by Aristotle
And there are facts of observation in manifest agreement with our theories. Thus we see that coming-to-be occurs as the sun approaches and decay as it retreats; and we see that the two processes occupy equal times. For the durations of the natural processes of passing-away and coming-to-be are equal. Nevertheless it often happens that things pass-away in too short a time, because of their mutual [20] commingling. For their matter is irregular, i.e. is not everywhere the same; hence the processes by which they come-to-be must be irregular too, i.e. some too quick and others too slow. Consequently the phenomenon in question occurs, because the coming-to-be of these things is the passing-away of other things.
Coming-to-be and passing-away will, as we have said, always be continuous, [25] and will never fail owing to the cause we stated. And this continuity has a sufficient reason. For in all things, as we affirm, nature always strikes after the better. Now being (we have explained elsewhere the variety of meanings we recognize in this term) is better than not-being; but not all things can possess being, since they are [30] too far removed from the principle. God therefore adopted the remaining alternative, and fulfilled the perfection of the universe by making coming-to-be uninterrupted; for the greatest possible coherence would thus be secured to existence, because that coming-to-be should itself come-to-be perpetually is the closest approximation to eternal being.
[337a1] The cause of this as we have often said, is circular motion; for that is the only motion which is continuous. That, too, is why all the other things—the things, I mean, which are reciprocally transformed in virtue of their qualities and their powers, e.g. the simple bodies—imitate circular motion. For when Water is [5] transformed into Air, Air into Fire, and the Fire back into Water, we say the coming-to-be has completed the circle, because it reverts again to the beginning. Hence it is by imitating circular motion that rectilinear motion too is continuous.
These considerations serve at the same time to explain what is to some people a puzzle—viz. why the bodies, since each of them is travelling towards its own place, [10] have not become dissevered from one another in the infinite lapse of time. The reason is their reciprocal transformation. For, had each of them persisted in its own place instead of being transformed by its neighbour, they would have got dissevered long ago. They are transformed, however, owing to the motion with its dual character; and because they are transformed, none of them is able to persist in any [15] fixed place.
It is clear from what been said that coming-to-be and passing-away actually occur, what causes them, and what subject undergoes them. But if there is to be movement (as we have explained elsewhere, in an earlier work)28 there must be something which initiates it; if there is to be movement always, there must always be something which initiates it; if the movement is to be continuous, what initiates it [20] must be single, unmoved, ungenerated, and incapable of alteration; and if the circular movements are more than one, they must all of them, in spite of their plurality, be in some way subordinated to a single principle. Further since time is continuous, movement must be continuous, inasmuch as there can be no time without movement. Time, therefore, is a number of some continuous movement—a [25] number, therefore, of the circular movement, as was established in the discussions at the beginning.29 But is movement continuous because of the continuity of that which is moved, or because that in which the movement occurs (I mean, e.g., the place or the quality) is continuous? The answer must clearly be because that which is moved is continuous. (For how can the quality be continuous except in virtue of the continuity of the thing to which it belongs? But if the continuity of ‘that in [30] which’ makes the movement continuous, this is true only of the place in which; for that has magnitude.) But amongst bodies which are moved, only that which is moved in a circle is continuous in such a way that it always preserves its continuity with itself. The conclusion therefore is that this is what produces continuous movement, viz. the body which is being moved in a circle; and its movement makes time continuous.
11 · Wherever there is continuity in any process (coming-to-be or alteration [337b1] or any kind of change whatever) we observe consecutiveness, i.e. this coming-to-be after that in such a way that there is no cessation. Hence we must investigate whether there is anything which will necessarily exist, or whether everything may fail to come-to-be. For that some of them may fail to occur, is clear—and that is why ‘it will be’ and ‘it is going to be’ are different. For if it be true to say of something that it will be, it must at some time be true to say of it that it is; whereas, [5] though it be true to say of something now that it is going to be, it is quite possible for it not to come-to-be—thus a man might not go for a walk, though he is now going to go for a walk. And since in general amongst the things which are some are capable also of not being, it is clear that the same character will attach to them when they are coming-to-be: in other words, their coming-to-be will not be necessary.
Then are all the things that come-to-be of this character? Or, on the contrary, [10] is it absolutely necessary for some of them to come-to-be? Is there, in fact, a distinction in the field of coming-to-be corresponding to the distinction, within the field of being, between things that cannot possibly not be and things that can not be? For instance, is it necessary that solstices shall come-to-be, i.e. impossible that they should fail to be able to occur?
