PREFA CE .

ARISTOTLE ’

S researches in Natural Science are set forthin a series of his works

,some ofwhich have already received

a great deal of attention,while the rest have been much

neglected . Translations , with or without explanatory notes ,of all these works have been produced in English

, French ,German

,or Latin , and separate treatises or papers discuss

ing Aristotle ’ s researches in one or more branches of NaturalScience have been published from time to time . Amongsuch treatises and papers may be mentioned J . Muller ’ s

Uber den g la t ten Ha i des Ar i stote les, (t a , Berlin , 1842a folio volume with six plates , relating , in part , to theplacental cartilaginous fishes of Aristotle ; J . B . Meyer ’ sA r i stote les Thi erkun de , E in Bei tr a g zur Geschi chte der

Zoologi e , Physiologi e , a n d a lten Phi losophi e , Berlin , 1855 ;H. Aubert ’ s D ie Cepha lopoden des Ar i stote les , etc , Lepz ig ,1862 , 39 pp. ; 0 . J . Sun deva ll

’

s Di e Thi era r ten des Ar i sto

te les von den Kla ssen der Sauge thi er e , Vog e l, Repti li en

un d In sek ten , Stockholm ,1863 ; G . H. Lewes ’ Ar i sto tle : A

Chap ter from the Hi story of Sci en ce , London ,1864 ; and

Dr . J . Young ’ s paper On the Malacostraca of Aristotle ,published in The An n a ls a n d Ma ga zin e of Na tur a l Hi story ,

186 5 . There are also several works and papers which incidentally give valuable assistance in the study of Aristotle ’ sresearches in Natural Science , e .g . Cuvier and Valenciennes ’

Hi stoi r e Na tur e lle des Poi sson s, Paris , 1828—49 J . L .

Ideler ’ s Me teorologi a oe terun i Gr cecorun i c l Roni a n orurn ,

Berlin,1832 ; Spratt and Forbes

’

Tr a vels in Lyc ia , etc ,

London,1847 Hoffman and Jordan ’ s Catalogue of the

F ishes of Greece , with Notes on the Names now in Use ,

and those Employed by Classical Authors ,” published in the

Pr oceedin gs of the Aca demy of Sci en ces of Phi la de lphi a ,

for 1892 ; D’

A . W . Thompson ’ s Glossa ry of Gr eek B i rds ,Oxford , 1895 ; and T . Gi ll ’ s Parental Care among Freshwater F ishes , published in the An nua l Repor t of the

Smi thson i a n In sti tu tion , Washington , 1906 .

iv PREFACE.

A consideration of these and many other simi lar publ ications seems to show that a single work , r e-examiningAristotle ’ s statements , as far as possible by fir st-handinvestigations

,and util iz ing the results attained by the

above-mentioned and other scholars,would fi ll a gap in

Ari stotel ian l iterature . The present work i s intended todo this

,and represents the nature and value of Ari stotle ’ s

researches in subj ects now considered to belong to physicalastronomy

,meteorology , physical geography , physics ,

chemistry , geology , botany , anatomy , physiology , embryology

,and zoology . In those parts of the work relating

to his anatomical , embryological , and zoological researches ,I have tested hi s statements

,whenever possible

,by means

of actual dissections of the parts of, and observations on ,the animals to which he seems to refer .Throughout this work ful l references are given to all

passages from ancient and modern writers cited . It i shoped that these references wi ll be sufficient to enable thereader to form his own estimate of the statements made orOpinions expressed in the course of the work .

As the various Greek texts present differences in methodof division as wel l as in reading

,i t i s necessary to state that

the numerous references to Ari stot le ’ s works are to thefol lowing Greek texts z— Schneider ’ s edition of the Hi storyof An ima ls, Aubert and Wimmer

’ s edit ion of the Gen er ation of An ima ls, the Teub n e r ian editions of the Pa r ts ofAn ima ls , Pa rva Na tur a li a , De An ima ,

De 00910 , and DeGen er a ti on e e t Cor ruption e , and , with very few exceptions ,Didot

’

s editions of the remaining works . The r eferencesto Aristotel ian treati ses , e .g . the De P la n ti s, not usuallyconsidered to have been written by Aristotle , are to Didot

’

s

editions .The abbreviat ions H.A . , P .A . , and G.A .

,have been used

frequently to denote Ari stotle ’ s Hi story of An ima ls, Pa r tsofAn ima ls, and Gen er a tion ofAn ima ls , respective ly .

It should be understood that the identifications ofanimals , attempted in various parts of the work , are notnecessari ly complete , e .g . Apous or Kypse llos (see p . 245)probably included other birds besides the swift and housemartin , and Tigr i s (see p . 257) included other wi ld animalsbe sides the tiger of western India . This i s evident frompassages in Ar r ia n ’

s Hi stor i a In di ca , c . 1 5 , ss . 1 and 3 ,which read : Ne ar chus says that he has seen a t iger

’

s

sk in , but not a real tiger . and that every on e of the

PREFACE .

animals which we see and call ‘ tigers ’ are jackals ,speckled an d larger than common jackals . ”

Except in a few cases , e .g . that of the Hippe laphos,pp . 253—4 ,

no attempt has been made to consider thepossibil ity of identifying Aristotle ’ s animals wi th thosewhich may reasonably be assumed to have been unknownto the An cients .

A few words about the illustrative drawings may notbe out of place . Of these , F ig . 3 i s of a different kind fromthe rest . It is drawn according to specific directions givenin Aristotle ’ s Me teorology , and probably agrees with adrawing forming part of Aristotle ’ s original MS . Thereare no drawings in th e Greek texts , but in man y passagesthere are clear references to drawin gs .My thanks are due to Mr . A . R . Wright

,Hon . Editor of

Folk-Lor e , for reading the MS . an d proof , and for information chiefly relating to popular beliefs recorded by Aristotle ;to Mr . F . W . Dunn , B .A . , B .Sc .

,for readin g a large part of

the MS ; to Mr . F . J . Cheshire , Lecturer in Physics atB irkbeck College

,and Mr . R . J . Sowter , B .Sc . , for reading

all parts of the MS. and proof of Chapters i i i . and iv .

relating to phen omena of light,heat

,and sound ; to Mr .

F . Gossling , B .So , for reading the proof of Chapters v . andvi . ; and to my son

,Mr . P . E . Lones

,for reading those

parts of the MS . and proof of Chapters V111 —x1v relatingto human anatomy and physiology .

T . E . L .

DUDLEY HOUSE ,

KINGS LANGLEY,HERTS .

CONTENTS .

CHAPTER

I .

—INTRODUCTORY

II .

-ARISTOTLE ’

S METHOD OF INVESTIGATINGTHE NATURAL SCIENCES

III .

—CELESTIAL ,ATMOSPHERIC , AND TERRES

TRIAL PHENOMENA

IV .

— PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR , HEATAND SOUND

-V .

— DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS , PLANTS,AND INANIMATE MATTER

“VL— CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS , PLANTS, AND

INANIMATE MATTER

VII .

— ON PLANTS

-VIII .

-THE PROBABLE NATURE AND EXTENT OF

ARISTOTLE ’

S DISSECTIONS

IX .

— ARISTOTLE ’

S HOM(E OMERIA

X.—ARISTOTLE

’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA THEIRFUNCTIONS

XI .

— ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMcEOMERIA AND THEIRFUNCTIONS (con tinued)

XII .

— ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA AND THEIRFUNCTIONS (con ti nued)

viii CONTENTS.

CHAPTER PAGE

XIII — ANIMAL MOTION

XIV .

— GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT

XV .

— CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS

XVI .

— ARISTOTLE ’

S ANAIMA , OR AN IMALS W ITHOUT BLOOD

XVII .

— ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA , OR ANIMALS WITHBLOOD

XVIII .

— ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA , OR ANIMALS WITH

BLOOD (con tinued)

ILLUSTRATIVE DRAWINGS .

FIG . 1 .— APPEARANCE OF RAINBOW S , AS SEEN AT ATHENS .

2 ,— ARRANGEMENT OF THE COLOURS OF RAINBOW S , ACCORD

ING TO ARISTOTLE .

3 .— ARISTOTLE ’

S COMPASS .

4 .— GRADATION FROM INANIMATE MATTER THROUGH LOWER

TO HIGHER FORMS OF LIFE .

5 .-ARISTOTLE ’

S ELEMENTS AND THEIR RELATIONS .

6 .—LEFT ASTRAGALUS OF A SHEEP

7 .— BONES FROM THE HEART OF A THREE-YEAR OLD Ox.

8 .— HEART AND BLOOD-VESSELS , ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE .

9 .— EGG OPENED AFTER EIGHT DAr s

’ INCUBATION.

10.- CHICK REMOVED FROM EGG AFTER TEN DAYs

’ INCUBATION .

CHAPTER I .

INTRODUCT ORY.

AMONG all the works which have come“323g

"

69:

°f down to us from the An cien ts,few have

Works. exercised a greater in fluen ce on the humanmin d than those of Aristotle . The nature

and exten t Of this in fluence have varied greatly durin g thepast two thousand years

,but ardent studen ts of the Aristo

telian treatises have at all times been found at most of thegreat seats of learning

, an d Alexandria,Cordova , Paris ,

Oxford , Padua , Pisa , and Cologne have been specially dist in guish ed for their Aristotelian studies .

From the very first Aristotle ’ s teaching and Writingsengaged the atten tion of scholars

,and his method of reason

in g and peculiar style of writing were imitated by man y ofthem . At a later time his writings were used as author ita t ive sources of information by man y Greek an d Latinauthors , and among the many Arabs who studied hiswritings and did much to preserve them and exten d theirinfluence , Avicenna and Averroes may be specially ment ion ed . After the time of Averroes (1126 Aristotlewas followed with implicit confidence until the time of theReformation .

Before the time of Averroes , however , some of theAristotelian treatises were read

,mainly in consequence Of

the work of Boéth ius, and the Church encouraged thestudy of such as were useful for training the reasoningpowers . The adoption of Aristotle ’ s methods of reasoningwas followed by the adoption

,in part at least , of his system

of philosophy, an d the resulting allian ce , i f it may be so

called , between the Church and Aristotelianism became soclose that an attack on one was considered to be an attackon the other .Durin g the early part of the fourteenth century the

influence of Aristotle ’ s works appears to have reached itsgreatest development . That this influence was con sider

B

2 INTRODUCTORY.

able,Dante ’ s writings clearly prove . It i s Ari stotle to

whom he refers when he says

Th en wh en a li ttle mor e I r a ised my b row ,

I saw th e ma st e r of th e sapien t thr on g ,Se a ted amid th e philosoph i c t r a in .

Him a ll a dmir e , a ll pay h im r ever en ce

He also says that Aristotle i s most worthy of trust andobedience

,for

,just as a sword-cutler , bridle-maker , or

armourer should Obey the kn ight whose implements hemakes

,so should we obey and trust Aristotle , who teaches

us the end of human life .

’r

Not long after Dante ’ s t ime there commenced a greatchange of attitude towards Ari stotelianism , and not onlywere the Aristotel ian writings criticized adversely , butAri stotle ’ s fame , and , above all , his attempts to arrive atthe truth

,were called in question . After the Revival of

Learning thi s antagonism became very strong . Ari stotleand hi s philosophy

,as wel l as the Church

,were attacked by

the Reformers,and then by Ramus

,Patriz i

,and Gal ileo .

In Luther ’ s writings are many passages adverse to theAristotel ian philosophy . He said in one of hi s debatesthat he who wished to apply himself

,without trial or expe r i

ment , to the philosophy of Aristotle , must first becomethoroughly inefficient in the School of Christ (!ui sin e

per i cu lo oole t in A r i stote le phi losopha r i , n ecesse est,u t a n te

ben e s tu ltific e tur in Chr i s to) , and asked , in his Adver susea ecr a bi lem An ti chr i sti Bu llam,

1 520, why the very wickedphilosophy of Aristot le , in which nothing but errors wastaught , was not condemned , at l east in part (imo , cur impi i ssimum A r istote lem,

in guo n on n i si er ror es docen tur , n on

sa ltem in pa r te damn a ti s Ramus wrote bitter crit ici smsof Aristotle ’ s writings . In 1 536 he proposed as the titleof the thesis for his Degree at Paris : “Everything thatAri stotle taught i s false .

” This gave great offence to theAristotel ians , but Ramus sustained the argument so wellthat he Obtained his Degree

,and was l i censed to teach .

His talents were chiefly employed in attacking the Ari stot e lian s , and Ramism rep laced Aristotelianism in some ofthe universit ies . Patrizi (1 529—1 597) contended that theworks known under Ari stotle ’ s name were not authentic

,

and that the Ari stotel ian doctrines were false . He also

The Vi si on , Infer n o, Ca n to iv. (Ga ry’s tr an sla tion ) .

1 I l Con vivi o, iv. 0. 6 .

INTRODUCTORY .

held that Plato an d n ot Aristotle Should be con sidered to bethe ally Of the Church .

The Aristotelian writings were also assailed by me n

who worked hard to ascertain facts an d test the truth ofthe Aristotelian philosophy by experiment

,when possible .

Their attacks happened to be directed again st some of theweakest parts Of Aristotle ’ s teachin gs , especially those r e

latin g to natural philosophy , an d based main ly on abstractreason in g , a n d. to make matters worse , sometimes misin terpreted by the Aristotelian s themselves . Lon g beforethe Reformation , Roger Bacon had expressed his con

tempt for the Aristotelian s a n d their Latin t ran slation s ofAristotle ’ s works . Of Aristotle himself , he spoke highly ,an d at the en d of chap . i i i . Of part 1 of his Opus Magus , saysthat , although Aristotle did n ot arrive at the e n d of knowledge

,he set in order all parts Of philosophy . A much

more determ in ed attack was made after the Reformationby Galileo

,Lord Bacon

, a n d other experimen tali sts . On e

very direct attack by Galileo is of more than ordinaryin terest . In his Physi cs , iv . o. 8

,s . 8 ,

Aristotle says thatwhen bodies fall through var ious media the rate of fallin gdepen ds on : (1) the nature of the medium , (2) th e weightsof th e fallin g bodies

,other things bein g equal . He then deals

with these determ in in g causes,a n d

,although his reason in g

is sometimes Obscure a n d occasion ally in con sisten t , it i seviden t that he considered the velocity of a fall in g body tobe proportion al to its weight . The Aristotelian s at Pisastren uously supported this view

,and

,un able to con vince

them Of error by argument, Galileo resorted to experimen t .

He ascen ded the lean in g tower of Pisa , a n d showed thatbodies Of different weights

,dropped together from a con

ve n ien t part of the tower,struck the groun d Simultan eously .

He i s said to have used two shot,one t en times heavier

than the other . Notwi thstanding this experimen t , theAristotelians still argued again st Galileo , and would notabandon their opinion that the velocity of a fall ing bodywas proportion al to its weight . They were greatly in censedagainst Galileo , and in 1 591 he foun d it advisable to resignhis professorship at Pisa . The way in which the Aristot e lian s at Pisa defended what they believed to be the viewsof their master i s a striking proof of the great in fluence ofAristotle ’ s writings

,even as late as the end of the sixteenth

cen tury .

Lord Bacon made caustic comments on Aristotle , and

4 INTRODUCTORY .

held his followers in contempt . It has been said that LordBacon knew little Of Aristotle ’ s works first-hand , but thiswas a common fault among the scholars of his time . He

said that no W eight should be given to the fact that Ari stot le ,in some of his works

,deals with experiments , for he had

formed his conclusions before,and made experiments con

form with what.h e wished ;* and , commenting on the

fewness of the authors referred to in Aristotle ’ s works ,Lord Bacon said that Ari stotle , on whom the phi losophyof his day chiefly depended , never mentioned an authorexcept to confute and reprove h im . 1

L The chief effects Of

Lord Bacon ’ s antagonism,however , were ultimately seen

in the replacement,to a large extent , Of the Ari stotel ian

philosophy by the New or Experimental Phi losophy ,”

expounded chiefly in the Novum Org a n um.

The Aristotel ians facil itated the success of their oppon en ts by their own excessive zeal . They adopted

,to a

greater extent than Ari stotle did,the Platonic ideas about

the supreme importance of abstract Speculation , and the int e lle ctua l degradation associated w i th the work of a r t iz an sand others who provide for the common wants of mankind ;they neglected Ari stotle ’ s advice to make sure of the factsbefore trying to explain the causes ; they Often put a forcedconstruction on Aristotle ’ s words ; they went too far intheir attempts to Show that Ari stotle was infall ible . Theirposition was difficult in the fifteenth century

,when the

Revival of Learning was in progress , accompanied by agreat increase in commercial prosperity and t h e growth ofaffluence and power among the very classes Whom they pretended to despise . In later times

,when they were opposed

by men who were both scholars and experimental i sts,their

position became almost untenable . The interest taken inAristotle ’ s works became less and less until

,during the first

half of the eighteenth century,most of his writings were

very much neglected .

It is interesting to find that,during this period of

comparat ive neglect of the study Of Ari stot le,the interest

taken in his zoological works became greater perhaps thanit had ever been . Conrad Gesner , Belon of Le Mans

,

Rondelet , and others wrote large treati ses , much of thegroundwork of which was obtained from Aristotle

,and

INTRODUCTORY. 5

Francis W illughby, John Ray ,and Peter Ar tedi (whose

work on ichthyology was edited by L innaeus) were studentsof Aristotle . Gesner ’ s Hi stor i a An ima lium,

1551—87 , containing numerous extracts from and comments on Aristotle ’ sHi story of An ima ls, was the standard work on animals formany years .In the latter part of the eighteenth and early part Of

the nineteenth century there was a revival of interest inAristotle ’ s writings . This revival , effected to a large extentby the efforts of Lessing and Hegel , has not died out . On

the contrary,the interest taken in Aristotle ’s writin gs has

been steadily increasing , and the peculiar character Of thesewritings will probably cause such interest to increase stillmore

,for they represen t more fully than an y others the

highest intellectual development Of ancient Greece . Theopinions Of the philosophers who preceded h im are morefully and accurately set forth by Aristotle than by any otherwriter . He gives valuable accounts of their views , an d

discusses how far they should be accepted or rejected . He

also makes extensive additions to the knowledge obtainedfrom his predecessors , and adds the results of his ownresearches in many subjects which they had never in vestigated . It may be fairly claimed that , in his attempts toseparate and define the various branches Of learning , Aristotleestablished several new sciences

,more especially Logic ,

Rhetoric , Ethics , and Zoology . The best parts of hiswritings on these subjects have passed in to modern treatises .Large parts Of his Analytics have been absorbed in thisway . L ittle has been added by later writers to his workon rhetoric . In modern zoological works

,exceptin g most

of those describing the results of recent researches , oranimals unknown to Aristotle , many statements are madewhich recall to the mind of the Aristotelian scholar passagesin the Hi story of An ima ls or other Aristotelian treatise .It has also been contended , not always groundlessly , thatsome passages in Aristotle ’ s works anticipated severaltheories and discoveries of modern times . Among suchalleged anticipations may be mentioned the undulatorytheory Of l ight , the SO-called law of organic equivalen ts , thehectocotylus Of certain cephalopods , the nest-making habitsof some fishes , and the occurrence Of hermaphroditism insome species of Ser r a nus .

The unobtrusive , even hidden , influence of the Aristo U

telian writings is perhaps more striking . This influence is

6 INTRODUCTORY.

to be traced in the most unexpected connections . Sir Alexander Gran t t ells us that the passages in Ari stotle

’ s D e Ote lo ,

i i . 0 . 14 ,298 a ,

in which he inclines to a belief that theocean to the west OfEurope and that to the east Of Indiaare on e and the same , did much to influence the mind ofColumbus and sen d h im on his memorable voyage , and thatthey were the cause of the islands of Central America beingcalled the West In dies

,and the aborigines of North America

being called Indians . Further , there are many words andphrases which have become firmly established , althoughw ith modified meanings

,chiefly through the influence of

the Aristotelian writings . Among these words and phra sesmay be mentioned the fol lowing :

aorta essence motivecategory faculty natural historycetacea final cause physiciancoleoptera form predicamentdiptera habit principleenergy malacostraca quintessenceentelechy maxim se la ch ia

enthymeme mean between extremes syl logi smentomology metaphysics

The well-known saying,There i s nothing new under

the sun,i s several times given by Aristotle

,in equivalent

language , e . g . in hi s Me teorol . i . c . 3 , s . 4 , he says that thesame Ideas have recurred to men times without end ; and ,in hi s Poli t . vii . c . 9

,1829 6

,he expresses his belief that

discoveries a n d inven tions come easi ly to men,and have

been made over and over again by different peop les and indifferent countries .The foregoing i s but an outl ine to indicate the vast

extent to which Ari stotle ’ s writings have exercised them inds and influenced the conduct of men in many countriesand in almost every age for more than two thousand years .He has had many adverse crit ics

,but many more followers

or adm irers possessed with an enthusiasm for his philosophywhich has Often been nearly as great as that Shown by theAristotelian , Thomas Aquinas . Many Of them have writtencommentaries on some parts of his works

,especially his

E thi cs, Poli ti cs, Me taphysi cs, De An ima ,and parts of hi s

INTRODUCTORY. 7

Aristotle was born , probably in B C . 384 , atStagira , a Greek colon y near the Strymon ic

Gulf , an d about seventy mi les eastwardfrom Pella , the capital of Macedonia . His

father , Nicoma chus , was physician-in -ordinary to Amyn ta sII .

,Kin g of Macedonia . After the death of N icoma chus ,

Aristotle went to Athens , where he became a pupil ofPlato ; this importan t step was taken

,it i s gen erally

believed , when Aristotle was seventeen years Old . Platosoon formed a high opin ion Of Aristotle ’ s abilities , an d

called h im the intellect of his school . While he waswith Plato he began a controversy against Isocrates , thedistinguished rhetorician , and it i s said that Aristotle wentso far as to open a school of rhetoric in opposition toIsocrates .

Soon after Plato ’s death , B C . 347 , Aristotle left Athensan d wen t to Ata rn eus, in Mysia , where he resided with hisfriend Herm ias , despot of At a rn eus, whose niece , Pythias ,he married . In 344 Herm ias was treacherously captur ed by the Persians and put to death . It was thenunsafe for Aristotle to remain at Ata rn eus , so he escaped toMitylene .

In B C . 342 , at the request of Philip of Macedon , hebecame tutor to Philip ’ s son

,Alexan der . In consequen ce of

this Aristotle l ived in Macedon ia for seven years , an d wasgreatly honoured . On e favour granted to h im was Of soregal a character as to deserve special mention . His n ativetown had been destroyed by Philip during the O lyn thianWar

,B .C . 350—47 , and its inhabitants slain or dispersed .

After a request by Aristotle,Philip gave express orders that

Stagira Should be rebuilt,and its inhabitan ts reinstated as

far as possible .

At the death of Philip , B C . 336 , Alexander became Kingof Macedon ia , and soon afterwards completed his preparations for the invasion of Asia . Before Alexander proceededon his career Of conquest Aristotle wen t to Athens , wherethe Lyceum was assigned to h im by the State . Here heestablished his famous School , afterwards called the Peripa t e t ic .

Aristotle appears to have produced most Of his worksdurin g the time

, 335—23 , when he was at the Lyceum .

His reputation as a philosopher was high , and , as a friend

8 INTRODUCTORY .

Theophrastus,Eudemus of Rhodes (who i s believed to have

written the Eudemi a n E thi cs, and some other Ari stoteliantreatises) , a n d Cassander , son of Antipater .

It has been asserted that Alexander placed at Aristotle ’ sdisposal several thousand men to make collections of allkinds of animals for Ari stotle ’ s own use

,and that , with the

aid of materials thus provided,his renowned work , the

Hi story of An ima ls, was produced’“The truth of this

story has been doubted,partly because Macedonia was a

poor country and could not bear the expense which the collection of a vast number of animals would necessitate .

This , however , i s not a valid objection , for although Macedonia itself was poor

,Alexander Obtained vast stores Of

wealth during his campaigns in Asia . Athenaeus tells usthat , according to rumour , Ari stotle received eight hundredtalents from Alexander to enable him to finish his Hi storyof An ima ls t A passage from ZElian makes the truth ofthe matter doubtful . He says that Aristotle produced hisHi story of An ima ls with the ai d of the wealth Of Phi l ip ,and that Philip honoured Plato and TheOph r a stuS . I Thewhole question Of the supposed a id rendered to Ari stotle byPhilip or Al exander , or both , i s involved in Obscurity .

Havin g regard for the undoubted facts that Phi lip esteemedAri stotle very highly , and that Alexander was very friendlytowards him while he was hi s pupi l and for some yearsafterwards , i t i s clear that Aristotle could have Obtainedassistance from them . It is less l ikely that such assi stancewas given in later years

,because Alexander ’ s feelings to

wards him cooled by degrees,and were perhaps somewhat

hostile after the arrest , on a charge of conspiracy , of Cal li sth en e s , who was a pupi l and nominee of Aristot le servingwith Alexander in Asia .

After Alexander ’ s death , B C . 323 , Ari stotle was watchedwith suspicion at Athens , for he was considered to befriendly to the Macedonian power

,and he also had many

enemies among the fol lowers of Plato and Isocrates .Further , an incident whi ch could not fai l to give greatOffence to the Athenians and other Hellenes had occurred inB .C . 324 . At the O lympic festival in that year

,Alexander

caused a proclamation to be made that al l Greek citiesShould recall al l exi les who h ad been banished by judicialsentence . The officer who made this proclamat ion was

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

10 INTRODUCTORY.

Possessed of considerable means , enjoying the friendship Of the most powerful rulers of hi s time , occupying ahigh social posit ion

,and having great opportunit ies for pro

se cut in g his investigat ions , Ari stotle was the most fortunateof philosophers . He appears to have l ived a highly honourable life

,and no charge indicating any serious defect of

character seems to have been proved against h im . Manypassages in his works are indicative of high moral feeling .

Of his rel igious bel iefs we know very l ittle . When he refersto the gods , or Hel lenic beli efs , he does so reverently , butthese subjects appear to have been avoided by him . Althoughhi s views on the subject are not sufficiently clearly expressed

,he doe S not seem to have bel ieved in the immor

tal ity Of the soul of an individual . According to him , al lparts of the soul

,except perhaps the intel lectual soul , are

inseparable from the body .

* Man and other animalscannot participate in immortality

,yet each individual tries ,

one more and another less,to partic ipate in a kind of immor

tal ity by producing individuals l ike i tself,al l being members

of an everlasting spe c ie s iL

Antipater testifies to the effect thatAri stotle was courteousand persuasive in manner . That he was kind and considerate i s shown by the way in which he drew up his wi ll ,as i t i s given by Diogenes L a e r t ius , careful ly providing forhi s second wife He rpyllis , his daughter Pythias , his sonN icoma chus

, and his slaves . He made provision for someof his slaves , and expressly wi lled that none of his youngslaves Should be sold .

After his death there were many detractors of hi sreputation . ZElian states that Aristotle squandered hi spaternal fortune , then served in the army , and , fai l ing there ,became a seller of drugs i On e of the characters inAthenaeus says that he could narrate a great deal about thenonsense which the seller of d rugs talked

,and then gives

statements about Ari stotle agreeing with those cited abovefrom E l ian , but adds significantly that Epicurus alonespoke thus of h im , for , although Eubulide s and Ceph isodorus wrote books against h im

,neither ventured to assert

anything of this kind . § Grote tells us that Epicurus wasnot the only witness , for the same statements were made byTimaeus . O ther charges were made against Ari stotle

,but

INTRODUCTORY. 11

the mere statement of man y of these,such as that accusin g

h im of aidin g in poisonin g Alexan der,con stitutes the most

effective{refutation of them . Th e charge of aiding in

poison in g Alexan der is men tion ed by Plin y,

£6 bu t it shouldbe men t ioned , in justice to Plin y

,that he himself was a

great admirer of Aristot le , a n d that he adds that th e chargewas false and did great in justice to h im . It ca n scarcely beden ied that Alexan der died a natural death at Babylon .

Of the numerous works which have been

fifiilfi’

g

l

ffin included amon g the Aristotelian treatises ,Na tura l Scien ce .

there are some which are con sidered to havebeen written

,n ot by Aristotle but by his

pupils or followers . The determin ation of Aristotle ’ s ownworks has engaged the attention Of many scholars , and hasbeen very difficult . This question has been considered fromalmost every conceivable point of view , and , as regardsthose works dealing with subjects which may be said tobelon g to the Natural Sciences , i t i s now generally believedthat those mention ed below are gen uin e works of Aristotle .

The Greek titles and their usual Latin and English equiva len t s are given in each case .

(1) gamma) a’

mpo'

ams, Ausculta tio Na tura li s , Physics .

’

(2) mp2oz’

zpa vofi, De Goelo , On the Heavens . ’

(3) mp?y evéa sw; m l De Gen era tion e e t Corrup tion e ,

On Gen erat ion and Destruction .

’

(4) usr swpv yma, Me teor ica ,

‘Meteorology .

’

(5) u p? {6&i iowpia , De An ima li bus Hi stor i a ,History of

Animals . ’

(6) mp? Caiwv mpt'

wv, De An ima lium P a r ti bus, On the

Parts Of Animals . ’

(7) mpi Zaiwv mpfl'

a g, De An ima lium In cessu, On thePr ogressive Motion of An imals . ’

(8) mp? Il l/96779, De An ima , On the Soul or the V italPrinciple .

’

(9) mp} o

'

cvam ofig, De Respi r a tion e , On Respiration .

’

(10) mp} m i 04109117 5 1 5 De Sen su c t Sen si bi li bus ,

On Sense and Objects of Sensation .

’

(11) M p? (wri t m l 96111027 00, De Vi ta e t Mor te , On L ife andDeath .

’

9 I o o o o

(12) mp1swim; fl a t a va s t/name, De Memor i a e t Remi n i scen t/t a ,

On Memory and Reminiscence . ’

12 INTRODUCTORY .

(13) mp? b'

m/ou m i Eypnyépmm , De Somn o e t Vigi li a ,

‘

On

Sleep and Wakefulness .’

(14) mp?évvvrvw, De In somn i i s , On Dreams .’

(15) Wepi ua xpofiio'

r n'wg na i Bpaxufizo

’

rmog, De Vi tw Lon gi

ta din e e t B r evi ta te , On Length and Shortness of L i fe .

’

(16) meg? 11657 117 0; m 2 y rlpws, De Juven tu e t Sen ec tute , On

Youth and Old Age .

’

(17) fl ip? 6050 ” y svéa swg, De An ima lium Gen era tion e,‘

On

Generation of Animals .’

Nos . 9 to 16 , both inclusive , form the chief part s of theSO-called Pa rva N a tura li a .

The fol lowing are considered to be spurious , or at leastdoubtful(1) W ipi 503W mvria swg, De An ima lium Motion s,

‘

On theMotion of Animals .

’

(2) mp2xo’

m ou, D e Mun do , On the Universe .

’

(3) mp?mow/4 65m , De Color i bus , On Colours .’

(4) Wfpl (Dz/7 63V, De P la n ti s, On Plants .’

(5) 7 3! WPOfll fiMam , P roblema ta ,

‘ The Prob lems . ’

Ari stotle ’ s works,as a whole , are characteriz ed by

relevancy and methodical arrangement Of subj ect-matter ,conci seness of expression

,and simp l i city of language . Many

parts of his Hi story of An ima ls, Me teorology , Pa r ts ofAn ima ls

,Respi r a tion ,

P rogr essive ZlIotion of An ima ls, andGen er a tion of An ima ls, i llustrate these characteri st ics .They clearly Show his desire to state facts , or hi s ownOpinions , in a plain way , there being but few attempts towrite in a highly polished style .

The subject-matter of his works varies considerab ly ininterest . Many parts of the works referred to above furni shvery interesting reading

,but some parts of his works are of

very little interest and even tedious , such as , for example ,many parts of Books i i i . and iv . of his work on the Hea ven s

and Books iv . v . and vi . of the Physi cs . In his Ar i stotle ,& c .

,1864

,p . 143 , G . H. Lewes expresses an Opinion that

Aristotle ’ s Gen era tion a n d Destruc tion i s in his most wearisome style of verbal d i sputation . It may be said , however ,that some parts of thi s work are very interesting , especiallyth e numerous passages in which Ari stotle gives his views onmixture , and what may be fairly cal led chemical composition . Some passages Of his works , even where thesubject-matter i s simp le , e . g . ,

those in H. A . i i . 0 . 2 , s . 6 ,relating to the way in which the feet of camels are divided ,

INTRODUCTORY . 13

are very difficult to translate or understand, but , in most

cases , the difficulties are chiefly due to the abstruse natureof the subjects to which the passages relate .

Aristotle Often sets forth what he inten ds to discuss,and

the order in which he proposes to discuss the variousbranches of a subject , an d he often gives a valuable de scr iption and criticism of the views of other philosophers on thesubject under discussion .

Numerous in stances m ight be given Of the pertinence Ofhis style

, e . g . , cc . 1—12 Of his work on Respi r a tion ,his

description of the arrangemen t of the blood-vessels,in his

Hi story of An ima ls, i i i . cc . 2 4 , his description s of four of

his groups of animals , the Ma la hi a , Ma la hos tr a ha, Os tr a

koderma ,and En toma , in his Hi story of An ima ls , iv . cc .

1—7 , his description s of many separate animals , e . g . ,the

Chamaeleon ,the Cuckoo , the E lephant , and the Barbary

Ape , in various parts Of his Hi story of An ima ls , an d hisdescription of rainbows , primary and secondary , in hisMe teorology ,

i i i . c . 2 , ss . 3— 5 . The reader i s sometimeschecked by suddenly coming uppn a passage which has littleor no apparent conn ection w ith what precedes it

,but some

passages Of this kin d are interpolat ions , an d may be commentators ’ marginal notes which have found their way intothe texts . The apparent interpolations are rarely of anyvalue

,and are Often inaccurate .

Generally speaking , Aristotle’ s method of treating a

subject i s very different from Plato ’ s . There is certainlymuch abstract reason ing in some of his works

,but this i s

avoided in his Hi s tory of An ima ls , in man y parts Of hisother zoological works , and in many parts of his Me teoro

logy, which contain records Of a vast n umber of interestingphenomena and facts . He i s em inently practical , and isthe first to condescen d to regard the observation of thin gsthemselves as an important part of the foundation of knowledge . In some cases , where he could not or did notobserve for himself

,he seems to have relied on the state

ments of hunters,fishermen , and others . As might be

expected , some of his worst errors resulted from his adoption of these statements .Many words , some of which were recognized Greek

words before his time,are employed by Aristotle in a

special sense . Most of his assertions are made in Short ,Simple sentences , and ellipses Often occur . There are alsorepetitions Of many statements in the same or slightly

14 INTRODUCTORY .

di fferent language , e . g . ,he tells us that hi s Se la che are

cartilaginous,or that they are ovoviviparous , in many diffe

rent passages,most of hi s statements about hi s homoeo

meria in the Hi story of An ima ls are repeated in hi s Pa r tsof An ima ls , and many parts of the subject-matter of hisGen er a tion a n d Destruc tion are to be found in hi s remainingworks .

In his zoological works are many passages which the ’

context does not exp lain , and quite one-half of the animalsmentioned by h im are not described in such a way as toenable them to be identified . The reason for this i s thatin many cases the animals are mentioned merely for thepurpose of il lustrat ing general statemen t s . On the otherhand

,several passages which are not explained by their

contexts are made clear in one or more passages of the sameor a differen t work

,e . g . ,

that in his Hi s tory of An ima ls,

i . c . 5 , S . 7 , which asserts that animals walkg

ua r d i tal/L emoni s fully explained in his P rogr ession of An ima ls , 0 . 14 . Iti s necessary , in fact , to study many passages in severalof hi s treati ses

,in order to understand hi s views on most

scientific subjects,and

,i t should b e mentioned , some of

these passages are not con si stent . Two works,the Zoi ca

and An a tomi ca , to which he sometimes refers , would havethrown l ight on difficult passages in his extant zoological ‘

works . Those two works,however

,h ave not been recovered .

It has often been stated that in his zoological worksAristotle has borrowed from many writers without acknow~

ledgment . This charge seems to be substantially true,

although he specifically mentions Anaxagoras , EmpedoclesDemocritus of Abdera

, Al cmaeon , D ion ysius of Apollonia ,Herodotus , Syen n e sis of Cyprus , Polybus , and a few others .The comment made by Cuvier and V alencienn es , whenSpeaking OfAristotle ’ s work in connection with fi shes

,i s not

unfair . They say : “It i s true that,by a practice only too

common in our own time , Aristotle scarcely mentions otherauthors , except those whom he wishes to refute , and he hasbeen charged even with ingratitude to Hippocrates

,whose

name he does not mention,although he must have borrowed

from him more than On e idea . As regards the rest , we donot think that he has done much wrong to the ich thyolog ists , if any , who preceded him . The fragments preserved by Athenaeus , which we can attribute to them ,

donot Show that they treated their subject methodically orcarefully , and everything makes us bel ieve that i t was

INTRODUCTORY . 15

through Aristotle ’ s writin gs on ly that ichthyology,l ike all

other bran ches of zoology , first took the form Of aEubulide s an d others charged Aristot le with in gratitude

to Plato . This charge has been much discussed by modernwriters , and in con nection w ith it it may be said that inAristotle ’ s zoological works there are passages which

,l ike

the on e in his Hi story of An ima ls , i ii . c . 3 ,s . 2 ,

aboutthe heart being the origin of the blood-vessels

,look like

developmen ts Of statements found in Plato . Aristotle i sdeservin g Of cen sure for n ot ackn owledgin g Plato

,if he was

in debted to h im for the groundwork of such passages . Todecide whether this was so seems to be impossible

,for ,

in depen den tly of argumen ts which m ight be a dduced forsettlin g it , th e question i s complicated by the fact that forsome years Aristotle was Plato ’ s most gifted pupil

,an d the

impartin g Of ideas may not always have been from tutor topupil . In matters connected w ith the nature an d arran gemen t Of the parts of animals Plato may have been somewhat indebted to Aristot le .

Much labour has been spent by Aristotel ianTh e Orde r ofAr istot le ’s scholars In t ryIn g to de te rm1n e the r e la t 1ve

Works

ffia ling position s of Aristotle ’ s works

,a n d a con sider

ation of some of the views held on thisNa tur a l sc l e n ce °

subj ect may be Of in terest . Not on ly is th eevidence on which the in quiry rests of such a n ature that iti s difficult to estimate its true value , but the in quiry itself i scomplicated by the probability that Aristotle had more thanon e work on hand at on e a n d the same time .

It is usually con sidered that Aristotle ’ s Physics , Hea ven s,

Gen er a tion a n d Des truc tion , an d Me teorology , were writtenbefore the zoological treatises

,includin g the De An ima , an d

that these were begun soon after the Me teorology . Thereare

,in fact

,some apparently genuin e passages in the Me teoro

logy which stron gly support this view . .Th e Physi cs wasprobably written before the Hea ven s which , i t has beencomputed from the description of an occultation of Mars inBook i i . 0 . 12

,292a of that work , was written after R C . 357 .

There is also a passage in Me teorol . i i i . c . 2 , s . 9 , whichsuggests that the Me teorology was not completed before

334,for Aristotle there says that he had kn own of on ly

two instan ces Of lunar rainbows during a period of over fiftyyears

Hi st . Na t . des Poisson s , Par is, 1828—49 , vol . i . pp. 15—16 .

16 INTRODUCTORY.

The difficulty of deciding on the probable order of thezoological works

,including the De An ima , has been much

greater than that of deciding on the probable order of thePhysi cs, Hea ven s , Gen er a tion a n d Destruc tion , and Me teoro

logy ,and the difficulty was not lessened by Titz e

’

s sugge s

tion,in 1826 , that Book i . of the Pa r ts of An ima ls was

originally an introduction to the Hi story of An ima ls . It i sgenerally adm i tted that the D e An ima comes early l Il

Aristotle ’ s series Of zoological and related works , and , so itseems from the last sentence of the Progr essive Motion

of An ima ls , immediately after this last-named work . It i s

also generally adm itted that the P a rva N a tur a li a comeafter the De An ima .

With respect to the probable order of the three important works , the Hi story of An ima ls , Pa r ts of An ima ls ,and Gen er a tion of An ima ls , i t wil l be well to give the viewsof some Ari stotel ian scholars . Fur lan us of Crete bel ievedthat the Hi story of An ima ls Should precede all the otherworks by Aristotle on Schneider concluded thatthe order was Hi s tory of An ima ls

,P a r ts of An ima ls, and

Gen era tion ofAn ima ls . Pr an t l , in hi s De Ar istot . L i br .

Ordin e a tque Di spos .,& c .

,Mun ich , 1843 , p . 28 , and Titze , in

his De Ar istot . Operum Ser i e , & c . ,Leipzig and Prague , 1826 ,

pp . 58 e t seq . ,adopted a Similar order for these three works .

Valentin Rose also adopted a similar order , and wasincl ined to bel ieve that the History ofAn ima ls was probablywritten some years after the battle of Arbela , B C . 331 , orvery l ikely after the return of the veterans Of Alexander ’ sarmy

,say 326 , or not before B C . 327 , mainly on the

ground that the elephants,about which Aristotle had in for

mation , were those taken in war by the Ma cedon ian s . 1LOn

the other hand , some have held that the Pa r ts of An ima lsshould come first . Patriz i says : “I know that al l Aristot e lian s contend that the Hi story of An ima ls should precedeall the other zoological works , because they think that thephenomena are prior to and better known than their causes

,

and that we Should begin with what i s better kn own .

”

1r

Again , he expresses an Opinion that the Hi story of An ima lsShould be put in the last place

,and that al l who had put

In Li br . Ar i stot . de Pa r t . An im. Commen t . pr imus , & c . Ven ice ,1574 . Pr e fa ce , p. 11 .

‘r De Ar i stot . Li br . Ordi n e e t Auc tor . Commen t . Be rlin , 1854 ,

pp. 216 , 240, a n d 241 .

1 D iscuss. P er ipa t . , & c . Ve n ice , 1571 , p. 79a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

18 INTRODUCTORY.

of them are inconsistent,and that many , i f not all , have

been inserted by editors and others . Sti ll , the value ofthese references as evidence i s not negligible , and a carefulsearch through the zoological works does not reveal anypassage in which the Hi story ofAn ima ls i s referred to as awork in contemplation . Then there are references andindications which are more closely bound up with thecontexts and are undoubtedly genuine parts of Aristotle ’ sworks . In his An a lyt . P r ior . i . c . 30, i t i s said that thefacts relating to a subject should be ascertained before anattempt is made to reason about i t . He also proposesto consider the causes ” and generation when the animalsand their pecul iar features have been The term“causes ” i s used in a special sense for those on accountof which the parts of animals are composed and arrangedin the manner described in the Hi story of An ima lsn

L

and most of the Pa r ts of An ima ls deal s with these causesand w i th the functions of the parts . Leaving out Of consideration the question of the position of Book 1. of thePa r ts of An ima ls , i t may be concluded that Books i i . —iv .

of the Pa r ts ofAn ima ls should come later than the Hi storyof An ima ls, and that the Gen er a tion of An ima ls shouldcome later that the Pa r ts ofAn ima ls .

It i s by no means easy to arrive at a conclusion aboutthe supposed missing Introduction to the Hi s tory ofAn ima lsand the position of Book i . Of the Pa r ts ofAn ima ls . Thereason given for supposing that the Hi story of An ima ls

once had an Introduction,which has been lost or transposed

,

has never seemed to me to be sati sfactory . The characterOf that work is very different from that Ofmost of Ari stotle ’ sworks . From beginning to end he seems to be trying tostate Simple facts . An Introduction would be less neededin a work of this kind . He himself tell s us that the specialfunction of a preface or introduction i s to expla in the Obj ectOf a speech , and that an introduction is not needed whenthe nature of the subject-matter i s clear . 1

Again , i f i t i s urged that there should be an Introductionto the Hi story ofAn ima ls , there i s no need to look beyondthe first few chapters of that work . After giving a verygeneral account of the parts

,habits

,disposit ions

,modes of

reproduction , and a few other features of animals , AristotleSays : SO far , I have considered these things in outl ine , to

H. A . i . c . 6 , s . 4 ; P . A . i . cc . 1 a n d 5 . j P . A . 11. c . i . 646 a .

I Rhe tor ic , ii i c . 14 , s . 6 .

INTRODUCTORY .

serve as a foretaste of What is to follow .

” This generalaccount is an introduction , and was so regarded by J .

Barthelemy Sain t-Hi laire . Considerin g the nature Of thesubject-matter of the Hi story ofAn ima ls

,such introduction

seem s to be sufficient .The last sen ten ce of Book i . of the Pa r ts of An ima ls

reads : Le t us try to explain the causes , both general andparticular

,commencin g in the first place from first princi

ples , as we have determ in ed . Now , the first part of Bookii . of the Pa r ts ofAn ima ls commences from first principlesby describing the formation Of the so-called elemen ts

,then

the formation of Aristotle ’ s so-called homoeomeria fromthese elements

, an d n ext the formation of an homoeome r ia ,

or complex parts . Therefore , the sen ten ce in question ,if

correctly placed,indicates that Book i . should immediately

precede Book i i .There is

,however

,an other aspect of the question which

should be con sidered . Book i . of the Pa r ts ofAn ima ls i s Ofan essen tially in troductory character , and appears to havebeen in tended to form an In troduction to the zoologicalworks in general . It sets forth the followin g order of deal~in g w ith animals a n d vital phenomen a An imals as theyappear to us

,their natures an d parts , should be described ;

(2) well-defin ed groups of animals should be described together , and animals which have n ot been put into welldefin ed groups should be desc ribed separately ; and (3) partsof an imals an d actions and processes , such as progressivemotion , sleep , growth , and generation , common to groups ofan imals , should be described . Now these subjects aredescribed in the Hi story ofAn ima ls, some much more fullythan others , and the method Of treatment seems to be basedupon that laid down in Book i . of the Pa r ts of An ima ls .

Again , some works , such as those on Pr ogr essive Motion ofAn ima ls

, Respi r a tion , S leep ,& c . , Memory a n d Remin i scen ce ,

an d Gen er a tion of An ima ls , deal fully with many subjectsdescribed only in outline in the Hi story ofAn ima ls . Themethod laid down in Book i . of the Pa r ts ofAn ima ls seems ,therefore , to be followed , except as regards the causes ,

” inthe Hi story ofAn ima ls , together w ith the works referred to ,an d Book i . of the Pa r ts of An ima ls seems to be in troduc tory to Aristotle

’ s zoological works generally , as well asto the Pa r ts ofAn ima ls in particular .

H. A . i . c . 6 , s . 4 .

20 INTRODUCTORY .

On subjects so difficult as those of the order OfAristotle’

sz oological and related works , and the supposed missing Introduction to his Hi s tory of An ima ls , dogmatic op inions areout of place

,and the fol lowing statements are made with

some diffiden ce . The Hi story ofAn ima ls has an In troduct ion ending at i . c . 6 , s . 4 . Book i . Of the Pa r ts ofAn ima lswas written as an introduction to the z oological and relatedworks generally , the first to be commenced having been theHistory ofAn ima ls . During the production of this work ,i t was found to be expedient to treat more ful ly some of thesubjects , such as progressive motion

,respiration

,sleep ,

memory , and generation , in separate works , and thusAri stotle had several of his zoological and related works onhand at one and the same time . In connection with theseviews , the fact already referred to , via ,

the absence Of areference to the History of An ima ls as a work in contem

pla t ion , i s of some importance . Another important fact isthat Book vii . of that work , deal ing with the developmentand growth of man

,i s manifestly incomp lete . This indi

cates that the Hi story ofAn ima ls occupied Aristot le’ s atten

tion up to the close of his l ife .

CHAPTER II .

ARISTOTLE ’

S METHOD OF INVESTIGATINGTHE NATURAL SCIENCES .

THE basis OfAristotle ’ s method , as set out in his writings ,was the ascertainment Of facts by actual Observation ofnatural phenomena . He preferred to r e lymoni hfi gp yidencesof the senses rather than attempt toBb t a in a knowledge ofphenomena by a process Of abstract reasoning . He knewthat the senses of Sight and hearing , in particular, were lesskeen or reliable in some persons than in that sometimes the senses of touch and smell and , more rarely , thoseof sight , hearing , and taste , ar e not trustwor thyn

L and hebelieved that Man was surpassed by many animals in thekeenness of his senses , excepting those of touch and ta ste l”

Without the aid of the senses , however , he did not thinkthat anything could be learned or understood , § and he heldthat errors were due to incorrect interpretation s of theevidences of the senses which , as far as they were givingindications Of their own proper Objects Of sensat ion, werereliable , e .g .

,the tongue would be reliable if used only as an

organ of taste , and not as an organ Of touch .“His method , therefore, was very different from that of

‘

Plato , who denied that true knowledge could be based onObservations by the senses . Not only did Plato deny thatthe evidences of the senses could be relied upon , but he alsoconsidered the intellectual faculties to be enthralled andtheir efficiency impaired by association with them . Thewell-known story of the prisoners in the cave , who couldsee only the back wall of the cave and the Shadows projectedthereon by the Sun ,

towards which their backs were turn edfiT

H. A . i . cc . 8 an d 9 .

f P . A . Ii . c . 2 , 648a an d 6 De An ima , iii . c . 3 , 4286 , ii . c . 6 , 418a ,II. c . 9 , 42 l a .

I H. A . i . c . 12 , s . 4 ; P . A . ii . 0 . 16 , 660a ; De An ima , 11 . c . 9 , 421a .

De An ima , iii . c . 8 , 432a ; De S en su , et a , vi . 4456.

MDe An ima , i i . 0. 6 , 418a , i ii . c . 3 , 4276.

11 Repub lic , vii .

22 ARISTOTLE ’

S METHOD.

exemplifies Plato ’ s ideas about those who would make ohservation by the senses a groundwork of true knowledge .

The facts,of which many parts of Aristotle

’

s writingson the Natural Sciences are so full , were col lected by him toserve an important purpose in connection with his methodOf investigation . He says that the characters of animalsShould first be ascertained before any attempt i s made toexplain the and sim i larly in connection with othersubjects he rel ies on a prel iminary ascertainment of facts toserve as the groundwork for processes of inductive reasoning .

The importance of this he seems to have been the first toappreciate fully . It has even been said that the inductivemethod was due to him , but this must be accepted withsome qualification . Many thousands before his time employed that method , at least unconsciously . Ari stotle wasthe first

,however

,to lay down rules according to which

inductive reasoning should proceed,and

,still more important ,

he pointed out the value of the inductive method . To thi sextent

,at least

,the method i s Ari stotle ’ s .

Many passages might be cited to Show that he was awareof the need for Obtaining data by Observation before comingto a conclusion

,but a few wi l l be sufficient . He begins hi s

description of the reproduction of bees,in G. A . i i i . c . 10, by

pointing out how difficult the subject i s,and , after discussing

it at great length w ith the aid of observations on the habitsof bees , says that the phenomena were not sufficiently unde r stood, but that , i f ever they were to be , the evidences ofthe senses should be rel ied on rather than abstract reasoning ,but that this Shou ld be trusted

,provided its conclusions

agree with the ph en omen a . 1L Again

,speaking of possible

hermaphroditi sm in fishes , he says that no males had beenseen among the E rythr in oi , yet the females were full of products of sexual generation , but adds that he had not so far beenable to obtain any result worthy of credit on thi s subject . 1

Again , when dealing with animals general ly , he Oftenrecommends his readers to examine the facts for themselvesby dissecting the animals , and in P . A . iv . o . 5 , 680a ,

whendescribing some of the internal parts of his Ostr a koderma ,

he says that , whi le some of the parts can be clearly describedin words , there are others which should be understood froman actual inspection Of them . The thoroughness with whichhe proposed to investigate l iving beings i s set out in P . A .

P . A . i . c . 5 , 6456. f G . A . ii i . c . 10, 7606. I G. A . 11. c . 5 , 741a .

ARISTOTLE ’

S METHOD . 23

i . c . 5 , 645a . In that chapter he says that these ought tobe carefully studied , not omitting even the lowest forms Of

l ife , which , even if not attractive in themselves , ShowNature ’ s handiwork

,and afford pleasure to those who inquire

into the causes of phenomena an d are interested in philosophy . We ought not

,he says

,to turn away from an

in vestigation Of the lower animals , for every part of Naturereveals something to admire

,and , just as Heraclitus , warm

ing himself by his kitchen fire,was reported to have told

the strangers who called to see h im not to be afraid to enter ,for gods were presen t even in his humble dwell ing , soAristotle invites us to study every kin d of animal , w ithoutbeing ashamed , for all of them Show something natural andbeautiful .Then , with respect to the manner of reasoning on the

facts Obtained,Aristotle seems to proceed on principles

equally sound . He asserts that we commonly conduct aninquiry , not with reference to the question discussed , butwi th reference to the opponent who argues the questionwith us , and that , i f there is 'no opponent , we conduct theinquiry until we can satisfy our own Objections . Therefore ,he proceeds to say

,he who intends to investigate completely

any subject must take care to satisfy himself on all difficult ie s arising out of the subject

,and this can be done only

after he has examined all differences of Opinion on the subjectof in q uiry ?

24 ARISTOTLE ’

S METHOD .

many additional observations in Order to test the results atwhich he arrived . This want of appreciation of the valueof constant verification of results i s evident in many parts ofhi s works . A Simp le experiment , such as Gal i leo afterwardsmade

,on the motion of fal l ing bodies , would have caused

him to reconsider his Opinion that the velocity of a fall ingbody i s proportional to its weight . His belief that fall ingstars

,comets

,the M i lky Way , winds , earthquakes , and some

other phenomena were dependent in some way on the existen ce of a peculiar dry vapour given Offby the hadlittle else to support it besides abstract reasoning . An

examination of the Skeleton of a snake would have preventedhim from asserting that i t had thirty r ib s,

‘r and , i f he had

taken a freshwater eel , a conger , and a bass , skate , or otherlarge fish

,and had laid these open to expose the anterior

part of the al imentary canal , he would not have stated thata few fi shes

,l ike the conger and the freshwater eel

,have an

oesophagus , but that i t i s small even in these , 1 or that theoesophagus i s entirely wanting in some fishes , and is butshort in others . § He had probably noticed that

,in some

fishes , the oesophagus was short,and that i t was Often

difficult to determine where it ended and the stomach began,

but he did not carry his observat ions far enough .

The mistakes made by Aristotle have been made by manySince his time . There were some cases

,however

,in which it

would be unreasonable to expect Aristotle to succeed inarriving at the truth , even though he had made numerousobservations and otherwise carefully fol lowed the rules ofhis method . His want of success would fol low naturallyfrom the want of proper instruments of Observation , and aninevitable inabil ity to appreciate the very complicated natureOf the phenomena themselves . Consider

,for instance

,his

description , chiefly in H. A . vi . c . 3 , of the phenomena ofincubation Of a bird ’ s egg . He evidently bel ieved that theheart was the first part to be developed . His researches onthe incubation of a bird ’ s egg , however , were original , andconstitute one of the best proofs that he was a carefulobserver . Another statement , probably the result of manyobservations , may also be considered . He says that al lfishes which have scales are oviparous . ” Comparativelyrecent Observations have shown that there are many exceptions to this , yet Aristotle can scarcely be adversely criti cized

Me teorol. i . a n d i i . H.A . 11 . c . 12 , s. 12 . IH. A . ii . 0 . 12 , s. 3 .

P . A . Ii i . c . 14 , 675 a . [IH. A . i i . 0. 6 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

26 ARISTOTLE’

S METHOD .

his ground as he proceeded . He was l ik e an exp lorer of anew region

,who recogniz es i ts mounta in ranges , i ts chief

plains,it s great rivers

,and

,here and there , some minor

features which arrest hi s attention,but who must press

forward,with no Opportunity for tracing a river to its source

or ascertaining the relative posit ions and heights of thevarious peaks . While admitting the importance of Obtaininga knowledge of the phenomena by observation , he seems tohave been determined to formulate as many generalizedstatements as possible . He appears to adm i t this whenhe says that we must try to state what appears to us(7 5WWO

'

MEVOV) nor should this be considered to be of the natureof presumption , but should deserve respect , when anyone ,having to deal with matters Of very great difficulty andurged by a desire for investigating philosophy , contentshimself with sl ight data "

A further cause of fai lure,closely connected w i th

Ari stotle ’ s apparent willingness to content himself with Sl ightdata and mere approximations to the truth , deserves specialmention . It i s clear that any defect ari sing from insufficientdata would have to be remedied in some way

,and Ari stotle ,

l ike many other ancient Greek philosophers , sometimes triedto do thi s by relying on certain ideas which were treated byhim as if they were more authori tative than the data themselves . These ideas were brought forward

,often without

any apparent consideration as to whether or no they wererelevant to the question at i ssue

,and used in much the same

way as axioms and postulates are used by geometrici ans .The result was a remarkable mixture of inductive anddeductive reasoning .

The arguments which led Ari stotle to conclude that therecould not be a separate void, 1

L and that the blood of the rightchamber of the heart and of the right Side Of the body i shotter than that of the left]; furnish examples of the defectsof method caused by the use of ideas Of the kind referred toabove .

Ari stotle ’ s arguments against the existence Of a separatevoid are too long to be given in ful l

,but the following i s an

epitome of what seem to be the chief parts of them . In avoid , if this existed , a body could not be in motion , for avoid , being a mere privation Of matter

,could not present

differences of position and direction , such as above and below ,

De Cce lo, 11 . c . 12 , 2916. Physi cs , iv. 0 . 8 .

I P . A . ii . c . 2 , 648a , i ii . c . 4 , 667a .

ARISTOTLE ’

S METHOD. 27

1pwa rds and downwards , an d SO the upward an d downwardn otions natural to bodies could n ot take Again

,if

>Odies of Similar shapes pass through a medium ,such as air

>r water,then those which have a greater drivin g-force

MES— due to their heavin ess , in the case of bodies to which atownward motion i s natural , or to their lightness , in the caself bodies to which an upward motion i s natural— wi ll moven ore quickly through the same distan ce . This ought torappen also when the bodies pass through a void , buthis is impossible , for what reason i s there for the swiftern otion ? In water or other medium this happen s

,of

ourse, Since the heavier bodies , e .g . , divide the medium

mor e quickly by reason of their greater heavin ess . A

)Ody in motion divides the medium by reason of its shape>r its driving force (tor i ) , and , when there i s n o medium ,

.11 bodies ought to move with equal velocities , but thiss impossib le t Having thus argued , he says that it i slear therefore that there can n ot be a separate voidn exwpwn évov fl ex/60. 1 Without attempting to analyse thetb ove arguments any further , i t will be evident that then troduct ion of ideas , such as , for in stance , that it i sIe ce ssary to distin guish upward and downward direction s>efor e it can be said that motion is possible , that bodies havee r ta in motion s natural to them , and that the velocity of aiody depends on its Shape and on its heaviness or lightn ess ,yua lit ie s considered to be inheren t in the body , make itmpossib le to come to any correct conclusions .F inally , Aristotle

’ s conclusion that the blood Of the righthamber of the heart an d Of the right side of the body isotter than that of the left chamber or Side may have beenased

,in part

,on Observations , for he was aware of differences

f con sistency,turbidity , and temperature in the blood from

iffe ren t parts of the same animal . Observations were n otelied on , however , to any important extent in this in stance .

[ i s arguments in P . A . i i . 0 . 2 , 648a Show clearly that hison clusion that the blood of the right chamber Of the heartnd of the right side of the body is hotter than that Of theaft chamber or side followed from his idea that the rightnobler or more honourable than the left . This idea , i t

ri ll be noticed,has no necessary con nection with the ques

On Of differences of temperature of the blood in differentarts Of the body .

Physi cs, iv. c . 8 , se . 3 an d 4 . Physi cs , iv. 0 . 8 , se . 11 a n d 12 .

1 Physi cs, iv. o. 8 , s. 16 .

28 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

CHAPTER III .

CELESTIAL , ATMOSPHERIC , AND TERRESTRIAL

PHENOMENA .

ARISTOTLE’

S descriptions and exp lanat ions of these threeclasses of phenomena are such that i t i s proposed to treatof them in one and the same chapter . TO treat of themseparately would erroneously suggest a divi s ion such as henever effected . At the present time , the subject-matterdealt with in thi s chapter would be properly assigned to thesciences of astronomy , meteorology , physical geography ,and geology . Ari stotle ’ s Me teorology and his work onthe Heaven s contain , in fact , much information about theheavenly bodies

,ra inbows

,winds

,earthquakes , the sea ,

periodical changes of land and sea,and other phenomena ,

but the causes assigned for some of these,and the manner

in which they are described, Show that he did not appreciate

their true nature . Such want of appreciation may be seenfrom the facts that he considered the Mi lky Way to be dueto causes much the same as those by which he believedcomets to be produced

,that both depended on the ascent of

certain vapours from the Earth,and that ear thquakes ,

l ightning , and thunder were due to the same general causeas winds . His descriptions and explanations

, Often a ccom

pan ied by the views of other philosophers , are of historicvalue , and he records some events , such as

,for examp le ,

some appearances Of comets,changes in the distribution Of

land and sea , and volcanic eruptions and earthquak es , whichare very interesting in themselves .

