---
title: "Metaphysics · Τὰ Μετὰ τὰ Φυσικά"
author: "Aristotle"
translator: "Hugh Tredennick"
languages: [grc, en]
shelf: "Philosophy"
section: 27 of 27
url: https://scriptura.si/works/aristotle-metaphysics/27/
cite: "Aristotle, tr. Hugh Tredennick, Metaphysics · Τὰ Μετὰ τὰ Φυσικά, section 27. Scriptura (scriptura.si), https://scriptura.si/works/aristotle-metaphysics/27/"
---

# Metaphysics · Τὰ Μετὰ τὰ Φυσικά

*Aristotle, tr. Hugh Tredennick*

First philosophy: being as being, substance, cause, and the unmoved mover.

> Greek: ed. William David Ross, from the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-greekLit, tlg0086.tlg025, CC BY-SA 4.0).

> English: Hugh Tredennick, from the Perseus Digital Library (tlg0086.tlg025.perseus-eng2). Notes are not included.

> Rows follow the references the two texts share (line numbers), cut where both reach the end of a sentence.

## 27. Book XIV · 1090b–1093b

Source: https://scriptura.si/works/aristotle-metaphysics/27/ · cite a paragraph as https://scriptura.si/works/aristotle-metaphysics/27/#p-N

[¶0] Those who posit the Ideas escape this difficulty, because they construct spatial magnitudes out of matter and a number—2 in the case of lines, and 3, presumably, in that of planes, and 4 in that of solids; or out of other numbers, for it makes no difference. But are we to regard these magnitudes as Ideas, or what is their mode of existence? and what contribution do they make to reality? They contribute nothing; just as the objects of mathematics contribute nothing. Moreover, no mathematical theorem applies to them, unless one chooses to interfere with the principles of mathematics and invent peculiar theories of one’s own. But it is not difficult to take any chance hypotheses and enlarge upon them and draw out a long string of conclusions. These thinkers, then, are quite wrong in thus striving to connect the objects of mathematics with the Ideas. But those who first recognized two kinds of number, the Ideal and the mathematical as well, neither have explained nor can explain in any way how mathematical number will exist and of what it will be composed; for they make it intermediate between Ideal and sensible number. For if it is composed of the Great and Small, it will be the same as the former, i.e. Ideal, number. But of what other Great and Small can it be composed? for Plato makes spatial magnitudes out of a Great and Small.

> Greek: τοῖς δὲ τὰς ἰδέας τιθεμένοις τοῦτο μὲν ἐκφεύγει—ποιοῦσι γὰρ τὰ μεγέθη ἐκ τῆς ὕλης καὶ ἀριθμοῦ, ἐκ μὲν τῆς δυάδος τὰ μήκη, ἐκ τριάδος δʼ ἴσως τὰ ἐπίπεδα, ἐκ δὲ τῆς τετράδος τὰ στερεὰ ἢ καὶ ἐξ ἄλλων ἀριθμῶν· διαφέρει γὰρ οὐθέν—, ἀλλὰ ταῦτά γε πότερον ἰδέαι ἔσονται, ἢ τίς ὁ τρόπος αὐτῶν, καὶ τί συμβάλλονται τοῖς οὖσιν; οὐθὲν γάρ, ὥσπερ οὐδὲ τὰ μαθηματικά, οὐδὲ ταῦτα συμβάλλεται. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ὑπάρχει γε κατʼ αὐτῶν οὐθὲν θεώρημα, ἐὰν μή τις βούληται κινεῖν τὰ μαθηματικὰ καὶ ποιεῖν ἰδίας τινὰς δόξας. ἔστι δʼ οὐ χαλεπὸν ὁποιασοῦν ὑποθέσεις λαμβάνοντας μακροποιεῖν καὶ συνείρειν. οὗτοι μὲν οὖν ταύτῃ προσγλιχόμενοι ταῖς ἰδέαις τὰ μαθηματικὰ διαμαρτάνουσιν· οἱ δὲ πρῶτοι δύο τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ποιήσαντες, τόν τε τῶν εἰδῶν καὶ τὸν μαθηματικόν, οὔτʼ εἰρήκασιν οὔτʼ ἔχοιεν ἂν εἰπεῖν πῶς καὶ ἐκ τίνος ἔσται ὁ μαθηματικός. ποιοῦσι γὰρ αὐτὸν μεταξὺ τοῦ εἰδητικοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ. εἰ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ, ὁ αὐτὸς ἐκείνῳ ἔσται τῷ τῶν ἰδεῶν (ἐξ ἄλλου δέ τινος μικροῦ καὶ μεγάλου τὰ [γὰρ] μεγέθη ποιεῖ)·

[¶1] And if he speaks of some other component, he will be maintaining too many elements; while if some one thing is the first principle of each kind of number, unity will be something common to these several kinds. We must inquire how it is that unity is these many things, when at the same time number, according to him, cannot be derived otherwise than from unity and an indeterminate dyad. All these views are irrational; they conflict both with one another and with sound logic, and it seems that in them we have a case of Simonides’ “long story ”; for men have recourse to the “long story,” such as slaves tell, when they have nothing satisfactory to say. The very elements too, the Great and Small, seem to protest at being dragged in; for they cannot possibly generate numbers except rising powers of 2. It is absurd also, or rather it is one of the impossibilities of this theory, to introduce generation of things which are eternal. There is no reason to doubt whether the Pythagoreans do or do not introduce it; for they clearly state that when the One had been constituted—whether out of planes or superficies or seed or out of something that they cannot explain—immediately the nearest part of the Infinite began to be drawn in and limited by the Limit. However, since they are here explaining the construction of the universe and meaning to speak in terms of physics, although we may somewhat criticize their physical theories, it is only fair to exempt them from the present inquiry; for it is the first principles in unchangeable things that we are investigating, and therefore we have to consider the generation of this kind of numbers.

