Aristotle's researches in natural science

LIBRARY OF
WELLESLEY COLLEGE

PURCHASED FROM
Horsford Fund

ARISTOTLE'S RESEARCHES

IN

NATURAL SCIENCE

BT

THOMAS EAST LONES

M.A., LL.D., B.SC.

Writlj |Unatratilj£ Bratoings

LONDON
WEST, NEWMAN & CO., HATTON GARDEN

1912

LONDON :
PRINTED BY WEST, NEWMAN AND CO.
HATTON GARDEN, E.C,

PEEFACE

Aristotle's researches in Natural Science are set forth
in a series of his works, some of which have ah'eady 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 Natural
Science have been published from time to time. Among
such treatises and papers may be mentioned J. Miiller's
tlbe)' den glatten Hai des Aristoteles, dx., Berlin, 1842,
a folio volume with six plates, relating, in part, to the
placental cartilaginous fishes of Aristotle; J. B. Meyer's
Aristoteles Thierkimde, Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Zoologie, Physiologie, und alien Philosophie, Berlin, 1855 ;
H. Aubert's Die Cephalopodeu des Aristoteles, dc, Lepzig,
1862, 39 pp. ; C. J. Sundevall's Die Tliierarten des Aristo-
teles von den Klassen der Sciugethiere, Vogel, Beptilien
und Insehten, Stockholm, 1863; G. H. Lewes' Aristotle : A
Chapter from the History of Science, London, 1864 ; and
Dr. J. Young's paper " On the Malacostraca of Aristotle,"
published in The Annals and Magazine of Natural History,
1865. There are also several works and papers which inci-
dentally give valuable assistance in the study of Aristotle's
researches in Natural Science, e.g. Cuvier and Valenciennes'
Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, Paris, 1828-49 ; J. L.
Ideler's Meteorologia veterum GrcBcorimi et Bomanorum,
Berlin, 1832 ; Spratt and Forbes' Travels in Lycia, dc,
London, 1847 ; Hoffman and Jordan's " Catalogue of the
Fishes of Greece, with Notes on the Names now in Use,
and those Employed by Classical Authors," published in the
Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of Philadelphia,
for 1892; D'A. W, Thompson's Glossary of Greek Birds,
Oxford, 1895 ; and T. Gill's " Parental Care among Fresh-
water Fishes," published in the Annual Beport of the
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, 1906.

iv PREFACE.

A consideration of these and many other similar publica-
tions seems to show that a single work, re-examining
Aristotle's statements, as far as possible by first-hand
investigations, and utilizing the results attained by the
above-mentioned and other scholars, would fill a gap in
Aristotelian literature. The present work is intended to
do this, and represents the nature and value of Aristotle's
researches in subjects now considered to belong to physical
astronomy, meteorology, physical geography, physics,
chemistry, geology, botany, anatomy, physiology, embryo-
logy, and zoology. In those parts of the work relating
to his anatomical, embryological, and zoological researches,
I have tested his 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 full references are given to all
passages from ancient and modern writers cited. It is
hoped that these references will be sufficient to enable the
reader to form his own estimate of the statements made or
opinions expressed in the com'se of the work.

As the various Greek texts present differences in method
of division as well as in reading, it is necessary to state that
the numerous references to Aristotle's works are to the
following Greek texts : — Schneider's edition of the History
of Animals, Aubert and Wimmer's edition of the Genera-
tion of Animals, the Teubnerian editions of the Parts of
Animals, Parva Natiiralia, De Anima, De Coelo, and De
Generatione et Corruptione, and, with very few exceptions,
Didot's editions of the remaining works. The references
to Aristotelian treatises, e.g. the De Plantis, not usually
considered to have been written by Aristotle, are to Didot's
editions.

The abbreviations H.A., P. A., and G.A., have been used
frequently to denote Aristotle's History of Animals, Parts
of Animals, and Geyieratioii of Animals, respectively.

It should be understood that the identifications of
animals, attempted in various parts of the work, are not
necessarily complete, e.g. Apous or Kypsellos (see p. 245)
probably included other birds besides the swift and house-
martin, and Tigris (see p. 257) included other wild animals
besides the tiger of western India. This is evident from
passages in Arrian's Historia Indica, c. 15, ss. 1 and 3,
which read: " Nearchus says that he has seen a tiger's
skin, but not a real tiger. , . . and that every one of the

PEEFACE. V

animals which we see and call ' tigers ' are jackals,
speckled and larger than common jackals."

Except in a few cases, e.g. that of the Hippelaphos,
pp. 253-4, no attempt has been made to consider the
possibility of identifying Aristotle's animals with those
which may reasonably be assumed to have been unknown
to the Ancients.

A few words about the illustrative drawings may not
be out of place. Of these. Fig. 3 is of a different kind from
the rest. It is drawn according to specific directions given
in Aristotle's Meteorology, and probably agrees with a
drawing forming part of Aristotle's original MS. There
are no drawings in the Greek texts, but in many passages
there are clear references to drawings.

My thanks are due to Mr. A. E. Wright, Hon. Editor of
Folk-Lore, for reading the MS. and proof, and for informa-
tion chiefly relating to popular beliefs recorded by Aristotle;
to Mr. F. W. Dunn, B.A., B.Sc, for reading a large part of
the MS. ; to Mr. F. J. Cheshire, Lecturer in Physics at
Birkbeck College, and Mr. E. J. Sowter, B.Sc, for reading
all parts of the MS. and proof of Chapters iii. and iv.
relating to phenomena of light, heat, and sound ; to Mr.
F. Gossling, B.Sc, for reading the proof of Chapters v. and
vi. ; and to my son, Mr. P. E. Lones, for reading those
parts of the MS. and proof of Chapters viii.-xiv., relating
to human anatomy and physiology.

T. E. L.

Dudley House,
Kings Langley,

Herts.

CONTENTS.

I. — Introductoey 1

^I. — Aristotle's Method of Investigating

THE Natural Sciences - - - 21

III. — Celestial, Atmospheric, and Terres-
trial Phenomena . . . . 28

IV. — Phenomena op Light and Colour, Heat

AND Sound 61

\^

V. — Distinction between Animals, Plants,

AND Inanimate Matter - - - 79

- VI. — Constituents op Animals, Plants, and

Inanimate Matter . . . . 88

VII.— On Plants 95

VIII. — The Probable Nature and Extent op

Aristotle's Dissections - . . 102

IX. — Aristotle's Homceomeria - _ . 107

X. — Aristotle's Anhomceomeria and their

Functions 118

XL — Aristotle's Anhomceomeria and their

Functions (continued) - - . - 148

XII. — Aristotle's Anhomceomeria and their

Functions {continued) - - - - 173

viii CONTENTS.

CHAPTER PAGE

XIII, — Animal Motion - - - - - 188

XIV. — Generation and Development - - 195

XV. — Classification of Animals _ - . 208

XVI. — Aristotle's Anaima, or Animals with-
out Blood 216

XVII. — Aristotle's Enaima, or Animals with

Blood 229

XVIII. — Aristotle's Enaima, or Animals with

Blood (continued) . . . . 250

ILLUSTEATIVE DRAWINGS.

Fig. 1. — Appearance op Eainbows, as seen at Athens.

2. — Arrangement of the Colours of Eainbows, 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 Eelations.
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 days' Incubation.
10. — Chick removed from Egg after ten days' Incuba-
tion.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.

Among all the works which have come

"^^^Sue's °^ ^^^^^ ^° ^s ^^'°^ ^^^ Ancients, few have
Works. exercised a greater influence on the human

mind than those of Aristotle. The nature
and extent of this influence have varied greatly during the
past two thousand years, but ardent students of the Aristo-
telian treatises have at all times been found at most of the
great seats of learning, and Alexandria, Cordova, Paris,
Oxford, Padua, Pisa, and Cologne have been specially dis-
tinguished for their Aristotelian studies.

From the very first Aristotle's teaching and writings
engaged the attention of scholars, and his method of reason-
ing and peculiar style of writing were imitated by many of
them. At a later time his writings were used as authori-
tative sources of information by many Greek and Latin
authors, and among the many Arabs who studied his
writings and did much to preserve them and extend their
influence, Avicenna and Averroes may be specially men-
tioned. After the time of Averroes (1126-1198), Aristotle
was followed with implicit confidence until the time of the
Reformation.

Before the time of Averroes, however, some of the
Aristotelian treatises were read, mainly in consequence of
the work of Boethius, and the Church encouraged the
study of such as were useful for training the reasoning
powers. The adoption of Aristotle's methods of reasoning
was followed by the adoption, in part at least, of his system
of philosophy, and the resulting alliance, if it may be so
called, between the Church and Aristotelianism became so
close that an attack on one was considered to be an attack
on the other.

During the early part of the fourteenth century the
influence of Aristotle's works appears to have reached its
greatest development. That this influence was consider-

B

2 INTEODUCTORY.

able, Dante's writings clearly prove. It is Aristotle to
whom he refers when he says :

" Then when a little more I raised my brow,
I saw the master of the sapient throng,
Seated amid the philosophic train.
Him all admire, all pay him reverence due."*

He also says that Aristotle is most worthy of trust and
obedience, for, just as a sword-cutler, bridle-maker, or
armourer should obey the knight whose implements he
makes, so should we obey and trust Aristotle, who teaches
us the end of human life.!

Not long after Dante's time there commenced a great
change of attitude towards Aristotelianism, and not only
Vv^ere the Aristotelian writings criticized adversely, but
Aristotle's fame, and, above all, his attempts to arrive at
the truth, were called in question. After the Revival of
Learning this antagonism became very strong. Aristotle
and his philosophy, as well as the Church, were attacked by
the Eeformers, and then by Bamus, Patrizi, and Galileo.
In Luther's writings are many passages adverse to the
Aristotelian philosophy. He said in one of his debates
that he who wished to apply himself, without trial or experi-
ment, to the philosophy of Aristotle, must first become
thoroughly inefficient in the School of Christ {Qui sine
pei'iculo volet in Aristotele philosophari, necesse est, lU ante
bene stultificetur in Christo), and asked, in his Adversus
execrahilem Anticliristi Bullam, 1520, why the very wicked
philosophy of Aristotle, in which nothing but errors was
taught, was not condemned, at least in part (mo, cu7- im-
piissimum Aristotelem, in quo non nisi error es docentur, non
saltern in parte da^nnatis ?). Ramus wrote bitter criticisms
of Aristotle's writings. In 1536 he proposed as the title
of the thesis for his Degree at Paris : " Everything that
Aristotle taught is false." This gave great offence to the
Aristotelians, but Ramus sustained the argument so well
that he obtained his Degree, and was licensed to teach.
His talents were chiefly employed in attacking the Aristo-
telians, and Ramism replaced Aristotelianism in some of
the universities. Patrizi (1529-1597) contended that the
works known under Aristotle's name were not authentic,
and that the Aristotelian doctrines were false. He also

■-'= The Vision, Inferno, Canto iv. (Gary's translation),
f 11 Co?ivivio, iv. c. 6.

INTEODUCTORY. 3

held that Plato and not Aristotle should be considered to be
the ally of the Church.

The Aristotelian writings were also assailed by men
who worked hard to ascertain facts and test the truth of
the Ai'istotelian philosophy by experiment, when possible.
Their attacks happened to be directed against some of the
weakest parts of Aristotle's teachings, especially those re-
lating to natural philosophy, and based mainly on abstract
reasoning, and, to make matters worse, sometimes mis-
interpreted by the Aristotelians themselves. Long before
the Reformation, Roger Bacon had expressed his con-
tempt for the Aristotelians and their Latin translations of
Aristotle's works. Of Aristotle himself, he spoke highly,
and at the end of chap. iii. of part 1 of his Opus Majus, says
that, although Aristotle did not arrive at the end of know-
ledge, he set in order all parts of philosophy. A much
more determined attack was made after the Reformation
by Galileo, Lord Bacon, and other experimentalists. One
very direct attack by Galileo is of more than ordinary
interest. In his Physics, iv. c. 8, s. 8, Aristotle says that
when bodies fall through various media the rate of falling
depends on : (1) the nature of the medium, (2) the weights
of the falling bodies, other things being equal. He then deals
with these determining causes, and, although his reasoning
is sometimes obscure and occasionally inconsistent, it is
evident that he considered the velocity of a falling body to
be proportional to its weight. The Aristotelians at Pisa
strenuously supported this view, and, unable to convince
them of error by argument, Galileo resorted to experiment.
He ascended the leaning tower of Pisa, and showed that
bodies of different weights, dropped together from a con-
venient part of the tower, struck the ground simultaneously.
He is said to have used two shot, one ten times heavier
than the other. Notwithstanding this experiment, the
Aristotelians still argued against Galileo, and would not
abandon their opinion that the velocity of a falling body
was proportional to its weight. They were greatly incensed
against Galileo, and in 1591 he found it advisable to resign
his professorship at Pisa. The way in which the Aristo-
telians at Pisa defended what they believed to be the views
of their master is a striking proof of the great influence of
Aristotle's writings, even as late as the end of the sixteenth
century.

Lord Bacon made caustic comments on Aristotle, and

4 INTRODUCTORY.

held his followers in contempt. It has been said that Lord
Bacon knew little of Aristotle's works first-hand, but this
was a common fault among the scholars of his time. He
said that no weight should be given to the fact that Aristotle,
in some of his works, deals with experiments, for he had
formed his conclusions before, and made experiments con-
form with what he wished ;* and, commenting on the
fewness of the authors referred to in Aristotle's works.
Lord Bacon said that Aristotle, on whom the philosophy
of his day chiefly depended, never mentioned an author
except to confute and reprove him.t The chief effects of
Lord Bacon's antagonism, however, were ultimately seen
in the replacement, to a large extent, of the Aristotelian
philosophy by the " New or Experimental Philosophy,"
expounded chiefly in the Novum Organum.

The Aristotelians facilitated the success of their oppo-
nents by their own excessive zeal. They adopted, to a
greater extent than Aristotle did, the Platonic ideas about
the supreme importance of abstract speculation, and the in-
tellectual degradation associated with the work of artizans
and others who provide for the common wants of mankind ;
they neglected Aristotle's advice to make sure of the facts
before trying to explain the causes ; they often put a forced
construction on Aristotle's words ; they went too far in
their attempts to show that Aristotle was infallible. Their
position was difficult in the fifteenth century, when the
Revival of Learning was in progress, accompanied by a
great increase in commercial prosperity and the growth of
affluence and power among the very classes whom they pre-
tended to despise. In later times, when they were opposed
by men who were both scholars and experimentalists, their
position became almost untenable. The interest taken in
Aristotle'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
comparative neglect of the study of Aristotle, the interest
taken in his zoological works became greater perhaps than
it had ever been. Conrad Gesner, Belon of Le Mans,
Rondelet, and others wrote large treatises, much of the
groundwork of which was obtained from Aristotle, and

■•' Novum Organum, Aphorism 63.
\ Filuin Labyrinthi, &c., part i. § 8.

INTRODUCTORY. 5

Francis Willughby, John Ray, and Peter Artedi (whose
work on ichthyology was edited by Linnseus) were students
of Aristotle. Gesner's Historia Animalium, 1551-87, con-
taining numerous extracts from and comments on Aristotle's
History of Animals, was the standard work on animals for
many years.

In the latter part of the eighteenth and early part of
the nineteenth century there was a revival of interest in
Aristotle's writings. This revival, effected to a large extent
by the efforts of Lessing and Hegel, has not died out. On
the contrary, the interest taken in Aristotle's writings has
been steadily increasing, and the peculiar character of these
writings will probably cause such interest to increase still
more, for they represent more fully than any others the
highest intellectual development of ancient Greece. The
opinions of the philosophers who preceded him are more
fully and accurately set forth by Aristotle than by any other
writer. He gives valuable accounts of their views, and
discusses how far they should be accepted or rejected. He
also makes extensive additions to the knowledge obtained
from his predecessors, and adds the results of his own
researches in many subjects which they had never investi-
gated. It may be fairly claimed that, in his attempts to
separate and define the various branches of learning, Aristotle
established several new sciences, more especially Logic,
Rhetoric, Ethics, and Zoology. The best parts of his
writings on these subjects have passed into modern treatises.
Large parts of his Analytics have been absorbed in this
way. Little has been added by later writers to his work
on rhetoric. In modern zoological works, excepting most
of those describing the results of recent researches, or
animals unknown to Aristotle, many statements are made
which recall to the mind of the Aristotelian scholar passages
in the History of Animals or other Aristotelian treatise.
It has also been contended, not always groundlessly, that
some passages in Aristotle's works anticipated several
theories and discoveries of modern times. Among such
alleged anticipations may be mentioned the undulatory
theory of light, the so-called law of organic equivalents, the
hectocotylus of certain cephalopods, the nest-making habits
of some fishes, and the occm'rence of hermaphroditism in
some species of Serranus.

The unobtrusive, even hidden, influence of the Aristo-
telian writings is perhaps more striking. This influence is

6 INTEODUCTOEY.

to be traced in the most unexpected connections. Sir Alex-
ander Grant tells us that the passages in Aristotle's De Cmlo,
ii. c. 14, 298a, in which he inclines to a belief that the
ocean to the west of Europe and that to the east of India
are one and the same, did much to influence the mind of
Columbus and send him on his memorable voyage, and that
they were the cause of the islands of Central America being
called the West Indies, and the aborigines of North America
being called Indians. Further, there are many words and
phrases which have become firmly established, although
with modified meanings, chiefly through the influence of
the Aristotelian writings. Among these words and phrases
may be mentioned the following : —

aorta essence motive

category faculty natural history

cetacea final cause physician

coleoptera form predicament

diptera habit principle

energy malacostraca quintessence

entelechy maxim selachia

enthymeme mean between extremes syllogism

entomology metaphysics

The well-known saying, " There is nothing new under
the sun," is several times given by Aristotle, in equivalent
language, e. g. in his Meteorol. i. c. 3, s. 4, he says that the
same ideas have recurred to men times without end ; and,
in his Polit. vii. c. 9, 1329 &, he expresses his belief that
discoveries and inventions come easily to men, and have
been made over and over again by different peoples and in
different countries.

The foregoing is but an outline to indicate the vast
extent to which Aristotle's writings have exercised the
minds and influenced the conduct of men in many countries
and in almost every age for more than two thousand years.
He has had many adverse critics, but many more followers
or admirers possessed with an enthusiasm for his philosoph}'
which has often been nearly as great as that shown by the
Aristotelian, Thomas Aquinas. Many of them have written
commentaries on some parts of his works, especially his
Ethics, Politics, Metaphysics, De Anima, and parts of his
Organon, and so vast is the Aristotelian literature that no
man can hope to attain more than a general knowledge
of it.

INTRODUCTOEY. 7

Aristotle was bom, probably in B.C. 384, at
Cha'racter of Stagira, a Greek colony near the Strymonic

Aristotle. Gulf, and about seventy miles eastward

from Pella, the capital of Macedonia. His
father, Nicomachus, was physician-in-ordinary to Amyntas
II., King of Macedonia. After the death of Nicomachus,
Aristotle went to Athens, where he became a pupil of
Plato ; this important step was taken, it is generally
believed, when Aristotle was seventeen years old. Plato
soon formed a high opinion of Aristotle's abilities, and
called him " the intellect of his school." While he was
with Plato he began a controversy against Isocrates, the
distinguished rhetorician, and it is said that Aristotle went
so far as to open a school of rhetoric in opposition to
Isocrates.

Soon after Plato's death, B.C. 347, Aristotle left Athens
and went to Atarneus, in Mysia, where he resided with his
friend Hermias, despot of Atarneus, whose niece, Pythias,
he married. In B.C. 344 Hermias was treacherously cap-
tured by the Persians and put to death. It was then
unsafe for Aristotle to remain at Atarneus, so he escaped to
Mitylene.

In B.C. 342, at tne request of Philip of Macedon, he
became tutor to Philip's son, Alexander, In consequence of
this Aristotle lived in Macedonia for seven years, and was
greatly honoured. One favour granted to him was of so
regal a character as to deserve special mention. His native
town had been destroyed by Philip during the Olynthiau
War, 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 inhabitants reinstated as
far as possible.

At the death of Philip, B.C. 336, Alexander became King
of Macedonia, and soon afterwards completed his prepara-
tions for the invasion of Asia. Before Alexander proceeded
on his career of conquest Aristotle went to Athens, where
the Lyceum was assigned to him by the State. Here he
established his famous School, afterwards called the Peri-
patetic.

Aristotle appears to have produced most of his works
during the time, B.C. 335-23, when he was at the Lyceum.
His reputation as a philosopher was high, and, as a friend
of Alexander and his viceroy Antipater, his influence must
have been great. Among his pupils were the well-known

8 INTRODUCTOEY.

Theophrastus, Eudemus of Rhodes (who is beheved to have
written the Eudemian Ethics, and some other Aristotehan
treatises), and Cassander, son of Antipater.

It has been asserted that Alexander placed at Aristotle's
disposal several thousand men to make collections of all
kinds of animals for Aristotle's own use, and that, with the
aid of materials thus provided, his renowned work, the
History of Animals, 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 col-
lection of a vast number of animals would necessitate.
This, however, is not a valid objection, for although Mace-
donia itself was poor, Alexander obtained vast stores of
wealth during his campaigns in Asia. Athenseus tells us
that, according to rumour, Aristotle received eight hundred
talents from Alexander to enable him to finish his History
of Animals A A passage from j951ian makes the truth of
the matter doubtful. He says that Aristotle produced his
History of Ani^nals with the aid of the wealth of Philip,
and that Philip honoured Plato and Theophrastus. t The
whole question of the supposed aid rendered to Aristotle by
Philip or Alexander, or both, is involved in obscurity.
Having regard for the undoubted facts that Philip esteemed
Aristotle very highly, and that Alexander was very friendly
towards him while he was his pupil and for some years
afterwards, it is clear that Aristotle could have obtained
assistance from them. It is less likely that such assistance
was 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 Callis-
thenes, who was a pupil and nominee of Aristotle serving
with Alexander in Asia.

After Alexander's death, B.C. 323, Aristotle was watched
with suspicion at Athens, for he was considered to be
friendly to the Macedonian power, and he also had many
enemies among the followers of Plato and Isocrates.
Further, an incident which could not fail to give great
offence to the Athenians and other Hellenes had occurred in
B.C. 324. At the Olympic festival in that year, Alexander
caused a proclamation to be made that all Greek cities
should recall all exiles who had been banished by judicial
sentence. The officer who made this proclamation was

Pliny, Nat. Hist. viii. 17. f Deipn. ix. 58.

19.

INTEODUCTOKY. 9

Nicanor, friend of Aristotle and son of Proxenus, who had
been Aristotle's guardian. On account of his close connec-
tion with Nicanor, who afterwards became his son-in-law,
Aristotle shared in the odium caused by this event.

While Alexander lived, Aristotle was practically safe from
the attacks of his enemies, but, as soon as it was known
that the great conqueror had died, Aristotle's enemies
sought to ruin him. He had not taken an active part in
Athenian politics, for he was not a citizen of Athens, and
his enemies, not being able to bring a political charge
against him, determined to accuse him of impiety. He had
written a poem in honour of Hermias, associating his name
with the names of the greatest heroes of Hellas, and he had
erected a statue of Hermias at Delphi, with an inscription
in his honour. These were the chief charges against
Aristotle, the Athenians considering that it was especially
impious to praise Hermias as if he had been a demi-god.
These specific charges were supplemented by references to
passages in Aristotle's works tending to show his impiety.
A modern reader would have some difficulty in finding
passages of this nature, but it should be remembered that
the Athenians gave a very wide meaning to that impiety, at
which they expressed great horror. They found some
passages, so it is said, suitable for supporting their prose-
cution, such as, for example, certain statements to the effect
that prayer and sacrifices to the gods were of no avail.

During the short time between Alexander's death and
the preferring of the charges against Aristotle, the anti-
Macedonian party became more powerful, and Aristotle soon
felt that he would be unable to withstand the attacks of his
enemies. He availed himself of an Athenian law which
allowed an accused person to avoid the risk of a trial by
going into voluntary exile, and escaped to Chalcis, in
Euboea. Shortly afterwards he died a natural death, at
Chalcis, in B.C. 322, at the age of about sixty-two years.
Diogenes Laertius, in his Life of Aristotle, says that he
died through taking poison, but there does not appear to be
any reliable evidence for this assertion.

From statements made by various ancient writers, we
learn that Aristotle was rather short and slim ; that his
eyes were small and his speech lisping ; that he was
vivacious and energetic, although his bodily constitution was
weak ; and that he lived very elegantly and paid great
attention to his dress and personal appearance.

10 INTEODUCTORY.

Possessed of considerable means, enjoying the friend-
ship of the most powerful rulers of his time, occupying a
high social position, and having great opportunities for pro-
secuting his investigations, Aristotle was the most fortunate
of philosophers. He appears to have lived a highly honour-
able life, and no charge indicating any serious defect of
character seems to have been proved against him. Many
passages in his works are indicative of high moral feeling.
Of his religious beliefs we know very little. When he refers
to the gods, or Hellenic beliefs, he does so reverently, but
these subjects appear to have been avoided by him. Although
his views on the subject are not sufficiently clearly ex-
pressed, he does not seem to have believed in the immor-
tality of the soul of an individual. According to him, all
parts of the soul, except perhaps the intellectual soul, are
inseparable from the body.* Man and other animals
cannot participate in immortality, yet each individual tries,
one more and another less, to participate in a kind of immor-
tality by producing individuals like itself, all being members
of an everlasting species, t

Antipater testifies to the effect that Aristotle was courteous
and persuasive in manner. That he was kind and con-
siderate is shown by the way in which he drew up his will,
as it is given by Diogenes Laertius, carefully providing for
his second wife Herpyllis, his daughter Pythias, his son
Nicomachus, and his slaves. He made provision for some
of his slaves, and expressly willed that none of his young
slaves should be sold.

After his death there were many detractors of his
reputation. ^lian states that Aristotle squandered his
paternal fortune, then served in the army, and, failing there,
became a seller of drugs.! One of the characters in
Athenaeus says that he could narrate a great deal about the
nonsense which the seller of drugs talked, and then gives
statements about Aristotle agreeing with those cited above
from ^lian, but adds significantly that Epicurus alone
spoke thus of him, for, although Eubulides and Cephiso-
dorus wrote books against him, neither ventured to assert
anything of this kind.§ Grote tells us that Epicurus was
not the only witness, for the same statements were made by
Timaeus. Other charges were made against Aristotle, but

'= De Aninia, ii. c. 1, 413a; ii. c. 2, 4136.

I Ibid. ii. c. 4, 4156.

I Varice Historue, v. 9. § Deipn. viii. 50.

INTKODUCTORY. 11

the mere statement of many of these, such as that accusing
him of aiding in poisoning Alexander, constitutes the most
effective refutation of them. The charge of aiding in
poisoning Alexander is mentioned by Pliny,* but it should
be mentioned, in justice to Pliny, that he himself was a
great admirer of Aristotle, and that he adds that the charge
was false and did great injustice to him. It can scarcely be
denied that Alexander died a natural death at Babylon.

Of the numerous works which have been

Aristotle's included among the Aristotelian treatises,

Natural"sdem!e. there are some which are considered to have

been written, not by Aristotle but by his
pupils or followers. The determination of Aristotle's own
works has engaged the attention of many scholars, and has
been very difficult. This question has been considered from
almost every conceivable point of view, and, as regards
those works dealing with subjects which may be said to
belong to the Natural Sciences, it is now generally believed
that those mentioned below are genuine works of Aristotle.
The Greek titles and their usual Latin and English equi-
valents are given in each case.

(1) (puaiKY) a>cp6aaii, Auscultatio Naturalis, ' Physics.'

(2) Trepi oupavoii, De CcbIo, ' On the Heavens.'

(3) ■TTEjOJ yeveaec^i «ai (pOocag, De Geueratione et Corruptione,
' On Generation and Destruction.'

(4) /xETsupoMyiHix, Meteor ica, ' Meteorology.'

(5) TTsp) t^m laropia, De Animalihus Historia, ' History of
Animals.'

(6) TTsp) ^uuv ixopiuv, De Animaliimi Partibus, ' On the
Parts of Animals.'

(7) TTEp] ^aicov TTopeiag, De Animalium Incessu, * On the
Progressive Motion of Animals.'

(8) 'TTEp) -^vxyii, De Anima, ' On the " Soul " or the Vital
Principle.'

(9) 9re/)l avxmvoYiq, De Bespiratione, ' On Respiration.'

(10) 'TJ'fp' ala-SyiaEcc; km ali9r)Tuv, De Sensu et Sensihilihus,
' On Sense and Objects of Sensation.'

(11) Trsp] ^uvi Ka\ Qavarou, De Vita et Morte, ' On Life and
Death.'

(12) TTspl |ttv>7/tA>i5 Koi dvafxvYiaEco';, De Memoria et Beminiscentia,
' On Memory and Reminiscence.'

"i= Nat. Hist, XXX. 53.

12 INTEODUCTOEY.

(13) '^^pi vitvQu Hail kypnyopffecos, Be SoJUHo et Vigilia, ' On
Sleep and Wakefulness.'

(14) 77£^j ivuWim, De Insoinniis, ' On Dreams.'

(15) Tf/)' fxay.poldiornroi; nai j3^a%y/3<o'T}iTOf, De VitCB Lougi-

tudine et Brevitate, ' On Length and Shortness of Life.'

(16) TEf' v£o't»toj Ka\ jYipco<;, Be Juventic et Senectute, ' On
Youth and Old Age.'

(17) 'fef' ^c^ccv ytvEo-Ecoi;, Be Animalium Generatione, ' On
Generation of Animals.'

Nos. 9 to 16, both inclusive, form the chief parts of the
so-called Parva Naturalia.

The following are considered to be spurious, or at least
doubtful : —

(1) TTE^i ^uiiv Kmaswi, Be Animalium Motione, ' On the
Motion of Animals.'

(2) "Ticp) Koaixou, Be Miinclo, ' On the Universe.'

(3) 'TEf' xp^f^^T^v, Be Colorihus, ' On Colours.'

(4) 7rep\ (pvTuv, Be Plantis, ' On Plants.'

(5) ra TrpofSxYif^ara, Prohlemata, ' The Problems.'

Aristotle's works, as a whole, are characterized by
relevancy and methodical arrangement of subject-matter,
conciseness of expression, and simplicity of language. Many
parts of his History of Animals, Meteorology, Parts of
Animals, Bespiration, Progressive Motion of Animals, and
Generation of Animals, illustrate these characteristics.
They clearly show his desire to state facts, or his own
opinions, in a plain way, there being but few attempts to
write in a highly polished style.

The subject-matter of his works varies considerably in
interest. Many parts of the works referred to above furnish
very interesting reading, but some parts of his works are of
very little interest and even tedious, such as, for example,
many parts of Books iii. and iv. of his work on the Heavens
and Books iv. v. and vi. of the Physics. In his Aristotle,
&c., 1864, p. 143, G. H. Lewes expresses an opinion that
Aristotle's Generation and Bestruction is in his most weari-
some style of verbal disputation. It may be said, however,
that some parts of this work are very interesting, especially
the numerous passages in which Aristotle gives his views on
mixture, and what may be fairly called chemical com-
position. Some passages of his works, even where the
subject-matter is simple, e.g., those in H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 6,
relating to the way in which the feet of camels are divided,

INTRODUCTOEY. 13

are very difficult to translate or understand, but, in most
cases, the difficulties are chiefly due to the abstruse nature
of the subjects to which the passages relate.

Aristotle often sets forth what he intends to discuss, and
the order in which he proposes to discuss the various
branches of a subject, and he often gives a valuable descrip-
tion and criticism of the views of other philosophers on the
subject under discussion.

Numerous instances might be given of the pertinence of
his style, e. g., cc. 1-12 of his work on Bespiration, his
description of the arrangement of the blood-vessels, in his
History of Animals, iii. cc. 2-4, his descriptions of four of
his groups of animals, the Malakia, MalaJiOstraka, Ostra-
'koderma, and Entoma, in his History of Animals, iv. cc.
1-7, his descriptions of many separate animals, e. g., the
Chamseleon, the Cuckoo, the Elephant, and the Barbary
Ape, in various parts of his History of Animals, and his
description of rainbows, primary and secondary, in his
Meteorology, iii. c. 2, ss. 3-5. The reader is sometimes
checked by suddenly coming upon a passage which has little
or no apparent connection with Vv^hat precedes it, but some
passages of this kind are interpolations, and may be com-
mentators' marginal notes which have found their way into
the texts. The apparent interpolations are rarely of any
value, and are often inaccurate.

Generally speaking, Aristotle's method of treating a
subject is very different from Plato's. There is certainly
much abstract reasoning in some of his works, but this is
avoided in his History of Animals, in many parts of his
other zoological works, and in many parts of his Meteoro-
logy, which contain records of a vast number of interesting
phenomena and facts. He is eminently practical, and is
the first to condescend to regard the observation of things
themselves as an important part of the foundation of know-
ledge. In some cases, where he could not or did not
observe 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 adop-
tion of these statements.

Many w^ords, 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 also
repetitions of many statements in the same or slightly

14 INTRODUCTORY.

different language, e. cj., he tells us that his Selache are
cartilaginous, or that they are ovoviviparous, in many diffe-
rent passages, most of his statements about his homoso-
meria in the History of Animals are repeated in his Parts
of Animals, and many parts of the subject-matter of his
Generation and Destruction are to be found in his remaining
works.

In his zoological works are many passages which the
context does not explain, and quite one-half of the animals
mentioned by him are not described in such a way as to
enable them to be identified. The reason for this is that
in many cases the animals are mentioned merely for the
purpose of illustrating general statements. On the other
hand, several passages which are not explained by their
contexts are made clear in one or more passages of the same
or a different work, e.g., that in his History of Animals,
i. c. 5, s. 7, which asserts that animals walk >t»Ta ^idfxsrpov,
is fully explained in his Progression of Animals, c. 14. It
is necessary, in fact, to study many passages in several
of his treatises, in order to understand his views on most
scientific subjects, and, it should be mentioned, some of
these passages are not consistent. Two works, the Zoica
and Anatomica, to which he sometimes refers, would have
thrown light on difficult passages in his extant zoological
works. Those two works, however, have not been recovered.

It has often been stated that in his zoological works
Aristotle has borrowed from many writers without acknow-
ledgment. This charge seems to be substantially true,
although he specifically mentions Anaxagoras, Empedocles,
Democritus of Abdera, Alcmseon, ©ieSy^ue of Apollonia,
Herodotus, Syennesis of Cyprus, Polybus, and a few others.
The comment made by Cuvier and Valenciennes, when
speaking of Aristotle's work in connection with fishes, is not
unfair. They say : " It is true that, by a practice only too
common in our own time, Aristotle scarcely mentions other
authors, except those whom he wishes to refute, and he has
been charged even with ingratitude to Hippocrates, whose
name he does not mention, although he must have borrowed
from him more than one idea. As regards the rest, we do
not think that he has done much wrong to the ichthyo-
logists, if any, who preceded him. The fragments pre-
served by Athenaeus, which we can attribute to them, do
not show that they treated their subject methodically or
carefully, and everything makes us believe that it was

INTEODUCTORY. 15

through Aristotle's writings only that ichthyology, like all
other branches of zoology, first took the form of a science."*
Eubulides and others charged x^ristotle with ingratitude
to Plato. This charge has been much discussed by modern
writers, and in connection with it it may be said that in
Aristotle's zoological works there are passages which, like
the one in his History of Animals, iii. c. 3, s. '2, about
the heart being the origin of the blood-vessels, look like
developments of statements found in Plato. Aristotle is
deserving of censure for not acknowledging Plato, if he was
indebted to him for the groundwork of such passages. To
decide whether this was so seems to be impossible, for,
independently of arguments which might be adduced for
settling it, the question is complicated by the fact that for
some years Aristotle was Plato's most gifted pupil, and the
imparting of ideas may not always have been from tutor to
pupil. In matters connected with the nature and arrange-
ment of the parts of animals Plato may have been some-
what indebted to Aristotle.

Much labour has been spent by Aristotelian

Aristotle's scholars in trying to determine the relative

Works dealing positions of Aristotle's works, and a consider-

Naturll'sdence. ^"^^^^^ ^f some of the views held on this
subject may be of interest. Not only is the
evidence on which the inquiry rests of such a nature that it
is difficult to estimate its true value, but the inquiry itself is
complicated by the probability that Aristotle had more than
one work on hand at one and the same time.

It is usually considered that Aristotle's Physics, Heavens,
Generation and Destruction, and Meteorology, were written
before the zoological treatises, including the De Anima, and
that these were begun soon after the Meteorology . There
are, in fact, some apparently genuine passages in the Meteoro-
logy which strongly support this view. The Physics was
probably written before the Heavens which, it has been
computed from the description of an occultation of Mars in
Book ii. c. 12, 292«. of that work, was written after B.C. 357.
There is also a passage in Meteorol. iii. c. 2, s. 9, which
suggests that the Meteorology was not completed before
B.C. 334, for Aristotle there says that he had known of only
two instances of lunar rainbows during a period of over fifty
years.

'•' Hist. Nat. des Foissons, Paris, 1828-49, vol. i. pp. 15-16.

16 INTEODUCTOKY.

The difficulty of deciding on the probable order of the
zoological works, including the De Anima, has been much
greater than that of deciding on the probable order of the
Physics, Heavens, Generation and Desfntcfion, and Meteoro-
logy, and the difficulty was not lessened by Titze's sugges-
tion, in 18"26, that Book i. of the Parts of Anifnals was
originally an introduction to the History of Ayiimals. It is
generally admitted that the De Anima comes early in
Aristotle's series of zoological and related works, and, so it
seems from the last sentence of the Progressive Motion
of Ani)nals, immediately after this last-named work. It is
also generally admitted that the Parva NaturaUa come
after the De Anima.

"With respect to the probable order of the three im-
portant works, the History of Animals, Parts of Animals,
and Generation of Animals, it will be well to give the views
of some Aristotelian scholars. Furlanus of Crete believed
that the History of Anitnals should precede all the other
works by Aristotle on animals.* Schneider concluded that
the order was History of Animals, Parts of Animals, and
Generation of Animals. Prantl, in his De Aristot. Lihr. . . .
Ordine atque Dispos., &c., Munich, 1843, p. 28, and Titze, in
his De Aristot. Operum Serie, Sec, Leipzig and Prague, 18'26,
pp. 58 et seq., adopted a similar order for these three works.
Valentin Eose also adopted a similar order, and was
inclined to believe that the History of Animals was probably
written some years after the battle of Arbela, B.C. 331, or
very likely after the return of the veterans of Alexander's
army, say B.C. 326, or not before B.C. 327, mainly on the
ground that the elephants, about which Aristotle had infor-
mation, were those taken in war bj' the Macedonians.! On
the other hand, some have held that the Parts of Animals
should come first. Patrizi says : "I know that all Aristo-
telians contend that the History of Animals should precede
all the other zoological works, because they think that the
phenomena are prior to and better known than their causes,
and that we should begin with what is better known." I
Again, he expresses an opinion that the History of Animals
should be put in the last place, and that all who had put

* In Libr. Aristot. de Part. Anitn. Comment, primus, kc. Venice,
1574. Preface, p. 11.

f De Aristot. Lihr. Ordine et Auctor. Comment. Berlin, 1854,
pp. 216, 240, and 241.

\ Discuss. Perijiat., &c. Venice, 1571, p. 79a.

INTRODUCTOEY. 17

it in the first place had inverted the order of Aristotehan
philosophy.* Sir A. Grant says that the Parts of Animals
may very likely have been written first after the Meteo-
rologijA Another question, to which reference has been
made, should now be considered. Book i. of the History
of Animals has no well-marked Introduction, and the com-
mencement is so abrupt, compared with the opening parts
of Aristotle's other works, that many commentators have
believed that the History of Animals once had an Introduc-
tion which has been lost or transposed. Patrizi seems to
have believed that the Parts of Animals should be regarded
as an Introduction to the entire series of Aristotle's zoolo-
logical works. Titze argued that Book i. of the Parts
of Animals was originally the Introduction to the History
of Animals ; that some transcribers so regarded it ; and
that some ignorant or careless critic, losing sight of the fact
that it was an Introduction to the History of Animals,
transferred it and ordered it to be made the first book of the
Parts of Animals.X This suggestion has not met with
general approval, but it was adopted by Dr. von Frantzius,
editor of our best Greek text of the Parts of Animals, and
by Carl J. Sundevall, the author of a well-known work on
some of the animals mentioned by Aristotle.

The most profitable way of dealing with the question of
the probable order of the chief zoological works seems to be
to consider not only the order of production or publication,
but also the order in which these works should come in
Aristotle's system, or the order in which he intended them
to be studied.

There are many passages in the zoological works stat-
ing that certain subjects have been discussed, or will be
discussed, in other works, the titles of which are clearly
indicated, e.g., in P. A. iii. c. 14, 674&, it is stated that the
relative positions and shapes of the parts of the stomach of
a ruminant should be ascertained from the History of
Animals. Passages such as the last-mentioned, assuming
them to be genuine, show that the History of Animals
preceded most, if not all, of the other zoological works.
Some commentators who have found leisure to examine the
references thoroughly have concluded, however, that a few

* Discuss. Peripat. &c. Basle, 1581, p. 123.
+ Aristotle. Edinburgh and London, 1877, p. 47.
\ De Aristot. Operum Serie et Distinctione. Leipzig and Prague,
1826, p. 55.

C

18 INTRODUCTOKY.

of them are inconsistent, and that many, if not all, have
been inserted by editors and others. Still, the value of
these references as evidence is not negligible, and a careful
search through the zoological works does not reveal any
passage in which the History of Animals is referred to as a
work in contemplation. Then there are references and
indications which are more closely bound up with the
contexts and are undoubtedly genuine parts of Aristotle's
works. In his Analijt. Prior, i. c. 30, it is said that the
facts relating to a subject should be ascertained before an
attempt is made to reason about it. He also proposes
to consider the " causes " and generation when the animals
and their peculiar features have been described.* The term
" causes " is used in a special sense for those on account
of which the parts of animals are composed and arranged
in the manner described in the History of Animals, \
and most of the Parts of A^iimals deals with these causes
and with the functions of the parts. Leaving out of con-
sideration the question of the position of Book i. of the
Parts of Animals, it may be concluded that Books ii.-iv.
of the Parts of Animals should come later than the History
of Animals, and that the Generation of Animals should
come later that the Parts of Aiiimals.

It is by no means easy to arrive at a conclusion about
the supposed missing Introduction to the History of Animals
and the position of Book i. of the Parts of Animals. The
reason given for supposing that the History of Animals
once had an Introduction, which has been lost or transposed,
has never seemed to me to be satisfactory. The character
of that work is very different from that of most of Aristotle's
works. From beginning to end he seems to be trying to
state simple facts. An Introduction would be less needed
in a work of this kind. He himself tells us that the special
function of a preface or introduction is to explain the object
of a speech, and that an introduction is not needed when
the nature of the subject-matter is clear.!

Again, if it is urged that there should be an Introduction
to the History of Aniinals, there is no need to look beyond
the first few chapters of that work. After giving a very
general account of the parts, habits, dispositions, modes of
reproduction, and a few other features of animals, Aristotle
says : " So far, I have considered these things in outline, to

* H. A. i. c. 6, s. 4; P. A. i. cc. 1 and 5. f P. A. ii. c. i. C4Grt.

I Rhetoric, iii c. 14, s. G.

INTRODUCTORY. 19

serve as a foretaste of what is to follow." * This general
account is an introduction, and was so regarded by J.
Barfchelemy Saint-Hilaire. Considering the nature of the
subject-matter of the History of Animals, such introduction
seems to be sufficient.

The last sentence of Book i. of the Parts of Animals
reads: "Let us try to explain the causes, both general and
particular, commencing in the first place from first princi-
ples, as we have determined." Now, the first part of Book
ii. of the Parts of Animals commences from first principles
by describing the formation of the so-called elements, then
the formation of Aristotle's so-called homceomeria from
these elements, and next the formation of anhomoeomeria,
or complex parts. Therefore, the sentence in question, if
correctly placed, indicates that Book i. should immediately
precede Book ii.

There is, however, another aspect of the question which
should be considered. Book i. of the Parts of Animals is of
an essentially introductory character, and appears to have
been intended to form an Introduction to the zoological
works in general. It sets forth the following order of deal-
ing with animals and vital phenomena : — (1) Animals as they
appear to us, their natures and parts, should be described ;
j(2) well-defined groups of animals should be described to-
gether, and animals which have not been put into well-
defined groups should be described separately; and (3) parts
of animals and actions and processes, such as progressive
motion, sleep, growth, and generation, common to groups of
animals, should be described. Now these subjects are
described in the History of Animals, some much more fully
than others, and the method of treatment seems to be based
upon that laid down in Book i. of the Parts of Animals.
Again, some works, such as those on Progressive Motion of
Animals, Pespiration, Sleep, &c.. Memory and Beminiscence,
and Generation of Animals, deal fully with many subjects
described only in outline in the History of Animals. The
method laid down in Book i. of the Parts of Animals seems,
therefore, to be followed, except as regards the " causes," in
the History of AniiJials, together with the works referred to,
and Book i. of the Parts of Animals seems to be intro-
ductory to Aristotle's zoological works generally, as well as
to the Parts of Animals in particular.

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

20 INTRODUCTOEY.

On subjects so difficult as those of the order of Aristotle's
zoological and related works, and the supposed missing Intro-
duction to his History of Animals, dogmatic opinions are
out of place, and the following statements are made with
some diffidence. The History of Animals has an Introduc-
tion ending at i. c. 6, s. 4. Book i. of the Parts of Animals
was written as an introduction to the zoological and related
works generally, the first to be commenced having been the
History of Animals. During the production of this work,
it was found to be expedient to treat more fully some of the
subjects, such as progressive motion, respiration, sleep,
memory, and generation, in separate works, and thus
Aristotle had several of his zoological and related works on
hand at one and the same time. In connection with these
views, the fact already referred to, viz., the absence of a
reference to the History of Animals as a work in contem-
plation, is of some importance. Another important fact is
that Book vii. of that work, dealing with the development
and growth of man, is manifestly incomplete. This indi-
cates that the History of Animals occupied Aristotle's atten-
tion up to the close of his life.

CHAPTER II.

ARISTOTLE'S METHOD OF INVESTIGATING
THE NATURAL SCIENCES.

The basis of Aristotle's method, as set out in his writings,
was the ascertainment of facts by actual observation of
natural phenomena. He preferred to rely on the evidences
of the senses rather than attempt to obtain a knowledge of
phenomena by a process of abstract reasoning. He knew
that the senses of sight and hearing, in particular, were less
keen or reliable in some persons than in others,* that some-
times the senses of touch and smell and, more rarely, those
of sight, hearing, and taste, are not trustworthy,! and he
believed that Man was surpassed by many animals in the
keenness of his senses, excepting those of touch and taste, +
Without the aid of the senses, however, he did not think
that anything could be learned or understood, § and he held
that errors were due to incorrect interpretations of the
evidences of the senses which, as far as they were giving
indications of their own proper objects of sensation, were
reliable, 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 on
observations by the senses. Not only did Plato deny that
the evidences of the senses could be relied upon, but he also
considered the intellectual faculties to be enthralled and
their efficiency impaired by association with them. The
well-known story of the prisoners in the cave, who could
see only the back wall of the cave and the shadows projected
thereon by the Sun, towards which their backs were turned,^

- H.A.i. ce. 8 and 9.

+ P. A. ii. c. 2, 648a and h ; De Anima, iii. c. S, 4286, ii. c. 6, 418a,
ii. c. 9, 421a.

I H. A. i. c. 12, s. 4 ; P. A. ii. c. 16, 660a ; De Anima, ii. c. 9, 421a.
§ De Anima, iii. c. 8, 432a ; De Sensu, dc, vi. 4456.

II De Anima, ii. c. 6, 4l8a, iii. c. 3, 4276.
*\ Republic, vii.

22 ARISTOTLE'S METHOD.

exemplifies Plato's ideas about those who would make ob-
servation by the senses a groundwork of true knowledge.

The facts, of which many parts of Aristotle's writings
on the Natural Sciences are so full, were collected by him to
serve an important purpose in connection with his method
of investigation. He says that the characters of animals
should first be ascertained before any attempt is made to
explain the causes,* and similarly in connection with other
subjects he relies on a preliminary ascertainment of facts to
serve as the groundwork for processes of inductive reasoning.
The importance of this he seems to have been the first to
appreciate fully. It has even been said that the inductive
method was due to him, but this must be accepted with
some qualification. Many thousands before his time em-
ployed that method, at least unconsciously. Aristotle was
the 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 this
extent, at least, the method is Aristotle's.

Many passages might be cited to show that he was aware
of the need for obtaining data by observation before coming
to a conclusion, but a few will be sufficient. He begins his
description of the reproduction of bees, in G. ^. iii. c. 10, by
pointing out how difficult the subject is, and, after discussing
it at great length with the aid of observations on the habits
of bees, says that the phenomena were not sufficiently un-
derstood, but that, if ever they were to be, the evidences of
the senses should be relied on rather than abstract reasoning,
but that this should be trusted, provided its conclusions
agree with the phenomena.! Again, speaking of possible
hermaphroditism in fishes, he says that no males had been
seen among the Erytlirinoi, yet the females were full of pro-
ducts of sexual generation, but adds that he had not so far been
able to obtain any result worthy of credit on this subject. |

Again, when dealing with animals generally, he often
recommends his readers to examine the facts for themselves
by dissecting the animals, and in P. A. iv. c. 5, 680<x, when
describing some of the internal parts of his Ostrakodenna,
he says that, while some of the parts can be clearly described
in words, there are others which should be understood from
an actual inspection of them. The thoroughness with which
he proposed to investigate living beings is set out in P. ^,

* P. .4. i. c. 5, 6456. f G. A. iii. c. 10, 7606. t O. A. ii. c. 5, 741a.

ARISTOTLE'S METHOD. 23

i. c. 5, 645a. In that chapter he says that these ought to
be carefully studied, not omitting even the lowest forms of
life, which, even if not attractive in themselves, show
Nature's handiwork, and afford pleasure to those who inquire
into the causes of phenomena and are interested in philo-
sophy. We ought not, he says, to turn away from an
investigation of the lower animals, for every part of Nature
reveals 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 him not to be afraid to enter,
for gods were present even in his humble dwelling, so
Aristotle invites us to study every kind of animal, without
being ashamed, for all of them show something natural and
beautiful.

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 an
inquiry, not with reference to the question discussed, but
with reference to the opponent who argues the question
with us, and that, if there is no opponent, we conduct the
inquiry 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 diffi-
culties arising out of the subject, and this can be done only
after he has examined all differences of opinion on the subject
of inquiry.*

The above is a brief account of Aristotle's method, as it
is set forth in his writings. It might be expected that, after
laying down such excellent rules, the results obtained by
him would have been uniformly trustworthy, but this wasj
not so. His own practical application of the method was:
defective. He recognized the importance of a preliminary
ascertainment of facts, but he did not appreciate that there
were many natural phenomena about which very numerous
observations must be made before any generalized statement
of them, or any theory explaining them, could be formulated.
It must have been necessary for him, just as it has been for
investigators since his time, to decide how many observations
ought to be made before the generalizing or theorizing pro-
cess could be safely carried out. There are many indications
in his writings on the Natural Sciences that he erred in
being satisfied with an insufficient number of observations.
Further, he was unaware how necessary it was to make

- De Ccelo, ii. c. 13, 2Mh.

24 ARISTOTLE'S METHOD.

many additional observations in order to test the results at
which he arrived. This want of appreciation of the value
of constant verification of results is evident in many parts of
his works. A simple experiment, such as Galileo afterwards
made, on the motion of falling bodies, would have caused
him to reconsider his opinion that the velocity of a falling
body is proportional to its weight. His belief that falling
stars, comets, the Milky Way, winds, earthquakes, and some
other phenomena were dependent in some way on the ex-
istence of a peculiar dry vapour given off by the Earth,* had
little else to support it besides abstract reasoning. An
examination of the skeleton of a snake would have prevented
him from asserting that it had thirty ribs,t and, if he had
taken a freshwater eel, a conger, and a bass, skate, or other
large fish, and had laid these open to expose the anterior
part of the alimentary canal, he would not have stated that
a few fishes, like the conger and the freshwater eel, have an
oesophagus, but that it is small even in these,! or that the
oesophagus is entirely wanting in some fishes, and is but
short in others. § He had probably noticed that, in some
fishes, the oesophagus was short, and that it was often
difficult to determine where it ended and the stomach began,
but he did not carry his observations far enough.

The mistakes made by Aristotle have been made by many
since his time. There were some cases, however, in which it
would be unreasonable to expect Aristotle to succeed in
arriving at the truth, even though he had made numerous
observations and otherwise carefully followed the rules of
his method. His want of success would follow naturally
from the want of proper instruments of observation, and an
inevitable inability to appreciate the very complicated nature
of the phenomena themselves. Consider, for instance, his
description, chiefly in H. A. vi. c. 3, of the phenomena of
incubation of a bird's egg. He evidently believed that the
heart was the first part to be developed. His researches on
the incubation of a bird's egg, however, were original, and
constitute one of the best proofs that he was a careful
observer. Another statement, probably the result of many
observations, may also be considered. He says that all
fishes which have scales are oviparous. || Comparatively
recent observations have shown that there are many excep-
tions to this, yet Aristotle can scarcely be adversely criticized

* MefeoroZ. i. and ii. f If.^. ii. c. 12, s. 12. | H. .4. ii. c. 12, s. 3.
§ P. A. iii. c. 14, 675a. || H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 6.

I

ARISTOTLE'S METHOD. 25

for making the statement. The exception most Hkely to
come under his notice was the Viviparous Blenny {Zoarces
viviparus), which has very small, delicate scales embedded
in its skin. Other viviparous fishes with conspicuous scales,
such as Sebastes iwrvegicus, found chiefly in Norwegian
waters, and the Surf-fishes {EmbiotocidcB) , found off the
Californian and Japanese coasts, were not likely to come
under his observation.

• As already stated, Aristotle should not be adversely criti-
cized for making such statements, but there are many others
which were due to errors of observation. The conger has
four double gills on each side, and the parrot-wrasse has
three double gills and one single gill on each side, but
Aristotle says that each of these fishes has one double gill
and one single gill on each side.* Again, the swallow has a
very compact gizzard in the form of a thick, nearly circular
disc with well-rounded edges, and the gizzard of the sparrow
is also very compact, while its oesophagus is comparatively
large, for it is usually a quarter of an inch in diameter when
gently inflated, with a well-defined part about three-fifths of
an inch in diameter, serving as a crop. Aristotle says that
some birds, such as, for instance, the swallow and the spar-
row, have neither an oesophagus nor a crop of large diameter,
but they have a long {iJ.aKp%v) gizzard.! The above statements
have been selected because they refer to fishes and birds
easily procurable, and to parts of these which Aristotle could
have easily examined. One other example, of a different
kind, will be given. Like nearly all mammals, the lion and
the wolf have seven cervical vertebrae, but Aristotle says that
each of these animals has but one bone in its neck, there being
no separate vertebrae.! It is very likely that, in a case such
as this, he accepted what had been told him by others.

The defects thus illustrated, viz., insufiiciency of obser-
vations and want of a process of verification, explain to some
extent why Aristotle sometimes failed, but other causes may
be suggested. He attempted to do too much. In conse-
quence of the wide range of his researches, not only in the
domain of Natural Science, but also in other branches of
knowledge, his work of observing, dissecting, and, to a
small extent, of experimenting, must have been carried out
only by very strenuous efforts. He allowed himself no time,
although he might have had the wish, to make sure of all

- H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 4. f H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 16.

\ P. A. iv. c. 10, 686a ; H. A. ii. c. 1, s. 1.

26 ARISTOTLE'S METHOD.

his ground as he proceeded. He was hke an explorer of a
new region, who recognizes its mountain ranges, its chief
plains, its great rivers, and, here and there, some minor
features which arrest his attention, but who must press
forward, with no opportunity for tracing a river to its som-ce
or ascertaining the relative positions and heights of the
various peaks. "While admitting the importance of obtaining
a knowledge of the phenomena by observation, he seems to
have been determined to formulate as many generalized
statements as possible. He appears to admit this when
he says that we must try to state what appears to us
(to psuvofjuvov) , nor should this be considered to be of the nature
of presumption, but should deserve respect, when anyone,
having to deal with matters of very great difficulty and
urged by a desire for investigating philosophy, contents
himself with shght data.*

A further cause of failure, closely connected with
Aristotle's apparent willingness to content himself with slight
data, and mere approximations to the truth, deserves special
mention. It is clear that any defect arising from insufficient
data would have to be remedied in some way, and Aristotle,
like many other ancient Greek philosophers, sometimes tried
to do this by relying on certain ideas which were treated by
him as if they were more authoritative than the data them-
selves. These ideas were brought forward, often without
any apparent consideration as to whether or no they were
relevant to the question at issue, and used in much the same
way as axioms and postulates are used by geometricians.
The result was a remarkable mixture of inductive and
deductive reasoning.

The arguments which led Aristotle to conclude that there
could not be a separate void, + and that the blood of the right
chamber of the heart and of the right side of the body is
hotter than that of the left,C furnish examples of the defects
of method caused by the use of ideas of the kind referred to
above.

Aristotle's arguments against the existence of a separate
void are too long to be given in full, but the following is an
epitome of what seem to be the chief parts of them. In a
void, if this existed, a body could not be in motion, for a
void, being a mere privation of matter, could not present
differences of position and direction, such as above and below,

* De Ccelo, ii. c. 12, 2916. + Physics, iv. c. 8.

X p. A. ii. c. 2, &48fl, iii. c. 4, 667rt.

V

I

AKISTOTLE'S METHOD. 27

upwards and downwards, and so the upward and downward
motions natural to bodies could not take place.* Again, if
bodies of similar shapes pass through a medium, such as air
or water, then those which have a greater driving-force
(poTiri) — due to their heaviness, in the case of bodies to which a
downward motion is natural, or to their lightness, in the case
of bodies to which an upward motion is natural — will move
more quickly through the same distance. This ought to
happen also when the bodies pass through a void, but
this is impossible, for vv^hat reason is there for the swifter
motion ? In water or other medium this happens, of
course, since the heavier bodies, e.g., divide the medium
more quickly by reason of their greater heaviness. A
body in motion divides the medium by reason of its shape
or its driving force {po'^y}), and, when there is no medium,
all bodies ought to move with equal velocities, but this
is impossible.! Having thus argued, he says that it is
clear therefore that there cannot be a separate void
(}csx,(^pia-ixevov KEv6y).l Without attempting to analyse the
above arguments any further, it will be evident that the
introduction of ideas, such as, for instance, that it is
necessary to distinguish upward and downward directions
before it can be said that motion is possible, that bodies have
certain motions natural to them, and that the velocity of a
body depends on its shape and on its heaviness or lightness,
qualities considered to be inherent in the body, make it
impossible to come to any correct conclusions.

Finally, Aristotle's conclusion that the blood of the right
chamber of the heart and of the right side of the body is
hotter than that of the left chamber or side may have been
based, in part, on observations, for he was aware of differences
of consistency, turbidity, and temperature in the blood from
different parts of the same animal. Observations were not
relied on, however, to any important extent in this instance.
His arguments in P. A. ii. c. 2, 648a show clearly that his
conclusion that the blood of the right chamber of the heart
and of the right side of the body is hotter than that of the
left chamber or side followed from his idea that the right
is nobler or more honourable than the left. This idea, it
will be noticed, has no necessary connection with the ques-
tion of differences of temperature of the blood in different
parts of the body.

■'' Physics, iv. c. 8, ss. 3 and 4. -j Physics, iv. c. 8, ss. 11 and 12.

I Physics, iv. c. 8, s. 16.

28 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC, AND

CHAPTEE III.

CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEKIC, AND TEREESTRIAL
PHENOMENA.

Aristotle's descriptions and explanations of these three
classes of phenomena are such that it is proposed to treat
of them in one and the same chapter. .To treat of them
separately would erroneously suggest a division such as he
never effected. At the present time, the subject-matter
dealt with in this chapter would be properly assigned to the
sciences of astronomy, meteorology, physical geography,
and geology. Aristotle's Meteorology and his work on
the Heavens contain, in fact, much information about the
heavenly bodies, rainbows, 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 seen
from the facts that he considered the Milky Way to be due
to causes much the same as those by which he believed
comets to be produced, that both depended on the ascent of
certain vapours from the Earth, and that earthquakes,
lightning, and thunder were due to the same general cause
as winds. His descriptions and explanations, often accom-
panied by the views of other philosophers, are of historic
value, and he records some events, such as, for example,
some appearances of comets, changes in the distribution of
land and sea, and volcanic eruptions and earthquakes, which
are very interesting in themselves.

Inaccurate though his explanations of phenomena often
are, yet he shows a desire to reason out rather than to guess
at the causes of such phenomena, and, compared with those
of his predecessors, his views are generally founded on much
more carefully considered arguments.

The fundamental principles on which his arguments
were based, viz., the formation of terrestrial matter from
four elements, the natural motions of which were upwards

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 29

from the centre, in the cases of fire and air, and downwards
towards the centre, in the cases of earth and water, and the
existence of a fifth element, sether, having a circular motion
and existing at a great distance from us, vitiated many of
his results, and sometimes caused him much trouble when
attempting to show that his results were in accord with the
phenomena. Examples of this will be seen in his explana-
tions of falling stars and thunderbolts.

Many of the problems which Aristotle sought to solve
would require the use of instruments which he did not
possess, and, without the aid of these, he could scarcely do
otherwise than fail. His explanations of celestial, atmo-
spheric, and terrestrial phenomena are often of a fanciful
nature and constitute some of his least valuable w^ork. Some
of the phenomena he records are very interesting, as already
stated, and, in the following description, his records of this
kind will be discussed after his opinions on the causes to
which 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 is but one Kosmos or
Universe; it is spherical in form and finite in magnitude; it
includes all matter, and outside it there is neither place nor
time ; it was not generated, neither can it be destroyed ; it
rotates to the right, and its rotation is uniform. This is an
epitomized statement of Aristotle's views on the Kosmos, as
set out at great length in his De Ccelo, i. cc. 5-12, ii. 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 and
space at all times. This form was assigned to it because
the Kosmos is necessarily perfect, and the only perfect
geometrical figure is the sphere, which Aristotle considered
to 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 figure,* and he defined the infinite to
be that of which, taking any part whatever for consideration,
there is always something beyond, for it is not that beyond
which nothing exists.! He says that the infinite exists in
^vvaixi^, i.e., potentially, but this must not be understood to
mean that the infinite will exist, in the same way as it may
be said that if a material is capable of existing in the form

■■'■ De Ccelo, i. c. 5, 2726. f Physics, iii. c. 6, ss. 7 and 8.

30 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC, AND

of a statue then it will exist in that form.* The infinite can
exist only as an object of contemplation, but the capability
of division without end gives to the potential infinite some
kind of actual existence.! The upper parts of the Kosmos
are full of Eether, which is of such a nature that it is always
moving in a circular path, and, being of this nature, it can-
not have either heaviness or lightness ; further, it was not
generated and could not be destroyed, being incapable of
change, quantitative or qualitative.! It was of this element
that Aristotle believed the heavenly bodies to consist. § He
says that some believed that the stars were of fire, but it
should be understood that they were not, nor were they
carried round in a medium of fire.H In his De Coelo, ii. cc.
7 and 8, he speaks of the Sun and Stars being fastened
{bhhlxzvQs) in the Heavens. This seems at first sight difficult
to understand, suggesting as it does the necessity of sup-
porting almost incalculable masses, but Aristotle's assumption,
previously referred to, that the heavenly bodies are of aether,
which has neither heaviness nor lightness, would remove
any difficulty of this kind. His ideas about the fixing of the
heavenly bodies in the Heavens were borrowed, in part at
least, from earlier philosophers, especially Pythagoras and
Parmenides.

Beneath the higher parts of the Kosmos, filled with aether,
was the zone, if it may be so called, of fire, which Aristotle
supposed to be between the osther and the air, beneath
which were water and earth. ^ In the zone of fire, however,
he contemplated the presence of a dry, earthy exhalation,
to be referred to later, and of air, probably in the same way
that 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 which
the heat and light of these bodies is caused will be considered.
Many difficulties arise in the mind of anyone reading through
his statements on this subject, chiefly in his De Coelo, ii. c. 7,
but his explanation may be expressed as follows : — Obser-
vations on the motion of missiles show that they become
highly heated or are even ignited, and, he adds, the air is
similarly affected. Since, then, heat is produced by the

''■' Physics, iii. c. 6. s. 2.

f De Gener. et Corr. i. c. 3, 318a ; MetapJiys. viii. c. G, 10486.

I De Ccelo, i. c. 2, 2696, i. c. 3, 2696 and 270<z; Meteorol. i. c. 3, s. 4.

§ Meteorol. i. c. 2, p. 1 ; De Ccelo, ii. c. 7, 289rt; ; De Miindo, c. 2, 392.

il De Ccelo, ii. c. 7. IT Meteorol. i. c. 3, s. 14 ; De Coelo, ii. c. 4, 287rt.

TEKKESTEIAL PHENOMENA. 31

friction of bodies in motion, the heavenly bodies moving in
their respective courses still more readily cause the ignition
of the air beneath them, this bemg more of the nature of
fire than is any solid missile. The heavenly bodies them-
selves are not heated. Where the Sun happens to be fixed
the heating effects are intense, but, in Meteorol. i. c. 3, s. 21,
he says that the Sun, which in an especial degree seems to
be hot, appears to be white and not fiery. It has been
stated already that he did not believe that the stars were of
fire, nor that they were carried round in a medium of fire.
He seems to have believed that they moved in contact with
the medium oi fire or aii' within their spheres of motion.*

Such were Aristotle's views. They are difficult to
understand, not only because they are not explained
sufficiently fully, but also because they are based, in part at
least, on fanciful assumptions. It is not clear what was the
nature of the substance the ignition of which was caused by
the motion of the heavenly bodies, except that it was
intermediate between fire or flame and air, like one of the
substances which Alexander, Simplicius, Philoponus, and
some other ancient writers identified with Anaximander's
infinite or primitive matter. His assertion that the Sun
appears to be white and not fiery is strange, and suggests
that he had not seen a wliite-hot fire. It will be seen,
in the discussion on his views on heat phenomena, that he
greatly underestimated the intensity of heat of an ordinary
red-hot fire. Again, Aristotle does not satisfactorily explain
why the heating effect is so intense where the Sun happens
to be secured. In an attempt to explain this, in Meteorol.
i. c. 3, s. 20, he says that the motion of the Sun is sufficiently
rapid and the Sun is near enough to us, for the moving body
should not be too far away and its motion should be rapid,
for the heat to be effective. The stars, he says, certainly
move rapidly, but are too far away, while the Moon is nearer,
but her motion is slow. The statement that the heavenly
bodies are not heated would be difficult to understand were
it not for Aristotle's assumption, already referred to, that the
heavenly bodies are of aether, which is incapable of change. .

According to Aristotle the stars are spherical, but they
neither rotate nor revolve of themselves, being secured in
the circles of the Heavens, which are rotating.! His opinion
that the stars are spherical was also held, he says, by others, t

- De Ccelo, ii. c. 4, 287a, ii, c. 7. 289rt.

f De Ccelo, ii, c. 8, 2896, and 290a. J De Ccelo, ii. c. 8, 290a.

32 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEEIC, AND

That the Moon is spherical is shown, he says, by her phases
and by solar eclipses.* He says also that the Earth is
spherical, this being shown by eclipses of the Moon, and
that geometers had calculated the circumference of the Earth
to be about forty-six thousand miles, t Other philoso-
phers, before Aristotle's time, believed that the Earth was
spherical, e.g., the Pythagoreans, according to Zeller.t In
opposition to the Pythagoreans and others, he held that
the Earth was the centre of the Kosmos, and this conclusion
was based on his assumptions about the nature of the
elements 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 Earth was at rest at
the centre of the Kosmos, and must necessarily tend to
that position for several reasons, one being that heavy
bodies thrown upwards, even to a great height, fall directly
downwards to the places whence they are thrown, § for he
considered that the Earth would act like any of its parts.
Aristotle's belief, previously referred to, that, passing out-
wards from the centre, earth, water, air, and fire are arranged
above one another in the order named, seems to be a develop-
ment of Anaximander's belief that the earth, the air, and an
envelope of fire, enclosing the whole, were produced by
successive processes of separation from his fluid primitive
matter.

Before proceeding further with Aristotle's views on the
Earth and terrestrial phenomena, some of his statements
about certain celestial and atmospheric phenomena, such
as falling stars, the Milky Way, and rainbows, will be
considered.

These phenomena, according to Aristotle, have a less
orderly arrangement than the stars and planets, il The
explanations he gives to account for the formation of falling
stars, comets, the Milky Way, and various other kinds of
luminous and moving appearances in the sky are somewhat
alike. He bases most of his explanations on an assumed
ascent of exhalations from the Earth, parts of such exhala-
tions being afterwards ignited in consequence of the motions
of the upper regions of the Kosmos. The exhalations were
supposed to be of two kinds : (1) an essentially watery vapour,

- De Coelo, ii. c. 11. f De Coelo, ii. c. 14, 2976 and 298a.

X History of Greek Philosophy, translated by S. F. Alleyne, 1881,
vol. i. p. 454. § De Coelo, ii. c. 14, 2966. || Meteorol. i. c. 1, s. 2.

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 33

and (2) an essentially dry, smoke-like exhalation from dry
earth. This ascended higher than the watery vapour, and
was the one which Aristotle believed to be ignited. The
modes of arrangement and the sizes of the ignited exhalations
varied, and various names were given them. Aristotle
describes some of them. His descriptions are neither full
nor clear, but he refers to falling stars and, apparently, fiery
meteors to which he gives the name " aix," i.e., something
which rushes impetuously, and to blood-red and other flame-
like appearances, which seem to include auroras.*

In another passage Aristotle modifies his views on the
mode of production of falling stars. He was met by the
difficulty that the downward motions of these bodies were
not such as might be expected from an ignited exhalation,
for the natural motion of fire is in an upward direction. To
overcome this difficulty, he says, in a passage difficult to
understand, that hot matter is violently pressed out down-
wards, in consequence of the air being compressed by the
cold, and thus the motion is more like that of a falling body
than that of flame, t

After commenting on the views of Anaxagoras, Demo-
critus, and others on the nature of comets, Aristotle says that
the dry and hot exhalations, referred to already, beneath the
moving parts of the heavens, together with the underlying
air, are whirled round the Earth, and that whatever they
meet is ignited, provided it is of the proper constitution,
a falling star being thereby produced.! Under conditions
such that the resulting ignited matter becomes compressed
and burning proceeds for a long time at a steady rate, and
simultaneously an exhalation of suitable constitution rises
from below and meets with the burning matter, the falling
star becomes a comet. § When the ignition occurs in a
lower region of the Kosmos, a comet appears as a separate
phenomenon, but if the ignition occurs beneath some star or
planet, then this becomes a comet. li The first kind of comet
is probably meant to be one with a conspicuous tail, and
the second one with a conspicuous nucleus and a tail less
distinct.

