatc;, 36, 43
't'6voc;, 36, 217
6µotoµe:pec; (sc. xpiiµa), 182, 203 't'poq,~, 236, 245-251 passim
U7tttpf;tc; (\17t"IX.pJ(EtV), 192
1tapix.6e:a1c;, 49-51, 183, 186, 236 \17t"OA~qie:tc;, 27
1tttpe:x'l'e:£ve:a6at, 51n130 {m6a't'ttCflc; (U(!)E:Cf'l'IX.Vttl), 192, 210, 230,
1te:p1ypaq,~, 181, 202 231
1t£a't'e:1c;, 38n89, 44n104, 191
l't'VEU(J,tt, 34-38, 40-44, 199, 212-219, q,ttV'l'aa£a, 28, 4m99, 189-190
241 q,ua1x7J !vvota, 45mo7, 195, 197
3. INDEX LOCORUM
(References in brackets are to the SVF volume and text)
Alexander 5. 7-8 232
6. 16-20 239
De Anima 6. 17-19 225
2. IO-I I. 13 3m7 7. 9-11. 13 232-233
2. 25-7. 8 211 7. 13-14 233
3. 7-13 224 8. 22-9. 3 235
4. 9-10 225 9. 14-23 239
4. 11-18 239 13. 19 192
4. 22-27 211 14. 23 192
INDICES 267
17. 15-18. IO (cf. II. 394) 26n24 De Mixtione (in Pts. I and II)
19. 21-30 219 213. 15-18 64m73
19. 27, 29, 32 241 214. 6-IO 64m73
19. 32-33 57m45 216. 1-2 64m74
19. 34-36 219 216. 14 22n7, 34n61
20. 9-1 I 197 216. 14-217. 2 52-65
20. 14-15 80,200 217. 2-9 66m78
20. 17-18 241 217. 9-13 68m84
20. 23 224 217. 13-14 42n100
26. 15-17 (II. 786) 24m7 217. 18, 30, 32 3m47
33. 13-38. II 2 44 218. 2-6 35n70, 7m194
33. 16-34. 26 248 218. 15-16 83n236
35• I 248 218. 15-18 77n220
35. 9- 1 7 2 45 218. 18 83n236
43. 7-8 241 218. 21-24 77n220
68. 12-18 88n255 218. 25-26 75n208, 85n246
68. 15-16 23nm 218. 33-219. 5 79n228
69. 20 15n71 219. 1-3 85n246
71. 10-15 (II. 70) 189 219. 23 83n236
72. 13-73. 13 28n36 219. 16-19 83n238
75. 31 220 220. IO 78n221
83. 2-8 28n35 220. 18, 20 3m47
87. 5-23 210 221. 7 56m37
90. 1-9 192 223. 9-17 6on160
94. 7-100. 17 3m7 223. 18 72m95
94. 26-95. 6 251 223. 27-29 63m70
223. 30-34 6on160
De Fato 223. 34-224. 6 54m31
164. 3 ff. I 224. 14-22 35n71
164. 15 6n29 224. 24-25 37n85, n86
165. 5-7 2on95, 186 224. 34 35n68
165. 15 195 225. 4-5 72m95
165. 25-27 184 227. 2 74n203
168. 3-18 224 227. 5-10 17
168. 3-5 215 232. 34-233. I 27
169. 23-26 223 238. 23 84
178. 8-9 188
180. 3-4 199 In De Sensu
182. 20-22 27n32 IO. 2 12n57
184. 3 196 29. 12-30. I 201
184. 3-4 199 41. 2-5 251
184. 20 199 63. 23 203
186. 6-7 196 64. 2-15 236
186. 23 191 64. 15, 25 203
189. 4-5 6n29, 25n20 64. 22 236
189. 9 228 73. 19-21 233
196. 3-7 199 73. 24 2 44
204. 20-21 188 IOI. 4 15n75
2o6. 30 199
209. 8-9 199 In Metaphysica
209. 30-31 199 36. 25-27 185
211. 17 (III. 283) 24m4 59. 6 12n57
211. 22-28 199 75. 26 15n75
268 INDICES
84. 28 192 Mantissa