> Greek: εἰ δʼ ἕτερόν τι ἐρεῖ, πλείω τὰ στοιχεῖα ἐρεῖ· καὶ εἰ ἕν τι ἑκατέρου ἡ ἀρχή, κοινόν τι ἐπὶ τούτων ἔσται τὸ ἕν, ζητητέον τε πῶς καὶ ταῦτα πολλὰ τὸ ἓν καὶ ἅμα τὸν ἀριθμὸν γενέσθαι ἄλλως ἢ ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ δυάδος ἀορίστου ἀδύνατον κατʼ ἐκεῖνον. πάντα δὴ ταῦτα ἄλογα, καὶ μάχεται καὶ αὐτὰ ἑαυτοῖς καὶ τοῖς εὐλόγοις, καὶ ἔοικεν ἐν αὐτοῖς εἶναι ὁ Σιμωνίδου μακρὸς λόγος· γίγνεται γὰρ ὁ μακρὸς λόγος ὥσπερ ὁ τῶν δούλων ὅταν μηθὲν ὑγιὲς λέγωσιν. φαίνεται δὲ καὶ αὐτὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα τὸ μέγα καὶ τὸ μικρὸν βοᾶν ὡς ἑλκόμενα· οὐ δύναται γὰρ οὐδαμῶς γεννῆσαι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἀλλʼ ἢ τὸν ἀφʼ ἑνὸς διπλασιαζόμενον.—ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ γένεσιν ποιεῖν ἀϊδίων ὄντων, μᾶλλον δʼ ἕν τι τῶν ἀδυνάτων. οἱ μὲν οὖν Πυθαγόρειοι πότερον οὐ ποιοῦσιν ἢ ποιοῦσι γένεσιν οὐδὲν δεῖ διστάζειν· φανερῶς γὰρ λέγουσιν ὡς τοῦ ἑνὸς συσταθέντος, εἴτʼ ἐξ ἐπιπέδων εἴτʼ ἐκ χροιᾶς εἴτʼ ἐκ σπέρματος εἴτʼ ἐξ ὧν ἀποροῦσιν εἰπεῖν, εὐθὺς τὸ ἔγγιστα τοῦ ἀπείρου ὅτι εἵλκετο καὶ ἐπεραίνετο ὑπὸ τοῦ πέρατος. ἀλλʼ ἐπειδὴ κοσμοποιοῦσι καὶ φυσικῶς βούλονται λέγειν, δίκαιον αὐτοὺς ἐξετάζειν τι περὶ φύσεως, ἐκ δὲ τῆς νῦν ἀφεῖναι μεθόδου·

[¶2] They say that there is no generation of odd numbers, which clearly implies that there is generation of even ones; and some hold that the even is constructed first out of unequals—the Great and Small—when they are equalized. Therefore the inequality must apply to them before they are equalized. If they had always been equalized they would not have been unequal before; for there is nothing prior to that which has always been. Hence evidently it is not for the sake of a logical theory that they introduce the generation of numbers A difficulty, and a discredit to those who make light of the difficulty, arises out of the question how the elements and first principles are related to the the Good and the Beautiful. The difficulty is this: whether any of the elements is such as we mean when we speak of the Good or the Supreme Good, or whether on the contrary these are later in generation than the elements. It would seem that there is an agreement between the mythologists and some present-day thinkers, who deny that there is such an element, and say that it was only after some evolution in the natural order of things that both the Good and the Beautiful appeared. They do this to avoid a real difficulty which confronts those who hold, as some do, that unity is a first principle.

> Greek: τὰς γὰρ ἐν τοῖς ἀκινήτοις ζητοῦμεν ἀρχάς, ὥστε καὶ τῶν ἀριθμῶν τῶν τοιούτων ἐπισκεπτέον τὴν γένεσιν. τοῦ μὲν οὖν περιττοῦ γένεσιν οὔ φασιν, ὡς δηλονότι τοῦ ἀρτίου οὔσης γενέσεως· τὸν δʼ ἄρτιον πρῶτον ἐξ ἀνίσων τινὲς κατασκευάζουσι τοῦ μεγάλου καὶ μικροῦ ἰσασθέντων. ἀνάγκη οὖν πρότερον ὑπάρχειν τὴν ἀνισότητα αὐτοῖς τοῦ ἰσασθῆναι· εἰ δʼ ἀεὶ ἦσαν ἰσασμένα, οὐκ ἂν ἦσαν ἄνισα πρότερον (τοῦ γὰρ ἀεὶ οὐκ ἔστι πρότερον οὐθέν), ὥστε φανερὸν ὅτι οὐ τοῦ θεωρῆσαι ἕνεκεν ποιοῦσι τὴν γένεσιν τῶν ἀριθμῶν.—ἔχει δʼ ἀπορίαν καὶ εὐπορήσαντι ἐπιτίμησιν πῶς ἔχει πρὸς τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν τὰ στοιχεῖα καὶ αἱ ἀρχαί· ἀπορίαν μὲν ταύτην, πότερόν ἐστί τι ἐκείνων οἷον βουλόμεθα λέγειν αὐτὸ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ ἄριστον, ἢ οὔ, ἀλλʼ ὑστερογενῆ. παρὰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν θεολόγων ἔοικεν ὁμολογεῖσθαι τῶν νῦν τισίν, οἳ οὔ φασιν, ἀλλὰ προελθούσης τῆς τῶν ὄντων φύσεως καὶ τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ τὸ καλὸν ἐμφαίνεσθαι (τοῦτο δὲ ποιοῦσιν εὐλαβούμενοι ἀληθινὴν δυσχέρειαν ἣ συμβαίνει τοῖς λέγουσιν, ὥσπερ ἔνιοι, τὸ ἓν ἀρχήν·

