FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[A]Mrs R. Lee's Memoirs of Baron Cuvier, p. 51.[B]Quarterly Review, vol. xxxvi. p. 219.

[A]Mrs R. Lee's Memoirs of Baron Cuvier, p. 51.

[B]Quarterly Review, vol. xxxvi. p. 219.

Introductory Remarks—Birth and Parentage of Aristotle—He studies Philosophy under Plato—Is highly distinguished in the Academy—Retires to Atarneus on the Death of his Master—Marries—Is invited by Philip to superintend the Education of Alexander—Prosecutes his Studies at the Court—On the Succession of Alexander, returns to Athens, where he sets up a School in the Lyceum—Corresponds with Alexander, who supplies Means for carrying on his Investigations—Alexander finds Fault with him for publishing some of his Works, and after putting Callisthenes to Death, exalts his Rival Xenocrates—On the Death of Alexander, he is accused by his Enemies of Impiety, when he escapes to Chalcis, where he dies soon after—His personal Appearance and Character—His Testament—History of his Writings—Great Extent of the Subjects treated of by him—His Notions on elementary Bodies—The Material Universe—The Changes to which the Earth has been subjected, and the Eternity of its Existence—Conclusion.

Natural History, considered as a science or body of doctrine, commenced with Aristotle, the founder of the Peripatetic School, and one of the most illustrious philosophers of antiquity. His writings were held in the highest estimation by his own countrymen the Greeks, as well as by the Romans: they were considered as the most authentic sources of knowledge, after the revival of learning in Europe; and even at the present day their influence may be traced in the works of many who have notso much as bestowed upon them a cursory glance. It is therefore fit that we should begin our biographical sketches with that celebrated author, the more especially as he did not confine himself to a single branch of natural history, but, like all great minds, possessed an extensive acquaintance with objects of various classes. It is he only, whose comprehensive glance seizes upon what is common to numerous tribes, that can duly estimate what ought to be considered as distinctive of a particular group, or can form rules for the arrangement and description of the beings which compose it. The three greatest naturalists whom the world has produced, Aristotle, Linnæus, and Cuvier, were men whose conceptions were enlarged by the most expanded views. Others have excelled them in particular departments, but none have equalled them in general knowledge.

Aristotle was born at Stagira, a city of the Thracian Chersonesus, in the first year of the 99th Olympiad, or the 384th before the Christian era. His father, Nicomachus, was physician to Amyntas, king of Macedonia, the father of Philip, and grandfather of Alexander the Great. Of his mother, we only know that her name was Phestis, and that, like her husband, she was originally from Chalcis. His family claimed descent from Machaon, the son of Esculapius. Having lost his parents at an early age, he went to reside with Proxenus, a citizen of Atarneus in Mysia, the friend to whose guardianship he had been left. According to some authorities, not being observed very strictly by those who had the immediate charge of his education, he spent a great part of his youth in licentious indulgences, by which he dissipated nearly the wholeof a large patrimony. It is also said that he entered into the military profession, but finding it disagreeable soon renounced it, and, as a means of subsistence, sold medicines at Athens. But most of these reflections on his juvenile character may perhaps be attributed to slander.

However this may be, it became necessary for him to choose an employment; and, on going to Delphi to consult the oracle, he was directed to proceed to Athens, and apply himself to the study of philosophy. This he accordingly did, and at the age of seventeen commenced his career as a pupil of Plato.

Being of an ardent temperament, he addicted himself to his new pursuit with so much energy, that he determined to reduce his hours of repose to the smallest possible limits. For this purpose he placed a metallic basin beside his couch, and on lying down held out one of his hands with an iron ball in it, that the noise produced by the collision might awake him should he happen to slumber. Such intensity of application, in a penetrating and subtile mind, could not fail to render him highly successful in his studies. We accordingly find that he had not been long in the academy when he was distinguished above all the other scholars; and it is said that Plato used to call him the mind of his school, and to compare him to a spirited colt that required the application of the rein to restrain its ardour.

He has been accused of disrespect and ingratitude to his aged master, and with having set up a school in opposition to him. The author of this charge was Aristoxenus, his own pupil; but it is well known that he was personally an enemy to Aristotle, because that philosopher, in choosing asuccessor, had preferred Theophrastus. It is doubted, besides, whether he taught publicly until after Plato's death, which happened in 348B. C.

Speusippus, the nephew of the sage just named, having been appointed to succeed him in his school, Aristotle, retiring from Athens, went to reside with Hermeias, governor of Assus and Atarneus in Mysia. Here he remained three years; but his friend having been executed, by command of Artaxerxes, as a rebel against Persia, he was obliged to seek refuge in Mytelene, taking with him Pythias, the kinswoman and adopted daughter of Hermeias, to whose memory he afterwards erected a statue in the temple of Delphos. This lady, endeared to him by the gratitude which he felt towards her father, and by the distress to which she had been reduced by his death, he married in the thirty-seventh year of his age. She died, however, soon after their union, leaving an infant daughter, who received the same name.

A short time having elapsed, he was invited by Philip to superintend the education of his son. This distinction he no doubt owed in part to his previous intimacy with the King of Macedonia; but it must also have arisen from the great celebrity which he enjoyed, as excelling in all kinds of science, and especially in the doctrine of politics. Alexander had attained the age of fifteen when the management of his studies was confided to Aristotle, then in his forty-second year. There is ground, however, for presuming that previous to this period the philosopher had been consulted respecting the instruction of the young prince.