In order to explain the appearance of the Milky Way,
Aristotle again made use of his theory of ignited exhalations.
He believed that if ignition of a dry exhalation beneath a

* Meteorol. i. c. 4, ss. 5 and 6, and c. 5, s. 1.

f Ibid. i. c. 4, ss. 7-10. | Ibid. i. c. 7, ss. 1 and 2.

§ Ibid. i. c. 7, s. 3. || Ibid. i. c. 7, s. 5.

D

34 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC, AND

star could produce a comet, as stated previously, then a
similar result would be produced beneath the vast number
of stars vi^hich are collected together in the Milky Way.*
The milky appearance he considered to be due to the tails,
apparently coalesced, of the numerous comets or comet-like
effects thus produced, t

Amid all these fanciful explanations, it is quite clear
that Aristotle fully appreciated one fact, viz., the existence
of numerous stars, many of large size, in the Milky Way.

He explains the views of other philosophers, viz., the
Pythagoreans, who believed that the Milky Way was the
path of the planets, Anaxagoras and Democritus, who held
that it was the light of certain stars, which, hidden from the
Sun by the Earth, shone with a light of their own so as to
produce a milky aspect, and some philosophers who con-
sidered the Milky Way to be caused by reflection. This,
he says, was nearly all that had been said by others on this
subject.!

Rainbows and what he calls halos, parhelia, and rods or
streaks of light are, Aristotle says, all caused by anaklasis.%
Anaklasis means a bending or breaking aside, and, as used
by Aristotle in his statements about light, a reflection.

It is not clear that all Aristotle's statements about halos
relate to the phenomena now called by that name, but most
of them seem to do so. Halos, white and coloured, have
been seen about the Sun, the Moon, and the planet Venus,
when these celestial bodies were shining through cirrus or
like clouds. These clouds are now believed to contain vast
numbers of ice crystals, which act like prisms. Those
crystals which send the maximum amount of light to the
eye of the observer form a circular ring, and the effect of
refraction by these is to produce, in the case of a coloured
halo, a circular spectrum-band with the red on the inner
side and not on the outer, as in a primary rainbow.

Aristotle's explanation of the way in which a halo is
produced has a superficial resemblance to the above, but he
considers that it is formed when the light of the Sun, the
Moon, or a bright star or planet, shines through a uniformly
moist cloud and is reflected by a circular ring of watery
particles which form part of the cloud, and act like so many
small mirrors. II He says that the rainbow and the halo

* Meteorol. i. c. 8, bs. 11 to 13. f Ibid. i. c. 8, s. 20.

I Ibid. i. c. 8, ss. 4 and 10. § Ibid. iii. c. 2, s. 7.

II Ibid. iii. c. 2, s. 2, c. 3, ss. 2, and 7 to 9.

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 35

differ in the design (rojxix/a) of their colours,* but he does not
explain in what way they differ, so that it cannot be said
that he was aware of the difference between the arrangements
of the colours, previously referred to, of a primary rainbow
and a coloured halo. In Meteorol. iii. c. 3, ss. 10 and 11,
when dealing with the colours of solar halos, he says that
the mirrors, although severally invisible on account of their
smallness, are contiguous and form one ring in which the
Sun is reflected so that a whiteness of the halo is evident.
He states correctly that halos are less frequently seen about
the Sun than about the Moon.t

Aristotle refers, in several passages, to parhelia or mock
suns, but some of his statements about them are incorrect.
Like halos, in association with which they are sometimes
seen, parhelia are caused by refraction of sunlight shining
through a cirrus or like cloud containing minute ice crystals.
The parhelia usually occur to the right and left of the Sun,
at a distance of about 22° therefrom. Aristotle says that
parhelia are due to reflection of the visual rays from some-
thing to the Sun,t and, it seems, from Meteorol. iii. c. 6, s. 5,
that this something is a dense mist or cloud, the watery
vapour of which is in the act of condensing into raindrops
and so uniformly constituted as to form, in effect, an even
mirror reflecting an image of and of the same colour as the
Sun, the reflection being compared with that which takes
place at the surface of polished bronze.

He was aware that the appearance of a parhelion was
an indication of unsettled weather. § Parhelia are produced,
according to Aristotle, to the right and left of the Sun, and
neither above it nor below it, and he adds correctly that
they are not formed very close to the Sun nor very far
away. 11

The appearance and mode of formation of certain streaks
of coloured light, which Aristotle calls "rods" {pci/3^oi), are
described by him, but his descriptions are difficult to under-
stand. The streaks of light are probably those which are
seen among clouds at sunrise and sunset, producing the
magnificent colour effects, which are so well known.

Aristotle says that the " rods " usually appear about
sunrise and sunset, and always to the right or left of the

* Meteorol. iii. c. 4, s. 9. -j- Ibid. iii. c. 3, s. 1*2.

I Ibid. iii. c. 6, s. 1. § Ibid. iii. c. 6, s. 6.

II Ibid. iii. c. 2, s. 6, iii. c. 6, s. 7.

36 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEEIC, AND

Sun.* It is scarcely necessary to say that the streaks of
light producing colour effects at sunset and sunrise are often
seen above and below the Sun, as well as to the right and
left. He seems to have believed that, unlike parhelia, the
" rods " were caused by reflection of a cloud, probably a
white 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 in
water. In the former case, he says, the cloud is quite
colourless, but, when seen in water, it seems to be full of
" rods."t Again, in an earlier passage, he says that the
reflection of the cloud in water is some colom* of the rain-
bow, for the visual rays being weakened in consequence of
the reflection, the white is changed to some colour between
white and black, t

To give a correct explanation of passages such as these
does not seem to be possible. The splendid colour effects of
the Grecian seas may well have excited the imagination and
given rise to popular beliefs, with which Aristotle would be
acquainted, but the above passages seem to be the results of
abstract reasoning. He knew nothing, of course, about the
composite nature of white light, and was obliged to make
use of some ingenious assumptions to account for colour
phenomena. He assumed that minute drops of water,
acting as mirrors, may be so small as not to reflect the form
of an object, but colour only, such colour depending, in
part at least, on the size of the drops. He believed that the
" rods " appeared when the very watery clouds, referred to
above, varied in density and content of watery vapour, so
that the mirrors formed by the minute water drops varied
in size. Under these conditions, he considered that, in
accordance with the assumptions set out above, coloured
streaks of light, e.g., red or yellow, would be produced, for
he says : — " The ' rods ' are due to the irregularity of the
mirror, not as regards form but colour." §

Aristotle's explanations of rainbows, primary and second-
ary, and their colours are given at great length, chiefly in
Meteorol. iii. cc. 4 and 5. Compared with most of his
explanations of other natural phenomena, those of rainbows
are particularly full, ingenious, and interesting. Read in
connection, however, with the more important facts about

=•= Meteorol. iii. c. 2, s. 6, iii. c. 6, s. 7. f Ibid. iii. c. 6, ss. 1 and 2.
I Ibid. iii. c. 4, s. 23. § Ibid. iii. c. 6, ss. 3 and 4.

TEREESTEIAL PHENOMENA. 37

rainbows discovered long after his time by Theodorich and
De Dominis on the refractions by the raindrops and reflec-
tions at their surfaces, by Descartes on the concentration of
the rays of hght in particular directions, and by Newton on
the differences of refrangibility of different coloured rays,
Aristotle's explanations are cumbersome and often fanciful.
It is not easy to understand his meaning, and there are
indications in his description that he found the explanations
very difficult. He makes several assumptions, most of them
faulty, and it is not always clear on which of these assump-
tions he relies when attempting to explain certain details of
the phenomena. The following is an epitome of Aristotle's
views, from which the peculiarities of his explanations,
referred to above, will be evident. It will also be noticed
that he speaks of the rays of light being reflected towards
the object seen. Visual rays, he says, are reflected from all
smooth surfaces, such as those of water and air, and such
reflection takes place from compressed air and also from air
which is not compressed, if the visual rays are weak, just as
happened in the case of one man whose sight was weak, for
he always saw an image of himself in front of him, as
he walked.* The reflection is stronger from water and
especially from vapour which is just being condensed into
water, for then each of its parts acts like a mirror, t On
account of the extreme smallness of such mirrors, however,
colour only and not form will be seen, but the succession of
mirrors similarly situated will give a continuous band of
similar colour. The same reasoning applies to all the
mirrors, and so a rainbow is formed. I

Again, a rainbow is caused by the reflection of visual
rays by a cloud to the Sun, the cloud being dark and the
visual rays having to extend through a long distance. A
bright object, however, shining through anything dark or in
anything dark — for, he adds, it makes no difference which it
is — is red. In order to exemplify this, he remarks that the
Sun appears to be red when seen through mist or smoke,
and that the flame of a fire of green wood appears to be of
a red colour, by reason of its being seen mingled with a
large amount of smoke. § He says that this explains why
one of the colours of the rainbow is red.|| Continuing his

* Meteorol. iii. c. 4, ss. 2 and 3. f Ibid. iii. c. 4, s. 5.

I Ibid. iii. c. 4, bs. 6 and 7. ^5 Ibid. iii. c. 4, ss. 9-11.

II Ibid. iii. c. 4, s. 12.

38 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEEIC, AND

explanations, he introduces another idea into his train of
reasoning, saying that distant objects seem to be darker
because the visual raj's fail to reach them, or only partially
do so, or because the rays are weakened by reflection.
From one or both of these causes, therefore, a bright or
white object may appear to be of some colour between
white and black, e.g., light red, greenish yellow, or dark
blue, which successively approach black. If the visual
rays are strong, white would be changed to light red ;
if less strong, white would be changed to greenish yellow ;
and if weak, it would be changed to dark blue. Now the
greater the periphery from which the visual rays extend to
the Sun, the stronger and more concentrated the rays, but
the outer periphery of the primary rainbow is the greatest,
and therefore its colour is light red, which is nearest to
white. Seasoning in the same way, it follows that the
inner part of the primary rainbow is dark blue, and the
middle part greenish yellow.*

Aristotle proceeds to deal with the secondary rainbow
and says that this also has three colom*s, formed by reflec-
tion, the inner part of the secondary rainbow being light
red, the outer part dark blue, and the intermediate part
greenish yellow. His explanation of this phenomenon is
meagre and presents many difficulties, but the following
seems to represent his views. The secondary rainbow has
its colours duller than those of the primary and also in
inverse order, compared with those of the primary, for the
same reason, for the visual rays are weaker because the
reflections causing the secondary rainbow take place at a
greater 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 is nearest the observer, like the outer part
of the primary rainbow. The visual rays, therefore, being
more numerous and stronger at the inner periphery, its
colour will be light red, for reasons similar to those given
when explaining the order of the colours of the primary
rainbow, and the other colours proceeding radially outwards
will be greenish yellow and dark blue.t

It will be evident that his explanations depend on some
ingenious assumptions, notably that relating to the pro-
duction of colour-effects by the weakening of the visual

* MeteoroL iii. c. 4, ss. 20-25. f Ibid. in. c. 4, ss. 30-32.

TEEKESTKIAL PHENOMENA. 39

rays, but what will, perhaps, cause most surprise is that
he made such a persistent attempt to explain so difficult a
series of phenomena.

Aristotle also discusses the size of the rainbow, and
makes some very interesting statements about the conditions
under which it could be seen at Athens. In Meteorol. iii.
c. 2, s. 3, he says that the arch of the rainbow is never greater
than a semicircle, and in Meteorol. iii. c. 5, proceeds to give
a geometrical proof of this. Aristotle's statement is sub-
stantially correct for an observer on the earth's surface, for
the effect of refraction in the case of the rainbow is inappre-
ciable. That the arch is sometimes greater than a semicircle
is, however, well known, the arch being so when the
observer is at some high elevation.

An error, however, occurs in Meteorol. iii. 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 is high, the arch is less but the circle greater. The
external radius of the primary rainbow is constant, being
about 42°, and that of the secondary rainbow is also
constant, being about 54°. Still, it is clear that Aristotle
attempted to make observations in a thorough manner, and
it should be remembered that it was not possible to explain
the constancy of the angular dimensions of the rainbow
before Descartes proved that a concentration of the rays
occurs in certain directions. Aristotle also says, in a passage
which shows that he was a keen observer, that, after the
autumnal equinox and during the shorter days, a rainbow is
possible at all hours, but, in the summer, it is not possible
about midday.* He probably intended this statement to
refer to the appearances of rainbows at Athens. He
attempts to explain it in Meteorol. iii. c. 5, but his explana-
tion is defective, because he was not in possession of correct
data.

A straight line from the centre of the Sun to the centre
of a rainbow passes through the observer's eye, and, there-
fore, if the Sun is more than 54° above the horizon, not
even the outer part of a secondary rainbow would be visible
to an observer at the sea-level at Athens. Referring to
Fig. 1, it will be seen that, at midday, June 21st, the alti-
tude of the Sun at Athens = 90°- (38°— 23" 28') - 75° 28',
the latitude of Athens being 38° and the inclination of the

'■- Meteorol. iii. c. 2, s. 3.

40

CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC, AND

ecliptic 23° 28'. Clearly, therefore, a secondary rainbow,
and still less a primary rainbow, would not be visible about ,j
midday. At the autumnal equinox (Sept. 21st) it is evident

FIG. I.

K^ Sun at
/ middav June2

Sun at

rr\\dday

Sept. 21

Sun at
any date
bn the horizon

'-Dark blue
'-Greenish-Fellow
' — Light red

Dark blue
•- Greenish -yellow
' — Light red

that, at midday, the altitude of the Sun at Athens is 52°,
and some part of a secondary rainbow might be seen, even
at midday, and part also of a primary rainbow could be seen
at midday, during the shorter days of the year. It will be

TEREESTEIAL PHENOMENA. 41

noticed that, in Fig. 1, the rainbows are shown greatly mag-
nified and in positions suitable for showing the lifting up of
a rainbow at Athens at midday, as the year advances.

Several other interesting statements about rainbows are
made by Aristotle. He says, for instance, that, in conse-
quence of the juxtaposition of the light red and greenish
yellow, an orange colour is seen in some cases,* and that the
colours of the rainbow, light red, greenish yellow, and dark
blue, are almost the only ones which painters cannot
produce by mixing other colours.!

It is well known that various colours can be produced
by mixing red, yellow, and blue pigments in suitable pro-
portions. Aristotle considered the extreme colours of the
rainbow to be some shade of red and of blue respectively,
but it is not clear what was the intermediate colour ; some
passages suggest that it was green, others, like the one cited
above from Meteorol. iii. c. 2, s. 5, suggest that it was yellow.
He calls it Trpdaivov, which usually meant leek-green, but it is
unlikely that he misunderstood what was known by painters
about the mixing of colours, and, mainly for this reason, it
has been assumed in this chapter that the intermediate
colour was some shade of yellow. The colours and their
arrangement, according to this view, are shown in Fig. 2.
The colour ^av96v, which Aristotle considered to be due to the
juxtaposition of coloured lights, viz., greenish yellow and
light red, is assumed to be orange, a colour which ^av86v
sometimes denoted. It will be noticed that Aristotle men-
tions four colours of the rainbow and yet, in some passages,
says that each rainbow has three colours only. The
inconsistency is apparent only, for he makes it clear that
the three colours are those which he considered to be
due to reflection. The number of colours of the rainbow
which can be distinguished varies with different observers,
being usually five, six, seven, or even more. Aristotle
discusses the possibility of the formation of more than two
rainbows, but concludes, incorrectly, in Meteorol. iii. c. 4,
s. 33, that three or more are not produced. With respect
to lunar rainbows, he says correctly that these are only
rarely seen, and adds that, during a period of more than
fifty years, he had known of only two instances.! The
colours of a lunar rainbow can be seen, but are by no means

* Meteorol. iii. c. 4. s. 26. f Ibid. iii. c. 2, s. 5.

I Ibid. iii. c. 2, s. 9.

42 CELESTL\L, ATMOSPHERIC, AND

conspicuous. Aristotle, however, states that a lunar rainbow
seems to be quite white.*

He also refers incidentally to the formation of rainbows
in spray raised by oars from the sea, or in spray scattered
by hand away from the sun, but he states incorrectly that,
in these cases, the colours are more like those seen about
lamps, there being, apparently, not a light red but a purple
colour. +

This represents the main part of Aristotle's descriptions
of rainbows. Many of his statements are inaccurate, as has
been mentioned already, but yet none of his work on celes-
tial, atmospheric, and terrestrial phenomena shows more
clearly the use of a careful method of inquiry. Further,
his descriptions of the way in which rainbows and their
colours are produced serve to illustrate some of the difficult
passages on light and colour which will be considered in
Chapter iv.

Unlike some ancient philosophers, Aristotle did not
believe that air, when in motion, was wind, while the same
air, when condensed, was rain.t He believed that rain
originates from an exhalation, essentially vaporous, and
wind from another exhalation, essentially dry or smoke-like,
both being raised by the heat of the Sun and always asso-
ciated together. § He was influenced by observations show-
ing that during dry years, when the dry and smoke-like
exhalation was most abundant, winds were most frequent,
while the vaporous exhalation was most abundant during wet
years. II

Aristotle knew that winds were due to the action of
solar heat, but beyond this his views on their production
were untrustworthy. The action of solar heat is to rarefy
parts of the atmosphere, and the rarefied parts rising
upwards are replaced, more or less violently, by colder and
heavier air. These processes, so well-known to result in the
occurrence of winds, do not seem to have been known to
Aristotle. He believed that the dry, smoke-like exhalation
was, as he says in various passages, the origin, nature, or
substance of winds. Like those of other ancient philo-
sophers, his ideas about the composition of the atmosphere
were very crude, and it is difficult to understand what he
considered the dry, smoke-like exhalation to be, but it is

* Meteorol. in. c. 4, s. 28. f Ibid. iii. c. 4, ss. 17-19.

I Ibid. ii. c. 4, s. 7. § Ibid. ii. c. 4. ss. 2-5.

li Ibid. ii. c. 4. s. 10.

TEREESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 43

probable that it was hot air mingled with humic and other
effluvia rising from the hot earth. It may be mentioned
here that, in the Aristotelian work, De Mundo, c. 4, 394, it
is stated that wind is nothing else but a large quantity of
compressed air in motion. This work was not written by
Aristotle.

His views on the wet or vaporous exhalation are much
easier to understand, and are set out at great length in
Meteorol. i. cc. 9-12. He probably did not know that water
vapour is diffused throughout the atmosphere, but he gives
a substantially correct explanation of the formation of rain
and clouds, for he says that the vapour raised by the Sun's
heat and by any other celestial source of heat is cooled and
condensed and descends to the earth, and that clouds result
from a separation of watery vapour from the air.*

Dew and hoar-frost are formed from watery vapour
during clear, calm weather, t Hail, he says, is ice, and is
produced most in spring and autumn, less frequently in
summer, and seldom in winter.! It is formed in conse-
quence of a rapid freezing of water separated from the air,
the freezing being so rapid that the water is converted into
ice before it reaches the ground. § The freezing is more
rapid, he says, if the water is warm before freezing com-
mences. |1 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 of
earthquakes had been put forth. 1l According to him,
Anaxagoras believed that they were caused by the aether of
the upper regions bursting into the under parts and hollows of
the Earth.** Democritus assumed that the Earth, already
saturated with water and, in addition, receiving quantities of
rain-water, became shaken thereby.! t Anaximenes believed
that the Earth was shaken by masses falling in, such masses
having been broken away during a process of drying the
Earth, which he assumed to be quite moist. 1 1

Setting forth his own views on earthquakes, Aristotle
says that the Earth of itself is dry, but, on account of the
rains, becomes moist, so that, being subjected to the action
of the Sun's heat and its own internal heat, a large quantity

* Meteorol. i. c. 9, ss. 2-4. ' f Ihld. i. c. 10, s. 4.

\ Ibid. i. c. 12, s. 1. § Ibid. i. c. 12, ss. 13 and 14.

II Ibid. i. c. 12, s. 17. ^f Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 1.

** Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 2. ft Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 6.

II Ibid. ii. c. 7, 6. 6.

44 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC, AND

of a spirituous vapour {'nvzuiMx) is generated both without and
within it, and this vapour flows sometimes into and some-
times out of the Earth.* To this vapour he attributes
certain properties, viz., an excessive degree of mobihty, a
very rapid inherent velocity, and great tenuity and conse-
quent penetrating power, t Neither water nor earth, he
says, is a cause of earthquakes, but spirituous vapour in
motion, when that which has been given off outwards
happens to flow inwards, and, for this reason, earthquakes
are more frequent and violent during calm weather, t In a
more intelligible passage, he says that earthquakes are due
to violent movements of spirituous vapour {Trvsuixa) or wind
{oLvzixos) in the interior of the Earth, such vapour or wind
sometimes issuing forth like a hurricane. §

By comparing the dates of recorded earthquakes in
Britain, France, Switzerland, and other countries, it has
been concluded that earthquakes are more frequent in winter
than in summer. According to Aristotle, they were more
frequent in spring and autumn, because these seasons
favoured the generation of the spirituous vapour ; summer
and winter, on the other hand, were rather periods of rest,
the one because of its heat, and the other because of its
frost. II He also concluded that earthquakes were usually
more frequent and violent by night than by day. IT

The violence of earthquakes, in so far as it is manifested
in the destruction due to them, depends in no small degree
on the character of the geological formations of the area of
disturbance. Aristotle believed that earthquakes were more
violent and also more frequent in districts where the land
was porous or cavernous, or where the coast was much
broken,** He instances the Hellespontine territory, Achaia,
Sicily, and Eubcea, where the sea appeared to flow into
narrow passages under the earth. 1 1

It has been stated already that Aristotle's views on the
natural motions of the elements, fire, air, water, and earth
sometimes caused him trouble when he attempted to show
that his explanations were in agreement with the phenomena
he tried to explain. His explanation of the phenomena of
tempests, thunder, and lightning serves as an example. In
some difficult passages in Meteorol. ii. c. 9, ss. 2 and 3, he

■'- Meteorol. ii. c. 8, s. 1. f Ihid. ii. c. 8, s. 3.

X Ihid. ii. c. 8, s. 4. § Ihid. ii. c. 8, ss. 18 and 19.

II Ihid. ii. c. 8, ss. 11 and 12. II Ihid. ii. c. 8, s. 6.

** Ihid. ii. c. 8, s. 8. | f Ihid, ii. c. 8, s. 9,

TEEEESTEIAL PHENOMENA. 45

seems to say that, during the formation of a cloud by the
coming together of the ascending vaporous and dry
exhalations, the upper part of the cloud, being cooled more
rapidly than the rest, is thicker or heavier. Wherefore, he
concludes, thunderbolts, lightning, and tempests, and every-
thing of this kind, travel downwards, although heat naturally
travels upwards.* Whatever amount of the dry exhalation,
he says, is enclosed within the clouds, during the process of
ascent and cooling, is separated when the clouds meet and,
being carried along and striking violently against neigh-
bouring clouds, this exhalation gives rise to a shock, the
noise of which is called thunder.! Aristotle proceeds to say
that the spirituous vapour itself, which has thus been
pressed out or separated, is generally burnt with a slight or
weak burning and is what is called lightning, | Here again
he fails to appreciate the intensely hot nature of a white-hot
body, compared with that of a red-hot body. Aristotle con-
cluded that lightning was produced after both the shock and
the accompanying thunder. He correctly states, however,
that the lightning is seen before the thunder is heard, because
sight is quicker than hearing, just as can be seen in the row-
ing of triremes, for at the moment when the oars are raised
the sound of the preceding splash of the oars is heard. §

Aristotle sums up his views on the causes of winds,
earthquakes, lightning, and thunder towards the end of
Meteorol. ii. c. 9, where he says that they are all essentially
the same, viz., a dry exhalation which produces earthquakes
when operating within the Earth, winds when operating
about the surface of the Earth, and lightning and thunder
when operating among the clouds. ll

He discusses at great length the saltness of the sea.
Some philosophers, he says, believed that the sea was pro-
duced originally in the following manner : — The whole space
about the earth was water which, being dried by the heat of
the Sun, gave off vapours from which winds were generated,
the residual water forming the sea. They believed, there-
fore, that the sea was becoming less and less, and would
ultimately become quite dry. They were led to this con-
clusion, according to Aristotle, by observing that many
places were drier in their time than they formerly were.^
He treats with contempt the opinion of Empedocles and

'■^' Meteorol. ii. c. 9, s. 4. f Ihid. ii. c. 9, s. 5.

I Ibid. ii. c. 9, s. 8. 5 Ihid. ii. c. 9, s. 9.

II Ihid. ii. c. 9, s. 21. *f Ihid. ii. c. 1, s. 3, ii. c. 3, s. 7.

46 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEKIC, AND

others that the sea is a sweat of the Earth, resulting from
the heating of the Earth by the Sim.* Some said, according
to Aristotle, that, just as water percolating through ashes
becomes salt, so in the same way the sea was salt in conse-
quence of a mixture therewith of earthy substances.! They
were of opinion that rivers flowing into the sea carried into
it many earthy substances having various flavours, and, by
mingling with the sea-water, caused it to be salt.t This
explanation was rejected by Aristotle on the ground that,
if it were true, the rivers ought to be salt.§

When giving his own views explaining why the sea is
salt and why it remains so, Aristotle shows very clearly that
he was aware of the vast amount of evaporation due to the
solar heat, that it 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 descended
to the earth or the sea. He knew also that the quantity
which descended varied in different places and at different
seasons, but he clearly asserts that, during certain definite
periods, all the evaporated water descended again. 1!

After making many other statements, many of which are
uninteresting or apparently valueless, he says that, with
respect to the cause of the saltness of the sea, it is clear
from many indications that such saltness is due to a mixture
of something with the water. ^ Among the indications
which he gives, the following are worth reciting: — (1) water
which has percolated through the walls of a completely
closed wax vessel, immersed in the sea, is found to be fresh
or potable ; (2) the thickness or density of sea- water is so
much greater than that of river-water that merchant ships,
similarly laden, almost sink in the former but float in the
latter at a depth convenient for sailing ; and (3) eggs, even
when full, float in water made very salt by mixing saline
substances with it.**

Aristotle, having proceeded so far, might perhaps
reasonably have been expected to conclude that the some-
thing mixed with the water of the sea was some saline
substance, but nowhere does he appear to do so. The
substance which he decided was mixed with the water was
that peculiar one, the dry exhalation, referred to so often
already. He says that some believed that the sea was

* Meteorol. ii. c. 1, s. 4, ii. c. 3, s. 12. | Ibid. ii. c. 1, s. 5.

I Ibid. ii. c. 3, s. 10. § Ibid. || Ibid. ii. c. 2, ss. 12-14.

IT Ibid. ii. c. 3, ss. 22 and 35. ** Ibid. ii. c. 3, ss. 35-38.

TEREESTEIAL PHENOMENA. 47

generated from burnt earth, but that this was absurd,
although it was true that the saltness of the sea was pro-
duced from something of this kind. His own explanation,
which is difficult to follow, seems to be that dry and earthy
exhalations were mixed in some way with rains and im-
parted a saltness to them.* Southerly winds and the first
autumnal rains, he says, are especially salt, for the southerly
winds blow from dry and hot places and so contain little
moisture but a large quantity of the dry exhalation to which
the saltness is due.f Aristotle had evidently noticed that
winds blowing from Africa and across the sea to Greece
were salty near the coast. That this saltness was due to
the presence of particles of salt and fine sea spray he does
not seem to have known. He considered it rather as a
proof of the presence of the dry exhalation to which he
decided that the saltness was due. There is a fatal objection
to Aristotle's explanation, viz., that, if it were true, the
rivers also ought to be salty. Olympiodorus, who wrote a
commentary on the Meteorology, deals with this objection
in a fanciful way, and argues that, in order that a mingling
of the exhalation with water may take place, the water
ought to be at rest and not constantly flowing like that of
rivers, and, furthermore, that the exhalation always tends
towards the sea, which is lower than the rivers. X

Aristotle's views, or modifications of them, were gener-
ally accepted until the middle of the seventeenth century.
Boyle says that the Aristotelians of his time derived the
saltness of the sea from the strong action of the sun's rays
on the water, and he also says : " But some of the cham-
pions of Aristotle's opinion are so bold as to allege experience
for it, vouching the testimony of Scaliger to prove that the
sea tastes salter at the top than at the bottom, where the
water is affirmed to be fresh. § The Aristotelians thus
misrepresented Aristotle, who distinctly asserts, in Meteorol.
ii. c. 2, that the salt water sinks because of its heaviness,
while fresh water is borne upwards. Theophrastus did not
accept Aristotle's explanation, for, according to Olympio-
dorus, || he believed that the saltness of the sea was due to
exhalations from the earthy bed of the sea.

When dealing with the phenomena of relative changes

* Meteorol. ii. c. 3, ss. 24 and 25. f Ibid. ii. c. 3, ss. 26 and 27.
X In Meteora Arist. Comment., edit. J. B. Camotius, Venice, 1567, p. 61.
§ The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, new edition, London,
1772, vol. iii. p. 765. || Op. cit. p. 60.

48 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEEIC, AND

of land and sea Aristotle dissents from those philosophers
who believed that such changes were due to a continuous
diminution of the sea or to changes of the Kosmos. It
would be absurd, he says, to move the Kosmos for the sake
of what are, after all, only small and temporary changes.
They also say, he asserts, that the sea becomes less, in
consequence of its being in process of drying up, for more
places appear to be dry than there used to be, but if they
had extended the range of their observations, they would
have found that, in some cases, the sea had encroached on
the land.*

It should be considered, he says, that these relative
changes of land and sea take place in some kind of order
and according to a kind of cycle, and that, just like plants
and animals, the inner parts of the Earth have their prime
and decay, with this difference that, while a plant or animal,
as a whole, has its prime and old age, the Earth itself has
not, but only its parts.! He decided that the relative
changes took place through the occurrence, during a very
long period, of seasons of excessive rainfall, just as, in
Greece, winter with its heavy rains occurred yearly, but
these supposed seasons of excessive rainfall did not always
happen in the same regions, and might be quite local, just
as the deluge of Deucalion took place chiefly about Dodona
and the region of the Achelous.t Such periodical increase
in the rainfall and, consequently, in the quantity of water
flowing into the sea, caused the sea to encroach on the land,
while a diminution of rainfall resulted in a retirement of the
sea. He does not suggest that the relative changes of land
and sea were due to movements of the land, although he
gives instances of some of the effects of earthquakes.

Aristotle proceeds to show, in several eloquent passages,
that these changes were part of the ordinary course of
Nature. The Kosmos, he says, is indestructible and yet
undergoes changes, so that it follows that the same parts of
the Earth will not always be land or always covered by seas
or rivers. § Events prove this, for the whole country of the
Egyptians seems to be the work of the Nile, and Lake
Moeotis [Sea of Azov] is in process of being silted up.|| "It
is evident, therefore, since Time fails not and the Universe
is eternal, that neither the river Tanais nor the Nile has

* Meteorol. i. c. 14, ss. 17-19. \ Ibid. i. c. 14, ss. 2 and 3.

\ Ibid. i. c. 14, ss. 20-22. § Ibid. i. c. 14, s. 25.

II Ibid. i. c. 14, ss. 26 and 29.

TERRESTEIAL PHENOMENA. 49

always flowed, but there was a time when the places where
they flow were dry, for their work has an end but Time has
none." * He concludes that rivers are produced and destroyed,
that the same regions of the Earth are not always the same,
land or sea, as the case may be, and that everything changes
in course of time.t

In Meteorol. iii. c. 7, Aristotle treats of materials found
beneath the surface of the Earth. He says that, just as
there are two exhalations, the vaporous and the dry or smoke-
like, so also there are two kinds of substances in the Earth
itself. The first kind includes those substances which are
merely dug out of the Earth and have been formed as a
result of "complete burning" of the dry exhalation, e.g.,
infusible kinds of stones and realgar, red and yellow ochres,
sulphur, and the like ; substances of this kind are generally
stones or coloured powders. The second kind includes those
obtained by regular mining operations, and are produced, in
some way, from the vaporous exhalation, e.g., fusible or
malleable substances, like gold, iron, and bronze, t By iron
and bronze, Aristotle clearly means the ores from which
this metal and alloy are respectively obtained ; in Meteorol.
iv. c. 6, he incidentally gives some account, to be discussed
later, of iron and its conversion into steel.

The distinction made between the different kinds of
mineral substances, in Meteorol. iii. c. 7, is almost equivalent
to the recognition of a class of ores and another of metals.
Aristotle's coloured powders or pigments include some ores,
e.g., the ochres include oxide of iron and red lead, and
realgar (red sulphide of arsenic, the Sandarache of the
ancient Greeks) is an ore of arsenic. All these pigments
were well known to the ancient Greeks.

Aristotle attempts to explain the production of gold and
other metallic deposits in the earth. His explanation is by
no means clear, but he seems to mean that the vaporous
exhalation, enclosed more particularly in rocks, is compressed
and solidified and appears as a separate body, like dew or
hoar-frost. The metallic substances exist before the con-
densation takes place. All, except gold, can be affected by
the action of fire and contain earth, for they contain a dry
exhalation. § This shows, as far as it can be understood,
that he believed that the vaporous exhalations from which

* Meteorol. i. c. 14, s. 31. f Ibid, i c. 14, b. 32.

I Ibid. iii. c. 7. § Ibid. iii. c. 7,

E

60 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEEIC, AND

metalliferous substances, except gold, are produced, contain
some earthy substance. Aristotle's explanation of the pro-
duction of metallic 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 formation of metalliferous veins by the deposition
of metalliferous substances from very hot steam ascending
through fissures in the crust of the Earth.

At the end of Meteorol. iii. c. 7, Aristotle says that each
kind of mineral substance should be described separately.
It is said that the alchemists used to refer to a work dealing
with the transmutation of metals, and that they assigned
this work to Aristotle. It seems to be very unlikely that
Aristotle wrote a separate work on metals or mineral sub-
stances. There appears to be nothing in Olympiodorus to
show that such a work was written. Theophrastus wrote a
separate work, entitled O71 Stones, in which he practically
accepts Aristotle's division of mineral substances and their
production from exhalations, but the rest of the work
suggests very little that can be traced to Aristotle, who,
moreover, is not even mentioned by name.

Having described Aristotle's explanations of many celes-
tial, atmospheric, and terrestrial phenomena, it remains to
describe the most interesting parts of his work on these
phenomena, viz., his numerous records of the phenomena
themselves. In what follows, the records of celestial
phenomena will be described first, then the records of
atmospheric, and, finally, those of terrestrial phenomena.

In the year B.C. 373, Aristotle saw a great comet which
appeared in the west on a clear, frosty evening in winter,
when Aristaeus [Asteus] was archon. It set before the sun
on the first evening, but was well seen on the next evening,
although it set quickly. Its tail extended as far as the Belt
of Orion, and there faded away. This tail appeared as a
well-defined track, whence it was called a *' road."*

According to von Humboldt, t this comet was believed by
von Boguslawski to have been the same as the comets of 1843,
1695, 1548, and 1401, with a period of one hundred and
forty-seven years. Von Boguslawski, in fact, called that of
1843 the Comet of Aristotle, which he traced back to the
year B.C. 371. It may be mentioned that the comet of 1843
was very brilliant.

=•'■ Meteorol. i. c. 6, ss. B and 10.

f Cosmos, Bohn's Library, 1849-1868, vol. ii. p. 526, and vol. iv. p. 541.

TEKEESTEIAL PHENOMENA. 51

When Eucleus, son of Molon, was archon, a comet ap-
peared towards the north, during the early part of January.*
The date of appearance of this comet is beheved to have
been about B.C. 350.

Aristotle also says that, when Nicomachus was archon,
a comet was seen for a few days, that it appeared about the
Equator, and that it did not rise in the evening.! The date
of appearance of this comet is believed to have been B.C. 340.

In De Gcelo, ii. c. 12, 292a, Aristotle says that he had
seen the Moon, when half -full, pass under Mars, which was
hidden by the dark part of the Moon, and then emerged
from the bright part. This occultation of Mars by the Moon
occurred, according to Kepler's reckoning, in B.C. 357.

In B.C. 467 a large stone is said to have fallen at
-i^gospotamos. This meteoric stone is mentioned in the
Parian 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 wind
and then fell down, t

He mentions, as an instance of a rare phenomenon, that
in the region of the Bosphorus two parhelia rose together
with the sun and continued to be seen until sunset. §
Ideler makes a reasonable suggestion to explain how such
a report arose, saying that the ancient Greeks used to relate
extraordinary phenomena as taking place in the Bosphorus,
Black Sea, and Africa, just as modern writers have given
accounts of extraordinary phenomena in America and
Siberia. II

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 the
rising of the Dog Star, and they blow by day but cease at
night. ^ Some were at a loss to understand why the
Etesians, continuous north winds, blew after the summer
solstice, while south winds were not produced similarly after
the winter solstice, but this, he says, is not reasonable, for
the so-called Leuconoti, although they do not blow con-
tinuously, blow at the season of the year opposite to that at
which the Etesians blow.** Early in spring, according to
Aristotle, the Ornithiae blow ; these winds are gentler than

* Meteorol. i. c. 6, s. 8. f Ibid. i. c. 7, s. 10.

I Ibid, i c. 7, s. 9. § Ibid. iii. c. 2, s. 6.

II Aristot. Meteorol., Leipzig, 1836, vol. ii. pp. 271, 272.

11 Meteorol. ii. c. 5, ss. 5 and 7. '•=* Ibid. ii. c. 5, s. 7.

52

CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEEIC, AND

the Etesians, and do not blow continuously.* These winds
were called Ornithiae because they blew when birds were
mating, or because migratory birds arrived with them in
Greece.

In Meteorol. ii. c. 6, Aristotle gives directions for drawing
a diagram showing the quarters from which the chief and

FIG. 3.

Boreas and Aparctias
N

Thraskias

Argestes "j
Olympias > Fj
orSkironj

Zephyros W

Lips G

Phoinikias

AKISTOTLE'S COMPASS.

best defined winds blew. Fig. 3 has been drawn according
to these directions, Z being the position of the rising sun in
midsummer, F that of the setting sun in midsummer, D that
of 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

'''• Meteorol. ii. c. 5, s. 9.

TERRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 55

to be at the centre of the circle. The names of the winds
are indicated on the drawing. Aristotle says that the wind
called Meses had no wind diametrically opposite to it, nor
had the wind Thraskias, unless a certain wind, called Phoi-
nikias, were considered 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 by
Aristotle. He says that Lips, Kaikias, and Apeliotes were
wet winds, while Euros was dry at first but ultimately became
wet. Kaikias and, to a less extent, Lips were associated
with a cloudy sky. Argestes was a dry wind. Meses and
Aparctias were very cold winds and brought a great deal of
snow, and there was much lightning when Meses was blow-
ing. Aparctias, Thraskias, and Argestes blew when the sky
was clear, but brought hail, lightning, and gales. Finally,
Notos, Zephyros, and Euros were hot winds.*

During most of the hot or dry season, in many parts of
Greece, northerly winds, called Etesians, blow by day until
about sunset, when winds set in from an opposite direction,
and, at Corinth, there is an alternation of easterly and
westerly winds which is so regular that Strabo compared it
to the breathing of an animal. The idea that a wind blow-
ing in one direction has a counterpart in one blowing in an
opposite direction is, therefore, natural to a Greek, but
Aristotle seems to carry this idea further than is true for any
one locality. My knowledge of the meteorology of Greece,
derived chiefly from Reclus, modern books of travels, and
notes sent me by Mr. W. R. Halliday, from the British
School at Athens, is not sufficient to enable me to discuss
fully Aristotle's numerous statements about the winds and
weather of Greece.

The northerly winds of Greece are usually very dry and
the southerly winds wet. The Sirokos or Scirocco, which
seems to be the same as the ancient Euros, is a S.E. wind,
moist, hot and oppressive. Another oppressive wind is the
Austral, which blows from the south and may be Aristotle's
Notos. In the Cyclades, steady north winds usually make
the early months of the year cold,t and Mr. Halliday says
that at Melos certainly Boreas prevailed until well after the
Greek Easter this year (1911). Aristotle says that Zephyros
is a hot wind. In his note Mr. Halliday says : — '* Just
lately [early part of June, 1911] I have been suffering from

- Meteorol. ii. c. 6, ss. 19-22. f Bent's Cyclades, p. 57.

54 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC, AND

the west wind, not only unpleasantly hot but also apparently
possessed of the property of rousing insect life to activity.
At least, the common house fly drew blood through my thick
stockings, and when I complained I was told that it was due
to the wind."

Aristotle makes assertions, some of which were evidently
mere guesses, about the depths of various seas. He says
that the Pontus is deeper than the Moeotis (now called the
Sea of Azov), that the ^gean is deeper than the Pontus,
that the Sicilian is deeper than the ^gean, that the Sardonic
and Tyrrhenian seas are deeper than any of these, and that
the waters beyond the Pillars of Hercules are of small
volume because of the mud, and are undisturbed by
winds.*

The Sea of Azov is said to be not deeper than eight
fathoms, and has long been known to be very shallow,
Aristotle says that it had been silted up to sach an extent
that the ships which sailed on it in his time were much
smaller than those which sailed on it sixty years before.!
The silting-up process still goes on and Aristotle's statement
is probably correct. I do not know whether the ^gean is
deeper than the Pontus or Black Sea, but Aristotle correctly
states that the Sicilian, by which he probably meant the sea
between Sicily, Greece, and Crete, is deeper than the ^gean.
Eespecting the other seas mentioned by him, his statements
are incorrect. Comparatively recent soundings show that,
although the average depth of the eastern Mediterranean
is only a few fathoms greater than that of the western
Mediterranean, yet the maximum recorded sounding in the
former is about four hundred fathoms greater than the
maximum recorded sounding in the latter. The maximum
sounding in the eastern Mediterranean is not less than two
thousand four hundred fathoms, to the S.W. of Cape
Matapan and therefore in a part of Aristotle's Sicilian Sea.
His statement about the waters beyond the Pillars of
Hercules is obviously derived from the famous legend of a
sunken Atlantis, related by Plato in the Timaeus, and needs
no further comment. When arguing that sea water con-
tains a large quantity of earthy matters to which the saltness
and bitterness of the water are due, Aristotle refers to the
Dead Sea, saying that if, according to the tales which some
narrate, there is a lake in Palestine of such a kind that a

* Meteorol. ii. c. 1, ss. 13 and 14. f Ibid. i. c. 14, s. 29.

TEKRESTRIAL PHENOMENA. 55

man or beast of burden would not sink beneath its waters,
then this would be evidence for what he had said, and he
adds 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 shaking
them, the clothes are washed.* These reports, which he was
evidently reluctant to believe, were much more reliable than
he thought them to be.

In Chaonia, Aristotle says, a spring of rather salt water
rises and flows into a neighbouring river, t Eeferences are
also made to streams of acid water in the Sicanian territory
of Sicily, and near Lyncus, and to bitter waters in Scythia ;
Aristotle also says that, from the waters of Sicania, a sauce
was made and used just like vinegar, t

Chaonia was a large district in Epirus, extending from the
Acroceraunian promontory on the north towards the Acheron
on the south. The spring to which Aristotle refers may be
a source of the river Cocytus, a tributary of the Acheron.
The modern name of the Cocytus is Vuvo, the waters of
which are said to be unfit for drinking purposes. Sicania
was the district about Agrigentum 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 Fiume
Salso, which are the modern representatives of the ancient
rivers Halycus and Himera, respectively. Lyncus was in
Lyncestis, a district of Macedonia near the Illyrian frontier.
At or near the modern Banitza are the acid waters of Lyn-
cus, which were said to have had intoxicating qualities. § It
is impossible to identify the bitter waters of Scythia, referred
to by Aristotle. Scythia was a territory of vast extent,
including most of southern Russia, and its boundaries were
indefinite and changed from time to time.

In his Meteorol. i. c. 13, Aristotle gives an interesting
account of the chief mountains, rivers, lakes, and seas of the
ancient World, and this account represents probably all that
was best of the geographical knowledge of his time. His
own travels were confined mainly, and perhaps entirely, to
southern Macedonia, Attica, Eubcea, Lesbos, and Mysia, and
he was dependent, therefore, on those who, like Hecatseus
and Herodotus, had visited many lands. The World which
he describes extended from the Hindoo Koosh and the Indus

"I- Meteorol. ii. c. 3, s. 39. f Ibid. ii. c. 3, s. 40.

I Ihid. ii. c. 3, ss. 4G and 47. § Smith's Diet, of Classic, Oeogr.

56 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHEKIC, AND

on the east to the Atlantic on the west, and from the
northern parts of Europe on the north to the sources of the
Nile on the south. In whatever direction his ancient World
is traced, it may be said to be distorted in proportion to its
distance from Athens.

He had an exaggerated idea of the height of the Hindoo
Koosh or Paropamisus Mountains, which he called the
Parnasos, for he says that the apparently boundless ocean
could be seen from them. Certain large rivers, he says, flow
from them, e.g., the Bactrus, Choaspes, Indus, and Araxes,
by which he seems to mean the Oxus. The largest of these,
he says, is the Indus. He gives no indication that he had
any knowledge of the Ganges. He knew that the Tanais,
now called the Don, flows into the Sea of Azov, but his
knowledge of that river was very imperfect, for he believed
that it was connected with the Araxes.

His description of the regions of the Caucasus is pictur-
esque and interesting. He speaks of the massiveness and
great height of the mountains, the many races living among
them, and the large lakes of the Caucasus regions. His
ideas about the height of the Caucasus Mountains were
greatly exaggerated, for he says that their summits could be
seen illuminated by the sun for a third part of the night,
both before sunrise and after sunset.

Passing to the west of his ancient World, he states
incorrectly that the Danube rises in the Pyrenees, and he
also says that the Tartessus, beyond the Pillars of Hercules,
rises in the Pyrenees. This river cannot be identified
satisfactorily, but it is probable that the Guadalquiver is
meant, or it may be the Guadiana or the Tagus, not one of
which, however, rises in the Pyrenees.

In the north, he says, many rivers flow from the
Arcynian Mountains, which are the most massive and
highest mountains in that region. He seems to have been
the first to mention those mountains, which are usually
considered to be the Harz and the Erzgebirge, but Aristotle's
Arcynian Mountains probably included the Alps also. He
speaks also of the so-called Ehipsean Mountains, of vast
size, and situated beyond the farthest parts of Scythia,
Aristotle's description of the Ehipsean Mountains would
apply fairly well to the Ural Mountains, but J. Barthelemy
Saint-Hilaire says that they were perhaps the Carpathians.

In the south of his ancient World, he mentions several
large African rivers, the ^gon, Nyses, and Chremetes,

TERRESTEIAL PHENOMENA. 57

which cannot be identified, and states that the Nile rises in
the so-called Silver Mountains.

The question of the position of the source of the Nile
was discussed by many of the ancient writers, especially
Hecataeus, Herodotus, Hipparchus, and Ptolemy, and it
came to be believed that it lay among the so-called Mountains
of the Moon, the locality of which was shifted from time to
time, until Stanley identified them with the great Kuwenzori
Mountains, westwards of the Victoria Nyanza.

After referring to several well-known rivers of Greece,
Macedonia, and Thrace, and to streams in Arcadia which
disappeared underground, Aristotle gives some interesting
information about the Caspian Sea. He says that, at the
foot of the Caucasus, is a lake which the people near it call
a sea, that it has no evident outlet, and that it empties
itself underground at Coraxi into the Black Sea, near the
so-called " deeps," which had not been fathomed. Here,
according to him, at a distance of about thirty-five miles
from land, the sea yields fresh water in three places.

It is evident that Aristotle understood that the Caspian
was a large inland sea. After the campaigns of Alexander,
many believed that it communicated with an ocean to the
north, and von Humboldt, commenting on this view, says
that, fortunately, Aristotle wrote his MeteorologT/ before
those campaigns, for the Macedonian expedition gave rise
to some errors which long held their ground.*

Kespecting the belief, expressed by Aristotle, about an
underground connection between the Caspian and the Black
Sea, some interesting information is given by Keclus. Ac-
cording to him, navigators of the Caspian and the Turkoman
nomads who wander on its shores have been astonished at
the river of salt water which constantly flows through a
narrow channel into the Karaboghaz, which forms a kind of
inland sea, on its eastern side. In the view of the natives
this inland sea could be nothing but an abyss, a "black gulf,"
as is expressed by the name Karaboghaz, into which the
waters of the Caspian dive down in order to flow by sub-
terranean channels into the Persian Gulf or the Black Sea.
It is, perhaps, to some vague rumours, Eeclus says, as to the
existence of the Karaboghaz that we must attribute the
statement of Aristotle about the strange gulfs in the Black
Sea in which the waters of the Caspian bubble up after their

* Cosmos^ Bohn's Library, vol. ii. p. 560.

58 CELESTIAL, ATMOSPHERIC, AND

long subterranean passage.* The "deeps" referred to by
Aristotle are in a deep part of the Black Sea, but the deepest
part of this sea is said to be near its centre. It may be
mentioned that Herodotus clearly states that the Caspian is
a sea by itself, having no communication with any other, t

The above information given by Aristotle about the
mountains, rivers, lakes, and seas of his ancient World is
from his Mctcorol. i. c. 13. In his History of Animals he
gives some interesting information about the reported land
of the Pigmies. He says that such a race, dwelling in caves,
actually existed in the upper regions of the Nile, and that
cranes migrated from Scytliia to the marshy parts of those
regions. +

Many ancient writers refer to the Pigmies of inner Africa,
and Herodotus says that the Nasamonian explorers were
captured by them and carried across extensive marshes to a
city near a river running east and west, and containing many
crocodiles. § It was in the region of the Ituri Eiver, which
e'xactly answers to this description, that Stanley found a
race of Pigmies.

A great deal of interesting information is given by
Aristotle about changes produced on the Earth's surface by
various natural agents. These changes include those caused
by the deposition of mud from rivers, the drying up or the
formation of swamps, and the destructive effects of volcanic
eruptions and earthquakes.

His description of the silting up of the Sea of Azov has
been discussed in another part of this chapter. Eeferring
to the Nile delta, he says that all the arms, except the
Canobic, were made artificially. Egypt itself he considers
was made habitable by the drying up of the swampy parts
formed by the deposition of mud in a sea continuous with
the Red Sea, and he believed that the whole country of
the Egyptians was the work of the Nile. He states in-
correctly that the Red Sea was higher than the land about
the Nile, and says that Sesostris and also Darius, who
tried to connect the Nile with the Red Sea by excavating
a channel, found this out and, in consequence, stopped the
work of excavation.;!

He says that some places have acquired a more favour-
able climate through the drying up of swampy parts, while

* Nouvelle Geographie Universelle, vol. 6, 1881, pp. 422-24. | i. 203.
X H. A. viii. c. 14, s. 2. ^ ii. c. 32.

II Meteorol i. c. 14. 'ss. 10-12 and 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, but
now it is the other way about, for Mycenae has become quite
parched, while the lands at Argos, which were formerly
useless because of their swampiness, are now cultivated.*

Aristotle 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 was
seen during the archonship of Asteus.t 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 -^olian Islands. Here, a part of the ground
swelled up and rose into a hillock, the swelling up being
accompanied by a great noise, until the hillock burst and a
great quantity of a spirituous vapour {ttveu/mz) issued forth,
carrying with it both sparks and ashes. The capital of
the Liparseans, not far away, was completely burnt, and
the ashes reached some of the cities of Italy. Even now,
he says, it can be seen where this eruption took place, t
It was from observations on eruptions such as this that
Aristotle concluded that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions
were due to a violent circulation within, and final discharge
from, the interior of the Earth of a kind of air, gas, or
vapour, which he calls " wind " {av£/xo;} in some passages
and " spirituous vapour " {weuf^a) 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 large
quantity of stones comes to the surface, just like anything
which rises to the top in a winnowing-fan. The parts
about Sipylus, the Phlegrsean Plain, and the Lygian region
were overturned by earthquakes of this kind.§

He asserts that islands in a deep sea are less liable to
earthquakes than those situated near land, because of the
cooling and restraining effect of so large a quantity of sea-
water on the spirituous vapours or exhalations, and because
the islands could not be disturbed without the necessity of
moving the whole of the sea surrounding the islands, ii

* Meteorol. i. c. 14, ss. 14 and 15. f Ibid. i. c. 6, 8. 8.
I Ibid. ii. c. 8, ss. 18 and 19. j Ibid. ii. c. 8, ss. 4G and 47.

i. Ibid. ii. c. 8, ss. 48 and 49.

60 CELESTIAL, ETC., PHENOMENA.

Aristotle's seismic records are among the best made by
ancient writers. Heraclea Pontica, referred to by him, was
a Greek cobny on the western part of the coast of
Bithynia. The Lipari Isles were repeatedly affected by
seismic disturbances in ancient, just as in modern, times,
but the one recorded by Aristotle was more than usually
destructive. His description is vivid and interesting, and
seems to refer to a great eruption of a viscous lava. The
eruption seems to have been similar in many respects to
that in the trachytic district of Methana, described by
Strabo. At Methana, a hill nearly a mile in height was
raised up, and the force of the eruption was so great that
blocks of stone as large as towers were ejected.* The
earthquake at Sipylus, situated in a mountain of that name
in Lydia, was long remembered by the Ancients, for Sipylus
is said to have been totally destroyed.

Aristotle's record of an earthquake in the Lygian region
is not clear. Von Humboldt says that the region referred
to is now called La Crau, at the mouth of the Ehone, and
that the rounded quartz blocks of that region were supposed
by Aristotle to have been ejected from a fissure, during an
earthquake, f

Besides the phenomena already discussed, Aristotle
incidently refers to several matters of minor importance, such
as, for example, the weight of air and the existence of red snow.

In his De Coelo, iv. c. 4, 3116, he says that a bladder,
when inflated, is heavier than when it is empty. This passage
suggests that Aristotle actually tried the experiment, but this
is all that can be said, for he gives no further information.

Eed snow was known to him, for, inH. A. v. c. 17, s. 12,
he says that animals are produced in some things which
seem least liable to putrefaction, such as snow which has
lain for a long time ; such snow, he adds, is reddish, and, for
this reason, the larvae of the animals in the snow are red
and hairy.

The snow to which Aristotle refers was probably seen by
him in Macedonia. The redness of snow is caused, as is
well-known, by the presence of red unicellular plants,
ProtocoGcm nivalis. It will be noticed that Aristotle did
not consider that the colour of the snow was due to the
colour of the animals which he believed were present, but
that the colour of these was due to the redness of the snow.

* Geogr. i. c. 3, 8. 18. f Cosmos, Bohii's Library, vol. i. p. 102.

CHAPTER IV.

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR, HEAT
AND SOUND.

It is said that, after Aristotle had published a work on
some esoteric part of his philosophy, Alexander the Great
wrote to him from Asia complaining of his attempting
thus to communicate to people generally what had pre-
viously been imparted to Aristotle's select pupils only.
Aristotle replied to the effect that no harm could be done
by the publication complained of, because what he had put
forth in his lectures on the more abstruse parts of his
philosophy could be understood only by those who heard
him and by nobody else. The work referred to is con-
sidered by some to have been Aristotle's Akroasis Physike,
commonly called the Physics. The above story may or
may not be true, but it is undeniable that many parts
of Aristotle's works on essentially abstruse subjects are very
difficult to understand, and among such parts are those
relating to light and colour.

The history of the development of this branch of human
knowledge reveals, it is true, many great achievements, but
it probably reveals many more disappointing failures, and
little of any practical importance was done until about the
twelfth century. Successful investigation of phenomena of
light and colour has been largely the result of careful
observation and ingenious experiments, and few, if any,
branches of natural science better exemplify a laborious,
step by step, advance to the truth. Aristotle's achieve-
ments, judged by the standard of knowledge in more
modern times, were of little 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 philo-
sophers was rejected by Aristotle. He says that light is

62 PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR

not fire nor any material substance, nor, consequently, is it
an emission from a material substance,* and that the theory
that sight is due to something which issues from the eye,
and is capable of extending as far as the stars, or, as some
say, that it is due to something which issues from the eye
and meets with something issuing from the object, is
altogether absurd, t Aristotle's own views on the nature
of light seem to have been as follows : Something which
he calls the Diaphanous (to ^ia(pu.vk) is present not only in
air, water, and other transparent substances, but also, in
varying degrees, in other bodies. It is 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 is produced,
while the absence of anything of the nature of fire results
in darkness.! Light is the energy of the Diaphanous, and
is, as it were, the colour of the Diaphanous, when this is
in actual or full existence (£VT£^e%£Ja) through the influence
of fire or something of this kind, such as, for example, the
upper body.§ The upper body, referred to here, is the
Aristotelian asther, which resembles the aether of modern
scientists in some respects, but is here supposed by Aristotle
to be an exciting cause of light.

The Diaphanous was evidently passive, but capable of
being influenced by fire or something of the nature of fire.
The relationship between fire or the like and the Dia-
phanous seems to be like that between form and material,
as exemplified by a stone statue, for, when the Diaphanous
is modified by the presence of fire or the like, light is
produced, while the stone, modified so as to be of a par-
ticular form, is a statue.

In an important passage Aristotle says : — " I have stated
in other books that sight is impossible without light, but
whether it is light or air which intervenes between the
object and the eye, it is the motion through this medium
that causes sight." |i

This may seem to foreshadow the undulatory theory of
light. It seems, however, from other passages that the
motion was not an undulatory one, although he nowhere
seems to explain what kind of motion he meant. He says
that odours and sounds travel through a medium before
they cause sensation, and that Empedocles believed that

* De Anima, ii. c. 7, 4186. f De Sensu, dc, ii. 438a, I Ibid. in. 439a.
§ De Anima, ii. c. 7, 4186. || De Sensu, dtc, ii. 4386.

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUE. 63

sunlight had to travel through a medium before it reached
the 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 amotion.* This last statement
causes some difficulty, because it seems to be inconsistent
with the passage in De Sensu, d-c, ii. 4386. The word
Kivrryii, used in De Sensu, dc, vi. 4466, is a general one for
"motion," and does not give much assistance in ascertaining
what Aristotle meant. The context, however, indicates
that the meaning is that light is not due to a motion of
translation, necessarily taking place during an interval of
time. In fact, Aristotle says, in De Seiisii, d-c, vi. 441 a,
that it is reasonable to believe that, when there is a medium
between a sensory organ and an object of sensation, the
effects are not all produced on the sensory organ at the
same 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 seen
by it. Democritus believed that the emanations from the
object did not reach the eye, but set in motion the inter-
vening air.

Like many other ancient philosophers, Aristotle was
aware that light should be treated as if it were propagated in
straight lines. Many parts of his descriptions of optical
phenomena, e.g., rainlDOWs and eclipses, show this, and some
questions are proposed in the Aristotelian work called the
Problems, the answers to which depend on the assumption
that the propagation of light is in straight lines. One of
these questions is particularly interesting, and asks why sun-
light shining through apertures bounded by straight lines
does not form rectilinear images but circular ones. The
first part of the answer suggests that it may be that the
light is propagated in conical form and, the base of a cone
being circular, the images are circular also. Then follows
an explanation which is quite Aristotelian, and depends on
an assumed inability of visual rays, which are few and weak,
to reach the object to be seen ; such an assumption is made
in other places by Aristotle, particularly in his explanation
of rainbows. The rays of light, passing through the corners
of the apertures, being assumed to be few and weak, are not
effective, but only the rays passing through the central
parts, these rays being assumed to be numerous and strong ;

* De Sensu, dc, vi. 446rt and b.

64 PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR.

the images, therefore, appear to have rounded corners.*
This explanation is fanciful, but the one referring to the
propagation of light in conical form, although of little value,
is suggestive, for the true explanation can be obtained by
drawing a series of co-axial double cones with their apices
at various points on the sides of the aperture, the Sun's disc
and its image being the bases of each double cone. The
overlapping of the separate images of the Sun's disc, thus
drawn, causes the images formed by the aperture to be
circular, if the aperture is small, or to have rounded corners,
if the aperture is large.

Aristotle was fully aware that reflection takes place from
mirrors and other smooth surfaces. He often uses the word
AnaJclasis, a breaking back or aside, to denote this pheno-
menon, especially 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 equality of the
angles of incidence and reflection. This seems to have been
stated for the first time in Euclid's Catoptrics, Prop, i.,
where the law is enunciated and proved for plane, convex,
and concave mirrors.

He does not use the word Anahlasis or any other word
in such a way as to show that he was acquainted with the
phenomenon of refraction, but in Meteorol. iii. c. 4 there
are some passages which deserve special notice in connection
with this question. After speaking about the strange optical
illusion in the case of a man whose sight was very weak and
who saw an image of himself in consequence of the adjacent
air acting like a mirror, Aristotle says : — " Wherefore head-
lands appear inverted in the sea, everything appears larger
when the easterly winds (eupoi) blow, and also objects seen
through mists, e.g., the Sun and stars seem to be larger
when rising or setting than when they are high in the
heavens." t

Ideler says that these examples, given by Aristotle,
pertain not so much to reflection of light as to refraction.!
This is not so. They pertain mainly to reflection and
absorption. The phenomena of absorption were only im-
perfectly understood by Aristotle, but many statements he
makes about light and colour show that he never lost sight
of what appeared to be the effects of the medium between

'■'• Problems, xv. 6. f Meteorol. iii. c. 4, s. 4.

I Aristot. Meteorol. Leipzig, 1836, vol. ii., p. 20.

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR. 65

the eye and an object of vision. The inversion of headlands
in the sea, to which he refers, is probably nothing but that
produced by reflection at the surface of the water, and is
intended to show how untrustworthy the sight may be, just
as in the case of the man who, Aristotle says, saw his own
image reflected by the air in front of him.

The observation, that all things seem to be larger when
easterly winds blow, may refer to the apparent nearness
which is associated with moist atmospheres. According to
Aristotle, the easterly winds referred to were hot and, at
first, dry, but became moist. I have made enquiries, but
have been unable to ascertain whether such a phenomenon
occurs at Athens, when easterly winds blow.

Aristotle's reference to the apparent magnification of
the sun and stars is correct, but here again the effect is not
due to refraction. It is now known that there is no mag-
nification, the result being mainly psychological. Seneca
attempts to explain the apparent magnification of the sun
and stars by saying that our sight is not reliable in the case
of an object seen in water or through a moist medium, for,
if a ring is thrown into a bowl filled with water, yet,
although the ring lies at the very bottom of the bowl, its
image is seen near the top of the water. Whatever, he
says, is seen through a liquid or moist medium appears to
be far larger than it really is.* It is evident that Seneca,
who was well acquainted with Aristotle's works, did not
understand the phenomena of refraction. He developed
Aristotle's idea that the apparent magnification was due to
weak sight, or sight under unusual conditions, the nature of
which Aristotle himself does not explain.

The knowledge of the Ancients about refraction was of
very slow growth. Some of them made observations on
this subject, for Archimedes is said to have written a book
on the appearance of a ring seen in water, and Seneca refers
to the broken appearance of an oar dipped in water, t the
magnification of letters seen through a glass globe filled
with water, and the fairer appearance of apples seen floating
in water in a glass vessel.! Neglecting the work on Optics,
probably wrongly assigned to Ptolemy, containing many
interesting observations on the refraction of light by glass,
water, and air, no important advance was made in the study

* Nat. Qucest. i. c. 6, ss. 5 and 6. f Ibid. i. c. 3, s. 9.

t Ibid. i. c. 6, s. 5.

66 PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUE.

of refraction until about the year a.d. 1100, when Alhazen
attempted to determine the relation between the angles of
incidence and refraction, and set out some of the laws of
refraction.*

Aristotle was acquainted with the phenomenon now called
phosphorescence, but did not understand it. He says that it
is the nature of smooth surfaces to shine in the dark, but
yet they do not produce light. t Again, he says that some
objects are seen in the dark, e.g., those which seem to be of
the 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 colours of the objects
themselves. 1

It is not clear what is meant by the assertion that light
{(pSii) is not produced by objects shining in the dark. If
Aristotle had said that heat is not produced, he would have
made a substantially true statement, but light is produced
and some phosphorescent bodies emit a light as brilliant as
that given out by firebrick or other ordinary substances
heated to a high temperature. It is clear, from the passage
in De Anima, ii. c. 7, cited above, that Aristotle did not
consider phosphorescent bodies to be actually of the nature
of fire, in which case they would emit heat, like a flame or
incandescent body, and this may be a reason why he states
that no light is emitted, since no heat accompanies the
shining effects. That a phosphorescent body does not shine
with a colour like that of the body itself, as Aristotle says,
is true, e.g., the white flesh of fishes often shines with a
delicate green light.

Difficult though it is to follow Aristotle's speculations on
light, it is more difficult to follow his speculations on colour.
It has been stated already that, according to him, the
Diaphanous exists in varying degrees in all bodies. He
defines the colour of a body to be the boundary of the
Diaphanous which is in the body.§ Whatever the nature
of the Diaphanous may be, it cannot exist separately,
Aristotle says, but has limits to the same extent as the
bodies in which it exists. Light exists in the Diaphanous,
but, if a particular body be considered, it is evident that the

=!= OpticcB Thesaurus Alhazeni Arahis, F. Risnerus, Basle, 1572, Book
vii., especially c. 3, entitled " De qualitate refractionis lucis in corporibus
diaphanis." -\ De Sensu, i^c, ii. 4o7rt.

I De Anima, ii. c. 7, 419a; De Sensu, dc, ii. 4376.

§ De Sensu, dc, iii. 439a and b.

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUK. 67

boundary of the Diaphanous which is in it is something real.
The phenomena show clearly, he says, that this is colour,
for colour either is in the boundary or is the boundary,
wherefore the Pythagoreans considered the external surface of
a body to be the same as its colour. Aristotle proceeds to say
that colour is not the boundary of the body itself, but is
in the boundary, and that the nature or constitution of the
inner 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,! and, as has been
stated already, he considers light to be the colour of the
Diaphanous.

It will be noticed that the above statements are of the
nature of definitions which give very little assistance in deter-
mining how colour effects are produced. The Diaphanous,
on which all Aristotle's conceptions about colour seem to
depend, was a mental conception, or, if intended to be
something concrete, its nature is difficult to understand. The
boundary of the Diaphanous in a body is, however, treated
by him as if it were something real, in which the colour of
the body existed. According to such views, the green colour
of an emerald or the yellow colour of an ingot of gold is
manifested only by the external surface of the Diaphanous
in the emerald or ingot, but the same colour would be
manifested by any other section of the Diaphanous in these
bodies if, by breaking the emerald or cutting the ingot, such
section coincided with the plane of breaking or cutting.
However difficult it is to understand some of his statements
about colour, it seems to be quite clear that he considered it
to 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 fixed
boundaries, their colours vary according to the distance from
which they are seen. The colours of solid bodies, on the
other hand, remain the same, unless the action of anything
surrounding or near them causes a change.! The last
clause of this passage is one of the few assertions to be
found in Aristotle's works which suggest that he considered
the colour of a body to depend on anything but the nature
of the Diaphanous. There seems to be nothing to anticipate,
however, the modern view that the colours of bodies are not

* De Sensu, dc, iii. 439a. f Physics, vii. c. 2, s. 4.

J De Sensu, dc, iii. 4396.

68 PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR.

merely surface phenomena, and that colour, such as the
green colour of a leaf or an emerald or the yellow colour of
an ingot of gold, is due to a selective action effected on
light which is composite.

Another interesting question with which Aristotle deals
is that of the mixture of colours, but here again his state-
ments are sometimes unsatisfactory, mainly because it is not
clear whether he is dealing with the mixture of pigments or
of coloured lights.

It has been stated that, according to Aristotle, light
results from the presence in the Diaphanous of something
of the nature of fire, and darkness ensues when this is
absent. In a similar way, he says, white and black are
produced, in solid bodies, i.e., they are respectively caused
by the presence or absence of something of the nature of
fire in the Diaphanous of those bodies.* He says that one
way of producing various colours is by mixing black and
white in various proportions, colours pleasing to the eye,
such as light red or dark blue, being produced when the
proportions of black to white are in simple ratio, just as in
harmonies (a-u/x(puviat) , and other colours, less pleasing to the
eye, when the proportions are not in simple ratio. The
black and white are supposed to be so arranged relatively to
each other that each is invisible because of the smallness of
its parts, but the colour of the resulting mixture is visible.!

Aristotle seems to be referring to a mixture of coloured
lights, but his conclusions were probably based almost
entirely on a process of abstract reasoning. In his expla-
nation of the colours of the rainbow, discussed in Chapter iii.,
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 is both un-
satisfactory and difficult to understand, but in another part
of his explanation of rainbows there is a passage which
clearly refers to a mixture of coloured lights. He says that
an orange colour is seen between the light red and the
greenish yellow, such colour resulting from an overlapping
of the two colours mentioned. I It is true that an orange
colour results from a mixture of greenish yellow and light
red lights.

* De Sensu, Sc, iii. 439&. f Ibid. iii. 4396 and 440«.

I Meteorol. iii. c. 4, s. 26.

PHENOMENA OF LIGHT AND COLOUR. 69

Another method of producing various colours, Aristotle
says, is 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 modi-
fication of this method to which he refers is the production
of a red colour when the sun shines through mist or smoke.*
He speaks also of painters being in the habit of obtaining
some colours by mixing paints, but says that they could not
thus obtain red, greenish yellow, or blue, and that these
were almost the only ones they could not obtain in this
way.t It has been explained in Chapter iii. that this
passage suggests that Aristotle probably considered the
intermediate colour {Ttp^amv) of the rainbow to be some
shade of yellow rather than green.