Assuming that what is prior must have come-to-be if what is posterior is to be (e.g. that foundations must have come-to-be if there is to be a house; clay, if there [15] are to be foundations), is the converse also true? If foundations have come-to-be, must a house come-to-be? It seems that this is not so, unless it is necessary absolutely for the latter to come-to-be. If that be the case, however, a house must come-to-be if foundations have come-to-be. For the prior was assumed to be so related to the posterior that, if the latter is to be, the prior must have come-to-be before it. If, therefore, it is necessary that the posterior should come-to-be, the prior [20] also must have come-to-be; and if the prior has come-to-be, then the posterior also must come-to-be—not, however, because of the prior, but because its future being was assumed as necessary. Hence, whenever the being of the posterior is necessary, the nexus is reciprocal—in other words, when the prior has come-to-be the posterior must always come-to-be too.
Now if the sequence of occurrences is to proceed ad infinitum downwards, the [25] coming-to-be of any determinate later member will not be absolutely, but only conditionally, necessary. For it will always be necessary that some other member shall have come-to-be beforehand, on account of which it is necessary that this should come-to-be: consequently, since what is infinite has no beginning, neither will there be any primary member which will make it necessary for the remaining members to come-to-be.
Nor again will it be possible to say with truth, even in regard to the members of [30] a limited sequence, that it is absolutely necessary for any one of them to come-to-be e.g. a house, when foundations have been laid; for (unless it is always necessary for a house to come-to-be) we should be faced with the consequence that, when foundations have been laid, a thing, which need not always be, must always be. No: if its coming-to-be is to be necessary, it must be always in its coming-to-be. For what is of necessity coincides with what is always, since that which must be cannot not be. Hence a thing is eternal if it is of [338a1] necessity; and if it is eternal, it is of necessity. And if, therefore, the coming-to-be of a thing is necessary, its coming-to-be is eternal; and if eternal, necessary.
It follows that the coming-to-be of anything, if it is absolutely necessary, must [5] be cyclical—i.e. must return upon itself. For coming-to-be must either be limited or not limited; and if not limited, it must be either rectilinear or cyclical. But the first of these last two alternatives is impossible if coming-to-be is to be eternal, because there could not be any beginning, whether the members be taken downwards (as future events) or upwards (as past events). Yet coming-to-be must have a beginning [10] ἡif it is to be necessary and therefore eternalά
, nor can it be eternal if it is limited.30 Consequently it must be cyclical. Hence the nexus must be reciprocal. By this I mean that the necessary occurrence of this involves the necessary occurrence of something prior; and conversely that, given the prior, it is also necessary for the posterior to come-to-be. And this will hold continuously throughout the sequence; for it makes no difference whether we take two, or by many, members.
[15] It is in circular movement, therefore, and in cyclical coming-to-be that the absolutely necessary is to be found. In other words, if the coming-to-be of any things is cyclical, it is necessary that each of them is coming-to-be and has come-to-be; and if it is necessary, their coming-to-be is cyclical.
And this is reasonable; for circular motion, i.e. the revolution of the heavens, was seen on other grounds to be eternal since precisely those movements which [338b1] belong to, and depend upon this eternal revolution come-to-be of necessity, and of necessity will be. For since the revolving body is always setting something in motion, the movement of the things it moves must also be circular. Thus, since the upper movement is cyclical, the sun31 moves in this determinate manner; and since the sun moves thus, the seasons in consequence come-to-be in a cycle, i.e. return upon themselves; and since they come-to-be cyclically, so in their turn do the things [5] whose coming-to-be the seasons initiate.
Then why do some things manifestly come-to-be in this fashion (as, e.g., showers and air come-to-be cyclically, so that it must rain if there is to be a cloud and, conversely, there must be a cloud if it is to rain), while men and animals do not return upon themselves so that the same individual comes-to-be a second time (for [10] though your coming-to-be presupposes your father’s, his coming-to-be does not presuppose yours)? Why, on the contrary, does this coming-to-be seem to constitute a rectilinear sequence?
In discussing this, we must begin by inquiring whether all things return upon themselves in a uniform manner; or whether, on the contrary, though in some sequences what recurs is numerically the same, in other sequences it is the same only in species. Now it is evident that those things, whose substance—that which is undergoing the process—is imperishable, will be numerically the same; for the [15] character of the process is determined by the character of that which undergoes it. Those things, on the other hand, whose substance is perishable (not imperishable) must return upon themselves specifically, not numerically. That is why, when Water comes-to-be from Air and Air from Water, the Air is the same specifically, not numerically; and if these too recur numerically the same, at any rate this does not happen with things whose substance comes-to-be—whose substance is such that it is capable of not-being.
**TEXT: H. H. Joachim, Aristotle on Coming-to-be and Passing-away, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1922
1Frag. 8 Diels-Kranz.
2Frag. 21, lines 3 and 5, Diels-Kranz.
3See Physics I 6–9.
4See Physics 258b10ff.
5Below, II 10.
6Joachim excises the parenthetical sentence. (In the Oxford Translation he preferred
to transpose it to follow ‘ . . . either generically’ in line 19.)
7See Physics IV 6–9.
8See Physics 226b21–3.