The master, it has been said, was worthy of hispupil, and the pupil of his master. In our opinion the master was worthy of a better pupil, and the pupil might have had a better master. At all events, Alexander, who was ambitious of excelling in every pursuit, must have profited greatly in the acquisition of knowledge by the lessons of the most eminently-endowed philosopher of his age. According to Plutarch and Aulus Gellius, he was instructed by him in rhetoric, physics, ethics, and politics; and so high was the estimation in which he held his preceptor, that he is said to have declared, that "he was not less indebted to Aristotle than to his father; since if it was through the one that he lived, it was through the other that he lived well." It is also supposed that he had been initiated in the abstruse speculations respecting the human soul, the nature of the Divinity, and other subjects, on which his master had not yet promulgated his notions to the world.

During his residence at the court of Macedonia, Aristotle did not exclusively devote himself to his duties as instructor of the young prince, but also took some share in public business, and continued his philosophical researches. For the latter purpose Philip is said to have granted him liberal supplies of money. In consideration of his various merits the king also rebuilt his native city, Stagira, which had been destroyed in the wars, and restored it to its former inhabitants, who had either been dispersed or carried into slavery.

Alexander had scarcely completed his twentieth year when the assassination of his father, by Pausanias, one of the officers of the guard, called him to the throne. Aristotle, however, continued to resideat the court two years longer; when some misunderstanding having arisen, he left the young monarch at the commencement of his celebrated expedition into Asia, and returned to Athens. It has been alleged that he accompanied his former pupil as far as Egypt; but the fact is not certain, although circumstances would seem to render it probable.

He was well received at Athens, on account of the benefits which Philip had conferred, for his sake, on the inhabitants of that city; and, obtaining permission from the magistrates to occupy the Lyceum, a large enclosure in the suburbs, he proceeded to form a school. It was his custom to instruct his disciples while walking with them; and for this reason the new sect received the name of Peripatetics, or walking philosophers. In the morning he delivered his acroatic lectures to his select pupils, imparting to them the more abstruse parts of metaphysical science; and in the evening gave to his visiters or the public at large exoteric discourses, in which the subjects discussed were treated in a popular style. As the Lyceum soon acquired great celebrity, scholars flocked to it from all parts of Greece. Xenocrates, who shared with him the lessons of Plato, had by this time succeeded Speusippus in the Academy, and it has been alleged that Aristotle established his seminary in contemptuous opposition; observing, that it would be shameful for him to be silent while the other taught publicly. But although the rival sages of those days cannot be supposed to have been influenced by a gentler spirit than animates those of our own times, there is no reason for attributing to the Stagirite in this matter any other motive than alaudable desire of seeking his own interest by communicating knowledge to those who were desirous of receiving it.

In this manner he gave public lectures at Athens thirteen years, during the greater part of which time he did not cease to correspond with Alexander. That celebrated prince had placed at his disposal several thousand persons, who were occupied in hunting, fishing, and making the observations which were necessary for completing his History of Animals. He is moreover said to have given the enormous sum of 800 talents for the same purpose; while he also took care to send to him a great variety of zoological specimens, collected in the countries which he had subdued.

The misunderstanding which had begun before Aristotle parted from his royal pupil, but which had not prevented the good offices of the latter, increased towards the end of his career. One of the first occasions seems to have been offered by the philosopher, who, having published his works on physics and metaphysics, received from Alexander, who was piqued at his having divulged to the world the valuable knowledge which he had obtained from him in his youth, the following letter:—

"Alexander to Aristotle, wishing all happiness. You have done amiss in publishing your books on the speculative sciences. In what shall I excel others if what you taught me privately be communicated to all? You know well that I would rather surpass mankind in the more sublime branches of learning than in power. Farewell."

This epistle exhibits the king as a very exclusive personage; and, joined to what history has recorded of his actions, tends to show that selfishness, however refined or disguised, was the main source of his insatiable ambition. One of the sincerest pleasures of a great mind is to communicate to others all the blessings that it possesses. On other occasions he appeared to entertain a wish to mortify the philosopher by exalting his rival Xenocrates, who had nothing to recommend him besides a respectable moral character. It has even been asserted by some, that the conqueror, after he had put Callisthenes to death, intended the same fate for Aristotle.

This Callisthenes was a kinsman and disciple of the other, through whose influence, it is said, he was appointed to attend the king on his Asiatic expedition. His republican sentiments and independent spirit, however, rendered him an indifferent courtier; while his rude and ill-timed reflections finally converted him into an object of suspicion or dislike. The conspiracy of Hermolaus affording Alexander a plausible pretext for getting rid of his uncourtly monitor, he caused him to be apprehended and put to death. Some say that he was exposed to lions, others that he was tortured and crucified; but, in whatever way he met his end, it is generally agreed that his life was sacrificed to gratify the enmity of his sovereign. Aristotle naturally espoused the cause of his relative, and from that period harboured a deep resentment against his destroyer. It has even been alleged that he was privy to the supposed design of murdering the victorious prince; but of this there is no satisfactory evidence.

Notwithstanding the coolness which thus existedbetween "Macedonia's madman" and "the Stagirite," the latter continued to enjoy at least an appearance of protection, which prevented his enemies from seriously molesting him. But as the splendour of his talents, his success in teaching, and the celebrity which he had acquired in all parts of Greece, had excited the animosity of those who found themselves eclipsed by the brightness of his genius, no sooner was Alexander dead, than they stirred up a priest, named Eurymedon, with whom was associated Demophilus, a powerful citizen, to prefer a charge of impiety against him before the court of Areopagus, on the ground that he had commemorated the virtues of his wife and of his friend Hermeias with such honours as were exclusively bestowed on the gods. Warned by the fate of Socrates under similar circumstances, he judged it prudent to retire; remarking, that he wished to spare the Athenians the disgrace of committing another act of injustice against philosophy.

He effected his escape, with a few friends, to Chalcis in Eubœa, where he died soon after, in the year 322b.c., and the 63d of his age; having, on his deathbed, appointed Theophrastus of Lesbos, one of his favourite pupils, his successor at the Lyceum. Various accounts are given of his demise; but it is probable that an overexcited mind, and a body worn out by disease, were the real causes of his dissolution.

