Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

ences to Moffat, to the Kurunam mission, and to Cape Colony, show that his remarks must be taken as referring to what is commonly known as South Africa, as well as to Central and North Africa, unless expressly limited.

I will make no reference to Mr. Bosworth Smith's comments on the progress of Islam on the Zanzibar and Mozambique coasts, as not germane to this article, though in some points my observations in those regions would lead me to join issue with him. As, however, some of his remarks refer to the land of the Kaffirs, it will not be inappropriate to mention them. He says there is no disguising the fact that hitherto, with the exception of one or two isolated spots, Christian effort has been anything but markedly successful in Africa. In this I have already shown that I am in complete agreement with him, but some of the causes he adduces seem a little far-fetched. He says that one reason is that Christianity has come to the negro as an incident of slavery. As far as South Africa goes, there is no foundation for this suggestion. The degenerate race of Hottentots-who, it is perhaps needless to say, are not negroes but yellowmen-may have associated Christianity with the oppression of their Dutch masters; but that is by no means the case with the Kaffirs, who, as far as servitude goes, are as independent as in the earliest days of Moffat and of Livingstone.

[ocr errors]

Christianity having failed, Mr. Bosworth Smith says Mohammedanism is fast spreading over the whole continent. Ilis words are: "It is hardly too much to say that one-half of the whole of Africa is already dominated by Islam; while of the remaining half, one-quarter is leavened and another threatened by it.' This is, I venture to say, an exaggerated statement; and that he is thinking of Kaffraria is shown by another passage, where he says: "Southward they [the followers of the Prophet] are to be found scattered, always anxious to propagate their creed, even among the unbelieving Kaffits, and still further afield in Cape Colony." The facts of the case are as follows. Throughout Africa, south of the Zambesi, there are vast and increasing numbers of Mohammedans. In the seaport towns of Cape Colony there is a relatively enormous settlement of Malays, especially at Cape Town, where they are the most prosperous

section of the working population. Their mosques are costly edifices, crowded with worshippers, and their priests are conspicuous in the streets; but my most careful inquiries could never elicit a single instance of the conversion of an African native to Mohammedanism, or even of an attempt to proselytize.

Again, the Indian and Arab traders, who have nearly all the commerce of the Zanzibar and Mozambique coasts in their hands, have spread down to Natal, and thence inland into the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, where they undersell all other merchants and store-keepers. In Natal especially, they are brought into close contact with the natives, but never has an instance been known of proselytism. The same may be said of the coolies, who are imported into Natal by the thousand.

The fact is, the religion of Islam gains its influence in these days by precisely the same methods by which it obtained its power of old-by force. It will probably be found that throughout Africa no converts are made to Islamisin save in the case of slaves of Mohammedans, or in localities where the faithful are in such a majority that those who are not Mohammedans are looked down upon. son why the religion of Mohammed has made no progress in South Africa, and why it will never make progress among the Kaffirs, is that the followers of the Prophet have no slaves in that region, and are never likely to form a majority of the population there.

The rea

In conclusion, I may mention an incident in connection with the "Black Madonnas," which were often referred to in the controversy on the Mussulman propaganda in Africa as significant of the sagacity of the missionaries of Rome in their conflict with Islam and with paganism among the dark-skinned races. In the Roman Catholic Church at King William's Town, my starting point for Kaffirland, Dr. Fitzgerald of the Grey Hospital,* one

* The mention of the Grey Hospital recalls a matter of special interest to the readers of 66 Maga.' All travellers on the frontier of Kaffraria are taken to see that admirable institution, founded for the benefit of the natives by Sir George Grey, and administered by his old friend Dr. Fitzgerald. The two objects the pictures painted by General Gordon for which are chiefly pointed out to visitors are one of the wards during his sojourn at

of the greatest authorities on Kaffrarian lore, pointed out to me a handsome stained-glass window which is said to have reconciled many Kaffirs to Holy Church,

for on it is a representation of the Temptation, wherein the devil is depicted not in his customary sable hue, but as a white man!-Blackwood's Magazine.

ARISTOTLE AS A NATURALIST. BY GEORGE J. ROMANES, F.R.S. ¦

HAVING had occasion of late years to make myself acquainted with the observations and ideas of ancient writers upon matters connected with Natural History, and having been thus more than ever inpressed by the unique position which in this respect is held by Aristotle, it appears to me that a short essay upon the subject may prove of interest to readers of various kinds. Therefore, as far as space permits, I will render the results of my own inquities in this direction; but as it is far from an easy task to estimate with justice the scientific claims of so pre-scientific a writer, I shall be greatly obliged to more professed students of Aristotle if they will indicate-either publicly or privatelyany errors of fact or of judgment into which it may appear that I have fallen.