Inaccurate though his explanations of phenomena oftenare , yet he shows a desire to reason out rather than to guessat the causes of such phenomena

,and

,compar ed with those

of his predecessors , his views are generally founded on muchmore carefully considered arguments .The fundamental princip les on which his arguments

were based , vie . , the formation of terrestrial matter fromfour elements , the natural motions of which were upwards

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 29

from the centre , in the cases of fire and air , and downwardstowards the centre , in the cases of earth and water , and theexistence of a fifth element , sether , having a circular motionand existing at a great distance from us

,vitiated man y Of

his results , and sometimes caused him much trouble whenattemptin g to show that his results were in accord with thephenomen a . Examples of this wi l l be seen in his explanations of falling stars and thunderbolts .Many of the problems which Aristotle sought to solve

would require the use of instruments which he did notpossess , and , without the aid of these , he could scarcely dootherwise than fail . His explanation s of celestial

,atmo

spheric , and terrestrial phenomena are often of a fan cifulnature and constitute some of his least valuable work . Someof the phenomena he records are very interestin g

,as already

stated , an d, in the following description, his records of thiskind wil l be discussed after his Opinions on the causes towhich the phenomena were due have been considered . As

far as possible , the celestial phenomena will be discussed first ,then the atmospheric

,and , finally , the terrestrial .

According to Aristotle , there i s but one Kosmos orUniverse ; i t i s spherical in form and finite in magnitude ; i tincludes all matter , and outside it there is neither place nortime ; i t was not generated , n either can it be destroyed ; i trotates to the right , and its rotation is uniform . This i s anepitomized statement of Aristotle ’ s views on the Kosmos

,as

set out at great len gth in his De Carlo, i . cc . 5—12, i i . cc . 1 ,

4 , 5 , and 6 . Being in the form Of a sphere,the Kosmos was

capable Of rotating so as to occupy the same position andspace at all times . This form was assigned to it becausethe Kosmos is necessarily perfect , and the only perfectgeometrical figure is the sphere , which Aristotle consideredto be representative of perfection , uniformity , and eternity .

He decided that the Kosmos was finite for several reasons,

one being that there could not be an infinite square,sphere

,

or other geometrical figur e ,* and he defined the in finite to

be that of which,taking any part whatever for consideration

,

there i s always something beyond , for i t i s not that beyondwhich nothing exists .

‘r He says that the infin i te exists in

driva piw, i .e . ,potentially

,but this must not be understood to

mean that the infinite will exist , in the same way as it maybe said that if a material i s capable of existing in the form

De Cce lo , i . c . 5 , 272 6 . f Physi cs, i ii . c . 6 , SS . 7 a nd 8 .

30 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

of a statue then it wi ll exist in that The infinite canexist only as an object of contemplation , but the capabil i tyof division without end gives to the potential infinite somekind of actual existen c e nL The upper parts of the Kosmosare full Of ge ther , which i s Of such a nature that it i s alwaysmoving in a circular path

,and

,being of this nature

,i t can

not have either heaviness or l ightness ; further , i t was notgenerated and could not be destroyed , being incapable ofchange

,quantitat ive or qua lita t ive i It was Of this element

that Ari stotle bel ieved the heavenly bodies to consist . § He

says that some bel i eved that the stars were of fire , but i tshould be understood that they were not , nor were theycarried round in a medium of fire . ” In his D e Ote lo ,

i i . cc .

7 and 8 ,he speaks of the Sun and Stars being fastened

(évdsdsuivos) in theHeavens . This seems at first sight difficultto understand

,suggesting as it does the necessity of sup

port ing almost incalculable masses , butAri stotle’ s assumption

,

previously referred to,that the heavenly bodies are of ee th e r

,

which has neither heaviness nor l ightness,would remove

any difficulty of this kind . His ideas about the fixing of theheavenly bodies in the Heavens were borrowed

,in part at

least,from earl i er phi losopher s , especial ly Pythagoras and

Parmenides .Beneath the higher parts of the Kosmos

,fi lled with te ther ,

was the zone , if i t may be so called , of fire,which Aristotle

supposed to be between the te ther and the air , beneathwhich were water and e a r thfi l In the z one of fire

,however

,

he contemplated the presence of a dry,earthy exhalation

,

to be referred to later , and Of air , probably in the same waythat he recognized the presence of watery vapour in the air .Having set out , so far his views on the stars and other

heavenly bodies , Aristotle s explanations of the way in whichthe heat and l ight of these bodies i s caused will be considered .

Many difficult ies ari se in the mind of anyone reading throughhis statements on this subj ect , chiefly in his De Carlo , i i . 0 . 7 ,but his explanation may be expressed as follows — Ob ser

va t ion s on the motion of missiles Show that they becomehighly heated or are even ignited , and , he adds , the air i ssimi larly affected . Since , then , heat i s produced by the

Physics, ii i. c . 6 . s . 2 .

1 De Gen er . e t Cor r . i . c . 3 , 318a Me taphys. viii . c . 6 , 1048 6.

I De Carlo, i . c . 2 , 2696, i . c . 3 , 2696 a n d 270a ; Me teor ol . i . c . 3 , s . 4 .

Me teor ol . i . c . 2 , s . 1 De 0e 0 , i i . 0 . 7 , 289a ; DeMun do, c . 2 , 392 .

MDe Cce lo, i i . 0. 7 .

‘ll Me teor ol. i . c . 3 , s . 14 ; De Carlo, i i . 0 . 4 , 287a .

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 31

friction of bodies in motion , the heavenly bodies movin g intheir respective courses still more readily cause the ignitionof the a i r beneath them , this being more of the n ature of

fire than i s any solid missile . The heavenly bodies themselves are not heated . Where the Sun happens to be fixedthe heatin g effects are intense , but , in Me teor ol . i . c . 3

,s . 21 ,

he says that the Sun , which in an especial degree seems tobe hot , appears to be white and not fiery . It has beenstated already that he did not believe that the stars were offire , nor that they were carried round in a medium of fire .

He seems to have believed that they moved in contact w iththe medium offir e or a i r within their spheres of

Such were Aristotle ’ s views . They are difficult tounderstan d , not only because they are not explain edsuffi ciently fully , but also because they are based , in part atleast , on fan ciful assumptions . It i s not clear what was thenature of the substan ce the ignition Ofwhich was caused bythe motion of the heaven ly bodies

,except that it was

intermediate between fire or flame an d air , l ike on e of thesubstances which Alexan der Simplicius , Ph ilopon us , andsome other an cient writers Identified with An aximan de r

’

s

infin ite or primitive matter . His assertion that the Sunappears to be white and not fiery is strange , and suggeststhat he had n ot seen a white-hot fir e . It wi l l be seen ,in the discussion on his views on heat phen omena , that hegreatly underestimated the intensity of heat of an ordin aryred-hot fire . Again

,Aris totle does n ot satisfactorily explain

why the heating effect i s SO in tense where the Sun happen sto be secured . In an attempt to explain this , in Me teorol .

i . c . 3 , S . 20, he says that the motion Of the Sun i s sufficientlyrapid and the Sun i s near enough to us , for the movin g bodyshould not be too far away and its motion should be rapid ,for the heat to be effective . The stars , he says , certain lymove rapidly , but are too far away , while the Moon i s nearer

,

but her motion is slow . The statemen t that the heaven lybodies are not heated would be difficult to understand wereit not for Aristotle ’ s assumption , already referred to , that theheavenly bodies are of eeth e r , which is incapable of chan ge .

According to Aristotle the stars are spherical , but theyneither rotate nor revolve of themselves , being secured inthe circles of theHeaven s , which are rota t in g t His Opinionthat the stars are spherical was also held , he says , by others :

f‘ De Cce lo , 11 . c . 4 , 287a , II. c . 7 . 289a .

1 De Cce lo , ii . 0 . 8 , 2896, a n d 290a . I De 00320 , 11. c . 8, 290a .

32 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

That the Moon is spherical i s shown , he says , by her phasesand by solar He says also that the Earth isspherical

,this being shown by ecl ip ses of the Moon , and

that geometers had calculated the circumference of the Earthto be about forty-six thousand miles i Other ph iloso

ph e r s , before Aristotle’ s time

,believed that the Earth was

spherical,e .g .

,the Pythagoreans

,according to Ze lle r . I In

Opposition to the Pythagoreans and others , he held thatthe Earth was the centre Of the Kosmos , and this conclusionwas based on his assumptions about the nature of theelements and their proper motions

,for , according to these

assumptions,motion about a centre , whether a motion of

rotation or revolution,would not be natural to the Earth or

any part of it . He decided that the E arth was at rest atthe centre of the Kosmos , and must necessari ly tend tothat position for several reasons

,one being that heavy

bodies thrown upwards,even to a great height , fal l directly

downwards to the places whence they are thrown , § for heconsidered that the E arth would act l ike any of its parts .Ari stotle ’ s belief , previously referred to , that , passing outwards from the centre , earth , water , air , and fire are arrangedabove one another in the order named

,seems to be a develop

ment of An aximan de r’

s bel i ef that the earth , the air , and anenvelope of fire , enclosing the whole , were produced bysuccessive processes of separation from his fluid primitivematter .Before proceeding further with Aristot le ’ s views on the

Earth and terrestrial phenomena,some of his statements

about certain celestial and atmospheric phenomena,such

as fal l ing stars , the Milky Way , and rainbows,wi ll be

considered .

These phenomena , according to Aristot le , have a lessOrderly arrangement than the stars and planets . ” Theexp lanations he gives to account for the format ion of fallingstars , comets , the M i lky Way , and various other kinds ofluminous and moving appearances in the sky are somewhatalike . He bases most of his exp lanations on an assumedascent of exhalations from the Earth , parts of such exhalat ions being afterwards ignited in consequence of the motionsof the upper regions of the Kosmos . The exhalations weresupposed to be Of two k inds : (1) an essentially watery vapour ,

De Carlo, 11 . c . 11 .

‘r De Carlo , 11. c . 14 , 2976 an d 298a .

I Hi story of Gr eek Phi losophy , tran sla ted b y S . F . Alleyn e , 1881 ,vol . i . p. 454 . De Cce lo , i i . 0. Me teorol. i . c . 1 , s . 2 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

34 CELESTIAL,ATMOSPHERIC , AND

star could produce a comet , as stated previously , then asimilar result would be produced beneath the vast numberof stars which are collected together in the M ilky Way .

”6

The milky appearance he considered to be due to the tai ls ,apparently coalesced

,of the numerous comets or comet-l ike

effects thus produced .

’r

Amid all these fanciful explanations , i t i s quite clearthat Ari stotle fully appreciated one fact , viz . , the existenceof numerous stars

,many of large size , in the M i lky Way .

He explains the views of other philosophers , viz .

, thePythagoreans

,who bel ieved that the M ilky Way was the

path Of the p lanets , Anaxagoras and Democritus , who heldthat it was the l ight of certain stars , which , hidden from theSun by the E arth , shone with a l ight of their own so as toproduce a milky aspect

,and some phi losophers who con

side r ed the M i lky Way to be caused by reflection . This,

he says,was nearly all that had been said by others on thi s

sub je ct iRainbows and what he calls halos , parhel ia , and rods or

streaks of l ight are , Aristotle says , all caused by a n a k la si s . §An a hla si s means a bending or breaking aside , and , as usedby Ari stotle in hi s statements about l ight , a reflection .

It i s not clear that all Aristotle ’ s statements about halosr elate to the phenomena now called by that name , but mostOf them seem to do so . Halos , white and coloured , havebeen seen about the Sun , the Moon , and the planet Venus ,when these celestial bodies were shining through cirrus orl ike clouds . These clouds are now bel ieved to contain vastnumbers of i ce crystals , which act l ike pri sms . Thosecrystals which send the maximum amount of l ight to theeye of the Observer form a circular ring , and the effect ofrefraction by these i s to produce

,in the case Of a coloured

halo , a circular spectrum-band with the red on the innerside and not on the outer , as in a primary ra inbow .

Aristotle ’ s exp lanation Of the way in which a halo isproduced has a superficial resemblance to the above

,but he

considers that it i s formed when the l ight of the Sun ,the

Moon , or a bright star or planet , shines through a uniform lymoist cloud and is reflected by a circular ring of wateryparticles which form part Of the cloud , and act l ike so manysmall mirrors ] He says that the ra inbow and the halo

Me teor ol . i . c . 8 , SS . 11 to 13 . f I bi d . i . c . 8 , S . 20.

1 I b id. i . c . 8 , SS . 4 a n d 10. Ibi d. iii . c . 2 , S . 7 .

Ibid. iii . c . 2, s . 2 , c . 3 , SS. 2 , a n d 7 to 9 .

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA . 35

difie r in the design (mmw’

a ) Of their colours ,* but he does notexplain in what way they differ , so that it can not be saidthat he was aware Of the differen ce between the arrangemen tsof the colours , previously referred to , of a primary rain bowand a coloured halo . In Me teorol . i i i . c . 3 , SS . 10 an d 11

,

when dealin g with the colours Of solar halos,he says that

the m irrors , although severally invisible on account of theirsmallness , are contiguous and form on e rin g in which theSun is reflected so that a whiteness of the halo is eviden t .He states correctly that halos are less frequently seen aboutthe Sun than about the Moon . 1

L

Aristotle refers , in several passages , to parhelia or mocksun s , but some Of his statements about them are incorrect .L ike halos

,in association with which they are sometimes

seen , parhelia are caused by refraction of sun light shin in gthrough a cirrus or like cloud con tain in g min ute ice crystals .The parhelia usually occur to the right and left of the Sun ,

at a distance of about 220 therefrom . Aristotle says thatparhelia are due to reflection Of the visual rays from something to the Sun , 1 and , it seems , from Me teorol. i i i . c . 6 , s . 5 ,that this something is a dense mist or cloud , the wateryvapour of which is in the act of condensing into raindropsand so uniformly constituted as to form , in effect , an evenmirror reflecting an image of an d of the same colour as theSun ,

the reflection being compared with that which takesplace at the surface of polished bronze .

He was aware that the appearance of a parhelion wasan indication of unsettled weather . § Parhelia are produced ,according to Aristotle , to the right and left of the Sun , andneither above it nor below it , and he adds correctly thatthey are not formed very close to the Sun nor very faraway . ”The appearance and mode of formation of cer tain streaks

of coloured light,which Aristotle calls rods ” are

described by him,but his descriptions are difficult to under

stand . The streaks Of light are probably those which areseen among clouds at sunrise and sunset , producing themagnificent colour effects , which are so well known .

Aristotle says that the “rods usually appear aboutsunrise and sunset

,and always to the right or left of the

Me teor ol. iii . c . 4 , S. 9 . I bi d . iii . c . 3 , S . 12 .

1 I b i d . iii . c . 6 , S . 1 . Ibi d . i i i . c . 6 , S . 6 .

I b i d . i ii . c . 2 , s . 6 , i ii . c . 6 , S . 7 .

36 CELESTIAL,ATMOSPHERIC , AND

Sun fi‘ It i s scarcely necessary to say that the streaks of

l ight producing colour effects at sunset and sunrise are Oftenseen above and below the Sun ,

as wel l as to the right andleft . He seems to have believed that , unlike parhel ia , the“rods were caused by reflection Of a cloud , probably awhite one

,in certain very watery clouds near the Sun . In

order to explain his meaning,he refers to the appearance of

a cloud when seen directly and when seen by reflection inwater . In the former case

,he says , the cloud i s quite

colourless,but , when seen in water , i t seems to be ful l of“rods . J

r Again , in an earlier passage , he says that thereflection of the cloud in water i s some colour of the rainbow

,for the visual rays being weakened in consequence of

the reflection , the white is changed to some colour betweenwhite and black ;r

To give a correct explanation of passages such as thesedoes not seem to be possible . The splendid colour effects ofthe Grecian seas may well have excited the imagination andgiven rise to popular bel iefs

,with which Ari stotle would be

acquainted , but the above passages seem to be the results Ofabstract reasoning . He knew nothing , of course , about thecomposite nature of white l ight

,and was obliged to make

use of some ingenious assumptions to account for colourphenomena . He assumed that minute drops of water

,

acting as mirrors , may be so small as not to reflect the formOf an obj ect , but colour only , such colour depending , inpart at least , on the siz e of the drops . He bel ieved that th erods appeared when the very watery clouds , referred toabove , varied in density and content of watery vapour , sothat the mirrors formed by the minute water drops variedin size . Under these conditions , he considered that , inaccordance with the assumptions set out above , colouredstreaks of l ight , e .g . , red or yellow ,

would be produced,for

he says The rods are due to the irregularity of themirror , not as regards form but

Aristotle ’ s explanations of rainbows,primary and second

ary , and their colours are given at great length , chiefly inMe teor ol . i i i . cc . 4 and 5 . Compared with most of hisexplanations of other natural phenomena , those of rainbowsare particularly ful l

,ingenious

,and interesting . Read in

connection , however , with the more important facts about

Me teorol. ii i . c . 2 , S . 6 , i ii . c . 6 , s . 7 . I bi d . i ii . c . 6 , ss . 1 a n d 2 .

1 Ibi d . i i i . c . 4 , S . 23 . I bi d . iii . c . 6 , SS. 3 an d 4 .

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 37

rain bows discovered long after his time by Theodor ich an d

De Dominis on the refractions by the rain drops an d r efle c

tions at their surfaces , by Descartes on the con cen tration ofthe rays Of light in particular directions , and by Newton onthe differences of refrangibility of different coloured rays ,Aristotle ’ s explanations are cumbersome and Often fanciful .It is not easy to understand his meanin g , and there areindication s in his description that he found the explanationsvery difficult . He makes several assumptions , most of themfaulty , and it is not always clear on which of these a ssumptions he relies when attemptin g to explain certain details ofthe phenomena . The follow in g is an epitome of Aristotle ’ sviews , from which the peculiarities of his explanations ,referred to above

,will be evident . It wi ll also be noticed

that he speaks of the rays of light being reflected towardsthe Object seen . V i sual rays , he says , are reflected from allsmooth surfaces

,such as those of water and air

,and such

reflection takes place from compressed air and also from airwhich is not compressed

,if the visual rays are weak

,just as

happened in the case of one man whose sight was weak , forhe always saw an image of himself in front of h im , ashe walked .

* The reflection is stron ger from water andespecially from vapour which is just being condensed intowater , for then each of its parts acts like a m irror . 1

L On

account of the extreme smallness of such mirrors , however ,colour only and not form w i ll be seen

,but the succession of

mirrors similarly situated will give a continuous band ofsimi lar colour . The same reasoning applies to all themirrors , and so a rainbow i s formed . I

Again,a rainbow i s caused by the reflection of visual

rays by a cloud to the Sun , the cloud being dark and thevisual rays havin g to extend through a lon g distance . A

bright object,however

, Shining through anything dark or inanything dark— for , he adds , it makes no difference wh ich itis— is red . In order to exemplify this , he remarks that theSun appears to be red when seen through mist or smoke ,and that the flame of a fire of green wood appears to be ofa red colour , by reason of its bein g seen min gled with alarge amount of smoke . § He says that this explains whyone of the colours of the rainbow is red . Continuin g his

5" Me teor ol. i i i . c . 4 , ss . 2 a n d 3 . I bi d . iii . c . 4 , S . 5 .

1: Ib id. iii . c . 4 , SS . 6 a n d 7 . I bid . i ii . c . 4 , SS . 9—11 .

I b id . i ii . c . 4 , S. 12 .

38 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

explanations,he introduces another idea into hi s train of

reasoning,saying that di stant Objects seem to be darker

because the visual rays fa i l to reach them , or only partiallydo so

,or because the rays are weakened by reflection .

From one or both of these causes , therefore , a bright orwhite Object may appear to be of some colour betweenwhite and black

, e . g . ,l ight red

,greenish yel low , or dark

blue,which successively approach black . If the visual

rays are strong,white would be changed to l ight red ;

if less strong,white would be changed to greenish yellow ;

and if weak,i t would be changed to dark blue . Now the

greater the periphery from which the visual rays extend tothe Sun ,

the stronger and more concentrated the rays , butthe outer periphery of the primary rainbow is the greatest ,and therefore its colour i s l ight red , which i s nearest towhite . Reasoning in the same way , i t follows that theinner part of the primary rainbow i s dark blue , and themiddle part greenish yel low .

"

Aristotle proceeds to deal with the secondary rainbowand says that thi s also has three colours , formed by r efl e ction

,the inner part of the secondary rainbow being l ight

red,the outer part dark blue , and the intermediate part

greenish yellow . His explanation Of this phenomenon ismeagre and presents many difficult ies

,but the fol lowing

seems to represent his views . The secondary rainbow hasit s colours duller than those of the primary and also ininverse order, compared with those of the primary , for thesame reason , for the vi sual rays are weaker because thereflections causing the secondary ra inbow take p lace at agreater distance than those causing the primary rainbow

,

thus causing the colours to be dull . Again,more rays

extend to the Sun from the inner part of the secondary ,which inner part i s nearest the Observer , l ike the outer partof the primary rainbow . The visual rays

,therefore

,being

more numerous and stronger at the inner periphery,i ts

colour wi ll be l ight r ed, for reasons simi lar to those givenwhen explaining the order of the co lours of the primaryrainbow , and the other colours proceeding radially outwardswi ll be greenish yellow and dark b lue . ’rIt will be evident that his exp lanations depend on some

ingenious assumptions , notably that relating to the production of colour-effects by the weakening of the visual

Me teorol. i i i , c . 4 , SS . 20 25 .‘r I bid . i ii . c . 4 , SS . 30-32 .

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 39

rays , but what will , perhaps , cause most surprise i s thathe made such a persistent attempt to explain so difficult aseries of phenomena .

Aristotle also discusses the size of the rainbow , andmakes some very interesting statements about the conditionsunder which it could be seen at Athen s . In Me teor ol. i i i .c . 2 , s . 3 , he says that the arch of the rainbow i s never greaterthan a semicircle , and in Me teor ol. i i i . c . 5 , proceeds to givea geometrical proof Of this . Aristotle ’ s statemen t i s substan t ia lly correct for an Observer on the earth ’ s surface , forthe effect of refraction in the case of the rainbow is in appr ec iab le . That the arch is sometimes greater than a semicircleis , however , well known , the arch being so when theObserver i s at some high elevation .

An error, however , occurs in Me teorol. i i i . c . 2 , S . 3,

where it is stated that , at sunset and sunrise , the circle Of

the rainbow is least but the arch is greatest,and that , when

the Sun i s high , the arch is less but the circle greater . Theexternal radius of the primary rainbow is constant , beingabout and that of the secondary rainbow is alsoconstant , being about Still , i t is clear that Aristotleattempted to make observations in a thorough manner , andit should be remembered that it was not possible to explainthe constancy of the angular dimensions of the rainbowbefore Descartes proved that a concentration of the raysoccurs in certain directions . Aristotle also says , in a passagewhich shows that he was a keen Observer , that , after theautumnal equinox and during the shorter days

,a rainbow is

possible at all hours,but

,in the summer , i t is not possible

about He probably intended this statement torefer to the appearances of rainbows at Athens . He

attempts to explain it in Me teorol. i i i . c . 5 , but his explanation is defective

,because he was not in possession of correct

data .

A straight line from the centre Of the Sun to the centreof a rainbow passes through the observer ’ s eye , and , therefore , if the Sun i s more than 54

° above the horizon , noteven the outer part of a secondary rainbow would be visibleto an Observer at the sea-level at Athens . Referring toFig . 1

, i t will be seen that , at midday , June 21st , the altitude of the Sun at Athens 90

°

(38°— 23

O

28 75°

the latitude of Athens being 38° and the in clination of the

CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

ecliptic 23° Clearly,therefore , a secondary rainbow ,

and stil l less a primary rainbow , would not be visible aboutmidday

. At the autumnal equinox (Sept . 21st) i t i s evident

FIG .

Equa t or

Da r k blue

Gree n ish-y e llow

Light, r ed

that , at midday , the altitude of the Sun at Athens i sand some part Of a secondary rainbow might be seen

,even

at midday , and part also of a primary rainbow could be seenat midday , during the shorter days Of the year . It wi ll be

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

42 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

conspicuous . Aristotle,however

,states that a lunar rainbow

seems to be quite White fif

He also refers incidentally to the formation of rainbowsin spray raised by oars from the sea , or in spray scatteredby hand away from the sun

,but he states incorrectly that ,

in these cases , the colours are more l ike those seen aboutlamps

,there being

,apparently

,not a l ight red but a purp le

COlOIl I‘ . l'

This represents the main par t of Aristotl e ’ s descriptionsOf rainbows . Many of his statements are inaccurate , as hasbeen mentioned already

,but yet none of hi s work on celes

tial , atmospheric , and terrestrial phenomena shows moreclearly the use of a careful method of inquiry . Further ,his descriptions of the way in which rainbows and theircolours are produced serve to i llustrate some of the difficultpassages on light and colour which will be considered inChapter iv .

Unlike some ancient philosopher s , Ari s totle did notbel ieve that air , when m motion , was wind , while the sameair , when condensed , was ra in . 1 He bel ieved that rainoriginates from an exhalation , essentially vaporous , andw ind from another exhalation

,essential ly dry or smoke-l ike

,

both being raised by the heat of the Sun and always assoc ia t ed together . § He was influenced by Observations showing that during dry years

,when the dry and smoke-l ike

exhalation was most abundant,winds were most frequent ,

while the vaporous exhalation was most abundant during wetyears .“Ari stotle knew that winds were due to the action of

solar heat , but beyond this his views on their productionwere untrustworthy . The action of solar heat i s to rarefyparts of the atmosphere

,and the rarefied parts ri sing

upwards are replaced,more or less violently , by colder and

heavier a ir . These processes,so well-known to result in the

occurrence of winds , do not seem to have been known toAristotle . He bel i eved that the dry

,smoke-l ike exhalation

was , as he says in various passages , the origin , nature , orsubstance of winds . L ike those of other ancient phi losophers , his ideas about the composition Of the atmospherewere very crude , and i t i s difficult to under stand what heconsidered the dry

,smok e-l ike exhalation to be , but it i s

AIe teor ol . i ii . c . 4 , s . 28 . j Ib id . i ii . c . 4 , SS . 17-19 .

1 Ibid . i i . 0 . 4 , S . 7 . I b id . ii . 0 . 4 , SS . 24 5.

ll Ib id . 11. c . 4 . s . 10.

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA . 43

probable that it was hot air mingled with humic and othereffluvia rising from the hot earth . It may be mentionedhere that , in the Aristotelian work , De Mun do, c . 4 , 394 , i ti s stated that wind is nothing else but a large quantity Of

compressed air in motion . This work was not written byAristotle .

His views on the wet or vaporous exhalation are mucheasier to understand

,and are set out at great length in

Me teorol . i . cc . 9—12 . He probably did not kn ow that watervapour is diffused throughout the atmosphere , but he givesa substantially correct explanation of the formation Of rainand clouds , for he says that the vapour raised by the Sun

’ sheat and by any other celestial source Of heat i s cooled andcondensed and descends to the earth

,and that clouds result

from a separation of watery vapour from the air . "e

Dew and hoar-frost are formed from watery vapourduring clear , calm we a ther . 1

L Hail , he says , i s ice , and isproduced most in spring and autumn

,less frequently in

summer , and seldom in winter . 1 It is formed in con se

que n ce of a rapid freezing of water separated from the air ,the freezin g being so rapid that the water is converted intoice before it reaches the ground . § The freezing is morerapid , he says , if the water i s warm before freezing comme n ce s .“Some examples of this , which Aristotle records ,will be considered in Chapter iv . Up till his own time ,Aristotle says , three different views about the causes ofearthquakes had been put for th .

‘il Accordin g to him ,

Anaxagoras believed that they were caused by the sether ofthe upper regions bursting into the under parts and hollows ofthe Democritus assumed that the Earth , alreadysaturated with water and

,in addition

,receiving quantities of

rain -water , became Sh aken th e r ebyn’iL Anaximenes believed

that the Earth was shaken by masses fall ing in , such masseshaving been broken away during a process of drying theEarth , which he assumed to be quite moist . II

Setting forth his own views on earthquakes , Ari stotlesays that the Earth Of itself i s dry , but , on account Of therains , becomes moist , SO that , being subjected to the actionof the Sun ’ s heat and its own internal heat

,a large quan t i ty

Me teorol . i . c . 9 , SS. 2 4 .

4} Ib id . i . c . 10, s . 4 .

1 Ibid. i . c . 12 , S . 1 . I bi d . i . c . 12 , SS . 13 a n d 14 .

I bi d . i . c . 12 , S . 17 . i t I bi d . i i . 0 . 7 , S . 1 .

Ibi d. ii . 0 . 7 , S . 2 . HI bi d. i i . c . 7 , s . 5 .

11 Ibi d. 11. c . 7 , s . 6 .

44 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

of a spirituous vapour (vvsb’

ua ) i s generated both without andwithin it

,and this vapour flows sometimes into and some

times out Of the Ea r thfi" To this vapour he attributescertain properties

, viz . , an excessive degree of mobility , avery rapid inherent velocity , and great tenuity and con se

quent penetrating powe r .

’r Neither water nor earth , he

says,i s a cause of earthquakes , but spirituous vapour in

motion,when that which has been given off outwards

happens to flow inwards , and , for thi s reason , earthquakesare more frequent and violent during calm weather . 1 In amore intell igible passage

,he says that earthquakes are due

to violent movements of spirituous vapour (m et/pa ) or wind

(iii/snag ) in the interior of the Earth , such vapour or windsometimes i ssuing forth l ike a hurricane . §By comparing the dates of recorded earthquak es in

Britain, France , Switzerland , and other countries , i t has

been concluded that earthquakes are more frequent in winterthan in summer . According to Ari stotle , they were morefrequent in spring and autumn , because these seasonsfavoured the generation of the spirituous vapour ; summerand winter

,on the other hand , were rather periods of rest ,

the one because of its heat , and the other because of itsfrost . ” He also concluded that earthquakes were usuallymore frequent and violent by night than by day .

’li

The violence of earthquakes , in so far as i t i s manifestedin the destruction due to them , depends in no smal l degreeon the character of the geologica l format ions of the area ofdisturbance . Ari stotle beli eved that earthquakes were moreviolent and also more frequent in districts where the landwas porous or cavernous , or where the coast was muchb rok en .

M e He instances the Hellespontine territory, Achaia ,

Si ci ly , and Euboea , where the sea appeared to flow intonarrow passages under the e ar th . i i

It has been stated already that Ari stotle ’ s views on thenatural motions Of the elements , fire , air , water , and earthsometimes caused him trouble when he attempted to showthat his explanations were in agreement with the phenomenahe tried to explain . His explanation of the phenomena oftempests , thunder , and l ightning serves as an examp le . Insome difficult passages in Me teorol . i i . c . 9 , SS . 2 and 3 , he

Me teorol . 11 . c . 8 , S. 1 .

Jr I bi d . 11. c . 8 , s. 3 .

1 Ibi d . i i . 0 . 8 , s . 4 . I b id . i i . 0 . 8 , SS. 18 an d 19 .

HI bi d . i i . 0 . 8 , ss . 11 a n d 12 . fit I bid . i i . 0 . 8 , S . 6 .

Ibi d . i i . 0 . 8 , s . 8 . H I bi d . i i . 0 . 8 , S . 9 .

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 45

seems to say that,during the formation of a cloud by the

coming together of the ascending vaporous and dryexhalations

,the upper part of the cloud

,being cooled more

rapidly than the rest,i s thicker or heavier . Wherefore , he

con cludes,thunderbolts , lightning , an d tempests , and every

thing Of this kin d , travel downwards , although heat naturallytravels Whatever amount of the dry exhalation

,

he says , i s enclosed within the clouds , during the process ofascen t an d cooling , i s separated when the clouds meet an d,being carried alon g a n d striking violently against n eighb our in g clouds , this exhalation gives rise to a shock , thenoise of which is called thun de r nL Aristotle proceeds to saythat the spi r i tuous vapour itself , which has thus beenpressed out or separated

,i s gen erally burnt with a slight or

weak burning and is what is called ligh tn in g i Here againhe fails to appreciate the in tensely hot nature of a white-hotbody , compared with that Of a red-hot body . Aristotle concluded that lightn ing was produced after both the shock an d

the accompanying thun der . He correctly states , however ,that the lightning is seen before the thunder is heard , becausesight is quicker than hearing , just as can be seen in the rowin g of triremes , for at the moment when the oars are raisedthe sound of the preceding splash of the oars is heard . §

Aristotle sums up his views on the causes of winds,

earthquakes , l ightnin g , an d thun der towards the en d Of

Me teorol. i i . 0 . 9 ,where he says that they are all essen tially

the same, viz .

,a dry exhalation which produces earthquakes

when operatin g within the Earth , win ds when Operatin gabout the surface of the Earth

,and lightning and thunder

when operating amon g the clouds .“He discusses at great length the saltness of the sea .

Some philosophers , he says , believed that the sea was produced originally in the following manner —The whole spaceabout the earth was water which

,being dried by the heat of

the Sun , gave offvapours from which winds were generated,

the residual water forming the sea . They believed,there

fore , that the sea was becoming less and less , and wouldultimately become quite dry . They were led to this conc lusion , according to Aristotle , by observing that manyplaces were drier in their time than they formerly were .“He treats with contempt the opinion of Empedocles and

Me teorol . 11. c . 9 , S. 4 . I bi d . i i . 0 . 9 , S . 5 .

1 I b i d . i i . 0 . 9 , S . 8 . I b i d . i i . c . 9 , S . 9 .

I bi d. i i . 0 . 9 , S. 21 .'.T Ibi d . i i . c . l , S . 3 , 11. c . 3 , S . 7 .

46 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

others that the sea i s a sweat of the E arth , resulting fromthe heatin g of the Earth by the Some said , accordingto Ari stotle , that , just as water percolating through ashesbecomes sal t

,so in the same way the sea was salt in con se

quen ce Of a mixture therewith of earthy sub st an ce snL Theywere Of Opinion that rivers flowing into the sea carried intoi t many earthy substances having various flavours , and , bymingling with the sea-water

,caused i t to be sa lt . I This

explanation was rejected by Ari stotle on the ground that ,i f i t were true , the rivers ought to be salt . §When giving his own views explaining why the sea i s

salt and why it remains so,Aristot le Shows very clearly that

he was aware of the vast amount of evaporation due to thesolar heat

,that i t was fresh water which was thus raised

into the atmosphere,the salt water being left behind , and

that all this fresh water ultimately condensed and descendedto the earth or the sea . He knew also that the quantitywhich descended varied in different p laces and at differentseasons

,but he clearly asserts that

,during certain definite

periods , al l the evaporated water descended again .“After making many other statements

,many of which are

uninterestin g or apparently valueless,he says that , with

respect to the cause of the saltness Of the sea , i t i s clearfrom many indications that such saltness i s due to a mixtureOf something with the Among the indicationswhich he gives , the following are worth r e c it in g z waterwhich has percolated through the wal ls of a comp letelyclosed wax vessel , immersed in the sea , i s found to be freshor potable ; (2) the thickness or density Of sea-water i s somuch greater than that of river-water that merchant ships ,similarly laden , almost sink in the former but float in thelatter at a depth convenient for sai ling and (3) eggs , evenwhen full , float in water made very salt by mixing sal inesubstances withAri stotle , having proceeded SO far , might perhaps

reasonably have been expected to conclude that the something mixed with the water of the sea was some sal inesubstance , but nowhere does he appear to do so . Thesubstance which he decided was mixed with the water wasthat pecul i ar one , the dry exhalation , referred to so Oftenalready . He says that some believed that the sea was

Me teor ol. II . c . 1 , S . 4 , 11. c . 3 , S . 12 . f I bi d. 11 . c . 1 , S . 5 .

1 I b i d . i i . 0 . 3 , s . 10. I bi d. I bi d. i i . 0 . 2 , SS. 12—14 .

‘ll I bid. i i . 0 . 3 , SS . 22 an d 35 . Ibi d. i i . 0 . 3 , SS. 35-38 .

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA .

generated from burnt earth , but that this was absurd ,although it was true that the saltness Of the sea was produced from somethin g of this kind . His own explanation ,

which is difficult to follow , seems to be that dry an d earthyexhalations were m ixed in some way with rains an d imparted a saltn ess to th em .

9K Southerly winds and the firstautumnal rains , he says , are especially salt , for the southerlywinds blow from dry and hot places an d so contain littlemoisture but a large quantity of the dry exhalation to whichthe saltness is due .

’r Aristotle had evidently noticed that

winds blowing from Africa and across the sea to Greecewere salty near the coast . That this saltness was due tothe presen ce Of particles Of salt an d fine sea spray he doesnot seem to have known . He considered it rather as aproof Of the presence of the dry exhalation to which hedecided that the saltness was due . There is a fatal Objectionto Aristotle ’ s explanation , viz . , that , if it were true , therivers also ought to be salty . Olympiodorus , who wrote acommentary on the Me teorology , deals w ith this Objectionin a fanciful way , and argues that , in order that a min glingOf the exhalation with water may take place , the waterought to be at rest and not constantly flowing like that ofrivers , and , furthermore , that the exhalation always tendstowards the sea , which is lower than the r ive r s . I

Aristotle ’ s views , or modifications of them , were generally accepted until the middle Of the seventeen th cen tury .

Boyle says that the Aristotelians of his time derived thesaltness of the sea from the strong action Of the sun ’s rayson the water , and he also says :

“But some of the champions of Aristotle ’ s Opinion are so bold as to allege experiencefor it , vouching the testimony of Scaliger to prove that thesea tastes salter at the top than at the bottom , where thewater is affirmed to be fresh . § The Aristotelians thusm isrepresented Aristotle , who distinctly asserts , in Me teorol.

i i . 0 . 2 , that the salt water sinks because Of its heaviness ,while fresh water is borne upwards . Theophrastus did notaccept Aristotle ’ s explanation

,for

,according to Olympio

dorus ,“he believed that the saltness of the sea was due toexhalations from the earthy bed of the sea .

When dealing with the phenomena of relative changes

Me teor ol. 11. c . 3 , ss . 24 a n d 25 I bi d . 11. c . 3 , SS. 26 an d 27 .

I In Me teor a Ar ist . Commen t . , edIt . J.B . Camot ius,Ven ice , 1567 ,p. 61 .

The Works of the Hon our a ble Rober t B oy le , n ew edition , Lon don ,

1772 , vol . iii . p. 765 . Op . ci t . p. 60.

48 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

of land and sea Ari stotle dissents from those philosopherswho believed that such changes were due to a continuousdiminution of the sea or to changes of the Kosmos . Itwould be absurd

,he says

,to move the Kosmos for the sake

of what are,after al l

,only smal l and temporar y changes .

They also say,he asserts

,that the sea becomes less , in

consequence of its being In process Of drying up , for moreplaces appear to be dry

b

than there used to be , but if theyhad extended the range of their Observations , they wouldhave found that

,in some cases , the sea had encroached on

the land .

*

It should be considered , he says , that these relativechanges of land and sea take place in some kind of orderand according to a kind of cycle , and that , just l ike plantsand animals

,the inner parts of the Earth have their prime

and decay,with thi s difference that , while a plant or animal ,

as a whole,has its prime and Old age , the E arth itself has

not,but on ly its pa r ts .

‘r He decided that the relative

changes took p lace through the occurrence , during a verylong period

,of seasons Of excessive rainfal l , just as , in

Greece , winter with its heavy rains occurred yearly , butthese supposed seasons of excessive rainfal l did not alwayshappen in the same regions , and might be quite local , justas the deluge Of Deucal ion took place chiefly about Dodonaand the region of the Achelous . 1 Such periodical increasein the rainfall and , consequently , in the quantity of waterflowing into the sea , caused the sea to encroach on the land ,while a diminution of rainfal l resulted in a retirement of thesea . He does not suggest that the relat ive changes Of landand sea were due to movements of the land

,although he

gives instances of some of the effects of earthquakes .Aristotle proceeds to Show , i n several eloquent passages ,

that these changes were part of the ordinary course ofNature . The Kosmos , he says , i s indestructible and yetundergoes changes

,so that it follows that the same parts Of

the Earth will not always be land or always covered by seasor rivers . § Events prove this , for the whole country of theEgyptians seems to be the work Of the Ni le , and L akeMseot is [Se a of Azov] i s in process of being silted up . ” Iti s evident , therefore , since Time fai ls not and the Universei s eternal , that neither the river Tan a is nor the N ile has

Me teoro l. i . c . 14 , SS. 17—19 .

4} I bid. i . c . 14 , SS . 2 a n d 3 .

1Ibid . i . c . 14 , SS . 20—22 . I bi d . i . c . 14 , S . 25 .

Ibi d . i . c . 14, SS . 26 a n d 29 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

50 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

metalliferous substances,except gold , are produced , contain

some earthy substance . Aristotle ’ s explanation of the production Ofmetall ic substances does not Show how the gold ,& c . ,was supposed to exist in the vaporous exhalation , but

his explanation resembles,in a crude way , one Of the modern

views of the format ion Ofmetall iferous veins by the depositionof metalliferous substances from very hot steam ascendingthrough fissures in the crust of the Earth .

At the end of Meteorol. i i i . c . 7 , Aristotle says that eachkind of mineral substance should be described separately .

It i s said that the alchemists used to refer to a work dealingwith the transmutat ion Of metals , and that they assignedthis work to Aristotle . It seems to be very unlikely thatAristotle wrote a separate work on metals or mineral substances . There appears to be nothing in Olympiodorus toshow that such a work was written . Theophrastus wrote aseparate work , entitled On S ton es, in which he practical lyaccepts Aristotle ’ s division of mineral substances and theirproduction from exhalations , but the rest Of the worksuggests very li ttle that can be traced to Aristotle

,who

,

moreover,i s not even mentioned by name .

Having described Aristotle ’ s explanations of many celestial , atmospheric , and terrestrial phenomena , it remains todescribe the most interesting parts Of his work on thesephenomena

, viz . ,his numerous records of the phenomena

themselves . In what fol lows , the records of celestialphenomena will be described fir st , then the records Of

atmospheric , and , final ly , those of ter restrial phenomena .

In the year B C . 373 , Aristotle saw a great comet whichappeared in the west on a clear , frosty evening in winter ,when Aristaeus [Asteus] was archon . It set before the sunon the first evening , but was well seen on the next evening ,although it set quickly . Its tai l extended as fa r as the Beltof Orion , and there faded away . This tai l appeared as awell-defin ed track , whence it was called a

According to y ou Humboldt , + this comet was bel ieved byvon Boguslawsk i to have been the same as the comets of 1843 ,1695 , 1548 , and 1401 , with a period of one hundred andforty-seven years . Von Boguslawsk i , in fact , called that of1843 the Comet of Ar i stotle

,which he traced back to the

year 371 . It may b e mentioned that the comet of 1843was very brilliant .

Me teorol. i . c . 6 , SS. 8 a n d 10.

f Cosmos,Bob n’

sLibrary, 1849-1858, vol . II. p. 526 , an dvol. iv. p. 541.

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 5 1

When Euc leus, son of Molon , was archon , a comet appe ar ed towards the north , during the early part of Jan uary .

*

The date of appearance of this comet is believed to havebeen about B .C . 350.

Aristotle also says that , when Nicomachus was archon ,a comet was seen for a few days , that it appeared about theEquator , and that it did not rise in the even in g n

L The dateof appearance of this comet is believed to have been B .C . 340.

In De Carlo, i i . 0 . 12 , 292 a ,Aristotle says that he had

seen the Moon , when half-full , pass under Mars , which washidden by the dark part Of the Moon , and then emergedfrom the bright part . This occultation of Mars by the Moonoccurred

,according to Kepler ’ s reckoning , in B C . 357 .

In B .C . 467 a large stone is said to have fallen atE gospotamos . This meteoric stone is mentioned in theParian Chronicle . Aristotle says that this Stone fell by day

,

and that in the evening Of that day a comet appeared . He

incorrectly states that the stone had been raised by the windand then fell down . IHe mentions , as an instance Of a rare phenomenon , that

in the region of the Bosphorus two parhelia rose togetherwith the sun and continued to be seen until sunset . §Ideler makes a reasonable suggestion to explain how sucha report arose , saying that the ancient Greeks used to relateextraordin ary phenomena as taking place in the Bosphorus

,

Black Sea , and Africa , just as modern writers have givenaccounts of extraordinary phenomena in America andSiberia . ”Aristotle gives some interesting information about some

of the periodic winds Of Greece . The Etesian winds,he

says , blow from the north after the summer solstice and therising of the Dog Star , and they blow by day but cease atn igh t fll Some were at a loss to understand why theEtesians , continuous north winds , blew after the summersolstice , while south winds were not produced Similarly afterthe winter solstice , but this , he says , is not reasonable , forthe so-called Leucon ot i , although they do not blow cont in uously , blow at the season of the year opposite to that atwhich the Etesians Early in sprin g , according toAristotle , the Orn ithise blow ; these winds are gentler than

52 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC ,AND

the E tesians , and do not blow continuously .

f These windswere called Orn ith ise because they blew when birds wer emating

,or because migratory birds arrived with them in

Greece .

In Meteorol. i i . c . 6,Ari stotle gives directions for draw ing

a diagram showing the quarters from which the chief and

FIG. 3 .

Boreas and Apa rot ias

Thraskias Meses

Ka ikias

EApe liot es

Phoinikias

Not os

ARISTOTLE ’

S COMPASS.

best defined winds blew . F ig . 3 has been drawn accordingto these directions

,Z bein g the position Of the ri sing sun in

midsummer , F that of the setting sun in midsummer , D thatof the rising sun in midwinter

,and G that of the setting sun

in midwinter . I is half-way between due north and F ,and

K is half-way between due north and Z. Athens is supposed

Me teorol. 11. c . 5 , S . 9.

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 53

to be at the centre of the circle . The names of the windsare indicated on the drawing . Aristotle says that the win dcalled Meses had no wind diametrically opposite to it , norhad the wind Th ra sk ia s, unless a certain wind , called Phoin ik ia s

,were con sidered to be its opposite . This wind was

so called because it was believed to blow from Phoenicia .

An account Of the nature of these winds is also given byAristotle . He says that L ips , Ka ikia s , and Ape liote s werewet win ds ,while Euros was dry at first but ultimately becamewet . Ka ik ia s and , to a less extent , L ips were associatedwith a cloudy Sky . Argestes was a dry wind . Meses andApa rct ia s were very cold winds and brought a great deal Ofsnow, and there was much lightn in g when Meses was blowing . Apar c tias, Thr a sk ia s , an d Argestes blew when the Skywas clear , but brought hail , l ightnin g , and gales . Finally,Notos , Zephyros, and Euros were hotDuring most of the hot or dry season

,in many parts of

Greece , northerly winds , called Etesians , blow by day un ti labout sunset , when winds set in from an Opposite direction ,and , at Corinth , there is an alternation of easterly andwesterly winds which is SO regular that Strabo compared itto the breathing of an animal . The idea that a wind blowing in one direction has a counterpart in one blowing in anopposite direction is , therefore , n atural to a Greek , butAristotle seems to carry this idea further than is true for an yone locality . My kn owledge of the meteorology of Greece ,derived chiefly from Reclus , modern books of travels , andnotes sent me by Mr . W . R . Halliday , from the BritishSchool at Athens , is not sufficient to en able me to discussfully Aristotle ’ s numerous statements about the winds andweather of Greece .

The northerly winds of Greece are usually very dry andthe southerly winds wet . The Sirok os or Scirocco , whichseems to be the same as the ancient ;Euros , is a S .E . wind ,moist , hot and oppressive . Another oppressive win d is theAustral , which blows from the south and may be Aristotle

’ sNotos . In the Cyclades , steady north win ds usually makethe early months of the year cold,

‘r and Mr . Halliday says

that at Melos certainly Boreas prevailed until well after theGreek Easter this year Aristotle says that Zephyrosi s a hot wind . In his note Mr . Halliday says Justlately [early part of June , 1911] I have been suffering from

Me teorol. 11. c . 6 , SS . 19—22 .Jr Ben t

’

S Cyc la des , p. 57 .

54 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

the west wind,not only unpleasantly hot but also apparently

possessed of the property of rousing insect li fe to act ivity .

At least , the common house fly drew blood through my thickstockings

,and when I comp lained I was told that it was due

to the wind .

”

Aristotle makes assertions , some of which were evidentlymere guesses

,about the depths of various seas . He says

that the Pontus i s deeper than the Mseot is (now called theSe a of Azov) , that the ZEgean i s deeper than the Pontus ,that the Si ci l ian is deeper than the ZEgean , that the Sardoni cand Tyrrhenian seas are deeper than any of these , and thatthe waters beyond the Pi llars of Hercules are of smal lvolume because of the mud , and are undisturbed bywin ds .

’le

The Sea of Azov is said to be not deeper than eightfathoms

,and has lon g been known to be very shallow .

Ari stotle says that it had been silted up to such an extentthat the ships which sai led on it in his t ime were muchsmaller than those which sai led on it Sixty year s b efor e i

L

The Si ltin g-up process sti ll goes on and Aristotle’ s statement

is probably correct . I do not know whether the E gean i sdeeper than the Pontus or B lack Sea , but Aristot le correctlystates that the Si ci lian , by which he probably meant the seabetween Sicily , Greece , and Crete , i s deeper than the E ge an .

Respecting the other seas mentioned by him , his statementsare incorrect . Comparat ively recent soundings Show that ,although the average depth of the eastern Mediterraneanis only a few fathoms greater than that of the westernMediterranean , yet the maximum recorded sounding in theformer is about four hundred fathoms greater than themaximum recorded sounding in the latter . The maximumsounding in the eastern Mediterranean is not less than twothousand four hundred fathoms , to the SW . of CapeMatapan and therefore in a part of Ari stotle ’ s Sicil ian Sea .

His statement about the waters beyond the Pillars ofHercules i s obviously derived from the famous legend of asunken Atlantis , related by Plato in the Timaeus , and needsno further comment . When arguing that sea water contains a large quantity of earthy matters to which the saltnessand bitterness Of the water are due

,Aristotle r efers to the

Dead Sea , saying that if, according to the tales which somenarrate , there is a lake in Palestine of such a k ind that a

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 55

man or beast Of burden would not Sink beneath its waters ,then this would be evidence for what he had said , and headds that

,according to report , the waters of the lake are so

sharp and bitter that no fishes are found in them , and that ,by merely dipping clothes into its waters and then shakingthem

,the clothes are washed .

* These reports , which he wasevidently reluctant to believe

,were much more reliable than

he thought them to be .

In Chaon ia , Aristotle says , a spring of rather salt waterrises and flows into a neighbouring r ive r . 1

L References arealso made to streams Of acid water in the Sicanian territoryOf Sicily , and near Lyn cus, and to bitter waters in Scythia ;Aristotle also says that , from the waters of Sican ia , a saucewas made and used just like vinegar . IChaouia was a large district inEpirus , extending from the

Acroceraunian promontory on the north towards the Acheronon the south . The spring to which Aristotle refers may bea source of the river Cocytus

,a tributary of the Acheron .

The modern name of the Cocytus is Vq , the waters ofwhich are said to be unfit for drinking purposes . Sican ia

was the district about Agr igen tum in the south of Sicily ,and in this part of the island there are many salt springs ,the waters from which flow into the Platini and F iumeSalso, which are the modern representatives of the ancientrivers Ha lycus and Himera, respectively . Lyn cus was inLyn cest is, a district of Macedonia near the Illyrian fron tier .At or near the modern Ban itz a are the acid waters of Lyncus , which were said to have had intoxicating qualities . § Itis impossible to identify the bitter waters of Scythia , referredto by Aristotle . Scythia was a territory of vast extent ,including most of southern Russia , and its boundaries wereindefinite and changed from time to time .

In his Me teorol. i . c . 13 , Aristotle gives an interestingaccount of the chief mountains

,rivers

,lakes

,and seas of the

ancient World , and this account represents probably all thatwas best Of the geographical knowledge of his time . Hisown travels were confined mainly

,and perhaps entirely , to

southern Macedonia , Attica , Euboea , Lesbos , and Mysia , a n dhe was dependent

,therefore

,on those who

,l ike He ca teeus

and Herodotus,had visited many lands . The World which

he describes extended from the Hindoo Koosh and the Indus

Me teor ol. II. c . 3 , S . 39 . { I b id . 11 . c . 3 , S . 40.

1 Ibi d. i i . 0. 3 , SS. 46 an d 47 . Smith ’

s Di e t . of Cla ssi c . Geogr .

56 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

on the east to the At lantic on the west , and from thenorthern parts Of Europe on the north to the sources Of theN i le on the south . In whatever direction his ancient Worldi s traced

,i t may be said to be distorted in proportion to its

di stance from Athens .He had an exaggerated idea of the height Of the Hindoo

Koosh or Pa ropamisus Mountains , which he called theParnasos

,for he says that the apparent ly boundless ocean

could be seen from them . Certain large rivers , he says , flowfrom them , e .g . , the Ba ct rus , Choa spes , Indus , and Araxes ,by which he seems to mean the Oxus . The largest of these ,he says

,i s the Indus . He gives no indicat ion that he had

any knowledge of the Ganges . He knew that the Ta n a is ,now called the Don , flows into the Se a Of Az ov , but hi sknowledge of that river was very imperfect , for he bel ievedthat it was connected with the Araxes .His description of the regions Of the Caucasus i s pictur

esque and interesting . He speaks Of the massiveness andgreat height Of the mountains , the many races l iving amongthem , and the large lakes of the Caucasus regions . Hisideas about the height of the Caucasus Mountains weregreatly exaggerated

,for he says that their summits could be

seen il luminated by the sun for a third part of the night ,both before sunrise and after sunset .Passing to the west of hi s ancient World

,he states

in correctly that the Danube rises in the Pyrenees,and he

also says that the Ta r te ssus, beyond the Pi llars of Hercules ,rises in the Pyrenees . This river cannot be identifiedsatisfactorily , but it i s probable that the Guada lquive r i smeant , or i t may be the Guadian a or the Tagus , not one Ofwhich , however , rises in the Pyrenees .In the north , he says , many rivers flow from the

Ar cyn ian Mounta ins,which are the most massive and

highest mountains in that region . He seems to have beenthe first to mention those mountains

,which are usually

considered to be theHarz and the Erzgebirge , but Aristotle’ s

Ar cyn ian Mountains probably included the Alps also . He

speaks also Of the SO—called Rh ipee an Mountains , of vastSize , and situated beyond the farthest parts of Scythia .

Ari stot le ’ s descript ion of the Rh ipman Mountains wouldapply fairly well to the Ural Mountains , but J . BarthelemySaint-Hi laire says that they were perhaps the Carpathians .In the south of hi s ancient World

,he mentions several

large African rivers,the ZEgon , Nyse s, and Chr eme te s,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

58 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC , AND

long subterranean passage .* The deeps referred to byAristotle are in a deep part of the B lack Sea , but the deepestpart Of this sea i s said to be near its centre . It may bementioned that Herodotus clearly states that the Caspian isa sea by itself , having no communicat ion with any oth e r .

’r

The above information given by Ar i stotle about themountains , river s , lakes , and seas of his ancient World isfrom his Meteorol. i . c . 13 . I n his History of An ima ls hegives some interesting informat ion about the reported landof the Pigmies . He says that such a race , dwell ing in caves ,actually existed in the upper regions Of the Ni le , and thatcranes migrated from Scythia to the mar shy par ts of thoseregiona lMany ancient writers refer to the Pigmies of inner Africa,

and Herodotus says that the Nasamon ian exp lorers werecaptured by them and carried across extensive marshes to acity near a river running east and west , and containing manycrocodiles . § It was in the region of the Ituri River , whichexactly answers to this description , that Stanley found arace of Pigmies .

A great deal of interesting information is given byAristotle about changes produced on the Earth ’ s surface byvarious natural agents . These changes include those causedby the deposition of mud from rivers

,the drying up or the

formation Of swamps , and the destructive effects of volcaniceruptions and earthquakes .His description of the Si lt ing up of the Sea Of Azov has

been discussed in another part of this chapter . Referringto the Ni le delta , he says that all the arms , except theCan ob ic , were made artificially . Egypt itself he considerswas made habitable by the drying up of the swampy partsformed by the deposition of mud in a sea continuous withthe Red Se a , and he bel ieved that the whole country ofthe Egyptians was the work of the N ile . He states incorrectly that the Red Se a was higher than the land aboutthe N i le , and says that Sesostris and also Darius , whotried to connect the N i le with the Red Sea by excavatinga channel , found this out and , in consequence , stopped thework Of excavation . ”He says that some p laces have acquir ed a more favour

able cl imate through the drying up of swampy par ts , while

Nouve lle Geographi c Un iverselle , vol . 6 , 1881 , pp. 422—24 . t i . 203 .

I H. A . viii . c . 14 , S . 2 . i i . 0 . 32 .

Me teorol . i . c . 14 , SS . 10—12 an d 26—28.

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 59

others have suffered through being dried up too much .

This happened,he adds , in Greece , for , about the time of

the Trojan War,Argos was swampy and could support

only a small population , while Mycenae was prosperous , butnow it i s the other way about , for Mycen ae has become quiteparched

,while the lands at Argos , which were formerly

useless because of their swampiness , are nowAristotle records and makes interesting Observations

about several great earthquakes and volcanic eruptions .There was

,he says , an earthquake in Achaia and an inflow

of the sea about the time of the great comet , which wasseen during the archonship of Asteus .

’r Just lately , he

says,an earthquake took place at Heraclea , in Pontus , and ,

some time before this,another occurred in the Sacred Isle ,

one Of the ZEolian Islands . Here , a part Of the groundswelled up and rose into a hillock , the swell ing up bein gaccompanied by a great noise , until the hillock burst and agreat quantity of a spirituous vapour (m edi a ) issued forth ,carrying with it both sparks and ashes . The capital ofthe Liparaean s , not far away , was completely burnt , andthe ashes reached some of the cities of Italy . Even now ,

he says , it can be seen where this eruption took pla ce iIt was from observations on eruptions such as this thatAristotle concluded that earthquakes and volcanic eruptionswere due to a violent circulation within , and final dischargefrom , the interior Of the Earth of a kind of air , gas , orvapour

,which he calls “wind (a renas) in some passages

and spirituous vapour (r t/fi nd ) in others .When the spirituous vapour is abundant

,he says , a

lateral tremor of the earth takes place,or

,occasionally ,

a vertical pulsation . In this kind of earthquake a largequantity Of stones comes to the surface

,just l ike anything

which rises to the top in a winnowing-fan . The partsabout Sipylus, the Ph legr sean Plain , and the Lyg ian regionwere overturned by earthquakes of this kind . §He asserts that islands in a deep sea are less l iable to

earthquakes than those situated near land , because Of thecooling and restraining effect of so large a quantity Of seawater On the spirituous vapours or exhalations , and becausethe islands could not be disturbed without the necessity Ofmoving the whole of the sea surrounding the islands . ”

Me teorol. i . c . 14 , SS . 14 a nd 15 . I bid . i . c . 6 , S . 8 .

1 I bi d. ii . 0 . 8 , SS. 18 a n d 19 . Ib id. ii . 0 . 8 , SS. 46 a n d 47 .

I bi d. ii . 0. 8, SS . 48 a n d 49 .

60 CELESTIAL, ETC. , PHENOMENA.

Aristotle ’ s seismic records a re among the best made byancient writers . Heraclea Pontica , referred to by him , wasa Greek colony on the western part of the coast ofBithynia . The L ipari Isles were repeatedly affected byseismic disturbances in ancient , just as in modern , t imes ,but the one recorded by Aristotle was more than usual lydestructive . His description i s vivid and interesting , andseems to refer to a great eruption of a vi scous lava . Theeruption seems to have been Similar in many respects tothat in the trachytic d istrict Of Methana , described byStrabo . At Methana , a hill nearly a mile in height wasraised up

,and the force of the eruption was so great that

blocks of stone as large as towers were Theearthquake at Sipylus, s ituated in a mounta in of that namein Lydia , was long remembered by the Ancients , for Sipylusi s said to have been total ly destroyed .

Aristot le ’ s record of an earthquake in the Lyg ian regioni s not clear . Von Humboldt says that the region referredto i s now cal led La Crau , at the mouth Of the Rhone , andthat the rounded quartz blocks Of that region wer e supposedby Ari stotle to have been ejected from a fissur e , during anearthquake . tBesides the phenomena already discussed , Ari stotle

incidently refers to several matters of minor importance , suchas , for example , the weight of a ir and the existence of red snow .

In his De Carlo, iv . 0 . 4 , 3116, he says that a bladder ,when inflated , i s heavier than when it i s empty . This passagesuggests that Aristotle actually tried the experiment

,but this

i s al l that can be sai d , for he gives no further informat ion .

Red snow was known to him,for

,inH. A . v . c . 1 7 , s . 12 ,

he says that animals are produced in some things whichseem least l iab le to putrefaction

,such as snow which has

lain for a long time such snow,he adds

,i s reddish

,and , for

this reason , the larvae of the animals in the snow are r ed

and ha iry .

The snow to which Ari stotle r efers was probably seen byhim in Macedonia . The redness of snow i s caused

,as i s

well-known , by the pr esence of r ed unicellular p lants ,Protococcus n iva lis . It wi ll be noticed that Aristotle didnot consider that the colour Of the snow was due to thecolour of the animals which he bel i eved were present

,but

that the colour of these wa s due to the r edness of the snow .

CHAPTER IV .

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR, HEAT

AND SOUND .

IT i s said that , after Aristotle had published a work onsome esoteric part of his philosophy , Alexander the Greatwrote to him from Asia complaining of his attemptingthus to communicate to people generally what had previously been imparted to Aristotle

’ s select pupils only .