According to Procopius and others, Aristotle drowned himself in the Eubœan Euripus, because he could not discover the cause of its ebbing and flowing, which are said to take place seven times a-day. Sir Thomas Browne, in his Enquiries into Vulgar andCommon Errors, refutes this assertion on the following grounds:—In the first place, his death is related to have taken place in two ways by Diogenes Laertius; the one, from Eumolus and Phavorinus, that being accused of impiety for composing a hymn to his friend Hermeias, he withdrew to Chalcis, where he drank poison; the other, by Apollodorus, that he died of a disease in his stomach, in his sixty-third year. Again, the thing is in itself unreasonable, and therefore improbable; for Aristotle was not so apt to be vexed by the difficulty of accounting for natural phenomena, nor is there any evidence that he endeavoured to discover the ebb and flow of the Euripus, for he has made no mention of it in his works. Lastly, the phenomenon itself is disputable; and it appears from a comparison of testimonies on the subject, that the stream in question flows and ebbs only four times a-day, as is the case with other parts of the sea, though it is subject to irregularities dependent upon the winds and other causes. "However, therefore, Aristotle died," concludes our author, "what was his end, or upon what occasion, although it be not altogether assured, yet that his memory and worthy name shall live, no man will deny, nor gratefull schollar doubt: and if, according to the Elogie of Solon, a man may be onely said to be happy after he is dead, and ceaseth to be in the visible capacity of beatitude: or if, according unto his own Ethicks, sence is not essentiall unto felicity, but a man may be happy without the apprehension thereof; surely in that sence he is pyramidally happy, nor can he ever perish but in the Euripe of ignorance, or till the torrent of barbarisme overwhelme all."

With respect to personal appearance, Aristotle was not highly favoured. He was of short stature, with slender legs, and remarkably small eyes. His voice was shrill, and his utterance hesitating. Although his constitution was feeble, he seems to have enjoyed good health. His moral character has been impeached by some; but we may presume that it was not liable to any serious imputation, otherwise his faults would not have escaped the observation of his numerous enemies, who yet could only prefer against him some vague charges of impiety.

Aristotle was not merely a philosopher; he was also what would at the present day be called a gentleman and a man of the world. In accordance with this character he dressed magnificently, wore rings of great value, shaved his head and face, contrary to the practice of the other scholars of Plato, and freely indulged in social intercourse. He was twice married. By his first wife, Pythias, he had a daughter of the same name, who was married to Nicanor, the son of Proxenus. His second wife was Herpylis, a native of Stagira, by whom he had a son, called Nicomachus.

It is difficult to determine his real character. Those who seem to find pleasure in reviling him, assert that he was a parasite, a habitual glutton and drunkard, a despiser of the gods, a vain person, whose chief care was to ornament his person, and thereby counteract the unfavourable impression which his disproportioned figure might make. It has been said, with perhaps more truth, that he taught his pupil Alexander principles of morals and policy which were not the best adapted for a prince of his ambitious temper; and that his desire of standingforth as the founder of a philosophical sect, induced him to prefer abstract disquisitions to solid knowledge, and to indulge in a spirit of contradiction and innovation. On the other hand, he has been extolled as a prodigy of knowledge and intellect, and represented as "the secretary of nature." Jews have laid claim to his philosophy as derived from Solomon, and Christians have held him up as a person ordained to prepare the way for a Divine revelation. It is certain, however, that he was a very remarkable individual, possessed of great powers of observation and discrimination, and one who, had he devoted himself to the study of natural objects with a sincere desire of ascertaining their properties and a resolution to adhere to truth, might have succeeded in laying on a solid basis the foundations of physical science.

Diogenes of Laertes in Cilicia, who lived about the end of the second century, and who wrote an account of the lives of the philosophers, has preserved his testament, the substance of which is as follows:—Antipater, the regent of Macedonia, is appointed his executor. To his wife Herpylis he leaves the choice of two houses, the one in Chalcis, the other at Stagira. He commends her domestic virtues, and requests his friends to distinguish her by the kindest attention. To Nicomachus, his son by Herpylis, and to Pythias, his daughter by his first wife, he bequeaths the remainder of his fortune, excepting his library and writings, which he leaves to Theophrastus. He desires that his daughter shall be given in marriage to Nicanor, the son of his benefactor Proxenus, or, should he not be inclined to receive her, to Theophrastus, his esteemedpupil. The bones of Pythias he orders to be disinterred and buried with his own body, as she herself had desired. None of his slaves are to be sold; they are all either emancipated by his will, or ordered to be set free by his heirs whenever they shall become worthy of liberty. Finally, he orders that the dedications which he had vowed for the safety of Nicanor be presented at Stagira to Jupiter and Minerva.

The same writer gives the titles of 260 works of Aristotle. Many of these, however, have perished. From his situation in society, and the munificent patronage of Alexander, he possessed more ample resources than any other man of science that could be named; and, considering the age in which he lived, his success in the investigation of nature may be considered as almost unrivalled. It is to be regretted that so many of his treatises have been lost, and that even those which have been transmitted to us have not been preserved in a perfect state.

Strabo has given a melancholy history of these works, in the ninth book of his geography. Aristotle, as we have stated above, had bequeathed them to Theophrastus, the most distinguished of his pupils, and his successor in the school. That philosopher left them, together with his own works, to his scholar Neleus, who carried them to his native city, Scepsis in Asia Minor. The heirs of Neleus, who were unlettered men, kept them locked up; and when they understood that the King of Pergamos, to whom the town belonged, was collecting books, to form a library on the plan of the Alexandrian, they concealed them in a vault or cellar, where they lay forgotten 130 years. When accidentallydiscovered, at the end of that period, they were found to be greatly injured by damp and vermin. At length they were sold to an inhabitant of Athens, named Apellicon, who, however, was not so much a lover of philosophy as a collector of manuscripts, and who adulterated the original text by his injudicious emendations and interpolations. Several copies thus altered were published by him. When Athens was taken by Sylla, the library of this citizen was carried to Rome, where the works of Aristotle were corrected by Tyrannion, a grammarian. Andronicus of Rhodes afterwards arranged the whole into sections, and gave them to the world.