However unimportant Aristotle's work on the nature and
production of colour effects may be considered to be, it must
be conceded that he incidentally gives information which
materially assists in the identification of many ancient Greek
names for colours with the modern names of the colours
they were intended to denote. In Homeric and even later
times the common ideas about colours were not separated
from those about brightness, or, in the case of colours of the
eyes, vivacity, and there do not appear to have been many
colour-names in use. It will be seen, however, that Aristotle
used many colour-names, most of which denoted well-defined
colours, but, like many other Greek writers, he sometimes
employed the words imzkov and >^iv>i6v respectively to indicate
merely that an object was dark and bright or light. The
four colours of the rainbow mentioned by him have been
referred to many times already. A deep brownish red
colour, like that of the eggs of the kestrel, is called epv^pov.l
The ash colour or bluish grey of the crane is r£(pf6v § ; while
the somewhat lighter tint of many gulls is a-Tro^osi^sg.W The
deep and brilliant blues and greens of the kingfisher were
Kuavoi/v and x^^p°v respectively.^

In his description of the colours of the iris, in H. A. i.
c. 8, s. 4, Aristotle uses the words f^exav, alyuTrov, ■yMvxov, and
xapoTTov to denote the colours. It is difficult to determine
what these were intended to be. The usual colour of a
goat's iris is brownish or yellowish, and this is probably the
colour aljoiTzov. MeXocv refers to the darkest colours of the

■''■ De Sensu, <£c., iii. 440a. f Meteorol, iii. c. 2, s. 5.

\ H. A. vi. c. 2, s. 2. § Ibid. iii. c. 10, s. 11.

II Ihid. viii. c. 5, s. 7. ^ Ihid. ix. c. 15, s. 1.

70 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND.

iris, •x/xf'OTiQy to the darker shades of blue or grey, and y>MUK6v
to the hghter shades of these colours. That yXaw^oV refers to
the lighter shades is shown by a passage in the Problems,
xiv. 14, where it is stated that the colour of the iris in
those living in the northern parts of the ancient World
was 7^a«xoV, and that this colour was nearly white.

The words xapoTro'v and yXat/xoV were used, at first, with-
out any reference to mere colour, the former meaning glad-
eyed, and the latter clear or bright. Aristotle advanced far
beyond this stage in the formulation of ideas, and was
evidently dealing with colours and even shades of colours.
In various parts of his works, especially in those parts re-
lating to birds, he uses many words to denote colours, but,
in some cases, it is impossible to determine what these were
intended to be, simply because the objects to which he is
referring cannot be identified. His colour vocabulary, if it
could be completed, would be a long one.

Aristotle's observations on heat phenomena are not alto-
gether unimportant, and some of them are very interesting.
They relate chiefly to the effects of heat, the essentially hot
or cold nature of bodies, including the determination of what
came to be called by Aristotelians the Primum Frigidum, the
production of heat by friction, the modes of determining
roughly the temperatures of different bodies, the consideration
of the question whether cold is nothing more than privation
of heat, and some questions connected with animal heat.

Of the four Aristotelian elements or forces, heat and cold
are 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 fully matured products.!
Aristotle's statements about the effects of heat were based
on ordinary observations of everyday operations in the home
and workshop. In Meteorol. iv. cc. 2-6, he shows that the
result of the action of heat is a cooking effect, including
under this phrase not only boiling and roasting, but also the
ripening of fruits. He also refers to the drying effects of
heat, the hardening of clay by baking, and the fusion of
metals and other substances.

Aristotle expresses an opinion that heat brings together
bodies of the same kind, but separates those which are not
allied to each other, t This opinion was accepted by the

* Meteorol. iv. c. 1, s. 1. f Ibid. iv. c. 1, s. 6.

I De Gener. et Corr. ii. c. 2, 3296.

PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND. 71

Aristotelians, and, in their discussions on heat, they attached
great importance to it. According to Boyle, they expressed
Aristotle's opinion in the short Latin formula, " congregare
liomogenea et segregare heterogenea." * There are many
exceptions to the truth of this general formula, but such
exceptions were not understood by the Aristotelians. Heat
does sometimes bring together substances of the same kind
and separate those of different kinds, e. g., when a mixture
of pieces of copper and lead is melted together with a flux
in a crucible, for the molten product will form three well-
defined layers, the lowest containing nearly all the lead and
the middle one nearly all the copper. When, however,
sulphur is dropped on a bar of white-hot iron, resulting
in a union of these unlike substances, and when water is
vaporized by heating it, the Aristotelian formula does not
hold good.

The acuteness of the sensation of heat or cold produced
when the hand is placed in contact with a body depends
largely upon the conductivity of the body and its heat
capacity. Copper or mercury, for instance, produces a more
acute sensation than wood at the same temperature. Aris-
totle's ideas on this subject are very imperfect, and not
consistent, for he sometimes explains it by relying on differ-
ences in certain physical characters of the bodies, and some-
times by means of their assumed inherent cold or heat. In
some cases, he says, the same substances produce a very
cold sensation if deprived of heat, and a burning sensation
when heated, the sensation being most acute in the case of
bodies which are very hard or solid, e. g., the sensation pro-
duced by a hot stone is more acute than that produced by
hot water, and that produced by hot water is more acute
than that produced by hot smoke or vapour, and similarly
when these substances are cold.t In an earlier passage,
he assumes that the coldness of bodies is inherent, and
makes the coldness of watery and earthy substances depend
on his views on the composition of these bodies from
his four elements, for both water and earth are defined
by the elementary force cold.t Water and substances
for the most part of the nature of water, i. e., liquid, were
considered by Aristotle to be cold, water being particularly
of a nature opposed to that of fire, but substances more of

'•■ The WorJcs of the Honourable Robert Boyle, new edition, London,
1772, vol. i. p. 488.

f Meteorol. iv. c. 11, s. 8. t Ihid.iv. c. 11, s. 3.

72 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND.

the nature of earth or air were considered to be hotter.*
Oil and also mercury were exceptional, because Aristotle
assumed that these contained much air,t while he considered
fat to be an essentially hot substance, because it readily
assumed the form of fire. I There is much uncertainty,
Aristotle says, about the nature of oil, for, whether it be
considered to be more of the nature of water or of earth, it
ought to be hardened either by the action of cold or by the
action of heat. It is not, however, hardened by either of
these, but merely thickened by both, the reason being that
oil is full of air.§ He does not state to what kind of oil he
refers, but it is probable that it was some kind of fish-oil,
which is 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 the
extent to which such essentially cold body entered into their
composition. According to Boyle, this body, well known to
philosophers as the Frimum Frigidiim, was considered by
some to be w^ater, by others earth, by others air, and by
some nitre, but he says "that water is the Frimum Frigidum,
the opinion of Aristotle has made it to be that of the schools,
and the generality of philosophers." ||

When classifying substances, partly by their composition
and partly by their behaviour under the action of heat, into
three classes which would now be called combustible with
evolution of much smoke, combustible without the evolution
of much smoke, and incombustible, Aristotle uses the well-
known term phlogistic, much employed before Lavoisier's
time. Aristotle gives pitch, oil, and wax as examples of
phlogistic substances, coal-like {anthrakeutic) substances as
examples of combustible bodies not yielding much smoke,
and bronze as an example of incombustible substances.^

It will be convenient to discuss next Aristotle's views
on the production of heat by friction. When expressing an
opinion that the heat and light of the heavenly bodies are due
to friction between them and the medium in contact with
them, as stated already in Chapter iii., he appeals to obser-
vations on the motions of darts and other missiles through

* Meteorol. iv. c. 11, s. 7. f Ibid. iv. c. 8, s. 11.

I P. A. ii. c. 2, 649a,. § Meteorol. iv. c. 7, ss. 2 and 8.

II The Works of the Honoivrable Robert Boyle, new edition, London,
1772, vol. ii. pp. 585 and 591.

II Meteorol, iv. c. 9, s. 37.

PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND. 73

the air. He says that darts had been seen to be heated to
such an extent that their leaden weights were melted, and
adds that the shock imparted by their rapid motion to the
air causes this to become fire.* This production of heat by
friction is referred to in several passages in his Meteorology,
where he tries to explain the phenomena of falling stars,
comets, and other fiery appearances, as described already in
Chapter iii. He was aware that the intensity of the heat
generated by a rapidly moving body was greater than that
generated by a body moving slowly.

So far, he relies on the results of observation, but to a
large extent his ideas on the production of heat by friction
depended on his conceptions about the composition of
bodies from the four so-called elements. The facility with
which a substance becomes ignited by friction depends,
according to Aristotle, on the quantity of the element fire
or air, which was most nearly related to fire, in the substance
itself. He says that if pieces of wood, stone, or iron are
heated in consequence of their motion, it is still more likely
that air, which is most nearly related to fire, should be
heated. t

In P. A. ii. c. 2, Aristotle discusses what is meant when
one substance is said to be hotter or colder than another,
and incidentally explains how a rough estimate of tempe-
rature may be made. It will be seen that he did not always
distinguish between temperature and quantity of heat.
This part of his discussion about heat is more than usually
interesting, and an epitome is therefore given in the follow-
ing paragraph.

Some say that blood is hot and that bile is cold, while
others say that bile is hot and blood cold. If there is
this difference of opinion about heat and cold, which are
capable of producing distinct impressions, what is to be
thought of the impressions given by senses other than touch?
The difficulty may be explained by the fact that the term
"hotter" is used in several different senses, so that state-
ments apparently contradictory may all be more or less true.
In what senses then is the term "hot" employed? To
answer this question, it is necessary to find out what
particular effect is produced by a substance which is hotter
than another, or, if several effects are produced, to find out
how many such effects there are. In one sense, a body is

- De Coelo, ii. c. 7, 289a. f Ibid. ii. c. 7, 289a.

74 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND.

said to be hotter than another if it gives up to a body in
contact with it a greater quantity of heat, and in another
sense if it causes a sharper sensation when touched by any-
one. This second test is not rehable, because the intensity
of the sensation varies with the individual. Again, a body
which causes a fusible body to melt more quickly, or more
readily ignites an inflammable substance, is said to be
hotter. A larger body is said to have more heat than a
smaller one of the same material, and, if a body takes
longer to cool than another, it is said to be hotter, and so
also if the body can be heated more quickly than the other.
The term " hotter " is used in all these and probably in still
more senses, but it is impossible for a body to be hotter than
another in all these senses. Boiling water scalds more than
flame, yet it does not melt or ignite bodies like flame does,
and boiling water is hotter than a dull fire but becomes cold
more quickly than the fire, for fire never becomes cold,
whereas water does.

It is obvious from all this that Aristotle had no means
of determining temperatures, even approximately, and that
he was well aware that such rough methods as were
available were quite unreliable. His discussion of the
meaning of the term "hotter" shows, however, that he had
attempted to make some relevant observations or experi-
ments. If he had had even an approximately reliable
means for measuring temperatures, he would at once have
found that a dull fire or a flame, say of oil or wood, was much
hotter than boiling water. The statement he makes about
the fire keeping hot longer than boiling water shows that
the generation of heat by combustion was not known to
him. The phenomena of combustion were not correctly
described, in fact, until long after Aristotle's time by
Lavoisier. Just as Aristotle believed that some bodies were
essentially cold, so he believed that others were essentially
hot, and that this was the reason why some bodies cooled
faster than others, although they were hotter to the touch.
He decided that, in bodies which are not inherently hot but
become hot by being heated externally, cold is not a mere
privation of heat, but an actual existence.*

Animal heat is discussed by Aristotle in many scattered
passages in his Parts of Animals, Generation of Animals,
History of Animals, and the Parva Naturalia. He believed

* P. A. ii. c. 2, 649a.

PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND. 75

that there was a relation between the quantity of animal
heat, which he considered to be something different from
ordinary heat, and the nature of the soul or vital principle
of an animal. He says that in animals a nobler soul or
vital principle must necessarily be associated with a greater
amount of heat.*

He does not say much about the way in which he
believed that the animal heat was generated, but, after
deciding that it is not produced as a result of respiration,
says that it is rather from the food that heat is produced.!
He not only believed that heat was not produced as a result
of respiration, but, as will be seen further on in this chapter,
that respiration had a cooling effect.

Animal heat plays an important part in the digestion of
food, as is well known, but Aristotle believed that it actually
effected digestion.! 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 exces-
sive heat. II Very small animals and those without blood
are sufficiently cooled, he says, by the air or water in which
they live, for they have but little heat. II Fishes and other
animals with gills and blood are cooled by water flowing
over the gills through which the blood passes from the
heart.** In mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, the
regulation of heat is effected mainly by means of the lungs, tt
the air flowing through ramifications of the bronchial tubes,
which run so closely alongside the branches of the blood
vessels in the lungs that the blood is cooled and some air
actually finds its way into the blood, which is also cooled
thereby. + 1

According 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 believed
by him to have as its most important function the regulation
of the heat of the body, and especially the heat of the head,
where the chief sensory organs are situated. §§

Several interesting instances of the application of heat
in the arts are described by Aristotle in various parts of his

* De Bespir. c. 13. 477a. f Ibid. c. 6, 473a.

I P. A. ii. c. 3, 656a. § G. A. ii. c. 3, 7366 and 737a.

II De Bespir. c. 8, 474&. 11 Ibid. c. 9, 474&.
*■- Ibid. c. 21, 4806. ft Ibid. c. 15, 478a.

n H. A. i. c. 14, 8. 3. §§ P. A. ii. c. 7, 653a and b.

76 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND.

works, and a discussion of some of these will close this
account of Aristotle's description of the phenomena of heat.

It seems to have been usual for people living near the
Black Sea to encamp on the ice, for the purpose of fishing,
and to secure their tent poles in holes made in the ice. In
order to make the poles very secure, Aristotle says that they
poured hot water round the lower parts of the poles, and
that the ice formed by the rapid freezing of the water was a
substitute for lead.* He also says that it was a common
custom for some people, when they wished to freeze water
quickly, to expose it first to the heat of the sun.t

Aristotle describes the manufacture of pearl-ash by the
Umbrians, who burnt plants, boiled the resulting ash in water,
and finally cooled down to crystallize the salts produced. 1

In Meteorol. iv. c. 6, s. 7, Aristotle refers to the distortion
of articles of potters' clay, if these articles, hardened by cold
or frozen, are placed in the oven. He explains the distortion
by saying that there is a temporary softening of the clay by
the action of the water resulting from the thawing during
the 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 liques-
cent, and then can be solidified again, and, in this way,
they make steel, for the slag falls down beneath and is
cleared off. When this process has been carried out many
times, and the metal has become pure, steel is produced. §

The " worked iron," which might at first sight be taken
to be wrought iron, can scarcely be this metal, because
Aristotle's description shows that the " worked iron " was
comparatively easily fusible, whereas wrought iron is not so.
He says, in fact, in an earlier passage, || that iron can be
melted only by a very intense heat, but it can be softened.
Here he evidently refers to wrought iron, or, perhaps more
correctly, a steely iron. The " worked iron " was probably
a crude steely iron, containing manganese, such as could be
obtained from the manganiferous iron ores of Greece, by
the ancient process of extraction by means of carbon.
Unfortunately, Aristotle does not describe the method of
extraction. The method of making steel, described by him,
consisted in repeatedly heating the crude steely iron, each
heating resulting in an elimination of some of the im-

^= Meteorol. i. c. 12, s. 18. | Ibid.

I Ibid. ii. c. 3, ss. 42 and 43. § Ibid. iv. c. 6, s. 9,

II Ibid. iv. c. 6, s. 8.

PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND. 77

purities. The way in which he refers to the separation of
the slag shows that, as might be expected, the slag was a
very fusible silicate of iron and manganese, each removal
of slag resulting in a corresponding loss of iron. He him-
self says that steel was not often made because of the great
loss of iron, but less refining was needed when the iron used
was of good quality.*

Aristotle's statements about sound are comparatively few
in number, and occur chiefly in his De Anima. There is
but little information on this subject in his De Sensu, dx.,
where such information might be expected to be found. In
a small Aristotelian treatise, the De Audihilihus, are also a
few interesting statements on sound, but it is generally
admitted that this treatise was not written by Aristotle.

His observations on sound furnish little that was
original. He reproduces in clearer language some facts
which w^ere well known before his time, e.g., that sound
was a motion of the air or other sounding body, that such
motion was transmitted in some way to the ear and caused
a sensation of hearing, and that an echo was due to a
rebounding of the air, a bending back or reflection of the
voice. In the production of an echo, he believed that the
air rebounded like a ball off a mass of air which, on account
of its being prevented from dispersing by reason of its filling
a cavity or vessel {ajyeiov), acted like a solid or resisting
body.t

When a body, such as a bell, is sounded, there are, as is
well known, four things which contribute to the result : the
hammer of the bell, the bell itself, the air acting as a medium
of transmission, and the ear. Aristotle, however, held that
an important condition was that the air should withstand
the blows causing its motion and should not yield laterally
or disperse. If the air were struck forcibly and suddenly,
it would be unable to yield, but if the blow were weak and
slow in its action, the air would have time to escape or
disperse, and no sound would be produced. It was partly
for these reasons that he seems to have believed that wool
and other light substances, enclosing many air spaces, were
not sounding bodies, while bronze articles and other hard
bodies, which were polished and had no crevices or recesses
into which air could escape, were sounding bodies. I

* Meteorol. iv. c. 6, s. 10. t De Anima, ii. c. 8, 4196.

I Ibid. ii. c. 8, 4196.

78 PHENOMENA OF HEAT AND SOUND.

Aristotle appears to have believed that the motion to
which sound is due travels in a straight line, and not in all
directions, if the medium is unbroken. There is not any
passage in his vv^orks v\^hich seems to represent clearly his
views on this subject, but in the Aristotelian treatise, De
Audibilibus, it is stated that it is shown, by means of
ships' masts and long pieces of wood, that sound travels in
a straight line, for if these are struck at one end the sound
is carried straight along, unless there is a chink in the
wood, and it bends back at the knots and cannot proceed in
a straight course.*

Aristotle says that sound is heard in water, but to a less
extent than in air.t Sound is heard more distinctly in
water than in air, as is well known, and it is very probable
that Aristotle was relying not on experiment but merely on
abstract reasoning.

It is stated in the Problems, xi. 23, that in the pro-
duction of an echo the reflection is in the direction of a
like angle, Tand therefore the voice of the echo is like the
voice to which it is due. The Problems is an Aristotelian
treatise, probably not written by Aristotle, but the above
statement shows that the writer knew that, in the case of
sound, the angles of incidence and reflection are equal.

* De Atidibilibus, 802. f De Anhna, ii. c. 8, 4196.

CHAPTEK V.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS, PLANTS,
AND INANIMATE MATTEK.

The determination of a distinguishing feature between
animals and plants, and of the relationship between forms
of life and inanimate matter, has long engaged the attention
of naturalists and others. Many passages in Aristotle's works
show that he also considered this very difficult question.

He probably had no knowledge of the lowest forms
of life, and his knowledge of some forms, such as, for
instance, jelly-fishes, sea-anemones, and sponges, was
comparatively slight. He observed, however, that some
animals resembled plants in certain respects, and that some
forms of life originated under circumstances such as to
suggest that they were generated from inanimate matter.
Having made observations of this kind, he made the follow-
ing important statements; which seem to show that he
believed in spontaneous generation {avTo/xaroi jEvsa-ii), or, as
it is sometimes called, abiogenesis, and in a continuous
gradation from inanimate matter to the highest forms of
life. He says : " Thus Nature passes by degrees from
inanimate things (a4'y%a) to living beings, so that owing to
their continuity the boundary between them escapes notice,
and there is an intermediate common ground. For, first
after the class of inanimate things comes the class of plants,
and each of these differs from the rest in seeming to partake
of life to a greater or less extent, and the whole class seems
to be alive compared with other bodies, but lifeless compared
with animals. The passage from them to animals is con-
tinuous, as I said before, for anyone would be quite at a loss
in deciding whether some marine forms of life are plants or
animals, for they are attached to the sea-bed, and many of
such forms of life die when they are removed from it,"*
Again, he says : " For Nature passes in an unbroken man-

* H. A. viii. c. 1, S8. 2 and 3.

80 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS,

ner from inanimate things to animals, through forms of hfe
which are not animals, in such a way that one class seems
to differ very little from another in the part where they
border on each other." *

These ideas were not altogether original, but had been
partly foreshadowed by other philosophers. Empedocles,
Democritus, and others considered that plants had sensation
and cognition, as will be seen later in Chapter vii. They
believed, in fact, that the vital principle of plants was
nearly the same as that of animals.

In the above passages from Aristotle's H. A. and P. A.
the word a-^ux^v is employed several times. It signifies
something without -^oxn, which may be translated " vital
principle," although it is doubtful whether there is any
English word or phrase which exactly corresponds with the
meaning intended by Aristotle. This vital principle is
described chiefly in his De Anima. It is that active
principle which, in association with bodies, organized in
some way, gives rise to the phenomena of life. The word
" organized " is used here only for the sake of convenience ;
taken without qualification, it represents a knowledge of
the constitution of matter far more advanced than Aristotle's
ideas on that subject. He considered the vital principle to
be related to living bodies in a manner comparable with the
relationship of Form to Matter, or Sight to the Eye, and
says that if an eye were a living being, then sight would be
its vital principle.! He contemplated several kinds of vital
principle, manifested by functions of different degrees of
dignity or importance, the chief being : (1) the Nutritive ;
(2) the Sentient, and (3) the Intellectual. Whatever has
one of these principles is said to live, and Aristotle assigned
only one to a form of life, because the sentient includes the
nutritive, and the intellectual includes both the nutritive
and the sentient vital principles. All forms of life have the
nutritive vital principle at least.

In his contemplations of forms of life, Aristotle con-
sidered the vital principle to be more important than the
matter associated with it, yet the constitution of this matter
had to satisfy some conditions to enable the vital principle
to be associated therewith. He does not seem to suggest
that the vital principle could be associated with a sculptured
block of marble or an image cast from bronze. He believed,

* P. A, iv. c. 5, 681a. f De Anima, ii. c. 1, 4126.

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTER. 81

however, that forms of Hfe were generated spontaneously
from earth, mud, sand, foam, or the dew which falls on
plants.

In order that lifeless matter may become living matter,
some vital principle must be associated with it, but it is
difficult to understand in what w-ay Aristotle believed that
this association was effected. It could not be, apparently,
by a transfer of vital principle alone to non-living matter,
for Aristotle persistently asserts that the vital principle,
that, at least, to which nutritive or sentient faculties are
due, cannot have a separate existence. He gives some
explanation of his views in several passages, especially in
his G. A. iii. c. 11. According to these, the inanimate
matter undergoes some kind of maturing process in presence
of moisture and at a suitable high temperature, the moisture
containing some breath of life {Tinvi^a), and everything being
in some way full of vital principle {-^"X^). Then frothy
bubbles of this specially prepared matter are formed, and
within these generation proceeds rapidly. The nature of
the forms of life thus formed will depend partly on the
nature of the matter caught up within the bubbles and partly
on the nature of the vital principle enclosed.

This is a short summary of the way in which Aristotle
believed that spontaneous generation was effected. Another
important statement, giving some indication of his views on
the subject under discussion is the following : — " The part
of the rudimentary vital principle (^J^yx'tw «p;>C") caught up and
enclosed in the breath of life {'Trnuixa) makes the germ or
embryo and imparts movement."*

It is not clear what this 'nvEUfMa was intended to be. In
some translations of this and other passages on spontaneous
generation, Trvsu/xa is rendered by "air", but this is incorrect,
for, apart from differences in meaning between TiveS/xa and
arip, the usual Greek word for air, Aristotle says that air {avp)
is not present and cannot remain in water.! The same
assertion is also made in the Aristotelian treatise, De Spiritu,
c. 2, 482.

Many parts of the passages in Aristotle's works on
spontaneous generation are general statements covering
many important details in the steps of the process. It is
not surprising that he makes no attempt to trace these
details.

- G. A. iii. c. 11, 7626.

f De Sensu, ic, c. 5, 448a. ; De Respir. c. 2, 471a.

G

82 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS,

The chief forms of Hfe which were believed by Aristotle
to be generated spontaneously were: — (1) some flowerless
plants ; (2) many of his Ostrahoderma, especially those now
called gastropods and lamellibranchs ; (3) some of his
Entoma, and (4) some fishes, such as, for example, eels and
certain kinds of mullets. These forms of life, different as
they are both in structure and in the amount of vital prin-
ciple they seem to possess, resemble one another, according
to Aristotle, in being generated immediately from inanimate
matter. To this extent, therefore, the two important
passages from H. A. viii. c. 1, and P. A. iv. c. 5, previously
cited, are clear. Some of these forms of life resemble one
another sufficiently to form an assemblage which unites
inanimate matter with higher plants and animals, such as
flowering plants, insects, crustaceans, cephalopods, and the
numerous animals constituting Aristotle's Enaima, which
corresponds to a large extent with the Vertebrata.

The ancient Greeks had no difficulty in believing in
spontaneous generation, and even Aristotle took the trouble
to consider the common saying that men and some quadru-
peds were generated from the earth. It is true that he was
not inclined to believe in generation from the earth itself,
but he seems to have admitted the possibility of generation
of men and some quadrupeds from much lower forms of
life, for he says that, if generation from the earth did
happen, it must have been generation from worms or larvae,
or from ova.*

In H. A. ii. c. 5, s. 1, he says that the Barbary Ape and
other monkeys and also baboons partake of the nature of
both men and quadrupeds. Neither in this nor, appar-
ently, in any other passage does Aristotle show that he had
any idea of a development of higher forms of life from
common ancestors, at all resembling the Darwinian idea of
the origin of species. When referring to Aristotle's state-
ment about the Barbary Ape, Agassiz says that Strack in
his translation! makes Aristotle say that monkeys form a
transition between men and quadrupeds, but the original
says no such thing.! This is quite true, and the comment
by Agassiz illustrates the danger of translating Aristotle too
freely.

Aristotle had some knowledge of no fewer than five

=1= G. A. iii. c. 11, 7626.

f Aristofeles Natur. der TJiiere, 1816, p. 65.

I An Essay on Classific, London, 1859, p. 97, Note.

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTER.

83

hundred and twenty forms of life, and between some of
these he noticed that there were resemblances, while they
differed in the natm-e and quantity of vital principle which
they seemed to possess. Some forms of life contained very
little or none of the sentient vital principle. It was
through these that Nature passed from inanimate material
to undoubted plants and animals. This is exemplified in
Fig. 4, which sufficiently explains itself.

FIG. 4.

an

','■ Ina'nimate
^MVlatter

In Aristotle's ascending scale, plants succeed inanimate
bodies. They hav© Ahe lowest form of vital principle, the
nutritive,* and exhibit movements due to growth and
decay, t They do not move from place to place, and,
although they are affected in some way by objects which
touch them, they have no sensory faculty.! Compared
with one another, they differ in the amount of vital principle
which they possess. §

* De Anima, ii. c. 2, 4186, ii. c. 3, 415a.
\ Ibid. ii. c. 12, 424a.

f lbi(L iii. c. 9, 432&.
§ H, A. viii. c. 1, s. 2.

84 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS,

Animals have some part at least of the sentient vital
principle, and are distinguished by being capable of sen-
sation.* Some have all the senses, and others have certain
senses only, but all have the sense of touch,! so that their
life is defined by this, t

It will thus be seen that an object which clearly con-
tracted on being touched, or which moved bodily from place
to place, would be classed by Aristotle with animals. There
were also what may be called his border-line forms of life,
such as, for instance, his Holothouria, which showed some
features indicating that they were plants and also others
indicating that they were animals. Let us consider a few
of these forms of life and the way Aristotle proposed to
classify them.

The fixed ascidians, Aristotle's Tethya, resembled plants
in always being attached to some object, but, since they had
a kind of fleshy substance, it must be assumed that they
had some degree of sensibility ; further, these animals did
not seem to have any distinct waste matters from their
nutriment, and, in this respect, they resembled plants. § He
considered them to be animals which had a sense of smell
developed only to a very slight extent.il

The forms of life to which he gave the name Ahalephai
included some of the Medusae, Actiniae, and other Coelen-
terata. He considered that they were animals, because
some of them became free and could capture their prey, but
that, like plants, they had no distinct waste matters. H

A satisfactory identification of Aristotle's Holothouria
does not seem to be possible. He says that they are free
forms of life incapable of moving from place to place,** and
that they are devoid of sensation and live like certain plants
which exist free from the soil, ft This is all the information
he gives about them, and it is not quite clear whether he
intended to class them with plants or animals. Some have
attempted to identify them with sea-cucumbers {Holotlmrim) ,
but such identification is unsatisfactory, for sea-cucumbers
show marked signs of feeling. Prof. E. Forbes, after
describing the common holothurians of the eastern Medi-
terranean, and expressing an opinion that they are not the

- P. A. ii. c. 8, 6536 ; G. A. ii. c. 5, lAla.
\ H. A. i. c. 3 ; De Anima, ii. c. 2, 4136 and 414a.
:j; Ibid. iii. c. 13, 4356. § P. A. iv. c. 5, 681a ; H. A. viii. c. 1, s. 3.
II H. A. iv. c. 8, s. 19. ir P. A. iv. c. 5, 6816; H. A. iv. c. 6, ss.4-5.
-* H. A. i. c. 1, 8. 8. if P. A. iv. c. 5, 681a.

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTEE. 85

same as the Holothouria of the Ancients, suggests that
Aristotle may have had in view " the large, round, sponge-
like algue called Spongodium, living free on the sea-bed
and abundant in the Greek seas." *

Aristotle's statements about sponges are remarkable,
and, until the eighteenth century, naturalists do not seem
to have added much further information about them. Be-
sides giving a great deal of other information about sponges,
he says that they are animals resembling plants very closely,
because they cannot live v^hen torn avi^ay from their places
of attachment,! and that they show signs of feeling, a proof
of this being that, according to common report, they
contract when an attempt is made to tear them away, or
when the winds and waves are violent ; the people of
Torona, he adds, deny that this is so.t

His conclusion, that sponges are animals, apparently
based on very slender data, is interesting, because natura-
lists were long undecided on this question. Gesner, Rondelet,
and Belon were disposed to consider them to be plants, Eay
and Tournefort classed them with plants, and Linnaeus,
Lamarck, Milne-Edwards, Cuvier, and many others con-
sidered them to be animals. It may be mentioned that the
opinion of Linnaeus changed, e.g., in the tenth edition of
the Systema NatwcB sponges are classed with plants, and in
the twelth and thirteenth editions, with animals.

The assumed contractility of sponges, based on hearsay
evidence, but denied by the people of Torona, in Macedonia,
seems to have formed the chief reason why Aristotle con-
sidered sponges to be animals. However, sponges do not
seem to exhibit any such contractility, for Dr. Grant, affcer
numerous experiments on sponges, found no trace of it, and
he also says that several other investigators had been unable
to detect it in sponges found in many different localities. §

There is another matter deserving of consideration in
connection with Aristotle's decision that sponges are animals,
viz., the extent to which he relied on popular beliefs. The
many 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 feeling,

••= Travels in Lycia, dc, 1847, vol. ii. p. 118.
f H. A. viii. c. 1, s. 3 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, GSla.
I H. A. i. c. 1, s. 8, V. c. 14, s. 8.

§ Edin. Philosoph. Journ., vol. xiii. 1825, pp. 342-6, vol. xiv. 182G,
pp. l'20-l.

86 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ANIMALS,

he seems to rely on what was told him by others, probably
fishermen. I have not been able to find a passage in the
ancient writers showing that fishermen of Aristotle's time
believed that sponges were animals. At a much later time
Gesner was influenced by a popular belief of this kind, for
he says : " I do not think that the Sponge is an animal ;
indeed, it is scarcely a zoophyte ; since, however, some of
the common people think that it is some kind of animal
and, on this account, Eondelet and Belon have treated of it
in their histories of aquatic animals, I also shall deem it
worthy to be included in my supplement."*

It is not easy to ascertain what is the general popular
opinion on the nature of sponges in the Greek area. Dr.
W. H. D. Rouse informs me that the sponge is spoken of in
terms which would suit an animal, and Mr. G. C. Zervos,
writing from Calymnos, on October 23rd, 1907, says: "The
Sponge is considered to be an animal, because the Sponge
fishermen say that e^opriaav ra crtpouyyapia = (the Sponges have
become dead), and the word >J'0<pai is used in modern Greek
to denote the death of animals only." Wishing to obtain
information as definite as possible, I wrote to Mr. W. R.
Halliday at the British School at Athens. He replied
(after his return from a journey which included Melos and
Paros) in a letter received June 24th, 1911, as follows: "I
think I can answer your question about sponges in the
negative. I have put it in the following forms on different
occasions : ' Are sponges animals or plants ? ' to which the
answer is 'Plants.' ' Are sponges animals?' * No, plants.'
' Are sponges plants ? ' ' Yes, of the sea.' In no case have
I found any hesitation, or leaning towards the animal theory."

Evidently, the popular opinion among some Greeks is
that sponges are plants, and it is possible that Aristotle was
not merely recording a popular belief when he said that
sponges are animals.

The distinctions between animals and plants which
Aristotle attempted to make have long become insufficient ;
in fact, they were scarcely sufficient for the comparatively
very few lower forms of life known to him. The well-
known definitions of stones and like substances, plants, and
animals, made by Linnaeus, were like those of Aristotle,
except that stress was laid on the fact that animals and
plants are organised, while stones and the like are unor-

"t Hist. Anim, iv. Corollarium, 1558, p. 106G.

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTEE. 87

ganized. Later naturalists found that these definitions were
unsatisfactory. Then importance was attached to the
absorption of nutriment by fibres at the lower ends of
plants and the presence in animals of a mouth above or
anteriorly, leading to a stomach. Next, naturalists sought
a reliable distinction between plants and animals in the
exhalation of carbonic acid by animals and oxygen by plants.
With increasing knowledge of new forms of life, all these
distinctions were found to be unsatisfactory, and new ones
were suggested, depending on, e.g., the nature of the cell,
the properties of protoplasm, the presence or absence of
chlorophyll, and the nature of the food of animals and
plants. To-day, however, the difficulties are confined
chiefly to the numerous very small forms of life of which
Aristotle and even Linnaeus and many later naturalists had
no knowledge. With respect to such small forms of life.
Sir Kay Lankester says : " When, however, we come to the
very lowest unicellular microscopic forms of life, there is
greater difficulty in assigning some of the minuter organisms
to one side or the other, and to some extent our decision in
the matter must depend on the theory we may provisionally
adopt as to the nature of the earliest living material, which
was the common ancestral matrix from which both the
Plant series and the Animal series have developed." *

It is clear, therefore, that Aristotle, when he attempted
to determine a boundary line between animals and plants,
became the pioneer of a work which has engaged the atten-
tion of numerous investigators right up to the present time.
He was not aware of the complicated nature of the pheno-
mena which it would be necessary to understand before so
difficult a task could be completed, but he made a creditable
attempt. That he knew only comparatively few forms of
life, and that he had great difficulty in deciding on the nature
of some, the position of which has long been determined, do
not deprive him of the credit of being the first to indicate
how a boundary line may be drawn between plants and
animals.

A Treatise on Zoology, part i. 1909, p. xiv.

CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS,

CHAPTEK VI.

CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS, PLANTS, AND
INANIMATE MATTEE.

Aristotle's conceptions about the constituents of
animals, plants, and inanimate matter were connected with
his views about motion. It has been stated already that he
believed that there was but one Kosmos or Universe, that
this was of spherical form, and that the Earth was at its
centre. He held that all motions of bodies could be resolved
into three simple motions : (1) rectilinear motion upwards or
outwards from the centre ; (2) rectilinear motion downwards
or inwards towards the centre, and (3) circular motion. A
simple body or element must have, according to Aristotle, a
simple motion, and, from a consideration of the motions
which earthy substances, water, air, and flame exhibit, he con-
cluded that there were four elemejits, earth, ivater, air, and Jire,
of which earth and loater correspond to rectilinear motion
towards the centre, and air and fire correspond to rectilinear
motion from the centre. To circular motion he assigned a
fifth element, cether, distinguished by being eternal and
indestructible, undergoing no change either in quality or
quantity. This element, since it could not move in a recti-
linear direction, either upwards or downwards, had neither
lightness nor heaviness. He believed that this element
existed in the upper regions of the Kosmos or, at any rate,
at some distance from us. He does not appear to have
considered it to be a part of terrestrial bodies.* On the
other hand, earth, water, air, and fire, which enter into the
composition of terrestrial bodies, are not eternal, and require
to be renewed by generation.!

Aristotle was not the first to consider that earth, water,
air, and fire were the elements from which all terrestrial
substances are made. Empedocles, in somewhat figurative
language, was the first to do this, as Aristotle himself clearly

* De Coelo, i. cc. 2 and 3, iii. cc. 3 and 5. f li^id. ii. c. 3.

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTEE.

89

shows,* Aristotle, however, preferred to carry his analysis
still further. He considered these so-called elements to be
compounded of the forces {^uvauEig) to which he gave the
names Hot, Cold, Wet, and Dry.t The Hot and Cold
were considered to be active, and the Wet and Dry pas-
sive. I The way in which these forces were combined to
form the elements is usually represented graphically in the

Earth

Water

way shown in Fig. 5. The combinations shown are the
only ones, because heat and cold, wetness and dryness, are
contraries which cannot exist together. This conception of
the composition of bodies out of the forces, rather than
out of the so-called elements, agrees better with Aristotle's
statement, in De Coelo, ii. c. 3, that the elements act on each
other and, as a result, destroy each other.

■■'• Metajjhijs. i. c. 4, 985fi ; De Gener. et Corr., ii. c, 1, 329rt.
\ P. A. ii. c. 1, G4Ga ; De Oener. et Corr., ii. ce. 2-5.
I Meteorol. iv. c. 1, s. 1.

90 CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS,

The manner in which Aristotle considered bodies to be
made up from the elements may now be- considered. He
says that there are three degrees of composition, the first
being that out of the so-called elements, such as ai?', earth,
water, and fire, or, he says, it would be better to say out of
the forces referred to above, the second degree of com-
position being that by which the homoeomeria,* such as
blood, flesh, bone, stone, and the like, are formed out of the
elejnents, and the third being that by which the anhomoe-
omeria,t such as the face, hand, and many other parts, are
formed out of the homoeomeria. I With respect to the first
degree of composition, Aristotle considered that all forms of
matter, animate or inanimate, contained some quantity of
each of the elements, combined together and not merely in
a state of mixture, and that the differences in the properties
of these forms of matter, such as differences in heaviness or
lightness, roughness or smoothness, were consequential on
the proportions of the elements present. § Consequently, each
of the substances earth, water, air, and flame, as they are
known to us, contain some quantity of each of Aristotle's
elements, but earth, water, air, and flame contain preponder-
ating proportions of the elements earth, water, air, and fire,
respectively. Other forms of matter, even such different
substances as stone and palm oil, contain the same elements;
their differences are due merely to the different proportions
in which these elements are present. The stone contains a
preponderant quantity of earth, and the oil contains com-
paratively large amounts of air and loater. The oil, if
liquid, may be made solid, as is well known, without any
change in its chemical composition, but, according to
Aristotle's views, the solid oil would differ from the liquid
oil chiefly by containing smaller amounts of air and loater.

Clearly, therefore, Aristotle believed that a change in the
relative proportions of the elements in a substance resulted
in the production of a substance having properties diff-
erent from those of the original substance. This was
not all ; it will be evident, from the following account of his
views on the constitution of substances, that he held that
the elements existed in a state of combination and not mere

'''- The homoeomeria will be discussed cliiefly in Chapter ix.
■f- The anhomoeomeria will be discussed chiefly in Chapters x.-xii.
X p. A. ii. c. 1, 64Ga.

§ Ihid. ii. c. 1, 646a ; De Gener. et Corr. i. c. 10, 328a, ii. c. 8,
3346 and 33oa.

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTER. 91

mixture. He uses three words in a technical sense, auv^sai^,
/"("lif, and xpoiaiq. According to Aristotle's explanation of
these words, they respectively mean a mechanical mixture,
a compounding of solid bodies so as to produce a body abso-
lutely uniform in composition (the solid bodies having been
so blended that not even the smallest particle of any of them
can be detected), and a compounding of fluids in the same
way. He says that, since bodies cannot be divided into
indivisible particles, and synthesis and mixis are different,
we ought not to say that in mixis the small particles of the
mixed bodies preserve their individuality, for the result of
the mixis is a homoeomerion. Nothing of this kind would
result, he says, from a mixture of indivisible particles, for, if
it were possible to examine the mixture with the eye of
Lynceus, it would be seen that the mixture was not a mixis,
although it might seem to be so to one with ordinary sight.*
Aristotle, therefore, had some ideas of what is now
called chemical combination, but he held that his elements
combined in every conceivable proportion ; his compounds
were more like some alloys than chemical compounds. Be-
lieving that all bodies were formed from four elements,
and that these elements were capable of combining in all
proportions, it is not surprising that the alchemists, who
were greatly influenced by Aristotle, persisted so long in
their efforts to transmute the baser metals into gold.t That
Aristotle's ideas were very crude may be seen from the
following examples, the first of which is taken from his own
writings. In the production of bronze there is usually a
rather large loss of tin by oxidation and vaporization, but
the rest of the tin alloys with the copper with the production
of a bronze which is much harder and of a lighter colour
than the copper. According to Aristotle, the tin nearly
vanishes during the production of the alloy, its effect being
merely to modify the colour of the alloy, because the copper

-i= De Gener. et Corr. i. c. 10, 328a.

f Researches on the transmutation of certain elements into other
elements have been made durinjj recent years by Sir William Ramsay
and others (see Journal of the Chemical Society, 1907, pp. 1593-1606 ;
1909, pp. 624-637). Sir William Ramsay says : " The undoubted fact
that the well-known helium is a product of the ' degradation ' of radium
must be held to be thoroughly established. And in this instance, one
certain case of transmutation is sufficient " {Journ. of the Chem. Soc,
1909, p. 626).

It may be of interest to state that there is a Specification for British
Letters Patent, No. 26356, a.d. 1910 (Roux), for transmuting iron into
silver and gold.

92 CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS,

acts more strongly on the tin, which cannot act strongly on
the copper.* Again, if water be deprived of its hydrogen,
a gas is left having properties very different from those of
water. On Aristotle's assumption, this should be explained
by saying that the water had been changed by an addition
of the element air, whereas hydrogen, which would be of
the nature of Aristotle's element air, has been taken away.
He was also quite unaware that the physical properties of a
substance may be changed while its composition remains
the same,

Kespecting the physical constitution of matter, Aristotle
held that matter was continuous and not made up of indi-
visible parts, t He rejected the atomic theories of Leucippus,
Democritus, and other ancient Greek philosophers who
considered matter to consist of atoms or small indivisible
particles separated by interspaces and in a state of motion.
This theory has only a superficial resemblance to the modern
atomic theory of chemists, and was open to the objection
that it did not satisfactorily explain how the atoms were
held together. Aristotle's theory that matter was continuous
was at least not open to this objection. Compared with the
theories of the ancient atomists, it might be said that,
broadly speaking, matter was considered by Aristotle to be
vitreous or colloidal, and by the atomists to be granular.
The modern theory takes account of the action of chemical
and physical forces which were quite unknown both to the
atomists and to Aristotle.

The substances, or homoeomeria, resulting from the
combination or 7nixis of the elements earth, water, air,
andyire, will next be considered. According to Aristotle, a
part of a homoeomerion, such as flesh, may be correctly
called by the name given to the homoeomerion itself, but a
part of an anhomceomerion, such as a hand, cannot be
properly designated by the name of the anhomceomerion. I
He gives numerous examples of his homoeomeria, such as,
for example, flesh, blood, splanchnon or vascular material
forming the liver and other chief viscera, fat, marrow, milk,
bile, tendon, cartilage, bone, wood, stone, bronze, gold, silver,
and other metals. These examples show that Aristotle's

'■■• De Gener. et Corr. i. c. 10, 3286.
f Physics, iii. cc. G and 7.

I H. A. i. c. 1, s. 1 ; P. A. ii. c. 2, 6476, ii. c. 9, 6556 ; De Gener. et
Corr. i. c. 1, B14a.

PLANTS, AND INANIMATE MATTEE. 93

homoeomeria are materials, some of which may be consti-
tuent tissues.

It is evident from Aristotle's definition of homceomerion
and anhomoeomerion that his views were dependent to some
extent on the way some words were used by the ancient
Greeks. This causes some difficulty in a few cases. He
explains that some constituent parts of animals may be
considered to be homoeomeria, if their material only is
considered, or anhomoeomeria, if the functions are taken
into account, and that the only reason for classifying skin,
membrane, nail, horn, &c., with the homoeomeria is that the
name of any one of them happens to be used to denote a
part of it also.*

Considerations based on the homogeneity of the parts
do not appear to be important in Aristotle's views on the
homoeomeria ; for instance, he says that they may vary in
themselves, and that blood, which is one of the best defined
of his homoeomeria, may be of varying degrees of consist-
ency, turbidity, and temperature, even in the same animal.!

The terms " homoeomeria " and " anhomoeomeria "
appear to be Aristotle's own, but the distinction involved in
their use had been expressed by Plato, in Protag. xviii.,
where he prefers to consider justice, temperance, and holi-
ness to be parts of virtue in the same sense as the mouth,
nose, and eyes are parts of the face, rather than that they
are like parts of a block of gold, which differ from the
whole and from one another only in size.

Aristotle's third degree of composition may now be
considered. The homoeomeria are combined to form the
anhomoeomeria, of which he gives many examples, such as,
for instance, the face, eye, tongue, arm, foot, wing, and the
heart and other chief viscera. These show that his anhomoe-
omeria are parts having definite forms or functions. This
is in accordance with his own statements. He tells us that
the heart, like the other chief viscera formed of vascular
material, is of the nature of a homceomerion, but is also an
anhomoeomerion, because it has a definite form.t Again,
his anhomoeomeria may be characterized by possessing a
capability of performing work, of doing something. §
Generally speaking, his organic anhomoeomeria are members
or organs of the body, and he considered the bodies of some

- P. A. ii. c. 9, 6556. | Ihid. ii. c. 2, 647i.

I Ihid. ii. c. 1, 647a.

§ H, A, i. c. 3, ss. 2 and 3 ; P. A. ii. c. 1 ; G. A. i. c. 18, 7226.

94 CONSTITUENTS OF ANIMALS, ETC.

animals, e.g., men, birds, and fishes, to be made up of
anhomoeomeria. His examples of anhomoeomeria are
almost entirely taken from the animal kingdom, but it is
clear that a branch of a tree or a leaf, a wooden ball, a table,
or a sword would be anhomoeomeria.

The distinction made by Aristotle between anhomoe-
omeria and homoeomeria corresponds, in an elementary way,
with the modern distinction between the organs of the body
and the tissues of which they consist, a distinction mainly
due to the labours of Bichat, who lived as late as the end of
the eighteenth century. Aristotle's homoeomeria, however,
include not only constituent parts of the organs, but also
matters which can be regarded as secretions and ejecta only.

Aristotle knew but very little indeed of the structure or
composition of the homoeomeria. Modern anatomists
break up organic homoeomeria, such as fat, skin, and flesh,
into cells, muscle fibres, and connective and other tissues,
but he does not appear to have known anything of these.
It may be suggested that the vesicles, which he believed
were formed in the process of spontaneous generation, were
some kind of animal or vegetable cells, but there is nothing
to support such a suggestion in the rest of his works. The
following, in fact, seems to represent all he knew about the
structure or composition of his homoeomeria. He knew of
the presence of fat in the substance of the liver, in flesh,
and in milk, he knew also that certain fibrous structures
occur in flesh, and he was aware that "fibres," corresponding
with what is now called fibrin, could be extracted from blood,
after it had been drawn from the body of an animal.

In Chapter ix. a detailed account will be given of
Aristotle's homoeomeria.

CHAPTEK VII.

ON PLANTS.

There are many passages in Aristotle's works which
show that he contemplated writing a separate treatise on
plants, and it is probable that he wrote a treatise of this
kind. No work on plants, however, which can be assigned
with confidence to Aristotle has been found. There is a
small Aristotelian treatise entitled Be Plantis, considered by
some to be one of Aristotle's genuine works, but usually
admitted to be spurious. The only genuine sources from
which his views on plants can be obtained are, in fact, a
large number of passages which occur, almost incidentally, in
some of his works, particularly his History of Animals, Parts
of Animals, Generation of Animals, De Anima, and the
Parva Naturalia. It will be best to consider these passages,
before discussing further the Aristotelian treatise on plants.

The passages in which Aristotle distinguishes plants
from animals on the one side, and inanimate matter on the
other, have been referred to already in Chapter v. There
it will be seen that, according to him, plants have only the
lowest form of vital principle — the nutritive, that they do
not move from place to place, but exhibit movements due to
growth and decay, and that they have no sensory faculty,
although they are affected in some way by certain external
influences.

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 is
clear from the Timceus and from fragments from Anaxagoras
Empedocles, and Democritus, such as, for example, some
which are given in the Aristotelian treatise, De Plantis, i.
cc. 1 and 2, that they believed that plants had sensation and
cognition, that, in fact, they were capable of feelings of joy
and sadness.

The consideration of the nature of the vital principle, or

96 ON PLANTS.

soul, of plants occupied the minds of many who wrote about
them, and attempts were made to determine in what part
or parts of the plant the soul resided. The general opinion
was that the soul of a plant resided in the " heart " or pith,
and, as late as the sixteenth century, Csesalpinus seriously
considered this subject. After deciding that a very suitable
position for the soul of a plant is in the middle of the part
where the stem starts from the root, he argued that a soul
existed even in the axil of each leaf, and finally concluded
that the soul of a plant was veluti in omnes partes distrihutum,
or distributed as it were to all parts of the plant.*

The statement that plants are affected in some way by
external influences! is not clear, but the context suggests
that the effects of cold and heat on the plants were in
Aristotle's mind.

Eespecting the nutrition of plants, he says that they
obtain food by means of their roots,! which he compares
with the mouth of an animal, § and with the blood-vessels
of the umbilical cord.|| Their food, he says, must be liquid
and, although they seem to be nourished by one substance
only, viz., water, yet they are nourished by more than one
substance, for earth is in combination with the water. 11
Plants, he says, obtain their food from the earth in a digested
state, wherefore waste matters are not produced in plants,
which use the earth and its heat in place of a stomach.**

Aristotle 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 plants is
correct as far as it goes. The most remarkable parts of his
statements about the nutrition of plants are, however, those
relating to the function of the soil and the consequent
absence of waste matters in plants. He is reasoning, as he
often does, by analogy with animals. The food taken up by
the roots required no elaboration so as to separate the use-
ful from the waste parts ; this process had been effected, so
Aristotle believed, by means of the soil and its heat. The
plants received a food which corresponded with that which,
in animals, passed from the stomach and small intestines
into the blood. No waste products, so Aristotle says, were
formed. This view was held for many centuries after

■^ De Plantis, Florence, 1583, p. 10. f De Anima, ii. c. 12, 424a.

I P. A. iv. c. 7, 683&. § De Javent. et Scnect. c. i, 468a-.

II G. A. ii. c. 7, 7456. II De Gener. et Corr. ii. c. 8, 335fl.

*- P. A. ii. c. 3, 650a, ii. c. 10, 655&.

ON PLANTS. 97

Aristotle's time, but was disproved by Joachim Junge
(1587-1657). In Cap. 2 of Fragment v., on the hfe of
plants, in his De Plantis Doxoscopice Phijsicce Minores, he
says that plants have their own waste products, and asks
who would assert that plants have the peculiar property of
drawing from the soil that only which is suitable for their
own material.*

Aristotle says that plants do not respire,! but it should be
borne in mind that he did not believe that any living thing
respired unless it had lungs. It was on this account that
he held that fishes, crustaceans, molluscs, and many other
animals did not respire. Anaxagoras, Diogenes, Democritus,
and other ancient philosophers believed that all living things,
or, at least, all animals, respired. This is asserted by
Aristotle, when discussing the views of others on respiration.!
Brisseau-Mirbel says that Anaxagoras believed that the
leaves of plants absorbed and gave out the air.§ There does
not seem to be any extant fragment of Anaxagoras which
sets out the action of the leaves in this manner, but in the
Aristotelian treatise, De Plantis, i. c. 2, it is stated that,
according to Anaxagoras, plants also have ■b-vow, a breath or
exhalation.

Aristotle says that plants are not affected by sleeping and
waking (since they are without sense organs or sensation),
but by what must be considered to be like sleep. || This
is consistent with his belief that although plants have no
sensation yet they are affected, as stated before, by certain
influences. There is nothing to show that he was referring
to the phenomenon of sleeping and waking, evidenced by
the drooping and closing of flowers in the evening and their
expansion in the morning.

According to Aristotle, there was no distinction of sexes
in plants, but the male and female principles or powers were
blended in them, so that they generated from themselves,
the products of generation being the so-called seeds, ^ which
were produced from the superfluous foodof the plants.**
Some plants, however, present a certain small difference like
a sexual difference, for they do not bear fruit but contribute
to the ripening of the fruit of other trees, such as, for

'■^' Joachimi Jungii Optisciila Botanica-Physica, Coburg, 1747, p. 147.

I De Anima, i. c. 5, 4106. | De Eespir. c. 2, 4706.

§ Elemens de Physiol, veget. et de Botanique, Paris, 1815, p. 503.

II De Somno, dc, c. i. 454a and 6. IT G. A. i. c. 23, 731a.

** P. A. ii. c. 3, 650a; iv. c. 5, 681a.

H

98 ON PLANTS.

example, the fig and the wild fig,* He explains more fully,
in H. A. V. c. 26, s. 3, the action of the wild fig. In wild
figs, according to him, is an insect called Pse?i, which, after
passing through its larval and pupal stages, flies out and
enters the unripe fruit of the cultivated fig trees. The effect
produced is, so Aristotle says, that the figs do not fall off the
trees, and, for this reason, the growers attach branches of
the wild fig to the cultivated trees, and also plant the two
kinds of trees close together.

This shows that he was aware of the custom of growers
of figs to use branches of the Wild Fig {Caprificus) to effect
the process, so well known by the name caprification, by
which the growers believed that the ripening of the figs was
hastened. The process of artificial fertilization of the date
palm by applying the flowers of the male tree to those of
the female tree was also practised by the Ancients, although
they did not understand the process. The case of the fig
was different, for both its male and its female flowers are
carried by the inner parts of the hollow fleshy receptacle
which forms the greater part of the fig. In this case, the
beneficial result, if any, is believed to be due, just as Aristotle
believed, to the piercing of the fruit by a kind of gall-insect
(Cynips) carried by the branches of the wild fig.

Aristotle seems to have taken a very limited view of the
functions of plants, for he says that they have no other
duty but the production of seeds and fruit, t He states
incorrectly that willows and black poplars do not produce
seeds.! Some plants, he says, are fertile and others sterile. §

In what way Aristotle believed that the male and female
principles or powers were blended in plants is not clear.
His statement that some plants are fertile and others sterile
indicates that he knew of the existence of what are now
called dioecious plants, but it is also clear that he did not
know that the sterile plants bore the male and the fertile
ones the female flowers.

Aristotle came near to discovering that hermaphroditism
which is found in the majority of flowering plants, but his
views on the production of fruits and seeds prevented him
from making the discovery. He seems to have been con-
vinced that this production was the result of a process of
nutrition. Plants, according to him, had a nutritive soul or

- G. A. i. c. 1, 715&. f Ibid. i. c. 4, 717a.

\ Ibid. i. c. 18, 726a. § H. A. iv. c. 11, s. 2.

ON PLANTS. 99

vital principle only, and their fruits and seeds were a residue
from the superfluous food of the plants. He held, it is true,
that the male and female principles or powers were blended
in some way in the plants, but he failed to discover the
sexual importance of the stamens and pistils. The import-
ance of these organs was not understood, in fact, until the
seventeenth century, when Camerarius concluded that, in
the vegetable kingdom, reproduction by means of seed is not
effected unless the anthers (apices) have duly prepared the
plant itself.* This conclusion was based on a number of
experiments, e.g., he observed that the castor-oil plant yielded
empty capsules and not perfect fruits if the male flowers were
removed before the anthers opened. Von Sachs says that all
historic records concur in proving that Camerarius was the
first who attempted to solve the question of sexuality in
plants by experiment.! ^

Aristotle refers to parasitical plants, and says that these
grow upon other plants, or may even be quite free, e.g., a
kind of Stonecrop (Epipetron) from Parnassus will grow for
a long time when merely hung over a peg. I When describing
the reproduction of bees, he says that some believed that
they did not reproduce sexually but obtained their young
from certain plants, e.g., some kind of honeysuckle or reed.§
Again, he says that the Chloris, which was probably the
greenfinch, made its nest of a plant called Syitiphyton, 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, elm, 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, lily, myrtle, and
broom, H and several which are usually planted near the
hives, e.g., species of wild pear, bean, lucerne, poppy, myrtle,
and almond.**

The above represents most of the work of Aristotle on
plants, in so far as this has been preserved in his genuine

* Dc Sexii Plantarum Epistola, Tubingen, 1694, p. 40.
f History of Botany from 1530 to 1860, Garnsey's translation,
Oxford, 1890, p. 385, J P. A. iv. c. 5, 681a.

§ H. A. V. c. 18, s. 1. II Ibid. ix. c. 14, s. 2.

II Ibid. ix. c. 27, s. 22. -* Ibid. ix. c. 27, s. 26.

100 ON PLANTS.

writings. It has been mentioned already that he probably
wrote a separate work on plants, but that no work on plants,
which can be assigned with confidence to him, has been
found. Such a work seems to be referred to by Athenseus
and Pollux, for, referring to a certain kind of date without a
stone, Athenaeus says : — " And Aristotle speaks thus in his
treatise on plants,"* while Pollux says : — " It is also written
in the work of Aristotle or Theophrastus relating to plants."!

There is one and, apparently, only one work on plants
which might be Aristotle's own, and this is the small
Aristotelian treatise previously mentioned. There are
several editions of it, the earliest which I have seen being
one printed at the end of an edition of the Geoponica,
usually attributed to Constantine VII., and published at
Basle, in 1539, so it is believed. On the title-page is a
statement in Latin, which reads : — " Also two Greek books
on plants by Aristotle, which books have lately been saved
from destruction and are restored for the first time in this
edition 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, leaves, flowers, fruits, and other parts
of plants are discussed, and also plants yielding milky juices
and certain odoriferous plants of Syria and Arabia. It is
also stated that plants grown in some localities become
changed to other kinds when transferred to other localities,
like a plant called Belenion, which is injurious when grown
in Persia, but edible when transplanted to Egypt or Pales-
tine, and reference is made to some date and fig trees which
were said to be flowerless.

Bef erring to this treatise, Brisseau-Mirbel says : — " In
the Middle Ages, an impostor dared to publish under the
name of this philosopher a work entitled De Plantis, a crude
collection of mistakes and absurdities, which nobody to-day
attributes to Aristotle."! The mistakes and absurdities are
not such, however, as to justify a belief that the work is
spurious, and it must be conceded that, in accordance with
Aristotle's own practice, there are repetitions, in substance
at least, of statements found in his genuine works. These
repetitions relate to the presence of a soul in plants, and the
absence of sensation or motion, the distinction between

^= Deipn. xiv. c GG. \ x. 170.

\ j^lemens de Physiol, veget. et de Botanigue, Paris, 1815, p. 505.

ON PLANTS. 101

plants and animals by reason of the absence or presence of
sensation, the want of a distinction of sexes in plants, the
influence on plants of something which is not sleep, but is
Hke sleep, and the primary or entire work of plants, viz., the
production of fruits and seeds. The treatise is also written
in a truly Aristotelian manner, plain statements being made
in a concise form. The evidence obtainable from a con-
sideration of the particular style and Greek words and phrases
used does not appear to be worth anything, for, in the
preface to the treatise, it is stated : — " I have found much
diflticulty and also confusion of names because of frequent
changes of translation from our language to Latin, then
from Latin to Arabic, from Arabic again to Latin, and lastly
from Latin to our language." It would be remarkable if
any striking resemblance between the original Greek text, if
any, and the De Plant is could be found after such a series
of changes from one language to another, and, at best, the
De Plantis can be only an imperfect version of such an
original.

Further, the De Plantis is remarkable for referring to
Plato specifically in its very first chapter, for a reference to
Plato by name is very unusual in Aristotle's works and
especially so in those relating to the Natural Sciences. In
the De Plantis, Egypt, ^Ethiopia, Syria, Palestine, and
Persia are referred to in a more familiar way than is usual
in Aristotle's genuine works. Again, the passages referred
to by Athenoeus and attributed by him to Aristotle, viz., one
in Deipn. xiv. c. 66, relating to dates without stones, and
another, in Deipn. xiv. c. 68, relating to grafted pears, do not
occur in the De Plantis.

In conclusion, neither the evidence for nor that against
the opinion that the De Plantis is a version of one of
Aristotle's works is sufficient. The balance of evidence,
however, goes to show that the De Plantis is spurious.

CHAPTEK VIII.

THE PROBABLE NATUEE AND EXTENT OF
ARISTOTLE'S DISSECTIONS.

To the readers of Aristotle's zoological works, especially
Books i.-iii. of his History of Animals, the question of the
nature and extent of his dissections constantly presents
itself. This question may be considered with respect to
(1) the lower animals, and (2) Man, including the human
foetus.

With respect to the lower animals, Aristotle often speaks
of the necessity for ascertaining the structure and arrange-
ment of their parts by means of dissections. There are
also many passages which clearly indicate the use of the
dissecting-knife, e. g., parts of the description of the cham-
aeleon,* of the eyes of the mole,f and of the development
of the chick in the egg.t Again, some of his descriptions
of the internal parts of animals, e.g., his description of the
gall-bladder of the Pelamid,§ of the complex stomach of a
ruminant, II and of the aorta and its branches,1l indicate
more than a laying open of the body of an animal and a
casual inspection of its internal parts. There are also
passages, e.g., those describing the movements of the heart
and sides of a chamseleon, after it had been dissected,** and
that referring to the movements of the heart after its
removal from a tortoise,! t which show that Aristotle vivi-
sected some of the lower animals.

There are also statements which show that the dissec-
tions, if any, on which they were based were very carelessly
performed, e.g., the statements that the wolf and the lion
have only one bone in the neck and not separate vertebrae, 1 1
and that the stomach of a dog or lion is not much wider

* H. A. ii. c. 7, s. 5. f Ibid. i. c. 8, s, 3.

I Ibid. vi. c. 3, ss. 1-4. § Ibid. ii. c. 11, s. 7.

II Ibid. ii. c. 12, ss. 5-6. 11 Ibid. in. c. 4, ss. 3-6.

■'"''• Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 5. f | Dc Juvent. et Scnect. c. 2, 4686.

X\ p. A. iv. c. 10, 686rt ; H. A. ii. c. 1, s. 1.

AEISTOTLE'S DISSECTIONS. 103

than the intestine.* Most of these statements were pro-
bably made by others and adopted by Aristotle without
further examination, and, in any case, it would be unfair to
estimate the value of his dissections by giving too much
weight to such statements. His work on animals should
be taken as a whole.

It is probable that Aristotle was taught dissection when
quite young, for his father was one of the Asclepiads, an
order of priest-physicians, who are said to have practised
dissection and to have taught it to their children.! He must
have made many examinations of the internal parts of
mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians, to which he
often refers, and his extensive knowledge of many cephalo-
pods, molluscs, echinoderms, and fishes, must have been the
result of numerous dissections. A list of animals which
Aristotle appears to have dissected will be found at the end
of this chapter. It is probable, from the way in which
adverbs of position, such as eix-npoaQiv and vTroKaico, are used
in many passages, that Aristotle often dissected animals
arranged 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 of
these. In order to arrive at a conclusion, it is proposed to
examine the evidence obtainable from Aristotle's writings,
and then to examine the evidence furnished by the writings
of other authors or by other sources of information.

After describing the external parts of the human body,
Aristotle says that the internal parts are less known than
those of other animals and that, in order to describe them,
it becomes necessary to examine the corresponding parts
of animals which are most nearly related to Man.+ He
also states that the human stomach is like that of a dog, and
is not much wider than the intestine, § that the occiput is
empty,!! and that the heart is above the lungs. II These
passages clearly indicate that Aristotle never dissected a
human body, and there are very few passages which suggest
that he did so. His description of the position of the heart,
inH.A. i. c. 14, ss. 1 and 2 ; ii. c. 12, s. 2, and P. A. iii. 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 connection

'•= H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 7. f Galen's De Anat. Administr, ii. c. 1.

I H. A. i. c. 13, s. 1. § Ihid. i. c. 13, s. 9.

I! Ihid. i. c. 7, i. c. 13, s. 2. 11 Ihid. i. c. 14, s. 1.

104 ARISTOTLE'S DISSECTIONS.

with the question of Aristotle's dissections, it will be neces-
sary to discuss them at some length.

The heart, Aristotle says, is more to the left side in
Man, being inclined a little away from the middle line, in
the upper part of the chest, towards the left breast.* This
is substantially correct, for about two-thirds of the volume
of the heart lies to the left of the median plane and its apex
is directed towards the lower part of the left breast. The
description may have been written, however, after an exami-
nation of the position of the heart of one of the lower
animals, supplemented by an external examination of the
part of the human chest against which the heart seems to
beat. It is evident that the beat of the heart, usually per-
ceptible about three inches to the left of the median plane
and in the fifth intercostal space, would suggest that the
heart lies more on the left side of the chest. Galen says
that it was on this account that the heart was believed to be
on the left side ; he himself believed that the heart was in a
central position.!

Another passage sometimes cited to show that Aristotle
dissected the human body is that in which he says that it is
not without feelings of repugnance that we see blood, flesh,
bones, blood-vessels, and other parts in the human body. +
This passage seems to cut both ways ; it is as much against
as for the opinion that Aristotle dissected the human body.

It appears, therefore, that Aristotle's writings do not
prove that he dissected the human body ; on the contrary,
they contain many statements which suggest that he never
did so. With respect to the human foetus, he seems to have
dissected it, if only to a small extent. He says that if the
human embryo, aborted after forty days, be put into cold
water it becomes surrounded by a membrane, and that, if
this be dissected away, the embryo appears to be of the size
of a large ant, all its parts being visible and its eyes being
large. § Again, he makes some statements, e.g., that the
human kidneys are lobulated, which are true of the human
foetus.

Turning to the evidence obtainable from sources other
than Aristotle's writings, it will be seen that there is a
strong presumption against the probability that he ever dis-
sected the human body. Among the Greeks a feeling of

■■■' H. A. i. c. 14, s. 2, ii. c. 12, s. 2 ; P. A. iii. c. 4, 66G6.
f De Usu Partium, vi. 2. I P A. i. c. 5, 645rt.

IH. A. vii. c. 3, s. 4.

AKISTOTLE'S DISSECTIONS. 105

repugnance against mutilation of the human body and
against any neglect of speedy burial was prevalent. The
execution of the Athenian commanders after the Battle of
ArginusEe, part of the charge being that they neglected to
recover and bury some of the slain, and the attacks made at
various time by orators against those who neglected to bury
their deceased relatives, illustrate this. The agony of
Antigone, the sad appeal of the shade of the unburied
Patroclus, and the fervent wishes of many of Homer's
heroes that their funeral rites might not be neglected accord
well with the feelings of the Greeks. So strong were these
feelings that it is unlikely that anyone could dissect a human
body without exciting bitter feelings against himself. To
meet this difficulty, some have held that Aristotle dissected
the human body secretly. An assertion of this kind can
neither be proved nor disproved.

Not many years after Aristotle's time, dissections of the
human body were made at Alexandria, and Galen refers in
many passages to dissections of this kind made by Erasis-
tratus and Herophilus, about B.C. 280. These anatomists
were followers of Aristotle, and their dissecting operations
show that his oft-repeated advice about the importance of
dissections did not fail to be effective. The anatomists of
Europe were less fortunate than those of the Alexandrian
Medical Schools ; Galen's dissections were mostly made on
Barbary apes, and, at a much later time, the anatomists of
the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries experienced dilH-
culties in obtaining human bodies for purposes of dissection.

From the above it may be concluded that Aristotle dis-
sected many of the lower animals, and that, judged in
relation to the anatomical knowledge of his time, his dissec-
tions were carefully performed. It may be said also that he
dissected, to a small extent, the human foetus, but that he
did not further dissect the human body.

In various parts of his works, one or more of the internal
parts of about one hundred and ten animals are described in
sufficient detail to suggest that he dissected them. It is
practically certain that he did not dissect some of these,
e.g., the hippopotamus and the crocodile, his knowledge of
which seems to depend chiefly on Herodotus, but there are
many for which definite information is given of so reliable a
nature that it is fair to conclude that he dissected them. A
list of these animals is given in the following table : —

106

AKISTOTLE'S DISSECTIONS.

Bat

Dove

Toad

Octopus

Deer

Duck

Conger

Sepia

Dolphin

Goose

Dogfish

Crab

Elephant

Owl

Eel

Lobster

Hare

Partridge

Fishing-frog

Murex

Horse

Pigeon

Grey Mullet

Purpura

Marten

Quail

Parasilurus

Snails

Mole

Swan

Pelajnid

Whelk

Mouse

Cham£eleon

Eed Mullet

Locust

Ox

Grass Snake

Scorpsena

Sea-urchins

Pig

Lizard

Star Gazer

Weasel

Tortoise

Ascidians

Domestic Fowl

Frog

Calamary

The inclusion of the elephant may cause surprise, but
Aristotle's statements about it seem to justify its inclusion in
the list.

CHAPTEE IX.
AEISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMEEIA.

The homoeomeria are described chiefly in H. A. iii. cc.
2-17 and P. ^. ii. cc. 1-9. It has been said that these parts
of Aristotle's works bear some relationship to the science of
Histology, but this is true only in a very limited degree.
The science of Histology, in fact, cannot be said to have
existed until Malpighi, Leeuwenhoek, and other investi-
gators successfully used the microscope in the seventeenth
century. How very slight the relationship is between
Aristotle's work on the homoeomeria and the science of
Histology will be seen from the following descriptions of his
common homoeomeria, commencing with those included by
him amongst the solid or dry and passing on to those
included among the soft or liquid homoeomeria. The
former include bone, cartilage, sinew, " fibre " and the like,
the material forming blood-vessels, skin and membrane, and
the latter include flesh, suet and fat, marrow, blood, serum
and the like, and milk.

1. Bone and Cartilage. — Aristotle says that the bones
of viviparous quadrupeds with blood do not differ much in
themselves, but merely in their relative degrees of hardness
and softness, strength and weakness, and in the presence or
absence of marrow.* He considered ordinary bone to
contain more earthy matter than the bone found in fishes
and, in H. A. iii. c. 7, s. 6, he says that the dolphin has
ordinary bones and not bones like those of fishes, which are
only analogous to ordinary bones.

