صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

the clouds, even as we can. Ay, when the first stone of the first pyramid was laid, all was as now, in man, and bird, and beast, and earth, and heaven. For man at least, civilised man, the world is as it was in the beginning. These names and dates by which we would drive God from us, are names and dates, not in time, but eternity. With our scales and weights, and tapes and measuring-rods, we do but deceive ourselves: what is, is dimensionless; the truth is not in time; space is all too short for a ladder to the Throne. And what we say now, was said by Aristotle then. Custom hides it from us; but not one of us can go out into the night and see the heavens, without asking, as Napoleon did, but "Messieurs les philosophes, who made all that?" That is the argument which Aristotle, as reported by Cicero, makes vivid to us-the argument from design, the proof in Natural Theology that there is a Supreme God. So it is that he feigns his underground people coming up to the light of day. And Aristotle has not been left without imitators. "Adam," says David Hume, to whom what was poetry was pretty well starch, -"Adam, rising at once in Paradise, and in the full perfection of his faculties, would naturally, as represented by Milton, be astonished at the glorious appearances of nature, the heavens, the air, the earth, his own organs and members; and would be led to ask, whence this wonderful scene arose?" We have from Hume's contemporary, Buffon, too, an account of the experiences of the first man after his creation : How, "il se souvient de cet instant plein de joie et de trouble où il sentit, pour la première fois, sa singulière existence;" how he, too, was astonished at "la lumière, la voute céleste, la verdure de la terre, le cristal des eaux," etc. One, of course, has little hesitation in finding the original of all that in Cicero's extract, not but that the simple situation might very well have suggested his own

GOD IMMANENT AND TRANSCENDENT.

151

picture to Milton. The one idea in all is, how a man should feel when he sees, for the first or the fiftieth time, as a man, the miracle of heaven, and the glory and beauty of the earth. To Aristotle, plainly, it must have brought the certainty and the conviction that it was not from accident it came, not from τύχη, nor yet from τὸ αὐτόματον, the spontaneity of chance. The whole movement and life, on the contrary, must be inscribed with the words, end-aim and design, τέλος and οὗ ἕνεκα. Nature was not to Aristotle, as it was to Plato, the mere μὴ ὄν, the mere region of the false. No, it is to him God's own handiwork, transcendent and alone in beauty, and wisdom, and beneficence. There is nothing in it in vain, nothing humblest but has its own nature to unfold, and its own life to realize. And there is a common striving, as though in mind and will, in all things towards God, who is their exemplar and their home. Each would produce another like itself, says Aristotle, the plant a plant, the animal an animal, in order that, as far as possible, they too may participate in the eternal and divine; for to that all tends. And again, Aristotle directly asks, directly puts the question, How are we to conceive this eternal principle (Met. xii. 10)? Does it exist simply as the order of an army exists in the order of an army (which, as the moral order of the universe, was at one time the answer of Fichte)? Or does it exist as the general of the army exists, from whom that order proceeds? Contrary to what some say, Aristotle answers this question quite unequivocally. And I may adduce at once here the authority on the point of the two recognised masters in the Metaphysic of Aristotle. Of these, the one, Schwegler, has edited the text of the book, with wonderful power translated it, and, in two volumes, commentated it; while the other, Bonitz, who, for that and much else, is pretty well the acknowledged prince of

Aristotelians, has also edited the text, and, without translating, but, with a perfect insight and marvellous sagacity, in admirable Latin, commentated it. "The answer of Aristotle," it is thus that the former, Schwegler, speaks,