Aristotle died B. C. 322, in the sixtythird year of his age. As a personal friend and devoted pupil of Plato-who, in turn, was a friend and pupil of Socrates -his mind was at an early age brought under the immediate influence of the best thinking of antiquity. Nevertheless, although entertaining a profound veneration for his master, like a true devotee of truth he did not allow his mind to become un

66 King," " and the annexe devoted to the leper patients. When the remarkable article appeared in "Maga" calling attention to the condition of the unhappy sufferers of Robben Island-remembering the contentment of the lepers I had seen sunning themselves in the

[ocr errors]

beautiful flower garden of the hospital the day I spent with Dr Fitzgerald and his colleague Dr. Eyre --I wrote a letter to the Morning Post" and "Standard" affirming that there was one spot in British South Africa where leprosy was treated on a more humane system than that practised on the dismal pest-island of Table Bay. An agreeable response was made to my letter by an anonymous donor, who sent a present of one hundred pounds to the Grey Hospital, which

may be considered as one of the many excellent results of the striking article which ap

peared in these columns.-J. E. C. B.

duly dominated even by the authority of so august a tutor; and in after life he expressly broke away from the more mystical principles of Platonic method. While still a young man he was invested with the magnificent office of educating Alexander the Great. He held this position for a period of four years, and then the young Prince, at the age of eighteen, became Regent. It is interesting to note that the relations which subsisted between this greatest philosopher and this greatest general in the world's history were throughout relations of warmest friendship. Indeed, had it not been for the munificent aid which was afterward given by Alexander, it would have been impossible for Aristotle to have prosecuted the work which he accomplished.

Questions have been raised, not only as to the authenticity of this work, but also as to the originality of much that is undoubtedly authentic. Into these questions, however, I need not go. Whether or not Aristotle borrowed from other writers without acknowledgment, it is certain that in his writings alone are preserved the records of early biological thought and observation, which would otherwise have been lost; and the preservation of these records is of more importance for our present purpose than is the question to whom such thought and observation were in every case due.

Whether we look to its width or to its

depth, we must alike conclude that the range of Aristotle's work is wholly without a parallel in the history of mankind. Indeed it may be said that there is scarcely any one department of intellectual activity where the mind of this intellectual giant has not exerted more or less influence-in some cases by way of creation, in others by way of direction. The following is a list of the subjects on which Meteorology, Zoology, Comparative AnatAristotle wrote:-Physics, Astronomy,

omy, Physiology, and Psychology; Poetry, Ethics, Rhetoric, Logic, Politics, and Metaphysics. Of these subjects he was most successful in his treatment of the second series as I have arranged them—or of the more abstract and least rigidly scientific. In his Politics he gave the outlines of 225 constitutions, and although but a fragment of his whole work in this direction has come down to us, it is still regarded as one of the best treatises that has ever been written on the subject. His Ethics, Rhetoric, and Logic, also, still present much more than a merely historical interest; for he may be said to have correctly laid down the fundamental principles of these sciences-his analysis of the syllogism, in particular, having left but comparatively little for subsequent logicians to complete. And, lastly his Metaphysics alone would have been sufficient to have placed him among the great est thinkers of antiquity.

That his labors in the field of more exact science should not now present a comparable degree of value, is, of course, inevitable. At the time when he wrote the very methods of exact science were unknown; and I think it constitutes the strongest of all his many claims to our intellectual veneration that, he was able to perceive so largely as he did the superior value of the objective over the subjective methods in matters pertaining to natural science. When we remember how inveterate and how universal is the bondage of all early thought to the subjective methods; when we remember that for the best part of twenty centuries after the birth of Aristotle, the intellect of Europe was still held fast in the chains of that bondage; and when we remember that even at the present time, with all the advantages of a long and painful experience, we find it so extremely difficult to escape it; when we remember these things, we can only marvel at the scientific instinct of this man who, although nurtured in the school of Plato, was able to see-darkly, it may be, and, as it were, in the glass of future things, but still was able to seethat the true method of science is the method of observation and experiment. Men who desire to learn," he said, "must first learn to doubt; for science is only the solution of doubts ;" and it is not possible more concisely to state the intellectual duty of scepticism, or the para

[ocr errors]

mount necessity of proof, which thousands of years of wasted toil have now enabled all intelligent men more or less to realize.