[¶3] This difficulty arises not from ascribing goodness to the first principle as an attribute, but from treating unity as a principle, and a principle in the sense of an element, and then deriving number from unity. The early poets agree with this view in so far as they assert that it was not the original forces—such as Night, Heaven, Chaos or Ocean—but Zeus who was king and ruler. It was, however, on the ground of the changing of the rulers of the world that the poets were led to state these theories; because those of them who compromise by not describing everything in mythological language—e.g. Pherecydes and certain others—make the primary generator the Supreme Good; and so do the Magi, and some of the later philosophers such as Empedocles and Anaxagoras: the one making Love an element, and the other making Mind a first principle. And of those who hold that unchangeable substances exist, some identify absolute unity with absolute goodness; but they considered that the essence of goodness was primarily unity. This, then, is the problem: which of these two views we should hold. Now it is remarkable if that which is primary and eternal and supremely self-sufficient does not possess this very quality, viz. self-sufficiency and immunity, in a primary degree and as something good. Moreover, it is imperishable and self-sufficient for no other reason than because it is good.

> Greek: ἔστι δʼ ἡ δυσχέρεια οὐ διὰ τὸ τῇ ἀρχῇ τὸ εὖ ἀποδιδόναι ὡς ὑπάρχον, ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸ τὸ ἓν ἀρχὴν καὶ ἀρχὴν ὡς στοιχεῖον καὶ τὸν ἀριθμὸν ἐκ τοῦ ἑνός),—οἱ δὲ ποιηταὶ οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ταύτῃ ὁμοίως, ᾗ βασιλεύειν καὶ ἄρχειν φασὶν οὐ τοὺς πρώτους, οἷον νύκτα καὶ οὐρανὸν ἢ χάος ἢ ὠκεανόν, ἀλλὰ τὸν Δία· οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ τούτοις μὲν διὰ τὸ μεταβάλλειν τοὺς ἄρχοντας τῶν ὄντων συμβαίνει τοιαῦτα λέγειν, ἐπεὶ οἵ γε μεμιγμένοι αὐτῶν [καὶ] τῷ μὴ μυθικῶς πάντα λέγειν, οἷον Φερεκύδης καὶ ἕτεροί τινες, τὸ γεννῆσαν πρῶτον ἄριστον τιθέασι, καὶ οἱ Μάγοι, καὶ τῶν ὑστέρων δὲ σοφῶν οἷον Ἐμπεδοκλῆς τε καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας, ὁ μὲν τὴν φιλίαν στοιχεῖον ὁ δὲ τὸν νοῦν ἀρχὴν ποιήσας. τῶν δὲ τὰς ἀκινήτους οὐσίας εἶναι λεγόντων οἱ μέν φασιν αὐτὸ τὸ ἓν τὸ ἀγαθὸν αὐτὸ εἶναι· οὐσίαν μέντοι τὸ ἓν αὐτοῦ ᾤοντο εἶναι μάλιστα.—ἡ μὲν οὖν ἀπορία αὕτη, ποτέρως δεῖ λέγειν· θαυμαστὸν δʼ εἰ τῷ πρώτῳ καὶ ἀϊδίῳ καὶ αὐταρκεστάτῳ τοῦτʼ αὐτὸ πρῶτον οὐχ ὡς ἀγαθὸν ὑπάρχει, τὸ αὔταρκες καὶ ἡ σωτηρία. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐ διʼ ἄλλο τι ἄφθαρτον ἢ διότι εὖ ἔχει, οὐδʼ αὔταρκες, ὥστε τὸ μὲν φάναι τὴν ἀρχὴν τοιαύτην εἶναι εὔλογον ἀληθὲς εἶναι, τὸ μέντοι ταύτην εἶναι τὸ ἕν, ἢ εἰ μὴ τοῦτο, στοιχεῖόν γε καὶ στοιχεῖον ἀριθμῶν, ἀδύνατον.

[¶4] Hence it is probably true to say that the first principle is of this nature. But to say that this principle is unity, or if not that, that it is an element, and an element of numbers, is impossible; for this involves a serious difficulty, to avoid which some thinkers have abandoned the theory (viz. those who agree that unity is a first principle and element, but of mathematical number). For on this view all units become identical with some good, and we get a great abundance of goods. Further, if the Forms are numbers, all Forms become identical with some good. Again, let us assume that there are Ideas of anything that we choose. If there are Ideas only of goods, the Ideas will not be substances; and if there are Ideas of substances also, all animals and plants, and all things that participate in the Ideas, will be goods. Not only do these absurdities follow, but it also follows that the contrary element, whether it is plurality or the unequal, i.e. the Great and Small, is absolute badness. Hence one thinker avoided associating the Good with unity, on the ground that since generation proceeds from contraries, the nature of plurality would then necessarily be bad. Others hold that inequality is the nature of the bad. It follows, then, that all things partake of the Bad except one—absolute unity; and that numbers partake of it in a more unmitigated form than do spatial magnitudes;