According to Dr Gillies, Aristotle must have "composed above 400 different treatises, of which only forty-eight have been transmitted to the present age. But many of these last consist of several books; and the whole of his remains together still form a golden stream of Greek erudition, exceeding four times the collective bulk of the Iliad and Odyssey."

He was scarcely less ambitious than his pupil Alexander, and his works embrace nearly the whole range of human knowledge as it existed in his day. He was the inventor of the syllogistic mode of reasoning, the principles of which he lays down in his work on logic. In his books on rhetoric, he has investigated the principles of eloquence with great accuracy and precision, insomuch that they form the basis of all that has since been written on the subject. His work on poetics, or rather the fragment which has come down to us under that name, although almost entirely confined to the consideration of the drama, contains principles applicable topoetical composition in general, and is equally distinguished for precision and depth of thought. Those on ethics and politics are also remarkable productions; and although the former has been effectually superseded by a more perfect system, the latter contains much that is interesting even at the present day. In his metaphysics, he expounds the doctrine of Being abstracted from Matter, and speaks of a First Mover,—the life and intellect of the universe, eternal and immutable, but neither omnipresent nor omnipotent. When treating of physics, he does not in general lay down rulesa priori, but deduces them from the observation and comparison of facts. This being the case, we might expect that such of his writings as relate to natural history should contain much truth.

He holds that all terrestrial bodies are composed of four elements,—earth, water, air, and fire. Earth and water are heavy, because they tend towards the earth's centre; while air and fire, which tend upwards, are light.

Besides these four elements, he has admitted a fifth, of which the celestial objects were composed, and whose motion is always circular. He supposed that there is above the air, under the concave part of the moon, a sphere of fire to which all the flames ascend, as the brooks and rivers flow into the ocean.

He maintains that matter is infinitely divisible; that the universe is full, and that there is no vacuum in nature; that the world is eternal; that the sun, which has always revolved as it does at present, will for ever continue to do so; and finally, that the generations of men succeed each other without having had a beginning or foreseeing an end.

He alleges that the heavens are incapable of decay; and that although sublunar things are subject to corruption, their parts nevertheless do not perish; that they only change place; that from the remains of one thing another is made; and that thus the mass of the world always remains entire. He holds that the earth is in the centre of the world; and that the First Being makes the skies revolve round the earth, by intelligences which are continually occupied with these motions.

He asserts that all of the globe which is now covered by the waters of the sea was formerly dry land; and that what is now dry land will be again converted into water. The reason is this: the rivers and torrents are continually carrying along sand and earth, which causes the shores gradually to advance, and the sea gradually to retire; so that in the course of innumerable ages the alleged vicissitudes necessarily take place. He adds, that in several parts which are considerably inland, and even of great elevation, the sea, when retiring, left shells, and that, on digging in the ground, anchors and fragments of ships are sometimes found. Ovid attributes the same opinion to Pythagoras.

Aristotle farther remarks, that these conversions of sea into land, and of land into sea, which gradually take place in the long lapse of ages, are in a great measure the cause of our ignorance of past occurrences. He adds, that besides this other accidents happen, which give rise even to the loss of the arts; and among these he enumerates pestilences, wars, famines, earthquakes, burnings, and desolations, which exterminate all the inhabitants of a country, excepting a few who escape and save themselvesin the deserts, where they lead a savage life, and where they give origin to others, who in the progress of time cultivate the ground, and invent or rediscover the arts; and that the same opinions recur, and have been renewed times without number. In this manner, he maintains that, notwithstanding these vicissitudes and revolutions, the machine of the world always remains indestructible.

If an apology were necessary for the brevity of the above sketch, it might be urged, that it probably contains all that is authentic respecting the life of this eminent philosopher; and that our object is to condense, not to expand; to direct the attention to characteristic features, not to lead the mind to expatiate vaguely upon the general surface.

Aristotle's Ideas respecting the Soul—His Views of Anatomy and Physiology—Introduction to his History of Animals, consisting of Aphorisms or general Principles—His Division of Animals; their external Parts; their Arrangement into Families; their internal Organs; Generation, &c.

Of all the sciences, it has been remarked, that which owes most to Aristotle is the natural history of animals. Not only was he acquainted with numerous species, he also described them according to a comprehensive and luminous method, which perhaps none of his successors have approached; arranging the facts observed, not according to the species, but according to the organs and functions, which affords the only means of establishing comparative results. It may in fact be said, that besides being the oldest author on comparative anatomy whose writings we possess, he was likewise one of those who have treated that part of natural history with most genius, and best deserves to be taken as a model. The principal divisions which are still adopted by naturalists in the animal kingdom are those of Aristotle, and he proposed some which have been resumed after having been unjustly rejected. If we examine the foundation of these great labours, we shall find that they all rest on the same method,which is itself derived from the theory respecting the origin of general ideas. He always observes facts with attention, compares them with great precision, and endeavours to discover the circumstances in which they agree. His style, moreover, is suited to his method: simple, precise, unstudied, and calm, it seems in every respect the reverse of Plato's; but it has also the merit of being generally clear, except in some places where his ideas themselves were not so.[C]

In one of his treatises, Aristotle divides natural bodies into those possessing life, and those destitute of that principle,—into animate and inanimate. He considers soul as the vital energy or vivifying principle common to all organized bodies; but distinguishes in it three species. Thus, in plants there is a vegetative, in animals a vegetative and a sentient, in man a vegetative, a sentient, and a rational soul. The functions of nutrition and generation in plants and animals he attributes to the vegetative soul; sense, voluntary motion, appetite, and passion, to the sentient soul; the exercise of the intellectual faculties, to the rational soul.