He refers particularly to the hardness of the bones of
lions, and says that they are harder than the bones of other
animals, for, when struck together, sparks fly just as if the
bones were stones, f It is true that many of the bones of
lions are very hard. According to Owen, they contain
72"3 per cent, of inorganic constituents, or more than three

-■■■ H. A. iii. c. 7. s. 5 ; P. A. ii. c. 9, 655a.
f H. A. iii. c. 7, s. 6 ; P. A. ii. c. 9, 655a.

108 AEISTOTLE'S HOMGEOMERIA.

per cent, in excess of those found in the bones of Man and
the ox.* Whether the bones of Hons are harder than
those of other animals would be very difficult to deter-
mine, 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.

Aristotle says that cartilage is of the same nature as
bone, but differs in degree, and, like bone, does not grow
after it has been cut away,t that in viviparous land animals
it does not contain marrow in the same way as bones, and
that it occurs about the ears, noses, and some extremities of
bones in viviparous quadrupeds. I

It is evident from these passages that he was aware of a
close relationship between bone and cartilage, but there is
nothing to show that he knew anything about the conver-
sion of some cartilages into bone by ossifying processes.
When he says that bone and cartilage differ in degree, he
means that they manifest different degrees of certain
qualities, such as, for example, hardness, strength, and
heaviness.

In his statement about bone or cartilage not growing again,
it is evident that he is not referring to a slicing or sever-
ance which still leaves the sliced or severed ends in contact ;
this is shown by his using the verb aTroxoVrw (I cut or break
off) . A precisely similar statement is made twice in one of
the genuine works of Hippocrates, the same verb being
used.§ In all probability, Aristotle copied, in this instance,
from Hippocrates. It is now known that, when a part of a
bone or cartilage has been removed, the bone or cartilage is
reproduced, provided the periosteum or perichondrium, as
the case may be, has been left. Aristotle knew nothing
of this, but he was aware of the importance of the
periosteum in protecting the substance of the bone, for he
says " bones which have been stripped bare of their
membranes mortify." || In one of the genuine works of
Hippocrates there is a passage which seems to show that
mortification sets in when the membrane of a bone has been
removed. H

2. Sineivs, "Fibres," and the like. — Aristotle repeatedly
uses the words vsopov and <"? {neuron and is) to denote certain
constituents of the body. It is often difficult to determine

^= Anat. Vertebr. vol. i. 18G6, p. 20.

t H. A. iii. c. 8 ; P. A. ii. c. 9, Go5a. | H. A. iii. c. 8.

§ Aphorisms, Section 6, § 19 and Section 7, § '28.

I| H. A. iii. c. 11, s. 1. *\ On Fractures, § 33.

ARISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMERIA. 109

what these were intended to be, and he has often been mis-
judged through a careless or mistaken translation of these
words. Considered as homoeomeria, neuron refers chiefly to
the material of which sinews, tendons, and ligaments are
made, and is to the material of the fibrin of the blood, the
fibre-like vessels containing a colourless fluid in many of the
lower animals, and various fibre-like structures, such as
small branches of the nervous system, and the connective
tissues extending through the flesh.

Aristotle says that sinew is fissile longitudinally but not
transversely, that it is very extensible, and that, when
severed, it does not re-unite.* He also says that the fluid
about the sinews is mucous, white, and gelatinous, and that
the sinews are nourished by this fluid and seem to be pro-
duced from it.t

In the passages from Hippocrates, already referred to, it
is stated that sinew does not re-unite after it has been cut. I
It is probable that Aristotle copied this from Hippocrates.
Plato's statements about sinews differ greatly from Aristotle's.
He says that they are firmer and more glutinous than flesh,
but softer and moister than bone, and that they are yellow
and compounded in some way of bone and imperfectly
formed flesh. §

Aristotle's statement concerning the fluid about the
sinews is incorrect. The chief function of the synovial
fluid is to lubricate the joints, and the fluid itself is probably a
secretion, but may be, in part at least, a product of the
frictional action between the surfaces of the joints.

The view sometimes expressed that Aristotle's neura
were nerves will be discussed in Chapter xii.

Aristotle does not give any information of importance
about the properties of his " fibres," excepting those which
he believed were in the blood. These "fibres" will be
more conveniently dealt with in the part of this chapter
relating to the blood.

3. Material forming the Blood-vessels. — Aristotle mis-
understood the nature of this material, for he considered
what are now called the venae cavse, and probably some
other veins, to be made up of skin and membrane, and the
aorta to be very sinewy and its small branches to be quite
sinewy. II

■■' H. A. iii. c. 5, s. 3. f Ibid.

I Aphorisms, Section 6, § 19 and Section 7, § 28.

§ Timceus, 14,. \\ H. A. iii. c. 3, s. 3.

110 AEISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMERIA.

His attempts to describe the structure of these blood-
vessels can hardly be expected to be satisfactory. He noticed,
however, that the walls of the arteries were stouter than
those of the veins, but his explanation is incorrect. The
walls of arteries and veins are similar in structure, but there
is a much greater development of muscular and elastic
tissues in the inner and middle coats of the walls of the
arteries than in those of the veins. In the passage already
referred to, from H. A. iii. c. 3, s. 3, Aristotle probably
uses the term membrane for the inner coat of the venae
cavae, which is somewhat readily separable from the middle
coat.

In H. A. iii, c. 5, s. 3, it is said that the material forming
blood-vessels can resist the action of fire, while sinew is
entirely destroyed by it. This statement is not altogether
fanciful, for, when pieces of the aorta of an ox are cut off
and placed on a bright red fire, except that they very slowly
carbonize with the formation of small blisters and the
oozing out of a small quantity of fluid, their forms undergo
as little alteration as if they were pieces of porcelain. Under
the same conditions, sinews are at once twisted into fantastic
shapes and are carbonized more rapidly.

4. Shin and Memhi'ane. — There is but little information,
in Aristotle's works, about these materials. He considered
skin i^^pf^a) to be fissile and extensible, and membrane (ufxriv)
to be of the nature of a thin, compact skin, but neither fissile
nor extensible.* He also says that membrane does not re-
unite after it has been cut.t He includes the urinary
bladder among membranes, but says that it is of a special
kind, because it is extensible, t

5. Flesh. — This is included by Aristotle among the soft
or fluid homoeomeria. Flesh, he says, is fissile in all direc-
tions, § and is a material thrown down from the blood which,
contained in numerous blood-vessels, is so universally dis-
tributed through the flesh that blood flows at once from any
part of the flesh when cut, even though the blood-vessels
cannot be seen in the cut parts. ||

In the Hippocratic treatise. On Flesh, §§8 and 9, it is
explained how the liver, the kidneys, and the flesh are
formed as a result of some kind of coagulation of the blood.
It would seem, at first sight, that Aristotle had written his

- H. A. iii. c. 11, s. 1. j Ibid.

I Ibid. iii. c. 11, s. 3. § Ibid. iii. c. 12, s. 1.

II P. A. iii. c. 5, 668a.

ARISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMERIA. Ill

statements about the formation of flesh, after consulting
this Hippocratic treatise. It is admitted, however, that this
treatise was not written by Hippocrates, but by an author
of much later date. Plato also says that flesh is normally
formed from the blood,* but his real meaning is not clear,
for he says that bone, flesh, and the like are all formed
from marrow and other materials. t

Aristotle does not appear to have known anything about
that most remarkable property of flesh, viz., its contractility.
This will be discussed in Chapter xiii. His reference to
" fibres " and the like seen in flesh show that he saw, but
did not understand the nature of, the connective tissues
which ensheath the muscle-bundles.

6. Suet and Fat. — Aristotle says that suet is quite hard
and brittle when cold, but fat is liquid and does not harden,
and that they differ with respect to the parts in which they
occur, t Both suet and fat are formed, according to him,
from blood, and, on this account, he concluded wrongly that
fat is not found in animals without blood. §

Aristotle's statement that fat is liquid and does not
harden is true of some animals only. The comparatively
large masses of fat in geese, ducks, and quails are nearly or
quite liquid in the living birds, and the fat of the quail
runs like water at as low a temperature as 50° or 60° F.
The fat of fishes and amphibians is also fluid at compara-
tively very low temperatures. The fat of some animals
melts at comparatively high temperatures and, even in
animals like pigs and horses, in which the fat is of a soft
kind, it is not liquid in the living animals.

7. Marroio. — In P. A. ii. c. 6, 6516, Aristotle says:
" Marrow is of the nature of blood and is not, as some
believe, the active generating force of semen." This is a
refutation, more particularly of one of Plato's statements in
the TimcBUs, 73. It is contained, he says, in the bones, and
is quite full of blood in young animals, but is either fatty or
suety in older animals. tl

In very young animals the marrow is red and vascular,
and in older animals there are the ordinary yellow marrow,
rich in fats, and the red marrow found in the ribs, sternum,
vertebrae, cranial bones, and the epiphyses of the long
bones. This red marrow contains less fat, but many small

* TimcBus, 82. \ Ibid. 73.

\ H. A. iii. c. 13, s. 1. § P. A. ii. c. 5, 651a.

II H. A. iii. c. 15.

112 AEISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMERIA.

red cells, or erythroblasts, which are concerned in the pro-
duction of the red corpuscles of the blood.

8. Blood, Serum, and the like. — Aristotle paid much
attention to these homoeomeria. He gives a great deal of
interesting information about the blood, the serum or watery
part of it, and the process of coagulation. He says that
normally healthy blood contains a sweet juice and is of a red
colour, and that blood which is dark in colour, either
naturally or as a result of disease, is inferior to that which
is of a red colour.* It is true that there is a very small
quantity of dextrose in blood, but this is not apparent to the
taste, the blood being slightly salt.

Aristotle believed, as has been stated in Chapter iv., that
blood was not an essentially hot liquid, but derived its heat\
from the heart, at least to a large extent. Comparing the
blood of Man with that of some other animals, he says that
Man has the brightest and thinnest blood, and that the ox
and the ass have the darkest and thickest.! The colours of
arterial blood in Man, the ox, and apparently the ass, differ
very little from one another, and the same is true of the
colours of the venous blood. The arterial blood of the
pigeon and many other birds is lighter than that of Man or
the ox. With respect to Aristotle's statement about the
relative consistency of the blood in Man and the ox, it
appears from Thackrah's experiments that the blood of the
ox is thinner than that of the pig or dog, and not thicker
than that of Man.+ Aristotle says that the blood which
supplies the brain is small in amount and pure.§ In most
animals the supply of blood to the brain is large, but
Aristotle's statement is quite in accordance with several
statements he makes about the brain, in which, he says, no
blood-vessel is to be seen. Further, the blood supplied to
the brain in Man and other mammals and in birds is
scarcely, if at all, purer than that supplied to other parts.
It is true, however, that in the Batrachia, Ophidia, Lacer-
tilia, Chelonia, and, to a less extent, the Crocodilia, the
structure of the heart and arrangement of the main blood-
vessels are such that the purest blood is sent to the brain.

There are several passages in his works showing that
Aristotle noticed differences, or what he thought were

* H. A. iii. c. 14, s. 1. \ Ibid. iii. c. 14, s. 3.

I An Inquiry into the Nature and Properties of the Blood, &c.,
Wright's edition, 1834, pp. 154 and 236.

§ P. A. ii. c. 7, 6526.

ARISTOTLE'S HOMCBOMERIA. 113

differences, in arterial and venous blood now so called,
although he did not understand the causes of these differ-
ences. In P. ^. ii, c. 2, 6476, he points out that differences
in consistency, clearness, and temperature are noticeable in
blood taken from different parts of the same animal. Again,
after referring to the existence of two main blood-vessels, one
being the aorta and the other including the venae cavae,
and pointing out that these vessels are different in character,
he says that it is better that each should have its own blood
supply, and that the blood of one side of the body should be
distinct from that of the other.* He also says that the
blood in the right cavity of the heart and that of the right
side of the body is hotter than the rest of the blood, t

The differences in consistency, colour, and apparent
purity, to which he alludes in these passages, would be
evident to his senses, but it is not clear how he decided that
there were differences of temperature, for such differences
as exist are very small. It is probable that his views about
the relative temperatures of the blood in different parts of
the body were dependent on his belief that the right side is
more honourable than the left side, the upper part than the
lower part, and the front than the back.

Aristotle's statements about the coagulation of the blood
are numerous and interesting, but before discussing them,
the views of Plato, in particular, on this subject should be
considered, in order to ascertain to what extent Aristotle's
views were original. Plato, whom Aristotle does not cite,
says that the " fibres " cause the blood to coagulate when it
has been drawn from the body and allowed to cool, and that,
by the nature of their composition, they maintain the blood
at a proper degree of consistency, so that it does not become
liquid enough to flow through the porous structures of the
body, nor so sluggish as to flow with difficulty through the
blood-vessels. + He also speaks of serum (ix^p), and calls it
the watery part of the blood. § In the genuine works of
Hippocrates there is nothing worthy of mention on the
coagulation of the blood. There is an important passage in
the Hippocratic treatise On Flesh, § 8, which states that
blood coagulates on cooling, and that the " fibres" are of a
cold nature and glutinous. This work, however, is gene-
rally believed to have been written long after the time of
Hippocrates.

- P. A. iii. c. 4, 6666. f Ibid. iii. c. 4, 667a.

I Timaus, 85. § Ihid. 83.

I

114 AEISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMEEIA.

It has already been pointed out, in Chapter i., that it is
very difficult to decide to what extent Aristotle was indebted
to Plato on subjects of this kind, but on the subject of coagu-
lation of the blood it is clear that Plato knew the main
facts recorded by Aristotle. On the other hand, Aristotle
does not seem to have obtained anything from Hippocrates
on this subject. When modern writers state, as many have
stated, that Aristotle obtained many ideas from Hippocrates,
the distinction between the genuine works of Hippocrates
and works written by his followers ought to be borne in
mind. Some of the Hippocratic treatises were written
after the time of Aristotle.

Blood, Aristotle says, has a watery portion, called ''x^pf*
and, in the blood of most animals, there are certain " fibres,"
called i'vssA Blood does not coagulate when these fibres
have been removed from it. I The coagulation of the blood
takes place, he says, not in the watery part but in the earthy
part, during the evaporation of the watery part.§ Blood,
according to him, is composed of earthy and watery parts,
and needs a certain amount of water to keep it liquid and
also a certain amount of heat, and therefore it can be
coagulated by heating so as to evaporate the water and by
cooling so as to drive off heat together with watery vapour. |1
He believed also that some animals had a hasty temper in
consequence of the many "fibres" in their blood, and he
explains that the " fibres " are like so many hot embers in
the blood, and act like the hot embers of a vapour bath.H

The above passages show clearly that Aristotle con-
sidered that blood had two constituents at least, vu., serum
and certain fibres which correspond with what is now called
fibrin and is readily separable from blood by beating it with
a twig. He gives but little information about the nature of
the fibres themselves. It is clear, however, that he believed
that they were solid bodies of a hot nature existing in the
blood of the living animal. These solid bodies, according to
him, constituted the blood clot, when the blood was coagu-
lated. His explanation of the process of coagulation by
cooling so as to get rid of heat and water does not take
account of the fact that the clot forms as a separate mass in
a large quantity of serum, only a very small quantity of
water passing away during the cooling. That fibrin is

•:= P. A. ii. c 4, 651a.. f Ibid. ii. c. 4, 6506 ; H. A. iii. c. 6.

I H. A. iii. c. 6. § P. A. ii. c. 4, 6506.

II Meteorol iv. c. 7, ss. 10-13. II P. ^. ii. c. 4, 6506 and 651rt.

ARISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMERIA. 115

formed after the blood has been drawn from the body,
and that this fibrin has a tendency to form meshworks in
which rolls of red blood corpuscles, like rolls of coins, are
entangled, and that the fibrin and corpuscles form the chief
part of the blood clot, are facts which were not ascertained
until many centuries after Aristotle's time.

The blood of oxen, Aristotle says, coagulates more quickly
than that of other animals, and the blood of the deer, roe, and
Bouhalis, probably the Bubaline Antelope, does not coagu-
late.* In another passage, in il. ^. iii. c. 6, a somewhat
different statement is made, for he says that " fibres " do not
occur in the blood of the deer, roe, and Bouhalis, and the
blood of these animals does not coagulate like that of other
animals, but the blood of the deer coagulates like that of
hares, the clot not being firm, while the blood of the
Bouhalis coagulates to a greater degree, for it thickens
almost as much as that of sheep.

According to Thackrah's experiments, the blood of the
ox does not coagulate more quickly than that of other
animals. These experiments showed that the blood of the
ox begins to coagulate in from two to ten minutes, that of
the sheep, pig, or rabbit in from one ^to two minutes, and
that of the horse in from five to thirteen minutes, f

Fibrin 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 blood
of the deer, the one specially referred to being the red
deer (£\a(po(), and that of the Bouhalis coagulate, but that
the clot was soft. When describing various causes which
prevent blood from coagulating, John Hunter says : " Two
deer were hunted to death .... On opening them, the
blood was fluid, only a little thickened, and the muscles
were not rigid." | It is known that the blood of hunted
animals coagulates, but only imperfectly, and, as the animals
mentioned by Aristotle are such as are commonly hunted, it
is probable that he is referring to the imperfect coagulation
of the blood of animals hunted to death. The blood of deer
which have not been hunted to death coagulates in the
usual way, a fact clearly stated by Redi.§

" H. A. iii. c. 6, iii. c. 14, s. 2 ; P. A. ii. c. 4, 651(i.
f Op. cit. p. 154.

I The Works of John Hunter, edited by James F. Palmer, 1835-37,
vol. i. p. 239.

§ Exper. circa res Divers. Natural. 1675, p. 160.

116 ARISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMERIA.

Aristotle believed that ferocity and liability to fits of
passion were dependent in some way on the quantity of
"fibres" in the blood. According to him the "fibres" are
earthy and solid, and, acting like the hot embers in a vapour
bath, cause ebullition in the blood, this being the reason why
oxen and boars are so passionate, for their blood is rich in
"fibres."* The animals mentioned in H. A. iii. c. 6, viz.,
the deer, roe, antelope, hare, and sheep, are usually con-
sidered to be timid, and Aristotle evidently thought that
they had but few " fibres " in their blood, compared with
those in the blood of the ox or boar.

Thackrah's experiments support Aristotle's view that the
ferocity of an animal depends, in some way, on the quantity
of " fibres " in the blood. After making numerous experi-
ments he concluded thus : "I never found the serum in
such quantity as in the timid sheep, nor the crassamentum
so abundant as in the predatory dog." t

9. Milh. — All milk, Aristotle says, consists of a watery
fluid, which is called whey, and a thicker part, called curd,
the thicker kinds of milk containing more curd than other
kinds. X He also says that the milk of the camel is thinnest,
then that of the mare, and then that of the ass, but cow's
milk is thicker. § There is a fatness in milk, he says, which
causes it to become oily when the milk has been coagulated
or thickened.il In cows' milk there is more curd, he says,
than in goats' milk, for the herdsmen say that they make
from about nine gallons of goats' milk nineteen cheeses, each
worth an obolos, and thirty from cows' milk.^

The above are the chief statements made by Aristotle
about the nature and composition of milk. He gives
correctly the relative degrees of consistency of the milk of
the cow, ass, and mare, but his statement about camel's
milk is incorrect. Camel's milk is nearly, if not quite, as
thick as cow's milk, and contains a little less water and
casein, more sugar, and about as much fat as the latter.
The assertion in H. A. iii. c. 16, s. 5, is difficult to under-
stand. Average samples of cows' milk and goats' milk
contain nearly the same amount of casein, that in goats'
milk being, if anything, the larger. The Greeks, it may be
mentioned, did not esteem cows' milk for making cheese,
goats' milk having been used most by them.

* P. A. ii. c. 4, 6506 and 651a. \ Op. cit. p. 154.

X H. A. iii. c. 16, s. 2. § Ibid.

II Ibid. iii. c. 16, s. 5. «f Ibid.

ARISTOTLE'S HOMCEOMERIA. 117

The coagulation of milk, Aristotle says, is effected both
by rennet and the juice of the fig.* He states incorrectly
that rennet is a kind of milk, and that it is obtained from
the third stomach of sucking animals, t

Rennet is obtained from the fourth stomach of ruminants
and, in comparatively smaller quantities, from the stomachs
of most, if not all, mammals. Rennet is usually an infusion
of the dried fourth stomach of a calf, and owes its coagu-
lating properties to the presence of a ferment occurring in
the gastric juice. Aristotle believed that the hare was the
only animal, other than ruminants, which yielded rennet,
and that the rennet from the fawn was the best. I

- H. A. iii. c. 16, s. 6. \ H. A. iii. c. 16, s. 6 ; P. A. iii. c. 15, 676a.

\ Ibid.

118 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

CHAPTER X.

AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA AND THEIR
FUNCTIONS.

It has been explained already, in Chapter vi., that
Aristotle's anhomoeomeria were, generally speaking, organs
or parts having definite forms or functions. His descrip-
tions of these anhomoeomeria are very incomplete, and vary
much in value, a few, e.g., the blood-vessels, being described
at great length, while others are described in very general
terms, and some important anhomoeomeria are merely men-
tioned, or not referred to at all. On the other hand, some
interesting details are given about structures, which are not
generally known, such as, for example, certain bones in the
hearts of horses and oxen. His anhomoeomeria are de-
scribed chiefly inH. A. i. cc. 7-14, ii. cc. 8-12, iii. cc. 1-11,
and P. A. ii.-iv., and these parts of his works contain most of
his extant writings on comparative anatomy.

In the following descriptions, his most important state-
ments about the various anhomoeomeria, except the loco-
motory organs, which will be dealt with in Chapter xiii., will
be discussed, and, when discussing any particular set of
structures, those of Man will be taken first and then those
of other mammals, and of birds and other animals.

A. — Skeletal and Epidermal Structures.

a. Bones and Cartilages. — Aristotle describes the bones
of the human head rather fully, while he does little more
than mention and indicate the relative positions of other
parts of the human skeleton. For other animals, his
descriptions are limited to a few bones, e.g., the ribs, the
astragali, and the pelvis. He gives but little information
about the cartilages.

He did not consider the fore part of the frontal bone to
be part of the human cranium, which he defined to be the
part of the skull covered by hair, the forehead being a part

I

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 119

of the face.* According to Aristotle, the front part of the
cranium, the sinciput, is developed after birth and is the
last bone of the body to harden.! He erroneously believed
that the back part of the head, the occiput, was full of air.l
This statement v^^ill 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 they
are connected by sutures, three usually running into one
another in triquetrous manner, in men, and one running
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's
description of the sutures is incomplete and incorrect.
Generally the number and arrangement of the cranial
sutures is the same both in men and women. Looking
down on the top of a normally developed adult skull, the
sagittal suture and the right and left halves of the coronal
suture are seen to converge to a point. The description
may refer to these, or, assuming the skull to be viewed in
back elevation, it may refer, in a similar way, to the sagittal
and lambdoid sutures. The chief variations of the sutures
are due to their partial obliteration and the presence of a
frontal suture continuous with the sagittal.

Of the few ancient writers who have described the
cranial sutures, not one seems to have correctly explained
their arrangement. Hippocrates says that it depends on
the relative development of prominences at the front and
back of the head, and compares the various arrangements
to the letters or symbols T, i, I, and X ^. Galen's descrip-
tion, in his On the Use of Parts, ix. 7, is similar to that
given by Hippocrates.

Aristotle's statement that a man's skull without sutures
had been seen was probably taken from Herodotus, ix. 83,
where it is said that, after the battle of Plataea, a skull
without sutures and all of one bone was found. The
sutures become indistinct in the skulls of old people, but a
cranium without sutures is very rarely seen. Instances of
obliteration of cranial sutures seem to be most common

- H. A. i.e. 7 and c. 8, s. 1. f Ibid. i. c. 7.

I Ibid. i. c. 7, i. c. 13, s. 2 ; P. A. ii. c. 10, 6566.
§ H. A. iii. c. 7, s, 2. |1 Ibid. i. c. 7, iii. c. 7, p. 2,

fl Oil Wounds in the Head, c. 1.

120 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

among Negroes. Two skulls of this kind, with the coronal,
sagittal, and parts of the lambdoid sutures nearly or quite
obliterated, may be seen at the Natural History Museum,
South Kensington. These skulls came from Ashanti and
from near Izavo, British East Africa, respectively.

No information of any importance about the other bones
of the head is given by Aristotle, nor is any information
worthy of note given by him about other bones of the
human body, other than the ribs. He says : " On each side
of the body are eight ribs belonging to the upper and lower
parts of the trunk, for I have not heard anything worthy of
credit about the seven-ribbed Ligurians." *

Usually there, are twelve ribs on each side of the
human body, the eleventh and twelfth being unconnected
to the sternum. It is not at all clear which are the eight ribs
to which Aristotle refers, or why he does not take account of
the remaining ribs. The Ligurians were short but strong
and brave people, who lived in a strip of maritime country
extending from the mouth of the Ehone to Pisse, in Etruria.
Schneider says, in his note on H. A. i. c. 10, s. 6, that the
tale of the fewer ribs of the Ligurians probably had an
origin similar to that current among some people about the
ribs of animals, e.g., some Carniolans assign more ribs to
the larger or better breeds of sheep. It may be mentioned
that, in Man, an increased number of ribs is sometimes
found, and, less frequently, a reduced number.

Aristotle says that no animal with many toes, e. g.,
Man, has astragali or knuckle-bones. t Man has astragali,
but they are very unsymmetrical and would therefore be
neglected by Aristotle. This will be further explained later
in his description of bones and cartilages.

In H. A. iii. c. 7, s. 2, it is stated that the cranium is not
made in the same way in all animals, for it is formed in a
single bone in some, such as the dog. This is true of the
craniums of very old dogs, and some other animals, in
which the sutures become obliterated.

Aristotle makes the erroneous statement, in more than
one passage, that the crocodile moves its upper jaw, and is
the only animal which does so. I The assertion was
probably copied from Herodotus, ii. 68, but Aristotle proceeds
to give a remarkably ingenious explanation. He says that
the crocodile's feet are so small that they are useless for

•:- H. A. i. c. 10, s. G. f Ibid. ii. c. 2, s. 10.

I H. A. i. c. 9, s. 6, iii. c. 7, s. 3 ; P. A. iv. c. 11, 6916.

AND THEIE FUNCTIONS. 121

seizing and gripping prey, but Nature has provided the
crocodile with a mouth of such a kind as to compensate for
this defect. A downward blow, he says, is more powerful
than one delivered upwards, and so also a downward motion
of the upper jaw is more effective for seizing and holding
prey than an upward movement of the lower jaw.* The
fact that the crocodile's lower jaw is moved is liable to
escape notice chiefly because it extends some distance behind
the head.

In the neck of the lion and of the wolf, Aristotle says,
there is, for the sake of strength, only one bone.t These
passages have been specially cited by some writers to show
that Aristotle made anatomical observations carelessly. It
would be more correct to say that, with respect to the
passages referred to, he made no anatomical observations at
all, but merely expressed a popular belief.

Aristotle gives but little information about the backbone
of animals. To account for the great mobility of snakes, he
says that their vertebrae are cartilaginous and easily bent, t
The vertebrae of snakes are made of hard bone, and they
are numerous and loosely connected by means of ball-and-
socket joints. For these reasons the backbones of snakes
are ivery flexible. It is very probable that Aristotle never
examined the skeleton of a snake, for, in another passage,
he says that a snake has thirty ribs.§ Further, his state-
ments about the backbones of snakes are not consistent, for,
in H. A. iii. c. 7, s. 7, he says that they have a spinous back-
bone, like that of a fish.

Speaking of the chamaeleon, he says that its ribs, which
unite together, extend downwards towards the middle line
of its abdomen, as in fishes. [1.

Except when agitated and puffed out with air, the
chamseleon has deep sides and a laterally compressed body,
not unlike that of many fishes. Numerous thin ribs run
down to the sternum, and, behind these, some pairs of long
and very thin ribs meet ventrally and form a series of hoops.
The chamaeleon is one of the animals with which Aristotle
was well acquainted, and it is practically certain that he
dissected it.

Aristotle says that, in the flat cartilaginous fishes, there
is, in the position of the vertebral column, a cartilage taking

- P. A. iv. c. 11, G916. f H. A. ii. c. 1, s. 1 ; P. A. iv. c. 10, 686«.
I P. A. iv. c. 11, 692a. ^ H. A. ii. c. Vl, s. 12^
II Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 1.

122 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

the place of bones, and containing a marrow-like liquid.*
This is probably a reference to the biconical masses or
remains of the notochord, which extends through the carti-
laginous centre, but exists in the long as well as the flat
cartilaginous fishes.

While dealing with cartilages, it may be stated that
Aristotle was aware of the existence of cartilages at the ends
of some bones, but he did not understand the relationship
between them, and he erroneously speaks of the external
generative organs of some animals as if they were cartila-
ginous.!

Aristotle did not believe that the seal had a humerus, for
he states that it has stunted feet,t and that it is, as it were,
a stunted animal, because its fore feet are just behind its
shoulder-blades. § The seal with which he was acquainted
was that now called the Monk Seal {Monachus alhiventer) .

In P. A. iv. c. 12, 6936, Aristotle says that the inner
extremities of the wings of birds rest on their backs and
take the place of shoulder-blades, and that the breast-bone
is sharp-edged in all birds to facilitate their flight. It is
clear, therefore, that he did not recognize the presence of a
true shoulder-blade in birds. He knew of the existence of
the ostrich, but did not know anything of the form of its
breast-bone.

The " ischion " of a bird, according to Aristotle, is like a
thigh-bone, being long and attached in some way as far as
the middle of the abdomen, so that, when separated, it
might be taken for the thigh-bone, and the "thigh-bone,"
between it and the leg, to be some other bone.jl He con-
sidered the " ischion," running along and hidden to a large
extent within the abdomen, to be like a thigh-bone, whereas
it is 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 his views agrees with certain im-
portant statements made by him. He states that, although
birds are bipeds, they cannot stand erect, and that they are
enabled to stand as they do by reason of their " ischia "
being long and extending forwards along the abdomen, so as
to bring the legs to or near the centre of the bird's body.^
He also says that the " ischion " is like a thigh and of such

* H. A. iii. c. 8. + Ihid. i. c. 10, s. 4.

I Ihid. i. c. 1, s. 9. ^ Ihid. ii. c. 1, s. 7.

II ibid. ii. c. 8, s. 1. •! P. A. iv. c. 12, 695rt.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS.

123

a length that a bird seems to have two thighs, one next the
shank and the other, the " ischion," extending from the
rump to the aforesaid thigh.* Further, he says that birds
have sinewy and not fleshy legs.t Some consider the
" ischia " of birds to be the pelvic bones, but this explana-
tion makes Arisotle'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 various
games and for divination, and it is only to such astragali as
these that Aristotle usually gave the name. It was on
account of want of symmetry that he excluded Man and
most animals with many toes from among animals having
astragali, although he refers to the twisted knuckle-bone of
the lion, and calls the unsymmetrical and comparatively long
and thin knuckle-bone of the lynx a half astragalus, t He
says that most of the animals with astragali are cloven-

* De Anim. Incessu. c. 11, 7106.

\ H.A. ii. c. 2, s. 7 ; P. A. iv. c. 12, 695a.

I H. A, ii. c. 2, 8. 10.

124 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

footed,* that the astragaU are always in the hind legs and
are arranged upright in the joints, so that the front parts
are [inclined] outwards and the back parts inwards, and
that the coa are turned inwards towards each other and the
so called chia outwards, the "horns" being upwards.t

Applying this description to the astragali 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 the
coa, and the indented or ear-like faces are the chia. Fig. 6
(which is twice the natural size) shows the chion and front
broad face of the left astragalus of a sheep. Some say,
however, that the flat sides are the chia and the indented
sides the coa. The values usually given to the faces were
as follows : — 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 top
face. The values had no apparent connection with the
probabilities 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 lion and the lynx, Aristotle refers
specifically to the knuckle-bones of the hippopotamus,
camel, pig, ox, and a mythical animal, the Indian ass,
having solid hoofs and one horn.

He says that the knuckle-bones of a camel are like those
of an ox, but ugly, and small in proportion to the size of the
animal, t This comparison tends to show that he saw the
knuckle-bones of both these animals. A camel's knuckle-
bones, which may be seen in the articulated skeleton at
University Museum, Oxford, have a marked general simi-
larity to those of an ox, but their lower ends are less
symmetrical. They are also small in proportion to the size
of the camel.

It is evident why Aristotle paid so much attention to the
knuckle-bones. No other bones had more interest for the
Ancients than these. Knuckle-bones of sheep or goats
have 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 British Museum, as well as an ^ginetan vase of
black ware in the form of a knuckle-bone. Among the
terra-cottas in the Museum are a figure of a girl (C 715)

* P. A. iv. c. 10, 690rt. t H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 10.

I H. A. ii. c. 2, a. 5.

AND THEIE FUNCTIONS.

125

playing with knuckle-bones, from Cyrenaica, and a beautiful
group of astragalizontes (D 161), from Italy, while among
the marble statues are a female player (1710) and two boys
quarrelling over a game (1756), both found in Eome. Refer-
ences are made, both by ancient and modern writers, to the
use of golden astragali by the Ancients, but I have not been
able to obtain any reliable information about the discovery
of any of these in modern times. To-day the use of
knuckle-bones for divination or dice-playing is almost uni-
versal, being found among widely different peoples, such as
the Barotse in South Africa, the Baloches, and the American
Indians.

The bones dealt with so far are of quite an ordinary and
well-known kind ; it is proposed to deal next with two kinds

FIG 7.

BONES FROM THE HEART OF A 3-YEAR OLD OX.

which are not commonly known, viz., the bones of the
hearts of some animals, and the os penis found in the
weasel and some other animals.

In H. A. ii. c. 11, s. 3, and P. A. iii. c. 4, 6666, it is
stated that in horses and a certain kind of ox a bone is
found in the heart and serves as a support. In oxen, a long
curved bone is embedded circumferentially in the very root
of the aorta and in the auricular end of the partition
between the ventricles, and a much smaller bone, of tri-
angular shape, is found in that part of the root of the aorta
which is diametrically opposite to the large bone. Fig. 7
(which is twice the natural size) shows these bones, in side
elevation, taken from the heart of a three-year old ox.

126 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

They seem to occur in all oxen; at any rate, they occurred in
all ox hearts which I have dissected. Bones are also said to
occur in the hearts of some horses, deer, elephants, and
some other animals.

In H. A. ii. c. 3, s. 5, it is stated that some animals, e.g.,
the fox, wolf, weasel, and marten, have a bony penis, and
that of these the marten certainly has one. Many mammals
have a bone, sometimes quite small, in the penis. Such a
bone is found, e.g., in the rat, mouse, guinea-pig, monkey,
and ape, and in the weasel, marten, and many other car-
nivores, but not in the fox and wolf. In a large stoat which
I 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 syndactylism
have occurred. Aristotle seems to have been the first to
record phenomena of this kind. He says : " There are pigs
with solid hoofs in Illyria, Paeonia, and other places." *
The syndactylism affects the third and fourth digits, the
lateral toes being developed, apparently in all cases, in the
usual way. Several instances might be given, but the
following will be sufficient. A solid-hoofed sow, received in
November, 1876, at the Zoological Gardens, from Cuba,
gave birth to a litter of six, three of which were also solid-
hoofed. One of these died, and it was found that the
extreme distal ends of its ungual phalanges were completely
fused together.! Solid-hoofed pigs are said to have been
well known and abundant about the year 1823 on the
estates then belonging to Sir Neil Menzies, of Eannoch,
Perthshire.! Usually, the digits are not united throughout
their length ; in fact, Mr. Bateson says that the only case
known to him of complete union of the third and fourth
digits, there being only a single series of bones, is in the
Museum at Alfort.§

Aristotle erroneously believed that the bones of the lion,
pig, and some other animals either contained no marrow at
all or only a little, and this only in a few bones, e.g., the
humerus and femur. i| In the lion there are distinct marrow
cavities, not only in the humeral and femoral bones, but also
in the radial, tibial, metacarpal, and metatarsal bones. The

- H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 8. f Proc. Zool. Soc. 1877, p. 33.

I Edin. New Philos. Journ., vol. 17, pp. 273-279.

§ Materials for the Study of Variation, dc, 1894, p. 387.

II H. A. iii. c. 7, s. 6, iii. c. 15 ; P. A. ii. c. C, 6516.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 127

marrow is not small in quantity, although an examination
of the fractured long bones of lions shows that the cross-
sectional areas of their marrow cavities are relatively smaller
than those of corresponding bones of the ox, deer, and many
other animals. Again, the long bones of the pig have a
rather large amount of marrow, e.g., the femoral bones
commonly have a marrow cavity more than half an inch in
diameter.

b. Skeletal Structures of Aristotle's Anaima. — Some of
the skeletal structures of the Anaima, or animals without
blood, are described very briefly in H. A. iv. cc. 1-7, and
P. A. iv. c. 5,

Aristotle speaks of the cuttle-bone of Sepia and the pen
of Loligo, saying that each is found in the dorsal part of the
body, that the pen is thin and somewhat cartilaginous, that
the cuttle-bone is strong and broad, of a nature between
that of bone and that of fish-spine, and that it is spongy and
friable within.*

Aristotle's descriptions of the materials of these internal
structures is faulty, cuttle-bone being calcareous and the
pen horny, but in other respects his statements are substan-
tially correct.

The external parts of crustaceans, he says, are not brittle,
but are of a tough nature ; those of his Ostrakoderma, such
as snails and oysters, are hard and brittle, and the external
parts of his Entoma are neither harder nor softer than their
internal parts.! These statements are fairly clear, except
with respect to the Entoma, for Aristotle included among
these such animals as scorpions, beetles, centipedes, and
millipedes, the external parts of which are often very hard.

He also describes the external coverings of some of the
ascidians, saying that they are of a nature between those of
skin and shell and can be cut like leather. J

Aristotle compares the perforated shell of the sea-urchin,
when divested of its skin, to a lantern. §

c. Teeth and Horns. — 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 bones
of the teeth are the only ones which cannot be engraved." ||
This is clearly a reference to the enamel.

In several passages Aristotle deals with the relationship

- E. A. iv. c. 1, s. 12. f Ihid, iv. c. 1, ss. 2 and 3.

\ Ihid. iv. c. 6, s. 1. § Ihid. iv. c. 5, s. 6.

II Ihid. iii. c. 7, s. o.

128 AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEEIA

between teeth and horns. He was aware, in fact, of the
existence of an inverse relationship between the degrees of
development of teeth and horns, such as that referred to and
exemplified by Owen.* Aristotle says that no animal has
both tusks and horns, nor sharp, interlocking teeth and
tusks or horns, t and that, in the larger animals, there is an
excess of earthy matter, which is utilized in the formation
of defensive weapons, e.g., tusks and horns, but that no
animal which has horns has front teeth in the upper as well
as the lower jaw, for Nature gives to the horns material
which is withheld from the teeth, t

There does not appear to be any animal known to
Aristotle which has tusks and horns. The male tufted deer
of China and the male muntjacs have scimitar-like tusks in
their upper jaws and small antlers; the antlers of the tufted
deer are much smaller than those of the muntjacs, but their
tusks are longer. Again, the musk deer and Chinese water
deer are w^ithout antlers, but the males have very long tusks.
The carnivores have sharp, interlocking teeth, and many
have exceptionally large canine teeth or tusks, but in none
of those known to Aristotle do these project like the tusks
of the wild boar, and he is probably referring to tusks of
this kind, and not to all canines of large size.

In his descriptions of the teeth, chiefly in H. A. ii. c. 3,
ss. 8-15, and P. A. iii. c. i, Aristotle distinguishes the
incisors, the canines, the premolars, together with the
molars, and the wisdom teeth. The molars and premolars
are taken together, either under the name " gomphioi " or
under that of "broad teeth," on account of their necks and
crowns being broad. He also distinguishes between animals
like the lion, leopard, and dog, which are carcharodont, or
have sharp, interlocking teeth, and animals like the horse
and ox, which have anepallaktous teeth, or teeth with flat
crowns. Again, he distinguishes a very large group of
amphodont animals, with front teeth in each jaw, from a
much smaller group, including the ox, deer, and other
ruminants, which are non-amphodont, or have front teeth in
the lower jaw only. The way in which he seems to have
used these dental characters in classifying animals will be
discussed in Chapter xv.

He states, incorrectly, that among some animals, e.g.,
Man, the sheep, goat, and pig, the males have more teeth

* Anat. Vertebr. iii. 1868, pp. 348-9. f H. A. ii. c. 3, s. 9.

\ P. A. iii. c. 2, 6636 and 66ia.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 129

than the females,*' and this statement has often been used
against him by critics. He also misunderstood the ar-
rangement of the teeth of camels. He says that they have
no front teeth in their upper jaws.t In young camels there
are three pairs of incisors in the upper jaw, and in adult
camels the pair of incisors next the canines persists.

He also says that all fishes, except the parrot-wrasse,
have sharp, interlocking teeth. I This statement does not
appear to be an interpolation, and yet it is difficult to
understand why Aristotle should have made it. The parrot-
wrasse has many flat pharyngeal teeth and a parrot-like
beak formed by the coalescence of many of its teeth, but
Aristotle was well acquainted with the gilt-head, which has
some strong, blunt front teeth and many rounded teeth,
embedded like peas or beans along the sides of and within
its mouth, and he probably knew the eagle ray and the
female thornback skate, which have flat teeth.

On the other hand, he makes many interesting state-
ments, substantially or quite correct, about the teeth of
many other animals. He says that the elephant has four
teeth on each side, for grinding down its food, that it has
teeth as soon as it is born, but that its tusks are not visible at
birth. § This is true as regards the teeth on each side except
in old elephants, which usually have only two teeth left on
each side of the mouth. The elephant usually has, during
its whole life, twelve cheek teeth on each side of its mouth.
They are developed gradually and move forwards along the
jaws at the same rate as the front ones are worn away.
The milk tusks of male elephants are not visible at birth,
but project beyond the gum between the fifth and seventh
months, according to Owen, who also says that the first
molars of the Asiatic elephant are in place and in use at
three months.il

Aristotle correctly points out how old and young dogs
may be distinguished by means of their teeth, those of
young dogs being white and sharp, while those of old dogs
are dark and worn. IT He was also aware of what is called
the " mark " in the incisor teeth of horses, for he says that
horses differ from other animals in that their teeth become
whiter with age, while those of other animals become

* H. A. ii. c. 3, s. 13.

t H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 6, ii. c. 8, s. 8 ; P. A. iii. c. 14, 674a.
I H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 5 ; P. A. iii. c. 1, 662a. § H. A. ii. c. 3, s. 15.
Ii Anat. Vertehr. iii. 1868, pp. 360 and 362. •! H. A. ii. c. 3, s, 12.

K

130 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

darker.* Aristotle says that all the teeth of the seal are
sharp and interlocking, because it is very closely allied to
fishes. t This is true, but the reason given sounds strange;
the seal being now classed M^ith the otter and other carni-
vora. He gives a fair general description of the gastric
mill in lobsters and crabs. He says that it is in the part
of the stomach which is near the mouth, and that there are
three teeth, two lateral ones and one below, t

The gastric mill is in the hinder part of the large or
cardiac portion of the stomach, into which the short, nearly
vertical gullet enters. Numerous parts make up the gastric
mill, but three are very conspicuous, two lateral and ap-
proximately horizontal teeth and a median dorsal one
between the posterior ends of the lateral ones.

In H. A. iv. c. 4, s. 7, Aristotle says that KochUas,
probably Helix, has small, sharp, and delicate teeth. This
seems like a reference to the lingual teeth, and, if so, the
statement shows that he closely examined the structure of
the mouth of this 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 the
horny jaws of the gastropods.

Aristotle says that the sea-urchin has five inwardly
curved teeth. i| These teeth w^th their pyramidal sockets
and the numerous pieces of framework supporting the
whole are called "Aristotle's lantern," and form a compara-
tively large structure projecting within the shell of the sea-
urchin. Aristotle was the first to direct attention to it, but
it was the shell of the sea-urchin divested of its skin which
he compared to a lantern.

Aristotle makes the following interesting statements
about the shedding of teeth : — " Man and some other
animals, e.g., the horse, mule, and ass, shed their teeth.
Man sheds his front teeth and no animal sheds its 'molars,'
while pigs do not shed any at all. Whether or no dogs
shed their teeth is a disputed point ; some believe that they
do not, others that they shed their canine teeth only, but it
has been observed that dogs shed their teeth, like Man, only
the shedding escapes notice because the teeth are not shed
until new ones, similar to them, have been developed under-

* H. A. ii. c. 3, s. 12. f H. A. ii. c. 3, s. 9 ; P. A. iv. c. 13, 6976.

I H. A. iv. c. 2, s. 11 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, 679ff. § P. A. iv. c. 5, 6786.

II H. A. iv. c. 5, s. 5 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, 680rt.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 131

neath. Probably, a similar thing happens in some other
animals, which are said to lose their canines only." *

The true molars are not shed, and the Greek word used
by Aristotle, viz., gomphioi, certainly includes these, but, on
account of the ambiguity of his statements, both here and
elsewhere, it cannot be asserted that he refers to true
molars only. His assertion that pigs do not shed their teeth
is incorrect, but is still believed by some. One breeder, in
fact, informed me that pigs do not shed their teeth, or, at
most, only the canines. Aristotle's interesting statements
about the shedding of the teeth of dogs are correct, as far
as they go, for the milk teeth are shed and, although there
are great variations with respect to time and order of
shedding in different dogs, the permanent teeth are usually
well-developed before the milk teeth are shed. Before me
is 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 milk
teeth, however, are still in position but in process of being
gradually pushed out of their sockets by the permanent
teeth.

He states, erroneously, that horns, referring particularly
to those of ruminants, are more closely connected with the
skin than with the bones, and attempts to explain in this
way why certain cattle in Phrygia and other places moved
their horns like ears.t This passage gives a wrong im-
pression of the value of his knowledge of these structures.
He knew that the horns of ruminants are closely connected
with the bones. In H. A. iii. c. 9, s. 2, he says that most
horns are hollow from their bases and sm-round an inner
bone growing from the head, but are solid at the tip and
unbranched, and, m H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 11, he says that the
hollow parts are produced mainly from the skin, and the
hard parts from the bone ; in both passages he says that
the horns of deer are the only ones which are solid through-
out. The supposed close connection between horns and
skin caused him to believe that the colours of these cor-
respond, dark horns being found with dark skins or hair,
and light horns with light skins or hair, and he believed
that the same was true for nails, claws, and hoofs, t There
are many animals for which these statements are not true,

* H. A. ii. c. 3, ss. 11 and 12. j Ihid. iii. c. 9, s. 3.
I Ihid. iii. c. 9, s. 1.

132 AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEEIA

e.g., the gazelle, oryx, and Bubaline Antelope, and, among
animals which Aristotle could not have known, the polar
bear, and the white cattle of some parts of the Falkland
Islands, mentioned by Darwin,*

The deer (Elaphos) is the only animal which casts its
horns annually, this taking place after it is two years old ;
its horns are shed about May, and its first horns are
straight, like pegs.f

Although Aristotle here uses the word Elaphos in
the singular, he refers to more than one kind of deer.
Except in a few individual cases, deer shed their horns
annually, while the horns of oxen, sheep, goats, and such
antelopes as were known to him, are not shed. The
first horns are peg-like, as Aristotle says, but they are
usually shed when the young bucks are not quite two
years old. Further, deer usually shed their horns about
March.

Aristotle says that all horned animals have four feet,
excepting such animals as the horned snakes which, the
Egyptians say, are to be found near Thebes. 1 This passage
recalls the statement by Herodotus, § that, near Thebes,
there were small harmless snakes, with two horns at the
upper parts of their heads. Except that Cerastes is not
harmless, this description might well refer to it.

Some peculiar beliefs about snakes with " horns " are to
be found in some of the Greek Isles, The official notes,
reproduced in Folk-Lore, vol. xi. 1900, pp. 120-125, of a
trial in the District Court of Larnaca, on October 27th, 1899,
state that damages were claimed for the loss of a snake's
" horn " lent to the defendant. The plaintiff alleged that he
had extracted it 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 it
exercised some magic power over the human body, and that
water in which the " horn " had been placed was useful in
curing snake-bites. Commenting on this case, Mr. W. E.
Paton says that the snake's "horn " is known also in Cos,||
and it may be mentioned that the Nose-horned Viper
(F. ammodytes) of central and southern Europe has a scaly
appendage on its nose.

■'' Naturalist's Voyage round the World, 2nd ed. London, 1890, p. 203.
t H. A.u. c. 2, s. 11, ix. c. 6, s. 2. j Ibid. ii. c. 2, s. 11.

§ ii. 74. II FolJi-Lore,\i. p. 321.

AND THEIE FUNCTIONS. 133

d. Hair. — Aristotle gives a long description of the hair of
animals, chiefly in H. A. iii. c. 10, and, although including
many erroneous statements, such description seems to have
been, for many centuries, the best.

He says that the thickness, fineness, and length of hairs
vary with their positions and the nature of the skin,* that
animals with coarse hair become softer-haired, and animals
with soft hair become coarser-haired, by good feeding, and
that men living in warm localities have harsh hair, while
those living in cold localities have soft hair.f He adds that
straight hairs are soft, but curly hairs are harsh, t

Many other conditions, besides the nature of their
food, affect the qualities of the hair, but the nature of the
food has an important effect, e.g., when the Angora goats of
Asia Minor have a variety of good food their hair is finer
and in better condition than when their food is coarse. Why
Aristotle states that animals with soft hair become coarser-
haired by good feeding is not clear. It seems to be,v
however, an example of his fondness for laying down a
proposition and then stating its converse.

When speaking about the hair of men living in warm
and in cold localities, he seems to rely on a comparison
between the Europeans, with hair fairly straight or moder-
ately curled, and the Negroes, with frizzly hair. It is not
clear what he means by softness and harshness, as applied
to hair, but he seems to suggest that straightness and
curliness respectively are meant. There are important ex-
ceptions, however, to his general statements, e.g., the
Mongols, whether living in warm countries, like Siam or
the Malay Archipelago, or in cold countries, like Siberia,
have cylindrical, straight hair, and the degree of frizziness
or curliness of the hair of Negroes depends very much on
the degree of ellipticity or flatness of the hair in cross
section.

Aristotle says that hair becomes grey from the tip, and
that, during the course of some complaints, the hair turns
grey and falls off but grows again and is of its original
colour. § Hair commonly becomes grey from the roots,
sometimes from the tips, and occasionally at intervals along
the hairs. Aristotle's statement about the recovery of the
hair after illness was probably taken from Hippocrates, and

* H. A. iii. c. 10, s. 1. f Ihid. iii. c. 10, s. 2.

I Ibid. § Ihid. iii. c. 10, s. 5.

134 AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMGEOMERIA

is true particularly of patients suffering from scarlet and
other fevers.

Many other statements relating to the hair are made by
Aristotle, of which the following seem to be the most
interesting: In H. A. iii. c. 10, s. 9, he says that the hair
grows on dead bodies. Many descriptions of a remarkable
growth of hair after death have been given since Aristotle's
time, and many people believe that such growth takes
place.* However, Dr. W. J. Erasmus Wilson says : " The
lengthening of the hairs of the beard, observed in a dead
person, is merely the result of the contraction of the skin
towards their bulb."t

In a passage which is not clear, Aristotle says that, in
animals with spotted fur, the spots first appear in the fur
and skin and in the skin of the tongue, t I know nothing
about such an occurrence of spots on the tongue, but some
dogs have dark patches or marks on the palate and other
parts within the mouth, and the following record seems to
show that there is a relation between the colour of the hair
and these marks. Mr. Woodward, a gamekeeper on the
Blenheim estate, Woodstock, informs me that about nine
years ago a pedigree black retriever, belonging to the Duke
of Grafton, had seven pups, six black and one pure white.
The black pups had, like their mother, dark or black palates,
but the white pup had its palate partly white.

In the case of Dalmatian pups, which are usually white
at birth, the spots do not appear until the pups are a few
weeks old.

There are several passages, in ancient works, about an
influence exercised on the colours of animals by the water
drunk by the mothers of these animals or by the animals
themselves. Strabo mentions rivers the waters of which
had an influence of this kind,§ and so also does j!Elian,||
and there is also the well-known passage in Genesis, c. 30,
vv. 37-39, which has so often been discussed. Aristotle
says that there are waters of this kind in many places, and,
by drinking them just before conception, sheep bring forth
black lambs, e.g., the so-called Cold Kiver, in the Thracian

* I particularly remember a detailed narrative about an excessive
growth of hair after death in connection with a case of exhumation in
Worcestershire.

f Healthy Skin, dc, 8th edition, 1876, p. 112.

I H. A. iii. c. 10, s. 9. § Geogr. x. c. 1, s. 14.

II De Nat. Anim. viii. 21.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 135

Chalcidice. He also says that in Astyra and Antandria are
two rivers, of which one makes sheep white and the other
makes them black. The river Scammander, he says, seems
to make them light brown, and on this account some say
that Homer called this river Xanthus.*

The hare is the only animal, Aristotle says, which has
hair within its cheeks and on the under sides of its feet.f
It is true that the hare has hairs on the insides of its mouth
and beneath its feet, but so also have other rodents, like
the rabbit and squirrel, and, among animals not known to
Aristotle, the polar bear, in particular, has hairs beneath
its feet.

e. Feathers, Scutes, and Scales. — Aristotle's views on
these anhomoeomeria are closely connected with his views
on the analogy and, it may be said, homology of the parts of
animals, and will be more suitably considered from this
point of view in Chapter xv.

He mentions the chief parts of a bird's feather, viz., the
shaft and barbs, and distinguishes it from the wing of an
insect, which appears to be of the nature of a feather, being
a skin-like membrane which, because of its dryness, becomes
detached from the surface of the body, t

Aristotle says correctly that many birds change colour
with the seasons in such a way that an observer, if in-
experienced, is deceived thereby, but he does not correctly
explain the occurrence of albino ravens, sparrows, and
swallows, for he says that they become white when the cold
increases. § He says also that the crane, which is ash-
coloured, darkens with age and is the only bird whose
plumage changes with age.|| This is not correct, for,
besides the great changes which take place in the plumage
of many birds, from the young to the adult stage, changes
in brilliancy or depth of colour may be seen, after successive
moults, in many birds. In wild linnets, for instance, the rose-
coloured 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 says
that they are of the nature of hair and useless for flight.^

Oviparous quadrupeds, he says, have scutes.** This
statement is incomplete, for some, like the frog and water

- H. A. in. c. 10, s. 12. f Ibid. iii. c. 10, s. 13.

I P. A. iv. c. 6, 6826. § H. A. iii. c. 10, s. 11.

li Ibid. 1i P. A. iv. c. 13, 6976.

-- H. A. iii. c. 10, s. 1.

136 AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

newt, have no scutes, and the chamseleon, which Aristotle
knew so well, is covered by granules which can be very
easily scraped off by means of a knife.

For some time past attempts have been made to ascer-
tain the ages of fishes by an examination of their scales.
Aristotle also refers to changes in the nature of the scales of
fishes with advancing age, saying that they become harder
and thicker, and much harder in fishes which are old and
wasted.*

B. — The Heart and Blood-Vessels.

Aristotle's description of the heart and the arrangement
of the blood-vessels constitutes his most valuable contri-
bution to anatomical knowledge. Before his time it was
generally believed that the origins of the blood-vessels were
in the head, and in his H. A. iii. c. 2, he gives the arrange-
ments of the blood-vessels according to Syennesis of Cyprus,
Diogenes of Apollonia, and Polybus, who scarcely mention
the heart. He was the first to explain, in clear language,
that the blood-vessels arise from the heart, but he cannot
be regarded with certainty as the originator of this dis-
covery, for Plato says that the heart is the bond of union of
the blood-vessels, and the fountain of the blood coursing
through the limbs, t

Aristotle's reasons for believing that the heart is the
origin of the blood-vessels are given in P. A. iii. c. 4, where
he says that the blood-vessels necessarily have one origin,
for, where it is possible, it is better that there should be one
and not many. This origin, he says, is in the heart, for the
blood-vessels extend from it and not through it, and it
occupies a very important or controlling position in the
body. Then, after asserting that those are mistaken who
believe 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 it is so situated and is well adapted to be the origin
and to form part of the arrangement of blood-vessels, for it
has thick walls to prevent loss of heat, and is of the nature
of a reservoir, the blood passing from it to the vessels, but
not returning. All this, he says, is clearly proved by means
of dissections and the phenomena of development, for the
heart is the first part to be formed and contains blood as
soon as it is formed.

- H. A. iii. c. 10, s. 10. I Timmis, 70.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 137

According to Aristotle, the heart has three chambers,
the largest being on the right side, the smallest on the left
side, and the one of intermediate size being between the
other two ; the two smaller chambers are much smaller than
the largest, and, while all the chambers are readily seen in
large animals, only two or even one can be seen in smaller
animals,*

Apparently, the largest or right chamber is the right
ventricle, together with the right auricle, the smallest or
left is the left auricle, and the intermediate chamber is the
left ventricle. Aristotle's description of the chambers was
probably based on dissections of this organ in some mammal
or mammals. He does not say what animals he dissected
for this purpose, but, for several reasons, more especially
because he was acquainted with the existence of a bone in
its heart, it is not unlikely that the ox was one of them. If
so, it would not be surprising that he considered the right
ventricle and right auricle to form one chamber which, as
he says, was much larger than either of the other chambers.

When the heart of an ox, freed from its firmly adherent
masses of suet, is carefully dissected and placed so as to
allow anyone to look down into its auricles and ventricles,
the passage from the right auricle to the right ventricle is
seen to be much more gradual than the passage from the left
auricle to the left ventricle, between which there is a well-
marked annular ridge. Then, again, the auriculo-ventricular
valves between the right auricle and right ventricle lie very
close to the chamber walls, and no well-marked boundary is
seen between the right auricle and right ventricle.

It should be mentioned that, instead of the view
expressd above, Aubert and Wimmer considered the two
auricles to form Aristotle's largest chamber, Frantzius con-
sidered this to be the right auricle, and Dr. Ogle the right
ventricle.

Aristotle says that there are sinews in the chambers of
the heart,! but in H. A. iii. c. 5, s. 1, he says that the
sinews are in its largest chamber. It is clear that the
chordae tendineae are meant. These occur, as is well known,
in both ventricles.

In H. A. i. c. 14, s. 1, the pericardium seems to be
referred to, for it is stated that the heart has a thick, fatty
membrane, by which it is attached to the great blood-vessel

* H. A. i. c. 14, ss. 1 and 2, iii. c. 3, s. 2 ; P. A. iii. c. 4, 6666.
f H. A. i. c. 14, s. 1 ; P. A. iii. c. 4, 6666.

138 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

and the aorta. The pericardium of an ox, which was
probably one of the animals dissected for the heart, as
explained above, is very stout and covered on opposite
sides by a large quantity of fat, so that Aristotle's description
applies very well to it.

Aristotle's statements about the presence of bones in the
hearts of horses and some oxen have been considered already
in that part of this Chapter which relates to bones and
cartilages.

In his description of the position of the heart, intended
to apply to the human heart, he says incorrectly that the
heart lies above the lungs, near the bifurcation of the
trachea,* and that the parts of the heart near its apex lie
on or against the aorta. t In Man, the heart lies just below
the bifurcation of the trachea, and not above the lungs,
while the apex of the heart is some distance in front of the
aorta. One part of Aristotle's description of the position of
the human heart, however, is such that some have taken it
as a proof that he dissected the human body. This part of
his description has been discussed in Chapter viii.

Aristotle says that the heart of a snake is small, kidney-
shaped, and situated near its throat, t The heart of a snake
cannot be considered to be small, nor is it kidney-shaped.
In one grass-snake, the heart, enclosed within its peri-
cardium, was an inch and an eighth long and half an
inch in diameter, the whole being almost cylindrical with
rounded ends. When removed from its pericardium, the
heart presented a much more complicated appearance, the
bright red ventricle, in the form of a double cone with
rounded ends, resting upon and between the dark red
auricles. The front part of the heart was about as far
forward as the hinder end of the long trachea.

In the animals now called invertebrates, Aristotle did
not believe that a heart, properly speaking, could be found.
Instead of this, they had a part analogous to a heart, just
as they had a fluid which was not blood but analogous to it.

The part, in cephalopods and crustaceans, which he
believed to represent the heart of animals with blood, was
the part which, he says, was called mT/tls.^ Its position, he
says, shows that it corresponds with the heart of animals
with blood, and this is proved by the sweetness of its con-
tained fluid, which has the characters of coagulated matter

* H. A. i. c. 14, s. 1. f Ibid. I Ibid. ii. c. 12, s. 12.

§ P. A. iv. c. 5, 6816 ; H. A. iv. c. 1, s. 11, iv. c. 2, s. 11

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 139

and resembles blood.* The mytis was probably the liver or
digestive gland. The fluid of this, however, is not always like
blood, nor is it sweet. In most dibranchiate cephalopods it
is reddish brown, but in the lobster and crayfish it is com-
monly yellow. In his OsfraJcoderma and Entoma he con-
cluded that the part corresponding with the heart of an
animal with blood was in a median position,! 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. Eeference may be made to
Fig. 8, which is intended to illustrate his description. He
points out the difficulties of tracing the arrangement by the
methods followed by others, who dissected slaughtered
animals from which much of the blood had flowed, or who
examined the bodies of very emaciated men. It is very
probable that he himself dissected animals which, after
having 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 called
arteries and veins, but he had no knowledge of a circulation
of the blood. According to him, the blood flowed outwards
from the heart and did not return. In the following
description, therefore, the phrase " blood-vessel " will be
used wherever possible ; it would be misleading to use the
words " artery " and " vein." Except where otherwise
stated, in the following description of the arrangement of
the blood-vessels, according to Aristotle, the passages relied
on are from his H. A. iii. 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 to
the left, and the larger one, called the great blood-vessel,
lying a little to the right of the spinal column and nearer
to the ventral wall than the aorta. The heart is, as it v/ere,
a part of these blood-vessels, especially the great blood-
vessel, for the parts of this extend above and below the
heart, which is between them. The great blood-vessel, he
says, is connected with the upper part of the largest
chamber, on the right side, then its course is directed back-
wards right through the chamber, as if this were a part of
the blood-vessel acting as a reservoir. The aorta, on the
other hand, arises from the middle chamber, but not in the

* P. A. iv. c. 5, 6816. f Ihid. iv. c. 5, 6816 and 682a.

I H. A. iii. c. 3, s. 1.

140

ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

FIG. 8.

HEART AND BLOOD VESSELS ACCORDING TO ARISTOTLE.

r,in,l. Chambers of the heart.

p. Lungs.

d. Diaphragm.

h. Liver.

S. Spleen.

k. Kidneys.
— — Great blood vessel and Its branches.

Aorta and its branches.

Blood vessels from left chamber.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 141

same way as the great blood-vessel, for it communicates
with the heart by a much narrower passage, and merely
extends from it, whereas the great blood-vessel passes
through the heart.

Aristotle's description of the relative positions of the
great blood-vessel and the aorta, or rather the parts of these
which pass downwards along the spinal column, is not quite
correct, for, although most of the great blood-vessel is
nearer the ventral wall than the aorta, its lower part is not.
Again, in its downward course the aorta tends to the right,
so that its lower part may be more correctly said to lie in
front of the spinal column. It is evident, from his own
statement, that Aristotle was not the first to give the name
aorta to the blood-vessel which, since his time, has been
almost always called the aorta. In one of the Hippocratic
treatises,* not written by Hippocrates but probably by a
contemporary, the name aortcd is given to the bronchial
tubes. Aristotle does not always use the phrase " great
blood-vessel " in the same sense ; usually it refers to some
part or parts of the venae cavae and pulmonary artery, but,
in any particular passage, its meaning must be ascertained
from the context.

The largest chamber, on the right side, to which Aristotle
says that the great blood-vessel is connected, is the right
ventricle, together with the right auricle, as explained
already, and the middle chamber, from which the aorta is
said to arise, is the left ventricle. Aristotle's statement
about the relative sizes of the roots of the aorta and the
great blood-vessel, whether this be taken to be one of the
venae cavas or the pulmonary artery, is incorrect. He pro-
bably never saw these vessels in Man, in whom there is but
a small difference in size between the root of the aorta and
the root of the pulmonary artery. Again, to take an animal
the heart of which he probably dissected, the root of the
aorta of a three-year-old ox was a little larger than the root
of the pulmonary artery and much larger than the root of
either vena cava.

Aristotle describes the largest chamber as if it were a
reservoir-like part of the great blood-vessel, and it is clear
that he considered this chamber, or at least that part of it
now called the right auricle, to be a dilatation of the great
blood-vessel.

* On Places in Man, c. 14.

142 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

Aristotle proceeds to describe the various blood-vessels
which pass from the parts of the great blood-vessel above
the heart. He says that a part of the great blood-vessel
passes upwards as an undivided blood-vessel of large size,
and that two vessels extend from it. One of these goes
towards the lungs and divides into two vessels, one for each
tracheal tube ; these two vessels break up into smaller and
smaller vessels which ramify through the substance of the
lungs, so that the whole of these seems to be full of blood.
The other vessel, which extends from the upper part of the
great blood-vessel, passes to the spinal column and the last
cervical vertebra.

The great blood-vessel, referred to in the above state-
ments, is clearly the pulmonary artery, and Aristotle's
description of the arrangement of the blood-vessels passing
from it to the lungs will be more conveniently discussed in
Chapter xi. His assertion that a blood-vessel extends from
the great blood-vessel to the spinal column and the last
cervical vertebra is by no means easy to understand. The
pulmonary artery has no branch of this kind. His further
description of the great blood-vessel and its branches almost
suggests that he was referring to the large azygos vein, but
it does not seem to be possible to identify the blood-vessel
which he so strangely connects with the pulmonary artery.
His description of the two blood-vessels passing from the
upper part of the great blood-vessel is an example of
passages in which a fairly good description is followed by
an apparently inexplicable statement. Such passages often
occur in his description of the arrangement of the blood-
vessels, and, in some cases, it is almost futile to attempt to
do more than refer to them.

Aristotle proceeds to say that, from the " whole " (which
should be the vena cava superior), blood-vessels pass to the
sides and collar bones and thence to the arms in men, to the
forelegs in quadrupeds, to the wings in birds, and to the
pectoral fins in fishes. The parts of these blood-vessels near
where the branching takes place he calls the jugulars. He
also says that blood-vessels pass from the great blood-vessel
to the neck and along the trachea, and that, when these
blood-vessels are held on the outside, men sometimes fall
down insensible, with eyes closed, but without being choked.
These blood-vessels, he says, extend as far as the ears,
where they branch off into four vessels, one of which turns
back and passes through the neck and shoulder on its way

AND THEIE FUNCTIONS. 143

to the arm, hand, and fingers, while another extends to
the membranes sm-rounding the brain. Of the remaining
branches of the great blood-vessel, some pass completely
round the head, and others end in very delicate vessels in
the sensory organs and the teeth.

It is clear, from the first part of this description, that
Aristotle saw what are now called the subclavian veins and
some of their tributaries, and that what he calls the jugulars
were probably the innominate veins. The blood-vessels,
the holding of which caused men sometimes to fall down
insensible, should be the internal jugulars, since Aristotle is
discussing branches of the great blood-vessel, but he may be
referring to the carotid arteries. It may be mentioned that ^
compression of the carotids to produce stupor during surgical
operations was practised by the Assyrians.* The part of
Aristotle's description of the blood-vessels extending as far
as the ears is apparently meant to refer to the internal
jugular veins and their tributaries, but several parts of the
description are incorrect, e.g., these veins have many more
than four tributaries, and the branching takes place at many
different 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 dealing with the brain
and spinal cord.

The part of the great blood-vessel below the heart will
now be considered. Aristotle says that this passes down
through the diaphragm, but he adds the erroneous statement
that it is united to both the aorta and the spinal column by
loose, membranous connections. A short, thick blood-vessel •
passes from it to the liver and breaks up therein. There
are also, he says, two branches of this short, thick blood-
vessel, one ending in the diaphragm and adjacent parts,
and the other passing upwards and entering the right arm.
Therefore, he explains, when surgeons cut this blood-vessel,
some pains about the liver are relieved. From the left side
of the great blood-vessel, a short, thick blood-vessel passes
to the spleen, and another blood-vessel passes upward and
into the left arm. Other blood-vessels extend from the
great blood-vessel, one to the omentum, another to the
so-called pancreas, and many blood-vessels through the

-'= Manual of Pharmacology, W. E. Dixon, 2nd edition, 1908, p. 51.

144 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

mesentery, but these all end in one great blood-vessel
extending along the intestine and stomach and as far as
the oesophagus.

This practically completes Aristotle's description of the
great blood-vessel and its connections. The yvSby i^ which
he describes the downward extension of the great blood-
vessel suggests that he knew that what is now called the
ve)ia cava inferior passed somewhat centrally through the
diaphragm. In his description of the branches of the blood-
vessel passing to the liver, Aristotle is wrong ; the blood-
vessels from the right part of the diaphragm pass to the
ve7ia cava i7iferior, and those from the left part enter the
suprarenal vein. His statements, that another branch
passes upwards and enters the right arm, and that a blood-
vessel passes from the left side of the great blood-vessel to
the left arm, are of more than ordinary interest. He was
evidently not free from the influence of the ancient belief
in the existence of distinct right and left systems of blood-
vessels. Statements made in accordance with this belief
vitiated the descriptions of all ancient anatomists who dealt
with the arrangement of the blood-vessels, and used to
exercise a bad effect on surgical practice. Diogenes of
Apollonia, one of the best anatomists who lived before
Aristotle, described some of the blood-vessels of the right
arm and shoulder under the name " hepatitis," and some of
the blood-vessels of the left arm and shoulder under the
name " splenitis," * and said that, for some complaints,
surgeons practised bleeding from them.t The Ancients
believed, in fact, that an organ, such as the liver or spleen,
was connected by a blood-vessel with a distant part of the
body, such as one of the arms, and surgeons tried to relieve
pains, believed to be caused by such an organ, by bleeding
from the aforesaid blood-vessel. Dr. Lauth says that the
erroneous opinion, which even Aristotle entertained, that a
blood-vessel connected the liver and the right arm, and that
another connected the spleen and the left arm, long had a
bad effect on surgical practice. +

The Chinese, who appear to have formed their ideas
about human anatomy without the aid of the dissecting-
knife, believe that there are some organs to each of which a
blood-vessel proceeds, such vessel having a "pulse" which

* H. A. iii. c. 2, s. 4. f Ibid. iii. c. 2, s, 6.