Nevertheless, as I have said, the vision of scientific method which Aristotle had was a vision of that which is only seen in part the image of the great truth which he perceived was largely distorted by passing through the medium of pre-existing thought. Consequently, of late years a great deal of discussion has taken place on the subject of Aristotle's method. On the one hand, it is maintained that he is entitled to the place which is usually assigned to Bacon as the father of the inductive methods; while, on the other hand, it is maintained that in respect of method he did not make any considerable advance upon his predecessors. In my opinion a just estimate lies between these two extremes. Take, for example, the following passages from his writings :

"We must not accept a general principle from logic only, but must prove its application to each fact, for it is in facts that we must seek general principles, and these must aways accord with facts."

"The reason why men do not sufficiently attend to the facts is their want of experience. Hence those accustomed to physical inquiry are more competent to lay down the principles which have an extensive application; whereas others who have been accustomed to reality, easily lay down principles because many assumptions without the apposition of they take few things into consideration. is not difficult to distinguish between those who argue from facts, and those who argue from notions."'

It

Many similar passages to the same effect might be quoted, and it is evident that the true method of inductive research could not well have its leading principles more clearly enunciated. And to say this much is in itself enough to place Aristotle in the foremost rank among the scientific intellects of the world. But it would be unreasonable to expect that this great herald of scientific method should have been able, with any powers of intellect, to have entirely emancipated himself from the whole system of previous thought; or in the course of a single lifetime to have fully learned the great lesson of method which has only been taught by the best experience of more than twenty centuries after his death. Accordingly we find that, although he clearly divined the true principles of research, he not unfrequently fell short in his application of those principles

to practice. In particular, he had no adequate idea of the importance of verifying each step of a research, or each statement of an exposition; and therefore it is painfully often that his own words just quoted admit of being turned against himself "it is easy to distinguish between those who argue from facts and those who argue from notions." To give only a single example, he says that if a woman who has scarlet fever looks at herself in a mirror, the mirror will become suffused with a bloody mist, which, if the mirror be new, can only be rubbed off with difficulty. Now, instead of proceeding to verify this old wife's tale, he attempts to explain the alleged fact by a rambling assemblage of absurd "notions." And numerous other instances might be given to the same effect. Nevertheless, upon the whole, or as a general rule, in his thought and language, in his mode of conceiving and grappling with problems of a scientific kind, in the importance which he assigns to the smallest facts, and in the general cast of reasoning which he employs, Aristotle resembles, much more closely than any other philosopher of like antiquity, a scientific investigator of the present day.

Thus, in seeking to form a just estimate of Aristotle's work in Natural History, we must be careful on the one hand to avoid the extravagant praise which has been lavished upon him, even by such authorities as Cuvier, De Blainville, Isidore St. Hilaire, etc.; and, on the other hand, we must no less carefully avoid the unfairness of contrasting his working methods with those which have now become habitual.

In proceeding to consider the extraordinary labors of this extraordinary man, in so far as they were concerned with Natural History, I may begin by enumerating, but without waiting to name, the species of animals with which we know that he was acquainted. From his works on Natural History, then, we find that he mentions at least 70 species of mammals, 150 of birds, 20 of reptiles, 116 of fish, 84 of articulata, and about 40 of lower forms-making close upon 500 species in all. That he was accustomed from his earliest boyhood to the anatomical study of animal forins we may infer from the fact of his father having been a physician of eminence, and an Asclepiad; for, ac

cording to Galen, it was the custom of the Asclepiads to constitute dissection part of the education of their children. Therefore, as Aristotle's boyhood was passed upon the sea-coast, it is probable that from a very early age his studies were directed to the anatomy and physiology of marine animals. But, of course, it must not be concluded from this that the dissections then practised were comparable with what we understand by dissections at the present time. We find abundant evidence in the writings of Aristotle himself that the only kind of anatomy then studied was anatomy of the grosser kind, or such as might be prosecuted with a carving-knife as distinguished from a scalpel.

We generally hear it said that as a naturalist Aristotle was a teleologist, or a believer in the doctrine of design as manifested in living things. Therefore I should like to begin by making it clear how far this statement is true; for, unquestionably, when such an intellect as that of Aristotle is at work upon this important question, it behooves us to consider exactly what it was that he concluded.