Aristotle replied to the effect that no harm could be doneby the publication complained of, because what he had putforth in his lectures on the more abstruse parts of hisphilosophy could be understood only by those who heardhim and by nobody else . The work referred to is conside red by some to have been Aristotle ’ s Akroa si s Physihe ,commonly called the Physi cs . The above story may ormay not be true , but it is undeniable that many partsOf Aristotle ’s works on essen tially abstruse subjects are verydifficult to understand , and among such parts are thoserelating to light and colour .The history Of the development of this bran ch Of human

knowledge reveals , i t i s true , many great achievements , butit probably reveals many more disappointing failures

,and

little of any practical importance was done until about thetwelfth century . Successful investigation of phenomena Of

light and colour has been largely the result Of carefulObservation and ingenious experiments

,and few

,if any ,

branches of natural science better exemplify a laborious ,step by step , advance to the truth . Aristotle ’ s achievements , judged by the standard of knowledge in moremodern times , were of l ittle value

,although they must

have cost him much time and labour,as may be seen from

his account of the causes of rainbows,already given in

Chapter iii .The ancient emission or corpuscular theory of light held

by Empedocles , Democritus , and many other ancient philosophers was rejected by Ar istotle . He says that light i s

62 PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR.

not fire nor any material substance , nor , consequently , i s i tan emission from a material and that the theorythat sight i s due to something which i ssues from the eye

,

and is capable of extending as far as the stars , or , as somesay

,that it i s due to something which i ssues from the eye

and meets with something issuing from the Object , i saltogether ab surd.

’r Aristotle ’ s own views on the nature

of l ight seem to have been as follows : Something whichhe calls the Di apha n ous (7 5 ha ea vég) i s present not only ina ir

,water

,and other transparent substances , but also , in

varying degrees,in other bodies . It i s not capable of

separate existence,being a kind of property and power

common to all bodies,and , when excited by the presence in

it of something of the nature of fire , light i s produced ,whi le the absence of anything of the nature of fire resultsin darkness }: L ight i s the energy of the Di apha n ous, andis

,as it were , the colour of the Di apha n ous, when this i s

in actual or full existence (évr sréxera ) through the influenceof fire or something of this kind , such as , for examp le , theupper body . § The upper body , referred to here , i s theAristotelian aether , which resembles the aether of modernscientists in some respects , but i s here supposed by Ar i stotleto be an exciting cause of light .The D iapha n ous was evident ly passive , but capable of

being influenced by fire or something of the nature of fire .

The relationship between fire or the l ike and the Dia

pha n ous seems to be l ike that between form and material ,as exempl ified by a stone statue , for , when the Di apha n ousi s modified by the presence of fire or the l ike

,l ight i s

produced , while the stone , modified so as to be of a part icular form , i s a statue .

In an important passage Aristot le says I have statedin other books that sight i s impossible without l ight

,but

whether i t i s l ight or a ir which intervenes between theObject and the eye , i t i s the motion through this mediumthat causes sight . IIThis may seem to foreshadow the undulatory theory of

light . It seems , however , from other passages that themotion was not an undulatory one , although he nowhereseems to exp lain what k ind of motion he meant . He saysthat odours and sounds travel through a medium beforethey cause sensat ion , and that Empedocles bel ieved that

De An ima , II . c . 7 , 4186 .

‘r De Sen su , at e " l l . 438a . I 1b id . i ii . 489a .

De An i/ma , i i . 0. 7 , 4 186. MDe Sen su , et a , i i . 4386 .

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR.

sunlight had to travel through a medium before it reachedthe eye

,but

,about light , he adds , a different account must

be given,for light is due to the existence of something in

the medium,and is not This last statement

causes some difficulty , because it seems to be inconsistentwith the passage in De Sen su , etc , i i . 438 6. The wordm

’

vncxs, used in De Sen su , et c ,vi . 446 6, i s a general one for“motion

,and does not give much assistance in ascertaining

what Aristotle meant . The context , however , indicatesthat the meaning is that light is not due to a motion oftranslation , necessarily taking place during an interval oftime . In fact , Aristotle says , in De Sen su , etc , vi . 447 a ,

that it is reasonable to believe that , when there is a mediumbetween a sensory organ and an Object of sensation , theeffects are not all produced on the sensory organ at thesame time , except in the case of light and Sight .Aristotle was not the first to introduce the idea of a

motion of the medium between the eye and the object seenby it . Democritus believed that the emanations from theobject did n ot reach the eye , but set in motion the interven in g air .

L ike many other ancient philosophers , Aristotle wasaware that light should be treated as if i t were propagated instraight lines . Many parts of his descriptions of opticalphen omena

, e .g . , rainbows and eclipses , Show this , and somequestions are proposed in the Aristotelian work called theProblems , the answers to which depend on the assumptionthat the propagation of light is in straight lin es . On e ofthese questions is particularly interestin g , and asks why sunlight shining through apertures bounded by straight linesdoes not form rectilinear images but circular ones . Thefirst part of the answer suggests that it may be that thelight is propagated in conical form and , the base of a conebeing circular , the images are circular also . Then followsan explanation which is quite Aristotelian , and depends onan assumed inability of visual rays , which are few and weak ,to reach the object to be seen such an a ssumpt ion is madein other places by Aristotle

,particularly in his explanation

of rainbows . The rays of light , passing through the cornersof the apertures , being assumed to be few and weak , are noteffective , but only the rays passing through the centralparts , these rays being assumed to be numerous and strong ;

De S en su , (fa , vi . 446a an d b .

64 PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR.

the images,ther efor e , appear to have r ounded corn e rsfi’

This exp lanation i s fanciful , but the one referring to thepropagation of light in coni cal form , although of l ittle v alue ,i s suggestive

,for the true exp lanation can be obtained by

drawing a series of co-axial double cones with their apicesat various points on the sides of the aperture , the Sun

’ s discand its image being the bases of each double cone . Theoverlapping of the separate images of the Sun ’ s di sc , thusdrawn , causes the images formed by the aper ture to becircular , i f the aperture i s small , or to have r ounded corners,i f the aperture i s large .

Aristotle was fully aware that reflection takes place frommirrors and other smooth surfaces . He Often uses the wordAn a kla si s, a breaking back or aside , to denote this phenomenon

,especial ly in his descriptions of halos and rainbows .

There does not appear to be any passage in his works ,however

, Showing that he was aware of the equal i ty of theangles of incidence and reflection . This seems to have beenstated for the first t ime in Eucl id ’ s Ca toptr i cs , Prop . i . ,

where the law is enunciated and proved for p lane , convex ,and concave mirrors .He does not use the word An a kla sis or any other word

in such a way as to Show that he was acquainted with thephenomenon of refraction

,but in Me teorol . i i i . c . 4 there

are some passages which deserve special notice in connectionwith this question . After speaking about the strange opticali llusion in the case of a man whose sight was very weak andwho saw an image of himself in consequence of the adjacenta ir acting l ik e a mirror , Aristotle says Wherefore headlands appear inverted in the sea , everything appears largerwhen the easterly winds (55pm) blow , and also Objects seenthrough mists , e .g . , the Sun and stars seem to be largerwhen rising or setting than when they ar e high in theheaven s .

”

tIdeler says that these examples , given by Ari stotle ,

per tain not so much to r eflection of l ight as to r efraction }:This i s not so . They pertain mainly to r eflection andabsorption . The phenomena of absorption were only imperfect ly understood by Ari stotle , but many statements hemakes about l ight and colour Show that he never lost sightof what appear ed to be the efiects of the medium between

Pr ob lems, xv. 6 . f Me teor ol. ii i . c . 4 , S . 4 .

Ar i stot . Me teorol. Le ipzig , 1836, vol . i i . , p. 20.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

66 PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR.

of refraction until about the year A .D . 1100, when Alhaz enattempted to determine the relation between the angles ofincidence and refraction , and set out some of the laws of

Aristotle was acqua inted with the phenomenon now calledphosphorescence , but did not understand it . He says that iti s the nature of smooth surfaces to shine in the dark , butyet they do not produce ligh t .

’r Again , he says that some

Objects are seen in the dark , e .g . , those which seem to be ofthe nature of fire and shining

,such as , for example , fungi ,

horn,sepia juice

,and the heads , scales , and eyes of fishes ,

and that these do not Show the proper colour s of the objectsthemselves . IIt i s not clear what i s meant by the assert ion that light

(mtg) i s not produced by objects Shining in the dark . IfAristotle had sai d that heat i s not produced , he would havemade a substantial ly true statement , but light i s producedand some phosphorescent bodies em i t a light as bri ll iant asthat given out by fir eb r ick or other ordinary substancesheated to a high temperature . It i s clear , from the passagein De An ima ,

i i . c . 7 , cited above , that Ari stotle did notconsider phosphores cent bodies to be actually Of the natureof fire

,in which case they would emit heat , l ike a flame or

incandescent body,and this may be a reason why he states

that no l ight i s emitted , since no heat accompanies theshining effects . That a phosphorescent body does not shinewith a colour l ike that of the body itself , as Aristotle says ,i s true

, e .g . , the white flesh of fishes often Shines with adel icate green l ight .Difficult though it i s to follow Ar i stotle ’ s speculations on

l ight , it i s more difficult to follow his speculations on colour .It has been stated already that , according to him ,

theDi apha n ous exist s in varying degrees in al l bodies . He

defines the colour of a body to be the boundary of theDi apha n ous which is in the body . § Whatever the natureof the Di apha n ous may be , i t cannot exist separately ,Aristotle says , but has l imits to the same extent as thebodies in which it exists . Light exists in the Di apha n ous,but , if a particular body be considered , i t is evident that the

Opti cce Thesa urus A lha z en i Ar a bi s , F . Risn erus, Ba sle , 1572 , Book

vi i . , e spe cia lly c . 3 , en t itled De qua lita te r efr a ct ion is lucis in corporibusdiapha n is .

”De S en su , d c , i i . 437a .

1 De An ima , 11 . c . 7 , 419a ; De S en su , et c . , 11 . 4376 .

S De Sen su, et a , iii . 439a an d b .( I

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR. 67

boundary of the Di apha n ous which is in it i s something real .The phenomena Show clearly , he says , that this i s colour ,for colour either is in the boundary or is the boundary

,

wherefore the Pythagoreans considered the external surface ofa body to be the same as its colour . Aristotle proceeds to saythat colour is not the boundary of the body itself, but isin the boundary, and that the nature or con stitution of thein ner parts of the body is the same as that which

,at the

surface of the body , constitutes colour?“Again,he says

that colour is continuous with light , t and , as has beenstated already , he considers light to be the colour of theDi apha n ous .

It wi ll be noticed that the above statements are of thenature of definitions which give very little assistance in determining how colour effects are produced . The Di apha n ous,on which all Aristotle ’ s conceptions about colour seem todepend , was a mental conception , or , if in tended to besomething concrete

,its nature i s difficult to un derstand . The

boun dary of the Di apha n ous in a body is , however , treatedby him as if it were something real , in which the colour ofthe body existed . Accordin g to such views , the green colourof a n emerald or the yellow colour Of an ingot of gold isman ifested only by the external surface of the Di apha n ousin the emerald or ingot

,but the same colour would be

manifested by any other section of the Di apha n ous in thesebodies if , by breaking the emerald or cutting the ingot , suchsection coincided with the plan e of breaking or cutting .

However difficult it is to understand some Of his statementsabout colour , i t seems to be quite clear that he considered itto be a boundary phenomenon .

Both air and water , he says , have a colour of some kind ,but , inasmuch as air and water have no definite or fixedboundaries , their colours vary according to the distance fromwhich they are seen . The colours of sol id bodies , on theother hand , remain the same , unless the action of anythingsurrounding or near them causes a ch an ge i The lastclause of this passage is one of the few assertions to befound in Aristotle ’ s works which suggest that he con sideredthe colour of a body to depend on anythin g but the n atureof the Di apha n ous . There seems to be nothing to anticipate ,however , the modern view that the colours of bodies are not

De Sen su , et a , iii . 439a . f Physi cs , vii . c . 2 , S . 4 .

1 De S en su, ct c . , i ii . 4396.

68 PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR.

merely surface phenomena , and that colour , such as thegreen colour of a leaf or an emerald or the yellow colour ofan ingot of gold , i s due to a selective action effected onlight which is composite .

Another interesting question with which Ari stotle dealsi s that of the mixtur e of colours

,but here again his state

ments are sometimes unsati sfactory,mainly because it i s not

clear whether he i s dealing with the mixture of pigments orof coloured lights .It has been stated that

,according to Ari stotle , l ight

results from the presence in the Di apha n ous of somethingOf the nature of fire , and darkness ensues when this i sabsent . In a similar way , he says , white and b lack areproduced , in solid bodies , i .e . ,

they are respectively causedby the presence or absence of something of the nature offire in the Di apha n ous of those He says that oneway of producing various colours i s by mixing black andwhite in various proportions , co lours p leasing to the eye ,such as l ight red or dark blue

,being produced when the

proport ions of black to white are in simp le ratio , just as inharmonies and other colours

,less p leasing to the

eye , when the proportions are not in simple rat io . Theblack and white are supposed to be so arranged relat ively toeach other that each i s invisible because of the smallness ofits parts , but the colour of the resulting mixture i s visib le i

L

Ari stotle seems to be refer ring to a mixture of colouredl ights , but his conclusions were probably based almostentirely on a process of abstract reasoning . In his explanation of the colours of the rainbow,

discussed in Chapter i i i . ,he attempts to show that

,when the visual rays are directed

to a distant bright object , this appears to be white , black ,or some colour intermediate between these

,according to the

weakness or strength of the visual rays . This i s both un

sati sfactory and diffi cult to understand,but in another part

of his exp lanat ion of rainbows ther e i s a passage whichclearly refers to a mixtur e of coloured l ights . He says thatan orange colour i s seen between the l ight r ed and thegreenish yellow , such colour resulting from an overlappingof the two colours men t ion ed. I It i s true that an orangecolour results from a mixtur e of greenish yellow and l ightred l ights .

De Sen su , et a , iii . 4396. 1 I bi d . i ii . 4396 an d 440a .

I Meteorol. iii . c . 4 , s . 26 .

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR. 69

Another method of producing various colours , Aristotlesays

,i s by laying on a coat of a bright colour and then

laying over this a coat Of a different and duller colour ,SO that the bright colour Shines through the other . A modifica t ion of this method to which he refers is the productionof a red colour when the sun shines through m ist orHe speaks also of painters being in the habit of obtainingsome colours by mixing paints , but says that they could notthus obtain red

,greenish yellow , or blue , and that these

were almost the only ones they could not obtain in thisway . i

L It has been explained in Chapter ii i . that thispassage suggests that Aristotle probably considered thein termediate colour (avi a tion of the rainbow to be someshade of yellow rather than green .

However unimportan t Aristotle ’ s work on the nature andproduction of colour effects may be considered to be , it mustbe conceded that he incidentally gives information whichmaterially assists in the identification of many ancient Greeknames for colours with the modern names of the coloursthey were intended to denote . In Homeric and even latertimes the common ideas about colours were not separatedfrom those about brightness , or , in the case of colours of theeyes , vivacity , and there do not appear to have been manycolour-names in use . It wil l be seen , however , that Aristotleused many colour-names , most of which denoted well-defin edcolours , but , l ike many other Greek writers , he sometimesemployed the words 5457 d and Mww

'

v respectively to indicatemerely that an object was dark and bright or light . Thefour colours of the rainbow mentioned by him have beenreferred to many times already . A deep brownish redcolour , l ike that of the eggs of th e kestrel , i s called e

’

vpo'

v. 1Th e ash colour or bluish grey of the crane is 7 2¢95V § whilethe somewhat lighter tint of many gulls is Thedeep and brilliant blues and greens of the kingfi sher werenua vofiv and zxwpo

'

v r e spe c t ive lyfll

In his description of the colours of the iris,in H. A . i .

c . 8,s . 4 , Aristotle uses the words wh a rf, uly a n o

'

v, yrawco

'

v, and

xaporriv to denote the colours . It i s difficult to determinewhat these were intended to be . The usual colour of agoat ’ s iris i s brownish or yellowish , and this i s probably thecolour m

’

ywv o'

v. M imi! refers to the darkest colours of the

De Sen su , et a , i ii . 440a . f Ill e teor ol . i ii . c . 2 , S . 5 .

I H.

.

A . vi . 0 . 2 , S . 2 . I bi d . i i i . c . 10, S . 11 .

I b i d . vii i . c . 5 , s . 7 . 11 I bi d . ix. 0 . 15 , s . 1 .

70 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND .

iri s, xaporriv to the darker shades of blue or grey , and ymurw

'

v

to the l ighter shades Of these colours . That y t a'

r refers tothe lighter Shades i s Shown by a passage in the P rob lems,xiv . 14

,where i t i s stated that the colour of the iri s in

those l iving in the northern parts of the ancient Worldwas yAa uxo

'

v,and that this colour was nearly white .

The words xapovro’

v and ymwt iv were used , at first , without any reference to mere colour , the former meaning gladeyed

,and the latter clear or bright . Aristot le advanced far

beyond thi s stage in the formulation of ideas , and wasevidently deal ing with colours and even shades of colours .In various parts of his works

,especial ly in those parts r e

lating to birds,he uses many words to denote colours , but ,

in some cases , i t i s impossible to determine what these wereintended to be

,simply because the Objects to which he i s

referring cannot be identified . His colour vocabulary , if itcould be completed , would be a long one .

Aristotle ’ s Observations on heat phenomena are not altogether unimportant

,and some Of them are very interesting .

They relate chiefly to the effects of heat , the essential ly hotor cold nature Of bodies , including the determination of whatcame to be called by Ari stotelians the Pr imumFr igidum, theproduction Of heat by friction , the modes of determiningroughly the temperatures of different bodies

,the consideration

of the question whether cold i s nothing more than privationof heat

,and some questions connected with animal heat .

Of the four Aristotel ian e lemen ts or for ces , heat and coldare active

,and the moist and the dry or solid are passive .

*

By acting on matter in such a way as to overcome it ,heat and cold produce therefrom ful ly matured product s .

‘r

Aristotle ’ s statements about the effects of heat were basedon ordinary observations of everyday operations in the homeand workshop . In Me teorol. iv . cc . 2—6 , he shows that theresult of the action of heat i s a cooking effect , includingunder this phrase not only boil ing and roasting

,but also the

ripening of fruits . He also refers to the drying effects ofheat , the hardening of clay by baking , and the fusion ofmetal s and other substances .

Ari stotle expresses an opinion that heat brings togetherbodies of the same kind

,but separates those which are not

all ied to each oth er . I This opinion was accepted by the

Me teor ol . iv. o. 1 , s . 1 .

Jr I bi d . iv. o. 1 , S. 6 .

1 De Gen er . e t Cor r . 11 . c ; 2 , 3296 .

PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND. 71

Aristotelians , and , in their discussions on heat , they attachedgreat importance to it . According to Boyle

,they expressed

Aristotle ’ s opinion in the short Latin formula , con gr ega r e

homog en ea e t segr ega r e There are manyexceptions to the truth of this general formula , but suchexceptions were not understood by the Aristotelians . Heatdoes sometimes bring together substances of the same kindand separate those of different kinds , e . g . , when a mixtureof pieces of copper and lead is melted together with a fluxin a crucible , for the molten product will form three welldefin ed layers , the lowest containing nearly all the lead andthe m iddle one nearly all the copper . When

,however

,

sulphur is dropped on a bar of white-hot iron , resultingin a union of these unlike substances , and when water i svaporized by heating it , the Aristotelian formula does nothold good .

The acuteness of the sensation of heat or cold producedwhen the hand is placed in contact with a body dependslargely upon the conductivity of the body and its heatcapacity . Copper or mercury , for instance , produces a moreacute sensation than wood at the same temperature . Aristot le

’

s ideas on this subject are very imperfect , and n ot

consistent , for he sometimes explains it by relying on differe n ce s in certain physical characters of the bodies

,and some

times by means Of their assumed inherent cold or heat . Insome cases , he says , the same substances produce a verycold sensation if deprived of heat , and a burning sensationwhen heated , the sensation being most acute in the case ofbodies which are very hard or solid , e . g . ,

the sensation produced by a hot stone is more acute than that produced byhot water , and that produced by hot water is more acutethan that produced by hot smoke or vapour

,and Similarly

when these substances are cold . it In an earlier passage ,

he assumes that the coldness of bodies i s inherent , andmakes the coldness of watery and earthy substances dependon his views on the composition of these bodies fromhis four elements

,for both water and earth are defin ed

by the elementary for ce cold . i Water and substancesfor the most part of the nature of water

,i . e . ,

l iquid , wereconsidered by Aristotle to be cold , water being particularlyof a nature opposed to that of fire , but substances more of

The Wor ks of the Hon our a b le Rober t Boyle , n ew edition , Lon don ,

1772 , vol . i . p. 488 .

j Me teor ol . iv . c . 11 , S . 8 . 1 Ibi d . iv. c . 11 , s . 3 .

72 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND.

the nature of earth or a ir were considered to beO il and also mercury were exceptional , because Aristotleassumed that these contained much a ir ,

’r whi le he considered

fat to be an essential ly hot substance , because i t readilyassumed the form of fir e . 1 There i s much uncertainty ,Aristotle says , about the nature of oi l , for , whether it beconsidered to be more of the nature of water or of earth , i tought to be hardened either by the action of cold or by theaction Of heat . It i s not

,however

,hardened by either of

these , but merely thickened by both , the reason being thatoi l i s full of air . § He does not state to what kind of oi l herefers , but it i s probable that i t was some kind of fish-oi l ,which i s not easily frozen .

Long after Aristotle ’ s time,philosophers held that there

was some body which,by its own nature , was particularly

cold , and that other bodies were cold in proportion to theextent to which such essentially cold body entered into theircomposition . According to Boyle

,this body

,wel l known to

phi losophers as the Pr imum Fr igidum,was considered by

some to be water , by others earth , by others a ir , and bysome nitre , but he says

“that water i s the Pr imum Fr ig idum,

the opinion OfAristot le has made i t to be that of the schools ,and the general ity of philosophers . I]When classifying substances , par tly by their composition

and partly by their behaviour under the action of heat , intothree classes which would now be called combustible withevolution of much smoke

,combustible without the evolution

of much smoke,and incombustible

, Aristotle uses the wellknown term phlog i sti c , much employed before Lavoi sier

’ stime . Aristotle gives pitch

, O il , and wax as examples ofphlogistic substances , coal-l ike (a n thr a heu ti c) substances asexamples of combustible bodies not yielding much smoke ,and bronze as an examp le of incombustible sub stan ce sfilIt wil l be convenient to discuss next Ari stotle ’ s views

on the production of heat by friction . When expressing anOpinion that the heat and l ight of the heaven ly bodies are dueto friction between them and the medium in contact withthem , as stated already in Chapter i i i . , he appeals to ob se rva t ion s on the motions of darts and other missi les through

Me teoro l . iv. o. 11 , S . 7 . 1 I bi d . iv. o. 8 , S . 11 .

I P . A . i i . 0 . 2 , 649a . Me teor o l . iv. o . 7 , SS . 2 a n d 3 .

HThe Wor ks of theHon our a ble Rober t Boyle , n ew edition , Lon don ,1772 , vol . ii . pp. 585 an d 591 .

i i Me teor ol. iv. o. 9 , S . 37 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

74 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND .

said to be hotter than another if it gives up to a body incontact with it a greater quanti ty of heat

,and in another

sense if it causes a Sharper sensation when touched by anyone . This second test i s not reliable

,because the intensity

of the sensation varies with the individual . Again,a body

which causes a fusible body to melt more quickly , or morereadily ignites an inflammable subst ance

,i s said to be

hotter . A larger body i s said to have more heat than asmaller one of the same material

,and

,i f a body takes

longer to cool than another,i t i s said to be hotter

,and so

also if the body can be heated more quickly than the other .The term hotter i s used in al l these and probably in sti llmore senses , but it i s impossible for a body to be hotter thananother in all these senses . Boil ing water scalds more thanflame , yet i t does not melt or ignite bodies l ike flame does ,and boil ing water i s hotter than a dull fire but becomes coldmore quickly than the fire

,for fire never becomes cold

,

whereas water does .It i s obvious from all this that Ari stot le had no means

of determining temperatures,even approximately

,and that

he was wel l aware that such rough methods as wereavai lable were quite unrel i able . His discussion of themeaning of the term hotter Shows , however , that he hadattempted to make some relevant Observations or expe r i

ments . If he had had even an approximately rel iablemeans for measuring temperatures

,he would at once have

found that a dul l fire or a flame,say of oil or wood

,was much

hotter than boil ing water . The statement he makes aboutthe fire keeping hot longer than boil ing water shows thatthe generation of heat by combustion was not known tohim . The phenomena of combustion were not correctlydescribed , in fact , unti l long after Aristotle ’ s time byLavoisier . Just as Ari stotle believed t hat some bodies wereessential ly cold , SO he believed that others were essentiallyhot , and that this was the reason why some bodies cooledfaster than others , although they were hotter to the touch .

He decided that , in bodies which are n ot inherent ly hot butbecome hot by being heated external ly

,cold is not a mere

privation of heat,but an actual

Animal heat i s discussed by Aristotle in many scatteredpassages in his Pa r ts of A n ima ls

, Gen er a tion of An ima ls,Hi story ofAn ima ls, and the Pa r va Na tur a lia . He bel ieved

P . A . i i . 0 . 2 , 649a .

PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND. 75

that there was a relation between the quantity of animalheat , which he considered to be somethin g different fromordin ary heat , and the nature of the soul or vital principleof an animal . He says that in animals a nobler soul orvital principle must necessarily be associated with a greateramount ofHe does not say much about the way in which he

believed that the an imal heat was generated,but , after

deciding that it i s not produced as a result of respiration ,says that it i s rather from the food that heat is produced tHe not only believed that heat was not produced as a resultof respiration , but , as will be seen further on in this chapter ,that respiration had a cool ing effect .Animal heat plays an important part in the digestion of

food , as i s well known , but Aristotle bel ieved that it actuallyeffected digestion . i Further

,he believed that it had some

vital influence , being different from the heat from a fire . §He refers to the necessity for regulating the heat of an

animal and guarding against the destructive effects of exc e ssive heat .“Very small animals and those without bloodare sufficiently cooled , he says , by the air or water in whichthey live , for they have but little h e a tfil F i shes and otheranimals with gills and blood are cooled by water flowingover the gills through which the blood passes from the

In mammals , birds , repti les , and amphibians , theregulation of heat is effected mainly by means of the lun gs,

’r’r

the air flowing through ram ification s of the bronchial tubes ,which run so closely alongside the bran ches of the bloodvessels in the lungs that the blood is cooled an d some airactually finds its way into the blood , which is also cooledthereby }: 1According to Aristotle , the lungs were not the only

heat-regulating means,in animals with blood . The brain ,

which he did not regard as the sensory centre , was believedby him to have as its most importan t function the regulationof the heat of the body

,and especially the heat of the head ,

where the chief sensory organs areSeveral interesting instances of the application of heat

in the arts are described by Aristotle in various parts of his

I bid . 0 . 6 , 473a .De Respi r . c . 13 477a .

ii . 0 . 3 , 7366 an d 737a .1 P . A . i i . 0 . s, 650A . G .

D 11

A .

e Respi r . c . 8 , 4746. I bi d . c . 9 , 4746 .

*r 16i d . c . 21 , 4806 . H11 H A . i c . 14 . s. 3 . P . A . i i . c . 7 , 6 53a a n d b .

76 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND .

works,and a discussion of some of these wi l l close thi s

account of Ari stotle ’ s description of the phenomena of heat .It seems to have been usual for people l iving near the

Black Se a to encamp on the ice , for the purpose Of fishing ,and to secure their tent poles in holes made in the ice . Inorder to make the poles very secure

,Aristot le says that they

poured hot water round the lower parts of the poles , andthat the ice formed by the rapid freez ing of the water was asubstitute for He also says that i t was a commoncustom for some peop le

,when they wished to fr eeze water

quick ly , to expose it first to the heat of the sun .

’r

Ari stotle describes the manufacture of pear l-ash by theUmbrians , who burnt plants , boi led the result ing ash in water ,and finally cooled down to crystal l ize the salt s produced iIn Me teorol . iv . o . 6 , s . 7 , Aristotle refers to the distortion

of arti cles of potters ’ clay,i f these articles , hardened by cold

or frozen , are p laced in the oven . He exp lains the distortionby saying that there i s a temporary softening of the clay bythe action of the water resulting from the thawing duringthe first stage of the baking process .

Aristotle gives a short account of the production of steel .Worked iron ,

” he says,can be heated so as to be lique s

cent , and then can be sol id ified aga in , and , in thi s way ,they make steel

,for the slag fall s down beneath and i s

cleared off. When this process has been carried out manytimes , and the metal has become pure , steel i s produced . §The worked iron

,

” which might at first Sight be takento be wrought iron

,can scarcely be this metal , because

Ari stotle ’ s description shows that the worked iron ” wascomparatively easi ly fusible

,whereas wrought iron i s not SO .

He says , in fact , in an earl i er passage ,“that iron can bemelted only by a very intense heat

,but i t can be softened .

Here he evident ly refers to wrought iron , or , perhaps morecorrectly , a steely iron . The “worked iron was probablya crude steely iron , containing manganese , such as could beobtained from the manganiferous iron ores of Greece , bythe ancient process of extraction by means of carbon .

Unfortunately , Ari stotle does not describe the method ofextraction . The method of making steel , described by him ,

consi sted in repeatedly heat ing the crude steely iron,each

heating resulting in an el imination of some of the im

Me teor ol. i . c . 12 , S . 18 .

:

l I bi d.

I I bid . ii . 0. 3 , SS. 42 a n d 43 . Ibid. iv. o. 6 , S . 9 .

[I I bi d. iv. 0 . 6 , S . 8 .

PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND. 77

purities . The way in which he refers to the separation ofthe slag Shows that , as m ight be expected , the slag was avery fusible silicate Of iron and manganese , each removalof Slag resulting in a corresponding loss of iron . He himself says that steel was not often made because of the greatloss Of iron , but less refining was needed when the iron usedwas of good

Aristotle ’ s statements about soun d are comparatively fewin number , and occur chiefly in his De An ima . There isbut little in formation on this subject in his De Sen su,

etc ,

where such information might be expected to be found . Ina small Aristotelian treatise , the De Audi bi li bus, are also afew interestin g statements on soun d , but it is generallyadmitted that this treatise was not written by Aristotle .

His observations on sound furnish little that wasoriginal . He reproduces in clearer language some factswhich were well known before his time , e .g .

, that soundwas a motion of the air or other soundin g body , that suchmotion was tran sm itted in some way to the ear an d causeda sensation of hearing , and that an echo was due to arebounding of the air , a bending back or reflection of thevoice . In the production of an echo , he believed that theair rebounded like a ball Off a mass of air which , on accountof its being prevented from dispersing by reason of its fill inga cavity or vessel (sweat ) , acted like a sol id or resistin gb ody .

‘r

When a body , such as a bell , i s sounded , there are , as iswell known , four things which contribute to the result thehammer of the bell , the bell itself, the air acting as a mediumof transmission , and the ear . Aristotle , however , held thatan important condition was that the air should withstandthe blows causing its motion and should not yield laterallyor disperse . If the air were struck forcibly and suddenly

,

it would be unable to yield , but if the blow were weak andslow in its action

,the air would have time to escape or

disperse , and no sound would be produced . It was partlyfor these reasons that he seems to have believed that wooland other light substances

,enclosing man y air spaces

,were

not sounding bodies,while bronze articles and other hard

bodies , which were polished and had no crevices or recessesinto which air could escape

,were sounding bodies ;r

Me teorol. iv. c . 6 , S . 10. 1 De An ima , II . c . 8 , 4196 .

I I bi d. 11. c . 8 , 4196.

78 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND.

Aristotle appears to have bel ieved that the motion towhich sound i s due travels in a straight l ine , and not in al ldirections

,i f the medium is unbroken . There i s not any

passage in his works which seems to repr esent clearly hisviews on this subj ect , but in the Ari stotel ian treat i se , De

Audi bi li bus, i t i s stated that i t i s shown , by means ofShips ’ masts and long pieces of wood , that sound travels ina straight l ine , for if these are struck at one end the soundi s carried straight along

,unless there i s a chink in the

wood , and it bends back at the knots and cannot proceed ina straightAristotle says that sound i s heard in water

,but to a less

extent than in a imL Sound i s heard more distinctly inwater than in air

,as i s wel l known

,and it is very probable

that Aristotle was relying not on experiment but merely onabstract reasoning .

It i s stated in the P roblems, xi . 23 , that in the production of an echo the reflection i s in the direction of al ike therefore the voice of the echo i s l ike thevoice to which it is due . The Prob lems i s an Ari stoteli antreatise , probably not written by Aristotle , but the abovestatement shows that the writer knew that

,in the case Of

sound , the angles of incidence and reflection are equal .

De Audi b i li bus, 802 . De An im .m e .

CHAPTER V .

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS,PLANTS,

AND INANIMATE MATTER .

THE determination of a distin guishing feature betweenanimals an d plants , and of the relationship between formsof life and inanimate matter , has long engaged the attentionof naturalists and others . Many passages in Aristotle ’ s worksShow that he also considered this very difficult question .

He probably had no knowledge of the lowest formsof life , and his knowledge of some forms , such as , forinstan ce

,j elly-fish e s , sea-anemon es , and sponges , was

comparatively Slight . He Observed , however , that someanimals resembled plants in certain respects

,and that some

forms of life originated under circumstances such as tosuggest that they were generated from inanimate matter .

Having made observations of this kin d , he made the followin g important statements , which“ seem to Show that hebelieved in

\ gpg g tah p jeg g s" ggn egaj tifiglij t a br iua vo; i i i/se ts) , or , a sit i s sometimes called , abiogenesis , and in a con tinuousgradation from inan imate matter to the highest forms oflife . He says Thus Nature passes by degrees fromIn an Ima te things to living beings , so that owing to

/\

their continuity the boundary between them escapes notice,

and there is an intermediate common ground . For , firstafter the class of inanimate things comes the class of plants

,

and each of these differs from the rest in seeming to partakeof life to a greater or less extent

,and the whole class seems

to be al ive compared with other bodies , but lifeless comparedwith animals . The passage from them to animals is cont in uous , as I said before , for anyone would be quite at a lossin deciding whether some marine forms of life are plants oranimals , for they are attached to the sea-bed , and many ofsuch forms of life die when they are removed fromAgain , he says For Nature passes in an unbroken man

H. A . viii . c . 1 , SS. 2 an d 3 .

80 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS,

ner from inanimate things to animals , through forms of lifewhich are not animals , in such a way that one class seemsto differ very little from another in the part where theyborder on each other . ”

These ideas were not altogether original , but had beenpartly foreshadowed by other phi losophers . Empedocles

,

Democritus , and others considered that plants had sensationand cognition

,as wi ll be seen later in Chapter vi i . They

bel ieved , in fact , that the vital pr incip le of p lants wasnearly the same as that of animals .In the above passages from Aristotle ’ s H. A . and P . A .

the word it'

ll/ 0x01! i s emp loyed several t imes . It sign ifiessomething without sif t/xii, which may be trans lated

“vitalprinciple

,although it i s doubtful whether there i s any

English word or phrase which exactly corresponds with themeaning intended by Aristotle . This vital principle i sdescribed chiefly in his D e An ima . It i s that act iveprinciple which

,in association with bodies , organized in

some way , gives rise to the phenomena of l ife . The wordorganized i s used here only for the sake of conveniencetaken without qual ificat ion , i t represents a knowledge ofthe constitution of matter far more advanced than Ari stotle ’ sideas on that su b j ect . He considered the vital princip le tobe related to l iving bodies in a manner comparab le with therelat ionship Of Form to Matter , or Sight to the Eye , andsays that if an eye were a l iving being , then Sight would beits vital pr in c iple t He contemplated several kinds of vitalprincip le , manifested by functions of different degrees ofdignity or importance

,the chief being : (1) the Nutrit ive ;

(2) the Sentient , and (3) the Intellectual . Whatever hasone of these principles i s sai d to l ive , and Ar istotle assignedonly one to a form of l ife , because the sentient includes thenutritive

,and the intellectual includes both the nutritive

and the sentient vital principles . All forms of l ife have thenutr it ive vital pr inciple at least .In his contemp lat ions of forms of l ife , Aristotle con

sider ed the vital principle to be more important than thematter associated with it , yet the constitution of this matterhad to sati sfy some conditions to enable the vital princip leto be associated ther ewith . He does not seem to suggestthat the vital pr incip le could be associated with a sculpturedblock of marble or an image cast from bronz e . He bel ieved

,

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

82 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS ,

f'

The chief forms of l i fe which were believed by Ari stotleto be generated spontaneously were : some flowe r le ssplants ; (2) man y of his Ostr a koderma ,

especial ly those nowcalled gastropods and lamell ibranchs ; (3) some of hisEn toma , and (4) some fishes , such as , for examp le , eels andcertain kinds of mullets . These forms of l ife , different asthey are both in structure and in the amount of vit al princ iple they seem to possess , resemble one another , accordingto Aristotle , in being generated immediately from inanimatematter . To this extent

,therefore

,the two important

passages from H. A . vi i i . c . 1 , and P . A . iv . 0 . 5 , previouslycited , are clear . Some Of these forms of l ife resemble oneanother sufficiently to form an assemblage which unitesinanimate matter w i th higher plants a n d animals , such

w

a s

flowering p lants,Insects

,crustaceans

,cephalopods , a n d the

numerous animal s constituting Ari stotle ’ s En a ima , which

\' corresponds to a large extent with the Vertebrata .

The ancient Greeks had no difficulty in bel ieving inspontaneous generat ion

,and even Ari stotle took the trouble

to consider the common saying that men and some quadruCpeds were generated from the earth . It i s true that he wasnot inclined to bel i eve in generati on from the earth itself ,but he seems to have admitted the possibi l ity of generationof men and some quadrupeds from much lower forms ofl ife , for he says that , if generation from the earth didhappen , i t must have been generat ion from worms or larvae ,

Lor fromIn H. A . i i . c . 5 , s . 1 , he says that the Barbary Ape and

other monkeys and also baboons partake of the nature ofboth men and quadrupeds . Neither in thi s n or , apparent ly , in any other passage does Ari stotl e Show that he hadany idea of a development of higher forms of l ife fromcommon ancestors

,at all resembl ing the Darwinian idea of

the origin of species . When referring to Ari stotle ’ s statement about the Barbary Ape , Agassiz says that Strack inhis t r an sla t ion ’

r makes Aristotle say that monk eys form atransit ion between men and quadrupeds

,but the origina l

says no such thing . i This i s quite true , and the commentby Agassiz i llustrates the dan ger of translating Ari stotle too

tfreely .

IAri stotle had some knowledge of no fewer than five

9“G . A . ii i . c . 11 , 7626.

Ar i stote les Na tur . der Thi er e , 1816 , p. 65 .

I An E ssa y on Cla ss ific . , Lon don , 1859 , p. 97 , Note .

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTER. 83

hundred and twenty forms of l ife , and between some Of

these he noticed that there were resemblances , while theydiffered in the nature and quantity of vital principle whichthey seemed to possess . Some forms of l ife contained very ?l ittle or none of the sentient vital principle . It wasthrough these that Nature passed from inanimate materialto undoubted plants and animals . This i s exemplified in)Fig . 4 , which sufficiently explains itself .

FIG. 4 .

Ena ima

Crustacea

Low e r Pla n t s

In a n ima t e

Mat t e r

In Aristotle ’ s ascending scale , plants succeed inanimatebodies . e

exhibit movements due(“ to growth w

an d

They do not move from place to place , an d,

they are affected in some way by objects whichtouch them , they have no sensory fa culty . I Comparedwith one another

,they differ in the amount of vital principle

which th ey’ posse ss . §m m a :

De An ima , 11. c . 2 , 4136, 11 . c . 3 , 415 a . I Ibid . i ii . C 9 . 4325

I Ibid. ii . 0. 12 , 424a . H. A . viii . c . 1 , S. 2 .

84 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS ,

Animals have some part at least of the sentient vitalprinciple

,and are distinguished by being capable of senSome have al l the senses , and others have certain

senses only,but all have the sense of touch ,

’r so that their

l ife i s defined by this . iIt wil l thus be seen that an object which clearly con

tracted on being touched,or which moved bodi ly from place

to place , would be classed by Ari stotle with animals . Therewere also what may be cal led hi s border-line forms of l ife ,such as , for instance , his Holothour i a ,

which Showed somefeatures indicating that they were p lants and al so othersindicating that they were animals . Le t us consider a fewof these forms of l i fe and the way Ari stotle proposed toclassify them .

The fixed ascidians,Ari stotle ’s Te thya ,

resembled p lantsin always being attached to some object

,but , Since they had

a kind of fleshy substance , i t must be assumed that theyhad some degree Of sensibi li ty ; further , these animals didnot seem to have any distinct waste matters from theirnutriment

,and

,in thi s respect , they resembled p lants . § He

considered them to be animals which had a sense of smelldeveloped only to a very sl ight extent .“The forms of l ife to which he gave the name Aka lepha i

included some of the Medusm,Act in ise , and other Coe le n

terata . He considered that they were animals , becausesome of them became free and could capture their prey , butthat , l ike plants , they had no distinct waste ma t te r sfil

A sati sfactory identificat ion of Ari stotle ’ s Holothour i a

does not seem to be possible . He says that they are freeforms of l ife incapable of moving from p lace to p lace , ” andthat they are devoid of sensation and l ive l ike certain p lantswhich exist free from the soil . ’r‘r This i s al l the informationhe gives about them , and it i s not quite clear whether heintended to class them with plants or animals . Some haveattempted to identify them with sea-cucumbers (Holothur i aa) ,but such identification i s unsati sfactory , for sea-cucumbersShow marked signs of feeling . Prof . E . Forbes , afterdescribing the common holothurians of the eastern Mediterranean , and expressing an Opinion that they are not the

* P . A .

I H. A . i . c . 3 , De An ima , 11 c . 2 , 4136 an d 414a .

I I bi d 11 0 13 4356 § P A 1v c 5 681a H A V111 0 1 8 3

i l P A i v c 5 6816 H A 1c Ss 4-5

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTER. 85

same as the Holo thour ia of the Ancients , suggests thatAristotle may have had in view

“the large , roun d , Spon gel ike algue called Spon godium,

l iving free on the sea-bedand abun dan t in the Greek seas . ”

Aristotle ’ s statements about spon ges are remarkable ,and

,un til the eighteen th century , n aturalists do not seem

to have added much further information about them . Be

sides givin g a great deal of other information about sponges ,he says that they are animals resemblin g plants very closely,because they cannot live when torn away from their placesof a t ta chmen t ,

‘r and that they show sign s of feeling , a proof

of this being that,according to common report , they

contract when an attempt is made to tear them away , orwhen the winds and waves are violent the people ofTorona , he adds , deny that this is so . IHis conclusion

,that sponges are animals , apparently

based on very slender data,is in terestin g , because natura

lists were long undecided on this question . Gesner , Rondelet ,and Belon were disposed to consider them to be plants , Rayan d Tournefort classed them with plants , and L innaeus ,Lamarck , Milne-Edwards , Cuvier , and man y others consider ed them to be animals . It may be mentioned that theOpinion of L in naeus chan ged , e .g . ,

in the tenth edition ofthe Systema Na tam sponges are classed with plants , and inthe twe lth and thirteenth editions

,with an imals .

The assumed contractility of sponges , based on hearsayevidence , but denied by the people of Toron a , in Macedon ia ,seems to have formed the chief reason why Aristotle conside red sponges to be animals . However , sponges do notseem to exhibit any such contractility

,for Dr . Gran t , after

numerous experiments on sponges , found no trace of it , andhe also says that several other investigators had been unableto detect it in sponges found in many different local ities . §There is another matter deserving of consideration in

connection with Aristotle ’ s decision that sponges are animals,

via , the extent to which he relied on popular beliefs . Themany passages on sponges

,in his works , show that he

studied these animals in some detail , but it is worthy of

note that , when speaking of their showing signs of feelin g ,

86 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS ,

he seems to rely on what was told him by others , probablyfishermen . I have not been able to find a passage in theancient writers showing that fishermen of Ari stotle ’ s timebelieved that sponges were animals . {IAt a much later t imeGesner was influenced by a popular bel ief of this kind , forhe says : “I do not think that the Sponge i s an animal ;indeed

,i t i s scarcely a zoophyte ; since , however , some of

the common people think that i t i s some kind of animaland

,on thi s account

,Rondelet and Belon have treated of it

in their histori es of aquatic animals,I also shal l deem it

worthy to be included in myIt i s not easy to ascertain what i s the general popular

Opinion on the nature of sponges in the Greek area . Dr .

W . H. D . Rouse informs me that the sponge is spok en of interms which would suit an animal

,and Mr . G . C . Zervos ,

writ ing from Ca lymn os, on October 23rd, 1907 , says :“The

Sponge i s considered to be an animal , because the Spongefishermen say that énI/ o

'

cnaa v u‘

i aoouyyépxa (the Sponges havebecome dead) , and the word xIxo¢55 i s used in modern Greekto denote the death of animals only .

” Wishing to obta ininformation as definite as possible

,I wrote to Mr . W . R .

Hall iday at the British School at Athens . He replied(after hi s return from a journey which included Melos andParos) in a letter received June 24th ,

1911,as follows : “I

think I can answer your question about sponges in thenegative . I have put i t in the fo llowing forms on differentoccasions Ar e sponges animals or plants to which theanswer i s Plants . ’ Ar e sponges animals NO , p lants .

’

Ar e sponges p lants Ye s , of the sea .

’ In no case haveI found any hesitat ion , or leaning towards the animal theory .

”

Evidently , the popular opinion among some Greeks i sthat sponges are p lants , and it is possible that Ari stotle wasnot merely recording a popular bel ief when he said thatsponges are animal s .The distinctions between animals and plants which

Ari stotle attempted to make have long become insufficientin fact , they were scarcely sufficient for the comparativelyvery few lower forms of l i fe known to him . The wel lknown definitions of stones and l ike substances , p lants , andanimals , made by L innaeus , were l ike those of Aristotle ,except that stress was laid on the fact that animals andplants are organised , whi le stones and the l ike a r e unor

I Hi st . An im. iv. Corollarium , 1558 , p. 1066 .

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTER. 87

gan iz ed . Later n aturalists found that these definitions wereun satisfactory . Then importan ce was attached to theabsorption of nutriment by fibres at the lower en ds ofplants and the presence in animals of a mouth above oran teriorly

,leadin g to a stomach . Next , naturalists sought

a reliable distinction between plants and an imals in theexhalation of carbon ic acid by animals and oxygen by plants .With in cr e a smg kn owledge of new forms of life , all thesedistinctions were foun d to be unsatisfactory

,and n ew on es

were suggested,depending on , e .g . , the nature of the cell ,

the properties of protoplasm , the presence or absence ofchlorophyll , and the nature of the food of an imals andplan ts . To-day

,however , the difficulties are confin ed

chiefly to the n umerous very small forms of life of whichAristotle and even L innaeus an d many later n aturalists hadno knowledge . With respect to such small forms of life

,

Sir Ray Lankester says : When , however , we come to thevery lowest un icellular m icroscopic forms of life , there isgreater difficulty in assigning some of the m in uter organ ismsto on e side or the other , and to some extent our decision inthe matter must depend on the theory we may provisionallyadopt as to the nature of the earliest l iving material , whichwas the common ancestral matrix from which both thePlant series and the Animal series have developed .

”

It is clear , therefore , that Aristotle , when he attemptedto determine a boundary lin e between animals and plan ts

,

became the pioneer of a work which has engaged the attention of numerous investigators right up to the present time .

He was not aware of the complicated nature of the phenomena which it would be necessary to un derstand before sodifficult a task could be completed , but he made a creditableattempt . That he knew only comparatively few forms oflife

,and that he had great difficulty in deciding on the nature

of some,the position of which has long been determined

,do

not deprive h im of the credit of bein g the first to in dicatehow a boundary line may be drawn between plan ts andanimals .

A Tr ea ti se on Zoology , pa r t i . 1909 1 1” Xi" :

CHAPTER VI .

CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS , PLANTS,AND

INANIMATE MATTER .

ARISTOTLE’

S conceptions about the constituents ofanimals

,plants , and inanimate matter were connected with

his views about motion . It has been stated already that hebel ieved that there was but one Kosmos or Universe , thatthis was of spherical form , and that the Earth was at itscentre . He held that al l motions of bodies could be reso lvedinto three simp le motions : (1) rectil inear motion upwards oroutwards from the centre ; (2) recti linear motion downwardsor inwards towards the centre , and (3) circular motion . A

s imple body or element must have,according to Aristot le , a

simple motion , and , from a consideration of the motionswhich earthy substances , water , air , and flame exhibit , he concluded that there were four elements

, ea r th,wa ter , a i r , andfir e ,of which ea r th and wa ter correspond to rect il inear motiontowards the centre , and a i r and fir e correspond to recti linearmotion from the centre . To circular motion he assigned afifth e lement , (e ther , distinguished by being eternal andindestructible , undergoin g no change either in quality orquantity . This element , since it could not move in a rectil inear direction , either upwards Or downwards , had neitherlightness nor heaviness . He bel ieved that thi s elementexisted in the upper regions of the Kosmos or , at any rate ,at some distance from us . He does not appear to haveconsidered it to be a part of terrestrial bodies .* On the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

90 CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS,

The manner in which Ari stotle considered bodies to bemade up from the e lemen ts may now be considered . He

says that there are three degrees of composition , the firstbeing that out of the so-called e lemen ts , such as a i r , ea r th ,

wa ter , and fir e , or , he says , i t would be better to say out ofthe forc es referred to above

,the second degree of com

position being that by which the homoeome r ia ,

ale such asblood , flesh , bone , stone , and the l ike , are formed out of thee lemen ts

, and the third being that by which the an homoe

ome r ia, 1L such as the face

,hand

,and many other parts , are

formed out of the homoeome r ia qt With respect to the firstdegree of composit ion

,Ari stotle considered that all forms of

matter , animate or inanimate , contained some quantity ofeach of the e lemen ts , combined together and not merely ina state of m ixture

,and that the differences in the properties

of these forms of matter,such as differences in heaviness or

lightness , roughness or smoothness , were consequential onthe proportions of the e lemen ts present . § Consequent ly , eachof the substances earth

,water

,air

,and flame

,as they are

known to us,contain some quantity of each of Ari stotle ’ s

e lemen ts , but earth , water , air , and flame contain preponderating proportions of the elements ea r th , wa ter , a i r , and fir e ,respectively . Other forms of matter , even such differentsubstances as stone and palm Oil , contain the same elements ;their differences are due merely to the different proportionsin which these elements are present . The stone contains apreponderant quantity of ea r th ,

and the oi l contains com

pa r a t ive ly large amounts of a i r and wa ter . The oil , ifl iquid , may be made sol id , as i s wel l known , without anychange in its chemical composition

,but , according to

Ari stot le ’ s views , the solid oi l would differ from the liquidOil chiefly by containing smal ler amounts of a i r and wa ter .

C learly , therefore , Aristotle bel ieved that a change in therelative proportions of the e lemen ts in a substance resultedin the production of a substance having properties diffe r en t from those of the original substance . This wasnot all i t wil l be evident

,from the fol lowing account of his

views on the constitution of substances,that he held that

the e lemen ts existed in a state of combinat ion and not mere

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTER. 91

mixture . He uses three words in a technical sense , och/Sea n ,

147515, and xpa‘

c . Accordin g to Aristotle ’ s explan ation ofthese words , they respectively mean a mechanical mixture ,a compoundin g of solid bodies so as to produce a body ab solute ly un iform in composition (the solid bodies having beenso blen ded that not even the smallest particle of an y of themcan be detected) , and a compounding of fluids in the sameway . He says that , since bodies can n ot be divided in toin divisible particles , and syn thesi s and mi ceis are differen t ,we ought n ot to say that in mixi s the small particles of themixed bodies preserve their individuality , for the result ofthe mi azi s is a homoeome r ion . Nothin g of this kin d wouldresult , he says , from a mixture of in divisible particles , for , ifi t were possible to examin e the mixture w ith the eye ofLynceus

,i t would be seen that the mixture was not a mi r i s ,

although it might seem to be so to one with ordinary sigh t .

’e

Aristotle,therefore , had some ideas of what i s n ow

called chemical combin ation , but he held that his e lemen tscombined in every con ceivable proportion ; his compoun dswere more like some alloys than chemical compounds . Be

l ieving that all bodies were formed from four e lemen ts ,and that these e lemen ts were capable of combinin g in allproportions , i t is not surprising that the alchemists , whowere greatly influen ced by Aristotle

,persisted so long in

their efforts to tran smute the baser metals in to gold .

‘r That

Aristotle ’ s ideas were very crude may be seen from thefollowin g examples , the first of which is taken from his ownwrit in gs . In the production of bronze there is usually arather large loss of tin by oxidation and vaporization , butthe rest of the tin alloys w ith the copper with the productionof a bronze which is much harder and of a lighter colourthan the copper . According to Aristotle , the tin n earlyvanishes durin g the production of the alloy , its effect bein gmerely to modify the colour of the alloy

,because the copper

De Gen er . e t Cor r . i . c . 10, 328a .

I Rese a rch e s on the t r a n smuta t ion of ce r ta in e l emen ts in to oth er

e lemen ts have b e en made dur in g r e ce n t y e a r s by Sir William Ramsaya n d oth er s (se e Jour n a l of the Chemi ca l Soci e ty , 1907 , pp. 1593-1606 ;1909, pp. 624 Sir Wi ll iam Ramsay says :

“Th e un doub ted fa cttha t th e well-kn own h elium i s a product of th e degr a da t ion ofr a diummust b e h e ld to b e thorough ly e sta b lish ed . An d 1n th is in st an ce , on ecer t a in ca se of tr a n smuta tion is suffi ci e n t (Jour n . of the Ch em. Soc . ,

1909 , p.

I t may b e of in ter e st to sta te tha t th e re is a Spec ifica t ion for Br itishLe tter s Pa ten t , No . 26356 , A.D. 1910 (Roux) , for t ran smutin g iron in tosilver an d gold.

92 CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS,

acts more strongly on the tin , which cannot act strongly onthe OOpper .

’e Again , i f water be deprived of its hydrogen ,a gas i s left having properties very different from those ofwater . On Ari stot le ’ s assumption , this should be explainedby saying that the water had been changed by an additionof the element a i r , whereas hydrogen , which would be ofthe nature of Ari stotle ’ s element a i r , has been taken away .

He was also quite unaware that the physical properties of asubstance may be changed whi le its composition remainsthe same .

Respecting the physical constitution of matter , Ari stot leheld that matter was continuous and not made up of indivisible pa r ts . I He rej ected the atom i c theories of Leucippus ,Democritus

,and other ancient Greek philosophers who

considered matter to consist of a toms or smal l indivisibleparticles separated by interspaces and in a state of motion .

This theory has only a superficia l resemblance to the modernatomic theory of chemists , and was open to the objectionthat it did not sat isfactorily exp lain how the a toms wereheld together . Aristotle ’ s theory that matter was continuouswas at least not open to this obj ection . Compared with thetheories of the ancient atomists , i t might be sai d that ,broadly speaking , matter was considered by Aristot le to bevitreous or col loidal , and by the atomists to be granular .The modern theory takes account of the action of chemicaland physical forces which were quite unknown both to theatomists and to Aristotle .

The substances , or homoeomeria , resulting from thecombination or min i s of the elements ea r th , wa ter , a i r ,and fir e , wil l next be considered . According to Aristotle

,a

part of a homoeomer ion , such as flesh , may be correctlycalled by the name given to the homoeome r ion i tself

,but a

part of an an homoeomer ion ,such as a hand , cannot be

properly designated by the name of the an homoeome r ion lHe gives numerous examples of his homoeomeria

,such as

,

for example , flesh , blood , splan chn on or vascular materialforming the l iver and other chief vi scera

,fat

,marrow

,milk

,

bi le , tendon , carti lage , bone , wood , stone , bronze , gold , si lver ,and other metals . These examples show that Ari stotle ’ s

De Gen er . e t Cor r . i . c . 10, 3286.

I Physi cs, iii . cc . 6 a n d 7 .

I H. A . i . c . 1 , s . 1 ; P . A . 11 . c . 2 , 647b , 11. c . 9 , 655b ; De Gen er . e t

Cor r . i . c . 1 , 314a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

94 CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS, ETC.

animals , e .g . ,men

,birds

,and fishes

,to be made up of

a n homoeome r ia . His examples of an homoeomer ia arealmost entirely taken from the animal kingdom , but i t i sclear that a branch of a tree or a leaf , a wooden bal l , a table ,or a sword would be an homoeome r ia .

The distinct ion made by Ari stotle between an homoe

ome r ia and homoeomeria corresponds , in an elementary way ,with the modern distinction between the organs of th e bodyand the t i ssues of which they consist

,a distinction mainly

due to the labours of Bichat , who l ived as late as the end ofthe eighteenth century . Ari stotle ’ s homoeomeria , however ,include not only const ituent parts of the organs , but alsomatters which can be regarded as secretions and ej ecta only .

Aristotle knew but very l ittle indeed of the structure orcomposit ion of the homoeomer ia . Modern anatomistsbreak up organic homoeomeria , such as fat , skin , and flesh ,into cells , muscle fibres , and connective and other ti ssues ,but he does not appear to have known anything of these .

It may be suggested that the vesicles , which he believedwere formed in the process of spontaneous generation , weresome kind of animal or vegetable cells

,but there i s nothing

to support such a suggestion in the rest of his works . Thefollowing , in fact , seems to represent all he knew about thestructure or composit ion of hi s homoeomeria . He knew ofthe presence of fat in the substance of the l iver

,in flesh

,

and in milk , he knew also that certain fibrous structuresoccur in flesh , and he was aware that

“fibres ,” corresponding

with what is now called fibr in ,could be extracted from b lood

,

after i t had been drawn from th e body of an animal .In Chapter ix . a deta i led account wi l l be given of

Aristotle ’ s homoeomeria .

CHAPTER VII .

ON PLANTS .

THERE are many passages in Aristotle ’ s works whichshow that he contemplated writing a separate treatise on

plants , and it i s probable that he wrote a treatise of thiskin d . No work on plants

,however , which ca n be assigned

wi th confidence to Aristotle has been foun d . There is asmall Aristotelian treatise entitled De Pla n tis , considered bysome to be one of Aristotle ’ s gen uine works

,but usually

admitted to be spurious . The only genuine sources fromwhich his views on plants can be obtained are , in fact , alarge number of passages which occur , almost incidentally , insome of his works , particularly his History ofAn ima ls, Pa r tsof An ima ls, Gen er a tion of An ima ls, De An ima ,

and thePa rva Na tur a li a . It wi ll be best to consider these passages ,before discussin g further the Aristotelian treatise on plants .The passages in which Aristotle distinguishes plants

from animals on the on e side , and in animate matter on theother

,have been referred to already in Chapter v . There

it will be seen that,accordin g to h im ,

plan ts have on ly thelowest form of vital prin ciple— the nut ritive , that they donot move from place to place , but exhibit movements due togrowth and decay

, an d that they have no sensory faculty ,although they are affected in some way by certain externalinfluences .These views , compared with those of Anaxagoras ,

Empedocles, Democritus , and Plato , on the nature of the

vital principle of plants,are less fanciful , and indicate a much

more practical and reasonable conception of plant life . It isclear from the Timceus and from fragments from AnaxagorasEmpedocles

,and Democritus , such as , for example , some

which are given in the Aristotelian treatise , De P la n ti s , i .cc . 1 and 2 , that they believed that plants had sensation andcognition , that , in fact , they were capable of feelings of j oyand sadness .The consideration of the nature of the vital principle , or

96 ON PLANTS.

soul,of p lants occupied the minds of many who wrote about

them,and attempts were made to determine in what part

or parts of the p lant the sou l resided . The general Opinionwas that the soul of a p lant resided in the heart ” or pith ,and

,as late as the sixteenth century

,Caesa lpin us seriously

considered this subj ect . After deciding that a very suitableposition for the sou l of a plant i s in the middle of the partwhere the stem starts from the root

,he argued that a soul

exi sted even in the axil of each leaf,and final ly concluded

that the soul of a plantwas ve luti in omn espa r tes cli str i butum,

or distributed as i t were to al l parts of the p lant . *

The statement that plants are affected in some way byexternal in fluen ce swL i s not clear , but the context suggeststhat the effects of cold and heat on the p lants were inAri stotle ’ s mind .

Respecting the nutrit ion of p lants , he says that theyobtain food by means of their roots , i which he comparesw i th the mouth of an animal

, § and with the blood-vessel sof the umbi lical cord .“Their food , he says , must be l iquidand

,al though they seem to be nouri shed by one substance

only , via , water , yet they are nourished by more than onesubstance

,for earth i s in combination with the wa t e r .

‘ll

Plants , he says , obtain their food from the earth in a digestedstate , wherefore waste matters are not produced in plants ,which use the earth and its heat in place of a stomach .

“6Ari stotle did not know anything about the nutritive

importance of the leaves and other green parts,but his

statement about the complex nature of the food of p lants i scorrect as far as it goes . The most remarkable parts of hisstatements about the nutrition of p lants are

,however , those

relating to the function of the soi l and the consequentabsence of waste matters in p lants . He i s reasoning , as heoften does , by analogy with animals . The food taken up bythe roots required no elaboration so as to separate the useful from the waste parts this process had been effected

,so

Aristotle bel i eved , by means of the soil and its heat . Thep lants received a food which corresponded with that which

,

in animal s , passed from the stomach and small intestinesinto the blood . No waste products , so Ari stotle says , wereformed . This view was held for many centur ies after

De P la n ti s , Flor en ce , 1583 , p. 10. I De An ima , 11 . c . 12 , 424a .

I P . A . iv. 0 . 7 , 6836. S De Juven t . e t S en ec t . c . 1, 468a .

I] G . A . i i . 0. 7 , 7456 .