I Hist, de VAnatomie, Strasbourg, 1815, p. 77.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 145

is of great value in diagnosis. An account of this subject
may be read in a paper by Dr. J. Dudgeon in the Journal
of the Peking Oriental Society, vol. iii. No. 4 (1895),
pp. 555-565. He gives, by way of example, the "pulse"
of the large intestines, and says that the blood flowing to
these rises at the tips of the thumb and index finger, flows
up the back of the arm to the head, then down the face to the
lungs, and thence to the intestines, that two blood-vessels
are also given off to the ears and nose, and that deafness,
ringing in the ears, and pains behind the ears and in the
arms arise from the large intestines. Nothing is said about
blood-letting, but the general similarity between the views
of the ancient Greeks and the Chinese, as expressed above,
shows that these peoples, so far removed both in space and
time, have entertained similar ideas about the blood system.

Returning to Aristotle's description of the blood-vessels
connected with the great blood-vessel, it is clear that, as
might be expected, he misunderstood what is now known
as the portal system of blood-vessels, some of which he
describes as if they passed directly into the great blood-
vessel. The veins from the spleen, pancreas, omentum,
and mesentery are not tributaries of the vena cava inferior,
but unite to form the portal vein which enters and breaks
up in the liver.

Most of the rest of Aristotle's description of the blood-
vessels relates to the aorta and its branches. He states, but
incorrectly, that both the aorta and great blood-vessel are
unbranched as far as the kidneys, and then he correctly
follows the courses of these vessels, in so far as he says that
they cling more closely to the spinal column and that each
divides into two, just like the Greek A, but that the great
blood-vessel lies farther back than the aorta.

He says that blood-vessels pass from the aorta to the
mesentery, and that no blood-vessel passes from the aorta
to the liver and spleen, but blood-vessels extend from both the
aorta and the great blood-vessel to the hips. Blood-vessels,
he says, extend to the kidneys from the aorta and the great
blood-vessel ; they do not pass to the hollow parts \j)elves]
of the kidneys, but are abundantly supplied to their substance.
From the aorta two other strong, unbranched ducts (poroi)
lead to the bladder, and others, having no connection with
the great blood-vessel, from the hollow parts of the kidneys.
Then follows a description, by no means clear, of tubular,
sinewy blood-vessels passing from the kidneys along the

L

146 AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEEIA

spinal column to the hips, and then to the bladder and
generative organs.

It is clear from these descriptions that Aristotle was
acquainted with the mesenteric arteries, but that he did not
know that arteries are given off almost directly from the
aorta to the liver 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 to
the ureters, but it is not clear what are the two strong,
unbranched ducts {poroi) leading from the aorta to the
bladder. The use of the word poroi instead oi phlehes does
not cause the difficulty, for Aristotle often uses that word
to denote blood-vessels ; the difficulty is that there do not
seem to be blood-vessels corresponding with those mentioned.
They may be the spermatic arteries, or the corresponding
ovarian 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 arteries, which are given
off from the internal iliac arteries and are very much
branched.

No blood-vessel, Aristotle says, passes from the great
blood-vessel to the uterus, but many closely crowded blood-
vessels extend to it from the aorta. He next says that,
after their bifurcation, blood-vessels extend from the aorta
and great blood-vessel to the groins, legs, feet, and toes.

His statement that no blood-vessel extends from the
great blood-vessel to the uterus is substantially correct, for
many of the uterine veins lead to the internal iliac veins ;
some of them, however, communicate with the ovarian veins
which lead to the vena cava inferior. His statement about
the vessels extending to the uterus from the aorta needs
some qualification. The uterus is supplied with blood partly
by the uterine arteries from the internal iliac arteries, and
partly by the ovarian arteries which branch off from the
aorta and communicate with branches of the uterine
arteries.
^ Aristotle says incorrectly that, as regards the largest

blood-vessels and their origins, the arrangement is the same
in all animals with blood. In small animals, he says, the
blood-vessels, except the great blood-vessel, are not con-
spicuous, for some blood-vessels are confusedly arranged,
just like channels in a large quantity of mud, and some
animals have merely a few "fibres" instead of blood-vessels.
In a dissected animal, especially one killed by strangulation

AND THEIK FUNCTIONS. 147

or by chloroforming, the puhnonary arteries and the venae
cavae are distended, and dark or nearly black so as to be
easily seen. Aristotle says correctly that the great blood-
vessel is conspicuous even in very small animals.

Here, near the end of a description having serious
defects, yet far surpassing in excellence the corresponding
descriptions of his predecessors, we see that Aristotle tried,
but without success, to make out the nature of the small
ramifications of the blood-vessels. More than this, it is
clear from other passages in his Vi^orks that he tried to
investigate 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 his
P. A. iii. c. 5, 668, which are too long to be given in full.
In these passages he says that, just as in the conveyance of
water by irrigating channels or ditches the largest channels
persist but the smallest disappear beneath the mud, so it
is with the blood-vessels, for the largest persist while the
smallest functionally become flesh, although they are none
the less capable of acting as blood-vessels. When flesh is
cut, he proceeds to say, blood flows from it, although no
blood-vessels may be seen in the flesh, because of their being
choked up. The blood-vessels, he says, divide and become
smaller and smaller, until their passages are too small to
allow the blood to flow through them, but they still allow
the passage of a more liquid substance, viz., sweat. Finally,
he says that the blood in the very small blood-vessels gives
up some of its material in the form of sweat or vapour, or,
as stated in P. A. iii. c. 8, 611a, is diverted into feathers,
scales, or the like, while the remaining parts are transformed
into flesh.

In this way he explains how the blood can flow away
from the heart and never return. Although he was aware
of some differences between the aorta and the great blood-
vessel and their ramifications, he had no conception of a
return of blood to the heart, nor of the existence of networks
of capillaries through which the blood passed before entering
the veins. Having imperfect means of investigation and an
inadequate idea of the difficulties to be overcome, it is not
surprising that he failed in his attempts to explain the
ultimate distribution and functions of the blood, but he did
more than any other anatomist who lived before the times of
Vesalius and Servetus to prepare a way for a satisfactory
explanation of the phenomena of the circulation of the blood.

US ABISTOILES AXHOMCEOMEBIA

CE-^rZP. XI.

ABISrmZS A^CHOMCElOMEmA AND THEIE
FUNC TIOX S ycoKiinuid) .

7 of tlie Enic-^.a

'-'''-- "- :" - and

r— = -prill be

Ari,

n. A. 1- e. i, s. '7. i D* mfpir

roid, ec. 1 sad 2. f J^uf. ee. l-l

** fl. ^. L e. 11. 5. 6.

— tic

ASD TRETR YXTSCTIOSS. 1^

qTiadmpeds, the paiis of the lung are separated sj ~~:ji
thai there seem to t-r r^: -^:^^=- -::i:i^:'^- ": i ii^le
trachea.*

The fact that the lungs comnnziicaie with a =:^".e
trachea caiised Ari?:-:T> :■: =T-^ii: :: the hmg. nyi the lyings.
of an animal. Thir :_ : :-; ; : " t : irihing the Inngs is scme-
what similar to his me :j.: i :: . " " ' , '

some fishes. H's des:r': " :■.-;;..__. . _ ._ . :

the hnman lungs is - ■ : ;::r7 7i:f -^i^^- — ^azi.

are distinctly r:-^ -": : ._t .tIT i^iiig hi= r^: mi liie
right Inng thif

He says - - :^- -

cartiIagino"c= f _::-_. 1 __ : - _. i:^_:i. r:i:li .,?

contracting to a point, sni Lrom thezi ize i^r:: . ■ :_e
through all parts of the liing. and these pprfpyar :^ - it
branching, become sm.aller and smaller.-^

This description read.s accnrattly enoiigh when ecBE^azed
with the appearance presented by the branches, within tiie
lungs, of the bronchial passages of an ex or sheep, sndx
branches having leen cut longitudinally. The -word vsed
in the Greek text to denote the bi^nch^ is du^ifseis,
which indicates that they are iii ihe substance oi the hmgs.

In a series of very important passages, AristDtle says tiiat
blood-vessels extend from the heart to the lung and inazidi
in the same way as the trachea, closely foUofwix^ its Hranrlifs
thronghont the whole lung. E^"~— :: the brandies d fee
blood-vessels and those of the : he says, there is no

common duct, but byreas::" ::_,...■ : ' ""^e blood-
vessels receive air and tr;_:-^_ : hx one
of the blood-vessels leads to the left mi :^v ::_ifr to the
right chamber of the heart. Hf '-■ -■ - " ■ th? dis-
position of the blo>i- vessels az . - :: :l-f
bronchial tubes is such that no part ci : r --^ --^
detected in which an air passage exists -,_,_: i sziill
blood-vessel.!

These passages are interesting because they foreshadow
a conception of that interchange c^ gases, between the
blood and the air within the hmgs, which is an important
effect of the process of respiration. Aristotle believed thas
air passed, in some way, from the small air ptassages into
the closely adjacent branches of the pulmonary blo>d-vessels. "
and that these branches transmitted it to the heart. He

* H. A. i. e. IS, 5. 7. t liii, L c, ISL s. 7.

I Ihid^ i. c. 14. s. S, iii. e. S. ?. 4.

150 AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEEIA

does not explain how the air passes into the blood-vessels,
but says that there are no ducts or vessels connecting the
air passages and the blood-vessels. It may be that he be-
lieved in the existence of minute apertures in the passages
and vessels, which allowed air to pass, but were too small to
allow blood to pass through them.

His views on this part of the subject of respiration are
difficult to understand. Some writers have concluded that
Aristotle held that some of the blood-vessels contained air
and not blood. It may be confidently asserted that his
genuine works prove conclusively that, according to him,
blood flowed through what are now called arteries as well
as through those now called veins. When referring to both
kinds of blood-vessels, he often speaks of the blood in them.
The erroneous view that some of the vessels contained air
rather than blood was held, not by Aristotle, but by many
of his followers, as will be shown later.

Few physiologists, according to Aristotle, had discussed
the subject of respiration before his time.* Among others,
he mentions Empedocles, who believed that some of the
blood-vessels were only partially filled with blood, and com-
municated with the external air through passages so small
that they allowed air to pass, but not blood, and Aristotle
states that Empedocles tried to explain the phenomena of
respiration by asserting that the blood moved to and fro in
these blood-vessels, causing the external air to be alternately
drawn into and expelled from them through the very small
passages and through the mouth and nostrils, t The very
small passages, too small to allow blood but large enough to
allow air to pass through, were referred to by writers on the
blood-vessels and respiration for many centuries after the
time of Empedocles. It has already been suggested that
Aristotle believed in their existence in the walls of the air
passages and blood-vessels in the lungs, and, in H. A. iii.
c. 3, s. 3, he says that all the chambers of the heart com-
municate by passages with the lung, but this is not evident,
except in one chamber, because of the smallness of the
passages. This does not prove that he believed in the
existence of passages as small as those mentioned by
Empedocles, but it is the clearest statement I can find on
this subject.

After Aristotle's time, Erasistratus and many others held
that some of the blood-vessels, especially the arteries, con-
•^= De Bespir. c. i. f Ibid. c. 7.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 151

tained air rather than blood. It was against this belief
that Galen directed his attacks, when he contended that the
arteries were filled with blood, However, according to Sir
M. Foster, the Galenic philosophy set forth that, when the
heart expands, it draws air from the lungs, through what
are now known as the pulmonary veins, into the left ventricle,
and this air mixes there with blood which has passed
through invisible pores in the septum between the ventricles.*
This shows how lasting was Empedocles' conception of the
minute passages.

Aristotle says that, in oviparous animals, such as birds,
and oviparous quadrupeds, the parts of the lungs are separ-
ated so much from each other that there appear to be two
distinct lungs,! and that, in snakes, there is a single lung
divided by a long " fibrous " tube.t

Except that the trachea is only partly fibrous, this is
true of the lungs of the viper and grass-snake, which were
those best known to Aristotle. Some snakes, like the boa
and 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 inflated. § This assertion is qualified by a
passage in P. A. iii. c. 8, 671a, where he says that the
marine tortoises have flesh-like lungs containing blood, like
the lungs of oxen, and that the lungs of land tortoises are
larger proportionally than those of other oviparous quad-
rupeds. Compared with those of many oviparous animals,
the lungs of marine and also land tortoises are large and
fleshy, but they are not nearly as fleshy as those of an ox.
Aristotle's statement about the lungs of birds is 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 of
the backbone, and it is probable that he never removed them
in 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 serve
also as organs of smell. |i

His descriptions of the gills of fishes are often difficult
to understand. He says correctly that the gills are either
single or double, and that the numbers of gills are equal on

'- Led. on the Hist, of Physiology, 1901, pp. 12 and 13.
// \ H. A. i. c. is; s. 7. I Ibid. n. c. 12, s. 12.

^ P. A. iii. c. 6, 669a. || Ibid. ii. c. 16, 659&.

152

ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

both sides of the head.* In a comparatively few fishes, the
last gills are single, but he states incorrectly that they are
single in all or most fishes.! Again, many gills which are
known to be double are said by him to be single. This may
be explained, in some cases, on the assumption that he
included among single gills those which, like the gills of the
eel and the sturgeon, have two sets of leaflets joined to-
gether for a rather large part of their length. He does not
appear to have known anything of the half-gills or pseudo-
branchs in some bony and cartilaginous fishes.

In H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 4, Aristotle mentions many fishes
and gives the numbers of gills for each. In the following
table, the gills of some of these fishes are compared with
those of the fishes which seem to furnish the best identi-
fication of them : —

Gills on each side

Modern names

Gills on each side

Aristotle's

Fishes

Double

Single

Double

Single

Enchelus

Four

Eel

Four

Glanis

Three

One

Parasilurus

Four

—

Gongros

One

One

Conger

Four

—

Kyprinos

Three

One

Carp

Four

—

Muraina

—

Four

Mursena

Four

—

Perke

Three

One

Perch

Four

—

Skaros

One

One

Parrot- Wrasse

Three

One

Xiphias

Eight

—

Sword-fish

Four

—

In addition to other peculiarities of structure, the gill-
processes of each pair are free in the sword-fish, so that
there seem to be eight gills. Aristotle evidently knew of
this peculiarity.

Aristotle says that the flat, cartilaginons fishes, such as
the torpedo and ray, have their gills below, but the long
ones, such as the dogfishes, have lateral gills, and that
the fishing-frog has lateral gills, but these have skin-like
opercula and not spiny ones, like fishes which are not
cartilaginous.!

The Angel-fish {Rhina sqiiatina), which was known to

* H. A. ii. C.9, s. 4.

f H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 4 ; P. A. iv. c. 13, 6966.
I H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 3.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 153

Aristotle, is a flat cartilaginous fish but has lateral gill-
slits. His statement about the gill covers of the fishing-frog
is substantially correct. No opercula, such as those of the
bass or perch, are present. The respiratory water currents,
on each side, flow to the exterior through a large bag-like
chamber, bounded exteriorly by a skin-like flap and com-
municating with the external water through a round hole
just behind the base of the pectoral fin. Six very long
branchiostegal rays support the skin-like flap.

Aristotle noticed the existence of gills in some of the
invertebrates, e.g., he says that gill-like organs, rough,
numerous, and constantly moving, are present in lobsters
and cray-fishes,* and it is probable that the hair-like organs
in the bodies of certain cephalopods,t and the hair-like
organs in some molluscs,! are intended to be gills.

In his Entoma, Aristotle considered the hypozoma, i.e.,
the part of the body separating the thorax from the
abdomen, to be the equivalent of lungs or gills, and to be an
organ of smell. §

D. — Liver, Spleen, and Pancreas.

Aristotle's statements about the functions of the liver and
spleen are few and of very little value; about the functions
of the pancreas he says nothing. The liver, he says, cannot
be the most important organ of the body nor the origin of
the blood, for it does not occupy an important or controlling
position, and, further, it is counterbalanced, as it were, by
another organ, viz., the spleen. || He was disposed to regard
the liver and the spleen as resembling each other in cha-
racter and constituting a double organ. 11 Both the liver
and the spleen, he says, assist in the digestion of food, by
means of their heat, and the spleen withdraws superfluous
matters from the stomach and entirely digests them.**
Plato's views on the function of the spleen bear some
resemblance to Aristotle's, for he says that the spleen, acting
like an absorbent body, serves to receive impurities from
the liver, tf The liver, Aristotle says, assists in keeping the
body in a healthy condition, for this depends very much

* H. A. iv, c. 2, ss. 7 and 10 ; P. A. iv. c. 8, 684a.
f H. A. iv. c. 1, s. 12. \ Ibid. iv. c. 4, s. 12.

§ P. A. ii. c. 16, 6596. |1 Ibid. iii. c. 4, 666a.

H Ibid, iii. c. 7, 6696. ^'•* Ibid. iii. c. 7, 670a and 6.

fl TimcBus, 72.

154 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMGEOMEEIA

on the blood, and the Hver contains more blood than any
internal organ, except the heart.*

He discusses the purpose served by the bile, and con-
cludes that its formation results in a purification of the
blood, but that it is itself a residual substance having no
further use.t His views on the bile were very different,
therefore, from modern views, according to which the bile
facilitates the absorption of food, especially fats and carbo-
hydrates, and stimulates the peristaltic movements of the
intestines.

Aristotle makes a few interesting statements about
the position, form, size, and colour of the liver in various
animals. That of Man, he correctly says, is on the right
side of the body, and he adds that it is rounded like that of
an ox.t He gives an approximately correct estimate of the
relative sizes of the liver of an elephant and an ox, saying
that the former is four times larger than the latter. § The
average weight of the liver of English oxen is about sixteen
pounds, and that of the liver of Asiatic elephants is about
fifty-three pounds.il He says very little about the liver in
birds. In snakes, he says, the liver is long and single,1[
and, in fishes, some have a liver without lobes and dogfishes
have a liver with two lobes which are quite free from each
other.** In snakes, the liver is single and elongated, e.g., in
a grass-snake of average size I found that the single liver
was five inches long. With respect to fishes, there are
some, e.g., the Lophobranchs, in which the liver is unilobed,
but most usually it is bilobed or, very occasionally, has more
than two lobes. The lobes of the liver of the dogfish are
connected anteriorly by a short septum, and it is only in a
few fishes that they are separate, e.g., they are said to be
quite separate in the hag-fish.

The liver, he says, is red in viviparous quadrupeds and
birds, light yellow in most oviparous quadrupeds and in
fishes, and of a dirty tint in the frog, toad, and the like. ft
The colours are more varied than the above statements
suggest, e.g., the liver of the grass-snake is of a bright,
chocolate colour, that of the sea-lamprey is green, of the
dogfish, brownish-yellow, and of the frog, brown.

* P. A. iii. c. 12, 6736. \ Ibid. iv. c. 2, (Slla.

X H. A. i. c. 14, ss. 5 and G. § Ibid. ii. c. 12, s. 8.

li Vet.-Capt. Evans' Treatise on Elephants, 1901, Rangoon, p. G7.
H H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 12. -* Ibid. ii. c. 12, s. 3.

f+ P. ^.iii.c. 12, 67Sb.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 155

There are few parts of the animal body to which
Aristotle paid more attention than the gall-bladder. When
he describes this part, he oftens uses the word chole,
which properly signifies " bile," to denote the gall-bladder
itself.

He says that deer, horses, mules, asses, seals, and some
mice and men are without a gall-bladder, but that the
so-called Achainian deer seem to have gall in their tails,
but this, though like gall in colour, is not liquid 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 and all other
seals, apparently, have a conspicuous gall-bladder.

Aristotle's statements about the presence of a gall-like
substance in the tails of certain deer are not satisfactory.
In his note on H. A. ii. c. 11, s. 5, Schneider says: —
" Even to-day, several huntsmen assert this. It is certain
that the inner part of the tail has a greenish colour and a
bitter taste. Hence, of course, the opinion seems to have
arisen about the presence of bile in the tail." I cannot
obtain 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 Euba3a, but that all those in
Naxos have remarkably large gall-bladders, t He states cor-
rectly that the liver of the elephant is without a gall-bladder,
but, when cut near the part corresponding with that where
the gall-bladder is attached in some animals, a bile-like
liquid flows from the cut part, and that the dolphin also is
without a gall-bladder. I

The elephant has a long bile-duct of large diameter
opening, according to Owen, into a bile pouch between
the coats of the duodenum.

Aristotle attempted, inH.A. ii. c. 11, ss. 7 and 8, ii. c. 12,
s. 12, and P. A. iv. c. 2, 6766, to indicate the position of the
gall-bladder in many birds and fishes and in a snake. It is clear
from these passages that he was well acquainted with the

* H. A. ii. c. 11, s. 5 ; P. A. iv. c. 2, 6766.
t H. A. i. c. 14, s. 6; P. A. iv c. 2, 677a.
I H. A. ii. c. 11, 8. 7.

156

AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEEIA

zigzag arrangement of the gall-bladder of the pelamid, and
the exceptionally large size of the gall-bladder of the star
gazer. To what extent he was correct in defining the
positions of the gall-bladder in the snake and some of the
birds and fishes, referred to above, will be seen from the
table below.

Aristotle's

Position of the

Modern

Position of the

Animals

gall-bladder

names

gall-bladder

Chelidon

Near the intestines

Swallov/

Bile ducts only (two speci-
mens dissected)

Ortyx

)) )>

Quail

Close below right part of
liver

Peristera

»> »>

Pigeon

Bile ducts only

Strouthos

n )>

Sparrow

Bile ducts only (five speci-
mens dissected)

Hydros

On the liver or

Grass Snake

About half an inch behind

towards intestines.

the liver

Amia

On the intestines

Pelamid

Lies along the intestines

Batrachos

Near the intestines

Fishing-frog

Suspended about thre inches
below liver (Owen)

Gongros

« »i

Conger

Suspended from liver

Muraina

1) II

Muraena

Suspended at some distance
from liver (Owen)

Xiphias

1! )l

Sword Fish

Suspended at some distance
from liver

Enchelus

Near the liver

Eel

Close below liver

Glanis

)) 11

Parasilurus

Close below liver (Agassiz)

Kallionymos

On the liver

Star Gazer

Suspended from liver (Cu-
vier and Valenciennes)

The spleen, Aristotle says, is on the left side of the body
and, in Man, is long and narrow, like that of the pig or
dog,* in the elephant it is rather less than fom- times larger
than that of the ox,t in ruminants it is of somewhat rounded
form, and in the horse, mule, and ass it is broad in one part
and narrow in another.!

The human spleen is somewhat tetrahedral in form and
is not like the elongated spleen of the pig. The spleen varies
much in weight, even in mammals of the same species, but
Aristotle's estimate of the size of the spleen in the elephant
is too high. The average weight of the spleen in English

* if. ^. i. c. 14, ss. 5 and 6 ; P. A. iii. c. 12, 674a.

\ H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 8. | P. A. iii. c. 12, 674ff.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 157

oxen is about two and a quarter pounds, and that of Asiatic
elephants is about seven pounds, acccording to Vet.-Capt.
G. H. Evans.*

Aristotle says that most animals with blood have a
spleen, but, in many oviparous animals, it is so small that
it nearly escapes notice, especially in most birds, such as the
hawk, owl, kite, and pigeon, that the jEgocephalos has no
spleen at all, and that it is quite small in oviparous quad-
rupeds, such as the tortoise, lizard, crocodile, toad, and
frog.t He also says that the chamseleon does not appear
to have a spleen, t

His statements about the absence of the spleen are not
satisfactory, for Rolleston says : — " A spleen is found in all
vertebrata in connection with the mesogastrium." § The
chamaeleon has a small spleen ; in one of large size I found
it was O'll inch long. The Mgocephalos, which was a bird,
would have a spleen ; this bird has not been satisfactorily
identified, but different writers have attempted to identify it
with one of the following : — godwit, long-eared owl, Scops'
owl, goatsucker, and snipe.

Generally speaking, the spleen is relatively much larger
in mammals than in birds, reptiles, and batrachians, yet it
was oval and 0'68 inch long in one tawny owl, egg-shaped
and 0'6 inch long in a small specimen of the Grecian
tortoise, and it is said to be large in the crocodile. In some
of the other animals mentioned by Aristotle it is certainly
small, e.g., it was 0"2 inch long in one wall lizard, and 0'18
inch long in a frog.

Aristotle was aware that the spleen was particularly
liable to be diseased. |1

He gives but little information about the pancreas. He
merely says that a blood-vessel extends from the great
blood-vessel to the so-called pancreas.^ This suggests that
the pancreas was not generally known in his time, and
Aristotle seems to be the first to mention it. I cannot find
any reference to it in the works of Hippocrates, and the
information given by the ancient writers, Eufus Ephesius,
Galen, and others who lived after Aristotle's time, is quite
unimportant.

■■'- Treatise on Elephants, Rangoon, 1901, p. 67.
\ H. A. ii. c. 11, s 4, + Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 5.

§ Forms of Animal Life, 2nd edition, 1888, p. 353.
II P. A. iii, c. 4, 667&. ^ H. A. iii. c. 4, s. 2.

158 AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEEIA

E. — The Alimentary Canal and its closely

CONNECTED PARTS.

Many parts of Aristotle's statements about the alimentary-
canal, omentum, mesentery, and diaphragm are of small
value, but there are some parts which describe very well a
few important anatomical details. He gives, e.g., good
descriptions of the stomach of a ruminant, the pyloric caeca
of fishes, and the intestinal c^ca of birds, the stomach of the
mullet, the gizzard, proventriculus, and crop of a few
birds, and the stomachs or digestive cavities of some
invertebrates.

After dealing with the chief terms used by Aristotle to
denote various parts of the alimentary canal, and briefly
discussing his views on digestion, the above-mentioned
descriptions and a few others of less importance will be
considered.

In almost every instance in which he refers to the
oesophagus, he calls it stomaclios, and in most cases he calls
the stomach coelia, under which term he includes also the
gizzard of a bird and the digestive cavity of an invertebrate.
The usual term used for an intestine is enteron, but, in many
passages, he uses the phrases upper coelia and lower coelia,
the former including the stomach and the latter either the
whole or a part of the intestines. He does not appear to
distinguish the small from the large intestines.

Digestion was effected, according to Aristotle, wholly
or almost wholly by the action of animal heat, w^hich he
believed to be different from ordinary heat, such as that
from a fire. The function of the mouth, he says, is not to
digest but to facilitate digestion by masticating the food.*
In the stomach and part of the intestines, digestion was
effected by the heat supplied, so Aristotle believed, mainly
by the liver, spleen, and omentum.! He says also that the
caeca found in most fishes serve to store up food which is
therein putrefied and digested.! Evidently, therefore, he
/ not only followed Hippocrates, who believed that digestion
N^' was due to the action of heat, but also some who believed
that it was due to putrefaction.

The nutritious matters, Aristotle says, passed into the
blood through numerous vessels distributed throughout the

- P. A. ii. c. 3, G50a. f Ibid. iii. c. 7, 670a, iv. c. 3, 6776.

I Ibid. iii. c. 14, 675a.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 159

mesentery, and extending, like roots, between the intestine
and the chief blood-vessels.*

The oesophagus opens into the stomach, he says, after
passing through the diaphragm, and is extensible both in
length and diameter ; the human stomach, he adds, is like
that of a dog, for it is not much wider than the intestine and
looks like a wide part of the intestine.! The omentum, he
says, is a fatty membrane attached along the middle of the
stomach where there is, as it were, a seam of that organ,
and the mesentery is a fatty membrane lying above or
dorsally to the intestines.! 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 than
that of the intestines, while its form is such as to distinguish
it at once from them. The omentum, by which he probably
meant the great omentum, is present in mammals only, but
the mesentery is found in most, if not all, vertebrates. The
w^ord used by Aristotle to denote the diaphragm is diazo77ia
or sometimes phrenes or liypozoma, but each is sometimes
used in a puzzling sense, for birds, reptiles, fishes, and even
some invertebrates are said to have a diazoma or hypozoma.
The meaning of these words can be ascertained, in such
cases, only by reference to the context, and, in many
cases, it is evident that they refer merely to a region of an
animal's body, and not to a membrane or the like serving as
a partition. Aristotle's ideas about the diazoma or hypo-
zoma, like those of Plato, are connected with his ideas about
the soul. In P. A. iii. c. 10, 6726, he says that all animals
with blood have a diazoma, sometimes called phrenes, which
is necessary for dividing the region of the nobler from that
of the animal passions.

He was aware that the stomachs of various animals vary
greatly in size and shape, and in the positions of the inlet of
the oesophagus, il but his most interesting description is that
relating to the stomach of a ruminant, such description
being so accurate as to suggest that he dissected the
stomach of one of these animals. According to him, it has
four chambers of the following kind: — "Commencing at

- P. A. iv. c. 4, 678a. \ H. A. i. c. 13, s. 9.

I Ibid. i. c. 13, s. 10, iii. c. 11, s. 2. ^ P. A. iv. c. 1, 6766.

II H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 7; P. A. iii. c. 14, 675a.

160 AKISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEKIA

the mouth, the oesophagus 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 reticuhim,
so named from its appearance, for, although it is Hke a
stomach on its outer side, it is Hke the meshwork of a net
on its inner side ; it is much smaller than the rumen. Next
to the reticulum is the psalterium, which is rough and folded
on its inner side, and about as long as the reticulum.
Finally, there is the abomasum, larger and longer than the
psalterium ; there are many delicate folds on the inner sur-
face of the abomasum, and the intestine extends from it."*
This is one of the best of Aristotle's anatomical descriptions.
The four chambers, viz., the rumen, reticulum, psalterium,
and abomasum, are called by him the meg ale Koilia,
KeJcryphalos, Echinos, and Enystron, respectively. In
P. A. iii. c. 14, 6746, he says that these chambers com-
pensate for the want of front teeth in the upper jaws of
ruminants, and that, during its passage from chamber to
chamber in succession, the food is reduced to a pulp.

Some animals, according to Aristotle, have intestinal
caeca, and no animal without front teeth in its upper jaw
has an intestine without a caecum. The elephant, he says,
has an intestine with its parts so grown together that it
seems to have four chambers for its food, and it has no
receptacle for food other than these.!

Not only animals without front teeth in the upper jaw,
or ruminants, but many others, e.g., the horse, rabbit, rat,
dog, and monkey, have a well-developed caecum. The
passage about the elephant is not clear, but it may be
mentioned that the elephant has a large caecum and,
according to Owen, its duodenum is very much con-
voluted.

Aristotle knew that some birds have a crop, for he
specially notes its presence in the domestic fowl, dove,
wood pigeon, and partridge, and says that it is a large
receptacle of skin in which the food is first received but
not digested.!

The proventriculus or glandular stomach of birds was
known to Aristotle, but he considered it to be merely a
storage chamber for food before being comminuted. § In
H.A. ii. c. 12, s. 15, he refers to the proventriculus in the

* H. A. ii. c. 12, ss. 5 and 6. \ Ibid. ii. c. 12, s. 8.

I Ibid. ii. c. 12, s. 14. § P. A. iii. c. 14, 674&.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 161

raven, crow, quail, and owl, and his statements show that
he was aware that the proventriculus was well-developed in
the first three birds, and that, in the owl, it was but little
wider than the oesophagus.

He says correctly that most birds have a fleshy and
compact gizzard, with an inner, strong skin separable from
the fleshy part.* He knew well the intestinal caeca of birds,
and states correctly that they are found in most birds, are
few in number, and are situated towards the termination of
the intestines.! It seems strange that, while he attempts
to give the numbers of the caeca in fishes, he merely says
that those of birds are few in number. The cseca in birds
are, as is now well known, almost always two.

He must have examined the alimentary canal of many
birds, but he seems to have examined that of the quail with
more than usual care. According to him, this bird has a
well-marked proventriculus, and a crop which is at a great
distance from the gizzard, considering the small size of the
bird.!

The proventriculus of the quail is close to the gizzard,
and, when gently inflated, about four-tenths of an inch in
diameter at its widest part, while the diameter of the oeso-
phagus is about three-tenths of an inch. Its crop is a
compact oval bag, and in one quail I found it to be 1"8 inches
from the gizzard, which seemed to be a great distance,
considering the size of the bird.

He states incorrectly that, in most fishes, the stomach
is connected directly to the mouth, and that, on this
account, the stomach falls forward into the mouth when
they pursue smaller fishes. §

The phenomenon described here, but incorrectly ex-
plained, occurs more especially in fishes having an air
bladder which does not communicate by means of a duct
with the alimentary canal. When a fish passes quickly or
is drawn from deep water towards the surface, the gas in
its bladder expands, and may tear the bladder and even the
mesentery and cause the anterior part of the alimentary
canal to project into the fish's mouth.

The nature of the stomach and intestines in fishes is,
he says, similar to that in snakes, for fishes have a simple
stomach of different form in different fishes, for some have

* H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 15. f Ibid. ii. c. 12, s. 17.

X Ibid. ii. c. 12, ss. 15 and 17. § Ihid. ii. 12, s. 4.

M

162

AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEEIA

a stomach which is quite different from that of others, such
as, for example, the parrot-wrasse, which is the only fish
that seems to ruminate.*

In fishes, the stomach and intestines, especially the
stomach, are usually more complicated in form than those
in snakes. Some fishes, like the sharks, have capacious
stomachs shaped like 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 (Skaros) is 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 dissection
of the stomach or to find a full description of its general
structure. The so-called ruminating habits of Aristotle's
Skaros will be dealt with in Chapter xvii.

The grey mullet has a muscular stomach which serves
as a powerful grinding organ, like a bird's gizzard, and
Aristotle, who calls this fish Kestreus, was aware of this
peculiarity.!

The pyloric caeca of fishes were well known to Aristotle,
who says that they are situated near the stomach and may
be few or many, or, in some fishes, absent.! The most
important part of his account of the numbers of caeca in
different fishes is given below.

According to Aristotle, the Malakia or cephalopods have
a long and narrow oesophagus passing into a large crop, like
that of a bird, and close to this crop is the stomach, shaped
like the whorl of a whelk ; from this an intestine, small

Aristotle's

Caeca.

Modern

Cffica.

fishes.

names.

Kestreus

Many

Grey Mullet

Six

Kobios

Cottus

Four to nine

Perke

5)

Perch

Perca fluviatilis, three
Serranus scriba, seven

Skorpios

))

Scorpaena

Eight (Cuv. and Valeuc.)

Trigle

Eed Mullet

Eight, about

Chrysophrys

Many or few

Gilt-head

Four (Cuv. and Valenc.)

Selache (most)

None

Cartilaginous

None, with few, if any,

fishes

exceptions.

* H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 13. f P- A. iii. c. 14, 675a.

\ H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 13.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 163

but wider than the oesophagus, extends backwards towards
the mouth.*

This description apphes very well to the alimentary
canal of a sepia or loligo (calamary), except that Aristotle
mistakes for a crop what is the stomach, and the stomach
for an intestinal caecum. He also states correctly that the
sepia and calamary differ in the form of the above-mentioned
parts, but adds incorrectly that the parts about the stomach
are the same in the sepia and octopus, t for the octopus has
a well-marked crop. He states correctly that the ink bag
of the cephalopods serves as a means of defence, that its
duct opens close to the terminal end of the intestine, and that
it is largest in the sepia and situated lower down than in
the octopus and calamary, t

Aristotle's statements about the gastric teeth of crusta-
ceans have been discussed in Chapter x. With respect to
the general characters of the alimentary canal in crustaceans,
he states substantially correctly that the oesophagus is
short and opens into a membranous stomach, whence
extends a simple intestine of uniform diameter. §

His descriptions of the alimentary canal in that section
of his Ostrakoderma which consists of molluscs are full
of difficulties. He mentions some species of Buccinum
{Keryx), Murex or perhaps Purpura (Porphura), and other
gastropods 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 alimentary
canal of a gastropod in P. A. iv. c. 5, 6796, where he states
that next to the mouth is a crop, like that of a bird, then a
stomachos, and next to this a coelia or stomach in which is
the mecon (liver), whence the intestine takes its origin.
Aristotle seems to be referring to the crop, which occurs, it
is true, in snails and many other gastropods, but not close
to 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 mecon
or liver he did not understand. The stomach requires to be
carefully dissected out from the enveloping mass of the
liver ; he does not seem to have done this, but took the
whole mass for the stomach, which he says contained the
mecon.

- H. A. iv. c. 1, s. 10; P. A. iv. c. 5, 6786.
f P. A. iv. c. 5, 6786. \ Ibid. iv. c. 5, 6786 and 679a.

§ H. A. iv. c. 2. ss. 10-12 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, 679(T,

164 AEISTOTLE'S ANHOMffiOMEEIA

Aristotle says that Biiccinum and Murex or Purpura
have a tongue-like proboscis which is hard and can bore
through the shells of animals used as baits.* The last part
of this statement is incorrect, for these molluscs bore mainly
by means of their radulas.

The Kochloi which appear to have comprised the snails,
Helicidce, are said by him to have a stomach close to the
mouth and like the crop of a bird ; beneath it, he adds, are
two hard, white bodies, like nipples, and from it a simple
long stomaclios extends to the mecoii in the spiral of the
shell, t What he calls the stomach seems to be the crop,
and the hard, white bodies seem to be the dart sacs of the
Helicidce.

After describing the five teeth, constituting the chief part
of what is still called " Aristotle's lantern," he says that the
oesophagus of the sea-urchin leads to the stomach, with
its five loops full of excreta, t He had evidently examined
the internal organs of a sea-urchin, in which the gastro-
intestinal canal is suspended, in the form of a coil with
loops, from the inner sides of the shell.

According to Aristotle, most of his Entoma have an
alimentary canal which passes directly and without divisions
from the mouth to the anus, but a few have a coiled alimen-
tary canal, and in some, e.g., the locust, there is a stomach
succeeded by a straight or coiled intestine. §

This is a very general description, and is not a good one.
Many larvee, myriapods, centipedes, and some others of his
Entoma have a fairly straight, simple alimentary canal, but
many of his Entoma, e.g., beetles, bees, &c., have a com-
plicated alimentary canal and intestinal caeca, the existence
of which Aristotle does not appear to have known.

F. — The Urinogenital Organs.

It has already been shown that Aristotle believed that
the blood, having left the heart, never returned, but was
used up or dissipated in various ways. It is well-known
that a part of the blood is removed by the action of the
urinary organs, but he believed that the essential organ for
the performance of this function was the bladder, and that

■■' H. A. iv. c. 4, s. 8. f Ibid, iv. c. 4, ss. 8 and 9.
I H. A. iv. c. 5, s. 5 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, 680a.
I H.A. iv. c. 7, s. 7 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, G82a.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 165

the kidneys merely assisted the bladder and might even be
absent.*

He gives some interesting information about both the
kidneys and the bladder in various animals, Eeferring
chiefly to the human kidneys, he shows clearly that he was
aware that each kidney had a hollow part and a compact
vascular part, that blood-vessels, now known as the renal
artery and renal vein, extend between the vascular part and
the aorta and great blood-vessel, respectively, and that a
strong tube, the ureter, passes from the hollow part of each
kidney to the bladder, t

The human kidneys, Aristotle says, are similar to those
of an ox, being made up, as it were, of many kidneys and
not being compact bodies, like the kidneys of sheep or some
other animals. I The kidneys of the human foetus and,
occasionally, those of the adult are lobulated, but they are
not like the kidneys of an ox. In P. A. iii. c. 9, 6716,
he says, substantially correctly, that the kidneys of a seal
are like those of an ox.

He believed that all oviparous animals, except some
tortoises, were without kidneys or bladder, although he
speaks of some birds having certain flat, kidney-like bodies. §
The Emys, by which he seems to have meant the pond-
tortoise, had neither kidneys nor bladder, because fluid
could easily escape through the soft skin of the animal.il
The marine tortoise, he says, is the only oviparous quadruped
which has its kidneys and bladder proportional in size to the
other parts of the animal, and its kidneys are, he adds, like
those of oxen;1T the land tortoises have a very small bladder,
he says, and the marine tortoises, a large one.**

Kidneys are present in birds, reptiles, amphibians, and
fishes, but a true urinary bladder is found in mammals only.
It is evident that Aristotle believed that tortoises were the
only oviparous animals in which a bladder could be said to
exist, and that in land tortoises it was very small. It is
well-known that a so-called urinary bladder is present in
many other oviparous animals, and that the bladder is
usually much larger in the land tortoises than in the marine

* P. A. iii. c. 7, 6706.
f H. A. i. c. 14, s. 7 ; P. A. iii. c. 9, 6716.

I H. A. i. c. 14. e. 7 ; P. A. iii. c. 9, 6716.

§ fl. A. ii. c. 12, s. 1 ; P. A. iii. c. 9, 671a.

II P. A. iii. c. 9, 671a. 11 H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 1.

** P. A. iii. c. 8, 671a.

166 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

ones. In some land tortoises the bladder is a large reservoir
furnishing them with moistm*e when at a distance from
their usual drinking places ; this is well exemplified by
Darwin in his Naturalist's Voijage roimd the World (2nd
edition, London, 1890, p. 409). With respect to Aristotle's
statement about the form of the kidneys of tortoises, it may
be said that these kidneys are compact but present a series
of convolutions, e.g., the surface of each kidney of a small
specimen of the Grecian tortoise showed a series of ridges and
furrows, and, when the capsule was removed, the substance
of the kidney showed the ridges and furrows very clearly
indeed, the whole forming a pattern scarcely less complicated
than that seen on the surface of the human brain.

Aristotle says that, in all animals, the right kidney is
higher or more forward than the left, and is drier and less
fatty.* The right kidney is generally nearer the head than
the left in mammals and in the grass-snake and some other
snakes. In Man and the pig the left kidney is often a little
nearer the head than the right, while the kidneys of most
birds, of some pigs and sheep, and of the frog and some
other 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, it may be said that, when the kidneys
are unsymmetrical in position, the amount of fat about the
one which is nearer the head is greater than that about the
other.

It has been shown how, contrary to the modern opinion,
Aristotle subordinated the kidneys to the bladder ; in a
somewhat similar way he subordinated the testes to the
seminal ducts. This will be clear from the following
epitome oi G. A. i. c. 4: — The testes are not necessary for
reproductive purposes, for, if they were, they would be found
in all animals which reproduce. Now, neither snakes nor
fishes have testes, yet their poroi (ducts) are full of semen.
The testes, in fact, serve a kind of regulating purpose only,
and are not parts of the poroi, but attachments, just like the
stones which weavers attach to the warp, and, when the
testes are removed, the poroi are withdrawn backwards.
Hence, in such a case, the poroi are withdrawn and the
animal becomes impotent, but, in one instance, a bull was
temporarily potent because the poroi were not withdrawn.

•-:= H. A.i. c. 14, s. 7.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 167

Evidently, therefore, the organs serving to secrete the
semen were, according to him, the seminal ducts, and the
testes were adjuncts sufficiently important, in some cases, to
ensure their efficiency. In some cases, the ducts could act
without the aid of the testes, for, in many passages, he
makes it clear that there were no organs to which he could
give the name testes in some animals, viz., in snakes, fishes,
and all animals with gills.* He was probably deceived
mainly by the usually elongated and duct-like form of the
testes in these animals. Cartilaginous fishes usually have
testes of a compact form, but it is not clear whether he in-
tended to include these fishes within the meaning of the
passages above cited. Probably he did not, for he often
describes the cartilaginous fishes as if they were a separate
and distinct group.

In a long series of passages in H. A. iii. c. 1, ss. 7-9,
Aristotle gives a remarkable description of the anatomy of
the 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 dis-
sections. Notwithstanding many difficulties in the Greek
text, it is evident that he had some knowledge of the
spermatic arteries, the epididymis, the vas deferens and its
communication with the urethra, and the tunica vaginalis,
part of which envelops the epididymis. He states that the
testes are not of flesh, but are nearly of the nature of flesh. +
The second part of this statement is incorrect ; each testis
is composed chiefly of a very large number of seminiferous
tubules, enclosed within a strong, white, fibrous envelope.

Among the numerous statements he makes about the
male organs of particular kinds of animals are some of
special interest. He says that the testes of the elephant
are near the kidneys, I and that the testes of some animals,
e.g., the lizard, tortoise, crocodile, and hedgehog, are in the
region of the kidneys, but some have them near the
abdominal wall, like the dolphin and elephant. §

The first statement, relating to the elephant, is quite
correct, for, according to Dr. M. Watson, the testes, which
are nearly globular, lie below the posterior ends of the
kidneys. li The testes of the dolphin are abdominal, and lie

* n. A. ii. c. 9, ss. 1 and 2, ii. c. 12, s. 10, iii. c. 1, s. 1 ; P. A. iv.
c. 13, 697rt; G. A. i. c. 3, 716&.

f H. A. i. c. 10, 8. 4. I Ibid. ii. c. 3, s. 4. § Ibid. iii. c. 1, s. 2.
II Journ, Anat. and Physiol, vol. vii. 1873, p. 65.

168 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

far back. Those of the hedgehog undergo, as is well known
a great change both in position and size, according to the
time of year. Aristotle's statements about the testes of the
lizard, tortoise, and crocodile are substantially correct.

His statements about the os penis of the marten and
other animals have been discussed in Chapter x.

Much has been written about the hectocotylus of the
argonaut, octopus, and other cephalopods, which is an arm
specially modified for the purpose of conveying the sperma-
tozoa to the female. Aristotle was the first to describe this
organ and to suggest its proper function. He says, speaking
particularly of an octopus : " Some say that the male has
some kind of external generative organ in one of its arms,
on which are two very large suckers, that such organ is
sinewy, as it were, as far as the middle of the arm, and that
the whole of it is sent into the funnel of the female."*
The male, he says, differs from the female in having a
longer head and the part of the arm, called the generative
organ by fishermen, is white.! The last of its arms, he
says, is the most pointed of all, is the only one which is
whitish, and is used in copulation. I Finally, he says that
the male must approach the funnel of the female, whether
he emits semen, a part [of his body] , or any other agent,
and that the insertion of that arm of the octopus, which
fishermen say is used in copulation, through the funnel is
for the sake of an intertwining and not for the purpose of
an organ of generation, for it is outside the funnel and body
of the female. §

It is clear, therefore, that he believed, on the authority
of fishermen, that the strangely modified arm was an organ
of generation. There does not seem to be sufficient evidence
to show that he knew of the free or so-called autotomous
hectocotylus of the argonaut and some other cephalopods.
The cephalopod to which his descriptions w^ere intended to
refer is generally admitted to be Octopus vulgaris of the
Mediterranean. A description of the hectocotylised arm of
this cephalopod is given in Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), xx. pp.
98-9, where it is said that the arm is short and pointed at
its end, and that it has a very white fold of skin on its
dorsal side and sometimes one or two exceptionally large
suckers. If this description is compared with Aristotle's,

■•• H. A. V. c. 5, s. 1. I Ibid. v. c. 10, s. 1.

+ Ibid. iv. c. 1, s. 6. § G. A. i. c. 15, 720&.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 169

it will be evident that this cephalopod was carefully examined
by him.

The very well-known account, given in Owen's Anat.
Invertebr., 1855, pp. 630-1, and in many other zoological
works, of the way in which several investigators rediscovered
the hectocotylus and determined its nature, reads like a
romance. A comparison of the views of some of these
investigators with those expressed by Aristotle should increase
his reputation as an investigator.

Aristotle noticed the vasa deferentia of the Karides,
crustaceans which cannot be identified satisfactorily but
seem to have comprised prawns and shrimps, for he says
that the males have two coiled, white tubes extending from
the bases of the last pair of legs into the body.* The rest
of his description is not clear, but he seems to have believed
erroneously that seminal ducts extended alongside the in-
testine from the coiled tubes to the telson. This is borne
out by his statement that in the male Karahos, or spiny
lobster, ducts containing seminal fluid extend to the anus
from the thoracic part.f

It has been stated already that the two hard white
bodies below the crop of the KocJilosl were probably the
dart sacs, but Aristotle did not understand their sexual
functions. He did not consider his Ostrakoderma to have
any separate male seminal organs. This seems to be a fair
conclusion from the numerous statements which he makes.
One of these may be specially cited. In G. A. iii. c. 11, 761&,
he says that Buccinum, Murex, and others said to make cells
like bee-hives, or egg-cases, eject a sticky fluid from some-
thing of a spermatic nature, but that we ought not to
consider this to be semen but something which, in a sense,
partakes of the nature of what is in plants.

He recognized that there was a distinction of sexes in
some of his Entoma, but )t^e does not seem to have believed
that the males had any seminal ducts. He says distinctly
that, among those which copulate, the males do not appear
to have any seminal ducts. § The idea that sexual genera-
tion under such circumstances could take place may seem
to be strange, but it will be seen from Chapter xiv. that it
was in accordance with some of Aristotle's views on generation.

When describing the female organs, Aristotle repeatedly
uses an important anatomical term, viz., hystera, to denote

- H. A. iv. c. 2, s. 13. f Ibid. iv. c. 2, s. 12

I Ibid. iv. c. 4, s. 8. § G. A. i. c. 16, 721a.

170 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

one or more parts of these organs. That the Jujstera is
internal is clear from many passages, and especially from
G. A. i. c. 12, 719a, where it is stated that the hystera is
internal in all females, because of the need for guarding the
young animal and keeping it warm. Its meaning is clear
to this limited extent, but it is often difficult to decide to
what part or parts the term refers. In some cases it means
the 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 does
not always distinguish between the uterus and the ovaries,
and, in G. A. i. c. 3, 7166, he says that all hystercs are in
two parts, just as there are two testes in males. He also
mentions the hysterce in close connection and by way of
comparison with the testes. His fullest description of the
uterus of a mammal is in H. A. iii. c. 1, ss. 10 and 11.
It seems to be clear that he gave the name hystera
more particularly to the more external and the name
delphys to the innermost parts of the uterus, and that he
was acquainted with the cornua or horns of the uterus in
some animals, and with the twisted or waved parts of the
Fallopian tubes or oviducts.

One of the most interesting passages relating to the
hystera of viviparous animals is that in which he records
the existence of placental animals. He says that the
hysterce of ruminants and also the hare, mouse, and bat,
among animals with front teeth in both jaws, have cotyle-
dones (placentae) in the pregnant hystera, and that all other
viviparous animals with feet and with front teeth in both
jaws have a smooth hystera, the foetus being attached to the
hystera itself and not to a cotyledon.*

The animals in which the placentae are restricted to
circumscribed patches are much more numerous than
Aristotle believed, and among them may be specially
mentioned, in addition to those mentioned by Aristotle, the
Carnivora and Insectivora.

In his short descriptions of the hysterce of birds, reptiles,
batrachians, and cartilaginous fishes, m. H. A. iii. c. 1, ss. 12
and 13, he clearly refers to the oviducts communicating with
a single passage leading to the exterior.

" H, A, iii. c. 1, s. 15.

AND THEIK FUNCTIONS. 171

He did not believe that fishes had any visible external
passages from the generative organs.* In cartilaginous
fishes, the genital passages open into a cloaca, but in most
bony fishes the external passages from the generative organs
are visible behind the anus, and may be readily seen in the
bass, gurnard, silurus, and salmon.

Aristotle's descriptions of the female generative organs
of the invertebrata are sometimes very difficult to under-
stand at all. They were probably based on dissections, but
it is almost certain that the parts were not dissected out at
all clearly.

He misunderstood the arrangement of the female organs
of crustaceans in much the same way as he misunderstood
the arrangement of the male organs, for he speaks of the
oviducts extending along the intestine and opening out-
wards somewhere on the telson.t

The female octopus, he says, has an woV, meaning
probably the ovarium, uneven outside, smooth and white
inside, and containing a very large quantity of eggs ; in
Sepia, he says, there are two such ovaria, also containing
many white eggs.+ This appears to be his meaning, but it
is difficult to understand, for the eggs are contained in
ovisacs projecting from the interior surface of the ovarium,
and no cephalopod seems to have more than one ovarium ;
Sepia has one oviduct while Octopus has two.

There are many other statements about the generative
parts of these and other invertebrata, and, among these,
may be specially mentioned the one in which he correctly
records the number of the ovaria in Echinus, for he says
that they are five in number. §

He gives some information, chiefly mH. A. ii. c. 3, about
the teats of various animals. He states correctly that the
elephant has two teats between its fore legs, and that the
camel and leopardess have four each, but gives the number
of teats in the bear as four instead of six, and that in the
lioness 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-
terior part but near its genitals, that it has no visible teats, but
two ducts, as it were, one on each side, from which the
milk flows, being sucked by the young ones as they follow
their mother, and that this had been clearly seen by some

- H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 2. f Ibid. iv. c. 2, ss. 12 and 13.

X Ibid. iv. c. 1) ss. 13 and 14. § Ibid. iv. c. 5, s. 5.

172 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA.

people.* These statements are substantially correct. Ac-
cording to Cuvier, there are two mammae, whence milk flows
through nipples situated in little pits (fossettes), one on each
side of the vulva, t

Male solid-hoofed animals have no teats, Aristotle says,
except those which resemble their dams, a phenomenon
which is seen in horses, t The horse is one of the com-
paratively few animals in which the males are without
teats, but John Hunter found traces of them in some
stallions. §

The above comprise the most interesting parts of
Aristotle's researches on the urinogenital organs. There
are many others in various parts of his works, but those
discussed are sufficient, perhaps, to represent fairly the
value of his researches.

* H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 1.

f Lccons d'Anat. Compar., 2nd edition, Paris, vol. viii. 1846, pp.
604 and 608.

I H. A. ii. c. 3, s. 2.

§ The Works of John Hunter, edit, by J. F. Palmer, 1835-7, vol. iv.
p. 37.

CHAPTEK XII.

AKISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEMA AND THEIR
FUNCTIONS {continued).

G. — The Beain and Spinal Coed.

Aeistotle's views on the nature and functions of some
important organs of animals were very different from
modern views on the same subjects. This has been made
clear in the preceding chapters and is strikingly exempli-
fied by his views on the brain and spinal cord.

He believed that the brain was not a centre of sensation,
but a cooling means adapted to moderate the heat of the
body and to aid, or render more certain, the action of
the sensory organs, while the spinal marrow, being of a hot
nature, moderated the action of the brain. Such, speaking
generally, were his views.

Some philosophers, he says, believe that sensation resides
in the brain, but this is not true, for, since the brain is quite
devoid of feeling, it cannot be a cause of sensation ; the
philosophers referred to are aware that the brain is the most
peculiar organ of the body, and that some of the sense
organs are lodged in the head. They cannot, he adds, find
out the cause of this, yet infer that the brain and sensation
are associated together, but it has been shown already that
the heart is the sensory centre.*

Among philosophers who believed that the brain was
the centre of sensation were Diogenes of Apollonia and
Alcmseon. Aristotle clearly suggests that they reasoned on
insufficient data. He himself considered their views and
rejected them. His investigation and process of reasoning
about this subject exemplify both the excellences and defects
of his method. His observations on the brain, in one or
more animals, led him to believe that it was cold, that its
substance was bloodless, and that it was devoid of sensation ;
he also concluded that the brain was found in animals with

- P. A. ii. c, 10, 656a.

174 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

blood, and that a brain or anything analogous to a brain
was not found in other animals, except the cephalopods. *
Sensation he believed to be manifested more especially in
parts with blood, and, in one passage, which seems to be an
interpolation, it is stated that no part that is without blood
has sensation, t This passage must be read, however, in
conjunction with many other passages showing that he
meant that no part that is without blood or what is
analogous to blood manifests sensation, for his so-called
bloodless animals have sensitive parts. He recognized,
however, an apparent connection between sensation and the
presence of blood, and, reasoning consistently, concluded
that 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, is
quite intelligible. There remain, however, a series of
statements which are not always consistent and are difficult
to understand. A strong argument in favour of the view
that the brain is the sensory centre is that it is connected
with the sense organs by what are now called nerves. Now
Aristotle concluded, and adduced arguments to support his
conclusion, that the brain was not connected with the sense
organs. He says : "It is clear from inspection and still
more from its being insensible when touched that the brain
has no unbroken connection {awex^ia) with sensory organs."!
Yet there are a few passages which suggest, and one which
seems to show, that he noticed such a connection, but he
did not admit that the connection was with the brain, but
with the blood-vessels about the brain. These passages will
next be discussed.

He says : "Three ducts {'nopoi) extend from each eye to the
brain, the largest and the medium-sized one to the cere-
bellum, and the smallest, which is nearest the nose, to the
brain itself. The largest ducts lie side by side and do not
come into contact with each other, but the medium-sized
ones do so ; this is especially evident in fishes, for the
medium-sized ducts are nearer the brain than the largest,
and the smallest are very much separated from each other
and do not come into contact. "§

-'' P. A. ii. c. 7, 6526 ; H. A. iii. c. 14, s. 1, and in many other pass-
ages in his works.

\P.A. ii. c. 10, 6566. + Ibid. ii. c. 7, 6526.

§ H.AA.Q.;^, s. 4.

/6

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 175

The medium-sized ducts may be the optic nerves, except
that they are said to pass to the cerebelhim. Aristotle says
that they come into contact with, or fall on, each other
{sy??ipiptousi) , and that this is well seen in fishes, suggesting
that he had seen the meeting or crossing of the optic nerves.
Aristotle's description is insufficient for the determination of
the other ducts. Dissections of various animals, especially
fishes, made for the purpose of determining these ducts, have
not enabled me to arrive at a conclusion.

The next passage to be considered is much less ambigu-
ous. Aristotle says : " The brain of the chamseleon is a
little above its eyes and continuous (ffwsx^i) with them."*
This shows as clearly as any passage can be expected to do
that he saw the optic nerves of the chamseleon to their full
extent, yet, as has been stated already, he did not admit
that the brain was in unbroken connection with the sense
organs. He did not understand the nature of the nerves
which he saw. On the contrary, it seems that he considered
them to be ducts conveying nutriment or other fluid, for he
says that the purest of the moisture about the brain is
separated through the ducts which are seen to lead from
the eyes to the membrane about the brain, f

Not one of the passages relating to the ducts between
the brain and sense organs is as clear as that already given
about the chamaeleon. It seems strange that, after having
exposed the optic nerve by dissection in the way which that
passage suggests, he should have adhered to his belief in the
want of an unbroken connection between the substance of
the 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 not
believe in such a connection. In H. A. i. c. 9, s. 1, it is
stated that no duct (to'/joj) extends from the brain to either
ear, but a blood-vessel extends from the brain to each ear ;
in P. A. ii. c. 10, 6566, however, it is stated that a duct ex-
tends from each ear to the back part of the head. The
effect of the various passages previously cited is to show
that the ducts, whatever their real nature may be, do not
lead to the substance of the brain, but to some part of the
blood system, and so communicate with the heart,
Aristotle's centre of sensation.

There is an interesting passage which bears upon the

* H. A. ii. c. 7, s. 5. f G. A. ii. c. 6, 744fl.

176 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCKOMERIA

question of the extent of Aristotle's knowledge of what are
now called nerves. In that passage he says : " Numbness
does not affect any part of the body where there is no vej/^ov."*
This statement, at first sight, might seem to be evidence of
an important discovery, but it has already been shown how
unlikely it is that he ever distinguished nerves from sinews
(vBupa.). This distinction was first effected, to some extent,
by Erasistratus and Herophilus, and more fully by Eufus
Ephesius and Galen.

Aristotle, giving his own views on the functions of the
brain, says that Nature has arranged that it should act in
opposition to the heart, which is hot, and so regulate it, and
has formed the brain of material which is earthy and watery
and therefore adapted to have a cooling effect.! The brain,
according to him, exercises a very important function in
connection with the heart, and is one of the most important
organs of the body ; he says that it is reasonable that the
membranes about the brain and the heart should be very
strong and stout, because the heart and brain require most
protection, since they are the chief regulating powers of
life.t That the brain, under the influence of pain, grief, or
pleasure, exercises a marked effect on the heart is very well
known. Aristotle points this out very clearly, although he
does not correctly explain it. He says that the heart is
very much influenced by the smallest change in the blood on
the outer surface of the brain. §

The sensory organs which he considered to be more
reliable than the others are usually situated in the head, for
they are rendered more certain in their action, he says, in
consequence of their being supplied with the purest blood ;
the effect of the action of hot blood would also be to impair
the action of the sensory organs, and the eyes in particular
are in the head because, he says in effect, both the brain
and the eyes are of the nature of water. ||

Aristotle's views on the functions of the brain, therefore,
are not fairly represented by stating that the brain is a
cooling means, and still less fairly by stating, as Galen seems
to do, 11 that Aristotle considered the brain to be a mere
sponge, as it were, saturated with water. On the contrary,
he assigned to it very important functions in connection

- H. A. in. c. 5, s. 4. f P. A. ii. c. 7, G526.

I Ibid. iii. c. 11, 6736. § Ibid. ii. c. 7, 6536.

II Ibid. ii. c. 10, 6566 ; De Sens2i, dc, c. 2, 488a.
H De Usu Partium, dc, viii. c. 3.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 177

with the sensory organs, and considered it to be a peculiar
organ second in importance only to the heart.

His views on the spinal marrow were almost entirely
erroneous. He considered it to be different from ordinary
marrow, but decided that it required to be composed of a
glutinous and sinewy substance, to enable it to assist in
holding the vertebrae together.* He says that there were
some who, seeing that the brain and spinal marrow were
continuous, concluded that the brain consisted of marrow,
but, he says, they are quite different in character, the
marrow being hot and the brain cold, so that the marrow
moderates the action of the brain, t

Aristotle gives some interesting information about the
brain and its membranes in certain animals. In Man,
and other animals which have a brain, he says, it lies in the
front part of the head, the back of the head being empty to
an extent varying with the size of the animal, but Man has
a brain which, considering his size, is larger and moister
than that of any other animal. I

His views on the nature of the organ of hearing probably
induced him to believe in the existence of an air cavity in
the back of the head, for he says that the so-called empty
space at the back of the head contains air, that the organ of
hearing is of air, and that a duct connects each ear with the
back of the head.§ He may also have been influenced by
statements, in a treatise by Hippocrates, || and one probably
by a contemporary of Hippocrates, 51 that the brain lies
more towards the front than the back of the head, which
contains only a small amount of brain.

His estimate of the relative size of the human brain is
not quite true. The average weight of the brain of an
adult man to his total weight is as 1 to 45 about; the
corresponding ratios for the long-tailed field mouse, house
martin, and sparrow are about 1 to 30, 1 to 33, and 1 to 30
respectively, and the brain of the goldfinch or the blue tit
is relatively still larger. It will be seen that all these are
small animals.

It is not true that the brain of Man is moister than that
of other animals, but Aristotle's statement is in accordance
with his ideas of the cooling function of the brain. Dr.

* P. A. ii. c. 6, 6516 and 652a. f Ibid. ii. c. 7, 652a.
I H. A.i.c. 7, i. c. 13, s. 2 ; P. A. ii. c. 7, 653a.
§ P. A. ii. c. 10, 6566. |! On Wounds in the Head, c. 2.

IT On Diseases, ii. c. 8,

N

178 AKISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

Ogle suggests that the statement is based on an examination
of the foetal brain,* It is practically certain that Aristotle
did not examine an adult human brain, but he may have
examined the brain of some animal in which brain a rapid
decomposition had set in. I have been informed of a case
in which, the brain pan having been removed for the
purpose of taking out the brain from a comparatively fresh
body, a large part of the brain flowed away.

Aristotle states that there are two membranes about the
brain, a weaker vascular one about the brain itself and a
stronger one next the bone ; that the brain is divided into
right and left halves ; that the cerebellum at the extreme
end of it differs in appearance and texture from the rest of
the brain ; and that, in most animals, there is a small
cavity in the middle of the brain.!

There are three membranes about the brain, the inner-
most being the pia mater, which is intimately associated
with the arachnoid membrane or middle membrane, and the
outermost being the dura mater. Aristotle probably saw
the strong dura mater, and the other two membranes, these
two delicate membranes constituting his inner membrane.
The cerebellum is somewhat darker than the rest of the brain,
and is striated or ribbed externally, while in form it is quite
different, as Aristotle says, from the rest of the brain. The
statement about the small cavity in the middle of the brain
is true as far as it goes. In vertebrates, there are cavities
or ventricles (four in Man) within the brain and in com-
munication with one another.

In several passages he makes it clear that he believed
that the substance of the brain was quite bloodless. 1 This
belief has been used against him by some of his critics.

It is clear from several passages, e. g., H. A. iii. c. 3, s. 7,
that he knew of the presence of blood and blood-vessels in
the membranes about the brain, and he says that the brain
itself is bloodless, so that he evidently refers to the brain
divested of its membranes. This does not, however, over-
come the difficulty, for if the brain of a mammal, such as a
sheep or rabbit, be examined, after removal of the membranes
and careful washing, small blood-vessels can be seen ex-
tending some distance into it. Some have suggested that
Aristotle made his observations only on the brain of an

■'• Aristotle on the Parts of Animals, 1882, p. 165.

f H. A. i. c. 13, ss. 2 aud 3, iii. c. 11, s. 1.

I H. A. i. c. 13, s. 3, iii. c. 3, s. 8 ; P. A. ii. c. 7, 652a.

AND THEIE FUNCTIONS. 179

animal which had been cooked, or on the brain of some
reptile or fish.

It has been mentioned already, in this chapter, that only
in his Malakia (cephalopods) did he find, among his Anaima,
anything corresponding with a brain. His knowledge of
the cephalopods was extensive and he is quite right in his
statement about the brain of these animals, which have a
part of their nervous system concentrated into a mass
protected by a cartilaginous case, the whole appearing like
a rudimentary brain and skull. The cartilaginous case is
referred to by him m H. A. iv. c. 1, s, 9.

H. — The Senses and Sensoey Organs,

Aristotle argues that there are not more than five senses,
viz., sight, hearing, smell, taste, and touch, and says that
some animals have all these but others have only some of
them, among those which have all the senses being Man
and viviparous animals with blood, with some possible
exceptions, such as, for example, the Aspalax or mole,*

He distinguished between sight, hearing, and smell,
acting through some medium, e.g., air, between the subject
and the object of sensation, and taste and touch, which are
less dependent on the presence of such a medium. It will
be convenient, in discussing his views, to deal with touch and
taste first, and then smell, hearing, and sight.

According to Aristotle, touch is the primary sense,
apparently because it is present in all animals and enables
us to appreciate differences in the elementary qualities of
matter, such as solidity and temperature.! Although he
considers it to be the primary sense, he discusses whether it
is not several senses rather than one, being the least simple
of the senses, for, unlike the eye, which distinguishes
differences in colour, or the ear, which distinguishes differ-
ences in tone, the tactile organ, whatever it may be,
distinguishes differences in many qualities, and he suggests
that, while sight and hearing seem to be distinct senses
because their media are distinct, touch may be made up of
several senses blended, as it were, in consequence of their
having a common medium. I

" Be Anima, iii. c. 1, 4246 and 425(t, ii. c. 2, 4136 and 414fi; H. A.
iv. c. 8, 8, 1.

f P, A. ii. c. 8, 65.36 ; De Anima, ii. c. 2, 4136, ii. c. 11, 4226,
\ P. A. ii. c. 1, G47a; De Anima, ii. c, 11, 4226,

180 AKISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

He often discusses the question of the nature and position
of the organ of touch, but nowhere does he seem to arrive at
a definite conchision. Flesh or something analogous to it
is, he says, the chief organ of touch, either in the same way
as the eye is the organ of sight or else it corresponds with
the eye together with some transparent medium,* He
prefers to believe that touch does not act by direct contact,
that the true organ of touch is not the flesh, but some-
thing internal to this, and he instances what happens when
the hand, covered by a stretched membrane, touches some
object ; in this case, the object is felt, but the membrane is
not, on that account, the organ of touch, but is merely a
medium.! He also points out that, in other respects, there
is not necessarily direct contact between the flesh and the
object any more than there is contact between water and a
body immersed therein, for a film of air may be between
the water and the body.t

According to Aristotle, the sense of touch is closely
connected with the heart. § It has already been explained
that 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 of
touch on the presence of tactile organs beneath the skin and
in communication with the central nervous system Aristotle's
views were very far removed.

Taste is, according to Aristotle, a kind of touch, for,
like touch, it does not require the interposition of a medium
such as is necessary between a coloured body and the eye. ||
He also considered the heart or the region of the heart to
be the chief sensory organ both of taste and touch. II

There is a close relationship, it is true, between taste
and touch, which Aristotle could not have known. This
relationship is that shown by the fact that the sensory
nerves of the tongue are both gustatory and tactile.

He says that while, in some animals, there are two eyes,
two ears, and two nostrils symmetrically placed, this double
nature of the sense organs is not evident in the case of touch,
but is indicated in the case of taste, for some animals, e.g.,
snakes, lizards, and seals have a forked tongue.**

* P. A. ii. c. 8, 6536. f De Anima, ii. c. 11, 423rt and b. | Ihid.

§ De Sensii, dc, c. 2, 439rt ; P. A. ii. c. 10, 656rt.

II P. A. ii. c. 10, 657a ; De Anima, ii. c. 10, 422a.

II De Sensu, dc, c. 2, 439a ; P. A. ii. c. 10, 656a.

*=!• P. A. ii. c. 10, 657a, ii. c. 17, 6606, iv. c. 11, 691a.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 181

It is well known that snakes and many lizards have
forked tongues, and seals have a deeply notched tongue.

The sense of taste, he says, is in the tip of the tongue,
for if anything is placed on the flat part of the tongue, the
sense of taste is not so delicate.*

This statement needs to be modified. The sense of
taste, as far as the tongue is concerned, is developed most
in the upper part of the back of the tongue, and in its tip
and marginal parts. The middle part of the tongue is but
slightly sensitive, and this may be readily proved by placing
a little salt, chamomile infusion, or sugar thereon.

He states that the tongue of the lynx (wryneck) is
peculiar, being like that of snakes, for its length, when
extended, is equal to four fingers' breadth, t Except that
the tongue of the wryneck is not forked, but vermiform,
these statements are correct.

He believed that birds with the broadest tongues could
talk. I Birds of prey, he says, generally have broad tongues,
and so has the PsittaJce (parrot), an Indian bird, which is
said to have a tongue like that of a man.§

He makes inconsistent statements about the tongue of
the crocodile. In P. ^. iv. c. 11, 6906, he seems to say that
it has no tongue, but, in P. A. ii, c. 17, 6606, he admits the
presence of a tongue adherent to the lower jaw. This
statement is correct, for the crocodile has a large tongue
attached to the floor of the mouth in such a way that it
cannot be protruded but only raised.

