Miscellanies 8.4.10
Summary: Before answering whether the unborn is an animal, one must ask what the questioner means by “animal,” since Plato, Aristotle, and the Stoics define it differently.
Greek text · Stählin 2
εὐθέως οὖν τὸν προβάλλοντα ἀντερωτητέον τί ποτε καλεῖ ζῷον· μάλιστα γὰρ τοῦτο ποιητέον, ἐπειδὰν εἰς διαφόρους χρήσεις ἠγμένον ἴδωμεν τοὔνομα· καὶ διερευνητέον εἴτε ἀμφισβητούμενόν ἐστι τὸ σημαινόμενον ἐκ τῆς προσηγορίας εἴθʼ ὁμολογούμενον ἅπασιν. εἰ γὰρ ζῷον εἴποι καλεῖν ὅτιπερ ἂν αὐξάνῃ καὶ τρέφηται, πάλιν αὖ προσανερωτήσομεν εἰ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ νομίζει ζῷα, κἄπειτα φάντος μὲν οὕτως ἐπιδεικνύειν ἤδη χρὴ [τι] τὸ κυούμενον αὐξανόμενόν τε καὶ τρεφόμενον. Πλάτων γὰρ καὶ τὰ φυτὰ ζῷα καλεῖ »τοῦ τρίτου τῆς ψυχῆς εἴδους«. τοῦ ἐπιθυμητικοῦ, μόνου μετέχοντα, Ἀριστοτέλης δὲ τῆς φυτικῆς τε καὶ θρεπτικῆς ψυχῆς μετέχειν οἴεται τὰ φυτά. ζῷα δʼ ἤδη προσαγορεύειν οὐκ ἀξιοῖ· τὸ γὰρ δὴ τῆς ἑτέρας ψυχῆς τῆς αἰσθητικῆς μετέχον τοῦτο μόνον ἀξιοῖ καλεῖσθαι ζῷον. οὐ μὴν οἵ γε Στωϊκοὶ τὴν φυτικὴν δύναμιν ἤδη ψυχὴν ὀνομάζουσιν. ἀποφήσαντος δὲ τοῦ προβαλόντος εἶναι ζῷα καὶ τὰ φυτά, δείξομεν ἑαυτῷ μαχόμενα λέγειν. τῷ γὰρ τρέφεσθαί τε καὶ αὐξάνεσθαι τὸ ζῷον ὁρισάμενος. ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ φυτὸν οὐκ εἶναι ζῷον ἀποφηνάμενος, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἔοικεν λέγειν ἢ ὅτι τὸ τρεφόμενόν τε καὶ αὐξανόμενον καὶ ζῷόν ἐστι καὶ οὐ ζῷον. τί οὖν βούλεται μαθεῖν, εἰπάτω, ἆρά γε εἰ αὔξεται καὶ τρέφεται τὸ κατὰ γαστρὸς ἢ εἰ αἰσθήσεώς τινος ἢ καὶ τῆς καθʼ ὁρμὴν κινήσεως αὐτῷ μέτεστιν. κατὰ μὲν γὰρ Πλάτωνα τὸ φυτὸν ἔμψυχόν τε καὶ ζῷον, κατὰ δὲ Ἀριστοτέλη ζῷον μὲν οὔπω, λείπει γὰρ αὐτῷ τὸ αἰσθητικόν, ἔμψυχον δὲ ἤδη· ἔστι γοῦν αὐτῷ τὸ ζῷον οὐσία ἔμψυχος αἰσθητική· κατὰ δὲ τοὺς Στωϊκοὺς οὔτε ἔμψυχον οὔτε ζῷόν ἐστι τὸ φυτόν· ἔμψυχος γὰρ οὐσία τὸ ζῷον.
English · Claude translation
We must therefore at once ask the one who poses the question in turn what he calls an animal; this must be done especially when we see the name carried into different uses; and we must investigate whether what the term signifies is disputed or agreed by all. For if he should say that he calls an animal whatever grows and is nourished, we shall ask him further whether he also considers plants to be animals; and then, if he says so, one must next show that what is conceived grows and is nourished. For Plato calls plants too animals, sharing only in “the third form of soul,” the appetitive; Aristotle thinks that plants share in the vegetative and nutritive soul, but does not think fit to call them animals, for he thinks that only what shares in the other soul, the perceptive, deserves to be called an animal; and the Stoics do not even call the vegetative power a soul. But if the questioner denies that plants too are animals, we shall show that he contradicts himself. For having defined the animal by being nourished and growing, and yet declaring that the plant is not an animal, he seems to say nothing other than that what is nourished and grows both is and is not an animal. Let him say, then, what he wants to learn: whether what is in the womb grows and is nourished, or whether it has some share in perception or also in motion by impulse. For according to Plato the plant is ensouled and an animal; according to Aristotle it is not yet an animal, since it lacks the perceptive faculty, but it is already ensouled (for him, at any rate, the animal is an ensouled, perceptive substance); according to the Stoics the plant is neither ensouled nor an animal, for the animal is an ensouled substance.
About this passage
Notes
Translation notes
- The quotation is Plato, Timaeus 77b. The view ascribed to Aristotle is that of On the Soul 2.2–3. “Motion by impulse” renders ἡ καθʼ ὁρμὴν κίνησις, the Stoic term for an animal's self-motion.
Cite this passage
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 8.4.10 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/clement-stromata/8/4/10/).
Plain text
Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 8.4.10 (trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/clement-stromata/8/4/10/).
Download citation:BibTeX ·RIS (Zotero, EndNote)
Whole work:BibTeX ·RIS ·Markdown text