85. IO 3m6 110, 4 ion44
104. 20-21 15n75 110. 4-112. 5 12n54
104. 16-18 227 113. 12-15 (II. 1038) 226
105. 8 225 114. 28-29 217
145. 21 i5n75 115. 6-9 (II. 785) 221
178. 17-19 (II. 306) 225 115. 9-10 36n77
223. 5 215 115. IO 188
230. 29-30 205 115. 16-20 215
356. 34 i5n75 116. 1-2 198
358. 36 188 116. 13-15 198
415. 29-31 1n2 117. 9-11 (II. 792) 192
120, 17-33 228
In M eteorologica 122. 16-125. 4 233
5. 29 15n75 123. 12-20 198
6. 9-20 225 123. 12-13 85n247
6. 15-17 221 124. 13-14 198
7. 9-14 225 124. 16-20 198
18. 8-19. 19 232 127. 27-130. 12 77n217
143. 13 11n50 128. 34-129, I 85n245
129. 1-2 201
In Priora A nalytica I 129. 24-32 85n245
4. 3off. 17n83 131. 4 188
6. 8ff. 17n83 131. 5-10 (II. 448) 36n73, n75
8. 2££. 9n39 131. 5-22 219
9. 5ff. 9n39 138. 3-139. 28 82, 84-85, 85n244
16. 16 3m6 139. 1-17 (II. 432) 194
72. 27 13n61 139. 34-35 77n217, 197
89. 34££. 13n61 139. 29-141. 28 82-83
91. 21££. 13n61 14o. 4-5 77n217
144· 5 15n75 140. 6-8 77n217
151. 15 15n75 140. 9 51m30
160. 32 12n57 140. IO (II. 477) 176
177. 25 22n7, 23m2 140. 10-24 87n251, 199, 201
180. 36 (II. 624) 22n7, 23m2 140. 22-23 87n253
210. 30 15n75 141. 6-22 199
250. 1-2 19n89 141. 9-16 87n251
3o4. 14 n5n75 141. 16 51n130
141. 16-19 87n251
In Topica 141. 19-22 87n251
I. 3 9n39 141. 22-23 51n130
14· 7 25m9 141. 24 5m130
19. 13 25m9 149. 10-13 228
6g. 15 3m6 151. 8 12n57
125. 4, 8 9n39 153. 19-20 224
127. 23-26 199 159. 15-168. 26 18n84
139. 24-25 (III. 722) 24m4
173. 14-16 (II. 798) 221 Quaestiones
181. 4 (III. 434) 24m4 l. 5, 13, II-16 244,247
236. 20-21 199 I. 25 in toto 213
549. 23-24 3m7 I. 25, 41. l0-11 215
569. 3-5 13n61 II. 3 in toto 213
574. 26 13n61 II. 3, 49. 30-34 225
INDICES
II. 7, 53. 5 211 rs 304a 30-31

II. 12 in toto 19n91, 73m98, 78n224 r6 305a 19-20
II. 13 in toto 183
II. 15, 60. 7 236 Ps.-Ar. De Mundo
II. 21, 68. 19-35 (II. II 18) 227 2. 392a 34 215
II. 24, 75. 20-21 236 5, 396b 34-397a l 237
II. 28, 78. 1-3 210 6. 397b 9 215
III. 5, 89. 9 215 6. 398b 3-7 226
III. 12 in toto 17n80, 26n29 6. 399b 9-II 220
III. 12, 101. 10-15 (II. 536) 26n29 6. 400a 4 220
III. 12, IOI. 12 196
Ill. 12, IOI. 22-102, 19 188 De Generatione A nimalium
III. 12, 103. 12-34 209 B4 738a 10-16 198
III. 12, 103. 34-36 207 B4 740a 21-22 251
III. 12, 104. 4-12 209 B6 744b 33-36 2 47
Ill. 12, 104. 11-13 26n29 .:lxo 777b 29-33 2 44
Ill. 12, 105. 13 184
III. 12, xo6. 10-13 (II. 536) 26n29, De Generatione et Corruptione
196 Ax 314b 26-315a 2 235
Ax 315a 19-25 219
Alexander ap. A2 316a 14-316b 14 210
A2 316a 23-30 205
Philop. de gen. et corr. A2 316a 29-30 177
12. 6-25 A2 316b 12-14 205
12. 9-10, 18-22 A2 317a 27 234
81. 28-31 A3 317b 17 248
A4 319b31-32oa 5 235
Simplic. Phys. A5 32xa 5-10 76, 78
173. 20-27 208 A5 321a 6-7 246
310. 31-3u. 37 224 A5 32xa 10-17 2 45
671. 8-12 (II. 552) 216 A5 32xa 17-321b 10 245
A5 321b 15-16 246
Simplic. de caelo A5 321b 16-19 246
286. 15-21 215 A5 321b 19-28 2 47
546. 15-23 249 A5 321b 24-25 250
659. 23-26 185 A5 321b 27-28 248
A5 322a 9-11 251
Aristotle A5 322a 25-28 2 47
A5 322a 27-31 250
De Anima A5 322a 28-29 247
A5 409b 3 76, 82, 85 AS 325b 5-9 79, 79n227, n228,
B4 416a 26 228 8on230
B4 416b I 1-17 247 AS 326b 6-14 79, 79n227, n228,
B7 418b 13-18 76, 82 8on230
I'6 430b 20-21 205 AS 326b 10-14 8on230
Axo 327b 4-6 5om23, 236
De Caelo Axo 327b 14 236
A3 270b 2 232 Axo 327b 15-22 59m57
B14 297a 8-297b 17 249 Axo 327b 16-17 210
B14 297a 8-21 249 Axo 327b 22-31 32n52
B14 297a 16-17 249 Axo 327b 22-27 33n58
B14 297a 27 168 Axo 327b 23-28 49m22
B14 297a 30-297b 14 249 Axo 327b 30-31 178, 235
270 INDICES
Arn 327b 31-328a 18 49nII9 Parva N aturalia