His ideas of anatomy and physiology were extremely imperfect. Thus, he supposed the brain to be a cold spongy mass, adapted for collecting and exhaling the superfluous moisture, and intended for aiding the lungs and trachea in regulating the heat of the body. The heart is the seat of the vital fire, the fountain of the blood, the organ of motion, sensation, and nutrition, as well as of the passions, and the origin of the veins and nerves. The blood is confined to the veins; while the arteries containan aërial spirit; and by nerves he means tendons, nerves, and arteries,—in short, strings of all kinds, as the name implies. The heart has three cavities; in the larger animals it communicates with the windpipe, or the ramifications of the pulmonary artery receive the breath in the lungs and carry it to the heart. Respiration is performed by the expansion of the air in the lungs, by means of the internal fire, and the subsequent irruption of the external air to prevent a vacuum. Digestion is a kind of concoction or boiling, performed in the stomach, assisted by the heat of the neighbouring viscera.

It is perhaps impossible at the present day, when the investigation of nature is so much facilitated by the accumulated knowledge of ages in every department of physical science, by the commercial relations existing between countries in all parts of the globe, by a tried method of observation, experiment, and induction, and finally, by the possession of the most ingenious instruments, to form any adequate idea of the numerous difficulties under which the ancient naturalist laboured. On the other hand, he had this great advantage, that almost every thing was new; that the most simple observation correctly recorded, the most trivial phenomenon truly interpreted, became as it were his inalienable property, and was handed down to succeeding ages as a proof of his talents,—a circumstance which must have supplied a great motive to exertion.

The History of Animals is undoubtedly one of the most remarkable performances of which physical science can boast. It must not, however, be imagined that it is a work which, replete with truth and exhibiting the well-arranged results of accurateobservation and laborious investigation, is calculated to afford material aid to the modern student. To him more recent productions are the only safe guides; nor is it until he has studied them, and interrogated nature for himself, that he can derive benefit from the perusal of the treatise which we now proceed to examine.

The first book contains a brief description of the parts of which the bodies of animals are composed. The introduction consists of general propositions; of which we shall present a few of the more remarkable as a specimen.

Some parts, he observes, are simple, and divided into similar particles; while others are compound, and consist of dissimilar elements. The same parts in different animals vary in form, proportion, and other qualities; and there are many creatures which, although they have the same parts, have them in different situations. Animals differ in their mode of living, actions, and manners: thus, some reside on land, others in water; and of the latter some breathe water, others air, and some neither. Of aquatic animals, some inhabit the sea, others the rivers, lakes, or marshes. Of those which live in the sea, some are pelagic, others littoral, and others inhabit rocks. Of land-animals, some respire air, as man; others, although they live on the land and obtain their food there, do not breathe air, as wasps, bees, and other insects.

We know no animal, says he, that flies only, as the fish swims; for those which have membranous wings walk also; and bats have feet, as have seals, although imperfect. But some birds have the feet weak; in which case the defect is compensated bythe superior action of the wings, as in swallows. There are many species which both walk and swim. Animals also differ in their habits; thus, some are gregarious, others solitary,—a distinction applicable to them whether they walk, fly, or swim. Some obey a leader, others act independently; cranes and bees are of the former, ants of the latter kind. Some feed on flesh, others on fruits, while others feed indiscriminately; some have homes, others use no covering of this kind, but reside in the open air. Some burrow, as lizards and snakes; others, as the horse and the dog, live above ground. Some animals seek their food at night, others by day; some are tame, others wild; some utter sounds, others are mute, and some sing; all of them, however, sing or cry in some way at the season of pairing.

In this way he proceeds, stating briefly the various circumstances in which animals differ from each other, and in conclusion asserting that man is the only one capable of design; for, says he, although many of them have memory and docility, none but man have the faculty of reflection.

These general propositions or aphorisms are not so simple or so easily attained as one might imagine on reading them inattentively. Let any person who has a tolerably comprehensive idea of the series of animated beings reflect a little, and he will perceive, that such as the following must be derived from the observation of a great number of facts:—Those parts which seize the food, and into which it is received, are found in all animals. The sense of touch is the only one common to all. Every living creature has a humour, blood or sanies, the loss ofwhich produces death. Every species that has wings has also feet.

In this chapter Aristotle divides animals into such as have blood, and such as have it not. Of the former (the red-blooded) some want feet, others have two of these organs, and others four. Of the latter (the white-blooded) many have more than four feet. Of the swimming-animals, which are destitute of feet, some have fins, which are two or four; others none. Of the cartilaginous class, those which are flat have no fins, as the skate. Some of them have feet, as the mollusca. Those which have a hard leathery covering swim with their tail. Again, some animals are viviparous, others produce eggs, some worms. Man, the horse, the seal, and other land-animals, bring forth their young alive; as do the cetacea and sharks. Those which have blow-holes have no gills, as the dolphin and whale. In this department, the observations of the great philosopher are often minute, and generally accurate, although usually too aphoristic and unconnected to be of much use to the student.

Of flying-animals, some, as the eagle and hawk, have wings; others, in place of wings, have membranes, as the bee and the beetle; others a leathery expansion, as the bat. Those which have feathered or leathery wings are blooded (red-blooded); but those which have membranous wings, as insects, are bloodless (white-blooded). Those which fly with wings or with leathery expansions, either have two feet or none; for, says he, it is reported that there are serpents of this kind in Ethiopia. Of the flying bloodless animals, some have their wings covered by a sheath, as beetles; others have no covering,and of these some have two, others four wings. Those which are of large size, or bear a sting behind, have four; but the smaller and stingless, two only. Those which have sheaths to their wings, have no sting; but those which have two wings are furnished with a sting in their fore part, as the gnat.