> Greek: συμβαίνει γὰρ πολλὴ δυσχέρεια—ἣν ἔνιοι φεύγοντες ἀπειρήκασιν, οἱ τὸ ἓν μὲν ὁμολογοῦντες ἀρχὴν εἶναι πρώτην καὶ στοιχεῖον, τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ δὲ τοῦ μαθηματικοῦ —ἅπασαι γὰρ αἱ μονάδες γίγνονται ὅπερ ἀγαθόν τι, καὶ πολλή τις εὐπορία ἀγαθῶν. ἔτι εἰ τὰ εἴδη ἀριθμοί, τὰ εἴδη πάντα ὅπερ ἀγαθόν τι· ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτου βούλεται τιθέτω τις εἶναι ἰδέας· εἰ μὲν γὰρ τῶν ἀγαθῶν μόνον, οὐκ ἔσονται οὐσίαι αἱ ἰδέαι, εἰ δὲ καὶ τῶν οὐσιῶν, πάντα τὰ ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ἀγαθὰ καὶ τὰ μετέχοντα. ταῦτά τε δὴ συμβαίνει ἄτοπα, καὶ τὸ ἐναντίον στοιχεῖον, εἴτε πλῆθος ὂν εἴτε τὸ ἄνισον καὶ μέγα καὶ μικρόν, τὸ κακὸν αὐτό (διόπερ ὁ μὲν ἔφευγε τὸ ἀγαθὸν προσάπτειν τῷ ἑνὶ ὡς ἀναγκαῖον ὄν, ἐπειδὴ ἐξ ἐναντίων ἡ γένεσις, τὸ κακὸν τὴν τοῦ πλήθους φύσιν εἶναι· οἱ δὲ λέγουσι τὸ ἄνισον τὴν τοῦ κακοῦ φύσιν)· συμβαίνει δὴ πάντα τὰ ὄντα μετέχειν τοῦ κακοῦ ἔξω ἑνὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἑνός, καὶ μᾶλλον ἀκράτου μετέχειν τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἢ τὰ μεγέθη, καὶ τὸ κακὸν τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ χώραν εἶναι, καὶ μετέχειν καὶ ὀρέγεσθαι τοῦ φθαρτικοῦ·

[¶5] and that the Bad is the province for the activity of the Good, and partakes of and tends towards that which is destructive of the Good; for a contrary is destructive of its contrary. And if, as we said, the matter of each thing is that which is it potentially—e.g., the matter of actual fire is that which is potentially fire—then the Bad will be simply the potentially Good. Thus all these objections follow because (1.) they make every principle an element; (2.) they make contraries principles; (3.) they make unity a principle; and (4.) they make numbers the primary substances, and separable, and Forms. If, then, it is impossible both not to include the Good among the first principles, and to include it in this way, it is clear that the first principles are not being rightly represented, nor are the primary substances. Nor is a certain thinker right in his assumption when he likens the principles of the universe to that of animals and plants, on the ground that the more perfect forms are always produced from those which are indeterminate and imperfect, and is led by this to assert that this is true also of the ultimate principles; so that not even unity itself is a real thing. He is wrong; for even in the natural world the principles from which these things are derived are perfect and complete—for it is man that begets man; the seed does not come first. It is absurd also to generate space simultaneously with the mathematical solids (for space is peculiar to particular things, which is why they are separable in space, whereas the objects of mathematics have no position) and to say that they must be somewhere, and yet not explain what their spatial position is.

> Greek: φθαρτικὸν γὰρ τοῦ ἐναντίου τὸ ἐναντίον. καὶ εἰ ὥσπερ ἐλέγομεν ὅτι ἡ ὕλη ἐστὶ τὸ δυνάμει ἕκαστον, οἷον πυρὸς τοῦ ἐνεργείᾳ τὸ δυνάμει πῦρ, τὸ κακὸν ἔσται αὐτὸ τὸ δυνάμει ἀγαθόν. ταῦτα δὴ πάντα συμβαίνει, τὸ μὲν ὅτι ἀρχὴν πᾶσαν στοιχεῖον ποιοῦσι, τὸ δʼ ὅτι τἀναντία ἀρχάς, τὸ δʼ ὅτι τὸ ἓν ἀρχήν, τὸ δʼ ὅτι τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς τὰς πρώτας οὐσίας καὶ χωριστὰ καὶ εἴδη. εἰ οὖν καὶ τὸ μὴ τιθέναι τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ τὸ τιθέναι οὕτως ἀδύνατον, δῆλον ὅτι αἱ ἀρχαὶ οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἀποδίδονται οὐδὲ αἱ πρῶται οὐσίαι. οὐκ ὀρθῶς δʼ ὑπολαμβάνει οὐδʼ εἴ τις παρεικάζει τὰς τοῦ ὅλου ἀρχὰς τῇ τῶν ζῴων καὶ φυτῶν, ὅτι ἐξ ἀορίστων ἀτελῶν τε ἀεὶ τὰ τελειότερα, διὸ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν πρώτων οὕτως ἔχειν φησίν, ὥστε μηδὲ ὄν τι εἶναι τὸ ἓν αὐτό. εἰσὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐνταῦθα τέλειαι αἱ ἀρχαὶ ἐξ ὧν ταῦτα· ἄνθρωπος γὰρ ἄνθρωπον γεννᾷ, καὶ οὐκ ἔστι τὸ σπέρμα πρῶτον. ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ τὸ τόπον ἅμα τοῖς στερεοῖς τοῖς μαθηματικοῖς ποιῆσαι (ὁ μὲν γὰρ τόπος τῶν καθʼ ἕκαστον ἴδιος, διὸ χωριστὰ τόπῳ, τὰ δὲ μαθηματικὰ οὐ πού), καὶ τὸ εἰπεῖν μὲν ὅτι ποὺ ἔσται, τί δέ ἐστιν ὁ τόπος μή.—ἔδει δὲ τοὺς λέγοντας ἐκ στοιχείων εἶναι τὰ ὄντα καὶ τῶν ὄντων τὰ πρῶτα τοὺς ἀριθμούς, διελομένους πῶς ἄλλο ἐξ ἄλλου ἐστίν, οὕτω λέγειν τίνα τρόπον ὁ ἀριθμός ἐστιν ἐκ τῶν ἀρχῶν.