‘ll De Gen er . e t Cor r . i i . 0 . 8 , 335a .

” 03 P . A . 11. c . 3 , 650a , i i . 0 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

98 ON PLANTS.

example,the fig and the wi ld fig .

* He exp lains more fully ,in H. A . v . c . 26 , s . 3 , the act ion of the wi ld fig . In wildfigs

,according to him

,i s an insect called Psen , which , after

passing through its larval and pupal stages , fl ies out andenters the unripe fruit Of the cultivated fig trees . The effectproduced is , so Aristotle says , that the figs do not fall off thetrees

,and , for this reason , the growers attach branches of

the wild fig to the cultivated trees , and also p lant the twokinds of trees close together .

This shows that he was aware of the custom of growersof figs to use branches of the Wild F ig (Capr i/ten s) to effectthe process

,so wel l known by the name c apr ifica t ion , by

which the growers bel ieved that the ripening of the figs washastened . The process of artificial fertil ization of the datepalm by app lying the flowers of the male tree to those ofthe female tree was also practi sed by the Ancients

,although

they did not understand the process . The case of the figwas different

,for both its male and its female flowers are

carried by the inner parts of the hol low fleshy receptaclewhich forms the greater part of the fig . In this case , thebeneficial result

,i f any

,i s bel ieved to be due , just as Aristotle

believed , to the piercing of the fruit by a kind of gal l-insect(Cyn ips) carried by the branches of the wi ld fig .

Aristotle seems to have taken a very l imited view of thefunctions of plants

,for he says that they have no other

duty but the production of seeds and fruit nL He statesincorrectly that willows and b lack poplars do not produceseeds i Some p lants , he says , are ferti le and others sterile . §In what way Ari stotle bel ieved that the male and female

princip les or powers were b lended in p lants i s not clear .His statement that some p lants are ferti le and others sterileindicates that he knew of the exi stence of what are nowcal led dioecious p lants

,but it i s also c lear that he did not

know that the steri le p lants bore the male and the ferti leones the female flowers .

Ari stotle came near to discovering that hermaphroditi smwhich i s found in the majority of flowering p lants , but hisviews on the production of fruits and seeds prevented himfrom mak ing the discovery . He seems to have been convin ced that this production was the result of a process ofnutrition . Plants

,according to him , had a nutritive soul or

ON PLANTS. 99

vital principle on ly , and their fruits and seeds were a residuefrom the superfluous food of the plan ts . He held , it i s true ,that the male an d female principles or powers were blendedin some way in the plan ts , but he failed to discover thesexual importance of the stamens and pistils . The importance of these organs was n ot understood , in fact , un til theseventeenth century , when Camera r ius concluded that

,in

the vegetable kingdom , reproduction by means of seed is noteffected unless the anthers (api ces) have duly prepared theplant itse lf.

’Ie This conclusion was based on a n umber ofexperimen ts , e .g . ,

he observed that the castor-oil plant yieldedempty capsules and not perfect fruits if the male flowers wereremoved before the anthers Opened . Von Sachs says that allhistoric records concur in proving that Came ra r ius was thefirst who attempted to solve the question of sexuality inplants by exper ime n t .

’r

Aristotle refers to parasitical plants , and says that thesegrow upon other plants , or may even be quite free , e .g . ,

akind of Stonecrop (Ep ipe tr on ) from Parnassus wi ll grow fora lon g time when merely hung over a peg . i When describin gthe reproduction of bees , he says that some believed thatthey did n ot reproduce sexually but obtained their youn gfrom certain plan ts , e .g . , some kind of honeysuckle or reed . §Again , he says that the Chlor i s, which was probably theg r e en fin ch ,

made its nest of a plant called Symphy ton ,which

it pulled up by the roots,and that its nest was lined with

grass , hair , and wool . ”In addition to those already mentioned , Aristotle also

mentions,mostly in passages relating to the food of various

animals,many other trees , shrubs , and herbs , some only of

which can be identified at all satisfactorily , e .g .,species of

oak , e lm ,almond , myrtle , rose , mistletoe , vetch , thyme , and

various grasses . He mentions several plants from which,he

says , bees obtain wax , e .g . , species of clover , l ily , myrtle , an db roomfil and several which are usually planted near thehives , e .g . ,

species of wild pear , bean , lucerne , poppy , myrtle ,and a lmon d .

M e

The above represents most of the work of Aristotle onplants , in so far as this has been preserved in his genuin e

De Se amP la n ta rum Epi stola , Tub in g en , 1694 , p. 40.

I Hi s tory of Bota n y fr om 1530 to 1860, Ga rn sey’

s t ra n sla tion ,Oxford, 1890, p. 385 . P . A . iv . c . 5 , 681a .

H. A . v . c . 18 , s. 1 . Ibi d. ix. 0 . 14 , s . 2 .

if Ibid. ix. 0 . 27 , s. 22 . Ibid . ix. 0. 27 , s . 26.

100 ON PLANTS.

writings . It has been mentioned already that he probablywrote a separate work on p lants , but tha t no work on plants ,which can be assigned with confidence to him

,has been

found . Such a work seems to be referred to by Ath enmusand Pollux , for , referring to a certain kind of date without astone , Athenaeus says An d Ari stotle speaks thus in hi streati se on while Pol lux says It i s al so writtenin the work of Ari stotle or Theophrastus relat ing to plan t s .

”

1L

There i s one and , apparently , only one work on p lantswhich might be Aristotle ’ s own

,and thi s is the small

Aristotel i an treatise previously mentioned . There areseveral editions of it , the ear l i est which I have seen beingone printed at the end of an edition of the Geopon i ca ,

usual ly attributed to Constantine VII . , and publi shed atBasle , in 1 539 , so i t i s bel i eved . On the tit le-page i s astatement in Latin , which reads Also two Greek bookson plants by Ari stotle

,which books have lately been saved

from destruction and are restored for the first time in thisedition for the use of the learned . In these books

,plants

are divided into trees,shrubs

,grasses

,and garden plants

,

such as cabbages,and also into house

,garden

,and wild

plants ; roots , bark , l eaves , flowers , fruits , and other partsof p lants are discussed

,and al so plants yielding mi lky juices

and certain odoriferous p lants of Syria and Arabia . It i salso stated that p lants grown in some local ities becomechanged to other kinds when transferred to other local i t ies ,l ike a p lant cal led B e len ion

, which i s injurious when grownin Persia

,but edible when transplanted to Egypt or Pales

tine,and reference i s made to some date and fig trees which

were said to be flowe r le ss .

Referring to this treat ise , Br isseau-Mi rbel says : Inthe M iddle Ages

,an impostor dared to publish under the

name of this philosopher a work entitled De P la n ti s , a crudecollection of mistakes and absurdities

,which nobody to-day

attributes to Aristotle .

”

1 The mistakes and absurdities arenot such

,however

,as to justify a bel ief that the work i s

spurious,and it must be conceded that , in accordance with

Ari stotle ’ s own practice , there are repetitions , in substanceat l east

,of statements found in his genuine works . These

repetitions relate to the presence of a soul in plants , and theabsence of sensation or motion , the distinction between

B e ipu . xiv. c 66 . I x. 170.

I Elemen s de Physiol. r ege’

t . e t de Bota n i que , Pa r is , 1815 , p. 505 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

CHAPTER VIII .

THE PROBABLE NATURE AND EXTENT OF

ARISTOTLE ’

S DISSECTIONS .

To the readers of Ari stot le ’ s zoological works , especial lyBooks i .— i i i . of his Hi story of An ima ls , the question of thenature and extent of hi s di ssections constant ly presentsitself . This question may be considered w ith respect to(1) the lower animals , and (2) Man , including the humanfoetus .With respect to the lower animals , Ari stotle often speaks

of the necessity for ascertaining the structure and arrangement of their parts by means of dissections . There arealso many passages which clearly indicate the use of thedissecting-knife

,e . g .

,parts of the description of the cham

aeleon ,

* of the eyes of the mole , I and of the developmentof the chick in the egg . 1 Again , some of his descriptionsof the internal parts of animals , e . g .

,his description of the

gall-bladder of the Pe lamid, § of the comp lex stomach of aruminant

,“and of the aorta and its b r an ch e sfil indicatemore than a laying open of the body of an animal and acasual inspection of its internal parts . There are alsopassages , e . g .

, those describing the movements of the hearta n d sides of a chamaeleon , after it had been dissected , ” andthat referring to the movements Of the heart after itsremoval from a tor toise ,H which show that Aristotle vivise ct ed some of the lower animals .There are also statements which show that the disse c

t ions,i f any

,on which they were based were very carelessly

performed , e . g .,the statements that the wolf and the l ion

have only one bone in the neck and not separate ve r teb r ae , IIand that the stomach of a dog or l ion i s not much wider

H. A . 11 . c . 7 , s . 5 . I I bi d. i . c . 8, s . 3 .

1 Ibid . vi . 0 . 3 , ss . 1—4. Ibid . i i . 0 . 11 , s . 7 .

Ibi d . ii . 0 . 12 , ss. 5-6 . 1TI b i d . i ii . c . 4 , ss . 3-6 .

Ibi d . i i . c . 7 , s . 5 . II De Juven t . e t S en ec t . c . 2 , 4686.

IIP . A . iv. 0. 10, 686a ; H. A . ii . 0 . 1 , s. 1 .

ARISTOTLE ’

S DISSECTIONS . 103

than the intestine .

* Most of these statements were probably made by others and adopted by Aristotle withoutfurther examin ation

,and , in any case , i t would be unfair to

estimate the value of his dissections by giving too muchweight to such statements . His work on animals shouldbe taken as a whole .

It is probable that Aristotle was taught dissection whenquite young , for his father was one of the Asclepiads , anorder of priest-physicians , who are said to have practiseddissection an d to have taught it to their ch ildr en . I He musthave made man y examination s of the internal parts ofmammals

,birds

,reptiles

,and amphibians

,to which he

often refers , and his extensive knowledge of man y cephalopods , molluscs , echinoderms , and fishes

,must have been the

result of numerous dissections . A l ist of animals whichAristotle appears to have dissected will be found at the en dof this chapter . It is probable

,from the way in which

adverbs of position,such as gunpowsv and M axi m

, are usedin many passages

,that Aristotle often dissected animals

arran ged in a vertical or at least highly inclined position .

With respect to human bodies,the chief question to be

decided is whether or no Aristotle ever dissected one ofthese . In order to arrive at a conclusion

,i t i s proposed to

examine the evidence obtain able from Aristotle ’ s writings ,and then to examine the eviden ce furnished by the writingsof other authors or by other sources of information .

After describing the extern al parts of the human body ,Aristotle says that the intern al parts are less known thanthose of other animals and that

,in order to describe them ,

i t becomes necessary to examin e the corresponding partsof animals which are most nearly related to Man i He

also states that the human stomach is l ike that of a dog , an dis not much wider than the in testine

, § that the occiput isempty ,“and that the heart is above the lun gs .

‘ll Thesepassages clearly indicate that Aristotle never dissected ahuman body , and there are very few passages which suggestthat he did so . His description of the position of the heart ,in H. A . i . c . 14 , ss . 1 and 2 ; i i . 0 . 12 , s . 2 , an d P . A . i ii . c . 4 ,

6666, has often been cited to show that he dissected the

human body , but it is not by any means sufficient . On

account of the importance of these passages in con nection

H. A . 11. c . 12 , s . 7 . I Ga len ’

s De An a t . Admi n i str , 11. c . 1 .

IH. A . i . c . 13 , s . 1 . Ibid . i . c . 13 , s . 9 .

bid. i . c . 7 , i . c . 13 , s . 2 . 1TI bid . i . c . 14 , s . 1 .

104 ARISTOTLE ’

S DISSECTIONS.

with the question of Aristotle ’ s dissections , i t wi l l be n e ce ssary to discuss them at some length .

The heart, Ari stotle says , i s more to the left side in

Man ,being inclined a l ittle away from the middle l ine , in

the upper part of the chest,towards the left This

i s substantially correct,for about two-thirds of the volume

of the heart l ies to the left Of the median p lane and its apexi s directed towards the lower part of the left breast . Thedescription may have been written , however , after an examination Of the position of the heart of one Of the loweranimals

,supplemented by an external examination of the

part of the human chest against which the heart seems tobeat . It i s evident that the beat of the heart , usually perc ept ib le about three in ches to the left of the median planeand in the fifth intercostal space

,would suggest that the

heart l i es more on the left s ide of the chest . Galen saysthat i t was on this account that the heart was bel i eved to beon the left side ; he himself bel ieved that the heart was in acentral posit ion .

’r

An other passage sometimes ci ted to show that Ari stotledi ssected the human body i s that in which he says that it i snot without feelings of repugnance that we see blood , flesh ,bones

,blood-vessel s , and other parts in the human body . 1

This passage seems to out both ways ; i t i s as much againstas for the Opinion that Ari stotle dissected the human body .

It appears,therefore

,that Ari stotle ’ s writings do not

prove that he dissected the human body ; on the contrary ,they contain many statements which suggest that he neverdid so . With respect to the human foetus , he seems to havedissected i t , i f only to a smal l extent . He says that if thehuman embryo , aborted after forty days , be put into coldwater it becomes surrounded by a membrane

,and that , i f

this be dissected away , the embryo appears to be of the sizeof a large ant

,all i ts parts being visible and its eyes being

large . § Again , he makes some statements , e .g . ,that the

puman kidneys are lobulated

,which are true of the human

cetus .Turning to the evidence obta inable from sources other

than Ari stotle ’ s writings , i t wi l l be seen that there i s astrong presumption against the probabi l i ty that he ever disse cted the human body . Among the Greeks a feel ing of

H. A . i . c . 14 , s . 2 , i i . 0 . 12 , s . 2 ; P . A . i i i . c . 4 , 6666 .

IDe Usu Pa r ti am, vi . 2 . IP A . i . c . 5 , 645a .

H. A . V11. 0. 3 , s. 4 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

106 ARISTOTLE ’

S DISSECTIONS.

Bat Dove Toad OctopusDeer Duck Conger SepiaDolphin Goose Dogfish CrabE l ephant Owl Ee l LobsterHare Partridge F i shing-frog MurexHorse Pigeon Grey Mul let PurpuraMarten !uail Pa r a silurus SnailsMole Swan P e lamid WhelkMouse Chamae l eon Red Mul let LocustOx Grass Snake Scorpaena Se a -urchinsPig L izard Star GazerWeasel Tortoise AscidiansDomesti c Fowl Frog Calamary

The inclusion of the elephant may cause surprise,but

Aristotle ’ s statements about it seem to justify its inclusion inthe l i st .

CHAPTER IX .

ARISTOTLE ’

S HOMCEOMERIA .

THE homoeomeria are described chiefly in H. A . i i i . cc .

2 1 7 an d P . A . i i . cc . 1- 9 . It has been said that these partsof Aristotle ’ s works bear some relation ship to the science ofHistology , but this is true on ly in a very limited degree .

The science of Histology,in fact

,can not be said to have

exi sted until Malpighi,Leeuwen hoek

,a n d other investi

gators successfully used the microscope in the seventeen thcen tury . How very slight the relation ship is betweenAristotle ’ s work on the homoeomeria a n d the scien ce ofHistology wil l be seen from the following description s of hiscommon homoeomeria , commencin g with those included byh im amon gst the solid or dry an d passin g on to thoseincluded among the soft or liquid homoeomeria . Theformer include bone

,cartilage

,sin ew

,fibre ”

an d the like ,the material formin g blood-vessels

,skin an d membran e , and

the latter in clude flesh,suet and fat

,marrow ,

blood , seruman d the like

, an d mi lk .

1 . Bon e a n d Ca r ti la g e— Aristotle says that the bones

of Viviparous quadrupeds with blood do n ot differ much inthemselves , but merely in their relative degrees of hardn essan d softness , strength and weakn ess , a n d in the presence orabsence of marrow .

* He considered ordinary bone tocon tain more earthy matter than the bone foun d in fishesand , in H. A . i i i . c . 7 , s . 6 , he says that the dolphin hasordinary bon es and not bones like those of fishes , which areonly analogous to ordinary bones .He refers particularly to the hardness of the bones of

lions , an d says that they are harder than the bones of otheranimals , for , when struck together , sparks fly just as if thebones were ston e s .

’r It is true that many of the bones of

lions are very hard . According to Owen , they contain723 per cent of inorganic constituents

,or more than three

H. A . iii . c . 7 , s . 5 ; P . A . i i . c . 9 , 65 5a .

I H. A . ii i . c . 7 , s . 6 ; P . A . i i . 0 . 9 , 655a .

108 ARISTOTLE’

S HOMCEOMERIA.

per cent . in excess of those found in the bones of Man andthe Whether the bones of lions are harder thanthose of other animals would be very difficult to determ ine

,but many of the bones of other carnivores are very

hard,and so also are some of the bones of hares , rabbits ,

birds , and snakes .Aristot le says that carti lage is of the same nature as

bone , but differs in degree , and , l ik e bone , does not growafter it has been cut away , 1

L that in Viviparous land animalsit does not contain marrow in the same way as bones , andthat it occurs about the ears , noses , and some extremities ofbones in Viviparous quadrupeds iIt i s evident from these passages that he was aware of a

close relationship between bone and cartilage,but there i s

nothing to show that he knew anything about the conversion of some cartilages into bone by ossifying processes .When he says that bone and cartilage differ in degree , hemeans that they manifest different degrees of certainquali ti es , such as , for examp le , hardness , strength , andheaviness .In his statement about bone or car tilage not growing again ,

i t i s evident that he i s not referring to a sl i cing or severance which still leaves the sl iced or severed ends in contact ;this i s shown by his using the verb aiwoxcivr 'rw (I cut or breakOff) . A precisely simi lar statement i s made twice in one ofthe genuine works of Hippocrates

,the same verb being

used . § In all probabil ity , Ari stot le Oopied , in this instance ,from Hippocrates . It i s now kn own that

,when a part of a

bone or cartilage has been removed,the bone or carti lage i s

reproduced , provided the periosteum or peri chondrium , asthe case may be

,has been left . Aristot le knew nothing

of this , but he was aware of the importance of theperiosteum in protectin g the substance of the bone , for hesays “bones which have been stripped bare of theirmembranes In one of the genuine work s ofHippocrates there is a passage which seems to show thatmor t ifica t ion sets in when the membrane of a bone has beenremovedfi l

2 . Sin ews, Fi br es, a n d the li ke — Ar i stotle repeatedlyuses the words vefipov and i

'

s (n euron and i s) to denote certainconstituents of the body . It i s Often difficult to determine

An a t . Ver tebr . vol . i . 1866 , p. 20.

IH. A . iii . c . 8 ; P . A . i i . 0 . 9 , 655 a . IH. A . i ii . c . 8.

Aphor i sms , Se ct ion 6 , 19 an d Section 7 , § 28 .

IIH. A . i ii. c . 11 , s. 1 . 1TOn Fr a ctur es, 33 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

110 ARISTOTLE’

S HOMCEOMERIA .

His attempts to describe the structure of these bloodvessel s can hardly be expected to be satisfactory . He noticed

,

however,that the wal ls of the arteries were stouter than

those of the veins , but his explanation i s incorrect . Thewalls of arteries and veins are sim i lar in structure , but therei s a much greater development of muscular and elasti ctissues in the inner and middle coats of the wall s of thearteries than in those of the veins . In the passage alreadyreferred to

,from H. A . i i i . c . 3 , s . 3 , Ari stotle probably

uses the term membra n e for the inner coat of the venaecavae , which i s somewhat readi ly separable from the middlecoat .In H. A . i i i . c . 5 , s . 3 , i t i s said that the material forming

blood-vessels can resist the action of fire , whi le sinew i sentirely destroyed by it . This statement is not altogetherfanciful

,for

,when pieces of the aorta of. an ox are cut off

and placed on a bright red fire , except that they very slowlycarbonize with the formation of small bli sters and theoozing out of a small quantity of fluid

,their forms undergo

as l ittle alteration as if they were pieces of porcelain . Underthe same conditions , sinews are at once twisted into fantasticshapes an d are carbonized more rapidly .

4 . Skin a n d Mern br a n e .

~ —There i s but l ittle information,

in Ari stotle ’ s works , about these material s . He consideredskin (i f-

5

mm ) to be fissile and extensible , and membrane (éwiv)to be of the nature of a thin

,compact skin

,but neither fissile

nor He also says that membrane does not r eunite after i t has been cut .

‘r He includes the urinary

bladder among membranes , but says that it i s of a specialkind

,because it i s extensible . 1

5 . F lesh . This i s inclu ded by Ari stot le among the softor fluid homoeomeria . F lesh

,he says , i s fissi le in al l dir e c

t ions, § and is a material thrown down from the blood which ,

contained in numerous blood-vessels , i s so universally distributed through the flesh that blood flows at once from anypart of the flesh when cut , even though the blood-vesselscannot be seen in the out parts .“In the Hippocratic treatise

, On F lesh , 8 and 9 , i t i sexplained how the liver , the kidneys , and the flesh areformed as a result of some k ind of coagulation of the blood .

It would seem , at first sight , that Aristotle had written his

H. A . i i i . c . 11 , s . 1 . Ib id .

1 Ibi d . i i i . c . 11 , s . 3 . Ibid . i ii . c . 12 , s . 1 .

HP . A . i ii . c . 5 , 668a .

ARISTOTLE ’

S HOMOEOMERIA. 111

statements about the formation of flesh , after consultin gthis Hippocratic treatise . It is admitted

,however , that this

treatise was n ot written by Hippocrates , but by an authorof much later date . Plato also says that flesh is normallyformed from the blood , * but his real meanin g is not clear ,for he says that bon e

,flesh , and the like are all formed

from marrow and other ma t e r ia ls iL

Aristotle does n ot appear to have known anything aboutthat most remarkable property of flesh , via , its con tractility .

This wi ll be discussed in Chapter xi ii . His referen ce tofibres ” and the like seen in flesh show that he saw , butdid not understand the nature of , the con n ective tissueswhich ensheath the muscle-bundles .

6 . Sn e t a n d Fa t — Aristotle says that suet is quite hardan d brittle when cold

,but fat is liquid and does not harden

,

an d that they differ with respect to the parts in which theyoccur . I Both suet and fat are formed , accordin g to h im ,

from blood,and , on this account , he con cluded wron gly that

fat is not found in animals without blood . §Aristotle ’ s statement that fat is liquid and does not

harden i s true of some animals only . The comparativelylarge masses of fat in geese

,ducks

,and quails are n early or

quite liquid in the living birds,and the fat of the quail

run s l ike water at as low a temperature as 500 or 60° F .

The fat of fishes and amphibians is also fluid at comparat ive ly very low temperatures . The fat of some an imalsmelts at comparatively high temperatures an d,

even inan imals l ike pigs an d horses , in which the fat is of a softkind , i t i s not liquid in the livin g animals .

7 . Ma rrow — In P . A . i i . c . 6, 6516, Aristotle says :

Marrow is of the nature of blood and is n ot , as somebelieve

,the active gen erating force of semen .

” This is arefutation

,more particularly of one of Plato ’ s statements in

the Timwn s, 73 . It is contained , he says , in the bones , an di s quite full of blood in young animals , but is either fatty orsuety in older animals . |In very youn g animals the marrow is red and vascular ,

and in older an imals there are the ordinary yellow marrow ,

rich in fats,and the red marrow foun d in the ribs , stern um ,

vertebrae , cran ial bones , an d the epiphyses of the lon gbones . This red marrow conta ins less fat , but many small

Tima ’us , 82 . 1‘ I bi d . 73 .

I H. A . i i i . c . 13 , s . 1 . P . A . i i . 0 . 5 , 651a .

IIH. A . i ii . c . 15 .

112 ARISTOTLE ’

S HOMCEOMERIA.

red cells,or erythroblasts , which are concerned in the pro

duction of the red corpuscles of the b lood .

8 . B lood , Serum, a n d the li ke — Ari stotle paid muchattention to these homoeomeria . He gives a great deal ofin teresting information about the blood , the serum or waterypart of it

,and the process of coagulation . He says that

normally healthy blood contains a sweet juice and i s of a redcolour

,and that blood which i s dark in colour

,either

naturally or as a result of disease,i s inferior to that which

is of a red colour .

* It i s true that there i s a very smal lquantity of dextrose in blood

,but this i s not apparent to the

taste,the blood being slightly salt .

Aristotle bel i eved , as has been stated in Chapter iv . , thatblood was not an essentially hot liquid , but derived its heatfrom the heart

,at least to a large extent . Comparing the

blood of Ma n with that of some other animals , he says thatMan has the brightest and thinnest blood , and that the oxand the ass have the darkest and th ick e st flL The colours ofarterial blood in Man

,the ox , and apparently the ass , differ

very little from one another , and the same is true of thecolours of the venous blood . The arterial b lood of thepigeon and many other birds i s l ighter than that of Man orthe ox . With respect to Aristotle ’ s statement about therelat ive consistency of the blood in Man and the ox , i tappears from Tha ck r ah

’

s experiments that the blood of theox i s thinner than that of the pig or dog , and not thickerthan that of Man i Aristotle says that the blood whichsuppl i es the brain i s small in amount and pure . § In mostanimals the supply of blood to the brain i s large , butAri stotle ’ s statement i s quite in accordance with severalstatements he makes about the bra in

,in which , he says , no

blood-vessel i s to be seen . Further , the blood supplied tothe bra in in Man and other mammals and in birds i sscarcely , if at al l , purer than that supplied to other parts .It i s true , however , that in the Batrachia , Ophidia , Lacertil ia

,Chelonia , and , to a less extent , the Crocodi li a , the

structure of the heart and arrangement of the main b loodvessels are such that the purest blood i s sent to the brain .

There are several passages in his works showing thatAri stotle noticed differences , or what he thought were

H. A . i ii . c . 14 , s . 1 . j I bid . ii i . c . 14 , s . 3 .

I An I n qu i ry i n to the Na tur e a n d Pr ope r ti es of the Blood , & c . ,

Wr ight’

s edit ion , 1834 , pp. 154 a n d 236 .

P . A . i i . 0 . 7 , 6526.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

114 ARISTOTLE ’

S HOMCEOMERIA.

It has already been pointed out , in Chapter i . , that i t i svery difficult to decide to what extent Aristotle was indebtedto Plato on subjects of thi s kind , but on the subject of coagulation of the blood it i s clear that Plato knew the mainfacts recorded by Aristotle . On the other hand , Ari stotledoes not seem to have obtained anything from Hippocrateson this subject . When modern writers state , as many havestated

,that Ari stotle obtained many ideas from Hippocrates

,

the distinction between the genuine works of Hippocratesand works written by his followers ought to be borne inmind . Some of the Hippocratic treati ses were writtenafter the time of Ari stotle .

Blood,Ari stotle says , has a watery por tion , called t

’

xcép,

and,in the blood of most animals , there are certain

“fibres,

called i’

ves . + B lood does not coagulate when these fibreshave been removed from it . i The coagulation of the bloodtakes place

,he says , not in the watery part but in the earthy

part,during the evaporation of the watery part . § Blood

,

according to him , i s composed of earthy and watery parts ,and needs a certain amount of water to keep it l iquid andalso a certain amount of heat , and therefore i t can becoagulated by heating so as to evaporate the water and bycooling so as to drive off heat together with watery vapour . ”He believed also that some animal s had a hasty temper inconsequence of the many “fibres ” in their b lood , and heexp lains that the fibres ” are l ike so many hot embers inthe blood , and act l ike the hot embers of a vapour b a thfilThe above passages show clearly that Aristotle con

side red that blood had two constituents at least, via , serum

and certain fibres which correspond with what i s now calledfibrin and i s readi ly separable from blood by hea t in g i t witha twig . He gives but l ittle information about the nature ofthe fibres themselves . It i s clear

,however , that he bel i eved

that they were sol id bodies of a hot nature existing in theblood of the l iving animal . These sol id bodies , according toh im , constituted the blood clot , when the blood was coagulated . His explanation of the process of coagulation bycool ing so as to get rid of heat and water does not takeaccount of the fact that the clot forms as a separate mass ina large quantity of serum

,only a very small quantity of

water passing away during the cooling . That fibrin i s

>'

f~P . A . n. c 4 , 65 1a . f I bid . 11 . c . 4 , 6506 ; H. A . iii . c . 6 .

I H. A . i ii . c . 6 . P . A . i i . 0 . 4 , 6506.

Me teorol. IV. 0. 7 , se . 10—13.

‘ll P . A . ii . c . 4 , 6506 an d 65 l a .

ARISTOTLE ’

S HOMCEOMERIA.

formed after the blood has been drawn from the body ,and that this fibrin has a tendency to form meshworks inwhich rolls of red blood corpuscles , l ike rolls of coins , areentan gled

,an d that the fibrin and corpuscles form the chief

part of the blood clot , are facts which were not ascertaineduntil many centuries after Aristotle ’ s time .

The blood of oxen , Aristotle says , coagulates more quicklythan that of other animals

,and the blood of the deer

,roe

,and

Bouba li s, probably the Bubaline Antelope , does not coagulate?“In another passage , in H. A . i i i . c . 6 , a somewhatdifferen t statement is made

,for he says that fibres do not

occur in the blood of the deer , roe , and Bouba li s , and theblood of these animals does not coagulate like that of otheranimals , but the blood of the deer coagulates like that ofhares , the clot not being firm , while the blood of theBouba li s coagulates to a greater degree

,for it thickens

almost as much as that of sheep .

According to Th a ckrah ’

s experiments , the blood of theox does not coagulate more quickly than that of otheranimals . These experiments showed that the blood of theox begins to coagulate in from two to ten m inutes , that ofthe sheep

,pig

,or rabbit in from one :to two minutes , and

that of the horse in from five to thirteen min ute s .

’r

F ibrin is formed in the blood of the deer , roe , antelope ,and most other

,if not all

,mammals , but it is not normally

present in the living body . Aristotle thought that the bloodof the deer

,the one specially referred to bein g the red

deer an d that of the Bouba li s coagulate , but thatthe clot was soft . When describing various causes whichpreven t blood from coagulating , John Hunter says : Twodeer were hunted to death On opening them ,

theblood was fluid , only a l ittle thickened , and the muscleswere not r igid.

”

I It is known that the blood of huntedanimals coagulates

,but only imperfectly

,and , as the animals

mentioned by Aristotle are such as are commonly hunted , i ti s probable that he is referring to the imperfect coagulationof the blood of animals hunted to death . The blood of deerwhich have not been hunted to death coagulates in theusual way , a fact clearly stated by Redi . §

H. A . iii . c . 6 , i ii . c . 14 , s . 2 ; P . A . 11. c . 4 , 651a .

j Op . ci t . p. 154 .

I The Works of John Hun ter , edited by Jame s F. Palmer , 1835-37 ,vol . i . p. 239 .

Exper . ci rca r es Divers. Na tur a l. 1675 , p. 160.

116 ARISTOTLE ’

S HOMCEOMERIA .

Aristotle bel ieved that ferocity and l iabili ty to fits ofpassion were dependent in some way on the quantity offibres ” in the blood . According to him the fibres areearthy and solid

,and , acting like the hot embers in a vapour

bath,cause ebul l it ion in the blood , this being the reason why

oxen and boars are so passionate,for their blood i s rich in

fibres . ” ale The animals mentioned in H. A . i i i . c . 6, visa ,

the deer , roe , antelope , hare , and sheep , are usually conside r ed to be tim id , and Aristotle evidently thought thatthey had but few fibres in their blood

,compared with

those in the blood of the ox or boar .Tha ckrah

’

s experiments support Ari stotle ’ s view that theferocity of an animal depends , in some way , on the quantityof fibres in the blood . After making numerous exper iments he concluded thus : I never found the serum insuch quantity as in the timid sheep , nor the crassamentumso abundant as in the predatory dog .

” Jr

9 . Mi lh .

— All mi lk , Aristotle says , consists of a wateryfluid

,which i s called whey , and a thicker part , called curd ,

the thicker k inds of mi lk containing more curd than otherk inds . 1 He also says that the mi lk of the camel i s thinnest

,

then that of the mare , and then that of the ass , but cow’ s

mi lk is thicker . § There i s a fatness in milk,he says

,which

causes it to become oily when the mi lk has been coagulatedor thickened . ” In cows

’

m i lk there i s more curd , he says ,than in goats ’ mi lk , for the herdsmen say that they makefrom about nine gal lons of goats ’ mi lk nineteen cheeses

,each

worth an obolos , and thirty from cows’

milk .1T

The above are the chief statements made by Aristotleabout the nature and composition of mi lk . He givescorrectly the relative degrees of consi stency of the milk ofthe cow , ass , and mare , but his statement about camel

’

s

mi lk is incorrect . Camel ’ s mi lk is nearly , i f not quite , asthick as cow ’ s mi lk , and conta ins a l i ttle less water andcasein

,more sugar , and about as much fat as the latter .

The assertion in H. A . i i i . c . 16 , s . 5 , i s difficult to understand . Average samples of cows ’ milk and goats ’ mi lkcontain nearly the same amount of casein , that in goats

’

milk being , if anything , the larger . The Greeks , i t may bementioned , did not esteem cows

’ mi lk for mak in g cheese,

goat s ’ mi lk having been used most by them .

P . A . 11 . c . 4 , 6506 an d 65 l a . Op . c i t . p. 154 .

I H. A . i ii . c . 16 , s . 2 . I bi d .

ll Ibid . i ii . c . 16 , s. 5 .‘l I bi d .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

118 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

CHAPTER X .

ARISTOTLE’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA AND THEIR

FUNCTIONS .

IT has been explained already,in Chapter vi . , that

Ari stotle ’ s an homoeome r ia were,general ly speaking , organs

or parts having definite forms or functions . His de scr iptions of these an homoeome r ia are very incomplete , and varymuch in value , a few , e . g .

, the blood-vessels , being describedat great length , while others are described in very generalterms , and some important an homoeomer ia are merely men

t ion ed, or not referred to at all . On the other hand , someinteresting detai ls are given about structures

,which are not

generally known , such as , for example , certain bones in thehearts of horses and oxen . His an homoeomer ia are described chiefly in H. A . i . cc . 7—14 , i i . cc . 8— 12 , i i i . cc . 1—11 ,and P . A . i i .—iv .

, and these parts of his works contain most ofhis extant writings on comparative anatomy .

In the fol lowing descriptions,his most important state

ments about the various a n homoeomer ia , except the locomotory organs , which will be dealt with in Chapter xi i i . , wil lbe discussed , and , when discussing any particular set ofstructures , those of Man wil l be taken first and then thoseof other mammals , and of birds and other animals .

A .

— SKELETAL AND EPIDERMAL STRUCTURES .

a . Bon es a n d Ca r ti la g es .

—Aristotle describes the bonesof the human head rather ful ly

,whi le he does l i tt le more

than mention and indicate the relative positions of otherparts of the human skeleton . For other animals , hi sdescriptions are l imited to a few bones , e . g . , the ribs , theastragal i , and the pelvis . He gives but l itt le informationabout the carti lages .He did not consider the fore part of the frontal bone to

be part of the human cran ium, which he defined to be thepart of the skul l covered by hair , the forehead being a part

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 119

of the face .* According to Aristotle , the front part of thecranium

,the sinciput , i s developed after birth and is the

last bone of the body to ha rden . 1L He erroneously believed

that the back part of the head , the occiput , was full of a ir . IThis statement will be briefly discussed in Chapter xii .

Aristotle says that the cranium of Man has six bones ,and that two of these are situated about the ears

,and are

small compared with the others . § He also says that theyare connected by sutures , three usually run ning into on e

another in triquetrous manner,in men

,and one runnin g

round the skull , in women , but that a man’ s skull had been

seen without sutures .“The six bones referred to above are the occipital , the

parietals , the temporals , and part of the frontal . Aristotle ’ sdescription of the sutures is incomplete and incorrect .Generally the number and arrangement of the cranialsutures is the same both in men and women . Lookingdown on the top of a normally developed adult skull , thesagittal suture and the right and left halves of the coronalsuture are seen to converge to a point . The descriptionmay refer to these , or , assuming the skull to be viewed inback elevation , it may refer , in a similar way , to the sagittaland lambdoid sutures . The chief variations of the suturesare due to their partial obliteration and the presence of afrontal suture continuous with the sagittal .

Of the few ancient writers who have described thecranial sutures , not on e seems to have correctly explainedtheir arrangement . Hippocrates says that it depen ds on

the relative development of prominences at the fron t andback of the head

,and compares the various arrangements

to the letters or symbols T, .I. , I ,and X1T. Galen ’ s de scr ip

tion , in his On the Use of Pa r ts, ix . 7 , i s similar to thatgiven by Hippocrates .Aristotle ’ s statement that a man ’ s skull without sutures

had been seen was probably taken from Herodotus, 1x . 83 ,

where it is said that , after the battle of Plataea , a skullwithout sutures and all of one bone was found . Thesutures become indistinct in the skulls of old people , but acranium without sutures is very rarely seen . In stan ces ofobliteration of cranial sutures seem to be most common

H. A . i . c . 7 a n d c . 8 , s . 1 . t l bi d i c . 7

120 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

among Negroes . Two skulls of this k ind , with the coronal ,sagittal

,and parts of the lambdoid sutures nearly or quite

obliterated , may be seen at the Natural Hi story Museum ,

South Kensington . These skulls came from Ashanti andfrom near Iz avo, British E ast Africa , respectively .

No informat ion of any importance about the other bonesof the head i s given by Ari stotle

,nor i s any information

worthy of note given by him about other bones of thehuman body , other than the ribs . He says On each sideof the body are eight ribs belonging to the upper and lowerparts of the trunk , for I have not heard anything worthy ofcredit about the seven-ribbed L igurians . ”

Usually there are twelve ribs on each side of thehuman body

,the eleventh and twelfth being unconnected

to the sternum . It i s not at al l clear which are the eight ribsto which Aristot le refers , or why he does not take account ofthe remaining ribs . The L igurians were short but strongand brave people , who lived in a strip of maritime countryextending from the mouth of the Rhone to Pisse ,

in Etruria .

Schneider says , in his note on H. A . i . c . 10, s . 6 , that thetale of the fewer ribs of the L igurians probably had anorigin sim i lar to that current among some people about theribs of animals , e . g .

, some Carniolans assign more ribs tothe larger or better breeds of sheep . It may be mentionedthat , in Man , an increased number of ribs i s sometimesfound , and , less frequently , a reduced number .

Ari stotle says that no animal with many toes, e . g . ,

Man , has astragal i or knuckle-b on e s t Man has astragal i ,but they are very unsymmetrical and would therefore beneglected by Ari stotle . This wil l be further exp lained laterin his description of bones and cartilages .In H. A . i i i . c . 7 , s . 2 , i t i s stated that the cranium is not

made in the same way in al l animals,for i t i s formed in a

single bone in some , such as the dog . This i s true of thecraniums of very o ld dogs , and some other animals , inwhich the sutures become obli terated .

Aristotle makes the erroneous statement,in more than

one passage , that the crocodile moves its upper j aw ,and is

the only animal which does so . i The assertion wasprobably copied from Herodotus, ii . 68 , but Ari stotle proceedsto give a remarkably ingenious explanation . He says thatthe crocodi le ’ s feet are so small that they are useless for

H. A . i . c . 10, s . 6 . j Ib i d . 11. c . 2 , s . 10.

I H. A . i . c . 9 , s . 6 , i ii . c . 7 , s . 3 ; P . A . iv. 0.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

122 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

the place of bones , and containing a marrow-l ike liquidfi’

This is probably a reference to the biconical masses orr emains of the notochord , which extends through the cartilag in ous centre , but exists in the long as well as the flatcar ti laginous fishes .While deal ing with cartilages , i t may be stated that

Aristotle was aware of the existence of cartilages at the endsof some bones , but he did not understand the relationshipbetween them

,and he erroneously speaks of the external

generative organs of some animals as if they wer e c ar t ila

gin ous .

’r

Aristotle did not bel ieve that the seal had a humerus , forhe states that i t has stunted fe e t , I and that i t i s , as i t were ,a stunted animal

,because its fore feet are just behind its

shoulder-blades . § The seal w ith which he was acquaintedwas that now cal led the Monk Seal (Mon a chus a lbiven ter) .

In P . A . iv . o . 12 , 6936, Ari stotle says that the innerextremities of the wings of birds rest on their backs andtake the place of shoulder-blades , and that the breast-bonei s sharp-edged in al l birds to faci li tate their fl ight . It i sclear

,therefore

,that he did not recogniz e the presence of a

true shoulder-blade in birds . He knew of the existence ofthe ostrich

,but did not know anything of the form of its

breast-bone .

The ischion of a bird,according to Ari stotle , i s l ike a

thigh-bone , being long and attached in some way as far asthe midd le of the abdomen

,so that

,when separated , i t

might be taken for the thigh-bone,and the thigh-bone ,

”

between it and the leg,to be some other bone .“He con

side r ed the ischion,

” running along and hidden to a largeextent within the abdomen

,to be l ike a thigh-bone , whereas

i t i s the thigh-bone on the other hand,he considered the

leg proper to be the thigh,and the shank or tarsus to be the

leg .

This explanation of hi s views agrees with certain important statements made by him . He states that , al thoughbirds are bipeds , they cannot stand erect , and that they areenabled to stand as they do by reason of their i schia ”

being long and extending forwards along the abdomen,so a s

to bring the legs to or near the centre of the bird ’ s b odyfilHe also says that the ischion i s l ik e a thigh and of such

H.

.

A . ii i . c . 8 . f I bid . i . c . 10, s . 4 .

1 Ib i d. i . c . 1 , s . 9 . I bi d . i i . 0 . 1 , s . 7 .

I!Ibi d. ii . c . 8 , s. 1 . i fP . A . iv. 0 . 12 , 695a .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS .

a length that a bird seems to have two thighs , one next theshank and the other

,the “i schion , ” extending from the

rump to the aforesaid th ighfi" Further , he says that birds

have sinewy and not fleshy legs . 1L Some consider the

ischia of birds to be the pelvic bones,but this explana

tion makes Ar isotle ’

s statements very difficult to understand .

The astragali,or knuckle-bones , which chiefly transmit

the downward thrust of the tibial bones,are often referred

to by Aristotle . Those only which were elegant or fairly

FIG. 6 .

LEFT ASTRAGALUS OF A SHEEP .

symmetrical were used by the Ancients in playing variousgames and for divination , and it is only to such astragal i asthese that Aristotle usually gave the name . It was onaccoun t of want of symmetry that he excluded Man an d

most animals with many toes from among animals havingastragali , although he refers to the twi sted knuckle-bone ofthe lion , and calls the unsymmetrical and comparatively longand thin knuckle-bone of the lynx a half astragalus . 1 He

says that most of the animals with astragali are cloven

De An im. In cessu . c . 11 , 7106 .

j H. A . ii . c . 2 , s . 7 ; P . A . iv. c . 12 , 695a .

I H. A . ii . 0. 2 , s . 10.

124 ARISTOTLE’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

footed ,* that the astragal i are always in the hind legs andare arranged upright in the joints

,so that the front parts

are [inclined] outwards and the back parts inwards , andthat the coa are turned inwards towards each other and theso called chia outwards

,the “horns ” being upwards . 1

L

App lying this description to the astragal i of an animal ,such as a sheep

,the comparatively flat narrow sides , which

are on the inner sides of the legs and face each other are thecoa , and the indented or ear-l ike faces are the chia . F ig . 6

(which i s twice the natural size) shows the chion and frontbroad face of the left astragalus of a sheep . Some say ,however , that the flat sides are the chia and the indentedsides the coa . The values usually given to the faces wereas follows z— Coon , six ; chion , one ; front broad face , four ,and back broad face

,three ; the bottom face was counted

and not , as in the modern method of playing dice , the topface . The values had no apparent connection with theprobabil iti es of the throws

, e . g . ,in five hundred throws of a

sheep ’ s astragalus,the indented side was beneath in fifty

one and the flat side in forty-two throws .In addition to the l ion and the lynx , Aristot le refer s

specifically to the knuck le-bones of the hippopotamus ,camel , pig , ox , and a mythical animal , the Indian ass ,having sol id hoofs and one horn .

He says that the knuckle-bones of a camel are l ike thoseof an ox

,but ugly

,and smal l in proportion to the size of the

animal . i This comparison tends to show that he saw theknuckle-bones of both these animals . A camel ’ s knucklebones , which may be seen in the articulated skeleton atUniversity Museum

, Oxford , have a marked general simila r ity to those of an ox , but their lower ends are lesssymmetrical . They are also smal l in proportion to the siz eof the camel .It i s evident why Ari stotle paid so much attention to the

knuckle-bones . No other bones had more interest for theAncients than these . Knuckle-bones of sheep or goatshave been found in a tomb in Ithaca

,and these and many

artificial ones of bronze,lead

,agate , and rock-crystal may be

seen at the Briti sh Museum , as wel l as an ZEg in e tan vase ofblack ware in the form of a knuckle-bone . Among theterra-cottas in the Museum are a figure of a girl (C 715)

P . A . iv . 0. 10, 690a .

JrH. A 11. 0 2 , S 10'

1; H. A . i i . 0 . 2 , s . 5 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

126 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

They seem to occur in al l oxen ; at any rate , they occurred inall ox hearts which I have dissected . Bones are also said tooccur in the hearts of some horses

,deer , elephants , and

some other animals .In H. A . i i . 0 . 3 , s . 5 , i t i s stated that some animals , e . g . ,

the fox , wolf , weasel , and marten , have a bony penis , andthat of these the marten certainly has one . Many mammal shave a bone , sometimes quite small , in the penis . Such abone is found , e . g . , in the rat , mouse , guinea-pig , monk ey ,and ape , and in the weasel , marten , and many other carn ivore s, but not in the fox and wolf . In a large stoat whichI dissected the bone was slender and curved

,and about one

inch long .

The feet of pigs are almost always cloven,but in various

countries and at different times instances of syndactyl i smhave occurred . Ari stotle seems to have been the first tor ecord phenomena of this kind . He says : “There are pigswith sol id hoofs in Illyria

,Paeonia , and other

The syndactyl i sm affects the third and fourth digits,the

lateral toes being developed , apparently in al l cases , in theusual way . Several instances might be given , but thefollowing wi ll be sufficient . A sol id-hoofed sow

,received in

November , 1876 , at the Zoological Gardens , from Cuba ,gave bir th to a l i tter of six , three of which were also sol idhoofed . On e of these died , and it was found that theextreme distal ends of i ts ungual phalanges were completelyfused toge th er t Sol id-hoofed pigs are sa i d to have beenwel l known and abundant about the year 1823 on theestates then belonging to Sir Nei l Menzies , of Rannoch ,Perthshire . 1 Usually , the digits are not united throughouttheir length ; in fact , Mr . Bateson says that the only caseknown to him of complete union of the third and fourthdigits , there being only a single series of bones , i s in theMuseum at Alfort . §Aristotle erroneously bel ieved that the bones of the l ion ,

pig,and some other animals either contained no marrow at

all or only a l ittle , and thi s only in a few bones , e . g . , the

humerus and femur . ” In the l ion there are distinct marrowcavities

,not only in the humeral and femoral bones

,but also

in the radial , t ibial , metacarpal , and metatar sal bones . The

H. A . n . c . 2 , s . 8 . f P r oc . Zool . Soc . 1877 , p. 33 .

I Edin . N ew Ph i los. Jour n . , vol . 17 , pp. 273—279 .

Ma ter i a lsfor the S tudy of Va r i a t ion , et c . , 1894 , p. 387 .

HH. A . i ii . c . 7 , s . 6 , iii . c . 15 P . A . i i . c . 6 , 6516 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS . 127

marrow i s not smal l in quantity , although an examinationof the fractured long bones of lions shows that the crosssectional areas of their marrow cavities are relatively smallerthan those of corresponding bones of the ox , deer , and manyother animals . Again , the long bones of the pig have arather large amount of marrow , e . g . , the femoral bonescommonly have a marrow cavity more than half an inch indiameter .b . Ske le ta l S truc tur es of Ar istotle

’

s An a ima .

—Some ofthe skeletal structures of the An a ima , or animals withoutblood

,are described very briefly in H. A . iv . cc . 1—7 , and

P . A . iv . o. 5 .

Aristotle speaks of the cuttle-bone of Sepia and the penof Loligo , saying that each is foun d in the dorsal part of thebody

,that the pen is thin and somewhat cartilaginous

,that

the cuttle-bone is strong and broad , of a nature betweenthat of bon e an d that of fish-spine , and that it is spongy andfriableAristotle ’ s descriptions of the materials of these internal

structures is faulty,cuttle-bone bein g calcareous and the

pen horny , but in other respects his statements are sub stantia lly correct .The external parts of crustaceans , he says , are not brittle ,

but are of a tough nature ; those of his Ostr a hoderma , suchas sn ails and oysters

,are hard and brittle , and the external

parts of his En toma are neither harder nor softer than theirinternal par ts .

‘r These statements are fairly clear , except

with respect to the E'

n toma , for Aristotle included amongthese such an imals as scorpions , beetles , centipedes , andmillipedes

,the external parts of which are often very hard .

He also describes the external coverings of some of theascidians

,saying that they are of a nature between those of

skin and shell and can be out l ike leather . 1Aristotle compares the perforated shell of the sea-urchin

,

when divested of its skin , to a lan tern . §c . Teeth a n d Hem s — Aristotle considered the teeth to be

very hard bones . He says : In the jaws are the teeth,the

bone of which is partly solid and partly hollow . The bonesof the teeth are the only ones which cannot be engraved .

”

IIThis is clearly a reference to the enamel .In several passages Aristotle deals with the relationship

H. A . iv. o. 1 , s . 12 . I bid . iv. 0 . 1 , ss. 2 a n d 3 .

1 I bi d. iv. 0. 6 , s. 1 . Ib id . iv. 0. 5 , s . 6 .

HIbid. i ii . c . 7 , s . 3 .

128 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

between teeth and horns . He was aware , in fact , of theexistence of an inverse relat ionship between the degrees ofdevelopment of teeth and horns

,such as that r eferred to and

exemplified by Owen .

916 Aristotle says that no animal hasboth tusks and horns , nor sharp , interlocking teeth andtusks or horn s ,

’r and that , in the larger animals , there i s an

excess of earthy matter , which is util ized in the formationof defensive weapons , e . g .

, tusks and horns , but that noanimal which has horns has front teeth in the upper as wel las the lower jaw , for Nature gives to the horns materialwhich i s withheld from the teeth . 1There does not appear to be any animal known to

Aristotle which has tusks and horns . The male tufted deerof China and the male muntjacs have scimitar-l ike tusks intheir upper jaws and small antlers ; the antlers of the tufteddeer are much smaller than those of the muntjacs

,but their

tusks are longer . Again,the musk deer and Chinese water

deer are without antlers , but the males have very long tusks .The carnivores have sharp , interlocking teeth , and manyhave exceptionally large canine teeth or tusks , but in noneof those known to Aristot le do these proj ect l ike the tusksof the wi ld boar , and he i s probably referring to tusks ofthis k ind , and not to all canines of large siz e .

In his descriptions of the teeth , chiefly in H. A . i i . 0 . 3 ,ss . 8—15 , and P . A . i i i . c . i , Aristotle distinguishes theinci sors

,the canines, the premolars , together with the

molars,and the wisdom teeth . The molars and premolars

are taken together , either under the name gomph ioi” or

under that of “broad teeth , ” on account of their necks andcrowns being broad . He also distinguishes between animalsl ike the l ion , leopard , and dog , which are car charodont

, or

have sharp , interlock ing teeth , and animals l ike the horseand ox , which have an epa llak tous teeth , or teeth with flatcrowns . Again , he distinguishes a very large group ofamphodon t animals , with front teeth in each jaw , from amuch smaller group , including the ox , deer , and otherruminants

,which are non-amphodon t , or have front teeth in

the lower jaw only . The way in which he seems to haveused these dental characters in classifying animals wi ll bediscussed in Chapter xv .

He states , incorrectly , that among some animals , e .g . ,

Man ,the sheep , goat , and pig , the males have more teeth

An a t . Ver tebr . i ii . 1868 , pp. 348—9 .

‘r H. A . 11. c . 3 , s . 9 .

I P . A . i ii . c . 2 , 6636 an d 664a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

130 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

darker .* Aristotle says that all th e teeth of the seal aresharp and inter locking , because it i s very closely allied tofish e s .

‘r This i s true , but the reason given sounds strange ;

the seal being n ow classed with the otter and other carnivora . He gives a fair general description of the gastricmill in lobsters and crabs . He says that i t i s in the partof the stomach which i s near the mouth , and that there a rethree teeth , two latera l ones and one below . 1The gastri c mi ll i s in the hinder part of the large or

cardiac portion of the stomach,into which the short , nearly

vert ical gullet enters . Numerous parts make up the gastri cmi ll

,but three are very conspicuous

,two lateral and ap

proximately horizontal teeth and a median dorsa l onebetween the posterior ends of the lateral ones .In H. A . iv . o . 4

,s . 7 , Ari stot le says that Kochlia s ,

probably He lix, has small , sharp , and del i cate teeth . Thisseems like a reference to the lingual teeth

,and , if so , the

statement shows that he closely examined the structure ofthe mouth of thi s animal . He also says that the Kochloi ,by which some gastropods are meant

,have two teeth in

addition to a tongue . § These two teeth may be merely thehorny jaws of the gastropods .

Ari stot le says that the sea-urchin has five inwardlycurved teeth . ” These teeth with their pyramidal socketsand the numerous pieces of framework support ing thewhole are cal led “Ari stotle ’ s lantern

,

” and form a comparat ive ly large structure projecting within the shel l of the seaurchin . Ari stotle was the first to direct attention to it , butit was the shel l of the sea-urchin divested of its sk in whichhe compared to a lantern .

Aristotle makes the following interesting statementsabout the shedding of teeth Man and some otheranimals , e .g . , the horse , mule , and ass , shed their teeth .

Man sheds his front teeth and no animal sheds its ‘molars ,’

whi le pigs do not shed any at all . Whether or no dogsshed their teeth is a disputed point some bel i eve that theydo not , others that they shed their canine teeth only , but i thas been observed that dogs shed their teeth

,l ike Man , only

the shedding escapes notice because the teeth are not shedunti l new ones , simi lar to them ,

have been developed under

s: H. A . n . c . 3 , s . 12 . j H. A . 11 . c . 9 ; P . A . iv. 0 . 13 , 6976.

I H. A . i v. o. 2 , s . 11 ; P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 679a . P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 6786.

[IH. A . iv . 0 . 5 ; P . A . iv. c . 5 , 680a .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 131

neath . Probably , a similar thing happens in some otheranimals , which are said to lose their canines only .

”

The true molars are not shed , and the Greek word usedby Aristotle , via , gomphioi , certainly includes these , but, onaccount of the ambiguity of his statements , both here andelsewhere , i t cannot be asserted that he refers to truemolars only . His assertion that pigs do not shed their teethis incorrect

,but is stil l believed by some . On e breeder , in

fact , informed me that pigs do not shed their teeth,or

,at

most , only the canines . Aristotle ’ s interesting statementsabout the sheddin g of the teeth of dogs are correct , as faras they go

,for the milk teeth are shed and , although there

are great variations with respect to time and order ofsheddin g in different dogs , the permanent teeth are usuallywell-developed before the mi lk teeth are shed . Before mei s the skull of a dog with well-developed upper canines

,

third upper premolars , and third and fourth lower premolars ,all projecting well beyond the bone ; the corresponding mi lkteeth , however , are still in posit ion but in process of beinggradually pushed out of their sockets by the permanentteeth .

He states , erroneously , that horns , referring particularlyto those of ruminants , are more closely connected wi th theskin than with the bones

,and attempts to explain in this

way why certain cattle in Phrygia and other places movedtheir horns l ike ears . + This passage gives a wrong impression of the value of his knowledge of these structures .He knew that the horns of ruminants are closely connectedwith the bones . In H. A . i i i . c . 9 , s . 2 , he says that mosthorns are hollow from their bases and surround an innerbone growing from the head , but are solid at the tip andunbranched

,and , in H. A . i i . 0 . 2 , s . 11 , he says that the

hollow parts are produced mainly from the skin , and thehard parts from the bone ; in both passages he says thatthe horns of deer are the only ones which are solid throughout . The supposed close connection between horns andskin caused him to believe that the colours of these correspond , dark horns being found with dark skins or hair ,and light horns with light skins or hair, and he believedthat the same was true for nails , claws , and hoofs . 1 Thereare many animals for which these statements are not true ,

H. A . u . c . 3 , ss . 11 an d 12 .

Jr Ibid . iii . c . 9 , s . 3 .

1 I bi d. iii . c . 9 , s . 1 .

132 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

e .g .,the gazelle , oryx , and Bubal ine Antelope , and , among

animals which Ari stotle could not have known , the polarbear , and the white cattle of some parts of the Falk landIslands , mentioned by Darwin .

ale

The deer (E laphos) i s the only animal which casts i tshorns annual ly , thi s tak ing p lace after it i s two years old ;i ts horns are shed about May , and its fir st horn s arestr aight , l ike pegsn

L

Although Aristot le her e uses the word E laphos inthe singular , he refers to more than one kind of deer .Except in a few individual cases

,deer shed their horns

annual ly , while the horns of oxen , sheep , goats , and suchantelopes as were known to h im , are not shed . Thefirst horns are peg-l ike

,as Aristotle says

,but they are

usually shed when the young bucks are not quite twoyears old . Further

,deer usually shed their horns about

March .

Aristot le says that al l horned animals have four feet ,excepting such animals as the horned snakes which , theEgyptians say , are to be found near Th eb es i This passagerecall s the statement by Herodotus

, § that , near Thebes ,there were smal l harmless snakes

,with two horns at the

upper parts of their heads . Except that Cerastes i s notharm less , this description might well refer to i t .

Some peculiar beliefs about snakes with horns are tobe found in some of the Greek Is les . The official notes ,reproduced in Folk-Lor e , vol . xi . 1900, pp . 120—125 , of atrial in the Di strict Court of L arnaca

,on October 27th , 1899 ,

state that damages were claimed for the los s of a snake ’ shorn lent to the defendant . The p laintiff al leged that hehad extracted i t from just above the right eye of a snake ,and that it was a white

,curved

,thin body , about three

quarters of an inch long . It was also alleged that i texerci sed some magic power over the human body , and thatwater in which the horn ” had been p laced was useful incuring snak e-bites . Commenting on this case , Mr . W . R .

Paton says that the snake ’ s horn i s known also in Cos , ”and it may be mention ed that the Nose-horned V iper(V. a rnmodytes) of central and southern Europe has a scalyappendage on its nose .

Na tur a li st’

s Voya g e r oun d the Wor ld , 2n d ed. Lon don , 1890, p. 203.

j H. A . i i . c . 2 , s . 11 , ix. 0 . 6 , s . 2 . 1 I bid . ii . 0 . 2 , s . 11 .

i i 74 I] Folk-Lor e , xi . p. 321 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

134 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

i s true particularly of patients suffering from scarlet andother fevers .Many other statements relating to the hair are made by

Aristotle , of which the following seem to be the mostinteresting : In H. A . i i i . c . 10, s . 9 ,

he says that the ha irgrows on dead bodies . Many descriptions of a remarkablegrowth of hai r after death have been given since Ari stotle ’ st ime , and many people bel i eve that such growth takes

However , Dr . W . J . Erasmus Wi lson says : Thelengthening of the hairs of the beard

,observed in a dead

person , i s merely the result of the contraction of the skintowards their bulb .

1“

In a passage which i s not clear , Aristotle says that , inanimal s with spotted fur , the spots first appear in the furand skin and in the skin of the ton gue . I I know nothingabout such an occurrence of spots on the tongue , but somedogs have dark patches or marks on the palate and otherparts within the mouth , and the following record seems toshow that there i s a relat ion between the colour of the hairand these marks . Mr . Woodward , a gamekeeper on theB lenheim estate , Woodstock , informs me that about nineyears ago a pedigree black retri ever , belonging to the Dukeof Grafton , had seven pups , six black and one pure white .

The black pups had , l ike their mother , dark or b lack palates ,but the white pup had its palate partly white .

In the case of Dalmatian pups , which are usual ly whiteat birth , the spots do not appear unti l the pups are a fewweeks old .

There a re sever al passages , in ancient works , about aninfluence exercised on the colours of animal s by the waterdrunk by the mothers of these animals or by the animalsthemselves . Strabo mentions rivers the waters of whichhad an influence of thi s kind

, § and so also does ZElian ,“and there i s also the well-known passage in Gen esis , 0 . 30,W . 37- 39 , which has so often been discussed . Aristotlesays that there a re waters of this kind in many p laces , an d,

by drink ing them just before conception , sheep bring forthblack lambs , e . g . , the so-called Cold R iver , in the Thracian

I par ticula rly r ememb er a de ta iled n arr a t ive a bout a n excessiveg rowth of h a ir after dea th in con n e c tion wi th a case of exhuma tion in

Wor ce ster shir e .

f He a lthy Ski n , (fa , 8th edit ion , 1876 , p. 112 .

I H. A . i ii . c . 10, s . 9 . Geog r . x. c . 1 , s . 14 .

MDe Na t . An im. vii i . 2 1 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 135

Chalcidice . He also says that in Astyra and An tan dr ia aretwo rivers

,of which one makes sheep white and the other

makes them black . The river Sc amman der , he says , seemsto make them l ight brown , and on this account some saythat Homer call ed this river Xanthus . ’16

The hare i s the only animal , Aristotle says , which hashair within its cheeks and on the un der sides of its fe e t . t

It i s true that the b are has hairs on the insides of its mouthand beneath its feet , but so also have other rodents , l ikethe rabbit and squirrel , and , among animals not known toAristotle , the polar bear , in particular , has hairs beneathits feet .e . Fea thers, Scutes, a n d Sca les.