Animals are distinguished from each other, so as to form kinds or families. These, according to our author, are quadrupeds, birds, fishes, cetacea, all which he says have (red) blood. There is another kind, covered with a shell, such as the oyster; and another, protected by a softer shell, such as the crab. Another kind is that of the mollusca, such as the cuttlefish; and lastly, the family of insects. All these are destitute of (red) blood.

Here, then, we have a general classification of animals, which it is important to notice, as we may have occasion afterwards to compare it with arrangements proposed by other naturalists. It may be reduced to the following form:—

Red-blooded Animals.Quadrupeds,Serpents,Birds,Fishes,Cetacea.White-blooded Animals.Testacea,Crustacea,Mollusca,Insects.

Red-blooded Animals.

Quadrupeds,Serpents,Birds,Fishes,Cetacea.

White-blooded Animals.

Testacea,Crustacea,Mollusca,Insects.

It must, however, be understood, that Aristotle proposes no formal distribution of animals, and that his ideas respecting families, groups, or genera, such as those of our present naturalists, are extremely vague.

His quadrupeds include the mammalia and the quadrupedal reptiles. He divides them into those which are viviparous, and those which are oviparous; the former covered with hair, the latter withscales. Serpents are also scaly, and, excepting the viper, oviparous. Yet all viviparous animals are not hairy; for some fishes, he remarks, likewise bring forth their young alive. In the great family of viviparous quadrupeds also, he says, there are many species (or genera), as man, the lion, the stag, and the dog. He then mentions, as an example of a natural genus, those which have a mane, as the horse, the ass, the mule, and the wild-ass of Syria, which are severally distinct species, but together constitute a genus or family.

This introduction to the History of Animals the philosopher seems to have intended, less as a summary of his general views respecting their organization and habits, than as a popular exordium, calculated to engage the attention of the reader, and excite him to the study of nature. Whatever errors it may contain, and however much it may be deficient in strictly methodical arrangement, it is yet obviously the result of extensive, and frequently accurate observation. He then proceeds to the description of the different parts of the human body, first treating of what anatomists call the great regions, and the exterior generally, and then passing to the internal organization. His descriptions in general are vague, and often incorrect. As an example, we may translate the passage that refers to the ear.

This organ, he says, is that part of the head by which we hear; but we do not respire by it, for Alcmeon's opinion, that goats respire by the ears, is incorrect. One part of it has no name, the other is called lobos; it consists entirely of cartilage and flesh. The internal region is like a spiral shell, resemblingan auricle at the extremity of the bone, into which as into a vessel the sound passes. Nor is there any passage from it to the brain, but to the palate; and a vein stretches from the brain to it. But the eyes belong to the brain, and each is placed upon a small vein. Every animal that has ears moves them, excepting man; for of those which are furnished with the sense of hearing, some have ears, others none, but an open passage; of which kind are feathered animals, and all that are covered with a scaly skin. But those which are viviparous, the seal, the dolphin, and other cetacea excepted, have external ears, as well as the viviparous cartilaginous animals. The seal has a manifest passage for hearing; but the dolphin, although it hears, yet has no ears. The ears are situated at the same level as the eyes, but not higher, as in certain quadrupeds. The ears of some persons are smooth, of others rough, or partly so; but this furnishes no indication of disposition. They are also large, small, or of moderate size, projecting, or flat, or intermediate. The latter circumstance indicates the best disposition. Large and projecting ears are indicative of a fool and babbler.

From this passage we perceive that Aristotle was acquainted with the Eustachian tube; although his anatomical knowledge of the ear is certainly of the most superficial kind, and his physiognomical notions respecting it sufficiently ludicrous. He divides the body into head, neck, trunk, arms, and legs, much as we do at the present day. The head consists of the calvaria, or part covered with hair, which is divided into three regions, the bregma or fore part, the crown, and the occiput. Under the bregma is the brain; but the back part of thehead is empty. When speaking of the face, he remarks, that persons having a large forehead are of slow intellect, that smallness of that part indicates fickleness, great breadth stupidity, and roundness irascibility. The physiognomists of our day have a different opinion. The neck contains the spine, the gullet, and the arteria (or windpipe). The trunk consists of the breast, the belly, &c.;—and in this manner he passes over the different external regions.

In describing the brain, he states that all red-blooded animals have that organ, as have also the mollusca, and that in man it is largest and most humid. He had observed its two membranes, as well as the hemispheres and cerebellum; but he asserts that it is bloodless, that no veins exist in it, and that it is naturally cold to the touch. He was ignorant of the distribution of the nerves, was not aware that the arteries contain blood, imagined that the heart being connected with the windpipe is inflated through it, and, in a word, manifests extreme ignorance of every thing that relates to the internal organization.

Judging from this specimen, the reader may suspect that his time would not be profitably employed in separating the few particles of wheat from the great mass of chaff which the writings of Aristotle present to us. Nor must it be concealed that the modern naturalist does not consult his volumes for information, but merely to gratify curiosity. There is to be found, indeed, in the most imperfect of our elementary works on anatomy, whether human or comparative, more knowledge than was probably contained in the Alexandrian library.