[¶6] Those who assert that reality is derived from elements, and that numbers are the primary realities, ought to have first distinguished the senses in which one thing is derived from another, and then explained in what way number is derived from the first principles. Is it by mixture? But (a) not everything admits of mixture; (b) the result of mixture is something different; and unity will not be separable, nor will it be a distinct entity, as they intend it to be. Is it by composition, as we hold of the syllable? But (a) this necessarily implies position; (b) in thinking of unity and plurality we shall think of them separately. This, then, is what number will be—a unit plus plurality, or unity plus the Unequal. And since a thing is derived from elements either as inherent or as not inherent in it, in which way is number so derived? Derivation from inherent elements is only possible for things which admit of generation. Is it derived as from seed? But nothing can be emitted from that which is indivisible. Is it derived from a contrary which does not persist? But all things which derive their being in this way derive it also from something else which does persist. Since, therefore, one thinker regards unity as contrary to plurality, and another (treating it as the Equal) as contrary to the Unequal, number must be derived as from contraries.

> Greek: πότερον μίξει; ἀλλʼ οὔτε πᾶν μικτόν, τό τε γιγνόμενον ἕτερον, οὐκ ἔσται τε χωριστὸν τὸ ἓν οὐδʼ ἑτέρα φύσις· οἱ δὲ βούλονται. ἀλλὰ συνθέσει, ὥσπερ συλλαβή; ἀλλὰ θέσιν τε ἀνάγκη ὑπάρχειν, καὶ χωρὶς ὁ νοῶν νοήσει τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ πλῆθος. τοῦτʼ οὖν ἔσται ὁ ἀριθμός, μονὰς καὶ πλῆθος, ἢ τὸ ἓν καὶ ἄνισον. καὶ ἐπεὶ τὸ ἐκ τινῶν εἶναι ἔστι μὲν ὡς ἐνυπαρχόντων ἔστι δὲ ὡς οὔ, ποτέρως ὁ ἀριθμός; οὕτως γὰρ ὡς ἐνυπαρχόντων οὐκ ἔστιν ἀλλʼ ἢ ὧν γένεσις ἔστιν. ἀλλʼ ὡς ἀπὸ σπέρματος; ἀλλʼ οὐχ οἷόν τε τοῦ ἀδιαιρέτου τι ἀπελθεῖν. ἀλλʼ ὡς ἐκ τοῦ ἐναντίου μὴ ὑπομένοντος; ἀλλʼ ὅσα οὕτως ἔστι, καὶ ἐξ ἄλλου τινός ἐστιν ὑπομένοντος. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν τὸ ἓν ὁ μὲν τῷ πλήθει ὡς ἐναντίον τίθησιν, ὁ δὲ τῷ ἀνίσῳ, ὡς ἴσῳ τῷ ἑνὶ χρώμενος, ὡς ἐξ ἐναντίων εἴη ἂν ὁ ἀριθμός·

[¶7] Hence there is something else which persists from which, together with one contrary, number is or has been derived. Further, why on earth is it that whereas all other things which are derived from contraries or have contraries perish, even if the contrary is exhausted in producing them, number does not perish? Of this no explanation is given; yet whether it is inherent or not, a contrary is destructive; e.g., Strife destroys the mixture. It should not, however, do this; because the mixture is not its contrary. Nor is it in any way defined in which sense numbers are the causes of substances and of Being; whether as bounds, e.g. as points are the bounds of spatial magnitudes, and as Eurytus determined which number belongs to which thing—e.g. this number to man, and this to horse—by using pebbles to copy the shape of natural objects, like those who arrange numbers in the form of geometrical figures, the triangle and the square. Or is it because harmony is a ratio of numbers, and so too is man and everything else? But in what sense are attributes—white, and sweet, and hot—numbers? And clearly numbers are not the essence of things, nor are they causes of the form; for the ratio is the essence, and number is matter. E.g. the essence of flesh or bone is number only in the sense that it is three parts of fire and two of earth. And the number, whatever it is, is always a number of something; of particles of fire or earth, or of units.

