154 l/-23
of an animal: which of these points to as great a degree of cleverness as
the cosmos itself does? Either, therefore, there is nothing ruled by a
nature capable of perception or one must admit that the cosmos is so
ruled. 86. Moreover, how can that which contains all natures and the
seeds which produce them fail to be itself governed by nature? So, if
someone were to say that the teeth and body hair exist by nature but
that the man to whom they belong was not constituted by nature, he
would simply be failing to understand that those things which produce
something from themselves have natures more perfect than the things
produced from themselves. But the cosmos is the sower and planter and
(if I may so put it) the parent and nurse and nourisher of all things
governed by nature; the cosmos nourishes and holds together everything
as though those things were its limbs and parts of itself. But if the parts
of the cosmos are governed by nature, it is necessary that the cosmos
itself be governed by nature. And the governance of the cosmos contains
nothing which is subject to criticism; the best possible result which could
be produced from those natures which existed was indeed produced. 87.
Let someone, then, show that something better could have been produced!
But no one will ever show this. And if someone wants to improve on
something [in the cosmos], either he will make it worse or he will be
longing for something which simply could not have happened.
But if all parts of the cosmos are so constituted that they could neither
have been more useful nor more beautiful, let us see whether they are
the products of chance or of such a character that they could never even
have held together if not for the control exerted by a perceptive and
divine providence. If, therefore, the products of nature are better than
those of the crafts and if the crafts do nothing without the use of reason,
then nature too cannot be held to be devoid of reason. When you look
at a statue or a painting, you know that craftsmanship was applied; and
when you see from afar the course steered by a ship, you do not doubt
that it is moved by rational craftsmanship; when you gaze on a sundial
or waterclock, you understand that the time is told as a result of craft
and not as a result of chance. So what sense does it make to think that
the cosmos, which contains these very crafts and their craftsmen and all
else besides, is devoid of deliberative ability and reason? ...
94 .... So Aristotle puts it splendidly:^31 95. "If," he says, "there were
people who lived under the earth in fine and splendid houses adorned
with statues and paintings and outfitted with all those things which those
who are considered happy have in great abundance, but who had never
come out onto the surface of the earth, though they had heard by rumour
- In the lost work On Philosophy.