In his second book, he treats more particularly ofanimals. At its commencement we unfortunately meet with a stumbling-block, in the shape of an assertion, that the neck of the lion has no vertebræ, but consists of a single bone. In speaking of limbs, he takes occasion to describe the proboscis of the elephant, and to enter generally into the history of that gigantic quadruped. He then speaks with reference to the distribution of hair, remarking, that the hair of the human head is longer than that of any other animal; that some are covered all over with long hair, as the bear; others on the neck only, as the lion; and others only along the back of the neck, as the horse and the bonasus. He describes the buffalo and the camel; of the latter of which he mentions the two species, the Arabian and the Bactrian. The subject of claws, hoofs, and horns, is next discussed. He states that some quadrupeds have many toes, as the lion; while others have the foot divided into two, as the sheep; and others again have a single toe or hoof, as the horse. His aphorisms on the subject of horns are in general correct. Thus, he states that most creatures furnished with them have cloven hoofs, and that no single-hoofed animal has two horns.

He then proceeds to speak of teeth, which he says are possessed by all viviparous quadrupeds. Some have them in both jaws, others not; for horned animals have teeth in the lower jaw only, the front ones being wanting in the upper. Yet all animals which have no teeth above are not horned; the camel, for example. Some have projecting teeth, as the boar; others not. In some they are jagged, as in the lion, panther, and dog; in others even, as in the horse and cow. No animal has horns and protrudedteeth; nor is there any having jagged teeth that has either horns or projecting teeth. The greater part have the front teeth sharp, and those behind broad; but the seal has them all jagged for it partakes of the nature of fishes, which have that peculiarity. His remarks on the shedding of the teeth are in general erroneous. The elephant, he says, has four grinders, together with two others, the latter of which are of great size and bent upwards in the male, but small and directed the contrary way in the female. This circumstance Cuvier states to be correct with respect to the African variety, although the case is different in the Asiatic. His account of the hippopotamus, however, is inaccurate in almost every particular. Thus, he says it has a mane like a horse, cloven feet like an ox, and is of the size of an ass,—a description which answers better to the gnu. In speaking of monkeys, of which he mentions several kinds, he remarks their resemblance to the human species, and the peculiar formation of their hind feet, which may be used as hands.

He then gives a general account of the oviparous quadrupeds, particularly of the Egyptian crocodile and the chameleon, concerning which he relates many interesting circumstances.

In treating of birds, he remarks that they are bipedal, like man, destitute of anterior limbs, but furnished with wings, and having a peculiar formation in the legs. Those birds which have hooked claws, he says, have the breast more robust than others. He then describes the differences in the structure of their feet; remarking, that most of them have three toes before and one behind, although a few, as the wryneck, have two only before. Birds,he adds, have the place of lips and teeth supplied by a bill; and instead of external ears and nostrils properly so called, they have passages for hearing and smelling in different parts of the head. The eyes have no lashes, but are furnished with a membrane like lizards. The other remarkable peculiarities, such as the feathers and the form of the tongue, are then mentioned. No birds, he observes, that have hooked claws are furnished with spurs. In his remarks on this family he is generally correct; though here, as elsewhere, he is not merely brief, but vague and superficial. His division of birds would seem to be the following:—Those with hooked claws; those with separated toes; and such as are web-footed.

Fishes are next discussed with nearly equal brevity. He remarks, that they have a peculiar elongated form, are destitute of mammæ, emit by their gills the water received at the mouth, swim by means of fins, are generally covered with scales, and are destitute of the organs of hearing and smelling.

His description of the internal parts of these tribes of animals contains a mixture of truth and error. This book terminates with remarks on the structure of serpents.

The third commences with observations on those parts of animals which are homogeneous, such as the blood, the fibres, the veins, the nerves, and the hair. Under the general title of nerve, he confounds the columnæ carneæ of the heart, the tendons and fasciæ; and it does not appear that he had any idea of what modern anatomists call nerves. In speaking of hair, he remarks that it grows in sick persons, especially those labouring under consumption, in old people, and even in dead bodies. The sameremark applies to the nails. The blood is contained in the veins and heart, is, like the brain, insensible, flows from a wound in any part of the flesh, has a sweet taste and a red colour, coagulates in the air, palpitates in the veins, and when vitiated is productive of disease. On the subject of milk, his observations deserve attention. Thus, he says that all viviparous animals which have hair are furnished with mammæ, as are also the whale and the dolphin; but those which are oviparous are not so provided. All milk has a watery fluid, called serum, and a thick part, called cheese; while that produced by animals which are destitute of fore teeth in the upper jaw coagulates. On this subject he mentions some curious circumstances. Some kinds of food occasion the appearance of a little milk in women who are not pregnant. There have even been instances of it flowing from the breasts of elderly females. The shepherds about Mount Œta rub the udders of unimpregnated goats with nettles, and thus obtain abundance of milk from them. It sometimes happens that male animals secrete the same fluid; thus, there was a he-goat in the island of Lemnos, which yielded so much that small cheeses were made of it. A little may be pressed from the breasts of some men after the age of puberty; and there have been individuals who on being sucked have yielded a large quantity. Instances of this have been recorded by other observers; and Humboldt met with a similar case in South America.[D]

In the fourth book, Aristotle treats of the animalswhich are destitute of red blood. Of these, he says there are several genera: the mollusca, such as the cuttlefish, which is externally soft with an internal firm part; the crustacea, internally soft and covered with a firm integument, such as the crab; the testacea, internally soft and externally hard and solid, as the limpet and oyster. The insects form the fourth genus; and are distinguished by their being externally and internally formed of a hardish or cartilaginous substance, and divided into segments; some of them having wings, as the wasp; while others have none, as the centipede. He then gives a pretty full account of the cuttlefish and nautilus, treats of the crustaceous animals generally, and enters into details respecting the other two classes. After this he enumerates the organs of sensation, stating that man, and all the red-blooded and viviparous animals, possess five senses, although in the mole vision is deficient. He describes correctly the eye of that creature, showing that it is covered by a thickish skin, but presents a conformation similar to that of other animals, and is furnished with a nerve from the brain. He shows that although fishes have no visible organs of smelling or hearing, they yet possess both senses, and, in treating of this subject, states many interesting facts relative to the mode employed in catching dolphins. He also shows that insects have the faculty of hearing and smelling. The testacea, he says, besides feeling, which is common to all animals, have smell and taste; but he also asserts that some of them, the solen and pecten, are capable of seeing, and others of hearing.

