¹ Aëtius 2, 1, 1 (Doxogr. Gr.² (1929), 327); so also [Galen], Hist. Philos. 44 (Doxogr. Gr.², 621).

² 8, 48. The separation of arguments based on order (eutaxiology of Hicks, L. E., A Critique of Design Arguments [1883]Google Scholar, 1) from those based on design or purpose (teleology) seems unfruitful.

³ Pericl. 4, 4 (I quote from B. Perrin's translation. In subsequent notes the translations used are usually those in the Loeb Classical Library or in the Oxford translation of Aristotle); Diels, Vorsokr. 59 B 12, with the expression πάντα διεκόσμσ∊ νοῦς (cf. also the phraseology of Diog. L. 2, 6); Plat. Phaed. 97 c; Legg. 12, 967 b; Phileb. 30 d: τοῖς μὲν πάλαι ἀποφηναμἐνοις ὡς ἀεὶ τοῦ παντὀς νοῦς ἄρχει. Against the view of Rohde, E., Psyche, 2⁴ (1907), 192Google Scholar, n. 1, that Anaxagoras employed teleology cf. Heidel, W. A. in Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences 45 (1910), 93, n. 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Met. 1, 3, 984 b 15 (tr. W. D. Ross); cf. Cherniss, H., Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy (1935)Google Scholar, 222, n. 20; 292, n. 8.

⁵ Met. 1, 4, 98 b 32.

⁶ See, for example, Greene, W. C. in Harv. Stud. in Class. Philol. 47 (1936), 97.Google Scholar

⁷ Cf. Theiler, W., Zur Gesch. d. teleologischen Naturbetrachtung bis auf Aristoteles (1925), 5–6Google Scholar; Greene, op. cit., 119–120; Jaeger, W. W., Paideia (Engl. tr.), 1 (1939), 337Google Scholar, for the connection by Diogenes “of the old hylozoism with a new teleological view of nature.”

⁸ According to Steph. Byz. p. 106 Meineke.

⁹ Fr. 3 Diels (preserved by Simplicius).

¹⁰ “Thus Diogenes proclaimed what young Socrates, according to the Phaedo (97 b–c), had longed to find proclaimed by Anaxagoras, and deserves in all probability to be called the first teleologist among Greek philosophers”; Greene, op. cit., 124.

¹¹ 1, 4, 2–14 (tr. Marchant).

¹² On this whole subject cf. Dickerman, S. O., De Argumentis quibusdam apud Xenophontem, Platonem, Aristotelem obviis e Structura Hominis et Animalium petitis. Diss., Halle, 1909.Google Scholar

¹³ Mem. 4, 3, 3–12. This passage and that just mentioned are summarized by Sext. Emp. Adv. Phys. 1, 92–94. Elsewhere in Xenophon (e.g., De Re equest. 5, 6; 5, 8) we find teleology applied to features in the structure of animals. Theiler (op. cit., 16) maintains that Xenophon draws from earlier sources, because he divides into two conversations closely related materials, yet had he used as a source Plato's Philebus and merely expanded it from his own work he would not have separated the two parts.

¹⁴ 69 c–71 d.

¹⁵ 201–213.

¹⁶ 2, 162–163.

¹⁷ Aët. 1, 3, 4 (Doxogr. Gr.² 278): οἷον ἡ ψυχἠ, φησίν, ἡ ἡμετρέα ἀὴρ οὖσα συγκρατεῖ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ὄλον τòν κόσμον πνεῦμα καὶ ἀὴρ περιέχει. The analogy is noted by Theiler, op. cit., 22.

^17a Cf. Nilsson, M. P. in Harv. Theol. Rev. 33 (1940), 7–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar: “The criticism of the intelligentsia of the end of the fifth century B.C. had uprooted the old gods by denouncing their arbitrariness and immorality. To this purpose the demand for morality, justice, and order was urged, and when the gods failed to fulfill the demand they were doomed. When philosophy with Plato and Aristotle took up the defence of the belief in gods it pointed to the purposeful structure of the universe which could not be understood unless a Supreme Being had created it, and unless it were animated by a World soul.” A somewhat similar rationalizing yet essentially religious purpose is claimed by Bailey, C. (Proc. Class. Assoc. 19 [1922], 14Google Scholar) for Lucretius, and by Robinson, J. H. (The Mind in the Making [1921], 124–125Google Scholar) for the philosophic and scientific reaction against notions of capricious and arbitrary divine intervention, beginning with the thirteenth century. The Stoic attempt to retain both ‘interventionist’ and ‘isolationist’ deities can be clearly seen in such a passage as Cic. N.D. 2, 14–15. — Heidel, W. A., Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences 45 (1910), 94–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar, thinks that philosophers of the sixth and fifth centuries attributed to φύσις so many divine functions that Socratic teleology was a foregone conclusion.

¹⁸ 10, p. 891 a–c; cf. also Jaeger, W. W., Aristotle (English trans., 1934), 157Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Jahrb. f. Philol., Supplbd. 19 (1893), 435.Google Scholar

²⁰ Cf. Plat. Protag. 321 c.

²¹ 4, 10, 687 a 23.

²² Antiphon the Sophist, in his work On Truth, is also, on the basis of Orig. c. Cels. 4, 25, thought by Norden (l. c.) to have assailed the divine skill in fashioning man.

²³ Whose views are summarized but not accepted by Gomperz, H. in Neue Jahrb. f. d. cl. Altert. 53 (1924), 146Google Scholar; W. Theiler, op. cit., 14–15.