— Aristotle ’ s views onthese an homoeome r ia are closely connected with his viewson the analogy and , i t may be said , homology of the parts ofanimals

,and will be more suitably considered from this

point of view in Chapter xv.

He mentions the chief parts of a bird ’ s feather , via ,the

shaft and barbs , and distinguishes it from the wing of aninsect

,which appears to be of the nature of a feather

,being

a skin-like membran e which , because of its dryness , becomesdetached from the surface of the body .

Aristotle says correctly that man y birds change colourwith the seasons in such a way that an observer

,if in

experienced,i s deceived thereby , but he does not correctly

explain the occurren ce of albino ravens , sparrows , andswallows

,for he says that they become white when the cold

increases . § He says also that the crane , which is ashcoloured

,darkens with age and is the only bird whose

plumage chan ges with age .“This is not correct , for ,besides the great changes which take place in the plumageof many birds

,from the young to the adult stage

,changes

in brilliancy or depth of colour may be seen , after successivemoults , in many birds . In wild linnets , for in stance , the rosecoloured parts are larger and more brilliant in the older birds .The looseness and thin nature of the barbs of the

feathers of the ostrich were known to Aristotle , for he saysthat they are of the nature of hair and useless for fl igh t .

‘ll

Oviparous quadrupeds , he says , have Thisstatement is incomplete , for some , l ike the frog and water

H. A . i ii . c . 10, s . 12 . I bi d . iii . c . 10, s . 13 .

I P . iv. 0. 6 , 6826. H. A . i ii . c . 10, s . 11 .

| i I bi d.

‘ll P . A . iv. 0. 13 , 6976 .

a s: H, A . iii . c . 10, s . 1 .

136 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

newt,have no scutes , and the chamaeleon , which Aristotle

knew so well , i s covered by granules which can be veryeasily scraped offby means of a knife .

For some time past attempts have been made to asoertain the ages of fishes by an examination of their scales .Aristotle also refers to changes in the nature of the scales offishes with advancing age , saying t hat they become harderand thicker , and much harder in fishes which are old and

B .

—THR HEART AND BLoon —Vn ssa .

Ari stot le ’ s description of the heart and the arrangementof the blood-vessels constitutes his most valuable contribut ion to anatomical knowledge . Before his time it wasgenerally beli eved that the origins of the blood-vessels werein the head , and in his H. A . i i i . c . 2 , he gives the arrangements of the blood-vessels according to Syen n e sis of Cyprus ,Diogenes of Apollonia , and Polybus , who scarcely mentionthe heart . He was the first to explain

,in clear language ,

that the blood-vessels arise from the heart,but he canno t

be regarded with certainty as the originator of this di scove ry , for Plato says that the heart i s the bond of union ofthe blood-vessels , and the fountain of the blood coursingthrough the limb s . t

Aristotle ’ s reasons for bel ieving that the heart i s theorigin of the blood-vessels are given in P . A . i i i . c . 4 , wherehe says that the blood-vessels necessari ly have one origin ,for

,where it i s possible

,i t i s better that there should be one

and not many . This origin , he says , i s in the heart , for theblood-vessels extend from i t and not through it

,and it

occupies a very important or controlling position in thebody . Then

,after asserting that those are mistaken who

bel ieve that the blood-vessels have their origins in the head ,he shows that the heart should be in a hot part of the body

,

and that i t i s so situated and is wel l adapted to be the originand to form part of the arrangement of blood-vessels , for i thas thick wal ls to prevent loss of heat , and i s of the natureof a reservoir

,the b lood passing from it to the vessels

,but

not returning . All this , he says , i s clearly proved by meansof dissections and the phenomena of development

,for the

heart i s the first part to be formed and contains blood assoon as i t i s formed .

H. A . iii . c . 10, s . 10. 1‘ Timceus, 70.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

138 ARISTOTLE’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

and the aorta . The pericardium of an ox , which wasprobably one of the animals dissected for the heart

,as

explained above , i s very stout and covered on Oppositesides by a large quantity of fat , so that Ari stotle

’ s descriptionapp l ies very wel l to it .Ari stotle ’ s statements about the presence of bones in the

hearts of horses and some oxen have been considered alreadyin that part of thi s Chapter which relates to bones andcarti lages .In his description of the position of the heart , intended

to apply to the human heart , he says incorrectly that theheart l ies above the lungs , near the bifurcat ion of the

and that the parts of the heart near i t s apex l i eon or aga inst the aor ta nL In Man , the heart l ies just belowthe bifurcat ion of the trachea , and not above the lungs ,whi le the apex of the heart i s some distance in front of theaor ta . On e part of Ari stotle ’ s descript ion of the posit ion ofthe human heart

,however , i s such that some have taken it

as a proof that he dissected the human body . This part ofhi s description has been discussed in Chapter vi i i .

Ari stot le says that the heart of a snake i s small , k idneyshaped

,and situated near its th roa t . I The heart of a snake

cannot be considered to be small , nor is i t kidney-shaped .

In one grass-snake , the heart , enclosed within its pericardium , was an inch and an eighth long and half aninch in diameter , the whole being almost cyl indrical withrounded ends . When r emoved from its pericardium , theheart presented a much more comp licated appearance , thebright r ed ventricle , in the form of a doub le cone withrounded ends , resting upon and between the dark redauricles . The front part of the heart was about as farforward as the hinder end of the long trachea .

In the animals now called invertebrates , Ari stotle didnot beli eve that a heart , proper ly speaking , could be found .

Instead of this , they had a part analogous to a heart , justas they had a fluid which was not b lood but analogous to it .The part , in cephalopods and crustaceans , which he

bel ieved to repr esent the heart of animals with blood , wasthe part which , he says , was called myti s . § Its posit ion , hesays , shows that i t corresponds with the heart of animalswith blood , and thi s i s proved by the sweetness of its cont ain ed fluid , which has the characters of coagulated matter

H. A . i . c . 14, s . 1 .Jr l b id . I Ibid. i i . 0 . 12 , s . 12 .

§ P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 6816 ; H. A . iv. 0 . 1 , s . 11 , iv. 0 . 2 , s . 11

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 139

and resembles blood .

”e The myti s was probably the liver ordigestive gland . The fluid of this , however , i s not always l ikeblood

,n or i s it sweet . In most dibranchiate cephalopods it

i s reddish brown,but in the lobster and crayfish it is com

mon ly yellow . In his Ostra koderma and E'

n toma he concluded that the part corresponding with the heart of anan imal with blood was in a median posit ion ,

’r but in no case

does he appear to have located it .Aristotle ’ s description of the arrangement of the blood

vessels may now be considered . Referen ce may be made toFig . 8 , which is intended to illustrate his description . He

points out the difficulties of tracing the arrangemen t by themethods followed by others

,who dissected slaughtered

animals from which much of the blood had flowed , or whoexamined the bodies of very emaciated men . It i s veryprobable that he himself dissected animals which , afterhavin g been starved , were killed by strangulation }.He was aware of some differences (as has already been

pointed out in Chapter ix .) between what are now calledarteries and veins , but he had no knowledge of a circulationof the blood . According to h im

,the blood flowed outwards

from the heart a n d did not return . In the followingdescription , therefore , the phrase blood-vessel wil l beused wherever possible ' i t would be misleading to use thewords “artery and vein .

”

Except where otherwisestated , in the following description of the arrangement ofthe blood-vessels , accordin g to Aristotle , the passages reliedon are from his H. A . i i i . cc '3 and 4 (Schneider

’ s text) .

Aristotle says that two blood-vessels arise from the heart ,the smaller one , which some call the aorta , lying a little tothe left , and the larger one , called the great blood-vessel ,lying a little to the right of the spinal column and nearerto the ventral wall than the aorta . The heart is , as it were ,a part of these blood-vessels , especially the great bloodvessel , for the parts of this extend above and below theheart , which is between them . The great blood-vessel , hesays , is connected with the upper part of the largestchamber , on the right side , then its course i s directed backwards right through the chamber

,as if this were a part of

the blood-vessel acting as a reservoir . The aorta , on theother hand , arises from the middle chamber , but not in the

P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 6816.

Jr I b id . iv. c . 5 , 6816 an d 682a .

I H. A . i ii . 0 . 1 .

ARISTOTLE’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

FIG . 8 .

HEART AND BLOOD VESSELS ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE.

r .m.l . Chambe rs of“the hear t .

p. Lungs .

d . Diaphragm.

h . Live r .

S . Sple e n .

k . Kidneys .

Gre at b lood ve sse l a nd it s branche s .

Aort a a nd it s bra nche s .

Blood ve sse ls from left chambe r .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

142 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

Aristotle proceeds to describe the var ious b lood-vesselswhich pass from the parts of the great b lood-vessel abovethe heart . He says that a part of the great blood-vesselpasses upwards as an undivided blood-vessel of large size

,

and that two vessels extend from it . On e of these goestowards the lungs and divides into two vessels , one for eachtracheal tube ; these two vessels break up into smaller andsmaller vessels which ramify through the substance of thelungs

,so that the whole of these seems to be full of blood .

The other vessel , which extends from the upper part of thegreat blood-vessel , passes to the spinal column and the lastcervical vertebra .

The great blood-vessel , referr ed to in the above statements

,i s clearly the pulmonary artery

,and Ar i stotle ’ s

description of the arrangement of the blood-vessels passingfrom it to the lungs wi l l be more conveniently discussed inChapter xi . His assertion that a blood-vessel extends fromthe great blood-vessel to the spinal column and the lastcervical vertebra i s by no means easy to under stand . Thepulmonary artery h a s no branch of thi s kind . His furtherdescription of the great blood-vessel and its branches almostsuggests that he was referring to the large azygos vein , buti t does not seem to be possible to identify the blood-vesselwhich he so strangely connects with the pulmonary artery .

His description of the two b lood-vessel s passing from theupper part of the great blood-vessel i s an example ofpassages in which a fairly good description i s followed byan apparently inexpl i cable statement . Such passages oftenoccur in hi s descr iption of the arrangement of the b loodvessels , and , in some cases , i t i s almost futi le to attempt todo more than refer to them .

Aristotle proceeds to say that,from the whole (which

should be the ven a ca va super ior) , blood-vessels pass to thesides and collar bones and thence to the arms in men

,to the

forelegs in quadrupeds , to the wings in birds , and to thepectoral fins in fishes . The parts of these blood-vessels nearwhere the branching takes place he calls the j ugula rs . He

also says that blood-vessels pass from the great blood-v e sselto the neck and along the trachea , and that , when theseblood-vessels a r e held on the outside , men sometimes falldown insensible , with eyes closed , but without being choked .

These blood-vessels , he says , extend as far as the ear s ,where they branch off into four vessels, one of which turnsback and passes through the neck and shoulder on its way

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 143

to the arm , hand , and fingers , wh ile another extends tothe membranes surrounding the brain . Of the remainingbranches of the great blood—vessel , some pass completelyround the head , and others end in very delicate vessels inthe sensory organs and the teeth .

It i s clear , from the first part of this description,that

Aristotle saw what are now called the subclavian veins andsome of their tributaries , and that what he calls the j ugula rswere probably the innominate vein s . The blood-vessels

,

the holding of which caused men sometimes to fall downinsensible

,should be the internal jugulars , since Aristotle i s

discussing branches of the great blood-vessel , but he may bereferring to the carotid arteries . It may be mentioned thatcompression of the carotids to produce stupor during surg icaloperations was practised by the Assyr ian s

f The part ofAristotle ’ s description of the blood-vessels extending as faras the ears i s apparently meant to refer to the internaljugular veins and their tributaries , but several parts of thedescription are incorrect , e .g . , these veins have many morethan four tributaries , and the branching takes place at manydifferent places and not merely in the vicinity of the ears .Again

,the vessel which is said to pass back through the

neck might be one of the external jugular veins .Aristotle ’ s account of the blood-vessels connected with

the brain will be considered when deal ing with the brainand spinal cord .

The part of the great blood-vessel below the heart willnow be considered . Aristotle says that this passes downthrough the diaphragm , but he adds the erroneous statementthat it i s united to both the aorta and the Spinal column byloose

,membranous connections . A short , thick blood-vessel

passes from it to the l iver and breaks up therein . Thereare also

,he says , two branches of this short , thick blood

vessel,one ending in the diaphragm an d adjacent parts

,

and the other passing upwards and enterin g the right a rm .

Therefore , he explains , when surgeons cut this blood-vessel ,some pains about the l iver are relieved . From the left sideof the great blood-vessel , a short , thick blood-vessel passesto the spleen , and another blood-vessel passes upward andinto the left arm . Other blood-vessels extend from thegreat blood-vessel , one to the omentum , another to theso-called pancreas , and many blood-vessels through the

Ma nua l of Pha rma cology, W. E . Dixon , 2na edition , 1908, p. 5 1.

144 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

mesentery,b ut these all end in one great blood-vessel

extending along the intestine and stomach and as far asthe oesophagus .This practically comp letes Aristot le ’ s description of the

great blood-vessel and its connections . The way in whichhe describes the downward extension of the great bloodvessel suggests that he knew that what i s now called theven a ca va infer ior passed somewhat centrally through thediaphragm . In his description of the branches of the bloodvessel passing to the l iver , Aristotle i s wrong ; the bloodvessel s from the right part of the diaphragm pass to theven a ca va infer ior , and those from the left part enter thesuprarenal vein . His statements , that another branchpasses upwards and enters the right arm , and that a bloodvessel passes from the left side of the great blood-vessel tothe left arm , are of more than ordinary interest . He wasevidently not free from the influence of the ancient beliefin the existence of distinct right and left systems of bloodvessels . Statements made in accordance with this beliefvitiated the descript ions of al l ancient anatomist s who dealtwith the arrangement of the blood-vessels , and used toexerci se a bad effect on surgical practice . Di ogenes ofApollonia , one of the best anatomists who lived beforeAri stot le , described some of the blood-vessels of the rightarm and shoulder under the name “hepatiti s ,

” and some ofthe blood-vessels of the left arm and shoulder under thename and sai d that

,for some complaints ,

surgeons practised bleeding from them . 1t The Ancients

beli eved , in fact , that an organ , such as the l iver or sp leen ,was connected by a blood-vessel with a distant part of thebody , such as one of the arms , and surgeons tried to rel ievepains , bel ieved to be caused by such an organ , by bleedingfrom the aforesaid blood-vessel . Dr . Lauth says that theerroneous opinion , which even Ari stot le entertained , that ablood-vessel connected the l iver and the right arm

,and that

another connected the spleen and the left arm,long had a

bad effect on surgical practica lThe Chinese , who appear to have formed their ideas

about human anatomy without the aid of the dissectingknife , bel ieve that there are some organs to each of which ablood-vessel proceeds , such vessel having a

“pulse which

H. A . i ii ..

c . 2 , s . 4 . j I bi d . ii i . c . 2 , s . 6 .

I Hi st . de l’

An a tomie , Stra sb ourg , 1815 , p. 77 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

146 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

spinal column to the hips,and then to the bladder and

generative organs .It i s clear from these descriptions that Aristotle was

acquainted with the mesenteric arteries , but that he did notknow that arteries are given off almost directly from theaorta to the l iver and spleen

,these arteries being branches

of the very short coeliac artery,which leaves the abdominal

aorta just below the diaphragm . He very clearly refers tothe ureters , but it i s not clear what are the two strong ,unbranched ducts (poroi ) leading from the aorta to thebladder . The use of the word poroi instead of phlebes doesnot cause the difficulty

,for Aristotle often uses that word

to denote blood-vessels ; the difficulty i s that there do notseem to be blood-vessels corresponding with those mentioned .

They may be the spermatic arteries , or the correspondingovarian arteries

,which are long , unbranched vessels ex

tending in the direction of,but not to , the bladder . They

can scarcely be two of the vesical arteri es,which are given

off from the internal i l i ac arteries and are very muchbranched .

No blood-vessel , Ari stot le says , passes from the greatblood-vessel to the uterus , but many closely crowded bloodvessels extend to it from the aorta . He next says that ,after their bifurcation

,blood-vessels extend from the aorta

and great blood-vesse l to the groins , legs , feet , and toes .His statement that no blood-vessel extends from the

great b lood-vesse l to the uterus i s substantial ly correct , formany of the uterine veins lead to the internal i l iac veins ;some of them

,however , communicate with the ovarian veins

which lead to the ven a ca va infer i or . His statement aboutthe vessels extending to the uterus from the aorta needssome qual ification . The uterus i s suppl ied with blood partlyby the uterine arteries from the internal i l iac arteries

,and

partly by the ovarian arteries which branch off from theaorta and communicate with branches of the uterinearteries .

Aristot le says incorrectly that , as regards the largestblood-vessels and their origins , the arrangement i s the samein all animals with blood . In smal l animal s

,he says

,the

b lood-vessels,except the great blood-vessel , are not con

spicuous , for some blood-vessels are confusedly arranged ,just l ike channels in a large quantity of mud , and someanimals have merely a few “fibres instead of blood-vessels .In a dissected animal , especially one ki lled by strangulation

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 147

or by chloroformin g , the pulmonary arteries and the ven aecaves are distended , and dark or nearly black so as to beeasily seen . Aristotle says correctly that the great bloodvessel i s conspicuous even in very small animals .Here

,near the en d of a description having serious

defects,yet far surpassing in excellence the correspon din g

descriptions of his predecessors , we see that Aristotle tried ,but without success , to make out the n ature of the smallramifications of the blood-vessels . More than this

,it i s

clear from other passages in his works that he tried toinvestigate the phenomena of the ultimate destination of

the blood passing through the very small blood-vessels .His views are fairly expressed in a series of passages in hisP . A . i ii . c . 5 , 668 , which are too long to be given in full .In these passages he says that , just as in the conveyance ofwater by irrigatin g channels or ditches the largest channelspersist but the smallest disappear beneath the mud

,so it

is with the blood-vessels , for the largest persist while thesmallest functionally become flesh , although they are nonethe less capable of acting as blood-vessels . When flesh isout , he proceeds to say , blood flows from it , although noblood-vessels may be seen in the flesh , because of their beingchoked up . The blood-vessels , he says , divide an d becomesmaller a n d smaller , until their passages are too small toallow the blood to flow through them , but they sti l l allowthe passage of a more liquid substance , vi a , sweat . F inally

,

he says that the blood in the very small blood-vessels givesup some of its material in the form of sweat or vapour, or ,as stated in P . A . i i i . c . 8 , 6 7l a , is diverted into feathers ,scales

,or the like , whi le the remaining parts are transformed

into flesh .

In this way he explains how the blood can flow awayfrom the heart and never return . Although he was awareof some differences between the aorta and the great bloodvessel and their ramifications , he had no conception of areturn of blood to the heart

,nor of the existence of networks

of capillaries through which the blood passed before enterin gthe veins . Having imperfect means of investigation an d aninadequate idea of the difficulties to be overcome , i t i s notsurprising that he failed in his attempts to explain theultimate distribution and functions of the blood , but he didmore than any other anatomist who lived before the times ofVesalius and Servetus to prepare a way for a satisfactoryexplanation of the phenomena of the circulation of the blood .

148 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

CHAPTER XI .

ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA AND THEIR

FUNCTIONS (con t inued) .

C .

— LUNGs, GILLs, AND THE LIKE .

MANY interesting statements are made by Aristotle aboutthe lungs

,gi lls

,and the structures which , according to him ,

take their p lace in some animals , but his views on theirfunctions were quite different from those accepted to-day .

He bel ieved that these organs mainly served to cool theanimals to which they belonged . Not only did he notunderstand the respiratory function of the water passingthrough the gill ch amb e rsfi

’ but he also held that air couldnot exist in the wa te r nL He says that insects and otheranimal s belonging to his En toma cannot r e spir e , I and , insupport of this statement , he says that many of the En tomal ive when divided into two or more parts , and that fl ies andbees swim about for a long time in water , unless this i s verycold or hot . § For him , respiration had a l imited meaning .

Unl ike Diogen es , Anaxagoras , Democritus , and many otherphi losophers , he denied that animals without lungs couldr espire ,“and , even in animals with lungs , the a ir taken inand expel led served merely to cool the blood and the hear t

,

which was the chief centre of h e atfl lSuch were his views on the functions of lungs , gi lls , and

the like . Further information about these views wi l l begiven in the following discussion of hi s statements about thestructure and arrangement of these organs .Aristotle says that the lung is usually double

,but this

i s not so evident in Viviparous animals , and least of allin Man , and that the human lung is not divided into manylobes

,as in some animals, nor i s i t smooth , but irregular H

In oviparous animals , he says , such as birds and oviparous

De Respi r . c . 16 .

4} I bi d. c . 2 .

I H. A . i . c . 1 , s . 7 . De Respi r . cc . 3 an d 9 .

I bi d . cc . 1 an d 2 .

‘ll I b i d . cc . 16 an d 21 .

H. A. i . c . 13 , s . 6 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

150 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

does not exp lain how the air passes into the blood-vessels ,but says that there are no ducts or vessels connecting theair passages and the blood-vessels . It may be that he b elieved in the existence of minute apertures in the passagesand vessels , which allowed air to pass , but wer e too smal l toallow blood to pass through them .

His views on this part of the subject of respiration aredifficult to understand . Some writers have concluded thatAri stotle held that some of the blood-vessels contained airand not blood . It may be confidently asserted that hi sgenuine works prove conclusively that , according to him ,

blood flowed through what are now called arteries as wellas through those now called veins . When referring to bothkinds of blood-vessels

,he often speaks of the blood in them .

The erroneous view that some of the vessels contained airrather than blood was held , not by Ari stotle , but by manyof hi s followers

,as wil l be shown later .

Few physiologists , according to Ari stotle , had discussedthe subject of respirat ion before hi s Among others ,he mentions Empedocles , who bel i eved that some of theblood-vessels were only partially fi lled with blood

,and com

mun ica t ed with the external air through passages so smallthat they allowed air to pass

,but not blood , and Ari stotle

states that Empedocles tried to explain the phenomena ofrespiration by asserting that the b lood moved to and fro inthese blood-vessels

,causing the external air to be alternately

drawn into and expelled from them through the very smallpassages and through the mouth and n ost r ils .

‘r The very

small passages , too small to a llow blood but large enough toallow air to pass through , were referred to by writers on theblood-vessel s and respiration for many centuries after thetime of Empedocles . It has already been suggested thatAristotle bel ieved in their existence in the wal l s of the airpassages and blood-vessels in the lungs

,and , in H. A . i i i .

c . 3 , s . 3 , he says that al l the chambers of the heart com

mun ica t e by passages with the lung,but this i s not evident

,

except in one chamber, because of the smallness of thepassages . This does not prove that he bel ieved in theexi stence of passages as small as those mentioned byEmpedocles , but it i s the clear est statement I can find onthis subject .After Aristotle ’ s time

,Erasi stratus and many others held

that some of the blood-vessels , especially the ar teries , conDe Respi r . c . i . j I bi d . c . 7 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 151

ta in ed air rather than blood . It was against this beliefthat Galen directed his attacks , when he contended that thearteries were filled with blood , However , according to SirM . Foster , the Galenic philosophy set forth that , when theheart expands

,it draws air from the lungs , through what

are n ow known as the pulmonary veins , in to the left ventricle ,and this air mixes there with blood which has passedthrough invisible pores in the septum between theThis shows how lasting was Empedocles ’ conception of theminute passages .Aristotle says that , in oviparous animals , such as birds ,

and oviparous q a adrupeds , the parts of the lungs are separated so much from each other that there appear to be twodistinct lun gs,

’r and that , in snakes , there i s a single lung

divided by a long fibrous tub e . IExcept that the trachea is only partly fibrous , this i s

true of the lungs of the viper and grass-snake,which were

those best known to Aristotle . Some snakes , l ike the boaand python

,have two functional lungs , unequally developed .

He says that the lungs of oviparous animals , e .g . ,lizards ,

tortoises,and birds , are small and dry but capable of great

expansion , when in fla ted . § This assertion is qualified by apassage in P . A . ii i . c . 8 , 671a , where he says that themarine tortoises have fl e sh-l ike lungs containing blood , l ikethe lungs of oxen , and that the lungs of land tortoises arelarger proportionally than those of other oviparous quadrupeds . Compared with those of many oviparous animals

,

the lungs of marine and also land tortoises are large andfleshy , but they are n ot n early as fleshy as those of an ox .

Aristotle ’ s statement about the lungs of birds i s inaccurate,

for the lungs of birds are rather large and contain much blood .

They are hidden to a large extent in recesses on each side ofthe backbone , and it is probable that he never removed themin order to examine them .

By means of the currents of water bathing the gills,

Aristotle believed that fishes were cooled,but this was not

the only function of the gills , for he says that they servealso as organs of smell . ”His descriptions of the gills of fishes are often difficult

to un derstand . He says correctly that the gills are eithersingle or double , and that the numbers of gills are equal on

Lec t . on the Hi s t . of Phys iology , 1901 , pp. 12 a n d 13 .

H. A . i . c . 13 , 1 I bi d . i i . c . 12 , s . 12 .

P . A . iii . c . 6 , 669a . HIb id . i i . 0 . 16 , 6596 .

152 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

both sides of the In a comparatively few fishes , thelast gills are single , but he states incorrectly that they aresingle in all or most fishe snL Aga in , many gills which areknown t o be double are said by him to be single . This maybe explained , in some cases , on the assumption that heincluded among single gil ls those which

,l ike the gills of the

eel and the sturgeon , have two sets of leaflets j oined together for a rather large part of their length . He does notappear to have known anything of the half-gills or pseudobranchs in some bony and carti laginous fishes .In H. A . i i . 0 . 9 , s . 4 , Ari stot le mentions many fishes

and gives the numbers of gills for each . In the followingtable , the gills of some of these fishes are compared withthose of the fishes which seem to furnish the best iden t ifica t ion of them

Gills on each side Gills on ea ch side

Modern n amesDoub le Sin gle Doub le Single

In addition to other pecul iarities of structur e , the gi llprocesses of each pair are free in the sword-fish , so thatthere seem to be eight gi lls . Aristotle evident ly knew ofthis peculiarity .

Ari stotle says that the flat , carti laginous fishes, such as

the torpedo and ray,have their gills below , but the long

ones , such as the dogfishe s, have lateral gi lls, and thatthe fish in g-frog has lateral gi lls , but these have skin-likeopercula and not spiny ones , l ike fishe s which are notcartilaginous . 1The Angel-fish (Rhin a squa tin a ) , which was known to

H. A . 11 . c . 4 . j H. A . 11 . c . 9 , s . 4 ; P . A . iv. 0.

1 H. A . i i . 0 . 9 , s . 3 .

Ee l

Pa ra silurus

Con gerCarpMuraen aPerchParrot-WrasseSword-fish

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

154 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

on the blood,and the l iver conta ins more blood than any

internal organ , except theHe discusses the purpose served by the bi le , and con

clude s that i ts format ion results in a purification of theblood

,but that i t i s itself a residual substance having no

further use . it His views on the bile were very different ,

therefore,from modern views

,according to which the bi le

faci litates the absorption of food,especial ly fats and carbo

hydrates,and st imulates the peri stalt i c movements of the

intestines .Aristotle mak es a few interesting statements about

the posit ion , form ,s ize

,and colour of the l iver in various

animal s . That of Man , he correct ly says , i s on the rightside of the body

,and he adds that it i s rounded like that of

an ox . I He gives an approximately correct estimate of therelative siz es of the l iver of an elephant and an ox , sayingthat the former i s four times larger than the latter . § Theaverage weight of the l iver of Engli sh oxen i s about sixteenpounds

,and that of the l iver of Asiat ic elephants i s about

fifty-three pounds .“He says very l itt le about the l iver in

birds . In snakes , he says , the l iver i s long and sin glefiland , in fi shes , some have a l iver w i thout lobes and dogfish e shave a l iver with two lobes which are quite free from eachother .

M e In snakes , the l iver i s single and elongated , e .g .,in

a grass-snake of average size I found that the single liverwas five inches long . With respect to fi shes, there aresome

, e .g . , the Lophobranchs , in which the l iver i s unilobed ,but most usually i t i s bilobed or , very occas ionally , has morethan two lobes . The lobes of the liver of the dogfish areconnected anteriorly by a short septum

,and it i s only in a

few fishes that they are separate , e .g . , they are said to bequite separate in the hag-fish .

The l iver,he says , i s red in ,viviparous quadrupeds and

birds , l ight yellow in most oviparous quadrupeds and infi shes

,and of a dirty t int in the frog , toad , and the like .

‘r’r

The colours are more var ied than the above statement ssuggest , e .g . ,

the l iver of the grass-snak e i s of a bright ,chocolate colour , that of the sea-lamprey i s green , of thedogfish , brownish-yel low , and of the frog , brown .

P . A . i ii . c . 12 , 6736 .

Jr I bid . iv. 0 . 2 , 677a .

ss . .5 a n d 6 § I 6i d. i i . c . 12 , s . 8 .

| j Ve t . Capt . Eva n s’

Tr ea ti se on E lepha n ts , 1901 Ran goon , p. 67.

H P . A . i ii . c . 12 , 6736 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 155

There are few parts of the animal body to whichAristotle paid more attention than the gall-bladder . Whenhe describes this part , he oftens uses the word chole ,which properly signifies bile , to denote the gall-bladderitself .He says that deer , horses , mules , asses , seals , and some

mice and men are without a gall-bladder , but that theso-called Ach a in ian deer seem to have gall in their tails ,but this

,though like gall in colour , i s not l iquid like gall ,

but resembles the inner parts of the spleen .

*

Horses,mules , asses , almost all kinds of deer , and some

mice, e .g . ,

the long-tailed field mouse , and occasionally men ,have not a gall-bladder

,but the common seal an d all other

seals,apparently

,have a conspicuous gall-bladder .

Aristotle ’ s statements about the presence of a gall-likesubstance in the tai ls of certain deer are not satisfactory .

In his note on H. A . i i . c . 11 , s . 5 , Schneider saysEven to-day , several huntsmen assert this . It i s certainthat the inner part of the tai l has a greenish colour and abitter taste . Hence , of course , the Opinion seems to havearisen about the presence of bile in the tail . ” I cannotobtain any confirmation of this . On the contrary , Mr .

Woodward,a gamekeeper near Woodstock , who has dressed

many deer,says that he has never seen such greenish colour

in or about their tails .Relying on observations on animals slaughtered for

sacrifice,Aristotle says that some have not a gall-bladder ,

e .g .,the sheep about Chalcis

,in Euboea , but that all those in

Naxos have remarkably large gall-b ladde r s t He states corr e c t ly that the liver of the elephan t i s w ithout a gall-bladder ,but

,when out near the part corresponding with that where

the gall-bladder is attached in some animals , a bile-l ikel iquid flows from the out part , and that the dolphin also iswithout a gall-bladder . 1

The elephant has a lon g bile-duct of large diameteropening , accordin g to Owen , into a bile pouch betweenthe coats of the duodenum .

Aristotle attempted,inH. A . i i . 0 . 11 , ss . 7 and 8 , i i . 0 . 12 ,

s . 12 , and P . A . iv . o . 2 , 6766, to indicate the position of thegall-bladder inmanybirds and fishes and in a snake . It is clearfrom these passages that he was wel l acquainted with the

a" H. A . 11. c . 11 , s. 5 ; P . A . iv. o. 2 , 6766.

j H. A . i . c . 6 ; P . A . iv 0 . 2 , 677a .

I Ho A . i i . 0. 7 .

156 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

zigzag arrangement of the gall-bladder of the pe lamid, andthe exceptionally large siz e of the gall-b ladder of the stargaz er . To what extent he was corr ect in defining thepositions of the gall-bladder in the snake and some of thebirds and fishes

,referred to above

,wi ll be seen from the

table b elow .

Position of the Posit ion of the

ga ll-b ladde r ga ll-bladder

Che lidon Ne ar the in te st in es Swa llow

Hydros On the liver or Gr a ss Sn aketowa rds in t estin e s .

Amia On th e in te stin e s

Ba tr a chos Near the in te stin e s

Xiphia s Sword Fish

Nea r th e liver

On th e liver

The sp leen , Ari stotle says , i s on the left side of the bodyand , in Man , i s long and narrow ,

l ike that of the pig ordog ,* in the elephant i t i s rather less than four t imes largerthan that of the ox,

’r in ruminants it i s of somewhat r ounded

form , and in the horse , mule , and ass i t i s broad in one partand narrow in an othe r . IThe human spleen i s somewhat tetrahedral in form and

i s not like the elongated sp leen of the pig . The spleen variesmuch in weight , even in mammals of the same species , butAristotle ’ s estimate of the siz e of the spleen in the elephantis too high . The average weight of the spleen in Engl i sh

H. A . i:c . 14 , ss. 5 an d 6 ; P . A . iii. c . 12 , 674a .

‘r H. A . i1. 0 . 12 , s . 8 . I P . A. iii . c . 12, 674a .

Bile duc ts on ly (two spec imen s dissect ed)

Close b elow r igh t par t of

liver

Bile ducts on lyBi le ducts on ly (five specimen s disse cted)

Ab out h a lf a n in ch b eh in d

the liver

Lie s a lon g th e in testin e s

Suspen ded ab out th re in chesb e low liver (Owen )

Suspen ded from liver

Suspen ded a t some dista n cefrom liver (Owe n )

Suspen ded a t some distan cefrom liver

Close b e low liver

Close b e low l iver (Aga ssiz)Suspen ded from live r (Cuvi er a n d Va len cien n e s)

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

158 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

E .

—THE ALIMENTARY CANAL AND ITS CLOSELYCONNECTED PARTS .

Many parts of Ari stotle ’ s statements about the al imentarycanal

,omentum , mesentery , and diaphragm are of small

value , but there are some parts which describe very well afew important anatomical detai ls . He gives

, e .g . ,good

descriptions of the stomach of a ruminant,the pyloric caeca

of fishes , and the intestinal cae ca of birds , the stomach of themullet , the gizz ard , proventri culus , and crop of a fewbirds , and the stomachs or digestive cavities of someinvertebrates .

After deal ing with the chief terms used by Ari stotle todenote various parts of the al imentary canal

,and briefly

discussing his views on digestion,the above-mentioned

descriptions and a few others of less importance wil l beconsidered .

In almost every instance in which he refers to theoesophagus , he calls i t s toma chos , and in most cases he cal lsthe stomach cce li a , under which term he includes also thegizzard of a bird and the digestive cavity of an invertebrate .

The usual term used for an tin t e st in e i s en teron ,but

,in many

passages , he uses the phrases upper ote li a and lower cec li a,

the former including the stomach and the latter either thewhole or a part of the intestines . He does not appear todistinguish the smal l from the large intestines .

D igestion was effected,according to Ari stotle , wholly

or almost whol ly by the action of animal heat , which hebel ieved to be different from ordinary heat , such as thatfrom a fire . The function of the mouth , he says , i s not todigest but to faci litate digestion by masticating the food .

*

In the stomach and part of the intestines , digestion waseffected by the heat supp l ied , so Aristot le believed , ma inlyby the l iver

,sp leen , and omen tum .

’r He says also that the

caeca found in most fishes serve to store up food which i stherein putrefied and digested . 1 Evident ly

,therefore

,he

not only followed Hippocrates , who believed that digestionwas due to the action of heat , but also some who bel ievedthat i t was due to putrefaction .

The nutritious matters , Aristotle says , passed into theblood through numerous vessels distributed throughout the

P . A . 11 . c . 3 , 650a .

Jr I bid . i ii . c . 7 , 670a , iv. 0 . 3 , 6776 .

I Ibid. ii i . c. 14 , 675a .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 159

mesentery,and extending , l ike roots , between the intestine

and the chief blood-vessels .*

The oesophagus opens into the stomach , he says , afterpassin g through the diaphragm , and is extensible both inlength and diameter ; the human stomach , he adds , is likethat of a dog

,for it i s not much wider than the intestine an d

looks like a wide part of the in te st in e t The omentum ,he

says , is a fatty membran e attached along the middle of thestomach where there i s

,as it were , a seam of that organ ,

an d the mesentery is a fatty membran e lying above ordorsally to the in te st in e s i The omentum , mesentery,and diaphragm are present

,he says

,in all animals with

blood . §Aristotle evidently never saw a human stomach , the

maximum sectional area of which is decidedly greater thanthat of the in testines

,while its form i s such as to distinguish

it at once from them . The omentum , by which he probablymeant the great omentum

,i s present in mammals on ly , but

the mesentery is found in most,if not all

,vertebrates . The

word used by Aristotle to denote the diaphragm i s di a zomaor sometimes phr en es or hypozoma ,

but each is sometimesused in a puzzlin g sense

,for birds

,reptiles

,fishes

,and even

some in vertebrates are said to have a di a zoma or hypozoma .

The mean in g of these words can be ascertain ed , in suchcases , only by reference to the con text , an d,

in man ycases , it i s evident that they refer merely to a region of ananimal ’ s body , and n ot to a membran e or the like serving asa partition . Aristotle ’s ideas about the di a zoma or hypozoma , l ike those of Plato, are con nected w ith his ideas aboutthe soul . In P . A . i i i . c . 10, 6726, he says that all an imalswith blood have a dia zoma , sometimes called phr en es , whichis necessary for dividing the region of the nobler from thatof the animal passions .He was aware that the stomachs of var 1ous animals vary

greatly in size and shape,and in the position s of the inlet of

the oesophagus,“but his most interesting description is that

relating to the stomach of a ruminan t , such descriptionbein g so accurate as to suggest that he dissected thestomach of one of these animals . According to h im , i t hasfour chambers of the following kind Commencing at

* I b i d i c l 3 8 10 111 c l l s 2

I] H. A . i i . 0 . 7 ; P . A . iii . c . 14, 675 a .

160 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMBRIA

the mouth,the oe sophagus extends to the rumen , the inside

of which is rough and furrowed . To the rumen is connected ,near the part where the oesophagus joins it , the reticulum ,

so named from its appearance , for , although it i s l ike astomach on its outer s ide , i t i s l ike the meshwork of a neton its inner s ide it i s much smal ler than the rumen . Nextto the reticulum is the psalterium

,which is rough and folded

on it s inner s ide , and about as long as the ret iculum .

F inal ly , there i s the abomasum ,larger and longer than the

psalterium ; there are many del icate folds on the inner surface of the abomasum

,and the intestine extends from

This i s one of the best of Ar i stotle ’ s anatom i cal descriptions .The four chambers

,via , the rumen , reticulum , psalterium ,

and abomasum , are called by him the mega le Koi li a ,

Kekrypha los , E chin os, and En ystron , respectively . InP . A . i i i . c . 14 , 6746 , he says that these chambers compensate for the want of front teeth in the upper jaws ofruminants , and that , during its passage from chamber tochamber in succession , the food i s reduced to a pulp .

Some animals , according to Ari stot le , have intestinalcaeca , and no animal without front teeth in its upper jawhas an intestine without a caecum . The elephant , he says ,has an intestine with its parts so grown together that i tseems to have four chambers for its food , and it has nor eceptacle for food other than th e se . 1

L

Not only animals without front teeth in the upper jaw,

or ruminants , but many others , e .g . ,the horse

,rabbit

,rat

,

dog , and monk ey , have a well-developed caecum . Thepassage about the elephant i s not clear , but it may bementioned that the elephant has a large caecum and

,

according to Owen , i ts duodenum is very much convoluted .

Aristot le knew that some birds have a crop , for hespecially notes its presence in the domestic fowl

,dove

,

wood pigeon , and partridge , and says that i t i s a larger eceptacle of skin in which the food i s first received butnot dige sted iThe proventriculus or glandular stomach of birds was

known to Aristotle , but he considered it to be merely astorage chamber for food before being comminuted . § InH. A . i i . 0 . 12 , s . 15 , he r efers to the proventriculus in the

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

162 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

a stomach which i s quite different from that of others , suchas

,for example

,the parrot-wrasse

,which i s the only fish

that seems to rumin a tefi’

In fishes,the stomach and intestines , especially the

stomach,are usually more complicated in form than those

in snakes . Some fishes , l ike the sharks , have capaciousstomachs shaped l ike a bent tube or siphon

,and many , e .g . ,

the eel and bass , have stomachs with a large caecum .

There are other forms,but these are the chief types . The

stomach of the parrot-wrasse (Ska ros) i s without a caecum ,

and appears to be of simpler form than that of most fishes,

but I have been unable to obtain a specimen for dissectionof the stomach or to find a ful l description of i ts generalstructure . The so-called ruminating habit s of Ari stotle ’ sSka r os wi ll be dealt with in Chapter xvi i .The grey mullet has a muscular stomach which serves

as a powerful grinding organ,l ike a bird ’ s gizzard

,and

Aristotle , who calls this fish Kestr eus, was aware of thispeculiarity .

Jr

The py loric caeca of fishes were well known to Ari stotle ,who says that they are situated near the stomach and maybe few or many , or , in some fishes

, ab sen t i The mostimportant part of his account of the numbers of caeca indifferent fishes i s given below .

According to Ari stotle , the Ma la kia or cephalopods havea long and narrow oesophagus passing into a large cr op , l ikethat of a bird

,and close to thi s crop i s the stomach

,shaped

like the whorl of a whelk ; from thi s an intestine , small

Cseca . Cseca .

Six

Four to n in e

Per ca fluvia t ilis, thr e eSerr a n us scr ib a , seven

Eigh t (Guv . a n d Va len c .)Eight , ab out

Four (Cuv. a n d Va len c .)Non e , wi th few, if an y,

exception s.

H. A . 11. c . 12 , s . 13 . f P . A . iii . c . 14 , 675a .

IH. A . 11. c . 12 , s. 13 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS . 163

but wider than the oesophagus , extends backwards towardsthe mouth .

*

This description applies very wel l to the alimentarycanal of a sepia or lol igo (calamary) , except that Aristotlemistakes for a crop what is the stomach , and the stomachfor an intestinal caecum . He also states correctly that thesepia and calamary differ in the form of the above-mentionedparts , but adds incorrectly that the parts about the stomachare the same in the sepia and octopusn

t for the octopus ha sa well-marked crop . He states correctly that the in k bagof the cephalopods serves as a means of defence , that itsduct opens close to the terminal end of the intestine , and thatit i s largest in the sepia and situated lower down than inthe octopus and calamary lAristotle ’ s statements about the gastric teeth of crusta

cean s have been discussed in Chapter x . With respect tothe general characters of the alimentary canal in crustaceans

,

he states substantially correctly that the oesophagus isshort and opens into a membranous stomach , whenceextends a Simple intestine of uniform diameter . §His descriptions of the alimen tary canal in that section

of his Ostra koderma which consists of molluscs are fullof difficulties . He men tions some species of Buccinum(Keryaz) , Murex or perhaps Purpura (Porphur a ) , an d othergastropods in his descriptions

,but does not describe all the

chief parts of the alimentary canal for any one of these .

He gives a concise general description of the alimentarycanal of a gastropod in P . A . iv . o. 5 , 6796, where he statesthat next to the mouth is a crop , l ike that of a bird , then astoma chos, and next to this a ote li a or stomach in which isthe mecon (l iver) , whence the intestine takes its origin .

Aristotle seems to be referring to the crop , which occurs , iti s true , in snails and many other gastropods , but not closeto the mouth in the way which he seems to suggest .It is less likely that Aristotle refers to the buccal cavity .

The relations between the stomach , intestine , and meconor liver he did not understand . The stomach requires to becarefully dissected out from the enveloping mass of thel iver ; he does not seem to have done this , but took thewhole mass for the stomach

,which he says contained the

mecon .

H. A . iv . 0 . 1 , s . 10 ; P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 6786.

j P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 6786. 1 I bi d . iv. 0 . 5 , 6786 a n d 679a .

H. A . iv. 0. 2 , se . 10-12 ; P . A . iv. o. 5 , 679a .

164 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

Ari stotle says that Buccinum and Murex or Purpurahave a tongue-l ike proboscis which i s hard and can borethrough the shel ls of animals used as ba its?“The last partof thi s statement i s incorrect

,for these mol luscs bore ma inly

by means of their radulas .The Kochloi which appear to have comprised the snai l s ,

He licidae, are said by h im to have a stomach close to themouth and l ike the crop of a bird ; beneath it , he adds , aretwo hard

, white bodies , l ike nipples , and from it a simplelong stoma chos extends to the mecon in the spiral of thesh e ll .

’r What he calls the stomach seems to be the crop ,

and the hard,white bodies seem to be the dart sacs of the

He li ci da .

After describing the five teeth,constituting the chief part

of what i s st i l l cal led Ari stotle ’ s lantern ,” he says that the

oe sophagus of the sea-urchin leads to the stomach , withits five loops ful l of excreta i He had evidently examinedthe internal organs of a sea-urchin

,in which the gastro

intestinal canal i s suspended , in the form of a coi l withloops

,from the inner sides of the shel l .

According to Aristot le , most of his En toma have anal imentary canal which passes directly and without divisionsfrom the mouth to the anus

,but a few have a coi led a limen

tary canal,and in some , e .g . , the locust , there i s a stomach

succeeded by a straight or coiled intestine . §This i s a very general description

,and i s not a good one .

Many larvae,myriapods , centipedes , and some others of hi s

En toma have a fairly straight,s imp le al imentary canal

,but

many of his En toma , e .g . , beetles , bees , & c . ,have a com

pl icated al imentary canal and intestinal cae ca , the existenceof which Ari stotle does not appear to have known .

F .

—THE URINOGENITAL ORGANS .

It has already been shown that Ari stotle bel ieved thatthe blood , having left the heart , never returned , but wasused up or dissipated in various ways . It i s well-knownthat a part of the blood i s removed by the action of theurinary organs , but he bel i eved that the essentia l organ forthe performance of this function was the bladder

,and that

+ 16id . iv. c . 4 , ss . 8 an d 9.

A . iv. 0 . 5 , 680a .

. A . iv. 0 . 5 , 682a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

166 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOMCEOMERIA

ones . In some land tortoises the bladder i s a large reservoirfurnishing them with moisture when at a distance fromtheir usual drinking p laces ; thi s i s wel l exemp l ified byDarwin in his Na tur a li st

’

s Voya ge r oun d the Wor ld (2n d

edition, London , 1890, p . With respect to Aristotle ’ s

statement about the form of the kidneys of tortoi ses , i t maybe sai d that these kidneys are compact but present a seriesof convolutions

,e .g . ,the surface of each k idney of a smal l

specimen of the Grecian tortoi se showed a series of ridges andfurr ows , and , when the capsule was removed , the substanceof the kidney showed the ridges and furrows very c learlyindeed , the whole forming a pattern scarcely less comp l icatedthan that seen on the surface of the human brain .

Aristotle says that,in al l animals , the right kidney i s

higher or more forward than the left,and is drier and less

fatty .

* The right kidney i s general ly nearer the head thanthe left in mammals and in the grass-snake and some othersnakes . In Man and the pig the left kidney i s often a l ittlenearer the head than the right , whi le the kidneys of mostbirds , of some pigs and sheep , and of the frog and someother animals

,are as nearly as possible symmetrical in

position . The amount of fat about the kidneys varies much ,even in individuals of the same species . In sheep

,pigs

,and

some other animals , i t may be said that , when the kidneysare unsymmetri cal in position , the amount of fa t about theone which i s nearer the head i s greater than that about theother .It has been shown how , contrary to the modern opinion ,

Aristotle subordinated the kidneys to the bladder ; in asomewhat simi lar way he subordinated the testes to theseminal ducts . This will be clear from the followingepitome of G. A . i . c . 4 —The testes are not necessary forreproductive purposes , for , i f they were , they would be foundin al l animals which reproduce . Now ,

neither snakes n orfishes have testes , yet their poroi (ducts) are full of semen .

The testes , in fact , serve a kind of regulating purpose only ,and a re not parts of the poroi , but attachments , just l ike thestones which weavers attach to the warp

,and

,when the

testes are removed , the poroi a re withdrawn backwards .Hence , in such a case , the poroi are withdrawn and theanimal becomes impotent , but , in one instance , a bull wastemporari ly potent because the poroi were not withdrawn .

s: H. A . i . c . 14 , s. 7 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 167

Evidently,therefore

,the organs serving to secrete the

semen were,according to h im

,the seminal ducts , and the

testes were adjuncts sufficiently important,in some cases , to

ensure their efficiency . In some cases , the ducts could actwithout the aid of the testes

,for

,in many passages , he

makes it clear that there were no organs to which he couldgive the name testes in some animals

, via ,in snakes , fishes ,

and all animals with gills .* He was probably deceivedmainly by the usually elongated and duct-l ike form of thetestes in these animals . Cartilaginous fishes usually havetestes of a compact form

,but it is n ot clear whether he in

tended to include these fishes within the meaning of thepassages above cited . Probably he did not , for he oftendescribes the cartilaginous fishes as if they were a separateand distinct group .

In a long series of passages in H. A . i i i . c . 1 , ss . 7-9 ,Aristotle gives a remarkable description of the anatomy ofthe testes of what are now called mammals

,and exemplifies

his meaning by reference to a drawing,which has been lost .

This description was evidently based on one or more dissections . Notwithstanding many difficulties in the Greektext , i t is evident that he had some knowledge of thespermatic arteries , the epididymis , the vas deferen s and itscommunication with the urethra

,and the tunica vaginalis ,

part of which envelops the epididymis . He states that thetestes are not of flesh , but are nearly of the nature of fl e sh . i

The second part of this statement is incorrect ; each testisis composed chiefly of a very large number of seminiferoustubules , enclosed within a strong , white , fibrous envelope .

Among the numerous statements he makes about themale organs of particular kinds of animals are some ofspecial interest . He says that the testes of the elephantare near the k idn eys, I and that the testes of some animals ,e .g . , the lizard , tortoise , crocodile , and hedgehog , are in theregion of the kidneys , but some have them near theabdominal wall , l ike the dolphin and elephant . §The first statement , relating to the elephant , is quite

correct , for, according to Dr . M . Watson , the testes , whichare nearly globular , l ie below the posterior en ds of thekidneys .“The testes of the dolphin are abdominal , and lie

H. A . 11 . c . 9 , ss . 1 a n d 2 , 11. c . 12 , s . 10, iii . c . 1 , s . 1 ; P . A . iv.

0 . 13 , 697a ; G . A . i . c . 3 , 7 166 .

j H. A . i . c . 10, s . 4 . 1 I bid . i i . 0 . 3 , S . 4 . Ibid . i ii . c . 1 , s. 2 .

[IJour n . An a t . a n d Physi ol . vol . vii . 1873 , p. 6 5 .

168 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

far back . Those of the hedgehog undergo , as i s wel l knowna great change both in position and size , according to thetime of year . Ari stotle ’ s statements about the testes of thel izard , tortoi se , and crocodile are substantial ly correct .His statements about the os pen i s of the marten and

other animals have been discussed in Chapter x .

Much has been written about the hectocotylus of theargonaut

,octopus

,and other cephalopods

,which i s an arm

specially modified for the purpose of conveying the spermatozoa to the female . Ari stotle was the first to describe thisorgan and to suggest it s proper function . He says , speakingparti cularly of an octopus : Some say that the male hassome kind of external generative organ in one of i ts arms ,on which are two very large suckers

,that such organ i s

s inewy,as it were

,as far as the middle of the arm , and that

the whole of i t is sent into the funnel of theThe male

,he says

,differs from the female in having a

longer head and the part of the arm , called the generativeorgan by fishermen , i s whitest The last of i ts arms , hesays , i s the most pointed of all , i s the only one which i swhiti sh , and i s used in COpula t ion . I F inal ly , he says thatthe male must approach the funnel of the female , whetherhe emits semen , a part [of hi s body] , or any other agent ,and that the insertion of that arm of the octopus , whichfishermen say i s used in copulation

,through the funnel i s

for the sake of an intertwining and not for the purpose ofan organ of generation , for i t i s outside the funnel and bodyof the female . §It i s clear , therefore , that he bel ieved , on the authority

of fishermen , that the strangely modified arm was an organof generation . There does not seem to be sufficient evidenceto Show that he knew of the free or so-called autotomoushectocotylus of the argonaut and some other cephalopods .The cephalopod to which his descriptions were intended torefer i s generally admitted to be Oc topus vu lga r i s of theMediterranean . A description of the h e c tocotylised arm ofthis cephalopod i s given in An n . Ma g . Na t . Hi st . xx . pp .

98—9 , where i t i s said that the arm is short and pointed atits end , and that i t has a very white fold of skin on itsdorsal side and sometimes one or two exceptionally largesuckers . If this description i s compared with Aristotle ’ s ,

H. A . v. c . 5 , s . 1 . j 1bi1 I b id . iv. 0 . l , s . 6 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

170 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

one or mor e parts of these organs . That the hystera i sinternal i s clear from many passages , and especially fromG. A . i . c . 12 , 719a , where i t i s stated that the hystera i sinternal in all females , because of the need for guarding theyoung animal and keeping it warm . Its meaning i s clearto this l im it ed extent , but i t i s often difficult to decide towhat part or parts the term refers . In some cases it meansthe uterus of a mammal

, e .g . ,in H. A . vii . c . 4 , s . 1 , but in

many other passages it means the ovaries,or these and the

oviducts , of birds , reptiles , amphibians , fishes , cephalopods ,and crustaceans .

Even when describing the organs of mammals he doesnot always distingui sh between the uterus and the ovaries ,and

,in G. A . i . c . 8 , 7166, he says that all hyster ce are in

two parts,just as there are two testes in males . He al so

mentions the hystera in close connection and by way ofcomparison with the testes . His ful lest description of theuterus of a mammal i s in H. A . i i i . c . 1 , ss . 10 and 11 .

It seems to be clear that he gave the name hyster amore particularly to the more external and the namede lphys to the innermost parts of the uterus , and that hewas acquainted with the cornua or horns of the uterus insome animals , and with the twisted or waved par ts of theFallopian tubes or oviducts .

On e of the most interesting passages relating to thehyster a of Viviparous animals i s that in which he recordsthe existence of placental animals . He says that thehyster a of ruminants and also the hare , mouse , and bat ,among animals with front teeth in both jaws

,have cotyle

don es (placentae) in the pregnant hyster a ,and that all other

Viviparous animal s with feet and with front teeth in bothj aws have a smooth hystera ,

the foetus being attached to thehyster a i tself and not to a cotyledon .

*

The animals in which the p lacentae are restricted tocircumscribed patches are much more numerous thanAristot le bel ieved , and amon g them may be speciallymentioned , in addition to those mentioned by Aristotle , theCarnivora and Insectivora .

In his short descriptions of the hyster a of birds , r epti les ,batrachians , and carti laginous fishes , in H. A . i i i . c . 1 , ss. 12

and 13 , he c learly refers to the oviducts communicating witha s ingle passage leading to the exteri or .

H. A . i i i . c . 1 , S . 15 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 171

He did not believe that fishes had any visible externalpassages from the generative In cartilaginousfishes

,the genital passages open into a cloaca

,but in most

bony fishes the external passages from the generative organsare visible behin d the anus , and may be readily seen in thebass

,gurnard

,silurus , and salmon .

Aristotle ’ s descriptions of the female generative organsof the invertebrata are sometimes very difficult to understand a t all . They were probably based on dissections , butit is almost certain that the parts were not dissected out atall clearly .

He misunderstood the arrangement of the female organsof crustaceans in much the same way as he misunderstoodthe arrangement of the male organ s , for he speaks of theoviducts extending along the intestine and opening outwards somewhere on the telson .

’r

The female octopus , he says , has an wo’

v,meaning

probably the ovarium , uneven outside , smooth an d whiteinside , and containing a very large quantity of eggs ; inSepi a ,

he says,there are two such ovaria , also containing

many white eggs }: This appears to be his meaning , but iti s difficult to understand , for the eggs are contained inovisacs projecting from the interior surface of the ovarium ,

and no cephalopod seems to have more than one ovarium ;

Sepi a has on e oviduct while Oc topus has two .

There are many other statements about the generativeparts of these and other invertebrata

,and

,among these ,

may be specially mentioned the one in which he correctlyrecords the number of the ovaria in Echinus, for he saysthat they are five in number . §He gives some information , chiefly inH. A . i i . c . 3 , about

the teats of various animals . He states correctly that theelephant has two teats between its fore legs , and that thecamel and leopardess have four each , but gives the numberof teats in the bear as four instead of six

,and that in the

l ioness as two instead of four .He shows that he had examined the dolphin carefully ,

for he says that,this animal has two mammae , not in its an

t e r ior part but near its genitals,that it has no visible teats , but

two ducts , as it were , one on each side , from which themilk flows , being sucked by the young ones as they followtheir mother , and that this had been clearly seen by some

H. A . 11. c . 2 . t Ibid. iv . 0 . 2 , ss . 12 a n d 13 .

I Ibid . iv. 0 . 1 , ss . 13 an d 14 . Ibid . iv . c . 5 , s . 5 .

172 ARISTOTLE’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA.

peOple .

’le These statements are substantially correct . Ao

cording to Cuvier , there are two mammae , whence milk flowsthrough nipples situated in l ittle pits (fossettes) , one on eachside of the vulva . 1

L

Male sol id-hoofed animals have no teats , Ari stotle says ,except those which resemble their dams , a phenomenonwhich i s seen in hor se s . I The horse i s one of the com

pa r a t ive ly few animals in which the males are withoutteats

,but John Hunter found traces of them in some

stall ions . §The above comprise the most interesting parts of

Ari stot le ’ s researches on the urinogenital organs . Thereare many others in various parts of hi s works

,but those

discussed are sufficient,perhaps

,to represent fairly the

value of his researches .

H. A . 11 . c . 9 , s . 1 .

f Leg on s d’

An a t . Oompa r . , 2n d edi tion , Pa r is, vol . vii i . 1846 , pp.

604 a n d 608 .

I H. A . 11 . c . 3 , S . 2 .

The Wor ks of John Hun ter , edi t . by J. F . Pa lmer , 1835—7 , vol . iv.

p. 37 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

174 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

blood,and that a brain or anything analogous to a brain

was not found in other animals,except the cephalopods?“

Sensation he bel ieved to be manifested more especially inparts with blood , and , in one passage , which seems to be aninterpolation , i t i s stated that no part that i s without bloodhas sen sa t ion .

‘r This passage must be read , however , in

conjunction with many other passages showing that hemeant that no part that i s without blood or what i sanalogous to blood manifest s sensation

,for hi s so-called

bloodless animals have sensitive parts . He recognized ,however , an apparent connection between sensation and thepresence of blood , and , reasoning consistently , concludedthat the brain

,cold

,bloodless , devoid of sensation , and

absent from many animals which manifested sensation,

could not be the sensory centre .

So far , his reasoning , although based on false data , i squite intelligible . There remain

,however , a series of

statements which are not always consistent and are difficultto understand . A strong argument in favour of the viewthat the bra in i s the sensory centre i s that it i s connectedwith the sense organs by what are now called nerves . Now

Aristot le concluded , and adduced arguments to support hi sconclusion , that the brain was not connected with the senseorgans . He says : “It i s clear from inspection and sti llmore from its being insensible when touched that the brainhas no unbroken connection (ouvéxeza ) with sensory organs .

”

1Ye t there are a few passages which suggest , and one whichseems to show , that he noticed such a connection , but hedid not admit that the connection was with the brain , butwith the blood-vessel s about the bra in . These passages wi llnext be discussed .

He says “Three ducts (v o'

pot) extend from each eye to thebrain , the largest and the medium-sized one to the cerebel lum , and the smallest , which i s nearest the nose , to thebra in itself . The largest ducts li e side by side and do notcome into contact with each other , but the medium-sizedones do so ; this i s especially evident in fishes

,for the

medium-siz ed ducts are nearer the bra in than the largest ,and the smallest are very much separated from each otherand do not come into

P . A . 11 . c . 7 , 6526 ; H. A . iii . c . 14, s . 1 , an d in man y oth er pass

ages ih h is works .

f P . A . ii . 0 . 10, 6566. 1 Ibid . 11. c . 7 , 6526.

H. A . i . 0. 4 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 175

The medium-sized ducts may be the optic nerves , exceptthat they are said to pass to the cerebellum . Aristotle saysthat they come into contact with , or fall on , each other(sympiptousi ) , and that this is well seen in fishes

,suggesting

that he had seen the meeting or crossin g of the optic nerves .Aristotle ’ s description is insufficien t for the determination ofthe other ducts . Di ssections of various animals

,especially

fishes , made for the purpose of determinin g these ducts , havenot enabled me to arrive at a conclusion .

The next passage to be considered is much less ambiguous . Aristotle says : The brain of the chamae leon i s al ittle above its eyes and continuous (owner

'

s) w ithThis shows as clearly as any passage can be expected to dothat he saw the optic nerves of the chamaeleon to their fullextent , yet , as has been stated already , he did not admi tthat the brain was in unbroken connection with the senseorgans . He did not understand the nature of the nerveswhich he saw . On the contrary , i t seems that he consideredthem to be ducts conveying nutriment or other fluid , for hesays that the purest of the moisture about the brain isseparated through the ducts which are seen to lead fromthe eyes to the membrane about the b ra in nL

Not one of the passages relating to the ducts betweenthe brain and sense organs is as clear as that already givenabout the chamaeleon . It seems strange that , after havin gexposed the optic nerve by dissection in the way which thatpassage suggests

,he should have adhered to his belief in the

want of an unbroken connection between the substance ofthe brain and any of the sense organs .There are a few other passages which are difficult

and are consistent only in showing that he did notbelieve in such a connection . In H. A . i . c . 9 , s . 1 , it i sstated that no duct (wo

’

pos) extends from the brain to eitherear

,but a blood-vessel extends from the brain to each ear ;

in P . A . i i . 0 . 10, 6566, however , i t i s stated that a duct extends from each ear to the back part of the head . Thee ffect of the various passages previously cited is to showthat the ducts

,whatever their real nature may be , do not

lead to the substance of the brain , but to some part of theblood system , and so communicate with the heart

,

Aristotle ’ s centre of sensation .