All viviparous quadrupeds not only sleep, but also dream; but whether the oviparous dream is uncertain;although it is plain that they sleep, as do the aquatic animals, fishes, mollusca, testacea, and crustacea. A transition is then made to the subject of sex, for the purpose of showing that in the mollusca, crustacea, testacea, and eels, there is no difference in that respect between individuals of the same species.

The subjects of generation and parturition occupy the fifth, sixth, and seventh books. From the comparatively large space which he has devoted to the result of his inquiries in these departments, the minuteness with which he describes the phenomena presented by them in man and the domestic animals, and the accurate knowledge which he frequently exhibits, it may be inferred that they were favourite subjects with Aristotle. It is sufficient for our purpose to mention some of the cases in which he attained the truth, and others in which he failed.

He describes the membranes with which some of the mollusca envelope their eggs, mentions the changes through which insects pass before they acquire the perfect state, and speaks with tolerable accuracy of the economy of bees and wasps. He states, however, that the former make wax from flowers, but gather their honey from a substance which falls from the air upon trees. The eggs of tortoises, he says, are hard, like those of birds, and are deposited in the ground. His remarks on those of lizards and the crocodile are also correct. He states accurately that some serpents bring forth their young enclosed in a soft membrane, which they afterwards burst; but that sometimes the little animals escape from the egg internally, and are produced free. Other serpents, he observes, bring forth eggs cohering in theform of a necklace. On the eggs of birds his observations are nearly as correct as those which we find in books at the present day. He was acquainted with their general structure, and the development of the chick, which he minutely describes. He remarks of the cuckoo, that it is not a changed hawk, as some have asserted; that, although certain persons have alleged that its young have never been seen, it yet certainly has young; that, however, it does not construct a nest, but deposites its eggs in the nest of other birds, after eating those which it finds there.

He remarks that the cartilaginous fishes are viviparous, but that the other species bring forth eggs, and states correctly that they have no alantoid membrane. He then passes to the cetacea, with which he seems to be nearly as well acquainted as modern naturalists, and reverts to the oviparous fishes, respecting which he presents numerous details. He maintains, however, that the eel is produced spontaneously, and that no person had ever detected eggs or milt in it.

Having discussed the subject of generation, he proceeds, in the eighth book, to treat of the food and actions of animals, their migrations, and other circumstances. The ninth consists of a multitude of topics without any direct relation to each other, but apparently treated as they had successively presented themselves to the author. Thus, at the commencement we find remarks on the peculiarities of disposition observed in the males and females of different animals, the combats of hostile species, the actions of animals, nidification, generation, and other matters. Several species of different classesare then described, such as the kingfisher, the black-bird, the cuckoo, the marten, eagles, owls, fishes, insects, and quadrupeds.

The fragments which remain of Aristotle's History of Animals may, perhaps, be considered as presenting the general views which he had intended to precede his more particular descriptions; but, regarded even in this light, it cannot be denied that they are extremely deficient in method. There is in them no approach to a regular classification, we do not say of animals, but of subjects to be discussed. He is continually making abrupt transitions, seems to lose sight of the object more immediately in view, to indulge in digressions foreign to it, and frequently repeats a circumstance which he had related before. His work resembles the rude notes which an author makes previous to the final arrangement of his book; and such it may possibly have been. Of descriptions, properly so called, there are few,—those of the elephant, the camel, the bonasus, the crocodile, the chameleon, the cuckoo, the cuttlefish, and a few others, being all that we find.

It may appear strange, that the statements of naturalists should so frequently prove incorrect. In how many works, even of the present day, are errors to be discovered, which might have been avoided by a proper use of the organs of vision, and a resolution to take nothing on trust! But it is much easier to employ the imperfect remarks of others, to collect from books, compare and arrange, than to seek or make opportunities of observation for one's self; and of so little consequence do some men hold the actual inspection of natural objects, that,without practising it to any extent, they nevertheless arrogate to themselves the title of philosophical inquirers.

In fine, the observations of Aristotle, considering the period at which he lived, and the proneness of the human intellect to wander from the true path, are remarkable for the great proportion of truth which they present to us. Whatever may be their actual merits, they are certainly superior to those of any other naturalist whose works have come down to us from the remote ages of classical antiquity; and we may take leave of this distinguished man by observing, in the words of Dr Barclay, that, "notwithstanding his many imperfections, he did much both for anatomy and natural history, and more, perhaps, than any other of the human species, excepting such as a Haller or Linnæus, could have accomplished in similar circumstances."

The best edition of his History of Animals ([Greek: Peri Zôôn Historia]), is that of Schneider, in 4 vols 8vo, which issued from the press at Leipsic in 1811. Many editions of his works have been published; but the most complete is said to be Sylburge's, printed at Frankfort, containing,—Organon, 1585; Rhetorica et Poetica, 1584; Ethica ad Nicomachum, 1584; Ethica Magna, &c. 1584; Politica et Œconomica, 1587; Animalium Historia, 1587; De Animalium Partibus, &c. 1585; Physicæ Auscultationis, lib. viii. et Alia Opera, 1596; De Cœlo, lib. iv.; De Generatione et Conceptione; De Meteoris, lib. iv.; De Mundo; De Anima; Parva Naturalia; Varia Opuscula, 1587; Alexandri et Cassii Problemata, 1585; Aristotelis et Theophrasti Metaphysica, 1585.

Back to Index Next