²⁴ 530 d.

²⁵ Robbins, F. E., The Hexaemeral Literature (1912), 4.Google Scholar

²⁶ 69 c–71 d; 72 e–81 e. Cf. Bury, R. G., Loeb Classical Library ed. of the Timaeus (1929), 5Google Scholar: “A thorough-going teleological explanation of the Universe is what Plato desiderated in the Phaedo, and what he attempts to provide in the Timaeus.”

²⁷ Tim. 90 a. Cf. Theiler, op. cit., 29; 32; also the work of S. O. Dickerman cited in n. 12 supra.

²⁸ E.g., in filling and evacuation (Tim. 81 a–b); in exercise (Tim. 88 c–89 a); and in the elements of which both large and small are composed (Phileb. 29 a–30 b); cf. Theiler, op. cit., 21–22; 77–78. On this subject cf. Conger, G. P., Theories of Macrocosm and Microcosm in the Hist. of Philosophy (1922)Google Scholar, in which pp. 1–27 deal with antiquity and 29–36 with patristic writers. The earliest trace, according to Conger (p. 2), is in Anaximenes (ap. Stob. Ecl. 1, 10, 12); οἷον ἡ ψυχή, φησίν, ἡ ἡμετέρα, ἀὴρ οὖσα, συγκρατεῖ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ὅλον τὸν κόσμον πνεῦμα καὶ ἀὴρ περιἐχει. For a recent view of this concept cf. Henderson, L. J., The Fitness of the Environment (1924), 278–279Google Scholar: “There is but one immediate compensation for this complexity: a proof that somehow, beneath adaptations, peculiar and unsuspected relationships exist between the properties of matter and the phenomena of life; that the process of cosmic evolution is indissolubly linked with the fundamental characteristics of the organism; that logically, in some obscure manner, cosmic and biological evolution are one. In short, we appear to be led to the assumption that the genetic or evolutionary processes, both cosmic and biological, when considered in certain aspects, constitute a single orderly development that yields results not merely contingent, but resembling those which in human action we recognize as purposeful.” Cf. also p. 312.

²⁹ Phileb. 28 d; 30 c–d.

³⁰ Rep. 6, 500 c. If Cicero (N.D. 2, 37) seems to ascribe this thought to Chrysippus it must appear in him only as a derivative from an earlier source. The order of the heavenly bodies is in Tim. 40 c compared to a crowd of human dancers — a conceit found in several later writers; cf. Witt, R. E. in Class. Quart. 24 (1930), 200–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹ Tim. 30 a–b; 69 b.

³² Tim. 57 e.

³³ Legg. 10, 897 c; 898 c; 903 b; 12, 966 e; cf. Diog. L. 3, 71.

³⁴ Legg. 10, 886 a; cf. Epinom. 6, 983 b–c.

³⁶ Theiler, op. cit., 21, compares in parallel columns Mem. 1, 4, 8, and Phileb. 29 a–30 a.

³⁶ Cf. Solmsen, F. in Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. 67 (1936), 214.Google Scholar

³⁷ 10, 889 b–c.

³⁸ 201–210. This likeness was pointed out by Dümmler, F., Akademika (1889), 278Google Scholar, who (p. 112) would trace the ideas back to Diogenes of Apollonia. For a discussion of the relation of this passage to Xenophon cf. Theiler, op. cit., 38–44, who at points appears oversubtle in his attempt to discover multiple sources.

³⁹ 211–213.

⁴⁰ 71 a–72 b.

⁴¹ Gomperz, H. in Neue Jahrb. f. d. cl. Altert. 53 (1924), 149–150.Google Scholar

⁴² Op. cit., 145–151; but see on the contrary Theiler, op. cit., 50, n. 3.

⁴³ Theiler, op. cit., 50.

⁴⁴ Op. cit., 19–32. Theiler finds likenesses to Diogenes also in the Symposium (5, 5) and in some passages which he thinks both Xenophon and Aristotle derive from him.

⁴⁵ Theiler, op. cit., 76–78.

⁴⁶ On teleology in Plato cf. Theiler, op. cit., 74–78.

⁴⁷ Jahrb. f. Philol., Supplbd. 19 (1893), 435.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Cf. Jaeger, W. W., Aristotle (English tr., 1934), 75Google Scholar, n. 0; A. Lovejoy, O. and Boas, G., Primitivism and related Ideas in Antiquity, 1 (1935), 187–188.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ E.g., De An. 2, 4, 415 b 16; 3, 9, 432 b 21; 3, 12, 434 a 31; De Gen. An. 2, 6, 744 a 36; 2, 6, 744 b 16; De Part. An. 1, 1, 641 b 12; 1, 5, 645 a 23; 2, 13, 658 a 8; 3, 1, 661 b 24; 4, 13, 695 b 18; De Incess. An. 2, 704 b 15; 12, 711 a 18; De Caelo 1, 4, 271 a 34; 2, 11, 291 b 13; Frg. 230 Rose. The idea is often repeated in later writers, e.g., Cic. N.D. 1, 92; 2, 121.

⁵⁰ De An. 2, 4, 415 b 16; De Somno et Vig. 2, 455 b 17.