There is an interesting passage which bears upon the

H. A . 11. c . 7 , s . 5 . j G. A . 11. c . 6 , 744a .

176 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

question of the extent of Aristotle ’ s knowledge of what a renow called nerves . In that passage he says : Numbnessdoes not affect any part of the body where there i s noThis statement , at first sight , might seem to be evidence ofan important discovery , but i t has already been shown howunlikely i t i s that he ever distinguished nerves from sinews(n ape ) . Thi s di stinct ion was first effected , to some extent ,by Erasistratus and Herophi lus

,and more fully by Rufus

Eph e sius and Galen .

Ari stotle , giving h is own views on the functions of thebrain , says that Nature has arranged that i t should act inopposition to the heart , which i s hot , and so regulate i t , andhas formed the brain of material which is earthy and wateryand therefore adapted to have a cool ing effe ct nL The brain ,according to him , exercises a very important function inconnection with the heart , and i s one of the most importantorgans of the body ; he says that i t i s reasonable that themembranes about the brain and the heart should be v erystrong and stout , because the heart and brain require mostprotection , s ince they are the chief regulating powers ofl ife . 1 That the bra in , under the influence of pain , grief , orpleasure , exercises a marked effect on the heart i s very wellknown . Ari stotle points this out very clearly

,although he

does not correctly exp lain it . He says that the heart i svery much influenced by the smallest change in the blood onthe outer surface of the bra in . §The sensory organs which he considered to be more

reli able than the others are usual ly situated in the head , forthey are rendered more certain in their action , he says , inconsequence of their being supp l i ed with the purest bloodthe effect of the action of hot blood would also be to impa irthe action of the sensory organs

,and the eyes in particular

are in the head because , he says in effect , both the bra inand the eyes are of the nature of water . ”

Aristotle ’ s views on the functions of the bra in , therefore ,are not fair ly represented by stating that the bra in i s acool ing means , and still less fairly by stat ing , as Galen seemsto do ,

‘ll that Aristot le considered the brain to be a meresponge , as it were , saturated with water . On the contrary ,he assigned to it very important functions in connection

H. A . i ii . c . 5 , s . 4 . j P . A . 11 . c . 7 , 6526 .

1 Ib id . iii . c . 11 , 6736. I bi d . i i . 0 . 7 , 6536.

Ibi d. ii . 0 . 10, 6566 De Sen su , et c . , 0 . 2 , 438a .

i i De Usu Pa r tiwm, (t a , vi ii . c . 3 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

178 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

Ogle suggests that the statement i s based on an examinat ionof the foetal brain?“It i s practical ly certain that Ari stotledid not examine an adult human brain , but he may haveexamined the brain of some animal in which brain a rapiddecomposition had set in . I have been informed of a casein which , the brain pan having been removed for thepurpose of taking out the brain from a comparat ively freshbody

,a large part of the brain flowed away .

Aristotle states that there a r e two membranes about thebrain , a weaker vascular one about the brain itself and astronger one next the bone ; that the brain i s divided intoright and left halves ; that the cerebellum at the extremeend of it differs in appearance and texture from the rest ofthe brain ; and that , in most animals , there i s a smallcavity in the middle of the b r a in nL

There are three membranes about the brain , the innermost being the p ia mater , which i s intimately associatedwith the arachnoid membrane or middle membrane , and theoutermost being the dura mater . Aristot le probably sawthe strong dura mater , and the other two membranes , thesetwo del i cate membranes constituting his inner membrane .

The cerebel lum is somewhat darker than the rest of the bra in,

and is striated or ribbed externally , whi le in form it i s quitedifferent , as Ari stot le says , from the rest of the brain . Thestatement about the smal l cavity in the midd le of the braini s true as far as it goes . In vertebrates , there are cavitiesor ventricles (four in Man ) within the brain and in commun ica t ion with one another .

In several passages he makes i t clear that he bel i evedthat the substance of the brain was quite b loodle ss . I Thi sbel ief has been used aga inst him by some of his crit ics .It i s clear from several passages

, e . g . , H. A . i i i . c . 3 , s . 7 ,that he knew of the presence of b lood and blood-vessels inthe membranes about the brain

,and he says that the brain

itse lf i s bloodless , so that he evidently refers to the bra indivested of its membranes . This does not

,however , over

come the difficulty,for if the bra in of a mammal , such as a

sheep or rabbit , be examined , after removal of the membranesand careful washing , smal l blood-vessels can be seen extending Some distance into it . Some have suggested thatAr i stotle made his observations only on the brain of an

Ar i stotle on th e P a r ts of A n ima ls , 1882 , p. 165 .

j H. A . i . c . 13 , ss . 2 a n d 3 , i ii . c . 11 , s . 1 .

I H. A . i . c . 13 , s . 3 , iii . c . 3 , s . 8 ; P . A . 11. c . 7 , 652a .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS . 179

animal which had been cooked , or on the brain of somereptile or fish .

It has been mentioned already , in this chapter , that onlyin his Ma la ki a (cephalopods) did he find , among his An d ima ,

anythin g corresponding with a brain . His knowledge ofthe cephalopods was extensive an d he is quite right in hisstatement about the brain of these animals , which have apart of their nervous system concentrated into a massprotected by a cartilagin ous case , the whole appearing likea rudimen tary brain and skull . The cartilaginous case isreferred to by him in H. A . iv . o. 1 , s . 9 .

H.

—THE SENSES AND SENSORY ORGANS .

Aristotle argues that there are not more than five senses,

via , sight , hearing , smell , taste , and touch , an d says thatsome an imals have all these but others have only some ofthem , among those which have all the senses bein g Man

an d Viviparous animals with blood , with some possibleexception s , such as , for example , the Aspa la x or mole?

“He distin guished between sight , hearin g , and smell ,

actin g through some medium , e . g . , air , between the subjectand the object of sensation , and taste and touch , which areless dependent on the presence of such a medium . It willbe convenient , in discussin g his views , to deal with touch andtaste first

,and then smell

,hearing , and sight .

According to Aristotle , touch is the primary sense ,apparen tly because it is present in all animals and enablesus to appreciate differences in the elementary qualities ofmatter

,such as solidity and t empera ture .

‘r Although he

considers it to be the primary sense , he discusses whether iti s not several senses rather than one , being the least simpleof the senses

,for

,unlike the eye , which distinguishes

differences in colour , or the c a r , which distinguishes differe n c e s in tone

,the tactile organ , whatever it may be ,

distinguishes differences in many qualities , and he suggeststhat , while sight and hearing seem to be distinct sen sesbecause their media are distinct , touch may be made up ofseveral senses blended , as it were , in consequence of theirhaving a common medium . I

De An ima , i ii . c . 1 , 4246 a n d 425a , 11 . c . 2 , 4136 an d 4l 4a ; H. A .

iv. 0 . 8 , s . 1 .

1 P . A . 11 . c . 8 , 6536 ; De An ima , 11. c . 2 , 4136 , 11. c . 11 , 4226 .

I P . A . i i . 0 . 1 , 647a ; De An ima , i i . C. 11, 4226 .

180 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

He often discusses the question of the natur e and positionof the organ of touch , but nowhere does he seem to arrive ata definite conclusion . F lesh or something analogous to i ti s

,he says , the chief organ of touch , either in the same way

as the eye i s the organ of sight or else it corresponds withthe eye together with some transparent medium?“He

prefers to bel ieve that touch does not act by direct contact ,that the true organ of touch i s not the flesh , but something internal to this , and he instances what happens whenthe hand , covered by a s tretched membrane , touches someobject ; in this case , the object i s felt , but the membrane isnot , on that account , the organ of touch , but i s merely amedium .

‘r He also points out that

,in other respects

,there

i s not necessari ly direct contact between the flesh and theobject any more than there i s contact between water and abody immersed therein , for a fi lm of air may be betweenthe water and the b ody . I

According to Ari stotle , the sense of touch i s closelyconnected with the heart . § It has already been exp lainedthat he did not believe that the brain was the sensory centre ,and that he had no knowledge of the functions of nerves .From the modern views on the dependence of sensations oftouch on the presence of tactile organs beneath the skin andin communication with the central nervous system Ari stotle ’ sviews were very far removed .

Taste i s , according to Ari stotle , a kind of touch , for ,l ike touch , i t does not require the interposit ion of a mediumsuch as i s necessary between a coloured body and the eye .“He also considered the heart or the region of the heart tobe the chief sensory organ both of taste and touchfi lThere i s a close relat ionship

,i t i s true , between taste

and touch,which Aristotle could not have known . This

re lationship is that shown by the fact that the sensorynerves of the tongue are both gustatory and tactile .

He says that while , in some animals , there are two eyes ,two ears

,and two nostril s symmetrical ly p laced , this double

nature of the sense organs i s not evident in the case of touch ,but i s indicated in the case of taste , for some animals , e .g . ,

snak es,l izards

,and seals have a forked tongue?“

P . A . 11 . c . 8 , 6536 . j De An ima , 11 . c . 11 , 423a a n d 6 .

De Sen su ,et c " 0 . 2 , 439a ; P . A . ii . 0 . 10, 656a .

IIP . A . ii . 0 . 10, 657a ; De An ima , i i . 0 . 10, 422a .

‘li De Sen su , (i c . , c . 2 , 439a P . A . i i . 0 . 10, 65 6a .

P . A . i i . c . 10, 657a , i i . 0 . 17 , 6606 , iv. c . 11 , 691a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

182 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

He says that the Kypr in os (carp) has its palate so fleshythat it might be m i staken for a tongue?“He i s referrin g tothe fleshy and sensitive pad which i s found at the back partof the palate of this fish .

He refers to what he call s the tongue or tongue-l ike partof cephalopods , mol luscs , crustaceans , insects , and otherin ve r teb r a t e s ,

‘r but it i s not always clear to what parts he

i s referring . In some cases , he evidently refers to theodontophore in mol luscs

,and the proboscis in insects .

The Olfactory organ in animals with lungs was , accordingto Aristotle

,the nose

,but

,in animals without lungs

,the

place of this was taken by the gill s,or

,in insects

,by the

hypoaoma ,or part of the body between the thorax and

a b domen i All these organs corresponded with one anotherin being cool ing organs , and , s ince the nose was clearly anorgan of smel l

,Ari stotle probably reason ed by analogy and

concluded that the gill s and hypoaoma were also organs ofsmel l .

F i shes , he says , clearly have a sense of smell , for mostfishes are attracted by fresh bait s only

,and some are taken

by means of ba it s having a parti cular smel l . § They have ,he says , no vis ible organs of smel l nor visible olfactorypassages ] He refers , however , to certain ducts whichappeared to be in the p lace Of n ostr ils fil these ducts arenow known to be the external Olfactory passages of fishes ,but Aristotle misunderstood their nature .

Cephalopods , crustaceans , and insects and other animalsbelonging to his En toma have , he states correctly , a sense ofsmell , and he special ly refers to the keenness of the sense ofsmel l in

Aristotle ’ s views on the manner in which the presenceof an odoriferous substance i s detected are not clearly expressed . It appears , however , particularly from De An ima ,

i i . 0 . 7 , 419a , that he believed that the odoriferous substanceaffected the medium , such as , for examp le , air or water ,which then affected the sense organ , the medium having aproperty which had a relation to smell simi lar to that whichAri stotle ’ s Di apha n ous had to vis ion . He himself says thatthis property has no di stinctive name

,but

,according to

H. A . iv . c . 4 ; P . A . i i . c .

P . A . iv. c . 5 ; H. A . iv. cc . 1—5 .

P . A . ii . c . 16 , 6596 . H. A . iv. 0 . 8 , ss . 11—13 .

H. A . i i . c . 9 , s . 6 ; P . A . ii . 0 . 10, 656a .

H. A .

i‘ll iv . o. 8 , s . 5 . Ibi d . iv. c . 8 , S . 15 .

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS . 183

Suida s , Theophrastus called it 7 5 died/t or, usually translatedthe tr a n solfa ci en t . In a somewhat simi lar way, Aristotleseems to have believed that air had a quality , to whichhe gave no distinctive name , enabling the air to transmitsound?“Theophrastus is said to have given to this qual itythe name 7 5 B

‘

mxéc, usually translated the tr a n s-son a n t .By reference to some of the main structures of the ear ,

Aristotle gives a more practical explanation of the act ofhearin g . He says , in effect , that the motion of sound is commun ica ted through the air to the ear , the air acting like abody which is avvexés, or made up of matter wi thout anyintervening spaces . The air then transmi ts its motion tothe air en closed wi thin the coiled passage of the inner earby the tympan um .

’r

The ear i s able to discriminate clearly different motionstransmitted through the air

,Aristotle says , because the air

within it is normally at rest or nearly so . i In a simi larway , he believed that the other sense organs were normallyin what may be called a neutral or balanced condition

with respect to the influences by which they wereexcited . §He does not say much about the anatomy of the ear .

After confutin g a strange belief of Alcmaeon that goatsbreathe through their ears

,he says that the outer ear i s

formed of flesh and cartilage,that the internal ear i s of coiled

form , and that there i s no duct from the ear to the brain ,but one to the chamber of the mouth .“This seems to Showthat he was aware of the existence of what is now known asthe Eustachian canal , afterwards rediscovered by Eustachiusof Salerno (1500He knew that dolphins , fishes , and many other aquatic

animals could hear,but says that they had no evident

organs of hearing .“The existence of the internal ears ofthese animals seems to have escaped his notice (althoughhe knew of the existence of otoliths in fishes) , and nowheredoes he explain the manner in which they heard .

Aristotle says that some people , dwellin g near the sea ,asserted that fishes could hear better than other animals ,an d that those fishes which could hear best were the greymullet , bass , and certain fishes called Ohr emps , Ohromi s,

De An ima , 11. c . 7 , 419a . j I bid . 11. c . 8 , 4196 a n d 420a .

1 Ibid . i i . 0 . 8 , 420a . I b i d . i i . c . 11 , 424a .

HH. A . i . c . 1 . i i Ibid . iv. 0. 8 , se . 5—9 , 11 . c . 9 , s. 6 .

184 ARISTOTLE’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

and Sa lpe?“He refers to the otol i ths in fishes , citing the

La bra r (bass) , P ha gros (common pagre) , Ohromi s, andSki a in a ,

and says that these fishes suffer most in winter ,the otol iths having a cool ing effect on their h e ads .

‘r

His records of otoliths are interesting . The bass hasear-stones or otol i ths which are elongated , hol lowed , andwaved or notched at their edges ; one from a 4-lb . bassI found to be five-eighths of an inch long . I do not knowanything about the ear-stones of the pagre , but those ofthe Sci a n i da ,

to which Aristotle ’ s Ohromi s and Ski a in aprobably belong

,are remarkable for their large size (Cuvier

and Valenciennes , Hi st . des Poi sson s, vol . v . p . and thoseof P la g ioscion sur in amen si s , a freshwater sciaenid fromBriti sh Guiana , are represented in The Zoologi st , 1910,p . 293 , and are both long and broad .

Sight was , according to Aristotle , a sense of a particularlyspecial or distinct natura l His meaning is expressed inDe An ima , i i . 0 . 6

,418a , where he says that some qual i ti es

of obj ects are perceived by certa in senses only , and not byothers

,e .g . , colour i s the pecul iar excit ing cause of sight , and

sound i s that of hearing,but heat and cold

,hardness and

softness can be readi ly perceived by means of the tongue aswell as the external Skin .

Sight , he says , i s mor e important for the practicalpurposes of l ife , whi le hearing i s of most use for trainingthe mind . §It seems strange , at first , that Ari stotle should place

hearing before sight for educat ional purposes,but there i s

much good reason for this , for , among the ancient Greek s ,recitation , the cultivation of the memory , and the practiceof music were of great educational value . To-day , theimperative necessi ty for repeatedly using the eyes for reading and writing and for making observations has causedthe possession of sight to be more important than that ofany other sense for educational purposes .

Ari stotle ’ s views on l ight and colour have been discussedalready in Chapter iv. It i s ther e explained that he bel i evedthat a ir , water , and all other bodies , in a greater or lessdegree , have a something or qual ity which he called theDi apha nous . He had no knowledge of the functions ofthe opti c nerves , but considered that colour caused move

H. A . iv. 0 . 8 , S . 10. j Ibi d. viii . c . 20, S . 5 .

1 De An ima , iii . c . 3 , 429a . De Sen su , ct c ., c . 1 , 437a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

186 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANHOM(EOMERIA

This being so , i t seems that the common mole , with itssmal l

,j et-black eyes , in which no iri s or scleroti c can be

seen,furnishes the best identification of the Aspa la a . The

fact that its eyes can be seen through very smal l holes inits skin , when the hairs surrounding them have been b lownaside

,probably escaped Ari stotle ’ s notice .

In connection with hi s statement about the eyes ofA spa la zv being , as it were , injured during their development ,i t may be stated that Mr . R . J . Le e says that the mole has ,at birth , eyes of a considerab le degree of perfection , showingan iri s , white scleroti c , lens , and Optic nerve , but that , asthe animal grows , i t i s deprived of the means of sight inconsequence of certain changes at the base of the skull?“

From very early times,a bel ief in the total blindness of

the mole has been very persi stent . ZESOp,Aristotle

,Cicero

,

V irgi l , Seneca , Pliny , Oppian of Syria , and several otherancient authors refer to its blindness . Galen , however ,believed that the mole had a feeble sight . At a much latert ime , Gesner , apparently following Albertus , says that therei s nothing wonderful in the mole being without eyes

,for i t

hunts worms in the earth , where eyes would be useless , andyet i t perceives , in some way , whether it i s below or abovegroun d l Aldrovan di says I shall follow Sca lige r

’

s

opinion , who attributes very weak sight to the moles ,not in order to see under ground

,but only to avoid the

l ight . F inally , Owen asserted that , in the common moleand especially in the blind mole

,the eye i s reduced to its

simple primitive office of taking cogniz ance of l ight,a fi lament

of the fifth nerve aiding a remnant of a proper Optic nerve . §A beli ef in the total blindness of the mole i s not un

common in thi s country , and Mr . G . C . Zervos , writingfrom Ca lynm os , informs me that modern Greeks considerthe mole to be blind .

All classes of animals , Ari stotle says , except hi s Ostr a koderma and some other animals without blood

,have eyes . ”

He says , however , that solens try to escape downwards , whenthey see anything pushed towards them

,and that pectens

close their shells when anyone thrusts a finger near them,just

as if they could see .

‘li In many passages he mentions the eyes

P r oc . Roy . Soc vol . 18 , 1870, pp. 326 , 327 .

j Hi st . An im. i . 1551 , p. 1056 .

1 De !ua dr . Dig i ta t . Vivipa r is , et a , 1637 , p. 452 .

An a t . Ver tebr . vol . i i i . 1868 , p. 246 .

I] H. A . i . c . 8 , 1T I bi d . iv. 0 . 8 , S . 18.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 187

of cephalopods,crustaceans , a n d his En toma , and he evidently

suspected the existence of visual organs in solens and pectens .Respectin g the sense organs in general , i t may be said

that there are many passages di fficult to understan d , andsometimes incon sistent , in Aristotle

’ s works . A discussionof on e series of such passages wi ll conclude this chapter .He says that philosophers of his time tried to assign to

each sen se organ one,and only one , of the e lemen ts , but that ,

Sin ce there are five senses they found some difficulty inassigning the four elements to them?“He does not seemto adopt this view Of the sense organ s

,but in many passages

Of his works he attempts to assign on e or more of the sen seorgan s to certain e lemen ts . In De Sen su , & c .

,c . 2

,4386,

e . g .,he assign s vision to wa ter , hearin g to a i r , and smell to

fir e , a n d , in De An ima , i i i . c . 1 , 425a , he assign s vision andhearin g to wa ter and a i r , respectively , smell to either , an dsuggests that all the senses may be assigned to fir e , andtouch to ea r th . The chief sensory organ of touch being

,

according to Aristotle , the heart or region of the heart ,which is the centre of heat , this attempt , in De An ima ,

i i i . c . 1 , 425a , to assign the senses to the elements is difficultto understand . Some commentators consider the passagecited above from the De An ima to be corrupt .

De Sen su , et a , c . 2 , 437a .

CHAPTER XIII .

A N I M AL M O T I O N .

NUMEROUS passages relating to animal motion are tobe found in several of Ari stotle ’ s works , especially hisP rog ressive Mo t ion of An ima ls , History of An ima ls , andP a r ts of An ima ls . In these passages , many of which aremere repetit ions

,he gives interesting information about the

locomotory part s and their movements , in walking , creeping ,flying , and swimming . His views on the causes of thesemovements are , however , very incompletely expressed .

According to h im ,every animal with feet has an even

number of these , and fishes either have no fin s at all or twoor four fins , for he takes no account of fins other than thepectoral and pelvic?“The number four seems to have had a special significance

in connection with his ideas about animal s . He says thatthey are moved by four or more onusia ,

those with blood byfour only , and those without blood by more than four .

’r It

was sufficient,in fact

,to count the onusia , whether fins or

other paired means of locomotion,to decide whether an

animal had or had not blood, e . g . , speaking of fishes , he

says that they cannot have more than four fins , for if theyhad they would necessari ly be animals without b lood }:The word ana siov (semeion) , which means a sign or token

by which anything i s known,i s used in a special sense by

Aristotle to indicate the organs or means by the aid ofwhich animals moved from place to place . According to him ,

legs , arms , wings , paired fins , and even the bendings of thebody of a grass-snake

,eel

, or caterpi llar , when in progressivemotion , were semeia .

Referring to the way in which they move , he says thatanimals , whether they have four or more feet , move in thesame way , for their feet move in diagonal succession , but

5 H. A . i . c . 5 , ss . 1 a n d 2 .

Jr H. A . i . c . 5 , ss. 6 a n d 7 ; De An im. In cessu, c . 10.

I P . A . iv. 0 . 13 , 696a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

190 ANIMAL MOTION .

wards,and therefore they have the hollows of their joints

turned towards each other . The elephant i s not formed inthe way some have said , b ut sits down and bends it s legs ,only i t cannot bend them on both sides simultaneously

,

because of its weight , but sinks down on it s right or lefts ide , and Sleeps in this posit ion . The elephant bends itshind legs , just l ike

Aristotle ’ s compari son between the l imbs of Man andthe elephant and those of other animal s was based on anexamination of their external appearance . V iewed in thi sway , the real structure of their l imbs may be easi ly misunderstood . The elephant has long femoral and humeralbones

,very highly incl ined , and its knee-j oints consequently

come low down and are not hidden in any way . Its l imbsare , therefore , more easily comparable with those of Man

,

and the similarity i s seen at once . On the other hand,the

comparat ively short length and usually small inclination ofthe femoral and humeral bones of the horse and many otheranimals cause the knee-j oints to come close to the body

,and

even to be part ly hidden w i thin its skin,while the j oints

between the radius and tibia and the corresponding cannonbones are very conspicuous , and may be easily taken for theknee-j oints .

Although Ari stotle says , in the passage cited above , thatelephants bend their legs and sit or l i e down

,he asserts

,in

P . A . i i . 0 . 16 , 659a ,that their forelegs are mere supports

and are use less for anything else , because of their slownessand small adaptabil i ty for bending . He dist inctly stateselsewhere that the o ld opinion about the e lephant having nojoints in its legs i s not true , and that this animal walks inconsequence of a bending at the hips and shoulde r sn

L

Evident ly he was not altogether free from the old opinionwhich , strange to say , persi sted unti l comparatively recentt imes .

According to Ari stotle , the elephant cannot swim ,but

,

when crossing r ivers , walks through the water as long asthe t ip of its trunk i s above it . i This i s not quite correct .The elephant can swim , and does so with probably lessrelat ive immersion than other quadrupeds . Sir J . EmersonTennent says , however , that an elephant generally prefersto sink ti ll no part of hi s huge body i s vi sible

,except the tip

of hi s trunk,through which he breathes , moving beneath the

H. A . 11 . c . 1 , s . 4 . j De An im. In cessu , c . 9 .

I H. A . ix. 0 . 33 .

ANIMAL MOTION . 191

surface , and only now and then raising his head to look thathe is keeping the properThe camel , Aristotle says , has one knee in each leg and

not more,as some say , but it seems to have more because

its abdomen is girded or drawn up. t Aristotle seems to bereferring to a passage in Herodotus (i i i . where it i sstated that the camel has four knees in its hind legs . Theapparen t presence of more than one knee in each leg is duepartly to the great len gth an d high inclination of thefemoral bones , an d partly to the great len gth of the cannonbones

,thus causing the knee and tarsal j oints to be very

conspicuous . Aristotle does n ot appear to have been dec e ived by these structural features ; he states distinctly thatthere i s only one knee in each leg . The phrase rendered bythe words because its abdomen i s girded or drawn up is

,

in Schneider ’ s Greek text , 6164 fn‘

wbuo’

emmv T ri s m ate s, and this

agrees with the texts of the Royal Prussian Academy,

Camus , Syllburg , and Aldus Manutius . The word tim'

am c t ;

primarily mean s a sediment , and also a prop or support .Several commen tators , havin g concluded that the word doesnot express Aristotle ’ s mean ing very well , have proposeda lte i a t ion s of the text , and both Schn eider and Wiegmannwere in favour of substitutin g 1171007 6010 14

, a tightenin g up orcontraction . The word is used In an ob scui e sense

,

but the meanin g of the passage is clear , and is for ciblybrought to the mind of an yone who looks at a living camel

,

with its tightly drawn up abdomen and long legs .The difficulties of the passage just discussed are small

compared w ith those of the first part of the one in whichAristotle attempts to describe the structure of the clovenfoot of a camel . This passage , inH. A . i i . 0 . 2 , s . 6 , presentssuch difficulties that , in their in te rpi e ta t ion of it , scarcelyan y two tran slators agree . Part of the passage i s asfollows -s

’

x n ew7 017 orri a‘Sev ,ump6v sexwr a z uéxpi a n; 6

’

su7 5pa g not/u m;vwv da wn /M 1

37 6 6

’

eu7zpoc195v 807610 7 6“,ump6v 66 0V axpt Tn; p pm-t ng n auwfigv da n r u

'

Aa V’

e rr’

a upw Ter r apa (“from the back it i s divided a

little as far as the second joint of the toes , but the fron t i sdivided a little just about as far as the first joint of the toes

,

four at the Even with respect to essen tial parts of thepassage very different views have been expressed . Camusan d J . Barthelemy Saint-Hi laire consider that it refers todivisions of the hind and front parts of the foot , Schneider

Na t . Hi st. of Ceylon , 1861 , p. 121 . j H. A . i i . 0. 2 , s . 5 .

192 ANIMAL MOTION .

and Wiegmann prefer to bel i eve that i t refers to thedivis ions of the hind and front feet , and Sun deva ll des

pa ir in gly asserts that the passage i s inexpl i cable .

The front feet of a l iving camel are decidedly larger thanthe hind feet , and there are some minor differences of form ,

but both are divided similarly . The back part of each foot i scurved inwards a l ittle

,but i s not cleft . It i s probable

,

therefore , that Ari stotle i s describing the front parts of acamel ’ s foot , and thi s i s assumed in what fol lows .When the upper part of a camel ’ s foot i s compared with

its sole,i t i s seen that the length of the parting between the

toes,seen from above , i s not less than twice that of the

parting , as seen from below . The difference i s due to thepresence of the web , to which also Ari stotle refers . Further

,

looking more closely upon the top of the foot , four parts ofthe cleft are seen , two on each side , caused by theprominence of the proximal phalanges

,and especially of

their distal ends ; this i s better seen in some camels than inothers . Making use of these features in interpretingAri stot le ’ s description , i t i s probab le that the words 357 15 95 1;and t

’

g wpoaSev respectively refer to the sole and the upperpart of the foot

,and the phrase s

’

rr’

dnpgefrf'r 'mpa to the two

short parts of the toes , as seen on the sole , together withthe two long parts , as seen from above . It i s possible ,but less l ikely

,that the passage refers to the features of the

cleft due to the aforesai d prominence of the proximalphalanges .The rest of Aristot le ’ s description of the structure of the

feet of camels presents no important difficulty,and the sense

of the entire description seems to be as follows : “The sole ofthe foot i s cleft as far as the second joint of the toes , andthe upper part i s cleft about as far as the first joint , therebeing four parts at the front of the foot , and between thecleft parts i s a web

,as in geese . The lower part of the foot

i s fleshy,l ike the foot of the bear , and , therefore , during

warl ik e operations , rider s put cover ings on their camel’ s

feet,when these are sore .

Aristotle makes some interesting observat ions on thefl ight of birds and their so-called tai l . He says that allbirds which fly high have four toe s , 1L that birds are withouta tai l but have an or rhOpygion , the long-legged and theweb-footed birds having a short one and the others a long

as H. A , 11. c . 2 , s. 6 ,

Jr Ibid. 11. c . 8 , s. 2 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ink and also sea-water through its funnel .He was aware that most of his Ostra koderma move but

slowly or are stationary , and that the pecten (Ktei s) fl ies ”

some distance along the surface of the water by its owneflor ts , and says that i t i s more capable of locomotionthan any other?“He al so says that the sea-urchin travelsby using it s spines as fe e t nL

It has been stated already that Ari stotle did not understand the nature of nerves , some of which he probably saw .

It i s interesting , therefore , to inquire by what means heconsidered the various locomotory and other movements ofthe body to be effected . Nowhere does he make thi s clear .He says that the heart i s the centre of motion , that i t i saccordingly full of tendons , and that the motions of whichit i s the centre are effected by contraction and r e laxa t ion iHow the motions are transmitted from the heart to themoving parts he does not expla in , but he often mentions thesinewy nature of the aorta , and especial ly its smal l branches ,and

,in H. A . i i i . c . 6 , he says that the fibr es are intermediate

between sinew and b lood-vessel . He says,however

,that

there i s a want of contin uity in the arrangement of thesinews

, § and thi s may be the reason why he abstained fromattempting to exp lain the mechani sm of animal motion

,

although he wrote a great deal about the motions themselves .An important passage on thi s subj ect i s in the De An im.

IlIoti on e , c . 7 , 701 , one of the Ari stotel i an treati ses whichwas probably not written by Ari stotle himself . In thatpassage it i s stated that animal s are moved by means ofbones and sinews , the bones being like the wooden and ironframes of automata , and the sinews l ike cords by which theframes are set in motion . It i s also stated that the parts ofautomata do not change in form and size

,l ike the parts of

an animal,in which thi s change i s caused by heat and

cold,which respectively effect expansion and relaxation

under the influence of imagination,sensibi li ty

,and thought .

H. A . ix. 0 . 25 , s . 7 . 15 I b id . iv. o. 5 s. 6 .

I P . A . i i . c . 1 , 647a , i ii . 6666. H. A . iii . c . 5 , s . 1 .

CHAPTER XIV .

GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT .

MOST of the important researches made by Aristotle ongeneration and development are described in his Gen er a tionofAn ima ls, one of the most remarkable works ever written ,

an d the on e most entitling h im to be in cluded amon gstthe greatest thin kers of all time . Even those who havemin imized the value of his labours and have criticized hisworks adversely have often been forced to comment favourably on man y parts of his Gen er a tion of An ima ls . HisHistory of An ima ls , which rivals his Gen era ti on ofAn ima lsin greatn ess

,is remarkable for the vast amoun t of information

which it con tains,but the Gen er a tion of An ima ls aston ishes

the reader by its deep,philosophical reason in g , and furn ishes

evidence of a powerful intellect grappling with obscureembryological problems .In his Gen er a tion ofAn ima ls, he proposes some abstruse

questions , a n d attempts to solve them in a way which ismasterly , considering the slender means of investigation athis disposal . Some of these questions had been consideredbefore his time

,but not efficiently . Aristotle also did a

great deal of origin al work (considered already in Chapterxi .) on the generative organs ; nothin g , he says , had beenpreviously determined about these?“He discusses an Opin ion , held by some philosophers and

based mainly on the observed sim i larity between youn gan imals and their parents

,that the sperm (Whip/4a ) was

derived from all parts of the b ody . 1L He rejects this opin ion ,

and , in G. A . i . c . 18 ,adduces arguments against it , ofwhich

the followin g are the most importan t :(1) Children have nails , hair , & c . ,

no part of which could ,he believed , be derived from the parents .(2) Children Often resemble grand-parents or other

ancestors , from whom he believed they could not deriveanything , e .g . , a daughter of an E thiopian and a woman ofE l is was not black , but th e son of this daughter was .

a: G . A . i . c , 1 , 715A ,

1; Ibid. 1. c . 17 , 7216

196 GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT .

(3) From butterfl ies and some other animals , skolekes

or larvae are produced , and these are not l ike the parents .(4) Animals which are not deformed may be generated

by deformed parents .For reasons such as these he concluded that the sperm

was not derived from all parts of the parents . He says thatit i s more fitting that it should be produced from homoeo

meria , these being an t er ior to and forming the an homoeome r ia ?“Proceeding then to a more definite conclusion

,he says that

the sperm is a part of the superfluous matter of the blood,

or something analogous to it .

‘r He does not

,however

,

clearly express hi s views about the nature of thi s superfluousmatter and its mode of separation

,but hi s meaning

,ex

pressed chiefly in G. A . i . c . 19 , 7266, seems to be that , aftersome parts of the blood have been disposed of as nutritiveor formative material for the flesh and other parts of thebody , there remain a part which i s the last to be suppl ied tothe parts of the body and a residual or superfluous part

,

which i s of a very useful nature and has great power (diva ns ) .This constitutes the sperm

,and since i t i s l ike the part ,

referred to above,which i s the last to be supplied to the

parts of the body , i t i s reasonable that i t should be capableof forming parts similar to these

,i . s .

,similar to the parts of

the parents . The sperm ,in fact

,has potential ly in itself

each Of the parts of the body . It wil l be noticed that thi sview bears some resemblance to the evolution theory elaborated by Bonnet and others

,but differs therefrom in the

way in which the parts were supposed to exist in the sperm ,

for , according to the evolution theory , the par ts actuallyexisted in miniature in the sperm .

Ari stotle also discusses,at great length

,the nature of

the material,i f any

,contributed by the male and the female .

He concludes that the female contributes the material ofthe embryo

,and that such material i s derived from the

catamenia . He seems to have beli eved that the materialcontributed by the female was passive format ive material . 1The essential generative agency

,he bel i eved , was contributed

by the male,but it was not necessary for anything material to

pass from the male to the embryo , for the male contributednot matter but form and motive principle . § So ful ly did hebel ieve thi s that he seems to have had no misgiving about

G . A . i . c . 18 , 722a l Ib i d . i . c . 18 , 725a an d 726 a .

1 Ib i d . i . c . 20, 729a . I bid . i . c . 20, 729a , i . c . 21, 7296.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

198 GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT .

parts , such as , for example , the l iver , lungs , and eyes , wereproduced from it , just as a man i s produced from a child ,but not by the child .

Further , he says that the young animal i s not at once ahorse or a man , but that it s l ife i s at first l ike that of ap lant , and that the characteristics of each kind of animal arethe last to be developed?“This seems to foreshadow themodern theory that the history of the development of theindividual i s an epitome of the history of the evolution ofthe Species .

A most difficult question in embryology is that deal ingw ith the causes determining the sex of the young animal .This question was discussed before Ari stotle ’ s time , and hasbeen discussed unti l the present day . Anaxagoras bel ievedthat the distinction depended on the position of the spermitself in the uterus

, Empedocles that i t depended on thetemperature of the uterus , a hotter uterus bringing forth amale and a colder one a female

,and Democri tus beli eved that

the distinction depended on the preponderance , in some way ,of one or other of the sperms

,male and female . Aristotl e

was incl ined to adopt a view simi lar to that of Democritus ,and seemed to regard the action between the sperms to be ofthe nature of a contest

,the sex of the young animal corre

spon din g with that of the sperm which overpowered theoth e r n

L As late as the year 1898 , a theory of this kind wasset forth by Dr . Leopold Schenk , of V ien n a i Generallyspeaking , this theory was the opposite of Aristotle

’ s , forSchenk ’ s view was that the tendency was for Offspring totake the sex opposite to that of the more vigorous parent .

Aristotle ’ s statements about spontaneous generation havebeen discussed in Chapter v . It was easy for the Ancientsto persuade themselves that spontaneous generation common ly occurred , for they had no means of knowing that , inmatter bel ieved by them to be l ifeless

,there existed count less

germs giving rise to numerous forms of l ife . Some evenbelieved that the spontaneous generat ion of mank ind waspossible . Ari stotle ’ s views were less extravagant , but hebel ieved that eels , many of his En toma , § and most of hisOstra koderma

, ” were generated spontaneously . He saysthat eels had never been found with mi lt or roe , that , whenopened , they did not seem to possess generative organs, and

G . A . 111 c . 3 , 7366. j G . A . iv. o. 1 .

I S chen k ’

s Theory : The De te rmin a tion of Se a , Lon don , 1898 .

H. A . v. c . 2 . [IH. A . v. c . 13 ; G . A . iii . c . 11 , 7616.

GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT . 199

that they seemed to be produced from the so-called en tr a i ls

of the ea r th ,apparently referring to certain worms formed

spontaneously in mud and the like?“The mode of reproduction of eels was in question for

many centuries,and although it had been known for some

years that there was a clear distinction of sexes among eels ,and that they passed from the rivers to the sea for breedingpurposes , i t was not unti l about the year 1896 that the modeof reproduction and development was fully ascertained . At

that t ime , Prof . Grassi and Dr . Ca lan druc c io ascertained thata fish

,previously con sidered to be a distinct species , Lepto

cepha lus br evir ostr is , was a larval form of the common eel .This larval form , which is flat and transparent and has a verysmall head , passes through a series of metamorphoses intothe e lver or young eel . The e lvers swim up the rivers inspring . Mi ll ions of them swim up the Severn , and havelong been believed by people in Gloucestershire to be youngeels .The egg-cases of whelks and other molluscs were known

to Ar istot le , 1L but he was not disposed to believe that these

animals were generated otherwise than spontaneously .

The metamorphoses of some of his En toma receivedmuch attention from Aristotle . According to him ,

all hisEn toma produce ske lekesfi,r or all , except certain Lepidoptera ,which produce seed-l ike bodies contain ing fluid . § Thepassages relat ing to his skolekes are too numerous to begiven in full

,but an epitome of the most important follows

,

so far as the difficult nature of the subject permits .He appears to have been aware of the existence of the

ova or eggs of some of his En toma,especially certain butter

flies and moths,locusts and spiders

,“but considered themto be , not eggs , but egg-l ike skolekes . The ova of manyEn toma escaped his notice , but he was aware of the existenceof their skolekes, and believed that these were the firstproducts of gen er a t ion fll The skolekes fed , grew rapidly ,and underwent changes , more or less complex , until theypassed into the pupa or ChrysalisThe skolekes of the various kinds of En toma are not

treated by Aristot le in the same way . When dealing withthose of bees , wasps , and the like , the larvae are cal led

1 H. A . vi . 0 . 15 . 1 I b i d. v . c . 13 .

1 G . A . i i . 0. 1 , 733a . H. A . v . c . 17 , S . 1 .

Ibid . v . c . 17 , ss . 1 an d 4 , v . c . 23 ; G . A . iii . c . 9 , 75 86.

1] G . A. i i . c . 1 , 7336 . H. A . v. c . 17 , ss . 4—6 .

200 GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT .

skolekes right up to the pupa stage ; on the other hand,

the skolekes of butterfl i es and moths are said to becomekampa i , or caterpillars , before they become pupaed

‘ Theapparently great difference between the caterpil lars ofbutterfl ies and moths , and the maggots of bees , wasps , andfl ies

,was probably the cause of thi s difference of treatment ,

but he considered both caterpi llars and maggots to beskolekes, finally passing into the real eggs

,or pupae .

His views on thi s subj ect are set forth in fa ir ly c learlanguage . He States that En toma bring forth skolekes atfirst

,but these become egg-l ike in the course of their

development , for the so-called Chrysal i s i s functionallyequivalent to an egg . 1 He also says : “

For we mustconsider caterpi llars to be a kind of ska ters, and also the

[generative products] of spiders , and yet i t may seem thatsome of these and many others resemble eggs

,because of

their roundness , but they should not be defined by thei rform , nor their hardness and softness , but by their producin gan animal as the result of a change of the whole and not apart . When they have completely atta ined the skolea: form ,

and have become of ful l size , they are , as i t were , eggs , forthe skin hardens about them , and they become motionlessat this time . This i s evident in the skolekes of bees andwasps and in caterpi llars . The reason for i t i s that , becauseof the imperfect nature of the animals , their

‘ eggs ’ are produced

,as i t were

,before their time

,the skolea: being , as it

were,an egg which i s sti ll soft and in process of growth .

”

This i s the most important passage on the skolea: in al lAri stot le ’ s works . It shows clearly

,in conjunction with

the other passages c ited , that hi s skolea: i s an immatureproduct of generat ion , which grows and final ly becomes apupa

,or

,so Ari stotle bel i eved, an

“egg , giving birth to theperfect animal . It differed from the egg of a bird , whichhas a hard shel l and does not grow , the young bird beingformed from a part only of the egg , the remainder servingas food . ”His discussion of the generation of bees i s parti cularly

interesting . He refers to the many different Opinions whichhad been given on the subject , and says that much un ce r

tainty exi sted about the mode of gener ation of bees . He

H. v . c . 17 , s . 5 , v. c . 20, s . 1 .

Jr I b id . v. c . 17 , ss. 4 a n d 6 .

G .

A .

A . .i . c . 1 , 7335 . s Ib id. i ii . c . 9 , 7535 .iI] H. A . i . c . 4 , s . 1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

202 GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT .

females . Aristotle says nothing about such a phenomenonin animals such as those mentioned , but , stran ge to say ,he seems to have believed in the occurrence of a kindof parthenogenesis in mice

,for he says that , in some part

of Persia , pregnant females are found in the uterus?“This seems to have been a version of a folk-tale to accountfor the reports current among the Ancients about theamazing rate of in crease in the numbers of mice .

The embryonic development of young animals i s discussed chiefly in G. A . i i . 0 . 6 , on animals in general , and inH. A . vi . c . 3 , on birds . Ari stotle also commencesH. A . vii .with the intention of describing the development of Man ,

from the earliest stages of the embryo to Old age , but thatbook i s incomplete and contains very little about the subjectof development . The so-called Tenth Book of Aristotle ’ sH. A . was bel ieved to be a continuation of Book vii . , buti t i s now admitted that Ari stotle did not write it , and ,further , on the subject of development i t contains nothingof interest .The following i s a statement of what appear to have

been Ari stotl e ’ s views,as set out in G. A . i i . c . 6 , on

embryonic deve lOpmen t z— The upper or anterior parts ofthe body are generated first

,and

,except in the En toma , are

proportionally larger than the other parts,the head and eyes

being especial ly large . The larger organs may be seenbefore the smaller Ones , although not necessari ly developedbefore them . In animals w i th blood

,the heart i s produced

first and blood-vessels extend from it . Then , in order tomoderate the heat of the heart

,the brain is next formed

and also the other parts of the head . The purest parts ofthe blood pass from the blood-vessels

,l ike water ooz ing

through vessel s of partial ly baked earthenware,and cause

the formation of flesh and the main parts of the senseorgans . The sk in of the body i s formed by the drying ofthe superficial parts of the flesh . From the less pure ormore earthy parts of the blood are formed the more earthyparts of the body , e . g .

, bones , sinews , nai ls , horns , hoofs ,and hair , which are the later formed parts . All the bonesare formed in the foetus , and no bones are produced later .About the formation of the eyes there i s some uncertainty ,he says , but their development i s comp leted at a very latestage . The formation of the bones and sinews i s due to the

H. A . vi . c . 30, s . 3 .

GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT . 203

abstraction of moisture from the less pure parts of theblood , by mean s of the internal heat .Many of these views are incorrect

,but they are evidently

based on actual dissection or inspection of embryos in oneor more animals . It will be sufficient , however , to statethat the cerebro-spinal axis is one of the first parts to belaid down , a n d that the parts of the body are n ot developedin succession in the way Aristotle seems to have believed .

Many parts , e . g . , the flesh , bones (first laid down ascartilages) , sinews , skin , sensory organs , heart , alimen tarycanal

,and liver , are in process of developmen t simultan eous

ly . He knew nothing about the formation of membran ebones or the process of ossification of cartilages . It is quitetrue that , as Aristotle says , the eyes are completed at a latestage of embryonic development .His most interesting embryological research is that on

the development of a chicken . This research alone entitleshim to considerable credit as an original investigator .It i s difficult to follow some parts of his description , inH. A . vi . 0 . 3 , not only because of apparent defects in theGreek text , but also because Aristotle gives only a fewdefin ite statements about the times of incubation at whichthe appearances to which he refers were seen .

On e question on which Aristotle ’s Opinion would be ofin terest relates to the position of the part of the egg inwhich development begin s . His statements on this questionare not as clear as could be wished , but it seems that hebelieved that the part referred to was in the pointed end ofthe egg . In a passage , the full mean ing of which is n ot

clear,he speaks of a movement of the yolk or a part of i t

towards the pointed end (5515) of the egg , where , he says , i sthe beginning (dexii) of the egg?

“He seems to have been misled by assuming that an egg

issues from the parent in a manner different from the wayin which a youn g mammal comes to light , for he says thatthe foot end , as it were , of the egg issues first , whereas thehead or beginning (a

’

cpxt) of a young Viviparous quadrupedfirst comes to light . + He knew also that the broad end ofthe egg leads during the process of laying }: It was natural ,therefore

,for him to conclude that the pointed end was the

beginning of the egg . His error wi ll not appear to beextravagant if it i s borne in mind that Hieron . Fabricius

H. A . vi . 0 . 3 , s .

'

1 . j G. A . iii . c . 2 , 7526.

204 GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

bel ieved that the germ spot or disc (ci ca tr i cula ) was only atrace of the attachment of the yolk to the ovary , and thatthe chalazae constituted the material of the embryo , beingthe main cause of embryonic development (prcecipua causa

pu lli g en era tion i s) after having been impregnated?“and that

Harvey seems to have bel ieved that embryonic developmentbegan in the broad end of the eggn

L

Even to-day , many people believe that the cha la z se arewhat they cal l the “l ife ” of the egg , and this represents totheir minds the parts where development begins .Ari stotle says that the first signs of development ar e

noticeable after three days and nights , the heart beingvisible as a palpitat ing blood-spot whence

,as i t develops

,

two blood-vessels , which wind about , extend to thesurrounding tunics

,and a membrane with threads of blood

encloses the whole , away from the aforesaid blood-vessels .A l ittle later

,he continues , the body of the embryo , quite

smal l and white,i s seen , the head being distinct and the

eyes very prominent or conspicuous , whi le the lower partsof the embryo are not in proportion to the upper parts .On e vessel from the heart leads to the enveloping membraneand the other to the yolk

,after the manner of an umbil ical

cord . The development of the young bird , he says , comme n ce s from the white , and its nutriment i s der ived fromthe yolk

,through what i s equivalent to an umbi l i cal cord . 1

Such i s Ari stotle ’ s description of the development of achick

,from about the fourth day to about the eighth day ,

judging from the appearances he describes . It i s now knownthat development of the embryo commences in the germinalspot or disc

,situated on one side of the yolk . In consequence

of the yolk opposite the germinal spot being denser than thaton the side of the spot , thi s remains uppermost , howeverthe egg may be rotated by the sitting hen

,the yolk being

steadied by the chalaz ae . During the early stages of development , the embryo is in process of being constricted off fromthe yolk

,and a bulging i s noticeable , although , on account

of an apparent Sinking in of the embryo , the bulging i s onlys light . The time at which signs of development are firstseen by the unaided eye depends not only on the acutenessof vision of the observer , but also on the extent of his knowledge of embryology , but i t may be sa i d that signs may be

De Forma tion s Ovi e t Pu lli , Padua , 1625 , pp. 24 , 34, an d 48 .

Exer ci ta t . de Gen er . An im. , 1680, p. 64 .

I H. A . vi . 0 . 3 , se . 1-3 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

206 GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT .

day,the wings and legs are just recognizable as outgrowths

,

and the allantois , an embryonic sac destined to serve as arespiratory organ beneath the shell , begins to grow rapidlyon the sixth day

,the al lantoic blood-vessels are clearly seen

as well as the vi tel l ine blood-vessels,whi le the embryo has

great ly increased in size . The appearance i s much thesame on the seventh day

,but the embryo is st il l larger

,

and the same may be said of the appearance on the eighthday

,a noticeable feature being

,however , the prominence

and large siz e of the eyes .The above represents

,without entering into deta i ls

,the

course of development up to and including the eighth day .

It i s evident that , although Ari stot le’ s description , previously

given,i s not quite clear

,he refers to the vitel l ine or yoke

sac and the vitell ine blood-vessels,and also to the allantois

and the al lantoic blood-vessels . F ig . 9 represents an eggwith the shel l careful ly removed from part of one side toShow the allantoic blood-vessels (in ful l l ines ,) and thevitell ine b lood-vessel s (in broken l ines) , at the eighth day ,which seems to correspond with the time of the latest stagesin Ari stotle ’ s description , so far as it has been given above .

He next describes the appearance observable on thetenth day

,and his description shows that he made a very

careful examination of the egg at this period of incubat ion .

If the young chick be removed on the tenth day,and

freed from the amnion and yolk sac,i t wil l be seen to show

an"

ab n orma lly large head and large eyes , a short beak , andfairly wel l developed legs and wings

,as shown in F ig . 10.

By placing the young chick in water in a test tube andholding it towards the l ight

,numerous feathers with their

barbs and shafts can be seen by means of a lens . Aristotlesays that , on the tenth day , the entire bird and its parts aredistinct , i ts head being seen to be larger than the rest of itsbody

,and its eyes larger than the rest of the head ; i f r e

moved , he says , i t s eyes wil l be found to be black . At alater stage , he proceeds to say , the chief vi scera (i . e . ,

theheart , l iver , & c . ) are visible , and also the gizzard andintestines , while the blood-vessels from the heart appear toextend to the yolk stalk . He also describes

,in greater

detai l than before , the embryonic membranes , showing thathe had examined the allantois

,lying beneath the shell

membrane , the yolk sac , and the amnion which , he says , i s

GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT . 207

about the embryo itself, and separates it from the fluid?“He seems to mean that the embryo is separated from theremains of the white of the egg by the amnion ; it i s notevident

,from his description , that he was aware that the

amn ion encloses fluid which bathes the embryo .

He next passes on to about the twen tieth day , when thechick

,he says

,chirps when the egg is disturbed . The head

of the chick,he says , is over the right leg , and its wing is

over the head . This i s sufficiently accurate to show thathe carefully examined the position of the chick about thetwentieth day , for , at that time , the beak may be seenpushed under the right win g , while the right claw restsalmost again st the head . He also refers to the allantois

, b e

neath the shell membrane , about the twentieth day , an d againmention s the yolk sac . He compares them with the chorion ,or foetal membrane , in mammals , and states correctly thatthe allantois fall s away , while the yolk within the yolk sacis withdrawn in to the body of the chick .

Referrin g to the pigeon , Aristotle says that on the daybefore the young one is hatched , the egg is damaged or

pe rfora ted fi but it is not clear whether he believed that theyoun g one or the old on es did this . Albertus Magnus

,who

seems to be translating a version of the above passage , clearlystates that the young pigeon breaks a piece out of the shellwith its bill . His tran slation , given by Aldrova n di , 1 reads :In fissura ovi prime Columba pa r vula i n so exi s ten s

, pen e

tr a t testam a n ter i or e pa r te rostr i sui , i ta u t testa e leve tur a d

ma gn i tudin em gr a n i tr i ti ci , e t postea divi di t eam in dua s

pa r tes , e t exi t pullus .

H. A . vi . 0. 3 , ss . 3-5 . 1 H. A . vi . c . 4 , s . 2 .

I Orn i tholog ia , vol . ii . 1610, Fran k fur t , p. 184 , first column .

CHAPTER XV

CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS .

IT i s only by collat ing numerous passages scatteredthroughout his works that Ari stotle ’ s views 011 the classifica t ion of animals can be ascertained . These passagesshow that he attempted to make a systematic classification ,but that , even for the animals known to him , i t was ihcomp lete . Apart from thi s incomp leteness

,very different

views have been held respecting the value of his c la ssification . Ray ,

when treat ing of Viviparous quadrupeds ,showed his appreciation of it by adopting part of Aristot le ’ sclassification?“and both Cuvier and Owen , who bel ievedthat Ari stotle made a systematic classification , more or lesselaborate , spoke of i t in highly appreciat ive terms . On theother hand

, Agassiz and Whewel l , while ful ly recognizingAristot le ’ s attempts to deal with the differences and r e

semblances of various animals,held that he did not propose

any regular classification .

Ari stotle certainly defined a few groups of animals ,parti cularly the Ke tode and Lophour a ,

in such a way thatgroups corresponding with them are to be found in modernsystems of classificat ion

,but

,in most cases , what appear to

be hi s c la ssific atory terms are not sufficiently precise , whiletheir use often causes the same animals to fal l into morethan one class , or brings into one class animal s having noclose natural affinities . Examples of these defects are wel lseen in the manner in which he deals with the dentalcharacters of animals . Not only carnivores , for instance ,but also reptiles and most fishes are included by him amonghis Oa r cha rodon ta ,

or animals with sh a rp,in t e r lock in g teeth ,

and the same animals , e .g . , horses , are included both amonghis An epa lla kta ,

or animals with teeth having flat crowns ,and among hi s Amphodon ta ,

or animals with front teeth inboth j aws .

Syn . Me th . An im. !ua dr . et Serp . Gen . , 1693, pp. 56 e t seq .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

210 CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS.

parts,feathers for instance , of the same kind , but differing

in hyper e che or e lleipsi s , Should be put in the same gen es?“

He also says that hypere ehe and e lleipsi s may be taken tomean the greater and the less

,r e spe ct ive ly .

’r

Numerous passages Show that the “greater and theless ” should be interpreted in a wide sense . Di fferencesin size and number , such as , for instance , in the lengths ofbirds ’ beaks , wings , and legs , the widths of their tongues ,and the numbers of their feathers

, 1 differences in hardness or softness , roughness or smoothness , of the parts ofanimals

, § and the presence or absence of certain parts , suchas crest s or Spurs , ” are given as examples of excess anddeficiency , or the greater and the less .According to Aristotle , the parts of some animals are not

the same,nor do they differ merely in excess or deficiency ,

but in a different way according to an a n a logi a or proport ion . Such an a n a log ia exi sts between hands and claws ,na ils and hoofs , and feathers and fish-scales , for , what afeather i s in a bird , the same i s a scale in a fish .

‘ll Further ,he says that animals which have a part merely analogousto a part in certa in animals should be grouped separate lyfrom these , e .g . , fi shes Should be grouped in one g en e s, andbirds in another , because the scales of fishes have only ananalogous resemb lance to the feathers OfNumerous passages in Aristotle ’ s works Show clearly

that he was constant ly mindful of the idea that there exist,

in some animals , component parts which may be consideredto take the p lace of certain parts in other animals . Inaddition to the examp les already given

,a relat ion of this

kind i s sa id to exist between the forefeet of quadrupeds andhands , It between the bra in of a vertebrate and the

“bra inof an octopus , 1 and between fish bone and the cuttle boneof Sepi a or the pen of A consideration of thesepassages , with their contexts , justifies us in bel i eving thatAri stot le was the or iginator of the theory of analogies

,and

this i s in accordance with his statement By analogonis meant that , whi le some animals have a lung , others havesomething in p lace of i t

,and that some animals have blood ,

1 , P . A . i . .c 4 , 644a .

I H. A . i . c . 1 , s . 3 ; P . A . i . c . 4 , 644a , 1v. c . 12 , 6926 .

, s . 6 ; P . A . i . c . 4 , 6446.

I] H. A . i . c . 1 , s . 3 . 1I Ibi d. i . c . 1 , s. 4 .

P . A . i . c . 4 , 644a . HH. A . i i . 0. 1 , s . 2 .

II P. A . i i . 0. 7 , 6526. Ibi d. i i . 0. 8 , 654a .

CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS. 211

but others have an analogon,

’ which has the same power ,or function

,as

In Aristotle ’ s idea of analogy,simi larity of functions of

the analogous parts i s certainly included,but there is a

passage , difficult to understand , which appears to introduceanother factor

,that of correspondence in the positions of

certain parts of different animals ; for , in P . A . iv . o . 5 ,6816, he says that it i s evident , from the position of these-called myti s of a cephalopod , that this part is the a n a logonof the heart of other animals . This is proved , he adds , bythe sweetness of its contained liquid , which is of the nature ofblood . It is probable that the my ti s, to which he refers ,was the liver . He also says

,in H. A . i . c . 6 , s . 2 , that a

scute corresponds in position w ith a scale , and , in numerouspassages , he refers to a relationship between such parts as thearms of Man ,

the forelegs of quadrupeds,the win gs of birds ,

and the pectoral fin s of fishes,which are n ow known to be

homologous parts . Agassiz says ThoughAr istot le alreadyknew that the scales of fishes correspond to the feathers ofbirds , it i s but recently that anatomists have discovered theclose correspondence which exists between all the parts of allanimals belonging to the same type , however different theymay appear at first sight . Not only is the win g of the birdidentical in its structure with the a rm of man or the foreleg of a quadruped , but it agrees quite as closely with thefin of the whale or the pectoral fin of the fish Butthis correspondence is not limited to the skeleton ; everyother system of organs exhibits in these animals the samerelations , the same identity in plan and structure , whateverbe the differences in the form of the parts , in their number ,and even in theirIt cannot be decided to wha t extent , if any , Ari stotle

was thinking of the plan of structure of the parts , when hecompared them , but it is clear that he was referring chieflyto their functions , posit ions , and mere external resemblances .Two very important terms of classification , employed by

Aristotle , may now be considered , via , gen es and si des .

These are often translated as genus and species r e

spe ct ive ly . In many cases, eides may be translated fairly

well in this way,but gen es usually signifies a class , an order ,

or a family .

P . A . i . c . 5 , 645 6.

An Essay on Cla ssifica t ion , 1859 , pp. 25 , 26 .

212 CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS .

Singly or in association these terms occur in not lessthan three hundred passages in Ari stotle ’ s zoological works ,and also in many other passages

,chiefly in his Orga n e n .

Most of these passages merely give examples of the use ofthe terms

,but some exp lain their meanin gs , and the fol

low ing di scussion is based on severa l of these exp lanatorypassages .Particular animals

,or individuals

,such as Socrates or

Coriscos,are essen ces

,or actual existences

,exhibiting dif

fe r en ce s which distinguish one from another?“ Theseessen ces have certain features in common

,and a group

may be formed of such essen ces . Such a group may bedefined by means of the term eide s , provided the commonfeatures more closely indicate the nature of the essen ces

included in the group,or by means of the term g en e s, if the

common features indicate the nature of the essen ces l essclosely . Thus

,the nature of Socrates or Cori scos i s more

closely defined by the name Ma n than by the name a n ima l,which , in this case , represent eide s and g en es r e spe ct ive ly .

’r

Animals of which the parts,internal as wel l as external ,

are the same , belong to the same ei de s, i e .g . ,Man con

st itut e s one ei de s,and the horse another

, § and Ari stotle alsostates that the parts necessary to an animal , e .g .

,the parts

for receiving and digesting food,the locomotory parts , and

some of the sense organs,should be the same in animals

belonging to the same eide s .“Di fferences in essential , andnot accidental , features should alone be consi dered , and ,among examp les of accidental features or qualities , hement ions the whiteness of snow and the equivalence of theangles of a p lane triangle to two right an gle s .

‘ll Evidently ,although he says that the parts of animals belonging to thesame ei des should be the same

,he does not mean that these

par ts should be al ike in all respects . He often refers , infact , to differences in colour , shape , and relative sizes ofparts , such as , for instance , the eyes , ears , and locomotoryand other parts

,in different individuals of the same sides .

The capabi lity of generat ing fertile offspring has oftenbeen considered to be important in defining a species .Ari stotle also considered it to be important in connectionwith his views on eides . He says that animals of the same

P . A . i . c . 4 , 644a ; De Lon g . e t Br ev. Vi tae , c . 1 ; Ca teg . c . 3 .

Jr Ca teg . c . 3 . IH. A . i . c . 1 , S . 2 .

Topi ca , i . c . 5 , s . 2 . Po li ti ca , iv. 0. 3 , ss. 9 a n d 10.

‘I Topi ca , iv. 0. 1 , ss. 1—3 ; P . A . i . c . 3 , 643a .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

214 CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS .

of l iz ards , one of frogs , one of Viviparous quadrupeds , andone of oviparous quadrupeds

,but they are not described as

g en e , in the same way as , for instance , the Ke tede . Thechief reason for thi s appears to be that he was influencedby the popular grouping of animals

,and preferred to describe

separately many animals,such as

,for example , monkeys ,

bears , and chamae leons , which the common peop le had notincluded in groups known by popular names .“In addition to the groups referred to above as being the

ones best-defin ed by Ari stot le,there are a few others which

may be included in his classification,because he describes

them sufficiently Clearly to enable them to be identifiedwith orders or fam i l ie s of modern classifications . Thegroups referred to are included

,therefore

,in the subjoined

tabular representation of Aristotle ’ s classification . Thenumbers follow ing the various groups represent approxi

mately the numbers of different kinds of animals referredto by Ari stotle

A . En a ima [Ver tebr a ta ] .

1 . Kete or Ke tode [Ce ta cea ] .

