[Footnote 87: Aristot. De Coelo, iii. 1, p. 298, b. 30. [Greek: Oi( de\ ta\ me\n a)/lla pa/nta gi/nesthai/ te/ phasi kai\ rhei=n, ei)=nai de\ pagi/ôs ou)de/n, e(\n de/ ti mo/non u(pome/nein, e)x ou(= tau=ta pa/nta metaschêmati/zesthai pe/phuken; o(/per e)oi/kasin bou/lesthai le/gein a)/lloi te polloi\ kai\ Ê(ra/kleitos o( E)phe/sios]. See the explanation given of this passage by Lassalle, vol. ii. p. 21, 39, 40, founded on the comment of Simplikius. He explains it as an universal law or ideal force--die reine Idee des Werdens selbst (p. 24), and "eine unsinnliche Potenz" (p. 25). Yet, in i. p. 55 of his elaborate exposition, he does indeed say, about the theory of Herakleitus, "Hier sind zum erstenmale die sinnlichen Bestimmtheiten zu bloss verschiedenen und absolut in einander übergehenden Formen eines identischen, ihnen zu Grunde liegenden, _Substrats_ herabgesetzt". But this last expression appears to me to contradict the whole tenor and peculiarity of Lassalle's own explanation of the Herakleitean theory. He insists almost in every page (compare ii. p. 156) that "das Allgemeine" of Herakleitus is "reines Werden; reiner, steter, erzeugender, Prozess". This process cannot with any propriety be called a _substratum_, and Herakleitus admitted no other. In thus rejecting any substratum he stood alone. Lassalle has been careful in showing that Fire was not understood by Herakleitus as a substratum (as water by Thales), but as a symbol for the universal force or law. In the theory of Herakleitus no substratum was recognised--no [Greek: to/de ti] or [Greek: ou)si/a]--in the same way as Aristotle observes about [Greek: to\ a)/peiron] (Physic. iii. 6, a. 22-31) [Greek: ô(/ste to\ a)/peiron ou) dei= lamba/nein ô(s to/de ti, oi(=on a)/nthrôpon ê)\ oi)ki/an, a)ll' ô(s ê( ê(me/ra le/getai kai\ o( a)gô\n, oi(=s to\ ei)=nai _ou)ch' ô(s ou)si/a tis ge/gonen, a)ll' a)ei\ e)n gene/sei ê(\ phthora=|_, ei) kai\ peperasme/non, _a)ll' a)ei/ ge e(/teron kai\ e(/teron_.]]