⁵¹ De Gen. An. 5, 1, 778 b 11; De Part. An. 1, 1, 640 a 18: “the process of evolution is for the sake of the thing finally evolved, and not this for the sake of the process.” In De Gen. An. 5, 1, 778 a 30 Aristotle wavers; the eye exists for a final cause, but it is not blue for a final cause, unless this condition be characteristic of the kind of animal. Henderson, L. J., The Order of Nature (1925), 18Google Scholar, thinks this admission damaging to the logical consistency of Aristotle's teleology, and believes that there are altogether too many cases of dysteleology. But perhaps the weakness in Aristotle's statement is rather in assuming that a fallible human thinker is always able to detect the presence or absence of a final cause, and hence in this case to venture to deny a final cause to the blueness of a blue eye. And cf. what Aristotle himself says in n. 71 infra.

⁵² E.g., the eyes (De Sens. 2); De An. 3, 12–23 has not a little on the senses in general.

⁵³ De Part. An. 2, 16, 659 b 28. The De Audibilibus has much throughout on the voice.

⁵⁴ De Part. An. 3, 1, 661 b 13.

⁵⁵ De Part. An. 4, 10, 687 b 3.

⁵⁶ De Part. An. 2, 15, 658 b 6.

⁵⁷ Oec. 1, 3, 1343 b 30. This work is not by Aristotle, but probably reflects his teaching.

⁵⁸ De Part. An. 1, 5, 645 b 14.

⁵⁹ De Part. An. 2, 9, 655 a 2.

⁶⁰ De Part. An. 1, 5, 645 a 7.

⁶¹ De Part. An. 1, 5, 645 a 11.

⁶² E.g., Hist. An. 9, 37, 620 b 10. These observations are so abundant in all his biological works as to need no citation here. In one curious case, however, an animal has been so designed by nature as to give its prey a greater chance to survive (De Part. An. 4, 13, 696 b 27)!

⁶³ Pol. 1, 8, 1256 b 15.

⁶⁴ Phys. 2, 8, 199 a 24.

⁶⁵ De Plantis 1, 2, 817 b 25. Again not a genuine work, yet this doctrine seems a necessary part of Aristotle's views.

⁶⁶ Phys. 2, 2, 194 a 35.

⁶⁷ E.g., De Gen. An. 1, 2, 716 a 15. Cf. also Theiler, op. cit., 93–95. The earliest use of μικρὸς κόσμος (though not of the idea) is found, according to Conger, G. P. (Theories of Macrocosm and Microcosm in the Hist. of Philosophy [1922], 11)Google Scholar, in Aristot. Phys. 8, 2, 252 b 26.

⁶⁸ Met. 11, 10, 1075 a 17.

⁶⁹ De Part. An. 1, 1, 641 b 17. Theophrastus, Met. 15, though thinking it difficult in all cases to link things with their final causes, yet recognizes the dependence of plants and fruits on the sun and the seasons.

⁷⁰ 7, 4, 1326 a 31.

⁷¹ 2, 8, 199 b 27.

⁷² Met. a, 2, 994 a 1.

⁷³ N.D. 2, 95 ( = Aristot. frg. 12 Rose, who juxtaposes with it related passages in Philo showing Aristotelian influence). Cf. also frg. 10 Rose. Variants upon this theme, as in Cic. N.D. 1, 100; Tusc. 1, 68–70; 5, 69; De Or. 3, 178–179, may derive in part, at least, from the same source. Further, with this passage and the perhaps related one in Cic. N.D. 2, 97 we should surely compare [Plat.] Axiochus, 370 b–c.

⁷⁴ Cf. Wright, J. H. in Harv. Stud. in Class. Philol. 17 (1906), 130–142Google Scholar, who is, however, cautious in his decision of the question; Jaeger, W. W., Aristoteles (1923), 167–168.Google Scholar The likeness between Plato's cave and that of Empedocles is recognized by Plotin. Enn. 4, 8, 1.

⁷⁵ 2, 8, 198 b 18.

⁷⁶ 2, 8, 198 b 28.

⁷⁷ Cf. Ross, W. D., Aristotle² (1930), 78.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Ross, l. c.

⁷⁹ 1, 1, 640 a 18.

⁸⁰ 1, 1, 641 b 21; cf. Cherniss, H., Aristotle's Criticism of Presocratic Philosophy (1935), 247.Google Scholar

⁸¹ De Gen. An. 5, 8, 789 b 3; cf. Cherniss, op. cit., 179.

⁸² De Gen. An. 5, 8, 789 b 12.

⁸³ De Respir. 8 (2), 471 b 26; cf. Cherniss, op. cit., 260.

⁸⁴ Cf. Theiler, op. cit., 84–85; Ross, op. cit., 179; W. K. C. Guthrie, ed. of Aristot. De Caelo (1939), xv-xxxvi.

⁸⁵ E.g., De Part. An. 4, 10, 686 a 22. Cf. Theiler, op. cit., 89–90; Ross, op. cit., 78.

⁸⁶ De Caelo 1, 4, 271 a 33.

⁸⁷ De Gen. et Corr. 2, 10, 336 b 32.

⁸⁸ Cf. Ross, op. cit., 79.

⁸⁹ Cf. Ross, op. cit., 179.

⁹⁰ N.D. 2, 58. On the Stoic use of the analogy of macrocosm and microcosm cf. Stein, L., in Berl. Stud. f. cl. Philol. u. Arch. 3, 1 (1886), 205–214Google Scholar, especially 207.

⁹¹ N.D. 2, 13–15; 3, 16. In Sext. Emp. Adv. Phys. 1, 60, a different fourfold Stoic division is noted, in which, however, the argument from design is the second point listed.

