[226] Metaph., I., iii., sub in.; Anal. Post., II., xi., sub in. Bekker. (cap. x., in the Tauchnitz ed.); Phys. II., iii.; De Gen. An., I., i. sub in.
[227] Metaph., VIII., iv., p. 1044, b, 1; De Gen. An., I., i., p, 715, a, 6; ib. II., i., 732, a, 4; Phys., II., vii., p. 198, a, 24 ff.
[228] Phys., II., iii., p. 195, a, 32 ff.; Metaph., IX., viii., p. 1049, b, 24.
[229] That is, according to the traditional view, which, however, will have to be considerably modified if we accept the conclusions embodied in Teichmüller’s Literarische Fehden.
[230] Parmen., 130, A ff.; Tim., 28, A.
[231] As we may infer from a passage in the Rhetoric (II., ii., p. 1379, a, 35), where partisans of the Idea are said to be exasperated by any slight thrown on their favourite doctrine.
[232] Repeated in the Metaphysics, I., ix., p. 993, a, 1.
[233] This may seem inconsistent with our former assertion, that Hegel holds in German philosophy a place analogous to that held by Aristotle in Greek philosophy. Such analogies, however, are always more or less incomplete; and, so far as he attributes a self-moving power to ideas, Hegel is a Platonist rather than an Aristotelian. Similarly, as an evolutionist, Mr. Herbert Spencer stands much nearer to early Greek thought than to Aristotle, whom, in other respects, he so much resembles.
[234] Zeller, Ph. d. Gr., II., b, 297 f.
[235] Metaph. IV., iii. and viii.