The tongue of the chamaeleon is very peculiar, being
very long, extensible, and clubbed at the free end, but,
strange to say, Aristotle says nothing about this, although
he knew this animal very well indeed.

He says that fishes have a sense of taste, for many of
them delight in particular kinds of food, but that the
tongue of fishes is indistinct, being bony and adherent
to the mouth. II

It is not clear why Aristotle makes so little of the tongue
in fishes. The tongue is very conspicuous in many fishes,
e.g., the conger and bass, with which he was very well ac-
quainted. In one bass, a 4-lb. fish, I found that the
free part of the tongue was wide and thick, and nearly an
inch long.

* H. A. i. e. 9, s. 6. f Ibid. ii. c. 8, s. 2.

I P. A. ii. c. 17, 660a. 5 H. A. viii. c. 14, s. 6.

II H. A. iv. c. 8, s. 4 ; P. A. iv. c. 11,6906.

182 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

He says that the Kyprinos (carp) has its palate so fleshy
that it might be mistaken for a tongue.* He is referring to
the fleshy and sensitive pad which is found at the back part
of the palate of this fish.

He refers to what he calls the tongue or tongue-like part
of cephalopods, molluscs, crustaceans, insects, and other
invertebrates, t but it is not always clear to what parts he
is referring. In some cases, he evidently refers to the
odontophore in molluscs, and the proboscis in insects.

The olfactory organ in animals with lungs was, according
to Aristotle, the nose, but, in animals without lungs, the
place of this was taken by the gills, or, in insects, by the
hypozoma, or part of the body between the thorax and
abdomen. I All these organs corresponded with one another
in being cooling organs, and, since the nose was clearly an
organ of smell, Aristotle probably reasoned by analogy and
concluded that the gills and hypozoma were also organs of
smell.

Fishes, he says, clearly have a sense of smell, for most
fishes are attracted by fresh baits only, and some are taken
by means of baits having a particular smell. § They have,
he says, no visible organs of smell nor visible olfactory
passages. II He refers, however, to certain ducts which
appeared to be in the place of nostrils ;^ these ducts are
now known to be the external olfactory passages of fishes,
but Aristotle misunderstood their nature.

Cephalopods, crustaceans, and insects and other animals
belonging to his Entoma have, he states correctly, a sense of
smell, and he specially refers to the keenness of the sense of
smell in bees.**

Aristotle's views on the manner in which the presence
of an odoriferous substance is detected are not clearly ex-
pressed. It appears, however, particularly from De Anima,
ii. c. 7, 419a, that he believed that the odoriferous substance
affected the medium, such as, for example, air or water,
which then affected the sense organ, the medium having a
property which had a relation to smell similar to that which
Aristotle's Diaphanous had to vision. He himself says that
this property has no distinctive name, but, according to

- H. A. iv. c. 8, s. 4 ; P. A. ii. c. 17, 6606.
f P. A. iv. c. 5 ; H. A. iv. cc. 1-5.
J P. A. ii. c. 16, 6596. § H. A. iv. c. 8, ss. 11-13.

II H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 6 ; P. A. ii. c. 10, 656a.
'^ H. A. iv. c. 8, a. 5. -* Ihid. iv. c. 8, s. 15.

AND THEIE FUNCTIONS. 183

Suidas, Tlieophrastus called it to ^loufxov, usually translated
the transolfacient. In a somewhat similar way, Aristotle
seems to have believed that air had a quality, to which
he gave no distinctive name, enabling the air to transmit
sound.* Theophrastus is said to have given to this quality
the name to ^inx^i, usually translated the trans-sonant.

By reference to some of the main structures of the ear,
Aristotle gives a more practical explanation of the act of
hearing. He says, in effect, that the motion of sound is com-
municated through the air to the ear, the air acting like a
body which is ctw£%£j, or made up of matter without any
intervening spaces. The air then transmits its motion to
the air enclosed within the coiled passage of the inner ear
by the tympanum. t

The ear is able to discriminate clearly different motions
transmitted through the air, Aristotle says, because the air
within it is normally at rest or nearly so.t In a similar
way, he believed that the other sense organs were normally
in what may be called a neutral or balanced condition
(^£(TOT)75), with respect to the influences by which they were
excited. §

He does not say much about the anatomy of the ear.
After confuting a strange belief of Alcmeeon that goats
breathe through their ears, he says that the outer ear is
formed of flesh and cartilage, that the internal ear is of coiled
form, and that there is no duct from the ear to the brain,
but one to the chamber of the mouth. || This seems to show
that he was aware of the existence of what is now known as
the Eustachian canal, afterwards rediscovered by Eustachius
of Salerno (1500-74).

He 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 of
these animals seems to have escaped his notice (although
he knew of the existence of otoliths in fishes), and nowhere
does he explain the manner in which they heard.

Aristotle says that some people, dwelling near the sea,
asserted that fishes could hear better than other animals,
and that those fishes which could hear best were the grey
mullet, bass, and certain fishes called Chremps, Chromis,

■■■■ De Anima, ii, c. 7, il'M. t Ibid. ii. c. 8, 4196 and 420a.

I Ibid. ii. c. 8, 420a. § Ibid. ii. c. 11, 424a.

il H. A. i. c. 9, s. 1. IT Ibid. iv. c. 8, ss. 5-9, ii. c. 9, s. 6,

184 ARISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMERIA

and Salpe* He refers to the otoliths in fishes, citing the
Labrax (bass), Phagros (common pagre), Chromis, and
Shiaina, and says that these fishes suffer most in winter,
the otoHths having a cooHng effect on their heads, t

His records of otoliths are interesting. The bass has
ear-stones or otoliths which are elongated, hollowed, and
waved or notched at their edges ; one from a 4-lb. bass
I found to be five-eighths of an inch long. I do not know
anything about the ear-stones of the pagre, but those of
the ScicenidcB, to which Aristotle's Chromis and SJciaina
probably belong, are remarkable for their large size (Cuvier
and Valenciennes, Hist, des Poissons, vol. v. p. 8), and those
of Plagioscion surinamensis, a freshwater sciaenid from
British Guiana, are represented in The Zoologist, 1910,
p. 293, and are both long and broad.

Sight was, according to Aristotle, a sense of a particularly
special or distinct nature. + His meaning is expressed in
De Anima, ii. c. 6, 418a, where he says that some qualities
of objects are perceived by certain senses only, and not by
others, e.g., colour is the peculiar exciting cause of sight, and
sound is that of hearing, but heat and cold, hardness and
softness can be readily perceived by means of the tongue as
well as the external skin.

Sight, he says, is more important for the practical
purposes of life, while hearing is of most use for training
the mind.§

It seems strange, at first, that Aristotle should place
hearing before sight for educational purposes, but there is
much good reason for this, for, among the ancient Greeks,
recitation, the cultivation of the memory, and the practice
of music were of great educational value. To-day, the
imperative necessity for repeatedly using the eyes for read-
ing and writing and for making observations has caused
the possession of sight to be more important than that of
any other sense for educational purposes.

Aristotle's views on light and colour have been discussed
already in Chapter iv. It is there explained that he believed
that air, water, and all other bodies, in a greater or less
degree, have a something or quality which he called the
Diaphanous. He had no knowledge of the functions of
the optic nerves, but considered that colour caused move-

" H. A. iv. c. 8, s. 10. \ Ibid. viii. c. 20, s. 5.

I De Anima, iii. c. 3, 429a. § De Sensu, rfc, c. 1, 437a.

AND THEIR FUNCTIONS. 185

ments in the medium, e.g., air or water, which acted on
the eye by the agency of the Diaphanous.* He beheved
that the eye was of ivater, a proof being that water ran
from it, when ruptured, but he did not beheve that the eye
was capable of sight because of this presence of water,
except in so far as it was transparent. In this respect, air
would have been as efficient, but Aristotle believed that the
eye was of ivater because this is less yielding, and is also
more easily confined than air.t

Aristotle knew very little of the anatomy of the eye,
beyond certain parts which were evident on cursory ex-
amination, viz., the pupil, the iris, the white sclerotic, the
aqueous or the vitreous humour, or both, and the nictitating
membrane of some animals.

All viviparous animals, he says, except the Aspalax
(mole), have eyes, for the Aspalax does not see at all, nor
does it possess eyes which are plainly visible, but, when the
skin is removed, the places for the eyes are seen, and the
" irises " occupy the exact positions naturally belonging to
the eyes, as seen from outside, the appearance being just as
if the eyes had been injured during their development, and
the skin had grown over them.t

In many other passages Aristotle refers to the blindness
of the Aspalax. This was probably the common mole
{Talpa europea), but some have tried to identify it with the
so-called blind mole (T. cccca), which Dobson describes as a
distinct species, characterized chiefly by the presence of
membranes over its eyes,§ while Camerano considers it to
be merely a variety of the common mole. |1

Whichever view is correct, it is certain that skins of the
so-called blind moles are not readily distinguishable from
those of the common moles, and Mr. Oldfield Thomas has
assured me that not all blind moles have membranes over
their eyes.

When Aristotle refers to the covering of the eyes of
Aspalax, he uses the word derma, which refers particularly
to the skin of the body, and, inH. A. iv. c. 8, s. 2, he calls
it the thick skin enveloping the animal's head. There is no
suggestion that he refers to membranes covering the eyes.

-•' De Anima, ii. c. 7, 419a ; De Sensu, dc, c. 3, 440a.
f De Sensu, dc, c. 2, 438a. J H. A. i. c. 8, s. 3.

§ Monogr. of the Insectivora, Part 2, 1883, p. 139.
II Meyn. della Eeale Accad. delle Sci, di Torino, 2nd series, vol. 37,
1886, pp. 445, 446.

186 AKISTOTLE'S ANHOMCEOMEEIA

This being so, it seems that the common mole, with its
small, jet-black eyes, in which no iris or sclerotic can be
seen, furnishes the best identification of the Aspalax. The
fact that its eyes can be seen through very small holes in
its skin, when the hairs surrounding them have been blown
aside, probably escaped Aristotle's notice.

In connection with his statement about the eyes of
Aspalax being, as it were, injured during their development,
it may be stated that Mr. K. J. Lee says that the mole has,
at birth, eyes of a considerable degree of perfection, showing
an iris, white sclerotic, lens, and optic nerve, but that, as
the animal grows, it is deprived of the means of sight in
consequence of certain changes at the base of the skull.*

From very early times, a belief in the total blindness of
the mole has been very persistent, ^sop, Aristotle, Cicero,
Virgil, Seneca, Pliny, Oppian of Syria, and several other
ancient authors refer to its blindness. Galen, however,
believed that the mole had a feeble sight. At a much later
time, Gesner, apparently following Albertus, says that there
is nothing wonderful in the mole being without eyes, for it
hunts worms in the earth, where eyes would be useless, and
yet it perceives, in some way, whether it is below or above
ground.! Aldrovandi says: — "I shall follow Scahger's
opinion, who attributes very weak sight to the moles, . . .
not in order to see under ground, but only to avoid the
light."! Finally, Owen asserted that, in the common mole
and especially in the blind mole, the eye is reduced to its
simple primitive office of taking cognizance of light, a filament
of the fifth nerve aiding a remnant of a proper optic nerve. §

A belief in the total blindness of the mole is not un-
common in this country, and Mr. G. C. Zervos, writing
from Calymnos, informs me that modern Greeks consider
the mole to be blind.

All classes of animals, Aristotle says, except his Ostraho-
derma and some other animals without blood, have eyes.H
He says, however, that solens try to escape downwards, when
they see anything pushed towards them, and that pectens
close their shells when anyone thrusts a finger near them, just
as if they could see.l' In many passages he mentions the eyes

- Proc. Hoy. Soc. vol. 18, 1870, pp. 326, 327.

f Hist. Anim. i. 1551, p. 105G.

\ De Quadr. Digitat. Viviparis, dc, 1637, p. 452.

§ Anat. Vertehr. vol. iii. 1868, p. 246.

II H. A. i. c. 8, 8. 3. H Ibid. iv. c. 8, s. 18.

AND THEIE FUNCTIONS. 187

of cephalopods, crustaceans, and his Entoma, and he evidently
suspected the existence of visual organs in solens and pectens.

Kespecting the sense organs in general, it may be said
that there are many passages difficult to understand, and
sometimes inconsistent, in Aristotle's v^orks. A discussion
of one series of such passages will conclude this chapter.

He says that philosophers of his time tried to assign to
each sense organ one, and only one, of the elements, but that,
since there are five senses they found some difficulty in
assigning the four elements to them.* He does not seem
to adopt this view of the sense organs, but in many passages
of his works he attempts to assign one or more of the sense
organs to certain elements. In De Sensu, &c., c. 2, 4386,
e.g., he assigns vision to ivater, hearing to air, and smell to
fire, and, in De Anima, iii. c. 1, 425a., he assigns vision and
hearing to water and air, respectively, smell to either, and
suggests that all the senses may be assigned to fire, and
touch to earth. 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 Anima,
iii. c. 1, 425a, to assign the senses to the elements is difficult
to understand. Some commentators consider the passage
cited above from the De Anima to be corrupt.

* De Sensu, rfc, c. 2, 437rt.

CHAPTEE XIII.
ANIMAL MOTION.

Numerous passages relating to animal motion are to
be found in several of Aristotle's works, especially his
Progressive Motion of Animals, History of Animals, and
Parts of Animals. In these passages, many of which are
mere repetitions, he gives interesting information about the
locomotory parts and their movements, in walking, creeping,
flying, and swimming. His views on the causes of these
movements are, however, very incompletely expressed.

According to him, every animal with feet has an even
number of these, and fishes either have no fins at all or two
or four fins, for he takes no account of fins other than the
pectoral and pelvic*

The number four seems to have had a special significance
in connection with his ideas about animals. He says that
they are moved by four or more <")/*£?«, those with blood by
four only, and those without blood by more than four.t It
was sufficient, in fact, to count the oriixtia, 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 they
had they would necessarily be animals without blood. |

The word oinixziov (semeion), which means a sign or token
by which anything is known, is used in a special sense by
Aristotle to indicate the organs or means by the aid of
which animals moved from place to place. According to him,
legs, arms, wings, paired fins, and even the bendings of the
body of a grass-snake, eel, or caterpillar, when in progressive
motion, were semeia.

Keferring to the way in which they move, he says that
animals, whether they have four or more feet, move in the
same way, for their feet move in diagonal succession, but

^1= U.A. i.e. 5, ss. 1 and 2.

f H. ^. i. c. 5, ss. 6 and 7 ; De Anim, Incessu, c. 10.

I P. A. iv. c. 13, 696a..

ANIMAL MOTION. 189

the lion and both camels, Arabian and Bactrian, amble so
that the right foot does not go in front of the left, but
follows it.* The phrase used by him to denote movement
in diagonal succession is tara ^nxf^eTpov (kata diametron) , and
is fully explained in his De Anim. Incessu, c. 14, where he
says that the left hind limb is moved after the right front
limb, then the left front limb, and, finally, the right hind
limb. The camel ambles by moving the right feet and the
left feet alternately, the right front and hind feet striking
the ground simultaneously, or nearly so, and then the left
feet. The peculiarly unpleasant feeling experienced when
riding a camel is due to this mode of progression. In the
giraffe also the amble is particularly well seen, and it is
sometimes seen in the horse, lion, and many other animals.
The statement that the right foot does not go before the left,
but follows it, is not clear. Pliny's translation, in Nat.
Hist., xi. 105, makes the left foot follow the right, and has
been adopted by many commentators. Considering the nature
of the amble, neither the right nor the left limbs can be pro-
perly said to follow the others. There is not sufficient reason
for assuming that the Greek text has been tampered with,
but it seems to be intended to distinguish between progression
Kara, ^lauerpov, in which the traces of the right feet often cross
those of the left, and the amble, called by Aristotle taTo. axej^og,
or leg by leg, in which the right pair of limbs and the left
pair of limbs swing past each other without crossing.

Aristotle knew that some relationship existed between
the arms of Man, the forelegs of quadrupeds, the wings of
birds, and the pectoral fins of fishes, which are known to be
homologous. His views on this relationship will be con-
sidered further in Chapter xv.

Among the numerous statements made by him about
the locomotory parts and the movements of progression of
particular animals or groups of animals, the most important
are those relating to the elephant, camel, birds, fishes,
cephalopods, and crustaceans. Some of these statements
will be discussed next.

Aristotle says : " Animals have the joints of their limbs,
anterior and posterior, turned oppositely to one another,
and, with the exception of the elephant, oppositely to those
of Man, for, in viviparous quadrupeds, except the elephant,
the front legs are bent forwards and the hind legs back-

* H. A. i. c. 5, s. 7, ii. c. 1, s. 8.

190 ANIMAL MOTION.

wards, and therefore they have the hollows of their joints
turned towards each other. The elephant is not formed in
the way some have said, but sits down and bends its legs,
only it cannot bend them on both sides simultaneously,
because of its weight, but sinks down on its right or left
side, and sleeps in this position. The elephant bends its
hind legs, just like Man."*

Aristotle's comparison between the limbs of Man and
the elephant and those of other animals was based on an
examination of their external appearance. Viewed in this
way, the real structure of their limbs may be easily mis-
understood. The elephant has long femoral and humeral
bones, very highly inclined, and its knee-joints consequently
come low down and are not hidden in any way. Its limbs
are, therefore, more easily comparable with those of Man,
and the similarity is seen at once. On the other hand, the
comparatively short length and usually small inclination of
the femoral and humeral bones of the horse and many other
animals cause the knee-joints to come close to the body, and
even to be partly hidden within its skin, while the joints
between the radius and tibia and the corresponding cannon
bones are very conspicuous, and may be easily taken for the
knee-joints.

Although Aristotle says, in the passage cited above, that
elephants bend their legs and sit or lie down, he asserts, in
P. A. ii. c. 16, 659a, that their forelegs are mere supports
and are useless for anything else, because of their slowness
and small adaptability for bending. He distinctly states
elsewhere that the old opinion about the elephant having no
joints in its legs is not true, and that this animal walks in
consequence of a bending at the hips and shoulders.!
Evidently he was not altogether free from the old opinion
which, strange to say, persisted until comparatively recent
times.

According to Aristotle, the elephant cannot swim, but,
when crossing rivers, walks through the water as long as
the tip of its trunk is above it. t This is not quite correct.
The elephant can swim, and does so with probably less
relative immersion than other quadrupeds. Sir J. Emerson
Tennent says, however, that an elephant " generally prefers
to sink till no part of his huge body is visible, except the tip
of his trunk, through which he breathes, moving beneath the

=■= H. A. ii. c. 1, s. 4. f De Anim. Incessu, c. 9.

+ H. A. ix. c. 33.

ANIMAL MOTION. 191

surface, and only now and then raising his head to look that
he is keeping the proper direction."*

The 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 be
referring to a passage in Herodotus (iii. 103), where it is
stated that the camel has four knees in its hind legs. The
apparent presence of more than one knee in each leg is due
partly to the great length and high inclination of the
femoral bones, and partly to the great length of the cannon
bones, thus causing the knee and tarsal joints to be very
conspicuous. Aristotle does not appear to have been de-
ceived by these structural features ; he states distinctly that
there is only one knee in each leg. The phrase rendered by
the words " because its abdomen is girded or drawn up " is,
in Schneider's Greek text, 5l« tw 'Jirajraa-iv riis xoihla<;^ and this
agrees with the texts of the Royal Prussian Academy,
Camus, Syllburg, and Aldus Manutius. The word uTrojTaat^
primarily means a sediment, and also a prop or support.
Several commentators, having concluded that the word does
not express Aristotle's meaning very well, have proposed
alterations of the text, and both Schneider and Wiegmann
were in favour of substituting w^roWa^o-tf, a tightening up or
contraction. The word uTroaraan is used in an obscure sense,
but the meaning of the passage is clear, and is forcibly
brought to the mind of anyone 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 with those of the first part of the one in which
Aristotle attempts to describe the structure of the cloven
foot of a camel. This passage, inH. A. ii. c. 2, s. 6, presents
such difficulties that, in their interpretation of it, scarcely
any two translators agree. Part of the passage is as

follows : — £* jW£v Tou OTTtT^sv fiiKpov £(j%j(7Ta/ f/.EXpi T>i; d'suTsoag xafx'nrjg
ruv da'HTuXav, to 3" s/x7ipo(y^£V ectx^'^toci fMixpov oaov axp' TJJj TrpcoTJi? Kafji.7iii<;

ruv ^aKTvxm in^ a.x.pco TETTapa {" from the back it is divided a
little as far as the second joint of the toes, but the front is
divided a little just about as far as the first joint of the toes,
four at the tip"). Even with respect to essential parts of the
passage very different views have been expressed. Camus
and J. Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire consider that it refers to
divisions of the hind and front parts of the foot, Schneider

- Nat. Hist, of Ceylon, 1861, p. 121. f H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 5.

192 ANIMAL MOTION.

and Wiegmann prefer to believe that it refers to the
divisions of the hind and front feet, and Sundevall des-
pairingly asserts that the passage is inexplicable.

The front feet of a living camel are decidedly larger than
the hind feet, and there are some minor differences of form,
but both are divided similarly. The back part of each foot is
curved inwards a little, but is not cleft. It is probable,
therefore, that Aristotle is describing the front parts of a
camel's foot, and this is assumed in what follows.

When the upper part of a camel's foot is compared with
its sole, it is seen that the length of the parting between the
toes, seen from above, is not less than twice that of the
parting, as seen from below. The difference is due to the
presence of the web, to which also Aristotle refers. Further,
looking more closely upon the top of the foot, four parts of
the cleft are seen, two on each side, caused by the
prominence of the proximal phalanges, and especially of
their distal ends ; this is better seen in some camels than in
others. Making use of these features in interpreting
Aristotle's description, it is probable that the words oVjcrSey
and £At7r^o«7$£i/ respectively refer to the sole and the upper
part of the foot, and the phrase ett' aKpoj TSTrapa to the two
short parts of the toes, as seen on the sole, together with
the two long parts, as seen from above. It is possible,
but less likely, that the passage refers to the features of the
cleft due to the aforesaid prominence of the proximal
phalanges.

The rest of Aristotle'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 of
the foot is cleft as far as the second joint of the toes, and
the upper part is cleft about as far as the first joint, there
being four parts at the front of the foot, and between the
cleft parts is a web, as in geese. The lower part of the foot
is fleshy, like the foot of the bear, and, therefore, during
warlike operations, riders put coverings on their camel's
feet, when these are sore."*

Aristotle makes some interesting observations on the
flight of birds and their so-called tail. He says that all
birds which fly high have four toes,f that birds are without
a tail but have an orrhopygion, the long-legged and the
web-footed birds having a short one and the others a long

- H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 6, f Ibid. ii. c. 8, s. 2.

ANIMAL MOTION. 193

one, and that these hold their feet close to their bodies,
during flight, while the long-legged and web-footed birds
keep them stretched out.*

Most of these statements are subject to some exceptions.
Among birds which Aristotle probably knew some have only
three toes, yet they often fly high, e. g., bustards and golden
and some other plovers. Again, the sparrow-hawk, gos-
hawk, and harrier, among long-legged birds, and the
tern and male pintail-duck, among web-footed birds, have
comparatively long tails. Among birds with which
Aristotle was probably not acquainted, there are still more
striking exceptions, e. g., the secretary-vulture, the Brazilian
seriema, the Tropic bird, and Buffon's skua. Further, I have
observed that, when in full flight, pigeons, pheasants, black
game, and many other birds, which have long or large tails
as well as comparatively short legs, carry their feet stretched
out backwards, and that some long-legged birds, such as the
redshank and storm petrel, often hold their feet downwards. +

It will be noticed that Aristotle gives to the so-called
tail of a bird a special name, orrliopygion, which still
survives in the modern anatomical name uropijgium. He
was not the first to use the word, for Aristophanes had
applied it to the abdominal extremity of a gnat,+ and of a
wasp.§

On account of his idea that an animal with blood could
not have more than four means of progression, he neglected
all fins except the pectoral and pelvic, and accordingly he
says that the gilt-head and bass have four, the eel and
conger two, and the muraena none at all.|| He misunder-
stood the nature of the fins of some cartilaginous fishes, e.g.,
the skate and sting ray, for he considered the large pectoral
fins of these fishes to be lateral expansions or " flat parts,"
for use in swimming.^

The cephalopods, he says, swim backwards rapidly by
means of their arms and fins, and the crustaceans by means
of the hinder parts of their bodies.** He does not seem to
take account of the importance of the jets of water expelled
through the funnel, in the cephalopods, by means of which
these animals propel themselves backwards. He states,

■■• H. A. ii. c. 8, s. 4.

f Lists of birds which carry their feet backwards and of some which
carry them forwards are given in The Zoologist, 1903, pp. 146-9.

I The Clouds, 158. § The Wasps, 1075.

II H. A. i. c. 5, s. 2. «l Ibid. ** Ibid. i. c. 5, s. 3.

0

194 ANIMAL MOTION.

however, mK. A. iv. c. 1, s. 6, that the octopus emits its
ink and also sea- water through its funnel.

He was aware that most of his Ostrahoderma move but
slowly or are stationary, and that the pecten (Kteis) " flies"
some distance along the surface of the water by its own
efforts, and says that it is more capable of locomotion
than any other.* He also says that the sea-urchin travels
by using its spines as feet.t

It has been stated already that Aristotle did not under-
stand the nature of nerves, some of which he probably saw.
It is interesting, therefore, to inquire by what means he
considered the various locomotory and other movements of
the body to be effected. Nowhere does he make this clear.
He says that the heart is the centre of motion, that it is
accordingly full of tendons, and that the motions of which
it is the centre are effected by contraction and relaxation.!
How the motions are transmitted from the heart to the
moving parts he does not explain, but he often mentions the
sinewy nature of the aorta, and especially its small branches,
and, in H. A. iii. c. 6, he says that the fibres are intermediate
between sinew and blood-vessel. He says, however, that
there is a want of continuity in the arrangement of the
sinews, § and this may be the reason why he abstained from
attempting to explain the mechanism of animal motion,
although he wrote a great deal about the motions themselves.
An important passage on this subject is in the De Anim.
Motione, c. 7, 701, one of the Aristotelian treatises which
was probably not vv^ritten by Aristotle himself. In that
passage it is stated that animals are moved by means of
bones and sinews, the bones being like the wooden and iron
frames of automata, and the sinews like cords by which the
frames are set in motion. It is also stated that the parts of
automata do not change in form and size, like the parts of
an animal, in which this change is caused by heat and
cold, which respectively effect expansion and relaxation
under the influence of imagination, sensibility, and thought.

=•'■ H. A. ix. c. 25, s. 7. f Ibid. iv. c. 5. s. G.

\ P, A. ii. c. 1, 647a; iii. c. 4, CG66. § H. A. iii. c, 5, s. 1.

CHAPTEK XIV.
GENEKATION AND DEVELOPMENT. X

Most of the important researches made by Aristotle on
generation and development are described in his Generation
of Animals, one of the most remarkable works ever written,
and the one most entitling him to be included amongst
the greatest thinkers of all time. Even those who have
minimized the value of his labours and have criticized his
works adversely have often been forced to comment favour-
ably on many parts of his Generation of Animals. His
History of Animals, which rivals his Generation of Animals
in greatness, is remarkable for the vast amount of information
which it contains, but the Ge?ieration of Animals astonishes
the reader by its deep, philosophical reasoning, and furnishes
evidence of a powerful intellect grappling with obscure
embryological problems.

In his Generation of Animals, he proposes some abstruse
questions, and attempts to solve them in a way which is
masterly, considering the slender means of investigation at
his disposal. Some of these questions had been considered
before his time, but not efficiently. Aristotle also did a
great deal of original work (considered already in Chapter
xi.) on the generative organs ; nothing, he says, had been
previously determined about these.*

He discusses an opinion, held by some philosophers and
based mainly on the observed similarity between young
animals and their parents, that the sperm {oTrep/xa) was
derived from all parts of the body.t He rejects this opinion,
and, in G. A. i. c. 18, adduces arguments against it, of which
the following are the most important : —

(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 derive
anything, e.g., a daughter of an ^Ethiopian and a woman of
Elis was not black, but the son of this daughter was.

* G. A. i. c. 1, 115a. f Ibid. i. c. 17, 7216

196 GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

(3) From butterflies and some other animals, sJcolekes
or larvae are produced, and these are not like 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 that
it is more fitting that it should be produced from homoeo-
meria, these being anterior to and forming the anhomcBomeria.*
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.t He does not, however,
clearly express his views about the nature of this superfluous
matter and its mode of separation, but his meaning, ex-
pressed chiefly in G. A. i. c. 19, 7266, seems to be that, after
some parts of the blood have been disposed of as nutritive
or formative material for the flesh and other parts of the
body, there remain a part which is the last to be supplied to
the parts of the body and a residual or superfluous part,
which is of a very useful nature and has great power (Jwa/zi?).
This constitutes the sperm, and since it is like the part,
referred to above, which is the last to be supplied to the
parts of the body, it is reasonable that it should be capable
of forming parts similar to these, i.e., similar to the parts of
the parents. The sperm, in fact, has potentially in itself
each of the parts of the body. It will be noticed that this
view bears some resemblance to the evolution theory elab-
orated 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 parts actually
existed in miniature in the sperm.

Aristotle also discusses, at great length, the nature of
the material, if any, contributed by the male and the female.
He concludes that the female contributes the material of
the embryo, and that such material is derived from the
catamenia. He seems to have believed that the material
contributed by the female was passive formative material.!
The essential generative agency, he believed, was contributed
by the male, but it was not necessary for anything material to
pass from the male to the embryo, for the male contributed
not matter but form and motive principle. § So fully did he
believe this that he seems to have had no misgiving about

* G. A. i. c. 18, 722a. f Ibid. i. c. 18, 125a and 726a.

I Ibid. i. c. 20, 729a. § Ibid. i. c. 20, 729a, i. c. 21, 7296.

GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 197

the possibility of hen partridges being impregnated by the
breath of the cock.* This was an old popular belief.

In G. ^. i. c. 21, 7296, he illustrates his views by saying
that what the female contributes to the embryo is like the
wood which is formed into a couch by the carpenter's art,
or like the material of a sphere of wax, the form due to the
art of the carpenter, in one case, or of the modeller, in the
other, being comparable with the influence contributed by
the male,

Aristotle's reasoning on these questions is philosophical
and powerful, but without the aid of the microscope such
questions could not be solved satisfactorily. The ova con-
tributed by the female are now known to be exceedingly
complex in structure, and not to be composed of merely
passive formative material. Again, considering the nature
of the catamenia and the fact that, in H. A. vii. c. 2, and in
other passages, he shows that he understood the purifying
nature of them, it is difficult to understand why he should
have considered them to represent, in the female, the sperm
of the male. There seems to be no doubt about this opinion,
and he attempts to explain that the catamenial fluid is a
sperm which has not been fully elaborated.!

It is well known by embryologists that, until the re-
searches of Weissmann and others, the theory of epigenesis
was generally held to be true. This theory was foreshadowed
by Aristotle, and elaborated by Harvey, Wolff, and Blumen-
bach. According to this theory, the parts of the young
animal are developed as new formations in the embryo, and,
in contradistinction to the old evolution theory, do not exist
as pre-formed parts in miniature, either in the spermatozoon
or in the ovum. Aristotle's views are set out, inG. A. ii. c. 1,
in such a way as to show that he was not quite free from
a belief in the existence of pre-formed parts. He seems to
have believed that the germ contained some kind of vital
principle, and was so constituted that, the vital principle
having started the process of development, this process
went on, like an automaton, the parts of the young
animal being produced one after another, in the way sug-
gested in the so-called verses of Orpheus, in which it is
stated that the parts are formed in succession, like the knots
of a net. The heart, having in itself a source of increase,
was generated first, according to Aristotle, and then other

- H, A. vi. c. 2, s. 9. f G. A. iv. c. 5, 774rt.

198 GENEEATION AND DEVELOPMENT. «

parts, such as, for example, the Hver, lungs, and eyes, were
produced from it, just as a man is produced from a child,
but not by the child.

Further, he says that the young animal is not at once a
horse or a man, but that its life is at first like that of a
plant, and that the characteristics of each kind of animal are
the last to be developed.* This seems to foreshadow the
modern theory that the history of the development of the
individual is an epitome of the history of the evolution of
the species.

A most difficult question in embryology is that dealing
with the causes determining the sex of the young animal.
This question was discussed before Aristotle's time, and has
been discussed until the present day. Anaxagoras believed
that the distinction depended on the position of the sperm
itself in the uterus, Empedocles that it depended on the
temperature of the uterus, a hotter uterus bringing forth a
male and a colder one a female, and Democritus believed that
the distinction depended on the preponderance, in some way,
of one or other of the sperms, male and female. Aristotle
was inclined to adopt a view similar to that of Democritus,
and seemed to regard the action between the sperms to be of
the nature of a contest, the sex of the young animal corre-
sponding with that of the sperm which overpowered the
other, t As late as the year 1898, a theory of this kind was
set forth by Dr. Leopold Schenk, of Vienna. I Generally
speaking, this theory was the opposite of Aristotle's, for
Schenk's view was that the tendency was for offspring to
take the sex opposite to that of the more vigorous parent.

Aristotle's statements about spontaneous generation have
been discussed in Chapter v. It was easy for the Ancients
to persuade themselves that spontaneous generation com-
monly occurred, for they had no means of knowing that, in
matter believed by them to be lifeless, there existed countless
germs giving rise to numerous forms of life. Some even
believed that the spontaneous generation of mankind was
possible. Aristotle's views were less extravagant, but he
believed that eels, many of his Entoma,^ and most of his
Ostrakoderma,\\ were generated spontaneously. He says
that eels had never been found with milt or roe, that, when
opened, they did not seem to possess generative organs, and

=■= G. A. ii. c. 3, 7366. f G. A. iv. c. 1.

\ Schenk's Theory : The Determination of Sex, London, 1898.

§ if. ^. V. c. 17, s. 2. II H. A. V. c. 13 ; G. A. iii. c. 11, 7016.

GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 199

that they seemed to be produced from the so-called entrails
of the earth, 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 breeding
purposes, it was not until about the year 1896 that the mode
of reproduction and development was fully ascertained. At
that time, Prof. Grassi and Dr. Calandruccio ascertained that
a fish, previously considered to be a distinct species, Lepto-
cephalics hrevirostris, was a larval form of the common eel.
This larval form, which is flat and transparent and has a very
small head, passes through a series of metamorphoses into
the elver or young eel. The elvers swim up the rivers in
spring. Millions of them swim up the Severn, and have
long been believed by people in Gloucestershire to be young
eels.

The egg-cases of whelks and other molluscs were known
to Aristotle,! but he was not disposed to believe that these
animals were generated otherwise than spontaneously.

The metamorphoses of some of his Entoma received
much attention from Aristotle. According to him, all his
Entoma produce skolekes,l or all, except certain Lepidoptera,
which produce seed-like bodies containing fluid. § The
passages relating to his sJcoleJces are too numerous to be
given in full, but an epitome of the most important follows,
so far as the difhcult nature of the subject permits.

He appears to have been aware of the existence of the
ova or eggs of some of his Entoma, especially certain butter-
flies and moths, locusts and spiders, || but considered them
to be, not eggs, but egg-like skolekes. The ova of many
Entoma escaped his notice, but he was aware of the existence
of their skolekes, and believed that these were the first
products of generation. H The skolekes fed, grew rapidly,
and underwent changes, more or less complex, until they
passed into the pupa or chrysalis form.**

The skolekes of the various kinds of Entoma are not
treated by Aristotle in the same way. When dealing with
those of bees, wasps, and the like, the larvae are called

■■■• H. A.vi.c. 15. I Ibid. v. c. 13.

I G. A. ii. c. 1, 733a. § H. A. v. c. 17, s. 1.

II Ibid. V. c. 17, ss. 1 and 4, v. c. 23; G. A. iii. c. 9, 7586.
51 G. A. ii. c. 1, 73'db. *- H. A. v. c. 17, ss. 4-(3.

200 GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

sJcoleJces right up to the pupa stage ; * on the other hand,
the skolekes of butterflies and moths are said to become
hampai, or caterpillars, before they become pupae, t The
apparently great difference between the caterpillars of
butterflies and moths, and the maggots of bees, wasps, and
flies, was probably the cause of this difference of treatment,
but he considered both caterpillars and maggots to be
skoleJces, finally passing into the " real eggs," or pupae.

His views on this subject are set forth in fairly clear
language. He states that Entoma bring forth skolekes at
first, but these become egg-like in the course of their
development, for the so-called chrysalis is functionally
equivalent to an egg. I He also says: "For we must
consider caterpillars to be a kind of skolex, and also the
[generative products] of spiders, and yet it may seem that
some of these and many others resemble eggs, because of
their roundness, but they should not be defined by their
form, nor their hardness and softness, but by their producing
an animal as the result of a change of the whole and not a
part. When they have completely attained the skolex form,
and have become of full size, they are, as it were, eggs, for
the skin hardens about them, and they become motionless
at this time. This is evident in the skolekes of bees and
wasps and in caterpillars. The reason for it is that, because
of the imperfect nature of the animals, their 'eggs' are pro-
duced, as it were, before their time, the skolex being, as it
were, an egg which is still soft and in process of growth." §

This is the most important passage on the skolex in all
Aristotle's works. It shows clearly, in conjunction with
the other passages cited, that his skolex is an immature
product of generation, which grows and finally becomes a
pupa, or, so Aristotle believed, an " egg," giving birth to the
perfect animal. It differed from the egg of a bird, which
has a hard shell and does not grow, the young bird being
formed from a part only of the egg, the remainder serving
as food.jl

His discussion of the generation of bees is particularly
interesting. He refers to the many different opinions which
had been given on the subject, and says that much uncer-
tainty existed about the mode of generation of bees. He

* H. A. V. c. 17, s. 5, V. c. 20, s. 1. f Ibid. v. c. 17, ss. 4 and 6.
I G. A. ii. c. 1, 7336. § Ibid. in. c. 9, 7586.

II H. A. i. c. 4, s! 1.

GENEEATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 201

seems to think that a kind of hermaphroditism occurs among
the workers, and finally decides that the rulers or kings
(queens) generate both themselves and the workers, that
these generate the drones, and that these generate nothing,
but are idle, while the queens remain in the hives free from
all unnecessary labour.*

It is now known that the queen of a hive generates
queens, workers, and drones, the workers being normally
barren females, and the drones males ; parthenogenesis
sometimes occurs. The production of a queen from a
fertilized egg depends on the supply of a superior quality
of food, called " royal jelly," to the hatched-out larva,
and this feeding is arranged by those bees which act
as nurses. It is sufficient for the queen to be impreg-
nated once only by a drone, for the purpose of depositing
vast numbers of fertilized eggs.

Aristotle very clearly suggested the possibility of herm-
aphroditism, and was inclined to believe that it was found
in some fishes. He says that if there exists a class of
animals which includes females but not separate males, then
it is likely that such animals generate from themselves, and
that, although up till his time such a question had not been
investigated sufficiently to justify a belief, there was some
probability that hermaphroditism occurred among some
fishes. No males had been seen, he adds, among the
Erytlirinoi, but the females were full of embryos ; he had
not, he says, found out anything very trustworthy about
this.! It seems that he also believed that the fishes called
by him Psetta and Channe were hermaphrodite. I

The researches of Cavolini, Cuvier, and others have
proved that hermaphroditism occurs regularly in Serranus
scriba, S. cahrilla, and other species of Serranus, and that it
occurs in some perches, carp, mackerel, herrings, soles,
whiting, and other fishes. Aristotle's Erythrinos, Channe,
and Psetta have not been satisfactorily identified, but Cuvier
believed that Erythrinos was S. scriba and Channe was
S. cabrilla.^

A remarkable discovery of modern times is the common
occurrence, in Aphis, Cypris, and many other forms of life
which multiply with very great rapidity, of parthenogenetic

- G. A. iii. c. 10, 7596 and 760a. f Ibid, ii, c. 5, 741a.

I H. A. iv. c. 11, s. 4, vi. c, 12, s. 1.

S Cuvier and Valenciennes, Hist. Nat. des Poissons, Paris, 1828-49,
vol. vi. pp. 179-80.

202 GENEKATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

females. Aristotle says nothing about such a phenomenon
in animals such as those mentioned, but, strange to say,
he seems to have believed in the occurrence of a kind
of 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 account
for the reports current among the Ancients about the
amazing rate of increase in the numbers of mice.

The embryonic development of young animals is dis-
cussed chiefly in G. ^. ii. c. 6, on animals in general, and in
H. A. vi. c, 3, on birds. Aristotle also commences H. A. vii,
with the intention of describing the development of Man,
from the earliest stages of the embryo to old age, but that
book is incomplete and contains very little about the subject
of development. The so-called Tenth Book of Aristotle's
H. A. was believed to be a continuation of Book vii., but
it is now admitted that Aristotle did not write it, and,
further, on the subject of development it contains nothing
of interest.

The following is a statement of what appear to have
been Aristotle's views, as set out in G. A. ii. c. 6, on
embryonic development : — The upper or anterior parts of
the body are generated first, and, except in the Entoma, are
proportionally larger than the other parts, the head and eyes
being especially large. The larger organs may be seen
before the smaller ones, although not necessarily developed
before them. In animals with blood, the heart is produced
first and blood-vessels extend from it. Then, in order to
moderate the heat of the heart, the brain is next formed
and also the other parts of the head. The purest parts of
the blood pass from the blood-vessels, like water oozing
through vessels of partially baked earthenware, and cause
the formation of flesh and the main parts of the sense
organs. The skin of the body is formed by the drying of
the superficial parts of the flesh. From the less pure or
more earthy parts of the blood are formed the more earthy
parts of the body, e. g., bones, sinews, nails, horns, hoofs,
and hair, which are the later formed parts. All the bones
are formed in the foetus, and no bones are produced later.
About the formation of the eyes there is some uncertainty,
he says, but their development is completed at a very late
stage. The formation of the bones and sinews is due to the

- H. A. vi. 0. 80, 8. 3.

GENEEATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 203

abstraction of moisture from the less pure parts of the
blood, by means of the internal heat.

Many of these views are incorrect, but they are evidently
based on actual dissection or inspection of embryos in one
or more animals. It M^ill be sufficient, however, to state
that the cerebro-spinal axis is one of the first parts to be
laid down, and that the parts of the body are not developed
in succession in the way Aristotle seems to have believed.
Many parts, e. g., the flesh, bones (first laid down as
cartilages), sinews, skin, sensory organs, heart, alimentary
canal, and liver, are in process of development simultaneous-
ly. He knew nothing about the formation of membrane
bones or the process of ossification of cartilages. It is quite
true that, as Aristotle says, the eyes are completed at a late
stage of embryonic development.

His most interesting embryological research is that on
the development of a chicken. This research alone entitles
him to considerable credit as an original investigator.
It is difficult to follow some parts of his description, in
H. A. vi. c. 3, not only because of apparent defects in the
Greek text, but also because Aristotle gives only a few
definite statements about the times of incubation at which
the appearances to which he refers were seen.

One question on which Aristotle's opinion would be of
interest relates to the position of the part of the egg in
which development begins. His statements on this question
are not as clear as could be wished, but it seems that he
believed that the part referred to was in the pointed end of
the egg. In a passage, the full meaning of which is not
clear, he speaks of a movement of the yolk or a part of it
towards the pointed end (o|y) of the egg, where, he says, is
the beginning (a^x"^) of the egg.*

He seems to have been misled by assuming that an egg
issues from the parent in a manner different from the way
in which a young mammal comes to light, for he says that
the foot end, as it were, of the egg issues first, whereas the
head or beginning (o^px^) of a young viviparous quadruped
first comes to light, t He knew also that the broad end of
the 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 will not appear to be
extravagant if it is borne in mind that Hieron. Fabricius

- H. A. vi. c. 3, s. 1. f O. A. iii. c. 2, 752&.

I H. A. vi. c. 2, s. 2 G. A. iii. c. 2. 752a.

204 GENEKATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

believed that the germ spot or disc {cicatricula) was only a
trace of the attachment of the yolk to the ovary, and that
the chalazae constituted the material of the embryo, being
the main cause of embryonic development {prcecipua causa
pulli generationis) after having been impregnated,* and that
Harvey seems to have believed that embryonic development
began in the broad end of the egg.t

Even to-day, many people believe that the chalazEe are
what they call the " life " of the egg, and this represents to
their minds the parts where development begins.

Aristotle says that the first signs of development are
noticeable after three days and nights, the heart being
visible as a palpitating blood-spot whence, as it develops,
two blood-vessels, which wind about, extend to the
surrounding tunics, and a membrane with threads of blood
encloses the whole, away from the aforesaid blood-vessels.
A little later, he continues, the body of the embryo, quite
small and white, is seen, the head being distinct and the
eyes very prominent or conspicuous, while the lower parts
of the embryo are not in proportion to the upper parts.
One vessel from the heart leads to the enveloping membrane
and the other to the yolk, after the manner of an umbilical
cord. The development of the young bird, he says, com-
mences from the white, and its nutriment is derived from
the yolk, through what is equivalent to an umbilical cord. X

Such is Aristotle's description of the development of a
chick, from about the fourth day to about the eighth day,
judging from the appearances he describes. It is now known
that development of the embryo commences in the germinal
spot or disc, situated on one side of the yolk. In consequence
of the yolk opposite the germinal spot being denser than that
on the side of the spot, this remains uppermost, however
the egg may be rotated by the sitting hen, the yolk being
steadied by the chalazae. During the early stages of develop-
ment, the embryo is in process of being constricted off from
the yolk, and a bulging is noticeable, although, on account
of an apparent sinking in of the embryo, the bulging is only
slight. The time at which signs of development are first
seen by the unaided eye depends not only on the acuteness
of vision of the observer, but also on the extent of his know-
ledge of embryology, but it may be said that signs may be

■■'• De Formatione Ovi et Pulli, Padua, 1625, pp. 24, 34, and 48.
f Exercitat. de Gcner. Anim., 1680, p. 64.
I H. A. vi. c. 3, ss. 1-3.

GENERATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

205

seen on the second day, or about twenty-four hours earlier
than Aristotle states. About the end of the second day, the
rudimentary heart with the vitelline blood-vessels extending
over the yolk sac are visible, and, on the third day, they

FIG. 9.

EGG OPENED AFTER EIGHT DAYS' INCUBATION.

Allantoic Blood-vessels.

Vitelline Blood-vessels.

FIG. 10.

CHICK REMOVED FROM EGG AFTER
TEN DAYS' INCUBATION.

become conspicuous. By this time the embryo is raised
from the underlying substance of the yolk, being connected
therewith merely by a short stalk. During the fourth day,
the enclosure of the embryo by the coalescence of the head
and tail folds of the amnierriDecomes complete. On the fifth

206 GENEEATION AND DEVELOPMENT.

day, the wings and legs are just recognizable as outgrowths,
and the allantois, an embryonic sac destined to serve as a
respiratory organ beneath the shell, begins to grow rapidly ;
on the sixth day, the allantoic blood-vessels are clearly seen
as well as the vitelline blood-vessels, while the embryo has
greatly increased in size. The appearance is much the
same on the seventh day, but the embryo is still larger,
and the same may be said of the appearance on the eighth
day, a noticeable feature being, however, the prominence
and large size of the eyes.

The above represents, without entering into details, the
course of development up to and including the eighth day.
It is evident that, although Aristotle's description, previously
given, is not quite clear, he refers to the vitelline or yoke
sac and the vitelline blood-vessels, and also to the allantois
and the allantoic blood-vessels. Fig. 9 represents an egg
with the shell carefully removed from part of one side to
show the allantoic blood-vessels (in full lines,) and the
vitelline blood-vessels (in broken lines), at the eighth day,
which seems to correspond with the time of the latest stages
in Aristotle's description, so far as it has been given above.

He next describes the appearance observable on the
tenth day, and his description shows that he made a very
careful examination of the egg at this period of incuba-
tion.

If the young chick be removed on the tenth day, and
freed from the amnion and yolk sac, it will be seen to show
an'"abnormally large head and large eyes, a short beak, and
fairly well developed legs and wings, as shown in Fig. 10.
By placing the young chick in water in a test tube and
holding it towards the light, numerous feathers with their
barbs and shafts can be seen by means of a lens. Aristotle
says that, on the tenth day, the entire bird and its parts are
distinct, its head being seen to be larger than the rest of its
body, and its eyes larger than the rest of the head ; if re-
moved, he says, its eyes will be found to be black. At a
later stage, he proceeds to say, the chief viscera {i. e., the
heart, liver, &c.) are visible, and also the gizzard and
intestines, while the blood-vessels from the heart appear to
extend to the yolk stalk. He also describes, in greater
detail than before, the embryonic membranes, showing that
he had examined the allantois, lying beneath the shell
membrane, the yolk sac, and the amnion which, he says, is

GENEKATION AND DEVELOPMENT. 207

about the embryo itself, and separates it from the fluid.*
He seems to mean that the embryo is separated from the
remains of the white of the egg by the amnion ; it is not
evident, from his description, that he was aware that the
amnion encloses fluid which bathes the embryo.

He next passes on to about the twentieth day, when the
chick, 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 is sufficiently accurate to show that
he carefully examined the position of the chick about the
twentieth day, for, at that time, the beak may be seen
pushed under the right wing, while the right claw rests
almost against the head. He also refers to the allantois, be-
neath the shell membrane, about the twentieth day, and again
mentions the yolk sac. He compares them with the chorion,
or foetal membrane, in mammals, and states correctly that
the allantois falls away, while the yolk within the yolk sac
is withdrawn into the body of the chick.

Eeferring to the pigeon, Aristotle says that on the day
before the young one is hatched, the egg is damaged or
perforated,! but it is not clear whether he believed that the
young one or the old ones did this. Albertus Magnus, who
seems to be translating a version of the above passage, clearly
states that the young pigeon breaks a piece out of the shell
with its bill. His translation, given by Aldrovandi,! reads:
" In fissura ovi primo Colmnba parvida in eo existens, pene-
trat testam anteriore parte rostri sui, ita ut testa elevetur ad
magnitudinem grani tritici, et piostea dlvidit earn in duas
partes, et exit pullus.''

■'■ H. A. vi. c. 3, ss. 3-5. | H. A. vi. c. 4, s. 2.

I Ornitholojia, vol. ii. 1610, Frankfurt, p. 184, first column.

CHAPTER XV.
CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS.

It is only by collating numerous passages scattered
throughout his works that Aristotle's views on the classi-
fication of animals can be ascertained. These passages
show that he attempted to make a systematic classification,
but that, even for the animals known to him, it was in-
complete. Apart from this incompleteness, very different
views have been held respecting the value of his classifi-
cation. Ray, when treating of viviparous quadrupeds,
showed his appreciation of it by adopting part of Aristotle's
classification,* and both Cuvier and Owen, who believed
that Aristotle made a systematic classification, more or less
elaborate, spoke of it in highly appreciative terms. On the
other hand, Agassiz and Whewell, while fully recognizing
Aristotle's attempts to deal with the differences and re-
semblances of various animals, held that he did not propose
any regular classification.

Aristotle certainly defined a few groups of animals,
particularly the Ketode and Loplioura, in such a way that
groups corresponding with them are to be found in modern
systems of classification, but, in most cases, what appear to
be his classificatory terms are not sufiiciently precise, while
their use often causes the same animals to fall into more
than one class, or brings into one class animals having no
close natural affinities. Examples of these defects are well
seen in the manner in which he deals with the dental
characters of animals. Not only carnivores, for instance,
but also reptiles and most fishes are included by him among
his Garcharodonta, or animals with sharp, interlocking teeth,
and the same animals, e.g., horses, are included both among
his Anepallahta, or animals with teeth having flat crowns,
and among his Ampliodonta, or animals with front teeth in
both jaws.

* Syn. Meth. Anim. Quadr. et Serp. Gen., 1693, pp. 56 et seq.

CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS. 209

Defects of this kind are to be found in many systems of
classification formed long after Aristotle's time, and it is
but fair to say that, considering the early period in which
he lived, he had clear conceptions of some of the chief
features of difference and similarity in animals, and that
he set forth these features and employed terms some of
which were certainly terms of classification. Further,
several of his groups were based on a consideration of
essential, and not arbitrary, characters of the animals com-
posing them, and many causes of difference were taken into
account, so that Aristotle may be fairly said to have at-
tempted to form a natural system of classification. For
these achievements, and they are considerable, he is entitled
to have the credit. More than this, perhaps, cannot be
claimed for him, yet the nature of his zoological writings
has often led to attempts to do this. For, reading them in
the light of modern zoological knowledge, it is easy to
interpret his statements as evidence of an elaborate scheme
of classification, and, when admiration for Aristotle is ex-
cessive, as it was in Cuvier and Owen, it becomes natural to
read into his words meanings which, probably, he himself
never intended.

In the development of a science, a desire to classify very
soon shows itself, but, as Whewell has shown, the formation
of a systematic classification follows naturally only after
vast numbers of observations have been carefully made and
compared. Therefore, such a classification is not to be ex-
pected at a very early stage in the development of zoological
knowledge, such as that in Aristotle's time. Yet he formed
some general ideas of a classification based on a consideration
of structure and mode of life, thus forming groups, such as his
Ketode, Selache, Malakia, and Entoma, which could be more
easily described in this way. In the performance of this
task he made serious mistakes, but, as Whewell admits,
he may justly be regarded as the great Figure in the pre-
lude to that formation of Systems which took place in later
times.

Aristotle repeatedly uses two classificatory terms, ysvor
igenos) and H^os {eidos), which are of very great importance,
but, before setting out the meanings of these terms, it will
be necessary to consider the meanings of the terms vTrepoxh
{hyperoche), exxejvVjs- (elleipsis) , and avay^oyUt (analogia), which
are of importance in his conceptions of y^vo^ and f?i5b,',

Aristotle says that animals, such as birds, which have

p

210 CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS.

parts, feathers for instance, of the same kind, but differing
in Injperoclie or elleipsis, should be put in the same ge?ws*
He also says that hyperoche and elleipsis may be taken to
mean the greater and the less, respectively.!

Numerous passages show that the " greater " and the
" less " should be interpreted in a wide sense. Differences
in size and number, such as, for instance, in the lengths of
birds' beaks, wings, and legs, the widths of their tongues,
and the numbers of their feathers, t differences in hard-
ness or softness, roughness or smoothness, of the parts of
animals, § and the presence or absence of certain parts, such
as crests or spurs, I are given as examples of excess and
deficiency, 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 analogia or propor-
tion. Such an analogia exists between hands and claws,
nails and hoofs, and feathers and fish-scales, for, what a
feather is in a bird, the same is a scale in a fish. IT Further,
he says that animals which have a part merely analogous
to a part in certain animals should be grouped separately
from these, e.g., fishes should be grouped in one genos, and
birds in another, because the scales of fishes have only an
analogous resemblance to the feathers of birds.**

Numerous passages in Aristotle's works show clearly
that he was constantly mindful of the idea that there exist,
in some animals, component parts which may be considered
to take the place of certain parts in other animals. In
addition to the examples already given, a relation of this
kind is said to exist between the forefeet of quadrupeds and
hands, tf between the brain of a vertebrate and the "brain"
of an octopus, + 1 and between fish-bone and the cuttle-bone
of Sepia or the pen of Loligo.^^ A consideration of these
passages, with their contexts, justifies us in believing that
Aristotle was the originator of the theory of analogies, and
this is in accordance with his statement: — " By ' analogon '
is meant that, while some animals have a lung, others have
something in place of it, and that some animals have blood,

* H. A. i. c. 1, 8. 2 ; P. A. i. c. 4, 6Ua. f H. A. i. c. 1, s. 3.

I H. A. i. c. 1, s. 3 ; P. A. i. c. 4, GUa, iv. c. 12, 692b.
§ H. A. iv. c. 4, s. 6 ; P. A. i. c. 4, 6446.

II H. A. i. c. 1, s. 3. ^I Ibid. i. c. 1, s. 4.
** P. A. i. c. 4, 644a. f f H. A. ii. c. 1, s. 2.
II P. A. ii. c. 7, 6526. §§ Ibid. ii. c. 8, 654a.

CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS. 211

but others have an ' analogon,' which has the same power,
or function, as blood."*

In Aristotle's idea of analogy, similarity of functions of
the analogous parts is certainly included, but there is a
passage, difficult to understand, which appears to introduce
another factor, that of correspondence in the positions of
certain parts of different animals; for, in P. A. iv. c. 5,
6816, he says that it is evident, from the position of the
so-called mytis of a cephalopod, that this part is the analogon
of the heart of other animals. This is proved, he adds, by
the sweetness of its contained liquid, which is of the nature of
blood. It is probable that the mytis, to which he refers,
was the liver. He also says, in H. A. i. c. 6, s. 2, that a
scute corresponds in position with a scale, and, in numerous
passages, he refers to a relationship between such parts as the
arms of Man, the forelegs of quadrupeds, the wings of birds,
and the pectoral fins of fishes, which are now known to be
homologous parts. Agassiz says: — "Though Aristotle already
knew that the scales of fishes correspond to the feathers of
birds, it is but recently that anatomists have discovered the
close correspondence which exists between all the parts of all
animals belonging to the same type, however different they
may appear at first sight. Not only is the wing of the bird
identical in its structure with the arm of man or the fore-
leg of a quadruped, but it agrees quite as closely with the
fin of the whale or the pectoral fin of the fish ; . . . But
this correspondence is not limited to the skeleton ; every
other system of organs exhibits in these animals the same
relations, the same identity in plan and structure, whatever,
be the differences in the form of the parts, in their number,
and even in their functions."!

It cannot be decided to what extent, if any, Aristotle
was thinking of the plan of structure of the parts, when he
compared them, but it is clear that he was referring chiefly
to their functions, positions, and mere external resemblances.

Two very important terms of classification, employed by
Aristotle, may now be considered, viz., genos and eidos.
These are often translated as " genus " and " species " re-
spectively. In many cases, eidos may be translated fairly
well in this way, but genos usually signifies a class, an order,
or a family.

* P. A. I c. 5, 6456.
f An Essay on Classification, 1859, pp. 25, 20.

212 CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS.

Singly or in association these terms occur in not less
than three hundred passages in Aristotle's zoological works,
and also in many other passages, chiefly in his Organon.
Most of these passages merely give examples of the use of
the terms, but some explain their meanings, and the fol-
lowing discussion is based on several of these explanatory
passages.

Particular animals, or individuals, such as Socrates or
Coriscos, are essences, or actual existences, exhibiting dif-
ferences which distinguish one from another.* These
essences have certain features in common, and a group
may be formed of such essences. Such a group may be
defined by means of the term eidos, provided the common
features more closely indicate the nature of the essences
included in the group, or by means of the term genos, if the
common features indicate the nature of the essences less
closely. Thus, the nature of Socrates or Coriscos is more
closely defined by the name Man than by the name animal,
which, in this case, represent eidos and genos respectively.!

Animals of which the parts, internal as well as external,
are the same, belong to the same eidos, I e.g., Man con-
stitutes one eidos, and the horse another, § and Aristotle also
' states 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 eidos. \\ Differences in essential, and
not accidental, features should alone be considered, and,
among examples of accidental features or qualities, he
mentions the whiteness of snow and the equivalence of the
angles of a plane triangle to two right angles. IT Evidently,
although he says that the parts of animals belonging to the
same eidos should be the same, he does not mean that these
parts should be alike in all respects. He often refers, in
fact, to differences in colour, shape, and relative sizes of
parts, such as, for instance, the eyes, ears, and locomotory
and other parts, in different individuals of the same eidos.

The capability of generating fertile offspring has often
been considered to be important in defining a species.
Aristotle also considered it to be important in connection
with his views on eidos. He says that animals of the same

■''• P. A. i. c. 4, Giia ; De Long, et Brev. Vitce, c. 1 ; Categ. c. 3.
i Categ. c. 3. + H. A. i. c. 1, s. 2.

§ Topica, i. c. 5, s. 2. || Politica, iv. c. 3, ss. 9 and 10.

i\ Topica, iv. c. 1, ss. 1-3 ; P. A. i. c. 3, G43rt.

CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS. 213

eidos generate animals of the same eidos as themselves, and
that animals not of the same eidos, such as the horse
and the ass, generate animals of a different eidos * The
Hemioiwi, or half-asses of Syria, are so called, he says,
because of their likeness to the ass, although they are not
of the same eidos, for they certainly breed among them-
selves.! Agassiz, referring to this passage, says : — " Aristotle
already considers fecundity as a specific character.!

On the whole, Aristotle's idea of an eidos was much like
the modern idea of a species, but there are many passages
in iiZ. ^. viii. and ix., which show that his eidos often had,
in practice, very much the same meaning as the modern
term genus.

The term genos is of very wide signification, and denotes
a group of animals with parts of the same kind, but differing
in excess and deficiency ; § on the other hand, animals with
parts which resemble one another only by analogy belong
to different gene.W

In accordance with the principles thus laid down, Aris-
totle forms a genos of Ornithes, and another of Ichthyes,
both of the first magnitude, i.e., containing blood ; he also
forms a third genos, the Selache, comprising fishes in which
cartilage takes the place of bone. He found difficulties in
the further application of this method, for he says that it is
not easy to arrange all animals in this w^ay, because so many
of them present the same analogous structure. II In the more
difficult cases, then, he has recourse to other means, and bases
the formation of his gene — the Kete or Ketode, Malakia,
Malakostraka, Ostrahoderma, and Entoma, and the small
group of the Lophoura — on the existence of certain struc-
tural features.

The above are the best-defined of Aristotle's gene, and
constitute the best proof that he attempted to form a
systematic classification. He says that his Ornithes,
Ichthyes, and Ketode are his most important classes {gene
megista), because they include animals with blood, and that
the Malakia, Malakostraka, Ostrakoderma, and Entoma,
animals without blood, are important classes {gene megala),
there being no important gene other than these.** In
various other passages, he speaks of a genos of snakes, one

* G. A. ii. c. 8, 7476, and 748a. f H. A. i. c. G, s. 3.

\ Op. cit. p. 801. § fl". il. i. c. 1, s. 2 ; P. A. i. c. 4, 644a,

]| H. A. ii. c. 1, s. 1 ; P. A. \. c. 4, 644rt. U P. A. i. c. 4, 644a,

** H. A. i. c, 6, s. 1.

214 CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS.

of lizards, one of frogs, one of viviparous quadrupeds, and
one of oviparous quadrupeds, but they are not described as
gene, in the same way as, for instance, the Ketode. The
chief reason for this appears to be that he v^^as influenced
by the popular grouping of animals, and preferred to describe
separately many animals, such as, for example, monkeys,
bears, and chamseleons, which the common people had not
included in groups known by popular names.*

In addition to the groups referred to above as being the
ones best-defined by Aristotle, there are a few others which
may be included in his classification, because he describes
them sufficiently clearly to enable them to be identified
with orders or families of modern classifications. The
groups referred to are included, therefore, in the subjoined
tabular representation of Aristotle's classification. The
numbers following the various groups represent approxi-
mately the numbers of different kinds of animals referred
to by Aristotle : —

A. Enaima [Vertebrata] . (372.)

1. Kete or Ketode [Cetacea]. (4.)

2, Viviparous animals with feet \_Mammalia other than

Cetacea] . (62.)

a. Non-amphodonta [Bummantia'] .

b. Monycha [Solidungulata'].

1. Lophoura [Equidcc].

2. Monycha other than Lophoura [not classified] .

c. Viviparous animals with feet, other than above [not

classified] .

.3. Ornithes lAves]. (170.)

a. Gampsonyches [Baptores, chiefly].
b.' Steganopodes [Natatores].

c. Peristeroeide [Columbidce].

d. Apodes [Swifts, Martins, and Swallows] .

e. Birds other than above [not classified] .

4. Oviparous quadrupeds [Beptiliao.ndiBatrachiachi&Q.y'].

(20.)

5. Ichthyes [JPisces]. (IIG.)

a. Selache [Elasmobranchii + Lophius] .

b. Fishes other than above [not classified] .

;* H. A. i. c. G, s. 8, ii. c. 11, s. 1 ; P. A. i. c. 4, 6446.

CLASSIFICATION OF ANIMALS. 215

B. Ansbiingb [Invertebrata] . (120.)

1. Malakia \_Cephalopoda]. (6.)

2. Malakostraka \_Malacostraca] . (16.)

3. Ostrakoderma \_Mollusca (other than Cephalopoda),

Echinodermata, and Ascidia'\. (25.)

4. Entoma [Insecta, Arachnida, and Chilognatha, chiefly] .

(60.)

5. Spongoi \^Spongidce] . (4.)

6. Akalephae \_CoeIenterata'\. (2.)

7. Anaima other than above [not classified] . (7.)

A special interest is connected with the two main divisions,
viz., Enaima and Anaima, in the above scheme. The
distinction between them was used by many zoologists until
Lamarck and Cuvier used the almost equivalent terms, Ver-
tehrata and Invertehrata, the latter of which, like Aristotle's
Anaima, is open to the objection that it is of a purely
negative character.

216 AEISTOTLE'S ANAIMA,

CHAPTER XVI.

ARISTOTLE'S ANAIMA, OR ANIMALS
WITHOUT BLOOD.

The number of Anaima described or mentioned by
Aristotle is about one hundred and twenty, and not less
than one-half of these belong to his Entoma. Many of his
statements, mostly relating to the anatomy of the Anaima,
have been discussed in the preceding chapters. Some of his
remaining statements, chiefly about those Anaima which
can be fairly well identified, will be discussed next.

Aristotle gives a description of three kinds of sponges,
sufficient to show that they belong to the horny sponges
[Ceratosa), including the ordinary sponges of commerce, and
he also gives a description of some sponge-like form of life,
called Aplysia, because, unlike sponges, it remained black
when washed.* One kind of sponge, which he says is
compact or close in texture (9ry«voV) and softer than the others,
may be the fine Turkey sponge {Euspongia officinalis, var.
mollissima) ; another kind, called the sponge of Achilles,
very thin, compact, and strong, and commonly laid under
helmets and greaves to deaden the effects of blows, may be
the lappet variety of Turkey sponge, or, possibly, the brown
Turkey or Zimocha sponge {Euspongia zimocca) ; Aristotle's
remaining sponge, having a larger base of attachment, and
further characterized by being loose in texture ij^avoi) and
larger than the other sponges, seems to be the common
bath sponge {Hippospongia equina).

Aristotle says that, on the upper parts of sponges, are
hemmed-in passages or ducts (poroi), four or five of which
are conspicuous, and that some believed that the food of the
sponges entered through these.!

For two thousand years after Aristotle's time, it was
believed that currents of water entered the large passages of
a sponge, and it was not until Dr. Grant, after very careful
observations, concluded that water was drawn into the

- H. A. V. c. 14, ss. 2-6. f Ibid. v. c. 14, s. 5.

OR ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD. 217

minute apertures of the sponge and ejected through the
larger passages, now called oscules, that this error was fully
corrected.*

Sea-anemones and medusae were included by Aristotle
under the name Akalephe or Knide, each meaning a nettle.
He says that this group of animals is peculiar, and that
some live attached to rocks, while others are free.t Speak-
ing of the sea-anemones, he says that they have a central
mouth and that they seize, as it were by a hand, small
fishes that come in their way, and, probably referring more
particularly to medusas, he says that they can sting so
much that the flesh is made to swell, t

Aristotle's Ostrakoderma, one of his four great classes
of Anaima, included molluscs (other than cephalopods),
echinoderms, and ascidians, the last two being peculiar kinds
of Ostrakoderma.^ The typical animals of this class were
snails and oysters, having their internal parts fleshy, but
their external parts hard and brittle. H

The main characteristics of the whelk {Buccinum) are
clearly stated by Aristotle. He calls it Kerijx, and states
that its shell is spiral and rough, ^ and that it has a powerful
proboscis,** and he also notices its operculum and its egg
capsules, f t He erroneously believed that the proboscis was
the effective means used by the whelk in boring through
shells and other hard substances, whereas it is the radula.

The most interesting gastropods described by Aristotle
are his Porphurai, which included Murex hrandaris, in
particular, M. trunculus, and some species of Furpura. He
says that the Porphnra has a spiral shell and a powerful
proboscis, tt This mollusc makes, he says, the so-called
honeycomb (egg capsule), which is not, however, hollowed
out like a honeycomb, but composed of what may be com-
pared to the white pods of certain plants; Porphurai, he adds,
are not produced from the honeycomb, which is of the
nature of excreta. §§ He also refers to the operculum. || |1 As
in the case of the Keryx, he erroneously believed that the
proboscis of Porphitra was used for boring hard substances.

It is well known that the famous Tyrian dye was prepared

* "Observations, &c., on the Sponge," EcUnhurgh Pliilosph. Journ.,
vol. xiv. 1826, pp. 117-9.

f H. A. iv. c. 6, ss. 4 and 5. | Ibid. iv. c. 6, s. 4.

§ P. A. iv. c. 5, 680a. || H. A. iv. c. 1, s. 2.

"f Ibid. iv. c. 4, ss. 1 and 3. '■^'■'■''' Ibid. iv. c. 4, s. 8.

ft Ibid. V. c. 13, ss. 1 and 7. ++ Ibid. iv. c. 4, ss. 1 and 8.

§§ Ibid. V. c. 13, s. 1. il|l Ibid. v. c. 13, s. 7.

218 AEISTOTLE'S ANAIMA,

from species of Murex and Purpura. Aristotle gives a
rather full account of the preparation of a similar dye from
his Porphiirai. The pigment, he says, appears to extend,
like a duct or vessel, through a white membrane between
the mecon (or liver) and the neck, and when this membrane
is taken away and squeezed the pigment wets and stains the
fingers.* The small shells, he says, are pounded up without
removing the molluscs, because these are not easily removed,
but the molluscs are removed from the large shells, and the
pigment taken out.f

The pigment is found, very much in the way Aristotle
says, near the hinder part of the neck, and lies in a duct or
vein there. It is of about the consistency and colour of
cream before exposure to the air, which changes it to a
purple tint.