⁹² The same thought is developed by Chrysippus (Cic. N.D. 2, 17; 3, 26; Lact. De Ira 10; 17). In the great hymn of Cleanthes to Zeus (Stoic. vet. Frag. 1, no. 537, lines 7–8) the author declares σοὶ δὴ πᾶς ὅδε κόσμος, ἑλισσόμενος περὶ γαῖαν, ⃒ πεἰθεται, ἧ κεν ἄγῃς, καὶ ἑκῶν ὑπὸ σεῖο κρατεῖται.

⁹³ Tusc. 1, 108: permulta alia colligit Chrysippus, ut est in omni historia curiosus.

⁹⁴ N.D. 2, 16; cf. 3, 25.

⁹⁵ N.D. 2, 127. Cf. also Diod. 2, 50, 7.

⁹⁶ N.D. 2, 121; 2, 127.

⁹⁷ N.D. 2, 123–124; Fin. 3, 63; parallel passages in Stoic, vet. Frag. 2, nos. 729–730; the use of this illustration by Chrysippus is attested by Athen. 3, 89 d.

⁹⁸ N.D. 2, 133.

⁹⁹ N.D. 2, 37.

¹⁰⁰ De Abstin. 3, 20.

¹⁰¹ N.D. 2, 158–161; for the pig: 2, 160. Cf. also Diod. 1, 35, 7 (Cic. N.D. 1, 101); 3, 69, 2, on animals and trees made by nature for man's sake; these references I owe to Professor A. D. Nock.

¹⁰² Cic. Fin. 3, 67.

¹⁰³ Cf. Schmekel, A., Die Phil. d. mittl. Stoa (1892), 191Google Scholar; A. S. Pease on Cic. De Div. 2, 34; Reinhardt, K., Kosmos u. Sympathie (1925).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ De Ira 9–12. The same idea is developed in Cic. Acad. 2, 120, where see J. S. Reid's note for many parallels.

¹⁰⁵ N.D. 2, 154–167.

¹⁰⁶ De Stoic. Repugn. 21.

¹⁰⁷ 1, 6.

¹⁰⁸ 2, 88.

¹⁰⁹ 1, 123; cf. 3, 3.

¹¹⁰ On the temptation to exaggerate the importance of Posidonius cf. Dobson, J. F. in Class. Quart. 12 (1918), 179–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and more incidental protest by many scholars elsewhere.

¹¹¹ Jahrb. f. cl. Philol. 119 (1879), 49–66.Google Scholar

¹¹² Edition of N.D. 2 (1883), xvi-xxiii.

¹¹³ Archiv f. Gesch. d. Phil. 1 (1888), 206.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Elementum (1899), 2.

¹¹⁵ Riv. di Filol. 31 (1903), 450–462.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ E.g., Hirzel, R., Untersuch, z. Cicero's philos. Schriften, 1 (1877), 224Google Scholar (Posidonius, Apollodorus, and Panaetius); Usener, H., Epicurea (1887)Google Scholar, lxvii (Posidonius and Clitomachus [i.e., Carneades]); Reinhardt, K., Poseidonios (1921), 215–239Google Scholar (Chrysippus, Panaetius, and Posidonius); Finger, P. in Rhein. Mus. 80 (1931), 151–200Google Scholar (Antiochus, Posidonius, and Panaetius).

¹¹⁷ Cf. Reinhardt, K., Kosmos u. Sympathie (1926), 161–177Google Scholar, opposing the view of Pohlenz, M. (Gött. gel. Anz. 184 [1922], 169)Google Scholar that Cicero owed his teleology to Panaetius.

¹¹⁸ The various references to teleological views of Stoics in general I cannot here discuss. Many, however, are to be found in the first book of Sextus Empiricus, Adv. Physicos.

¹¹⁹ On the works of Posidonius in which his views may have been expressed, see, among others, Jaeger, W. W., Nemesios von Emesa (1914), 110Google Scholar, n. 1; Gronau, K., Poseidonios u. d. jüdisch-christliche Genesisexegese (1914)Google Scholar, especially 293–304.

¹²⁰ 2, 87–153.

¹²¹ 2, 75.

¹²² 2, 98–100.

¹²³ 2, 43. With this threefold division cf. Ac. 1, 29.

¹²⁴ 2, 94.

¹²⁵ 2, 93.

¹²⁶ 1, 90–91; 2, 88; 2, 93–94; 2, 115; 2, 153.

¹²⁷ Fin. 1, 20; Ac. 2, 121; 2, 125.

¹²⁸ 1, 58–59; quoted by Quintil. Inst. 5, 14, 7–9.

¹²⁹ 2, 148. Perhaps compare Cic. Hortens. fr. 53 Müller; De Sen. 81; Tusc. 1, 45.

¹³⁰ Har. Resp. 19; Pro Mil. 83. Nock, A. D. (ed. of Sallustius, De Diis [1926], lxviii, n. 133)Google Scholar considers these two cases as rhetorical arguments only.

¹³¹ 1, 25. One may also compare the statement in Tusc. 1, 63 (with which cf. N.D. 2, 88), in which the skill of the creator of the heavenly bodies is contrasted with that of Archimedes who imitated their motions in his planisphere — both processes, however, illustrating conscious purpose; also cf. n. 73 supra,

¹³² Cf. Pease, A. S. in Trans. Am. Philol. Assoc. 44 (1913), 25–37.Google Scholar The likenesses to the doxographers may be seen especially in the historical review in N.D. 1, 25–41.

¹³³ Cf. N.D. 2, 162: Carneades lubenter in Stoicos invehebatur.

¹³⁴ Cf. Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. röm. Lit. 1⁴ (1927), 511.