Now, I do not dispute-indeed it would be quite impossible to do so-that Aristotle was a teleologist, in the sense of being in every case antecedently convinced that organic structures are adapted to the performance of definite functions, and that the organism as a whole is adapted to the conditions of its existence. Thus, for example, he very clearly says: As every instrument subserves some particular end, that is to say, some special function, so the whole body must be destined to minister to some plenary sphere of action. Just as the saw is made for sawing-this being its function—and not sawing for the

saw.

[ocr errors]

But in any other sense than this of recognizing adaptation in Nature, I do not think there is evidence of Aristotle having been a teleologist. In his Metaphysics he asks the question whether the principle of order and excellence in Nature is a selfexisting principle inherent from all eternity in Nature herself; or whether it is like the discipline of an army, apparently inherent, but really due to a general in the background. Aristotle, I say, asks this question; but he gives no answer. Similarly, in his Natural History, he simply takes the facts of order and adaptation as facts

of observation; and, therefore, in biology I do not think that Aristotle can be justly credited with teleology in any other sense than a modern Darwinist can be so credited. That is to say, he is a believer in adaptation, or final end; but leaves in abeyance the question of design, or final cause. The only respect in which he differs from a modern Darwinist-although even here the school of Wallace and Weismann agree with him-is in holding that adaptation must be present in all cases, even where the adaptation is not apparent. In the case of rudimentary organs, he is puzzled to account for structures apparentÎy aimless, and therefore he invents what we may terin an imaginary aim by saying that Nature has supplied these structures as "tokens," whereby to sustain her unity of plan. This idea was prominently revived in modern pre-Darwinian times; but in the present connection it is enough to observe that here, as elsewhere, Aristotle personifies Nature as a designing or contriving agency, having the attainment of order and harmony as the final end or aim of all her work. He appears, however, clearly to have recognized that, so far at least as science is concerned, such personification is, as it were, allegorical; for he expressly says that if he were asked whether Nature works out her designs with any such conscious deliberation, or intentional adjustment of means to ends, as is the case with a builder or a shipwright, he would not be able to answer. All, therefore, that the teleology of Aristotle amounted to was this: he found that the hypothesis of purpose was a useful working hypothesis in his biological researches. There is nothing to show that he would have followed the natural theologians of modern times, who seek to rear upon this working hypothesis a constructive argument in favor of design. On the other hand, it is certain that he would have differed from these theologians in one important particular. For he everywhere regards the purposes of Nature as operating under limitations imposed by what he calls absolute necessity. Monsters, for example, he says are not the intentional work of Nature herself, but instances of the victory of matter over Nature; that is to say, they are instances where Nature has failed to satisfy those conditions of necessity under which she acts. Thus, even if there be a disposing

mind which is the author of Nature, according to Aristotle it is not the mind of a creator, but rather that of an architeci, who does the best he can with the materials supplied to him, and under the conditions imposed by necessity.

Turning now to the actual work which Aristotle accomplished in the domain of biology, I will first enumerate his more important discoveries upon matters of fact, and then proceed to mention his more important achievements in the way of generalization.

He correctly viewed the blood as the medium of general nutrition, and knew that for this purpose it moved through the blood-vessels from the heart to all parts of the body, although he did not know that it returned again to the heart, and thus was ignorant of what we now call the circulation. But he was the first to find that the heart is related to the blood-vascular system; and this he did by proving, in the way of dissection, that its cavities are continuous with those of the large veins and arteries. Nor did he end here. He traced the course of these large veins and arteries, giving an accurate account of their branchings and distribution. He knew perfectly well that arteries contain blood; and this is a matter of some importance, because it has been the habit of historians of physiology to affirm that all the ancients supposed arteries to contain air. In speaking of the cavities of the heart, he appears to have fallen into the unaccountably foolish blunder of saying that no animal has more than three, and that some animals have as few as one. But, although this apparent error has been harped upon by his critics, it is clearly no error at all. Professor Huxley has shown that what Aristotle here did was to regard the right auricle as a venous sinus, or as a part of the great vein, and not of the heart. The only mistake of any importance that he made in all his researches upon the anatomy of the heart and bloodvessels, was in supposing that the number of cavities of the heart is in some measure determined by the size of the animal. Here he undoubtedly lays himself open to the charge of basing a general and erroneous statement on a preconceived idea, without taking the trouble to test it by observation. But we may forgive him this little exhibition of negligence when

« VorigeDoorgaan »