Arn 328a 1-2 184, 185 440a 3Iff. 236
Arn 328a 2-3 51n126 456a 34-35 251
Arn 328a 5-10 32n51
Arn 328a IO-II 33n58 Physics
A10 328a 12-15 49n120 B8 199b 26-32 223
Arn 328a 15 184 r 4 204a 20-28 208
Arn 328a 16-17 185 r8 208a Il-l4 232
Arn 328a 18-23 235 A1 209a 4-7 76-77
Arn 328a 24 204 A4 2IIb 18-212a 4 196
Arn 328a 24-26 2 35 A4 2nb 19-25 196
Arn 328a 26-28 235 A5 212b 3-6 242
Arn 328a 27-28 233, 33n57 A6 213b 5-12 80-81, 87, 197
Arn 328a 29-31 237 A6 213b 18-22 78n221, 200
Arn 328a 29-33 33n56 A7 214b 6-9 78n223
Arn 328a 33 236 A7 214b 8-9 79n228
Arn 328b 2 236 A12 221a 22 80, 87n253
Arn 328b 3 204 21 23m 21-23 199
Arn 328b 10-14 233 010 267a 15-20 201
Arn 328b 17 204
Arn 328b 22 185, 234 Topics
B2 329b 25-33 35n69 A2 122b 25ff. 231
B4 33m 19-20 242 A2 123a 14 199
B4 331a 30-31 242 24 141b 28-29 199
B5 332a 18 187 26 145a 4, IO 2II
B7 334a 27-30 183
Diogenes Laertius
B7 334b 8-30 233
B7 334b 25 234 V. 32 213, 217
VII. 52 (II. 87) 45mo7
De Partibus A nimalium VII. 54 (II. 105) 22n9, 3m46, 189
B1 646a 13-21 233 VII. 55 3rn46
A4 678a 7-9 251 VII. 57 3m46
VII. II3 (III. 396) 24n14
Metaphysics VII. 129 (III. 716) 24n14
VII. 134 (II. 299) 218
26 103m 30 191 VII. 134 (II. 300) 34n65, 35n67,
26 1031b I 191 n68, 47m 13
216 1040b 5-10 58m50 VII. 135 (III. p. 259) 47m13
14 1055a 29-30 232 VII. 139 3m46
K2 1060b 18-19 205 VII. 142 3m46
Arn 1075b 1-6 219 VII. 150 (II. 316) 58m49
M2 1077a 24 220 VII. 151 (II. 479) 31
VII. 157 3m46
M eterologica VII. 184 73m99
A2 339a 21-33 224 VII. 199 25n21
B5 361b 36-362a II 225
B8 367a 30-31 218 Philoponus
A2 379b 20 240
A3 380b 31-32 241 In de anima
A3 38m 7 241 173. 21-26 8on230
A7 383b 34-384a 2 232 326. 20-26 85n246
A7 384a 21-25 241 343. 34-344. 4 8on231
A9 387b 23-388a 9 228 344· 4 87n253
INDICES 271
344. 4-8 8on230 1081C (II. 519) 202