> Greek: ἔστιν ἄρα τι ἕτερον ἐξ οὗ ὑπομένοντος καὶ θατέρου ἐστὶν ἢ γέγονεν. ἔτι τί δή ποτε τὰ μὲν ἄλλʼ ὅσα ἐξ ἐναντίων ἢ οἷς ἔστιν ἐναντία φθείρεται κἂν ἐκ παντὸς ᾖ, ὁ δὲ ἀριθμὸς οὔ; περὶ τούτου γὰρ οὐθὲν λέγεται. καίτοι καὶ ἐνυπάρχον καὶ μὴ ἐνυπάρχον φθείρει τὸ ἐναντίον, οἷον τὸ νεῖκος τὸ μῖγμα (καίτοι γε οὐκ ἔδει· οὐ γὰρ ἐκείνῳ γε ἐναντίον).—οὐθὲν δὲ διώρισται οὐδὲ ὁποτέρως οἱ ἀριθμοὶ αἴτιοι τῶν οὐσιῶν καὶ τοῦ εἶναι, πότερον ὡς ὅροι (οἷον αἱ στιγμαὶ τῶν μεγεθῶν, καὶ ὡς Εὔρυτος ἔταττε τίς ἀριθμὸς τίνος, οἷον ὁδὶ μὲν ἀνθρώπου ὁδὶ δὲ ἵππου, ὥσπερ οἱ τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς ἄγοντες εἰς τὰ σχήματα τρίγωνον καὶ τετράγωνον, οὕτως ἀφομοιῶν ταῖς ψήφοις τὰς μορφὰς τῶν φυτῶν), ἢ ὅτι [ὁ] λόγος ἡ συμφωνία ἀριθμῶν, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἄνθρωπος καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον; τὰ δὲ δὴ πάθη πῶς ἀριθμοί, τὸ λευκὸν καὶ γλυκὺ καὶ τὸ θερμόν; ὅτι δὲ οὐχ οἱ ἀριθμοὶ οὐσία οὐδὲ τῆς μορφῆς αἴτιοι, δῆλον· ὁ γὰρ λόγος ἡ οὐσία, ὁ δʼ ἀριθμὸς ὕλη. οἷον σαρκὸς ἢ ὀστοῦ ἀριθμὸς ἡ οὐσία οὕτω, τρία πυρὸς γῆς δὲ δύο· καὶ ἀεὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς ὃς ἂν ᾖ τινῶν ἐστιν, ἢ πύρινος ἢ γήϊνος ἢ μοναδικός, ἀλλʼ ἡ οὐσία τὸ τοσόνδʼ εἶναι πρὸς τοσόνδε κατὰ τὴν μῖξιν·

[¶8] But the essence is the proportion of one quantity to another in the mixture; i.e. no longer a number, but a ratio of the mixture of numbers, either of corporeal particles or of any other kind. Thus number is not an efficient cause—neither number in general, nor that which consists of abstract units—nor is it the matter, nor the formula or form of things. Nor again is it a final cause. The question might also be raised as to what the good is which things derive from numbers because their mixture can be expressed by a number, either one which is easily calculable, or an odd number. For in point of fact honey-water is no more wholesome if it is mixed in the proportion “three times three”; it would be more beneficial mixed in no particular proportion, provided that it be diluted, than mixed in an arithmetical proportion, but strong. Again, the ratios of mixtures are expressed by the relation of numbers, and not simply by numbers; e.g., it is 3: 2, not 3 X 2; for in products of multiplication the units must belong to the same genus. Thus the product of 1 x 2 x 3 must be measurable by 1, and the product of 4 X 5 x 7 by 4. Therefore all products which contain the same factor must be measurable by that factor. Hence the number of fire cannot be 2 X 5 X 3 X 7 if the number of water is 2 x 3.

> Greek: τοῦτο δʼ οὐκέτι ἀριθμὸς ἀλλὰ λόγος μίξεως ἀριθμῶν σωματικῶν ἢ ὁποιωνοῦν. οὔτε οὖν τῷ ποιῆσαι αἴτιος ὁ ἀριθμός, οὔτε ὅλως ὁ ἀριθμὸς οὔτε ὁ μοναδικός, οὔτε ὕλη οὔτε λόγος καὶ εἶδος τῶν πραγμάτων. ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδʼ ὡς τὸ οὗ ἕνεκα. ἀπορήσειε δʼ ἄν τις καὶ τί τὸ εὖ ἐστὶ τὸ ἀπὸ τῶν ἀριθμῶν τῷ ἐν ἀριθμῷ εἶναι τὴν μῖξιν, ἢ ἐν εὐλογίστῳ ἢ ἐν περιττῷ. νυνὶ γὰρ οὐθὲν ὑγιεινότερον τρὶς τρία ἂν ᾖ τὸ μελίκρατον κεκραμένον, ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ὠφελήσειεν ἂν ἐν οὐθενὶ λόγῳ ὂν ὑδαρὲς δὲ ἢ ἐν ἀριθμῷ ἄκρατον ὄν. ἔτι οἱ λόγοι ἐν προσθέσει ἀριθμῶν εἰσὶν οἱ τῶν μίξεων, οὐκ ἐν ἀριθμοῖς, οἷον τρία πρὸς δύο ἀλλʼ οὐ τρὶς δύο. τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ δεῖ γένος εἶναι ἐν ταῖς πολλαπλασιώσεσιν, ὥστε δεῖ μετρεῖσθαι τῷ τε Α τὸν στοῖχον ἐφʼ οὗ ΑΒΓ καὶ τῷ Δ τὸν ΔΕΖ· ὥστε τῷ αὐτῷ πάντα. οὔκουν ἔσται πυρὸς ΒΕΓΖ καὶ ὕδατος ἀριθμὸς δὶς τρία.