[ocr errors]

is, that the Good exists in the universe as its designed order and intelligent arrangement; but it exists also, and in a far higher form, without the universe as a personal being who is the ground and cause of this designed order and intelligent arrangement: the principle of immanence and the principle of transcendence are here brought together and combined in one." As for Bonitz, he heads his commentary of the last chapter of the great twelfth book with the words: "How that which is good and beautiful exists in the universe of the world" -and he expresses himself on this question, as I translate his Latin, thus: "In regard to the nature of the supreme principle and its relation to the world, whether that principle as the Good is to be referred to the divine nature of the first substance or to the order of the world itself, Aristotle finds that the Good has place in the world in both ways, the possibility of which he illustrates by the example of an army; for the commander is certainly the prime source of the discipline of the army; but, if he has rightly established that discipline, the individual parts of the army accord together of themselves. In the same way the first cause of that order which we observe in the world is to be assigned to the Supreme Intelligence, but then the parts of the world have been so ordered by him that they are seen to harmonize of their own accord; for all things cohere with all things, and all tend to one." In the presence, then, of both these proofs and these testimonies, we must conclude that the views of Aristotle in the particular reference were very much our own. There was God transcendently existent; but He had created the world in beauty and harmony.

BIESE ON THE GREEK MOVEMENT.

153

It is in a certain way in agreement with this that we are to understand the soul proper of man to enter into him, as it were, from without. Aristotle's own words are λείπεται τὸν νοῦν μόνον θύραθεν ἐπεισιέναι καὶ θεῖον εἶναι μόνον (d. G. A. ii. 3, med.). "We are left to conclude that the soul alone enters from without, and is alone divine." The word for from without here, θύραθεν, meaning from outside, from out of doors, is too unequivocal for any quillet to be hung upon it. This soul, then, is the self-determinative principle of divine reason in man, and in it is the immortality of man. The two considerations cohere: God, the transcendent Deity as Creator of the universe, and man, in reason, as copestone, and key-stone, and end-aim of all. Aristotle is specially emphatic on the unity of God. The universe must have a single head, like any other well-organized community. Polyarchy is anarchy: in monarchy alone is there order and law, and Aristotle winds up with the line from the second Iliad : Οὐκ ἀγαθὸν πολυκοιρανίη· εἷς κοίρανος ἔστω. Many masters are not a good thing, let

there be but one."

And it is in this way that "Greek philosophy has in Aristotle completed itself. Up to the time of Anaxagoras," says Biese, "the real characters of objective exist ence were the business of philosophical inquiry. Through him reason came to be pronounced the principle of the world; whereupon, from Socrates onwards, the development of cognition, as exclusively in the special subjective faculty of thought, occupied philosophy; till at last Plato, through and in the Ideas, returned to the objectivity of cognition, without evincing it, however, as the power and the truth in actuality. Aristotle speculatively resolves the antithesis between reality and ideality, frees the world of sense from the character of mere illusory appearance, and raises it into the position of the genuine

reality in which the Idea gives itself form and action. From this high position, to which the philosophical spirit of the Greeks had, in and through its own self, risen, Aristotle considers and examines with interest the manifold forms of reality, and takes up into himself the entire wealth of Greek life, as it has developed itself in science, art, and the State, becoming thereby the substantial channel through which to attain to a view of the Greek world, as well in its various aspects generally, as in regard to the historical development of its philosophy specially."

There are other such testimonies from Germans in regard to Aristotle. In fact, when one considers the enormous development of the study of Aristotle among them which this century exhibits, with the great names that belong to it, - Bekker, Brandis, Biese, Bonitz, Schwegler, Prantl, Trendelenburg, Michelet, Heyder Stahr, Waitz, Zeller, and even a whole host more, it must be evident that it would quite be possible to fill entire pages in the general reference. Even in a special regard, as concerns matters of fact in science, there are great names in all the countries that bear their emphatic testimony to the ability, compass, and exactitude of Aristotle. Thus Cuvier, for example, "lavishes unstinted praise" on much that concerns Birds; while both Cuvier and Owen regard as "truly astonishing" the fulness and accuracy of his details in respect to the Cephalopods. Franzius, in that connection, and otherwise, alludes to the "surprising result that, in many references, Aristotle possessed a far more extensive and intimate knowledge than we." The celebrated Johann von Müller expresses himself in this way: "Aristotle was the clearest head that ever enlightened the world; he possessed the eloquence of a great, all-penetrating understanding, supported on the direct observation of experience: he is astonishingly learned, and, in natural

« السابقةمتابعة »