¹³⁵ 3, 65.

¹³⁶ There remains the slight chance that some uncollated manuscript, especially in a more isolated tradition, as perhaps in Spain, may yet be found with the missing portions.

¹³⁷ These fragments are printed in the editio minor of Plasberg and Ax (1933) on pp. 145–147. There is also a very brief quotation (Plasberg-Ax, p. 146) in the Verona Scholia on Aen. 5, 95.

¹³⁸ Indignantly answered by Lactantius, Inst. 2, 8, 9–59.

¹³⁹ 1, 65–66.

^139a 3, 26–28.

¹⁴⁰ Enn. Telamo, 318 Vahlen.

¹⁴¹ Cic. N.D. 2, 167: magna di curant, parva neglegunt; an ancient analogue to the maxim de minimis non curat lex.

¹⁴² In Beri. philol. Woch. 8 (1888), 308–309.Google Scholar

¹⁴³ De Ira 13, 20–21.

¹⁴⁴ Perhaps an Academic using arguments borrowed from an Epicurean; cf. Philippson, R. in Symb. Osloenses 19 (1939), 22, and n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁵ Pyrrhon. 3, 10–11.

¹⁴⁶ Op. cit., 22. This type of reasoning is almost a parody of such Stoic arguments as that in Cic. De Div. 1, 82–83.

¹⁴⁷ E.g., 4, 719–721; 4, 935–936; yet cf. Bailey, C. in Proc. Class. Assoc. 19 (1922), 9–25Google Scholar, who would find in Epicureanism a higher and sincerer form of piety than in the conventional religious beliefs of his day.

¹⁴⁸ 5, 1183–1187; cf. Cic. N.D. 1, 53; 3, 25; Bailey, op. cit., 15.

¹⁴⁹ 5, 1204–1210. Cf. the famous line of Petronius (frg. xxvii, 1 Bücheler; repeated by Statius, Theb. 3, 661): primus in orbe deos fecit timor; Serv. Aen. 2, 715: conexa enim sunt timor et religio.

¹⁵⁰ 5, 156–186. Similar arguments appear in Cic. N.D. 1, 19–23.

¹⁵¹ 4, 823–857.

¹⁵² 5, 195–323; also 2, 181.

¹⁵³ Bignone, E., L'Aristotele perduto e la formazione filosofica di Epicuro, 2 (1936), 335–391Google Scholar; id. in Ann. d. r. Scuola norm. sup. di Pisa, Ser. 2, 3 (1934), 289–330; especially 315.

¹⁵⁴ Georg. 1, 351–355. Cf. Pfeiffer, E., Stud. z. ant. Sternglauben (1916), 73, n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ 1, 492–494.

¹⁵⁶ 1, 530. Manilius may also be cited for the doctrine of the microcosm (4, 893–895): quid mirum, noscere mundum/ si possunt homines, quibus est et mundus in ipsis/exemplumque dei quisque est in imagine parva; cf. Halliday, W. R., The Pagan Background of early Christianity (1925), 161, n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁵⁷ Ep. 41. Cf. N.Q. 2, 45, 1–3, where he speaks of the rectorem custodemque universi, animum ac spiritum mundi, operis huius dominum et artificem, which may equally well be called fatum or providentia or natura or mundus.

¹⁵⁸ De Ben. 4, 6, 1–6; 4, 23, 1–4.

¹⁵⁹ De Ben. 4, 7, 1.

¹⁶⁰ Dial. 1, 2, 1.

¹⁶¹ 1, 6, 7.

¹⁶² 1, 14, 4.

¹⁶³ De Soll. Anim. 3, 960 e.

¹⁶⁴ 11, 12 Hobein.

¹⁶⁵ 41, 4 Hobein.

¹⁶⁶ 31, 4 Hobein.

¹⁶⁷ Or. 6, 26–29.

¹⁶⁸ Cf. n. 19 supra.

¹⁶⁹ Ch. 49.

¹⁷⁰ 22.

¹⁷¹ 24. On the cosmos see also Ps.-Apul. Ascl. 10; 13; 36–37.

¹⁷² 35; and, for the army, especially 30.

¹⁷³ E.g., 1, 14–17.

¹⁷⁴ Adv. Phys. 1, 58.

¹⁷⁵ 1, 59.

¹⁷⁶ 1, 60.

¹⁷⁷ 1, 75–122.

¹⁷⁸ E.g., a refutation given in N.D. 3, 23 on the authority only of the speaker Cotta is in Sextus (Adv. Phys. 1, 108) ascribed to Zeno's contemporary, the Megarian philosopher Alexinus.

¹⁷⁹ Cf. Harnack, A. in Encycl. Brit.¹¹ 19 (1911), 373.Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ Enn. 2, 9, 16; cf. Drews, A., Plotin (1907), 182–184.Google Scholar

¹⁸¹ Enn. 5, 1, 4, pp. 484–485. The work of Armstrong, A. H., “The Architecture of the intelligible Universe in the Philosophy of Plotinus” (Cambr. Class. Stud. 6 [1940])Google Scholar I have not yet seen.

¹⁸² Ch. 12. For the use of the doctrine of the world-pattern, passing from Plato (Tim. 28 a–c) and Philo through Origen and the Neoplatonists to Augustine, cf. Robbins, F. E., The Hexaemeral Literature (1912), 86Google Scholar; Bonner, C., Homily on the Passion by Melito Bishop of Sardis (Studies and Documents, 12 [1940]), 68–69Google Scholar, citing Philo, De Opif. Mundi, 17–18; De Vita Mosis, 2, 11; Nicom. Arith. Introd. 1, 4, 2.