344. 7-8 85n246 1083C-D (II. 762) 84n241
1085B (II. 313) 221
In de gen. et corr. 1085C (II. 444) 35n70, 36n72, 193
12. 9-10 209
12. 18-22 209 de defect. orac.
35. 13-36. 30 207 426B (II. 1055) 226
41. 25-26 216
81. 28-31 183 de Jae. in orb. lun.
87. 6 179
930F (II. 433) 86n249
90. 12-15 78n223
102. 31-108. 17 244 de prim. frig.
103. 10-15 246
104. 14-17 246 946A (II. 407) 36n79
105. 15-16 248
105. 22-26 250
de Stoic. rep.
106. 3-II 247 1053F (II. 449) 3m49
106. 12-17 250 1054E (II. 505) 188
107. 27-31 248,250
107. 32-108. 3 2 45 Praec. Conjug.
108. 3-9 250 142E (II. 366) 4m94, 58nr51
108. 8-12 250
II7. 22-23 245 Quaest. Conviv.
u7. 24-n8. 2 245, 248, 250 743D 14n67
u7. 27-29 250
I 18. 23 1 79, 247
178. 5-20 79n228 Sextus Empiricus
179. 15-18 8on230
188. 21-26 240 Pyrrh. Hypot.
192. 2-4 230 I. 236ff. 8n34
193. 28-29 186 II. 97-103 44n105
III. 15 39
In M eteorologica III. 31 214, 222
47. 27-48. 13 232 III. 44 207
III. 56-62 73n200
In Physica III. 60 51n130
u3. 8-9 217 III. 60-61 87n251
428. 25-429. 20 209 III. 218 (II. 1037) 226
505. 24-25 87n253
506. 2-14 88n254 Adv. Math.
I. 60-61 2on93
Plutarch III. 32-33 32n53
VII. 228 (II. 56) 23n10
de comm. not. IX. 180 221, 223
1077E-F (II. 465) 67nr83, 77n220, IX. 240 221
8m233 IX. 254 227
1078A 66n179, 69n188, 87n251 IX. 256-257 8m233
1078B (II. 465) 181, 200 IX. 260 32n53
1078B-C (II. 465) 203 IX. 261 87n251
1078C-D 67n181, n183, 73n200 IX. 384-385 32n53
1078E (II. 480) 67nr82 X. 7 (II. 501) 47nn3
1080F-81A 203 X. 312 (II. 309) 222
1081A 69nr88 X. 316 214
INDICES
Simplicius II. 408 218

II. 413 35n71, 59n253, 219
In Cat. II. 439 36n74, 193
16. 1-2 12n57 II. 440 36n79, 193
II. 444 35n70, 193, 217
In de caelo 36n76, 193, 217
II. 447
83. 30-32 220, 227 II. 451 37n86
286. 23 9m3 II. 461 210
430. 32-33 3Ill3, m4 II. 463-464 59Ill53
431. IO-II 3m3 II. 468 3on44, 74n201
546. 15-23 249 II. 46g 51nI30, 74n201
629. 30 87n253 II. 471 37n85, 49-65 passim,
629. 29-30 8on231 74n201, 188, 201, 203, 241
659. 23-26 185 II. 472 50-51, 57n143, 203,241
660. 18-661. 14 236 II. 482 206
II. 492 47Illl3
In Physica II. 496 3on44
141. 16-142. 3 206 II. 503-504 196
168. 34-169. l 207 II. 522-525 56nI42
172. 28-29 207 II. 522-524 84n243
172. 28-31 207 II. 536 196
459. 22-26 (Eudemus) 207 II. 550 188
489. 20-22 17n80 II. 579-581 59Ill53
530. 9-30 (9-14 = II. 467) 16n77, II. 714-716 4m94
77, 81 II. 866 55m33, 86n249
530. 14-16 91n2 II. 897 25m8
530. 15-16 77n216, 9m2 II. 790-791 86n250
530. 22-24 8on231 II. 913 23n12
530. 24 87n253 II. 926 226
591. 21-22 200 II. 1013 4m94
651. 4-7 201 II. 1040 226
II. 1056 226
Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta III. 160 4m94
III. 262 24m4
I. 92 59m52
I. 106 215 I, p. 30. 35 (106) 215
I. 518 84n243, 86n250 II, p. 28. 12-19 (83) 28n35
II. 81 196 II, p. u3. 17 (313) 221
II. 83 28n35, 45n107, 55n133 II, p. u6. u-13 (323a) 223
II. 299 218 II, p. 124. 19-21 (368) 203
II. 300 220 II, p. 144. 31, 35 (440) 36n97
II. 301 220 II, p. 144. 37-39 (440) 217
II. 304 220 II, p. 146. 17-18 (443) 221
II. 306 225 II, p. 152. 32-33 (471) 178
II. 309 222 II, p. 153. 8 (471) 4on93
II. 313 221 II, p. 153. 6, 12 (471) 188
II. 315 57nI48, 198 II, p. 153. 21-23 (471) 241
II. 316 222 II, p. 153. 29 (471) 203
II. 323a 221 II, p. 153. 36-39 (471) 241
II. 324 62n167 II, p. 188. 6 (618) 186
II. 329 25n19 II, p. 227. 25-26 (836) 37n83
II. 357 47nn3, 198 II, p. 307. 8 (1033) 37n83
II. 366 41, 58nI51 III, pp. 249-251 (Antipater) 188
II. 368 37n80, 58nI51, 69nI90 III, p. 259. 24-26 (Apollod. 6) 198