[¶9] If all things must share in number, it must follow that many things are the same; i.e., that the same number belongs both to this thing and to something else. Is number, then, a cause; i.e., is it because of number that the object exists? Or is this not conclusive? E.g., there is a certain number of the sun’s motions, and again of the moon’s, and indeed of the life and maturity of every animate thing. What reason, then, is there why some of these numbers should not be squares and others cubes, some equal and others double? There is no reason; all things must fall within this range of numbers if, as was assumed, all things share in number, and different things may fall under the same number. Hence if certain things happened to have the same number, on the Pythagorean view they would be the same as one another, because they would have the same form of number; e.g., sun and moon would be the same. But why are these numbers causes? There are seven vowels, seven strings to the scale, seven Pleiads; most animals (though not all ) lose their teeth in the seventh year; and there were seven heroes who attacked Thebes. Is it, then, because the number 7 is such as it is that there were seven heroes, or that the Pleiads consist of seven stars? Surely there were seven heroes because of the seven gates, or for some other reason, and the Pleiads are seven because we count them so; just as we count the Bear as 12, whereas others count more stars in both.

> Greek: —εἰ δʼ ἀνάγκη πάντα ἀριθμοῦ κοινωνεῖν, ἀνάγκη πολλὰ συμβαίνειν τὰ αὐτά, καὶ ἀριθμὸν τὸν αὐτὸν τῷδε καὶ ἄλλῳ. ἆρʼ οὖν τοῦτʼ αἴτιον καὶ διὰ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἢ ἄδηλον; οἷον ἔστι τις τῶν τοῦ ἡλίου φορῶν ἀριθμός, καὶ πάλιν τῶν τῆς σελήνης, καὶ τῶν ζῴων γε ἑκάστου τοῦ βίου καὶ ἡλικίας· τί οὖν κωλύει ἐνίους μὲν τούτων τετραγώνους εἶναι ἐνίους δὲ κύβους, καὶ ἴσους τοὺς δὲ διπλασίους; οὐθὲν γὰρ κωλύει, ἀλλʼ ἀνάγκη ἐν τούτοις στρέφεσθαι, εἰ ἀριθμοῦ πάντα ἐκοινώνει. ἐνεδέχετό τε τὰ διαφέροντα ὑπὸ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀριθμὸν πίπτειν· ὥστʼ εἴ τισιν ὁ αὐτὸς ἀριθμὸς συνεβεβήκει, ταὐτὰ ἂν ἦν ἀλλήλοις ἐκεῖνα τὸ αὐτὸ εἶδος ἀριθμοῦ ἔχοντα, οἷον ἥλιος καὶ σελήνη τὰ αὐτά. ἀλλὰ διὰ τί αἴτια ταῦτα; ἑπτὰ μὲν φωνήεντα, ἑπτὰ δὲ χορδαὶ ἡ ἁρμονία, ἑπτὰ δὲ αἱ πλειάδες, ἐν ἑπτὰ δὲ ὀδόντας βάλλει (ἔνιά γε, ἔνια δʼ οὔ), ἑπτὰ δὲ οἱ ἐπὶ Θήβας. ἆρʼ οὖν ὅτι τοιοσδὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς πέφυκεν, διὰ τοῦτο ἢ ἐκεῖνοι ἐγένοντο ἑπτὰ ἢ ἡ πλειὰς ἑπτὰ ἀστέρων ἐστίν; ἢ οἱ μὲν διὰ τὰς πύλας ἢ ἄλλην τινὰ αἰτίαν, τὴν δὲ ἡμεῖς οὕτως ἀριθμοῦμεν, τὴν δὲ ἄρκτον γε δώδεκα, οἱ δὲ πλείους·

[¶10] Indeed, they assert also that Ξ, Ψ and Ζ are concords, and that because there are three concords, there are three double consonants. They ignore the fact that there might be thousands of double consonants—because there might be one symbol for ΓΡ. But if they say that each of these letters is double any of the others, whereas no other is, and that the reason is that there are three regions of the mouth, and that one consonant is combined with σ in each region, it is for this reason that there are only three double consonants, and not because there are three concords—because there are really more than three; but there cannot be more than three double consonants. Thus these thinkers are like the ancient Homeric scholars, who see minor similarities but overlook important ones. Some say that there are many correspondences of this kind; e.g., the middle notes of the octave are respectively 8 and 9, and the epic hexameter has seventeen syllables, which equals the sum of these two;

> Greek: ἐπεὶ καὶ τὸ ΞΨΖ συμφωνίας φασὶν εἶναι, καὶ ὅτι ἐκεῖναι τρεῖς, καὶ ταῦτα τρία· ὅτι δὲ μυρία ἂν εἴη τοιαῦτα, οὐθὲν μέλει (τῷ γὰρ Γ καὶ Ρ εἴη ἂν ἓν σημεῖον)· εἰ δʼ ὅτι διπλάσιον τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον, ἄλλο δʼ οὔ, αἴτιον δʼ ὅτι τριῶν ὄντων τόπων ἓν ἐφʼ ἑκάστου ἐπιφέρεται τῷ σίγμα, διὰ τοῦτο τρία μόνον ἐστὶν ἀλλʼ οὐχ ὅτι αἱ συμφωνίαι τρεῖς, ἐπεὶ πλείους γε αἱ συμφωνίαι, ἐνταῦθα δʼ οὐκέτι δύναται. ὅμοιοι δὴ καὶ οὗτοι τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Ὁμηρικοῖς, οἳ μικρὰς ὁμοιότητας ὁρῶσι μεγάλας δὲ παρορῶσιν. λέγουσι δέ τινες ὅτι πολλὰ τοιαῦτα, οἷον αἵ τε μέσαι ἡ μὲν ἐννέα ἡ δὲ ὀκτώ, καὶ τὸ ἔπος δεκαεπτά, ἰσάριθμον τούτοις, βαίνεται δʼ ἐν μὲν τῷ δεξιῷ ἐννέα συλλαβαῖς, ἐν δὲ τῷ ἀριστερῷ ὀκτώ·