^182a Ap. Stob. Ecl. 3, 21, 27.

^182b Enn. 4, 3, 10.

¹⁸³ Ch. 9.

¹⁸⁴ Strab. 1, 2, 3; 1, 2, 34.

¹⁸⁵ 4, 1, 14. Similarly Aristides (Orat. 48, pp. 488–489 Dind.) asserts that the Nile overflows in summer because of the providence of the gods for the good of Egypt.

¹⁸⁶ 17, 1, 36.

¹⁸⁷ 9, 1, 2: architectata est.

¹⁸⁸ Inst. 1, 10, 46.

¹⁸⁹ Cf. the appeals made to deity by the modern politician.

¹⁹⁰ N.H. 2, 8.

¹⁹¹ 22, 1.

¹⁹² 2, 200–204. A curious passage — called to my notice by Professor A. D. Nock — in Philo Byzantius (De septem Orbis Spectaculis 3, p. 12 Orelli), as emended by Leo Allatius (see p. 94 of Orelli's ed.), declares that nature produced elephants so that Phidias might use the ivory from their tusks in his sculpture! This may be merely fulsome rhetoric, but it almost suggests the parody in Voltaire, Candide, 1 (the remarks of Pangloss): Remarquez bien que les nez ont été faits pour porter des lunettes; aussi avons-nous des lunettes … les pierres ont été formées pour être taillées et pour en faire des châteaux … et les cochons étant fait pour être mangés (cf. n. 101 supra), nous mangeons du porc toute l'année. (This passage I owe to Professor E. K. Rand.)

¹⁹³ Cf. Theiler, op. cit., 103–104.

¹⁹⁴ De Usu Part. 3, 10 (3, p. 238 K.). Cf. also De Foetuum Format. 6 (4, pp. 695–697 K.); [Galen], Hist. Philos. 34 (Doxogr. Gr.² 617), with which cf. Aët., 1, 6, 2–9 (Doxogr. Gr.² 293–295).

¹⁹⁵ De Usu Part. 17, 1 (4, pp. 360–361 K.). On the close relations of physicians and philosophers note his book (1, pp. 53–63 K) ὄτι ἄριστος ἰατρὸς καὶ φιλόσοφος. For many other illustrations of this commonplace in various authors see Hoyer, R., Die Heilslehre (1897)Google Scholar, chap. 1, especially p. 18.

¹⁹⁶ Ars medica 29 (1, p. 385 K.); 32 (1, p. 390 K.). For this same conception in Hippocrates cf. Heidel, W. A. in Proc. Amer. Acad. of Arts and Sciences 45 (1910), 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar, n. 109. On p. 106 Heidel collects Hippocratean instances of the personification of nature in its arrangement of details in the human organism. But cf. Heidel, p. 93, n. 59. In the Hippocratic treatise De Corde (21, p. 488 K.) the ear is described as τὸ ποίημα χειρώνακτος ἀγαθοῦ.

¹⁹⁷ De Usu Part. 11, 14 (3, p. 905 K.).

¹⁹⁸ Op. cit., 104.

¹⁹⁹ Cf. De Usu Part. 1, 8 (3, p. 17 K.).

²⁰⁰ 5, 5–8. Part of this passage seems to be used by Lact. Inst. 2, 10, 14. Both it and the next W. Scott would date about the third century.

²⁰¹ 11 (ii), 6 b–14 b.

²⁰² 14, 8.

²⁰³ 14, 3.

²⁰⁴ Reading, with Scott, [α]ὁρατός.

²⁰⁵ 16, 7.

²⁰⁶ 5,4.

²⁰⁷ Legg. All. 3, 97–99; De spec. Legg. 3, 187–189; cf. De Abr. 159. A curious comparison of Mosaic theories of creation with those of Greek philosophers is also to be found in Galen, De Usu Part. 11, 14 (3, p. 905 K.).

²⁰⁸ De Praem. et Poen. 41–42. Cf. De spec. Legg. 1, 33–85.

²⁰⁹ De Abr. 70.

²¹⁰ Ant. 1, 155–156.

²¹¹ De Abr. 84.

²¹² Quis Ker. div. Heres 155. Jaeger, W. W., Nemesios von Emesa (1914), 135Google Scholar, compares Philo, De Opif. Mundi 27: ἄνθρωπον … βραχύν, εἰ δεῖ τἀληθὲς εἰπεῖν, ούρανόν; also Macrob. Somn. Scip. 2, 12, 11 ideo physici mundum magnum hominem et hominem brevem mundum esse dixerunt.

^212a Cf. also Ps. 8, 3–8, on the subjection of the brute creation to man; and Psalms 65, and 104. C. A. and Briggs, E. G., Crit. and exeg. Comm. on the Book of Psalms, 1 (1906), 164Google Scholar, put the original form of the first half of Ps. 19 (through verse 6) in the Babylonian period, in an age of sun-worship, and the second half — in praise of the divine Law — not earlier than the Greek period, but do not suggest the appearance of teleology in it. The clearly teleological intent, as well as the allusion in verse 5 to the strong man running a race — an Hellenic touch pointed out to me by Professor W. H. P. Hatch —, raise in my mind the question whether the first half, as well as the second, does not date from the Greek period and present a thought of Greek derivation rather than an independent Hebrew idea.

²¹³ 12, 7–9.