9‘One or more arguments against the Eleatic theory appear to have dropped out’ (Joachim).
10See Timaeus 53Aff.
11See esp. On the Heavens III 1.
12Joachim marks a lacuna in the Greek text after τῇ δὲ μή, line 6: the words within pointed brackets are his attempt to fill in the gap.
13See Timaeus 49Dff.
14See Physics I 6–9.
15The ancient commentators take Aristotle to be referring to Plato’s ‘unwritten doctrines’; Joachim thinks that the reference is to Timaeus 35Aff.
16See Timaeus 54BD.
17Frag. 17, line 17, Diels-Kranz.
18Empedocles, frag. 37 Diels-Kranz.
19See Empedocles, frag. 8 Diels-Kranz.
20About Nature (περὶ Φύσεως) was the title of Empedocles’ scientific poem.
21Empedocles, frag. 53 Diels-Kranz.
22ib., frag. 54.
23See On the Soul I 4–5.
24See I 7.
25See Phaedo 96Aff.
26See Physics II 3–4.
27See Physics 260a26ff.
28See Physics 255b31ff.
29See Physics 217b29ff.
30The text is corrupt at this point.
31Reading κύκλῳ ὁ ἥλιoς.
METEOROLOGY**
E. W. Webster
BOOK I
1 · We have already discussed the first causes of nature, and all natural [338a20] motion, also the stars ordered in the motion of the heavens, and the corporeal elements—enumerating and specifying them and showing how they change into one another—and becoming and perishing in general. There remains for consideration a part of this inquiry which all our predecessors called meteorology. It is concerned with events that are natural, though their order is less perfect than that of the first [338b20] of the elements of bodies. They take place in the region nearest to the motion of the stars. Such are the milky way, and comets, and the movements of meteors. It studies also all the affections we may call common to air and water, and the kinds and parts of the earth and the affections of its parts. These throw light on the causes of winds and earthquakes and all the consequences of their motions. Of these things some [339a1] puzzle us, while others admit of explanation in some degree. Further, the inquiry is concerned with the falling of thunderbolts and with whirlwinds and fire-winds, and further, the recurrent affections produced in these same bodies by concretion. [5] When the inquiry into these matters is concluded let us consider what account we can give, in accordance with the method we have followed, of animals and plants, both generally and in detail. When that has been done we may say that the whole of our original undertaking will have been carried out.
After this introduction let us begin by discussing our immediate subject. [10]
2 · We have already laid down that there is one principle which makes up the nature of the bodies that move in a circle, and besides this four bodies owing their existence to the four principles, the motion of these latter bodies being of two kinds: either from the centre or to the centre. These four bodies are fire, air, water, earth. [15] Fire occupies the highest place among them all, earth the lowest, and two elements correspond to these in their relation to one another, air being nearest to fire, water to earth. The whole world surrounding the earth, then, the affections of which are our subject, is made up of these bodies. This world necessarily has a certain [20] continuity with the upper motions; consequently all its power is derived from them. (For the originating principle of all motion must be deemed the first cause. Besides, that element is eternal and its motion has no limit in space, but is always complete; [25] whereas all these other bodies have separate regions which limit one another.) So we must treat fire and earth and the elements like them as the material causes of the [30] events in this world (meaning by material what is subject and is affected), but must assign causality in the sense of the originating principle of motion to the power of the eternally moving bodies.
3 · Let us first recall our original postulates and the definitions already given [35] and then explain the milky way and comets and the other phenomena akin to these.
Fire, air, water, earth, we assert, come-to-be from one another, and each of [339b1] them exists potentially in each, as all things do that can be resolved into a common and ultimate substrate.
The first difficulty is raised by what is called the air. What are we to take its [5] nature to be in the world surrounding the earth? And what is its position relatively to the other so-called elements of bodies? (For there is no question as to the relation of the bulk of the earth to the size of the bodies which exist around it, since astronomical researches have by this time shown us that it is actually far smaller [10] than some individual stars. As for the water, it is not observed to exist collectively and separately, nor can i
t do so apart from that volume of it which has its seat about the earth: the sea, that is, and rivers, which we can see, and any subterranean water that may be hidden from our observation.) The question is really about that which lies between the earth and the extreme stars. Are we to consider it to be one kind of [15] body or more than one? And if more than one, how many are there and what are the bounds of their regions?
We have already described the first element and its powers, and explained that the whole world of the upper motions is full of that body.
[20] This is an opinion we are not alone in holding: it appears to be an old belief and one which men have held in the past, for the word ‘ether’ has long been used to denote that element. Anaxagoras, it is true, seems to me to think that the word means the same as fire. For he thought that the upper regions were full of fire, and that men1 referred to those regions when they spoke of ether. In the latter point he [25] was right; for men seem to have assumed that a body that was eternally in motion was also divine in nature; and, as such a body was different from any of the terrestrial elements, they determined to call it ‘ether’.2