[¶11] and the line scans in the first half with nine syllables, and in the second with eight. And they point out that the interval from α to ω in the alphabet is equal to that from the lowest note of a flute to the highest, whose number is equal to that of the whole system of the universe. We must realize that no one would find any difficulty either in discovering or in stating such correspondences as these in the realm of eternal things, since they occur even among perishable things. As for the celebrated characteristics of number, and their contraries, and in general the mathematical properties, in the sense that some describe them and make them out to be causes of the natural world, it would seem that if we examine them along these lines, they disappear; for not one of them is a cause in any of the senses which we distinguished with until respect to the first Principles. There is a sense, however, in which these thinkers make it clear that goodness is predicable of numbers, and that the odd, the straight, the equal-by-equal, and the powers of certain numbers, belong to the series of the Beautiful. For the seasons are connected with a certain kind of number; and the other examples which they adduce from mathematical theorems all have the same force. Hence they would seem to be mere coincidences, for they are accidental; but all the examples are appropriate to each other, and they are one by analogy. For there is analogy between all the categories of Being—as “straight” is in length, so is “level” in breadth, perhaps “odd” in number, and “white” in color.

> Greek: καὶ ὅτι ἴσον τὸ διάστημα ἔν τε τοῖς γράμμασιν ἀπὸ τοῦ Α πρὸς τὸ Ω, καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ βόμβυκος ἐπὶ τὴν ὀξυτάτην [νεάτην] ἐν αὐλοῖς, ἧς ὁ ἀριθμὸς ἴσος τῇ οὐλομελείᾳ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ. ὁρᾶν δὲ δεῖ μὴ τοιαῦτα οὐθεὶς ἂν ἀπορήσειεν οὔτε λέγειν οὔθʼ εὑρίσκειν ἐν τοῖς ἀϊδίοις, ἐπεὶ καὶ ἐν τοῖς φθαρτοῖς. ἀλλʼ αἱ ἐν τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς φύσεις αἱ ἐπαινούμεναι καὶ τὰ τούτοις ἐναντία καὶ ὅλως τὰ ἐν τοῖς μαθήμασιν, ὡς μὲν λέγουσί τινες καὶ αἴτια ποιοῦσι τῆς φύσεως, ἔοικεν οὑτωσί γε σκοπουμένοις διαφεύγειν (κατʼ οὐδένα γὰρ τρόπον τῶν διωρισμένων περὶ τὰς ἀρχὰς οὐδὲν αὐτῶν αἴτιον)· ἔστιν ὡς μέντοι ποιοῦσι φανερὸν ὅτι τὸ εὖ ὑπάρχει καὶ τῆς συστοιχίας ἐστὶ τῆς τοῦ καλοῦ τὸ περιττόν, τὸ εὐθύ, τὸ ἰσάκις ἴσον, αἱ δυνάμεις ἐνίων ἀριθμῶν· ἅμα γὰρ ὧραι καὶ ἀριθμὸς τοιοσδί· καὶ τὰ ἄλλα δὴ ὅσα συνάγουσιν ἐκ τῶν μαθηματικῶν θεωρημάτων πάντα ταύτην ἔχει τὴν δύναμιν. διὸ καὶ ἔοικε συμπτώμασιν· ἔστι γὰρ συμβεβηκότα μέν, ἀλλʼ οἰκεῖα ἀλλήλοις πάντα, ἓν δὲ τῷ ἀνάλογον· ἐν ἑκάστῃ γὰρ τοῦ ὄντος κατηγορίᾳ ἐστὶ τὸ ἀνάλογον, ὡς εὐθὺ ἐν μήκει οὕτως ἐν πλάτει τὸ ὁμαλόν, ἴσως ἐν ἀριθμῷ τὸ περιττόν, ἐν δὲ χροιᾷ τὸ λευκόν.—ἔτι οὐχ οἱ ἐν τοῖς εἴδεσιν ἀριθμοὶ αἴτιοι τῶν ἁρμονικῶν καὶ τῶν τοιούτων (διαφέρουσι γὰρ ἐκεῖνοι ἀλλήλων οἱ ἴσοι εἴδει·

[¶12] Again, it is not the Ideal numbers that are the causes of harmonic relations, etc. (for Ideal numbers, even when they are equal, differ in kind, since their units also differ in kind); so on this ground at least we need not posit Forms. Such, then, are the consequences of the theory, and even more might be adduced. But the mere fact that the Platonists find so much trouble with regard to the generation of Ideal numbers, and can in no way build up a system, would seem to be a proof that the objects of mathematics are not separable from sensible things, as some maintain, and that the first principles are not those which these thinkers assume.

> Greek: καὶ γὰρ αἱ μονάδες)· ὥστε διά γε ταῦτα εἴδη οὐ ποιητέον. τὰ μὲν οὖν συμβαίνοντα ταῦτά τε κἂν ἔτι πλείω συναχθείη· ἔοικε δὲ τεκμήριον εἶναι τὸ πολλὰ κακοπαθεῖν περὶ τὴν γένεσιν αὐτῶν καὶ μηδένα τρόπον δύνασθαι συνεῖραι τοῦ μὴ χωριστὰ εἶναι τὰ μαθηματικὰ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ὡς ἔνιοι λέγουσι, μηδὲ ταύτας εἶναι τὰς ἀρχάς.