2 . V iviparous animal s with feet [Mamma li a other thanCe ta cea ] .

a . Non -amphodon ta [Rumin a n ti a ] .

6 . Mon ych a [Se lidun gu la ta ] .

1 . Lophour a [E guidce] .

2 . Mon ych a other than Lophour a [not classified] .

0 . V iviparous animals with feet,other than above [not

classified] .

3 . Ornithes [Aves] .

a . Gampson ych e s [Rap tor es, chiefly] .

6 . Steganopodes [Na ta tor es] .

c . Pe r iste roe ide [Columbidce] .

d . Apodes [Swifts , Martins , and Swallows] .

e . Birds other than above [not classified] .

4 . Oviparous quadrupeds [Rep ti li a and Ba tr a chi a chiefly] .

5 . Ich thye s [Pi sces] .

a . Se la ch e [E la smobr a n chi i Lophius] .

6 . F ishes other than above [not c lassified] .

H. A . i . c . 6 , s . 3 , 11. c . 11. 8 . 1 ; P . A L c . 4 1 644b '

B . An a ima [Inver tebr a ta ] .

1 . Malakia [Cepha lopoda ] .

2 . Ma lakostr ak a [Ma la costr a ca ] .

3 . Ostrakode rma [Mollusca (other than Cepha lopoda ) ,E chin oderma ta ,

an d Ascidi a ] .

4 . Entoma [In sec ta , Ar a chn ida ,and Chi logn a tha , chiefly] .

5 . Spon goi [Spongida ] .

6 . Aka leph ae [Cce len tera ta ] .

7 . An a ima other than above [n ot classified] .

A special interest is connected with the two main divisions,

via ,En a ima and An a ima ,

in the above scheme . Thedistin ction between them was used by many zoologists untilLamarck and Cuvier used the almost equivalen t terms

, Ver

te6ra ta and In ver tebr a ta , the latter of which, l ike Aristotle’ s

An a ima , i s open to the objection that it is of a purelynegative character .

216 ARISTOTLE’

S ANAIMA,

CHAPTER XVI .

ARISTOTLE ’

S ANAIMA, OR ANIMALS

WITHOUT BLOOD .

THE number of An a ima described or mentioned byAristotle i s about one hundred and twenty

,and not less

than one-half of these belong to his En toma . Many of hisstatements , most ly relating to the anatomy of the An a ima ,

have been discussed in the preceding chapters . Some of hi sremaining statements , chiefly about those An a ima whichcan be fairly wel l i dentified , wi ll be di scussed next .

Aristotle gives a description of three k inds of sponges ,sufficient to show that they belong to the horny sponges(Cer a tosa ) , including the ordinary sponges of commerce , andhe also gives a description of some sponge-l ike form of life ,called Ap lysi a , because , unl ike sponges , i t remained blackwhen washed?“On e kind of sponge

,which he says i s

compact or close in texture (m ura’

r ) and softer than the others ,may be the fine Turkey sponge (Euspon gi a efiicin a li s, var .molli ssima ) ; another kind , cal led the sponge of Achilles ,very thin , compact , and strong , and common ly laid underhelmets and greaves to deaden the effects of blows , may bethe lappet variety of Turkey sponge

,or

,possibly

,the brown

Turkey or Zimocha sponge (Euspong i a zimocca ) ; Ari stotle’ s

remaining sponge,having a larger base of attachment , and

further characteriz ed by being loose in texture (Ma l/55) andlarger than the other sponges

,seems to be the common

bath sponge (Hippe spen g i a eguin a ) .

Aristotle says that,on the upper parts of sponges , are

hemmed-ih passages or ducts (poroi ) , four or five of whichare conspicuous , and that some believed that the food of thesponges entered through th e se .

’r

For two thousand years after Ari stotle ’ s time , i t wasbel ieved that currents of water entered the large passages ofa sponge

,and it was not unti l Dr . Gr ant , after very careful

observations , concluded that water was drawn into the

“k H. A . v . c . 14 , se . 2—6 . 1 I bi d . V c . 14. 8 5~

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

218 ARISTOTLE’

S ANAIMA,

from species of Murex and Purpura . Aristotle gives arather full account of the preparation of a s imi lar dye fromhis Porphur a i . The pigment

,he says , appears to extend ,

l ike a duct or vessel , through a white membrane betweenthe mecon (or l iver) and the neck , and when this membraneis taken away and squeezed the pigment wets and stains thefingers?“The small shell s

,he says

,are pounded up without

removing the molluscs,because these are not easi ly removed ,

but the molluscs are removed from the large shells , and thepigment taken out . ’rThe pigment i s found

,very much in the way Ari stotle

says , near the hinder part of the neck , and l ies in a duct orvein there . It i s of about the consistency and colour ofcream before exposure to the air

,which changes i t to a

purp le t int .A gastropod

,called by Ari stotle Ner i tes, cannot be sat i s

fa ctor ily identified . He says that i t has a smooth , large ,rounded shell

,s imi lar in form to that of the whelk , that i ts

mecon i s red , and that some kind of crustacean sometimesl ives in i ts Shell . 1 It would seem ,

from H. A . v. c . 13 , s . 8 ,that the Neri tes l ived attached to rocks , and , in a passage inwhich he incorrect ly assert s that all molluscs with spiralshells have an operculum , he refers to that of Ner i tes . §Prof . Forbes identified the Neri tes with l i ttoral forms

of Tr e chus , found abundant ly along the r ocky shor es ofthe ZEge an . IIThe above are the most interesting examp les of

Ar i stotle ’ s molluscs with coiled shell s,in which , he says , the

fle sh-l ike parts can be concealed to a very large ext en tfll

From a series of passages,in H. A . iv . o. 4 , s . 2 , i t i s

sufficiently clear that he grouped molluscs which havenot coi led shell s (strembe i ) into univalves (mon e thur a ) andbivalves (di thur a ) .

Aristotle ’ s typical examp le of hi s mon othur a i s thepatella or l impet

,called by him L epa s, which , he says ,

has its fl e sh-like parts exposed , ” and l ives attached torocks .

’r‘r

Of Aristot le ’ s di thura , his Pin n a , Ktei s, and Sa tan wi llbe discussed .

H. A . v. c . 13 , s . 4 . 1‘ I bid . v. c . 13 , s. 5 .

I I bi d. iv. 0 . 4 , s . 17 . P . A . iv. 0. 5 , 6796.

Tr a ve ls i n Lyci a , do. , 1847 , vol . i i . p. 110.

H. A . iv. c . 4 , S . 1 . Ibi d . iv. c . 4 , s. 2 .

H Ibi d. iv. o. 4 , s . 18 .

OR ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD. 219

The valves of Pin n a are rough , accordin g to Aristotle ,but not ribbed?“and , secured by means of a byssus , theygrow up erect in the sand or mud . i

L He also says thata small crab

,the P in n e ter es , or P in n ephy la v (guardian of

the pinna) , l ives within the shell . i It is wel l kn own thata small crab lives in the gill s and man tle of several lame lli

branchs , such as , for example , Pin n a squamosa ,of the

Mediterranean .

Some of Aristotle ’ s most interesting statements aboutthe Ktei s (pecten) , relating to its sen se organs an d mode ofprogression , have been discussed already l n Chapters xii . andx i i i . respectively . He says also

,speaking of its valves

,that

they are ribbed,and that the large kin ds of pecten have on e

valve fl a t . § It is true that the common edible pecten andsome others have the left valve flat or nearly so .

The solens are sufficiently clearly described by Aristotle .

He says that their valves are smooth ,“and that they l ive insandy shores

,remain ing in one place

,but not fixed in it

,for

they can withdraw themselves into the sand , when alarmed?“His suggestion that solens can see has been discussed inChapter xii .Most of the molluscs described by Aristotle are marine

,

but he also clearly refers to various snails of the genus He lix,

which he calls by the name Kochli a s . He says that theterrestrial Kochli a i hyb ern a te , and , during the period ofhyb ern a t ion , have an operculum?” He also says that theseKe chli a i are devoured by pigs and pa r tr idge s t i

L

Se a-urchins and star-fish e s were in cluded by Aristotleamon g his Ostra koderma ,

but were considered by h im to beexceptional forms . Speaking of sea-urchins (E chin oi ) , hesays that there are several kinds

,one having large and edible

ova , another , called E chin eme tr a , which is the largest of thesea urchins , and a third kind having large and hard spines ,and living i n man y fathoms of water . I He also refers totwo deep-sea and rare forms

, via Spa ta n ges and Brytte s ,and some white E ehin e i , of longer form than the others , andhavin g somewhat smal l and soft spin es ; these white Echin e iwere found near Torona

,in

It is not easy to identify the above-mentioned echino

H. A . iv. 0 . 4 ,

f I b id. v. c . 13 , s. 8. I bid . v. c . 13 , ss. S an d 9 .

§ I b i d 1v c 4 S8 3 a nd 12 | | I6 i d 1v c 4 s 3‘ll Ib id . iv . 0 . 8, .s 18, .v c . 13, ss 8 a n d 10

220 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANAIMA,

derms,but Prof . Forbes says that the one with large and

edible ova is the purple sea-egg (E chinus lividus) , that theE chin emetr a i s probably E . esculen tus, and that the one withhard spines i s Cida r is hi str i ze ; he adds that E . lividus i s theone chiefly used as food in the eastern Mediterranean?“

Star-fish e s are clearly referred to by Aristotle . He saysthat they seize their prey and suck out their juices , and thatthey destroy very many oyst er s t The ravages committedby star-fish e s among oysters are well known .

Ari stotle says that the A ster (star-fish ) i s in form l ike adrawing of a star

,and makes the fanciful statement that i t

i s natural ly so hot that its food i s at once dige st ed iThe fixed ascidians seem to have been careful ly exam ined

by Ari stotle . He call s them Te thya , and considers them tobe a special kind of hi s Ostr a koderma . Their externalcasing

,he says

,i s of a nature between that of skin and that

of a hard shell,and can be out l ike hard leather ; this casing

i s fixed to the rocks,and in it are a water inlet and a water

outlet . § After giving this descript ion,which i s quite correct ,

he clearly refers to the inner muscular tunic or body-wal l ,enclosing the soft parts of the animal

,but states incorrectly

that this tuni c i s a sinewy (n eur ode) membrane .“Again ,he refers to the perforated pharyngea l wa ll and the atrialchamber through which the water

,fi ltered from the parts

serving as food , passes to the water out let?“It i s evident that he p laced the ascidians in a far lower

position than they occupy in modern systems of cla ssifi

cation , via ,near Amphi eceus . He was not certain that they

deserved to be put even in hi s Os tr a koderma ,but

,concluding

that they had no di stinct residual matters,expressed an

Opinion that they were of the nature ofThe most interesting part of Aristot le ’ s work in con

n e ct ion with hi s En toma relates to his selection of theanimals to be included in that class . His i deas on thissubject were in advance of those Of many natural i sts fromhis time til l the end of the eighteenth century . His maindefinition i s as follows : I call those animals En toma whichhave incisions in their bodies

,either in their ventral parts

,

or in these and also their dorsal par ts .

”

t 1L

Aristotle ’ s definition of hi s En toma i s so compr ehensive

Tr a ve ls i n Lyci a , et a , 1847 , vol . 11 . pp. 115—6 .

1‘ P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 6816. I H. A . v. c . 13 , s . 10.

I bid . iv. 0 . 6 , s . 1 . I bi d . iv. o. 6 , S . 2 .

‘ll P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 681a . HH. A . i . c . 1 , S. 7 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

222 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANAIMA,

considerable difficulty,but it may be said that , in some essen

tial respects,they were inferior to that indicated by Aristotle .

About sixty En toma are described or mentioned byAristot le , but only a comparatively smal l number of thesecan be sati sfactorily identified . Some of these wi ll next beconsidered .

He compares the hind legs of the A kr i s or locust to thetwo rudders used in some Greek ships , one on each sidetowards the stern?“and says that i t produces a sound byrubbing itself with its peda li a ,

rudders or hind legsnL

He was aware that it deposits it s eggs a short distancebelow the surface of the ground

,and that it s young emerge

in a form very much l ike that Of the parent , there being nodistinct metamorphosi s . 1

’ It i s probable that the locust towhich he refers i s the migratory locust (P a chyty lus migr ater ius) of south-eastern Europe .

The cicada i s clearly referred to by Aristot le in manypassages

,although some of these passages do not correct ly

describe the characterist ics of this insect . The cicada has apiercing and suctorial beak , by which i t sucks the jui ces ofplants . Aristotle says that the Te tti a: (Ci c a da ) has a tonguel ike process , by which it feeds on dew only . § The idea thatthe ci cada feeds on dew only is commonly found among theancient writers .The singing of the cicada i s produced by membranes in

chambers covered by scaly p lates on the under side of theabdomen and just behind the thorax ; the membranes arevibrated by the action of certain muscles . Ari stotle saysthat the Te tti a: sings in consequence of the friction of thea ir on the membranes beneath the hypezema or part closeto the division between the thorax and abdomen .“The male cicadas sing

,the females being silent ; this was

exceedingly wel l known to the Ancients , and is referredto by Aristotle .“He also refers to large cicadas , calledA che ta i , which sing , and small ones , called Te ttigon i a ,

which do not sing,or sing but This passage

,

especially the last part of it , i s difficult to understand , butit is probable , from the context in H. A . v . c . 24 , thatAristotle intends to r efer to large and small cicadas differingin species .

P . A . iv. 0 . 6 , 683a . j H. A . iv. 0. 9 , s . 2 .

1 Ib i d . v . c . 17 , s . 2 , v. c . 23 , ss. 1 a n d 2 .

I bid . iv. 0 . 7 , s . 7 ; P . A . iv. 0 . 5 , 682a .

H. A . iv. 0 . 9 , s . 2 . 1T16i d . v. c . 24 , s . 4 . Ibid. v. c . 24 , s . 1 .

:OR ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD . 223

Cicadas have powerful ovipositors by means of whichthey pierce plants before depositin g their eggs , and theyoung ones drop in to the groun d and go through an in com

ple t e metamorphosis . Aristotle says that the Te ttix depositsits eggs in certain plants and also in the ground

,and he

speaks of its larva an d of its undergoing a kind of metamorphosis?“The May or dayfly (Ephemer a ) seems to be described

by Aristotle . He says that , about the summer solstice ,casin gs larger than grape seeds float down the river Hypanis(the modern Bug) , and , when these casin gs burst , anin sect with four feet escapes , and lives and fl ies about til leven in g , when i t dies . For this reason , he says , i t i s calledEphemeron ,

because it l ives only about one day .

’r He states

elsewhere that the Ephemer en has four legs an d also fourwin gs . l The Mayfly ,

however,has six legs , l ike other in sects .

He uses the word Psyche for several kin ds of L epidOptera

,but

,in H. A . v . c . 1 7 , s . 4 , he seems to refer to a

cabbage butterfly , such as Pi er i s br'a ssi ca , for he says thatthe caterpillars of certain kin ds of Psyche are produced fromsomething smaller than millet seeds on the leaves ofcabbages (Rapha n e i e r Krumba i ) . He also refers to theloopers or Geeme tr idaa, for he says that the Pen i a andHyper a are produced from caterpillars which form waves asthey walk

,the hinder parts of their bodies being bent up

towards the front parts . § The larvae of certain kinds ofTin ea ,

called by h im Se tas , are referred to in H. A . v . c . 26 ,s . 1 , where he says that they are found in woollen goods andgarmen ts .Aristot le says that his Keuleep tera have elytra and are

without stings .“Several of the names used by him toden ote various kinds of beetles , e . g . , Kleros, Ka r a be s, andMe le len the , are used to-day in a slightly modified form ,

buton ly a few of his beetles can be iden tified satisfactorily .

His Ka n tha ros i s the Egyptian sacred beetle (Sea r a bazussa cer ) , which is found also in southern Europe . He saysthat it rolls up dung into balls in which its young are produced.“The larvae of E ler es, which Aristotle says infests

are usually believed to be those Of Tr i chedes

api a r ius, which often commit great ravages in the hives .

H. A . v . c . 24, S . 3 . 1 Ib id . v. c . 17 , S . 14 .

1 Ibi d . i . c . 5 , S. 7 . I bi d. v. c . 17 , S . 6 .

Ibid. i . c . 5 , s. 5 . 1I Ibi d . v. c . 17 , s. 10.

I id . vi ii . c . 26 , s . 1 , ix. c . 27 , s . 20.

224 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANAIMA ,

Numerous statements about bees and wasps are madeby Aristot le . Some of these have been considered inChapter xiv .

,when deal ing with the generation of bees . Of

the rest,one i s specially worthy of mention , because i t

i s evidence of close and patient observation . He says that,

during each fl ight , bees do not vi sit flowers of different kinds ,but go

,from violet to violet

,as i t were

,and do not touch

any other kind until they arrive at the hive?“This haslong been proved to be substantially correct .The book scorpion (Che lifer ca n croides) i s clear ly r e

ferred to in H. A . iv . o . 7 , s . 4 ,and v . c . 26 , S . 1 , where it i s

said to be l ike a scorpion , except that i t has no tai l , and tobe of smal l size and found among scroll s or manuscripts .

Ari stotle ’ s Ma la kostr a ka ,in which he includes Ka r a be s

,

A sta kos , Ifa r kin e s , Ifa r i s , Kr a n gen ,and several other

crustaceans,have their external coverings soft

,compared

with those of hi s typical Ostr a koderma,but of a somewhat

tough n atur e nL He sometimes calls them Sk leroderma ,

oranimals with harsh or hard sk in s i Their ve r a c ity ,

theexistence of large and also very small kinds of them

,the

periodic casting of their Skins,their peculiar modes of pro

gr e ssion , the carrying of their eggs beneath the abdomen ofthe female

,and some differences between the appendages of

the males and those of the females , are al l mentioned byAri stotle .

He makes numerous statements about Ka r a bes whichShow sufficient ly clearly that he refers to the rock lobster(Pa lin urus vulga r i s) . The most important characteri st icsof Ka r a be s, clearly given by Ari stotle , are that i t i s elongated , and has a tai l and also five swimming p lates (m apty ia )on its telson , § that it has two large and rough horns(antennae) in front of the eyes and two smal l and smoothones (antennules) below ,“that its eyes are large

,and

compared with Asta kos (to be discussed later) , i ts rostrum isshort and cephalothorax rough ,“and that i ts ova areThe rock lobster , whether male or female , has chelae on

the first pai r of feet , but these chelae are not well-developedlike those of the crayfish or common lobster . In differentrock lobsters the extent of development of the chelae varies ,but in those I have seen the inner part of the chela was

A: H. A . ix. 0 . 27 , s , 7 , j I b i d . iv. 0 . 1 , S . 2 .

I P . A . ii . 0 . 13 , 6576. H. A . iv. c . 2 , s . 4 .

I bi d . iv. c . 2 , s . 5 . ti Ibi d. iv. 0. 2 , s . 8 .

Ibi d. iv. o. 2 , S . 13 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

226 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANAIMA,

run so fast that i t i s not easy to overtake them?“ He alsowas well acquainted with more than one kind of hermitcrab , and speaks of its l iving in different kinds of sh e lls . t Of

the remaining crabs referred to by Ari stotle there i s onewhich can be fairly wel l i dentified . This , which he says i sfound in rivers

, i seems to be Thelphusa fluvi a ti li s, common in southern Europe .

There are other crustaceans which Aristot le callsEur i des, under which he includes three kinds , Kyphe ,Kr a n gen ,

and a smal l kind of Ka r i s , which never growlarger . § The Kr a n gen ,

which is said to have al l i ts feetdirected outwards

,but its chelae turned inwards ,“may be a

Squi lla or mantis Shrimp .

Many of the appendages of Squi lla are Short and notseen in dorsal view ; Aristotle says , apparently influencedby this

,that a large part of the body of the Kr a n gen is

without feet .“The informat ion given about the two otherkinds of Ka r i s i s not enough to identify them , but Kyphehas been thought to be the common Shrimp (Cr a ngenvulga r i s) .

It i s evident from Chapter xv . that Ari stotle treated hisMa la ki a as if they had no connection with the molluscs .He considered them to be the highest representat ives of hisAn a ima ,

ma inly because of their sexual mode of r eproduction , their well-developed sense organs , and their arrangement of soft and hard parts

,the former external and the

latter internal,as in hi s En a ima ?” He distinguishes

the decapods from the octopods . He shows that theformer have eight Short feet , each with a double row ofsuckers , and also two long proboscis-l ike parts with suckersat their ends , a large or long body , and a hard internalsuppor t .

’r’r

Ari stotle describes thr ee decapods , via , Sepi a ,Ten thes,

and Teuthi s. The Sepi a ,according to him , i s rather broad

and has a cutt le-bone,a nar row fin extending along the

whole body,and a large in k-bag situated as far as possible

from the mout . II He says that its eggs , l ike large , blackseeds

, are connected together l ike a bunch of Both

H. A . iv. o. 2 , s. 2 . j Ib id . iv. o. 4 , se . 14—17 .

1 Ib id . iv. 0 2 , s . 2 . Ibid . iv. 0. 2 , S . 1 .

I bi d . iv . o 2 , s . 4 . I bid .

Ibid . iv . o. 1 , s. 1 . HH. A . iv. 0. 1 ; P . A . iv. c . 9 .

11 H. A . iv. 0. 1 , ss. 8 , 11 , an d 12 ; P . A . iv. o. 5 , 679a , iv. o. 9 , 685 6.

v. s. 3 .

OR ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD. 227

Ten thes and Teuthi s differ , he says , from Sepi a in having asmaller ink-bag situated nearer the mouth

,and a c ar t ila

g in ous in tern al support , Shaped like a sword?“Aristotlesays that Ten the s differs from Teuthi s chiefly in its muchlarger size (being sometimes about eight feet long) , in thebroader Shape of its pointed end and in the arrangement of its fin ,

which extends along its whole body , whilethat of Teu thi s i s in comple te .

‘r

C learly Aristotle ’s Sepi a i s a cuttle-fish , such as Sepi a

efiicin a li s, and Ten thes and Teuthi s are large and smallcalamaries or squids

,Teu thes probably being Loligo vulga r i s .

It does n ot seem to be possible to identify Teu this satisfa ctor ily . Fr an tz ius believed that it was Rossi a or Sepiola ,

each of which,it is true

,has two fins quite separate and

like wings on the sides of its body , but then n either of thesecephalopods has its abdominal end pointed , each havin g itas n early as possible hemispherical .

Aristotle describes several kinds of octopods . On e ofthese

,which he says is the largest and most common kin d , 1

i s Oc topus vu lga r i s , and is referred to in many passages .Another kind

,called Eledon e , i s stated to be the on ly

one which has a Single row of suckers on each a rm . §This kin d i s th e modern eledone , common in theMediterranean , but it is n ot

‘

possible to determine thespecies referred to by Aristotle . A third kin d

,called

B e li ta in a or a li s, is not described sufficiently to allow ofits being identified .

There are two marine animals , according to Aristotle ,which live in shells

,one called Nun ti les or Na u tike s , with

a Shell like tha t of a pecten , when in its open position , andthe other with a shell l ike that of a snail ; this kind neverleaves its shell , and sometimes extends its arms .“

Aristotle ’ s Nau ti les was an argonaut,such as Argon au ta

a rge . He gives some information about its habits,

obtained probably from fishermen or sailors . He describeshow it sails on the surface of the sea , with its shell upturned and propelled by win ds acting on an expan ded we bbetween two of its arms

,an d how

,when alarmed

,i t fills

its shell with water and Sinks .“This is a fanciful description . The shel l of the female argonaut , which alone

H. A . iv. 0 . 1 , s . 12 P . A . iv. 0. 5 , 679a .

Jr H. A . iv. o. 1 , ss. 8 a n d 9 . 1 I bid. iv. 0. 1 , S . 15 .

Ibid. Ibid. iv. 0 . 1 , S . 16 .

Ibid. ix. 0. 25 , s . 12 .

228 ARISTOTLE ’

S ANAIMA.

has a shel l,has its coi led part uppermost , when the animal

i s at the surface,and is not caused to sink by fi ll ing with

vva t e r .

It does not seem to be possible to identify Ari stotle ’ smarine animal having a shell l ike that of a snail . It maybe a gastropod , and Prof . E . Forbes suggested Ca r i n a r i amedi ter r a n ea

,

“the Shel l of which is , however , very smalland not capab le of con taining the animal

,when retracted .

A more sati sfactory identification would be furnished bygastropods of the marine genus A tla n ta ,

in which the Shell ,although smal l

,i s capable of containin g the animal , while

the three lobes of the foot often proj ect beyond the mouthof the Shell . There i s nothing to Show ,

however , thatAri stotle was acquainted w ith these gastropods . Na uti lus

pompi lius , with which some have identified Ari stotle’

sanimal , i s not found in the Mediterranean .

Tr a ve ls in Lyci a ,et a , vol . 11 . p. 101 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

230 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

or,as Aristotle explains more corr ect ly , ovoviviparous?

“He also says that they have fat l ivers from which oi li s extr a cted, 1

L and that they have no scales , but that someare rough . 1Pl iny says that Ari stotle was the fir st to give the name

Sala che to fishes of this kind . §Among Ari stotle ’ s Seluohe the fol lowing are included

The inclusion of Ba tr a chos, the fish in g-frog , i s one ofthe chief defects in hi s work on carti laginous fishes .Again , his assert ion that all his Se la ehe , except B a tr a chos ,are Viviparous

,“i s incorrect , for some are oviparous , e . g . ,

the true dog-fish e s and rays . In other respects , however ,his description of the Sela cka appl ies very fairly to thosecartilaginous fishes with which he was acqua inted .

The B a te s, Aristot le says , i s of flat form ,“has a roughtai l and body

,

” and buries itself in the sand,to facil itate

capture of its prey .

’r‘r He also speaks of Ba ti s, especially in

H. A . vi . 0 . 10,s . 4

,where he mentions its eggs and their

hair-l ike fi laments . These are the clearest statementsmade by Ari stot le about Ba te s and Ba ti s , which areprobably the male and female respectively of the thornbackSkate (Ra i a c lava ta ) . The modern Greek name for a Skatei s Bati .Besides describing its pe cul iar gill coverings , already

discussed in Chapter xi . , Ari stotle says that the B a tr a choshas a spiny head

,very rough

,and many times larger than

the rest of it s body,“and that i ts ta i l and adj acent parts

of its body are more fleshy to compensate for the smal lamount of flesh in the front part of its He alsodescribes , in unmistakable language , i ts lures and fishinghabits .“The fishin g-frog (Lophius pisca te r ius) , the Ba tr a chos of

“H. A . vi . 0 . 10, S . 1 ; P . A . iv. o. 1 , 6766 ; G . A . iii . c . 1 , 749a .

j H. A . ii i . c . 13 , S . 2 . I P . A . iv . o. 13 , 697a .

N a t . Hi st . ix. 40. HH. A . i i . 0. 9 , S . 6 .

¢

“H. A . v . c . 4 , s . 1 .

P A . iv. c 13 , 697a

II G. A 111 0 3 , 754ac. . 1 ,3 6956.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 231

the Greeks and Ra n a pisca tr i a: of the Romans , i s describedby many other ancient writers

,especially Opp i an of Cilicia ,

Pliny , and Cicero . Aristotle seems to have included itamong his Sala che partly on account of its sharp andrather large teeth

, an d its tuberculated Skin , free fromscales , and partly because he considered it to be car t ila

g in ous . However,he admits that it i s an exceptional

member of his Sala che , for he says that it has covered gill sand that it is not ovoviviparous . It may be mentionedthat , with respect to the nature of its skeleton , the fishin gfrog occupies a position intermediate between the typicalbony fishes and the cartilaginous fishes .The term Ga lee s is of wide meaning , and includes many

long , cartilagin ous fishes,in contradistinction to the flat

on es . Aristotle mentions several kinds of Ga lee s , anddistinguishes them by names such as a ster i a s, a ka n thi a s,and lei es, having an analogy to the specific names used bymodern zoologists .The smooth dogfish i s still called Ga lees by modern

Greeks . Aristotle says,in one passage , that Ga lee s has

many pyloric caeca he can scarcely be referring to thedogfish here . The name was used

,in fact , for more than

one kind of fish,in several ancien t authors , e .g . , Ar ch e str a tus

speaks of a Ga lee s caught off Rhodes and sold for n ot lessthan a thousand Attic dra chmae . 1

L This could scarcely be adogfish . Aristotle also uses a grOUp-name , Ga lee eides, todenote several fishes having affinities with Ga lees . In thisgroup he included Alopex,

Kuen ,and Skyli en . 1

In H. A . vi . c . 10,s . 5 , Aristotle shows that he knew of

the existence of placental fishes,for he says that the Ga lee i

(dogfish e s) which are called lei e i (smooth) have their youngattached by an umbilical cord to a kind of placenta , andthat , when taken away , they appear l ike the embryos inquadrupeds (mammals) . It i s well known that most of thespecies of Muste lus, and some other cartilaginous fishes , areplacental ; Aristotle anticipated this modern discovery.

Aristotle asserts that Na rke l ies concealed in sand ormud , and numbs any fish which comes near it , by somemeans within its body . §This suffi ciently clearly shows that Na rke i s the torpedo .

Theophrastus, ZElian ,

and Oppian of Ci licia refer to thisfish , but exaggerate its powers ; the most interesting

H. A . 11. c . 12 , S . 13 . j Deipn . vi 1. 44 .

I H. A . vi . 0. 10, ss. 4 an d 10. I bid. ix. 0. 25 , s. 2 .

232 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

account of Na r ke i s given , however , in Athenaeus , becausei t shows that the fish had been subjected to experimentaltests . Athenaeus says that , according to Diph i lus ofLaodicea

,the Shock was not produced by al l part s of the

fi sh ’ s body,but by certain parts on ly

,and that Diph ilus

proved this by a long series of experiments?“The torpedo was one of the food fishes of the Ancients ,

and i s represented , with bass and red mullet , 0 11 several of theCampanian-ware fi sh pla t e s to be seen at the British Museum .

The Rhi n e , according to Aristotle , produces seven oreight young at a t imefir i ts Skin i s rough , 1 and tai l large , §i t catches fish by lying in wait in the Sand and attractingthem by means of lures on its mouth

,“and it can change itscolour to match that of the place where i t l ives .“

Except that it usual ly brings forth many more thanseven or eight young ones at a t ime , the angel fi sh (Rhin asqua tin a ) , which i s st il l cal led Rhin a in some parts ofGreece , seems to be Aristot le

’ s Rhin e .

This name , which means a rasp or fi le , appl ies wel l tothe angel fish , which has a Skin quite rough from thepresence of a vast number of tubercles . Its tai l i s com

pa r a t ive ly large , i t l i es in wa i t for i ts prey in the mannerstated by Ari stot le , and it has processes or lures on or nearthe upper edge of its mouth . Aga in

,according to Yar rell ,

i t seem s to Show variat ions of colour corresponding with thenature of the ground where i t i sThe most important statements made by Ari stotle about

the Trygon are that it i s a flat fish and that its tai l i s longand spin y .H These and the few other statements made byhim are not sufficiently precise for the purpose of ide n t ification

,but i t i s almost certain that his Trygon i s the sting

r ay (Trygon pa stin a ca ) . Other ancient writers , especiallyZElian , Oppian of Ci l icia , and Pliny , describe one of themost remarkable features of the Trygon ,

i ts caudal spine ,by means of which i t lacerates the flesh of its victim .

Pl iny ~ says that nothing i s so execrable as the r a dius,five inches long , proj ecting from the tai l of the Trygonor Pa stin a ea . 11It i s sa id that the sting-ray i s sti ll called Trygon at

B e ipu . v11. 95 . i H. A . v. c . 9 , s. 3 .

1 P . A . iv. c . 13 , H. A . v. c . 4 , s . 1 .

I bid . ix. 0 . 25 , s . 3 . I bi d . ix. 0 . 25 , s . 10.

Br i ti sh F i shes , 1859 , vol . 11. p. 538 .

j P . A . iv. 0. 13 , 6956. IINa t. Hi st . ix. 72.

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA ,

evidently in tended to be P . sa rda ,i s not good , for the snout

i s too blunt and the bands too highly incl ined . The bandsof P . sa rda are , however , subj ect to variation , and it i smost probable that Rondelet ’ s Ami a was this fish .

Ari stotle says that B elon e i s a long fish?“and that itSp l i t s open to allow its comparatively few but large eggs toescape

,for a Sl i t i s formed under i ts abdomen

,and yet the

spli tting does not ki ll the fish,for the wound heals aga in . 1

L

Al though these statements do not correctly describe whattakes p lace , it i s evident that B elon e i s one of the pipe fishes ,such as Syn gn a thus a cus, the eggs of which pass into thesub-caudal pouch of the male

,and remain there during the

process of incubat ion .

The three fishes Cha n n e , E ry thr in es, and Pse tta areremarkable because Aristotle seems to have bel ieved thatthey were hermaphrodite . His statements on this subjecthave been di scussed in Chapter xiv .

Aristot le ’ s Gla n i s has been discussed by many natural i sts ,but i t i s on ly comparat ively recent ly that i t has beensati sfactori ly identified . In addition to other informationabout thi s fish , Aristotle says that its tai l i s l ike that of awater-n ewt ;r that its gall-bladder i s c lose to its l iver , § thatit i s a freshwater fi sh depositing large ova

,which are

connected together l ike those of a frog,that the ova develop

very slowly and are guarded by the male fish , which sometimes spoils the fish in g-hooks with its hard teeth , and thatthe large Gla n ides spawn in deep water , but the smal lerones in Shallow water , near the roots of a wi llow , or amongreeds and mosses .“C learly , Aristot le

’ s Gla n is i s a Si luroid fish . Pl iny ,Ar tedi , B loch , and Cuvier identified i t with the well-knownSi lurus g la n i s . Cuvier enterta ined no doubt about thecorrectness of this identificat ion and pointed out that , atConstantinople , S . g la n i s was called Glane s or Glane .“On

the other hand , Gesner was of Opinion that the wels (S .

g la n i s) was unknown to Ari stotle , and he identified Gla n i swith a smaller species of Si lurus?” Several centuries afterGesner ’ s time , Agassiz , who had considerable experience of

> l H. A . i i . 0 . 11 , s . 7 .

j H. A . vi . c . 12 , S . 4 , vi . c . 16 , S . 4 ; G. A . i ii . c . 4 , 755a .

I H. A . i . c . 5 , S. 3 . Ibi d . i i . 0 . 11, S. 7 .

H. A . vi . c . 13 , SS. 2 , 4 , a n d 5 , ix. c . 25 , S . 6 .

Hi st . Na t . des P e i ss. xiv. p. 344 .

a s Nemen c l . Aqua t . An im. 1560, p. 319 .

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 235

Si lurus g la n i s of Central Europe , and was not disposed toaccept Cuvier ’ s identification , obtain ed six specimens of aSiluroid , new to ichthyologists , from the Achelous , inwestern Greece .

These fishes were labelled with the local name for them ,

Gla n idi a (plural of Gla n idi ) , and , after a careful examination , Agassiz concluded that they were the same asAristotle ’ s Gla n i s , agreeing with this in the form of theanal fin

,the nature of the gills , the position of the gall

bladder , the connected spawn , and other characters?“Agassiz gave the name Gla n i s a r i ste te li s to this Si luroid ,

but it is more usually called Pa r a si lurus a r i ste te li s . I havenot been able to see a specimen Of this fish , but a gooddescription , with drawings , i s given by T . Gi ll , who statesthat it watches over its eggs

,which Si lurus g la n i s does not ,

that it has four barbels , whereas S . g la n i s has six , and thatit has fewer rays in its anal fin nL

The Ka llion yme s, which lives near the shore , 1 and hasa gall-bladder relatively larger than that of any other fish , §i s clearly the star-gazer (Ur a n oscopus sca ber ) . Pliny saysthat the Ca lli e nymus, which has more gall than any otherfish , i s also called Ur a n oscope s, from the position of its eyes .“The presence of a very large gall-bladder in Ka llion ymeswas so well known that this fish was commonly referred toin passages descriptive of excessive anger .“The gallbladder of the star-gazer is very large , and , accordin g toCuvier and Valenciennes ,“Shaped like a long-necked phial ,with a duct as large as the fish ’ s duoden um .

Aristotle ’ s statements about the fleshy palate ofKypr in os fiw

L about its being a river fish .II and about itsgreat clearly Show that he is referring to thecarp . His statements about this fish are , in fact , far morevaluable than those made by other ancient authors .

Under the name Perke , Aristotle included both freshwater and sea perches

,and it is only in a few passages that

it is clear to which he refers . The freshwater perch i sclearly referred to in H. A . vi . 0 . 13 , s . 2 , where he says

Proc . Amer . A ca d . of Ar ts a n d S c i . , vol . i ii . 1857 , pp. 325—34 .

i An n ua l Repor t of the Smi thson ia n In sti tu ti on , Wa shin gton ,

1906 , pp. 436—9 .

1 H. A . viii . c . 15 , S . 1 . I6id . i i . c . 11 , S . 7 .

Na t . Hi st . xxxii . 24 . TI iElia n , De Na t . An im. xiii 4 .

Hi st . Na t . des POi ss . i i i . p. 297 .

HH. A . iv. c . 8 , s . 4 ; P . A . i i . 0 . 17 , 6606.

11 I bi d . H. A . vi . 0. 13 , ss. 1 an d 6 .

236 ARISTOTLE’

S ENAIMA,

that its ova,connected together like those of frogs , a r e

deposited among reeds in rivers and ponds .Nest-making fishes are wel l known . The first record of

fishes of this kind was made by Ari stotle . In H. A . vii i .c . 29 S . 3 , he says that Phyki s i s the only sea-fish , so theysay

,which makes nests and rears its young in them . The

word used by him for nest i s 7 7 4303 , which means a bedof leaves or reeds . The fi sh referred to appears to be oneof the gobies

,the males of which guard the eggs

,previously

deposited by the females , beneath stones or aquatic p lantsor the concave parts of cockle or other She lls .

According to Ari stot le , Ska ros was the only fish whichseemed to ruminate

,

“i ts food was se awe ed,’r and its t eeth

were not Sharp and interlocking l ike those of other fish e s iFrom Athenaeus , D e ipn . vi i . 113 , i t seems that Ska ros wasnot easi ly caught . Oppian of Cil icia applies to it the epithetss ti ktos (variegated) , 6a li e s (dappled) , and g la ge ei sMarcellus of Sida calls i t a n theme ei s Martialsays in effect that the vi scera of Sca rus were of betterflavour than the rest of thi s fish ,“and that it was caughtby means of a hook bai ted with a Other ancientwriters

,ZElian , Ovid , Horace , and Pl iny , refer to Sha re s or

Sca rus, but the passages cited above are those of mostinterest .Many natural i sts have tri ed to identify Ari stotle ’ s fish .

Rondelet says that it i s like a sargo in Shape , fins , and spines ,and that i t used to be sold by some fishermen for Sa rga fi

L

Belon says that i t i s very common off the Cretan coasta i iUnder the name Sca rus Cr eten sis , Aldrovan di gives adrawing of a fish with a long dorsal fin , large scales , anddeep saw-edged His fish i s evidently a parrotwrasse , but his description i s of l ittle value . Avai l inghimself of the fact that Ska ros i s the modern Greek namefor a fish which i s very common off the Cretan coasts

,

Cuvier obtained , with the assi stance of Count de Chabrol ,French Minister of Marine , in 1827 , three of these fishes .In Cuvier and Valenciennes ’ great work , which was cont in ued by Valenciennes after Cuvier ’ s death , a bel ief i s

H. A . i i . 0 . 12 , S . 13 , viii . c . 4 , s . 4 ; P . A . i ii . c . 14 , 675 a .

1, H. A . vi ii . c . 4 , S . 1 . 1 I bi d . i i . 0 . 9 , S . 5 .

Ha lven t . iv. 4 1 , 88 a n d 113 . MDe Medi c . e P i sc . lin e 19 .

Epig r . xi ii . 84 . I b id . v. 18 .

H De P i sc . Ma r in . 1554 , p. 164 .

11 Les Observ. et a , en Gr ece , A si e , et a , 1553 , i . c . 8 .

De P i sc . 1613 , p. 8 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

238 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

Ari stotle ’ s Emys seems to be the European pond-tortoi se

(Emys or bi cu la r i s) . According to h im , it i s a smal l watertortoi se

,

“but no passage in hi s works seems to state that iti s a freshwater animal . That i t i s so may be inferred fromH. A . v . c . 27 , S . 1 , for , after describing how Emys depositsi ts eggs in a hole in dry ground

,Ari stot le follows with a

Short but separate description of marine tortoi ses . Plinyclearly States that freshwater tortoises were called Emydesby some Greek author s .

’r

The N i le crocodi le i s mentioned by Aristot le in severalpassages

,but he gives nothing of importance beyond the

information given by Herodotus .The gecko , probably Hemi da c ty lus tur ci cus, and other

species , i s clearly indicated by Aristotle , who calls i tAska la be tes . He says that i t can walk on trees in anyposit ion , even below the branches , 1 and that i t eats sp iders . §Just as

,at the present day , the bite of the gecko in some

parts of southern Europe i s considered to be poisonous,or

even fatal , Ari stot le says that in some parts of Italy the biteof the Aska la be tes i s fatal .“Geckos are quite harmless ,although their appearance i s not invi ting

,and their food

chiefly consists of spiders , fl i es , and moths .Perhaps no repti les were better known by Aristot le than

the chamaeleons . He probably saw many of them in westernAsia , and it i s evident that he dissected them . Some int e r e st in g statements relating to the anatomy of the chamaeleon have been discussed in Chapters x .

—xi i . The rest of thestatements made by Ari stotle

,in H. A . i i . c . 7 , and P . A . iv .

o . 11 , are too numerous to be cited at length , and a selectiononly will be given . He says that it has a very long tai ltapering to a point and much twisted

,l ike a thong .“The

outer par t of each of i ts front feet,he says

,i s divided into

two toes , and the inner part into three ; the inner part ofeach hind foot i s divided into two toes

,and the outer part

into This description agrees with the pecul iararrangements of the toes of a chamaeleon , but an error seemsto occur , évr br for £11 7 65, in Schneider

’ s Greek text .Ari stotle gives a good description of the eyes of a

chamaeleon and a Short account of their movemen ts,’r‘r

but , strangely enough , does not point out that each eye can

>1< H. A , viii . c . 2 , s , 2 , j Na t . Hi st . xxxh . 14 .

I H. A . ix. c . 10, S . 2 . I bi d . ix. 0 . 2 , s . 5 .

I bi d. viii . c . 28, S . 2 . I bi d . i i . 0 . 7 , S . 1 .

3 3 I bi d. ii . c . 7 , S . 2 . H I bi d. ii . 0. 7,s . 3 .

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD . 239

move independently of the other . When the outer skin ofthe eye of a chamaeleon is removed

,he says

,a shining body ,

l ike a small bronze ring,is exposed?“This refers to the

iris , which i s seen , after removal of the Skin , as a bronzelike ring surrounded by a series of radial bands with blackpigment about their outer ends .The change of colour of a chamaeleon , Aristotle says ,

takes place when it is puffied out , and it exhibits a darkcolour , not very different from that of a crocodile , and a palecolour , not un like that of some lizards , variegated with darkparts , l ike that of a leopard . This chan ge takes place , headds

,over the whole of its body , for its eyes and tail chan ge

like the rest of its body , but , when dying , i t becomes of apale colour , and so it remains after de a th .

’r

It i s true that a marked puffin g-out i s noticeable when achamaeleon changes colour , durin g a state of agitation . Thechan ges of colour are due , however , to the shifting of pigmen tgranules towards or away from the epidermal layer , inbranches of chromatophores beneath the skin . Thesechanges of colour , as Prof . Poulton of Oxford suggested tome , might be compared wi th blushing . Aristotle ’ s description of the various changes of colour is not clear . Theydepen d to a large exten t on the state of a chamae leon asregards fear or anger , sleeping and waking , the colours ofsurroundin g objects , the brightness of the light , and thetemperature . On e which I had some time ago was nearlywhite

,when terrified , except for some brownish spots , and ,

when asleep , i ts colour was much the same , but gr ayishinstead of nearly white . When among trees and bushes itgradually assumed a greenish colour , w ith brown spots , but ,when angry

,i t drew in large quan t ities of air , blowing itself

out,hissing , and becoming nearly black . The changes of

colour occurred over all parts of the body , except that theunder parts , and especially the parts between the legs , werenot nearly so sensitive as the upper parts .The colour of the common chamaeleon, after death , i s

usually yellowish-white,but one chamaeleon , after death by

chloroform , was black , except on the under parts betweenthe legs . Prof . Poulton says that one chamaeleon , whichdied a natural death

,was of the usual light colour after

death , but dark before it died .

Aristotle says that the viper,which he sometimes denotes

H. A .

‘

11. c . 7 , s . 5 . 1 I bi d. i i . c . 7 , se . 3 an d 4 .

240 ARISTOTLE’

S ENAIMA,

by the mascul ine form E chis, sometimes by the feminine

form E chi dn a ,i s the only snake which i s ovoviviparous?“

V ipers bring forth their young al ive , and under the nameE chi s or E chidn a may be included the common viper (Viperaberus) , the southern viper (V. a spi s) , and the sand viper (V.

ammody tes) , which i s sai d to be in the East what the commonviper i s in the W e st .

’r

Aristotle records the popular bel ief that the Sa lama n dr a ,

probably the common spotted Salamander (Sa lama n dr ama cu losa ) of southern Europe , puts out a fire if it walksover it . i

On e amphibian , the Ke rdyle s , mentioned by Ari stotle , i sdifficult to identify . He says that i t i s an amphibiousquadruped having gills but no lungs , and obtaining its foodon dry land

, § that i t l ives in marshes ,“and that it has athin

,flat tai l

,“which i s l ike that of Gla n is (Pa r a si lurus

a r i ste te lis) , to compare a small thing with a largeGesner and Belon seem to have bel ieved that Ke rdylos

was a water n ewt . Cuvier says It i s clear that thesecharacters

,

” referring to those of Ke rdyles , can belongonly to the larva of the water newt

,as M . Schneider has

very wel l seen .

”

i t Sun deva ll considers that Ari stot le ’ sanimal i s one of the water newts , and says that on each sideof the back part of the head of Tr i ton pa lustr i s there i s anindication of the former existence of the gill Sl i t in thepresence of a fold of rather tender Skin , and that an ap

pe aran ce such as this may have deceived Ar istot le .IINO animal with which Ari stot le can reasonably be sup

posed to have been acquainted serves as a good identificationof his Ke rdy le s . The tadpoles of water newts , althoughthey have during certain stages of their development externalgil l s and four legs

,do not go on dry land to obta in food , and

the tadpoles of frogs have no branchial apertures when theirfront legs project beneath the Skin . Aristotle seems to havemisunder stood the nature of the respiratory organs of waternewts

,and his Ke rdyles i s probably one of these .

Among the other repti les and amphibians described ormentioned by Ar i stotle are Ba tra chos (the frog) , Phryn e (the

H. A . i . c . 6 , s . 2 , ii i . c . 1 , S . 14 , v. c . 28 ; G . A . i . c . 10.

Ewpéd . c i . de Mor e’

e , 1836 , vol . i ii . pa r t 1 , p. 74 .

v . c . 17 , s . 13 . H. A . viii . c . 2 , S . 5 ; De Respi r . c . 10, 476a .

i . c . 1 , s . 7 . P . A . iv . c . 13 , 6956 . H. A . i . c . 5 , s . 3 .

Le Régn . An im. Pa ri s, 836—7 , Not e on p. 47 ofvol . on“Reptile s .

Di e T i er a r ten des Ar istoteles, 1863 , p. 187 .

-l —i

it

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

242 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

The kestrel lays four , five , or sometimes six eggs , usuallymottled or blotched with reddish-brown .

The Ha li a i e tes or sea eagle,according to Ari stotle

,has a

large , thick neck , curved wings , and broad tail?“and it l ivesnear the coast and strikes down water b irds .

‘r He relates a

popular belief that the old birds ki ll any of their young oneswhich are unable to gaze on the sun before they are fl edged . 1

Ari stotle gives very li ttle informat ion about the kite,

which he calls Ik tin os . He says that i ts young ones areusually two , sometimes three , or , in th e ZEtolian kites , fourin number , and that the period of incubation i s twenty days . §His estimate of the number of young ones i s rather too low

,

for the kite usual ly has three or four . The period of ihcubation of the k ite I do not know .

The S tega n opodes, or web-footed birds , which can beidentified , are Ifykn e s (the swan) , Chen (the goose) , Ne t ta

(the wi ld duck) , and L a r e s , which inc ludes sea-gulls andterns , while those which cannot be so wel l identified compriseKe lymbi s , B eska s, and Ai thyi a .“The Ke lymbi s i s of special interest in connection with

Ari stot le ’ s views on the structur e of the feet of his S tega n e

podes . He includes Ke lymbis among the heavier birds ,l iving in the vicinity of rivers and lakes

,“and he proba bly

had it in mind in P . A . iv . o. 12 , 693a and 6946,where he

says that birds which have their toes separated , but flattened ,belong to the same group as web-footed birds

,and that some

swimming birds are fully web-footed,whi le others have their

toes separated from one another , but there i s an expansionalong the whole length of each toe , something l ike an e ar

blade .

Aristotle ’ s Ke lymbi s seems to be a grebe , via , the greatcrested grebe (Pedi cipes cr i sta tus) , which frequents the freshwaters of Greece , Turkey , and Asia Minor , i s one of theweb-footed birds , according to Ari stot le

’ s definition , and maybe included among the heavier water birds , for its totallength i s nearly two feet , although its body i s not largerthan that of a wi ld duck of moderate siz e . D ionysius makesstatements about Ke lymbe s (probably another name forKe lymbis) , which a re quite consi stent with the aquat ic habits

H. A . ix. 0 . 22 , S . 3 .

Jr I bi d . ix. 0 . 23 , S . 3 .

I Ib i d . Ib id . vi . 0 . 6 , S . 2 .

Se e a lso a n a r ti cle by me en ti tled On the Iden tifica tion of some

of th e Birds men tion ed by Ar istotle ,”in The Zoolog i st , 1903 , pp. 241—53 ,

H. A . viii . c . 5 , S . 8 .

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 243

of the great crested grebe . He says that it i s almost alwaysafloat

,and that it swims against the winds so that it may

not be driven unwillingly to land?“The great crested grebe is emphatically in its element

on the water,and , during w indy weather , I have seen this

bird,on the Tring reservoirs , swimming out against wind

an d waves w ith evident enjoyment , while coots and otherbirds were in smoother water . The little grebe or dabchickis clearly described in Ath en aeus, 1

L as the little Ke lymbi s .

All that Aristotle says about B e ska s i s that it is one ofthe heavier web-footed birds l ivin g in the vicinity of riversand lakes

, an d that it is l ike a duck , but sma lle r . I This isnot suffi cient to identify it , but , making use of the characters ,given in Athenaeus to the male B eska s, via , Short beak andpencilled plumage , § the Be ska s has been supposed to be thewigeon or the common teal .

From the scan ty information given by Aristotle aboutA i thyi a ,

i t seems that it i s a sea-bird which hatches out twoor three young ones , among the rocks , in early spring , thatit does not migrate , and that it feeds on animals washedashore .“A bird , called Ai thyi a , i s described by Dionysius ,“an d referred to by Homer, Arr ian , A

ZESOp, Theophrastus ,E l ian , Athenaeus , and He sych ius , an d what appears to bethe same bird is described by Horace

, V irgil , a n d Plinyunder the name Mergus . These descriptions and referencesare consistent with its being a voracious sea-bird

,more e s

pe c ia lly a gull . Many attempts have been made to identifyA i thyi a . William Turner, Dean of Wells , identifies it wi tha Gesner seems to consider it to be a goosander , or a gull?”

L Belon identifies Ai thyia with a bird towhich he assigns many features , some of which are to befound in the razor-bill , and his drawing of Ai thyi a representsa web-footed bird, w ithout the first te e , and with a welldeveloped b eak . II Sun deva ll argues that Ai thyi a i s aand D ’

Ar cy W . Thompson says it is probably a large gull,

e .g . ,L . ma r in a s or L . a rgen ta tus (the herringExcepting the herring-gulls , the birds mentioned above

244 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

do not furnish an identification at al l satisfactory , for theyare either very rare in Grecian waters , or they differ fromAi thyi a in breeding habits , or in the nature of their food ,and

,among the herring-gulls

,that which furnishes the best

identification is the one considered by some to be a distinctSpecies , via , L . leucephceus (the yellow-legged herring gull) .

This bird i s very common in Greece , and nests among therocks rather early in spring . It i s described in Sharpe andDresser ’ s B i rds of Europe , 1871

—81, vol . 8 , where it is

stated (Seebohm’

S notes being quoted) that thi s is almostthe only kind of gull met with in the Mediterranean , bothin spring and summer

,and that Seebohm visited some

breeding places of thi s bird m the Isle of Mak r e e , and , fromwhat he saw

,concluded that i t must have had eggs about

the middle of Apri l .The P eri steroei de of Ari stotle include Per i ster a (the

domesti c pigeon) , Pha t tu (the wood pigeon , sti l l calledP ha ssa or P ha t ta in modern Greece) , Oin a s (the rockpigeon) , and Trygon (the tur t le dove , stil l called Trygon inmodern Greece) . His statements about these birds arenumerous

,and some on ly

,relating to Pha ttu and Trygon ,

wi ll be considered .

Aristotle says that Pha t ta i s the largest and Trygon thesmallest of hi s P er i steroeide?“According to him , the Trygen i s never seen in Greece during the winter , but only insummer , and thi s he exp la ins by its migrating to and fromGreece and also by its hiding itse lf. l The turtle dove i s aparticularly good examp le of a summer migrant . It arrivesin Greece in Apri l , and leaves in August i His statementsabout Pha ttu are inconsistent , for he says that i t i s alwaysseen in Greece , § and that i t does not winter there .“Referring to the autumnal disappearance of birds gene

rally,Ari stotle says that they do not al l migrate to warm

regions,as some say , but those which are near the regions

where birds of their own kind are always found , migratethither , while some which are far away from the regionswhere birds of their own kind are always found , do notmigrate

,but hide themselves .“This erroneous view about

migrations was held for many centuries after Aristotle ’s time ,and i s sti l l to be found a s a popular bel ief .

H. A . v . c . 11 , s .i2 .

Jr Ibi d . vi ii . c . 5 , s . 5 , vi ii . c . 14 , s . 5 , vi ii . c . 18 .

I Sha rpe a n d Dr esser’s Birds of Eur Ope , 1871—81 , vol . 7 . Se ction

on Tur tur vu lg a r i s .

H. A . viii . c . 5 , Ibi d . viii . c . 14, s . 5 .

‘ll Ibid . viii . c . 18 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

246 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

Dr epa n is was the name given by the ancient Greeks to thesand-martin .

The name Ki chle i s used by Aristot le for any kind ofthrush . He says that the Ki chla i build their nests inproximity to one another in tree tops , and that they makethem of mud?“This description seems to apply best to thefie ldfares , which nest in colonies , usually at a good heightin trees

,and , l ike some other thrushes , use mud in making

their nests . He also says that there are three kinds ofKi chla i , one of which , called Ia e ber es, feeds on mistletoeand r e sin .

’r This bird i s evidently intended to be the missel

thrush . Ari stotle says that Ia e be r e s i s about as large asKi t ta . 1 The common jay , which seems to be the Ki t ta , i ssomewhat larger than the missel thrush .

Aristot le says that there i s a bird l iving among the rock s ,especially in Scyros , and cal led Kya n es , or blue bird , that iti s smaller than the Ko t typhe s, or blackbird , but larger thanthe Spica (ch affin ch that i t i s quite blue

,and that its

beak i s long and smooth,i t s legs short

,and its feet black . §

This descript ion app l ies very wel l to the male blue rockthrush , which i s common in Greece and , appar ently , theGreek Isles .Under the name A igi tha les, Aristotle included the tits ,

and says that they are insectivorous and lay more eggs thanother birds .“There are , he says , three kinds , via , theSpiai tes, which i s the largest and about as large as Spied(apparently the ch affin ch ) , the Or cin es, which l ives inmountainous p laces and has a long ta i l

,and a third which is

very small .“Spizi tes and Orein e s ar e evidently the gr eat t i t (Pa ra s

maj or ) and a long-tai led tit , e .g . ,A cr edula cauda ta , r e

spe ct ive ly . It i s not possible to determine what the verysmall ti t i s intended to be ; Sun deva ll i dentified it with themarsh tit (Pa rus

Aristotle clearly refers to the nightingale,which he calls

A edon , the name which is sti ll given to i t by modern Gr eeks .The statements Ari stotle makes about the nightingale

,even

about its song , are of but l i tt le importance , and h is assertionthat both the male and female sing ‘

rt i s incorr ect . This

a: H. A . vi . 0 . 1 , s , 3 , I I bi d . ix. 0 . 18 , S . 2 .

I I bi d . I bi d . ix. 0 . 18 , s . 3 .

Ibid . vii i . c . 5 , S . 3 , ix. 0 . 16 , s . 1 . I bi d . vii i. c . 5 , S . 3 .

30 3 Di e Thi e ra r ten des Ar is tote les, 1863, p. 115 .

HH. A . iv. c . 7 .

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 247

error arose perhaps from the ancient popular belief aboutthe origin of the nightingale , by the metamorphosis of anAthen ian prin cess , Philomela , into a nightingale , or fromfailure to determine the sex of the Singer . It is in Aristophanes that full justice i s done to its song

,the character

representing the n ightingale bein g called upon by the hoopoe,

the king of the birds , to imitate the divine and entrancingnotes of the nightingale by giving a flute solo?“The Epeps , according to Aristotle , l ives in woody and

moun tainous r eg ion s , i and does not build a nest , but lays itseggs in a hollow tr e a i This bird i s the hoopoe . It frequentswoods and open country which is not devoid of trees or bushes ,but Aristotle ’ s assertion that the Epeps l ives in mountainous regions seems t o be quite true of the hoopoes of Turkey

,

for , in the Section on the Hoopoe , in vol . 5 of Sharpe andDresser ’ s B i rds of Europe , the following statement by Mr .

Robson of Or tak euy i s quoted In Turkey,where the

vernacular name signifies Mountain Cock ,’ they are most

partial to the sides of mountains , although often found inthe valleys .The wryneck is sufficiently clearly indicated by Aristotle

,

who c alls it Iyn zc , and says that it has dappled plumage , along extensible tongue , and two toes directed forwards andtwo backwards

,and that it hisses and turns its neck back

wards,l ike a snake , while its body remains still . § He also

says that Iyn a: i s a little larger than Spiaa .“It is uncertainto what bird the name Spiza refers , but it is probable that achaffin ch i s meant .The insectivorous habits of the woodpecker

,called by

him Dryeke laptes, which means one that makes holes intrees , are sufficiently clearly described by Aristotle , but heincorrectly states that its tongue is flat .“He refers tothree kinds of woodpeckers , one of which may be the greatblack woodpecker (P i ous ma r tius) ; this kind , he says , i snot much smaller than a domestic hen , and feeds on antsand A certain tame bird , he says , of this kindwas known to place an almond in a chink in wood

,and then

break it at the third Stroke of its bill , in order to get at thek e rn e l . ’r 1

l

Aristotle ’ s statements about the cuckoo are of much

The Bi rds, 202—22 .

1, H. A . ix. 0 . 12 , s . 3 .

I Ibid. vi . 0 . 1 , S . 3 . I bi d . ii . c . 8 , s . 2 ; P . A . iv. o. 12 , 695a .

I bi d . i i . c . 8 , s . 2 . Ibi d. ix. c . 10, s . 2 .

Ibid . H Ibid.

248 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

interest . He argues Strongly against the opinion , which , hesays

,was held by some

,that thi s bird was a kind of hawk?“

The cuckoo (Ke kkya ) , he says , does not make a nest , butlays one or sometimes two eggs in the nest of some otherbird

,which hatches out and brings up its foster youn g l

He mentions the following foster-parents z— Hype la i s (thehedge-sparrow , apparent ly) , Ke rydes (the Skylark) , Chlor i s(the gr e en fin ch , probably) , and Phaps, which seems to besome kind of pigeon .

The hedge-sparrow i s commonly and the Skylark occas ion a lly a foster-parent to the young of the cuckoo . Recordsof cuckoo ’ s eggs being deposited in the nests of the greenfin ch and the wood pigeon have also been made

,according

to Sharpe and Dresser . 1Aristotle says that the cuckoo , when depositing its egg ,

devours the eggs of the foster-mother . § This seems to bethe only passage in which he expresses hi s own opinion onthe fate of the eggs or young of the foster-mother . He alsorecords the Opinions of others on this subject . These opinionswere : (1) that the young cuckoo ej ects the young of thefoster-parents (2) that the foster-mother k i lls i ts own young ;(3) that the old cuckoo r e-visi ts the nest and k ills the youngof the foster-parents ; (4) that the young cuckoo causes thedeath of the other young Ones by appropriating al l the food ,and , (5) that the young cuckoo itself kills the other youngones .“It i s clear , from (1) above , that , even as far back as the

time of Aristotle,i t was bel ieved that the young cuckoo

ejected the young of the foster-parents . Ari stotle ’ s ownopinion is not altogether incorrect

,for

,according to Sharpe

and Dresser ,“the o ld cuckoo has been said to destroy theeggs of the foster-parents

,when depositing its own egg .

According to the same authorit ies,the old cuckoo has been

known to revi sit the nest and throw out the young of thefoster-parents . This agrees with the ancient Opinion (3)given above .