²¹⁴ 13, 1–5. Heinemann, I., Posidonios' metaphys. Schriften, 1 (1921), 136–153Google Scholar, has indicated the Protrepticus of Posidonius as an important source for the Wisdom of Solomon. If that be the case we probably have here, as perhaps in the other Biblical passages, a reflection of Greek ideas.

²¹⁵ Corp. Herm. 13, 17–20 (perhaps of the third century of our era); and cf. other parallels cited by W. Scott ad loc.

²¹⁶ 1, 20.

²¹⁷ Pfister, F., Der Reliquienkult i. Altertum, 1 (1909), 247Google Scholar, n. 900 (after Holtzmann's, H. J. commentary on John² [1893], 7Google Scholar) observes that κόσμος occurs 15 times in the Synoptic Gospels but 78 times in John, and remarks: “Denn aus der Uebertragung der Logoslehre auf den Messias musste der Universalismus folgen, der die Weltbestimmung des Christentums fordert.”

²¹⁸ 20, 1–11.

²¹⁹ Ad Autol. 1, 6.

²²⁰ Ch. 4.

²²¹ E.g., 17, 4—18, 5.

²²² 1, 14.

²²³ On the vexed question whether this work or that of Minucius Felix is the earlier — which Harnack thought hopeless of solution — cf. Labriolle, P. de in Rev. de Philol. 62 (1936), 92.Google Scholar

²²⁴ 10, 98, 2.

²²⁵ 5, 14, 99, 3.

²²⁶ 2, 58–59.

²²⁷ Ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 14, 23–27.

²²⁸ Ap. Eus. Pr. Ev. 14, 26.

²²⁹ 4, 7.

²³⁰ E.g., C. Cels. 4, 54; 4, 75.

²³¹ Ibid.

²³² C. Cels. 4, 54.

²³³ 4, 76.

²³⁴ 8, 38; cf. 8, 52.

²³⁵ De Ira 13, 1.

²³⁶ Inst. 7, 7, 9.

²³⁷ Cf. the elaborate comparisons in Fessler, F., Benutzung d. philos. Schriften Ciceros durch Lactanz (1913)Google Scholar, especially 43–54 (though some good parallels are overlooked).

²³⁸ E.g., De Opif. 8.

²³⁹ E.g., De Opif. 2, 10; 6, 12; De Ira 10, 26.

²⁴⁰ Inst. 3, 28, 4–5; cf. [Clem.] Recogn. 8, 20.

²⁴¹ Epic. frg. 371 Usener, ap. Inst. 7, 5, 7. Cf. Gronau, K., Poseidonios u. d. jüdischchristliche Genesisexegese (1914), 153–154.Google Scholar

²⁴² Inst. 7, 5, 14.

²⁴³ Inst. 7, 5, 15.

²⁴⁴ Inst. 7, 5, 20.

²⁴⁵ Cf. Lucr. 4, 823–857.

²⁴⁶ De Opif. 6, 7–15.

²⁴⁷ De Opif. 2, 6.

²⁴⁸ E.g., Recogn. 8, 16–34; 8, 42–14; Hom. 3, 34–36; 6, 25.

²⁴⁹ Pr. Ev. 6, 6, p. 251 a; 7, 3, p. 301 d; 7, 10, p. 314 d; 14, 24–25, pp. 773 d–778 b (from Dionysius of Alexandria, De Natura).

²⁵⁰ Vir. ill. 61; Ep. 84, 7, 6.

²⁵¹ Cf. Bobbins, F. E., The Hexaemeral Literature (1912), 36–41Google Scholar, who points out (p. 36) the lack of any complete extant work of this sort between Philo and Basil.

²⁵² Cf. Thorndike, L., Hist. of Magic and exp. Science, 1 (1929), 482.Google Scholar

²⁵³ Thorndike, op. cit., 1, 485–486.

²⁵⁴ Robbins, op. cit., 51.

²⁵⁵ Cf. Shear, T. L., The Influence of Plato on St. Basil (1906).Google Scholar

²⁵⁶ Note 119 supra.

²⁵⁷ Robbins, op. cit., 51, mentions Aelian, who may well, however, have drawn from such a source as Posidonius. Basil was learnedly used by Ioannes Philoponus (S. VI) in his De Opificio Mundi.

²⁵⁸ Cf. Shorey, P. in Class. Phil. 10 (1915), 486, for doubts expressed.Google Scholar

²⁵⁹ Nemesios von Emesa (1914), 68–137.

²⁶⁰ Poseidonios u. d. jüdisch-christliche Genesisexegese (1914), 293–304.

²⁶¹ Cherniss, H. F., The Platonism of Gregory of Nyssa (1930), 58Google Scholar, makes this point very forcibly in criticism of Gronau, and remarks (p. 76) that no Stoic could have surpassed Plato's Timaeus in defending a teleological attitude toward man and the universe.

²⁶² Cf. Robbins, op. cit., 52; Gronau, op. cit., 141.

²⁶³ Gronau, op. cit., 112; Cherniss, op. cit., 25.

²⁶⁴ Or. 43, 67. My colleague, Professor F. N. Robinson, calls to my attention an interesting parallel to this thought in Anth. Pal. 9, 577.

²⁶⁵ Cf. Robbins, op. cit., 58. Ambrose's De Noe also contains apposite matter.

²⁶⁶ Cf. Pfeiffer, E., Stud. z. ant. Sternglauben (1916), 73Google Scholar, n. 1, who thinks the Latin fathers mainly depend on Cic. N.D. 2, 133 ff. or — as in the case of Lactantius — on Varro's Logistoricus, Tubero, De Origine humana, the Greek fathers on Xenophon, Plato's Timaeus, and Stoic sources.