A gastropod, called by Aristotle Nerites, cannot be satis-
factorily identified. He says that it has a smooth, large,
rounded shell, similar in form to that of the whelk, that its
mecon is red, and that some kind of crustacean sometimes
lives in its shell. I It would seem, from H.A.v. c. 13, s. 8,
that the Nerites lived attached to rocks, and, in a passage in
which he incorrectly asserts that all molluscs with spiral
shells have an operculum, he refers to that of Nerites.^

Prof. Forbes identified the Nerites with littoral forms
of Trochus, found abundantly along the rocky shores of
the iEgean.ll

The above are the most interesting examples of
Aristotle's molluscs with coiled shells, in which, he says, the
flesh-like parts can be concealed to a very large extent. IT
From a series of passages, in H. A. iv. c. 4, s. 2, it is
sufficiently clear that he grouped molluscs which have
not coiled shells {stromhoi) into univalves (monothura) and
bivalves (dithicra) .

Aristotle's typical example of his monothura is the
patella or limpet, called by him Lepas, which, he says,
has its flesh-like parts exposed,**" and lives attached to
rocks, t f

Of Aristotle's dithura, his Pinna, Kteis, and Solen will
be discussed.

='= H. A. V. c. 13, s. 4. f Ibid. V. c. 13, s. 5.

I Ibid. iv. c. 4, s. 17. § P. A. iv. c. 5, 6796.

II 'Travels in Lycia, dc, 1847, vol. ii. p. 110.

^ H. A. iv. c. 4, s. 1. =1=* Ibid. iv. c. 4, p. 2.

ft Ibid. iv. e. 4, s. 18.

OR ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD. 219

The valves of Pinna are rough, according to Aristotle,
but not ribbed,* and, secured by means of a byssus, they
grow up erect in the sand or mud.t He also says that
a small crab, the Pinnoteres, or Pinnophijlax (guardian of
the pinna), lives within the shell.! It is well known that
a small crab lives in the gills and mantle of several lamelli-
branchs, such as, for example, Pinna squamosa, of the
Mediterranean.

Some of Aristotle's most interesting statements about
the Kteis (pecten) , relating to its sense organs and mode of
progression, have been discussed already in Chapters xii. and
xiii. respectively. He says also, speaking of its valves, that
they are ribbed, and that the large kinds of pecten have one
valve flat.§ It is true that the common edible pecten and
some 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 live in
sandy shores, remaining in one place, but not fixed in it, for
they can withdraw themselves into the sand, when alarmed. If
His suggestion that solens can see has been discussed in
Chapter xii.

Most of the molluscs described by Aristotle are marine,
but he also clearly refers to various snails of the genus Helix,
which he calls by the name KocJilias. He says that the
terrestrial Kochliai hybernate, and, during the period of
hybernation, have an operculum.** He also says that these
Kochliai are devoured by pigs and partridges.! t

Sea-urchins and star-fishes were included by Aristotle
among his Ostrakoderma, but were considered by him to be
exceptional forms. Speaking of sea-urchins (Echinoi), he
says that there are several kinds, one having large and edible
ova, another, called Echinometra, which is the largest of the
sea-urchins, and a third kind having large and hard spines,
and living in many fathoms of water. 1 1 He also refers to
two deep-sea and rare forms, viz., Spatangos and Bryttos,
and some white Echinoi, of longer form than the others, and
having somewhat small and soft spines ; these white Echinoi
were found near Torona, in Macedonia. §§

It is not easy to identify the above-mentioned echino-

■■■• H. A. iv. c. 4, s. 3.

f Ibid. V. c. 13, s. 8. I Ibid. v. c. 13, ss. 8 and 9.

§ Ibid. iv. c. 4, ss. 3 and 12. || Ibid. iv. c. 4, s. 3.

H Ibid. iv. c. 8, s. 18, v. c. 13, ss. 8 and 10.

** Ibid. viii. c. 16, s. 1. f f Ibid. ix. c. 25, s. 3.

II Ibid. iv. c. 5, ss. 1 and 2. §§ Ibid. iv. c. 5, ss. 2 and 3.

220 ARISTOTLE'S ANAIMA,

derms, but Prof. Forbes says that the one with large and
edible ova is the purple sea-egg {Ecliinus lividus), that the
Echinometra is probably E. esculentus, and that the one with
hard spines is Cidaris histrix; he adds that E. lividus is the
one chiefly used as food in the eastern Mediterranean.*

Star-fishes are clearly referred to by Aristotle. He says
that they seize their prey and suck out their juices, and that
they destroy very many oysters, t The ravages committed
by star-fishes among oysters are well known.

Aristotle says that the Aster (star-fish) is in form like a
drawing of a star, and makes the fanciful statement that it
is naturally so hot that its food is at once digested.!

The fixed ascidians seem to have been carefully examined
by Aristotle. He calls them Tethya, and considers them to
be a special kind of his Ostrakoderma. Their external
casing, he says, is of a nature between that of skin and that
of a hard shell, and can be cut like hard leather; this casing
is fixed to the rocks, and in it are a water inlet and a water
outlet. § After giving this description, which is quite correct,
he clearly refers to the inner muscular tunic or body-w^all,
enclosing the soft parts of the animal, but states incorrectly
that this tunic is a sinewy {neurode) membrane. || Again,
he refers to the perforated pharyngeal wall and the atrial
chamber through which the water, filtered from the parts
serving as food, passes to the water outlet.*^

It is evident that he placed the ascidians in a far lower
position than they occupy in modern systems of classifi-
cation, viz., near Ampliioxus. He was not certain that they
deserved to be put even in his Ostrakoderma, but, concluding
that they had no distinct residual matters, expressed an
opinion that they were of the nature of plants.**

The most interesting part of Aristotle's work in con-
nection with his Entomci relates to his selection of the
animals to be included in that class. His ideas on this
subject were in advance of those of many naturalists from
his time till the end of the eighteenth century. His main
definition is as follows: — " I call those animals Entoma which
have incisions in their bodies, either in their ventral parts,
or in these and also their dorsal parts."! t

Aristotle's definition of his Entoma is so comprehensive

* Travels in Lycia, dc, 1847, vol. ii. pp. 115-C.

+ P. A. iv. c. 5, 6816. j H. A. v. c. 13, s. 10.

§ Ibid. iv. c. 6, s. 1. || Ibid. iv. c. 6, s. 2.

H P. A. iv. c. 5, 681rt.. *- Ibid. ff H. A. i. c. 1, s. 7.

OE ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD. 221

that it would include most animals of the sub-kingdoms
Arthropoda, Vermes, and Echinodermata, but this definition
is so qualified by other passages in his works as to show that
the meaning which he gave to the term, in practice, was of
very much narrower scope. His Malakostraka, among
which he included many crustaceans, constitutes a separate
genos or class ; * he expressly excludes from his Entoma
animals which are not furnished with many legs, and adds
that the number of legs is proportional, in some way, to the
length of the body or number of its incisions, a smaller
number of legs being compensated for by the presence of
wings, t His Entoma, in fact, are chiefly butterflies and
moths, beetles, bees, wasps, hornets, ants, houseflies, gad-
flies, gnats, dayflies, grasshoppers, locusts, spiders, scor-
pions, centipedes, and millipedes.

As far as he separated crustaceans from his Entoma,
Aristotle was greatly in advance of many of the later
naturalists, who classed them with their Insecta. Agassiz
says : — "Aristotle divides this group more correctly than
Linnaeus, as he admits already two classes among them, the
Malacostraca (Crustacea) and the Entoma (Insects). "t
The confused classifications of the lower forms of life
adopted by naturalists of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and
eighteenth centuries were chiefly due to their adoption
either of Aristotle's definition of his Entoma, without any
regard for its qualifying clauses, or Pliny's definition, §
which is adapted from Aristotle's definition but includes
apterous and also apodal animals which have incisions.

Aldrovandi, Swammerdam, Ray, Linnaeus, and many
others included, in their writings on " insects," crustaceans
and some other forms of life which Aristotle's Entoma
would not include. However, at the very beginning of the
nineteenth century, Lamarck definitely separated the
Crustacea and also the Arachnida from his Insecta, and,
although he kept an old order, Insecta aptera, he deprived
it of most of its former dignity by assigning to it only one
genus, viz., Pulex, Linn., with two species, of which one is
P. irritans, or " la puce ordinaire." || To discuss satisfac-
torily the classifications of "insects" made between the
time of Aristotle and that of Lamarck would be a task of

■■■■ H. A. i. c. 6, s. 1, iv. c. 1, s. 2 ; G. A. i. c. 14, 7206.
+ P. A. iv. c. 6, 682a and b.

I An Essay on Classification, 1859, p. 305, Note.
§ Nat. Hist, xi, 1.

II Syst. des Aiiim. sans Vertebr,, Paris, 1801, p. 314.

222 AEISTOTLE'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 Entoma are described or mentioned by
Aristotle, but only a comparatively small number of these
can be satisfactorily identified. Some of these will next be
considered.

He compares the hind legs of the Akris or locust to the
two rudders used in some Greek ships, one on each side
towards the stern,* and says that it produces a sound by
rubbing itself with its, pedalla, rudders or hind legs.t

He was aware that it deposits its eggs a short distance
below the surface of the ground, and that its young emerge
in a form very much like that of the parent, there being no
distinct metamorphosis.! It is probable that the locust to
which he refers is the migratory locust {Pachytylus migra-
torius) of south-eastern Europe.

The cicada is clearly referred to by Aristotle in many
passages, although some of these passages do not correctly
describe the characteristics of this insect. The cicada has a
piercing and suctorial beak, by which it sucks the juices of
plants. Aristotle says that the Tettix {Cicada) has a tongue-
like process, by which it feeds on dew only.§ The idea that
the cicada feeds on dew only is commonly found among the
ancient writers.

The singing of the cicada is produced by membranes in
chambers covered by scaly plates on the under side of the
abdomen and just behind the thorax ; the membranes are
vibrated by the action of certain muscles. Aristotle says
that the Tettix sings in consequence of the friction of the
air on the membranes beneath the liypozoma or part close
to the division between the thorax and abdomen. ||

The male cicadas sing, the females being silent; this was
exceedingly well known to the Ancients, and is referred
to by Aristotle. II He also refers to large cicadas, called
Achetai, which sing, and small ones, called Tettigonia,
which do not sing, or sing but little.** This passage,
especially the last part of it, is difficult to understand, but
it is probable, from the context in H. A. v. c. 24, that
Aristotle intends to refer to large and small cicadas differing
in species.

- P. A. iv. c. 6, 683(x. f H. A. iv. c. 9, s. 2.

I Ibid. V. c. 17, s. 2, v. c. 23, ss. 1 and 2.

§ Ibid. iv. c. 7, s. 7 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, 682rt.

jl H. A. iv. c. 9, 8. 2. IT Ibid. v. c. 24, s. 4. *=t= Ibid. v. c. 24, s. 1.

OR ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD. 223

Cicadas have powerful ovipositors by means of which
they pierce plants before depositing their eggs, and the
young ones drop into the ground and go through an incom-
plete metamorphosis. Aristotle says that the Tettix deposits
its eggs in certain plants and also in the ground, and he
speaks of its larva and of its undergoing a kind of meta-
morphosis.*

The May or dayfly [Ephemera) seems to be described
by Aristotle. He says that, about the summer solstice,
casings larger than grape seeds float down the river Hypanis
(the modern Bug), and, when these casings burst, an
insect with four feet escapes, and lives and flies about till
evening, when it dies. For this reason, he says, it is called
Ephemeron, because it lives only about one day.f He states
elsewhere that the Ephemeron has four legs and also four
wings, t The Mayfly, however, has six legs, like other insects.

He uses the word Psyche for several kinds of Lepidop-
tera, but, in H. A. v. c. 17, s. 4, he seems to refer to a
cabbage butterfly, such as Pieris hrassicce, for he says that
the caterpillars of certain kinds of Psyche are produced from
something smaller than millet seeds on the leaves of
cabbages {Baphanoi or Krambai). He also refers to the
loopers or Geometrida:, for he says that the Penia and
Hypera are produced from caterpillars which form waves as
they walk, the hinder parts of their bodies being bent up
towards the front parts. § The larv£e of certain kinds of
Tinea, called by him Setes, are referred to m. H. A. v. c. 26,
s. 1, where he says that they are found in woollen goods and
garments.

Aristotle says that his Kouleoptera have elytra and are
without stings. II Several of the names used by him to
denote various kinds of beetles, e. g., Kleros, Karabos, and
Melolonthe, are used to-day in a slightly modified form, but
only a few of his beetles can be identified satisfactorily.
His Kantharos is the Egyptian sacred beetle {Scarabceus
sacer), which is found also in southern Europe. He says
that it rolls up dung into balls in which its young are pro-
duced. H The larvae of Kleros, which Aristotle says infests
beehives,** are usually believed to be those of Trichodes
apiarius, which often commit great ravages in the hives.

* H. A. V. c. 24, s. 3. + Ibid. v. c. 17, s. 14.

I Ibid. i. c. 5, 8. 7. § Ibid. v. c. 17, s. 6.

II Ibid. i. c. 5, s. 5. H Ibid. v. c. 17, s. 10.

*- Ibid. viii. c. 26, s. 1, ix. c. 27, s. 20.

224 AKISTOTLE'S ANAIMA,

Numerous statements about bees and wasps are made
by Aristotle. Some of these have been considered in
Chapter xiv., when deaUng with the generation of bees. Of
the rest, one is specially worthy of mention, because it
is evidence of close and patient observation. He says that,
during each flight, bees do not visit flowers of different kinds,
but go, from violet to violet, as it were, and do not touch
any other kind until they arrive at the hive.* This has
long been proved to be substantially correct.

The book scorpion {Clielifer cancroides) is clearly re-
ferred to in H. A. iv. c. 7, s. 4, and v. c. 26, s. 1, where it is
said to be like a scorpion, except that it has no tail, and to
be of small size and found among scrolls or manuscripts.

Aristotle's Malakostraka, in which he includes Karabos,
Astakos, Karkinos, Karis, Krangon, and several other
crustaceans, have their external coverings soft, compared
with those of his typical Ostrakodenna, but of a somewhat
tough nature.! He sometimes calls them Skleroderma, or
animals with harsh or hard skins. I Their voracity, the
existence of large and also very small kinds of them, the
periodic casting of their skins, their peculiar modes of pro-
gression, the carrying of their eggs beneath the abdomen of
the female, and some differences between the appendages of
the males and those of the females, are all mentioned by
Aristotle.

He makes numerous statements about Karabos which
show sufficiently clearly that he refers to the rock lobster
{Palinurus vulgaris). The most important characteristics
of Karabos, clearly given by Aristotle, are that it is elon-
gated, and has a tail and also five swimming plates (Ttrspiiyia)
on its telson,§ that it has two large and rough horns
(antennae) in front of the eyes and two small and smooth
ones (antennules) below, || that its eyes are large, and
compared with Astakos (to be discussed later), its rostrum is
short and cephalothorax rough, H and that its ova are red.**

The rock lobster, whether male or female, has chelae on
the first pair of feet, but these chelae are not well-developed
like those of the crayfish or common lobster. In different
rock lobsters the extent of development of the chelae varies,
but in those I have seen the inner part of the chela was

- E. A. ix. c. 27, s. 7. f Ibid. iv. c. 1, s. 2.

I P. A. ii. c. 13, 6576. § H. A. iv. c. 2, s. 4.

II Ibid. iv. c. 2, s. 5. •! Ibid. iv. c. 2, s. 8.
=*=* Ibid. iv. c. 2, s. 13.

OR ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD. 225

very short and bit against the proximal end of the outer
part.

Aristotle's statements on this subject are inconsistent,
and, in the identification of Karahos, it is best to follow the
course adopted by Meyer,* and take the evidence furnished
by Aristotle's description as a whole.

Not less than two species, viz., Homarus vulgaris, the
common lobster, and Astacus fluviatilis, the crayfish, are
included under the name Astakos. Aristotle clearly gives
the following characteristic features, viz., chelae large and
unlike in size and form, with sharp marginal spines; four
pairs of small legs, of which two pairs are chelate ; antennae
much shorter and smoother than in Karahos ; eyes smaller
that those of Karahos ; rostrum long, sharp, and rough ;
cephalothorax smooth and comparatively soft.t He also
says that there are four antennules,t and was apparently
unaware that there are really only two, each of which is
divided. The crayfish is more particularly referred to in
H. A. iv. c. 4, s. 19, where he says: " like the small Astakoi,
which are found in rivers,"

That Aristotle's Karkinoi are crabs is clear from his
showing that they are decapods, rounded and not elongated,
and that they are without tails, such as those of the
Karahoi and some other crustaceans. § He also says that
the right chela is always, || or generally,^ larger than the left.
The right chela is larger than the left one in many crabs,
but there are some in which the right and left chelae differ
but little, if any, in size, e. g., specimens of Portunus,
Geryon, and Thalamita, while there are some in which the
left chela is larger than the right, e.g., specimens of Xantho,
Ocypoda, and Porcellana.

The largest crab, Aristotle says, is Mala, with eyes
close together, and with very thin legs ; this crab lives
out in the sea.** It is probable that this is one of the
spider crabs.

Aristotle clearly refers to some species of Ocypoda, or
swift land crab, for he says that, on the coast of Phcenicia,
there are crabs called Hippeis, or horsemen, because they

* Aristoteles Thierhunde, Berlin, 1855, pp. 240.
t H. A. iv. c. 2, ss. 6-9 ; P. A. iv. c. 8, 684a.

I H. A. iv. c. 2, s. 8.

§ H. A. iv. c. 2, ss. 3 and 4 ; P. A. iv. c. 8, 6a4a.

II P. A. iv. c. 8, 684a. H H. A. iv. c. 3, s. 1.
** H. A. iv. c. 2, s. 2, iv. c. 3, s. 2 ; P. A. iv. c. 8, 684a.

Q

226 AEISTOTLE'S ANAIMA,

run so fast that it is not easy to overtake them.* He also
was well acquainted with more than one kind of hermit-
crab, and speaks of its living in different kinds of shells.! Of
the remaining crabs referred to by Aristotle there is one
which can be fairly well identified. This, which he says is
found in rivers,! seems to be Thelphusa fluviatilis, com-
mon in southern Europe.

There are other crustaceans which Aristotle calls
Karides, under which he includes three kinds, Kyphe,
Krangon, and a small kind of Karis, which never grow
larger. § The Krangon, which is said to have all its feet
directed outwards, but its chelae turned inwards, || may be a
Squilla or mantis shrimp.

Many of the appendages of Squilla are short and not
seen in dorsal view ; Aristotle says, apparently influenced
by this, that a large part of the body of the Krangon is
without feet. IT The information given about the two other
kinds of Karis is not enough to identify them, but Kyphe
has been thought to be the common shrimp {Crangon
vulgaris) .

It is evident from Chapter xv, that Aristotle treated his
Malakia as if they had no connection with the molluscs.
He considered them to be the highest representatives of his
Anaiina, mainly because of their sexual mode of reproduc-
tion, their well-developed sense organs, and their arrange-
ment of soft and hard parts, the former external and the
latter internal, as in his Enaima** He distinguishes
the decapods from the octopods. He shows that the
former have eight short feet, each with a double row of
suckers, and also two long proboscis-like parts with suckers
at their ends, a large or long body, and a hard internal
support, ft

Aristotle describes three decapods, viz., Sepia, Teuthos,
and Teuthis. The Sepia, according to him, is rather broad
and has a cuttle-bone, a narrow fin extending along the
whole body, and a large ink-bag situated as far as possible
from the mouth. 1 1 He says that its eggs, like large, black
seeds, are connected together like a bunch of fruit. §§ Both

•^ H. A. iv. c. 2, s. 2. f Ibid. iv. c. 4, ss. 14-17.

I Ibid. iv. c. 2, s. 2. § Ibid. iv. c. 2, s. 1.

II Ibid. iv. c. 2, s. 4. H Ibid.

** Ibid. iv. c. 1, 8. 1. If H. A. iv. c. 1 ; P. A. iv. c. 9.

II H. A. iv. c. 1, ss. 8, 11, and 12 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, 679a, iv. c. 9, 6856.
§§ H. A. V. c. 16, 8. 3.

OR ANIMALS WITHOUT BLOOD. 227

Teuthos and Teuthis differ, he says, from Sepia in having a
smaller ink-bag situated nearer the mouth, and a " cartila-
ginous " internal support, shaped like a sword.* Aristotle
says that Teuthos differs from Teuthis chiefly in its much
larger size (being sometimes about eight feet long), in the
broader shape of its pointed end (to 6^u) , and in the arrange-
ment of its fin, which extends along its whole body, while
that of Teuthis is incomplete.!

Clearly Aristotle's Sepia is a cuttle-fish, such as Sepia
officinalis, and Teuthos and Teuthis are large and small
calamaries or squids, Teuthos probably being Loligo vulgaris.
It does not seem to be possible to identify Teuthis satis-
factorily. Frantzius believed that it was Bossia or Sepiola,
each of which, it is true, has two fins quite separate and
like wings on the sides of its body, but then neither of these
cephalopods has its abdominal end pointed, each having it
as nearly as possible hemispherical.

Aristotle describes several kinds of octopods. One of
these, which he says is the largest and most common kind, t
is Octopus vtilgaris, and is referred to in many passages.
Another kind, called Eledone, is stated to be the only
one which has a single row of suckers on each arm.§
This kind is the modern eledone, common in the
Mediterranean, but it is not possible to determine the
species referred to by Aristotle. A third kind, called
Bolitaina or Ozolis, is not described sufficiently to allow of
its being identified.

There are two marine animals, according to Aristotle,
which live in shells, one called Nautilos or Nautihos, with
a shell like that of a pecten, when in its open position, and
the other with a shell like that of a snail ; this kind never
leaves its shell, and sometimes extends its arms.||

Aristotle's Nautilos was an argonaut, such as Argonauta
argo. He gives some information about its habits,
obtained probably from fishermen or sailors. He describes
how it sails on the surfaice of the sea, with its shell up-
turned and propelled by winds acting on an expanded web
between two of its arms, and how, when alarmed, it fills
its shell with water and sinks. ^ This is a fanciful de-
scription. The shell of the female argonaut, which alone

- H. A. iv. c. 1, s. 12 ; P. A. iv. c. 5, 679a.
f H. A. iv. c. 1, ss. 8 and 9. \ Ibid. iv. c. 1, s. 15.

§ Ihid. II Ibid. iv. c. 1, s. 16.

U Ibid. ix. c. 25, s. 12.

228 ARISTOTLE'S ANAIMA.

has a shell, has its coiled part uppermost, when the animal
is at the sm'face, and is not caused to sink by filling with
water.

It does not seem to be possible to identify Aristotle's
marine animal having a shell like that of a snail. It may
be a gastropod, and Prof. E. Forbes suggested Carinaria
mediterranea* the shell of which is, however, very small
and not capable of containing the animal, when retracted.
A more satisfactory identification would be furnished by
gastropods of the marine genus Atlanta, in which the shell,
although small, is capable of containing the animal, while
the three lobes of the foot often project beyond the mouth
of the shell. There is nothing to show, however, that
Aristotle was acquainted with these gastropods. Nautilus
po7npilius, with which some have identified Aristotle's
animal, is not found in the Mediterranean.

* Travels in Lycia, dc, vol. ii. p. 101.

CHAPTEE XVII.

AKISTOTLE'S ENAIMA, OR ANIMALS
WITH BLOOD.

When expressing astonishment at the variety and
extent of Aristotle's knowledge, one of the characters of
Athenaeus asks from what Proteus or Nereus he could have
found out all that he says about fishes and other animals.*
It is well known that Aristotle, living for many years close
to the sea, obtained a great deal of information about fishes
and other aquatic animals from fishermen, but the curiosity
shown by the questioner in Athenseus is quite natural.
Aristotle's knowledge of the fishes of the Mediterranean
was, in fact, not only greater than that of any other ancient
writer, but, if such ichthyologists as Belon, Eondelet, and
Salviani are excepted, was greater than that of any other
writer before the time of Eisso and Cuvier. The number
of kinds of fishes described or mentioned by him is not less
than one hundred and ten, and about many of these he not
only discusses some anatomical characteristics, but also their
food, breeding habits, migrations, and modes of capture.

Most of his fishes are described separately, without any
attempt being made to classify them. The cartilaginous
fishes, however, are grouped together in a ge7ios or class,
called SelacJie, a name very familiar in various forms to
modern ichthyologists.

The chief features of Aristotle's Selache are that they are
cartilaginous,! that their gills are uncovered,! that they are
carnivorous, live in deep waters, and throw themselves on
their backs to take their prey, their mouths being placed, not
directly in the front parts of their heads, but on their under-
sides, § and that, excepting Batrachos, they are viviparous, ||

"-•'- Deipn. viii. c. 47.

f H. A. iii. c. 7, s. 6, iii. c. 8 ; P. A. ii. c. 9, 655a.

X H. A. ii. c. 9, s. 3 ; P. A. iv. c. 13, 6966.

§ H. A. viii. c. 4, ss. 1, 3, and 4, viii. c. 15, s. 1 ; P. A. iv. c. 13, 6966.

ij H. A. ii. c. 9, 3. 6.

230 AEISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

or, as Aristotle explains more correctly, ovoviviparous.*
He also says that they have fat livers from which oil
is extracted,! and that they have no scales, but that some
are rough.!

Pliny says that Aristotle was the first to give the name
Selache to fishes of this kind.§

Among Aristotle's SelacJie the following are included : —

A ietos

Bous

Leiobatos

Bhinobatos

A lop ex

Galeos

Narke

Sky lion

Batos

Kuon

Prist is

Trygon

BatracJws

Lamia

Bhine

Zygaina

The inclusion of Batrachos, the fishing-frog, is one of
the chief defects in his work on cartilaginous fishes.
Again, his assertion that all his Selache, except Batrachos,
are viviparous, || is incorrect, for some are oviparous, e. g.,
the true dog-fishes and rays. In other respects, however,
his description of the Selache applies very fairly to those
cartilaginous fishes with which he was acquainted.

The Batos, Aristotle says, is of flat form,1I has a rough
tail and body,** and buries itself in the sand, to facilitate
capture of its prey, ft He also speaks of Batis, especially in
H. A. vi. 0. 10, s. 4, where he mentions its eggs and their
hair-like filaments. These are the clearest statements
made by Aristotle about Batos and Batis, which are
probably the male and female respectively of the thornback
skate {Baia clavata). The modern Greek name for a skate
is Bati.

Besides describing its peculiar gill coverings, already
discussed in Chapter xi., Aristotle says that the Batrachos
has a spiny head, very rough, and many times larger than
the rest of its body, t + and that its tail and adjacent parts
of its body are more fleshy to compensate for the small
amount of flesh in the front part of its body.§§ He also
describes, in unmistakable language, its lures and fishing
habits. |] II

The fishing-frog {L ophites piscatoritts), the Batrachos of

* H. A. vi. c. 10, s. 1 ; P. A. iv. c, 1, 6766 ; G. A. lii. c. 1, 749a.

f H. A. iii. c. 13, s. 2. I P. A. iv. c. 13, 697a.

^ Nat. Hist. ix. 40. || H. A. v. c. 9, s. 6.

IT H. A. V, c. 4, s. 1.
*- H. A. vi. c. 10, s. 7 ; P. A. iv. c. 13, 697a.

ft H. A. ix. c. 25, s. 3. +! Gf. A. iii. c. 3, 754a.

§§ P. A. iv. c. 13, 6956. |||| E. A. ix. c. 25, s. 1.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 231

the Greeks and Bmia piscatrix of the Romans, is described
by many other ancient writers, especially Oppian of Cilicia,
Pliny, and Cicero. Aristotle seems to have included it
among his Selache partly on account of its sharp and
rather large teeth, and its tuberculated skin, free from
scales, and partly because he considered it to be cartila-
ginous. However, he admits that it is an exceptional
member of his Selache, for he says that it has covered gills
and that it is not ovoviviparous. It may be mentioned
that, with respect to the nature of its skeleton, the fishing-
frog occupies a position intermediate between the typical
bony fishes and the cartilaginous fishes.

The term Galeos is of wide meaning, and includes many
long, cartilaginous fishes, in contradistinction to the flat
ones. Aristotle mentions several kinds of Galeos, and
distinguishes them by names such as asterias, akanthias,
and leios, having an analogy to the specific names used by
modern zoologists.

The smooth dogfish is still called Galeos by modern
Greeks. Aristotle says, in one passage, that Galeos has
many pyloric cseca ;* he can scarcely be referring to the
dogfish here. The name was used, in fact, for more than
one kind of fish, in several ancient authors, e.g., Archestratus
speaks of a Galeos caught off Rhodes and sold for not less
than a thousand Attic drachmae, t This could scarcely be a
dogfish. Aristotle also uses a group-name, Galeoeides, to
denote several fishes having affinities with Galeos. In this
group he included Alopex, Kuon, and Skijlion.X

In H. A. vi. c. 10, s. 5, Aristotle shows that he knew of
the existence of placental fishes, for he says that the Galeoi
(dogfishes) which are called leioi (smooth) have their young
attached by an umbilical cord to a kind of placenta, and
that, when taken away, they appear like the embryos in
quadrupeds (mammals). It is well known that most of the
species of Mitstelus, and some other cartilaginous fishes, are
placental ; Aristotle anticipated this modern discovery.

Aristotle asserts that Narke lies concealed in sand or
mud, and numbs any fish which comes near it, by some
means within its body.§

This sufficiently clearly shows that Narke is the torpedo.
Theophrastus, ^lian, and Oppian of Cilicia refer to this
fish, but exaggerate its powers ; the most interesting

* H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 13. f Deijm. vii. 44.

I H. A. vi. c. 10, ss. 4 and 10. § Ibid. is. c. 25, s. 2.

232 ARISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

account of Narke is given, however, in Athenseus, because
it shovi^s that the fish had been subjected to experimental
tests. Athenaeus says that, according to Diphilus of
Laodicea, the shock was not produced by all parts of the
fish's body, but by certain parts only, and that Diphilus
proved this by a long series of experiments.*

The torpedo was one of the food fishes of the Ancients,
and is represented, with bass and red mullet, on several of the
Campanian-warefish plates to be seen at the British Museum.

The Bhine, according to Aristotle, produces seven or
eight young at a time,t its skin is rough,! and tail large, §
it catches fish by lying in wait in the sand and attracting
them by means of lures on its mouth, || and it can change its
colour to match that of the place where it lives. ^

Except that it usually brings forth many more than
seven or eight young ones at a time, the angel fish {Rliina
squatina), which is still called Bhina in some parts of
Greece, seems to be Aristotle's Bhine.

This name, which means a rasp or file, applies well to
the angel fish, which has a skin quite rough from the
presence of a vast number of tubercles. Its tail is com-
paratively large, it lies in wait for its prey in the manner
stated by Aristotle, and it has processes or lures on or near
the upper edge of its mouth. Again, according to Yarrell,
it seems to show variations of colour corresponding with the
nature of the ground w^here it is found.**

The most important statements made by Aristotle about
the Trijgoii are that it is a flat fish and that its tail is long
and spiny. ft These and the few other statements made by
him are not sufficiently precise for the purpose of identifi-
cation, but it is almost certain that his Trygon is the sting-
ray {Trygon pastmaca) . Other ancient writers, especially
iElian, Oppian of Cilicia, and Pliny, describe one of the
most remarkable features of the Trygon, its caudal spine,
by means of which it lacerates the flesh of its victim.
Pliny- says that nothing is so execrable as the radius,
five inches long, projecting from the tail of the Trygon
or Pastinaca.X I

It is said that the sting-ray is still called Trygon at

* Deipn. vii. 95. f H. A. v. c. 9, s. S.

X p. A. iv. c. 13, 697a. § H. A. v. c. 4, s. 1.

II Ibid. ix. c. 25, s. 3. 1! Ihid. ix. c. 25, s. 10.

"-:=* British Fishes, 1859, vol. ii. p. 538.
tf P. A. iv. c. 18, 6956. H Nat. Hist. ix. 72.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 233

Paros.* This is a good instance of the apparent persistence
of popular names.

The information given by Aristotle about the rest of his
Selache is but slight, but his Lamia was probably a large
species of shark, and his Zygaina was almost certainly the
hammer-headed shark.

In the following table are given many of the remaining
fishes mentioned by Aristotle which can be fairly well
identified. The name of each fish is followed by the name
of the species or genus which seems to be particularly
meant, for it should be remembered that some of the names
used by Aristotle denoted more than one species, or, in some
cases, more than one genus.

Amia {Pelamys sarcla) Kyprinos {Cyprimis)

Atherine (Atherina) Labrax {Morone lahrax)

Belone {Syngnathus acus) Muraina (Murcena helena)

Chelidon {Exocoetiis) Phagros {Pagrus vulgaris)

Chrysophrys {Pagrus auratus) Perke {Porca fluviatilis)

Enchelus {Anguilla vulgaris) Skaros [Scarus Cretensis)

Glanis {Parasilurus aristotelis) Thynnos (Thynmcs)

Gongros {Conger vulgaris) Trigle {Mullus barbatus)

Kallionjmos {Uranoscopusscaber) Xiphias {Xiphias gladizis)
Kestreus {Mugil capita)

Eleven fishes, some of which are mentioned above, are of
more than ordinary interest in connection with Aristotle's
researches on fishes. The eleven fishes referred to are
Amia, Belone, Ghanne, Erytlirinos, Glanis, Kallionymos,
Kyprinos, Perke, Phykis, Psetta, and Skaros.

According to Aristotle, Amia has strong teeth, t and a
long gall-bladder extending in a zigzag course along the
whole of its intestine, t These statements are sufficient to
identify Ainia with one of the bonitos, especially the
pelamid, Pelamys sarda, Cuv. & Val. Eondelet was the
first to identify Amia satisfactorily. His drawing repre-
sents it as a scombroid with numerous sharp teeth and nine
pairs of bands running obliquely forwards and downwards
on the sides of its body.§ Compared with the specimens in
spirits to be seen at the Natural History Museum, South
Kensington, or with the excellent coloured drawing of
P. sarda, opposite p. 162 of vol. viii. of Cuvier and
Valenciennes' Hist. Nat. des Poiss., Rondelet's drawing,

* Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. of Philadelphia, 1892, p. 240.

f H. A. ix. c. 25, s. 5. J H. A. ii. c. 11, s. 7 ; P. A. iv. c. 2, G766.

§ De Pise. Marin. 1654, p. 238.

234 ARISTOTLE'S EN AIM A,

evidently intended to be P. sarda, is not good, for the snout
is too blunt and the bands too highly inclined. The bands
of P. sarda are, however, subject to variation, and it is
most probable that Eondelet's Aviia was this fish.

Aristotle says that Belone is a long fish,* and that it
splits open to allow its comparatively few but large eggs to
escape, for a slit is formed under its abdomen, and yet the
splitting does not kill the fish, for the wound heals again, t
Although these statements do not correctly describe what
takes place, it is evident that Belone is one of the pipe fishes,
such as Syngnathus acus, the eggs of which pass into the
sub-caudal pouch of the male, and remain there during the
process of incubation.

The three fishes Clianne, Erythrinos, and Psetta are
remarkable because Aristotle seems to have believed that
they were hermaphrodite. His statements on this subject
have been discussed in Chapter xiv.

Aristotle's Glanis has been discussed by many naturalists,
but it is only comparatively recently that it has been
satisfactorily identified. In addition to other information
about this fish, Aristotle says that its tail is like that of a
water-newt, I that its gall-bladder is close to its liver, § that
it is a freshwater fish depositing large ova, which are
connected together like those of a frog, that the ova develop
very slowly and are guarded by the male fish, which some-
times spoils the fishing-hooks with its hard teeth, and that
the large Glanides spawn in deep water, but the smaller
ones in shallow water, near the roots of a willow, or among
reeds and mosses.il

Clearly, Aristotle's Glanis is a siluroid fish. Pliny,
Artedi, Bloch, and Cuvier identified it with the well-known
Silurus glanis. Cuvier entertained no doubt about the
correctness of this identification and pointed out that, at
Constantinople, S. glanis was called Glanos or Glano.5l On
the other hand, Gesner was of opinion that the wels {S.
glanis) was unknown to Aristotle, and he identified Glanis
with a smaller species of Silurus** Several centuries after
Gesner's time, Agassiz, who had considerable experience of

* H. A. ii. c, 11, s. 7.

t H. A. vi. c. 12, s. 4, vi. c. 16, s. 4 ; G. A. iii. c. 4, 755a.
X H.A.i.c. 5, s. 3. § Ihid. ii. c. 11, s. 7.

II H. A. vi. c. 13, ss. 2, 4, and 5, ix. c. 25, s. 6.
11 Hist. Nat. des Poiss. xiv. p. 344.
** Nomencl. Aquat. Anim. 1560, p. 319.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 235

Silurus glanis of Central Europe, and was not disposed to
accept Cuvier's identification, obtained six specimens of a
siluroid, new to ichthyologists, from the Achelous, in
western Greece.

These fishes were labelled with the local name for them,
Glanidia (plm^al of Glanidi), and, after a careful examin-
ation, Agassiz concluded that they were the same as
Aristotle's Glanis, agreeing with this in the form of the
anal fin, the nature of the gills, the position of the gall-
bladder, the connected spawn, and other characters.*

Agassiz gave the name Glanis aristotelis to this siluroid,
but it is more usually called Parasilurus aristotelis. 1 have
not been able to see a specimen of this fish, but a good
description, with drawings, is given by T. Gill, who states
that it watches over its eggs, which Silurus glanis does not,
that it has four barbels, whereas S. glanis has six, and that
it has fewer rays in its anal fin.i

The Kallionymos, which lives near the shore,! and has
a gall-bladder relatively larger than that of any other fish,§
is clearly the star-gazer {TJranoscopus scaher). Pliny says
that the Callionymus, which has more gall than any other
fish, is also called Uranoscopos, from the position of its eyes.H
The presence of a very large gall-bladder in Kallionymos
was so well known that this fish was commonly referred to
in passages descriptive of excessive anger. ^ The gall-
bladder of the star-gazer is very large, and, according to
Cuvier and Valenciennes,** shaped like a long-necked phial,
with a duct as large as the fish's duodenum.

Aristotle's statements about the fleshy palate of
Kyprinos,-^} about its being a river fish, It and about its
great fecundity, §§ clearly show that he is referring to the
carp. His statements about this fish are, in fact, far more
valuable than those made by other ancient authors.

Under the name Perke, Aristotle included both fresh-
water and sea perches, and it is only in a few passages that
it is clear to which he refers. The freshwater perch is
clearly referred to in H. A. vi. c. 13, s. 2, where he says

* Proc. Amer. Acad, of Arts and ScL, vol. iii. 1857, pp. 825-34.
f Annual Report of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
1906, pp. 436-9.

I H. A. viii. c. 15, s. 1. § Ihid. ii. c. 11, s. 7.

II Nat. Hist, xxxii. 24. 11 ^lian, De Nat. Anim. xiii 4.
** Hist. Nat. des Poiss. iii. p. 297.

ft H. A. iv. c. 8, s. 4 ; P. A. ii. c. 17, 6606.

II Ibid. §§ H. A. vi. c. 13, ss. 1 and 6.

236 AEISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

that its ova, connected together Hke those of frogs, are
deposited among reeds in rivers and ponds.

Nest-making fishes are well known. The first record of
fishes of this kind was made by Aristotle. In fl^. A. viii.
c. 29, s. 3, he says that Phykis is the only sea-fish, " so they
say," which makes nests and rears its young in them. The
word used by him for " nest " is JTj^a?, which means a bed
of leaves or reeds. The fish referred to appears to be one
of the gobies, the males of which guard the eggs, previously
deposited by the females, beneath stones or aquatic plants
or the concave parts of cockle or other shells.

According to Aristotle, Skaros was the only fish which
seemed to ruminate,* its food was seaweed, t and its teeth
were not sharp and interlocking like those of other fishes. I
From Athenseus, Deipii. vii. 113, it seems that Skaros was
not easily caught. Oppian of Cilicia applies to it the epithets
stiktos (variegated), hallos (dappled), and glagoeis (milky). §
Marcellus of Sida calls it anthemoeis (flowery). || Martial
says in effect that the viscera of Scarus were of better
flavour than the rest of this fish,T^ and that it was caught
by means of a hook baited with a fly.** Other ancient
writers, ^lian, Ovid, Horace, and Pliny, refer to Skaros or
Scarus, but the passages cited above are those of most
interest.

Many naturalists have tried to identify Aristotle's fish.
Rondelet says that it is like a sargo in shape, fins, and spines,
and that it used to be sold by some fishermen for SargoA'^
Belon says that it is very common off the Cretan coasts. X X
Under the name Scarus Cretensis, Aldrovandi gives a
drawing of a fish with a long dorsal fin, large scales, and
deep saw-edged jaws. §§ His fish is evidently a parrot-
wrasse, but his description is of little value. Availing
himself of the fact that Skaros is the modern Greek name
for a fish which is very common off the Cretan coasts,
Cuvier obtained, with the assistance of Count de Chabrol,
French Minister of Marine, in 1827, three of these fishes.
In Cuvier and Valenciennes' great work, which was con-
tinued by Valenciennes after Cuvier's death, a belief is

- H. A. ii. c. 12, s. 13, viii. c. 4, s. 4; P. A. iii. c. 14, 675a.

f H. A. viii. c. 4, s. 1. X Ibid. ii. c. 9, s. 5.

§ Ralieut. iv. 41, 88 and 113. || De Medic, e Pise, line 19.

11 Epigr. xiii. 84. ** Ibid. v. 18.

f I De Pise. Marin. 1554, p. 164.
\X Lss Observ. do., en Grece, Asie, Sc., 1553, i. c. 8.
§§ Z)e Pise. 1613, p. 8.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 237

expressed that these fishes were the same as Aristotle's
Skaros and nearly the same as Aldrovandi's Scarus Cretensis*
This belief was strengthened by a description of the Skaros
of Crete, given by M. Le Mesle, in command of the
' Cuirassier,' on which the fishes examined by Cuvier were
taken to Toulon. The value of this description is greater,
because it was made without regard for what the Ancients said
of their Skaros. According to M. Le Mesle, it is called Skaro
from its leaping mode of progression, it plays about among
rocks in the midst of seaweeds and other plants on which it
feeds, it can be caught only after some experience, being very
difficult to take with the line, its flavour is excellent, and
the Turks call it " red fish " or " blue fish," according to its
play of colours.! Cuvier was also informed by M. Pouque-
ville that the Greeks made a sauce from the liver and
intestines of the Skaro, I a statement which explains to some
extent the passage already given from Martial.

With respect to the so-called ruminating habits of Skaros,
there seems to be a misunderstanding. Aristotle says that
it appears to ruminate, and it is only some later writers, like
Oppian and Pliny, who assert that it ruminates. The idea
of rumination by the parrot-wrasse (Scariis Cretensis), which
is clearly the Skaros of the Ancients, probably arose from
its grazing or cropping off marine plants and grinding them
down by a process lasting some time. It may be mentioned
that Darwin, Wallace, and others who describe the feeding
habits of various species of Scams, many of which feed on
corals, employ the words " browsing " and " grazing."

A large number of species of reptiles and amphibians
exists in Greece. Thirty-one species were recorded in 1832
by the members of the French Scientific Expedition to the
Morea. Aristotle describes or mentions not less than fifteen;
he also describes a few not found in Greece.

His Ghelone included Testudo grceca and T. marginata,
two common land-tortoises of Greece, and also Thalassochelys
caretta, the loggerhead of the Mediterranean; this he calls
Ghelone thalattia. His description of the habits of this
turtle is not quite accurate, but he knew that it leaves the
water to deposit its eggs, burying them in the earth, § and
that it has powerful jaws enabling it to crunch the shells of
molluscs. II

■■■ Hist. Nat. des Poiss. xiv. pp. 148-9. f Op. cit. pp. 149-150.
\ Op. cit. p. 151. I H.A. V. c. 27, s. 1.

II Ibid. viii. c. 3, s. 4.

238 AEISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

Aristotle's Emys seems to be the European pond-tortoise
{Emys orbicularis). According to him, it is a small water-
tortoise,* but no passage in his works seems to state that it
is a freshwater animal. That it is so may be inferred from
H. A. Y. c. 27, s. 1, for, after describing how E7n7js deposits
its eggs in a hole in dry ground, Aristotle follows with a
short but separate description of marine tortoises. Pliny
clearly states that freshwater tortoises were called Emydes
by some Greek authors. t

The Nile crocodile is mentioned by Aristotle in several
passages, but he gives nothing of importance beyond the
information given by Herodotus.

The gecko, probably Hemidactylus turcicus, and other
species, is clearly indicated by Aristotle, who calls it
Askalabotes. He says that it can walk on trees in any
position, even below the branches,! and that it eats spiders. §
Just as, at the present day, the bite of the gecko in some
parts of southern Europe is considered to be poisonous, or
even fatal, Aristotle says that in some parts of Italy the bite
of the Askalabotes is fatal. || Geckos are quite harmless,
although their appearance is not inviting, and their food
chiefly consists of spiders, flies, and moths.

Perhaps no reptiles were better known by Aristotle than
the chamseleons. He probably saw many of them in western
Asia, and it is evident that he dissected them. Some in-
teresting statements relating to the anatomy of the chamae-
leon have been discussed in Chapters x.-xii. The rest of the
statements made by Aristotle, in H. A. ii. c. 7, and P. A. iv.
0. 11, are too numerous to be cited at length, and a selection
only will be given. He saj^s that it has a very long tail
tapering to a point and much twisted, like a thong. IT The
outer part of each of its front feet, he says, is divided into
two toes, and the inner part into three ; the inner part of
each hind foot is divided into two toes, and the outer part
into three.** This description agrees with the peculiar
arrangements of the toes of a chamseleon, but an error seems
to occur, hror for Uros, in Schneider's Greek text.

Aristotle gives a good description of the eyes of a
chamseleon and a short account of their movements, ft
but, strangely enough, does not point out that each eye can

■-'= H. A. viii. c. 2, s. 2. f Nat. Hist, xxxii. 14.

I H. A. ix. c. 10, s. 2. § Ibid. ix. c. 2, s. 5.

II Ibid. viii. c. 28, s. 2. IT Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 1.
-- Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 2. f f Ibid. ii. c. 7, s. 3.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 239

move independently of the other. When the outer skin of
the eye of a chamseleon is removed, he says, a shining body,
like a small bronze ring, is exposed.* This refers to the
iris, which is seen, after removal of the skin, as a bronze-
like ring surrounded by a series of radial bands with black
pigment about their outer ends.

The change of colour of a chamaeleon, Aristotle says,
takes place when it is puffied out, and it exhibits a dark
colour, not very different from that of a crocodile, and a pale
colour, not unlike that of some lizards, variegated with dark
parts, like that of a leopard. This change takes place, he
adds, over the whole of its body, for its eyes and tail change
like the rest of its body, but, when dying, it becomes of a
pale colour, and so it remains after death.!

It is true that a marked puffing-out is noticeable when a
chamaeleon changes colour, during a state of agitation. The
changes of colour are due, however, to the shifting of pigment
granules towards or away from the epidermal layer, in
branches of chromatophores beneath the skin. These
changes of colour, as Prof. Poulton of Oxford suggested to
me, might be compared with blushing. Aristotle's de-
scription of the various changes of colour is not clear. They
depend to a large extent on the state of a chamaeleon as
regards fear or anger, sleeping and waking, the colours of
surrounding objects, the brightness of the light, and the
temperature. One which I had some time ago was nearly
white, when terrified, except for some brownish spots, and,
when asleep, its colour was much the same, but greyish
instead of nearly white. When among trees and bushes it
gradually assumed a greenish colour, with brown spots, but,
when angry, it drew in large quantities of air, blowing itself
out, hissing, and becoming nearly black. The changes of
colour occurred over all parts of the body, except that the
under parts, and especially the parts between the legs, were
not nearly so sensitive as the upper parts.

The colour of the common chamaeleon, after death, is
usually yellowish-white, but one chamaeleon, after death by
chloroform, was black, except on the under parts between
the legs. Prof. Poulton says that one chamaeleon, which
died 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. ii. c. 7, s. 5. f Ihid. ii. c. 7, ss. 3 and 4.

240 AKISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

by the masculine form Echis, sometimes by the feminine
form Echidna, is the only snake which is ovoviviparous.*
Vipers bring forth their young alive, and under the name
Echis or Echidna may be included the common viper {Vipera
berus), the southern viper (F. aspis), and the sand viper (F.
anwiodytes) , which is said to be in the East what the common
viper is in the West.t

Aristotle records the popular belief that the Salamandra,
probably the common spotted Salamander {Salamandy^a
maculosa) of southern Europe, puts out a fire if it walks
over it.t

One amphibian, the Kordylos, mentioned by Aristotle, is
difficult to identify. He says that it is an amphibious
quadruped having gills but no lungs, and obtaining its food
on dry land,§ that it lives in marshes, || and that it has a
thin, flat tail,^ which is like that of Glanis {Parasilurus
aristotelis) , to compare a small thing with a large one.**

Gesner and Belon seem to have believed that Kordylos
was a water newt. Cuvier says : — " It is clear that these
characters," referring to those of Kordylos, " can belong
only to the larva of the water newt, as M. Schneider has
very well seen." ft Sundevall considers that Aristotle's
animal is one of the water newts, and says that on each side
of the back part of the head of Triton palustris there is an
indication of the former existence of the gill slit in the
presence of a fold of rather tender skin, and that an ap-
pearance such as this may have deceived Aristotle, X X

No animal with which Aristotle can reasonably be sup-
posed to have been acquainted serves as a good identification
of his Kordylos. The tadpoles of water newts, although
they have during certain stages of their development external
gills and four legs, do not go on dry land to obtain food, and
the tadpoles of frogs have no branchial apertures when their
front legs project beneath the skin. Aristotle seems to have
misunderstood the nature of the respiratory organs of water
newts, and his Kordylos is probably one of these.

Among the other reptiles and amphibians described or
mentioned by Aristotle are J5a^r(xc7i0s (the hog), Phryne (the

- H. A. i. c. 0, s. 2, iii. c. 1, s. 14, v. c. 28 ; G. A. i. c. 10.
f Exped. Sci. de Moree, 1836, vol. iii. part 1, p. 74.

I H. A. V. c. 17, s. 13. ^ H.A. viii. c. 2, s. 5 ; De Respir. c. 10, 476a.

II H. A. i. c. 1, s. 7. it P. ^. iv. c. 13, 695&. =•■- H. A. i. c. 5, s. 3.
f f Le Begn. Anim. Paris, 836-7, Note on p. 47 of vol. on " Reptiles."
\\ Die Thierarten des Aristoteles, 1863, p. 187.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 241

toad) , Tijphlines (the blind-worm) , Hydros (the grass-snake) ,
and Saura, which included the wall and other lizards. In
H. A. i. c. 5, s. 4, he says that some say that there are
winged snakes in Ethiopia. This report probably originated
from the ancient representations of winged snakes, such as,
for instance, those on certain Egyptian mummy cases, some
of which, from Edfu, Thebes, and other places, may be seen
in the Egyptian Kooms of the British Museum. Herodotus
also refers to the reported existence of snakes, with wings
like those of a bat, in Arabia.* All the representations
referred to above, in the Egyptian Rooms, show snakes with
feathered wings ; there does not seem to be one with wings
like those of a bat.

About one hundred and seventy birds are described or
mentioned by Aristotle. Only a comparatively small number
of these can be identified satisfactorily.

His Gampsomjches included eagles, hawks, kites, ospreys,
owls, and vultures. He refers to them in many passages,
and says that they are carnivorous birds with hooked beaks
and claws, keen-sighted eyes, and well-developed breasts and
wings.

Owls were so well known at Athens that to take one
there was a useless act,t something like carrying coals to
Newcastle. It is not surprising that Aristotle often refers
to them. He uses not less than seven names denoting at
least seven different kinds of owls. One of these names, Glaux,
is sometimes used to denote owls in general, but the kind to
which it seems specially to refer is the little owl {Strix
noctua), sacred to Athene. The Skops which, Aristotle says,
is smaller than the Glaux, | is probably the common scops
owl. He clearly refers to the eared owls, for he says that
Otos, which some call Nyktikorax, is like Glaux, but has
feathers near its ears.§

Among diurnal birds of prey may be specially mentioned
Aristotle's Kenchris, Haliaietos, and Ihtinos. The kestrel
seems to be referred to in his statements that Kenchris
lays four or more eggs, which is more than those of other
birds of its kind, and that the eggs are ochre-coloured or
reddish-brown. II The statement about the number of
eggs is substantially true of the hawks and other diurnal
birds of prey, most of which lay two, three, or four eggs.

- ii. 75, 76, iii. 109. f Aristoph. The Birds, 301.

I H. A. viii. c. 5, s. 2. § Ihid. viii. c. 14, s. 6.

Ii Ihid. vi. c. 1, s. 2, vi. c. 2, s. 2.

R

242 AEISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

The kestrel lays four, JEive, or sometimes six eggs, usually
mottled or blotched with reddish-brown.

The Haliaietos or sea eagle, according to Aristotle, has a
large, thick neck, curved wings, and broad tail,* and it lives
near the coast and strikes down water birds.! He relates a
popular belief that the old birds kill any of their young ones
which are unable to gaze on the sun before they are fledged. |

Aristotle gives very little information about the kite,
which he calls Iktinos. He says that its young ones are
usually two, sometimes three, or, in the ^tolian kites, four
in number, and that the period of incubation is twenty days.§
His estimate of the number of young ones is rather too low,
for the kite usually has three or four. The period of in-
cubation of the kite I do not know.

The Steganopodes, or web-footed birds, which can be
identified, are Kyhios (the swan), Che7i (the goose), Netta
(the wild duck), and Laros, which includes sea-gulls and
terns, while those which cannot be so well identified comprise
Kolymhis, Boskas, and Aithyia. \\

The Kolymhis is of special interest in connection with
Aristotle's views on the structure of the feet of his Stegano-
podes. He includes Kolymhis among the heavier birds,
living in the vicinity of rivers and lakes, H and he probably
had it in mind in P. ^. iv. c. 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, while others have their
toes separated from one another, but there is an expansion
along the whole length of each toe, something like an oar-
blade.

■ Avisioile's Kolymhis seems to be a grebe, viz., the great
crested grebe {Podicipes cristatus) , which frequents the fresh
waters of Greece, Turkey, and Asia Minor, is one of the
web-footed birds, according to Aristotle's definition, and may
be included among the heavier water birds, for its total
length is nearly two feet, although its body is not larger
than that of a wild duck of moderate size. Dionysius makes
statements about Kolymhos (probably another name for
Kolymhis) , which are quite consistent with the aquatic habits

* H. A. ix. c. 22, s. 3. f Ibid. ix. c. 23, s. 3.

\ Ibid. § Ibid. vi. c. G, s. 2.

II See also an article by mo entitled " On the Identification of some
of the Birds mentioned by Aristotle," in The Zoologist, 1903, pp. 241-53,
H H. A. viii. c. 5, s. 8.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 243

of the great crested grebe. He says that it is almost always
afloat, 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 windy weather, I have seen this
bird, on the Tring reservoirs, swimming out against wind
and waves with evident enjoyment, while coots and other
birds were in smoother water. The little grebe or dabchick
is clearly described in Athenaeus,t as the little Kolymhis.

All that Aristotle says about Boskas is that it is one of
the heavier web-footed birds living in the vicinity of rivers
and lakes, and that it is like a duck, but smaller. | This is
not sufficient to identify it, but, making use of the characters,
given in Athenseus to the male Boskas, viz., short beak and
pencilled plumage, § the Boskas has been supposed to be the
wigeon or the common teal.

From the scanty information given by Aristotle about
Aithyia, it seems that it is a sea-bird which hatches out two
or three young ones, among the rocks, in early spring, that
it does not migrate, and that it feeds on animals washed
ashore. |i A bird, called Aithyia, is described by Dionysius,1T
and referred to by Homer, Arrian, ^sop, Theophrastus,
^lian, Athenaeus, and Hesychius, and what appears to be
the same bird is described by Horace, Virgil, and Pliny
under the name Mergus. These descriptions and references
are consistent with its being a voracious sea-bird, more es-
pecially a gull. Many attempts have been made to identify
AitJujia. William Turner, Dean of Wells, identifies it with
a cormorant.** Gesner seems to consider it to be a goos-
ander, or a gull.tf Belon identifies Aithyia with a bird to
which he assigns many features, some of which are to be
found in the razor-bill, and his drawing of Aithyia represents
a web-footed bird, without the first toe, and with a well-
developed beak. 1 1 Sundevall argues that Aithyia is a gull, § §
and D'Arcy W. Thompson says it is probably a large gull,
e.g., L. marinus or L. argentatus (the herring gull).|i||

Excepting the herring-gulls, the birds mentioned above

* Ixeutica, ii, 12. f Deijm. ix. 52.

:J; H. A. viii. c. 5, s. 8. § Deijm. ix. 52.

II H. A. V. c. 8, s. 4, viii. c. 5, s. 7. H Ixeutica, ii. 5.
■■■'■'■'• Avium . . . apud Plin. et Arisfot. . . . Historia, 1544, not paged.
If Hist. Anini. iii. 1555, p. 119.

l\ L'Hist. de la Natitr. des Oyseaux, 1555, pp. 179-80.
§§ Die Thierarten des Aristoteles, 1863, p. 158.
III! Glossary of GreeJc Birds, 1895, p. 17.

244 AKISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

do not furnish an identification at all satisfactory, for they
are either very rare in Grecian waters, or they differ from
Aitliyia 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 distinct
species, viz., L. leucophcBus (the yellow-legged herring gull).
This bird is very common in Greece, and nests among the
rocks rather early in spring. It is described in Sharpe and
Dresser's Birds of Europe, 1871-81, vol. 8, where it is
stated (Seebohm's notes being quoted) that this is almost
the only kind of gull met with in the Mediterranean, both
in spring and summer, and that Seebohm visited some
breeding places of this bird in the Isle of Makree, and, from
what he saw, concluded that it must have had eggs about
the middle of April.

The Peristeroeide of Aristotle include Peristera (the
domestic pigeon), Phatta (the wood pigeon, still called
Phassa or Phatta in modern Greece), Oinas (the rock
pigeon), and Trygon (the turtle dove, still called Trygon in
modern Greece). His statements about these birds are
numerous, and some only, relating to Phatta and Trygon,
will be considered.

Aristotle says that Phatta is the largest and Trygon the
smallest of his Peristeroeide.* According to him, the Try-
gon is never seen in Greece during the winter, but only in
summer, and this he explains by its migrating to and from
Greece and also by its hiding itself, t The turtle dove is a
particularly good example of a summer migrant. It arrives
in Greece in April, and leaves in August. + His statements
about Phatta are inconsistent, for he says that it is always
seen in Greece,§ and that it does not winter there. ||

Referring to the autumnal disappearance of birds gene-
rally, Aristotle says that they do not all migrate to warm
regions, as some say, but those which are near the regions
where birds of their own kind are always found, migrate
thither, while some which are far away from the regions
where birds of their own kind are always found, do not
migrate, but hide themselves, IT This erroneous view about
migrations was held for many centuries after Aristotle's time,
and is still to be found as a popular belief.

■'- H. A. V. c. 11, s.'.2. f Ibid. viii. c. 5, s. 5, viii. c. 14, s. 5, viii. c. 18.
I Sharpe and Dresser's Birds of Europe, 1871-81, vol. 7. Section
on Turtur vulgaris.

§ H. A. viii. c. 5, s. 5. || Ibid. viii. c. 14, s. 6. H Ibid. viii. c. 18.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 245

He states that the Peristeroeide usually lay two eggs,
but Phatta and Trijgon generally lay three.* This last
statement is incorrect ; there seems to be no record of birds
of the pigeon family laying more than two eggs.

A small group of birds, the Apodes of Aristotle, so called
because of their abnormally small or weak feet, includes
Chelidon (the swallow), Apous or Kypsellos (the swift and
house-martin), and Drepanis (the sand-martin).

Aristotle gives an important character of Apous or
Kypsellos, viz., that its metatarsus is feathered, t but he gives
very little information about Drepanis, and Pliny and other
ancient writers render no assistance in identifying this bird.
The Drepanis, according to Aristotle, is closely allied to
Apous, and is seen and caught when it rains in summer, but
is a rare bird, on the whole.!

Belon and Gesner identified Drepanis with the sand-
martin, but, during comparatively recent years, there has
been an inclination to identify it with the Alpine swift
{Cypselus melha). This is not a good identification, and there
does not seem to be sufficient reason to abandon Belon and
Gesner's conclusion.

The name Drepanis (from Drepane, a sickle) does not give
much assistance ; it may refer to the shape of the wings,
and would then favour the identification of Drepanis with
the Alpine swift, or it may refer to the long, curved, hind
claw of the sand-martin. It seems likely, however, that the
Alpine swift, with its very short feet and feathered metatarsus,
should be included with the common swift (C. apus), under
the name Apous. Again, Aristotle's assertions about Drepanis
do not appear to be consistent with the view that it is the
Alpine swift, for this bird is very common in Greece, through-
out the breeding season, and, according to Von der Miihle,
is sold in large quantities in the Grecian markets. §

The sand-martin, which is somewhat rare in Greece, is
said to breed in the banks of the Alpheus and the Eurotas,
and to be seen in summer. It would be seen more especially
after rains, and its stay in Greece is known to be compara-
tively short. All these considerations tend to show that
Drepanis is the sand-martin. In his letter, previously
referred to, Mr. G. C. Zervos expresses his opinion that

* H. A. vi. c. 4, s. 1. f Ihid. ix. c. 21, s. 1.

I Ihid. i. c. 1, 8. 9.
§ Sharpe and Dresser's Birds of Europe^ 1871-81, vol. 4. Section on
Cypselus melba.

246 ARISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

Brepanis was the name given by the ancient Greeks to the
sand-martin.

The name Kiclile is used by Aristotle for any kind of
thrush. He says that the Kichlai build their nests in
proximity to one another in tree tops, and that they make
them of mud.* This description seems to apply best to the
fieldfares, which nest in colonies, usually at a good height
in trees, and, like some other thrushes, use mud in making
their nests. He also says that there are three kinds of
Kichlai, one of which, called Ixoboros, feeds on mistletoe
and resin, t This bird is evidently intended to be the missel
thrush. Aristotle says that Ixoboros is about as large as
Kitta. X The common jay, which seems to be the Kitta, is
somewhat larger than the missel thrush.

Aristotle says that there is a bird living among the rocks,
especially in Scyros, and called Kyanos, or blue bird, that it
is smaller than the Kottyphos, or blackbird, but larger than
the Spiza (chaffinch?), that it is quite blue, and that its
beak is long and smooth, its legs short, and its feet black. §

This description applies very well to the male blue rock
thrush, which is common in Greece and, apparently, the
Greek Isles.

Under the name Aigithalos, Aristotle included the tits,
and says that they are insectivorous and lay more eggs than
other birds. II There are, he says, three kinds, viz., the
Spizites, which is the largest and about as large as Spiza
(apparently the chaffinch), the Orelnos, which lives in
mountainous places and has a long tail, and a third which is
very small. ^

Spizites and Oreinos are evidently the great tit {Pariis
major) and a long-tailed tit, e.g., Acredula caudata, re-
spectively. It is not possible to determine what the very
small tit is intended to be ; Sundevall identified it with the
marsh tit {Parus palustris).^*

Aristotle clearly refers to the nightingale, which he calls
Aedon, the name which is still given to it by modern Greeks.
The statements Aristotle makes about the nightingale, even
about its song, are of but little importance, and his assertion
that both the male and female sing ft is incorrect. This

-1= H. A. vi. c. 1, s. 3. -f- Ihid. is. c. 18, s. 2.

I Ihid. § Ibid. ix. c. 18, s. 3.

II Ibid. viii. c. 5, s. 3, ix. c. 16, s. 1. 11 Ibid. viii. c. 5, s. 3.
** Die Thierarten des Aristotcles, 1863, p. 115.

•j-f H. A. iv. c. 9, s. 7.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 247

error arose perhaps from the ancient popular behef about
the origin of the nightingale, by the metamorphosis of an
Athenian princess, Philomela, into a nightingale, or from
failure to determine the sex of the singer. It is in Aristo-
phanes that full justice is done to its song, the character
representing the nightingale being called upon by the hoopoe,
the king of the birds, to imitate the divine and entrancing
notes of the nightingale by giving a flute solo.*

The Epops, according to Aristotle, lives in woody and
mountainous regions, t and does not build a nest, but lays its
eggs in a hollow tree. + This bird is the hoopoe. It frequents
woods and open country which is not devoid of trees or bushes,
but Aristotle's assertion that the Epops lives in mountain-
ous regions seems to be quite true of the hoopoes of Turkey,
for, in the Section on the Hoopoe, in vol. 5 of Sharpe and
Dresser's Birds of Europe, the following statement by Mr.
Kobson of Ortakeuy is quoted : — " In Turkey, where the
vernacular name signifies ' Mountain Cock,' they are most
partial to the sides of mountains, although often found in
the valleys."

The wryneck is sufficiently clearly indicated by Aristotle,
who calls it lynx, and says that it has dappled plumage, a
long extensible tongue, and two toes directed forwards and
two backwards, and that it hisses and turns its neck back-
wards, like a snake, while its body remains still. § He also
says that lynx is a little larger than 8piza.\\ It is uncertain
to what bird the name Spiza refers, but it is probable that a
chaffinch is meant.

The insectivorous habits of the woodpecker, called by
him Dryokolaptes, which means " one that makes holes in
trees," are sufficiently clearly described by Aristotle, but he
incorrectly states that its tongue is flat.H He refers to
three kinds of woodpeckers, one of which may be the great
black woodpecker {Picus martins) ; this kind, he says, is
not much smaller than a domestic hen, and feeds on ants
and larvae.** A certain tame bird, he says, of this kind
was 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 the
kernel, ft

Aristotle's statements about the cuckoo are of much

* The Birds, 202-22. j H. A. ix. c. 12, s. 3.

I Ibid. vi. c. 1, s. 3, § Ibid. ii. c. 8, s. 2 ; P. A. iv. c. 12, 695a.

II Ibid. ii. c. 8, s. 2. *F Ibid. ix. c. 10, s. 2.
** Ibid. tf Ibid.

248 AEISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

interest. He argues strongly against the opinion, which, he
says, was held by some, that this bird was a kind of hawk.*
The cuckoo (Kokkyx), he says, does not make a nest, but
lays one or sometimes two eggs in the nest of some other
bird, which hatches out and brings up its foster young, t
He mentions the following foster-parents : — Hijpolais (the
hedge-sparrow, apparently), Korydos (the skylark), Chloris
(the greenfinch, probably), and Phaps, which seems to be
some kind of pigeon.

The hedge-sparrow is commonly and the skylark occasi-
onally a foster-parent to the young of the cuckoo. Eecords
of cuckoo's eggs being deposited in the nests of the green-
finch and the wood pigeon have also been made, according
to Sharpe and Dresser. I

Aristotle says that the cuckoo, when depositing its egg,
devours the eggs of the foster-mother, § This seems to be
the only passage in which he expresses his own opinion on
the fate of the eggs or young of the foster-mother. He also
records the opinions of others on this subject. These opinions
were : (1) that the young cuckoo ejects the young of the
foster-parents; (2) that the foster-mother kills its own young;
(3) that the old cuckoo re-visits the nest and kills the young
of the foster-parents ; (4) that the young cuckoo causes the
death of the other young ones by appropriating all the food,
and, (5). that the young cuckoo itself kills the other young
ones. I!

It is clear, from (1) above, that, even as far back as the
time of Aristotle, it was believed that the young cuckoo
ejected the young of the foster-parents. Aristotle's own
opinion is not altogether incorrect, for, according to Sharpe
and Dresser,^ the old cuckoo has been said to destroy the
eggs of the foster-parents, when depositing its own egg.
According to the same authorities, the old cuckoo has been
known to revisit the nest and throw out the young of the
foster-parents. This agrees with the ancient opinion (3)
given above.

It is generally believed that the habit of cuckoos of en-
trusting the care of their eggs and young to other birds is
largely due to the short period of their stay in the breeding-
area not allowing them to hatch out and rear a sufficient

* H. A. vi. c. 7. f Ibid. vi. c. 7, ss. 2 and 3, ix. c. 20, s, 1.

I Birds of Europe, 1871-81, vol. 5. Section on Cuculus canorus.
§ H. A. vi. c. 7, s. 2. II Ibid. ix. c. 20, ss. 1 and 2.
^ Op. cit.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 249

number of young ones. Aristotle's view on this question is
quite different. He explains the habit by saying that
cuckoos are very timid birds and cannot defend their young,
but place them under the protection of other birds.*

He gives information about two birds, which he probably
never saw, viz., PsittaJce (the parrot) and Strouthos Lihykos
(the ostrich).

He says that Psittake is an Indian bird, which is said to
have a tongue like that of a man, and that it talks most when
intoxicated.!

The ostrich, he says, has some of the characters of a bird,
e.g., it has wings, feathers, and two legs, and some of the
characters of a quadruped, e.g., it has cloven feet with
hoofs, " hair-like feathers " which are useless for flight, and
upper eyelashes, t

Pliny calls the ostrich Strutliio-camelus, and a popular
belief in the " bird-quadruped " nature of the ostrich has
been very persistent, and is said to exist in Arabia. The
ostrich has two toes on each foot, an inner very large one
with lateral expansions and a nail, quite unlike a hoof, and
an outer small toe which is often without a nail. It has
both upper and lower eyelashes, composed of hair-like
feathers.

Aristotle also states that the ostrich lays many eggs,§
and does not seem to have knov^n that several hens lay in
one nest.

- H. A. ix. c. 20, s. 3. \ Ibid. viii. c. 14, s. 6.

I P. A. iv. c. 13, 6976. § H. A. ix. c. 16, s. 1 ; G. A. iii. c. 1, 7496.

250 ARISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

CHAPTER XVIII.

AEISTOTLE'S ENAIMA, OR ANIMALS WITH
BLOOD {continued).

The best-defined group of Aristotle's Enalma is his
Kete or Ketode. He says that they are truly viviparous,
that they have mammge and furnish milk, and that they have
lungs and a blowhole.* The fish-like forms of these animals,
and their habit of coming to the surface of the sea to spout
were known to him,t but he states erroneously that they
turn on their backs to take their prey, because their mouths,
like those of his Selache, are on their ventral sides.!