It i s generally believed that the habit of cuckoos of entrusting the care of their eggs and young to other birds i slargely due to the short period of their stay in the breedingarea not allowing them to hatch out and r ear a sufficient

H. A . vi . 0 . 7 . j Ibid . vi c . 7 , ss. 2 an d 3 , ix. 0 . 20, S . 1 .

I B irds ofEur ope , 1871—81 , vol 5 . Se ction on Cuculus ca n orus .

H. A . vi . 0 . 7 , S . 2 . I bid . 1x. c . 20, SS. 1 an d 2.

Op . ci t .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

250 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

CHAPTER XVIII .

ARISTOTLE’

S ENAIMA , OR ANIMALS WITH

BLOOD (con tinued) .

THE best-defin ed group of Ari stotle ’ s En a ima i s hi sIfe te or Ke tede . He says that they are truly viviparous ,that they have mammae and furnish mi lk , and that they havelungs and a blowhole?“The fish-l ike forms of these an imals ,and their habit of coming to the surface of the sea to spoutwere known to him,

‘i but he states erroneously that they

turn O1I their backs to take their prey , because their mouths ,l ike those of hi s Sela ehe , are on their ventral side s iBy his researches on his Ke te or Ke tede , Aristotle

achieved an important resu lt , for he c learly di stinguishedthem from fishes and from other viviparous animals . Theword Ke te had been used by Homer , Arr ian , and otherwriters to denote very large aquat ic animals

,but Ari stotle

clearly uses i t and also Ketode to denote a distinct group .

He fully deserves the prai se accorded by Sir Ri chard Owen ,who says The apodal Vivipa ra , which form the thirdof Aristot le ’ s more comprehensive groups

,embraces the

Katode , now called Ceta cea , and affords , by its position andco-ordinates in the great phi losopher ’ s zoological system ,

one of the most striking examp les of hi s sagacity and r e

The Ke te or Ke tede mentioned by Aristotle a re Delphis ,Pha la i n a , Mysti ke te s, and Pheka in a . In the numerouspassages relating to De lphi s, or the dolphin , he refers part icular ly to its well-known carnivorous habits , sportiveness ,swiftness

,and attentiveness to its young . He says also that

,

when it comes to the sur face , i t squeaks and makes a murmuring noise .“The latter par t of thi s statement is correct ,for i t i s known that the dolphin makes a murmuring noise .

H. A . i . c . 4 , S. 1 , iii . c . 16 , s . l .

IH. A . viii . c . 2 , s. 3 ; P . A . iv. 0 . 13 , 697a ; De Respi r . c . 12 , 4766.H. A . vii i . c . 4 , s . 4 .

Cla ssific. a n d Geegr . Di str i b. of the Mamma lia , et a , 1859, p. 3 .

HH. A . iv. c . 9 , s . 4 .

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 25 1

Aristotle says that the blowhole of De lphi s is 7 00 vai’rov,

or through its back?“It is practically certain that he isreferring to the dolphin , although its blowhole i s as nearlyas possible on the same transverse periphery as its eyes .In other passages , he states correctly that its blowhole i s infront of its b ra in nL

According to Aristotle , the dolphin brings forth oneyoung one , or Sometimes two , always in the summer season ,the period of gestation being ten months he also says thatdolphins have been known to live from twenty-five to thirtyyears fishermen having ascertained this by cutting the dol

ph in s tails and then allowing them to escapa iThese are interesting statements . About the ages of

dolphins I have no information . With respect to its breeding habits

,i t is well known that the common dolphin brings

forth one young one at a birth . I cannot find a clear statement about the period of gestation of the common dolphin ,but M i llais states , on the authority of Nansen and Guldb e rg ,that the period for the white-Sided dolphin is ten months ,and that the young one is born before or about m idsummer . §It is difficult to identify Aristotle ’ s Pha la in a , for he does

not give any information about its Size or geographicaldistribution

,and

,apart from information which shows that

it i s a cetacean,merely states that its blowhole i s in its

forehead , and that it usually brings forth two young ones ,but sometimes only one .“It m ight seem to be reasonable to assume that Aristotle

’ sPha la in a i s a whale , such as B a la n eptera musculus, thecommon or Mediterranean rorqual , which often bringsforth two young ones at a birth . It i s more probable ,however

,that the Pha la in a i s one of the larger dolphins ,

e .g . ,the killer

, Risso’

s grampus , or the b la ckfish , for therorqual i s a whalebone whale , and Aristotle seems to useanother name

, Mystike tes, for a whale of this kind . In theonly passage in which he refers to Mystike te s, he statesclearly that it has no teeth in its mouth , but hairs likeboars ’ bristles .“The P ha la in a i graphically described by Ar r ian and

Strabo, and the Ba llcen a of Pliny , were undoubtedly large

H. A . i . c . 4 , s . 1 .

I P . A . iv. 0. 13 , 697a ; De Respi r . o. 12 , 4766.

I H. A . vi . c . 11 , SS. 1 an d 2 .

252 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA ,

whales , those described by Ar r ian , in particular , being thewhales seen during the voyage of Ne ar chus from the Industo the Persian Gulf . Two years elapsed between the timeof that voyage and the death of Ari stotle

,but there i s

nothing to Show that he knew anything of the whales seenby Ne a r chus .

Aristotle ’ s Pheka in a i s the porpoise (Pheca n a commun i s) ,for he says that i t i s smaller than the dolphin

,but relatively

wider across the back ; he also says that it i s l ike a smal ldolphin , and that some considered it to be a kind of dolphin?“The viviparous animals with feet form a group which

corresponds with the Mammal ia,other than the Cetacea .

Their chief characteri stics are,according to Ari stotle

,that

they are truly viviparous,that they have hairs

,that they

have mammae and furnish milk,and that they not only have

lungs , but also an epiglot t is .

’r

The number of species referred to by Ari stot le cannot bedetermined . Not less than sixty-six names are mentionedby h im , but i t i s certain that he sometimes appl ies morethan one name to one and the same animal

, e .g . ,he calls

the beaver by the names L a ta a: and E a ste r , and , possibly ,Sa tyr ion and Sa ther i en also . It i s also certain that some ofthe names he employs refer to more than one Species or evengenus of animals , e .g .

,his Kame le s includes both Camel/us

dr emeda r ius and C . ba c tr i a n us,his Kebos includes more

than one genus of monkeys,and his Nyk ter i s more than

one genus of bats .Among his viviparous animals with feet

,the Non -Am

pheden ta i s a fairly well-defin ed group , and corresponds ,as far as it goes , with the Rumin a n tia of modern cla ssifi

cations . Their dist inguishing feature,according to Ari stotle ,

i s the absence of front teeth in the upper jaws,but he

erroneously included the camel,which has inci sors in the

upper jaws , as explained in Chapter x . The chief anima lsincluded by Ari stotle among the Ne n -Ampheden ta seem tobe the following —oxen of various kinds (Ta ur es , Beus)bison (Bon a sse s) sheep of various kinds (Oi s, Kr i e s, P r e6a ten ) ; goats of various k inds (Tr a ge s , A i zc , Chima i r a ) ;oryx (Oryx) deer of various kinds (E laphes, P rom) nilgai(Hippe laphes) came l (Kameles) ; gaz elle (Derka s) , andthe Pa rdi eu .

H. A . vi . 0 . 11 , s . 1 .

I.

H. A . i . c . 4 , s . 1 , i ii . c . 10, s . 1, iii . c . 16 , S . 1 ; G . A . 11. c . 4 , 7376 ;P . A . Iii . c . 3 , e64b .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

254 ARISTOTLE’

S ENAIMA,

one of the first,i f not the first , to give a rel iable description

of the gnu . Cuvier attempted to identify the Hippe lapheswith the sambhur or black rusa of Bengal , called by himCervus Ar i stote li s?

“Probably this animal was unknown to Ari stot le , and , in

other respects , the identification i s unsati sfactory , e .g .,

Aristotle says that the horns of Hippe laphe s are l ike thoseof De rka s . Now , the horns of De r ka s, or the gaz elle ,are unbranched , but the sambhur has branched horns .Aga in , the erect il e ridges of hair , on the th re a ts of the fewmale sambhurs I have been able to inspect , wer e not veryconspicuous .W iegman n

’

s suggestion that Hippe laphes i s the ni lga i(An ti lope pi c ta , Pa lla s)

’r seems to give the best identification .

The ni lgai,called by sportsmen the blue bull , has a mane ,

and a very conspicuous tuft of black hair on its throat . Itshorns are similar in colour , Si ze , and genera l form to thoseof many gazelles . On closer comparison , the resemblancefails

,for the horns of the ni lgai are fairly smooth

,and their

basal parts are nearly triangular in cross-section,whi le the

horns of the gaz el le are more or less oval in cross-sect ion,

and are corrugated transversely . However , Ari stotle’ s com

parison,i f not taken too strictly , applies to these animals .

Further , the female nilgai , l ike the female Hippe laphes, i shornless .

F inally , the nilga i occurs chiefly in central and northernIndia , i ts habitat extending towards , though , apparently , notincluding , Ar a chosia , where the Hippelaphes was found .

The only information given by Aristotle about De rka s i sthat its horns and those of Hippe laphe s are simi lar , i andthat i t was the smallest horned animal with which he wasacqua inted . §

Ari stot le ’s De rka s, l ik e the De rka s of Xenophon andZElian ,

was a gaz elle . Some gazelles , e .g . , the Arabiangaz elle and the Dorcas gaz elle , are small , but horned animalsmuch smaller than these are now known , such as , forinstance , the royal antelope (N ee tr a gus pygma us) , of the GoldCoast

,which i s about ten inches high at the shoulders .

Th e well-known bel ief in the existence of a unicorn i svery ancient and widespread . The Kyl in of China , Ari stotle

’ sOrya ,

and so called “Indian ass ,” to be referred to again

Le Régn . An im. 1836—7 , volume on Mamma ls ,"

p. 308 .

I Observ. Zool. Cr i ti c . 1826 , p. 26 . I H. A . 11. c . 2 , s . 4 .

P . A . i ii . c . 2 , 6636 .

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD . 255

later , and the mythical unicorn Shown on coats-of-arms , arerepresentative of such an animal . The Gryce , accordin g toAristotle

,h as a single horn in the middle of its head , and is

cloven-footed?“Pliny , probably referring to the sameanimal , says that its hair i s directed towards its head .

Jr

It i s probable that the Oryze is the Beisa (Orya: bei sa ) , orthe sabre-horned antelope (O . leuce rya ) . That Aristotle saweither of these animals i s unlikely , and he probably relied ondescription s which brought out in relief the remarkable onehorn ed appearance of these an imals , when seen sideways .Sun deva ll says that the Oryze i s sometimes shown onEgyptian sculptures and paintin gs , so that the two hornsappear as ona i I have me t with but small success in fin dingsuch representations . In the Meme i rs of the Ar cha e legi ca lSurvey ofEgyp t , 1893—1900, there are several represen tationsof on e -horned animals , a few of which seem to be Oryxes,but these animals are more commonly shown with two

horns . A very good representation of Oryxes, with bothhorns Shown , may be seen , e .g . ,

in the paintin g called TheFarmyard Feeding theIt may be mentioned that Oppian of Syria gives a long

and in terestin g description of the Orya .“On the whole , hisdescription applies best to Orya: leucoryx .

In addition to information about the longevity , food ,diseases

,and mode of life of camels , Aristotle says that the

Arabian camel brings forth but one foal at a birth , an d thatthe period of gestation is twelve months .“The first statement is quite correct

,and the secon d very nearly so , the

period of gestation bein g a l ittle more than twelve months .In another passage

,he states more erroneously that the

period of gestation is ten months?“Aristotle says that the Pa rdieu or Hippa rdi en i s a

cloven-footed wild animal havin g a mane and horn s d’r InSchneider ’ s Greek text , the an imal i s called Pa rdi eu , but ,in the texts of Syllburg , Scaliger , and Camus , i t i s calledHippa rdi en . It may be the giraffe , as Pallas , Sun deva ll ,and others believed

,for Aristotle may have been acquain ted

with it,by report at least

,although it was not well known

H. A . 11 . c . 2 , S . 9 ; P . A . i ii . c . 2 , 663a .

I Na t . Hi s t . vi ii . 79 .

I Di e Th ier a r ten des Ar i stote les , 1863 , p. 64 .

B en i Ha sa n , par t 1 , pla t e xxvi i . Pub lished by the Arch . SurveyofEgypt , Lon don , 1893 .

Cyn ege ti ca , ii . 445—88. H. A . v . c . 12 , s . 13 .

Ibi d. vi . 0 . 25 , S . 1 . H Ib id . i i . 0 . 2 , s 3 .

256 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

to the Ancients . Pl iny descr ibes i t under the names Na bun

and Came lopa rda li s , and says that i t was first seen at Romeduring Caesar ’ s dictatorship?“The Mon ycha described by Aristot le are the horse

(Hippos) , the ass (On e s) , the wi ld ass (On e s a gr i e s) , the socal led Indian ass (On es In dike s) , the Syrian half-ass (Hemien e s) , the mule (Oreus) , the hinny (Hin n e s) , the ginny

(Gin n e s) , and the pigs of I llyria and Pae onia , in whichsyndactyl ism occurred , as explained already in Chapter x .

The so called Indian ass was , according to Ari stotle ,sol id-footed and one-horned , and the only animal with sol idhoofs and also a wel l-formed a straga lusn

L This animal,the

description of which was probably taken from Ctesias,was

a creature of the imagination . Some antelopes,when seen

sideways,appear to have one horn

,and this was probably

the basis of reports about the Indian ass,communicated to

Ctesias by visitors from India to the Persian Court,where he

resided . It i s unlikely that the Indian ass was an Indianrhinoceros

,as some have suggested . Not only does a

rhinoceros answer very imperfectly to the descriptions,based

on Ctesias , of the Indian ass , but i t i s probable that Ctesiasdid not know anything of rhinoceroses , for i t seems , fromwhat E l ian says , that a rhinoceros was first reported , fromE thiopia , by Agatharchides , who l ived about 100.

The horse and other equine animals mentioned aboveform one of Ari stot le ’ s best-defin ed groups

,the Lophour a ,

distinguished by having a smal l cranium but long jaws,and

a mane and ta i l of long flowing hair . §Aristotle gives a great deal of information about these

animals,but much of it i s of l ittle interest . There are ,

however,in addition to anatomical information already dealt

with,chiefly in Chapter x . , many passages relat ing to the

steril ity and fertil ity of equine hybrids . The Gi n n es, hesays

,i s the offspring of a mule and a mare

,but no female

mule has been known to have offspring .“In G. A . i i . c . 7 ,

7466, he goes further than this , and says that mules (Or ei s)are incapable of generat ing , either among themselves or withother animals

,and adds that the whole group of Hemi en e i

i s Sterile . The word Hemi en e i in this passage seems tobe used for mules and l ike hybrids generally

,for he dis

t in ctly asserts“that the Hemi en e i of Syria are fertile .

Na t . Hi st . vii i . 27 . I H. A . 11. c . 2 , s. 9 .

I De Na t . An im . v. 27 . H. A . i . c . 6 , s . 3 , i . c . 13 , s . 3 .

I bid. vi . 0 . 24 , S . 1 . Ibid . 1. c . 6 , s. 3 , vi . 0. 24 , s. 1 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

258 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

The statements made by Aristot le about some of theseanimals w i ll be considered .

Aristotle ’ s Ga le and Ik ti s are closely related , for he Saysthat Ik ti s i s l ike Ga le in the thickness of its fur , in itsappearance

,in the whiteness of i ts under parts , and in its

cunning disposition ; he also says that i t i s easily tamed ,very fond of honey , i s about as large as a small Maltese dog ,and that it eats birds l ike a cat?“He also says that theGa le ki lls birds by lacerat ing their throats , just as a wolfk i lls sheep , and that it attacks snak es , especially thosewhich

,l ike itself , hunt mica i

There are many references in the ancient writers, e .g . ,

Aristophanes , from which it i s c lear that Ga le was a domesticanimal . Prof . Rolleston concluded that Ga le was the beechmarten (Muste la fe in a ) , and Ik ti s the pine marten (M.

ma r tes) . 1 The chief obj ect of his paper i s to Show that theGa le performed for the ancient Greeks the same duties asare performed for us by the domestic cat , and thi s object i seffected so successfully as to leave no doubt in the mind ofa reader of the paper . Prof . Rolleston ’ s identification ofIkti s i s less sati sfactory .

Getti , in I !ua dr . di Sa rdegn a , 1774 , p . 179 , andSun deva ll , in Di e Thi er a r ten des Ar istote les, 1863 , p . 49 ,held that the b occame le or Sardinian weasel (M . boccame le) ,discovered by Ce tt i , about the year 1 770, was Ari stotle

’ sIk ti s . It ki lls birds , mice , and other small animals , and i ssaid to be easi ly tamed . The specimens of this animalwhich I have seen at the Natural Hi story Museum

, SouthKensington

,are larger than the common weasel and darker

in colour . Respecting Ari stot le ’ s statement that Ik tis i s fondof honey

,i t i s said that the name b occame le was given

to the Sardinian weasel because of its fondness for honey ,but conclusive evidence about this i s n ot readi ly obtainable .

Mr . G . C . Zervos , of Ca lymn os, informs me that he does notknow of any weasel of the Greek area notor iously fond ofhoney .

In conclusion , the b occame le and the beech marten seemto furnish the best identifications of I k ti s and Ga le , r e spect ive ly . According to Mr . G . C . Zervos , modern Greeksregard Ga le as the cat of the ancient Greeks , and Ik ii s

H. A . ix. 0 . 7 , s . 5 . I Ibi d . ix. c . 7 , s . 4 .

I On th e Dome st ic Ca ts, F e li s domes ti ca a n d Muste la fo in a , of

An cien t an d Mode rn Times ,”S ci en ce Paper s , et a , 1884 , 2 vols . , Pape r 28 .

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 259

as the same animal as the modern Greek Nyphi tsa , whichis a weasel or ferret .Aristotle credits the l ion with much magnanimity and

courage he says,however, that there are two kinds of l ions ,

that one of these i s not so courageous as the other , and thatan infuriated boar has been known to put a l ion to flight?“L ike several modern writers , he does not seem to havebelieved that the lion was undoubtedly bold and fierce .

He asserts that , in his time , l ions were found in Europe ,but only in the territory between the rivers Achelous andNessuS .

‘r Herodotus also mentions the existence of l ions

between the Achelous and Ne ssus . I There are several otherpassages in the ancient authors tending to show that lionsl ived in southern Europe in historic times , but it i s notknown when they became extinct there .The Ma r ti che ra , called Ma n ti chora in some texts

,i s

described by Aristotle on the authority of Ctesias . Accordingto this description

,i t was a wild , fleet animal l iving in India

and eating human flesh ; it had feet like those of a l ion , andwas as large as that animal its body was red , and its eyeswere blue ; its tail was like that of a scorpion and bristledwith spines ; and , in each jaw , there were three rows ofteeth . §According to E l ian , Ctesias says that he once saw a

Ma r ti cher a which had been sent from India as a present tothe King of Persia .“It may be added , in justice to E l ian ,that he properly questions whether Ctesias was a fitting witness to things of this kind . The Ma r ti che ra was largely acreature of the imagination . Sun deva ll fancied he saw,

inCtesias ’ description , the outlines of some fantastic and badlyexecuted image or painting , representing a strange being ofHindu mythology .“Gesner describes it in a passagebetween his description of the hymn a and the porcupine ,and preferred to believe that it was not a tiger?“Pausaniasbelieved that it was a t ige r ,H and it i s probable that thedescription , given by Ctesias , i s a distorted account of aBen gal tiger , an animal regarded with almost superstitiousdread by the Hindus .The Enydr is or otter , according to Aristotle , obtains its

I:H. A . ix. c . 31, s . 3 . I Ibid. vi . 0. 28, S . 1 , vii i . c . 27 , s. 6 .

vii . 126 . H. A . i i . 0 . 3 , s . 10.

De Na t . An im. iv. 21 .

260 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

food in or about ponds and rivers , and it also bites men and ,from information given to him , does not let go unti l i t hearsthe crunching of the bone?“Pl iny , in a passage taken tosome extent from Aristot le , seems to refer , by the nameLutr a ,

to the same animal as Aristotle ’ s En ydr i s t It shouldbe mentioned , however , that Pl iny , when repeating the partof Aristotle ’ s statement about the hard biting , applies i t notto Lutr a but to the beaver . The statement would apply toeither

,for both the beaver and the otter bite very hard .

Among wi ld animal s which obtain their food in or aboutlakes and rivers Aristotle mentions La ta a

,which goes out

by night and cuts the aspens with its strong teeth he alsosays that its body i s broader than that of En ydr i s, and thatits hair i s harsh , being intermediate between that of a deerand that of a seal . 1 This i s the only important passage ,mentioning La tua , which I can find , but i t contains sufficientinformation to Show that , probably , the beaver i s meant .The reference to the aspens i s important

,for the bark of

these trees i s sa id to be the favourite food of the beaver .The elephant i s referred to by Ari stotle in many passages

,

some of which have been discussed in Chapters x . ,xi . , and

xii i . The question of the period of gestation , in the case ofthe elephant

,does not seem to have been settled in Aristotle ’ s

time,for he says that , according to some people , i t i s eighteen

months,but

,according to others

,i t i s as much as three

years . § Ari stot le does not give his own view ,but the fir st

mentioned estimate i s substantially true,the normal period

for the Indian elephant being nineteen months .Aristotle says that the elephant throws over or ti lts palm

trees with its forehead , and then tramples upon them andthrows them down ,“but , in another passage , he says that i tuproots trees by means of its trunk .“By means of theirtrunks elephants can uproot small trees

,but several writers ,

l ike Sir J . Emerson Tennent and Mr . G . P . Sanderson ,agree that elephants are by no means in the habit of tryingtheir strength in this way . The trunk of an elephant i svery sensit ive

,and it i s wel l known how careful ly the animal

usually protects it from injury . The African elephant“Ali ce once met with an accident involving the tearing

away of the extremity of h er trunk and the la te Supe r intendent of the London Zoological Gardens , Mr . A . D .

H. A . viii . c . 7 , s. 5 . I Na t . Hi st . vi ii. 47 .

I H. A . vii i . c . 7 , s . 5 . I bid. vi . c . 25 , S . 2 .

bi d. ix. 0 . 2 , s. 11 . Ibid . i i . 0 . 1 , s. 2 .

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

262 ARISTOTLE ’

S ENAIMA,

their work s seem to Show that these apes were not knownto them . The P i theke s, in E sop

’ s fable ,“The Pi thekes and

the Dolphin , was evidently a monkey , Ar r ian’

s beautifulIndian P i theke i ,“E lian ’ s Indian P i thekes, with a long tail ,

‘i

the clever P i thekes which he Once saw holding the reinsand , at the same time , using a whip and driving , 1 and theP i theke i which were pursued by cats and forced to ascendtrees from which they hung down by means of their hands , §were monkeys . F inal ly , Galen , who had great difficulty inObtaining human bodies for dissection

,often dissected a

P i theke s instead , and it i s clear from his wr it ings that thi swas a Barbary ape .

This account of Aristotle ’ s investigat ions of animals wil lconclude with a Shor t statement of hi s views on Man .

Man i s , for him ,always 653015 a l iving being , an animal ,

but he i s the highest representat ive of the whole series ofl iving beings . He i s di stinguished from other animals byhaving a perception of good and evi l

,justice and injustice ,

and the l ike,“and by his capabi li ty of del iberating and of r e

call ing anything to mind .“Many an ima lS,Ar istot le says , areable to remember , but Man alone i s capable of reminiscence ,this involving a process of syllogistic reasoning?” Ari stotlei s very severe in hi s judgment on some types of men , for hesays that those who are not amenable to law and justice areamong the worst , and , i f devoid of virtue , are the mostunholy , savage , and gluttonous animals , whi le those who ar ehighly cultured a re the best and n ob le st .

’r1L

This discussion ofAr istotle ’

sre sear ches in Natural Scienceshows how vast was the field of knowledge which he a t

tempted to traver se . It i s not pretended that the discussionis comprehensive . Much that Ari stotle included in hi svoluminous wr i t ings has been omitted . That which hasbeen included has been selected with a view to showingfairly the defects of Aristotle ’ s work as well as it s excellences . Care has been taken to Show that his writingsconta in statements which he could never have attemptedto verify , and that he sometimes gave an exp lanation ofphenomena which was based on false data , obtained by

Hi st . In di ca , c . 15 . I De Na t . An im. xvn . 39 .

I I b id . v. 26 . Ibid . v. 7 .

Poli t ics, i . c . 1 , ss. 10-11. H. A . i . c . l , S . 15 .

De Memor i a , ct c . , c . 2 . HPoli ti cs, i . c . l , S . 13 .

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 263

abstract reasoning , and not from facts previously ascertained .

On the other hand , prominence has been given to hisexcellent method of inquiry , his interesting views on thephenomena of light

,colour , and heat , his records of comets ,

earthquakes,volcanic eruptions

,and relative changes in the

distribution of land and sea , his views on the constitutionofmatter , his attempt to form a classification of animals ,his advice on the importance of dissection , the instances inwhich he appears to have anticipated modern discoveries ,an d his excellen t work in anatomy , embryology , and zoology .

If the reader is satisfied that an impartial attempt hasbeen made to set out the real nature and value of Aristotle ’ swork in Natural Science , this book will have achieved itsobject .

INDEX .

En glish n ame s of a n ima ls a r e followed, in most ca ses , b y th e

Ar istotelia n n ame s appa r en tly e quiva le n t , e .g . Alpin e swi ft (Apeus) .Sepa r a t e e n tr ie s a r e a lso ma de for Ar istotelia n n ame s of a n ima ls of

specia l in ter est , e .g . A spa la x, G la n i s , Ska r os.

Ab sorption ofligh t , 64—5

A cha ia , e a r th quak e s in , 44 , 59

Ach e lous, r iver , 48 , 235 , 259E ge an Se a , 54

E g e cepha le s, 157

E gon , r ive r , 5 6

E gospotamos , 5 1

E li an , 8 , 10, 134 , 231 , 236,243 , 254 , 256 , 259 , 262

E olia n I slan ds, 59 , 60

E sop, 186 , 243 , 262

E the r , 29, 30, 31 , 43 , 62, 88

E thiopia , 101 , 241 , 25 6

Aga ssi z , L . , 82 , 208 , 211 ,234 , 235

Air-b ladde r offish e s, 161

Air , colour of, 67 ; n on e in wa ter ,a ccordin g to A. , 81 , 148 ; we igh t

of, 60

Ai thyi a , 242—4

Aka lepha i (coelen ter a t es) , 84 , 215 ,2 17

Alb er tus Magnus, 186 , 207Alb in os , 135

Alchemy , 50, 91Alcmaeon , 14 , 173 , 183

Aldrova n di , 186 , 207 , 221, 236 , 237Alexa n der th e Gr e a t , 7—9 , 11 , 61Alh a zen , 66

Alimen ta ry ca n a l , 24 , 25 , 102 , 103,130, 158—164, 169 , 171 ,203 , 206

Allaman d , 253

Alla n tois an d i ts b lood-ve ssels, 205-7A lloys , 91

Alpin e Swift (Ape n s) , 245Amia , 156 , 233-4Amn ion , 205-7

Amphib ia n s , 75 , 103 , 106 , 111 , 112 ,135 , 154 , 156

—7 , 165 , 166 , 170,214

,229—30, 234 , 236 , 237 ,

240—1

Amphodon ta ,128 , 208

An a ima , 127 , 179 , 215—28

An akla sis (of ligh t ) , 34 , 64An a logy (a n a log i a ) , 135 , 209—11An axagor a s , 14 , 33 , 34 , 43, 95 , 97 ,148 , 198

An axima n der , 31, 32

An aximen e s , 43

An epa lla k ta , 128 , 208

An ge l-fish (Rhi n e) , 152-3 , 232

An gor a goa t s , 133, 253

An homoeomer ia , 19 , 90, 92 , 93 , 94,118—187 , 196

An ima l h e a t , 70, 74 , 75 , 158

mot ion , 188—94

An t e lopes, 115—6 , 132 , 254—6

An thr ak eutic sub sta n ces , 72An thr opoid apes , 261 , 262

An t icipa t ion ofmodern discove ri e s ,a lleg ed, 5 , 62

—3 , 128 , 168—9 , 197-8 ,

201—2 , 231 , 236 , 263

An tipa ter , 7—8 , 10

Aor ta , 6 , 102 , 109, 110, 113 , 125 ,138—41 , 143 , 145—7 , 165 , 194

Aphide s, 201

Aplysi a , 216

Aquin a s, Thoma s , 6

Arab ia , 100, 241 , 249

Arab s a n d A .

’

s wr it in gs , 1

Ara clmoid membr a n e , 178Ara chosia , 253—4

Araxe s, r iver , 5 6

Ar chimede s , 6 5

Arcyn ian moun ta in s, 56

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

266 INDEX .

Camus, 191 , 255Caprifica tion , 98

Ca r cha r ode n ta , 128 , 208

Carp (Kypr i n e s) , 152 , 182 , 201 ,233 , 235

Ca r ti lage ,-8 , 118 , 121

—2 , 183 ,203

Ca r t ilag in ous fish es , 121 , 122 , 152—3 ,

162 , 167 , 170, 171 , 193 , 213—4,

229—33

Ca spi a n , th e , 57—8

Ca ssa n der , 8

Ca t egory , 6

Ca ts (A i leur e s) , 257—8 , 2 62Cauca sus, 56—7Cavolin i , P . , 201

Celesti a l & c . , ph en omen a , 28—60

Cen t ipede s, 127 , 164 , 221

Cepha lopods, 5 , 103 , 106 , 127 ,138 , 139, 15 3, 162 , 163, 168

—7 1 ,174 , 179 , 182 , 187 , 189 , 193 , 194 ,

Cer eb e llum, 174-5 , 178

Ce ta ce a n s , 6 , 106—7 , 15 5 , 167 , 171 ,183 , 208—9, 213—4 , 250

—2 , 262

Ge tt i , F . , 258

Ch a b rol , Coun t de , 236Ch affin ch (Sp i c a ) , 246 , 247Ch a la z ae , 204Cha lcis , 9 , 15 5Chamae le on s 102,106 , 121 , 136 , 157 , 175 , 181 , 214 ,238 , 239

Chamb er s of the h ea r t , 137 , 139—41 ,149, 150

Cha n n e , 201 , 233—4

Chaon ia , sa lt wa t er s of, 55Ch ee se , 116

Ch emica l composi tion , 12 , 91

Ch icke n , deve lopmen t of th e , 102 ,203—7

Chin ese , the ir views on the b loodve sse ls, 144-5

Chlor i s , 99 , 248

Choa spe s , r iver , 5 6

Chordee ten di n ece , 137Chr eme tes , r iver , 56

Chur ch a n d the Ar istotelia n s , th e , 1Chrysa lide s , 199

—200

Cicada s (Te ttix , A che ta , Te ttigen ion ) , 222—3

Cicero , 186 , 231Cla ssifica tion ofa n ima ls , 208-15 , 263Cloth e s moth s (S es) , 223Clouds, 43 , 45

Dalma tian pups, 134

Dan t e , 2

Da n ub e , 56

Da rt sa cs ofmolluscs , 164, 169Da rwin , C 132 , 166 , 237

Da t e pa lm , 98, 100—1

Day or May-fl ies (Ephemer en ) ,

221 , 223

De ad Se a , 54—5

De er (E laphe s , P rom) , 106, 115-7 ,126-8 , 131-2 , 155 , 252-3 , 260

De lphys , 170

Delug es , 48

Democri tus, 14 , 33-4 , 43 , 61, 63, 80,92 , 95 , 97 , 148 , 198

Der Miihle , Von , 245

De smar est , 253

Coagula t ion ofblood, 110, 112—5 of Deve lopmen t , gen era t ion a n d, 102,milk , 116-7 136 , 169 , 186 , 195

-207 , 2 12-13

Coelen te r a tes (Aka lepha i , Kn i da i ) ,79 , 84 , 215 , 217

Cwli a , see Alimen ta ry ca n a l .Cold, n a tur e of, 70—1 , 74

Cold Rive r , 134

Coleopter a , 6

Colour , ph en omen a of, 34—8, 41—2 ,61 , 66—70, 184 , 263

Colours of a n ima ls, 131 , 134—5 , 239

Columbus , 6Come ts , 24 , 28, 32

—4 , 50—1 , 59, 263

Compa ss ,”A .

’

s , 5 2

Compoun ds of sub stan ce s, 91—2Con g er s (Gon g r os) , 24—5 , 106 , 152 ,156 , 181 , 193 , 233

Con sti tution ofma t te r , 88—92 , 263

Corin th , 53

Crab s (Ka r kin os , Ma i a , Hippen s) ,106 , 130, 225-6

Cra n e s (Ger e n e s) , 58 , 69 , 135Cra n ium a n d cra n ial b on es , 111 ,118—20

Crayfish (Asta kos) , 139 , 153 , 224 ,

Crocodile (Kr e kode i los) , 105 , 112,120—1 , 157 , 167—8 , 181 , 238

Crop, the , 25 , 158, 160—4 , 169

Cr ows (Kor e n e) , 161Crusta ce a n s, 82 , 83 , 106 , 127 , 130,138—9 , 153 , 163 , 169—71 , 182 , 187 ,189 , 193 , 215 , 221 , 224

- 6

Cte sia s , 256 , 259

Cuckoos (Ke kkyac) , 13 , 131 , 247-9Cut tle-b on e , 127, 210, 226

Cuvier , 14—5 , 85 , 162 , 172, 184 , 201,208—9 , 229, 233

-7 , 240, 254

Cypr i s , 201

INDEX.

Dew, 43

Diapha n ous, the , 62, 66-8 , 182184—5

Diaphragm, the , 140, 143, 144, 146158—9

Dig estion , 75 , 96 , 153 , 158 , 220Diog en e s of Apollon ia , 97 , 136 , 144 ,148 , 173

Diog en es La e r tius, 9—10Dion ysius, 242—3Diptera , 6Discover ies made over a n d over

a ga in , 6

Dissection s, A .

’

s, 22 , 102—6 , 136—9 ,167 , 171 , 203 , 263

Di thur a (biva lves) , 218Divin a tion , 125Dob son , G . E . , 185Dogfish es (Ga lee eide) , 106 , 152, 154230-1

Dog s (Kue n ) , 102 , 103 , 112 , 116 ,120, 128—31 , 134 , 156 , 159—60257—8 , 261

Dolphin s (De lphi s) , 106—7 , 155 , 167171 , 183 , 250-2 , 262

Don , r iver , 48 , 56D e r ka s, 252-4Dormice (E le ie s) , 257Doves (Trygon ) , 106 , 160, 244Dr epa n i s , 245

—6

Dr e sser , H. E . , 244 , 245 , 247—8Duck s (Ne t ta , B e ska s) , 106, 111,193 , 242 , 243

Dudgeon , Dr . J 145Dudley , popular b elie f n ear , 261Dura ma t er , 178

Ear th , i ts posi tion in the Kosmos,

a n d i ts form a n d siz e , 32 , 88Ea r thquak es , 24, 28, 43 , 44 , 45 , 4859 , 60, 263

Echin oderms , 103, 106, 127 , 130,164 , 171 , 194 , 215 , 217 , 219 -20

Echoe s , 77-8Eclipses , 32 , 63Educa tion a l va lue of hearin g a n dsigh t , 184

Eels (En che lus) , 24 , 82 , 106 , 152 ,156 , 162 , 188 , 193 , 198-9 , 233

Egypt , 48 , 58 , 100—1 , 241E ide s , 209, 211—213Elemen ts, A .

’

s , 28—32 , 44 , 72 ,73 , 88-92 , 187

Elephan ts (Elepha s) , 13 , 16 , 106 ,126, 129 , 154-6 , 157 , 160, 167171 , 189 , 190, 257 , 260—1

E lleipsi s, 209—10

267

Empedocles, 46 , 61—3 , 80, 88 ,—l , 198

En ami a , 82 , 83 , 214-5 , 229

—63

En e rgy , 6

En te le chy , 6En thymeme , 6

En toma , 13 , 82—3, 127 , 139 , 148 ,

153 , 154 , 164 , 169, 182 , 187 ,

198—200, 202 , 209 , 213 , 215—6 ,220—4

En tomology , 6

E n ydr i s, 257 , 259—60

Epididymis , 167Epig en e sis, 197

Epig lot tis, 252

Era sistra tus, 105 , 150, 176

E rythr i n e s , 22 , 201 , 233—4

Ery throb la sts , 112

Essen ce , 6Eth ics , e stab lish ed by A . , 5

Eub oea , 9 , 44 , 5 5 , 155

Euclid, 64Eudemus ofRhodes , 8Eus ta ch ia n can a l , the , 183Eva n s, Ve t .-Capt . G . H. , 154, 157

Evolut ion theory of developmen t ,

196 , 197

Exh a la tion s , t err e str ia l, 24,33 , 42—3 , 44 , 45 , 46

—7 , 49 , 50

Eye s , 66 , 69—70, 102 , 104 , 174

- 6 ,

179—80, 185- 6 , 198, 202—4 , 206 ,

238 , 239 , 259

Fab ricius , H 203

Fa culty , 6Fa lklan d Islan ds, white ca ttle of

th e , 132

Fa llin g b odie s , 3 , 24 , 27 , 32Fa llin g s ta rs , 24 , 29, 32

—3

Fa ts , 92 , 94 , 107 , 111 , 114 -5

Fe a ther s , 135 , 147 , 206 , 2 10-1 , 241 ,249

Fe e t ofb irds in fl igh t ,position of, 193

Fib r in a n d“fib r e s , ” 94 , 107—9 , 111 ,113—6 , 146 , 194

Fie ldfa re (Ki chle) , 246Fig tr e es , 98, 100

Fin a l cause , 6Fin e of fish es, 142 , 188, 189 , 193 ,

211, 235—6

Fish e s , 5 , 14, 22 , 24—5 , 75 , 103 ,

121 , 129 , 136 ,—6 ,

158-9 , 161—2 , 165

-7 , 170—1 , 174—5 ,

179 , 181—4 , 188

—9 , 193 , 198—9 , 201 ,

208 , 210—1 , 213

—4 , 229—237

Fish ing-frog (Ba tr a chos) , 106 , 152 ,

153 , 156 , 229 , 230, 231

9

% B

Flesh , 94 , 104 , 107 , 109—11 , 147 , 167 ,

180, 183 , 196 , 202-3

Fligh t , 135 , 188 , 192—3Foe tus , huma n , 104—5 , 165 , 178

Forb e s , Prof. E . , 84—5 , 218 ,Form , 6

Fost er , Sir M. , 151

Fowls , domes tic , 106 , 160, 203—7Fox-b a ts (A lop eaz) , 257Foxe s (A lopex) , 126 , 257Fr a n t z ius , Dr . von , 17 , 137 , 227Fr e e z in g , 43 , 72 , 76Fr iction produc e s h e a t , 30—1 , 70,72—3

Fr ogs (B a tr a chos) , 106 , 135 , 154 ,15 7 , 166 , 214 , 234 , 236 , 240

Fur la n us ofCr e te , 16

Ga le , 126 ,257—8

Ga le n , 104 , 105 , 119 , 151 , 157 , 176 ,186 , 262

Ga l l leo, 2—3 , 24

Ga ll-b la dder , 102 , 155—6 , 233—5

Ga ll-in sec t s , 98Gampson yches , 214 , 241Ga st ric-mi ll of crusta ce an s ,163

Ga stropods , 82 , 130, 163 , 217—8, 228Ga z e lle s (De r ka s) , 132 , 252—4Ge ckos (Aska la be tes) , 238Ge e se (Chen ) , 106 , 111 , 192 , 242Gen er a tion a n d deve lopmen t , 102

136 , 169 , 186 , 195—207 , 212—3

Gen er a t ive orga n s, 122 , 125—6 , 146

16 6—72 , 195 , 198 , 202

Ge n e s , 209—14 , 221 , 229

Geome tr idse , 223

Ge sn er , Con r a d, 4-5 , 85—6 , 186 , 234240, 243 , 245 , 259

Gill , T . , 235

Gills , 25 , 75 , 148 , 149 , 151—3, 182 ,229 , 231 , 235 , 240

Gilt-h ead (Chrysophrys) , 129 , 162193

G ir affe (P a rd ieu) , 189 , 252 , 255—6Gla n i s (P a r a si lu ru s a r i ste te li s) ,106 , 152 , 156 , 233—5 , 240

Goa t s (A i r , Chima i r a , Tr a g e s) ,69 , 116 , 124 , 128 , 132-3 , 183

252—3

Gr a da t ion from in an ima t e ma t ter

to Man , 79 , 80

Gra n t , Dr . R . E . , 85 , 216

S ir A . , 6 , 17Gr a ssi , Prof. , 199Gr a ss-sn ak e s (Hydr e s) , 106 , 138 ,151 , 154 , 156 , 166 , 188 , 241

130,

INDEX .

Gr e a t t i t (Spi a i tes) , 246Gr eb e s (Ke lymbi s) , 242—3Gr e cian tor toise s 237

Gr e en fin che s (Ch lor i s) , 99 , 248Gulls (La r e s, Ai thyi a ) , 69 , 242—4

Hab it , 6

Ha il , 43

Ha ir , 131 , 133—5 , 195 , 202 , 252 ,255—6 , 260

Ha lliday ,"

W. R . , 53—4 , 86

Ha los , 34—5 , 64

Ha n n o , voyag e of, 261

Ha r e s (Da sypous , L a gos) ,115

Ha rvey , \V. , 197 , 204

Hawk s , 157 , 193 , 241 , 248

He a r in g , 21 , 179 , 183—4 , 187

He a r t , th e , 15 , 24 , 26—7 , 75 , 93 ,

102—4 , 112 -3 , 116 , 118 , 125—6 ,136—43 , 147—9 , 150, 15 1 , 154 ,1 64 , 173 , 175—7 , 180, 187 , 194 ,

He a t ph en omen a , 30—1 , 70—7 , 158,263

He ca taeus , 5 5 , 57He ctocotylus , 5 , 168—9Hedg ehogs (E chi n e s) , 167—8 , 257Hedge-spa r rows (Hypola i s) , 248He g e l , 5

He li c i dae , 130, 164, 219

He lle spon t , e a r thqua k e s n ea r , 44

Hemi on e s of Syr ia , 213 . 256-7

Her a cle a Pon tica , 59 , 60He ra cli tus, 23Hermaphroditism, 5 , 22 , 98 , 201 ,234

He rmia s , 7 , 9He rmit cr ab s , 226He rodotus , 14 , 5 5 , 57

—8 , —20,132 , 191 , 238 , 241 , 253 , 257 , 259

He rophilus , 105 , 176

He sychius, 243

Hi la ir e , J. B . Sa in t 19, 191

Hin doo Koosh , 55 , 5 6

Hippa r chus , 57Hippe laphe s , 252—4Hippocr a t e s, 14 , 108—9 , 111 , 113—4 ,

Hippopotamus (Hippos-potami e s) ,

Histology , 107Hoar-frost , 43

Holothour i a , 84

Homer , 135 , 243 , 250

Homoeomeria , 14, 19 , 90—4, 107—17 ,196

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

270 INDEX.

Lyg ian r eg ion , 59, 60 Mixture , A .

’

s views on , 12 , 91—2

Lyn cus, a cid wa t e rs of, 55 Mixture s of coloured lights , 41 , 68—9Lyn xes (Lyn x) , 123

—4 , 257 ofpigmen ts , 41 , 68—9

Mole s (Aspa la x) , 102 , 106 , 179 ,Mwot is , Lak e , 48 , 54, 5 6 185—6 , 257

Ma la k i a , 13 , 162 , 179, 209, 213 , Molluscs, 5 , 127 , 138-9 ,2 15 , 226—8 153 , 162—4 , 168—71 , 174 , 179 , 182 ,

Ma la kostr a ka , 13 , 213 , 215 , 221, 186—7 , 189 , 193-4 , 199, 210, 211 ,224—6 215 , 217-9 , 226—8

Ma lpighi , 107 Mon goose s (I chn eumon ) , 257Mammm, 171—2 , 250, 252 , 261 Mon keys (Ke be s, P i theke s) , 82 ,Mamma ls , 75 ,

—3 , 105 126 , 160, 214 , 252 , 257 , 261-2

8 , 110, 1 12 , 115—8, 120—2 , 124—38 , hfe n e thur a (Un iva lve s) , 218141, 149 , 15 1 , 154

—60, 16 5 Mon ycha , 214 , 238 , 25 6—7

2 , 178 , 180—1 , 183, 189

—92 , 198, Moon , th e , 31—2 , 34—5 , 51

207 , 208 , 213 , 214 , 219 , 250—62 Moth s , 199

—200, 221 , 223 , 238

Man distin guish ed from other a n i Motion , A .

’

s views on , 3 , 24, 27, 32 ,ma ls , 262 88

Ma n ti chor a or Ma r ti chera , 257 , Mule s (Or eus) , 130, 15 5-6 , 256—7259 Mulle ts , g rey (Kestr eus) , 82 , 106 ,

Ma n ti s shr imp (Kr a n gon ) , 226 158 , 162 , 183, 233

Ma r c ellus ofSida , 236 Mulle ts , r ed (Tr i g le) , 106 , 162 232 ,Ma rrow, 92 , 107 , 108 , 111

—2 , 122, 233

126 , 127 , 177 Murae n a (Mur a in a ) , 152 , 156 , 193 ,Ma rs , occulta t ion of, 15 , 51 233

Ma r t ia l , 236—7 Mur ex, 106 , 163—4 , 169 , 217—8

Ma r ten s (Ga le) , 106 , 126 , 168 , 257—8 Myc en ze , physica l ch a n g e s a t , 59Maxim, 6 Myr iapods , 127 , 164 , 221May or day

-fl ies (Ephemer e n ) , 221 , Myti s , 138—9 , 211223

Mean b etwe en extr emes, 6 Na r ke , 230—1

Me cha n ica l mixtures, 91 Na tura l h istory , 6

Mecon , 163—4 , 218 Na tura l Scien ce , A .

’s works on , 11

Medusae , see Je lly-fish e s 12

Memb ra n e s, 107 , 109, 110, 127 , 137, Na tur a l syst em ofcla ssifica tion , 209

143 , 159 , 176—8 , 185 , 204 , 205 , N a u ti le s , 227

206—7 , 220, 222 Ne a r chus , voyag e of, 252

Me rcury , n a tur e of, 71 Ne ce ssary pa r ts of an ima ls , 212

Me sen te ry , th e , 144—5 , 158—9 , 161 Neg roe s , 120, 123

Me ta llic deposit s , 49—50 Ner i tes , 218

Me taphysics, 6 Nerve s , 109, 174—6 , 180, 184, 194

Me t e ors an d me t eor i te s , 33 , 51 Ne st in g fish e s , 5 , 236

Me than a , e rupt ion a t , 60 Neur a , 108—9 , 176

Meye r , J. B . , 225 Newts (Kordyle s) , 136 ,Mice (Mus) , 106 , 126 , 155 , 170, 177 , Nica n or , 9202 , 257

—8 Nigh t in ga le s (E den ) , 246—7Mig ra t ion s ofb irds , 244 Nile , th e , 48, 56—8

Milk , 94 , 107 , 116-7 , 171-2 , 250, 252 Nilga i (Hippe laphe s) , 252 , 254Milky Way , 24 , 28 , 32

—4 Non-ampheden ta , 128 , 214 , 252

Milla is , J. G . , 251 Notochord, 122Millipede s , 127 , 164 , 221 Nutr i t ion ofplan ts, 96 , 98

Miln e-Edwa rds , 85 Nysas, r ive r , 56

Min e ra l sub stan ces , A .

’

s views on ,

49 , 50 Occiput , 103, 119 , 177Mirb el , Br isseau , 97 , 100 Occulta tion ofMar s, 15 , 51

Missal-thrush (Ixe ber os) , 246 Octopus (Polypous) , 106 ,Mi d is, 91-2 171 , 194 , 210, 227

INDEX .

Ogle , Dr . W . , 137 , 178

Oil , n a ture of, 72 , 90, 230Olympiodorus , 47 , 50Omen tum ,

143 , 145 , 158-9

Oppian of Cilicia , 230—2 , 236—7Syr ia . 186 , 255

Optic n e rve s , 175 , 184 , 186Order ofA .

’s work s , 15—20

Orga n ic e quiva len ts , 5 , 128Orph eus , ver se s of, 197

Or r hOpygi on , 192 , 193

Oryxes 132 , 252 , 254—5

Ostr a koderma , 13 , 22 , 82 , 83 , 127 ,139 , 163 , 169 , 186 , 194 , 198 , 213 ,215 , 217—220, 224

Ostr ich e s (S tr eu the s Li byke s) , 122135 , 249

O toli ths offish e s, 183—4

O tt er s (En ydr i s) , 130, 257 , 259 , 260Ova rie s , 170-1

Ovid, 236

Oviduct s , 170—1Owe n , Sir R 107 , 128—9 , 155 , 160

Owls (Gla n ce , Ote s , Skeps) , 106 ,157 , 161 , 241

Oxen (B e us , Ta uros) , 106—7 , 110,—6 , 118 , 124

-8, 132 , 137 ,138 , 141 , 149 , 151, 154 , 156

—7 ,165—6 , 252

—3

Oxus , r iver , 5 6

Pae on i a , 126 , 253 , 256

Pa g r e , common (Pha g r os) ,Pa le st in e , 54 , 100

—1

Pa lla s , P . S . , 253 , 255

Pa n cre a s , 143 , 145 , 153 , 157P a r a si lurus a r i s to te li s (Gla n i s) ,106 , 152 , 156 , 233

—5 , 240

Pa rhe lia , 34—5 , 51

Pa rme n ide s , 30

Pa ropamisus , 56

Pa r rot-wr a sse (Ska r os) , 25 , 129-7

Pa r rots (Psi t ta ke) , 181 , 249Pa r th en og e n e sis , 201

—2

Pa r tr idge s

Pa ton , W . R . , 132

Pa t r izi , F 2—3 , 16—7

Pausa n ia s, 259

Pe a r l-a sh , ma nufa cture of, 76Pe ars , g ra fted, 101

Pe ct e n s (E tei a) , 186—7 , 194 , 218 ,2 19 , 227

Pelamid (Ami a ) , 102 , 106 , 156 ,233-4

Pen ofLoligo, 127 , 210, 227

271

Pe rches (Per ke) , 152 , 153 , 162, 201 ,233 , 235

Pe r icardium, 137—8

Pe r sia , 100-1 , 202

Pha la i n a , 250—1

Philip ofMa cedon , 7—8

Phlegraea n pla in , 59

Phlog ist ic sub sta n ce s, 72Phoen icia , 225Phosphor e scen ce , 66Ph ryg ia , 131

Phyki s , 233 , 236

Physica l g e ography , 54—9Phys icia n , 6

Pia ma t er , 178

Pige on s (P er i ste ra , Pha t ta , O i n a s ,Bhupe) , 106 , 112 , 156—7 , 160, 193 ,207 , 244- 5 248

Pigmi e s ofAfr ica , 58

Pig s (Hys) , 106 , 111 , 112 , 115 , 124 ,126-8 , 130-1 , 156 , 166 , 219, 256—7

Pin n a , 218—9

Pi n n ophy la cc or P i n n e ter es, 219

Pipe-fish es (Be lon e ) , 234

P i theke s , 257 , 261—2

Pla c en ta l a n imals (mamma ls) , 170,(fish e s) , 231

Plagia r ism , A . charged with , 14—5

Pla n e ts , 32—3

Pla n ts , 82—7 , 95—101 , 117 , 169 , 260

Pla te , 3 , 7 , 21—2, 54 ,

101 , 109, 111 , 113

Plin y , 8 , 11 , 186 , 189 , 221 , 230—2 ,234—8 , 253, 255—6 ,2 60

Pollux, 100

Polybus , 14 , 136

Pon d tor toises (Emys) , 165 , 238Popular b e lie fs , 54 , 5 7 , 85 , 121 , 131 ,134 , 144—5 , 186 , 190, 197 , 199 ,202 , 204 , 222 , 227 , 238 , 240, 241 ,242 , 244 , 247 , 248—9 , 254-7 , 259 ,261

Popular n ame s , pe rsist en ce of, 2303 , 234, 237 , 244 , 246

Por cupin e s (B ystr i ce ) , 257Pe rphur a , 163 , 217—8

Porpoise s (Phe ka i n a ) , 250, 252Por ta l b lood-ve sse ls , 145

Pot tery , b ak in g of, 70, 76

Poulton , Prof. E . B . , 239

Pr a n tl , C . von , 16

Pr edicamen t , 6

Pr in ciple , 6Pr imumfri g idum, 70, 72

Pse t ta , 233—4

Ptolemy , 57 , 6 5

272 INDEX .

Pulmon a ry b lood-vesse ls , 141—2 , 147 ,

149 , 15 1

Purpur a (Porphur a ) , 106 , 163—4,2 17—8

Pylor ic caeca offish es , 158 , 162 , 164 ,231

Pyr e n e es , 56

Py th agor a s a n d th e PythagOI ean s,30, 32 ,

!ua ils (Or tyx) , 106 , 111 , 156 , 16 1

!uin tessen ce , 6

Ra in , 42—3 , 46 , 48

Ra in b ows , 13 , 15 , 28 , 32 , 34—6 , 36

42 , 63 , 64 , 68- 9

Ramsay , Si r W . , 91

Ramus , 2

Raven s (Ke r a zc) , 135 , 161Ray , John , 5 , 85 , 208 , 221

Rays or Sk a t e s (B a te s, Lei oba te s) ,24 , 129 , 230—1

Re clus , E. , 53 , 57—8

Re ct ilin e a r propa ga tion of l ight ,63—4

Red de e r (Elaphe s) , 115 , 253Redi , F 115

Red Se a , leve l of th e , 58

sn ow, 60

Reflection ,a coustic , 77 , 78opt ica l , 34—8, 41—2 , 64—5

Re fra ct ion , opt ica l , 64-5Ren n e t , 117

Rept iles , 24 , 75 , 102 , 103 , 105—6 ,

108 , 112 , 120—1 , 132 , 136 , 138 ,

15 1 , 154—7 , 159 , 161—2 , 165—8 ,

170, 174 , 180—1 , 208 , 214 , 237—9 ,

240, 241 , 258

Re spir a t ion , 75 , 97 , 148—50

Re t r iever pups , Duk e of Gra fton’s ,

134

Reviva l of in te r e st in A .

’

S work s , 5

Rhe tor ic , e sta b lish ed by A . , 5

Rh ipaaa n moun t a in s , 56

Rib s, 24 , 111 , 118 , 120, 121

Righ t mor e n ob le than le ft , 27 , 113

Risso , 229

Rock thrush , b lue (Kya n os) , 246Rods (r ha bde i ) , 34—6

Rolle ston , G. , 157 , 258

Ron de le t , 4 , 85—6 , 229, 236

Rose , Va len tin , 16

Rouse , Dr . W . H. D . , 86

Rufus Ephe sius , 157 , 176

Rumin a tin g fish , 162 , 236—7

Rumin a t in g stoma ch , complexstructur e of, 102 , 159-60

Sab re-horn ed a n telope s (Oryx) , 132 ,252 , 254—5

Sa chs , J. von , 99

Sa cr ed b e e tle s (Ka n tha r os) , 223Sa lama n de rs (Sa lama n dr a ) , 240Sa lvi a n i , 229

Sa ltn e ss of th e se a , 45—7 , 54—5Sa n de rson , G . P . , 260

Sa n d-ma r tin s (Dr ep a n i s) , 245—6Sa rdin ia n we a se ls (Ik t is) , 257—8Sca le s of fish es , 24—5 , 6 6 , 135 , 136,147 , 210—11 , 230, 236

Sca lig er , 47 , 186 , 255Scamma n der , 135

S ca ru s cr e te n si s (Ska ros) ,—7

Sch en k , Dr . L . 198

Schn e ide r , J. G 16 , 120, 155 , 191 ,238 , 240, 255

Scorpse n a (Skorpi e s) , 106 , 162Scute s, 135 , 211Scyros , 246Scy th i a , b i tter wa t ers of, 55

Se a a n d la n d , r e la t ive chan ges of,28 , 48—9 , 263

Sea -a n emon e s (Aka lephe , Kn i de) ,79 , 84 , 215 , 217

Se a -e ag le s (Ha li a i e te s) , 241 , 242Se a ls (Phe ke) , 122 , 130, 155 , 165 ,180—1 , 257 , 260

Se a , n a tur e of th e , 46 ; saltn ess of

th e , 45 -5

Sea s , depth s of, 54

Se a son a l cha n g e s in colours ofb irds ,135

Se a ~ur ch in s (E chi n e s, E chi n eme

tr a , Spa ta n g e s , B ry t tos) , 106 ,127 , 130, 164 , 171 , 194 , 219

Se luohe , 14 , 213—4 , 229—33 ,250

S emei a or mean s of progre ssive

mot ion , 188

Semen , 111 , 114 , 166—7 , 168 , 169,

195—8

Semin a l ducts , 166—7 , 169-70Sen e ca , 65 , 186Sen se s an d sen sa t ion , 21 , 71 , 73—4 ,80, 84 , 95 , 97 , 100

—1 , 15 1 , 153 ,173—5 , 179—82 , 183 , 184

—5 , 187

Sen sory or gan s , 75 ,—7 , 179

80, 182—3 , 184 , 185—7 , 202—4 , 206 ,

212 , 226 , 238-9 , 259

S epi a (Sep ia ) , 106 , 127 , 163, 171 ,—7

Serum, 107 , 112—4, 116

Serve tus , 147

Severn , elvers in the , 199

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

274 INDEX .

Ti n ece (Ses) , 223Ti ts (Spi z i tes , Or ci n e s , A ig i tha le s) ,177 , 246

Ti tze , N. , 16—7Toads (Phryn e ) , 106 , 154 , 157 , 240—1Ton gue , 21 , 134, 180—2 , 184 , 210,247 , 249

Tor on a , 85 , 219

Torpedo (Na r ke) , 152 , 230—2Tor toise s, 102 , 106 , 112 , 151 , 157 ,165—8, 237—8

Touch , 21 , 84 , 179 , 180, 187

Tourn e for t , 85

Tr a n smuta t ion of e lemen ts , 50, 91

Tr a n solfa cien t , the , 183

Tra n s-son a n t , the , 183

Tr e e s a n d shrub s men t ion ed by A

98—9

Tr ig le , 162 , 233

Tr in g r e se rvoir s , greb e s on , 243

Turn e r , \V. , Dean ofWe lls , 243

Tusk s , 128—9

Tyr ian dye , 217—8

Umb r ia n s , th e , 76Un dula tory th e ory of light , 5 , 62

—3

Un icorn , 254 , 25 5

Un ive r s1t ies , study ofA .

’

s work s a tth e , 1

Ur in e -g en i ta l organ s , 104 , 110, 122 ,125—6 , 145 , 146 , 164

—72 , 195 , 198 ,

Va l en ci en n e s , A . , 14-5 , 162 , 184 ,—6

Ven ie cava e , 109—11 , 113 , 141145 , 146

—7

Ve r te br ae , 25 , 102 , 111 , 121 , 142 , 177

Ve sa lius, 147

Viper s (E chi dn a , E chi s) , 151 , 23940

Virg il , 186 , 243

Vite lli n e b lood-ve ssels , 205—6

Vivipa rous fish e s , 24—5 , 228—32

Vivise c tion , 102

Void , sepa r a te , 26-7

Volcan ic e ruption s , 28, 59—60, 263

Ya r r ell , W . , 232

Yolk sa c , 205 , 206—7

Ze lle r , 32

Zervos , G . C . , 86 , 186 , 245 , 258

Zoology , e sta b lish ed by A . , 5

Zyg a i n a , 230, 233

ERRATA .

Page 11, lin e 35 , r e ad dynamo“; for d ra wvong .

14 , lin e 30, r e ad Diogen e s for Dion ysius .

46 , lin es 31—2 , r e ad la tt er former for forme r

122 , l in e 4 , r e ad cen tra for ce n tr e .

157 , l in e 19 , r e a d scops for Scops’

.

225 , lin e 39 , r e ad 240-2 for 240.

la tter .

Wa lla ce , A . R . , 237

IVa Sps (Sphecc) , 193 , 199 , 200, 221,224

Wa te r n ewts (Ke r dy le s) , 136 , 234,240

Wa tson , Dr . M. , 167

VVax, 72 , 99

We a se ls (Ik t is) , 257-9

We issma n n , A . , 197

We st In die s , 6

Wha les (Mys ti ke te s) , 251-2VVh elkS (Keryzc ) , 106 , 163

—4 ,”

Wh ewe ll , 208—9Wi egma n n , 191—2 , 254

VVigeon (B e ska s) , 243IVi ld a ss (Hemi on e s, On e s a gr i e s) ,213 , 256—7

Wi ld fig , 98Wi llugh by , F 5

Wi lson , Dr . W . J. E . , 134

Wimmer , F . , 137

Win ds , 24 , 28, 42 , 51-4, 64—5

Win ged sn ak e s , 241

Wi n g s , 122 , 135 , 142 , 188—9 , 206—7 ,210

lVolff, 197

IVolve S (La ke s) , 25 ,257—8

VVoodpe cke r s (Drye kolaptes) , 247Wood pig eon s (Pha ssa or Pha t ta ) ,160, 244

Woodwa rd , C. , 134 , 15 5

Wor ce ster sh ir e , popula r b e lief in ,

134

IVryn eck (Iyn w) , 181 , 247

Xan thus , r ive r , 135

Xe n ophon ,254

Xiphi a s , 152 , 156 , 233