²⁶⁷ See his lists on pp. 93–104.

²⁶⁸ In Ezech. 3, p. 88 Vall.

²⁶⁹ J. B. Mayor on Cic. N.D. 2, 56.

²⁷⁰ Adv. Iovin. 2, 6; In Is. 7, p. 285 Vall.; In Ioel, p. 198 Vall.

²⁷¹ Jaeger, W. W., Nemesios von Emesa (1914)Google Scholar, 3, thinks perhaps in the last quarter of the fourth century.

²⁷² Jaeger's work is devoted to this question and finds the sources largely in Posidonius; cf. also for other views Christ-Schmidt-Stählin, Gesch. d. gr. Lit.⁶ 2, 2 (1924), 1488, n. 9; Shorey, P. in Class. Phil. 18 (1923), 91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷³ De Ordine 1, 17.

²⁷⁴ Tim. 30 a.

²⁷⁵ De Ordine 2, 11.

²⁷⁶ De Ordine 1, 2.

²⁷⁷ De lib. Arbitr. 2, 54; De Gen. c. Manich. 1, 26.

²⁷⁸ De vera Relig. 52; Enarr. in Ps. 41, 7; 76, 14; 99, 5; 103 serm. 4, 2; Sermones 241, 2; also CD. 7, 30.

²⁷⁹ CD. 22, 24.

²⁸⁰ The poem De Pulchritudine Mundi in Patr. Lat. 40, 729–730 is not by Augustine himself.

²⁸¹ Enarr. in Ps. 149, 13.

²⁸² Enarr. in Ps. 85, 9.

²⁸³ Enarr. in Ps. 145, 5; cf. 103, serm. 1, 1; also Sermones 68, 2.

²⁸⁴ De catechiz. Rudibus 12, 17.

²⁸⁵ De div. Quaest. 45, 1.

²⁸⁶ Ep. 118, 31 (a letter with many parallels to Cic. N.D.).

²⁸⁷ Enarr. in Ps. 148, 12.

²⁸⁸ De Gen. c. Manich. 1, 26; De Gen. ad Litt. 3, 26.

²⁸⁹ Even vermin may be of use to stimulate men; De Ordine 1, 14.

²⁹⁰ CD. 11, 22; De Ordine 1, 2.

²⁹¹ Enarr. in Ps. 148, 10; cf. CD. 22, 24; Sermones 243, 7.

²⁹² Ep. 166, 15.

²⁹³ De Ordine 2, 35–37.

²⁹⁴ De div. Quaest. 50, 3.

²⁹⁵ De div. Quaest. 30. So harmful plants are due to man's sin, not to God's creation; De Gen. c. Manich. 1, 19; De Gen. ad Litt. 3, 28.

²⁹⁶ Op. imp. c. Iulianum 5, 11.

²⁹⁷ Cf. the summary of the Hexaemeral writers by Robbins, op. cit., 23; 64–72.

²⁹⁸ Cf. Robbins, op. cit., 64.

²⁹⁹ Hicks, L. E., A Critique of Design Arguments (1883), 74Google Scholar, thinks that there was little during this period, when ecclesiastical writers drew chiefly upon Scripture. Further historical notes, however, on this period may be found in his book.

^299a The true intellectual System of the Universe (1678).

³⁰⁰ The Wisdom of God manifested in the Works of the Creation (1691).

³⁰¹ Physico-theology (1713); Astro-theology (1719).

³⁰² Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion (1705) — eight sermons preached at St. Paul's, London.

³⁰³ His work was translated and published in English in 1718 under the title of The Religious Philosopher.

³⁰⁴ A View of the Evidences of Christianity (1794); Natural Theology (1802).

³⁰⁵ Published from 1833 to 1840.

³⁰⁶ Cf. Henderson, L. J., The Order of Nature (1925), 23–25Google Scholar, for Bacon's attempt in his Advancement of Learning to separate metaphysical considerations from physical researches, in which one should proceed as if there were no final cause.

^306a Yet cf. Henderson, L. J., The Fitness of the Environment (1924), 284.Google Scholar

³⁰⁷ Cf. Henderson, Order of Nature, 31.

³⁰⁸ Id., 34.

³⁰⁹ Life and Letters, 1 (1888), 312–313Google Scholar (quoted by Henderson, op. cit., 207). On the design argument as affected by the theory of evolution cf. Woodbridge, F. J. E., Nature and Mind (1937), 29–36.Google Scholar

³¹⁰ Henderson, op. cit., 208, thinks this essentially the position of David Hume.

³¹¹ E.g., Henderson, op. cit., 192, concludes that the remarkable properties of certain elements, especially hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen, must for the present be regarded as possessing a teleological character. And the late Hans Zinsser remarks (in the Atlantic Monthly, 154 [1934], 535, n. 1): “As Paley rightly asserts, mechanism presupposes God as the mechanician. This is the difficulty faced by all the recent astronomical and physical school of ponderers.” Cf. also — among many similar utterances — Kelvin, Lord, Nineteenth Century, 90 (1921), 173Google Scholar; Osborn, H. F., The Earth speaks to Bryan (1925), 65Google Scholar; 90. The opinions of various modern scientists and philosophers are cited by Johnson, W. H. in Harv. Theol. Rev. 12 (1919), 315–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³¹² Consol. 2, 8, lines 28–30.