Alexander of Aphrodisias On Stoic Physics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alexander of Aphrodisias On Stoic Physics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alexander of Aphrodisias On Stoic Physics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the author discussing in the preface?

What is the author discussing in the preface?

What abbreviations does the author use when referring to sources?

What abbreviations does the author use when referring to sources?

ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS

W. J. VERDENIUS .AND J. H. WASZINK

Copyright 1976 by E. /. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands

Note on References: Abbreviations XIV

ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS-AN INTRODUCTION

II. The Alexandrian Corpus 12

ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS AND THE

II. The Stoic Theory of Total Blending: A Reconstruction

I would like to thank Professor D. J. Furley for his advice and

The importance of Alexander of Aphrodisias in the Aristotelian

analysis of specific doctrines or related groups of doctrines. I shall

1973. I was unable to take account of Lutz Bloos' study Probleme

I have generally referred to books and articles in an abbreviated form;

ALEXANDER OF APHRODISIAS-AN INTRODUCTION

A study of a work by Alexander of Aphrodisias must be prefaced

1 See Bibliography II-i for these, and other general presentations.

Alexandrian Peripatetics, of whom only those of Aristocles (H. Heiland,

some historical perspective by offering a brief history of Peripatetic

I. SOME PRE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIPATETICS

The later years of the Roman Republic, as is well known, mark

Aristoclis Afessenii Reliquiae) and Herminus (H. Schmidt, De Hermina Peri-

Theophrastus and Andronicus see Di.iring, Aristotle in the Ancient Bio-

of Aphrodisias and Aspasius, the latter the only Aristotelian com-

10 On their writings see below, pp. 12-13.

commentaries of Aspasius and Adrastus on the Categories, cf. XIX. 42 K

It appears, however, that Alexander criticised Galen's treatise <

Minor Peripatetics: Alexander of Damascus

The Peripatetk school of the second century did not consi

-rijt; cx.voc'C'oµijt; rpocw6µe:voc) while he hoped that Alexander, whom he

22 aunoy(~ea6ixt ("to formulate") does not seem to be used here in the

technical Aristotelian sense of "to syllogise," so that Galen would not be

moving in those circles where the intellectual currents of the age-

27 This blend is well described in Bowersock, Greek Sophists, especially

was appointed to a municipal chair of rhetoric, for at the time of Marcus

Since Herodes Atticus perhaps had some influence over these

tanry, and cf. esp. XIV. 625 K.

better way to scotch an anatomical experiment than at least to

34 On the Methodists' rejection of anatomy see L. Edelstein, "Methodiker,"

RE Suppl. VI (= Ancient Medicine, p. 180), and on that of the Empiricists

and a doctrinal stance needs to be carefully measured at this period. Public

philosophers. Still, whether or not we accept this particular sug-

88 E.g. V. 60 K {= I. 47 Marquardt). Earlier we know that it was the

41 K = pp. 82-83 Marquardt) on Favorinus' Academic scepticism. He

On the assumption then, that Alexander of Damascus' scep-

extensively; see Reiland, pp. 1-3.

"Is Homer superior to Plato?" (II6upov a1tou8ocL6T&po½ "Oµ'!)po½ -1) II).rhwv).

ical character, like those from Aristocles' On Philosophy (II&pt cpL).oaocplot½),

cles attacks, largely on the basis of arguments from the Theaetetus, 47

him the Aristotle referred to as Alexander's teacher in several

II. THE ALEXANDRIAN CORPUS 55

54 Mant. no. 4-n2. 5 Bruns; cf. n. 44.

Alexander and later commentators. For example, Andronicus is only mention-

= ten indictments). Simplicius' proem to his commentary on the Categories

limited range of Aristotelian works on which commentaries were written

graphs on questions in logic, optics and astronomy, and perhaps