^{page 162 note 2} Jaeger, W., relevant chapters in Aristoteles, Berlin, 1923Google Scholar: von Arnirn, H., die Entstehung der Gotteskhre des A., Vienna, 1931Google Scholar.

^{page 162 note 3} This is the argument of Phys. VIII. 257b 2–13.

^{page 163 note 1} Anaximenes, ap. Aet. Plac. i. 3. 4 (RP 24)Google Scholar, , Cic.N.D. I. II. 27Google Scholar, , Arist.de An. I. 5. 410b 27Google Scholar, Heraclitus ap. Sext. Math. 7. 129 (RP 41).

^{page 163 note 2} , Simpl.Phys. 152. II (RP 210)Google Scholar, Theophr, . Sens. 42Google Scholar, , Cic.N.D. I. 12Google Scholar.

^{page 163 note 3} Frr. 487, 877 Nauck. Cp. Hel. 1016.

^{page 165 note 1} 1 Cp. Laws 898c 899a. Three possibilities are mentioned, and the conclusion is τούϒο μέν νϒκη, τονύτων ἓν ϒέ τɩ δρŵσαν ψυχήν πáντα δɩάϒεɩν Again the vagueness, so pardonable in Plato, so impossible in A.! But why?

^{page 167 note 1} 192b 20. ώς οǘσης ϕύσεως àρχής τɩνος καɩ ɩτίας κɩνεɩ ήρεμεĵν ένψ ύπάρχεɩ πρώτως καθ′ ύτό καί μή κατά συμβεβηκЬς.

^{page 167 note 2} , Contrast Arn.Gotteshhre, p. 11Google Scholar. It is difficult to understand how Arn. was led into this mistake, since the point is illustrated from Phys. II itself. Cp. 198a 37 ff. Δɩτταɩ δέ αί àρχαί αɩ κɩνοȗσαɩ ϕυσɩκως, ˆων ή έτέραο σεῖ. Perhaps this too was to be explained away on spaterer Zusatz lines. It is true that the KikXcfj popd of the heaven is not strictly a Ktvqo'ts according to developed Aristotelianism, since κíννσισ is ντελχεια τοὖ τελἤσ and in circular motion the heaven realizes its form as completely as it can. That corresponds for it to the state of rest in their natural places for the lower elements, not their motions towards them. (See below.) I point this out gladly, since I agree with Arn.'s conclusions here, though not with all his arguments.

^{page 168 note 1} Am., ib. 15.

^{page 168 note 2} It is interesting to find Simplicius himself worried about this passage. The context shows that it refers to the highest substances of ail, which like a good Aristotelian he believes to be the νοντ καí κíνητα αíτια. Consequently in the sentence καí πανστον σῂ κíννσιν κινεῖται εὐλóλωσ he wishes he could read κινεῖ.

^{page 170 note 1} Book 3 does not mention it. According to von Arnim it even states again expressly that the ultimate author of motion must be a self- mover. He quotes 300b 21 σεῖ τ⋯ν πρὼτην κíνησιν μἤ βíᾳ κινεῖν λλ κατ πὐσιν. τó γρ κινοὖν νλκν κινεῖν αὑτó, κινεῖν κινοὐμενον κατ πὐσιν κινοὖν νλκη κινεῖν αὑτó, κινοὐμενον κατ πὐσιν. I had not examined this passage with sufficient independence and owe to Mr. Hackforth the observation that A. is in this paragraph arguing dialectically, and is reproducing, as he says a few lines above, the position of the Timaeus.

^{page 171 note 1} It might be instructive to compare the account of th e causes in Met. A, 1070b 28 ff., where the introduction of the Unmoved Mover at the end is an essential part of the scheme, although on a superficial view it might seem an extraneous addition: ὑλíεοσ, σμα. τó κινὖν íατρικ εἶσοσ, ταξíα τιασí, πλíνθοι. τó κινοὖ οíκοσομικ. πεì σ τò κινοὖν ν μν τοῖσ πνσικοῖσ νθρὡπῳ νθωποσ, ν σ τοῖσ πò σιανοíασ τò εῖσοσ ἤ τò ναντíον, τρóπον τιν τρíα αἱτια ἄν εἲν, σì σ ττταρα. ὑλíεια λρ πωσ íατρικ, καí οíκíασ εῖσοσ τò ναντíον, τρóπóν τιν τρíα ἂν εἴη, ὼσì σ ττταρα. ἂλíεια γρ πωτρικ καí οíκíασ εῖσοσ ῵ οíκοσομικ, καí ἃνθρωποσ ἂνθρωπον γεννᾷ. ἒτι παρ ταὖτα τó τον πντων κινοὖν πντα