By his researches on his Kete or Ketode, Aristotle
achieved an important result, for he clearly distinguished
them from fishes and from other viviparous animals. The
word Kete had been used by Homer, Arrian, and other
writers to denote very large aquatic animals, but Aristotle
clearly uses it and also Ketode to denote a distinct group.
He fully deserves the praise accorded by Sir Richard Owen,
who says : — " The apodal Vivipara, which form the third
of Aristotle's more comprehensive groups, embraces the
Ketode, now called Cetacea, and affords, by its position and
co-ordinates in the great philosopher's zoological system,
one of the most striking examples of his sagacity and re-
search." §

The Kete or Ketode mentioned by Aristotle are DelpJiis,
Phalaina, Mystiketos, and Phokaina. In the numerous
passages relating to Delphis, or the dolphin, he refers par-
ticularly to its well-known carnivorous habits, sportiveness,
swiftness, and attentiveness to its young. He says also that,
when it comes to the surface, it squeaks and makes a mur-
muring noise, li The latter part of this statement is correct,
for it is known that the dolphin makes a murmuring noise.

=•- H. A. i. c. 4, s. 1, iii. c. 16, s. 1.

f H. A. viii. c. 2, s. 3 ; P. A. iv. c. 13, 697a ; De Bespir. c. 12, 4766.

I H. A. viii. c. 4, s. 4.

§ Clasnfic. and Qeogr. Distrib. of the Mammalia, Sc, 1859, p. 3.

il H. A. iv. c. 9, s. 4.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 251

Aristotle says that the blowhole of DelpJiis is ^'a tow vutou,
or through its back.* It is practically certain that he is
referring to the dolphin, although its blowhole is as nearly
as possible on the same transverse periphery as its eyes.
In other passages, he states correctly that its blowhole is in
front of its brain, t

According to Aristotle, the dolphin brings forth one
young one, or sometimes two, always in the summer season,
the period of gestation being ten months ; he also says that
dolphins have been known to live from twenty-five to thirty
years, fishermen having ascertained this by cutting the dol-
phins' tails and then allowing them to escape. I

These are interesting statements. About the ages of
dolphins I have no information. With respect to its breed-
ing habits, it is well known that the common dolphin brings
forth one young one at a birth. I cannot find a clear state-
ment about the period of gestation of the common dolphin,
but Millais states, on the authority of Nansen and Guldberg,
that the period for the white-sided dolphin is ten months,
and that the young one is born before or about midsummer. §

It is difficult to identify Aristotle's Phalaina, for he does
not give any information about its size or geographical
distribution, and, apart from information which shows that
it is a cetacean, merely states that its blowhole is in its
forehead, and that it usually brings forth two young ones,
but sometimes only one.li

It might seem to be reasonable to assume that Aristotle's
Phalaina is a whale, such as Balceiioptera muscidus, the
common or Mediterranean rorqual, which often brings
forth two young ones at a birth. It is more probable,
however, that the Phalaina is one of the larger dolphins,
e.g., the killer, Eisso's grampus, or the blackfish, for the
rorqual is a whalebone whale, and Aristotle seems to use
another name, Mystiketos, for a whale of this kind. In the
only passage in which he refers to Mystiketos, he states
clearly that it has no teeth in its mouth, but hairs like
boars' bristles. IT

The Phalainai graphically described by Arrian and
Strabo, and the BallcBnce of Pliny, were undoubtedly large

- H. A. i. c. 4, s. 1.

f P. A. iv. c. 13, 697a. ; De Respir. c. 12, 4766.

I H. A. vi. c. 11, ss. 1 and 2.

§ Mammals of Qreat Britain, Sc, vol. iii. 1906, p 339.

I; E. A. i. c. 4, s. 1, vi. c. 11, s. 1. H Ibid. iii. c. 10, s. 13.

252 ARISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

whales, those described by Arrian, in particular, being the
whales seen during the voyage of Nearchus from the Indus
to the Persian Gulf. Two years elapsed between the time
of that voyage and the death of Aristotle, but there is
nothing to show that he knew anything of the whales seen
by Nearchus.

Aristotle's Phokaina is the porpoise {P1ioc(Bna communis) ^
for he says that it is smaller than the dolphin, but relatively
wider across the back ; he also says that it is like a small
dolphin, and that some considered it to be a kind of dolphin.*

The viviparous animals with feet form a group which
corresponds with the Mammalia, other than the Cetacea.
Their chief characteristics are, according to Aristotle, 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 epiglottis, t

The number of species referred to by Aristotle cannot be
determined. Not less than sixty-six names are mentioned
by him, but it is certain that he sometimes applies more
than one name to one and the same animal, e.g., he calls
the beaver by the names Latax and Kastor, and, possibly,
Satyrion and Satherion also. It is also certain that some of
the names he employs refer to more than one species or even
genus of animals, e.g., his Kamelos includes both Camelus
dromedarius and G. bactrianus, his Kehos includes more
than one genus of monkeys, and his Nykteris more than
one genus of bats.

Among his viviparous animals with feet, the Non-Am-
pJiodo7ita is a fairly well-defined group, and corresponds,
as far as it goes, with the Buminantia of modern classifi-
cations. Their distinguishing feature, according to Aristotle,
is the absence of front teeth in the upper jaws, but he
erroneously included the camel, which has incisors in the
upper jaws, as explained in Chapter x. The chief animals
included by Aristotle among the Non-Amphodonta seem to
be the following : — oxen of various kinds {Taiiros, Bous) ;
bison (Bojiassos) ; sheep of various kinds {Ois, Krios, Pro-
baton) ; goats of various kinds {Tragos, Aix, Chimaira) ;
oryx {Oryx) ; deer of various kinds {Elaphos, Prox) ; nilgai
(Hippelaphos) ; camel (Kamelos) ; gazelle (Dorkas), and
the Pardion.

- H. A. vi. c. 11, s. 1.

f H. A. i. c. 4, 3. 1, iii. c. 10, s. 1, iii. c. 16, s. 1 ; G. A. ii. c. 4, 7376 ;
P. A. iii. c. 8, 6646.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 253

In numerous passages relating to oxen, sheep, and goats,
he describes various breeds, their food, diseases, and habits.
He records the existence of the well-known flat-tailed sheep
of western Asia, for he says that, in Syria, there are sheep
with tails a cubit in width.* The goats of Syria, he says,
have ears about a foot long, and, in some cases, their ears
hang to the ground ; the goats of Lycia, he adds, are shorn
just as sheep are in other places.! Aristotle is evidently
referring to the well-known Syrian goat, which has ex-
ceptionally long ears, and his Lycian goat is probably the
well-known Ajigora goat.

In a long description of Bonassos, Aristotle makes it
clear that it was a wild, ox-like animal, heavily built, with
horns nearly nine inches long and turned towards each
other, that it had a mane from its head to its shoulders,
and a thick mass of hair extending as far as its eyes, in such
a way that it could see better sideways than in front, that
its colour was between ash colour and red or tawny, and
that it was found in Pseonia.t This animal was evidently
the European bison.

Aristotle says that there are no deer in any part of Libya. §
This is not true. South of the Sahara, no deer are said to
be found, but, in northern Africa, there are deer, e.g., the
fallow deer and the Barbary deer. Aristotle seems to have
copied a precisely equivalent statement from Herodotus.il

In Chapter x. some of Aristotle's statements about the
horns of Elaphos, the red deer in particular being meant,
have been discussed.

The Hippelaphos has been much discussed by naturalists,
and some have attempted to discover it in territories as far
apart as Bengal and South Africa. According to Aristotle,
it was found in Arachosia, was cloven-footed, and furnished
with a tuft of hair on its throat, and also had a mane ; the
female was hornless, but the male had horns like those of
the DorJcas, or gazelle. IT

Pallas tried to identify this animal with Pliny's Tragela-
phos, an animal living near the river Phasis.** According to
Desmarest,ff Allamand attempted to identify it with the gnu
of South Africa ; it may be mentioned that Allamand was

'■■• H. A. viii. c. 27, s. 3. f Ibid. viii. c. 27, s. 3,

I Ibid. ix. c. 32. § Ibid. viii. e. 27, s. 3.

li iv. 192. if H. A. ii. c. 2, ss. 3 and 4.

*=•■• Spicilegia Zoolog. Fasciculus Undecimus, 1776, p. 51.

If Mammalogie, 1822, 2nd part, p. 472.

254 ARISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

one of the first, if not the first, to give a reliable description
of the gnu. Ciivier attempted to identify the Hlppelaplios
with the sambhur or black rusa of Bengal, called by him
Cervus Aristotelis*

Probably this animal was unknown to Aristotle, and, in
other respects, the identification is unsatisfactory, e.g.,
Aristotle says that the horns of Hippelaphos are like those
of Dorkas. Now, the horns of Dorkas, or the gazelle,
are unbranched, but the sambhur has branched horns.
Again, the erectile ridges of hair, on the throats of the few
male sambhurs I have been able to inspect, were not very
conspicuous.

Wiegmann's suggestion that Hlppelaplios is the nilgai
{Antilope picta, Pallas) t seems to give the best identification.
The nilgai, called by sportsmen the blue bull, has a mane,
and a very conspicuous tuft of black hair on its throat. Its
horns are similar in colour, size, and general form to those
of many gazelles. On closer comparison, the resemblance
fails, for the horns of the nilgai are fairly smooth, and their
basal parts are nearly triangular in cross-section, while the
horns of the gazelle are more or less oval in cross-section,
and are corrugated transversely. However, Aristotle's com-
parison, if not taken too strictly, applies to these animals.
Further, the female nilgai, like the female Hippelaplios, is
hornless.

Finally, the nilgai occurs chiefly in central and northern
India, its habitat extending towards, though, apparently, not
including, Arachosia, where the Hippelaphos was found.

The only information given by Aristotle about Dorkas is
that its horns and those of Hippelaphos are similar,! and
that it was the smallest horned animal with which he was
acquainted. §

Aristotle's Dorkas, like the Dorkas of Xenophon and
iElian, was a gazelle. Some gazelles, e.g., the Arabian
gazelle and the Dorcas gazelle, are small, but horned animals
much smaller than these are now known, such as, for
instance, the royal antelope {Neotragus pygmccus), of the Gold
Coast, which is about ten inches high at the shoulders.

The well-known belief in the existence of a unicorn is
very ancient and widespread. The Kylin of China, Aristotle's
Oryx, and so called " Indian ass," to be referred to again

■•' Le Begn. Anim. 1836-7, volume on " Mammals," p. 308.
\ Observ. Zool. Critic. 1826, p. 26. X H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 4.

§ P. A. hi. c. 2, 6636.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 255

later, and the mythical unicorn shown on coats-of-arms, are
representative of such an animal. The Onjx, according to
Aristotle, has a single horn in the middle of its head, and is
cloven-footed.* Pliny, probably referring to the same
animal, says that its hair is directed towards its head, f

It is probable that the Oryx is the Beisa {Oryx heisa), or
the sabre-horned antelope (0. leucoryx). That Aristotle saw
either of these animals is unlikely, and he probably relied on
descriptions which brought out in relief the remarkable one-
horned appearance of these animals, when seen sideways.
Sundevall says that the Oryx is sometimes shown on
Egyptian sculptures and paintings, so that the two horns
appear as one. + I have met with but small success in finding
such representations. In the Memoirs of the Archceological
Survey of Egypt, 1893-1900, there are several representations
of one-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 both
horns shown, may be seen, e.g., in the painting called " The
Farmyard : Feeding the Oryxes." §

It may be mentioned that Oppian of Syria gives a long
and interesting description of the Oryx.\\ On the whole, his
description applies best to Oryx 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, and that
the period of gestation is twelve months.^ The first state-
ment is quite correct, and the second very nearly so, the
period of gestation being a little more than twelve months.
In another passage, he states more erroneously that the
period of gestation is ten months.**

Aristotle says that the Pardion or Hij^pardion is a
cloven-footed wild animal having a mane and horns, tf In
Schneider's Greek text, the animal is called Pardion, but,
in the texts of Syllburg, Scaliger, and Camus, it is called
Hippardion. It may be the giraffe, as Pallas, Sundevall,
and others believed, for Aristotle may have been acquainted
with it, by report at least, although it was not well known

* H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 9 ; P. A. iii. c. 2, 663a.

I Nat. Hist. viii. 79.

\ Die Thierarten des Aristofeles, 1863, p. C4.

§ Beni Hasan, part 1, plate xxvii. Published bj' the Arch. Survey
of Ef^ypt, London, 1893.

II Cynegetica, ii. 445-88. II H. A. v. c. 12, s. 13.
=-:= Ibid. vi. c. 25, s. 1. f f Ihid. ii. c. 2, s 3.

256 ARISTOTLE'S EN AIM A,

to the Ancients. Pliny describes it under the names Nabim
and Gamelopardalis, and says that it was first seen at Eome
during Csesar's dictatorship.*

The Monycha described by Aristotle are the horse
{Hippos), the ass (Onos), the wild ass (Onos agrios), the so-
called Indian ass {Onos Indikos), the Syrian half-ass {Hejiii-
onos), the mule {Oreus), the hinny {Hinnos), the ginny
{Ginnos), and the pigs of Illyria and Pseonia, in which
syndactylism occurred, as explained already in Chapter x.

The so called Indian ass was, according to Aristotle,
solid-footed and one-horned, and the only animal with solid
hoofs and also a well-formed astragalus.! 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 is unlikely that the Indian ass was an Indian
rhinoceros, as some have suggested. Not only does a
rhinoceros answer very imperfectly to the descriptions, based
on Ctesias, of the Indian ass, but it is probable that Ctesias
did not know anything of rhinoceroses, for it seems, from
what ^lian says, that a rhinoceros was first reported, from
Ethiopia, by Agatharchides, who lived about B.C. 100.1

The horse and other equine animals mentioned above
form one of Aristotle's best-defined groups, the Lophoura,
distinguished by having a small cranium but long jaws, and
a mane and tail of long flowing hair.§

Aristotle gives a great deal of information about these
animals, but much of it is of little interest. There are,
however, in addition to anatomical information already dealt
with, chiefly in Chapter x., many passages relating to the
sterility and fertility of equine hybrids. The Ginnos, he
says, is the offspring of a mule and a mare, but no female
mule has been known to have offspring. |i In G. ^. ii. c. 7,
7466, he goes further than this, and says that mules {Oreis)
are incapable of generating, either among themselves or with
other animals, and adds that the whole group of Hemionoi
is sterile. The word Hemionoi in this passage seems to
be used for mules and like hybrids generally, for he dis-
tinctly assertsU^ that the Hemionoi of Syria are fertile.

- Nat. Hist. viii. 27. f H. A. ii. c. 2, s. 9.

I De Nat. Anim. v. 27. § H. A. i. c. 6, s. 3, i. c. 13, s. 3.

II Ibid. vi. c. 24, s. 1. IT Ibid. i. c. 6, s. 3, vi. c. 24, s. 1.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD.

257

No well-authenticated instances of mules or other hybrids
of the equine family breeding among themselves seem to
have been recorded, but the female mule has been known to
breed with the horse and the ass. The Ancients strongly
believed in the sterility of mules, and it is related by
Herodotus that one of the Babylonians expressed surprise at
the Persians continuing the siege of Babylon, saying that
they would have to wait till mules brought forth young, but,
adds Herodotus, in the twentieth month, one of the baggage
mules of Zopyrus did bring forth a foal.*

Aristotle speaks of the wild ass and also the half ass of
Syria {Hemionos) , but it is probable that these are asses of
one and the same species, the wild ass of western Asia
{E quits hemionus) .

The remaining viviparous animals with feet, which
Aristotle preferred to describe singly, are given in the
following tables, the first of which includes those animals
which can be identified satisfactorily, and the second those
about the identity of which there is much uncertainty. In
a few instances more than one name is used for the same
animal.

Table I.

Ailouros (Cat)

Alopex (Fox)

Arktos (Bear)

Aspalax (Mole)

Dasypous (Hare)

Echinos (Hedgehog)

Eleios (Dormouse)

Ehphas (Elephant)

Enydris (Otter)

Gale (Beech Marten)

Glanos (Hyaena)

iJipjjos-^JO^a^jizos (Hippopotamus)

Hyaina (Hyaena)

Hys (Pig)

Hystrix (Porcupine)

Ichneumon (Mongoose)

Kapros (Boar)

Table II.

Kastor (Beaver)
Kebos (Monkey, tailed)
Kuo7i (Dog)
Kynocephalos (Baboon)
Lagos (Hare)
Latax (Beaver)
Leon (Lion)
Lukos (Wolf)
Lynx (Lynx)
Mus (Mouse)
Nykteris (Bat)
Panther (Leopard)
Pardalis (Leopard)
Phoke (Seal)
Pithekos (Barbary Ape)
Thos (Jackal)

Alopex (Fox-Bat)
Choiropithekos (Drill)
Iktis (Weasel)
Mantichora (Bengal Tiger)

My gale (Shrew-mouse)
Satherion (Beaver)
Satyrion (Beaver)
Tigris (Tiger)

* iii. 151-3.

258 ARISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

The statements made by Aristotle about some of these
animals will be considered.

Aristotle's Gale and Iktis are closely related, for he says
that Iktis is like Gale in the thickness of its fur, in its
appearance, in the whiteness of its under parts, and in its
cunning disposition ; he also says that it is easily tamed,
very fond of honey, is about as large as a small Maltese dog,
and that it eats birds like a cat.* He also says that the
Gale kills birds by lacerating their throats, just as a wolf
kills sheep, and that it attacks snakes, especially those
which, like itself, hunt mice.f

There are many references in the ancient writers, e.g.,
Aristophanes, from which it is clear that Gale was a domestic
animal. Prof. Kolleston concluded that Gale was the beech
marten {Mustela foina), and Ihtis the pine marten (Af.
martes).l The chief object of his paper is to show that the
Gale performed for the ancient Greeks the same duties as
are performed for us by the domestic cat, and this object is
effected so successfully as to leave no doubt in the mind of
a reader of the paper. Prof. Rolleston's identification of
Iktis is less satisfactory.

Cetti, in J Quadr. di Sardegna, 1774, p. 179, and
Sundevall, in Die Tliierarten des Aristoteles, 1863, p. 49,
held that the boccamele or Sardinian weasel {M. hoccamele),
discovered by Cetti, about the year 1770, was Aristotle's
Iktis. It kills birds, mice, and other small animals, and is
said to be easily tamed. The specimens of this animal
which I have seen at the Natural History Museum, South
Kensington, are larger than the common weasel and darker
in colour. Respecting Aristotle's statement that Iktis is fond
of honey, it is said that the name "boccamele" was given
to the Sardinian weasel because of its fondness for honey,
but conclusive evidence about this is not readily obtainable.
Mr. G. C. Zervos, of Calymnos, informs me that he does not
know of any weasel of the Greek area notoriously fond of
honey.

In conclusion, the boccamele and the beech marten seem
to furnish the best identifications of Iktis and Gale, respec-
tively. According to Mr, G. C. Zervos, modern Greeks
regard Gale as the " cat " of the ancient Greeks, and Iktis

* H. A. ix. c. 7, s. 5. f Ihid. ix. c. 7, s. 4.

I " On the Domestic Cats, Felis domestlca and Mustela foina, of
Ancient and Modern Times," Science Papers, dc, 1884, 2 vols., Paper 28.

OR ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 259

as the same animal as the modern Greek Nyphitsa, which
is a weasel or ferret.

Aristotle credits the lion with much magnanimity and
courage ; he says, however, that there are two kinds of lions,
that one of these is not so courageous as the other, and that
an infuriated boar has been known to put a lion to flight.*
Like several modern writers, he does not seem to have
believed that the lion was undoubtedly bold and fierce.

He asserts that, in his time, lions were found in Europe,
but only in the territory between the rivers Achelous and
Nessus.f Herodotus also mentions the existence of lions
between the Achelous and Nessus. t There are several other
passages in the ancient authors tending to show that lions
lived in southern Europe in historic times, but it is not
known when they became extinct there.

The Martichora, called Mantichora in some texts, is
described by Aristotle on the authority of Ctesias. According
to this description, it was a wild, fleet animal living in India
and eating human flesh; it had feet like those of a lion, and
was as large as that animal ; its body was red, and its eyes
were blue ; its tail was like that of a scorpion and bristled
with spines ; and, in each jaw, there were three rows of
teeth. §

According to .^lian, Ctesias says that he once saw a
Martichora which had been sent from India as a present to
the King of Persia. || It may be added, in justice to ^lian,
that he properly questions whether Ctesias was a fitting wit-
ness to things of this kind. The Martichora was largely a
creature of the imagination. Sundevall fancied he saw, in
Ctesias' description, the outlines of some fantastic and badly
executed image or painting, representing a strange being of
Hindu mythology.^ Gesner describes it in a passage
between his description of the hyaena and the porcupine,
and preferred to believe that it was not a tiger.** Pausanias
believed that it was a tiger, ft and it is probable that the
description, given by Ctesias, is a distorted account of a
Bengal tiger, an animal regarded with almost superstitious
dread by the Hindus.

The Enydris or otter, according to Aristotle, obtains its

* H. A. ix. c. 31, s. 3. f Ihid. vi. c. 28, s. 1, viii. c. 27, s. 6.

I vii. 126. § H. A. ii. c. 3, s. 10.

II De Nat. Anim. iv. 21.
% Die Thierarten des Aristoteles, 1863, p. 90.
*- Hist. Anim. i. 1551, p. 631. ff Deac. of Greece, ix. 21, 4.

260 AEISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

food in or about ponds and rivers, and it also bites men and,
from information given to him, does not let go until it hears
the crunching of the bone.* Pliny, in a passage taken to
some extent from Aristotle, seems to refer, by the name
Lutra, to the same animal as Aristotle's EnydrisA It should
be mentioned, however, that Pliny, when repeating the part
of Aristotle's statement about the hard biting, applies it not
to Lutra but to the beaver. The statement would apply to
either, for both the beaver and the otter bite very hard.

Among wild animals which obtain their food in or about
lakes and rivers Aristotle mentions Latax, which goes out
by night and cuts the aspens with its strong teeth ; he also
says that its body is broader than that of Enydris, and that
its hair is harsh, being intermediate between that of a deer
and that of a seal.t This is the only important passage,
mentioning Latax, which I can find, but it contains sufficient
information to show that, probably, the beaver is meant.
The reference to the aspens is important, for the bark of
these trees is said to be the favourite food of the beaver.

The elephant is referred to by Aristotle in many passages,
some of which have been discussed in Chapters x., xi., and
xiii. The question of the period of gestation, in the case of
the elephant, does not seem to have been settled in Aristotle's
time, for he says that, according to some people, it is eighteen
months, but, according to others, it is as much as three
years. § Aristotle does not give his own view, but the first-
mentioned estimate is substantially true, the normal period
for the Indian elephant being nineteen months.

Aristotle says that the elephant throws over or tilts palm
trees with its forehead, and then tramples upon them and
throws them down,i| but, in another passage, he says that it
uproots trees by means of its trunk. IT By means of their
trunks elephants can uproot small trees, but several writers,
like Sir J. Emerson Tennent and Mr. G. P. Sanderson,
agree that elephants are by no means in the habit of trying
their strength in this way. The trunk of an elephant is
very sensitive, and it is well known how carefully the animal
usually protects it from injury. The African elephant
*' Alice " once met with an accident involving the tearing
away of the extremity of her trunk and the late Superin-
tendent of the London Zoological Gardens, Mr. A. D.

=•• H. A. viii. c. 7, s. 5. f Nat. Hist. viii. 47.

I H. A. viii. c. 7, s. 5. § Ibid. vi. c. 25, s. 2.

II Ibid. ix. c. 2, s. 11. 11 Ibid. ii. c. 1, s. 2.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 261

Bartlett, described in graphic terms the intense distress of
the poor animal.* Aristotle was not aware how delicate is
the trunk of an elephant.

An erroneous belief in the capability of elephants to
perform great feats of strength with their trunks is easily
produced, and such a belief is very persistent. About the
year 1873 a large elephant, when passing through a village
near Dudley, broke down a cast-iron lamp-post. It was
long believed, and may still be believed by some, that the
elephant did this with its trunk. The few persons who saw
what actually took place know, however, that the animal
wilfully pressed against the post with its shoulder.

The Pithekos, Kehos, and Kynocephalos which, Aris-
totle says, are of the nature of men and quadrupeds, are
sufficiently clearly distinguished by him. The Pithekos,
according to him, is without a tail, the Kehos has a tail, and
the Kynocephalos is fierce, larger and stronger than Pithekos,
and has stronger teeth, and its face is more like that of a
dog. f He gives but little further information about Kynoce-
phalos and Kehos, but gives a fairly long account of Pithekos.
He refers to the almost human appearance of its face, teeth,
fingers, and nails, its pectoral mammse, its comparatively
short humerus and femur, and its habit of spending most of
its time on all fours.!

Aristotle's Kynocephalos is evidently a baboon, the
Arabian or sacred baboon being the one with which he would
be more likely to be acquainted, his Kehos is a tailed monkey
(but to what kind he particularly refers is not clear), and his
Pithekos is the Barbary ape. This animal would be more
likely to be known by the Ancients than the gorilla and
chimpanzee, yet it was long believed that they obtained a
knowledge of some kind of anthropoid ape from the Cartha-
ginians, for it is said that Hanno, during his celebrated
voyage in the fifth century B.C., saw some animals of this
kind on the extreme west coast of Africa.

Not only does Aristotle's description of Pithekos apply
better to the Barbary ape, but there are passages, e.g., that
asserting that the chest of every animal but Man is narrow, §
which could scarcely have been written by Aristotle if he
had been acquainted with the anthropoid apes. Further,
with respect to other ancient writers, many passages in

'^' Wild Animals in Captivity, 1899, pp. 51-53.
f H. A. ii. c. 5, s. 1, I Ibid. ii. c. 5, ss. 2-5.

§ Ibid. ii. c. 1, s. 3.

262 ARISTOTLE'S ENAIMA,

their works seem to show that these apes were not known
to them. The Pithekos, in ^sop's fable, " The PitheJcos and
the Dolphin," was evidently a monkey, Arrian's beautiful
Indian Pithekoi* Elian's Indian Pithekos, with a long tail, t
the clever Pithekos which he once saw holding the reins
and, at the same time, using a whip and driving,! and the
Pithekoi which were pursued by cats and forced to ascend
trees from which they hung down by means of their hands, §
were monkeys. Finally, Galen, who had great difficulty in
obtaining human bodies for dissection, often dissected a
Pithekos instead, and it is clear from his writings that this
was a Barbary ape.

This account of Aristotle's investigations of animals will
conclude with a short statement of his views on Man.

Man is, for him, always ^wov, a living being, an animal,
but he is the highest representative of the whole series of
living beings. He is distinguished from other animals by
having a perception of good and evil, justice and injustice,
and the like,l| and by his capability of deliberating and of re-
calling anything to mind.U Many animals, Aristotle says, are
able to remember, but Man alone is capable of reminiscence,
this involving a process of syllogistic reasoning.** Aristotle
is very severe in his judgment on some types of men, for he
says that those who are not amenable to law and justice are
among the worst, and, if devoid of virtue, are the most
unholy, savage, and gluttonous animals, while those who are
highly cultured are the best and noblest.it

This discussion of Aristotle's researches in Natural Science
shows how vast was the field of knowledge which he at-
tempted to traverse. It is not pretended that the discussion
is comprehensive. Much that Aristotle included in his
voluminous writings has been omitted. That which has
been included has been selected with a view to showing
fairly the defects of Aristotle's work as well as its excel-
lences. Care has been taken to show that his writings
contain statements which he could never have attempted
to verify, and that he sometimes gave an explanation of
phenomena which was based on false data, obtained by

* Hist. Indica, c. 15. f De Nat. Anim. xvii. 39.

I Ibid. V. 26. § Ibid. V. 7.

II Politics, i. c. 1, ss. 10-11. *[ H. A. i. c. 1, s. 15.
** De Memoria, dc, c. 2. f f Politics, i. c. 1, s. 13.

OE ANIMALS WITH BLOOD. 263

abstract reasoning, and not from facts previously ascertained.
On the other hand, prominence has been given to his
excellent method of inquiry, his interesting views on the
phenomena 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 constitution
of matter, his attempt to form a classification of animals,
his advice on the importance of dissection, the instances in
which he appears to have anticipated modern discoveries,
and his excellent work in anatomy, embryology, and zoology.
If the reader is satisfied that an impartial attempt has
been made to set out the real nature and value of Aristotle's
work in Natural Science, this book will have achieved its
object.

INDEX.

English names of animals are followed, in most cases, by the
Aristotelian names apparently equivalent, e.g. Alpine swift {Algous).
Separate entries are also made for Aristotelian names of animals of
special interest, e.g. Aspalax, Glanis, Skaros.

Absorption of light, 64-5

Achaia, earthquakes in, 44, 59

Achelous, river, 48, 235, 259

^gean Sea, 54

jEgocephalos, 157

uEgon, river, 56

iEgospotamos, 51

^lian, 8, 10, 134, 231, 232, 235, 236,

243, 254, 256, 259, 262
^olian Islands, 59, 60
^sop, 186, 243, 262
^ther, 29, 30, 31, 43, 62, 88
Ethiopia, 101, 241, 256
Agassiz, L., 82, 208, 211, 213, 221,

234, 235
Air-bladder of fishes, 161
Air, colour of, 67 ; none in water,

according to A., 81, 148 ; weight

of, 60
Aithyia, 242-4
Ahalepliai (coelenterates), 84, 215,

217
Albertus Magnus, 186, 207
Albinos, 135
Alchemy, 50, 91
AlcmjEon, 14, 173, 183
Aldrovandi, 186, 207, 221, 236, 237
Alexander the Great, 7-9, 11, 61
Alhazen, 66
Alimentary canal, 24, 25, 102, 103,

130, 144, 153, 158-164, 169, 171,

203, 206
AUamand, 253

Allantois and its blood-vessels, 205-7
Alloys, 91

Alpine swift (Apous)^ 245
Amia, 156, 233-4
Amnion, 205-7

Amphibians, 75, 103, 106, 111, 112,

135, 154, 156-7, 165, 166, 170,

214, 229-30, 234, 236, 237,

240-1
Amphodonta, 128, 208
Anaima, 127, 179, 215-28
Anaklasis (of light), 34, 64
Analogy {analogia), 135, 209-11
Anaxagoras, 14, 33, 34, 43, 95, 97,

148, 198
Anaximander, 31, 32
Anaximenes, 43
AnejmllaMa, 128, 208
Angel-fish {Rhine), 152-3, 232
Angora goats, 133, 253
Anhomceomeria, 19, 90, 92, 93, 94,

118-187, 196
Animal heat, 70, 74, 75, 158

„ motion, 188-94
Antelopes, 115-6, 132, 254-6
Anthrakeutic substances, 72
Anthropoid apes, 261, 262
Anticipation of modern discoveries,

alleged, 5, 62-3, 128, 168-9, 197-8,

201-2, 231, 236, 263
Antipater, 7-8, 10
Aorta, 6, 102, 109, 110, 113, 125,

138-41, 143, 145-7, 165, 194
Aphides, 201
Aplysia, 216
Aquinas, Thomas, 6
Arabia, 100, 241, 249
Arabs and A.'s writings, 1
Arachnoid membrane, 178
Arachosia, 253-4
Araxes, river, 56
Archimedes, 65
Arcynian mountains, 56

INDEX.

265

Argonaut {Nautikos or Nautilos),

168, 227-8
Argos, physical changes at, 59
Aristophanes, 193, 241, 247, 258
Aristotelians, 3, 4, 15, 47, 70, 71
Aristotle's " lantern," 127, 130, 164

,, life and character, 7-11
Arrian, 243, 250-2, 262
Artedi, P., 5, 234
Ascidians (Tethtja), 84, 106, 127,

215, 217, 220
Ashanti, skull from, 120
Aspalax, 179, 185, 186, 257
Ass (Olios), 112, 116, 130, 155-6,

213, 256-7
Assyrians, surgery of, 143
AstaJcos, 224-5

Astragali, 118, 120, 123, 124, 125,

256
Atarneus, 7
Athenaeus, 8, 10, 14, 100, 101, 229,

231, 232, 236, 243
Athens, 7, 9, 39-40, 41, 52-3, 65, 241
Atmospheric phenomena, 28-60
Atomic theory, 92
Aubert, H., 137
Auroras, 33
Averroes, 1
Avicenua, 1
Azov, Sea of, 48, 54, 56, 58

Baboons {Kynocephalos), 82, 257,

261
Bacon, Lord, 3-4

„ Eoger, 3
Bactrus, river, 56
Barbary ape (Pithekos), 13, 82, 105,

257, 261-2
Bartlett, A. D., 261
Bass (Labrax), 24, 153, 162, 171,

181, 183-4, 193, 232-3
Bateson, W., 126
Bats (Nykteris, Alopex), 106, 170,

241, 252, 257
Bears (Arktos), 132, 135, 171, 192,

214, 257

Beavers (Latax, Kastor), 252, 257,

260
Beech marten (Gale), 257-8
Bees [Mclitta), 22, 99, 148, 164, 182,

199, 200, 201, 221, 223-4
Beetles {Kouleoijtera), 127, 164, 221,

223
Beisa {Oryx), 255
Beleiiion, 100
Beliefs, popular, 54, 57, 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

Belon' 4, 85, 86, 229, 236, 240, 243,
245

Belone, 233-4

Bengal tiger (Mantichora or Marti-
Chora), 257, 259

Bichat, 94

Bile, 92, 154, 155

Birds, 24, 25, 69,70, 75, 94, 103, 108,
111, 112, 118, 122-3, 135,148, 151,
154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161,
165, 166, 170. 177, 181, 189, 192-3,

200, 202-7, 209-11, 213-4, 241-9
Bison (Bonassos), 252-3
Blackbird (Kottyjihos), 246
Black Sea, 54, 57-8, 70

Blenny, viviparous, 25

Blind mole (Talpa ccbco), 185-6

Blind-worm {Tyi)lilines), 241

Bleeding, practice of, 144

Bloch, 234

Blood and blood-vessels, 13, 15,

26-7, 75, 92, 93, 104, 107, 109-16,

118, 136-47, 149, 150-1, 154,

157-9, 164-5, 174-6, 178, 194,

196, 202-6, 210-11
Blumenbach, 197
Boars {Kapros), 110, 128, 257, 259
Boccamele (Iktis), 258
Boethius, 1

Boguslawski, Von, on A.'s comet, 50
Bonassos, 252-3
Bone and bones, 92, 102, 104, 107-8,

111, 118-27, 131, 137-8, 168, 194,

202-3, 210, 260
Bonnet, C, 196
Book scorpion, 224
Boyle, Eobert, 47, 71-2
Brain, the, 75, 112, 143, 173-80,

183, 202, 210, 251
Bubaliue antelope (Boubalis), 115,

132
Bustards {Otis), 193
Butterflies {Psyche), 196, 199, 200

221, 223

Caesalpinus, Andreas, 96
Calamaries {Teuthos, Teuthis),106,

127, 163, 226-7
Calandruccio, Dr., 199
Callisthenes, 8
Camels {Kamelos), 12, 116, 124, 129,

171, 189, 191-2, 252, 255
Camerano, L., 185
Camerarius, R. J., 99

266

INDEX.

Camus, 191, 255

Caprification, 98

Carcharodonta, 128, 208

Carp (Kyprinos), 152, 182, 201,

233 235
Cartil'age, 92, 107-8, 118, 121-2, 183,

203
Cartilaginous fishes, 121, 122, 152-8,

162, 167, 170, 171, 193, 213-4,

229-33
Caspian, the, 57-8
Cassander, 8
Category, 6

Cats (Ailouros), 257-8, 262
Caucasus, 56-7
Cavolini, P., 201
Celestial &c., phenomena, 28-60
Centipedes, 127, 164, 221
Cephalopods, 5, 82, 83, 103, 106, 127,

138, 139, 153, 162, 163, 168-71,

174, 179, 182, 187, 189, 193, 194,

210, 211, 215, 226, 227, 228
Cerebellum, 174-5, 178
Cetaceans, 6, 106-7, 155, 167, 171,

183, 208-9, 213-4, 250-2, 262
Cetti, F., 258
Chabrol, Count de, 236
Chaffinch [Spiza), 246, 247
ChalazDB, 204
Chalcis, 9, 155
Chamaeleons (Chmnaileon), 13, 102,

106, 121, 136, 157, 175, 181, 214,

238, 239
Chambers of the heart, 137, 139-41,

149, 150
Channe, 201, 233-4
Chaonia, salt waters of, 55
Cheese, 116

Chemical composition, 12, 91
Chicken, development of the, 102,

203-7
Chinese, their views on the blood-
vessels, 144-5
Chloris, 99, 248
Choaspes, river, 56
Chordcs tendinea;, 187
Chremetes, river, 56
Church and the Aristotelians, the, 1
Chrysalides, 199-200
Cicadas (Tettix, Acheta, Tettigo-

nion), 222-8
Cicero, 186, 231

Classification of animals, 208-15, 263
Clothes moths {Ses), 223
Clouds, 34-7, 43, 45
Coagulation of blood, 110, 112-5 ; of

milk, 116-7

Ccelenterates (Ahalephai, Knidai),

79, 84, 215, 217
Coelia, see Alimentary canal.
Cold, nature of, 70-1, 74
Cold River, 134
Coleoptera, 6
Colom*, phenomena of, 34-8, 41-2,

61, 66-70, 184, 263
Colours of animals, 131, 134-5, 239
Columbus, 6

Comets, 24, 28, 32-4, 50-1, 59, 263
" Compass," A.'s, 52
Compounds of substances, 91-2
Congers [Gongros), 24-5, 106, 152,

156, 181, 193, 233
Constitution of matter, 88-92, 263
Corinth, 53
Crabs {Karhinos, Maia, Hippcus),

106, 180, 225-6
Cranes (Gcranos), 58, 69, 135
Cranium and cranial bones. 111,

118-20
Crayfish (Astakos), 139, 158, 224,

225
Crocodile (KroTcodeilos), 105, 112,

120-1, 157, 1G7-8, 181, 238
Crop, the, 25, 158, 160-4, 169
Crows (Eorone), 161
Crustaceans, 82, 88, 106, 127, 130,

138-9, 153, 168, 169-71, 182, 187,

189, 193, 215, 221, 224-6
Ctesias, 256, 259

Cuckoos {KoUyx), 18, 131, 247-9
Cuttle-bone, 127, 210, 226
Cuvier, 14-5, 85, 162, 172, 184, 201,

208-9, 229, 238-7, 240, 254
Cypris, 201

Dalmatian pups, 184

Dante, 2

Danube, 56

Dart sacs of molluscs, 164, 169

Darwin, C, 132, 166, 237

Date palm, 98, 100-1

Day- or May-flies {Ephemeron),

221, 223
Dead Sea, 54-5
Deer {Elaphos, Prox), 106, 115-7,

126-8, 181-2, 155, 252-3, 260
Delphys, 170
Deluges, 48
Democritus, 14, 33-4, 48, 61, 63, 80,

92, 95, 97, 148, 198
Der Miihle, Von, 245
Desmarest, 253
Development, generation and, 102,

186, 169, 180, 195-207, 212-13

INDEX.

267

Dew, 43

Diaphanous, the, 62, 66-8, 182,

184-5
Diaphragm, the, 140, 143, 144, 146,

158-9
Digestion, 75, 96, 153, 158, 220
Diogenes of Apollonia, 97, 136, 144,

148, 173
Diogenes Laertius, 9-10
Dionysius, 242-3
Diptera, 6
Discoveries made over and over

again, 6
Dissections, A.'s, 22, 102-6, 136-9,

167, 171, 203, 263
Ditliura (bivalves), 218
Divination, 125
Dobson, G. E., 185
Dogfishes {Galeoeide), 106, 152, 154,

230-1
Dogs (Kuon), 102, 103, 112, 116,

120, 128-31, 134, 156, 159-60,

257-8, 201
Dolphins {DelpJds), 106-7, 155, 167,

171, 183, 250-2, 262
Don, river, 48, 56
Do}-kas, 252-4
Dormice (Eleios), 257
Doves (Trygon), 106, 160, 244
Drepanis, 245-6
Dresser, H. E., 244, 245, 247-8
Ducks {Netta, Boshas), 106, 111,

193, 242, 243
Dudgeon, Dr. J., 145
Dudley, popular belief near, 261
Dura mater, 178

Earth, its position in the Kosmos,

and its form and size, 32, 88
Earthquakes, 24, 28, 43, 44, 45, 48,

59, 60, 263
Echinoderms, 103, 106, 127, 130,

164, 171, 194, 215, 217, 219-20
Echoes, 77-8
Eclipses, 32, 63
Educational value of hearing and

sight, 184
Eels {Enchelas), 24, 82, 106, 152,

156, 162, 188, 193, 198-9, 233
Egypt, 48, 58, 100-1, 241
Eidos, 209, '211-213
Elements, A.'s, 28-32, 44, 70, 71, 72,

73, 88-92, 187
Elephants {Elephas), 13, 16, 106,

126, 129, 154-6, 157, 160, 167,

171, 189, 190, 257, 260-1
Elleipsis, 209-10

Empedocles, 14,45,46, 61-3, 80,88,

95, 150-1, 198
Enamia, 82, 83, 214-5, 229-63
Energy, 6
Entelechy, 6
Enthymeme, 6
Entoma, 13, 82-3, 127, 139, 148,

153, 154, 164, 169, 182, 187,

198-200, 202, 209, 213, 215-6,

220-4
Entomology, 6
E}iydris, 257, 259-60
Epididymis, 167
Epigenesis, 197
Epiglottis, 252
Erasistratus, 105, 150, 176
Erythrinos, 22, 201, 233-4
Erythroblasts, 112
Essence, 6

Ethics, established by A., 5
Euboea, 9, 44, 55, 155
Euclid, 64

Eudemus of Ehodes, 8
Eustachian canal, the, 183
Evans, Vet.-Capt. G. H., 154, 157
Evolution theory of development,

196, 197
Exhalations, terrestrial, 24, 28, 32,

33, 42-3, 44, 45, 46-7, 49, 50
Eyes, 66, 69-70, 102, 104, 174-6,

179-80, 185-6, 198, 202-4, 206,

238, 239, 259

Fabricius, H., 203

Faculty, 6

Falkland Islands, white cattle of
the, 132

Falling bodies, 3, 24, 27, 32

Falling stars, 24, 29, 32-3

Fats, 92, 94, 107, 111, 114-5

Feathers, 135, 147, 206, 210-1, 241,
249

Feet of birds in flight, position of, 193

Fibrin and "fibres," 94, 107-9, 111,
113-6, 146, 194

Fieldfare (Kichle), 246

Fig trees, 98, 100

Final cause, 6

Fins of fishes, 142, 188, 189, 193,
211, 235-6

Fishes, 5, 14, 22, 24-5, 75, 82, 94, 103,
106, 111, 121, 129, 136, 142, 151-6,
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

Fishing-frog (Batrachos), 106, 152,
153, 156, 229, 230, 231

268

INDEX.

Flesh, 94, 104, 107, 109-11, 147, 167,

180, 183, 196, 2U2-0
Flight, 135, 188, 192-3
Foetus, human, 104-5, 165, 178
Forbes, Prof. E., 84-5, 218, 220, 228
Form, 6

Foster, Sir M., 151
Fowls, domestic, 105, 160, 203-7
Fox-bats (Alopex), 257
Foxes (Alojiex), 126, 257
Frantzius, Dr. von, 17, 137, 227
Freezing, 43, 72, 76
Friction produces heat, 30-1, 70,

72-3
Frogs {Batrachos), 106, 135, 154,

157, 166, 214, 234, 236, 240
Furlanus of Crete, 16

Gale, 126, 257-8

Galen, 104, 105, 119, 151, 157, 176,

186, 262
Galileo, 2-3, 24

Gall-bladder, 102, 155-6, 233-5
Gall-insects, 98
Gam])soHyclies, 214, 241
Gastric-mill of crustaceans, 130,

163
Gastropods, 82, 130, 163, 217-8, 228
Gazelles (Dorkas), 132, 252-4
Geckos (Askalabotes), 238
Geese (Chen), 106, 111, 192, 242
Generation and development, 102,

136, 169, 186, 195-207, 212-3
Generative organs, 122, 125-6, 146,

166-72, 195, 198, '202
Genos, 209-14, 221, 229
Geometrid£e, 223
Gesuer, Conrad, 4-5, 85-6, 186, 234,

240, 243, 245, 259
Gill, T., 235
Gills, 25, 75, 148, 149, 151-3, 182,

229, 231, 235, 240
Gilt-head {Chrysojphnjs), 129, 162,

193
Giraffe {Pardion), 189, 252, 255-6
Glanis {Parasilunis aristotelis),

106, 152, 156, 233-5, 240
Goats (Aix, Cliimaira, Tragos),

69, 116, 124, 128, 132-3, 183,

252-3
Gradation from inanimate matter

to Man, 79, 80
Grant, Dr. R. E., 85, 216

„ Sir A., 6, 17
Grassi, Prof., 199
Grass-snakes (Hydros), 106, 138,

151, 154, 156, 166, 188, 241

Great tit {S'pizites), 246
Grebes (Kolymbis), 242-3
Grecian tortoises (Chelone), 166, 237
Greenfinches {Chloris), 99, 248
Gulls {Laros, Aithyia), 69, 242-4

Habit, 6
Hail, 43
Hair, 131, 133-5, 195, 202, 252,

255-6, 260
HaUiday, W. R., 53-4, 86
Halos, 34-5, 64
Hanno, voyage of, 261
Hares {Basypous, Lagos), 106, 108,

115-7, 135, 170, 257
Harvey, W., 197, 204
Hawks, 157, 193, 241, 248
Hearing, 21, 179, 183-4, 187
Heart, the, 15, 24, 26-7, 75, 93,

102-4, 112-3, 116, 118, 125-6,

136-43, 147-9, 150, 151, 154,

164, 173, 175-7, 180, 187, 194,

197, 202-6, 211
Heat phenomena, 30-1, 70-7, 158,

263
Hecatseus, 55, 57
Hectocotylus, 5, 168-9
Hedgehogs (Echinos), 167-8, 257
Hedge-sparrows (Hypolais), 248
Hegel, 5

Helicido}, 130, 164, 219
Hellespont, earthquakes near, 44
liemionos of Syria, 213, 256-7
Heraclea Pontica, 59, 60
Heraclitus, 23
Hermaphroditism, 5, 22, 98, 201,

234
Hermias, 7, 9
Hermit crabs, 226
Herodotus, 14, 55, 57-8, 105, 119-20,

132, 191, 238, 241, 253, 257, 259
Herophilus, 105, 176
Hesychius, 243
Hilaire, J. B. Saint-, 19, 191
Hindoo Koosh, 55, 56
Hipparchus, 57
Hipyelai^lios, 252-4
Hippocrates, 14, 108-9, 111, 113-4,

119, 133, 141, 157-8, 177
Hippopotamus {Hip^ws-potamios),

105, 124, 257
Histology, 107
Hoar-frost, 43
HolotJioiii'ia, 84
Homer, 135, 243, 250
Homceomeria, 14, 19, 90-4, 107-17,

196

INDEX.

269

Homology, 135, 189, 211

Hoopoes (Hjjops), 247

Horace, 236, 243

Horned snakes, 132

Horns, 127-8, 131-2, 202, 253-6

Horses (Hiju^os), 106, 111, 115, 118,
125, 126, 128-30, 138, 155, 156,
160, 172, 189-90, 198, 208, 213,
256, 257

House-martius(4250«s), 177, 214, 245

Humboldt, Von, 50, 57, 60

Hmiter, John, 115, 172

Hyaenas {Hyaiiia, Glanos), 257

Hybrids, 256-7

Hyperoche, 209-10

Hypozoma, 153, 159, 182, 222

Hystera, 169-70

Ideler, J. L., 51, 64

Iktis, 257-8

Illyria, 126, 256

Immortality of the soul, 10

Impiety, A. charged with, 9

" Indian ass " {Onos Indikos), 124,

254, 256
Indians, North American, 6
Inductive method, 22
Indus, the, 55-6
Infinite, the, 29-30
Influence of A.'s works, 1-6
Ink-bag and ink of cephalopods, 163,

194, 226-7
Insects, 22, 82, 98-9, 106, 135, 148,

164, 182, 193, 196, 199-201, 215,

221-4, 238
Intestinal caeca of birds, 158, 160-4
Introduction to A.'s H. A., 17-20
Inventions, want of novelty in, 6
Iris, 69-70, 185, 186, 239
Iron, working of, 49, 76
IscMoH, 122-3
Isocrates, 7-8
Izavo, skull from, 120

Jackals (TJios), 257

Jays [Kitta), 246

Jelly-fishes (AJcalephe, Knide), 79,

84, 215, 217
Junge, J., 97

Kallionymos, 156, 238, 235

Karaboghaz, the, 57

Kata diametron, motion, 14, 189

Kehos, 252, 256-7, 261

Keryx, 217

Kestrels {Kenchris), 69, 241-2

Kestreus, 162, 233

Kete or Kef ode, 208-9, 213-4, 250-2

Kidneys, 104, 110, 140, 145, 165-7

Kingfishers (Halcyon), 69

Kites (IJdinos), 157. 241, 242

Knuckle-bones, 118, 120, 123-5, 256

Koclilias, 130, 219

KolymUs, 242

Kordylos, 234, 240

Kosmos, the, 29-30, 32, 33, 48, 88

Kouleo2)tera, 223

Kylin of China, 254

KTjininos, 152, 182, 233, 235

Lahrax, 183, 184, 193, 233

Lamarck, 85, 221

Lamellibranchs, 82, 186-7, 194,

218-9, 227
Lankester, Sir E., 87
Latax, 252, 257
Lauth, Dr. T., 144
Lavoisier, 72, 74
Lee, R. J., 186
Leeuwenhoek, 107
Le Mesle, M., 237
Leopards {Pardalis, Panther), 128,

171, 257
Lepas, 218
Lessing, 5
Leucippus, 92
Lewes, G. H., 12
Libya, 253

Light, 5, 61-6, 184, 263
Lightning, 28, 44-5
Ligurians, 120
Limpet {Leims), 218
Linnasus, C, 5, 85-7, 221
Lions {Leon), 25, 102, 107, 108, 121,

123-4, 126-8, 171, 189, 257, 259
Lipari Isles, 59, 60
Liver, the, 92, 94, 110, 159, 140,

143-6, 153-5, 158, 103, 198, 203,

206, 209, 211, 218, 230, 234
Lizards (Saura), 106, 112, 151, 157,

167-8, 180-1, 214, 241
Lobsters (Astalcos, Karahos), 106,

130, 139, 153, 169, 224, 225
Locusts {Ahris), 106, 164, 199, 221,

222
Logic, established by A., 5
Loligo, 127, 163, 210, 226-7
Long-tailed tits (Oreinos), 246
Lojjhoura, 208, 213, 214, 256
Lungs, 75, 97, 103, 138, 140, 142,

148-51, 153, 182, 198, 210, 240,

250, 252
Luther, 2
Lycia, 253

270

INDEX.

Lygian region, 59, 60
Lyncus, acid waters of, 55
Lynxes (Lynx), 123-4, 257

Mseotis, Lake, 48, 54, 56

Malakia, 13, 162, 179, 209, 213,
215, 226-8

Malakostraka, 13, 213, 215, 221,
224-6

Malpighi, 107

MammiE, 171-2, 250, 252, 261

Mammals, 25, 69, 75, 82, 102-3, 105-
8,110, 112, 115-8, 120-2, 124-38,
141, 149, 151, 154-60, 165-7, 170-
2, 178, 180-1, 183, 189-92, 198,
207, 208, 213, 214, 219, 250-62

Man distinguished from other ani-
mals, 262

Mantichora or Martichora, 257,
259

Mantis shrimp (Krangon), 226

Marcellus of Sida, 236

Marrow, 92, 107, 108, 111-2, 122,
126, 127, 177

Mars, occultation of, 15, 51

Martial, 236-7

Martens {Gale), 106, 126, 168, 257-8

Maxim, 6

May- or day-flies {Ephemeron), 221,
223

Mean between extremes, 6

Mechanical mixtm-es, 91

Mecon, 163-4, 218

Medusae, see Jelly-fishes

Membranes, 107, 109, 110, 127, 137,
143, 159, 176-8, 185, 204, 205,
206-7, 220, 222

Mercury, nature of, 71

Mesentery, the, 144-5, 158-9, 161

Metallic deposits, 49-50

Metaphysics, 6

Meteors and meteorites, 33, 51

Methana, eruption at, 60

Meyer, J. B., 225

Mice {Mus), 106, 126, 155, 170, 177,
202, 257-8

Migrations of birds, 244

Milk, 94, 107, 116-7, 171-2, 250, 252

Milky Way, 24, 28, 32-4

Millais, J. G., 251

Millipedes, 127, 164, 221

Milne-Edwards, 85

Mineral substances, A.'s views on,
49, 50

Mirbel, Brisseau, 97, 100

Missel-thrush {Ixoboros), 246

Mixis, 91-2

Mixture, A.'s views on, 12, 91-2
Mixtures of coloured lights, 41, 68-9

,, of pigments, 41, 68-9
Moles (Aspalax), 102, 106, 179,

185-6, 257
Molluscs, 5, 82, 103, 106, 127, 138-9,

153, 162-4, 168-71, 174, 179, 182,

186-7, 189, 193-4, 199. 210, 211,

215, 217-9, 226-8
Mongooses {Ichneumon), 257
Monkeys {Kebos, Pithehos), 82,

126, 160, 214, 252, 257, 261-2
Monothura (Univalves), 218
Monycha, 214, 238, 256-7
Moon, the, 31-2, 34-5, 51
Moths, 199-200, 221, 223, 238
Motion, A.'s views on, 3, 24, 27, 32,

88
Mules {Oreus), 130, 155-6, 256-7
Mullets, grey {Kestreus), 82, 106,

158, 162, 183, 233
Mullets, red {Trigle), 106, 162. 232,

233
Mursena {Muraina), 152, 156, 193,

233
Murex, 106, 163-4, 169, 217-8
Mycenas, physical changes at, 59
Myriapods, i27, 164, 221
Mytis, 138-9, 211

Narhe, 230-1

Natural history, 6

Natural Science, A.'s works on, 11-

12
Natural system of classification, 209
Nautilos, 227
Nearchus, voyage of, 252
Necessary parts of animals, 212
Negroes, 120, 123
Nerites, 218

Nerves, 109, 174-6, 180, 184, 194
Nesting fishes, 5, 236
Neura, 108-9, 176
Newts {Kordylos), 136, 234, 240
Nicanor, 9

Nightingales {Mdon), 246-7
Nile, the, 48, 56-8
Nilgai {HippelapJios), 252, 254
Non-aynphodonta, 128, 214, 252
Notochord, 122
Nutrition of plants, 96, 98
Nyses, river, 56

Occiput, 103, 119, 177
Occultation of Mars, 15, 51
Octopus {Polypous), 106, 163, 168,
171, 194, 210, 227

INDEX.

271

Ogle, Dr. W., 137, 178
Oil, nature of, 72, 90, 230
Olympiodorus, 47, 50
Omentum, 143, 145, 158-9
Oppian of Cilicia, 230-2, 236-7

„ „ Syria. 186, 255
Optic nerves, 175, 184, 186
Order of A.'s works, 15-20
Organic equivalents, 5, 128
Orpheus, verses of, 197
Orrhopi/gion, 192, 193
Oryxes {Orijx), 132, 252, 254-5
Oshakoderma, 13, 22, 82, 83, 127,

139, 163, 169, 186, 194, 198, 213,

215, 217-220, 224
Ostriches (StroutJios LihyTiOs), 122,

135, 249
Otoliths of fishes, 183-4
Otters {Enydris), 130, 257, 259, 260
Ovaries, 170-1
Ovid, 236
Oviducts, 170-1
Owen, Sir R., 107, 128-9, 155, 160,

169, 186, 208-9, 250
Owls {Glaux, Otos, Shops), 106,

157, 161, 241
Oxen {Bous, Taiiros), 106-7, 110,

112, 115-6, 118, 124-8, 132, 137,

138, 141, 149, 151, 154, 156-7,

165-6, 252-3
Oxus, river, 56

Pffionia, 126, 253, 256

Pagre, common (Phagros), 184,233

Palestine, 54, 100-1

Pallas, P. S., 253, 255

Pancreas, 143, 145, 153, 157

Parasilurus aristotelis (Glayiis),

106, 152, 156, 233-5, 240
Parhelia, 34-5, 51
Parmenides, 30
Paropamisus, 56
Parrot-wrasse {SJmros), 25, 129,

152, 162, 233, 236-7
Parrots {Psittake), 181, 249
Parthenogenesis, 201-2
Partridges {Perdix), 106, 160, 197, 219
Paton, W. R., 132
Patrizi, F., 2-3, 16-7
Pausanias, 259

Pearl-ash, manufacture of, 76
Pears, grafted, 101
Pectens (Kteis), 186-7, 194, 218,

219, 227
Pel amid (Amia), 102, 106, 156,

233-4
Pen of Loligo, 127, 210, 227

Perches (PerTce), 152, 153, 162, 201,

233, 235
Pericardium, 137-8
Persia, 100-1, 202
Phalaina, 250-1
Philip of Macedon, 7-8
Phlegraean plain, 59
Phlogistic substances, 72
Phoenicia, 225
Phosphorescence, 66
Phrygia, 131
PhyJiis, 233, 236
Physical geography, 54-9
Physician, 6
Pia mater, 178
Pigeons {Peristera, Phatta, Oinas,

Phaps), 106, 112, 156-7, 160, 193,

207, 244-5 248
Pigmies of Africa, 58
Pigs {Hys), 106, 111, 112, 115, 124,

126-8, 130-1, 156, 166, 219, 256-7
Pinna, 218-9

Phmojyhylax or Pinnoteres, 219
Pipe-fishes (Belone), 234
Pithel-os, 257, 261-2
Placental animals (mammals), 170,

(fishes), 231
Plagiarism, A. charged with, 14-5
Planets, 32-3

Plants, 82-7, 95-101, 117, 169, 260
Plato, 3, 7, 8, 13, 15, 21-2, 54, 93, 95,

101, 109, 111, 113-4, 136, 153, 159
Pliny, 8, 11, 186, 189, 221, 230-2,

234-8, 243, 249, 251, 253, 255-6,

260
Pollux, 100
Polybus, 14, 136
Pond tortoises (Emys), 165, 238
Popular beliefs, 54, 57, 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 names, persistence of, 230-

3, 234, 237, 244, 246
Porcupines (Hysfrix), 257
PorpJiura, 163, 217-8
Porpoises (PJiokaina), 250, 252
Portal blood-vessels, 145
Pottery, baking of, 70, 76
Poulton, Prof. E. B., 239
Prantl, C. von, 16
Predicament, 6
Principle, 6

Priviumfrigidum, 70, 72
Psetta, 233-4
Ptolemy, 57, 65

272

INDEX.

Pulmonary blood-vessels, 141-2, 147,

149, 151
Purpura {Porphura), 106, 163-4,

217-8
Pyloric Cfflca of fishes, 158, 162, 164,

231
Pyrenees, 56
Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans,

30, 32, 34, 67

Quails iOrtyx), 106, 111, 156, 161
Quintessence, 6

Eain, 42-3, 46, 48

Kainbows, 13. 15, 2S, 32, 34-6, 36-
42, 63, 64. 68-9

Eamsay, Sir W., 91

Kamus, 2

Eavens {Korax), 135, 161

Bay, John, 5, 85, 208, 221

Eays or skates {Batos, Leiobatos),
24, 129, 152, 193, 230-1

Eeclus, E., 53, 57-8

Eectiliuear propagation of light,
63-4

Bed deer (Elaplws), 115, 253

Eedi, F., 115

Bed Sea, level of the, 58
,, snow, 60

Eeflection, acoustic, 77, 78

optical, 34-8, 41-2, 64-5

Eefraction, optical, 64-5

Eennet, 117

Reptiles, 24, 75, 102, 103, 105-6,
108. 112, 120-1, 132, 136, 138,
151, 154-7, 159, 161-2, 165-8,
170, 174, lSO-1, 208, 214, 237-9,
240, 241, 258

Respiration, 75, 97, 148-50

Eetriever pups, Duke of Grafton's,
134

Eevival of interest in A.'s works, 5

Ehetoric, established by A., 5

Ehipsean mountains, 56

Eibs, 24, 111, lis, 120, 121

Eight more noble than left, 27, 113

Eisso, 229

Eock thrush, blue (Kyanos), 246

" Eods " (rJiabdoi), 34-6

EoUeston, G., 157, 258

Eondelet, 4, 85-6, 229, 233, 234, 236

Eose, Valentin. 16

Eouse, Dr. W. H. D., 86

Eufus Ephesius, 157. 176

Euminating fish, 162, 236-7

Ruminating stomach, complex struc-
ture of, 102, 159-60

Sabre-horned antelopes (Oi'yx), 132,

252, 254-5
Sachs, J. von, 99
Sacred beetles (Kajitharos), 223
Salamanders (Salainandra), 240
Salviani, 229

Saltness of the sea, 45-7, 54-5
Sanderson, G. P., 260
Sand-martins {Drepanis), 245-6
Sardinian weasels {ITxtis), 257-8
Scales of fishes. 24-5, 66, 135, 136,

147, 210-11, 230, 236
Scaliger, 47, 186, 255
Scammander, 135
Scarus cretensis (SJiaros), 25, 129,

152, 162, 233, 236-7
Schenk. Dr. L., 198
Schneider, J. G., 16, 120, 155, 191,

238, 240, 255
Scorpasna (Shorpios), 106, 162
Scutes. 135, 211
Scyros, 246

Scythia, bitter waters of, 55
Sea and land, relative changes of,

28, 48-9, 263
Sea-anemones {ATialepJie, Knide),

79, 84, 215, 217
Sea-eagles (Ealiaietos), 241, 242
Seals (Pholie), 122, 130, 155, 165,

180-1, 257, 260
Sea, nature of the, 46 ; saltness of

the, 45-7, 54-5
Seas, depths of, 54
Seasonal changes in colours of birds,

135
Sea-urchins (Echinos, Ecliinome-

tra, Spataijgo-t, Bryttos), 106,

127, ISO, 164. 171, 194, 219
Selache, 14, 162, 209, 213-4, 229-33,

250
Semeia or means of progressive

motion, 188
Semen, 111, 114. 16G-7, 168, 169,

195-8
Seminal ducts, 166-7, 169-70
Seneca, 65, 186
Senses and sensation, 21, 71, 73-4,

80, 84, 95, 97, 100-1, 151, 153,
173-5, 179-82. 183, 184-5, 187

Sensory organs, 75, 102, 173-7, 179-
80, 182-3, 184. 185-7, 202-4, 206,
212, 226, 238-9, 259
Sepia (Sepia), 106, 127, 163, 171,
I 210, 226-7

Serum, 107, 112-4, 116
I Servetus. 147
I Severn, elvers in the, 199

INDEX.

273

Sex in embryos, determination of,198

Sex in plants, 97-9, 101

Sharks {Lamia, Zygaina), 162, 230,

233
Sheep (Krios, Ois, Probaton), 115-

6, 120, 123-4, 128, 132, 134-5,

149, 155, 165-6, 178, 252, 253,258
Shrew-mice {My gale), 257
Shrimps {Kyjjhe), 169, 226
Sicania, acid waters of, 55
Sicily, 44, 55
Sight, 21, 62, 179-80, 182, 184-5,

186, 187
Sinews, 107-10, 137, 176, 194, 202-3
Sipylus, earthquake at, 59-60
Skaros, 25, 129, 152, 162, 233,

236-7
Skates or rays {Batos, Leiobatos),

24, 129, 152, 193, 230-1
Skin, 94, 107, 109, 110, 131, 132,

134, 165, 185, 202, 203
SJiolehes, 196, 199-200
Skull, see Cranium and cranial bones
Skylarks {Korydos), 248
Smell, 21, 84, 151, 153, 179, 182, 187
Snails {Kochlos, Kochlias), 106,

127, 130, 163-4, 169, 217, 219,

227-8
Snakes {Edits or Echidna, Hydros,

Ophis), 24, 106, 108, 112, 121, 132,

138, 151, 154-6, 161-2, 166-7,

180-1, 188, 213, 239-40, 241, 258
Snow, red, 60

Solens {Solen), 186-7, 218-9
Soul or vital principle, the, 10, 75,

80-4, 95-6, 98-9, 100, 159
Sound, 62, 77-8, 183, 184
Sparrows {Stroutlios), 25, 135, 156,

177
Species, A.'s views on, 211-2
Spermatic arteries, 167
Spiders {Arachnes), 199, 200, 215,

221, 238
Spinal cord, 143, 173, 177
Sjnza, 246-7

Spleen, the, 140, 143-6, 153, 155-8
Sponges {Spongoi), 79, 83, 85-6,

215-7
Spontaneous generation, 79-82, 94,

198-9
Stagira, 7

Star-fishes {Aster), 219, 220
Star-gazers {Kallionymos) , 106, 156,

233, 235
Stars, the, 30-4, 64-5
Steel, manufacture of, 49, 76-7
Steganopodes, 214, 242-3

Sternum, 111, 121, 122
Sting-rays {Trygon), 193, 232
Stomach of grey mullet, 158, 162 ; of

Scarus, 162 ; of ruminants, 17,

102, 117, 158, 159-60
Strabo, 53, 60, 134, 151, 251
Strack, 82
Suet, 107, 111
Suidas, 183

Sun, the, 30-1, 34-7, 64, 65
Sundevall, C. J., 17, 192, 240, 243,

246, 255, 258-9
Surf-fishes, 25
Sutures, cranial, 119-20
Swallows {Chelidon), 25, 135, 156,

214, 245
Swammerdam, 221
Swans {KyJcnos), 106, 242
Swifts {A2WUS, Kypsellos), 214, 245
Swimming, 188, 190, 193
Syennesis of Cyprus, 14, 136
Syllburg, 191, 255
Syllogism, 6
Syndactylism, 126, 256
Synovial fluid, 109
Synthesis, 91
Syria, 100-1, 213, 253, 256-7

Tail of birds, 192-3, 242, 246

Tanais, river, 48, 50

Tartessus, river, 56

Taste, 21, 179-81, 187

Teal {Boshas), 243

Teats 171—2

Teeth', 127-31, 143, 160, 163, 164,

208, 252, 259, 260-1
Telson, 1G9, 171, 224
Temperature, 26-7, 70, 71-4, 113,179
Tempests, 44-5
Tennent, Sir J. E., 190, 260
Terns {Laros), 193, 242
Terrestrial phenomena, 28-60
Tethya, 84, 106, 127, 220, 222
Tettix, 222-3

Thackrah, C. T., 112, 115, 116
Thebes, 132, 241
Thelphusa fluviatilis, 225
Theophrastus, 8, 47, 50, 100, 183,

231, 243
Thomas, 0., 185
Thompson, D'A. W., 243
Thornback skates {Batos, Batis),

129, 230-1
Thrushes {Kiclile, Kyanos, Ixobo-

ros), 246
Thunder, 28, 44-5
Thunderbolts, 29, 45

T

274

INDEX.

Tinece (Ses), 223

Tits {Spizites, Oreinos, Aigithalos),

177, 246
Titze, N., 16-7

Toads {Phryne), 106, 154, 157, 240-1
Tongue, 21, 134, 180-2, 184, 210,

247, 249
Torona, 85, 219
Torpedo {Narhe), 152, 230-2
Tortoises, 102, 106, 112, 151, 157,

165-8, 237-8
Touch, 21, 84, 179, 180, 187
Tournefort, 85

Transmutation of elements, 50, 91
Transolfacient, the, 183
Trans-sonant, the, 183
Trees and shrubs mentioned by A.,

98-9
Trigle, 162, 233

Tring reservoirs, grebes on, 243
Turner, W., Dean of Wells, 243
Tusks, 128-9
Tyrian dye, 217-8

Umbrians, the, 76

Undulatory theory of light, 5, 62-3

Unicorn, 254, 255

Universities, study of A.'s works at

the, 1
Urino-genital organs, 104, 110, 122,

125-6, 145, 146, 164-72, 195, 198,

202

Valenciennes, A., 14-5, 162, 184,

201, 233, 235-6
Venie cavte, 109-11, 113, 141-2, 144,

145, 146-7
Vertebra, 25, 102, 111, 121, 142, 177
Vesalius, 147
Vipers {Echidna, Echis), 151, 239-

40
Virgil, 186, 243
Vitelline blood-vessels, 205-6
Viviparous fishes, 24-5, 228-32
Vivisection, 102
Void, separate, 26-7
Volcanic eruptions, 28, 59-60, 263

Wallace, A. R., 237

Wasps (Sphex), 193, 199, 200, 221,
224

Water newts {Kordijlos), 136, 234,
240

Watson, Dr. M., 107

Wax 72 99

Weasels '(/A-its), 108, 126, 127, 257-9

Weissmann, A., 197

West Indies, 6

Whales {Mystiketos), 251-2
! Whelks {Keryx), 106, 163-4, 199,217
i Whewell, 208-9
[ Wiegmann, 191-2, 254
I Wigeon (Boskas), 243
j Wild ass {Hemionos, Onos agrios),
I 213, 256-7

Wild fig, 98
' Willughby, F., 5
I Wilson, Dr. W. J. E., 134
i Wimmer, F., 137

I Winds, 24, 28, 42, 43, 45, 51-4, 64-5
I Winged snakes, 241
I Wings, 122, 135, 142, 188-9, 206-7,
210-11, 221, 241, 243, 245, 249

Wolff, 197

Wolves (Lukos), 25, 102, 121, 126,
257-8

Woodpeckers {Dryokolaptes), 247

Wood pigeons {Phassa or Phatta),
160, 244

Woodward, C, 134, 155

Worcestershire, popular belief in,
134

Wryneck {lynx), 181, 247

Xanthus, river, 135
Xenophon, 254
Xipliias, 152, 156, 233

Yarrell, W., 232
Yolk sac, 205, 206-7

Zeller, 32

Zervos, G. C, 86, 186, 245, 258
Zoolog}', established by A., 5
Zygaina, 230, 233

I ERRATA.

Page 11, line 35, read a.va.nvoni for avawvo»5?.
,, 14, line 30, read Diogenes for Dionysius.
,, 46, lines 31-2, read latter . . . former for former
,, 122, line 4, read centra for centre.
,, 157, line 19, read scops for Scops'.
,, 225, line 39, read 240-2 for 240.

. latter.

atw Jjue

[\':±^^^^V

/^

Mr ' < 1U

-EEfe^

mr

Bjfif^^^

-OC

0 9 200: t

JAN

t

i) % /no^

m^

FEB I'^noDT

l£l3Mk

•Jbiui) burtMu Oat. no. 1137

m.m

fe/--°92 00158 9394

Aristotle s researches

sm

^V^^